Delhi District Court
Fir No. 25/10; State vs . Kamaljeet @ Dhammal Page 1 Of 57 on 31 March, 2012
IN THE COURT OF SH. YASHWANT KUMAR : ADDL. SESSIONS
JUDGE03:NW:ROHINI:DELHI
SESSIONS CASE NO. 03/11
FIR No. 25/10
P.S. Mahindra Park
U/S: 302/201 IPC
STATE
Versus
KAMALJEET @ DHAMMAL
s/o Swaroop Singh
r/o VPO Holambi Kalan, Delhi
J U D G M E N T
1. The case of the Prosecution, in brief, is that on 04022010 DD no. 4A was registered in PS Mahendra Park regarding lying of a dead body near kudedan. SI Madan Mohan along with Ct. Rakesh reached at the spot i.e. Opp. H. No. 1051, near kudedan, ABlock, Jahangirpuri, Delhi where one dead body of a male, aged about 30/32 was lying and there were injuries on the head of the dead body. The dead body was wearing pant and shirt. The right hand of dead body was having name of Anil Kumar and Ram Pal Singh along with four other names. The dead body was FIR No. 25/10; State Vs. Kamaljeet @ Dhammal Page 1 of 57 wrapped in an old quilt and dari. On search of dead body, one wrist watch, five keys, one ten rupee coin, one spectacle with cover having Eye Tech Optical written on it were recovered. The dead body could not be identified even interrogation in the neighbourhood. FIR was registered u/s 302/201 IPC. On 05022010, one public person identified the photograph of deceased as that of Anil, brother of Rajni. Inspector Heman Kumar reached at the jhuggi of Rajni at N21B81, jhuggi Moujiwala bagh, Lal Bagh where Rajni identified the photograph of deceased as that of his brother Anil. Rajni also disclosed that deceased Anil used to reside with his friend Kamaljeet @ Dhammal at near the thiya of rickshaws near Hans Cinema kudedan. Inspector Hemant Kumar along with Rajni reached at kudedan, near Hans Cinema, GTK Road where one person was trying to slip away on seeing the police. Rajni identified that person as Kamaljeet @ Dhammal. Accused Kamaljeet @ Dhammal was apprehended. On interrogation, accused Kamlajeet confessed his guilt and disclosed that he was owing money towards Anil and Anil was demanding his money. On 03022010 accused killed the deceased with the help of concrete slab and his body was thrown in ABlock, near kudedan, Jahangirpur. Accused was arrested and after completion of FIR No. 25/10; State Vs. Kamaljeet @ Dhammal Page 2 of 57 investigation, chargesheet was filed in the court u/s 302/201 IPC.
2. After compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C., the case was committed to Sessions Court. Charge under Section 302/201 IPC was framed against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty.
3. In order to prove its case, Prosecution examined 21 witnesses. Statement of the accused was recorded u/s 313 Cr. P. C. wherein he denied all the allegations made against him. The accused did not opt to lead evidence in his defence.
4. I have heard the Ld. defence counsel/Amicus Curiae and the Ld. APP for the State and have perused the entire records.
5. In the present case, the accused has been charged for offence punishable u/s 302/201 IPC. Prosecution case is admittedly based on circumstantial evidence. Prosecution is relying on circumstances i.e. motive, last seen evidence, recovery of clothes having bloodstained marks, recovery of weapon i.e. big concrete stone piece having human blood, recovery of rickshaw, wooden planks cut from the rickshaw as well as from the wooden box having human blood. The challenge pertains not only to the motive but also the recovery of clothes, big concrete stone, rickshaw, wooden planks cut from rickshaw and from wooden box at the instance of the accused. It is well settled in law that where the case rests FIR No. 25/10; State Vs. Kamaljeet @ Dhammal Page 3 of 57 squarely on circumstantial evidence, inference of guilt can be justified only when all the incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or guilt of any other person. No doubt, it is true that conviction can be based solely on circumstantial evidence but it should be tested on the touchstone of law relating to circumstantial evidence which has been well settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In Sharad Birdichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra 1984 (4) SCC 116, some cardinal principles regarding the appreciation of circumstantial evidence have been postulated. Whenever the case is based on circumstantial evidence following features are required to be complied with :
(i) The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn must or should be and not merely may be fully established.
(ii) The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other; hypothesis except that the accused is guilty.
(iii) The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency,
(iv) They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and
(v) There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the FIR No. 25/10; State Vs. Kamaljeet @ Dhammal Page 4 of 57 conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused."
The doctrine of circumstantial evidence was again discussed and summarised in Sattatiya @ Satish Rajanna Kartalla Vs. State of Maharashtra 2008 (1) JCC 597, it was held that it is settled law that an offence can be proved not only by direct evidence but also by circumstantial evidence where there is no direct evidence. The court can draw an inference of guilt when all the incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be totally incompatible with the innocence of the accused. Of course, the circumstance from which an inference as to the guilt is drawn have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and have to be shown to be closely connected with the principal fact sought to be inferred from those circumstances.
6. Ld. Counsel for accused/ Amicus Curiae has argued that it is not the case of direct evidence, therefore, the chain has to be proved in the circumstantial evidence which is the present one. There were 12/15 persons who used to stay at the garage and it is strange that no person came to know about the murder. If the lock of the chain was broken, then why complaint for theft was not FIR No. 25/10; State Vs. Kamaljeet @ Dhammal Page 5 of 57 locked. Even the broken chain was not given to the police. If the chain was removed, there should have been a noise of removing chain. There is no record maintained by the owner for the rickshaws. The Ld. Amicus Curiae has further argued that there is no proof that the deceased landed money to the accused but it is only the hearsay. No keys have been produced. The deceased/ Anil Kumar used to reside with his sister. Local police of Mahindra Park was not involved. The whole story written by the police is highly improbable. There was no tissue of flesh found near wooden box. No chance prints were lifted from the rickshaw. There are no thumb marks on most of the memos and case particulars were not written on the stone. No DD entries placed on record. As per FSL report, there is alcohol smell which is very high in quantity found in the stomach of the deceased. Xrays also not filed on record. Further, there are contradictions in the testimony of PWs.
7. Whereas, the Ld. APP for State has argued that there is a chain of evidence in this case. The deceased Anil and accused were friends and used to live at garage near dustbin. The accused had borrowed an amount of Rs. 4,0005,000/ from the deceased which is also supported by PW2, sister of the deceased. PW5/ Bhagwati Prasad and PW6/ Satpal are the last seen witnesses. The FIR No. 25/10; State Vs. Kamaljeet @ Dhammal Page 6 of 57 accused and deceased were in the habit of taking liquor and used to reside at the garage. The Ld. APP for the State has further argued that on 03022010 at around 9 pm, PW5 had seen the accused and the deceased at the garage and the next day, he found the accused and the deceased missing and even one rickshaw was also missing. On 03022010 at around 7 pm, PW6 handed over the keys of his wooden box to the deceased Anil and at that time, the accused was also present at the said place. Next day on 04022010 at around 5 am, when he came to his rehri, he found that the deceased was missing from there and the accused was sitting near wooden box and he was shivering. There is no rebuttal to the last seen evidence. The Ld. APP for the State has also argued that there is recovery of black pant and black shirt of the accused at his instance which was lying under a cement sheet in the space between wall of park and the said clothes were having blood stained marks. There is also recovery of big stone from the nala near the wall of kudedan at the instance of accused. There is further recovery of rickshaw near Shah Alam Bandh having blood stained marks at the instance of accused. Doctor Kulbhushan also opined that injuries on the body of the deceased can be caused by the concrete stone piece as shown to him by the police. FSL reports also proved that clothes, FIR No. 25/10; State Vs. Kamaljeet @ Dhammal Page 7 of 57 stone piece, wooden planks cut from rickshaw and wooden box were also having human blood. The accused cannot take benefit of the faulty investigation. Further, there are no major contradictions in the testimony of PWs. Ld. APP for the State, in support of his arguments, has relied upon the judgements reported as Kalam @ Abdul Kalam (Md.) Vs. State of Rajasthan, 2008 IV AD (SC) 453; Bhagwan Dass Vs. State (NCT) of Delhi, 2011 III AD (CRI.)(SC)157; Paramjeet Singh @ Pamma Vs. State of Uttarakhana, AIR 2011 SC 200; State of UP Vs. Krishna Master & ors, 2010 CRI. L. J. 3889; Dhanaj Singh alias Shera and others Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 2004 SC 1920; and Khujji alias Surendra Tiwari Vs. State of MP, 1991 CRI.L.J. 2653(1).
8. In view of the above arguments of the Ld. Defence counsel/ Amicus Curiae and the Ld. APP for the State as well as the judgements relied upon by them, let us examine the evidence led in this case as to whether the accused had committed murder of Anil Kumar and thereafter the accused concealed body of the deceased near kudedan of MCD, ABlock, Jahangirpuri and thereby he caused certain evidence of murder to disappear with intent to screen the evidence of murder. PW1 HC Jagmohan deposed that on 04.02.2010, he was posted at PS Mahindra Park as Duty Officer FIR No. 25/10; State Vs. Kamaljeet @ Dhammal Page 8 of 57 from 8.00 am to 4.00 pm. On that day, Ct. Rakesh came to PS at about 9.40 am and handed over the original rukka. He informed the Crime Team to reach at the spot. He recorded DD no. 9A Ex. PW1/A in this regard. On the basis of said rukka, he registered the case FIR No. 25/10 u/s. 302/201 IPC Ex. PW1/B. He made his endorsement Ex. PW1/C on the rukka. Thereafter, he recorded DD No. 10A Ex. PW1/D in this regard in DD register (OSR). PW2 Smt. Rajni deposed that deceased Anil Kumar was her real brother and he used to work at the stall of Satyapal near Hans Cinema, Lal Bagh. Occasionally, he used to ride a rickshaw in the night. Accused (correctly identified) was the friend of her brother and he used to work in a rickshaw rehri of the garage of Sh. Bhagwati Prasad at near Hans Cinema. Her brother used to sleep with Kamaljeet at the garage near dustbin (kudedaan). Her brother and accused Kamaljeet used to come to meet her in her jhuggi. On 05022010 at about 7:15 pm, some police official came to her jhuggi and showed the photo of injured condition of her brother to her and she recognized her brother in the photo. She along with police officials came to near Hans Cinema and accused was standing there. On seeing them, he tried to escape. Accused was overpowered by the police officials. Accused disclosed his name as FIR No. 25/10; State Vs. Kamaljeet @ Dhammal Page 9 of 57 Kamaljeet. Accused made a disclosure statement and police officials took the accused. She came to her jhuggi. On next day, she went to BJRM hospital and identified the dead body of her brother. Statement Ex. PW2/A regarding identification of dead body was recorded by the IO. On 06022010, after the postmortem, the dead body was handed over to them vide handing over memo Ex. PW2/B. Her statement was recorded by the IO.
9. PW3 Virender Kumar deposed that on 06022010, he had reached the mortuary of BJRM hospital and identified one dead body as that of his relative Sh. Anil Kumar s/o late Sh. Net Ram r/o village Jijora, Distt. Badayu, UP. After the postmortem, the dead body of deceased was handed over to Smt. Rajni, who is real sister of the deceased Anil Kumar. He had also signed the memo regarding identification of dead body of Anil Kumar as Ex. PW3/A. His statement was also recorded by the IO Inspector Hemant Kumar. PW4 Ram Niwas deposed that he does not remember the date and month, however, it was 2010. It was around 7:30 am. He was going to drop his daughter to her school situated in A Block, Jahangirpuri, Delhi. In front of H. No. A1051, there was one dustbin and he saw public persons collected there. He also went there and noticed that a dead body of a male person was lying FIR No. 25/10; State Vs. Kamaljeet @ Dhammal Page 10 of 57 there. He made a call to the police from his mobile phone no. 9212508479. Later on, police recorded his statement. In response to a leading question put by Ld. APP, the witness admitted that he made a call to the police on 04022010.
10. PW5 Bhagwati Prasad deposed that he is running a rickshaw garage near Hans Cinema dustbin within the jurisdiction of PS Model Town and used to provide rickshaws and rickshawrehris on daily hire basis. In the evening time, the rickshaw pullers return the rickshaws at his garage. All the rickshaws during night hours were tied with chain and put his lock. He used to hand over the keys of lock to accused Kamaljit (correctly identified) who used to stay at his garage in night and he used to provide him food for the same. Deceased Anil, who used to work as maid servant at a chotebhature rehri of Satpal in the day time and in the night he used to stay at his garage with accused Kamaljit. Accused Kamaljit had borrowed some money from deceased Anil. Accused as well as deceased Anil were in the habit of taking liquor. He used to mark his name Bhagwati Prasad and son Jugnu on his rickshaws and rehris. On 03022010, he left deceased Anil and accused Kamaljit at around 9 pm at his garage. When he came back to his garage in the morning at around 8:30 am on 04022010, he found deceased FIR No. 25/10; State Vs. Kamaljeet @ Dhammal Page 11 of 57 as well as accused Kamaljit missing from the garage. The chain tied with the rickshaws was broken and his rickshaw of Sl. no. 14 was found missing. He presumed that deceased Anil and accused Kamaljit might have taken the same. He left his son Jugnu and Harish at his garage and went to his native in District Aligarh in the noon time by the train. On 06022010, in the morning, he reached Delhi from Aligarh and went to his garage and heard that Anil was murdered by accused Kamaljit and dead body was dumped at Jahangirpuri khatta. He came to know that his rickshawrehri was seized by the police of PS Mahindra Park. On 08022010 police officials of PS Mahindra Park came and interrogated him. Police demanded the MCD slip of his 14 number rickshaw and he handed over the same to the police and same was seized by the police vide seizure memo Ex. PW5/A. The witness also identified the original receipt Ex. PX issued by MCD for the aforesaid rickshaw bearing no. 546099. He went to the PS and identified his rickshaw rehri no. 14 in the PS. He found one of the phatta of the rehri missing. The witness identified the rehri Ex. P1 which belonged to him.
11. PW6 Satpal deposed that he used to run a cholebhature rehri near Shiv Temple, Bada Bagh. Deceased Anil used to work on his rehri as his helper and he used to pay Rs. 100 as daily wages to FIR No. 25/10; State Vs. Kamaljeet @ Dhammal Page 12 of 57 him. Deceased Anil as well as accused Kamaljit used to sleep near dustbin. On 03022010 at around 7 pm, he handed over keys of his wooden box to Anil which was used for keeping utensils as well as clothes of deceased as well as his clothes and it was put near dustbin. Accused Kamaljit was also present at the aforesaid place. On 04022010 at around 5 am, he went to his rehri and found Anil missing from there. Accused Kamaljit was sitting near his wooden box and he was shivering. He asked accused regarding Anil and he informed him that he had run away along with his clothes. He went to the house of Anil and asked his sister regarding whereabouts of Anil but she could not tell him about Anil. Thereafter, he came back to the place where he used to keep his wooden box and broke open the lock of the box and took out utensils. He parked his rehri at the appropriate place. On 06022010, police came and asked whether Anil was working with him. He informed the police that he was working with him. Police informed him that someone had murdered Anil. Thereafter, police left from there. He heard from the public persons of the locality that accused Kamaljit had committed murder of Anil. He had seen deceased Anil exchanging hot words with accused Kamaljit as he was not returning money borrowed from deceased. He does not know the amount which deceased was FIR No. 25/10; State Vs. Kamaljeet @ Dhammal Page 13 of 57 owing towards accused.
12. PW7 SI Madan Mohan deposed that on 04.02.2010, he was posted as SubInspector at PS Mahendra Park. On that day, on receipt of DD No. 4A Exbt. PW7/A, he along with Constable Rakesh reached at the place of occurrence i.e. opposite H. No. 1051, ABlock, near Kudadaan and found dead body of an unknown person aged about 3032 years. The deceased was having injury marks on his forehead as well as on head with some sharpedged weapon. A part of brain had also come out from the head of the body. The deceased was wearing Khaki colour pant and Saleti colour chequedar shirt, a black colour leather belt and orange red black colour socks. The names Anil Kumar and Rampal Singh were engraved on the wrist of his right hand. Four more names were also engraved but they were not readable. "Om" was engraved behind the palm of his hand. The height of the body was around five feet and five inches. The body was wearing a Tabeez in a black thread and a golden colour Murki in his right ear. The head of the body was facing western side and the feet were towards the east side. The dead body was lying covered with an old quilt and a dari made of old clothes. Blood was lying on the floor. From the condition of the body, it appeared that after murder, he was thrown there. FIR No. 25/10; State Vs. Kamaljeet @ Dhammal Page 14 of 57 Inspector Hemant Kumar also came at the spot. Constable Rakesh took the personal search of the body of the deceased. One spectacle in a box, five keys and an old coin of Rs. 10 having picture of lion on one side were recovered from the right pocket of the pant of the deceased. PW7 prepared the Rukka Exbt. PW7/B and got the FIR registered through Ct. Rakesh. After registration of the FIR, further investigation was entrusted to Inspector Hemant Kumar. Crime team was called by Inspector Hemant Kumar at the spot. Crime team inspected the spot. The photographer of the crime team took photographs of the spot. The blood lying on the floor was lifted with the help of cotton and kept in a plastic container and a pullanda was prepared which was sealed with the seal of HK. Blood earth was also lifted from the spot and kept in a plastic container and a second pullanda was prepared which was sealed with the seal of HK. Similarly, earth control was also lifted and kept in a plastic container which was sealed with the seal of HK. All the three pullandas were seized vide memo Exbt. PW7/C. The quilt, the dari and some other clothes were lifted from the spot and kept in a plastic bag and sealed with the seal of HK and seized vide memo Exbt. PW7/D. The articles recovered in the personal search of the body were seized vide memo Exbt. PW7/E. One wrist watch M Max FIR No. 25/10; State Vs. Kamaljeet @ Dhammal Page 15 of 57 was also recovered in the personal search of the deceased. Seal after use was handed over to him. The body could not be identified. The body was then sent to BJRM Mortuary for preserving the same through Constable Rakesh. In response to a leading question, PW7 admitted that Inspector Hemant Kumar had prepared the site plan on his pointing out. PW7 identified the quilt, dari and other clothes as Exbt. P1; a wrist watch M Max, a bunch of five keys, spectacles with box and an old ten rupee coin as Exbt. P2.
13. PW8 SI Yogesh Kumar deposed that on 05.02.2010, he was posted at PS Mahendra Park as PSI. On that day, he joined the investigation of this case with Inspector Hemant Kumar. At about 11.00 am, he along with Inspector Hemant Kumar and Constable Sukhdev went to an optical shop at Derawala Nagar on the address mentioned on the spectacle box recovered in the personal search of the deceased. IO made enquiry from the shop owner who told that the name of the deceased was Anil. Thereafter, they came in a private car at Sangam Park jhuggis where the photographs of the deceased were shown to the public and hue and cry posters were pasted but no clue was found. Then they went at Lal Bagh jhuggis. They showed photographs of the deceased to various public persons. One public person told the IO that the photograph FIR No. 25/10; State Vs. Kamaljeet @ Dhammal Page 16 of 57 appeared to be that of Anil and that his sister Rajni is residing in Lal Bagh jhuggis. Thereafter, they went to the jhuggi of Rajni who identified the photograph to be that of her brother Anil and told that Anil was residing with his friend Kamaljeet in a Thiya near Hans Cinema. Then, they accompanied by Rajni went near Hans Cinema where Rajni pointed out towards accused Kamaljeet (correctly identified) as the person with whom her brother Anil Kumar was residing. Accused tried to escape but was overpowered by him with the help of Constable Sukhdev. On interrogation, accused confessed his guilt. Rajni was discharged from the spot with instructions to come next day for the postmortem of the body. Accused was arrested vide arrest memo Exbt. PW8/A and his personal search was conducted vide memo Exbt. PW8/B. On interrogation, accused gave disclosure statement Exbt. PW8/C. Crime team was called at the spot who inspected the spot. There were blood spots on a wooden box. The crime team took photographs of the spot. The wooden box having blood spots was cut into four pieces with an Aari and the same were kept in a plastic gunny bag which was sealed with the seal of HK and seized vide memo Exbt. PW8/D. Accused then got recovered a black colour pant and a black colour shirt lying under a cement sheet in the FIR No. 25/10; State Vs. Kamaljeet @ Dhammal Page 17 of 57 space between the wall of the kudedaan and the wall of the park. The clothes were having blood stains. The clothes were kept in a pullanda and sealed with the seal of HK. The seal after use was handed over to PW8. The cloth pullanda was seized vide memo Exbt. PW8/E. Before the recovery of the clothes, the accused had also got recovered a big stone weighing about 5055 kgs from a Nala near the wall of the kudedaan which was wet with water. The stone was kept in a plastic gunny bag and sealed with the seal of HK and seized vide memo Exbt. PW8/F. Accused then took them to Shah Alam Bandh for the search of rickshaw rehri but the same could not be recovered. Accused then took them to a place near kudedaan at A Block, Jahangir Puri where he pointed out the place of throwing the body vide pointing out memo Exbt. PW8/G. Thereafter, accused was taken to BJRM Hospital for medical examination. Accused was then brought to the Police Station Shalimar Bagh and case property was deposited in the Malkhana of PS Mahendra Park.
14. PW8 further deposed that on 06.02.2010, at about 9.00 am, he along with Inspector Hemant Kumar and Constable Sukhdev brought out the accused from the lockup of PS Shalimar Bagh and he took them to Shah Alam Bandh near a Mazaar from where the FIR No. 25/10; State Vs. Kamaljeet @ Dhammal Page 18 of 57 accused got recovered the rickshaw vide seizure memo Exbt. PW8/H. JUGNU was written with yellow colour paint on the rickshaw. The rickshaw was of the make Neelam which was mentioned on the frame of the rickshaw. There were blood marks on side phatta of the rickshaw. The piece of phatta having blood marks was cut and was kept in a pullanda which was sealed with the seal of HK and seized vide memo Exbt. PW1/H. Seal after use was handed over to him. PW8 identified the rickshaw rehri as Exbt. P3; a wooden phatta as Ex. P4 as the same which was cut from the rehri rickshaw; a stone as Exbt. P5; four wooden phattas as Exbt. P6 (collectively) which were cut from wooden box; a black colour pant Ex. P7 and a black colour shirt Ex. P8. The Ld. APP wanted to crossexamine the witness on the ground that PW8 had suppressed some of the facts, therefore, the Ld. Predecessor court allowed the Ld. APP to crossexamine PW8. PW8 further deposed that his statement was recorded by the IO. The name of the optical shop was Eyetech Optical Shop and its address was B191, Derawala Nagar. The name of the owner was Sandeep and Manager was Manoj Sharma. On enquiry from them, they could not know anything about the deceased. One public person in Lal Bagh told them that the photograph appeared to be that of Anil. He also FIR No. 25/10; State Vs. Kamaljeet @ Dhammal Page 19 of 57 told that the sister of Anil was residing in N Block jhuggis at Lal Bagh. The address of the jhuggi of Rajni was N21B81, Mauji Wala Bagh, Lal Bagh. IO had also requested some public persons to join the raiding party but they refused and went away expressing their inability. The crime team photographer took the photographs of wooden box having blood stains. On further interrogation, accused had pointed out the Pakki Nali on the western wall of the kudedaan running parallel to the road where he had thrown the concrete stone used in the crime. The pant and shirt were recovered from an old bag. IO had prepared the site plan of the spot of recovery. The place of throwing of the body pointed out by the accused was near kudedaan A Block opposite house No. 1051, Jahangir Puri. Bhagwati Prasad and JUGNU14 were written on side pattis of the rickshaw with yellow paint. "Neelam" was written on the handle of the rickshaw rehri. The rickshaw rehri was got photographed through private photographer. Pointing out memo Exbt. PW8/I of the place of commission of offence bears his signatures at point A.
15. PW9 SI Manohar Lal, Draftsman deposed that on 15.03.2010, he was called by the IO Inspector Hemant Mishra, PS Mahendra Park. He went to the spot i.e near dustbin in front of FIR No. 25/10; State Vs. Kamaljeet @ Dhammal Page 20 of 57 house No. 1051, A Block, Jahangir Puri along with the IO from the police station where at the instance of the IO, he took the marginal notes and measurements of the spot. Thereafter, on the basis of rough notes and measurements, he prepared scaled site plan Ex. PW9/A and the same was handed over the IO on 23.03.2010. His statement was recorded by the IO. After preparation of the scaled site plan, he destroyed the rough notes and measurements. PW10 Ct. Sukhdev Singh deposed that on 05022010, he was posted as Ct. at PS Mahendra Park and joined the investigation of the case. At about 11:15 am, he along with Inspector Hemant Kumar and SI Yogesh Kumar went at an optical shop at Derawal Nagar at the address mentioned on the spectacle box recovered in the search of the deceased. IO made enquiries from the shop owner while he remained outside the shop. Thereafter, they went in the jhuggis of Sangam Park in a private car where the photograph of the deceased was shown to the public persons but no clue was found. Hue and cry posters of deceased were also pasted. Then, they went at Lal Bagh jhuggis where also IO showed the photograph of the deceased to various public persons and one public person told the IO that the photograph appeared to be that of Anil and that his sister Rajni was residing in NBlock, Lal Bagh, Jhuggis. At about 7--7:15 FIR No. 25/10; State Vs. Kamaljeet @ Dhammal Page 21 of 57 pm, they went at NBlock jhuggi of Rajni. On being shown the photograph, Rajni identified the photograph to be that of her brother Anil and told that Anil was residing with his friend Kamaljeet in a thiya near Hans Cinema. Thereafter, they along with Rajni went near Hans Cinema where Rajni pointed out towards accused Kamaljeet (correctly identified) as the person with whom her brother was residing. On seeing them, the accused tried to run away but was overpowered by them. Accused was arrested vide memo Ex. PW8/A and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex. PW8/B. On interrogation, accused gave disclosure statement Ex. PW8/C. Crime Team was called at the spot. The photographer of the Crime Team took the photographs of the spot. There were blood spots on the wooden box lying near the Kudedaan. The wooden box having blood spots was cut into four pieces with an aari and the same were kept in a white plastic gunny bag which was sealed with the seal of HK and seized vide memo Ex. PW8/D. After further interrogation, accused got recovered a big stone weighing about 5055 kgs from the nala near the Kudedaan. The stone was wet with muddy water. The stone was kept in a plastic bag which was sealed with the seal of HK and seized vide memo Ex. PW8/F. Accused then got recovered a black colour pant and a black colour FIR No. 25/10; State Vs. Kamaljeet @ Dhammal Page 22 of 57 shirt which were found lying in a bag under cement sheet within the space between the wall of the kudedaan and the park. The clothes were having blood marks. The clothes were then kept in a pullanda and it was sealed with the seal of HK and the pullanda was then seized vide memo Ex. PW8/E. Accused then took them to Shah Alam Bandh for the search of rickshaw but the same could not be found. Accused then took them to a place near Kudedaan at A Block, Jahangirpuri where he pointed out the place where the dead body was thrown. Accused was then taken to BJRM hospital for medical examination at about 1 am. After medical examination, accused was brought to the PS and the case property was deposited in the Malkhana.
16. PW10 further deposed that on 06022010, at about 9:15-9:30 am, he along with Inspector Hemant Kumar and SI Yogesh Kumar took the accused to Shah Alam Bandh near a Mazar from where accused got recovered a rickshaw which was seized vide memo Ex. PW8/H. "Jugnu No. 14 and Bhagwati Prasad" were written on the rickshaw. The rickshaw was got photographed through a photographer. There was blood on the side phatta of the rickshaw. The phatta having blood was cut with the help of an aari and was kept in a pullanda which was sealed with the seal of HK. FIR No. 25/10; State Vs. Kamaljeet @ Dhammal Page 23 of 57 The sealed pullanda was seized vide memo Ex. PW1/H. Seal after use was handed over to SI Yogesh Kumar. Accused was then brought to the PS and the case property was deposited in the Malkhana. His statement was recorded by the IO. The witness identified the rickshaw rehri Ex. P3; wooden phatta Ex. P4 as the same which was cut from the rehri rickshaw; stone Ex. P5; four wooden phattas as Ex. P6 (colly) which were cut from the wooden box; a black colour pant and a black colour shirt as Ex. P7 and P8. In response to leading questions put by Ld. APP, the witness admitted that number of optical shop was B1/91, Derawal Nagar and the address of Rajni as N21, B81, Mauji Wala Bagh, Lal Bagh. He also admitted that IO had prepared the pointing out memo of place of throwing of dead boy as Ex. PW8/G and that rickshaw was of the make of Neelam which was written on the handle of the rickshaw rehri.
17. PW11 HC Sadhu Ram deposed that on the intervening night of 03/04022010, he was working as DO between 12 night to 8 am. At about 7:30 am, he received a message from Wireless Operator that he received a call from Ct. Abdul Hassan of PCR that a dead body was recovered near dustbin at ABlock, Jahangirpuri near H. No. 1051. He recorded the DD no. 4A Ex. PW11/A (OSR) in FIR No. 25/10; State Vs. Kamaljeet @ Dhammal Page 24 of 57 this respect. PW12 Anil Sharma, photographer deposed that he is a photographer and running his shop by the name of Nutan Studio, E28, main market, Jahangirpuri, Delhi. On 06022010, he was called by police at Majar, near Shah Alam Bandh, near Sanjay Nagar, Mahendra Park, Delhi. On the call of police, he reached at the aforesaid place where Inspector Hemant from PS Mehendra Park met him. One cycle rickshaw was standing by the side of Majar having some blood stain marks. He took six photographs Ex. PW12/1 to PW12/6 of the said rickshaw from different angles from digital camera. PW13 Ct. Rakesh Singh deposed that on 04022010, he was posted as Ct. at PS Mahendra Park. On receipt of DD no. 4A regarding recovery of dead body, he accompanied SI Madan Mohan to the place of occurrence opposite H. No. 1051, A Block, Jahangirpuri, Delhi, near MCD Kudaghar (garbage place). One dead body was found near kudaghar wrapped in a quilt. The deceased was having head injury and there was blood on the floor near dead body. He took search of deceased on the directions of IO and found one wrist watch, one key bunch, one coin, and one green colour box containing spikes (spectacle). IO seized aforesaid articles vide seizure memo already Ex. PW7/E. At around 9:30 am, IO handed over rukka to him and he got the FIR registered at PS FIR No. 25/10; State Vs. Kamaljeet @ Dhammal Page 25 of 57 Mahendra Park. Around 11:30 am, he came back to the spot and handed over copy of FIR and rukka in original to the IO. Around 1:30 pm, he was deputed by the IO to deposit the dead body at mortuary of BJRM hospital. He deposited the dead body in the mortuary and remained there till postmortem. On 06022010, the relatives of deceased namely Virender Kumar and Smt. Rajni identified the dead body. The name of deceased came to be known as Anil. After postmortem, IO handed over body of deceased to his relatives. Doctor handed over three sealed pullandas with the seal of BJRM and two sample seals which were seized by the IO through seizure memo Ex. PW13/A. PW13 identified the wrist watch of Max Quartz, one coin, one bunch of keys and one spikes (spectacle box) as Ex. P2 (collectively).
18. PW14 SI Matadin deposed that on 04022010, he was posted in Mobile Crime Team, NW District and on that day, on receipt of call from NW District Control Room, he along with Ct. Bal Kishan and Ct. Dalbir reached A1051, Jahangirpuri, opposite MCD kudaghar where a body wrapped in a dari and quilt was lying. There was deep wound on the head of the body. The photographs of the body were take by Ct. Bal Kishan, photographer. He prepared his report Ex. PW14/A. On 05022010, on receipt of call from DO, FIR No. 25/10; State Vs. Kamaljeet @ Dhammal Page 26 of 57 Control Room, he along with Crime Team reached at GTB Road, near Hans Cinema, MCD Kudedaan where he found that a wooden box was lying near the wall of the kudedaan which contained clothes. There were blood marks on the box. There was a rickshaw standing near the wall of the kudedaan and there were blood spots on the rickshaw. No blood was found on the earth and wall of the kudedaan. He prepared his report Ex. PW14/B. PW15 Ct. Dalbir Singh deposed that on 05022010, he was posted as Photographer, Crime Team, NW District. On that day, he along with Crime Team went at the spot at MCD Kudaghar, near Hans Cinema, GTK Road, Azadpur and took 11 photographs Ex. PW15/A1 to PW15/A11 from a digital camera.
19. PW16 Ct. Bal Kishan, photographer deposed that on 04022010 he was posted as photographer, Crime Team, NW District. On that day, he along with the Crime Team went at the spot at ABlock, MCD Kudaghar, Jahangirpuri and took 17 photographs Ex. PW16/A1 to PW16/A17 of a dead body from different angles from a digital camera. PW17 HC Rajpal Hooda deposed that on 08022010, he was posted as HC at PS Mahendra Park. On that day, he along with Inspector Hemant Kumar went at Bhagwati Thaiya, near Kudedaan, Hans Cinema, Azadpur where Bhagwati FIR No. 25/10; State Vs. Kamaljeet @ Dhammal Page 27 of 57 Prasad handed over the receipt of MCD regarding the ownership of rehri rickshaw which was seized by the IO vide memo Ex. PW5/A. IO then brought Bhagwati Prasad to the PS where he identified the rickshaw rehri standing in the compound of the PS. Statement of Bhagwati Prasad was recorded. On 16032010, Inspector Hemant Kumar gave an application in writing for taking opinion of autopsy surgeon. PW17 took a sealed pullanda bearing the seal of HK from the Malkhana along with the application and produced the same before the autopsy surgeon. The doctor after examination, gave the opinion and returned the pullanda with the seal of KG BJRM hospital mortuary. He handed over the report to the IO and deposited the pullanda in the Malkhana. On 19032010, on the instructions of Inspector Hemant Kumar, he took sealed exhibits vide RC no. 21/21/10 from the Malkhana along with forwarding letter and deposited them at FSL Rohini vide file no. FSL2010/B1129. He handed over the copy of the FSL and receipt to the MHCM. On 22032010, on the instructions of Inspector Hemant Kumar, he took exhibits from Malkhana vide RC no. 23/21/10 and deposited them at FSL Rohini along with forwarding letter. After depositing the same, he handed over the receipt and copy of FSL to MHCM, PS Mahendra Park.
FIR No. 25/10; State Vs. Kamaljeet @ Dhammal Page 28 of 57
20. PW18 Ct. Abul Hassan deposed that on 03/04022010, his duty was between 8 pm to 8 am at PCR, PHQ at Channel no. 103, Police Command Room. On 04022010 at about 7:28 am, he received a call from mobile phone of Sh. Ram Niwas that a dead body was lying near Kudedaan, near H. No. 1051, ABlock. He passed this information at District Net who further passed on the information to the PS. In response to a leading question, the witness admitted that mobile phone from which information was received was 9212508479. PW19 HC Vijay Singh deposed that on 04022010, he was posted as HC at PS Mahendra Park and doing job of MHCM in the Malkhana. On that day, Inspector Hemant Kumar deposited three sealed pullandas with the seal of HK and one mattress also having seal of HK. He also deposited the personal search articles of deceased along with sealed pullandas. Aforesaid pullandas were deposited vide Sl. no. 88/10, photocopy of same is Ex. PW19/A (OSR). On 06022010, Inspector Hemant Kumar again deposited four sealed pullandas having seal of HK as well as of BJRM hospital. He also deposited one rickshawrehri and personal search of accused Kamaljeet. The aforesaid articles were deposited vide Sl. no. 91/10, photocopy of register is Ex. PW19/B (OSR). On 19032010, eleven sealed pullandas, three sample FIR No. 25/10; State Vs. Kamaljeet @ Dhammal Page 29 of 57 seals of BJRM hospital and one sample seal of HK were sent to FSL Rohini through HC Rajpal. He deposited ten sealed pullandas in the laboratory but returned one sealed pullanda containing blood sample of deceased which could not be deposited there. The aforesaid pullandas were sent to FSL vide RC no. 21/21/10, photocopy of RC register is Ex. PW19/C (OSR). On 22032010, one sealed pullanda and one sample seal of BJRM hospital were sent to FSL Rohini through HC Rajpal vide RC no. 23/21/10. Photocopy of the RC register is Ex PW19/D (OSR). On 28072010, the FSL result was handed over to Inspector Hemant Kumar which was received from the Laboratory.
21. PW20 Inspector Hemant Kumar deposed that on 04.02.10, he was posted as Inspector Investigation in PS Mahendera Park. On that day, investigation was entrusted to him. He inspected the spot along with IO SI Madan Mohan who was already investigating the present case. He prepared site plan Ex. PW20/A of the scene of occurrence. Unknown dead body was searched by Ct. Rakesh and a spectacle in a green colour box, bunch of keys, a coin of foreign make, a wrist watch of M Max were recovered. The aforesaid articles of the deceased were seized through seizure memo already Ex. PW7/A. He lifted the blood, FIR No. 25/10; State Vs. Kamaljeet @ Dhammal Page 30 of 57 blood stain soil and earth control near the dead body and kept them in small plastic jar and all the three jars were sealed with the seal of HK and taken into possession through seizure memo already Ex. PW7/C. The dead body was found wrapped in a quilt. He seized the torn quilt having blood stain marks, one dari, one muffler of green colour, one jacket of black colour and one mattress of blue colour and one piece of cotton cloth of white colour and one mattress of different colour near the dead body and all the articles were seized by keeping them in a plastic bag with the seal of HK. The seizure memo of the same is already Ex. PW7/D. Before seizure of the articles, he summoned the Crime Team who also inspected the spot and crime team official took photographs of the scene of occurrence. The witness identified the photographs already exhibited Ex. PW16/A1to A17. The crime team Incharge handed over crime team report to him. The dead body was sent to the mortuary through Ct. Rakesh for preserving the same at mortuary. The efforts were made to identify the dead body on that day but same could not be identified.
22. PW20 further deposed that on 05.02.2010, he along with SI Yogesh and Ct. Sukhdev took up the investigation and went to Derawalan Nagar at a spectacle shop by the name of Eye Tech FIR No. 25/10; State Vs. Kamaljeet @ Dhammal Page 31 of 57 optical but no clue could be found out from the said place regarding the deceased. Thereafter, he along with other staff members went to nearby jhuggies to get identification of the deceased from the photograph. When they reached near Lal Bagh jhuggi, Adarsh Nagar, someone from the public informed that the said photograph resembled with a person namely Anil Kumar whose sister lives nearby Lal Bagh Jhuggi. Then, they went to the jhuggi of one Smt. Rajni who identified the said photograph as that of his brother Anil Kumar. The sister of deceased led the police party to the place of occurrence where his brother and accused used to sleep and lived together. Accused, present in the court, was also standing at some distance from the scene of occurrence and on seeing the police team, accused tried to escape but he was identified by the sister of the deceased. Accused was overpowered by the police team. Accused was interrogated in the presence of sister of deceased and he confessed his involvement in the murder of deceased Anil. The sister of deceased left the spot after starting weeping. The accused was arrested vide arrest memo already Ex. PW8/A and his personal search was conducted Ex. PW8/B. Accused Kamaljeet, after his arrest, pointed out the place of incident i.e near Kudedan (garbage house), GTK Road, Model Town, Delhi where pointing out memo FIR No. 25/10; State Vs. Kamaljeet @ Dhammal Page 32 of 57 Ex. PW8/I was prepared by him at his instance. Thereafter, Crime Team N/W district reached at the spot which inspected the scene of occurrence and took the photographs of the spot. The Crime Team Incharge prepared its report and handed over to him. Accused made his disclosure statement Ex. PW8/C. One wooden box having blood stained marks was also found at the spot. The pieces of said box having blood stain marks was cut and kept in sealed pulanda sealed with the seal of HK and seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW8/D. Accused also pointed out the drain where after committing murder he threw the weapon of offence i.e a big piece of concrete slab. Accused took the said concrete slab from the drain. The said concrete slab was kept in plastic bag and sealed with the seal of HK and seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW8/F. Accused also got recovered one pant and shirt lying under a sheet near kudedan which he was wearing at the time of incident. The said clothes were sealed with the seal of HK and seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW8/E. Thereafter, he prepared site plan Ex. PW20/B of the place of recovery of aforesaid exhibits. Thereafter, accused led them to the place where he had thrown the dead body i.e opposite H.No. 1051, near Kudedan, A Block, Jahangir Puri Delhi and pointed out the said place. The pointing out memo Ex. PW8/G of said place FIR No. 25/10; State Vs. Kamaljeet @ Dhammal Page 33 of 57 was prepared at the instance of accused. Thereafter, they came to the PS and deposited the case property in the malkhana.
23. PW20 further deposed that on 6.2.2010, accused was taken out from the police lockup of Shalimar Bagh and he led them to Shah Alam Bandh near Majar in the area of PS Mahendra Park and got recovered a rickshaw rehri which was used by the accused to carry the dead body from the place of murder to the place of its disposal. The said rickshaw having blood stains was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW8/H. Some portion of rickshaw having blood stain marks were separately sealed with the seal of HK. Thereafter, the postmortem of dead body was got conducted. PW20 prepared inquest documents Ex. PW20/C (10 in no.s) pertaining to dead body. After postmortem, Doctor handed over three sealed pulandas and two sample seals which were seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW13/A. He recorded the statement of witnesses during investigation and also prepared site plan Ex. PW20/D of the place of disposal of dead body. PW20 also deposed that on 8.2.2010, he went to the scene of crime where Bhagwati Prasad, owner of rickshaw rehri met him and he handed over the ownership documents issued by the MCD of said rickshaw which was seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW5/A and the receipt issued by MCD is Ex. FIR No. 25/10; State Vs. Kamaljeet @ Dhammal Page 34 of 57 PX. He also recorded statement of Bhagwati Prasad regarding identity of rickshaw in the PS. The opinion of doctor was obtained on the concrete slab. All the exhibits along with documents were sent to FSL. The FSL reports Ex. PW20/E, F and G were collected from FSL Office and filed in the Court. He also got prepared the scaled site plan Ex. PW9/A from draftsman. He also got published the Hue and Cry notice and W/T message was also got flashed to ascertain the identity of deceased which are Ex.PW20/H and I. PW20 identified the one quilt in torn condition of white and red colour having blood stained marks, one dari (gadela) of multi colour, one muffler of green colour, one black colour jacket, one gadela of blue colour, one cloth piece of white colour, one other gadela of multi colour, one plastic palli made of plastic bag as Ex.P1 (colly); one wrist watch M MAX, one bunch of keys having five keys, one coin having mark of New Pence 10, one spectacle with green colour case with the Mark of Eye Tech Opticles, Dwarka as Ex.P2 (colly); one big concrete slab weighing around 150 Kg as Ex.P5 which was seized at the instance of accused; four pieces of wooden planks as Ex.P6 (colly) which were seized by him from the spot; one piece of wooden plank which was cut from rickshaw rehri and one rickshaw rehri on which Neelam is written as Ex.P3 and P4 respectively; FIR No. 25/10; State Vs. Kamaljeet @ Dhammal Page 35 of 57 black color pant Ex. P7 and shirt Ex. P8; blood stained gauze piece, blood stained earth control and earth control as Ex.P9 (colly).
24. PW21 Dr. Kulbhushan Goyal, CMO, Mortuary, Subzi Mandi, Delhi deposed that on 6.2.2010, he was posted at BJRM hospital, Delhi. On that day, he conducted postmortem examination on the dead body of Anil Kumar aged about 32 years, male which was sent by Inspector Hemant Kumar of PS Mahendra Park with the alleged history of found dead by the police on 4.2.2010 at about 7.30am near garbage house, EBlock, Jahangir Puri. PW21 proved his detailed postmortem report as Ex. PW21/A bearing his signature at point A. PW21 opined that all injuries were ante mortem in nature caused by heavy hard blunt force impact diverted upon head and cause of death was extensive cranio cerebral injuries and sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. Mode of death was homicidal. On 16.3.2010, an application for obtaining subsequent opinion regarding weapon of offence was moved by the IO along with the sealed bag inscription of which was HK. On opening the bag, it was found to contain one big heavy concrete piece of weight about 55 kg. It was made up of cemented small pieces of stones having reddish small areas at few places. The shape of piece was irregularly rectangular. He examined the said FIR No. 25/10; State Vs. Kamaljeet @ Dhammal Page 36 of 57 concrete piece with the injuries mentioned in the post mortem and he opined that the injuries mentioned in the PM report Ex. PW21/A are possible by this object or similar such other one, if assailant was able to lift such a heavy object and divert it on the head of deceased. The object was resealed along with police seal with the seal of AG and handed over to HC Rajpal along with sample seal. His subsequent opinion on the back of the application moved by IO is Ex. PW21/B bearing his signature at point A. PW21 identified the big concrete stone Ex. PX which was examined by him.
25. It is evident from the crossexamination of PW2 Rajni, sister of the deceased that her brother used to tell her that Kamaljeet had borrowed Rs. 40005000 from him. PW2 denied the suggestion that accused had not taken money from her brother. PW3 in his crossexamination denied the suggestion that he did not identify the dead body of deceased in the mortuary of hospital or that he had signed Ex. PW3/A at the PS at the instance of IO. PW5 in his crossexamination deposed that Satpal/ PW6 used to start his business at 5 am in the morning and PW5 used to reach his garage in the mornings at 8:30/ 9 am and PW5 used to leave his garage at about 9 pm. PW5 denied the suggestion that rickshaw pullers used to take rickshaw before his arrival in the morning. PW5 further FIR No. 25/10; State Vs. Kamaljeet @ Dhammal Page 37 of 57 denied the suggestion that house of the sister of the deceased was near the rickshaw garage. PW5 also denied the suggestion that Anil/ deceased used to go to the house of sister in the evening after finishing his work. PW5 further denied the suggestion that accused had stopped taking liquor since the last 4/5 years. However, PW5 volunteered that accused and deceased were taking the liquor daily. PW5 also deposed in his crossexamination that accused had not got money from the deceased in his presence but PW5 volunteered that Anil used to demand refund of his money from the accused in his presence. PW5 denied the suggestion that he had not noticed deceased and Kamaljeet missing from garage on 04022010 or that he had not noticed that chain tied with the rickshaw was broken and that rickshaw at Sl. no. 14 was missing.
26. PW6 in his crossexamination deposed that Anil used to come to his rehri at 6 am in the morning and PW6 used to wind up his business at about 4/ 4:40 pm in the evening. PW6 admitted in his crossexamination that deceased and accused used to sleep in their rickshaw garage. PW6 denied the suggestion that 10/ 12 persons used to sleep in the said garage in the night also. PW6 also denied the suggestion that Anil used to visit house of his sister after finishing the work. PW6 has categorically deposed in his FIR No. 25/10; State Vs. Kamaljeet @ Dhammal Page 38 of 57 crossexamination that he had seen Anil exchanging hot words with accused Kamaljeet as he was not returning money borrowed from the deceased. PW6 denied the suggestion that he had not noticed or seen accused and deceased quarrelling as deposed or that he had deposed falsely against the accused at the instance of police officials to frame him falsely in the present case. PW7 deposed in his crossexamination that he reached the spot at about 7.40 am. The kudedan does not have any gate. Inspector Hemant Kumar reached within ten minutes of his reaching the spot. Constable Rakesh took the Rukka at about 9.30 am and came back at the spot with the copy of FIR at around 10.30 am. PW7 left the spot finally at about 12.30 noon. PW7 denied the suggestion that he had signed the memos in the police station later on. PW7 further denied the suggestion that he had not joined the investigation as deposed. PW7 also denied the suggestion that nothing was seized in his presence as deposed.
27. PW8 deposed in his crossexamination that the Thiya was situated along the wall of the kudedaan and there was no other residence near the thiya. Lot of rickshaws remained parked near the thiya. PW8 volunteered that rickshaws are not parked there during the day time but remain parked in the night. The rickshaw FIR No. 25/10; State Vs. Kamaljeet @ Dhammal Page 39 of 57 stand owner and the rickshaw walas were not present at the spot when they reached there. People had gathered at the spot on seeing the police. Rajni left the spot at about 8.00 pm in the evening. PW8 denied the suggestion that the disclosure statement of accused was recorded at PS Mahendra Park. Constable Sukhdev and Inspector Hemant Kumar signed the pointing out memo Exbt. PW8/I and Exbt. PW8/G apart from him. IO had made enquiry regarding the ownership of the box. PW8 denied the suggestion that the accused was not in possession and control of the place from where he is shown to have been arrested in the alleged manner. PW8 volunteered that clothes of accused were lying there. PW8 denied the suggestion that nothing else belonging to the accused was seized as there was no article found lying there. PW8 deposed in his crossexamination that there is a Mazaar at Shah Alam Bandh. They had visited Shah Alam Mazaar on 05.02.2010 and 06.02.2010. IO had asked the public persons on 06.02.2010 at Shah Alam Bandh to join the proceedings. PW8 also deposed that besides him, Inspector Hemant Kumar and Constable Sukhdev had signed the arrest memo and personal search memo of accused. PW8 denied the suggestion that he had not joined the investigation on 05.02.2010 and 06.02.2010. PW8 further denied FIR No. 25/10; State Vs. Kamaljeet @ Dhammal Page 40 of 57 the suggestion that accused was not apprehended in the manner as deposed or that nothing was seized from the possession of accused nor anything was seized at his instance. PW8 also denied the suggestion that he had signed the memos later on in the police station and on the asking and at the instance of the IO. PW8 denied the suggestion that accused was forced to put his thumb impression on various blank papers and form which were later on converted into various memos and documents including his alleged disclosure statement.
28. PW9 in his crossexamination denied the suggestion that he had not visited the spot as deposed or that he has prepared the site plan in a mechanical manner as per the instructions and wishes of the IO. PW10 deposed in his crossexamination that enquiry was made from Rajni in his presence. PW10 denied the suggestion that the kudeydaan/ dustbin was being used as parking space for the rickshaws. PW10 volunteered that rickshaws remained parked adjacent to the kudeydaan. PW10 deposed that they remained there for about three and a half hours. There is a Mazaar of Pir Baba at Shah Alam Bandh and they went to Shah Alam Bandh on th th the night between 5 and 6 . They reached there at about 12.15 am and remained there for about 1015 minutes. They returned back to FIR No. 25/10; State Vs. Kamaljeet @ Dhammal Page 41 of 57 the police station on that day at about 1.15 - 1.30 am in the night. IO had made departure entry before leaving the police station on 06.02.2010 but he cannot tell the number of the departure entry. They reached Shah Alam Bandh at 9.30 am. PW10 denied the suggestion that rickshaw was photographed in the police station. PW10 further denied the suggestion that he had not joined the investigation on 05.02.2010 and 06.02.2010. PW10 also denied the suggestion that accused was not apprehended in the manner as deposed or that nothing was seized from the possession of accused nor anything was seized at his instance. PW10 further denied the suggestion that the alleged case property had been planted on the accused or that he had signed the memos later on in the police station on the asking and at the instance of the IO. PW10 also denied the suggestion that the thumb impression of accused were obtained on various blank papers which were later on converted into various memos including his disclosure statement.
29. PW11 in his crossexamination denied the suggestion that abovesaid DD entries are ante date and ante time or that he had manipulated the entries in the record or that he had not recorded the entries as deposed. PW12 deposed in his cross examination that his statement was recorded by the police officials FIR No. 25/10; State Vs. Kamaljeet @ Dhammal Page 42 of 57 and he had read his statement. PW12 denied the suggestion that he had not clicked the photographs as deposed or that he is a stock witness of police or that because of the same reason he has deposed in the manner as above. PW13 deposed in his cross examination that information under DD no. 4A was received in his presence. Many public persons had collected at the spot of recovery of dead body and SI Madan Mohan had made inquiries from the public persons collected there. PW13 denied the suggestion that seizure memo Ex. PW7/E was prepared in the PS. PW13 reached the PS with rukka at about 9:30 am and remained in the PS for about 1 - 1½ hours. PW13 denied the suggestion that he had not joined the investigation as deposed or that no articles were seized in his presence as deposed or that he had signed the memos in the PS later on at the instance of IO. PW14 deposed in his crossexamination that he reached at kudedan, near Hans Cinema, GTK Road at about 10:25 pm. The wooden box was found closed but was not locked when he noticed the same. PW14 had mentioned that he had noticed blood on the front portion of the wooden box regarding rickshaw but he has not mentioned the spots where he noticed the blood stains. He left the spot finally at 11 pm. PW14 denied the suggestion that he had not visited the spot on FIR No. 25/10; State Vs. Kamaljeet @ Dhammal Page 43 of 57 05022010 as deposed or that he had prepared the report in a mechanical manner at the instructions and instance of IO.
30. PW17 deposed in his crossexamination that IO had not obtained the signatures of any public person on the seizure memo of receipt Exbt. PW5/A. However, PW17 volunteered that besides himself, Bhagwati Prasad had signed the same. PW17 further deposed that he recorded his departure entry on 16.03.2010 when he left the police station but he could not recall DD number of the same. PW17 denied the suggestion that he had not joined the investigation as deposed or that he had not deposited the exhibits as deposed with FSL. PW17 denied the suggestion that he had not taken the exhibits to BJRM Mortuary as deposed. PW19 denied the suggestion in his crossexamination that he had manipulated the entries later on at the instance of IO or that same are antedated and antetime. PW19 further denied the suggestion that exhibits were not deposited with him as deposed or that he had not sent the exhibits to FSL as deposed.
31. PW20 in his crossexamination deposed that he handed over the seal to SI Madan Mohan after completion of investigation on 4.2.2010. Seal was again handed over to him by SI Madan Mohan after deposition of case property with the MHC(M) on the FIR No. 25/10; State Vs. Kamaljeet @ Dhammal Page 44 of 57 same day. PW20 himself had inspected the dead body. The hue and cry notice was got published and pasted in the area on 5.2.2010. He had made Departure entry on 4.2.2010 and 5.2.2010 when he left the PS for investigation but he could not remember the said DD numbers. PW20 had requested the public persons to join the proceedings but none agreed. PW20 denied the suggestion that he had prepared the memos in PS on 5.2.2010 or that the thumb impression of accused were obtained on blank papers in the PS. PW20 further denied the suggestion that no pant and shirt was recovered at the instance of accused or that due to this reason, it was not tried upon him. PW20 further deposed in his cross examination that accused was taken from police lockup on 6.2.2010 to Shahalam Bandh and DD entry was made in this regard but its number he could not remember and the same was not placed on record. PW20 denied the suggestion that accused was not taken to Shahalam Bandh on 6.2.2010 or that due to this reason no DD entry was made in this regard. PW20 had inspected the said rickshaw. He had not noticed any human tissues, strands of hair or pieces of skin in the rickshaw rehri. However, PW20 volunteered that blood stains were there on the said rickshaw. The rickshaw was got photographed before its seizure. PW20 had asked some public FIR No. 25/10; State Vs. Kamaljeet @ Dhammal Page 45 of 57 persons to join them at the time of recovery of rickshaw but none agreed. PW20 denied the suggestion that he had not conducted the investigation fairly and properly or that nothing was recovered from the possession of accused or at his instance. PW20 further denied the suggestion that documents / memos were manipulated to frame the accused in this case.
32. Therefore, it is proved on record by way of oral testimony of PWs supported by documentary evidence and the case property that it is an admitted fact that deceased and the accused were known to each other being friends. The deceased Anil Kumar used to sleep with accused Kamaljeet at the garage near dustbin (kudedan) at night. The accused had borrowed Rs. 40005000/ from the deceased. Deceased used to tell his sister about it. Bhagwati Prasad/ PW5 who is running a rickshaw garage near Hans Cinema Dustbin used to hand over the keys of the lock to the accused, Kamaljeet. The accused and the deceased were in the habit of taking liquor. PW6/ Satpal, the last seen witness who is the employer of the deceased, also proved that deceased was working with him on his rehri as helper and the deceased and accused used to sleep near dustbin. On 03022010 at around 7 pm, he handed over keys of wooden box to deceased Anil and at that time, the FIR No. 25/10; State Vs. Kamaljeet @ Dhammal Page 46 of 57 accused was also present at the aforesaid place. PW6 used to start his business at 5 am. On 04022010 at around 5 am, Satpal/ PW6 found the deceased/ Anil missing from the cholebhature rehri. The accused Kamaljeet was sitting near wooden box of Satpal/ PW6 and the accused was shivering. When PW6 asked the accused regarding Anil, the accused informed him that he had run away along with his clothes. PW6 had also seen the deceased Anil exchanging hot words with the accused Kamaljeet since the accused was not returning money borrowed from the deceased. The accused could not rebutt the last seen evidence led by the Prosecution. PW5 / owner of the garage who is also the last seen witness left the deceased and the accused at his garage on 03022010 at around 9 pm. When the owner of the garage came back to his garage in the morning at around 8:30 am on 04022010, the owner of the garage found the deceased and the accused missing from the garage. The chain tied with the rickshaws was broken and rickshaw no. 14 was also found missing. The deceased used to demand refund of his money from the accused in the presence of owner of the garage. PW2, PW4 to PW6 are the independent witnesses. In the case of Kartik Malhar Vs. State of Bihar 1996 (1) RCR (Crl.) 308, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that FIR No. 25/10; State Vs. Kamaljeet @ Dhammal Page 47 of 57 conviction can be based on the testimony of a single witness provided his credibility is not shaken and court finds him a truthful witness. It has been further held that Section 134 categorically lays down that no particular number of witnesses are required to prove a fact. The evidence has to be weighed and not counted.
33. PW7/ SI Madan Mohan along with Ct. Rakesh reached at the spot near Kudedan and found dead body of the deceased. The deceased was wearing khaki colour pant and saleti colour checkdar shirt, a black colour leather belt and orange red black colour socks. PW20/ Inspector Hemant Kumar also came at the spot. Personal search of the body was taken and rakka was prepared and FIR was got registered. Thereafter, Crime Team was called who inspected the spot and took the photographs of the spot. Blood lying on the floor was lifted with the help of cotton. Blood earth and earth control were also lifted and were sealed. Articles were also lifted and sealed. On the pointing out of Rajni, sister of the deceased, the accused tried to escape but was arrested. Accused made his disclosure statement. One wooden box having blood stain marks was found at the spot. Pieces of the said box having blood stained marks were cut and kept in sealed pullanda and seized. Accused also pointed out the drain where after FIR No. 25/10; State Vs. Kamaljeet @ Dhammal Page 48 of 57 committing murder, he threw the weapon of offence which is a big piece of concrete slab. The said concrete slab was also recovered. The opinion of the doctor was obtained on the concrete slab. All the exhibits along with documents were sent to FSL. FSL reports were collected and filed in the court which reveals that blood was detected upon dirty pant having darker stains which was got recovered by the accused along with the shirt lying under a cement sheet in the space between the wall of the kudedan and the wall of the park. The site plan of recovery was also prepared. The accused also led the police team to the place where he had thrown the dead body, opposite H No. 1051, near Kudedan. The accused also got recovered the rickshaw rehri near Shah Alam Bandh which was used by him to carry the dead body from the place of murder to the place of its disposal. The said rickshaw having blood stained marks was also seized. Some portion of rickshaw having blood stained marks were also seized separately. The other rickshaw pullers did not use to sleep there. It is pertinent to mention here that even if the investigation is defective or faulty, the accused cannot be acquitted solely on account of defective or faulty investigation. In this context, I would place a reliance upon the judgement reported as Karnel Singh Vs. State of MP, AIR 1995 SC 2472=AIR 2004 SC FIR No. 25/10; State Vs. Kamaljeet @ Dhammal Page 49 of 57 1920 it was held that in the case of defective investigation, the court has to be circumspect in evaluating the evidence. But it would not be right in acquitting an accused persons solely on account of the defect and to do so would tantamount to playing into the hands of the investigating officer if the investigation is designedly defective.
34. Dr. Kulbhushan Goel, CMO, Mortuary / PW21 opined that all injuries of deceased were antemortem in nature caused by heavy hard blunt force impact diverted upon head. Cause of death was extensive craniocerebral injuries and sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature and mode of death was homicidal. PW21 proved his detailed postmortem report as Ex. PW21/A. Further, PW21 also examined the said concrete piece of weight about 55 kgs with the injuries mentioned in the postmortem and opined that injuries mentioned in the postmortem report Ex. PW21/A are possible by this object or similar such other one, if the assailant was able to lift such a heavy object and divert it on the head of the deceased. It is pertinent to mention here that accused is a young man and appears to be strongly built, therefore, it cannot be said that he cannot lift the aforesaid concrete piece and divert it on the head of the deceased. Even otherwise, no suggestion was put to PW21 in this regard.
FIR No. 25/10; State Vs. Kamaljeet @ Dhammal Page 50 of 57
35. The dead body was found wrapped in the quilt which was seized having blood stained marks, one dari and other above said articles which reveals O Group, human as per biology report Ex. PW20/F. As the other articles i.e. 4b cloth piece, 9a pants with belt, 9b shirt, 9e underwear, 9f Tshirt, 9h a pair of socks and 10 blood stained gauze cloth piece are also having the same O group, human. Meaning thereby FSL report also proves that the clothes as well as the stone piece were having human blood. The wooden planks cut from the rickshaw as well as wooden box were also having human blood. The FSL reports are per se admissible u/s 293 Cr.P.C.
36. PW1 HC Jagmohan proved the DD no. 9A Ex. PW1/A and FIR no. 25/10 u/s 302/201 IPC Ex. PW1/B, endorsement on rukka Ex. PW1/C and DD no. 10A Ex. PW1/D. PW2 and PW3 identified the dead body vide their statements Ex. PW2/A and PW3/A. PW4 proved that he made a call to the police from his mobile phone no. 9212508479 regarding dead body of male person lying at dustbin in front of H. No. A1051 on 04022010. PW18 also proved that he received the information of dead body from the said mobile phone no. 9212508479. PW5 proved the MCD slip of his 14 no. rickshaw Ex. PW5/A and identified it as Ex. P1. PW7 proved DD FIR No. 25/10; State Vs. Kamaljeet @ Dhammal Page 51 of 57 no. 4A recorded by PW11 HC Sandhu Ram as Ex. PW7/A and rukka as Ex. PW7/B and seizure memos Ex. PW7/A to PW7/E. PW8 proved the arrest memo Ex. PW8/A, personal search memo Ex. PW8/B, disclosure statement Ex. PW8/C, seizure memos Ex. PW8/D to PW8/F and PW8/H, pointing out memo Ex. PW8/G and also identified the Ex. P3 to P8. PW9 proved the scaled site plan Ex. PW9/A. PW11 also proved copy of DD no. 4A as Ex. PW11/A. PW12 proved the photographs of the rickshaw as Ex. PW12/1 to PW12/6. PW16 proved the photographs of the dead body as Ex. PW16/A1 to PW16/A17. PW19 proved that sealed pullandas deposited in the Malkhana as Ex. PW19/A and PW19/B. The sealed pullandas were sent to FSL as Ex. PW19/C and and PW19/D. PW10, PW13 and PW17 have also supported the case of the prosecution.
37. The Prosecution has established the fact that the deceased was last seen in the company of the accused and thereafter his dead body was found, it becomes obligatory on the accused to satisfy the court as to how, where and in what manner the deceased parted company with them. This is on the principle that a person who is last found in the company of another, if later found missing, then the person with whom he was last found has to FIR No. 25/10; State Vs. Kamaljeet @ Dhammal Page 52 of 57 explain the circumstances in which they parted company. In taking this view, I am supported by the judgements of Shadevan (2003) I SCC 534; AIR 2003 SC 215; 2003 CRI.LJ. 424 (SC); (2003) 1 Crimes 80 (SC) and (2002) 9 JT 366. Similarly, in State Vs. Kashi Ram AIR 2007, SC 144, it was held that when a person is accused of committing murder of another, the fact that the accused and the deceased "last seen together" is a circumstance of an incriminating nature against the accused. Failure on the part of the accused to satisfactorily account for the disappearance or whereabouts of the deceased may be held to be sufficient to hold him guilty. In the present case, the accused has failed to satisfactorily account for the disappearance or whereabouts of the deceased from the spot where they had remained in the garage at the last night. Further, the other circumstances such as giving of evasive reply on being asked regarding whereabouts of the deceased, trying to escape after pointing out by Rajni, sister of the deceased at the time of his arrest, recovery of blood stained clothes, weapon i.e. a piece of concrete slab/stone and rickshaw at the instance of the accused and also wooden planks and wooden box having human blood have gone to show the chain of events proved by the Prosecution which reveals that within all human probability the accused alone had committed FIR No. 25/10; State Vs. Kamaljeet @ Dhammal Page 53 of 57 the offence of murder. It is the accused who knows in what manner and in what circumstances the deceased had met his end and as to how the body with such injuries as stated above found its way near kudedan (dustbin). The circumstantial evidence satisfactorily proved the guild of accused that there was a motive behind the commission of offence and also chain of events which circumstances clearly pointed to the conclusion that the accused was the murderer of the deceased and caused the evidence of the commission of the abovesaid offence to disappear with the intention of screening himself from legal punishment.
38. Thus, in view of my aforesaid discussion, I am of the considered opinion that Prosecution has been able to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. I, therefore, hold the accused Kamaljeet @ Dhammal guilty and convict him u/s 302/201 IPC.
(YASHWANT KUMAR) ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE:NW03:ROHINI:DELHI.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 31032012 FIR No. 25/10; State Vs. Kamaljeet @ Dhammal Page 54 of 57 IN THE COURT OF SH. YASHWANT KUMAR: ADDL SESSIONS JUDGE03: NW : ROHINI : DELHI SESSIONS CASE NO. 03/11 FIR No. 25/10 P.S. Mahindra Park U/S: 302/201 IPC STATE Versus KAMALJEET @ DHAMMAL s/o Swaroop Singh r/o VPO Holambi Kalan, Delhi Order on Sentence
1. Arguments have been heard from Ld. Amicus Curiae as also from Ld. APP for State. Ld. Amicus Currie has argued that th convict Kamaljeet is 30 years of age and unmarried. He is 5 class pass. He has mother, father, one elder brother and one younger brother. Mother and father are dependent upon him. No previous case or involvement in any other case. There is no case pending against him. He is labourer. He is in custody since beginning of the case. Prayer has been made for taking lenient view.
2. The Ld. APP for the State has argued that no leniency should be shown to the convict as he is involved in a heinous crime FIR No. 25/10; State Vs. Kamaljeet @ Dhammal Page 55 of 57 of murder.
3. Every murder is a heinous crime but awarding of sentence other than the sentence of death is the general rule now and only 'special reasons', that is to say, special facts and circumstances in a given case, will warrant the passing of the death sentence. The Supreme Court in Bachan Singh's case AIR 1980 SC 898, has laid down the following guidelines to be applied to the facts of each individual case where the question of imposing of death sentence arises; (i) the extreme penalty of death need not be inflicted except in rarest of rare cases of extreme culpability; (ii) before opting for the death penalty the circumstances of the `offender' also require to be taken into consideration along with the circumstances of the crime; (iii) life imprisonment is the rule and death sentence is an exception. In other words, death sentence must be imposed only when life imprisonment appears to be an altogether inadequate punishment having regard to the relevant circumstances of the crime and (iv) a balance sheet of aggravating and mitigating circumstances has to be drawn up and in doing so the mitigating circumstances have to be accorded full weightage and a just balance has to be struck between the aggravating and the mitigating circumstances before the option is exercised. FIR No. 25/10; State Vs. Kamaljeet @ Dhammal Page 56 of 57
4. In my view, present case does not fall within the bracket of rarest of rare cases where collective conscience of the community is so shocked that it expects the court to inflict death penalty. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances, convict is sentenced with imprisonment for life with fine of Rs. 2,000/ in default of payment of which, he shall undergo three months SI under Section 302 IPC. The convict is further sentenced with three years Rigorous imprisonment u/s 201 IPC along with fine of Rs. 1,000/ in default of payment of which, he shall undergo one month SI. Both the sentences shall run concurrently. The convict shall get benefit of Section 428 Cr. PC for the period during which, he remained in custody during investigation/trial. Copy of the judgment and order on sentence be given to convict free of cost. File be consigned to Record Room.
(YASHWANT KUMAR) ASJ/NW03/ROHINI/DELHI ANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 08062012 FIR No. 25/10; State Vs. Kamaljeet @ Dhammal Page 57 of 57