Delhi District Court
Sc No. 52783/2016 State vs . Alam Page No. 1 on 24 March, 2023
DLNW010021692015
Presented on : 10-11-2015
Registered on : 26-11-2015
Decided on : 24-03-2023
Duration : 7 years, 4 months,
14 days
IN THE COURT OF
ASJ/SPECIAL.JUDGE(NDPS)
AT NORTH WEST, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
(Presided Over by Sh. Vikram)
SC/52783/2016
Annexure 'A': List of witnesses
Annexure 'B' : List of exhibits
STATE
Vs.
Alam
S/o Mohd. Abul @ Abdul
R/o Village Vaijudih,
Sultanpur Mohalla Gulali,
PS Amarpur, District Bamka,
Bihar.
FIR No. : 182/2015
Police Station : Maurya Enclave
Under Sections : 302/392/34 IPC
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
APP for State : Sh. Kumar Sanjay
Advocate for accused : Sh. Vinkal Goyal
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
SC No. 52783/2016 State Vs. Alam Page no. 1
JUDGMENT
(Delivered on 24-03-2022) BRIEF FACTS
1. Precursor of the prosecution case is complaint of Sunil Grover, which led to registration of FIR No. 182/15. After registration of the case, it was investigated and on conclusion of investigations, chargesheet was filed against accused Alam for proceeding against him for offences under Section 302/392/34 IPC.
2. Brief facts as emanating out of charge sheet, coupled with the complaint and FIR are that:-
2.1. The first IO (Pw9), on receipt of information, vide DD no. 24A (ExPw9/A) went to the spot alongwith Ct. Satender where he met complainant (Pw10) and found father of complainant, namely Mukesh Grover, lying dead on double bed and his neck was tied with a cloth of orange colour. Pw9 recorded Statement of Pw10 and on his statement got registered the FIR registered for offence u/S 302/392 IPC.
2.2. In his statement Ex.Pw9/B, complainant stated that his deceased father Mukesh Grover used to work as a commission agent and used House No. MU-62D, Pitampura, Delhi as office.
Deceased had hired a servant around 2-3 days before the incident. On 23.02.2015, deceased after talking to his wife had left for at MU-62D Pitampur for office work. From 11 am of SC No. 52783/2016 State Vs. Alam Page no. 2 24.02.2015 complainant and his mother were trying to contact deceased on his mobile phone but the same was switched off. On 25.02.2015 at about 07:00 am his mother visited MU-62D Pitampura and she noticed that light outside the flat was on but room was locked from outside. She heard TV playing in the flat. She returned to home and informed complainant about same and also told that despite ringing the bell nobody was answering. On this complainant went to MU-62D, Pitampura and tried to break the lock and later got the lock opened by making a key of the same. On entering the premises complainant found that his father was lying dead and his neck was tied with a cloth of orange colour. Complainant called at 100 number. He found Golden ring, chain, ATM cards, mobile phone and cash of deceased was robbed by murderer. Complainant also stated that one unknown servant was living in the flat for last 2/3 days.
2.3. After registration of FIR investigation was taken over by Pw24 Insp. Bijender Singh. He reached at spot, got the same inspected through Crime team, got the spot photographed and on reaching the FSL Team got the spot inspected by FSL Team. The IO then Prepared site plan Ex.Pw10/A. IO also lifted the exhibits(including one key ring having key of the house, found in dust bin and a card board box on which "Ponama I love to boby"
was written) and seized them. IO also seized the lock and the key produced by complainant. The dead body was then sent for post mortem and IO applied for CDR of mobile phones of deceased i.e. 9312664933 and 9212794933.
2.4. During investigation Smt. Lata Grover, wife of deceased, SC No. 52783/2016 State Vs. Alam Page no. 3 told the IO that on 23.02.2015 at about 08:00-08:15 pm her husband came to house and told that he hired a servant namely 'Alam', aged about 25-30 years and then he left for some urgent work.
2.5. During investigation, on 13.08.2015 accused Alam, servant of deceased, was apprehended, by Special Staff at Jahangirpuri crossing road No. 51, near Outer Ring Road, under Section 41.1 (ba) from whom mobile phone used at the time of crime was recovered. Accused Alam disclosed that he with the help of his friend Sahud and one more unknown person caused death of deceased Mukesh Kumar and robbed his golden chain, rings and cash. On 14.08.2015, accused Alam was arrested in the present case and he got recovered Driving license of deceased, key of the flat and the ring of deceased.
CHARGE
3. Vide order dated 04.04.2016 accused was charged for commission of offence u/S 302/381/411 IPC to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
EVIDENCE
4. To prove its case against accused prosecution examined 33 witnesses. A gist of their testimony is as follows:
4.1 Pw1 Ct. Ashok deposed by way of his affidavit Ex.PW1/1 that he delivered copy of FIR no. 182/15 at the residence of Ld. SC No. 52783/2016 State Vs. Alam Page no. 4 ACMM, DCP & Jt. CP. He is also examined as PW 28 against same facts.
4.2 Pw2 Ct. Manish deposed by way of affidavit Ex.PW2/1 that on 26.02.2015 he alongwith Insp. Bijender Singh went to mortuary of BSA Hospital, Rohini who got conducted post mortem of the deceased and handed over the dead body to legal heirs of deceased vide dead body handing over memo Ex.PW2/A. 4.3 Pw3 HC Premraj deposed by way of affidavit Ex.PW 3/1 that on 07.04.2015 he was posted as MHC(M) PS Maurya Enclave and on direction of Insp. Bijender Singh sent the exhibits to Dept. of FM, BSA Hospital, Rohini. He proved the copy of RCs and acknowledgments of receipts as Ex.PW3/A, Ex.PW3/B, Ex.PW3/C and Ex.PW3/D. 4.4 Pw4 Ct. Satender deposed by way of affidavit Ex.PW4/1 that on receipt of call he alongwith SI Brij Bhushan went to the spot and got the FIR registered on direction of SI Brij Bhushan.
4.5 Pw5 HC Jai Roop deposed by way of affidavit Ex.PW5/1. He proved copy of RC No. 16/21/15 as Ex.PW5/A and copy of receipt of BSA Hospital as Ex.PW5/A1. He also proved entry no. 928 and 932 of Register no. 19 as Ex.PW5/B & Ex.PW5/C respectively.
4.6 Pw6. Ct. Sanjeev has deposited the exhibits, on the direction of IO, with SFL, Rohini and handed over the SC No. 52783/2016 State Vs. Alam Page no. 5 acknowledgment of receipt to MHC(M).
4.7 Pw7. Ct Ankit has proved Form-I of PCR call as Ex.PW7/A and certificate under Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act as Ex.PW7/B. 4.8 Pw8 SI Naresh Pal was Incharge of Crime Team and proved his report prepared by him at the scene of crime as Ex.PW8/A. 4.9 Pw9 SI Brij Bhushan is the first IO. He proved DD No. 24A, Ex.PW9/A, statement of complainant Sunish Grover, Ex.PW9/B, rukka Ex.PW9/C, seizure memo of pillow seized from the room of deceased and seizure memo of key, prepared by 2nd IO, as Ex.PW9/D & Ex.PW9/E. He deposed that 2nd IO prepared sealed pulland no. A of two combs, sealed pullanda no.
B of gillette razor, sealed pullanda no. C of charger make Nano and sealed pullanda no. D of charge make Micromax and seized all the pullandas vide seizure memo Ex.PW9/F. He also proved seizure memo of pillow, written portion of card box on which "Ponama I Love to Boby" was written, seized from the servant room as Ex.PW9/G & Ex.PW9/H. He also proved the seizure memo of lock of main gate and the key through which it was opened as Ex.PW9/I. He also deposed about his visit to Bihar in search of accused. He identified the case property Ex.P- 3(collectively), Ex.P-4 (collectively), Ex.P-6, Ex.P-9, Ex.P-10, Ex.P-11 (collectively), Ex.P-12 and Ex.PW.10/E in the Court.
4.10 PW-10 Sh. Sunish Grover is the complainant. He SC No. 52783/2016 State Vs. Alam Page no. 6 deposed in the line of his complaint Ex.Pw9/A. He also deposed about initial investigation at spot. He proved his complaint as Ex.PW9/A and site plan Ex.PW10/A. Pw10 is also witness to seizure memos Ex.PW9/D, Ex.PW9/E, Ex.PW9/F, Ex.PW9/G, Ex.PW9/H, Ex.PW9/I. Pw10 also deposed that before going to spot he informed Sumit Prakash (Pw16), a friend of his father who was also the President of RWA of U & V Block, Shalimar Bagh and a neighbour. Pw10 also deposed that when he failed to break open the lock he called a person namely Pawan (Pw14), key maker who prepared the key and after opening the lock, they entered the flat. Pw10 also deposed that on seeing the dead body he got into panic due to which in call at 100 number he told that "the house was locked by us yesterday which in fact was not locked by any of us". He also deposed that he and his mother had only tried to contact the deceased telephonically and had not gone personally for search of deceased from 24.02.2015 as his father used to go on trip without intimating them and used to remain out for several days.
Pw10 also deposed about post mortem of deceased and proved the dead body identification memo Ex.PW10/B and receipt Ex.PW2/A. Pw10 further deposed that on 14.09.2015, he identified the gold ring of his father in judicial TIP Ex.PW10/C. He also correctly identified 31 photographers Ex. PW10/D (collectively) placed on judicial record being the photographs of the spot of inside and outside the office of his father.
SC No. 52783/2016 State Vs. Alam Page no. 7 He also correctly identified the piece of card-board box on which "Ponama I love to Boby" was written with blue pen which was seized by the police from the servant room of the office of his father as Ex. PW10/E. He correctly identified the case property produced in the court i.e. mobile chargers make Mircomax and Nano as Ex.P4 (colly.), ring of his father as Ex.P5, key, ring chain with locket as Ex.P6 (colly.), lock with key prepared by key maker as Ex.P7, pillow on which "Sucheta" was written with black pen as Ex.P9, pillow which was seized from servant's room as Ex.P10, two combs as Ex.P11 (colly.), safety razor as Ex.P12, clothes of his deceased father as Ex.P13.
4.11 Pw11 HC Baljeet Singh joined the investigation on 14.08.2015 when accused was formally arrested at the office special staff vide memo Ex.Pw11/A. He proved the disclosure statement of accused Ex.Pw11/B. He again joined investigation on 21.08.2015 when accused led to spot of incident and proved the pointing out memo Ex.Pw11/C. Pw14 also proved the seizure memo of DL of deceased at the instance of accused from bushes of park, opposite to the spot, Ex.Pw11/D. He further proved the seizure memo of the Key, on which EKTA was written, at the instance of accused, Ex.PW11/E. He identified the DL of deceased as EX P1 and the key recovered at the instance of accused as Ex P8.
4.12 Pw12 Smt. Sneh Lata is wife of deceased Mukesh Kumar Grover. She deposed that her husband was a commission agent of SC No. 52783/2016 State Vs. Alam Page no. 8 black pepper at Khari Bawli and around 3-4 months prior to the incident, her husband had opened an office at MU Block, Pitam Pura. On 23.02.2015 her husband told her that he had employed an office boy/servant at his office and after that left the house and did not return the whole night. On the next date i.e. 24.02.2015 when deceased Mukesh Kumar Grover did not return, she got worried and made several calls on the mobile number of her husband i.e. 9312664933 as well as on another number also, however, did not get any response. Therefore, on 25.02.2015, in the morning at about 0:00-08:00 am she went at the office of her husband and noticed that lights of the office/flat were on and noise of the fan being running was coming and the door was locked from outside. She rang bell two/three times and getting no response, she came back to her house and told everything to her son Sunesh Grover. Thereafter, her son Sunesh Grover visited the spot who found his father dead and informed her about same.
Pw12 was the one from whom police got the information about the name of servant as Alam, however she did not depose the name in her examination in chief. Therefore, she was subjected to cross examination by State, however, she denied that she had told the police that her husband had disclosed her the name of servant as Alam. She also denied that she expressed suspicion of killing and theft on the newly appointed servant.
4.13 Pw13 ASI Suresh Chand and Pw26 Inspector Ajay are the officials of special staff who alongwith Ct. Yogender were present at Mukundpur Chowk, near Burari Byapass, Delhi and at about 06:00 pm on secret information about the accused, wanted SC No. 52783/2016 State Vs. Alam Page no. 9 in a case of PS Maurya Enclave of murder and loot constituted a reading team and at the instance of secret informer apprehended the accused who disclosed his name as Alam and also disclosed his involvement in the robbery and murder of deceased in the present case. Pw26 recorded disclosure statement, Ex.Pw13/A, of accused. One mobile phone make Karbon, recovered from the possession of accused, was seized vide seizure memo Ex.Pw13/B. Accused was arrested under Section 41.1 (ba) Cr.P.C. vide arrest memo Ex.Pw13/C and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.Pw13/D. Pw26 informed the concerned IO of PS Maurya Enclave and made arrival entry vide DD No. 55A at PS Adarsh Nagar which and proved the same as Ex.Pw26/A. He also proved kalandra Ex.Pw26/B of producing the accused before court in muffled face. They correctly identified the recovered mobile phone make Karbon, battery and Airtel SIM as Ex P2(Colly).
4.14 Pw14 Pawan is the the key maker who on 25.02.2015, at request of Sunny @ Sunesh Grover prepared the key of the lock of flat no. 62 D, 3rd Floor, Pitam pura and identified the said key, on which Queen is inscribed, as Ex.P3.
4.15 Pw15 Pritam Bhagat alongwith Sunesh Grover went to mortuary and BSA Hospital and identified the dead body of deceased vide memo Ex.PW15/A. 4.16 Pw16 Sumit Prakash is friend and neighbour of Sunish Grover. He deposed that on 25.02.2015, Sunish Grover informed SC No. 52783/2016 State Vs. Alam Page no. 10 him about the murder of his father at his office on which Pw16 alongwith 2-3 friends reached at spot. He also deposed about his visit to mortuary and signing of receipt EX.Pw2/A of the dead body. Pw16 further deposed that he told the police that 3-4 days prior to incident when he was crossing through the office of deceased he had seen a boy cleaning up the car, bearing registration no. DL 4C AF 9900 make Swift white colour, of deceased and on asking the said boy told that he had been employed by deceased and was working in his office. Pw16 inquired from that boy if Mukesh grover is present in office the boy answered in affirmative on which he went to office of deceased and met him. He further deposed that while he was talking to deceased that boy came to office and the deceased asked that boy addressing him as "Alam" to prepare tea. Pw16 identified the accused present in the Court as the same boy Alam. Pw16 further deposed that deceased had told him that he had employed Alam on reference of on Sahud who had put tiles in his office. Pw16 deposed about TIP proceedings and proved the same as Ex.Pw16/A which bears signatures of Pw16 at point A. Pw16 also deposed that on 24.02.2015 when he was returning from morning walk, he had seen deceased standing outside his office on 3rd floor and accused Mohd. Alam was also with him.
4.17 Pw17 Dr. Adesh Kumar is Senior Scientific Officer Chemistry, FSL and proved his report on analysis of viscera Ex PW 17/A. 4.18 Pw18 Sh. Raja Bansal had given the flat at MU-62D, 3rd Floor, Pitampura, Delhi to deceased Mukesh Grover, being good SC No. 52783/2016 State Vs. Alam Page no. 11 friend of his father, for his personal use. He deposed that deceased Mukesh Grover used the said flat as his office cum resting space. He deposed that on 25.02.2015 he received a phone call from wife of deceased who told that lights of the flat are on and vehicle of deceased Mukesh Grover is parked on the road but the flat is locked from outside; and phone of deceased Mukesh Grover was going unattended so they asked if he has the key of the flat but he did not have the key. He further deposed that at about 07:00-08:00 am, son of deceased (Pw10) came in his car and he accompanied Pw10 to the flat. Sunny, son of deceased, brought the key maker and it took around 45 minutes to key maker to make the key. Thereafter, they went inside the flat and saw that lights and TV were on and Mukesh Grover was lying upside down with some cloth tied around his neck. He further deposed that Sunny made a call to police and police reached at the spot after half an hour.
4.19 Pw19 Sh. S.K. Tanwar is Technician from BSA Hospital, Rohini. He had assisted the doctor concerned in conducting the postmortem. He deposed that at the time of postmortem, the viscera of the deceased alongwith the blood samples, clothes, ligature material and blood guage alongwith the sealed swabs from hand, anal and penile area and vitreous humor sealed with the seal of department were handed over to Ct. Rakesh which were seized vide seizure memo Ex.Pw19/A. He proved the copy of PM report as Ex.Pw19/B. 4.20 Pw20 Sh. Deepak Kapoor is a businessman and he knew deceased being a good friend of his father. After death of his SC No. 52783/2016 State Vs. Alam Page no. 12 father the connect of deceased with Pw20 was almost broken until one day they met at PVR. There deceased came to know about vocation of Pw20 and after that deceased helped Pw20 in revival of business. After that their relations revived and deceased occasionally started visiting house of Pw20.
Pw20 deposed that on 23.02.2015 at about 6.00/6.30 pm he got call from mobile of deceased and the deceased invited Pw20 and his family to have dinner at Pind Baluchi Rajauri Garden. He obliged. While they were having dinner at about 10.00 pm deceased made call from his number and told to other side "Alam Tum SO Jao Main Mahi Aaunga". Pw20 inquired from deceased who this Alam is and he was told that its his new servant. At the time of dinner deceased had drinks so Pw20 requested him to stay at their place. That night deceased stayed in their house i.e. CD/71, Mahavir Enclave, Gali no.13, Gurudwara Road Delhi, and left to his office in the morning at about 7.00/8.00 am. He further deposed that on 26.02.2015 police called him to PS Maurya Enclave and made inquiries from him.
4.21 Pw21 ASI Ramesh Kumar deposed that on 30.03..2015, on instruction of IO, he handed over a pullanda sealed with the seal of BSA HOSPITAL to doctor concerned vide RC No. 16/21/15 and also handed over the copy of RC and receiving to the then MHC(M).
4.22 Pw22 Ct. Rakesh Kumar on 28.02.2015 he went to BSA Hospital mortuary where technical expert handed over to him four pullindas alongwith one sample seal and Pw22 handed over SC No. 52783/2016 State Vs. Alam Page no. 13 the same to IO which were seized by IO vide seizure memo Ex Pw 19/A. 4.23 Pw23 Insp. Mahesh Kumar prepared the scaled site plan and proved the same as Ex PW 23/A. 4.24 Pw24 Insp. Bijender Singh is the second IO who took investigation after registration of FIR. He had got the spot inspected from crime team, got it photographed, prepared site plan at instance of Pw10 lifted the exhibits and seized vide memos proved by Pw9. He then applied for CDR of mobile phones of deceased. On next day Pw24 applied for PM of deceased and proved his inquest papers Ex.Pw24/A. After post mortem he analyzed the CDR and came to know about contact of deceased with Pw20 and with accused. After submitting the exhibits to FSL, Pw24 searched for accused but could not succeed. He correctly identified the photographs as Ex PW 10/D (colly), and case property Ex PW 10/E, Ex. P3, Ex. P4, Ex. P6, Ex. P9, Ex. P10, Ex. P11 & Ex. P12.
4.25 Pw25 Ct. Sachin Tomar, on instruction of IO, took one sealed pullanda sealed with the seal of AK to PS Maurya Encalve vide RC No. 73/21/15.
4.26 Pw27 SI Devender Kumar nodal officer from CPCR PHQ proved computer generated PCR form as Ex.Pw27/A and certificate under Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act as Ex.Pw27/B. SC No. 52783/2016 State Vs. Alam Page no. 14 4.27 Pw 29 Insp. Mukesh Kumar took the investigation on 13.08.2015 and on 14.08.2015 he got information about arrest of accused by special cell. He collected the documents of arrest of accused from special cell and moved application Ex.Pw29/A seeking permission for interrogation of accused. On receiving permission Pw29 recorded the disclosure of accused, arrested him formally and applied for TIP of accused. On identification of accused by the witness Pw29 took accused in PC remand in which he prepared pointing out memo of spot, recovery memos of DL of deceased, key of lock of the house of deceased. He proved the site plan EX.Pw29/B, supplementary disclosure Ex.Pw29/C, seizure memo of ring of deceased Ex.Pw29/D and the site plan of recovery Ex.Pw29/E, pointing out memo of house of accused Ex.Pw29/F, copy of application for TIP of ring Ex.Pw29/H, copy of application for TIP proceedings Ex.Pw29/G and copy of TIP of accused Ex.Pw29/I. Pw29 also deposed that he collected the mobile phone of accused and obtained the CDR of mobile phone of accused Alam and of deceased and found that sim on the mobile phone of accused was issued in his name and sim of deceased was issued in name of deceased and CDR reveled that accused had talked with deceased on 19.02.2015 and lastly on 23.02.2015 at about 22.22 hrs. 4.28 Pw30 Sh. Gopal Krishan proved copy of driving licence no. DL0820000053918 issued in the name of Mukesh Grover S/o Sh. Mool Chand, as Ex Pw 30/A. SC No. 52783/2016 State Vs. Alam Page no. 15 4.29 Pw31 Israr Babu Nodal Officer Vodafone proved the CAF of Mobile no. 9899498634 in the name of accused Alam Ex.Pw31/A, KYC Documents Ex.Pw31/B and the CDR from 01.02.2015 to 28.07.2015 Ex.Pw31/C, alongwith certificate u/S 65B IEA Ex.Pw31/D. He also proved CAF of Mobile no. 9953460780 in the name of one Mohd. Sakib Raza Ex.Pw31/E, KYC Documents Ex.Pw31/F and the CDR from 01.02.2015 to 28.07.2015 Ex.Pw31/G, alongwith certificate u/S 65B IEA Ex.Pw35/H. He also proved the cell ID chart Ex.Pw31/I. 4.30 Pw32 Rajiv Ranjan Nodal Officer Tata Tele Service proved the CAF of Mobile no. 9212794933 in the name of Victim Ex.Pw32/A, KYC Documents Ex.Pw32/B, the CDR from 01.02.2015 to 28.07.2015 Ex.Pw32/C and the location chart Ex.Pw32/D alongwith certificate u/S 65B IEA Ex.Pw32/E. 4.31 Pw33 Ms. Imrana from FSL proved the FSL result Ex.Pw33/A with findings that DNA profile generated from source of Ex.1a, 1b and 1c i.e. clothes of deceased were found to be similar with the DNA of profile generated from source of Ex.2 I.e blood gauze of deceased.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED
5. After completion of prosecution evidence accused was examined u/S 313 Cr.PC and all the incriminating material were put to him. Accused claimed innocence and false implication and SC No. 52783/2016 State Vs. Alam Page no. 16 stated that he was known to deceased since long as he is a fruit vendor but he never worked in the office of deceased as his servant. Accused also claimed that Pw Sumit Prakash knew him for the same reason. He did not opt to lead any defence evidence.
ARGUMENTS
6. Ld. Addl. PP for state submitted that prosecution has proved that accused Alam was employed by deceased in his office and he used to live there and on 23.02.2015 deceased had telephonically asked the accused and his accomplice not to wait for him as he would not be returning to office. It is also submitted that prosecution has proved that deceased left for his office on 24.02.2015 and after that his dead body was discovered in the office who was found to have been strangulated and during investigation accused remained missing for few months and when he was arrested accused led to recovery of robbed ring of deceased and the key of the house. It is therefore submitted that prosecution has successfully proved the chain of circumstances which lead to only one inference that accused Alam alongwith his friends committed murder of Victim to rob him. Hence the accused is liable to be convicted.
7. Ld. defence Counsel on the other hand submitted that whole case of prosecution is a bundle of lies to screen the real offender and the accused has been falsely implicated just because of his acquaintance with the deceased as he had talked with deceased on the night of 23.02.2015. It is submission of Ld. Defence Counsel that the case being one based on circumstantial SC No. 52783/2016 State Vs. Alam Page no. 17 evidence, the prosecution has failed to prove the chain of circumstances beyond reasonable doubts to point the guilt towards accused only. The contention of Ld. Defence Counsel is that at every stage, from the behaviour of victim towards his family, the relation of family qua Victim, their conduct towards non appearance of victim and the conduct of deceased towards his family that he prefers to inform his servant about not coming to home than his own son and wife and staying at house of someone about whom he had kept secret from his family, are all suspicious circumstances which points towards multiple motives and persons behind them who would have killed the deceased. Ld. Defence counsel also contends that the way investigation is conducted by the IO shows how the police planted the circumstances from the date of incident to the date of arrest of accused. It is the submission that no circumstance is proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt, not even of accused being employee of deceased and that the witnesses are tutored and fit in the circumstances against accused to save the real culprit.
FINDINGS
8. The case being based on circumstantial evidence prosecution would rely on following broad circumstances:
1. Accused was the servant of deceased
2. Deceased was last seen alive with accused
3. Deceased was murdered at the spot i.e. Flat no.
MU 62 D Pitampura and there was theft of articles of deceased SC No. 52783/2016 State Vs. Alam Page no. 18
4. Accused going into hiding from the date of incident till his arrest on 13.08.2015.
5. Recovery of Key of the lock and DL of deceased at the instance of accused.
6. Recovery of Ring of deceased from house of accused at his instance.
LEGAL POSITION AS TO THE CASES BASED ON CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
9. In Sunder @ Lala and Ors. Vs. State 2009 VII AD(Delhi) 615 it was held as under:
" 29. It is settled law that circumstances play very important role in the appreciation of evidence. The conduct of witnesses is a very important facet to determine their creditworthiness. "
10. In evidence, there is no difference between direct and circumstantial evidence. The only difference is in that as proof, the former directly establishes the commission of the offence whereas the latter does so by placing circumstances which lead to irresistible inference of guilt. (Dalpat Singh Versus State of Rajasthan 2005 Cr LJ 749 (Raj) (DB)). The evidence has not to be considered merely as a number of bits of evidence, but the whole of it together and the cumulative effect of it has to be weighed. (Dukhram Nath Vs. Commercial Credit Corpn Ltd. AIR 1940 Oudh 35, (1939) OWN 1114). No distinction has, therefore, to be made between circumstantial and direct evidence. (Miran Baksh Vs. Emperor AIR 1931 Lah 529, 32 PLR 461; Thimma Vs. State of Mysore (1970) SCC (Cr) 320). The court must satisfy itself that the cumulative effect of the evidence, led SC No. 52783/2016 State Vs. Alam Page no. 19 by the prosecution, establishes the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. (Shanker Bhaka Narsale Vs. State of Maharashtra AIR 1972 SC 1171, (1972) UJ 811 (SC); Chanan Singh Vs. State of Haryana AIR 1971 SC 1554).
11. In Padala Veera Reddy v State of AP, AIR 1990 SC 79 it was laid down that when a case rests upon circumstantial evidence, such evidence must satisfy the following tests:
(1) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established;
(2) those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused;
(3) the circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else; and (4) the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence. (See Shivu & Anr. v R. G., High Court of Karnataka, 2007 Cr LJ 1806 (SC))
12. In Raju Vs. The State by Inspector of Police - AIR 2009 SC 2171, as regards circumstantial evidence, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under:
"7. It has been consistently laid down by this Court that where a case rests squarely on circumstantial evidence, the inference of guilt can be justified only when all the incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or the guilt of any other person."
SC No. 52783/2016 State Vs. Alam Page no. 20 There is no doubt that conviction can be based solely on circumstantial evidence but it should be tested by the touch-stone of law relating to circumstantial evidence laid down by the this Court as far back as in 1952.
In Hanumant Govind Nargundkar and Anr. V. State of Madhya Pradesh, (AIR 1952 SC 343), wherein it was observed thus:
"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 be 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 for 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 accused."
A reference may be made to a later decision in Sharda Birdichand Sharda v. State of Maharashtra, (AIR 1984 SC 1622). Therein, while dealing with circumstantial evidence, it has been held that, "onus was on the prosecution to prove that the chain is complete and the infirmity of lacuna in prosecution cannot be cured by false defence or plea. The conditions precedent in the words of this Court, before conviction could be based on circumstantial evidence, must be fully established. They are:
(1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established.
The circumstances concerned 'must' or 'should' and not 'may be' established;
(2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be SC No. 52783/2016 State Vs. Alam Page no. 21 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."
In Anil Kumar Singh Vs. State of Bihar (2003) 9 Supreme Court Cases 67 it was held as under:
"8. It is well settled that in order to base a conviction on circumstantial evidence, each and every piece of incriminating circumstance must be clearly established by reliable and clinching evidence and the circumstances so proved must form such a chain of events as would permit no conclusion other than the one of guilt of the accused and the circumstances cannot be explained on any hypothesis other than the guilt of the accused. The court has to be cautious and avoid the risk of allowing mere suspicion, howsoever strong, to take the place of proof. A mere moral conviction or a suspicion how soevergrave it may be cannot take the place of proof "
13. In the back drop of the legal position as to criminal cases based on circumstantial evidence the different important aspects of the case/incriminating circumstances appearing against the accused are being examined as follows:
Whether it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused was the servant of deceased?
14. Complainant had no idea who the servant was. He only deposed that his father had appointed a servant 2-3 days before SC No. 52783/2016 State Vs. Alam Page no. 22 the date of incident. Deceased was found dead in the morning 25.02.2015 which means the servant must have been appointed near 22.02.2015.
15. Prosecution wanted to prove through Pw12 i.e. wife of deceased that she was informed by the deceased that he had appointed one Alam as a servant. However she denied any such information being disclosed by deceased. Pw12 is widow of deceased and she has no reason to lie about the killer of her husband. She is rather expected to point towards accused if she actually believed that accused was the servant of deceased and was responsible for his death, even if the name of that servant was not known to her. This shows that name of Alam in the statement u/S 161 Cr.PC of Pw12 was deliberately inserted by IO. It is a fact that Pw12 was examined by IO for the first time on 28.02.2015. It was the claim of IO that Pw12 had arrived at spot on 25.02.2015 but he did not record her statement as she was under trauma but Pw12 categorically deposed that she never visited the spot after informing her son about door being locked and not getting any response to door bell.
16. There are two more witnesses i.e. Pw20 and Pw16 who have deposed about accused being the servant of deceased. So far as Pw20 is concerned he had never seen the accused but overheard deceased talking with someone called Alam on phone about whom the deceased disclosed that Alam and one more are his servants. Pw20 came in picture when IO found out that deceased had called at his number on 23.02.2015. IO has not deposed when he inquired Pw20 but it is on record that he came SC No. 52783/2016 State Vs. Alam Page no. 23 into picture only after the CDR analysis of phone of deceased and as per Ex.Pw20/DA Pw20 was examined on 27.02.2015. By that time IO had already found out that deceased had talked from his phone number 9212794933 with Alam on phone number 9899408634 on 23.02.2015 at 22.22.30 for 19 sec. This fact is proved from CDR Ex.Pw31/C that deceased had talked with accused at 22.22.30 for 19 sec. But the CDR Ex.Pw32/C also shows that on the same date deceased made one more call on same number at 22.22.28 hrs and talked for about 30 secs. Surprisingly Pw20 deposed about only one call. If deceased was having dinner with Pw20 at Pind Baluchi both calls must have been received at same place in presence of Pw20.
17. The relation of Pw20 with deceased is suspicious. He is no friend of complainant despite complainant being son of deceased and he never met the family members of deceased. Though IO claimed that Pw20 and family of deceased were very well known to each others but same is disputed by Pw 10 & Pw 12. Further the deceased stayed at house of Pw 20 on the night of 23.02.2015 but did not inform his family where he has stayed. Therefore, Pw20, for his suspicious relation with deceased could have been a suspect. Yet the IO made him a witness and fabricated the facts that Pw20 was known to family of deceased. He could have said anything IO wanted him to say. IO had already come to know about the name of Alam from CDR. Therefore the testimony of Pw20 is not reliable.
18. Now comes the testimony of Pw16. He has not only deposed that Alam was the servant of deceased but had seen SC No. 52783/2016 State Vs. Alam Page no. 24 deceased with Alam on the balcony of flat on 24.02.2015, when he was returning from morning walk. Pw16 had arrived at the spot on 25.02.2015 when complainant called him. He remained with complainant and even visited mortuary and is witness to receipt of dead body Ex.Pw2/A. He is the president of RWA.
19. The complainant gave his statement Ex.Pw9/A, suspecting the servant, on the spot itself and Pw16 was present at that time yet he preferred to remain silent about identity of servant despite seeing the deceased with that servant a day before his death and knowing his name. The record shows that the statement of this witness was recorded on 25.02.2015 as well as on 26.02.2015 and in both these statements he did not disclose to IO about seeing any servant or his identity. Pw16 disclosed about the servant of deceased and his identity only on 30.05.2015 when his supplementary statement was recorded. By that time IO was already in possession of information that deceased had talked with Alam on 23.02.2015. By then IO had already made two witnesses i.e. Pw-12 & Pw-20 to the fact of appointing a servant. Pw12 despite being wife of deceased refused to have come to know about name of servant and as already discussed Pw20 had no option but to say whatever IO wanted him to say. Therefore I have no hesitation in saying that Pw20 never knew if deceased had kept any servant or his name. His testimony qua that part is nothing but lie.
20. It appears that on receipt of CDR, IO figured out the name of Alam with whom deceased had talked on 23.02.2015 at 22.22.30 hrs and made him the target accused. Call of deceased SC No. 52783/2016 State Vs. Alam Page no. 25 to accused was not the last call. The CDR of the deceased Ex.Pw32/C shows following other calls on 24.02.2015:
• incoming from 9448137792 at 08.02.46 hrs talking time 140 secs, • outgoing to 9449824933 at 08.05.58 hrs talking time 130 secs, • outgoing to 9996202725 at 08.52.46 hrs talking time 61 secs and again at 09.07.51 hrs talking time 107 secs, • incoming from 9447747745 at 09.24.19 hrs talking time 102 secs, and • incoming from 9616325339 at 09.53.51 hrs talking time 13 secs.
• After that there are 12 messages till 18.13.48 hrs.
21. There is no investigation to whom these numbers belong and what were the contents of those messages. Either there was a deliberate concealment or the investigation is driven with confirmation bias against accused. The accused in his statement has accepted that he had talked with deceased as the deceased used to call him frequently for supply of vegetable but he never worked as servant.
22. It is pertinent to record here that Pw10 was examined for the first time on 08.10.2016. On that day his examination in chief was deferred for 30.11.2016. For 30.11.2016 court issued summons upon Pw10 as well as Pw12. It is on record that both Pw10 and 12 refused to accept summons and did not appear on 30.11.2016. As accused has claimed that he used to supply vegetables to deceased frequently, there is a possibility that family of deceased knew accused as a vegetable vendor. Could this be the reason they refused to appear in the court? Is this the reason Pw12 denied the suggestion of state that deceased had SC No. 52783/2016 State Vs. Alam Page no. 26 told the name of servant as Alam?
23. Ex.Pw9/A was the first call made to police by Pw10 and in this call Pw10 did not inform about any servant at all. Pw10 rather told in that call that he had locked his father in that room the night before his death. Nothing belonging to accused or connecting with the accused was recovered from the spot. There was a card board box recovered from servant room in which PONAMA I LOVE TO BOBY was written. This piece of card board is Ex.Pw10/E. IO did not even try to match the writing in Ex.Pw10/E with that of accused. Therefore In all probabilities it is not certain from the circumstances brought on record that accused was the servant appointed by deceased. Hence I am of the view that prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that accused was the servant of deceased.
Whether it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that deceased was last seen alive with accused?
24. Police received the information vide DD no. 24A (Ex.pw9/A) dated 25.02.2015 at 10.20 am. This DD is recorded on receipt of call from Pw10 who stated in his 100 number call that "Kal unhone Ghar ko lock lagaya tha Andar unke Papa the ab lock khola to unke Papa koi response nahi kar rahe hai"
(yesterday they had put lock in the house, his father was inside now when lock is opened his father is not giving any response). This statement shows that the deceased was last seen by the person who had locked the house. It is not certain if the lock was put by complainant or his mother Pw12. However, in his SC No. 52783/2016 State Vs. Alam Page no. 27 complaint Ex.Pw9/B and in his testimony, Pw10 stated that deceased had left the house on 23.02.2015 (no time is mentioned) to his office i.e the spot and after that deceased was not seen by them and the phone of deceased was coming switched off from 11 am on 24.02.2015.
25. In Ex.Pw9/B Pw10 had not given any explanation as to why he stated in call at 100 number that he had locked the house in the evening. However, Pw10 had come prepared at the time of his examination in chief that he got panicked on seeing dead body of his father and in that state told that "the house was locked by us yesterday which in-fact was not locked by any of us". Therefore the last seen alive time of deceased which could have been evening of 24.02.2015 got explained. The statements of Pw9 and Pw12 are therefore inconclusive as to the time of last seen alive of deceased.
26. The testimony of Pw16 to the extent that he had seen the servant of deceased and both present together has already been disbelieved. Even if it is accepted that Pw16 could have seen deceased on 24.02.2015 he is supposed to have seen the deceased during early hours of morning as he was returning from morning walk. As per Pw20 deceased left his house at Mahavir enclave, in between 7 to 8 am saying that first he would go to his office.
27. The post mortem of deceased was conducted on 26.02.2015 and PM report Ex.Px-3 at Brief History as Per IO records that deceased was last seen alive on 24.02.2015 at about 10.20 am. Since by 24.02.2015 neither Pw16 nor Pw20 were SC No. 52783/2016 State Vs. Alam Page no. 28 examined by IO this information of last seen alive was not given on the basis of statement of any witness but on the basis of the CDRs of deceased which records that last incoming call at 9.53an on 24.02.2015. Who is this persons with whom the deceased had talked for 13 secs at mobile no. 9616325339 is a mystery. It is manifest on record that IO has concealed or not investigated some very material facts. The way he gave the last seen brief to the doctors conducting post mortem shows that he must have examined those persons with whom deceased had talked. Could it be the family members of deceased? IO has not filed any CDR of family members of deceased despite having reasons for suspicion on the basis of Ex.Pw9/A.
28. Therefore the entire question of last seen alive is in dispute. Given that Pw16 cannot be believed for his conduct of not disclosing anything about servant till 30.02.2015 despite being examined twice, there is no evidence to show that accused was last seen alive with deceased. Hence this circumstance is also not proved.
29. For the same reason the circumstance of identification of accused by Pw16 in TIP and court cannot be relied as accused was arrested after about 6 months on incident and the police was already having the photograph of accused from CAF and KYC of his mobile phone. When it is apparent that Pw16 was brought against accused after 30.02.2015 only to confirm the bias of IO, the identification of accused by this witness loses all its credibility.
SC No. 52783/2016 State Vs. Alam Page no. 29 Whether it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that deceased was murdered at the spot i.e. Flat no. MU 62 D Pitampura and there was theft of articles of deceased?
30. There is no doubt that deceased was murdered as PM report Ex.Px-3 gives the cause that the death as asphyxia consequent upon ligature strangulation which is homicide amounting to murder. There is no contest on this. The circumstance of theft of belongings of deceased and consequence of missing of accused will be dealt with circumstance of his arrest and recovery .
Whether the circumstance of accused going into hiding from the date of incident till his arrest on 13.08.2015 proved beyond reasonable doubt?
31. The circumstances that the accused was servant of deceased and was last seen with deceased on 24.02.2015 have already been doubted. However, it is admitted fact that deceased knew accused. The address of accused as per chargesheet is of Amarpur Distt. Banka, Bihar. Since accused was in Delhi in the month of February 2015 and had the phone number issued in his name he must have address in Delhi. Ex.Pw31/A is the CAF of mobile number of accused and as per this the address of accused in Delhi is C-81, Welcome, Seelampur Delhi. The investigation is silent if the police ever visited this address. Pw24 has not deposed anything about any visit at this place nor sent anyone to verify if the accused was living there. Prosecution has not brought any witness from that address of locality to prove that SC No. 52783/2016 State Vs. Alam Page no. 30 Alam lived there and was not seen after 19th February i.e. the date when accused talked with the deceased for the first time. It is however a fact that accused was arrested on 13.08.2015 by special staff.
32. Pw24 has deposed that after seizure of pullanda from BSA hospital, vide memo Ex.Pw19/A, on 28.02.2015 he continued the search of accused till the investigation remained with him. As the permanent address of accused, of Bihar, was also available in the CAF as well as KYC documents of mobile number it is expected that IO would visit the address of accused in Bihar or send a team. However, nothing of such sort was done by IO. Therefore there is nothing on record to suggest that accused went hiding after 25.02.2015 till he was arrested on 13.08.2015.
33. CDR Ex.Pw31/C of accused shows that he kept his phone functional till 09.05.2015 but since police has not filed location chart of the mobile number of accused the location of the phone is not ascertainable during this period. On 13.08.2015 when accused was arrested by Special staff, mobile phone of accused was seized vide memo Ex.Pw13/B. As per Ex.Pw13/B the mobile phone was of make carbonn and there was a sim of Airtel in that phone. The IMEI number of this phone i.e. 911393801639706 matches with IMEI number in Ex.Pw31/C upto last two digits. This shows that even on 13.08.2015 accused was using the same phone. The police had also recovered one SIM from that phone but the number is not recorded in the seizure memo, however, it is mentioned that the SIM was of Airtel. Pw31 is nodal officer from Vodafone Idea Ltd not Airtel SC No. 52783/2016 State Vs. Alam Page no. 31 therefore the number which was seized on 13.08.2015 was not the number through which accused had conversation with the deceased. No details of this number of Airtel was collected in investigation. Since there is nothing on record in the form of location chart of phone of accused there is no evidence to show where the accused have been from 23.02.2015 to 13.08.2015. A person can be said to have gone in hiding when record shows that he was not found at his place of abode or where he is normally expected to be found. Nothing of such sort was done by police in this case. This circumstance is, therefore, not proved.
Whether it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that Key of flat and DL of deceased were recovered at the instance of accused?
34. Prosecution has relied on seizure memo Ex.Pw11/B in which accused made disclosure that he and his friend sat in the park in front of that flat where his friend Sahud after opening the the purse (of deceased) took money and ATMs and threw some documents and driving license of deceased in bushes and accused too threw the key of the door in bushes. As per prosecution it is on the basis of this information accused led to recovery of DL of deceased and the key of flat vide pointing out cum seizure memos Ex.Pw11/E and seizure memo Ex.Pw11/D respectively.
35. The place of recovery as per Ex.Pw11/D and E is Distt Park Pitam pura which is in front of house of house of deceased across the road. However, the recovery of these articles are not immediately after the incident of murder or theft to apply the SC No. 52783/2016 State Vs. Alam Page no. 32 presumption u/S 114 IEA against accused. There is a gap of about 6 months from the date of incident and of alleged recovery. It is not the case that these key and Driving License were secretly kept at a particular safe place. They were allegedly thrown in the bushes. I am however, unable to believe that a persons would remember the particular bush where the key or the DL was thrown. The Driving license is made of plastic and key is of metal it is impossible that such thin objects would remain open or uncovered by mud/dust after they being thrown there about 6 months back. This discovery therefore prima facie appears to be planted on accused. And given the way the matter is investigated by IOs, so far, furthers this assumption that these documents were planted. The circumstance of recovery of key of the flat and DL of deceased at the instance of accused is therefore not proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Whether it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that Ring of deceased was recovered at the instance of accused from house of accused?
36. This Ring is Ex.P5 which Pw10 identified in TIP Ex.Pw10/C. As per investigation this ring was also discovered and seized on the basis of disclosure statement Ex.Pw11/B. The relevant statement qua this ring is " he and Sahud decided to sell the chain first and then the rings and distribute the proceeds in half. Thereafter Sahud went to Patna and he went to his home and after 4-5 days Sahud called the accused to Arariya where he gave Rs. 10000 from the sale of chain and took one ring from accused. The ring which came in share of accused was given by SC No. 52783/2016 State Vs. Alam Page no. 33 accused to his friend of his village from whom he can get the ring recovered. The information relevant qua discovery of ring from this disclosure statement is that he had given the ring to his friend from village and can get that ring recovered. However, seizure memo Ex.Pw29/D of the ring records that accused led to his house at his village Baijudi Sultanpur Mohalla Distt. Banka Bihar and got the ring recovered from his room from a small box of iron. Even the pointing out memo Ex.Pw29/F records that accused pointed to his house and told that he has kept the ring of deceased in an iron box in that house. The discovery is not as per the information given in disclosure statement. Therefore the disclosure statement qua the recovery of ring is not relevant.
37. Yet Ex.P5 is recovered and seized during investigation and as per Ex.Pw29/D it was recovered from house of accused. As per complainant when he saw the dead body of his father he found that, among other articles, the rings of his father were also missing and he identified Ex.P5 as the same ring. It is, however, surprising that the ring was produced from Malkhana and complainant or Pw12/wife had not got that ring released. Till date they have not applied for release of the ring. During investigation IO did not collect any description of ring from complainant or Pw12, not even photograph of deceased which could show what kind of ring deceased was wearing. It is also surprising that accused did not sell that ring and kept it with him for about 6 months. The allegation is that accused committed the murder to loot the deceased.
38. On the other hand there is another disclosure statement SC No. 52783/2016 State Vs. Alam Page no. 34 recorded by special staff. This disclosure statement Ex.Pw13/A though records that the documents from purse and key were thrown in bushes but regarding gold articles this disclosure records that they sold all and he got Rs. 10,000/-. It appears that the police had already planned to plant recovery of Key and driving license before 13.08.2015 but the IO found it insufficient to pin the blame on accused. Therefore in disclosure Ex.Pw11/B new fact as to giving of ring to friend was introduced. This too might be thought insufficient by IO as it would require introduction of one more person therefore the ring is shown to be discovered from house of accused. This makes entire recovery proceedings of ring Ex.P5 doubtful.
39. The discussion on testimonies of witnesses, documentary evidence brought on record and the way it were collected shows that from beginning IO had made his target on whom the blame has to fixed. Out of about 5-6 persons with whom deceased had talked on 23.02.2015 and 24.02.2015 he only picked two persons i.e. accused and Pw20. It cannot be believed that IO could not have examined those 5 persons with whom deceased had talked on 24.02.2015 after he left the house of Pw20. There is a possibility that those numbers belonged to Pw10 or Pw12 as deceased had not returned from evening of 23.02.2015. The relation of deceased with his family is strange that he goes to sleep in house of someone who are not know to his family and prefers not to inform about where he is staying at night. The complainant initially informs that he had locked the room in the evening of 24.02.2015 in his call at 100 number but claims that he said so under trauma, however, there is no mention of any SC No. 52783/2016 State Vs. Alam Page no. 35 mistake committed in trauma in Ex.Pw9/B. Pw16 keeps on adding new facts as per convenience of investigation.
40. All these facts leads to doubt on the fairness and genuineness of investigation and as each circumstance is discussed, none of them are proved beyond reasonable doubt. In my opinion, therefore, prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charges against accused. Hence, the accused is acquitted of charges levelled against him.
Digitally signed by VIKRAM Date:VIKRAM 2023.03.24 16:11:45 +0530 Date : 24.03.2023 (Vikram) ASJ-02/Spl. Judge (NDPS), North West, Rohini Courts, Delhi/24.03.2023 Dictated on : 24.03.2023 Transcribed on : 24.03.2023 Digitally signed by VIKRAM checked on : 24.03.2023 Date: Signed on : 24.03.2023 VIKRAM 2023.03.24 16:11:53 +0530 (Vikram) ASJ-02/Spl. Judge (NDPS), North West, Rohini Courts, Delhi/24.03.2023 SC No. 52783/2016 State Vs. Alam Page no. 36 Annexure 'A' List of Prosecution Witnesses S.No. PW No. Name of Witness Details of Witness 1. PW-1 Ct. Ashok Special messanger (also examined as PW-28) 2. PW-2 Ct. Manish With IO during PM 3. PW-3 HC Premraj Register no. 19 & 21 4. PW-4 Ct. Satender Got registered the FIR 5. PW-5 HC Jai Roop MHCM 6. PW-6 Ct. Sanjeev Deposit exhibits with FSL 7. PW-7 Ct. Ankit Police cntrol room, PHQ 8. PW-8 Rtd. SI Naresh Pal Incharge crime team 9. PW-9 Rtd. SI Brij Bhushan Sent ruqqa for registration of FIR 10. PW-10 Sunish Grover Complainant 11. PW-11 HC Baljit Singh With Insp. Mukesh Kumar 12. PW-12 Sneh Lata Wife of deceased 13. PW-13 ASI Suresh Chand Special staff, North West District 14. PW-14 Pawan Key maker 15. PW-15 Pritam Bhagat Identify dead body 16. PW-16 Sumit Prakash Identify the accused in TIP proceedings 17. PW-17 Dr. Adesh KUmar Senior Scientific Officer Chemistry, FSL Rohini 18. PW-18 Raja Bansal Owner of the flat 19. PW-19 S.K. Tanwar PM Tech. BSA Hospital 20. PW-20 Deepak Kapoor Witness regarding SC No. 52783/2016 State Vs. Alam Page no. 37 call received from deceased 21. PW-21 ASI Ramesh Kumar Deposit the pullanda in the hospital 22. PW-22 Ct. Rakesh Kumar With IO 23. PW-23 Insp. Mahesh Kumar Prepared site plan with scale 24. PW-24 Insp. Bijender Singh 1st IO 25. PW-25 Ct. Sachin Tomar Deposit sealed pullanda in the malkhana 26. PW-26 Insp. Ajay Arrest accused and recovered case property 27. PW-27 SI Devender Kumar Nodal Officer/CPCR/PHQ 28. PW-28 Ct. Ashok Kumar Special messanger 29. PW-29 Insp. Mukesh Kumar 2nd IO 30. PW-30 Gopal Krishan Dealing Assistant, Transport Department, Wazirpur, Delhi. 31. PW-31 Israr Babu Alternate Nodal Officer, Vodafone Idea Ltd. 32. PW-32 Rajeev Rajnan Nodal Officer, TATA Tele Services Ltd. 33. PW-33 Imrana Senior Scientific Officer (Biology), FSL SC No. 52783/2016 State Vs. Alam Page no. 38 Annexure 'B' List of Exhibits S.No. Exhibit No. Details of Remarks Documents 1. Ex. Pw 1/1 Affidavit of witness 2. Ex. Pw 2/1 Affidavit of witness 3. Ex. Pw 2/A Dead body handing over memo 4. Ex. Pw 3/1 Affidavit of witness 5. Ex. Pw 3/A to Copy of RCs and Document Ex PW Ex Pw 3/D acknowledgment 4/D in the statement receipts of Pw-3 is actually exhibited as Ex PW 3/D 6. Ex. Pw 4/1 Affidavit of witness 7. Ex. Pw 5/1 Affidavit of witness 8. Ex. Pw 5/A Copy of RC No. 16/21/15 9. Ex. Pw 5/A1 Copy of receipt of BSA Hospital 10. Ex. Pw 5/B Copy of entry no. 928 in register no. 19 11. Ex. Pw 5/C Copy of entry no. 932 in register no, 19 12. Ex. Pw 7/A Copy of Form-I 13. Ex. Pw 7/B Certificate under Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act 14. Ex. Pw 8/A Detailed report of scene crime 15. Ex. Pw 9/A DD No. 24A 16. Ex. Pw 9/B Statement of complainant Sunish SC No. 52783/2016 State Vs. Alam Page no. 39 Grover 17. Ex. Pw 9/C Ruqqa 18. Ex. Pw 9/D Seizure memo of Recovered from the pillow bedroom where the dead body was found 19. Ex. Pw 9/E Seizure memo of Key with keyring key with locket recovered from the dustbin kept in the bedroom 20. Ex. Pw 9/F Seizure memo of Pullanda A : two pullandas A, B, C & combs D Pullanda B : Gillette Razor Pullanda C : Charger make Nano Pullanda D : Charge make micromax 21. Ex. Pw 9/G Seizure memo of Recovered from pillow servant room 22. Ex. Pw 9/H Seizure memo of On which Poonam I written portion of Love to Boby was card baord box written, recovered from servant room 23. Ex. Pw 9/I Seizure memo of Key and lock of main gate 24. Ex. Pw 10/A Site plan 25. Ex. Pw 10/B Dead body identification statement 26. Ex. Pw 10/C TIP proceedings 27. Ex. Pw 10/D 31 photographs of (collectively) the spot
28. Ex. Pw 10/E Piece of card board Recovered from box servant room
29. Ex. Pw 11/A Arrest memo of accused SC No. 52783/2016 State Vs. Alam Page no. 40
30. Ex. Pw 11/B Disclosure statement of accused
31. Ex. Pw 11/C Pointing out memo
32. Ex. Pw 11/D DL of deceased
33. Ex. Pw 11/E Key On which EKTA was written
34. Ex. Pw 13/A Disclosure statement Recorded by IO of accused from Special Staff
35. Ex. Pw 13/B Seizure memo of Seized by IO from mobile phone make Special Staff Karbon
36. Ex. Pw 13/C Arrest memo of Prepared by IO from accused Special Staff
37. Ex. Pw 13/D Personal search of Prepared by IO from accused Special Staff
38. Ex. Pw 15/A Dead body identification memo
39. Ex. Pw 16/A Judicial TIP proceedings
40. Ex. Pw 17/A Chemical examination report
41. Ex. Pw 19/A Seizure memo of pullandas received from hospital
42. Ex. Pw 19/B PM report
43. Ex. Pw 23/A Scaled site plan
44. Ex. Pw 24/A Documents (collectively) regarding post mortem
45. Ex. Pw 26/A Arrival entry
46. Ex. Pw 26/B Kalandra
47. Ex. Pw 27/A PCR Form
48. Ex. Pw 27/B Certificate under Section 65 B of Indian Evidence Act
49. Ex. Pw 29/A Application for interrogation of SC No. 52783/2016 State Vs. Alam Page no. 41 accused
50. Ex. Pw 29/B Site plan of the spot
51. Ex. Pw 29/C Disclosure statement of accused
52. Ex. Pw 29/D Seizure memo of Recovered at the ring of deceased instance of accused from his house
53. Ex. Pw 29/E Site plan
54. Ex. Pw 29/F Pointing out memo
55. Ex. Pw 29/G Application for copy of TIP proceedings
56. Ex. Pw 29/H Carbon copy of application for TIP of case property
57. Ex. Pw 29/I Carbon copy of application for TIP of accused
58. Ex. PW 29/J Application for filing two FSL report in the Court
59. Ex. Pw 29/K Application for filing report of DL
60. Ex. Pw 30/A Copy of details of DL of deceased
61. Ex. Pw 31/A Attested copy of Mobile no.
CAF 9899498634 62. Ex. Pw 31/B Copy of Voter I-Card 63. Ex. Pw 31/C CDR From 01.02.2015 to 28.07.2015 64. Ex. Pw 31/D Certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act 65. Ex. Pw 31/E Attested copy of Mobile no. CAF 9953460780 66. Ex. Pw 31/F Copy of Voter I-card 67. Ex. Pw 31/G CDR From 01.02.2015 to 28.07.2015 SC No. 52783/2016 State Vs. Alam Page no. 42 68. Ex. Pw 31/H Certificate under Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act 69. Ex. Pw 31/I Cell ID Chart of For Delhi and NCR Vodafone 70. Ex. Pw 32/A CAF Mobile no. 9212794933 71. Ex. Pw 32/B Election I-card 72. Ex. Pw 32/C CDR From 01.02.2015 to 28.07.2015 73. Ex. Pw 32/D Location chart 74. Ex. Pw 32/E Certificate under Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act 75. Ex. Pw 32/F Covering letter 76 Ex. PW 33/A Detailed report From Senior Scientific Officer (Biology) FSL 77. Ex. P1 DL of deceased 78. Ex. P2 Mobile phone make (collectively) Karbon (white colour with golden black), battery and AirTel SIM 79. Ex. P3 One lock make Lark (collectively) Renew 102 and one key on which Queen is inscribed 80. Ex. P4 Mobile charger (collectively) Micromax and Nano TM 81. Ex. P5 Ring of deceased 82. Ex. P6 Key On which Ekta is inscribed in a ring chain with locket of B 83. Ex. P7 Lock with key on which Queen is SC No. 52783/2016 State Vs. Alam Page no. 43 inscribed 84. Ex. P8 Key On which EKTA was incribed 85. Ex. P9 Pillow Recovered from the room where dead body was found on which Sucheta is written with black pen 86. Ex. P10 Pillow Seized from servant room 87. Ex. P11 Two combs (collectively) 88. Ex. P12 Gillette razor 89. Ex. P13 Clothes of deceased 90. Ex. PX2 FSL result With respect to the key and lock of the flat SC No. 52783/2016 State Vs. Alam Page no. 44