Delhi District Court
State vs Varun Jindal Etc on 14 October, 2023
DLNW010002382015
Presented on : 07-01-2015
Registered on : 16-02-2015
Decided on : 14-10-2023
Duration : 08 years 09months
07 days
IN THE COURT OF
ASJ/SPECIAL JUDGE(NDPS)
AT NORTH WEST, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
(Presided Over by Sh. Vikram)
SC/51898/2016
Annexure 'A'- List of witnesses
Annexure 'B'- List of exhibits
STATE
Through Police Station Officer North Rohini
NORTH WEST DELHI
VERSUS
1. VARUN JINDAL
S/o Sh. Ashok Kumar Jindal,
R/o A-3/138, Sector-7,
Rohini, Delhi.
2. PARTH BAJPAI
S/o Sh. Yogeshwar Bajpai,
R/o D-1/94, Sector 16,
Rohini, Delhi.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
APP for State : Sh. K.D. Pachauri
Ld. counsel for accused persons : Sh. Rahul Shashwat and
Sh. Pradeep Rana
SC NO. 51898/2016 State Vs. Varun Jindal & Anr. Page No. 1 of 56
FIR No. : 762/2014
Police Station : North Rohini
Under Section : 302/365/120B/34/201 IPC
JUDGMENT
(Delivered on 14-10-2023)
1. Accused Parth Bajpeyi and Varun Jindal are sent to face trial for commission of offence u/S 365/302/201/34 for abducting and committing murder of one boy Shiva Kalra and destroying the evidence in FIR no. 762/14 PS North Rohini.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 12.10.2014 at 09.00 pm complainant Shama Kalra lodged missing report of her son Shiva, at PS North Rohini, vide DD no.34A (Ex.Pw1/E), stating that her son had left her house, at 11.00 pm, on 11.10.2014, to M2K, with his friend RB (has been found 'RB' during investigation and dealt separately under JJ Act) and had not returned since then. Missing report was registered. Son of complainant did not return neither he was found. Therefore on 13.10.2014 somewhere around 6.30 pm complainant visited police station and lodged her complaint (Ex.Pw14/A), giving reference to missing report, suspecting that her son has been kidnapped/abducted by someone and has kept confined somewhere. On the basis of this complaint Pw27 prepared (Ex.Pw27/A) and complainant and Pw27 left for one shop 24x7 sector 8 Rohini. At 6.35 pm the FIR for offence u/S 365 was registered vide DD no. 30A (Ex.A1). The investigation was marked to Inspector Ghanshyam Meena (Pw31). Pw31/IO went to shop 24x7 and met complainant and Pw27. At shop 24x7, SC NO. 51898/2016 State Vs. Varun Jindal & Anr. Page No. 2 of 56 Pw31 again recorded statement of complainant in which she told that on 11.10.2014 while leaving the house her son had told that he is going for eating something at 24x7 after which he did not return. She also stated to IO that her son had altercation with one 'RB' and she suspected that 'RB' has abducted and confined her son somewhere.
3. After recording the statement of complainant IO and team searched for 'RB' and on 14.10.2014 at about 2 am, IO got the secret information that 'RB' is sitting with his friends in a Zen Car bearing no. DL8CC 9834, at Shiva Market. Police traced the car at Shiva Market and found that accused Varun Jindal was sitting in the driver seat whereas 'RB' and accused Parth Bajpai were sitting in rear seat. They were apprehended but nothing suspicious was found from their possession. But when they were asked about Shiva Kalra they got frightened and could not give reasonable answer. They were separately interrogated in detail in which they confessed killing Shiva on the intervening night of 11/12-10-2014.
4. On the other hand on 12.10.2014 at about 7 am one Dharambir, who was employed at Mittal Farm House, Village Kumaspur PS Murthal, while on his walk outside the farm house, towards GT road, noticed that a young boy was lying dead near the wall of farm house, with mark of bullet injury on his head and the clothes were partially burnt. Dharambir informed local police on which ASI Ramesh Kumar (Pw20), PS Murthal, reached at the spot and recorded the statement (Ex.A5) of complainant and SC NO. 51898/2016 State Vs. Varun Jindal & Anr. Page No. 3 of 56 registered FIR no. 350/2014 PS Murthal (Ex.A4). After that during investigation SI Ranbir Singh investigated the matter but the body could not be identified. Hence SI Randhir passed directions mentioned in Ex.A6. At the spot Murthal police found live cartridges, empty cartridges, bullet, match box, ashes of some burnt grass and clothes, matchbox and one empty plastic bottle. The spot was photographed and all those exhibits along with earth sample, with and without blood, were seized. The dead body was sent to mortuary for post mortem. On 13.10.2014 the post mortem of that unidentified body was conducted and exhibits i.e. clothes and blood swab etc., were seized.
5. In Delhi, after the accused persons were arrested they disclosed that, as 'RB' had some dispute with Shiva. 'RB' wanted to kill Shiva. Accused Parth was close friend of 'RB' and known to accused Varun so they planned to kill Shiva. Therefore in the intervening night of 11/12.10.2014 they lured Shiva to come with them to Murthal for eating. At about 11.30 pm from Shop 24x7 accused persons and 'RB' took Shiva on Scooty no. DL4S BY 0651 and they went to Sukhdev Dhaba Murthal and while returning from there they took the motorcycle to link road where they first strangulated Shiva with a muffler (Parna) and then 'RB' shot Shiva from pistol and after that they purchased petrol from a gas station and burnt his dead body with that petrol. They returned to Rohini and disposed their pants, shirts, the pistol, the mobile of Shiva and of accused Varun, in the canal/drain of sector 18.
SC NO. 51898/2016 State Vs. Varun Jindal & Anr. Page No. 4 of 56
6. After disclosure, the accused persons led the police to spot and pointed the spot and on inquiry from PS Murthal about the incident they came to know about the proceedings of FIR no. 350/2014 PS Murthal. After that the dead body of Shiva was identified and all the documents from PS Murthal were collected. The IO also collected the relevant CCTV footage from 24x7, Amrik Sukhdev Dhaba, petrol pump and Delhi border. The CCTV footage confirmed that the accused persons with 'RB' and deceased had left for Murthal on a Scooty which was captured in CCTV of 24x7, Singhu border and Sukhdev Dhaba. At Sukhdev Dhaba the accused persons and deceased were visible and identifiable from face as well as clothes. They all were seen leaving Amrik Sukhdev Dhaba on a Scooty but in the footage of Singhu Border only three persons have returned on the Scooty. The CCTV footage of Om Shanti Petrol Pump captured one Scooty which show that three boys have come there and one boy took petrol in a plastic bottle. The timeline of scooty matched with the time since death of Shiva.
7. On the basis of investigation conducted the accused persons were chargesheeted for offence u/S 365/302/201/120-B IPC and under section 25/27 Arms Act. After compliance of section 207 Cr.PC the case was committed for trial. On 13.07.2015 Ld. Predecessor settled the charges for offence u/S 120B, 365/120B, 302/120B and 201 IPC against both accused persons to which both accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
SC NO. 51898/2016 State Vs. Varun Jindal & Anr. Page No. 5 of 56 EVIDENCE
8. To prove its case prosecution examined 32 witnesses. A gist of their testimony is as under;
8.1 Pw1 HC Murlidharan is duty officer. He proved DD no. 34A Ex.Pw1/E, copy of FIR Ex.Pw1/B, endorsement Ex.Pw1/C and certificate u/S 65B IEA Ex.Pw1/D. 8.2 Pw2 inspector Manohar lal proved the scaled site plan Ex.Pw2/B, of the place where body of Shiva was discovered.
8.3 Pw3 Dr. Randeep Kumar is In-charge Mobile Forensic Unit Sonipat. As per his deposition on 12.10.2014 at 11.45 am he visited the spot where the body of Shiva Kalra was found and there, in presence of ASI Ramesh Kumar, he inspected the spot and prepared report Ex.Pw3/A. 8.4 Pw4 Ct Vikas had joined the investigation on 18.10.2014 who handed over two DVDs mark I and II containing CCTV footage of camera no. 35, 36, 37 and 38, installed at Pradeep Bhatiya Marg opposite M2K, of the period 11.58 pm of 11.10.2014 to 12.20 am 12.10.2014, on application Ex.Pw4/B, to IO. He proved the seizure memos of DVDs Ex.Pw4/A. He proved the DVDs as Ex.P7 and Ex.P8.
8.5 Pw5 Ct. Jagdish had joined the investigation with IO on 22.10.2014 when they made effort to search the clothes, pistol SC NO. 51898/2016 State Vs. Varun Jindal & Anr. Page No. 6 of 56 and mobile phone of deceased and accused Varun at Canal but found nothing. He continued to remain in investigation after that when the IO seized DVD containing CCTV footage of 12.10.2014 from Singhu border and proved its seizure memo Ex.Pw5/A. He again joined the investigation on 01.12.2014 when he took one sealed pullanda from Malkhana vide RC no. 88/21/2014 and deposited the same in FSL against acknowledgment.
8.6 Pw6 Ct. Praveen from PS Murthal deposed through affidavit Ex.Pw6/A that on 12.10.2014 after registration of FIR he being special messenger delivered the copies of FIR to Magistrate, SSP and DCP.
8.7 Pw7 Ct. Vikram was posted as CCTV operator at PS Alipur on 22.10.2014. He deposed that CCTVs installed at Singhu Border, covering entry and exit, to and from Delhi, was under the control of PS Alipur and he handed over the DVD containing footage from 12.50 am to 1.00 am, of exit from Delhi and from 3.10 to 3.17 of entry to Delhi, which was seized vide memo Ex.Pw5/A. He proved the DVD as Ex.P9.
8.8 Pw8 Dr. Richa MO General Hospital Sonepat deposed that on 13.10.2014 while she was posted in hospital, being member of Medical Board refered the body of an unknown boy to Dept of forensic Medicine and Toxicology for post mortem.
8.9 Pw9 Dr. Rahul Chawla from Dept of Forensic Medicine SC NO. 51898/2016 State Vs. Varun Jindal & Anr. Page No. 7 of 56 proved the PM report no. 163/14 of the dead body in FIR no. 350/14 dated 12.10.2014 as Ex.Pw9/A. He also identified and proved the burnt clothes of the deceased Ex.P9/1, partially burnt pants, shirt, underwear and socks and shoes of deceased Ex.P9/2(colly) and three bullets recovered from the head of deceased Ex.P9/3.
8.10 Pw10 Ct. Manju from PS Murthal had joined the investigation in FIR no. 350/14 with ASI Ramesh Kumar, on 13.10.2014 when ASI Ramesh Kumar had, after post mortem of deceased, seized the exhibits sealed in pullandas containing Viscera, clothes and blood sample of deceased vide memo Ex.Pw10/A. 8.11 Pw11 HC Hari Singh is the MHCM PS Murthal and he proved the entries in register no. 19, of deposit of five sealed pullandas with sample seal of RK, on 12.10.2014 vide Ex.Pw11/A and of deposit of four pulandas with sample seal of hospital, on 13.10.2014 vide Ex.Pw11/B. He also proved the entry at point 'X' regarding sending of pulandas, sealed vide Ex.Pw11/B, on 05.11.2014, to FSL Madhubhan Karnal. He also proved similar entry with respect to pulandas in Ex.Pw11/A, at point 'Y' dated 19.11.2014. He further deposed that he received the FSL result on exhibits on 25.02.2016.
8.12 Pw12 Lalit Kumar is security guard at Shop 24x7 sector 8 Rohini and he knew Shiva as he often used to visit the shop. He deposed that on 11.10.2014 he was on night duty when Shiva SC NO. 51898/2016 State Vs. Varun Jindal & Anr. Page No. 8 of 56 came to the shop with his friend, on a scooty. He further deposed that Shiva set beside him at the stairs of shop and, as a three wheeler turned turtle on the road, Pw12 and other people went to see that incident. After sometime he returned to shop and thereafter Shiva went back alongwith his friend on Scooty.
Pw12 further deposed that at about 4 am while he was taking round near the shop he saw Shiva alongwith two other persons consuming beer near the gate of society and he saked Shiva not to drink at the public place. He also deoposed that he heard Shiva saying those two persons that they should go to Yamuna Bank for compromising some matter and in the morning when mother of Shiva came looking for him he told her that he had seen him at 4 am thereafter he alongwith mother of Shiva went in search of Shiva. Pw12 further deposed that on 12.10.2014 he alongwith mother of Shiva and some police officials went to Govt. Hospital Murthal where the mother of Shiva identified one unclaimed body as her son after which he alongwith mother of Shiva and police officials visited the place where the body was found . He dposed that the accused persons are not the one who were consuming beer with Shiva.
The prosecution declared this witness hostile because he deposed against the case of prosecution as Shiva never returned to Delhi from Murthal. He was subjected to cross examination but nothing material came out in his examination.
8.13 Pw13 Gulshan Kumar is the uncle of deceased. Who got information of murder of Shiva on 14.10.2014. As per Pw13, he had joined in investigation as asked by IO, on 16.10.2014, when SC NO. 51898/2016 State Vs. Varun Jindal & Anr. Page No. 9 of 56 IO had seized the CCTV footage of 24x7, Singhu Border, Sukhdev Dhaba and the petrol pump in which he identified the deceased with three persons. He had identified the dead body of Shiva at Civil Hospital Sonepat vide memo Ex.Pw13/A. He also deposed that a month prior to incident there was a fight between Shiva and 'RB' for which an FIR was registered.
8.14 Pw14 Shama Kalra is Mother of Shiva. She deposed that on 11.10.2014 at about 11.00 pm her son had gone alongwith his friends 'RB', Varun and Parth on a Scooty to 24x7 after which he did not return and despite her search Shiva was not located. She therefore made call to mother of 'RB' who told her that even her son had also not returned, therefore, on 12.10.2014 she lodged missing report Ex.Pw1/E. Thereafter on next day she lodged complaint Ex.Pw14/A. She deposed that about 15-20 days prior to his missing Shiva and 'R' had a quarrel.
8.15 Pw15 ASI Kishan Singh had joined the investigation on 16.10.2014 when IO seized CCTV footages (in DVDs) and hard disk of DVR from different locations. He proved the seizure memo of DVD containing CCTV footage from OM Shanti Petrol Pump Ex.Pw15/A. 8.16 Pw16 Shehjad and his friends were tasked by IO for search of evidence from canal, on 14.10.2014, but nothing was found.
8.17 Pw17 Jitesh Malhotra was DSP Gannor Sub Division on SC NO. 51898/2016 State Vs. Varun Jindal & Anr. Page No. 10 of 56 12.10.2014. He had received the copy of FIR no. 350/14 PS Murthal in due course and had visited the spot and gave necessary directions to IO. He deposed that as the FIR no. 762/14 regarding missing of Shiva was under investigation he cancelled the FIR no. 350/14 PS Murthal vide endorsement Ex.Pw17/A. 8.18 Pw18 SI Suraj Bhan PS Murthal had joined the investigation with ASI Ramesh Kumar, on 12.10.2014 and visited the spot. He deposed that at the spot, on discovery of dead body, ASI Ramesh called photographer and wrote Tehrir Ex.Pw18/A and sent Ct. Dharambir for registration of FIR and when Ct. Dharamvir returned with FIR ASI Ramesh called FSL Team which inspected the spot and prepared report. After which IO had lifted the exhibits. He proved the seizure memo of exhibits i.e. earth control, semi burnt clothes an ashes, Ex.Pw18/B, of empty appy fizz bottle Ex.Pw18/C, of blood stained earth Ex.Pw18/D, of five live cartridges, one empty cartridge and three bullets Ex.Pw18/E and of match box Ex.Pw18/F. Pw18 identified and proved the exhibits of Ex.Pw18/E as Ex.P1 (Colly), of Ex.Pw18/D as Ex.P2, of Ex.Pw18/B as Ex.P3, matchbox as Ex.P4 and bottle of appy fizz as Ex.P5.
8.19 Pw19 ASI Tejpal is photographer and he had reached at spot on call of ASI Ramesh, on 12.10.2014. He had taken 17 photographs of the spot from government camera and proved those photographs Ex.Pw19/1 to Ex.Pw19/17. He also proved the certificate u/S 65B IEA of the photographs, issued by developer Sandeep.
SC NO. 51898/2016 State Vs. Varun Jindal & Anr. Page No. 11 of 56 8.20 Pw20 ASI Ramesh is IO of FIR no. 350/14 PS Murthal. He proved the statement of informant Dharamvir Ex.Pw20/A and Tehrir Ex.Pw18/A. He had prepared the site plan, Ex.Pw20/B, of the spot where the body was found. He had prepared the memos Ex.Pw18/B to Ex.Pw18/F. He got shifted the dead body to hospital and on 13.10.2014 made request Ex.Pw20/C, with inquest papers Ex.Pw20/D and E, for post mortem of body and after post mortem seized the viscera, cloths and blood sample of deceased and bullets recovered from body of deceased vide memo Ex.Pw20/F. He deposed that as the dead body was unidentified they published the photographs of dead body in TV and news paper and on seeing that relatives of deceased came to claim dead body and after identification vide Ex.Pw13/A handed the dead body vide Ex.Pw20/G. Like Pw18, Pw20 also identified the exhibits Ex.P1 to P5.
8.21 Pw21 Monu was sales man at Om Shanti Petrol Pump Sector 8 GT road NH1 (now 44), on the intervening night of 11/12.10.2014. He deposed that in between 1 am to 3 am three boys came to petrol pump on a Scooty and asked for petrol in a bottle saying that petrol of another Scooty has run out on which he sold one liter petrol in a bottle.
He further deposed that on next morning at about 6.00/7.00 am, near Mittal Farm House he heard some commotion and on reaching near he saw that two boys were running from the fields and he came to know that those boys had run away after burning the dead boy. He further deposed that on SC NO. 51898/2016 State Vs. Varun Jindal & Anr. Page No. 12 of 56 same evening one lady accompanied with some offiocials of Haryana Police officials and villagers came to petrol pump when he came to know that the boy was from Delhi. He also deposed that after 2/3 days some police officials from Delhi came to petrol pump and inquired about CCTV Camera of the night of 11/12.10.2014.
As this witness deposed suggesting that the body recovered from the spot was burnt in morning, which is against case of prosecution, he was declared hostile and subjected to cross examination, however, nothing material came out, nor he identified the accused persons as the one who came for purchasing the Petrol.
8.22 PW22 Sh. Ved Prakash is uncle of deceased Shiva Kalra. He deposed that on 12.10.2014 he got the information about missing of Shiva Kalra, but he was out of town, therefore, on next day i.e. 13.10.2014 in the evening he arrived Delhi and by that time no clue of Shiva was gathered. He deposed that in the intervening night of 13/14.10.2014 complainant and PW-13 telephonically informed him that some dead body had been recovered in the area of PS Murthal and asked him to go to identify the body, therefore, on 14.10.2014 he alongwith complainant, PW-13 and police officials went to PS Murthal and from there, they were taken to Civil Hospital, Sonipat, where they identified the dead body of Shiva Kalra which was not completely burnt and recognizable. He proved the identification of the dead body as Ex. PW22/A and came to know from the police about murder of Shiva by accused persons.
SC NO. 51898/2016 State Vs. Varun Jindal & Anr. Page No. 13 of 56 8.23 PW-23 Sh. Dharamdev was Manager at Om Shanti Petrol Pump NH-1 Murthal. He deposed that on 16.10.2014, IO asked him to provide the CCTV footage of the period 12.10.2014 and he handed over a hard disk of the computer containing CCTV footage to the IO which was seized vide memo Ex. PW23/A. He identified and proved the hard disk as Ex. P-6. As the witness failed to depose about supplying DVD containing CCTV footage alongwith certificate u/s 65 B IEA, he was subjected to cross- examination, but witness refused to accept that he had prepared the certificate and supplied the DVD and stated that he was made to sign on blank papers i.e. Ex. PW23/A, Mark PW23/B and PW23/C. 8.24 PW-24 Sh. Brijesh Kumar is Sales Staff on the shop 24X 7 Sector-8, Rohini. He deposed that on 26.10.2014 police asked for hard disk of CCTV Camera covering outside view, installed at the shop. The footage of CCTV Camera installed covering outside view was copied in a DVD and handed over to police, alongwith hard disk, vide seizure memos Ex. PW24/A and Ex. PW24/B. He also proved the certificate u/s 65 B IEA relating to contents of DVD Ex. PW24/C and identified the DVD as Ex. P- 10 and the hard disk as Ex. P-11.
8.25 PW-25 Shri Om Tyagi was Chief Security Officer at Amrik Sukhdev Dhaba at NH-1 Murthal. He deposed that on 13.10.2014 police had come at the Dhaba and made some seizures, but stated that he did not hand over the same to police.
SC NO. 51898/2016 State Vs. Varun Jindal & Anr. Page No. 14 of 56 He also deposed that police had seized the hard disk of CCTV footage and certain DVDs and made him to sign some papers out of which some were blank. He proved the seizure of the DVDs and hard disk as Ex.PW25/A and Ex. PW25/B and identified the DVDs Ex. P-12 to P-16 and the hard disks as Ex. P-17 to P-20.
8.26 PW-26 Dr. C.P. Singh, Asstt. Director, FSL Rohini had received one sealed parcel containing 10 DVDs Marked as Ex. 1 to Ex. 10 and he examined the contents of the DVDs. He deposed that on examination, Video files in the DVD Mark Ex. 1 were similar to DVD Mark Ex. 7. He also deposed that on examination, he found no indication of alteration in the Video records, on the basis of the examination and proved his report in this regard as Ex. PW26/A. 8.27 PW-27 SI Ashok Kumar was on emergency duty, who was assigned DD No. 34-A of missing of Shiva Kalra and he deposed that he transmitted the WT message regarding missing of Shiva Kalra and uploaded the information on Zipnet. He was the one who recorded the complaint Ex. PW14/A of the complainant on which he prepared the rukka Ex.PW27/A. He deposed that after preparation of rukka and handing over the same to Duty officer, he alongwith the complainant went to shop 24X7 and enquired from the shop owner and during that enquiry, he got the FIR and rukka from Const. Ashok. However, after arrival of Inspector Ghan Shyam, further investigation was marked to Inspector Ghanshyam and he handed over the file to Inspector Ghan Shyam.
SC NO. 51898/2016 State Vs. Varun Jindal & Anr. Page No. 15 of 56 PW-27 remained with Inspector Ghan Shyam during investigation and deposed that after preparing site plan of the spot, he alongwith IO visited the house of 'RB', but he was not found in his house and after that at about 2.00 AM on secret information about 'RB', he alongwith IO reached at Shiva Market and on pointing out of secret informer towards a Maruti Zen Car bearing No. DL8CC 9834, they all reached near the Car. He deposed that the person who was sitting in the driving seat disclosed his name as Varun Jindal and the two persons who were sitting in the rear seat disclosed their names as R.B. and Parth Vajpayee. He further deposed that all three persons were taken out of the Car and their formal search was conducted. Thereafter, IO made enquries from them and they were taken to shop 24 X 7. R.B. was found to be minor, therefore, his proceedings were conducted by JWO SI Vijay Kumar. PW-27 proved the arrest memo of accused Varun and Parth as Ex.PW27/B and Ex.PW27/C respectively. He also proved personal search memos of the accused persons as Ex.PW27/D and Ex.PW27/E respectively. He further proved the disclosure statement of the accused persons as Ex.PW27/F and Ex.PW27/G. He further proved the seizure memo of Maruti Zen vehicle as Ex.PW27/H and pointing out memo of spot near 24X7 as Ex. PW27/I. He deposed that accused persons also pointed out the place of incident at Murthal and proved the pointing out memo Ex.PW27/J. He further deposed that accused persons pointed out the Om Shanti Petrol Pump from where they had purchased the Petrol and proved the pointing out memo Ex.PW27/K. He further deposed that the accused persons were taken to Amrit SC NO. 51898/2016 State Vs. Varun Jindal & Anr. Page No. 16 of 56 Sukhdev Dhaba where they had, alongwith victim, had refreshment before murdering Shiva Kalra and proved pointing out Memo Ex.PW27/L. PW-27 further deposed that he alongwith accused persons and IO went to PS Murthal for enquiry about the incident, on which they came to know about registration of FIR No. 350/14 PS Murthal, in which police had already got conducted the postmortem of dead body and preserved the body in the Mortuary of hospital. He deposed that family of deceased was informed, who reached there and on their identification, dead body was handed over to family, after which IO collected the relevant documents of FIR No. 350/14. PW-27 further deposed that pursuant to disclosure statement of accused persons, police alongwith accused persons went to Sector -8 Rohini, where they had thrown the clothes worn by them, mobile of victim and weapon of offence after commission of crime in nearby Canal and proved the pointing out memo of anal Ex.PW27/M. PW-27 further deposed that the accused persons, from Sector 6 Rohini in front of Krishan Motors, got recovered a white color scooty bearing No. DL4S BY-0621 which was used to go to Murthal and he proved the seizure memo of the same as Ex.PW27/N. PW-27 identified and proved the scooty as Ex. P-21, through photographs Ex.PW27/P-1 and Ex.PW27/P-2. PW27 also identified and proved the Zen Car Ex. P-22 through photographs Ex.PW27/Q1 to Q-4.
8.28 PW-28 Retd. SI Ramvir was duty officer of PS Murthal SC NO. 51898/2016 State Vs. Varun Jindal & Anr. Page No. 17 of 56 on 12.10.2014. He proved the copy of FIR No. 350/14 as Ex. PW28/A and endorsement on rukka Ex. PW28/B. 8.29 PW-29 HC Dharamvir is again from PS Murthal, who deposed in the lines of PW18 and is witness to the seizure memos proved by PW-18.
8.30 PW-30 Kuldeep was Manager at Amrik Sukhdev Dhaba. He deposed that on 14.10.2014 at about 2.00 PM, IO alongwith other police officials came there and gave notice Ex. PW30/A to supply the CCTV footage and hard disk of the Dhaba. After that this witness shown his ignorance about rest of proceedings. This witness was declared hostile and subjected to cross-examination by the state. In cross-examination also witness did not deposed anything in support of prosecution and was declared won over by the defence.
8.31 PW-31 Inspector Ghan Shyam Meena is the IO. His examination will be discussed in later part of judgment as it is only this witness before whom the DVDs were played to prove its content and show the presence and movement of accused persons with deceased.
8.32 PW-32 Inspector Vijay Kumar is JWO of enquiry qua 'RB' and proved the child version of 'RB' Ex.PW32/P-1, apprehension memo Ex.PW32/P-2, personal search memo Ex.PW32/P-3 and social report of CCL Ex.PW32/P-4. He had joined the investigation on 17.10.2014 when exercise of SC NO. 51898/2016 State Vs. Varun Jindal & Anr. Page No. 18 of 56 searching the case properties at Sector 18 Canal was conducted. He had remained with the IO at the time of seizure of DVDs containing CCTV Cameras from Amrik Sukhdev Dhaba, Murthal, which were seized vide memo Ex.PW25/A and he proved the certificate obtained by IO as Ex.PW32/P-5. He also identified the DVDs Ex.P12 to P16.
9. Accused persons gave their statement admitting, without prejudice to their defence, the documents Ex.A1 to A11 i.e. the documents collected from PS Murthal.
STATEMENT of ACCUSED PERSONS
10. After completion of prosecution evidence, all the incriminating material were put to accused persons. In their explanation they stated that the allegations are incorrect and and the documents are false. They also claimed that they never made any disclosure and never led police to any place and the DVDs are tampered by IO after manipulating them. Accused persons claimed that they are falsely implicated by the witnesses and police. Accused persons opted not to lead any evidence in defence.
ARGUMENTS
11. After conclusion of trial final arguments were heard from the side of state, complainant and defence. Record perused.
12. The Prosecution and Ld. Counsel for complainant would SC NO. 51898/2016 State Vs. Varun Jindal & Anr. Page No. 19 of 56 submit that the prosecution has proved the circumstances against accused persons that on 11.10.2014 deceased left home with accused persons after which they went to 24x7 where they were captured in CCTV footage and from there they took deceased to Amrik Sukhdev Dhaba and they were captured in CCTV, crossing Delhi border on a scooty and after that they were captured in various cameras of Amrik Sukhdev Dhabha, with deceased and seen returning, however, in CCTV of Delhi border while they were returning there were only three of them and on next day partially burnt dead body of deceased was found at Murthal where the accused persons, at night, were captured purchasing petrol in a bottle, in CCTV of Petrol Pump. Prosecution also points that in the CTV footage 'RB' is seen wearing a Parna which is similar to cloth found on the neck of Shiva with which he was strangulated and in the CCTV Footage at border while returning to Delhi none of the boys on the Scooty are having Parna. Therefore leaving aside everything prosecution has proved the case against accused persons beyond reasonable doubts that they conspired to murder Shiva after taking him out of Delhi, lured Shiva to go with them to Murthal and after taking meal murdered him at murthal and tried to burn his body to make the dead body unidentifiable.
13. Prosecution and complainant have placed reliance on;
1. Gangadhar Behera & ors Versus State of Orissa VI (2002) SLT 102 (on reliance of interested/ partisan witness)
2. State of UP Versus Shankar AIR 1981 SC 897 (on contradictions and reliability in case of SC NO. 51898/2016 State Vs. Varun Jindal & Anr. Page No. 20 of 56 circumstantial evidence)
3. Prakash Chand versus State (Delhi Admin.) AIR 1979 SC 400 (on conduct of accused and statement to police)
4. State of UP versus Hari Mohan and Others 2001 Cri. L J 170 (extent of effect of defective investigaion)
5. Mohan Singh and Another versus State of MP (how to test the veracity of prosecution story).
14. Per contra, it is the contention of Ld. Defence counsel that since there is no witness to incident the case is based on circumstantial evidence and as it is settled position of law that the prosecution has to prove the chain of circumstance, beyond reasonable doubt independently, so connected and complete which must lead to only hypothesis of guilt of accused persons, the prosecution has failed in discharging that burden. Therefore accused persons are liable to be acquitted.
15. Ld. Defence Counsel has submitted that the circumstances brought against the accused, from very beginning, are full of doubt and pointed to the fact that complainant concealed that she was in contact with deceased on phone from 7.00 pm to around mid night, on 12.10.2014 which was also concealed by IO. It is the contention that if the CDR of deceased is seen and Pw14 is talking to deceased on phone since around 7 pm, the beginning of the allegation that Shiva left home at 11.00 pm on 12.10.2014 gets falsified as if deceased was at home with complainant there is no reason/occasion for her to call deceased.
16. It is further submitted that the CCTV footages proved by SC NO. 51898/2016 State Vs. Varun Jindal & Anr. Page No. 21 of 56 the prosecution are not the original documents and are merely a secondary evidence and prosecution has failed to qualify its admissibility, except the CCTV footage of 24x7, by proving the same in the manner provided u/S 65B IEA and since the DVDs of CCTV Footage are inadmissible nothing is proved against accused persons. Further even the genuineness of contents of DVDs are in question as the contents of DVDs were never matched with the hard discs of the concerned DVRs despite they were seized.
17. It is further submitted that if the DVDs are to be relied the accused persons are visible only in DVDs of Sukhdev Dhaba and rest of the place, where prosecution claims that accused persons were captured in CCTV, the persons in the video are not identifiable. Therefore at the best prosecution can rely on CCTV footage of Amrik Sukhdev Dhaba to claim that accused persons and deceased were together there. However, in absence of any other material only last seen evidence is not a sufficient circumstance against accused persons.
18. It is further submitted that the entire investigation is doubtful as the record suggests that the FIR was registered after complainant got to know about the death of her son because, on finding the dead body the police of Murthal had shared the information with nearby police stations including nearby states and as the face of deceased was identifiable police of PS North Rohini was seized of information about the death of Shiva Kalra and everything after that was staged after checking the CCTV SC NO. 51898/2016 State Vs. Varun Jindal & Anr. Page No. 22 of 56 footage of Amrik Sukhdev Dhaba, therefore nothing, claimed to be discovered on the basis of disclosure statements, is admissible, including the disclosure statement for the bar provided u/S 25/26 IEA.
19. Ld. Defencce Counsel would also point to the contradictions brought in the cross examination as well as in examination in chief of some of the witnesses which goes to the roots of the case and brings a reasonable doubt on the time of death to connect that with time of last seen. The defence therefore sums that none of the circumstances are proved beyond reasonable doubt hence the accused persons are entitled to be given benefit of doubt and acquitted.
20. Defence has placed reliance on;
1. Rajesh & Anr. versus State of MP Criminal Appeal No. 793-794 of 2022. (SC) (on circumstantial evidence)
2. Lahu Kamlakar Patil and Anr. Versus State of Maharashtra Criminal Appeal no. 114 of 2008 (SC) (on Hostile witness)
3. Rabindra Kumar Dey versus State of Orissa 1977 SCR (1) 439 (on hostile witness)
4. Raja and Others versus State of Karnataka Criminal Appeal no. 1767 of 2011 (SC) (on hostile witness) FINDINGS
21. In Mohan Singh (supra) Honble Supreme Court, while setting out the object of court in a criminal prosecution, observed that;
SC NO. 51898/2016 State Vs. Varun Jindal & Anr. Page No. 23 of 56
11.The question is to how to test the veracity of prosecution story especially when it is with some variance with medical evidence. Mere variance of prosecution story with the Medical evidence, in all cases, should not lead to the conclusion, inevitably to reject the prosecution story. Efforts should be made to find out the truth, this is the very object for which the courts are created. To search it out, the courts have been removing the chaff from the grain. It has to disperse the suspicious cloud and dust out the smear of dust as all these things clog the very truth. So long chaff, cloud and dust remains, the criminals are clothed with this protective layer to receive the benefit of doubt. So it is solemn duty of the courts, not to merely conclude and leave the case the moment suspicions are created. It is onerous duty of court, within permissible limit to find out the truth. It means on one hand no innocent man should be punished but on the other hand to see no person committing an offence should get (go) scot free. If inspite of such effort suspicion is not dissolved, it remains writ at large, benefit of doubt has to be created to the accused. For this one has to comprehend the totality of the facts and circumstances as spelled out through the evidence, depending on facts of each case by testing the credibility of eye witness including the medical evidence, of course after excluding that (those) parts SC NO. 51898/2016 State Vs. Varun Jindal & Anr. Page No. 24 of 56 of the evidence which are vague and uncertain. There is no mathematical formula through which the truthfulness of of a prosecution or defence case could be concretised. It would depend on the evidence of each case including the manner of deposition and his demeans, clarity, collaboration of witnesses and overall, the conscience of a judge evoked by the evidence on record. So courts have to proceed further and make genuine efforts within judicial sphere to search out the truth and not stop at the threshold of creation of doubt to confer benefit of doubt.
22. This is a case based on circumstantial evidence and the circumstances relied by the prosecution can be summed as;
1. The quarrel of deceased with 'RB' few days before his missing.
2. Leaving of Shiva, from home ,on 11.10.2014 at 11 pm, with 'RB' and accused persons and their identification by complainant.
3. His presence with accused persons recorded in CCTV footage of shop 24x7 and sector 8 crossing.
4. The accused persons, 'RB' and deceased leaving Shinghu border captured in CCTV camera.
5. The accused person, 'RB' and deceased captured arriving at Sukhdev Dhabha Murthal on a Scooty where 'RB' is having a muffler on his neck and after spending some time all leaving Sukhdev Dhaba on SC NO. 51898/2016 State Vs. Varun Jindal & Anr. Page No. 25 of 56 same scooty.
6. Discovery of partially burnt dead body of deceased at link road near Mittal Farm House Murthal in the morning of 12.10.2014 and proceedings of PS Murthal.
7. Only accused persons and 'RB' captured on the scooty at OM Shanti Petrol pump where one of them is purchasing Petrol in a bottle.
8. Only accused persons and 'RB' captured, in CCTV camera of Singhu Border, returning Delhi.
9. Apprehension of all three of them in a Zen Car, at Shiva Market and their getting frightened on asking about Shiva Kalra.
10. On the basis of disclosure there leading and pointing out places they had visited i.e. shop 24x7, Sukhdev Dhhaba and Om Shanti Petrol Pump.
11. Accused persons leading to the spot of crime where Shiva Kalra was murdered and his body was attempted to be burnt and its confirmation from PS Murthal in FIR no. 350/14 PS Murthal.
12. Non discovery of clothes worn by accused persons which are seen in the CCTV footages and of the weapon and mobile phone of deceased and of accused Varun.
13. Recovery of white colour Scooty at the instance of accused Varun Jindal on which accused persons with 'RB' and deceased had gone to Murthal.
14. Death of accused Varun by strangulation and bullet SC NO. 51898/2016 State Vs. Varun Jindal & Anr. Page No. 26 of 56 shots and the cloth which was used for strangulation of Shiva, found on his neck at scene of crime, identical to the muffler seen in the videos captured at Sukhdev Dhaba but not with any accused or 'RB' when they were captured, in CCTV, purchasing Petrol.
23. Law with regard to circumstantial evidence has been discussed in detail by the Supreme Court in the case of Harishchandra Ladaku Thange vs. State of Maharashtra, reported as AIR 2007 SC 2957. It would be useful to reproduce the relevant paragraphs:-
"8. It has been consistently laid down by this Court that where a case rests squarely on circumstantial evidence, the inference of guilt can be justified only when all the incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or the guilt of any other person. (See Hukam Singh v.State of Rajasthan 1977CriLJ639, Eradu v. State of Hyderabad 1956CriLJ559, Earabhadrappa v. State of Karnataka, State of U.P. v. Sukhbasi and Ors. 1985CriLJ1479, Balwinder Singh alias Dalbir Singh v. State of Punjab, 1987CriLJ330 and Ashok Kumar Chatterjee v. State of M.P. 1989CriLJ2124). The circumstances from which an inference as to the guilt of the accused is drawn have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and have to be shown to be closely connected with the principal fact sought to be inferred from those circumstances. In Bhagat Ram v. State of Punjab AIR1954SC621 it was laid down that where the case depends upon the conclusion drawn from circumstances the cumulative SC NO. 51898/2016 State Vs. Varun Jindal & Anr. Page No. 27 of 56 effect of the circumstances must be such as to negative the innocence of the accused and bring home the offences beyond any reasonable doubt.
9. We may also make a reference to a decision of this Court in C. Chenga Reddy and Ors. v. State of A.P. 1996CriLJ3461 , wherein it has been observed thus:
21. In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the settled law is that the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is drawn should be fully proved and such circumstances must be conclusive in nature. Moreover, all the circumstances should be complete and there should be no gap left in the chain of evidence.
Further, the proved circumstances must be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and totally inconsistent with his innocence.
10. In Padala Veera Reddy v. State of A.P. AIR1990SC79 it was laid down that when a case rests upon circumstantial evidence, such evidence must satisfy the following tests:
1) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established;
(2) those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused;
(3) the circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else; and (4) the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence.
SC NO. 51898/2016 State Vs. Varun Jindal & Anr. Page No. 28 of 56
11. In State of U.P. v. Ashok Kumar Srivastava [1992]1SCR37 it was pointed out that great care must be taken in evaluating circumstantial evidence and if the evidence relied on is reasonably capable of two inferences, the one in favour of the accused must be accepted. It was also pointed out that the circumstances relied upon must be found to have been fully established and the cumulative effect of all the facts so established must be consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt.
12. Sir Alfred Wills in his admirable book `Wills' Circumstantial Evidence' (Chapter VI) lays down the following rules specially to be observed in the case of circumstantial evidence:
(1) the facts alleged as the basis of any legal inference must be clearly proved and beyond reasonable doubt connected with the factum probandum;
(2) the burden of proof is always on the party who asserts the existence of any fact, which infers legal accountability;
(3) in all cases, whether of direct or circumstantial evidence the best evidence must be adduced which the nature of the case admits (4) in order to justify the inference of guilt, the inculpatory facts must be incompatible with the innocence of the accused and incapable of explanation, upon any other reasonable hypothesis than that of his guilt; and (5) if there be any reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused, he is entitled as of right to be acquitted.
13.There is no doubt that conviction can be based solely on circumstantial evidence but it should be tested by the touchstone of law relating to circumstantial evidence laid down by this Court as far back as in 1952."
SC NO. 51898/2016 State Vs. Varun Jindal & Anr. Page No. 29 of 56
24. From the testimonies of witnesses, their cross examination and the manner in which investigation is conducted, to some extent, I am in agreement with Ld. Defence Counsel that there is something fishy in the investigation. It appears that the culpability of accused persons was fixed even before registration of FIR and since it was so fixed, witnesses were planted/ arranged to show that every thing about the crime was discovered on the basis of disclosure statements of accused persons. There are multiple reasons to raise such suspicion.
25. Leaving aside the CCTV footages, Pw14 is the only independent and material witness who has deposed in favour of prosecution and in the line of investigation. There is, however, some problem in accepting her testimony as whole truth. Pw14 deposed that her son Shiva had left home on 11.10.2014 at 11.00 pm to 24x7 near M2K, for having dinner, on a Scooty, with accused Varun Jindal, Parth Bajpayi and 'RB' and he did not return the whole night. However, the first information given by Pw14, vide DD no.34A Ex.Pw1/E records that Pw14 had only told that Shiva had gone with his friend 'RB' to M2K, on 11.10.2014, at 11.00 pm and have not returned. This DD entry was recorded on 12.10.2014 at 9 pm.
26. No witness of prosecution have deposed about the phone calls between complainant and Shiva on 11.10.2014 and despite collected in investigation, the CDR of phone of Shiva Kalra was not relied nor proved. Ex.Pw1/E as well as Ex.Pw14/A contain the mobile phone no. 844Xxxxx92. The record shows that IO SC NO. 51898/2016 State Vs. Varun Jindal & Anr. Page No. 30 of 56 had applied for CDR of two phone number i.e. 8588855585 and 8447062028. It is the admission of IO that 8447062028 was the mobile phone number of deceased and he had collected the CDR of deceased. This CDR of deceased, mark G-15, shows that complainant was in contact with deceased from 19.11.54 hrs of 11.10.2014 to 00.11.12 hrs of 12.10.2014. During this period complainant called at phone of deceased 9 times and on last call she talked with deceased for about 11 seconds. The mobile of deceased appears to have switched of at 01.01.22 of 12.10.2014 as after that there is no SMS.
27. What transpires from this CDR and its selective non reliance and silence of witness on this will be discussed after the next unusual conduct of police officials.
28. The FIR was registered on 13.10.2014 on the complaint of Pw14 6.35 pm. As complainant had arrived in the police station giving her complaint it can be assumed that she must have given her complainant near about same time. There is complete silence from 09.00 pm of 12.10.2014 to 06.35 pm of 13.10.2014. In between that period Pw27 had already shared the missing information of deceased on the zipnet. At the same time in FIR no. 350/14 PS Murthal, on 12.10.2014 after conducting the proceedings at spot Pw20 was given clear instructions by SI Ranbir vide Ex.A6 that he shall immediately share the information of finding of deceased with nearby police stations and states and cross check with any missing person report. Though the deceased was partially burnt but the burn marks were SC NO. 51898/2016 State Vs. Varun Jindal & Anr. Page No. 31 of 56 no so severe to disfigure the identity of deceased. Photographs of deceased Ex.Pw19/1 to Ex.Pw19/7 clearly show that deceased was identifiable and matching with the photograph Ex.Pw31/M- 22 uploaded in the zipnet.
29. However, it is claimed that police in this case had no information about the deceased till arrest of accused persons. If that be so it is a mistry how complainant and Pw27 came to know about shop 24x7, as they immediately after recording the complaint and giving the rukka for registration of FIR went to shop 24x7. There was no information till this time, about visit of deceased to one specific shop 24x7. Which therefore strongly suggests that after registration of FIR no.350/14 PS Murthal, Pw27 came to know about the discovery of dead boy of deceased and he confirmed the identity of dead body before registration of FIR.
30. Defence has suggested that even the complainant had seen the dead body before registration of FIR, therefore, she lied in her testimony and deliberately concealed about her talks with deceased. I have difficulty in accepting this contention. Rather the contention is false as in the proceedings at Murthal the dead body remained unidentified till 14.10.2014. Even the post mortem report shows that dead body was of unknown boy.
31. It appears that though Pw27 had confirmed report that son of complainant has expired, he did not share this information with complainant, may be because of the fact that he wanted to SC NO. 51898/2016 State Vs. Varun Jindal & Anr. Page No. 32 of 56 avoid the blame of inaction of police or to make some browny points of cracking the case. It would, however, be beyond human acceptance that a mother whose son is missing for last 48 hours would not rush to see the dead body had she had come to know about his death.
32. Then come the question how at the first instance complainant and Pw27 went to 24x7, without having any such information before? It is nobody's claim that there was any secret information about 24x7 nor the complainant has explained how she came to know that her son had gone to particular shop 24x7 in a big market place of M2K.
33. The police i.e Pw27 from the first day knew that deceased was with 'RB'. The first action of police, therefore, had to be to apprehend 'RB'. It is unimaginable that police would have not made inquiry from 'RB'. 'BR', therefore, was the source of the information of place 24x7. Hence, the suggestion of the defence that accused persons, at least 'RB', was apprehended before registration of FIR is not just reasonably but highly probable. It is the reason that before registration of FIR and even in DD no. 34 A complainant has not given the name of accused persons. She was not aware with whom 'RB' and deceased were. It the reason it was made a case of abduction for confinement from shop 24x7. This information of shop 24x7, therefore, was fed by Pw27, but, deliberately she was not told about the death of her son.
34. Once it is accepted that 'RB' was apprehended before SC NO. 51898/2016 State Vs. Varun Jindal & Anr. Page No. 33 of 56 registration of FIR all the discoveries which are claimed to be effected on the basis of disclosure statements, after registration of FIR and arrest of accused persons become inadmissible as there is strong ground for believing that police was already having the information about all those places which were led by accused persons and pointed out.
35. Also the complainant appears to be tutored to conceal about her conversation with deceased and to depose about accused persons to the point of leaving of deceased from her house. The CDR proves that deceased had left the house much before the time claimed by complainant. Since complainant was talking with deceased till 00.11.am of 12.10.2014 deceased must have told her that he is 'RB', therefore, she gave the his name in DD no. 34 A and as the DD no. 34 A.
36. Yes, therefore, it is true that complainant had added some facts and concealed some facts which shows that she was tutored. But it is a fact that her son left home on 11.10.2014 and she got his dead body on 14.10.2014. After discovering death of her son the complainant had two options, either to break down completely and leave everything to police or to gather strength to see that the death of her son is avenged under the law for which she appears to have agreed to act, behave and depose in the manner instructed by the police and deposed in that manner to an extent of becoming liar.
37. Therefore what is left against accused persons is the SC NO. 51898/2016 State Vs. Varun Jindal & Anr. Page No. 34 of 56 circumstances covered in CCTV footages. At the outset it must be brought on record that out of 10 DVDs of CCTV footages, the video files in the CCTV footage covering Om Shanti Petrol pump, Singhu border and sector 8 M2K, except the footage of 24x7, the quality of video is so poor that no person shown in the videos are recognizable. CCTV footage of 24x7 covering out side the shop, however, shows that deceased was sitting at the stairs and there were two more persons sitting beside him. Pw13 has deposed that those two person sitting beside deceased outside 24x7 are accused Varun and Parth which is factually incorrect. One of them is prosecution witness 12 Lalit Kumar who had deposed that Shiva Came to shop on a Scooty with his one friend.
38. 24X7 is not the last place where deceased was seen alive. It was Amrik Sukhdev Dhaba. The CCTV Footages of Amrik Sukhdev Dhaba show that deceased had spent time at Amrik Sukhdev Dhaba from about 1.50 am of 12.10.2014 to 2.18 am, when he left Amrik Sukhdev Dhaba, on a Scooty, with three persons. In these CCTV footages not only the deceased but accused persons are identifiable. In one footage at 01.56 am deceased is standing at a counter with 'RB' where 'RB' is having a muffler/Parna, rounded on his neck. The accused persons are also identifiable at Amrik Sukhdev Dhaba in the CCTV footages and from their clothes, visible in the footage, it is clear that when they are captured in footage at 02.17 and 02.18 am all four i.e. accused Varun, Parth, 'RB' and deceased left Amrik Sukhdev Dhaba on a white colour Scooty. Therefore, from the CCTV footage of Amrik Sukhdev Dhaba it is proved beyond reasonable SC NO. 51898/2016 State Vs. Varun Jindal & Anr. Page No. 35 of 56 doubt that deceased was last seen alive with accused persons and 'RB' at 02.18 am of 12.10.2014 and he left the dhaba with them on a white Scooty.
39. Dead body of deceased was discovered on 12.10.2014 at about 7 am when PS Murthal received call regarding this. Therefore the deceased was murdered in between 2.18 am to 7 am of 12.10.2014. There is no doubt in accepting that the murder was committed at link road near Mittal farm house as not only the dead body but the empty shells were recovered from that place and it was at the spot itself where an unsuccessful attempt was made to burn the dead body to make it unrecognizable.
40. The defence has pointed to the testimony of Pw12, where he deposed that at about 4 am he again saw the deceased consuming beer with some boys and went to Yamua bank for some settlement. Similar reliance is placed on testimony of Pw21 where he deposed that on 12.10.2014 at about 7 am he saw a commotion and two boys running from the spot where he got to know that those boys had burned one boy after killing. Of course Pw12 and Pw21 were declared hostile and subjected to cross examination as this would make a case that the deceased was alive till 4 am of 12.10.2014. However, the PM report Ex.Pw9/A as per which post mortem was conducted at 4.15 pm on 13.10.2014 records the time since death is between 2 to 4 days and the time between injury and death as immediate. The death had to be immediate given the fact that deceased was first strangulated and they shot thrice on his head from single point of SC NO. 51898/2016 State Vs. Varun Jindal & Anr. Page No. 36 of 56 entry at forehead.
41. The post mortem report of deceased, however, rules out the possibility that deceased was alive till 4 am or was killed around 7 am on 12.10.2014. Had it been the time since death in post mortem report should have been different.
42. Pw9 in his testimony has deposed about the status of body that hair, nail and teeth can be removed and plucked. These are the external signs of putrefaction. Pw9 also deposed about his observation during PM examination that "right eye closed and left eye protruding out of the socket.
43. As per Modi's 26th Edition of Medical Jurisprudence and Medical Toxicology, "from 18 to 36 or 48 hours after death, the gases collect in the tissues, cavities and hollow viscera under considerable pressure with the result that the features become bloated and distorted, the eyes are forced out of the socket, the tongue is protruded between the teeth, and the lips become swollen and averted." (P 355 para 4). It was the month of October i.e not summer. Therefore there was no external environmental factor to speed up the putrefication. Therefore it is not acceptable that the death would have been caused after 4 am or around 7 am as suggested by defence on the basis of testimonies Pw12 and Pw21.
44. It appears that Pw12 and 21 were won over by defence not only to turn hostile but to create an alternate theory of possible SC NO. 51898/2016 State Vs. Varun Jindal & Anr. Page No. 37 of 56 defence. It was a lie that Pw21, on noticing commotion at Mittal Farm House had seen two boys running. Nothing of such sort is the part of investigation in FIR no. 350/14 PS Murthal. Similarly Pw12 has lied not only about his seeing deceased at 4 am, as deceased never returned to Delhi on that night, but also suggested that he shared the same with complainant in the morning of 12.10.2014 and went in search of deceased with him. Had it been so something like this would have been mentioned in DD No. 34A registered at 9.00 pm on 12.10.2014. On 12.10.2014, till the time complainant filed missing report, there was no information with complainant except that deceased was with 'RB'. Though it has been doubted that deceased had left at 11.00 pm of 11.10.2014 but complainant was in contact with deceased, on phone, till mid night. This phone call must be her source of information of presence of 'RB' with deceased.
45. Therefore the alternate theory put by defence that deceased had not died in between 2.18 am to 2.53 pm of 12.10.2014 after he left Sukhdev Dhaba, with accused person is false.
46. The foundation of doctrine of last seen theory lies on the principle of probability, cause and connection as no fact takes place in isolation. It derives its relevance from section 7 of Indian Evidence Act which is also called the doctrine of 'inductive logic' that the person who was last seen present with the victim would have a reasonable opportunity to commit crime. This presumption is taken under section 114 of Indian evidence Act.
SC NO. 51898/2016 State Vs. Varun Jindal & Anr. Page No. 38 of 56
47. In Ramanand and Ors vs State of Himachal Pradesh 1981 SCC (1) 511 it was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court that "perfect proof is seldom to be had in this imperfect world, and absolute certainty is a myth. That is why under section 3, Evidence Act, a fact is said to be 'proved', if the court considering the matters before it, considers its existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of particular case to act upon the supposition that it exists."
48. The relevant and important evidence after the last seen, in the CCTV footage are the CCTV footage of Om Shanti Petrol Pump at 2.53 am of 12.10.2014 and discovery of body in the morning of 12.10.2014. The proceedings conducted in PS Murthal after the registration of FIR are not disputed by the defence, except the part that dead body was got identified before registration of present FIR. I have already rendered the finding that the complainant was not aware about the discovery of death of her son before 14.10.2014. However, at the same time it has already been observed that Pw27 had the information of death of deceased. Therefore the proceedings conducted after registration of FIR as to discoveries of facts, allegedly, on the basis of disclosure statements are inadmissible for the prior knowledge of police.
49. To the CCTV footages, defence have raised strong objections as to its admissibility and reliance. It is the contention that since the authors of certificate u/S 64B IEA have been declared hostile the CCTV footages are inadmissible in evidence.
SC NO. 51898/2016 State Vs. Varun Jindal & Anr. Page No. 39 of 56 These footages are also attacked on the ground that despite seizing the hard disks from the DVR same were not sent to FSL for comparing the contents of DVDs with those of hard disks. It is also attacked on the ground that videos in the DVDs are manipulated and the expert who examined the DVDs and filed report Ex.Pw26/A has admitted the possibility to manipulate the date and time in the DVR and the correctness of date and time in the footages in DVDs were not checked as DVR were never sent to him for analysis. Therefore, contended that it is unsafe to rely on CCTV footages.
50. As already discussed above, except the CCTV footages of Amrik Sukhdev Dhaba, in none of the footage of other places, the face of accused persons can be seen. The quality of video is so poor that one can not recognize who is who. None of the footages were sent for enhancement of video quality. However, CCTV footage being a document can be and has to be relied to the extent it is able to give clear picture.
51. Pw25 had given the DVDs of CCTV footages of Amrik Sukhdev Dhaba. He identified these DVDs Ex.P12 to P16. However he deposed that he had given these CCTV footages on 13.10.2014 i.e. before registration of FIR. Although Pw25 has denied as to seizing of DVDs and hard disks in his presence but he identified his signatures at seizure memos Ex.Pw25/A and Ex.Pw25/B. Not only this, Pw25 also identified the DVDs Ex.P12 to P16 as the one which were seized from Amrik Sukhdev Dhaba. These are the same DVDs which were sent to SC NO. 51898/2016 State Vs. Varun Jindal & Anr. Page No. 40 of 56 FSL on which Pw26 has reported that there is no manipulation in DVDs. Pw25 has however, turned hostile on issuance of certificate u/S 65B relating to these DVDs. This certificate mark A (later exhibited in evidence of Pw32 as Ex.Pw32/P5, being prepared and signed in his presence) bears the signature of Pw25 at point A and Pw25 had admitted that it is his signature. This document bears date 17.10.2014 and one can see through naked eye that the ink of this date 17.10.2014 is different from other contents of the documents. This infact corroborates the statement of Pw25 that the DVDs were collected on 13.10.2014. 13.10.2014 is the date when the FIR was registered. This also confirms the finding already rendered that police was already aware about the crime and place of crime before registration of FIR and the police collected the CCTVs and traced back the crime, either to confirm the involvement of accused persons. It is also confirms that 'RB' was apprehended earlier. Therefore, PW- 32 was appointed JWO.
52. However, the issue is admissibility of CCTV footage and the objection is that CCTV footage is not supported with certificate u/S 65B evidence Act. The objection is misplaced as it is not the case that there was no certificate u/s 65B issued. It was issued and it was issued by Pw25. Only thing is that Pw25 like other witnesses have turned hostile to the fact of issuance of certificate, despite admitting his signature. When the certificate is already proved on record, can the court, only because the witness refused to deposed, overlook that certificate a crucial document? The answer is no because if that is allowed the court will never SC NO. 51898/2016 State Vs. Varun Jindal & Anr. Page No. 41 of 56 be considered an impartial arbitrator.
53. In C. Munniappan v. State of TN (2010) 9 SCC 567 Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that:
"81. It is settled legal proposition that:
"6...... the evidence of a prosecution witness cannot be rejected in toto merely because the prosecution chose to treat him as hostile and cross examined him. The evidence of such witness cannot be treated effaced or washed off the record altogether but the same can be accepted to the extent their version is found to be dependable on a careful scrutiny thereof.
Xxxxxxx
83. Thus the law can be summarized to the effect that the evidence of a hostile witness cannot be discarded as a whole, and when relevant parts thereof which which are admissible in law, can be used by the prosecution or the defence.
Xxxxxx
85. It is settled proposition of law that even if there are some omissions, contradictions and discrepancies the entire evidence cannot be disregarded. After exercising care and caution and sifting through the evidence to separate the truth from untruth, exaggeration and improvements, the court comes to conclusion as to whether the residuary evidence is sufficient........"
54. Since Pw25 admitted that certificate u/s65B bears his signatures is had to be presumed that he is the author or maker of the same. Pw25 being a witness is not entitled to claim that the police took his signatures on blank papers. Ex.Pw32/P5 from its making do not show any unusual pattern suggesting that the contents of the certificate could have been written after taking SC NO. 51898/2016 State Vs. Varun Jindal & Anr. Page No. 42 of 56 signatures of Pw25 to precisely end at point A where Pw25 put his signature. Hence, there is no question as to admissibility of CCTVs of Amrik Sukhdev Dhaba.
55. In he CCTV footages of Amrik Sukhdev Dhaba, deceased has been captured at 01:56:40 am and the other person with deceased having a muffler on his neck is identified by PW-25 as 'RB'. While leaving the Amrik Sukhdev Dhaba at 02:18:13 am the 'RB' is having same muffler on his neck. Ex PW 19/1 to PW 19/7 are the photographs of deceased at the spot and these photographs show that deceased was strangulated by some cloth which is identical/similar to the muffler which 'RB' was having on his neck. In the footage of Amrik Sukhdev Dhaba, it was only 'RB' who was having muffler and none other. It is the claim of prosecution that muffler with which deceased was strangulated is the same which 'RB' was wearing. This muffler is a long white colour cloth of cotton usually kept around neck to protect from heat as well as cold.
56. Therefore, when accused persons alongwith 'RB' and deceased Shiva left from Amrik Sukhdev Dhaba where 'RB' was having a muffler on his neck and on the next day dead body of Shiva was recovered strangulated with the identical/similar muffler, it is a strong circumstance showing that deceased was strangulated with the muffler/parna of 'RB'.
57. Prosecution banks on the motive that deceased had a fight with 'RB' few days back which the 'RB' had confessed in his SC NO. 51898/2016 State Vs. Varun Jindal & Anr. Page No. 43 of 56 child version that Shiva had abused that mother of 'RB' is in illicit relation with some other person and he is illicit son of that person. Therefore, it is put by prosecution that the accused persons had conspired to kill the deceased after taking him out of Delhi. Had it been a case where the deceased was killed by strangulation only, it could have been argued that there was no pre planning when accused persons alongwith 'RB' and deceased had left for Sukhdev Dhaba. The deceased was murdered not by strangulation but by shooting him thrice on his head. The seizure memo prepared at the spot in FIR No. 350/14, PS Murthal shows that at the spot the police had recovered three cartridges one live round of pistol which shows that after firing three rounds on the head of deceased the pistol was emptied at the spot itself. It means that the pistol was purchased/procured for the purpose of killing Shiva only. Not only this, an attempt was made to disfigure the body by burning, after Shiva was killed. Therefore, all these circumstances show that accused persons had prior concert with 'RB' as to how they are going to deal with Shiva Kalra.
58. From the discussion above held that deceased had some issue with 'RB' and enraged him. 'RB' had grudge and for that he conspired with accused persons for committing his murder. In the night of 11.10.2014 accused persons alongwith 'RB' took deceased to Amrik Sukhdev Dhaba Murthal. At about 02:18 am from Amrik Sukhdev Dhaba Murthal all four returned in which 'RB' was having a muffler. On next morning dead body of Shiva was discovered and police was informed which seized the dead SC NO. 51898/2016 State Vs. Varun Jindal & Anr. Page No. 44 of 56 body alongwith belongings and the other articles including the muffler with which deceased was strangulated, as shown in the photographs Ex PW 19/1 to Ex PW 19/17. The death of deceased was immediate after injury and the distance from Murthal Dhaba to the spot was not much. Therefore, deceased was murdered somewhere between 02:30 to 02:50 am which is also confirmed by the proximity of times in death given in PM report Ex PW 9/A. All these material when put under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused persons did not furnish any explanation. They are at least expected to explain if till 02:18 am of 12.10.2014 Shiva Kalra was with them and they left Amrik Sukhdev Dhaha where did they leave deceased Shiva Kalra, if they had not committed the crime.
59. From the circumstances established on record by the prosecution, although the police had botched the investigation, I am of the view that prosecution has been able to prove that it is the accused persons who under the conspiracy with 'RB' committed murder of Shiva Kalra. The clothes which were worn by the accused persons were never recovered nor the gun and the mobile phone of deceased was recovered. It is for this reason, accused persons are also charged for offence under Section 201 IPC for destroying the evidence.
60. In Dinesh Kumar Kalidas Vs. State of Gujrat Criminal Appeal no. 265-266 of 2018, it was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that "a charge under Section 201 IPC can be independently SC NO. 51898/2016 State Vs. Varun Jindal & Anr. Page No. 45 of 56 laid and conviction maintained also, in case the prosecution is able to establish that an offence had been committed, the person had caused disappearance of evidence and such act of disappearance has been done with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment. Mere suspicion is not sufficient, it must be proved that accused knew or had a reason to believe that the offence has been committed and yet he caused the evidence to disappear so as to screen the offender. The offender may be either himself or any other person."
61. It is not on record that who strangulated Shiva Kalra and who shot Shiva Kalra or who poured petrol or lit the match to burn the body of Shiva Kalra. Therefore, the charge proved against accused persons is of murder by conspiracy under Section 302 r/w 120B IPC. Further, the clothes which accused persons were wearing on the date of incident were never discovered nor produced during investigation. Therefore, the clothes which were also the relevant piece of identification of accused persons with other CCTV footages where their faces are not recognizable but could have been corelated with the time line of their movement, were destroyed. Therefore, both the accused persons are also liable to be convicted under Section 201 IPC.
62. So far as charge under Section 365 IPC is concerned, it basis on the premise that the victim was abducted. Abduction is taking a person without or against his will and the CCTV footage of Amrik Sukhdev Dhaba do not show that the presence of deceased with the accused persons was involuntarily. Hence, offence under Section 365 IPC or conspiracy thereof is not proved.
SC NO. 51898/2016 State Vs. Varun Jindal & Anr. Page No. 46 of 56
63. In view of the discussion above held, accused persons are convicted for offence under Section 302 r/w 120B IPC, under Section 201 IPC and acquitted for offence under Section 365/120B IPC. Digitally signed by VIKRAM VIKRAM Date:
2023.10.14 Date : 14.10.2023 16:51:03 +0530 (Vikram) ASJ-02/Spl. Judge (NDPS), North West, Rohini Courts, Delhi/14.10.2023 Digitally signed Dictated on : 14.10.2023 by VIKRAM Transcribed on : 14.10.2023 VIKRAM Date:
2023.10.14 checked on : 14.10.2023 16:51:12 +0530 Signed on : 14.10.2023 (Vikram) ASJ-02/Spl. Judge (NDPS), North West, Rohini Courts, Delhi/14.10.2023 SC NO. 51898/2016 State Vs. Varun Jindal & Anr. Page No. 47 of 56 Annexure 'A' List of Prosecution Witnesses S.No. PW No. Name of Witness Details of Witness
1. PW-1 HC Murlidharan Duty officer
2. PW-2 Insp. Manohar Lal Draftsman
3. PW-3 Dr. Randeep Kumar Sr. Scientific Officer, FSL
4. PW-4 Ct. Vikas CCTV operator
5. PW-5 Ct. Jagdish Police witness
6. PW-6 Ct. Parveen Police witness
7. PW-7 Ct. Vikram CCTV operator
8. PW-8 Dr. Richa Medical Officer, General Hospital, Sonepat, Haryana
9. PW-9 Dr. Rahul Chawla Department of forensic Medicine, BPS, GMC, Khanpur Kalan, Sonepat, Haryana
10. PW-10 Ct. Manju Police witness, PS Murthal
11. PW-11 HC Hari Singh MHMC PS Murthal
12. PW-12 Sh. Lalit Kumar Security guard at 24x7 shop
13. PW-13 Sh. Gulshan Kumar Uncle of deceased
14. PW-14 Shama Kalra Mother of deceased
15. PW-15 ASI Kishan Singh Police witness
16. PW-16 Sh. Shehjad
17. PW-17 Sh. Jitesh Malhotra DSP (Vigilance) HVPN, Faridabad, Haryana
18. PW-18 SI Suraj Bhan Police witness, PS Murthal SC NO. 51898/2016 State Vs. Varun Jindal & Anr. Page No. 48 of 56
19. PW-19 ASI Tejpal Photographer
20. PW-20 ASI Ramesh IO of FIR No. 350/2014, PS Murthal
21. PW-21 Sh. Monu Sales man at Om Shanti Petrol Pump
22. PW-22 Sh. Ved Prakash Uncle of deceased
23. PW-23 Sh. Dharam Manager at Om Shanti Petrol Pump, NH-1, Murthal, Sonepat, Haryana
24. PW-24 Sh. Brijesh Kumar Sales staff at 24x7
25. PW-25 Sh. Om Tyagi Chief Security Officer at Amrik Sukhdev Dhaba NH-
1, Sonepat, Haryana
26. PW-26 Dr. C.P. Singh Assistant Director Physics, FSL
27. PW-27 SI Ashok Kumar Police witness
28. PW-28 ASI Rambir (retired) Duty Officer
29. PW-29 HC Dhrambir Police witness, PS Murthal
30. PW-30 Sh. Kuldeep Manager at Amrik Sukhdev Dhaba
31. PW-31 Insp. Ghanshyam IO Meena
32. PW-32 Insp. Bijay Kumar JWO Digitally signed by VIKRAM VIKRAM Date: 2023.10.14 16:51:25 +0530 (Vikram) ASJ-02/Spl. Judge (NDPS), North West, Rohini Courts, Delhi/14.10.2023 SC NO. 51898/2016 State Vs. Varun Jindal & Anr. Page No. 49 of 56 Annexure 'B' List of Exhibits S.No. Exhibit No. Details of Remarks Documents
1. Ex. PW1/A Affidavit
2. Ex. PW 1/B Copy of FIR
3. Ex. PW 1/C Endorsement on rukka
4. Ex. PW 1/D Certificate under Section 65 B IEA
5. Ex. PW 1/E Attested copy of DD No. 34A
6. Ex. PW 2/A Affidavit
7. Ex. PW 2/B Scaled site plan
8. Ex. PW3/A Detailed report of Sr. Scientific Officer
9. Ex. PW 4/A Seizure memo DVDsof CCTV cameras installed at Pradeep Bhatia Marg, Opposite M2K Rohini
10. Ex. PW 4/B Receiving copy of application
11. Ex. PW 5/A Seizure memo of DVDs of CCTV cameras installed at Singhu Border
12. Ex. PW 6/A Affidavit
13. Ex. PW 9/A PM report
14. Mark PW Copy of seizure 10/A memo of pullandas containing viscera of dead body, pullanda clothes of dead body, SC NO. 51898/2016 State Vs. Varun Jindal & Anr. Page No. 50 of 56 one sealed box containing clothes and one pullandaof DNA sample
15. PW 11/A Copy of entry no.
816 in register no. 19
16. PW 11/B Copy of entry no.
819 in register no. 19
17. Mark PW Statement of witness 12/A Lalit Kumar
18. PW 13/A Dead body identification statement
19. Ex. PW 14/A Complaint regarding abduction
20. Ex. PW 15/A DVD of CCTV footage of Om Shanti Petrol Pump
21. Ex. PW 17/A Endorsement with respect to cancellation of FIR No. 350/2014, PS Murthal
22. Ex. PW 18/A Tehrir
23. Ex. PW 18/B Seizure memo of earth control and semi burnt clothes of the deceased
24. Ex. PW18/C Seizure memo of appy fizz bottle
25. Ex. PW 18/D Seizure memo of blood stained earth
26. Ex. PW 18/E Seizure memo of five live cartridges, three empty cartridges and one bullet SC NO. 51898/2016 State Vs. Varun Jindal & Anr. Page No. 51 of 56
27. Ex. PW 18/F Seizure memo of one match box
28. Ex. PW 19/1 Photographs to PW 19/17
29. Ex. PW 20/A Statement of Dhramvir
30. Ex. PW 20/B Site plan
31. Ex. PW 20/C Request for post mortem
32. Ex. PW 20/D Form 25.35
33. Ex. PW 20/E Inquest papers
34. Ex. PW 20/F Seizure memo of one viscera box, clothes of the deceased in pullinda, one pullinda for DNA sampling, small plastic box containing bullets and two sealed envelopes
35. Ex. PW 20/G Dead body handing over memo
36. Ex. PW 21/A Statement of witness
37. Ex. PW 22/A Dead body identification statement
38. Ex. PW 23/A Seizure memo of hard disc of CCTV recording of Om Shanti petrol pump
39. Ex. PW 23/B Certificates under & PW 23/C Section 65-B IEA
40. Ex. PW 24/A Seizure memo of hard disc of CCTV cameras at 24x7 SC NO. 51898/2016 State Vs. Varun Jindal & Anr. Page No. 52 of 56 shop
41. Ex. PW 24/B Seizure memo of DVD of CCTV camera of Shop 24x7
42. Ex. PW 24/C Certificate under Section 65-B IEA with respect to hard disc
43. Ex. PW 24/D Certificate under Section 65-B IEA with respect to DVD
44. Ex. PW 25/A Seizure memo of & Ex PW DDVD and hard disc 25/B of CCTV footage of Amrik Sukhdev Dhaba
45. Ex. PW Photographs Exhibited in the 25/D1 to PW testimony of PW 25 25/D5 when he was subjected to cross examination
46. Ex. PW 26/A Report of Assistant Director Physics with respect to DVDs
47. Ex. PW 27/A Rukka
48. Ex. PW 27/B Arrest memo of & PW 27/C accused Varun Jindal & Parth Vajpyee
49. Ex. PW 27/D Personal search & PW 27/E memo of accused Varun Jindal & Parth Vajpyee
50. Ex. PW 27/F Disclosure statement & PW 27/G of accused Varun Jindal & Parth Vajpyee SC NO. 51898/2016 State Vs. Varun Jindal & Anr. Page No. 53 of 56
51. Ex. PW 27/H Seizure memo of Maruti Zen
52. Ex. PW 27/I Pointing out memo of Shop 24x7
53. Ex. PW 27/J Pointing out memo of place of occurrence near Murthal
54. Ex. PW 27/K Pointing out memo of Om Shanti Petrol Pump
55. Ex. PW 27/L Pointing out memo of Sukhdev Dhaba, Murthal
56. Ex. PW 27/M Pointing out memo of the place near canal
57. Ex. PW 27/N Seizure memo of scooty
58. Ex. PW 27/P1 Photographs of & PW 27/P2 scooty
59. Ex. PW Photographs of car 27/Q1 to PW 27/Q4
60. Ex. PW 28/A Copy of FIR No. 350/2014
61. Ex. PW 28/B Endorsement on rukka
62. Ex. PW 30/A Notice served upon witness to supply CCTV footage and hard disc
63. Ex. PW 31/A Site plan
64. Ex. PW 31/B Letters written to & PW 31/C Incharge CCTV control room PS SC NO. 51898/2016 State Vs. Varun Jindal & Anr. Page No. 54 of 56 Alipur
65. Ex. PW31/D Seizure memo of DVDs
66. Ex. PW 31/E Letter for depositing DVDs for forensic examination
67. Ex. 31/M-1 to CCTV footages of PW 31/M-17 different spots in CDs
68. Ex. PW Photographs of Om 31/M-18 to Shanti Petrol Pump PW 31/M-21
69. Ex. PW Photograph of 31/M-22 deceased Shiva
70. Mark A & A1 Certificates under Section 65-B IEA
71. Ex. P1 (colly) Five live cartridges, three empty cartridges and one bullet
72. Ex. P2 Blood stained earth
73. Ex. P3 Ash, burnt clothes and some vegetative material
74. Ex. P4 Match box
75. Ex. P5 Bottle of Appy Fizz
76. Ex. P6 Hard disc
77. Ex.P8 CD no. 8
78. Ex. P9 DVD
79. Ex. P9/1 Burnt clothes
80. Ex. P9/2 One pant partially burnt, belt, one partially burnt shirt, one white colour sock, one burnt SC NO. 51898/2016 State Vs. Varun Jindal & Anr. Page No. 55 of 56 underwear and one pair of red colour shoes
81. Ex. P9/3 Bullets
82. Ex. P10 DVD of shop 24x7
83. Ex. P11 Hard disc
84. Ex. P12 to Ex DVDs for CCTV P 16 recording of Sukhdev Dhaba
85. Ex. P 17 to Ex Hard discs P 20
86. Ex. P21 Scooty
87. Ex. P22 car
88. Mark A1 to Photographs of Exhibited as Ex PW A17 crime scene 19/1 to PW 19/17 in the testimony of PW-19
89. Mark G-1 Copy of Form 23 of Zen car
90. Mark G-2 Photocopy of RC of scooty
91. Mark G-2A RC No. 88/21/14
92. Mark G-2B Acknowledgement
93. Mark G-3 Photographs of deceased
94. Mark G-4 to Photographs in 11 G-14 sheets Digitally signed by VIKRAM VIKRAM Date: 2023.10.14 16:51:37 +0530 (Vikram) ASJ-02/Spl. Judge (NDPS), North West, Rohini Courts, Delhi/14.10.2023 SC NO. 51898/2016 State Vs. Varun Jindal & Anr. Page No. 56 of 56