Delhi District Court
State vs Deepak @ Deepu on 21 December, 2024
IN THE COURT OF MS. AMBIKA SINGH
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE:02,WEST DISTRICT:
TIS HAZARI COURTS: DELHI.
State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu & Ors.
SC No. 57663/2016
FIR No. 81/2016
PS MOTI NAGAR
Name Of Complainant Mukul Bobal
Name Of Accused Persons 1.Deepak @ Deepu
2.Anup Kumar Gupta
3. Haider Ali
U/S 302/394/397/212 IPC
Charged U/S 302/394/397/212 IPC
Plea Of Accused PLEADED NOT
GUILTY
Arguments Heard/Order 21.12.24
Reserved
Final Order Accused Deepak @
Deepu convicted u/s
302/394/397 IPC and
accused Anup Kumar
Gupta and Haider Ali
acquitted.
Date Of Such Order 21.12.2024
AMBIKA Digitally signed by
AMBIKA SINGH
SINGH Date: 2024.12.31
14:19:21 +0530
SC No. 57663/2013
FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 1 of 184
JUDGMENT:
BRIEF FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE :
1. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on date 27.03.2010, accused Deepak @ Deepu, at the back side room of premises B-1/34, New Moti Nagar, committed murder of his uncle namely Surender Singh by stabbing him with knives and stole gold weighing 3.5 Kg and amount of Rs.10 Lakh gold chain locket and the golden Kada and the rings & other ordered jewellery of the customer weighing 250-300 gm. On completion of investigation, chargesheet under 302/349/397 IPC was filed against the accused Deepak @ Deepu and offence u/s 212/34 IPC were alleged to have been committed by the accused Anoop Gupta and Haider Ali in the court. After compliance of section 207, CrPc, chargesheet was committed to this court by court of Ld. MM.
2. On 06.12.2010 charge u/s 302/394/397 IPC was framed against the accused Deepak @ Deepu and offence u/s 212/34 IPC was framed against the accused Anoop Kumar Gupta and Haider Ali to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. Thereafter, the prosecution has examined 54 witnesses and the brief of the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses examined during trial are as under:
4. PW-1 Vipin Anand S/o Sh. S.R. Anand deposed that he was running the business of sale and purchase of vehicles from 16/11 Arya Samaj Road, R/D Chamber, Karol Bagh. On 20.4.2010 one person namely Deepak @ Deepu came at his shop to purchase of four wheeler and he choose one Sentro car DL3CAA-8904 and he paid an amount of Rs. 1,95,000/- to him in lieu of purchase of aforesaid vehicle. He had taken the said vehicle from him. He got SC No. 57663/2013 FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 2 of 184 the R/C transferred in his name from the authority. He produced the original R/C of the aforesaid vehicle in the name of Deepak Bobal, copy of Delivery receipt, photocopy of D/L of Deepak Bobal and one LIC premium receipt. Police officials had taken these documents into their possession through seizure memo Ex.PWI/A which bears his signatures at point A.
5. PW-2 Sh. Mangat Ram deposed that he identified the dead body of his brother Surender at mortuary of DDU Hospital vide his identification statement Ex.PW2/A which bears his signatures at point A.
6. PW-3 Harinder Vig s/o Sh. Amarnath Vig deposed that he was doing the work of property from his office situated at B-1/97, New Moti Nagar. On 27.03.2010 at about 10:45 AM, he was present at his office, Surender Singh who ran one jewelery shop with the name and title Kartar Jewelers. The shop of Kartar Jewelers was closed at that time. Lovely also runs another jewelery shop. He asked Lovely as to why shop of Surender Singh has not yet been opened. In the meanwhile, one lady maid servant of Surender Singh came there and she stated that the door of the residence of Surender Singh is opened from the backside and when she called Bhabhi wife of Surender Singh, she did not give any reply. At that time, Lovely was siting at his shop. They made a call at the mobile of Raju Sardar to know the welfare of Surender and Raju Sardar stated that he is also not having any response from Surender. Thereafter, they all three i.e. himself, that maid servant and Lovely went at the residence of Surender which is at a distance of 20-25 paces from his shop. He noticed that the main gate of the house was found opened and inner gate was also SC No. 57663/2013 FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 3 of 184 opened and Surender Singh was lying in a pool of blood on a single bed. He noticed that blood has come out from the neck, near chest and on the other side of the abdomen and something was also coming out of the abdomen. he had also seen the blood on the wall of that room. They became perplexed. Lovely raised alarm "Chacha Ko Mar Diya". He informed the police at 100 number from his mobile and within 10 minutes came at the spot. Other people also collected at the spot. SHO and other senior officials also reached at the spot. Police officials asked everybody to go out from that room and then they conducted their proceedings.
7. PW-4 Sh. Om Parkash S/o Sh. Jai Lal deposed that he was running one shop by the name and title Malik Emporium at 6/1, Jawala Heri Market, Paschim Vihar. He does not remember the date and month but it was in the year 2010, some police officials came at his shop and they inquired from him, if someone had purchased knives from his shop. He stated that many customers came at his shop, purchases item. No one was with the police officials. In the present case, his statement was not recorded. He purchase items through proper bill and receipts and he maintain his record. He has nothing more to say. He did not join any other proceedings however, police officials inquired from him, his name and address and they obtained his signatures on some documents. At that stage, attention of the witness was drawn towards pointing out memo document and after seeing this document which is now Ex.PW4/A, witness stated that it bears his signatures at point A. The witness voluntarily stated that these signatures were obtained by the police officials on blank papers.
8. PW-5 Sh. Rajkumar Arora @ Raju deposed that he was SC No. 57663/2013 FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 4 of 184 running the shop at 15, Sanatan Dharam Mandir, New Moti Nagar, Delhi and his shop is just in front of Kartar Jewelers, New Moti Nagar. Surender Bobal is the owner of Kartar Jewelers. On 26.03.2010 at about 09-09:30 PM, Surender Bobal came at his shop and he had taken one dairy milk chocolate of an amount of Rs.5/- and he stated that he would pay the amount on the next day and thereafter, he went away from his shop. On the next day, he came to know that Surender Bobal had been murdered. He also went towards the house of Surender but they were not allowed to go inside. A huge gathering was there outside the house of Surender Bobal.
9. PW-6 Sh. Raghubir Singh Bobal s/o Sh. Late Sh. Kartar Singh deposed that he identified the dead body of his real brother Surender, at the place of occurrence and also at the mortuary.
10. PW-7 Sh. Suresh Kumar S/o Late Sh. Lokman Ram deposed that he was running a shoe shop by the name and title Shoe Corner, situated at 34/1, DLF, Main Moti Nagar, opposite Fun Cinema, Moti Nagar. He deposed that at that stage, witness has pointed towards one accused standing in the dock as the person (accused Deepak @ Deepu), who on 26.03.2010 at about 7 PM came at his aforesaid shop and purchased one pair of canvas shoe for an amount of Rs.450/-. On 27.05.2010, police officials along with this accused came at his shop and then he identified this person as the same who purchased one pair of canvas shoe from his shop on 26.03.2010. He identified accused, present before the court. He has seen the document Ex.PW7/A, prepared by police official at his shop, which bears his signatures at point A. From the conversation of the police officials, he came to know the name of SC No. 57663/2013 FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 5 of 184 the person as Deepu, who was brought at his shop by the police officials and he identified that person as the same person who purchased one pair of shoe from his shop. At that stage, MHC(M) produced the case property i.e. one envelope, duly sealed, bearing parcel no.18. The same was opened and it was found containing one pair of canvas shoe on which metal tag 'Sport' is written. The envelope also contains other articles. He had seen particularly one pair of shoe. He identified the shoes, as the same canvas shoes which he sold to accused Deepu.
PW Suresh was cross-examined and he deposed that his statement was recorded around 25.03.2010, at his shop between 4PM-5 PM. At that time, accused Deepu was in the custody of police. There were four police officials along with Deepu who visited his shop on that day. Out of said four police officials, two were in uniform and two were in civil clothes. He does not remember the names of said police officials. He did not note their names from their name plates. No neighbourers of nearby shopkeepers collected there, as the police officials and accused Deepu entered his shop and sat there. He did not provide any documentary proof to the police regarding the ownership of his shoe shop as the same was not demanded by the police. As he did not issue any bill of the pair of shoe which was purchased by the accused Deepu from his shop, hence He did not show the same to the police. 10-15 customers used to visit his shop daily. Routine customers as well as general customers visit his shop daily. Accused Deepu was not his routine customer. Just after seeing the face of accused Deepu on 27.05.2010, when he was accompanied the police officials, he recollected that he is the same person who SC No. 57663/2013 FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 6 of 184 had purchased the pair of shoe from his shop on 26.03.2010. He was running the said shoe shop since 1990. he used to issue bills to his customers on their demand. Again said, he issue the bills to all his customers. Besides him there is one salesman and one more employee who used to clean the shop and supply drinking water to the customers. There is a counter at his shop. The witness voluntarily stated that but he also work as a salesman at his shop besides his salesman and after selling the shoe collect the payment then and there. The witness admitted the suggestion that his salesman also deals with the customers. On 26.03.2005. He dealt with about 6-7 customers. Out of them , 2/3 were of dark complexion and 2/3 were of fair complexion. They were between the age group of 25-30 years. The witness voluntarily stated that accused came at about 07:30 PM, at that time no other customer was there in the shop, the pair of shoe purchased by him from his shop was in the display, he had chosen the same from the display and were sold by him to him. As such, he was able to remember his face. He has not stated above said fact in his statement to the police. He had issued bills to almost all the customers on that day. He does not write the description of the shoe sold by him to the customers, except mentioning the number of pair of shoe and cash received by him. He had not told to the police on that day of which company the pair of shoe was purchased by the accused. He was again called for cross-examination and that day he deposed that he had not stated in his statement to the police that from the conversation of the police officials, the name of person as Deepu. The police officials told him that Deepu had purchased shoes from his shop he had not stated in his statement to the police that he SC No. 57663/2013 FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 7 of 184 identified the person as the same person who purchased one pair of shoe from his shop. The witness voluntarily stated that Police officials had told him that the said person had purchased shoe from his shop. The witness admitted the suggestion that police officials brought accused Deepak @ Deepu before him and police officials told him that accused had purchased shoes from his shop. The witness admitted the suggestion that he had not identified the accused who have purchased any shoe from his shop. The witness denied the suggestion that the accused was never brought by the police at his shop nor any proceedings were conducted in his presence. The witness denied the suggestion that he appended his signatures on the documents ie. seizure memo vide Ex.PW7/A, at the asking of the police.
11. PW-8 Sh. Mukul s/o Late Sh. Surender Singh Bobbal deposed that he has been running a jewellery shop from the ground floor of the aforesaid address after the murder of his father. In the night of 26.03.2010, he along with his mother, his Mama namely Anil, Mami, their son namely Akshay, his Mausi and her daughter went to Shimla Dharamsala in a Tavera vehicle.The witness deposed that on 27.03.2010 itself, they received phone of Inder Lovely regarding murder of his father and due to this reason they had to return to Delhi on 27.03.2010 at about 11-11:30 PM. On the next day, he had seen the dead body of his father Sh. Surender Singh Bobbal at Mortuary, DDU Hospital and his statement. was recorded to this effect vide memo Ex.PW8/A, which bears his signatures at point A. On 28.03.2010 itself dead body of his father was given to them for funeral rights after the post mortem, vide SC No. 57663/2013 FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 8 of 184 receipt of handing over of dead body Ex.PW6/B, which bears his signatures at point B. PW-8 Mukul further deposed that accused Deepak @ Deepu be punished as per law. Accused Deepak @ Deepu used to visit at their residence and on the day i.e. 26.03.2010 even accused Deepak @ Deepu came to them at their residence and continuously asked as to when they were leaving Delhi and even he insisted that he would arrange the vehicle for going to Shimla. It was Friday on 26.03.2010 and their jewelery shop used to remain closed on account of Market Holiday. On 26.03.2010, accused Deepak @ Deepu got opened their shop through them on the point of melting gold/silver. He identified accused Deepak @ Deepu present before the court. He further deposed that they started from Delhi on 26.03.2010 at about 8-8:30 PM for going to Shimla, Dharamsala after hiring Tavera vehicle from Amit Travel, leaving behind his father Surender Singh Bobbal at residence. On 27.03.2010 at about 11:45 PM, when they were on the way to Hamirpur, they were informed by Inder Lovly, son of his Tauji, regarding the murder of his father and on hearing this they started from Hamirpur for coming back to Delhi. After reaching at the residence. He noticed that no door or door latch (Kunda/Lock) was found broken and it appears that it was a friendly entry. He checked the jewellery shop and it was approximately 3.5 Kg of gold as his father used to give money on interest after keeping ornaments at mortgage. The gold weighing 3.5 Kg and amount of Rs.10 Lakh were found missing. He also noticed that the gold chain locket and the golden Kada and the rings of his father were also missing. The locket was having the impression of Guru Nanak and on one of the ring of his father SC No. 57663/2013 FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 9 of 184 word 'S' was written. Other ordered jewellery of the customer was also found missing. The weight of the gold articles of his father and the ordered customer jewellery was weighing 250-300 gm his Taiji namely Asha and her son Deepak @ Deepu and other son Inder Lovly used to visit at their residence and all these persons were well known about the articles inside their house. At that time, they were having a pet dog. He further deposed that after the murder police officials searched for the key bunch of their shop but it could not be traced. He has raised that the key bunch of the shop is not traceable and some known person can only be known the same. On 29.03.2010, the key bunch was recovered from beneath the double bed mattress. Deepak @ Deepu and Inder used to torture his father. On one occasion his father asked to take care of their father and on this quarrel took place and both these persons gave beatings to his father. A case was registered at PS Moti Nagar and his Tauji namely Late Mohan Singh, Deepak @ Deepu and Inder and his father were sent to jail. He handed over the key bunch to the police officials who had taken the same into their possession. he had also given one photograph of his father in which his father was wearing that chain and locket in that photograph. He further deposed that after two months, accused Deepak @ Deepu Deepu was arrested by the police. Police officials brought accused Deepak @ Deepu at their residence and accused pointed the place of occurrence as to how he came inside their house through stairs and then came inside their house and how he committed the offence. Certain jewellery articles were recovered from the accused and he was asked to identify the recovered gold articles and he appeared at Tis Hazari Court and he SC No. 57663/2013 FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 10 of 184 identified the gold ring and gold locket of his father and the other jewellery, in the presence of Ld. Magistrate. He can identify the case property, if shown to him.
At that stage, MHC(M) produced the case property ie. one small sealed cloth parcel, parcel is got opened and it is found containing two lockets i.e. one Om locket and one locket of having image of Lord Hanuman. He identified that jewellery as the jewellery of customer which was kept at their jewellery shop. The case property is Ex. PA and PB. Also, MHC(M), further produced another case property ie. one small sealed cloth parcel, parcel is got opened and it is found containing one gold chain. He identified the gold chain as the gold chain of customer which was kept at their jewellery shop. The case property is Ex.PC. MHC(M), further produced the case property i.e. one small sealed cloth parcel, parcel is got opened and it is found containing one bigger gold ring having diamonds and one small gold ring having diamonds. He identified the case property as the same as that of customers which was kept at their jewellery shop. The case property is Ex.PD and PE. MHC(M), also, produced the case property i.e. one small sealed cloth parcel, parcel is got opened and it is found containing two ear gold tops having diamonds and ruby. He identified the case property as the same as that of customers which was kept at their jewellery shop as mortgaged jewellery. The case property is Ex.PF. MHC(M) also produced the case property i.e. one small sealed cloth parcel, parcel is got opened and it is found containing one gold chain. He identified the case property as the same as that of customers which was kept at their jewellery shop as mortgaged jewellery. The case property is Ex.PG. MHC(M) further produced SC No. 57663/2013 FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 11 of 184 the case property ie. one small sealed cloth parcel, parcel is got opened and it is found containing one gold ring having diamonds. He identified the case property as the same as that of customers which was kept at their jewellery shop as mortgaged jewellery. The case property is Ex.PH. MHC(M), also, produced one another sealed envelope with the seal of FSL. Envelope is got opened and it is found containing one small jewellery pouch having chain, on which Kartar Jewellers is written. Chain is got opened and it is found containing one gold locket on which picture of Guru Nanak Dev is inscribed. It also contains one gold ring on which word 'S' is written by diamond, having black background. He has seen the locket and the ring. That is the locket and the ring of his father. He identified the case property. The same is Ex.PI.
12. PW-08 Mukul was cross examined and he deposed that he was under graduate and left his study after first year. He does not know which year he left the studies. He was running the jewellery shop alongwith his father since that time. His father used to pay the income tax and used to keep the accounts thereof. There was no licence with his father for giving loan on keeping the articles mortgaged with him. But the account was being kept of those persons who used to pawn their articles. he had given the account of the articles to the police. He does not know if any document was prepared for taking into possession the account. He has also given the same to court also. He also used to keep the articles of different persons but the accounts being prepared by his father. He found the accounts books and other articles lying in the shop at the same place where they were kept. There was no blood found on that. He further deposed during cross-examination that they had SC No. 57663/2013 FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 12 of 184 entered their house from the back side on their returned on 27.03.2010. The house was bolted by the persons of the family but he does not know who had bolted the house. It was opened by his relative but he does not know who had opened it. All the lights were on when entered the room. Their pet dog was present inside the house and may be possible it was sitting in the room where deadbody was found. He does not know if there were blood spot of dog also or not. There were three doors in between his entrance and the place where the occurrence had taken place. One door was already opened through which the culprits had come inside. The door of entrance to the room remains open and there was no bolting of it. He does not know whether it was opened on that time or not when they entered. They used to sleep in the same room where his father used to sleep on a single bed. his father used to sleep in a small room and they also used to sleep in the same room. The blood was splited on the walls, floor, the Sofa, setty and also on the tube light and also on the roof of the room and also on the doors of the room. The police had not reached the spot on 27.03.2010 and had come for the first time on 28.03.2010. No finger print was lifted by the police when they came. Since 100 of people had entered the room where the occurrence had taken place prior to their coming, therefore, many footsteps were present there and therefore, he could not footstep of any particular who might have committed the offence.
13. He further deposed during cross-examination that on 26.03.2010 only the accused was present in their house throughout the day and therefore, they suspected him as a culprit of the offence. His father had gone to the market on that day his father SC No. 57663/2013 FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 13 of 184 had returned at about 5:00 or 5:30 PM. On 26.03.2010 and they had by that time got ready for going out. They are not on visiting terms with their uncles. his father was having close relationship with one Raju who used to come on the shop and many other persons were also customers who used to come on the shop and their dog used to walk in the entire house. However, he never used to bark at the newcomer when he used to come on the shop but if any person entered the house he would bark on the person except the members of the family. Deepak @ Deepu used to do the goldsmith job but was not doing during the days the incident had taken place. His brother's shop was near to their shop and the name of the shop was 'New Kartar Jewellers. The gold used to be melted for him due to the instructions of his brother. He had come for getting melted gold and silver on 26.03.2010 and had come twice.
14. He further deposed that during the cross-examination that the gold used to be kept in the room where there was a double bed in a small almirah and he was knowing it. The almirah where the gold used to be kept was found closed, however, it was not locked. The same was opened. The blood was found on that almirah on the sides. It was in the shape of a line. However, it was dried when they reached there. Police did not pick it up in their presence. When so ever they used to go out the house used to be locked from outside but if somebody was inside it was not locked from outside. Since his father was at home none of the room was locked. When they reached the house he opened the almirah and found that no gold was found there. The footsteps of the persons who would go from the room when the occurrence had taken place to another room would be bearing on the floor but since so many persons had SC No. 57663/2013 FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 14 of 184 entered the room, therefore the footsteps were not visible. The whole of the gold lying in that almirah was in the shape of ornaments but it was not in the shape of biscuit. PW-08 Mukul further deposed that the chain in which the pendent fixed was not shown to him and only the pendent was shown alongwith a ring. However, the depicting of alphabet 'S' can be written upon the ring of the person whose name starts with S and therefore, there was no other special mark of identification on it but since he had seen that ring, therefore, he identified the same. Further he deposed that on 27.03.2010 the mattresses were lying on the double-bed when they returned but there was no blood on that. There was no mattress on the single bed where the occurrence had taken place. The mattresses, bed sheet etc. had been taken by the police before their reaching the home. Police had told him that they had taken the articles but He does not know when it was revealed to him. The almirah and the TV was not taken into possession by the police though blood was lying on them the witness voluntarily stated that there was cloth cover on the almirah and blood was splited on the same and same was taken into the possession by the police. He does not remember whether the cloth was taken by the police in his presence. PW-08 further admitted during cross-examination that the amount of Rs. 10 Lakhs was never mentioned in any account. His father used to pay income tax on his entire income He does not know if the income tax was paid on this amount or not. The ITR used to be filed by the CA but he does not know his name. He does not know anything about the CA and his first statement was recorded on 28th March, 2010. He does not know if he mentioned about Rs. 10 Lakhs in the above mentioned dates SC No. 57663/2013 FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 15 of 184 (confronted with statement dated 28th March. 2010 where this fact is not mentioned in Ex. DA but about the Rs. 10 lakh is mentioned in the detailed statement recorded on 29.03.2010). His statement was recorded at his house and many persons were present at that time and his mother was present or not at that time, he does not remember. The house had already been searched by the police before their reaching back to Delhi. The above said amount of Rs. 10 lakh is used to be kept in the locker of small almirah and blood was also found on the cloth which was on the almirah. This cloth was taken by the police after one or two days but he does not remember the exact date. The blood was not found on the locker or handle of the locker of the almirah. The witness denied the suggestion that no amount of Rs. 10 lakh was kept in the house and he had made a false story to implicate the accused. At the time, when he was brought in the Court for TIP of the articles he had identified one locket and one ring. There were four and five lockets of different ideals lying on the table of the Judge at the time of TIP. The rings on the table were also of different shades. The ring which contained alphabates S can be worn by any person whose names start with S. But since he used to see the ring of his father daily therefore he identified. It was made at their shop. There was no other special/specific mark over that ring. The witness denied the suggestion that the ring/locket which he identified belong to his father or that the same was identify at the instance of police officials. He was summoned by the police through the summons the purpose of getting the TIP done. The keys were not available when himself and his mother searched. This was on 28th March, 2010 itself. The accused Deepak @ SC No. 57663/2013 FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 16 of 184 Deepu used to come their house till 30 March, 2010 and also come on 27th, 28th and 29th, March, 2010 also. The mattress under which the keys were found was not used by anyone. He did not see whether there was blood under the mattress or not. The witness denied the suggestion that he was making a false story for finding out the keys underneath the mattress in order to falsely implicate the accused. Further deposed that they used to get their labour for melting the gold or silver but no money was charged from accused Deepak @ Deepu. He does not have any proof to show that accused Deepak @ Deepu had come for getting the gold and silver melted through him at his shop. The witness voluntarily stated that except his statement and statement of his mother in this regard. The witness denied the suggestion to suggest that he did not come for getting the gold and silver melted and under the legal expert and for creating the circumstances He has got that introduced falsely. There was the shop of the brother of the accused Deepak @ Deepu. His brother used to deal in gold and silver ornaments at that shop, however, there was no melting at that shop. The witness denied the suggestion to suggest that the story regarding absence of melting facility has been made by him under legal guidance and at the instance of IO. He denied the suggestion that any person can come down to his courtyard if such stair case would have been in existence.
15. PW-08 Mukul denied the suggestion that his finger prints were taken along with the finger prints of the accused Deepak @ Deepu. He does not know whether the finger prints of any other persons from his house were taken. The witness admitted the suggestion that finger prints of other members of the family and SC No. 57663/2013 FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 17 of 184 the accused were taken, however, they have not matched since prior to the same be taken a number of people have visited the house. Since a large number of persons have entered the spot they might have touched the furniture including the almirah. He can not say that the police has given the permission to accused Deepak @ Deepu to visit outside the town since his finger prints did not match with chance print taken from the spot. The witness denied the suggestion that he has undergone a DNA test with accused Deepak @ Deepu. He does not know even that the DNA test of accused Deepak @ Deepu was conducted. The witness denied the suggestion that finger prints of Harminder Badal, Ramesh Kakkar, Gulshan Kumar, Puneet, Deepak @ Deepu S/o Sh. Suresh Bagga, Deepak @ Deepu S/o Chander Prakash, Bhupender Singh, Asha Rani, Deepak @ Deepu @ Deppu (accused), Navdesh Mogna, Indira Bobal and Yogesh Bobal were taken along with the chance print from the spot and were compared. The witness denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely since the finger prints were taken in his presence. The witness denied the suggestion that he has named Deepak @ Deepu @ Depu as an accused due to rivalry by opening the shop in their neighbourhood and also due to previous litigation and getting his father arrested U/s 107 Cr.PC. The witness denied the suggestion that he suspected him in order to falsely implicate him without any proof. The witness denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely. The witness denied the suggestion that no offence was committed by accused Deepak @ Deepu and he was deposing against him because of business rivalry with the accused Deepak @ Deepu.
16. PW-9 Sh. Dharam Dev Bhat S/o Sh. Arjun Bhat deposed SC No. 57663/2013 FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 18 of 184 that Sh. Nirmaljeet Shekhu is the owner of hotel. On 28.05.2010, Delhi Police officials came at their hotel, enquired from them and they had taken the register of the hotel into their possession through seizure memo Ex.PW9/A, which bears his signatures at point A. He also identify the signatures of hotel owner Sh. Nirmaljeet Shekhu at point B being familiar with his signatures, being his employee. He identified the accused, present before the court. He further deposed that he can identify the hotel register which was produced by owner of the hotel, if shown to him. He has seen the register of the hotel. This is the same register which was taken into possession by the police officials. He identified the register. The register is Ex.PA.
17. PW-10 Ms. Meena Bobal w/o Late Sh. Surender Singh Bobal deposed that she along with her husband and her son Mukul used to reside at the aforesaid address. They were also having one pet dog of German Safford breed. One boy Nirmal who also used to work at the shop of her husband, also used to work as a servant at their house and in the night he used to go back to her residence. On 26.03.2010, she along with her son Mukul and family members of her brother Anil went to Shimla Dharamsala in a Tavera vehicle, leaving behind her husband and their pet dog at their residence. They left Delhi at about 08:30 PM. She deposed that on 27.03.2010 at about 11:45 PM, a telephone call was received on the mobile of her brother Anil and at that time they were present in the area of Meer Pur. This telephone call was made by Inder @ Lovely (Bhatija of her husband and son of her Jeth). Inder @ Lovely informed on telephone that Surender Bobal has been murdered. After hearing, such sad news they all became perplexed SC No. 57663/2013 FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 19 of 184 and they decided to go back to Delhi from the area of Meer Pur itself and they reached at late night on 27.03.2010. She can not tell the exact time as they were quite perplexed. She found that many persons have collected in front of their house. She went inside and found that blood was lying on the floor and blood was sprinkled on the walls of the innermost room where her husband used to sleep on Diwan (single bed). She noticed that no door/its Kunda was found broken and hence it transpires that it was a family entry and accused was known and he got opened the door and then only occurrence has taken place. She being wife of Surender Bobal, was aware as to where the gold articles and the money used to be kept. her husband used to give money after pledging gold jewellery. she found that the gold jewellery weighing 3/5 Kg and amount of Rs.10 Lacs which was kept inside one almirah and this almirah was kept in the other room which was adjacent to the innermost room. From all these situation she could conclude that her husband had been murdered for the purpose of robbing gold articles and amount. She deposed that her husband used to wear one gold chain having locket of Guru Nanak Dev, one Gold Kada, 3-4 gold rings and out of these rings. one ring was having the black stone on which word "S" with gold was written. She further deposed that on 26.03.2010, it was Friday and her husband used to bring gold articles from the market after getting the gold jewellery articles as per the order of the customers. These articles were also missing. Total weight of these gold articles was 250-300 gm. Another iron almirah was also kept in the room and this almirah contains their personal used jewellery. This almirah was not opened by the accused and the same was found intact, meaning thereby that it SC No. 57663/2013 FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 20 of 184 was some known person who committed the offence and it was well within the knowledge of the accused that the cash and the gold articles are kept in other almirah. Her husband used to keep the keys of the main almirah with him always and it was in the knowledge of accused Deepak @ Deepu Bobal @ Deepu. She deposed that on 26.03.2010, when they had to go to Shimla, Dharamsala, accused Deepak @ Deepu Bobal remained inside their house and even he went outside many times and again visited their house. Deepak @ Deepu Bobal was enquiring, again and again regarding their going to Shimla Dharamsala and she was also getting it confirmed whether they were going to Dharamsala or not. He was insisting upon that if the vehicle is not arranged, she will get the vehicle arranged and it seems that he was assuring that they depart for going to Shimla. It was Friday on that day and their shop was closed. It was even in the knowledge of Deepak @ Deepu that shop is closed and 2/3 times he came along with small pieces of gold and silver and he asked her son Mukul to get the same melted. Her son Mukul stated that the shop is closed and he does not have keys with him and on this Deepak @ Deepu stated that keys are inside the suitcase. Accused Deepak @ Deepu was aware regarding the place of keeping the keys and all other things. Accused Deepak @ Deepu got opened the shop through her son Mukul and got melted the pieces of Gold and Silver. Accused Deepak @ Deepu remained roaming around their house and he used to visit their house every after some time on that particular date. She further deposed that she wants to say that her Jethani Asha Bobal and her both sons namely Inder and Deepak @ Deepu only used to visit at their residence. No other person used to visit SC No. 57663/2013 FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 21 of 184 at their residency. Their pet dog never used to allow entry of any unknown person and her Jethani and her two sons can have their entry as they usually used to visit at their residence. It was a friendly entry and the entry of a known person as it appears that even their pet dog did not bark upon the intruder. She further deposed that on 29.03.2010, the key bunch was traced from beneath the mattress. On 27.03.2010, police officials have searched the key bunch at all over places inside the house even after lifting the mattresses but the key bunch was not traced on 27.03.2010. They had raised alarm even in the presence of Jethani and her two sons regarding misplace of the two bunch and it appears that the key bunch later on kept beneath the mattress. To her mind, these key bunch might have been kept by accused Deepak @ Deepu Bobal as no other person except Jethani and her two sons heard their objection regarding known availability of key bunch. She also want to say that her husband had given some amount on loan to Deepak @ Deepu and Inder on interest basis and her husband used to help them financially. Inder was aware regarding the availability of gold articles and amount inside the almirah. But she did not narrate any such thing in her statement on the basis of which the FIR was registered. She deposed that her Jethani and her two sons used to quarrel with her Jeth when he was alive and her husband being brother of her Jeth used to object for the same and once upon a time, Inder and Deepak @ Deepu quarrelled with her husband and also gave beatings to her husband and due this reason all the four persons i.e. her husband, her Jeth, Deepak @ Deepu and Inder were arrested and were sent to jail. she identified accused Deepak @ Deepu, present before the court.
SC No. 57663/2013FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 22 of 184 Accused Deepak @ Deepu was in the habit of stealing articles as and when he used to have opportunity. She has nothing more to say. She further deposed that she can identify the gold articles which belong to her husband, if shown to him. At that stage, MHC(M) produced the case property i.e. one envelope having seal of the court. Envelope is got opened and it is found containing one small jewellery pouch having chain, on which Kartar Jewellers is written. Chain is got opened and it is found containing one gold locket on which picture of Guru Nanak Dev is inscribed. It also Contains one gold ring on which word "S" is written by diamond on black stone. She has seen the locket and the ring. Both these articles belong to her husband. Identified the case property, the same is already collectively Ex.PI. The witness deposed that she can identified the articles (clothes etc.) which were taken into possession by the police officials, if shown to him. At that stage, MHC(M) produced one envelope duly sealed with the seal of FSL. This envelope bears serial no.6. Envelope is got opened and it is found containing one blood stained bedsheet, one blood stained small pillow, one blood stained small towel, one blood stained raxine cover and one white clothe having Jaali. He has seen all these things. All these belong to him which were kept in their rooms. She identified the case property. The case property is collectively Ex.PAI. At that stage, MHC(M) produced one envelope duly sealed with the seal of FSL. This envelope bears serial no.7. Envelope is got opened and it is found containing one TV remote, another remote of Tata Sky, one salt pot having Masala type material inside it, one mobile cover, one spects, one visiting card on which JMD Tourist and Motors, I-143, SC No. 57663/2013 FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 23 of 184 Karampura, Delhi, is written. she has seen all these things. All these belong to them . The spects is of her husband. She can not say about the visiting card. she identified the case property. The case property is collectively Ex.PA2. At that stage, MHC(M) produced one envelope duly sealed with the seal of FSL that envelope was having serial no.8. Envelope is got opened and it is found containing a currency note of Rs.50/-, This envelope has been opened inadvertently. At that stage, MHC(M) produced one envelope duly sealed with the seal of FSL. That envelope was having serial no.9. Envelope is got opened and it is found containing one single bed mattress. she has seen the mattress. she identified the mattress as the same mattress which used to be kept on single bed inside the innermost room of her husband. The mattress is Ex.PA3. At that stage, MHC(M) produced one envelope duly sealed with the seal of FSL. This parcel bears serial no.10. The parcel is got opened and it is found containing one small mattress having blood stains. she has seen the mattress and this mattress used to lie near the single bed. She identified the case property. The case property is Ex.PA4. At that stage, MHC(M) produced one envelope duly sealed with the seal of FSL. That parcel bears serial no.11. The parcel is got opened and it is found containing one pillow. she has seen the pillow. That was the pillow which used to be in the room of her husband. Identify the case property. The case property is Ex.PAS. At that stage, MHC(M) produced one envelope duly sealed with the seal of FSL. This parcel bears serial no.16. The parcel is got opened and it is found containing one key bunch having two bigger keys and one small key. She has seen this key bunch. It is their key bunch and SC No. 57663/2013 FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 24 of 184 these keys belong to the almirah, the inner locker. she identified the key bunch. The case property is Ex.PA6. At that stage, MHC(M) produced one transparent polythene without seal. Polythene is got opened and it is found containing one mobile phone of Motorola company having batter and SIM. She has seen the mobile. This mobile belongs to her late husband. she identified the mobile. The Mobile is Ex.PA7.
18. During cross-examination, she deposed that Police recorded her statement perhaps on 27 or 29.03.2010 her statement, was read over to him by the police officials at that time her statement, was recorded only once she noticed that there was blood stains on the side of almirah. She does not remember if police had lifted any blood from the side of almirah. She does not remember if there was any blood stains on the front door or handle of almirah. There were three partition she lives in the said almirah from where articles and money was found missing. She had not seen any blood stains inside the almirah. The witness voluntarily stated that she was perplexed due to murder of her husband. There was a locker inside the almirah in one of the shelf. She does not remember if she had noticed any blood on the handle as well as on the door of the locker. The witness voluntarily stated that she was perplexed due to murder of her husband. Mukul was present when police was investigating the case and looking at the almirah. The witness voluntarily stated that as they were crying in the inside room therefore, he can not say where Mukul was at that time. On 27.03.2010, the police had not made any enquiry from her as she had reached late at night The witness voluntarily stated that she was not in her senses at that time, therefore, she does not SC No. 57663/2013 FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 25 of 184 remember. She became normal on the night of 27.03.10 itself. She had given her statement, to the police either on 27 or 28.03.10 and she had shown suspicion in that statement. Despite her suspicion shown on Deepak @ Deepu, she was not arrested by the police but she was interrogated by the police. Deepak @ Deepu had not visited their house after 29.03.10 when she had given in writing to the police showing her suspicion on Deepak @ Deepu, Asha, mother of Deepak @ Deepu and Inder, brother of Deepak @ Deepu were visiting their house regularly after the incident. She does not remember to whom she has given the complaint in writing but it was recorded at her house itself. She does not remember if she had written in said complaint that Deepak @ Deepu had stopped coming to their house after 29.03.10. Perhaps the police has recorded only one statement of her which is dated 29.03.10. She had got recorded in her statement on 29.03.10 that as far as she knows that there may be gold of 3.5 kg was found missing. Since she was not dealing with any business activity of her husband, therefore, she can not tell what was the appx. value of 3.5 kg gold. The witness denied the suggestion that value of 10gm gold was 20,000/- The witness voluntarily stated that it was 15,000/- at that time. The witness denied the suggestion that as such the value of missing gold of 3.5kg was appx. 60 lacs. She had not stated in her statement to the police that so far she knows that there was Rs.10 lacs in the said almirah, which was found missing. The witness has been shown her statement which is now Ex-PW10/DA where it is mentioned that besides this was as per her estimation there was about 10 lacs in cash which was also found missing. She was not SC No. 57663/2013 FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 26 of 184 aware if her husband was maintaining any record pertaining to the cash amount which was kept by him in the almirah. she does not know if her husband was also keeping some record pertaining to mortgaging of gold to her customers. She does not know if her husband was giving any receipt or any other document to the customers who were mortgaging the gold with her husband. She was further cross-examined by the Ld.Defence Counsel that she deposed that she left the house at about 08:00 P.M. on 26.03.2010, leaving behind her husband. It was Friday on that day and the shop was closed. she was not living in a joint family. One lady maid servant also used to come at her residence to clean the utensils. Her son Mukul booked Tavera vehicle from the area of Moti Nagar. She can not tell the distance between Meerpur near Himachal Pradesh and Delhi. But Meer pur is quite far away from Delhi. She does not know if Inder was having her mobile number or mobile no. of her son Mukul. It was mentioned in their statement which was given to the police official that aforesaid vehicle was booked from Amit Travels, Moti Nagar. It was on 27.03.2010 at about 11:45 A.M. and not 11:45 P.M. when they received the information. On 19.12.2012, she stated that it was 11:45 A.M. when call was received and even the night on 27.03.2010, they came back to Delhi. She stated 11:45 A.M, but it might have written as 11:45 P.M. When they reached Hamir Pur where they received call by that time they have crossed Shimla and were proceeding further. she has stated the word Hamir Pur but it might have reduced Meer Pur due to pronunciation. The witness denied the suggestion that she has stated the word Meer Pur. Nirmal. She further deposed that when they reached home, police SC No. 57663/2013 FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 27 of 184 officials were present at their she can not tell the total number of police officials and their names. Some police officials were also on civil dress.
19. PW-09 Meena Bodal further deposed during cross- examination that there was an iron door on the back side of her house and the height of the backside wall may be just above the said iron door. However, she can not tell what was the height of that backside wall. There was no grill on the backside wall of their house. There is no call bell on the backside door of her house. PW- Meena admitted that the suggestion that Harviner was good friend of her husband and she also used to meet her husband outside her shop. She does not know if her husband alongwith said Harvinder used to eat and drink together almost everyday. The witness admitted the suggestion that Harvinder was a property dealer. The witness admitted the suggestion that that Mangat Ram was a cab driver. The son of Mangat Ram namely Raju is having a jewellery shop. her Jeth Raghubir Singh was also a cab driver. The son of Raghubir Singh namely Yogesh Kumar was also having a jewellery shop in their area. She knew one Raju Sardar also and she was their neighbour. The witness admitted the suggestion that Raju Sardar was having intimate relationship with her husband and she was also visiting terms and used to meet him outside the shop. She does not know if her husband used to eat and drink together with said Raju Sardar also. The witness admitted the suggestion that their pet dog was well familiar with Mangat Ram, Raghubir and her family members. The witness voluntarily stated that whenever any person used to enter inside their house, out pet dog used to bark upon that person. There was an open space after SC No. 57663/2013 FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 28 of 184 backwall of her house till the front room of the house and the space was about 10 feet. The witness admitted the suggestion that there was a wooden door with an iron mat wooden door (Jali wala Darwaja). The witness admitted the suggestion that both these doors were used to be locked by her husband at the time, she went to sleep. Her house comprising of two rooms. She has one son namely Mukul. When they enter into the house, the first room is her bedroom having a double bed and adjacent to that is another room which is having one Deewan. In her bedroom, there are two iron almirahs and there is no almirah in the adjacent room. There were blood stains on the side door of mall almirah. she has not seen any blood stains on the handle of any of the almirah or in their inside locker or shelf of the said almirah. She does not remember the time when the police had met him but they met him in the night.
20. PW Meena Bodal further deposed during his cross- examination that on the day of incident, after getting the information after the incident when they reached in the house they entered from the back door. At the time when they reached the house, they found the back doors were locked. Again said there was no lock but it was closed and family members opened it which included Mangat Ram, Raghubir Singh, Dharmender, Yogesh Kumar and lot of many persons. when she entered in the back courtyard her dog was sitting in one corner. There was no blood spot on the body of their dog. Again said, she did not notice it. When she entered in her room from back side, she was mentally too much disturbed and she did not notice whether articles were disturbed or scattered. However, she could only see the scene of SC No. 57663/2013 FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 29 of 184 occurrence. Shutter of the shop was locked from the front side. There was no lock inside on the shutter. she did not go to the shop but she had gone upto the passage on the other side where there is a channel door which was also locked. The blood was found near to the channel but there was no blood in the shop. There is a wooden door. inbetween both bedrooms. A transparent glass is also fitted in that door. It was also blood stained. The blood was on the side where the murder took place. The distance between the intervening door of two rooms and the place where the murder had happened, is about 6 feet. She does not remember whether police was present at the time she reached home The witness voluntarily stated that she was mentally too much disturbed. There are four doors between the shop and the room where the murder has taken place. There were blood stains on the door of the room which leads to the shop. The dead body had already been removed from the room when she reached. The other goods were also taken by the police. In the room where the murder had taken place, there was no almirah. Besides the Deewan, there was one wooden sofa, one TV (with TV stand where she has created her temple) and a glass table. There was blood all about in all the goods, except the TV. Again said, she does not remember whether the blood was there on the TV also. The blood has been on the floor and even gone uptill ceiling.
21. PW Meena Bobal has further cross-examined by Ld. Defence counsel and she deposed that she had told the police official in her statement that one boy Nirmal used to work at their house. her actual age is 43 or 44 years. However, she does not know how this age 48 years is written in her statement dated SC No. 57663/2013 FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 30 of 184 19.12.2012. She had stated in her statement before the police Ex.PW10/D-A that one boy Nirmal who used to work at the shop of her husband also used to work as servant at their house and in the night she used to go back to her residence. (Confronted from her statement Ex.PW10/D-A where in it is not so recorded). Nirmal had not come to their shop or their house on 26.03.2010 as it was a holiday. She does not know if Nirmal had come to their house on 27.03.2010. The incident had been seen by their maid servant who had come for the work in their house in the morning on 27.03.2010. She does not know if the police had enquired from her about the case or not. Her Jyasth (brother in law) Mangat Ram and Raghubir Singh reside on the upper floor of their house. Mangat Ram has two sons namely Raju and Pappu and Raghubir Singh has one son namely Kalu and they are also reside on the upper floor. She does not know if Raju was alleged for commiting theft previously. Kallu is also known with the name Yogesh. The witness admitted the suggestion that previously a theft had taken place in their shop and they had named Yogesh @ Kallu in that case and she was arrested. It was theft of gold and silver articles of the shop. She used to come to their house off and on. Inder complainant is also son of her Jayeth (brother-in-law) and is the real brother of accused Deepak @ Deepu. They had no dispute with the mother of Deepak @ Deepu. The witness admitted the suggestion that her husband, father of Deepak @ Deepu, Deepak @ Deepu and her brother Lovely were arrested in a case u/s 107/151 Cr.P.C. The disputes used to take place between her husband and the family of Deepak @ Deepu and Lovely but even then they used to talks between them. She had told the police.
SC No. 57663/2013FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 31 of 184 Again said she does not remember if she had told the police that when she reached the house, she found many persons had collected in front of their house. (Confronted from her statement Ex.PW10/D-A where in it is not so recorded). She had stated to the police that when she went inside she found that blood was lying on the floor and blood was also sprinkled on the walls of the inner most room where her husband used to sleep on Diwan (single bed). (Confronted from her statement Ex. PW10/D-A where in it is not so recorded). They used to sleep in the night in the same room on the floor where her husband used to sleep in the inner most room as TV and AC were fitted in that room. The room where the double bed was fitted used to be used by them as well as by any in comer to the house during the day time. Sometime her Nand Anjana used to come to stay in their house and sometime her children Rishab and Suman also used to stay in their house. She had told the police that from there it transpired that it was family entry and accused was known and she got opened the door and then on the occurrence had taken place. (Confronted from her statement Ex.PW10/D-A where in it is not so recorded). She further deposed during cross-examination that she had suspicion upon the Deepak @ Deepu on the first day itself. But she did not name him out as she was pressurised by her family not to name her out as an accused. She had told this thing in her statement to the police.(Confronted from her statement Ex.PW10/D-A where in it is not so recorded). Her statement was recorded by the police in the noon time. Deepak @ Deepu used to visit their house after this incident as well never used to sit at the shop of her husband at the time of her business or other. She has no knowledge what her SC No. 57663/2013 FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 32 of 184 husband used to keep articles of the customer or used to give money to them or used to maintain any account or not. She further deposed that there is a safe kept in the shop and all the articles used to be kept in that. She does not remember if she had told the police that she being the wife of Surinder Bobal was aware as to where the gold articles or the money used to be kept. (Confronted from her statement Ex. PW10/D-A where in it is not so recorded). The witness admitted the suggestion that she had no knowledge as to who had come and what transaction had taken place on 25.03.2010 at the shop and similarly she had no knowledge if gold articles were given or taken on that day. The witness deposed that she had two almirahs during those days in her house in the room where double bed was situated. The head of the double bed was towards the partition wall of the room. Both the almirahs were lying by the side of bed. One can reach to the almirah without touching/crossing the bed. There is almirah on the right side when one comes from the room of her husband to the room where double bed was situated. But no part of these almirahs is in the room of her husband. She had stated to the police that the cash and the gold which was kept inside one almirah which was kept in the other room which was adjacent to the inner most room. (Confronted from her statement Ex.PW10/D-A where in it is not so recorded). The witness admitted the suggestion that gold pendent having the picture of Guru Nanak can be prepared and worn by any person and similarly the person whose name starts from "S" can also wear the ring having inscription over it with "S". The witness admitted the suggestion that she does not know as to what articles of gold, silver or cash were brought by her husband SC No. 57663/2013 FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 33 of 184 from the market on 26.03.2010, however, she had brought something from the market. she had told the police. Again said she does not remember if she had said the police that another iron almirah was also kept in the room and this almirah contains their personal used jewellery.(Confronted from her statement Ex. PW10/D-A where in it is not so recorded). She does not remember if she had stated to the police that this almirah was not opened by the accused and the same was found intact meaning thereby that it was some known person who committed the offence and it was well within the knowledge of the accused that the cash and gold articles are kept in the other almirah. (Confronted from her statement Ex.PW10/D-A where in it is not so recorded). This almirah was opened by him prior to giving the statement to the police. She himself had not shown this almirah to the police. She does not remember if the police had come on 28.03.2010 as well but she has called the police on 29.03.2010 to show the blood stain on the almirah but she does not know if the police had taken the finger prints from there or not. At the time when she reached to her house on 27.03.2010 her condition was abnormal because of sudden death of her husband, therefore, she did not notice any foot print on the floor in the room where the double bed was situated. Since she had not seen the foot print, she can not say to what extent foot prints were. When they reached their house on 27.03.2010 the double bed mattresses were lying on the bed. There was no blood stain on the double bed. They did not check the double bed by picking the mattresses from the double bed. She further deposed that she had stated in her statement to the police that her husband used to keep the keys of main almirah with him SC No. 57663/2013 FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 34 of 184 always and it was in the knowledge of accused Deepak @ Deepu Bobal @ Deepak @ Deepu. (Confronted from her statement Ex.PW10/D-A where in it is not so recorded). She had stated to the police that on 26.03.2010, Deepak @ Deepu Bobbal remained inside their house and even she went outside many times and again visited their house except Deepak @ Deepu remained their house for a long time from 26.03.2010. (Confronted from her statement Ex. PW10/D-A where in it is not so recorded). She had stated to the police that her son Mukul stated that the shop is closed and she does not have keys with him and on this Deepak @ Deepu stated that keys are inside the suitcase. (Confronted from her statement Ex. PW10/D-A where in it is not so recorded). She had also stated to the police that accused Deepak @ Deepu was aware regarding the place of keeping of the keys and all other things. (Confronted from her statement Ex.PW10/D-A where in it is not so recorded). She had also stated to the police that accused Deepak @ Deepu not opened the shop through her son Mukul and got melted pieces of gold and silver. (Confronted from her statement Ex.PW10/D-A where in it is not so recorded). She further deposed that she had stated before the police that on 29.03.2010, they had raised alarm in the presence of her Jethani and her two sons regarding misplace of two keys ring bunch and it appears that the key bunch later on was kept beneath the mattresses.(Confronted from her statement Ex.PW10/D-A where in it is not so recorded). She had also stated to the police that to her mind these keys bunch might have been kept by accused Deepak @ Deepu Bobbal as no other person except Jethani and her two sons heard their objections regarding non availability of the keys bunch. (Confronted from her statement SC No. 57663/2013 FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 35 of 184 Ex.PW10/D-A where in it is not so recorded). The keys later on were found by the police under the mattresses of the double bed and they had called the police for the same. The witness denied the suggestion that her son Mukul had produced the keys to the police which were taken into the possession by the police through the memo. She had seen Deepak @ Deepu in the street till the time DNA test had taken place. However, she does not remember the date. Deepak @ Deepu used to screen himself by seeing them in the street, however, Depak @ deepu was be called by the police for the investigation purpose. The witness admitted the suggestion that she was not arrested. She does not remember when her husband had given loan to Deepak @ Deepu and Inder on interest basis, however, they used to get loan from her husband off and on. She does not know how much loan had become debited towards Inder and Deepak @ Deepu. She also do not know if the loan used to be returned by the Deepak @ Deepu and Inder to her husband. She had stated to the police that her husband had given some amount of loan to Deepak @ Deepu and Inder on interest basis and her husband used to help them financially (Confronted from her statement Ex.PW10/D-A where in it is not so recorded). She had also stated to the police that Inder was aware regarding the availability of the gold articles and amount inside the almirah. (confronted from her statement Ex. PW10/DA where in it is not so recorded). She did not show her suspicion on Inder as Deepak @ Deepu had come to her house on that day and therefore, she had suspected him. She does not know if at any time when Yogesh was arrested for theft committed in their shop. She had named out Deepak @ Deepu or not. The witness denied the suggestion that SC No. 57663/2013 FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 36 of 184 she was intentionally naming Deepak @ Deepu to falsely implicate him in this case and Deepak @ Deepu has no concerned in that case as well. She denied the suggestion that the mattresses shown in the court are not the same. She does not know if the finger prints from the two keys ring was taken by the police or not. she does not remember the colour of the pillow. The witness denied the suggestion that she had identified the pillow in court because she was told that this pillow was recovered by the police in this case. However, the pillow which was shown to him was torned one. However, she has left the pillow on 26.03.2010 that was not torn. She does not know the identification of the mobile phone but it was probably Matrola which started probably with number 9. The witness denied the suggestion that the mobile shown to him in the court was also not belonging to her husband. she had not shown any receipt in regard to the ownership of the Matrola phone to the police. Mangat Ram was present in the house when she returned home on 27.03.2010. She further deposed that the street in front of her house from the back side is about 10 feet. The people walked in the road but it not was thickly populated. The distance between the shop from where her husband had taken chocklate in the night on 26.03.2010 is at the distance of five minutes walk on foot but she can not tell the distance in measurement. The witness admitted the suggestion that she was told by the police that the chance finger prints did not tally with the finger prints taken of many persons including the accused. The witness voluntarily stated that as the place was distrubed as number of persons had entered in the house and distrubed the placed by touching the articles before the chance finger prints. The SC No. 57663/2013 FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 37 of 184 witness admitted the suggestion that at the time when she had returned on 27.03.2010 she did not find any person inside the house. Therefore, she does not know who had gone inside and how many persons had gone inside or had gone inside prior to their reached to home. PW Meena denied the suggestion that she had falsely suspected upon Deepak @ Deepu due to her enmity with that family. The witness denied the suggestion that she had been blaming her Jethani Smt. Asha about her relations with her husband due to which she always had quarrel with the family of his Jethani and her children namely Deepak @ Deepu and lovely. She further denied the suggestion that she suspected Deepak @ Deepu and falsely implicated him because of this reason. The witness denied the suggestion that she had jeasously also because of the shop opened in their neighborhood in the name of New Kartar Jewellers and because of that reason, she was feeling jealousy and therefore falsely named him out. The witness denied the suggestion that Deepak @ Deepu had gone out of station after taking the permission from the police after she was cleared because of non matching of her finger prints with the chance prints and after that she had gone for her business trip but in the meantime due to the political reason and also due to her jealousy with Deepak @ Deepu, she named Deepak @ Deepu and falsely implicated him in this case. The witness denied the suggestion that Deepak @ Deepu is innocent and nothing has been recovered at her instance. The witness denied the suggestion that she is deposing falsely.
After allowing of applicaion u/s 311 Cr.P.C, PW Meena deposed that during the pendency of the trial in the present case, he SC No. 57663/2013 FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 38 of 184 has got released cash amount of Rs.14.5 Lakhs in total on Superdari as per the Order of the Hon'ble Court and she had signed two indemnity bonds i.e. one for Rs.4.5 Lakhs and one for Rs.10 Lakhs at the time of release of the cash amount. Photocopies of the currency notes were kept in the Malkhana at that time. She can identify the said indemnity bonds if shown to him. At that stage, witness is shown original indemnity bond from the judicial file pertaining to release of cash amount of Rs.4.5 Lakhs and the same is shown to the witness and witness has identify her signatures on the same. Indemnity bond is Ex.PW-10/X bearing her signatures at point A. At that time of releasing the amount, she had also filed No Objection Certificate on behalf of her son as per the direction of the Hon'ble Court. At that stage No Objection Certificate from the judicial file is shown to the witness and witness identify the signatures of Mukul at point A and B on No Objection Certificate Ex.PW-10/Y (Objected to by Ld Defence Counsel on the mode of proof on the point of signatures of Mukul). At that stage, MHC(M) PS Moti Nagar has produced photocopy of indemnity bond pertaining to release of Rs.10 Lakhs is shown to the witness. (Original of the same is not stated to be traceable by the MHC(M) till then and statement of IO and the then MHC(M) and the present MHC(M) had already been recorded in this regard). Witness identify the signatures on the same. Photocopy of Indemnity bond is now Mark X bearing signatures of witness at point A and the photocopy of Voter ID Card of witness is Mark X1 bearing signatures of witness at point A as attesting witness. Photocopy of No Objection Certificate of Mukul in favour of witness is Mark X2 bearing signatures of Mukul at point A. (Objected to by Ld SC No. 57663/2013 FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 39 of 184 Defence Counsel on the mode of proof on the point of signatures of Mukul).
22. In the cross examination Ld Counsel for accused Deepak @ Deepu. She deposed that she had got released the said amount as the same was proceeds of the gold. No proof in regard to the gold for which the money had been recovered is with her. The witness voluntarily stated that the copy through which the gold ornaments were pledged by the different customers is with him and she can produce the same. There was no license with her husband about the pledging of gold ornaments by the customers. There was no license with her husband in regard to advancing of loan to the different customers as per Money Laundering Act. She deposed that she does not remember at that point of time as to how much gold was lying with her husband. She denied the suggestion that the gold never belonged to her husband or their family. She denied the suggestion that no such gold was ever pledged with her husband by different customers. The witness denied the suggestion that she has claimed this amount falsely without proof. The witness denied the suggestion that the amount so claimed by her never belonged to him and she had made a false representation to the Court for getting this amount. She denied the suggestion that endorsement Ex.PW-10/2 is not in her handwriting and it bears only her signatures. PW Meena admitted the suggestion that accused Deepak @ Deepu was also running the gold shop. The witness admitted the suggestion that the money of Rs.14.5 Lakhs was recovered from the house of Deepak @ Deepu at the time of her arrest alongwith certain gold ornaments. The witness denied the suggestion that since Deepak @ Deepu was also running the SC No. 57663/2013 FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 40 of 184 gold shop, the whole of the amount was kept by him at her house/shop for purchase of property. The witness denied the suggestion that out of the amount received from the house of accused Deepak @ Deepu, some gold ornaments which were recovered belonged to mother of accused and some of the money was also belonging to her as she had also sold her ornaments to help accused Deepak @ Deepu to purchase the property. The witness denied the suggestion that accused Deepak @ Deepu has the proof of all the money recovered as well as gold. The witness denied the suggestion that she had wrongly claimed the whole amount without any proof/claim. The witness denied the suggestion that her application for releasing the amount was also misrepresentation to the Court. The witness denied the suggestion that at the time of her first statement she had never mentioned about the loss of gold ornaments but later on at the suggestion of her counsel she moved the false application for claiming the amount.
23. PW-11, ASI Bircha Singh, No.2523//W, PS Moti Nagar deposed that on 02.06.2010, he was posted at PS Moti Nagar. Accused Deepak @ Deepu was on police remand and he joined the investigation of the present case along with Insp. Jagvinder Singh and Ct. Suman. On 02.06.10, he along with above named police official and accused Deepak @ Deepu proceeded from Delhi in a private taxi for going to Ludhiana. They reached at village Kuhar, Palm City, Flat No. 262. First and foremost they met with one Vishal, Incharge of Palm City Apartment. Accused Deepak @ Deepu had purchased Flat No. 262. The aforesaid flat was under
construction. He had taken photographs of the same from his SC No. 57663/2013 FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 41 of 184 mobile. Later on, he gave photographs to the IO after getting the same developed. Thereafter, accused Deepak @ Deepu had taken them to Deepa General Store which was just in front of Palm City, where Deepak @ Deepu was residing as tenant. Mr. Deepa, owner of Deepa general store was called and he opened the room. Bundle of newspaper were lying and beneath those newspaper bandal, one polythene was lying. It was checked and it was found containing one expired passport and another passport in the name of Surender, Voter ID of Surender, one cheque book in the name of Surender, one application addressed to Manager, Bank Of India. All these articles were kept in a parcel and it was sealed by the IO and was taken into possession by the IO through seizure memo. Ex- PW11/A which bears his signatures at point A. He identified accused Deepak @ Deepu who is present before the court that day. He deposed that he has seen same photographs placed on judicial file. These are the same photographs which were taken by him from his mobile at Palm City. Photographs are collectively Ex-PA. He identified the case property i.e. one envelope in unsealed condition is taken out from the judicial file. Envelope is got opened and it is found containing two passports, both the passports are in the name of Surender Singh, one Election I-Card bearing no. SZN 0837492 in the name of Surender Singh, two licenses having same license no. CO4052001250434 in the name of Surender Singh, one passbook of A/C No. 20304 in the name of Surender Singh. He has seen the case property. He identified the case property as the same which was taken into possession in his presence. The case property is Ex.PX.
24. PW-12 W/ASI Veena deposed that on 27.03.2010, he was SC No. 57663/2013 FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 42 of 184 posted at PS Moti Nagar as duty officer. On that day, at about 02:20 PM, he recorded aforesaid FIR on the basis of tehrir sent by ASI Preetpal Singh through Ct. Bablu. He has brought original FIR register containing the computerized FIR. Photocopy of the same is Ex.PW12/A. Original seen and returned. After recording the FIR, he gave copy of FIR and original tehrir after making his endorsement on the same vide Ex.PW12/B which bears his signatures at point A to same constable for giving the same to Insp. Jagvinder as investigation was marked to him. He has also brought original DD register containing DD NO. 14A dated 27.03.2010. True copy of the same is Ex.PW12/C, which bears his signatures at point A.
25. PW13 Dr. Manoj Jain deposed that he was having another house situated at A-5/294, Third Floor, Paschim Vihar. He has given the said flat on rent to one person namely Deepak @ Deepu. On 31.05.2010, he received a call from police official and at about 5.00 PM. he reached at this flat. He found one inspector alongwith 3-4 other constables, accused Deepak @ Deepu, Sanjay Sharma, an employee of property dealer through whom he had given the said flat to Deepak @ Deepu, two other persons who were known to Sanjay Sharma and they were also property dealer. Police officials in his presence broken the lock of the flat with the help of chisel and hammer. One polythene was taken out which was lying in the cabinet beneath the washbasin. It was found containing blood stained jeans pant, one shirt, one underwear one baniyan, one pair of socks and one pair of Canvas Shoes. That polythene was also containing two blood stained knifes. Police officials have taken all these articles into their possession and kept the same in SC No. 57663/2013 FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 43 of 184 parcels. Police officials have also seized the broken lock from the aforesaid flat. He also produced the police verification form of Deepak @ Deepu, their rent agreement with him which police officials have taken into their possession through seizure memo vide Ex.PW13/A which bears his signatures at point A. He has seen documents i.e. seizure memo, blood stained cloths, sketch of the knives, seizure memo of knives, seizure memo of broken lock and site plan of the flat, documents are Ex.PW13/B, Ex.PW13/C, Ex.PW13/D, Ex.PW13/E and Ex.PW13/F which bears his signatures at point A. He has also seen the verification form of tenant and the original rent agreement which is Ex.PW13/G and Ex. PW13/H which bear his signatures at point A. He identified accused Deepak @ Deepu present in the court, as the same person who was residing in his aforesaid flat and the aforesaid articles were recovered from this flat in his presence. The witness deposed that he will try to identify the case property if shown to him as long time has elapsed. At that stage MHC(M) produced Parcel no. 18 sealed with the seal of Court and the same is opened and found to contain one shirt, one jeans pant, one baniyan, one underwear, one pair of socks, one pair of shoes blood stained, same are taken out from the pullanda and shown to the witness. After seeing the said clothes and shoes, witness stated that he is not sure if these were the same clothes or shoes which were got recovered by accused in his presence and seized by the IO due to long gap of time. At that stage, MHC(M) produced Parcel no. 19 sealed with the seal of Court and the same is opened and found to contain one knife, same is taken out from the pullanda and shown to the witness. After seeing the said knife, witness states that he is not SC No. 57663/2013 FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 44 of 184 sure if this was the same knife which was got recovered by accused in his presence and seized by the IO due to long gap of time. At that stage MHC(M) produced Parcel no. 20 sealed with the seal of Court and the same is opened and found to contain one knife, same is taken out from the pullanda and shown to the witness. After seeing the said knife, witness states that he is not sure if this was the same knife which was got recovered by accused in his presence and seized by the 10 due to long gap of time. At that stage MHC(M) produced one parcel sealed with the court seal and the same is opened and found to contain one lock, same is taken out from a piece of cloth and shown to the witness. After seeing the said lock, witness states that he is not sure if this was the same lock, which was got recovered by accused in his presence and seized by the IO due to long gap of time. At that stage, Ld. State Counsel sought permission to put leading questions to the witness as he has not disclosed the complete facts with regard to case property.The witness admitted the suggestion that he had deposed in the court on 24.07.13 in this case voluntarily and without any pressure. The witness admitted the suggestion that he was not able to identify the above mentioned articles properly as more than nine years have passed since the date of recovery.
26. PW-14 Dheeraj s/o Late Sh. Shiv Narayan Kalra deposed that he was running D.K. Jewellery Shop from the aforesaid address. He has got work with Deepak @ Deepu for the period of 8 years. Later on he came to know the murder of the owner of Kartar Jeweller. He does not know anything else. He has given one affidavit in the present case at the instance of police official and he SC No. 57663/2013 FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 45 of 184 was asked forcibly by the police official to sign on that affidavit. He does not know the contents of the same. He deposed that Police had recorded his statement in this case. He can identify accused Deepak @ Deepu as present in the court that day (witness correctly identified accused Deepak @ Deepu) as he had worked at his jewelery shop as helping hand for serving water to the customers. Accused had never mortgaged any jewelery articles with him in lieu of loan of any amount from him. Accused had never obtained loan of Rs.30,000/- from him. He tunred hostile and despite cross-examination by Ld. Addl. PP for the State
27. PW-15 Sudhir, s/o Sh. Shiv Narayan deposed that he was running Krishna Fancy Jeweller Shop from the aforesaid address. He knew Deepak @ Deepu as he was also in the same business as he used to meet him in the area of Karol Bagh. He does not know regarding the present case. Police Official have obtained his signatures forcibly on stamp paper. He turned hostile.
28. PW-16 HC Lokender Singh deposed that on 31.05.2010, he was posted at PS Moti Nagar. On that day, he joined the investigation of the present case with Insp. Jagminder Singh. Accused Deepak @ Deepu was taken out from the lockup. Thereafter, they alongwith accused. SI Raghubir Singh, ASI P.P. Singh went at Rohini Sports Complex, Sector-9, Rohini, Delhi. One shopkeeper namely Himanshu Kapoor produced some documents regarding mobile connection and IO had taken those documents into his possession through seizure memo. Thereafter, they went to hotel Decent, Paharganj, Delhi and IO collected the documents regarding the stay of accused in that hotel. Thereafter, they went to New Khusdil hotel near Fatehpuri Masjid, Chandni SC No. 57663/2013 FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 46 of 184 Chowk and IO also collected the documents regarding stay of accused in this hotel. Thereafter, they all went to Paschim Vihar at the residence of accused Deepak @ Deepu. He did not remember the complete address of accused Deepak @ Deepu at that moment. Owner of the house Dr. Manoj was called and another person through whom Deepak @ Deepu got the rented accommodation in that house was also called. In the presence of Dr. Manoj and another person, the lock of door of the rented flat of accused Deepak @ Deepu was got broken and thereafter, they all entered inside time flat. He deposed that Accused Deepak @ Deepu produced one polythene which was kept beneath the wash basin. It was found containing one shirt of Saleti colour having blue lines, one pant of blue colour, one Baniyan of white colour, one pair of shocks and one pair of canvas shoes, two Churies. IO checked all these articles. On Chaku/Churies word 'Globe' was written and these were made of steel and the Chaku/Chries were having double edges both side sharp. IO prepared sketch of Chaku/Churies. 10 also measured the Chaku/Churies. One Chaku/Churies was having total length 21Cm. The length of the blade was 10.5 Cm and handle was also 10.5 Cm. Another Chaku/Churies was having total length 19.7Cm. The length of the blade was 9Cm and handle was also 10.7 Cm. Both the knives were kept in two separate parcels and both the parcels were sealed with the seal of JSM and parcels were given serial no.1 and no.2. All the other articles were kept in separate parcels and it was also sealed with the seal of JSM. They searched for 3 knives as disclosed by the accused, behind the park of the said flat but it could not be traced. IO prepared pointing out memo of the place of recovery of the case property. IO recorded SC No. 57663/2013 FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 47 of 184 statement of DR. Manoj and another person. He has seen document already Ex.PW13/B,C,D,E which bears his signatures at point A. At the time when jeans pant was recovered from the polythene, six slips/bills from the pocket of that pant. IO had also taken the relevant rent documents from the owner of the premises namely Dr. Manoj. After taking all the aforesaid articles they came back to PS. He identified accused Deepak @ Deepu, present before the court. He deposed that accused Deepak @ Deepu was also got medically examined. He has nothing more to say. He can identifed the case property. At that stage MHC (M) produced the case property in a sealed parcel bearing No.18, sealed with the seal of Court. The seals are broken and case property are taken out from the envelope. One blue jeans pant, one Shirt having lines of blue and light brown, one pair of socks of light brown colour, one pair of blue, one undergarment of blue colour and one Banyan of white colour are found present in the envelope. All the cloths were having blood stains. Witness identified the same and the same are collectively exhibited as Ex P. 16A.
At that stage MHC (M) produced the case property in a sealed parcel bearing No.19, sealed with the seal of FSL. The seals are broken and case property i.e. one knife found present in the envelope. The said knife is shown to the witness, who identified the same. The knife is Ex P-16B. The handle of the knife is of green colour. MHC (M) further produced the case property in a sealed parcel bearing No.20, sealed with the seal of FSL. The seals are broken and case property i.e. knife found present in the envelope. The said knife is shown to the witness, who identified the same. The knife is Ex P-16C. MHC (M) also produced the case SC No. 57663/2013 FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 48 of 184 property in a sealed pulanda sealed with the seal of JSM. The seals are broken and case property ie one lock found present in the Pulanda The said lock is shown to the witness, who identified the same. The lock is Ex P-16D.
29. PW-17 Jagdeep Kumar Deepa deposed that in May 2010, the official of Delhi Police came to him at Kohara alongwith the accused Deepak @ Deepu present in the Court that day. Accused Deepak @ Deepu was in police custody at that time. He had rented out one room of his premises to accused Deepak @ Deepu and he stayed there for 4-5 days, as he told him that his house at Palam Vihar is under construction and he is busy in purchasing and other task of household. Police made inquiries from him and also search the room but nothing was recovered and he turned hostile.
30. PW-18 Sh Naveen Srivastava deposed that he was a summoned witness. He has brought photocopy of summoned record in respect of the saving account held by Deepak @ Deepu Kumar bearing No.083101500745 in their Laxmi Nagar Branch. The account as per records is in existence since 23.07.2009 and is still in existence but at a dormant stage now. He deposed that that day he has brought the summoned record i.e. Bank Statement of Account no. 083101500745 INR 0831of Deepak @ Deepu Kumar which was opened in the ICICI Bank, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi. The bank statement is duly attested by him on each page and also bears the stamp of the present Bank branch where he was posted. The bank statement is Ex. PW18/A (colly) (containing 04 sheets) which was already marked as mark Z1, which bears his signatures at point A on each sheet. He has also seen original account opening form (containing 03 sheets) which was received/collected SC No. 57663/2013 FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 49 of 184 by the IO from the staff of ICICI Bank branch Laxmi Nagar, Delhi where he was posted at that time. The same are collectively Ex. PW18/B (colly).
31. PW-19 Sh Kapil Mehra deposed that he has brought the account statement of the A/C of one Deepak @ Deepu Kumar vide account No. 083101500745 in Laxmi Nagar Branch. The said account is in existence since 23.7.2009 and is still in existence but in dormant stage. The said account statement is certified bears the seal of the bank and his signatures and it is the computer generated record. He was also annexing with it certificate U/S 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act. The said account statement runs into three pages and the same are collectively Ex19/A (Objected to on the mode of proof) The certificate U/S 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act is Ex PW19/B (Objected to on the mode of proof).
32. PW-20 Sh Pradeep Kumar deposed that in the year 2010, he was working with Palm City Real Estate Group. Ashok Malhotra was the Director of the said group. He was one of the employees of said group and he was authorised to conduct registry on behalf of the company at the time of sale. A registry was done of one plot No. 269 again said 262 of Palm City and as an authorised person of the company for the sale of plot to Deepak @ Deepu and he signed on the same. Deepak @ Deepu was the buyer and he stood in the name of seller on behalf of the company. One Ravi was the witness to the said registry. He had not handed over any documents to the police. He does not know who had handed over the said documents to the police. The said registry was got done at Transport Nagar, Ludhiana. It was a structure on the plot No.262 of 90 yards. Deepak @ Deepu was present in the court and he was SC No. 57663/2013 FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 50 of 184 correctly identified. The said registered document is Ex PW20/A, which runs into five pages. Each of page of the said registry bears his signatures at point A on all pages. The 5th page bears his photograph as well. The said sale deed was done on 30.04.2010.
33. PW-21 Sh.Vishal deposed that in the year 2010, he was working with Palm City Real Estate Group as Project Manager. Ashok Malhotra was the Director of the said group. He was one of the employees of said group. He further deposed that On 28.05.2010, IO alongwith 2/3 police officials came to his office, again said, Deepak @ Deepu also accompanied with the police officials. They enquired about the purchase of any plot by Deepak @ Deepu. he furnished registered document of Plot No.262, Palm City Kohara to the IO. IO seized the same vide seizure memo Ex PW21/A, bearing his signatures at point A. The sale of the said semi structured single floor house was between Ashok Malhotra Group of Companies and Sh Deepak @ Deepu. Pardeep Kumar has signed on behalf of seller. He does not remember as to who has pointed out the semi structured single floor house No. 262. 10 prepared a pointing out memo of Plot No. 262 in his presence. The same is Ex PW21/B,bearing his signatures at point A. Deepak @ Deepu is present in the Court, correctly identified. Police recorded his statement.
34. PW-22 Retired SI Jai Singh deposed that On 27.03.2010, he was posted as Incharge, Crime Team. He received a message from West District Control Room to reach at B-1/43, Ground Floor, New Moti Nagar. he reached the place of occurrence with his team members i.e. HC Devender, Constable Suresh Kumar and one staff member from Dog Squad. he inspected the spot. He deposed that SC No. 57663/2013 FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 51 of 184 one chance print was lifted by constable Suresh Kumar and HC Devender photographed the spot at his instance. His detailed report, running in two pages, is Ex. PW22/A, bears his signatures at point-A & B.
35. PW-23 Inspector Jagminder Singh deposed that on 27.03.2010, he was posted as ATO PS Moti Nagar. On that day, investigation of case FIR No. 81/2010 was entrusted to him after registration of case, on the statement of Inder @ Lovely through ASI P.P Singh. Afterwards, he had got inspected the scene of crime from Crime Team and statements of crime team staff were recorded after obtaining crime team report already Ex PW22/A. Crime scene was also got photographed. Thereafter, he prepared rough site plan Ex PW23/A of the spot. He conducted the inquest proceedings of deceased after filling up form 25.35-B in the presence of witnesses vide Ex PW23/B and he made the request to the Doctor for PM vide request letter Ex PW23/C, having his signatures at point A. He further deposed that he had lifted the exhibits i.e. blood stained mattresses tone big and one small), dressing table cover (blood stained) and blood stained pillow which were seized vide seizure memos Ex PW 23/D and PW23/E after converting them into a separate pullanda and sealing with the seal of JSM having his signatures at point A both the memos. he seized the blood stained earth and earth control vide seizure memo Ex PW 23/F having his signatures at point A after converting them into pullanda and sealing them with the seal of JSM. He also deposed that On 27.03.2010 he was posted at PS Moti Nagar as Inspector ATO. DD no. 14A PS Moti Nagar had already been marked to ASI P.P. Singh for necessary action on that day.
SC No. 57663/2013FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 52 of 184 Thereafter, he alongwith the then SHO Inspector Hoshiyar Singh Yadav and other staff also reached at the spot i.e. H.No. B-1/43, Ground Floor, New Moti Nagar, Delhi where they found ASI P.P. Singh already present there. After reaching at the spot they found dead body of a male person lying on single bed inside the room of the said house. The dead body was identified to be of one Surinder Singh s/o. Late Kartar Singh. Dead body was lying in a pool of blood. There were injury marks on the neck, chest, abdomen and leg of the deceased. Blood was found scattered on the chaddar of the single bed, mattress, pillow, small dressing table, small towel, rexine cover which was lying on the table at the spot. Blood was also found scattered on the wall of the room. They also found one pet dog stated to be of deceased sitting in the courtyard of the spot towards jewellery shop. On inquiry, they came to know that the family members i.e. wife and son of the deceased have gone on a trip to Shimla and Dharamshala in H.P. with their relatives. They also came to know at the spot that on the upper floor of the said house and one brother of the deceased is residing and at the adjacent house the family of one of the deceased brother of present deceased Surinder was residing. It was also found that third brother of the deceased was also residing in the same block. One Inder Bobal met them at the spot who told that he is nephew of the deceased Surinder and they made inquiry from him about the incident. Thereafter, the statement was recorded by ASI P.P. Singh which is already Ex. PW37/A and ASI P.P. Singh prepared rukka on the same and was sent to Moti Nagar for the registration of the case through Const. Babloo. On the basis of the said rukka the present case was registered. After registration the present case SC No. 57663/2013 FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 53 of 184 constable Babloo reached at the spot and he handed over original rukka and copy of FIR to him. Crime Team officers alongwith dog squad had reached at the spot who inspected the spot and photographer took photograph of the spot as well as of the dead body from different angles. Finger print expert also lifted chance print from the spot. Crime team In- charge handed over his report to him at the spot. He also lifted blood stain, single bed sheet, one small pillow, small blood stained towel, blood stained rexine cover, blood stained cloth piece cover which was laid down in Almirah and the same were sealed in the pulanda with the seal of JSM. He also took into possession two blood stained TV remote, one blood stained spectacles, one blood stained mobile cover of mobile phone of the deceased, one namakdani, some visiting cards and the same were sealed in the pulanda with the seal of JSM and were taken into possession vide seizure memo already Ex. PW37/B which bears his signatures at point X. He also took into possession one blood stained currency note in the denomination of Rs. 50/- from the spot which was taken out from the pocket of the wearing pajama of the deceased. The note was sealed in a pulanda with the seal of JSM and was taken into possession vide seizure memo already Ex. PW37/C which bears his signatures at point X. He also took into possession the mobile phone of the deceased from the spot after removing its blood stained cover vide seizure memo already Ex. PW37/A which bears his signatures at point X. Thereafter, on the written request of ASI P.P. Singh addressed to In-charge mortuary to preserve the dead body of the deceased. Thereafter, the dead body of the deceased was shifted to DDU hospital mortuary through Constable Kishan in the vehicle.
SC No. 57663/2013FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 54 of 184 Thereafter, he reached at PS Moti Nagar. Case property was deposed by him in the mallkahan intact he recorded the statement of the witnesses on that day. He searched for the suspect/accused of the present incident but he did not find any clue on that day in this regard. On 27.03.2010 he came to know that family member of the deceased has returned from their trip but due to late hours they could not be contacted. He deposed that on 28.03.2010, he went to mortuary in DDU hospital. In the meantime, the family member of the deceased including Sh. Mukul, son of deceased and brothers of deceased, namely, Raghubir and Mangat Ram also reached in the mortuary. Dead body of deceased duly identified by Mukul, Raghubir Singh and Mangat Ram. He recorded their statements which are already Ex. PW8/A, Ex. PW6/A and Ex. PW2/A respectively and bears his signatures at point X. Thereafter, he prepared inquest proceedings. Thereafter, the postmortem of the body of deceased was conducted and after the postmortem dead body of the deceased was handed over to the family member of the deceased vide receipt already Ex. PW6/B which bears his signatures at point X. After the postmortem doctor handed over three pulandas and three sample seals sealed with the seal of DFMT DDU hospital, to him and the same were taken into possession by him vide seizure memo already Ex. PW42/B which bears his signatures at point X. At the time of moving application for postmortem he prepared brief facts. The same is Ex. PW23/G which bears his signatures at point X. Thereafter, he came back to PS. Case property was deposited by him in the mallkhana intact. As the family members of the deceased were in a shock due to the incident and they have to cremate the dead body, hence, he could SC No. 57663/2013 FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 55 of 184 not record their statement on that day. He deposed that on 29.03.2010 he had visited the spot i.e. house of the deceased where wife of deceased Smt. Meena and Mukul, son of deceased and some other family members met him there. Mukul has handed over blood stained bunch of keys stating that he had found the same underneath the mattress lying on the double bed inside the other room. The bunch of keys was sealed by him in the pulanda with the seal of JSM and was taken into possession vide seizure memo already Ex. PW42/X which bears his signatures at point X. Mukul also handed over one photograph of deceased Surinder and the same was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex. PW23/H which bears his signatures at Point X. Mukul signed the same at point Y. ASI P.P. Singh signed the same at point Z. Thereafter, he recorded the statement of Smt. Meena and Mukul u/s. 161 Cr.PC and they had strongly suspect the role of accused Deepak @ Deepu for the murder of Surinder Singh. Thereafter, he was deputed for arrangement duty from 30.03.2010 to 12.04.2010 in New Delhi District by the senior officers hence, the case file was marked to Inspector Raj Kumar, the then Inspector Investigation, PS Moti Nagar.
He further deposed that on 13.04.2010 the investigation in the present case was again marked to him. He received the case file. Thereafter, he sought consent from Deepak @ Deepu, Inder @ Lovely, Navkesh @Sonu and Smt. Asha for conducting their polygraph test by way of serving notice upon them . Accordingly all the four person have given their consent for conducting said test and the notice given to Deepak @ Deepu is Ex. PW23/1 which bears his signatures at point X. Accused Deepak @ Deepu had SC No. 57663/2013 FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 56 of 184 given in writing which is his own hand with undertaking that he will be available for the said test on 19.04.2010 to 21.04.2010. The reply of the accused is Ex. PW23/J which bears signature of the accused at point X and was duly attested by him at point Y. However, accused Deepak @ Deepu disappeared from his house on 19.04.2010 and despite his sincere efforts. He did not find any clue about his whereabouts. Thereafter, he obtained NBW of accused from the court of Ld. MM. He got opened the LOC of accused and also made other efforts to trace him but of no avail. Process u/s. 82 Cr.PC was got initiated against the accused from the court concerned. he alongwith his staff left Delhi for Ludhiana in search of the accused. When he was present at Ludhiana on 24.05.2010 he received information from PS that accused Deepak @ Deepu was arrested in the present case by the joint team of special staff West District and police team led by Inspector Raj Kumar of PS Moti Nagar, in Delhi. Thereafter, he came back to Delhi. Inspector Raj Kumar handed over the relevant documents pertaining to the arrest and recovery effected at the instance of accused during the investigation remained with him. On 25.05.2010 accused was taken out from the lock-up by him and was produced in the court of Ld. MM and he obtained PC remand of the accused from the court.
He also deposed that after obtaining PC remand of accused Deepak @ Deepu for seven days on 25.05.2010 accused was interrogated by him on that day. Thereafter, accused led them to the place of occurrence i.e. H.No. B-1/43, Ground floor, New Moti Nagar and pointed out the place of occurrence. he prepared pointed out memo in this regard and the same is already Ex. PW2/B bears SC No. 57663/2013 FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 57 of 184 his signatures at point X. Thereafter, he alongwith accused came back to police station. In the presence of accused Deepak @ Deepu @Deepu two person namely Sudhir s/o. Sh. Shiv Narayan and Dheeraj Kalra s/o. Sh. Shiv Narayan reached in the police station. He made inquiry from them in the presence of accused Deepak @ Deepu. Sudhir Kumar s/o. Shiv Narayan handed over cash amount of Rs. 70,000/- denomination of Rs. 1000/- and Rs. 500/- to him stating that the said amount was handed over to him by accused Deepu on 09.4.2010 at the time of releasing the mortgaged jewellery articles of his wife mortgaged by accused with Sudhir. The said cash amount was sealed by him in pulanda with the seal of JSM and was taken into possession vide seizure memo already Ex. PW42/H bears his signatures at point X. Accused Deepak @ Deepu signed the same at point Y and witness Sudhir signed the same at point Z. He deposed that Dheeraj Kalra handed over cash amount Rs. 30,000/- containing currency notes in denomination of Rs. 500/-, Rs. 100/- and Rs. 50/- to him in the presence of the accused Deepak @ Deepu by stating that accused has handed over the said cash amount to him on 18.4.2010 in lieu of release of his mortgaged jewellery from him. The said currency notes were sealed by him in a pulanda with the seal of JSM and were taken into possession vide seizure memo already Ex. PW42/1 which bears his signatures at point X. Accused signed the same at point Y and Dheeraj Kalra signed the same at point Z. Thereafter, he recorded the statement of both the witnesses mentioned above u/s. 161 Cr.PC. The case property was deposited by him in the malkhana. Accused was kept in the lock-up.
He also deposed that on 26.05.2010 accused was taken out SC No. 57663/2013 FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 58 of 184 from the lock-up and he led them to Kamla Nagar, Delhi and he pointed out towards a scooter make NV-LML bearing registration no. DL6SF-9511 which was parked near McDonald which was used by the accused while leaving the spot after the incident. The said scooter was seized by him vide seizure memo already Ex. PW42/J which bears his signatures at point X. Accused signed the same at point Y. Thereafter, they came back to police station. The scooter was deposited by him in the mallkhana. He recorded the statement of witnesses including ASI PP Singh who was with him at that time and accused was kept in the lock-up. He also deposed that on 27.5.2010 accused was taken out from the lock-up. Accused led them to shop no. 6/1 M/s. Malik Emporium, Jawala Heri Market from where he had purchased three knives on 26.3.2010 and he prepared pointing out memo in this regard and same is already Ex. PW4/A bears his signatures at point X. Accused signed the same at point Y. He recorded the statement of Om Prakash Malik occupier/owner of the said shop. Thereafter, accused led them at shop no. 34/5 shoe corner, Kirti Nagar, main road from where he had purchased one pair of shoes make Canvas on 26.3.2010. He prepared the pointing out memo which is already Ex. PW7/A bears his signatures at point X and accused signed the same at point Y. He recorded the statement of owner of the said shop namely Suresh Kumar u/s 161 Cr.PC. Thereafter, they alongwith accused came back at PS Moti Nagar. In the presence of accused one public person namely Vipin Anand from whom accused had purchased the Santro Car bearing registration no.DL3CAA-8904. Sh.Vipin Anand handed over the original RC of the said car alongwith other relevant documents including the SC No. 57663/2013 FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 59 of 184 photocopy of the delivery receipt, licence of accused Deepak @ Deepu and copy of LIC of accused Deepak @ Deepu to him. He took the same into possession vide seizure memo already Ex. PW1/A which bears his signatures at point X and accused signed the same at point Y. He recorded the statement of Sh. Vipin Anand u/s. 161 Cr.PC. He had seen the original RC from the file that day and the same is Ex. PW23/Y. The photocopy of delivery receipt is marked as mark A. Photocopy of the driving licence of accused is marked as mark B. Photocopy of LIC is marked as mark C. Thereafter, accused was kept in the lock-up. He deposed that on 28.5.2010 accused was taken out from the lock-up and Thereafter, he alongwith SI Raghuvir Singh and other staff left the PS for outstation i.e. for Ludhiana with accused in the investigation in the case. Accused led them to house no. 262, Palam City, Kohara Village, Ludhiana, Punjab stating that the said house was purchased by him from the robbed money and from the sale consideration of the robbed jewellery from the house of the deceased after committing his murder. (objected to by Ld. Defence Counsel). He prepared pointing out memo in that regard which is already Ex.PW21/B which bears his signature at point X and accused signed the same at point Y. The care taker of the society namely, Vishal Hasteer who joined the investigation at that time also signed the same. He recorded the statement of Vishal Hasteer. Vishal Hasteer also handed over the documents pertaining to the said house to him including original sale deed of the said house to him and the same were taken into possession by him vide seizure memo already Ex. PW21/A which bears his signature at point X. The sale deed is already Ex. PW20/A and He has placed the said SC No. 57663/2013 FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 60 of 184 documents on record. Thereafter, accused led us to Hotel Paradise situated near Bus Stand opposite Dhyan Singh Complex, Ludhiana and the owner of the said Hotel namely, Nirman Ji handed over the original visitor register pertaining the relevant entries of the relevant date w.e.f. 04.12.09, 15.05.10 and the said register was taken into possession by him vide seizure memo already Ex. PW9/A which bears his signature at point X. SI Raghubir Singh signed the same at point B1. He had seen the register from judicial record that day and the same is already Ex. PA. He recorded the statement of the witnesses there. Again said on the same day accused has pointed out one room situated on the backside of the Deepa General Store stating that he stayed there for about 20 days prior to his arrest. He prepared pointing out memo in that regard. The same is Ex. PW23/Y1 which bears his signature point X and accused signed the same at point Y. He recorded the statement of Deepa owner of the said room. On the same night i.e. 29.05.2010, they left for Delhi and reached Delhi. Accused was kept in the lock-up at PS Moti Nagar. He further deposed that On 30.5.2010 accused was taken out from the lock-up and they were present in the PS with accused. In the meantime, one Sunil Kumar Rajput s/o. Sh. Satpal came to him and he handed over cash amount Rs. 3,00,000/- currency notes denomination of Rs 500/- in 6 bundles of 100 currency note each. The said currency notes were sealed by him in the pulanda with seal of JSM and were taken into possession vide seizure memo already Ex. PW34/A which bears his signature at point X and accused signed the same at point Y. He recorded the statement of Sunil Kumar and other police officials u/s. 161 Cr.PC. Case property was deposited by him in SC No. 57663/2013 FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 61 of 184 malkhana. Accused was kept in the lock-up. He also deposed that Next day i.e. on 31.5.2010 accused was taken out from lock- up and one witnes Ajay Kumar who was summoned by him regarding the investigation in the case reached at the PS. He made inquiry from him in presence of accused. Sh. Ajay Kumar handed over the photocopy of the visitor register of Hotel Decent, 4711, main bazar, Pahar ganj, New Delhi containing the relevant entries alongwith the copy of the ID proof of one Rajesh Kumar bearing photograph to him. He took the same into possession vide seizure memo already Ex. PW25/A which bears his signature at point X and accused signed the same at point Y. The photocopy of the register is already Ex. PW25/B. The photocopy of PAN Card is already marked PW25/A. Photocopy of CCTV footage of the said Hotel is already marked PW25/B (colly). On the same day he had collected the bank statement pertaining the bank account of the accused from ICICI Bank, Shakarpur, Delhi, the same is placed on record. The same is collectively marked as Mark Z1 (containing 05 sheets). On the same day on Himanshu Kapoor show was summoned by him in the investigation in the case appeared before him in PS and handed over the receipt/tax invoice of the mobile phone to him, the same was taken into possession by him vide seizure memo Ex. PW23/Y2 which bears his signature at point X. Himanshu signed the same at point Y and accused signed the same at point Z. The invoice is marked as mark AB.
He deposed that on the same day one Ramesh Mandal, Manager of New Khushdil Hotel, 6484, Fateh Puri Corner, Delhi appeared before him in PS and handed over the relevant record to him and the same were taken into possession by him vide seizure SC No. 57663/2013 FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 62 of 184 memo Ex. PW23/Y3 which bears his signature at point X. Accused signed the same at point Y and Ramesh signed the same at point Z. The photocopy of the record of the said hotel is marked as mark AC (colly) (containing into 07 sheets). Also, he deposed that, thereafter, on the same day accused Deepak @ Deepu led them to the H.No. A-5/291, 3rd Floor, Paschim Vihar, Delhi where accused had pointed out towards the room which he had taken on rent from one Dr. Manoj Kumar Jain. The said room was found locked from outside. Dr. Manoj Kumar Jain was also present in the said house at that time. He asked him to join the investigation. He also asked other public persons namely Pankaj Aneja, Ravinder Kumar and Sanjay Sharma, who were present with Dr. Manoj Kumar Jain at that time, to join the investigation. In the presence of the above mentioned witnesses on his direction HC Lokender had broken the lock of the said room and thereafter, accused led them inside the said room and got recovered one polythene bag from the wooden cupboard of the kitchen of his rented room. The said polythene was checked by him and it was found to contain blood stained clothes i.e. one shirt, one pant, one baniyan, one underwear, pair of socks, some papers were also found inside the pocket of the recovered pant, pair of Canvas shoes of blue and yellow coloured and two knives. He prepared the sketch of both the knives which is already Ex. PW13/C and bears his signature at point X and accused signed the same at point Y. Both the knives were sealed in separate pulandas with the seal of JSM and were taken into possession vide seizure memo already Ex. PW13/B bears his signature at point X. Accused signed the same at point Y. Blood stained clothes mentioned above alongwith the pair of shoes SC No. 57663/2013 FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 63 of 184 were sealed in pulanda with seal of JSM and were taken into possession by him vide seizure memo already Ex. PW13/B which bears his signature at point XI and accused signed the same at point Y. The relevant papers mentioned above recovered from the pant were also seized by him with the same seizure memo. He also sealed one broken lock in pulanda with the seal of JSM and was taken into possession vide seizure memo already Ex. PW30/E which bears his signature at point X. Accused signed the same at point Y and other witnesses also signed the seizure memo. He also deposed that he also prepared the site plan of the place of recovery mentioned above and the same is already Ex. PW13/F which bears his signature at point X. Dr. Manoj Kumar Jain handed over one rent agreement of the accused, lease deed and tenant verification dorm to him and the same were taken into possession by him vide seizure memo already Ex. PW13/A which bears his signature at point X. Accused signed the same at point Z and other witness also signed the same. Verification form is already Ex. PW13/G, rent agreement is already Ex. PW13/H. Thereafter, he recorded the statement of witness u/s. 161 Cr.PC at the place of recovery. Thereafter, he alongwith accused and case property reached at PS Moti Nagar. Accused was kept in lock-up. Case property was deposited by him in malkhana. The next day i.e. 01.06.2010 accused Deepak @ Deepu was taken out from the lock-up. Thereafter, he was taken to DDU Hospital where he was medical examined and his blood sample was taken by the doctor. After his medical examination doctor handed over one sealed parcel sealed with the seal of CMO DDU Hospital and one sample seal of the same specimen to him and he took the same into possession vide SC No. 57663/2013 FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 64 of 184 seizure memo already Ex. PW45/A which bears his signature at point X. Thereafter, accused was produced in the court of Ld. MM at Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi where he moved an application before Ld. MM for the extension of PC remand. The PC remand was extended for four days by Ld. MM. Thereafter, accused was taken to PS Moti Nagar. Pulandas mentioned above was deposited by him in malkhana. Accused was put in the lock-up.
On 02.06.2010 accused was taken out of the lock-up and was taken to Ludhiana, Punjab and thereafter, accused got recovered photocopy of driving licence and original driving licence of deceased Surinder Singh alongwith original passport as well as expired passport of deceased, original cheque book of deceased issued by Bank of India to deceased and application form addressed to Manager, Bank of India and all these documents were seized vide seizure memo already Ex. PW11/A bearing his signature at point X1. After collecting the documents i.e. passports etc. mentioned above left Ludhiana for Delhi on 02.06.2010 and reached Delhi on that day. Accused was kept in the lock-up. After the expiry of PC remand period accused was produced from Ld. MM on 04.06.2010 and he moved application for the extension of PC remand period, the same was extended by Ld. MM upto 07.06.2010. Accused was taken to PS Moti Nagar where he was interrogated by him. Thereafter, he recorded disclosure statement of accused Deepak @ Deepu. On 04.06.2010 the same is already Ex. PW43/G which bears his signature at point X. In the said disclosure statement accused has disclosed about the role of co- accused person namely, Haider Ali and Anup Gupta. On the same day accused Anup Gupta and Haider Ali who are present in the SC No. 57663/2013 FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 65 of 184 court that day (corrected identified by the witness) were called to PS Moti Nagar where they were interrogated by him and they were allowed to go their home as they had not fully co-operated to him on that day. They were again called on the next day. He interrogated accused Haider Ali on that day i.e. on 05.06.2010 and thereafter, he was arrested by him in the case vide arrest memo already Ex. PW43/C which bears his signature at point X. Personal search was also taken by him vide personal search memo already Ex. PW43/D which bears his signature at point X. Disclosure statement was also recorded by him which is already Ex. PW43/E which bears his signature at point X. As per disclosure statement of accused Haider Ali, accused had handed over the cash amount of Rs. 20,000/- which were in denomination of Rs. 500/- each, to him and the same were sealed by him in pulanda with the seal of JSM which were taken into possession by him vide seizure memo already Ex. PW43/B and bears his signature at point X and accused signed the same at point Y. Accused Anup Gupta who was in custody in case FIR no. 31/09 PS Crime Branch with IO/SI Kamal Kohli was formally arrested by him in the case at PS Moti Nagar on 05.06.2010 vide arrest memo already Ex. PW43/A which bears his signature at point X. Both the accused mentioned above were arrested u/s. 212 IPC. As both the accused persons failed to produced any surety before him hence, they were arrested and produced before Ld. MM and was sent to JC. He collected the copy of kalandra from SI Kaml Kohli which is already marked as mark A and placed on record. After the completion of PC remand period of accused Deepak @ Deepu he was produced in the court of Ld. MM on SC No. 57663/2013 FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 66 of 184 07.06.2010 and was sent to JC. During the course of investigation he collected the bank statement of the account of Deepak @ Deepu which is already Ex. PW18/A (earlier marked as mark Z1) and original account opening form already Ex. PW18/B from ICICI Bank branch, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi. He also called draftsman SI Mahesh Kumar to the spot who took measurement and prepare rough notes at his instance on the basis of which he prepared scaled site plan of the spot in his office which was collected be him during the course of investigation. During the course of investigation. He also collected PM report of the deceased. During the course of investigation. He collected two sealed parcels sealed with the seal of JSM containing weapons of offence from the MHC(M) PS Moti Nagar and produced before Dr. Sushil Kumar Chaurasiya at DDU Hospital, Hari Nagar alongwith his written request for subsequent opinion. His said request addressed to HOD, forensic medicine DDU Hospital is Ex. PW23/Y4 which bears his signature at point X. After examining the weapons of offence i.e. both the knives in his presence doctor had prepared the sketches of both the knives and given subsequent opinion and signed the same in his presence. Thereafter, both the parcels were sealed with the seal of DFMT DDU hospital. Thereafter, he alongwith both the parcels and subsequent opinion reached at PS Moti Nagar on the same day and case property was deposited by him in the malkhana intact condition. Subsequent opinion was placed on file. During the course of investigation exhibits pertaining to the present case were sent to FSL through police officials whose name he did not remember that day. He also recorded the statement of witnesses in the case during SC No. 57663/2013 FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 67 of 184 investigation time to time. During the course of investigation he collected the documents regarding list of jewellery articles and placed the same on record. The same are collectively marked as mark ZA (containing 161 sheets). During the course of investigation he also obtained admitted handwriting of accused Deepak @ Deepu and the same was sent to FSL for opinion. Thereafter, he completed the investigation and prepared charge- sheet, the same was filed in the court. He can identify the case property if shown to him.
MHC(M) produced parcel no. 6 having some intact seals of Court, however, some portion of the parcel appears to be torn and the cloth pullanda is removable from the parcel, however, said pullanda is having intact seals. Same is then opened and found to contain one bed sheet, pillow cover, one towel, one plastic sheet, one cloth piece and one strand of hair are taken out from the pullanda and shown to the witness and witness has correctly identified the same as same were seized from the spot by him. These articles are already collectively Ex. PAI.
MHC(M) also produced Parcel no. 7 sealed with the seal of Court and the same is opened and found to contain one TV remote, another remote of Tata sky, One salt pot having masala type material inside it, one mobile cover, one specs, one visiting card on which JMD Tourist and Motors 1-143 Karampura Delhi is written taken out from the pullanda and shown to the witness. Witness has correctly identified the same which was seized by him. These articles are already collectively Ex. PA2.
Also, MHC(M) produced Parcel no. 8 sealed with the seal of Court and the same is opened and found to contain one currency SC No. 57663/2013 FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 68 of 184 note of Rs. 50/- which was recovered from the pockets of the wearing clothes of the deceased same is taken out from the pullanda and shown to the witness. Witness has correctly identified the same which was seized by him. Same is already Ex. PAX.
Further, MHC(M) has produced Parcel no. 9 sealed with the seal of Court and it appears to be torn the same is opened and found to contain one big single bed mattress having blood stains same taken out from the pullanda and shown to the witness. Witness has correctly identified the same which was recovered from the spot and seized by him. These articles are already Ex. PA3. MHC(M) produced Parcel no. 10 sealed with the seal of Court and the same is opened and found to contain one small mattress having blood stains same taken out from the pullanda and shown to the witness. Witness has correctly identified the same which was seized by him. These articles were already Ex. PA4. MHC(M) produced Parcel no. 11 sealed with the seal of Court and the same is opened and found to contain one pillow taken out from the pullanda and shown to the witness. Witness has correctly identified the same which was seized by him. Same is already Ex. PA5. Also, MHC(M) produced Parcel no. 16 sealed with the seal of Court and the same is opened and found to contain one key bunch having two bigger keys and one small key taken out from the pullanda and shown to the witness. Witness has correctly identified the same which was seized by him. Same is already Ex. PA6. MHC(M) produced transparent polythene without seal and same is found to contain one mobile phone of make Motorola taken out from the pullanda and shown to the witness. Witness has SC No. 57663/2013 FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 69 of 184 correctly identified the same which was seized by him from the spot. Same is already Ex. PA7. MHC(M) produced Parcel no. 18 sealed with the seal of Court and the same is opened and found to contain one shirt, one jeans pant, one baniyan, one underwear, one pair of socks, one pair of shoes blood stained, same are taken out from the pullanda and shown to the witness. Witness has correctly identified the same which was got recovered by accused, in his presence and seized by him. Same is already Ex. P16/A (colly).
MHC(M) produced Parcel no. 19 sealed with the seal of Court and the same is opened and found to contain one knife, same is taken out from the pullanda and shown to the witness. Witness has correctly identified the same which is one of the two knives got recovered by accused, in his presence and seized by him. Same is already Ex. P-16B (colly).
Also, MHC(M) produced Parcel no. 20 sealed with the seal of Court and the same is opened and found to contain one knife, same is taken out from the pullanda and shown to the witness. Witness has correctly identified the same which is one of the two knives got recovered by accused, in his presence and seized by him. Same is already Ex. P-16C (colly). MHC(M) produced one unsealed parcel and the same is opened and found to contain one lock, same is taken out from a transparent polythene and shown to the witness. Witness has correctly identified the same which was found on the door of the house from where the accused had got affected the recovery of articles, in his presence and seized by him. Same is already Ex. P-16/D (colly).
MHC(M) produced one sealed parcel sealed with the seal of JSM and the same is opened and found to contain six packets of SC No. 57663/2013 FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 70 of 184 currency note of denomination of Rs.500/- (containing 100 notes in each bundle) (the notes are of old currency and demonetized now). These notes were given by Sunil Kumar Rajput in the police station to him in his presence and were sealed with the seal of JSM. The same are already exhibited as Ex. PXI (colly.). MHC(M) produced parcel no. 1 sealed with the seal of FSL, Delhi, same and opened and found to contain blood stained earth control i.e. floor pieces. The same is taken out from the pulanda and shown to the witness. Witness identified the same which was lifted, sealed and seized at the spot by him. Same is Ex. PS. MHC(M) also produced parcel no. 2 sealed with the seal of FSL, Delhi, same and opened and found to contain earth control i.e. floor pieces. The same is taken out from the pulanda and shown to the witness. Witness identified the same which was lifted, sealed and seized at the spot by him. Same is Ex. PS-1.
MHC(M) also produced parcel no. 3 sealed with the seal of FSL, Delhi, same and opened and found to contain some blood stained earth control material. The same is taken out from the pulanda and shown to the witness. Witness identified the same which was lifted after breaking the blood stained cemented pieces from the wall at the spot, sealed and seized at the spot by him. Same is Ex. PS-2.
MHC(M) also produced parcel no. 4 sealed with the seal of FSL, Delhi, same and opened and found to contain some earth control material. The same is taken out from the pulanda and shown to the witness. Witness identified the same which was lifted after breaking the cemented pieces from the wall at the spot, sealed and seized at the spot by him. Same is Ex. PS-3. MHC(M) also SC No. 57663/2013 FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 71 of 184 produced parcel no. 5 sealed with the seal of FSL, Delhi, same and opened and found to contain one blood stained gauge (cloth) piece kept in transparent plastic dibbi. The same is taken out from the pulanda and shown to the witness. Witness identified the same cloth from which blood was lifted by him by soaking the same with the said cloth piece, sealed and seized at the spot by him. Same is Ex. PS- 4. He can identify the accused persons if shown to him. At that stage, witness identified all the three accused persons present in the court correctly.
36. PW-24 Sh. Sunil Kumar deposed that in the year, 2010, he was working as Manager in RC Tounch. At Shop No. 3206, Bidanpura, Gali no. 31, Karol Bagh, Delhi. The owner of the said shop was Sh. Gyan Chand. He had met with an accident due to which he has lost his memory and therefore, not in position to remember. He does not remember if the police had called him ever to join the investigation or any document was produced. The witness turned hostile.
However, the witness admitted the suggestion that the full name of the shop where he was working as manager was "RC Instant Gold Check". Further he was shown three receipts Mark X, Mark Y and Mark Z put to the witness and it is specifically asked whether he knows about the slips having being issued by RC Instant Gold Check, to which the witness says that he does not know about the Mark X, Mark Y and Mark Z. He does not remember whether He had told the police that the Deepak @ Deepu had visited their shop thrice and got melted the gold ornaments against the sum of Rs. 8 lakhs, Rs. 11 lakhs and Rs. 10 lakhs, totaling Rs. 29 lakhs, the said amount he had received from SC No. 57663/2013 FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 72 of 184 their shop.
37. PW25 Sh. Ajay Kumar deposed that he had worked as Manager at Hotel Decent, Main Bazar, Phar Ganj, Delhi from the year 2009 to 2011. On 31.05.2010, he joined the investigation in the case. He visited PS Moti Nagar and handed over the photocopy record of the check in register dated 19.04.2010 wherein as per S.no. 4824 dated 19.04.2010 Rajesh Kumar, s/o Manoj Kumar, R/o H. No. A/124, Sector 34, Chandigarh checked in their hotel on 19.04.2010 at 10:30 PM and also handed over the photocopy of the PAN Card black and white no. BIWPK4134Q given by the said Rajesh s/o Manoj Kumar on which photograph of accused Deepak @ Deepu was there. He further deposed that he identified the accused Deepak @ Deepu in the lock up on 31.05.2010 being the person who checked in the hotel Decent on 19.04.2010 by the name of Rajesh Kumar S/o Manoj Kumar and given ID I.e. PAN card. At that stage, witness pointed out towards accused Deepak @ Deepu present in the court that day and he was correctly identified by him. He had also handed over the photocopy of three video footage of the hotel decent in which the photograph of accused Deepak @ Deepu is there. The aforesaid documents were taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex. PW25/A (colly.) bearing his signatures at point A. The copy of the PAN card is marked as PW25/Mark A. Photo Copy of the three video footage are collectively marked as PW25/Mark B consisting of two pages. He further that he has not brought the register as the same is not traceable. As he had visited the Decent Hotel, Pahar Ganj, New Delhi on 11.07.2017 and on asking by him to hand over the Check SC No. 57663/2013 FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 73 of 184 In register pertaining to 19.04.2010 and the Manager namely Sanju had told him that the said register is not traceable. Also, that day he has brought the relevant register of Hotel Decent. The photocopy of relevant entry, already placed on file is Ex. PW25/B (OSR).
In the cross-examination denied the suggestion that in the court he had wrongly identified Deepak @ Deepu as Rajesh due to pressure caused upon him by the IO. The witness denied the suggestion that Deepak @ Deepu never came to the hotel. The witness denied the suggestion that due to the reason no identity of Deepak @ Deepu was entered in the register. The witness denied the suggestion that that day he is also deposing due to the pressure caused upon him by the IO.
38. PW26 Sh. Ravinder Kumar deposed that he does not remember the date and year but in the month of March about 5-6 years back he received a phone from the police of PS Moti Nagar. House no. A-5/291, was rented through me, to Deepak @ Deepu from landlord whose name was Dr. something, whose name he does not remember, as he was doing the business of property dealer. He turned hostile on the identity of the accused. The witness admitted during cross-examination by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State and admitted the suggestion that police had taken into possession the rent agreement, lease deed and tenant verification form on which photograph of tenant whose name has been written as Deepak @ Deepu Bobbal @Deepu in the agreement. The witness admitted the suggestion that the tenant verification form find pasted a photograph and name of the person whose photograph has been written as Deepak @ Deepu Bobbal @ SC No. 57663/2013 FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 74 of 184 Deepu, S/o Sh. Rajesh Bobbal, R/o A-1/205, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi vide seizure memo already Ex.PW13/A which bears his signatures at point B. Tenant verification from is already Ex. PW13/G. Rent agreement and lease deed are already Ex. PW13/H (colly.). The witness voluntarily stated that The aforesaid documents must have been handed over by Dr. Manoj Kumar to the police and the verified documents he had handed over to Dr. Manoj and polce had obtained his signatures on Ex. PW13/A at the spot itself when police was coming down.
39. PW27 Sh. Pankaj Aneja deposed that he is running the business of property dealing from the shop situated at Jawala Heri Market. Paschim vihar since 2006. House no. A-5/291. 3rd Floor, Paschim Vihar was owned by one Mr. Jain, however, he does not remember his complete name. He had worked as a link broker between Mr. Gujral and Mr. Sanjay Sharma of Amit Estates who was also working as property dealers and Mr. Jain was a client of Amit Estates and therefore, he was contacted by them for giving it to some another person.
The witness further deposed that the said portion was given to one Mr. Deepak @ Deepu on rent which was probably in the year 2009-2010. He can identify said Deepak @ Deepu (witness has correctly identified the accused Deepak @ Deepu present in the Court). The witness further deposed that he was contacted by the above brokers in the year 2010. And thereafter, he had to gone PS Moti Nagar. He does not remember the date and month. There Mr. Gujral and Mr. Sanjay Sharma were present who asked him since they had signed on certain papers and asked him also to sign on those papers and due to that he also signed on those papers SC No. 57663/2013 FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 75 of 184 which may be 1-2 in number.
The witness further deposed that he does not remember whether police had recorded his statement or not. He can identify his signatures. He has seen Ex. PW13/A Ex. PW13/B, Ex. PW13/D & Ex. PW13/E bearing his signatures at point Y on all the papers. On that day when his signatures were obtained in the PS on the documents. He had not gone to the house bearing no. A-5/291, 3rd Floor, Paschim Vihar. Nothing was recovered in his presence. He turned hostile regarding the recovery made.
40. PW-28 Moihd. Rajakul Islam Mullick @ Raj deposed that he is doing the work of manufacturing of jewellery. New Kartar Jewellers belongs to one Deepak @ Deepu. He used to deal with him regarding the making of jewellery. He used to give him gold for preparing of jewellery. He used to prepare the jewellery and give it to him. He had dealt with him about 7 years back and he can try to identify him. After seeing in the Court room the witness had correctly identiofied the accused Deepak @ Deepu present in the court that day. In the month of April, 2010 police came to him for recording his statement. Police inquired from him whether there was any thing due in between him and Deepak @ Deepu to which he told him that He had no dues from him nor to given him. Perhaps his statement was recorded by the police and thereafter, he signed the same.
41. PW 29 Dr Ajay Sharma, Senior Medical Officer, DDU Hospital, Delhi deposed that he joined his service since 2000 in DDU Hospital. that day He has been deputed to prove the hand writing and signatures of Doctor Sushil Kr Chaurasia, S.R. On 28.03.2010, Dr Sushil Kr Chaurasia who passed away, he SC No. 57663/2013 FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 76 of 184 conducted post mortem Vide PM No.320/10 on the body of deceased Surender Bobal, aged about 55 year male. The witness deposed that after conducting the post mortem prepared the report which is carried in five pages in his hand writing and bearing his signatures at point A. The PM report is Ex PW29/A. As per his report the time since death was approximately 36 hours and cause of death due to haemorrhagic shock subsequent to multiple stab injuries present all over the body. External injury No.4,5 and 18 were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature, individually as well as in combination all injuries are ante mortem in nature and in same duration. He can identify the hand writing and signatures of Dr Sushil Kr Chaurasia as he has seen him writing and signing during course of official duty. When he was recalled for the examination-in-chief and he further deposed in the case that on 20.07.17 and at that time, he was posted at DDU Hospital, Hari Nagar, New Delhi. He has gone through the subsequent opinion containing two sheets given by Dr. Sushil Kumar Chaurasia. As per the subsequent opinion, Dr. Sushil Kumar has opined that the injury no. 1 to 41 except injury no. 2 could be possible by either of these weapons mentioned at serial no. 1 and 2 i.e both the knives. Since Dr. Sushil Kumar Chaurasia stated to be expired, hence he is identifying his handwriting and signatures on the subsequent opinion Ex.PW29/B which bears the signatures of Dr. Sushil Kumar at point X on each page as He had worked with him and He had seen him writing and signing during the course of official duties.
42. PW30 Sh. Jatin Kumar @ Kala Thakur deposed that he knew about New Kartar Jewelers, New Moti Nagar. He knew SC No. 57663/2013 FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 77 of 184 accused Deepak @ Deepu who is connected with the above said jewelery shop. He can identify accused Deepak @ Deepu who is present in the Court that day (correctly identified). Accused Deepak @ Deepu was residing in his neighbourhood and he knew him as he had been dealing with accused in respect of jewelery. Sometimes he had given the order to accused Deepak @ Deepu for preparing jewelery for his wife. He does not know about the brother of Deepak @ Deepu. He also does not know about the uncle (chacha) of accused Deepak @ Deepu. He had not given any statement to the police regarding the case. He does not know any Surrender Singh. He turned hostile after that.
43. PW31 Smt Harjeet Kaur deposed that she does not know about the facts of the case. She had taken a Diamond ring from the Court. She was called by the Court to identify his ring. She had taken his ring and the same was taken by him from the Court. She had mortgaged the aforesaid ring with Kartar Jewellers. She does not remember for what purpose she had mortgage the ring. She was not able to recall the name of the owner of aforesaid jeweller shop. She had received summons from the Court for the purpose of identifying his ring. The witness deposed that he had lost the aforesaid ring long ago, but he does not remember the exact date. She had not made any complaint regarding loss of aforesaid ring. At that stage the witness is shown the TIP proceedings of Diamond Ring dated 7.8.2010, witness identified her signatures on the TIP proceedings at Point A. The TIP proceeding is marked X.
44. PW 32 ASI Suresh deposed that on 27.03.2010, he was posted at Mobile Crime team West Distt as Constable. On that day, on receipt of call from the control room he alongwith ASI Jai SC No. 57663/2013 FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 78 of 184 Singh I/C, photographer, HC Devender and Dog handler Ct Vidya Sagar went to scene of crime B-1/43, New Moti Nagar, Delhi. At the spot he saw that in a room on a ground floor, the dead body of the deceased namely Surender Singh was lying on a single bed in a pool of blood. There was a mark of injuries on chest and neck caused by sharp edged weapon on the dead body of deceased. He had developed a chance print with the help of black and white powder from the west wall of the room in which the dead body was lying. The photographs of chance print was taken. Thereafter, the chance print was sent to Finger Print Bureau. His report is Ex PW32/A, which bears his signatures at point A. Later on his statement was recorded by the police.
45. PW33 Sh Palwinder Singh, Patwari Halqa Kohara, Tehsil Ludhinana, East Distt Ludhiana, Punjab deposed that that day he has brought the original Intkal (Mutation) Register pertaining to Entry No. 5611. The property bearing Rectangle NO.17, Killa No.20/1, and Rectangle No.18, Killa No.14/2 and 15/1, and Rectangle No.18, Killa No.20/2 measuring total area 90 sq yards. As per the record the said property was sold by M/S Ashok Malhotra to Deepak @ Deepu Bobal S/o Sh M.S Bobal R/O B-1 House No.51, New Moti Nagar, New Delhi, on 05.05.2010. The said entry is Exhibited as Ex PW33/A. (OSR)
46. PW 34 Vanita w/o Ugar Nath Jha deposed that she had pledged his gold chain with Sh.Surender (deceased) owner of Kartar Jewellers, New Moti Nagar. He had borrowed 3500/- by pledging his gold chain. She came to know that he had been murdered. Police told him that his gold chain which has been stolen from Kartar Jeweller had been recovered. Thereafter, she SC No. 57663/2013 FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 79 of 184 was asked to come to the Court to identify his gold chain by the police. Thereafter, she came to Tis Hazari, Court to identified her gold chain. She identified his gold chain before the Court. She signed the document before the Court. The copy of TIP proceeding is Mark A, it bears her signatures at point A. The witness deposed that thereafter, she received his gold chain from PS Moti Nagar. She deposed that day she has brought his gold chain, the same is Ex P- 34. The witness deposed that he had got released his gold chain vide a superdarinama marked B, bearing his signatures at point A. The order of the Hon'ble Court is mark C.
47. PW35 Ms. Aarti, aged deposed that about 8 years ago, she had pledged her ear rings to the owner of Kartar Jewellers namely Surender (deceased) and had borrowed money. After sometime she came to know that the owner of the Kartar Jewellers namely Surender was murdered. Thereafter, police told him that her earrings had been recovered from accused Deepak @ Deepu @Deepu. Then she came to the Court and identified her ear rings. The TIP proceeding is marked as Mark PW35/A which bears her signatures at point A. She got released his ear rings vide a superdarinama mark PW35/B which bears her signatures at point A. Order of release of the Court is already marked as mark C. She deposed that day that she has brought the ear rings released on superdari to him. A pair of ear rings is produced by the witness and same is exhibited as P35.
48. PW36 ASI Devender Kumar deposed that on 27.03.2010, he was posted as Head Constable in crime Team West Distt. On that day he alongwith Incharge ASI Jai Singh, Ct Suresh, Ct Vidya Sagar (Dog Handler) and himself as a photographer went to the SC No. 57663/2013 FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 80 of 184 spot ie B-1/43, New Moti Nagar, Delhi. The witness deposed that there was a dead body lying on a bed in a room on ground floor. There was blood on the bed. Blood was also present on the table and on the wall. There was blood on the ground in the room. ASI P.P. Singh, Inspector Jagminder and alongwith other staff were already present at the spot. He took 18 photographs of the spot from different angles on the instruction of Incharge Crime Team. All the 18 photographs are on judicial file. He has brought the negatives of the aforesaid photographs. The said 18 photographs collectively Ex as PW36/A. The negatives are collectively Ex as PW36/B.
49. PW37 Sh. Inder @ Lovely deposed that on 27.03.2010, in the morning, at about 10.30 AM he was sitting in his shop situated in the front side of B-1/41, New Moti Nagar New Delhi. At that time, Harvinder Singh who is the friend of deceased Surinder Singh Bobal came at his shop and told him that his uncle (deceased) had not opened his shop his uncle was having shop at B-1/43, Ground Floor, New Moti Nagar by the name of Kartar Jewellers. Thereafter, the maid Laxmi he came there and told him that she was calling to open the shop but nobody was responding from inside. She further deposed that then he and Harvinder Singh went to the shop of his uncle to see what happened. He and maid Laxmi entered into the house of his uncle from back side and saw that his dead body was lying on the bed. They became scared and came outside the house crying. They raised alarm. The neighbours gathered at the house. Then he called the police on 100 number. The witness further deposed that after sometime police reached at the scene of crime. Police entered into the house and inspected the SC No. 57663/2013 FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 81 of 184 spot. Police called the photographer and got photographed the spot. They also called Dog Squad. They inspected the scene of Crime and blood was spread on the bed, on the ground, bed sheet, on the wall of the room. Finger prints were also lifted by the police officials. They also took earth control. Police asked them to see the articles worn by his uncle and told them that they will return to his family members. Dead body of deceased was removed by the police from the scene of crime. The family of his uncle had gone for trip outside Delhi i.e. Shimla. He had informed them regarding the incident, who returned in the evening. Police seized the blood stained bed, bed sheets, pillow. Mobile phone and towel. Police also seized the articles lying on settie. Police also seized other articles such as remote, chapple, pieces of wall where the blood was spread. Police recorded his statement which is Ex PW37/A, bearing his signatures at point A. Police prepared site plan at his instance which is already Ex PW23/A,bearing his signatures at point B. He further deposed that the seizure memo of floor, wall and control already Exhibited by Ex PW23/F, bearing his signatures at point B. All the articles mentioned in memo Ex PW37/B were taken into police possession in his presence and same bears his signatures at point A. Seizure memo of currency note of Rs.50/- was seized vide a seizure memo Ex PW37/C, bearing his signatures at point A. Seizure memo of mobile phone was seized vide a seizure memo Ex PW37/D, bearing his signatures at point A. Seizure memo of Gadda (single bed) was seized vide a seizure memo already Ex PW23/D, bearing his signatures at point B. Seizure memo of small Gadda, dressing table and pillow were seized vide a seizure memo already Ex PW23/E, SC No. 57663/2013 FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 82 of 184 bearing his signatures at point B.
50. PW38 Ct. Bablu Yadav deposed that On 27.03.2010, he was posted at PS Moti Nagar as constables. On that day on receipt of DD no. 14A, at about 11:55 AM regarding dead body at B-43, New Moti Nagar. He along with ASI Preet Pal Singh went to the spot i.e. B1/43, Ground Floor, New Moti Nagar, New Delhi. Public persons were present at the spot. There was a dead body lying on a single bed in the back room of the house. Later on the name of deceased was revealed as Surender Singh. The dead body was lying straight in a pool of blood. The head of the dead body was in north east direction and the legs were in south west direction. One of the legs of the dead body was hanging from the bed and touching the floor. The sheet, pillow and mattress of the single bed were blood stained. The witness further deposed that there was a small table on the side of the single bed on which blood stained small pillow, towel and rexin cover were kept. The currency note of Rs. 50/- was found on the pocket of the payjama of the deceased. IO prepared the seizure memo of said currency note and took the same in police possession. He further deposed that ASI Preet Pal recorded the statement of complainant Inder Singh and prepared the rukka. He sent him to police station with rukka for registration of FIR. He went to the PS and got the FIR registered and returned to the spot and handed over the copy of FIR and original rukka to Inspector Jagminder Singh. The dead body of the deceased was removed to DDU Hospital. The crime team alled at the scene of crime and photographer also reached at the spot. The IO Inspector Jagminder Singh seized the blood stained mattress, pillow, towel and other articles and prepared the SC No. 57663/2013 FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 83 of 184 seizure memos. He also deposed that on 28.03.2010, in the morning he along with ASI, he Preet Pal Singh and IO Inspector Jagminder Singh went to mortuary DDU Hospital. The dead body of the deceased was got identified by the son of the deceased and thereafter, the postmortem of the dead body of deceased was got conducted. After post mortem dead body was handed over to the son of the deceased. Doctor had given the sealed pullanda and sample seal to IO and he seized the same.
51. PW-39 HC Vidya Sagar, No. 915/Crime, Chanakya Puri, Crime Banch, Delhi. He deposed that on 27.03.2010 he was posted at PS Janak Puri as Constable as a Dog Handler at Janak Puri, West District, Delhi. On that day at about 12.30 PM he accompanied the crime team with his Dog Anuradha to the scene of crime i.e. B-1/43, New Moti Nagar, Delhi. At the scene of crime a dead body was lying on the bed. Both the feet of the dead body were hanging near to the ground. There was a pillow on the bed near the head of the dead body. There were blood all around the dead body. The dog was made to move all around the scene of crime. He got smelled the pillow to the dog and let the dog to move. The dog moved around but it did not give any indication. There were lots of people present at the spot. Thereafter, he removed the dog from the spot.
52. PW 40 Ct Krishan deposed that On 27.03.2010 he was posted at PS Moti Nagar as Constable. On that day he went to the spot ie B-1/43, New Moti Nagar, Delhi. IO had given him a request letter for depositing the dead body of deceased namely Surender in mortuary. Thereafter, he took the dead body of deceased to Mortuary DDU Hospital and deposited the same for SC No. 57663/2013 FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 84 of 184 preservation. He obtained the receipt and returned to the PS and handed over the receipt to the IO.
53. PW 41 Ct Anil No. 2328/ DAP IIIrd Batallion, Delhi deposed that on 27.03.2010 he was posted at PS Moti Nagar as constable. On that day, he was on Motorcycle rider duty with Inspector Jagminder Singh. On receipt of a call regarding the dead body he had accompanied him to New Moti Nagar, at B- 1/43 ground Floor Moti Nagar. When they reached the rear room of the said house on the ground floor where a dead body was lying on the bed. There was a blood spread over the bed, pillow, on the floor and wall of the room. At that time the Sr officer namely ACP, Rajouri Garden, SHO Moti Nagar, Crime team and the IO ASI P.P. Singh were present there. Crime team had taken finger prints and photographs of the scene of crime. The IO had prepared the pulandas of blood stained articles and took them into possession. Thereafter, ASI P.P. prepared the ruqqa and handed over the same to Ct Bablu for registration of the case, who returned after getting the FIR registered. Thereafter, the investigation was being carried out by the Sr officer and he returned from there to the P.S in the evening. The witness further deposed that he again joined the investigation on 07.08.2010. On that day he took seven sealed pulandas from MHC (M) sealed with the seal of JSM and RK and came to Tis Hazari Court No.361 with Inspector Raj Kumar. Three ladies and one boy had come to participate in the TIP of case property. After completion of the proceedings the pulandas were again handed over to him for depositing the same in Malkahana, which he deposited later on in the Malkhana. During the time the pulandas remained in his possession no person had tempered the SC No. 57663/2013 FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 85 of 184 pulanda.
54. PW42 Retired SI Preet Pal Singh deposed that on 27.03.2010 he was posted at PS Moti Nagar as ASI. On that day, he was on emergency duty from 8.00 AM to 8.00 PM. At about 11:55 AM he received DD No.14-A through Ct Bablu. The witness further deposed that thereafter, he alongwith Ct Bablu reached at the spot ie B-1/43, New Moti Nagar, Delhi. There were many public persons had already assembled. He entered the said house on the ground floor. He saw that one dead body was lying on a Diwan in the room situated on the back side of the house. He saw that there were marks of injuries all over the body of the dead person and the bloods were spread all around the room as well as on the walls. The head of the dead person was towards the east and the legs were in the directions of south west on the bed. One person, who was in the room. told him that he was the nephew of the deceased namely Inder @ Lovely. He told him that the person lying dead was his uncle namely Surender, aged about 55 years. He further told him that family member of deceased Surender had gone to Shimla on a trip. He made inquiry from Inder Kumar @ Lovely and recorded his statement already Ex PW37/A, attested by him at point B. On the basis of the said statement he prepared a ruqqa, Ex PW42/A, bearing his signature is at point B and sent Ct Bablu to PS with rukka for registration of FIR. The witness further deposed that Thereafter, he called the crime team to visit the spot. Then ASI Jai Singh, Incharge Crime team alongwith his staff reached at the spot. The member of the crime team started inspecting the scene of crime and in the meantime Ct Bablu reached at the spot with copy of FIR and original rukka. Inspector SC No. 57663/2013 FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 86 of 184 Jagminder Singh and Ct Kishan Kumar also reached at the spot alongwith Ct Bablu. Copy of FIR and original rukka were handed over to Inspector Jagminder Singh, as the investigation was already marked to him. After inspection of the scene of crime, ASI Jai Singh prepared his report and handed over the same to IO, Inspector Jagminder Singh. Then IO prepared the site plan at the instance of Inder Kumar @ Lovely. Thereafter, IO thoroughly saw the dead body of the deceased. Rs.50/- was found in the left side pocket of strip Payjama worn by the deceased. IO put the said currency note in a plastic pouch and prepared the pulanda with cloth and sealed with the seal of JSM. The said currency note was seized vide seizure memo already Ex PW 37/C, bearing his signature at point B. He further deposed that IO filled up the form No.25-35 and sent the dead body to DDU hospital through Ct Krishan. IO prepared the pulanda of the mattress which was lying on the bed and sealed with the seal of JSM and the same was seized vide seizure memo Ex PW23/D, bearing his signatures at point C. Blood stained bed sheet which was on the single bed, pillow cover, table cover of rexin, one cloth being used for covering the almirah was lying on the floor and one towel and all the said articles were put in a plastic sheet and a pulanda with the help of cloth was prepared and sealed with the seal of JSM. One blood stained TV remote, one spectacle, mobile cover, a mobile phone of the deceased, Namak dani and visiting card and all the said articles were put in a plastic sheet and a pulanda with the help of cloth was prepared and sealed with the seal of JSM. IO prepared the seizure memo of the said articles already exhibited Ex PW37/B, bearing his signatures at point B. IO also prepared the SC No. 57663/2013 FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 87 of 184 seizure memo of the mobile of deceased separately, which already exhibited Ex PW37/C, bearing his signatures at point B. IO prepared the seizure memo of small mattress of dressing table and pillow which already exhibited Ex PW23/E, bearing his signatures at point C. IO broke the blood stained floor of the room and also blood stained walls and taken the earth control. IO prepared the seizure memo already exhibited Ex PW23/F, bearing his signatures at point C. IO recorded the statement of the witnesses. Thereafter, they returned to the PS alongwith case property and the case property was deposited in the Malkhana of P.S. IO recorded his statement and he was relieved from the investigation on that day. He further deposed that on 28.03.2010, he again joined the investigation by the IO in the present case. He alongwith Ct Bablu and IO Jagminder Singh reached at DDU hospital. Two brothers of the deceased namely Mangat Ram and Raghubir Singh and Mukul the son of the deceased met them in mortuary DDU hospital. Dead body of the deceased was got identified by the said relatives of the deceased and IO recorded their statements. Thereafter, Post mortem of deceased was got conducted. After post mortem the Doctor had handed over three sealed pulanda sealed with seal of DFMT, DDU hospital to the IO alongwith three sample seals. The same were seized by the IO vide seizure memo Ex PW42/B, bearing his signatures at point A. Thereafter, the dead body of the deceased was handed over to his relatives. Then they returned to the P.S and case property was deposited in PS Malkhana. IO recorded his statement and he was relieved from the investigation on that day. He further deposed that on 24.05.2010, he again joined the investigation by the IO in the present case. On that day, SC No. 57663/2013 FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 88 of 184 at about 10.00 PM an information was received by the SHO from Special Staff West District Delhi regarding the accused. Thereafter, he alongwith SHO Hoshiar Singh, Inspector Raj Kumar and SI Raghubir Singh left for office of Special Staff and they reached there at about 10.30 PM. Thereafter, the members of Special Staff as well as all of them left for Parshant Vihar, Delhi Members of Special Staff were in TATA 407 and they were in a Govt Gypsy. They reached Parshant Vihar, near PVR Cinema, Outer ring road. They have cordoned the area. He and Inspector Raj Kumar put the position on service road which leads to Rohini Courts. Inspector Raj Kumar asked a few public persons to join the proceedings, but none joined. Thereafter, at about 12.30 AM in the night one Santro car came from the side of PVR cinema, that car was headed towards Ring road. ASI Birpal of Special staff tried to stop the said Santro car but the car instead of going ahead turned right towards him and Inspector Raj Kumar. They stopped the said car. The car stopped at some distance from them . Then he, Inspector Raj Kumar and ASI Birpal of Special staff immediately rushed to the car. Inspector Raj Kumar opened the gate of the car of driver side. One person was sitting on a driver seat, he had shaved head. Inspector Raj Kumar made inquiry from said person who disclosed his name as Deepak @ Deepu. He was arrested vide a memo Ex PW42/C, bearing his signature at point A. IO conducted the personal search of accused. On his personal search, Rs.4150/- from the right pocket of his pant, one Pan card, three receipts and one ring were found. IO had taken pan card and the said three receipts on case file. The registration No of Santro car was DL3C- 8904 of silver colour. (The letter after 3C is not SC No. 57663/2013 FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 89 of 184 remember to him at present) Inspector Raj Kumar searched the said santro car. One black colour bag of Reebok was found underneath of driver seat. The Bag was checked by Inspector Raj Kumar. The bag was having many currency notes of Rs.500/- and Rs.1000/- in denomination. The said currency notes were counted and it was found to be of Rs.13,30,000/- ( Thirteen Lacs and Thirty Thousand). All the said currency notes were put into three separate plastic jars. The said jars were wrapped in white cloth and sealed with the seal of RK. One pouch of Kartar Jeweller was also found inside the bag. There were lots of jewellery articles inside the said pouch. The pulanda of said pouch was prepared and sealed with the seal of RK. There was another dark colour pouch in which some documents were found. The documents were put in the said pouch and then it was put in the recovered black bag and a pulanda of the black bag was prepared and sealed with the seal of RK. IO prepared the seizure memo of currency notes, worth Rs.13,30,000/-, jewellery and documents which is Ex PW42/D, bearing his signature at point A. IO prepared the seizure memo of Santro car which is Ex PW42/E, bearing his signature at point A. Thereafter, IO had interrogated accused Deepak @ Deepu and recorded his disclosure statement and the disclosure statement is Ex PW42/F, bearing his signature at point A. Thereafter, the IO has prepared the site plan of the place where the accused Deepak @ Deepu was arrested. The site plan is Ex PW42/G. The accused was got medically examined by the IO from DDU hospital. Thereafter, they left for the PS and reached at the PS at about sun rising time. The IO has deposited the case property in the Malkhana. The accused was put up in lock up. Thereater his SC No. 57663/2013 FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 90 of 184 statement was recorded by the IO. He further deposed that after 2- 3 hours Inspector Jagminder Singh reached at the P.S. The accused was brought out from the lock up through HC Lokender. Thereafter, accused was again taken to DDU hospital for getting medically examined by HC Lokender, Inspector Jagminder Singh and himself. Thereafter, they left for Tis Hazari Court and after reaching at Tis Hazari Court they produce the accused in the MM Court (As he does not recall the name of the Court) and obtained the police remand of accused Deepak @ Deepu for seven days. Thereafter, they alongwith the accused reached at the scene of crime ie D- 1/43, New Moti Nagar, Delhi as accused has taken them to the scene of crime. The accused has disclosed the fact that the offence was committed by him and the IO has prepared the pointing memo of the scene of crime. Thereafter, they alongwith accused reached at the P.S. The accused was put up in lock up.
The witness further deposed that two persons namely Sudhir and Dheeraj have visited the PS of their own on that day. Sudhir had given Rs.70,000/- to IO and Dheeraj had given 30,000/- to the IO. IO has prepared the seizure memo of sum of Rs.70,000/- and 30,000/- separately vide seizure memo ExPW42/H and PW 42/1 respectively which bears his signature at point A respectively. IO has recorded statement of both the person namely Sudhir and Dheeraj. Both of them disclosed that accused Deepak @ Deepu has returned the money to them as he has borrowed from them. Thereafter, IO recorded his statement.
The witness further deposed that on 26.05.2010, accused was taken out of the lock up by IO Inspector Jagminder Singh and handed over the accused in his custody. Thereafter, accused SC No. 57663/2013 FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 91 of 184 Deepak @ Deepu has taken him, SI Raghbir Singh and Inspector Jagminder to Kamla Nagar Market. The accused has taken them near to Mc Donald restaurant and pointed out towards scooter No.9511 make LML Vespa (The complete of the scooter he does not remember as on that day). The accused has pointed out the said vespa scooter was used at the time of commission of offence of present. The IO has seized the scooter vide seizure memo Ex PW42/J, bearing his signatures at point A. Further he deposed that on 25.05.2010, IO prepared the seizure memo of two mobile phones recovered from accused Deepak @ Deepu. The description of mobile phone, he did not remember that day. The seizure memo of mobile phones is Ex. 42/K which bears his signatures at point A. He further deposed that on 27.05.2010, he again joined the investigation with IO Jagminder Singh, Inspector Raj Kumar and HC Lokender. On that day, the owner of the Santro car recovered in the case came to the police station. He handed over the RC and delivery receipts of the car to the IO which was seized vide seizure memo already Ex. PW1/A which bears his signatures at point B. Thereafter, the accused Deepak @ Deepu led them to Jwalaheri Market, Paschim vihar, New Delhi. He took them to Malik emporium and pointed out by saying that he had purchased three knifes from the said shop. IO prepared the pointing out memo already Ex. PW4/A which bears his signatures at point B. Further deposed that From there accused led them to Kirti Nagar, Main Road, near Moti Nagar Metro Station. And he took them to Shoe corner shop from where he had purchased one pair of canvas shoes. IO prepared the pointing out memo already Ex. PW7/A which bears his signatures SC No. 57663/2013 FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 92 of 184 at point B. From there they returned to the police station and the accused was put behind lock up.
He further deposed that then on 30.05.2010, he again joined the investigation with IO Inspector Jagminder and HC Lokender. On that day accused led them to hotel in Paharganj i.e.Decent Hotel, where as per his disclosure statement, he had stayed after committing murder of his uncle (deceased). The Manager of the hotel was given notice to join in the investigation. The witness further deposed that then accused took them to Fatehpuri, New Khushdil hotel. The Manager of the hotel was given notice to join in the investigation by the IO. He further deposed that then he took them to Narula Electronics Karol Bagh, New Delhi from where the accused had purchased the mobile phone after committing the offence. He further deposed that then he took them to S. L. Complex, Sector 9, Rohini, New Delhi from where the owner of the shop was given notice to join the investigation. Then they returned to the police station. The witness further deposed that on the same day, the Sunil Kr. Rajput the Manager and the owner Onkar of the shop Gyan Pakaiwala came to the police station. They had already come to the police station before their arrival. They had given Rs. 3 Lacs in cash to the IO by saying that the said amount was given by accused Deepak @ Deepu against the purchase by him of 150 gm pure gold. IO took the said amount in police possession and prepared the pullanda and sealed with the seal of "JSM". The seizure memo of the said amount is already Ex PW24/A which bears his signatures at point B. On 31.05.2010, he along with SI Raghubir Singh, HC Lokender joined the investigation with IO Inspector Jagminder Singh. Accused Deepak SC No. 57663/2013 FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 93 of 184 @ Deepu was interrogated by the IO. And then he took them to the house where he stayed as a tenant at H. No. A-5/291, 3rd floor, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi. The lock of the house was got broken and they entered into the house. There was a washbasin on the East side of the room and Accused got recovered a big polybag and handed over the same to IO. IO Checked the said polythene bag. There were blood stained pant, kameez, baniyan, underwear, socks, and a pair of shoes found in the said polythene. There were also two blood stained knives in the said polythene. IO prepared the sketch of both the recovered knives. Both the said knives were put into separate pullanda and sealed with the seal of JSM and given S. No. 1 & 2. IO took the same into police possession vide a seizure memo. IO also checked the clothes which were blood stained. On being checked six pink receipts were found in the back pocket of the pant which were taken by the IO on his file. All the blood stained clothes and shoes were put in the same polythene and pullanda was prepared by the IO and sealed with the seal of JSM and taken into police possession vide a seizure memo. IO prepared the site plan of the place of recovery and seizure memo of broken locks and rent agreement. Thereafter, they returned to the police station and case property was deposited in PS Malkhana.
He deposed that on 29.03.2010, Mukul Kumar s/o deceased had handed over one bunch of keys blood stained, however, he does not remember the number of the keys in the said bunch. IO sealed the same in a pullanda with the seal of JSM and same was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex. PW42/X which bears his signatures at point A. Accused Deepak @ Deepu is present in the court that day. Correctly identified. He can identify the case SC No. 57663/2013 FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 94 of 184 property if shown to him. MHC(M) produced parcel no. 6 having some intact seals of court, however, some portion of the parcel appears to be torn and the cloth pullanda is removable from the parcel, however, said pullanda is having intact seals. Same was then opened and found to contain one bed sheet, pillow cover, one towel, one plastic sheet, one cloth piece and one strand of hair are taken out from the pullanda and shown to the witness and witness has correctly identified the same as same were seized from the spot by the IO. These articles are collectively Ex.PA1. At that stage, MHC(M) produced Parcel no. 7 sealed with the seal of Court and the same is opened and found to contain one TV remote, another remote of Tata sky. One salt pot having masala type material inside it, one mobile cover, one specs, one visiting card on which JMD Tourist and Motors 1- 143 Karampura Delhi is written taken out from the pullanda and shown to the witness. Witness has correctly identified the same which was seized by the IO. These articles are collectively Ex. PA2. At that stage MHC(M) produced Parcel no. 8 sealed with the seal of Court and the same is opened and found to contain one currency note of Rs. 50/- which was recovered from the pockets of the wearing clothes of the deceased same is taken out from the pullanda and shown to the witness. Witness has correctly identified the same which was seized by the IO. Same is Ex. PAX. At that stage MHC(M) has produced Parcel no. 9 sealed with the seal of Court and it appears to be torn the same is opened and found to contain one big single bed mattress having blood stains same taken out from the pullanda and shown to the witness. Witness has correctly identified the same which was recovered from the spot and seized by the IO. These articles SC No. 57663/2013 FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 95 of 184 are already Ex. РАЗ. At that stage MHC(M) produced Parcel no. IO sealed with the seal of Court and the same is opened and found to contain one small mattress having blood stains same taken out from the pullanda and shown to the witness. Witness has correctly identified the same which was seized by the IO. These articles are already Ex. PA4. At that stage MHC(M) produced Parcel no. 11 sealed with the seal of Court and the same is opened and found to contain one pillow taken out from the ullanda and shown to the witness. Witness has correctly identified the same which was seized by the IO. Same is already Ex. PA5.
MHC(M) produced Parcel no. 16 sealed with the seal of Court and the same is opened and found to contain one key bunch having two bigger keys and one small key taken out from the pullanda and shown to the witness. Witness has correctly identified the same which was seized by the IO. Same is already Ex. PA6.
MHC(M) produced transparent polythene without seal and same is found to contain one mobile phone of make Motorola taken out from the pullanda and shown to the witness. Witness has correctly identified the same which was seized by the IO from the spot. Same is already Ex. PA7.
Further, MHC(M) produced Parcel no. 18 sealed with the seal of Court and the same is opened and found to contain one shirt, one jeans pant, one baniyan, one underwear, one pair of socks, one pair of shoes blood stained, same are taken out from the pullanda and shown to the witness. Witness has correctly identified the same which was got recovered by accused, in his presence and seized by the IO. Same is already Ex. P16/A (colly).
SC No. 57663/2013FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 96 of 184 Also, MHC(M) produced Parcel no. 19 sealed with the seal of Court and the same is opened and found to contain one knife, same is taken out from the pullanda and shown to the witness. Witness has correctly identified the same which is one of the two knives got recovered by accused, in his presence and seized by the IO. Same is already Ex. P-168 (colly.) MHC(M) produced Parcel no. 20 sealed with the seal of Court and the same is opened and found to contain one knife, same is taken out from the pullanda and shown to the witness. Witness has correctly identified the same which is one of the two knives got recovered by accused, in his presence and seized by the IO. Same is already Ex. P-16C (colly.). MHC(M) produced one unsealed parcel and the same is opened and found to contain one lock, same is taken out from a transparent polythene and shown to the witness. Witness has correctly identified the same which was found on the door of the house from where the accused had got affected the recovery of articles, in his presence and seized by the IO. Same is already Ex. P-16/D (colly.) MHC(M) produced one sealed parcel sealed with the seal of JSM and the same is opened and found to contain six packets of currency note of denomination of Rs.500/- (containing 100 notes in each bundle) (the notes are of old currency and demonetized now). These notes were given by Sunil Kumar Rajput in the police station to IO in his presence and were sealed with the seal of JSM. The same are exhibited as Ex. PX1 (colly.) The witness deposed that he can identify the remaining case property if shown to him. At that stage, MHC(M) P.S Moti Nagar produced photocopy of currency notes of Rs. 14.50 lakhs in SC No. 57663/2013 FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 97 of 184 denomination of 100, 50, 500 and 1000 (of denominatized currency notes) shown to the witness and witness identified that these are the same copies of currency notes which were covered and seized by 1.0 in his presence. Original currency notes are stated to be released on superdari. The photocopy of currency notes are Ex.PX2 (colly).
MHC(M) produced another sealed parcel sealed with the seal of court. Same is opened and found to contain one small jewellery pouch containing one locket on which the picture of Guru Nanak Dev Ji is engraved. Said pulinda is also found to contain one gold ring affixed with black color stone on which 'S' is written with gold taken out and shown to the witness. Witness has correctly identified the same which was sealed and seized by the I.O in his presence. Same is already Ex. P1 (colly). The witness further deposed that he can also identify the scooter bearing registration no. DL 6S F 9511, make LML Vespa and Santro Car bearing registration no. DL 3C AA 8904 if shown to him.
MHC(M), PS Moti Nagar submits that the above mentioned two vehicles are mingled with other vehicles lying in the malkhana compound and it is very difficult to remove them without the help of heavy machinery/crane. However, MHC(M) produced the photographs of two vehicles. The photograph of the Santro car is Ex. PW-42/X and photograph of scooter is Ex.PW-42/Y. (objected to by Ld. defence counsel regarding mode of proving the said photographs as the negatives are not produced). At that stage, MHC(M) produced parcel no.18 sealed with the seal of court. Same is opened and found to contain one pair of canvas shoes with metal tag Sport. The same is shown to the witness. Witness SC No. 57663/2013 FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 98 of 184 identified the same shoes which were seized by IO in his presence. Pair of shoes is Ex. PS. It is found that one of the Superdarinama executed by the Superdar in the case for the Superdari amount of Rs.10 Lakhs is still not traceable as per report of MHC(M). Since the factum of executing the Superdarinama is not relevant with the witness, hence the witness was tendered for cross-examination.
55. PW-43 SI Kamal Kohli deposed that On 05.06.2010, he was posted at PS Moti Nagar. On that day, he served the notice upon accused Anoop Gupta to join the investigation. Accused Anoop Gupta had already been declared as Proclaimed Offender in an another case of PS Crime Branch. Accused Anoop Gupta who was present in the court that day (witness correctly identified the accused Anoop Gupta), was apprehended and in the regard, intimation was given at the office of Crime Branch through telephone. Accused Anoop Gupta was produced at Rohini Court. There Insp. Jitender came from office of Crime Branch. He further deposed that Insp. Jitender examined the accused Anoop Kumar Gupta. He submitted the original Kalandara U/S 41.1 (a and c) Cr.P.C. alongwith relevant documents at Rohini Court while photocopy of the same is Mark A which bears impression of his signatures at point A. Prior to taking the accused to Rohini Court, the accused Anoop was arrested and personally searched at PS vide copies of memos Mark B and Mark C respectively which bears impression of his signatures at point A. Accused Anoop was also interrogated at PS Moti Nagar and in that regard his disclosure statement was recorded. Copy of the same is Mark D which bears impression of his signatures at point A. The witness further deposed that Insp. Jagminder Singh also arrested the accused in the SC No. 57663/2013 FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 99 of 184 present case vide arrest memo Ex.PW-43/A which bears his signatures at point A. Disclosure statement of accused Anoop Gupta was also recorded by Insp. Jagminder during interrogation. During investigation, accused Haider Ali who is present in the Court that day (Witness correctly identified accused Haider Ali), was also arrested by Insp. Jagminder Singh in the present case. From the possession of accused Haider Ali, Rs.20,000/- was recovered. The said recovered amount was seized by Insp. Jagminder Singh by preparing pulanda which was sealed with the seal of JSM, vide seizure memo Ex.PW- 43/B which bears his signatures at point A. Accused Haider Ali was arrested and personally searched vide memos Ex.PW- 43/C and Ex.PW-43/D respectively which bear his signatures at point A. Disclosure statement of accused Haider Ali was also recorded vide Ex.PW-43/E which bears his signatures at point A. Accused Haider Ali was produced at Tis Hazari Courts by Insp. Jagminder Singh. Accused Anoop Gupta was taken to Rohini Court by him and from there he was produced at Tis Hazari Courts. Accused persons were sent to JC.
The witness further deposed that he did not join the investigation of the present case prior to 05.06.2010. Some investigation qua accused Deepak @ Deepu was also made in his presence. A receipt of mobile phone was given to Inspector Jagminder Singh by Sh Avtar Singh and same was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW43/F which bears his signatures at point A. At that stage, attention of the witness was drawn towards the photocopy of receipt and on seeing the same, witness stated that it is the same copy of receipt mark E. Accused SC No. 57663/2013 FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 100 of 184 Deepak @ Deepu was interrogated in his presence vide disclosure statement of accused Deepak @ Deepu vide disclosure statement Ex.PW43/G which bears his signatures at point A. He does not remember the exact date of investigation qua accused Deepak @ Deepu however, same was conducted prior to 05.06.2010. The witness further deposed that he can identify the above mentioned cash of Rs. 20,000/- if shown to him. The currency notes were in the denomination of Rs. 500/- each.
56. PW-44, Sh. Sidharth Mathur, Joint Registrar, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. At that stage, an envelope sealed with the seal of SM taken out from the record. Seal broken and envelope is opened and found to contain proceedings of TIP. On 07.08.2010, he was posted as MM, Central-II, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. On that day, an application for conducting TIP of case property moved by Insp. Jagminder Singh of PS Moti Nagar moved in the Court of Ms. Vandana Jain, Ld MM, was marked to him as he was second Link MM to that Court. The date of TIP was fixed for 07.08.2010. On that day, IO had produced witness Mukul S/o Sh. Surender Singh Bubal was produced by Insp. Raj Kumar of PS Moti Nagar and witness was duly identified by IO Insp. Raj Kumar. Thereafter, witness was directed by him to wait outside his chamber and come when called for. Insp. Raj Kumar had produced mixing material i.e. seven gold Gents ring from a cloth pulanda. Insp. Raj Kumar had also opened one sealed pulanda sealed with the seal of RK and other particulars of the case, before him. Case properties including one gold gents ring had been taken out from a semi circled rexine pouch of Kartar Jewelers from sealed pulanda. Insp. Raj Kumar was then asked to wait outside his chamber. There was no one else SC No. 57663/2013 FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 101 of 184 in the chamber other than himself and his then stenographer. He then kept the case property i.e. one gold gents ring on the table alongwith seven gents rings of similar characteristics. The case property as well as mixing material were kept on the table in a line. The case property was kept at sixth position from the right side and third position from the left side. The witness named Mukul was then called inside the chamber and was asked to identify the case property. He correctly identified the case property as per his statement at point X and was signed by him in his presence at point Y. Witness was then went outside the chamber. The TIP proceedings Ex.PW-44/A were concluded. The correctly identified case property was sealed with the seal of the Court i.e. SM in a cloth pulanda alongwith the semi circled raxine pouch of Kartar Jewelers and was handed over to Insp. Raj Kumar alongwith the mixing material. The copy of the TIP was also given to Insp. Raj Kumar in pursuance of his application Ex.PW-44/B bearing his signatures at point A. The TIP proceedings were then certified by him at point Z bearing his signatures at point Y.
57. PW-45, HC Parveen Kumar, No. 982/OND, PS Alipur, Delhi deposed that on 01.06.2010 he was posted at PS Moti Nagar as Constable. On that day, on the direction of the IO, he took accused Deepak @ Deepu present in the Court that day (Correctly identified by the witness) to DDU Hospital for his medical examination on the letter of request by the IO for getting his blood sample. Thereafter, accused was medically examined there and after his medical examination doctor handed over one sealed pulanda sealed with the seal of CMO, DDU Hospital and one sample seal of same specimen to him and he handed over the same SC No. 57663/2013 FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 102 of 184 to IO alongwith accused at PS on the same day. IO took the same into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW-45/A which bears his signatures at point A. IO recorded his statement.
58. PW-46, Ms. L Babyto Devi, Assistant Director, Biology, FSL Rohini, Delhi deposed that on 17.09.2010, he was posted as Senior Scientific Officer in FSL Rohini. On that day, 20 sealed parcels alongwith sample seals pertaining to the present case alongwith the other relevant documents duly forwarded by SHO, PS Moti Nagar were received in the office of FSL and the same was examined by him. The detail of the samples were mentioned by her in her report. All the parcels were intact when the same were opened by her during the examination. After examining the parcels, she prepared by biological report. Same is Ex.PW-46/A (Colly 2 sheets) which bear her signatures at points A on each page. After examination, the remnants of the exhibits were sealed with the seal of BDFSL Delhi. She further deposed that she had also prepared serology report after examining the above mentioned parcels. Except exhibits no. 1, 3, 8, 14A, 14B, 16 and 19, the blood group 'A' was detected on the remaining exhibits mentioned by her in her report. However, in exhibit 1, 8, 14A, 14B and 16, human blood was detected but group could not be found, her report in the regard is Ex.PW-46/B which bears her signatures at point A.
59. PW-47, Ms. Shashi Bala Pahuja, Senior Scientific Officer, Biology, FSL Rohini, Delhi deposed that on 11.05.2011, two sealed forensic parcels pertaining to the present case alongwith the relevant documents attached with the said parcels by the police were received in the office of FSL Rohini and the same were assigned to her for DNA examination. Both the parcels were SC No. 57663/2013 FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 103 of 184 sealed and seals were intact. One sealed parcel was sealed with the seal of BD FSL Delhi and the other parcel was sealed with the seal of CMO DDU Hospital. She opened the parcels and examined the exhibits and prepared her detailed report. Same is Ex.PW-47/A which bears her signatures at point A and B. During examination, DNA could not be isolated from the source of exhibits 14a and 14b. In conclusion she had mentioned that no opinion is offered due to non availability of DNA from the source of exhibits 14a and 14b. Remnants of the exhibits had been sealed with the seal of SBP FSL Delhi.
60. PW-48 Dr. Deepa Verma, Director, FSL Rohini, Delhi deposed that on 27.08.2010, she was posted as Assistant Director (Documents) in FSL Rohini. On that day, one questioned document and IO admitted documents were received in the office of FSL Rohini pertaining to the present case alongwith the forwarding letter of the police. The said documents were assigned to her for examination. She had examined those documents and found the signatures on the questioned documents as well as on admitted documents of the same person. Her detailed report is Ex.PW-48/A which bears her signatures at point A and B. After examination, the documents and report were sealed with the seal of DOC FSL Delhi. The questioned document which was marked as Q1 and admitted documents marked as Al to A10 are seen by her from the Judicial File which are the same examined by her in FSL as deposed by her mentioned above.
61. PW-49 Retd. SI Veerpal Singh deposed that on the night intervening 24/25.05.2010, he was posted as ASI in Spl. Staff, West District, Tagore Garden, New Delhi. On 24.05.2010, at about SC No. 57663/2013 FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 104 of 184 09.45 pm, one secret informer who was already deputed by him for seeking an information about the present case came to him in his office and he informed him that one Deepak @ Deepu Bobal @ Deepu who is accused in a murder case pertaining to PS Moti Nagar and is wanted in that case will come to Prashant Vihar market near outer ring road to meet someone at about 11.30 PM and if raid is conducted, he can be apprehended. He brought the facts of the information in the notice of Inspector Raj Kumar, of Spl. Staff, West District who instructed SI Manoj who was sitting with him in his office to inform at PS Moti Nagar in the regard. Inspector Raj Kumar directed to form a raiding party under his supervision. At about 10.15 pm, SHO Inspector Hoshiar Singh, Inspector Raj Kumar, ASI Preet Pal Singh and HC Lokender and one more Sl whose name he does not recollect at that moment, from PS Moti Nagar came in their office. The witness further deposed that thereafter, they all discussed about the secret information and thereafter, a joint raiding party was constituted under the supervision of SHO PS Moti Nagar consisting of himself, SI Manoj Kumar, SI Charan, ASI Nirakar, ASI Balwinder, HC Ved Prakash, Ct. Devender, Ct. Suresh and Ct. Sunil from Spl. Staff alongwith secret informer and thereafter, they alongwith police team of PS Moti Nagar comprising of Inspector Hoshiar Singh, Inspector Raj Kumar, ASI P.P Singh, SI Raghubir Singh, HC Lokender etc. left their office in two vehicles. they were in a govt vehicle TATA 407 bearing No. DL 1LD 5031 while the police officials from PS Moti Nagar were in their official Gypsy. Secret informer was with them in TATA 407. He further deposed that they all left their office at about 10.30 PM, and SC No. 57663/2013 FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 105 of 184 proceeded towards Prashant Vihar market and reached at Prashant Vihar market on outer ring road and held naka bandi there on service lane, Prashant Vihar market. Inspector Raj Kumar from PS Moti Nagar asked 4-5 passersby to join the raiding party by disclosing them about the facts of the secret information but none agreed to join and left the place without disclosing their names and addresses. Thereafter, they took their position there. He took their position at T point on service road which goes towards cinema side. ASI P.P Singh and Inspector Raj Kumar took their position on service road which goes towards the side of Rohini Courts and they also parked their Gypsy behind them on road and they all started waiting for the accused.
Further deposed that at about 12.30 AM, on the night intervening 24/25.05.2010, one Santro car came from Cinema side. He noted down the regn no of said Santro car as DL 3C AA 8904 when it was in slow speed. He gave signal to the driver of said car to stop the same but the driver did not stop there and he took turn towards right side of the service lane towards court complex where ASI P.P Singh and Inspector Raj Kumar were already present there. After seeing the police Gypsy parked there, the driver of the said Santro car stopped the said car near the said Gypsy. He started chasing the said santro car and reached near it, in the meantime, ASI P.P. Singh and Inspector Raj Kumar also reached there and thereafter, ASI P.P Singh and Inspector Raj Kumar over powered the driver of said car in his presence. The driver of said Santro car was identified to be as Deepak @ Deepu Bobal @ Deepu by secret informer as well as by Inspector Raj Kumar as accused in the present case. After identifying accused Deepak @ Deepu Bobal @ SC No. 57663/2013 FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 106 of 184 Deepu, secret informer left that place. Inspector Raj Kumar made enquiry from accused who was having his head shaved and accused told that he had got cut his hair to conceal his identity. On interrogation, accused also revealed his name as Deepak @ Deepu Bobal @ Deepu s/o late Sh Mohan Singh. After interrogation, accused was arrested in that case by the IO vide arrest memo already Ex.PW42/C which bears his signatures at point B. His personal search was also taken vide memo already Ex.PW42/D which bears his signatures at point B. During personal search of accused, three receipts, cash amount Rs. 4150/-, one ring silver colour and some documents including one PAN card were recovered and were seized in the personal search memo. Accused made disclosure statement which was recorded by the IO Inspector Raj Kumar. The same is already Ex.PW42/F which bears his signatures at point B. During the formal search of accused, two mobile phones were recovered from the left side pocket of wearing shirt of accused. One mobile phone was of make Nokia N 79 Grey and dark brown colour and the other mobile phone of make Samsung of Steel and Cherry colour. Both the mobile phones were kept in a transparent plastic jar and thereafter, the jar was sealed in a pullanda with the seal of RK and were taken into possession vide seizure memo already Ex.PW42/K which bears his signatures at point B. Accused signed the same at point X. Thereafter, the search of Santro car was taken by the IO at the instance of the accused as per his disclosure statement in his presence. Accused was got recovered one hand cum shoulder bag of black colour from underneath the driver seat of car. The same was checked by the IO in his presence and it was found containing cash amount of SC No. 57663/2013 FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 107 of 184 Rs. 13,30,000/- in denomination of Rs. 1000 and 500/-. From the same bag, three ladies rings of gold affixed with diamond ring and two gold chains and one pair of tops affixed with cherry colour stone (nag), two gold chain lockets, one locket of gold on which the picture of Sri Guru Nanak Dev ji is engraved, one gold ring on which the word 'S' is engraved. The said jewelery articles were found kept in a pouch on which kartar jewelers were printed. All the currency notes mentioned above were sealed by the IO in separate pullandas after keeping them in transparent plastic jars and were sealed with the seal of RK. The jewelery articles mentioned above were kept in the same jewelery pouch of Kartar Jewelers and thereafter, same were sealed in a pulland with the seal of RK. Some documents including photos were also found in the said bag and the said documents were kept in the same bag and thereafter, the bag was sealed in a pullanda with the seal of RK. Thereafter, all these pullandas were taken into possession by the IO vide seizure memo already Ex.PW42/B which bears his signatures at point B. The Santro car bearing Regn No. DL 3C AA 8904 was also taken into possession by the IO in his presence vide seizure memo already Ex.PW42/E which bears his signatures at point B. IO prepared site plan of the place of arrest and recovery effected from the accused on that day.
PW deposed that he can identify the case properties if shown to him. Ld. State Counsel submits that case property has already been exhibited in the statement of other witnesses.
62. PW-50 Inspector Raj Kumar deposed that on 24.05.2010, he was posted as Inspector Investigation PS Moti Nagar. On that day, one information was conveyed by Spl. Staff which was SC No. 57663/2013 FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 108 of 184 reduced to DD NO. 34A. It was informed that accused in the present case would come in the area of Rohini. The witness deposed that he has seen the DD No. 34-A from judicial file, the same is now Mark A. Further deposed that thereafter, on receipt of information mentioned in DD No. 34-A from Police Station, Moti Nagar he alongwith SHO Inspector Hoshiar Singh, SI Raghubir Singh, ASI Preet Pal Singh and HC Lokender and Const. Ravinder and ASI Driver from PS Moti Nagar in government vehicle at about 10.05 P.M. and reached office of special staff, West District, Tagore Garden, New Delhi within 10-15 minutes. Thereafter, they all discussed about the secret information with the official of special staff including Inspt. Raj Kumar, Inspt. Special Staff, West District, SI Charan Singh, ASI Veer Pal, SI Manoj etc. Thereafter, a joint raiding party was constituted under the supervision of SHO PS Moti Nagar, Inspt. Hoshiar Singh consisting of himself, SI Manoj Kumar, SI Charan Singh, ASI Nirakar, ASI Balwinder. HC Ved Prakash, Ct. Devender, Ct. Suresh and Ct. Sunil from Spl. Staff alongwith secret informer alongwith police team of PS Moti Nagar comprising of Inspector Hoshiar Singh, himself, ASI P.P Singh, SI Raghubir Singh, HC Lokender etc. left from office special staff in two vehicles. Also deposed that Police officials of Special Staff were in a govt vehicle i.e. TATA 407 bearing No. DL 1LD 5031 whereas the police officials from PS Moti Nagar were in their official Gypsy. Secret informer was also in TATA 407. He deposed that they all left the office of Special Staff at about 10.30 PM, and proceeded towards Prashant Vihar market and reached at Prashant Vihar market on outer ring road and held naka bandi there on service lane, Prashant Vihar market. He asked 4-5 SC No. 57663/2013 FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 109 of 184 passersby to join the raiding party by disclosing them about the facts of the secret information but none agreed to join and left the place without disclosing their names and addresses. Thereafter, he and ASI P.P. Singh took their position on service road which goes towards the side of Rohini Courts and they also parked their Gypsy behind them on road and ASI Veer Pal took his position at T point on service road which goes towards cinema side. they all started waiting for the accused. Further deposed that at about 12.30 am, on the night intervening 24/25.05.2010, one Santro car came from Cinema side. ASI Veer Pal gave signal to the driver of one car to stop the same but the driver did not stop there and he took turn towards right side of the service lane towards court complex where he and ASI P.P Singh were already present there. After seeing the police Gypsy parked there, the driver of the said Santro car stopped the said car near the said Gypsy. ASI Veer Pal started chasing the said santro car and reached near it, in the meantime, he and ASI P.P. Singh also over powered the driver of said car bearing no. DL-3CAA-8904. The driver of said Santro car was identified to be as Deepak @ Deepu Bobal @ Deepu by him as well as secret informer. After identifying accused Deepak @ Deepu Bobal @ Deepu, secret informer left that place. He made enquiry from accused who was having his head shaved and accused told that he had got cut his hair to conceal his identity. On interrogation, accused also revealed his name as Deepak @ Deepu Bobal @ Deepu s/o late Sh Mohan Singh. After interrogation, accused was arrested in the case by the him vide arrest memo already Ex.PW42/C which bears his signatures at point C. His personal search was also taken vide memo already Ex.PW42/D SC No. 57663/2013 FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 110 of 184 which bears his signatures at point C. During personal search of accused, three receipts of checking of gold two of dated 20.04.2010 and of dated 24.05.2010, the said receipts are already marked as Mark X, Y & Z. From the personal search of the accused cash amount Rs. 4150/-, one ring silver colour and some documents including one PAN card were also recovered and were seized in the personal search memo. Accused made disclosure statement which was recorded by him. The same is already Ex.PW42/F which bears his signatures at point C. During the formal search of accused, two mobile phones were recovered from the left side pocket of wearing shirt of accused. One mobile phone was of make Nokia N 79 Grey and dark brown colour and the other mobile phone of make Samsung of Steel and Cherry colour. Both the mobile phones were kept in a transparent plastic jar and thereafter, the jar was sealed in a pullanda with the seal of RK and were taken into possession vide seizure memo already Ex.PW42/K which bears his signatures at point C. Accused signed the same at point X. Thereafter, the search of Santro car was taken by him at the instance of the accused as per his disclosure statement in his presence. Accused was got recovered one hand cum shoulder bag of black colour from underneath the driver seat of car. The same was checked by the him in his presence and it was found containing cash amount of Rs. 13,30,000/- in denomination of Rs. 1000 and Rs.500/-. From the same bag, three ladies rings of gold affixed with diamond ring and two gold chains and one pair of tops affixed with cherry colour stone (nag), two gold chain lockets, one locket of gold on which the picture of Sri Guru Nanak Dev ji is engraved, one gold ring on which the word 'S' is engraved.
SC No. 57663/2013FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 111 of 184 There were two lockets of gold out of which one is engrved OM and on another there was a picture of Hanumanji. The said jewelery articles were found kept in a pouch on which kartar jewelers were printed. All the currency notes mentioned above were sealed by him in separate pullandas after keeping them in transparent plastic jars and were sealed with the seal of RK. The jewelery articles mentioned above were kept in the same jewelery pouch of Kartar Jewelers and thereafter, same were sealed in a pulland with the seal of RK. Some documents including photos were also found in the said bag and the said documents were kept in the same bag and thereafter, the bag was sealed in a pullanda with the seal of RK. Thereafter, all these three pullandas were taken into possession by him vide seizure memo already Ex.PW42/B which bears his signatures at point C. The Santro car bearing Regn No. DL 3C AA 8904 was also taken into possession by the IO in his presence vide seizure memo already Ex.PW42/E which bears his signatures at point C. He prepared site plan of the place of arrest and recovery effected from the accused on that day same is already exhibited as Ex. PW-42/G which bears his signatures at point C. He further deposed that, thereafter, they alongwith accused persons and case property came back to Police Station, Moti Nagar. Case property was deposited by him in Mal Khanna intact. He recorded the statement of ASI Veer Pal and ASI P.P. Singh under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Also deposed that on 07.08.2010 the case file of the present case was again marked to him for investigation as IO of the present case Inspt. Joginder Singh was on leave. On that day he proceeded with one sealed parcel sealed with the seal of RK containing the jewellery article SC No. 57663/2013 FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 112 of 184 got recovered by accused from his car and another pulanda containing artificial jewellery of similar description duly sealed with the seal of JSM from MHC (M) of P.S. Moti Nagar and produced the same before Id. M.M. Sh. Sidharth Mathur, for the purpose of judicial TIP. Public witnesses, namely, Mukul, Harjeet Kaur, Vinita and Arti also reached in the court of Ld. M.M. As per direction already given by the M.M. Court, the case property i.e. jewellery articles mentioned above were duly identified by the witnesses mentioned above in the judicial TIP. He moved application before Ld. M.M. for obtaining the copy of TIP proceedings the same was allowed by the Ld. M.M. and He obtained a copy of the TIP proceedings. Case property was sealed with the seal of the court i.e. S.M. Thereafter, he went to Police Station and case property was deposited in the Police Station in the Mal Khanna. He recorded the statement of the public witnesses mentioned above under Section 161 Cr.P.C out side the court room at Tis Hazari Court. Const. Anil was with him when he reached in the court as mentioned above. He handed over the relevant documents to the IO alongwith case file. So long case property remained in his possession same was not tampered with in any way.
The witness further deposed that he can identify the case properties if shown to him. At that stage MHC(M) P.S. Moti Nagar has produced one sealed parcel sealed with the seal of court. Parcel is opened and found contain two lockets of gold out of both the one is in the shape of Om and the other is in the shape of Lord Hanuman. The same are shown to the witness, who identified the same correctly, as the which were got recovered by the accused SC No. 57663/2013 FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 113 of 184 and same are already exhibited as Ex. PA and Ex. PB. Also, MHC(M) produced another Pullanda sealed with the court seal, seal broken, said pulanda contains of one gold chain, same is shown to the witness, who identified the same correctly stating that that is one of the chain out of two gold chains got recovered by the accused from his car. Same is already Ex. PC. Further, MHC(M) produced another Pullanda sealed with the court seal, seal broken, said pulanda contains of two gold rings i.e one big size ring having diamonds and one small gold ring having diamonds, same are shown to the witness, who identified the same correctly stating that these got recovered by the accused from his car. Same are already exhibited as Ex. PD & PE. MHC(M) produced another Pullanda sealed with the court seal, seal broken, said pulanda contains one small jewellery pouch on which Kartar Jeweller is written, and the pouch contain one locket on which picture of Shri Guru Nanak Dev is scribed. The same pouch also contain one gold ring on which word S is written with diamond stones same are shown to the witness, who identified the same correctly stating that same got recovered by the accused from his car. Same are already exhibited as Ex. P1.
He further deposed that day he has seen the copy of DD no. 34A from the judicial file which is already Ex. PW54/A and already marked as mark A from the judicial file. He can identify case property if shown to him. Further, MHC(M) produced one sealed transparent plastic jar duly sealed with the seal of RK. Same is opened and found to contain two mobile phone, one is make Samsung of Silver and Cherry Colour and another of make Nokia N-79 of Grey and Brown colour shown to the witness and witness SC No. 57663/2013 FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 114 of 184 identified the same mobile phones which were recovered from the pocket of the wearing shirt of accused Deepak @ Deepu@ Deepu at the time of his arrest. Mobiles phone of make Samsung is Ex. PW50/PL and mobile phone make Nokia is Ex. PW50/PM. Also, MHC(M) PS Moti Nagar produced 3 photographs of Santro Car bearing plate of registration no. DL3CAA-8904 on front and back side, of white color shown to the witness and witness has identified the photographs to be of the same Santro car which was in the possession of the accused and was driving the same when he was apprehended and arrested. The photographs are marked as Mark A, B and C respectively. MHC(M) submits that the said car is still lying in the malkhana and cannot be produced in the court without the help of the crane as the same is intermingled with other vehicles in the malkhana. He can identify the remaining case properties i.e. gold chain, gold ring and gold ear tops, if shown to him. Lastly, MHC(M) states that the said jewellery articles were released on superdari to the concerned owners. Ld. Addl. PP for the state submits that the above mentioned three articles have already been produced in the court and duly exhibited in the court from the concerned witnesses during trial. Accused Deepak @ Deepu Deepu present in the court that day. (correctly identified by the witness).
63. PW-51 Statement of Insp. Mahesh Kumar deposed that on 01.07.2010 he was working as SI Draftsman, Crime Branch, PHQ. On that day on the request of the IO of the present case, Inspt. Jagminder Singh, he visited the spot i.e. House No. B-1/43, New Moti Nagar, Delhi. He took measurement and prepared rough notes of the spot at the instance of Inspt. Jagminder Singh. On the SC No. 57663/2013 FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 115 of 184 basis of those rough notes he prepared scaled Site Plan on 29.07.2010 in his office and handed over the same to the IO. After preparing the scaled site plan rough notes were destroyed by him. his scaled site plan is Ex. PW-151/A which bears his signatures at point A.
64. PW-52 ASI Sanjay Bhati deposed that on 24.05.2010 he was posted in Special Staff, West District, Tagore Garden, New Delhi and was working as Duty Officer from 8:00 PM to 8:00 AM. On that day he recorded DD no. 10 and 11 as per the dictation given by SI Manoj Kumar of Special Staff of West District. That day, he brought the original DD register. True copy of the said DD no. 10 is Ex. PW52/A and true copy of DD no. 11 is Ex. PW52/B. (OSR).
65. PW-53 Inspector Rishi Pal Singh deposed that on 21.07.2011 he was posted as Inspector ATO at PS Moti Nagar. On that day MHC(M) PS Moti Nagar handed over the FSL result alongwith the relevant documents in sealed condition pertaining to the present case. He filed the same in the court by way of supplementary charge-sheet.
66. PW-54 ASI Pawan Kumar deposed that on 24.05.2010, he was posted at PS Moti Nagar and was working as Duty Officer from 4:00 pm to 12:00 midnight. On that day at about 10:05 pm SI Manoj Kumar of Special Staff, West District had informed him on telephone about the facts of secret information received by him through informer. The detail of the information given to him on telephone is recorded by him in the daily diary vide DD no. 34A. that day He has brought the original DD register. The DD no. 34A is in his handwriting and true copy of the same which is already SC No. 57663/2013 FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 116 of 184 marked A is now Ex. PW-54/A (OSR).
STATEMENT U/S 313 CR.P.C
67. After completing the prosecution evidence, statement of accused persons u/s 313 Cr. PC were recorded. Accused persons have denied the allegations of the prosecution and they have deposed that they are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in the case. All the incriminating evidence were put to the accused persons to which they have denied as being incorrect and have stated that a false case has been registered against them and they have been falsely implicated in the case.
68. Further accused Anoop Kumar Gupta and Haider Ali have deposed that they are innocent and accused Deepak @ Deepu is not known to them in any manner and they have never visited him at their house and they have never helped co-accused Deepak @ Deepu by providing any shelter or harbour at their house or at any place in any manner and they have been falsely implicated by the IO in connivance with the complainant only to work out the present case.
69. Accused Deepak @ Deepu stated that he is innocent. On 27.3.2010, he was informed by his mother and brother about the murder of Shri Surinder who was his uncle. He immediately went to the spot where many people had already gathered. He also joined them and saw the body of his uncle Surinder drenched in blood. Since his brother Inder @ Lovely had reported the matter, therefore, within few time the police also reached there followed by dog squad and other persons from crime branch. When he was present there, The dog handler smelled the dog and left it to find SC No. 57663/2013 FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 117 of 184 the culprit, however, the dog could not be of any help to the police. At that time his Aunty (Mrs. Surinder) and her son Mukul were not present and he was told that they had gone out of Delhi. After the police held the investigation and took some articles from the spot, they left the place. In the night his aunty and her son Mukul came and he along with his mother had gone to their house for the condolence of death of Surinder. On the following day also the police came to the spot and some articles were taken in their possession. Thereafter, the IO asked him to join the investigation and he joined the investigation. The IO took the accused persons to the office of an expert to give their figure prints. He along with other persons, who also were asked to join the investigation along with his mother gave the sample as required in the office of the expert. Thereafter, the IO told him that his finger prints do not tally with the chance prints. However IO told him that he must be available for joining the investigation as and when required to which he agreed. The IO then took them for their Polygamy test, but on that day the machine was not in the working condition so he returned. Thereafter, he had to go to out of Delhi and so sought the permission of the IO who told him to go and on return join the investigation for Polygraph test. He had collected about Rs. 14,00,000 cash and gold and gold ornaments and they all were lying at his house as he had the intention to purchase the shop in Karol bagh. All the articles with cash was lying in his house in the custody of his wife. He returned from Ludhiana on 23-5-2010 in the late night and his wife told him that he was required by IO. He had the intention to go to Police station in the morning of 24th May 2010 but due to some work he could not go to police station.
SC No. 57663/2013FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 118 of 184 The IO got annoyed and he told him he will come on 25 th morning. However, in the late hours of night between 24/25th, the police party raided his house and took him into custody. They ransacked his house and took the money of about Rs. 14,00,000 lying in cash with gold and gold ornaments. He told them that the money has been collected by him and showed them the source and account. The police officer Raj Kumar, IO did not listen to him and took the money with gold and ornaments and papers with him. On the next morning he destroyed his papers and shown him arrested in the case. Thereafter, Jagminder Singh IO started investigating him and obtained his signatures on many blank papers and fabricated the evidence. He told him that he had gone out of station with his permission but he did not hear him. When he told him that he is still ready to go for Polygraph but test he refused and illegally arrested him. The blank papers got signed, were misused at many places. When he enquired him about the house at Paschim Vihar, he told him that he had never resided there, and all the clothes and other articles planted upon him do not belong to him and have been planted to make a false case against him. There is no legal and scientific evidence against him. The DNA test also do not tally. He was never taken to Paschim Vihar nor he was arrested from there, a false story has been made against him to falsely implicate him in connivance with Mukul and his mother. He had never purchased any shoes nor they belong to him. Similarly the knives have also been planted upon him and he has no connection with the knives. Mukul and his mother had the enmity with him from the day he had opened the shop near to their shop and so they were having grudge against him as a rival competitor. He didn't SC No. 57663/2013 FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 119 of 184 know any Haider Ali and Anoop Kumar and have no concern with them ever. He is a victim of the suspicion by Mukul and his mother and in connivance with the police they falsely got him arrested and got him implicated in the present case though he had not done anything.
DEFENCE EVIDENCE
70. In order to prove his innocence, only accused Deepak @ Deepu examined six defence evidence u/s 315 Cr.P.C including himself and five others.
71. DW-1 Statement of HC Dharam Pal deposed that he was posted in malkhana of the police station. On receipt of the summons from the Hon'ble Court, he checked out from the record and found that the record pertaining to the year 2010 including the log book pertaining to year 1995-2015 of the case has already been weeded out vide order no. 64. He had not brought the order no. 64 that day through which the said record was ordered to be weeded out, however, he had brought one copy of the order undated bearing no. 3832/HAR accompanied with the copy of the order regarding destruction of old records of MT unit of District West. He could produce the original order no. 64 issued from the department for weeded out the record on next date of hearing. On the next date he deposed that he had brought the summoned record in regard to the destruction of the record vide order no. 64. The same order was passed by D.CP West Distt, New Delhi and has been attested by ACP (HQ). He had filed the same before the court as Ex.DW1/A. As per that record, while record in regard to log book from 1995 to 2015 has been weeded out and therefore, he was unable to produce the log book called for.
SC No. 57663/2013FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 120 of 184
72. DW-2 Sh. Shri Kishan, s/o Sh. Late Sh. Ganga Ram, aged 60 years, occupation property dealer, r/o. A-142, 3th Floor, Sudarshan Park, New Delhi-15 deposed that he knew accused Deepak @ Deepu, who works as a goldsmith and also sells the jewellery. He also mortgaged the gold of other customers at B-1/41, New Moti Nagar, Delhi in the shop at the back side of his residential house. He is an old customer of them as he had been getting the gold items get prepared from the time of his father. On 10 or 12th March, 2010, he had given some old gold of about 55gms and also cash of Rs.1,00,000/- for getting manufactured the one set of gold, one matar mala and 04 gold bangles. Deepak @ Deepu sought the time for about two or two and a half months for manufacturing the above mentioned ornaments. However, he could not get the same ornaments from him as he came to know that he was arrested by the police. His gold and cash of Rs. 1,00,000/- still remained with him. He was cross-examined by Ld. Addl. PP for State wherein he deposed that the name of father of accused Deepak @ Deepu was Sh. Mohan Singh. He had given 55 grams gold in the form of ornaments not at a melted gold. The said ornaments includes one gold set (haar) and ear rings (kante) and the same ornaments were of his wife. Accused Deepak @ Deepu gave him the receipt of the said ornaments and cash but that day he had not brought the same as the same was not available with him. He denied the suggestion that no jewellery mentioned above was given by him to accused Deepak @ Deepu or that due to that fact he was unable to produce any proof in lieu of that old jewellery. He was a property dealer and not an income tax payee. He is not having proof regarding the source of cash amount of Rs. 1,00,000/-
SC No. 57663/2013FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 121 of 184 as the same was lying at his home as he used to deal in the property dealing. Even he cannot tell the details of the property dealings from whom the said amount received by him as it was a old matter. The cash of Rs. 1,00,000/- which he gave to accused Deepak @ Deepu was in different denomination of Rs. 100/-, Rs. 500/- and Rs.1000/-. Even he cannot tell as to how many cash was in the denomination of Rs. 100/-, Rs. 500/- and Rs. 1000/-. He had never lodged any complainant to police or any other authority regarding recover of the alleged gold haar and kante and cash amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- till that day. He had also not claimed the same from the family members of accused by filing any case in the court. He denied the suggestion that he had not lodged any complainant to any authority or before the court for taking any action for the recovery of said old jewellery and cash amount because no such amount of jewellery was given to accused Deepak @ Deepu by him as mentioned above. He denied the suggestion that he never gave Rs. 1,00,000/- to the accused Deepak @ Deepu that is why he could not remember the correct denomination of the currency notes in breakup. He denied the suggestion that accused Deepak @ Deepu was not doing any business of mortgaging or even manufacturing the jewellery or runs any jewellery shop at the time of incident. He voluntarily deposed that accused was running a jewellery shop in the name of New Kartar Jewellers at New Moti Nagar. He denied the suggestion that he had come to the court only at the instance of accused being his old friend to save him from legal punishment. He denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsely.
SC No. 57663/2013FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 122 of 184
73. DW-3 Smt. Asha Rani, w/o Sh. Satish Kumar Kakkar, aged 60 years, r/o B-1/54, New Moti Nagar, Near Puri Mandir, Delhi-15 deposed that he is a summoned witness. She knew Deepak @ Deepu (accused in that case) since last 30-35 years as he lived in his neighbourhood. Accused Deepak @ Deepu was running a jewellery shop in the name and style of New Kartar Jewellers in B- block and the shop number is perhaps 171 or 117 but he had not confirmed, which is situated at a 5 minutes walking distance of his house. Accused Deepak @ Deepu was residing in his house situated in front of his house.
On 31.05.2010, there was a marriage of her daughter namely, Vijeta and prior to her marriage function, on 23.05.2010, they organized a Kirtan in a temple near his house. At about 12/12:30 PM. She heard a noise (shor sharaba) inside from his house from outside as they were taking sleep. His mother who was also present in their house, also told them about the said noise and asked us to go outside and see. Accordingly, she himself went outside the house. She noticed many persons standing outside the house of accused Deepak @ Deepu and many persons were also present inside the house of accused. She herself also went inside the house of accused Deepak @ Deepu and found the police officials also present alongwith the public persons and she also noticed that locker (Tijori) fixed in a room was opened and police officials were taking out the the jewellery, some papers and cash. Accused Deeapak was standing there and other persons were also standing there and were watching the scene but she did not remember the name of those persons who were present at that SC No. 57663/2013 FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 123 of 184 time, though they were her neighbours. Family members of accused Deepak @ Deepu were also present there.
Ms. Meena Bobal and her son Mukul Bobal was also present there at that time. They asked the police officers as to why they were taking out the jewellery, papers and cash but they admonished them on the pretext that they should leave the spot, otherwise they will take the action against also. Thereafter, she came out from the house of accused Deepak @ Deepu and remained standing outside her house. Accused Deepak @ Deepu was taken by police and police also took the above mentioned articles.
On cross-examination by the Ld. Addl. PP for State. The witness admitted that 3-4 days back she was asked to come to the court to give the evidence in the case by mother of accused Asha Bobal that is why she come to this court that day. Her house and the house of accused Deepak @ Deepu was just opposite to each other's house in the same lane. He had never gave any complaint to the higher police authority or any other department that accused Deepak @ Deepu has been falsely implicated in the prosecution case or that police officials had taken out cash, jewellery article and documents from house of accused Deepak @ Deepu, even he had never given any application to IO or SHO in this regard. He had no knowledge if accused Deepak @ Deepu remained as tenant in house no. A-5/291, 3d floor, Paschim Vihar, Delhi belonging to one Dr. Manoj Jain. They have not paid any charges to organize a kirtan on 23.05.2010 to the Puri Mandir near his house at New Moti Nagar. He admitted that there was provision to pay the charges to the temple for organizing kirtan/other function on SC No. 57663/2013 FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 124 of 184 payment of nominal charges by the neighbors and some higher charges to other people. He denied the suggestion that he had not been able to produce any receipt as no such kirtan was held on 23.05.2010. The said kirtan was held from 3:00 PM to 6:00 PM. He denied the suggestion that the complainant Meena Bobal and her son Mukul Bobal were not present at the alleged date, time and place or that he had not seen them with the police or that he was not present at the time of recovery of the articles at the instance of accused. He denied the suggestion that he concocted false story in the court only at the instance of the mother of accused to save him from legal punishment. He denied the suggestion that accused had committed the murder of his uncle or that the jewellery articles, cash amount, weapon of offence i.e. knife and the clothes of accused worn by him at the time of incident were recovered by police at the instance of accused Deepak @ Deepu. He denied the suggestion that accused was residing on rent at the house of Dr. Manoj Jain at Paschim Vihar at the time of incident. He denied the suggestion that he had a false and procured witness and deposing falsely being the neighbour of the accused. He denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsely.
74. DW-4 Sh Sachin Vohra, s/o late Sh Mohan Lal Vohra, aged about 40 years, property dealer r/o B-1/9, New Moti Nagar, New Delhi deposed that he know accused Deepak @ Deepu who was the resident of house in front of his house. He worked as goldsmith as well as sells the ornaments and prepares the ornaments. On 23.05.2010 at about 12/12.15 AM (in the night), he was present in his house and was taking rest. He heard some noise coming from the street in front of his house. When he came out from his house, SC No. 57663/2013 FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 125 of 184 he saw that many people had gathered in the street in front of house of Deepak @ Deepu at B-1/41, New Moti Nagar. When he came there, he entered the house and found that some police officials in dress and some other police officials in civil dress were present inside the house. He saw that the police officials were taking out the gold cash and certain papers from the Tijori. They were taking out the whole jewellery gold and cash alongwith certain papers and were putting in the clothes with them. When he asked those police officials if they had any search warrant for searching the house, he was threatened by the police officials that he should keep silence or he would also be arrested in the same case made out against Deepak @ Deepu, many other persons including Karan, Steel, Pink and Micky and many other persons were present at that time. In his presence, Smt. Pinki also objected to that but she was also threatened in the same way and she also kept silence. Thereafter, those police officials took away all the articles i.e gold, jewellery, cash and papers out of the Tijori and took that with them. They also took Deepak @ Deepu with them in the PS. He could not give any application to the senior officials of the police about this incident as he was scared and did not want to involve himself into any case.
75. Witness was cross-examined by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State and he deposed that his office was situated at the distance of about 15 minutes travel from P.S. The property dealers knew about the posting of SHO etc. He did not remember the name of any police official who were present over there as long time has passed. He denied the suggestion that he was not able to tell their names as he was not present there nor he saw anything nor SC No. 57663/2013 FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 126 of 184 anything happened in his presence. Pinki was the relative of Deepak @ Deepu. During his business of property dealing as he did the fair business, he did not feel afraid of police officials. He denied the suggestion that accused was arrested in this case in his presence or that he was having knowledge that the recovery has been effected at the instance of accused on the date mentioned in the chargesheet. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely being neighbour and relative of accused Deepak @ Deepu. He voluntarily deposed that he is not relative of Deepak @ Deepu. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely at the instance of family of accused to save him from legal punishment.
76. DW-5 Smt. Asha Bobal, w/o late Sh Mohan Singh Bobal, aged about 64 years, housewife, r/o B-1/41, New Moti Nagar, Delhi deposed that accused Deepak @ Deepu is her son. Deepak @ Deepu was in custody in the present false case. The deceased Surender Singh Bobal was related to her as her dewar. He was found murdered on 27.03.2010. Her house is near to the house of deceased. After hearing the news of murder of Surender Singh Bobal, he alongwith his sons Deepak @ Deepu and Lovely alongwith other persons of the area had gone to the house of Surender Singh Bobal. Smt. Mena Bobal w/o Sh Surender Singh Bobal or his son Mukul were not present there in the house. The police was present there and they were investigating. The dog squad was also there which was smelling the persons present there but was not in a position to point out anybody. At the time when dog was smelling her, Deepak @ Deepu and Lovely all were present in the house. The police had collected the articles alongwith phone from the spot and thereafter, they went away.
SC No. 57663/2013FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 127 of 184 Smt Meena who is related to her as her devrani alongwith her son and others had reached the house in the night. She and her sons had gone to the house of Smt Meena for condolence. The police later on had called for her, Deepak @ Deepu and Lovely with other persons for taking the finger prints. Later on, the police had informed them that their finger prints did not tally with the chance prints taken by the police. Later on, police asked them that their polygraph test was also required to be done. She with Deepak @ Deepu and Lovely had gone for polygraph test but since the machine was out of order, therefore, it could not be done on that day. Police officials asked them that since the machine was not working, therefore, they called them to come later for their test. Deepak @ Deepu since had to go outside Delhi, therefore, he sought the permission of the IO Inspector Sh Jagminder Singh for going out. He told Deepak @ Deepu that he can go and since his finger prints have not matched, therefore, they had no objection in case Deepak @ Deepu goes outside Delhi and they will take his polygraph test on his return. All these talks had taken place in her presence. Thereafter, Deepak @ Deepu left Delhi for going on tour after taking permission of the police.
On 23.05.2010, Deepak @ Deepu had returned to the house in the night. After he had come, they took their dinner together but later on, at about 12/12.15 in the night, there was a bell on the door and Deepak @ Deepu went there to open the door. He found that Inspector Raj Kumar who was in dress alongwith certain other officials were in civil dress came inside the house. These police officials started beating Deepak @ Deepu and started thrashing him and asked him to open the Tijori. Due to this commotion, SC No. 57663/2013 FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 128 of 184 many persons from the locality gathered there including Karan, Vicky, Sachin, Sheel, Smt. Pinky and many other persons gathered there. In their presence, the police got his Tijori opened. On objection as to why they were getting the Tijori opened, the police officials Raj Kumar and others threatened her, Sachin, Pinky and others to be silent otherwise they all would be also arrested in this case. The police after getting the Tijori opened, took out cash worth about Rs. 13-14 lakhs, gold jewellery, papers. Deepak @ Deepu had objected on the pretext that the papers cash gold and jewellery contain the accounts of all the customers and classify the presence of these articles. All these things cash, gold jewelery were collected in a cloth but they did not give any receipt for the same nor prepared inventory and took away all the articles with them, they also took Deepak @ Deepu with them. Thereafter, he contacted his daughter, son in law, other relatives and went to police station to know about the arrest of Deepak @ Deepu but the police officials silenced them and assured for leaving Deepak @ Deepu later on but Deepak @ Deepu was never released and he was arrested in the present false case on suspicion. His polygraphy test with Lovely and other persons was conducted by the police but no adverse thing came. Deepak @ Deepu at the time of his arrest from the house told the police that he was present and was ready for his polygraphy test but the police intentionally did not get it done. Deepak @ Deepu has been falsely arrested.
77. On cross-examination by Ld. Addl. PP for the State, he admitted that police had not recorded their complaint nor she had any complaint with her at present to show that he had or wanted to move the application. He denied the suggestion that Deepak @ SC No. 57663/2013 FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 129 of 184 Deepu had committed murder on 23.05.2010 and looted all his jewellery cash and put all these things in his rented room owned by Dr. Manoj Jain at Paschim Vihar. He denied the suggestion that he was arrested from there and he got recovered all these things from there alongwith blood stained clothes and shoes. He denied the suggestion that Pinky or Sachin or any other person was not present at her house or story made by her regarding visit of the police and recovery by the police from Tijori of her house is false. Pinky is common relative of her and that of the complainant. She admitted that her dewar used to run the jewelery shop. Vol. Her son Deepak @ Deepu was also running the jewelery shop. He denied the suggestion that her son was not running any jewelery shop and she is deposing falsely to that effect to save his son from legal punishment
78. DW-6 is accused Deepak @ Deepu who has examined himself u/s 315 Cr.P.C deposed that deceased Surender was his real uncle (chacha), who used to reside in premises no. B-1/43, New Moti Nagar, Delhi alongwith his family members. On 27.03.2010, he came to know about the murder of his deceased uncle. Thereafter, he alongwith his other family members visited the house of deceased and neighbours also reached there. When he reached at the house of deceased there were many persons present in the house. In his presence, police also reached in the house of deceased. He also noticed blood on the earth in the house. He also noticed the blood on the body of the deceased. His real brother namely Inder reported the matter to the police. When they visited the house of deceased, none of the family members of the deceased were present in the house. After reporting the matter to SC No. 57663/2013 FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 130 of 184 police by his brother Inder, Police Dog squad and finger print bureau officials visited to the house of deceased. He was also present in the house of deceased. Officials of the finger print bureau lifted the chance prints and dog squad has also conducted their proceedings as required. Dog smell by taking round in the house. The family of deceased uncle was out of station on the said date. The fact that family of deceased uncle was out of station came to his knowledge after he reached in the house of the persons present there. After conducting the proceedings in the house, dog squad left. In his presence, nothing was seized by the police. The family of deceased came back in the night on the same day but he did not recollect the time of their reaching in the house. He alongwith his family members visited the house of deceased to pay the condolences.
On 28.03.2010, the dead body of deceased was collected from hospital and was taken for the cremation at Rajghat. Again said Punjabi Bagh, Cremation. Police officials were also present at the house of deceased on 28.03.2010, when they visited. Police made inquiries from him about his presence in the house of deceased and thereafter left. After about 10 days from 28.03.2010, police took him to Rajouri Garden, police station, where his finger prints/specimen were taken and finger prints/specimen of 8-10 persons were also taken at that time. Thereafter, he was relieved by the police and he came back to his house. After about 2-4 days after taking his finger prints/specimen, IO Jagminder told him that finger prints of none of the persons including him were matched. Thereafter, IO also told him that in case any inquiry, he will call him regarding the present case. After about 10-15 days from SC No. 57663/2013 FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 131 of 184 28.03.2010, IO took him for the polygraphy test in South Delhi, name and address of the department, he did not know. But as IO told him that the machine was not working and his said test could not be conducted. Thereafter, he again relieved stating that he will be called as and when required.
In the middle of April 2010, probable 14-15th April, he with the permission of IO visited Punjab due to some work for purchasing the property and for complying with the bulk order of the gold, which he received as he deal in gold and silver. He came back from Punjab in the evening of 23.05.2010. When he came back to Delhi from Punjab on 23.05.2010, he was having gold jewellery articles and cash about Rs. 14 lakhs. He kept the cash and jewellery in the locker of his jewellery shop. He was running the jewellery shop in his house address mentioned above, adjacent to the house of his deceased uncle. When he came back to his house, his family members told him that he had been called by IO in the PS and he told them that he would visit the PS in the morning.
In the night of 23-24.05.2010 at about 12:00 PM police visited his house and took away cash, jewellery and some papers pertaining to his business calculations. Police also took him to the PS despite his resistance to the same. The police party was headed by IO Jagminder Singh but he did not know the name of other police officials. Some police officials were in police uniform and some of them were in civil uniform. The paper which were taken by police were pertaining to accounts of his shop. The said papers were torn off by the IO and cash and jewellery were kept with them. He was sent to the lock-up of police station. His signatures SC No. 57663/2013 FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 132 of 184 were also obtained on some papers in the night. He requested the IO that the papers taken by them were pertaining to his business and also requested not to torn off but IO did not pay any heed to his request.
He had further deposed that he had been falsely implicated in that case. He opened the jewellery shop in the name and style of New Kartar Jewellers. From the day, he started running the jewellery shop, deceased and other family members having jealous attitude towards him and used to taunt him on any non-relevant issues. When he was taken by the IO in the night of 23- 24.05.2010, the wife of deceased and his son also accompanied the IO. He is innocent.
79. On cross-examination by Ld. Addl. PP for State, accused Deepak @ deepu deposed that at the time of incident, he was not having any sales tax/VAT licence to running the said shop. The said shop was in the name of New Kartar Jewellers in the name of his grandfather. He denied the suggestion that his brother was running the shop. When he received the information about the death of his uncle, he was present at his shop. It was around 10:00- 11:00AM. He did not know how many wounds/injuries were on the body of deceased uncle. He admitted that the police did not seized the articles at the spot in his presence. He denied the suggestion that when the dog squad reached there, he was not present there. He visited Punjab for about one month. During his entire stay in Punjab, one or two days, he himself admitted to have stayed in hotel, thereafter, he stayed in the houses of his relatives. The name of relative in whose house, he stayed is Sheela (his massi), Samrala Chowk, Mandir Wali Gali, District Ludhiana, SC No. 57663/2013 FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 133 of 184 Punjab. The approximate weight of the gold jewellery which he was possessing while coming back from Punjab was around 400- 500 gms. He took around 200-250 grams gold and some order of jewellery from one jeweller Rajesh, who was having shop at main bazar, near Railway Station, Ludhiana, Punjab. About Rs. 10-12 lakhs cash, he took from Rajesh and about Rs. 2-2.5 lakhs from the karigars (craftsman of jewellery articles). Prior to his visit mentioned herein above, he also visited Punjab about 3 months prior. At the time of incident, he was not paying any sales tax or income tax. He denied the suggestion that he did not bring anything from Punjab. He denied the suggestion that there is no shop of any Rajesh in main bazar near Railway Station, Ludhiana, Punjab. He denied the suggestion that during the abovesaid period he was absconding or that he did not stay in the house of his massi at Ludhiana. He admitted that he was not having any bill of hotel to prove his stay at Ludhiana, Punjab. He denied the suggestion that police has seized robbed cash and jewellery at his instance. He admitted that he was produced before Ld. MM. Question was asked when he was produced before Ld. MM, did he tell him that police officer had torn his documents? He answered in negative and voluntarily stated that as he was threatened as well as beaten in the PS by police and instructed him not to open his mouth in the court. He admitted that he did not tell Ld. MM about taking of his signatures on the blank papers. He was instructed by police officers not to disclose anything before Ld. MM. He admitted that as and when he was produced in the court from JC, he did not tell Ld. MM about tearing of documents and taking signatures on the documents.
SC No. 57663/2013FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 134 of 184 He came to know about the fact that family of my deceased uncle had gone to out of station. He came to know that they had to Dharamshala, Himachal. He denied the suggestion that he was well aware prior to death of his uncle that family members of his uncle were going to Himachal or that he got arranged the vehicle. He denied the suggestion that on 26.03.2010 for whole of the day, he denied the suggestion that was present in the house of his uncle or that he had opened the shop of deceased for melting the gold on that day. Police did not seize his clothes and shoes. He admitted that Dr. Manoj Jain was his landlord of the Paschim Vihar house. He admitted that he had purchased a car no. DL-3CAA-8904 from Karol Bagh area. He voluntarily stated that he had purchased the same much prior to 20.04.2010. He cannot comment whether he had purchased that vehicle for Rs. 1,95,000/-. He voluntarily stated that it was of about Rs. 2 lakhs. He denied the suggestion that he was aware that family members of his deceased uncle had gone out of Delhi. He denied the suggestion that on 26.03.2010 he was present in the house of deceased. He denied the suggestion that he had murdered his uncle and robbed Rs. 10 lakhs and 3.5 kg gold. He denied the suggestion that he absconded for about 2 months after the incident. He denied the suggestion that police recovered cash of Rs. 14 lakhs and gold articles at his instance. He denied the suggestion that police had also seized the knife from him, which was used in the present offence. He denied the suggestion that his blood stained clothes and shoes were recovered by police from his rented premise at Paschim Vihar belonging to Dr. Manoj Jain. He denied the suggestion that police did not tear any document. He denied the suggestion that police did not take SC No. 57663/2013 FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 135 of 184 his signatures on blank papers. He denied the suggestion that he had signed the documents before police after going through the same. He denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsely. FINAL ARGUMENTS
80. It is being argued by Ld. defence counsel that there is no eye witness in the present case and many of the PWs have turned hostile. The prosecution has not been able to bring on record any evidence which can prove the case of the prosecution. There is no DNA match. The witnesses are the relatives and therefore, they are interested witnesses. Accused Deepak @ Deepu has been falsely implicated in the present case due to business. There is no circumstantial evidence against him which the prosecution has been able to bring on record. Further, the case properties have been planted upon accused Deepak @ Deepu and no independent witness has joined when the recoveries were being made. Also, that accused Anoop and Haider Ali have been falsely implicated in the present case.
81. On the other hand, Ms. Parul Singh, Ld. Addl. PP duly opposed the submissions made on behalf of the accused persons with reference to the evidence on record. Also, it is argued that the depositions of the prosecution witnesses establish beyond doubt that the accused Deepak @ Deepu had killed the deceased and there is complete chain of circumstantial evidence which proves the case of the prosecution beyond reasonable doubts. Hence, the Ld. Addl. PP for the state has argued that accused Deepak @ Deepu be convicted of the offence u/s 302/39/397 IPC and accused Anoop and Haider Ali be convicted for the offence under Section 212/34 IPC.
SC No. 57663/2013FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 136 of 184 FINDINGS
82. I have heard the arguments and have perused the record carefully.
83. The present court would be first dealing with the offence u/s 302/394/397 IPC. Accused Deepak @ Deepu has been charged with the offences u/s 302/394/397 IPC. At the very outset, it is relevant herein to reproduce the sections as under for ready reference:-
SECTION 300 IPC "Murder.--Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or Secondly--If it is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused, or Thirdly--If it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or-- Fourthly-- If the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid".
SECTION 302 IPC "Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or [imprisonment for life], and shall also be liable to fine".
The offence of murder u/s 302 IPC is the most heinous crimes under the penal law which provides a maximum punishment uptil death. Section 302 IPC provides for punishment for murder in a very simple language thereby laying down that "whoever commits murder shall be punished with death or imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine". The substantive offence of murder is defined u/s 300 IPC which provides for an inclusive definition of murder, at the same time distinguishing it with section 299 IPC where the culpable SC No. 57663/2013 FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 137 of 184 homicide not amounting to murder has been explained. The offence of murder requires a perfect combination of important ingredients of crime which are mens rea and actus reus. It also prescribes that there should be a complete coherence between the actus and mens rea at the time of death of a person is committed. The section further provides that in case the degree of actus or mens rea is lessoned, or the circumstances falls under any of the exceptions as enumerated, in such an eventuality, the offence again slips back to Section 299 IPC. Simply stating in every offence of murder, there shall a culpable homicide as defined under section 299 IPC but not vice versa. Reliance placed on case titled Narsingh Challan Vs. State of Orissa (1997) 2 Crimes 78. SECTION 394 IPC:
Voluntarily causing hurt in committing robbery.- If any person, in committing or in attempting to commit robbery, voluntarily causes hurt, such person, and any other person jointly concerned in committing or attempting to commit such robbery, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Comment:Ingredients:
Not only the person who actually caused hurt by an associate of his/her would equally be liable for the mischief contemplated by this section :Shravan Dashrath Darange V. State of Maharastra (1997) 2 Crime 47 (Bom).
SECTION 397 IPC :
Robbery, or dacoity, with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt.-- If, at the time of committing robbery or dacoity, the offender uses any deadly weapon, or causes grievous hurt to any person, or attempts to cause death or grievous hurt to any person, the imprisonment with which such offender shall be punished shall not be less than seven years.
84. The victim/deceased Sh. Surender Singh was found dead SC No. 57663/2013 FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 138 of 184 on the morning of 27.02.2010. From the testimony of PW-05 Sh. Raj Kumar Arora, it is proved that deceased was seen alive till the night of 26.02.2010 as he had purchased a biscuit packet from his shop. No cross-examination has been done by the accused persons regarding the same. PW-3 Harvinder has further deposed that on the next morning, when his shop was not opened, he found it not usual and went to the house of the deceased along with the maid Servant and one Lovely/ PW-37. These facts have not been disputed by the Ld. Defence Counsel as no cross-examination has been done regarding the same.
It is clear from the above-mentioned unrebutted testimonies that death occurred in the fateful night of 26.02.2010-27.02.2010. PW Mukul and PW Meena found gold and cash missing.
It is pertinent to mention here that the prosecution has based its case on the circumstantial evidence as there in no eye-witness who has seen anyone committing the offence. The present court has to now weigh the case of the prosecution on scales of circumstantial evidence.
CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
85. In case like death/murder generally there is hardly any eye witness and law postulates in a criminal trial, two kinds of evidence adduced before the Court, one is the ocular evidence or the eye witness account which is basically taken to be a direct evidence and is based on the deposition of eye witness(es) on the basis of his/her observation made at the time of commission of crime. The other kind of evidence is circumstantial evidence which is basically known to be an indirect evidence, deducted from the existing facts and is an inference drawn from proved facts. Now SC No. 57663/2013 FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 139 of 184 this kind of evidence is also an admissible evidence in a criminal trial but this kind of evidence has to be treated with a lot of caution and circumspection by the criminal Court because of the inherent subjectivity in drawing the conclusions by the Court concerned. The law regarding the nature and character of proof of circumstantial evidence has been settled by several authorities of Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble High Courts in India. The locus classicus of the decision was rendered by Hon'ble Justice Mahajan of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Hanumant v. State of Madhya Pradesh 1953 Crl.L.J 129 who expounded the concomitants of the proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence by holding:
"The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. it must be such as to show that within all human probability the act must have been done by the accused."
86. In the celebrated judgment of Sharad Birdhi Chand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1984 SC 1622, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while examining the nature and character of proof of circumstantial evidence, reiterated its decision rendered in the aforesaid case of Hanumant's wherein the Hon'ble Court had propounded five golden principles regarding circumstantial evidence. The same are reproduced herein under:
1. The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established.
2. The facts so established should be consistent with the hypothesis of guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty.
3. The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency.SC No. 57663/2013
FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 140 of 184
4. They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved.
5. There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.
These five golden principles constitute the panchsheel of the proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence and in the absence of a corpus deliciti.
The Hon'ble Sarkaria J., in Ramanand & Ors., v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 1981 AIR 738 while enunciating the law relating to circumstantial evidence famously remarked that:
"perfect proof is seldom to be had in this imperfect world and absolute certainty is a myth".
87. The aforesaid five cardinal principles have been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in numerous judgments. Therefore, the principle, as laid down in aforesaid judicial dicta, is that in cases based on circumstantial evidence, circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is drawn should be fully proved and such circumstances must be conclusive in nature. Moreover, all the circumstances should be complete, forming a chain and there should be no gap left in the chain of evidence. The various circumstances in the chain of events must be such so as to rule out the reasonable likelihood of innocence of accused. The missing of important link snaps the chain of circumstances and the other circumstances cannot in any manner establish guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubts.
88. Keeping these conditions in mind and in light of the aforesaid guiding principles of law, this court shall now proceed SC No. 57663/2013 FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 141 of 184 with the case in hand and shall give findings with respect to each of the circumstance which can help us in arriving at the just decision of the case.
MEDICAL EVIDENCE
89. Postmortem report dated 28.03.2010 is Ex. PW-29/A shows that there were around 41 injuries marks/wounds on the body of the deceased and when the deceased was taken to the hospital, it was noted that"Paizama lining, white half shandow baniyan & blue underwear. Clothes stained in the blood. Multiple cut marks & torn over the bainyan & paizama. Whole body including face smeared with the blood, base of nails of both hands (upper limb"
fill up with the cloted blood, Eyes: close, cornea- dry/hazy. Mouth:close, PMC: present at the back, RM: present in both lower limbs".
90. The prosecution has examined PW 29, Dr Ajay Sharma, Senior Medical Officer, DDU Hospital, Delhi deposed that he joined his service since 2000 in DDU Hospital. That day, he has been deputed to prove the hand writing and signatures of Doctor Sushil Kr Chaurasia. On 28.03.2010, Dr Sushil Kr Chaurasia who passed away, he had conducted post mortem Vide PM No.320/10 on the body of deceased Surender Bobal, aged about 55 year male. He deposed that after conducting the postmortem prepared the report which is carried in five pages in his hand writing and bearing his signatures at point A. The PM report is Ex PW29/A. As per his report the time since death was approximately 36 hours and cause of death due to hemorrhagic shock subsequent to multiple stab injuries present all over the body. External injury No.4,5 and 18 were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of SC No. 57663/2013 FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 142 of 184 nature, individually as well as in combination all injuries are ante mortem in nature and in same duration. He can identify the hand writing and signatures of Dr Sushil Kr Chaurasia as he has seen him writing and signing during course of official duty. When he was recalled for the examination-in-chief and he further deposed in this case that on 20.07.17, and at that time, he was posted at DDU Hospital, Hari Nagar, New Delhi. He has gone through the subsequent opinion containing two sheets given by Dr. Sushil Kumar Chaurasia. As per the subsequent opinion, Dr. Sushil Kumar has opined that the injury no. 1 to 41 except injury no. 2 could be possible by either of these weapons mentioned at serial no. 1 and 2 i.e both the knives. Since Dr. Sushil Kumar Chaurasia stated to be expired, hence he is identifying his handwriting and signatures on the subsequent opinion Ex.PW29/B which bears the signatures of Dr. Sushil Kumar at point X on each page as He had worked with him and He had seen him writing and signing during the course of official duties.
91. In view of the detailed medical report, it is crystal clear that prosecution has been able to prove that the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature caused by multiple stab injuries.
92. Now the question remains whether the death has been caused by the accused Deepak @ Deepu and it is him who has committed robbery with deadly weapon. As I have discussed in the preceding paragraphs that the entire case of the prosecution is based upon the circumstantial evidence as nobody has seen the accused person committing the crime. The prosecution has based its case upon multiple incriminating circumstances. The present court has to see whether they are sufficient enough to complete the SC No. 57663/2013 FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 143 of 184 chain of the circumstantial evidence as the guidelines laid down by the hon'ble Supreme Court of India in various cases. FRIENDLY ENTRY AND SPECIFIC KNOWLEDGE
93. PW-5 Rajkumar Arora, PW-3 Harvinder, PW-37 Lovely, PW-8 Mukul and PW-10 Meena, did not found the gate broken. PW Mukul and PW Meena both deposed that the locks of entry gate were not broken and the have maintained their stand during their cross-examination. Even no cross examination has been done on this aspect. It was not even disputed by the Ld. Defence Counsel during the course of the final argument that the gates were broken. Further, it is clear from the testimonies that it was a friendly entry. Therefore, it can be safely gathered that the person who has committed offence has come to the house of the victim by entering the house with consent and the door was not broken in any condition.
94. Another circumstance which is important to note that knowledge of accused about the almirah in which the gold and cash was kept. As per deposition of PW Meena and PW Mukul it can be seen that there were two almirahs in the house of the victim. However, only one was found broken and PW Meena has specifically deposed that accused Deepak was having knowledge that which was the almirah in which cash and gold have been kept and, therefore it was only broken and not other one. FORENSIC EVIDENCE
95. The Crime scene was photographed by PW-36 HC Devender Kumar and the photos are Ex. PW-36/A along with their negatives i.e. Ex.PW-36/B. The blood stained articles as collected from the crime scene were sent to FSL. On 02.06.2010, during the SC No. 57663/2013 FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 144 of 184 PC remand of the accused Deepak @ Deepu, he got recovered on polythene from wash basin of his rented accommodation from which one shirt, one underwear, one baniyan, one pair of socks and one pair of canvas shoes were recovered. It also contained two blood stained knives and they were also sent to FSL. The report is Ex. PW-46/A and Ex. PW-46/B. The clothing was found to have human blood Group "A" and one of the knife also found human blood Group "A" which matched blood group of the deceased.
96. As I have already discussed that PW-29 Dr. Ajay Sharma has proves the subsequent opinion as given by Dr. Sushil Kumar Chauraisya and as per which the injuries no. 1 to 41 is possible by either of the weapon i.e. two knives recovered from accused Deepak @ Deepu. Further, the CFSL report Ex. PW46/A and PW46/B has confirmed that one of the knife contained blood group A which matched blood group of deceased.
RECOVERY AND DISCLOSURES RECOVERY MADE ON 24/25.05.2010 (DATE OF ARREST) Sr. No. Recovered Articles on 24/25.05.2010
1. Cash amounting to Rs. 10,00,000/-
2. Three Ladies rings of gold
3. Two gold chain
4. One pair of Tops
5. Two gold chain lockets
6. One locket of gold
7. One gold ring having "S"
97. The above mentioned recoveries have been made on the date of the arrest of the accused Deepak @ Deepu. A raiding party was made consisting of SHO Hoshiar Singh, PW-50 Insp. Raj Kumar, SI Raghubir Singh, PW-49/SI Veer Pal and PW-42 SI Preet Pal who was Special Staff, West. They had received the SC No. 57663/2013 FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 145 of 184 information regarding accused Deepak @ Deepu from a secret informer. At about 12:30 AM in night, one Satro Car came from the side of PVR cinema. The recovery has been made after apprehending the accused Deepak @ Deep who was driving the said car. PW-42 Retrd. SI Preet Pal has deposed that the registration No. Of the Santro Car was DL3C-8904 of silver colour and he searched the car and one black color bag of Reebok was found underneath the driver seat. The bag was checked by Insp. Raj Kumar. The bag was having many currency notes of Rs.500 and Rs.1000 in denomination. The said currency notes were counted and it was found to be of Rs.13,30,000/- . All the said currency notes were put into three separate plastic jars. The said jars were wrapped in white cloth and sealed with the seal of RK. One pouch of Kartar Jewellery was also found inside the bag. There were lots of jewellery articles inside the said pouch. The pulanda of the said pouch was prepared and sealed with the seal of RK. There was another dark color pouch in which some documents were found. The documents were put in the said pouch and then it was put in the recovered black bag and a pulanda of the black bag was prepared and sealed with the seal of RK. IO prepared the seizure memo of currency notes, worth Rs.13,30,000/-, jewellery and documents which is Ex. PW-42/B.
98. PW- 49 SI Veer Pal and PW-50 Insp. RajKumar have deposed on similar lines. PW-49 SI Veer Pal has deposed that he had given signal to the driver of the said Santro Car to stop, however, he did not stop and thereafter, he was apprehended and the recoveries were made. It is deposed by him that accused got recovered one hand cum shoulder bag of black color from SC No. 57663/2013 FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 146 of 184 underneath the driver seat of the car. The same was checked by the IO in his presence and it was found containing cash amount of Rs.13,30,000/- in denomination of Rs.1,000/- and Rs.500/-. From the same bag, three ladies rights of gold affixed with diamond ring and two gold chains and one pair of tops affixed with cherry color stone (nag), two gold chain lockets, one locket of gold on which the picture of Sri Guru Nanak Dev ji was engraved, one gold ring on which the word "S" was engraved. He has also deposed that other articles along with some documents were recovered from the accused. Similarly, PW-50 Insp. Raj Kumar has deposed that the above mentioned articles were recovered from the accused.
99. It is argued by Ld. defence counsel that recovery is planted one as there is no public witness who has joined the investigation when the recovery was made and it has been made after long gap. It is further argued by ld. Defence counsel that testimony of recovery witnesses should not be believed in as they all are the police official. Ld. Defence counsel submitted that the testimonies of PWs can not be relied upon as they are the police witnesses. However, in my opinion, there are number of judgments in which it has been held that the testimonies of police witnesses is equal footing with the testimony of any other witness, if it is clear, coherent and reliable. To substantiate my view, I would like to refer to the following judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in State Government of NCT of Delhi Vs. Sunil and another (2001) 1 SCC 652, it has been observed:
"In this context we may point out that there is no requirement either under Section 27 of the Evidence Act or under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to obtain signature of independent witnesses on the record in which statement of an accused is written. The legal obligation to call independent SC No. 57663/2013 FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 147 of 184 and respectable inhabitants of the locality to attend and witness the exercise made by the police is cast on the police officer when searches are made under Chapter VII of the Code. Section 100(5) of the Code requires that such search shall be made in their presence and a list of all things seized in the course of such search and of the places in which they are respectively found, shall be prepared by such officer or other person and signed by such witnesses. It must be remembered that search is made to find outa thing or document which the searching officer has no prior idea where the thing or document is kept. He prowls for it either on reasonable suspicion or on some guess work that it could possibly be ferreted out in such prowling. It is a stark reality that during searches the team which conducts search would have to meddle with lots of other articles and documents also and in such process many such articles or documents are likely to be displaced or even strewn helter-skelter. The legislative idea in insisting on such searches to be made in the presence of two independent inhabitants of the locality is to ensure the safety of all such articles meddled with and to protect the rights of the persons entitled thereto. But, recovery of an object pursuant to the information supplied by an accused in custody is different from the searching endeavor envisaged in Chapter VII of the Code. This Court has indicated the difference between the two processes in the Transport Commissioner, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad & anr. Vs. S. Sardar Ali & Ors. (1983 SC 1225). Following observations of Chinnappa Reddy J. can be used to support the said legal proposition: Section
100 of the Criminal Procedure Code to which reference was made by the counsel deals with searches and not seizures. In the very nature of things when property is seized and not recovered during a search, it is not possible to comply with the provisions of sub-section (4) and (5) of section 100 of the Criminal Procedure Code. In the case of a seizure [under the Motor Vehicles Act], there is no provision for preparing a list of the things seized in the course of the seizure for the obvious reason that all those things are seized not separately but as part of vehicle itself. Hence, it is a fallacious impression that when recovery is effected pursuant to any statement made by the accused the document prepared by the investigating officer contemporaneous with such recovery must necessarily be attested by independent witnesses. Of course, if any such statement leads to recovery of any articles it is open to the investigating officer to take the signature of any person present at that time, on the document prepared for such recovery. But, SC No. 57663/2013 FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 148 of 184 if no witness was present or if no person had agreed to affix his signature on the document, if is difficult to lay down, as a proposition of law, that the document so prepared by the police officer must be treated as tainted and the recovery evidence unreliable. The Court has to consider the evidence of the investigating officer who deposed to the fact of recovery based on the statement elicited from the accused on its own worth.
We fell that it is in archaic notion that actions of the police officer should be approached with initial distrust. We are aware that such a notion was lavishly entertained during British period and policemen also knew about it. Its hang over persisted during post-independent years but it is time now to start placing at least initial trust on the actions and the documents made by the police. At any rate, the Court cannot start with the presumption that the police records are untrustworthy. As a proposition of law the presumption should be the other way around. That official acts of the police have been regularly performed is a wise principle of presumption and recognized even by the legislature. Hence, when a police officer gives evidence in Court that a certain article was recovered by him on the strength of the statement made by the accused it is open to the Court to believe the version to be correct if it is not otherwise shown to be unreliable. It is for the accused, through cross-examination of witnesses or through any other materials, to show that the evidence of the police officer is either unreliable or at least unsafe to be acted upon in a particular case. If the Court has any good reason to suspect the truthfulness of such records of the police the Court could certainly take into account the fact that no other independent person was present at the time of recovery. But, it is not a legally approvable procedure to presume the police action as unreliable to start with, nor to jettison such action merely for the reason that police did not collect signatures of independent persons in the documents made contemporaneous with such actions."
100. It is abundantly clear from the abovesaid judgment that there is no rule of law which enjoins upon the Court not to rely upon the testimony of the police officials in the absence of any independent/public witness. The only concern is to be more cautious and circumspect before placing any reliance on their SC No. 57663/2013 FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 149 of 184 testimonies. In other words, their testimony is to be subjected to careful scrutinization and assessment as compared to the testimony of any other public person. On the touchstone of these principles, the present court is of the opinion that in the instant case, there is no ground not to believe the testimonies of all the police personnel.
101. Perusal of the testimony of PW-42 Preet Pal, PW-49 SI Veer Pal and PW-50 Insp. Raj Kumar clearly shows that they had deposed that they had asked the passerby to join the investigation, however, none gave them their willingness to join investigation. They all have been cross-examined by the Ld. Defence counsel, however, they struck to their stand and nothing could be elicited from their testimonies which can in any way give, even, a hint that the recovery is a planted one.
102. In view of the above, the argument of defence counsel that the testimony of police officials should be discarded merely because there is no independent public witness of recovery does not hold ground as their testimonies are clear, coherent and inspires the confidence of the court. Reference in this regard can be made to the decision in Ajmer Singh Vs. State of Haryana 2010(2)RCR (Crl.) 132 and Ram Swaroop Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) 2013 VI AD (SC 228).
103. PW-8 Mukul i.e. son of the deceased deposed that no door or door latch (kunda/lock) was found broken and it appears that it was a friendly entry. He checked the jewellery shop, he found that gold approximately 3.5 kg was missing as his father used to give money on interest after keeping ornaments at mortgage. The gold weighing 3.5 kg and amount of Rs.10 lakh were found missing. He SC No. 57663/2013 FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 150 of 184 also noticed that the gold chain locket and the golden kada and the rings of his father were also missing. The locket was having the impression of Guru Nanak and one of the rings of his father word "S" was written. Other ordered jewellery of the customer was also found missing. The weight of the gold article of his father and the ordered customer jewellery was weighing 250-300 grams.
104. PW-10 Meena also deposed on similar lines and stated that no door or door latch (kunda/lock) was found broken and it appears that it was a friendly entry and approximately 3.5 kg of gold was present at that time as his husband used to give money on interest after keeping ornaments at mortgage. The gold weighing 3.5 kg and amount of Rs.10 lakh were found missing. The gold chain locket and the golden kada and the rings of her husband were also missing. The locket was having the impression of Guru Nanak and one of the rings of his father word "S" was written. Other ordered jewellery of the customer was also found missing. The weight of the gold article of his husband and the ordered customer jewellery was weighing 250-300 grams.
105. Both PW-08 Mukul and PW-10 Meena identified the accused Deepak @ Deepu in the court and they identified the gold articles which belonged to the deceased when MHC(M) concerned produced the case properties. One small jewellery pouch having chain, on which Kartar Jewellers was written, chain was opened and it was also found containing one gold locket on which picture of Guru Nanak Dev was iscribed. It also contains one gold ring on which word "S" was written by diamond on black stone. PW-08 Mukul and PW-10 Meena identified the case properties. These articles belonged to the deceased. PW Mukul has specifically SC No. 57663/2013 FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 151 of 184 deposed that he had identified the jewellery as his father used to wear them daily and further, he used to work with his father and therefore, he knew what was being mortgaged by the customers in the shop. They both have struck to their stand during cross- examination and they both deposed emphatically on oath that the case property as recovered from accused Deepak @ Deepu belonged to deceased Surender Singh.
RECOVERY MADE ON 02.06.2010 (DURING PC REMAND)
Sr. No. Recovered Articles on 02.06.2010
(blood stained cloths)
1. One Shirt, One pant, One baniyan, One
underwear, Pair of Socks
2. Pain of Canvas Shoes
3. Two knives
106. After the arrest, during the PC remand on 02.06.2010, PW ASI Bricha Singh, PW SI Jagminder Singh and Ct. Suman has taken the accused Deepak @ Deepu on police remand and from his rented premises i.e. H. No.A-5/291, Third Floor, Paschim Vihar, he got recovered one polythene bag from wash basin which contain blood stained jeans/pant, one shirt, one underwear, one baniyan, one pair of socks and one pair of canvas shoes. He also got recovered two knives which were blood stained from the same bag. PW-ASI Bricha Singh has deposed that on 02.06.2010, he got recovered the above-mentioned case properties which were then seized by the IO/ Insp. Jagminder Singh. PW-13 Dr. Manoj Jain was the landlord and the PW-27 Pankaj Arora was also present when these recoveries were effected and they have identified the accused to be the same person to whom the premises i.e. A-294, Paschim Vihar was given on rent. Dr. Manoj Jain has also deposed SC No. 57663/2013 FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 152 of 184 that the case properties were recovered in his presence. He was not able to identify them during examination in chief, however, he admitted to have them recovered during cross-examination by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State and he also stated that he has not been able to identity the same as approximately 9 years have elapsed. PW-27 Pankaj Arora was also present when these recoveries were made. He has turned hostile on the aspect of recovery, however, he deposed that the accused has infact given H. No.A-5/291, third Floor, Paschim Vihar on rent. He also identified the accused Deepak @ Deepu in the court that day.
107. One pair of canvas shoes were also recovered. PW-07 Suresh has deposed that on 26.03.2010, accused Deepak has purchased on pair of Canvas Shoes. He had identified the accused correctly. He has also identifed the Canvas Shoes which have been recovered to be the same which he has sold to the accused. However, on 30.07.2012, when he was called for further cross- examination, he maintained the stand that the shoes have been sold by him, however, he turned hostile on the identity of the accused and he denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsely.
108. Testimonies of abovesaid witnesses shows that the PW- Manoj Jain turned hostile during the cross-examination and PW-27 Pankaj Arora also turned hostile on the aspect of recovery. Also, PW-07 Suresh has turned hostile at a later stage duly cross examination though and he struck to his stand in examination in chief and the cross-examination before 30.07.2012.
109. At this stage, I would like to rely upon the law on hostile witness as it is well settled law that the testimony of such witnesses should not be rejected in toto and their testimonies can SC No. 57663/2013 FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 153 of 184 be read in evidence, even if they have turned hostile on some aspects. In this regard, I place reliance upon Ramesh Kumar and Ors. Vs. State 2013 VIII AD (Delhi) 617 Crl.A. Para 4 of the said judgment is relevant which is reproduced as follows:-
"... It is settled legal preposition that statement of hostile witnesses can not be rejected in toto. The evidence of such witnesses can not be treated as effaced or washed of the record altogether. It can be admitted to the extent that their version is found to be dependable, upon a careful scrutiny thereof. Statement of PW9 (Neer Singh) can be taken into consideration to the extent it is in consonance with the testimony of PW6 (Jagjit Singh)..."
110. In the case of Selvamani Vs. The State, relying on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the cases of Bhagwan Singh v. State of Haryana, Sri Rabindra Kuamr Dey v. State of Orissa, Syad Akbar v. State of Karnataka (1991) 3 SCC 627 : 1991 INSC 153 (1976) 1 SCC 389 : 1975 INSC 306 (1976) 4 SCC 233 : 1976 INSC 204 (1980) 1 SCC 30 : 1979 INSC 126, it was held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that the evidence of a prosecution witness cannot be rejected in toto merely because the prosecution chose to treat him as hostile and cross-examined him. It was further held that the evidence of such witnesses cannot be treated as effaced or washed off the record altogether but the same can be accepted to the extent their version is found to be dependable on a careful scrutiny thereof...
The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that in the case of C. Muniappan and Others v. State of Tamil Nadu10, it has been observed:
" It is settled legal proposition that : (Khujji case, SCC p. 635, para 6) '6. ... the evidence of a prosecution witness cannot be rejected in toto merely because the prosecution chose to treat him as hostile and cross-examined him. The evidence of such witnesses cannot be treated as effaced or washed off the record SC No. 57663/2013 FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 154 of 184 altogether but the same can be accepted to the extent their version is found to be dependable on a careful scrutiny thereof."
In State of U.P. v. Ramesh Prasad Misra, (1996) 10 SCC 360] this Court held that (at SCC p. 363, para 7) evidence of a hostile witness would not be totally rejected if spoken in favour of the prosecution or the accused but required to be subjected to close scrutiny and that portion of the evidence which is consistent with the case of the prosecution or defence can be relied upon. A similar view has been reiterated by this Court in Balu Sonba Shinde v. State of Maharashtra, (2002) 7 SCC 543], Gagan Kanojia v. State of Punjab, (2006) 13 (2010) 9 SCC 567 : 2010 INSC 553 SCC 516], Radha Mohan Singh v. State of U.P., (2006) 2 SCC 450], Sarvesh Narain Shukla v. Daroga Singh, (2007) 13 SCC 360] and Subbu Singh v. State, (2009) 6 SCC 462.
111. Thus, the law can be summarized to the effect that the evidence of a hostile witness cannot be discarded as a whole, and relevant parts thereof which are admissible in law, can be used by the prosecution or the defence.
112. In the present case, PW Dr. Manoj Jain and PW Suresh have turned hostile during the cross-examination. The witness turning hostile during cross examination has been dealt extensively in Khujji @ Surendra Tiwari Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, it has been held that:
"...But counsel for the State is right when he submits that the evidence of a witness, de-clared hostile, is not wholly effaced from the record and that part of evidence which is otherwise acceptable can be acted upon. It seems to be well settled by the decisions of this Court Bhagwan Singh v. State of Haryana, [1976] 2 SCR 921; Rabinder Kumar Dey v. State of Orissa, [1976] 4 SCC 233 and Syed lqbal v. State of Karnataka, [1980] 1 SCR 95 that the evidence of a prosecution witness cannot be rejected in toto merely because the prosecution chose to treat him as hostile and cross examined him. The evidence of such witness- es cannot be treated as effaced or washed off the record altogether but the same can be accepted to the extent their version is found to be dependable on a careful scrutiny thereof..."SC No. 57663/2013
FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 155 of 184 The High Court came to the conclusion and, in our opinion rightly, that during the one month period that elapsed since the recording of his examination-in-chief something transpired which made him shift his evidence on the question of identity to help the appellant. We are satisfied on a reading of his entire evidence that his statement in cross-examination on the question of identity of the appellant and his companion is a clear attempt to wriggle out of what he had stated earlier in his examination-in-chief".
113. In view of the above case law, the present court is of the opinion that testimony of PW Suresh and PW Dr. Manoj Jain can be read in evidence as they have supported the case of the prosecution in their examination-in-chief. PW Suresh has supported the case of the prosecution even in the cross examination done prior to 20.07.2012. PW Suresh has deposed emphatically that on 24.11.2011 accused had purchased the canvas shoes from him. He has even identified that pair of shoes during his evidence. On 21.1.2012 he has deposed specifically that on 25.3.2010 police had come along with Deepu in custody and he had recollected his face after seeing him on 27.5.2010 that he is the same person who had purchased the pair of shoes from his shop on 26.3.2010. Twice the cross examination was deferred. It is in the common knowledge that a public person, when called again and again for cross examination, he may turn hostile at later stage and in such cases, the evidence has to be meticulously scrutinized and would not effect the testimony recorded earlier can be relied upon, in view of the judgment of as cited above. Therefore, the present court have no hesitation to hold that canvas shoes as recovered from the possession of accused were infact bought from the shop of PW-7 Suresh. The canvas shoe has the blood stains as the blood group of deceased as per report Ex.
SC No. 57663/2013FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 156 of 184 PW46/B.
114. It has been argued by the Ld. Defence Counsel that all the recoveries that have been made on 31.05.2010 while the accused was in custody and therefore, it was argued by ld. Counsel for the accused that any confession made in the presence of the police officials cannot be considered as it is hit by the provisions of Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act. In this backdrop, the present court proceed to delve upon the case laws laid down by the superior courts on the point of Section 27 of the Evidence Act. In the case of Ramanand @ Nand Lal Bharti Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh Crl. Appeal 6465 of 2022 decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 13.10.2022, held that:
"27. How much of information received from accused may be proved.--Provided that, when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved."
115. The conditions necessary for the applicability of Section 27 of the Act are broadly as under: (1) Discovery of fact in consequence of an information received from accused; (2) Discovery of such fact to be deposed to; (3) The accused must be in police custody when he gave information; and (4) So much of information as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered is admissible - Mohmed Inayatullah v. The State of Maharashtra:
AIR (1976) SC 483 Two conditions for application-(1) information must be such as has caused discovery of the fact; and (2) information must relate distinctly to the fact discovered Earabhadrappa v. State of Karnataka: AIR (1983) SC 446".SC No. 57663/2013
FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 157 of 184
116. In the Constitution Bench decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Deoman Upadhyaya reported in AIR (1960) SC 1125, in Paragraph71 explains the position of law as regards the Section 27 of the Evidence Act:
"71. The law has thus made a classification of accused persons into two: (1) those who have the danger brought home to them by detention on a charge; and (2) those who are yet free. In the former category are also those persons who surrender to the custody by words or action. The protection given to these two classes is different. In the case of persons belonging to the first category the law has ruled that their statements are not admissible, and in the case of the second category, only that portion, of the statement is admissible as is guaranteed by the discovery of a relevant fact unknown before the statement to the investigating authority. That statement may even be confessional in nature, as when the person in custody says: "I pushed him down such and such mineshaft", and the body of the victim is found as a result, and it can be proved that his death was due to injuries received by a fall down the mineshaft." [Emphasis supplied]"
117. The scope and ambit of Section 27 of the Evidence Act were illuminatingly stated in Pulukuri Kottaya and Others v. Emperor, AIR 1947 PC 67, which have become locus classicus, in the following words:
"10. ....It is fallacious to treat the "fact discovered" within the section as equivalent to the object produced; the fact discovered embraces the place from which the object is produced and the knowledge of the accused as to this, and the information given must relate distinctly to this fact. Information as to past user, or the past history, of the object produced is not related to its discovery in the setting in which it is discovered. Information supplied by a person in custody that "I will produce a knife concealed in the roof of my house" does not lead to the discovery of a knife; knives were discovered many years ago. It leads to the discovery of the fact that a knife is concealed in the house of the informant to his knowledge, and if the knife is proved to have been used in the commission of the offence, the fact discovered is very relevant. But if to the statement the words be added "with which I stabbed A" these words are inadmissible since they do SC No. 57663/2013 FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 158 of 184 not relate to the discovery of the knife in the house of the informant."
118. Thus, what is admissible being the information, the same has to be proved and not the opinion formed on it by the police officer. In other words, the exact information given by the accused while in custody which led to recovery of the articles has to be proved. It is, therefore, necessary for the benefit of both the accused and the prosecution that information given should be recorded and proved and if not so recorded, the exact information must be adduced through evidence. The basic idea embedded in Section 27 of the Evidence Act is the doctrine of Confirmation by subsequent events. The doctrine is founded on the principle that if any fact is discovered as a search made on the strength of any information obtained from a prisoner, such a discovery is a guarantee that the information supplied by the prisoner is true. The information might be confessional or non inculpatory in nature but if it results in discovery of a fact, it becomes a reliable information. The "fact discovered" envisaged in the section embraces the place from which the object was produced, the knowledge of the accused as to it, but the information given must relate distinctly to that effect.
119. At that stage, it is also imperative to note Section 8 of the Evidence Act. In case of Prakash Chand Vs. State AIR 1979 SC 400, it was held that even if we hold disclosure statement made by the accused is not admissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act it is still relevant under Section 8 of the Evidence Act.
120. Thus, the argument raised by ld. Counsel for the accused that the blood stained knives, blood stained clothes and the SC No. 57663/2013 FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 159 of 184 jewellery articles belonging to the deceased had been planted does not seem to have much force as this was a fact especially within the knowledge of the accused and applying the principle of Confirmation by Subsequent events enshrined in Section 27 Evidence Act as discussed above, were in the special knowledge of the accused and thus, the recovery of these articles are a relevant fact and a link in the chain of circumstantial evidence.
121. In the present case, the accused has taken a rental premises in Paschim Vihar and when he was taken their on PC remand, blood stained clothes, 3 knives were found which was within the special knowledge of the accused Deepak. On that day, he got recovered the clothes from in the washbasin along with the blood stained canvas shoes & socks which were in his special knowledge. It is was incumbent upon the accused to explain the presence of the knives and aforesaid blood stained articles which are stated to have been recovered at the instance of accused. Needless to say that these articles had blood of the group matched with that of the deceased (Ex.46/B) Although, disclosure is a weak piece of evidence but the recovery of knives and blood stained articles at the instance of the accused corroborates his version and as such it was incumbent upon the accused to explain the presence of abovesaid articles in the said premises in question as it was not a place of easy access to any third person.
122. It has also been argued by ld.defence counsel that blood stained clothes and the shoes as recovered from the accused does not belong to him, infact he has never brought the pair of shoes. As discussed earlier, PW-7 Suresh kumar has deposed that on 26.3.2010 accused Deepak @ Deepu had purchased one pair of SC No. 57663/2013 FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 160 of 184 canvas shoes from him. He has identified him correctly present in the court. He has also identified the canvas shoes and he has identified shoes as the same canvas shoes which were sold to accused, which is certainly provided a link in the chain of circumstantial evidence.
RECOVERY OF JEWELLERY BELONGING TO THE
CUSTOMERS.
123. PW Mukul and PW Meena both have maintained the stand that mortgaged jewellery of the customers was also found missing. The deceased used to work as jeweller and at the time of his death, total jewellery of 3.5 kg was found and some other gold was also there which contained various jewellery articles belonging to the customers who were yet to take the delivery.
PW-31 Harjeet Kaur has stated that she had taken diamond ring on superdari from the court which has been recovered from the accused Deepak @ Deepu. She has also identified her signature on the TIP proceedings and she has also deposed in the cross examination by ld.Addl.PP that it is correct that she had mortgaged his ring with Kartar Jeweller.
PW-34 Vanita has also deposed that she had pledged her gold with Surender (deceased) owner of Kartar Jeweller and she had come to the court for taking the same on superdari. She identified her signature on the TIP proceedings.
PW-35 Aarti has deposed that she had pledged her ear rings to the owner of Kartar Jewellers and she had handed over them in the TIP proceedings Mark PW-35/A.
124. PW Vanita has identified the case property i.e. chain and she has struck to her stand during cross examination. It is argued by SC No. 57663/2013 FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 161 of 184 Ld.Defence counsel that the testimony of PW Vanita should not be believed as TIP proceedings are defective and only one chain was shown to her. She has even admitted in her cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel that she was shown only one chain. However, PW Vanita has identified her chain. PW Harjeet Kaur and PW Arti have also identified their jewellery which was recovered from accused, therefore, in the opinion of the present court, though, they have turned hostile on the other aspect, however, they identified the case property which can be read in evidence and it very well connects the link in chain of circumstantial evidence to the recovery made on 02.06.2010 and on 31.05.2010 which have been proved by the police witness whose testimonies have been dealt in detail in preceding paragraphs and the present court has come to the conclusion that their testimonies have remained unblemished and it is clean & coherent which can be made basis for the conviction of the accused Deepak @ Deepu.
RECOVERY OF BLOOD STAINED ARTICLES FROM ACCUSED DEEPAK @ DEEPU
125. Another important incriminating circumstance which has come in the evidence is the recovery of blood stained cloths etc. of the accused. The blood group on these blood stained articles has matched with the blood group of the victim. PW-46 Ms. L Babyto Devi, Asst.Director, FSL has deposed that on Ex.PW46/A the blood stained clothes and Blood Group A was detected which is the blood group of victim. Ld.Defence counsel has argued that just because the blood group has matched does not conclusively prove that the blood group detected from the clothes was that of the accused only. Even if, it is presumed that they belonged to the SC No. 57663/2013 FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 162 of 184 accused, however, the blood is that of the victim is not proven as no DNA match has been done. However, in the opinion of the court, though, it is correct that DNA has not been matched, however, blood group has matched and it can be one of the links in the chain of circumstantial evidence.
RECOVERY OF THE GOODS/ARTICLES BELONGING TO THE VICTIM FROM ACCUSED DEEPAK @ DEEPU AND PRESUMPTION U/S 114 INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT.
126. The question for consideration would be whether the recoveries of the jewelleries belonging to deceased from accused Deepak @ Deepu at his instance while in custody and the recovery of knives used in assault from the house of rented premises taken by the accused Deepak @ Deepu would be sufficient to arrive at a conclusion that it is the accused Deepak @ Deepu who is the perpetrator of the crime which took place on the fateful night and it is the accused Deepak @ Deepu who committed murder as well as robbery in the house of deceased. This conclusion can be arrived at only by taking recourse to the provisions of Section 114 of the Evidence Act under which the Court is entitled to presume existence of certain facts.
127. Under Illustration (a) to Section 114 the Court may presume that a man who is in possession of stolen goods after the theft, is either the their or has received the goods knowing them to be stolen, unless he can account for his possession. From the prosecution evidence, as already discussed it must be proved that the prosecution has been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the commission of murder and the robbery formed part of one transaction which has been fully unfolded through the prosecution SC No. 57663/2013 FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 163 of 184 witnesses and in such situation the recovery of the stolen properties from the accused Deepak @ Deepu and at his instance and no explanation from the accused on being questioned under Section 313 Cr. P.C. reasonably points to the guilt of accused establishing the fact that it is he who had committed the murder in the house and then committed the robbery and left the scene of occurrence. Whether a presumption under Section 114 Illustration
(a) of the Evidence Act should be drawn in a given situation is a matter which depends on the evidence and circumstances of its recovery, the intervening period between the date of occurrence and the date of recovery, the explanation of the persons concerned from whom the recovery is made are all factors which are to be taken into consideration in arriving at a decision.
In the case of Baiju vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1978 Supreme Court 522, the hon'ble Apex Court had held that the prosecution having succeed in proving beyond any doubt that the commission of the murders and robbery formed part of one transaction and the recent and unexplained possession of the stolen property by the appellant justified the presumption that it was he and no one else, who had committed the murders and the robbery. In the said case the offence had been committed on the night of January 20 and 21, 1975 and the stolen property was recovered from the house of the appellant on January 28,1975.
128. In the cases of Shivappa and other vs. The State of Mysore- AIR 1971 SC 196 the same question was considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and it was held that:
"If there is other evidence to connect an accused with the crime itself, however, small, the finding of the stolen property with him is a piece of evidence which connects him further with the crime.SC No. 57663/2013
FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 164 of 184 There is then no question of presumption. The evidence strengthen the other evidence already against him. It is only when the accused cannot be connected with the crime except by reason of possession of the fruits of crime that the presumption may be drawn. In what circumstances the one presumption or the other may be drawn, it is not necessary to state categorically in this case. It all depends upon the circumstances under which the discovery of the fruits of crime are made with a particular accused. It has been stated one more than one occasion that if the gap of time is too large. the presumption that the accused was concerned with the crime itself gets weakened. The presumption is stronger when the discovery of the fruits of crime is made immediately after the crime is committed. The reason is obvious. Disposal of the fruits of crime requires the finding of a person ready to receive them and the shortness of time, the nature of the property which is disposed, of, that is to say, its quantity and its character determine whether the person who had the goods in his possession received them from another or was himself the thief or the dacoit. In some cases there may be other elements which may point to the way as to how the presumption may be drawn. They differ from case to case .."
In the aforesaid case the recoveries had been made within 5 days of the date of occurrence and therefore, the Court ultimately came to the conclusion that the High Court was right drawing the presumption that the person concerned are dacoit themselves.
129. In Gulab Chand vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (1995) 3SCC 574, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India considered at length the law relating to Section 114, Illustration (a) of the Evidence Act and the circumstances under which the presumption can be drawn and it was held by Court that no hard and fast rule can be laid down as to what inference should be drawn from certain circumstance. It was further held that if the ornaments in possession of the deceased are found in possession of the person soon after the murder, a presumption of guilt may be permitted. But if several months had expired in the interval, the presumption cannot be permitted to be drawn having regard to the SC No. 57663/2013 FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 165 of 184 circumstances of the case. The Court approved the earlier decision of the Court in Earabhadrappa vs. State of Karnataka (1983) 2 SCC 330 wherein it was held that the nature of presumption and illustration (a) under Section 114 of the Evidence Act must depend upon the nature of the evidence adduced. No fixed time-limited can be laid down to determine whether possession is recent or otherwise and each case must be judged on its own facts. The question as to what amounts to recent possession sufficient to justify the presumption of guilt varies according as the stolen article is or is not, calculated to pass readily from hand to hand. If the stolen article were such as were not likely to pass readily from hand to hand, the period of one years that elapsed cannot be said to be too long particularly when the appellant had been absconding during that period. In the case of Gautam Maroti Umale vs. State of Maharashtra- 1994 Supp. (3) SCC 326, on the other hand the Hon'ble Apex Court Court held mere recovery of ornaments belonging to the deceased at the instance of the accused did not connect him with the murder and at the most he can be convicted for possession of stolen property under Section 411 IPC.
130. To the same effect is of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Union Territory of Goa vs. Bea Ventura D'Sourza and another - 1993 Supp (3) SCC 305 "...bearing in mind the principle laid down in the aforesaid cases and on examining the facts and circumstances of the present cases which have been established by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt there did cannot be any hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the prosecution case as against Devendran under Section 302 has been provided beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence of PW7 indicating that Devendran had brought the pistol MO 2 to get trigger welded and getting the same welded by PW-7 Devendran had taken away the pistol, the identification of the pistol MO 2 by said PW-7, the recovery of pellets MO 75 SC No. 57663/2013 FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 166 of 184 series from the house of accused Devendran two days after the fateful incident i.e. on 26.11.1992, the seizure of empty cartridges and ball beareaus (Paulrus pellets), the recovery of similar pellets from the body of PW-5 as were recovered from the house of accused Devendran, the evidence of Ballistic expert PW-24 that the MO-2 must have been fired which is apparent from the examination of empty cartridges, the jewelleries MOs 16 to 23, MOs 24 to 28 and MOs 30 to 59 belonging to the informant were recovered on the basis of the statement of accused Devendran and those jewelleries were identified by PW-4 to the effect that those ornaments had been taken away by the culprits from her house are sufficient to raise the presumption under Section 114 of Illustration (a) of the Evidence Act and the conclusion becomes irresistible that is accused Devendran who committed the murders in the house PW- 5 on 24.11.1992 and thereafter, left the place with the booties and as such the prosecution case against accused Devendran under Section 302 IPC must be held to be proved beyond reasonable doubt.
131. Applying the aforesaid law on the facts and circumstances of the case, it is crystal clear that the recoveries as made on 24/25.05.2010 & 02.06.2010 that blood stained jeans pant, one shirt, one underwear one baniyan, one pair of socks and one pair of Canvas Shoes, two blood stained knives, Jewellery which has been identified by the prosecution witness is sufficient to raise the presumption u/s 114 Illustration (a) of Indian Evidence Act and it is sufficient to come to the conclusion that it is the accused Deepak @ Deepu has committed murder in the house of the deceased on the fateful night of 27.03.2010 and he thereafter, left the place with the booties and which would prove the case of the prosecution u/s 302 IPC along with Section 394/397 IPC beyond reasonable doubt. There is no explanation by accused as to how he came into mortgaged property belonging to PW 31 harjeet Kaur, PW-34 Vanita & PW 35 Anita. The case property has been released to these witnesses on Superdari.
SC No. 57663/2013FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 167 of 184 PROPERTY BOUGHT BY THE ACCUSED DEEPAK @ DEEPU
132. PW Vipin Anand has proved that accused brought a Santro Car from him. Ld. Defence counsel argued that it was not sold to him and the original DL etc. are not on record. However, PW Vipin Anand denied the suggestion that he did not sell the Santro Car to the accused Deepak @ Deepu. PW-20 Pradeep Kumar deposed that in 2010, accused Deepak @ Deepu has brought one plot no. 262 and he was the authorized person of the company I.e. palm city. He identified the accused Deepak @ Deepu. PW-21 Vishal employee of Palm City also identified the accused and deposed that the accused has purchased property from them. PW- 33 Palwinder Singh, Patwari proved that the accused brought the property i.e. Killa No. 20/1, Killa No. 14/2, 10/1 etc. In the cross- examination they all struck to their stand. There is no explanation by the accused Deepak @ Deepu as to how he has come into possession of the huge amount that he had purchased those properties. He has stated in the statement u.s 313 Cr.P.C stated that he has brought the same out of his own money, but he has failed to bring on record any witness or any documentary evidence to prove the source of his wealth.
CONDUCT
133. The conduct of the accused Deepak @ Deepu post occurrence of the crime requires a detail deliberation. One of the most important incriminating circumstances that has come on record during the evidence, is the suspicious conduct of the accused Deepak @ Deepu. PW-8 Mukul is the son of victim/deceased Surender Singh Bobbal who has deposed in his SC No. 57663/2013 FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 168 of 184 examination in chief that accused Deepak @ Deepu used to visit at their residence and on 26.3.2010 accused Deepak @ Deepu had come to their residence and continuously asked as to when they were leaving Delhi and he insisted that he would arrange the vehicle for going to Shimla and then they left Delhi on 26.3.2010 and on 27.3.2010 at about 11.45 PM. They were informed regarding the murder of his father.
134. Similar is the deposition of PW-10 Meena Bobbal who is wife of deceased Surender Singh has deposed that on 26.3.2010 when they had to go to Shimla, accused Deepak @ Deepu remained inside their house and he went outside and again visited their house. Accused Deepak @ Deepu inquired again and again regarding their going to Shimla, Dharamshala. She has even explained that he wanted to confirm whether they were going to Dharamshala or not. Even he was insisting that if the vehicle is not arranged he would get the vehicle arranged and he was assuring that they should depart for Shimla.
135. In the cross examination of PW-10 Meena only a few questions have been put regarding unnatural behaviour by the Ld. defence counsel. Further one of the most important unnatural conduct which speaks volumes pointing towards the guilt of the accused is his mysteriously fleeing away from his house specifically when he was called for his Lie Detection Test.
136. PW-23 Inspector Jagminder singh has deposed that on 13.4.2010 investigation of the present case was marked to him. Thereafter, he sought consent from Deepak @ Deepu Inder@ Lovely, Navkesh@ Sonu and Smt.Asha for conducting their polygraph test by way of serving notice upon them. Accordingly SC No. 57663/2013 FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 169 of 184 all four persons had given their consent for conducting said test and notice given to Deepak @ Deepu is Ex.PW23/1 which bears his signature at point X. Accused Depeak @Deepu had given in his own hand undertaking that he will be available for the said test on 19.4.2010 to 21.4.2010. Reply of the accused is Ex.PW23/J. However, accused Deepu disappeared on 19.4.2010 and despite his sincere efforts he did not find any clue about his whereabouts. Thereafter, he had obtained NBWS from the court of ld.MM. This is very important unnatural behaviour of the accused and the adverse inference can be dawn against him as per Indian Evidence Act.
As per section 114(h) "that if a man refuses to answer a question which he is not compelled to answer by law, the answer, if given, would be unfavourable to him."
Accused Deepak @ Deepu was to produce himself for the lie detecting test, however, he had ran away from the spot which would certainly give rise to the presumption u/s 114(A) which would then lead to 106 of Indian Evidence which put the burden of proving fact especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon the person himself.
Section 106 Indian Evidence Act shows that when a person does an act with some intention other than that which the character and circumstances of the act suggest, the burden of proving that intention is upon him.
137. Therefore, if the act of his fleeing away was with some other intention that by making himself unavailable for the lie detecting test could have been explained by the accused himself SC No. 57663/2013 FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 170 of 184 and in the present case he has failed to do so.
138. In the statement of section 313 Cr.P.C accused has tried to provide the explanantion that he has gone for some business purposes and he has not fled away from the spot., however from the testimony of PW-23 Jagminder Singh, it is crystal clear that the accused was having knowledge that he has been called for Lia Detection Test, however, he still failed to appear for the same. In these circumstances, it is clear that he was unable to provide any plausible explanation. In his defence evidence, accused was tried to provide the explanation that he had gone to Ludhiana for business purpose. However, he was not able to provide his hotel details/place of stay details in which he has stayed. He even failed to bring on record any witness i.e. his relative from Ludhiana where he claimed to have stayed during the said tenure in Ludhiana.
STAY IN HOTEL DECENT
139. PW-25 Ajay Kumar has deposed emphatically on oath that the accused Deepak @ Deepu stayed in the Hotel Decent on 19.04.2010 and the CCTV footage is Marked as Mark PW25/B (Colly). He had stayed there in the name of one Rajesh Kumar, however, PW Ajay Kumar has identified him as the person who has stayed on 19.04.2010. Accused has taken the police party to hotel decent on 21.05.2010. PW Ajay Kumar also identified the accused Deepak @ Deepu in the court. Also, it is pertinent to mention here that the accused Deepak @ Deepu was to present himself for the Lie Detection Test for 19.04.2010, however, he fled away and stayed in Hotel Desent in Paharganj, Delhi. There is no explanation on behalf of the accused as to why he stayed in the SC No. 57663/2013 FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 171 of 184 said hotel in Paharganj when he is having his own home in Delhi, and in the different name which is quite unnatural behaviour of the accused and the same has remained unexplained.
MOTIVE AND OPPORTUNITY TO COMMIT THE OFFENCE
140. Coming to the aspect of motive and opportunity with the accused to commit the crime. It is argued by the Ld. Counsel for the defence that the accused Deepak @ Deepu has no motive to kill his uncle and infact it was PW-10 Meena and PW-08 Mukul who have falsely implicated him in the present case. In the case titled as Nandu Singh Versus State Of Madhya Pradesh (Now Chhattisgarh), Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No(s). 7998 of 2021), it is held that by the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India that:
"..Relying on Anwar Ali vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, this Court made the 1(2020) 10 SCC 1665 legal position clear in following words:- .......it is true that the absence of proving the motive cannot be a ground to reject the prosecution case. It is also true and as held by this Court in Suresh Chandra Bahri vs. State of Bihar that if motive is proved that would supply a link in the chain of circumstantial evidence but the absence thereof cannot be a ground to reject the prosecution case. However, at the same time, as observed by this Court in Babu Vs. State of Kerala (2010) 9 SCC 189, absence of motive in a case depending on circumstantial evidence is a factor that weighs in favour of the accused..."
141. No doubt in the cases based on circumstantial evidence, existence of motive assumes significance and plays crucial link completing the chain of circumstantial evidence, however, if the evidence is clear and unambiguous and the circumstances proves the guilt of the accused, the same is not weakened even if the motive is not established. In judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Suresh Chandra Bahari v. State of Bihar, 1995 Supp (1) SCC 80 it was held that if motive is proved SC No. 57663/2013 FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 172 of 184 that would supply a link in the chain of circumstantial evidence but the absence thereof, cannot be a ground to reject the prosecution case.
142. The motive is a thing which is primarily known to the accused themselves and it is not possible for the prosecution to explain what actually prompted or ex-cited them to commit the particular crime. The motive may be considered as a circumstance which is relevant for assessing the evidence but if the evidence is clear and unambiguous and the circumstances prove the guilt of the accused, the same is not weakened even if the motive is not a very strong one.
143. In the present case the accused was certainly having ample opportunity to murder his uncle as there was no one in the house and he used that opportunity as he wanted to take the money and jewelery which proves the motive to kill the deceased and further the accused Deepak @ Deepu could easily overpower a man of old age and his entry in the house of his uncle would as such not have been objected and therefore, there was no breaking down of the gates of the house.
144. Therefore, motice has been proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt which provided additional link in the chain of circumstantial evidence.
PRESUMPTION UNDER SECTION 106 OF THE EVIDENCE ACT
145. As I have discussed in the preceding paragraphs that accused has behaved suspiciously when he wanted the PW Mukul and PW Meena to go to leave the house which is clear in the testimonies of these two witnesses. It is also clear that the SC No. 57663/2013 FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 173 of 184 testimonies, the accused has even got shop opened on that day and he was present in their house. Both PWs Meena and Mukul have deposed empathically on oath that accused was present on the day of the incident in their house and he was coming and going from the house. He mysteriously fled from his house on the day as fixed for lie detection test i.e. on 19.04.2010 and he stayed in hotel on the very same day. As I have discussed there is no explanation by the accused as to why he has stayed in a hotel when he was having own house in Delhi. The weapon of offence was recovered at his instance on 02.06.2010. The blood group has matched on one of the accused to be that the deceased. He also got recovered the blood stained clothes which also contains the blood group of that of the accused. These facts were recovered due to the very specific knowledge of the accused Deepak @ Deepu. Thus, the presumption u/s 106 Evidence Act gets squarely attracted in this case.
146. At this stage reliance is placed on the case titled as Prem Singh Vs. State of NCT of Delhi, Criminal Appeal No. 01 of 2023 decided on 02.01.2023 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is held that:
14........Moving on to the other applicable provisions and principles, we may usefully take note of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, casting burden of proving a fact especially within knowledge of any person, and a few relevant decisions in regard to its operation qua an accused. 14.1. Section 106 of the Evidence Act reads as under: -
"106. Burden of proving fact especially within knowledge.
- When any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him."
In the case of Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of SC No. 57663/2013 FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 174 of 184 Maharashtra:(2006) 10 SCC 681:
"14. If an offence takes place inside the privacy of a house and in such circumstances where the assailants have all the opportunity to plan and commit the offence at the time and in circumstances of their choice, it will be extremely difficult for the prosecution to lead evidence to establish the guilt of the accused if the strict principle of circumstantial evidence, as noticed above, is insisted upon by the courts. A judge does not preside over a criminal trial merely to see that no innocent man is punished. A judge also presides to see that a guilty man does not escape. Both are public duties. (See Stirland v. Director of Public Prosecutions -quoted with approval by Arijit Pasayat, J. in State of Punjab v. Karnail Singh.) The law does not enjoin a duty on the prosecution to lead evidence of such character which is almost impossible to be led or at any rate extremely difficult to be led. The duty on the prosecution is to lead such evidence which it is capable of leading, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. Here it is necessary to keep in mind Section 106 of the Evidence Act which says that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him......."
147. In the case of Sudru v. State of Chhattisgarh: (2019) 8 SCC 333 had been the one where the appellant was charged of the murder of his son in his house; and the principal prosecution witnesses, including wife of the appellant, turned hostile to the prosecution but, the facts did come out of their testimony that the deceased was left alone in the company of the appellant and the next day, the deceased was found dead. It was held:
"8. In this view of the matter, after the prosecution has established the aforesaid fact, the burden would shift upon the appellant under Section 106 of the Evidence Act. Once the prosecution proves, that it is the deceased and the appellant, who were alone in that room and on the next day morning the dead body of the deceased was found, the onus shifts on the appellant to explain, as to what has happened in that night and as to how the death of the deceased has occurred."SC No. 57663/2013
FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 175 of 184
148. Further, it was argued by the ld. Counsel for the accused that the police officials did not carry the investigation in a fair manner and falsely implicated the accused. All the police officials have clearly proved the chain and the manner of investigation and merely because the witnesses are police officials their testimony cannot be disbelieved and for this reliance is placed on the case of Girija Prasad Vs. State of M.P. (2007) 7 SCC 625. Further, all the material witnesses were the relatives of the accused and there was no reason to believe that they would falsely implicate him in such a heinous crime.
DEFENCE EVIDENCE
149. The Deepak @ Deepu has examined six defence witness including himself. DW-2 Shri Kishan has deposed that on 10/12.03.2010, he has given some old gold of about 55 gms and also cash of Rs.1,00,000/- for getting manufactured the one set of gold, one matar mala and 04 gold bangles. Deepak sought the time for about two or two and a half months for manufacturing the above mentioned ornaments. However, during the cross examination by Ld. PP for the State that he has denied the suggestion that he admitted that he has not brought the receipt. He never lodged any complaint to the police or any authority regarding recovery of alleged jewellery and cash of Rs.1 lacs till this date. It is beyond comprehension of the present court, any person would give such a huge amount to the accused however, he would not initiate any proceedings to get back the same. DW-3 Asha Rani has tried to prove that the deceased and his family members used to have rivalry with accused and she has deposed that on 31.05.2010, the police official have taken out jewellery, SC No. 57663/2013 FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 176 of 184 papers and cash from tijori of deceased and however, she admitted during the cross examination that she did not complain any higher police authorities and any other department that accused Deepak @ Deepu has been falsely implicated in that case or that police officials had taken out cash, jewellery articles and documents from the house of the accused Deepak @ Deepu, even he had never given any application to the IO or SHO in this regard. Therefore, the testimony of this witness is not sustainable.
150. DW-4 Sachin Vohra has also tried to prove a false implication and has deposed that on 23.05.2010 at about 12/12.15 AM, he heard some noise coming from the street in front of his house. When he came out from his house, he saw that many people had gathered in the street in front of house of Deepak @ Deepu at B-1/41, New Moti Nagar. He saw that the police officials were taking out the gold cash and certain papers from the Tijori. They were taking out the whole jewelery gold and cash alongwith certain papers and were putting in the clothes with them. When he asked those police officials if they had any search warrant for searching the house, he was threatened by the police officials that he should keep silence or he would also be arrested in the same case made out against Deepak @ Deepu. He also deposed that some pinki objected to the same. However, he himself admitted that he did not gave any application to the senior officer of the police about this incident as he was scared. The witness has himself admitted that he never filed any complaint to the police, he never taken recourse of legal authority, therefore, the testimony of DW Sachin Vohra seems to be motivated.
151. DW-5 Asha Bobal has deposed that that accused was very SC No. 57663/2013 FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 177 of 184 well available for the polygraph test but police intentionally did not get it done. She has also deposed that police had collected the articles alongwith phone from the spot and thereafter, they went away. However, she also admitted in cross examination done by Ld. PP for the State, the police had not recorded their complaint nor she had any complaint with her at that time to show that he had or wanted to move the application. Both DW Asha Rani, DW Sachin Vohra, DW Asha Bobal have deposed that when police was removing the articles from tijori, many other persons were present. DW Sachin Vohra has named them to Karan, Steel, Pinki and Mikki, DW-5 have said that they were Pinki and Sachin, however, no such persons has come in evidence or they made any complaint to the police or to any other legal authority to such kind of incident ever taking place. All the witness admitted that some of the persons present were the relatives, however, it is beyond comprehension of the present court, even the relatives did not come forward to lodge any complaint of such kind of incident if it had occurred. The story seems to to concocted and false. I have discussed in detail regarding the recovery made by the police on 31.05.2010 and 02.06.2010. The recovery made on 02.06.2010 have been admitted to be made in presence of independent public witness PW-30 Dr. Manoj Jain whose testimony has been relied by the present court in view of the law on hostile witnesses and the witnesses turning hostile at later stage during cross examination. There is nothing on record to prove any motive as to why these police witness and Dr. Manoj Jain would depose falsely against accused Deepak @ Deepu. No enmity has been brought on record by the accused. PW-26 Ravinder Kumar and PW-27 Pankaj Arora SC No. 57663/2013 FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 178 of 184 had even admitted that premises no. A-5/294, Paschim Vihar was infect rented house and these witness even admitted the rent agreement Ex. PW13/A which provides corroboration to the testimony of Dr. Manoj Jain which ultimately strengths the recovery as made on that day.
152. Lastly, accused Deepak @ Deepu has examined himself u/s 315C Cr. PC and he has deposed that he has gone for polygraph test but machine was not working, however the present court has come to the conclusion in the preceding paragraphs that the accused has knowingly fled away from his house. He had also deposed regarding the incident dated 23.05.2010, however, he also failed to prove on record as to why he has not filed any police complaint and why other people has also chosen to remain silent on the issue. Even when some of the people were his relatives. He has stated in his cross examination, he went to the Punjab and stayed in hotel & thereafter, he was stayed in house of his relatives, however, there is no witness or documents which has been brought on record by the accused that he has stayed in any Hotel or stayed in his relatives. He has also deposed during cross examination that he has stayed in the house of his mosi Sheela in Ludhiana Punjab. However, he has not brought any evidence to prove this case. Further, he has deposed that he got 200-250 grams gold and some order of jewellery of one jeweler Rajesh, this jeweler had not brought in evidence, accused Deepak @ Deepu admitted that he was not having any bill of hotel to prove its case to stay in Ludhiana, Punjab. He even admitted he was produced before Ld. MM and he did not tell the Ld. MM about his signature being taken on blank papers. Deepak @ Deepu has also deposed SC No. 57663/2013 FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 179 of 184 that he has purchased the Santro car no. DL3CAA-8940 from Karol Bagh area much prior to 20.04.2010, however, PW-1 Vipin Anand has deposed the the same vehicle was purchased on 20.04.2010. Therefore, the testimony of accused Deepak @ Deepu is not supported by any documentary evidence or any other defence witness, it seems to be just an after thought. INCONSISTENCIES AND DISCREPANCIES
153. As far as the contention of the Ld. counsel for accused that there are certain discrepancies in the testimony of PWs, I would like to say that minor discrepancies on trivial mater not touching the core of the matter cannot bring discredit to the story of the prosecution. Giving undue importance to them would amount to adopting a hyper-technical approach. It has been held in Thoti Manoher Vs. State of A.P. (2012) 7 Supreme Court cases in para
38. '...the Court, while appreciation the evidence, should not attach much significance to minor discrepancies, for the discrepancies which do not shake the basic version of the prosecution case are to be ignored...'
154. It is settled proposition of law that even if there are some omissions, contradictions and discrepancies, the entire evidence cannot be disregarded. After exercising care and caution and sifting through the evidence to separate truth from untruth, exaggeration and improvements, the court comes to a conclusion as to whether the residuary evidence is sufficient to convict the accused. Thus, an undue importance should not be attached to omissions, contradictions and discrepancies which do not go to the heart of the matter and shake the basic version of the prosecution's witness. As the mental abilities of a human being cannot be expected to be attuned to absorb all the details of the incident, SC No. 57663/2013 FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 180 of 184 minor discrepancies are bound to occur in the statements of witnesses. Vide Sohrab v. State of M.P., (1972) 3 SCC 751, State of U.P. v. M.K. Anthony, (1985) 1 SCC 505, Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat, (1983) 3 SCC 217, State of Rajasthan v. Om Prakash, (2007) 12 SCC 381, Prithu v. State of H.P., (2009) 11 SCC 588, State of U.P. v. Santosh Kumar, (2009) 9 SCC 626 and State v. Saravanan, (2008) 17 SCC 587"
CONCLUSION
155. It is a settled law that in case of circumstantial evidence, the paramount requirement is that every possible link in the chain should be complete along with other incriminating circumstances including motive and the recovery of weapon of offence and should unequivocally point towards the guilt of the accused and cannot be solely based on one or two incriminating circumstances and reliance is placed on the judgment of Sharad Birdhi Chand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra AIR 1984 Supreme Court 1622(supra).
In the present case from the detailed findings above and the relevant case laws the prosecution has been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that :
I. The gate of the house were not found to be broken as proves by prosecution witness and it was friendly entry and accused was having specific knowledge regarding the almirah in which the gold and cash was kept. II. The presence of the accused was at the house of deceased only and he was coming or going to the house and he even got the shop opened on the day of holiday. He wanted the other family member to leave the house. All this is clear SC No. 57663/2013 FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 181 of 184 from the testimony of PW-10 Meena and PW-08 Mukul. III. The accused had the motive to commit robbery as is proved by the prosecution witness that the jewellery articles, cash and gold were found missing.
IV. There was recovery of the jewellery, blood stained clothes, knives which were the weapon of the offence subsequent upon the disclosure of accused Deepak @ Deepu.
V. The subsequent opinion (Ex. PW46/B) clearly reveals that the injury (injury No. 1 to 42) could be possible by the weapon i.e. knife as recovered at the instance of the accused.
VI. From the FSL report, the blood group generated from the cloth exhibit i.e. blood stained gauge, bed sheet, namakdani etc as lifted from the place of incident at the spot and the blood stained clothes as well as knife recovered on 02.06.2010 at the instance of accused matched with the blood group of the deceased.
VII. The conduct of the accused post occurrence that he fled away from his house on the day of lie detection test and he stayed in hotel decent on the very same day is highly improbable and points towards the guilt of the accused. VIII. There was no reason for false implication of the accused by the own family members at the time of the investigation of the case as he was the grandson of the deceased and it is highly improbable that all the family members would give their statement to falsely implicate the accused.
SC No. 57663/2013FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 182 of 184
156. Thus, all the circumstances as proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt points only towards the guilt of the accused and no other hypothesis is possible. The circumstances proved are conclusive in nature and complete the chain of events. Thus, the accused Deepak @ Deepu is held guilty and is convicted for the offences u/s 302 IPC and also u/s 394/397 IPC.
157. Coming now the accused Haider Ali and Anup who have been charged for the offence u/s 212 IPC, the relevant section reproduced herein for ready reference :-
Harboring offender- Whenever an offence has been committed, whoever harbours or conceals a person whom he knows or has reason to believe to be the offender, with the intention of screening him from legal punishment;
If a capital offence- Shall, if the offence is punishable with death, be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years, and shall also be liable to fine;
If punishable with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment- and if the offence is punishable with (imprisonment for life), or with imprisonment which may extend to ten years, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine;
158. There is no evidence on record that accused Anup and Haider have harboured or conceal the accused Deepak @ Deepu. There is no evidence on record except the disclosure statement. Further, not even a single prosecution witness pointed towards the guilt of the accused persons namely Anop and Haider. Therefore, SC No. 57663/2013 FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 183 of 184 they are hereby acquitted for the offence u/s 212 IPC. Both of them are directed to comply with the directions u/s 437 A Cr.P.C.
159. Let accused Deepak @ Deepu be heard on the point of sentence.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN AMBIKA Digitally signed by AMBIKA
SINGH
SINGH Date: 2024.12.31 14:19:32 +0530
COURT ON THIS 21.12.24
(AMBIKA SINGH)
ADDI. SESSIONS JUDGE-02
(WEST):DELHI
21.12.24
SC No. 57663/2013
FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 184 of 184