Case No.56384/16 State vs Rajiv @ Monu Etc. Page No. 1/73 on 15 December, 2016

[Cites 29, Cited by 0]

Delhi District Court

Case No.56384/16 State vs Rajiv @ Monu Etc. Page No. 1/73 on 15 December, 2016

              IN THE COURT OF SH. NARESH KUMAR MALHOTRA, 
             ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE05, WEST, TIS HAZARI 
                             COURTS, DELHI.


        IN THE MATTER OF

        CASE NO.56384/16
        FIR No.190/13
        P.S Mundka
        U/S 365/302/201/120B IPC


        STATE

                        VERSUS


        (1) RAJIV @ MONU 
        S/O SH.RANDHAWA
        R/O RAMAYAN PANA, 
        VILLAGE TIKRI KALAN, 
        NEW DELHI. 

        (2) SMT.POONAM
        W/O LATE SANJAY
        R/O H.NO. 46D, 
        NEAR SHAMSHAN GHAT, 
        TIKRI KALAN EXTENSION, 
        NEW DELHI. 


        DATE OF INSTITUTION                 :     18.12.2013
        DATE OF RESERVING THE ORDER       :       07.12.2016
        DATE OF DECISION                    :     09.12.2016

        JUDGEMENT

Case No.56384/16 State Vs Rajiv @ Monu etc. Page No. 1/73

1. The essential facts of the case are that on 05.09.2013, Jagan Lal S/o late Sukh Lal R/o H.No. 46D, near Shamshan Ghat, Tikri Kalan Extension Colony, Delhi came to the PS and recorded his stated to the effect that his son Sanjay has not come to the house since night of 04.09.2013. He came to know that his daughter in law Poonam has lodged a missing report. His daughter in law Poonam used to meet Rajiv @ Monu and on after raising objection, his daughter in law has not stopped meeting Rajiv @ Monu. Due to this, his son Sanjay had an altercation with Rajiv @ Monu many times. 23 days prior, Sanjay has an altercation with Rajiv @ Monu and his companion Vicky. Both Rajiv @ Monu and Vicky are working as Security Guards in the flats being built by Supreme Construction Company nearby to his house. He has apprehension that Rajiv @ Monu and Vicky R/o Village Tikri Kalan has abducted his son. His daughter in law is also having hand in the kidnapping of his son.

2. On the statement of Jagan Lal, FIR no. 190/13 U/s 365 IPC was registered and investigation was carried out. During investigation, secret informer gave information that deceased Sanjay was murdered by Rajiv @ Monu and Vicky yesterday night and both of them are hiding themselves in Vaishno Mata Mandir near Pond. SI Beerpal and HC Ashok on the identification of the complainant, apprehended both of them. They revealed that Rajiv @ Monu used to meet Poonam w/o Sanjay. Sanjay used to object and there was some altercation three days prior to the night of 04.09.2013. Sanjay had seen Rajiv and Poonam together Case No.56384/16 State Vs Rajiv @ Monu etc. Page No. 2/73 and Rajiv took the deceased in the Guard Room of Supreme Construction Company, where he was murdered. Crime team and Fire Brigade were called and the body of deceased was taken out from the borewell. Deadbody of deceased was recovered from a borewell at the instance of accused persons. Complainant identified the deadbody of his son. Disclosure statement of the accused Rajiv @ Monu was recorded. Accused Rajiv @ Monu and JCL Vicky got recovered the blood stained shirt of JCL Vicky. Accused has pointed out guard room where the deceased was murdered. Spot was inspected by the crime team and photographs were taken. The crime team also inspected the Shamshan Ghaat where the deadbody of deceased was kept. The earth control and blood stained earth were taken into possession from the spot. Postmortem of the deceased was conducted. His viscera, blood in gauze of clothes were preserved. During investigation, accused Rajiv @ Monu got recovered one blood stained knife, iron pipe, clothes of JCL Vicky, his Mobile phone and his clothes which he was wearing at the time of incident and which he had washed with detergent and soap were taken into possession. The motorcycle bearing no. DL4SCA6615 make Bajaj Pulsar of red colour was also taken into possession. The CDRs with Certificate U/s 65B of the Indian Evidence Act and CAF of the mobile phones of accused Rajiv @ Monu having no. 9811264013 and accused Poonam having no. 8510036520 were taken. It was revealed that both the accused persons were having touch since 09.07.2013. Section 120B IPC was added. Opinion of Case No.56384/16 State Vs Rajiv @ Monu etc. Page No. 3/73 the doctor was obtained and the opinion of doctor regarding possibility of the injuries of the deceased with knife and iron pipe is also taken. The exhibits were deposited in the FSL. As per report of FSL, there was Ethyl Alcohol present in the blood of the deceased. The CDR and CAF of the other mobile phone of accused Poonam having no. 9654724378 was also taken into possession. During investigation, disclosure statement of accused Poonam was recorded. Nokia phone model 3110C of black colour was recovered during the personal search of accused Poonam. After completion of the investigation, Chargesheet U/s 365/302/201/120B/34 IPC was filed against both the accused persons.

3. Charge for the offence punishable U/s 120B IPC, U/s 365 IPC r/w Section 120B IPC, U/s 302 IPC r/w Section 120B IPC and U/s 201 IPC r/w Section 120B IPC has been framed against both the accused persons by the then Ld.District & Sessions Judge (West) on 19.02.2014, to which both the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

4. To prove its case, the prosecution has examined as many as 28 witnesses i.e. PW1 Sh.Jagan Lal, PW2 Sh.Jitender, PW3 Sh.Sandeep, PW4 Sh.Pankaj Drall, PW5 Sh.Deepak, PW6 Sh.Rakesh, PW7 HC Ram Bhagat, PW8 Sh.Rajbir, PW9 SI Azad Singh, PW10 Sh.Dhirender Kataria, PW11 Sh.Bhagirath Sharma, PW12 Sh.Amrik Singh, PW13 Sh.Pawan Singh, PW14 Sh.Israr Babu, PW15 Sh.Munna Lal, PW16 HC Bal Kishan, PW17 Case No.56384/16 State Vs Rajiv @ Monu etc. Page No. 4/73 Ct.Narender, PW18 W/Ct.Meena, PW19 Ct.Parvinder, PW20 Sh.Omkanwar Tyagi, PW21 HC Hari Singh, PW22 Dr.Adesh Kumar, PW23 Dr.Munish Wadhawan, PW24 Ct.Sant Ram, PW 25 Retired SI Beerpal Singh, PW26 Insp.Mahesh Kumar, PW27 HC Ashok Kumar and PW28 Insp.Sanwar Mal.

5. PW1 Jagan Lal has deposed that he lives in the village Maugora, Rajasthan with Sandeep and Jitender, his sons. He was living separately at Tikri at Delhi separate from his sons. His sons Sandeep and Jitender had gone out for work to Nagore and after the incident (Kaand), I called them. He did not know what happened. He has further stated that his son Sanjay was killed 5 6 months ago and he did not know why he was killed. He has further stated that "एक औरत कक पतत हकगत, पपनम कक पतत हकगत वक पपनम यहतह अदतलत मम हह". He has further stated that after the murder of his son his corpse was thrown into the well at Nizampur across the road and the police had taken out the corpse of his son. The police then called him to identify the corpse and he identified the same to be that of his son Sanjay. Then he lodged a report. He has further stated that accused Poonam is wife of deceased Sanjay and he did not aware of the conduct of Poonam. He has further stated that "ममझझ नहह पतत कक वह कहतह जततत हह कहतह आतत हह". This witness has identified his thumb impression at point A on his complaint Ex. PW1/A. This witness was crossexamined by the Ld.Chief Public Prosecutor wherein he has admitted that he had told the police that his son Sanjay did not come home on the night of Case No.56384/16 State Vs Rajiv @ Monu etc. Page No. 5/73 04.09.2013 and his daughter in law Poonam had lodged a missing report in the PS and he went to the PS with a small photograph of Sanjay. This witness has stated in the cross examination done by Ld.Chief PP that he did not know Rajiv and did not know whether his daughter in law Poonam used to meet any person by the name of Rajiv S/o Randhawa and there was no objection raised by him to his daughter in law meeting Rajiv, rather he did not know anything about the same. He has further stated that he did not know whether his son Sanjay used to object to his daughter in law meeting Rajiv and there were quarrel between Sanjay and Poonam. There had been a quarrel once i.e. 23 days between Sanjay and Poonam, however, he did not know why the quarrel took place. He has further stated that deceased Sanjay used to do the work of painting and also ran a grocer's shop. This witness has identified his thumb impression at points A on Ex.PW1/B, which is the identification memo of the corpse of deceased Sanjay and on receipt Ex.PW1/C. This witness has further stated that he did not know whether Rajiv and Vicky used to work as Security Guards in the Supreme Company of which the flats were being constructed near his house. He did not know whether accused Rajiv @ Monu and JCL Vicky had abducted his son Sanjay and he did not know Randhawa and have no connection with him. This witness has denied the suggestion put to him by the Ld.Chief P P for the State that he has deliberately not testified correctly rather he did not know anything about where Rajiv or Poonam went.

Case No.56384/16 State Vs Rajiv @ Monu etc. Page No. 6/73

6. PW2 Sh.Jitender has deposed that he used to work at Nagore, Rajasthan and deceased Sanjay was his brother. This witness has stated that he identified the deadbody of his brother and also identified his signatures at points A on Ex.PW2/A and Ex.PW 1/C.

7. PW3 Sh.Sandeep has deposed that he works on a vehicle i.e. a TATA 407 as a helper at the PVC market. He has further stated that approx 34 months ago after Rakshabandhan, he had gone to Rajasthan on 22nd and he saw nothing before he left nor have he heard anything. He is not able to recall the mobile number of his brother Sanjay. This witness stated voluntarily that his sister in law i.e. accused Poonam should be hanged ( फतहसत लगतनत चतहहए) as she has not spared her husband. This witness has further stated that there was a quarrel one day before between Sanjay and his sister in law Poonam, but he did not know why there was a quarrel between Sanjay, his brother and his sister in law Poona. This witness was crossexamined by the Ld.Chief PP for the State wherein he has stated that he is aware that his sister in law Poonam used to talk on the mobile, a red colour mobile with a Vodafone Sim, however, he is not aware whether Poonam used to talk to a person named Monu on the mobile. This witness has denied the suggestion put to him by the ld.Chief PP for the State that he had heard his sister in law Poonam speaking on the phone that her husband Sanjay was an obstacle between Poonam and Monu and she wanted a liberation. This witness has admitted the mobile phone of accused Poonam as 9654724378 and of his Case No.56384/16 State Vs Rajiv @ Monu etc. Page No. 7/73 brother Sanjay as 9899075827. This witness has stated that he did not know whether the number 9654724378 is that of Monu.

8. PW4 Sh.Pankaj Drall has deposed that the Pulsar motorcycle bearing no. DL4S CA 6615 belongs to him. 67 months ago, police came in the morning and took his bike and informed that his bike had been used by accused Rajiv in a murder case in the night. This witness has identified his signatures at point B on his statement Ex.PW4/A. He had taken the bike on superdari last month in 2014 from the Court. He has further stated that he did not know whether Monu is Deepak's friend. This witness has denied the suggestion put to him by the Ld.Chief PP for the State that accused Monu had come to take his bike on the night of 04/05.09.2013.

9. PW5 Sh.Deepak has deposed that he know accused Monu as he earlier used to study with him and Pankaj is his elder cousin brother. This witness was crossexamined by the ld.Chief PP for the State wherein he has stated that he had not given any motorcycle to the accused Monu after taking it from Pankaj or that he had taken the motorcycle from Pankaj to give it to Monu as he had stated that he had to take the motorcycle to the hospital or that accused Monu returned the motorcycle to him on the next morning. This witness has admitted his mobile no. as 9953980488. He has further stated that accused Monu had never phoned him.

10.PW6 Rakesh has deposed that he has an egg rehri and house of accused Poonam is 23 lanes away from his house. He has further Case No.56384/16 State Vs Rajiv @ Monu etc. Page No. 8/73 stated that accused Poonam had asked her to lodge a missing report of Sanjay, her husband being missing. He thus went to the PS. The police had asked for the photographs of Sanjay and he brought the same. This witness was crossexamined by the Ld.Chief PP for the State wherein he has denied the suggestion put to him by the Ld.Chief PP for the State that he made the statement from portion X to X1 and X1 to X2 of Ex.PW6/1. However, he has admitted the portion Y to Y1 and Y2 to Y3 of Ex.PW6/1 to the police. He has denied the suggestion put to him by the Ld.Chief PP for the State that in connivance with the accused he deliberately stated that he did not make the statements portion X to X1 to X2 to the police.

11.PW7 HC Ram Bhagat has proved the DD entry no. 24A dt. 05.09.2013 regarding missing report of deceased Sanjay as Ex. PW7/A.

12.PW8 Sh.Rajbir has deposed that he works with H.S.Security company and this company had provided security for constructing flats and was deployed on Security in the flats being constructed at Tikri Kalan. The flats were being constructed near the Shamshan Ghat. He has further stated that he is working as a labourer in the village as there are flats being constructed. He know Monu as he belongs to his village.

This witness was also crossexamined by the ld.Chief PP for the State wherein he has denied the suggestion put to him that on the night intervening 04/05.09.2013, Dhiru and Randhawa were on duty with him and he informed the police on Case No.56384/16 State Vs Rajiv @ Monu etc. Page No. 9/73 the next day of the murder. He has denied the suggestion put to him by the Ld.Chief PP for the State that Monu, son of Randhawa works as a Bouncer in this company and Monu stayed with JCL Vicky. He has denied the suggestion put to him that he testified falsely in order to save the accused Monu.

13.PW9 SI Azad Singh has deposed that on receipt of directions from the control room, he alongwith crime team I.e.photographer Ct.Parminder Kumar, finger print Expert ASI Dharambir, he left for the spot at Mundka. He met the IO at Nizampur Road at Tikri Village where the IO had asked him to reach. He has further stated that they crossed the railway line at Nizampur Road and there within a well in which there was no water and there was mud, a deadbody of young man was lying. The fire brigade was called and in about 2 or 2½ hours, the corpse of the deceased was taken out. The photographs of the deadbody were taken from different angles. He has further stated that alongwith the IO, they came back to the Tikri Village and from the Tikri village, went to Shamsham Ghat, where at many places, blood stains were lying. There is a guard room of the Supreme Construction Company at Village Tikri at the construction site, which was also searched. This witness has proved his report Ex.PW9/A.

14.PW10 Sh.Dhirender Kataria has deposed that in the year 2013, he was working with Supreme Infrastructure as Security Guard and he was on the duty at the main gate of Supreme Infrastructure at Tikri Kalan. He has further stated that Mr.Randhawa and Sonu used to work with him. He has further Case No.56384/16 State Vs Rajiv @ Monu etc. Page No. 10/73 stated that Sonu had been employed with Sh.Samender who was running the security business.

This witness was crossexamined by the Ld.Chief PP for the State wherein he has admitted his statement from portion Z to Z1 given to the police as per Ex.PW10/A, however, he has denied to make statement from portion X to X1 of Ex. PW10/A to the police. In the crossexamination done by Ld.Chief PP for the State, he has further stated that he had worked with H S Security for one month after the murder and he knew the accused Monu as he belongs to his village. This witness has denied the suggestion put to him by the Ld.Addl.P.P.for the State that he has deliberately not stated that accused Rajiv @ Monu was on duty that day I.e.on the night intervening 04/05 September, 2013 and rather, he was on duty at the main gate and he did not know who else was on duty with H S Security on that day.

15. PW11 Sh.Bhagirath Sharma has deposed that in the year 2013, he was working with H S security as a guard and had been working there from 06.12.2012. He has further stated that building construction was done by Supreme Construction Company and people keep getting employed and also keep leaving the said company.

This witness was crossexamined by the Ld.Chief PP for the State wherein he has stated that he had informed the IO that he was on duty at the road saria and Harish used to roam around as a vagabond. He has further stated in the crossexamination done by the Ld.Chief PP for the State that Sonu son of Randhawa Case No.56384/16 State Vs Rajiv @ Monu etc. Page No. 11/73 had put him on duty on the punching plant one month after the incident. He has further stated that he know Monu as he is from his village. This witness has denied the suggestion put to him by the Ld.Chief PP for the State that he has testified falsely in connivance with the accused Rajiv @ Monu in order to save him.

16.PW12 Sh.Amrik Singh has deposed that he is working as General Manager of Supreme Infrastructure India Ltd.and the said company has engaged H.S.Security for providing security guards for its site at Tikri Kalan. This witness has proved the photocopy of work order as Ex. PW12/A.

17.PW13 Sh.Pawan Singh has proved the photocopy of CAF of mobile no. 8510036520 for the period of June, 2013 to September, 2013, photocopy of I/D proof I.e.electio commission identity card of the applicant Sanjay Kumar as Ex. PW13/2 attached to Ex.PW13/1. This witness has also proved the CDR for the period 01.06.2013 to 06.09.2013 of mobile no. 8510036520 as Ex. PW13/3, which is a computer generated CDR and affirm the contents thereof to be true and correct as per record. He has also proved the Certificate U/s 65B of the Indian Evidence Act as Ex. PW13/4.

18.PW14 Sh.Israr Babu has proved the photocopies of CAF alongwith the I/D Proof of accused Rajiv @ Monu as Ex. PW 14/1 and Ex. PW14/2. He has also proved the CDR of mobile no. 9811264013 for the period 01.06.2013 to 06.09.2013 as Ex. PW14/3 and the certificate U/s 65B of the Indian Evidence Act as Ex. PW14/4.

Case No.56384/16 State Vs Rajiv @ Monu etc. Page No. 12/73

This witness has also proved the photocopy of CAF alongwith I/D Proof as Ex.PW14/5 and Ex.PW14/6 of the customer Sanjay. He has also identified the signatures of Sh.Saurabh Aggarwal, alternate Nodal Officer of the Vodafone Mobile Services Limited at point A on the CDR of mobile no. 9654724378 of Sanjay for the period 01.06.2013 to 29.10.2013, Ex.PW14/5A. He has also identified the signatures of Sh.Saurabh Aggarwal on the Certificate U/s 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, which was issued by him, as Ex. PW14/6.

19.PW15 Munna Lal has deposed that he was on day duty on 04 th and 05th September, 2013 at the main gate of the office of Supreme Infrastructure Company at Tikri Kalan near the Cremation ground. As per the register, Sh.Dhirender Kataria, Rajbir Randhawa, Amit Kumar, Mukesh, Naveen and Sanjay were on duty as Security Guards at night intervening 04 th and 05th September, 2013 i.e. from 08:00 PM of 04.09.2013 to 08:00 AM of 05.09.2013. He has further stated that these security guards at night worked under the supervision of Sonu, Bouncer and the supervisor for the night duty used to fill in the night register.

20.PW16 HC Bal Kishan has deposed that on 05.09.2013 at 07:15 PM, SI Veer Pal had presented the rukka before him and he registered the FIR no. 190/13 U/s 365 IPC and after the registration of the FIR, he handedover the copy of FIR to Ct.Sant Ram to be handedover to the IO. This witness has proved the computerized copy of FIR as Ex. PW16/1, Copy of Certificate U/s 65B of the Indian Evidence Act as Ex. PW16/2 and copy of DD Case No.56384/16 State Vs Rajiv @ Monu etc. Page No. 13/73 no. 36 dt. 05.09.2013 as Ex. PW16/3.

21.PW17 Ct.Narender has deposed that on 07.09.2013, he had joined the investigation of the present case alongwith IO/Insp.Sanwar Mal, SI Veer Pal and HC Ashok and accused Rajiv made a disclosure statement. Thereafter, they alongwith accused Rajiv went to Supremo Flats, Security Guard office at Tikri Gaon, where accused Rajiv brought a knife from the room of Security Guard which was in the mud on which there were stains of mud, rusting and blood. Thereafter, accused Rajiv brought an iron pipe which was at a distance of 20 paces on the western side from the room of Security Guard from a pit which was having blood stains. The same was sealed by the IO. Thereafter, accused Rajiv brought blue coloured Jeans of Vicky from his room. He has further stated that there were blood stains on the back of this jeans and the same was also sealed with the seal of SMB. This witness has further stated that thereafter, accused Rajiv produced the clothes which he had worn on the day of incident and mobile phone. The same were also sealed with the seal of SMB. He has further stated that thereafter, accused Rajiv got recovered red coloured pulsar bearing no. DL4C SA 6615 which were seized vide memo.

This witness has proved the disclosure statement of accused Rajiv as Ex.PW17/A, seizure memo of blood stained knife as Ex.PW17/B, seizure memo of blood stained iron pipe as Ex.PW17/C, seizure memo of clothes of JCL Vicky as Ex. PW 17/D, seizure memo of mobile phone of accused Rajiv as Ex.PW Case No.56384/16 State Vs Rajiv @ Monu etc. Page No. 14/73 17/E, seizure memo of motorcycle recovered at the pointing out of accused Rajiv as Ex. PW17/F. This witness has also identified the case property as blue & dark blue T shirt as Ex.P.1, red coloured Payjama as Ex.P.2, knife as Ex.P.3, rusted metal pipe as Ex.P.4, mobile phone as Ex.P.5.

22.PW18 W/Ct.Meena has deposed that on 06.09.2013, on the instruction of duty officer, she had reached the spot I.e.H.No. 46 D, Tikri Kalan Extention near the Shamshan Ghat, where she had arrested accused Poonam and was brought to PS and conducted her personal search. This witness has proved the arrest memo and personal search memo of accused Poonam as Ex. PW18/A and Ex.PW18/B. She has further stated that one mobile phone was recovered from the personal search of accused Poonam which was seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW18/C.

23.PW19 Ct.Parvinder has proved the photographs as Ex.PW19/1 to Ex.PW19/36 and negatives as Ex.PW19/1A to Ex.PW 19/36A.

24.PW20 Omkanwar Tyagi has deposed that on 05.09.2013, at about 12 mid night, an information was received that one person was lying in a well at Kanjhawla Road. Thereafter, he alongwith his staff reached at Kanjhawla Road and found HC Satbir and other police officials. Some public persons were also present there. He has further stated that they took out the deadbody from the well which was of a male person. The deadbody was smeared with mud and the same was washed and handedover to Case No.56384/16 State Vs Rajiv @ Monu etc. Page No. 15/73 the police.

25.PW21 HC Hari Singh has proved the entry at srl.no. 515 in register no.19, Ex. PW21/A, regarding deposition of six parcels duly sealed with the seal of SMB and personal searches of accused Rajiv @ Monu and Smt.Poonam by Insp.Sanwar Mal on 06.09.2013. He has also proved the entry no. 517, Ex. PW21/B, regarding deposition of five parcels sealed with the seal of SMB and one motorcycle bearing no. DL4SCA 6615 Bajaj Pulsar red colour, one viscera box, one envelop and another parcel stated to be containing clothes of deceased, by Insp.Sanwar Mal on 07.09.2013.

This witness has further deposed that on 23.09.2013, IO/Insp.Sanwar Mal had taken two sealed parcels of knife, iron pipe for opinion in the matter. He deposited two parcels duly sealed with the seal of SGMH, Mortuary Mangol Puri alongwith sample seal and he made entry in register no.19 against entry in the relevant column. He has further stated that on 26.09.2013, viscera was duly sealed with the seal of SGM hospital, was given to Ct.Santram vide RC no. 93/21/13, Ex. PW21/C, for depositing the same in FSL, Rohini and he had deposited the same on the same day against receipt Ex. PW21/E. This witness has further stated that on 01.10.2013, again he handedover 11 sealed parcels to Ct.Santram vide RC no. 96/21/13, Ex.PW21/D, for depositing the same at FSL, Rohini and he had deposited the same on the same day against receipt, Ex.PW21/F. He has further stated that on 22.11.2013, FSL Case No.56384/16 State Vs Rajiv @ Monu etc. Page No. 16/73 result was received and he handedover the same to IO.

26.PW22 Dr.Adesh Kumar has deposed that on 26.09.2013, one sealed plastic box sealed with the seal of SGMH, Mortuary, Mangol Puri was marked to him and on opening the parcel, he found three exhibits marked as Ex.1A (stomach pieces of small intestine with contents kept in a sealed Jar), Ex.1B (pieces of Liver, spleen and Kidney kept in a sealed Jar) and Ex.1C (blood sample 2 ml.approx. kept in a sealed Jar). He has further stated that he examined the exhibits and found that all the three exhibits were found to contain Ethyl Alcohol. Ex.1C was found to contain Ethyl Alcohol 5.1 mg.by 100 ml.of blood. This witness has proved his report Ex.PW22/A.

27.PW23 Dr.Munish Wadhawan has deposed that on 07.09.2013, at about 01:30 PM, he alongwith Dr.Manoj Dhingra, conducted the postmortem examination on the deadbody of Sanjay, 35 years male. The body was brought by Insp. Sanwar Mal, PS Mundka with alleged history of found dead on 05.09.2013 at about 07:00 PM. On postmortem examination, following injuries were found on the deadbody of deceased :

(1) Cut Throat Wound, 17 x 5 cm, deep upto vertebral column bone, lying over front & lateral sides of neck with complete transaction of trachea & neck muscles at lower border of thyroid cartilage alongwith underlying blood vessels.

(2) Bruise red colored, 10 x 7 cm over back of left chest.

(3) Lacerated wound, 5 x 1 cm x bone deep on right Case No.56384/16 State Vs Rajiv @ Monu etc. Page No. 17/73 frontal region.

(4) Lacerated wound, 9 x 1 cm x bone deep on right frontal parietal region.

(5) Incised wound, 1.6 x 0.5 cm x muscle deep on left middle finger.

(6) Incised wound, 1.4 x 0.3 cm x muscle deep on left index finger.

OPINION :

The cause of death is due to hemorrhgic shock as a result of neck injury & head injury. All injuries were antemortem in nature. Injury no.1 is caused by sharp edged weapon. After the postmortem examination, the body was handedover to the IO alongwith detailed P.M. Report no. 894/13 alongwith 12 inquest papers, sealed viscera and blood sample, sealed clothes and sealed blood stained gauze.

This witness has proved the detailed P.M.report as Ex.PW23/A. This witness has also identified the signatures of Dr.Manoj Dhingra at point B, on each page.

This witness has further stated that on 23.09.2013, Insp.Sanwar Mal moved an application for subsequent opinion regarding the weapon alongwith two sealed parcels duly sealed with the seal of SMB and the P.M.report. After going through the weapons of offence and injuries mentioned in P.M.report no. 894/13, he and Dr.Manoj examined the parcels, one parcel was containing knife and the other was containing iron pipe. The diagram of knife was prepared by Dr.Manoj Dhingra overleaf the Case No.56384/16 State Vs Rajiv @ Monu etc. Page No. 18/73 opinion paper. They examined the material placed before them and gave the subsequent opinion regarding weapon of offence, which are as follows :

(1) Injury nos.1, 5 and 6 are possible with the knife examined or similar one and (2) Injury nos. 2,3 and 4 are possible by iron pipe examined or similar one.

This witness has proved the detailed subsequent opinion as Ex.PW23/B. He has also identified signature of Dr.Manoj Dhingra at point B.

28.PW24 Ct.Sant Ram has deposed that on 06.09.2013, at around 12:00 midnight, an information regarding lying of a dead body across the railway track was received. Accordingly, he accompanied Inspector Sanwar Mal and other police officials and reached the informed place, where accused Rajeev @ Monu and one another accused Vicky (Juvenile) were in police custody, pointed a place which was borewell located at Tikri Nizampur Road across the railway track, near electricity pole. A dead body was lying in a pit of borewell. Fire brigade was called. Crime Team officials also reached there. Ambulance was called. Then, dead body of a male person was taken out by the Fire Brigade officials. He has further stated that on the dead body, there were injuries on face, head and neck. It was the dead body of Sanjay. The family members of Sanjay also came there at that time. Thereafter, dead body was mortuary Sanjay Gandhi Hospital by ambulance and he got preserved the dead body there.

Case No.56384/16 State Vs Rajiv @ Monu etc. Page No. 19/73

This witness has further stated that on 07.09.2013, postmortem on the dead body of Sanjay was conducted. Doctor had preserved the viscera and clothes of deceased. Two parcels and one envelop was given to him by the doctor which was duly sealed with the seal of hospital. He handed over the same to Inspector Sanwar Mal, who took the same in possession vide seizure memo which is proved as Ex.PW24/A. After postmortem, dead body of Sanjay was given to his relatives. This witness has further stated that on 26.09.2013, on the direction of IO, he collected exhibits of this case from MHC(M) of PS Mundka vide RC No. 93/21 and deposited the same at FSL Rohini on the same day in intact condition under the receipt and handed over the same to MHC(M) on that very day. He has further stated that on 01.10.2013, again he took the exhibits of this case vide RC No. 96/21 and deposited the same at FSL, Rohini in intact condition under the receipt and handed over the same to MHC(M) on that very day. He had taken the exhibits from Malkhana as per the details mentioned in the respective R.C. This witness has proved the photocopy of RC No. 93/21 as Ex. PW21/C and photocopy of RC No. 96/21 as Ex.PW21/D. This witness has proved the photocopy of receipt of deposit dated 26.09.2013 as Ex.PW21/E and photocopy of receipt of deposit dated 01.10.2013 as Ex.PW21/F.

29.PW25 Retired SI Beerpal Singh has deposed that on 05.09.2013, during evening time, Jagan Lal S/o Sukh Lal had come in PS and gave his statement regarding abduction of his son Sanjay and Case No.56384/16 State Vs Rajiv @ Monu etc. Page No. 20/73 further informed that in this regard wife of Sanjay had already informed the police during noon time and DD No. 24A has been recorded in this regard. He further informed that he was having suspicion on Rajeev @ Monu and Vicky @ Karan, who are residents of Village Tikri and were employed as security guards in Supreme Construction Company at Tikri Extension. He further expressed his suspicion over Poonam wife of Sanjay. This witness has proved the statement of Jagan Lal as Ex.PW1/A and his endorsement as Ex.PW25/A. He has further stated that thereafter, he handed over the rukka to Duty Officer and got registered this case u/s. 365 IPC. Thereafter, he along with complainant Jagan Lal and HC Ashok proceeded with the copy of DD No. 24A for search of suspected persons. They reached near cremation ground Tikri Kalan then one informer met them there, who conveyed information to him to the effect that Rajeev @ Monu and Vicky had murdered Sanjay during night of 04 05.09.2013 and they are hiding themselves near Vaishnu Mata Mandir Pond. Then, they reached Vaishnu Mata Mandir with Informer. Both the above named persons were seen seated in the stairs of pond of Vaishnu Mata Mandir at the instance of informer and identification of complainant Jagan Lal. Both were apprehended by HC Ashok. He interrogated both the accused persons and it was disclosed by them that Sanjay was murdered by them in the guard room of Supreme Construction Company at Tikri Extension and his dead body was dumped by them in a pit of borewell across the railway line of Tikri Nizampur Road. In Case No.56384/16 State Vs Rajiv @ Monu etc. Page No. 21/73 view of the information given by the accused persons they led the police party to the borewell. With the help of torch he could see that a dead body was lying in the borewell. Accordingly, he telephonically informed the facts to SHO and then further conveyed the information of duty officer in this regard at 10:10 PM.

This witness has further stated that at about 10:35 PM, Inspector Sanwar Mal, Inspector Raj Kumar SHO, SI Manoj Bhatia, HC Devinder, Ct. Narender, Ct. Rajpal and Ct.Sant Ram reached the spot by Government vehicle. On the direction of SHO, investigation of this case was taken up by Inspector Sanwar Mal. IO called Fire Brigade and Crime Team officials on the spot. Beat staff also reached the spot. With the help of Fire Brigade Officials and beat staff the dead body was taken out from the borewell. Complainant Jagan Lal identified the dead body to be of his son Sanjay. He observed injury mark on the neck, chest, face and head. IO packed the dead body and prepared recovery memo of dead body. This witness has identified his signature at point A on recovery memo Ex. PW25/B. The photographs of the spot were taken by the Crime Team officials. He had also taken photographs of the spot from his mobile phone. Dead body was transmitted to mortuary, Sanjay Gandhi Hospital through Ct. Sant Ram by Ambulance.

This witness has further stated that accused Rajeev @ Monu was arrested by the IO in this case at 12:10 AM(on 06.09.2013) and his personal search was conducted. This witness Case No.56384/16 State Vs Rajiv @ Monu etc. Page No. 22/73 has identified his signature at point A on the arrest memo of accused Rajeev @ Monu, Ex.PW25/C and on the personal search memo Ex.PW25/D. Disclosure statement of accused Rajeev @ Monu was recorded by the IO, which is proved as Ex.PW25/E,. Vicky @ Karan was given in custody of Lady SI Anu, who had come at the spot and proceedings in respect of Juvenile Vicky @ Karan was handled by her. Thereafter, they proceeded for the place of occurrence led by accused persons. On the way near Railway Gate, Nizampur Gaon, both the accused persons pointed out a place in the field which was around 300400 meters away from the railway line in the right side one blood stained shirt of black colour having red strips was recovered, which was stated to be of Juvenile Vicky. The shirt was taken into possession after converting the same into a parcel and sealing with seal of "SMB" vide seizure memo Ex.PW25/F. Thereafter, both the accused persons led the police party to the guard room of Supreme Construction Company and pointed out the place of occurrence. Pointing out memo in this regard was prepared which is proved as Ex.PW25/G. Thereafter, both the accused persons led the police party to cremation ground, village Tikri Kalan, where they pointed out a place just 25 meters away after crossing main gate, where they had kept the dead body. Memo to this effect is prepared which is proved as Ex.PW25/H. Thereafter, both the accused persons led the police party at H.No. 46D, Tikri Extension, which was near cremation ground, where accused Poonam, was found present. Accused persons pointed out the Case No.56384/16 State Vs Rajiv @ Monu etc. Page No. 23/73 place from where they had taken deceased Sanjay with them. The memo to this effect is proved as Ex.PW25/J. Thereafter, they reached to the Guard room of Supreme Construction Company. Crime Team inspected the guard room and photographs were taken. On the wall of guard room, blood spots were visible. IO took samples of blood stained material from the wall, kept the same in a transparent plastic jar and affixed seal of SMB and took the same in possession, vide seizure memo Ex.PW25/K. IO took earth control sample from the guard room and prepared a parcel by adopting same sealing process and took the parcel in possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW25/L. He has further stated that thereafter, they went to cremation ground Tikri Kalan where photographs of the spot were taken. Blood spots were visible on the tiles. The sample of blood stained tiles and earth control were drawn by the IO in this regard and were converted in plastic container and were sealed with the same seal of SMB. Memos in this regard are proved as Ex.PW25/M and Ex.PW25/N. This witness has further stated that again both the accused persons were interrogated and then accused Poonam was arrested in this case from her house No. 46D, Tikri Extension, around 7:00 AM, vide arrest memo Ex.PW18/A. Her personal search was conducted by Lady Ct. Meena, vide memo Ex.PW 18/B. Accused Poonam was interrogated and her disclosure statement was recorded, which is proved as Ex.PW25/O. One mobile phone was recovered in her personal search which was taken into possession with a view to verify her telephone number Case No.56384/16 State Vs Rajiv @ Monu etc. Page No. 24/73 with the telephone number of accused Rajeev @ Monu. The seizure memo in this regard was prepared, which is proved as Ex. PW18/C. Accused Poonam was sent to J.C. Accused Rajeev @ Monu was taken on police custody remand upto 08.09.2013. This witness has further stated that on 07.09.2013, he alongwith Insp. Sanwar Mal, HC Ashok, Ct. Sant Ram and Ct. Narender had visited SGM hospital, Mortuary, Mangol Puri. PM of the body of deceased Sanjay was got conducted by the IO Insp. Sanwar Mal. After the PM was over, dead body was handed over to the family members of the deceased. Doctor had handed over the sealed pullandas containing viscera of the deceased to the IO, which IO had seized vide memo Ex.PW24/A. The viscera and other pullandas received from hospital were deposited in sealed intact condition in Malkhana by the IO. Accused Rajiv @ Monu was taken out from Lockup by the IO and he was interrogated and made disclosure statement, which is proved as Ex.PW17/A. Thereafter, accused had voluntarily led the police party to Supreme Construction Site. He took them in the guard room near the Main Gate there. Accused Rajiv had dug out one blood stained rusted knife from the ground in the South direction outside the Guard Room. Accused stated that the knife was used to murder Sanjay. IO had measured the knife and had put that knife in a cloth pullanda after wrapping it in a piece of newspaper. The pullanda was sealed with the seal of SMB and was seized vide memo Ex.PW17/B. Thereafter, accused Rajiv led the police party towards the East Side of the guard room and Case No.56384/16 State Vs Rajiv @ Monu etc. Page No. 25/73 from a distance of about 2530 steps, he got recovered an iron pipe from a pit. This pipe was also found having blood stains on it. Accused disclosed that it was the same pipe with which the deceased was hit on his head by him and his coassailants. The pipe was found having length of 74.5 cm on measuring by the IO. Its diameter was about 5 cm. It was also wrapped in a piece of newspapers and was further converted into a cloth pullanda by the IO. The pullanda was sealed with the seal of SMB and seized vide memo Ex.PW17/C. Thereafter, accused took the police party inside the guard room and pointed out towards nail (Khunti) inside the guard room, which was having clothes hanging on it. The clothes i.e. blue jeans pant and handed it over to the IO. Accused told that this pant was being worn by his companion Vicky at the time of commission of offence. This pant was also having blood stains on it. IO had kept this jeans pant in a cloth pullanda and sealed it with the seal of "SMB". The pullands was seized vide memo Ex. PW17/D. Thereafter, accused took the police party to his residence in Tikri itself. After entering into his house, he had got recovered one mobile phone which was lying in a room inside the house. It was a made in China Phone. Accused disclosed that it was the phone, with which he used to talk with Poonam for about 22.5 months. This phone was kept in a cloth pullanda by the IO which was sealed with the seal of SMB. It was seized vide memo Ex.PW17/E. From the same room, he got recovered one Red Colour Pajamas and one Sky Blue Colour T shirt, which were hanging over a Khunti (nail) inside the room.

Case No.56384/16 State Vs Rajiv @ Monu etc. Page No. 26/73

Accused told that he was wearing these clothes at the time of commission of the offence and had got blood stains. He had further disclosed that these clothes were washed by him with detergent and hung the same inside his house. IO had kept these clothes in a cloth pullanda and sealed the same with the seal of SMB and seized the same vide memo Ex.PW25/P. Thereafter, accused took the police party near H. NO. 276, Village Tikri. One motorcycle make Pulsar, bearing registration No. DL4S CA 6615 was found parked near the main gate. Accused pointed out towards that motorcycle and stated that it was the same motorcycle which he had borrowed from Dinesh and used to transport the dead body of deceased Sanjay from cremation ground to Nizam Pur Road. He stated that the motorcycle was driven by Vicky whereas he himself held the dead body while sitting as a pillion on the motorcycle. IO seized that motorcycle vide memo Ex. PW17/F. This witness has identified the case property i.e. blue colour T shirt and red colour Payajama Ex.P.1 & Ex.P.2, knife as Ex.P.3, pipe Ex.P.4, Mobile phone Ex.P.5, Pant Ex.P.6, shirt got recovered by both the accused persons as Ex.P.7, earth from the wall as Ex.P.8, earth control as Ex.P.9 (colly.), earth control Ex.P.10, wall control as Ex. P.11, Gauze as Ex.P.12 and clotehs as ex. P.13.

30.PW26 Insp.Mahesh Kumar has proved the scaled site plans as Ex.PW26/A, Ex.PW26/B and Ex.PW26/C.

31.PW27 HC Ashok Kumar has deposed that on 05.09.2013, DD Case No.56384/16 State Vs Rajiv @ Monu etc. Page No. 27/73 no.24A regarding the missing of one person Sanjay s/o Jagan Lal was assigned to him by the duty officer. He filled missing form and sent the WT message at Control room. In the evening at about 05:00 PM, father of Sanjay namely Sh.Jagan Lal came to PS and told to SI Veer Pal that Rajiv @ Monu and Vicky had quarreled with his son Sanjay 23 days ago and they may have abducted his son Sanjay. He further told that there were interaction between Rajiv @ Monu, Vicky and his daughter in law namely Poonam. He has further told that his son Sanjay was objecting the said interaction. SI Veer Pal recorded statement of Jagan Lal, made his endorsement and got the present FIR registered. He has further stated that thereafter, they reached near Cremation ground of Village Tikri Kalan, where one secret informer told to SI Veer Pal that accused Rajiv @ Monu and Vicky had murdered Sanjay and they both are sitting at the stairs of Vaishno Mata Mandir, situated near the Pond of Vaishno Mata Mandir and there at the instance of secret informer, accused Rajiv @ Monu and JCL Vicky were apprehended from the stairs. He has further stated that PW1 Jagan Lal had identified accused Rajiv @ Monu and JCL Vicky. Accused Rajiv @ Monu made disclosure statement and disclosed that he was having visiting terms with Poonam wife of deceased Sanjay and he developed illicit relations with her. Sanjay was having doubt on Poonam and due to which a quarrel between Sanjay and Rajiv had taken place earlier and one quarrel had also taken place 23 days ago of the incident.

Case No.56384/16 State Vs Rajiv @ Monu etc. Page No. 28/73

This witness has further stated that accused Rajiv @ Monu further disclosed that one day ago of the incident, he called Sanjay at the guard room of Surpeme Construction Company godown situated at Firani Road, Tikri Kalan and there he offered liquor to Sanjay. After consuming the liquor, accused Rajiv reached at the house of Sanjay and after 15 minutes, Sanjay also reached at his house and he saw accused Rajiv and his wife Poonam in compromised condition. Thereafter, he dragged Sanjay and took him in the guard room and murdered him there alongwith JCL Vicky. Accused Rajiv @ Monu and JCL Vicky further disclosed that they had thrown the deadbody of Sanjay in the borewell of a field situated on the road of Tikri Nizam Pur. This witness has further stated that thereafter, they all police officials with Jagan Lal and accused Rajiv @ Monu and JCL Vicky reached at Borewell, where they pointed out the borewell where they had thrown the deadbody of Sanjay. On peeping, they found one deadbody in the borewell. Jagan Lal identified the deadbody of deceased Sanjay and thereafter, SI Veer Pal informed the PS Mundka and informed the duty officer and got recorded the DD entry regarding the factum of recovery of deadbody of Sanjay. This witness has further stated that thereafter, SHO/Insp.Raj Kumar, Insp.Sanwar Mal, HC Devender, Ct.Narender and Ct. Raj Pal in govt. vehicle reached at the place of recovery of deadbody. SHO called the crime team and fire brigade at the spot. On the instructions of SHO, Section 302/201/34 IPC was added in the present case and the Case No.56384/16 State Vs Rajiv @ Monu etc. Page No. 29/73 investigation was handedover to Insp.Sanwar Mal. This witness has proved the disclosure statement of accused Rajiv @ Monu as Ex.PW25/E, arrest memo of accused Rajiv @ Monu as Ex. PW25/C, his personal search memo as Ex.PW25/D, recovery memo of deceased as Ex.PW25/B, photographs of borewell and deadbody of Sanjay as Ex.PW19/5 to Ex.PW19/17 and site plan Ex.PW27/A. This witness has also proved the seizure memo of shirt, got recovered at the instance of JCL Vicky among the bushes just before the railway line, as Ex.PW25/F, pointing out memo of the place inside the guard room where deceased Sanjay was murdered as Ex.PW25/G, seizure memo of blood stained wall as Ex.PW25/K, seizure memo of wall having no blood stains for sample purpose as Ex. PW25/L, pointing out memo of the place where they had brought the deadbody of Sanjay after his murder in the guard room as Ex. PW25/H, seizure memo of blood stained earth as Ex.PW25/N and seizure memo of earth control as Ex. PW25/M. This witness has also proved the pointing out memo of the house of accused Sanjay as Ex.PW25/J, disclosure statement of accused Poonam as Ex.PW25/Q, Arrest memo of accused Poonam as Ex.PW18/A, her personal search memo as Ex.PW 18/B, site plan of cremation ground as Ex.PW27/B, supplementary disclosure statement of accused Rajiv @ Monu as Ex.PW17/A, seizure memo of knife Ex.PW17/B, seizure memo of iron pipe as Ex.PW17/C, seizure memo of Jeans pant got Case No.56384/16 State Vs Rajiv @ Monu etc. Page No. 30/73 recovered by accused Rajiv @ Monu as Ex.PW17/D, seizure memo of mobile phone as Ex.PW17/E, seizure memo of red color Payjama and light & dark blue coloured T.shirt as Ex.PW 25/P and seizure memo of bike as Ex.PW17/F. This witness has identified the case property i.e. blue colour T shirt and red colour Payajama Ex.P.1 & Ex.P.2, knife as Ex.P.3, pipe Ex.P.4, Mobile phone Ex.P.5, Pant Ex.P.6, shirt got recovered by accused Rajiv and JCL Vicky as Ex.P.7, earth from the wall as Ex.P.8, earth control as Ex.P.9 (colly.), earth control Ex.P.10 and wall control as Ex.P.11.

32.PW28 Insp.Sanwar Mal, who is IO of the case and has proved the Arrest memo, personal search memo and disclosure statement of accused Rajiv @ Monu as Ex.PW25/C, Ex.PW25/D and Ex.PW 25/E. He has also proved the seizure memo regarding the identification of deadbody by PW1 Jagan Lal as Ex.PW25/B, seizure memo of blood stained shirt of JCL Vicky as Ex.PW25/F, pointing out memo of guard room where the accused persons had committed murder of Sanjay as Ex.PW25/G, seizure memo of pieces of wall as Ex.PW25/K, seizure memo of scratched control earth from the wall as Ex.PW25/L, pointing out memo of Cremation ground, where after killing Sanjay, accused persons had kept his body as Ex.PW25/H, seizure memo of blood stained earth control as Ex.PW25/N, seizure memo of another control earth blood stained as Ex. PW25/M, pointing out memo of house of deceased Sanjay from where they had dragged Sanjay to Guard room of Supreme Construction Company as Ex. PW25/J, arrest Case No.56384/16 State Vs Rajiv @ Monu etc. Page No. 31/73 memo, personal search memo and disclosure statement of accused Poonam as Ex. PW18/A, Ex. PW18/B and Ex. PW25/Q. He has also proved the site plan of borewell as Ex. PW27/A, site plan of cremation ground as Ex.PW27/B, seizure memo of mobile phone recovered from the personal search of accused Poonam as Ex.PW18/C. He has also deposed that on 07.09.2013 he had completed inquest papers and submitted formal application Ex. PW28/A for preserving the deadbody and submitted for postmortem as Ex.PW28/B. He has also proved the Form no. 25.35 (1) (B) as Ex. PW28/C and statements identifying the deadbody as Ex. PW1/B and Ex. PW2/A. He has also proved the seizure memo of clothes of deceased, Viscera and blood in gauze of deceased as Ex.PW24/A. He has also proved the supplementary disclosure statement of accused Rajiv @ Monu as Ex. PW17/A. He has also proved the seizure memo of knife, which was got recovered by accused Rajiv @ Monu as Ex.PW 17/B, seizure memo of iron pipe as Ex. PW17/C, seizure memo of mobile phone of accused Rajiv @ Monu as Ex.PW17/E, seizure memo of clothes of accused Rajiv @ Mon as Ex.PW25/P, seizure memo of motorcycle as Ex.PW17/F, seizure memo of clothes of JCL Vicky as Ex. PW17/D. He has also proved the statement of Sh.Surender, father of Pankaj as Ex. PW3/1, reply of Sh.Surender to the notice U/s 133 M.V.Act as Ex.PW4/A. He has further deposed that he had collected the P.M.report of the deceased which is proved as Ex. PW23/A. He has also proved Case No.56384/16 State Vs Rajiv @ Monu etc. Page No. 32/73 the application Ex.PW28/D regarding the subsequent opinion as Ex. PW23/B. He has also obtained the report of FSL which is proved as Ex.PW22/A. He has also collected the analysis of CDRs as Ex.PW13/3, Ex.PW14/3, Ex. PW14/4 and Ex. PW 14/5A. He has also proved the statements of PW1 Jagan Lal as Ex. PW1/A, Ex. PW28/E of PW Bhagirath Sharma, Ex. PW1/A of PW Dhirender Kataria, Ex. PW28/F of PW Deepak, Ex.PW 28/G of PW Sandeep, Ex. PW28/H of PW Rakesh @ Teetu. He has also proved the FSL result as Ex. P.6.

This witness has also identified the case property I.e.Photographs of Sanjay as Ex.PW19/1 to Ex. PW19/36, Shirt Ex. P.7, earth control as Ex.P.10, another earth control as Ex. P.9, another earth control as Ex.P.8, Knife as Ex. P.3, iron pipe as Ex. P.4, clothes as Ex. P.6, mobile phone as ex. P.5, another clothes as Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.2, blood gauze as Ex.P.12, plastic bag containing clothes of deceased as Ex.P.13, earth control as Ex.P.11. He has also proved the Crime Team report as Ex. PW9/A.

33.Thereafter, statements of accused persons U/s 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded wherein accused Rajiv @ Monu has stated that nothing was recovered at his instance. Police had obtained his signatures on blank papers and lateron converted into memos. He did not lead the police party to any place. He has no illicit relations with coaccused Poonam. He never worked with any such company. He did not make any disclosure statement before the police. Nothing was recovered at his instance. He is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case to sort out the present case.

Case No.56384/16 State Vs Rajiv @ Monu etc. Page No. 33/73

Accused Poonam has stated in her statement U/s 313 Cr.P.C.that she is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. She has no relations with Rajiv or anyone. She never had any telephonic conversations with Rajiv or anyone. However, both the accused persons did not lead any defence evidence.

34.I have heard Sh.Anil Dabas, ld. Counsel for accused Rajiv @ Monu and Ms.Anu Narula, ld. Counsel for accused Poonam and have perused the record.

35.Ld.counsel for the accused Rajiv @ Monu has contended that there is no last seen evidence. There is no witness that the deceased and the accused Rajiv @ Monu were seen together. No public witness has deposed anything about him. The prosecution is not able to prove that accused Rajiv @ Monu was working in Supreme Construction Company as a Guard. The prosecution case is doubtful as there is no complaint to show that there was any altercation or quarrel between the deceased Sanjay and accused Rajiv @ Monu. The Guard Room of Supreme Construction Company is at a distance of 500 700 mtrs. away from the house of deceased & Poonam and there is no evidence to prove that the accused Rajiv @ Monu has visited the house of accused Poonam on the night of 04.09.2013. It is the case of prosecution that two knife blows were given on the neck of the deceased but in the postmortem report, there is only one single injury on the neck of the deceased and it doubts the case of the prosecution. The conspiracy is not proved as when the accused Rajiv was apprehended in the presence of PW1 Jagan Lal and he Case No.56384/16 State Vs Rajiv @ Monu etc. Page No. 34/73 (accused) gave information that the deadbody was inside the well, but the police has not recorded the statement of Jagan Lal to prove that accused Rajiv has given information about the deadbody. IO has not examined any other witness at the time of recovery of knife, iron pipe and blood stained clothes from the house of accused. Even no public witness was joined in the investigation when blood was lifted from the guard room and from Shamshan Ghat, thus it is proved that the investigation is tainted. No statement of any farm owner has been recorded by the IO. There is contradiction in the statement of PW17 and IO. Both are giving different time when they left the PS for investigation. There is no DD entry for departure and arrival of the police officials. The prosecution has to sand on his own legs. In the FSL report, the articles were having blood group of 'B' but the prosecution has not proved blood group of the deceased so it is not proved that the blood on the articles was of the deceased. The court cannot convict the accused Rajiv @ Monu only on the basis of motive. The prosecution is not able to prove that the blood of the deceased was on the knife and pipe. It is also contended that the case is based on circumstantial evidence and the chain of the circumstances leading to the guilt of the accused should be complete. It is prayed that accused Rajiv @ Monu be acquitted.

36.It is contended by the ld. Counsel for accused Poonam that chain of circumstances should be complete. It is not proved by the prosecution that the accused Poonam was having relations with Case No.56384/16 State Vs Rajiv @ Monu etc. Page No. 35/73 accused Rajiv @ Monu. There is no evidence on record to prove that any of the neighbour had seen the accused Poonam and Rajiv together at any point of time. It is also not proved by the prosecution that the telephone number 8510036520 belongs to accused Poonam. The prosecution has also not proved that this phone was exclusively in possession of accused Poonam. PW1 Jagan Lal has admitted that Sanjay also used to talk on this phone. It is further contended that accused Poonam has given information to the police about the missing of her husband vide DD no. 24A dt. 05.09.2013 and in this DD, she has given the correct particulars about her husband. She had also given the telephone number of her husband and this DD shows that she did not hide anything from the police. The police has not registered any case on this DD. It is also contended that there is no evidence on record to connect the accused Poonam with the death/murder of her husband Sanjay.

It is also contended by the ld.counsel for the accused Poonam that PW1 has categorically admitted that after identifying the deadbody, he lodged a report. This shows that FIR was antetimed and antedated and recovery was effected prior to the registration of the FIR. It is also contended that PW1 has categorically stated that he did not know as to how Sanjay was killed and he has categorically stated that he did not know wheter Poonam used to meet Rajiv or not. He even also stated that he did not know Rajiv and he did not know anything about the same and he did not know why the quarrel took place. It is Case No.56384/16 State Vs Rajiv @ Monu etc. Page No. 36/73 also contended that if there were relations between accused Rajiv and Poonam, then this fact must have been deposed by PW1, PW2 and PW3 who are father and brothers of deceased. PW1 also deposed that he used to sleep after taking dinner and this fact itself does not prove that accused Poonam left at 3 AM in the morning of 05.09.2013. She has also contended that PW2 and PW3 are brothers of the deceased and they did not speak about the relations of accused Rajiv and Poonam. She has also contended that PW3 did not state about the intimacy. He has also categorically stated that he did not know that accused Poonam used to talk with some other person or not. He has also not deposed that phone number 9811264013 belongs to accused Rajiv. It is also contended that prosecution has not proved that this phone was in exclusive possession of accused Poonam. It is also contended that unless it is proved that this phone was exclusively was being used by accused Poonam only, then conspiracy against the accused Poonam can be proved. It is also contended that when the phone was seized from the possession of accused Poonam, no public witness was cited. Lastly it is contended that PW1, PW2 and PW3 did not allege any conspiracy against accused Poonam. No independent witness had been examined by the prosecution to show that both the accused persons used to meet each other at any point of time. It is prayed that accused Poonam be acquitted.

37.On the other hand, it is contended by the Ld.Addl.P.P.for the State that the case against the accused persons is based upon Case No.56384/16 State Vs Rajiv @ Monu etc. Page No. 37/73 circumstantial evidence. It is further contended that incriminating circumstances against the accused persons in the present case are well established and the chain of all those established circumstances is complete and indicates that the accused persons are guilty, without admitting any hypothesis of their innocence. It is contended by Ld.Addl.P.P.for the State that the testimony of PW23 Dr.Munish clearly proves that death of deceased Sanjay was homicidal in nature. It is further contended that PW1 Jagan Lal, though had turned hostile, his testimony can still be relied. His unrebutted version runs to the impact that his son was killed and was thrown in the borewell. Ld. Addl. P.P.has pointed out that on 06.09.2013, the deadbody of the deceased was recovered from the borewell in pursuance to the pointing out of Rajiv @ Monu. Even if his disclosure statement was recorded at a subsequent stage, after his arrest, his pointing out towards the place of recovery of deadbody clearly indicates his conduct within Section 8 of the Evidence Act, incriminating him as perpetrator of crime. In this regard, Ld.Addl.P.P.for the State placed reliance upon the Judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Prakash Chand Vs. State (Delhi Admn.) AIR 1979, SC 400 and A.N.Venktesh and another Vs. State of Karnataka, AIR 2005 SC 3809. He has further pointed out that at the instance of accused Rajiv @ Monu, blood stained clothes of JCL Vicky as well as weapon used in the commission of offence were recovered which undoubtedly indicate towards the knowledge of accused about the place where the incriminating clothes and weapons were Case No.56384/16 State Vs Rajiv @ Monu etc. Page No. 38/73 lying. He has further contended that the opinion given by PW23 Dr.Munish about the nature of weapon used in the commission of crime clearly links up the recoveries effected at the instance of accused Rajiv @ Monu with the murder of deceased Sanjay. It is further contended by Ld.Addl.P.P.for the State that as per the disclosure statement made by the accused Rajiv @ Monu, he had washed his clothes which he was wearing at the time of commission of offence, so as to remove the blood stains. As per the FSL report, blood was detected from the clothes of Rajiv @ Monu which he got recovered from his house. This further strengthens the case against accused Rajiv @ Monu. Ld.Addl.P.P. for the State has further pointed out towards established circumstances implicating the accused Rajiv @ Monu in the present case as at the pointing out of the accused Rajiv @ Monu, blood stains were discovered from the place of murder as well as from the place in the cremation ground where deadbody was kept before taking it further near Borewell for dumping the same.

In support of his contentions, ld.Addl.P.P.has relied upon the Law laid down in Pulukuri Kottaya and others Vs. Emperor (AIR 1947 PC 67), Mohd. Inayatullah Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1976 SC 483, State of Maharashtra Vs. Suresh (2000) SC1, SCC471, State of Delhi Vs.Navjot Sandhu (2005) 11, SC600 and State of Maharashtra Vs. Dhamu, AIR 2000 SC 1691. Ld.Addl.P.P. has further pointed out towards the conduct of accused Poonam which clearly implicate her in the Case No.56384/16 State Vs Rajiv @ Monu etc. Page No. 39/73 commission of crime as a conspirator. It is pointed out by the Ld.Addl.P.P.for the State that as per the call record of phone number of accused Poonam and accused Rajiv @ Monu, they both were making calls to each other for last 2½ months prior to the murder of Sanjay. More particularly, the frequency and duration of their calls had considerably increased a day before the date of commission of murder. It is further submitted by the Ld.Addl.P.P.for the State that accused Poonam had herself given her telephone number in the missing report. PW6 has further referred to a call received from Poonam which stands corroborative in the CDR of phone number 8510036520 I.e.of accused Poonam. All these aspects clearly established that accused Poonam was using this phone number and was regularly in touch with accused Rajiv @ Monu. She has also made a call on the date of offence i.e. 04.09.2013 at about 11:21 PM. It is further submitted that accused Poonam had while acting in furtherance of criminal conspiracy with accused Rajiv @ Monu, got missing report of her husband I.e.deceased got lodged on 05.09.2013 at about 12 noon. On contrary, she had falsely stated to PW1 i.e.father of deceased that Sanjay her husband had gone to attend call of nature on 05.09.2013 at about 06:00 AM and had not turned up since then. The contents of his statement recorded U/s 154 Cr.P.C. fortify the fact that the missing report was got lodged by accused Poonam with malafide intentions and in her attempt to afford explanation about the missing of Sanjay since 04.09.2013 night. Ld.Addl.P.P. has further brought my Case No.56384/16 State Vs Rajiv @ Monu etc. Page No. 40/73 attention towards the statement of PW1 wherein the witness has voluntarily deposed that accused Poonam had gone somewhere during the relevant night at about 03:00 AM. It is further stated that this conduct of Poonam as surfacing up in the testimony of PW1 stands unrebutted and unexplained. Ld.Addl.P.P.on the strength of these circumstances contents that the motive as well as the conspiracy hatched between accused Poonam, Rajiv as well as the JCL Vicky undoubtedly prove the case against both the accused persons. Ld.Addl.P.P.in support of his contentions has relied upon the Law laid down in :

(1) Anthony D'Souzae' & others Vs. State of Karnataka, AIR 2003 SC 258 (2) M.G.Agarwal Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1963 SC 200 (3) Karamjit Singh Vs. State (Delhi Admn.), AIR 2003 SC 1311 (4) Prithvi Nath Pandey Vs. State of U.P., 1994 Cr.L.J. 3623 at 3633 (5) Appabhai & Anrs. Vs. State of Gujrat, AIR Sc 1988. (6) Kehar Singh Vs. State, AIR 1988, SC 1883. (7) State of Maharashtra Vs. Damu Gopinath Shinde & others, AIR 2000 Supreme Court 1691 (1)

38. I have perused the record.

39.In the present case there is no eye witness to the alleged incident.

The case of prosecution depends on circumstantial evidence. It is Case No.56384/16 State Vs Rajiv @ Monu etc. Page No. 41/73 settled law that for conviction in circumstantial evidence, the following conditions must be fulfilled: (1) The circumstances from which the conclusion of the guilt is to be drawn should be fully established.

(2) The facts so established should be consistent not only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty.

(3) The circumstances should be of conclusive nature and tendency.

(4) They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved.

(5) There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability, the act must have been done by the accused.

40.In case of Charan Singh v. State AIR 1967 SC 520 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that essential ingredients to prove guilt of an accused by circumstantial evidence are:

(a) the circumstances from which the conclusion is drawn should be fully proved;

(b) the circumstances should be conclusive in nature;

(c) all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt and inconsistent with innocence;

(d) the circumstances should, to a moral certainty, exclude the possibility of guilt of any person other than the accused.

Case No.56384/16 State Vs Rajiv @ Monu etc. Page No. 42/73

41.In the present PW23 Dr. Munish Wadhawan has proved postmortem report of the deceased and as per his deposition there were six injuries on the person of the deceased Sanjay. He gave his opinion that the cause of death is due to hemorrhgic shock as a result of neck injury and head injury. All the injuries were antemortem in nature. This witness proved the postmortem report as Ex. PW23/A. Thus, deceased died homicidal death.

42.In the present case, accused Poonam went to PS Mundka at 12:00 Noon on 05.09.2013 and gave missing report in respect of her husband. She has also mentioned that her husband on the night of 04.09.2013 at about 11:30 PM has left the house without telling her anything. She has also given his description. She has also mentioned that he has taken mobile No. 9654724378 with him. This DD No. 24A was registered at 12:00 Noon and thereafter, on the same day complainant PW1 father of the deceased gave complaint to the police raising his apprehension about the abduction of his son by Rajeev. He also raised suspicion that his daughterinlaw i.e. Poonam is also having hand in the abduction of his son. On the statement of Jagan Lal, FIR No. 190/13, u/s. 365 IPC was registered and investigation was carried out.

43.Now, I dealing with contentions raised by Ld. Counsels for both the accused one by one.

44.It is vehemently contended by Ld. Counsel for accused Rajiv @ Monu that accused Rajiv @ Monu was apprehended on the night of 05.09.2013 and at that time, he was not arrested and his Case No.56384/16 State Vs Rajiv @ Monu etc. Page No. 43/73 pointing out towards the bore well in which dead body of deceased Sanjay was recovered is not admissible u/s. 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. It is prayed that as the accused was not arrested at the time of his pointing out towards the place i.e. bore well where dead body was found is not admissible.

45.As per prosecution version in the evening a secret informer informed the IO about the presence of accused Rajiv @ Monu and JCL at Mata Vaishno Mandir near the pond. Both the accused Rajiv @ Monu and JCL Vicky arrested and they pointed out the bore well and dead body of Sanjay was recovered at the instance of accused Rajiv @ Monu.

46.I have perused Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. It is true that accused Rajiv @ Monu was not arrested when at his instance dead body was recovered from the bore well. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in judgment titled as "Anter Singh v. State" AIR 2004 SC 2865, has held the requirement of applicability of section 27. The various requirements of the section can be summed up as follows:

1. The fact of which evidence is sought to be given must be relevant to the issue. It must be brone in mind that the provision has nothing to do with the question of relevancy. The relevancy of the fact discovered must be established according to the prescriptions relating to relevancy of other evidence connecting it with the crime in order to make the fact recovered admissible.

Case No.56384/16 State Vs Rajiv @ Monu etc. Page No. 44/73

2. The fact must have been discovered.

3. The discovery must have been in consequence of some information received from the accused and not by the accused's own act.

4. The person giving the information must be accused of any offece.

5. He must be in the custody of a police officer.

6. The discovery of a fact in consequence of information received from an accused must be deposed to.

7. Thereupon only that portion of the information which relates distinctly or strictly to the fact discovered can be proved. The rest is inadmissible.

It is no where mentioned that accused must be arrested and it is only condition that accused must be in police custody. This contention of the counsel for accused Rajiv @ Monu carries no force.

47.Ld. Addl. PP for the State has placed reliance on judgment AIR 2005 Supreme Court 3809 titled as "A.N. Venkatesh and another v. State of Karnataka" wherein it is held that "By virtue of Section 8 of the Evidence Act, the conduct of the accused person is relevant, if such conduct influences or is influenced by any fact in issue or relevant fact. The evidence of the circumstance, simpliciter, that the accused pointed out to the police officer, the place where the dead body of the kidnapped boy was found and on their pointing out the body was Case No.56384/16 State Vs Rajiv @ Monu etc. Page No. 45/73 exhumed, would be admissible as conduct under Section 8 irrespective of the fact whether the statement made by the accused contemporaneously with or antecedent to such conduct falls within the purview of Section 27 or not as held by this Court in Prakash Chand v. State (AIR 1979 SC 400). Even, if we held that the disclosure statement made by the accused appellants (Ex. P14 and P15) is not admissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, still it is relevant under Section 8. The evidence of the investigating officer and PWs 1,2,7 and PW 4 the spot mazhar witness that the accused had taken them to the spot and pointed out the place where the dead body was buried, is an admissible piece of evidence under Section 8 as the conduct of the accused. Presence of A1 and A2 at a place where ransom demand was to be fulfilled and their action of fleeing on spotting the police party is a relevant circumstance and are admissible under Section 8 of the Evidence Act."

48.As the accused Rajiv @ Monu has pointed out towards the bore well where the dead body of the deceased was found and ultimately dead body was recovered from the bore well. I am of the view that recovery of dead body from the bore well at his instance is relevant under Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act.

49.Ld. Addl. PP for the State has placed reliance on judgment titled as "State of Maharashtra v. Suresh" (2000)1 SCC 471 wherein it is held that :

Case No.56384/16 State Vs Rajiv @ Monu etc. Page No. 46/73

"Three possibilities are there when an accused points out the place where a dead body or an incriminating material was concealed without stating that it was concealed by him. One is that he himself would have concealed it. Second is that he would have seen somebody else concealing it. And the third is that he would have been told by another person that it was concealed there. But if the accused declines to tell the criminal court that his knowledge about the concealment was on account of one of the last two possibilities the criminal court can presume that it was concealed by the accused himself. This is because the accused is the only person who can offer the explanation as to how else he came to know of such concealment and if he chooses to refrain from telling the court as to how else he came to know of it, the presumption is a welljustified course to be adopted by the criminal court that the concealment was made by him. Such an interpretation is not inconsistent with the principle embodied in Section 27 of the Evidence Act".

50.In the present case, accused Rajiv @ Monu has not told the court about his knowledge about the concealment of dead body on the account of one or last two possibilities. In the present case accused has not explained how he came to know the throwing and concealment of dead body in the bore well.

51.As per information given by accused Rajiv @ Monu, the fire Case No.56384/16 State Vs Rajiv @ Monu etc. Page No. 47/73 brigade official were called and the dead body of deceased with the help of Fire Brigade official was taken out from the bore well. PW20 Omkanwar Tiwari has proved that on 05.09.2013 an information was received. He reached at the informed place and they took out dead body from the well. The dead body was smeared with mud. The dead body was washed and handed over to the police. I am of the view that accused Rajiv @ Monu took the police at the borewell and pointed out the borewell, where the deadbody of Sanjay was thrown and the deadbody was recovered from the borewell. Thus, this contention of Ld. Counsel for accused Rajiv @ Monu carries no force.

52.It is also vehemently contended by Ld. Counsel for accused Rajiv @ Monu that no public witness was joined at the time of recovery and recording of confessional statement of accused Rajiv @ Monu, so recovery of knife, blood stains clothes, iron pipe and cloth of JCL is not proved.

53.In the present case accused Rajiv @ Monu was arrested on the night of 0506/09.2013 at 12:10 AM and he made confessional statement that he was having illicit relations with accused Poonam and deceased used to beat Poonam. She was fed up with deceased Sanjay. He also disclosed that he called Sanjay by sending JCL Vikcy on the pretext of giving him party and when Sanjay came liquor was consumed by him. He also disclosed that he left Sanjay in the company of JCL Vicky and went to the house of Poonam but after 1520 minutes Sanjay came there and he started abusing him when he saw both of them together. He also Case No.56384/16 State Vs Rajiv @ Monu etc. Page No. 48/73 disclosed that he caught his neck and took him to the Godown and he committed murder by slitting his throat. He also disclosed that accused Poonam also came to godown and when accused gave remarks to kill Sanjay completely, he again slit his throat and Sanjay died. He also made statement that he and JCL Vicky put the dead body in a bed sheet and placed it in Shamshan Ghat. He also made statement that he made a call to Deepak. He also stated that he can recover the knife and he can point out the place where he has committed murder of Sanjay and he can point out the place where the dead body of deceased Sanjay was kept in bed sheet. He can also identify the house of Sanjay from where he was taken to the godown.

After making confessional statement accused Rajiv has pointed out the house of accused Poonam from where Sanjay was taken to the godown. He also identified the spot of the Shamshan Ghat where the dead body of deceased Sanjay was kept. Accused Rajiv @ Monu has also pointed out the guard room where the murder of Sanjay was committed. The pointing out of guard room where the murder was committed, pointing out of place I.e Shamshan Ghat where the dead body of Sanjay was kept wrapped in bed sheet and pointing out of house of deceased Sanjay by accused Rajiv @ Monu, I am of the view that these are relevant u/s. 8 of the Indian Evidence Act.

54.After the disclosure statement, the IO has taken into his possession the earth control from Shamshan Ghat and as per the seizure memo of earth control the drops of blood were present Case No.56384/16 State Vs Rajiv @ Monu etc. Page No. 49/73 1520 meters away from main gate of Shamshan Ghat and police had taken it into possession. The blood stains earth was also taken into possession and blood stains earth was also taken from the guard room vide seizure memo Ex.PW25/A. As per this seizure memo there were blood stains on the walls of guard room and these blood stains were taken into possession and earth control from the guard room was also taken into possession. The earth control and blood stains were seized from Shamshan Ghat and guard room and same were sent to FSL. As per result of FSL human blood was deducted on cemented stone piece. Thus, the blood was found on the walls of guard room and the Shamshan Ghat and it is proved by the prosecution that murder was committed in the guard room of Supreme Construction Company and after committing the murder the dead body wrapped in bed sheet was placed by accused Rajiv @ Monu in the Shamshan Ghat. Moreover, the testimonies regarding pointing out of place of murder, putting of dead body in Shamshan Ghat as deposed by PW25, PW27 & PW28 is not shattered by Ld. Counsel for accused Rajiv @ Monu in any manner.

55.It is the case of the prosecution that site plan was prepared by the IO on 06.09.2013, which is proved on record as Ex. PW21/B. The guard room of Supreme Construction Company is in the opposite direction of Shamshan Ghat, Tikri Kalan and in front of Shamshan Ghat there is a grocery shop (house) where accused Poonam used to sit. Thus, guard room, Shamshan Ghat where dead body was kept and the grocery shop of accused Poonam are Case No.56384/16 State Vs Rajiv @ Monu etc. Page No. 50/73 very near to each other.

56.In the present case accused Rajiv @ Monu has also made disclosure statement on 07.09.2013 wherein he added that he had given an iron pipe blow on the head of deceased and he also took a motorcycle from the house of Dinesh and he thrown dead body in the well while motorcycle was being driven by JCL Vicky and he was sitting as pillion rider along with dead body of Sanjay. He also disclosed that due to this the shirt of JCL Vicky was became blood stained from behind, which he had thrown in the field. He also stated that knife, iron pipe, jeans of JCL Vicky is also in the godown. He also made disclosure statement that his mobile pone and washed clothes are in the house and he gave motorcycle to Dinesh after washing it. Accused Rajiv @ Monu in pursuance to disclosure statement Ex. PW17/A got recovered knife. He also got recovered iron pipe, cloth of JCL with blood stains and his China Make mobile phone. He also got recovered his washed clothes which he got recovered from his house and he also got recovered motorcycle No. DL4SCA6615 at house No. 276, Tikri Kalan.

The recovery of knife, iron pipe, jeans pant of JCL Vicky from guard room by the accused Rajiv @ Monu, his mobile phone, clothes and motorcycle were recovered in presence of SI Bir Pal Singh, HC Ashok and Ct. Narender by the IO. There is no contradiction in the statement of PW17 Ct. Narender, PW25 SI Bir Pal Singh, PW27 HC Ashok and PW28 Inspector Sanwar Mal. All these witnesses remained firm during their cross Case No.56384/16 State Vs Rajiv @ Monu etc. Page No. 51/73 examination and Ld. Counsel for accused Rajiv @ Monu is not able to shatter the testimony of these witnesses in any manner. No major contradiction is pointed out by Ld. Counsel for accused Rajiv @ Monu in the cross examination of PW17, PW25, PW27 & PW28. It was held in Suresh v. State AIR 1994 SC 2420: 1994 Cr. L. J 3271 that provisions of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act are based on the view that if a fact is actually discovered in consequence of information given, some guarantee is afforded thereby that the information was true. It is also held in Sanjay v. State (2001) 3 SCC 190 that the basic idea embedded in sec. 27 Indian Evidence is the doctrine of confirmation by subsequent events. The doctrine is founded on the principle that if any fact is discovered in a search made on the strength of any information obtained from a prisoner, such a discovery is a guarantee that the information supplied by the prisoner is true.

57.Ld. Addl. PP for the State has placed reliance on judgment titled as "Pulukuri Kottaya and others Vs. Emperor" wherein it is held that "knowledge of the accused that articles are lying there is admissible under Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act". He has also placed reliance on judgment titled as "Mohmed Inayatullah v. The State of Maharashtra" AIR 1976 SC 483.

58.As accused got recovered knife, iron pipe, jeans pant of JCL Vicky from guard room, his mobile phone, clothes and motorcycle in pursuance of disclosure statement, the recoveries are admissible under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act.

59.It is contended by Ld. Counsel for accused Rajiv @ Monu that no Case No.56384/16 State Vs Rajiv @ Monu etc. Page No. 52/73 public witness was joined and as no public witness was joined, the recovery is suspicious. He has also contended that as no public witness was joined in the investigation no reliance can be placed on the recovery effected at the instance of accused persons in the present case and all the witnesses of recovery are police personnals.

60.In the present secret information was given to the IO at about 10:00 PM on 05.09.2013 about the presence of accused persons at Mata Vaishno Mandir near pond and accused Rajiv @ Monu was apprehended in the night of 05.09.2013/06.09.2013 at about 12:10 AM and investigation was carried out. I am of the view that accused Rajiv @ Monu was arrested at 12:10 AM (during night) on 06.09.2013 and if no public witness was joined then it is not fatal to the case of prosecution.

61.Ld. Addl. PP for the State has placed reliance on judgment titled as "Prithvi Nath Pandey and others v. State of U.P." 1994 Cri. L. J. 3623 wherein, it is held that :

"Mere fact that police personnel belong to police department cannot be ground to reject their testimony if it otherwise inspires confidence and no hostility of police with accused is shown". He has also placed reliance on judgment titled "Karamjit Singh v. State (Delhi Administration)" AIR 2003 SC 1311 wherein, it is held that "there is no principle of law that without corroboration by independent witnesses their testimony cannot be relied upon".

Case No.56384/16 State Vs Rajiv @ Monu etc. Page No. 53/73

I am of the view that testimonies of PW17, PW25, PW27 and PW28 cannot be doubted merely on the ground that all are police witnesses.

62.It is vehemently contended by Ld. Counsel for accused Rajiv @ Monu that it is not proved on record what was the blood group of deceased, so in absence of evidence it cannot be said that weapon of offence knife, iron pipe, clothes of accused, jeans pant of JCL, blood stains earth control found at Shamshan Ghat and guard room bear the blood of deceased Sanjay.

In the present case, if we peruse the FSL report Biology division Ex. P2, it shows that there was human blood Group B on the cemented piece and there is also group - B blood on the shirt of JCL Vicky. If we peruse the result of FSL, the clothes of accused Rajiv @ Monu, Shirt of JCL Vicky, rusted knife, metallic pipe were found to be having human blood. No explanation has been given by the accused as to why there was human blood on the knife, iron pipe, clothes i.e. pajama and Tshirt. As per report of FSL, in certain articles sent to the FSL, there was no reaction and in some of the articles i.e. shirt of JCL and cemented piece there was B group of human blood. As per report of FSL Biological division, it is proved that human blood was deducted on stone piece, cement piece, shirt of JCL, Tshirt and Pajama worn by accused Rajiv @ Monu. If it is not proved by the prosecution as to what was blood group of deceased, then it is of no consequence when the accused is not able to show that blood group "B" was not of the deceased. Nor any evidence has been Case No.56384/16 State Vs Rajiv @ Monu etc. Page No. 54/73 adduced by the accused to prove that blood group "B" was not of the deceased. As per FSL report (Ballistic) 11 parcels were sent to the FSL on 30.09.2013 and it was received on 01.10.2013. The report was given on 27.11.2014 i.e. after a gap of about one year. I am of the view that these articles should have been examined earlier as in some articles there was no reaction of blood group. Moreover, no evidence has been adduced on behalf of accused Rajiv @ Monu to show that blood group "B" was not of the deceased. Thus, this contention carries no force.

63.As per disclosure statement made by accused Rajiv @ Monu, Sanjay was called by JCL Vicky, thereafter, accused Rajiv @ Monu, Sanjay and Vicky consumed liquor. The fact of consuming liquor by deceased Sanjay is proved with the chemical analysis report Ex.PW22/A and as per this report ethyl alcohol was present in the stomach, piece of small intestine, piece of liver, spleen, kidney and blood sample of the accused Sanjay. Thus, it is proved that accused Rajiv @ Monu had offered drink to deceased Sanjay so that he can meet with coaccused Poonam.

64.It is vehemently contended by Ld. Counsel for accused Rajiv @ Monu that family members of the deceased has not supported the case of the prosecution and motive on the part of accused Rajiv @ Monu is missing so the chain of circumstance is not complete in the present case and in a case of circumstantial evidence the chain should be complete. It is contended that in a case of circumstantial evidence the circumstance from which the conclusion drawn should be fully proved and circumstance Case No.56384/16 State Vs Rajiv @ Monu etc. Page No. 55/73 should be conclusive in nature. It is also contended that PW1, who is father of deceased and PW2 & PW3, who are brothers of the deceased has not supported the case of prosecution. Thus, there is no motive on the part of accused Rajiv @ Monu to commit murder of the deceased. It is also contended that PW1, PW2 & PW3 failed to prove motive on the part of accused Rajiv @ Monu to commit murder of the deceased.

65.On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for accused Poonam has also contended that there is no evidence on the record as PW1, PW2 & PW3 have not uttered even a single word that accused Poonam used to meet accused Rajiv @ Monu. PW2 & PW3 brothers of the deceased did not speak about the relations of accused Poonam with accused Rajiv @ Monu. They also did not state that accused Poonam used to talk with other person or not. They also not deposed that mobile No. 9654724378 belongs to accused Rajiv @ Monu.. It is also contended that no reliance can be placed to the testimonies of PW1, PW2 & PW3. It is also contended by Ld. Counsel for accused Poonam that FIR is ante timed as PW1 admitted that he lodged a report after he identified the corpose of his son.

66.PW1 Jagan Lal has deposed that his son was killed and his body was thrown in the well. He also stated that police has taken out corpse of his son and he identified dead body of his son. He also deposed voluntarily that on the day of murder accused Poonam told him that her husband has gone to answer the call of nature. He also deposed that incident had taken place during night and Case No.56384/16 State Vs Rajiv @ Monu etc. Page No. 56/73 accused Poonam had told at 6:00 PM that Sanjay had gone for both room and accused Poonam told lie to him.

67.In the present case, deceased was murdered in the night of 04/05.09.2013 and postmortem of the deceased was carried out on 07.09.2013 at 01:30 PM and time since death was given as approximately 3½ days. During cross examination PW23 Dr. Munish Wadhwan has stated that there can be variation of 24 hours in the time since death. It suggests that the deceased was murdered during night of 04.09.2013.

68.The doctor has also given opinion that injury No. 1,5 & 6 are possible with the knife and injury No. 2 3 & 4 are possible by iron pipe. Thus, injuries on the person of deceased were possible by iron pipe and knife recovered at the instance of accused Rajiv @ Monu.

69.It is contended by the ld. Counsel for accused Poonam that the FIR is antitimed as PW1 Jagan Lal had admitted that after the recovery and identification of the deadbody, he has lodged a report.

Perusal of the file reveals that on 05.09.2013, at about 07:15 PM, PW1 Jagan Lal has made statement to the police. In the crossexamination, this fact is not made clear as after lodging of the report, he has made afresh report or not. In my view, this contention of the ld.defence counsel carries no force.

70.It is also contended by both the ld.defence counsels that PW1 Jagan Lal is father of the deceased and PW2 Jitender and PW3 Sandeep are brothers of the deceased and they have not Case No.56384/16 State Vs Rajiv @ Monu etc. Page No. 57/73 supported the case of the prosecution. They have not deposed that both the accused persons used to talk on phone. It is also contended that PW1 Jagan Lal also stated that he did not know accused Rajiv @ Monu and he did not know why there was quarrel between the deceased Sanjay and his wife accused Poonam. It is also contended by both the ld.defence counsels that PW3 Sandeep also did not depose that Poonam used to talk with accused Rajiv @ Monu. It is further contended by both the ld.defence counsels that there is no motive on the part of both the accused persons to commit murder of the deceased. It is also contended by ld. Counsel for accused Poonam that there is no evidence on record to show that phone number 8510036520 was issued in the name of accused Poonam. Rather this phone number was issued in the name of deceased and it is not proved by the prosecution that the accused Poonam was exclusively using this phone.

On the other hand, it is contended by the Ld.Addl.P.P.for the State that conduct of the accused Poonam clearly proves that she was in the conspiracy in the murder of the deceased Sanjay alongwith accused Rajiv. As per call record of phone numbers of accused Poonam and accused Rajiv @ Monu, they both were making calls to each other for the 2½ months prior to the murder of Sanjay. More particularly, the frequency and duration of their calls had considerably increased a day before the date of commission of murder. It is further contended by the Ld.Addl.P.P.for the State that accused Poonam had herself given Case No.56384/16 State Vs Rajiv @ Monu etc. Page No. 58/73 her telephone number in the missing report. PW6 has further referred to a call received from Poonam which stands corroborative in the CDR of Phone number 8510036520 I.e.of accused Poonam. All these aspects clearly established that accused Poonam was using this phone number and was regularly in touch with accused Rajiv @ Monu. She has also made a call on the date of offence i.e. 04.09.2013 at about 11:21 PM. It is further contended that accused Poonam had while acting in furtherance of criminal conspiracy with accused Rajiv @ Monu, got missing report of her husband I.e.deceased, got lodged on 05.09.2013 at about 12 noon and she had falsely stated to PW1 Jagan Lal I.e.father of the deceased at about 06:00 AM that Sanjay her husband had gone to attend call of nature on 05.09.2013. It is also contended that missing report was got lodged by accused Poonam with malafide intentions and in her attempt to afford explanation about the missing of Sanjay since 04.09.2013 night. He has also contended that this conduct of Poonam as surfacing up in the testimony of PW1 Jagan Lal stands unrebutted and unexplained and even if PW1 Jagan Lal has turned hostile, his testimony can still be relied. PW1 Jagan Lal clearly stated that his son Sanjay was killed and thrown in the borewell.

In the present case, PW1 Jagan Lal has in his examination has deposed that his son has been murdered about six months back and accused Poonam must be aware. He has also identified the deadbody of his son. He has also deposed that accused Case No.56384/16 State Vs Rajiv @ Monu etc. Page No. 59/73 Poonam has told him at 06:00 AM that deceased had gone to answer the call of nature but he did not return. He has also deposed that accused Poonam has told lie to him and accused Poonam was present, where the incident had taken place and she went there at 03:00 AM. PW1 Jagan Lal has admitted in the crossexamination that he made a statement to the police. As per PW13 Sh.Pawan Singh, the phone number 8510036520 was issued in the name of deceased Sanjay. The deceased Sanjay was missing on the night of 04/05.09.2013 and after missing of her husband, the phone was being used. PW13 Sh.Pawan Singh has proved the call details which shows that this phone number was used on the night of 04.09.2013 at 13:21:17. PW6 Sh.Rakesh has admitted that accused Poonam made a call in the evening of 05.09.2013 asking him to visit the PS, but he declined. As per CDR, she made a call from the phone no. 8510036520 to PW6 Rakesh at 12:12:19. He has also admitted that he made statement from portion Y to Y1 of Ex.PW 6/1 to the police and this statement is to the effect that mobile no. 7830024886 is of mine and on 05.09.2013, in the evening time, accused Poonam made a call from her mobile no. 8510036520 to me and told that police had called her at PS and he has to accompany her, but he had declined as he was busy in his work.

As per CDR Ex.PW13/3, it also proves that accused Poonam made a call on 05.09.2013 at about 16:25 and 16:24 on the mobile phone to PW6. No suggestion was given to PW6 that Case No.56384/16 State Vs Rajiv @ Monu etc. Page No. 60/73 the accused Poonam did not make call from the mobile phone 8510036520 to him.

71.Moreover, this Nokia phone of black colour no. 8510036520 was recovered from the possession of accused Poonam during her personal search and this fact is proved by PW25 Retired SI Beer Pal and IO. Even after missing of the deceased Sanjay, phone was being used and accused Poonam made calls to PW6. This shows that accused Poonam was using this phone number 8510036520 before and after the incident.

72.As per the CDR, the accused Rajiv was in regularly touch with phone number 8510036520 of accused Poonam. CDR of mobile no. 9811264013 of accused Rajiv shows that they were in regular touch since 9thJuly, 2013. Even they had talked on 02.09.2013 for about 1550 seconds and on 01.09.2013 for 1400 seconds at 12:27 hours. Both the accused persons have not given any explanation as to why they were talking with each other in the late hours. Even on the day of incident, they had talked in the morning at 06:15 AM, again on 08:22 AM, again on 09:58 AM and then 12:28 noon. Thereafter, a call was made at 23:16 on the night and again on 23:21 on 04.09.2013. No explanation has been given by the accused Poonam and the accused Rajiv @ Monu as to why they had talked on 04.09.2013 at 23:18 and 23:21 hours. The CDR of accused Rajiv shows that accused Poonam made a phone call from mobile no. 8510036520 at 06:18, 08:22, 09:58 and 12:28 noon. Thereafter accused Rajiv made call on the mobile phone of accused Poonam at 23:18 and Case No.56384/16 State Vs Rajiv @ Monu etc. Page No. 61/73 23:21. Thus, this shows that accused Rajiv went to the house of accused Poonam leaving deceased Sanjay and Vicky at the guard room and when Sanjay came to her house, he saw both the accused, raised a quarrel then accused took the deceased to the guard room. No explanation has been given by the accused Rajiv as to why he made outgoing calls on the phone of accused Poonam.

73.Moreover, accused Rajiv has not denied that this phone does not belong to him. Ex.PW14/1 shows that phone no. 9811264013 issued in the name of accused Rajiv and PW14 Sh.Israr Babu has also proved the CAF alongwith I/D proof of accused Rajiv. All these call details show that both the accused persons in regular touch since 09th July, 2013 and on 04.09.2013 and lastly accused Rajiv made call on the phone of accused Poonam at 23:18 and 23:21 hours. Accused Poonam did not inform anybody about the disappearance of her husband. She even did not inform her father in law who was present at the house. No explanation has been given as to why she kept mum and did not intimate till 06:00 AM to her father in law.

74.Accused Poonam went to PS and gave a missing report that her husband had left the house at 11:30 PM on 04.09.2013 and she has given description of her husband. She has also mentioned that her husband had taken the mobile phone number 9899075827 with him. In this DD, she had given her mobile number 8510036520. If this telephone number was being used by the deceased Sanjay then, why the accused Poonam has Case No.56384/16 State Vs Rajiv @ Monu etc. Page No. 62/73 mentioned that this phone belongs to her. Moreover, accused Poonam has wrongly stated that her husband left the house without telling her at 11:30 PM . The factum of making call by the accused Rajiv to accused Ponam at about 11:21 PM and 11:28 PM on the night of 04.09.2013 itself shows that they were in regular touch. The accused Poonam has concealed the fact of quarrel between accused Rajiv and her husband and she did not tell her father in law. Thus, the accused Poonam tried to cover up the matter and she tried to afford explanation about the missing of her husband Sanjay. No explanation has been given by the accused Poonam as to why she used to make calls to the accused Rajiv.

75.In the present case, in the DD no. 24A, the accused Poonam gave intimation to the police that her husband has left the house at 11:30 PM without telling anything but the accused Ponam has not stated to her father in law during night that her husband has left at 11:30 PM. As per the testimony of PW1 Jagan Lal, Poonam had told him at about 06:00 AM in the morning that deceased had went for bathroom. The accused Poonam had not stated nor disclosed the fact of missing of her husband during the whole night to her father in law. In the DD no.24A, she has given the time at about 11:30 PM and as per the CDR, accused Rajiv had called her at 23:18 PM and 23:21 PM on 04.09.2013. No explanation has been given for what purpose, accused Rajiv had called her and she had not given any explanation as to why on 04.09.2013, she was in continuous touch with accused Rajiv. The Case No.56384/16 State Vs Rajiv @ Monu etc. Page No. 63/73 CDR Ex. PW13/3 shows that she was regular talking with the accused Rajiv since 09.07.2013 and the frequency of calls increased in August and on 04.09.2013. she had made various calls to Rajiv and accused Rajiv had called lastly in the night. Thus, accused Poonam was aware that her husband was taken by the accused Rajiv @ Monu in the guard room of Supreme Construction Company. Moreover, no suggestion has been given to PW1 by the ld. Counsel for accused Poonam that the fact of missing of her husband was conveyed by her to PW1 in the night.

76.The accused has given the reply in the statement U/s 313 Cr.P.C. that CDR Ex.PW14/3 is fabricated, but no explanation has been given as to how this CDR was fabricated. I am of the view that the fact that accused Rajiv made a call at 23:18 PM and 23:21 PM shows about the complicity of accused Poonam in the conspiracy of murder of her husband.

77.Ld. counsel for accused Poonam has placed reliance of the Judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi titled as Sunita Devi Vs. State wherein it is held that :

"In view of the fact that the prosecution has not proved that the landline No. 5478903 was installed in the house of the deceased, the relevance of the call details of mobile no. 9811267016 become irrelevant and the said evidence used as incriminating evidence by the learned Trial Judge, looses all significance and hence we need not discuss the effect of the record of the service provider showing that said number was in the name of Case No.56384/16 State Vs Rajiv @ Monu etc. Page No. 64/73 Vinod Kumar, son of Sh.Prabha Bhagat Singh. But we must note that the address given to the service provider is admittedly the residential address of appellant Vinod Kumar and the photocopy of the voter's identity card I.e.Ex. PW32/C1 given to the service provider as identity proof shows that it pertains to appellant Vinod Kumar and incidentally shows the father's name of appellant Vinod umar to be Prabha Bhagat. It is apparent that appellant Vinod is a crook and creates documents to hide his identity. The learned Trial Judge discussed the worth of said evidence on the belief that landline No. 5478903 was installed in the house of the deceased at E6, Adhyapak Park, ignoring that there was no evidence to establish the said fact. Thus, the solitary evidence of motive against Sunita is insufficient to sustain her conviction".

I am of the view that this Judgment is not helpful to the accused Poonam as in the present case it is proved by the prosecution that mobile phone 8510036520 was in exclusive use of accused Poonam before and after the incident. This connection was issued in the name of the deceased. The phone was recovered during the personal search of accused Poonam.

78.Moreover, the site plan without scale shows that the guard room is in front of the Shamshan Ghat and in front of Shamshan Ghat, there is grocery shop. Thus, the house of the deceased was near to the guard room of Supreme Construction Company and is in Case No.56384/16 State Vs Rajiv @ Monu etc. Page No. 65/73 front of Shamshan Ghat. At no point of time, accused Poonam has told to any of her in laws about the missing of her husband. Thus, this shows that she was also involved in conspiracy of the elimination of her husband.

79.It is contended by the Ld.Addl. P.P.for the State that as per Section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act, the confessional statement of accused Rajiv can be taken into consideration against the co accused Poonam. He has placed reliance upon the Judgment Kehar Singh Vs. State (Delhi Admn.) I have perused this Judgment with utmost regard.

80.I have also perused the Section 120A of the IPC, which reads as under :

"When two or more persons agree to do, or cause to be done (1) an illegal act, or (2) an act which is not illegal by illegal means, such an agreement is designated a criminal conspiracy;

Provided that no agreement except an agreement to commit an offence shall amount to a criminal conspiracy unless some act besides the agreement is done by one or more parties to such agreement in pursuance thereof".

Section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act reads as under :

"Things said or done by conspirator in reference to common design - Where there is reasonable ground to believe that two or more persons have conspired Case No.56384/16 State Vs Rajiv @ Monu etc. Page No. 66/73 together to commit an offence or an actionable wrong, anything said, done or written by any one of the such persons in reference to their common intention, after the time when such intention was first entertained by any one of them, is a relevant fact as against each of the persons believed to be so conspiring, as well for the purpose of providing the existence of the conspiracy as for the purpose of showing that any such person was a party to it".

I have perused the Judgment titled as Kehar Singh Vs. State, AIR 1988 SC 1883. In this Judgment, it is held that:

"Section 120A provides for the definition of criminal conspiracy and it speaks of that when two or more persons agree to do or cause to be done an act which is an illegal act and Section 120B provides for the punishment for a criminal conspiracy and it is interesting to note that in order to prove a conspiracy it has always been felt that it was not easy to get direct evidence. It appears that considering this experience about the proof of conspiracy that Section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act was enacted".

It is also held in this Judgment that :

"It is well settled act or action of one of the accused could not be used as evidence against the other. But an exception has been carved out in Section 10 in cases of conspiracy. The second part operates only when the Case No.56384/16 State Vs Rajiv @ Monu etc. Page No. 67/73 first part of the Section is clearly established I.e.there must be reasonable ground to believe that two or more persons have conspired together in the light of the language of Section 120A. It is only then the evidence of action or statements made by one of the accused, could be used as evidence against the other".

It is also mentioned in this Judgment that in short the Section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act can be analysed as follows :

(1) There shall be a prima facie evidence affording a reasonable ground for a court to believe that two or more persons are members of a conspiracy; (2) If the said condition is fulfilled, anything said, done or written by any one of them in reference to their common intention will be evidence against the other; (3) anything said, done or written by him should have been said, done or written by him after the intention was formed by any one of them; (4) It would also be relevant for the said purpose against another who entered the conspiracy whether it was said, done or written before he entered the conspiracy or after he left it; (5) it can only be used against a coconspirator and not in his favour.

81.Reliance can be placed in case tilted as State of Maharashtra Vs. Damu Gopinath Shinde & others, AIR 2000 Supreme Court 1691 (1), wherein it is held that :

"The basic principle which underlies in Section 10 is Case No.56384/16 State Vs Rajiv @ Monu etc. Page No. 68/73 the theory of agency and hence every conspirator is an agent of his associate in carrying out the object of the conspiracy. In the instant case there can be no doubt, relying on the confession by one of the accused that, there are reasonable grounds to believe that all the four accused have conspired together to commit the offences of abduction and murders of the children involved in this case. So what these accused have spoken to each other in reference to their common intention as could be gathered from said confession can be regarded as relevant facts falling within the purview of the Section 10. It is not necessary that a witness should have deposed to the fact so transpired between the conspirators. A dialogue between them could be proved through any other legally permitted mode. When confession is legally proved and found admissible in evidence, the same can be used to ascertain what was said, done or written between the conspirators. All the things reported in that confession referring to what accused 'A' and accused 'B' have said and one in reference to the common intention of the conspirators are thus usable under S.10 of Act as against those two accused as well, in the same manner in which they are usable against Balu confessor himself".

82.In the present case, accused Rajiv made disclosure statements on 06.09.2013 and 07.09.2013. The CDRs of mobile phones of accused Rajiv and Poonam were taken and as per the CDR, they were in touch since 09.07.2013 and they were in talking terms Case No.56384/16 State Vs Rajiv @ Monu etc. Page No. 69/73 and the frequency of talks increased before the day of incident.

83.I am of the view that Section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act is applicable in the present case and the confession of the accused Rajiv can be used against the coaccused Poonam being the conspirator.

84.In the present case, no explanation has been given by the accused persons as to why they were talking each other. The accused Rajiv has simply denied in his statement U/s 313 Cr.P.C. put to him that the CDR of mobile phone number 9811264013 was fabricated but he has not given any explanation as to why he was in regular attach with coaccused Poonam.

85.In Answer to Question no.91, where the fact of CDR Ex. PW13/3 was put to accused Poonam, she stated that she do not know. The accused Poonam has not given any explanation as to why she was talking with coaccused Rajiv.

86.Reliance can be placed in this regard on a Judgment titled as Anthony D'Souza & others Vs. State of Karnataka, AIR 2003 Supreme Court 258, wherein it is held that :

"In their examination U/s 313 Cr.P.C. the accused denied the prosecution story in toto. They denied that lorry accident had taken place. They also denied to have received any injuries. In short, in their 313 statement they completely denied the established facts and offered false answers. By now it is well established principle of law that in a case of circumstantial evidence, where an accused offers false answer in his Case No.56384/16 State Vs Rajiv @ Monu etc. Page No. 70/73 examination Under 313 against the established facts that can be counted as providing a missing link for completing the chain.

In this Judgment, it is also held that in Swapan Patra Vs. State of West Bengal (1999) 9 SCC 242, this Court said that in a case of circumstantial evidence when the accused offers an explanation and that explanation is found not to be true then the same offers an additional link in the chain of circumstances to complete the chain. The same principle has been followed and reiterated in State of Maharashtra Vs. Suresh (2000) 1 SCC 471, where it has been said that a false answer offered by the accused when his attention was drawn to a circumstance, renders that circumstance capable of inculpating him. This Court further pointed out that in such a situation false answer can also be counted as providing a missing link for completing the chain".

87.In the present case, both the accused persons have given false answers and did not explain as to why they were in regular touch with each others. They have not explained the position as to why they have talked on 04.09.2013 and why accused Rajiv @ Monu had called the accused Poonam at 23:18 PM and 23:21 PM after the disappearance of deceased Sanjay.

88.In the present case, the chain of circumstance is complete and indicates that both the accused persons are held guilty without Case No.56384/16 State Vs Rajiv @ Monu etc. Page No. 71/73 any hypothesis of their innocence.

89.In the Judgment Aftab Ahmad Anasari Vs. State of Uttaranchal, it is held that :

"If the combined effect of all the facts taken together is conclusive in establishing the guilt of the accused, the conviction would be justified even though it may be that one or more of these facts, by itself/themselves, is/are not decisive. The circumstances proved should be such as to exclude every hypothesis except the one sought to be proved. But this does not mean that before the prosecution case succeeds in a case of circumstantial evidence alone, it must exclude each and every hypothesis suggested by the accused, howsoever extravagant and fanciful it might be. There must be a chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for conclusion consistent with the innocent of the accused and it must be such as to show that within all human probability, the act must have been done by the accused. Where the various links in a chain are in themselves complete, then a false plea or a false defence may be called into aid only to lend assurance to the Court".

90.In the present case, both the accused persons were in talking terms with each other since 09.07.2013. The incident is of the night of 04/05.09.2013. The accused Rajiv had called at 23:18 PM and 23:21 PM on 04.09.2013. Accused Poonam did not Case No.56384/16 State Vs Rajiv @ Monu etc. Page No. 72/73 intimate her father in law on the night of 04.09.2013 and 05.09.2013 and told him in the morning that her husband has gone to answer the call of nature, but did not return. But in the DD no.24A, she has stated that her husband had left the house without telling her. The fact that she tried to give explanation by lodging the missing report of her husband, shows that she was in conspiracy with the accused Rajiv. Moreover, the phone was recovered with which she used to talk with accused Rajiv. It can safely held that chain of circumstance is complete. Accordingly, both the accused persons namely Rajiv @ Monu and Poonam are hereby held guilty and convicted for the offence punishable U/s 120B IPC, 302 IPC r/w Section 120B IPC and 201 IPC r/w Section 120B IPC.

91.In the present case, there is no evidence on record to connect the accused persons with the commission of offence punishable U/s 365 IPC r/w Section 120B IPC. Accordingly, both the accused persons namely Rajiv @ Monu and Poonam are hereby acquitted for the offence punishable U/s 365 IPC r/w Section 120B IPC.

They be heard on the Quantum of Sentence.

ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN                               (NARESH KR. MALHOTRA)
COURT ON: 09.12.2016                                 ASJ05 (West), THC, Delhi.




Case No.56384/16     State Vs Rajiv @ Monu etc.                                      Page No. 73/73
              IN THE COURT OF SH. NARESH KUMAR MALHOTRA,

ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE05, WEST, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.

IN THE MATTER OF CASE NO.56384/16 FIR No.190/13 P.S Mundka U/S 365/302/201/120B IPC STATE VERSUS (1) RAJIV @ MONU S/O SH.RANDHAWA R/O RAMAYAN PANA, VILLAGE TIKRI KALAN, NEW DELHI.

(2) SMT.POONAM W/O LATE SANJAY R/O H.NO. 46D, NEAR SHAMSHAN GHAT, TIKRI KALAN EXTENSION, NEW DELHI.

ORDER ON SENTENCE 15.12.2016 :

Present : Sh. B.B.Bhasin, Ld. Addl. P.P.for the State.

Convicts Rajiv @ Monu @ Poonam are in J/C. Sh.Anil Dabas, ld. Counsel for convict Rajiv @ Monu. Ms.Anu Narula, ld. Counsel for convict Poonam.

Case No.56384/16 State Vs Rajiv @ Monu etc. Page No. 74/73

1. Arguments on the point of Sentence have been advanced by Ld. counsels 2 for both the convicts as well as by the Ld.Addl. P.P. for the State.

2. It is submitted by the Sh.Anil Dabas, ld. Counsel for convict Rajiv @ Monu that convict Rajiv @ Monu is about 25 years of age. He is unmarried. He is also having handicap younger brother and his parents are old. There is no male family member to look after them. It is prayed that lenient view be taken against convict Rajiv @ Monu.

3. It is submitted by Ms.Anu Narula, ld. Counsel for convict Poonam that convict Poonam is aged about 28 years and she is having three daughters. One daughter namely Deepasha is residing with her mother and other two daughters namely Bhumi and Muskan are residing with her brotherinlaw Jitender (Devar) It is also contended that convict Poonam is of clean antecedent. It is prayed that lenient view be taken against convict Poonam.

4. On the other hand, it is contended by the Ld. Addl. P.P.for the state that allegations against the convicts are grave and serious in nature and they had committed the murder of deceased Sanjay, who was of young age. They have brutally murdered the deceased and after his murder, threw his body in the borewell. Further it is contended by the Ld. Addl. P.P.for the State that it is not the rarest of the rare cases and convicts be awarded life sentences.

5. Heard. Record perused.

6. As this case is based on circumstantial evidence, no death penalty Case No.56384/16 State Vs Rajiv @ Monu etc. Page No. 75/73 can be awarded to both the convicts.

7. Vide order dated 09.12.2016 IO/SHO, PS Mundka was ordered to hold an inquiry regarding the capacity of both the convicts to pay compensation to the family members of the deceased.

8. In the present case victim impact report was sought and SHO, PS Mundka filed victim impact report and as per victim impact report deceased was running 3 a grocery shop and his monthly income was Rs. 15,00020,000.

Regarding capacity of convict Rajiv @ Monu, it is mentioned that convict Rajiv @ Monu was working as a security guard prior to his arrest. The family of convict Rajiv @ Monu is owing a house and four bighas agricultural land in village Tikri Kalan and there is no property in the name of convict Rajiv @ Monu.

In respect of convict Poonam, it is mentioned that convict Poonam is wife of deceased Sanjay and was dependent on the deceased. She is having three daughters.

In view of victim impact report and inquiry report of the SHO, PS Mundka, I, therefore, sentence both the convicts namely Rajiv @ Monu and Poonam to undergo Rigorous Life Imprisonment U/s 302 IPC r/w Section 120B IPC. Convict Rajiv @ Monu is directed to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/ (Rupees twenty thousand only) and in default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo SI for six months. Convict Poonam is directed to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/ (Rupees Five thousand only) and in default of payment of fine, she shall further undergo SI for two months. Further, it is Case No.56384/16 State Vs Rajiv @ Monu etc. Page No. 76/73 ordered that out of payment of fine of Rs.25,000/, Rs.15,000/ (Rupees fifteen thousand only) will go to the father of the deceased.

9. Both the Convicts namely Rajiv @ Monu and Poonam are further sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 4 years U/s 201 IPC r/w Section 120B IPC. Convict Rajiv @ Monu is directed to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/ (Rupees five thousand only) and in default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo SI for four months. Convict Poonam is directed to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/ (Rupees two thousand only) and in default of payment of fine, she shall further undergo SI for two months.

10. Further keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case that 4 the deceased was of young age and he has three daughter out of which one is residing with his motherinlaw and two daughters are residing with his brother Jitender, I deem it fit and proper to make a recommendation U/s 357 A Cr.P.C. to West District Service Legal Authority to award appropriate compensation to the legal heirs of deceased Sanjay under the Delhi victim Compensation Scheme 2011 or under any such scheme applicable.

All the sentences of both the convicts shall run concurrently. Benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C. be given to both the convicts.

Copy of the Judgment and Order on Sentence be given to both the convicts free of cost.

Copy of this order and Judgment be also sent to Case No.56384/16 State Vs Rajiv @ Monu etc. Page No. 77/73 Ld.Secretary, West District Legal Service Authority, Tis Hazari Courts, for necessary compliance. Ahlmad is also directed to mention the address of the parents of the deceased on a paper and sent alongwith the Judgment and order to the Ld.Secretary, West District DLSA, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.

File be consigned to record room after necessary compliance.

ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN                                            (NARESH                        KR.
MALHOTRA)
COURT ON: 15.12.2016                                             ASJ05   (West),   THC,
Delhi.




Case No.56384/16     State Vs Rajiv @ Monu etc.                                      Page No. 78/73

Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Delhi District Court

Case No.56384/16 State vs Rajiv @ Monu Etc. Page No. 1/73 on 15 December, 2016