Delhi District Court
Ought The Proof To Be". Lord Baron Lagge ... vs . on 24 June, 2020
-:1:- IN THE COURT OF JITENDRA KUMAR MISHRA, ASJ/SPECIAL JUDGE (NDPS), NORTH DISTRICT, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI. SC No. 49605/15 FIR No. 200/06 U/s.302 IPC and 25/27 Arms Act. P.S. Mangolpuri State Vs. 1. Shiv Charan Bansal S/o Late Sh. Suraj Bhan Bansal R/o GH-4/5 Kothi No. 63, Suvidha Kunj Pitam Pura, Delhi ........... Accused No.1 2. Shailender Singh S/o Sh. Attar Singh R/o B-4/51, Sector-11, Rohini, Delhi ........... Accused No. 2 3. Nanhe @ Lalit Mann S/o Sh. Nafe Singh R/o Village Naya Bans, Delhi ............ Accused No.3 Date of institution : 28.07.2006 Date of assignment : 10.01.2020 Date of arguments : 19.03.2020 Date of written arguments filed : 13.04.2020 Date of judgment : 24.06.2020 (FOURTEEN YEARS OLD CASE) JUDGMENT :
1. Accused persons were arrested by the Police -:2:- officials of Police Station Mangolpuri, Delhi and were challaned to the court for trial of commission of the offences punishable U/s 302/120B/201/34 IPC and 25/27 Arms Act.
2. The prosecution story in brief is that on 21.03.2006 at about 4:40 pm, DD no. 26 PP Dost, PS Mangolpuri Delhi, an information was received to the effect that in house no. 260, Dipali, Pitam pura, one person had shot a neighbourer and fled away from the spot. On receipt of said information, SI Dharamvir Singh along with Ct. Vijay and Prasann Singh reached at the spot where some persons were found gathered and near to main gate of house no. 260, lot of blood was found lying. It was informed that injured had been taken to Jaipur Golden hospital by his wife and his neighbour. No eye witness was found present. SI Dharamvir Singh leaving behind Ct. Prasan at the spot, reached at Jaipur Golden hospital, Rohini where on MLC no. 7537 one injured was found to have been brought with the history of bullet injury and subsequently he was declared brought dead. At the hospital also, no eye witness was found present and it was revealed that wife of deceased had left for home. SI Dharamvir leaving Ct. Vijay Kumar at hospital, reached at the spot where wife of the deceased met him. Statement of wife of deceased was recorded who stated in her statement as under:
"I reside along with my family at 260, Dipali Enclave, Pitampura, -:3:- Delhi and I am a housewife. Today i.e. on 21.03.2006 at about 4.30 pm, I along with my husband was at home when the door bell rang. I went to main gate. At the main gate, a boy was standing whose age was around 25/30 years and he was wearing goggles and his beard had grown up. He was wearing black cap and was holding a bag. On asking, he told that he had come with a courier which was in the name of S.N. Gupta. When I asked from which place he had come, he stated that he had come from Bank and could not hand over the courier to her as same is in the name of S. N. Gupta and will hand over the same to him only. I asked if there is only a lady available and no gents available, then, to whom he will hand over the said courier to which he stated that he will hand over the courier to Sh. S. N. Gupta only. I went inside and told all facts to my husband. My husband asked me that he will see and he went towards the gate. I went inside the kitchen. I heard a noice of firing from the side of main gate. I went towards the gate. At that time my servant Seema screamed and stated that Madam bahar aao.
When I reached towards the main gate, I found my husband lying on the floor and blood was oozing out from his chest. I raised alarm and on hearing my alarms, some neighbours came there with whom she took her husband to Jaipur Golden Hospital where doctors declared her husband as brought dead. I can identify that person if shown to me who had come along with a courier in the name of my husband. He had fired at my -:4:- husband and committed his murder.
Action be taken against him."
3. On the basis of the statement of the complainant, present case was registered and investigation was initiated.
3A. During investigation, seven accused persons namely Sachin Bansal, Narender Man, Lalit Mann@ Nanhe, Rajbir Singh ,Joginder Singh Sodhi, Shivcharan Bansal and Shailender Singh were arrested. After conclusion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed in court against accused persons for offences punishable under sections 302/120B/201/34 IPC and 25/27 Arms Act.
4. After supplying copies of charge-sheet to the accused persons U/s 207 Cr.P.C., ld. Metropolitan Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Sessions.
5. Vide order dated 17.03.2008, ld. Sessions Court directed that charges be framed against accused Joginder Singh for offences punishable U/s 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC. Charges were also ordered to be framed against accused Narendra Mann for offence punishable U/s 302 IPC read with section 34 IPC and for the offence punishable U/s 201 IPC for causing disappearance of the weapon of offence after allegedly taking it from the alleged contract killer. Charge was also ordered to be framed against accused Narender Mann for offence punishable U/s 25 of the Arms Act. Charges were -:5:- ordered to be framed against accused Sachin Bansal and Shailendra Singh for offence punishable U/s 25 of the Arms Act. Charges were accordingly framed to which the afore mentioned accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Accused persons namely Shiv Charan Bansal, Lalit Mann@ Nanhe and Rajbir Singh were discharged. Order on charge was challenged on behalf of prosecution through a revision petition filed before Hon'ble Delhi High Court to the extent that accused Shiv Charan Bansal, Lalit Mann and Rajbir Singh were wrongly discharged and accused Shailender Singh and Sachin Bansal were charged only for offence U/s 25 of the Arms Act instead of section 302 read with section 120B IPC and accused Narender Mann and Joginder Singh Sodhi were charged under section 302 read with section 34 IPC although they ought to have been charged under section 120B IPC. Accused Shailender Singh also challenged the order on charge praying that he should be discharged. Crl. Revision petition no. 405 of 2008 was filed by accused Sachin Bansal challenging the Order of the Sessions Court whereby he was charged under section 25 of the Arms Act and he prayed for his discharge. Accused Narender Mann filed Crl. Revision petition No 342 of 2008 challenging the order passed by the Sessions Court wherein he was charged for the offences U/s 302 read with section 34 IPC, 201 IPC and under section 25 and section 29(b) of the Arms Act and he also prayed for his discharge.
-:6:-6. The Hon'ble High Court vide a common order dated 29.05.2009 held that Narender Mann, Sachin Bansal and Joginder Singh Sodhi were to be charged for the offences punishable U/s 302 IPC read with section 120B IPC and section 25/27 Arms Act and substantively under section 120 B IPC. The order of the Sessions Court ordering discharge of Shiv Charan Bansal, Lalit Mann and Rajbir Singh was affirmed by the Hon'ble High Court. Revision petition of accused Shailender Singh was allowed by the Hon'ble High Court and he was ordered to be discharged.
7. Thereafter, Criminal Appeals were filed by the State and the complainant to challenge the Order of Discharge passed in favour of accused Shiv Charan Bansal, Lalit Mann @ Nanhe, Shailendra Singh and Rajbir by Hon'ble Delhi High Court.
8. In the mean time, trial against accused Narender Maan, Sachin Bansal and Joginder Singh Sodhi was conducted and vide judgment dated 04.02.2016, accused Narender Maan and Sachin Bansal were acquitted of the charges levelled against them whereas accused Joginder Singh Sodhi was convicted for having committed offences punishable under sections 302 IPC and under section 27 of Arms Act 1959.
9. Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its order dated -:7:- December 5, 2019 directed this Court;
A) To frame charges against Shiv Charan Bansal U/s 302 read with section 34 IPC and section 120B IPC and section 201 IPC and to proceed with the trial in accordance with law.
B) To frame charges against accused Lalit Mann U/s 302 IPC read with section 34 IPC and section 120B IPC and proceed with the trial in accordance with the law.
C) To frame charges against Shailender Singh U/s 302 IPC read section 34 IPC and section 25/27/54/59 Arms Act.
10. Charges were framed as directed by Hon'ble Supreme Court on 10.01.2020 and the trial was commenced.
11. Trial proceeded and during the course of trial, prosecution in order to substantiate its case against the accused, examined thirty seven witnesses in all.
The depositions made by the witnesses are as under:
i) PW-1 Rakesh Gupta deposed before the court that his father Sh. S.N. Gupta was murdered on 21.03.2006 and he came to know about the murder of his father at about 4.45/5.00 PM and at that time he was present in his factory located at Mangol Puri. He further -:8:- deposed that he immediately reached at Jaipur Golden Hospital where the doctors informed him that his father had expired. He further deposed that he was also informed that the postmortem examination on the dead body of his father will be conducted on the next day at SGM Hospital, Mangol Puri. PW-1 further deposed that on the next day i.e. on 22.03.2006 he reached at SGM Hospital. He deposed that dead body of his father was shown to him and he had identified it vide identification statement Ex. PW-21/A. He further deposed that after postmortem examination, he had received the dead body of his father vide receipt Ex. PW-13/B. PW-1 further deposed that he was having business partnership with accused Shiv Charan Bansal and further deposed that he and accused Shiv Charan Bansal were running a factory of footwear under the name and style of Akash International in Mangol Puri, Delhi, which was dissolved on 31.03.2005. He further deposed that he and his family members had to recover a huge sum from accused Shiv Charan Bansal. PW-1 further deposed before the court that accused Shiv Charan Bansal was also running committees and his father had invested a huge sum in the committees run by accused Shiv Charan Bansal. He further deposed that whenever his father used to demand money then accused Shiv Charan Bansal used to make excuses (Aana Kani Karte The).
ii) PW-2 Rajesh Gupta deposed before the court -:9:- that he was doing the business of manufacturing foot wears at Kundli. He deposed that on 21.03.2006 while he was present at his factory at Mangol Puri, he received a message regarding firing at his father. He deposed that he immediately rushed to his house. He further deposed that on reaching his house, he found one envelope lying outside the gate of his house, which had been left by the courier person. He further deposed that the envelope was bearing the name of his father as well as address. He further deposed that he found that one printed paper of some class was contained in that envelope. He further deposed that he handed over that envelope to the police at the time when his statement was recorded by the police. PW-2 correctly identified accused Shiv Charan Bansal in the court and deposed that he and his son Sachin Bansal were residing at Suvidha Kunj and were running committees. He deposed that accused Shiv Charan Bansal was cousin maternal uncle of his wife Ms. Payal Gupta. He further deposed that he and his father had invested huge amount in the committees run by accused Shiv Charan Bansal and his son Sachin Bansal. PW-2 further deposed that he and Sachin Bansal were having partnership in M/s Accent Shoes Pvt. Ltd., Bahadur Garh, Haryana. He further deposed that he and his family wanted to get out of that company. He further deposed that he and his family members had invested huge amount in Accent Shoes Pvt. Ltd. and they wanted to get out of that company because accused Shiv Charan -:10:- Bansal and his son Sachin Bansal had siphoned off huge amount in Akash International in which his brother Rakesh Gupta and accused Shiv Charan Bansal were partners. He further deposed that accused Shiv Charan Bansal and his son Sachin Bansal wanted to grab their share in M/s Accent Shoes Pvt. Ltd. PW-2 further deposed that accused Shiv Charan Bansal and his son Sachin Bansal were not returning the amount invested by his father in the committees being run by accused Shiv Charan Bansal. He further deposed that when the committees had become due and the amount was not being paid, his father started pressing for the return of the committees amount. He further deposed that in due course of time, accused Shiv Charan Bansal and his son Sachin Bansal avoided their contact and did not pick up their phone and for that reason they had committed murder of his father. PW-2 further deposed that the envelope which was handed over by him to the IO was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex. PW-20/A. Said envelope has been exhibited as Ex. PW-20/B and the document contained in that envelope has been exhibited as Ex. PW- 20/C.
iii) PW-3 Smt. Kanta Devi deposed before the court that on 21.03.2006 at around 4.30 PM, she was present in her house along with her husband Sh. S.N. Gupta when door bell of her house rang and she came out of the room and went to the gate. She further deposed -:11:- that she opened the main gate and went outside and saw that a person was standing outside the gate of her house. She further deposed that she asked from that person as to what was the matter, who replied that he had come to deliver a courier and asked that she should call her husband Sh. S.N. Gupta. She further deposed that she asked that person that he can hand over the courier to her but he replied that he cannot hand over the courier to her and will hand over the same only to Sh. S.N. Gupta. She further deposed that she asked that person to hand over the courier to her as she was wife of Sh. S.N. Gupta but even then said person refused to hand over the courier to her saying that courier was from the bank and can only be handed over to Sh. S.N. Gupta. She further deposed that she again asked to hand over the courier to her, who again refused to hand over the same to her. PW-3 further deposed that thereafter, she went inside her house and told her husband as to what had been told to her by that person. She further deposed that her husband replied that he will see as to what was the matter and then her husband came towards the gate of her house and she went in kitchen. She further deposed that when she was in the kitchen, she heard 2-3 sounds of gun shots. She further deposed that she tried to go towards outside and at that time her maid Seema started crying and told her that "Aunty Jis Se Aap Baat Kar Rahe The Vo Uncle Ko Goli Maar Kar Bhag Gaya". She further deposed that she rushed towards outside and saw that her husband was -:12:- lying on the ground near main gate of her house. She deposed that she raised alarm and started weeping. PW-3 further deposed that blood was oozing out from the chest of her husband. She further deposed that she again rushed inside her house and brought a chunni and wrapped that chunni around chest of her husband. She further deposed that in the meantime neighbours had collected and with the help of one of her neighbour, she took her husband to Jaipur Golden Hospital, where her husband was declared dead. She further deposed that her son Rakesh had also reached Jaipur Golden Hospital and asked her to go home as she was not feeling well. She further deposed that she can identify the person, whom she had seen outside her house and who had shot at her husband. She also correctly identified before the court the chunni which she wrapped around chest of her husband and the baniyan, which her husband was wearing at the time of incident. PW-3 further deposed before the court that the person, who had come at the gate of her house as a courier boy and had asked for her husband, was aged about 25-30 years and was wearing a cap on his head and black goggles on his eyes and a bag was hanging on his shoulder and that person was holding a white colour envelope in his hands. PW-3 further deposed that police met her at her house after she had returned from the hospital. She further deposed that police made enquiries from her and recorded her statement Ex. PW-18/A. -:13:-
iv) PW-4 Suresh Chander Gupta deposed before the court that upto year 2005, he was residing at 126, Deepali Enclave, Pitam Pura, Delhi alongwith his family. He further deposed that Narender Mann, accused Lalit Mann and their associates used to threaten his son Naveen Gupta on telephone for extorting money from him. He further deposed that they also started threatening him by making calls on his mobile phone. He further deposed that on one occasion Narender Mann and accused Lalit Mann along with 2-3 other persons had even come to his house and had demanded money from him, however, they used to come outside his house on a number of occasions. He deposed that he was very much upset. PW-4 further deposed that Shri S.N. Gupta was his elder brother and he was head of his family. He further deposed that he told his brother Shri S.N. Gupta with respect to the phone calls being made to him by Narender Mann and accused Lalit Mann. He further deposed that his brother S.N. Gupta advised him to make complaint at PS Mangol Puri and in March 2005, he made a complaint at PS Mangol Puri, however, police did not take any action, so he sent a reminder in April 2005. He further deposed that after making the complaint, he again received threats from accused Lalit Mann, who threatened saying that "Ab Aapne Complaint Kar De Hai, Hum Aapko Bhi Dekh Lenge Aur Aapke Bhai Ko Bhi Dekh Lenge". PW-4 further deposed that after registration of this case, copy of complaint and reminder had been handed over to -:14:- the police by him, which had been seized by the police vide seizure memo Ex. PW-38/B. Copy of complaint made by PW-4 at PS Mangol Puri and reminder thereof have been exhibited as Ex. PW-14/B & Ex. PW-14/C respectively.
v) PW-5 Satish Kumar Gupta deposed before the court that he was running a business of manufacturing of footwears. He deposed that he used to invest his money in the committees being run by accused Shiv Charan Bansal and his son Sachin Bansal. He further deposed that Sachin Bansal had given accounts of his investment being made in the company. PW-5 further deposed that his deceased brother Sh. S.N. Gupta had also invested a huge amount in the committees run by accused Shiv Charan Bansal and his son Sachin Bansal. He further deposed that his deceased brother had told him that accused Shiv Charan Bansal and his son Sachin Bansal were not returning the amount invested by him in the committees despite his repeated requests and that accused Shiv Charan Bansal was not picking-up his phone. PW-5 further deposed before the court that in the month of January 2006, he and his brother Shri S.N. Gupta were sitting in his office at F-11, Udyog Nagar, Peera Garhi, Delhi when accused Shiv Charan Bansal and his son Sachin Bansal came to his office for taking installment of the committee being run by accused Shiv Charan Bansal and his son. He further deposed that at -:15:- that time, his brother S.N. Gupta had asked accused Shiv Charan Bansal and his son why they were not picking up their telephone and that accused Shiv Charan Bansal should account for the dues of the committees in which he had invested the money. PW-5 further deposed that his brother had asked accused Shiv Charan Bansal that accused Shiv Charan Bansal had to pay the settled amount with respect to the business of Akash International and that his brother had also asked accused Shiv Charan Bansal that he (Shiv Charan Bansal) had assured that he (Shiv Charan Bansal) will make the payment very soon and long time has passed since then. PW-5 further deposed that his brother had also asked accused Shiv Charan Bansal that he (Shiv Charan Bansal) should also pay to him the amount invested by him in Bahadur Garh Firm and expressed apprehension that accused Shiv Charan Bansal will swindle that amount also. He further deposed that he was having every apprehension that accused Shiv Charan Bansal and his son Sachin Bansal murdered his brother as they were not inclined to pay the amount due to his brother from accused Shiv Charan Bansal's side. PW-5 further deposed that on 21.03.2006, he was out of Delhi and came to know about the murder of Shri S.N. Gupta. He deposed that he returned to Delhi and his statement was recorded by the police on 21.03.2006 at around 10/11.00PM. PW-5 further deposed that on the next day, he had gone to mortuary and had identified the dead body of his brother vide identification -:16:- statement Ex. PW-13/A. He further deposed that after postmortem, dead body of his brother had been handed over to them vide receipt Ex. PW13/B.
vi) PW-6 Ramesh Kumar has not supported the case of the prosecution.
vii) PW-7 HC Prasan Singh deposed before the court that on 21.03.2006 on receipt of a call, he had accompanied SI Dharamvir to 260, Deepali, Pitam Pura, Delhi, where he noticed that the blood was lying scattered at the gate of that house. He further deposed that during enquiry it transpired that a person had been shot at and the victim had already been taken to Jaipur Golden Hospital. He deposed that SI Dharamvir left him at the spot and he himself (SI Dharamvir) went to Jaipur Golden Hospital with Ct. Vijay. PW-7 further deposed that after some time SI Dharamvir returned at the spot and recorded statement of Smt. Kanta Devi. He further deposed that SI Dharamvir prepared a rukka and handed over the same to him and he went to PS, got the case registered and returned to the spot with copy of FIR and original rukka and handed over the same to Inspector Satpal. PW-7 further deposed that Inspector Satpal lifted the blood, blood stained earth and earth control from the spot and put the same in three separate pullandas. He further deposed that blood stained chappal was also lifted from the spot and was converted into a pullanda. He further -:17:- deposed that three cartridge cases were also lying at the spot and Inspector Satpal prepared sketches (Ex. PW- 9/A) thereof. He further deposed that the empty cartridge cases were also converted into pullandas. He further deposed that all the pullandas were sealed with the seal of SP and were seized vide a seizure memo. He correctly identified before the court the pair of chappals and empty cartridge cases lifted from the spot.
viii) PW-8 ASI Dalbir Singh deposed before the court that on 21.03.2006 while he was posted as photographer, Mobile Crime-team, North West District, on receipt of a call from District Control Room, he along with Mobile Crime-team including Incharge SI Suraj Bhan had reached at H. No.260, Deepali, Pitam Pura, Delhi. He further deposed that Incharge Crime-team SI Suraj Bhan inspected the spot. He further deposed that he took 8 photographs of the spot from different angles. Photographs have been exhibited as Ex. PW-7/A1 to A8 and negatives have been proved as Ex. PW-7/B1 to B8.
ix) PW-9 HC Ramphal deposed before the court that on 27.04.2006, as directed by IO, he collected 10 sealed parcels, FSL Form and authority letter from MHC(M) vide RC No.32/21/06 and took those parcels to FSL, Rohini and deposited the same in FSL on the same day and obtained a receipt. He further deposed that he handed over the receipt to MHC(M). He further deposed -:18:- that as long as the parcels remained in his custody, same were not tampered with in any manner. Copy of the road certificate has been exhibited as Ex. PW-17/A & receipt, which was obtained on the back side of the RC has been exhibited as Ex. PW-17/B.
x) PW-10 ASI Manoj Kumar deposed before the court that on 21.03.2006, duty officer had handed over to him three envelopes containing copy of FIR for delivering the same to area MM, DCP & Joint C.P. He further deposed that after collecting the envelope from duty officer, he left the PS and delivered the copy of FIR at the residence of area MM, then to DCP and Joint CP. He further deposed that after delivering the envelopes, he returned to PS.
xi) PW-11 Dr. Pradeep Dua proved on record MLC No.7537, dated 21.03.2006, pertaining to Mr. S.N. Gupta as Ex. PW-16/A.
xii) PW-12 ASI Bharat Kumar proved copy of DD No.26 dated 21.03.2006, PP Dost, PS Mangol Puri as Ex.
PW-6/A. xiii) PW-13 Ashok Kumar Aggarwal deposed
before the court that he was having business of clothes trading at Chandni Chowk. He deposed that he knew accused Shiv Charan Bansal. He further deposed that -:19:- accused Shiv Charan Bansal and his son Sachin Bansal used to deal in committees and he had invested in committees run by accused Shiv Charan Bansal and his son Sachin Bansal. He further deposed that accused Shiv Charan Bansal and his son Sachin Bansal were running a group of 60-70 committees and group amount was from Rs.5 lacs upto Rs.20 lacs. PW-13 further deposed that deceased S.N. Gupta was his brother-in-law (Saala), who had invested in almost all the committees run by accused Shiv Charan Bansal and his son Sachin Bansal. He further deposed that his brother-in-law S.N. Gupta introduced him with accused Shiv Charan Bansal. He further deposed that he had invested in four committees run by accused Shiv Charan Bansal and his son Sachin Bansal. He further deposed that his money has not been returned by accused Shiv Charan Bansal and his son Sachin Bansal. PW-13 further deposed that during investigation of this case, his statement Ex. PX/P-3 was recorded by a Magistrate.
xiv) PW-14 Naresh Kumar proved on record FSL report No. FSL 2006/B-1391 dated 02.08.2006 as Ex. PW- 28/A. Serological report attached with report Ex. PW-28/A has been proved as Ex. PW-28/B. He also proved on record FSL report No. FSL 2006/B-3231 dated 18.10.2006 as Ex. PW-28/C. Serological report attached with report Ex. PW-28/C has been proved as Ex. PW-28/D. -:20:-
xv) PW-15 Ajit Singh is dropped by the prosecution.
xvi) PW-16 Inspector Manohar Lal deposed before the court that on 22.05.2006, while he was posted as Draftsman, North-West District, he was called by Inspector Satpal Singh at PS Mangol Puri and accordingly, he reached there. He further deposed that from PS, he had accompanied Inspector Satpal Singh to H. No.260, Deepali Enclave, Pitam Pura, Delhi where he took measurements of the spot and prepared rough notes at the instance of Smt. Kanta Devi. He further deposed that on 23.05.2006, he prepared scaled site plan Ex. PW-3/A. He further deposed that after preparation of scaled site plan, rough notes were destroyed by him.
Xvii) PW-17 Ajay Kumar deposed that he had seen on record CDRs already Ex. PW-23/A, Ex. PW23/B, Ex. PW-23/C, Ex. PW23/D and Ex. PW23/E, however, record pertaining to the aforesaid CDRs is at present not available in their CDR Model Fronted System.
xviii) PW-18 Shri Puneet Puri, Assistant Director (Ballistics) FSL, Rohini, Delhi proved FSL report No. FSL 2006/B-1391/331-Ba/06 dated 12-09-2006 as Ex. PW-1/A. He also proved FSL report No. FSL 2006/B-3231/484- Ba/06 dated 18-10-2006 as Ex. PW-1/B. -:21:- xix) PW-19 HC Hussain KP deposed before the Court that on 29-04-2006, IO had made interrogations from accused Shiv Charan Bansal in his presence and during interrogation, accused Shiv Charan Bansal had made a disclosure statement Ex. PW-19/1. He further deposed that at that time, Ct. Laxman Dass was also present there.
xx) PW-20 ASI Sri Krishan deposed before the Court regarding arrest of accused Shiv Charan Bansal in the present case. Arrest memo and personal search memo of accused Shiv Charan Bansal have been exhibited Ex. PW-20/1 and Ex. PW-20/2 respectively. He further deposed that during interrogation accused Shiv Charan Bansal had made disclosure statement Ex. PW- 20/3. He further deposed that during investigation accused Shiv Charan Bansal was taken to a factory at Bahadurgarh, Haryana and from there accused Shiv Charan Bansal had produced some documents relating to the factory, from an almirah from the factory, which had been seized vide seizure-memo Ex. PW-11/A. He further deposed that search of the factory was also conducted, however, no documents relating to the committees could be recovered from there and a non-recovery memo had been prepared in that regard. PW-20 further deposed before the Court that on 27-04-2006, accused Shiv Charan Bansal had led the police team to his residence i.e. Suvidha Kunj, House No. 4/5-63 and search was -:22:- conducted but no documents relating to the committees could be recovered and non-recovery memo prepared in that regard has been exhibited as Ex. PW-20/4. PW-20 further deposed that on 28-04-2006, IO had again interrogated accused Shiv Charan Bansal and during interrogation accused Shiv Charan Bansal had made disclosure statement Ex. PW-20/5. PW-20 further deposed that on 28-04-2006 accused Shiv Charan Bansal had also led the police team to his factory located at T1/111 and to factory located at B-286 Mangolpuri Delhi where search was conducted, however, during search no documents relating to the committees could be recovered from either of the factories and non-recovery memo have been prepared in that regard as Ex. PW-20/6 and Ex. PW- 20/7 respectively.
xxi) PW-21 Dr. Ashish Jain proved postmortem examination report No. 200/206 dated 22-03-2006 conducted on the body of deceased Sri Niwas Gupta as Ex. PW-4/A. He deposed that report Ex. PW-4/A was in his hand.
xxii) PW-22 ASI Suresh Chander deposed before the court that on 22-11-2006, he along with SHO PS Mangol Puri had gone to Kashmere Gate at Tej Armoury, 1525 Church Road. He further deposed that one Tejinder Singh produced the photostat copy of sale register and cash-memo dated 26-11-2005. Photostat copy of the -:23:- cash-memo has been exhibited as Ex. PW-2/B and photostat copy of sale register, Sl. No. 13230 has been exhibited as Ex. PW-2/D. He further deposed that the afore-mentioned documents were taken into possession vide seizure-memo Ex. PW-2/A. xxiii) PW-23 Shri Ajeet Prasad Gupta deposed before the court that earlier he was running a wholesale business of stationery from his house No. 26/20, Shakti Nagar, Delhi. He further deposed that deceased S. N. Gupta was his eldest brother-in-law (sala). He further deposed that accused Shiv Charan Bansal was known to him. He further deposed that accused Shiv Charan Bansal and his son Sachin Bansal were running committees in Tri Nagar and he had invested in four committees. He further deposed that accused Shiv Charan Bansal and his son Sachin Bansal were running about 60-70 group of committees. He further deposed that his brother-in-law S. N. Gupta had invested in almost all the committees. He further deposed that he started investing in the committees in December 2005 and he had invested in the committees till February 2006. He further deposed that he had not received any amount invested by him in committees till date. He further deposed that his statement was also recorded by Magistrate during investigation and carbon copy of his statement recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C. has been marked as Mark P-23/A. -:24:- xxiv) PW-24 Inspector Joginder Singh deposed before the court that on 03.06.2006, IO had made interrogation from accused Shailender Singh and during interrogation, accused Shailender Singh had made disclosure statement Ex. PW-24/A. PW-24 has further deposed that on 04.06.2006 accused Shailender Singh had led the police team to his office at Flat No. A-1/35, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi and had led to a room constructed at the first floor and in that room, had pointed out towards a table stating that the pistol which had been handed over to him by Narender Maan on 21.3.2006, was kept by him in the drawer of that table. Pointing out memo prepared in that regard has been proved as Ex. PW-24/B. PW-24 further deposed that on 05.06.2006, IO again made interrogation from accused Shailender Singh and during interrogation, accused Shailender Singh had made further disclosure statement Ex. PW24/C. He further deposed that efforts were made to trace out and apprehend the source of weapon namely Vinod @ Vicky and Rajesh, however, they could not be apprehended.
xxv) PW-25 SI Krishan Chander deposed before the court that on 30.03.2006 Narender Mann and Joginder Singh Sodhi, who were already in custody of the IO, had led the police team to first floor, flat No. A-1/35, Sector- 7, Rohini, Delhi and had led towards a room constructed on the first floor towards inner side and in that room pointed out towards a table and from the drawer of that table, -:25:- Narender Mann had taken out a pistol and handed over the same to the IO stating that that was the same pistol which had been given to him by accused Shailender and which he had further handed over to Joginder Singh Sodhi and Joginder Singh Sodhi committed murder of Shri S.N. Gupta using that pistol. He further deposed that Joginder Singh Sodhi also made similar averments. PW-25 further deposed that IO checked the said pistol and it was found loaded with two live cartridges. He further deposed that IO prepared sketches (Ex. PW-24/A) of pistol and cartridges on a white plain paper. He further deposed that the pistol and cartridges were converted into a cloth pullanda which was sealed with the seal of SP. He deposed that FSL form was filled up at the spot and similar seal was also affixed on the FSL form. He further deposed that seal after use had been handed over to him. He deposed that the sealed pullanda was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW-24/B. He correctly identified the recovered pistol and cartridges before the court.
xxvi) PW-26 Shri Tajinder Singh deposed before the court that he was running an armoury shop in the name and style of Tej Armoury situated at 1525, Church Road, Kashmiri Gate, Delhi. He further deposed that as per record, on 26.11.2005 one Mr. Narender Singh S/o Shri Mehar Singh, R/o Naya Bans, New Delhi had purchased 20 cartridges of .32 bore pistol against his arms license bearing no. NWNA/1/2003/93 which was valid upto -:26:- 26.01.2006. He further deposed that in that regard, he had issued receipt no. 8/394 dated 26.11.2005. He further deposed that the purchaser Mr. Narender Singh had also filled up the order form and had signed the same. He further deposed that he had also filled up the particulars of the same in his daily sale register at Sl. No. 13230. PW-26 further deposed that during investigation of this case police had met him and he had handed over the photocopies of aforementioned record to the police on 20.11.2006 and police had seized the same vide seizure memo Ex. PW-2/A. PW-26 also produced before the court the original order form and daily sale register and photocopies of relevant entries thereof, have been proved as Ex. PW-2/C and Ex. PW-2/D. Photocopies of cash memo has been proved as Ex. PW-2/B. Xxvii) PW-27 Inspector R.K. Maan deposed before the court that on 29.03.2006, Sachin Bansal was interrogated by the IO and was arrested in the present case. He deposed that during interrogation, Sachin Bansal had made disclosure statement Ex. PW-25/B. He deposed that on the basis of disclosure statement made by Sachin Bansal, Sachin Bansal had led the police team to his house and his house search was conducted. PW-27 further deposed that Sachin Bansal had led the police team towards village Naya Bans and when they were on the main road while going towards village Naya Bans, Sachin Bansal pointed out towards a car standing by the -:27:- side of the road. He further deposed that the said car was Maruti Esteem car bearing registration No. DL3CAG6565. He further deposed that one person was urinating while standing by the side of the said car and Sachin Bansal told IO that the person urinating there was Lalit Maan @ Nanhe. He further deposed that two other persons were sitting in the said car and it was told by Sachin Bansal that those two persons were Narender Mann and Rajbir Singh. PW-27 further deposed that Narender Mann and Rajbir Singh and accused Lalit Mann were apprehended and IO made interrogation from them. He further deposed that all three of them were arrested in the present case and their arrest documents were prepared. Arrest memo and personal search memo of accused Lalit Maan have been proved as Ex. PW-25/D and Ex. PW-25/D1 respectively. PW-27 further deposed that Maruti Esteem car was searched and from dickey of the said car, one photo album, one black cap, one pair of black goggles and one photograph of deceased from underneath the stepney of the car were recovered. He deposed that all the aforesaid articles along with the car were seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW-25/F. PW-27 further deposed that thereafter from there, they reached PP Dost where Narender Mann, Rajbir Singh and accused Lalit Mann were interrogated. He deposed that during investigation, accused Lalit Mann had made a disclosure statement Ex. PW-26/D. PW-27 further deposed that accused Lalit and his associates had led the police team to service road of Deepali Colony and -:28:- outer ring road where a particular spot was pointed out by Narender Mann where he had parked the Getz car bearing registration No. DL4CAG-1789 and where Joginder Singh Sodhi had left the car. He further deposed that from that spot itself, they had proceeded towards village Naya Bans and from the house of Narender Mann, Getz car bearing no. DL4CAG-1789 was recovered vide seizure memo Ex. PW-25/H. He deposed that then they returned to PP Dost. PW-27 further deposed that thereafter at the instance of Narender Mann, Joginder Singh Sodhi was arrested from near Jaipur Golden Hospital from Maruti Zen car bearing registration No. DL4CK-3234. He deposed that from the dickey of car of Joginder Singh Sodhi, a pair of black colour goggles and black colour cap were recovered, which were seized by IO vide a seizure memo. PW-27 further deposed that thereafter they again returned to PP Dost and IO had made interrogation from Joginder Singh Sodhi and his disclosure statement Ex. PW-25/L was recorded. He further deposed that thereafter, Joginder Singh Sodhi had led the police team to the place of occurrence and pointing out memo Ex. PW-25/M was prepared at his instance. PW-27 further deposed that arrested persons were produced before the court on that day itself and PC remand of Narender Mann and Sachin Bansal was taken from the court. He further deposed that on 31.03.2006 interrogation was again made from Sachin Bansal and his further disclosure statement Ex. PW-25/Q was recorded.
-:29:-He further deposed that Sachin Bansal had got recovered a pistol along with 11 cartridges from factory No. T1/111, Mangolpuri Industrial area, Phase- I stating that the said pistol was of Narender Mann and had been handed over to him by Narender Mann. He further deposed that the said pistol was seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW-25/S. He further deposed that Narender Mann was also interrogated and his disclosure statement Ex. PW-25/N was recorded. He further deposed that Narender Mann had got recovered his arm license which had been seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW-25/P. He correctly identified before the court the articles seized in his presence.
Xxviii) PW-28 Shri Brahm Singh deposed before the court that in year 2006 he was posted as Addl. DCP, North-West District, Ashok Vihar, Delhi. He deposed that on 23.11.2006, dealing hand submitted file of case FIR No. 200/06 before him. He deposed that he perused the documents and applied his mind and accorded sanction U/s 39 Arms Act against Sachin Bansal, Narender Mann and accused Shailender Singh and sanction accorded by him have been proved as Ex. PW-31/A, Ex. PW-31/B and Ex. PW-31/C. Xxix) PW-29 Shri Rajeev Kumar deposed before the court that he had worked as a Manager in National Industries Corporation located at T-1/111, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Mangol Puri, Delhi during 2004-2008 and the -:30:- said factory was owned by Smt. Pushpa Bansal, wife of accused Shiv Charan Bansal. He deposed that it was a shoe manufacturing factory. He further deposed that there was an office staff of 5-6 persons besides the labour. He further deposed that Sachin Bansal and Akash Bansal are sons of Smt. Pushpa Bansal and her younger son Akash Bansal used to sit in the office of said factory. He further deposed that occasionally (kabhi kabhi) Sachin Bansal also used to sit in the office. He further deposed that during his tenure as Manager in the said factory, once police officials from PS Mangolpuri had come to the factory and he had come to know that some case had been lodged against Sachin Bansal. He further deposed that police asked from him some documents regarding ownership proof of the factory and he had handed over electricity bill of the factory to the police which had been seized by the police vide seizure memo Ex. PW-32/A and said bill has been marked as Mark PW-32/A. xxx) PW-30 Shri Naveen Gupta deposed before the court that deceased S.N. Gupta was his real Tau (elder brother of his father). He deposed that his father and his Tauji were having a joint business. He further deposed that his Tauji was having a partnership business with accused Shiv Charan Bansal. He further deposed that he and his father had invested money in some committees with his Tauji and his Tauji had further invested the said money in the committees being run by accused Shiv -:31:- Charan Bansal and his son Anshu. PW-30 further deposed that prior to murder of his Tauji, he (PW-30) and his family used to reside at 126, Deepali. He further deposed that prior to murder of his Tauji, Narender Mann and accused Lalit Mann used to come to him and used to threaten him and used to demand money from him. He deposed that he had also lodged a complaint in that regard at PS Mangolpuri. He further deposed that in year 2005, Narender Mann had taken a gold chain from him which he was wearing and it was weighing 4.5 tolas and at that time, accused Lalit Mann was with Narender Mann. He further deposed that he told this fact to his father who further told it to his Tauji. He further deposed that his father asked from him as to how Narender Mann and accused Lalit Mann were known to him and he had replied his father that Narender Mann and accused Lalit Mann were friends of Anshu, son of accused Shiv Charan Bansal and one more person namely Beniwal, R/o village Pitampura and that he had met Narender Mann and accused Lalit Mann in a party through Anshu and said Beniwal. He further deposed that a complaint was lodged at PS Mangolpuri by his father. PW-30 further deposed that after murder of his Tauji, police had made inquiries from him and recorded his statement Ex. PW-15/DA and he stated to the police that Narender Mann, Sachin Bansal and accused Lalit Mann and their associates used to threaten him through telephone for extorting money. He further deposed that when this fact was told to his father, -:32:- his father inquired from the persons mentioned above, they even threatened his father telephonically and also threatened them after coming to his house and had threatened saying that "pariwar ko jan se mar denge".
xxxi) PW-31 ASI Surender Kumar deposed before the court regarding deposit of case property in malkhana and regarding sending the exhibits to FSL, Rohini. He also produced before the court original register No. 19 and 21 and relevant entries thereof have been proved as Ex. PW- 35/A to Ex. PW-35/H. He further deposed that as long as the exhibits/case property remained in his custody, same were not tampered with in any manner xxxii) PW-32 Retd. SI Madan Lal proved copy of FIR of this case as Ex. PW-5/A and endorsement made by him on rukka as Ex. PW-5/B. He deposed that DD No. 21 was recorded regarding registration of FIR and copy of the same has been proved as Ex. PW-5/C. Xxxiii) PW-33 Sh. Devak Ram is dropped by the prosecution.
xxxiv) PW-34 ASI Devraj deposed before the court that on 17.11.2006 he had accompanied SHO Inspector Om Prakash to factory No. T-1/111, Mangol Puri Industrial Area, where one person namely Rajiv Kumar Tomar met them. He deposed that said Rajiv Tomar claimed himself -:33:- to be the manager of the factory. He further deposed that Inspector Om Prakash asked Rajiv Tomar to produce the ownership documents of the factory and Rajiv Kumar Tomar had handed over electricity bill of the factory to show the ownership. He deposed that electricity bill Mark PW-32/A was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex. PW-32/A. xxxv) PW-35 Retd. Inspector Dharamvir Singh deposed before the court that on 21.03.2006 at about 4.40-4.50 PM while he was posted as SI/Incharge, Police Post Dost, PS Mangol Puri, Delhi, copy of DD No. 26 (Ex. PW-6/A) had been received by him. He deposed that on receipt of the said DD, he along with Const. Vijay Kumar and Const. Prashan Singh went to house No. 260, Deepali. He deposed that he found there that blood was lying scattered near the gate of the house. He further deposed that three used cartridges and blood stained chappal were also found there. PW-35 further deposed that it was learnt that the injured had already been shifted to Jaipur Golden Hospital and he left Const. Prashan on the spot to guard the scene of crime and he along with Const. Vijay went to Jaipur Golden Hospital. He further deposed that he obtained the MLC of injured S.N. Gupta and doctor had mentioned in the MLC that the injured had been brought dead. He further deposed that the doctor handed over pullanda of clothes of deceased which was seized by him vide seizure memo Ex. PW-10/A. He further -:34:- deposed that since no eye-witness was present at the hospital at that time, he returned to the spot. PW-35 further deposed that at the spot Smt. Kanta, W/o deceased S.N. Gupta met him and she claimed herself to be eye-witness of the incident. He deposed that he recorded statement of Smt. Kanta (Ex. PW-18/A). He further deposed that he made his endorsement Ex. PW- 26/A on statement of Smt. Kanta and then tehrir was handed over to Const. Prashan Singh for getting the FIR registered. He further deposed that it has been requested in tehrir that investigation be handed over to some senior officer. He further deposed that after registration of FIR, the investigation of this case had been assigned to Inspector Satpal Singh, who reached at the place of incident and carried out further investigation. PW-35 further deposed that Inspector Satpal Singh inspected the spot and lifted the exhibits from the spot. He deposed that some blood from the blood lying spread on the spot was picked up with the help of cloth piece and then it was put in a jar. He further deposed that blood stained earth/floor was also picked up from the spot and earth control was also lifted from the spot. He further deposed that the chappal lying at the spot was also picked up. He further deposed that three empty cartridge cases, which were lying at the spot, were also picked up and sketches thereof (Ex. PW-9/A) have been prepared. He further deposed that all the aforementioned articles had been converted into separate pullandas and each pullanda was -:35:- sealed with the seal of SP and all the pullandas were seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW-26/B. PW-35 further deposed that Rajesh Gupta, son of deceased S.N. Gupta handed over an envelope to IO and on the said envelope address of Shri S.N. Gupta i.e. house No. 260, Deepali, Delhi was mentioned. He deposed that the envelope was found to contain one paper on which something was printed and it seemed like some question paper. He further deposed that the envelope along with the paper was seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW-20/A. Envelope Ex. PW-20/B and paper Ex. PW-20/C were correctly identified by him before the court. PW-35 further deposed that on 29.3.2006 Sachin Bansal had come to PS in pursuance to a notice given to him by the IO. He further deposed that Sachin Bansal was interrogated by the IO in his presence and after interrogation, Sachin Bansal was arrested in the present case and his arrest documents were prepared. He further deposed that during interrogation, Sachin Bansal had made disclosure statement Ex. PW-25/B. PW-35 further deposed that in pursuance to disclosure statement of Sachin Bansal, he along with IO Inspector Satpal, SI R.K. Maan and Sachin Bansal left for village Naya Bans i.e. village of Narender Mann. He further deposed that when they were about to reach village Naya Bans, they noticed an esteem car lying parked on the side of the road and one person was urinating by the side of that car. He further deposed that Sachin Bansal identified the person who was urinating as -:36:- accused Lalit Mann @ Nanhe. He further deposed that number mentioned on the number plate of esteem car was 6565 and it was informed by Sachin Bansal that the said car belongs to Narender Mann. He further deposed that two more persons were found sitting in that car whose names were transpired as Narender Mann and Rajbir Singh. PW-35 further deposed that interrogations were made from Narender Mann, Rajbir Singh and accused Lalit Mann and after interrogations, all three of them were arrested in the present case and their arrest documents were prepared. Arrest memo and personal search memo of accused Lalit Mann have been proved as Ex. PW-25/D and Ex. PW-25/D1 respectively. He further deposed that during interrogations, all the aforesaid three persons had made disclosure statements. Disclosure statement made by Narender Mann has been proved as Ex. PW-26/C whereas disclosure statement made by accused Lalit Mann has been proved as Ex. PW-26/D. PW-35 further deposed that esteem car was searched and during search, one cap make Nike, goggles and one marriage album of Sachin Bansal were recovered from the dickey of the car. He further deposed that one loose photograph (PW-25/5) of deceased S.N. Gupta was also recovered from underneath the stepney lying in the dickey of the car. He deposed that all the aforementioned articles were seized along with the car vide seizure memo Ex. PW-25/F. He further deposed that on one or two pages of album, the photographs were missing. He further deposed that from -:37:- there, they went towards Jaipur Golden Hospital and while making efforts to search other culprits, they returned to PS. PW-35 further deposed that on the intervening night of 29/30.03.2006, interrogations were again made from Narender Mann and during interrogations, it was disclosed by Narender Mann that Getz car was lying parked in his house. He further deposed that thereafter, he along with IO, SI R.K. Maan, ASI Sushil and Narender Mann had reached at house of Narender Mann at Village Naya Bans and from house of Narender Mann, at his instance, Getz car bearing registration No. DL4CAG-1789 was seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW-25/H. PW-35 further deposed before the court that while they were returning back to Delhi and had reached near Jaipur Golden Hospital, a car was stopped on being pointed out by Narender Mann and the number of said car was DL 4CK-3234. He deposed that one person was sitting on the driver seat of that car, whose name was disclosed as Joginder Singh Sodhi. He deposed that Joginder Singh Sodhi was interrogated and arrested and his arrest documents were prepared. Arrest memo and personal search memo prepared in that regard have been exhibited as Ex. PW-25/J and Ex. PW-25/J1 respectively. He further deposed that during interrogation Joginder Singh Sodhi had made a disclosure statement Ex. PW-25/L. PW-35 further deposed that search of car of Joginder Singh Sodhi was done and during search one cap and one goggles were recovered from the said car. He deposed that the cap and the goggles were converted -:38:- into cloth pullanda, which was sealed with the seal of SP. He further deposed that the said car alongwith the pullanda was seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW-25/K. PW-35 further deposed that thereafter, they had reached H. No.260, Deepali, where Joginder Singh Sodhi had identified the place of occurrence and pointing out memo prepared in that regard has been exhibited as Ex. PW- 25/M. He further deposed that Joginder Singh Sodhi has also pointed out the way, which he had adopted for reaching that house and of escaping therefrom. PW-35 further deposed that thereafter, at the instance of Narender Mann, they had reached at A-1/35, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi. He deposed that there was an office in the said premises and a table was lying in a room and from the drawer of that table, Narender Mann had taken out a pistol, which was of Webley Scoot, 7.65 bore and was found loaded with two live cartridges. He deposed that the sketch of pistol and cartridges Ex. PW-24/A was prepared. He further deposed that the pistol and the cartridges were converted into a pullanda, which was sealed with the seal of SP and was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex. PW-24/B. He further deposed that they then returned to PS and seized articles were deposited in malkhana. PW-35 further deposed that on 31.03.2006, interrogations were again made from Narender Mann and his supplementary disclosure statement Ex. PW-25/N was recorded. He further deposed that Narender Mann had led the police team to -:39:- his residence and from his house, he produced licence of his pistol, which was seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW- 25/P and licence has been exhibited as Ex. PW-25/6. He further deposed that at that time Sachin Bansal was also with them. PW-35 further deposed that thereafter, they had reached at factory No.T-1/111, Mangol Puri Industrial Area where from the office located at the first floor, Sachin Bansal took out a pistol and 11 cartridges from the drawer of a table lying in that office. He deposed that the words "Espana" were engraved on the pistol. He further deposed that sketch of pistol and cartridges was prepared, which has been exhibited as Ex. PW-25/R. He further deposed that pistol and cartridges were converted into a pullanda, which was sealed with the seal of SP and was seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW-25/S. PW-35 further deposed that on 02.04.2006 interrogations were again made from Sachin Bansal and Narender Mann and whatever was disclosed by both of them, was reduced in writing. The articles seized in his presence were correctly identified by him before the court.
xxxvi) PW-36 Retired ACP Satya Pal Singh deposed before the court that on 23.03.2006, he was on patrolling duty with Ct. Shri Krishan vide DD No.17-A and they were patrolling the area on a motorcycle. He further deposed that at around 4.50 PM, an information was received through wireless message regarding some firing incident in Deepali Enclave, Pitam Pura, Delhi and on receipt of -:40:- the said information, he along with Ct. Shri Krishan reached at H. No.260, Deepali Enclave, Pitam Pura, Delhi. He further deposed that SHO PS Mangol Puri, Inspector H.S.P. Singh and other senior police officers were already present there. He further deposed that mobile crime team and dog squad was also present there. He further deposed that he was directed by senior officers to conduct investigation of this case after registration of case. PW-36 further deposed that he had inspected the spot. He deposed that the blood was lying spread outside main gate of H. No.260, Deepali and one pair of chappals having blood stains was also lying there. He further deposed that three empty cartridge cases were also found lying at the spot. He further deposed that crime-team inspected the spot and on his directions and on direction of crime-team incharge, crime-team photographer took photographs of the spot from different angles. He further deposed that handler of the dog squad made the dogs of the squad to smell the place of occurrence and then dog had gone upto some distance in the gali towards northern side of H. No.260. PW-36 further deposed that in the meantime Ct. Prasan Singh handed over to him copy of FIR and original rukka of this case. He further deposed that exhibits were lifted from the spot. He deposed that blood, blood stained floor and control floor was lifted and put in three separate plastic containers, which were further converted into separate pullandas. He further deposed that empty cartridge cases lying at the spot were picked-
-:41:-up and their sketch Ex. PW-9/A was prepared. He further deposed that the cartridges were put in a plastic container which was further converted in a cloth pullanda. He further deposed that pair of chappals was also picked up and was converted in a cloth pullanda and all the pullandas were sealed with the seal of SP and were seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW-26/B. He further deposed that seal after use was handed over to SI Dharambir Singh. PW-36 further deposed that he prepared site plan of the place of occurrence i.e. Ex. PW- 38/A at the instance of Smt. Kanta Devi. He further deposed that SI Dharambir was directed to go to Jaipur Golden Hospital and to shift the dead body to mortuary SGM Hospital, Mangol Puri, Delhi. PW-36 further deposed that Rajesh Gupta, son of deceased S.N. Gupta, handed over an envelope to him saying that the said envelope was found by him lying at the spot. He further deposed that on the envelope Shri S.N. Gupta, 260, Deepali was written. He further deposed that inside the envelope, one printed paper was found on which some numericals and some statistics were printed. He further deposed that the envelope along with the printed letter contained in it was seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW-20/A. Envelope has been exhibited as Ex. PW-20/B and the printed letter has been exhibited as Ex. PW-20/C. PW-36 further deposed that Suresh Gupta, S/o Shri R.D. Gupta had handed over to him photocopies of two different complaints, which were seized by him vide seizure memo Ex. PW-38/B and -:42:- photocopies of those complaints have been exhibited as Ex. PW-14/B & Ex. PW-14/C. He further deposed that he recorded statements of Rajesh Gupta, Suresh Gupta, Satish Gupta, Smt. Kanta Devi and Seema U/s 161 Cr.P.C. PW-36 further deposed that in the meantime SI Dharambir returned to the spot and handed over to him the exhibits which he had received from Jaipur Golden Hospital. He deposed that statement of SI Dharambir was recorded by him U/s 161 Cr.P.C. He further deposed that statements of crime-team photographer and Ct. Prasan Singh were also recorded by him U/s 161 Cr.P.C. He further deposed that local enquiry was done at the spot and in the neighbourhood. He further deposed that it had become odd late night hours and people in the neighbourhood had gone to sleep, so he along with his accompanying staff returned to PS Mangol Puri. He deposed that the seized articles were deposited in malkhana. PW-36 further deposed that on 22.03.2006 at about 9.00 AM, he reached mortuary SGM Hospital, Mangol Puri, Delhi along with Ct. Shri Krishan for getting conducted postmortem examination on the body of S.N. Gupta. He deposed that Shri Satish Gupta & Rakesh Gupta, relatives of the deceased met him in the mortuary, who identified the dead body vide identification statements Ex. PW-13/A & Ex. PW-21/A. He further deposed that he prepared inquest papers. Death summary i.e. Form No.25.35(1)(B) filled up by him, has been proved as Ex. PW-38/C. He further deposed that the postmortem -:43:- examination on the dead body was got conducted and after postmortem dead body had been handed over to relatives of the deceased vide receipt Ex. PW-13/B. PW- 36 further deposed that after the postmortem, Ct. Vijay Kumar handed over to him three sealed pullandas and one sample seal, which had been handed over to him by doctor concerned and he seized those pullandas and sample seal vide seizure memo Ex. PW-10/B. He further deposed that then he returned to PS and seized articles were deposited in malkhana. He further deposed that statement of Ct. Vijay Kumar was recorded by him U/s 161 Cr.P.C. PW-36 further deposed that thereafter, he along with Ct. Shri Krishan and other staff of PP Dost reached Deepali Enclave and started making enquires. He further deposed that the visitors' register maintained at the gate of the society were checked and enquiries were also made from chowkidars and local residents, however, no positive clue could be surfaced. He further deposed that during enquiries it was surfaced that the deceased had some disputes with Sachin Bansal and accused Shiv Charan Bansal regarding some factories and committees. He further deposed that from complaints Ex. PW-14/B & Ex. PW-14/C, it also transpired that Naveen @ Chinu, nephew of deceased S.N. Gupta was being threatened by Narender Mann & Ors. PW-36 further deposed that on 23.03.2006 Naveen @ Chinu, Sachin Bansal and accused Shiv Charan Bansal were called at PP Dost and enquiries were made. He further deposed that enquiries regarding -:44:- whereabouts of Narender Mann was also done from Sachin Bansal and Naveen @ Chinu, however, both of them stated that they were not aware as to where Narender Mann was residing. He further deposed that they were discharged in the evening and no clue regarding the culprits could be surfaced. PW-36 further deposed that Sachin Bansal was regularly called on 24.03.2006, 25.03.2006, 26.03.2006, 27.03.2006 & 28.03.2006, however, accused Shiv Charan Bansal did not turn up after 23.03.2006 nor he was available at his home or his factory. He further deposed that enquiries were made from Sachin Bansal, Naveen @ Chinu and Beniwal, whose name was there in complaints Ex. PW- 14/B & Ex. PW-14/C and during enquiries, it transpired that Narender Mann was a resident of Village Naya Bans, Delhi. He further deposed that staff was sent at the address of Narender Mann but he was not found available at his residence. He further deposed that father and chacha of Narender Mann were called at PP Dost, who stated that they were not aware about whereabouts of Narender Mann. PW-36 further deposed that on 29.03.2006 he had reached PP Dost from PS Mangol Puri along with Ct. Shri Krishan, SI Dharambir and SI R.K. Maan. He further deposed that Sachin Bansal & Naveen @ Chinu were called at PP Dost and interrogations were made from both of them after making them sit together. He further deposed that after sustained interrogations, Sachin Bansal was arrested in the present case vide -:45:- arrest memo Ex. PW-38/D and his personal search was conducted vide personal search memo Ex. PW-25/A. He further deposed that body inspection of Sachin Bansal was done vide Body Inspection Memo Ex. PW-38/E. He further deposed that during interrogation Sachin Bansal had made a disclosure statement Ex.PW-25/B. PW-36 further deposed that in pursuant to disclosure statement made by Sachin Bansal, he was taken to his residence and at that time, SI Dharambir, SI R.K. Maan, ASI Shri Krishan and 3-4 constables were with him. He further deposed that search of house of Sachin Bansal was conducted to trace committees' related documents but nothing incriminating could be recovered and non- recovery memo Ex. PW-38/F was prepared in that regard. PW-36 further deposed that in the meantime an information was received that Narender Mann was present at his house in Village Naya Bans. He deposed that he along with his accompanying staff named above and Sachin Bansal started for village Naya Bans and when they were at some distance from village Naya Bans, one car was lying parked on the side of the road and one person was urinating while standing by the side of the car. He further deposed that Sachin Bansal deposed that the said car was of Narender Mann. PW-36 further deposed that he stopped his car and he and his accompanying staff came out of car. He further deposed that on seeing them, the person who was urinating, immediately boarded the car and occupants of the car tried to move away from -:46:- there but they over-powered them. He further deposed that during enquiries, name of the person sitting on the driver's seat was revealed as Narender Mann. He further deposed that two persons were sitting on the rear seat of the car, whose names were revealed as Lalit Mann @ Nanhe and Rajbir Singh. He deposed that all three of them were arrested and their arrest documents were prepared. Arrest memo and personal search memo of accused Lalit Mann @ Nanhe have been exhibited as Ex. PW-25/D & Ex. PW-25/D1. He deposed that body inspection of accused Lalit Mann was done vide Body Inspection Memo Ex. PW-38/G1. PW-36 further deposed before the court that the Esteem car bearing registration No. DL 3CAG 6565 was searched and on search one photo album of marriage of Sachin Bansal, one black cap make Nike and one pair of black goggles and one coloured photograph of deceased S. N. Gupta, which was in a shabby condition (mudi- tudi) were recovered. He further deposed that on checking the photo album, it was revealed that one page of it was blank (without photograph). He further deposed that the black colour Nike cap and the goggles were sealed in a parcel with seal of 'SP' and were seized vide seizure-memo Ex. PW- 25/F. Photo album has been exhibited as Ex. PW-25/1 and leaf without photograph as Ex. PW-25/2. He further deposed that the Esteem car Ex. PW-38/Article 1 was also seized vide seizure-memo Ex. PW-25/F. PW-36 further deposed that thereafter they returned to PS Mangolpuri -:47:- along with accused persons and the case property was deposited in Malkhana. He further deposed that all the four arrested persons were separately interrogated. PW- 36 further deposed that first of all, Narender Mann was interrogated and his disclosure statement Ex. PW-26/C was recorded. He further deposed that thereafter, Rajbir Singh was interrogated and his disclosure statement Ex. PW-26/E was recorded. He further deposed that thereafter, accused Lalit Mann was interrogated and his disclosure statement Ex. PW-26/D was recorded. He further deposed that Sachin Bansal, Rajbir Singh and accused Lalit Mann @ Nanhe were sent for medical examination. PW-36 further deposed that he along with SI Dharamvir, SI R. K. Maan, ASI Shri Krishan left the PS along with Narender Mann. Narender Mann had pointed out the service lane, where they had parked the Getz car where Joginder Singh Sodi had alighted and after coming back they both ran away in the said car. PW-36 further prepared the pointing out memo already Ex. PW 26/G. He got accused Narender Mann medically examined and thereafter they returned to the police station. Narender Mann, Sachin Bansal, Rajbir Singh and accused Lalit @ Nanhe were put in the lock-up. PW-36 further deposed that on the night intervening 29/30-03-2006 at about 2.10 AM, Narender Mann was taken out from the lock-up and he (PW-36) alongwith SI Dharambir, SI R.K. Mann, ASI Sri Kishan and other staff went to Village Naya Bans alongwith Narender Mann and Narender Mann had led -:48:- them to his house and had knocked the door of his house. He further deposed that Narender Mann obtained keys of Getz car bearing registration No. DL4CJ 1789 from his house and Getz car was opened with the key and was seized vide seizure-memo Ex. PW-25/H. PW-36 further deposed that thereafter, they left for PS and while they were proceeding towards PS, on the way Narender Mann disclosed that Jogender Singh Sodhi used to come for morning walk in Japanese Park. He further deposed that after a distance of 200-300 meters from Jaipur Golden Hospital, they took position on the road. He further deposed that at about 4.30/4.45 AM, one Maruti Zen car was seen coming from the side of Jaipur Golden Hospital and Narender Mann pointed out that the said car belongs to Joginder Singh Sodhi. He further deposed that the car was got stopped and the person sitting on the driver seat was identified by Narender Mann as Joginder Singh Sodhi. PW-36 further deposed that search of car bearing No. DL4CJ 3234 was taken and from the dickey of said car, one black colour cap make Nike and one pair of black goggles were recovered which alongwith the car were seized vide seizure-memo Ex. PW-25/K. PW-36 further deposed that Joginder Singh Sodhi was arrested vide arrest memo Ex. PW-25/J and his personal search was conducted vide personal search memo Ex. PW-25/J-1. He further deposed that body inspection of Joginder Singh Sodhi was done vide body inspection memo Ex. PW-38/G. He identified the pair of -:49:- goggles and black cap recovered from the car of Joginder Singh Sodhi as Ex. PW-25/7 and Ex. PW-25/8. PW-36 further deposed that thereafter, they along with Joginder Singh Sodhi and Narender Mann reached PS Mangolpuri and he deposited the case property with MHC(M). He further deposed that he interrogated Joginder Singh Sodhi and recorded his disclosure statement Ex. PW-25/L. He further deposed that in pursuance to the disclosure statement of Joginder Singh Sodhi, he (PW-36) along with SI Dharambir, SI R. K. Mann, ASI Sri Kishan, HC Susheel alongwith other staff and Joginder Singh Sodhi and Narender Mann had gone to 260 Deepali, which was pointed out by Joginder Singh Sodhi and pointing out memo prepared in that regard has been exhibited as Ex. PW-25/M. PW-36 further deposed that thereafter, he along with his accompanying staff and Narender Mann and Joginder Singh Sodhi, in pursuance of disclosure statement of Narender Mann, went to house No. A-1/35, Sector 7, Rohini, Delhi. He further deposed that Narender Mann led them to 1st floor of the said house and flat was lying opened. He further deposed that Narender Mann led them to the inner room of that flat and got recovered one pistol from the drawer of one table disclosing that he had taken that pistol from accused Shailender Singh and after using the same he had put the same in the drawer as told to him by accused Shailender. PW-36 further deposed that the recovered pistol was opened and was found containing two live cartridges. He further deposed that the -:50:- sketches of recovered pistol and cartridges were prepared on a plain paper and the sketch prepared in that regard has been proved as Ex. PW-24/A. He further deposed that recovered pistol and the cartridges were converted into a pullanda, which was sealed with the seal of 'SP' and was seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW-24/B. He further deposed that the seal after use was handed over to ASI Sri Kishan. He further deposed that thereafter, they along with Narender Mann and Joginder Singh Sodhi returned to PS and deposited the case property with the MHC(M). PW-36 further deposed that he obtained the specimen signatures and writing of Joginder Singh Sodhi on 15 sheets for the purpose of sending the same to FSL in order to compare the same with questioned letter/writings, 15 sheets have been proved as Ex. PW-27/A1 to A15. He further deposed that he recorded the statements of witnesses. He further deposed that Joginder Singh Sodhi was given cloth to cover his face and he was put in a muffled face. He further deposed that Joginder Singh Sodhi was got medically examined and after medical examination, he alongwith Narender Mann, Sachin Bansal and accused Lalit Man @ Nanhe was taken to Rohini Courts and were produced before ld. MM. He further deposed that he moved an application for taking PC remand of Narender Mann and Sachin Bansal whereas Rajbir Singh and accused Lalit Mann @ Nanhe were sent to JC. He further deposed that 3 days PC remand was granted by Ld. MM. He further deposed that Narender -:51:- Mann and Sachin Bansal were got medically examined and then brought to PS Mangolpuri and put in lock-up. PW-36 further deposed that on 31-03-2006, Narender Mann and Sachin Bansal were taken out from lock-up and both of them were interrogated and during interrogation Narender Mann made disclosure statement Ex. PW-25/N and Sachin Bansal made disclosure statement Ex. PW- 25/Q. He further deposed that thereafter, he alongwith SI Dharambir, SI R. K. Mann, ASI Sri Kishan along with other staff and Narender Mann went to house of Narender Mann from where Narender Mann got recovered his Arms license from an almirah. He further deposed that said Arms license was seized vie seizure-memo Ex. PW-25/P. Arms license has been exhibited as Ex. PW-25/6. He further deposed that thereafter, they returned to PS Mangolpuri and Narender Mann was put in lock-up. PW- 36 further deposed that thereafter, he along with SI Dharambir, SI R.K. Mann along with other staff and Sachin Bansal went to factory of Sachin Bansal located at T- 1/111, Mangolpuri Industrial Area and Sachin Bansal led them to the 1st floor office of his factory and took out a polythene bag from a drawer of the table. He further deposed that on checking the said polythene bag, it was found to contain one pistol and besides the pistol, there was a cardboard box which was found containing 11 live cartridges. He further deposed that the sketch Ex. PW- 25/R of recovered pistol and cartridges was prepared on sheet of paper. He further deposed that recovered pistol -:52:- and cartridges were converted into a cloth parcel which was sealed with the seal of 'SP' and was seized vide seizure-memo Ex. PW-25/S. The pistol has been identified by him before the court as Ex. PW-25/9 and cartridges as collectively Ex. PW-25/10. He further deposed that thereafter, they returned to PS Mangolpuri and Sachin Bansal was put in lock-up and case property was deposited with MHC(M). PW-36 further deposed that on 01-04-2006, Narender Mann and Sachin Bansal were taken out from the lock-up and were separately interrogated to know about the whereabouts of accused Shiv Charan Bansal and Shailender Singh. He further deposed that search was made to trace out accused Shiv Charan Bansal and Shailender Singh at different places but they could not be traced. PW-36 further deposed that that on 02-04-2006, Narender Mann and Sachin Bansal were taken out from the lock-up and were separately interrogated and during interrogation, Narender Mann had made disclosure statement Ex. PW-38/J3 whereas Sachin Bansal had made disclosure statement Ex. PW-38/G4. He further deposed that Narender Mann and Sachin Bansal were got medically examined and then produced before the court. He further deposed that he made a request for further PC of both of them and PC remand was granted upto 06-04-2006 and both of them were brought to PS Mangolpuri and were put in lock-up. PW-36 further deposed that on 03-04-2006, Narender Mann and Sachin Bansal were taken out from the lock-up and as per the -:53:- permission of Sr. officers, he along with ASI Sri Kishan, HC Susheel alongwith other staff along with Narender Mann and Sachin Bansal proceeded to Sonepat in pursuance to their disclosure statements. He further deposed that Sachin Bansal took them to different placed in Sonepat but could not point out any specific place of his Mausa. PW-36 further deposed that thereafter, as per the disclosure statement of Narender Mann, they proceeded to go to Manali, however, when they reached Ambala, Narender Mann disclosed that no document was lying in Manali as disclosed by him and that those documents had already been burnt by him in Delhi. He further deposed that from Ambala they returned to Delhi and Sachin Bansal and Narender Mann were put in lock-up. PW-36 further deposed that on 04-04-2006 and 05-04-2006, Narender Mann and Sachin Bansal were taken out from the police lock-up and interrogated and during interrogation both them had disclosed about the whereabouts of accused Shiv Charan Bansal and Shailender Singh and in pursuance to that, he along with his police staff and Narender Mann and Sachin Bansal had gone to different places in search of accused Shiv Charan Bansal and Shailender Singh but they could not be traced. He further deposed that on 06-04-2006, Narender Mann and Sachin Bansal were produced before the court and they were remanded to judicial custody. PW-36 further deposed that on 07-04-2006, Ajeet Prasad and Ashok Aggarwal came to PS Mangolpuri and he -:54:- recorded their statements U/s 161 Cr.P.C. PW-36 further deposed that on 12-04-2006, TIP of Joginder Singh Sodhi was fixed at Tihar Jail Premises. He further deposed that he had taken the witnesses namely Kanta and Seema to Tihar Jail and on reaching Tihar jail, it was learnt that Joginder Singh Sodhi had refused to participate in TIP. He further deposed that he obtained the copy of TIP proceedings Ex. PW-30/A. PW-36 further deposed that on 25-04-2006, he received an information that accused Shiv Charan Bansal will surrender before Rohini Court. He further deposed that he along with SI Jogender, Ct. Naresh and other staff reached outside Rohini court complex on the outer ring road side. He further deposed that while they were waiting there, at about 3.00 PM, they noticed that accused Shiv Charan Bansal was coming on the outer ring road along with some persons. He further deposed that he was stopped and interrogated. He further deposed that after interrogation, accused Shiv Charan Bansal was arrested in this case vide arrest memo Ex. PW-38/G5 and his personal search was conducted vide personal search memo Ex. PW-20/2. He further deposed that body inspection of accused Shiv Charan Bansal was done vide body inspection memo Ex. PW-36/1. He further deposed that thereafter, they returned to PS Mangolpuri and accused Shiv Charan Bansal was sent to SGM, Hospital for medical examination and after medical examination, he was put in lock-up. PW-36 further deposed that on 26/04/2006 accused Shiv Charan Bansal -:55:- was taken out from police lock-up and was interrogated. He further deposed that Ct. Naresh, Ct. Sri Kishan and HC Ram Kumar were present with him at that time. He further deposed that during interrogation accused Shiv Charan Bansal made disclosure statement Ex. PW-20/3. He further deposed that after medical examination accused Shiv Charan Bansal was produced before the court and request for PC remand was made and he was remanded PC upto 29-04-2006. He further deposed that from the court, accused Shiv Charan Bansal was brought to PS Mangolpuri and then taken to his factory at MIE No. 1287, Bahadurgarh, however, the factory was found locked. He further deposed that though the family of chowkidar was present but they did not have the key of the factory so they returned to PS Mangolpuri and accused Shiv Charan Bansal was put in lock-up. PW-36 further deposed that on 27-04-2006, he along with Ct. Naresh, Ct. Sri Kishan and other staff and accused Shiv Charan Bansal in pursuance to his disclosure statement again went to his factory at Bahadurgarh from where accused Shiv Charan Bansal took out the documents of Akash International and Accent Shoes from an almirah lying in his office in that factory. He further deposed that those documents were seized vide seizure-memo Ex. PW-11/A. He further deposed that after carrying out the proceedings at Bahadurgarh, they returned to PS Mangolpuri PW-36 further deposed that on 27-04-2006 itself from PS Mangolpuri, he alongwith his accompanying staff named above and accused Shiv -:56:- Charan Bansal had gone to residence of accused Shiv Charan Bansal at 63, Suvidha Kunj and search of his house was carried out for searching the documents pertaining to committees, however, no incriminating documents concerning committees were recovered from his house and memo prepared in that regard has been exhibited as Ex. PW-20/4. He further deposed that thereafter, they returned to the PS and accused Shiv Charan Bansal was put in lock-up. PW-36 further deposed that on 28-04-2006, accused Shiv Charan Bansal was taken out from the lockup and he alongwith Ct. Naresh, Ct. Sri Kishan and accused Shiv Charan Bansal in pursuance to his disclosure statement, had gone to his factory located at B-286, Mangolpuri Industrial Area and T- 1/111 Mangolpuri Industrial Area and search was made in both the factories for committees related documents but nothing incriminating was recovered. Non-recovery memo prepared with respect to factory No. T-1/111 has been exhibited as Ex. PW-20/6 whereas non-recovery memo prepared with respect to factory No. B-286 has been exhibited as Ex. PW-20/7. He further deposed that thereafter, accused Shiv Charan Bansal was brought back to the PS and was put in lockup. PW-36 further deposed that on 29-04-2006, accused Shiv Charan Bansal was medically examined and was produced before the court and further two days PC remand was obtained. He further deposed that accused Shiv Charan Bansal was brought to PS Mangolpuri and during further interrogation, accused -:57:- Shiv Charan Bansal had disclosed the names of some other persons who had invested with him in committees, however, accused Shiv Charan Bansal told that he did not know their addresses but can take the police to their places. He further deposed that disclosure statement of accused Shiv Charan Bansal was recorded on 28-04-2006 as well as on 29-04-2006 and disclosure statement dated 28-04-2006 has been exhibited as Ex. PW-20/5 whereas disclosure statement dated 29-04-2006 has been exhibited as Ex. PW-19/1. PW-36 further deposed that on 29-04-2006 itself, accused Shiv Charan Bansal had taken the police team to Mangolpuri industrial area and Kirti Nagar industrial area and some other places in the area of Tri Nagar to point out the places of the persons in pursuance to his disclosure statement. However, no one could be traced as many of the factories had been closed due to pollution and no one could be available. PW-36 further deposed that on 30-04-2006 and on 01-05-2006, he made efforts to trace the persons who had invested in the committees or the documents concerning the committees and in that regard he along with accused Shiv Charan Bansal had gone to different places in search of investors of committees and documents concerning committees but no incriminating documents or circumstance could be available. He further deposed that on 02-05-2006, on expiry of PC remand accused Shiv Charan Bansal was produced before the court and was remanded to JC by the court. PW-36 further deposed -:58:- that on 27-04-2006, 10 sealed pullandas were sent to FSL, Rohini through Ct. Ramphal and on 22-05-2006, he (PW-36) deposited questioned documents and specimen documents of Joginder Singh Sodhi with FSL Rohini. PW- 36 further deposed that on 22-05-2006 itself, he also called draftsman SI Manohar Lal and got the spot inspected by him, who took rough notes and measurements at the instance of Smt. Kanta Devi and later on prepared the scaled site-plan and handed over to him. PW-36 further deposed that on 25-05-2006, JC remand of all the arrested persons was expiring so he had gone to the court for extension of JC Remand and on that day witness Smt. Kanta Devi and Ms. Seema had come to the court and both of them had identified Joginder Singh Sodhi and he recorded statements of Smt. Kanta and Ms. Seema in that regard. PW-36 further deposed that he had moved an application before the court for getting the statements of Ajeet Prasad and Ashok Aggarwal recorded U/s 164 Cr.P.C. He further deposed that statement of Ajeet Prasad was recorded by ld. MM under Section 164 Cr.P.C. on 30-05-2006 and that of Ashok Aggarwal on 01- 06-2006. PW-36 further deposed that on 03-06-2006, he received copy of an application regarding surrender of accused Shailender Singh in the court and accordingly he reached the court of ld. MM and on surrender of accused Shailender Singh in the court, he obtained permission of ld. MM for his interrogation. PW-36 further deposed that after interrogation of accused Shailender Singh, he was -:59:- arrested vide arrest memo Ex. PW-38/DA and his personal search was conducted vide personal search memo Ex. PW-36/2. He further deposed that body inspection of accused Shailender Singh was done vide body inspection memo Ex. PW-36/3. He further deposed that he moved an application before the court for grant of police custody remand upon which two days' PC remand of accused Shailender Singh was granted. He further deposed that he alongwith SI Raj Pal, Ct. Satish and other staff brought accused Shailender Singh to PS Mangol Puri. He further deposed that accused Shailender Singh was sent for medical examination and after medical examination, he was interrogated in PS and during interrogation he had made a disclosure statement Ex. PW- 24/A. He further deposed that in pursuance to disclosure statement of accused Shailender Singh, he along with SI Joginder, HC Rajpal and accused Shailender Singh had gone to different places in search of Vinod @ Vicky and Rajesh Kumar but they could not be traced. PW-36 further deposed that on 04.06.2006 accused Shailender Singh was taken out from lock-up, was interrogated and during interrogation he disclosed about Rajesh, R/o Village Issa Pur, Delhi. He further deposed that he alongwith SI Joginder, HC Rajpal and other staff and accused Shailender Singh had gone to village Issa Pur, where father of Rajesh met him, who told that Rajesh was not present at the house at that time and that he will send Rajesh to PS. He further deposed that thereafter, they -:60:- returned to PS. PW-36 further deposed that in pursuance of his disclosure statement, accused Shailender Singh pointed out the place at A-1/35, First Floor, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi where his office was situated and pointing out memo prepared in that regard has been proved as Ex. PW-24/B. He further deposed that thereafter, they returned to PS and accused Shailender Singh was further interrogated regarding Vinod @ Vicky and during interrogation he made disclosure statement Ex. PW-36/4. PW-36 further deposed that on 05.06.2006 accused Shailender Singh was again taken out from lock-up, was interrogated in presence of SI Joginder Singh & HC Rajpal and during interrogation, he made a further disclosure statement Ex. PW-24/C. He further deposed that since the police custody remand of accused Shailender Singh was expiring on that day, he was produced in the court and further PC remand of four days was obtained from the court. He further deposed that thereafter, they returned to PS and from the PS in pursuance to disclosure statement of accused Shailender Singh, he (PW-36) alongwith SI Joginder, Ct. Satish, HC Jai Pal and accused Shailender Singh had gone to Village Issa Pur in search of Rajesh Kumar but Rajesh Kumar was not found available at his house. PW-36 further deposed that on 06.06.2006, accused Shailender Singh was taken out from lock-up and he (PW-36) alonghwith HC Raj Pal, Ct. Satish, Ct. Shri Kishan and accused Shailender Singh had gone to Alwar, Rajasthan in search of Vinod @ Vicky, where accused -:61:- Shailender Singh had taken the police team to different places stating that he did not know the house or locality of Vinod @ Vicky. He further deposed that on 07.06.2006 and 08.06.2006, he along with accused Shailender Singh had gone to different places in search of Rajesh & Vinod but they could not be traced. PW-36 further deposed that on 09.06.2006, accused Shailender Singh was produced before the court and was remanded to JC. He further deposed that on same day, he collected the CDRs of following mobile numbers -1) 9818411470 of Iceland Hotels & Resorts of Narender Mann; 2) 9818411471 of Narender Mann of Iceland Hotels & Resorts,
3)9871791501 of Withalway B-8/230, Sector-3, Ground Floor, Rohini, near Jaipur Golden Hospital of Joginder Singh Sodhi; 4) 9810254600 of Lalit Mann, 110, Village Iradat Nagar, Delhi; 5)9312251844 of Shailender Singh, A- 1/35, Sector-7, Rohini; 6) 9818119624 of Sachin Bansal;
7) 9812191928 of Rajbir Malik, S/o Nafe Singh, H. No.1088, Sector-14, Sonepat. PW-36 further deposed that during investigation he had recorded statements of witnesses U/s 161 Cr.P.C. He further deposed that after conclusion of investigation, he prepared the charge-sheet and filed the same in the court. The case property/articles seized during investigation were correctly identified by him before the court.
xxxvii) PW-37 ASI Ashok Kumar deposed that on 16.03.2005 while he was posted at PS Mangol Puri and -:62:- was working as DD writer, DD No. 71B was lodged by him in daily diary register. He further deposed that on 06.04.2005 also while he was working as DD writer, DD No. 50B was lodged by him in DD register. He further deposed that he can not produce the original DD register as the same had been destroyed vide order No. 2893- 2980/HAR/Rohini District, Delhi dated 17.03.2017 and copy of the said order has been marked as Mark PW- 37/A.
12. Thereafter, prosecution evidence was closed and statement of accused persons were recorded. Accused Lalit Maan in his statement U/s 313 Cr. PC stated that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. He did not commit any offence nor he was arrested along with Narender Mann & Rajbir Malik while travelling in the Esteem car. Nothing has been recovered from his possession or at his instance. He further deposed that he has been implicated only on the basis of disclosure statement and same has not been corroborated from any corner and he is innocent.
13. Accused Shailender Singh during his statement U/s 313 Cr. PC stated that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. Nothing has been recovered from his possession or at his instance. He has been implicated only on the basis of disclosure statement and same has not been corroborated from any corner. He is innocent.
-:63:-He has denied all the allegations levelled against him.
Accused Shiv charan bansal took his defence as under " I am innocent. The complainant party wanted to grab the factory at Bahadurgarh, which was a joint venture between them and us, wherein we had majority shares. They got us falsely implicated in this case by introducing their close relatives as witnesses. After our arrest, the complainant party tried to grab the property through various means and illegally made Satish Gupta, brother of the deceased as a director in the company M/s Accent Shoes Pvt. Ltd., which was later on set-aside by the Company Law Board on a petition by us.
They had also left Kirori Mal, who is their close relative, at the Bahadurgarh factory to retain possession of the factory and to prevent me from functioning at the factory. Aforesaid Kirori Mal assaulted me to prevent me from entering the factory premises for which a case was registered him U/s 323/325/109/506/34 IPC at PS City Bahadurgarh in which he and his wife were convicted after trial.
We were not running business of committees. It is in evidence that the deceased himself was running committees and many people used to come at his houses in that connection.
The complainant party made false allegations against us that they and their relatives had invested huge amount in the committees, allegedly run by us and that we were not paying them the amount on demand to create a false motive in this case.
The business under the name and style of Akash International, which was a partnership business between the complainant party and us, was dissolved by way of a dissolution deed on 31.03.2005, which is almost a year before the incident. The accounts of that partnership business was duly -:64:- settled and no amount in that respect was due from us to the complainant party. They have falsely alleged that some amount was due to be paid to them by us in that regard, which is contrary to the averments in the dissolution deed, which specifies that all accounts have been settled between the parties."
Accused Shiv Charan Bansal in support of his case, examined DW-1 who deposed that he brought with him the FIR register containing FIR No.169 dated 17.04.2012 U/s 323/325/109/506/34 IPC of PS City Thana, Bahadurgarh. The register was maintained in regular course of business. The FIR was registered against Smt. Rekha, W/o Kirori Mal and Kirori Mal S/o Shri Jagan Nath on a complaint made by Shiv Charan, S/o Shri. Suraj Bhan, R/o H. No.63, Block-H 4-5. Suvidha Kunj, Pitam Pura, Delhi. He has also proved the true copy of the aforesaid FIR. Same has been proved as Ex. DW-1/A (OSR). He further deposed that after investigation, the charge-sheet was filed against the aforesaid accused persons Smt. Rekha and Kirori Mal for trial before the court of ld. Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bahadurgarh and as per the entry made in the FIR register, both the aforesaid persons were convicted by the ld. Court of Ms. Vandna Dhillon, JMIC, Bahadurgarh vide order dated 29.05.2019 and were released on probation. The entries to the above effect in the FIR register are maintained in due course of business.
14. Ld. Addl. PP during final arguments submits that -:65:- there is not an iota of doubt in arriving at the conclusion that all the three accused persons were part of conspiracy to commit murder of Sh. S. N. Gupta and in pursuance to their conspiracy Sh. S N. Gupta was murdered. He further submits that evidence has also come on record that accused Shiv Charan Bansal had destroyed the evidence related to the committees. It is prayed that accused persons be convicted for the offence(s) qua which charges have been framed against them.
15. During arguments and in written arguments, it is the argument of accused Shailender Singh and Lalit Mann that the prosecution could not prove the allegations against Lalit Mann as well as Shailender Singh nor even a single circumstance has been proved against any of them. The case is based on the circumstantial evidence against both Shailender Singh and Lalit Mann and the prosecution is required to prove each and every circumstance against the accused persons with a cogent evidence. There should not be any other hypothesis except the guilt of the accused, however, in the present case the prosecution has miserably failed to prove any of the circumstance. The disclosure statement is not admissible as no recovery or discovery has been affected in pursuance of the alleged disclosure statements of accused persons namely Lalit Mann and Shailender Singh. The prosecution has also failed to prove another circumstance i.e. the accused persons were in contact with each other prior to the -:66:- offence and thereafter also.
16. It is the argument on behalf of accused Shiv Charan Bansal that there are numerous contradictions, improvements, false depositions and inconsistent evidences on record in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses relied upon by the prosecution. The prosecution witnesses of this case were duly confronted from their previous statements on many vital occasions establishing the fact that the prosecution witnesses were deliberately improving upon their previous statements recorded by the police as well as from the statements recorded during the previous trial of Narender Mann & Ors, in order to falsely implicate accused Shiv Charan Bansal. For sake of brevity those part of the evidence exposing the falsehood of the prosecution witnesses has not been repeated and this Court may take into consideration the same in favour of accused Shiv Charan Bansal and against the prosecution.
17. His further arguments is that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against accused Shiv Charan Bansal. The evidence led by the prosecution suffers from infirmities and fabrication with over writing on various memos relating to disclosures by the accused persons and searches conducted by the IO. Accused Shiv Charan Bansal is framed up in the case by the IO in connivance with the complainant party and there was no legal evidence justifying his arrest in the case and he remained -:67:- in the custody for almost two years before he was discharged by the Ld. Trial Court. The case against accused Shiv Charan Bansal is based upon circumstantial evidence and the prosecution has miserably failed to prove even a single chain of circumstance against the accused. It is further submitted that the case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence. He further argued that in this regard it is submitted by a great Jurist Osborne who has remarked :
"Mr. Prejudice and Miss Sympathy are the names of two witnesses whose statements are never recorded in any court of law and yet their un-recorded statements tend to influence the results in court."
It is further submitted that the court has to guard against these un-examined compulsory witnesses. Another limb of this aspect is that the Judge is not to be swayed by sentiments and emotions emanating from the crime. Ld. Defence Counsel referred Lord Nottingham, C. in the trial of Lord Cornwallis, reported in 7 State Trials 143 (149) has said that "The fouler the crime is, the clearer and plainer ought the proof to be". Lord Baron Lagge in re Rex Vs. Blondy, 18 State Trials 1117 (1180) has said that "The more flagrant the crime is, the more clearly and satisfactorily you will expect than it should be made out to you." Again Justice Holroyd in Rex Vs. Habso, 18 State Trials 1117 has said that "The greater the crime, the stronger is the proof required." The Apex Court has also -:68:- held that "Fouler the Crime, higher the proof." (1991 SC Page 917, Para 38).
Ld. Defence Counsel further argued that the Apex Court has also held that "No doubt the offence is a shocking one but the gravity of the offence cannot by itself outweigh as far as legal proof is concerned."1991 SC page 1388 Para 4.
Ld. Defence Counsel further referred the case of Balwinder Singh Vs.State of Punjab, reported as AIR 1996 SC page 607 Para 4, it was held that "In a case based on circumstantial evidence the Court has to be on its guard to avoid the danger of allowing suspicion to take the place of legal proof and has to be watchful to avoid the danger of being swayed by emotional considerations, however strong they may be, to take the place of proof."
This very aspect was followed and repeated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in re Tanviben Pankaj Kumar Divetia Vs. St. of Gujrat, 1997 Crl.L.J. 2535 Para 45.
He further argued that onus of proving the case/charges beyond reasonable doubt is upon the prosecution and the accused has not to prove his innocence unlike in Civil cases. In ordinary Civil Cases a Judge of fact must find for the party in whose favour there is preponderance -:69:- of proof, although evidence may be not entirely free from doubt. In Civil cases two parties (Plaintiff and Defendant) put forward their cases and try to prove them by adducing evidence. The Court is bound to decide one way or the other. He gives finding in favour of the party whose evidence is more probable. That is not the case in a Criminal Case. In a Criminal Case there is no question of two parties of proving their cases. Here only one party, that is, the prosecution has to prove its case and that too beyond any reasonable doubt. In criminal cases no weight of preponderance of evidence is sufficient short of that which excludes all reasonable doubts. In Civil Cases it is the duty of both the parties to place their evidence before the court and try to prove their respective cases. If a party fails it would lose. In Criminal Cases it is the duty of the prosecution to bring all the evidence before the Court and to see justice is done. Besides, except some exceptional cases, the accused has not to lead any evidence and he has no point to prove. It is the prosecution and prosecution alone that has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. All the presumptions of law are in favour of innocence of the accused. Every accused is presumed to be innocent till he is proved, beyond reasonable doubt, to be guilty. It is not that the accused has to prove his innocence.
18. No written arguments have been submitted by the complainant despite the opportunity was given to the complainant and his counsel.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE.
-:70:-A) PW-1 during cross-examination deposed that he had not given any statement to the police except the statement for the purpose of dead body identification. He further deposed that he had not made any statement to the police regarding the committees being run by accused Shiv Charan Bansal. A specific question was put to PW-1 during cross-examination that what necessitated him to state regarding the committee run by accused Shiv Charan Bansal and his son Sachin Bansal on the date of his deposition. He replied that whatever he knew about the case and committees being run, he deposed before the court regarding the same. He further deposed during cross-examination that dissolution deed dated 31.03.2005 Ex. PW-21/DA was written with regard to dissolution of that business which bears signatures of PW-1 at point A. A specific question was put and reply is being reproduced here.
Q. When the Deed of Dissolution was prepared, documents relating to Trading A/c, Profit and Loss A/c, Balance Sheet and Capital A/cs etc as on 31.03.2005, had been prepared before you signed the Dissolution Deed. Is it correct?
Ans. All accounts were prepared but cash transactions of my father were not mentioned therein.
Q. Is it correct that your father was not a partner in Akash International?
Ans. That this was our family business and my father was Karta -:71:- of my family and all the money was invested in the business by my father itself.
B) Here, this court observes that what were those cash transactions, the nature thereof, the specific amount and reasons for not mentioning about such cash transactions in Ex.PW21/DA has not been disclosed either by PW1 or any of the prosecution witnesses. No reason has been mentioned by the prosecution or the prosecution witnesses as to what prevented them to mention all such details in Ex. PW21/DA. It is not the case of PW1 that he had informed to IO about such cash transactions and accounts thereof maintained by him. Even throughout the trial neither specific amount has been disclosed nor accounts thereof have been produced by any of the prosecution witnesses.
He further deposed that he of his own did not state to the police or in his deposition dated 06.07.2013 in the court regarding the above facts. He clarified that he had stated so on 22.03.2006 but police did not record the same. He never made complaint to Higher authorities that IO did not record some facts stated by him. He further deposed that statements of his brother Rajesh Gupta and his uncle Satish Gupta were not recorded in his presence. He has admitted that the business of Akash International was taken over by accused Shiv Charan Bansal. He has admitted that assets and liabilities of Akash International were transferred to accused Shiv Charan Bansal. A specific question was put to him that cheques were given to PW-1 and his family members regarding settlement of accounts of the business. He has -:72:- replied that cheques were given but those cheques were not given towards settlement of account with respect to the business of Akash International. Then another question was put in what connection he had received those cheques. He replied that he did not remember right now. Thus, he had given evasive replies in the cross-examination. He further deposed that he cannot tell the amount of cheques which he received from Shiv Charan Bansal in respect of statement of account regarding dissolution of business. He further deposed that amount of cheques received was credited to the respective accounts of his family members.
This court unable to understand if a huge sum was received by PW1 and his family members as per his own testimony then why he does not remember the connection for receiving those cheques. It is his own case that the amount of cheques were credited to the respective account of his family members.
He further deposed that he did not remember the total number of cheques received from accused Shiv Charan Bansal. He denied the suggestion that the cheques were received in full and final settlement of accounts towards Akash International. No where, PW-1 stated what was left to be paid to him or his family members towards full and final settlement of account of Akash International.
A specific suggestion is denied by PW1 that the cheques were received by him and his family members towards full and final settlement of accounts towards Akash International.
-:73:-He further deposed that he had not taken any step for recovery of money from accused Shiv Charan Bansal in respect of aforesaid business. If there was any amount due then why PW1 did not take any legal step to recover this amount, again not explained. He further deposed that after accused Sachin Bansal was released on bail, he filed a petition before Company Law Board challenging the induction of Satish Gupta as a director and to restore the status quo before the induction of Satish Gupta as a Director. He further deposed that he did not remember whether the Company Law Board had set aside the directorship of Satish Gupta and the EGM by holding the same as illegal and restored the status quo ante as on 31.3.2006. Here, PW-1 appears concealing material fact. In normal circumstance, when he was associated with the company then it is not possible that he is not aware about such a material fact. He denied the suggestion that after due discussion and deliberation, he foisted a false case against Shiv Charan Bansal. He further denied the suggestion that cheques paid by accused Shiv Charan Bansal were towards full and final settlement of the accounts of Akash International, which was dissolved.
C) During cross-examination, PW-2 deposed that information regarding firing at his father was conveyed to him by his wife. He further deposed that she had not told him on the phone that his father was taken to Jaipur Golden Hospital. He did not ask her to which hospital his father had been taken. He did not remember when he reached home. He also -:74:- did not remember the time when his wife conveyed the information. When he reached home, he came to know that his father had been taken to Jaipur Golden Hospital. This information was given to him by his wife. Despite this information that his father had been taken to Jaipur Golden hospital, he had not gone to the hospital. He clarified that he telephoned his younger brother Rakesh Gupta to reach the hospital and PW-2 stayed at home. He further deposed that he was not present at the home when the courier boy allegedly came to his house. When he reached his home on the information, his mother was not present at home. However, his maid Seema was present at home. Police had come to their house but he did not know the time when the police arrived at their home. He did not remember after how much time of his reaching home, police came there. He further deposed that the firm Akash International was dissolved in the year 2005. Dissolution deed was also executed on which he also signed. Dissolution deed is already Ex. PW 21/DA which bears signatures of PW-2 at point X-1 as a witness. This document is perused. It appears to be a photocopy for which stamp paper was purchased on 06.2.2005 and document was executed on 31.03.2005. It was executed between accused No. 1 and PW-2. PW-2 further deposed that he did know if the statement of accounts, balance sheet, profit and loss account and capital account were prepared before the execution of the Dissolution Deed Ex. PW21/DA. He further deposed that he had received cheques from accused Shiv Charan Bansal in relation to -:75:- business of Akash International. He clarified that same were against loan advanced by them to Akash International. He did not remember if he stated in his statement recorded on 21.09.2013 that the cheques received from accused Shiv Charan Bansal were against repayment of loan advanced to Akash International. Attention of this witness was drawn to the statement dated 21.09.2013 wherein it was not so recorded. He denied the suggestion that cheques received from accused Shiv Charan Bansal were in relation to settlement of accounts of Akash International or that he was deposing falsely that the cheques received by them were against repayment of loan.
However, this court observes that this is again a vague statement as no specific amount of loan is mentioned. Moreover, PW2 has not brought any such document. It is not the version of PW2 that he was ready to bring such document before the court to establish that there was any loan amount repayable by Shiv Charan Bansal.
He further deposed that the business of Akash International was taken over by accused Shiv Charan Bansal after the Dissolution Deed was executed on 31.03.2005. He denied the suggestion that full and final accounts of Akash International were settled.
But PW2 has not deposed what remained to be settled or what specific amount or issue to be resolved, at the time of full and final settlement.
He further deposed that Satish Gupta who was his uncle was inducted as a Director in the M/s Accent Shoes after the -:76:- arrest of accused Shiv Charan Bansal and Sachin Bansal. He denied the suggestion that Satish Gupta was illegally inducted as a Director by them to grab the business of M/s Accent Shoes. He admitted that a petition was filed before the Company Law Board on behalf of Sachin Bansal against the induction of Satish Gupta as a Director wherein PW-2 was a party. He has further deposed that after arrest of Sachin Bansal, PW -2 has shifted the registered office of M/s Accent Shoes to premises No. B-268, Mangol Puri Phase-I, Delhi and aforesaid premises belonged to PW-2. He denied the suggestion that the registered office was malafidely shifted to the premises of PW-2 and Satish Gupta was inducted as a Director in the company to grab the business of M/s Accent Shoes Pvt. Ltd. He has admitted that the changes made by them in relation to shifting of registered office and the induction of Satish Gupta as a Director were set aside by the Company Law Board and the status as on March, 2006 was restored.
It shows that there was mala fide intention on the part of PW2 and his family members to grab the business and assets of the accused Shiv Charan Bansal.
He has further deposed that a case was registered against PW-2 for embezzlement at Bahadurgarh Police station. He further deposed that Mr. Kirori Mal R/o Gopal Pur is his distant cousin. He denied the suggestion that PW-2 had retained him there in the factory in order to grab the possession of factory at Bahadurgarh. He denied the suggestion that at his instance and at the instance of his uncle -:77:- Satish, Kirori Mal and his wife, assaulted accused Shiv Charan with rods at Bahadur Garh factory. PW-2 expressed his ignorance that a case was registered against them U/s 323/325/109/506/34 IPC at PS City Bahadur Garh in April, 2012. He denied the suggestion that he is deliberately concealing the fact of registration of the case against Kirori Mal and ors. PW -2 did not know if any arrest was affected by the police in the aforesaid case. He further deposed that Sachin Bansal and his family members had the majority shares to the extent of 51% shares in the company M/s Accent Shoes Pvt Ltd. PW-2 did not remember if Ex PW 20/DB wherein Sachin Bansal and PW-2 along with his father also in figure, pertains to the date after the partnership in Akash International was dissolved in March, 2005. He deposed that it may be so. He denied the suggestion that no amount was due to him in relation to the business under the name and style of M/s Akash International. He denied the suggestion that PW-2 made false deposition before the Court that accused Shiv Charan Bansal and Sachin Bansal were running committees. PW -2 further deposed that his mother had not returned from hospital when the police reached at his house on 21.03.2006.
PW-2 further deposed that he did not remember after how much time after arrival of the police, his mother had arrived at their home. He further deposed that police did not make enquiries from him before the arrival of his mother. He did not remember if his brother Rakesh had also arrived at -:78:- house when his mother returned from the hospital. He denied the suggestion that his statement was not recorded on 21.03.06. He further denied the suggestion that after due deliberations among their family members including his uncle Satish and Suresh, PW-2 concocted a false story to create a false motive against the accused or that his statement was ante dated.
D) PW-3 Smt. Kanta Devi deposed during her cross- examination that her husband was not dealing in committees. She further deposed that in her statement dated 16.10.2012, she had not stated that her husband was dealing in committees and he has to take money from some people and also owed money to the people. Attention of this witness has been drawn to the statement dated 16.10.2012 wherein it is so recorded. She further deposed that she had not stated that her husband was running committees at the house as well as at his office also. Attention of this witness has been drawn to the statement dated 16.10.2012 wherein it is so recorded. She further deposed that she had not stated in her earlier statement before the Court that people who were connected with the committees used to come and go at their house. Attention of this witness is drawn to her statement dated 16.10.2012 wherein it is so recorded. She denied the suggestion that she deliberately made false statement on being tutored to deny the above facts relating to the committees. She further deposed that police had arrived at the house. It is possibly at about 8/9 pm on 21.3.2006 when -:79:- the police met her first time at her house. She could not say after how much time of their meeting at about 8/9 pm, the police recorded her statement. She denied the suggestion that her statement was not recorded on 21.03.2006. Police left her house after some time of recording of her statement. She did not remember that if she stated in her previous statement dated 05.03.2013 that police left after obtaining her signatures. Attention of this witness has been drawn to her statement dated 05.03.2013 wherein it is so recorded. She further deposed that she had come to the court along with her sons to see the man who had come to their house with a courier. She further deposed that she had brought Seema with her. She denied the suggestion that she had brought Seema also on that day so that she could see that man to make her a false witness in this case. She further denied the suggestion that she introduced Seema as a false witness or Seema was not present at the house at the time of incident. She further deposed that accused Shiv Charan Bansal did not visit her house after the incident. She further deposed that she had not stated to the police that accused Shiv Charan Bansal visited her house after occurrence. Attention of this witness has been brought to her statement dated 05.03.2013 wherein it was so recorded.
E) A specific question was put to PW-4 during cross- examination which is being reproduced here:-
"Q. Did you hand over the carbon copy or any other copy bearing the original seal of PS on documents Ex.-:80:-
PW-14/B and Ex. PW-14/C to the police at any point of time during the investigation of the case?
Ans. I had handed over to the police on 21.03.2005."
He has admitted that Ex. PW14/B and Ex. PW-14/C did not bear the original seal of PS Mangol Puri as both are photocopies. He further deposed that PW-4 himself had gone to the police station for lodging the aforesaid complaints. He did not remember the name of the officer who had received the complaint but she was a lady.
He further deposed that he had never met accused Lalit Mann prior to the registration of the FIR in this case. He used to receive threats on his telephone from some one. He did not remember now the mobile number or the telephone number from which he received the threats. He was remembering the telephone number at the time of submitting his complaints Ex. PW14/B and Ex. PW14/C. Here this court observes that there is no investigation of police regarding any such call made to PW4 as alleged in Ex. PW14/B and Ex. PW14/C. It is not the case of the prosecution that the matter was investigated at the relevant time and such complaints were found genuine. Moreover, prosecution is not able to prove originals of such complaints. Thus, both these documents do not inspire confidence in the mind of this court.
He had disclosed the said mobile number in Ex. PW 14/C. He has admitted that in Ex. PW 14/C and Ex. PW 14/D he had made no reference or mention to the effect that -:81:- accused Lalit Mann, Narender Mann and their associates used to threaten his son Naveen Gupta on telephone for extorting money from him. He has clarified by making voluntary statement that he had only mentioned that Vijay and Mann used to threaten his son. He deposed that there are more than 20 villages in Delhi which are having surnames as Mann. He further admitted that there are lakhs of people having surnames of Mann. He further deposed that when his complaints Ex. PW14/B and Ex. PW14/C were submitted with PS Mangol Puri, no enquiries were made from him regarding the identity of persons extending threats to his son. PW-4 further deposed that his son Naveen Gupta was knowing Vijay, whose name was mentioned in the complaints. He further deposed that there might be money transactions between Vijay and his son Naveen Gupta. One Neeraj Beniwal was the friend of Vijay and he got lodged a case U/s 420/34 IPC against his son. He further deposed that he was not an accused in the said FIR. Attention of this witness was drawn to the statement dated 09.02.2011 recorded in the court in the trial of Narender Mann and ors in which in reply to a question it is mentioned that he had got anticipatory bail in that case. Now, witness voluntarily deposed that 'agar Aisa pichle bayan main likha hai to jhooth hi hoga'. He further deposed that he never requested police officials to accompany him for the purpose of pointing out Vijay and Neeraj Beniwal or any other person. He never submitted any complaint to any senior police officials that the police official/SHO PS Mangol Puri had not taken any action based upon his complaints. He voluntarily -:82:- clarified that his counsel had sent such complaints to senior police officials and other authorities. During further cross- examination, PW-4 deposed that he could not specify any date, month and year as to when such alleged incident took place with his son. He also deposed that neither his son Naveen Gupta nor PW-4 himself made any complaint or PCR call to the effect that a golden chain belonging to his son Naveen had been snatched by Vijay and Mann. He further deposed that he has not specified in both his complaints Ex. PW 14/B and Ex. PW-14/C as to what was the amount which was demanded, when the same was demanded and by whom it was demanded. He further deposed that his son Naveen Gupta never disclosed to him as to what was the amount demanded from him and when the same had been demanded.
During further cross-examination, PW-4 deposed that he never disclosed to the police that he was in joint business with his deceased brother S. N. Gupta. He further deposed that he had not disclosed in any of his complaints that he had told his deceased brother S. N. Gupta with respect to the phone calls being made to him by accused Lalit Mann and Narender Mann. He further deposed that he had never taken his deceased brother to PS Mangolpuri at the time of submitting the complaint. He further deposed that he had received threats after 16.03.2005 from accused Lalit Mann to the effect 'Ab apne Complaint Kar Di hai, Hum Aap Ko Bhi Dekh Lenge aur Apke Bhai ko Bhi Dekh Lenge'. He further deposed that he cannot assign any reason as to why he had failed to mention the aforesaid alleged threat or the name of accused Lalit Mann -:83:- in his complaint Ex. PW 14/C. He further deposed that he had handed over the photocopies of his complaints Ex. PW 14/B and Ex. PW14/C to the police on 21.03.2005. This court here observes that Ex. PW 14/C bears the date 05.04.2005 then how it was possible that the same could have been handed over by PW-4 on 21.03.05. He further deposed that he had personally received threats from some one on telephone. He further deposed that he did not remember that during earlier trial, he stated in his cross-examination on 9.02.2011 that he himself had never received any threat from anyone of those against whom the complaint was made or any one of those mentioned as associates.
This Court is of the opinion that testimony of PW-4 cannot be believed upon inasmuch as he is the person who changed his version time and again. When he was put to cross-examination, then even he had gone to the extent that he stated that his earlier version given in earlier cross- examination was false.
F) PW-5 during cross-examination on behalf of accused no. 1 deposed that he was made a Director after accused Shiv Charan Bansal and Sachin Bansal were in jail in this case. He further deposed that he did not remember whether at that time he was a shareholder in Accent Shoes Pvt. Ltd. He did not remember the date and month on which Extra Ordinary General Meeting of share holders of M/s Accent Shoes Pvt Ltd was called. He had attended the meeting. He did not remember whether he had received notice for EGM. He -:84:- denied the suggestion that no meeting or EGM was held or that he was not elected as a Director and that the false proceedings had been drawn in this respect. He further deposed that accused Sachin Bansal filed a petition before the Company Law Board against his(PW-5) induction as a director in the company M/s Accent Shoes Pvt. Ltd. He further deposed that he did not know that all proceedings in relation to his being inducted as a Director were held illegal by the Company Law Board. He further deposed that he knew that the Company Law Board had restored the status in this regard as on March, 2006 and PW-5 was removed from the Directorship. He further deposed that earlier there were two Directors in M/s Accent Shoes Pvt. Ltd, one was Rajesh, son of deceased and the other was Sachin Bansal. He further deposed that area of the plot where the factory M/s Accent Shoes Pvt Ltd was located is about 4000 square meters. The area of the tenanted premises with M/s Accent Shoes Pvt Ltd in that property is around 1/4th of the total area. The property belongs to accused Shiv Charan Bansal. He denied the suggestion that he wanted to grab the entire property/plot where M/s Accent Shoes Pvt Ltd was located even apart from the rented premises and in that respect the suit was filed. He further denied the suggestion that in order to grab the property the suit was filed before the civil Court at Bahadur Garh with respect to the aforesaid property. He could not say if the suit was filed in the year 2008 when he was also a Director in M/s Accent Shoes Pvt. Ltd. He further deposed that Kirori Mal is his cousin brother who was working as a chowkidar in the -:85:- factory premises of M/s Accent Shoes Pvt Ltd. He denied the suggestion that he was kept by them in the factory after the arrest of accused Shiv Charan Bansal and Sachin Bansal. He further deposed that he did not know that a case U/s 323/325/509 of IPC at PS City Bahadurgarh was registered against Kirori Mal and ors for assault. He admitted that case vide FIR no. 270/08 for embezzlement was registered against him also at PS Bahadur Garh in respect of the property of M/s Accent Shoes Pvt. Ltd. PW-5 further denied the suggestion that they concocted a false story with regard to the investments made by them in the committees allegedly run by accused Shiv Charan Bansal and Sachin Bansal. He further denied the suggestion that no amount was due from accused Shiv Charan Bansal and Sachin Bansal. He further denied the suggestion that no amount was due from accused Shiv Charan Bansal in respect of the business dealings relating to business under the name and style of Akash International. He further deposed that his deceased brother had told him about a month prior to January, 2006 that accused Shiv Charan Bansal and Sachin Bansal were not returning the amount invested in the committees and that they were not picking up his phone. He further denied the suggestion that his deceased brother or PW-5 himself had never invested any amount in the committees allegedly run by accused Shiv Charan Bansal and Sachin Bansal. He further deposed that he cannot tell the names of the members of the committee other than his family. He further denied the suggestion that accused Shiv Charan Bansal and Sachin Bansal were not running any committee or -:86:- that he was not member of any committee allegedly run by them or that for the said reason he did not know the name of any other person apart from his family who were the members of the committees or who might have taken the amount of committees. He further deposed that he files his income tax return. He did not remember if he had made any mention of the investment in the committees in his Income Tax Return for the relevant period. He further deposed that he had not taken any legal act to recover the committee amount from accused Shiv Charan Bansal and Sachin Bansal. He further deposed that he had not stated before the police the amount that was due to him from Sachin Bansal. He voluntarily stated that it was in lakhs. When he was confronted with the statement Ex. PW-5/DA, it was not recorded that amount due was in lacs.
G) PW-6 turned hostile as he himself stated before the Court that he did not know anything about the case. This witness during cross-examination admitted that during the intervening period of January 2006 till September 2006, flat No. A-1/35, first Floor, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi was lying locked and during the aforesaid intervening period the same was never opened. He further stated that he knows this fact because he was running his office from the ground floor of the aforesaid premises.
H) During cross-examination, PW-13 deposed that he had gone to the house of deceased S. N. Gupta on the date of his death where he remained there for about one hour. Police -:87:- arrived at the hospital when PW -13 was there. He had not informed to the police on that day that he invested money in the committee run by accused Shiv Charan Bansal. He further deposed that he had told to the police in his statement that he was a member of four committees of face value of Rs.10 lacs each. He further deposed that he had not made the payment in respect of the committees by way of any cheque. He further deposed that he is an Income tax Assessee since before the year 2005. He further deposed that he had not shown in his income tax return that the amount invested by him in the committees, was not returned to him. He had paid eight installments in total in each of the four committees and the first installment was of Rs.40,000 each and the subsequent installments used to be more than Rs.40,000/- each because the committee was auctioned every month. There were total 20 persons in each committee. The amount of installment was paid by PW-13 out of his saving, the saving of his wife, the saving of his mother and saving of his father. His wife is a housewife and was not doing any business. His wife had the income from interest on FDs. He used to pay her a salary from his firm in the year 2005. He did not remember the amount of salary that he used to pay her. He admitted that his father was not doing any business. His mother was aged 58 years in the year 2005-06. She was also a house wife. He denied the suggestion that he has made a false statement that he used to pay the installment out of the savings of his father, mother and wife. He further deposed that he had not produced any document to the police in support of his claim that he was a -:88:- member of committees run by accused Shiv Charan Bansal and Sachin Bansal or about the source from which he paid the installments of committees. He further deposed that he had not stated in his previous statement during the trial of accused Sachin Bansal that 'Investment was made by cheque by his wife. The attention of the witness was drawn to his statement dated 20.11.2010 wherein it is so recorded. He further deposed that he had not taken any legal step to recover the amount that he had allegedly invested in the committees.
I) PW-13 further deposed that monthly installment in respect of the committees amounted to approximately 1.60- 1.75 lacs. The Investigating Officer did not ask him to produce proof in respect of his being a member of the committees allegedly run by Shiv Charan Bansal and Sachin Bansal. PW-13 did not produce any proof in respect of his being a member of the committees run by Shiv Charan Bansal and Sachin Bansal. PW-13 did not produce any proof in respect of his being a member of the committees as aforesaid. He denied a suggestion that IO asked him for the proof in respect thereof. He further deposed that in his statement, deposed before ld. MM as to how much amount was invested by him in the committees. He was confronted with his statement U/s 164 Cr. PC where it was not so recorded. PW-13 further deposed that he could not tell what was the income of his wife during the year 2005-06 and 2006-07. He further deposed that he had not shown the loss of the amount invested in the committees in the income tax -:89:- return of his wife. He further deposed that the interest income of his wife was only from the Bank. The salary that he used to pay to his wife from his business, was also paid through cheques. PW-13 further deposed during cross-examination that he and his wife had not withdrawn any amount from her account for paying the installments of the committees. He further deposed that he used to make drawings from the bank and out of those drawings, he made payment for the installments of the committees. He further deposed that he had a monthly drawing from his business to the extent of Rs.25-30,000/-. He used to meet his household expenses from the said drawings. He also deposed that side income is income from interest. He further deposed that he had made some savings which were given as loan to his friends on interest. He denied the suggestion that he falsely stated with regard to his side income. He further stated that he had not stated in his statement dated 07.04.2006 that the money invested in the committees was that of his wife or that of his parents. He did not remember whether the police had brought him to the court of ld. Magistrate for his statement. He did not remember whether he had received any summons from the court of ld. MM to appear for his statement. He did not remember if Rajesh and Rakesh, both sons of deceased had accompanied him to the court on that date.
J) PW-17 admitted that there is no seizure memo to the effect that Ex. PW 23/A to Ex. PW 23/E were ever taken into possession vide a seizure memo. He is not aware as to -:90:- whether statement with regard to the aforesaid exhibits of any of his employees was recorded by the police in connection with this case.
K) PW-18 during cross-examination admitted that pistol Ex. PW 1/B was improvised one. He deposed that improvised pistol is not a standard pistol.
L) During cross-examination PW-20 deposed that on the arrest of accused Shiv Charan Bansal when his statement was recorded by the IO, it was on 27.04.2006. On the date of arrest, disclosure statement of accused Shiv Charan Bansal was recorded by the IO at the factory of accused Shiv Charan Bansal. Accused Shiv Charan Bansal was arrested from outside the Rohini Court complex and his disclosure statement was recorded there. No one from the public was asked to join the investigation at that time. He denied the suggestion that accused Shiv Charan Bansal was arrested from inside the court complex with the permission of the ld. Court. He further deposed that there was one labour present at Bahadur Garh factory of accused Shiv Charan Bansal when they went there. He further deposed that there was a factory in the vicinity of the factory of accused Shiv Charan. He further clarified that there were three factories when the search was conducted. He further deposed that labour was not asked to join the search. He has admitted that there is overwriting on the date on the disclosure statement Ex. PW 20/C. He has admitted there is an overwriting on Ex. PW 20/2 -:91:- at point X which is personal search memo of accused Shiv Charan Bansal. He has further admitted that there is over writing on the date on Ex. PW 20/4 at point X which is a house search memo of the house of accused Shiv Charan Bansal.
M) PW-23 during cross-examination deposed that he had invested Rs. 5,28,000/- in the committees. He further deposed that he had shown the amount of Rs. 5,28,000/- as loss in his Income Tax Return in the year 2005-06. His statement was recorded in this case earlier in court during the trial of other accused persons and during his statement he was asked to produce the income tax return for the relevant period but he had not produced the same in court because it was not available with him. He was given time by the court to produce his income tax return for the relevant period but even then, he could not produce. He denied the suggestion that he did not file the Income tax return for the year 2005-06. He further deposed that he has not taken any legal step to recover the amount that he had allegedly invested in the committees run by accused Shiv Charan Bansal. He did not remember if he had shown the loss of the committee amount in any of his subsequent returns i.e. after 2005-06 and 2006-
07. He further deposed that police did not ask him to produce any proof in support of his claim that he was a member of the committees allegedly run by accused Shiv Charan Bansal. He denied the suggestion that police asked him to give any proof in this regard or that he could not produce the same as -:92:- he was not a member of any committee as aforesaid.
PW-24 during cross-examination deposed that disclosure statement Ex. PW 24/A was recorded by the IO after 7 pm. Thereafter, accused Shailender Singh was taken for further investigation at Village Bakargarh and village Issa Pur address i.e. Flat No. A-1/35, Sector-7, Rohini Delhi was disclosed by the accused Shailender Singh in his disclosure statement on 03.06.2006. On 03.06.2006 the police team did not visit the flat. They had gone to the said flat at about 4/4:30 pm on 04.06.2006. No public person was joined for investigation. IO had asked the public persons to join the investigation but they refused and left the spot without disclosing their names and addresses. IO had asked the occupants of the neighbouring flats to join the investigation but they refused. He further deposed that IO did not give notice to them nor noted down their names and address. IO did not prepare any site plan of the said place. He denied the suggestion that he had not joined the investigation at any point of time. He further denied the suggestion that accused Shailender Singh had not pointed out the flat No. A-1/35, Sector 7, Rohini, Delhi or that the pointing out memo in this respect is a false and fabricated document.
N) PW-25 during cross-examination deposed that police team reached at flat no. A-1/35, Sector 7, Rohini Delhi at about 4.40/4.45 am. Joginder Singh Sodhi was sitting in the private vehicle along with SI R. K. Mann. IO asked public persons to join the investigation. PW-25 was not aware -:93:- whether the persons requested by IO for joining the investigation were the neighbourers or not since he was busy in taking care of Joginder Singh Sodhi. He did not know whether the building in which Flat A-1/35 was situated was built up upto third floor, fourth floor or fifth floor. He did not know how many flats were there at one floor of the said building. He further deposed that as he has entered the room, there was a room approximately of 8 meter x 10 meter. He did not notice whether there was any window in the said room. Besides a table, one sofa and two chairs were lying in that room. There was another room in the inner portion of the flat and in the said room, he did not visit. He has admitted that two persons namely Narender Mann and Joginder Singh Sodhi both of whom had already faced trial had led the police team towards a room situated towards inner side on the first floor of the said premises. He further deposed that in his statement U/s 161 Cr. PC already Ex. PW 24/DA he had stated that recovery was effected from the room situated towards the inner portion of the said premises. He further deposed that in his statement U/s 161 C r. PC which is Ex. PW 24/DA he had stated that recovery was effected from the room situated towards the inner portion of the said flat (Andar Wale Kamre Se). When they reached the flat, one person namely Padam Bahadur was present there. IO did not record his statement in his presence. Signatures of said Padam Bahadur were not taken on Ex. PW 24/B in his presence. PW
-25 further stated that he did not state in his statement U/s 161 Cr. PC to the IO regarding the presence of Padam -:94:- Bahadur in the said flat. He further deposed that he did not remember if the drawers were locked or not. He did not know if any key was taken from Padam Bahadur or not. He further deposed that he did not remember if the IO made any effort to recover the ownership documents of the aforesaid flat. He further deposed that Padam bahadur was not brought to PS for the purpose of investigation nor his statement was recorded by the IO. He denied the suggestion that no recovery was affected from the said flat.
During cross-examination on behalf of accused Lalit Mann, a question was put to PW-27 by ld. Defence Counsel and PW-27 replied to the question, which are reproduced here:-
"Q. Is it correct that the photograph removed from the album, which is Ex.
PW27/ DX2 is of paper manufactured by Kodak Company whereas the paper of the photograph Ex. PW 25/5 is manufactured by Fuji Company. What you have to say?
Ans. Photograph Ex. PW 25/5 was recovered from the dicky of the car."
On the request of ld. Addl. PP one more photograph was removed from the album. None of the ld. Defence Counsel objected. Here, the Court observed that the folio of the photograph is Ex. PW27/DX3 and the photograph is Ex. PW- 27/DX4.
PW-27 admitted that paper manufactured used in Ex. PW 27/DX4 is of Kodak Company.
PW-27 is further questioned:
" Q. Is it correct that at the time -:95:- of removal of photographs Ex. PW-
27/DX2 & Ex. PW-27/DX4, the colour of the paper of the album on which these two photographs have been affixed, are of pink colour and both papers bear serial number whereas on photograph Ex. PW-25/5, the colour of the paper, which is sticking with the photograph and shows that the said photograph has been removed from somewhere is of white colour. What you have to say?
A. Regarding colour I have to say that Ex. PW-25/5 was removed from the paper much earlier though the colour is different. However, it is correct that the colour at the back side of Ex. PW-
27/DX2 & Ex. PW-27/DX4 is pink and the colour at the back side of Ex. PW-
25/5 is white at the portions-A. Witness further admits that the serial numbers depicted in photographs Ex. PW-
27/DX2 & Ex. PW-27/DX4 are not found mentioned on the back side of Ex. PW-
25/5.
Ans. It is correct that the paper of the album from where the photographs Ex.
PW-27/DX2 & Ex. PW-27/DX4 are removed are of pink colour and it is further correct that the size of photograph Ex. PW-25/5 is totally different when compared to photographs Ex. PW-27/DX2 & Ex. PW-
27/DX4.
Q. Whether from the left hand side of Ex. PW-25/5, border of the photograph is not straight line but it seems that it was cut from some other photograph.
A. No, it is not looking as such.
Court observation : There is no straight line on the left side of photograph Ex. PW 25/5 but it is not in straight line.-:96:-
Q. Is it correct that size of portion of paper which is sticking on the back side of photograph Ex. PW 25/5 encircled at point A does not match with the removed portion at point A at page of the album which is Ex. PW 25/2 at all?
A. This paper has been removed from last many years. It appears that the same may have vanished due to lapse of time."
PW-27 further admitted that photograph Ex. PW 25/5 is on the paper of Fuji company whereas the photographs Ex. PW 27/DX2 and Ex. PW 27/DX4 are on the paper of Kodak Company. The photographs Ex. PW 27/DX2 and Ex. PW 27/DX4 were removed from the album/folio during the cross- examination conducted on 28.01.2020. PW-27 further deposed that he did not remember if he had stated in his statement U/s 161 Cr. PC on 29.03.2006 that when they were on the main road while going towards village Naya Bans, Sachin Bansal pointed out towards a car standing by the side of the road. He further admitted that in arrest memo of accused Nanhe @ Lalit Maan, the date is not mentioned under the signatures of IO and the same was lying blank. He further deposed that arrest memo Ex. PW 25/C, Ex. PW 25/D and Ex. PW 25/E are in the hand writing of one of the member of the police party. He voluntarily stated that same were prepared on the directions of the IO. PW 27 did not remember the name of the police official in whose handwriting the aforesaid arrest memos were prepared. He further deposed that key of the vehicle was not seized vide a separate seizure memo. He did not remember if the fact of the recovery of key of the vehicle was also -:97:- mentioned in the seizure memo Ex. PW 25/F. He denied the suggestion that accused Lalit Mann and others were not arrested as alleged by PW-27 in his examination in chief. He denied the suggestion that accused Lalit Maan, Narender Mann, Rajbir Malik were not travelling in the esteem car at any point of time as alleged by PW-27. He denied the suggestion that the album and loose photograph have been planted by the police at the instance of the complainant party. He denied the suggestion that accused Lalit Mann did not make any disclosure statement as alleged by PW-27.
O) PW-30 admitted that he remained in judicial custody in one case of cheating, may be it was in December, 2010 or January, 2011. He admitted that there were two cases of cheating against him and those cases related to the allegations of his sending man force abroad on taking money illegally. He further admitted that he remained in judicial custody in one case before release on bail and that was in the year 2011. When a question was put to PW-30 that whether he remained in custody in December 2010 also, PW-30 replied that he remained in custody in one case of cheating, may be it was in December, 2010 or January 2011.
He denied the suggestion that he made false statement in the court that Narender Mann, Lalit Mann and Sachin Bansal used to threaten him to extract money from him. During further cross-examination on behalf of accused Lalit, PW-30 deposed that he had not disclosed the entire facts as stated by him in his examination in chief dated 29.01.2020 to -:98:- his father before lodging the report Ex. Pw 14/B. He was knowing the names of Narender Mann as well as accused Lalit Mann when he ldoged the complaint Ex. PW 14/B. Attention of the witness was drawn to the complaint Ex. PW 14/B and he has admitted that neither the name of Narender Mann, nor the name of accused Lalit Mann was mentioned in the complaint. He admitted that he was dealing in satta business. He has admitted that there are number of villages in which Jat community of 'Mann Gotra' is residing and there are millions of Mann in the NCT of Delhi. PW-30 further disclosed that he had disclosed to his father before he went to lodge complaint Ex. PW 14/B that Narender Mann had taken a golden chain from him which was weighing for about 4.5 tolas. Attention of this witness was drawn to the complaint Ex. PW 14/B and he admits that no such name or date of the incident is mentioned therein. He has admitted that he never made complaint to the PCR or to the police regarding any incident of chain snatching or the threats being extended to him. He further deposed that he did not have any financial dealings with Narender Mann or accused Lalit Mann at any point of time. He further deposed that he had not disclosed to his father that he owed any money to Sachin Bansal or that Narender mann and Lalit Mann extended threats to him on behalf of Sachin Bansal. He further deposed that he had told to the police the aforesaid facts in his statement Ex. PW 15/DA during the investigation of this case. PW-39 is confronted with his statement Ex.PW15/DA where it is not recorded that Lalit Mann and Narender Mann used to extend threats to him on behalf of -:99:- Sachin Bansal. He further deposed that his father had revealed to him about lodging of the complaint in the month of March-April 2005. PW-30 had never approached to the police for the purpose of getting the persons identified or apprehended, who had allegedly extended threats to him. He had also not disclosed the mobile numbers of the persons to the police who had allegedly extended threats to him, although he had disclosed the mobile number of those persons to his father. He also did not remember if he has stated in his statement Ex. PW 15/DA either his mobile number on which he allegedly received the threats or the mobile number of those persons from which such calls were made to him. PW- 30 further deposed that he had stated in his statement Ex PW5/DA recorded before the police that the persons came to his house in the month of March or April for extending threats to him. Witness was confronted with his statement Ex. PW 15/DA where it is not so recorded.
PW-30 was never asked by IO to participate in the judicial TIP of any of the accused persons. A question was put to PW-30 that in his examination in chief dated 11.01.2011 recorded in the earlier trial of Narender Mann and ors, he had not named accused Lalit Mann but now he had improved upon his version by naming accused Lalit Mann for the first time. He replied that it was not asked from him and if asked so, he might have named him but he did not remember as to what statement was given by him in the year 2011. Attention of the witness was drawn to the statement dated 11.01.2011 and he admits that he had not named accused Lalit Mann or attributed -:100:- any role to him in his said statement. He denied the suggestion that he had falsely introduced the name of accused Lalit Mann to involve him in this case while colluding with the complainant party as well as the IO.
P) PW-31 during cross-examination deposed that key of esteem car bearing No. DL-3CAG-6566 was deposited with him in the malkhana however, he has admitted that there was no reference of the same in entry Ex. PW35/C. He has admitted that in his earlier examination in chief recorded on 15.12.2014, he had not stated that seal of SP was deposited with him by the IO on 31.03.2006. During further cross- examination, a question was put to PW-31 which is being reproduced as under:-
"Q. Is it correct that as per RC Ex.
PW35/F, one revolver along with two live cartridges were sent to FSL, which were claimed to have been recovered on 30.03.2006 and were allegedly deposited with you vide entry No. 5724?
Ans. In this case two pistols were deposited in malkhana and seals on both the pullandas were of SP and while sending he exhibits on 27.04.2006 vide RC Ex. PW 35/F, the other pistol had been sent to FSL instead of the pistol which should have been sent as both the pullands were sealed with the same seal and case particulars mentioned on both the pullandas were the same".
He further deposed that in his earlier examination recorded on 15.12.2014 and in his examination recorded, he had not stated that there was any mistake in sending the case -:101:- property to the FSL, as claimed by him in his cross- examination. He could not identify the mistake till the charge- sheet was filed. It was pointed out by the IO on 15.12.2006. IO did not ask for any written reply in this regard. He has admitted that during the intervening period of 27.04.2006 to 15.09.2006, he was not aware about the aforesaid alleged mistake. He was further put a question which is being reproduced as under:-
"Q. During your earlier cross-
examination dated 18.12.2014 you had admitted it to be correct that during the period from 27.04.2006 to 22.09.2006 you were not aware about the aforesaid alleged mistake whereas today you have claimed that you were told about it by the IO on 15.09.2006?
Ans. It came to my knowledge on 15.09.2006 but on 22.09.06 the pullanda containing another pistol had been sent to FSL."
Q) He further deposed that his statement was not recorded regarding the aforesaid alleged mistake for sending another pistol vide RC Ex. PW 35/F. PW-31 had not obtained the signatures of Inspector Om Prakash at the time of handing over the exhibits on 22.09.2006 either in register No. 19 or on the RC. He further deposed that no case property was sent to FSL on 02.08.2006. PW -31 could not comment as to whether and why the then SHO had sent a letter dated 09.08.06 and another undated letter to FSL that the case property which had been deposited on 02.08.06 with FSL, he was awaiting the result thereof. He denied the suggestion that case property was tampered with while it remained in his possession or PW 31 in collusion with IO fabricated a false story that a parcel -:102:- containing revolver and cartridges were sent by mistake or that he is deposing falsely to that effect.
R) PW-35 during cross-examination deposed that many persons were present at the spot when he returned from the hospital at about 6 pm. He further deposed that amongst those persons the relatives of the deceased i.e. his sons and one maid servant were also present. PW 35 further deposed that after sending the rukka at 6:50 pm till the arrival of Inspector Satpal at the spot at 7:25 pm, he made enquiries from those persons. PW-35 did not record statement of any one of them. During cross-examination on behalf of accused Shailender Singh and Lalit Mann, PW -35 deposed that he could not say if the maid servant was present there at the spot on 21.03.2006. PW-35 further deposed that he did not know if the name of Lalit Mann was mentioned in the disclosure statement of Sachin Bansal. He denied the suggestion that name of Lalit Mann is not mentioned in the disclosure statement of Sachin Bansal and this fact was within his knowledge and he was giving evasive answer.
During further cross-examination, he deposed that he did not remember if any site plan of the place of arrest of accused Lalit Mann was prepared or not. He did not remember whether the disclosure statement of accused Lalit Mann, Rajbir Malik and Narender Mann were written by one official or different officials. PW-35 further deposed that vehicle was searched by the IO. He did not know if the key of the vehicle was seized by the IO or not. The articles which were allegedly -:103:- recovered from the car including the album were sealed at the spot. PW-35 deposed that he did not know who was the registered owner of the Esteem Car. PW-35 further deposed that IO did not make any investigation or enquiry with regard to the fact of the ownership of the Esteem car. There were no shops at the place where Lalit Mann, Narender Mann and Rajbir Malik were apprehended. The vehicles were passing on the road. PW-35 did not know if the IO tried to stop any passing vehicle in order to find the public person or IO had called any person from Village Naya Bans for joining as a witness. PW-35 further deposed that he did not know how many rooms were there in flat No. A-1/35 Sector 7, Rohini, Delhi. The said flat was situated at the first floor. There were flats on the left side and right side of the said flat. He further deposed that police team had reached at the said flat at about 8 or 9 am. He did not remember if the IO had called any public person to join the investigation or not. As they entered the said flat they found an office. The said room might be of the dimensions of 12 x 12 feet. PW-35 deposed that he did not state in his statement recorded under section 161 Cr. PC on 30.03.2006 that Narender Mann had taken out the pistol from the office table of the inner room of the said flat. Witness was confronted with his statement dated 30.03.2006 Ex. PW 35/DC where it is so recorded. He further deposed that the said flat was lying unlocked. He did not remember if any person was found present at the said flat. He remained at the said flat for about 15/20 minutes. He did not remember who had scribed the seizure memo of the pistol Ex. PW 24/B. He -:104:- did not know whether the drawer was single drawer or there was 2 or more drawers. He did not know if the IO had made search of the drawers or not. He did not remember if the said flat was searched by the police party or not. IO did not seize any other document/file from the said flat. The flat was situated in the gated colony. The said flat was a double storeyed flat. No public person or the neighbour visited the said flat as long as he remained at the said flat. He has admitted that in Ex. PW 25/D i.e arrest memo of accused Nanhe @ Lalit Mann, the complete date is not mentioned below the signature of IO and only month and year is written and the date is left blank. Voluntarily it is stated that the column of date and time of arrest bears the complete date. He denied the suggestion that date is left blank since Ex. PW 25/D is a fabricated document and the same is also ante dated.
S) During cross-examination of PW-36, he deposed no public person was asked to join the investigation at the time of seizure of the envelope from Sh. Rajesh Gupta. PW 36 had not shown the place where the said envelope was lying at the spot in the site plan. He further deposed that he might have sent total 13 documents to the Doctor while conducting inquest proceedings. He had not sent the seizure memo of the envelope along with inquest papers. PW-36 further deposed that the facts regarding the complaints given by Sh. Suresh Gupta on 21.03.06 is not mentioned in the brief facts. PW-36 further deposed that separate seizure memo of the key of the -:105:- vehicle was not prepared. PW-36 has not prepared the separate seizure memo of the articles which were recovered from the vehicle. He further deposed that he did not remember who had driven the esteem car from the police station to the place where it was seized. PW-36 further deposed that he checked the album Ex. PW 25/1 which was taken out from the dickey of the car. He has admitted that Ex. PW 27/DX2 and Ex. PW 27/DX4 are on the paper of Kodak Company. He further admitted that photograph Ex. PW 25/5 is on the paper of Fuji company. He further deposed that in the arrest memo of accused Narender Mann which is Ex. PW 25/C, the place of arrest is mentioned as Village Naya Bansal whereas in the arrest memo of Lalit Mann Ex. PW 25/D, the place of arrest is mentioned as Naya Bans, Main road. Voluntarily he has stated that both are the same places. He denied the suggestion that the photo album has been planted along with other articles. He further deposed that the fact that the photo album has been recovered from the Esteem car is not mentioned in the disclosure statement of Narender Mann. During cross- examination PW-36 deposed that he reached the flat No. A- 1/35, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi at about 8 am. The flat was lying opened. He did not collect the documents of ownership of the said flat. He clarified that at the time of arrest of accused Shailender, he had disclosed that the flat No. A-1/35 Sector 7, Rohini, Delhi is in the name of his wife Pooja Singh and the documents of ownership were lying in the locker of Allahabad Bank, Chandni Chowk branch. He admitted that the fact that flat No. A-1/35, Sector 7, Rohini, Delhi is in the name of his -:106:- wife Pooja Singh and that the document of ownership were lying in the locker of Allahabad Bank, Chandni Chowk Branch were not mentioned in the disclosure statement of accused Shailender Singh. He further deposed that he had not collected the CAF of mobile number of accused Shailender Singh nor placed the same on record. He denied the suggestion that accused Shailender Singh never disclosed that the said flat was in the name of his wife or that the ownership documents were lying in the bank locker. He further denied the suggestion that no mobile connection was issued to accused Shailender Singh from the above said flat. He further denied the suggestion that he had intentionally and deliberately not placed on record the CAF of the mobile number which he alleged to be belonging to accused Shailender Singh. He further deposed that there were two rooms in the said flat and table was lying in the inner room. He further deposed that no public person joined the investigation. He tried to call the occupants of the opposite flat and rang the door bell but no body opened the door. The drawer was part of the table. He did not remember if there was only one drawer or more. The said pistol was taken out from the upper drawer. He remained present there for about one hour or so. He further deposed that he has mentioned in the seizure memo that pistol was taken out from the drawer of the safe which was kept on the left side of the table(office table ke bayi taraf rakhe safe id daraj se nikaal kar ek pistol pesh kiya). He further deposed that he went inside the flat along with ASI Shri Kishan as well as other police officials who were accompanying him along with Joginder Singh Sodhi -:107:- and Narender Maan. He further deposed that in the disclosure statement of accused Joginder Singh Ex. PW 25/L, he admitted the fact that he can point out the place where the pistol had been kept or the address of the above said flat, is not mentioned. PW-36 did not prepare pointing out memo of the flat A-1/35, Sector-7, Rohini Delhi at the instance of Narender Mann and Joginder Singh Sodhi. PW-36 further deposed that call details record were collected from the office of ACP Sultan Puri. He did not record statement of any Nodal Officer. Voluntarily he clarified that he had analysed the CDRs. PW -36 did not record the statement of ACP for collection of CDR. PW-36 did not visit the service provider. He did not collect any certificate U/s 65 B of Indian Evidence Act. He did not request the service provider for providing the CAF. He denied the suggestion that the mobile numbers which he has stated in his examination in chief did not belong to the accused persons. He further deposed that the address of accused Lalit Mann with regard to the mobile phone as 110, Village Iradat Nagar, Delhi as stated by him in his examination in chief, has come on record in the investigation. He denied the suggestion that accused Lalit Mann was not resident of 110, Village Iradat Nagar, Delhi. He further denied the suggestion that this address did not surface on record during the investigation of the case. He further deposed that he did not seize the mobile phones of Narender Mann and accused Lalit Mann. He further deposed that he did not record statement of any witness who had generated the CDRs of the mobile phones mentioned in his examination in chief. He further deposed that accused -:108:- Shailender Singh was taken to the flat No. A-1/35, Sector 7, Rohini on 04.06.2006. He did not remember the time when he was taken to the spot. The memo Ex. PW 24/B was prepared through ball pen. PW-36 denied the suggestion that in Ex. PW 24/B at point C, the date has been changed. He denied the suggestion that Ex. PW24/B is a manipulated document. PW 36 further deposed that he did not remember the time when he recorded the statement of complainant Kanta Devi but it was around 10 p.m. At this stage a question was put to PW 36 to which he answered. Same is reproduced here as:-
"Q. I put to you that you did not record the statement of Kanta Devi U/s 161 Cr. PC on that day i.e. 21.3.2006?
Ans. After going through the file, I state that there is no statement of Smt. Kanta Devi recorded U/s 161 Cr. PC on that day. "
He further deposed that it had come to his knowledge on 21.03.2006 that there was a dispute between the complainant party and Sachin Bansal and accused Shiv Charan Bansal about the business dealings of factories and committees. He further deposed that no further evidence came on record to support the above allegations of dispute between them over the business dealings and committees after 21.03.2006 upto 29.03.2006. PW-36 further deposed that he did not mention brief facts sent along with inquest papers on 22.03.2006 about any such dispute over the business dealings and the committees between the complainant party and Sachin Bansal and accused Shiv Charan Bansal. He further deposed that sons of the deceased did not produce any document in support of dispute between them and Sachin Bansal and -:109:- accused Shiv Charan Bansal with regard to the business dealings of the factories of the committees. He had made interrogations before 29.03.2006 from Sachin Bansal with regard to the committees but he refused to be doing any committee business himself or by his father. He further deposed that there are residential houses around the house of Sachin Bansal and accused Shiv Charan Bansal, who were residing jointly. He further deposed that no public person was joined in the house search. Nothing incriminating was recovered. He further deposed that on not finidng any incriminating evidence against Sachin Bansal and accused Shiv Charan Bansal from their house search, they did not search their factories. He denied the suggestion that subsequent to their arrest, they started fabricating evidence against Sachin Bansal and accused Shiv Charan Bansal. PW- 36 further deposed that as and when Sachin Bansal was interrogated, no public person was joined in the investigation. He did not join any public witness at any time when they made the alleged disclosure statements or at the time of any search or the alleged recovery. He denied the suggestion that the theory of dispute between the complainant party and Sachin Bansal and accused Shiv Charan Bansal was later on propounded and accordingly the statements of the witnesses were falsely formulated to implicate Sachin Bansal and accused Shiv Charan Bansal. He further denied the suggestion that photograph of the deceased Ex. PW 25/5 was taken out from the sons of the deceased and falsely shown to have been recovered from the Esteem car to create a false -:110:- linking evidence. He further deposed that there were other factories around the factory of Sachin Bansal. No staff member of the factory met them in the office of the factory of Sachin Bansal. He further denied the suggestion that there were 4/5 persons of the staff present in the office of factory of Sachin Bansal. PW-36 did not see any worker in the factory of Sachin Bansal as he did not go to the factory area except the office as such he cannot say whether there were workers in the factory. PW-36 further deposed that he did not join any person for effecting the recovery of the pistol and cartridges from the office.
PW-36 further deposed that Ajit Prashad and Ashok Aggarwal came to him on 07.04.2006 of their own at PS Mangol Puri without having been summoned by PW-36 by way of any notice or otherwise. PW-36 recorded their statements U/s 161 Cr. PC. PW-36 further deposed that he had asked both of them to produce documentary proof for the participation in committees but they could not produce any proof in respect of it. He further deposed that he had seized dissolution deed in respect of the business of Akash International. He did not verify or conduct any investigation in relation to the contents of that dissolution deed Ex. PW21/DA. He did not find any document relating to the committees allegedly run by Sachin Bansal and accused Shiv Charan Bansal during the investigation. During search of premises i.e T-1/111, Mangol Puri Industrial Area and premises No. B-286, Mangolpuri Industrial Area, nothing incriminating was -:111:- recovered.
During further cross-examination, PW-36 deposed that he had gone to the factories of accused Shiv Charan Bansal located at B-286, Mangolpuri Industrial Area and T-1/111, Mangol Puri Industrial Area on 28.04.2006 in pursuance to the disclosure statement dated 26.04.06 Ex.PW20/3.
He admitted that there is no mention of the of the above said two factories in the disclosure statement Ex. PW-20/3. He had gone to the aforesaid factories sometime in the evening of 28.04.2006. No incriminating document relating to alleged committees were recovered. He further deposed that ownership of mobile No. 9818119624 could not be established. He did not obtain customer application form in respect of above said mobile number.
After conclusion of PE, recording of statements of accused persons and after hearing arguments, the matter was fixed for pronouncement of judgment with liberty to ld. Counsel for complainant and ld. Counsel for accused to submit written arguments. Written arguments were submitted by ld. Counsel for accused which have been considered in the judgment. However, in the meantime, ld. Counsel for complainant has approached the Hon'ble High Court on behalf of complainant and witness Rajesh Gupta and vide order dated 08.06.2020, Hon'ble High Court directed that till further order the proceeding before the trial Court shall remain stayed.
On 20.06.2020, Sh. Sachin Dev Sharma, Ld. Counsel for accused Shiv Charan Bansal has appeared and submitted computer generated copy of order passed by Hon'ble High -:112:- Court in Crl. MC no. 1495/2020 and informs that the said petition has been dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court. He has also submitted another computerized copy of order of Hon'ble High Court in Crl. MC No. 1493/2020 wherein Hon'ble High Court has passed directions:
"Pursuant to order dated 08.06.2020, Mr. N. Hariharan, learned senior counsel appears on behalf of respondent no. 2 and Mr. Rashid Hashmi, learned counsel appears on behalf of respondent no. 3 and 4 jointly agreed that at the time of passing final order, if statement of PW- 23 Captain Rakesh Bakshi(Nodel Officer) is considered by the Trial Court, they have no objection.
....
Accordingly Trial Court is directed that while passing final order in the trial, the statement made by PW-23 in earlier trial shall be taken into consideration........"
Now, let the statement of PW-23 be considered. PW-23 has deposed"
That at the request of the police, I generated call details from computer in respect of phone no. 9818411470 from period 1.3.06 to 26.03.2006 (running into 15 pages) and handed over the same to the police. I signed each page of the call detail record at the time of handing over the same to the police. The call details in respect of the aforesaid number is Ex. PW-23/A PW-23 also provided call details in respect of mobile No.9818411471 for the period 01.03.2006 to 31.3.2006 (running into six pages) to the police. This is computer generated record and PW=-23 signed each page at the time of handing over the same to the police. The call details record in respect of the aforesaid number is Ex. PW 23/B. PW-23 also provided call details in respect of mobile No 9810254600 for the period 01.03.2006 to 18.04.2006(running into nine pages) to the police. This is computer generated record and he signed each page at the time of handing over the same to the police. The call details record in respect of the aforesaid number is Ex. PW 23/C. PW-23 also provided call details in respect of mobile No. 9818119624 for the period 01.03.2006 to -:113:- 27.3.2006(running into 43 pages) to the police. This is computer generated record and he signed each page at the time of handing over the same to the police. The call details record in respect of the aforesaid number is Ex. PW 23/D. PW-23 also provided call details in respect of Mobile No.9871791501 for the period 01.03.2006 to 27.3.2006(running into 31 pages) to the police. This is computer generated record and he signed each page at the time of handing over the same to the police. The call details record in respect of the aforesaid number is Ex. PW 23/E. PW-23 had proved the CDRs of few mobile numbers, however, PW-17 the Nodal officer who appeared before this Court during the present trial and has deposed that he had seen on record CDR already Ex. PW-23/A, Ex. PW-23/B, Ex. PW-23/C, Ex. PW23/D and Ex. PW 23/E. He further deposed that the record pertaining to aforesaid CDRs was not available in the CDR Model Fronted System at present.
Ex. PW 23/A, Ex. PW 23/B, Ex. PW 23/C, Ex. PW 23/D and Ex. PW 23/E are perused. In none of these documents, name of any of the accused who is facing trial, has been mentioned. Prosecution is not able to prove that these CDRs are of telephone numbers which were being used by either accused no. 1 Shiv Charan Bansal, accused no. 2 Shailender Singh or accused No. 3 Lalit Mann @ Nanhe.
Perusal of the record shows that no documentary evidence such as CAF etc has been brought on record which could have connected the mobile numbers mentioned in the testimony of PW-13 Captain Rakesh Bakshi with any of the accused persons now facing trial. Even no prosecution witness has deposed that any of the accused persons were using any of the mobile numbers mentioned in the testimony of PW-23.-:114:-
During cross-examination on behalf of accused Shiv Charan Bansal, PW-17 deposed that he does not know when CDRs Ex. PW 23/A to Ex. PW 23/E were retrieved or generated or by whom the same were generated. He further admitted that there is no seizure memo to the effect that Ex. PW 23/A to Ex. PW 23/E were ever taken into possession vide a seizure memo.
Thus, testimony of PW-23 is not going to help the prosecution. CAF of mobile numbers pertaining to Ex. PW- 23/A to Ex. PW-23/E have not been proved.
EVIDENCE AGAINST ACCUSED SHIV CHARAN BANSAL.
In the challan, case of the IO is that since there was dispute regarding the amount to be paid by the accused and his son Sachin Bansal for dissolution of partnership of M/s Akash International and the money was to be paid by the accused and his son Sachin Bansal for the committees being run by accused Shiv Charan Bansal, accused along with other accused persons hatched a conspiracy to commit the murder of deceased S. N. Gupta. Now, this court has to see whether prosecution is able to prove the motive regarding the commission of crime by accused Shiv Charan Bansal. In this case qua accused Shiv Charan Bansal, admittedly there is no direct evidence regarding the commission of the crime. The Court has to consider whether there are circumstances to prove the guilt of the accused.
PW-1 during cross-examination upon specific question, stated himself that in Dissolution Deed Ex. PW 21/DA, cash -:115:- transactions of his father were not mentioned. Moreover, in the entire cross-examination or during entire trial or during investigation, none of the family member of deceased S. N. Gupta could state specific amount of any such cash transaction or the accounts thereof or any documentary evidence to establish that there was any cash payment yet to be paid by accused Shiv Charan Bansal besides the liabilities mentioned in Ex. PW21/DA. Same is observed by this Court in view of the observations in the foregoing paragraphs regarding the amount of the committees. PW-13 deposed that accused Shiv Charan Bansal and his son Sachin Bansal were running a group of 60-70 committees and the group amount was from Rs. 5 lacs upto Rs. 20 lacs, but, no document has been brought by the prosecution to prove this fact except the bald statement of witness without any specific amount specifically mentioned therein. It is further case of PW-13 that he had invested in four committees of Rs. 10 lacs each. However, neither any document has been brought, nor, any other member except family member or relatives of deceased has disclosed about the same. PW-5 who is also related with the deceased could not tell upon specific question, the names of other members of the committees other than his family. If the Court is going to believe upon the prosecution witnesses i.e. PW-13 and PW-5, then if Sachin Bansal was having 60/70 committees then certainly there must have been other members of those committees and it is not possible that except the family members or relatives of the deceased, they did not know the name of any other member. Moreover, if 60/70 -:116:- committees were run by Shiv Charan bansal, then, certainly, there must be some account maintained. It is deposed by PW- 36 that despite visit he could not recover any such alleged amount or any document of committees from the factories of Shiv Charan Bansal or any where in the house. It is not possible for a human being that if 60/70 committees were being run by him, then, no written account was being maintained.
Moreover, prosecution has not made witness any member of the committee except the relatives of the deceased. Moreover, if 60/70 committees were being run by accused Shiv Charan Bansal, then, certainly amount must have been remained unpaid to other members also like the deceased or his family members. In those circumstances, those members would have also dissatisfaction or grudge against the accused due to non payment, but, no such member has come forward or brought by the prosecution.
It is the case of the prosecution during the testimony of witnesses that they also do not have any account. Even not a single prosecution witness has brought any income tax return to establish the fact that any amount was remained unpaid. PW-13 deposed that he had invested the amount in four committees of Rs. 10 lacs each, then, certainly there must be bank transaction of such huge amount. If that amount was paid in cash to Shiv Charan Bansal by PW -13, then, also this amount must have been withdrawn either from business or from the bank. If the amount for payment of committee was withdrawn from the business, then, certainly, it must be -:117:- mentioned in the day book or ledger maintained by the business. If the amount had been withdrawn from the bank, then, there must be entry in the pass book. However, no such document has been brought before the court. Therefore, the prosecution is not able to establish this very fact that the committees were being run by accused Shiv Charan Bansal and this court is not going to believe the testimony of prosecution witnesses that Shiv Charan Bansal was running committees which was the cause and motive for the murder of deceased S. N. Gupta.
This Court already observed here-in-above that PW-1 himself had admitted that cheques were given at the time of dissolution of M/s Akash International.
It is the case of PW-1 that he had to recover a huge sum from the accused Shiv Charan Bansal, but again he could not specify any specific amount which he had to recover. He has stated that all accounts such as Trading A/c, profit and loss A/c, balance sheet and Capital Account etc were prepared but cash transactions of his father were not mentioned therein. Again this Court is not going to believe inasmuch as what refrains the deceased or PW-1 to enter the cash transaction in accounts books. Moreover, again this Court observes that if cash transactions were not mentioned in accounts books or the dissolution deed, then, what was the specific amount of cash transactions-again not disclosed by the witnesses or in the prosecution case. It appears that these are all vague allegations mentioned in evidence just to implicate accused Shiv Charan Bansal in the present case.-:118:-
PW-1 further deposed that regarding settlement of account with respect to Akash International, cheques were given, but further he deposed that those cheques were not towards the settlement of account of M/s Akash International. When specific question was put that in what connection he received those cheques, he deposed that he did not remember. Even he could not tell the amount of cheques. Again this Court has to observe that amount of cheques is the specific amount which must certainly be reflected in bank passbook. But what stopped to disclose said amount by PW-1. Though again he further deposed that amount of the cheques were credited to the respective account of his family members. It is the case of PW-1 himself that he has not taken any legal step to recover the alleged amount from accused Shiv Charan Bansal. If the amount has to be recovered, then, certainly being a law abiding citizen, he has to come to the court or to take legal steps but nothing has been mentioned. Rather, this Court observed that Sachin Bansal son of accused Shiv Charan Bansal filed a petition before the Company Law Board with regard to induction of Satish Gupta as a Director and it was held that same was held illegal and the Board has restored the status quo ante as on 31.03.2006.
PW-2 whose testimony was recorded after the testimony of PW-1 improved the version and deposed that cheques were received from Shiv Charan Bansal as the same were against loan advanced by him. But again no specific amount of loan, no date of advancement of loan has been disclosed. Moreover, nothing as such has been disclosed by any prosecution -:119:- witness during police investigation. Moreover, when in this case earlier testimony of this witness was recorded, such fact was also not disclosed. Rather, he has admitted that a case was registered against him for embezzlement at Bahadurgarh PS. Thus, prosecution is not able to bring any motive for murder against accused Shiv Charan Bansal. Prosecution is not able to prove any active part either in preparation or commission of crime of murder of Sh. S. N. Gupta by accused Shiv Charan Bansal. Therefore, in these circumstances, this Court is of the view that prosecution is not able to prove its case against accused Shiv Charan Bansal. PW-3 who is wife of deceased during cross-examination deposed that her husband was not dealing in committees but when her attention was drawn to her statement dated 16.10.2012, then, she deposed that she has not stated in her statement dated 16.10.2012, that her husband was dealing in committees and he has to take money from people and he also owed money to the people. In further cross-examination she made similar statement.
Therefore, the Court cannot believe upon the testimony of the witness as in two deposition recorded before the Court, she made contradictory statements.
PW-23 who is also brother in law of deceased S. N. Gupta, had stated that he had invested Rs.5,28,000/- in the committees. He further deposed that he had shown the amount as loss in the Income Tax return for the year 2005-06. He further deposed that he was asked to produce the Income -:120:- Tax Return but it was not produced by him as it was not available with him. He was given time by this court to produce the same but even then, he could not produce.
He has also deposed that he had not taken any legal step to recover the amount. It is also his testimony that police also did not ask him to produce any proof in support of his claim that he was a member of the committees allegedly run by accused Shiv Charan Bansal. Thus testimony of this witness cannot be believed upon who despite specific directions of this court, could not produce any documentary proof of the amount being invested. Even, if this Court has to believe upon testimony of PW-23 that he had invested Rs.5,26,000/-, then, this witness could bring bank statement to establish this fact. But nothing has been brought. No such bank statement has been brought to prove by the prosecution.
Prosecution is not able to bring any person besides the relative of the deceased to establish the fact of running of the committees by accused no.1. PW-13 deposed that there were 20 members in each of the committee being run by accused no.1 but neither account of such committees nor any independent witness has been brought by the prosecution. He also deposed that accused Shiv Charan Bansal and his son Sachin Bansal were running a group of 60-70 committees and group amount was from Rs. 5 lacs upto Rs. 20 lacs. If really the committees were being run by accused no.1 then it was not possible for him to maintain accounts of such committees without writing them. Those written accounts have not been brought on record by the prosecution. Moreover, it is not the -:121:- case of the prosecution that accused Shiv Charan Bansal or his son Sachin Bansal had ever influenced any person not to depose against him. Moreover, the person who has to recover the money certainly would come forward to agitate about his blocked money. But prosecution is not able to bring any such witness before this court.
Thus, testimonies of prosecution witnesses against accused Shiv Charan Bansal are contradictory, vague and not sustainable in view of the fact that no specific amount has been disclosed. Even no document could be recovered to establish the case against this accused.
EVIDENCE AGAINST ACCUSED LALIT MANN.
It is the case of the prosecution that on 29.03.2006 Sachin Bansal had come to PS and during interrogation he made a disclosure statement which is Ex. PW 25/B. In Ex. PW25/B Sachin Bansal had not whispered a single word about accused Lalit Mann. He had disclosed about the role of Narender Mann. However, as per the testimony of PW-27 that on the basis of his disclosure statement, police team proceeded to Village Naya Bans. It is further deposed by PW- 27 that Sachin Bansal pointed towards a person who was urinating while standing by the side of Maruti Esteem Car and Sachin Bansal told the IO that person urinating there was Lalit Maan @ Nanhe. Two persons were sitting in the car and as per Sachin Bansal, those two persons were Narender Mann and Rajbir Singh. All three of them were apprehended by the police party. As per the testimony of PW-27, IO made interrogations -:122:- from accused Lalit Mann and others and after interrogation, all three of them were arrested in the present case and their arrest documents were prepared.
During cross-examination on 13.02.2020, PW 27 deposed that disclosure statement of all three accused persons were recorded there. IO made enquiries from them but same were not reduced in writing. Thus, PW-27 made contradictory statement as during examination in chief he deposed that IO made interrogations and after interrogation, all three of them were arrested and their arrest documents were prepared but disclosure statement was not recorded there. If disclosure statement of accused Lalit Mann Ex. PW28/D was recorded before his arrest and nothing has been mentioned by Sachin Bansal in his disclosure statement Ex.PW 25/B, then, on what basis accused Lalit Mann was arrested- Not disclosed. It is own testimony of PW-27 that IO made interrogations from accused Lalit Mann at the spot at the place of arrest but the same were not reduced into writing. Then, how on what basis accused Lalit Mann was arrested. No role of Lalit Mann in the crime has been explained by accused Sachin Bansal in Ex. PW 25/B. Even the name of Lalit Mann has not been whispered by Sachin Bansal in Ex. PW 25/B. Moreover, it is the case of prosecution that all three of them were arrested at the same place. Now, Ex. PW 25/D which is the arrest memo of accused Lalit Mann @ Nanhe and arrest memo of accused Narender Mann Ex. PW 25/C are perused. It is the case of the prosecution that both of them have been arrested from the same place along with another person Rajbir Malik. When all -:123:- were arrested from the same place, then, in column no. 5 of the arrest memo of accused Lalit Mann place of arrest has been shown as Naya Bans Main Road and in the corresponding column of the arrest memo of accused Narender Mann, the place of arrest is near Village Naya Bans. Moreover, if Ex. PW 25/D is perused, then, at the Bottom date of apprehension of accused Lalit Mann has not been shown, though month and year has been shown. It appears that this document was kept blank by the IO to fill up the date as per his convenience. Moreover Ex. PW 25/DA is the statement U/s 161 Cr. PC made by PW-27. During cross-examination PW-27 specifically deposed that he did not remember if he had got recorded in his statement U/s 161 Cr. PC on 29.03.2006 that when they were on the main road while going towards Naya Bans, Sachin Bansal pointed towards the car while standing on the road. But it was confronted with the statement recorded U/s 161 Cr. PC made on 29.03.2006, which Ex. PW25/DA wherein it was not recorded that Sachin Bansal pointed out towards the standing car. PW-27 also deposed that he did not remember if he had got recorded in his statement on
29.3.2006 Ex. PW25/DA that one person was urinating while standing by the side of the car and Sachin Bansal told IO that person urinating there was Lalit Mann @ Nanhe and two other persons were sitting in the car and it was told by Sachin Bansal that those two persons were Narender Mann and Rajbir Singh and he was confronted with that statement where it was not so recorded. PW-27 further deposed that during interrogation accused Lalit Mann had made disclosure -:124:- statement. When he was confronted with statement Ex. PW 25/DA it was not so recorded therein.
The Court also perused Ex. PW 26/D which is the disclosure statement of accused Lalit @ Nanhe. As per this statement also, nothing has been disclosed by accused Lalit Mann that there was his active participation in the commission of crime. Though, as per this statement it comes out that at earlier stage accused Lalit Mann took part in the preparation of the crime, however, it is his own disclosure that earlier he had to commit the crime but later on he got scared and asked Narender Mann to prepare some one else. Except this disclosure statement, there is nothing against accused Lalit Mann which has come during entire trial. Even prosecution is not able to explain what steps had been taken by Lalit Mann towards the commission of crime or his active role in the conspiracy. There is no other direct evidence or corroborative evidence or any other evidence of any other witness.
Even for the sake of arguments if it is assumed that as per Ex. PW 26/D Lalit Mann was part of conspiracy but later on he scared and asked Narender Mann to prepare some one. Then, Lalit Mann in those circumstances, may be a part of conspiracy but later on he ceased to be part of conspiracy. As per Ex. PW 26/D prosecution is not able to specify any role attributable to Lalit Mann towards the commission of crime. In those circumstances Lalit Mann cannot be held responsible for the conspiracy or crime committed towards the murder of deceased S. N. Gupta. Moreover it is settled law that solely on the basis of disclosure statement, accused cannot be held -:125:- liable for the crime.
PW-35 deposed that when the police officials were about to reach Naya Bans, they noticed the esteem car. Thus again as per PW-35 it was neither Naya Bans main Road but village Naya Bans. It was his deposition that all three of them were arrested and their arrest documents were prepared. No independent witness was called at the time of arrest or recording of disclosure statement. It is also the case of PW-35 and PW-37 that photograph of S. N. Gupta was recovered. However, the observations regarding photographs and album have been observed hereinabove in detail in foregoing paras of this judgment which are also referred herein.
During cross-examination, PW -35 deposed that he did not know if the name of Lalit Mann was mentioned in the disclosure statement of Sachin Bansal. He denied the suggestion that name of Lalit Mann was not mentioned in the alleged disclosure statement of Sachin Bansal. Thus, this court is of the view that this witness is a tutored witness or given his deposition against the record of the case and thus his testimony cannot be believed upon.
PW-36 deposed that on seeing the police the person who was urinating immediately sat in the car and the occupants of the car tried to move from there but police team overpowered them. However, no such deposition was made by PW -35. Similarly, PW-27 has also not deposed as such.
PW-36 further deposed all three persons were arrested in the present case and their arrest documents were prepared. However, he has not deposed in his examination that he had -:126:- made interrogations at the spot. Then, this court here observes that PW-36 has not disclosed that on what basis accused Lalit Mann was arrested. During cross-examination, he made confusion by saying that all three persons including accused Lalit Mann was interrogated one by one, and arrest of all three accused persons including Lalit Mann was affected. However, if those persons were interrogated and if on the basis of that interrogation, accused Lalit Mann was arrested, as already observed herein prior to that, nothing was there against accused Lalit Mann, then, neither such memo of interrogation nor statement nor any detail of investigation which explains the reasons of arrest of accused Lalit Mann has been brought on record. PW-36 deposed that disclosure statement of these persons were in the handwriting of Inspector R. K. Mann. Inspector R. K. Mann deposed that accused Lalit Mann had made disclosure statement Ex. PW 26/D which bears his signatures at point B. However, it is not deposed by him that it was in his handwriting. PW-36 also deposed that photograph album was not mentioned in the disclosure statement of accused Lalit Mann and Narender Mann. Same has been mentioned in Ex PW 26/E. This Court observes that this fact has also not been mentioned in Ex. PW 26/D. Moreover, PW- 36 himself deposed that one black cap, one pair of black goggles and one photograph of deceased have been recovered from the Esteem Car, is not mentioned in the disclosure statement of accused Lalit Mann. Nothing has been asked by the IO from Lalit Mann about these recovered items. Therefore, this court is of the considered view that the testimony of -:127:- prosecution witnesses are doubtful towards the arrest of Lalit Mann as nothing has been mentioned about the role of Lalit Mann in Ex. PW 26/D or even none other prosecution witness mentions the role of accused Lalit Mann. If the Court believes that accused Lalit Mann has made disclosure, as deposed by the prosecution witness, then, nothing has been mentioned about the esteem car, cap, goggles etc in Ex. PW 26/D. Even no disclosure statement was made by accused Lalit Mann as to how such articles were lying in the car and what was his role in the crime qua such articles. No disclosure is there. Therefore, prosecution has not established any connection of Ex. PW 26/D i.e. Disclosure statement of accused Lalit with articles recovered in Esteem Car or esteem car itself. Therefore, this court is of the considered view that prosecution is not able to prove any case against accused Lalit Mann. Moreover, as per Ex. PW 26/D, may be earlier he was involved in conspiracy, but according to Ex.PW26/D itself, he has withdrawn him self at the earlier stage, then, he was neither the part of the conspiracy nor he had taken part in the commission of the crime. Moreover, solely on the basis of Ex. PW26/D accused Lalit Mann cannot be held guilty of crime as nothing in pursuance of Ex. PW 26/D has been recovered nor any witness has deposed about the role of accused Lalit Mann in the crime.
This court also refers here case of Akshay Kumar Pathak Vs. State(NCT of Delhi) 2007 III AD (Cr.)(DHC) 112 decided by Hon'ble Delhi High Court. In the said case it was held by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi that merely a disclosure statement is of no consequence. No conclusion can be arrived -:128:- at that the accused was the murderer. Moreover, in this case, no recovery had taken place in pursuance to the disclosure statement of accused Lalit Mann. Therefore, the disclosure statement allegedly made by accused Lalit Mann is not going to the help the prosecution.
EVIDENCE AGAINST ACCUSED SHAILENDER SINGH During cross-examination, PW-25 deposed that when he reached at the flat i.e. A-1/35, Sector-7, Rohini Delhi, on 30.03.2006 there was one person namely Padam Bahadur. He further deposed that IO did not record his statement in his presence. He further deposed that signatures of Padam Bahadur were not taken on recovery memo in his presence. He also deposed that he did not state in his statement U/s 161 Cr. PC to the IO regarding the presence of Padam Bahadur in the said flat whereas PW-35 Retired Inspector Dharamvir Singh and PW -36 Retired ACP Satya Pal Singh did not depose regarding presence of any public person at A-1/35, Sector -7, Rohini, Delhi. Hence, this is major contradiction between the testimonies of the witnesses.
During cross-examination, PW-36 deposed that on 30.03.2006 they reached the flat No. A-1/35, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi at about 8 am and the flat was lying opened. He further deposed that he had not collected any document about the ownership of that flat. He further admitted that the flat No. A- 1/35, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi is in the name of his wife Pooja Singh and that the documents of ownership were lying in the locker of Allahabad Bank, Chandni Chowk, are not mentioned in the disclosure statement of accused Shailender Singh. He -:129:- denied the suggestion that accused Shailender Singh never disclosed that the said flat was in the name of his wife or that the ownership documents were lying in the bank locker. He further denied the suggestion that no mobile connection was issued to accused Shailender Singh from address of the above said flat. He further denied the suggestion that he deliberately and intentionally not placed on record the CAF of the mobile number, which he is alleging to be belonging to accused Shailender Singh. He has deposed that mobile number 9312251844 of accused Shailender Singh was found registered at flat No. A-1/35, Sector 7, Rohini, Delhi. But no such document has been brought on record. Even it is not proved that the said mobile number was under use of accused Shailender Singh. He specifically deposed that no public person joined the investigation.
Here this court observed that: firstly, it is admitted by PW- 35 that the flat i.e. A-1/35, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi was lying opened. Hence, the planting of pistol cannot be ruled out. Moreover, IO failed to obtain the ownership proof of the said flat which was alleged to be belonging to wife of accused Shailender Singh. Thirdly, no CAF of the mobile phone of Shailender Singh has been brought to show his connection with the said flat. Fourthly, no public witness was joined in the investigation to prove that recovery was affected from the place as alleged. Moreover, PW-25 deposed that one person Padam Bahadur was found present there. Further more, prosecution could not establish that flat No. A-1/35 Sector-7 Rohini was having connection with accused Shailender. Neither ownership -:130:- documents pertaining to the said property/flat is brought before this court so that this Court could arrive at conclusion that the said flat was either in the name of Shailender or his wife or of any other family member. Thus, till now, as per the material available on record, this Court is of the view that prosecution is not able to establish that Shailender Singh was having any connection with the said property.
Even no CAF i.e. Mobile connection or any other document may be electricity bill, telephone bill, water bill whatsoever has been brought by prosecution to link that A-1/35 Sector 7, Rohini is a flat related to Shailender Singh. Neither the prosecution has established that it was his office nor it was established that it was his residence. Even no witness from the locality or anywhere else has been brought to prove the fact that flat bearing No. A-1/35 was in any manner belonging to accused Shailender Singh. Since it is own admitted case of the prosecution that nothing has been disclosed by accused Shailender Singh that flat bearing No. A-1/35 Sector 7, Rohini is in the name of his wife Pooja Singh or the document of ownership were lying in the locker of Allahabad Bank, Chandni Chowk branch. Hence, no case stands against present accused Shailender Singh.
Even if IO was aware that documents were lying in the locker of Allahabad Bank, Chandni Chowk branch, what stopped the IO to recover those documents and those documents have not been brought before the court or proved in accordance with law.
Moreover, recovery of pistol from A-1/35 Sector 7, Rohini -:131:- could not be proved beyond reasonable doubt as there are major contradictions and discrepancies in the testimony of witnesses. Moreover, the said place was without lock and pistol was recovered in the presence of witness Padam Bahadur and said Padam Bahadur has not been brought before the court to prove the recovery.
This court here also recalled that PW-6 in his cross- examination admitted that during the intervening period of January, 06 to September, 06 flat no. A-1/35, Sector 7, Rohini, remained locked and the during the aforesaid period the same was never opened. Therefore, entire case of the prosecution regarding recovery of pistol from the flat i.e. A-1/35 Sector 7, Rohini is doubtful. Moreover, prosecution is not able to establish the link of the flat A-1/35 Sector 7, Rohini with accused Shailender Singh and thus, this court is of the view that case of the prosecution against accused Shailender Singh does not sustain and thus prosecution is not able to prove the case against accused Shailender Singh.
CONCLUSION:-
In view of the evidence led before the court, facts proved, in view of the testimony of the witnesses recorded by the prosecution and the observations made here-in-above, this court comes to the conclusion that accused Shiv Charan Bansal, Lalit Mann and Shailender Singh stand acquitted as prosecution is not able to prove its case against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 24TH DAY OF JUNE, 2020 -:132:- (Jitendra Kumar Mishra) ASJ: Special Judge (NDPS),North, Rohini Courts, Delhi.-:133:- 11