Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

State vs . 1) Yashpal @ Sonu on 8 April, 2022

   IN THE COURT OF SH. SHIVAJI ANAND, ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE­04
                    (NORTH), ROHINI COURTS, DELHI

   Session Case No. 58132/2016
   CNR No. DLNT01­001615­2012

   State             Vs.                  1) Yashpal @ Sonu
                                            S/o Sh. Jaipal.
                                            R/o H.No. 278, village Sannoth Narela,Delhi.

                                          2) Manoj Saharawat
                                             S/o Sh. Zile Singh
                                             R/o H.No. 63, village Makdola
                                             P.S Sector­5, Gurgaon, Haryana.
   FIR No.        : 427/12
   Police Station: Narela
   Under Sections: 364/302/201/404/120B/34 IPC

   Date of committal to Sessions Court : 22.12.2012
   Date of institution                  : 09.11.2012
   Date of Argument                     : 10.03.2022
   Date of reservation of order         : 10.03.2022
   Date on which Judgment pronounced: 08.04.2022
         JUDGMENT

1. In brief, the case of the prosecution is that on 06.08.2012, Sh. Yogesh, s/o Sh. Raj Singh, r/o H.No. 274, VPO, Sanoth, Narela Delhi had lodged complaint regarding missing of his mother Smt. Dharshana Devi and on 11.08.2012, he went to P.S Narela and lodged complaint regarding missing of his mother, wherein he had mentioned that on 21.07.2012, in the noon time, his mother Smt. Darshana Devi, aged about 55 years went from her house alongwith an unknown lady but had not returned thereafter. Sh. Yogesh further mentioned in his complaint that as per his wife an unknown lady called Smt. Darshana Devi on 21.07.2012 from outside the house and on her asking Smt. Darshana Devi immediately left her house and his wife and her Jethani(bhabhi of Yogesh) thought that Smt. Darshana Devi had gone to hear the Satsang and will returned back, but when after waiting, on 24.07.2012, they asked from other ladies, they came to know that there was no Satsang on 21­22.07.2012. He has further mentioned that in the mobile phone of SC No. FIR no. 427/12 PS Narela State Vs Yashpal @ Sonu and another Page 1 of 71 his mother bearing No. 9212182060, no contact can be made to his mother and after making inquiry from their relatives and knows, they made a call at 100 number on 05.08.2012 in this regard and also made complaint in the P.S on 06.08.2012. It was further mentioned in the complaint that on 08.08.2012 they found two registers in the room of their mother wherein details related to the person who took loan from Smt. Darshana Devi was mentioned, after which they have suspicion that the said unknown lady was a part of the conspiracy hatched regarding missing of his mother. On 11.08.2012, on the above mentioned complaint of Sh. Yogesh, case was registered u/s 365 IPC and investigation was marked to SI Surender Vashisth Special Staff, Outer District. CDR of the mobile phone of Smt. Darshanat Devi bearing No. 9212182060 was taken. The CDR detailed revealed that Smt. Darshana Devi was in regular touch with mobile number 9873632242 and on 21.07.2012 also she was in touch with the said mobile number and on inquiry of said mobile number 9873632242, it was revealed that same was used by accused Yashpal @ Sonu, residence of village Sanoth. When inquiry u/s 41.1 Cr.P.C was made from accused Yashpal @ Sonu, he admitted that he alongwith co­accused Manoj committed murder of Smt. Darshana Devi by strangulating her neck and thereafter they threw her dead­body in the bushes near village Rohat. Accused also disclosed that they also took her gold chain and ear­ rings. Since the area where the dead body was found was within the jurisdiction of P.S Sadar, Sonipat Haryana, IO SI Satender called ASI Dalbeer Singh and HC Jasmer Singh of P.S Sadar, Sonipat and on the pointing out of accused Yashpal, videography of the area of recovery of decomposed dead body was made. Son of Smt. Darshana Devi, namely Yogesh identified the dead body to be of his mother. ASI Dalbeer Singh of P.S Sadar Sonipat prepared the inquest proceedings u/s 174 Cr.P.C of the dead body and co­accused Manoj, s/o Zile Singh of village Makdola was arrested in this case. Disclosure statement of accused Yashpal was recorded. Location of mobile Number 9990411240 of accused Yashpal was also found that of village Rohat on 21.07.2012. On the pointing out of both the accused persons, Steem car bearing No. DL­6CH­9542 was got recovered from the house SC No. FIR no. 427/12 PS Narela State Vs Yashpal @ Sonu and another Page 2 of 71 of Rajbir of village Sanoth and same was taken into possession by the police officials. DD No. 18A dated 15.08.2012 was prepared regarding apprehension of the accused persons and accused persons were produced before the concerned Court in Rohini Courts complex and after taking permission from the Court accused persons are arrested in this case and Sections 302/201/120B/34 IPC was added in the charge­sheet. During inquiry accused Yashpal produced the slip of Muthoot Finance Ltd, Railway Road Narela from where he had taken loan of Rs. 47045/­ in lieu of gold chain and gold ear rings of deceased Darshana Devi. Documents bearing signature of accused Yashpal were seized and the gold chain and gold ear­rings of deceased were also taken into police custody. Statement of Sh. Amar Awasthi, Branch Manager Muthoot Finance and Miss Suman Kumar Joint Custodian Muthoot u/s 161 Cr.P.C was recorded and cash of Rs. 47,000/­ was got recovered from the house of accused Yashpal. Mobile phone of both the accused persons were also taken into possession. During disclosure statement both the accused persons also admitted that during the incident in question, the glass pane of back door of the Esteem car in question was also broken, which was got repaired by them from R.K Motor Workshop, Atlas Road, Sonipat and on the pointing out of both the accused persons, police team went there and the owner of the said shop namely Ranbir also identified the accused persons and photocopy of his daily Sale book dated 21.07.2012 was taken, wherein glass of back door Rs. 350 was written and statement of both the owners of said shop namely Sh. Ramesh Kumar and Sh. Ranbir u/s 161 Cr.P.C was recorded. On inspection of above said Esteeem car, blood stains were found on the Rear Seat and left side rear window inner part and both the parts were taken into possession after making a pullinda. On 16.12.2012, Joginder, s/o Satyaprakash, r/o Rewari village came in the P.S and informed that he was on visiting terms with the deceased and on 21.07.2012, when he was going to Sanoth village at about 12.30/1.00 p.m on his motorcycle at the turn of Sannoth, he saw accused Yashpal, in the driver seat of above mentioned Esteem car and one another person of strong body and long height, who was not known to him was also sitting and in the back seat the SC No. FIR no. 427/12 PS Narela State Vs Yashpal @ Sonu and another Page 3 of 71 deceased was sitting. During investigation TIP of the recovered jewellery was got conducted and exhibits were sent to FSL for expert opinion. During investigation the inquest proceedings u/s 174 Cr.P.C conducted by ASI Dalbeer Singh, P.S Sadar Sonipat, Haryana, P.M report, sealed parcel containing pieces of bone of deceased got collected and bone pieces were sent to FSL for DNA test. Accused Manoj denied to participate in the TIP proceedings. After completing the proceedings, charge­sheet u/s 364/302/201/404/120B/34 IPC was prepared and filed in the court and DNA report, report of hand writing expert and report of biology department was pending at the time of filing of charge­sheet, which were filed in the Court lateron.

2. Charge­sheet u/s 364/302/201/404/120B/34 IPC against both the accused persons was filed before the concerned M.M on 09.11.2012 which was committed to the Court of Sessions vide order dated 19.12.2012 and assignment to Ld Predecessor of this Court on 22.12.2012.

3. Charge u/s 120B/364 r.w Section 120B IPC/302 IPC/201 r.w Section 120B IPC/404 r.w Section 120B IPC was framed against both the accused persons on 20.02.2013.

4. The prosecution had examined 46 witnesses in support of its case. The details of said witnesses are as under:­ S.No Name of prosecution witness Purpose of examination 1 PW­1 Sh. Amar Awasthi PW­1, Branch Manager, Muthoot Finance Corporation Ltd, Narela, deposed that on 14.08.2012, accused Yashpal came to their branch for the purpose of taking gold loan and he filled up the loan application form in his handwriting. He has further deposed that accused had brought 26 grams of gold I.e chain of weight around 18.9 grams and pair of ear­rings weight around 6.9 grams and loan of Rs. 47,045/­ was granted to him. He SC No. FIR no. 427/12 PS Narela State Vs Yashpal @ Sonu and another Page 4 of 71 has further deposed that in the loan application form Ex. PW1/A accused had mentioned his mobile number as 9873632242, also produced copy of his D/L as proof of his identity and mentioned the name of his wife namely Banti as his nominee. He came to prove the loan application form as Ex. PW1/A, signature of accused Yashpal on the said form as Ex.

PW1/B, declaration signed by accused as Ex. PW1/C, loan card as Ex. PW1/D, copy of acknowledgment of terms and conditions as Ex. PW1/E, copy of his D/L as Ex.

PW1/F, photocopy of certificate of registration as Ex. PW1/F1, loan application form seized by the IO during investigation as Ex. PW1/G, pointing out memo as Ex.

PW1/H, seizure memo of gold chain and one pair of ear­rings seized by the IO from their office as Ex. PW1/J. This witness also identified the gold chain and one pair of ear­rings which were seized from their office and got exhibited the same as Ex. P1 and Ex. P­2.

2 PW­2 Sh. Puran Singh PW­2 Sh. Puran Singh deposed that he was the owner of Esteem car bearing registration number DL6CH9542 and deposed that said car remained parked in their vacant plot as he used to drive tempo.

He further deposed that RC of the said vehicle was taken into possession vide memo Ex. PW2/A by the police during investigation and proved the RC as Ex. P­3.

When this witness first time came to depose in the Court on 15.04.2013, he did not support the story of the prosecution and deposed that he never gave his above said car to anybody in the year 2012. This witness was recalled by the prosecution by moving an application 313 Cr.P.C and he was further examined on 06.01.2014 and deposed that on 21.07.2012, he received a phone call from accused Yashpal from mobile number 9873632242 on his mobile number 9540074701 and accused had asked him to give his Esteem car to him as his wife had stomach pain and he has to SC No. FIR no. 427/12 PS Narela State Vs Yashpal @ Sonu and another Page 5 of 71 take her for medical treatment at M.V Hospital, Poothkhurd. He further deposed that accused met him near CNG petrol pump, Bawana on his motorcycle and he gave the keys of the Esteem car to the accused.

3 PW­3 Ms. Suman Kumari PW­3 deposed that on 14.08.2012, accused Yashpal came to their branch for taking loan by pledging one chain and one pair of ear­ring. She has further deposed that on 16.08.2012, police official alongwith accused Yashpal came to their branch for investigation of this case.

4 PW4 Sh. Sunil Kumar PW­4 deposed that his mobile phone in the year 2012 was 9811121265. He has further deposed that accused Manoj was his co­villager of village Sannoth. He further deposed that Rishi Prakash belongs to his family being his uncle. He has further deposed that he was not aware about the mobile number of accused Manoj. This witness did not support the case of the prosecution.

5 PW5 Sh. Anshu PW­5 deposed that he was running a shop of mobile sale purchase and had given SIM card to accused Yashpal. He has further deposed that on 30.11.2012, he had given SIM card. That one Rajesh had brought the ID, which was the elections I­card and had taken the SIM card bearing No. 9873632242.

6 PW6 Sh. Yogesh Kumar PW­6, son of deceased Smt. Darshana Devi deposed that his mother used to reside with him alongwith other family members including his father, three brothers and their wives and children. He has further deposed that on 21.07.2012, his mother left the house and thereafter she did not come back. He has further deposed that since his mother used to go outside for attending Satsang, he thought that she had gone to Satsang. He has further deposed that on 23/24.07.2012, his wife informed him that on 21.07.2012, one lady had come to call his mother and thereafter he made a call on SC No. FIR no. 427/12 PS Narela State Vs Yashpal @ Sonu and another Page 6 of 71 the mobile number of his mother, but same was found switched off. He has further deposed that they also made inquiries from the neighbourhood about the Satsang and they came to know that there was no Satsang in the area. That thereafter they made inquiry from their relatives about his mother. He has further deposed that they also thought that their mother had gone to the house of their maternal uncle and was not informing them deliberately due to mild altercation between his younger brother and his maternal uncle, but when their maternal uncle told that their mother is not with them, they went to many places to search their mother. He has further deposed that they even searched in many hospital at Delhi and Sonipat to check the unidentified dead bodies. He has further deposed that on 31.07.2012 and 01.08.2012 they also visited the local police but police asked them to search their mother. He has further deposed that thereafter on 05.08.2012 they made a call at 100 number and police lodged their complaint qua missing of his mother on 06.08.2012. He came to prove the same as Ex. PW6/A. He has further deposed that on 11.08.2012, ultimately police registered the present FIR on his complaint Ex. PW6/B. He has further deposed that his mother used to keep record of transactions committee as well as of the society in the register and during investigation he handed over the photocopy of the account diary of his mother particularly the amount of loan given by his mother to accused Yashpal and same was seized by the IO vide memo Ex. PW1/C. He has further deposed that his friend Joginder had visited his house on 18.08.2012 after seeing the news of death of his mother in the newspaper and he informed the complainant that on 21.07.2012 he saw Smt. Darshana Devi alongwith the accused persons in the Esteem car in question and on asking she told that she was going to her brother's house. He also produced the original account diary and proved the SC No. FIR no. 427/12 PS Narela State Vs Yashpal @ Sonu and another Page 7 of 71 relevant page number of the diary as EX. P­ 1 to Ex. P­4. He has further deposed that his mother was running society as well as committee and in both the units accused Yashpal was a member and an amount of Rs. 14 lakhs was due against Yashpal. He has further deposed that on 14.08.2012, IO of the case called him at Rohat and when he reached there he saw near the canal under inside a pit under the bushes decomposed body of his mother was recovered. He has further deposed that on 11.10.2012, his blood sample was taken for DNA test.

7 PW7 Sh. Joginder PW­7 has deposed on 21.07.2012, he had visited the house of Yogesh situated in the village Sannot. He further deposed that at the bus stop of village Sannot he saw the mother of Yogesh sitting on the back seat of Maruti Esteem car of silver colour. He has further deposed that he knew mother of Yogesh since he had visited house of Yogesh several times being his friend. He further deposed that accused Yashpal was driving the car and co­accused Manoj was sitting alongwith the accused Yashpal in the front seat. He has further deposed that on being asking Smt. Darshana Devi told him that she was going to her brother house at village Majri and accused persons will drop her there. He further deposed that thereafter I went to the house of Yogesh and his wife informed that Yogesh is not at home and he went back to his house. He further deposed that thereafter he went to Chennai for giving examination of SSC, CGL from where he came back on 3­ 4.08.2012 and went to his native place at Riwari and came back from there after 3­4 days. He further deposed that on 17.08.2012 he came to know about murder of mother of Yogesh through newspaper and thereafter he informed to Yogesh. He further deposed that on 18.08.2012 police recorded his statement in this regard.

8 PW8 ASI Vinod Kumar PW­8 ASI Vinod Kumar, who was posted SC No. FIR no. 427/12 PS Narela State Vs Yashpal @ Sonu and another Page 8 of 71 as duty officer at the relevant time period deposed that on 15.08.2012 he recorded DD No. 18A, on receiving a telephonic information from Special Staff regarding production of accused Yashpal and Manoj in Rohini Court on the said date since they had disclosed their involvement in case FIR No. 427/12, P.S Narela, u/s 365 IPC. He came to prove the copy of above said DD entry as Ex. PW8/A. 9 PW9 Sh. Ranbir Singh PW­9 Sh. Ranbir Singh owner of the shop under the name and style of Dull Bodyparts deposed that on 21.07.2012, two persons came to his shop on foot and purchased the rear right side window glass of Esteem car.

He identified the accused persons in the Court who had brought the widow glass from him. He further deposed that during investigation police taken into possession the copy of sale record book vide memo Ex.

PW9/A bearing his signature at point A. He also produced the original daily sale record register and came to prove the copy of the same as EX. P9/A(OSR). During his evidence in the Court, he also identified the rear side window glass of Esteem car in question bearing No. DL6CH9542 produced by the MHC(M) concerned to be the glass of Atul Company and came to prove the same as Ex. PW9/B and Exteem car was also identified by as Ex. PW9/C. 10 PW10 Sh. Ramesh Kumar PW­10 Sh. Ramesh Kumar deposed that on 21.07.2012 two persons came to his workshop with their Esteem car of Silver colour. He has further deposed that they have brought one rear right side window glass with them and asked him to change the same. He further deposed that his denter changed the same. He further deposed that he can not identify the accused persons since it was night time. He further deposed that he also could not note the number of the Esteem car.

11 PW11 Sh. Arvinder Kumar PW­11 Sh. Arvind Kumar is also son of the deceased. He has deposed on the lines of PW­6 Sh. Yogesh Kumar hence same is not SC No. FIR no. 427/12 PS Narela State Vs Yashpal @ Sonu and another Page 9 of 71 reproduced herein for the shake of brevity.

He came to prove his statement given to the police as Ex. PW11/A and also identified handwriting of his deceased mother on Ex.

P­1 to Ex. P­4.

12 PW12 HC Yogesh Kumar PW­12 HC Yogesh Kumar deposed that on 14.08.2012 he joined the investigation of this case with SI Satender Vashist, HC Surender, HC Ravinder, HC Hari Chand and Ct. Ajay Pal. He has further deposed that the mobile phone bearing No. 9212182060 was put in surveillance and from the CDR record of the said number it was revealed that many calls have been made and received between aforementioned mobile number and mobile number 9873632242, which was being used by one Yash Pal @ Sonu. That in connection of the investigation they reached at village Sannoth and when they were present at main Narela Road accused Yash Pal @ Sonu met them. That SI Satyender Vashist showed the CDR record to the accused asked from him about the same, initially accused gave evasive answer and later on he deposed about his role alongwith co­accused Manoj in commission of the offence. He further deposed that on formal search of the accused Sim card of the mobile number of the Yashpal was recovered from the right side pocket of his wearing pant and from the backside pocket on receipt of Muthoot Finance was recovered. He further deposed that SI Satyender took into possession the SIM card vide seizure memo Ex. PW12/A and receipt of Muthoot Finance was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex. PW12/B. Accused was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.

PW12/C, his personal search was taken vide memo Ex. PW12/D and his disclosure statement was recorded vide memo Ex.

PW12/E. He further deposed that on the disclosure statement of accused, police party led by the accused reached at Rohat village, Sonipat and on the pointing out of accused dead body of deceased was got SC No. FIR no. 427/12 PS Narela State Vs Yashpal @ Sonu and another Page 10 of 71 recovered from a ditch near the river. He further deposed that dead body was in decomposed condition and son of the deceased was called who identified the dead body. He further deposed that IO made pointing out memo and recovery of dead body as Ex. PW12/F. He further deposed that IO also called ASI Dalbir and HC Jasbir of P.S Sadar and handed over the dead body to the aforementioned police official. He further deposed that thereafter they returned back to village Sannot where on the pointing out of accused Yashpal @ Sonu, his co­accused Manoj was arrested vide memo Ex. PW12/G, his personal search was taken vide memo Ex. PW12/H and his disclosure statement was recorded vide memo Ex. PW12/J. He further deposed that accused persons also got recovered the Esteem car used in the commission of offence. During his testimony in the Court he identified the SIM card of the mobile number and the receipt of Muthoot Finance recovered from the possession of accused Yashpal as Ex. P12/1 and Ex. P12/2. He also came to prove the photograph of Esteem car in question as EX. P12/3(colly).

13 PW13 Ct. Surender Singh PW­13 Ct. Surender Singh deposed that on 22.08.2012, on the instructions of IO Inspector Abhinandan Jain he collected two pullandas sealed with seal of AJ from MHC(M) vide RC No. 17/21/12 alongwith form and deposited the same at FSL, Rohini, Delhi. That after depositing the same in FSL he obtained the acknowledgment and handed over the same to MHC(M). He further deposed that so far as the pullandas remained under his custody same was not tampered.

14 PW14 Sh. Rajiv Ranjan PW­14 Sh. Rajeev Ranjan Nodal Officer of Tata Tele deposed that he had brought the CAF, CDR and location ID chart in respect of mobile number 9212182060, registered in the name of Smt. Darshana Devi. He came to prove the certified copy of CAF alongwith copy of election I­Card of the deceased as Ex. PW14/A, certified copy of call details of SC No. FIR no. 427/12 PS Narela State Vs Yashpal @ Sonu and another Page 11 of 71 the above said mobile number for the period 15.07.2012 till 22.07.2012(running into three pages) as Ex. PW14/B, certified copy of cell ID location chart of the said mobile number as Ex. PW14/C and certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act as Ex. PW14/D. 15 PW15 Ms. Ritu PW­15 Ms. Ritu daughter­in­law of the deceased deposed that on 21.07.2012 in the noon hours while she alongwith her sister­in­law(Jethani) namely Smt. Bindu were present at their home, one unknown lady called her mother­in­law Smt. Darshana Devi and upon her call their mother­in­law left the home. She further deposed that their mother­in­law did not disclose as to where she was going and they thought that their mother­in­law had gone to attend some Satsang as usual. She has further deposed that as she has been advised bed rest due to pregnancy, her husband Yogesh took her to her parental house from where she came back to her inlaws house on 23.07.2012 and she came to know that her mother­in­law has not returned back. The further deposition of this witness is also on the lines of PW­6 and PW­11, sons of the deceased hence same is not reproduced herein for the shake of brevity. She further deposed that during investigation she participated in the judicial TIP and identified the gold chain and pair of ear rings of her mother­in­law. She also identified the said articles when the same were produced in the Court by the MHC(M) during the testimony of this witness.

16 PW16 HC Ram Karan PW­16 HC Ram Karan Duty officer deposed that on 11.08.2012, at about 9.40 a.m, HC Sukhbir had produced rukka before him on the basis of which he got recorded the FIR No. 427/12, u/s 365 IPC. He came to prove the computerized copy of the FIR as Ex. PW16/A(OSR), endorsement on the rukka as Ex. PW16/B and certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act as Ex. PW16/C. 17 PW17 Sh. Praveen PW­17 Sh. Praveen deposed that in the SC No. FIR no. 427/12 PS Narela State Vs Yashpal @ Sonu and another Page 12 of 71 year 2012 he was using mobile phone although the number of the same is not remember to him. This witness has not supported the case of the prosecution. He came to prove the CAF form as Ex.

PW17/A. 18 PW18 Dr. Kuldeep Panchal PW­18 Dr. Kuldeep Panchal, Sr. Resident Department of Forensic Medicine, Lady Harding Medical College, New Delhi deposed that on 15.08.2012, he conducted postmortem on the dead body of deceased alongwith Dr. Anil Kumar Malik. He came to prove his report as Ex. PW18/A. 19 PW­19 Inspector Satender Vashist PW­19 Inspector Satinder Vashisht deposed that on 14.08.2012 he joined the investigation of the present case alongwith HC Yogesh, HC Surender, HC Ravinder, HC Hari Chand and Ct. Ajay Pal. He has further deposed that the mobile number of the deceased was under surveillance and upon analysis of CDR it came to their knowledge that mobile of the deceased bearing number 9212182060 and mobile number 9873632242 which was being used by accused Yashpal @ Sonu were in continuous touch. He further deposed that he alongwith above said official left their office at about 1.30 p.m vide DD No. 7 and he came to prove the said DD as Ex.

PW19/A. He has further deposed on the lines of PW12 hence same is not reproduced herein for the shake of brevity.

During his testimony before the court he identified the articles recovered from the body of the deceased and proved the same as Ex. P19/1(colly).

20 PW20 Ct. Devender PW­20 Ct. Devender deposed that in the month of August 2012, he alongwith HC Mukhtiyar Singh, Ct. Deepak and IO Inspector Abhinendra Jain and accused Yashpal and Manoj went to Village Sannoth and accused persons pointed out the place from where they took deceased in the Esteem car on 21.07.2012. He further deposed that thereafter both accused persons led them towards 300­400 yards SC No. FIR no. 427/12 PS Narela State Vs Yashpal @ Sonu and another Page 13 of 71 ahead of Ghogha village towards Daryapur village and pointed out the place where they committed the murder of Smt. Darshana and thereafter they pointed out the place where they thrown the dead body. He further deposed that IO prepared joint pointing out memo Ex. PW20/A in this regard. He further deposed that IO also prepared separate site plan of these three place as Ex. PW20/B to Ex. PW20/D 21 PW­21 HC Sukhvir Singh PW­21 deposed that on 06.08.2012, DD No. 61B regarding missing of Smt. Darshana, wife of Sh. Raj Singh, aged 55 years, r/o of village Sannoth was marked to him. He further deposed that he made efforts for the search of Smt. Darshana Devi and uploaded the particulars in the computer, flashed WT message and also informed missing person Squad. He further deposed that he also filled the requisite form for publication of missing of Smt. Dashana in newspaper. He further deposed that he also sent form to ACP concerned for obtaining call details of the mobile phone of the deceased. He further deposed that on 14.08.2012, Yogesh gave a written complaint regarding abduction of his mother and FIR No. 127/12 was registered.

He further deposed that on 02.10.2012 he went to P.S Sardar Sonipat Haryana and collected the postmortem report of the deceased and handed over the same to the IO of the case.

22 PW­22 Ms. Bindu PW­22 Ms. Bindu deposed that on 21.07.2012 in the noon hours she alongwith her Devrani namely Ms. Ritu was present at her house when one unknown lady called their mother­in­law. She further deposed that they thought that their mother­in­law had gone to attend Satsang. She further deposed that since earlier also their mother­ in­law used to leave the house for 2­3 days they waited upto 24.07.2012. She further deposed on the lines of her Devrani PW Ms. Ritu hence the further testimony is not reproduced herein for the shake of brevity.

SC No. FIR no. 427/12 PS Narela State Vs Yashpal @ Sonu and another Page 14 of 71

23 PW­23 SI P.L Meena PW­23 deposed that on 16.10.2012, IO Inspector Abhinendra Jain briefed him about the case and handed over the case file to him. He further deposed that since TIP of accused Manoj was fixed in Rohini Court he went to the Court. He further deposed that he went to the lockup and accused Manoj was taken out and produced before Ld. Link M.M for judicial TIP, however accused Manoj refused to participate in the TIP. He further deposed that thereafter when he was taking back to accused Manoj to the lockup, witness Joginder met them and he identified the accused. He further deposed that thereafter he recorded statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C of the said witness.

24 PW­24 Ct. Sidharth PW­24 Ct. Sidharth deposed that on 15.08.2012 he joined the investigation of the present case alongwith IO Inspector Abhinendra Jain, SI Kamal Singh and other staff went to the office of Special Staff where they met SI Satinder Vashisht. He further deposed that IO collected the relevant documents. He further deposed that statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C of SI Satinder Vashisht and other concerned officials were recorded. He also deposed that about the arrest of accused Yashpal @ Sonu.

25 PW­25 Ct. Jagjit PW­25 Ct. Jagjit deposed that on 17.08.2012, IO of the case in his presence got inspected the Esteem car bearing No. DL­6CH­9542 parked in the Malkhana of P.S from the crime team officials. He further deposed that SI Anil Kumar Incharge of Crime team inspected the said car and on his instance the piece of back seat of the car having blood stains were kept in a pullinda. IO also got separated the inner door cover of back left side door of the said car and kept in a separate cloth pullinda.

Both the pullindas were sealed with the seal of AJ and taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex. PW25/A. During his evidence in the Court when MHC(M) produced both the pullindas in the Court, the said witness identified and came to SC No. FIR no. 427/12 PS Narela State Vs Yashpal @ Sonu and another Page 15 of 71 prove the back seat as EX.PW25/1 and the back side door as EX. PW25/2.

26 PW­26 Inspector Anil Kumar PW­26 Inspector Anil Kumar Incharge of mobile Crime team deposed that on 17.08.2012, he alongwith other members of his staff reached to central Malkhana, Narela Delhi and their they inspected the Esteem car bearing No. DL­6CH­9542. He further deposed that after inspection of the said car he prepared his report Ex. PW26/A. 27 PW­27 ASI Subhash PW­27 ASI Subhash deposed that on 04.10.2012, upon the instructions of the IO, he went to P.S Sadar, Sanipat Haryana, where he met with MHC(M) of P.S Sadar , collected one sealed pullinda from him vide RC No.106 MM dated 04.10.2012, returned back to P.S Narela and handed over the said pullinda to MHC(M) CP, P.S Narela. He further deposed that as soon as the pullinda remained with him the same was not tampered in any manner.

28 PW­28 SI Dalbir Singh PW­28 SI Dalbir Singh of P.S Sadar, deposed that on 14.08.2012 SI Satinder Vashist alongwith his staff and accused Yashpal @ Sonu visited to P.S Sadar regarding investigation of the present case.

He further deposed that SI Surender lodged his arrival entry in the Roznamcha of P.S Sadar. Thereafter he alongwith HC Jasmer joined the investigation of this case. He further deposed that accused Yashpal led them to near a bridge of river at Rohat Village and pointed out a place towards near the Sarkari Diggi. He further deposed that from inside the bushes accused Yashpal got recovered a decomposed dead body. He further deposed that dead body was partially eaten by animals. He further deposed that accused Yashpal disclosed that he alongwith co­accused Manoj after committing murder of Smt. Darshana robbed her gold chain and ear rings and and dumped her body in the said place. He further deposed that thereafter sons of the deceased were also called for the purpose of identification of the dead body and Sh.

SC No. FIR no. 427/12 PS Narela State Vs Yashpal @ Sonu and another Page 16 of 71

Yogresh elder son of the deceased identified the dead body to be of his mother.

He further deposed that since the dead body was found within the jurisdiction of P.S Sadar, SI Satender directed me to for conducting the proceedings u/s 174 Cr.P.C.

He further deposed that he recorded statement of Sh. Yogesh, made endorsement Ex. PW28/A on the said statement and handed over the rukka to HC Jasmer for making entry in the Roznamcha of P.S Sadar. He further deposed that HC Jasmer went to P.S Sadar, got lodged DD No. 45B, dated 14.08.2012, returned back to the spot and handed over the copy of said DD to him. He further deposed that he also recorded statement of Arvind and Deepak who accompanied Yogesh at the place of recovery and proved the statement of Deepak as Ex. PW28/B. He further deposed that he also filled Form No. 25.35(1)(B) and came to prove the same as Ex. PW28/C. He further deposed that he also made site plan of the place of recovery of the dead body and got exhibited the same as Ex. PW28/D. He further deposed that he lifted eight bangles which were on the right hand of the deceased, one chappal of yellow colour, the salwar of biscuit brown colour and kept them in a cloth pullida, sealed the same with seal of DS and seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW28/E. He further deposed that on 15.08.2012 he moved an application Ex.

PW28/F to Medical Officer, Government Hospital, Sonipat for conducting the postmortem on the dead body of the deceased, but the concerned doctor referred the body to PGIMS, Rohtak and thereafter he moved another application Ex.

PW28/H for conducting the postmortem before PGIMS Rohtak. He further deposed that after postmortem the concerned doctor handed over to him the postmortem report and one pullinda sealed with the seal of concerned doctor/hospital, containing one bone of deceased for the purpose of DNA and two sample seals of similar specimen, SC No. FIR no. 427/12 PS Narela State Vs Yashpal @ Sonu and another Page 17 of 71 which were seized by him vide seizure memo Ex. PW28/J. He further deposed that after postmortem dead body was handed over to the family members of the deceased.

29 PW­29 HC Jasmer Singh PW­29 HC Jasmer Singh of P.S Sadar, who had joined the investigation of the present case alongwith PW­28 SI Dalbir Singh has deposed on the lines of PW­28 hence his testimony is not reproduced herein being repetitive in nature.

30 PW­30 HC Raj Pal PW­30 HC Raj Pal deposed that on 17.08.2012 he was posted as MHC(M) in Central Malkhana situated at Narela Delhi and on the said date crime team officials alongwith the IO visited the Malkhana and crime team Incharge SI Anil Kumar inspected the Esteem car bearing No. DL­ 6CH­9542 in his presence.

31 PW­31 HC Avran PW­31 HC Avran deposed that on 17.09.2012, on the instruction of the IO he collected one pullinda sealed with the seal of AJ vide DD No. 53B from MHC(M) CP.

He further deposed that thereafter he came to Rohini Court and handed over the said pullinda to IO Inspector Abhinendra Jain and IO recorded his statement.

32 PW­32 Ct. Amit PW­32 Ct. Amit deposed that on 05.09.2012 on the instructions of the IO, he collected the exhibits I.e questioned documents and specimen handwriting/signature in separate sealed pullinda from MHC(M) CP vide RC No. 179/21/12. He further deposed that thereafter he went to FSL Rohini and deposited the same there. He further deposed that he collected acknowledgment of the FSL, returned back to P.S and handed over the acknowledgment and copy of said RC to the MHC(M). He further deposed that so far as the pullida remained with him same was not tampered with in any manner.

33 PW­33 Sh. Saurabh Aggarwal. PW­33 Sh. Saurabh Aggarwal Nodal Officer of Vodafone Mobile Services deposed that SC No. FIR no. 427/12 PS Narela State Vs Yashpal @ Sonu and another Page 18 of 71 as per the customer application Form the mobile number 9873632242 was issued in the name of Rajesh, s/o Sh. Ramavriksh.

He has produced the original CAF form and proved the copy of the same as Ex. PW33/A and copy of election I­Card of Rajesh is got exhibited by him as Ex. PW33/B and CDR of the above said mobile phone for the period 17.07.2012 till 22.07.2012 as EX.PW33/C. He also came to prove the certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act as Ex. PW 33/D and Cell ID chart of the mobile phone as Ex. PW33/E. 34 PW­34 Ct. Narender PW­34 Ct. Narender deposed that he was posted as Computer Operator in P.S Narela and on 11.08.2012 he typed the FIR of the present case on the instructions of Duty Officer HC Ram Karan.

35 PW­35 Inspector Mahesh Kumar PW­35 Inspector Mahesh Kumar drafts man deposed that on 23.10.2022 he accompanied IO Inspector Abhinender Jain to the place of incident i.e Daryapur Ghogha Road, where on the pointing out of the IO, he took the measurements and prepared rough notes. He has further deposed that thereafter he accompanied the IO to the place near Rohat Bridge, Sonepat Haryana I.e the place where the dead body was recovered. He further deposed that at the said place HC Jasmer of P.S Sadar was also present and then on the pointing out of the IO and HC Jasmer, he took the measurements and prepared rough notes. He further deposed that he handed over the scaled site plan Ex.

PW35/A to the IO on 01.11.2012 and IO recorded his statement.

36 PW­36 Sh. Amar Nath Singh PW­36 Sh. Amar Nath Singh Nodal Officer of Idea Cellular Limited deposed that as per the customer application Form the mobile number 9990411240 was issued in the name of Harish Rana, s/o Sh. Sukhpal. He has produced the original CAF form and came to prove the copy of the same as Ex.

PW36/A(OSR) and copy of election I­Card of Harish Rana is got exhibited by him as SC No. FIR no. 427/12 PS Narela State Vs Yashpal @ Sonu and another Page 19 of 71 Ex. PW36/B and CDR of the above said mobile phone for the period 15.07.2012 till 22.07.2012 as EX.PW36/C. He also came to prove the certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act as Ex. PW 36/D and Cell ID chart of the mobile phone as Ex. PW36/E. 37 PW­37 Inspector(Retired) Kamal PW­37 Inspector(Retired) Kamal Singh Singh deposed that on 11.08.2012 the investigation of the present case was marked to him after registration of FIR. He has further deposed that he collected the copy of FIR and original rukka from the duty officer. He has further deposed that on the same day he met with HC Sukhbir who produced the documents regarding missing report of Smt. Darshana and he recorded statement of HC Sukhbir u/s 161 Cr.P.C.

He further deposed about the investigation conducted by him in the present case on 12.08.2012, 13.08.2012, 15.08.2012.

38 PW­38 Ct. Ajay PW­38 Ct. Ajay deposed that on 11.10.2012 upon the instructions of the IO, he collected one sealed pullanda alongwith sample seal from MHC(M) CP and thereafter he took the same to FSL Rohini. He further deposed that at FSL he met with IO Inspector Abhinender alongwith Yogesh. He further deposed that at FSL blood sample of Yogesh was taken and same was converted into a sealed pullinda. He further deposed that thereafter we deposited the said sealed pullinda and the pullinda taken by him at FSL for DNA examination. He further deposed that thereafter he collected the acknowledgment of the said deposit, returned back and handed over the acknowledgment to MHC(M) C.P. He further deposed that as soon as the pullinda remained with him the same was not tampered in any manner.

39 PW­39 EHC Karambir PW­39 EHC Karambir of P.S Sadar deposed that he has brought the summoned record I.e register No. 19 of P.S Sadar for the year 2012. He further deposed that as per entry at serial No. 803 dated 15.08.2012 ASI Dalbir had deposited three pullandas SC No. FIR no. 427/12 PS Narela State Vs Yashpal @ Sonu and another Page 20 of 71 out of which two with seal of doctor and one with seal of DJ alongwith one sample seal in the Malkhana. He came to prove the copy of relevant entry of register No. 19 as Ex.

PW39/A. He further deposed that on 29.10.14 their P.S received a copy of the application written by SHO, P.S Narela. He produced the original application and came to prove the copy of the same as Ex.

PW39/B. He further deposed that one pullinda was handed over to HC Subhash of P.S Narela vide RC No. 106 and got exhibited the copy of the same as EX.

PW39/C. He further deposed that on 30.10.2014 the remaining two pullindas of this case were handed over to Ct. Hemraj vide RC No. 128 and got exhibited the copy of the same as Ex. PW39/D. 40 PW­40 Sh. Harish Rana PW­40 Sh. Harish Rana deposed that in the month of November 2012 he was called at the P.S and IO of the case show him the photocopy of his ID proof, but he told to the IO that he never purchased the mobile number 9990411240. He further deposed that he also told to the IO that it is not within his knowledge as to who had purchased the said mobile number in his name and how the copy of his election I­ card had been used in purchasing the said number. He further deposed that he also stated to the IO that even the application form does not bear his signature and his signature has been forged. He further deposed that he also stated to the IO that he does not know any person in the name of Manoj.

41 PW­41 ASI Mukhtiyar Singh PW­41 ASI Mukhtiyar Singh deposed that on 16.08.2012 he joined the investigation of the present case alongwith IO Inspector Abhinender Jain and Ct. Devender. He further deposed that on 16.08.2012 accused Yashpal also led them to his house bearing No. 270, Village and Post office Sannot and he got recovered from the drawer of the TV trolly kept inside the room of his house some currency note and on counting the same were found to Rs. 47,000/­. He SC No. FIR no. 427/12 PS Narela State Vs Yashpal @ Sonu and another Page 21 of 71 further deposed that IO kept the said currency notes in a container, sealed the same with seal of AJ and seized the same vide seizure memo Ex. PW41/A. He further deposed that accused also produced one mobile phone of Karbonn. IO kept the same in a container, sealed the same with seal of AJ and seized the same vide seizure memo Ex. PW41/B. He further deposed that said recovery was effected in the presence of father of the accused but he refused to sign on the memo. He further deposed that thereafter accused Manoj led them to the house of his sister I.e H.No. 65, VPO Sannoth and his brother­in­law namely Rishi Prakash produced a mobile phone. After checking the same IO kept the said mobile phone in a container, sealed the same with seal of AJ and seized the same vide seizure memo Ex. PW41/C. He further deposed that said recovery was effected in the presence of brother­in­law of the accused but he refused to sign on the memo. He further deposed that thereafter both the accused persons led them to R.K Motors from where they purchased the glass o the Esteem Car and thereafter they led them to Dull auto parts from where they got affixed the fresh glass. He came to prove the pointing out memo as Ex. PW41/D and Ex. PW41/E respectively. During his testimony in the Court he identified and came to prove the mobile phone of Karbonn as Ex. P41/1 when the same was produced in the Court by MHC(M). He came to prove the mobile phone produced by accused Manoj as Ex.

P41/2 and the currency notes of Rs.

47,000/­ produced by accused Yashpal from his house as Ex. P41/3 during his evidence before the Court.

42 PW­42 Dr. Dhruv Sharma PW­42 deposed that on 22.08.2012 their office received two sealed parcels and same were marked to him. He further deposed that he checked the parcels, gave number them as parcel No. 1 and parcel No.2, opened the same and material inside the parcels were marked as Ex. 1 and Ex. 2.

SC No. FIR no. 427/12 PS Narela State Vs Yashpal @ Sonu and another Page 22 of 71

He further deposed that after biological examination he bound human blood in both the exhibits but no blood grouping could be ascertained. He further deposed that he prepared his report in this regard as Ex.

PW42/A and Ex. PW42/B. He further deposed that after examination the remnants of the exhibits were sealed with the seal of DS FSL, Delhi and were sent back to the investigating agency.

It is pertinent to mention that on an application u/s 311 Cr.P.C DR. Naresh Kumar, Senior Scientific Officer(Biology) appeared on 11.12.2020 on behalf of Dr. Dhruv Sharma since he had expired. He deposed that on 11.10.2012 two sealed parcels were received in their office. He further deposed that parcel No. 1 was sealed with the seal of FM and parcel No. 2 blood sample of Yogesh was physically collected in FSL. He further deposed that on examination of both the parcels, DNA profile was generated from Ex. 1 & 2 and on the basis of DNA examination it was concluded that Ex.1 bone pieces of deceased cannot be excluded as biological mother of Ex. 2 I.e blood sample of Yogesh.

He further deposed that after examination the parcels were resealed with the seal of DS FSL Delhi and detailed biological report of Dr. Dhruv Sharma is proved by him as Ex. PW42/C. 43 PW­43 ASI Rajesh PW­43 ASI Rajesh deposed about deposition of case property of this case on 14.08.2012, 16.08.2012, 17.08.2012 and 04.10.2012 and got exhibited the relevant entries in register No. 19 in this regard as Ex. PW43/A to Ex. PW43/D. He further deposed that on 22.08.2012, he handed over two sealed parcels through Ct.

Surender vide RC No. 171/21/12 for depositing the same in FSL, Rohini. He came to prove the relevant entry in this regard as Ex. PW43/E and acknowledgment of the FSL as Ex. PW43/F. He further deposed that on 11.10.2012, he handed over one sealed parcel through Ct. Ajay SC No. FIR no. 427/12 PS Narela State Vs Yashpal @ Sonu and another Page 23 of 71 vide RC No. 208/21/12 for depositing the same in FSL, Rohini. He came to prove the relevant entry in this regard as Ex.

PW43/G and acknowledgment of the FSL as Ex. PW43/H. 44 PW­44 ASI Surender Kumar PW­44 ASI Sureder Kumar deposed that on 14.08.2012, he joined the investigation of the present case with HC Yogesh, SI Satender Vashist, HC Ravinder, HC Hari Chand and Ct. Ajay Pal. He deposed about the investigation conducted in this case on the lines of PW­12 hence same is not reproduced herein for the shake of brevity.

45 PW­45 Inspector Abhinendra Jain PW­45 Inspector Abhinendra Jain deposed about the investigation carried by him. He deposed that on 15.08.2012, he moved an application for the interrogation and arrest of both the accused persons and came to prove the said application as Ex. PW45/A. He further deposed that he interrogated both the accused persons and recorded disclosure statements of the accused persons Ex. PW45/B and Ex. PW45/C. This witness further deposed about the investigation carried out by him on 16.08.2012, 17.08.2012, 18.08.2012, 22.08.2012, 05.09.2012, 14.09.2012, 16.09.2012, 02.10.2012, 04.10.2012, 11.10.2012, 14.10.20212, 16.10.2012, 23.10.2012, 27.10.2012, 31.10.2012, 01.11.2012, 07.11.2012 alongwith other police officials, details of which have already been discussed the same is not reproduced herein for the shake of brevity.

46 PW­46 Sh. Anurag Sharma PW­46 Sh. Anurag Sharma, Assistant Director(document) regional Forensic Science Laboratory Chanakya Puri, New Delhi proved his detailed report regarding examination of documents concerning handwriting of the deceased and came to prove his report as Ex. PW46/A. He further deposed that after examination and opinion all the original documents alongwith original report were handed over to authorized messenger.

SC No. FIR no. 427/12 PS Narela State Vs Yashpal @ Sonu and another Page 24 of 71

5. After completion of prosecution evidence, statement of the accused was recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C., wherein they denied the case of prosecution and claimed that they have been falsely implicated in the present case. They have further deposed that they are innocent and have nothing to do with the present case. Accused Yashpal @ Sonu deposed that after missing of the deceased, the family members of the deceased concocted a false story pertaining to financial dealings of the deceased with him. He further deposed that during investigation he was made to sign certain documents blank and which were subsequently used as incriminating evidence against him I.e recovery memos, pointing out memos, muthoot finance documents etc. Accused Manoj opted not to lead any defence evidence, but accused Yashpal @ Sonu opted to lead evidence in his defence.

6. I have heard Sh. Sanjay Jindal, Additional P.P for the State and Sh. Pradeep Rana, ld counsel for accused Yashpal @ Sonu and Sh. R.N Sharma, ld counsel for accused Manoj.

7. Ld. Additional P.P for the State has stated that prosecution has proved its case against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubts. He has further submitted that accused Yashapl @ Sonu has motive for commission of offence since he has taken loan from deceased and co­accused Manoj has common intention to commit the crime and all the aspect for committing an offence I.e intention, knowledge and motive are fulfilled in this case and hence both the accused persons may be convicted in the present case.

8. On the other hand, it is submitted by ld counsel for accused persons that there are material contradictions in the case of the prosecution and hence the accused persons may be acquitted.

9. For the sake on convenience, evidence of material prosecution witnesses in short is mentioned as under:­ SC No. FIR no. 427/12 PS Narela State Vs Yashpal @ Sonu and another Page 25 of 71 A) PW­1, Sh. Amar Awasthi, Branch Manager of Muthoot Finance Corporation Ltd, Narela, deposed that on 14.08.2012, accused Yashpal came to their branch for the purpose of taking gold loan and he filled up the loan application form in his handwriting. He has further deposed that accused had brought 26 grams of gold I.e chain of weight around 18.9 grams and pair of ear­rings weight around 6.9 grams and loan of Rs. 47,045/­ was granted to him. He has further deposed that in the loan application form Ex. PW1/A accused had mentioned his mobile number as 9873632242, also produced copy of his D/L as proof of his identity and mentioned the name of his wife namely Banti as his nominee. He came to prove the loan application form as Ex. PW1/A, signature of accused Yashpal on the said form as Ex. PW1/B, declaration signed by accused as Ex. PW1/C, loan card as Ex. PW1/D, copy of acknowledgment of terms and conditions as Ex. PW1/E, copy of his D/L as Ex. PW1/F, photocopy of certificate of registration as Ex. PW1/F1, loan application form seized by the IO during investigation as Ex. PW1/G, pointing out memo as Ex. PW1/H, seizure memo of gold chain and one pair of ear­rings seized by the IO from their office as Ex. PW1/J. This witness also identified the gold chain and one pair of ear­rings which were seized from their office and got exhibited the same as Ex. P1 and Ex. P­2.

During cross examination by ld defence counsel, this witness denied the suggestion that accused Yashpal had not visited in his branch on 14.08.2012 and had not pledged the gold chain and ear rings. He has also denied the suggestion that accused Yashpal had not filled up any form or application or any other documents in his branch.

B) PW­2 Sh. Puran Singh deposed that he was the owner of Esteem car bearing registration number DL­6CH­9542 and that said car remained parked in their vacant plot as he used to drive tempo. He further deposed that RC of the said vehicle was taken into possession vide memo Ex. PW2/A by the police during investigation and proved the RC as Ex. P­3. When this witness first time came to depose in the Court on 15.04.2013, he did not support the story of the prosecution SC No. FIR no. 427/12 PS Narela State Vs Yashpal @ Sonu and another Page 26 of 71 and deposed that he never gave his above said car to anybody in the year 2012.

This witness was recalled by the prosecution by moving an application 313 Cr.P.C and he was further examined on 06.01.2014 and deposed that on 21.07.2012, he received a phone call from accused Yashpal from mobile number 9873632242 on his mobile number 9540074701 and accused had asked him to give his Esteem car to him as his wife had stomach pain and he has to take her for medical treatment at M.V Hospital, Poothkhurd. He further deposed that accused met him near CNG petrol pump, Bawana on his motorcycle and on the request of accused he gave him key of his Esteem car, which was parked in the plot of his Dada Dhrudev.

During cross examination of this witness by ld defence counsel this witness submitted that he had deposed falsely on 15.04.2013 that accused Yashpal had not taken his Esteem car on 21.07.2012 and voluntarily stated that Pawan brother of accused had threatened that he will do wrong with his children. He has further deposed that he did not remember the date when brother of accused threatened him and at that time no one was present with him. He has further deposed that he was threatened 20­25 days prior to 15.04.2013. He has further deposed that on 15.04.2013 he had not told to Ld Additional P.P for State that he had been threatened by brother of accused. He further deposed that he had not made any complaint before any authority or Court regarding threatening given to him by brother of accused. He further deposed that he met with Arvind son of the victim after giving his evidence on 15.04.2013 in the Court and told him that he had given false evidence in Court as he was threatened by brother of accused, on 15.04.2013 itself. He further deposed that he had asked Arvind to file complaint as he had been threatened by brother of accused. He further deposed that his mother had told him on the same day I.e 15.04.2013 after giving statement that he should speak truth and then he changed his mind and decided to depose true facts. He further deposed that Arvind told him that he had given false evidence on 15.04.2013 and he should again give his evidence and then he decided to tell true facts now. He has denied that mobile number 9873632242 did not belong to SC No. FIR no. 427/12 PS Narela State Vs Yashpal @ Sonu and another Page 27 of 71 accused Yashpal and the same belongs to one Rajesh. He has denied the suggestion that on 21.07.2012 accused Yashpal did not call him on his mobile phone and he is deposing falsely in this regard under the pressure of the IO and Arvind(son of the deceased). This witness has also denied the suggestion that since he never received any threat from the accused side and hence he did not lodge any complaint.

C) PW­3 Ms. Suman Kumari deposed that on 14.08.2012, accused Yashpal came to their branch for taking loan by pledging one chain and one pair of ear­ring. She further deposed that accused has been sanctioned loan of Rs. 47,045/­ and he filled up the application form, declaration, signed the pledged card and other documents required for sanction of loan. She further deposed that on 16.08.2012, police official alongwith accused Yashpal came to their branch for investigation of this case and the relevant documents I.e Ex. PW1/A to Ex. PW1/F were seized by the police on 16.08.2012. She further deposed that on the same day police also seized the articles I.e chain and pair of earrings, which were kept in plastic dibbi and sealed and seized by the IO of the case vide seizure memo Ex. PW1/J. During her evidence in the Court, this witness also identified the gold chain and ear­ring of the deceased which were seized by the IO of the case from their branch and proved them as Ex. P1 and Ex. P2.

During cross examination this witness deposed that on 14.08.2012, accused Yashpal visited their branch between 11 to 12 noon and left the branch within 10­15 minutes. She further deposed that they do not ask the customer about the documents of source of gold which is to be pledged, so in this case also, no such inquiry was made. She further deposed that she had seen accused Yashpal only two times till dates I.e 14.08.2012 and 16.08.2012. She further deposed that she had tested the gold ornaments firstly and thereafter same were tested by Sh. Amar Awasthi. She further deposed that they check the gold with touch stone and also by using chemical on the touch stone. She further deposed that she met with the SHO concerned on 16.08.2012 and also in the morning of the day of her SC No. FIR no. 427/12 PS Narela State Vs Yashpal @ Sonu and another Page 28 of 71 examination(16.04.2013) and except that she did not meet him anywhere. She further deposed that she had not given her local address either to the police during investigation or to the Court today. She denied the suggestion of ld defence counsel that in the morning SHO briefed him what to depose before the Court today and at his instance she deposed falsely since she was under the pressure of local police as she was still working in the same branch. She further denied the suggestion of ld defence counsel that accused Yashpal never visited their branch at any point of time. She further denied the suggestion that she alongwith Amar Awasthi signed all the documents at the instance of local SHO and other police officials without actually joining any such investigation. She has also denied the suggestion of ld defence counsel that recovery of gold chain and ear­rings were not effected from their branch on 16.08.2012. She has also denied the suggestion of ld defence counsel that Yashpal had not filled up any form or application or any other document at their branch at any point of time. She has also denied the suggestion of ld defence counsel that she identified accused Yashpal in the Court on the day of her examination since he was shown to her by SHO in the morning outside the Court while the accused was coming from the lock­up.

D) PW­4 Sh. Sunil Kumar deposed that his mobile phone in the year 2012 was 9811121265. He has further deposed that accused Manoj was his co­villager of village Sannoth. He further deposed that Rishi Prakash belongs to his family being his uncle. He has further deposed that he was not aware about the mobile number of accused Manoj. This witness did not support the case of the prosecution and during his cross examination by ld Additional P.P for State, this witness deposed that police had recorded his statement but he did not know the contents of the same. He denied the suggestion that in his statement Mark PW4/A, dated 07.11.2012, he stated to the police that accused Manoj was brother­in­law of Rishi(his uncle) and he was carrying mobile phone number 9990411240. He further denied the suggestion that accused Manoj used to talk to him on his mobile phone bearing No. 9990411240. On confrontation of his statement mark PW4/A by SC No. FIR no. 427/12 PS Narela State Vs Yashpal @ Sonu and another Page 29 of 71 ld Additional P.P for State, this witness deposed that he did not know the name of the subscriber of the mobile phone number 9990411240 and can not say whether the said mobile number was issued in the name of accused Manoj or somebody else. He deposed that he knows accused Manoj for last 2­3 years. He denied the suggestion of ld Additional P.P for State that he was deposing falsely due to the pressure of the other co­villagers and was deposing falsely despite the fact that he had often talked to accused Manoj on his mobile phone bearing No. 9990411240. This witness also denied the suggestion given by ld Additional P.P for State that he had talked to accused Manoj on his mobile phone number 9990411240 from his mobile phone number 9811121265 on 17.07.2012 at about 8.15 p.m, further on 19.07.2012 at 11.29 am and then at 1.03pm and then at 2.13 p.m, further on 20.07.2012 at 5.42 p.m then at 5.59 p.m, further on 22.07.2012 at about 7.54 p.m. After going though the call details mark X of his mobile phone, this witness deposed that he had talked to mobile phone number 9990411240 on 15.07.2012, 16.07.2012, 17.07.2012, 19.07.2012, 20.07.2012 and 22.07.2012 with one Rinku. He further deposed that said Rinku used to reside on rent but he did not know the house number of Rinku. He further deposed that said Rinku was working in a factory, but he did not know the name of the factory. This witness denied the suggestion given by ld Additional P.P for State that there was no person in the name of Rinku to whom he knew. He also denied that he had talked to accused Manoj on the said mobile number. He denied the suggestion that he had been won over by accused persons. Ld defence counsel opted not to cross examination this witness.

E) PW­5 Sh. Anshu deposed that he was running a shop of mobile sale purchase in the name and style Vasu Communication and had given SIM card to accused Yashpal. He has further deposed that on 30.11.2012, he had given SIM card. That one Rajesh had brought the ID, which was the elections I­card and had taken the SIM card bearing No. 9873632242. He further deposed that he knew accused Yashpal as he was residing in his neighbourhood and was of same SC No. FIR no. 427/12 PS Narela State Vs Yashpal @ Sonu and another Page 30 of 71 village. This witness identified the stamp of his shop on the photocopy of customer application and election I­card of Rajesh and admitted that same was given at the time of issuance of SIM card of aforementioned mobile phone. During his cross examination by ld defence counsel this witness answered to the question of ld defence counsel that they can also hand over the sim card to any other person who had brought the I­card of some other person. He has further deposed that he has not sold any sim card or handed over any sim card to accused Yashpal at any point of time.

F) PW­6, Sh. Yogesh Kumar, son of deceased Smt. Darshana Devi deposed that his mother used to reside with him alongwith other family members including his father, three brothers and their wives and children. He has further deposed that on 21.07.2012, his mother left the house and thereafter she did not come back. He has further deposed that since his mother used to go outside for attending Satsang, he thought that she had gone to Satsang. He has further deposed that on 23/24.07.2012, his wife informed him that on 21.07.2012, one lady had come to call his mother and thereafter he made a call on the mobile number of his mother, but same was found switched off. He has further deposed that they also made inquiries from the neighbourhood about the Satsang and they came to know that there was no Satsang in the area. That thereafter they made inquiry from their relatives about his mother. He has further deposed that they also thought that their mother had gone to the house of their maternal uncle and was not informing them deliberately due to mild altercation between his younger brother and his maternal uncle, but when their maternal uncle told that their mother is not with them, they went to many places to search their mother. He has further deposed that they even searched in many hospital at Delhi and Sonipat to check the unidentified dead bodies. He has further deposed that on 31.07.2012 and 01.08.2012 they also visited the local police but police asked them to search their mother. He has further deposed that thereafter on 05.08.2012 they made a call at 100 number and police lodged their complaint qua missing of his mother on SC No. FIR no. 427/12 PS Narela State Vs Yashpal @ Sonu and another Page 31 of 71 06.08.2012, which is got exhibited by him as Ex. PW6/A. He has further deposed that on 11.08.2012, ultimately police registered the present FIR on his complaint Ex. PW6/B. He has further deposed that his mother used to keep record of transactions committee as well as of the society in the register and during investigation he handed over the photocopy of the account diary of his mother particularly the amount of loan given by his mother to accused Yashpal and same was seized by the IO vide memo Ex. PW1/C. He has further deposed that his friend Joginder had visited his house on 18.08.2012 after seeing the news of death of his mother in the newspaper and he informed the complainant that on 21.07.2012 he saw Smt. Darshana Devi alongwith the accused persons in the Esteem car in question and on asking she told that she was going to her brother's house. He also produced the original account diary and came to prove the relevant page number of the diary as EX. P­1 to Ex. P­4. He has further deposed that his mother was running society as well as committee and in both the units accused Yashpal was a member and an amount of Rs. 14 lakhs was due against Yashpal. He further deposed that his mother was running society as well as committee and in both the units accused Yashpal was one of the member. He further deposed that as per diary of his mother, accused Yashpal had taken loan from his mother and account was maintained by his mother in a separate diary and produced the original diary of the year 1998, which was taken on record as Ex. PX1. He has further deposed that on 14.08.2012, IO of the case called him at Rohat and when he reached there he saw near the canal under inside a pit under the bushes decomposed body of his mother was recovered. He further deposed that his statement Ex. PW6/B was also recorded by police officials with regard to the identification of dead body. He further deposed that at that time the police officials of P.S Sonepat Haryana and accused Yashpal was also with them. He further deposed that after postmortem dead body was handed over to his brothers Arvind and Deepak. He has further deposed that on 11.10.2012, his blood sample was taken for the purpose of DNA test. He further deposed that his mother used to wear chain, bangles and ear­rings and she was also wearing the same articles SC No. FIR no. 427/12 PS Narela State Vs Yashpal @ Sonu and another Page 32 of 71 when she went from the house on 21.07.2012.

During cross examination this witness deposed that he did not remember the exact number of his statement recorded by police and deposed that police recorded his statement first time on 08 th or 09th August 2012 regarding missing of his mother. He further deposed that he gave his complaint to the police on 06.08.2012, which was recorded by the police in DD register. He has admitted that he had not raise suspicion on any one in his complaint dated 06.08.2012 or in his statement dated 08th or 09th August 2012. He further deposed that he neither told to the police in any of his statement that he suspected that accused persons kidnapped or committed murder of his mother, nor their names were given by him. He further deposed that he found the record of accounts of committees(chit fund), which was maintained by his mother till 11.08.2012, except her diary. He further deposed that he did not mention in the missing report Ex. PW6/A that his mother had gone with an unknown lady on 21.07.2012 and voluntarily said that since police was not recording his complaint to the effect that his mother had gone with some unknown lady, he made a call to the police at 100 number on 05.08.2012 in the evening time from his mobile phone or from mobile phone of his brother. During cross examination of this witness, on the pointing out of ld defence counsel that inadvertently two documents I.e complaint dated 11.08.2012 and statement of witness Yogesh dated 14.08.2012 has been given same exhibit number I.e Ex. PW6/B and in view of the same, it was ordered that statement dated 14.08.2012 shall be read as Ex. PW6/B1.

During cross examination this witness deposed that he had not mentioned in any of his statement to the police during investigation of this case that at that time, he thought that his mother will be at his maternal uncle namely Inderpal's house as Raksha Bandan festival was near. He further deposed that since there was some mild altercation between his younger brother and his maternal uncle on some issues, they thought that their mother was angry with them due to which she was not talking with them. He further deposed that for this reason they did not take it seriously and did not report the matter to the police. He further SC No. FIR no. 427/12 PS Narela State Vs Yashpal @ Sonu and another Page 33 of 71 deposed that his material uncle Inderpal might have visited their house on 29/30 July, 2012 and informed that his mother is not at their home. He further deposed that even thereafter upto 05.08.2012 he or his family member did not make any complaint regarding missing of his mother and voluntarily said that they visited to the P.S. He further deposed that he did not meet with any higher police officials for complaining that police officials are not recording complaint of missing of his mother. He further deposed that he went to different Deras including Sirsa where his mother used to visit for satsang. He further deposed that he went to Sirsa on 02.08.12 and prior to that he had visited many other dera I.e Dyas near Gannaur and also in Dera in Delhi. He further deposed that he had also visited to Aligarh U.P to some person who predict about the lost persons in search of his mother. He further deposed that he had not mentioned in his statement Ex. PW6/A and PW6/B that his maternal uncle came to their house and told that his mother was not with him and that we should made sincere efforts to search our mother since at that time they thought that his maternal uncle was joking and their mother was with their maternal uncle. He further deposed that ultimately they realized that his maternal uncle was serious about their mother, thereafter they went to many places to search his mother including the hospital of Delhi and Sonepat. He further deposed that he had not mentioned in any of his statement that they also visited to police station probably on 31.07.2012 or 01.08.2012, but police did not lodge any report and asked them to search their mother on its own. He has denied the suggestion of ld defence counsel that his mother was not having much talking terms with his father and she did not share her affairs with his father. He further deposed that he had told about the finding of account register to his father and he had taken the said register to the police station on 11.08.2012 and on the same day it was handed over to the police. He further deposed that he had given the photocopies of the diary to the police on 18.08.2012, but police did not take the original diary on the pretext that he may produce the same in the Court. He further deposed that he knew PW Joginder since 2010 as they both were taking coaching from the same institute so they become friends. He further deposed that Joginder SC No. FIR no. 427/12 PS Narela State Vs Yashpal @ Sonu and another Page 34 of 71 used to visit his house frequently before missing of his mother. He further deposed that after missing of his mother Joginder first time met him at his house on 18.08.2012 and in between Joginder neither visited his house nor met him. He further deposed that he was having phone number 9891475895 during that period. He further deposed that Joginder had purchased the mobile phone first time on 23.08.2013 and prior to that he was not having any mobile number. He further deposed that he never contacted Joginder on any mobile number. He further deposed that his mother was graduate lady and was having bank account in SBI Branch, Bawana. He further deposed that police never demanded or inquire about the specimen signature and writing of his mother. He further deposed that he was in the possession of letters written by his mother addressed to his maternal grand father. He further deposed that he also shown the same to the police official but same were not taken on the record. He admitted that his mother had not left the house on 21.07.2012 in his presence. He denied the suggestion of ld defence counsel that since his entire family was not having good cordial relation with his mother so they did not care whether she was at home or away. This witness has also denied the suggestion that he had fabricated the account register and diary on his own in order to falsely implicate the accused in this case. He has also denied the suggestion of ld defence counsel that his friend had not come to his home on 21.07.2012 and he falsely introduced him to the police as a witness of the last seen after persuading him to become a false witness. He also denied the suggestion of ld defence counsel that he deliberately not provided the phone number of Joginder in order to avoid the falsification of their claim of last seen by the CDR. He also denied the suggestion of ld defence counsel that accused Yashpal was not present at the place of recovery of the dead body and for this reason he did not mention the said fact in his statement. He denied the suggestion that recovery of ear­ring and gold chain were planted upon the accused as the said gold items were belonging to his wife and were provided by him to the police in order to create false evidence against the accused. He has also denied the suggestion that he alongwith his family members were annoyed with the accused persons as his SC No. FIR no. 427/12 PS Narela State Vs Yashpal @ Sonu and another Page 35 of 71 mother was not having talking terms with them and accused persons were in talking terms with his mother against their wishes.

G) PW­7 Sh. Joginder Singh deposed that on 21.07.2012, he had visited the house of Yogesh situated in the village Sannot. He further deposed that at the bus stop of village Sannot he saw the mother of Yogesh sitting on the back seat of Maruti Esteem car of silver colour. He has further deposed that he knew mother of Yogesh since he had visited house of Yogesh several times being his friend. He further deposed that accused Yashpal was driving the car and co­accused Manoj was sitting alongwith the accused Yashpal in the front seat. He has further deposed that on being asking Smt. Darshana Devi told him that she was going to her brother house at village Majri and accused persons will drop her there. He further deposed that thereafter I went to the house of Yogesh and his wife informed that Yogesh is not at home and he went back to his house. He further deposed that thereafter he went to Chennai for giving examination of SSC, CGL from where he came back on 3­4.08.2012 and went to his native place at Riwari and came back from there after 3­4 days. He further deposed that on 17.08.2012 he came to know about murder of mother of Yogesh through newspaper and thereafter he went to the house of Yogesh and told them that on 21.07.2012, he had seen the mother of Yogesh in Maruti Esteem car with two persons. He further deposed that on the next day he and Yogesh came to the police station and told one police official about seeing the mother of Yogesh on 21.07.2012 with two persons. He further deposed that he had seen accused Manoj prior to the day of deposition( 29.08.2013) in the Rohini Court Complex on 16.10.2012 and told to SI Meena that he was the same person whom he had seen with mother of Yogesh on 21.07.2012 in the Maruti Esteem car with accused Yashpal and SI Meena recorded his statement to this effect on the same day.

During cross examination, this witness deposed that he joined Pawan Kumar Institute in June, 2010 and Yogesh(son of the deceased) also joined the said institute in the same batch. He further deposed that during the SC No. FIR no. 427/12 PS Narela State Vs Yashpal @ Sonu and another Page 36 of 71 coaching period, he resided in Nehru Vihar in a rented accommodation. He further deposed that Yogesh never visited his rented room as they usually met at the coaching center. He further deposed that Yogesh never visited his parental house during coaching period. He further deposed that his statement was recorded by police on 18.08.2012 at about 10/11 a.m. He further deposed that he read the newspaper on 17.08.2012 in the evening. He further deposed that he did not meet Yogesh on 17.08.2012 and only met him on 18.08.2012 in the morning at his house. He further deposed that he did not have any conversation on phone or on physical meeting with Yogesh from 21.07.2012 till morning of 18.08.2012. He further deposed that the he did not hand over the newspaper of 17.08.2012 to the police and can not say whether police had asked for the same. He further deposed that he was not sure whether name of the village of lady Darshana was mentioned in the newspaper or not and he had suspected that she was mother of Yogesh after seeing the photograph in the said newspaper. He further deposed that he had stated to the police in his statement Ex. PW7/DA that mother of Yogesh met at bus stop of villge Sannot. He further deposed that when he saw mother of Yogesh sitting in the car, the same was at a slow speed and was almost stationed. He further deposed that he had stopped his motorcycle after seeing the mother of Yogesh. He further deposed that driver of the Maruti car in which mother of Yogesh was sitting also stopped the car and they talked when both the vehicles were in stationed position. He further deposed that when he asked to mother of Yogesh "aunti kaha ja rahe ho, she told that she was going to mama's house. He further deposed that aunti did not tell him that Yogesh is not at home. He further deposed that he did not has any mobile phone prior to his visiting to Chennai. He further deposed that he came to Rohini court on 16.10.2012 for making some affidavit with regard to taking Internet connection from MTS/Airtel. He further deposed that he had seen the accused on 16.10.2012 on the entrance of gate of the Court towards lock­up. He has denied the suggestion of ld defence counsel that he had not visited the house of Yogesh at village Sannot on 21.07.2012. He has also denied that he had not seen the mother of Yogesh in the company of SC No. FIR no. 427/12 PS Narela State Vs Yashpal @ Sonu and another Page 37 of 71 accused persons on that day. He has also denied that he had not come in Rohini Court on 16.10.2012 and had not identified accused Manoj. He has denied that he become a false witness in this case only at the asking of his friend Yogesh. He further denied that he made false statement on 18.08.2012 to the police as per the instructions of his friend Yogesh. He further denied that he has fabricated a false story of coming to Rohini Court on 16.10.2012 for preparation of affidavit. He further denied that even in Chennai he was in regular touch with his friend Yogesh.

H) PW­9 Sh. Ranbir Singh owner of the shop under the name and style of Dull Body parts deposed that on 21.07.2012, two persons came to his shop on foot and purchased the rear right side window glass of Esteem car. He identified the accused persons in the Court who had brought the widow glass from him. He further deposed that during investigation police taken into possession the copy of sale record book vide memo Ex. PW9/A bearing his signature at point A. He also produced the original daily sale record register ad proved the copy of the same as EX. P9/A(OSR). During his evidence in the Court, he also identified the rear side window glass of Esteem car in question bearing No. DL6CH9542 produced by the MHC(M) concerned to be the glass of Atul Company and came to prove the same as Ex. PW9/B and Esteem car was also identified by as Ex. PW9/C. During cross examination this witness deposed that he used to repair the tractors of village including Narela, Bakner, Safibad, Gogha, Sonepat, Khera etc. He further deposed that he had never repair any tractor of village Sannot, however tractors of village Jatti used to come. He further deposed that village Sannoth was far away from village Jatti. He further deposed that he did not know whether accused Yashpal was doing the business of carrying mud by tractor trolley during the time of his business of repairing tractors. He further deposed that he know Jora Pradhan, who was his co­villager. He further deposed that he has visiting terms with Jora and his family and he(Jora) also used to visit his house. He further deposed that they used to attend functions of each other marriage and he still has good relations with Jora. He further deposed that he know that brother­ SC No. FIR no. 427/12 PS Narela State Vs Yashpal @ Sonu and another Page 38 of 71 in­law of Jora was accused in this case. He further deposed that Jora used to refer tractors at his aforementioned shop for repair. He further deposed that all the tractors which were used to send by Jora for repair, their billing were made in the account of Jora. He further deposed that Jora used to send the tractors through drivers, their relatives, brother and his brother­in­law Pawan. He further deposed that said Pawan is resident of village Sannoth. He further deposed that accused Yashpal brother of Pawan resident of Sannoth never visited to his tractor repairing shop. He further deposed that he did not know who are sons of victim in this case. He further deposed that he did not even know the name of the husband of the victim. He further deposed that he never exchanged any telephonic call with the family members of victim at any point of time. He further deposed that he did not know the particulars of their family members. He further deposed that when accused came to purchase the glass from him on 21.07.2012, one of them came inside his shop and other remained outside the shop and he can not tell which of the accused came inside the shop and which one remained outside the shop since he did not know their names. He further deposed that he had stated to the police in his statement to the police that he sold the glass of Esteem car of company Atul and has also stated to the police that he can identify the glass sold by him, but on confrontation of the statement Ex. PW9/DA, it was not found to be so recorded therein. He further deposed that he had mentioned the sale transactions of only one mother of July, 2012 in the book brought by him. He further deposed that he used to sell the glasses of company I.e Atul Goldplus, XYG. He further deposed that the Esteem car rear glass comes from 10/15 companies available in the market and he keeps four company's glasses out of 10­15 companies. He further deposed that Atul was very popular brand in the market for Esteem car glasses. He further deposed that all the entries made in Ex. PW9/A were in his handwriting. He further deposed that he did not mention in Ex. PW9/A that the window glass was of the company Atul. He further deposed that he has not mentioned the name of person who purchased the said glass. He further deposed that he did not mention the colour of car, model of the car and other particulars of the car in Ex.

SC No. FIR no. 427/12 PS Narela State Vs Yashpal @ Sonu and another Page 39 of 71

PW9/A. PW­9 denied the suggestion given by ld defence counsel that accused Yashpal used to visit his shop for repairing his tractor with his brother Pawan. He has also denied that he is deliberately not identifying the accused Yashpal as he is real brother­in­law of Jora and younger brother of Pawan. He has also denied that he had quarrel with accused Yashpal over the money for repair of tractor 5­6 years back. He has also denied that Jora had advised him to return the money for repair of tractor to accused Yashpal. He has also denied that due to said reason, he started having enimical relation with Jora, Pawan and Yashpal and he stopped talking to Jora Pradhan in this regard. He also denied that he also know Arvind, s/o victim and he(Arvind) used to visit his tractor shop with Pawan and Yashpal. He has also denied that after the death of victim, he deliberately become witness in this case at the instance of Arvind and Yogesh.

He further deposed that photocopy of the book of the sale transactions of July, 2012 is Ex. PW9/DX1. He further denied that after death of victim in this case, he prepared Ex. PW9/DX1 and Ex. PW9/A in order to create false evidence. He also denied that no sale transactions as mentioned in Ex. PW9/A was done by him on 21.07.2012. He has also denied that he mentioned the names of both the accused in statement dated 16.08.2012 Ex. PW9/DA at point A to A. He has also denied that he has been knowing to accused Yashpal since 1994 and deliberately not identifying him today.

I) PW­10 Sh. Ramesh Kumar deposed that on 21.07.2012 two persons came to his workshop with their Esteem car of Silver colour. He has further deposed that they have brought one rear right side window glass with them and asked him to change the same. He further deposed that his denter(worker) whose name was Narender changed the same. He further deposed that he can not identify the accused persons since it was night time. He further deposed that he also could not note the number of Esteem car.

During his cross examination by ld Additional P.P for State, this witness deposed that police had not recorded his statement and voluntarily stated SC No. FIR no. 427/12 PS Narela State Vs Yashpal @ Sonu and another Page 40 of 71 that his denter(worker)was investigated and his statement might have been recorded. He further deposed that police had not told the name of two persons brought by them. He denied that police recorded his statement and same was Mark PW10/A. He denied that police brought accused Yashpal and Manoj with them on 16.08.2012 and recorded his statement. He admitted that police has recorded his statement and not recorded the statement of his denter Narender.

J) PW­11 Sh. Arvind Kumar is also son of the deceased. He has deposed on the lines of PW­6 Sh. Yogesh Kumar hence same is not reproduced herein for the shake of brevity. He came to prove his statement given to the police as Ex. PW11/A and also identified handwriting of his deceased mother on Ex. P­1 to Ex. P­4. He further deposed that he also told the police on inquiry that mobile number 9873632242 was of accused Yashpal as on previous one occasion, said accused had made call from this number on the mobile phone number 9212182060 of his his mother, which was attended by him and accused asked him to give the phone to his mother as he wanted to talk to her. He further deposed that Ex. P1 to Ex. P4 are in the handwriting of his mother as he had seen his mother writing many times and it was his mother who had taught him to write during his childhood.

During cross examination by ld respective defence counsels, this witness deposed that his mother was house wife and she was not having any independent source of income. He further deposed that he did not tell the police about the names of the members of the committee/society or about the amount of different loan transactions concerning the said committee/society. He further deposed that he did not know about the exact details of the transactions of accused Yashpal in the said committee/society and voluntarily stated that on perusal of Ex. P1 to Ex. P4 revealed that total sum of Rs. 14 lakhs was due towards accused Yashpal including the loan amount borrowed by him from the said committee/society and the subscription of committee, interest amount etc. He further deposed that his mother used to run the said committee independently SC No. FIR no. 427/12 PS Narela State Vs Yashpal @ Sonu and another Page 41 of 71 and sometime she used to tell the family members about the names of the persons to whom loan had been advanced from funds of the said committee. He further deposed that his statement was recorded first time by SI Kamal Singh on 13.08.2012. He further deposed that all the facts deposed by him during his chief examination except the factum regarding identification of the dead body of his mother on 14.08.2012, were within his knowledge on 13.08.2012. He further deposed that he did not tell the police on 13.08.2012 that photocopies of relevant pages of diary were in the handwriting of his mother and voluntarily stated that police did not ask him about this fact from him on that day. He further deposed that Ex. P1 to Ex. P4 were handed over to the police on 18.08.2012. He further deposed that he did not give any statement to the police on 18.08.2012 and voluntarily stated that police did not ask him to give any statement on that day and further stated that it was on 08.11.2012, when police had recorded his statement in this regard. He further deposed that he had told to the police in his statement Ex. PW11/A that he had identified dead body of his mother on the basis of artificial denture, but on confrontation with statement Ex. PW11/A, it was not found so recorded in such a manner, however it was mentioned in the statement that witness has identified the dead body on account of its jabra. He has denied that suggestion that bangles of read colour worn by the deceased were commonly available in the open market and voluntarily stated that his mother used to wear special type of bangles and thereafter he deposed that he could have identified those bangles as he had seen those bangles being worn by his mother regularly during her life time. He further deposed that he did not remember the date or month but it was in the year 2012, when he received the phone call of accused Yashpal. He further deposed that since they were not suspecting the involvement of accused Yashpal, he did not tell the factum regarding receipt of call from accused Yashpal to the police at the time when his statement was first time recorded. He further deposed that he also did not tell about the said fact to the police even on 14.08.2012 and voluntarily stated that it was not asked from him. This witness denied that suggestion of ld defence counsel that he did not do so SC No. FIR no. 427/12 PS Narela State Vs Yashpal @ Sonu and another Page 42 of 71 since no such call was made by accused Yashpal to him. He also denied the suggestion that accused Yashpal is not having any mobile phone number 9873632242 or that he has concocted a story in this regard.

This witness further deposed that he did not remember whether Puran(PW­2) met him between 15.04.2013 to 06.01.2014 and denied the suggestion of ld defence counsel he invited said Puran at his house on 05.01.2014. He further denied that on 05.01.2014 he asked Puran to give favorable statement in this case on 06.01.2014. He further denied the suggestion that Puran accompanied him to Rohini Court on 06.01.2014. He has denied that he did not visit village Rohat Pull, Sonepat on 14.08.2012. He further denied that police official namely SI Satender Vashist was previously known to them or that in collusion with said SI Satender Vashisht they had concocted a false story of recovery of dead­body and other incriminating articles. He further denied that they did not inform IO or concerned S.H.O of P.S Narela, about the proceedings of 14.08.2012 as all the proceedings were false and concocted. He further denied that he did not identify the dead­body of his mother at the time, date, place and in the manner as deposed by him during chief examination. He further denied that he signed his statement Ex. PW11/A, while sitting in the police station.

K) PW­12 HC Yogesh Kumar deposed that on 14.08.2012 he joined the investigation of this case with SI Satender Vashist, HC Surender, HC Ravinder, HC Hari Chand and Ct. Ajay Pal. He has further deposed that the mobile phone bearing No. 9212182060 was put in surveillance and from the CDR record of the said number it was revealed that many calls have been made and received between aforementioned mobile number and mobile number 9873632242, which was being used by one Yash Pal @ Sonu. That in connection of the investigation they reached at village Sannoth and when they were present at main Narela Road accused Yash Pal @ Sonu met them. That SI Satyender Vashist showed the CDR record to the accused asked from him about the same, initially accused aggressively answered but later on he deposed about his role alongwith co­ SC No. FIR no. 427/12 PS Narela State Vs Yashpal @ Sonu and another Page 43 of 71 accused Manoj in commission of the offence. He further deposed that on formal search of the accused Sim card of the mobile number of the Yashpal was recovered from the right side pocket of his wearing pant and from the backside pocket on receipt of Muthoot Finance was recovered. He further deposed that SI Satyender took into possession the SIM card vide seizure memo Ex. PW12/A and receipt of Muthoot Finance was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex. PW12/B. Accused was arrested vide arrest memo Ex. PW12/C, his personal search was taken vide memo Ex. PW12/D and his disclosure statement was recorded vide memo Ex. PW12/E. He further deposed that on the disclosure statement of accused, police party led by the accused reached at Rohat village, Sonipat and on the pointing out of accused dead body of deceased was got recovered from a ditch near the river. He further deposed that dead body was in decomposed condition and son of the deceased was called who identified the dead body. He further deposed that IO made pointing out memo and recovery of dead body as Ex. PW12/F. He further deposed that IO also called ASI Dalbir and HC Jasbir of P.S Sadar and handed over the dead body to the aforementioned police official. He further deposed that thereafter they returned back to village Sannot where on the pointing out of accused Yashpal @ Sonu, his co­accused Manoj was arrested vide memo Ex. PW12/G, his personal search was taken vide memo Ex. PW12/H and his disclosure statement was recorded vide memo Ex. PW12/J. He further deposed that accused persons also got recovered the Esteem car used in the commission of offence. During his testimony in the Court he identified the SIM card of the mobile number and the receipt of Muthoot Finance recovered from the possession of accused Yashpal as Ex. P12/1 and Ex. P12/2. He also came to prove the photograph of Esteem car in question as EX. P12/3(colly).

During cross examination this witness deposed that he did not have any knowledge as to since when mobile number 9212182060 was put on surveillance and deposed that even he was not aware as to who passed the orders for putting the afore­said phone on surveillance. He further deposed that he did SC No. FIR no. 427/12 PS Narela State Vs Yashpal @ Sonu and another Page 44 of 71 not carry out any analysis of the calls having been made from the afore­said mobile since it was HC Surender who conducted the surveillance on the afore­said mobile. He further deposed that he had stated in his statement Ex. PW12/DA that mobile number 9873632242 was being used by accused Yashpal @ Sonu and on confrontation it was not found so recorded. He further deposed that he did not know as to in whose name the said mobile number 9873632242 was issued and in his presence no document of ownership of the afore­said mobile number was seized by SI Satender Vashist. He further deposed that he had stated in his statement Ex. PW12/DA that they started from their office at 1.30 p.m on 14.08.2012 and on confrontation it was found that no time of starting from the office was found mentioned. He further deposed that he had stated in his statement Ex. PW12/DA that a SIM card was recovered from the right side pocket of pant worn by accused Yashpal and on confrontation it was found that it was not mentioned therein. He further deposed that they are using two private cars, but he was not aware about the registration number of the same. He further deposed that nearby village was not visible from the place of recovery of the dead body. He further deposed that he had stated in his statement Ex. PW12/DA that after finishing the recovery proceedings of the dead body they returned back to village Sannoth and on the pointing out of accused Yashpal @ Sonu, accused Manoj was arrested, but on confrontation it was found not so mentioned in Ex. PW12/DA. He further deposed that accused Manoj was arrested from near Govt. dispensary. He further deposed that they had not noticed if any watchman/security guard was available at the government dispensary. He further deposed that they informed the police officials of P.S Narela regarding the arrest of accused Yashpal @ Sonu at the time when they deposited the case property in Malkhana of P.S Narela. He further deposed that dead body had already been recovered by the time, complainant Yogesh reached there. He further deposed that he had mentioned in his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C Ex. PW 12/DA from point A to A1 that both the persons pointed out the place of occurrence and the place of throwing of dead body and got the dead­ body recovered. He further deposed that after arrest accused Manoj also made SC No. FIR no. 427/12 PS Narela State Vs Yashpal @ Sonu and another Page 45 of 71 disclosure statement in the identical lines of the disclosure statement made by accused Yashpal @ Sonu. He further deposed that in his disclosure statement accused Manoj had disclosed the place of occurrence as well as the place of throwing away the dead body. He further clarified that dead body was not got recovered at the instance of accused Manoj as it had already been recovered prior to his arrest.

L) PW­14 Sh. Rajeev Ranjan Nodal Officer of Tata Tele deposed that he had brought the CAF, CDR and location ID chart in respect of mobile number 9212182060, registered in the name of Smt. Darshana Devi. He came to prove the certified copy of CAF alongwith copy of election I­Card of the deceased as Ex. PW14/A, certified copy of call details of the above said mobile number for the period 15.07.2012 till 22.07.2012(running into three pages) as Ex. PW14/B, certified copy of cell ID location chart of the said mobile number as Ex. PW14/C and certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act as Ex. PW14/D. During cross examination this witness deposed that there is separate division which looks after the work of verification of the address mentioned in CAF and that is why he cannot say if verification of address mentioned in EX. PW14/A was got done or not. He further deposed that it is not always necessary that verification report of the address mentioned in CAF is annexed alongwith CAF itself and voluntarily deposed that verification is carried only in case of postpaid connection and sometimes the verification report are also annexed with CAF. He has denied the suggestion of ld defence counsel that range of tower is approximately 15­20 km or even 5­10 km and voluntarily deposed that as far as he understand, the range of one tower is approximately 700­800 meters. He has denied the suggestion given by ld defence counsel that CAF Ex. PW14/A was not available in the record of the company or that Ex.PW14/A to Ex. PW14/D have been fabricated by him at the instance of the IO of the case.

M) PW­15 Ms. Ritu daughter­in­law of the deceased deposed that on SC No. FIR no. 427/12 PS Narela State Vs Yashpal @ Sonu and another Page 46 of 71 21.07.2012 in the noon hours while she alongwith her sister­in­law(Jethani) namely Smt. Bindu were present at their home, one unknown lady called her mother­in­law Smt. Darshana Devi and upon her call their mother­in­law left the home. She further deposed that their mother­in­law did not disclose as to where she was going and they thought that their mother­in­law had gone to attend some Satsang as usual. She has further deposed that as she has been advised bed rest due to pregnancy, her husband Yogesh took her to her parental house from where she came back to her inlaws house on 23.07.2012 and she came to know that her mother­in­law has not returned back. The further deposition of this witness is also on the lines of PW­6 and PW­11, sons of the deceased hence same is not reproduced herein for the shake of brevity. She further deposed that during investigation she participated in the judicial TIP and identified the gold chain and pair of ear rings of her mother­in­law. She also identified the said articles when the same were produced in the Court by the MHC(M) during the testimony of this witness.

During cross examination by ld defence counsel this witness deposed that she used to reside in the same house alongwith her mother­in­law and on 21.07.2012, when one unknown lady called her mother­in­law, she had not inquired from her mother­in­law as to where she was going and voluntarily stated that she was in a family way at that time and was under bed rest. She further deposed that she had not specifically told police in her statement about the design/weight/size of the wearing jewellery of her mother­in­law and further deposed that she had seen her mother­in­law generally wearing the gold chain and ear­rings in the house and that is why she identified the same in judicial TIP. She further deposed that her father­in­law used to work at gehr/plot and denied the suggestion that her father­in­law used to reside in the said gehr/plot and voluntarily stated that he used to reside with them. She further deposed that they were having four kitchens in their house I.e one kitchen each for three brothers and one kitchen for her parents in laws. On Court question that can she tell the name of the friend who had visited their house on 21.07.2012, this witness replied his name SC No. FIR no. 427/12 PS Narela State Vs Yashpal @ Sonu and another Page 47 of 71 was Joginder. She denied the suggestion that since her mother­in­law was favouring her brother against their family members so they were not having talking terms with her mother­in­law.

N) PW­18 Dr. Kuldeep Panchal, Sr. Resident Department of Forensic Medicine, Lady Harding Medical College, New Delhi deposed that on 15.08.2012, he conducted postmortem on the dead body of deceased alongwith Dr. Anil Kumar Malik. He came to prove his report as Ex. PW18/A. During cross examination by ld counsel for accused Manoj, this witness admitted that skeletiontized body was received for examination. He further deposed that it could be an accidental death and voluntarily deposed that death could be in any manner(suicidal, homicidal and accidental). He also admitted that no opinion has been given in PM report Ex. PW18/A as to whether the manner of death of deceased Darshna was homicidal or not and voluntarily stated that it was not possible to do so.

O) PW­22 Ms. Bindu deposed that on 21.07.2012, in the noon hours she alongwith her Devrani namely Ms. Ritu was present at her house when one unknown lady called their mother­in­law. She further deposed that they thought that their mother­in­law had gone to attend Satsang. She further deposed that since earlier also their mother­in­law used to leave the house for 2­3 days they waited upto 24.07.2012. She further deposed on the lines of her Devrani PW Ms. Ritu hence the further testimony is not reproduced herein for the shake of brevity. She further deposed that on 17.09.2012, she participated in judicial TIP of the case property and deposed that during the said TIP, among the various chains and ear­rings, she identified the gold chain and ear­rings belonging to her mother­in­ law. She came to prove the proceedings of judicial TIP conducted before ld M.M as Ex. PW22/A. During her cross examination this witness deposed that she herself did not tell the police at any point of time prior to recovery of dead body of her SC No. FIR no. 427/12 PS Narela State Vs Yashpal @ Sonu and another Page 48 of 71 mother­in­law that she was wearing chain and ear­rings while she had left the house on that day. She voluntarily deposed that her mother­in­law always used to wear the said ornaments during normal time. She further deposed that so far as she remember there were about 8­9 different types and different designs of chains and earrings besides the case property put before her in judicial TIP by the Court. She further deposed that she did not join any other kind of proceedings concerning investigation of this case, after 13.08.2012.

P) PW­25 Ct. Jagjit deposed that on 17.08.2012, IO of the case in his presence got inspected the Esteem car bearing No. DL­6CH­9542 parked in the Malkhana of P.S from the crime team officials. He further deposed that SI Anil Kumar Incharge of Crime team inspected the said car and on his instance the piece of back seat of the car having blood stains were kept in a pullinda. IO also got separated the inner door cover of back left side door of the said car and kept in a separate cloth pullinda. Both the pullindas were sealed with the seal of AJ and taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex. PW25/A. During his evidence in the Court when MHC(M) produced both the pullindas in the Court, the said witness identified and got exhibited the back seat as EX.PW25/1 and the back side door as EX. PW25/2.

During cross examination this witness denied that no inspection was carried out by the crime team officials in his presence. He denied the suggestion of ld defence counsel that he named accused Yashpal and Manoj at the instance of IO.

Q) PW­28 SI Dalbir Singh of P.S Sadar, deposed that on 14.08.2012 SI Satinder Vashist alongwith his staff and accused Yashpal @ Sonu visited to P.S Sadar regarding investigation of the present case. He further deposed that SI Surender lodged his arrival entry in the Roznamcha of P.S Sadar. Thereafter he alongwith HC Jasmer joined the investigation of this case. He further deposed that accused Yashpal led them to near a bridge of river at Rohat Village and pointed SC No. FIR no. 427/12 PS Narela State Vs Yashpal @ Sonu and another Page 49 of 71 out a place towards near the Sarkari Diggi. He further deposed that from inside the bushes accused Yashpal got recovered a decomposed dead body. He further deposed that dead body was partially eaten by animals. He further deposed that accused Yashpal disclosed that he alongwith co­accused Manoj after committing murder of Smt. Darshana robbed her gold chain and ear rings and and dumped her body in the said place. He further deposed that thereafter sons of the deceased were also called for the purpose of identification of the dead body and Sh. Yogresh elder son of the deceased identified the dead body to be of his mother. He further deposed that since the dead body was found within the jurisdiction of P.S Sadar, SI Satender directed me to for conducting the proceedings u/s 174 Cr.P.C. He further deposed that he recorded statement of Sh. Yogesh, made endorsement Ex. PW28/A on the said statement and handed over the rukka to HC Jasmer for making entry in the Roznamcha of P.S Sadar. He further deposed that HC Jasmer went to P.S Sadar, got lodged DD No. 45B, dated 14.08.2012, returned back to the spot and handed over the copy of said DD to him. He further deposed that he also recorded statement of Arvind and Deepak who accompanied Yogesh at the place of recovery and came to prove the statement of Deepak as Ex. PW28/B. He further deposed that he also filled Form No. 25.35(1)(B) and proved the same as Ex. PW28/C. He further deposed that he also made site plan of the place of recovery of the dead body and came to prove the same as Ex. PW28/D. He further deposed that he lifted eight bangles which were on the right hand of the deceased, one chappal of yellow colour, the salwar of biscuit brown colour and kept them in a cloth pullida, sealed the same with seal of DS and seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW28/E. He further deposed that on 15.08.2012 he moved an application Ex. PW28/F to Medical Officer, Government Hospital, Sonipat for conducting the postmortem on the dead body of the deceased, but the concerned doctor referred the body to PGIMS, Rohtak and thereafter he moved another application Ex. PW28/H for conducting the postmortem before PGIMS Rohtak. He further deposed that after postmortem the concerned doctor handed over to him the postmortem report and one pullinda sealed with the seal of concerned SC No. FIR no. 427/12 PS Narela State Vs Yashpal @ Sonu and another Page 50 of 71 doctor/hospital, containing one bone of deceased for the purpose of DNA and two sample seals of similar specimen, which were seized by him vide seizure memo Ex. PW28/J. He further deposed that after postmortem dead body was handed over to the family members of the deceased.

During cross examination this witness deposed that SI Satender Vashist reached at PS Sadr at about 6.30 p.m on 14.08.2012 and he made an arrival entry in DD register vide DD No. 39. He further deposed that SI Satender Vashist come directly from Special Branch Delhi to PS Sadar and thereafter he proceeded to place where the dead body was recovered. He admitted that in DD No. 39, it was not mentioned that SI Satender Vashist was accompanied with accused Yashpal. He also admitted that so far as DD No. 45, dated 14.08.2012 was concerned, it was no where mentioned that SI Satender Vashist was accompanied with accused Yashpal. He further deposed that it was accused Yashpal who had disclosed him that the dead body of Smt. Darshana Devi was lying near village Rohat Canal and he could not get the said dead body recovered, however he did not mention the said fact in DD No. 39 or DD No. 45 of any other document. He further deposed that he did not do so at that time as he preferred first to accompany the said accused to go to the place disclosed by the accused and to recover the dead body, if any, therefrom. He further deposed that proceedings u/s 174 Cr.P.C were conducted by him and he had not mentioned the name of accused Yashpal. He further deposed that since he had not obtained the signature of accused Yashpal anywhere in the proceedings u/s 174 Cr.P.C, he can not identify the signature of accused Yashpal. He further deposed that accused Yashpal had signed the seizure memo as Ex. PW12/F in his presence.

R) PW­33 Sh. Saurabh Aggarwal Nodal Officer of Vodafone Mobile Services deposed that as per the customer application Form the mobile number 9873632242 was issued in the name of Rajesh, s/o Sh. Ramavriksh. He has produced the original CAF form and came to prove the copy of the same as Ex.

SC No. FIR no. 427/12 PS Narela State Vs Yashpal @ Sonu and another Page 51 of 71

PW33/A and copy of election I­Card of Rajesh is proved by him as Ex. PW33/B and CDR of the above said mobile phone for the period 17.07.2012 till 22.07.2012 as EX.PW33/C. He also came to prove the certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act as Ex. PW 33/D and Cell ID chart of the mobile phone as Ex. PW33/E. During cross examination this witness admitted that record of CDR is maintained for a period of one year and voluntarily deposed that in case any CDR was being generated at the request of investigating agency, print out of the said CDR can be taken out at any time.

S) PW­36 Sh. Amar Nath Singh Nodal Officer of Idea Cellular Limited deposed that as per the customer application Form the mobile number 9990411240 was issued in the name of Harish Rana, s/o Sh. Sukhpal. He has produced the original CAF form and got exhibited the copy of the same as Ex. PW36/A(OSR) and copy of election I­Card of Harish Rana is got exhibited by him as Ex. PW36/B and CDR of the above said mobile phone for the period 15.07.2012 till 22.07.2012 as EX.PW36/C. He also came to prove the certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act as Ex. PW 36/D and Cell ID chart of the mobile phone as Ex. PW36/E. T) PW­37 Inspector(Retired) Kamal Singh deposed that on 11.08.2012 the investigation of the present case was marked to him after registration of FIR. He has further deposed that he collected the copy of FIR and original rukka from the duty officer. He has further deposed that on the same day he met with HC Sukhbir who produced the documents regarding missing report of Smt. Darshana and he recorded statement of HC Sukhbir u/s 161 Cr.P.C. He further deposed about the investigation conducted by him in the present case on 12.08.2012, 13.08.2012, 15.08.2012. He further deposed that on 15.08.2012, DD No. 18A was lodged at P.S Narela by SI Satender Vashisht of Special Staff, Outer District and investigation of the present case was taken up by Inspector Abhinendra Jain, the then SHO, Narela. He further deposed that on the same day he accompanied SC No. FIR no. 427/12 PS Narela State Vs Yashpal @ Sonu and another Page 52 of 71 Inspector Abhinendra Jain to the office of Special Staff at Awantika, Rohini, Delhi. He further deposed that IO Inspector Abhinendra Jain collected the relevant documents regarding arrest of accused Yashpal @ Sonu and Manoj prepared by special staff.

During cross examination this witness deposed that that he had stated to the IO in his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C that both the accused persons were arrested by the IO from the concerned Court after taking permission from Ld M.M, but on confrontation with statement Ex. PW37/DA, this fact was not found so recorded therein. He admitted that Sh. Raj Singh in his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C had stated before him that he was not in regular talking terms with his wife and he was not residing with her. He further deposed that he had enquired from the family members of deceased as to why they lodged the missing report on 06.08.2012 and they stated that they were searching Smt. Darshana in their relations.

U) PW­41ASI Mukhtiyar Singh deposed that on 16.08.2012 he joined the investigation of the present case alongwith IO Inspector Abhinender Jain and Ct. Devender. He further deposed that on 16.08.2012 accused Yashpal also led them to his house bearing No. 270, Village and Post office Sannot and he got recovered from the drawer of the TV trolly kept inside the room of his house some currency note and on counting the same were found to Rs. 47,000/­. He further deposed that IO kept the said currency notes in a container, sealed the same with seal of AJ and seized the same vide seizure memo Ex. PW41/A. He further deposed that accused also produced one mobile phone of Karbonn. IO kept the same in a container, sealed the same with seal of AJ and seized the same vide seizure memo Ex. PW41/B. He further deposed that said recovery was effected in the presence of father of the accused but he refused to sign on the memo. He further deposed that thereafter accused Manoj led them to the house of his sister I.e H.No. 65, VPO Sannoth and his brother­in­law namely Rishi Prakash produced a mobile phone. After checking the same IO kept the said mobile phone in a container, sealed the same with seal of AJ and seized the same vide seizure SC No. FIR no. 427/12 PS Narela State Vs Yashpal @ Sonu and another Page 53 of 71 memo Ex. PW41/C. He further deposed that said recovery was effected in the presence of brother­in­law of the accused but he refused to sign on the memo. He further deposed that thereafter both the accused persons led them to R.K Motors from where they purchased the glass o the Esteem Car and thereafter they led them to Dull auto parts from where they got affixed the fresh glass. He came to prove the pointing out memo as Ex. PW41/D and Ex. PW41/E respectively. During his testimony in the Court he identified and got exhibited the mobile phone of Karbonn as Ex. P41/1 when the same was produced in the Court by MHC(M). He proved the mobile phone produced by accused Manoj as Ex. P41/2 and the currency notes of Rs. 47,000/­ produced by accused Yashpal from his house as Ex. P41/3 during his evidence before the Court.

During the cross examination this witness deposed that the distance between the house of the deceased and of accused Yashpal @ Sonu was less than half kilomer. He further deposed that IO had not called any family member of the deceased when they had reached at the house of accused Yashpal.

V) PW­42 deposed that on 22.08.2012 their office received two sealed parcels and same were marked to him. He further deposed that he checked the parcels, gave number them as parcel No. 1 and parcel No.2, opened the same and material inside the parcels were marked as Ex. 1 and Ex. 2. He further deposed that after biological examination he bound human blood in both the exhibits but no blood grouping could be ascertained. He further deposed that he prepared his report in this regard as Ex. PW42/A and Ex. PW42/B. He further deposed that after examination the remnants of the exhibits were sealed with the seal of DS FSL, Delhi and were sent back to the investigating agency.

It is pertinent to mention that on an application u/s 311 Cr.P.C DR. Naresh Kumar, Senior Scientific Officer(Biology) appeared on 11.12.2020 on behalf of Dr. Dhruv Sharma since he had expired. He deposed that on 11.10.2012 two sealed parcels were received in their office. He further deposed that parcel No. 1 was sealed with the seal of FM and parcel No. 2 blood sample of Yogesh was SC No. FIR no. 427/12 PS Narela State Vs Yashpal @ Sonu and another Page 54 of 71 physically collected in FSL. He further deposed that on examination of both the parcels, DNA profile was generated from Ex. 1 & 2 and on the basis of DNA examination it was concluded that Ex.1 bone pieces of deceased cannot be excluded as biological mother of Ex. 2 I.e blood sample of Yogesh. He further deposed that after examination the parcels were resealed with the seal of DS FSL Delhi and detailed biological report of Dr. Dhruv Sharma is got exhibited by him as Ex. PW42/C. X) PW­45 Inspector Abhinendra Jain deposed about the investigation carried by him. He deposed that on 15.08.2012, he moved an application for the interrogation and arrest of both the accused persons and came to prove the said application as Ex. PW45/A. He further deposed that he interrogated both the accused persons and recorded disclosure statements of the accused persons Ex. PW45/B and Ex. PW45/C. This witness further deposed about the investigation carried out by him on 16.08.2012, 17.08.2012, 18.08.2012, 22.08.2012, 05.09.2012, 14.09.2012, 16.09.2012, 02.10.2012, 04.10.2012, 11.10.2012, 14.10.20212, 16.10.2012, 23.10.2012, 27.10.2012, 31.10.2012, 01.11.2012, 07.11.2012 alongwith other police officials, details of which have already been discussed the same is not reproduced herein for the shake of brevity.

During the cross examination this witness admitted that husband of deceased namely Raj Singh stated in his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C dated 12.08.2012 that he was not in much talking terms with his wife and she used to remain away from house for 5­6 days many times so he is not in a position to tell much about her. He further deposed that he was not even in a position to tell as to on which date she went missing. He further deposed that he did not inquire from the said Raj Singh about the reasons and causes as to why he was not aware much about his wife.

Y) PW­46 Sh. Anurag Sharma, Assistant Director(document) regional Forensic Science Laboratory Chanakya Puri, New Delhi proved his detailed report regarding SC No. FIR no. 427/12 PS Narela State Vs Yashpal @ Sonu and another Page 55 of 71 examination of documents concerning handwriting of the deceased and came to prove his report as Ex. PW46/A. He further deposed that after examination and opinion all the original documents alongwith original report were handed over to authorized messenger.

DEFENCE WITNESS

10) In support of his defence, accused Yashpal @ Sonu examined DW­1 Sh. Jora Singh deposed that he got married with Poonam, d/o Jai Pal Singh in the year 1998 and Yashpal is my real brother­in­law(sala). He further deposed that Ranbir, s/o Mahavir Singh was his co­villager, who used to repair tractors and was having his shop at Saifabad road, Narela and he used to get his tractors repair from said Ranbir. He further deposed that since Yashpal was unemployed, upon his asking his father­in­law purchased one tractor for Yashpal. He further deposed that accused Yashpal used to take said tractor for repair at the shop of Ranbir but despite repeated repairs there were issues in working of the said tractor and Ranbir used to charge every time. He further deposed that due to the said reason, verbal quarrel had taken place between Ranbir and Yashpal. He further deposed that on 20.03.2008, he requested Ranbir not to charge every time to Yashpal, but he did not listen to their request and differences arose between them, due to which he also stopped repairing his tractors from Ranbir. He further deposed that Ranbir threatened them that he will not leave Yashpal. DW­1 further deposed that about 20 days back, his uncle telephonically informed him that Ranbir stated to him that he had deposed falsely against Yashpal to implicate him in the present case.

CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE

11) In the present case, there is no eye­witness and whole of the case of prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence. Generally, when there are eye­ witnesses to the incident, the Court has to rely upon the veracity of the witnesses to establish the incident, but while dealing with the case based on circumstantial evidence, not only the veracity of the witness but also other points become relevant. Before we proceed further it is necessary to state the requirements in a SC No. FIR no. 427/12 PS Narela State Vs Yashpal @ Sonu and another Page 56 of 71 case based on circumstantial evidence. In this regard, we can rely upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Padala Veera Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. (AIR 1990 SC 79), which have laid down the requirements with regard to circumstantial evidence as under:­ "10.This Court in a series of decisions has consistently held 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 the 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. (See Gambhir v. State of Maharashtra )."

(6 of 22) (CRLDR-7/2020) It has also been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Brajendrasingh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 2012 Supreme Court 1552, as under:-

"There is no doubt that it is not a case of direct evidence but the conviction of the accused is founded on circumstantial evidence. It is a settled principle of law that the prosecution has to satisfy certain conditions before a conviction based on circumstantial evidence can be sustained. The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established and should also be consistent with only one hypothesis, i.e. the guilt of the accused. The circumstances should be conclusive and proved by the prosecution. There must be a chain of events so complete so as not to leave any substantial doubt in the mind of the Court. Irresistibly, the evidence should lead to the conclusion inconsistent with the innocence of the accused and the only possibility that the accused has committed the crime. To put it simply, the circumstances forming the chain of events should be proved and they should cumulatively point towards the guilt of the accused alone. In such circumstances, the inference of guilt can be justified only when all the incriminating facts and SC No. FIR no. 427/12 PS Narela State Vs Yashpal @ Sonu and another Page 57 of 71 circumstances are found to be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or the guilt of any other person. Furthermore, the rule which needs to be observed by the Court while dealing with the cases of circumstantial evidence is that the best evidence must be adduced which the nature of the case admits. The circumstances have to be examined cumulatively. The Court has to examine the complete chain of events and then see whether all the material facts sought to be established by the prosecution to bring home the guilt of the accused, have been proved beyond reasonable doubt. It has to be kept in mind that all these principles are based upon one basic cannon of our criminal jurisprudence that the accused is innocent till proven guilty and that the accused is entitled to a just and fair trial."

12) In Sharad Birdhi Chand Sarda vs State Of Maharashtra on 17 July, 1984: 1984 AIR 1622, 1985 SCR (1) 88, the honorable supreme Court upheld as under:­ "Before discussing the cases relied upon by the High Court we would like to cite a few decisions on the nature, character and essential proof required in a criminal case which rests on circumstantial evidence alone. The most fundamental and basic decision of this Court is Hanumant v. The State of Madhya Pradesh.(1) This case has been uniformly followed and applied by this Court in a large number of later decisions uptodate, for instance, the cases of Tufail (Alias) Simmi v. State of Uttar Pradesh(2) and Ramgopal v. Stat of Maharashtra(3). It may be useful to extract what Mahajan, J. has laid down in Hanumant's case (supra):

"It is well to remember that in cases where the evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should in the first instance be fully established and all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. Again, the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. In other words, there must be a chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground far a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show that within all human probability the act must have been done by the SC No. FIR no. 427/12 PS Narela State Vs Yashpal @ Sonu and another Page 58 of 71 accused."

A close analysis of this decision would show that the following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an accused can be said to be fully established:

(1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established.

It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the circumstances concerned 'must or should' and not 'may be' established. There is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between 'may be proved' and 'must be or should be proved' as was held by this Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra(') where the following observations were made:"Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict and the mental distance between 'may be' and 'must be' is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions."

(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 in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.

These five golden principles, if we may say so, constitute the panchsheel of the proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence."

13) Therefore, in a case, which is based on circumstantial evidence, the above­stated requirements need to be established.

14) As discussed above that in a case based on circumstantial evidence, the above­stated requirements are to be fulfilled and the facts on which the case is based, has to be cogently and firmly established. After reading the testimonies of the witnesses as well as the other evidence placed on record, the following facts SC No. FIR no. 427/12 PS Narela State Vs Yashpal @ Sonu and another Page 59 of 71 have come before the Court:­

i)Raising of suspicion on the unknown lady by the family members of the deceased.

ii) There is last seen evidence in the form of testimony of PW7 Sh. Joginder.

iii) Arrest of accused persons & recording of their disclosure statements.

iv) Recovery of Maruti Esteem car used by accused person at the time of commission of offence.

v) Factum of mortgaging of gold jewellery I.e gold chain and gold ear­rings of the deceased by accused Yashpal @ Sonu.

vi) Factum of recovery of the dead body and cause of death & Time of death of deceased

vii) Matching of DNA of deceased with the blood sample of his son.

viii) Factum of maintaining diary by the deceased.

Now, it is to be seen whether the aforesaid material facts have been fully proved on record or not.

Raising of suspicion on the unknown lady by the family members of the deceased.

15) In the present case the family members of the deceased raised suspicion upon the unknown lady, who came to call the deceased on 21.07.2012 that the said lady was associate of the accused persons and she had come to their house at the instance of the accused persons to call the deceased. However prosecution miserably fail to connect the said unknown lady with the present accused persons.

SC No. FIR no. 427/12 PS Narela State Vs Yashpal @ Sonu and another Page 60 of 71

No substantial evidence has been produced by the prosecution to establish that the said unknown lady was connected with the present accused persons in any manner. In the present case PW­6 Sh. Yogesh Kumar(son of the deceased), PW­ 15 Ms. Ritu(daughter­in­law) and PW­22 Ms. Bindu(daughter­in­law) deposed that on 21.07.2012, one unknown lady came to call their mother. Out of the above mentioned three witnesses only PW­22 Ms. Bindu had heard personally to the unknown lady calling her mother­in­law and thereafter leaving her mother­in­law from their house. As far as testimony of PW­6 Sh. Yogesh Kumar in this regard is concerned, same can not be considered being hearsay since he has categorically deposed that on 21.07.2012 when his mother left the house he was not present in the house. He has further deposed that on 23/24.07.2012, he asked his wife where his mother had gone and his wife told that some lady had come to their house with whom his mother had left the house on 21.07.2012 and thereafter she did not return back. During cross examination PW­22 Ms. Ritu had categorically deposed that she had not seen the face of the lady, who called her mother­in­law from outside their house on that day. She has further categorically deposed that she was not able to recognize the said lady by her voice. The deposition of PW­22 that subsequently her husband made enquiry and they came to know that said lady was wife of accused Yashpal @ Sonu is not substantial since even if for the shake of arguments it is believed that son of the deceased came to know that said unknown lady was wife of Yashpal @ Sonu then this fact should have been informed by him to the police officials, but thing this kind has been come of the record on behalf of the prosecution. It is also surprising that the said unknown lady, who called their mother­in­law by name were not even known to both the daughter­ in­laws of the deceased since in the villages almost everyone are known to each other and this fact also raises suspicion on the existences of the unknown lady and the arguments of ld defence counsel that story of unknown lady had been concocted by the prosecution gets strength in the absence of any substantial evidence connecting the accused persons and the unknown lady.

SC No. FIR no. 427/12 PS Narela State Vs Yashpal @ Sonu and another Page 61 of 71

There is last seen evidence in the form of testimony of PW7 Sh. Joginder.

16) In the present case, PW­7 Sh. Joginder has been examined by the prosecution as last seen witness. However the testimony of this witness raises doubts since as per the version of PW­7 on 17.08.2012, he read the newspaper Times of India and in the said newspaper he read the news of murder of mother of Yogesh. However no such newspaper has been produced by the prosecution on the record. It is not the case of the family members of the deceased that they had published the news of missing of their mother in the newspaper. It is not clarified how the news of death of mother of PW­6 Sh. Yogesh published in the newspaper. In the absence of any newspaper produced by the prosecution on the record and in the absence of any version of the family members of the deceased qua publication in the newspaper regarding missing of their mother, the version of the PW­7 that he came to know about the death of deceased through newspaper raises doubts. Story of PW­7 Sh. Joginder regarding his visit to the house of PW­6 Sh. Yogesh on 21.07.2012 is also not substantially established by the prosecution since as per PW­6 he and PW­7 were friends since the days of their coaching classes for preparation of examination for job. It is beyond comprehension that why PW­7 visited to the house of PW­6 on 21.07.2012 despite the fact that PW­6 was working as Head Clerk in the office of Deputy Director, District Education Office, Yamunna Vihar, Delhi. Being friends it can be believed that PW­7 would not be aware about the fact of being PW­6 in government job. As per the version of PW­7 on 28.07.2012 he left for Chennai and thereafter he returned from their on 3­4 of August, 2012, but no proof qua visit of PW­7 in Chennai has been produced by the prosecution on the record. During her cross examination PW­15 Ms. Ritu initially admitted that on 21.07.2012 except the unknown lady nobody else from neighbourhood or from their relatives and friends visited their house and lateron she deposed that one of friends of her husband also visited their house. It is surprising that on the said date I.e 21.07.2012, which was the crucial day since after the said day, mother­in­law of PW­15 Ms. Ritu did not return to her house and SC No. FIR no. 427/12 PS Narela State Vs Yashpal @ Sonu and another Page 62 of 71 as per her own version of PW­15 Ms. Ritu she was present in her house on the said date, how can she forget as to who had visited their house. As per the version of PW­15 Ms. Ritu the said friend had visited their house earlier also on number of occasions, still she gave the name of said friend only after raising question by the Court regarding name of the said friend. PW­15 Ms. Ritu is not a house wife she is working with Delhi Police as Sub Inspector and being a police official it can not be believed that she can be so casual regarding visit of PW­7 at their house on the crucial day and being friend of her husband it also can not be believed that she was not well known to him specially when PW­7 had visited their house on number of occasions, still telling of name of the PW­7 after raising question by the Court also raises doubts on the story of the prosecution whether PW­7 had actually visited to the house of deceased on 21.07.2012 and whether he had actually seen the accused persons alongwith the deceased and submissions of ld defence counsel that PW­7 is a planted witnesses can not be ruled out.

Arrest of accused persons & recording of their disclosure statements.

17) In the present case, as per the version of PW­19 Inspector Satinder Vashisht, initially accused Yashpal @ Sonu was arrested by the police official on the basis of CDR record since on the analysis of the CRD record of mobile No. 9212182060(the mobile number of the deceased) it was revealed that many calls have been made and received between afore­said mobile number and mobile number 9873632242, which was being used by one Yashpal @ Sonu. As per the story of the prosecution both the above said mobile number were in constant contact with each other on 21.07.2012 and as per the Cell ID location Chart both the above said mobile numbers were also having similar location. However the location of mobile phones of the deceased and accused persons on the same area can not be given much credence since the CDR of the mobile phones and location chart of the mobile phone are generated from different towers and chances of same being different always remains there. Even otherwise from the locations of SC No. FIR no. 427/12 PS Narela State Vs Yashpal @ Sonu and another Page 63 of 71 the mobile phones it can not be said that the deceased was assaulted by the accused persons since the same has not been proved by way of testimony of any witness through the medical evidence come on the record that deceased was died on the same day when she left her house i.e 21.07.2012. Hence much reliance can not placed upon the location chart. As per further version of PW­19 Inspector Satinder Vashisht that on the basis of CDR record on 14.08.2012, they reached at village Sannoth at about 2.15 p.m and interrogated accused Yashpal @ Sonu, who disclosed to them that on 21.07.2012 he alongwith co­accused Manoj kidnapped Smt. Darshana and thereafter they committed her murder. It is beyond comprehension that when accused Yashpal had initially disclosed that accused Manoj was his associate in the commission of offence then why police has not apprehended him first before recovery of the dead body. Further there are contradictions in the story of the prosecution as to whether the dead body was recovered at the instance of accused Yashpal @ Sonu or the same has been recovered at the instance of both the accused persons since as per the version of PW­19, pursuant to disclosure statement accused Yashpal @ Sonu led them to Rohat Canal, village Sonipat and approximately 150 meters ahead of bridge towards patri accused pointed out towards Delhi side near Sarkari Dikki, he got recovered the dead­body of deceased Smt. Darshana Devi. It is further version of PW­19 that thereafter they returned back to village Sannoth and at the instance of accused Yashpal @ Sonu, accused Manoj was arrested in this case. It is pertinent to mention that as per the arrest memo both the accused persons were arrested in this case on 15.08.2012. Hence the arrest of accused persons and recording of their disclosure is also doubtful in this case.

Recovery of Maruti Esteem car used by accused person at the time of commission of offence.

18) In the present case as per the story of the prosecution the Esteem car bearing registration No. DL 6CH 9542 used by the accused persons for taking the deceased at the spot from where her dead body was recovered, was owned by SC No. FIR no. 427/12 PS Narela State Vs Yashpal @ Sonu and another Page 64 of 71 PW­2 Sh. Puran Singh and on the day of incident accused Yashpal @ Sonu had requested to PW­2 to give the above said vehicle to him since he has to take his wife to hospital. It is pertinent to mention that testimony of this witness was recorded twice and first time he was examined on 15.04.2013 and at that time during his testimony in the Court, this witness did not support the case of the prosecution and during his testimony it came on record that on 21 st his car remained parked in the plot in punctured condition. It also came on record that he did not give his above said car to anybody in the year 2012. Further it has also come on the record during testimony of PW­2 that he was not allowed to go through the contents of Ex. PW2/A and Ex. PW2/B at the time of obtaining his signature on the same by the police officials. Lateron on an application u/s 311 Cr.P.C, this witness was again recalled by the prosecution and his testimony was recorded on 06.01.2014. Although PW­2 was recalled u/s 311 Cr.P.C only to depose fact about his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C dated 08.11.2012, but that time he also deposed about his previous statements, which was objected by ld defence counsel. Since the witness had been called u/s 311 Cr.P.C only to depose with respect to his statement dated 08.11.2012, his earlier testimony recorded on 15.04.2013 shall be considered and in the said testimony he had denied that above said Esteem car was not given by him to accused Yashpal on the said date. Accordingly prosecution could not establish the factum of esteem car being taken by the accused Yashpal @ Sonu from PW­2 Sh. Puran Singh. Further in view of the fact that no police complaint was lodged by PW­2 to the police qua his version that at the time of recording his testimony first time before the Court he was given threats by brother of the accused, it can not be said that initially he had deposed wrong facts since as per own version of PW­2 at the time of recording of his statement first time before the Court, the IO of the case was also present before the Court. Infact the factum of deposing totally different version by PW­2 at second time raises doubts qua him being influenced by the complainant side.

Regarding the story of the prosecution that at the time of incident in question the window glass of rear seat of the Esteem car got broken since when SC No. FIR no. 427/12 PS Narela State Vs Yashpal @ Sonu and another Page 65 of 71 accused persons were strangulating the neck of the deceased through her chunni, the deceased kicked on the window glass due to which the same was broken and both the accused persons went to the shop of PW­9 Sh. Ranbir and purchased the rear right side window glass of Esteem Car from there on 21.07.2012. However during his cross examination this witness deposed that he had stated to the police that in his statement that he sold the glass of Esteem car of Atul company, but on confrontation, the same was not found so recorded therein. The statement of PW­9 proved as Ex. PW9/DA. Hence in view of the same the testimony of PW­9 in this regard can not be relied. Even otherwise this witness was known to the complainant side and it during his cross examination he was also given suggestion by ld defence counsel that he was having enimical relations with Jora, Pawan and Yaspal. Chances of PW­9 being under influence of the complainant side can not be ruled out.

Factum of mortgaging of gold jewellery I.e gold chain and gold ear­rings of the deceased by accused Yashpal @ Sonu.

19) As per the story of the prosecution accused Yashpal @ Sonu mortgaged the gold ear­rings and gold chain of the deceased worn by her at the time of her murder with Muthoot Finance Corporation and a loan of Rs. 47,045/­ was sanctioned to him in lieu of the said gold articles. As per the story of the prosecution and version of PW12 HC Yogesh Kumar, accused Yashpal @ Sonu was arrested in the present case on 14.08.2012 and on formal search of accused Yashpal @ Sonu one receipt of Muthoot Finance was recovered from the backside pocket of his wearing pant. It has also come on the record during testimony of PW­1 Sh. Amar Awasthi, Branch Manager, Muthoot Finance that accused Yashpal @ Sonu went to their branch for the purpose of taking gold loan. The story of prosecution qua going of accused Yashpal @ Sonu to the branch of Muthoot Finance for the purpose of taking loan on the day of his arrest also raises doubts. Even if for the shake of arguments, it is considered that accused had gone to SC No. FIR no. 427/12 PS Narela State Vs Yashpal @ Sonu and another Page 66 of 71 Muthoot Finance even on the day of his arrest, then how could M/s Muthoot Finance Corporation issued Ex. PW1/F1, the certificate of registration on 23.07.2012, since as Ex. PW1/F1 the issuance date of the certificate of registration is mentioned as 23.07.2012. Perusal of Ex. PW1/F1 further reveals that no name has been mentioned in the said certificate. It is beyond comprehension that any person would keep the copy of the receipt of Muthoot Finance for almost more than 20 days in his pocket. If for the shake of arguments it is considered that the certificate bears the correct date of issuance I.e 23.07.2012, then also it is unbelievable that any person who would commit murder of any person would go to take loan in lieu of the jewellery of deceased just after two days of the incident. It is also unbelievable that he would keep the receipt of the same in his pocket for so many days. Rather a prudent person who took loan would prefer to keep the slip of the same in his house. Another aspect to disbelieve the story of the prosecution is that in the present case as per the story of the prosecution there are two accused who committed murder of the deceased and it is strange that only accused Yashpal @ Sonu had taken both the robbed gold articles himself and nothing had been taken by his associate accused Manoj.

Factum of recovery of dead body and cause of death & time of death of the deceased

20) As per the story of the prosecution the dead­body of the deceased was got recovered at the instance of accused Yashpal and Sonu on 14.08.2012 and it has also come on the record during the testimony of PW­6 Sh. Yogesh that on 14.08.2012 near village Rohat, near the canal leaving aside 150 yards, on the kacha path, towards Delhi inside the pit under bushes decomposed body of his mother was recovered. It has also come on the record that PW­6 identified the dead body of his mother on the basis of bangles, suit salwar, artificial teeth and sleepers. Since the dead­body of the deceased was in decomposed condition and PW­6 identified his mother only on the basis of bangles, suit salwar, artificial teeth and sleepers, the recovery of the deadbody is doubtful in this case since it can not SC No. FIR no. 427/12 PS Narela State Vs Yashpal @ Sonu and another Page 67 of 71 be said the above mentioned articles were of the deceased in the absence of any specific identification of the same. Even otherwise as per the testimony of PW­29 HC Jasmer Singh the place of recovery was an open place, accessible to all. In view of the testimony of PW­29, who was the witness who reached at the spot of recovery of the dead body alongwith police officials of P.S Narela and accused Yashpal, when accused Yashpal lead the police official of P.S Narela to the said place and he also himself had seen the place of recovery of dead­body, there are serious doubts that it was a hidden place and it seems that the place was accessible to the common public and so the evidential value of the same u/s 27 of The Indian Evidence Act is not of that quality in the present case as to warrant conviction of the accused persons.

As per the story of the prosecution both the accused persons murdered the deceased by strangulating her neck, however during the testimony of PW­18 Dr. Kuldeep Panchal it has come on the record that no exact cause of death was ascertained during postmortem since the body was in decomposed condition. It has also come on the record that whole neck structure I.e skin, muscles, soft tissue, larynx, trachea, esophagus and blood vessels were missing. It has also come on the record that available part of the neck was only cervical vertebrae and it was not possible to ascertain the exact cause of death merely on the basis of cervical vertebrae. During cross examination of PW­18 by ld defence counsel it has also come on the record that no opinion has been given in the post­mortem report Ex. PW18/A, as to whether the manner of death of deceased Darshana was homicidal or not. During cross examination of PW­18, it has also come on the record that the death could be in any manner I.s suicidal, homicidal and accidental. It has also come on the record during the cross examination of PW­18 that in the presence case determining exact time of death is very difficult. Hence the story of the prosecution that deceased was murdered by the accused persons on 21.07.2012 could not be fully established by the prosecution in the present case.

Matching of DNA of deceased with the SC No. FIR no. 427/12 PS Narela State Vs Yashpal @ Sonu and another Page 68 of 71 blood sample of his son.

21) It is pertinent to mention herein that in the present case during investigation of the present case blood sample of PW­6 Sh. Yogesh was taken by the investigating agency for conducting D.N.A examination and during the testimony of PW­42 Dr. Naresh Kumar, Senior Scientific Officer(biology), it has come on the record that on the basis of D.N.A examination it was concluded that bone pieces of deceased can not excluded as biological mother of blood sample of Yogesh. Hence in view of detailed biological report Ex. PW42/C, it can not be said that the dead­body which was got recovered at the instance of accused Yashpal @ Sonu as per the story of the prosecution, was the dead­body of Smt. Drashana, mother of PW­6 Sh. Yogesh.

Factum of maintaining diary by the deceased.

22) As per the story of the prosecution deceased used to maintain diary qua her transaction of committee as well as of society in the register. It is further the case of the prosecution that accused Yashpal @ Sonu took loan for a sum of Rs. 14 lakhs from the deceased and since he could not repay the said loan amount within the stipulated time period he alongwith accused Manoj murdered deceased. However even though as per the version of PW­6 Sh. Yogesh(son of deceased) he handed over the photocopy of the account of diary of his mother to the IO and on 18.08.2012 IO had seized the same vide seizure memo Ex. PW1/C, however it is beyond comprehension as to why the original diary was not taken into possession by the IO of the case, if the same has been produced by PW­6 on 18.08.2012 itself. The story of maintaining record of translations by the deceased is also doubtful since during cross examination PW­6 deposed that he found the record of accounts of committees(chit fund) which was run by his mother and she used to maintain till 11.08.2012 except her diary. As per the case of the prosecution deceased was missing from 21.07.2012, from her house how can she maintain the accounts till 11.08.2012. Further the prosecution has not produced any evidence to prove that the said diary was written by the deceased herself, which also raises doubts to the story of the prosecution and the story of the prosecution qua SC No. FIR no. 427/12 PS Narela State Vs Yashpal @ Sonu and another Page 69 of 71 maintaining diary by deceased is not fully established in view of the above mentioned discussion.

23) In view of the above discussion, the chain of circumstances has not been completed in the present case. Further there are other material contradictions in the story of the prosecution since as per the story of the prosecution both the accused persons committed murder of deceased by strangulating her neck with the help of her chunni and thereafter they threw the dead body of the deceased near the Nahar of village Rohat, however as per seizure memo of rear seat and left side rear window inner part of the Esteem car used by the accused persons, Ex. PW 25/A, at the time of seizure of rear seat and left side rear window inner part were having blood stains of the deceased. As per Ex. PW42/A and Ex. PW42/B although human blood was detected in Ex. 1(car seat) and Ex. 2(window's inner part), seized and sent by investigating agency to FSL authority for the purpose of getting opinion on the same during investigation, but as per the report of the FSL authority Ex. PW 42/B, no blood grouping could be ascertained on the same.

24) Another contradictions in the story of the prosecution is that during the evidence of PW­6 Sh. Yogesh he identified the dead body of his mother on the basis of bangles, suit salwar, artificial teeth and sleepers, however in the seizure memo Ex. PW28/E, there is no mention of artificial teeth and this also raises doubts about the story of the prosecution to the effect that the recovered dead body was that of the Smt. Darshana.

25) In a case which is based on the circumstantial evidence, the chain should be complete and there should not be any breakage and it should be proved that accused had committed the offences. The circumstances have not been established to the extent that it can be said that both the accused persons had firstly kidnapped deceased and thereafter they committed her murder and disposed of his body by throwing it near the canal near village Rohat and thereafter SC No. FIR no. 427/12 PS Narela State Vs Yashpal @ Sonu and another Page 70 of 71 accused Yashpal @ Sonu mortgaged the gold ear­rings and gold chain of the deceased with Muthoot Finance Corporation.

26) In view of the aforesaid discussion, the prosecution has not been able to connect both the accused persons with the commission of the offences as it has not been proved on record that both the accused persons had kidnapped the deceased and thereafter murdered her and disposed of her body by throwing it near the canal near village Rohat. The prosecution has not been able to prove that the alleged bones and skeleton of deceased were recovered at the instance of accused Yashpal @ Sonu as the recovery thereof is doubtful. The prosecution has failed to prove its case against both the accused persons beyond all reasonable doubts. Hence, both the accused persons are acquitted for the offences u/s 364 IPC read with Section 120 B IPC, u/s 302 IPC read with Section 120 B IPC, u/s 201 IPC read with Section 120 B IPC and u/s 404 IPC read with Section 120 B IPC.

File be consigned to record room after due compliance.

Announced in open Court today
On 08.04.2022                                              (Shivaji Anand)
                                                 Additional Sessions Judge­04 (North)
                                                         Rohini Courts, Delhi




SC No. FIR no. 427/12 PS Narela State Vs Yashpal @ Sonu and another        Page 71 of 71