Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

Om Prakash vs State Of Punjab on 5 October, 2012

                                                                          1

                 IN THE COURT OF RAMESH KUMAR : SPECIAL JUDGE : NDPS
                           ADDL. SESSION JUDGE : ROHINI COURTS : DELHI                                                                      


             IN THE MATTER OF :­
                                                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                SC No.56/10
                                                                                                                               FIR No.74/10
                                                                                                                   PS Swaroop Nagar
                                                                                                                           U/s.302/34 IPC



         State


                                                 Versus



          1. Om Prakash
          s/o. Jai Singh
          r/o. C­101, Gali No.3,
          IP Colony,
          Swaroop Nagar,
          Delhi.


          2. Suraj
          s/o. Jai Singh
          r/o. C­409, Gokul Puri,
          Delhi.


          3. Khushboo @ Inderkala
          w/o. Om Prakash
          r/o. C­101, Gali No.3,
          IP Colony,
          Swaroop Nagar,
          Delhi.



 FIR NO.74/10                                     
                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                         Page 
                                                                                                                                              1
                                                                                                                                                 of 
                                                                                                                                                   102
                                                                                                                                                       
                                                                           2

          4. Sanjeev
          s/o. Om Prakash
          r/o. C­101, Gali No.3,
          IP Colony,
          Swaroop Nagar,
          Delhi.


          5. Maya
          w/o. Suraj
          r/o. C­409, Gokul Puri,
          Delhi.



                                                             Date of Institution: 16.10.2010
                                                             Date of arguments: 31.08.2012
                                                             Date of judgment : 01.10.2012
JUDGMENT :

­ The formal indictment against the accused persons is that on 14.06.2010, between 1.00 AM to 5.00 AM, at House No. C­101, Gali No.3, IP Colony, Delhi, all the accused persons in furtherance of their common intention, murdered Yogesh and Asha and thereby committed an offence punishable U/s.302 R/w. Section 34 IPC. It is further alleged against all the accused persons that in furtherance of their common intention, they also assaulted Rakesh and committed the offence punishable U/s.323 R/w. Section 34 IPC.

2. The prosecution case is that deceased Yogesh @ Bhopu was residing at a house adjacent to the house of his sister and brother­in­law, namely, Rakesh at Gokul Puri, Delhi. Rakesh used to take care of Yogesh and Yogesh used to drive the Maruti Van No. DL2C­L­6133 as taxi, which Rakesh had given him to earn his livelihood. Deceased, Yogesh, was having an affair with deceased, Asha, daughter of FIR NO.74/10 Page 2 of 102 3 accused Suraj, who was also residing near the house of Yogesh. Few days prior to the date of incident, Asha alongwith her mother and aunt was passing in front of the house of Yogesh and at that time, she told that she will marry with Yogesh and will live in his house. On hearing this, mother of Asha started scolding her and, in the meanwhile, Rakesh came there and Suraj, father of Asha, also reached there. Rakesh asked Asha whether she wanted to marry with Yogesh, on this Asha replied in the affirmative. On hearing this, parents of Asha started beating Asha and also gave threats to Yogesh that if he talked with Asha, then he would be killed. On 13.06.2010, at about 10.30 PM, Rakesh reached his home from his workplace and there, Yogesh informed him that he had received a telephonic call from Asha and she had asked Yogesh to come to the house of her Taau, namely, , Om Prakash at H.No. C­101, I.P. Colony, Gali No.3, Delhi, to have talks about their marriage. Thereafter, Rakesh and Yogesh left their home at about 11.30 PM, and reached the house of Taau of Asha, in the midnight, at about 12.30 AM, in the abovesaid Maruti van. Accused Om Prakash, Suraj, Maya, Khushboo and Sanjeev were found present in the said house and the talks for marriage started there. During the talks, when the issue of caste was raised as the deceased Yogesh belonged to Jatav community and deceased Asha belonged to Saini community, the accused persons started abusing deceased Yogesh and Rakesh. The accused persons while abusing deceased Yogesh and Rakesh, also started manhandling with them. On hearing the noise, some neighborers also collected outside the said house of Om Prakash. Thereafter, Rakesh and Yogesh managed to came out of the house and ran from there in different directions. Rakesh ran towards the side, where the Maruti van was parked and deceased Yogesh ran in the opposite direction. The keys of the Maruti van were with deceased Yogesh. FIR NO.74/10

Page 3 of 102 4 Rakesh stopped after some distance and started waiting for Yogesh, but when he did not return, Rakesh returned to his home. On the next morning, when he noticed that Yogesh did not return home, he immediately went to the house of Om Prakash and there, he found a crowd gathered outside the said house of accused Om Prakash. Police was also present outside the said house. The house was locked at that time. ACP, Pankaj Singh, who was working as SHO, directed ASI Krishan Kumar to go inside that house from the roof of the adjoining house. ASI Krishan Kumar climbed on the first floor of that house and after entering the room on the first floor, he found that two dead bodies, one of male and female were lying on the floor. Thereafter, ACP Pankaj Singh directed the members of the police team to open the door of that house by breaking the lock. Rakesh also came to know about the said fact from the public persons present in the street and, thereafter, he met with the police and narrated the entire incident of the last night. Police recorded the statement of Rakesh and got the FIR registered. The said Maruti van was also found parked outside the street. One neighbourer, namely, Umesh was also found present there. Thereafter, the police team entered the house and found that two blood stained dead bodies, one of male and one of female were found lying on the first floor in the room. Rakesh identified the dead bodies as that of Yogesh and Asha. Mobile Crime Team also inspected the spot and lifted the exhibits from the spot. The electric wires, wooden Dandaas, pipes and keys were found lying in the said room. A bunch of hair were also lifted from the hand pump inside the said house. The mobile phone of Yogesh was also found lying near his dead body, which was identified by Rakesh. Another mobile phone was also lying on the fridge in the said room. One screw driver, bent from one side was found entangled on the string (Naada) of the wearing Salwar of deceased Asha. IO seized FIR NO.74/10 Page 4 of 102 5 all the articles recovered from the spot, the bunch of hair from the hand pump, Maruti van no. DL2C­L­6133 which was parked in the street and also the dead bodies of the deceased. Inspector Satender Dhull also reached there on the asking of ACP Pankaj Singh. ACP Pankaj Singh briefed him about the case. Thereafter, dead bodies were removed to BJRM Hospital. At about 6.00 PM, ACP Pankaj Singh, Inspector Satender Dhull, SI Suresh Kaushik and other police staff alongwith complainant Rakesh went in search of accused persons. When they reached Burari Swaroop Nagar Road, near Shalimar Palace, accused Om Prakash and Suraj were apprehended at the identification and instance of complainant Rakesh. Both the accused were interrogated and after finding sufficient evidence against them, they were arrested. Police also recorded their confessional statements. In pursuance of their disclosure statements, both the accused led the police team to the place of occurrence and pointed out the room of the house in which they committed the murders. After that both the accused persons led the police party to the Kathia Baba Ashram on Swaroop Nagar­Buraru Road and got recovered a polythene containing ropes, which was lying near the road in the bushes near the main gate of the Ashram. The said polythene bag was opened and it was found containing two big ropes. The ropes were measured and the ropes alongwith polythene were turned into a cloth parcel and sealed with the seal of SK. It was taken into possession. After that, police tried to search for the remaining accused persons, but they were not traceable at that time. Thereafter, the police team alongwith both the accused returned back to the PS. The case property was deposited with the MHCM. Accused persons were sent to PS Jahangir Puri Lock Up. On 15.06.2010, in the investigation of this case, police reached Rohini Courts alongwith accused Om Prakash and Suraj and produced them FIR NO.74/10 Page 5 of 102 6 before the Court and two days PC Remand was obtained of them. Thereafter, the postmortem of the body of deceased Asha and Yogesh were got conducted and after postmortem, doctor handed over the sealed parcels, containing the clothes, hair samples, blood samples and sample seals to the IO, who seized the same. The dead bodies, thereafter, were handed over to the relatives of the deceased persons, after postmortem. On 16.06.2010, the investigation of this case was further proceeded and IO constituted a raiding team and proceeded for searching the remaining accused persons. They went to Gokul Puri, Jahangir Puri and other areas and at around 4.00 PM, on the basis of secret information, police party was standing under flyover Gokul Puri and on seeing the police, Rakesh, complainant, also reached there as he wanted to know about the progress of this case and he also disclosed various instances about the love story of deceased Asha and Yogesh. At around 5.00 PM, two ladies came under the flyover and Rakesh identified them to be the mother and aunt of the deceased Asha. Police apprehended both the ladies with the help of one Lady Constable. On inquiry, they disclosed their names as Maya and Inderbala @ Khushboo. They were arrested and their confessional statements were also recorded. IO also recorded the supplementary statement of complainant Rakesh. On the basis of secret information, police team alongwith accused Maya and Khushboo reached D­ 295, Ganga Vihar, Gokul Puri and from there, accused Sanjeev was apprehended. He was interrogated and arrested. After that, his confessional statement was recorded. In his disclosure statement, he disclosed that he could get recovered the keys of H.No. C­101, Gali No.3, IP Colony, Swaroop Nagar, Delhi, from the cover of the refrigerator, placed on the ground floor of the said house. In pursuance of his disclosure statement, he led the police team to the ground floor and from there, he got recovered FIR NO.74/10 Page 6 of 102 7 two keys. The same was taken into a pulanda and sealed with the seal of SK. It was taken into possession by the IO. Thereafter, all the three accused , namely, Maya, Khushboo and Sanjeev led the police team to the place of occurrence and pointed out the same. Thereafter, police returned to the PS and accused persons were sent to PS Jahangir Puri Lock Up after their medical examination and exhibits were deposited with MHCM by the IO and on the next day, the accused persons were produced before the Court and remanded to JC. After completing the investigation, the chargesheet was filed in the Court.

3. All the accused persons were charged for the offences punishable U/s.302 R/w. Section 34 IPC and U/s.323 R/w. Section 34 IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

4. Thereafter, the case was fixed for prosecution evidence. Prosecution in order to prove its case, examined 26 witnesses. They are PW1 Ct. Sunita, PW2 HC Maya, PW3 SI Devender Singh, PW4 Rakesh (complainant), PW5 Ramwati, PW6 Ct. Dalbir, PW7 Pappu Saini, PW8 Ct. Pradeep, PW9 W/Ct. Kusum, PW10 Ms. Renu, PW11 HC Ram Bahadur, PW12 Dr. Suresh Kumar, PW13 ACP Pankaj Kumar Singh, PW14 Dileep Kumar Singh, PW15 HC Pawan Kumar, PW16 Umesh Kumar, PW17 Dr. V.K. Jha, PW18 Ct. Sanjay Kumar, PW19 ASI Krishan Kumar, PW20 Deshraj, PW21 Inspector Ranbir Singh, PW22 SI Manohar Lal, PW23 Ms. Sunita Suman from FSL, PW24 Inspector Satender Dhull, PW25 Ct. Parthe and PW26 SI Suresh Chand.

5. PW1, Ct. Sunita, was posted at PCR and she received an information in the control room from telephone no. 9582556631 that, "Kal Raat Ko Yahaan Per Jhagra Hua Tha, Kauch Log Aaye They, Ab Is Makan Ki Bahar Se Lock Hai Aur Ye Gadi No. DL2C­L­6133 Maruti Omni Red Colour Lawaris Khadi Hai". PW1 recorded FIR NO.74/10 Page 7 of 102 8 the said information and passed the same on net. She proved the PCR Form filled by her as Ex. PW1/A. During cross­examination, this witness deposed that the caller did not disclose his name.

6. PW2, HC Maya, is the Duty Officer at PS Swarup Nagar. She deposed that, on 14.6.10, she was posted at PS Swarup Nagar and was working as duty officer from 8 AM to 8 PM. On that day Ct. Sanjay brought a rukka sent by Pankaj Kumar ACP, which was received by PW2 at about 1.30 PM. On the basis of same, she got recorded FIR No.74 U/s 302/34 IPC on computer through computer operator and computer generated copy of FIR has been proved as Ex.PW2/A. PW2 further deposed that she recorded DD No.9A regarding registration of FIR and proved her endorsement regarding this on the rukka as Ex.PW2/B.

7. PW3, SI Devender Singh, was working as Incharge, Mobile Crime Team. On 14.06.2010, on receiving information from wireless, he alongwith his team comprising of Ct. Dalbir, Photographer and Ct. Ram Kishan, Finger Print Proficient reached at H.No. C­101, Indraprastha Colony, Swarup Nagar, Gali No.3, there local police met them. They informed them that two dead bodies are lying in that house. PW3 inspected the scene of crime. Two dead body, one of a boy and one of a girl were lying in the inner room on the floor. He further deposed that blood was also coming out from the mouth and nose of the dead bodies. PW3 examined the dead bodies and found that there were abrasions on both the hands of the dead bodies of boy and girl. PW3 noticed round black marks on the arm above the elbow of the male dead body and also on the left leg just above the ankle. PW3 further noticed abrasions on the right knee of the female dead body. PW3 further noticed that there were round black mark on the left wrist and right leg just above the ankle of the female FIR NO.74/10 Page 8 of 102 9 dead body. PW3 further deposed that it seemed as if both the boy and girl were beaten and thereafter, given electric shock. He further deposed that, near the right foot of the female dead body, a black piece of electric wire was lying. PW3, also deposed that there was a single bed (Takhat) in that room and under that bed, black colour electric wire, pieces of black colour electric wire and two cord electric wire red and yellow were lying. PW3 further deposed that under the male dead body on the left side, a key ring was lying with two keys in it and on the right side, one blood smeared underwear and a mobile phone, make Nokia were lying. In the gallery, broken pieces of Dandaas and on the hand pump, bunch of hair, which seemed to be of the girl, was found on the spot. PW3 deposed that no chance prints were lifted from the spot. PW3 also deposed that Ct. Dalbir photographed the spot. PW3 prepared his report as Ex. PW3/A and handed over the same to ACP Pankaj Kumar. PW3 was cross­examined on behalf of the accused persons. In his cross­examination, PW3 deposed that he did not fill the name of complainant in his report. He further deposed that he did not inquire the name of complainant from ACP Pankaj Kumar.

8. PW4, Rakesh, is the complainant. He deposed that deceased Yogesh @ Bhopu was his brother­in­law (Saala) and he used to reside in a house adjacent to his house and the parents of Yogesh had expired. PW4 deposed that he had given one Maruti Van bearing no. DL2C­L­6133 to deceased, Yogesh to run the same as taxi for earning his livelihood. He further deposed that deceased Yogesh, was having an affair with deceased Asha, daughter of accused Suraj, who ­resided near the house of Yogesh; about 24­25 days ago from the date of incident, Asha alongwith her mother and maternal aunt (Mausi) was passing in front of their house and at that time, Asha told her mother that she will marry Yogesh @ Bhopu and will live in this house. On FIR NO.74/10 Page 9 of 102 10 hearing this, mother of Asha scolded her and, in the meanwhile, father of Asha, namely, Suraj also reached there; PW4 came outside his house and asked Asha whether she wished to marry with Yogesh @ Bhopu; on this Asha stated in the presence of her mother, father and Mausi, "Main Shadi Karungi To Isi Se Karungi"; on hearing this, parents of Asha started beating her and Suraj threatened to Yogesh that if he talked with Asha, he would kill him. On 13.06.2010, at about 10.00/10.30 PM, when PW4 reached his home from his workplace and there, Yogesh told him that he had received a telephonic call from Asha and she had asked Yogesh to come to the house of her Taau , namely, Om Prakash Saini situated at Indraprastha Colony, Gali No.3, C­Block, H.No.101, to have talks about their marriage. Thereafter, Rakesh and Yogesh took dinner and left their house at about 11.00 - 11.30 PM and reached the house of Om Prakash midnight at about 12.00 - 12.30 AM in the abovesaid Maruti van. PW4 knocked the door and door was opened by Om Prakash and he called PW4 and Yogesh inside that house. Brother of Om Prakash , namely, Suraj and their wives , namely, Khushboo and Maya and Sanjeev s/o. Om Prakash and Asha were present inside the said house. Thereafter, they started talking. While talking, the issue of caste was raised. They said that they are Saini and deceased Yogesh and PW4 are Jatav, and therafter, Om Prakash and Suraj started abusing deceased Yogesh and PW4. While abusing, they also started manhandling with them. After hearing the noise, some neighborers also collected outside the said house of Om Prakash. Thereafter, PW4 and Yogesh ran outside. PW4 ran towards the direction where van was parked thinking that Yogesh would follow him. He further deposed that the keys of the van were with Yogesh as PW4 did not know driving. PW4 stopped after some distance from the van and started waiting for Yogesh thinking that he would FIR NO.74/10 Page 10 of 102 11 come in the direction only in the van. After waiting for considerable time, but when brother­in­law of PW4 did not return, PW4 thought that Yogesh might have reached his house via some other route, as such PW4 came on the main road, hired a TSR and reached home. Next morning, PW4 woke up late as he went to sleep late in the previous night and after that he reached the house of his brother­in­law and called him, but his Chachi, who used to reside on the ground floor of the said house, told PW4 that Yogesh had not come home yesterday night. Thereafter, PW4 saw the van of Yogesh @ Bhopu, but it was also not there outside his house. PW4 immediately rushed to the house of Om Prakash and there, he found a crowd in the street, police personnels were also present there. PW4 asked from a person as to what happened and he told PW4 that in the night a boy had come there and that boy and the girl had been murdered. PW4 approached the police officials, who were present there and narrated them the whole incident of the previous night. Statement of PW4 Ex. PW4/A was recorded by the police. After recording the statement of PW4, on 14.06.2010, IO got the FIR recorded after sending a constable to the PS at about 10.00 AM. In the presence of PW4 and in the presence of one Umesh, IO lifted the electric wire of black colour and of red and yellow colour, blood stained floor piece, plain floor piece, sample of blood, Dandas, pipes, pieces of electric wires, blood stained underwear, bunch of hair etc. Thereafter, IO got the spot photographed and the dead bodies were sent to BJRM Hospital. The Maruti van was also found parked in the corner of the street in which the house of Om Prakash was situated. PW4 handed over the keys of Maruti van to the police, which he found lying near the dead body of Yogesh. The mobile phone of Yogesh was also found near the dead body of Yogesh, in the blood and PW4 informed that the said mobile phone was of Yogesh. Police also took one more mobile FIR NO.74/10 Page 11 of 102 12 phone, which was lying on the fridge. PW4 also deposed that one Pechkas with its head bend was found sticking with the Nara (string) of Salwar of the girl, which was also taken by the police. The Maruti van was also taken into possession by the police. The seizure memo of blood stained underwear was proved as Ex. PW4/B, seizure memo of the blood of the body of the girl and boy, which was lying at the spot, was proved as Ex. PW4/C, seizure memo of blood stained pieces of floor, near the dead bodies of Yogesh and Asha were proved as Exs. PW4/D and PW4/E, seizure memo of earth control was proved as Ex. PW4/F, seizure memo of two keys of Maruti Van was proved as Ex. PW4/G, seizure memo of the screw driver/Pechkas was proved as Ex. PW4/H, seizure memo of the broken Danda was proved as Ex. PW4/J, seizure memo of the pipes was proved as Ex. PW4/K, seizure memo of the electric wires was proved as Ex. PW4/L, seizure memo of the mobile phones, which were lifted from the spot, was proved as Ex. PW4/M and seizure memo of bunch of hair was proved as Ex. PW4/N. PW4 further deposed that the bunch of hair was found at the hand pump situated outside the house of Om Prakash. PW4 proved the seizure memo of Maruti van as Ex. PW4/P. He further deposed that after the seizure of all the things, Umesh was discharged. He also deposed that, thereafter, they went in search of accused persons, at Gokul Puri. On the way, when they reached Swaroop Nagar Burari Road Chowk, there PW4 saw accused Om Prakash and Suraj and pointed towards both of them to the police. PW4 correctly identified both the accused in the Court. He further deposed that thereafter they were arrested vide arrest memos Exs. PW4/Q1 and PW4/Q2 and their personal search was conducted vide memos, respectively, Exs. PW4/Q3 and PW4/Q4. Thereafter, both the accused persons led the police party to the spot and pointed out the room, where the dead bodies were lying. Thereafter, both FIR NO.74/10 Page 12 of 102 13 the accused led the police party to one Ashram of one Baba, situated on the road leading towards Burari from Swaroop Nagar, from there from the bushes both the accused took out a polythene containing rope and disclosed that they tied Yogesh and Asha with it. It was seized by the police vide pointing out cum seizure memo Ex. PW4/S. PW4 deposed that the said articles were seized after putting them into a sealed parcels, except the van. He deposed that thereafter, he was discharged. The disclosure statements of accused Suraj and Om Prakash were proved as Exs. PW4/T1 and PW4/T2. PW4 further deposed that on 15.06.2010, he alongwith his wife Renu reached mortuary and identified the dead body of Yogesh vide memo Ex. PW4/U and received the same vide memo Ex. PW4/V. PW4 also deposed that on 16.06.2010, at about 4.00 or 4.30 PM, when he went to drop some of his relatives near the bridge Gokul Puri, who had come after hearing the news of the death of Yogesh, he saw a Gypsy parked beneath the bridge of Gokul Puri and some police officials were also there. PW4 further deposed that the SHO of PS, to whom he can identify as he was investigating the case, was also there in the Gypsy. PW4 reached there and joined the investigation. Police was searching for the remaining accused persons. In the meantime, PW4 noticed Maya and Khushboo and he pointed out towards them to the police. Both of them were apprehended at the instance of PW4. They were arrested vide arrest memos, respectively, Exs. PW4/W1 and PW4/W2. Their personal search was also conducted by the lady police. After that, PW4 was discharged. PW4 also identified accused Sanjeev correctly in the Court. Thereafter, case property was shown to PW4, who correctly identified all the case property in the Court.

9. PW4 was cross­examined at length by the Ld. Defence Counsels. During cross­examination, PW4 deposed that he did not tell the police, as stated by him in his FIR NO.74/10 Page 13 of 102 14 examination in chief that, "On this Asha stated in the presence of her mother, father and Mausi that "Main Shadi Karoongi to Isise Karoongi". After hearing this, parents of Asha started beating her and Suraj threatened his brother­in­law that if he talked with Asha, he would kill him". PW4 deposed that he told the police that he ran towards the Maruti Van thinking that his brother­in­law will follow him, but Yogesh ran in other direction, however, it is mentioned that he came towards Maruti Van and when his brother­in­law did not come, he thought that Yogesh might have reached the home from some other way. He further deposed that he told the police that after reaching at some distance, he waited for his brother­in­law, however, it is mentioned, "Main Darta Hua Door Chala Gaya, Jab Mera Saala Nahin Aaya, To Maine Uski Idhar Udhar Talaash Ki". PW4 deposed that Renu was also present, when Asha told her parents and her Mausi that she will marry Yogesh only and PW4 did not make any complaint to the police that Asha had been beaten by her mother. He further deposed that one or two neighbourers also came there, when Asha was beaten by her mother on her saying that she will marry Yogesh (about 20­25 days before the day of incident). PW4 further submitted that he was told by Yogesh also on that day, that he is in love with Asha. He deposed that before the date of incident, he had never gone to the house of Asha to request her parents to marry her with Yogesh. PW4 deposed that the said incident had taken place on 19.05.2010 or 20.05.2010 at about 8.00/8.30 PM. He further deposed that before he left alongwith Yogesh, he was not aware about the address and simply accompanied him as Yogesh was knowing that address. He further deposed that he was knowing the names of parents of Asha, her uncle (Taau) and aunt (Taai), before they visited Swaroop Nagar. He deposed that he was knowing the family members of Asha because they used to sell vegetable in the Mandi. On a FIR NO.74/10 Page 14 of 102 15 Court question, the witness replied that he came to know about them only after the incident, which took place 24­25 days prior to the incident of murder. He further replied that he told his brother­in­law to go in the morning, but he insisted and that is why they went in the night. PW3 deposed that he met the Taau and Taai of Asha first time on the date of incident (murder). He further deposed that in the room inside that house, PW4 , Yogesh, Asha and all the five accused were sitting and talking. He further stated that the neighbourers were lying in the street on cots and when PW4 knocked the house of Om Prakash, they woke up and sat on their respective cots, but did not ask anything from them. Thereafter, PW4 and Yogesh remained in that room for about 10­12 minutes. No neighbourer came inside the house of Om Prakash, before PW4 and Yogesh ran out of the house of Om Prakash. In reply to a question that, Kyaa Aapke Saath Is Dauran Maar Pit Huyee, he said that Nahin. Kewal Jhapta Jhapti huyee. PW4 further deposed that there were 5­6 persons in the street, when he came out of the house of Om Prakash and started running and no person in the street tried to stop him. PW4 waited for Yogesh after coming out of IP Colony. He further deposed that he ran upto van and thereafter he walked out of the IP Colony. Nobody on the way out of IP colony, stopped him or made any inquiry. He further deposed that he waited for Yogesh at that place for 30­45 minutes and during his stay of 30­45 minutes, at that place, no person on foot, or any vehicle passed. He further deposed that he did not ask for help from anybody thinking that his brother­in­law might have reached home taking another route. While he was coming on outer ring road, nobody made any inquiries from him, though, he found barricade at one place on the way. He further deposed that, at about 3.30 or 4.00 PM, when he reached home he asked Renu about Yogesh. At that time, he did not try to contact Yogesh on his mobile FIR NO.74/10 Page 15 of 102 16 phone, as the battery of his mobile was down. He further deposed that after waiting for Yogesh for about 20­25 minutes he got slept and woke up at about 8.00 or 8.30 AM. PW4 put his mobile phone on charging in the evening of 14.06.2010 and he switched it on in the morning of 15.06.2010. He further deposed that he checked and found that van was not there. He further deposed that after taking milk from Mother Dairy Booth, he inquired from his wife about Yogesh and she told him that he had not returned. Thereafter, he remained at home for about 10/15 minutes and left home for going to Swaroop Nagar. He further deposed that he did not take any neighbourer or relative with him while going to Swaroop Nagar. He further deposed that he reached the place of incident from the same route by which, he along with Yogesh reached there on the previous night. He did not inquire from anybody about the way to the house of accused persons at Swaroop Nagar. He further deposed that he met the police first time at about 10.30 am and his statement was recorded by the police at Swaroop Nagar. He further deposed that the police officials were there inside the house and were taking photographs. He further deposed that he was knowing that Yogesh had died before his statement was recorded. He also deposed that his statement was recorded, after he was shown the dead bodies by the police. Police took about 30 minutes in recording his first statement. PW4 identified his signatures at point A on Ex. PW­4/A, which were taken at about 2.00/2.15 PM. He further deposed that there were 10/12 police officials on the spot. No public person was allowed to enter the house by the police, but Umesh was allowed to enter the house besides PW4. He further deposed that he remained on the spot upto about 5.00/6.00 PM. PW4 further deposed that he did not pick any phone from the spot and he only pointed out to the police the mobile phone of Yogesh, which was lying FIR NO.74/10 Page 16 of 102 17 near the body. He further deposed that police did not allow him to leave upto 6.00 pm and that is why, he did not make a call before that. PW4 further deposed that he signed the disclosure statement of Om Parkash Ex. PW­4/T2 on the spot after signing the disclosure statement of Suraj. He further deposed that he finally left the spot at about 6.30/6.45 pm. This witness also deposed that he did not know, who was informed about the arrest of accused Khusboo. Maya and Khushboo were arrested at about 4.00 or 4.30 pm on 16.06.2010. PW4 deposed that he left the place of arrest of Khushboo and Maya at about 4.30 pm. He further deposed that in his presence, police did not inquire from Khusboo and Maya about the whereabouts of Sanjeev. He further deposed that he came to know about one Ramwati after this incident. According to his information, Ramwati was aunt (bua) of deceased girl. There was no other lady present, when Khushuboo and Maya were arrested. On 16.06.2010, PW4 came to know that Sanjeev had been arrested, when he made a call to the police Inspector. While leaving the spot finally, the police inspector gave him his mobile number.

10. PW5 is Ramwati, who is aunt (Bua) of deceased, Asha. She identified the dead body of Asha at Morturary of B.J.R.M Hospital and after postmortem on the dead body of Asha, it was received by Pappu and PW5. She proved the memo regarding identification of the dead body of Asha as Ex. PW5/A and the dead body handing over memo as Ex. PW5/B.

11. PW6 is Ct. Dalbir, who was working in mobile Crime Team, North­West District as photographer. On 14.06.2010, PW6 alongwith Incharge SI Devender Singh and other members of crime team reached at House no. C­101, Gali no. 3, Indraprashtha Colony, Swaroop Nagar, Delhi, there, PW6 took the photographs of the FIR NO.74/10 Page 17 of 102 18 spot, where a male dead body and a female dead body were lying, from different angles with a digital camera. PW6 took total 45 photographs and handed over the memory stick to Anand Colour Lab and got prepared the CD and got the print of 45 photographs taken by him. He proved the CD as Ex. PW6/A and the photographs as Exs. PW6/1 to PW6/45.

12. PW7 is Pappu Saini, who is also a witness of receiving dead body and proved his signatures on the memo Ex. PW­5/B.

13. PW8 is Ct.Pardeep. He deposed that on 14.06.2010, at about 2.30 PM, duty officer, HC Maya Devi, handed over to him three copies of FIR No.74/10 PS Swaroop Nagar and he delivered one copy each at the office of DCP North west district, joint CP Northern range and at the residence of Ld. Area MM Ms. Vandana. He further deposed that he had visited the above said offices and resident on the government motor cycle bearing no. DL 1S­N­4154.

14. PW9, W/Ct. Kusum, was working as DD writer and on 14.06.2010, at about 8.05 am, he received telephonic information from control room that yesterday night, there was a scuffle at IP colony, gali no. 20, C­block, near Kathia Baba Ashram and now that house is closed and in front of that house, one vehicle bearing registration no. DL 2 CM 6133 is lying parked. On the basis of this information, she recorded DD no. 7 B dated 14.06.10 and the same was marked to ASI Krishan Kumar and he was informed accordingly. She proved the copy of DD no. 7 B as Ex. PW­9/A.

15. PW10, Renu, is the sister of deceased Yogesh. She deposed that on 15.06.2010, she alongwith her husband Rakesh reached at Mortuary at BJRM Hospital, Jahangir Puri and, there, she identified the dead body of her brother Yogesh. Her statement to this effect recorded by the IO was proved as Ex. PW­10/A. After the FIR NO.74/10 Page 18 of 102 19 postmortem, PWI0 and her husband Rakesh received the dead body of Yogesh vide Dead body handing over memo Ex. PW­4/B. This witness was cross­examined by the defence. She deposed that Yogesh was earning his livelihood by driving a car, which was given by her husband.

16. PW11 is HC Ram Bahadur, who was working as MHCM. He proved various entries made by him as Ex. PW­11/A, Ex. PW­11/B, PW­11/C. During cross­ examination, he deposed that he had not mentioned the time of depositing of pullandas in the malkhana and he simply copied the contents of the seizure memos in register no. 19.

17. PW12 is Dr. Sudesh Kumar. He deposed that on 15.06.2010, he conducted the postmortem on the body of deceased , namely, Yogesh on the request of IO Pankaj Kumar, ACP. He deposed that the alleged history of beaten and electrocution were found on the dead body, which was brought by the police on 14.06.2010; the body was wearing the clothes T Shirt, Pant and Underwear; built of the body was moderate, rigor mortis present all over the body and postmortem staining present at back, eyes were closed, conjunctive congested and cornea hazy, mouth was closed, tongue was inside the mouth, nails were bluish in colour, bleeding through the nose and frothy discharged through the mouth present. He further deposed that injuries nos. 1 to 3 were caused by the electric current and injury no.4 was caused by blunt cylinderical weapon, injuries nos.5 to 7 were caused by blunt force impact; electro thermal injuries are sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature; all injuries were consistent with the beating/assault. PW12 deposed that the cause of death was due to cardiac fibrillation and respiratory failure, as a result of electrocution; all injuries were ante­mortem in nature; mode of death was homicidal; FIR NO.74/10

Page 19 of 102 20 the time since death was 38 hours. He proved the postmortem report as Ex. PW12/A. He further deposed that IO produced the three sealed packets alongwith an inquest paper, alleged to be weapon of offence, on 15.06.2010, regarding the injuries, which can be possible with the weapon of offence recovered in reference to the PM report no.682/10, in which the injuries have been mentioned. PW12 also examined the wires, PVC pipes with metallic elbow, PVC pipes with metallic check valve, PVC pipe on the one side of the elbow and connection metallic in middle and small piece of the PVC and gave his opinion that injuries nos.1 & 2 could have been caused by black wire in packet no.2 and consistent with fastening and injury no.3 could have been caused by yellow and red electric wire; injury no.4 is possible by PVC pipe in the packet no.3, or similar such object; injury nos.5,6 & 7 are possible by wooden pieces in packet no.1 or similar such things. He further deposed that, after the examination, it were sealed with the sample seal of the Mortuary and handed over to the IO SI Jagdeep. The witness proved his opinion as Ex. PW12/B. He was cross­examined by Ld. Defence Counsels. In cross­examination, PW12 deposed that the naked wire, which came in contact with the skin, and was used for electrocution would turn black. He volunteered and submitted that in this case, when he examined the electric wire, he found the open ends, which was in touch with the skin, black and only the end part, which was found wrapped on the arm, was found black. He further deposed that the wire was found wrapped on the right arm, which is mentioned in his report itself and at the time of postmortem, he got the electric wire removed from the body; there were two black wires and one double core wire of red and yellow, with exposed ends were removed from the body before postmortem.

18. PW13 is ACP Pankaj Kumar Singh, who is the initial IO of this case and FIR NO.74/10 Page 20 of 102 21 on 14.06.2010, he was ACP under training and was working as SHO PS Swaroop Nagar. On that day, he was on morning patrolling duty; during patrolling, ASI Kishan Kumar informed him telephonically that on the previous night, there was a scuffle (Jhagda) at house no. C­101, Gali No.3, IP Colony, and one Maruti Van of red colour, bearing registration no. DL2C­L­6133, was lying abandoned there. He further deposed that ASI Krishan informed him that the said house is lying locked and on interrogation from the neighbourers, he had come to know that the occupants of the said house i.e. Om Prakash, his son, his wife, one more man and a lady had fled away from there and requested PW13 to reach the spot. Thereafter, PW13 alongwith staff reached at the abovesaid address and asked Duty Officer telephonically to send SI Suresh Chand and some other staff at the spot. PW13 found a small crowd outside the said house and on inquiry from the crowd, he came to know that there was a scuffle on the previous night and the occupants of the said house had fled away from there. On the instruction of PW13, ASI Krishan Kumar went inside the house no. C­101, from the roof of the adjacent house with the help of a ladder and ASI Krishan informed PW13 through the main iron gate of the said house, made of grill, that two dead bodies, one of male and one of female, were lying in the inner room of the said house. PW13 called ASI Krishan outside the said house through the same passage from which he had entered the said house. PW13 further made some inquiries about the owners of the said house, but when he was clueless about the owners, he got the lock of the main gate of the said house broken and entered the said house and saw that in the inner room of the said house, two dead bodies were lying with their face downward (prone), their heads were towards the wall and their feet were towards Diwan (bed). He further deposed that the blood, which appeared to have come out FIR NO.74/10 Page 21 of 102 22 from the nose and mouth of deceased was also lying on the floor. PW13 called the Crime Team on the spot, after passing a message to the Control Room, with the phone of SI Suresh Chand and thereafter, PW13 inspected the spot. Crime Team also arrived at the spot. Incharge Crime Team inspected the spot and photographer took photographs of the spot from different angles. PW13 inspected the dead body of girl and found a round burning mark just above the elbow of left arm and above the ankle of left leg and two abrasions on the elbow of the left hand. He further deposed that there was also one round burning mark on the left foot just above the ankle. He also inspected the dead body of the deceased boy and on his right arm above the elbow, there was a round burning mark and on the left leg just above the ankle, there was one round burning mark. He further deposed that there were also beating injury marks on the chest and the back of the body of the boy. Some broken pieces of Dandaas and electric wires of black colour (single wire) and two core wire of yellow and red colour were also lying there. Thereafter, PW13 came outside the house and further made inquiries and out of the crowd, one person , namely, Umesh s/o. Bhajan Lal, a resident of the same locality came forward and gave some information to him about the incident. Meanwhile, one Rakesh also arrived there, who was the brother­ in­law (Jija) of deceased boy, who told that he visited this house alongwith his Saala (deceased) last night and his statement was recorded. Rakesh identified the dead body as that of his Saala, , namely, Yogesh and the dead body of girl , namely, Asha, and his statement Ex. PW4/A was recorded. Thereafter, PW13 prepared a rukka Ex. PW13/A and handed over the same to Ct. Sanjay for registration of FIR. Thereafter, PW13 prepared rough site plan as per his observation and as told by Rakesh and Umesh Ex. PW13/B. PW13 lifted the exhibits from the scene of crime. FIR NO.74/10

Page 22 of 102 23 The blood samples of deceased Yogesh and Asha from the floor were lifted with the help of cotton and were kept in two separate transparent containers and two separate pulandas were prepared and were sealed with the seal of SK and were taken in police possession, vide seizure memo already Ex. PW4/C. Thereafter, the pieces of floor stained with blood of Yogesh were taken by breaking the floor and the said pieces of floor were kept in a transparent plastic container and a pulanda was prepared and sealed with the seal of SK and was taken into police possession vide seizure memo Ex. PW4/D. He further deposed that in the same manner, the pieces of the floor stained with the blood of Asha were also seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW4/E. Thereafter, plain pieces of the floor after breaking the floor of the said room, were also seized in the same manner, vide seizure memo Ex. PW4/F; the electric wire lying at the spot i.e. two wires of black colour, one wire of yellow and red colour and some rubber insulation, which was found pealed off from the said black wires were seized after putting them in a parcel of cloth and the same were sealed with the seal of SK vide seizure memo already Ex. PW4/L; one mobile phone make Nokia, lying near the dead body of Yogesh, which was in switched off condition and was identified by Rakesh, being that of Yogesh and one more mobile phone make Huawei of black and gray colour was also found lying on the refrigerator, were also seized vide seizure memo already Ex. PW4/M; one key ring with two keys, was found near the dead body of Yogesh; on the keyring, 'Polo Garden' was engraved. PW13 deposed that PW Rakesh had identified the keys as that of Maruti Van bearing no. DL2C­L­6133; the said keys alongwith keyring were seized vide seizure memo already Ex. PW4/G. He further deposed that one blood soaked underwear, which was lying there at the spot was also seized after preparing a pulanda and sealed with the seal of SK, vide seizure FIR NO.74/10 Page 23 of 102 24 memo Ex. PW4/B; one screw driver, of which one end was having U­shaped bent with yellow insulation on some part, was found entangled with the string of the Salwar on the dead body of Asha and same was also seized vide seizure memo already Ex. PW4/H. He further deposed that about eight or ten broken pieces of the Dandaas, which were lying in the gallery were also seized after preparing the pulanda and sealing the same with the seal of SK, vide seizure memo, already Ex. PW4/J; some plastic sanitary pipes fitted with metallic sanitary fittings were also lying in the gallery, which were also seized after preparing a pulanda and sealing the same with the seal of SK, vide seizure memo already Ex. PW4/K. Thereafter, PW13 came outside the house, where some hair were found entangled at the base of hand pump, which was found installed outside the house. He further deposed that one witness , namely, Umesh told the police that during beatings at night, the head of that girl was struck against that hand pump. Thereafter, police lifted those hair, after wrapping the hair in a paper, police put it in a transparent plastic jar and wrapped in a cloth and the said pulanda was sealed with the seal of SK and seized vide seizure memo already Ex. PW4/N. Meanwhile, the Ct. Sanjay returned to the spot after getting the case registered and he handed over the original rukka and copy of FIR to PW13. The broken lock, which was found on the main gate of the said house, was seized vide memo Ex. PW13/C. PW13 recorded the statements of the Incharge and Photographer of Crime Team, who handed over his report to PW13 and, thereafter, they left the spot. On the pointing out of Rakesh, the Maruti Van no. DL2C­L­6133, which was found parked at the entrance the street, was also seized vide memo already Ex. PW4/P. PW13 had got both the dead bodies shifted to Mortuary of BJRM Hospital through Ct. Parthe and also he recorded the statement of ASI Krishan Kumar and he was relieved FIR NO.74/10 Page 24 of 102 25 from the spot. Thereafter, PW13 recorded the statement of Umesh, who was with PW13 during the abovesaid proceedings of seizure. After some time, Inspector Satender Dhull also arrived there and PW13 alongwith Inspector Satender Dhull, SI Suresh, Rakesh and some other staff left the spot in search of accused. PW13 deputed one or two police officials at the said house. They all were in official Gypsy and when they were on the Swaroop Nagar Burari Road and took a turn towards Shalimar Banquet Hall, there Rakesh pointed out towards two persons, who were coming from the opposite directions, stating that these are the same persons i.e. father and uncle (Taau) of Asha, with whom Rakesh and Yogesh had a scuffle last night. The said two persons were stopped and were interrogated. After interrogation, their names were revealed to be Suraj and Om Prakash. They both confessed their guilt. PW13 recorded their disclosure statements, which are proved on record as Exs. PW4/T1 and PW4/T2 and they were arrested vide arrest memos Exs. PW4/Q2 and PW4/Q1 and their personal search was conducted vide memos Exs. PW4/Q4 and PW4/Q3. Thereafter, both the accused led the police party to the spot and pointed out the place of occurrence vide pointing out memo Ex. PW4/R. Pursuant to their disclosure statements, both the accused led the police party to the Ashram of one Kathey Baba and outside the said Ashram, there was a Kikkar tree and beneath the Kikkar tree, there were some bushes. Both the accused pointed out towards a yellow polythene, which was lying inside the bushes stating that the ropes with which they had tied Yogesh and Asha was lying in the said yellow polythene. The said polythene was taken out from the bushes and it was found containing rope made of jute, which was measured and was found about 13 meters and the said rope was kept in the same polythene and a pulanda was prepared and was sealed with the seal of SK and FIR NO.74/10 Page 25 of 102 26 was taken into police possession vide seizure memo already Ex. PW4/S. Thereafter, both the accused led the police party, including Rakesh, to Gokul Puri, but their house, situated at Gokul Puri was found locked at that time. Thereafter, they both led the police party to Azad Pur Mandi in search of other accused, but in vain. Thereafter, they all came back to the PS. PW13 recorded supplementary statement of Rakesh and statement of other witnesses and case property was deposited in the Malkhana. Both the accused Suraj and Om Prakash were put in the lock up of PS Jahangir Puri after their medical examination. Next day, on 15.06.2010, PW13 obtained two days police custody remand of both the accused and reached at the PS. He obtained the pulandas containing broken Dandaas, sanitary pipes and electric wires and reached to Mortuary, BJRM Hospital. PW13 further deposed that he completed the inquest papers and got the postmortem of the bodies of Asha and Yogesh conducted. He proved the inquest papers of Asha, running in three pages, as collectively Ex. PW13/D. Thereafter, he recorded the statements of Ramwati and Pappu Saini, regarding the identification of the dead body of Asha and proved the same on record as, respectively, Exs. PW5/A and PW13/E. This witness further proved the inquest papers of Yogesh, running in three pages, as, collectively, Ex. PW13/F. Thereafter, PW13 recorded the statements of Renu and Rakesh, respectively, Exs. PW10/A and PW4/U, regarding the identification of dead body of Yogesh. After postmortem, dead bodies of Yogesh and Asha were handed over to their relatives. After the postmortem of Asha and Yogesh, doctor handed over to PW13 the six parcels sealed with the seal of FMT BJRM Hospital, alongwith two sample seals, stated to be containing clothes of both the deceased, scalp hair of both the deceased and blood samples of both the deceased and the pulandas were taken into police possession vide seizure memo Ex. FIR NO.74/10

Page 26 of 102 27 PW13/G. PW13 further deposed that at the time of postmortem, the exhibits lifted by him, deposited at Malkhana and obtained by him from the Malkhana, i.e. broken Dandaas, pipes and electric wires, in sealed condition were handed over to the doctor for his opinion. The said exhibits were also returned to PW13 by the doctor in separate three parcels, sealed with the seal of FMT BJRM Hospital. PW13 recorded the statement of Ct. Parthe and supplementary statement of Inspector Satender Dhull. Thereafter, he came back to the PS and deposited the exhibits in the Malkhana in sealed condition.

19. PW13 was cross­examined at length by the Ld. Defence Counsels. During cross­examination, he deposed that he left the PS after receiving information from ASI Krishan Kumar. He further deposed that he made inquiries at one or two places to find out the exact location of C­101, Gali No.3, IP Colony. He volunteered that the crowd was visible from some distance, when they reached there. He further deposed that he reached the spot at about 9.00 to 9.30 AM. He also deposed that he met with the person, who made call to the police, after about one hour of his reaching the spot. He further deposed that one could peep through the iron gate installed at C­ 101 and one could see through the grill installed at C­101 and when ASI Krishan Kumar went towards the grill of the main gate stating that two dead bodies were lying inside, PW13 could see him. In reply to a Court question, this witness stated that no convincing reply was given by the persons about the owner of that house. He further deposed that first of all, he entered the said house and remained there for about 15­20 minutes. He deposed that the Crime Team remained at the spot for about 2½ or 3 hours. He further deposed that the witnesses, who met him, were allowed to enter the house between 10.00­10.30 AM. He further deposed that the statement of Rakesh FIR NO.74/10 Page 27 of 102 28 was recorded at the spot during the presence of Crime Team. He also deposed that Rakesh remained with them, even after recording of his statement, as directed. He further deposed that Rakesh remained with them till night. He further deposed that Rakesh himself had given his mobile number and perhaps that number was mentioned in the rukka. After seeing the statement of Rakesh Ex. PW4/A, the witness stated that mobile number of Rakesh was mentioned therein. This witness further deposed that Umesh told him that he had seen Rakesh on the previous night. He further deposed that first of all, Umesh and then Rakesh met him. He further deposed that the electric wires were lying in the room, but not attached with the dead bodies. He further deposed that when he was making inquiries from Umesh, Rakesh met him. He further deposed that statement of Umesh was recorded at the spot in the evening on the same day, on his direction by some staff. He also deposed that the exhibits from the spot were lifted and sealed upto 3.30/4.00 pm and he prepared all the seizure memo of the exhibits lifted from the spot upto 3.30/4.00 pm. He further deposed that the constable returned to the spot after getting the FIR registered at about 3.15 pm. He further deposed that some seizure memo were also prepared even after 4.00 pm and no seizure memo was prepared before registration of the FIR. He deposed that he did not switch on the mobile phone, which was found on the spot and same was identified to be of Yogesh by witness Rakesh. He also deposed that Inspector Satender Dhull reached on the spot between 5.30 to 6.00 pm. He further deposed that they left the spot at about 6.00 pm and went in search of the accused persons and they went towards Gokal Puri, as Rakesh told them to go to Gokal Puri, in search of accused persons. He deposed that Inspector Satender Dhull, SI Suresh, complainant Rakesh and some other police officers were with him in his Gypsi at that time. FIR NO.74/10

Page 28 of 102 29 Thereafter, they went towards Burari and they took a turn from Burari and from there, they took just a turn and reached in front of Shalimar Place, where Rakesh pointed out the accused persons. He further deposed that Shalimar Place was at a distance of 20­30 meters from the turn. He deposed that the accused persons were coming from the opposite directions, when pointed out by Rakesh from approximate distance of 30 to 40 feet. He further deposed that they all were in uniform. He also deposed that the accused persons did not try to run away on seeing them. He volunteered that they were surprised to see them. Thereafter, they interrogated the accused persons at the place, where they were apprehended, but they firstly arrested the accused persons and, thereafter, recorded their disclosure statement. He deposed that both the accused persons were having their mobile phones with them at that time, which were recovered in their personal search. He further deposed that the accused persons were interrogated one after the another. He also deposed that they attempted to join 2/3 public persons moving on the road, but they did not join and told that they had some urgent work. They also did not disclose their names and addresses, and that is why, they could not take any action against them. PW13 further deposed that the entire team, which accompanied him from the spot in search of the accused, was also with him at the time of recovery of rope at the instance of accused persons. He further deposed that the place of recovery of rope was about 70 to 80 meters from the main entrance of Kathia Baba's Ashram and was on the left side of the way leading of Ashram. He also deposed that the accused persons themselves lifted the polythene from the bushes containing the rope. He deposed that no public person was available near the place of recovery of rope and therefore, could not be joined as it was a deserted place. He also deposed that no chance prints were found at the spot by the FIR NO.74/10 Page 29 of 102 30 Crime Team. He further deposed that dog squad was not summoned on the spot. He further deposed that he prepared some documents at the spot; he recorded some statements of the witnesses in his own handwriting on that day, but he could not recall the names of those documents.

20. PW14 is Dileep Kumar Singh, who made call to the police about the incident at 100 number. He deposed that on 14.06.2010, he was standing at the corner of his gali in the morning and many public persons were there and one Umesh, who was also residing in Gali no. 3, was also there. He was told by them that there was a quarrel in the night in gali no. 3 in the house of Om Parkash. He was also told that Om Prakash and his family members were quarreling and also beating one boy and one girl. PW14 inquired from the public, as to why they had not called the police in the night and they had replied him that they were not having mobile and for that reason, they did not call the police; one maruti van was also parked outside the house of Om Parkash since night and after the quarrel, the house was locked and even in the morning, the house was locked. Thereafter, PW14 made a call at 100 number from his mobile phone and police arrived there. He also accompanied the police to the spot and also showed them the said maruti van and the house of Om Parkash; the lock of the said house was broken open by the police; in the house of Om Parkash, one male and one female dead body were found lying. During cross­examination, this witness deposed that he had not seen any incident of quarrel or beating personally; he was told by public, who were collected in the gali at the spot in the next morning. He further deposed that, on the same day, police made inquiries from him and his statement was recorded and again on 05.09.2010, police recorded his statement. He further deposed that he called the PCR between 7.30 to 8.00 am and he remained at FIR NO.74/10 Page 30 of 102 31 the spot till 8.30/8.45 am. He further deposed during cross­examination that the incident took place in the street situated in the back side of his residence and he came to know about the incident between 7.15 am to 8.00 am. This witness further deposed that the house of Om Prakash was situated adjacent to his house and only one street was there between both their houses. He further deposed that there was one minute walking distance between his house and the house of Om Prakash. He also deposed that he was present at his home on the intervening night of 13­ 14.06.2010. PW14 further deposed that the ladies and gents who had gathered there were of Gali No.3. He also deposed that Umesh told him first time about the quarrel on the previous night and that Om Prakash and his family members gave beatings to one boy and one girl. He deposed that the police reached the spot between 7.30 to 8.00 AM, but he again stated that police reached the spot within ten minutes from the time, when he made call to the PCR. He also deposed that first of all, police after reaching there, inquired from him and he told the police about the version, as told by Umesh to him and he had also shown the Maruti Van to the police. He further deposed that he did not tell the police, after making call at 100 number, that Maruti van was standing outside the house of Om Prakash. He stated that the Maruti van was found parked at 25 feet wide road and not in the street no.3. He deposed that police inquired from him as to why he did not inform in night and he told that he came to know only in the morning and he immediately informed the police. PW14 also stated that he never told the police that one Maruti Van was also found parked outside the house of Om Prakash. He further deposed that the house of Om Prakash was found locked after the quarrel and at that time also (morning ) it was locked. The witness voluntarily stated that he told the police, what was told to him by Umesh and the fact FIR NO.74/10 Page 31 of 102 32 that house was lying locked, was also noticed by the police. He further deposed that he did not know if police called any immediate neighbourer when they were breaking open the lock and further deposed that Umesh was already with them. He also deposed that firstly only two police officials entered the house and later on other police officials entered the house. He further deposed that all police officials were in uniform. He deposed that police personals, who entered the house, did not offer their search before entering the house, however, the police asked the public persons to accompany them inside the house. In reply to a Court question, the witness stated that till he remained on the spot for 5­10 minutes, police did not allow the public persons to enter the house.

21. PW15 is HC Pawan Kumar. He deposed that on 16.06.10, he alongwith Inspector Satender Dhull, const. Mahender, const. Sultan, W/Cont Sunita joined the investigation of the present case and they all, after constituting a raiding party, left the PS in a Government Gypsy in search of accused persons; during search of accused persons at about 4 or 4.15 pm, they all were waiting beneath the Gokul Puri Bridge; meanwhile, complainant of the present case, Rakesh also reached there and he asked the IO about the progress of his case and he also joined the investigation; there, at about 5 pm, two ladies came there and they both were identified by the complainant Rakesh and were apprehended and their names, on interrogation, were revealed to be as Inder Kala @ Khushbu w/o Om Prakash and Maya w/o Suraj; they both were interrogated by the IO and were arrested and their disclosure statements were recorded, which were proved on record as Exs. PW15/A and PW15/B; their personal search was conducted by Lady Const. Sunita. Thereafter, IO recorded the supplementary statement of Rakesh and he was discharged. PW15 deposed that, FIR NO.74/10 Page 32 of 102 33 thereafter, all the members of the raiding party, along with both the abovesaid accused in custody, reached at D­295, Ganga Vihar in search of accused Sanjeev. From there accused Sanjeev was apprehended and was arrested at about 6.30 p.m. vide arrest memo Ex. PW15/C and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex. PW15/D. IO recorded his disclosure statement, same was proved as Ex. PW15/E. As per the instructions of IO, PW15 muffled the face of the accused. After his arrest, accused produced two keys from the right pocket of the cover of the fridge stating that the keys are of the house situated at Indraprastha Colony i.e., the spot where the offence was committed and the said two keys were seized by the IO after preparing a pulanda and sealing the same with the seal of SK vide seizure memo Ex. PW15/F. He also deposed that, thereafter, all the members of the raiding party alongwith all the three abovesaid accused in custody reached at C­101, Gali No. 3, C Block, I. P Colony and there all the abovesaid three accused pointed out the place of occurrence vide pointing out memo Ex. PW15/G. He further deposed that, thereafter, they all alongwith three accused in custody, went back to the PS, case property was deposited with the then MHC(M) and abovesaid three accused, after their medical examination, were put in the lock of PS Jahangirpuri. During cross­examination, PW15 deposed that they left the PS, by way of DD No. 6 A, at 6.05 a.m. He further deposed that all the members of the raiding party were briefed by the IO regarding the investigation to be conducted. Thereafter, they visited Ganga Vihar and Gokulpuri and other areas at Jamuna Paar. He further deposed that they did not visit any particular house in that area and kept roaming on the roads in search of accused. He deposed that they finally left the house of accused Sanjeev after his arrest at about 7.30 P.M. He further deposed that, besides Gokul Puri flyover, they also visited FIR NO.74/10 Page 33 of 102 34 number of places, but the name of those places he did not remember. He deposed that no one except Rakesh was asked by the IO to join the investigation. He deposed that Rakesh met them at about 4.00/4.15 p.m. He deposed that Khushbu and Maya reached beneath the Gokalpuri Flyover after about one hour of their meeting with Rakesh and the secret informer was also with them and he pointed out towards Khushbu and Maya and Rakesh also identified them. PW15, further deposed that Ramwati, Bua of the accused Sanjeev was informed about their arrest on telephone and later on her signatures were also obtained. He further deposed that they left that spot at about 6.00 p.m. He further deposed that Rakesh also left the spot i.e., Gokulpuri flyover at about 6.00 p.m and before leaving Gokulpuri flyover, IO told them that they were going in search of accused Sanjeev. In reply to a question, whether IO was knowing the address of Sanjeev, he replied that the two ladies, who were apprehended, were knowing the address of Sanjeev. He further deposed that they reached the place from where Sanjeev was apprehended at about 6.15 p.m. He deposed that Sanjeev was present at the first floor when they reached and on their calling he came to the ground floor. He further deposed that the proceedings regarding Sanjeev were recorded at the ground floor of that house. He further deposed that the information about arrest of Sanjeev was given to his Aunt Ramwati and she was present there. He further deposed that they reached I.P. Colony at about 8.30 p.m, after the arrest of Sanjeev, and some persons gathered there. PW15 deposed that Rakesh identified both the ladies by their faces and not by their names. He further deposed that secret informer pointed out both the ladies from a distance of 10­20 feet. He further deposed that some members of the raiding party were in uniform. He deposed that the ladies did not try to run away on seeing the police. FIR NO.74/10

Page 34 of 102 35

22. PW16 is Umesh Kumar. He deposed that he was residing alongwith his family and was having business of motor parts. He deposed that, on the intervening night of 13­14.06.2010, at about 12 midnight, he heard noise, coming out from his neighbouring house, which was occupied by accused Om Prakash and his family. He further deposed that, after hearing the said noises, a number of residents of said locality gathered there; he also reached there; at that time, the main door of the said house was lying closed, but unbolted; he entered the said house and saw that accused Sanjeev and Suraj were giving beatings to one boy. He further deposed that Sanjeev pushed him, due to which his spectacles fell down and accused Om Prakash told them, "Yeh Humara Ghar Ka Mamla Hai, Aap Log Jaayen". PW16 came out of the house of accused persons and all other persons went to their houses. He further deposed that two ladies, were sitting outside the house. He further deposed that when he entered the house, at that time also, those two ladies were standing outside. He further deposed that one girl was thrown by accused Om Prakash on the hand pump and the girl became unconscious and nobody helped her and she remained lying there. He deposed that accused Om Prakash again asked him to leave and in the meanwhile, the cries which were coming from that house subsided and he went to his home. He further deposed that in the morning, he found the said house of Om Prakash locked from outside and his wife told him that all the five persons, who were there in the previous night had gone somewhere on motorcycles and the whereabouts of that boy and that girl are not known to him. He deposed that one unclaimed red colour Maruti Van was there outside the street on the road; someone informed the police; in the morning, when police persons were asking the residents of the street about the incident of the previous night, there one Rakesh met the police officials and FIR NO.74/10 Page 35 of 102 36 told the police officials about the incident; when Rakesh was telling about the incident to the police officials, PW16 came to know the name of boy, whom he had seen being beaten by the accused persons and was wearing black coloured clothes, but he did not remember the name of that boy at that time. He further deposed that police officials broke open the lock of said house and entered the said house. He deposed that he also entered the house behind the police and in the inner room, dead body of a boy, whom he had seen being beaten by the accused persons and of the girl, whom he had seen being thrown on the hand pump by accused Om Prakash, were lying. He further deposed that he had not noticed Rakesh entering inside the house. He further deposed that he remained for some time in the house and then came outside and in his presence, police lifted the electric wire, one Danda in broken condition, one plastic pipe, which was around 3 feet in length, the piece of floor. He deposed that, at the time of lifting of these articles, Rakesh was in the street. He deposed that, thereafter, dead bodies were sent by the police in a vehicle. Later on, PW16 came to know that the said Maruti van, which was there, was of that boy, whose dead body was recovered from the house of Om Prakash. The witness was shown the seizure memo of blood stained underwear Ex. PW4/B, on which he identified his signatures at point B; seizure memo of blood sample of deceased boy and girl as Ex. PW4/C; seizure memo of blood stained earth control of deceased boy Yogesh Ex. PW4/D; seizure memo of blood stained earth control of deceased girl Asha Ex. PW4/E; seizure memo of earth control Ex. PW4/F; seizure memo of two keys of Maruti van Ex. PW4/G; seizure memo of screw driver Ex. PW4/H; seizure memo of the broken wooden Danda Ex. PW4/J; seizure memo of pipes Ex. PW4/K; seizure memo of electric wire Ex. PW4/L; seizure memo of mobile phones Ex. PW4/M. He further deposed that he had FIR NO.74/10 Page 36 of 102 37 seen the said mobile phones in the hands of police officials, but he had not seen them picking the same. He also proved the seizure memo of the hair, which were found on the hand pump, where the girl was thrown by the accused Om Prakash and were seized by the police vide memo Ex. PW4/N. He further deposed that the Maruti van, which was identified by the witness with the help of photograph of van, available on record, was also seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW4/P. This witness identified the case property, shown to him in the Court i.e. three pipes alongwith fixtures, collectively, as Ex. P12; pieces of wooden Danda, which were seized from the spot, collectively, as Ex. P13; the yellow and red wire, which was seized from the spot and proved the same is Ex. P14/1; the lock, which was there on the main door of the house and was broken by the police for entering the said house as Ex. P17/1.

23. PW16 was allowed to be cross­examined by the Ld. Addl. PP as he was not deposing in accordance with his earlier statement, recorded U/s.161 Cr.PC. During cross­examination by Ld. Addl. PP, he denied the suggestion that when he entered the house of accused Om Prakash, he saw that the said boy, namely, Yogesh was being beaten by accused Om Prakash, Khushboo and Sanjeev. He voluntarily stated that only Sanjeev and Suraj were giving beatings to him. He further denied the suggestion that accused Suraj and Maya were giving beatings to the girl , namely, Asha. He again voluntarily stated that both the ladies were present outside the house. He further deposed that the dead bodies of Yogesh and Asha were identified by Rakesh inside the house of Om Prakash in the presence of police, after entering the house. He further deposed that it is correct that he got puzzled because of the death of his son­in­law, but he recollected that when he first entered the house of Om Prakash, both the accused , namely, Khushboo and Maya were also present inside FIR NO.74/10 Page 37 of 102 38 the house. He further volunteered that they came out when the deceased girl was thrown on the hand pump by accused Om Prakash. He deposed that due to lapse of time, he had forgotten some facts, which he had recollected. He further deposed that the exhibits, which were shown to him in the Court, were lifted from the said house of Om Prakash in his presence. This witness was cross­examined by Ld. Defence Counsels. During cross­examination, he deposed that he was puzzled and not feeling well due to death of his son­in­law. He deposed that his statement was recorded by the police at the house of accused, Om Prakash, in the morning at about 9.00­10.00 AM, but he did not remember the date and only police officials were present, when his statement was recorded. He further deposed that he signed about 10­15 documents. He deposed that police officials read over the documents to him and when he understood it that it is correct, he put his signatures on them. The witness further stated that he knew how to read Hindi in Devnagari script. He further deposed that he told the IO in his statement, that when he reached the house of Om Prakash, the main door was found closed, but not bolted from inside, confronted with Ex. PW16/A, wherein it is not so recorded, but the Court observed that in the statement, it is mentioned that he pushed the door and entered the house of Om Prakash. He further deposed that he told the police in his statement that accused Sanjeev pushed him, due to which his spectacles fell down. He further deposed that he told the IO in his statement that Om Prakash told them, "Humare Ghar Ka Mamla Hai, Aap Log Jayein", confronted with Ex. PW16/A, wherein it is not so recorded. He further deposed that he told the police in his statement that in the morning, his wife told him that all those persons who were there in the previous night had gone away on motorcycles and whereabouts of that boy and girl were not known, confronted with Ex. PW16/A, FIR NO.74/10 Page 38 of 102 39 wherein it is not so recorded, but the Court observed that it has been mentioned that in the morning, the entire family had gone somewhere after putting lock. He further deposed that he told the police in his statement that police entered the house after breaking open the lock and he also followed the police inside the house. He also deposed that he did not tell the police that they had broken open the lock, as they themselves had done this and, therefore, there was no occasion for him to tell the police that they had broken open the lock. He deposed that he did not tell the police whatever was done by them, however, he told the police about the things which were lifted by them in his presence. He also deposed that the lock of the door of the house of Om Prakash was broken open in his presence. He deposed that the lock was seized by the police. He deposed that there were about 15­20 persons, present in the street, when he reached there. He deposed that the house of Om Prakash was in the same street, in which his house was situated in the same line on the same side. He deposed that the total length of the street was about 40­50 meters and it was not a dead end street. He further deposed that a person could pass from the other end on foot, but not on a vehicle, either two wheeler or four wheeler. He further deposed that there were 14­15 houses in their side of the street and there were about 12­13 houses on the other side, opposite to his house. The witness gave the names and location of the neighbouring/adjacent houses. He denied the suggestion that in summer months, in his street, people usually put their cot in the street for sleeping at night. He voluntarily stated that only he put his cot in the street for sleeping at night in summer months, as his house is only 25 Sq. Yds. and he was not having any cooler etc. He deposed that, on that night also, only his cot was there in the street and no other cot was there. He stated that he used to go to Kashmere Gate for work in the morning at FIR NO.74/10 Page 39 of 102 40 about 12.00 noon and return at about 8.00­9.00 PM. He deposed that there were no house numbers, but the people had put their numbers at their houses, which were mentioned on the electricity bills. He deposed that there was number written on the door of Om Prakash and in fact, there was number written on every door in the street. He deposed that he did not remember the number written at his door and at the door of Om Prakash. He deposed that he went to sleep at 11.00 PM in the street on the night of 13­14.06.2010. He also deposed that on that night, nobody woke him up to ask the address. He deposed that there were so many street in the area to enter the colony from the main road on both sides. He deposed that there were no sign board of the street numbers. He further deposed that there was no PCO in their street at that time and, if no phone is available, then one had to go to Nathu Pura to use the phone from PCO. He deposed that he was having his mobile phone, but that was out of order and was deposited with the Tata service provider. He deposed that he was not in deep sleep, when he heard the noise coming from the house of Om Prakash. He deposed that he had gone only upto 5­6 feet inside the house of Om Prakash from the main gate, which opened in the street; there were two rooms and one kitchen and a staircase to go on the roof, where latrine and bathroom were situated, in the house of Om Prakash. He deposed that he had seen accused Suraj once or twice before the incident also in the house of Om Prakash. He further deposed that he had seen accused Suraj, in the house of Om Prakash about 3­4 months prior to the incident. He deposed that those 15­20 persons, who were present in the street were onlookers (Tamasha Dekh Rahe Thay). He deposed that he was the first to enter the house of Om Prakash as, "Maine Daaru Pi Rakhi Thi". He further deposed that nobody else followed him. He deposed that he remained inside the house of Om Prakash for about FIR NO.74/10 Page 40 of 102 41 4­5 minutes and the gate was opened when he entered the house and remained open. He deposed that during his stay inside the house of Om Prakash, none else entered his house. He deposed that on return from the house of Om Prakash, he retired to his cot, lying in the street. He deposed that he woke up in the morning at about 8.00 AM. He deposed that in the morning, he saw a Maruti van parked at the corner of the street and thereafter, he asked one person , namely, Daleep, whose father is in Delhi Police to make a call to the police as Balwa had taken place on the previous night and said Maruti van was also there unclaimed. He deposed that he saw the Maruti van first time in the morning, when he woke up in the morning. He deposed that the place where the said Maruti van was found parked was a main road of Indraprastha Colony, but it was not a very busy road, as only four or five four wheelers were there in the locality. He deposed that the said road led towards Burari from Nathu Pura. He further deposed that police arrived within 10­15 minutes after call by Daleep. He deposed that police arrived on the spot at about 8.30 AM and made inquiries in the neighbourhood about the van, but nobody claimed the same and said that they did not know, who was the owner of said van. He also deposed that initially five or six police officials arrived there in a jeep and when they made a telephonic call, many police vehicles and police officials arrived there. The witness volunteered that media persons also arrived there. He deposed that he told those five/six police personnels, what was witnessed by him. He deposed that as soon as the police arrived there, he narrated them the entire incident and other persons also told the police about the incident. He deposed that those five police officials did not record his statement, but it was recorded later on. He further deposed that the immediate neighbourers of Om Prakash returned only after 15 days, as the neighbourers and other persons had fled FIR NO.74/10 Page 41 of 102 42 away, before the police arrived, immediately after Om Prakash and his family members left their house. He deposed that when police arrived, ladies of the street, the persons from the neighbouring street and he, were present and none of the male member from that street was there, except PW16. He deposed that in his presence, police did not open the van. He further deposed that firstly, the van was shown to the police, as he and two/three persons were already near the van, when the police arrived. In reply to a specific question that as to if police made inquiry from other neibhbourer, the witness replied that when no male member was available, how the police could make inquiries from them. He further deposed that police did not make any inquiry from the female members in the neighbourhood. He further deposed that firstly, he told the police about the incident. He deposed that the van was standing facing Burari and from the parking of the van, it appeared that it came from the side of Nathu Pura. He deposed that he noticed the van first time at about 8.15 AM. He came to know the name of Rakesh, when Rakesh told the police that he was and he was owner of the van and he had given his van to his brother­in­law, Yogesh. He deposed that police had broken open the lock at about 9.00 AM. He deposed that when police was breaking open the lock, he was standing outside the house. He remained inside the house of Om Prakash for about 5­7 minutes alongwith the police. He voluntarily stated that when many police officials entered the house, he went out. He deposed that police was checking the articles and the dead body, which were lying there and he went out. He deposed that he did not enter the house, thereafter. He deposed that police remained inside the house of Om Prakash for about 2/2½ hours. He deposed that none of the neighbourer entered the house of Om Prakash in the presence of police. He deposed that, at that time, his wife and his son were residing FIR NO.74/10 Page 42 of 102 43 with him. He deposed that his wife was standing outside the house of Om Prakash, when he was pushed and his spectacles fell down. He deposed that police made inquiries from his wife also. He voluntarily stated that every woman, who was available there was inquired by the police about the incident. He stated that he was not knowing that the girl and boy had died, but he suspected that they might have been murdered, as his wife told him that five accused persons had gone away and that boy and girl did not come out from that house. He deposed that he was confirmed about the death of both the boy and girl, when the police broke open the door and entered the house of accused, Om Prakash. In reply to a Court question that during his cross­examination and in his examination in chief, he told that he signed on the documents in the house of Om Prakash and his statement was also recorded there, but later on he stated that he remained in the house of Om Prakash alongwith the police only for 5­7 minutes, thereafter, he came out and did not enter the house of Om Prakash; then how he could explain the signing of documents and recording of his statement in the house of Om Prakash, he replied that his statement was recorded on the Chontra and he also signed those documents on that Chontra situated just outside the house of Om Prakash, adjacent to the main entrance. He was further questioned by the Court that did he enter the house of Om Prakash from the wooden door or from the iron gate, to which he replied that he entered from the iron gate. Another Court question was put to him as to whether, in front of the iron gate, there was a room situated in the rear side of the house of Om Prakash, he replied 'yes'.

24. DR. V.K. JHA was examined as PW17. He deposed that, on 15.06.2010, he conducted the postmortem on the dead body of Asha, d/o. Suraj, which was sent by Pankaj Kumar Singh, ACP of PS Swaroop Nagar and identified by Ct. Parthe. After FIR NO.74/10 Page 43 of 102 44 conducting the postmortem, he proved his detailed report as Ex. PW17/A. PW17 also examined the three sealed parcels and from the first two parcels, three bundles of electric wire were taken out, two bundles of black colour and both the ends of wire were naked and one bundle was of yellow red colour, striped in two row, on which both ends were metallic and were exposed. From the third parcel, PVC pipe with metallic elbow, PVC pipe with metallic check valve, PVC pipe on one side elbow and connection metallic, small piece of PVC were taken out. The witness gave opinion that injury no.1 could have been caused by the yellow coloured electric wire and injuries no. 2,4 & 5 could have been caused by wooden piece in packet no.1, PVC pipe in packet no.3 or similar such thing. He further gave the opinion that injuries no.6,7 & 8 could have been caused by black wire in parcel no.2 and consistent with fastening. He deposed that after examination, all the exhibits were resealed with the seal of Mortuary, BJRM Hospital. He proved the subsequent opinion Ex. PW17/B. He was cross examined by the Ld. Defence Counsels. In reply to specific questions, that how will he differentiate in a burn mark and an injury mark, the witness replied that by changes on skin, muscle and vessels, they differentiated between burn mark and injury mark. He further deposed that rail road pattern bruise found on the body will not appear due to fall and if a person falls on a PVC pipe, then rail road pattern bruise will not appear and only diffuse bruise will appear. He was further questioned as to whether the postmortem on the body of Asha and Yogesh were conducted in the same room, simultaneously, or one after the other, the witness replied that the postmortem were conducted in the same room by him and Dr. Sudesh, separately, but simultaneously. He was further put a question as to the fact as who gave the opinion first in time, he replied that he gave the opinion first and then Dr. Sudesh. Again in FIR NO.74/10 Page 44 of 102 45 reply to a question as to if the sealed parcels containing electric wires and PVC pipes were produced before him first and then before Dr. Sudesh, he replied in affirmative.

25. Ct. Sanjay Kumar was examined as PW18. He took the rukka, handed over to him by IO Pankaj Singh, on the basis of the statement of one Rakesh and, thereafter, after registration of FIR, he returned to the spot at about 3.15 PM and handed over the original rukka and computerized copy of FIR to the IO Pankaj Singh.

26. ASI Krishan Kumar was examined as PW19. He deposed that on 14.06.2010, at about 8.00 AM, he received DD no.7B to the effect that, "IP Colony Gali No.20, C Block, Kathia Baba Ashram Ke Paas Kal Raat Jhagda Huwa Tha. Makaan Band Hai. Ghar Ke Saamne Ek Gaadi No. DL2C­M­6133 Laawaris Khadi Hai" and on receiving DD no.7B, he reached at the spot and there he found a crowd. Some persons from the crowd told him that on the previous night, there was a Jabardast Jhagada at house no. C­101, Gali No.3, IP Colony. He further deposed that they also informed him that the residents of that house had gone to some unknown place in the early morning after putting a lock on the said house. One Maruti Van bearing no. DL2C­M­6133 of dark red colour was also found parked on the junction of Gali No.3 and Gali No.20 and the residents told him that the said Maruti van did not belong to any resident of that area, or of any guest of any resident of that area. He further deposed that the circumstances were suspicious, as such he immediately telephonically informed the then SHO Sh. Pankaj Kumar Singh, IPS and requested him to reach the spot and he alongwith staff also reached at the spot, there he also made inquiries about the residents of that house, but they were clueless about the whereabouts of the residents of said house. He deposed that on the instruction of Sh. Pankaj Kumar Singh, he reached on the roof of the house adjacent to H.No.101 and FIR NO.74/10 Page 45 of 102 46 from the staircase of H.No.101, he reached inside the house no.101 downstairs and there, after crossing kitchen and one room, in the last room, he found two dead bodies, one of a boy and one of a girl, lying on the floor. He deposed that from inside the house, he reached at the main gate of H.No.101 and from inside the house, he informed Sh. Pankaj Kumar Singh that dead bodies of a boy and a girl were lying there inside the house and thereafter, Sh. Pankaj Kumar Singh instructed him to come out of that house and as such, he went upstairs and came outside the house from the roof of the adjacent house. He further deposed that Sh. Pankaj Kumar Singh again made inquiries about the residents of that house, but in vain and thereafter, he got the lock of the said house broken and the said lock was seized by him vide seizure memo already Ex. PW13/C. He deposed that thereafter, he alongwith Sh. Pankaj Kumar Singh again went inside the house and saw that both the dead bodies were lying Mooh Ke Bal (lying prone). He further deposed that the heads of both the dead bodies were towards the wall and their feet were towards the bed. He deposed that there was a fridge on the left side of the entry of the said room and when they saw beneath the bed, they found that some electric wires were lying there; one mobile phone was lying near the dead body and one mobile phone was on the top of the fridge; one key ring, having two keys was lying near the male dead body. He deposed that outside the said room, in the gallery, pieces of broken wooden Dandaa and some plastic pipes were lying there. He also deposed that Sh. Pankaj Kumar Singh again came outside the said house and made inquiries from the persons and one man, namely, Umesh, came forward and told Sh. Pankaj Kumar Singh that on the previous night, there was a scuffle in that house and only he had entered the house no.101, but the resident of that house, namely, Om Prakash had pushed him outside the said house, saying that FIR NO.74/10 Page 46 of 102 47 it is their personal matter. He deposed that meanwhile, one more boy, namely, Rakesh also came there, who informed Sh. Pankaj Kumar Singh that on the previous night, on the telephonic call of the girl friend of his brother­in­law namely Yogesh, he alongwith Yogesh had come at house no. C­101, Gali No.3 at about 12.00 midnight or 12.30 AM to talk to the family members of the girl, but during talks, a scuffle took place and he ran away from there to save his life and the family members of the girl chased Yogesh. He further deposed that Rakesh further told that till morning, Yogesh had not reached home, as such he had again gone to know about Yogesh. He further deposed that, thereafter, Rakesh was taken inside the house and he identified the dead body of boy as that of the Yogesh and the dead body of girl as that of the girlfriend of Yogesh and, thereafter, Rakesh was asked not to leave and IO Sh. Pankaj Kumar Singh recorded his statement and got the FIR registered. He deposed that the exhibits were lifted from the spot and Crime Team was also called at the spot, who inspected the spot and the spot was also got photographed. Thereafter, he identified the case property. This witness was cross­examined at length by Ld. Defence Counsels. During cross examination, this witness deposed that he reached the spot, at about 8.30 AM, on 14.06.2010 and he made call to the SHO within five minutes of his reaching the spot. He further deposed that he had not entered the house before informing the SHO. He deposed that he did not inquire about the names and addresses of the person, who informed him on the spot about the quarrel, which took place on the previous night. He further deposed that SHO Pankaj Kumar arrived at the spot after about 25 minutes of his making the call and in his presence, no public person informed the SHO about the quarrel. He deposed that SHO made inquiries from the public persons. He further deposed that police came to know about the FIR NO.74/10 Page 47 of 102 48 presence of dead body in the house, after about 30 minutes of arrival of SHO Pankaj Kumar Singh on the spot. He deposed that first time after breaking the lock, he alongwith SHO Pankaj Kumar Singh and ASI Suresh entered the house. He also deposed that SHO called the Crime Team on the spot, which arrived on the spot after about 40 minutes of the call, made by SHO and Crime Team remained at the spot for minimum an hour. He further deposed that Crime Team left the spot after 12.00 noon. He further deposed that SHO came out of the house, when the Crime Team was leaving and then again entered the house and remained there till evening. He further deposed that his statement was recorded by the IO at about 4.00 PM and his statement was got recorded in the handwriting of ASI Suresh, on the directions of SHO Pankaj Kumar Singh. He deposed that in his presence, SHO Pankaj Kumar Singh did not prepare any document in his own handwriting. He further deposed that he made the arrival entry on reaching PS. He was put a question as to whether Umesh was the first person to meet SHO on the spot, he replied in affirmative. He further deposed that when he reached at the spot, he found male and female of the aforesaid streets collected in the said street.

27. Desh Raj was examined as PW20, who is the landlord of the premises in question i.e. C­101, Gali No.3, Khasra No.43/8, IP Colony, Delhi, and the said house was rented out by him to accused Om Prakash, who used to work with him at Azad Pur Mandi about 7­8 months prior to the incident. He deposed that accused Om Prakash used to reside in the said house alongwith his wife Khushboo and son Sanjeev.

28. Inspector Ranbir Singh was examined as PW21, who was posted as SHO at PS Swaroop Nagar. He deposed that on 01.07.2010, MHCR handed over to him FIR NO.74/10 Page 48 of 102 49 file of this case, as per directions of senior officers for conducting the investigation of this case and he perused the file. On that day, all the five accused persons were produced before the concerned court and one of the accused, namely, Sanjeev Kumar was in muffled face. PW21 moved an application before the court for conducted the TIP of said accused Sanjeev Kumar and proved the copy of application as Ex. PW21/A and the application was marked by the concerned court to the Link Court and, accordingly, accused was produced before the Link Court for the TIP, but the accused refused to join the TIP proceeding. PW21 collected the copy of refusal, Ex. PW­21/B. He deposed that he recorded the statement of Ct. Pradeep, Special Messenger and, thereafter, all the accused persons were sent to Judicial custody. The witness identified all the five accused in the Court. He further deposed that he recorded the statements of the witnesses on 29.07.2010 and went to the house of Deshraj, where accused persons were residing as tenant and PW21 recorded statement of Deshraj, who also provided electricity bill Ex. PW21/C and photocopy of GPA Ex. PW21/D, to show the ownership of said house. He further deposed that on 17.08.2010, he called SI Manohar Lal, Draftsman, for preparation of scaled site plan and PW21 alongwith SI Manohar Lal and ASI Krishan went to the scene of crime and at the instance of ASI Kishan, SI Manohar Lal took rough notes and measurement for preparation of scaled site plan of the scene of crime and on 18.08.2010, SI Manohar Lal handed over scaled site plan to PW21. He deposed that on 23.08.2010, on his instructions, Ct. Ram Niwas collected the exhibits of this case from the MHCM for depositing the same at FSL Rohini and he after depositing the same, returned back to PS and PW21 recorded the statements of MHCM and Ct. Ram Niwas. He further deposed that, thereafter, he got collected the PCR Form Ex. PW1/A and recorded the FIR NO.74/10 Page 49 of 102 50 statement of Dalip Kumar, the caller. He deposed that after completion of investigation, he prepared the challan and filed before the Court. This witness was cross­examined by the Ld. Defence Counsels. During cross­examination, this witness denied the suggestion that rough notes and measurement were not taken by SI Manohar Lal, at the spot, in his presence or that he prepared the site plan as per his instructions. He further denied the suggestion that the statement of Dalip Kumar was also recorded by him without actually meeting him or making any inquiry from him.

29. SI Manohar Lal, Draftsman, was examined as PW22. He deposed that on 17.08.2010, he was called by IO Inspector Ranvir Singh at PS Swaroop Nagar for taking the rough notes and measurements of the scene of crime for preparation of scaled site plan of this case and he alongwith Inspector Ranvir Singh went to H.No. C­101, Gali No.3, IP Colony, Swaroop Nagar, Delhi, there, at the instance of IO, he took rough notes and measurements of the scene of crime for preparation of scaled site plan and, thereafter, he prepared scaled site plan and handed over the same to IO and the rough notes and measurements were destroyed. He proved the scaled site plan as Ex. PW22/A.

30. Ms. Sunita Suman, Senior Scientific Officer (Biology) was examined as PW23. She deposed that on 23.08.2010, twelve sealed parcels in connection with the present case were received in the office and she examined the parcels and prepared her report. She deposed that on biological examination, blood was detected on exhibits 1, 2, 3, 4b, 4c, 5, 6, 7, 8a, 8b, 8c and 9. She further deposed that on morphological and microscopical examination, the hair in exhibits 10, 11 and 12 were found to be human in origin. She proved her biological report as Ex. PW­23/A. She further deposed that on serological examination, human blood was detected on FIR NO.74/10 Page 50 of 102 51 exhibits 1, 2, 3, 4b, 4c, 5, 6, 7, 8a, 8b, 8c and 9. She further deposed that human blood of 'B' group was detected on exhibits 3, 4b, 4c, 6, 7, 8a, 8b and 8c, but exhibits 1, 2 and 5 failed to show any reaction in relation to ABO Grouping. She proved her serological report as Ex. PW­23/B.

31. Inspector Satender Dhull was examined as PW24. He deposed that, on 14.06.2010, he was posted at PS Swaroop Nagar as ATO and, on that day, he was called by ACP Sh. Pankaj Singh at the spot to join the investigation of this case. He further deposed that on reaching at the spot, at around 5.45 PM, ACP Sh. Pankaj Singh briefed him about the case. He deposed that he had gone through the contents of the FIR and by that time, the exhibits were lifted and the dead body had already been removed to BJRM Hospital. He also deposed that, at about 6.00 PM, ACP Sh. Pankaj Singh, PW23, SI Suresh Kaushik, complainant Rakesh and other staff proceeded in search of the accused persons in government vehicle. He deposed that on reaching Burari­Swaroop Nagar Road, near Shalimar Palace, on the pointing out of Rakesh, two persons, who were coming from other side, namely, Om Prakash and Suraj, relatives of deceased Asha, were apprehended. The witness identified both accused Om Prakash and Suraj, present in the Court. He further deposed that both of them were apprehended and they were interrogated and on passing of sufficient evidence against them, they were arrested in the present case. Witness proved the arrest memo of Om Prakash as Ex. PW4/A and his personal search as Ex. PW4/Q3, arrest memo of Suraj as Ex. PW4/Q2 and his personal search as Ex. PW4/Q4. The witness further deposed that after arrest, their confessional statements were recorded vide Exs. Ex. PW4/T2 and PW4/T1 and in their disclosure statements, they disclosed that they can get recovered the ropes used in the committing of crime and after that, FIR NO.74/10 Page 51 of 102 52 both the accused persons led them to the place of occurrence and pointed out the room of the house in which they committed the murders and their pointing out memo Ex. PW4/R was prepared. The witness further deposed that, after that, both the accused persons led them to the Kathia Baba Ashram on Swaroop Nagar­Buraru Road and got recovered a polythene containing ropes, which was lying near the road in the bushes near the main gate of the Ashram. He further deposed that the said polythene bag was opened and it was found containing two big ropes and the ropes were measured and it alongwith polythene were turned into a cloth parcel and sealed with the seal of SK and it was taken into possession vide memo Ex. PW4/S and after that, they made efforts to search for the remaining accused persons, but they were not traceable at that time. He further deposed that, thereafter, they returned back to the PS and IO deposited the case property with the MHCM. Accused persons were lodged in lock up of PS Jahangir Puri. He also deposed that on 15.06.2010, he again joined the investigation of this case and reached Rohini Courts alongwith accused Om Prakash and Suraj and produced them before the Court and their two days PC Remand was obtained. He deposed that, thereafter, they went to the PS and collected the pulandas duly sealed from the Malkhana of PS Swaroop Nagar and reached BJRM Mortuary and there, they got conducted the postmortem of the deceased Asha and Yogesh. After postmortem, doctor handed over the sealed parcels, containing the clothes, hair samples, blood samples and sample seals, which were seized by the IO vide memo Ex. PW13/G. The witness deposed that they handed over the dead bodies to the relatives of the deceased persons after postmortem and case property was deposited by the IO with the MHCM. He also deposed that, on 16.06.2010, the investigation of this case was marked to him by the order of ACP Jahangir Puri and he FIR NO.74/10 Page 52 of 102 53 collected the file from ACP Sh. Pankaj Singh and perused the same. He deposed that he constituted a team consisting himself, HC Pawan, Ct. Sultan, Ct. Mahender and L/Ct. Sunita and proceeded for searching the remaining accused persons. They went to Gokul Puri, Jahangir Puri and other areas. At around 4.00 PM, when police party was standing under Gokul Puri flyover and on seeing them, Rakesh (complainant) also reached there. He deposed that complainant, Rakesh, inquired about the progress of this case. This witness further deposed that, at around 5.00 PM, two ladies came under the flyover and Rakesh identified them to be mother and aunt of the deceased Asha. The witness apprehended both the said ladies with the help of Lady Constable and upon inquiry, they disclosed their names to be Maya and Inderbala @ Khushboo. Thereafter, both the accused were arrested vide memo Exs. PW4/W1 and PW4/W2 and both the accused put their thumb impressions on the said memos. Their personal search were also conducted by L/Ct. Sunita vide Exs. PW22/A and PW22/B and, after that, he recorded their confessional statements vide memos, respectively, Exs. PW13/A and PW13/B and after recording the supplementary statement of complainant Rakesh, he was discharged. He further deposed that on secret information, he alongwith the police team and accused Maya and Khushboo reached D­295, Ganga Vihar, Gokul Puri and found accused Sanjeev there and he was interrogated and arrested vide memo Ex.PW13/C and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex. PW13/D. Accused Sanjeev was directed to muffle his face and he did the same at the time of arrest and after that, he was interrogated and his confessional statement was recorded vide memo Ex. PW13/E. In his disclosure statement, accused Sanjeev disclosed that he could get recovered the keys of H.No. C­101, Gali No.3, IP Colony, Swaroop Nagar, Delhi, from the cover of the refrigerator, placed on the ground floor of FIR NO.74/10 Page 53 of 102 54 the said house and in pursuance of his disclosure statement, he led the police party to the ground floor and from there, he got recovered two keys and the same was taken into a pulanda and sealed with the seal of SK and was taken into possession vide Ex. PW15/F. The witness further deposed that, thereafter, all the three accused, namely, Maya, Khushboo and Sanjeev led the police party to the place of occurrence and pointed out the same vide memo Ex. PW13/G. He further deposed that, thereafter, they returned to the PS and accused persons were lodged in PS Jahangir Puri Lock Up, after their medical examination. The exhibits were deposited with the MHCM. He further deposed that on the next day, the accused persons were produced before the Court. He deposed that accused Sanjeev was in muffled face and the Court remanded them to JC. The witness deposed that, thereafter, he was transferred to Traffic Unit and he handed over the case file to the MHCR. This witness also correctly identified the case property in the Court. He was cross­examined at length by the Ld. Defence Counsels. During cross examination, he deposed that he made a DD Entry at about 5.00 PM at PS regarding his arrival and departure to the spot. He deposed that when he reached the spot, ACP Sh. Pankaj Singh, ASI/SI Suresh, Beat Officer HC Pawan and other police staff were present there. He further deposed that, on 16.06.2010, he started the investigation at 5.00 AM. He deposed that he took over the investigation of this case on the intervening night of 15­16.06.2010 at 12.00 midnight and they left the PS after briefing the police party at 6.00 AM. They went to Jahangir Puri, Azad Pur Mandi, Gokul Puri twice, again to Burari and place of their secret informer and then again reached at Gokul Puri at 4.00 PM. He deposed that the secret informer was in touch with him even on 15.06.2010 and was also in touch with him on 16.06.2010 right from the morning and the secret informer told him, at about FIR NO.74/10 Page 54 of 102 55 5.00 or 5.15 PM, about the presence of accused Sanjeev at D­295, Ganga Vihar, Gokul Puri, Delhi. He further deposed that cousins of accused Sanjeev met him, when he raided D­295 in the morning. In reply to a question as to the fact, as to who was the owner of H.No.295, Ganga Vihar, Gokul Puri, Delhi, the witness replied that he did not know the name of owner, but it was occupied by the relatives of accused Suraj. He further deposed that aunt (Bua) of accused Sanjeev and cousins of accused Sanjeev met them at D­295, Ganga Vihar, Gokul Puri, Delhi, when they reached there in the evening of 16.06.2010. He deposed that Rakesh remained with them in the investigation till 5.00 PM and he asked Rakesh to remain with them in further investigation, but he told that he had some urgent work and left. The witness denied the suggestion that accused Sanjeev was not arrested at the time, place and manner, deposed by him, or that he was already in the illegal custody of police, or that no secret information was received by him with regard to accused Sanjeev, as deposed by him, or that all the documents with regard to arrest of accused Sanjeev were prepared at the PS in the presence of Rakesh, or that Rakesh was deliberately not shown as a witness in the arrest proceedings of accused, Sanjeev, in order to create an incriminating circumstance of TIP against accused, Sanjeev. He further denied the suggestion that accused Sanjeev was not present at Swaroop Nagar on the night of 13­14.06.2010, or that he was at the house of his Bua at village Surajpur Tikri to attend the birthday celebration of Ishwar s/o Naresh, or that he was called from there and kept in illegal confinement, or that on 16.06.2010 he was deliberately shown to be arrested, or that no disclosure statement was made by accused Sanjeev at any point of time, or that his signatures were obtained on blank papers forcibly, or that the same were used against him or that nothing was recovered at the instance of accused FIR NO.74/10 Page 55 of 102 56 Sanjeev at any point of time, or that he never pointed out any spot at any point of time, or that accused Sanjeev was falsely implicated in this case. This witness also denied the suggestion that he had not fairly investigated the case, till the investigation remained with him, or that he has deposed falsely. During cross examination on behalf of counsel for accused Om Prakash, Maya and Suraj and Ms. Sadhna Bhatia, Amicus for accused Khushboo, the witness deposed that when he reached the spot at about 5.45 PM, complainant Rakesh was already present there and from the spot, they went towards Gokul Puri in search of accused persons alongwith Rakesh and Rakesh identified both the accused, namely Om Prakash, and Suraj, from a distance of about 40­50 feet. He further deposed that the accused was caught by them un­ alarmed, so the question of their running away could not arise. He deposed that both the accused were searched at the spot, where they were arrested. He further deposed that they tried to call some independent witnesses, but none agreed. He deposed that the disclosure statement of Om Prakash was written by him. The disclosure statement of accused Om Prakash was recorded in four and half pages. Accused Om Prakash put his signature in Hindi. He further deposed that the disclosures of accused Suraj and Om Prakash were written, simultaneously, and at that time and they all were present nearby. He further deposed that both the accused, namely, Om Prakash and Suraj, simultaneously, disclosed about the place of Kathia Baba Ashram, Swaroop Nagar, and about the ropes. He further deposed that, at the time of arrest of accused Om Prakash and Suraj, besides him, there was Rakesh, ACP Pankaj Singh, SI Suresh and two­three beat staff and they all were in one police Gypsy. He further deposed that the road between Swaroop Nagar and Burari was a single carriage road and the Kathia Baba Ashram was on the left side, if one go to FIR NO.74/10 Page 56 of 102 57 Swaroop Nagar from Burari and the recovery of ropes was effected from the left side of the road, which was the same side, in which the Kathia Baba Ashram was situated. He deposed that the polythene containing the ropes, was found in the bushes situated just adjacent to the path, leading to Kathia Baba Ashram and the path from the side of which the polythene containing the ropes was recovered, was being used by the persons visiting Kathia Baba Ashram. He deposed that the polythene was lying towards the left side of the path, if a person goes towards the Ashram. He deposed that the polythene was found lying in the bushes at a distance of about ten feet from the path and five to seven feet from the road. Thereafter, the accused persons made search for few seconds and brought the polythene from the bushes. The witness voluntarily stated that the accused had known the place where they had thrown the polythene containing the ropes. The witness further deposed that they reached the PS at about 11.00 PM and there, Rakesh also came back and, thereafter, he was discharged. He further deposed that the postmortem on the dead body of Asha and Yogesh was conducted, simultaneously in the afternoon of 15.06.2010. Thereafter, they pressurized maternal uncle and Bua of accused Sanjeev to produce the accused persons. He deposed that Rakesh pointed out accused Maya and Khushboo from a distance of approximately 10­15 feet. PW24 came to know in the afternoon through secret information that the ladies will be coming near the flyover of Gokul Puri, at about 3.30 PM. However, neither PW24 nor his staff had seen those ladies before that day and they were also not having the photographs of Maya and Khushboo with them. He further deposed that they informed the relatives of both the accused, namely, Maya and Khushboo telephonically and in person about their arrest. He further deposed that he informed the sister­in­law later on, when he reached at D­295, FIR NO.74/10 Page 57 of 102 58 Ganga Vihar, Gokul Puri and also obtained her signatures on the arrest memo at about 6.30/7.00 pm and Rakesh identified both the ladies by their names.

32. Ct. Parthe was examined as PW25. He deposed that on 14.06.2010, he was posted at PS Swaroop Nagar and on that day, he joined the investigation of this case and reached at H.No. C­101, Gali No.3, Swaroop Nagar, IP Colony, Delhi. On the direction of the IO, PW25 removed dead body of one male person and one female person to BJRM Hospital. Their postmortem was conducted on 15.06.2010 and after that, it was handed over to its claimants.

33. SI Suresh Chand was examined as PW26. He was a witness of the spot, where the dead bodies were recovered and arrest of the accused persons. He fully corroborated the testimony of PW Pankaj Singh, Ct. Pawan, Ct. Sanjay, Inspector Satender Dhull, ASI Krishan, Rakesh and other prosecution witnesses, who were the members in the investigation of this case. He also correctly identified the case property in the Court. During cross­examination by Ld. Defence Counsels, he deposed that he alongwith other officials entered the said house at about 10.00 AM and Crime Team reached the spot at about 10.30 AM. He further deposed that IO remained present at the time of inspection conducted by the Crime Team. He further deposed that Rakesh also entered the said room, where the dead bodies were lying and IO made inquiries from witness Rakesh from 10.15 to 10.30 AM in his presence. He further deposed that IO did not record the statement of Umesh immediately after making inquiries from him. He further deposed that Inspector Satender reached the spot at about 5.30­6.00 PM. The documents were prepared by the staff on the direction of IO. He further stated that he also prepared some documents on the instructions of IO, but he did not remember the details of those documents. He FIR NO.74/10 Page 58 of 102 59 voluntarily stated that he could tell the same after going through the file. He further deposed that the seizure memos were prepared upto 4.00 PM or 4.30 PM, so far as he remember and they remained at the spot till 5.30­5.45 PM. He further deposed that when he reached the spot, there were a crowd of 15/20 ladies and gents were present in the said street, but IO did not record the statement of any witness, till the lock of the house was broken and the dead bodies were seen by the police officials. He voluntarily stated that IO made inquiries from the public persons. PW26 also deposed that statement of Rakesh was recorded before lifting the exhibits. He also deposed that Umesh told that a quarrel had taken place in a house at night and the occupants had fled away and he also told this fact before recording the statement of Rakesh. He also deposed that the height of the front wall from the plinth was 11­12 feet. He further deposed that there was a platform/Chabootra outside the gate and the height of the said Chabootra was about two feet from the plinth. He also deposed that both the adjacent houses were found locked. PW26 deposed that ASI Krishan climbed on the roof of the adjacent house, but he did not remember the height of the adjoining house, but it was less than two/two and half feet, then the height of the house number C­101. He further deposed that he did not know the number of the said house from which ASI Krishan climbed, but it was on the left hand side of the gate of House No. C­101. He further deposed that after opening the gate, first of all, SHO Pankaj Singh entered the house and came outside the said house again after more than ten minutes. He further deposed that when the police entered the house first time, no public person was allowed to enter, after breaking open the lock and the Crime Team officials remained inside the house for about 2 to 2½ hours and while the Crime Team was inside the house and inspecting the scene of crime, general public persons were not allowed to FIR NO.74/10 Page 59 of 102 60 enter. He further deposed that Rakesh did not inform anybody, except the police, about the incident in his presence. He further deposed that the accused persons were coming from the opposite side of the road, from their opposite direction, when pointed out by Rakesh. He deposed that, when Rakesh pointed out towards the accused persons, they stopped their Gypsy and reached near the accused persons. He also deposed that on seeing the police, the accused persons did not try to run away. He further deposed that they remained on the place of arrest for about 30 minutes. He also deposed that nobody left the spot, till the proceedings, qua the accused persons were completed on the place of arrest and no new police official from the PS joined. He also deposed that he did not visit Kathia Baba Ashram before that date. The witness voluntarily stated that he had passed through the road before that date. He deposed that the accused persons disclosed the colour of the polythene as yellow. He deposed that the Gypsy was stopped when the accused persons told that they had thrown the polythene there. He further deposed that both the accused persons themselves lifted the polythene containing rope from there and police officials followed the accused persons. He also voluntarily stated that if they would have not followed, the accused would have fled away. He also deposed that the pointing out memo was prepared, after the accused persons had taken out the polythene containing rope and handed over the same to the police. He deposed that joint pointing out memo was prepared. They remained on the place of recovery of rope for about 15­20 minutes and no public person passed through that road during those 15­20 minutes. He deposed that the accused persons lifted the polythene containing rope, from the bushes. He further deposed that no dog squad accompanied the Crime Team. FIR NO.74/10

Page 60 of 102 61

34. Thereafter, the prosecution closed its evidence. The case was thereafter fixed for recording the statements of accused persons. The accused persons denied the entire evidence in their statement. All the accused persons wished to lead evidence in defence.

35. On 11.03.2011, one DW1, namely, Rajkumar, Nodal Officer from Reliance Communication Ltd., was also examined, before recording the statement of accused persons and, thereafter, the opted defence witnesses were examined. He deposed that he had brought the summoned record i.e. CDR of mobile no.9310464130 from 14.05.10 to 16.06.10, running into nine pages, alongwith its Customer Application Form and proved the same as Ex. DW1/A and the photocopy of the Customer Application Form as Ex. DW1/B. He was cross examined by Ld. Addl. PP for the State. During, cross examination, the witness deposed that he had not brought the mandatory certificate u/s.65B of Indian Evidence Act.

36. Later on, Jai Narain was examined as DW1. He deposed that accused Suraj was his neighborer and he used to work in the Azad Pur Subzi Mandi and, sometimes, he used to ask Suraj to bring vegetables for him. The witness did not th remember the month, but on 13 in summer season, in the year 2010, he deposed that accused Maya had gone to the house of her sister­in­law (Nanad) to attend the birthday party and on that day, he had given some money to Suraj to bring potato and th he brought the same. He further deposed that on 14 in the morning at 4.00 AM, DW1 alongwith his family left Delhi by Puja Express. He deposed that he gave money to Suraj for bringing potato at 10.00 PM. He was cross examined by Ld. Addl. PP for the State. He deposed that Suraj was residing at H.No.410, but again said that at 409, Gokul Puri. He deposed that he was residing in the neighbourhood of Suraj for the FIR NO.74/10 Page 61 of 102 62 last 40 years and the house, in which he was residing, was alloted to him in the year 1976, but he again said that this plot was alloted in the name of his father. He deposed that he did not know the date, month or year of his birth. The witness th deposed that it was correct that he was tutored for deposing about the date as 13 by the counsel. He deposed that Maya is the wife of Suraj, but he did not know the name of Nanad of Maya. He deposed that the Nanad of Maya, perhaps, resided in a village at Bulandshahar. He deposed that he was a mason by profession and used to leave his home at about 8.30 AM and return home at about 7.00 PM, from his work. In the year 2010, he used to earn Rs.150/­ per day and it was not certain, as to on which day, he got the work. He further stated that it was correct that he was tutored regarding the story of potato and also that he had not told this fact to anybody before that day. He deposed that he had not brought the ticket of Puja Express. He deposed that he never accompanied Suraj to his workplace or any other place. In reply to a Court question as to how many family members were there in the family of Suraj, the witness deposed that accused Suraj, his wife, three daughters and one son, namely, Rahul were residing in his family. He was further asked a Court question as to who told him that Maya was going to attend the birthday, he replied that Maya told th him that she was going to attend the birthday party, at 3.00 PM or 3.30 PM on 13 . Thereafter, another Court question was put to him as to if he had not gone on his duty on that date, he replied that "yes", as on that date, he had to bring the clothes which he had to give in 'Bhaat'. He was further asked a Court question as to if he knew, where Maya had gone, he replied that he did not not know where she had gone, but she left the house alongwith two daughters and one son, telling that she was going to attend the birthday party and the elder one daughter was in the house of her Taau, i.e. FIR NO.74/10 Page 62 of 102 63 the elder brother of Suraj. He was asked another Court question as to whether Suraj reached Mandi or not, he replied that he did not know. However, he had seen him going, with a Bori in his hand.

37. Satpal was examined as DW2. He deposed that he knew accused Om Prakash and Suraj as they were working with him for the last four/five years. Both the accused used to sow Pudina/mint, beetroot and red radish. He deposed that his work used to start at 10.00 PM or 10.30 PM and it used to continue upto 8.00 AM. Police came to him and asked him about Om Prakash and Suraj and he pointed out Om Prakash and Suraj to the police. Two/three persons were in civil dress and the remaining were in uniform. They came on 13.06.2010. He stated again that on 14.06.2010 in the morning, they came to inquire about Om Prakash. Police took them away saying that some inquiries had to be made. On 13.06.2010, they came to him at 11.00 PM. This witness was cross examined by Ld. Addl. PP. During cross examination, he deposed that earlier, he used to sow spinach and now, for the last six/seven year, he was sowing Pudina, Beetroot and radish and he used to start packing and prepared the bundles of Pudina at about 10.30 PM, which continued upto 8.00 AM. Om Prakash and Suraj both used to do the work of counting under him and he used to make payment to them. He was not having any record of attendance and voluntarily stated that he used to make payment to them every week. He was not maintaining that record in the diary. He did not maintain any record of absence of Om Prakash and Suraj. He never issued any receipt regarding payment of wages to Suraj and Om Prakash. He did not know the residential address of Om Prakash and Suraj. However, Om Prakash was residing in IP Colony, Swaroop Nagar. He visited his house two/three times as he had purchased a plot near the house of Om Prakash. He FIR NO.74/10 Page 63 of 102 64 further deposed that he had good relations with Om Prakash, he was a honest and nice person. He further deposed that he only took tea at his house. Whenever, he visited, he only saw Om Prakash and his wife at his home and no child. He further deposed that he never visited the house of Suraj. However, he was residing at Gokul Puri. The approximate distance between the house of Suraj and Om Prakash was about 15­20 KMs. In reply to the Court question, as to what was he doing in Mandi on 14.06.2010, he deposed that he was selling the Pudina, beetroot and the radish. He was asked another Court question, as to if he was having any licence of selling vegetables in the Subzi Mandi, the witness replied that he didn't had any licence. He used to sell vegetables to the Aadati at shop no.256. He was asked another Court question, as to how he used to contact Om Prakash and Suraj, the witness replied that he used to call them on their mobile phones and at that time he was not having any mobile phone with him. He further deposed that he mentioned their telephone numbers in another diary, which he had not brought on that day in the Court. He started maintaining this diary in April, last year i.e. Year 2010. He was further asked a Court question, as to whether the accused persons came to his workplace in Subzi Mandi after he started this diary, taken on record as Ex. DX, he replied that they had not come at his workplace in Subzi Mandi after April, 2010. He again stated that the accused persons did not come to his shop, after he started maintaining this diary Ex. DX. After seeing the diary Ex. DX, the witness stated that the diary started from May, 2011.

38. Munni was examined as DW3. She deposed that Umesh was her father­in­law, who dealt in the rubbers. She further deposed that she had not seen anything on that day and she didn't know anything about this case. She, thereafter, deposed that when FIR NO.74/10 Page 64 of 102 65 this incident took place, all of her family members, including Umesh Kumar were at home. She deposed that they generally go to sleep at about 7.00 PM or 8.00 PM. On that day, they all slept inside the house, including her father­in­law Umesh. On that day, her father­in­law Umesh went to sleep at 8.30 PM. On that day, Umesh Kumar consumed liquor at 4.00 PM. Umesh Kumar and other family members woke up in the morning at 7.00 AM. First of all, her father­in­law went outside, thereafter, he returned and told them about the incident and then her mother­in­law went outside. Umesh Kumar went outside at 7.00 AM and immediately returned back. He remained inside the house for some time and then again went outside. Next day, her father­in­law did not consume liquor, as he did not consume liquor, if anything happened in the street. When her father­in­law consumed liquor, they keep him inside, but he used to try to go out. She further deposed that she could not tell, as to at what time, police arrived there, as she was pregnant at that time and she did not go out of the house, due to pregnancy. Only her father­in­law could tell, at what time, police arrived there. Neither her mother­in­law told her nor she inquired from her, as to at what time, police arrived there. She was cross­examined by Ld. Addl. PP for the State. She deposed that she did not know her residential house number. She further deposed that she got married about five years back and her husband used to reside in the village and, at the time of incident also, he was in the village. There were two rooms in their house, in one room, she used to sleep and in the other room, her father­in­law. Further, the room situated near the main gate, was used by her father­in­law and the inner room was used by her. She deposed that, generally the conversation going on in the outer room was not audible in the inner room, but if the conversation is going on in the loud pitch, only then it will be audible in the inner room. She deposed that no talks or conversations were FIR NO.74/10 Page 65 of 102 66 audible in her room from the neighbouring houses, unless it was in a very loud pitch. She agreed that sometime, her father­in­law used to sleep in the street on a cot in the summer season. She never used to come out for sleeping in the street, as she was pregnant, at that time. She denied the suggestion that her father­in­law did not consume liquor in her presence. Thereafter, she deposed that, even if, she got up in night time, she did not go out of her room. Further, if anybody knocked the door, and if, her father­in­law was at home, he used to open the door, as he remained in the room, situated on the outer side. She deposed that, only her father­in­law was concerned, as to who had come or gone outside the house and she never tried to find out, as to who had come or gone outside the house. During her examination, the witness admitted that the relatives of deceased girl asked her to depose in their favour. She also volunteered that they came to her house and asked her to do that. Upon this, Ld. Counsel for the witness requested to re­examine the witness, which was allowed. During cross­examination, she deposed that she did not tell the area of the house, in which she was residing. She voluntarily stated that only her father­in­law or mother­in­law could tell about the same. She deposed that she did not tell the size of the rooms, as she didn't know the size of the plot itself. Certain Court questions were asked from this witness, as to if her father­in­law Umesh was working, to which the witness deposed that "Yes". She was further asked the Court question, as to at what time, he used to leave for work, she deposed that at about 3.00 - 4.00 PM. In reply to another Court question as to at what time he used to return from work, she deposed that at about 7.00 ­ 8.00 PM. She was further asked a Court question as to whether he used to take dinner after return or used to go to sleep immediately, the witness replied that he used to take dinner and, thereafter only, he used to go to sleep. Lastly, FIR NO.74/10 Page 66 of 102 67 she was put a Court question, as to where her father in law used to sleep and at what time and place, he used to sleep, the witness replied that she used to close the door of her room at about 8.30 PM. Her father in law generally slept on the Takhat in the outer room, but she didn't know, at what time. Further, she didn't know, if he used to take a cot in the street, to take a sleep during night.

39. Shakuntala was examined as DW4. She deposed that accused Suraj and Om Prakash were her brothers, and, accused, Maya and Khushboo were their wives. Accused Sanjeev was son of accused Om Prakash and her nephew. She deposed th that she had celebrated the birthday of her grandson on 13 of Jyeshth month of 2010, she explained that she meant to say on 13.06.2010. She deposed that accused Khushboo, Sanjeev and children of Khushboo came to her residence on 12.06.2010 to attend the birthday celebration of her grandson and remained there till 16.06.2010. On 16.06.2010, at about 12.00 noon or 1.00 PM, she received a call from Ramvati telling that Asha had died and asked Khushboo and Sanjeev to reach there. She deposed that Maya had already left her house on 13.06.2010 at about 7.00 PM, after giving clothes to her grandson and went to Aurangabad at the house of her brother and she only took water at her residence. She was cross­examined by Ld. Addl. PP. She deposed that on the date of deposing, her grandson was five years old and he was only three years at the time of birthday ceremony, which was organized in 2010. She deposed that she didn't remember the year, in which, he was born. She deposed that they held a simple function and only her close relatives joined the function. She deposed that no cards were issued. She deposed that she had not brought her I­Card with her. She further deposed that she didn't know the complete address of Khushboo and Sanjeev, but as per her information, they were residing at Swaroop Nagar. Suraj FIR NO.74/10 Page 67 of 102 68 was residing at Gokul Puri, but she didn't remember his complete address. She deposed that she never visited Swaroop Nagar, however, she had visited Gokul Puri at the residence of Suraj. She admitted that accused Khushboo, Om Prakash, Suraj, Sanjeev and Maya had gathered, if any function or any accident in the family occurred. She deposed that she didn't know her telephone number. The telephone call was attended by her elder son. She herself had not talked with Ramvati. Maya, while leaving told her that she was going to Aurangabad, but she could not say, if she reached Aurangabad or not, as she did not verify the same. She did not know, if Maya was perplexed at that time. She deposed that accused were arrested on 16.06.2010. She deposed that she never visited jail to meet the accused persons. She further deposed that she had not brought the birth certificate or Janampatri of her grandson, to show his date of birth. She deposed that she never told any fact to the senior police official, that the accused persons were there, at the time of incident. She further admitted that she was telling these facts first time in the Court. She deposed that no Pandit was called on the ceremony of her grandson. She deposed that she did not know the phone number of Ramvati and it was not told to her by Ramvati on telephone, as to how, Asha died and she did not tell her on telephone, if any other person died alongwith Asha. She further admitted that, after hearing the news about the death of Asha, she did not visit Delhi for her condolence. The witness was asked a Court question, as to whether Maya came with anybody or she came alone, she replied that Maya reached her home alongwith her brother. She was further asked a Court question, as to how many children Maya had, she deposed that she was having four children, one died. She was further asked a Court question, as to whether any child of Maya accompanied her to her residence, the witness replied, 'no'. In reply to FIR NO.74/10 Page 68 of 102 69 the last Court question, as to what was respective age of children of Maya, she deposed that she didn't know the age. She could tell only the approximate height. She deposed that the eldest one had died, which was approximate of her height and, thereafter, she explained about the heights of the remaining children.

40. Lokesh was examined as DW5. He deposed that he knew accused Sanjeev, as he was his cousin. He deposed that on 13.06.2010, he had gone to Surajpur Tikri Village on the birthday ceremony at the house of his Mausi Shakuntala, to attend the birthday ceremony of Ishwar, son of Naresh and grandson of Shakuntala. Many relatives were present there and accused Sanjeev, his Maami Khushboo and Maya, his Maami were also there beside other relatives. He brought the photographs, which were clicked on 13.06.2010 on the occasion of birthday of Ishwar, which were clicked by Naresh, father of Ishwar, by his mobile phone, but the said mobile had been lost and the photographs, which he had brought, were got developed at Aurangabad. He deposed that he did not remember the name and address of that shop at Aurangabad. The two photographs were marked as Marks DW5/1 and DW5/2. He deposed that it was the third birthday of Ishwar, who was three years of age. The photograph Mark DW5/1 reflects presence of Sanjeev and in Mark DW5/2, Sanjeev and Ishwar were appearing. He was cross­examined by Ld. Addl. PP. He deposed that many photographs were clicked by that mobile phone, but only two photographs Marked DW5/1 and DW5/2 were got developed. The witness admitted that in the photographs Marked DW5/1 and DW5/2, Maya, Khushboo and Shakuntala were not appearing and that no house number, date, time or place was appearing in the photographs Marked DW5/1 and DW5/2. He deposed that he had not lodged any report regarding missing of his said mobile phone, from which the photographs were clicked. He deposed that FIR NO.74/10 Page 69 of 102 70 the said mobile phone was of G­5, Made In China, and the mobile number he did not remember. That mobile number was in the name of his Maama Suraj. He deposed that he had not obtained any receipt for purchase of that mobile phone, as it was second hand and that is why, he had not lodged any complaint regarding missing of that mobile phone. He deposed that he lost that mobile phone in the month of October or November, 2010. He deposed that he got developed those photographs after many months of apprehension of Sanjeev i.e. in July or August, 2010. He deposed that there was only one big room in the house of Shakuntala. He deposed that he did not make any complaint to any senior police officer or Ld. Magistrate to this effect.

41. Naresh was examined as DW6. He deposed that he had two children, namely, Ishwar and Naman. Ishwar was four years old, at that time, and his date of birth was 13.06.2007 and his birthday was celebrated on 13.06.2010 at Village Surajpur Tikri. Some villagers and some of his relatives attended the birthday ceremony of Ishwar. His brother, namely, Mahesh, his cousin, namely, Lokesh, Sanjeev son of his Maama, his Maami Khushboo and Maya and some other villagers attended that birthday party. No professional photographer were engaged. Some photographs were taken by his cousin i.e. son of his Mausi. The witness was shown photographs Marked DW5/1 and DW5/2 from the judicial file and he stated that those photographs were taken by him on the birthday of his son Ishwar from the mobile phone of his cousin, son of his Mausi, on 13.06.2010. The witness identified presence of his son Ishwar and Sanjeev on Mark DW5/2 and also identified presence of Sanjeev and Lokesh in Mark DW5/1. The witness identified accused Sanjeev in the Court. He was also cross­examined by Ld. Addl. PP. He deposed that the function started at about 8.00 PM. He further deposed that he made a call on the mobile phone of father of Sanjeev and also called FIR NO.74/10 Page 70 of 102 71 his younger maternal uncle Suraj. He deposed that accused Suraj Maama, Ramvati and accused Om Prakash didn't come to attend the function and only Maya came to attend the birthday party and she was not accompanied by anybody. He deposed that he did not remember at what time, Maya reached his home, but she remained at his home for about two hours. He further deposed that he did not know, if Sanjeev came alone or somebody came alongwith him. Thereafter, he deposed that he came to know on 16.06.2010 about the arrest of accused persons in this case. He deposed that he had not come to Delhi to meet the accused persons. He voluntarily stated that he had seen them outside the lock up.

42. Ram Hari Singh was examined as DW7. He was working as Nodal Officer of Dolphin and deposed that he had not brought the record pertaining to the call details of mobile number 9868347025 for the period from 13.06.2010 to 17.06.2010, as the same had been weeded out and was not available, as they preserved the call details of mobile phones for one year only and after one year, the call details record went to server and he couldn't say, if the said record was available on server or not, now. The IT Cell of their department could retrieve the server. He further deposed that Mr. Jitender Prakash, DGM (B&IT) was the Incharge of IT Cell of their department. He deposed that he made his statement only on the basis of on­line record, as he couldn't lay his hand on the server. This witness was cross­examined by Ld. Addl. PP. During cross­examination, this witness deposed that they kept the record preserved in the server for one year only and it automatically get washed out from the server, after one year. He deposed that he couldn't say, where that record had gone and that, if the IT FIR NO.74/10 Page 71 of 102 72 Engineer could retrieve the same again. He deposed that it was correct that the record which was available in the server, was also available with them on­line in the office. He further deposed that he didn't understand the meaning of word 'retrieve'. He deposed it to be correct that the statement, made by him in examination­in­chief that 'The IT Cell of our department can retrieve the server', had been told by him inadvertently.

43. Satyawati was examined as DW8. She is the wife of PW Umesh, and deposed that her husband was a habitual drunker and, on the day of murder, he had consumed liquor at about 4.00 PM. He was kept inside the house in the night. When the loud noise came out from the house of Om Prakash and on hearing the loud noise, her husband Umesh went outside their house and entered the house of Om Prakash alongwith four­five other persons, but she was not aware about those four­five persons. Somebody gave a slap to her husband Umesh and due to that, his spectacles had got broken. Thereafter, she took him out from the house of Om Prakash and bolted in her house and went to sleep. She didn't know what happened thereafter. In the next morning, she noticed a crowd in the street and police was also present there and they made inquiries from her husband and took him to the PS and made him witness in this case. Thereafter, DW8 was cross­examined by Ld. Addl. PP. In cross­ examination, she deposed that there were two small rooms in her house. She alongwith her husband and daughter­in­law used to reside there. She and her husband slept outside the rooms and her daughter­in­law used to live in the FIR NO.74/10 Page 72 of 102 73 inner side of the room. She deposed that her husband prepared machinery spare parts and earned around 4000/5000 rupees in a month. She and her daughter­in­law had no source of income. She deposed that she didn't know the relatives of accused persons and, if they were present outside the Court. She deposed that Munni was her daughter­in­law and is the wife of her other son, namely, Kalu. She further deposed that she was aware that her daughter­in­ law, Munni also came to give evidence in this case. She deposed it to be correct that her husband, sometimes, slept outside the house in the street on a cot and at the time of incident, her daughter­in­law Munni was pregnant. She deposed that her husband consumed liquor outside the house, as they did not allow him to consume liquor in the house. On the day of incident, her husband Umesh did not go to his work. She again deposed it to be correct that, whenever anybody knocked the door, her husband used to open the door. She deposed that her husband usually go to his workplace at about 2.00 or 3.00 PM and returned at about 4.00 PM, thereafter, he did not take dinner and he used to abuse in high pitch to the public persons, as well as to them. She deposed that, on the next day of incident, when police came in the street in the morning, her husband was not under the influence of liquor. She further deposed that house of Om Prakash was situated after one house of their house and identified accused Om Prakash, as present in the Court.

44. Jitender Prakash, Deputy General Manager, MTNL, was examined as DW9. He deposed that after expiry of one year, all the relevant record of call FIR NO.74/10 Page 73 of 102 74 details of all the subscribers is automatically deleted from the system. Thereafter, it is not even available on server and there is no mechanism or software, which may retrieve the call details, after expiry of one year.

45. Thereafter, the matter was fixed for arguments.

46. I have heard Ld. Addl. PP for the State, Ld. Defence Counsels and Ld. Amicus for the accused persons at length.

47. In this case, Ld. Addl. PP has strongly argued that this is a case of honour killing, in which the conservative thinking of our society has become transparent and due to that, one innocent young boy and a girl were brutally murdered by the parents and relatives of the girl, only on the issue of difference in their castes. He argued that this is the misfortune of our society that, in the recent years, the cases of honour killing are increasing day by day and this case is one of the latest example, that too occurred in the capital of our country, where many migrants have come from the village and have settled and spending a totally changed life then of their villages, but illiteracy is still a strong reason of such conservative mentality, as can be seen in the present case. He submitted that the most saddest thing in this case is that both the deceased had agreed to marry and not even that, the deceased boy, namely, Yogesh alongwith his brother­in­law, PW4, Rakesh, had gone to have talks of marriage with the parents of the deceased girl, namely, Asha, on the asking of her parents, but both Yogesh and PW4, Rakesh, had no idea that such a worst incident would happen i.e. converting two lives into their brutal murder by FIR NO.74/10 Page 74 of 102 75 beating, electric shocking, tying and torturing them. He vehemently argued that it is a case, wherein the accused persons, in their full senses, committed double murder after torturing the deceased boy and girl after giving beatings with Dandaas and, thereafter, tied them with rope and had given them electric shocks, which falls under the category of "rarest of rare cases". He further argued that there is cogent, reliable, corroborative and sufficient evidence of the prosecution witnesses, which leads this case towards conviction. Ld. Addl. PP relied upon the testimonies of public witnesses i.e. PW4 Rakesh, brother­in­law of deceased Yogesh and PW16 Umesh. Ld. Addl. PP has also relied upon the testimonies of police witnesses, who were present in the investigation of this case and argued that their testimonies are vital and corroborative, which clearly connects all the accused persons with the offence, committed in this case. He further argued that the chain of evidence is complete against the accused persons with the help of documents and memos, proved in this case. The medical evidence is also corroborated with the evidence of public witnesses, as the postmortem report clearly shows the nature of injuries and torture given to the deceased boy and girl. PW12 specifically deposed that the injuries nos. 1 to 3 were caused by electric current and injury no.4 was caused by blunt cylinderical weapon, injuries nos.5 to 7 were caused by blunt force impact and that the electro thermal injuries were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature and all injuries were consistent with the beating/assault. This piece of evidence is corroborated by the testimony of public witnesses, regarding the beatings and torture FIR NO.74/10 Page 75 of 102 76 given to the deceased boy and girl and same are sufficient to convict the accused persons, as they in connivance of each other, brutally caused death of deceased boy and girl, namely, Yogesh and Asha. Ld. Addl. PP further argued that the accused persons have committed the murder of Yogesh and Asha and, thereafter, fled away from the spot to hide their presence, and after their apprehension, they got recovered the rope, which also links the chain of prosecution, to prove its case against the accused persons. Ld. Addl. PP argued that the accused persons have tried to prove themselves innocent and that is why, they examined nine defence witnesses, but their testimonies are also contradicted with each other. DW3, Munni, even admitted during her cross­examination that the relatives of deceased girl asked her to depose in their favour and further deposed that they came to her house and asked her to do that. It means that she had been procured by the accused persons to prevent themselves from the punishment in this case and it also proved the guilt of accused persons that they have committed the heinous crime, which cannot be forgiven. It is further argued by Ld. Addl. PP for the State that, accused persons have crossed all the limits of brutality by doing such an act, in which the life of a young girl and boy had been snatched by them. A common man cannot do such an act, which the accused persons had done in this case. It shows the conservative and narrow­mindedness of the accused persons. Instead of leaving the backward thinking behind from their mind, all the accused persons committed the murder of Yogesh and Asha brutally and mercilessly. There was very strong reason/motive i.e. the wall of castes between the deceased Yogesh and Asha, to kill such young children by the accused persons. Ld. Addl. PP for the State has argued that present is a foolproof case and has been duly proved by the evidence of prosecution witnesses. It is also argued that the recovery of FIR NO.74/10 Page 76 of 102 77 hair of deceased Asha from the hand pump, affixed in the house of accused persons, is also very vital and is sufficient to connect the accused persons with the alleged offence of murder of deceased Yogesh and Asha. It has been proved beyond doubt that all the accused persons have in furtherance of their common intention committed the murder of Yogesh and Asha. It has been argued that all the accused persons, namely, Om Prakash, Suraj, Khushboo, Sanjeev and Maya be convicted for the offence of murder, punishable U/s.302 IPC.

48. On the other hand, Ld. Defence Counsels and Ld. Amicus Curiae for the accused persons have argued that it is a false case, in which police have introduced public witnesses to complete their chain. It is argued that, PW4, Rakesh, is a procured witness of prosecution and his testimony is totally unreliable, which is clear from his testimony itself, proved during cross­examination. It is argued that he has been introduced by the prosecution, later on, to strengthen their case against the accused persons. It is argued that the story introduced by the witness, PW4, Rakesh, that after running back from the house of accused, Om Prakash to his house, after the incident, he did not feel necessary to make a call to deceased, Yogesh to know his whereabouts, cannot be believed, as it is quite unbelievable that, if such an incident took place in the presence of a person, he would not try to know about his mate, who was also with him at the time of incident and simply returned to his house and slept peacefully. He argued that even the mobile location of PW4 Rakesh, did not match with his presence at the spot. He further argued that, the recovered wires, sanitary fittings and Dandaas from the spot, is also doubtful, as it is the case of prosecution that accused persons had committed the murder and, thereafter, had removed all the incriminating evidence, like rope, etc. from the spot, then it cannot be believed that FIR NO.74/10 Page 77 of 102 78 they left the wires, sanitary fittings and Dandaas at the spot. It has been argued that, it creates s doubt regarding the story of prosecution, as the recovered articles were planted upon the accused persons to complete the chain and to falsely implicate them in this case, whereas, there is no connection or role of accused in the alleged offence. It is further argued on behalf of defence that, in this case, the FIR is also anti dated, which is also fatal for the case of prosecution. It is further argued that no cogent evidence, in this case, has been brought forward by the prosecution to prove the allegations against the accused Maya, Khushboo and Sanjeev and the manner of their arrest is highly suspicious. It is also argued that the manner of arrest of accused Om Prakash and Suraj is also very doubtful in this case, as their arrest has been shown in a very casual manner, which cannot be believed. It is argued that the accused persons have been lifted in this case and, thereafter, falsely planted in this case. Ld. Counsels for the accused persons have vehemently argued that the evidence, led on behalf of defence, have also proved the innocence of accused persons and their testimony is unshakable. It is also argued on behalf of defence, that PW16, Umesh is a stock witness of prosecution and has been introduced as a public witness to complete the chain of prosecution, as both PW4, Rakesh, and PW16, Umesh, are interested witnesses and they have deposed on the asking of police officials. It is also argued that wife of PW16, Umesh, namely, Satyawati, DW8, and his daughter­in­law, DW3, Munni, have also shaken the credibility of PW16, who stated that Umesh was a drunker and he used to drink everyday. They also deposed that, after drinking, Umesh was kept locked inside his house and he was not allowed to go outside, therefore, his presence at the spot cannot be believed, as the incident had taken place in the night hours and he used to drink in the evening time. It is also argued that it is not possible FIR NO.74/10 Page 78 of 102 79 that both DW3 and DW8 have not witnessed the incident and PW16, Umesh, had only witnessed the incident and deposed about the occurrence. It is argued that, since both PW4, Rakesh, and PW16, Umesh, are stock witnesses of prosecution and their testimony has been demolished during the cross examination, therefore, accused persons be acquitted in this case.

49. It may be mentioned here that the relevant sections for the disposal of the present case are Section 34, Section 300 and Section 302 IPC and they are being reproduced below for ready reference.

50. Section 34 of IPC reads as under:­ "When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone".

51. Section 300 IPC reads as under :­ "Murder - Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or ­ Secondly­ If it is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused, or­ Thirdly­ If it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or­ Fourthly,­ If the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death, or such injury as aforesaid".

FIR NO.74/10

Page 79 of 102 80

52. Section 302 IPC provides that :­ "Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine."

53. After hearing the arguments, and going through the record file carefully, and in view of the facts of this case, it is crystal clear that present is a case of honour killing, in which two innocent lives of young children have been brutally taken away by the accused persons. In the present case, all the accused persons were sharing the common intention to commit the murder of deceased Yogesh and Asha. The offence in this case had taken place, due to differences in caste of both the deceased, namely, Yogesh and Asha.

54. In the case in hand, PW12 Dr. Sudesh has deposed that the cause of death was due to cardiac fibrillation and respiratory failure, as a result of electrocution; all injuries were ante­mortem in nature; mode of death was homicidal; the time since death was 38 hours. He further proved the postmortem report as Ex. PW12/A and that, the IO produced the three sealed packets alongwith an inquest paper, alleged to be weapon of offence, on 15.06.2010, regarding the injuries, which can be possible with the weapon of offence recovered in reference to the PM report no.682/10, in which the injuries have been mentioned. PW12 also examined the wires, PVC pipes with metallic elbow, PVC pipes with metallic check valve, PVC pipe on the one side of the elbow and connection metallic in middle and small piece of the PVC and gave his opinion that injuries nos.1 & 2 could have been caused by black wire in packet no.2 and are consistent with fastening and injury no.3 could have been caused by yellow and red electric wire; injury no.4 is possible by PVC pipe in the packet no.3, or similar FIR NO.74/10 Page 80 of 102 81 such object; injury nos.5,6 & 7 were possible by wooden pieces in packet no.1 or similar such things. He further deposed that, after the examination, it were sealed with the sample seal of the Mortuary and handed over to the IO, SI Jagdeep. The witness proved his opinion as Ex. PW12/B. During cross­examination by Ld. Defence Counsels, PW12 deposed that the naked wire, which came in contact with the skin, and was used for electrocution would turn black. He voluntarily submitted that, in this case, when he examined the electric wire, he found the open ends, which was in touch with the skin, black and only the end part, which was found wrapped on the arm, was found black. He further deposed that the wire was found wrapped on the right arm, which is mentioned in his report itself and, at the time of postmortem, he got the electric wire removed from the body; there were two black wires and one double core wire of red and yellow colour, with exposed ends were removed from the body before postmortem. The entire testimony of PW12 is a vital piece of evidence, as he is not an interested witness. He has examined the deceased and also the exhibits of this case, which from all ends connected the case of prosecution with the alleged crime, done by the accused persons. Thus, it is proved beyond doubt by the evidence of PW12, Dr. Sudesh, that injuries, in the present case were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The case of all the accused persons squarely falls within Clause Thirdly of Section 300 IPC. The prosecution has been able to successfully prove through the evidence of public witnesses i.e. PW4 Rakesh and PW16 Umesh that all the accused persons were sharing common intention to cause the death of deceased Yogesh and Asha. Further, it has been established beyond a shadow of doubt, that, all the accused persons intended to inflict the bodily injuries, which were found on the persons of deceased Yogesh and Asha. The recovery of hair of deceased Asha from FIR NO.74/10 Page 81 of 102 82 the hand pump, affixed in the house of accused persons, goes to show that deceased Asha was given beatings prior to her electrocution alongwith deceased Yogesh.

55. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in a case entitled as Virsa Singh Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1958 SC 465 has held that­ "Whether the injury intended by the accused and actually inflicted by him is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death or not, must be determined in each case on the basis of the facts and circumstances. In the said case, the injury caused was the result of blow with a knife in the stomach which was given with such force that the weapon had penetrated the abdomen and had injured the bowels.

According to the doctor, the injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Therefore, in the absence of any circumstances to show that the injury was caused accidentally or unintentionally, it had to be presumed that the accused had intended to cause the inflicted injury and the condition of clause (3) of Section 300, IPC were satisfied".

56. Similarly, in the present case, all the accused persons, in furtherance of their common intention, had caused injuries on the persons of deceased, namely, Asha and Yogesh by electrocution. According to the doctor, the injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. There is nothing on the record file to show that the said injuries were caused unintentionally. Hence, it can safely be concluded that all the accused intended to cause the bodily injuries to both the deceased and all the conditions of clause (3) of Section 300, IPC are satisfied in the present case. Reference in this connection can be made to the postmortem report of deceased, Asha and Yogesh which are respectively exhibited as Ex. PW17/A and Ex. PW12/A. The subsequent opinions are also proved on record as Exs. PW17/B and FIR NO.74/10 Page 82 of 102 83 PW12/B, which clearly shows that the murder was committed with the help of recovered electric wires, PVC pipes etc..

57. The evidence of PW4 Rakesh is clear on the point that PW4 Rakesh went along with Yogesh @ Bhopu, (deceased) to the house of accused, Om Parkash. It has been established by the evidence of PW4 that deceased on the fateful day had gone to the house of accused Om Prakash. There is clear, reliable and clinching evidence of PW4 regarding the fact that, all the accused persons were present in the house of accused Om Prakash. This witness is clear on the point that the accused, Om Parkash, his brother namely, Suraj, their wives, namely, Khushboo and Maya and Sanjeev son of Om Parkash and Asha (deceased) were present inside the house. When PW4, Rakesh, went to the house of accused Om Prakash, all the accused persons, including, Asha (deceased) were already present there. Thus, there is no denial of the fact that the presence of all the accused persons at the scene of crime has been proved by the evidence of PW4, Rakesh. Ld. Defence Counsel has not able to show an iota of material, on the basis of which, it can be held that the presence of the accused persons at the house of accused Om Prakash was doubtful. In view of these facts, in the case in hand, the presence of all the accused persons on the spot stands proved.

58. PW16, Umesh Kumar, in his deposition before the Court, has specifically identified all the accused persons. This witness has also proved the presence of all the accused, namely, Om Prakash, Suraj, Khushboo, Sanjeev, & Maya at the scene of crime on the intervening night of 13­14.06.2010. This witness has clearly assigned the specific role to the accused persons, namely, Khushboo and Maya. This witness deposed that both the ladies were sitting outside the house of accused Om Prakash at FIR NO.74/10 Page 83 of 102 84 the relevant time and were making a vigil. Thus, common intention can be attributed to these accused as well. It can safely be held that both the ladies were having common intention alongwith accused Om Prakash, Suraj and Sanjeev to commit murder of Yogesh and Asha. It is proved on the record file, beyond reasonable doubt, that all the five accused persons were having common intention to commit the murder of Yogesh and Asha. Reference in this connection can be made to the decision in case titled as State of Orissa Vs. Arjun Dass, AIR 1999 SC 3229 : 1999(8) SCC 154 :

1999 (6) JT 14 : 1999 (4) Crimes 78 (SC), wherein it has been held that burden lies on prosecution to prove that actual participation of more than one person for commission of criminal act was done in furtherance of common intention at a prior concert. Thus, PW16, Umesh Kumar, has corroborated the evidence of PW4, Rakesh, regarding the presence of all the accused persons on the scene of crime, as well as, their participation in the commission of said offence with prior concert after sharing the common intention.

59. The stand taken by the Ld. Defence Counsels, as well as, Ld. Amicus Curiae, to the effect that PW4, Rakesh, and PW16, Umesh, have been introduced, just to strengthen the case, on behalf of the prosecution does not stand to logic, once, it has been proved that both the witnesses are giving truthful versions of the incident, which had taken place on 14.06.2010. The contentions of Ld. Defence Counsels to the effect that the conduct of PW4, Rakesh, by not making a call to deceased, Yogesh, is improbable one, does not stand to logic, as he was under shock and was perplexed at the relevant time. Further, the recovery of electric wires, sanitary fittings and Dandaas at the spot and recovery of rope from Kathia Baba Ashram, strengthens the case of prosecution. There is no inordinate delay in the registration of FIR in the FIR NO.74/10 Page 84 of 102 85 present matter, keeping in view the manner, in which the alleged offence had been committed by all the accused persons, in furtherance of their common intention.

60. It is well settled proposition of law that, when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved.

61. In this regard, Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act, is reproduced below for ready reference : ­ "When any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved".

62. In Kamal Kishore Vs. State (Delhi Administration), (1997) 2 Crimes, 169 (Del), it has been held that, "A fact discovered in an information supplied by the accused in his disclosure statement is a relevant fact and that is only admissible in evidence, if something new is discovered or recovered from the accused, which was not within the knowledge of the police before recording the disclosure statement of the accused".

63. In Mohd. Inayatullah Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1976 SC 483, it has been held that, "For the application of section 27, the statement must split FIR NO.74/10 Page 85 of 102 86 into its components and to separate the admissible portion. Only those components or portions which were the immediate cause of the discovery would be the legal evidence and not the rest which must be excluded and rejected".

64. In the present matter, there is recovery of 'rope' in consequence of disclosure statements, made by accused Om Prakash and Suraj. The said rope had been used for tying deceased Yogesh and Asha. As per the evidence of PW4, accused persons, namely, Om Prakash and Suraj, led the police party to one Ashram of one Baba, situated on the road leading towards Burari from Swaroop Nagar and there from the bushes both the accused took out a polythene containing a rope and disclosed that they tied Yogesh and Asha with it. This case property was seized vide pointing out memo Ex. PW4/S. The recovery of polythene, containing rope, is a material piece of evidence. Further, both the accused persons had stated that they tied Yogesh and Asha with it. Thus, recovery of rope has been proved in the evidence of prosecution witnesses.

65. In view of the above discussion, it has been proved by the evidence of the prosecution witnesses that all the accused persons were sharing the common intention regarding the murder of deceased, Asha and Yogesh. All the accused persons were in the house of accused, Om Parkash, at the time of murder of deceased Yogesh and Asha. They were having common intention to kill both the deceased by electrocution. These facts have been duly established by the evidence of public witnesses. Further, the postmortem report is fully supporting the facts as deposed by the prosecution witnesses. The evidence, led on behalf of the prosecution shows that there is sufficient incriminating material against all the accused FIR NO.74/10 Page 86 of 102 87 persons and the incriminating material is pointing out towards the guilt of all the accused persons. In crux, it can safely be concluded that the prosecution has been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that, the accused persons, namely, Om Prakash, Suraj, Khushbu, Sanjeev and Maya, had caused the death of the deceased with common intention, after giving them merciless beatings with Dandaas by tying them with rope and, thereafter, by electrocuting them, on various parts of their body. Accordingly, all the accused persons, namely, Om Prakash, Suraj, Khushbu, Sanjeev and Maya, are held guilty for the offences punishable Under Sections 302/323/34 IPC. Announced in open Court on 01 October, 2012.

st (RAMESH KUMAR) ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE ROHINI COURTS : DELHI.

FIR NO.74/10

Page 87 of 102 88 IN THE COURT OF RAMESH KUMAR : SPECIAL JUDGE : NDPS ADDL. SESSION JUDGE : ROHINI COURTS : DELHI IN THE MATTER OF :­ SC No.49/10 FIR No.74/10 PS Swaroop Nagar U/s.302/323/34 IPC State Versus

1. Om Prakash s/o. Jai Singh r/o. C­101, Gali No.3, IP Colony, Swaroop Nagar, Delhi.

2. Suraj s/o. Jai Singh r/o. C­409, Gokul Puri, Delhi.

3. Khushboo @ Inderkala w/o. Om Prakash r/o. C­101, Gali No.3, IP Colony, Swaroop Nagar, Delhi.

4. Sanjeev s/o. Om Prakash FIR NO.74/10 Page 88 of 102 89 r/o. C­101, Gali No.3, IP Colony, Swaroop Nagar, Delhi.

5. Maya w/o. Suraj r/o. C­409, Gokul Puri, Delhi.

                                                    ORDER ON SENTENCE

05.10.2012

Present:             Ld. Addl. PP for the State Sh. P.K. Verma.

All the five convicts, namely, Om Prakash, Suraj, Khushboo, Sanjeev and Maya, are present in J/C. Ld. Counsels for the accused persons.

1. It has been contended by ld. Counsels and Ld. Amicus Curiae for the convicts that they are poor persons. It is argued that convict Sanjeev is of very young age and he has been falsely implicated in this case. It has further been argued that the convicts have no previous criminal record and have clean past antecedents. It is also argued that convicts Khushboo and Maya are poor women and they have little children to look after. It is further argued that minimum punishment be awarded to all the convicts, as the present offence is punishable with imprisonment for life, or with death sentence, and if maximum punishment is awarded in this case to the convicts, their family will be ruined. Further, it has been contended that the possibility of their reform will vanish, if the maximum punishment is awarded to the convicts. It has further been FIR NO.74/10 Page 89 of 102 90 contended that a very lenient view may be taken against all the convicts, while awarding sentence to them.

2. On the other hand, ld. Addl. PP for the State has contended that present offence is a heinous one and the convicts had committed the murder of two innocent and very young persons, namely, Yogesh and Asha, by giving them merciless beatings and electrocution. It has further been contended that the convicts do not deserve any leniency and they be given maximum punishment. It has further been contended that such type of cases should be dealt severely and maximum penalty i.e. capital punishment, should be awarded to all the convicts. Ld. Addl. PP for the State has further contended that the present is a case of honour killing, in which the lives of two innocent and young persons have been taken away by all the convicts in a most barbaric, brutal and inhuman manner, after giving merciless beatings and after electrocuting them. It is further argued that PW4, Rakesh, was also beaten by all the accused persons, but he somehow managed to get himself free from the clutches of all the accused persons and during this process, he sustained simple injuries. Ld. Addl. PP for the State has further argued that the offence, in the present case, was committed in a cold blooded, brutal and cruel manner, and after keeping both the deceased in the inner room of House No. C­101, Gali No.3, IP Colony, Delhi. It has further been argued that there are no extenuating or mitigating circumstances, whatsoever, in the present case.

3. Ld. Addl. PP for the State has further argued that the facts and FIR NO.74/10 Page 90 of 102 91 circumstances of the present case clearly establish that present case falls under the category of "rarest of rare" cases and capital punishment be awarded to all the convicts. It has also been argued that present case calls for no leniency, as the murder of two very young innocent persons was committed after pre­ planning and after sharing common intention of all the accused persons. It has further been that there was no provocation on behalf of the deceased persons, namely, Yogesh and Asha.

4. I have heard the arguments on behalf of both the parties and have given my thoughtful consideration on the point of sentence.

5. In the present case, all the accused persons have been convicted U/s.302/323/34 IPC. The punishment for the offence of murder has been provided U/s.302 IPC, which is reproduced herein below for ready reference:

"Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine".

6. It is well settled through a catena of judicial pronouncements that "death sentence" is awarded in 'rarest of rare cases'. Sentence of "imprisonment for life" with fine is the normal punishment awarded for the offence of murder.

7. Section 354 (3) Cr.P.C is reproduced below for ready reference­ "When the conviction is for an offence punishable with death or, in the alternative, with imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of years, the judgment FIR NO.74/10 Page 91 of 102 92 shall state the reasons for the sentence awarded, and, in the case of sentence of death, the special reasons for such sentence."

8. Thus, it is clear from the above quoted section 354 (3) Cr.P.C. that a duty is imposed upon the courts to give reasons for the sentence awarded to the accused persons. Further, if the Court comes to the conclusion that death sentence is to be awarded to the accused persons, then the Court has to record the special reasons for imposing the death penalty/death sentence.

9. The Supreme Court in Bachan Singh Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1982 SC 1325 has held that :­ "The Court must pay due regard both to the crime and criminal in awarding the death sentence. The relative weight to be given to the aggravating and mitigating factors depends on the facts and circumstances of the popular case".

10. As a guideline, the Court spelled out some of the aggravating circumstances under which the Court might award the death sentence in a murder case. These are ­ "(a) If the murder has been committed after previous planning and involves extreme brutality, or

(b) If the murder involves exceptional depravity, or

(c) If the murder is of a member of any of the armed forces of the Union or of a member of any police force, or of any public servant ­

(i)while such member or public servant was on duty, FIR NO.74/10 Page 92 of 102 93 or

(ii)in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by such member or public servant in the lawful discharge of his duty as such member or public servant whether at the time of the murder he was such member or public servant, as the case may be, or had ceased to be such member or public servant, or

(d) If the murder is of a person who acted in the lawful discharge of his duty under section 43 (arrest by private person) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, or who rendered assistance to a Magistrate or a police officer demanding his aid or requiring his assistance under section 37(public to assist Magistrate and police) and section 129 (dispersal of assembly by use of civil force) of the said Code.

11. In Machhi Singh Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1983 SC 957, it was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that "when the community's collective conscience is so shocked that it will expect the holders of the judicial power center to inflict the death penalty irrespective of their personal opinion as regards the desirability or otherwise of retaining the death penalty, the Court must award it in such a case."

12. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Arumugam Servai Vs. State of TN., (2011) 6 SCC 405, has held that­ "Many people feel that they are dishonoured by the behaviour of the young man/woman, who is related to them or belonging to their caste, because he/she is FIR NO.74/10 Page 93 of 102 94 marrying against their wish or having an affair with someone, and hence they take the law into their own hands and kill or physically assault such person or commit some other atrocities on them, which is wholly illegal. If someone is not happy with the behaviour of his daughter or other person, who is his relation or of his caste, the maximum he can do is to cut off social relations with her/him, but he cannot take the law into his own hands by committing violence or giving threats of violence".

13. It has further been held in the case, titled as Lata Singh Vs. State of UP., (2006) 5 SCC 475: (2006) 2 SCC ( Crl) 478, that­ "There is nothing "honourable" in "honour" killings, and they are nothing but barbaric and brutal murders by bigoted persons with feudal minds. Honour killings, for whatever reason, come within the category of the rarest of rare cases, deserving death punishment. It is time to stamp out these barbaric feudal practices which are a slur on India. This is necessary as a deterrent for such outrageous, uncivilised behaviour. All persons, who are planning to perpetrate "honour" killings, should know that the gallows await them".

14. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhagwan Dass Vs. State (NCT) of Delhi, (2011) 6 SCC 396, has held as under ­ "Honour" killings have become commonplace in many parts of the country, particularly in Haryana, western U.P. and Rajasthan. Often young couples who fall in love have to seek shelter in the police lines, or protection homes, to avoid the wrath of Kangaroo courts".

FIR NO.74/10

Page 94 of 102 95

15. The Supreme Court in Sushil Murmu Vs. State of Jharkhand, AIR 2004 SC 394 observed that­ "In rarest of rare cases when collective conscience of the community is so shocked that it will expect the holders of the judicial power center to inflict death penalty irrespective of their personal opinion as regards desirability or otherwise of retaining death penalty, death sentence can be awarded. The community may entertain such sentiment in the following circumstance:­

(a) When the murder is committed in an extremely brutal, grotesque, diabolical, revolting or dastardly manner so as to arouse intense and extreme indignation of the community.

(b) When the murder is committed for a motive which evinces total depravity and meanness; e.g. Murder by hired assassin for money or reward or a cold­blooded murder for gains of a person vis­a­vis whom the murderer is in a dominating position or in a position of trust, or murder is committed in the course for betrayal of the motherland.

(c) When murder of a member of a Scheduled Caste or minority community etc., is committed not for personal reasons but in circumstances which arouse social wrath, or in cases of 'bride burning' or ' dowry deaths' or when murder is committed in order to remarry for the sake of extracting dowry once again or to marry another woman on account of infatuation.

(d) When the crime is enormous in proportion. For instance when multiple murders, say of all or almost all the members of a family or a large number of persons of a FIR NO.74/10 Page 95 of 102 96 particular caste, community, or locality, are committed.

(e) When the victim of murder is an innocent child, or a helpless woman or old or infirm person or a persons vis­ a­vis whom the murderer is in dominating position or a public figure generally loved and respected by the community.

16. The Supreme Court in Sushil Murmu's case, AIR 2004 SC 394 found that the accused was not possessing the basis humanness and he diabolically designed the murder of a child in a most dastardly and revolting manner to sacrifice the child of another for personal gain and to promote his fortunes by pretending to appease the deity. The brutality of the act was amplified by the grotesque and revolting manner in which the helpless child's head was severed. Even, the helpless and imploring face and voice of the innocent child did not arouse any trace of kindness in the heart of the accused. He carried the severed head in a gunny bag and threw it in the pond. All these facts showed that the act was diabolic of most superlative degree in conception and cruel in execution. In these facts the Court found that the case was rarest of the rare cases and held that in such a case death sentence is and should be the rule with no exception whatsoever.

17. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case entitled as Dhananjoy Chaterjee Vs State of West Bengal, 1994(2)SCC 220, had observed that­ "It is not possible to lay down any cut and dry formula relating to imposition of sentence but the object of sentencing should be to see that the crime does not go FIR NO.74/10 Page 96 of 102 97 unpunished and the victim of crime as also the society has the satisfaction that justice has been done to it. In imposing sentence in the absence of specific legislation, Judges must consider variety of factors and after considering all those factors and taking an overall view of the situation, impose sentence which they consider to be an appropriate one. Aggravating factors cannot be ignored and similarly mitigating circumstances have also to be taken into consideration".

18. In the above mentioned case, the Court further considered the points to be taken into consideration and observed that­ " The measure of punishment in a given case must depend upon the atrocity of the crime; the conduct of the criminal and the defenceless and unprotected state of victim. Imposition of appropriate punishment is the manner in which the courts respond to the society's cry for justice against the criminals. Justice demands that courts should impose punishment befitting the crime so that the courts reflect public abhorrence of the crime. The courts must not only keep in view the rights of the criminal but also the rights of the victim of crime and the society at large while considering imposition of appropriate punishment."

19. In view of the above discussions, it can safely be observed that, normally, life imprisonment is given for the offence punishable U/s 302 IPC. However, in exceptional and rarest of the rare cases death sentence is imposed. The death sentence is awarded by the Judges, after considering all the facts and circumstance of the case, and after appreciating the entire material FIR NO.74/10 Page 97 of 102 98 available before them. The Court has to give special reasons under section 354 (3) of Code of Criminal Procedure, for awarding the death sentence. Unless the court finds that the brutality and gruesomeness of the accused demands that death sentence should be awarded to him, the court will not give the death sentence.

20. Keeping in view the medical evidence and the state in which the bodies of the deceased persons were found, it is obvious that most heinous type of murders were committed in the present case. Both the deceased were electrocuted by the accused persons. In the present case, ropes were used for tying the deceased persons. The offence was not only inhuman and barbaric, but it was committed in a very cruel and brutal manner. The savage nature of the crime has shocked the judicial conscience. There are, no extenuating or mitigating circumstances, whatsoever, in the case. In the case in hand, cold blooded, preplanned brutal murders, through electrocution, have been committed. There was no provocation, in the present case, on behalf of the deceased, namely, Yogesh and Asha. Both the deceased had not done any act to provoke the convicts. The manner in which the deceased, namely, Yogesh and Asha, were electrocuted by the convicts, makes the present case a "rarest of the rare" case, which calls for no punishment, other than the capital punishment.

21. In the case in hand, both the deceased persons were in the clutches of all the accused persons and they barbarically, cruelly and inhumanly FIR NO.74/10 Page 98 of 102 99 electrocuted them. The offence was committed within the four corners of inner room of House No. C­101, Gali No.3, IP Colony, Delhi. by all the accused persons by electrocution. The offence of all the accused persons is against the humanity and civilization as well as the civilized society. The manner in which the accused persons had caused the death of deceased, namely, Yogesh and Asha, shakes the conscience of humanity, as the deceased persons had been electrocuted. Further, both the deceased persons were electrocuted in the metropolitan city like Delhi. Such cruel and barbaric acts cannot be allowed to take place in developed metropolitan cities. There is no escape from the inevitable conclusion that the present case falls within the category of 'rarest of rare cases' wherein death sentence has to be awarded to all the accused persons, as all the accused persons were sharing the common intention and in furtherance of their common intention all of them had committed the murder of two innocent and very young persons, aged about 18/19 years, by electrocuting them after giving them merciless beatings and the offence, in the present case, was cruel in conception, barbaric and inhuman in execution.

22. In the present case, there are no extenuating or mitigating circumstances in favour of the convicts, namely, Om Prakash, Suraj, Khushboo, Sanjeev and Maya. The fact that the convicts belong to a poor family, or the fact that convict, namely, Sanjeev is of young age, is of no assistance to the convicts, keeping in view the culpability, with which the offence in the present case has been committed by all the convicts. Further, the fact that convicts, FIR NO.74/10 Page 99 of 102 100 namely, Khushboo and Maya, are poor women and have little children, is of no help to these convicts, because they were active participants in the murder of both the deceased, namely, Yogesh and Asha. Further, both these convicts were sharing the common intention alongwith main convicts, namely, Om Prakash, Suraj and Sanjeev in the commission of offence of murder of deceased, namely, Yogesh and Asha.

23. Both the deceased, namely, Yogesh and Asha, had their own unique perception and interpretation of life regarding marrying each other. They both intended to marry. However, the cruel hands of all the convicts had snatched their lives for no fault of their's. Just like a flower has got its own unique fragrance, colour and appearance, both the deceased, namely, Yogesh and Asha had their own plans for the life ahead to them. It is clear from the evidence on record file that both the deceased intended to marry each other. All the convicts snatched the lives of both the deceased persons, prior to fulfillment of their dreams and plans for the life ahead of them.

24. The criminal justice system deals with complex human problems and diverse human beings. A judge has to balance the personality of the offender with the circumstances and the situations in which the offence has been committed. If the circumstance of a murder case bring the case within the ambit of 'rarest of the rare' case, the maximum penalty can be imposed. Thus, the circumstances of the case have to be taken into consideration before imposing the punishment. If, the act is diabolic of most superlative degree in conception FIR NO.74/10 Page 100 of 102 101 and cruel in execution, death sentence can be imposed. In the present case, all the accused persons, namely, Om Prakash, Suraj, Khushboo, Sanjeev and Maya were sharing their common intention to commit the murders of deceased Yogesh and Asha. The offence was committed in cruel, brutal, barbaric and inhuman manner, which caused the death of both the deceased by electrocution. They gave electric shocks to both the deceased. The case of the convicts is covered within the category of "rarest of rare cases", keeping in view the facts and circumstance of the present case. Hence, I am of the considered view that the present is a fit case in which the death sentence should be awarded to all the convicts, namely, Om Prakash, Suraj, Khushboo, Sanjeev and Maya.

25. Section 354(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedures, 1973, is reproduced below for ready reference ­ "When any person is sentenced to death, the sentence shall direct that he be hanged by the neck till he is dead".

26. Accordingly, all the convicts, namely, Om Prakash, Suraj, Khushboo, Sanjeev and Maya, are hereby awarded death penalty U/s.302 read with section 34 IPC, subject to confirmation by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi U/s.366(1) Cr.PC. In view of Section 354(5) of Cr.PC, all the convicts, namely, Om Prakash, Suraj, Khushboo, Sanjeev and Maya, are hereby directed to be hanged by neck, till their death. A fine of Rs.20,000/­ each is also imposed upon all the convicts, namely, Om Prakash, Suraj, Khushboo, Sanjeev and Maya. In default of FIR NO.74/10 Page 101 of 102 102 payment of fine, they shall further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 30 days.

27. Convicts namely, Om Prakash, Suraj, Khushboo, Sanjeev and Maya, are further sentenced to imprisonment for 6 months RI, each, for the offence punishable U/s.323 r/w. Section 34 IPC. Benefit of Section 428 Cr.PC be extended to all the convicts.

28. A copy of this order be sent to the Jail Superintendent. Copy of this order be also supplied free of costs to all the convicts, namely, Om Prakash, Suraj, Khushboo, Sanjeev and Maya.

29. Ahlmad is hereby directed to send copy of the judgment and order on sentence alongwith complete case file in sealed cover, immediately, to the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, for confirmation of death sentence awarded in this case to all the convicts, namely, Om Prakash, Suraj, Khushboo, Sanjeev and Maya.

30. It may be mentioned here that in the judgment of this case, dated 01.10.2012, Sessions Case number has been mentioned as 56/10, instead of Sessions Case number 49/10. The same is, accordingly corrected. Let the Sessions Case no.49/10 be read in the judgment dated 01.10.2012, in place of Sessions Case No.56/10.

Announced in open Court on 05 October, 2012 th (RAMESH KUMAR) ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE ROHINI COURTS : DELHI.

FIR NO.74/10

Page 102 of 102