Delhi District Court
State vs . : 1) Shantanu @ Kala on 31 July, 2018
IN THE COURT OF ASJ/PILOT COURT/NORTH DISTRICT, ROHINI
COURTS: DELHI
Sessions Case No: 605/17
FIR No. : 197/17
U/s : 302/365/120B/34 IPC & 25/27 Arms Act
P.S. : Alipur
State Vs. : 1) Shantanu @ Kala
S/o Sh. Suresh Kumar
R/o Vill. Sehrsa PS: Kundli,
Distt. Sonepat, Haryana.
2) Rohit @ Kalu
S/o Sh. Shumsher Singh
R/o Village Janti Kalan
PS: Kundli, Distt. Sonepat,
Haryana.
3) Hardeep @ Meetu @ Amit
S/o Sh. Hem Chander
R/o Village Tikri Khurd,
Narela, Delhi.
4) Deepak @ Deepu
S/o Sh. Dilbagh Singh
R/o Village Sehrsa, PS:
Kundli, Distt. Sonipat,
Haryana.
Offence complained of: 302365/120B/34 IPC
& 25/27 Arms Act
Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
Final Order : Acquitted
Date of committal : 10.10.2017
Date of Judgment : 31.07.2018
JUDGMENT
1. On 23.05.17 Rahul lodged a report regarding missing of his father Meer Singh. He informed that his father left house on State Vs. Shantanu etc SC No:605/17 : 1 :
22.05.17 at 11 AM for going to Mandi Azad Pur wearing black pants and shirt having black stripes wearing black colour chappal, aged 57 years, 5 feet 6 inches and have not returned home. He was carrying mobile no.9717412423. On this information DD no.29 A was recorded at PS Alipur. Efforts were made to trace him but he could not be found. On 02.06.17 Rahul gave the statement that on 22.05.17 at about 10 AM his father Meer Singh, aged 57 years had gone to Azad Pur Mandi but did not return home. He had already lodged missing report on 23.05.17 in PS Alipur. He searched for his father but he did not get any clue. His father was arrested in murder case of Surender r/o of Vill.Sersah, PS Kundli, Distt. Sonetpat Haryana and was on bail. He suspected that some unknown person has kidnapped his father.
On this information FIR no.197/17 under Sec.365 IPC was registered.
2. On 05.06.17 information was received from PS Kundli regarding arrest of Shantanu, Rohit, Hardeep and Juvenile 'S' and also that they have confessed about kidnapping of Meer Singh and his murder. DD no.30B was recorded on this information. On 08.06.17 Hardeep, Shantanu, Rohit and Juvenile 'S' were produced in Rohini court. They were arrested in this case. On interrogation they disclosed about the commission of offence and also got recovered the skeleton of Meer Singh and his belongings. The recovery proceedings were also videographed. On 09.06.17 Deepak was arrested. He got recovered ECCO car having State Vs. Shantanu etc SC No:605/17 : 2 :
registration no.HR10AA 5004. Shantanu got recovered the Aadhar card of Meer Singh from the roof of the tube well room situated near the place from where skeleton was recovered. Blood samples of Rahul and his mother were taken to establish the identity of the skeleton. After completion of investigation charge sheet was filed against accused Shantanu, Rohit, Hardeep and Deepak. Charge sheet against juvenile 'S' was filed before Juvenile Justice Board. Ld.MM after complying with the provisions of Sec.208 Cr.PC committed the case to the Sessions Court as the offence punishable under Sec.302 IPC is exclusively triable by the Sessions Court.
3. All the four accused were charged for the offence punishable under Sec.302 read with Sec.34 IPC to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter the case was fixed for prosecution evidence.
4. Sh. Vinod was examined as PW-1. He deposed that on 10/12.05.2017 he sold his motorcycle bearing registration No. DL 11SE 4344 black colour Pulsar to Hardeep @ Amit @ Meetu for a sum of Rs.40,000/-. The vehicle is still registered in his name and is not transferred in the name of Hardeep @ Amit @ Vicky who is friend of his son Rinku. After purchase Hardeep @ Amit @ Meetu took the possession of the motorcycle and is plying the same. He also correctly identified accused Hardeep. The identity of the motorcycle is not disputed by the defence. The motorcycle is Ex.PW1/Article1.
State Vs. Shantanu etc SC No:605/17 : 3 :
5. During cross examination by the defence counsel he stated that no document was executed at the time of sale of motorcycle to Hardeep. He denied the suggestion that he had not sold the motorcycle to Hardeep or had not delivered the possession of motorcycle to Hardeep. He also denied the suggestion that Hardeep is not friend of his son Rinku or that he had never met Hardeep.
6. Kuldeep was examined as PW-2. He deposed that accused Deepak @ Deepu is his real brother. In the month of May 2018 he purchased mobile phone No.7027434061 from Vodafone vide customer application form Ex.PW2/A having his photograph at point X. The ECCO vehicle bearing registration No. HR 10AA 5004 is registered in the name of his father. He is using mobile phone number purchased by him. He is also using the ECCO car.
Deepak is not using the ECCO car. The defence has not disputed the identity of the ECCO car and the same is Ex.PW2/Article-1. The photographs of the ECCO car are Ex.PW2/A. The witness was cross examined by the Ld. APP as he resiled from his previous statement wherein he denied the suggestion that mobile phone No. 7027434061 is used by his brother Deepak since the day of purchase or that Deepak was also in possession and driving ECCO Car No. HR 10AA 5004. he denied the suggestion that on 22.05.2017 his brother was using the above said phone number or that he narrated all these facts to Inspector Suresh. Witness was confronted with his statement Ex.PW2/B. State Vs. Shantanu etc SC No:605/17 : 4 :
7. Dilbagh Singh was examined as PW-3. He deposed that Deepak is his son. In the year 2016 he purchased ECCO vehicle bearing registration No. HR 10AA 5004. His elder son Kuldeep is driving the said ECCO car. Defence has not disputed the identity of ECCO car and the same is Ex.PW2/Article1. The photographs of the car are proved as Ex.PW2/A. He also proved the superdaginama and Panchnama of ECCO car as Ex.PW3/A. The witness was cross examined by Ld. APP as he resiled form his earlier statement given to the police wherein he denied the suggestion that ECCO car was in possession of his son Deepak, who used to drive the same or that he told all these facts to Inspector Suresh. Witness was confronted with his statement Ex.PW3/B.
8. Dr. Amandeep Kaur was examined as PW-4. Her statement could not be completed, hence no reliance can be placed on her statement.
9. Sh. Jai Karan from Transport Department was examined as PW-5. He proved the record of motorcycle No. DL 11SE 4344 registered in the name of Sh. Vinod Kumar s/o Sh. Bharat Singh r/o 195, Pocket-1, Sector A-6, DDA Flats Narela, Delhi. The record is proved as Ex.PW5/A.
10. During cross examination he stated that the motorcycle is still registered in the name of Vinod Kumar S/o Sh. Bharat Singh.
11. Hari Om Patwari was examined as PW-6. He brought the revenue record of the year 2003-04 of Khatoni No.203 Khasra State Vs. Shantanu etc SC No:605/17 : 5 :
No.28/7 (4-4) situated within the revenue estate of village Singhu, Teshsil Alipur, Distt. North. As per the record Smt. Krishna Devi w/o Sh. Dharambir and Sanjay s/o of Dharambir are Bhumidhar in the above land in equal share. He proved the certified copy of the record as Ex.PW6/A.
12. During cross examination by the defence he denied the suggestion that record Ex.PW6/A is a false and fabricated record prepared at the instance of IO.
13. Vikas Malik, clerk in the court of Dr. S.K. Garg Ld. ASJ Sonepat was examined as PW-7. He brought the record of FIR No.199/2017 dt. 07.06.2017 u/s 302/506/120B IPC and 25 Arms Act. He proved the copies of FIR as Ex.PW7/A. Arrest memo of Rohit @ Kalu as Ex.PW7/B and arrest memo of accused Shantanu as Ex.PW7/C, arrest memo of accused Hardeep @ Amit as Ex.PW7/D, Arrest memo of Juvenile 'S' as Ex.PW7/E. Statement of SI Naresh recorded u/s 161 Cr.PC dt. 03.06.2017 Ex.PW7/F. Statement of EASI Devender dt. 03.06.2017 as Ex.PW7/G, seizure memo of motorcycles Hero HF Deluxe and Bajaj Pulsar 200 CC is Ex.PW7/H and Ex.PW7/I. The sketch of country made pistol and of one cartridge as Ex.PW7/J. Sketch of country made pistol .315 bore Ex.PW7/K, sketch of another country made pistol .315 bore as Ex.PW7/L. Disclosure statement of Juvenile 'S' Ex.PW7/M, disclosure of Shantanu is Ex.PW7/N, disclosure of Rohit @ Kalu as Ex.PW7/O and disclosure of Hardeep as Ex.PW7/P. The statement of HC Yogesh Kumar State Vs. Shantanu etc SC No:605/17 : 6 :
recorded u/s 161 Cr.PC proved as Ex.PW7/Q. Statement of EASI Devender recorded on 04.06.2017 u/s 161 Cr.PC is Ex.PW7/R. Sire plan of place of recovery of 3 pistols at the instance of Shantanu, Juvenile 'S' and Hardeep is Ex.PW7/S. Site plan of place of recovery of motorcycles proved as Ex.PW7/T. The testimony of the witness has gone unchallenged and uncontroverted.
14. Sukhbir Singh, Nodal Officer Idea Cellular was examined as PW-8. He proved the record of mobile phone number 8685017751. As per the customer application form Ex.PW8/A and the driving license attached with the same Ex.PW8/B this telephone number is registered in the name of Naresh Kumar S/o Sh. Surender Singh R/o Hullaheri, Sonipat, Haryana. The call detail record of this mobile number from 21.05.2017 to 17.07.2017 running into 4 pages is proved as Ex.PW8/C. The certificate u/s 65B Evidence Act is proved as Ex.PW8/D. The testimony of witness has gone unchallenged and uncontroveted.
15. Chander Shekhar, Nodal Officer Bharti Airtel was examined as PW-9. He proved the record of mobile No.9717412423. The customer application form along with Aadhar card is proved as Ex.PW9/A and Ex.PW9/B. According to the customer application form this phone number is registered in the name of Rahul Kumar S/o Sh. Meer Singh. The call detail record of this number from 21.05.2017 to 23.05.2017 is proved as Ex.PW9/C. The certificate u/s 65B Evidence Act is proved as Ex.PW9/D. The cell ID chart is State Vs. Shantanu etc SC No:605/17 : 7 :
proved as Ex.PW9/E. The company had already supplied the desired documents Ex.PW-9/G to the police along with certificate u/s 65B of Evidence Act vide covering letter Ex.PW-9/F.
16. During cross examination he denied the suggestion that he filed the CDR of the mobile phone number at the instance of the IO or that the same are false and fabricated, prepared at the instance of IO. He denied the suggestion that he issued the certificate u/s 65B Evidence Act later on at the instance of the IO.
He admitted that he is not performing duty on the main server of the company situated in Noida. He also denied the suggestion that he has filed the false location chart of the mobile phone number.
17. Dr. Vinod Dahiya was examined as PW-10. He deposed that on 17.08.2017 at 2:04 pm Nirmala w/o Late Sh. Meer Singh aged 52 years female was brought by SI Jagbir for blood samples. He took blood samples of Nirmala, sealed the same and handed over to SI Jagbir. He proved the MLC as Ex.PW10/A.
18. During cross examination by the defence he denied the suggestion that blood sample was not taken by him or sealed by him or that he did not prepare the MLC.
19. Israr Babu, Alternate Nodal Officer Vodafone was examined as PW-11. He has proved the record of mobile phone number 9582921183 registered in the name of Harpreet Khatri s/o Sh. Hem Chander. The customer application form and the annexed driving license are proved as Ex.PW11/A and State Vs. Shantanu etc SC No:605/17 : 8 :
Ex.PW11/B. The call detail record of this number w.e.f.21.05.2017 to 04.08.2017 is proved as EX.PW11/C. The certificate u/s 65B Evidence Act is proved as Ex.PW11/D.
20. He has also brought the record of mobile No.7027434061 according to the record this phone number is registered in the name of Kuldeep S/o Sh. Dilbagh Singh R/o Village Shersa, Alipuria Pana, Sonepat, Haryana. Customer application form is proved as Ex.PW2/A. The call detail record of this number with effect from 21.05.2017 to 18.08.2017 is proved as Ex.PW11/E. The certificate u/s 65B of Evidence Act is proved as Ex.PW11/F.
21. During cross examination he denied the suggestion that he filed the CDR of the above said mobile number at the instance of IO or that the same are false and fabricated prepared at the instance of IO. He denied the suggestion that he issued the certificate u/s 65B Evidence Act at the instance of IO later on. He admitted that he had not brought the location chart of these numbers and that he is not performing duty on the main server of the company which is at Pune.
22. ASI Ram Kumar, Incharge Mobile Crime Team was examined as PW-12. He deposed that on 08.06.2017 on receipt of call he along with HC Satinder photographer and other staff reached PS:Alipur and from there along with SHO and other staff and four accused persons reached in the field of Singhu village. About 1 km from the village in the field they found one jaw, bones, one broken spectacle, one pair of chappal, one empty cartridge of State Vs. Shantanu etc SC No:605/17 : 9 :
.312 bore, some currency notes of denomination of Rs.100 and 50 and clothes. HC Satinder took the photographs of the scene of crime from different angels. One private photographer was also there who also took the photographs. The accused persons one by one pointed out the place from where the bones and other articles were recovered. They remained on the spot from 5:15 to 7:15 pm. He proved his report as Ex.PW12/A.
23. During cross examination he stated that he received the information at about 4:00 pm. He made the departure entry but does not remember the number. He denied the suggestion that he did not visit the scene of crime on 08.06.2017. They reached the spot in govt. vehicle bearing No. DL 1VA 7845. He did not make any arrival entry in PS: Alipur. He reached the spot at about 5:15 pm. He does not know the name of the owner of the field. He does not know the name of the private photographer. He denied the suggestion that no photographer met them on the spot. He admitted that the names of the accused persons are not mentioned in his report. His signatures were not obtained on any exhibit taken from the spot. He denied the suggestion that he prepared his report while sitting in the office at the instance of IO. He denied the suggestion that accused did not led them to any place or that no such recovery was effected from the said place at their instance. No finger prints or chance prints were lifted from there and from any exhibit. He denied the suggestion that he did not inspect the spot on 08.06.2017 or that he is deposing falsely.
State Vs. Shantanu etc SC No:605/17 : 10 :
24. HC Satender was examined as PW-13. He deposed that on 08.06.2017 he along with Incharge Mobile Crime team ASI Ram Kumar and other staff went to PS: Alipur. From there they reached at field of Singhu village accompanied by SHO, police staff and four boys. Out of those four boys one boy was taken each time and pointed out the bones and other articles lying in the field. He took the photographs of the scene of crime from different angles. He proved the photographs as Ex.PW13/A1 to A43 and the negatives as Ex.PW13/B1 to B43.
25. During cross examination he stated that they left the police station at about 5:00 pm. The Incharge crime team made the DD entry before leaving office but he does not remember its number. He denied the suggestion that he had not taken the photographs of the scene of crime. He does not know the name of the owner of the field. He does not know if owner of field was called at the time of inspection of the scene of crime. He denied the suggestion that he did not visit the scene of crime on 08.06.2017. He admitted that he did not hand over the photographs and the negatives thereof to the IO.
26. Ct. Naveen was examined as PW-14. He proved the scaled site plan of scene of crime as Ex.PW14/A.
27. During cross examination by the defenece he stated that he left his office at about 3:45 pm. He denied the suggestion that he did not visit the scene of crime on 02.08.2017. In his presence the owner of field was not called. He denied the suggestion that State Vs. Shantanu etc SC No:605/17 : 11 :
scaled site plan is false and fabricated document prepared at the instance of IO while sitting in the office.
28. Devender was examined as PW-15. He stated that he along with Meer Singh deceased was working on phad No.8 in Azadpur Mandi. In the month of May Meer Singh came to his phad where he used to sell vegetables. He had seen Meer Singh on 22.05.2017 at about 6 pm lastly and thereafter, not seen him. The testimony of the witness has gone unchallenged and uncontroverted.
29. ASI Shridhar was examined as PW-16. He deposed that on 23.05.2017 DD No.29A Ex.PW16/A was marked to him for inquiry. The DD was with respect to missing of Sh. Meer Singh S/o Late Sh. Rati Ram who went missing on 22.05.2017. He went to Subzi Mandi in the morning hour at 11:00 am and had not returned home. The DD was lodged by Rahul Kumar S/o Meer Singh who also informed that his father was carrying the mobile phone and also gave the description of clothes and articles in possession of Meer Singh. He uploaded the missing person report on the Zip net. He got flashed the wireless message of missing person. The information was also sent to Doordarshan, CBI and NCRB. No clue of Meer Singh was found. The missing person report is Ex.PW16/B. Lateron on 02.06.2017 SI Jagbir recorded the statement of Rahul and got registered the FIR. He handed over all the documents to SI Jagbir.
30. During cross examination by the defence he denied the State Vs. Shantanu etc SC No:605/17 : 12 :
suggestion that contents of DD No.29A are false and fabricated. He also denied the suggestion that DD regarding mobile phone No.9717412423 is also false and fabricated. He denied the suggestion that DD No.29A is ante timed and ante dated.
31. Rishab was examined as PW-17. He was working in Anil Photo Studio shop No.1100, Main Narela Road, Alipur owned by Anil. On 08.06.2017 one police official of PS: Alipur came to the studio and requested him for videography of one field. He reached the police station and from there they reached the field of Hoshiyar Singh. Police stopped the vehicle and four persons Shantanu and three others whose names he does not recollect pointed out places in the said field where there were bones and other articles. He videographed the proceedings. All those four persons are visible in the videography conducted by him. He prepared the CD of the said videography and handed over the same to the police. The certificate u/s 65B of Evidence Act was seized by the police vide memo Ex.PW17/A. The certificate is Ex.PW17/B. He identified the CD as Ex.PW17/Article-1.
32. During cross examination he stated that he is working under Anil for the last 1½ years, but now he has left the service of Anil as he was not paid any salary. He has no document to show that he was working under Anil. He used to mark his attendance in one register at the studio. Anil was not present on the studio when police official visited there. He made a call to Anil to inform that police had come to the studio and thereafter Anil reached at the State Vs. Shantanu etc SC No:605/17 : 13 :
spot. He did not ask Anil to go with the police official and the police officials also did not ask Anil to accompany them. Police did not pay money to him in respect of the work of videography. The amount was paid to Anil in his presence. He used Sony camera for doing videography. The date and time is not reflected in the videography. He denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsely regarding the fact that in the preparation of videography no date and time reflects or that even when the videography is conducted. He did not hand over the memory card of the camera to the police. He denied the suggestion that CD Ex.PW17/Article 1 is false and fabricated document. The police officials came to the studio at 5 pm. They reached police station at about 5:00 or 5:15 pm. They left the police station at about 5:30 pm and reached the field within 10-15 minutes. He denied the suggestion that he is not visible in the aforesaid photographs as he did not visit any place. After conducting the videography he came to the police station and thereafter went to the studio. His signatures were not obtained on any document. He did not prepare the CD himself. He does not remember the name of the person who prepared the CD. He does not remember the date when the CD was prepared. He cannot tell the name of the studio from where the CD was got prepared. That studio is in Narela. The person who prepared the CD had not given any certificate or document regarding the preparation of CD. On the certificate Ex.PW17/B the date is also not mentioned. He denied the suggestion that document State Vs. Shantanu etc SC No:605/17 : 14 :
Ex.PW17/A is false and fabricated document.
33. SI Jagbir was examined as PW-18. He deposed that on 02.06.2017 complainant Rahul Kumar came to the police station and gave his statement. The missing report was already Ex.PW16/B. He recorded the statement of Rahul Ex.PW18/A. He made his endorsement Ex.PW18/B prepared the rukka and got registered the FIR after handing over the rukka to the duty officer. He made search of Meer Singh but he could not be found anywhere.
34. On 05.06.2017 at about 11:00 am he received DD No.30B Ex.PW18/C with respect to the information given by ASI Ashok of PS: Kundli that four persons have been apprehended who revealed committing the offence in the present case.
35. On 06.06.2017 he moved application Ex.PW18/D before Ld. MM Rohini Court Complex for issuance of production warrants of the accused. He recorded the statements of police officials of PS: Kundli Sonepat and collected the documents of case FIR No. 199/17 u/s 302 IPC.
36. On 08.06.2017 accused persons were produced in the court. He moved application Ex.PW18/E seeking permission to interrogate and arrest accused persons. Further investigation was conducted by Inspector Suresh Kumar. Accused Shantanu @ Kala was arrested vide memo Ex.PW18/F-1 and he made the disclosure statement Ex.PW18/F-2. Accused Hardeep was arrested vide memo Ex.PW18/G1 and made disclosure statement State Vs. Shantanu etc SC No:605/17 : 15 :
Ex.PW18/G2. Accused Rohit @ Kalu was arrested vide memo Ex.PW18/H1 and made disclosure statement Ex.PW18/H2. Police custody remand was taken of all the four accused. Juvenile 'S' was also arrested, but later on it was found that he is juvenile. During police custody remand Shantanu made disclosure statement Ex.PW18/F3, Hardeep made disclosure statement Ex.PW18/G3, Rohit made disclosure statement Ex.PW18/H3. IO called crime team to the police station. Private photographer was also called. Complainant Rahul also reached the police station. All the four accused along with IO, staff, crime team, Rahul and Photographer Rishab left the police station in the vehicles. The accused persons got stopped the vehicles near the field of Uday Singh and pointed out the place where they had stopped their ECCO vehicle and Pulsar motorcycle. Firstly, Shantanu pointed out the place vide pointing out memo Ex.PW18/F4. Pardeep pointed out that place vide pointing out memo Ex.PW18/G4. Accused Rohit pointed out that place vide pointing out memo Ex.PW18/H4.
37. Thereafter, Shantanu led them inside the field upto 6 acres towards Eastern side from the place where the vehicles were stopped. Shantanu pointed out the field where they have fired shot on Meer Singh vide pointing out memo Ex.PW18/F-5. Thereafter, Hardeep pointed out that place vide pointing out memo Ex.PW18/G-5. Thereafter, Rohit pointed out that place vide pointing out memo Ex.PW18/H-5. All the four accused pointed out State Vs. Shantanu etc SC No:605/17 : 16 :
the bones lying in the field of Hoshiyar Singh. There were four long bones. One jaw having 11 teeth, broken skull with nine teeth attached and 11 small bones. All these bones were put in plastic container which was wrapped with doctor tape, sealed with the seal of JK and seized vide memo Ex.PW18/I. All the four accused pointed out one empty cartridge lying in the field of Hoshiyar Singh of village Singhu. The sketch of that cartridge was prepared which is Ex.PW18/J. The empty cartridge was put in a plastic container, sealed with the seal of JK and seized vide memo Ex.PW18/K. The accused persons also pointed out one torn black colour shirt having white lines, tag of Peter England and also pointed out torn pants of black colour having tag of Ashoka & Sons. Rahul identified the shirt as of his father Meer Singh. It was wrapped in a piece of cloth, sealed with the seal of JK and seized vide memo Ex.PW18/L. Towards South West side one torn underwear of blue colour and two pieces of shirt of black colour having white strips were also lying. These clothes were wrapped in a piece of cloth, sealed with the seal of JK and seized vide memo Ex.PW18/M. Accused persons also pointed out two black colour plastic chappals lying at two different places. One spectacles with broken glasses was also found lying to the right side of the plastic chappal in the field of Hoshiar Singh. Rahul identified the chappal and spectacles as of his father. The pair of chappal and spectacles were wrapped in pieces of cloth, sealed with the seal of JK and seized vide memo Ex.PW18/N. The State Vs. Shantanu etc SC No:605/17 : 17 :
accused persons also pointed out the place where 8 currency notes of the denomination of Rs.50 and 8 currency notes of denomination of Rs.100/- were found. These notes were wrapped in a piece of cloth, sealed with the seal of JK and seized vide memo Ex.PW18/O. Accused persons also pointed out one wooden danda having blood stains in the field of Hoshiyar Singh. The danda was measured, wrapped in a piece of cloth, sealed with the seal of JK and seized vide memo Ex.PW18/E. The blood stained earth was lifted from the place where Meer Singh was fired, put in a plastic container, sealed with the seal of JK and seized vide memo Ex.PW18/Q. IO Inspector Suresh Kumar prepared the site plan of the place of recovery of articles which is Ex.PW18/R. The proceedings were videographed and also photographed. Witness correctly identified all the accused persons.
38. On 17.08.2017 on the direction of IO they went to SRHC Hospital where he met Smt. Nirmala wife of Meer Singh. Smt. Nirmala was medically examined and her MLC was prepared. The doctor took blood sample of Smt. Nirmala. The doctor handed over to him two sealed pullandas along with sample seal which he handed over to Inspector Suresh Kumar who seized the same vide memo Ex.PW18/S.
39. The witness identified the chappal and the spectacles as Ex.PW30/Article-1, the currency notes are collectively Ex.PW30/Article-2. The danda as Ex.PW30/Article-3. The torn State Vs. Shantanu etc SC No:605/17 : 18 :
shirt and torn pants as Ex.PW30/Article-4. Two pieces of shirt and torn under wear as Ex.PW30/Article-5. The empty cartridge as Ex.PW30/Article-6. The CD as Ex.PW17/Article-1. The identity of ECCO car is not disputed by the defence. He also identified the photographs of the place of recovery as Ex.PW20/A1 to A52.
40. During cross examination he stated that son of deceased Rahul came to police station at 4:00/4:15 pm on 02.06.2017. He did not obtain the written permission from SHO for registration of FIR. He denied the suggestion that he manipulated the contents of the rukka and the FIR regarding articles mentioned therein. When he received DD No.30B on 05.06.2017 he was present in the police station.
41. Inspector Suresh started inquiry from the accused persons at about 11:30 am with the permission of the court. IO prepared 8- 10 documents regarding the arrest of accused persons. He denied the suggestion that accused persons did not make any disclosure statements or that IO had already prepared the documents regarding arrest of the accused persons. He denied the suggestion that IO in connivance with the police officials of Haryana prepared false evidence.
42. The accused persons were taken for investigation at about 5:00 pm on the same day. They were in two vehicles. Some of the police officials were in uniform and some were in civil dress. They reached the spot at about 5:15 pm. There were 20 to 25 public persons present at the place where the vehicles were parked. No State Vs. Shantanu etc SC No:605/17 : 19 :
notice was given to the public persons who refused to join the investigation. The family members of Hoshiyar Singh were not called on the spot. The videography was done from 5 pm till 6:30 pm. There was no source of light. The writing work was done in the light of the vehicle and also the torch. All the documents were prepared at the spot. Some of the statements were recorded by the IO in the field of Hoshiyar Singh, the statements of other persons were recorded in the police station. He denied the suggestion that no recovery was effected at the instance of accused persons or that the place of recovery was falsely created by the IO to create false evidence. He denied the suggestion that accused persons were tortured or their signatures were obtained on blank papers. In reply to the court question he stated that vehicles were not taken to the fields of Hoshiyar Singh. He also stated that they did not use the head lights of the vehicles in the field of Hoshiyar Singh and they used only the torch lights in the field of Hoshiyar Singh.
43. SI Jaibir was examined as PW-19. He deposed that on 10.06.2017 he joined investigation with IO Inspector Suresh Kumar. On that day at 10:15 am all the five accused persons namely Hardeep, Rohit, Shantanu, Juvenile 'S' and Deepak were taken out from the lockup and interrogated. The custody of the accused persons were handed over to ASI Raj Kumar, ASI Naresh, Ct. Amit, Ct. Jaideep and to him. Accused Shantanu revealed that he had taken out the Aadhar card of deceased Meer State Vs. Shantanu etc SC No:605/17 : 20 :
Singh from his pocket and thrown the same on the roof of the room situated in the field of Hoshiyar Singh. The supplementary disclosure of accused was recorded which is Ex.PW19/A. Accused Shantanu led this witness IO and Jaideep to the field of Hoshiyar Singh in village Singhu. There was one room found constructed in the field from the roof of the room the accused picked one Aadhar card in the name of Meer Singh and handed over to the IO. IO seized the same vide memo Ex.PW19/B. IO prepared the site plan of the place of recovery Ex.PW19/C. The witness has identified the Aadhar card as Ex.PW30/Article7.
44. During cross examination he stated that he does not know if IO made the DD entry when they left the police station. He denied the suggestion that accused Shantanu did not make any supplementary disclosure statement or that IO roped the same of his own. They all were in uniform and reached the spot in govt.
vehicle. They left the police station at about 11:30 am and reached the spot at 12:00 noon. IO did not call the family members of the deceased. The photographs of place of recovery were not taken. He denied the suggestion that Aadhar card was not got recovered by the accused or that the same was planted upon the accused.
45. ASI Raj Kumar was examined as PW-20. He deposed on the lines of PW-18 and fully corroborated his testimony with respect to the arrest of accused persons and the recoveries from the field of various articles.
State Vs. Shantanu etc SC No:605/17 : 21 :
46. He also stated that on 09.06.2017 he joined the
investigation with IO and the other police officials accused Shantanu, Rohit, Hardeep and Juvenile 'S' were taken out from the lockup. The accused persons led them to the gate of SSN college Alipur, Delhi. Accused Shantanu led them to BDO Block near Bus stand, Old GTK road and pointed out the place from where Meer Singh was abducted in ECCO car No. HR 10AA 5004 followed by motorcycle No. DL 11S 4344. IO prepared the pointing out memo Ex.PW20/A. Thereafter, Hardeep pointed out that place vide pointing out memo Ex.PW20/B. Thereafter, accused Rohit pointed out that place vide pointing out memo Ex.PW20/C. Thereafter, Juvenile 'S' pointed out that place.
47. Thereafter, the accused persons were taken to police station and put in the lock up. He along with SI Bijender, ASI Naresh Rana and other police staff left in search of accused Deepak @ Deepu. At about 7 pm they reached at red light signal near Sahni Mandir. One secret informer met them and told that Deepak would come from Singhu border in a vehicle and go towards Mukarba chowk. IO requested public persons to join the investigation but none agreed. They reached near Khampur G.T. Karnal road, near red light signal. One ECCO car No.HR 10AA 5004 was seen coming from the side of Singhu Border. The car was got stopped. Deepak was found sitting on the driver seat. He was interrogated and arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW20/D. His personal search was conducted vide memo ex.PW20/E. Accused State Vs. Shantanu etc SC No:605/17 : 22 :
made the disclosure statement Ex.PW20/F. The ECCO car with the ignition key was seized vide memo Ex.PW20/G. Accused Deepak also pointed out the place of abduction of Meer Singh vide pointing out memo Ex.PW20/H. Accused Deepak also took them to the field of Uday Singh where they parked ECCO car and motorcycle and pointed out the field of Hoshiyar Singh where they have killed Meer Singh vide pointing out memo Ex.PW20/I. He identified the case property and also all the accused persons. The identity of ECCO car was not disputed by the defence.
48. During cross-examination he stated that they left the police station at about 11:00 am. SHO was in police gypsy and the other staff was in two private vehicles. They reached the court at 11:30 am. Ld. MM gave one hour time for interrogation. IO did not record the statements of police officials of Haryana police who produced the accused persons before Ld. MM. He denied the suggestion that IO did not interrogate any of the accused. Documents are in the handwriting of SI Jagbir. He denied the suggestion that signatures of accused were obtained forcibly on the documents which were already filled. He denied the suggestion that accused persons did not make any disclosure statement. The arrest memo of accused Shantanu was prepared at 12:10 pm. The arrest memo of Hardeep was prepared at 12:20 pm. He does not know who was informed about the arrest of accused persons. Two days police custody remand was obtained. They left the court complex at about 12:45 pm. The accused State Vs. Shantanu etc SC No:605/17 : 23 :
persons were got medically examined at SRHC Hospital at about 1:00 pm. They reached the police station at about 2:00 pm.
49. They left the police station at about 5 pm. Crime team reached the police station at about 3:45 pm. Private photographer Rishab was also joined. He cannot tell who conducted the videography . IO also called Rahul. It took 20 minutes to reach the field of Uday Singh. He does not know if Uday Singh was called. About 10 to 15 public persons were present in the field of Uday Singh. The site plan of field of Uday Singh was prepared. He did not sign the site plan of the field from where the recovery was effected. On the direction of SHO the family member of Hoshiyar Singh was called through beat staff. The recovery proceedings started at 5:20 pm and completed at 9:30 pm. When it became dark they used the torch of mobile phones. The video recording was carried out during entire proceedings till 9:30 pm. No chance prints were lifted from the spot. The vehicles were left near the field of Uday Singh. There was no crop standing in the field at that time. There was water in the field due to rain. He denied the suggestion that no recovery was effected at the instance of accused persons or the place of recovery was falsely created by the IO or that the case property was planted upon the accused persons.
50. Smt. Nirmala Devi was examined as PW-21. She deposed that on 17.08.2017 she along with her son Rahul Sharma and police officials of PS: Alipur reached SRHC hospital where her State Vs. Shantanu etc SC No:605/17 : 24 :
blood sample and blood sample of her son was taken by the doctor. The blood samples in sealed condition were handed over to the police. Her MLC and MLC of her son were also prepared in the hospital. The testimony of this witness has gone unchallenged and uncontroverted.
51. Dr. Monisha Pradhan was examined as PW-22. She deposed that on 04.07.2017 she along with doctor Amandeep Kaur and Dr. Rohit Goel conducted the post mortem on the body of Meer Singh. The presence of fire arm entry and exit wound on the skull is indicative of death having occurred due to brain trauma from an ammunition of fire arm. She also deposed that due to putrefaction and animal scavenging of the relevant structures it is not possible to make any definite comment regarding presence or absence of such injuries which may have caused death or contributed to the cause of death. After post mortem examination skull bones along with mandible for face reconstruction and superimposition, fragments of long bones, scapula, vertebra and teeth were preserved for DNA analysis. She proved the post mortem report as Ex.PW4/A running into 8 pages and diagram sheet.
52. On 10.07.2017 two sealed parcels were received for subsequent opinion of the clothes of deceased recovered from the scene of crime. The parcels were opened and found containing remnants of the clothes. She and Dr. Amandeep Kaur examined and documented the clothes and suggested that the opinion State Vs. Shantanu etc SC No:605/17 : 25 :
regarding clothes will be given after these have been subjected to Biological and gun shot residue analysis. The subsequent opinion is Ex.PW4/B. The doctor deposed after going through the FSL report No:FSL-2017/B-6095/375 dt. 05.01.2018 of Biological examination and DNA finger printing that the shirt pieces Ex.PW4/A and presence of blood belonging to deceased which is confirmed by DNA profiling obtained from the bones. Further the source Ex.12 of deceased is biological father and source of Ex.11 wife of deceased is biological mother irrespective of the source of Ex.10 son of deceased. She also perused the ballistic expert report No. FSL 2017/B-6095 dt. 21.02.2018 regarding the examination of clothes for gun shot residue which revealed that Ex.C1 showed positive result for lead at H-1, H2 and H4. Exhibit C2 shows positive result for lead at H6, Ex.C3 shows positive results for lead and bitumen H5. ExC4 and C5 did not show any positive result for gun shot residues. Ex.M1 has been described as part of ammunition as defined in Arms Act 1959. She opined that on perusal of FSL report and the post mortem report Ex.PW4/A and subsequent opinion Ex.PW4/B they are of the opinion that the FSL report co-relates with the finding of the post mortem report and in conformity with the fact that deceased was shot with firearm ammunition in the abdomen region in addition to the head.
53. During cross-examination by the defence doctor stated that videography was not conducted regarding post mortem of State Vs. Shantanu etc SC No:605/17 : 26 :
deceased. They did not ask IO to make arrangement for the videography. She deposed that the examination of skeleton remains is a long procedure and conducting the videography of long procedure is not feasible. She does not remember as to exactly how much time was taken in conducting the post mortem. She denied the suggestion that she does not remember the time as post mortem was not conducted by them or at the instance of IO they gave the post mortem report in routine manner. She also denied the suggestion that she gave subsequent opinion in routine manner without following the due procedure.
54. Dr. Rohit Goel was examined as PW-23. He also deposed on the lines of PW-22. Nothing material came to discredit the witness in the cross examination.
55. Balraj was examined as PW-24. He brought the record of vehicle No. HR 10AA 5004. As per the record the vehicle is registered in the name of Dilbagh S/o Sh Chandagi R/o H.No.444, Village and P.O: Sirsa Sonepat. The vehicle was registered on 28.09.2016 and valid upto 12.07.2031. He proved the computer generated record as Ex.PW24/A and the letter of the SDM Sonepat as Ex.PW24/B. The testimony of the witness has gone unchallenged and uncontroverted.
56. Chet Ram was examined as PW-25. He deposed that Meer Singh was his younger brother. Meer Singh went missing. When Meer Singh did not return for two days they lodged a report. After 20-25 days they came to know that one dead body is lying near State Vs. Shantanu etc SC No:605/17 : 27 :
Singhu Border. He along with his nephews Rahul and Tarun went to PS: Alipur. Police took them to Signhu village in the Jungle where they saw human bones. The bones were lifted by the police. Thereafter, they came to the police station where the clothes, chappal and spectacles were shown to Rahul who identified these articles as belonging to Meer Singh.
57. He was cross examined by Ld. APP for the state that recovery was effected at the instance of accused persons but he did not support the same. He denied the suggestion that 8 pullandas were prepared by police of those articles i.e. clothes, money, danda, 17 bones or that the same were sealed with the seal of JK or that he told all these facts to the police. However, he admitted that police got these proceedings recorded through photographer and videographer.
58. He denied the suggestion that he knew Shantanu prior to the incident or that Shantanu is nephew of Surender whose murder trial was faced by his brother Meer Singh. He also did not identify Shantanu, Hardeep and Rohit present in the court. He denied the suggestion that all the accused persons pointed out the scene of crime one by one or that the exhibits were seized in his presence.
59. During cross-examination by the defence he stated that he was called in the police station by his nephew. He does not know the name of photographer and videographer. He does not know the date when he visited the police station. His signatures were State Vs. Shantanu etc SC No:605/17 : 28 :
obtained by the police while sitting in the police station on certain blank papers.
60. SI Naresh Kumar was examined as PW-26. He deposed that on 03.06.2017 he was posted at PS: Kundli. On that day he along with Inspector Parveen Kumar EASI Devender and other staff reached at Gohana, GH Sonepat where secret informer met Inspector Parveen Kumar and informed about accused persons involved in the murder of Virender @ Dhakad. IO called the CIA team of Sonepat. They also reached at GH Sonepat. Thereafter they reached at Nagura village Distt. Jind where SIT team of Panipat also reached and joined them. Trap was laid. At about 7:00 am two motorcycles Hero Honda Delux and Pulsar Blue colour reached at Nagura T-point. Both the motorcycles were got stopped. Four persons riding on the same were apprehended. Both the motorcycles were seized vide memo Ex. PW-7/H. All the accused persons were apprehended. Accused Rohit, Shantanu, Hardeep and Juvenile 'S' were arrested vide memos Ex.PW7/B to Ex.PW7/E. He identified accused Hardeep, Shantanu and Rohit.
61. During cross-examination he admitted that computerized FIR is dt.07.06.2017 bearing No.199 of PS: Kundli. He stated that there was some technical defect in the computer therefore contents of rukka were fed in the computer on 07.06.2017 though the FIR was registered on 29.05.2017. He denied the suggestion that there was no technical fault in the computer of police station or that the FIR is ante dated and ante timed. He denied the State Vs. Shantanu etc SC No:605/17 : 29 :
suggestion that accused persons were not arrested from the place and in the manner as deposed by him or that is why no public witness was joined.
62. HC Yogesh was examined as PW-27. He deposed that on 04.06.2017 he joined the investigation with SHO Inspector Parveen, ASI Devender and other staff in case FIR No:199/17 u/s 302/506/120B & 34 IPC and 25 Arms Act PS: Kundli Sonepat. Accused Shantanu, Hardeep, Rohit and Juvenile 'S' were taken out and interrogated. They made the disclosure statements Ex.PW7/M, Ex.PW7/N, Ex.PW7/O and Ex.PW7/P. Thereafter, they along with the accused persons left the police station and reached Tikri Khurd, Narela Delhi. The accused persons led them to the house of accused Hardeep. From one polythene lying on the almirah accused Shantanu, Juvenile 'S' and Hardeep took out two pistols of .312 bore along with cartridges and one pistol of .315 bore. The sketches of the pistol of .312 bore and cartridge produced by Shantanu was prepared which is Ex.PW7/J. The sketch of country made pistol .312 bore is produced by Juvenile 'S' Ex.PW7/A . The sketch of the country made pistol .315 bore produced by Hardeep was prepared which is Ex.PW7/L. All the three country made pistols and cartridges were separately put in plastic container. Sealed with the seal of AK and seized. He identified accused Shantanu, Hardeep and Rohit.
63. During cross-examination he admitted that there is no signature of any public person on any recovery memo. The date State Vs. Shantanu etc SC No:605/17 : 30 :
on disclosure is 04.05.2017 and he stated that it is typographical error with respect to the month i.e. Instead of 'June', 'May' is mentioned. He denied the suggestion that all the proceedings were conducted while sitting in the police station or that he put his signature on the asking of IO. He denied the suggestion that no recovery was effected as deposed or that the case property was planted upon the accused persons.
64. H.C. Pushkar was examined as PW-28. On 23.05.2017 he was working as duty officer in police station Alipur. On that day at 4:45 pm Rahul came to the police station and made statement that his father Meer Singh S/o late Sh. Rati Ram did not return home since he left on 22.05.2017 at 11:00 am for Azadpur Mandi. His father was wearing black pants, black stripe shirt and wearing black colour chappal. He sent the missing person report to MPS to Ct. Azad. He also informed SHO PS: Alipur and handed over DD No.29A to ASI Shridhar for necessary action. He proved the copy of DD No.29A as Ex.PW16/A.
65. He also stated that on 02.06.2017 he was working as duty officer. On that day at 5:22 pm SI Jagbir handed over him the rukka. He got the FIR registered and proved the computer generated copy of the same as Ex.PW28/A. He made endorsement on the rukka and proved the same as Ex.PW28/B. He proved the certificate u/s 65B Evidence Act as Ex.PW28/C. He also brought the original DD register having DD No.29A.
66. During cross-examination by the defence he denied the State Vs. Shantanu etc SC No:605/17 : 31 :
suggestion that he manipulated the contents regarding the clothes i.e. black pants, black stripes shirt and black colour chappal at the instance of the IO in DD No.29A Ex.PW16/A. He denied the suggestion that DD No.29A is ante dated and ante timed.
67. HC Jai Bhagwan was examined as PW-29. He deposed that on 18.08.2017 on the direction of SHO he received 12 sealed pullandas sealed with the seal of MAMC ADKJK and SRHC hospital for depositing the same in FSL vide RC No.157/17/21 and deposited the same in FSL. He obtained the acknowledgment of FSL and copy of road certificate. He returned to the police station and handed over the same to MHC(M). No body tampered with the exhibits till the same remained in his possession.
68. During cross-examination he stated that he did not sign in register No.19 and only signed in register No.21. He denied the suggestion that case property was tampered with or that the entries in register No.19 and 21 were manipulated and fabricated.
69. Rahul was examined as PW-30. He deposed that on 22.05.17 at about 11 AM his father left for Azad Pur Mandi and did not return home. He lodged the missing report on 23.05.17 which is Ex.PW-16/A. He also gave the description of the clothes worn by his father when he left the house.
70. On 02.06.17 he went to PS Alipur and gave statement to SI Jagbir. He proved his complaint as Ex.PW-18/A.
71. On 08.06.17 he was called to PS Alipur. He along with his uncle Chet Ram reached PS Alipur. From the PS they along with State Vs. Shantanu etc SC No:605/17 : 32 :
police reached the field situated in village Singhu. He and his uncle were made to stand on the road and were not allowed to go ahead. Many public persons gathered there. Police along with some persons went into the field. Police conducted some proceedings. He does not know the person caught by the police and also can not identify him.
72. The witness was cross examined by Ld. APP but he did not support the prosecution case and also did not identify the accused persons. He denied the suggestions that accused persons got recovered the clothes of his father, money, danda, 17 bones, spectacles and the slippers of his father. He admitted that on 25.06.17 his blood sample was taken in SRHC hospital. He admitted his signature on the seizure memos. Witness has identified the pants, pieces of shirt, spectacles, slippers as of his father.
73. During cross examination by the defence, he admitted that police officials took his signatures on certain blank papers.
74. HC Sombir was examined as PW-31. He deposed that on 25.06.17 on the direction of IO he accompanied Rahul and Chet Ram to SRHC hospital, Narela. In the hospital Doctor took blood samples of Rahul and Chet Ram. Doctor handed over to him blood samples in sealed condition, MLC and sample seal. He handed over these articles to the IO, who seized the same vide memo Ex.PW-31/A. Nothing material came on record to discredit the witness in the cross examination by the defence counsel.
State Vs. Shantanu etc SC No:605/17 : 33 :
75. ASI Naresh Rana was examined as PW-32. He
corroborated the testimony of PW-20 regarding pointing out of place of kidnapping by accused Shantanu, Rohit and Hardeep. He also corroborated and supported the testimony of PW-20 regarding arrest of accused Deepak @ Deepu, his disclosure, pointing out of place of kidnapping and murder and seizure of ECCO car. He correctly identified the accused persons. The defence has not disputed the identity of ECCO car.
76. During cross examination, he deposed that they left the PS at about 10 AM in private vehicle and were in uniform. He denied the suggestion that accused persons did not point out the place or that their signatures were taken on blank papers which were later on manipulated by the IO. No site plan of the places pointed out by the accused persons were prepared.
77. He denied the suggestion that Deepak was not arrested in the manner as deposed by him or that Deepak was called in the PS from where he was falsely arrested. Photographs of the places pointed out by the accused persons were not taken. He denied the suggestion that ECCO car was not taken in possession from the accused or that ECCO car was produced by father of accused Deepak at the instance of IO.
78. Ct. Jaideep was examined as PW-33. On 05.06.17 he was working as DD writer in PS Alipur. On that day at 10.45 AM ASI Ashok from PS Kundli informed on telephone that accused Shantanu @ Kala son of Suresh, Juvenile 'S' both resident of State Vs. Shantanu etc SC No:605/17 : 34 :
village Sersa, Sonepat, Rohit @ Kalu son of Sh. Shamsher r/o Vill.Janki Kala, Sonepat and Hardeep @ Amit @ Mitu son of Hem Chand r/o Tikri Khurd, Delhi have been arrested in FIR no.199/17 under Sec.302 IPC in PS Kundli and have confessed about murder of Meer Singh in the area of Alipur. He recorded DD no.30B and passed on the information to SI Jagbir. He proved the copy of DD as Ex.PW-18/C. Nothing material came on record to discredit the witness during cross examination.
79. Sh. Sanjay was examined as PW-34. He deposed that he is having ancestral land in khasra no.28/8 in Village Singhu situated on the Border of Delhi and Haryana. They are not usually visiting the field as mining is going on from the side of Haryana. They visit the field only in the season of cultivation. Later on he came to know from the police official of PS Alipur that some bones of dead body were found in their field.
80. During cross examination by the defence, he admitted that he was not called by the police in his field and he also did not point out the field to the police. He denied the suggestion that police never disclosed to him that bones were found in his village.
81. HC Vinod Kumar was examined as PW-35. On 18.08.17 on the direction of IO, he handed over forwarding letter, 12 sealed parcels along with sample seal to HC Jai Bhagwan for depositing the same in FSL vide RC no.157/21/17 Ex.PW-35/A. HC Jai Bhagwan deposited the same in FSL and obtained the acknowledgment. HC Jai Bhagwan handed over the State Vs. Shantanu etc SC No:605/17 : 35 :
acknowledgment and photocopy of RC to him on return to the PS. The photocopy of the acknowledgment is Ex.PW-35/B. He made entries in register no.19 in this regard. During the period exhibits remained in his possession, no one tampered with the same. Nothing material came on record to discredit the witness during cross examination.
82. Sh. Pradeep Dabas, Ahlmad in the court of Sh. Jitender Mishra was examined as PW-36. He produced the file of FIR no.403/14 dt.29.04.14 under Sec.302/120B/34 IPC and Sec.25/27 Arms Act PS Alipur against Bijender Kumar @ Bandri, Meer Singh son of Rathi Ram and Hanuman @ Sandeep. The case was decided on 31.03.18. The proved the copy of FIR as Ex.PW-36/A, copy of arrest memo of Meer Singh Ex.PW-36/B and the disclosure statement of Meer Singh Ex.PW-36/C. The testimony of witness has gone unchallenged and uncontroverted.
83. Inspector Praveen Kumar, SHO PS Kundli Distt. Sonepat, Haryana was examined as PW-37. He deposed that in the intervening night of 2/3.06.17 he was on patrolling duty with staff. Secret informer met them near government hospital, Sonepat and informed that the accused wanted in case FIR no.199/17 PS Kundli i.e. Shantanu. Hardeep, Rohit and Juvenile 'S' would come at village Nagura, Distt.Jind on two bikes. He contacted Inspector CIA and informed about the secret information. He was directed to carry out the raid. He along with staff left for village Nagura, Distt. Jind. SIT, Panipat met them at t- point Asand Road. They were State Vs. Shantanu etc SC No:605/17 : 36 :
also joined in the raiding team. After some time they noticed 4 persons coming on two bikes from the side of village Nagura. He signaled them to stop. The persons on bikes tried to take U-turn but were over powered. The persons on blue bike were over powered by him with the help of his team. The persons on the other bike were over powered by SIT and CIA staff. The persons who were on blue bike disclosed their names as Hardeep and Rohit. The persons on other bike disclosed their names as Shantanu and Juvenile 'S'. All the four persons were interrogated. They confessed about commission of offence regarding which FIR no.199/17 was registered at PS Kundli. All the four accused were arrested. Their two days police custody remand was taken. During police custody remand they also confessed about committing murder of Meer Singh in the area of PS Alipur. He proved the arrest memos of Rohit, Shantanu, Hardeep and Juvenile 'S' as Ex/PW-7/B to PW-7/E. They made the disclosure statements Ex.PW-7/M to PW-7/P. He prepared the site plan Ex.PW-7/E of the place of apprehension. The motorcycle on which the accused persons came were seized vide memo Ex.PW-7/H. In pursuance to the disclosure statement, accused persons led them to the house of Hardeep. From Godrej almirah found in that room Hardeep took out one polythene containing three pistols. Two pistols were of .315 bore and one pistol was .312 bore. The sketches of the pistols were prepared which are Ex.PW-7/J, PW- 7/K and PW-7/L. All the three pistols were wrapped in white cloth State Vs. Shantanu etc SC No:605/17 : 37 :
separately, sealed with the seal of AK and seized vide memo Ex.PW-7/I. He prepared the site plan of the recovery Ex.PW-7/S. He informed PS Alipur about the disclosure made by the accused persons regarding murder of Meer Singh. He correctly identified all the accused persons.
84. During cross examination by the defence he deposed that secret informer did not accompany them to village Nagura. No public person was joined at the time of arrest and the recovery. He denied the suggestion that recovery was planted upon the accused persons or that they did not make any disclosure statement.
85. Inspector Suresh Kumar was examined as PW-38. On 08.06.17 he received the present case for further investigation. SI Jagbir briefed him and also told that he had already moved application for production of accused persons before Ld.CMM. On 08.06.17 he along with SI Jagbir and other staff reached Rohini court complex in the court of Ld. CMM. Application Ex.PW-18/E was moved seeking permission to interrogate and arrest the accused persons. Accused Shantanu was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW-18/F-1. He made the disclosure statement Ex.PW- 18/F-2. Accused Hardeep was arrested vide memo Ex.PW-18/G-
1. He made the disclosure statement Ex.PW-18/G-2. Accused Rohit was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW-18/H-1. He made the disclosure statement Ex.PW-18/H-2. Juvenile 'S' was also arrested but later on he was found to be juvenile. Police custody State Vs. Shantanu etc SC No:605/17 : 38 :
remand of all the accused persons was obtained. They were got medically examined. They were taken to PS and interrogated again. Shantanu made disclosure statement Ex.PW-18/F-3, Hardeep made disclosure statement Ex.PW-18/G-3 and Rohit made disclosure statement Ex.PW-18/H-3.
86. He called the crime team to PS. Private photographer Rishabh was also called to PS. Complainant Rahul also reached PS. He along with SI Jagbir, other staff, officials of crime team, complainant Rahul, photographer and videographer Rishabh and all the four accused left the PS in vehicles. The accused persons got stopped the vehicles near the field of Udey Singh. He fully corroborated the testimony of PW-18 regarding the pointing out of the places and the recovery at the instance of accused persons.
He also corroborated the testimony of PW-19 regarding the supplementary disclosure of Shantanu recorded on 10.06.17 and the recovery of Aadhar card of Meer Singh at the instance of Shantanu. He collected the various reports, blood samples of Rahul and Chet Ram were taken. Exhibits were sent to FSL. Medical Board was constituted to conduct post mortem on the skeleton, collected the CD of Videography done at the time of recovery, collected the post mortem report and the exhibits. Blood samples of Nirmala was taken which was seized vide memo Ex.PW-18/S.
87. On 19.08.17 he sent ASI Raj Kumar to Sonepat to verify the address of the owner of mobile number 8685017751 but the State Vs. Shantanu etc SC No:605/17 : 39 :
address was found incomplete. He recorded the statements of witnesses and prepared the charge sheet. Later on he collected FSL result dt.05.01.18 Ex.PW-38/A and FSL result dt.21.02.18 Ex.PW-38/B and placed the same on record. He identified the accused persons and also identified the case property.
88. During cross examination by the defence, he deposed that accused persons were arrested by him on 08.06.17. They left the PS for coming to the court in four vehicles, one police gypsy and three private vehicles. Firstly he recorded the disclosure of Shantanu. He denied the suggestion that accused person did not make disclosure statements or that he had already prepared all the documents regarding arrest of accused persons prior to reaching Rohini Court. He denied the suggestion that accused persons were forced to sign on blank papers and printed papers.
89. The accused persons were interrogated in the PS from 2 PM to 5 PM. Their disclosure statements were recorded separately and typed on the laptop by SI Gajender and SI Jagbir. They left the PS in five vehicles, one government vehicle and other private vehicles. He denied the suggestion that accused persons were not taken to any place or they were sitting in the police lock up during the police custody remand. Photographer Rishabh was called from the shop through staff. Rishabh reached the PS at about 4.30 PM. The videography was done by crime team and private photographer. They reached the spot at about 5.30 PM. He made payment to the private photographer but does State Vs. Shantanu etc SC No:605/17 : 40 :
not remember how much payment was made. No family member of Hoshiar Singh was called at the spot. No action was taken against the public persons, who refused to join the investigation. The videography and photography was done from 5.30 to 7.30 PM. There was no source of light at the place of recovery. After 7.30 PM he started writing work near the place where the vehicles were parked, in the head lights of the vehicles. He denied the suggestion that no recovery was effected or that the documents regarding the recovery and pointing out were prepared in the PS or that the family members of the deceased signed the documents at his instance. He denied the suggestion that he obtained the signature of family members of deceased on blank and printed papers. He admitted that the CD of the videography was not sent to FSL. He denied the suggestion that CD was not sent to FSL intentionally as the same is false and fabricated or that he tampered with the CD. He denied the suggestion that case property was tampered with. He denied the suggestion that Aadhar card was planted upon the accused or that accused did not get recovered the Aadhar card of the deceased.
90. Sh. V.R. Anand, Asst. Director Ballistic, FSL Delhi was examined as PW-39. He conducted the examination of the base of the cartridge and also the clothes of the deceased and proved his report as Ex.PW-38/B. He also correctly identified the clothes and cartridge case examined by him.
91. During cross examination by the defence, he stated that he State Vs. Shantanu etc SC No:605/17 : 41 :
examined the exhibits in February 2018 but does not remember the exact date. He did not mention the size of the hole in the report, however the same is mentioned in his file. He denied the suggestion that he did not examine the exhibits. He examined the clothes thoroughly after opening the same from the point of view of ballistic expert. He denied the suggestion that he prepared the report Ex.PW-38/B at the instance IO in routine manner.
92. Ms.Monika Chakravarthy, Sr. Scientific Asst. Biology, FSL was examined as PW-40. She conducted the biological and DNA finger printing examination of exhibits. She proved her report Ex.PW-38/A. The genotype chart is proved as Ex.PW-40/A. Nothing material came on record to discredit the witness in cross examination.
93. SI Gajender was examined as PW-41. He corroborated the testimony of PW-18 and PW-38 regarding the arrest of accused persons, pointed out by them and the recoveries. He also corroborate the testimony of PW-20 regarding the pointing out by the accused persons of the place of abduction and arrest of accused Deepak and seizure of ECCO car and the pointing out of the places by the accused Deepak.
94. On 30.06.17 he collected the exhibits from MHC(M) and deposited the same in the mortuary of BJRM hospital. On 04.07.17 on the direction of IO he along with Rahul and Chet Ram went to mortuary of BJRM hospital, collected the exhibits and deposited the same in the mortuary of MAMC, Delhi Gate for post State Vs. Shantanu etc SC No:605/17 : 42 :
mortem.
95. On 10.07.17 on the direction of IO, he took the exhibits from MHC(M) vide RC no.132/21/17 and deposited the same with MAMC and obtained the acknowledgment. He returned to PS and handed over the acknowledgment to the MHC(M).
96. On 24.07.17 on the direction of IO, he went to MAMC hospital, collected the exhibits with sample seal and seized the same vide memo Ex.PW-41/A. He deposited the case property in the malkhana. He collected the post mortem report.
97. On 02.08.17 he along with IO and Ct. Naveen visited the scene of crime where Ct. Naveen took measurements and prepared rough notes for preparing scaled site plan. He identified the accused persons and also identified the case property.
98. During cross examination, he stated that some documents were prepared in the field of Umed Singh and some in the field of Hoshiar Singh. He does not know if the family members of Hoshiar Singh and Umed Singh were called in the field. They remained on the spot from 5.15 PM to 9.15 PM. They prepared the documents in the field of Hoshiar Singh by using the light of torch and light of mobile phone. He denied the suggestion that no recovery was effected from the field.or that accused persons did not point out any place. He denied the suggestion that signatures of accused persons were taken on blank papers which were converted into various memos to falsely implicate the accused. He denied the suggestion that all the documents were signed in the State Vs. Shantanu etc SC No:605/17 : 43 :
PS or that accused did not make any disclosure statement. He denied the suggestion that accused Deepak was not arrested from the place and in the manner as deposed by him or that he did not point out any place. Thereafter prosecution evidence was closed.
99. Statements of accused persons were recorded under Sec.313 Cr.PC wherein they denied the entire evidence and stated that they have been falsely implicated. They did not wish to lead evidence in defence. Thereafter the case was fixed for final arguments.
100. I have heard Ld. APP for state, Ld. Defence counsel for accused persons and perused the record.
101. This case is based upon circumstantial evidence. No eye witness could be found of the incident. It is well settled law that even on the basis of circumstantial evidence person can be held guilty. The Apex Court in the case of Sharad Birdichand Vs Union of India had laid down the following principles:
(1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established.
(2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty.
(3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency.
(4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and (5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that State Vs. Shantanu etc SC No:605/17 : 44 :
in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.
102. In the present case prosecution intend to prove the guilt of the accused persons on the basis of following circumstances.
1) Circumstance of recovery of dead body.
2) Circumstance of recovery of belongings of the deceased.
3) Recovery of Aadhar card of Meer Singh.
4) Pointing out of the place of abduction and place of murder by accused persons.
5) Motive.
103. I take the circumstances one by one.
Circumstance of Recovery of dead body
104. Ld. APP submitted that in this case on 22.05.17 Meer Singh left home at about 11 AM for going to Mandi Azad pur. He did not return home thereafter. Upto 6 PM Meer Singh was present in Mandi Azad Pur as deposed by PW-15 Devender. Thereafter he had not seen him in Azad pur Mandi and also not reached home. DD no.29A Ex.PW-16/A was lodged by Rahul/PW- 30 regarding missing of his father. In this DD he also mentioned that his father was wearing black pants, shirt having black stripes and black colour chappals. He also mentioned that his father was carrying mobile phone no.9717412423. Efforts were made to search Meer Singh but he was not found. On 02.06.17 on the complaint of Rahul Ex.PW-18/A the FIR no.0197 under Sec.365 IPC was registered, copy of which is Ex.PW-28/A. Ld. APP State Vs. Shantanu etc SC No:605/17 : 45 :
submitted that during investigation police of Alipur received information from PS Kundli about the arrest of accused persons and that they have confessed about the commission of this crime. The accused persons were arrested in this case on 08.06.17. Ld. APP submitted that the accused persons made the disclosure statement that they can point out the place where they had murdered Meer Singh. The accused persons led the police team and got stopped the vehicles in the field of Udey Singh. From there they lead the police team on foot to the field of Hoshiar Singh. At that time photographer PW-17, the crime team headed by ASI Ram Kumar/PW-12, Photographer PW-13 HC Satender were also accompanying the police. Rahul, son of deceased and Chet Ram PW-25, brother of deceased were also with the police. They are also visible in the videography conducted by PW-17. The CD containing that videography has been proved on record as Ex.PW-17/Article 1. Rishabh has also proved his certificate under Sec.65 B of Evidence Act as Ex.PW-17/B. Ld. APP submitted that Rishabh/PW-17, SI Jagbir/PW-18, ASI Raj Kumar PW-20, Inspector Suresh PW-38 proved the recovery of bones i.e. lower jaw, the skull and some other bones from that field. All these were seized vide memo Ex.PW-18/I. These bones were sent to FSL along with the blood sample of Rahul, son of Meer Singh and blood sample of his wife Smt. Nirmala. Ld. APP submitted that the prosecution has proved on record the factum of taking of blood samples. The accused persons are also visible in State Vs. Shantanu etc SC No:605/17 : 46 :
the photographs and proved on record as Ex.PW-20/A-1 to A-52. Even in the crime team report there is mention that the accused persons got recovered the bones. These bones were examined in FSL and DNA examination was conducted. It was opined by the expert that the person whose bones has been examined is the biological father of Rahul, whose blood has been referred as Ex.10 in the report and Smt.Nirmala is the mother, whose blood has been referred as Ex.11 in the report. Ld. APP submitted that this report clearly shows that the bones were of Meer Singh. The recovery is effected at the instance of accused persons which clearly points towards the guilt of the accused persons and that is why they were knowing that dead body is lying there and got it recovered. The witnesses examined have stood through the test of cross examination. ld. APP submitted that there is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of PW-18, PW-20, PW-38 and also of independent witness PW-17 Rishabh. Ld.APP submitted that onus which was on the prosecution has fully been discharged and this circumstance also point towards the guilt of the accused persons and at the same time in consistent with any hypothesis of innocence of accused. Ld. APP submitted that accused persons be held guilty and convicted.
105. Ld. Defence counsel submitted that the onus was on the prosecution to prove and establish that the bones were recovered at the instance of the accused persons but the prosecution has miserably failed to prove and establish this fact. There were two State Vs. Shantanu etc SC No:605/17 : 47 :
independent witnesses of this fact i.e. PW-25 Chet Ram, who is none else but the brother of the deceased. He had not supported the prosecution case at all. He was cross examined by Ld.APP but he specifically denied the recovery of any thing at the instance of accused persons or in his presence. The witness specifically denied that all the accused pointed out the scene of crime one by one or that 8 exhibits were seized in his presence. Ld. Counsel submitted that PW-25 also deposed that he and his nephew were called in the PS. His signatures were obtained by the police in PS on certain blank papers. This witness has stated in his examination in chief that he along with his nephew Rahul and Arun went to PS Alipur. Police took them to Singhu village in a jungle where they saw human bones. The bones were lifted by the police and thereafter they returned to the PS. The clothes, chappal and spectacles were shown to Rahul, who identified those articles belonged to his father Meer Singh. Ld. Counsel submitted that witness no where stated that when they were taken to the field and the bones were lifted or that the accused persons were with them.
106. Ld. Counsel submitted that so far as Rahul is concerned, he was examined as PW-30. He also did not support the prosecution case. He stated that he along with his uncle was made to stand on the road. Police along with some person went inside the field while they were standing near the road and conducted some proceedings. He can not identify those persons, State Vs. Shantanu etc SC No:605/17 : 48 :
who were caught by the police. Ld. Counsel submitted that during lengthy cross examination by Ld. APP, the witness has not supported the prosecution case and also did not identify any of the accused. The witness also stated that police obtained his signature on certain blank papers. Ld. Counsel submitted that there is no reason for these two witnesses to depose falsely.
107. Ld. Counsel further submitted that so far as PW-12 and PW-13 are concerned, they have also not identified any of the accused. Even PW-17 had also not identified any of the accused.
108. The three police witnesses i.e. PW-18 SI Jagbir, PW-20 ASI Raj Kumar and PW-38 Inspector Suresh Kumar have contradicted each other and hence can not be relied upon. Ld. Counsel submitted that according to PW-18, they were in two vehicles. According to PW-20 they were in three vehicles. One police vehicle and two private vehicles and according to PW-38 they were in five vehicles. This fact itself shows that they have not gone there and that is why they are not consistent on this point.
PW-18 also said that family members of Hoshiar Singh were not called on the spot whereas according to PW-20 owner of the field, from where the recovery was effected, was called through beat staff whereas according to PW-38 family members of Hoshiar Singh were not called. Sanjay, the owner of the field was examined as PW-34 and he specifically stated that he was not called. Ld. Counsel further submitted that they have also contradicted each other as to upto to what time videography was State Vs. Shantanu etc SC No:605/17 : 49 :
done. According to PW-18 the videography was done from 5 PM to 6.30 PM and the writing work was done in the head light of the vehicle and also the torch and all the documents were prepared on the spot. According to PW-20 the recovery proceedings were started at 5.20 PM and completed around 9.30 PM. The videography was carried out of the entire proceedings till 9.30 PM. According to PW-38, the videography was done from 5.30 to 7.30 PM and the writing work was done near the place where vehicles were parked and not the place where recovery was effected. Ld. Counsel submitted that keeping in view all these facts, the contradictions in the testimony of witnesses, public witnesses not supporting the recovery, even the crime team members not identifying any of the accused clearly show that this recovery was not effected. Even the samples were tampered to create evidence. Ld. Counsel submitted that the onus which was on the prosecution has not been discharged. Prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused persons beyond doubt. It is prayed that accused persons be acquitted.
109. After hearing the arguments and going through the record, I found that there were two public witnesses i.e. Chet Ram, the brother of deceased examined as PW-25 and Rahul, son of deceased examined as PW-30. They did not support the prosecution case on the point that recovery was effected at the instance of the accused persons from the field of Hoshiar Singh in their presence. This fact itself creates doubt regarding the State Vs. Shantanu etc SC No:605/17 : 50 :
recovery as alleged by the prosecution, in fact according to PW- 30 they were standing on the road and the police went inside the field and did some proceedings. PW-25 and PW-30 both stated that their signatures were obtained on blank papers. PW-25 also stated that police took them to jungle &lifted some bones thereafter returned to P.S. He does not say that accused persons to any other person was with them when police lifted the bones from the jungle. So far as PW-12, PW-13 and PW-17 are concerned, they did not identify any of the accused. PW-17 stated that one of them was Shantanu but still the prosecution did not prove that accused Shantanu facing trial is the same person whom he is referring, as no question is put to the witness whether accused present in the court is same person, who got recovered those bones.
110. Even the police witnesses have contradicted each other.
According to PW-18 they were in two vehicles whereas according to PW-20 they were in three vehicles and according to PW-38 they were in five vehicles. They have also contradicted about the timing of videography and where the documents were prepared.
111. In this case PW-17 deposed that videography of the proceedings was carried out. The CD containing that videography has been proved as Ex.PW-17/Article 1. According to this witness, this CD was got prepared from the memory disk of the camera in some photo lab at Narela. The person who prepared the CD from that memory disk has not been examined. The certificate under State Vs. Shantanu etc SC No:605/17 : 51 :
Sec.65 B Evidence Act of that photo lab is also not proved on record. One certificate under Sec.65 B Evidence Act issued by PW-17 Rishabh has been proved on record as Ex.PW-17/B but admittedly Rishabh/PW-17 has not prepared that CD Ex.PW- 17/Article 1 and therefore, his certificate under Sec.65 B Evidence Act is of no consequence.
112. The CD was also not sent to FSL for analysis to establish that the recording has not been tampered with and is continuing one. The onus was on the prosecution to prove and establish this fact particularly when the other two public witnesses have not supported the prosecution case about the recovery of skeleton at the instance of accused persons. So far as identity of the bones is concerned, prosecution no doubt has established that the bones recovered are of Meer Singh and the FSL report Ex.PW- 38/A along with the genotype chart Ex.PW-40/A clinches the issue that the bones sent for analysis were of Meer Singh, father of Rahul. But as the recovery of the bones itself is doubtful, in my opinion the prosecution has failed to prove and establish this circumstance.
Circumstance of recovery of belongings of the deceased.
113. Ld. APP submitted that during investigation, police of Alipur received information from PS Kundli about the arrest of accused persons and they have confessed about the commission of this crime. The accused persons were arrested in this case on 08.06.17. The accused persons led the police team to the field of State Vs. Shantanu etc SC No:605/17 : 52 :
Hoshiar Singh situated within village Singhu and from there got recovered one black colour pants and shirt having black and white stripes Ex.PW-13/Article 4 which were identified by PW-30 as of his father. These were seized vide memo Ex.PW-18/M. The accused persons also got recovered two small pieces of the same shirt and one blue colour underwear. These were also identified as of Meer Singh by Rahul/PW-30. These two pieces of shirt and underwear are Ex.PW-30/Article 5 which were seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW-18/M. The accused persons also got recovered the spectacles of deceased and the pair of slippers Ex.PW-30/Article 1 which were seized vide memo Ex.PW-18/N. PW-30/Rahul identified all these articles as of his father. Ld. APP submitted that prosecution has examined SI Jagbir PW-18, ASI Raj Kumar PPW-
20, Inspector Suresh PW-38 and Photographer Rishabh PW-17 to prove and establish this fact. The videography of recovery proceedings was done and the CD of the same has been proved by PW-17 as Ex.PW-17/Article 1. The certificate under Sec.65 B of Evidence Act has also been proved on record as Ex.PW-17/B. The CD was seized by the police vide memo Ex.PW-17/A. Ld.APP submitted that in this CD itself all the accused persons are visible pointing out and getting recovered the articles belonging to his father.. The articles have been identified by Rahul as belonging of his father. This recovery of articles of the deceased at the instance of accused persons clearly shows and establish that they were knowing as to where Meer Singh has State Vs. Shantanu etc SC No:605/17 : 53 :
been murdered and where his belongings were lying and that is why they lead to the police to that place and got recovered the articles. Ld.APP submitted that there is no reason to disbelieve these witnesses. They have stood through the test of cross examination. It is also established law that the testimony of police witnesses carries the same weight as any other witness and the same can not be discarded for want of corroboration. Ld. APP submitted that the onus which was on the prosecution has fully been discharged. The circumstance stands established. It is prayed that accused be held guilty.
114. Ld. Defence counsel submitted that the onus was on the prosecution to prove and establish that the clothes and belongings were recovered at the instance of the accused persons but the prosecution has miserably failed to prove and establish this fact. Ld. Defence counsel submitted that PW-25 no where stated that besides bones any thing else was lifted from that forest. He stated that the belongings of Meer Singh were shown in the PS. This fact itself creates doubt whether those belongings were really recovered from the field at the instance of accused persons or planted upon them.
115. Ld.Defence counsel further submitted that PW-25 and PW- 30 had not supported the case of the prosecution about recovery at the instance of accused persons. Only police witnesses are there i.e. PW-18, PW-20 and PW-38. Ld. Counsel submitted that it is not the case that there was no public witness joined in this State Vs. Shantanu etc SC No:605/17 : 54 :
case. Police has joined the brother of the deceased and son of the deceased as witness. If the recovery has been effected as alleged by the prosecution at the instance of the accused persons then there was no reason for PW-5 and PW-30 to not to support the prosecution case. Ld. Counsel submitted that no such recovery was effected at the instance of accused persons. The testimony of PW-25 itself shows that in fact the recovery was already done and planted upon the accused persons and that is why the case property was shown to the witnesses in the PS as deposed by PW-25. Ld. Counsel further submitted that there are contradictions in the testimony of PW-18, PW-20 and PW-38 about the number of vehicles used by them, recording of proceedings and also the timing of video recording as pointed out earlier. Ld. Counsel submitted that the other police witnesses PW- 12 and PW-13, who were from the crime team had also not identified the accused persons or that the recovery was effected at the instance of accused persons. Ld.Counsel submitted that keeping in view all these facts, it is clear that the prosecution has failed to prove and establish this circumstance. It is prayed that benefit of the same be given to the accused persons and they be acquitted.
116. After hearing the arguments and going through the record, I found that there were two eye witnesses according to the prosecution case i.e. Chet Ram PW-25 and Rahul, PW-30. They both have not supported the recovery proceedings that the State Vs. Shantanu etc SC No:605/17 : 55 :
recovery of the belongings of Meer Singh was effected at the instance of accused persons and in their presence. ASI Ram Kumar/PW-12 and HC Satender/PW-13, photographer of crime team were also there at the time of alleged recovery but they did not identify any of the accused persons. Similarly, PW-17 Rishabh had also not identified any of the accused. As discussed above, the CD of videography can not be looked into firstly for want of certificate under Sec.65 B of Evidence Act and secondly because no evidence has been placed on record by the prosecution that there is no tampering done to the videography. It is also important to note that there is no date and time reflecting in the videography. Keeping in view the above discussion, in my opinion prosecution has miserably failed to prove that the belongings of Meer Singh were recovered at the instance of accused persons from the field of Hoshiar Singh.
Circumstance of recovery of Aadhar Card of Meer Singh.
117. Ld. APP submitted that in this case on 10.06.17 while accused Shantanu was still in police custody, he made a supplementary disclosure that in order to avoid the identification of the dead body, he threw the Aadhar Card of Meer Singh Ex.PW-30/Article 7 on the roof of the tube well situated in the field of Hoshiar Singh. Pursuance to this disclosure, accused led the police team again to the field of Hoshiar Singh. Accused Shantanu from the roof of the tube well got recovered the Aadhar Card which was seized vide memo Ex.PW-19/B. Ld. APP submitted State Vs. Shantanu etc SC No:605/17 : 56 :
that the Aadhar card has been identified by Rahul as of his father. Prosecution examined PW-19, SI Jaibir and PW-38 Inspector Suresh to prove and establish this fact. Both the witnesses have fully corroborated and supported each other. They have stood through the test of cross examination. Ld. APP submitted that their testimony can not be discarded merely because no public witness was joined. From the testimony of PW-19 and PW-38 the circumstance stands established and also points towards the guilt of the accused.
118. Ld.Defence counsel submitted that onus was on the prosecution to prove and establish this fact which the prosecution has failed. In this case the accused persons were arrested on 08.06.17 in this case. They were interrogated. Disclosure of Shantanu was recorded. According to the prosecution story Shantanu had also taken them to the field of Hoshiar Singh on 08.06.17 itself. If Aadhar card would have been there on the roof of the tube well situated in the field of Hoshiar Singh, it could have been recovered on 08.06.17 itself but no such effort was made.
This fact itself shows that the Aadhar card was not there but was planted later on and shown to have been recovered from the roof of that tube well. Ld. Counsel submitted that no public witness was joined at the time of effecting recovery. This fact also shows that Aadhar card was planted. Ld. Counsel submitted that onus was on the prosecution as the investigating agency had not complied with the mandate of Sec.100 Cr.PC, therefore, the onus State Vs. Shantanu etc SC No:605/17 : 57 :
is not discharged. It is not proved beyond doubt that Aadhar card of Meer Singh was got recovered by Shantanu. Benefit of the same be given to the accused and he be acquitted.
119. After hearing the arguments and going through the record, I found that there are three disclosure statements of Shantanu.
One recorded at the time of arrest by Haryana police, the second recorded when they were arrested in this case by Delhi police and the third disclosure was recorded on 09.06.17. Thereafter this recovery was effected. There are two witnesses examined by the prosecution to prove this fact i.e. SI Jaibir, PW-19 and Inspector Suresh Kumar, PW-38. Both the witnesses are consistent and corroborated each other on all material points including the recovery of Aadhar card at the instance of accused Shantanu. They have also stood through the test of cross examination. The witnesses stated that the public witness could not be joined as despite efforts none agreed. In this case it is important to note that on 08.06.2017, as per the prosecution story accused Shantanu, Rohit and Hardeep got recovered the skeleton and belongings of Meer Singh from the field of Hoshiyar Singh in the presence of Rahul and his uncle and also photographer Rishab. This recovery is also effected from the roof of Tubewell room situated in the field of Hoshiyar Singh. Police witnesses stated that no public witness could be joined despite efforts. On 08.06.2017 police called Rahul PW-30, Chet Ram PW-25 from their houses and private photographer Rishab PW-17 was called by sending a police State Vs. Shantanu etc SC No:605/17 : 58 :
officer. This time no such effort was made. There is also no explanation coming forward as to why this recovery could not be effected on 08.06.2017 itself when the accused was there in the same field. Keeping in view the fact that no public witness was joined and also the recovery is shown from the same field where the police had already visited with accused persons on 08.06.2017 creates doubt about the truthfulness of story of prosecution. In my opinion the circumstance is not proved beyond doubt.
Pointing out of the place of abduction and place of murder by accused persons.
120. Ld. APP submitted that in this case accused Shantanu, Rohit, Hardeep and Deepak pointed out the place near BDO block near Bus stand, old G.T. Karnal road Alipur near the gate of SSN college from where deceased Meer Singh was abducted by them in ECCO car No.HR10AA5004 owned by father of Deepak which was seized from the possession of Deepak when he was arrested on 10.06.2017. Ld. APP submitted that prosecution had examined ASI Raj Kumar PW-20, ASI Naresh Rana PW-32 and IO Inspector Suresh PW-38. They all have stood through the test of cross- examination. No public witness could be joined despite efforts and hence no adverse inference could be drawn for not joining public witnesses. This place was also not known to the police before pointing out by the accused persons and hence, to that extent the disclosure statements of accused persons is admissible.
State Vs. Shantanu etc SC No:605/17 : 59 :
121. Ld. APP further submitted that the accused persons have also pointed out the field of Umed Singh where Meer Singh was taken in ECCO car. The car and motorcycle were stopped there and thereafter Meer Singh was took to the filed of Hoshiyar Singh where he was murdered. The field of Hoshiyar Singh has been pointed out by Shantanu, Rohit and Hardeep vide pointing out memos Ex.PW18/F5, Ex.PW18/H5 and Ex.PW18/G5 respectively. Ld. APP submitted that this place was also not known to the police prior to that and it is from this place only that the belongings of Meer Singh and the skeleton of Meer Singh were recovered. The field of Uday Singh has been pointed out by the accused persons Shantanu, Rohit, Hardeep and Deepak vide memos Ex.PW18/F4, Ex.PW18/H4, Ex.PW18/G4 and Ex.PW20/I respectively. Ld. APP submitted that these places were not known to the investigating agency prior to pointing out by accused persons. It is a discovery of fact pursuance to the disclosure of accused persons and hence admissible under law. Ld. APP submitted that there is no such rule of law that the testimony of police witnesses cannot be relied upon unless corroborated by the public witnesses. The witnesses PW-18 ASI Jagbir, PW-20 ASI Raj Kumar, PW-32 ASI Naresh Rana and PW-38 Inspector Suresh Kumar have fully supported the prosecution case, corroborated each other on all material points and also stood through the test of cross-examination. Ld. APP submitted that the onus which was on the prosecution has been fully discharged.
State Vs. Shantanu etc SC No:605/17 : 60 :
This circumstance stands established and at the same time point towards the guilt of accused persons.
122. Ld. Defence counsel submitted that according to the prosecution case Shantanu, Rohit and Hardeep pointed out the field of Uday Singh vide pointing out memos Ex.PW18/F4, Ex.PW18/H4 and Ex.PW18/G4 respectively on 08.06.2017. They also pointed out the place of murder i.e. the field of Hoshiyar Singh vide pointing out memos Ex.PW18/F5, Ex.PW18/H5 and Ex.PW18/G5 respectively on 08.06.2017. Ld. Counsel submitted that according to the prosecution story on 08.06.2017 witness Chet Ram PW-25 and Rahul PW-30 were also with them. They are not witnesses to the pointing out memos reasons best known to the investigating officer. Ld. Counsel submitted that infact witnesses PW-25 Chet Rama and PW-30 Rahul have also not supported the prosecution case with respect to the recovery of skeleton and belongings of Meer Singh from the field of Hoshiyar Singh. Ld. Counsel further submits that there is one more witness Rishab examined as PW-17 who conducted the videography. He is also not a witness of this fact and also on the pointing out memos. Ld. Counsel submitted that under the circumstances it is clear that no pointing out was made and police has falsely prepared these pointing out memos only to implicate the accused persons. Ld. Counsel further submitted that infact the accused persons had not pointed out any such place otherwise PW-30 the complainant and PW-25 the brother of deceased must have State Vs. Shantanu etc SC No:605/17 : 61 :
supported the prosecution case on this aspect.
123. Ld. Counsel further submitted that so far as pointing out by the Deepak of the field of Uday Singh is concerned prosecution has examined ASI Raj Kumar PW-20, ASI Naresh Rana PW-32 and Inspector Suresh Kumar PW-38. No public witness has been joined at the time of pointing out. The police was already knowing this place i.e. PW-20 and PW-38 as this point was already pointed out by accused Shantanu, Rohit and Hardeep on 08.06.2017 as per the story. Ld. Counsel submitted that this pointing out does not lead to discovery of any new fact and hence cannot be looked into. Even otherwise, the public witnesses have also not been joined at the time of pointing out which creates doubt regarding the truthfulness of story of prosecution.
124. Ld. Counsel further submitted that so far as the pointing out of place of abduction by accused Shantanu, Hardeep, Rohit and Deepak vide pointing out memos Ex.PW20/A, Ex.PW20/B, Ex.PW20/C and Ex.PW20/H are concerned there is no such evidence on record that deceased was abducted from there. According to the prosecution case and the statement of PW15 Meer Singh was in the Azadpur Mandi upto 6 pm. There is nothing on record as to how he reached SSN college Alipur. There is no other evidence on record that Meer Singh was abducted from there. Story of prosecution is that Meer Singh was abducted from there in ECCO car Ex.PW2/Article-1 owned by Dilbagh Singh examined as PW-3. Dilbagh Singh stated that this car was not State Vs. Shantanu etc SC No:605/17 : 62 :
used by accused Deepak. He stated that Kuldeep PW-2 used to drive this car. Kuldeep also corroborated the testimony of PW-3. Both these witnesses were cross-examined by Ld. APP but they did not support the prosecution case that on 22.05.2017 accused Deepak took away this car and that it was Deepak who was driving this car. Ld. Counsel submitted that in view of this testimony the prosecution has failed to establish that ECCO car Ex.PW2/Article-1 was used for abduction or that Meer Singh was abducted from near the gate of SSN college Alipur in that ECCO Car on 22.05.2017. Consequently, this pointing out by the accused persons as alleged by the prosecution is also of no consequence as there is no recovery of any such article or any other evidence showing that Meer Singh was abducted from there. No witness has been examined or even the chowkidar of the college or the footage of CCTV camera installed there to prove this fact. Ld. Counsel submitted that onus was upon the prosecution to prove this fact which prosecution has miserably failed. It is prayed that the benefit be given to the accused persons and they be acquitted.
125. After hearing the arguments and going through the record I found that so far as accused Shantanu, Rohit and Hardeep are concerned they pointed out the filed of Uday Singh and Hoshiyar Singh on 08.06.2017. It is important to note here that according to prosecution story on 08.06.2017 when the accused persons allegedly got recovered the skeleton and the belongings of Meer State Vs. Shantanu etc SC No:605/17 : 63 :
Singh from the field of Hoshiyar Singh at that time public photographer Rishab PW-17, Chet Ram PW-25 (brother of deceased) and Rahul PW-30 (son of deceased) were also with police. Chet Ram PW-25 and Rahul PW-30 are witnesses on recovery memo though they have not supported that recovery. But surprisingly PW-25 Chet Ram and PW-30 Rahul are not witnesses to these pointing out memos, particularly, when they were also with the police. This fact itself creates doubt about the truthfulness of story of prosecution. No doubt one case of the cartridge was also found in the field of Hoshiyar Singh but as discussed earlier, because the public witnesses have not supported the prosecution case and the other witnesses PW-12, PW-13 and PW-17 have not identified the accused persons the recovery could not be believed. Under the circumstances when the public witnesses are not signatory to these memos it creates serious doubt regarding the correctness of the same.
126. So far as the pointing out by the Deepak of the field of Uday Singh on 09.06.2017 is concerned, it is important to note here that according to prosecution story police was already knowing this place as it was pointed out by the other three accused on 08.06.2017 therefore, it does not amount to discovery of a new fact but still shows the special knowledge of the accused. Here it is also important to note that no public witness was joined when accused Deepak allegedly pointed out this place. There is also no plausible explanation as to why public State Vs. Shantanu etc SC No:605/17 : 64 :
witnesses were not joined. On 08.06.17 police had joined rahul and Chet Ram by making telephone call and also call photographer Rishab by sending a police officer but this time no such effort was made. There are only police witnesses who deposed that accused pointed out the place i.e. the field of Uday Singh where the car was stopped and Meer Singh was taken out. In my opinion as no public witness was joined and also that this place was also in the knowledge of the police therefore, this circumstance is not established.
127. There is also pointed out by all the accused persons of the place from where deceased Meer Singh was abducted. According to the prosecution case Meer Singh was abducted from in front of SSN college. No watchmen of SSN college was examined to prove this fact. No CCTV footage of any camera installed at the gate of SSN college or on any nearby building has been placed on record to prove this fact. There is no public witness joined despite the availability of witnesses. This fact itself creates doubt about the truthfulness of the story. It is also important to note that according to the story Meer Singh was abducted in ECCO car Ex.PW2/Article1. Case of prosecution is that this car was used by accused Deepak. Prosecution has examined PW-2 Kuldeep and Dilbagh PW-3 to prove this fact that ECCO car Ex.PW2/Article-1 was driven by Deepak only but they have not supported the prosecution case. They were cross-examined by Ld. APP but nothing material came on record to prove and establish this fact.
State Vs. Shantanu etc SC No:605/17 : 65 :
Keeping in view all these facts in my opinion prosecution has failed to prove and establish the circumstance. Motive
128. The case of the prosecution is Meer Singh has murdered Surender uncle of Shantanu and in order to take revenge Shantanu had murdered Meer Singh. Prosecution has placed on record the documents that Meer Singh was facing trial for the murder of Surender i.e. case FIR No:403/14 PS: Alipur Ex.PW36/A. But the prosecution has failed to show that Shantanu is nephew of Surender. PW-25 Chet Ram was questioned in this regard who admitted that his brother Meer Singh was facing murder trial of Surender and was on bail in the said case. But he denied the suggestion that Shantanu was known to him prior to the incident or that Shantanu is nephew of Surender whose murder trial was faced by his deceased brother Meer Singh. There is no other evidence on record to show that Shantanu is nephew of Surender. The onus was upon prosecution to prove and establish the motive but keeping in view the statement of Chet Ram in my opinion prosecution has failed to prove and establish the same.
129. Keeping in view the submissions and the facts of the case and discussion on various circumstances it is clear that prosecution has failed to prove and establish the various circumstances. The chain is not complete. The onus, which was on the prosecution has not been fully discharged. Therefore, the State Vs. Shantanu etc SC No:605/17 : 66 :
accused persons are acquitted. They be released on furnishing personal bond of Rs.25,000/- with one surety each of like amount u/s 437(A) Cr.PC.
File be consigned to record room.Digitally signed
VIRENDER by VIRENDER
KUMAR
KUMAR BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2018.07.31
Announced in the open court 13:09:41 +0530
today on 31.07.2018 (VIRENDER KUMAR BANSAL)
ASJ/Pilot Court/North District
Rohini Courts/New Delhi.
State Vs. Shantanu etc SC No:605/17 : 67 :