State vs Lalit Shar M A S /O Shrad H A N A N D Shar M A on 30 April, 2007

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Delhi District Court

State vs Lalit Shar M A S /O Shrad H A N A N D Shar M A on 30 April, 2007

        IN THE COURT OF SHRI  TALWANT SINGH,  
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS  JUDGE,  KARKARDOOMA COURTS,  DELHI.

   Case  ID Number                             02402R000 0 3 8 2 0 0 0
   Session s  Case  Number                     22 / 2 0 0 1
   F.I.R.  Number                              212 / 1 9 9 9
   Police  Station                             M.S.  Park
   Under  Sectio n s                           364 / 3 0 2 / 2 0 1 / 1 2 0 B  IPC
   Commi t t e d  to  Sessio n s  on           28 th  Ja n u a r y  2000
   Date  of  Decision                          30 th  April 2007

   In  the  matter  of:

   State

   VERSUS

   1. Lalit  Shar m a  S /o  Shrad h a n a n d  Shar m a,
      R/o  Village  Morta,  District  Ghaziabad  (UP).

   2. Rishi  Raj  Sharm a  S /o  Shrad h a n a n d  Sharm a ,
      R/o  Village  Morta,  District  Ghaziabad  (UP).

   3. Shrad h a n a n d  Sharm a  S /o  Ram  Gopal  Sharm a ,
      R/o  Village  Morta,  District  Ghaziabad  (UP).

   4. Rajender  Shar m a  S /o  Raghu n a t h  Shar m a,  
      R/o  Village  Badnoli,   Near  Hapur,  
      District  Ghaziaba d,  UP
      (Proclaimed  Offender)                                       .... Accused  persons


   J  U D G M E N T

        BACKGROUND  OF THE CASE

1. As per the prosecution version, four accused namely Lalit Shar m a , Rishi Raj, Shrad h a n a n d Shar m a and Praveen entered into a conspiracy and committed the abduction and murder of one Amit and thereafter they disposed of his body in Gang Nehar. Page 1 of 79

2. It is the case of the prosecution that Amit used to live at the house of his Bua namely Sheela at village Morta, District Ghaziabad. He fell in love with one Yogita D /o Shrad h a n a n d , who was the daughter of Jeth of his Bua Sheela. Both of them married each other on 29.5.199 9 in Arya Samaj Mandir, Delhi and later on they eloped to Madras. Amit telephoned from Madras to his matern al uncle Kuldeep to tell him about his well being and that Yogita was also with him. Kuldeep told these facts to accuse d Lalit, who was the real brother of Yogita and Satbir, pater n al uncle of Amit. Later on, Lalit, Satbir and one more person went to Madras but they could not contact Amit and Yogita. Later on, they talked with Amit on telephone and sent aeroplane ticket for Amit and Yogita to come to Delhi and both of them came back.

3. On 4.7.199 9 a meeting took place in the office of accused Lalit at Durga Puri Chowk, Delhi to work out the modalities regarding perform a n ce of an arra nged marriage of Amit and Yogita for removing the social stigma and in the said meeting, many relatives participated from both the sides. It was decided in the said meeting that the marriage would take place within 4 5 month s .

4. Later on, another meeting took place in the office of Lalit in Durga Puri Chowk on 14.7.199 9 in the morning hours and accused Lalit told the relatives from Amit's side that some relatives from his side could not come, so all of them should move to village Morta and meeting would take place there. One Rajender (Proclaimed Page 2 of 79 Offender in this case) was also with Lalit at that time. Lalit asked others to proceed by Bus and he told that he would be taking Amit on his motorcycle to village Morta. All others reached village Morta. Accused Lalit reached there at about 10:00 PM but Amit was not with him. On enquiry, he told that he had left Amit at a Hotel in Duhai village and would bring him later on. Thereafter he left in a car but did not come back. In the morning, he told others that he had left Amit at Durga Puri and Amit could not be found thereafter. On 21.7.1999 another meeting took place in village Mandola where accuse d Lalit gave evasive answers to the quarries of the family member s present from Amit's side, who tried to search for him but could not do so till 27.7.199 9.

5. The incident of disappe ar a n c e of Amit is during the night of 14 / 1 5 . 7. 1 9 9 9 but it is yet another case of police apat hy where the complaina n t was made to run from pillar to port to get the FIR registered. A dispute was raised regarding the jurisdiction on the basis of the complaint sent by the father of Amit to DCP on 29.7.1999. After making enquiries, Delhi Police sent a letter to UP Police saying that the offence was committed in the area of UP Police. The police from Police Station Siani Gate (Ghaziaba d) sent a report dated 25.8.199 9 to the SSP, Ghaziabad, who forwarded the same on 7.9.1999 stating that on enquiry, it was establis hed that the offence was committed within the jurisdiction of Police Station:

M.S. Park, Shah d a r a . After receipt of this report, at last, FIR was registered on 17.9.199 9 and the investigation was started. Page 3 of 79

6. Initially FIR was registered U/ s 365 IPC and investigation was handed over to SI Aishvir Singh, who started the investigation and recorded stateme n t s of some witnes ses and tried to appre he n d the accused persons. One of the accused namely Lalit Shar m a surren dered in court and during interrogation, he made a confession state me n t. Police Custody Reman d for two days of accused Lalit Shar m a was obtained and during rema n d period, he identified the Hotel at village Duhai where he had left Amit and thereafter he pointed out the place where he had thrown the dead body of Amit. He also identified the Maruti Car bearing No. DL 3CH 3552, which was used in committing the crime. This car was recovered and one small piece of seat cover was cut and seized having some stains and it was sent to FSL. The dead body was searche d with the help of divers but since a long time had passed, so the dead body could not be recovered.

7. Accused Rishi Raj surren dered in Court on 14.10.19 9 9 and during interrogation, he also confessed about his role in the killing of Amit alongwith accused Lalit Shar m a and Rajender Shar m a. His PC reman d was also taken. He had also identified the place of incident and the place where the dead body of Amit as well as weapon of offence were alleged to have been thrown. A searc h was cond uc ted in the canal with the help of divers and one Gararidar knife was recovered. On the pointing out of accus ed Rishi Raj, a shoe of right foot of Woodland make was also recovered. Accused Shrad h a n a n d Page 4 of 79 Shar m a and Praveen Shar m a also surre n dered, who were later on arrested. Accused Rajender Shar m a could not be ascertai ned and process to declare him Proclaimed Offender was initiated. As far as accused Alam Shar m a was concerned, suppleme n t a ry challan was to be filed regarding his role.

8. At the time of framing of charge, one accused Praveen was discharged vide order dated 16.10.200 0 and charge was framed against remaining three accused person s U/ s 364 / 3 0 2 / 2 0 1 / 1 2 0 B IPC on 10.11.200 4 to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

9. In all, prosecution examined 30 witnesses. This is a case of circu m s t a n tial evidence and one importa n t fact to be kept in mind is that the dead body was never recovered. The witnesse s can be grouped as under: A. Witnes s e s , who were relative s or had last seen the victi m and the accus ed toget h er.

B. Other public witne s s e s , who have deposed som e facts related to the offenc e.

C        Police  and  other  officials.



A.       Witnes s e s ,   who   were   relative s   or   had   last   seen   the   victi m  
         and  the  accus ed  toget h er.

10. PW1 Ramp h al Shar m a is the mater n al grandfat her (Nana) of Amit. He reiterates the prosecution story regarding elopeme nt of Amit with Yogita and how they came back from Madras and air tickets were sent to them. He also states about meeting on 4.7.1999 in the Page 5 of 79 office of accused Lalit Shar m a in Durga Puri Chowk, where it was decided to make arra nge me n t for a social marriage of Amit with Yogita. From the side of accused Lalit, Alam (Phup h a of Lalit), Kamla, mother of Yogita and Shrad h a n a n d Shar m a , father of Yogita participated. From the side of Amit, Dhara mvir, father of Amit, Satbir, pater n al uncle of Amit, Devender, Phupha of Amit, Kuldeep, mater n al uncle of Amit and PW1 Ramp h al Shar m a participated. It was decided that they would be married within 4 5 mont h s. As per him, the second meeting took place on or about 21.7.199 9 in village Mandola, which is the village of matern al uncle of Yogita. Accused Lalit sought some more time to arra nge marriage as his parent s and elders were angry. Some persons were present from the side of Amit and the reques t of Lalit was accepted. After some time, Lalit telephone d and called them in his office in Durga Puri where PW1 Ramph al Shar m a , Devender, Satbir and Amit went but they were told that some persons from accused side could not come and Lalit would be taking Amit on his motorcycle to their village Morta and they were asked to reach there. Ramph al and others from Amit's side reached village Morta by Bus and went to the house of accused Lalit. Accused Shrad h a n a n d met them there. At about 10:00 PM, accused Lalit came and when he was asked as to where was Amit, he told that he had left him at a hotel in Duhai village and would bring him back after some time. Then he left in a car and did not come back. In the morning, he told that he had left Amit at Durga Puri but Amit was not found thereafter.

Page 6 of 79

11. In cross examina tion by Ld. Addl. PP, PW1 admits that he might have told the date as 14.7.1999 to the police as the date of last meeting. In cross examin a tion, he admits that he has no person al knowledge about the talks between Amit and his matern al uncle Kuldeep. Similarly accused Lalit, Satbir and others did not leave for Madras in his presence. As per him, Amit met him 3 4 times after his retur n from Madras. He denied the suggestion that no meeting had taken place at Durga Puri Chowk and he had introd uced this fact only with a view to get the case registered in Delhi. PW1 admits that state me n t Ex.PW1 / DA bears his signat u r e s and it is in his own handwriting. In the said stateme n t, the fact regarding meeting and accused Lalit telling that Amit was left in a hotel in village Duhai or thereafter he had left in a car are not mentioned. In further cross examina tion, he could not tell whether Brah min Samaj permits marriage in close relations as Yogita and Amit were related. None of the family member was present at the time of marriage. He denied the suggestion that no marriage took place on 29.5.1999 in Arya Samaj Mandir. He volunteered to add that the marriage took place on 19.5.1999 and not 29.5.1999. He was not sure about the dates when Lalit, Sheela and matern al uncle of Lalit came to his house. As per him, the office of Lalit was at Main Road, Loni on the first floor of the building but he denied the suggestion that the said office is not on the main road or that the same is in the inner market known as Goel Market. As per him, all three meetings took place and the last meeting was held on 21.7.1999. No report was lodged with the police till 21.7.1999 as the accused Page 7 of 79 had been misguiding them. The meeting on 21.7.1999 was held to trace Amit but he did not tell about the same to the police. He denied the suggestion that he made Amit to disappe ar with a view to deprive him of his share in the property of his parent s or that Amit might be still alive.

12. PW2 is Devender Kumar, who states that he was Phupha of Amit. He had also attende d the meeting in Durga Puri Chowk on 14.7.1999 where accus ed Lalit, Alam and Rajender were also present and after some time, accuse d Lalit told that his parent s could not come so, he asked them to reach village Morta and accused Lalit further told that he would bring Amit with him. He also reiterates the story of accus ed Lalit coming at about 10:00 PM after leaving Amit at a hotel in Duhai and his ass u r a n c e to bring him later on. After about half an hour, he left in a white Maruti Car and did not retur n till 1:00 AM. In the next morning, accused Lalit told them that he had left Amit at Durga Puri Chowk. No news was received about Amit thereafter. Earlier Amit and Yogita had entered into a love marriage on 19.5.199 9 and the meeting was to take place on this accou nt.

13. In cross examin ation, he states that no marriage had taken place in his relations between the children of Mami and Phup h a. They had reached Durga Puri Chowk on 14.7.1999 at about 10:00 / 1 0 : 3 0 AM and they remained there for about half an hour. They reached back at village Morta at about 1:30 PM. Alam also reached with Page 8 of 79 them. Satbir could not reach. He did not inform police regarding missing of Amit on 15.7.199 9 or 16.7.199 9. Similarly he did not inform Dhar m bir about missing of Amit. Police recorded his stateme n t twice. He did not file any affidavit with the police although Affidavit Ex.PW2 / DA bears his photograp h and signat u re s . Before 25.9.1999, he did not tell the police about the meeting of 14.7.199 9 or about Lalit arriving at Morta or thereafter leaving in a Car. He denied the suggestion that no meeting took place regarding the marriage of Amit in village Morta and he had not attended any such meeting. He did not see Amit going with accused Lalit as they had already left.

14. PW4 is Dhara m bir Singh, father of deceased Amit. He states that Amit was his son, who was working as Sales Executive in Fore Front India Ltd. at Noida till November 1998. While serving there, he used to stay in the house of his Bua Sheela in village Morta, District Ghaziaba d where he fell in love with a girl namely Yogita Shar m a D/o Shrad h a n a n d Sharm a and he married her on 19.5.1999 in Arya Samaj Mandir, Bhogal, Delhi. After leaving service from Noida, his son started busine s s in Hyderab a d and from there, he shifted to Madras as the parent s of Yogita were searching him. Lalit Shar m a , Harish Shar m a , Satish Shar m a and Satbir Shar m a went to Madras on 15 / 1 6 . 6. 1 9 9 9 to bring back Amit and Yogita, so that a social marriage may be arra nged and these person s could not meet them and a mess age was left with the co occupa n t s of the flat. Thereafter accused Lalit Shar m a and his Page 9 of 79 relatives talked to Amit on telephone and pers u a de d him to come to Delhi for solemnis a tion of social marriage and the air tickets were sent, and purs u a n t thereto, Amit and Yogita came back to Delhi and they were received at the Airport by Lalit, his relative Satis h and brother of PW4 namely Satbir. Thereafter Satbir took Amit to a Hotel in Ghaziabad. Next day, accused Lalit arra nged a meeting between Amit and his sister Yogita.

15. On 4.7.199 9 a meeting was held in the office of accused Lalit Shar m a in Durga Puri Chowk, Sha hd a r a where it was decided to solem nise a social marriage between his son and Yogita. Another meeting was fixed on 14.7.199 9 in the office at Durga Puri Chowk where his relatives took part. Accused Lalit Shar m a told persons , who went from Amit's side, that there was some problem in the family of the accused and therefore, his relative could not come, so they should leave Amit with him and and reach village Morta. He ass ure d to bring Amit to village Mortage alongwith his relatives. Accordingly Amit was left with accused Lalit. Satbir left for his office and father in law of PW4 and his Behnoi went to village Morta. At about 11:00 PM in the night, accuse d Lalit went by his car from village Morta to the hotel at village Duhai, District Ghaziabad where Amit was stated to be taken for taking food. The relatives watied till 1:00 AM in the night but he did not turn up. Next morning, Lalit told that he had left Amit near Durga Puri Chowk in the night. Thereafter Amit had not come back to his hou se nor met his relatives. On 21.7.1999 another meeting took Page 10 of 79 place in village Mandola at 11:00 AM where Lalit gave evasive answers, so they tried to search for Amit but could not do so till 27.7.1999 and ultimately report Ex.PW4 /A was lodged attachi ng all the relevant docume n t s with it.

16. Accused Lalit surren dere d on 7.10.199 9 and he was interrogated by the police wherein he made disclos ure state me n t. Accused Lalit got recovered a car from a garage in Ghaziaba d. On 14.10.199 9 accused Rishi Raj was interrogated by the police and he made disclosure stateme n t Ex.PW4 / C and he got a knife recovered from Ganga Canal and a shoe of Amit was also recovered from the bus he s near Ganga Canal. PW4 identified the knife as Ex.P3 and shoe as Ex.P2 as the same, which were recovered at the insta nce of accused Rishi Raj. He was also able to identify the car recovered at the insta nce of accused Lalit which is Ex.P1. On 25 / 2 6 . 7. 1 9 9 9 , Yogita telephoned Satbir Shar m a and told him that accused Lalit Shar m a , Rishi Raj Shar m a and their Jija Rajinder Shar m a had killed Amit.

17. In cross examina tion, PW4 Dhara m bir Singh stated that Amit shifted to Madras on or about 25.5.199 9. He came to know about this fact on 19.6.199 9 but he did not try to contact Yogita and Amit in Madras. He met Amit lastly in Febru ary 1999 before his marriage. He had discus se d with accuse d Lalit Sharm a in respect of regarding organising a social marriage of Amit and Yogita on 4.7.199 9 but he was not present in the meeting which took place Page 11 of 79 on 14.7.199 9. In further cross examina tion, he stated that he was not present at the time of marriage of Amit and Yogita and the love letters produced by him were given to him by his younger brother but he could not produce the originals of the same as the same were handed over to accused Lalit Sharm a by his younger brother. In cross examina tion by Ld. Counsel for accused Rishi Raj and Sarda n a , he stated that the real mother of Amit expired in Febru ary 1978. At that time, Amit was about one year old and he has one son and two daughter s from the second wife.

18. He admits that he did not tell the police that Yogita telephoned his brother Satbir Sharm a on 25 / 2 6 . 7. 1 9 9 9 to tell him that her brother Lalit Shar m a , Rishi Raj Shar m a and her Jeeja Rajender Shar m a had killed Amit. He did not know if Hindu Marriage Act prohibits such marriages due to spinda relations hip. He had never seen Amit and Yogita loving each other or in compromising condition. He had no person al knowledge about Lalit Shar m a contacting his son on telephone but his son had told him that accused Lalit Shar m a was pers u a di ng him to come to Delhi. The family members of Yogita did not lodge any complaint about her being taking away by Amit. He had lastly seen Amit in the night of 4 / 5. 7. 1 9 9 9 when he went with him to village Gothra after the meeting. He did not know for how many days, Amit stayed with his grandp ar e n t s in village Gothra after 4.7.1999. He went to the said village on 20.7.1999 but he knew that Amit was not in the house since 14.7.1999. He did not lodged any report about missing of Amit till Page 12 of 79 20.7.1999 and he did not lodge any police report before 27.7.1999. He went to the Police Station on 27.7.1999 and gave copy of report Ex.PW4 /A. Then he went to the office of DCP and gave another copy but after making enquiries, ACP and DCP sent the letter to UP Police by saying that the offence was not committed in the area of Delhi. On 7.10.199 9, he had gone to the office of District Crime Cell in the evening and remained there for 4 5 hours but he did not remem ber the date of his next visit to the office of Crime Cell after 7.10.199 9. He also did not remember the date of going to Gang Nehar but he had gone there in the noon time and remained there for 3 4 hours. He denied the suggestion that the shoe shown to him by the police was his own or he had hande d over the same to the police. The place of recovery in Gang Nehar was at a dista nce of 1 / 1 ½ kilometers from the road. The Nehar was having width of 150 200 meters and its depth was about 10 15 feet. He denied the suggestion that if any article is thrown in the Nehar, it will flow away with the flow of the water. The place of recovery of knife was at a dista nce of 2 meters from the bank of the river. The Diver took out 1 2 old clothes besides knife. The sketch of the knife and seizure memo were prepared at the spot but his signat u re s were not obtained on any paper. The disclosure state me n t of accuse d Rishi Raj was recorded in the evening. 3 4 persons from his own village were present at the time of recovery of knife. The place of recovery of shoe was at a dista nce of about one kilometer from the road. The shoe was first taken out by a police person. Page 13 of 79

19. This witness was recalled for further examin ation on 7.2.2005 on the request of Ld. Addl. PP for State when he had proved Sahar a Airlines Tickets for travel of Amit and Yogita from Chen n ai to Delhi on 16.6.199 9. He had also produced two photograp h s depicting his son Amit and Yogita. He had retrieved two tickets and the photograp h s in the personal effects of his son about three years ago and he had produced the same as per advice of his counsel. The tickets were exhibited as Ex.PX / 1 and 2 and the photograp h s were exhibited as Ex.PY/ 1 and 2. In cross examina tion, he admits that these photograp h s were not taken in his presence and he was not having any negatives of the same. He could not tell the date and time when he had retrieved the photograp h s from the person al belongings of his son but the said photograp h s were retrieved after lodging of the FIR. He did not remem ber whether he had shown these photograp h s to the police officials investigating the matter and same was his reply regarding the Sahar a Airlines Tickets. He did not take any steps in the meanti me to get these photograp h s / t i c ke t s put on record of the judicial file but he denied the suggestion that these photograp h s or Sahar a Airlines Tickets were manip ulated.

20. PW5 is Satbir Shar m a, Chacha of Amit. He also states about the love affair between Amit and Yogita and their marriage on 19.5.1999 and thereafter the fact that Amit and Yogita had gone to Madras and remained in the house of father of one of the friend of Amit. He alongwith accused Lalit Shar m a and his relative Satis h Page 14 of 79 had gone to Madra s but they were not able to contact Amit. Later on, Satish had a telephonic conversation with Amit and Yogita and he called them to Delhi and had sent two air tickets. He alongwith Lalit Shar m a and Satish had received Amit and Yogita at the Airport on 26.6.199 9. Accused Lalit Shar m a and Yogita went to village Morta and he alongwith Amit stayed at a hotel in Ghaziaba d. He also narra tes the fact regarding meeting on 4.7.199 9 in the office of accused Lalit Shar m a in Durga Puri Chowk where it was decided to arra nge a social marriage of Amit and Yogita after six month s . He also talks about another meeting on 14.7.1999 and since some of the relatives from Yogita's side could not come in the meeting, so Lalit Shar m a asked them to leave Amit with him and remaining persons were asked to reach village Morta. He left for his office and rest of the person s went to village Morta. On 15.7.1999 Devender went to his house in village Gothra to ask about the whereabo u t s of Amit and on 16.7.199 9, he went to the hou se of accused Lalit Shar m a in village Morta and asked him about Amit. Lalit was perplexed and replied that he had left Amit at Durga Puri Chowk on the night of 14.7.199 9 and accuse d Shrad h a n a n d told that Amit would be coming in 2 4 month s . He doubted the version of Lalit and Shrad h a n a n d .

21. Another meeting took place on 21.7.199 9 in village Mandola to ask about the whereabo u t s of Amit in which accuse d persons replied that Amit would be coming back after some time. They contin ue d to search for Amit. On 25.7.1999, Yogita telephoned in his office and Page 15 of 79 told him that Amit had met with some fate and thereafter Yogita started weeping and the telephone was disconnected. On 26.7.1999, he went to village Morta and met Lalit but he did not give any satisfactory reply and he was not allowed to meet Yogita.

22. On 15.10.19 9 9 PW5 and his cousin Vir Chand went to the office of District Crime Cell where accused Rishi Raj was being interrogated by the police, who made disclos ure stateme n t Ex.PW4 / C. Police took Diver Abdul Sattar and two more persons and went to Gang Nehar alongwith accuse d Rishi Raj and accused Rishi Raj pointed out to the place of throwing of dead body and knife vide memo Ex.PW5 /A and the knife was recovered with the help of magnet. Its sketch was prepared which is Ex.PW5 / b . The knife was sealed and seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW5 / C. He identified knife Ex.P3 as the same which was recovered at the insta nce of accused Rishi Raj. Accused Rishi Raj also got the shoe of Amit recovered from the bus he s of Gang Nehar and the same was sealed and seized vide memo Ex.PW5 / D and he identified the shoe as Ex.P2.

23. In cross examin ation, PW5 Satbir Shar m a states that he did not know about the love affairs between Amit and Yogita but he came to know about their marriage on or about 19.6.199 9 when he went to Madras. Lalit and Satish had accomp a nied him to Madras but they were not able to meet Amit and Yogita there. He had participated in all the three meetings which took place on 4.7.1999, 14.7.1999 and 21.7.199 9. Amit was with them in the meeting on Page 16 of 79 4.7.199 9 which took place in Durga Puri Chowk. The meeting had taken place in a cordial atmos p he re and it was decided to perform a social marriage between Amit and Yogita. He did not have any talk with accuse d Lalit on the night of 14.7.199 9 as he had gone to his own house. He asked about the whereabo u t s of Amit from Lalit on 16.7.1999 when he told him that he had left Amit at Durga Puri Chowk. In the meeting dated 21.7.1999, Lalit again repeated the same thing and ass ure d that Amit would come back. He had received the telephonic call from Yogita at about 10:00 / 1 1 : 0 0 AM on 25.7.199 9 or on 26.7.1999, who told that Rajender, Rishi Raj and Lalit had killed Amit. No report was lodged till 25.7.1999, however, they kept on searchi ng for him. On 15.10.199 9 when he had gone to the Police Station, accused Rishi Raj made disclosure stateme n t that all the three accused had killed Amit. When the police team alongwith PW5 had visited Gang Nehar, 2 / 4 neighbo ur s from the village, namely Bheem, Papp u and Devender were also present and the knife was recovered in the prese nce of Bheem Singh, Rajpal and Veer Chand. He mus t have gone little away, so he did not figure in photograp h s Ex.PW3 / 1 to 27.

24. In further cross examin ation by Shri V.K. Upadhyaye, Couns el for other accused, PW5 states that he had not attended the marriage between Amit and Yogita but he admits that as per Hindu rites, marriage could not take place between them. He did not remember whether he had told the police that the marriage between the two had taken place on 19.5.199 9. He had told his brother and father Page 17 of 79 of Yogita about their marriage after 18 20 days when Yogita left the hou se. He did not have any docume n t a ry proof to show that he had gone to Madra s but he denied the suggestion that he had not gone there. He also denied the suggestion that no marriage had taken place between Amit and Yogita or they were not in love or Satis h did not telephone Amit and Yogita to call them from Madras. The telephonic talk did not take place in his presence. Similarly tickets were also not sent in his presence. He also denied the suggestion that he had not gone to the Airport on 26.6.1999. He did not have any docume n t a ry proof of his stay in Pelican Hotel on the night of 26.6.199 9. He denied the suggestion that he, in conniva nce with Ramph al and Sheela had made Amit to disappea r after 26.6.1999 or that Sheela concocted the present case in order to solve the land dispute. He also denied that there was a dispute betweeen Jai Bhagwa n and Shrad h a n a n d over their ancestr al agricult ur al land. He reiterated that the meetings had taken place on 4.7.1999 and 14.7.199 9. He did not remember if he told the police that Shrad h a n a n d told him that Amit would be coming after 2 3 mont h s but this fact was not mentioned in his stateme n t to the police Ex.PW5 / DA. Similarly the fact that Yogita had telephoned him on 25.7.199 9 is also not mentioned in his state me n t recorded by the police. He also denied the suggestion that police had prepared the disclosure stateme n t of accus ed Rishi Raj on 14.10.199 9 and obtained his signat u re s on 15.10.199 9. In his presence, on the pointing out accuse d Rishi Raj, the knife was recovered and seized. The pointing out memo of the place where Page 18 of 79 the shoe was thrown was also prepared and shoe was recovered thereafter. The Diver had searched for the knife with the help of magnet. He denied the suggestion that police had given the knife to the Diver and showed the knife as recovered from the Nehar. He admits that no indepen de n t witness was joined at the time of recovery of shoe.

25. PW6 is Sheela, wife of Jai Bhagwa n. She states that Amit was her nephew. Since he was serving in Noida, he was residing in her hou se. On 19.5. (year not remembered), Yogita went away from her hou se and accuse d person s had doubt that Amit had taken away Yogita and they press u rised her to tell about the whereabo u t s of Amit. She alongwith her hus b a n d went to village Jivan a where Kuldeep, mater n al uncle of Amit was residing but he did not tell the addres s of Amit to her, however, after 10 15 days, Kuldeep told the addres s of Amit to Lalit. Lalit brought Yogita from Madras to his hou se. Accused person s also called Amit. Devender and Ramph al brought Amit to the house of accused. On 14 th July, after leaving Amit in Shah d a r a with accus ed Lalit, Ramph al and Devender came to her and told that Lalit would come in the evening but Lalit came alone and on enquiry, he told that Amit was taking food at a hotel at Duhai and he would be bringing Amit shortly but he did not come back througho u t the night. Next morning, Lalit told that he had left Amit at Sha h d a r a but he was perplexed at that time. After about one mont h, accus ed persons told PW6 that they had killed Amit and threate ne d to kill her also.

Page 19 of 79

26. In cross examin ation by Ld. Counsel for accus ed No. 2 and 4, PW6 states that she had given her stateme n t to the police only once which is Ex.PW6 / DA. As per her version, she did not tell the police that her brother had told her that Amit was missing since 14.7.1999. She did not know how and from where her nephew Amit was missing since 14.7.199 9 but it was so recorded in her stateme n t Ex.PW6 / DA. She also did not tell the police that Ramph al and Devender had taken Amit to a hotel near Bus Terminal at Hindon River for talking to him. She also did not tell the police that Lalit, Fufa of Lalit and Rajender came to the hotel or that Nana and Fufa of Amit had left Amit and Lalit at the hotel or Lalit and Amit had gone to the brick kill of Lalit but it was so recorded in her state me n t from portion C to C. She denied the suggestion that she was deposing falsely at the insta nce of her brother Dhara mvir. As per her version, Amit stayed with her for about 3 3½ years prior to the incident as he had joined service in Noida. Amit left her house about 2 2½ month s before the incident and thereafter she had not seen him. Her stateme n t was recorded one and half mont h after the incident. She had joined the meeting at Mandola but she did not remember the date. She was not present in the meeting dated 14.7.199 9. She could not tell the date or mont h when Lalit confessed before her that he had killed Amit. She did not remem ber whether she and her hus b a n d had gone to the Police Station to report about the said confession. She was alone when accused Lalit Sharm a confessed before her about his Page 20 of 79 killing Amit. She told this fact to her brother after about 1 1½ month s . She denied the suggestion that accused did not make any confession before her or she was deposing falsely on this point. She also denied the suggestion that her father in law had executed a Will of the entire agricult ur al land in favour of accuse d Shrad h a n a n d or that a dispute took place between her hus b a n d and Shrad h a n a n d on that accou n t or that she was falsely implicating the accus ed persons due to that reason.

27. In cross examina tion by Shri K.L. Jha nj a ni, Couns el for accused No. 1, she states that she told the police that accused were perplexed when she asked about the whereabo u t s of Amit. She did not remember when Lalit had gone to Madras to bring back Amit and Yogita but he brought Yogita back after one and half mont h s . She did not tell the police that Lalit told her that he had left Amit at a hotel with his friend. They did not try to search for Amit or inform any relative during the night of 14.7.199 9 and Lalit came back at about 9:00 PMor quarter to 9:00 PM.

28. PW7 is Jai Bhagwa n, who was Fufa of Amit. He also reiterates that Amit was living in his house and on 19.5.199 9 Yogita went away from her house and doubt was raised on Amit. He was press u rised by the accused person s to disclose the addres s of Amit otherwise, they would kill him. He tried to find out the addres s of Amit but in vain. On 14.7.199 9 when he retur ne d from his duty at arou n d 6:00 / 6 : 3 0 PM, at that time, he found that Ramph al, Page 21 of 79 mater n al grandfat her of Amit and Dhra mvir, Fufa of Amit were present in his house and they told him that they had left Amit with Lalit and Lalit would bring Amit to his house in the evening. In the night at about 9:30 PM, accuse d Lalit came to the house of PW7 and told that he had left Amit at a Duhai hotel and he would bring him in the night but thereafter neither Lalit nor Amit came back. In the morning, he called Lalit and at that time, Lalit told that he had left Amit at Sha h d a r a and he had gone to his friend's house. Thereafter Amit never came back to the house of PW7 nor he went to the house of any of his relatives.

29. On 21.7.199 9 a meeting was organised in which accused Lalit disclosed that he did not know the whereabo u t s of Amit. He did not remember any other thing about the case. Ld. Addl. PP cross examined him after he was declared hostile. In cross examina tion, he states that on 19.5.199 9 he came to know about missing / r u n n i n g away of Yogita and later on he came to know that Amit had developed love affair with Yogita, who was daughter of accused Shrad h a n a n d . Lalit brought back Yogita and Amit from Madras. He did not know if any meeting had taken place between the parent s of Lalit and Amit and similar was his reply about the meeting between relatives of both sides. He did not know if any talk regarding social marriage took place in any of the meeting. Later on, he came to know that Amit and Yogita had performed court marriage. He admitted that at the time when Lalit told about leaving Amit to Shah d a r a , he was looking perplexed. He was Page 22 of 79 present in the meeting at Mandola and Lalit repeated in the said meeting that Amit would come back and later on, he came to know that accus ed person s had taken Amit in a car on the same night and had murdered him and thrown his dead body in Gang Nehar. He could not tell these facts as he had forgotten the same.

30. In cross examina tion on behalf of accused person s, he states that accused person s told him that they had taken away Amit in a Car and murdered him and thrown his dead body in Gang Nehar. He did not remem ber if he had told this fact to police or not. Apart from accused person s, none else had told him that Amit had been killed by the accused persons. He did not see Amit and Yogita in compromising position or at any other stage of affairs suggesting that there was a love affair between them. He admits that no marriage could take place between them according to Hindu rites. He could not tell if there was no love affair between Amit and Yogita. To his knowledge, his brother did not lodge any report regarding missing of Yogita. He denied the suggestion that Yogita did not go away from her home on 19.5.199 9. He did not know whether any meeting had taken place on or before 14.7.1999. Devender and Ramph al had told him and his wife that Amit was with Lalit. He denied the suggestion that Devender and Ramp h al had not come to his house on 14.7.1999 or that they did not tell anything. He also denied the suggestion that Lalit did not tell him that he had left Amit at Shah d a r a . He did not lodge any report against Lalit after his confession of committing murder of Amit and Page 23 of 79 for the first time, he told the said fact to the police on 15.12.19 9 9 and he did not tell the same to anyone else before 15.12.199 9. He was not invited in the meeting of 14.7.1999. He admits that his father had given his land to accused Shrad h a n a n d but he volunteered to add that he had done so after the incident. He denied the suggestion that there were differences between him and accused Shrad h a n a n d due to his father giving land to accuse d Shrad h a n a n d and he had falsely implicated the accused. He also denied that Amit was still alive or that he had been concealed by him.

31. Yogita Shar m a was examined as PW12. She stated that accused Lalit Kumar and Rishi Raj are her brothers and accused Shrad h a n a n d is her father and they have been falsely implicated by her Chacha and Chachi in collusion with Dhara mvir Shar m a in this case due to dispute over land. She did not know anything else about the case. Police did not record her state me n t. The marriage certificate Ex.P1 did not contain her signat u re s at point A. She admits that photocopies of the snap Ex.P2 are her. She could not tell whose photograp h was there by her side, again said, the said photos are not of her snap. Letters, copies of which were exhibited as Ex.P3 to P10 were not in her handwriting, although copy of mark sheet Ex.P12 was her own. She did not deposit the said copy of mark sheet at any place.

Page 24 of 79

32. This witness was declared hostile and in cross examina tion by Ld. Addl. PP, she denied the suggestion that on 19.5.1999 she married with Amit Bhardwaj in Arya Samaj Mandir, Bhogal as both of them were in love with each other for the last two years. She volunteered to add that she did not know Amit, although she knew that Amit was nephew of her Chacha . She denied the suggestion that Amit used to reside with his Bhua or he used to visit the house of his Bhua . She denied the suggestion that after marriage, they went to Hyderab a d and stayed in Rajdha ni Hotel for one week or thereafter they shifted to Madras where accused Lalit, brother Satish, Amit and her Chacha came to Madras to bring her back. She also denied the suggestion that the relatives ass u red that she and Amit would be married or that on that ass ur a n ce, after receipt of two air tickets from Satish, they came back to Delhi on 26.6.199 9 or that from Airport, her brother Lalit brought her to his house or that Amit went alongwith his Chacha . She also denied the suggestion that any meeting took place between her family members and the family member s of Amit. She also denied the suggestion that her brothers were annoyed due to her marriage with Amit as the said incident had caused lot of defamation in the society. She also denied the suggestion that a meeting had taken place on 14.7.1999. She was confronted with her stateme n t Mark PW12 /A where all the above facts were mentioned and she also denied the suggestion that she was deposing falsely to save the accused persons, who were her real brothers.

Page 25 of 79

33. PW13 is Satish Bhardwaj, who states that deceased Amit was relative of his Mausi Kamla Devi, who was resident of village Morta. Yogita was daughter of the said Mausi . Accused Lalit, present in court told PW13 Satish Bhardw aj on telephone that Yogita was missing. He searc hed for her. The mater n al uncle of Amit namely Kuldeep told him that Amit might be in Bangalore or Madras or Bombay as Amit was also missing from his house. PW13 alongwith his mater n al uncle Hari and Amit's uncle Satbir went to search for Amit in Bombay and Madras but they could not find him. Vinod, friend of Amit met them in Madras and told that Amit had not gone there. They retur ne d to Delhi. Kuldeep, mater n al uncle of Amit again telephonically told them that Amit was in Madras, so they again went there but Amit did not meet them. The father of Vinod met them and told that Amit used to visit Madras. PW13 Satis h Bhardwaj left his telephone num be r with the father of Vinod and asked him to pers u a de Amit to telephone them.

34. Next day, Amit telephoned and Satish asked if Yogita was with him. Amit replied that he would tell everything after retur n to Delhi but he did not retur n for the next 4 5 days. Satish telephoned him and Amit told that he had no money to retur n. Satish ass ure d him to arra nge for money and he telephoned Friends Globe Travels and asked them to give a Ticket to Amit, if he contacted them. After some days, Amit telephoned him that he had reached Delhi and asked him to come to Airport. PW13 Satish Bhardwaj, Satbir and accused Lalit went to Airport and after leaving them at the Airport, Page 26 of 79 Satis h Sharm a left. Later on, he came to know that Amit and Satbir had reached Ghaziaba d. Two days thereafter, he came to know that Yogita had also retur ned to Delhi. He had made the paymen t of two tickets to Friends Globe Travels by cheque and he had heard that there was love affair between Amit and Yogita. He had attended one meeting at Durga Puri Chowk in which Amit, Lalit, Satbir, Dhara mvir, Fufa of Amit and Nana of Amit participated. It was decided in the said meeting that Yogita would be married with Amit when Amit would start earning and become self depende n t . This was so decided beca u se the father of Amit refused to give him any share in property. He came to know that Nana , Fufa of Amit and father of Yogita were against the said proposal of marriage. After the said meeting, Amit resided with PW13 Satish Bhardwaj for 4 days. Police met him in connection with this case and he had told the entire facts.

35. This witness was cross examined by Ld. Addl. PP in which he denied the suggestion that after missing of Yogita, Lalit met him and told that he had suspicion on Amit or he had accompa nied Lalit to search for Yogita or later on, they came to know that Yogita was with Amit in Madras. He also denied the suggestion that father of Vinod told them that Amit and Yogita had gone to Tirupati and unless they agree to marry them, they would not be able to find them, so they gave ass u r a n c e to marry them. He also denied the suggestion that after his retur n, Yogita and Amit talked to him on telephone and he promised to arra nge their marriage. He also Page 27 of 79 denied the suggestion that Yogita was with Amit at the Airport or that Amit, Yogita and Satbir went with Lalit. He also denied the suggestion that before going to Madra s, he had taken consent of mother of Yogita and accused Lalit to marry Yogita with Amit. He admitted that on 28.6.1999 when Amit stayed with him in Noida, he asked to arrange the marriage hurriedly and he asked him to have patience as it was the matter of village. He denied the suggestion that the father of Yogita told him that if the marriage took place, he would cons u m e poison. He also states that a meeting took place on 4.7.1999 but denied that the father of Amit told in the said meeting that Amit would get his share in property at the time of partition. He also denied the suggestion that it was agreed that the marriage would take place after six month s or that Lalit asked him about whereabo u t s of Amit several times or he had falsely told that Amit had gone to Hyderaba d. He also denied the suggestion that he had firm sus picion that Lalit had killed Amit or due to his relations with accused person s, he had kept mu m or Lalit had taken his family member s in confidence and he did not like the matter to be reported to the police.

36. In cross examina tion on behalf of accused person s, he admits that Amit told him that he would be starting a busines s in Hyderab a d on 12.7.199 9 and thereafter he went to his mater n al uncle's place in Jiwan a. Thereafter he never came back. He denied that any meeting took place on 14.7.199 9 as Lalit was with him from 8:00 AM to 3:00 PM in the hospital. He admits that Kuldeep later on Page 28 of 79 told him that a meeting took place at a Hotel in Ghaziaba d in which his Fufa Devender and his father participated and father of Kuldeep had beaten Amit after the meeting and due to that, Amit went to Hyderab a d. He did not take part in the meeting dated 4.7.199 9. He further states that he did not take part in any meeting regarding marriage between Amit and Yogita. He could not say if the telephone regarding missing of Yogita from house was not made by Lalit as he could not recognise the voice of the caller on telephone. He also denied the suggestion that he had given a false stateme n t in the court at the insta n ce of the complaina n t .

37. PW14 is Pradeep Dixit, who was Mama of Amit. As per him, Amit was also serving in the same firm in Noida but after two years, he left the service. He used to visit village Morta where his Bhua was living. On 20 / 2 1 . 5 .1 9 9 9, Amit and Yogita went to his place in Hyderab a d and they were living like hus b a n d and wife. They stayed in Hotel Rajdha ni for 10 / 1 2 days and from there, they went to Chenn ai. When his brother Kuldeep Dixit telephonically asked him about whereabo u t s of Amit, Pradeep Dixit told him that Amit and Yogita had gone to Chenn ai and he had given the addres s of Amit on telephone to Kuldeep. After reaching Delhi, Amit telephone d him that he had reached Delhi. In November 1999, he came to know from his brother that all the three accused persons had murdered Amit.

Page 29 of 79

38. In cross examin ation, on behalf of accuse d persons, PW14 Pradeep Dixit states that the marriage of Amit and Yogita did not take place in his presence but he had seen their photograp h s in Rajdha ni Hotel. He did not remember the num ber of room where they were staying. He had seen the record of the hotel which contained their name s but he did not obtain copy of the same and he did not inform the police officials regarding the entry in the register. He denied the suggestion that Amit and Yogita never stayed in the said hotel in Chenn ai or he had gone to see them off. He never went to Chenn ai addres s of Amit and Yogita. He did not approac h police when he had come to know that all the three accused persons had murdered Amit.

39. PW15 is Kuldeep, who was another Mama of Amit. He was also working with the same firm where Amit was employed for about two years but later on, Amit left the said service. As per his version, Amit used to go to the house of his Bhua in village Morta. After some times, accused Lalit, Harish and Satish came to his village Jivana and told him that Amit and Yogita had gone away from the hou se and they asked him to trace Amit and Yogita and threate ne d him that if Amit and Yogita were not traced, sister of Amit would be kidnap pe d from Chandigar h. He telephoned his brother Pradeep in Hyderab a d, who told that althoug h Amit and Yogita had come there but they had already left. He gave the addres s of Amit and Yogita to Lalit and later on, he came to know that Lalit Shar m a and Satish had gone to Madras. After some time, Amit retur ne d to Delhi and Page 30 of 79 came to PW15 Kuldeep. Accused Lalit called a meeting regarding marriage of Amit and Yogita. The meeting took place on 4.7.199 9 in the office of Lalit in Durga Puri Chowk. Kuldeep had also attended the said meeting and it was decided that after six mont h s when Amit would start earning and become self depende n t, the marriage would be performed. Accused Lalit and Amit both contacted him and told that they wanted to perform the marriage in near future, so a second meeting was arranged on 14.7.1999 but Kuldeep did not attend the said meeting as he was out of station. After retur n, he asked about Amit from his father, who had attended the meeting on 14.7.1999 and he told that Amit was stopped by Lalit. They searched for Amit. After some days, Yogita telephonically told him that she suspected that her family members had killed Amit.

40. In cross examina tion, he states that he did not remember the date when Lalit, Harish and Satish came to him to his village Jivana and told him about the missing of Amit and Yogita. He did not lodge any police report regarding the threat extended by the accuse d person s. He did not remember the exact addres s of Amit and Yogita as informed by Pradeep. None was against the marriage in the meeting dated 4.7.199 9. After retur ni ng from his busines s work on 17 / 1 8 . 7. 1 9 9 9 , he contacted accused Lalit telephonically who told him that Amit would retur n after 3 / 4 days as he had gone to his friend's house and when Amit did not retur n after 2 / 3 days, he again telephoned accu s ed Lalit and he gave the same reply. He Page 31 of 79 did not remem ber the date when Yogita told him about her suspicion but this fact was conveyed by him to the father of Amit. He denied all the contrary suggestions put to him. B. Other public witne s s e s , who have depos ed som e facts related to the offen ce .

41. PW8 Abdul Sattar was the Diver, who was taken by the police officials to Gang Nehar. Accused Rishi Raj pointed out a place somewhere 1.5 kilometers away on Western side from the bridge of Gang Nehar as the place where the dead body of Amit and knife were thrown. He took a dip but the dead body was not found due to press u re of water, however, he found the knife and gave the same to the police. Police prepared pulland a of the knife and sealed the same and seized vide memo Ex.PW5 / C. Sketch of the knife Ex.PW5 / B was prepared. He identified the knife Ex.P2 as the same which was recovered from Gang Nehar.

42. In cross examin ation, he denied the suggestion that police had supplied the knife to him. He did not remember the name of police official, who had called him from Wazirabad. Police had taken his thu m b impres sion s on 6 7 papers which were already written. He took out the knife from a dista nce of 1½ 2 meters from the edge of Gang Nehar. He took nu m ber of dips before he could find the knife. He did not find any other article from Gang Nehar but he volunteered to add that shoe was recovered from the hedge near tree of date. The depth of the river was about 10 feet and he took Page 32 of 79 out the knife with the help of magnet. He denied the suggestion that knife was not in his hand at the time when he was coming out of the water and he stated that photo Ex.PW8 / DA shows the knife in his right hand but he volunteered to add that the magnet was in his left hand and was not visible in the photo. The magnet was given to him by the police. The knife was in open condition at the time when he found the same in the Gang Nehar. Police prepared papers after taking out of knife by him. He could not tell as to how many persons signed those papers. No public person was collected at Gang Nehar during the entire stay. He had not seen accused Rishi Raj either prior thereto or after the said date. Nothing was paid to him by the police. He did not know if any writing work was done regarding the recovery of shoe. The dista nce between the place of recovery of knife and place of recovery of shoe was about 2 meters.

43. PW9 is Umes h, who states that he was working in DN Autoland in Ghaziabad. He states that he did not know anything about this case and about the accu sed person s, present in the court. Police came to his place of work but did not make any enquiry from him. In cross examina tion by Ld. Addl. PP after declaring him hostile, he denied the suggestion that on 20.7.1999 accus ed Lalit Shar m a came to him with Car No. DL3CH 3552 or that the front seat of the said car, by the side of driver's seat, was broken near adjusti ng instru m e n t or he had welded the same or that he had told the police officials that the front seat brakes only due to force and not Page 33 of 79 otherwise. He was confronted with the state me n t Mark PW9 /A.

44. PW10 Arvind Singhal states that more tha n one year ago, brother of accused Lalit brought one Maruti Car for service. During the period, the car was parked at his service station for service, police came there and seized the said car vide memo Ex.PW10 /A. In cross examin ation by Ld. Addl. PP, he did not remem ber if the Car nu m ber was DL3CH 3552 or it was of white colour. He did not remem ber if he told the police that the car was standi ng at his service station since 4.10.199 9. In cross examin ation by Ld. Counsel for the accused, he states that the car must have come to his service station 1 2 days before police came to recover the same and it was serviced prior thereto. He did not have any personal knowledge about the Cars which come to his service station and he could not identify the person s, who brought the car to his service station. Lalit had got the service of his car done once or twice before also. He did not remem ber if police had recorded his stateme n t.

45. PW11 is Veer Chand, who states that on 7.10.199 9 at about 5:00 / 6 : 0 0 PM, accused Lalit Shar m a gave a stateme n t in the office of District Crime Cell, Bhajan Pura that on 14.7.199 9, a meeting took place in which he, Amit, Ramp h al, Devender and Alam Shar m a were present. Accused made disclos ure state me n t Ex.PW4 /A. On 8.10.199 9, they started from Police Station at about 10:00 AM and on the way, accuse d Lalit pointed out Pandit Hotel, Page 34 of 79 Duhai on Meerut Road as the place where he left Amit at about 8:00 PM on 14.7.199 9 vide pointing out memo Ex.PW11 /A. Thereafter they proceeded to Gang Nehar where accused Lalit pointed out the place where accused Rajender and Rishi threw the dead body of Amit after taking out the same from the Car vide memo Ex.PW11 / B which bears his signat u r e s at point A. On retur n, accused pointed out D.N. Autoland near Siha ni Chungi, Meerut Road, Ghaziabad as the place of getting the car repaired vide memo Ex.PW11 / C . The car was seized from there. The car was of white colour. On 15.10.199 9, accused Rishi Raj pointed out the place of throwing the knife in the Gang Nehar. While retur ning, he pointed out the place of throwing the shoe. The dead body could not be recovered, however the knife was recovered by the Diver Abdul Sattar with the help of Magnet. The said knife was taken into posses sion vide memo Ex.PW5 / C. Sketch of the knife was also prepared. He identified the knife as Ex.P3. He also identified the shoe Ex.P2.

46. In cross examina tion, he states that no recovery was effected from the hotel and no recovery was effected from the Nehar at the time of pointing out by accuse d Lalit. Accused Lalit had made disclos ure stateme n t about shoe and knife at the time of his arrest but no Diver had accomp a nied them at that time. On 8.10.199 9 they had stayed at Duhai Hotel for 15 minute s, however, no state me n t was recorded there. Thereafter they reached Gang Nehar and stayed there for about 1 1½ hours. Efforts were made to trace the shoe at Page 35 of 79 that time but the same could not be found. No writing work was done except the pointing out memos. On 15.10.199 9, they started for Nehar at 9:00 / 9 : 3 0 AM. In the office of District Crime Cell, there were 8 9 persons. Abdul Sattar Diver was taken on the way. He was accompa nied by two more persons. They reached at the Nehar at about 10:30 / 1 1 : 0 0 AM and stayed there for about 2½ -3 hours. No writing work was done before making searc h of knife. He admits that the flow of water was quite fast and chances of tracing somet hing were bleak. The shoe was found 100 yards from the Nehar and the bridge was at a dista nce of 25 30 yards from the place of recovery of knife. He did not see any public person coming and going from there during the said period. He denied the suggestion that they had thrown the knife and shoe there on the first day or that the same were planted upon the accus ed. Amit used to wear the shoe of 8 9 num be r. He also denied the suggestion that the shoe was not recovered in his presence.

47. In cross examin ation by Shri K.L. Janja ni, Advocate, he states that he was present at the time when Rishi Pal pointed out the Gang Nehar. Three papers were prepared there. These were pointing out memo, sketch of the knife and seizure memo of the knife and he had signed all of them. The Diver remained in the water for 30 45 min utes. The magnet was of 2.5 kg. and the same was thrown in the water after tying with the rope. He did not remember if the knife and magnet were in the same hand of Diver. Nothing was pasted on the knife. Mud was not found on the knife. His Page 36 of 79 stateme n t was recorded on 7.10.199 9 and he had named Lalit only.

48. PW2 0 is Harinder Kumar Kalra, the photograp her. He had taken photograp h s of marriage which were exhibited as Ex.P2. He sent the same in an envelope, copy of which was exhibited as Ex.P3. It contained the addres s of Amit Bhardwaj in his handwriting. The photograp h s were pertaining to the marriage of the person, to whom he sent the same and he took the photograp h s on 19.5.199 9 and the envelope was of his shop.

49. In cross examin ation, he states that he generally maintained the negatives of the photograp h s taken at his shop but he had not brought the negatives of Ex.P2 as he had sent the same to the party alongwith photograp h s . He mus t have issued a receipt for the said photograp h s . He had not brought the same to the court but he volunteered to add that he could produce the same. He had not shown the same receipt to the police nor handed over the copy of the same. He admits that photograp h s can be prepared by joining two negatives. He denied the suggestion that the proces s of developing a photo by mecha nic al process by replacing the same can be detected only from negative. He also denied the suggestion that he did not take photo, copy of which is Ex.P2.

50. PW26 is Naren Nautiyal, who was working with Friends Globe Travel Ltd. in the year 1999. He states that the booking was given to him by Satish Bhardw aj, who was a property dealer and he knew Page 37 of 79 him becau s e the premises from where the said travel agency was run ning, the same was arra nged through Satish Bhardw aj. The tickets were of dated 16.6.199 9. He confirmed that tickets Ex.PX / 1 and 2 were issued by his office.

51. In cross examina tion, he states that the tickets were for flight on 26.6.1999 and at the time of issua n ce of Air Tickets, there were four coupons in the jackets of the tickets issued, out of which two counterp a rt s were taken out by the agency while the remaining two counterp a rt s were hande d over to the person booking the Air Ticket. At the time of boarding, one of the said counterp a r t would be retained by the Airlines and the remaining would be the passe nger coupon. In court, there was only one passe nger's coupon. Police had come to collect the copy of agent's ticket. He did not remem ber the date when the police had come. Office copy of the tickets was handed over to police officials but he did not remem ber the names of the said officials. His state me n t was also recorded. No memo was prepared about handi ng of the tickets to the police. He could not tell whether the payment was made by cheque or cash or any other mode. On the next date of hearing, this witness Naren Nautiyal had brought the agent's copy of the tickets which were given Ex.PX / 1 and 2. Shri Satis h Bhardwaj had made the paymen t for tickets in cash. He did not remem ber whether the tickets were hande d over to Satis h Bhardwaj or to some other person and they did not maintai n any record whether the passe nger had utilized the said ticket or not. The accou nt s Page 38 of 79 stan d audited and duly certified by the aut hority for the said year. Police officials had never dema n d e d the printed copy of the relevant data. They had only made enquiries. He denied the suggestion that he had introp ula ted the record and prepared the invoice only for the purpose of this case and the same is not the true printed copy of the records maintai ned.

52. PW27 is Sh. M. Prem Chan d from Chenn ai. He states that he knew Amit Bhardw aj as he was the friend of his son Vinod. Amit Bhardwaj used to come to Madras in connection with the busines s and sometimes, he used to visit his residence. Last time, he came to his residence in Ju ne 1999 alongwith a girl namely Yogita. Amit and Yogita stayed at his house for a week. Amit Bhardwaj introd uced Yogita as his wife. On one day, three gentleme n came there and they told him that they were relatives of Yogita and one of them was Lalit. This witness could not identify from amongst the accused person s present in court as to who was Lalit due to lapse of time. He had a conversation with that man who had told him that Yogita was not married to Amit Bhardwaj but at the same time, that gentlem a n who came from Delhi, also told him that if they had married, let them enjoy and he also agreed to get them married in a formal way. That gentlem a n also told him that they would send tickets for Amit Bhardwaj and Yogita for Delhi and that Shri M. Prem Chan d should counsel them to go back to Delhi. Air tickets were received and he pers u a d e d both Amit Bhardwaj and Yogita to go to Delhi and then they left for Delhi. His son Vinod Page 39 of 79 had gone to Airport to see them off.

53. In cross examina tion, he states that he had told the police officials that three gentlemen had come from Delhi but this fact was not mentioned in his state me n t Ex.PW27 / DA. Out of those three gentleme n who came from Delhi, one remained sitting in taxi and two of them came to him and he talked with one of them only. He did not remem ber whether he had told the fact that the gentlem a n told him that if Amit and Yogita had married, let them enjoy to the police or not. He also did not remember whether he had told the police officials that the said gentlema n promised to send Air tickets for Amit and Yogita but this fact was not recorded in his state me n t Ex.PW27 / DA. Amit Bhardwaj and Yogita had come to his house once or twice earlier also. He could not tell the exact date in Ju n e 1999 when Amit Bhardw aj and Yogita came there but they had gone back to Delhi on 26.6.199 9. Amit Bhardw aj and Yogita had stayed in his house only becau s e Amit was the friend of his son and he had no other relations hip with him. He admits that he told the police that Amit Bhardwaj and Yogita stayed at their house for about 15 20 days. He denied the suggestion that they never lived at his house altho ug h he had no docu me n t a ry proof regarding their stay at his house.

54. One Sh. O.P. Choud h a ry was examined as PW29 who stated that he was a member of Arya Samaj Mandir, Ju ngp u r a , Bhogal for the last about 40 years but he did not posses s any record of the said Page 40 of 79 temple as the same was to be maintaine d by either Secretary or President. He reques ted that the Secretary may be served at the addres s of the temple itself with direction to bring the record of the temple.

C Police and other officials

55. PW25 is Shri S.K. Singhla, who was the Sr. Scientific Officer at FSL, Malviya Nagar, to whom a piece of cloth Ex.1 was sent for examina tion. On biological examina tion, it was found to contain blood stains on it and his report in this regard was exhibited as PW25 /A. Although he was able to determi ne that the said piece of cloth was having blood stains of hu m a n origin but it did not give any reaction for grouping and he gave report Ex.PW25 / B in this regard. All the exhibits alongwith report were sent back vide letter Ex.PW25 / C . In cross examina tion, he stated that he did not give opinion about how old blood stain was. As per him, there may be nu m ber of reasons due to which, the age or the group of the blood could not be determined.

56. PW3 is Ct. Ram Babu, who had accomp a nied Inspector R.K. Singh to Gang Nehar, Murad Nagar and he had taken photograp h s of the police team and the Divers, who searched for the dead body. He exhibited photograp h s as Ex.PW3 / 1 to 22 and he also brought negatives of the same. He had also taken photograp h s of the car bearing No. DL 3CH 3552 at D.N. Workshop, Ghaziaba d and he exhibited the said photograp h s as Ex.PW3 / 2 3 to 27 and he had Page 41 of 79 also brought the negatives of the same.

57. PW16 is HC Manha r Kumar, who was MHC(M) with whom IO had deposited one Pulland a containing piece of seat cover on 12.10.199 9. On 15.10.1 9 9 9 three Pulland a s containing shoe, knife and cloth were deposited and on the same day, the Pulland a containing piece of seat cover was sent to FSL, Malviya Nagar. He proved entries in this regard as Ex.PW16 /A and B. In cross examina tion, he states that he was the only person looking after the duty of Moharrar in Malkha n a and in his abse nce, his Muns hi used to take care of his duties. He denied the suggestion that entries were made subseq u e n tly in the Register.

58. PW17 is ASI Raj Pal. He had taken Maruti Car bearing registration No. DL3CH 3552 from Malkha n a of Police Station M.S. Park to FSL, Malviya Nagar and Inspector R.K. Singh had accomp a nied him. After checking by FSL, the Inspector cut a portion of the back seat of Car which was containing blood stains and took the same in posses sion after seizing the same vide Ex.PW17 /A. The witness identified the said piece of seat cover as Ex.P13. In his presence, disclosure stateme n t of accused Rishi Raj was recorded and on 15.10.199 9, accused Rishi Raj had accomp a nied the police officials to Murad Nagar and had pointed out the place in a Canal where the dead body was thrown. The dead body could not be found, however, a knife was found which was used in the commis sion of the offence. He identified the knife as Ex.P3 as the same which was Page 42 of 79 taken out and seized. Accused Rishi Raj had also pointed out the bus he s where he had thrown the shoe of the deceased and he got the same recovered vide memo Ex.PW5 /A. He also identified shoe as Ex.P2. The clothes of the accused, which were worn by him at the time of incident, were also recovered, which were taken into posses sion vide memo Ex.PW17 / B . He identified the said clothes as Ex.P14 and P15. On 29.10.20 0 0 disclos ure stateme n t of accused Shrad h a n a n d was also recorded in his presence. In cross examina tion, he admits that no blood stain was visible on the seat cover when the same was produced in court. The said seat cover was not sent to FSL as the same had already been checked by the FSL officials on 12.10.199 9. He denied the suggestion that Ex.P13 was not the part of the seat cover of the car deposited by him as deposed by him. He did not remember the exact time of visit to Murad Nagar. He states that they remained at Murad Nagar for 2½ or 3 hours. 2 4 public person s were present at the time of recovery of knife and shoe but their signat u re s were not obtained. He denied the suggestion that the police party had taken the knife and shoe alongwith them from the office of District Crime Cell or that the pointing out memo and recovery memo were prepared later on or no recovery was made at the insta nce of accus ed Rishi Raj or the said accused and accuse d Shrad h a n a n d had not made any disclosure stateme n t s .

59. PW18 is SI Bhim Singh. As per him, on 7.10.1999 he was posted at District Crime Cell, North East District as Sub Inspector. On Page 43 of 79 that day, accused Lalit Shar m a made disclosure state me n t Ex.PW4 / B in his presence on 8.10.199 9. Accused Lalit Sharm a alongwith police officials had reached at Pandit Hotel at Meerut Road near Duhai and accus ed pointed out to the place, from where he had taken Amit in his Car on 14.7.199 9 and pointing out memo Ex.PW11 /A was prepared. On the same day, accused Lalit Shar m a pointed out to the place in Gang Nehar, Murad Nagar where the dead body of Amit was disposed of and pointing out memo Ex.PW11 / B was prepared. Accused Lalit Shar m a also pointed out D.N. Autoland works hop where he got repaired his car. On 15.10.199 9 accused Rishi Raj led the police party to the Gang Nehar. A diver was arra nged but the dead body of Amit could not be found despite search. Thereafter search was made for knife with the help of magnet, which was recovered in his presence and from the nearby bus he s , one shoe of right side of deceased was also recovered at the insta nce of accused Rishi Raj Shar m a.

60. In cross examina tion, PW18 states that disclos ure state me n t of accused Lalit Shar m a was recorded at about 4:00 PM on 7.10.199 9. They had departed from District Crime Cell at 11:00 AM and reached at Gang Nehar at aroun d 12:30 PM on 8.10.199 9. On 15.10.199 9, they had departed at 11:20 AM. He did not remem ber whether attem pt was made to search the knife and shoe on 8.10.199 9. Efforts were made to search the dead body on 8.10.199 9 but the same was not found. They reached at the workshop of D.N. Autoland at aroun d 3:00 PM. The car was not Page 44 of 79 seized on 8.10.199 9. Signat u re s of employee of the said works hop were not obtained on the pointing out memo. He denied the suggestion that all the proceedings were done and papers were prepared in the office of District Crime Cell. On 15.10.199 9, they had remained at Gang Nehar for about 2 2½ hours. Complaina n t Dhara mvir and his relatives were not present at that time. He denied the suggestion that Diver had entered the water alongwith the knife given by the police or the knife could not remain in Gang Nehar for such a long time due to heavy flow of the water or that the shoe was planted by the police. He did not remem ber whether memo of place of throwing of knife or shoe at the insta nce of accused Rishi Raj was prepared or not. He also denied the suggestion that accused did not point out any place or nothing was recovered from the spot.

61. PW19 Ct. Michael Bose had taken photograp h s on 15.10.199 9 Ex.PW19 / 1 to 15 and Ex.PW8 / DA. He also brought negatives of the same which were exhibited as PW19 / 1 6 to 31. In cross examina tion he states that he remained at Gang Nehar for about 2 2½ hours. He had taken photograp h s at the insta nce of IO after the recovery was made at the insta nce of accused. He denied the suggestion that the photograp h s were taken after settling of the scene by the IO.

62. PW21 is HC Rohta s h Kumar, who had registered the FIR and he proved the same as Ex.PW21 /A. Accused Shrad h a n a n d was Page 45 of 79 arrested in the presence of PW27 ASI Dhara m p al vide arrest memo Ex.PW22 /A.

63. PW24 SI Aishbir Singh was first IO. He had received complaint of Dhara mvir Singh through DCP on 29.7.199 9. He made enquiry and during enquiry, he found that the last meeting between the accused and the deceased had taken place in Hindon Motel, Ghaziabad, so he submitted a report that the case fell within the jurisdiction of Police Station Ghaziaba d and after registration of case again at Police Station M.S. Park, the investigation remained with him for 2 days. In cross examin ation, he states that he had recorded stateme n t of 7 / 8 witnesses before making report Ex.PW24 /A. He proved copies of stateme n t s as Ex.PW24 / D 1 to D13 which were recorded by him during enquiry.

64. PW28 is SI Mahes h Chan d Gaut a m , who was posted at Police Station Sihani Gate, Ghaziaba d, UP on 14.7.199 9. He received copy of complaint from SHO, Police Station M.S. Park alongwith letter addres se d to the SSP of District Ghaziaba d, UP. He proved copy of the said letter as Ex.PW28 /A alongwith copy of complaint as Ex.PW24 /A, on receipt of which, he made enquiry in the said matter at the insta nce of SHO and after enquiry, he reached to the conclusion that the offence was committed in the area of Police Station M.S. Park and thereafter he sub mitted his report Ex.PW28 / C before SSP, Ghaziaba d and on the basis of said report, SSP wrote a letter to ACP, North East District Crime Cell informing Page 46 of 79 that the area falls under the jurisdiction of Police Station M.S. Park. He proved the letter of the SSP as Ex.PW28 / D . He had recorded stateme n t s of some witnes ses during the enquiry.

65. In cross examin ation, PW28 states that the letter written to SSP, Ghaziabad by DCP, North East District, Delhi contained the averme nt that deceased was last seen with accused Lalit Shar m a and associates at Hindon Motel on 14.7.1999 but after enquiry, this fact was found false. He admits that during enquiry, witnesses have told him that they had not seen the person, whose photograp h was shown by him to them. He had recorded stateme n t of Waiter of Hindon Motel and had also examined 2 / 3 other witnesses namely Man Bahad u r , Ram Phal Shar m a and Devender. They had also filed their affidavits. Ram Phal and Devender were relatives of the deceased. He had only made enquiries with regard to the jurisdiction and not to the facts of the case. He had made efforts to trace out the accused person s in village Morta and at other places. No relevant information was received by him regarding the facts of the case, so he did not record the state me n t s of Pradhan and other person s of the village. He had been directed to make enquiry only regarding the fact that if any last meeting was held in Hindon Motel or not and he did enquiry in that regard only. One receipt of Hindon Motel was handed over to him. He had made enquiries from the staff of Hindon Motel, who had told him about only two person s and regarding others, they told him that they had not been seen by them before. The deceased was also not identified in the Page 47 of 79 photograp h by the staff of Hindon Motel. He had not made any enquiry from the father of the deceased.

66.PW30 is Inspector R.K. Singh. He was posted as Inspector in District Crime Cell, North East District and on 24.9.199 9, investigation of this case was hande d over to him. He arrested accused Lalit Shar m a when he had surren dered in court. His two days police custody rema n d was obtained. During interrogation, accused Lalit Shar m a made disclosure stateme n t Ex.PW4 / B . On 8.10.199 9 accused Lalit Shar m a led the police party to Pandit Hotel, Meerut Road, Duhai, Ghaziaba d stating that he had left Amit there and he had gone to village Morta to bring Yogita in order to meet her with deceased. Pointing out memo Ex.PW11 /A was prepared. In purs u a n c e of his disclos ure stateme n t, accused Lalit Shar m a led the the IO and police party to the banks of Gang Canal, Murad Nagar stating that the dead body of Amit was thrown in water of Gang Canal. The diver tried to search for the dead body but the same could not be traced. Pointing out memo was prepared as Ex.PW11 / B . Search was also made for the shoe of the deceased in Jungle at the insta nce of accused Lalit Shar m a . Accused Lalit also disclosed that he can get the car recovered from D.N. Autoland Workshop and he led the police team to the said spot and he got recovered Maruti Car bearing No. DL3CH 3552 in the prese nce of Arvind Singhal, who was the Manager of the workshop. It was observed that there were fresh welding marks on the rail of the left Page 48 of 79 front side seat of the said Car. One Umesh had done the welding on the said rail in J uly 1999. The car was brought to the office of District Crime Cell and was deposited in the Malkha n a . Further custody rema n d for two days of accuse d Lalit Sharm a was taken and during investigation, the dead body was searched at different places but it could not be traced. Accused was sent to J / C on 11.10.199 9. On 12.10.199 9, the car was taken to FSL, Malviya Nagar, which was examined by FSL Experts. A piece of velvet of the cover of seat of the said car was sealed and seized vide memo Ex.PW17 /A. He identified the said piece of velvet cover of seat as Ex.P13.

67. Accused Rishi Raj surren dered on 14.10.19 9 9, after which he was arrested. His disclosure state me n t Ex.PW4 / C was recorded in which he had stated that he could get recovered the clothes, shoe and knife. On 15.10.19 9 9, accused Rishi Raj led the IO and police party to a place at Gang Nehar where he pointed out to the place about one and half kilometers away from the Gang Nehar Bridge stating that he alongwith other associates had thrown the dead body of Amit after murdering him. The dead body was searched but the same could not be found. Accused Rishi Raj had also stated that he had thrown the knife alongwith Belt which were used in commis sion of the murder of Amit and the same were also searche d by Diver Abdul Sattar alongwith his other colleagues. Diver Abdul Sattar was succes sful in searc hi ng for the knife. Sketch of the knife was prepared and it was sealed and seized. He Page 49 of 79 identified the said knife as Ex.P3.

DISCUSSIONS ON THE EVIDENCE

68. This is a case of circu m s t a n ti al evidence and it is to be kept in mind that the prosec ution has to prove each and every incident forming part of the chain independe n tly and thereafter the combined effect of the incident s should lead to a conclusion that it was only the accused person s and none else, who had committed the crime. The indepe nde n t incident s to be proved in this case can be classified as below:

(i) The relationship of Amit with Yogita, their marriage and elopement to Hyderaba d and further to Chennai and their return to Delhi.

(ii)Holding of meeting dated 4.7.1999 at the office of accused Lalit between the relatives from the side of Amit and accused persons.

(iii)Second meeting dated 14.7.199 9 at the office of accuse d Lalit at Loni Road, Shahd ara in the morning hours and the fact that Amit was left with accused Lalit to be brought to Morta on motorcycle.

(iv)Whether decease d left for Morta with Lalit?

(v)Who had left with Lalit in the night on 14.7.1999 from village Morta to bring Amit?

(vi)How Amit was killed?

(vii)Whether blood stains of Amit were found on the back seat cover of the car.

(viii)Whether front seat rail of the car was broken during the killing of Amit.

(ix)Recoveries of knife and shoe at the instance of accuse d persons.

(x)Meeting dated 21.7.1999.

(xi)Extra judicial confes sion by the accused persons and the Page 50 of 79 information given by Yogita to the relatives of Amit that Amit was killed by her family members.

(i) The rela t i o n s h i p of Amit wit h Yogit a , their marr i a g e and elope m e n t to Hyder a b a d an d furt h e r to Chenn a i an d their retu r n to Delhi.

69. PW1 Ramp h al Shar m a is the grandfat her (Nana) of Amit. He had supported the prosec ution version regarding elopeme nt of Amit with Yogita and their coming back from Madras when air tickets were sent to them by Satish. PW2 Devender Kumar is the Fufa of Amit. PW3 is Dhara mvir, father of Amit. PW5 is Satbir Shar m a , Chacha of Amit. PW6 is Sheela, Bhua of Amit. PW7 is Jai Bhagwa n, Fufa of Amit. PW13 is Satis h Bhardwaj, cousin (son of Mausi) of Yogita. PW14 is Pradeep Dixit, Mama of Amit. PW15 is Kuldeep, another Mama of Amit. All these witnesse s have reiterated about the love affair and elopeme nt of Yogita with Amit after the alleged the marriage. The defence has tried to put up a case that there was no love affair between Yogita and Amit and Yogita had not gone anywhere with Amit but their case is demolished by the first cousin of Yogita from her mother's side i.e. PW13 Satish Bhardwaj, who has deposed about missing of Yogita and Amit and his visit to Chen n ai with Lalit to trace them and later on, it was Satish, who had sent air tickets for retur n journey of Amit and Yogita from Chenn ai to Delhi.

70. An indepen de n t witness is PW26 Naren Nautiyal, who has proved that a booking was given to him by Satish Bhardwaj and Page 51 of 79 accordingly tickets Ex.PX / 1 and 2 were issued by Friends Globe Travel Ltd. on 16.6.199 9 for the flight on 26.6.199 9 and these tickets were used for travelling as out of four coupon s, only one coupon was left in the said tickets and remaining coupon s were utilised. As per him, the payment of these tickets was made by Satis h Bhardwaj and this fact is confirmed by Satish Bhardwaj when he was examined as PW26.

71. PW12 Yogita has denied each and every allegation of the prosec ution and she has turned hostile. As per her version, in the photograp h Ex.P2, she identifies her own photograp h but she refused to identify the other person in the photograp h. It appears that this witnes s had turned hostile at the insta nce of the accused person s, who are her real brothers and father.

72. PW27 is again an indepen de n t witness Sh. M. Prem Chan d from Chenn ai, whose son was a friend of Amit. As per his version, Amit came to his residence in Ju ne, 1999 alongwith Yogita and they stayed at his house for a week and Amit had introd uced Yogita as his wife. Three relatives of Yogita visited his house one day and out of them, one was Lalit but this witnes s was not able to identify him amongst the accused persons due to pass age of time. These gentleme n had promised to send air tickets for Amit and Yogita and had requested PW27 M. Prem Chand to couns el Amit and Yogita to go back to Delhi. Air tickets were received and he had pers u a d e d both Amit and Yogita to go back to Delhi and his son Vinod had Page 52 of 79 gone to airport to see them off. In cross examina tion, he states that he had not mentioned the fact regarding visit of three gentleme n from Delhi or their promise to send air tickets for Amit and Yogita and these facts were not mentioned in the state me n t Ex.PW27 / DA but he reiterates that Amit and Yogita had stayed in his house for 10 15 days as Amit was a friend of his son.

73. All these facts prove that Amit and Yogita had eloped together. The marriage alleged to have been performed in Arya Samaj Temple, Ju ngp u r a . As per PW29 O.P. Choud h a ry, no record could be produced, so the marriage did not stand proved, however, the fact that both of them were together in Chen n ai stand s proved from the state me n t of indepe nde n t witness PW27 Shri M. Prem Chand and the first cousin of Yogita namely Satish Bhardwaj from her mother's side had also reiterated the same facts, so mere denial by Yogita is of no conseque n ce. Hence, I am of the opinion that the prosec ution has been able to prove this fact beyond reason a ble doubt that Yogita and Amit had eloped together and had gone to Chenn ai from where they came back on 26.6.199 9 by air.

(ii)Holdin g of mee ti n g da t e d 4.7. 1 9 9 9 at the office of accu s e d Lalit bet w e e n the rela t i v e s from the side of Amit and accu s e d person s .

74. After retur n of Yogita and Amit from Chen n ai on 26.6.1999, the version of prosec ution is that a meeting was arra nged on 4.7.199 9 at the office of accused Lalit at Durga Puri, Loni Road, Delhi. PW1 Page 53 of 79 Ramph al Shar m a has mentioned about the said meeting in his examina tion in chief and has stated that in the said meeting, it was decided to make arra nge me n t for social marriage of Amit and Yogita and from the side of accus ed Lalit, Alam, Fufa of Lalit, Kamla, mother of Yogita and Shrad h a n a n d Shar m a, father of Yogita had participated and from the side of Amit, his father Dhara mvir, uncle Satbir, Fufa Devender, Mama Kuldeep and PW1 Ramph al, who was mater n al grandfat her of Amit had participated. It was decided that the marriage would be arranged within 4 5 mont h s . In cross examina tion, he denied the suggestion that no meeting had taken place at Durga Puri Chowk. As per him, the office of Lalit was on the Main Road, Loni on the first floor of the building.

75. PW4 Dhara mvir Shar m a also states about meeting dated 4.7.1999 in which it was decided to solemnise a social marriage between Amit and Yogita. He had lastly seen Amit in the night of 4 / 5.7.1 9 9 9 when he had gone with him to village Gothra after this meeting.

76. PW5 Satbir Sharm a is the Chacha of Amit. He also narrate s the fact regarding meeting dated 4.7.199 9. In cross examin ation, he reiterates the fact regarding meeting dated 4.7.199 9. PW13 Satish Bhardwaj, is the son of Mausi of Yogita. He also states about a meeting at Durga Puri Chowk in which it was decided that Yogita would be married with Amit when Amit would start earning and become self depende n t. In cross examin ation, he makes a Page 54 of 79 somers a ult and states that he did not take part in the meeting dated 4.7.199 9. PW15 Kuldeep had also attended the said meeting dated 4.7.1999 regarding marriage of Amit and Yogita at Durga Puri Chowk.

77. So, on the basis of evidence in hand, the prosecution has tried to establish that a meeting to arra nge the marriage of Amit with Yogita had taken place in the office of accus ed Lalit at Durga Puri Chowk, Loni Road, Sha hd a r a on 4.7.199 9 in which, close relatives from both the sides were present. On the other hand, defence has tried to set up a case that no suc h meeting had taken place. The witnesses on the prosecution side have been consiste nt except PW13 Satish Bhardwaj, who is a close relative of the accused person s (being son of Mausi of accuse d No. 2 and 3). The chain of events following the retur n of Amit and Yogita from Madras reconstr u c te d on the basis of above discus se d evidence clearly supports the version of the prosecution, which has been able to prove that a meeting had taken place on 4.7.199 9 to work out the modalities of arra nged marriage.

(iii)Secon d mee ti n g da t e d 14. 7 . 1 9 9 9 at the office of accu s e d Lalit at Loni Road, Sha h d a r a in the mornin g hours and the fact th a t Amit wa s left wit h accu s e d Lalit to be broug h t to Morta on motor c y c l e .

78. The next importa n t event to be proved by the prosecution is the meeting dated 14.7.199 9 in the morning hours in the office of Page 55 of 79 accused Lalit at Durga Puri Chowk and subseq ue n t shifting of the venue to village Morta in the evening as some importa n t relatives from the accused' s side could not come to Durga Puri Chowk venue. The stand of the prosecution is that although a meeting was called on 14.7.1999 in the office of accused Lalit at Durga Puri Chowk but the said meeting remained inconclusive beca u se importa n t members of the family of Yogita / a c c u s e d persons could not reach at Durga Puri Chowk in the morning hours.

79. PW1 Ramph al Shar m a also talks about the meeting but he gives date as 21.7.1999 in his examina tion in chief but in cross examina tion by Ld. Addl. PP, he admits that actually the date was 14.7.1999. PW2 Devender Kumar has also stated that he had attended the meeting in Durga Puri Chowk on 14.7.199 9 wherein accused Lalit, Alam and Rajender were present and after some time, accused Lalit told that his parent s could not come, so they should reach village Morta and accuse d Lalit further told that he would bring Amit with him.

80. PW5 Satbir Sharm a , Chacha of Amit has stated in his evidence that he had attended the meeting dated 14.7.199 9 where Lalit had asked to leave Amit with him for bringing him to village Morta but PW5 did not go to village Morta and he had left for his office.

81. PW6 Sheela states that on 14 th July, Ramph al and Devender came to her house and told her that they had left Amit in Sha h dr a with Page 56 of 79 accused Lalit. She was confronted with her earlier stateme n t Ex.PW6 / DA where she had narrated about another story of taking Amit to a hotel near bus terminal at Hindon River by Ramp h al and Devender in a meeting or their act of leaving Amit in the said hotel. She further states that Lalit had come back at arou n d 9:00 PM or quarter to nine on 14.7.1 999.

82. PW7 is Jai Bhagwa n, Fufa of Amit. As per his version, when he came back from his duty on 14.7.1999 at arou n d 6:00 / 6 : 3 0 PM, Ramph al and Devender were present in his house, who told him that they had left Amit with Lalit, who would bring him in the evening. As per his version, Lalit came at about 9:00 / 9 : 3 0 PM to his house and told that he had left Amit at a hotel at Duhai and he would bring him back in the night but thereafter neither Lalit nor Amit came back. In the morning, Lalit told that he had left Amit at Shah d a r a and from there, he had gone to his friend's house. In cross examin ation, he states that he did not know whether any meeting had taken place on or before 14.7.1999. He was not invited in the meeting on 14.7.1999.

83. PW13 Satish Bhardwaj denied that any meeting had taken place on 14.7.199 9 and as per his version, Lalit was with him on that day from 8:00 AM to 3:00 PM in the hospital. He also admits that Kuldeep told him later on that a meeting had taken place in a hotel at Ghaziabad where Amit was beaten up by his own relatives. Page 57 of 79

84. PW15 Kuldeep, another Mama of Amit has also stated that a meeting had taken place on 14.7.199 9 but he could not attend the same as he was out of station.

85. PW24 SI Aishvir Singh was the first IO of the case, who had received the complaint through the office of DCP on 29.7.199 9. As per enquiry made by him, he found that the last meeting between the accused and deceased Amit had taken place in Hindon Motel Ghaziabad, so he had sub mitted his report regarding the jurisdiction. In cross examina tion, he stated that he had recorded stateme n t s of 7 / 8 witnesses before making report Ex.PW24 /A and those stateme n t s were proved as Ex.PW24 / D 1 to D13.

86. PW28 is SI Mahes h Chan d Gaut a m , who was posted at Police Station: Siani Gate, Ghaziaba d, UP. On receipt of complaint through SHO, Police Station: M.S. Park, he made enquiry in the said matter and after enquiry, he reached to the conclusion that the offence was committed in the area of Police Station: M.S. Park and he sub mitted the report Ex.PW28 / C through SSP, Ghaziaba d. As per his version, althoug h the report sent to him through DCP, North East District contained the averme nt s that the deceased was last seen with accused Lalit Shar m a and his associates at Hindon Motel on 14.7.1999 but after enquiry, this fact was found false.

87. There are three versions of the meeting dated 14.7.199 9. The first version is that the meeting had taken place in the morning hour s in Page 58 of 79 the office of accused Lalit at Loni Road, Shah d a r a . The second version is that the meeting had in fact, taken place at Hindon Motel, Ghaziaba d and the third version is that no meeting had taken place.

88. PW24 SI Aishbir Singh had recorded state me n t of witnesse s including one Baha d u r Singh, Waiter of Hindon Motel, Shri Alam Shar m a , Rajender Prasad Sharm a, Krisha n Kumar S /o Alam Singh, Smt. Sheela, Praveen Shar m a, brother of accused, Satish Bhardwaj, Yogita Bhardwaj, Cham ni W/o Alam, Shara n bir Dhaka, Krisha n Kumar, Kapil Tyagi and Manis h Kumar. He made enquiries from all the relevant person s from Hindon Motel, family member s of Amit, relatives from both sides, the person s, who had their offices adjoining to the office of accus ed Lalit or who were working there and after making these enquiries, he had reached to the conclusion that no meeting had taken place on 14.7.199 9 at the office of accused Lalit and the meeting had taken place at Hindon Motel. On the other hand, state me n t of PW28 SI Mahes h Chand Gauta m is that no meeting had taken place at Hindon Motel. PW6 Sheela, who is Bhua of Amit had stated that Devender and Ramp h al had brought Amit to the office of Lalit on 14.7.199 9 but this is not the case of the prosecution as thereafter she states that Amit was left at Shah d a r a with accused Lalit and Ramp h al and Devender, Nana and Fufa of Amit came to her house and they told her that Lalit would be bringing Amit back in the evening. In cross examin ation, she was confronted with each and every Page 59 of 79 allegation contained in the state me n t Ex.PW6 / DA which was recorded by SI Aishvir Singh specially the fact mentioned therein that Amit was taken by Ramph al and Devender to a hotel near bus terminal at Hindon River and they had also called Lalit and other relatives. Hence the version regarding meeting at Hindon Motel recorded by SI Aishvir Singh of Delhi Police was put to her which she denied.

89. Keeping in view the contradictions regarding the place of meeting whether it was at Lalit's office at Durga Puri Chowk or at Hindon Motel as investigated by two different IOs and both of them have recorded stateme n t s of witnesse s in support of their respective versions and PW6 Sheela had given a detailed stateme n t to the earlier IO regarding the meeting at Hindon Motel and later on, she turned arou n d and spoke about a meeting at Lalit's office, I am of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove this fact beyond reason a ble doubt as to whether or not the meeting on 14.7.1999 had taken place at accused Lalit's office at Durga Puri Chowk.

(iv)Whet h e r dece a s e d left for Morta wit h Lalit ?

90. As per the prosecution, in the night, accused Lalit had left Amit at a hotel at Duhai and had gone back to village Morta alone. The prosec ution has left a big gap in the investigation here and no attempt was made at any stage to fill that big hole in the investigation and the chain of events was broken. Not even a single witness was cited or examined by the prosecution from Page 60 of 79 Pandit Hotel, Duhai where it was alleged that Amit was left by Lalit and later on, he was picked up by him alongwith other accused person s and killed. In the chain of circu m s t a n ce s , the last seen evidence is very importa n t . As per prosecution version itself it is the people present at the hotel at Duhai, who could have provided importa n t evidence linking the accused person s with the crime alleged to be committed by them but due to the reason s best known to the prosec ution, no effort was made to call even a single witness from the said hotel. There is no explan ation on record as to whether any effort was made or not in this regard and if any effort was made, whether the witnesse s were available or not. The case set up by the prosecution is that Amit was left there, who had taken his meal at the said hotel and he remained there for quite a long time during which, Lalit went to his village and thereafter he held a meeting to plan to commit the offence and later on, in purs u a n c e to the said conspiracy, accused Lalit, Rajender Shar m a and Rishi Raj Shar m a came back in the car of Lalit and picked up Amit from the hotel. Without examining the witnes se s from the hotel at Duhai, the chain of circu m s t a n ce is not complete and the evidence recorded in this case cannot lead us to only one conclusion that it was the accused persons only, who had committed this crime.

(v)Who had left wit h Lalit in the nigh t on 14. 7 . 1 9 9 9 from vill ag e Morta to bring Amit?

91.As per the complaint Ex.PW4 /A, on the basis of which, the FIR Page 61 of 79 was registered, Lalit reached village Morta at aroun d 11:00 PM and at that time, Devender Shar m a asked him about whereabo u t s of Amit, Lalit told that Amit was taking food at a hotel at village Duhai, District Ghaziaba d and when Lalit Shar m a started leaving by his car, Devender Shar m a asked him that he would also accompa ny him and on this, Lalit Shar m a told that there was no need to accompa ny and after that Lalit Shar m a went away. Devender Shar m a does not say even a single word about the incident of asking accused Lalit to accompa ny him to bring Amit to village Morta from a hotel in village Duhai. As per his version, accused Lalit had come at aroun d 10:00 PM and told that he would bring Amit after some time and after half an hour, accuse d Lalit went to bring Amit and he did not retur n although they waited till 1:00 AM in the night.

92. PW1 Ramp h al Shar m a also states the same. In his cross examina tion, he was confronted with his state me n t Ex.PW1 / DA where the facts regarding Lalit coming to village Morta or telling that Amit was in a hotel at village Duhai or he had left in a car were not mentioned. PW2 devender states in his cross examina tion that before his stateme n t dated 25.9.1999, he did not tell the police about Lalit coming to village Morta or leaving in a car. He further states that he was taking rest in the house of Jai Bhagwa n at 10:00 PM when Lalit told about Amit being left at a hotel and he saw Lalit leaving in a car. There was a bound a ry wall of the courtyard where he was sitting at that time.

Page 62 of 79

93. PW4 also states about Lalit leaving after about half an hour with a promise to bring back Amit.

94. PW6 Sheela states that Lalit came alone in the evening and on her enquiry about whereabo u t s of Amit, he told that Amit was taking food at village Duhai and he would bring Amit back shortly but he did not come back through out the night.

95. PW7 Jai Bhagwa n stated that at aroun d 9:00 / 9 : 3 0 PM, accuse d Lalit came to his house and told that he had left Amit at Duhai and would bring him in the night and thereafter neither Lalit nor Amit came back to his house on that night.

96. None of the witness has deposed that they had seen accuse d Rajender and Rishi Raj Sharm a leaving with accused Lalit Shar m a from their house in village Morta in the car when accused Lalit had left to bring back Amit from the hotel at Duhai, so the presence of accused Rishi Raj and Rajender Shar m a with accused Lalit at the time of incident is not established from any other fact except the disclosure state me n t s of the accused person s or the alleged recoveries in doubtful circum s t a n c e s made at the insta nce of accused Rishi Raj.

Page 63 of 79

(vi)How Amit wa s kille d ?

97. The prosecution version is that Amit was made to sit on the front left side seat of the car driven by Lalit and on the way, he was first stra ng ulated with the help of a belt and later on, he was pulled to the back seat and was given knife blows by accused resulting in his death and in this process, the seat rail of the front seat had broken. Since the dead body could not be recovered, no conclusion can be arrived regarding the mode of death. This court is conscious of the fact that recovery of dead body is not neces s a ry in a case of circu m s t a n tial evidence and the accused can be convicted even in the absence of recovery of dead body but other circum s t a n ti al evidence should be so strong as to point out towards the only conclusion that the murder was committed by the accused persons and none else.

(vii)Whet h e r blood st ai n s of Amit were foun d on the bac k sea t cover of the car?

98. The case of the prosec ution is that since accused had killed Amit first by stra ng ulation and then he was given knife blows on the back seat of the car, so there were blood stains on the back seat cover, although the car was washed later on. The prosecution had sent a piece of seat cover to the forensic lab and Mr. S.K. Singhla, Sr. Scientific Officer was examined in this case as PW25. He states that the said piece was having blood stains of hu m a n origin on it but there was no reaction for grouping. The earlier owner of the Maruti Car namely Amar Pal Shar m a was examined as PW23. In Page 64 of 79 cross examin ation, he states that when the car was with him, he had met with a major accident in which, the front left side of the car was damaged and his left hand was cut from near the writ and his brother had made him to lie on the back seat of the car and removed him to the nursing home and blood had spread in the car. In re examina tion, he states that he had not lodged any report about the said accident nor he claimed any insura n ce amou n t and he did not have any medical record of the same.

99. Since the blood group could not be determined even by scientific examina tion and the probable cause of blood being found in the car has been given by the prosecution witness PW23 Amarpal Sharm a himself, it cannot lead us to believe that Amit was given knife blows on the back seat and blood stains found on the said seat cover were of Amit.

(viii)Whet h e r fron t sea t rail of the car wa s brok e n durin g the killin g of Amit?

100. The prosecution version is that the seat rail of front left side of the car was broken when excess press u r e was applied on the throat of Amit with the help of belt to stra ng ulate him. It is further the case of the prosecution that the said rail of the car was got repaired at DN Autoland Service Station and one Umesh Welder was examined as PW9. He turned hostile in court and he stated that he did not know anything about the case. He denied the suggestion of Ld. Addl. PP that on 20.7.199 9 accuse d Lalit Sharm a came to him Page 65 of 79 with his car and he had welded the front seat near adjusti ng instru m e n t .

101. PW23 Amarpal Shar m a has stated in his cross examina tion that the front left seat of the car was damaged in an accident and he had got the front left seat of the car welded at that time, so the prosec ution version that the front seat of the car was broken during the process of killing Amit, could not be proved by any witnes s.

(ix)Recover ie s of knife an d shoe at the ins t a n c e of accu s e d person s .

102. It is admitted case of the prosecution that accuse d Lalit was taken to Gang Canal in purs u a n t to his disclos ure state me n t on 8.10.199 9 and he had pointed out the place where the dead body of Amit was thrown in the water of Gang Nehar. As per the IO PW30 Inspector R.K. Singh, there were three divers with them, who made efforts to trace the dead body but the same could not be recovered. Accused Lalit Shar m a had also pointed out the place where one shoe of deceased was thrown but the said shoe could not be traced.

103. Thereafter accused Rishi Raj was arrested on 14.10.199 9, his disclosure state me n t was recorded and he had led the police team to a place about one and half km. ahead of Ganga Canal Bridge i.e. to the same place to which accused Lalit had led the police party stating that he alongwith other associates had thrown the dead body of Amit in the water of said canal after murdering him and the Page 66 of 79 dead body was got searched by the divers but the same could not be traced. Accused Rishi Raj had stated that he had thrown the knife also in the water alongwith belt which were used in the commis sion of crime. The same were also got searched by diver Abdul Sattar alongwith his other colleagues and the knife was found and taken out from the canal. In further purs u a n ce to the disclosure stateme n t of accused Rishi Raj, the shoe of Amit was also searched in the jungle near the Ganga canal and at his insta nce, one shoe of right foot make Woodland was recovered from the bus he s near the bank of canal, which was sealed and seized.

104. As per the prosec ution version, PW4 Dhara m bir Shar m a, father of Amit had also accomp a nied the police officials at the time when the recoveries of knife and shoe were made and he has identified the knife and shoe of Amit as Ex.P3 and P2 respectively in his examina tion in chief. As per him, the width of the Gang Nehar was about 150 200 meters and its depth was 10 15 feet and the place of recovery was at a dista nce of about 2 meters from the bank of the Canal. The divers had taken out 1 / 2 old clothes also besides the knife. As per him, 3 / 4 person s from his village were also present at the time of recovery of knife. He did not remem ber whether any passerby was stopped at the time of recoveries. As per him, the place of recovery of knife was about 1 / 1 ½ kilometers from the road and the place of recovery of shoe was about one kilometers from the road and the shoe was first taken out by police person s. He denied the suggestion that the police had planted knife and Page 67 of 79 shoe.

105. PW5 Satbir Shar m a states that on 15.10.19 9 9, he alongwith his cousin Vir Chand had accomp a nied the police officials alongwith Abdul Sattar diver and two more persons and they took accused Rishi Raj to Gang Nehar. The knife was recovered with the help of a Magnet on the pointing out of accused Rishi Raj and he also got recovered one shoe of Amit from the bus he s of Gang Nehar. In cross examin ation, he states that he, police team and other person s from his village namely Bheem, Pappu and Devender were present at Gang Nehar on 15.10.199 9 and the knife was recovered in the presence of Bheem Singh, Rajpal and Veer Chan d but he admits that he did not figure in the photograp h s Ex.PW3 / 1 to 27 as he might have gone to other side at that time. As per him, the shoe was recovered after half /o ne hour of pointing out. No indepen de n t person was joined at the time of recovery of knife and shoe.

106. PW8 is Abdul Sattar, the diver. As per his version, on 15.10.199 9, he was called from Waziraba d Bridge by police officials and he was taken to Gang Nehar, Murad Nagar. On the pointing out of a place about 1.5 km away on the western side of the edge of Gang Nehar by accused Rishi Raj, he was able to search for a knife. He identified the knife as Ex.P3. He denied the suggestion that police had supplied the knife to him. The search contin ue d till 5:00 PM. As per his version, none except police person s went with him. The police had reduced somethi ng in writing but he did not know Page 68 of 79 the content s. His thu m b impression was obtained on 6 7 papers. He took out the knife from a dista nce of 1½ / 2 meters from the edge of Gang Nehar. He took nu m ber of dips before he could find the knife. As per his version, he did not find any other articles at the bed of the Canal. The magnet was given by the police to him to search for the knife. No public person came or collected at Gang Nehar during their entire stay there. As per him, the dista nce between the place of recovery of knife and place of recovery of shoe was hardly 2 meters.

107. PW11 Veer Chan d was also stated to be present at the time of recoveries. He also narrates about the recovery of knife and shoe. As per his version, the shoe was traced by one Ashok of police. He admits that no recovery was effected from the canal at the time of pointing out by accuse d Lalit. As per him, the knife was recovered from a distance of 3 meters from the edge of the Nehar. He states that the flow of the water of Nehar was quite fast and its depth was also too much. He admits that if anything is thrown in the said canal, it is likely to flow with the water and cha nce s of the same being traced are bleak. As per him, the bridge was at a distance of 25 / 3 0 yards from the place of recovery of knife. He also states that no public person had gathered at the Nehar. As per his version, the shoe was found about 100 yards before the Nehar.

108. As per PW17 ASI Rajpal on 15.10.199 9 accused Lalit was taken to the Gang Nehar and only one dipper was engaged to trace the Page 69 of 79 dead body. He also identified the knife and shoe. As per his version, 2 / 4 public perso ns came at the spot at the time of recovery of knife and shoe but their signat u re s were not obtained. There was a gap of ½ / ¾ hours between the time of pointing out and time of recovery.

109. SI Bhim Singh was also in the Crime Cell at that time. As per him, the shoe was recovered from the nearby bus he s. In his cross examina tion, he states that he did not remem ber if any attempt was made to search the knife and shoe on 8.10.199 9 inspite of accused having made disclos ure. He emph atically states that services of dipper were not used on that day. He did not remember if any memo regarding pointing out of place of throwing of knife and shoe by accused Rishi Raj was prepared or not.

110. The version of the prosec ution is that the knife and belt were thrown firstly in the river and thereafter while the accuse d persons were retur ni ng back, they search the car and found that one shoe of Amit was lying in the car, which was thrown while driving. The entire incident had happe ne d during the night time and shoe was thrown when the car was moving but accused Rishi Raj was so sure about the place where the shoe had been thrown from a run ning car that he had pointed out the said place and purs u a n t there to, recovery was made.

Page 70 of 79

111. This recovery itself looks to be doubtful. As per IO, accused Lalit had earlier pointed out the two places on 8.10.199 9 where the dead body was thrown in the canal and to the place where the shoe of the deceased was thrown in the jungle. On the day when Lalit was taken there but nothing could be recovered but when accuse d Rishi Raj was taken to the same places, the alleged recoveries were made. As per Abdul Sattar diver, who had taken out the knife, two of his associates and 6 7 police officials had started from the Police Station Bhajan Pura and none except police person s went with them whereas the version of the prosecution is that the relatives of deceased had also accompa nied the police officials and the divers. The police officials nowhere state that they had taken the Magnet and the rope with them from their office but Diver Abdul Sattar states that he was provided with the Magnet by police officials. The photograp h s do not depict the Magnet in any of the snap s. Keeping in view the high speed of flow of water, it is unlikely that the knife will stay in the same place, where it was allegedly thrown.

112. As far as the place of alleged recovery of shoe is concerne d, as per Abdul Sattar, the dista nce between the place of recovery of knife and place of recovery of shoe was hardly 2 meters whereas the site plan prepared by IO Ex.PW13 /A shows the dista nce of about 500 meters between the place from where the recovery of knife from water and recovery of shoe from the bus he s were made. This distance has been estimated on the basis of the width of canal, which has been shown as 100 meters and the dista nce between Page 71 of 79 point A and B is about five times of the said width.

113. PW4 Dhara mvir Sharm a has stated that the place of recovery of shoe was at a dista nce of 1 kilometer from the road and the place of recovery of knife was 1 / 1 ½ kilometers from the road but the site plan Ex.PW13 /A is not in conson a n ce with this evidence.

114. No public witness was joined during recovery of the knife as well as shoe. The recoveries have been shown near a public road on the bank of the canal and IO even did not bother to ask the passerbys to join the investigation at the time of the said recoveries. The pointing out memos of accuse d Lalit Sharm a show that there has been some interpolation in the dates. Similarly there is some overwriting in the seizure memo of the piece of back seat cover of car No. DL3CH 3552. Similarly there are cuttings in date below the disclosure stateme n t of accused Lalit Shar m a.

115. Keeping the above mentioned facts in view, the recoveries at the insta nce of accused Rishi Raj are itself in doubt and the benefit of doubt has to go to the accused person s.

(x)Meetin g da t e d 21. 7 . 1 9 9 9 .

116. As per the prosecution version, anot her meeting had taken place on 21.7.199 9 which was attended by the relatives from both the sides as well as the accuse d persons. PW1 Ramph al Sharm a has mentioned about the said meeting in his cross examin a tion dated Page 72 of 79 5.1.200 1 and as per him, no report was lodged till 21.7.199 9 beca u se accused had been misguiding them but in his stateme n t made to the police, there is no mention about the meeting dated 21.7.1999. As per PW2 Devender Kumar, the last meeting was held on 14.7.1999, he again said that it was on 21.7.1999 but he did not tell the police about the meeting of 4.7.1999 and 21.7.199 9.

117. PW4 Dhara mvir Sharm a , father of Amit had stated about the meeting dated 21.7.199 9 which took place in village Morta at about 11:00 AM which was attended by him, his brother Satish, his brother in law Kuldeep and his Jija Devender Shar m a and from the side of accuse d Lalit Sharm a, his relative Satish Shar m a and his mother had participated in the said meeting. As per PW4 due to answers given by accused Lalit regarding whereabo u t s of Amit, they suspected somet hing wrong and they tried to search for Amit. He also admits in his cross examina tion that he had not told the police about the meeting dated 21.7.1999 or that he suspected somet hing wrong becau s e of the evasive answers given by accused Lalit. He did not lodge any police report before 27.7.199 9 when he first time went to the police station and gave copy of complaint Ex.PW4 /A to police officials.

118. PW5 Satbir Shar m a also talks about the meeting dated 21.7.199 which had taken place in village Mandola for asking accuse d about the whereabo u t s of Amit, to which accuse d replied that Amit would be coming after some time. In cross examina tion, he states that he Page 73 of 79 had participated in all the three meetings dated 4.7.199 9, 14.7.1999 and 21.7.199 9. He states that he mus t have told the police regarding the meeting dated 21.7.1999.

119. PW6 Smt. Sheela has mentioned about the meeting at Mandola after the incident but she did not remem ber the date and she did not elaborate anything about the said meeting. PW7 Jai Bhagwan also states about the meeting dated 21.7.1999 in which Lalit disclosed that he did not know the whereabo u t s of Amit.

120. The discus sion about the meeting dated 21.7.199 9 does not lead anywhere becau s e in the meeting, accuse d Lalit had stated that Amit would come back soon or he states that he did not know his whereabo u t s .

(xi)Extr a judici a l confes s i o n by the accu s e d pers on s an d the infor m a t i o n given by Yogit a to the rela t i v e s of Amit tha t Amit was kille d by her fami l y me mbe r s

121. Another fact which did not find mention in the complaint lodged with the police and in the stateme n t s made before the police and introd uced later on is that Yogita Shar m a had rang up on 25 / 2 6 . 7. 1 9 9 9 and told the prosecution witnesse s that her brother and family members had killed Amit. Report in this case was lodged on 27.7.199 9 and there is no mentioning about this fact in the said detailed complaint which is typed in English or in stateme n t s of the witnesses recorded by the police from time to Page 74 of 79 time. PW1 Ramp h al and PW2 Devender did not talk about any such telephone call. PW4 Dhara mvir Shar m a states on page 4 of his examina tion in chief that on 25 / 2 6 . 7. 1 9 9 9, Yogita telephoned his brother Satish and told him that her brothers Lalit Shar m a, Rishi Raj and her Jija Rajender had killed Amit. This fact is not mentioned in the complaint given in writing to the police dated 27.7.1999. He admits in his cross examina tion this on page 3, which itself is very importa n t factu m, which shows that improvemen t s were made at the time of giving evidence in Court.

122. PW5 Satbir Shar m a states that on 25.7.199 9 Yogita telephone d in his office and told that Amit had met with some fate and the telephone was discon nected. Yogita started weeping after telling him the aforesaid thing. As per his version, on 26.7.199 9, he went to village Morta and called accused Lalit. He came and remained with him but he did not give any satisfactory reply and he was not allowed to meet Yogita. In cross examin a tion, he states that when he asked about whereabo u t s of Amit from accused Shrad h a n a n d and Lalit, he was told that Amit would retur n after 2 / 4 mont h s . In cross examin ation, he further told that Yogita telephone d him at about 10:00 / 1 1 : 0 0 AM on 25 / 2 6 . 7. 1 9 9 9 and told him that Rajender, Rishi Raj and Lalit had killed Amit but they did not lodge any report with the police till 25.7.1999, however, they searche d for him in the house of their relatives. He further stated in his cross examina tion that he did not remem ber if he told the police that Yogita had telephoned him on 25.7.199 9 and told that Amit had Page 75 of 79 met with some fate or that she started weeping. He was confronted with his stateme n t Ex.PW5 / DA where this importa n t fact was not recorded.

123. PW12 Yogita Shar m a does not say even a single word althoug h she was declared hostile and even in her cross examin ation, no such suggestion was put to her as it is not the case of the prosec ution that she had rang up PW5 Satbir Shar m a and told him about the murder of Amit. PW14 Pradeep also states that in November, 1999, he came to know from his brother that all the three accused had murdered Amit but in cross examina tion, he states that he did not approac h the police to tell that he had come to know that all the three accuse d had murdered Amit. PW15 Kuldeep also states that when they were searc hing for Amit, after some days, Yogita telephonically told him that she suspected that her family member s had killed Amit. In cross examin ation, he states that he did not remember the date when Yogita told him about her suspicion but he conveyed this fact to the father of Amit but father of Amit namely Dhara mvir Shar m a does not state this fact that Kuldeep had told him that he had received a telephonic call from Yogita in this regard. He admits that he did not lodge any report with the police about what Yogita told him.

124. PW6 Smt. Sheela went one step further and has stated in her examina tion in chief that after about one mont h of the incident, accused persons told her that they had killed Amit and threate ned Page 76 of 79 to kill her family members also. In cross examin ation, she states that accused person s gave threat to kill all of them but again said:

she did not remem ber whether she told the said fact to the police or not. She could not tell the date or mont h when Lalit confessed before her that he had killed Amit. She could not tell after how much period from the date of missing of Amit, accused Lalit told her so. She did not remem ber whether she or her hus b a n d went to police station to report about the said confession and as per her version, she was alone at the time when accused told her about his having killed Amit. She told this fact to her brother after about one and half mont h. Her hus b a n d Jai Bhagwa n was examined as PW7, who states in the cross examin ation that accus ed person s told him that they had taken Amit in car and murdered him and thrown his dead body in Gang Nehar and they told this fact to him when police was chasing them but this witnes s did not remember whether he had told the police about the confession of the accused person s and apart from accused, none else told him that Amit had been killed by accuse d. He did not lodge any report against Lalit after he confessed committing murder of Amit and for the fisrt time, he told this fact to the police on 15.12.199 9 and he did not told the same fact to anyone else before 15.12.19 9 9.

125. The above noted facts clearly show that a delayed attem pt was made to introd uce a telephonic call from Yogita or story of confession by accused persons before prosecution witnes se s regarding murder of Amit by them and the prosec ution has failed to Page 77 of 79 prove the same.

126. Accused Shrad h a n a n d has been roped in this case on the basis of Section 120B IPC but there is no direct /i n direct evidence on record of any criminal conspiracy entered on the day with the accused persons to commit the offence.

127. Under these circum s t a n c e s , the prosecution has not been able to prove the indepen de n t facts about there being any meeting on 14.7.1999 at the office of accuse d Lalit at Durga Puri Chowk, Loni Road, Sha h d a r a, Delhi and Amit being left with accused Lalit to be brought to village Morta and Amit being left at Pandit Hotel in village Duhai and thereafter all the accused persons conspiring with each other and in purs u a n c e there to, accus ed Rajender Shar m a (PO) and Rishi Raj leaving with accused Lalit Shar m a from village Morta in a Maruti Car and picking up Amit from Pandit Hotel at Duhai and deceased being last seen in the compa ny of three accused persons or their alleged act of killing him while driving in the Maruti Car by stra ng ula ti ng his throat with leather belt and thereafter pulling him on the back seat and causing knife injuries, resulting in his death and thereafter throwing of his dead body, leather belt and the knife in the Gang Nehar and of throwing of his shoe in the bus he s nearby and the recoveries in purs u a n c e to the disclos ure state me n t of accuse d Rishi Raj Shar m a and there being confessions made by the accused person s before the prosec ution witnesse s or information given by Ms. Yogita Sharm a Page 78 of 79 to the prosec ution witnesses that her family members had killed Amit. Neither these circu m s t a n c e s have been independe n tly proved nor the complete chain of the circum s t a n ce s has been formed which lead to the only conclusion that it was the accused person s alone, who had killed Amit. Hence benefit of doubt is extended to the accused person s. They are hereby acquitted. Their Bail Bond are discharged.

128. File be consigned to Record Room with direction to revive the same as and when accu sed Rajender Shar m a , who is Proclaimed Offender is arrested.

ANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THIS 30 th DAY OF APRIL, 200 7 (TALWANT SINGH) Additional Sessions Judge Karkardoom a Courts, Delhi Page 79 of 79

Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Delhi District Court

State vs Lalit Shar M A S /O Shrad H A N A N D Shar M A on 30 April, 2007