Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

State vs . (1) Sukhpal Singh @ Deep Singh on 22 February, 2014

      IN THE COURT OF Dr. KAMINI LAU: ADDL. SESSIONS 
       JUDGE­II (NORTH­WEST) ROHINI COURTS: DELHI


Session Case No. 1230/2010
Unique Case ID No. 02404R0124262010

State                       Vs.   (1)           Sukhpal Singh @ Deep Singh
                                                S/o Sh. Mahender Singh
                                                R/o Village Talhema, PS Bhikhi,
                                                District Mansha, Punjab
                                                (Convicted)

                                      (2)       Jasbir Kaur @ Chinder Pal Kaur
                                                W/o Baldev Singh
                                                R/o C­43, Gurdwara Rub Da Kutta,
                                                Lal Bagh, Azadpur, Delhi
                                                (Convicted)


                                      (3)       Ranjeet Singh @ Soni @ Baaz Singh
                                                S/o Sh. Hakim Singh
                                                R/o Village Bodawal,
                                                PS Sadar Budlada, Distt. Mansha,
                                                Punjab
                                                (Convicted)


                                      (4)       Malkit Singh
                                                S/o Baldev Singh
                                                R/o C­43, Gurdwara Rub Da Kutta,
                                                Lal Bagh, Azadpur, Delhi
                                                (Convicted)
FIR No.:                                        31/2010
Police Station:                                 Adarsh Nagar
Under Sections:                                 302/201/120­B/34 Indian Penal Code

St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar                           Page No. 1
 Date of committal to session court:                       3.6.2010

Date on which orders were reserved: 25.1.2014

Date on which judgment pronounced:25.1.2014


JUDGMENT:

(1) As per allegations on or before the intervening night of 3­4.2.2010 all the accused i.e. Sukhpal Singh @ Deep Singh, Jasbir Kaur @ Chander Pal Kaur, Ranjeet singh @ Sonu @ Baaz Singh and Malkeet Singh hatched a criminal conspiracy to commit the murder of Lakhbir Singh @ Lakkha. In pursuance to the above criminal conspiracy, all the accused persons committed the murder of Lakhbir Singh @ Lakkha by strangulating him with the turban of the deceased and by giving him beatings with 'Noon Kootna' and thereafter also tried to set his body on fire. It has also been alleged that all the accused caused disappearance of the dead body of deceased Lakhbir Singh @ Lakkha knowing or having reasons to believe that an offence of murder has been committed and hence the accused persons caused evidence of commission of murder to disappear with the intention of screening themselves from the legal punishment.

BRIEF FACTS/ CASE OF THE PROSECUTION:

(2) The case of the prosecution is that on 5.2.2010 at 4:30 PM one Rajender Singh @ Raju came at Police Station Adarsh Nagar and St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 2 lodged a missing report in respect of his father Lakhbir Singh who was the Mehant of Gurdwara Rub Da Kutta pursuant to which DD No. 24­A was lodged which was marked to ASI Kuldeep Singh for necessary action. Thereafter initially the FIR was registered under Section 365/34 IPC and the details of Lakhbir Singh were entered in ZIP NET. During investigations various persons were examined and ZIP NET was verified several times. It was revealed that Smt. Jasbir Kaur, her son Malkeet Singh, Sukhpal and Sewadar Baaz Singh (accused Ranjeet Singh) were also absconding which indicated their involvement. In the meantime, an identical dead body as that of Lakhbir Singh was reported to have been recovered on 5.2.2010 in the area of Police Station Timar Pur and hence on 10.2.2010 details were obtained from the SHO Police Station Timar Pur. The dead body was then identified by Rajender Singh @ Raju and it was revealed that an FIR No. 32/2010, under Section 302/201 IPC was registered in Police Station Timar Pur.

(3) Thereafter on 11.2.2010 Crime Team was called and the room of Lakbhir Singh was got inspected from where blood stained articles were lifted. On 12.2.2010 after the postmortem examination the dead body was handed over to his family members and efforts were made to apprehend the suspects i.e. Jasbir Kaur, Malkit Singh, Sukhpal Singh and Baaz Singh. On 13.2.2010 Jasbir Kaur and Sukhpal were apprehended and arrested and in their disclosure statements they confessed their involvement in the present case along with Malkeet St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 3 Singh and Baaz Singh @ Ranjeet Singh. Pursuant to his disclosure statement the accused Sukhpal led the Investigating Officer to store room of the Gurdwara and disclosed that the dead body was kept there and was removed next night and dumped in the area of Police Station Timar Pur. The crime team was again called and the Gurdwara was got examined during which some burnt hair and blood was found in the room and on the pointing out of Sukhpal blood stained Tirpal was recovered from the store room. The accused Jasbir Kaur got recovered the blood stained Cholla of Sukhpal Singh and the accused Sukhpal Singh was also got recovered the weapon of offence i.e. Noon Kutna from the room of Lakhbir Singh.

(4) On 15.2.2010 the accused Malkeet Singh was apprehended and pursuant to his disclosure he got recovered his blood stained jacket worn by him at the time of crime and also got recovered a bottle of Bisleri of one liter in which petrol was brought by him. The accused Jasbir Kaur then got recovered the Maruti Car which was used by Sukhpal Singh and Malkeet Singh in shifting the dead body from Gurdwara to Timar Pur. On 18.2.2010 on the pointing out the accused Sukhpal Singh the co­accused Ranjeet Singh @ Baaz Singh was arrested and his blood stained cloth were recovered. (5) After completion of investigations the charge sheet was initially filed against the accused Sukhpal Singh, Jasbir Kaur and Ranjeet Singh @ Baaz Singh whereas the charge sheet in respect of St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 4 accused Malkeet Singh who was found to be a juvenile, was filed before the Juvenile Justice Board. However, vide order dated 19.11.2010 the Juvenile Justice Board declared the accused Malkeet Singh as a major on the date of incident and hence, his charge sheet was filed before the Court. All the accused namely Sukhpal Singh, Jasbir Kaur, Ranjeet Singh @ Baaz Singh and Malkeet Singh hence faced trial before this Court.

CHARGES:

(6) Charges under Sections 120­B, 302 & 201/34 Indian Penal Code were settled against the accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

(7) Before coming to the testimonies of individual witnesses, the details of the witnesses examined by the prosecution and the documents proved by them are hereby put in a tabulated form as under:

List of witnesses:

Sr. PW No. Name of the witness Details of the witness No.

1. PW 1 Ct. Parvinder Police Witness/ Crime Team Photographer

2. PW 2 SI Matadin Meena Police Witness/ Crime Team Incharge

3. PW 3 SI Devender Police Witness/ Crime Team Incharge

4. PW4 Ct. Rahul Tyagi Police Witness who had deposited the exhibits in FSL

5. PW 5 SI Devender Purang Police Witness/ Crime Team Incharge St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 5

6. PW 6 Ct. Dalbir Police Witness/ Crime Team Photographer

7. PW 7 SI Manhor Lal Police Witness/ Draftsman

8. PW 8 HC Manjeet Singh Police Witness/ MHCM

9. PW 9 HC Harender Police Witness/ Duty Officer

10. PW 10 HC Laxmi Narayan Police Witness/ MHCM

11. PW 11 Harsimaran Singh Public witness who had last seen the deceased alive

12. PW 12 Rajender Singh Public witness ­ son of the deceased

13. PW 13 Sardar Hukum Singh Public witness - Mama of the deceased

14. PW 14 Sardar Payara Singh Public witness - Sewadar of Rub Da Kutta Gurdwara

15. PW 15 Anand Sharma Public witness - witness to the pointing out of spot by Sukhpal

16. PW 16 Dr. S Lal Autopsy Surgeon

17. PW 17 Krishan Murari Public witness who had given the Maruti Tiwari Car to Malkeet Singh

18. PW 18 SI Sheo Raj Singh Police witness - PCR Incharge who had discovered the dead body

19. PW 19 Rakesh Bhardwaj Public witness - private photographer

20. PW 20 Karnail Singh Public witness who is having a shop outside the Gurdwara

21. PW 21 Arjun Singh Public witness - earlier Jathedar of Gurdwara Rub Da Kutta

22. PW 22 Insp. Rajnish Parmar Police witness - SHO of PS Timar Pur

23. PW 23 ASI Shashi Kumar Public witness who had joined investigations with IO

24. PW 24 W/ Ct. Saroj Police witness who has proved the arrest of accused Jasbir Kaur

25. PW 25 SI Sewa Singh Police witness - Juvenile Welfare Officer

26. PW 26 SI Kuldeep Singh Police witness - Initial Investigating Officer St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 6

27. PW 27 Sardar Avtar Singh Public witness - Jathedar of Gurdwara at Ranjeet Akhara

28. PW 28 HC Sudhir Police witness who had joined investigations with IO

29. PW 29 Shri Narain FSL Expert (Physics)

30. PW 30 Sunita Suman FSL Expert (Biology)

31. PW 31 Insp. Mahavir Investigating Officer Kaushik List of Documents Sr. Exhibit No. Details of documents Proved by No.

1. PW 1/1 Affidavit of evidence of Ct. Parvinder Ct. Parvinder

2. PW 1/A1 to Photographs A9

3. PW 2/1 Affidavit of evidence of SI Matadin SI Matadin Meena Meena

4. PW 2/A Crime team report

5. PW 3/1 Affidavit of evidence of SI Devender SI Devender

6. PW 3/A Crime team Report

7. PW 4/1 Affidavit of evidence of Ct. Rahul Ct. Rahul Tyagi Tyagi

8. PW 5/1 Affidavit of evidence of SI Devender SI Devender Purang Purang

9. PW 5/A Crime team Report

10. PW 6/1 Affidavit of evidence of Ct. Dalbir Ct. Dalbir

11. PW 6/A1 to Photographs 10

12. PW 6/DX1 Statement of Ct. Dalbir

13. PW 7/1 Affidavit of evidence of SI Manohar SI Manohar lal Lal St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 7

14. PW 7/A Site plan

15. PW 7/B Site plan

16. PW 8/1 Affidavit of evidence of HC Manjeet HC Manjeet Singh Singh

17. PW 8/A Coy of Reg No. 19 Sr. No. 3004

18. PW 8/B Cop of Reg No. 19 Sr. No. 3014

19. PW9/1 Affidavit of of evidence of Ct. HC Harender Harender 20. PW 9/A DD No. 4 21. PW 9/B DD No. 6 22. PW 9/C DD No. 8 23. PW 9/D DD No. 9

24. PW 9/E Copy of FIR

25. PW 10/1 Affidavit of evidence of HC Laxmi HC Laxmi Narayan Narayan

26. PW 10/A Copy of Reg No. 19 Sr. No. 3520, 3525, 3528, 3530, 3536, 3539, 3543, 3562, 3563/10

27. PW 10/B RC 22/21/10

28. PW 10/C FSL receipt

29. PW 10/D RC 23/21/10

30. PW 10/E FSL Receipt

31. PW 10/F RC 25/21/10

32. PW 10/G FSL Receipt

33. PW 10/H Endorsement On rukka

34. PW 12/A Statement of Rajender Rajender Singh

35. PW 12/B Seizure memo of legs of the table

36. PW 12/C Seizure memo of Razai

37. PW 12/D Dead body identification

38. PW 13/A Arrest memo of Ranjeet Sardar Hukum Singh

39. PW 13/B Personal search memo St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 8

40. PW 13/D Seizure memo of Shirt and lower of Baaz Singh

41. PW 13/E Seizure memo of cloth which were hanged on the tree

42. PW 14/A Arrest memo of Jasbir Kaur Sardar Payara Singh

43. PW 14/B Arrest memo of Sukhpal Singh

44. PW 14/C Personal search memo

45. PW 14/D Disclosure statement of Sukhpal Singh

46. PW 14/E Disclosure statement of Jasbir Kaur

47. PW 14/F Seizure memo of Hair

48. PW 14/G Seizure memo of Tirpal

49. PW 14/H Seizure memo of blood stained earth

50. PW 14/I Seizure memo of earth without Blood

51. PW 14/J Seizure memo of Cholla

52. PW 14/K Seizure memo of Noon Ghotna

53. PW 14/L Arrest memo of Malkeet Singh

54. PW 14/M Personal search memo

55. PW 14/N Seizure memo of Jacket

56. PW 14/O Seizure memo of Bottle

57. PW 14/P Seizure memo of car

58. PW 14/R Disclosure Statement of Malkeet Singh

59. PW 14/DA Copy of Complaint

60. PW 14/DB Statement of U/s 161 CrPC of Sh.

Paya Singh

61. PW 14/DC Copy of FIR No. 09/09 PS Talwinder Sabo

62. PW 15/A Pointed out memo Anand Sharma

63. PW 16/A Postmortem Report Dr. S Lal

64. PW 16/B Opinion St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 9

65. PW 17/PX1 Statement of Krishan Murari Krishan Murari

66. PW 18/A Statement of SI Sheo Raj Singh Tiwari

67. PW 19/A1 to Photographs Rakesh Bhardwaj 11

68. PW 22/A DD NO. 4A Inspector Rajnish

69. PW 22/B Endorsement on statement of ASI Parmar Shiv Raj

70. PW 22/C FIR

71. PW 22/D Seizure memo of Articles

72. PW 22/E Site plan

73. PW 22/F Application for Preserving the dead body

74. PW 22/G Application for Postmortem

75. PW 22/H Inquest documents

76. PW 22/I Dead body handed over memo

77. PW 22/J Seizure memo of articles

78. PW 22/K Seizure memo of Viscera Peti

79. PW 23/A Pointing out memo ASI Shashi Kumar

80. PW 23/B Sketch of Noon Kutna

81. PW 23/C Pointing out memo

82. PW 24/A Personal search memo of Jasbir Kaur W Ct. Saroj

83. PW 26/A Endorsement on Complaint SI Kuldeep Singh

84.Q PW 26/B FIR

85. PW 28/A Seizure memo of Blood sample taken HC Sudhir by the FSL Officials

86. PW 29/A FSL Report Sri Narain

87. PW 29/B FSL Report

88. PW 30/A Biological Report Ms. Sunita Suman

89. PW 30/B Serological Report

90. PW 31/A Site plan Inspector Mahavir Kaushik St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 10

91. PW 31/B Pointing out memo

92. PW 31/C Site plan of the store room

93. PW 31/D Site plan of the place where dead body was dumped

94. PW31/E Site plan of the place of recovery

95. PW 31/F Postmortem report and other documents

96. PW 31/G Application seeking opinion on the weapon of offence

97. PW 31/H Crime scene Report EVIDENCE (8) In order to prove its case the prosecution has examined as many as Thirty One witnesses as under:

Public witnesses:

(9) PW11 Sh. Harsimran Singh S/o Sardar Kulwant Singh has deposed that he is a student of BSC II year, Maths (Hons) which course he is doing from IGNOU and he also give tuitions at Baljeet Nagar. According to the witness, he is residing at F/100/A, Punjabi Basti, Baljeet Nagar and his two brothers namely Jagdev Singh, Surender Singh and his sister Harsharan Kaur also resides with him at his aforesaid address. He has testified that he and his sister Harsharan Kaur and his brother Jagdev Singh resided at Gurdwara Rub Da Kutta, Azadpur, for a period of about 2½ ­ 3 months and he used to give tuition at Baljeet Nagar. The witness has also deposed that on 03.02.2010 he St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 11 was coming back to the aforesaid Gurudwara after giving tuition and reached at the Gurdwara at 10 PM and knocked the door and called babaji on which Babaji Sh. Lakhbir Singh who was mehant in the Gurudwara opened the door. He has further deposed that he entered the Gurdwara and passed through the courtyard for entering into his premises and asked baba Lakhbir Singh as to what happened in the matter of Baljeet Nagar Gurdwara on which he (Babaji) told him that everything was all right and he asked him to go and to sleep and also told him that today he would remain awake " tu so ja aaj mei jaggun ga" . The witness has testified that he asked him (Babaji) why he wanted to remain awake, on which Babaji told him that since he was tired he should go off to sleep and there was nothing as such " tum thake hui ho tum ja kar so jao, aise koi baat nahin hai" on which he (witness) went up in the room and slept. According to him, in the morning at about 5 AM one person namely Baaz (i.e. accused Ranjeet Singh) who was sewadar of Babaji came to him and asked him that he should take bath and do the path pooja on which he asked him as to where Babaji was and he (Baaz) informed him that Babaji had gone somewhere and would come back till evening. The witness has further deposed that he got slightly suspicious because whenever Babaji used to go anywhere he used to hand over the keys of Gurdwara and while going any where he did not hand over any key to him. According to the witness, he performed Path Pooja and went to give tuitions and in the St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 12 evening he came back to the said gurdwara when one Jasbir Kaur met him and asked him to leave gurdwara and further told that she would get him shifted in the house of her relatives at Uttam Nagar. The witness has further deposed that he told her that till babaji does not come he will not leave gurdwara on which Baaz Singh informed him that Babaji had an evil eye/ bure nazar upon his sister Harsharan Kaur but he could not believe the same because his sister did not give any complaint regarding this fact. He has testified that later on he along with Lalli and his son Raju had gone to Police Station to lodge the report regarding missing of Lakhbir Singh @ Babaji on which police recorded the missing report.

Later on police met him and recorded his statement. He has correctly identified the accused Baaz Singh (i.e. Ranjeet Singh) and Smt. Jasbir Kaur and other accused namely Sukhpal and Malkeet Singh in the court as they were known to him previously.

(10) In his cross­examination by the Ld. Defence Counsel the witness has deposed that he came to Delhi in the year 2002 in connection for preparation of Medical entrance examination and started leaving in a hostel provided by coaching center at Sachdeva New PT College situated at Patel Nagar where he stayed for a period of about 1½ months and left the said hostel because he was not in a position to deposit the fees. According to the witness, thereafter he shifted to Karampura where he took a room on rent with another friend and then left Karampura also because he was not in a position to understand St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 13 English and hence his candidature was transferred to its another branch situated at Allahabad where he stayed for about one year and thereafter he came back to his village. The witness has further deposed that in the year 2004 he came again to Delhi and started teaching in a school at Baljeet Nagar and started living at Baljeet Nagar. According to the witness, he met Babaji Sh. Lakhbir Singh in Sheesh Ganj Gurdwara in the year 2010 for the first time but he does not remember the exact date and month of their first meeting. The witness has testified that he talked with his father that he was not in a position of afford the expenses of the room therefore he told him that he would talk to Babaji. He has further deposed that he talked to his father who was residing in the village, at that time after about one month after his meeting with Babaji at Sheesh Ganj gurdwara. He has also deposed that his father came to Delhi after about one month after his talk with him and he (his father) stayed with him for about two­three when he came to Delhi to meet him and during this period he talked with Babaji. The witness has also deposed that his father left Delhi after talking with Babaji and after about 10­15 days he shifted to Gurdwara Rub Da Kutta where Babaji was Mehant after his father had left Delhi. He has further deposed that it is not in his knowledge that his father asked Babaji regarding any charges for staying in the gurdwara and for food etc. or whether his father had paid any amount or any other consideration for his stay at the aforesaid gurdwara. He has testified that normally he used to go to give tuition at about 7 St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 14 AM and returned back at about 7­8 PM but sometimes when he finished his tuition work earlier, he used to come back early. (11) On a specific Court Question the witness has deposed that Gurdwara is a religious place and no rent is charged for stay in the premises and everybody is free to use the premises and even the food/ langer is given for free for which no charges are taken. (12) He has explained that Langer is prepared every day for residents but once in a month for public. According to the witness, Babaji was a holy soul and a religious person and did not set his eyes on his sister at any point of time. The witness has also deposed that he used to leave in the morning for his work and come back in the late evening and therefore he is not in a position to comment on any personal relationship of Babaji. According to the witness, he had never heard about any relations of Babaji with any women nor he had heard of any incident regarding cher char (eve teasing) by Babaji. He has admitted that Gurudwara in question is being run by Budda Dal but he is not aware if there is an internal dispute within the Budda Dal. The witness has also admitted that there are two factions one headed by Balbir Singh Ji and the other headed by Sh. Sarjeet Singh ji. He has further deposed that he is aware that prior to Baba Lakhbir Singh, Baba Baldev Singh was the Mehant of the gurdwara but he is not aware if Baba Baldev Singh belongs to the faction headed by Baba Sarjeet Singh Ji. He is also aware that Baba Baldev Singh has been implicated in a murder case in St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 15 Patiala, Punjab but he is not aware if this case was correct or false and has voluntarily explained that Babaji used to tell him about this case. (13) The witness Harsimran Singh has admitted that Baba Lakhbir Singh Ji belong to the fraction headed by Baba Baldev Singh but he is not aware if after Baba Baldev Singh was implicated in the case the fraction headed by Baba Sarjeet Singh nominated Bibi Jasbir Kaur, the accused before this court, as the Mehant. He is also not aware if Baba Lakhbir Singh had been appointed a Mehant by Baba Balbir Singh after removing Bibi Jasbir Kaur or if any civil litigation has been filed by Bibi Jasbir Kaur regarding the appointment of Baba Lakhbir Singh as the Mehant. According to the witness, it is not within his knowledge if Bibi Jasbir Kaur was implicated in a case of firing at Bhatinda, Punjab or if Jasbir Kaur was not even charge sheeted in the said case. The witness has testified that apart from Baba Lakhbir Singh he also knew one Babaji from Baljeet Nagar Gurdwara who used to visit him but he does not know his name. He admitted that the gurdwara where he used to stay is very big and has voluntarily explained that it must be in the area of around 1­1 ½ acres and there were around nine rooms in the gurdwara apart from the main gurdwara building. The witness has admitted that there are large number of shops outside and has voluntarily explained that they are on the main road but he is unable to tell the number of the shops outside since he had never paid attention to them. According to him, there are two gate to the gurdwara, one St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 16 from the front side and one from the back which normally remains closed. He has also deposed that not many people reside in the gurdwara in those rooms and has voluntarily explained that apart from himself, one old lady whom they called Mataji, Babaji Lakhbir Singh ji and his family, accused Jasbir Kaur and her family and accused Sukhpal Singh used to reside in the gurdwara. He has admitted that whenever there was a Sangat from outside arrangement for their stay and food was made in the gurdwara but he has no knowledge if the stay and food was charged and has voluntarily explained that only Babaji would know of it. He has further deposed that in his presence Babaji never refused permission to any person for staying in the gurdwara. According to him, Babaji was a good person and used to help the needy. The witness has also deposed that he met police official not once but twice or thrice. He has explained that his first statement recorded by the police was regarding missing of Babaji. He has explained that after this report also he had gone to the Police Station and on one occasion his statement was also recorded and has voluntarily explained that inquiries were being made from him time to time. The witness has further deposed that he did not leave the Gurdwara but he was told to leave by Baba Balbir Singh who had come from Punjab. He has denied the suggestion that he had concealed some facts and he had not disclosed those facts deliberately. He has denied the suggestion that he did not met accused Baaz Singh or that nothing was suggested by accused Jasbir Kaur St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 17 regarding his shifting. He has also denied the suggestion that he had deposed before this Court as per dictation of Baba Balbir Singh. (14) PW12 Sh. Rajender Singh @ Raju S/o Late Sh. Lakhbir Singh Lakha has deposed that on 03.02.2010 he was present at Punjab at his house when one Karnail Singh son of Sh. Arjun a resident of Delhi made a telephonic call to him and informed him that his father is not available for last three four days and also informed that no sewadar was available in the gurudwara and asked him to come to Delhi. According to the witness, on receipt of phone from Karnail Singh he came to Gurudwara Rub Da Kutta, G.T. Karnal Road, Lal Bagh Delhi where he met Sh. Karnail Singh in a shop outside the gurudwara who informed him that his father had not come in the gurudwara. The witness has also deposed that he made efforts to contact his father on his mobile phone bearing number 9878834491 but the said phone was found switched off after which he contacted his known and relatives regarding whereabouts of his father but there was no clue. He has further deposed that he came back inside the gurudwara and found the shoes of his father in the toilet but he could not find a bunch of keys and Kirpan of his father there. According to the witness, he then made inquiries from one Harsimran Singh who informed him that when he came in the gurudwara on 03.02.2010 at about 10:00 PM after giving tuition and called his father, his father opened the door and thereafter he (Harsimran Singh) asked his father as to what happened regarding Patel St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 18 Nagar issue on which his father asked him to go inside the room and sleep since he would wake up throughout the night. He has also deposed that Harsimran also informed him that on the next morning, at about 5.00 AM the sewadar Baaz came to him and asked him to do the pooja paath since his father had gone to out for some work on which he (Harsimran) asked Baaz as to when Babaji would come to which he (Baaz) stated that Babaji would come till evening but Babaji did not return till the evening. The witness has further testified that his chacha namely Anil Kumar Lalli R/o Punjab had come to Delhi on 04.10.2010 at about 5.00 PM and did not find his father in the gurudwara on which he made inquiries from Harsimran regarding his father who expressed his ignorance regarding whereabouts of his father and asked his chacha to make inquiries from Baaz. The witness has also deposed that his chacha called Baaz to make inquiries but he (Baaz) ignored him and went away with Sukhpal. According to him, his chacha Anil Kumar @ Lalli informed him that at about 6.15 PM Sukhpal came to the gurudwara on which he made inquiries from Sukhpal regarding Baaz to which he informed that Baaz had gone to Bangla Sahib Gurudwara and would return till night at about 7.00 PM after which his chacha Sh. Anil Kumar Lalli left the gurudwara. The witness has testified that he got suspicion that his father had been kidnapped by Sukhpal on which he went to the Police Station and made his statement to the police which is Ex.PW12/A. St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 19 (15) The witness has also deposed that on 11.02.2010 police came in the gurudwara and he joined the investigation. According to the witness, the legs of the table were found blood stained and hence they were removed by the police and took into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW12/B. He has testified that the police also took into possession one blood stained chatai and blood stained quilt (razai) vide seizure memo Ex.PW12/C. He has proved having identified the dead body of his father in the mortuary Subzi Mandi after getting the postmortem conducted vide statement Ex.PW12/D after which the dead body was received by them for cremation.

(16) The witness has correctly identified all the accused persons in the Court and also identified the case property i.e. quilt which is Ex.P­1, Chatai which is Ex.P­2 and two legs of the chair which are Ex.P­3 collectively.

(17) In his cross­examination by the Ld. Defence Counsel the witness has deposed that he can read and write Hindi. According to him, he has passed 7th class from a Government Sr. Secondary School situated in their colony and left his education in 8th class in the year 2006 after which he started working in a Khairad (turner workshop) near his house where he is still working and has voluntarily explained that he had been resided with his father for about one an half year in the said gurudwara at Delhi before his death. According to the witness, he had stated to the police that he had been resided with his father for St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 20 about one an half year at Delhi and has admitted that this fact is not mentioned in his statement Ex.PW12/A but his address is mentioned. He does not remember as when he left the workshop for the first time and also does not remember as to when he came to Delhi for the first time. According to him, he rejoined the workshop after about the six months from the present incident and remained in Delhi with his father after leaving his job in the workshop after six months of the present incident. The witness has further deposed that he used to do sewa with his father in the gurudwara who never used to send outside gurdwara but only used to do sewa in the gurudwara. He has testified that he used to remain with his father round the clock and used to sleep with him in his room. The witness has also deposed that he used to cook food for him and his father including the food for guests. He has testified that the room where he and his father used to sleep is opposite the gate at some distance in the gurudwara and three other persons were also living in the gurudwara who were students. According to him, at Punjab he was with his brother Jaspal Singh and mother Smt. Balbir Kaur on 03.02.2010 and during his stay at outside Gurudwara his mother and his brother Jaspal had come at the said gurudwara before the death of his father and after the death of his father his brother had come to Delhi but his mother did not come. He is however unable to tell the date, month and year of visit of his brother at Delhi. According to the witness, he received the call from Karnail Singh on his mobile no. 9781447659 St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 21 which call was made by Karnail Singh from mobile no. 9873131318 on 04.02.2010 at about 5.00 or 5.30 PM he left for Delhi on the next morning and reached at Delhi at 12.00 noon and thereafter he went to Gurudwara Rub­Da­Kutta, G.T. Road. The witness has also deposed that he stayed overnight in the gurudwara after he met Karnail Singh and had checked the entire gurudwara and whoever present in the gurudwara he made inquiries from them about his father. He has testified that at that time Piyara Singh was not present there. According to the witness, he visited Police Station Adarsh Nagar on 05.02.2010 in the evening and remained there till 7:00 to 8:00 PM and Karnail and his chacha Anil also accompanied him to the Police Station whereas Harsimran Singh reached the Police Station later. The witness has also deposed that the police had come to the gurudwara next to the day when he had gone to the Police Station and the police also checked the entire gurudwara including all the rooms toilet, bath­room and store. He has further deposed that the police remained there for about one hour. According to him, he had gone to the Police Station thereafter for two to three times and had also signed some papers there and has voluntarily explained that every time he went to the Police Station he signed some papers after reading the same and he did not sign any document at the gurudwara.

(18) The witness has further testified that the police had come to the gurudwara on 7th and 8th of Feb. 2010 and there used to be two­ St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 22 three police men who used to come to the gurudwara for investigation. According to him, the Gurudwara was checked thoroughly by the police only once in his presence and on every date police visited the gurudwara they used to interrogate him. He has testified that the police had come to the gurudwara on 11.02.2010 after 8.00 PM i.e. after they found the dead body of his father. The witness has also deposed that he had seen the dead body of his father at the time of postmortem. According to the witness, at the time when his father's room was checked by the police on 11.02.2010 in his presence they found blood stains present on the rajai, chatai, on the table of his room and also in the room adjoining his room where the utensils had been kept. He has also deposed that the police sealed the room after lifting the blood spots which they were converting into pullanda by putting in a dibbi and at that time Piayra Singh and Jathedar Hakam Singh, Jathedar Darshan Singh were not present in the gurudwara. He does not recollect exactly but states that he left for Punjab on 13.02.2010. According to him, he received the keys of the gurudwara only later on but he does not recollect the date. (19) The witness has testified that Harsimran met him in the evening of 06.02.2010 for the first time after his arrival in Delhi on 05.02.2010 and told him about the facts and has voluntarily explained that he (Harsimran) explained that the dead body of his father was recovered on 10.02.2010 and his mama Hakam Singh was with him and he identified the dead body whereas Sukhpal Singh, Malkit Singh, Baaz St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 23 and Jasbir Kaur had run away from the gurudwara, which facts he had told to police in his statement. According to the witness, he had seen the accused persons previously but he is unable to tell the date. He has further deposed that there are six­seven rooms in the said gurudwara three of which were occupied by Jasbir Kaur, Harsimran was having one room, his father was having one room and in one room goods were stored. The witness has further deposed that Harsimran was living along with his brother and young sister. He has also deposed that when he came to Delhi after getting information about his father he did not sleep in the room of Harsimran nor he went to the room of Jasbir Kaur after 05.02.2010 and he slept in the room of his father. He does not recollect if anybody else had also slept with him or not and states that till he remained in Delhi he used to sleep in the same room where there was a double bed, sofa and almirah of iron and one single bed. According to him, on that day i.e. on 05.02.2010 he slept on double bed and used another chhadar to cover himself. He has further testified that he did not open the almirah as the keys were not available and ahs voluntarily explained that the same was got opened after getting the duplicate keys prepared on 06.02.2010. According to him, the rajai/ quilt which was recovered by the police was of the double bed and the chatai was lying on the floor. The witness has explained that he used to enter that room after putting off his shoes at the gate and sometimes with the shoes but for going to bed he used to take a round of the chatai. St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 24 (20) The witness has further deposed that after coming to Delhi he received a call from his mother and informed her that his father is not missing. According to the witness, he had given a photo of his father to the police after taking out the same from album kept in the almirah. He has also deposed that after he came to Delhi, Anil Kumar @ Lalli met him on the same day for the first and last time and he left Delhi at about 7.00 PM. He has no knowledge if Anil Kumar @ Lalli and Piara Singh had given any written complaint to the police about kidnapping of his father. The witness has further deposed that his father Lakhbir Singh was doing the work of Pathi in the said Gurudwara and was the complete in­charge of the said gurudwara, for the last about one an half year from the date of incident. According to him, prior to this husband of accused Jasbir Kaur namely Baldev Singh was in­charge of the said gurudwara. According to the witness, his father belonged to the group of Balbir Singh but he is not aware if Baldev Singh belongs to the group of Sarjeet Singh. He has admitted that this gurudwara belongs to Budha Dal. The witness has further deposed that Baldev Singh is in jail at Patiala but is not in his knowledge if Sarjit Singh group had appointed accused Jasbir Kaur as incharge of the said gurudwara after her husband Baldev Singh was arrested by Punjab Police. He has also admitted that after his arrest his father was appointed as the incharge of said gurudwara by Sh. Balbir Singh. He has further admitted that a civil case for the said dispute had been filed by Jasbir Kaur against his father. St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 25 He has denied the suggestion that because of the enmity his father and Jasbir Kaur he is deposing falsely. He has also denied the suggestion that he did not receive any phone call from Karnail Singh or that no recovery of aforesaid articles was effected in his presence or that his signatures on the recovery memos were taken by the Investigating Officer forcibly.

(21) The witness has admitted that the shops of gurudwara had been rented out. He has denied the suggestion that in the open ground in the gurudwara, vehicles were allowed to be parked. He is not aware as to who is the incharge of the gurudwara after his father. The witness has further deposed that he had met Balbir Singh one to two times after death of his father. According to him, Balbir Singh helped his family after the death of his father by giving Rs.1,00,000/­. He has testified that the accused persons does not recognize Sh. Balbir Singh of Budha Dal and they belong to the other group.

(22) PW13 Sardar Hakum Singh has deposed that he knew Lakhbir Singh @ Lakha as he was his nephew (real bhanja) and was the Mehant in Rub Da Kutta Gurudwara where one Jasbir Kaur was also residing in the said Gurudwara along with her children. According to the witness, she (Jasbir Kaur) was very quarrelsome lady by nature and often quarrelled with his nephew who had also told him that one Sukhpal is also residing in the Gurudwara. The witness has further deposed that the husband of Jasbir Kaur is involved in some murder St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 26 cases in Punjab and is lodged in jail at Punjab. He has also deposed that Rajender Singh the son of his nephew Lakhbir Singh had come to Delhi on 04.02.2010 but did not find Lakhbir Singh in the Gurudwara on which he tried to search for him at his own level. According to him, it was on 05th or 06.02.2010 that he (Rajender Singh) gave him a telephone call and informed him of the situation, after making a complaint to the police pursuant to which he (witness Hakum Singh) came to Delhi from Punjab. He has testified that on 11.02.2010 while he was in Delhi a team of police officials came in Gurudwara and conducted the search of room of his nephew Lakhbir @ Lakha and recovered a table having blood stains on two of its legs, one blood stained chatai (mat), one blood stained rajai (quilt). He has proved that after cutting the two legs of the table containing the blood stains was sealed with the seal of MK which parcel containing two legs of the chair was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW12/B and the chatai and rajai were also sealed with the seal of MK after which the sealed parcels of both chatai and rajai were taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW12/C. The witness has further deposed that on 12.02.2010 the police officials asked him to identify the dead body of his nephew Lakhbir Singh in the mortuary at Subzi Mandi and his statement regarding identification of the dead body was recorded by the Investigating Officer vide Ex.PW12/A. The witness has also deposed that he raised his suspicion on Sukhpal Singh, Jasbir Kaur @ Chhinder Pal Kaur since they were the St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 27 only persons inimical to Lakhbir Singh, his nephew in Delhi and were the only persons who could harm him, and thereafter he took the dead body to Punjab for last rites.

(23) The witness has further deposed that on 18.02.2010 he again came back to Delhi and joined the investigations of this case along with Jassa Singh and Darshan Singh when they first went to Punjabi Bagh where they identified Ranjeet @ Baaz Singh who was arrested in this case vide memo Ex.PW13/B and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW13/C. According to the witness, one yellow colored checkdar shirt and one lower belonging to Baaz Singh were also sealed with the same seal and taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW13/D. He has further proved that on 19.02.2010 he again joined the investigations of this case when police officials brought Ranjeet Singh @ Baaz Singh at Rab da kuta Gurudwara and the accused Ranjeet Singh @ Baaz Singh had pointed out the room and shown the bed to the police and disclosed that they had killed the Lakhbir Singh @ Lakha there and also pointed out small room and store where they had kept the body of the deceased. He has testified that the cloth which was hanged on the tree after cleaning the blood were handed over to the police but he is not aware whom the cloth belonged but states that same was an old one. He has proved that the said clothes were also wrapped in cloth and sealed with the same seal and taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW13/E. St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 28 (24) The witness has correctly identified the accused Malkeet Singh, Sukhpal Singh, Jasbir Kaur and Ranjeet. He has also identified the case property i.e. quilt which is Ex.P1, chatai which is Ex.P2 and the legs of the table which are Ex.P3 collectively. (25) In his cross­examination by the Ld. Defence Counsel the witness has deposed that he had studied till class 5th or 6th. According to the witness, he does not know English nor he could not read or write Hindi and has voluntarily explained that his is fluent in Punjabi. This Court has, however, observed that the witness can understand Hindi. He has testified that last time when he met with Lakhbir Singh was about 8 to 10 days prior to his death and whenever he came to Delhi he used to stay with Lakhbir Singh and has voluntarily explained that sometimes he used to sleep in his room and sometimes there was a bed outside in the varandah where he used to sleep. The witness has further deposed that he came to Delhi two­three days after receiving the call from Rajender Singh and stayed in Gurudwara with Rajender Singh. He has also deposed that he is not very sure but in so far as he recollects the door of one side of the room was closed but the door towards the kitchen side was perhaps opened. He has testified that he did not pay attention to this fact whether the said door was locked with a proper lock or not. According to him, when they could not find Lakhbir Singh he did not tell Rajender Singh to open his room and check if he had left some note in the room or not. He has further deposed that even before St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 29 11.02.2010 the Police used to come to Gurudwara to make enquiries and has voluntarily explained that he does not know the names of the police officers because they never interacted with him. The witness has also deposed that in his presence the police officials who came to the Gurudwara before 11.02.2010 never went to the room of Lakhbir Singh to check the same. He is also not aware if the police had checked the other rooms of the Gurudwara before 11.02.2010. According to the witness, he was sleeping in the varandah when he was woken up by Rajender Singh on 11.02.2010 in the afternoon time after the police came to the Gurudwara therefore he cannot tell how the door of the room of Lakhbir Singh was opened by the police. He has further deposed that the police remained in the Gurudwara for about half an hour and there were a large number of police official but he could not give their number and states that apart from them a few shopkeepers were casual watchers to the proceedings and has voluntarily explained that many shopkeepers come to the Gurudwara for taking water etc. but none of them stayed. The witness has also deposed that he is known to Pyara Singh and when he came to Delhi on receiving the information, he first met Pyara Singh after 11.02.2010 but he is not certain because he was in grief. He has testified that he met Darshan Singh after the last rights of Lakhbir Singh in Punjab which last rites was carried out on 13.02.2010. According to him, many people from their community attended Funeral of Lakhbir Singh in Punjab and Sardar Balbir Singh St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 30 also attended the funeral alongwith his large number of followers and there was atmosphere of grief. He has also deposed that he might had seen Pyara Singh at the Bhog of the deceased but he did not speak to him and thereafter he often met Pyara Singh in Punjab. The witness has further deposed that first time he met Pyara Singh after the Paath and Bhog is now when he came to Delhi to appear before this Court and has voluntarily explained that during this period he never met him at Delhi. (26) The witness has further testified that about two and a half months prior to the incident he visited the Gurudwara Rub Da Kutta last time when he hardly stayed for about one night and went away. According to the witness, he is Jatthedar in Gurudwara in village Dadheda, Distt. Patiala, Punjab and used to come to Delhi only to meet his nephew Lakhbir Singh. He does not recollect where he had signed Ex.PW13/B and Ex.PW13/C and has voluntarily explained that it could be in Punjabi Bagh or in the Police Station he does not recollect. He has also deposed that he had signed many documents at Gurudwara and also at the Police Station whenever the police had come to the Gurudwara for the investigations or he was called to the Police Station. According to him, it was noon hours when he visited Punjabi Bagh alongwith police personnels and accused Ranjeet Singh @ Baaz Singh was arrested. He has also deposed that they remained in Punjabi Bagh for about half an hour after which he came back to the Gurudwara and police officials went back to the Police Station alongwith the accused. He is unable to St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 31 tell the exact place where the accused Ranjeet was apprehended in the area of Punjabi Bagh nor he can tell the location of the place of apprehension. According to the witness, he went to Punjabi Bagh in his own vehicle of make Mahendra with his driver and it was Darshan Singh who alongwith Jassa Singh came at Gurudwara and informed him that he had been called by the police to Punjabi Bagh. He had followed the vehicle of Darshan Singh and Jassa Singh and they told him that the place where they had stopped and where they had identified Ranjeet Singh @ Baaz Singh, was Punjabi Bagh. He has testified that the police had also recorded the statement of Ranjeet Singh at the spot when he was arrested before he was taken to the Police Station. He has admitted that after sometime he came and sat in his car while the police was still interrogating Ranjeet Singh and has voluntarily explained that he was told by the other persons who were with him at Punjabi Bagh itself that he had confessed to the killing of Lakhbir Singh. He has denied the suggestion that no such proceedings were carried out at Punjabi Bagh nor any disclosure was recorded nor the accused was arrested after his identification.

(27) The witness Hakum Singh has further deposed that police visited Gurudwara Rub Da Kutta in the noon time on 19.02.2010 and remained there for about 15­20 minutes and had obtained his signatures on some documents but he could not tell their numbers. He is also unable to tell whether accused Ranjeet was in hand­cuffs on 19.02.2010. St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 32 He has denied the suggestion that accused Ranjeet Singh did not point out the room or that accused Ranjeet Singh did not disclose involvement in the present case before the police or that nothing was recovered at his instance. He has admitted that he cannot read and tell what is written in the disclosure statement of Ranjeet Singh Ex.PW13/C and has voluntarily explained that it is in Hindi and therefore he cannot read it but can read all documents in Gurumukhi. The disclosure statement of the accused Ranjeet Singh was read out to the witness in Hindi after which he states that he had signed the statement after the police had read out the contents of Ex.PW13/C. He has further testified that he is not a resident of Delhi so he cannot tell the exact area but the police had carried out the interrogation of the accused Ranjeet in his presence at Punjabi Bagh area which proceedings took place on a motorable road where lot of public persons were coming and going. According to the witness, in his presence the police did not join any public person in the proceedings. He is not aware if any police official from Police Station Punjabi Bagh was called or not and has voluntarily explained that he just remember the name of one police official who was with him who was being called as Shashi. The witness has also deposed that after the death of Lakhbir Singh, Sardar Balbir Singh had given Rs. One lakh financial assistance to the family of Lakhbir Singh. He has admitted that he is the follower of Sardar Balbir Singh and that there is an internal dispute in the management and other group of Sardar Sarjeet St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 33 Singh. The witness has further admitted that even in Punjab many disputes are pending between the two groups over the control of many Gurudwaras and that before Lakhbir Singh, one Baldev Singh claimed himself to be the Mahant of the Gurudwara and has voluntarily explained that he of his own had forcibly occupied three rooms of the Gurudwara and posed himself as Mahant. He has also deposed that Baldev Singh belongs to the group headed by Sardar Sarjeet Singh and Baldev Singh has been implicated in a case in Patiala, Punjab and was arrested. He is not aware if Sarjeet Singh group authorized Jasbir Kaur as in­charge of Gurudwara Rub Da Kutta in absence of Baldev Singh. According to the witness, he is aware that accused Jasbir Kaur is the wife of Baldev Singh but he is not aware of any criminal case against Jasbir Kaur at Talwandi Sabo, Punjab U/s 307/364/148/149/120B IPC nor he is aware of its outcome. He has denied the suggestion that when accused Jasbir Kaur was given clean chit in the above case they had falsely implicated her in the present case. He has testified that he does not know Harsimran and has voluntarily explained that he had heard his name from his deceased nephew who told him that Harsimran was a boy who was studying with him. According to the witness, he knew Lakhbir Singh since his birth and he was a pious person. He has denied the suggestion that he had not participated in any investigation proceedings and his signatures had been taken much later only to plant him as a witness or that on account of the internal Gurudwara politics they had St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 34 falsely implicated the accused persons in the present case. (28) PW14 Sardar Payara Singh S/o Late Sh. Ram Singh has deposed that he is a sewadar at Rub Da Kutta Gurudwara, Lal Bagh where Lakha Singh was the Mehant in the said Gurudwara which Gurudwara was under the control of Balbir Singh. According to the witness, prior to this Baldev Singh was forcibly posing himself as Garanthi of the said Gurudwara. He has further deposed that Baldev Singh was in Jail at Punjab in a case of murder and his wife Jasbir Kaur was in possession of three rooms of the said Gurudwara illegally. According to him, people from Punjab often used to come at the said Gurudwara to meet Jasbir Kaur @ Chhinder Pal Kaur. (29) The witness has further deposed that on the intervening night of 03­04.02.2010, he had gone outstation for his personal work and he returned back on 13.02.2010 during which period Lakhbir @ Lakha was killed. He has proved that he pointed Jasbir Kaur @ Chhinder Pal Kaur and got produced her before the police after which she was arrested in this case vide memo Ex.PW14/A and the real sister of Jasbir Kaur namely Sarabjeet Kaur also came there who was also produced before the police. The witness has further proved that the accused Sukhpal Singh was arrested by the police at his instance vide memo Ex.PW14/B, his personal search was conducted vide Ex.PW14/C after which the accused Sukhpal Singh pointed out the store where they kept the dead body of the deceased Lakhbir for 24 St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 35 hours. He has testified that the disclosure statement of Sukhpal Singh and Jasbir Kaur were recorded vide Ex.PW14/D and Ex.PW14/E respectively and then accused Sukhpal and accused Jasbir Kaur took the police party at room/store where they got recovered one blood stained Tirpal, blood stained hair and there was blood on the floor. According to him, the hair was kept in a small dibbi and sealed with the seal of MK after which the parcel containing hair was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW14/F and the Tirpal was also sealed with the same seal and taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW14/G. He has proved that the blood stained earth was broken and sealed with the same seal after which the said parcel was also taken into possession vide Ex.PW14/H and the earth without blood was also separated and converted into parcel and sealed the same with the same seal which parcel was also taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW14/I. According to the witness, thereafter the accused Sukhpal led the police party at said Gurudwara and on the pointing out of Sukhpal the accused Jasbir Kaur got recovered Cholla belonging to Sukhpal worn by him at the time of incident which cholla was sealed with the same seal and taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW14/J. He has proved that the accused Sukhpal also got recovered Noon Kootna from the room of Lakhbir Singh stated to have been used in the beating which Noon Kutna was also converted into parcel and sealed the same with the seal St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 36 of MK and taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW14/K. (30) The witness has further deposed that on 15.02.2010 he again joined the investigations with the police party when the police officials brought Jasbir Kaur and Sukhpal and the accused Malkeet Singh who is son of Jasbir Kaur met them in front of Gurudwara Rub Da Kutta and near Masjid. According to him, Malkeet Singh was apprehended and arrested in this case vide memo Ex.PW14/L, his personal search was conducted vide Ex.PW14/M and at the instance of accused Malkeet the accused Jasbir Kaur got recovered one jacket from double bed lying in the room which jacket was belonging to Malkeet worn by him at the time of incident. He has proved that the said jacket was converted into parcel and sealed the same with the seal of MK and taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW14/N. The witness has testified that the accused Malkeet got recovered one Bisleri Bottle of one liter stated to have been used in taking petrol after which the Investigating Officer converted the said bottle into parcel and sealed the same with the same seal which parcel was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW14/O. According to the witness, the seal after use was handed over to him by the Investigating Officer. He has further deposed that on that day one Krishan Murari had brought one Maruti car bearing No. 4256, complete number he does not remember, stating that the said car was taken by Malkeet on 04­05.02.2010 after which the said car was also taken into possession vide Ex.PW14/P. The witness has further St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 37 proved that on 18.02.2010 they all including himself, police officials, Jassa Singh, Hakum Singh, Darshan Singh went to Punjabi Bagh where Bazz Singh and Sukpal Singh met them and he identified accused Bazz Singh after which the accused Bazz Singh was arrested in this case vide memo Ex.PW13/A and after interrogating the disclosure statement of the accused Bazz Singh was recorded vide Ex.PW13/C. He has testified that the cloth of accused Bazz Singh stated to have been worn by him at the time of incident were converted into parcel and sealed the same with the same seal and thereafter taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW13/D. The witness has also deposed that the statement of Malkeet Singh was recorded vide Ex.PW14/R. (31) He has proved that the accused Sukhpal took the police party on 13.02.2010 at Nehru Vihar T point and pointed out the place where he threw the dead body of the deceased Lakhbir Singh pursuant to which the Investigating Officer prepared the memo to this effect vide Ex.PW15/A. (32) The witness has correctly identified all the accused persons by their names and also by pointing out towards them. He has also identified the case property i.e. one plastic Tirpal which is Ex.P4; earth control which are Ex.P5 & Ex.P6; one brown colored lining cholla belonging to accused Sukhpal which is Ex.P7; one cream and blue color Jacket belonging to accused Malkeet which is Ex.P8; one dirty lower St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 38 and one shirt belonging to accused Ranjeet Singh @ Bazz Singh which are Ex.P9 collectively; rough clothes used for cleaning blood by accused which is Ex.P10 collectively; weapon of offence i.e. noon ghotna/ kutna which is Ex.P11; bunch of hair belonging to deceased which is Ex.P12 and one Bisleri Bottle which is Ex.P13. (33) In his cross­examination by the Ld. Defence counsel the witness has deposed that he had been working as sewadar in Gurudwara "Rub Da Kutta" for the last about 20 years and his duty as sewadar included to keep accounts, to travel, to attend the persons who come to stay in the Gurudwara, cleanliness of the Gurudwara i.e. "jharu lagana". According to the witness, he is illiterate and can understand Punjabi and to some extend Hindi but cannot speak Hindi. He has further deposed that Lakhbir Singh @ Lakha was appointed Mehant long back since 20­25 years back and the Gurudwara Rub Da Kutta is under the control of Baba Balbir Singh of Boodha Dal and he had joined with Baba Balbir Singh since his childhood. The witness has admitted that the deceased was connected with the group of Baba Balbir Singh who has no connection with SGPC. The witness has testified that prior to Lakhbir Singh, Sh. Arjun Singh was the Mehant of the gurudwara. He has admitted that the group of Sarjeet is also claiming the management and control of this gurudwara and there is a regular dispute for the last 15 years. He has also admitted that he was not available in Delhi prior to 13.02.2010 and hence he is not aware of what St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 39 transpired prior to 13.02.2010. The witness has further admitted that there are large number of shops outside the gurudwara. According to him, a large number of public persons had gathered when he pointed out Jasbir Kaur and she was arrested by the police and has voluntarily explained that his real sister Sarabjeet Kaur was also came there but states that the signatures of Sarabjeet Kaur were not taken when Jasbir Kaur was arrested. He has denied the suggestion that Jasbir Kaur was not apprehended/arrested at his instance and it is for this reason that the signatures of public persons were not taken. According to the witness, they had gone to Punjabi Bagh in a vehicle make Mahendra and has voluntarily explained that the vehicle belonging to the gurudwara which vehicle was being driven by Bhinder who is also working in the gurudwara. He has admitted that Bhinder was also with them when Ranjeet was apprehended but his signatures were not taken on any of the documents. According to him, Jassa Singh, Darshan Singh, Hakam Singh amongst others were also with them and apart from himself the signatures of Hakam Singh were also taken. He is not aware if the police had taken the signatures of other persons present at the spot or not. He has testified that at the time when the accused Ranjeet allegedly made the disclosure all the above persons were also present along with the police. The witness has further deposed that Ranjeet Singh was apprehended on the pointing out of Sukhpal Singh but he is not aware if the police had taken the signatures of Darshan Singh, Jassa Singh or St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 40 Hakam Singh on the disclosure statement of Ranjeet and has voluntarily explained that he came to one side. He has also deposed that at the time Ranjeet Singh was apprehended he was wearing a white long shirt and his disclosure was recorded at Punjabi Bagh itself. According to him, they remained at the spot for about 20­25 minutes during which the statement of Ranjeet Singh was recorded. He is unable to tell the exact time but it was after the lunch time before the evening. The witness has further deposed that at the place where Ranjeet was apprehended there were not many passersby and has voluntarily explained that it is not a frequent road. He has testified that police was present along with them but he is unable to tell whether they were from Punjabi Bagh Police Station or not. He has further deposed that Ranjeet Singh is not a Sewadar in the Gurudwara and has voluntarily explained that he was called by Chindar Kaur/Jasbir Kaur. He is unable to tell the exact date but it was two­three days before he had left i.e. on 02.02.2010. The witness has further testified that at the time when he joined in the gurudwara Ranjeet was sporting a beard and has voluntarily explained that when he was apprehended he had trimmed his beard. He has denied the suggestion that Ranjeet Singh was not apprehended in his presence nor he made any disclosure statement Ex.PW13/C and it is for this reason that he cannot give the details of the other persons present or that all documentations were done later on while sitting in the Police Station by the police with their connivance. He has also denied the St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 41 suggestion that they have falsely implicated Ranjeet Singh only because he belongs to the group of Sarjeet Singh.

(34) The witness Pyara Singh has further testified that he had not gone to Police Station Adarsh Nagar nor he had given any complaint there. He has denied the suggestion that he had given a complaint to Police Station Adarsh Nagar alleging that he had seen 16 persons taking away Lakhvinder Singh Lakha or that in that complaint he had alleged that on 03.02.2010 at about 5­6 PM he had seen the said 16 persons forcibly taking away Lakhbir Singh in two vehicles to some unknown destination with intention to kill him and ultimately eliminating him. The witness has been shown court file of complaint case No. 548/10 pending in the court of Sh. Neeraj Gaur, MM, Rohini Courts titled Kulwant Singh Vs Balbir Singh wherein a complaint is shown to him and he has been asked whether it bears his signatures or not, but the witness denied that the signatures in the said complaint belong to him. The photocopy of the said complaint has been taken on record and marked as PW14/DA. The witness has further deposed that he does not have any mobile number. He has denied the suggestion that he had a mobile phone number 09463553510. According to the witness, he knew Jassa Singh and Darshan Singh and has voluntarily explained that there may be ten persons in the similar name in their pant. He has further deposed that he had given his statement in this case to the police but he does not remember if he had given his mobile number in his statement St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 42 to the police.

(35) On a specific Court Question the witness replied that he is not aware how this number 09463553510 has been mentioned in his statement under Section 161 Cr. P.C which is mark as PW14/DB. According to him, the police did not read out his statement to him which they had recorded under Section 161 Cr. P.C. (36) The witness has further deposed that he had been visiting Delhi for the last 40 years. According to the witness, he is not in politics. He has further deposed that he is appearing as a witness for the first time and he is not a witness in case FIR No. 9/2009 U/S 307/364/ 148/149/120B IPC and 25 Arms Act PS Talwandi Sabo, District Bhatinda, Punjab. He is not aware if Chinder Pal/ Jasbir Kaur is one of the accused in that case or if the police after investigations found that case to be false. He has denied the suggestion that he is a witness in the above FIR and had been cited as a witness and as voluntarily explained that he is not a witness in any FIR and it may be some other person by the same name. The witness has testified that he is not known to any person with the name of Darshan Singh Nehangh but knew Sardar Balbir Singh a resident of Gurudwara Ber Sahib, Talwinder Sabo, District Bhatinda, Punjab. According to the witness, he had never been to Talwinder Sabo. He has denied the suggestion that now he is wrongly denying that he had never been to Talwinder Sabo. Witness has been read over the contents of FIR No. 09/09 PS Talwinder Sabo, St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 43 Bahitnda to which he denies the name of Pyara Singh mentioned in the same. The copy of the said FIR is marked as PW14/DC. The witness has further deposed that he is not known to any Darshan Singh who is the chacha of Balbir Singh but he knows Jassa Singh who is PA to Balbir Singh.

(37) According to the witness Pyara Singh, he knew the accused Jasbir Kaur for the last two­three years and he had gone to Patiala before 13.02.2010 at Bagichi Shah after meeting Lakha Singh on 02.02.2010 in the evening time. He is unable to tell how many documents he had signed till date but except whenever some proceedings took place and he was asked to sign the documents, he signed. He is unable to tell the names of other witnesses who had signed those documents and can only tell about his signatures but not about others. He does not recollect if any person other than him signed the documents as witness in his presence. He is unable to tell the number of documents which he signed on 15.02.2010 but states that on 15.02.2010 he had signed the documents at the place where the proceedings were conducted and he was present. He has denied the suggestion that he cannot tell where he was present on 15.02.2010. He is aware that the husband of Jasbir Kaur is in custody in case in Punjab in which Balbir Singh is the complainant and again clarified that he is not aware of the name of the complainant whether it is Balbir Singh or somebody else. He has denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsely or that he has been planted as a St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 44 witness by the prosecution.

(38) PW15 Sh. Anand Sharma has deposed that he is running a auto repairing shop at Outer Ring Road Nehru Vihar crossing. He does not remember the date but states that one day the police official had brought one Sardarji whose name he does not remember but he can identify him. The witness has identified the accused Sukhpal as the person who had come to the spot along with the police and had pointed out and identified the place where he had thrown the dead body of the person whom he had killed ("jis admi ko mara tha uski body fekhi thi"). The witness has identified his signatures at document Ex.PW15/A after which his statement was recorded. (39) In his cross­examination by the Ld. Defence Counsels the witness has deposed that it is the first time that he has come to the court and he is not a witness or involved in any other case. According to the witness, his shop is situated at Nehru Vihar mor which he used to open between 9­10AM and close it by 8:30­9PM. The witness has further deposed that he does not shut/close his shop on any of the week days and has voluntarily explained that it is functioning on all the days. He has admitted that the market remains closed on Monday and his shop remains closed on Mondays. He does not recollect the date when the police had come to the spot nor does he recollect the time when the police had come to the spot along with the accused. He has denied the St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 45 suggestion that he is unable to tell the date, day or time because police had never come to the spot along with the accused and he had been planted by them. He further has denied the suggestion that he is stock witness of the police or that he had signed the document in the Police Station.

(40) PW17 Sh. Krishan Murari Tiwari an LIC agent by profession has deposed that he is having a Maruti car bearing no. DL 2C B 4256 Model 2002 and knew Smt. Jasbir Kaur for last many years. According to the witness, the son of Jasbir Kaur namely Malkeet Singh had taken his aforesaid car on 03.02.2010 in the morning hours at about 3.00­4.00AM and on the next day i.e. on 04.02.2010 he had brought his car back and handed over the key to him after parking the same at Luisa Tower, after which he handed over the key to him at about 7.00­8.00AM. He has further deposed that Malkeet Singh took his car on the pretext of bringing some relative. (41) Leading questions were put to the witness by Ld. Addl. PP for the State wherein he has deposed that Malkeet Singh had not taken the car and key of the car on the night of 4­5.02.2010 at about 12.30AM (midnight) however he had taken the said car on 03.02.2010 at about 4.00­5.00AM.

(42) In his cross­examination by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State portion A to A of statement Ex.PW17/PX­1 was read over and explained to the witness which he admitted having made so before the St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 46 police. He has admitted that he had forgotten this aspect due to lapse of time.

(43) In his cross­examination by the Ld. Defence Counsel the witness has deposed that he was having regular telephonic talk with Jasbir Kaur who took his car on 03.02.2010 and returned the same on 04.02.2010. The witness has explained having remembered the date as it was his birth day on 04.02.2010 and he used his car on 04.02.2010 while celebrating his birth day.

(44) PW19 Sh. Rakesh Bhardwaj , S/o Late Sh. B.S. Bhardwaj deposed that he had a photo studio at Jawahar Market, Mall Road, Timarpur, Delhi and on the intervening night of 05­06.02.2010 police of Police Station Timarpur reached at his house at about 3.00AM and took him at Nehru Vihar mor. According to the witness, he found a dead body wrapped in a cloth near a broken wall and on the directions of the SHO of PS Timarpur, he took two­three photographs with digital camera. The witness has further deposed that thereafter the cloth was removed from the dead body and found a dead body of a Sikh male person aged about 35 years old and then he took four­five photographs of the same on the directions of the SHO. The witness has proved having handed over the positive photographs to the police which photographs are Ex.PW19/A­1 to Ex.PW19/A­11.

(45) In his cross­examination by the Ld. Defence Counsel the witness has deposed that he had taken photographs with his digital St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 47 camera and therefore there are no negatives. According to him, he reached the spot at 3.00AM (night) and remained there for about 30­45 minutes. The witness has further deposed that he had not given the memory card to the Investigating Officer and had not given any CD of the above said photographs developed from the memory card to the Investigating Officer.

(46) PW20 Sh. Karnail Singh has deposed that he is residing at House No. 352, Dhaka Extension, Delhi since 1974 and having a shop of building material under the name and style of 'Pholora Building Materials' at shop No. 9 and 10, Gudwara Rub Da Kutta, GT Karnal road, Azadpur, Delhi. According to the witness, his shop opens at 8 AM and closes at 8 PM but since he is in the business of supply of building material therefore when his supply is suppose to be at night he is present in the shop whenever the supply is loaded at the night hours. The witness has further deposed that on 04­05.02.2010 since his supply of building material had to come therefore he reached his shop at 12:15 AM (midnight) and was waiting for the supply vehicle. According to him, at about 12:30 AM (Midnight) he saw one steel grey color maruti car entering the gurduwara which was being driven by Malkeet Singh who resides in the gurudwara and often used to get the vehicle to the gurudwara. The witness has also deposed that since his supply was late so he was taking a stroll outside on the road and waiting for his vehicle and after about half an hour to forty five minutes he saw that the door of St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 48 the gurudwara was opened by the mother of Malkeet Singh namely Jasbir Kaur and the same steel grey color maruti car came out which was being driven by Malkeet Singh and Sukhpal Singh who also resides in the gurudwara was also with him. He has testified that since the lights of his shop and the lights of the gate of the gurudwara were switched on, he could see something lying tied on the back seat ("bandha hua saman jo katta sa lagta tha") and he could just had a glimpse of the same. The witness has further deposed that Jasbir Kaur the mother of Malkeet Singh closed the door of the gurudwara after which the vehicle went away and after about 15­20 minutes his vehicle came with the load and after unloading the same he went back home. He has also deposed that he was called to the Police Station for identification of the vehicle on 22.02.2010 which vehicle/ steel grey color maruti car he identified in the Police Station after which his statement was recorded by the police. He has correctly identified the accused Jasbir Kaur, Malkeet Singh and Sukhpal Singh in the Court. (47) In his cross­examination by the Ld. Defence Counsel the witness has deposed that he is assessed to income tax and maintains a regular register in respect of the supplies received and delivered. According to the witness, in the intervening night of 04­05.02.2010 the building material was supplied to him by one Umesh who had his shop near Papria Bazar, near Kutub Minar and has voluntarily explained that the said shop has now been demolished by the government. The witness St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 49 has further deposed that he does not have any receipt or documentary record of the said delivery and has voluntarily explained that the entire business is done on telephone and all demand and supply orders are given and taken on telephone. He has testified that he was having a mobile phone at that time and was using the same and Umesh was also having a mobile on which he used to give order to him. The witness has further deposed that he did not give his mobile number to the police nor he gave the mobile number of Umesh and has voluntarily explained that nobody questioned him or asked him to give the same. He has also deposed that his mobile number is 9873131318 but he is not having the number of Umesh now because he had no links with him. According to the witness, his shop is not even 15 feet away from the gate of the gurudwara and has voluntarily explained that it is one shop away from the gate of the gurudwara. The witness has further deposed that he is on rent in the said two shops since 1974 @ Rs.1,100/­ per month. He has admitted that the husband of Jasbir Kaur namely Baldev Singh was previously the Jethedar of the gurudwara and at that time when he was jethedar he used to pay the rent to him. He has denied the suggestion that Jethedar Baldev Singh used to tell them either to increase the rent or to vacate the shop. According to the witness, he had first disclosed the fact of the coming and going of maruti car on the intervening night of 04­05.02.2010 to the police in the evening of 05.02.2010 and has voluntarily explained that he had not seen Lakhbir Singh in the St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 50 gurudwara for two­three days and Jasbir Kaur and Sukhpal Singh had tried to call him to the gurudwara but he refused and told them to come to his shop and asked them where Lakhbir Singh was but they told him that he had gone to Punjab, on which he became suspicious and called up Raju, the son of Lakhbir Singh at Punjab on 03.02.2010 and asked him if his father had come to Punjab since he had not seen him for two­ three days but Raju told him that he had not come and therefore he became more suspicious and asked him to come to Delhi and when he came to Delhi on 05.02.2010 at about 12:30 PM (afternoon) they went to the Police Station in the evening for lodging the complaint. The witness has further deposed that he did not tell the police that he had called up Raju and informed him of his father being missing after which he had come to Police Station and also that Jasbir Kaur and Sukhpal Singh had tried to call him in the gurudwara but he refused and asked them to come to him and thereafter when he asked them where Lakhbir Singh was, they told him that he was in Punjab. He has testified that he had good relations with Lakhbir Singh @ Lakha and is aware of the rivalry which was existing between the husband of Jasbir Kaur and the group of which Lakhbir Singh @ Lakha was a part. He is also aware that because of this rivalry the husband of Jasbir Kaur i.e. Baldev Singh was removed and Lakhbir Singh was made the Jethedar. He has admitted that he sided with Lakhbir Singh @ Lakha in the rivalry and has voluntarily explained that their spiritual head/ babaji Balbir Singh St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 51 had advised all of them not to side with Baldev Singh as he had taken law into his hands and was involved in a murder at Patiala. He has denied the suggestion that being a supporter of baba Balbir Singh and Lakhbir Singh @ Lakha he is a planted witness or that he is deposing falsely on this account.

(48) PW21 Sh. Arjun Singh has deposed that he is In­charge/ Jathedar of the above said Gurudwara and earlier he was Jathedar of Gurudwara Rub Da Kutta, Lal Bagh, GT Karnal Road, Delhi and had had been working as a Jathedar of Gurudwara Akal Bunga Chhawni, Near Mother Dairy, Pandav Nagar, Delhi since the year 1999. According to the witness, Baldev Singh was looking after the work of Gurudwara Rub Da Kutta, Lal Bagh, GT Karnal Road after he went to Gurudwara at Pandav Nagar and after 1 ½ and 2 years Baldev Singh also brought his wife and children in that Gurudwara and they were residing also there and remained there as caretaker upto 2007. He has further deposed that a murder took place in the year 2007 in Patiala and Baldev Singh was found involved in that case after which he (baldev Singh) absconded from Gurudwara Rub Da Kutta but his family members and children remained there. According to him, in the year 2007 Baba Balbir Singh Mukhi appointed Lakhbir @ Lakha as Mehant of Gurudwara Rub Da Kutta, Lal Bagh, GT Karnal Road in place of Baldev Singh after which Lakhbir @ Lakha remained Mehant of the Gurudwara. The witness has further deposed that Jasbir Kaur @ St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 52 Chhinder Pal Kaur wife of Baldev Singh were residing in the same Gurudwara and she was having a behaviour of quarrelsome and used to quarrel with Lakhbir Singh. He has also deposed that on many occasions he tried to pacify both the parties but Jasbir Kaur @ Chhinder Pal Kaur insisted that Lakhbir should vacate the Gurudwara as he was forcibly made Mehant of Gurudwara. He has further deposed that Jasbir Kaur filed a Civil Suit in respect of the said Gurudwara in which he, Balbir Singh and Lakhbir Singh @ Lakha were made parties. (49) The witness has further deposed that on 03.02.2010 at about 2.00PM a meeting was held at Gurudwara Ranjeet Akhara, Baljeet Nagar for replacement of one Sevadar namely Himmat Singh which meeting was attended by him, Lakhbir Singh @ Lakha, Kashmir Singh, Avtar Singh and other other persons and meeting was continued upto 6.00­6.30PM after which they went to Police Station Patel Nagar and after giving their representation there, they went to Metro Station Shadipur Depot and he alongwith Kashmir Singh went to Laxmi Nagar via Rajiv Chowk Metro Station whereas Lakhbir @ Lakha boarded down at Rajiv Chowk and then he went to Azadpur at about 7.00PM, after which he had not seen Lakhbir @ Lakha. According to the witness, one Sukhpal was residing with Jasbir Kaur @ Chhinder Pal Kaur. He has correctly identified the accused Jasbir Kaur @ Chhinder Pal Kaur.

St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 53 (50) In his cross­examination by the Ld. Defence Counsel the witness has deposed that he had not stated to the police in his statement that Jasbir Kaur @ Chhinder Pal Kaur wanted to evict Lakhbir @ Lakha from the Gurudwara. The witness has further deposed that Lakhbir Singh @ Lakha boarded down from the Metro Train at Rajiv Chowk Station and thereafter he left and then he went to Laxmi Nagar. He has admitted that there are two groups one headed by Balbir Singh and the other headed by Sarjeet Singh and the deceased Lakhbir Singh @ Lakha belongs to Balbir Singh group whereas the accused persons belong to Sarjeet Singh group. He has further admitted that he also belong to Baba Balbir Singh group. He has however denied the suggestion that Baba Balbir Singh group is in a habit of committing offences and fabricate evidences against their opposite parties and falsely implicating them in false cases or that they used to do so in order to bring the opposite party in their command.

(51) PW27 Sardar Avtar Singh has deposed that he is a Jathedar of the above­said Gurudwara at Ranjeet Akhara and he knew Lakhbir Singh Lakha who was a Sewadar/ Granthi/ Mehant of Gurudwara Rub Da Kutta and he also knew Chinder Pal Kaur as she is wife of Baldev Singh. According to him, Lakhbir Singh Lakha, Chinder Pal Kaur, her son and one daughter were also residing there and he does not know Sukh Pal but he met him on one or two occasions. The witness has also deposed that on 03.02.2010, a meeting was held at their St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 54 Gurudwara at Baljit Nagar and Lakhbir Singh Lakha, Arjun Singh and Mangal Singh Kashmiri also attended the meeting and they finally left them at about 6:30 PM and later on, police contacted him and he told the abovesaid facts to the Police.

(52) Leading questions were put to the witness by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State wherein he has admitted that Police recorded his statement and has voluntarily explained that what he stated above, he also stated to the Police. He has denied the suggestion that Chinder Pal kept Sukh Pal and she was wrong with him or that Chinder Pal used to abuse Lakhbir in front of him and threatened him to be killed and he tried to pacify her but she did not agree with him and has voluntarily explained that he had not stated so to the Police. He has has again clarified that there was a quarrel (tu tu mai mai) took place between Lakhbir and Chinder Pal and then he pacified the matter. (53) In his cross­examination by the Ld. Defence Counsel the witness has admitted that no quarrel was ever took place in his presence. Witness of Medical Record:

(54) PW16 Dr. S. Lal, Specialist Forensic Medicine, Subzi Mandi Mortuary, Delhi has deposed that on 12.02.2010, he was working as Specialist Forensic Medicines, Subzi Mandi Mortuary, Aruna Asaf Ali Hospital, Delhi and on that day he conducted the postmortem on the body of Mehant Lakhbir Singh @ Lakkha Singh S/o Assa Singh St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 55 aged about 42 years, Male vide PM report Ex.PW16/A. He has proved that the cause of death in this case was asphyxia due to ante mortem strangulation by means of ligature possible to cause by ligature material present around the neck, all injuries were ante mortem in nature, recent in duration; Injury no. 1 to 6 could be possible to cause by blunt force impact and injury no.7 was caused by means of ligature and was sufficient to cause death in ordinary cause of nature. According to the witness, the time since death in this case was about one to one and half week. The witness has further deposed that on the request of Investigating Officer Inspector Mahavir Kaushik seeking opinion of the injury possible with the weapon of offence or otherwise i.e noon kutna pursuant to which on 25.03.2010, he had given the opinion in this regard which is Ex.PW16/B bearing his signatures at point B in which he had given the opinion that injury no.1 to 5 could have been possible to cause by this weapon of offence i.e. noon kutna which was produced before him for examination. According to the witness, the said weapon of offence was re­sealed in the original covering in which same was sent to them with the seal of CMO, incharge AAA GH Aruna Asaf Ali Hospital and handed over to the Investigating Officer.

(55) In his cross­examination by Ld. Defence Counsel the witness has deposed that the injuries aforementioned are possible by the St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 56 similar size and shape of wooden piece as of weapon of offence.

According to the present case, in the present case time since death could not be opined accurately and has voluntarily explained that the time since death was given as the postmortem findings and police record which were approximate. He has further clarified that in the present case the variation in time since death could be of two to three days either side.

FSL Experts:

(56) PW29 Sh. Sri Narain, Asstt. Director (Chemistry), FSL, Rohini, Delhi has deposed that on 26.03.2010, he was posted as Senior Scientific Officer (Chemistry) at FSL, Rohini. According to him on that day, one parcel in sealed condition was received at FSL, Rohini, Delhi through HC Sudhir Singh in case FIR No. 31/10, Police Station Adarsh Nagar. He has testified that the seal was found intact and tallied with the sample seal and on opening the parcel, he found Ex.1A containing stomach and piece of small intestine with contents in the sealed jar, Ex.

1B containing pieces of liver, spleen and kidney kept in a sealed jar, Ex. 1C blood sample in a sealed bottle and Ex.1D containing preservative samples kept in a bottle. Witness has further deposed that after examination of the abovesaid exhibits, he gave his detailed report which is Ex.PW29/A and he had not found any common poison in the abovesaid exhibits and he sealed the remnants of exhibits with the seal St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 57 of 'SN : FSL : DELHI'.

(57) Witness has further deposed that on 29/03/2010, three parcels were received at FSL, Rohini, Delhi through Constable Rahul Tyagi in the abovesaid case FIR number and the same was marked to him and he found sealed intact and tallied with the sample seal. According to the witness, on opening the parcel no.1, he found Ex.1 containing one empty plastic bottle with cap labelled as Bisleri; in parcel no. 2 he found Ex.2 containing bunch of hairs stated to be recovered hairs and on opening the parcel no.3, he found Ex.3 containing yellow coloured cloth strip. He has proved that after examining the abovesaid exhibits he gave his detailed report Ex. PW29/B according to which on chemical, TLC and GC Examination, residue of petrol, diesel and kerosene could not be detected in the abovesaid exhibits 1, 2 & 3. He has not been cross­examined by the Ld. Defence Counsel despite opportunity in this regard. (58) PW30 Ms. Sunita Suman, Senior Scientific Officer (Biology), FSL, Rohini, Delhi has deposed that on 26.03.2010, 24 sealed parcels were received at their FSL Office, Rohini, Delhi in case FIR No. 31/10, Police Station Adarsh Nagar which were marked to her and she found seals intact and tallied the same with sample seal. According to the witness, on opening the parcel she marked the exhibits as Ex.1 to 8, 9a, 9b and Ex. 10 to Ex. 20, Ex. 21a, 21b and 22 to 24 and after examining all the exhibits, she gave her biological report which is St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 58 Ex.PW30/A (running in three pages). According to the witness, she found blood on Ex.1 (one chatai), Ex.2 (one Rajai), Ex.3 (two pieces of wooden table legs), Ex.5 (some stone pieces as each with blood, Ex.6 (some stone pieces as earth control), Ex.8 (one jacket), Ex.10 (one dirty cloth piece as rough cloth used for cleaning blood by accused), Ex.12 (one cloth piece in which dead body was tied), Ex.13 (one bori of jute as gunny bag in which the dead body of victim was kept), Ex.14 (one towel), Ex.15 (one blanket), Ex.16 (soil as earth with blood), Ex.18 (some cloth piece as tying material around waist), Ex.20 (one cloth piece as ligature material), Ex.21a (one dirty T­shirt), Ex.21B (one sleeve), Ex.22 (a small bunch of hairs as a scalp hairs of deceased), Ex. 23 (one blood stained gauze cloth piece as blood in gauze) and Ex.24 (one gauze cloth piece as blood lifted from maruti car). She has also deposed that the above said exhibits were also examined serologically and her detailed serological report in this regard is Ex.PW30/B (2 pages) according to which human blood was found in the Ex. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 10 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 20, 21a, 21b, 22, 23 and 24 and she found the blood group 'B' in Ex. 2, 12, 13, 14, 15, 18, 23 & 24. According to her the remnants of the exhibits were re­sealed with the seal of 'SS :

FSL : DELHI'. The witness has not been cross­examined by the Ld. Defence Counsel despite opportunity in this regard. St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 59 Police/ official witnesses:

(59) PW1 Ct. Parvinder is a formal witness being the Crime Team Photographer who has been examined by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW1/1 (as per the provisions of Section 296 Cr.P.C.) wherein he has proved that on 11.2.2010 he along with Crime Team Incharge SI M.D. Meena reached the spot of incident where he took the photographs of the spot of the incident which photographs Ex.PW1/A­1 to Ex.PW1/A­9.

(60) In his cross­examination by the Ld. Defence Counsel the witness has deposed that he had prepared rough notes regarding the scene of photographs but he had not brought the same to the court. He has admitted that the photographs which he had clicked, apart from that there are other photographs also. According to the witness, he remained at the spot from 09.00 to 09.45AM alongwith staff and public persons were also present there who were available in the Gurudwara at that time. He has testified that the photographs were got developed from New Anand Colour Lab, Pitampura but he is unable to tell as to who got the photographs developed and how much amount was paid to the lab for developing the photographs. He has denied the suggestion that the photographs were tampered at his instance or that the photographs are not of the spot.

(61) PW2 SI Matadin Meena is a formal witness being the Crime Team Incharge who has been examined by way of affidavit which St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 60 is Ex.PW2/1 (as per the provisions of Section 296 Cr.P.C.) wherein he has proved that on 11.2.2010 he visited the spot of incident i.e. Rub Da Kutta, Gurudwara, GTK Road, Lal Bagh and prepared his report Ex.PW2/A which he handed over to the Investigating Officer.

(62) In his cross­examination by the Ld. Defence Counsel the witness has deposed that he reached at the spot at about 9.00AM on 11.02.2010 and remained there for about 45 minutes. According to the witness, he inspected the Gurudwara from outside and only one room from inside as per directions of the Investigating Officer. He has further deposed that since the Investigating Officer did not direct him to inspect other rooms of the Gurudwara, therefore he did not inspect the same.

He is unable to tell the age of blood lying at the spot but states that it was slightly dried.

(63) PW3 SI Devender is also a formal witness being the Crime Team Incharge who has been examined by way of affidavit Ex.PW3/1 (as per the provisions of Section 296 Cr.P.C.) wherein he has proved that on 13.2.2010 he visited the Rub Da Kutta, Gurudwara, GTK Road, Lal Bagh and inspected a small room/ store after which he prepared his report which is Ex.PW3/A. (64) In his cross­examination by the Ld. Defence Counsel the witness has deposed that Investigating Officer had given the information about the incident which he had mentioned in his report. According to him, he had inspected the spot as per the facts disclosed by the St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 61 Investigating Officer.

(65) PW4 Ct. Rahul Tyagi is a formal witness who has been examined by way of affidavit Ex.PW4/1 (as per the provisions of Section 296 Cr.P.C.) wherein he has proved that on 29.3.2010 on the directions of the Investigating Officer he deposited the exhibits of this case and deposited the same in the FSL Rohini. He has been cross­ examined by the Ld. Defence Counsel but nothing much has come out of the same.

(66) PW5 SI Devender Purang is also a formal witness being the Crime Team Incharge who has been examined by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW5/1 (as per the provisions of Section 296 Cr.P.C.) wherein he has proved that on 3.2.2010 on receipt of information he reached vacant land near Water pipe line Ganda Nala, Nehru Vihar Mor, Timarpur where he inspected the dead body of a male after which he prepared his report which is Ex.PW5/A. (67) In his cross­examination by the Ld. Defence Counsel the witness has deposed that he reached the spot at about 3.50 AM. According to the witness, there were street lights on the spot and they were also having dragon torch. He has further deposed that no photograph was taken by the Crime Team photographer however the photographs were taken by a photographer present at the spot at the instance of the Investigating Officer. He has explained that they were having photographer with their team namely Ct. Inderjeet but St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 62 Investigating Officer preferred to get the spot photographed through the photographer present at the spot. He is unable to tell how many photographs were taken by that photographer but the same were taken in his presence. He has deposed that he remained at the spot till 5.00AM in the morning.

(68) PW6 Ct. Dalbir is a formal witness being the Crime Team photographer who has been examined by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW6/1 (as per the provisions of Section 296 Cr.P.C.) wherein he has proved that on 13.12.2010 he along with SI Devender reached Rub Da Kutta, Gurudwara, GTK Road, Lal Bagh where he took the photographs which are Ex.PW6/A­1 to Ex.PW6/A­10.

(69) In his cross­examination by the Ld. Defence Counsel the witness has deposed that he had taken the photographs from the small room (store type) at the instance of the Investigating Officer. According to the witness, the gate of the said small room was closed when he reached there but he is unable to tell whether it was locked or not. He is also unable to tell whether the door was opened by the Investigating Officer or some other person. He has further deposed that the photographs were got developed by the Investigating Officer from New Anand Colour Lab, Pitampura and he handed over the chip to the Investigating Officer after taking the photographs. The witness has also deposed that he accompanied Investigating Officer to the said colour lab. He is unable to tell the exact date but it was in February 2010. He St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 63 has also deposed that the photographs were handed over to the Investigating Officer by the lab within 45 minutes. The witness is unable to tell as to what amount was paid to the lab as the same was paid by the Investigating Officer. According to him, the Investigating Officer did not record the statement of the lab operator in his presence. He has further deposed that his statement was recorded by the Investigating Officer on the spot but he had not told about the number of photograph taken by him, in that statement. He has denied the suggestion that he did not take any photograph at the spot or the same has been fabricated at the instance of the Investigating Officer. (70) PW7 SI Manohar Lal is a formal witness being the Draftsman who has been examined by way of affidavit Ex.PW7/1 (as per the provisions of Section 296 Cr.P.C.) wherein he has proved that on 19.4.2010 he had visited the spot of incident i.e. Rub Da Kutta, Gurudwara, GTK Road, Lal Bagh where he took the details for preparing the scaled site plan. He has further proved that thereafter he visited the Ganda Nala, Nehru Vihar Mor, Timarpur where he took the details for preparing the scaled site plan after which he prepared the scaled site plans of both the spots which site plans are Ex.PW7/A and Ex.PW7/B. (71) In his cross­examination by the Ld. Defence Counsel the witness has deposed that he visited the spot at about 2.00 ­ 3.00PM on 19.04.2010 and remained there for about 1 ­ 1½ hours. He has testified St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 64 that the rough notes had been destroyed by him after the preparation of scaled site plan. According to the witness, he visited the rooms at the directions of the Investigating Officer which room were lying opened but he did not visit every room of the Gurudwara. He has also deposed that four­five public persons were also present in the Gurudwara during the proceedings but he is unable to tell the names and addresses of those persons.

(72) PW8 HC Manjeet Singh is a formal witness being the MHCM who has been examined by way of affidavit Ex.PW8/1 (as per the provisions of Section 296 Cr.P.C.) wherein he has proved the entries No. 3004 and 3014 in register No. 19 copy of which are Ex.PW8/A and Ex.PW8/B respectively.

(73) In his cross­examination by the Ld. Defence Counsel the witness has admitted that in his register he had copied the seizure memo only and there no mention that the case property has been deposited in the Malkhana and has voluntarily explained that the contents of the seizure memo are mentioned only after depositing of case property. According to the witness, the copy of the seizure memo is available in the Malkhana which he had not brought and has voluntarily explained that it is the same copy which is present in the judicial record. (74) PW9 HC Harender is a formal witness being the Duty Officer at Police Station Timarpur who has been examined by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW9/1 (as per the provisions of Section 296 St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 65 Cr.P.C.) wherein he has proved that at 5:40 AM HC Rajesh Kumar brought a rukka sent by SHO Timarpur on the basis of which a case FIR No. 32/2010 was registered vide DD No. 8A. The witness has further proved the DD No.4 dated 05.02.2010 which is Ex.PW9/A, DD No. 6 dated 05.02.2010 which is Ex.PW9/B, DD No.8 dated 05.02.2010 which is Ex.PW9/C, DD No. 9 dated 05.02.2010 which Ex.PW9/D and the copy of the FIR is Ex.PW9/E. (75) In his cross­examination by the Ld. Defence Counsel the witness has deposed that affidavit Ex.PW9/1 was signed by him in the Police Station and the said affidavit was got prepared by the Investigating Officer and typed in the Police Station by one of the constables.

(76) PW10 HC Laxmi Narayan has been examined by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW10/1 (as per the provisions of Section 296 Cr.P.C.) wherein he has proved the copy of entry No. 3520, 3525, 3528, 3530, 3536, 3539, 3543, 3562, 3563/10 which are Ex.PW10/A running into 18 pages, copy of RC No. 22/21/10 which is EX PW 10/B; copy of receipt of the FSL which is EX PW 10/C; copy of RC NO. 23/21/10 regarding sending the other exhibits to FSL Rohini is EX PW 10/D running into two pages; copy of receipt of FSL to this effect which is EX PW 10/E; copy of RC No. 25/21/10 regarding sending the exhibits on 29.03.2010 through Ct. Rahul which is EX PW 10/F; copy of receipt St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 66 of FSL to this effect which is EX PW 10/G. (77) In his cross­examination by the Ld. Defence Counsel the witness has admitted that this fact that the pullanda has been deposited in the malkhana has not been specifically mentioned and he had given the contents of the seizure memos in the entries in the register and has voluntarily explained that the entries are made only on the deposition of pullanda. He has also admitted that as on date he is unable to tell the time when he had made the entires and has voluntarily explained that he recollect he had made first entry dated 11.02.2010 in the evening. The witness has also admitted that he had made this entry before it was night. He could not tell the time regarding the other entires as the time is not mentioned and he could not tell whether it was during the day or night. He has denied the suggestion that entries in the malkhana register have been fabricated at the instance of Investigating Officer or that nothing has been deposited in the malkhana in the manner as deposed by him or that he is deposing falsely at the instance of Investigating Officer.

(78) The witness was recalled for further examination pursuant to the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. during which he deposed that on 6.2.2010 he recorded the FIR No. 31/10 copy of which is Ex.PW26/B bearing his signatures at point A and he made endorsement on the rukka vide Ex.PW10/H bearing his signatures at point A. He has not been cross­examined by or on behalf of any of the accused St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 67 despite opportunity given.

(79) PW18 SI Sheo Raj Singh has deposed that on the intervening night of 4­5.02.2010 He was posted at PCR North Zone as ASI and was on duty alongwith Ct. Babu and Ct. Yash Pal (driver) on Sugar 61 from 8.00PM to 8.00AM. According to the witness, at about 1.55AM they had gone to Majnoo ka Tilla, Wazirabad Road, after informing the head quarter and came back at their base at about 2.30 AM. The witness has further deposed that they found that one dog was barking towards drain (Naala) on which they went towards the dog where they found a bori and a piece of cloth of white colour which cloth was having blood stains and the bori was found tied with a yellow patti of cloth. According to him, on finding the same in suspicious condition he informed the PCR on which SHO Police Station Timarpur alongwith his staff came there after which the said bori was checked and found to contain a dead body of a Sikh person whose hands were found tied and was of half naked. He has further deposed that his statement was recorded by the SHO Polcie Station Timar Pur which is Ex.PW18/A and original statement is placed in case FIR No. 32/10 of Police Station Timar Pur after which he was relieved from the spot. (80) In his cross­examination by the Ld. Defence Counsel the witness has deposed that he had never been to the place where the dead body was found, prior to that day. He is unable to tell as to since when the dead body was lying at the spot, whether it was one day, two days or St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 68 more than that. He has admitted that he had not mentioned in his statement Ex.PW18/A that the body was of a Sikh and that the hands of the dead body were found tied and the dead body was half naked. According to the witness, he had met the Investigating Officer Inspector Mahavir Kaushik on the date of his deposition and not prior to that. He has denied the suggestion that he had improved upon the fact that the dead body was of Sikh man, at the instance of the Investigating Officer Inspector Mahavir Kaushik.

(81) PW22 Inspector Rajnish Parmar has deposed that on 05.02.2010, he was posted as SHO Police Station Timarpur and on that day, he was present in the Police Station at night when at about 2:45 AM, he received DD No. 4A which is Ex.PW22/A regarding an abandoned gunny bag (bora) lying near the turn of Nehru Vihar between the road and the ganda nala. The witness has further deposed that he reached the spot along with ASI Braham Singh and his driver and Ct. Dev Kumar, Operator where ASI Shiv Kumar was already present at the spot along with HC Rajesh Kumar, Ct. Mahesh Kumar, Ct. Kishan Kumar and ASI Shivraj Singh from the PCR. According to him, on reaching the spot, he found the bora/ gunny bag wrapped in a white cloth which was closed from the top and they could see the edges of the bora from the top. He has testified that he along with the help of staff opened the gunny bag and it was found to contain a male dead body which was half naked with hands tied at the back and ankles also tied St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 69 with the rope with unstiched cloth tied around the neck. According to him, the body appeared to be of a Sikh aged around 42­43 years with hair of the beard and head partly/ semi burnt and there were injury marks on the forehead, one ear, elbow and bruises on both the knees and there was stiffening in the body. According to the witness, he immediately called the crime team and photographer to the spot through his staff and in the meanwhile he recorded the statement of ASI Shiv Raj which statement is Ex.PW18/A and made his endorsement which is Ex.PW22/B after which he handed over the same to HC Rajesh Kumar and send him to the Police Station for registration of the case. He has further deposed that after about one hour HC Rajesh Kumar returned to the spot along with original tehrir and copy of the FIR which is Ex.PW22/C and in the meanwhile the crime team also came to the spot and inspected the spot after which it gave its report which is Ex.PW5/A. He has also deposed that the photographs of the spot were also taken by a private photographer who had been called which photographs he handed over to them after developing the same which photographs are Ex.PW19/A­1 to Ex.PW19/A­11. He has testified that thereafter he took into possession gunny bag, the white cloth in which the gunny bag was tied, the cloth with which the gunny bag was tied, pink color towel piece also present along with the dead body in the gunny bag and one blanket which was lying near the gunny bag. According to the witness, he also lifted the earth control and the blood St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 70 stained mud/ earth under the dead body which he put in a separate containers and then he converted all these articles into various pullandas and duly sealed them with the seal of RP which seal after use was handed over to ASI Shiv Kumar after which he prepared the seizure memo of the said articles vide Ex.PW22/D. He has also prepared the site plan of the place where the body was recovered which site plan is Ex.PW22/E. According to him, the dead body was thereafter removed to Mortuary at Subzi Mandi through Ct. Mahesh along with request letter addressed to the Incharge Mortuary Subzi mandi to preserve the dead body, copy of which request letter is Ex.PW22/F. He has proved having recorded the statements of the witnesses and on his return to the Police Station he deposited the exhibits in the malkhana. The witness has further testified that he also sent wireless messages, entered information on ZIP NET, to all Police Station/ DCPs, SPs and issued hue and cry notices and thereafter filled up the UIDB form (unidentified dead body form).

(82) The witness has further deposed that on 12.02.2010 the dead body was identified in case FIR No. 31/10, Police Station Adarsh Nagar (present FIR) after which he made a request to the Incharge Mortuary, Subzi Mandi for conducting the postmortem on the dead body, which request is Ex.PW22/G and prepared the various inquest documents which are collectively Ex.PW22/H (running into seven pages). He has also proved that on 12.02.2010 one Hakim Singh and St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 71 Rajender came to the mortuary and identified the body of the deceased as that of Lakhbir Singh @ Lakha, Jethedar of Rub Da Kutta gurudwara which identification is a part of the inquest documents on page 6 and 7 and are Ex.PW12/D and Ex.PW13/A. The witness has testified that after the postmortem was completed the body was handed over to the relatives of the deceased namely Hakim Singh, Rajender Singh and Jaspal Singh vide memo copy of which is Ex.PW22/I. He has proved that the doctor handed over to him a sealed viscera peti duly sealed with the seal of IC Mortuary, AAA Hospital, cloth which was wrapped around the neck of the body/ ligature material, the clothes with which the ankles and hands of the dead body were tied, the clothes present on the body of the deceased, blood sample duly sealed with the seal of IC Mortuary, AAA hospital, scalp hair in a container duly sealed with the seal of IC Mortuary, AAA hospital and a sample seal after which he seized the said articles vide memo Ex.PW22/J and the viscera peti was separated seized vide memo Ex.PW22/K which he brought to the malkhana and deposited the same with the MHC(M). The witness has further deposed that after getting the postmortem conducted on 12.02.2010 since the case was pertaining to Police Station Adarsh Nagar, he closed his investigations and the entire investigation file was handed over to Inspector Mahavir Singh, SHO Police Station Adarsh Nagar. According to him, on 12.03.2010 all the exhibits were transfered to Police Station Adarsh Nagar through HC Sudhir vide RC No. 21/21. St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 72 (83) He has identified the case property i.e. white cloth in which the gunny bag was tied which is Ex.P14; gunny bag in which the dead body of the victim was found which is Ex.P15; one towel having dark brown stains which was found with dead body which is Ex.P16; blanket which was found near the dead body which is Ex.P17; earth with blood which was lifted just below the dead body which is Ex.P18; earth control which was lifted by him near the dead body which is Ex.P19; one cloth piece having dark brown stains which was tied around the waist of the deceased which is Ex.P20; cloth pieces which were found tied around the ankle joints of the deceased which is Ex.P21; one cloth piece having some dark brown stains as the ligature material found around the neck of the deceased which is Ex.P22; one dirty T shirt and one sleeve having dirty stains which was found with the dead body which are Ex.P23.

(84) In his cross­examination by the Ld. Defence Counsel the witness has admitted that on receipt of the unknown dead body all necessary procedures regarding sending the messages to the DCPs, SHOs, Police Stations and issuing hue and cry notice was done. According to the witness, the information was also sent to Police Station Adarsh Nagar and the distance between Police Station Adarsh Nagar and Police Station Timarpur is about 5­6 Kms. He has testified that he was first informed regarding the identification of dead body in the St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 73 evening hours of 11.02.2010 which information he received from Inspector Investigations Adarsh Nagar.

(85) PW23 ASI Shashi Kumar has deposed that on 13.02.2010, he was posted at Police Station Adarsh Nagar and on that day he alongwith Inspector Mahvir Kaushik, PSI Ajay, HC Sudhir, Ct. Om Prakash, Ct. Gurjeet and Lady Ct. Saroj and one public person Pyara Singh reached at Masjid GTK Road in search of accused persons in this case and at the instance of Pyara Singh at the Masjid GTK Road, Delhi accused Jasbir Kaur @ Chhinder Pal Kaur was apprehended. According to the witness, she was interrogated by the Investigating Officer and she confessed about her involvement in this case and she was arrested by the Investigating Officer and her personal search was conducted with the help of lady constable after which disclosure statement was recorded by the Investigating Officer in detail. He has testified that meanwhile one person namely Sukhpal was coming from Rub Da Kutta Gurudwara side and at the instance of Pyara Singh he was also apprehended by them and he was also interrogated by the Investigating Officer and he confessed about his involvement in this case after which he was arrested vide memo Ex.PW14/B, his personal search was taken vide Ex.PW14/C and his disclosure statement was recorded by the Investigating Officer vide Ex.PW14/D. The witness has also deposed that they alongwith both accused reached at Rub Da Kutta Gurudwara where the accused Sukhpal pointed the room where St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 74 they have committed the murder of Lakhbir Singh @ Lakkha and also pointed out a small room i.e. a store room where the dead body was kept and the pointing out memo was prepared vide Ex.PW23/A. He has proved that the Crime Team reached the spot on the asking of the Investigating Officer and they conducted their proceedings and took photographs and also lifted earth blood and earth control from the store room and kept the same in a separate plastic vial and sealed the same with the seal of MK. According to him, the Investigating Officer also lifted some burnt and half burnt hair from the store room and kept the same in a plastic vial and sealed the same with the seal of MK; one blood stained Tirpal was also taken into possession and the same was sealed in a cloth pullanda with the seal of MK. He has proved that the plastic vial containing hairs was seized by the Investigating Officer vide seizure memo Ex.PW14/F; plastic vial of earth control was seized by the Investigating Officer vide seizure memo Ex.PW14/I; plastic vial of blood earth was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW14/H; Pullanda of Tirpal was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW14/G. He has also deposed that thereafter at the instance of the accused Sukhpal they reached at Nehru Vihar Mor T Point where the accused pointed out that he alongwith his associate dumped the dead body of Lakhbir Singh @ Lakkha at that place at the corner of the drain near a temple after which they returned back to the Police Station where accused persons were kept in the lock up after their medical examination and the case property St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 75 was deposited in the Malkhana of Police Station.

(86) The witness has further deposed that on 14.02.2010 accused persons were again taken out from the Lock up and he joined the investigations with the above said police officers. According to him, both the accused persons were produced before the court and five days' Police Custody Remand of accused Sukhpal was granted and one day Police Custody Remand of Jasbir Kaur was granted. He has also deposed that they again went to Rub Da Kutta Gurudwara alongwith both the accused persons where at the instance of accused Jasbir Kaur, Chola of accused Sukhpal was recovered from her room in the Gurudwara which had been washed by her and disclosed that the said Chola was worn by accused Sukhpal on the day of incident and there were some blood stained found on the Chola and the same was kept in a cloth pullanda and sealed with the seal of MK by the Investigating Officer and seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW14/J. He has testified that at the instance of accused Sukh Pal one Noon Kutna made of wood was recovered from the main room of the Gurudwara and the accused disclosed that the same was used by accused Ranjeet Singh @ Baaz Singh in the incident as the weapon of offence, after which the Investigating Officer prepared sketch of the said Noon Kutna which is Ex.PW23/B and measurement of the same was taken by the Investigating Officer which was mentioned in the said sketch. He has proved that the Noon Kutna was sealed in a cloth pullanda with the seal St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 76 of MK and seized the same vide memo Ex.PW14/K and thereafter they returned back to the Police Station where the case property was deposited in the Malkhana.

(87) Witness has further deposed that on 15.02.2010 he again joined the investigations with the above said police officials and Pyara Singh and both the accused taken out from the lock up and when they were going towards Gurudwara at about 9.30AM and Pyara Singh identified one boy who was coming from the Lal Bagh area and who disclosed his name as Malkiyat Singh @ Prince. According to him he was taken into custody by the Investigating Officer vide Ex.PW14/L and his personal search was taken vide Ex.PW14/M after which he was interrogated by the Investigating Officer and his version was also recorded by the Investigating Officer vide Ex.PW14/R. He has testified that the the proceedings in respect of Malkiyat Singh was conducted in the presence of SI Sewa Singh, Juvenile Welfare officer and thereafter they all reached at the above said Gurudwara where at the instance of Jasbir Kaur one jacket was recovered from the room of Jasbir Kaur and she disclosed that the jacket was wearing by the accused Malkiyat Singh on the day of incident. According to the witness, there were blood stained found on the jacket and the said jacket was sealed in a cloth pullanda with the seal of MK and seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW14/N. He has testified that at the instance of accused Malkiyat Singh one plastic bottle was taken out after digging the ground inside of St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 77 the Gurudwara and Malkiyat Singh disclosed that the same bottle was used for bringing the petrol which was poured upon the deceased Lakhbir @ Lakkha and he kept the bottle under the earth (Gaddha) after the incident. Witness has further deposed that the plastic bottle was sealed in a cloth pullanda by the Investigating Officer with the seal of MK and seized the same vide memo Ex.PW14/O and the seal was handed over to him by the Investigating Officer. According to him accused Malkiyat Singh was handed over to SI Seva Singh who took him to the J J Board and they all remaining persons reached at the Police Station and all seized articles were deposited in the Malkhana. He has also deposed that Investigating Officer took accused Jasbir Kaur to the court and on the direction of the Investigating Officer, he alongwith PSI Ajay, HC Sudhir, Ct. Gurjeet and accused Sukhpal proceeded towards Bhatinda, Punjab in search of accused Ranjeet Singh @ Baaz Singh and they reached at the village of accused Ranjeet Singh of District Bhatinda but Ranjeet Singh was not present there and they returned back to Delhi and they received information from Hakim Singh father of Ranjeet Singh that Ranjeet Singh was present Tamtan Singh Gurudwara, Tohana, Haryana. Witness has also deposed that they immediately went to Tohana, Haryana where at the instance of accused Sukhpal his co­accused Ranjeet Singh @ Baaz Singh @ Soni was apprehended from the above said Gurudwara at Tohana, Haryana after which he was brought to Delhi and handed over to the Investigating St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 78 Officer at Punjabi Bagh Mor. He has proved that the Investigating Officer interrogated accused Ranjeet Singh @ Baaz Singh who confessed his involvement in this case and thereafter accused Ranjeet Singh was arrested by the Investigating Officer vide Ex.PW13/A, his personal search was taken vide memo Ex.PW13/B and his disclosure statement was recorded vide Ex.PW13/C. According to the witness the accused produced his shirt yellow checkdar shirt and lower from his bag and disclosed that he was wearing these clothes at the time of incident and the same were kept in a cloth pullanda by the Investigating Officer who seized the same vide memo Ex.PW13/D. Witness has also deposed that he was taken to the Police Station where the seized articles were deposited in the Malkhan and accused Ranjeet Singh was produced before the Court on the next day and one day Police Custody Remand was granted and thereafter they all above said police officers along with accused Ranjeet Singh reached at Gurudwara Rub Da Kutta where at the instance of accused Ranjeet Singh one cloth was recovered from the trees situated within the boundary wall of the gurudwara and in the south­western side of the main room of the gurudwara. He has testified that the accused disclosed that he used this piece of cloth for cleaning the blood after committing the murder of Lakhbir Singh @ Lakkha and the cloth was blood stained and the same was sealed in a cloth pullanda by the Investigating Officer and sealed with the seal seal of MK and seized vide memo Ex.PW13/E. According to him accused St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 79 Ranjeet Singh also pointed out the main room of the Gurudwara where the murder of Lakhbir Singh was committed and of the store room where the dead body of Lakhbir was kept vide pointing out memo Ex.PW23/C and thereafter they returned back to the Police Station where the seized articles were deposited in the malkhana. He further deposed that on 15.02.2010 during the investigation of this case Sh. Krishan produced one Maruti car bearing no. DL 2 CV 4256 at Police Station Adarsh Nagar and Investigating Officer seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW14/P. (88) He has correctly identified accused Jasbir Kaur, Sukhpal, Malkiyat Singh and Ranjeet Singh in the Court and also identified the case property i.e. one plastic Tirpal which is Ex.P4; earth control which are Ex.P5 & Ex.P6; one brown colored lining cholla belonging to accused Sukhpal which is Ex.P7; one cream and blue color Jacket belonging to accused Malkeet which is Ex.P8; one dirty lower and one shirt belonging to accused Ranjeet Singh @ Bazz Singh which are Ex.P9 collectively; rough clothes used for cleaning blood by accused which is Ex.P10 collectively; weapon of offence i.e. noon ghotna/ kutna which is Ex.P11; bunch of hair belonging to deceased which is Ex.P12 and one Bisleri Bottle which is Ex.P13. The identity of the Maruti car Ex.P­24 has not been disputed.

St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 80 (89) In his cross­examination by the Ld. Defence Counsel the witness has deposed that on 13.02.2010 he does not know whether Investigating Officer had knowledge about the involvement of a lady in the present case. He has admitted that public witness Pyara Singh was with them during the investigation of this case and he is witness of very recovery and arrest. He has also admitted that witness Pyara Singh belongs to the party of the deceased. According to the witness, he does not know whether both the parties made a complaint in their Police Station earlier to the presence incident. He has also admitted that there are so many shops nearby the Gurudwara where the accused Jasbir Kaur @ Chhinder Kaur was apprehended. Witness has also deposed that Investigating Officer made request to some public persons but they refused to join the investigation of this case and no notice under Section 160 Cr.P.C. was given by the Investigating Officer to the persons who refused to join the investigations and even the Investigating Officer of the case had not prosecuted these persons U/s 187 Cr. P. C. He has denied the suggestion that accused Jasbir Kaur had gone to Police Station herself on 10.02.2010 to made a complaint against the son of deceased Lakhbir Singh @ Lakkha and his associates as they wanted to take a forcible charge of the above said Gurudwara so that is why question of joining public witness at the time of her arrest does not arise. He is unable to tell whether the Investigating Officer of this case called any public witness at the time of preparing the document St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 81 Ex.PW14/E i.e. disclosure statement of accused Jasbir Kaur. Witness has further deposed that first they had arrested accused Jasbir Kaur vide memo Ex.PW14/A. He has also admitted that the document Ex.PW14/A i.e. arrest memo of accused Jasbir Kaur, his signatures are not on this document. He has denied the suggestion that accused Jasbir Kaur was not arrested in his presence nor he had join the investigations on 13.02.2010 that is why his signatures are not appeared on the above said document. The witness has also admitted that after her arrest the Investigating Officer of the case interrogated her. He has denied the suggestion that accused Jasbir Kaur had not made any disclosure statement or that Investigating Officer of the case obtained her signatures on so many blank papers and used these blank papers as per his convenience. Witness has further deposed that the document Ex.PW14/E was prepared by a member of raiding party on the dictation of Investigating Officer. The witness has also deposed that the Investigating Officer had not inquired from the witness Pyara Singh about the involvement of accused persons in the present case as they apprehended the accused persons at the instance of PW Pyara Singh. He has further admitted that they arrested the accused Sukhpal vide arrest memo Ex.PW14/B and thereafter Investigating Officer of the case interrogated him. He has also admitted that one of the member of raiding party prepared the document Ex.PW14/D on the dictation of Investigating Officer. He has denied the suggestion that the document St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 82 Ex.PW14/D and Ex.PW14/E were prepared later on just before the filing of the charge and he signed these documents in the Police Station at the instance of the Investigating Officer.

(90) Witness has further testified that they reached Gurudwara Rub Da Kutta within 5 or 7 minutes after recording disclosure statement of accused Sukhpal and Investigating Officer made request to 4­5 passers byes to join the investigations but they refused to join the investigation but the Investigating Officer had not issued any notice U/s 160 Cr.P.C. to those public persons. He has denied the suggestion that no recovery had been effected as mentioned by him in his examination in chief at the instance of accused persons in fact all the recoveries had been effect at the instance of PW Pyara Singh. He is unable to tell whether the Investigating Officer of the case was aware about the place of occurrence and states that no efforts has been made by the Investigating Officer or any member of raiding party at the time of preparation of pointing out memo Ex.PW23/A. He has denied the suggestion that above said documents was prepared in the Police Station or that the accused did not point out any place of incident so the question of joining any independent witness does not arise. According to him, the crime team arrived at the spot near about 4.00 PM and all members of raiding party including accused were remained at the spot till 8­8:30 PM. He has admitted that during that period photographs were taken by the crime team and that the document Ex.PW6/A­1 to St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 83 Ex.PW6/A­10 are the photographs of the spot. The witness has also admitted that in these documents there is no photograph of accused persons. He has denied the suggestion that photographs of accused persons are not present in the photographs as the accused persons were not present at the spot at the time of taking of photographs Ex.PW6/A­1 to Ex.PW6/A­10. He has denied the suggestion that all the recoveries are effected at the instance of witness Pyara Singh. He does not remember whether the crime team had lifted the finger prints from the spot. He has denied the suggestion that he does not remember this fact as he had not joined the investigations when the recovery had been effected and he had signed the documents later on at the instance of investigating officer. According to him no finger prints had been lifted by the investigating agency from the bottle. He has denied the suggestion that they had not lifted the finger prints from the bottle as they knew that the same was planted upon the accused. He has denied the suggestion that crime team had lifted the finger prints from the spot but they deliberately concealed as the same were not matched with the accused persons. Witness has further deposed that all the sealing materials were with the Investigating Officer in his Investigating Officer bag but he is unable to tell how many blood stains were there on the Tirpal. He has denied the suggestion that at the time of making pullanda of Tirpal or recovery of Tirpal he was not present that is why he is unable to tell about the presence of blood stains on Tirpal. He St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 84 does not remember whether the Investigating Officer of the case lifted the Burnt Earth control or not. According to him Investigating Officer of the case had lifted earth control from the spot once. He has further deposed that they reached at Nehru Vihar T point at about 10.00­10.15 PM and the area of Nehru Vihar does not fall under the jurisdiction of Police Station Adarsh Nagar and falls under the jurisdiction of Police Station Timar Pur. He is unable to tell whether the Investigating Officer made an arrival entry in Police Station Timar Pur or not. According to him no earth control or exhibit was lifted by the Investigating Officer from where the dead body was recovered. He has denied the suggestion that in fact they had not gone to the area of Nehru Vihar that is why no proceeding has been done by the Investigating Officer to this effect. He is not aware if every order of the senior officials is required to be complied with under the rule only if it is in writing and has voluntarily explained that they complied with all the oral directions of their senior officers. Witness has further deposed that he had not made any arrival entry in the Police Station on 14.02.2010 in the morning hours and the Investigating Officer of the case made a request every time to the private persons to join the investigations but none agreed. He is unable to tell as to how many blood stains are present on the Chola Ex.P­7. He has denied the suggestion that no chola was recovered in his presence that is why he is unable to tell as to how many blood stains were present on the chola or that the chola Ex.P­7 has been planted upon the accused. St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 85 (91) Witness has further deposed that no private witness was called by the Investigating Officer of this case at the time of recovery of Noon Kutna at the instance of Sukhpal and no chance print was lifted from Noon Kutna before making the same as pullanda. He has denied the suggestion that they did not lift the chance print form the Noon Kutna because they knew very well that no chance print on Noon Kutna were found of accused Sukhpal as the same has been planted upon him. He has further denied the suggestion that he had signed the seizure memo and other documents later on in the Police Station at the instance of Investigating Officer. According to him the document Ex.PW14/R was prepared by one of the member of their raiding party on the dictation of Investigating Officer. He has also stated that the jacket was of blue or grey type but he is unable to tell as to how many blood stains were present on the jacket. He has denied the suggestion that he had signed the documents pertaining to the seizure of above said jacket later on in the Police Station at the instance of the Investigating Officer. He has testified that at the time of recovery of plastic bottle there was a smell of petrol in the same but he is unable to tell whether the Investigating Officer of the case has provided the copy of seizure memo to the accused. According to the witness, they had obtained a permission from the DCP to go to out station (Zila Gair) and he is not aware whether the said permission has been placed by the Investigating Officer in the charge sheet or not. He has admitted that there is no St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 86 permission of DCP on the Judicial Record. He has denied the suggestion that they had not gone to Bhatinda as stated by him in his examination in chief. According to him they went to Bhatinda in a private Qualis vehicle. He has admitted that there were two government Gypsies in their Police Station and they had not used those two police gypsies to go Bhatinda. According to him, they had gone to village Budhpur in Bhatinda and reached at the house of accused Ranjeet and his father and some neighbours met them and did not record the statement of neighbors and father of accused Ranjeet. Witness has further deposed that they had made arrival entry in the Police Station Sadar, District Mansa, Bhatinda and he was heading the team which went to Bhatinda. The witness has also deposed that he did not state in his statements to the Investigating Officer about the recording of arrival DD at PS Sadar Mansa. He has denied the suggestion that he did not go to Village Budhpur that is why he had not produced any documentary proof to this effect. According to him, the father of accused Ranjeet Singh namely Hakam Singh telephonically informed them about the presence of accused Ranjeet Singh at Tamtan Sahab Gurudwara, Tohana, Haryana and the said call was received on his mobile phone but he is unable to tell the number of Hakam Singh. He has denied the suggestion that no information has been given by Sh. Hakam Singh was received to the effect that the accused Ranjeet Singh was present at Tamtan Sahab Gurudwara, Tohana, Haryana. Witness has further St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 87 deposed that no separate permission was sought by him or the Investigating Officer to go to Tohana Haryana. According to him they went to Tohana in a private vehicle Qualis but he could not tell the number of vehicle and he also could not tell the name of driver of the vehicle and as to what amount was paid for the vehicle. Witness has further deposed that they took about 5­6 hours to reach Tohana and they had not made any arrival entry in the Police Station of Tohana. According to him they apprehended the accused Ranjeet Singh @ Baaz Singh from the Gurudwara and he had not prepared any document in Tohana when he apprehended the accused Ranjeet Singh. He has denied the suggestion that all the documents pertains to arrest, seizure of accused Ranjeet Singh were prepared later on and he had signed all these documents just before the filing of the charge sheet at the instance of his senior officers. He has further admitted that the area of Punjabi Bagh does not falls under the jurisdiction of Police Station Adarsh Nagar. According to the witness, he does not know whether Darshan Singh and Jassa Singh belong to opposite party of accused persons. He has denied the suggestion that Hakam Singh, Darshan Singh and Jassa Singh had produced the accused Ranjeet Singh at Punjabi Bagh and compelled them to implicate the accused Ranjeet in the present case as he belonged to the rival group. According to the witness, the disclosure statement Ex.PW13/C was prepared by the Investigating Officer. He has denied the suggestion that they had given beating to accused Ranjeet St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 88 Singh to obtain his signatures on so many blank papers and utilized the same as false documents against the accused in the present case. Witness has further deposed that when they apprehend accused Ranjeet Singh he was having a bag which they had not checked that bag of Ranjeet Singh at Tohana while he accompanied them to Delhi. He has denied the suggestion that accused was already in the custody of Pyara Singh, Darshan Singh, Jassa Singh and they produced the accused at Punjabi Bagh before them. Witness has denied the suggestion that no recovery was effected at the instance of accused Ranjeet Singh but in fact produced by Darshan Singh, Jassa Singh and Pyara Singh just to falsely implicate the accused Ranjeet Singh in this case. He has denied the suggestion that the document Ex.PW13/D was prepared at the instance of above mentioned witnesses after obtaining the signatures of accused Ranjeet on some blank papers. According to him, after arrest of accused Ranjeet Singh they reached Gurudwara Rub Da Kutta on 19.02.2010 and at the time of recovery of blood stained cloth Investigating Officer made request some public persons from the same locality to join the investigations but they refused. He has testified that no notice U/s 160 Cr. P. C. was issued by the Investigating Officer and no proceedings U/s 187 Cr.P.C. was conducted against those public persons who refused to join the investigations. He has denied the suggestion that they had not joined any public persons from the same locality as the recovery of blood stained cloth was not effected at the St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 89 instance of accused Ranjeet Singh in fact the same was produced by Hakam Singh, Darshan Singh and Jassa Singh. He has also denied the suggestion that under the pressure of Darshan Singh, Jassa Singh and Hakam Singh they prepared the document Ex.PW13/E and obtained the signatures of Ranjeet Singh on some blank papers and utilized the same to falsely implicate the accused Ranjeet in this case. He admitted that they know the place of occurrence prior to preparation of document Ex.PW13/C. According to him, no chance print were lifted from the Maruti car in his presence. He has further denied the suggestion that no chance prints were lifted form the said car because they knew that the said car was not used in the above said crime or that he had not joined the investigations of this case and he is deposing falsely at the instance of Investigating Officer of the case.

(92) PW24 W/Constable Saroj has deposed that on 13.02.2010, she joined investigations alongwith the Investigating Officer and on that day the accused Jasbir Kaur @ Chhinder Pal Kaur was apprehended near the Masjid and was arrested by the Investigating Officer in her presence vide memo Ex.PW14/A and she conducted her personal search search vide Ex.PW24/A. According to her, the accused was interrogated by the Investigating Officer and her disclosure statement was recorded vide Ex.PW14/E. (93) In her cross­examination by the Ld. Defence Counsel the witness has deposed that she was present alongwith the team but she did St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 90 not make a separate departure entry and has voluntarily explained that entry was made by the Investigating Officer. Witness has further deposed that they had reached the spot i.e. near the Masjid at around 2:30 PM. She has admitted that the area near the Masjid is totally commercial and there are large number of shops and commercial establishments. According to her Investigating Officer in her presence had requested one Sikh gentleman to join the proceedings and he was with them during investigations and the Sikh gentleman was present with them when the accused was apprehended but she is not aware if his signatures are present on the various documents relating to the arrest of the accused Jasbir Kaur. Witness has also deposed that all the documents were prepared while sitting inside the Gurudwara and except for the sister of the accused Jasbir Kaur whose name was Sarabjeet Kaur, no other public person was present when the accused was being interrogated. She has denied the suggestion that Sarabjeet Kaur was not present at the time when the accused Jasbir Kaur was interrogated and when the documents were prepared by the Investigating Officer or that the Sarabjeet Kaur was informed about the arrest of Jasbir Kaur and it is for this reason that when she came in the Police Station to inquire that she was compelled to sign the various documents by the Investigating Officer. Witness has further deposed that they stayed at Gurudwara for two - two and a half hours. She has denied the suggestion that she did not join the investigations and only signed the various documents on the St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 91 asking of the senior officers while sitting in the Police Station. (94) PW25 SI Sewa Singh has also deposed that on 15.02.2010 he was posted at Police Station Adarsh Nagar as a Juvenile Officer and on that day on receipt of information regarding the arrest of juvenile Malkeet Singh S/o Baldev Singh resident of Gurudwara, Rub Da Kutta, Lal Bagh on which he reached the gurudwara Rub Da Kutta where he was handed over Juvenile Malkeet Singh S/o Baldev Singh and on the instructions of the investigating officer, he got the medical examination of Malkeet Singh conducted from BJRM hospital and thereafter produced the juvenile accused before the JJB in Kingsway camp. According to the witness, the information regarding his production before JJB was given to his mother Jasbir Kaur and his statement was recorded by the Investigating Officer thereafter. (95) In his cross­examination by the Ld. Defence Counsel the witness has admitted that no proceedings regarding the apprehension and arrest took place in his presence. He has also admitted that none of the documents bears his signatures and has voluntarily explained that the arrest and the interrogation of the accused did not take place in his presence.

(96) PW26 SI Kuldeep Singh has deposed that on 05.02.2010 a complaint of Rajender Singh was marked to him regarding missing of his father namely Sukhwinder Singh Sukka which complaint is Ex.PW12/A on which on the next day morning he went to the St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 92 Gurudwara Rub Da Kutta and interrogated the persons present there where he met Karnail Singh, Simranjeet, Anil and Rajender at the gurudwara and recorded their statements. The witness has further deposed that he also met Jasbir Kaur at the gurudwara and recorded her statement and returned to the Police Station thereafter and after discussing the issue with the SHO, he made his endorsement on the complaint of Rajender and got an FIR U/s 365 registered against unknown persons. He has proved his endorsement on the complaint which is Ex.PW26/A on the basis of which the FIR Ex.PW26/B was registered. Witness has further deposed that he got the WT messages flashed and also made the entry on the ZIP net. According to him on 08.02.2010 he went to the gurudwara and also recorded the statement of Arjun Singh and thereafter on 09.02.2010 by the order of the SHO, the further investigations of the case was handed over to Addl. SHO. (97) In his cross­examination by the Ld. Defence Counsel the witness has admitted that when he recorded statements of above persons namely Karnail Singh, Simranjeet, Anil and Rajender, none of them expressed their suspicion on any person and has voluntarily explained that in fact Simran was the last person who had seen Baba Sukha at 10:00 PM on 03.02.2010 since when he knocked the door of the gurudwara, Baba (deceased) had opened the same. According to him none of the above persons told him that there was any other person with Baba and he did not ask these persons who were present in the St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 93 gurudwara on 03.02.2010 when they first came to know that Babaji was missing, neither they told him and has voluntarily explained that only Rajender told him that he came to know on telephone of Karnail Singh that Babaji was missing and hence he had rushed to Delhi. Witness has further deposed that he did not inquire from him the date and time when Karnail Singh made a telephone call to him and he did not ask any of these witnesses if they had carried out the search of the gurudwara for tracing out Babaji. He has testified that he recorded the statements of these persons while sitting inside the gurudwara complex on the ground in the open. According to him, he did not go inside the rooms nor he conducted the search of the rooms and he was pointed out the room of the deceased Babaji by Rajender and Simran which room was locked and he did not try to open the room. Witness has also deposed that there was no doubt expressed by any of the persons, therefore he did not try to enter the said room of Babaji nor he searched the gurudwara. He has denied the suggestion that he had conducted the search of the gurudwara but did not find anything incriminating or that he is deliberately concealing this fact since the scene of crime was later on manipulated by the subsequent Investigating Officer. (98) PW28 HC Sudhir has deposed that on 11.02.2010 on the direction of the Investigating Officer, he called the Crime Team Officials at Gurudwara Rub Da Kutta and Crime Team officials inspected the scene of crime at Gurudwara Rub Da Kutta in the St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 94 presence of the Investigating Officer and the photographs were also taken of the room of Lakhbir Singh Lakha. According to him, blood was found on the two legs of the table and the legs were cut from the table and the same was kept in a cloth pullanda by the Investigating Officer and sealed the same with the seal of 'MK'; blood was also found on one quilt (Rajai) and the same was also kept in a cloth pullanda by the Investigating Officer and sealed the same with the seal of 'MK'; blood was also found on one Chatai (mat) and same was also sealed in a cloth pullanda by the Investigating Officer and sealed the same with the seal of 'MK' and the abovesaid pullandas were seized by the Investigating Officer. He has proved that the pullanda of legs of table were seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW12/B and Investigating Officer also seized the pullanda of mat and quilt vide seizure memo exhibited as Ex.PW12/C after which they returned back to the Police Station and seized articles were deposited with the MHC(M) by the Investigating Officer. Witness has also deposed that on 21.02.2010, he went to Police Station Timar Pur on the direction of the Investigating Officer and MHC(M) of Police Station - Timar Pur handed over seven pullandas in sealed condition with the seal of 'RP' to him by making the RC Entry and deposited the same in the Malkhana of Police Station Adarsh Nagar on the same day and the case property was not tampered while the same was in his custody.

St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 95 (99) According to the witness, on 11.03.2010, he took a Maruti Car bearing no. DL­2CV­4256 from the Malkhana of Police Station Adarsh Nagar to FSL, Rohini, Delhi on the direction of the Investigating Officer and the Investigating Officer and FSL Team met him there. The witness has also deposed that FSL Team inspected the abovesaid maruti car and the FSL officials took blood at the right rear gate of the car and they lifted the same with the help of chemicals and handed over the same to the Investigating Officer. He has proved that the Investigating Officer sealed the same with the seal of 'MK' and seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW28/A and thereafter, he took the maruti car to the Police Station Adarsh Nagar and deposited the same in the Malkhana. He has testified that on 26.03.2010 on the direction of the Investigating Officer, he received viscera vide RC No. 22/21/10 from the MHC(M) vide Ex.PW10/B and also received 24 pullandas in sealed conditions with sample seals vide RC No. 23/21/10 vide Ex.PW10/D and he deposited the same at FSL, Rohini, Delhi and handed over receipts Ex.PW10/C and Ex.PW10/E to the MHC(M). The witness has identified the case property in the Court i.e. Quilt which is Ex.P1; Chatai which is Ex.P2 and legs of table which are Ex.P3 (Colly.). (100) In his cross­examination by the Ld. Defence Counsel the witness has admitted that member of Crime Team had thoroughly checked the room of Lakhbir Singh Lakha. Witness has further deposed St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 96 that on 11.03.2010, he had given his receipt and took the car after signing in register no. 19 and had made his departure entry in DD Register while taking the abovesaid maruti car to FSL, Rohini. He does not remember the same DD number and he reached FSL, Rohini at about 11:00 AM. According to the witness, he had not handed over the said maruti car to anyone at FSL, Rohini same was remained with him. He also does not remember the names of the abovesaid officials who checked the abovesaid maruti car. He has denied the suggestion that no officials of FSL checked the car that is why he does not remember the names of the abovesaid officials or that Investigating Officer of the case obtained the FSL Report without inspection of the car from the officials of the FSL. Witness has further deposed that when he took the car, the locks of the abovesaid car were not sealed. He has denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsely as he had not joined the investigation of this case.

(101) PW31 Inspector Mahavir Kaushik is the Investigating Officer of the present case who has deposed that on 10.02.2010 he was posted at Police Station Adarsh Nagar as ATO and on that day investigations of this case was marked to him. According to him through Zipnet, he came to know that the identical dead body of the deceased Lakhbir @ Lakha was found in the jurisdiction of Police Station Timar Pur on which he went to Police Station Timar Pur and contacted SHO of Police Station Timar Pur. He has further deposed St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 97 that he collected copy of FIR No. 32/10 of Police Station Timar Pur who informed him that the said dead body was preserved in the Mortuary at Sabzi Mandi. According to him, on 11.02.2010, he called the Crime Team Officials at Gurudwara Rub Da Kutta and SI M. D. Meena and Constable Parminder reached there and they examined the room of Lakhbir Singh @ Lakha and found blood stains on the chatai, Rajai and two legs of a wooden table. According to the witness, the Crime Team In­charge SI M. D. Meena gave his report Ex.PW2/A to him and two legs of table were cut and sealed in a cloth pullanda and sealed with the seal of 'MK' and seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW12/B. He has proved having sealed the chatai in a cloth pullanda with the seal of 'MK' and also sealed the Rajai in a cloth pullanda with the seal of 'MK' and seized both pullandas vide Ex.PW12/C. Witness has further deposed that he prepared the site plan of the above said room and the Gurudwara vide Ex.PW31/A and thereafter, they returned back in the Police Station and deposited the seized articles in the Malkhana and he recorded the statements of the witnesses. Witness has also deposed that on the same day, he alongwith complainant Rajinder Singh S/o Lakhbir Singh and Hakam Singh reached at Mortuary, Sabzi Mandi alongwith a Police official of Police Station Timar Pur and at the Sabzi Mandi Mortuary, Rajinder Singh and Hakam Singh identified the said dead body of Lakhbir Singh @ Lakha. He has testified that on 12.02.2010 on the request of Inspector Rajnish Parmar, SHO of Police Station Timar Pur, St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 98 postmortem was conducted on the dead body of Lakhbir Singh and he conducted the inquest proceedings and also recorded the statement of Rajinder Singh and Hakam Singh about identification of the dead body and after postmortem, dead body was handed over to Rajinder Singh and he also recorded statement of Rajinder Singh u/s 161 Cr.P.C. He has further deposed that on 13.02.2010, he searched for the accused persons and at about 2:30 PM Smt. Chinder Pal @ Jasbir Kaur met them near the Gurudwara Rub Da Kutta, Azad Pur who was then apprehended and was interrogated by him and she confessed about her involvement in this case. According to the witness, he arrested Chhinder Pal @ Jasbir Kaur vide Ex. PW14/A in the presence of lady Constable Saroj on the pointing out of Pyara Singh and her personal search was taken vide Ex.PW24/A and her disclosure statement was recorded by him vide Ex.PW14/E. The witness has further deposed that they also apprehended accused Sukh Pal at the instance of Pyara Singh after which the accused Sukhpal was also interrogated who confessed about his involvement in this case and was arrested vide Ex.PW14/B, his personal search was taken vide Ex.PW14/C and his disclosure statement was recorded vide Ex.PW14/D. According to the witness, he called the Crime Team Officials at Gurudwara Rub Da Kutta and at the instance of accused Sukh Pal, a small room/ store room was inspected by the Crime Team Officials as the dead body was also kept there for about 24 hours and he prepared the memo identification, a pointing out St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 99 memo at the instance of Sukh Pal which is Ex.PW31/B. He has further deposed that the Crime Team officials inspected the same and also took the photographs of that room and the blood spots and burnt/half burnt hairs were found on the floor of this room and the Crime Team In­ charge gave his report Ex.PW3/A to him. Witness has also deposed that he prepared the site plan of the said room vide Ex.PW31/C and lifted the above said hair from the spot and kept the same in a small bottle and sealed the same with the help of cloth with the seal of 'MK' and seized the same vide seizure memo Ex. PW14/F. Witness has further deposed that thereafter, he lifted the earth with blood and kept the same in a plastic panni and pullanda of the same was prepared with the seal of 'MK' and seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW14/H. He has proved having lifted earth control and kept the same in a plastic panni and sealed the same in a cloth pullanda with the seal of 'MK' and seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW14/I. Witness has further deposed that one Tirpal (blood stained) was also found in the room and at the instance of accused Sukh Pal which was also taken in possession by him and the same was sealed in a cloth pullanda with the seal of 'MK' and seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW14/G. According to him, thereafter the accused Sukhpal led the Police Party where the dead body of Lakhbir had been thrown by them and they reached at Nehru Vihar, Wazirabad T­Point at the instance of accused Sukh Pal. St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 100 He has further deposed that Arjun Singh was included them in the investigation and at the instance of accused Sukh Pal, pointing out memo of drain from Yamuna to Camp near Outer Ring Road in front of Sh. Rameshwar Mandir was prepared which is Ex.PW15/A. He has proved having prepared the site plan of that place vide Ex.PW31/D and thereafter, they returned back to the Police Station where he deposited the seized articles in the Malkhana and recorded statements of witnesses.

(102) He has also deposed that on 14.02.2010 both accused Sukhpal and Jasbir Kaur @ Chindarpal Kaur were produced before the Hon'ble Court and one day Police Custody Remand of accused Jasbir Kaur was granted and five days Police Custody remand of accused Sukhpal was granted after which thereafter he along with both accused Sukhpal and accused Jasbir Kaur, ASI Shashi, HC Sudhir reached at Gurudwara Rub Da Kutta where at the instance of accused Sukhpal his chola was recovered from the room of the Jasbir Kaur which was already washed and same was kept in a cloth pullanda and sealed with the seal of MK and seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW14/J. The witness has also deposed that thereafter they reached in the room of the deceased in the same gurudwara and at the instance of accused Sukhpal one Noon Kutna was recovered and he disclosed that by the said Noon kutna deceased was assaulted by Baaz Singh. He has proved having prepared the sketch of the same vide Ex.PW23/B and he took St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 101 measurements of the same and mentioned the same in the sketch in detailed. The witness has further proved having sealed the Noon Kutna in a cloth pullanda with the seal of MK and seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW14/K. He has also deposed that he recorded statement of witnesses and thereafter they searched the accused Baaz Singh @ Ranjeet Singh and has deposited the seized articles in the malkhana after which the accused was kept in the lock up. Witness has further deposed that on 15.02.2010 he along with above said two accused Jasbir Kaur and Sukhpal Singh, SI Ajay Kumar, ASI Shashi, Ct. Gurjeet reached at the same gurudwara Rub Da Kutta and Pyara Singh was included in the investigations and SI Sewa Singh Juvenile welfare officer was also called there was also called there at about 10:30 AM. He has testified that Malkeet Singh was found in front of the gurudwara and Payara Singh identified him and was taken in custody in the presence of SI Sewa Singh and the mother of the Malkeet Singh. According to the witness, the apprehension memo of accused Malkeet Singh was prepared vide memo Ex.PW14/L and his personal search was taken vide memo Ex.PW14/M and he interrogated Malkeet Singh and recorded his version vide Ex.PW14/R. Witness has further deposed that at the instance of Malkeet Singh one empty bottle of Bisleri was recovered from the waste material lying inside the Gurudwara and there was smell of Petrol inside of the bottle and Malkeet Singh disclosed that he brought the petrol in the said bottle and St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 102 poured the petrol upon the deceased Lakhbir Singh @ Lakha. According to the witness, he sealed the said plastic bottle in a cloth pullanda with the seal of MK and seized the same vide Ex.PW14/O and at the instance of Malkeet Singh his jacket was also recovered from the room of the accused Jasbir Kaur and he disclosed that he was wearing the said jacket at the time of the incident and there was blood stains on the same. He has testified that he sealed the jacket in a cloth pullanda and sealed the same with the seal of MK and seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW14/N. He has proved having recorded the statements of witnesses and seized articles were deposited in the malkhana and Malkeet Singh was produced before the JJB through SI Sewa Singh JWO and he was sent to observations home. Witness has further deposed that Krishan Murari Tiwari was called at the Rub Da Kutta gurudwara and he produced his maruti car bearing No. DL­ 2CV ­4256 and informed him that the said car was demanded by the accused Jasbir Kaur which was taken by her son Malkeet Singh from him and he seized the said maruti car vide seizure memo Ex.PW14/P and he recorded the statement of Kishan Murari Tiwari and other witnesses. Witness has also deposed that thereafter accused Jasbir Kaur was produced before the court and she was sent to Judicial Custody and SI Ajay Kumar, ASI Shashi, HC Sudhir along with the accused Sukhpal were sent to Punjab for investigations and to arrest the accused Baaz Singh. Witness has further deposed that on 18.02.2010 ASI Shashi St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 103 informed him that they will reach at the Punjabi Bagh, Delhi and also asked him to come at Punjabi Bagh and thereafter he along with Jassa Singh, Darshan Singh, Hakam Singh and Pyara Singh reached at Punjabi Bagh, Delhi at about 8:30 PM where ASI Shashi, SI Ajay Kumar, HC Sudhir with accused Sukhpal and Baaz Singh met them there. Witness has testified that he interrogated Baaz Singh @ Ranjeet Singh who was identified by Pyara Singh and above said persons who accompanied him and accused Baaz Singh @ Ranjeet Singh confessed about his involvement in the present case. According to him, thereafter he arrested the accused Baaz Singh @ Ranjeet Singh in this case vide Ex.PW13/A and his personal search was taken vide Ex.PW13/B and his disclosure statement was recorded by him vide Ex.PW13/C. He has testified that the accused Ranjeet Singh @ Baaz Singh was having a plastic polythene and same was checked and one yellow color shirt and one salwar (lower) were found and he disclosed that he was wearing these clothes at the time of incident, on which he sealed the same in a cloth pullanda with the seal of MK and seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW13/D and he recorded statement of witnesses and accused Sukhpal and accused Baaz Singh @ Ranjeet Singh were kept in the lock up and he deposited the seized articles in the malkhana. (103) According to the witness, on 19.02.2010 both accused were produced before the court and accused Sukhpal was sent to Judicial Custody and one day Police Custody Remand of accused St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 104 Ranjeet @ Baaz Singh was granted after which he along with the accused Ranjeet Singh @ Baaz Singh, ASI Shashi reached at the Rub Da Kutta gurudwara and reached in the room of Lakhbir @ Lakha and accused Ranjeet Singh @ Baaz Singh pointed out the place of incident vide Ex.PW23/C. Witness has further deposed that at the instance of the accused Ranjeet Singh @ Baaz Singh one old cloth was recovered from the tree behind the rooms of gurudwara inside of the boundary wall and disclosed that he cleaned the blood after the incident of murder of Lakhbir Singh by the said cloth and had thrown the same behind the rooms and said old cloth was checked by him and blood stains were found on the same and he sealed the same in a cloth pullanda with the seal of MK and seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW13/E. He has also deposed that he prepared the site plan of the place of said recovery which is Ex.PW31/E and then deposited the seized articles in the Malkhana and recorded the statements of witnesses and accused Ranjeet Singh @ Baaz Singh was produced before the court and he was sent to Judicial Custody. The witness has further deposed that on 21.02.2010 HC Sudhir went to Police Station Timarpur on his directions and brought the case property of the case FIR No. 32/10 of Police Station Timarpur from the Malkhana of Police Station Timarpur and deposited the same in the malkhana of Police Station Adarsh Nagar and he recorded his statement. He has further deposed that on 11.03.2010 HC Sudhir took the recovered Maruti Car to FSL Rohini for St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 105 examination by the expert and he also reached there and in his presence the said vehicle was examined by the FSL expert who lifted blood from near the right side door of the car and handed over the same to him in a envelope and he sealed the same with the seal of MK and seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW28/A. According to him, both vehicle and the sealed envelope were deposited in the Malkhana and recorded the statements of witnesses. Witness has further deposed that he collected the postmortem reports and other relevant documents including Ex.PW31/F from Inspector Rajneesh Parmar, SHO of Police Station Timarpur who was the Investigating Officer of the case FIR No. 32/10, Police Station Timarpur and he took pullanda of Noon Kutna to autopsy surgeon from the malkhana for the opinion on his application which is Ex.PW13/G on which Dr. S. Lal gave his opinion vide Ex.PW16/B. Witness has further deposed that he got prepared the scaled site plan from SI Manohar Lal of both places where the murder of Lakhbir Singh was committed and where the dead body of the Lakhbir Singh was found. He has proved that during his investigations HC Sudhir and Ct. Rahul deposited the exhibits of this case at FSL Rohini, Delhi and during his investigations accused Sukhpal pointed out the place of incident vide Ex.PW23/A on 13.02.2010. The witness has testified that during his investigations Ms. Manisha Upadhya of FSL gave her crime scene report to him which is Ex.PW31/H. Witness has St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 106 further deposed that after complexion of investigations he filed the charge sheet and also collected the FSL Results and submitted before the court.

(104) He has correctly identified the accused Sukhpal Singh @ Deep Singh, Ranjeet Singh @ Baaz Singh @ Sonu, Jasbir Kaur @ Chinder Pal Kaur and accused Malkeet Singh in the Court. He has also identified the case property i.e. Quilt which is Ex.P1; chatai which is Ex.P2; the legs of the table which are Ex.P3 collectively; one plastic Tirpal which is Ex.P4; earth control which are Ex.P5 & Ex.P6; one brown colored lining Cholla belonging to accused Sukhpal which is Ex.P7; one cream and blue color Jacket belonging to accused Malkeet which is Ex.P8; one dirty lower and one shirt belonging to accused Ranjeet Singh @ Baaz Singh which are Ex.P9 collectively; rough clothes used for cleaning blood by accused which is Ex.P10 collectively; weapon of offence i.e. Noon Ghotna/ Kutna which is Ex.P11; bunch of hair belonging to deceased which is Ex.P12 and one Bisleri Bottle which is Ex.P13 and the Maruti Car bearing No. DL­2CV­4256 which is Ex.P24.

(105) In his cross­examination by the Ld. Defence Counsel the witness has deposed that he was associated with the present case only after 09.02.2010 and was aware of the facts of the case since 05.02.2010 after the case was registered. According to him prior to 09.02.2010 he St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 107 was only aware of the registration of the case but not the details facts and he had orally asked the first Investigating Officer regarding the investigations which had taken place in this case and he did not record his statement to this effect and has voluntarily explained that all these facts were mentioned in the case diary. Witness has further deposed that he had not mentioned in the charge sheet specifically as to what investigations was done by the first Investigating Officer and has voluntarily explained that he is only required to mention about the facts of the case and the investigations conducted which fact he had mentioned. According to him, initial investigations were conducted by ASI Kuldeep Singh and to his information ASI Kuldeep Singh had not carried out any search of the gurudwara Rub Da Kutta. He has testified that when he was handed over the investigations he had read the rukka. Witness has denied the suggestion that ASI Kuldeep Singh had conducted the search of the Gurudwara and this fact finds a mention in the rukka Ex.PW26/A and has voluntarily explained that the only fact mention is with regard to the visit/inquiry but not search. He has further deposed that he had got the antecedents of Lakhbir Singh @ Lakha verified but he had not mentioned these facts in the charge sheet and he did not go to the native place from where Lakhbir Singh belong to make inquiries nor he obtained any details from the local police of the said area regarding his antecedents and has voluntarily explained that he only confined himself to the present case. According to the St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 108 witness, he made no inquiries from the local area to which Lakhbir Singh belonged to get the details regarding the suspects who could be involved in the offence and has voluntarily explained that he confined his inquiry to the jurisdiction of Delhi because he was staying here for a long time. Witness has testified that it came to his knowledge during investigations that Lakhbir Singh belong to one Balbir Singh group and initially it was not in his knowledge that Balbir Singh and Sarjeet Singh groups were two rival group of Dera Budha Dal who were trying to exercise their supremacy over the Religious Sect and there were many disputes pending between them and has voluntarily explained that this fact came to his knowledge later. He has admitted that on the directions of the Court, further investigations were directed on this aspect and has deposed that he did not carry out the further investigations on this aspect because he was transferred and has voluntarily explained that the further investigations in this aspect were conducted by Insp. Randhir Singh. He has also deposed that Inspector Randhir Singh is not a witness in the present case and during the investigations of this case, one complaint was received from witness Pyara Singh who alleged that 16 people were involved for the abduction of deceased. Witness has further deposed that he inquired from some of those named persons but he does not remember as to from whom he made inquiries and from whom he could not and he interrogated complainant Pyara Singh after receiving of this complaint and found that the contents of the same were St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 109 not true and has voluntarily explained that Pyara Singh had explained that he was not well versed with either Hindi or English. He has stated that he is not aware of the contents of the complaints which had been drafted by some Advocate and has deposed that according to Pyara Singh, he had said something to the advocate whereas something else had been written in the complaint. Witness has further deposed that he did not meet the lawyer who had drafted this complaint of Pyara Singh and has voluntarily explained that Pyara Singh was not able to give the details of the said advocate. According to the witness, he had mentioned these facts in the case diaries but does not form of charge sheet. He has testified that he did not visit Gurudwara Rub Da Kutta prior to 11.02.2010 and he visited there at about 1:00 PM and remained there for about 3­4 hours. He has also deposed that when he visited the room, from where the Quilt, Chatai and Two Legs of wooden table were recovered, it was found vacant and the door was bolted from outside but it was not locked and three­four persons associated with deceased Lakhbir Singh @ Lakha were present at that time within the premises of Gurudwara. Witness has also deposed that those three­four people and son of deceased namely Raju were looking after the day to day affairs of Gurudwara after the death of deceased Lakhbir Singh and he recorded the statements of Anil Kumar, Pyara Singh, Raju and Harsimran who were found present at that time and he made inquiries from the above said persons as to who was living in that room after the death of St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 110 Lakhbir Singh @ Lakha and upon inquiries he was informed that the room was vacant and no one was using that room. Witness has testified that he could not tell the exact number of room constructed within the premises of Gurudwara and he had searched the rooms of accused Jasbir Kaur and accused Malkeet Singh but nothing incriminating could be found. According to the witness, accused Sukhpal and accused Baaz Singh @ Ranjeet Singh was also residing with accused Jasbir Kaur and has voluntarily explained that accused persons has already got the incriminating articles recovered. He has also deposed that on 11.02.2010 the crime team was also called at about 4­5 PM which remained at the spot for about one hour. According to him, on 11.02.2010 they had not searched the whole premises of the Gurudwara and they had searched the room of the deceased and other rooms of the persons present there only and accused Sukhpal was also arrested on 13.02.2010 at about 2 PM in the presence of accused Jasbir Kaur. He has also deposed that thereafter they left for the recoveries and all the persons available on 11.02.2010 at Gurudwara were not found present on 13.02.2010 when they visited the premises with the accused persons and has voluntarily explained that Raju and Anil were not present. He has admitted that in this case murder was blind initially and there was no clue about the culprits. He has also admitted that all the public witnesses who were cited in the present case are associated with the group of Balbir Singh Ji. He has denied the suggestion that these public witnesses were St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 111 planted with the connivance of Balbir Singh group. According to him, regarding the involvement of the present accused persons in the present case, they could gather the disclosure statements of accused persons and the suspicion of the complainant and witnesses. He has denied the suggestion that accused persons namely Jasbir Kaur, Sukhpal Singh, Malkeet Singh and Ranjeet Singh @ Bazz Singh did not disclose their involvement in the present case or that their signatures were obtained on blank papers and same were fabricated into various documents. The witness has further denied the suggestion that accused persons were not arrested in the manner as deposed by him in the examination in chief or that nothing was recovered at the instance of accused persons or that recoveries were planted to substantiate the case of the prosecution. He has also denied the suggestion that he did not investigated the case properly and fairly or that at the instance of the complainant party he had falsely implicated the accused persons in the present case. STATEMENT OF THE ACCUSED/ DEFENCE EVIDENCE:

(106) After completion of prosecution evidence the statements of the accused persons were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein the entire incriminating evidence was put to the accused persons which they have denied. The accused Sukhpal has stated that he returned from his sister's place on 10.2.2010 and came to know about the incident in question after which he went to Police Station along with other people where he was detained and falsely implicated in this case. St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 112

According to him, there is a dispute regarding possession of Gurdwara between two groups and a civil case is also pending and no one is residing illegally in the Gurdwara. He has further stated that he has been falsely implicated in the present case.

(107) The accused Jasbir Kaur @ Chinder Pal Kaur has denied the allegations against her and has stated that her husband has been falsely implicated in a political murder case. According to the accused, she had no enmity with the deceased and there was a dispute regarding possession of Gurdwara between two groups for which a civil case is pending and no one is residing illegally. She has deposed that she was not in the Gurdwara on the date of incident and had gone to her relative's house along with her son on 2.2.2010 in connection with the purchase of marriage and returned to Gurdwara on 4.2.2010. According to her, she is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. (108) The accused Malkeet Singh has similarly denied the allegations against him and stated that his father has been falsely implicated in a political murder case. According to the accused, there was a dispute regarding possession of Gurdwara between two groups for which a civil case is pending and no one is residing illegally. He has deposed that he was not in the Gurdwara on the date of incident and had gone to her relatives house along with her mother on 2.2.2010 in connection with the purchase for marriage and returned to Gurdwara on 4.2.2010. According to the accused, he is innocent and has been falsely St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 113 implicated in this case.

(109) The accused Ranjeet Singh @ Sonu @ Baaz Singh has stated that he was taken to the Police Station on 5.2.2010 for inquiry where he was detained and later on falsely implicated in this case. He has further stated that he saw Harsimran performing Pooja in the morning of 4.2.2010 and asked him about Babaji on which he told him that Babaji had gone somewhere. According to the accused, he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case and he has nothing to do with the alleged incident.

(110) However, the accused have preferred not to examine any witness in their defence.

FINDINGS:

(111) I have heard the arguments advanced before me by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State and the Ld. Defence Counsel. I have also gone through the written memorandum of arguments filed by the parties and the evidence on record. I first propose to deal with all the averments made by the various witnesses so examined by the prosecution individually in a tabulated form as under and later on comprehensively.

Sr. Name of the Details of deposition No. witness Public Witnesses

1. Harsimran Singh He is the witness who had last seen the deceased alive.

(PW11) He has deposed on the following aspects: St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 114

1. That he is a student of BSC II year, Maths (Hons) which course he is doing from IGNOU and he also give tuitions at Baljeet Nagar.

2. That he and his sister Harsharan Kaur and his brother Jagdev Singh resided at Gurdwara Rub Da Kutta, Azadpur, for a period of about 2½ ­ 3 months and used to give tuition at Baljeet Nagar.

3. That on 03.02.2010 he was coming back to the aforesaid Gurudwara after giving tuition and reached at the Gurdwara at 10 PM and knocked the door and called babaji on which Babaji Sh. Lakhbir Singh who was mehant in the Gurudwara opened the door.

4. That he entered the Gurdwara and passed through the courtyard for entering into his premises and asked baba Lakhbir Singh as to what happened in the matter of Baljeet Nagar Gurdwara on which he (Babaji) told him that everything was all right and he asked him to go and to sleep and also told him that today he would remain awake " tu so ja aaj mei jaggun ga".

5. That he asked him (Babaji) why he wanted to remain awake, on which Babaji told him that since he was tired he should go off to sleep and there was nothing as such " tum thake hui ho tum ja kar so jao, aise koi baat nahin hai" on which he (witness) went up in the room and slept.

6. That in the morning at about 5 AM one person namely Baaz (i.e. accused Ranjeet Singh) who was sewadar of Babaji came to him and asked him that he should take bath and do the path pooja on which he (witness) asked him as to where was Babaji and he (Baaz) informed him that Babaji had gone somewhere and would come back till evening.

St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 115

7. That he got suspicious because whenever Babaji used to go anywhere he used to hand over the keys of Gurdwara and while going any where he did not hand over any key to him.

8. That he performed Path Pooja and went to give tuitions and in the evening he came back to the said gurdwara when one Jasbir Kaur met him and asked him to leave gurdwara and further told that she would get him shifted in the house of her relatives at Uttam Nagar.

9. That he told her that till babaji does not come he will not leave gurdwara on which Baaz Singh informed him that Babaji had an evil eye/ bure nazar upon his sister Harsharan Kaur but he could not believe the same because his sister did not give any complaint regarding this fact.

10. That later on he along with Lalli and his son Raju had gone to Police Station to lodge the report regarding missing of Lakhbir Singh @ Babaji on which police recorded the missing report.

2. Rajender Singh @ He is the son of the deceased who has deposed as Raju (PW12) under:

1. That on 03.02.2010 he was present at Punjab at his house when one Karnail Singh son of Sh.

Arjun a resident of Delhi made a telephonic call to him and informed him that his father is not available for last three four days and also informed that no sewadar was available in the gurudwara and asked him to come to Delhi.

2. That on receipt of phone from Karnail Singh he came to Gurudwara Rub Da Kutta, G.T. Karnal Road, Lal Bagh Delhi where he met Sh. Karnail Singh in a shop outside the gurudwara who informed him that his father had not come in the gurudwara.

3. That he made efforts to contact his father on his St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 116 mobile phone bearing number 9878834491 but the said phone was found switched off after which he contacted his known and relatives regarding whereabouts of his father but there was no clue.

4. That he came back inside the gurudwara and found the shoes of his father in the toilet but he could not find a bunch of keys and Kirpan of his father there.

5. That he then made inquiries from one Harsimran Singh who informed him that when he came in the gurudwara on 03.02.2010 at about 10:00 PM after giving tuition and called his father, his father opened the door and thereafter he (Harsimran Singh) asked his father as to what happened regarding Patel Nagar issue on which his father asked him to go inside the room and sleep since he would wake up throughout the night.

6. That Harsimran also informed him that on the next morning, at about 5.00 AM the sewadar Baaz came to him and asked him to do the pooja paath since his father had gone to out for some work on which he (Harsimran) asked Baaz as to when Babaji would come to which he (Baaz) stated that Babaji would come till evening but Babaji did not return till the evening.

7. That his chacha namely Anil Kumar Lalli R/o Punjab had come to Delhi on 04.10.2010 at about 5.00 PM and did not find his father in the gurudwara on which he made inquiries from Harsimran regarding his father who expressed his ignorance regarding whereabouts of his father and asked his chacha to make inquiries from Baaz.

8. That his chacha called Baaz to make inquiries but he (Baaz) ignored him and went away with Sukhpal.

St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 117

9. That his chacha Anil Kumar @ Lalli informed him that at about 6.15 PM Sukhpal came to the gurudwara on which he made inquiries from Sukhpal regarding Baaz to which he informed that Baaz had gone to Bangla Sahib Gurudwara and would return till night at about 7.00 PM after which his chacha Sh. Anil Kumar Lalli left the gurudwara.

10. That he got suspicious that his father had been kidnapped by Sukhpal on which he went to the Police Station and made his statement to the police which is Ex.PW12/A.

11. That on 11.02.2010 police came in the gurudwara and he joined the investigation.

12. That the legs of the table were found blood stained and hence they were removed by the police and took into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW12/B.

13. That the police also took into possession one blood stained chatai and blood stained quilt (razai) vide seizure memo Ex.PW12/C.

14. That he identified the dead body of his father in the mortuary Subzi Mandi after getting the postmortem conducted vide his statement Ex.PW12/D after which the dead body was received by them for cremation.

3. Sardar Hakum He is the real Mama of the deceased and has deposed Singh (PW13) on the following aspects:

1. That Lakhbir Singh @ Lakha was his nephew (real bhanja) and was the Mehant in Rub Da Kutta Gurudwara where one Jasbir Kaur was also residing in the said Gurudwara along with her children.

2. That Jasbir Kaur was very quarrelsome lady by nature and often quarrelled with his nephew who had also told him that one Sukhpal is also residing in the Gurudwara.

3. That the husband of Jasbir Kaur is involved in some murder cases in Punjab and is lodged in St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 118 jail at Punjab.

4. That Rajender Singh the son of his nephew Lakhbir Singh had come to Delhi on 04.02.2010 but did not find Lakhbir Singh in the Gurudwara on which he tried to search for him at his own level.

5. That it was on 05th or 06.02.2010 that Rajender Singh gave him a telephone call and informed him of the situation, after making a complaint to the police pursuant to which he (witness Hakum Singh) came to Delhi from Punjab.

6. That on 11.02.2010 while he was in Delhi a team of police officials came in Gurudwara and conducted the search of room of his nephew Lakhbir @ Lakha and recovered a table having blood stains on two of its legs, one blood stained chatai (mat), one blood stained rajai (quilt).

7. That after cutting the two legs of the table containing the blood stains was sealed with the seal of MK which parcel containing two legs of the chair was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW12/B.

8. That the chatai and rajai were also sealed with the seal of MK after which the sealed parcels of both chatai and rajai were taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW12/C.

9. That on 12.02.2010 the police officials asked him to identify the dead body of his nephew Lakhbir Singh in the mortuary at Subzi Mandi and his statement regarding identification of the dead body was recorded by the Investigating Officer vide Ex.PW12/A.

10. That he raised his suspicion on Sukhpal Singh, Jasbir Kaur @ Chhinder Pal Kaur since they were the only persons inimical to Lakhbir Singh, his nephew in Delhi and were the only persons who could harm him, and thereafter he took the dead body to Punjab for last rites. St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 119

11. That on 18.02.2010 he again came back to Delhi and joined the investigations of this case along with Jassa Singh and Darshan Singh when they first went to Punjabi Bagh where they identified Ranjeet @ Baaz Singh who was arrested in this case vide memo Ex.PW13/B and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW13/C.

12. That one yellow colored checkdar shirt and one lower belonging to Baaz Singh were also sealed with the same seal and taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW13/D.

13. That on 19.02.2010 he again joined the investigations of this case when police officials brought Ranjeet Singh @ Baaz Singh at Rab da kuta Gurudwara and the accused Ranjeet Singh @ Baaz Singh had pointed out the room and shown the bed to the police and disclosed that they had killed the Lakhbir Singh @ Lakha there and also pointed out small room and store where they had kept the body of the deceased.

14. That the cloth which was hanged on the tree after cleaning the blood were handed over to the police but he is not aware whom the cloth belonged but states that same was old one.

15. That the said clothes were also wrapped in cloth and sealed with the same seal and taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW13/E.

4. Sardar Pyara Singh This witness has deposed on the following lines:

(PW14) 1. That he is a sewadar at Rub Da Kutta Gurudwara, Lal Bagh where Lakha Singh was the Mehant in the said Gurudwara which Gurudwara was under the control of Balbir Singh.

2. That prior to this Baldev Singh was forcibly posing himself as Garanthi of the said Gurudwara.

3. That Baldev Singh was in Jail at Punjab in a case of murder and his wife accused Jasbir Kaur was in possession of three rooms of the St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 120 said Gurudwara illegally.

4. That people from Punjab often used to come at the said Gurudwara to meet Jasbir Kaur @ Chhinder Pal Kaur.

5. That on the intervening night of 03­04.02.2010, he had gone outstation for his personal work and he returned back on 13.02.2010 during which period Lakhbir @ Lakha was killed.

6. That he pointed Jasbir Kaur @ Chhinder Pal Kaur and got produced her before the police after which she was arrested in this case vide memo Ex.PW14/A and the real sister of Jasbir Kaur namely Sarabjeet Kaur also came there who was also produced before the police.

7. That the accused Sukhpal Singh was arrested by the police at his instance vide memo Ex.PW14/B, his personal search was conducted vide Ex.PW14/C after which the accused Sukhpal Singh pointed out the store where they kept the dead body of the deceased Lakhbir for 24 hours.

8. That the disclosure statements of Sukhpal Singh and Jasbir Kaur were recorded vide Ex.PW14/D and Ex.PW14/E respectively.

9. That the accused Sukhpal and accused Jasbir Kaur took the police party at room/store where they got recovered one blood stained Tirpal, blood stained hair and there was blood on the floor.

10. That the hair was kept in a small dibbi and sealed with the seal of MK after which the parcel containing hair was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW14/F and the Tirpal was also sealed with the same seal and taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW14/G.

11. That the blood stained earth was broken and sealed with the same seal after which the said parcel was also taken into possession vide St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 121 Ex.PW14/H.

12. That the earth without blood was also separated and converted into parcel and sealed the same with the same seal which parcel was also taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW14/I.

13. That thereafter the accused Sukhpal led the police party at said Gurudwara and on the pointing out of Sukhpal the accused Jasbir Kaur got recovered Cholla belonging to Sukhpal worn by him at the time of incident which cholla was sealed with the same seal and taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW14/J.

14. That the accused Sukhpal also got recovered Noon Kootna from the room of Lakhbir Singh stated to have been used in the beating which Noon Kutna was also converted into parcel and sealed the same with the seal of MK and taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW14/K.

15. That on 15.02.2010 he again joined the investigations with the police party when the police officials brought Jasbir Kaur and Sukhpal and the accused Malkeet Singh who is son of Jasbir Kaur met them in front of Gurudwara Rub Da Kutta and near Masjid.

16. That Malkeet Singh was apprehended and arrested in this case vide memo Ex.PW14/L, his personal search was conducted vide Ex.PW14/M.

17. That at the instance of accused Malkeet the accused Jasbir Kaur got recovered one jacket from double bed lying in the room which jacket was belonging to Malkeet worn by him at the time of incident.

18. That the said jacket was converted into parcel and sealed the same with the seal of MK and taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW14/N.

19. That the accused Malkeet got recovered one Bisleri Bottle of one liter stated to have been St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 122 used in taking petrol after which the Investigating Officer converted the said bottle into parcel and sealed the same with the same seal which parcel was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW14/O.

20. That the seal after use was handed over to him by the Investigating Officer.

21. That on that day one Krishan Murari had brought one Maruti car bearing No. 4256, complete number he does not remember, stating that the said car was taken by Malkeet on 04­05.02.2010 after which the said car was also taken into possession vide Ex.PW14/P.

22. That on 18.02.2010 they all including himself, police officials, Jassa Singh, Hakum Singh, Darshan Singh went to Punjabi Bagh where Bazz Singh and Sukpal Singh met them and he identified accused Bazz Singh.

23. That the accused Bazz Singh was arrested in this case vide memo Ex.PW13/A and after interrogating the disclosure statement of the accused Bazz Singh was recorded vide Ex.PW13/C.

24. That the cloth of accused Bazz Singh stated to have been worn by him at the time of incident were converted into parcel and sealed the same with the same seal and thereafter taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW13/D.

25. That the statement of Malkeet Singh was recorded vide Ex.PW14/R.

26. That the accused Sukhpal took the police party on 13.02.2010 at Nehru Vihar T point and pointed out the place where he threw the dead body of the deceased Lakhbir Singh pursuant to which the Investigating Officer prepared the memo to this effect vide Ex.PW15/A. St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 123

5. Anand Sharma This witness has proved the following aspects:

(PW15) 1. That he is running a auto repairing shop at Outer Ring Road Nehru Vihar crossing.

2. That one day the police official had brought one Sardarji i.e. accused Sukhpal who had come to the spot along with the police and had pointed out and identified the place where he had thrown the dead body of the person whom he had killed ("jis admi ko mara tha uski body fekhi thi").

3. That the document Ex.PW15/A (pointing out memo) bears his signatures.

6. Krishan Murari He is the owner of Maruti Car bearing No. DL 2C B Tiwari (PW17) 4256 and has deposed on the following aspects:

1. That he is having a Maruti car bearing no. DL 2C B 4256 Model 2002 and knew Smt. Jasbir Kaur for last many years.

2. That the son of Jasbir Kaur namely Malkeet Singh had taken his aforesaid car on the intervening night of 4­5.2.2010 at about 12:30 AM (midnight).

7. Rakesh Bhardwaj He is a private photographer who has deposed on the (PW19) following aspects:

1. That he had a photo studio at Jawahar Market, Mall Road, Timarpur, Delhi.

2. That on the intervening night of 05­06.02.2010 police of Police Station Timarpur reached at his house at about 3.00AM and took him at Nehru Vihar mor.

3. That he found a dead body wrapped in a cloth near a broken wall and on the directions of the SHO of PS Timarpur, he took two­three photographs with digital camera.

4. That thereafter the cloth was removed from the dead body and found a dead body of a Sikh male person aged about 35 years old and then he took four­five photographs of the same on the directions of the SHO.

St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 124

5. That he handed over the photographs to the police which photographs are Ex.PW19/A­1 to Ex.PW19/A­11.

8. Karnail Singh This witness has deposed on the following lines:

(PW20) 1. That he is having a shop of building material under the name and style of 'Pholora Building Materials' at shop No. 9 and 10, Gudwara Rub Da Kutta, GT Karnal road, Azadpur, Delhi.

2. That his shop opens at 8 AM and closes at 8 PM but since he is in the business of supply of building material therefore when his supply is suppose to be at night he is present in the shop whenever the supply is loaded at the night hours.

3. That on 04­05.02.2010 since his supply of building material had to come therefore he reached his shop at 12:15 AM (midnight) and was waiting for the supply vehicle.

4. That at about 12:30 AM (Midnight) he saw one steel grey color maruti car entering the gurduwara which was being driven by Malkeet Singh who resides in the gurudwara and often used to get the vehicle to the gurudwara.

5. That since his supply was late so he was taking a stroll outside on the road and waiting for his vehicle and after about half an hour to forty five minutes he saw that the door of the gurudwara was opened by the mother of Malkeet Singh namely Jasbir Kaur and the same steel grey color maruti car came out which was being driven by Malkeet Singh and Sukhpal Singh who also resides in the gurudwara was also with him.

6. That since the lights of his shop and the lights of the gate of the gurudwara were switched on, he could see something lying tied on the back seat ("bandha hua saman jo katta sa lagta tha") and he could just had a glimpse of the same.

St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 125

7. That Jasbir Kaur the mother of Malkeet Singh closed the door of the gurudwara after which the vehicle went away and after about 15­20 minutes his vehicle came with the load and after unloading the same he went back home.

8. That he was called to the Police Station for identification of the vehicle on 22.02.2010 which vehicle/ steel grey color maruti car he identified in the Police Station after which his statement was recorded by the police.

9. Arjun Singh This witness has deposed on the following aspects:

(PW21) 1. That earlier he was Jathedar of Gurudwara Rub Da Kutta, Lal Bagh, GT Karnal Road, Delhi and had had been working as a Jathedar of Gurudwara Akal Bunga Chhawni, Near Mother Dairy, Pandav Nagar, Delhi since the year 1999.

2. that Baldev Singh was looking after the work of Gurudwara Rub Da Kutta, Lal Bagh, GT Karnal Road after he went to Gurudwara at Pandav Nagar and after 1 ½ and 2 years Baldev Singh also brought his wife and children in that Gurudwara and they were residing also there and remained there as caretaker upto 2007.

3. That a murder took place in the year 2007 in Patiala and Baldev Singh was found involved in that case after which he (baldev Singh) absconded from Gurudwara Rub Da Kutta but his family members and children remained there.

4. That in the year 2007 Baba Balbir Singh Mukhi appointed Lakhbir @ Lakha as Mehant of Gurudwara Rub Da Kutta, Lal Bagh, GT Karnal Road in place of Baldev Singh after which Lakhbir @ Lakha remained Mehant of the Gurudwara.

5. That Jasbir Kaur @ Chhinder Pal Kaur wife of Baldev Singh were residing in the same Gurudwara and she was having a behaviour of St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 126 quarrelsome and used to quarrel with Lakhbir Singh.

6. That on many occasions he tried to pacify both the parties but Jasbir Kaur @ Chhinder Pal Kaur insisted that Lakhbir should vacate the Gurudwara as he was forcibly made Mehant of Gurudwara.

7. That Jasbir Kaur filed a Civil Suit in respect of the said Gurudwara in which he, Balbir Singh and Lakhbir Singh @ Lakha were made parties.

8. That on 03.02.2010 at about 2.00PM a meeting was held at Gurudwara Ranjeet Akhara, Baljeet Nagar for replacement of one Sevadar namely Himmat Singh which meeting was attended by him, Lakhbir Singh @ Lakha, Kashmir Singh, Avtar Singh and other other persons.

9. That the said meeting was continued upto 6.00­6.30PM after which they went to Police Station Patel Nagar and after giving their representation there, they went to Metro Station Shadipur Depot.

10. That he alongwith Kashmir Singh went to Laxmi Nagar via Rajiv Chowk Metro Station whereas Lakhbir @ Lakha boarded down at Rajiv Chowk and then he went to Azadpur at about 7.00PM, after which he had not seen Lakhbir @ Lakha.

11. That one Sukhpal was residing with Jasbir Kaur @ Chhinder Pal Kaur.

10. Sardar Avtar Singh The witness has deposed on the following aspects:

(PW27) 1. That he is a Jathedar of Gurudwara at Ranjeet Akhara and knew Lakhbir Singh Lakha who was a Sewadar/ Granthi/ Mehant of Gurudwara Rub Da Kutta and he also knew Chinder Pal Kaur as she is wife of Baldev Singh.

2. Tht Lakhbir Singh Lakha, Chinder Pal Kaur, her son and one daughter were also residing in the said Gurdwara.

3. That Sukh Pal had met him on one or two St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 127 occasions.

4. That on 03.02.2010, a meeting was held at their Gurudwara at Baljit Nagar and Lakhbir Singh Lakha, Arjun Singh and Mangal Singh Kashmiri also attended the meeting and they finally left them at about 6:30 PM and later on, police contacted him and he told the abovesaid facts to the Police.

This witness has however, resiled from his previous statement given to the police to the effect that Chinder Pal kept Sukh Pal and she was wrong relations with him or that Chinder Pal used to abuse Lakhbir in front of him and threatened him to be killed and he tried to pacify her but she did not agree with him but has explained that there was a quarrel (tu tu mai mai) took place between Lakhbir and Chinder Pal and then he pacified the matter.

Witness of Medical Record:

11. Dr. S. Lal (PW16) He is the Autopsy Surgeon and has proved the following aspects:

1. That on 12.02.2010 he conducted the postmortem on the body of Mehant Lakhbir Singh @ Lakkha Singh S/o Assa Singh aged about 42 years, Male vide postmortem report Ex.PW16/A.

2. That the cause of death in this case was asphyxia due to ante mortem strangulation by means of ligature possible to cause by ligature material present around the neck, all injuries were ante mortem in nature, recent in duration;

Injury no. 1 to 6 could be possible to cause by blunt force impact and injury no.7 was caused by means of ligature and was sufficient to cause death in ordinary cause of nature.

3. That time since death in this case was about one to one and half week.

4. That on the request of Investigating Officer Inspector Mahavir Kaushik seeking opinion of St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 128 the injury possible with the weapon of offence or otherwise i.e noon kutna pursuant to which on 25.03.2010, he had given the opinion in this regard which is Ex.PW16/B wherein he had given the opinion that injury no.1 to 5 could have been possible to cause by this weapon of offence i.e. noon kutna which was produced before him for examination.

FSL Experts:

12. Sri Narain (PW29) This witness has proved the following aspects:

Asstt. Director 1. That on 26.03.2010, one parcel in sealed (Chemistry), FSL, condition was received at FSL, Rohini, Delhi Rohini, through HC Sudhir Singh in case FIR No. 31/10, Police Station Adarsh Nagar. He has testified that the seal was found intact and tallied with the sample seal.

2. That on opening the parcel he found Ex.1A containing stomach and piece of small intestine with contents in the sealed jar, Ex.1B containing pieces of liver, spleen and kidney kept in a sealed jar, Ex.1C blood sample in a sealed bottle and Ex.1D containing preservative samples kept in a bottle.

3. That after examination of the abovesaid exhibits, he gave his detailed report which is Ex.PW29/A and he had not found any common poison in the abovesaid exhibits.

4. That on 29.03.2010, three parcels were received at FSL, Rohini, Delhi through Constable Rahul Tyagi and the same was marked to him and he found sealed intact and tallied with the sample seal.

5. That on opening the parcel no.1, he found Ex.1 containing one empty plastic bottle with cap labelled as Bisleri; in parcel no. 2 he found Ex. 2 containing bunch of hair stated to be recovered hairs and on opening the parcel no.3, he found Ex.3 containing yellow coloured cloth St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 129 strip.

6. That after examining the abovesaid exhibits he gave his detailed report Ex. PW29/B according to which on chemical, TLC and GC Examination, residue of petrol, diesel and kerosene could not be detected in the abovesaid exhibits 1, 2 & 3.

13. Ms. Sunita Suman She has proved the following aspects:

(PW30) Senior 1. That on 26.03.2010, 24 sealed parcels were Scientific Officer received at their FSL Office, Rohini, Delhi in (Biology), FSL, case FIR No. 31/10, Police Station Adarsh Rohini, Delhi Nagar which were marked to her and she found seals intact and tallied the same with sample seal.

2. That on opening the parcel she marked the exhibits as Ex.1 to 8, 9a, 9b and Ex. 10 to Ex.

20, Ex. 21a, 21b and 22 to 24 and after examining all the exhibits, she gave her biological report which is Ex.PW30/A (running in three pages).

3. That she found blood on Ex.1 (one chatai), Ex.2 (one Rajai), Ex.3 (two pieces of wooden table legs), Ex.5 (some stone pieces as each with blood, Ex.6 (some stone pieces as earth control), Ex.8 (one jacket), Ex.10 (one dirty cloth piece as rough cloth used for cleaning blood by accused), Ex.12 (one cloth piece in which dead body was tied), Ex.13 (one bori of jute as gunny bag in which the dead body of victim was kept), Ex.14 (one towel), Ex.15 (one blanket), Ex.16 (soil as earth with blood), Ex.18 (some cloth piece as tying material around waist), Ex.20 (one cloth piece as ligature material), Ex.21a (one dirty T­shirt), Ex.21B (one sleeve), Ex.22 (a small bunch of hairs as a scalp hairs of deceased), Ex.23 (one blood stained gauze cloth piece as blood in gauze) and Ex.24 (one gauze cloth piece as blood lifted St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 130 from maruti car).

4. That the above said exhibits were also examined serologically and her detailed serological report in this regard is Ex.PW30/B (2 pages) according to which human blood was found in the Ex. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 10 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 20, 21a, 21b, 22, 23 and 24 and she found the blood group 'B' in Ex. 2, 12, 13, 14, 15, 18, 23 & 24. Police/ official witnesses:

14. Ct. Parvinder He is a formal witness being the Crime Team (PW1) Photographer who has proved that on 11.2.2010 he along with Crime Team Incharge SI M.D. Meena reached the spot of incident where he took the photographs which are Ex.PW1/A­1 to Ex.PW1/A­9.

15. SI Matadin Meena He is also a formal witness being the Crime Team (PW2) Incharge who has proved that on 11.2.2010 he visited the spot of incident i.e. Rub Da Kutta, Gurudwara, GTK Road, Lal Bagh and prepared his report Ex.PW2/A.

16. SI Devender (PW3) He is a formal witness being the Crime Team Incharge who has proved that on 13.2.2010 he visited the Rub Da Kutta, Gurudwara, GTK Road, Lal Bagh and inspected a small room/ store after which he prepared his report which is Ex.PW3/A.

17. Ct. Rahul Tyagi He is a formal witness who has proved that on (PW4) 29.3.2010 on the directions of the Investigating Officer he deposited the exhibits of this case in the FSL Rohini.

18. SI Devender He is a formal witness being the Crime Team Incharge Purang (PW15) who has proved that on 3.2.2010 on receipt of information he reached vacant land near Water pipe line Ganda Nala, Nehru Vihar Mor, Timarpur where he inspected the dead body of a male after which he prepared his report which is Ex.PW5/A.

19. Ct. Dalbir (PW6) He is a formal witness being the Crime Team photographer who has proved that on 13.12.2010 he along with SI Devender reached Rub Da Kutta, St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 131 Gurudwara, GTK Road, Lal Bagh where he took the photographs which are Ex.PW6/A­1 to Ex.PW6/A­10.

20. SI Manohar Lal He is a formal witness being the Draftsman who proved (PW7) that on 19.4.2010 he had visited the spot of incident i.e. Rub Da Kutta, Gurudwara, GTK Road, Lal Bagh where he took the details for preparing the scaled site plan and then he visited the Ganda Nala, Nehru Vihar Mor, Timarpur where he took the details for preparing the scaled site plan after which he prepared the scaled site plans of both the spots which are Ex.PW7/A and Ex.PW7/B.

21. HC Manjeet Singh He is a formal witness being the MHCM who has (PW8) proved the entries No. 3004 and 3014 in register No. 19 copy of which are Ex.PW8/A and Ex.PW8/B respectively.

22. HC Harender He is a formal witness being the Duty Officer at Police (PW9) Station Timarpur who has proved the DD No.4 dated

05.02.2010 which is Ex.PW9/A, DD No. 6 dated 05.02.2010 which is Ex.PW9/B, DD No.8 dated 05.02.2010 which is Ex.PW9/C, DD No. 9 dated 05.02.2010 which Ex.PW9/D and the copy of the FIR which is Ex.PW9/E.

23. HC Laxmi Narayan He is also a formal witness being the MHCM who has (PW10) proved the copy of entry No. 3520, 3525, 3528, 3530, 3536, 3539, 3543, 3562, 3563/10 which are Ex.PW10/A running into 18 pages, copy of RC No. 22/21/10 which is Ex.PW10/B; copy of receipt of the FSL which is Ex.PW10/C; copy of RC NO. 23/21/10 regarding sending the other exhibits to FSL Rohini is Ex.PW10/D running into two pages; copy of receipt of FSL to this effect which is Ex.PW10/E; copy of RC No. 25/21/10 regarding sending the exhibits on 29.03.2010 through Ct. Rahul which is Ex.PW10/F; copy of receipt of FSL to this effect which is Ex.PW10/G.

24. SI Sheo Raj Singh This witness has proved the following aspects:

(PW18) 1. That on the intervening night of 4­5.02.2010 He was posted at PCR North Zone as ASI and was St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 132 on duty alongwith Ct. Babu and Ct. Yash Pal (driver) on Sugar 61 from 8.00PM to 8.00AM.

2. That at about 1.55AM they had gone to Majnoo ka Tilla, Wazirabad Road, after informing the head quarter and came back at their base at about 2.30 AM.

3. That they found that one dog was barking towards drain (Naala) on which they went towards the dog where they found a bori and a piece of cloth of white colour which cloth was having blood stains and the bori was found tied with a yellow patti of cloth.

4. That on finding the same in suspicious condition he informed the PCR on which SHO Police Station Timarpur alongwith his staff came there after which the said bori was checked and found to contain a dead body of a Sikh person whose hands were found tied and was of half naked.

5. That his statement was recorded by the SHO Police Station Timar Pur which is Ex.PW18/A after which he was relieved from the spot.

25. Inspector Rajnish He was the SHO of Police Station Timarpur at the Parmar (PW22) relevant point of time and has proved the following proceedings:

                                    Ex.PW22/A             DD No. 4A
                                    Ex.PW22/B             Endorsement  on  the  statement  of  ASI  
                                                          Shiv Raj
                                    Ex.PW22/C             Copy of FIR
                                    Ex.PW22/D             Seizure   memo   of   gunny   bag,   white  
                                                          cloth, blanket lying near the dead body  
                                                          and earth control
                                    Ex.PW22/E             Site   plan   of   the   spot   where   the   dead  
                                                          body was discovered
                                    Ex.PW22/F             Request for preserving the dead body
                                    Ex.PW22/G             Request for conducting the postmortem


St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar                                         Page No. 133
                                     Ex.PW22/H             Inquest documents
                                    Ex.PW22/I             Dead body handing over memo
                                    Ex.PW22/J             Seizure   memo   of   pullandas   handed  
                                                          over by the Autopsy Surgeon
                                    Ex.PW22/K             Seizure of viscera petti

26. ASI Shashi Kumar This witness has joined the investigations with IO (PW23) Inspector Mahavir Kaushik. He has proved the following proceedings:

                                    Ex.PW14/B             Arrest memo of accused Sukhpal
                                    Ex.PW14/C             Personal search of accused Sukhpal
                                    Ex.PW14/D             Disclosure   statement   of   accused  
                                                          Sukhpal
                                    Ex.PW23/A             Pointing out memo of room by Sukhpal  
                                                          Singh 
                                    Ex.PW14/F             Seizure memo of hair
                                    Ex.PW14/G             Seizure memo of Tirpal
                                    Ex.PW14/H             Seizure memo of blood earth
                                    Ex.PW14/I             Seizure memo of earth control
                                    Ex.PW14/J             Seizure memo of blood stained Chola
                                    Ex.PW23/B             Sketch of Noon Kutna
                                    Ex.PW14/K             Seizure memo of Noon Kutna
                                    Ex.PW14/L             Arrest memo of Malkeet Singh
                                    Ex.PW14/M             Personal   search   memo   of   Malkeet  
                                                          Singh
                                    Ex.PW14/N             Seizure memo of blood stained Jacket
                                    Ex.PW14/O             Seizure memo of plastic bottle
                                    Ex.PW14/R             Version of Malkeet Singh
                                    Ex.PW13/A             Arrest memo of accused Ranjeet Singh
                                    Ex.PW13/B             Personal   search   memo   of   accused  
                                                          Ranjeet Singh
                                    Ex.PW13/C             Disclosure statement of Ranjeet Singh

St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar                                    Page No. 134
                                     Ex.PW13/D             Seizure memo of clothes of the accused  
                                                          Ranjeet Singh
                                    Ex.PW13/E             Seizure memo of piece of cloth used for  
                                                          cleaning the blood.
                                    Ex.PW23/C             Pointing   out   memo   of   the   rooms   by  
                                                          accused Ranjeet Singh
                                    Ex.PW14/P             Seizure memo of maruti car
27. W/ Ct. Saroj                    This witness had joined investigations with the IO on  
    (PW24)                          13.02.2010   and   has   proved   that   the   accused   Jasbir  

Kaur @ Chhinder Pal Kaur was apprehended near the Masjid and was arrested by the Investigating Officer in her presence vide memo Ex.PW14/A and she conducted her personal search search vide Ex.PW24/A after which the accused was interrogated by the Investigating Officer and her disclosure statement was recorded vide Ex.PW14/E.

28. SI Sewa Singh He was the Juvenile Welfare Officer who has proved the (PW25) following aspects:

1. That on 15.02.2010 on receipt of information regarding the arrest of juvenile Malkeet Singh S/o Baldev Singh resident of Gurudwara, Rub Da Kutta, Lal Bagh he reached the gurudwara Rub Da Kutta where he was handed over Juvenile Malkeet Singh S/o Baldev Singh.

2. That on the instructions of the investigating officer, he got the medical examination of Malkeet Singh conducted from BJRM hospital and thereafter produced the juvenile accused before the JJB in Kingsway camp.

3. That the information regarding his production before JJB was given to his mother Jasbir Kaur.

29. SI Kuldeep Singh He is the initial Investigating Officer of the present (PW26) case, who has deposed on the following aspects:

1. That on 05.02.2010 a complaint of Rajender Singh was marked to him regarding missing of his father namely Lakhbir Singh which complaint is Ex.PW12/A. St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 135

2. That on the next day morning he went to the Gurudwara Rub Da Kutta where he met Karnail Singh, Simranjeet, Anil, Rajender and Jasbir Kaur and recorded their statements.

3. That thereafter he returned to the Police Station thereafter and after discussing the issue with the SHO, he made his endorsement Ex.PW26/A on the complaint of Rajender and got an FIR U/s 365 IPC Ex.PW26/B registered against unknown persons.

4. That he got the WT messages flashed and also made the entry on the ZIP net.

5. That on 08.02.2010 he went to the gurudwara and also recorded the statement of Arjun Singh.

30. HC Sudhir (PW28) This witness has joined investigations with the IO and has proved the following aspects:

1. That on 11.02.2010 on the direction of the Investigating Officer, he called the Crime Team Officials at Gurudwara Rub Da Kutta and Crime Team officials inspected the scene of crime at Gurudwara Rub Da Kutta in the presence of the Investigating Officer and the photographs were also taken of the room of Lakhbir Singh Lakha.

2. That blood was found on the two legs of the table and the legs were cut from the table and the same was kept in a cloth pullanda by the Investigating Officer and sealed the same with the seal of 'MK'.

3. That blood was also found on one quilt (Rajai) and the same was also kept in a cloth pullanda by the Investigating Officer and sealed the same with the seal of 'MK'.

4. That blood was also found on one Chatai (mat) and same was also sealed in a cloth pullanda by the Investigating Officer and sealed the same with the seal of 'MK' and the abovesaid pullandas were seized by the Investigating Officer.

St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 136

5. That the pullanda of legs of table were seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW12/B and Investigating Officer also seized the pullanda of mat and quilt vide seizure memo exhibited as Ex.PW12/C.

6. That on 21.02.2010, he went to Police Station Timar Pur on the direction of the Investigating Officer and MHC(M) of Police Station - Timar Pur handed over seven pullandas in sealed condition with the seal of 'RP' to him by making the RC Entry and deposited the same in the Malkhana of Police Station Adarsh Nagar on the same day.

7. That on 11.03.2010, he took a Maruti Car bearing no. DL­2CV­4256 from the Malkhana of Police Station Adarsh Nagar to FSL, Rohini, Delhi on the direction of the Investigating Officer and the Investigating Officer and FSL Team met him there.

8. That the FSL Team inspected the abovesaid maruti car and the FSL officials took blood at the right rear gate of the car and lifted the same with the help of chemicals and handed over the same to the Investigating Officer.

9. That the Investigating Officer sealed the same with the seal of 'MK' and seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW28/A.

10. That thereafter, he took the maruti car to the Police Station Adarsh Nagar and deposited the same in the Malkhana.

11. That on 26.03.2010 on the direction of the Investigating Officer, he received viscera vide RC No. 22/21/10 from the MHC(M) vide Ex.PW10/B and also received 24 pullandas in sealed conditions with sample seals vide RC No. 23/21/10 vide Ex.PW10/D.

12. That he deposited the same at FSL, Rohini, Delhi and handed over receipts Ex.PW10/C and Ex.PW10/E to the MHC(M).

St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 137

31. Inspector Mahavir He is the Investigating Officer of the present case and Kaushik (PW31) apart from the proceedings proved by the various witnesses, he has proved the following documents:

                                    Ex.PW31/A             Site plan of the room at Gurdwara
                                    Ex.PW31/B             Pointing out memo by accused Sukhpal  
                                    Ex.PW31/C             Site plan of the room/ store room 
                                    Ex.PW31/D             Site plan of the place where the dead  
                                                          body was dumped
                                    Ex.PW31/E             Site plan of the place from where the  
                                                          accused   Ranjeet   Singh   for   recovered  
                                                          the blood stained cloth 
                                    Ex.PW31/F             Postmortem   report   and   other  
                                                          documents
                                    Ex.PW31/G             Application   seeking   opinion   on   the  
                                                          weapon of offence i.e. Noon Kutna
                                    Ex.PW31/H             Crime Scene Report by FSL Expert



(112)                Coming   now   to   the   microscopic   evaluation   of   the 

evidence against the accused.  

Lodging of the missing report/ Registration of FIR and Recovery of the dead body:

(113) The case of the prosecution is that the last time Baba Lakhbir Singh was seen alive was first by Jathedar Arjun Singh (PW21) who on 3.2.2010 had left him at the Rajeev Chowk Metro Station at 6:30 PM when they were returning after a meeting and thereafter he was last seen alive by Harsimran Singh (PW11) who met him at 10:00 PM and inquired from him about the affairs of Baljeet Nagar Gurdwara but Baba Lakhbir Singh asked him to go to sleep saying that he would discuss the St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 138 issue later since he was required to wake­up throughout the night. On the next day morning when Harsimran Singh got up as usual at 5:00 AM he did not see Baba Lakhbir Singh in the Gurdwara which made him suspicious and he made inquired from accused Ranjeet Singh whom he saw in the Gurdwara but Ranjeet Singh told him that Baba Lakhbir Singh had gone out somewhere telling him (Ranjeet Singh) that he would return in the evening which raised the suspicion of Harsimran Singh because every time Baba Lakhbir Singh left the Gurdwara he would tell him and hand over the keys to him. In the same day evening accused Jasbir Kaur tried her best to remove Harsimran Singh from Gurdwara Rub Da Kutta telling him that she could accommodate him in the house of one of her relative but he refused to leave till Baba Lakhbir Singh returned. Thereafter nobody in the Gurdwara saw Baba Lakhbir Singh alive.

(114) The family of Baba Lakhbir Singh was away to Punjab and the absence of Baba Lakhbir Singh was noticeable and even Karnail Singh (PW20) who is running a business of Building Material from a shop constructed in the Gurdwara opening outside and who was already aware of the internal disputes of the Buddha Dal, found his absence suspicious. He immediately informed the son of deceased namely Rajender Singh @ Raju (PW12) about his absence who at that time was in Punjab on which Rajender Singh @ Raju (PW12) immediately informed his paternal uncle/ Chacha Anil Kumar @ Lali who rushed to St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 139 Delhi and searched for Baba Lakhbir Singh while in the meanwhile Rajender Singh @ Raju the son of the deceased also came to Delhi on 5.2.2010 and after making inquiries from Harsimran Singh all of them i.e. Rajender Singh, Anil Kumar @ Lali and Harsimran Singh went to Police Station Adarsh Nagar and lodged a missing report vide DD No. 24­A which is Ex.PW12/A. This fact of lodging of the missing report has been confirmed by Harsimran Singh (PW11), Karnail Singh (PW20) and ASI Kuldeep Singh (PW26) to whom the initial investigations were marked, which fact has not been duly controverted. On the basis of the said complaint initially the present FIR Ex.PW26/B was registered under Section 365 IPC. ASI Kuldeep (PW26) has proved that he got the WT messages flashed and also made the entry on the ZIP NET.

(115) Simultaneously, on the intervening night of 4­5.2.2010 at around 2:45 AM a semi burnt dead body of a Sikh was found lying abandoned tied in a gunny bag near the turn of Nehru Vihar between the road and the Ganda Nala under suspicious circumstances vide DD No.4­ A and the local police at Timarpur immediately swung into action and registered an FIR. This aspect has been proved by Inspector Rajnish Parmar (PW22) who has established that on 05.02.2010 when he was posted as SHO Police Station Timarpur, at about 2:45 AM he received DD No. 4A (Ex.PW22/A) that an abandoned gunny bag (bora) was lying near the turn of Nehru Vihar between the road and the Ganda Nala on which he reached the spot along with ASI Brahm Singh, his driver St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 140 and Ct. Dev Kumar where ASI Shiv Kumar was already present along with HC Rajesh Kumar, Ct. Mahesh Kumar, Ct. Kishan Kumar and ASI Sheo Raj Singh (PW16) from the PCR. He has proved that he found the bora/ gunny bag wrapped in a white cloth which was closed from the top and when he opened the same with the help of staff, it was found to contain a male dead body which was half naked with hands tied at the back and ankles also tied with the rope with unstiched cloth tied around the neck. The body appeared to be of a Sikh aged around 42­43 years with hair of the beard and head partly/ semi burnt and there were injury marks on the forehead, one ear, elbow and bruises on both the knees and there was stiffening in the body. The Crime Team was then called the photographs were taken. He has proved having recorded the statement of ASI Shiv Raj which is Ex.PW18/A on which he made his endorsement vide Ex.PW22/B after which an FIR No. 32/2010 was registered at Police Station Timarpur. Inspector Rajesh Parmar has further proved having taken into possession the gunny bag, the white cloth in which the gunny bag was tied, the cloth with which the gunny bag was tied with pink color towel piece also present along with the dead body in the gunny bag and one blanket which was lying near the gunny bag. He has also proved having lifted the earth control and the blood stained mud/ earth under the dead body which he put in a separate containers and then he converted all these articles into various pullandas and duly sealed them with the seal of RP after which he prepared the St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 141 seizure memo of the said articles vide Ex.PW22/D. According to the witness, he also sent wireless messages, entered informaiton on ZIP NET, to all Police Station/ DCPs, SPs and issued hue and cry notices for ascertaining the identity of the deceased and thereafter filled up the UIDB form (unidentified dead body form).

(116) On 10.2.2010 when the investigations in respect of the missing report of Baba Lakhbir Singh pursuant to which the FIR was registered, were marked to Inspector Mahavir Kaushik (PW31) of Police Station Adarsh Nagar and he checked on the ZIP NET he came to know that an unidentified body had been recovered in the area of Police Station Timarpur the description of which tallied with Baba Lakhbir Singh whose missing report had been lodged and the FIR was pending inquiry with SI Kuldeep (PW26). Thereafter the Crime Team was called and immediately the investigations were launched in the present case and the said dead body which was lying preserved in Subzi mandi Mortuary was got identified and on 12.02.2010 after the formal identification of the dead body of Baba Lakhbir Singh by Sardar Hakim Singh and Rajender Singh the son of the deceased, who confirmed that the dead body was that of Baba Lakhbir Singh @ Lakha, Jethedar of Rub Da Kutta gurudwara, the postmortem was got conducted on the dead body of the deceased.

(117) This being the background, I hereby hold that the prosecution has been able to successfully prove and establish the factum St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 142 of deceased Baba Lakhbir Singh being last seen alive by Harsimran Singh at 10:00 PM on 3.2.2010 after which he was discovered to be missing since 4.2.2010. The prosecution has also been able to successfully establish that the semi burnt dead body of the deceased Baba Lakhbir Singh was found at vacant land near Water pipe line Ganda Nala, Nehru Vihar Mor, Timarpur on 05.02.2010 at 2:45 AM by officials of Police Station Timarpur on which an FIR was registered and information regarding the same was loaded on the ZIP NET. Prosecution has further been able to successfully establish that it was on 10.2.2010 that the said unclaimed body was identified to be that of Baba Lakhbir Singh first by Inspector Mahavir Kaushik on account of the similarity of resemblance and thereafter by the family members of the deceased on which the investigations of FIR registered at Police Station Timarpur were also clubbed with the investigations of the present FIR being common.

The accused Malkeet Singh, Sukhpal and Jasbir Kaur were spotted in the Gurdwara by Karnail Singh on the intervening night of 4­5.2.2010:

(118) The question which now arises is that if the deceased Baba Lakhbir Singh was last seen alive by Harsimran (PW11) at 10:00 PM on 3.2.2010 after which his dead body in semi burnt condition was found at vacant land near Water pipe line Ganda Nala, Nehru Vihar Mor, Timarpur on 05.02.2010 at 2:45 AM within the jurisdiction of St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 143 Police Station Timarpur, then how did his body reach the said spot? (119) In this regard the case of the prosecution is that the accused Jasbir Kaur, Malkeet Singh, Sukhpal Singh and Ranjeet Singh first committed the murder of Baba Lakhbir Singh at Gurdwara Rub Da Kutta in the intervening night of 3­4.2.2010 after which they kept his body hidden in one of the stores situated in the corner of the Gurdwara and thereafter shifted the same out of the Gurdwara in the intervening night of 4­5.2.2010 between 12:00 midnight and 1:30 AM in a Maruti Car of grey colour belonging to Krishan Murari Tiwari which was borrowed from him by the accused Malkeet Singh after which the body was taken to the vacant land near Water pipe line Ganda Nala, Nehru Vihar Mor, Timarpur where it was thrown and immediately spotted at around 2:45 AM by the PCR who was patrolling in the area as the barking of a dog caught their attention and they saw the dog barking loudly on seeing a gunny bag lying near the ganda nala. The PCR officials found this highly suspicious and it was they who went near the gunny bag and immediately flashed a message regarding the same to the local police. It is further alleged by the prosecution that it was the accused Malkeet Singh who borrowed this Maruti Car from Krishan Murari Tiwari and drove the same inside the Gurdwara whose door was opened by accused Jasbir Kaur when the car was driven inside the Gurdwara and after 40 minutes the car was again driven out with Malkeet Singh on the driver seat and accused Sukhpal sitting next to St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 144 him and something lying tied on the back seat, after which the accused Jasbir Kaur again closed the door of the Gurdwara. (120) In this regard the prosecution has placed its heavy reliance on the testimonies of Harsimran Singh (PW11) to prove that the deceased was last seen alive at 10:00 PM on 3.2.2010; Krishan Murari Tiwari (PW17) and Karnail Singh (PW20).

(121) I have considered the rival contentions and I may observe that the three facts/ aspects which the prosecution was required to establish was Firstly the borrowing of Maruti Car of grey colour bearing no. DL­2CB­4256 by Malkeet Singh, Secondly that this Maruti Car of grey colour bearing no. DL­2CB­4256 was brought to the Gurdwara by him, Thirdly that thereafter the dead body of the deceased Baba Lakhbir Singh was kept in the said car and taken out of the Gurdwara Rub Da Kutta and thrown abandoned at vacant land near Water pipe line Ganda Nala, Nehru Vihar Mor, Timarpur by the accused.

(122) I have duly considered the material which has come on record. In so far as the aspect of the deceased being last seen alive by Harsimran on 3.2.2010 at 10:00 PM is concerned the same has been proved by the witness Harsimran (being discussed separately).

Thereafter, it was Karnail Singh (PW20) who is a witness to the unusual happenings at Gurdwara Rub Da Kutta on the next intervening night of 4­5.2.2010. In his testimony Karnail Singh (PW20) has deposed that on St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 145 the intervening night of 4­5.2.2010 he had seen a steel grey coloured Maruti car entering the Gurdwara Rub Da Kutta which was driven by accused Malkeet Singh when accused Jasbir Kaur opened the door of Gurdwara. After about 45 minutes he again saw the said Maruti car coming out of the Gurdwara Rub Da Kutta which was being driven by accused Malkeet Singh and accused Sukhpal Singh was sitting next to him at the driver seat. Karnail Singh also noticed something tied lying on the back seat and after the car left the Gurdwara, the accused Jasbir Kaur closed the door. The relevant portion of his testimony is as under:

"........ I am residing at the aforementioned address since 1974 and I am a business man and I am having a shop of building material under the name and style of Pholora building materials at shop No. 9 and 10, Gudwara Rab da Kutta, GT Karnal Road, Azadpur, Delhi. My shop opens at 8 AM and closes at 8 PM but since I am in the business of supplies of building material and my supply is supposed to reach at night and I am present in the shop whenever the supply is loaded at the night hours. On 04/05.02.2010 since my supply of building material had to come therefore I reached my shop at 12:15 AM (midnight) and was waiting for the supply vehicle. At about 12:30 AM (Midnight) I saw one steel grey color maruti car entered the gurduwara which was being driven by Malkeet Singh who resides in the gurudwara and often used to get the vehicle to the gurudwara. Since my supply was late so I was taking a stroll outside on the road and waiting for my vehicle. After about half an hour­45 minutes I saw the door of the gurudwara St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 146 was opened by the mother of Malkeet Singh namely Jasbir Kaur and the same steel grey color maruti car came out which was being driven by Malkeet Singh and Sukhpal Singh who also resides in the gurudwara was also with him. Since the lights of my shop and the lights of the gate of the gurudwara were switched on, I could see something lying tied on the back seat ("bandha hua saman jo katta sa lagta tha"). I could just have a glimps of the same. Jasbir Kaur, the mother of Jasbir Singh closed the door of the gurudwara after which the vehicle went away. After about 15­20 minutes my vehicle came with the load and after unloading the same I went back home. I was called to the police station for identification of the vehicle on 22.02.2010 which vehicle/steel grey color maruti car I identified in the police station after which my statement was recorded by the police. I can identify the accused persons......"

(123) Karnail Singh has been exhaustively cross­examined by the defence and has stood his grounds. He is a tenant in a shop in the Gurdwara where he is dealing with building material. The shop opens outside on the main road and these facts are not disputed by the accused. He has explained that he gets his supply of building material during night and it is for this reason he was present outside the Gurdwara on the intervening night of 4­5.2.2010 when he saw the happenings in the Gurdwara when Malkeet Singh brought the car inside and thereafter some material lying tied on the back seat was taken outside the Gurdwara by accused Malkeet and accused Sukhpal after which the St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 147 accused Jasbir Kaur closed the door of the Gurdwara. I find his statement convincing and it also finds independent confirmation from the testimony of Krishan Murari Tiwari who has proved that it was the accused Malkeet Singh who had borrowed his grey coloured Maruti car bearing No. DL­2CB­4256 on 4­5.2010 at around 12:30 midnight which he returned on the next day. I may observe that initially this witness Krishan Murari Tiwari was slightly confused about the date and time but later on refreshing his memory he himself gave the relevant details. In his testimony Krishan Murari Tiwari (PW17) has proved that on 4.2.2010 at about 12:30 AM (midnight) the son of Jasbir Kaur namely Malkeet Singh had taken his Maruti Car bearing No. DL­2CB­4256 and on the next day he had brought the car back and handed over the key to him after parking the same at Luisa Tower. Initially Krishan Murari had given the date on which his car was borrowed as 3.2.2010 but later he explained that it was in­fact taken by the accused Malkeet Singh on the intervening night of 4­5.2.2010 at about 12:30 AM (midnight) and has also explained that it was on account of lapse of time that he had forgotten the same. Here, I may note that this witness Krishan Murari Tiwari voluntarily confirmed the date as 4.2.2010 after recollecting the same and explained that he recollected the same because 4.2.2010 also happens to be his birthday.

(124) Ld. Defence Counsel has vehemently argued that the testimony of this witness Krishan Murari Tiwari cannot be read into St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 148 evidence since he had given a wrong date and time and it was only when his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was read over to him, he explained having forgotten the same. In this regard, I may mention that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Bharwada Boginbhai Hijri Bhai Vs. State of Gujarat reported in 1983 (CRI) GJX 0252 SC: AIR 1983 SC 7453 (1) has observed that this cannot not be taken as a material contradiction so as to discredit the witness. It is normal that during the piercing cross­examination by the defence counsel a layman may make a mistake with regard to the date or time and respond at the spur of the moment on the basis of guess work on account of being confused, mixed­up or even out of nervousness. Once the witness himself is able to recollect the same, as has happened in the present case, there is no reason to suspect his credibility. I may observe that this witness Krishan Murari Tiwari is an independent witness and has stated that he had forgotten the date and time and has then voluntarily corrected himself after recollecting the date as 4.2.2010 which date he explained he remembered as it happened to be his birthday. This being the background, there is no reason to doubt his testimony which finds independent confirmation from the testimony of Karnail Singh. (125) It stands established that the accused Malkeet Singh had taken the car of Krishan Murari Tiwari (PW17) on the intervening night of 4­5.2.2010 which he brought to the Gurdwara Rub Da Kutta at about 12:30 AM (midnight). This aspect has been confirmed by Karnail Singh St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 149 (PW20) who has proved that on 04­05.02.2010 at about 12:30 AM (Midnight) he saw one steel grey color maruti car entering the gurduwara which was being driven by Malkeet Singh (accused) and after about forty five minutes he saw that the door of the gurudwara was opened by the mother of Malkeet Singh namely Jasbir Kaur (accused) and the same steel grey color maruti car came out which was being driven by Malkeet Singh with Sukhpal Singh (accused) who also resides in the gurudwara with him. He has also explained that since the lights of his shop and the lights of the gate of the gurudwara were switched on, he could see something lying tied on the back seat ("bandha hua saman jo katta sa lagta tha"). In his cross­examination Karnail Singh stood by his ground. He is a witness who has a shop of Building Material in the Gurdwara and was initially paying the rent to the husband of the accused Jasbir Kaur but later when Lakhbir Singh became the Granthi, he started paying the rent to him. It is a matter of common knowledge that on account of traffic restrictions the building material is usually transported/ delivered/ supplied during the night time. Hence, when Karnail Singh (PW20) he explained that he had come to his shop in the night time to get the supply of the building material which supply was to be delivered during night, this cannot be doubted being probable. Karnail Singh (PW20) has also explained that after the truck had come and the material was unloaded he went back to his house and it was much later on 22.2.2010 that he was called to the St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 150 Police Station where he identified the steel grey Maruti Car. Karnail Singh also cannot be doubted because Karnail Singh is a tenant in the shop in the premises of the Gurdwara for last many years and was aware of the inter­se disputes between the various factions of the Buddha Dal and it is in this background when he did not notice Baba Lakhbir Singh in the Gurdwara for a couple of days that he got suspicious and immediately informed the family of Baba Lakhbir Singh about his absence. His testimony is credible and truthful and finds independent support from testimony of Krishan Murari Tiwari and I hereby hold that the prosecution has been able to successfully built­up the sequence of events to the extent that after the offence of murder of Baba Lakhbir Singh @ Lakkha in the intervening night of 3­4.2.2010 the accused Jasbir Kaur, Malkeet Singh, Ranjeet Singh and Sukhpal Singh first concealed his body in the store of the Gurdwara and then in pursuance to the conspiracy in the intervening night of 4­5.2.2010 transported his body in the grey coloured Maruti car bearing No. DL­2CB­4256 (in which blood stains are also proved to be found) by concealing it in a gunny bag which they threw at vacant land near Water pipe line Ganda Nala, Nehru Vihar Mor, Timarpur, but soon thereafter within minutes the said gunny bag was discovered by the PCR.

(126) When this evidence was put to the accused Jasbir Kaur, Malkeet Singh and Sukhpal Singh, they in their statement under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure simply denied the same. No St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 151 explanation is forthcoming as to why Krishan Murari Tiwari would falsely implicate them. If Krishan Murari Tiwari has alleged that it was Malkeet Singh who had taken this Maruti Car of grey colour bearing No. DL­2CB­4256 from him, then it is only Malkeet Singh who can explain why he brought the same to the Gurdwara and where he had gone along with accused Sukhpal being an aspect which would be in their special knowledge (under Section 106 of Evidence Act). Neither Malkeet nor Sukhpal nor Jasbir Kaur has provided any explanation for the same which strongly points towards the guilt of the accused. Criminal Conspiracy/ Motive / Existence of previous disputes & Offence committed by more than two persons - Established:

(127) In so far as the aspect of motive is concerned, the case of the prosecution is that the deceased Baba Lakhbir Singh and the accused persons both belong to Buddha Dal a religious sect of Nihang Sikhs which is riddled with internal strife/ discord between the different factions/ groups (one headed by Baba Sarjeet Singh and another headed by Baba Balbir Singh) resulting into a spate of civil as well as criminal litigations all over the country. Needless to say, all this is for the control of power and administration of the Gurdwaras and properties belonging to the Buddha Dal situated all over the country. There is a long standing dispute between these two factions of Buddha Dal one headed by Baba Balbir Singh and another headed by Baba Sarjeet Singh, who are St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 152 involved into a Bloody Battle with each other for the last number of years.

(128) The present case relates to Gurdwara Rub Da Kutta situated at a prime location in the Adarsh Nagar area Delhi spared over one and a half acres. The deceased Baba Lakhbir Singh was the Jathedar/ Head Granthi of Rab Da Kutta Gurdwara and belonged to Baba Balbir Singh faction whereas the accused Jasbir Kaur whose husband Baldev Singh (a previous Jathedar of Gurdwara Rub Da Kutta) is in Jail in a murder case at Patiala, her son accused Malkeet Singh, Sukhpal Singh and Ranjeet Singh all belong to the Baba Sarjeet Singh faction. They all stayed in the same Gurdwara. These continuing hostilities relating to control of various Gurdwaras in Punjab and the power game also continued in Delhi at various Gurdwaras belonging to the Buddha Dal including Gurdwara Rub Da Kutta. After the death of the main Jathedar, it was Baldev Singh the husband of accused Jasbir Kaur who proclaimed himself as the Head Granthi but soon he was arrested in a murder case at Patiala on which his wife i.e. the accused Jasbir Kaur was allegedly nominated the Head Granthi/ Jathedar but for the opposition of the rival group headed by Baba Balbir Singh who nominated Lakhbir Singh as the Head Granthi/ Mehant and he took over the affairs of Gurdwara Rub Da Kutta by upsetting her in respect of which and a civil case was also filed in Delhi Courts on the said aspect.

This was followed by frequent altercations between them. In order to St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 153 retain their physical possession and control over this Gurdwara situated in almost one and a half acres land, these persons belonging to the rival faction also occupied various rooms in Gurdwara and started residing in the same precincts. While Baba Lakhbir Singh (deceased) belong to Baba Balbir Singh faction, all others residing there i.e. Jasbir Kaur, Malkeet Singh, Sukhpal Singh and Baaz Singh belonged to Baba Sarjeet Singh faction of Buddha Dal. In so far as Harsimran is concerned he resided there with the permission of Baba Lakhbir Singh and Harsimran in a way supported Baba Lakhbir Singh though he had no direct concern with the affairs of the Gurdwara and only stayed there. (129) The case of the prosecution is that on the intervening night of 3­4.2.2010 finding an opportune time when the deceased Baba Lakhbir Singh was alone in the Gurdwara as his family was away to Punjab and Harsimran Singh was asleep on the other side of the Gurdwara, the accused Jasbir Kaur, Malkeet Singh, Sukhpal Singh and Ranjeet Singh seizing the opportunity in pursuance to a criminal conspiracy killed Baba Lakhbir Singh by strangulation and thereafter concealed his body for 24 hours in the store room situated at one corner of the Gurdwara and even tried to burn the same. Thereafter on the intervening night of 4­5.2.2010 Malkeet Singh along with Sukhpal Singh and Jasbir Kaur removed the dead body of deceased Lakhbir Singh in a gunny bag and abandoned the same at vacant land near Water pipe line Ganda Nala, Nehru Vihar Mor, Timarpur.

St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 154 (130) Now, before coming to the appreciation of the evidence adduced by the prosecution on merits, I may observe that the Motive has to be gathered from the surrounding circumstances and such evident should form one of the links to the chain of circumstantial evidence. The proof of motive would only strengthen the prosecution case and fortify the court in its ultimate conclusion but in the absence of any connecting evidence or link which would be sufficient in itself from the face of it, the accused cannot be convicted. Motive is best known to the perpetrator of the crime and not to others. Motives of men are often subjective, submerged and unamenable to easy proof that courts have to go without clear evidence thereon if other clinching evidence exists. A motive is indicated to heighten the probability that the offence was committed by the person who was impelled by the motive but if the crime is alleged to have been committed for a particular motive, it is relevant to inquire whether the pattern of the crime fits in which the alleged motive.

(131) Regarding the motive of crime, it may be observed that in a case based on circumstantial evidence, the existence of motive assumed significance though the absence of motive does not necessarily discredit the prosecution case, if the case stands otherwise established by other conclusive circumstances and the chain of circumstantial evidence is so complete and is consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and inconsistent with the hypothesis of his St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 155 innocence. Existence of motive for committing a crime is not an absolute requirement of law but it is always relevant fact, which will be taken into consideration by Courts as it will render assistance to Courts while analysing prosecution evidence and determining guilt of accused. [Ref.: IV (2012) SLT 257].

(132) Moreover, in a case where there is clear proof of motive for the commission of a crime, it affords added support to the finding of the court that the accused is guilty of the offence charged with. However, at the same time the absence of proof of motive does not render the evidence bearing on the guilt of the accused nonetheless untrustworthy or unreliable because most often it is only the perpetrator of the crime alone, who knows as to what circumstances prompted him to certain course of action leading to the commission of the crime [Ref.: State of U.P. Vs. Bahu Ram reported in 2000 (4) SCC 515 and Ujjagal Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in 2007 (14) SCALE 428]. (133) In so far as the aspect of Criminal Conspiracy is concerned, I may observe that Section 120­A Indian Penal Code defines criminal conspiracy as under:­ "Definition of criminal conspiracy ­ When two or more person agree to do, or cause to be done, (1) An illegal act, or (2) An act which is not illegal by illegal means, such an agreement is designated a criminal conspiracy: Provided that no agreement except an agreement to commit an offence shall amount to a St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 156 criminal conspiracy unless some act besides the agreement is done by one or more parties to such agreement in pursuance thereof Explanation: ­ It is immaterial whether the illegal act is the ultimate object of such agreement, or is merely incidental to that object."

It is clear from the above noted definition of "criminal conspiracy" that the three essential elements of offence of conspiracy are (a) a criminal object, which may be either the ultimate aim of the agreement, or may constitute the means, or one of the means by which that aim is to be accomplished; (b) a plan or scheme embodying means to accomplish that object; (c) an agreement or understanding between two or more of the accused persons whereby, they become definitely committed to cooperate for the accomplishment of the object by the means embodied in the agreement, or by any effectual means. Thus, the gist of offence of criminal conspiracy is an agreement to break the law.

Sections 120­A and 120­B Indian Penal Code were brought on the statute book by way of Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1913. Earlier to the introduction of Sections 120A and 120B, conspiracy per se was not an offence under the Indian Penal Code except in respect of the offence mentioned in Section 121A. In the Objects and Reasons to the Amendment Bill, it was explicitly stated that the new provisions (120­A & B) were "....designed to assimilate the provisions of the Indian Penal Code to those of the English Law...." Thus, Sections 120A & 120B made conspiracy a substantive offence and rendered the mere agreement to commit an offence punishable.

St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 157

Proof of a criminal conspiracy by direct evidence is not easy to get and probably for this reason Section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act was enacted. It reads as under:­ "10. Things said or done by conspirator in reference to common design:­Where there is reasonable ground to believe that two or more persons have conspired together to commit an offence or an actionable wrong, anything said, done or written by any one of such persons in reference to their common intention, after the time when such intention was first entertained by any one of them, is a relevant fact as against each of the persons believed to so conspiring, as well for the purpose of proving the existence of the conspiracy as for the purpose of showing that any such person was a party to it."

Thus, the substantive section of the IPC i.e. Section 120­A adumbrated thereon Section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act give us the legislative provisions applicable to conspiracy and its proof.

After survey of the case law on the point, following legal principles pertaining to the law of conspiracy can be conveniently culled out:­ A. When two or more persons agree to commit a crime of conspiracy, then regardless of making or considering any plans for its commission, and despite the fact that no step is taken by any such person to carry out their common purpose, a crime is committed by each and every one who joins in the agreement.

There has thus to be two conspirators and there may be more than that. To prove the charge of conspiracy it is not necessary that intended crime was committed or not. If committed it may further help prosecution to prove the charge of conspiracy. (State v Nalini (1999) 5 St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 158 SCC 253) B. The very agreement, concert or league is the ingredient of the offence. It is not necessary that all the conspirators must know each and every detail of the conspiracy as long as they are co­participators in the main object of the conspiracy. It is not necessary that all conspirators should agree to the common purpose at the same time. They may join with other conspirators at any time before the consummation of the intended objective, and all are equally responsible. What part each conspirator is to play may not be known to everyone or the fact as to when a conspirator joined the conspiracy and when he left. There may be so many devices and techniques adopted to achieve the common goal of the conspiracy and there may be division of performances in the chain of actions with one object to achieve the real end of which every collaborator must be aware and in which each one of them must be interested. There must be unity of object or purpose but there may be plurality of means sometimes even unknown to one another, amongst the conspirators. In achieving the goal several offences may be committed by some of the conspirators even unknown to the others. The only relevant factor is that all means adopted and illegal acts done must be and purported to be in furtherance of the object of the conspiracy even though there may be sometimes misfire or overshooting by some of the conspirators. Even if some steps are resorted to by one or two of the conspirators without the knowledge of the others it will not affect the culpability of those others when they are associated with the object of the conspiracy. But then there has to be present mutual interest. Persons may be members of single conspiracy even though each is ignorant of the identity St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 159 of many others who may have diverse role to play. It is not a part of the crime of conspiracy that all the conspirators need to agree to play the same or an active role. [Yash Pal Mittal v State of Punjab AIR 1977 SC 2433 and State v Nalini (1999) 5 SCC 253].

C. It is the unlawful agreement and not its accomplishment, which is the gist or essence of the crime of conspiracy. Offence of criminal conspiracy is complete even though there is no agreement as to the means by which the purpose is to be accomplished. It is the unlawful agreement, which is the graham of the crime of conspiracy.

D. The unlawful agreement which amounts to a conspiracy need not be formal or express, but may be inherent in and inferred from the circumstances, especially declarations, acts, and conduct of the conspirators. The agreement need not be entered into by all the parties to it at the same time, but may be reached by successive actions evidencing their joining of the conspiracy. Since a conspiracy is generally hatched in secrecy, it would quite often happen that there is no evidence of any express agreement between the conspirators to do cause to be done the illegal act. For an offence under Section 120B, the prosecution need not necessarily prove that the perpetrators expressly agreed to do or cause to be done the illegal act; the agreement may be proved by necessary implication. The offence can be only proved largely from the inference drawn from acts or illegal omission committed by the conspirators in pursuance of a common design. The prosecution will also more often rely upon circumstantial evidence. It is not necessary to prove actual meeting of conspirators. Nor it is necessary to prove the actual words of communication. The evidence St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 160 as to transmission of thoughts sharing the unlawful design is sufficient. Surrounding circumstances and antecedent and subsequent conduct of accused persons constitute relevant material to prove charge of conspiracy. (Shivnarayan Laxminarayan Joshi Vs. State of Maharashtra AIR 1980 SC 439; Mohammad Usman Mohammad Hussain Maniyar Vs. State of Maharashtra AIR 1981 SC 1062 and Kehar Singh Vs. State AIR 1988 SC 1883) E. A conspiracy is a continuing offence and continues to subsist and committed wherever one of the conspirators does an act or series of acts. So long as its performance continues, it is a continuing offence till it is executed or rescinded or frustrated by choice or necessity. A crime is complete as soon as the agreement is made, but it is not a thing of the moment. It does not end with the making of the agreement. It will continue so long as there are two or more parties to it intending to carry into effect the design. Its continuance is a threat to the society against which it was aimed at and would be dealt with as soon as that jurisdiction can properly claim the power to do so. The conspiracy designed or agreed abroad will have the same effect as in India, when part of the acts, pursuant to the agreement are agreed to be finalized or done, attempted or even frustrated and vice versa.

F. Section 10 of the Evidence Act introduces the doctrine of agency and if the conditions laid down therein are satisfied, the acts done by one are admissible against the co­conspirators. In short, the section can be analysed as follows: (1) There shall be a prima facie evidence affording a reasonable ground for a Court to believe that two or more persons are members of a conspiracy; (2) if the said condition is St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 161 fulfilled, anything said, done or written by any one of them in reference to their common intention will be evidence against the other; (3) anything said, done or written by him should have been said, done or written by him after the intention was formed by any one of them; (4) it would also be relevant for the said purpose against another who entered the conspiracy whether it was said, done or written before he entered the conspiracy or after he left it; and (5) it can only be used against a co­conspirator and not in his favour (Sardar Sardul Singh vs. State of Maharashtra AIR 1957 SC

747).

(134) Applying the settled principles of law to the facts of the present case, it is evident that the evidence on record establishes that the Gurdwara in question i.e. Gurdwara Rub Dda Kutta situated at Lal Bagh, Azadpur belongs to Buddha Dal and after the death of the main Mehant there was an internal dispute between the various factions one headed by Balbir Singh and another by Surjeet Singh. Initially Baba Baldev Singh was appointed as Mehant of the said Gurdwara by the group of Baba Surjeet Singh but later on Baba Baldev Singh was involved in a murder case and was running custody in Patiala after which the faction headed by Baba Sarjeet Singh nominated the accused Bibi Jasbir Kaur as the Mehant of the Gurdwara in question but in the meantime rather almost simultaneously Baba Lakhbir Singh (deceased) had been appointed a Mehant by Baba Balbir Singh who took over the affairs of the Gurdwara after removing Bibi Jasbir Kaur in respect of St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 162 which a civil case was filed. In order to maintain their lien over the one and a half acre Gurdwara at Prime Location in the Capital of the Country, these two warring factions took control of the different rooms in the Gurdwara and continued to reside in the precincts of the Gurdwara despite their strong differences with each other. It was on this count that there were frequent disputes and quarrel between them. These are the facts regarding the existence of previous disputes not only in Delhi but all over the Country and of various civil and criminal litigations have not been disputed by the accused. As per the allegations, finding an opportune time on the intervening night of 3­4.2.2010 when the family of the deceased Lakhbir Singh was not present in the Gurdwara, the accused Jasbir Kaur in pursuance to a criminal conspiracy hatched along with Sukhpal Singh, Ranjeet Singh @ Baaz Singh and her son Malkeet Singh killed Baba Lakhbir Singh on the intervening night and thereafter concealed his body for 24 hours in the store room and on the intervening night of 4­5.2.2010 Malkeet Singh along with Sukhpal Singh removed the dead body of deceased Lakhbir Singh in a gunny bag and abandoned the same at vacant land near Water pipe line Ganda Nala, Nehru Vihar Mor, Timarpur. (135) A combine reading of the testimonies of Harsimran Singh (PW11), his mama Sardar Hakum Singh (PW13), Pyara Singh (PW14) and Arjun Singh (PW21) confirm the existence of civil disputes between the deceased Baba Lakhir Singh and the accused Jasbir Kaur with St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 163 regard to control of Gurdwara. This aspect of dispute between the two factions of Buddha Dal has also been admitted by the accused and rather in the cross­examination this fact has been put to these witnesses by the Ld. Defence Counsel. In fact witness Sardar Hakum Singh (PW13) has in his cross­examination admitted that even in Punjab many disputes are pending between the two groups over the control of many Gurdwara. He has proved that before the deceased Lakhbir Singh, one Baldev Singh i.e. husband of accused Jasbir Kaur posed himself as Mehant of the Gurdwara. He has admitted that Baldev Singh (i.e. husband of Jasbir Kaur) belongs to group headed by Baba Sarjeet Singh and that Baldev Singh is involved in a case in Patiala and was arrested. (136) Further, Sardar Pyara Singh (PW14) has in his cross­ examination admitted that the deceased was connected with the group of Baba Balbir Singh who has no connection with SGPC. He has explained that prior to deceased Baba Lakhbir Singh, Sh. Arjun Singh was the Mehant of the Gurdwara and the group of Sarjeet Singh is also claiming the management and control of this Gurdwara which dispute is pending for the last 15 years. This fact finds due confirmation from the testimony of Jathedar Arjun Singh who has been examined in the Court as PW15 who confirmed that earlier to Baba Lakhbir Singh he was the Jathedar of the Gurdwara Rub Da Kutta. Karnail Singh (PW20) has also in his cross­examination has stated that he was aware of the rivalry existing between the husband of Jasbir Kaur and the group of which the St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 164 deceased Lakhbir Singh was a part and that because of this rivalry the husband of Jasbir Kaur i.e. Baldev Singh was removed and Lakhbir Singh was made the Jathedar. He has admitted that he sided with Lakhbir Singh in the rivalry and has explained that their spiritual guru Baba Balbir Singh had advised them not to side with Baldev Singh. (137) Arjun Singh (PW21) has confirmed that at the time of the incident the accused Sukhpal Singh was residing in the Gurdwara along with Jasbir Kaur. The relevant portion of his testimony is as under:

"......... I am in­charge/Jathedar of the above said Gurudwara. Earlier I was Jathedar of Gurudwara Rub Da Kutta, Lalbagh, GT Karnal Road, Delhi. I have been working as a Jathedar of Gurudwara Akal Bunga Chhawni, Near Mother Dairy, Pandav Nagar, Delhi since the year 1999. Baldev Singh was looking after the work of Gurudwara Rub Da Kutta, Lal Bagh, GT Karnal Road after I went to Gurudwara at Pandav Nagar. After 1 ½ and 2 years Baldev Singh also brought his wife and children in that Gurudwara and they were residing also there and he remained there as care taker upto 2007. A murder took place in the year 2007 in Patiala and Baldev Singh was found involved in that case and thereafter he absconded from the above said Gurudwara Rub Da Kutta but his family members and children remained there. In the year 2007 Baba Balbir Singh Mukhi appointed Lakhbir @ Lakha as Mehant of Gurudwara Rub Da Kutta, Lal Bagh, GT Karnal Road in place of Baldev Singh. Thereafter Lakhbir @ Lakha remained Mehant of the Gurudwara.

Jasbir Kaur @ Chhinder Pal Kaur wife of Baldev St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 165 Singh were residing in the same Gurudwara and she was having a behaviour of quarrelsome and used to quarrel with Lakhbir Singh. On many occasions I tried to pacify both the parties but Jasbir Kaur @ Chhinder Pal Kaur insisted that Lakhbir should vacate the Gurudwara as he was forcibly made Mehant of Gurudwara. Jasbir Kaur filed a Civil Suit in respect of the said Gurudwara in which I, Balbir Singh and Lakhbir Singh @ Lakha were made parties.

On 03.02.2010 at about 2.00PM a meeting was held at Gurudwara Ranjeet Akhara, Baljeet Nagar for replacement of one Sevadar namely Himmat Singh. The meeting was attended by me, Lakhbir Singh @ Lakha, Kashmir Singh, Avtar Singh and other other persons and meeting was continued upto 6.00­6.30PM. Thereafter we went to PS Patel Nagar and after giving our representation there we went to Metro Station Shadipur Depot and thereafter I alongwith Kashmir Singh went to Laxmi Nagar via Rajiv Chowk Metro Station and Lakhbir @ Lakha boarded down at Rajiv Chowk and thereafter he went to Azadpur at about 7.00PM. Thereafter I have not seen Lakhbir @ Lakha.

One Sukhpal was residing with Jasbir Kaur @ Chhinder Pal Kaur. Sukhpal is present in the court today and the witness correctly identified accused Sukhpal. Jasbir Kaur @ Chhinder Pal Kaur is also present in the court today.. ......"

(138) In his cross­examination Arjun Singh has admitted that there are two groups one headed by Baba Balbir Singh and other headed St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 166 by Baba Sarjeet Singh. He has explained that the deceased Lakhbir Singh belonged to the group of Baba Balbir Singh whereas the accused belongs to the group of Baba Sarjeet Singh. This testimony of Arjun Singh (PW21) also finds confirmation from the testimony of another Sewadar and person associated with faction Buddha Dal and Jathedar of Gurdwara at Ranjeet Akhara i.e. Sardar Avtar Singh (PW27) who earlier in his statement to the police stated that apart from Jasbir Kaur and her son Malkeet Singh, the accused Sukhpal Singh was also residing in the Gurdwara and was having illicit relations with Jasbir Kaur. Though he has turned hostile on the aspect of accused Sukhpal having wrong relations with Jasbir Kaur yet there is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of this independent witness Arjun Singh who was the previous Jathedar of Gurdwara Rub Da Kutta; also of Sardar Avtar Singh who is the Jathedar of Gurdwara at Ranjeet Akhara and Karnail Singh who is having his shop of building material outside the Gurdwara.

(139) The history of litigation between the two groups i.e. the group of Baba Balbir Singh and Baba Surjeet Singh has not been disputed by any of the parties. It is also not disputed that the husband of accused Jasbir Kaur namely Baldev Singh who is presently in jail in another criminal case was the head of Gurdwara and after his arrest the rival group of Baba Balbir Singh appointed the deceased Baba Lakhbir Singh as the Jathedar whereas Jasbir Kaur who retained the control of St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 167 Gurdwara was somehow removed by the rival group. This open rivalry between the two factions was well known fact to everybody and the motive to take control of the Gurdwara by removing Baba Lakhbir Singh from the way stands established.

(140) Coming now to the aspect of Conspiracy I may observe that from the evidence on record the following aspects stand established:

➢ That Gurdwara Rub Da Kutta belongs to Buddha Dal a religious sect of Nihang Sikhs (not disputed by the accused). ➢ That there are two factions with the Buddha Dal i.e. the Baba Balbir Singh faction to which the deceased Baba Lakhbir Singh belonged and another faction headed by Baba Sarjeet Singh to which the accused Jasbir Kaur, Malkeet Singh, Sukhpal Singh and Ranjeet Singh @ Baaz Singh belong (not disputed by the accused).

➢ That after the death of the Head Granthi of Rub Da Kutta Gurdwara the husband of Jasbir Kaur namely Baldev Singh took over but soon thereafter he was arrested in a murder case at Patiala (not disputed by the accused).

➢ That the accused Jasbir Kaur was then nominated as the Granthi/ Jathedar of the Gurdwara Rub Da Kutta by Baba Sarjeet Singh but simultaneously Baba Balbir Singh nominated the deceased Baba Lakhbir Singh as the Jathedar/ Head Granthi of Gurdwara St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 168 Rub Da Kutta (not disputed by the accused). ➢ That the deceased Baba Lakhbir Singh forcibly removed Jasbir Kaur and took over the reigns of the Gurdwara Rub Da Kutta and its administration (not disputed by the accused). ➢ That despite Baba Lakhbir Singh having taken over the administration of Gurdwara, in order to retain their physical possession and control over this Gurdwara situated in almost one and a half acres land, these persons belonging to the rival faction also occupied various rooms in Gurdwara and started residing in the same precincts (not disputed by the accused). ➢ That Baba Lakhbir Singh resided in the Gurdwara in a portion on one side with his family while the accused Jasbir Kaur and her family including her son accused Malkeet Singh, accused Sukhpal Singh, the accused Ranjeet Singh @ Baaz Singh and the witness Harsimran Singh residing in other rooms constructed on the other side of the Gurdwara (not disputed by the accused). ➢ That being aggrieved accused Jasbir Kaur had also filed a civil suit against Baba Lakhbir Singh challenging his appointment as Jathedar/ head Granthi of Gurdwara Rub Da Kutta (not disputed by the accused).

➢ That on the intervening night of 3­4.2.2010 the family of Baba Lakhbir Singh had gone to Punjab (proved by Rajender Singh the son of the deceased and Harsimran Singh and controverted by the St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 169 accused).

➢ That on the intervening night of 3­4.2.2010 the other Sewadar of the Gurdwara namely Pyara Singh (PW14) was also not present/ available in the Gurdwara being away to Punjab (proved by Pyara Singh ­ PW14).

➢ That finding an opportune time when the deceased Baba Lakhbir Singh was alone in the Gurdwara on the intervening night of 3­4.2.2010 as his family was away to Punjab and when Harsimran Singh was asleep on the other side of the Gurdwara and only other persons in the Gurdwara were the accused, he was killed by strangulation followed by a forcible blow on the head and other parts of body.

➢ That on 4.2.2010 at 5:00 AM when Harsimran Singh got up and did not find Baba Lakhbir Singh in the Gurdwara he started looking for him and made inquiries on which Baljeet Singh @ Baaz Singh told him that Lakhbir Singh had gone away and would return in the evening (proved by Harsimran Singh­PW11). ➢ That Harsimran Singh became suspicious because whenever Baba Lakhbir Singh would leave the Gurdwara he would hand over the keys of Gurdwara to him, which he had not done (proved by Harsimran Singh ­PW11).

➢ That in the evening when Harsimran Singh returned the Gurdwara he again did not find Baba Lakhbir Singh in the St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 170 Gurdwara and instead of informing him about Baba Lakhbir Singh the accused Ranjeet Singh @ Baaz Singh started poisoning his mind by making allegations against the deceased of having an evil eye on his sister on which Harsimran Singh became more suspicious because he had never seen nor his sister made any such complaint against Lakhbir Singh to him (proved by Harsimran Singh ­PW11).

➢ That simultaneously on the evening of 4.2.2010 the accused Jasbir Kaur started pressurizing the witness Harsimran Singh to leave the Gurdwara and told him she would arrange for his stay with one of her relative (proved by Harsimran Singh ­PW11). ➢ That despite the pressure by Ranjeet Singh and Jasbir Kaur, Harsimran Singh took a stand and stated that unless the deceased Baba Lakhbir Singh returned he would not leave the Gurdwara under any circumstances (proved by Harsimran Singh ­PW11). ➢ That the accused Malkeet Singh then borrowed the car of Krishan Murari Tiwari (PW17) on the night of 4­5.2.2010 at around 12:00­12:30 Midnight (proved by Krishan Murari Tiwari ­ PW17).

➢ That Malkeet Singh drove this Maruti Car of steel grey colour bearing No. DL­2CB­4256 to the Gurdwara Rub Da Kutta at about 12:30 AM (midnight) and the accused Jasbir Kaur opened the door of the Gurdwara to let the car enter the Gurdwara St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 171 (proved by Karnail Singh ­PW20).

➢ That after about forty five minutes (around 1:15 AM) the accused Jasbir Kaur again opened the door of the gurudwara and this Maruti Car of steel grey colour bearing No. DL­2CB­4256 came out of the Gurdwara driven by Malkeet Singh with Sukhpal Singh (accused) sitting besides him on the front seat and something lying tied on the back seat (proved by Karnail Singh­PW20). ➢ That at 2:45 AM DD No. 4­A is received at Police Station Timarpur regarding a semi­burnt naked dead body being found in a gunny bag at vacant land near Water pipe line Ganda Nala, Nehru Vihar Mor, Timarpur (proved by Inspector Rajnish Parmar).

➢ That on 5.2.2010 Rajender Singh the son of the deceased comes to Delhi on receiving information from Karnail Singh that his father was missing from the Gurdwara and get a missing report registered (proved by Karnail Singh, Rajender Singh, Harsimran Singh and also Pyara Singh).

(141) Conspiracy always hatched in private or in secrecy. It is rarely possible to establish a conspiracy by direct evidence. Usually, both the existence of the conspiracy and its objects have to be inferred from the circumstances and the conduct of the accused. The circumstantial evidence on record establishes the common purpose/ plan St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 172 of the accused persons i.e. to finish Baba Lakhbir Singh so that reigns of the Gurdrwara was taken over by accused Jasbir Kaur who was forcibly removed as Head Granthi and was already reeling in the insult of being forcibly removed by the deceased. The manner in which the deceased had been killed i.e. by strangulation and then being hit by a hard object after which his body was partially burnt establishes that it was the work of more than two persons. The deceased was a able bodied man who could not have been easily overpowered by a single person. He was supposed to remain awake at night as proved by Harsimran Singh and hence under no circumstances it is possible that one or two persons alone could have overpowered him so easily without any other person staying in the Gurdwara having come to know of the same. This coupled with the subsequent conduct of the accused Ranjeet Singh @ Baaz Singh who does not dispute his presence in the Gurdwara during this period and that of accused Jasbir Kaur in desperately wanting to remove Harsimran from the spot, obviously for the reason that they wanted to shift the dead body of Baba Lakhbir Singh out of the Gurdwara which they had hidden in store room of the Gurdwara for almost 24 hours and the manner in which Malkeet Singh borrowed a Maruti Car from Krishan Murari Tiwari (from which car the blood stains were lifted and were found to be matching with the blood group of the deceased) and thereafter he along with Sukhpal Singh transported the body out of the Gurdwara and threw the same at a vacant spot near St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 173 the ganda Nala, Nehru Vihar Mor are pointing towards the existence of a common agreement between the accused Jasbir Kaur, Malkeet Singh, Sukhpal Singh and Ranjeet Singh @ Baaz Singh to remove Baba Lakhbir Singh from their way and take over the administration of the Gurdwara. The entire sequence of events as they so emerge establish the criminal object, scheme or plan and a common agreement between the accused Jasbir Kaur, Malkeet Singh, Sukhpal Singh and Ranjeet Singh @ Baaz Singh. Here, I may also note that during the course of trial while the witness Pyara Singh (PW14) a Sewadar of the Gurdwara Rub Da Kutta was being cross­examined a criminal complaint filed in the court of Ld. MM Sh. Neeraj Gaur was put to him in which allegations of Baba Lakhbir Singh being missing from the Gurdwara were made. Interestingly Pyara Singh denied his signatures on this complaint when it was put to him by the accused in cross­examination. The question which now arises is ­ How did the accused come to know of this complaint when neither the police nor the family of the deceased were in the know of it? Who is the person who has filed this complaint and how did this person (whosoever) who filed this complaint was aware that Baba Lakhbir Singh was missing. The only answer which I can guess for myself is that in pursuance to a pre planned conspiracy and in order to create a defence this complaint had been filed for creating evidence to pre­empt implication. But for the fact that unfortunately for the accused the dead body of the deceased was St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 174 discovered by the PCR at the place where Malkeet Singh and Sukhpal had thrown the same within minutes when the patrolling PCR officials noticed a dog howling away on seeing a suspicious gunny bag. It was not within the knowledge of the police that the deceased had already been killed on the intervening night of 3­4.2.2010 after which his body was hidden in the store room and this fact came to be known to the Investigating Agency for the first time when it was so disclosed to them by the accused. In this background, I hereby hold that the prosecution has been able to prove and establish both the motive and the aspect of criminal conspiracy so attributed to the accused Jasbir Kaur, Malkeet Singh, Sukhpal Singh and Ranjeet Singh @ Baaz Singh which was for committing the offence of murder of Baba Lakhbir Singh and thereafter destroying the evidence thereof.

No direct eye witness/ Last seen/ Conduct of accused ­ Suspicious:

(142) Ocular evidence/ eye witness count is the best evidence in any case but it is settled law that the testimonies of the eye witnesses are required to be carefully analyzed to test the reliability, credibility and truthfulness of the witness. Though minor infirmities and discrepancies are bound to occur in the normal course yet in a case where the various eye witnesses corroborate each other on material aspect connected with the offence, there is no reason to reject their testimonies. However, in the present case there is no direct eye witness count and the entire case St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 175 of the prosecution is based upon circumstantial evidence and last seen evidence in the form of testimony of Harsimran Singh (PW11) whose presence in the Gurdwara has not been disputed by the accused. He is the person who had last seen the deceased alive at 10:00 AM on 3.2.2010 but did not find him in the Gurdwara in the morning at 5:00 AM and when he made inquiries from the accused Baaz Singh (Ranjeet Singh) he was told that Babaji (deceased) had gone out. However, before coming to the merits of his testimony, I may observe that the 'Last Seen' theory comes into play where the time gap between the point of time when the accused and the deceased were last seen alive and the deceased is found dead is so small that possibility of any person other than the accused being the author of the crime becomes impossible. It is a settled law that even in such cases the courts should look for such corroboration. (Sanjay Vs. State of U.T. Chandigarh Criminal Appeal No. 1699/2005 decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on India on 5.5.2006).

(143) It is settled law that where there is no direct evidence against the accused and the prosecution rests its case on circumstantial evidence, the inference of guilt can be justified only when all the incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be in­compatible with the innocence of the accused or the guilt of other person. [Ref:

Ved Prakash @ Bhagwan Dia Vs. State of Haryana reported in 2006 St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 176 (3) RCR (Criminal) 992].

(144) Further, in the case of Mohibur Rahman Vs. State of Assam reported in AIR 2002 SC 3064 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that :­ "....... The circumstance of last seen together does not by itself and necessarily lead to the inference that it was the accused who committed the crime. There must be something more establishing connectivity between the accused and the crime. There may be cases where on account of close proximity of place and time between the event of the accused having been last seen with the deceased and the factum of death a rational mind may be persuaded to reach an irresistible conclusion that either the accused should explain how and in what circumstances the victim suffered the death or should own he liability for the homicide....." (145) A similar view was taken by Supreme Court in the decision reported as Amit @ Ammu Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 2003 SC 3131. Further, in the decision reported as State of Rajasthan Vs. Kashi Ram reported in AIR 2007 SC 144 Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:­ "....... It is not necessary to multiply with authorities.

The principle is well settled. The provisions of Section 106 of the Evidence Act itself are unambiguous and categoric in laying down that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of a person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him. Thus, if a person is last seen with the deceased, he must offer an explanation as St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 177 to how and when he parted company. He must furnish an explanation which appears to the Court to be probable and satisfactory. If he does so he must be held to have discharged his burden. If he fails to offer an explanation on the basis of facts within his special knowledge, he fails to discharge the burden cast upon him by Section 106 of the Evidence Act. In a case resting on circumstantial evidence if the accused fails to offer a reasonable explanation in discharge of the burden placed on him, that itself provides an additional link in the chain of circumstances proved against him. Section 106 does not shift the burden of proof in a criminal trial, which is always upon the prosecution. It lays down the rule that when the accused does not throw any light upon facts which are specially within his knowledge and which could not support any theory or hypothesis compatible with his innocence, the Court can consider his failure to adduce any explanation, as an additional link which completes the chain. The principle has been succinctly stated in Re. Naina Mohd. AIR 1960 Madras, 218. ..."

(146) Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pradeep Nandrajog in the case of Sharda Jain Vs. State in Crl. Appeal No. 51/2007 decided on 27.8.2009 has on the basis of the various judicial pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, succinctly laid down the factors on which the effect of last seen on the guilt of accused depends, which are as under:­

(i) Proximity between the time of last seen and time of death of the deceased.

(ii) Proximity between the place where the deceased was last seen with the deceased and place of murder St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 178 of the deceased.

(iii) Nature of place of murder of the deceased.

(iv) Attending circumstances enwombing the time and place of last seen.

(v) Reasonableness of the explanation offered by the accused.

(147) Now applying the above settled ratio laid down in the various cases and coming first to the testimony of Harsimran Singh (PW11) it stands established that Harsimran Singh is a student of B.Sc. Maths (Hons.) and was staying in the Gurdwara and was also giving tuition at Baljeet Nagar. He is a permanent resident of village Hondalpur, Tehsil­Bilaspur, District Rampur, Uttar Pradesh and had been staying in the Gurdwara Rub Da Kutta for the last many years where the deceased Baba Lakhbir Singh @ Lakhha was the Mehant. According to him, he had last seen the deceased on 3.2.2010 at 10:00 PM when he returned to the Gurdwara and knocked at the door which was opened by Babaji on which he had a short conversation with him and in the morning when he woke­up at 5:00 AM he met the Sewadar Ranjeet Singh @ Baaz Singh who asked him to take a bath and do the Pooja and on being asked where Babaji was, Ranjeet Singh informed him that Babaji had gone somewhere and would come back in the evening, on which he (Harsimran) got suspicious because whenever Babaji used to go anywhere he used to handover the keys of St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 179 Gurdwara to him (Harsimran). He has also deposed that on the same day evening when he returned to the Gurdwara, he did not meet Babaji and the accused Jasbir Kaur met him who asked him to leave Gurdwara and told him that she would shift him in the house of her relatives at Uttam Nagar on which he got suspicious and told her that he would not leave Gurdwara till Babaji comes on which the accused Ranjeet Singh @ Baaz created a story and told him that Babaji had an evil eye upon his sister Harsharan Kaur which he did not believe since his sister never made any complaint to him about this fact. He has further stated that thereafter he along with one Lalli and son of the deceased namely Raju went to the Police Station to lodge the missing report of Lakhbir Singh @ Babaji. The relevant portion of the testimony of Harsimran Singh (PW11) is reproduced as under:

"........ I am a student of BSC II year, Maths (Hons). I am doing the aforesaid course from IGNOU. I also give tuitions at Baljeet Nagar. Presently I am residing at F/100/A, Punjabi Basti, Baljeet Nagar. My two brothers namely Jagdev Singh, Surender Singh and my sister Harsharan Kaur also resides with me at my aforesaid address. I and my sister Harsharan Kaur and my brother Jagdev Singh resided at Gurdwara Rub Da Kutta, Azadpur, for a period of about 2 ½ ­ 3 months. I give tuition at Baljeet Singh.

On 03.02.2010 I was coming back to the aforesaid gurudwara after giving tuition and reached at the gurdwara at 10 PM. I knocked the door and St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 180 called babaji on which Babaji Sh. Lakhbir Singh opened the door. I entered the Gurdwara and passed through the courtyard for entering into my premises. Babaji Sh. Lakhbir Singh was mehant in the said gurdwara. I went to the varanda/ courtyard and asked baba Lakhbir singh as to what happened in the matter of Baljeet Nagar Gurdwara. He told me that everything was all right and he asked me to go and to sleep and also told me that today he would remain awake "tu so ja aaj mei jaggun ga" I asked him why he wanted to remain awake, on which he told me that since I was tired I should go off to sleep and there was nothing as such " tum thake hui ho tum ja kar so jao, aise koi baat nahin hai". I went up in the room and slept. In the morning at about 5 AM one person namely Baaz who was sewadar of Babaji came to me and asked me that I should take bath and do the path pooja. I asked him as to where Babaji is. He informed me that Babaji had gone somewhere and will come back till evening. I got slightly suspicious because whenever Babaji used to go any where he used to hand over the keys of Gurdwara and now while going he did not hand over any key to me. Thereafter I performed Path Pooja and went to give tuition. In the evening I came back to the said gurdwara. One Jasbir Kaur met me and asked me to leave gurdwara and further told that she will get me shifted in the house of her relatives at Uttam Nagar. I told her that till babaji does not come I will not leave gurdwara. The said Baaz Singh informed me that babaji had an evil eye/ bure nazar upon my sister Harsharan Kaur but I could not believe because my sister did not make any St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 181 complaint regarding this fact. Later on I along with Lalli and his son Raju had gone to Police Station to lodged the report regarding missing of Lakhbir Singh @ Babaji. Police recorded the missing report. Later on police met me and recorded my statement. I can identify Baaz Singh and Smt. Jasbir Kaur if shown to me.

At this stage witness has correctly identified accused Baaz Singh and Smt. Jasbir Kaur and other accused namely Sukhpal and Malkeet Singh who are present in the court today as they are known to him previously......"

(148) In his cross­examination this witness has stated that he had come to Delhi in the year 2002 in connection with preparation for Medical Entrance Examination at Sachdeva PT College at Patel Nagar where he stayed for about 1½ months and left the hostel because he was not in a position to deposit the fees. According to him, thereafter he shifted to Karampura where he took a room on rent with his another friend and then left Karampura but again he was not in a position to understand English and therefore he was shifted to Allahabad where he stayed for about one year. He has explained that again in the year 2004 he came again to Delhi and started teaching in a school at Baljeet Nagar where he also stayed. He has stated that he met the deceased Lakhbir Singh in Sheesh Ganj Gurdwara in the year 2010 for the first time and informed him that he was not in a position of afford the expenses of the room on which Lakhbir Singh told him that he can stay in the Gurdwara St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 182 Rub Da Kutta where he was Mehant and after Babaji spoke to his father after which he started residing in the Gurdwara. He has explained that he used to give tuition at about 7 AM and returned back at about 7­8 PM. He has also explained that no rent had been charged from him and even the Langer used to be free for him. Further, in his cross­ examination he has stated that he had never heard about any relations of Babaji with any women nor he had heard of any incident regarding cher char (eve teasing) by Babaji. He has further admitted that Gurudwara in question is being run by Budda Dal but he is not aware if there is an internal dispute within the Budda Dal. He has explained that there are two factions one headed by Balbir Singh Ji and the other headed by Sh. Sarjeet Singh ji. He has also explained that prior to Baba Lakhbir Singh, Baba Baldev Singh (husband of the accused Jasbir Kaur) was the Mehant of the gurdwara but he is not aware if Baba Baldev Singh belongs to the faction headed by Baba Sarjeet Singh Ji. He is however aware that Baba Baldev Singh has been implicated in a murder case in Patiala, Punjab which was told to him by the deceased. He has admitted that Baba Lakhbir Singh belonged to the faction headed by Baba Baldev Singh but he is not aware if Baba Lakhbir Singh had been appointed a Mehant by Baba Balbir Singh after removing Bibi Jasbir Kaur or if any civil litigation had been filed by Bibi Jasbir Kaur regarding the appointment of Baba Lakhbir Singh as the Mehant or if Bibi Jasbir Kaur was implicated in a case of firing at St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 183 Bhatinda, Punjab. When asked to explain about the details of the Gurdwara in question the witness has informed that there are around nine rooms in the gurdwara apart from the main gurdwara building and there are two gates to the gurdwara, one from the front side and one from the back which normally remains closed. He has explained that apart from himself, one old lady whom they called Mataji, Babaji Lakhbir Singh ji and his family, accused Jasbir Kaur and her family and accused Sukhpal Singh used to reside in the gurdwara at that time. (149) Rajender Singh @ Raju (PW12) is the son of the deceased who was in Punjab at the time of the incident. He has confirmed the testimony of Harsimran Singh (PW11) to the extent that he had been informed by one Karnail Singh S/o Arjun that his father was not available in the Gurdwara for about three­four days. Here, I may observe that this Karnail Singh (PW20) has also in his testimony confirmed that it was he who informed Rajender Singh about his father being missing from Gurdwara for three­four days since he became suspicious of his absence being already aware of the internal dispute between the various factions of Buddha Dal and their cases. On receiving this information Rajender Singh @ Raju has stated that he made efforts to contact his father on his mobile phone bearing number 9878834491 but the said phone was found switched off. He then made inquiries from Harsimran Singh (PW11) who informed him lastly he saw his father in the gurudwara on 03.02.2010 at about 10:00 PM when St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 184 he returned to the Gurdwara after giving tuition and his father asked him to go inside the room and sleep and that he would wake up whole the night. Rajender Singh has further corroborated the testimony of Harsimran that he (Harsimran) had further informed him that on the next morning, at about 5.00 AM the sewadar Baaz came to him and asked him to do the pooja paath since his father had gone to out for some work on which he (Harsimran) asked Baaz as to when Babaji would return to which he (Baaz) stated that Babaji would come till evening but he did not return till the evening. He has further confirmed the testimony of Harsimran Singh (PW11) to the extent that he along with Anil Kumar @ Lalli had gone to the Police Station to make a missing report. In his testimony Rajender Singh @ Raju states that his chacha Anil Kumar @ Lalli a resident of Punjab had come to Delhi on 04.10.2010 at about 5.00 PM but did not find his father in the gurudwara on which he made inquiries from Harsimran regarding his father who expressed his ignorance regarding the whereabouts of his father and asked his chacha (Anil Kumar @ Lali) to make inquiries from Baaz. He has further stated that when his chacha called Baaz @ Ranjeet Singh for inquiries Baljeet Singh ignored and went away alongwith Sukhpal. According to him, his chacha Anil Kumar @ Lalli had also informed him that at about 6.15 PM Sukhpal came to the gurudwara on which he made inquiries from Sukhpal regarding Baaz to which he informed that Baaz had gone to Bangla Sahib Gurudwara and would return till night. St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 185 He has also stated that in this background, being suspicious he had made a complaint to the police vide Ex.PW12/A. Here, I may observe that the son of the deceased is aged about 18 years who was in Punjab at the time of the incident and he has further explained that at the time of incident his mother and brother Jaspal were not in Delhi. In his cross­ examination Rajender Singh @ Sonu (PW12) has explained that he received the call from Karnail Singh on his mobile No. 9781447659 from the mobile phone of Karnail Singh (PW20) which is 9873131318 an aspect which has been confirmed by Karnail Singh and not been successfully controverted by the accused.

(150) There is another person who was with the deceased Baba Lakhbir Singh during the day on the date of incident i.e. Arjun Singh who has been examined as PW21. He has explained that the deceased Baba Balbir Singh was the Mehant of Gurdwara Rub Da Kutta, Lal Bagh, GT Karnal Road, Delhi and on 3.2.2010 at about 2:00 PM there was a meeting at Gurudwara Ranjeet Akhara, Baljeet Nagar for replacement of one Sevadar namely Himmat Singh which meeting was attended by him, Lakhbir Singh @ Lakha, Kashmir Singh, Avtar Singh and other persons which meeting continued upto 6.00­6.30PM after which they went to Police Station Patel Nagar and gave their representation there after which they went to Metro Station Shadipur Depot and he alongwith Kashmir Singh went to Laxmi Nagar via Rajiv Chowk Metro Station whereas Lakhbir @ Lakha boarded down at Rajiv St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 186 Chowk and then he went to Azadpur at about 7.00PM, after which he had not seen Lakhbir @ Lakha.

(151) It is established that during the intervening night of 3­4.2.2010 the accused Sukhpal Singh, Jasbir Kaur, Malkeet Singh and Ranjeet Singh @ Baaz were the only persons presence in the Gurdwara apart from the deceased Lakhbir Singh and Harsimran who was close to the deceased Baba Lakhbir Singh. It is impossible that in case of any mishap could have occurred and not even a single person present in the Gurdwara including the accused would have noticed the same. Further, the conduct of the accused on the following day was also highly suspicious. In the morning at 5:00 AM when Harsimran Singh got up and did not find Baba Lakhbir Singh in the Gurdwara he started looking for him and made inquiries on which Baljeet Singh @ Baaz Singh told him that Lakhbir Singh had gone away and would return in the evening. This was the first time when Harsimran Singh became suspicious because all the accused persons belonged to the rival faction of Buddha Dal and any time when Baba Lakhbir Singh would leave the Gurdwara he would hand over the keys of Gurdwara to him. In the evening when Harsimran Singh again did not find Baba Lakhbir Singh in the Gurdwara, the accused Ranjeet Singh @ Baaz Singh started poisoning his mind by making allegations against the deceased of having an evil eye on his sister on which Harsimran Singh became more suspicious because he had never seen nor his sister made any such complaint St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 187 against Lakhbir Singh to him. Simultaneously the accused Jasbir Kaur started pressurizing the witness Harsimran Singh to leave the Gurdwara and asked him to shift at some other place and also told that she could arrange his stay with one of her relatives which conduct of Jasbir Kaur was highly suspicious. It is then that Harsimran took a stand and stated that unless the deceased Baba Lakhbir Singh returned he would not leave the Gurdwara under any circumstances.

(152) As per the provisions of Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 any fact is relevant which shows or constitutes a motive or preparation for any fact in issue or relevant fact. The conduct of any party, or of any agent to any party, to any suit or proceedings, in reference to such suit or proceedings, or in reference to any fact in issue therein or relevant thereto, and the conduct of any person an offence against whom is the subject of any proceeding, is relevant, if such conduct influences or is influenced by any fact in issue or relevant fact, and whether it was previous or subsequent thereto. (153) It is hardly said that there any action without a motive. Conduct of a person to proceedings in reference to any fact in issue or relevant fact is relevant. As per the provisions of Section 8 the conduct whether previous or subsequent an offence against whom is the subject of inquiry is relevant if the conduct influences or influenced by any fact in issue or a relevant fact as it throws light upon a person's motive, intention, good­faith etc. Subsequent act of a person which is indicative St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 188 of desire to avoid or stifle judicial inquiry into an offence of which the party doing the act is accused or suspected is relevant. The conduct of a person immediately after the offence is relevant under these circumstances and in the absence of any explanation for such act the presumption would be against such person.

(154) Applying the settled principles of law to the facts of the present case, it is writ large that the conduct of the accused persons who were the only persons present in the Gurdwara Rub Da Kutta during the intervening night of 3­4.2.2010 when the incident is reported to have taken place was highly suspicious and their aim was somehow to get the only other person present in the Gurdwara who did not belong to their group that is Harsimran Singh out of the Gurdwara by one way or the other and the reason for this is writ large because on the intervening night of 4­5.2.2010 they wanted to shift the body of the deceased out of the Gurdwara which dead body was lying hidden in the store room of the Gurdwara. When this evidence was put to the accused Sukhpal Singh, he claimed that he was not in the Gurdwara between 1.2.2010 till 10.2.2010 but in support of his claims has not adduced any evidence in his defence. Similarly, when this incriminating material was put to the accused Jasbir Kaur and Malkeet Singh, they claimed that on the date of incident they were not present in the Gurdwara and had gone to the house their relatives at Uttam Nagar in connection with the purchase of marriage and returned only on 4.2.2010 and that they have been falsely St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 189 implicated. This defence of both Jasbir Kaur and Malkeet is totally vague and non specific. Having pleaded an alibi it was for them to have established the same which they did not do. Despite being given an opportunity they have neither produced any witness nor called for any documentary record in the form of Call Detail Records etc. to establish their absence from the spot of incident i.e. Gurdwara Rub Da Kutta during the intervening night of 3­4.2.2010 and establish their presence at Uttam Nagar. Their lies are also nailed when Karnail Singh (PW20) has specifically identified the accused Malkeet Singh, Jasbir Kaur and Malkeet Singh and established their presence in the Gurdwara in the intervening night of 4­5.2.2010 (i.e. when the accused shifted the body of the deceased out of Gurdwara).

(155) However, in so far as the accused Ranjeet Singh @ Baaz is concerned, he does not deny his presence at the Gurdwara. When the entire incriminating material was put to him in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. vide question no. 24 he admitted his presence in the Gurdwara and rather stated that he had seen Harsimran Singh (PW11) performing Pooja on which it was he who asked him about Babaji and told him that Babaji had gone somewhere. It is evident that Ranjeet Singh @ Baaz Singh does not deny his presence in the Gurdwara in the intervening night of 3­4.2.2010 and has very cleverly tired to shift the onus on the witness Harsimran Singh (PW11). Hence, it is this conduct of the accused persons, the inconsistency in their statements and the St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 190 stand which they have taken, which raises a very strong finger of suspicion against them.

Medical Evidence:

(156) Dr. S. Lal (PW16), Specialist Forensic Medicine, Subzi Mandi Mortuary, Delhi has proved that on 12.02.2010, he conducted the postmortem on the body of Mehant Lakhbir Singh @ Lakkha Singh S/o Assa Singh aged about 42 years, Male vide postmortem report which is Ex.PW16/A according to which there were following injuries on the body of the deceased:

1. Lacerated wound 1.5 x 1.0 cm x muscle deep over center of forehead placed 5.0 cm about the base of nose, placed just right to midline.

2. Lacerated wound 1.0 x 0.3 cm x muscle deep over left side face just over eye brow.

3. Lacerated wound 1.0 x 0.4 cm x muscle deep over right side mandibular area over lower boarder placed 5.0 cm right to tip of chin.

4. Lacerated wound 1.3 x 0.5 cm x muscle deep with swelling over upper 1/3rd of left leg in front, placed 9.0 cm below the lower boarder of patella associated with fracture of both underlying bone.

5. Reddish bruise with swelling of right middle of leg with fracture St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 191 of both underlying bone in middle.

6. Reddish abrasion 5 x 2 cm over right side upper back of chest just below the shoulder blade.

7. Ligature Mark: a dry reddish brown ligature mark present around the neck below thyroid cartilage is complete around the neck. In front: it is 3.0 cm broad and placed 9.0 cm below the tip of chin.

Right side: it is 3.0 cm broad and placed 5.0 cm below angle of mandible and extent to back of neck where it is 3.0 cm broad and placed 10 cm below the occipital protuberance. Left side: it is 3.0 cm broad and just placed 5.0 cm below the angle of mandible. (157) Dr. S. Lal has proved that the cause of death was asphyxia due to ante mortem strangulation by means of ligature possible to cause by ligature material present around the neck, all injuries were ante mortem in nature, recent in duration; Injury no. 1 to 6 could be possible to cause by blunt force impact and injury no.7 was caused by means of ligature and was sufficient to cause death in ordinary cause of nature. He has proved that the time since death in this case was about one to one and half week.

(158) The witness has further proved that on the request of Investigating Officer Inspector Mahavir Kaushik, he had given his opinion Ex.PW16/B with regard to the weapon of offence according to which the injury no.1 to 5 could have been possible to cause by this St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 192 weapon of offence i.e. noon kutna which was produced before him for examination.

(159) There is no reason to doubt the postmortem report of the deceased and the opinion given by the Autopsy Surgeon. Here, I may observe that though there are six injuries over the body of the deceased Lakhbir Singh yet his death was caused on account of strangulation. I may further observe that the deceased Lakhbir Singh was aged about 42 years and was an able bodied healthy man (as reflected from the photographs of dead body). Under no circumstances, it was possible for a single person or a woman to have first hit him with Noon Kutna and then strangulated him with the ligature material and that too without any other person staying in the Gurdwara (i.e. Harsimran) having noticed or heard any unusual voices or noises during the night time. The medical evidence conclusively points towards the involvement of two or more persons.

(160) This being the background, I hereby hold that the medical evidence is compatible to the prosecution case that the death of the deceased Lakhbir Singh was caused on account of strangulation by means of ligature material.

Forensic Evidence:

(161) Sh. Sri Narain (PW29), Asstt. Director (Chemistry), FSL, Rohini, Delhi has proved the Chemical Analysis Reports which are St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 193 Ex.PW29/A and Ex.PW29/B. It has been proved that metallic poisons, ethyle and methyl alcohol, cyanide, phosphile, alkaloids, barbiturates, tranquilizers and pesticides could not be detected in Ex.1A (stomach and piece of small intestine), Ex.1B (pieces of liver, spleen and kidney), Ex.1C (blood sample) and Ex.1D (preservative samples). Further, the Forensic Expert has proved that on chemical, TLC and GC Examination, residue of petrol, diesel and kerosene could not be detected on Ex.1 (empty plastic bottle with cap labelled as Bisleri); Ex.

2 (bunch of hairs) and Ex.3 (yellow coloured cloth strip) (162) Further, Ms. Sunita Suman (PW30), Senior Scientific Officer (Biology), FSL, Rohini, Delhi has proved the Biological and Serological Reports which are Ex.PW30/A and Ex.PW30/B. As per the Biological Report blood was detected on Ex.1 (one chatai), Ex.2 (one Rajai), Ex.3 (two pieces of wooden table legs), Ex.5 (some stone pieces as each with blood, Ex.6 (some stone pieces as earth control), Ex.8 (one jacket), Ex.10 (one dirty cloth piece as rough cloth used for cleaning blood by accused), Ex.12 (one cloth piece in which dead body was tied), Ex.13 (one bori of jute as gunny bag in which the dead body of victim was kept), Ex.14 (one towel), Ex.15 (one blanket), Ex.16 (soil as earth with blood), Ex.18 (some cloth piece as tying material around waist), Ex.20 (one cloth piece as ligature material), Ex.21a (one dirty T­shirt), Ex.21b (one sleeve), Ex.22 (a small bunch of hairs as a scalp hairs of St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 194 deceased), Ex.23 (one blood stained gauze cloth piece as blood in gauze) and Ex.24 (one gauze cloth piece as blood lifted from maruti car). Further, the serological report Ex.PW30/B establishes that human blood was found in the Ex.1 (one chatai), Ex.2 (one Rajai), Ex.3 (two pieces of wooden table legs), Ex.5 (some stone pieces as each with blood, Ex.6 (some stone pieces as earth control), Ex.8 (one jacket), Ex. 10 (one dirty cloth piece as rough cloth used for cleaning blood by accused), Ex.12 (one cloth piece in which dead body was tied), Ex.13 (one bori of jute as gunny bag in which the dead body of victim was kept), Ex.14 (one towel), Ex.15 (one blanket), Ex.16 (soil as earth with blood), Ex.18 (some cloth piece as tying material around waist), Ex.20 (one cloth piece as ligature material), Ex.21a (one dirty T­shirt), Ex.21b (one sleeve), Ex.22 (a small bunch of hairs as a scalp hairs of deceased), Ex.23 (one blood stained gauze cloth piece as blood in gauze) and Ex. 24 (one gauze cloth piece as blood lifted from maruti car). Further, blood of 'B' Group was found on Ex.2 (one Rajai), Ex.12 (one cloth piece in which dead body was tied), Ex.13 (one bori of jute as gunny bag in which the dead body of victim was kept), Ex.14 (one towel), Ex. 15 (one blanket), Ex.18 (some cloth piece as tying material around waist), Ex.23 (one blood stained gauze cloth piece as blood in gauze) and Ex.24 (one gauze cloth piece as blood lifted from maruti car). St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 195 (163) In view of the above, it is evident that the blood group of the deceased Lakhbir Singh was 'B' Group which was found on the gauze piece of blood lifted from near the right side door of the maruti car which was lifted by the FSL expert on 11.3.2010. This confirms the testimony of Karnail Singh (PW20).

(164) Therefore, I hereby hold that the Forensic Evidence on record is compatible to the prosecution version that the body of the deceased was shifted to the spot i.e. vacant land near Water pipe line Ganda Nala, Nehru Vihar Mor, Timarpur in steel grey Maruti Car. Further, the forensic evidence also confirms the human blood of the jacket of Malkeet Singh which he had got recovered and the cloth got recovered by Ranjeet Singh @ Baaz Singh with which he had cleaned the floor of the room after committing the murder of the deceased. Hence, the forensic evidence conclusively connects the accused with the alleged offence.

Recovery pursuant to the disclosure statements of the accused:

(165) The case of the prosecution is that after the dead body was found in the area of Timar Pur, on 11.2.2010 Crime Team inspected the room of Lakhbir Singh where they found blood stains on the chatai, rajai and two legs of a wooden table. The two legs of the table were cut and seized vide memo Ex.PW12/B, the Rajai was seized vide memo Ex.PW12/C and the Chatai was seized vide memo Ex.PW12/D. St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 196 (166) It is further the case of the prosecution that on 13.2.2010 Jasbir Kaur and Sukhpal were apprehended and arrested and in their disclosure statements they confessed their involvement in the present case along with Malkeet Singh and Baaz Singh @ Ranjeet Singh.

Pursuant to his disclosure statement the accused Sukhpal led the Investigating Officer to store room of the Gurdwara and disclosed that the dead body was kept there which dead body was removed next night and dumped in the area of Police Station Timar Pur. The crime team was again called and the Gurdwara was got examined during which some burnt hair and blood was found in the room and on the pointing out of Sukhpal blood stained Tirpal was recovered from the store room. The accused Jasbir Kaur got recovered the blood stained Cholla of Sukhpal Singh and the accused Sukhpal Singh was also got recovered the weapon of offence i.e. Noon Kutna from the room of Lakhbir Singh. On 15.2.2010 the accused Malkeet Singh was apprehended and pursuant to his disclosure he got recovered his blood stained jacket worn by him at the time of crime and also got recovered a bottle of Bisleri of one liter in which petrol was brought by him. On 18.2.2010 on the pointing out the accused Sukhpal Singh the co­accused Ranjeet Singh @ Baaz Singh was arrested and his blood stained clothes were recovered. (167) The Ld. Defence Counsel has vehemently argued that the disclosure statements of the accused are inadmissible in evidence being hit by the provisions of Section 25 of Evidence Act. He has further St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 197 argued that the various articles have been planted upon the accused persons only to connect them with the alleged offence. (168) Before analyzing the evidence on merits, it is necessary to observe that as per the provisions of Section 27 of Evidence Act, which is in the nature of a proviso to Section 26 of the Act, to the extent it is relevant, 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. Thus the requirement of law is that before the fact discovered in consequence of an information received from an accused is allowed to be proved, he (accused) needs to be in the custody of a police officer.

(169) Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act explains the meaning of the word Fact. It provides that a fact means and includes:

1. Anything, state of things, or relation of things, or capable of being perceived by the senses,

2. Any mental condition of which any person is conscious.

(170) It further provides five illustrations as to what would constitute a fact which are as under:

1. That there are certain objects arranged in a certain order in a certain place, is a fact

2. That a man heard or saw something, is a fact.

3. That a man said certain words, is a fact.

St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 198

4. That a man holds a certain opinion, has a certain intention, acts in good faith, or fraudulently, or uses a particular word in a particular sense, or is or was at a specified time conscious of a particular sensation, is a fact.

5. That a man has a certain reputation, is a fact.

(171) A co­joint reading of Section 3 and Section 27 of Evidence Act would apply that as much of the statement as would relate to the discovery of fact connected with the accused would be admissible in evidence. The discovery of the fact is not only the discovery of the articles but also the discovery of the fact that the articles were kept by a particular accused at a particular place because in principle there is no difference between the statement made by the accused to the effect that "I will show you the person to whom I have given the articles" and the statement that "I will show you the place where I have kept the articles". (172) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K. Chinnaswamy Reddy Vs. State of A.P. reported in AIR 1962 SC 1788 had exhaustively discussed the scope and ambit of Section 27 of the Evidence Act had considered the question as to whether the statement of the accused to the effect that "he had hidden them (the ornaments)"

and "would point out the place", where they were, is wholly admissible in evidence under S. 27 or only that part of it is admissible where he stated that he would point out the place but not that part where he stated that he had hidden the ornaments. In the above case the Ld. Sessions St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 199 Judge had relied upon the judgment of Pulukuri Kotayya Vs. King­ Emperor reported in 74 Ind App 65: AIR 1947 PC 67 where a part of the statement leading to the recovery of a knife in a murder case was held inadmissible by the Judicial Committee. It was observed by My Lords of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that in the above case (Pulukuri Kotayya) the Judicial Committee considered S. 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, as under:­ ".......Provided 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......"

".... this section is an exception to Ss. 25 and 26 which prohibit the proof of a confession made to a police officer or a confession made while a person is in police custody unless it is made in immediate presence of a Magistrate. Section 27 allows that part of the statement made by the accused to the police "whether it amounts to a confession or not" which relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered to be proved. Thus even a confessional statement before the police which distinctly relates to the discovery of a fact may be proved under S. 27. The Judicial Committee had in that case to consider how much of the information given by the accused to the police would be admissible under S. 27 and laid stress on the words "so much of such information as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered" in that St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 200 connection. It held that the extent of the information admissible must depend on the exact nature of the fact discovered to which such information is required to relate. It was further pointed out that "the fact discovered embraces the place from which the object is produced and the knowledge of the accused as to this, and the information given must relate distinctly to this fact...."

"........Information as to past user, or the past history of the object produced is not related to its discovery in the setting in which it is discovered.

This was exemplified further by the Judicial Committee by observing that the information supplied by a person in custody that 'I will produce a knife concealed in the roof of my house' leads to the discovery of the fact that a knife is concealed in the house of the informant to his knowledge and if the knife is proved to have been used in the commission of the offence, the fact discovered is very relevant. If, however, to the statement the words be added 'with which I stabbed A', these words are inadmissible since they do not relate to the discovery of the knife in the house of the informant......"

(173) After considering the settled principles the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under:

"......If we may respectfully say so, this case clearly brings out what part of the statement is admissible under S. 27. It is only that part which distinctly relates to the discovery which is admissible; but if any part of the statement distinctly relates to the discovery it will be admissible wholly and the court cannot say that it will excise one part of the St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 201 statement because it is of a confessional nature. Section 27 makes that part of the statement which is distinctly related to the discovery admissible as a whole, whether it be in the nature of confession or not. Now the statement in this case is said to be that the appellant stated that he would show the place where he had hidden the ornaments. The Sessions Judge has held that part of this statement which is to the effect "where he had hidden them" is not admissible. It is clear that if that part of the statement is excised the remaining statement (namely, that he would show the place) would be completely meaningless. The whole of this statement in our opinion relates distinctly to the discovery of ornaments and is admissible under S. 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. The words "where he had hidden them" are not on a par with the words "with which I stabbed the deceased" in the example given in the judgment of the Judicial Committee. These words (namely, where he had hidden them) have nothing to do with the past history of the crime and are distinctly related to the actual discovery that took place by virtue of that statement. It is however urged that in a case where the offence consists of possession even the words "where he had hidden them" would be inadmissible as they would amount to an admission by the accused that he was in possession. There are in our opinion two answers to this argument. In the first place S. 27 itself says that where the statement distinctly relates to the discovery it will be admissible whether it amounts to a confession or not. In the second place, these words by themselves though they may show St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 202 possession of the appellant would not prove the offence, for after the articles have been recovered the prosecution has still to show that the articles recovered are connected with the crime, i.e., in this case, the prosecution will have to show that they are stolen property. We are, therefore, of opinion that the entire statement of the appellant (as well as of the other accused who stated that he had given the ornament to Bada Sab and would have it recovered from him) would be admissible in evidence and the Sessions Judge was wrong in ruling out part of it. Therefore, as relevant and admissible evidence was ruled out by the Sessions Judge, this is a fit case where the High Court would be entitled to set aside the finding of acquittal in revision though it is unfortunate that the High Court did not confine itself only to this point and went on to make rather strong remarks about other parts of the evidence. (174) Later in the year 1969 the Three Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has in the case of Zaffar Hussain Dastagir Vs. State of Maharastra reported in 1969 (2) SCC 872 while dealing with the applicability of the provisions of Section 27 of the Indian Evident Act relied upon the case of K. Chinnaswamy Reddy Vs. State of A.P. observed as under:

"....in order that the Section may apply the prosecution must establish the information given by the accused led to the discovery of some fact deposed to by him and the discovery must be of some fact which the police had not previously learnt St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 203 from other sources and that the knowledge of the fact was first derived from information given by the accused.

The essential ingredient of the Section is that the information given by the accused must led to the discovery of the fact which is the direct outcome of such information; secondly only such portion of the information given as is distinctly connected with the said discovery is admissible against the accused and thirdly the discovery of the fact must relate to the commission of some offence....."

(175) In the said case the Hon'ble Supreme Court further went to explain that:

"..... In a case where the accused is charged with theft of articles or receiving stolen articles states to the police "I will show you the articles at the place where I have kept them" and the articles were actually found there, there can be no doubt that the information given by the accused led to the discovery of a fact that is keeping of the articles by the accused at the place mentioned. However, the discovery of the fact deposed to in such a case is not the discovery of the articles but the discovery of the fact that the articles were kept by the accused at a particular place. It was observed that in principle, there is no difference between the above statement and that made by the accused in the case which in effect is that "I will show you the person whom I have given the diamonds exceeding 200 in number". The only difference between the two statements is that a "named person" is substituted for "the place" where St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 204 the articles are kept. In neither case are the articles of the diamonds, in fact discovered. There can be no doubt that the portion of the alleged statement of the accused would be admissible in evidence......"

(176) In the recent past the Hon'ble Supreme Court has in the case of State (NCT of Delhi) Vs. Navjot Sandhu with Shaukat Hussain Guru Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in AIR 2005 SC 3820 reinforced the above view when it observed that "discovery of fact" should be read with the definition of "fact" as contained in Section 3 of the Evidence Act which defines the "fact" as meaning and including anything, state of things or relation of things, capable of being perceived by the senses and also includes any mental condition of which any person is conscious (emphasis supplied). It was held that the provisions of Section 27 would apply whenever there is discovery which discovery amounts to be confirmatory in character guaranteeing the truth of the information given to which facts the police officer had no access earlier which also includes recovery of material object. The Hon'ble Court further observed that so much of the information as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered is admissible. (177) Applying the settled principles of law to the facts of the present case, I may observe that the fact that the dead body of the deceased Lakhbir Singh was kept in the small store room for 24 hours was not with the knowledge of the Investigating Agency and it was for St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 205 the first time that the accused Sukhpal in his disclosure statement Ex.PW14/D disclosed the police that after committing the murder of Lakhbir Singh they kept his dead body in the small store room for 24 hours. Here, I may observe that this small room is a store room at one corner of the Gurdwara and none could have imagined that the dead body of the deceased could have been kept in the said room. This is a discovery of relevant fact as contemplated under Section 27 of Evidence Act and is admissible in evidence. Further, pursuant to the above disclosure of the accused Sukhpal the Crime Team was called to the said room and photographs were taken and during thorough inspection some burnt hair and blood spots were found which were taken into possession which confirmed the disclosure statement made by the accused Sukhpal. The accused Sukhpal Singh also got recovered one blood stained Tirpal which was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW14/G. Thereafter the accused Sukhpal took the police to the Nehru Vihar, Wazirabad, T­Point where they had dumped the dead body. Here, I may observe that this place was already known to the police previously but this aspect of pointing out by the accused Sukhpal cannot be doubted since it was made in the presence of public witness Anand Sharma (PW15) who was a mechanic working in the vicinity. This witness has identified the accused Sukhpal as the person who had come to the spot along with the police and had identified the place where he had thrown the dead body of the person whom he had killed St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 206 and has also identified his signatures on pointing out memo Ex.PW15/A. This fact also finds independent corroboration from the statement of Karnail Singh (PW20) who has stated that on the intervening night of 4­5.2.2010 he had seen Sukhpal Singh and Malkeet Singh in the steel grey color maruti car coming out from the Gurdwara something was lying tied on the back seat of the car. Hence, in terms of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State (NCT of Delhi) Vs. Navjot Sandhu with Shaukat Hussain Guru Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in AIR 2005 SC 3820 this portion of the disclosure statement of the accused Sukhpal is admissible in evidence being the discovery of a Relevant Fact which was not in the knowledge of the Investigating Agency previously.

(178) Further, the accused Sukhpal Singh got recovered his Chola from the room of accused Jasbir Kaur which was already washed, which Chola was then taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW14/J. Pursuant to his disclosure statement the accused Sukhpal Singh also got recovered the weapon of offence i.e. Noon Kutna by which they had beaten the deceased Lakhbir Singh, after which the sketch of the same was prepared vide Ex.PW23/B and was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW14/K. Here, I may observe that the sketch of the weapon of office i.e. Noon Kutna prepared by the Investigating Officer Inspector Mahavir Kaushik (PW31) is matching with that prepared by Autopsy St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 207 Surgeon Dr. S.Lal (PW16).

(179) The accused Malkeet Singh (who was initially declared a Juvenile but later found to be a major) was arrested on 15.2.2010 and pursuant to his disclosure statement he got recovered an empty bottle of Bisleri having the smell of Petrol from the waste material lying inside the Gurdwara, which bottle was seized vide memo Ex.PW14/O. Thereafter the accused Malkeet Singh got recovered his blood stained Jacket which he was wearing at the time of the incident which Jacket was then taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW14/P. Here, I may observe that the said Jacket was containing human blood which fact stands confirmed from the serological report Ex.PW30/B. However, no residue of petrol or diesel was detected in the bottle of Bisleri got recovered by the accused Malkeet.

(180) On 18.2.2010 the accused Ranjeet Singh @ Baaz Singh was apprehended from Punjabi Bagh and during interrogation he confessed his involvement in the present case. From the bag carried by the accused Ranjeet Singh @ Baaz Singh one yellow colour shirt and one salwar (lower) were found which the accused disclosed as the clothes worn by him at the time of the incident. The said clothes were also taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW13/D. At the instance of the accused Ranjeet Singh @ Baaz Singh one old cloth was recovered from the tree behind the rooms of gurudwara inside of the boundary wall which the accused disclosed that he had cleaned the blood after the St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 208 incident of murder of Lakhbir Singh by the said cloth and had thrown the same behind the rooms after which the said old cloth was seized vide memo Ex.PW13/E. As per the Serological Report Ex.PW30/B the said cloth was containing human blood.

(181) It is argued by the Ld. Defence Counsel that for 10­11 days the said room was accessible to all and everybody had looked for the deceased in the Gurdwara. How is it then possible that the Crime Team officials when inspected the room of the deceased on 11.2.2010 they found blood on the mattress/ Chatai, quilt/ Rajai and two legs of the wooden table? He has argued that these articles could have been planted upon the accused to connect them with the offence in question. (182) I have considered the submissions made before me and I may note that it was for the first time that the SHO Police Station Adarsh Nagar came to know regarding the discovery of dead body of Lakhbir Singh within the jurisdiction of Police Station Timar Pur on 10.2.2010 which dead body was actually recovered on 5.2.2010 and was kept in the Mortuary. As per the postmortem report Ex.PW16/A the postmortem was conducted on 12.2.2010 and the serological report Ex.PW30/B the Chatai and wooden table legs were containing Human Blood whereas the Rajai was containing human blood of 'B' Group. I may note that after Lakbhir Singh @ Lakhha was found missing the only persons present in the Gurdwara who had access to store room and room of the deceased was the accused Jasbir Kaur, Sukhpal Singh, St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 209 Ranjeet Singh and Malkeet Singh. It is evident that Rajender Singh the son of the deceased had come to Delhi and made a complaint to the police on 5.2.2010 regarding the deceased Baba Lakhbir Singh being missing pursuant to which there was a virtual police presence in the Gurdwara on account of which the accused could not have completely destroyed these blood stained articles more so because of the presence of Harsimran in the Gurdwara who had refused to leave the Gurdwara till Baba Lakhbir Singh returned.

(183) No doubt, the Chatai/ mattress could have been planted but it is not possible that the blood of the deceased would have been planted on the same during this period since neither the police nor the family of the deceased were aware of his death during this period which they came to know only on 10.2.2010. I may observe that the photographs Ex.PW1/A­1, Ex.PW1/A­2 and Ex.PW1/A­3 reflect the mattress having blood stains which were very faint and there is every possibility that it could have gone undetected to the naked eye. Same is the position with two wooden legs of the table which are shown in the photographs Ex.PW6/A­7 and Ex.PW6/A­9. In so far as the quilt/ Rajai is concerned, the blood stains on the same are reflected in photograph Ex.PW1/A­4. The photographs are self speaking which show that the blood stained portion was facing the bed and not visible unless somebody would have lifted the same.

St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 210 (184) Ld. Defence Counsel has further pointed out that Rajender Singh @ Raju (PW12) the son of the deceased had stayed in the same room and has used the quilt/ rajai which was later on seized. In this regard I may observe that Rajender Singh has deposed that after coming to Delhi after 05.02.2010 he had slept in the room of his father and on 05.02.2010 he slept on double bed and used another chhadar to cover himself. He has explained that he used to enter that room after removing his shoes at the gate and sometimes with the shoes but for going to bed he used to take a round of the chatai. It is in this view of the matter that I hold that the argument advanced by the Ld. Defence counsel is devoid of merit. The witness Rajender Singh is very categorical and states that he had slept on the double bed and used another bed­sheet to cover himself whereas the spot of crime is the single bed on which Baba Lakhbir Singh used to sleep with the quilt lying on the same which Rajender Singh does not say that he had touched. When Rajender Singh does not claim that he had slept on the bed of his father (which is a single bed) but rather states that he had slept on the double bed, the question of his noticing the blood stained quilt does not arise.

(185) It is therefore evident that he has not touched the things of his father in his absence. It is something normal in religious places that certain religious norms of purity are adhered. It is nothing abnormal if another person staying in such religious place does not touch the articles St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 211 used by other persons. The deceased Baba Lakhbir Singh was the Head Granthi/ Jathedar of the Gurdwara and I find nothing unusual when his son Rajender Singh who does not use his bed but sleeps on a separate double bed that he does not check the bed by lifting the mattresses etc. so as to notice the blood stains were present on the lower portion of the quilt which were not visible on a causal look being hidden. (186) There is nothing on record to show that any thorough search was made by the initial Investigating Officer which is a very serious lapse. It is writ large that the investigations in the present case from the first day has been most casual and non professional and what the Investigating Officer is required to do at the first instance has not been done. The missing report was never taken seriously by anybody and the search which was made in the Gurdwara was only a casual search. Further, despite the fact that Inspector Rajnish Parmar proved having uploaded the details of the deceased on ZIP Net, it takes seven days for the SHO of Police Station Adarsh Nagar to trace the dead body of the victim. It is strange that the SHO of Police Station Adarsh Nagar has not bothered to open the ZIP Net or confirm the same from the adjoining Police Station regarding recovery of some unclaimed bodies and this was despite the fact that the dead body of the deceased was kept in the Mortuary for good seven days, an aspect on which the local police has to answer but for all such lapses no benefit can be given to the accused for the same.

St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 212 (187) In so far as the disclosure statements of the accused Jasbir Kaur, Malkeet Singh, Sukhpal Singh and Ranjeet Singh are concerned they are not admissible in evidence being hit by the provisions of Section 25 of Evidence Act but for the fact that pursuant to the said disclosure statements there was a recovery of the Noon Kutna (weapon of offence) at the instance of accused Sukhpal Singh, the recovery of blood stained Jacket at the instance of accused Malkeet Singh and the recovery of a blood stained piece of cloth at the instance of Ranjeet Singh @ Baaz Singh with which he had cleaned the scene of crime after which he threw the same on a tree inside the gurdwara, which part of their disclosure statements are admissible in evidence. (188) Hence, what turns on the fact is that accused Sukhpal Singh pointed out the store room where they kept the dead body for 24 hours when the burnt hair of the deceased the blood stains (belonging to the deceased) was found and he then got recovered the weapon of offence i.e. Noon Kutna which was not in the knowledge of the police. The accused Malkeet Singh also got recovered his Jacket from the room of Jasbir Kaur which jacket was containing human blood and the accused Ranjeet Singh @ Baaz Singh got recovered a piece of cloth containing human blood. The fact that the accused persons had pointed out the said places and got recovered the said articles, is a strong pointer towards the guilt of accused.

St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 213 Lack of explanation/ false explanation to the incriminating circumstances - provide missing link to the chain of circumstances:

(189) As already discussed herein above, the entire case of the prosecution is based upon circumstantial evidence and it is argued by the Ld. Defence Counsel that there is no direct evidence to connect the accused Jasbir Kaur, Malkeet Singh, Sukhpal Singh and Ranjeet Singh with the offence of murder or Baba Lakhbir Singh. The Ld. Addl. PP assisted by the counsel for the complainant have pointed out that the accused who had entered into a full­fledged conspiracy to commit the murder of Baba Lakhbir Singh so as to remove him from the way and take control of Gurdwara Rub Da Kutta are themselves lacking in providing any explanation with regard to the happenings at the gurdwara on the intervening night of 3­4.2.2010 and again on the intervening night of 4­5.2.2010. It is pointed out that their conduct as already highlighted above was a suspect particularly when they attempted to remove Harsimran Singh from the precincts of the Gurdwara on 4.2.2010 and also for their failure to explain why the Maruti Car of grey colour bearing No. DL­2CB­4256. was borrowed from Krishan Murari Tiwari in the midnight and what they transported out of Gurdwara in the said car which was then returned to the owner on the next day morning.

(190) I have considered the rival contentions and I may observe that in cases of circumstantial evidence, if the accused gives no explanation or gives a false explanation to an incriminating St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 214 circumstance, it provides the missing link in chain of circumstances. Reference is being made on the case of Ram Kumar Madhusudan Pathak Vs. State of Gujarat reported in 1998 (3) CC Cases (SC) 106. Further, in the case of Vasa Chandrashekher Rao Etc. Vs. Ponna Satyanarayana & Anr. with State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Ponna Satyanarayana reported in 2000 (2) JCC (SC) 541 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that:

"...... Since the witnesses to the actual murder did not support the prosecution case during trial, the question for consideration is whether the circumstances would be suffering to bring home the charge. Where the prosecution wants to prove the guilt of the accused by circumstantial evidence, it is necessary to establish that the circumstances from which a conclusion is drawn, should be fully proved, the circumstances should be conclusive in nature; all the facts so established, should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt and inconsistent with the innocence; and the circumstances should exclude the possibility of guilt of any person other than the accused. In order to justify an inference of guilt, the circumstances from which such an inference is sought to be drawn, must be incompatible with the innocence of the accused. The cumulative effect of the circumstances must be such as to negate the innocence of the accused and to bring home the offence beyond any reasonable doubt. When accused on being asked, offers no explanation of the explanation offered is found to be false, then St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 215 that itself forms an additional link in the chain of circumstances to point out the guilt......."

(191) Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kuldeep Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 2000 (2) JCC (SC) 582 while relying in the case Swapan Patra Vs. State of West Bengal reported in 1999 (9) SCC 242 has observed:

"....... In the case of Swapan Patra Vs. State of West Bengal reported in [1999 (9) SCC 242], it has been held that it is a well settled principle that in a case of circumstantial evidence when the accused offers an explanation and that explanation is found to be untrue then the same offer an additional link in the chain of circumstances to complete the chain. The same principle is reiterated in the case of State of Maharastra Vs. Suresh [(2000) 1 SCC 471]. In this case it has been held that a false answer offered by the accused when his attention was drawn to a circumstance renders that circumstance capable of inculpating him. It is held that in such a situation like this a false answer can also be counted as providing "a missing link" for completing the chain....."

(192) Applying the settled principles of law to the facts of the present case, since there is no direct eye witness in the present case, the question which now arises is whether the circumstances would be sufficient to bring home the charge. It is evident from the testimony of Harsimran Singh (PW11) that on the date of incident the deceased St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 216 Lakhbir Singh was present in the Gurdwara and had gone to his room when he asked Harsimran to go to sleep. The accused persons were also present in the same Gurdwara and in the morning when Harsimran got up at about 5:00 AM Harsimran did not find the deceased and asked about him from accused Ranjeet Singh who told him that deceased had left the Gurdwara and asked him to do the Pooja Paath on which he raised his suspicion since the deceased never left the Gurdwara without handing over the keys to him. Later it was accused Jasbir Kaur who asked him to leave the Gurdwara to which Harsimran did not agree insisting that unless Babaji returns he would not leave. When this incriminating material was put to the accused persons they provided no explanation for the same. Further, the prosecution has established the fact regarding the borrowing of Maruti Car and accused Malkeet Singh & Sukhpal Singh having left the premises of the Gurdwara at about 1:15 AM in which some packed material was lying on the back seat and from which the blood stains of B Group (blood group of the deceased) was found. When the above incriminating material was put to the accused in their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the accused Jasbir Kaur and Malkeet Singh have pleaded Alibi and despite this plea, have not examined any witness to establish the same. They have stated that they were not present at the Gurdwara on the day of incident and had gone to their relatives house on 2.2.2010 in connection with the purchase of marriage and returned to Gurdwara on 4.2.2010 but in this regard no St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 217 witness has been examined to establish this plea. Here, I may also observe that this explanation was found to be false in view of the testimony of Karnail Singh (PW20) who had seen the accused Jasbir Kaur opening the gate of Gurdwara on the intervening night of 4­5.2.2010 and Malkeet Singh driving the Maruti Car No. DL­2CB­4256. Further, in so far as the accused Ranjeet Singh has stated that he saw Harsimran Singh performing Pooja in the morning of 4.2.2010 and asked him about Babaji who told him that Babaji had gone somewhere, which does not appear to be probable and plausible. The accused Sukhpal Singh has stated that he has nothing to do with the alleged incident and has been falsely implicated in the present case. (193) Further, the accused persons have also not been able to give any explanation as to how blood has appeared on the articles recovered from the room of the deceased i.e. legs of table, rajai, chatai and also on the articles recovered at the instance of the accused persons e.g. jacket, T­shirt, cloth with which blood was cleaned etc. I may mention that there was no access to anybody to the portion where the deceased was staying and where his dead body was kept for almost 24 hours where the marks of physical violence and blood stains were found. There was no evidence of theft or attempt to theft. The accused were the only persons who had the access/ reach to the said rooms. This being the background, I hold that the the false explanation given by the accused persons to the above incriminating circumstances, provide the St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 218 missing link in chain of circumstances and their subsequent conduct is a strong pointer towards their guilt.

FINAL CONCLUSIONS:

(194) In the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda ­vs­ State of Maharastra, reported in AIR 1984 SC 1622, the Apex Court has laid down the tests which are pre­requisites before conviction should be recorded, which are as under:

1. The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The circumstances concerned 'must or should' and not 'may be' established;

2. The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty;

3. The circumstances should be of conclusive nature and tendency;

4. They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and

5. There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.

(195) Applying the above principles of law to the present case it is evident that the investigation conducted including the documents St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 219 prepared in the present case have been substantially proved by the police witnesses including the first and the second investigating officers. On the basis of the evidence on record, the following aspects stand established:

➢ That Gurdwara Rub Da Kutta belongs to Buddha Dal a religious sect of Nihang Sikhs.

➢ That there are two factions with the Buddha Dal i.e. the Baba Balbir Singh faction to which the deceased Baba Lakhbir Singh belonged and another faction headed by Baba Sarjeet Singh to which the accused Jasbir Kaur, Malkeet Singh, Sukhpal Singh and Ranjeet Singh @ Baaz Singh belong.

➢ That after the death of the Head Granthi of Rub Da Kutta Gurdwara the husband of Jasbir Kaur namely Baldev Singh took over but soon thereafter he was arrested in a murder case at Patiala.

➢ That the accused Jasbir Kaur was then nominated as the Granthi/ Jathedar of the Gurdwara Rub Da Kutta by Baba Sarjeet Singh but simultaneously Baba Balbir Singh nominated the deceased Baba Lakhbir Singh as the Jathedar/ Head Granthi of Gurdwara Rub Da Kutta.

➢ That the deceased Baba Lakhbir Singh forcibly removed Jasbir Kaur as Head Granthi of the Gurdwara Rub Da Kutta and took St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 220 over the reigns of the Gurdwara Rub Da Kutta and its administration.

➢ That despite Baba Lakhbir Singh having taken over the administration of Gurdwara, in order to retain their physical possession and control over this Gurdwara situated in almost one and a half acres land, these persons belonging to the rival faction also occupied various rooms in Gurdwara and started residing in the same precincts.

➢ That Baba Lakhbir Singh resided in the Gurdwara in a portion on one side with his family while the accused Jasbir Kaur and her family including her son accused Malkeet Singh, accused Sukhpal Singh, the accused Ranjeet Singh @ Baaz Singh and the witness Harsimran Singh residing in other rooms constructed on the other side of the Gurdwara.

➢ That being aggrieved accused Jasbir Kaur had also filed a civil suit against Baba Lakhbir Singh challenging his appointment as Jathedar/ head Granthi of Gurdwara Rub Da Kutta. ➢ That on the intervening night of 3­4.2.2010 the family of Baba Lakhbir Singh had gone to Punjab.

➢ That on the intervening night of 3­4.2.2010 the other Sewadar of the Gurdwara namely Pyara Singh (PW14) was also not present/ available in the Gurdwara being away to Punjab. St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 221 ➢ That finding an opportune time when the deceased Baba Lakhbir Singh was alone in the Gurdwara on the intervening night of 3­4.2.2010 as his family was away to Punjab and Harsimran Singh was asleep on the other side of the Gurdwara, he was killed by strangulation followed by a forcible blow on the head. ➢ That on 4.2.2010 at 5:00 AM when Harsimran Singh got up and did not find Baba Lakhbir Singh in the Gurdwara he started looking for him and made inquiries on which Baljeet Singh @ Baaz Singh told him that Lakhbir Singh had gone away and would return in the evening.

➢ That Harsimran Singh became suspicious because whenever Baba Lakhbir Singh would leave the Gurdwara he would hand over the keys of Gurdwara to him, which he had not done. ➢ That in the evening when Harsimran Singh returned the Gurdwara he again did not find Baba Lakhbir Singh in the Gurdwara and instead of informing him about Baba Lakhbir Singh the accused Ranjeet Singh @ Baaz Singh started poisoning his mind by making allegations against the deceased of having an evil eye on his sister on which Harsimran Singh became more suspicious because he had never seen nor his sister made any such complaint against Lakhbir Singh to him.

➢ That simultaneously on the evening of 4.2.2010 the accused Jasbir St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 222 Kaur started pressurizing the witness Harsimran Singh to leave the Gurdwara and told him she would arrange for his stay with one of her relative.

➢ That despite the pressure by Ranjeet Singh and Jasbir Kaur, Harsimran Singh took a stand and stated that unless the deceased Baba Lakhbir Singh returned he would not leave the Gurdwara under any circumstances.

➢ That the accused Malkeet Singh then borrowed the car of Krishan Murari Tiwari (PW17) on the night of 4­5.2.2010 at around 12:00­12:30 Midnight.

➢ That Malkeet Singh drove this Maruti Car of steel grey colour bearing No. DL­2CB­4256 to the Gurdwara Rub Da Kutta at about 12:30 AM (midnight) and the accused Jasbir Kaur opened the door of the Gurdwara to let the car enter the Gurdwara. ➢ That after about forty five minutes (around 1:15 AM) the accused Jasbir Kaur again opened the door of the gurudwara and this Maruti Car of steel grey colour bearing No. DL­2CB­4256 came out of the Gurdwara driven by Malkeet Singh with Sukhpal Singh (accused) sitting besides him on the front seat and something lying tied on the back seat.

➢ That at 2:45 AM DD No. 4­A is received at Police Station Timarpur regarding a semi­burnt naked dead body being found in St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 223 a gunny bag at vacant land near Water pipe line Ganda Nala, Nehru Vihar Mor, Timarpur.

➢ That on 5.2.2010 Rajender Singh the son of the deceased comes to Delhi on receiving information from Karnail Singh that his father was missing from the Gurdwara and get a missing report registered.

➢ That on the intervening night of 4­5.02.2010 at about 2.30 AM the PCR Van Incharge SI Sheo Raj discovered a dead body of a male lying near the Ganda Nala, Nehru Vihar Mor, Timarpur, Delhi.

➢ That information was then sent to Inspector Rajnish Parmar SHO of Police Station Timarpur who reached the spot and an FIR bearing No. 32/2010, Police Station Timarpur was registered. ➢ That on 10.2.2010 the SHO of Police Station Adarsh Nagar came to know that the dead body identical to Lakhbir Singh was discovered in the area of Police Station Timar Pur after which the dead body was identified by Rajender Singh @ Raju. ➢ That on 11.2.2010 Crime Team was called and the room of Lakbhir Singh was got inspected from where blood stained articles i.e. two legs of the table, rajai/ quit and chatai/ mattress were lifted.

➢ That on 12.2.2010 after the postmortem examination the dead St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 224 body was handed over to his family members and efforts were made to apprehend the suspects i.e. Jasbir Kaur, Malkit Singh, Sukhpal Singh and Baaz Singh.

➢ That on 13.2.2010 Jasbir Kaur and Sukhpal were apprehended and arrested and in their disclosure statements they confessed their involvement in the present case along with Malkeet Singh and Baaz Singh @ Ranjeet Singh.

➢ That pursuant to his disclosure statement the accused Sukhpal led the Investigating Officer to store room of the Gurdwara and disclosed that the dead body was kept there and was removed next night and dumped in the area of Police Station Timar Pur. ➢ That the crime team was again called and the said store room in the Gurdwara was got examined during which some burnt hair and blood was found in the room.

➢ That on the pointing out of Sukhpal blood stained Tirpal was recovered from the store room.

➢ That the accused Jasbir Kaur got recovered the blood stained Cholla of Sukhpal Singh and the accused Sukhpal Singh was also got recovered the weapon of offence i.e. Noon Kutna from the room of Lakhbir Singh.

➢ That on 15.2.2010 the accused Malkeet Singh was apprehended and pursuant to his disclosure he got recovered his blood stained St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 225 jacket worn by him at the time of crime and also got recovered a bottle of Bisleri of one liter in which petrol was brought by him. ➢ That the accused Jasbir Kaur then got recovered the Maruti Car which was used by Sukhpal Singh and Malkeet Singh in shifting the dead body from Gurdwara to Timar Pur.

➢ That on 18.2.2010 on the pointing out the accused Sukhpal Singh the co­accused Ranjeet Singh @ Baaz Singh was arrested and his blood stained clothes were recovered.

(196) The Medical Evidence on record establishes that the cause of death was asphyxia due to ante mortem strangulation by means of ligature possible to cause by ligature material present around the neck and that the injuries no. 1 to 6 as noted in the postmortem report were caused by blunt force impact of which injury no.1 to 5 could have been possible to cause by this weapon of offence i.e. Noon Kutna (got recovered by accused Sukhpal Singh) and injury no.7 was caused by means of ligature and was sufficient to cause death in ordinary cause of nature.

(197) The forensic evidence is also compatible to the prosecution version that the body of the deceased was shifted to the spot i.e. vacant land near Water pipe line Ganda Nala, Nehru Vihar Mor, Timarpur in steel grey Maruti Car and further confirms the involvement of the accused in the offence (human blood being detected of the jacket St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 226 of Malkeet Singh which he had got recovered and the cloth got recovered by Ranjeet Singh @ Baaz Singh with which he had cleaned the floor of the room after committing the murder of the deceased). (198) Further, the circumstantial evidence as aforesaid conclusively establishes the common purpose/ plan of the accused persons i.e. to finish Baba Lakhbir Singh so that reigns of the Gurdrwara was taken over by accused Jasbir Kaur who was forcibly removed and was already reeling in the insult of being forcibly removed by the deceased. The manner in which the deceased had been killed i.e. by strangulation and then being hit by a hard object after which his body was partially burnt establishes that it was the work of more than two persons. The deceased was a able bodied man who could not have been easily overpowered by a single person. He was supposed to remain awake at night as proved by Harsimran Singh and hence under no circumstances it is possible that one or two persons alone could have overpowered him so easily without any other person staying in the Gurdwara having come to know of the same. This coupled with the subsequent conduct of the accused Ranjeet Singh @ Baaz Singh who does not dispute his presence in the Gurdwara during this period and that of accused Jasbir Kaur in desperately wanting to remove Harsimran from the spot, obviously for the reason that they wanted to shift the dead body of Baba Lakhbir Singh out of the Gurdwara which they had hidden in store room of the Gurdwara for almost 24 hours and the manner in St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 227 which Malkeet Singh borrowed a Maruti Car from Krishan Murari Tiwari (from which car the blood stains were lifted and were found to be matching with the blood group of the deceased) and thereafter he along with Sukhpal Singh transported the body out of the Gurdwara and threw the same at a vacant spot near the ganda Nala, Nehru Vihar Mor are pointing towards the existence of a common agreement between the accused Jasbir Kaur, Malkeet Singh, Sukhpal Singh and Ranjeet Singh @ Baaz Singh to remove Baba Lakhbir Singh from their way and take over the administration of the Gurdwara. The entire sequence of events as they so emerge establish the criminal object, scheme or plan and a common agreement between the accused Jasbir Kaur, Malkeet Singh, Sukhpal Singh and Ranjeet Singh @ Baaz Singh and the fact that an attempt was made to create a defence by filing a complaint in the court regarding the deceased being missing from the Gurdwara confirms the existence of the conspiracy. In this background, I hereby hold that the prosecution has been able to prove and establish both the motive and the aspect of criminal conspiracy so attributed to the accused Jasbir Kaur, Malkeet Singh, Sukhpal Singh and Ranjeet Singh @ Baaz Singh which was for committing the offence of murder of Baba Lakhbir Singh and thereafter destroying the evidence thereof. (199) There are two stages in the criminal prosecution. The first obviously is the commission of the crime and the second is the investigation conducted regarding the same. In case the investigation is St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 228 faulty or has not been proved in evidence at trial, the question which arise is whether it would absolve the liability of the culprit who has committed the offence? The answer is obviously in negative, since any lapse on the part of the investigation does not negate the offence. (200) The prosecution has proved the identity of the accused, the manner in which the offence has been committed, place of commission of the offence, the investigation including the documents prepared, postmortem report, etc. There is nothing which could shatter the veracity of the prosecution witnesses or falsify the claim of the prosecution. All the prosecution witnesses have materially supported the prosecution case and the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses do not suffer from any infirmity, inconsistency or contradiction and are consistent and corroborative. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses is natural and trustworthy and corroborated by medical, forensic and circumstantial evidence and the witness of the prosecution have been able to built up a continuous link.

(201) On the basis of the aforesaid evidence, I hereby hold that the prosecution has been able to prove and establish the necessary intent and knowledge of the accused Jasbir Kaur, Malkeet Singh, Sukhpal Singh and Ranjeet Singh @ Baaz Singh (as contemplated under Section 300 Indian Penal Code) to commit the murder of Baba Lakhbir Singh for which I hold the accused Jasbir Kaur, Malkeet Singh, Sukhpal Singh and Ranjeet Singh @ Baaz Singh guilty of the offence St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 229 under Sections 120­B r/w 302/201 IPC. I further hold these accused Jasbir Kaur, Malkeet Singh, Sukhpal Singh and Ranjeet Singh @ Baaz Singh guilty for the offences under Section 302 IPC and Section 201 IPC for which they all are accordingly convicted.

(202) Be listed for arguments on sentence on 31.1.2014.

Announced in the open court                                        (Dr. KAMINI LAU)
Dated: 25.1.2014                                                   ASJ­II(NW)/ ROHINI
 




St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar                     Page No. 230
       IN THE COURT OF Dr. KAMINI LAU: ADDL. SESSIONS 
       JUDGE­II (NORTH­WEST) ROHINI COURTS: DELHI


Session Case No. 1230/2010
Unique Case ID No. 02404R0124262010

State                       Vs.   (1)           Sukhpal Singh @ Deep Singh
                                                S/o Sh. Mahender Singh
                                                R/o Village Talhema, PS Bhikhi,
                                                District Mansha, Punjab
                                                (Convicted)


                                      (2)       Jasbir Kaur @ Chinder Pal Kaur
                                                W/o Baldev Singh
                                                R/o C­43, Gurdwara Rub Da Kutta,
                                                Lal Bagh, Azadpur, Delhi
                                                (Convicted)


                                      (3)       Ranjeet Singh @ Soni @ Baaz Singh
                                                S/o Sh. Hakim Singh
                                                R/o Village Bodawal,
                                                PS Sadar Budlada, Distt. Mansha,
                                                Punjab
                                                (Convicted)


                                      (4)       Malkit Singh
                                                S/o Baldev Singh
                                                R/o C­43, Gurdwara Rub Da Kutta,
                                                Lal Bagh, Azadpur, Delhi
                                                (Convicted)



St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar                       Page No. 231
 FIR No.:                                        31/2010
Police Station:                                 Adarsh Nagar
Under Sections:                                 302/201/120­B/34 Indian Penal Code


Date of Conviction:                             25.1.2014

Arguments concluded on:                         19.2.2014

Date of Sentence:                               22.2.2014

APPEARANCE:

Present:           Sh. Tofeeq Ahmed, Ld. Addl. PP for the State.

All convicts are in Judicial Custody with Sh. N.K. Gaur and Sh. Kundan Kumar Advocates.

ORDER ON SENTENCE:

The present case relates to the killing of Baba Lakhbir Singh the Mehant/ Jathedar of Gurdwara Rub Da Kutta. The deceased Baba Lakhbir Singh and the accused persons both belong to Buddha Dal a religious sect of Nihang Sikhs which is riddled with internal strife/ discord between the different factions/ groups (one headed by Baba Sarjeet Singh and another headed by Baba Balbir Singh) resulting into a spate of civil as well as criminal litigations all over the country. Needless to say, all this is for the control of power and administration of the Gurdwaras and properties belonging to the Buddha Dal situated all over the country. There is a long standing dispute between these two St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 232 factions of Buddha Dal one headed by Baba Balbir Singh and another headed by Baba Sarjeet Singh, who are involved into a Bloody Battle with each other for the last number of years.

The present case relates to Gurdwara Rub Da Kutta situated at a prime location in the Adarsh Nagar area Delhi spared over one and a half acres. The deceased Baba Lakbir Singh was the Jathedar/ Head Granthi of Rab Da Kutta Gurdwara and belonged to Baba Balbir Singh faction whereas the accused Jasbir Kaur whose husband Baldev Singh (a previous Jathedar of Gurdwara Rub Da Kutta) is in Jail in a murder case at Patiala, her son accused Malkeet Singh, Sukhpal Singh and Ranjeet Singh all belong to the Baba Sarjeet Singh faction. They all stayed in the same Gurdwara. These continuing hostilities relating to control of various Gurdwaras in Punjab and the power game also continued in Delhi at various Gurdwaras belonging to the Buddha Dal including Gurdwara Rub Da Kutta. After the death of the main Jathedar, it was Baldev Singh the husband of accused Jasbir Kaur who proclaimed himself as the Head Granthi but soon he was arrested in a murder case at Patiala on which his wife i.e. the accused Jasbir Kaur was allegedly nominated the Head Granthi/ Jathedar but for the opposition of the rival group headed by Baba Balbir Singh who nominated Lakhbir Singh as the Head Granthi/ Mehant and he took over the affairs of Gurdwara Rub Da Kutta by upsetting her in respect of which and a civil case was also filed in Delhi Courts on the said aspect. St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 233 This was followed by frequent altercations between them. In order to retain their physical possession and control over this Gurdwara situated in almost one and a half acres land, these persons belonging to the rival faction also occupied various rooms in Gurdwara and started residing in the same precincts.

Here, I may note that while Baba Lakhbir Singh (deceased) belong to Baba Balbir Singh faction, all others residing there i.e. Jasbir Kaur, Malkeet Singh, Sukhpal Singh and Baaz Singh belonged to Baba Sarjeet Singh faction of Buddha Dal. In so far as Harsimran is concerned he resided there with the permission of Baba Lakhbir Singh and Harsimran in a way supported Baba Lakhbir Singh though he had no direct concern with the affairs of the Gurdwara and only stayed there.

The case of the prosecution is that on the intervening night of 3­4.2.2010 finding an opportune time when the deceased Baba Lakbir Singh was alone in the Gurdwara as his family was away to Punjab and Harsimran Singh was asleep on the other side of the Gurdwara, the accused Jasbir Kaur, Malkeet Singh, Sukhpal Singh and Ranjeet Singh seizing the opportunity in pursuance to a criminal conspiracy killed Baba Lakhbir Singh by strangulation and thereafter concealed his body for 24 hours in the store room situated at one corner of the Gurdwara and even tried to burn the same. Thereafter on the intervening night of 4­5.2.2010 Malkeet Singh along with Sukhpal Singh and Jasbir Kaur St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 234 removed the dead body of deceased Lakhbir Singh in a gunny bag and abandoned the same at vacant land near Water pipe line Ganda Nala, Nehru Vihar Mor, Timarpur.

On the basis of the testimonies of various witnesses examined by the prosecution and after considering the entire evidence placed on record including the medical, forensic and circumstantial evidence, this Court vide a detailed judgment dated 25.1.2014 has held the accused Jasbir Kaur, Malkeet Singh, Sukhpal Singh and Ranjeet Singh @ Baaz Singh guilty of the offence under Sections 120­B r/w 302/201 IPC and further held guilty for the offences under Section 302 IPC and Section 201 IPC for which they have been accordingly convicted.

Heard arguments on the point of sentence. The accused Sukhpal Singh is stated to be aged about 28 years having a family comprising of aged widow mother, two brothers and four sisters. He is 5th class pass and is a Sevadar in Gurdwara.

The accused Jasbir Kaur @ Chinder Pal Kaur is stated to be aged about 42 years having a family comprising of husband (who is in jail in Patiala), son Malkeet Singh (the co­convict) and one daughter. She is 6th class pass and is a Sevadar in Gurdwara. The convict Malkeet Singh is stated to be 22 years of age and is a Matriculate.

The accused Ranjeet Singh @ Baaz Singh is stated to be St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 235 aged about 28 years having a family comprising of aged parents, one brother and two sisters. He is 7th class pass and is a Granthi in Gwalior.

Ld. Counsels for the convicts have vehemently argued that though the convicts are involved in other civil and criminal cases, they have not been convicted so far in any other case. It is prayed that a lenient view be taken against the convicts.

The Ld. Addl. PP for the State has prayed that the convicts be not shown any leniency in view of the fact that the killing has been most brutal and committed in a cold blooded manner. He has also placed on record the details of the various civil and criminal litigations pending between the different factions of Buddha Dal along with the copies of FIRs many of which are in Gurmukhi (translations not attached). Perusal of the same shows that majority of the disputes are pending at various places in Punjab and some of them in Delhi which include the present case. Ld. Counsel for the complainant who has duly assisted the Ld. Addl. PP for the State has also argued that the husband of convict Jasbir Kaur namely Baldev Singh is also in custody in FIR no. 209/2007, under Section 302/149 IPC and 25 Arms Act, Police Station Civil Lines, Patiala, Punjab and the convict Jasbir Kaur herself is wanted in case FIR No. 09/2004, under Section 307/364/148/149/120­ B IPC, Police Station Talwandi Saboo, Bhatinda, Punjab copies of which FIRs have been placed on record. It is argued that keeping in view the ramifications of the act of the convicts they are not entitled to St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 236 any mercy. The Investigating Officer Inspector Mahavir Kaushik has also filed a list of criminal cases against the convict Jasbir Kaur details of which are as under:

1. FIR No. 09/2009, U/s. 307/364/148/149/120­B IPC, PS Talwandi Saboo, Punjab.

2. FIR No. 52/2007, U/s.307/120­B/148/149 IPC, PS Talwandi Saboo, Punjab.

3. FIR No. 73/2008, U/s.302/148/149 IPC, PS Talwandi Saboo, Punjab.

4. FIR No. 107/2010, U/s.307/148/149 IPC, PS Talwandi Saboo, Punjab.

5. FIR No. 55/2008, U/s.406/420 IPC, PS Bassi, Patiala, Punjab.

6. FIR No. 67/2010, U/s.307/353/332/225/186/120­B IPC, PS Balli Wali, Bhatinda, Punjab.

7. FIR No. 209/07, U/s.302/149 IPC & 25/27 of Arms Act, PS Civil Lines, Punjab.

It is argued that the convicts have no respect for law and legal process and are habitual in taking law into their hands. The Ld. Addl. Public Prosecutor has also placed his reliance on the judgments of Bachan Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in 1980 SCC (Crl.) 580 and Machhi Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab reported in 1983 SCC (Crl.) 681 and has argued that keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, there is no alternative before this court but to impose St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 237 death sentence upon the convicts. It is also stated that the convicts have not been able to show any mitigating circumstances in their favour which could make out a case for imposition of sentence of imprisonment for life.

I have considered the submissions made before me. At the very outset, I may state that there can be no dispute as to the applicability of the various principles as laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the aforesaid two cases viz Machhi Singh (Supra) and Bachan Singh (Supra) which are required to be keep in mind before awarding a death sentence in any given case.

The law is well settled in the decision in Bachan Singh Vs. State of Punjab [AIR 1980 SC 898], wherein it was held that the death penalty can be inflicted only in the gravest of the grave cases. It was also held that such death penalty can be imposed only when the life imprisonment appears to be inadequate punishment. Again it was cautioned that while imposing the death sentence, there must be balance between circumstances regarding the accused and the mitigating circumstances and that there has to be overall consideration of the circumstances regarding the accused as also the offence. Some aggravating circumstances were also culled out, they being:­

(a) Where the murder has been committed after previous planning and involves extreme brutality; or St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 238

(b) Where the murder involves exceptional depravity.

The mitigating circumstances which were mentioned in that judgment were:­

(a) That the offence was committed under the influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance;

(b) The age of the accused. If the accused is young or old, he shall not be sentenced to death;

(c) The probability that the accused would not commit criminal acts of violence as would constitute a continuing threat to society;

(d) The probability that the accused can be reformed and rehabilitated. The State shall by evidence prove that the accused does not satisfy the conditions (c) and (d) above;

(e) That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the accused believed that he was morally justified in committing the offence;

(f) That the accused acted under the duress or domination of another person; and

(g) That the condition of the accused showed that he was mentally defective and that the said defect impaired his capacity to appreciate the criminality of his conduct.

The law was further settled in the decision in Machhi Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab [AIR 1983 SC 957], wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court insisted upon the mitigating circumstances St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 239 being balanced against the aggravating circumstances. The aggravating circumstances were described as under:­

(a) When the murder is in extremely brutal manner so as to arouse intense and extreme indignation of the community.

(b) When the murder of a large number of persons of a particular caste, community, or locality is committed.

(c) When the murder of an innocent child, a helpless woman is committed.

It was also observed by the Hon'ble Court that at the same time it must be kept in mind that the principle of there being a proportion between punishment and offences ought not to be so mathematically followed so as to render the laws subtle, complicated and obscured. Brevity and simplicity are a superior good. Something of exact proportion may also be sacrificed to render the punishment more striking, more fit to inspire people with a sentiment of aversion for those vices which prepare the way for crimes.

The Hon'ble Apex Court has time and again stressed upon the need for awarding the punishment for a crime which should not be irrelevant but should conform to and be consistent with the atrocity and the brutality with which the crime has been perpetrated, the enormity of the crime warranting public abhorrence of crime and responding to the society's cry for justice against the criminal. (Ref. Ravji Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 1996 (II) SCC 175). Punishment ought to fit the St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 240 crime and sometime it is the desirability to keep the offender out of circulation.

Now I would like to draw a balance sheet of aggravating and mitigating factors. The aggravating factors are that the murder of Baba Lakbir Singh was committed in a pre­planned manner and was a cold blood attempt to silence the member of the rival faction. The mitigating factors are that the convict Sukhpal, Malkeet Singh and Ranjeet Singh are not involved in any other criminal case and the convict Jasbir Kaur is a lady.

After having considered the submissions made before me and the various aggravating and mitigating factors, I hold that the case in hand certainly does not fall within the category of Rarest of Rare or least even in category of Rare Case. Therefore I award the following sentences to the convicts Sukhpal Singh, Jasbir Kaur @ Chinder Pal Kaur, Ranjeet Singh @ Baaz Singh and Malkeet Singh:

1. For the offence under Section 120­B r/w 302/201 Indian Penal Code the convicts Sukhpal Singh, Jasbir Kaur @ Chinder Pal Kaur, Ranjeet Singh @ Baaz Singh and Malkeet Singh are sentenced to Imprisonment for Life and fine to the tune of Rs.2,000/­ (Rs. Two Thousand) each. In default of payment of fine the convict shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of One Week each.

St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 241

2. For the offence under Section 302 Indian Penal Code the convicts Sukhpal Singh, Jasbir Kaur @ Chinder Pal Kaur, Ranjeet Singh @ Baaz Singh and Malkeet Singh are sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for Life and fine to the tune of Rs.

25,000/­ (Rs. Twenty Five Thousand) each (total fine of Rs. One Lac). In default of payment of fine the convicts shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of Three months (each).

3. For the offence under Section 201 Indian Penal Code the convicts Sukhpal Singh, Jasbir Kaur @ Chinder Pal Kaur, Ranjeet Singh @ Baaz Singh and Malkeet Singh are sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of Five (5) Years and fine to the tune of Rs.5,000/­ (Rs. Five Thousand) each. In default of payment of fine the convict shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of Fifteen Days each.

Out of the total fine amount as imposed above, if realized, an amount of Rs. One Lac be given to the Legal Heir of the deceased as compensation under Section 357 Cr.P.C.

All the above sentences shall run concurrently. Benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C. shall be given to all the convicts for the period undergone by them during the trial.

The convicts are informed that they have a right to prefer St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar Page No. 242 an appeal against the judgment. They have been apprised that in case they cannot afford to engage an advocate, they can approach the Legal Aid Cell, functioning in Tihar Jail or write to the Secretary, Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee, 34­37, Lawyers Chamber Block, High Court of Delhi, New Delhi.

Copy of the judgment and a copy of order of sentence be given to the convicts free of costs and another be attached with their jail warrants.

File be consigned to Record Room.

Announced in the open court                                      (Dr. KAMINI LAU)
Dated: 22.2.2014                                                   ASJ­II(NW)/ ROHINI




St. Vs. Sukhpal Singh Etc., FIR No. 31/10, Adarsh Nagar                     Page No. 243