Delhi District Court
State vs . Narender Mann & Others. on 4 February, 2016
IN THE COURT OF SHRI M.R. SETHI: ASJ, SPECIAL
JUDGE(NDPS) NORTH, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI.
Case ID: 02404R0459192006
SC No. 5/15
FIR No.200/06
U/s 302/120B/201/34 IPC &
U/s 25/27/29 B Arms Act.
PS Mangolpuri
State
Vs.
1 Narender Mann,
S/o Shri Mehar Singh,
R/o Village Naya Bans,
Delhi
2 Joginder Singh Sodhi @ Vicky,
S/o Shri Satnam Singh,
R/o B-8/230, Sector-3,
Rohini, Delhi.
3 Sachin Bansal @ Anshu,
S/o Shri Shiv Charan Bansal,
R/o H-4/5, Kothi No.63,
Suvidha Kunj, Pitam Pura,
Delhi.
Date of institution of the case : 11.03.2015
Date when final arguments concluded : 06.01.2016
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 04.02.2016
State vs. Narender Mann & Others.
(FIR no. 200/06 PS Mangolpuri) 1 of101
JUDGMENT
1 Succinctly stated, case of prosecution was to the effect that the three accused persons namely Narender Mann, Joginder Singh and Sachin Bansal had entered into a criminal conspiracy alongwith four other persons, to kill Shri S.N. Gupta, and in furtherance to the said conspiracy they had killed Shri Gupta on 21.3.2006 at about 4.30 PM at Main Gate, House No. 260, Deepali Enclave, Pitam Pura, New Delhi. After investigation, charge sheet was filed against seven accused persons out of whom Nanhe, Raju, Shiv Charan and Shailender Singh came to be discharged.
2 Charges were accordingly framed against all the three accused persons facing trial before this court for having committed offences punishable U/s 120B IPC; U/s 302/120B/34 IPC. Accused Joginder was also separately charged with for having committed an offence punishable U/s 27 Arms Act. Accused Narender Mann was separately charged with for having committed offences punishable U/s 29 B & 25 of Arms Act and also for having committed offence punishable U/s 201 r/w 120 B IPC. Accused Sachin Bansal was also separately charged with for having committed an offence punishable U/s 25 Arms Act. All the three accused persons had pleaded not guilty to the charges framed and had claimed trial.
3 During course of trial, prosecution examined PW-1 Shri Puneet Puri who proved FSL report Ex. PW-1/A and Ex. PW-1/B from the Ballistic Division.
State vs. Narender Mann & Others.
(FIR no. 200/06 PS Mangolpuri) 2 of101 During course of cross examination, witness claimed that he did not know the date on which the exhibits were received in Biology Division of FSL. He claimed that he personally had not received the articles as the same had been received in the case section of FSL. He denied the suggestion that he did not conduct proper examination of the exhibits or that his reports were not correct.
4 PW-2 Shri Tejinder Singh claimed that he was running a shop under the name of Tej Armoury. He claimed that as per his shop records, on 26.11.2005 one Narender Singh S/o Mehar Singh had purchased 20 cartridges of .32 bore pistol against his Arm license. He claimed having handed over photocopies of relevant records of his shop to the police authorities which were seized vide Memo Ex. PW- 2/A. He also proved copies of cash Memo, order form and daily sale register as Ex. PW-2/B,C & D respectively.
During cross examination by Ld. counsel for accused, witness admitted that cartridges of 1 Batch are made in thousands and cartridge of .32 caliber can be used in any .32 bore pistol. He admitted that it can also be used in indigenous weapon. He could not say if it could also be used in illegally manufactured weapon / katta. 5 PW-3 Manohar Lal proved the scaled site plan Ex. PW-3/A. He claimed that after preparing the scaled site plan he had destroyed the rough notes.
During course of cross examination, witness admitted having prepared the site plan in his office. He denied the suggestion that he had never visited the spot or that all points were given to him by IO on the spot and not by any witness. While he claimed that he could identify Kanta Devi, he claimed that he could not give her description.
State vs. Narender Mann & Others.
(FIR no. 200/06 PS Mangolpuri) 3 of101 He also could not tell names of other witnesses who had pointed out the spot to him. He claimed that he did not obtain signature of Kanta Devi on his rough notes. He denied having prepared the scaled site plan at instance of the IO after completion of investigation. 6 PW-4 Dr. Manoj Dhingra proved postmortem report Ex. PW-4/A in respect of dead body of Shri S.N. Gupta and claimed that cause of death was shock as a result of fire arm injury to chest viscera and arota.
During course of cross examination, witness claimed that he could not differentiate between gun shot injury and bullet injury but could identify from nature of injury on the body. He claimed that after seeing the injuries mentioned in the PM report, he could not tell as to from what height the bullet had been fired. He admitted that in case bullet is fired from down to up or from up to down or from any side, it can change direction after entering the body but the entry wound would be the same. He could not say if the bullet in this case had been fired from side or from up or from down. He could not say if injury No.1, 2 & 3 as mentioned in the PM report were on the ribs or in between two ribs. He clarified that he had not given any opinion on the corresponding injury on the clothes as the dead body had come in naked position except for underwear and nikkar. He admitted that he had neither procured the clothes nor the same were looked by him. He denied the suggestion that postmortem infact had been done by Dr. Ashish or that he himself had only ascented on the same. 7 PW-5 Madan Lal proved copy of FIR Ex. PW-5/A and his endorsement on rukka Ex. PW-5/B. He also proved copy of DD No. 21 as Ex. PW-5/C. State vs. Narender Mann & Others.
(FIR no. 200/06 PS Mangolpuri) 4 of101 During course of cross examination by Ld. counsel for accuseds, he denied the suggestion that no rukka was received by him or that FIR had been recorded subsequently. He admitted that facts of the case were not mentioned in the daily diary. He denied the suggestion that it was so as facts of the FIR were not in his knowledge when DD report was prepared.
8 PW-6 HC Bharat Kumar proved copy of DD No. 26 dated 21.3.2006 as Ex. PW-6/A. During course of cross examination, witness admitted that name of the SI on whose behalf DD No. 26 was recorded had not been mentioned in the DD entry. He claimed that SI Dharambir had left the PS at about 9.45 AM vide DD No. 18 on that day and that there was no return entry of SI Dharambir at the Police Post till 12.00 midnight. 9 PW-7 Ct. Dalbir claimed that on 21.3.2006 he was posted as a Photographer with Mobile Crime Team and had gone alongwith the Incharge to House No.260, Deepali Enclave, Pitam Pura where he took 8 photographs of the crime scene from different angles on instructions of the IO. He proved the photographs Ex. PW-7/A1 to A-8 as also the negatives Ex. PW-7/B1 to B8.
During course of cross examination by Ld. counsel for accused, witness claimed having reached the spot at about 5.55 PM and that Inspector Satpal Singh was found present at the spot. He claimed having remained at the spot till 6.00 PM. He could not tell as to what proceedings were being conducted by Inspector Satpal Singh till he himself had remained at the spot. He could not say whether or not inmates of the house were present outside where photographs were being taken. He claimed that he did not see any public person at the State vs. Narender Mann & Others.
(FIR no. 200/06 PS Mangolpuri) 5 of101 spot as long as he remained there. He could not say how many other police officers were found present at the spot or what were their designations. He could not tell distance of the road or the gate from the blood shown in photograph. It was claimed that the crime-team had gone to the spot in mini bus No. DL-1LE-3695 and had started from the crime-team office at 5.00 PM. He claimed that finger print expert who was with them had tried to lift the imprints but could not succeed. He claimed that the dog squad had also accompanied them to the spot but he could not say in which direction and till what distance the dog had led the crime-team for tracing out the accused. He claimed that the dog had gone towards right side of gate if one stands with back towards the gate and that there was road and constructed houses towards that side. He further claimed that shadow of a protruded object would not appear in photograph in case photograph is taken in day light but would appear if flash light is used in night time. He claimed that he had taken the photographs within 10 to 15 minutes after reaching the spot. He denied the suggestion that he had not gone to the spot.
10 PW8 HC Ashok Kumar proved copy of DD 71 B as Ex.PW8/A and of DD 50 B as Ex.PW8/B. Photocopies of the complaints handed over by him to Reader of SHO PS Mangolpuri vide the said entries were identified as mark PW-8/X and PW-8/Z. During course of cross-examination by ld. counsel for accused, witness admitted that contents / gist of complaints were not reproduced in Ex.PW8/A and Ex.PW8/B. He did not know to whom the complaints were assigned or what investigation was carried on in respect of the same. He claimed that on 16-03-05 he had also received other written State vs. Narender Mann & Others.
(FIR no. 200/06 PS Mangolpuri) 6 of101 complaints and had made DD entries No.40,42,46 in that regard and had forwarded the same to Reader of SHO. He denied the suggestion of having made false and fabricated entries in the DD register. 11 PW9 HC Parshann Singh claimed that on 21.3.2006 while he was posted at PP Dost, PS Mangolpuri, on receipt of a call he alongwith SI Dharambir had gone to 260, Deepali, Pitam Pura. He claimed that on reaching there they found blood scattered at gate of the house and that it was revealed that the injured had been shifted to Jaipur Golden Hospital. Witness claimed that after leaving him at the spot, SI Dharambir alongwith Ct. Vijay went to the hospital and after some time he came back and recorded statement of Kanta Devi. A rukka was claimed to have been prepared and handed over to the witness who took the same to the PS for registration of FIR and thereafter brought back copy of FIR alongwith rukka and handed over the same to SI Dharambir. He claimed that SI Dharambir lifted the blood, blood stained earth and earth control from the spot and sealed the same in three separate pullandas which were sealed with seal of SP. One blood stained "chappal" and three cartridge cases were also claimed to have been lifted from the spot. Sketch Ex. PW-9/A was claimed to have been prepared and the sealed and other pullandas were claimed to have been seized vide Seizure Memo. Witness also identified the case property i.e. chappal Ex. P-1, torn pullanda Ex. P-2 and also identified the three cartridge cases.
During course of cross examination by Ld counsels for accused persons, witness claimed that his statement was recorded only on 26.3.2006 at the spot and had been so recorded at about 8.00 PM. (It was submitted by Ld. APP that there was no statement dated State vs. Narender Mann & Others.
(FIR no. 200/06 PS Mangolpuri) 7 of101 26.3.2006 of this witness. After seeing the statement, witness claimed that his statement was recorded on 21.3.2006). He claimed having mentioned in his statement regarding having gone with SI Dharambir and having reached 260, Deepali, Pitam Pura on receipt of a call. He was confronted with statement dated 21.3.2006 (Ex. PW-9/DA) where it was not so recorded. He further claimed having mentioned in his said statement that it was revealed that injured had been shifted to Jaipur Golden Hospital. He was again confronted with statement Ex. PW-9/DA where it was not so recorded. He also claimed having mentioned in his statement that he was left by SI at the spot and he (SI) went to hospital with Ct. Vijay. He was again confronted with statement Ex. PW-9/DA where it was not so recorded. Witness claimed having reached the spot at about 4.35 - 4.45 PM and having remained there till 6.50 PM. He could not tell the time when SI Dharambir returned back to the spot. He claimed that there were 50 - 60 persons collected at the spot when SI returned back but none of them had told him (witness) regarding their having seen the incident. He claimed that he did not know if anybody had stated so to the IO. He claimed having mentioned in his said statement that statement of Kanta Devi was recorded in his presence. He was again confronted with statement Ex. PW-9/DA where it was not so recorded. He denied the suggestion that no statement was recorded in his presence or that he did not take any rukka to the PS or that he did not sign any document or that no document was recovered (prepared) in his presence. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely. 12 PW-10 Ct. Vijay Kumar claimed that on 21.3.2006 on receipt of DD 26A, he alongwith SI Dharam Singh, Ct. Prasann had gone to 260, State vs. Narender Mann & Others.
(FIR no. 200/06 PS Mangolpuri) 8 of101 Deepali and found that the injured had already been shifted to Jaipur Golden Hospital. It was claimed that after leaving Ct. Prasann at the spot they all went to the hospital where it was revealed that the injured was brought dead. Witness claimed that he remained in the hospital while SI Dharambir left and returned back after some time. Dead body of S.N. Gupta was claimed to have been shifted to mortuary. Witness claimed having accompanied the dead body there. He claimed that on 22.3.2006 Inspector Satya Pal came to the mortuary and postmortem was got conducted. Four sealed pullandas were claimed to have been handed over to him by the doctors. The same were claimed to have been handed over by him to Inspector Satya Pal and seized vide Memo Ex. PW-10/B. Witness claimed having deposited the same in the malkhana. He claimed that on 21.3.2006 one sealed pullanda had been handed over to SI Dharambir by Doctor in Jaipur Golden Hospital which has been seized vide Memo Ex. PW-10/A. Witness identified his signature on the same. He claimed that as long as case property remained in his possession, nobody had tampered with the same.
During course of cross examination by Ld. counsel for accused, witness claimed that he started from PP at 4.40 PM. He claimed that place of occurrence was at a distance of 1 - 1 ½ KM from PP Dost. He claimed that they reached the spot within 10 minutes. No one from the locality or from the house was claimed to have been present at the spot. Witness did not remember number of storeys in the house. He could neither admit nor deny that it was a single storey house. He claimed that iron gate of the house was opened but he could not say about its width. He could not say if the width was 3 - 4 ft. He could not tell the distance between iron gate and gate of the house and could not State vs. Narender Mann & Others.
(FIR no. 200/06 PS Mangolpuri) 9 of101 say if the distance was 8 ft., 15 ft. or 100 yards. He claimed that public persons present there had informed that dead body had been taken to hospital. He however could not tell name and address of the said person. Blood was claimed to have been found spread inside and outside the iron gate. He could not tell the distance between the gate of the house and the place where blood was lying inside the iron gate. He could not say if the entrance gate of the house was above the ground level or on the ground level. He claimed that no person from inside the house came out till they remained at the spot. He could not say if besides the blood, any other article was found lying there. Witness claimed having mentioned in his statement to police that he had gone to Jaipur Golden Hospital with SI Dharambir. He was confronted with statement Ex. PW-10/DA where it was not so recorded. Witness claimed that his statement was recorded on 21.3.2006. (However, Ld. PP submitted that there was no such like statement of the witness on record). He could not say if he had reached Jaipur Golden Hospital on 21.3.2006 at 5.00, 7.00, 10.00 or at 4.00 AM the next morning. Witness then claimed that it was 8.00 PM and he stayed in Jaipur Golden Hospital till 10.00 PM. He denied the suggestion that he had never gone to the spot or that all the memos were subsequently prepared at instance of the IO.
13 PW-11 HC Naresh claimed that on 26.4.2006 one Shiv Charan was arrested from Rohini Court after seeking permission from the court. He claimed that he was then taken to factory premises in Mangol Puri and also to various other places including Bahadurgarh. Some documents relating to factory and partnership deed were claimed to have been recovered from 1257, MIE, Bahadurgarh. The State vs. Narender Mann & Others.
(FIR no. 200/06 PS Mangolpuri) 10 of101 same were claimed to have been seized vide Memo Ex. PW-11/A. Witness also identified his signature on it.
During course of cross examination by Ld. counsel for accused, witness claimed that they had firstly gone to factory of Shiv Charan at Mangolpuri Indl. Area but he did not remember the time when they reached there or how much time they had remained there. He also could not tell the time when they had reached or had left the other factory premises in Mangolpuri or in Bahadurgarh. He claimed that none was called to join the search at the Bahadurgarh premises and no public person was taken alongwith them. He denied the suggestion that false proceedings were subsequently drawn in the PS. 14 PW-12 Ashok Kumar claimed that he was in business of trading clothes in Chandni Chowk and knew Shiv Charan Bansal who also used to deal in Committees. Witness claimed that he used to visit Sri Niwas Gupta and had met Shiv Charan Bansal for the first time there. Witness claimed that he too started investing in Committees managed by Shiv Charan Bansal and his son Sachin Bansal and infact had invested in four committees of Rs.10 Lacs each. He claimed that S.N. Gupta was also a member in each of the committees of Bansal, but he could not say how much amount was invested by him. He claimed that his money had not been returned by the Bansals.
During course of cross examination by Ld. counsels for accused persons, witness claimed that payments of the committees was never made by cheque. He claimed that his monthly installment of the four committees was Rs.1,60,000/-. He claimed that payments were being made from his family savings including that of his parents and his wife. Committees were claimed to be not mentioned in the Income-tax State vs. Narender Mann & Others.
(FIR no. 200/06 PS Mangolpuri) 11 of101 returns. He could not say as to what was approximate income of his wife during the relevant period. He claimed that committee was auctioned every month and the highest bidder took the amount. He claimed that he had paid 8 installments in respect of each of the four committees and the first installment had been paid on 25.8.2005. He could not say as to who was the first and second bidder in those committees and volunteered that such type of information was not given by Bansals to the members. He claimed that deceased S.N. Gupta was his real brother-in-law (Sala). He denied the suggestion that he was not a member of any committee or that no such committee was being run by the Bansals. He denied the suggestion that he had been introduced as false witness to create evidence. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely being relative of the deceased. 15 PW-13 Satish Kumar Gupta during course of his examination in chief claimed that he used to invest in committees run by Shiv Charan Bansal and his son Sachin and that his brother S.N. Gupta had also invested huge amount in the committee. He claimed that his brother had told him that S.C. Bansal and accused Sachin were not returning his invested amount in the committees and had already captured his amount from the partnership in the Mangolpuri Factory. Witness claimed that his brother also had a factory in Bahadurgarh in partnership with Shiv Charan Bansal and Sachin and he was informed by his brother that they were also planning to capture the said factory. He claimed that his brother had been killed by S.C. Bansal and Sachin and they were instrumental in his murder. He claimed that on 21.3.2006 he was out of Delhi when he received a call regarding murder of his brother S.N. Gupta and accordingly he came back to State vs. Narender Mann & Others.
(FIR no. 200/06 PS Mangolpuri) 12 of101 Delhi the next day where he identified dead body of his brother. He claimed that his statement Ex. PW-13/A was recorded in that regard and that dead body was handed over vide receipt Ex. PW-13/B. During course of cross examination, witness claimed that there was no case registered against him except for a false case at PS Bahadurgarh which was got registered after murder of his brother. He claimed that he did not know about the business of Akash International at Mangolpuri except that his brother was a partner in the said business with Shiv Charan and Sachin. He claimed that he did not know if his nephew Rakesh was a partner in the said business and also did not know when the said business was closed or partnership dissolved. He denied the suggestion that the partnership was dissolved and business was taken over by Shiv Charan Bansal. He claimed that he did not know if accounts had been settled and payment made to his brother by way of cheque thereafter. He claimed that he did not know if any civil or criminal litigation had been instituted by his brother or nephew against Shiv Charan Bansal. Witness claimed that he was inducted as a Director in the Bahadurgarh Factory after the Bansals were arrested. He denied that he or the heirs of his deceased brother took over the company after arrest of Shiv Charan and Sachin. He admitted that Shiv Charan had instituted litigation in respect of business at Bahadurgarh after his release on bail. Witness could not tell as to how long before the incident his brother had told him about the Bansals planning to capture the Bahadurgarh Factory or their having grabbed major / huge amount from Mangolpuri Factory or the investments made in the committees. Witness claimed that he continued paying for the committees till February, 2006 and claimed State vs. Narender Mann & Others.
(FIR no. 200/06 PS Mangolpuri) 13 of101 that he came to know the aforementioned facts as told to him by his brother in February, 2006. He denied the suggestion that he was not member of any committee nor any committee was run by the Bansals or that he was a false witness introduced to support prosecution story. He claimed that he did not know whether or not partnership of Mangolpuri factory had been dissolved and whether or not his brother and his son had ever filed any litigation in that regard. He claimed that his statement was recorded on 21.3.2006 in house of his deceased brother at about 10.00 / 11.00 PM and denied the suggestion that he had not made any such statement to police or that it had been formulated by the IO. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely being related to the deceased.
16 PW-14 claimed that accused Narender Mann and one Lalit Mann (since discharged) used to extend threat to eliminate him and were threatening him to hand over building at No. 126, Deepali to them in the year 2005. He claimed that Narinder and Lalit used to threaten to kidnap his school going children if he did not oblige. The threats were claimed to have been extended on telephone and also verbally. Witness claimed that his brother S.N. Gupta advised him to lodge a complaint at PS Manoglpuri and accordingly he lodged the complaint, but no action was taken by police. Witness claimed having filed a reminder to the same. Witness claimed that it was 4 - 5 days after Holi that he received a telephonic message regarding his brother being shot. Witness claimed having made statement to police and having signed it after his brother's death. He proved his complaint Ex. PW- 14/B and the reminder Ex. PW-14/C. State vs. Narender Mann & Others.
(FIR no. 200/06 PS Mangolpuri) 14 of101 During course of cross examination, witness claimed that he knew Vijay Beniwal by name but could not identify him. He claimed that he did not know if Vijay was also known as Naveen. He further claimed that he did not know if his son Naveen @ Cheenu owed some money to Vijay Beniwal. He claimed that he did not remember whether or not he had named Vijay in his complaint Ex. PW-14/B or if he had sent reminder on 6.4.2005. When the said documents were shown to the witness, he admitted that he had correctly mentioned the name Vijay therein. He further admitted that he had not mentioned the full name of Mann in either of the said letters and had not mentioned his description (huliya) or address or vocation therein. He volunteered that he (witness) had mentioned his (Mann's) mobile number. Witness claimed that he could not admit that the three numbers mentioned in the complaint did not belong to Mann. He claimed that the person on the other side of the phone claimed that he was Mann. He claimed that although he had a talk with his son about the complaint, he never enquired from his son either the full name of Mann or his address, vocation or mobile number. He claimed that he did not remember if he had mentioned date and month of threats in his complaints. Witness admitted that he had not received any threat after lodging of his first complaint dated 16.3.2005. He denied the suggestion that the complaint dated 16.3.2005 and the reminder dated 6.4.2005 were motivated to build a defence in any case against him and his son Naveen by the creditors including Beniwal, Tyagi etc. He admitted that he and his son were accused in a case U/s 420/34 IPC filed in the year 2005. He also admitted that Beniwal had filed a civil suit against his son Naveen and had obtained a decree for loan amounting to State vs. Narender Mann & Others.
(FIR no. 200/06 PS Mangolpuri) 15 of101 Rs.74,000/-. He admitted that he had not made payment of the
decreetal amount. Witness claimed that he himself had never received any threats from any of those against whom the complaint was made nor from anyone mentioned as associate. He claimed that he had mentioned this fact to his elder brother S.N. Gupta and it was on his advice that he (witness) mentioned the said fact and made a complaint. Witness was duly confronted with Ex. PW-14/B,C and his statement Ex. PW-14/DA in respect of factum of threat as stated by him during his examination in chief. He denied the suggestion that neither he nor his son had ever received any threats or that his complaints Ex. PW-14/B & C were ante-dated or falsely submitted to create evidence. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely. 17 PW-15 Naveen Gupta claimed that he was earlier residing with his parents in House No. 126, Deepali. He claimed that accused Sachin Bansal and Narender Mann alongwith Vijay Beniwal used to extend threats to him. He claimed that when he disclosed the same to his father, his father narrated it to his "Tauji" S.N. Gupta and thereafter they lodged complaint at PS Manolpuri. Witness claimed that Sachin had invited him on his birthday party where they became friends and then there were business transactions and financial dealings. He claimed having invested in committees run by Sachin Bansal. He claimed that Sachin used to advance threats to him for demanding money in relation to penalty of late payments of committees. He claimed that Sachin, Narender Mann and Vijay Beniwal used to visit his house and threaten him for payments and were also pressurising him to transfer ownership of second floor of Kothi No. 126, Deepali in their name.
State vs. Narender Mann & Others.
(FIR no. 200/06 PS Mangolpuri) 16 of101 During course of cross examination, witness claimed that he was facing two criminal cases and had been in custody between 4th & 7th December, 2010 in connection with a case U/s 420 IPC and volunteered that the case was got registered by father of accused Sachin Bansal. He claimed having mentioned in his statement to police that Sachin Bansal became his friend when he invited him (witness) to Birthday party. Witness was duly confronted with his statement Ex.PW-15/DA where it was not so recorded. He claimed having stated to the police that thereafter they had business transactions and financial dealings. He was again confronted with statement Ex.PW-15/DA where it was not so recorded. He further claimed having mentioned in his statement that Sachin was running committees and he had invested in those committees. Witness was again confronted with statement Ex. PW-15/DA where it was not so recorded. He claimed that he had not stated that accused Sachin used to advance threats to him on account of penalty for non payment and delayed payment of the committee amounts. He claimed having stated before the police that Sachin used to visit his house and used to pressurize him to transfer the second floor in his name. He was again confronted with statement Ex.PW-15/DA where it was not so recorded. He volunteered that Sachin had also slapped him. He claimed having stated before police regarding Sachin having slapped him. He was again confronted with statement Ex. PW-15/DA where it was not so recorded. He denied the suggestion that he had made false deposition on being tutored to falsely implicate Accused Sachin Bansal. He denied the suggestion that Sachin had never invited him to Birthday party or was not his friend or they did not have any business State vs. Narender Mann & Others.
(FIR no. 200/06 PS Mangolpuri) 17 of101 transactions. He also denied the suggestion that Sachin was not
running any committees or that he had not invested in those. Witness claimed that he knew Karambir Tyagi through his friend Vinod. He further admitted that Karambir had lodged report against him on basis of which case U/s 420/34 IPC was registered against him. Witness claimed that he was not dealing with export of manpower and denied that he had cheated persons for sending them out of country after obtaining money from them. He however admitted that a case was pending against him in that regard and volunteered that it was a false case lodged at behest of Sachin Bansal in the year 2005. He denied suggestion to the contrary. He denied having taken a sum of Rs.5 Lacs from Karambir for arranging to send him out of India. He however admitted that a receipt was got signed from him by Karambir regarding sending persons abroad. Witness volunteered that he had signed the said blank paper under intoxication and at behest of Karambir and Sachin Bansal. He however did not remember the date and year of signing the same. He denied having issued cheque of Rs. 5 Lacs in the name of Karambir Tyagi. He volunteered that Karambir had got opened an account in his name and had forcibly taken signed cheque book through his girl friend and had misused the same. He denied the suggestion that Sachin Bansal never extended any threats to him or that he was deposing falsely. He further claimed having lodged a police report against Karambir Tyagi and Sachin Bansal regarding misuse of the cheques, but claimed that he did not know whether or not any criminal case was registered in that regard. Witness claimed having been invited to birthday party of Sachin Bansal in the year 2004. He did not remember name of other persons who attended the party.
State vs. Narender Mann & Others.
(FIR no. 200/06 PS Mangolpuri) 18 of101 He claimed having seen Narender Mann with Sachin Bansal in the year 2004/2005 and claimed that Sachin used to bring Mann at his residence. Witness claimed that he knew about complaint dated 16.3.2005 made by his father regarding threats but he did not remember his father having made any complaint on 6.4.2005 at his behest. Witness claimed having gone through the complaint dated 16.3.2005 and claimed that he did not point out to his father that he had not mentioned the name of Narender Mann. He volunteered that they used to call Narender Mann as Mann and Sachin Bansal as Sachin only. Witness claimed that he used to get printing work done from one Vijay and no dues were pending towards him. He claimed that Vijay had supplied some material to them which was returned being defective, but Vijay used to ask price of the defective material. He further admitted that none of the three mobile numbers mentioned in complaint dated 16.3.2005 (Ex. PW-14/B) were of accused Narender Mann. He claimed having mentioned in his statement Ex. PW-14/DA that Narender Mann used to visit his house and threaten him for payment. He was duly confronted with his statement where it was not so recorded. He denied the suggestion that Narender Mann had never visited his house or had never threatened him or that he was deposing falsely.
18 PW-16 Dr. Pardeep proved MLC Ex. PW-16/A in respect of Shri S.N. Gupta. He claimed that the patient was declared brought dead.
During course of cross examination, witness claimed that son of the deceased was accompanying him at that time. He claimed that although many persons were present when deceased was brought to the hospital, but he only mentioned name of the person related to the State vs. Narender Mann & Others.
(FIR no. 200/06 PS Mangolpuri) 19 of101 deceased. He claimed that as far as he recollected, no police official was accompanying the patient when he was brought to the hospital. He could not say as to from what distance bullet in respect of entry wounds No.1, 2 & 3 had been fired. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely.
19 PW-17 Ct. Ramphal claimed that on 27.4.2006 he had collected 10 sealed parcels, FSL form and authority letter from MHC (M) and deposited the same with FSL, Rohini vide road certificate No. 32/21/06. He further claimed having deposited the receipt in the malkhana. Witness claimed that as long as parcels remained in his possession the same were not tampered with. Copy of road certificate was proved as Ex. PW-17/A. During course of cross examination, witness stated that no handing over Memo as such was separately prepared when pullandas were obtained from the MHC (M). He claimed that the sample seal alongwith the pullandas was got acknowledged in FSL, Rohini. He however claimed that there was no separate sample seals regarding the 10 sealed pullandas. He claimed having deposited the samples in concerned Division of FSL. He denied the suggestions that parcels were tampered with.
20 PW-18 Smt. Kanta Devi was wife of the deceased. She claimed that on 21.3.2006 at about 4.30 PM while she was present in her house, there was a call bell and when she opened the door, she found a boy aged 25 - 30 years wearing a cap and black goggles with a bag on his shoulder. The boy was claimed to be holding a white coloured packet. She claimed that on her asking, the boy stated that there was a courier in the name of Shri S.N. Gupta from bank and that he would State vs. Narender Mann & Others.
(FIR no. 200/06 PS Mangolpuri) 20 of101 deliver it to Shri S.N. Gupta only. Witness claimed that she went inside and narrated the thing to her husband, who then went to the gate and she proceeded to the kitchen. Witness claimed that thereafter she heard sound of firing of 2 or 3 bullets and when she immediately rushed to the gate, she found her husband in a fallen state and her maid servant who also raised an alarm stated "aantiji, the person to whom you were talking has shot down uncleji and had run away". Witness claimed that she screamed (shor machaya), on which neighours came and took her husband to Jaipur Golden Hospital where he was declared brought dead. She claimed that her husband was only wearing banian and nikkar at the time of incident. She claimed having made statement to the police which was proved as Ex. PW-18/1. Witness claimed having brought a chunni and having wrapped it around chest of her husband. She identified the banian Ex. P-1 and the chunni Ex. P-2. She claimed that she could identify the person who had fired at her husband and had pointed out towards accused Joginder Sodhi in that regard.
During course of cross examination she had claimed that their house in Deepali had been constructed about 15 years back and was a three storeyed house. She claimed that the entire house was in their occupation. She further claimed that there were houses on the left as well as right hand side of their house with people residing therein. She claimed that main gate of their house was in two parts, having a small gate in one of the portions of the gate. She claimed that after entering from the small gate, there was a front open portion of 10 - 15 feet before the main house started. It was claimed that there was a main door leading to a gallery. She admitted that her husband was dealing State vs. Narender Mann & Others.
(FIR no. 200/06 PS Mangolpuri) 21 of101 in committees and was to take money from some people and also owed money to others. She claimed that he was running the committee at the house as well as at his office and many people not used to gather when the committee was being dealt with in the house. She further claimed that the kitchen was about 8 ft. x 10 ft. and it had a window which opened in the gallery and that the outer door was visible from the said window. She admitted that person standing at a door could be visible from the window and if a person calls from the window, the same can be heard by the person standing at the door. She claimed that after seeing her husband lying in the pool of blood, she went inside the house and brought chunni. She could not tell the exact place where Seema was standing and could not say if Seema was standing near dead body of her husband or at some distance. She claimed that none was present when she reached there and that the neighbours gathered on hearing her cries. She claimed having lifted head of her husband for tying the chunni and had put her knee under his head. She claimed that some of the blood might have fallen on her saree as well as on her hands. She claimed that she had not handed over her saree to the police. She claimed having removed her husband to hospital in vehicle of a neighbour living in House No. 259. She claimed that her daughters in law were present in the house on the day of occurrence and had come out of their own while she came out with the chunni. She could not say if her daughters in law had also helped in putting her husband in the car. She claimed that none of her sons were present in the house at that time. She claimed that when her son Rakesh reached the hospital, he asked her to go back home. She further claimed that no police officials met her till the time she remained State vs. Narender Mann & Others.
(FIR no. 200/06 PS Mangolpuri) 22 of101 in the hospital and that police came to the house sometime after she had reached back home. She claimed that before she had left the hospital, she came to know that her husband had expired. She claimed that she had not met the doctor in the hospital for getting her husband rechecked. She claimed that blood was lying at a distance of about 3 ft. outside gate of their house when she came from the hospital. She claimed that police met her in her house at about 8.00 - 9.00 PM. She did not remember as to on how many papers police officials had obtained her signatures. She did not remember if police had shown her any sketch for identification of assailant or if police had asked her description of the assailant. She claimed that domestic helper Seema was aged about 14 - 15 years of age. She claimed that she also had another maid whose name she did not remember but could not say whether or not she had come on the day of occurrence and whether or not she was present in the house at that time. She claimed that she knew Shiv Charan Bansal who often used to visit their house. She claimed that she did not know if he visited their house prior to the occurrence or on the day of occurrence but he did visit their house after the occurrence. She could not say if she had told the police that she had opened the main door on the day of occurrence or if one person who had come was holding one white colour packet in her hands. She claimed having told the police regarding Seema having told her that "aantiji, the person to whom you were talking has shot down uncleji and had run away". She was confronted with Ex.PW-18/A where it is not so recorded. She further claimed having told the police that "as I am his wife". She was again confronted with Ex.PW-18/A where it is not so recorded. She admitted that the person State vs. Narender Mann & Others.
(FIR no. 200/06 PS Mangolpuri) 23 of101 who had come on that day was having beard and was having a cap but was not Sardar on that day. She admitted that no firing had taken place in her presence nor had she seen any person firing on her husband. She denied having pointed out accused Joginder on instruction of the police. She denied the suggestion that he never came to her house or that she had never seen him as courierwala. She denied the suggestion that she was not present in her house on the day of occurrence or had reached there on receiving information. She further denied the suggestion that on the day of occurrence, Seema had already left the house at 2.00 PM alongwith her mother or was also not present in her house at the time of occurrence. She denied the suggestion that she was deposing falsely. 21 PW-19 Seema during course of her examination in chief claimed that in the year 2006, she was staying in Mangol Puri and used to accompany her mother for household work in house of an uncle ji whose name or address she did not recollect. She claimed that the incident took place about 6 years back at around 4.00 - 4.30 PM. It was claimed that at that time auntie was talking at gate to some person who had come to deliver courier. She stated that the courierwala was wearing a black cap, black goggles and was having a black coloured bag. As per the witness, she had hardly left the house and had gone a few steps away for taking the clothes for ironing when she heard sound of firing. She claimed that she turned to look back and saw that uncle ji was lying down and the courierwala had fled away from the spot. Witness claimed that she raised an alarm whereupon residents came and took uncle ji to the hospital. Witness identified accused Joginder as being the said courierwala.
State vs. Narender Mann & Others.
(FIR no. 200/06 PS Mangolpuri) 24 of101 During course of cross-examination, witness claimed that she was now married and living with her in-laws in Ujjain. She did not remember date of her marriage and claimed to be illiterate. She claimed that she was 20 years of age and might have come to the court on 13.07.12 (when her examination-in-chief was recorded) alongwith her auntie i.e., wife of deceased. She claimed that she was 11-12 year old in the year 2006. She claimed that none used to accompany her and her mother when they used to come to work at house of the deceased which was a three storeyed building. She claimed that they used to reach the said house at around 8.00-9.00 AM and after leaving her there, her mother used to go to work in adjoining houses. She claimed that she had been informed of hearing on 06.08.13 (date of recording of her cross-examination) by her Fufa. She claimed having been telephonically informed in that regard three to four days back. She claimed that there were ten members in the family who used to reside in house of the deceased. She claimed having remained in the said house till 9pm but her mother did not remain with her during that period. She further stated that on asking of auntie ji, she told her that one person had come and had fired and went away. She claimed that she was sitting with children on the first floor when police came to house of the deceased and had been called downstairs by police. She did not remember the time in that regard. She claimed that she alongwith auntie ji and Inspr. Satpal were sitting in the drawing room and none else was present there. She claimed that she did not know if police had made enquiry from auntie ji before making inquiries from her. She claimed that she could not understand the conversation that State vs. Narender Mann & Others.
(FIR no. 200/06 PS Mangolpuri) 25 of101 took place between police and auntie ji. She could not tell number of people outside that room, but claimed that the number was less than
200. She claimed that the police officials had talked to her around 5.00 - 5.30 PM. She further claimed that she had gone out of the house from 4.00 - 5.00 PM for getting prepared sketch of the person who had fired. She did not know the place where she had gone, but claimed having got prepared the sketch (at that time it transpired that the sketch so prepared was not on judicial file but was attached to the police file). She claimed that it took about 30 minutes in preparing the sketch. She claimed that outer gate of the house was lying closed with blood lying outside the gate when she returned back after getting the sketch prepared. She claimed that she remained in the house for about half an hour and then her mother came to take her and she did not find blood when she went with her mother. She claimed that no police official met her during the intervening period. Witness denied the suggestion that she was not present at the spot at the time of incident or had not seen the assailant in this case or was deposing falsely at instance of family of the deceased. She denied the suggestion that she was deposing falsely.
22 PW-20 Sh. Rajesh Gupta during course of his examination in chief claimed that he was looking after family business of footwear and also used to invest money in committees as well as in share market. He claimed on 21.3.06 he reached his house on receipt of telephone call regarding the incident of this case. He claimed that he found an envelop addressed to his father lying near outside gate of his house. He further claimed that some question paper was found in the said envelop. He claimed that he came to know that his mother had taken State vs. Narender Mann & Others.
(FIR no. 200/06 PS Mangolpuri) 26 of101 his injured father to hospital. He further stated that while he remained at home, he telephonically informed his brother Rakesh to reach Jaipur Golden Hospital. He claimed that his statement was recorded by the police in the evening and he handed over the envelop to police and the same was seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW 20/A . Witness identified his signature at point A thereon. The envelop was identified by him as Ex. PW 20/B and the paper found in the envelop as Ex. PW 20/C. He further claimed that accused Sachin Bansal was his partner in respect of Accent Shoes Pvt. Ltd at Bahadur Garh. He claimed that as Sachin's father Shiv Charan and Sachin had earlier refused to pay dues out of dissolution of partnership with his brother Rakesh, his family wanted him to dissolve his partnership with Sachin. Witness further stated that Bansals dealt with committees, and his family had invested large amount of money in those committees. He further claimed that when they demanded the amount back, the Bansals stopped picking up their phone . Witness claimed that on account of conduct of Bansals, he himself had apprehension that Sachin and Shiv charan got his father murdered.
During course of cross-examination by ld counsels for accused, witness claimed that on the day of occurrence, he had gone to his office at about 10.00 AM and his two brothers had earlier left within span of 10 - 15 minutes. He claimed that he was the last to leave and at that time, his father, mother, wife, Bhabhi, sister, maid Seema and children of the house were present in the house. Witness claimed that he was telephonically informed about the incident by his wife but she did not tell him that his father had been taken to hospital. He claimed that he and his brothers were present in the factory at that time and he State vs. Narender Mann & Others.
(FIR no. 200/06 PS Mangolpuri) 27 of101 left immediately for his house without informing his brothers. He claimed having reached at his house within 10 - 15 minutes and at that time, 15 - 20 persons including his wife Payal were present in the gali near their house. He claimed that as he had not immediately gone inside the house, he could not say as to how many persons were present in the house. He could not say if his immediate neighbours namely, Satish Gupta and Sudarshan Bansal were present there. Witness claimed that it was his wife who told him about the manner in which occurrence took place. Witness claimed having reached his house at around 4.30 PM and claimed that police came at about 5.30 - 6.00 PM. He claimed that he remained outside the house and was talking to people present there and none of them told him about having witnessed the occurrence. He claimed that his mother came back at around 7.00 PM. He claimed that when he reached his house from the factory, the small gate was open while the big gate was lying closed. The big gate was opened after sometime but he could not tell who opened it. As per the witness, police had met him before his mother had returned home. It was claimed that the dog squad also came and the dogs led the police upto T-point and from there towards the right side which was a back lane of other houses which were facing the outer ring road. He claimed that he too had accompanied the dogs. He claimed that blood was lying outside their house when the dogs squad had arrived. Photographs of the place of occurrence and near the house were also claimed to have been taken. He could not say if his mother had returned from the hospital before the dog squad had left. He claimed that his wife told him that his father had been taken to Jaipur Golden hospital and he informed about it to his brother Rakesh.
State vs. Narender Mann & Others.
(FIR no. 200/06 PS Mangolpuri) 28 of101 He claimed that he did not know if Inspector Satpal had got the blood washed. It was claimed to have been washed before Inspector Satpal finally left at about 11.00 PM. He claimed that he had not asked his mother as to who had taken his injured father to the hospital. He did not remember whether or not police met him on 22.03.06, but claimed that police did not record his statement on that day. He denied the suggestion of having gone to hospital on 22.03.06 for getting conducted postmortem of his father. He claimed having told the police that somebody had left the envelope. Witness was confronted with statement Ex.PW20/A where the words "dekar gaya" were mentioned. Witness claimed having told the police "chhorkar gaya tha" and claimed that "dekar gaya" was wrongly written. He claimed having told the police that he reached home on receiving a telephone call regarding the incident. Witness was confronted with statement Ex.PW20/DA where it was not so recorded. He claimed having told the police that one envelope was lying near outside the gate of their house. Witness was confronted with his statement Ex.PW20/DA where it was not so recorded. He claimed that he had not stated to police that he came to know about his mother having taken his father to the hospital nor had he stated having telephoned his brother Rakesh to reach the hospital. Witness denied the suggestion of having deposed during examination- in-chief on basis of being tutored by the IO. He denied the suggestion that he had not handed over any envelope to the police or had deposed in that regard under instruction of the IO. He denied that no envelope was found or handed over by him to police or that police got his signatures upon a document on 22.03.06 which was subsequently interpolated as 21.03.06. When photograph Ex.PW20/DB was shown State vs. Narender Mann & Others.
(FIR no. 200/06 PS Mangolpuri) 29 of101 to the witness by Ld. Counsel for defence, he identified himself at point A, his father at point B and accused Sachin at Point - C. Witness claimed that the photograph was of the year 2005 but he could not tell the month. Partnership in Akash International between his brother Rakesh Gupta and Shiv Charan Bansal was claimed to have been dissolved in the year 2005. Witness identified his signatures on the dissolution deed Ex.PW21/DA and claimed that it was the same deed vide which the firm M/s Akash International was dissolved on 31.03.05. He denied the suggestion that he knew that the Balance Sheet, Trading account, Profit & Loss account and Capital account of Akash International had been prepared before he signed the dissolution deed or that he was deposing falsely in that regard. He admitted that cheques in the names of his family members had been received from Sh. Bansal who took over M/s Akash International, but claimed that he did not remember if the cheques were received after the dissolution. He admitted that the same were in connection with their accounts in the firm. He volunteered "jo bank ke through paise gaye the, uska settlement hua tha". He claimed that Satish Gupta was his real uncle. He admitted that he himself and Sachin Bansal were Directors in Accent Shoes Pvt. Ltd. He further admitted that Sachin and his family members had shares therein to the extent of 51% while his family members had 49% shares. He further admitted that after arrest of Shiv Charan and Sachin Bansal, his uncle Satish Gupta was inducted as a Director in that company. He denied the suggestion that they had been falsely got arrested in order to grab the company. He admitted that directorship of Satish Gupta had been set aside by the Company Law Board. He denied that they had embezzled assets of the company after State vs. Narender Mann & Others.
(FIR no. 200/06 PS Mangolpuri) 30 of101 arrest of Bansals. He claimed that loss of amount allegedly invested in the committee had not been shown in the income tax returns. He claimed that the said amount was unaccounted money and hence, not shown in the return. He denied the suggestion of having falsely alleged that Sachin was running committees in which he and his family members had invested money or that a false story was concocted to implicate them in this case. He denied the suggestion that he had deposed falsely.
23 PW-21 Rakesh Gupta claimed that his father was murdered on 21.03.06 and that he himself was present in factory in Mangolpuri at the time of incident. He claimed that on reaching Jaipur Golden hospital, he found dead body of his father lying there. He claimed having identified dead body of his father on 22.03.06 vide statement Ex.PW21/A and having received the dead body vide receipt Ex.PW13/B. During course of cross-examination, witness claimed having reached the hospital between 4.45 - 5.00 pm and claimed having remained there for about 1½ to 2 hours. He claimed that his brother Rajesh met him when he himself returned back home from the hospital. He claimed that police did not meet him in the hospital. Witness claimed that he was a partner with Shiv Charan Bansal in Akash International and the partnership was dissolved in March' 2005 vide Dissolution Deed Ex.PW21/DA. He claimed that although they had received some cheques from Shiv Charan Bansal, the accounts had not been settled. He could not tell about amounts of cheques. He denied the suggestion that amount of cheques was the full and final settlement of accounts. He admitted that he had not made any State vs. Narender Mann & Others.
(FIR no. 200/06 PS Mangolpuri) 31 of101 correspondence nor given any legal notice in respect of settlement of accounts except for telephonic talks with Shiv Charan Bansal. He claimed that on receipt of information about the incident, he left for the hospital without informing his brother Pawan. He claimed that his statement was not recorded by the police on the day of incident nor any inquiries were made from him as to where he was present on that day. He further claimed that blood lying outside iron gate had been washed at his instance at about 8.00 - 9.00 PM on asking of the police officials. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely. 24 PW-22 Ajit Prashad Gupta claimed that deceased S.N. Gupta was his "saala". Witness claimed that at the instance of S.N.Gupta, he had invested in four committees with Shiv Charan Bansal and Sachin Bansal. It was claimed that Shiv Charan Bansal and his son were running 70 - 80 groups of committees and S.N. Gupta was a subscriber in almost each of the said groups. Witness claimed that he started subscribing since December' 2005 and after 3 committees S.N. Gupta was murdered and thereafter, he himself did not get any money till date. Witness claimed having invested upto February' 2006.
During course of cross-examination, witness claimed having reached house of the deceased at about 6.00 - 6.30 PM and having remained there till 10.00 - 10.30 PM. He claimed that his statement was not recorded by police on that day and he had not told the police about incident being related to committees. He claimed that facts stated in court by him had not been told by him to police even on the day after the incident. It was claimed that his statement was recorded about 15 days after the incident and during that period he had not told anything about incident or the committees to the police. Witness State vs. Narender Mann & Others.
(FIR no. 200/06 PS Mangolpuri) 32 of101 claimed having stated to the police regarding having invested in committees at instance of the deceased. He was confronted with statement Ex.PW22/DA where it was not so recorded. He claimed having reflected investment in committees and non-return of the investment in his Income Tax Return of the relevant year and claimed that the amount of loss was shown to the tune of Rs.5,28,000/-. (Cross- examination of the witness was deferred for want of ITR for the year 2005-2006 i.e. AY 2006-2007). On reappearance, witness claimed that the same were not available. He claimed that he had no proof regarding having filed ITR for the said period. He claimed that loss of committee amount was not shown in his last return. He denied the suggestion that he had not invested any amount in any committee or that Sachin and his father were not running any committees. He admitted that he had not told the police at any stage regarding his having invested money in committees run by Bansals. He claimed that he did not participate in any monthly bid of the committees. He claimed that he had only orally asked the Bansals for return of his money but had not taken any legal step in that regard. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely to support case of prosecution, being a close relative of the deceased. 25 PW-23 Captain Rakesh Bakshi proved on record call details for the period 01.03.06 to 26.03.06 in respect of mobile no. 9818411470 as Ex.PW23/A. He also proved on record call details for the period 01.03.06 to 31.03.06 in respect of mobile no. 9818411471 as Ex.PW23/B. He also proved on record call details for the period 01.03.06 to 18.04.06 in respect of mobile no. 9810254600 as Ex.PW23/C. He also proved on record call details for the period State vs. Narender Mann & Others.
(FIR no. 200/06 PS Mangolpuri) 33 of101 01.03.06 to 27.03.06 in respect of mobile no. 9818119624 as
Ex.PW23/D. He also proved on record call details for the period 01.03.06 to 27.03.06 in respect of mobile no. 9871791501 as Ex.PW23/E. Witness claimed having handed over all the call details to the police and having signed each page thereof at that time.
During course of cross-examination, witness claimed that although he had working knowledge about the computers, he did not have any technical knowledge or degree or diploma regarding operation of the computer. When asked about the procedure of downloading the CDR, witness claimed that there was a special programme for Nodal officers wherein mobile no. and the period are put in and the information is automatically downloaded from the server. It was claimed that this was so done on request from Law enforcement agency. He claimed that there were two Nodal Officers in the company, both of whom were authorized to access the data of the server. Witness admitted that Ex.PW23/A to Ex.PW23/E had not been compared by him with the original data in the server. He claimed that he did not know if the CDR had been interpolated after his signatures. He admitted that he was not associated with the maintenance of the server / computer during his tenure and had no control over management of activities of the server. He claimed that feeding of data in the server was an automatic process and he was not connected with it. He could not say if the PDF or the Excel file could be easily edited. He admitted that Ex.PW23/A to Ex.P23/E did not contain any file number and also did not contain date and time of retrieval. He denied the suggestion that the same were not correct record of call details of mobile numbers mentioned therein. He claimed that the main server State vs. Narender Mann & Others.
(FIR no. 200/06 PS Mangolpuri) 34 of101 was in data warehouse which was the IT hub and the CDRs are stored in the main server. He claimed that he had no knowledge whether or not the information could be retrieved also from the main server. He admitted that date when Ex.PW23/A to E were handed over to the police were not mentioned thereupon. He denied the suggestion that CDRs had been manipulated and tampered or that he was deposing falsely.
26 PW-24 SI Krishan Chand claimed that on 30.3.2006 he had joined investigation of this case alongwith Inspector Satpal, SI Dharambir, SI R.K. Mann and HC Sushil. He claimed that accused Narender Mann and Joginder Singh were in custody and all the police officials went to A-1/35, Sector-7, Rohini with the accused persons. He claimed that they went to first floor of the premises where the door was open and one Bahadur was present there. It was claimed that accused Narender Mann took out a pistol from drawer of the table and handed it over to the IO claiming it to be same which was given to accused Joginder for killing S.N. Gupta. It was claimed that on opening the said pistol, it was found to contain two rounds. Sketch thereof was claimed to have been prepared and was proved as Ex. PW-24/A. It was claimed that the pistol was converted into a pullanda which was sealed with seal of SP and seized vide Memo Ex. PW-24/B. FSL form was also claimed to have been filled. Witness identified the pistol produced from a sealed pullanda as Ex. PW-26/P1 and the test fired cartridges as Ex. PW-26/P2 & P3. He also identified the two accused.
During course of cross examination, witness claimed having joined the investigation during intervening night of 29 & 30.3.2006. He claimed that disclosure statement of accused Narender Mann had not State vs. Narender Mann & Others.
(FIR no. 200/06 PS Mangolpuri) 35 of101 been recorded in his presence and that facts in that regard had been told to him by the IO. He claimed that the flat visited was at a distance of about 3 KM from PS Mangolpuri. Departure entry was claimed to have been made at 12.00 midnight. He claimed that they had gone by a private vehicle as well as a Government vehicle but he could not tell who were driving the same. He claimed that he did not remember if IO had made any efforts to arrange any independent witness before proceeding to the said flat. He claimed that IO did request independent public persons in neighbourhood of the flat but they refused to join. Name and address of those persons were reportedly not noted down nor any notice issued to them for refusal. He claimed that he did not remember having mentioned in his statement U/s 161 Cr. P.C that they found one Bahadur already present in the house. His attention was drawn to statement Mark PW-24/DA where it was not so recorded. He claimed that IO did not record name and address of that Bahadur nor was he requested to join the proceedings. He claimed that the said Bahadur was not interrogated regarding pistol found in the flat. Drawer of the table was claimed to have been found open. Witness claimed that the police party reached the flat at around 4.45 AM on 30.3.2006 and remained there upto 5.40 AM. He claimed that the seizure memo and the sketch were in his handwriting. He claimed that they all returned to the PS at about 6.00 AM. He further denied the suggestion that the police party had never visited the said flat or that no recovery was effected at instance of accused Narender Mann or that the pistol and cartridges were planted upon him. He further denied the suggestion that the flat in question was easily accessible to each and everyone. He further denied the suggestion that accused Joginder State vs. Narender Mann & Others.
(FIR no. 200/06 PS Mangolpuri) 36 of101 never went to the said flat with the police party or that the police party too never went in the said flat or that he was deposing falsely. 27 PW-25 SI R.K. Mann claimed having joined investigation of this case on 29-03-06. He claimed that Sachin was called through a notice and after he reached the PS, he was interrogated and then arrested. His personal search was claimed to have been conducted vide memo Ex.PW25/A and his disclosure statement Ex.PW25/B recorded. He further stated that on basis of the said disclosure statement, accused Sachin Bansal started for taking the police party to his house, but on way on the main road, one Esteem car No.DL-3C-AG-6565 was found standing (parked) and one boy was urinating near it. He claimed that Sachin stated that the car belonged to Narender Maan and the person who was urinating was Narender's cousin Lalit. Witness further stated that two persons were also found in the car and were identified by Sachin as being Narender Maan and Rajbir. Witness claimed that they were apprehended, interrogated and then arrested. Witness also identified his signatures on the arrest memos and the personal search memos. Witness further claimed that during search of the car, one marriage Album of Sachin, one black cap, one black spectacles and one photograph of deceased S.N. Gupta were found in the dickey. He claimed that on checking the album, one photograph of S.N. Gupta was found missing from the album. Car and the articles were claimed to have been seized vide memo Ex.PW25/F. Witness also identified the album, cap, goggles and the photograph. He also identified accused Sachin and Narender. Witness claimed that thereafter all the accused persons were brought to police post Dost Chowki PS Mangolpuri and accused Narender Maan pointed out the place where State vs. Narender Mann & Others.
(FIR no. 200/06 PS Mangolpuri) 37 of101 he had parked the Getz car on service road, Outer Ring Road between Deepali Colony and the Outer Ring Road. Pointing out memo prepared in that regard was proved as Ex.PW25/G. It was claimed that thereafter Narender Maan took police party to his house from where he got recovered the Getz car No.DL-3C-AG-1789. Memo prepared in that regard was proved as Ex.PW25/H. It was claimed that thereafter police party was led to sector-3 in front of Jaipur Golden Hospital where a car no DL-4CK-3234, going towards Rohini via Jaipur Golden Hospital was intercepted and the person sitting on driver's seat was identified by Narender Maan as being Joginder Singh. Joginder was claimed to have been apprehended, interrogated and arrested and the car searched. He claimed that from dickey of the Maruti Zen car no DL-4CK-3234, one black coloured goggles and black cap were recovered. Both were claimed to have been seized and sealed with seal of SP. Memo prepared in that regard was proved as Ex.PW25/K. He claimed that thereafter they all returned back to the police post where Joginder was interrogated and his disclosure statement Ex.PW25/L was recorded. Witness claimed that thereafter Joginder led police party to the spot of incident. Pointing out Memo prepared in that regard was proved as Ex. PW-25/M. He claimed that on the next day i.e. on 31.3.2006, Narender was again interrogated and his disclosure statement Ex. PW-25/N recorded. It was claimed that in pursuance thereto, Narender took the police party to his house in Naya Bans Village from where he got recovered license of his pistol. It was claimed to have been seized vide memo Ex.PW-25/P. It was claimed that thereafter they all returned back to the PP where Sachin Bansal was interrogated and his disclosure statement Ex. PW-25/Q was State vs. Narender Mann & Others.
(FIR no. 200/06 PS Mangolpuri) 38 of101 recorded. It was claimed that on basis thereof, police party was led to house No. T-1/111, Phase -I, Mangolpuri Indl. Area and from his said factory Sachin got recovered a pistol and 11 cartridges from drawer of table on the first floor claiming it to have been handed over to him by Narender Mann. Sketch thereof was proved as Ex.PW-25/R and the articles were claimed to have been seized vide Memo Ex.PW-25/S. Witness also identified the case property.
During course of cross examination, witness claimed that Sachin had reported in the PS on 29.3.2006 after 3.30 PM i.e. around 4.00 - 4.15 PM. He claimed that no independent witness was requested to be present at the time of Sachin's interrogation or during recording of his disclosure statement. He claimed that the police party left the PS immediately after 7.00 PM and had used an official as well as private vehicle in that regard. It was claimed that they came across the Esteem car on the main road going from village Khera to Naya Bans. He claimed having mentioned in his statement U/s 161 Cr. P.C that the Esteem car was found standing / parked on the main road. Witness was confronted with statement Ex. PW-25/DA where the vehicle was stated to have been found in moving condition. He also claimed having mentioned in his statement regarding having found a boy urinating near the car and that his name was Lalit. He was again confronted with his statement Ex. PW-25/DA where it was not so recorded. He claimed that having stated in his statement to police that two persons were found present in the said car. He was again confronted with his statement Ex. PW-25/DA where it was not so recorded. Witness claimed that they all had remained at the spot for about 2 ½ hours and no site plan of that spot was prepared. Names and addresses of public State vs. Narender Mann & Others.
(FIR no. 200/06 PS Mangolpuri) 39 of101 persons who on being asked refused to join the proceedings, were claimed to have not been recorded. Proceedings were claimed to have been carried out while sitting on road under the street light as well as on the vehicle. He further claimed that keys of the Esteem car had been found by Inspector Satyapal Singh and claimed that to his knowledge, no separate seizure memo of the car keys was made nor the same was mentioned in the seizure memo Ex. PW-25/F. He claimed that he did not remember if any document regarding ownership of the Esteem Car was found inside the car or if any seizure memo thereof had been prepared. He also claimed ignorance regarding the fact about inquiry being conducted qua ownership of the Esteem car. He further claimed that no search was offered to the accused persons before search of Dicky of the Esteem car. Witness claimed that they had directly gone from the main road to PP Dost and had reached there at about 12.30 AM on 30.3.2006. He further claimed that disclosure statements of Narender Mann, Rajbir and Lalit had been recorded at PP Dost. No independent public person was claimed to have been called before recording the disclosure statements. Articles found in the Esteem car were claimed to have been sealed on the main road itself where the car was apprehended. He claimed that he did not remember as to whom seal was given after use. Witness claimed that they left PP Dost at about 2.15 am on the intervening night of 29/30.3.2006. Spot where Getz car had allegedly been parked and which was allegedly pointed out by Narender Mann was claimed to be at a distance of about 350 meters from Deepali Chowk. He denied the suggestion that Narender Mann never pointed out any place or that the alleged Memo Ex. PW-25/G was manipulated in the PS. Witness did State vs. Narender Mann & Others.
(FIR no. 200/06 PS Mangolpuri) 40 of101 not remember if any independent person had been requested to join the pointing out proceedings. He claimed that after preparation of the same, they all proceeded for house of accused Narender Mann. Witness could not tell its address. It was claimed that main gate of the house was opened by occupants / family members who were present inside. Witness claimed that he did not remember as to who had opened the gate or if that person was requested to join proceedings. Key of the Getz car No. DL-4CAG-1789 was claimed to have been provided by some family member. No villager was claimed to have been requested to join the proceedings. Recovery proceedings were claimed to have been conducted under light in courtyard of house of Narender Mann. He claimed that they returned back to PP Dost at about 3.45 AM. Witness claimed that he did not know as to when and by whom overwritings were made on the date mentioned on arrest memo and personal search Memo of accused Joginder. Witness claimed having joined investigation on 31.3.2006 in the morning between 8.00 - 10.00 AM. Disclosure statement of Narender Mann was claimed to have been recorded after 10.00 AM and no independent person was claimed to have been requested to join the proceedings. Witness could not tell mode of transport used to travel to village Naya Bans and also could not tell if it was a police vehicle or a private vehicle. He claimed that although there were occupants in the house of Narender Mann, none was requested to join proceedings. He denied the suggestion that all proceedings were conducted while sitting in the PS itself or that no recovery was effected at instance of Narender Mann. Witness claimed that he could not say if any public person was joined at the time of arrest of accused Joginder. He did not remember State vs. Narender Mann & Others.
(FIR no. 200/06 PS Mangolpuri) 41 of101 as to how many Memos were prepared at that place. Witness could not say anything in respect of overwritings as regards date on the Arrest Memo and Personal Search Memo of accused Joginder and denied the suggestion that accused Joginder was called in PP Dost on 29.3.2006 or was illegally detained there. He claimed that the key was already in operation in the car when it was intercepted. He claimed that after seizure of the car they had returned back to PP Dost at about 6.00 AM. He claimed that they left for house No. 260, Deepali from PP Dost at around 10.00 - 10.30 AM. He claimed that after staying there for about 20 minutes they returned back to PP Dost where they reached around 11.45 AM. Witness claimed that he did not remember if any particular sign was mentioned on the recovered articles (kala chasma and black cap) at the time of alleged recovery. It was claimed that the same was sealed at the spot. He admitted that he had been associated with investigation of the case since the date of arrest of accused Sachin Bansal i.e 29-03-06. Sachin was claimed to have been formally arrested around 5.00 PM and was claimed to have been interrogated for about 1- 1 ¼ hours before his arrest and about 1 to 1 ½ hours after his arrest. He denied the suggestion that Sachin did not make any disclosure statement or that Ex.PW25/B was falsely recorded. He claimed that on 29-03-06 police party had gone to house of Sachin at about 7.00 PM. He claimed that they could not find any document relating to the committees or relating to dispute of Bahadurgarh factory at house of Sachin. He denied the suggestion that the album Ex.PW25/1 had been picked up when police party went to house of Sachin on 29-03-06. He further denied the suggestion that Sachin was picked up from his house and brought to the PP. Witness State vs. Narender Mann & Others.
(FIR no. 200/06 PS Mangolpuri) 42 of101 claimed that the car DL-3C-AG-6565 was recovered after house of Sachin Bansal was searched. He further clarified that after search of house of Sachin Bansal, while they were going towards house of accused Narender Maan, the car no.6565 was recovered. He denied the suggestion that the said clarification was incorrect. He claimed having mentioned in his statement u/s 161 Cr. PC that Sachin Bansal identified occupants of the car as being Narender Maan, Rajbir and other persons. He was duly confronted with his statement Ex.PW25/DA wherein there was only mention of Narender Maan as the person who was sitting on the driving seat. He further claimed that there were residential houses and commercial complex near PP Dost and that in his presence no public witness was called from there to join investigation. He further claimed that on way from house of Sachin Bansal to that of accused Narender Mann, they had noticed a vehicle on the way around 8.00 - 8.15 PM. Witness denied the suggestion that he himself was in PP Dost at that time or had never gone to house of Narender Mann. He further denied the suggestion that Sachin Bansal had not pointed out any vehicle as deposed by him. He further denied the suggestion that IO had merely brought the album Ex. PW- 25/1 from house of Sachin Bansal or had removed one photograph on page Ex. PW-25/2 in order to create false evidence. He further denied the suggestion that photograph Ex. PW-25/5 was never recovered from the car. He claimed that on 31.3.2006, firstly Narender was interrogated, his disclosure statement recorded and recovery effected at his instance and thereafter Sachin was interrogated in the afternoon. He further denied the suggestion that during visit to house of accused Narender Mann they had taken his licensed revolver, cartridges and State vs. Narender Mann & Others.
(FIR no. 200/06 PS Mangolpuri) 43 of101 license. Witness volunteered that they could only get the license at that time. Witness admitted that there were workers present in factory of Sachin Bansal and also in the surrounding factories. He claimed that no public person or worker was made to join the investigation there. Revolver and cartridges were claimed to have been recovered from an office type room adjoining stairs on the first floor. Witness did not remember whether the door of the room was found locked or not. No inquiry was claimed to have been made as to who usually sat in that office. He denied the suggestion that police had never visited factory premises of accused Sachin or that he had signed the proceedings on asking of IO. He further denied the suggestion that nothing was recovered from the said factory or the recovery was planted. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely. 28 PW-26 Inspector Dharambir Singh claimed that on 21.3.2006 while he was posted as Incharge, PP Dost, copy of DD No. 26 (Ex. PW-6/A) was entrusted to him by the DO. He claimed that on basis thereof, he alongwith Ct. Prasun Singh and Ct. Vijay went to house No. 260, Deepali where he found blood scattered near the gate and three used cartridges lying there. He claimed that injured was reportedly already removed to Jaipur Golden Hospital and while leaving Ct. Prasun at the spot he went to the hospital. He claimed that no eye witness was found at the spot or at the hospital. After leaving Ct. Vijay in the hospital, witness claimed having returned back to the spot where he met Kanta W/o Shri S.N Gupta who claimed to be an eye witness. Witness claimed having recorded her statement Ex.PW-8/A. He further claimed having made his endorsement Ex. PW-26/A upon the same and having sent the rukka through Ct. Prasun for registration of FIR.
State vs. Narender Mann & Others.
(FIR no. 200/06 PS Mangolpuri) 44 of101 He claimed that further investigation was marked to Inspector Satyapal Singh who reached the spot alongwith other police officials. Articles were claimed to have been seized from the spot vide Seizure Memo Ex.PW-26/B. Rakesh Gupta S/o S.N. Gupta was claimed to have handed over an envelope to inspector Satyapal, which was said to contain one piece of paper containing some writing. The same were claimed to have been seized vide Memo Ex.PW-20/A. Witness identified his signature on the Memo. He further identified his signature on Memo Ex. PW-10/A and also identified the accused Sachin Bansal. Disclosure statement of accused Sachin Bansal (Ex. PW-25/B) was also claimed to have been recorded and witness claimed that in pursuance thereto, he alongwith SI R.K. Maan and the IO were going to Naya Bans i.e. Village of accused Narinder Maan and on way, just before the village, Sachin Bansal pointed towards an Esteem Car bearing No. 6565 which was parked near the road and claimed that it belonged to Narinder Maan. He further stated that Sachin claimed that Narinder Maan was sitting in the car alongwith one other person. He claimed that the said two persons alongwith one who was urinating near the car were overpowered. Witness identified accused Narinder Maan in court. He also identified his signatures on arrest documents. Witness further claimed that the said car was searched and during search of dicky of the car one black cap bearing words Nike, one goggle, one album stated to be of marriage album of Sachin and one photograph of deceased S.N. Gupta was recovered. He claimed that on checking the album it was found that one of the middle pages of album did not have any photograph. All the articles were claimed to have been seized vide Memo Ex. PW-25/F and witness identified his State vs. Narender Mann & Others.
(FIR no. 200/06 PS Mangolpuri) 45 of101 signature thereupon. He claimed that thereafter they all returned back to the PS and case property was deposited with MHC (M). He further claimed that on 29.3.2006 while they were returning to the PS, on way back, accused Narinder Maan pointed out place on service road of outer ring road where he had parked his Getz Car on the day of incident. Witness identified his signature on the pointing out Memo. The said car was claimed to have been recovered on 30.3.2006 from outside house of Narinder Maan. Witness identified his signature on the Seizure Memo. He further claimed that while they were returning back, near Jaipur Golden Hospital, accused Narinder Maan claimed that his associate Joginder Sodhi passes by from the said road in his white Maruti Zen car No. 3234. He claimed that when the said car came it was stopped, and Joginder was apprehended on being pointed out by Narinder Maan. Witness identified his signatures on the arrest documents of Joginder. One cap of Nike and one goggle was claimed to have been recovered from the said car and seized vide Memo Ex. PW-25/K on which witness identified his signature. He claimed that the spot of incident was then identified by accused Joginder. He claimed that on basis of information furnished by accused Narinder Maan, ASI Krishan, IO, witness himself and Narinder Maan went to A-1/35, Sector-7, Rohini and from right side drawer of table on the first floor Narinder took out a Webley Scot pistol which contained two live cartridges. The same were claimed to have been seized vide seizure memo on which witness identified his signature. FSL form was also claimed to have been filled and witness further claimed that accused Joginder confirmed the same to be weapon of offence. Witness identified the pistol Ex. PW-26/P1 and the two test fired cartridges as State vs. Narender Mann & Others.
(FIR no. 200/06 PS Mangolpuri) 46 of101 Ex. PW-26/P2 & P3. He claimed having again joined investigation on 31.3.2006 on which date accused Narinder Maan reportedly got recovered license of his pistol from his house in Naya Bans. Witness identified his signature on the seizure memo in that regard and also identified the license. He claimed that thereafter they went to T-1/111, Mangolpuri Indl. Area to factory of Sachin Bansal where some labours were present. He claimed that Sachin took them to first floor office and took out a polythene from drawer of the table which contained a pistol and 11 cartridges. The same were claimed to have been seized vide Memo on which witness identified his signature. He also identified the pistol when shown to him. He claimed that he again joined investigation on 2.4.2006 when accused Narinder Maan and Sachin Bansal were interrogated and disclosure statements recorded. He claimed that Rajesh Gupta S/o S.N. Gupta infact had handed over an envelope to Inspector Satyapal and it had not been handed over by Rakesh Gupta as stated by him earlier on 28.3.2014.
During course of cross examination by Ld. Counsels, witness denied the suggestion of having made wrong statement on 28.3.2014. he did not remember if any official from the PS was sent to house of Sachin Bansal to call him to the PS on 29.3.2006, but claimed that a written notice was sent to Sachin Bansal in this regard. He denied the suggestion that no such notice had been sent or that Sachin Bansal had already been lifted from his house. He could not say if the two sons of deceased had come to PS on 29.3.2006 or if they were present at the time of arrest of Sachin Bansal. He claimed that he did not know if they had been visiting the PS even after 29.3.2006. He claimed that Sachin was interrogated on 29.3.2006 at around 4.00 / 4.30 PM in State vs. Narender Mann & Others.
(FIR no. 200/06 PS Mangolpuri) 47 of101 room of Inspector Satyapal Singh but he could not say if public people were present in the PS at that time. He admitted that there were residential houses and shops around the PS but claimed that no public person was called to join interrogation of Sachin Bansal which continued for about 4 / 5 hours. He denied the suggestion that Sachin did not make any disclosure statement in his presence. He further denied the suggestion that disclosure statement Ex. PW-25/B was falsely recorded at instance of son of the deceased and that accused was only made to sign thereupon. He did not remember if police party including himself had gone to house of accused Sachin on 29.3.2006 for house search. He claimed that he had not gone to factory of Sachin Bansal at Mangolpuri on 29.3.2006. He further claimed that it was at 8.00 PM on 29.3.2006 when Sachin pointed out the car in which accused Narinder Maan was sitting. He claimed that it was near pulia of Naya Bans and that there were residential houses about 100 meters from that place. No public person was claimed to have been called at that time. As per the witness, they had reached the said place directly from the PS and from there they went to the place pointed out by accused Narinder where he claimed having parked the vehicle on ring road near Deepali. He claimed that thereafter they reached PP Dost at about 12.00 / 1.00 midnight and then went to Naya Bans and remained there for half an hour and from there went to a place near Jaipur Golden Hospital and then reached PP Dost at about 7.00 / 8.00 AM. He denied the suggestion that Sachin Bansal had not pointed out the vehicle in which Narinder Maan was sitting or that Narinder Maan was not found in any car or had been lifted from his house. He denied the suggestion that marriage photograph album had been taken by police State vs. Narender Mann & Others.
(FIR no. 200/06 PS Mangolpuri) 48 of101 from house of accused Sachin Bansal on 29.3.2006 or that the album was tampered with. He further denied the suggestion that the photograph Ex. PW-25/5 was not the one which was removed from the marriage album or had been subsequently produced by son of the deceased. He further denied the suggestion that photograph at page Ex. PW-25/2 in the album had been intentionally removed to create evidence. Nothing incriminating was claimed to have been recovered during house search of accused Sachin. He claimed that factory of Sachin was not searched on 29.3.2006 or 30.3.2006 to search any arm or other incriminating article and that no public person was joined during house search of accused Sachin Bansal. No public person was reportedly joined during interrogation of Sachin Bansal on 30.3.2006 or on 31.3.2006. He further denied the suggestion that no pistol was recovered from factory of Sachin Bansal or that the same was taken from house of Narinder Maan and falsely shown to have been recovered from factory of Sachin Bansal. It was claimed that the office room in the factory was about 10 x 14 ft and there were office tables of different staff people there. No person from the factory or adjoining factories was claimed to have joined to conduct the search. No site plan of the said spot was claimed to have been prepared. He denied the suggestion that the alleged disclosure statement of Sachin Bansal has been falsely prepared. None of the family members of deceased was claimed to have been joined in any interrogation of the accused or for the alleged recovery. He denied the suggestion that it was in connivance with family members of deceased that Sachin was falsely implicated in this case.
State vs. Narender Mann & Others.
(FIR no. 200/06 PS Mangolpuri) 49 of101 Witness admitted that he had not stated in his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C that accused Sachin Bansal appeared before IO on 29.03.2006, in response to a notice. He admitted that PP Mangol Puri was situated in a thickly populated area and had a market nearby. He claimed that accused Sachin came there at about 4.30-5.00PM. He further stated that in his presence, IO had not requested any shopkeeper or any independent person to join the arrest proceedings. He further stated that Sachin was interrogated for about 45 minutes by the IO in PP dost and they left the PP at around 7.00PM. Village Naya Bans was claimed to be situated at a distance of 7-8 Km from police post and he claimed that they had gone in a police Gypsy. He claimed that the Esteem car no. 6568 was found in a stationary position and only two persons were sitting therein. Witness claimed having mentioned in his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C that one person was found urinating and was apprehended. He was confronted with his statement mark PW26/DA where it was not so recorded. He claimed having mentioned in his statement that only two persons namely Narender Maan and Rajvir were found sitting in the car. He was again confronted with his statement mark PW26/DA where it was recorded that total three persons were inside the car. He further stated that he did not notice any vehicle passing by on way, at the time of apprehension of accused Narender and Rajbir. He further claimed that no person from village Naya Bans was requested to join the proceedings and they remained there for about 2 ½ hours. He could not say as to which official had written what document at the spot. It was claimed that Inspector Satyapal Singh carried out search of the Esteem Car but he did not remember whether Dickey of the car was State vs. Narender Mann & Others.
(FIR no. 200/06 PS Mangolpuri) 50 of101 open or closed. He specifically claimed that recovery of goggles and cap make Nike was made on 29.03.2006 . He could not say as to which police official drove the car to the PP from the spot. Witness claimed that he was not sure as to whether or not the album, goggles, photographs and cap were sealed in his presence and was not aware whether or not the same were deposited in the malkhana. He denied the suggestion that signature of Narender Mann were obtained under duress on blank papers which were then converted into documents or that nothing incriminating was recovered at his instance or that he was not found travelling in the Esteem Car on 29.03.2006. He was not aware about house no. of accused Narender Mann or in which street it was situated. He claimed that family members of Narender were found in the house when police went there, but none of them was asked to join the proceedings. As per him, on reaching the gate of the house, Narender Mann gave a call whereupon his father or someone else from family came and opened the gate. Keys of Getz Car were claimed to have been brought by some of his family members. He denied suggestions that recovery of Getz car was not effected in his presence. He could not tell colour of the car. No family member was claimed to have been requested to join the seizure proceedings. He could not say as to who drove the said car from the village to the PP. He could not even tell the registration number, make or model of the Zen Car. He claimed that no recovery was effected in his presence on 02.04.2006 and that he did not join investigation thereafter. Flat no. A-1/ 35 sector- 7, Rohini was claimed to be situated on the first floor. Witness claimed that no lock was found on door of the flat and no one was present inside the office when they reached there. A table was claimed to have State vs. Narender Mann & Others.
(FIR no. 200/06 PS Mangolpuri) 51 of101 been found kept near main door of the flat. Witness was not aware as to how many rooms were there in the said flat or whether there were any occupants available there. Drawer of the table was claimed to have been found in unlocked condition. None of the neighbours were claimed to have been requested to join the proceedings. He denied the suggestions that arm and ammunition had been planted upon Narender Mann. He denied the suggestion that he had never joined investigation of this case or that no recovery was effected in his presence. He further claimed that he could not say as to who informed him about the injured having been taken to hospital. He further stated that no one from the house came forward to claim being an eye witness to the incident. He stated that although he enquired from the persons who came forward from the house, none claimed to have seen the incident. He had stated that nothing incriminating connected to the case was found in the courtyard. While claiming that he had observed all the things lying on the spot, witness claimed that he had appointed Ct. Prasanna in order to protect all the incriminating and connected evidence of this case. Witness claimed that he did not prepare any site plan of the spot in the first instance in order to protect it from being tampered with. Blood was claimed to have been found lying at different places at varying distances of 1, 2 & 3 - 4 ft. from the gate. The empty cartridges were found lying at a distance of 1 ft, 2 ft., 3ft., or 5 ft. from the gate. He claimed that he remained at the spot till 4.55 PM after having reached there at about 4.52 PM. He claimed having stayed in Jaipur Golden Hospital for about 10 - 15 minutes. He claimed having returned back to the spot from Jaipur Golden Hospital at 5.20 PM. He stated that when he reached the spot, he found the State vs. Narender Mann & Others.
(FIR no. 200/06 PS Mangolpuri) 52 of101 eye witness Kanta and then recorded her statement. He specifically stated that no other person informed him about being eye witness of the incident and took about 20 minutes in recording Kanta's statement. He claimed having inspected the whole spot carefully. Rough site plan was claimed to have been prepared after dispatch of the rukka. Witness specifically stated that he did not make any confirmation about Kanta being an eye witness and had recorded her statement as she claimed herself to be an eye witness. Witness claimed that he did not inquire if blood had fallen on her clothes while removing body of her husband from the spot, despite her claiming having helped in removing the body to the hospital. He did not inquire as to who had helped her in removing body to the hospital. Witness specifically claimed that he did not make any investigation or enquiry about the person who had telephonically intimated the police and also did not enquire about his identity from Kanta. Although he claimed having remained throughout at the spot, he could not say if any person came forward with some new facts in presence of the Crime Team. He claimed that Crime Team had inspected the spot, taken measurements and photographs of the spot. He specifically claimed that only one eye witness met them during entire proceedings at the spot. He denied the suggestion that the pointing out memo (Ex.PW-25/M) was not prepared in his presence on 30.3.2006 or that Joginder Singh had not been arrested on that day. While admitting date mentioned in the said Memo was 29.3.2006. He could not give any explanation for the date. (He volunteered that the date was mentioned by mistake). He admitted that he had not mentioned this fact in his statement to the IO and claimed that he might not have noticed the date at the time when he signed the same. He State vs. Narender Mann & Others.
(FIR no. 200/06 PS Mangolpuri) 53 of101 further denied the suggestion that signatures of Joginder Singh were obtained on blank papers on 29.3.2006 and subsequently dates and contents were written thereupon as per convenience. He denied the suggestion that Joginder had been lifted from his house on 29.3.2006 and was illegally detained in PP Dost. Witness admitted that the date 29.3.2006 was overwritten as 30.3.2006 in Arrest Memo Ex. PW-25/J. He denied the suggestion of himself having signed the blank documents. Witness claimed having signed the arrest memo and other arrest documents of Joginder Singh in front of Jaipur Golden Hospital at 5.30 AM. He admitted that the place was thickly populated but claimed that few people were present on road. No public person was claimed to have been requested to join the proceedings. Seizure memo of the car was also claimed to have been prepared at that time. He further claimed that he did not remember if there was any specific mark of identification on the cap and goggle recovered from car of Narender Maan and claimed that he would not be in a position to recognize as to which cap and goggle were recovered from whom. He claimed that he did not know as to recovery of which goggle and which cap was linked to commission of offence.
29 PW-27 Shri Dewak Ram proved his opinion regarding handwriting as Ex. PW-27/B. The same was in respect of the questioned writing (Ex. PW-20/B) and specimen writing of Joginder Singh. He claimed that both were written by same person.
During course of cross examination by Ld counsel for accuseds, witness claimed having done Diploma Course in 1983. He admitted that handwriting was a developing science but denied the suggestion that there were chances of human error in his report. He claimed that State vs. Narender Mann & Others.
(FIR no. 200/06 PS Mangolpuri) 54 of101 he had not been asked to examine life of ink on the questioned document. He claimed that the request / forwarding letter received by him was not on judicial record. He further stated that the questioned document Q-1 was received in his office in a sealed cover but the same had not been sent alongwith his report. The questioned document was claimed to have been put on microscope and enlarged on computer for comparison of handwriting. He however admitted that the enlarged copies were not placed on record. He denied the suggestion that he had given opinion at instance of IO as per his wish and request, or had not given a true opinion. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely.
30 PW-28 Shri Naresh Kumar proved his detailed biological and serological reports as Ex. PW-28/A & B and Ex. PW-28/C & D. During course of cross examination, he denied the suggestion of having manipulated the entire report in collusion with SHO and also denied the suggestion that the exhibits were not personally examined by him.
31 PW-29 HC Manoj claimed that on 21.3.06 he had delivered the envelopes containing FIR to the Ilaqa Magistrate, DCP/NW and Joint CP.
During course of cross examination, witness claimed that as he did not remember, he could not say as to whether or not IO recorded his statement. He claimed having left the PS with the special report at about 8.00 - 8.15 PM. Details regarding deliveries made were claimed to have not been mentioned in the log book of the official motorcycle. Witness claimed having returned back to the PS at 11.45 PM. Copies of DD No. 22 & 26 dated 21.3.06 were proved as Ex. PW-29/X1 & X2.
State vs. Narender Mann & Others.
(FIR no. 200/06 PS Mangolpuri) 55 of101 He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely or had not delivered any special report.
32 PW-30 Shri Digvinay Singh, ASJ proved TIP proceedings in respect of accused Joginder Singh as Ex. PW-30/A and the certificate as Ex. PW-30/B1. He claimed that accused refused to participate in TIP proceedings.
33 PW-31 DCP Brahm Singh claimed having accorded sanction U/s 39 Arms Act against accused Sachin Bansal, accused Narender Mann and one Shailender Singh. The same were proved as Ex. PW-31/A, B & C respectively.
During course of cross examination, witness claimed that the file had been produced before him by Head of the Dealing Branch. He further claimed that the sanction Ex. PW-31/A was prepared under his instructions by the Dealing Branch. He claimed having perused all the documents in the file. He denied suggestion to the contrary and also denied the suggestion of having given sanction mechanically and without applying his mind. He claimed that he did not remember details and contents of documents which were there on the file. 34 PW-32 Rajiv Kumar Tomar claimed that in the year 2006 he was working as Manager at National Industrial Corporation situated at T-1/111, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Mangolpuri and owner of the factory was Pushpa Bansal. He claimed that Puspa and her husband Shiv Charan had two children namely Sachin Bansal and Akash Bansal and that Sachin used to sit in the other factory at B-286, Mangolpuri Industrial Area. He claimed that generally Akash used to sit in the said factory (T-1/111), but sometimes Sachin Bansal also used to visit there. It was claimed that there was a staff of 4-5 people in the factory State vs. Narender Mann & Others.
(FIR no. 200/06 PS Mangolpuri) 56 of101 and they all used to sit in the office on the first floor, and that whenever Sachin used to come, he also used to sit with them. Witness claimed having handed over electricity bills mark PW32/A to the police and claimed that the same was seized vide memo Ex.PW32/A. He claimed that Sachin Bansal was not doing any work in the factory but casually used to visit the same.
After seeking permission from the Court, witness was cross- examined by ld. PP and during course of such examination he claimed that he did not remember if he had mentioned in his statement to police that accused Sachin Bansal used to work from office at first floor of the factory. He claimed that Askash Bansal used to work there even prior to arrest of accused Sachin. He denied the suggestion that Sachin used to look after the entire work of the factory or was the only person incharge there. He further denied the suggestion that the office was never used by any other staff member.
During course of cross-examination by ld. Counsel for accused, witness claimed that there were many people working as labour in the factory. He claimed that there was only one office room where all the five-six staff members used to sit and work. He claimed that police had also visited the factory prior to the date when he handed over the electricity bill to them and had also visited the office at that time. 35 PW33 Ramesh claimed that he was a property dealer and had his office at A-1/35, Ground floor, Sector-7, Rohini in garage of the premises. He claimed that he did not know any Shailender.
After seeking permission from the Court, witness was cross- examined by ld. PP and during course of such examination he claimed that he had not made any statement to police on 17-11-2006 and State vs. Narender Mann & Others.
(FIR no. 200/06 PS Mangolpuri) 57 of101 denied any suggestion to the contrary. He claimed that he never
stated to police that Shailender had purchased first floor of A-1/35, Sector-7, Rohini. He volunteered that he had never met Shailender and did not know him. He denied the suggestion that first floor of the said premises had been rented out to Varuna Pump Agency of Ghaziabad at monthly rent of Rs.25,000/- which used to be paid in the name of Pooja w/o Shailender. He denied that it was so at his instance, as Shailender had so requested him. Witness was duly confronted with statement Ex.PW33/X where these facts were recorded. He denied the suggestion that he had been won over by accused persons or was concealing material facts. 36 PW-34 Rakesh Dabas proved on record call details in respect of mobile number 9312251844 standing in the name of Shailender Singh as Ex. PW-34/A. 37 PW-35 HC Surinder Kumar claimed that on 21.3.2006 he was posted as MHC (M), PS Mangolpuri. He stated about deposit of various pullandas with him by Inspector Satpal on various dates and proved relevant entries of malkhana register in that regard as Ex. PW- 35/A,B,C,D & E. He claimed that on 27.4.06 on instructions of the IO he handed over 10 sealed pullandas and two sample seals of AJ & GH alongwith FSL form to Ct. Ramphal vide road certificate No. 32/21/06 for being deposited in FSL, Rohini. He claimed that receipt was deposited back with him. Copy of road certificate and the receipt were proved as Ex. PW-35/F & G. Relevant entry of malkhana register was proved as Point A - A1 on Ex.PW-35/A. Three sealed pullandas were reportedly handed over to Inspector Om Prakash on 22.9.06 for being deposited in FSL vide road certificate 282/21/06. Receipt was claimed State vs. Narender Mann & Others.
(FIR no. 200/06 PS Mangolpuri) 58 of101 to have been deposited back with him. Copy of road certificate was proved as Ex. PW-35/H, receipt Ex. PW-35/1 and relevant entry of malkhana register as Point B - B-1 on Ex.PW-35/A. He claimed that the case property had remained intact and untampered as long as it remained in his custody.
During course of cross examination by Ld. Counsels for accused persons, witness claimed that parcels were deposited in the malkhana at about 11.00 PM on 21.3.06 but time was not mentioned in the malkhana register. He admitted having copied the seizure memo of exhibits in the malkhana register entry. He further claimed that one sample seal of JGH was deposited by Inspector Satpal on 21.3.06 and a seal of AJ on 22.3.06. He claimed that both the seals remained in his possession till 27.4.06. Exhibits in entry No. 5707 (Ex. PW-35/B) were claimed to have been deposited by Inspector Satpal Singh at 3.00 PM. He claimed that he was giving the timings according to his memory. Articles mentioned in entry No. 5724 (Ex. PW-35/D) were claimed to have been deposited at 10.45 PM and of Ex. PW-35/E (5725) at 11.30 PM. Witness claimed that he had not brought the forwarding letter vide which exhibits were forwarded to FSL. He further admitted that road certificate Ex. PW-35/F had no particular specification of the case property / exhibits sent to FSL. Witness claimed that as per road certificate Ex. PW-35/F, one revolver alongwith two rounds claimed to have been recovered on 30.3.06 and deposited vide Sl. No. 5724 had been sent. He volunteered that by mistake, vide RC Ex. PW-35/F, another pistol having 11 rounds had been sent to FSL and thereafter the said pistol with two rounds was sent to FSL vide another road certificate No. 282/21/06 Ex. PW-35/H. He claimed that IO had told State vs. Narender Mann & Others.
(FIR no. 200/06 PS Mangolpuri) 59 of101 him about the said mistake and that he himself did not get lodge any DD entry in that regard. As per him, IO had so informed him only on 22.9.06 and from 27.4.06 to 22.9.06 he himself was not aware about the mistake. He claimed that his statement was recorded by IO in that regard. He further admitted that he had not handed over exhibits to Ct. Satish on 22.9.06 and claimed having handed over the same to SHO Inspector Om Prakash. He admitted that RC Ex. PW-35/H did not mention about sending of documents to FSL. He claimed that as per his record, no exhibits were deposited with FSL on 2.8.06. He denied the suggestion that on 27.4.06 the pistol having two cartridges had been sent to FSL. He denied the suggestion that the case property did not remain intact or was tampered with while in his custody or that entries had been manipulated. It is further claimed that one pullanda having a cap and goggle had been deposited on 29.3.06 and another pullanda having one cap and goggle was deposited on 30.3.06. He denied the suggestion that pullandas were tampered with. 38 PW-36 ACP Om Prakash claimed that on 1.9.06 he was posted as SHO, Mangolpuri and the present case was assigned to him for further investigation on direction of senior officer. He claimed that he went through the file and made enquiry from the MHC (M) who informed that three pullandas deposited with MHC (M) had not yet been sent to FSL. Witness claimed that on 15.9.06 he reached FSL office from where he obtained FSL results. He further claimed that on 22.9.06, on his instruction, MHC (M) handed over to him three sealed pullandas for being deposited in FSL. He claimed that one of those was having seal of SP while the other two were having seal of FSL. All the three pullandas were claimed to have been deposited in FSL State vs. Narender Mann & Others.
(FIR no. 200/06 PS Mangolpuri) 60 of101 Rohini. He further claimed that on 18-10-06, he obtained result from FSL through Ct. Satish Kumar. He also claimed having approached the DCP for sanction u/s 39 Arms Act. He further claimed that on 17- 11-06 he alongwith his staff reached T-1/111, Mangolpuri, Industrial Area, Phase-I where he met the manager Rajiv Tomar and asked for documentary proof regarding ownership of the factory. The electricity bill Mark PW32/A was claimed to have been seized vide Ex.PW32/A. He claimed that thereafter they went to A-35, Sector-7, Rohini where they met one Mishra. He claimed that on 20-11-06 he got verified the Arm License of accused Narender Maan. He claimed that on the same day he went to Kashmere Gate, Church Road from where Narender Maan had purchased 20 cartridges. Copy of sale register Ex.PW2/D, cash memo Ex.PW2/B and order form Ex.PW2/C were claimed to have been seized vide memo Ex.PW2/A. He further claimed on 23-11-06 he obtained sanction u/s 39 Arms Act to prosecute accused Narender Maan, Sachin Bansal and Shailender. Supplementary Charge-sheet was claimed to have been prepared on 26-11-06.
During course of cross-examination by ld. Counsels for the accused persons, witness claimed that he did not record statement of MHC(M) to the effect that wrong pistol and cartridges were sent to FSL inadvertently. He also did not remember if he had made any DD entry in that regard. He claimed that it was on 16-09-06 that the MHC(M) disclosed to him about having sent wrong pistol and cartridges to FSL. Witness claimed that he did not remember whether or not the said fact was mentioned by him in his case dairy. No action was claimed to have been initiated against the MHC(M) in that regard. Witness claimed having personally deposited the parcels in FSL office on State vs. Narender Mann & Others.
(FIR no. 200/06 PS Mangolpuri) 61 of101 22-09-06. However, he did not remember whether or not any documents were carried by him there. He did not remember if he had signed register no.19 while taking case property from the MHC(M). He did not remember if he had sent case property to FSL on 06-10-06. He however admitted letter sent to Director FSL vide diary no.6372 dated 18-10-06 as Ex.PW36/DA. He claimed that he had personally handed over written request to DCP Office for according of sanction U/s 39 Arms Act and had also lodged a DD entry in that regard. He claimed having visited A-35, Sector-7, Rohini on 17.11.2006 alongwith his staff at around 12.00-12.30 PM and claimed having met one Mr. Mishra at the said premises. He claimed that he did not record statement of Mr. Mishra as he did not co-operate. Witness claimed that he himself had collected sanction U/s 39 Arms Act from office of DCP. He denied that he had not conducted fair and impartial investigation or had tampered the case properties in collusion with MHC (M). He further denied the suggestion of having obtained sanction U/s 39 Arms Act by misrepresenting facts to the DCP concerned. He admitted that he did not send any document including FSL report to the DCP. He claimed that he did not see any official in the office at factory T-1/111, Mangolpuri Industrial Area when he visited that place. He denied that 4 - 5 officials were present there. Witness claimed that Shri Rajiv Tomar had accompanied him to office room of the factory. He denied the suggestion of having falsely prepared his statement.
After seeking permission from the court, witness was re- examined by Ld. PP and during course of such re-examination he claimed that he recollected having sent some documents alongwith request made to DCP for according of sanction. He however claimed State vs. Narender Mann & Others.
(FIR no. 200/06 PS Mangolpuri) 62 of101 that he did not remember nature of those documents, but the same did include the ballistic report.
During course of further cross examination by Ld. Counsels for accuseds, witness claimed that he did not remember whether he had sent copy of the ballistic report or the original thereof. He denied the suggestion that no such report or copy was ever sent to the DCP or that no such application was ever moved seeking sanction. 39 PW-37 HC Dev Raj claimed having joined investigation with Inspector Om Parkash on 17.11.2006 and claimed having gone to T-1/111, Mangolpuri Indl. Area where they met the Manager Rajiv Kumar Tomar. He claimed that Rajiv Tomar produced electricity bill Mark PW-32/A to show ownership of the factory, and the same was seized vide Memo Ex. PW-32/A. Witness identified his signature on the same.
During course of cross examination, witness claimed that he had not gone anywhere alongwith SHO a day prior to 17.11.06. He further denied the suggestion that the SHO had obtained his signatures on Ex. PW-32/A in the PS. He claimed that there was an office in the factory and that as far as he remembered, there were 2 - 3 persons present in the office. He admitted that SHO had not made enquiry from those persons. He denied the suggestion that he had been introduced as a witness.
40 PW-38 Inspector Satyapal Singh was the investigating officer who during course of his examination in chief reiterated facts as had been alleged by the investigating agency and the prosecution. He claimed having reached the spot on receipt of information and also claimed having prepared site plan Ex. PW-38/A. Witness also State vs. Narender Mann & Others.
(FIR no. 200/06 PS Mangolpuri) 63 of101 identified his signatures on the documents already proved by other witnesses. Complaints Ex. PW-14/B & C were claimed to have been seized vide Memo Ex. PW-38/B and he also claimed having filled in the inquest papers. Form 25-35 (i)(b) was proved as Ex. PW-38/C. Sachin Bansal and others were claimed to have been called to PP Dost on 24.3.06, 25.3.06, 26.3.06, 27.3.06, 28.3.06 & 29.3.06. Accused Sachin Bansal was claimed to have been formally arrested on 29.3.06 at 5.00 PM vide arrest memo Ex. PW-38/D. His body inspection was claimed to have been conducted vide memo Ex. PW-38/E. Search of Sachin Bansal was claimed to have been conducted vide memo Ex. PW-38/F. Witness then deposed about apprehension of accused Narender Mann and recovery made from the car in which he was travelling. He also deposed about arrest of other accused persons who had since been discharged. He further stated that on the intervening night of 29 & 30.3.2006, Narender Mann, while in custody, took the police party to his house in village Naya Bans and pointed out towards a Getz car bearing No. DL-4CAG-1789 lying parked in the courtyard. He claimed that Narender knocked at door of his house and made a request to his family members for handing over key of the car to him. He stated that after the key was handed over to Narender, it was handed over to him by Narender and the car was seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW-25/H. He claimed that on way, Narender told that the accused Joginder used to visit Japani Park via Jaipur Golden Road and could be apprehended. Witness claimed that they reached Jaipur Golden Hospital and took position, and at about 4.45 AM one Maruti Zen bearing No. DL-4CJ-3234 came and was stopped on signal being given. Witness claimed that on seeing the driver, Narender identified State vs. Narender Mann & Others.
(FIR no. 200/06 PS Mangolpuri) 64 of101 him as Joginder Sodhi. Car was claimed to have been searched,
whereupon one black cap make Nike and black goggles were recovered from its dicky. Cap and the goggles were claimed to have been converted into a pullanda, sealed, and seized vide memo. Witness also identified his signatures on the documents already exhibited. He also identified the case property. He further stated that in pursuance to disclosure statement of Narender, both the accused were taken to office of one Shailender in Sector-7, Rohini where they met one Padam Bahadur and from drawer of table in the room office, Narender Mann got recovered one pistol claiming it to be weapon of offence and having been handed over to Shailender. Witness thereafter stated about seizure of the said pistol and two live cartridges. He further stated about obtaining specimen writings and signatures on 15 sheets. Accused Joginder Sodhi was claimed to have been asked to remain in muffled face. All the accused were claimed to have been produced before Ld. MM. He claimed that on 31.3.06 accused Narender Mann who was on PC remand, was taken out from the lock- up and interrogated and in pursuance to his disclosure statement he took them to his house from where he got recovered license of pistol from almirah of his house. Witness identified his signatures on seizure documents. Sachin Bansal also was claimed to have been interrogated during his PC remand and on basis thereof police team proceeded to T-1/111, Mangolpuri Industrial Area where accused Sachin had office at the first floor. Accused was claimed to have got recovered one pistol and a small card board box containing 11 live cartridges. Witness stated about seizure of the same. Further, disclosure statements of the two accused were claimed to have been State vs. Narender Mann & Others.
(FIR no. 200/06 PS Mangolpuri) 65 of101 recorded on 2.4.06. Witness identified his signatures on the same. After extension of PC remand, witness stated that they proceeded to Sonepat and then for Manali where Sachin Bansal made them roam about in Sonepat but could not locate the house where he had concealed documents. He claimed that on 7.4.06 it transpired that Ajit Prasad Gupta and Alok Aggarwal were also members of the committee run by Shiv Charan and accused Sachin. He claimed having recorded their statements. Accused Joginder Sodhi was claimed to have refused to participate in judicial TIP proceedings on 12.4.06. Exhibits were claimed to have been sent to FSL on 27.4.06 and on 22.5.06. Witness also stated about arrest and interrogation of other accused persons. Documents pertaining to the company Accent Shoes Pvt. Ltd. were claimed to have been handed over by Shiv Charan on 27.4.06. Witness claimed that on 25.5.06 Smt. Kanta and Seema pointed out and identified accused Joginder Sodhi in Rohini Court. CDRs of mobile phones of the accused persons were claimed to have been obtained from ACP office on 9.6.06. Witness also identified the case property.
During course of cross examination, witness claimed that he had reached the spot of incident at 5.30 PM and none of the family members of deceased nor his maid met him there. No enquiry was claimed to have been made from any public witness or any neighbour at that time. Enquiry was claimed to have been made after receipt of FIR. He claimed that despite presence of a number of persons, he did not join any independent witness while lifting exhibits from the spot. He further claimed that Rajesh met him on 21.3.06 and his statement was recorded on the same day. He denied the suggestion that the seizure State vs. Narender Mann & Others.
(FIR no. 200/06 PS Mangolpuri) 66 of101 memo Ex. PW-20/A had been manipulated. Witness claimed having met Kanta Devi at her residence at about 10.00 PM. He claimed that originals of the complaints Ex. PW-14/B & C could not be traced out and were not seized. Case property was claimed to have been deposited in the malkhana on 21.3.06 at about 11.15 PM. He claimed that Sachin Bansal and Shiv Charan had reached the PS on 24.3.06 at about 11.00 AM. Esteem car was claimed to be parked about 200 yards from village Naya Bans while going from Mangolpuri to Naya Bans, on right side of the road. Witness admitted that a number of passersby were available at that time. He denied the suggestion that no such car of accused was found there. Key of the car was claimed to have been seized. He admitted that the same had not been mentioned in the seizure memo. He further admitted that he had not requested any public person to join proceedings regarding seizure of the car. He further admitted that he did not move any application for getting conducted TIP of goggles and the Nike cap. No inquiry was claimed to have been made from photographer who took photographs of marriage of Sachin Bansal and prepared the Album. He denied the suggestion that the photograph Ex.PW25/5 had been obtained from family members of the deceased and thereafter was planted upon the accused persons. He further denied the suggestion that no cap or goggles or album had been found from dickey of the Esteem car or the same too were planted. Witness admitted that there were over-writings on date as well as on time of arrest on arrest documents of accused Joginder Singh Sodi. He admitted that arrest memos and personal search memos were in handwriting of SI R.K. Maan. He further admitted that disclosure statement of Narender Mann (PW 26/C) did State vs. Narender Mann & Others.
(FIR no. 200/06 PS Mangolpuri) 67 of101 not mention about the album. He further claimed that except for the photograph Ex PW 25/5, there was no other photograph of deceased in the album. He claimed that no enquiry was made from any person as to whether or not the deceased had attended the wedding. He denied the suggestion that Narender Mann was arrested from his house or that at that time his pistol, cartridges and arms license had also been taken away. He claimed that he came to know about the pistol and the arms license on 29.03.2006. While claiming that the Getz car belonged to Yogender who was Chacha of accused Narender, witness claimed that he did not record statement of Yogender as to whether he had given the said car to Narender Mann. No verbal enquiry was claimed to have been made from Yogender regarding whereabouts of the car on the day of incident. No request was claimed to have been made to any independent person to join the recovery proceedings in sec. 7, Rohini. Witness claimed that there was no lock on the drawer of table. No family member in house of Narender Mann was claimed to have been asked to become a witness to recovery proceedings. No person was reportedly asked to join the proceedings regarding arrest of accused Yogender. He admitted that he had not requested any independent public person to be a witness to any of the disclosure statement of accused Narender Mann. Witness claimed that he had not checked the parcels before sending the same to FSL on 27.04.2006. He admitted that at the time of sending exhibits on 27.04.2006, he had also sent copy of sketch of pistol and two live cartridges. Witness claimed that he did not record statement of any Nodal Officer in respect of the CDRs and claimed having obtained the same from the ACP. He claimed that he never visited any of the companies/ service providers for the State vs. Narender Mann & Others.
(FIR no. 200/06 PS Mangolpuri) 68 of101 purpose of obtaining certificate u/s 65 B Evidence Act. No investigation was claimed to have been made to know as to who had generated the CDRs. He claimed that memo Ex PW 20/A vide which envelope was seized had been duly read over to Rajesh who had not raised any objection about contents of the same. He further stated that from 24.03.2006 till 29.03.2006, Sachin Bansal had been interrogated everyday. He claimed that son of the deceased used to come to him to know status of the case. Sons of the deceased were claimed not to have been confronted with accused Sachin Banal during that period. He denied the suggestion that during that period accused Sachin Bansal was being illegally detained by them. He claimed that he could not say as to for how much time he had interrogated Sachin Bansal on 26.3., 27.3., & 28.3.06. He claimed that there was no concrete evidence till the aforesaid dates to effect arrest of Sachin Bansal. Sachin was claimed to have been arrested on 29.3.06 after he had been confronted with Naveen @ Chinu. He was claimed to have been interrogated from 4.00 PM to 5.00 PM on 29.3.06. No Memo of said interrogation nor any statement of Cheenu in that regard were claimed to have been prepared. Cheenu was claimed to have been interrogated on 24.3, 27.3, & 29.3.06, but his statement was not claimed to have been recorded on those days. He denied the suggestion that Sachin Bansal was falsely shown to have been arrested on 29.3.06 on account of pressure from a senior officer and the complainant party. He denied the suggestion that he started fabricating evidence against Sachin after his arrest. Witness admitted that he did not ask any public person to be witness to interrogation and recording of disclosure statement of Sachin Bansal. He denied the State vs. Narender Mann & Others.
(FIR no. 200/06 PS Mangolpuri) 69 of101 suggestion that there were residential houses surrounding the Police Post Dost. Witness specifically claimed that he had not seen Rajesh with senior officers on 21.3.06 when he reached the spot around 5.15 - 5.30 PM. The senior officers reportedly stayed there in his presence for about 15 minutes. He denied the suggestion that they were making enquiry from Rajesh i.e. son of the deceased. He denied the suggestion that he too made enquiries from Rajesh at that time. He further denied the suggestion that FIR was ante timed. He claimed that he did not remember as to whether or not Rajesh told him about business dealings with Sachin Bansal and his father or about the committees. Witness claimed that he had asked Ashok Kumar and Ajit Prasad to produce documentary proof regarding their participating in committees, but they could not produce it. He denied the suggestion that they had been falsely introduced at instance of sons of the deceased. Nothing incriminating in respect of the committee documents was claimed to have been found during house search of Sachin Bansal conducted on 29.3.06. He denied the suggestion that thereafter even factory premises of family members of Sachin had been searched. Witness denied the suggestion that the album Ex. PW-25/1 was taken from house of accused Sachin Bansal or that he himself had malafidely removed a photograph from one of the pages of the album. He denied the suggestion that photograph Ex. PW-25/5 was given by sons of the deceased or was falsely shown to have been recovered from the Esteem Car. As per the witness, he did not interrogate Sachin on 30.3.06 and had interrogated him at about 4.00 PM on 31.3.06 in PS Mangolpuri. No effort was claimed to have been made to call upon any public witness before his interrogation. Narender State vs. Narender Mann & Others.
(FIR no. 200/06 PS Mangolpuri) 70 of101 Mann was claimed to have been interrogated on that day at around 11.30 AM. Witness denied the suggestion that the arm license of Narender Mann and his licensed pistol had been taken away from his house or were then falsely planted on Sachin Bansal by showing the same to have been recovered from his factory. He claimed that there were workers in the factory and that there were factories around that factory also. No effort was claimed to have been made to join any other person in the proceedings. Witness claimed that he did not make any enquiry as to how many persons used to work in office room of the factory. He claimed that there were two tables lying there. He denied the suggestion that Narender Mann was already in their custody prior to 29.3.06 or was not arrested in the manner alleged or had not made any disclosure statements. He further denied the suggestion that SI R.K. Mann and SI Dharamvir had been falsely introduced as witnesses to the recovery memos. He claimed that it was on 21.3.06 itself that he came to know about business and committee dealings between the deceased and family members of accused Sachin Bansal. He claimed that despite the same, he did not ask for any documents regarding the dealings. As regards DD No. 26 dated 21.3.06, witness claimed that on enquiry it transpired that the telephone No. mentioned therein belonged to one Ishwar Singh. Witness claimed that he did not record statement of said Ishwar Singh and claimed that Ishwar Singh had told him that he did not know the person who entered his drawing room and made the telephone call. Witness further claimed that Smt. Kanta Devi met him at about 7.30/7.45 PM and till that time no person from public came there to give any statement to him. He claimed that he remained at the spot till 11.00 PM. He claimed having prepared the unscaled site State vs. Narender Mann & Others.
(FIR no. 200/06 PS Mangolpuri) 71 of101 plan at instance of Kanta Devi and also claimed having seen the articles spread on the left and right side of gate of the house. He further claimed that one envelope had been presented before him by Rajesh on 21.3.06 at about 9.00 PM. He admitted that factum of recovery of envelope was not mentioned in the brief facts sent to doctor alongwith application for postmortem. He further claimed that the said envelope was not sealed and he could not give any explanation for not sealing the same. He further claimed that he had not enquired about the envelope from Kanta on that day and had never shown it to her. Clothes worn by Smt. Kanta while shifting her husband to the car were claimed to have not been seized. Witness claimed that he did not record statement of the person who actually took the deceased to the hospital. He further claimed that the spot had been duly cordoned off before he reached there at about 5.30 PM. He further denied the suggestion that Joginder was called on 27.3.06 and was shown to the witnesses and since they declined to identify him, he was let off. He further denied the suggestion that Joginder Singh was again called on 28.3.06 and made to sit in the PS. He denied the suggestion that due to this some heated exchange of words took place between two of them or that parents of Joginder moved application to senior officers regarding his illegal detention. He denied the suggestion that interpolation was made on the date as mentioned on the pullandas vide which cap and goggles were seized. He denied having falsely implicated accused Joginder Singh in this case. Witness further claimed that on 21.3.06 sketch of suspects were got prepared with the help of witness Seema. He admitted that the sketch had not been made part of the judicial record. He denied the suggestion that it State vs. Narender Mann & Others.
(FIR no. 200/06 PS Mangolpuri) 72 of101 was so done as the sketch did not tally with identity of Joginder Singh Sodhi. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely. 41 No other witness was examined on behalf of prosecution. After prosecution evidence was closed, statements of accused persons were recorded without oath U/s 313 Cr. P.C. While denying all allegations of prosecution, it was claimed by accused Joginder Singh that he had been called to PS on 27.3.06 and was made to sit there. He claimed that certain persons including ladies were asked to identify him but they refused to identify him and thereafter he was let off. He claimed that he was again called on 28.3.06, on which date some heated exchange took place between him and police officials. He claimed that thereafter his father moved application to senior officers including LG and as soon as police came to know about the said application, they falsely implicated him in this case.
Accused Sachin Bansal also claimed that he was innocent and falsely implicated in this case. He claimed that the complainant party wanted to grab the factory at Bahadurgarh and hence got him falsely implicated in this case.
Accused Narender Mann while denying allegations of prosecution claimed that he was innocent and had got nothing to do with the offence in question and that entire proceedings had been fabricated by police in order to make out a false case against him. 42 Accused Joginder Singh and Sachin Bansal claimed that they wanted to lead defence evidence.
43 Joginder Singh examined DW-1 Ct. Sonu who claimed that records pertaining to 29.3.06 had already been destroyed / weeded out.
State vs. Narender Mann & Others.
(FIR no. 200/06 PS Mangolpuri) 73 of101 44 DW-2 Ct. Arun Kumar produced the FAX receipt register for the
period 28.2.06 to 12.4.06 and claimed that at Sl. No. 1959, one Fax had been received from Satnam Singh on 29.3.06 mentioning therein "Apna ladke ko utha le jane ke bare me shikayat". He proved copy of the relevant record as Ex. DW-2/A. During course of cross examination by Ld. PP, witness admitted that the record was not in his handwriting and he could not say who had written it. He claimed that he had only produced the official record and had deposed on basis of that record.
45 Accused Sachin Bansal tendered in evidence certified copy of order dated 5.5.2009 passed by Company Law Board and certified copy of statement of account of Akash International with IOB for the perriod March, 2005 to October, 2005. He claimed that the same Mark D-1 & D-2 be taken on record as defence evidence on his behalf. 46 No other witness was examined on behalf of accused persons. After evidence was closed, arguments advanced by Ld PP for State and by Ld. counsels for accused persons were heard. 47 During course of his submissions it was submitted by Ld. PP that all the accused persons in pursuance to common intention and in furtherance of their conspiracy had committed murder of deceased Shri S.N. Gupta on 21.3.06 and three bullets had been fired by Joginder Singh Sodhi. It was claimed that Sachin Bansal and his father used to run kitty (chit fund) and payments were to be made by Bansals to the deceased in respect of those kitties. It was claimed that a conspiracy was hatched wherein Joginder Singh was deputed to be the shooter who would execute the killing which was infact done on 21.3.06. Ld. PP took this court to statements of prosecution witnesses and State vs. Narender Mann & Others.
(FIR no. 200/06 PS Mangolpuri) 74 of101 submitted that PW-12,13,14,15,20 & 22 were witnesses of motive who had deposed about the accused persons specially Sachin Bansal having motive to kill Shri S.N. Gupta. Attention of this court was also drawn to testimony of PW-18 Kanta Devi and PW-19 Seema who were claimed to hve identified accused Joginder Singh as being the person who came to their house on the day of incident in garb of being a courier boy and infact shot dead Shri S.N. Gupta. As per Ld PP Joginder Singh had come to house of deceased claiming that he had come to deliver an envelope and that the said envelope was subsequently seized having been left behind by Joginder and having been produced before the police by son of the deceased. It was claimed that testimony of PW-27 proved writing on the envelope to be of Joginder Singh. It was further pointed out that the call details of mobile phones of the accused persons made it evident that they were in constant touch with each other. It was further submitted that in a case of conspiracy, it was always difficult to get direct evidence and that the factum of conspiracy has to be gathered from facts and circumstances of the case. It was claimed that in view of testimony of PW-18 & 19, direct involvement of Joginder Singh in the incident stood proved and it excluded the murder to have been committed by any other person.
48 Ld. counsel for accused Narender Mann claimed that the investigating agency had failed to co-relate the mobile numbers as belonging to the accused persons and that in absence of certificates U/s 65 B Evidence Act, no reliance could be placed on the CDRs. It was submitted that no CDR had been seized by the investigating agency from the service providers, and rather same had reportedly State vs. Narender Mann & Others.
(FIR no. 200/06 PS Mangolpuri) 75 of101 been seized from office of ACP without any record being maintained regarding source of the CDRs. It was claimed that prosecution has failed to establish any motive with Narender Mann for committing the murder nor had it shown anything on record regarding Narender Mann having entered into conspiracy with the other two accused persons for committing the murder. It was claimed that in a case of circumstantial evidence motive assumes great importance. It was submitted that Narender Mann was never member of any committee nor had any business dealings with the deceased or any other accused nor had entered into any money transaction. It was claimed that the recoveries allegedly made in this case had all been planted. As per Ld. counsel, although prosecution has claimed having recovered cap and goggles which reportedly were worn by Joginder Singh at the time of murder, the same were never got identified during course of judicial TIP at the stage of investigation from Kanta Devi and Seema. It was further submitted that recoveries thereof had been made nearly 7 days after the incident and that no culprit would retain incriminating evidence with him for such a long period. As regards photograph of deceased and marriage album of Sachin Bansal, it was claimed that a bare perusal of the photograph would reveal that it was not part of the album. Another line of argument advanced was that in case photograph was given to the culprits for establishing identity of the victim, there was no requirement of handing over the album. It was claimed that the same had been done by the investigating agency to falsely implicate the accused persons. Over-writings in the seizure memos and the pullandas had also been pointed out by Ld counsel. It was claimed that the entire case of prosecution revolved around alleged disclosure State vs. Narender Mann & Others.
(FIR no. 200/06 PS Mangolpuri) 76 of101 statements of the accused persons which infact had never been made by them. Recovery of the alleged weapon of offence was also challenged by Ld. counsel. It was pointed out that witnesses of recovery i.e. PW-24,25 & 38 had given different timings in this regard. It was also submitted that no public person had been joined by the investigating team at any stage of investigation. It was claimed that apparently prosecution had failed to bring on record that there ever was any meeting of mind of the accused persons prior to commission of the offence and hence, it could not be said that they had entered into conspiracy to commit the offence. During course of his submissions, ld. counsel for the accused submitted that what had been sent to FSL vide road certificate Ex. PW-17/A was different from what was received in the FSL as mentioned in FSL report Ex. PW-1/A. In this regard attention of this court was drawn towards Item No.12 and it was submitted that a confusion has been raised as the pullanda mentioned in the road certificate was claimed to contain a pistol with two live cartridges but the pullanda as mentioned in the report contained a pistol and 11 cartridges. It was submitted that apparently case property had been tampered with. Story regarding licensed pistol of Narender Mann having been recovered at instance of Sachin Bansal was also challenged. It was submitted that as per case of prosecution, the said weapon was not the weapon of offence in this case. Ld counsel submitted that no prudent man would hand over his licensed pistol to the other for no rhym or reason and apparently a false story in this regard had been concocted to show conspiracy between the two. It was claimed that there was no legally admissible evidence of any conspiracy at pre-arrest stage and and evidence had been concocted State vs. Narender Mann & Others.
(FIR no. 200/06 PS Mangolpuri) 77 of101 to show conspiracy after the accused had been apprehended. It was prayed that accused be acquitted.
49 Ld. counsel for Sachin Bansal pointed out that there apparently was no evidence on record against Sachin Bansal before he came to be wrongly arrested in this case. It was pointed out that evidence in this case had been collected / procured / created only after Sachin was arrested. Ld counsel submitted that motive of the complainant side in getting Sachin falsely implicated in this case was to grab the partnership property of Sachin. Ld. counsel pointed out that even as per case of prosecution, there was no direct evidence on record against accused Sachin and that the allegations only referred to circumstantial evidences against him which even otherwise failed to link him with the alleged offence. It was submitted that each circumstance was required to be proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt and chain of circumstances ought to be complete with no missing link. Ld. counsel submitted that prosecution had failed to prove on record that the accused was running any committees in which the deceased was a participant. Ld. counsel drew attention of this court to testimonies of PW-12, 13, 15, 20 & 22 in that regard and submitted that they all were relatives of the deceased and no independent witness had been examined qua Sachin Bansal running any committee or the deceased being a member thereof. It was further submitted that no document whatsoever had been procured during course of investigation. While referring to testimony of PW-18 it was pointed out that in case the deceased himself was running committees, it would be improbable that he would be a member of committees being run by Sachin Bansal. Due to lack of any corroborative evidence State vs. Narender Mann & Others.
(FIR no. 200/06 PS Mangolpuri) 78 of101 in respect of committees, it was submitted that the link was missing. Ld counsel further pointed out about delay in recording of statements of some of the witnesses by the investigating agency. It was further submitted that vague and belated statements had been manufactured by the investigating agency and the same were inconsequential in view of lack of documentary evidence. As regards alleged recovery of pistol and cartridges of Narender Mann at instance of Sachin Bansal, it was submitted that the said recovery was claimed to have been effected on 31.3.06 i.e. 10 days after the alleged incident and that too from a place which was not shown to be under exclusive control of Sachin Bansal. From testimonies of PW-, 25, 26,32, 37 & 38 it was submitted that apparently Sachin Bansal was not in exclusive control of the place from where licensed pistol of Narender Mann was claimed to have been recovered and that even otherwise, it was not a weapon of offence. It was claimed that it was highly doubtful as to why Narender Mann would hand over his licensed pistol and cartridges to Sachin Bansal while retaining the license with him. It was submitted that apparently the plantation was done to create a connection between the two in order to support allegation of conspiracy between them. Ld. counsel further pointed out from testimony of the IO (PW-38) and other witnesses that Sachin Bansal had been joining investigation in this case from 24.3.06 till his date of arrest i.e. 29.3.06. Ld. counsel submitted that why would Sachin have kept the pistol and cartridges in his factory knowing that it might connect him with Narender Mann. As regards photograph of the deceased and marriage album of Sachin Bansal, ld. counsel submitted that as per case of prosecution the photograph had been given from the album for identification of the State vs. Narender Mann & Others.
(FIR no. 200/06 PS Mangolpuri) 79 of101 deceased. It was claimed that in case the photograph had been given, there was no requirement for the album to have been given and apparently the same had been planted to create story of conspiracy. It was further submitted that no public person had ever been called at any stage of investigation whenever any recovery was made by the investigating agency. It was claimed that as the pistol and cartridges had not been recovered from exclusive possession of Sachin Bansal and not from a locked table drawer and not in presence of independent public witnesses who otherwise were available at the spot, the link in the chain was missing. Ld. counsel submitted that tainted investigation in this case put in doubt genuineness of story of the investigating agency. Non filing of certificate U/s 65 B Evidence Act in respect of CDRs allegedly collected from office of ACP was also mentioned by ld. counsel as making the CDRs inadmissible and being yet another missing link. It was further submitted that there was no evidence on record that the mobile numbers in respect of which CDRs were obtained, were infact being used by the accused persons. Ld. counsel further submitted that mere telephonic conversation could not form basis of conspiracy. It was prayed that missing links in the chain entitled the accused Sachin Bansal to an order of acquittal. 50 Ld. counsel for accused Joginder during course of his submissions submitted that there were material contradictions in testimonies of prosecution witnesses which shaked prosecution story from its foundation. It was submitted that although Joginder was detained since 28.3.2006, he was show to have been arrested on 29/30.3.2006 and that there were over-writings regarding date on the arrest documents. Attention of this court had been drawn in this regard State vs. Narender Mann & Others.
(FIR no. 200/06 PS Mangolpuri) 80 of101 to documents Ex. PW-25/L, M, J & J1. It was submitted that although the alleged disclosure statement was dated 30.3.06, the pointing out memo which was prepared subsequently was dated 29.3.06. It was further submitted that the accused had never been kept in muffled face after arrest and hence was justified in refusing to participate in judicial TIP. Ld. counsel further submitted that prosecution had failed to bring on record or attribute any motive with the accused Joginder to commit murder of S.N. Gupta or be a party to the alleged conspiracy in that regard. In this regard it was submitted that there was no circumstance to support allegation of conspiracy and there was no evidence on record regarding Joginder having been ever seen in company of the other accused persons prior to the date of incident. It was claimed that that CDRs being relied upon by prosecution to connect the accused persons were not legally admissible in absence of certificate U/s 65 B Evidence Act and hence there was nothing to show any link between accused Joginder and other co-accuseds. While referring to the allegedly recovered cap and goggles, it was submitted that the same had never been put up for judicial identification from PW-18 & 19 and moreover, as the alleged incident occurred on 21.3.2006, no guilty person would retain such like articles with him for 8 - 9 days only to facilitate his implication in the case. As regards the envelope said to contain handwriting of Joginder, it was submitted by ld. counsel that it was a manipulated document which had never seen sealed at the spot and upon which writing of Joginder had been forcibly obtained at a subsequent stage. Ld. counsel further submitted that presence of the envelope was neither depicted in the site plan, nor the scaled site plan nor was it mentioned in the brief history prepared by the IO. It was State vs. Narender Mann & Others.
(FIR no. 200/06 PS Mangolpuri) 81 of101 further submitted that the seizure memo Ex. PW-20/A mentioned about the envelope as being one which had been given by the courierwala "de kar gaya hai" and it was not mentioned that it had fallen down while the courierwala was running away after shooting Shri Gupta. Ld. counsel refuted claim of prosecution regarding there being two eye witnesses to the alleged incident and claimed that entire case of prosecution rested on circumstantial evidence and that the links in the chain were incomplete to prove guilt of the accused. It was further submitted that as per prosecution witnesses and the investigating officer, a sketch of the alleged shooter had been prepared, but the same was never placed on judicial record nor made part of the charge sheet. Ld. counsel further submitted that even though Joginder Singh was a Sardar, neither PW-18 nor PW-19 had claimed that the person who came at their door was a Sardar. Yet another line of argument advanced by ld counsel was that telephone number of the initial informant had been mentioned in DD 26 (Ex. PW-6/A) but for some unknown reasons, the said informant was never examined in this case. It was further submitted that as per PW-18 Kanta Devi, the deceased had been shifted to hospital by her with help of neighbours. It was submitted that the said neighbours had never been examined in this case. It was further submitted that the witness had claimed having held on to her husband while he was bleeding and about having removed him to the hospital. As per ld. counsel her blood stained sari had not been seized and it put in doubt factum of her being present at the spot. It was further pointed out that despite presence of public persons at various spots of recoveries, no attempt was made to join any public person as being attesting witness to any of the seizure State vs. Narender Mann & Others.
(FIR no. 200/06 PS Mangolpuri) 82 of101 memos prepared. It was submitted that it was so as the alleged
recoveries were not effected in the manner claimed. 51 During course of his reply arguments it was submitted by Ld. PP that conspiracy between the accused persons stood proved from the CDRs which showed that they were in constant touch with each other. Conspiracy was also claimed to have been proved by the fact that wedding album of Sachin Bansal had been recovered from car of Narender Mann and that photograph of the target i.e. S.N. Gupta had also been recovered from there. Ld. PP submitted that it is a case of well thought, well planned and well executed conspiracy and that minor contradictions in testimonies of prosecution witnesses and mere non joining of public persons at the time of recoveries could not negate truthfulness of prosecution story. Recovery of licensed pistol of Narender Mann at instance of Sachin Bansal and recovery of the weapon of offence (used by Joginder Singh) at instance of Narender Mann was also pointed out to be a circumstance which showed conspiracy between the accused persons. It was submitted that it was always difficult to get direct evidence of conspiracy which has to be gathered from facts and circumstances of the case. It was submitted that testimony of PW-18 & 19 proved direct involvement and excluded involvement of any other person except Joginder Singh in committing murder of Shri S.N. Gupta. As regards over-writings regarding dates, it was submitted that the same were merely on account of oversight due to the relevant period falling between the intervening nights of 29.3.06 & 30.3.06. As regards non examination of the caller mentioned in DD 26 (Ex. PW-6/A), it was submitted that IO had given an explanation that as the caller could not be ascertained, he could not be examined.
State vs. Narender Mann & Others.
(FIR no. 200/06 PS Mangolpuri) 83 of101 52 In support their respective contentions, Ld. counsels for accused persons had placed reliance on:
Avnar P.V. Vs. P.K. Basheer & Ors [VIII(2014) SLT 223]; Santoshanand Avdoot @ Ghanshyam Prashad & Anr. Vs. State [2014 (4) JCC 2601] & Baljinder Kaur Vs. State of Punjab [2015(1) CC (SC) 161].
State Vs. V.C. Shukla & Another (AIR 1980 SC 1382); Harish Chander & Billa Vs. State & Kamla Vs. State [1995 II AD (Delhi) 176]; Dilbagh Singh Vs State, Pooran Kumar Gurang Vs. State ad Manak Chad Vs State [1995 III AD (Delhi) 499]; Gangabhavani Vs. Rayapati Venkat Reddy & Ors. [2013 (7) LRC 77 (SC)]; Nazim Khan @ Guddu Vs. State [2015 (2) LRC 192 (Delhi)]; State Vs. Sunil Kumar & Ors. [2015 (3) LRC 380 (Del) (DB)]; Arun Kumar @ Bihari Vs. State [2015 V AD (DELHI) 377]; I. Ravindra Redy Vs. Shaik Masthan & Ors. [2008 IV AD (Cr.) (SC) 380] ; Naresh @ Ram Naresh Vs. State of Rajasthan [II (2002) CCR 349 (DB)]; Krishna @ Kresa Vs. State of MP [III(2011) CCR 35] & Rakesh Kumar & Ors. Vs. State.
Raj Kumar Vs. NCT of Delhi [2014 (1) CCC (HC)(Delhi)], Vinod Kumar Vs. State [1992 (2) CCC 211 (D)]; State of Harayna Vs. Ram Singh [2002 (1) CCC (SC) 165]; Sans Pal Singh Vs. State of Delhi [(1998) 2 SCC 371]; Dinesh Kumar Vs. State [1998(1) AD (Crl.) 517 (Delhi)]; Ramreddy Rajeshkhanna Redy & Anr. Vs State of Andhra Pradesh [2006(I) AD (Crl) 649]; State of UP Vs. Sanjay Singh [1994 SCC (Crl.) 1701]; Shaikh Rafiq Vs. State of Maharashtra [2008(1) JCC 575 (SC)]; State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Punati Ramulu [1994(3) CCC 6 (SC)]; Subhash @ Dhillu & Ors. Vs. State vs. Narender Mann & Others.
(FIR no. 200/06 PS Mangolpuri) 84 of101 State of Haryana [2015 III AD (Cri)(SC) 340] & Masoom & Ors. Vs. State of NCT of Delhi [2015 III (Cri) (DHC) 349].
53 Ld. counsel for complainant and Ld. PP have placed reliance upon Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) [(2010) 6 SCC 1]; Mullagiri Vajram & Others Vs State of Andhra Pradesh[1993 Supp (2) SCC 198]; Appabhai & Anr. Vs. State of Gujarat [1998 (Supp) SCC 241]; State of Punjab Vs. Mela Singh [(2003) 12 SCC 464]; Jagdish Rai Vs. State of Bihar [(1972) 3 SCC 264]; State of Govt. of NCT of Delhi Vs. Sunil & Another [(2001)1 SCC 652] & State of UP Vs. Anil Singh [AIR 1988 SC 1988] [1988 (3) Crimes 367 (SC)].
54 This court has given thoughtful consideration to arguments advanced and has also perused the records as also judicial pronouncements relied upon at the Bar.
55 First of all let us take into consideration the case of accused Narender Maan and Sachin Bansal. Allegations against these two accused persons consisted of their having entered into conspiracy with each other and Joginder Singh to commit murder Shri S.N. Gupta. In order to show contact between the accused persons prior to date of commission of offence, prosecution had relied upon some call detail records of mobile phones said to belong to the accused persons. Admittedly, the call detail records produced in court were not accompanied with the requisite certificates U/s 65 B Evidence Act. It had been claimed by the investigating agency that the records had been seized from office of ACP. No record apparently was maintained as to from where the CDRs had been received in office of ACP and how the same were seized by the investigating agency. No evidence State vs. Narender Mann & Others.
(FIR no. 200/06 PS Mangolpuri) 85 of101 was collected during course of investigation as to whom the mobile numbers belonged to. No Customer Application Forms in that regard had been seized and none was proved during course of trial to connect particular mobile numbers with particular accused. That being the position, as per settled principle of law, no reliance whatsoever can be passed upon the call detail records which were sought to be relied upon by prosecution to prove conspiracy between the accused persons. Moreover, the call detail records can only depict some talks having taken place between the mobile numbers mentioned therein. Contents of the calls or what had been talked about, cannot be deciphered from the call detail records. Hence, in absence of the requisite certificate U/s 65 B Evidence Act and in absence of any record regarding source from which CDRs had been obtained, this court is of considered opinion that the CDR do not help the prosecution.
56 As regards the recoveries of the two pistols and cartridges, it may be mentioned that the pistol alongwith 11 cartridges which had been recovered in this case was not the weapon of offence. Infact weapon of offence was the pistol which had been recovered alongwith two cartridges. It would be pertinent to mention herein that no public witness was joined at the time of recoveries thereof. It was not case of the investigating agency that no public person was available at the time of recoveries. Infact, presence of public persons has been admitted by the investigating officer and other police officials, but admittedly no attempt whatsoever was made to call upon the public persons to join the recovery proceedings. Although bald testimonies of police officials qua recovery cannot be brushed aside in absence of corroboration State vs. Narender Mann & Others.
(FIR no. 200/06 PS Mangolpuri) 86 of101 from independent public persons, yet, non joining of public persons where available, does render testimony of police officials suspect and have to be viewed with great care and caution 57 The pistol and cartridges said to have been recovered from factory of Sachin Bansal had been claimed by the investigating agency to belong to Narender Maan. It was a licensed pistol of Narender Maan. The investigating agency for some strange reasons failed to join any of the factory workers or persons sitting in the office to join the recovery proceedings. Prosecution has also failed to prove on record that the office space from where the pistol and cartridges were recovered was under exclusive use and control of accused Sachin Bansal. Although Sachin Bansal was shown to have been arrested on 29.3.06, it had been admitted by the IO that Sachin Bansal had been joining investigation of the case from 24.3.06 till date of his arrest ie. 29.3.06. Now, recovery of pistol at instance of Sachin Bansal was claimed to have been effected on 31.3.06 i.e. 10 days after the alleged incident and that too from a place which was not within exclusive control of Sachin Bansal. Point to be pondered over in this regard is that Sachin Bansal was being interrogated in this case from 24.3.06 till 29.3.06. Apparently, he had ample opportunity to dispose off the pistol and cartridges which had allegedly been kept by him in his factory premises and which were alleged to have been got recovered by him on 31.3.06. No prudent man would have kept the said incriminating piece of evidence with him for such a long time despite having ample opportunities to dispose off the same. Apparently, there is more to do than meets the eye and plantation of pistol and cartridges of Narender Maan in factory premises of Sachin Bansal, cannot, in opinion of this State vs. Narender Mann & Others.
(FIR no. 200/06 PS Mangolpuri) 87 of101 court be ruled out. It may be mentioned herein that the said pistol was not a weapon of offence and it is highly doubtful as to why Narender Maan would have handed over his licensed pistol to Sachin Bansal while retaining the license with him. Apparently, the plantation was got done to create a connection between the two in order to support allegation of conspiracy between them. In that view of matter, recovery of pistol and cartridges at instance of Sachin Bansal, in considered opinion of this court is doubtful and does not support theory of conspiracy between the two.
58 As regards allegations of the deceased having been murdered over some dispute regarding committees / chit fund, no documentary evidence in that regard has been produced before the court. The investigating agency has failed to collect any evidence to the effect that Sachin Bansal and / or his father had been running committees or that the deceased had invested in those committees. Witnesses examined by the investigating agency and examined by prosecution in court in respect of the committees were infact relatives of the deceased. No independent witness in that regard has been examined by the prosecution. While on this, it would be pertinent to mention that wife of deceased had admitted that the deceased himself was running committees and many people used to visit their house in that regard. 59 Much importance had been laid upon recovery of photograph of deceased and marriage album of Sachin Bansal from Dicky of car at instance of accused Narender Maan. It had been projected that marriage album had been handed over by Sachin Bansal for the purpose of identification of Shri S.N. Gupta. It was further case of prosecution that photograph of Shri S.N. Gupta had been detached State vs. Narender Mann & Others.
(FIR no. 200/06 PS Mangolpuri) 88 of101 from the album for identification purpose. Now, the big question that has weighed in mind of this court and which has remained unanswered is as to why a person would hand over his marriage album to another when the purpose could very well have been served by handing over a photograph. In this case, what prosecution wants this court to believe is that the photograph had been taken out from the album for the purpose of identification of the target Shri S.N. Gupta. Apparently, there was no occasion with Sachin Bansal to have handed over his marriage album to Narender Maan. Moreover, Narender Maan had allegedly been arrested in this case on 29.3.06 while Shri S.N. Gupta had been killed on 21.3.06. It is unthinkable as to why he would have retained such an incriminating piece of evidence with him for such a long period of time.
60 In this case there is no direct evidence against Narender Maan and Sachin Bansal. They are being sought to be implicated for having entered into a conspiracy to do away with the deceased Shri S.N. Gupta. Allegations against them are circumstantial in nature. It is settled principle of law that in a case based solely on circumstantial evidence, each link in the chain of circumstances must be complete and must point out towards only one probability i.e. guilt of accused and should be inconsistent with any hypothesis of any other person having committed the offence.
In words of Hon'ble Mr. Justice Hidayatullah "Circumstantial evidence means a combination of facts creating a network through which there is no escape for the accused because facts taken as a whole do not admit of any inference but of his guilt"
State vs. Narender Mann & Others.
(FIR no. 200/06 PS Mangolpuri) 89 of101 It was observed in Mustkeen Vs. State of Rajasthan (AIR 2011 SC 2769) that a conviction on basis of circumstantial evidence would be justified only when all the incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be in compatible with the innocence of accused or guilt of any other person.
For a case based solely on circumstantial evidence, there must be a compete chain of facts and circumstances which could lead to conclusion that only and only the accused could have committed the crime and any lacunae in the chain of events or circumstances would be fatal to case of prosecution.
It is true that conspiracy is hatched in secrecy and executed in darkness, but then, for a person to have participated in conspiracy to commit offence, he has to have a motive for commission of crime and also there has to be some indication of his involvement in commission of the offence whether direct or indirect.
61 In facts and circumstances of this case as have been enumerated herein above, it is apparent that prosecution has miserably failed to prove on record Narender Maan and Sachin Bansal entered into conspiracy to commit murder of Shri S.N. Gupta. 62 Case of Joginder Singh is quite different. As per allegations, on the date of incident i.e. on 21.3.06 at about 4.30 PM, it was he who had gone to door step of house of deceased on pretext of handing over an envelope to Shri S.N. Gupta. He firstly met Smt. Kanta Devi W/o Shri S.N. Gupta and had a talk with her wherein he insisted on handing over the courier to Shri S.N Gupta in person. It has further been alleged that Shri S.N Gupta was sent outside by his wife to receive the courier and Smt. Gupta subsequently heard noise of firing of two or three gun State vs. Narender Mann & Others.
(FIR no. 200/06 PS Mangolpuri) 90 of101 shots. When Smt. Gupta came out, her maid Seema reportedly told her that on hearing gun shots she turned back and saw Uncleji was lying down and the courierwala had fled away from the spot. It was case of prosecution that infact Joginder Singh was the person who had come to the spot wearing a black cap and goggles and had pretended to be a courierwala, but infact had come with intention to kill Shri S.N. Gupta and infact had fired the gun shots. Prosecution had also placed reliance on testimonies of these two witnesses i.e. PW-18 & 19 who even identified accused Joginder Singh in court as being the courierwala. Cap and goggles reportedly worn by Joginder Singh at the time of incident were claimed to have been recovered from Car Bearing No. DL-4CJ-3234 which was being driven by Joginder at the time of his arrest. The weapon of offence was claimed to have been recovered from a house in Sector-7, Rohini at instance of accused Narender Maan in presence of accused Joginder. Yet another circumstance relied upon by prosecution to connect Joginder Singh with this case was the envelope which Joginder had reportedly brought as a courierwala. It was case of the prosecution that the said envelope which bore name and address of the deceased in handwriting of Joginder had been found lying on ground after Joginder had fled away from the spot, and had subsequently been handed over to police by one of the sons of the deceased. Specimen writing of Joginder taken after his arrest was claimed to have matched writing on the envelope. It would be pertinent to mention herein that during course of his statement recorded U/s 313 Cr. P.C., accused Joginder never stated that the envelope writing (Q1) was got written by police from him. That being the position, he has not disputed it to be in his handwriting. In State vs. Narender Mann & Others.
(FIR no. 200/06 PS Mangolpuri) 91 of101 nutshell, case of prosecution was to the effect that accused Sachin Bansal with the help of Narender Maan had conspired to kill S.N. Gupta and execution was carried out by Joginder Singh. 63 After arrest, Joginder Singh was sought to be put up for judicial test identification parade but he refused to participate in the same. In this regard, as refusal appears to be unjustified, adverse inference need to be drawn against accused Joginder. It should not be lost sight of that accused Joginder was duly identified by PW-18 & 19 in court. It was observed in Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma Vs. State [(2010) 6 SCC 1] that dock identification is substantive piece of evidence and even in absence of TIP, no prejudice is caused to prosecution. It would be relevant at this stage to observe that during course of his statement recorded U/s 313 Cr. P.C., accused Joginder did not state that he had ever been shown by police to PW-18 (Kanta Devi) or PW-19 (Seema), but only claimed having been shown to some people including ladies in police station and also at house of deceased i.e. at the spot. Surely, by the time of recording of his statement U/s 313 Cr. P.C., he had seen PW-18 & 19 in court and in case he had been shown to them earlier, could have claimed so in court. As such, his refusal to participate in TIP I apparently unjustified and attracts adverse inference. Moreover, no suggestion had been given to PW-18 or PW-19 to the effect that accused Joginder had been shown to them by police in police station after his apprehension. 64 Defence during course of arguments had challenged handing over of the envelope to the IO and also sought to draw benefit from contradictions in testimonies of various witnesses as to whether or not the said envelope had been sealed at the spot. Great emphasis had State vs. Narender Mann & Others.
(FIR no. 200/06 PS Mangolpuri) 92 of101 been laid on delay in handing over of envelope by son of deceased to the IO. In this regard, mental state of family members of the deceased can very well be imagined by this court. This was a family where head of the family had been shot dead and an envelope was found lying in the verandah by son of the deceased. It could very well have happened that the envelope was picked up by son of the deceased as being an innocuous letter, little realising that it was an important piece of evidence in this case. Possibility of the son of deceased being ignorant about value of that envelope at that stage cannot be ruled out. As such, in considered opinion of this court, not much emphasis can be attached to delay in handing over of envelope by son of the deceased to the IO.
65 During course of submissions by ld. counsel for accused Joginder much emphasis was laid on overwriting on the dates 29/30 in the arrest documents. It should not be lost sight of that Joginder Singh was apprehended during intervening night of 29 & 30.03.2006. In that view of matter, possibility of putting of wrong date underneath signatures and / or correcting the same subsequently cannot be lost sight of. To similar effect was explanation of the IO. 66 As regards the initial informant not being examined by the investigating agency, only a telephone number appears in DD No. 26 (Ex. PW-6/A). As per investigating officer, caller could not be ascertained and the said number was a land line number of one of the neighbours who had claimed that he could not say who had made a call from the land line phone installed in drawing room of his house. Mele that was created on account of murder having taken place in the neighbourhod can very well be imagined. In those circumstances State vs. Narender Mann & Others.
(FIR no. 200/06 PS Mangolpuri) 93 of101 possibility of someone going to house of a neighbour and calling up the police cannot be ruled out and in opinion of this court not much importance can be attached to non identification of caller in that regard. 67 As regards lack of motive on part of Joginder Singh, in view of direct evidence of PW-18 & 19, motive dissolves into oblivion. Although motive creates strong suspicion against accused in a case of circumstantial evidence, prosecution is not under obligation to prove motive for offence in each and every case. It only lends support to case of prosecution in case motive is proved, but absence of motive does not throw away case of prosecution. PW-18 claimed to have had a talk with Joginder Singh who reportedly insisted on the deceased coming forth to collect the courier. Apparently, she had ample opportunity to take a close look at the "courierwala" whom she subsequently identified as being accused Joginder Singh in court. PW-19 Seema too claimed having seen Joginder Singh outside house of her employer and saw him running away / having fled from the spot soon after she her the gun shots. In opinion of this court testimonies of PW-18 & 19 clinched the issue against accused Joginder. 68 Yet another point argued on behalf of Joginder Singh was to the effect that investigating agency had got prepared a sketch during course of investigation but had not attached the same with the charge sheet. Failure to make the sketch part of charge sheet apparently appears to be an error on part of the investigating officer but surely prosecution should not be made to suffer on account of said lapse of the IO. Moreover, in view of specific identification of Joginder Singh by PW-18 & 19 during course of their testimonies in court, non filing of sketch, in opinion of this court is rendered irrelevant.
State vs. Narender Mann & Others.
(FIR no. 200/06 PS Mangolpuri) 94 of101 69 As regards non depiction of the envelope in the site plan, scaled
site plan or in the brief history prepared by the IO, apparently each and every minute object which may be seen at the spot cannot by any stretch of imagination be depicted in the site plan. In opinion of this court factum of presence of envelope in verandah of the house where murder had taken place, was not relevant to be mentioned in the brief facts prepared by the IO. Non seizure of blood stained clothes of wife of the deceased, in considered opinion of this court is not a circumstance which can otherwise discredit her testimony. 70 As regards, submission that there was no evidence to the effect that Joginder Singh had earlier been seen in company of any of the other two accused persons, it may be observed that conspiracy is hatched in secrecy and executed in darkness. This court has already observed herein above that guilt of accused Narender Maan and Sachin Bansal has not been proved to the hilt by prosecution. This however by itself does not absolve accused Joginder Singh of the act done by him, more so in light of testimony of PW-18 & 19. Guilt of Joginder can be ascertained dehors existence of conspiracy between three accuseds. Circumstances appearing on record against Joginder Singh are quite different then those against the two accuseds.
In words of Barren Parker J "the circumstances may often be so clearly proved, so closely connected with it, or leading to one result in conclusion, that the mind may be as well convinced as if it were proved by eye witnesses".
State vs. Narender Mann & Others.
(FIR no. 200/06 PS Mangolpuri) 95 of101 71 The basis of the principle of circumstantial evidence is that the
principal fact or the "factum probandi" may be proved indirectly by means of certain inferences drawn from factum probandi In considered opinion of this court, absolute and a complete chain of events has been established on record which go to show that in all probabilities and possibilities that it was accused Joginder and only he who could have committed murder of Shri S.N. Gupta. There is no room for any reasonable doubt and no other view is possible. A strict and conclusive chain of events as required is established to prove guilt of accused Joginder. No doubt, there do appear on record some minor contradictions in testimonies of prosecution witnesses, but same are not to an extent to be fatal to case of prosecution. 72 It is settled principle of law that discrepancies which do not shake the basic version of prosecution case may be discarded. Errors due to lapse of memory have to be given due allowance.
As was observed in Boya Ganganna Vs. State (AIR 1976 SC 1541), it is not possible to establish an absolute water tight chain of events as the power of memory and observation is not absolute. It is an important facet of circumstantial evidence that it has very wide scope and ambit and conviction can be based solely on basis of circumstantial evidence once prosecution establishes a strict chain of events. Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma Vs. State [(2010) 6 SCC 1].
State vs. Narender Mann & Others.
(FIR no. 200/06 PS Mangolpuri) 96 of101 73 In final analysis, prosecution has failed to prove guilt of accused
Narender Maan and Sachin Bansal regarding their having entered into conspiracy to commit murder of Shri S.N. Gupta. Even the allegations of prosecution regarding accused Narender Maan having got recovered the weapon of offence and two cartridges or accused Sachin Bansal having got recovered pistol of Narender and eleven cartridges do not inspire any confidence. The recoveries having been made from public places which admittedly were not within exclusive power and control of the accused persons and in absence of public persons though available, cannot, in considered opinion of this court be relied upon to convict any of these two accused persons for any of the offences under Arms Act for which they had been charged with. Accordingly, accused Narender Maan stands acquitted for having committed offences punishable U/s 29 B Arms Act; U/s 25 Arms Act; offence punishable U/s 201 IPC read with section 120B IPC; U/s 120 B IPC and U/s 302/120B/34 IPC. Accused Sachin Bansal also stands acquitted for having committed offences punishable U/s 120B IPC; U/s 302/120B/34 IPC and also for offence punishable U/s 25 Arms Act. 74 As regards accused Joginder Singh Sodhi, in view of all that has been mentioned and discussed herein above, prosecution apparently has proved its case to the hilt against accused. Accused Joginder Singh who had originally been charged with for having committed offences punishable U/s 120B IPC; 302/120/34 IPC & for offence punishable U/s 27 Arms Act is accordingly acquitted for having committed an offence punishable U/s 120 B IPC as prosecution has failed to prove conspiracy between the accused persons. However, as prosecution through evidence led on record has proved that it was State vs. Narender Mann & Others.
(FIR no. 200/06 PS Mangolpuri) 97 of101 accused Joginder Singh and none else who had committed murder of deceased Shri S.N. Gupta, Joginder stands convicted for having committed an offence punishable U/s 302 IPC for having killed Shri S.N. Gupta and also for offence punishable U/s 27 Arms Act for having used a firearm for commission of said offence. Matter stands disposed off accordingly.
Announced in open court (M.R. SETHI)
on 4.2.2016 ASJ,Spl. Judge(NDPS)
North,Rohini Courts, Delhi
State vs. Narender Mann & Others.
(FIR no. 200/06 PS Mangolpuri) 98 of101
IN THE COURT OF SHRI M.R. SETHI: ASJ, SPECIAL
JUDGE(NDPS) NORTH, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI.
Case ID: 02404R0459192006
SC No. 5/15
FIR No.200/06
U/s 302/120B/201/34 IPC &
U/s 25/27/29 B Arms Act.
PS Mangolpuri
State
Vs.
Joginder Singh Sodhi @ Vicky,
S/o Shri Satnam Singh,
R/o B-8/230, Sector-3,
Rohini, Delhi.
ORDER ON SENTENCE:
1 On 4.2.2016 convict Joginder Singh Sodhi was convicted by this
court for having committed offences punishable U/s 302 IPC & for offence punishable U/s 27 Arms Act. Matter was adjourned for today for hearing arguments on quantum of sentence.
2 During course of his submissions, it has been submitted by ld. PP for the State that as Joginder Singh did not have any personal enmity with the deceased S.N. Gupta, apparently he was a paid assassin who took money from someone for committing the murder. It State vs. Narender Mann & Others.
(FIR no. 200/06 PS Mangolpuri) 99 of101 was submitted that such like paid criminals did not deserve any mercy. Ld. PP submitted that the gruesome manner in which murder was executed by Joginder Singh in broad day light at 4.30 PM in a residential colony and that too in house of the deceased, reflected the brutality of execution and scant regard or fear of law in mind of the convict. It was submitted that the convict deserved maximum penalty. 3 Ld. counsel for the convict on the other hand has submitted that there was no eye witness in this case and case of prosecution had revolved around circumstantial evidence and theory of last scene and that in such like manner, death sentence ought not to be handed over to the convict. It was further submitted that convict was a young boy whose father is a cancer patient and that the convict had never been handed over any jail punishment during period of incarceration and that there was no likelihood of his not reforming in life. 4 It was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Subhash Ram Kumar Bina @ Vakil Vs. State [AIR 2003 SC 269] that brutality is involved in every incidence of murder, but that brutality by itself would not bring it within the ambit of the rarest of the rare cases for the purposes of death penalty. It is settled principle of law that whether or not a case falls within the category of rarest of rare cases, has to be examined with reference to the facts and circumstances of each case and the court has to take note of the aggravating as well as mitigating circumstances and conclude whether there was something uncommon about the crime which renders the sentence of imprisonment for life inadequate and calls for death sentence.
5 Keeping in view facts and circumstances of the case and other facts as mentioned herein above, this court is of considered opinion State vs. Narender Mann & Others.
(FIR no. 200/06 PS Mangolpuri) 100 of101 that present is not a "rarest of rare cases" wherein extreme penalty of death sentence be handed over to the convict.
6 Accordingly, the convict Joginder Singh Sodhi is sentenced to life imprisonment and fine of Rs.20,000/- in respect of offence U/s 302 IPC. He is further sentenced to imprisonment of three years and fine Rs.5,000/- ID four months in respect of offence punishable U/s 27 Arms Act. Both sentences to run concurrently. Benefit of provisions of Section 428 Cr. P.C be extended to the convict in that regard. 7 Shri Rakesh S/o deceased is present in court and on asking of court has submitted that family of the deceased does not want any compensation under the Victim Compensation Act.
Announced in open court (M.R. SETHI)
on 5.2.2016 ASJ,Spl. Judge(NDPS)
North,Rohini Courts, Delhi
State vs. Narender Mann & Others.
(FIR no. 200/06 PS Mangolpuri) 101 of101