Delhi District Court
State vs . Rajveer Etc. on 19 November, 2019
IN THE COURT OF SHRI RAMESH KUMAR: ADDL SESSIONS JUDGE:
CENTRAL DISTRICT: TIS HAZARI COURTS: DELHI
S.C. No.06/15 (CIS NO. 28351/2016)
FIR No. 269/14
P.S. Jama Masjid
U/S. 302/392/394/411 IPC
State Vs. Rajveer etc.
State
Versus
1. Rajveer
S/o Shri Om Parkash
R/o Village Sikandra Pur, PS Mohmadabad
District Farukhabad, U.P.
2. Sarvesh
S/o Shri Ram Kishan Dhimar
R/o Village Sikandra Pur, PS Mohmadabad
District Farukhabad, U.P.
Date of institution before Ld MM :06.02.2015
Date of receipt :25.02.2015
Date of arguments :19/11/2019.
Date of Decision: :19/11/2019.
JUDGMENT
1. Formal indictment against the accused, namely, Rajveer and Sarvesh, is that, on 09/11/2014, at about 3.00 pm, at H. No. 2470, Gali Mandir Wali Chippiwara, Jama Masjid, Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS Jama Masjid, both of them, in furtherance of their common intention, committed murder of Shri Vir Sen, by intentionally causing his death by strangulating his neck with a piece of cloth (angochha) and, thereby, both of them, made themselves liable for an offence U/s 302 IPC r/w Section 34 IPC. Further that, on the said date, time and place, both of them, in furtherance of their common intention, committed the SC No.06/15 State Vs Rajveer etc Pages 1/58 offence of robbery, by taking away a bag containing cash amount of Rs.6 lacs and thereby both of them made themselves liable for an offence U/s 392/394 IPC r/w Section 34 IPC.
2. In the alternative, charge for the offence punishable under Section 411 IPC was framed against accused Rajveer, with the allegations that, on 14.11.2014, at unknown time, at his house, situated at village Sikandpur, PS Mohammadabad, District Farukabad, (UP), he was found in possession of one blue colour bag containing cash amount of Rs.2,50,000/- and one visiting card, in the name of Sachin Jain, out of the robbed amount, belonging to deceased, Shri Vir Sen Jain, which he retained, knowing and, having reason to believe the same, being stolen property, robbed from the area, within the jurisdiction of PS Jama Masjid.
3. Further, in the alternative, charge for the offence punishable under Section 411 IPC was framed against accused Sarvesh with the allegations that, on 14.12.2014, at unknown time, at his house situated at village Sikandpur, PS Mohamadabad, District Farukhabad, (UP), he was found in possession of part of the robbed amount of Rs.1,51,000/- and one voter slip, in the name of the deceased, Viru Mal Jain, which he retained, knowing and, having reason to believe the same, being a stolen property, robbed from the area, within the jurisdiction of PS Jama Masjid.
4. Accordingly, both the accused persons were charged for the offences punishable U/s 302/392/394/34 of IPC & U/s 411 of IPC to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter, case was fixed for prosecution evidence.
SC No.06/15 State Vs Rajveer etc Pages 2/58
5. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, has examined, 34 witnesses i.e. PW1 ASI Jai Kishan, PW-2 Shri Arun Jain, PW-3 Shri Sandeep Jain, PW-4 Dr. Lalit Tanwar, Dr. Dinesh Holani, PW-6 Dr. Arun Kumar, Constable Pramod, PW-8 ASI Inderjeet Singh, PW-9 Shri Ajit, PW-10 ASI Amar Pal, PW- 11 Constable Sachin, PW-12 Constable Manjit, PW-13 SI Sushil Kumar, PW-14 Ms. Ashu Jain, PW-15 Ram Pal, PW-16 Shri Sachin Jain, PW-17 Dr. Parshant Kumar, PW-18 SI Rupesh Khatri, PW-19 SI Vishnu Dutt, PW-20 Constable Sher Singh, PW-21 Constable Rabish Kumar, PW-22 Constable Nand Singh, PW-23 ASI Anuj, PW-24 HC Ramroop, PW-25 ASI Sonu Kaushik, PW-26 Shri Shishir Malhotra, PW-27 ASI Amar Nath, PW-28 Shri Sachin Sangwan,Ld. Civil Judge, PW-29 Shri Ajay Kumar Malik, Ld. MM, PW-30 Inspector Praveen Kumar, PW-31 Ms. Sunita Gupta, Sr. Scientific Officer, PW-32 Shri Chander Shekhar, Nodal Officer, Bharti Airtel Ltd., PW-33 ASI Jai Narain and PW-34 Inspector Prashant.
6. After the completion of prosecution evidence, statement of accused persons were recorded, wherein, they both, have denied all the evidence put to them and have pleaded their innocence. Both the accused persons did not lead any evidence in their defence. Thereafter, matter was fixed for arguments.
7. I have heard Ld Addl PP for State and Ld counsel for the accused persons and have carefully perused the record file and have gone through the material placed on record.
8 PW1, ASI Jay Kishan, was the Duty Officer, who recorded the DD entry 22A, on 09.11.2014, regarding the information from the hospital to the effect that Vir singh Jain was brought dead in the hospital. He proved the said DD SC No.06/15 State Vs Rajveer etc Pages 3/58 entry as Ex.PW1/A. Further, he recorded the FIR, of the present case, and proved the copy of same as Ex.PW1/B. He further deposed that, after registration of the FIR, the computerized copy of FIR and original rukka were handed over to HC Amar Pal for further transmission to Inspector Praveen Kumar. He proved his endorsement as Ex.PW1/C and he also proved the certificate, regarding correctness of the FIR U/s 65B Evidence Act, as Ex. PW1/D. Further, he proved the DD entry 26A, as Ex.PW1/E, and DD entry No 27/A as Ex.PW1/F, regarding registration of the FIR and sending the special messenger.
9 PW-2, Sh Arun Jain, is son of Vir Sen Jain, and he had identified the body of the deceased, Vir Sen Jain, in the mortuary and his statement was recorded vide Ex.PW2/A and, after the postmortem report, the dead body was handed over to them, vide receipt Ex.PW2/B, having his signature at point A.
10. PW-3, Shri Sandeep Jain, was the friend of Sachin Jain, son of deceased. He deposed that on, 09/11/2014, at about 3.00 pm, he was in the area of Chhippi Wara and he received a phone call from his friend, Sachin Jain, that a beating had been done with his father, at his Chhippi Wara house, and he was not feeling well and his sister, Ashu Jain, was with his father. He asked him to immediately reach there to take his father to Sant Parmanand Hospital. PW3, immediately, rushed to the said house and found that the house was bolted from outside. He opened the same and entered the house and found Ashu Jain in the room, and her father was lying on the sofa. Blood was oozing from his nose and blood was also spotted on his clothes and other clothes on the sofa. He immediately brought the wheel chair from the nearby Mandir and took him outside the house on the wheel chair and had taken him, outside the IP School. From there, one TSR was hired and he, alongwith, Ashu Jain, took injured, Veer Sen SC No.06/15 State Vs Rajveer etc Pages 4/58 Jain, in the Emergency Ward of Parmanand Hospital, where he was declared brought dead by the doctors. Meanwhile, Sachin and his other relatives also reached at the hospital. PW-3 remained in the hospital till the late evening and, later on, when he reached back to Chhippi Wara, police recorded his statement. This witness has not been cross-examined by the accused, in any manner, despite having the opportunity.
11 PW4, Dr Lalit Tanwar, has proved the medical report of accused Sarvesh i.e. Ex. PW4/A. PW5, Dr Dinesh Holani, has proved the MLC of Sh Vir Sen Jain, as Ex. PW5/A, having his signature, at point A, on the MLC.
12 PW6, Dr Arun Kumar, conducted the postmortem on the dead body of Vir Sen Jain and he proved the postmortem report, as Ex.PW6/A and he proved the injuries, pointed on the diagram sheet as Ex.PW6/B. Further, he stated that viscera was duly preserved and sealed, alongwith, sealed blood on gauge, nail clippings, clothes of the deceased and adhesive tape, from neck, were also sealed and handed over to IO, alongwith the sample seal and the documents, vide Ex.PW6/C. As per his opinion, cause of death, in this case, was due to asphyxia, as a result of ligature strangulation. He further deposed that all injuries were ante mortem in nature and fresh in duration and, viscera was preserved, for chemical analysis, to rule out any concomitant intoxication. He further deposed that probable time, since death, was about one day. PW6 was further recalled, for further examination, U/s 311 Cr.PC, to prove his opinion, regarding gamcha/angocha and he stated that he examined the said angocha and prepared the subsequent opinion report, which is Ex.PW6/D and he had opined that injury no.1, on the body of the deceased, was possible by the said angocha. He further deposed that, after going through the chemical analysis report, from SC No.06/15 State Vs Rajveer etc Pages 5/58 FSL Rohini Ex.PW6/E, his opinion, regarding cause of death remains the same, as mentioned in PM report, i.e. death, in this case, occurred due to asphyxia, as a result of ligature strangulation.
13 PW-7, Const. Pramod, was posted as photographer with the Mobile Crime team and, on 09.11.2014, under the supervision of Incharge, SI Rupesh Khari, took the photographs of the scene of crime, from different angels and proved the same, as Ex.PW7/A1 to Ex.PW7/A13, and also produced the negatives of the same and proved them as Ex.PW7/B1 to ExPW7/B13.
14 PW-8, ASI Inderjeet Singh, was Fingerprint proficient and was posted with Mobile Crime team. On 09.11.2014, he lifted two chance prints from one helmet, which was lying on the centre table in the room, where offence had been committed. He forwarded the lifted chance prints to Fingerprint Bureau, Kamla Market.
15. PW-9, Sh Ajit, was the employee of Arun Vastra Bhandar i.e. shop of the Sachin Jain, son of deceased. He is a witness of recovery of cash amount from the house of accused Rajveer. He deposed that he was working with Arun Vastra Bhandar, 4158, Nai Sarak, Chandni Chowk, Delhi, since 2009, owned by Sachin Jain. He further deposed that, on 13.11.2014, he joined the investigation, of this case, with police. Accused Rajbir was in police custody and he, alongwith the police, and the accused, went for the search of co-accused and visited 2-3 places in District Farukhabad but co-accused was not traceable. Then, on the next day, i.e. 14.11.2014, they reached at Village Sikandarpur, at about 9.30 p.m., and accused Rajvir led them to his house which was found locked, and, accused Rajvir procured the keys from his father's house and opened the door. The inner room was also found locked and the same was also opened by accused Rajvir.
SC No.06/15 State Vs Rajveer etc Pages 6/58 There, accused Rajvir pointed out towards one steel almirah, lying in the room, and disclosed that the robbed cash bag was lying in the same almirah. The almirah was opened and one red and black colour bag was found in the almirah. The IO clicked the photograph of the same and the bag was checked and the word 'Aggarwal Hosiery' and 'Vastra lok' was written on the bag. On opening the said bag, one blue and red colour bag having words 'Arun Vastra Bhandar Pvt. Ltd., 4158, Nai Sarak, Chandni Chowk' were written on the same. On opening the said bag, total amount of Rs.20,70,000/- was found in it, i.e. 38 wads of 100 currency notes, of Rs.500/- denomination each, one wad of 100 currency notes of Rs.1000/- denomination each and one wad having 60 currency notes of Rs.1000/- denomination and 20 currency notes of Rs.500/- denomination were found in the bag. One visiting card of Sachin Jain, Arun Vastra Bhandar, was also found in the bag. IO clicked the photographs, after keeping all the wads on a newspaper, alongwith visiting card and bag. Thereafter, the above mentioned wads and visiting card were kept in the red and blue bag and, then, the said red and blue bag was kept in red and black bag and the same was turned into a pullanda by IO and sealed with his seal and seized vide memo Ex.PW9/A, having his signatures at point A. IO also prepared the site plan Ex.PW9/B, having his signatures, at point A. They returned to Delhi. IO also recorded his statement.
16. PW-9, Sh Ajit, further deposed that, on 16.11.2014, they reached at Kannoj, Etta, Mainpuri, Farukabad for search of the co-accused but could not trace him and, on 17.11.2014, he, alongwith police, and accused Rajvir visited Gitanjali Enclave and, after parking the vehicle outside, accused Rajvir led them, in front of his house, where one motorcycle No.DL 5S BV 5315 was found stationed and he pointed out the same and disclosed that he alongwith his companion, Sarvesh, had committed the offence, by using the said motorcycle and, after committing the offence, he had kept the blood stained shirt in the dickey SC No.06/15 State Vs Rajveer etc Pages 7/58 of the motorcycle and stationed the same, in front of his house and ran away with the cash and the scooter was locked and keys were placed in his house. This witness further deposed that accused, Rajvir took the key of the motorcycle from his house and the dickey of the motorcycle was opened, and one light blue colour shirt of Cantabill brand, having white stripes and blood stains on right arm, was recovered from the dickey. The said shirt was converted into pullanda and sealed with the seal of IO. The RC of the motorcycle and one pay slip of Arun Vastra Bhandar of month June, 2014, in the name of accused Rajvir and visiting card of Sachin Jain were also recovered from the dickey of the motorcycle. The abovesaid articles were kept in a polythene and seized, alongwith the motorcycle, vide memo Ex.PW9/C. The IO clicked the photographs of the articles and motorcycle. The IO prepared site plan Ex.PW9/D of the spot. IO also recorded his statement.
17. PW-9 further deposed that, on 14.12.2014, again, he was called at PS Jama Masjid. Accused Sarvesh was in police custody remand. On the same evening, he joined the investigation and accused Sarvesh led them to different places for search of Devender but could not trace him. This witness further deposed that, on 14.12.2014, again, he joined the investigation. Accused Sarvesh led the police party, alongwith him, to village Sikanderpur, PS Mohammadabad, District Farukhabad, UP. The accused led them to his house, in the said village, he opened the door of room of his house, after obtaining the keys, from his neighbour. The neighbour is also relative of accused Sarvesh. Accused Sarvesh, after opening the room, got effected recovery of cash of Rs. 1,51,000/-, from underneath the Chakki, which was on the left side, while, entering the room. After removing the stones of Chakki two bricks were there and a polythene having words Modern Electric and Gift Center, Makhanpur were written on the polythene and there was another jute bag, having words, Arun Vastra Bhandar and the cash SC No.06/15 State Vs Rajveer etc Pages 8/58 was in the jute bag. The cash was consisting of three wads each of 100 currency notes of Rs. 500/- denomination each and two separate currency notes of Rs. 500/- denomination (Total Rs. 1,51,000/-). The said cash was kept back in said jute bag and, then, in the said polythene and, then, converted into a white cloth pullanda and sealed with the seal of IO with the help of wax and seized vide memo Ex. PW9/E. One blood stained shirt of cream colour was also recovered, at the instance of accused Sarvesh from the said house and the said shirt was also converted into pullanda and sealed by the IO and seized by the same memo i.e. Ex.PW9/E. IO also prepared the site plan of the place of recovery and same is Ex.PW9/F. This witness further deposed that, thereafter, they returned to Delhi. This witness identified the case property i.e. shirt of accused Rajveer as Ex.P5, salary slip as Ex.P5/A and visiting card as Ex.P5/B, which were recovered from the dickey of the motorcycle no.5315, one bag having words on one side 'vastra lok etc.' and another side "Aggarwal Hosiery etc." having another bag having words "Arun Vastra Bhandar Pvt. Etc", with the cash amount of Rs.20,70,000/- which were found in the almirah kept in the house of accused Rajbir at Sikandarpur, Farukhabad (U.P.). This witness identified both the bags as Ex.P6, collectively. This witness also identified shirt of accused Sarvesh as Ex.P8.
18. In the cross-examination, conducted by Ld counsel for accused, PW- 9 denied the suggestion that he had not visited District Farukhabad, for the investigation of the present case. He further denied that he had visited Sikandarpur directly and not with the police party. He further denied that he took the police party to the house of accused Rajveer at Sikandarpur. He further denied that he brought some polythenes containing Arun Vastra Bhandar, one bag (thaila) containing Arun Vastra Bhandar/Vastra Lok and one visiting card of Sh.
Sachin Jain. This witness further denied that police took all the polythenes SC No.06/15 State Vs Rajveer etc Pages 9/58
containing Arun Vastra Bhandar, one bag (thaila) containing Arun Vastra Bhandar/Vastra Lok and one visiting card of Sh. Sachin Jain from him and planted it upon accused Rajveer and case property procured from the house of accused Rajveer. He further denied that he had shown the house of accused Rajveer and he told accused Rajveer that he want to see his house. This witness denied that accused Rajveer never said to him or police party that the robbed amount was kept in almirah. He also denied the suggestion that almirah was wooden almirah. He further denied that he carried Rs.2,50,000/- and same was planted upon accused Rajveer. He deposed that he was working as Floor Manager in Arun Vastra Bhandar and was aware of day to day works of Arun Vastra Bhandar and, that is why, he was sent with the police party. This witness denied that IO had planted Rs.20,70,000/- upon accused Rajveer. This witness denied that the lock of house of accused Rajveer was broken by him. This witness further denied that they had planted the recovered articles at the house of accused, Rajveer and, thereafter, took the photographs of those articles. This witness has further deposed that site plan was prepared on the spot. This witness denied that he had not visited Kannauj, Etah, Mainpuri, Farukhabad, for search of co-accused, on 16.11.2014. This witness also denied that Sachin Jain had given him a shirt and instructed to meet the IO of the case. This witness denied that pay slip of June, 2014 was handed over to him by Sachin Jain and same was falsely planted upon accused Rajveer. This witness further deposed that, on 14.12.2014, he again visited PS Jama Masjid on the direction of Sachin Jain and joined the investigation and he visited the house of accused, Sarvesh at Sinkandarpur. This witness denied that, on 14.12.2014, when he visited PS Jama Masjid, the IO had instructed him to bring some polythenes, one of Arun Vastra Bhandar and another of some address of U.P. alongwith some money and, thereafter, he left the PS and again visited PS on same day, with above instructed articles. He further denied that IO had planted the abovesaid polythenes, alongwith one shirt, at the SC No.06/15 State Vs Rajveer etc Pages 10/58 residence of accused, Sarvesh, as mentioned in his examination-in-chief. This witness further denied that all the pullandas were prepared in PS Jama Masjid, he further denied that he had identified the shirt of accused Rajveer, visiting card in the name of Sachin Jain/Arun Vastra Bhandar and polythenes of Arun Vastra Bhandar, Vastra Lok and salary slip as he carried the same, on the date of recovery of these articles. He further denied that he had identified the shirt of accused Rajveer, visiting card in the name of Sachin Jain/Arun Vastra Bhandar and polythenes of Arun Vastra Bhandar, Vastra Lok and salary slip as the same were planted by the IO, in his presence.
19 PW-10, ASI Amar Pal, had joined the investigation with IO, on 09.11.2014. He proved the seizure memo of pair of sandal, printed with SST, one helmet of black colour labeled with Safar, one blood stain small towel (angocha) and identified his signature at point A on same. He further proved the seizure memo of blood stained bed sheet, bed cover of light blue colour and cushion as Ex.PW10/B. He further got registered the FIR, on receipt of rukka, and, after getting the FIR registered, he came back at the spot and handed over the original rukka and computerized copy of FIR, to Inspector Parveen Kumar. He further shifted the dead body from Mortuary of Sant Parmanand hospital to Mortuary MAMC, on 10.11.2014, on direction of the IO. Incharge Mortuary Sant Parmanand Hospital handed over Rs. 770/- to him stating that same was found in possession of deceased. He handed over the said amount to Inspector Praveen Kumar, vide E.PW10/B1. After postmortem, the concerned doctor also handed over five sealed parcels, sealed with the seal of MAMC, SAK14 and same seal, and same were taken into possession, vide seizure memo Ex.PW10/C. 20 PW-10, ASI Amar Pal, further proved the seizure memo of mobile phone make Form Model M-20 and silver colour with double sim as Ex.PW10/D, SC No.06/15 State Vs Rajveer etc Pages 11/58 and identified his signature at point A, on the same. He further proved the arrest memo of Rajveer as Ex.PW10/E, personal search memo as Ex.PW10/F and disclosure of accused Rajveer as Ex.PW10/G and identified his signature at point A and of accused at point X. He further proved the pointing out memo, as Ex.PW10/G1 and identified his signature at point A and that of accused at point X. He further proved photograph of seizure memo Ex.PW10/H, another photograph of almirah as Ex.PW10/H1, a photograph of black colour bag as Ex.PW10/H2, Ex.PW10/H3 and Ex.PW10/H4, another said bag was opened and found containing one more bag printed with Arun Vastra Bhandar, photograph of which is Ex.PW10/H5, photograph of currency notes as Ex.PW10/H6, photographs of motorcycle and dickey as Ex.PW10/H7 and Ex.PW10/H8. He also identified the case property i.e. pair of sandal as Ex.P1, helmet make SAFAR as Ex.P2, one cut cloth piece and one white colour towel (gamcha) as Ex.P3, one blood stained bed sheet, another bed sheet, one pillow and one cushion as Ex.P4, one mobile phone make 'Forme' as Ex.P1A, one cut piece cloth and one shirt having slip of Cantabil, as Ex.P5, two bags found in the almirah, kept in house of accused Rajbir at Sikandpur, Farukhabad (U.P), as Ex.P6, and photographs of currency notes as Ex.P7.
21 PW-10, ASI Amar Pal, was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused persons. In his cross-examination, he stated that, after reaching at H.No.2470, Gali Mandir Wali, Bara Chhippiwara, Jama Masjid, Delhi, alongwith IO, they first inspected the spot and, lateron, he was sent to PS for collecting the IO kit. This witness denied the suggestion, put by Ld defence counsel, that no helmet, sandal and angochha were there, at the time of initial inspection. This witness denied the suggestion that when he returned back to the spot with IO kit, the crime scene was changed. He admitted that lock of the house was opened by Ashu Jain. The lock was opened by Ashu Jain, so it can be said that the house SC No.06/15 State Vs Rajveer etc Pages 12/58 was in possession of Ashu Jain. This witness voluntarily stated that Ashu Jain was in the hospital and she accompanied them, when they reached at the spot from hospital. This witness denied the suggestion that Arun Jain was already present, on crime scene, when they reached there. Ashu Jain did not tell him that there were multiple keys of the aforesaid house. This witness denied the suggestion that Inspector, Parveen Kumar, and Sachin Jain had discussed about manipulation of crime scene, in the hospital, in his presence. This witness further denied the suggestion that, on the instructions of Inspector Parveen Kumar, Arun Jain already reached at the crime scene prior, to their arrival, there from the hospital. A centre table and a bed were also there in the room alongwith four seater sofa. This witness further denied the suggestion that the bed-sheet, bed cover and pillow were lying on the bed, at crime scene, and, later on, all these articles were kept on the sofa. He further denied that, he did not stay continuously on the spot and he was only moving from PS to spot and spot to PS. The distance between PS and the spot is about half kilometer. He went to PS on foot for taking IO kit and for registration of FIR. Usually, IO kit is kept in malkhana and it can be received with property entry in concerned register. The FIR of the present case was prepared in his presence on the computer by the Duty Officer. He further deposed that they reached firstly, at the crime scene, at about 6.00 p.m. At about 6.15 p.m., he went to PS for collecting IO kit. He denied that he, immediately, after reaching the spot, went to the PS for collecting IO kit and he did not enter in H.No.2470, Gali Mandir Wali, Bara Chhippiwara, Jama Masjid and, that is why, he could not say as to what was the initial crime scene. This witness denied the suggestion that Inspector Parveen Kumar had collected blood sample from the nose of the dead body or that, after collecting the said sample, he kept it in small bottle (dibbi) and he told him that same is required for FSL. He denied the suggesion that Inspector Prashant Kumar told him, on 13.11.2014, that accused, Rajveer had surrendered himself in police station and he was not SC No.06/15 State Vs Rajveer etc Pages 13/58 arrested and the manner of arrest was planned. He also denied the suggestion that disclosure of accused, Rajveer, was not recorded in his presence and IO had taken his signature, later on, in disclosure statement.
22 PW 10, ASI Amar Pal, further denied the suggestion that only Ajeet Kumar was with them, at the time of visit, at the house of Rajveer and accused, Rajveer, was not with them. He denied the suggestion, put to him, that they took first Ajeet Kumar at the house of accused Rajveer at village Sikandarpur, District Farukhabad, U.P. and later on, they took accused Rajveer there. This witness also denied that Ajeet had broken the lock of the house of accused Rajveer, at Village Sikandarpur. Vol, the lock was opened. He denied that IO, Prashant Kumar, alongwith Ajeet, had planted the recovered money, in almirah, at the aforesaid house of accused Rajveer. He denied that Ajeet was made public witness only because he knew the, aforesaid, house of accused, Rajveer. He denied that Ajeet brought polythene of Arun Vastra Bhandar, Aggarwal Hosiery and Vastra Lok and money and all these were planted on accused Rajveer.
23. PW10, ASI Amar Pal, denied the suggestion that they had visited Gali No.6, Gitanjali Vihar, Loni, Ghaziabad, U.P. on the night of 09.11.2014, itself, and stayed there for apprehending accused Rajveer. He denied the suggestion that, in the morning of 10.11.2014, accused Rajveer reached at his house at Ghaziabad on the call of his wife and he was arrested from there. He denied the suggestion that, on the night of 09.11.2014, they took possession of the bike, parked outside the house, make Platina, of black colour, bearing no.DL 5S BV 5315. He admitted that, after recovery, the bike remained in possession of police, till its release, on superdari. He denied that they had not visited the house of accused Rajveer at Loni, Ghaziabad, on 17.11.2014, as they had already taken possession of bike and already arrested accused, Rajveer, in the night of 09/10.11.2014.
SC No.06/15 State Vs Rajveer etc Pages 14/58 24 PW10, ASI Amar Pal, further denied the suggestion that the recovery
of shirt from the dickey of bike, is planted and photographs, pertaining to recovery, were also planted. This witness further denied the suggestion that signature of accused, Rajveer, was taken on blank papers and blank seizure memos. He denied that recoveries from the crime scene and from both the houses of accused, Rajveer, are planted and manipulated by the IO. The colour of gamchha was light white. He denied that colour of gamchha was not light white and the same was not lying on the sofa. The bedsheet and the cover sheet (odhane ki chadar) are of light yellow colour. He denied that bedsheet and cover sheet, were lying on the bed. The shirt recovered from accused, Rajveer was of white colour, having yellow strips. The size of the bag bearing Aggarwal Hosiery & Vastra Lok is 2 x 2 ft and the bag, bearing Arun Vastra Bhandar, is about 1.5 x 2 ft.
25. PW-11, Const. Sachin, had accompanied Inspector Parveen Kumar to Sant Parmanand Hospital, and, on the direction of the IO, he safeguarded the dead body of deceased, Vir Singh Jain, and he put his signatures at point B, on the seizure memo Ex.PW10/C. In the cross-examination, this witness stated that he remained with the dead body throughout night. He further stated that his statement was recorded in MAMC hospital on 10.11.14 . Further, he denied the suggestion that no seizure memo was prepared in his presence.
26 PW-12, Const. Manjit, delivered the copies of FIR, at the residence of Senior officers and area MM, Sh R.K. Pandey, on 09.02.2014, on the instructions of Duty officer. He returned to the PS, at 2.00 am, after delivery of the said copies. In the cross-examination, he stated that ASI Jai Kishan was Duty officer, on that day. He was with checking officer as his rider, during his night duty. He had gone alone to the residence of senior officers as well as Area MM. He had SC No.06/15 State Vs Rajveer etc Pages 15/58 not filled the log book, pertaining to said motorcycle, as it was filled by the rider, on the morning duty, on the next day morning.
27 PW-13, SI Sushil Kumar, joined the investigation with I.O. Inspector Prashant Kumar, is the witness of production of accused Rajveer and mobile phone before the IO by SI Vishnu. He further identified his signature on Ex. PW10/E, Ex.PW10/F, Ex.PW10/D, Ex.PW10/G and Ex. PW10/G1 at point A. He further deposed that his statement was recorded by the IO at the PS. He also identified the mobile phone make FORME as Ex.P1. In the cross-examination, he stated that his duty time were from 9.00 am to 11.00 pm and he was told verbally to join the investigation. Accused was arrested at 11.50 am. He, alongwith HC Amarpal, SI Vishnu and IO, was present at the time of arrest of the accused. He further stated, that first documents prepared by the IO was arrest memo, thereafter, the personal search memo, seizure memo and disclosure statement of the accused were prepared. The doctor's tape and plastic box were available with the IO in the IO kit. His statement was recorded by the IO, at PS, at about 05.00 and 6.00 pm. He further stated that, in the personal search of accused Rajveer, one brown colour purse, containing his driving licence and some visiting cards, one bag of blue and gray colour, containing new clothes, like, sweaters and one yellow colour ring were found. It took about one hour to the IO, in preparation of the documents, at the PS. They reached at Chippivada at 2.00 pm, which is a walking distance from the PS.
28. PW-14, Ms Ashu Jain, is the material witness in this case. She is the daughter of deceased, Vir Sen Jain, and she deposed that her father, Vir Sen Jain, was having saree shop, namely, Giriraj Textiles at Nai Sarak, Chandni Chowk, Delhi, and, after the death of her mother, her father was residing with her brother, Sh Sachin Jain, at his house situated at Nirman Vihar. She further SC No.06/15 State Vs Rajveer etc Pages 16/58 deposed that they were having their ancestral house, bearing no. 2470, Gali Mandir Wali, Chhipiwara, Delhi and the said house, used to remain locked, but, as her father used to remain ill, he used to come to this house to take rest, and, as and when her father used to come to the house, he used to give a telephone call to her to come to house for Saturdays and Sundays. She further deposed that, on 09.11.2014, at about 1.45 pm, her father called her on telephone and she told that, she would be reaching house at chhipiwara, after about half an hour, after giving food to her children. At about 2.45/3.00 pm, she reached to the house at Chhipiwara, by rickshaw and she pressed the main door of the house and the same got opened, as it was not locked from inside. She saw that, her father was lying on the sofa in the room and was bleeding from his nose. She felt that, may be, condition of her father has got worsened. She saw accused Rajveer in the house standing near the feet of her father and other accused Sarvesh was standing near the head of her father. She further deposed that she knew accused Rajveer, as, he, earlier, worked as a driver with her brother, Sachin Jain, and had left the job after about one and a half year, before the date of the incident. However, Rajveer used to visit her father, even after leaving the job, as a driver. She further deposed that other accused, Sarvesh, was not known to her from earlier and had come to know about his identity, during investigation. She made inquiry from accused Rajveer as to whether he has called some doctor or not but he did not reply to her and she saw that accused Rajveer and other accused started leaving the house and she made inquiry as to why they were leaving, in that situation, they did not respond to her question. She noticed that accused Rajveer was carrying one back pack whereas, other accused Sarvesh was carrying blue colour bag of their shop. Both of them, thereafter, escaped from the house, after pushing her. She further saw that one white colour angocha was tied around the neck of her father, which was not of her father . The said angocha was untied by her. She rubbed the chest of her father and helped him, in taking some SC No.06/15 State Vs Rajveer etc Pages 17/58 water. She also gave a telephone call to her brother, Sachin, when she went outside towards gate of the house, she saw that the gate was bolted from outside. She tried to open the gate. Thereafter, she started, looking after her father. She also informed other family members. After sometime, Sandeep, friend of Sachin, also arrived in the house, by opening the gate alongwith a wheel chair. She also made a call at no.100 to the police. Her father was brought upto IP School, Jama Masjid, on wheel chair, from where he was brought to Sant Parmanand hospital, in an auto rickshaw. Her brother Sachin and other family members, arrived at Sant Parmanand Hospital. Her father was declared dead, in the hospital.
29. PW14, Ashu Jain, further deposed that her brother Sachin told her that, on the date of the incident, her father had taken a cash amount of Rs. 6 lac from the shop. The police arrived at Sant Parmanand Hospital. She, alongwith the police, came to the house, at Chhipiwara, where police noticed one white colour angocha, one helmet, one pair of black colour gents sandal, lying in the same room. She told to the police officer that those items did not belong to her father. All the items were seized by the police officials, vide seizure memo Ex.PW10/A. The police also seized blood stained bed sheet and cushion from the sofa, lying in the room, vide memo Ex.PW10/B. Thereafter, they, alongwith police, made search for a sum of Rs. 6 lacs brought by her father, on that day, from the shop but this amount was not found in the house. She identified her complaint given to the police as Ex.PW14/A, which bears her signature at point A. Crime team was called at the spot and they took photographs. She further deposed that, on 11.12.2014, she identified accused Sarvesh in TIP, at Tihar Jail. She identified her signature at point A, on TIP Proceedings, as Ex.PW14/B. She also identified the case property i.e. one black colour gents sandal as Ex.P1, one black colour helmet of make Safar, as Ex.P2, white angocha, which was tied around the neck of her father, as Ex.P3, one blood stained bed sheet and cushion as Ex.P4. This SC No.06/15 State Vs Rajveer etc Pages 18/58 witness also identified, both the accused persons, in the Court .
30. In the cross-examination, PW14, Ashu Jain, stated that when she entered the room, of her father, on the date of incident, she had seen that accused Rajveer was standing towards the feet of her father and he remained in the room for about 3-4 minutes, hardly. Accused Rajbir was wearing pant shirt but colour of the same she did not remember and she did not notice any blood stain on the clothes of accused Rajbir. Her father hardly drank a drop of water with her support. She further stated that her father was not having any godown or store, in the house, at Chhipiwara and her father was not keeping any articles of the shop in the house. The house used to be opened, normally on Saturday or Sunday, but, her father used to visit the house on other days also as and when he felt unwell. She further stated that call at no.100 was made by her, within 10 minutes. Her statement was recorded by the police, same day, around 10 pm, at PS and next day also. Her brother Sachin was not present in the room, where her statement was being recorded on the first day. On the first day, it took about half an hour in recording the statement. Crime team visited the house at chhipriwara in her presence, but she did not remember the time of their visit and crime team remained in the house for about one hour. She further told that, she visited the PS, regarding this case, about 2-3 times and her second statement was recorded, on 12.11.2014, but, she did not remember, who recorded her second statement and the time of recording of the same. She further stated that she saw that her father, was lying on the sofa and there was blood stains at cushion cover of the sofa and on his kurta. The blood was coming out from the nose of her father. Her father was not suffering from any ailment/illness and was having old age medical problems, like BP, sugar etc. She further deposed that no one was present at the chhipriwara house, as, it was locked by her at the time of leaving for hospital. They remained there for about half or one hour. No outsider had come there and SC No.06/15 State Vs Rajveer etc Pages 19/58 there were only police officials with them. She further deposed that she was not aware if, Rajveer, was not paid salary for several months by her brother Sachin. She did not know if accused, Rajveer, was not liked by her brother Sachin. She had not seen accused Rajveer, after leaving the job of her brother, prior to the date of the incident. She denied the suggestion that accused Sarvesh was not available at the spot and he was shown to her, after his arrest. This witness was re-examined by Ld Addl PP and she deposed that her first statement dated 09.11.2014 was signed statement, on which the FIR was registered. Her second statement was recorded U/s 161 Cr.PC, on the same day, whereas, on 11.12.2014 and, on 28.01.2015, her another statements were recorded by the police at the time, she had shown the house of chhipiwara to the draftsman and, on the date of judicial TIP of accused Sarvesh. Her first statement, dated 09.11.2014, was recorded at the spot and second statement, dated 09.11.2014, was recorded at the PS. The seizure memo ex.PW10/A and Ex.PW10/B bears her signature at point B and she had signed the said documents, on 09.11.2014, at chhipiwara house.
31 PW15, Sh Ram Pal, deposed that police had come to him at his village and, during those days, his wife was Gram Pradhan and, prior to her, he had been the Gram Pardhan of the village. The area of Sikanderpur is situated in the area, of which he had remained as Gram Pardhan. Police had made inquiry from him, regarding the son of Ram Kishan Bhimar and Ram Parkash, both residents of village Sikanderpur, namely, Rajveer and Sarvesh. He had shown houses of both the said persons to the police officials, by taking them to their houses. Police recorded his statement to this effect.
32. PW-16, Sachin Jain, is brother of the complainant, and son of deceased. He deposed that, he was having saree business at Nai Sarak, SC No.06/15 State Vs Rajveer etc Pages 20/58 Chandni Chowk, Delhi. After the death of his mother, his father was living with him, at Nirman Vihar. They were also having ancestral house, bearing No. 2470, Gali Mandirwali, Chippiwara, Delhi. His father, frequently, visited this house, for the purpose of rest. He further deposed that, on 09.11.2014, in the morning, his father, alongwith him, had come to the shop at Nai Sarak. At about 1.30 pm, his father had gone to the ancestral house at Chippiwara and he had carried with him one bag of blue colour, having the print, of shop i.e. Arun Vastra Bhandar, on it, containing Rs. 6 lacs. On 09.11.2014, at about 3.00 pm, he received the telephone call of his sister, who told him that some one has given beating to their father and asked him, to immediately come at chhipiwara house. He immediately left for the said house, in his car and, while sitting in car, he also informed his friend Sandeep, about the incident. Sandeep reached the house and it was found bolted from outside. He removed the bolt. PW16 further deposed that, when he was on the way to the house, he received a telephone call that his father was being removed to Sant Parmanand hospital. He then, went to said hospital and, in the hospital, his sister, his friend Sandeep and number of other persons met him. It was informed by the doctor that his father had expired. Statement of his sister was recorded by the police, in the hospital. After that, they had come to chhipiwara house and his sister, opened the lock of the house. From the room, in which his father was lying, one angocha, one helmet on the table and one pair of sandal, was lying on the floor, and, the said articles were seized by the police, as those articles were not belonging to them. There was also a blood stained bed sheet and a cushion, which were also seized by the police. PW16 identified his signature, at point C, on the seizure memo of helmet, sandal and angocha, which is Ex.PW10/A and, also, on seizure memo Ex.PW10/B of blood stained bed sheet and cushion. PW16 also proved the site plan as Ex.PW16/A, bearing his signature at point A and his sister's signature at point B. He further deposed that, on the next day, he had gone back to Sant Parmanand Hospital, where they SC No.06/15 State Vs Rajveer etc Pages 21/58 identified the dead body, vide memo Ex.PW16/B, bearing his signature at point A. Dead body was handed over to them, after the postmortem, vide receipt Ex.PW2/B, signed by him at point B. He further deposed that they, again, checked their ancestral house, on 12.11.2014 or 13.11.2014, and they found that one blue colour bag containing Rs. 25 lacs and cash amount of about Rs. 60/70 lacs, which their father was keeping in bed were also missing. They suspected that this amount was removed by accused Rajveer and his associate. They told this fact to the police and police recorded their statement. On 13.11.2015, at about 2.00-3.00 pm, accused Rajveer was brought, by police, to their Chhipiwara house, in his presence. Accused Rajveer pointed out the place of occurrence to the police, vide pointing out memo, Ex.PW10/G1, bearing his signature at point C. On 15.12.2014, co-accused, Sarvesh, was also brought by police to their Chhipiwara house, in his presence, and he pointed out the place of occurrence, to the police vide, pointing out memo Ex.PW16/C. On 08.01.2015, he went to PS Jama Masjid and told the IO that Rajveer had worked as driver with him for one and a half year and he had left the job on 06.08.2014 and he provided the document to the police, vide which, the full and final settlement of his dues, were made. The said receipt/compromise is Ex.PW16/D and bear his signature at point A. He also identified the signature of Rajveer, on the same, and signature of witnesses i.e. Vimal Tyagi and Ajit Kumar, at point B and C. He also told the police, regarding the fact, that his father was using mobile no. 9810566033, which was subscribed in his name on his ID by him and was given to his father for his use. PW16 also identified the case property one pair of black colour gents sandal as Ex.P1, one black colour helmet of make Safar as Ex.P2, white colour angocha as Ex.P3 and one blood stained bed sheet and cushion as Ex.P4.
33. In the cross-examination, PW16, Sachin Jain, stated that he and his father were running business together, however, he was sitting in another shop.
SC No.06/15 State Vs Rajveer etc Pages 22/58 Except Saturday and Sunday, his father used to go to shop and come to home with him. His driver, namely, Rajveer, till his service, used to take his father to their house, situated at chhippiwara, near Jama Masjid, on Saturday and Sunday. He used to visit at his house situated at Chhippiwara, near Jama Masjid, once or twice, in a month. No articles of their shop, like, sarees etc, were kept, in the house of Chhippiwara. They used to get clean the house, at Chhipiwara, by their employees or a permanent servant of his father, namely, Raju. His father had taken the money i.e. Rs. 6 lakhs, from the shop, where he used to sit. He had given Rs. 6 lakhs, to his father on the day of the incident, when he was present at the shop of Nai Sarak. He further stated that, statement of his sister, was recorded, in the Emergency ward of the hospital, when he reached at the hospital, police officials were already present there. At that time, police did not make any inquiry from him. He further stated that, statement of his sister, was recorded, by the police, in his presence. He alongwith his sister and other 2-3 police officials, left the hospital, at around 4.30 pm, for his house at chhippiwara. Police did not record his statement, on that day, at his aforesaid house. No other person were examined by the police at that time. He further stated that he could not say, if he had signed any papers, in the PS, during his visit at PS. His brother, Arun Jain, had also accompanied him, once to the police station. On the other occasions, he visited the PS alone.
34 PW16, Sachin Jain, further stated that his brother is running his business separately. He also resides separately, in the area of Rohini. His brother Arun started residing separately, since 2005. Earlier, his brother was doing business with them. Since 1994, he started his business separately. No quarrel had taken place between him and his brother, at any point of time. On 15.11.2014, he visited the house, at Chhippiwara, alongwith, police officials and accused Rajveer. On that day, police interrogated accused Rajveer and he had signed the papers.
SC No.06/15 State Vs Rajveer etc Pages 23/58 He further stated that accused Rajveer had worked for one and half years, as his driver. He left the job, in the month of August, 2014 of his own. There was no altercation between him and accused Rajveer, during his employment with him. When he checked his house at chhippiwara, he found that approximately 60-70 lacs were missing. The said money was kept in the box of bed. He had seen the said money, while it was lying in the box of bed. The said money was kept in the bag and the said bag was kept in the box of the bed.
35 PW17, Dr Prashant Kumar, proved the medical report of accused Rajvir, as Ex.PW17/A, bearing his signature at point A. 36 PW-18, SI Rupesh Kumar, was Incharge Crime Team, Central District and, on 09.11.2015, he, alongwith fingerprint proficient Inderjeet and photographer Ct Pramod reached at 2470, Chhipiwara, near Jama Masjid, at about 6.05 pm, he inspected the spot and, on his instructions, the photographer took photographs of the site and finger printer proficient lifted the chance prints from the helmet found at the spot. He prepared the report and proved the same as Ex.PW18/A and identified his signature at point A. In the cross-examination, this witness stated that two public persons i.e. one lady and one gentleman were present at the spot, when they reached there. Firstly, they had reached at PS Jama Masjid, from where one constable accompanied them to the spot. He further stated that 3-4 persons were also present at the spot, when they reached there. Photographer had taken 13 photographs of the scene of crime. He further stated that his statement was recorded, same day, in the PS, and, in his presence, the statement of ASI Inderjeet and Ct Parmod were recorded by the IO. He further stated that helmet was found, on the centre table, lying in front of sofa.
37. PW-19, SI Vishnu Dutt, deposed that, on the directions of ACP, he went in search of accused in the area of Etah, UP, and had apprehended SC No.06/15 State Vs Rajveer etc Pages 24/58 accused Rajveer, on 12.11.2014, from Village Punchpura, district Etah, on the basis of the secret information. PW-19 handed over the custody of accused Rajveer, alongwith one mobile phone and one bag containing clothes, which was recovered from the possession of accused, to Inspector Prashant Kumar, on 13.11.2014. In the cross-examination, this witness stated that he had left for Etah, in search of accused, without IO of the case or any other witness, relating to the case. Secret informer had informed that accused Rajveer was hiding at his maternal uncle's house, who resides in Etah Village Punchpura. When they reached, at the house of his maternal uncle, they were informed that accused Rajveer had gone towards field and he was apprehended, while he was running in the field.
38. PW20, Ct Sher Singh, was alongwith IO, in the investigation, on 04.12.2014, and, on that day, IO sought custody of accused, Rajveer, from Court and took him to Aruna Asaf Ali hospital and IO collected the pullandas form hospital, which was seized, vide memo Ex.PW20/A.
39. PW21, Ct Rabish Kumar deposed that, on 22.12.2014, on the directions of the IO, he took the sealed pullanda, containing viscera and sample seal from Malkhana of PS Jama Masjid to FSL, Rohini, vide RC No. 228/21/14, and deposited the same with FSL Rohini and handed over the copy of the acknowledgment and road certificate to MHC(M).
40. PW22, Ct Nand Singh, deposed that, on 13.12.2014, he was alongwith IO Inspector Parveen Kumar, and obtained PC Remand of accused Sarvesh and took accused to LNJP hospital for his medical examination, and blood sample was handed over to the IO, in sealed pullanda, which was taken into possession vide Ex.PW22/A. SC No.06/15 State Vs Rajveer etc Pages 25/58
41. PW23, ASI Anuj, had joined the investigation with IO Inspector Parveen Kumar, on 09.12.2014. He has proved the arrest memo of accused Sarvesh Ex.PW23/A, his disclosure statement Ex.PW23/B, bearing his signature at point A, on both the memos. This witness, again joined, the investigation of the present case, on 14.12.2014, alongwith Inspector Parveen Kumar, Ct. Sunil and Ct. Prahlad and he further proved the disclosure statement of accused Sarvesh, as Ex.PW23/C, having his signature at point A. This witness further deposed that, during interrogation, accused disclosed that, after committing murder, and, robbery, he took part of the robbed money to his native place Sikandarpur and the said money with his wearing shirt were kept in his house underneath the Chakki. Accordingly, Inspector Parveen Kumar formed a team consisting of him, Ct. Sunil, Ct. Prahlad and Ajit Kumar, employee of the deceased, under his supervision. They went to Sikandarpur, District Farukhabad, U.P., in a private vehicle and the said vehicle was parked in the field of village Sikandarpur and they, alongwith, accused Sarvesh, reached at his house, at his instance.
42. PW-23, ASI Anuj, has further deposed that they entered the house of accused Sarvesh and on the left side of the main door of his house, there was a chakki. PW23, ASI Anuj, further deposed that he removed the chakki from that place with the help of Ct. Prahlad, two bricks were found underneath the said chakki. He also removed the said two bricks and found two thaila, one thaila was containing words 'Arun Vastra Bhandar'. It was checked and found Rs.1,51,000/-. All currency notes were of 500 denomination. In the second thaila, one cream colour shirt was found, on both hands of the said shirt, blood stains were there. After counting the said money, it was kept in the said thaila and pullanda of the said thaila was made and sealed with the seal of JM III. Similarly, the shirt was kept in this thaila and pullanda was made and sealed with the seal of SC No.06/15 State Vs Rajveer etc Pages 26/58 JM-III. Accused Sarvesh told them that he was wearing the said shirt, on the day of the incident. Both pullandas were taken into possession, vide seizure memo, Ex.PW9/E, bearing his signature at point B. IO, Inspector Parveen, prepared the site plan of the place of recovery i.e. already Ex.PW9/F and bearing his signature at point B. IO took the photograph, of the said place by his mobile phone. PW23 further deposed that one voter slip was also found in the thaila of money, the same was also kept in the said thaila. Thereafter, they came to the aforesaid vehicle with both pullandas and accused and they returned to Delhi .
43. PW23, ASI Anuj, further deposed that he, again, joined the investigation, on 15.12.2014, alongwith IO Inspector Parveen Kumar and accused was taken out from the lock-up and accused led them to H.No.2740, Bara Chhippiwara, Chandni Chowk, Delhi. Accused pointed out the said house, as the place of occurrence, vide pointing out memo, already Ex.PW16/C, which bore his signature at point B. On 17.12.2014, accused was taken out from the lock-up and was interrogated by the IO and accused disclosed that he had given Rs.2,50,000/- from the robbed money to his brother Devender. IO recorded his disclosure statement, Ex.PW23/D, bearing his signature at point A. Thereafter, he alongwith IO and aforesaid police officials and Ajit Kumar went to village Sikandarpur in search of Devender, brother of accused Sarvesh and made search of Devender but he could not be found. PW23 also identified the case property i.e. shirt of accused Sarvesh as Ex.P8. The recovered currency notes were released on 23.02.15 and the relevant copy of register no.19 was proved as Ex.PW23/E. In the cross-examination, this witness had denied all the suggestions put to him.
44. PW24, HC Ramroop, had proved the copy of entry made in register no.19 at serial no. 1314, 1315, 1319, 1324, 1326, 1344, 1357, 1359 as Ex.PW24/A, Ex.PW24/B, Ex.PW24/C, Ex.PW24/D, Ex.PW24/E, Ex.PW24/F, SC No.06/15 State Vs Rajveer etc Pages 27/58 Ex.PW24/G and Ex.PW23/C, respectively, regarding, the deposition of case property in malkhana, on different dates. He further deposed that, on 22.12.2014, the viscera box and sample seal were sent to FSL Rohini, through Ct Rabish, Vide RC no. 228/21/14 and similarly, on 23.12.2014, nine sealed parcels were also sent to FSL Rohini, through Ct Rabish, Vide RC no. 230/21/14 and he proved the relevant copies of Ex.PW24/H and Ex.PW24/J. This witness also produced the register no.19 of the year 2015, of PS Jama Masjid, regarding the release of cash amount of 22,21000/- to Sachin Jain and entry in this regard was made at Sr no. 787 and he proved the copy of same as Ex.PW24/K. Further, on 21.11. 2015, he released the motorcycle no. DL 5S BV 5315 to Shivkanti, wife of accused Rajveer, vide, order of the Court, and, he made entry at point B and proved the same as Ex.PW24/K. In the cross-examination, nothing material came out from his cross-examination.
45. PW 25, ASI Sonu Kaushik, deposed that he was posted as draughtsman and he, on 28.01.2015, alongwith IO Inspector Parveen Kumar visited at the spot i.e. H. No. 2470, Gali Mandir Wali, Bara Chhipiwara, Jama Masjid, Delhi, where he took the measurement of the spot, in the presence of Ashu Jain and the IO and prepared rough notes measurement and, on the basis of the same, he prepared scaled site plan and proved the same as Ex.PW25/A. In the cross-examination, he stated that the measurement was taken, at the instance of Smt Ashu Jain and IO Inspector Parveen Kumar.
46. PW26, Sh Shishir Malhotra, Nodal officer Aircel Ltd, deposed that he had given document pertaining to mobile phone no. 7053902414, mentioned in his letter Ex. PW26/A, to the police, after receiving the notice of the IO. He further proved customer application form, which was in the name of Shivkanti w/o Rajveer, R/o 137, Gitanjali Vihar, Ghaziabad, as Ex.PW26/B and he also proved SC No.06/15 State Vs Rajveer etc Pages 28/58 the voter I card of the applicant, as Ex.PW26/C. He also proved the call detail of said mobile phone no for the period, from 08.11.2014 to 09.11.2014, as Ex.PW26/D. He proved the certificate issued by him, U/s 65 Evidence Act, as Ex.PW26/E and cell ID location chart, as Ex.PW26/F.
47. PW27, ASI Amar Nath Verma, had recorded the DD no. 17A, on receipt of telephone call, from PCR operator, regarding quarrel and sent the same to ASI Jai Narain through Ct Rahul for necessary action. He proved the copy of original DD as Ex.PW27/A.
48. PW28, Sh Sachin Sangwan, Ld MM, had conducted the TIP of accused Sarvesh Kumar and he proved his order-sheet as Ex.PW28/A. He deposed that witness, Smt Ashu Jain, had correctly identified the accused in the TIP proceedings, Ex.PW14/B and he proved his signature on the same at point B and signature of Ashu Jain at point A.
49. PW29, Sh Ajay Kumar Malik, Ld MM, deposed that he had recorded the statement of both the accused persons, regarding refusal of polygraphy and Narco Analysis test. He proved the application, moved by the IO, regarding the test of both the accused persons as Ex.PW29/A, the proceedings running into three pages, as Ex.PW29/B, and, the application for receiving the copies as Ex.PW29/C.
50. PW30 Inspector, Praveen Kumar, was the IO of the case. He deposed that, on 09.11.2014, he was posted at PS Jama Masjid as Inspector and on that day, DD no.22A was marked to him by Duty Officer on the directions of SHO, PS Jama Masjid, for further necessary action. At around 4.35 p.m., he, alongwith HC Amar Pal and Ct. Sachin, left the police station to go to Sant Parmanand Hospital, from where the information was received. He, alongwith, SC No.06/15 State Vs Rajveer etc Pages 29/58 HC Amarpal, and, Ct. Sachin, reached at Sant Parmanand Hospital, at around 5.00 p.m and met with complainant Ashu Jain and his brother Sachin Jain and he came to know that deceased Vir Sen Jain was brought in the hospital but he was declared as brought dead by the concerned doctor, who had attended the patient. He also met with ASI Jai Narain, who had already received one DD entry, regarding the abovesaid person, namely, Vir Sen Jain. He collected the MLC Ex.PW5/A and recorded the statement of Ashu Jain, which is Ex.PW14/A and prepared the rukka. After that, he, alongwith Ashu Jain, Sachin Jain, HC Amar Pal, ASI Jai Narain went to the place of incident at 2470, Bara Chhippiwara, Jama Masjid. Ct. Sachin was instructed to remain in hospital with dead body. Dead body was also examined by him, before leaving the hospital.
51. PW-30, Inspector, Praveen Kumar, further deposed that Ashu Jain, opened the lock of the house. Crime Team was already informed by him and Crime Team arrived at around 7.00 p.m. Crime Team inspected the crime scene and took the photographs from different angles. They also lifted chance prints, from the helmet, which was found at the spot and, it was informed by complainant that, same belonged to the accused persons. They also found one gamchha and one pair of sandals/chappals. The abovesaid helmet, gamchha, one pair of sandals/chappals, were taken into police possession, vide seizure memo already Ex.PW10/A, bearing his signature, at point D. Two bedsheets, one pillow, one cushion, having blood stains were taken into police possession, vide memo, already Ex.PW10/B, bearing his signature at point D. He prepared rukka, which is Ex.PW30/A, and, handed over the same to HC Amarpal, at the place of incident with instructions to go to PS, Jama Masjid, and got register the FIR. He, accordingly, went to PS Jama Masjid. In the meantime, he prepared site plan, at the instance of the complainant, Ex.PW16/A. At around 11.00 p.m., HC Amar Pal came back at the place of incident with copy of FIR, with original rukka, and, SC No.06/15 State Vs Rajveer etc Pages 30/58 handed over the same to him. He mentioned the FIR number on already prepared documents i.e. seizure memo and site plan. He recorded statements of public witnesses and came back to PS. He also recorded the statement of police witnesses and case property was deposited in malkhana. PW30 further deposed that, on the next day, i.e. 10.11.2014, he prepared one application for shifting of dead body from Sant Parmanand Hospital to MAMC Hospital and, handed over the application to HC Amar Pal for necessary action. He, accordingly, went to Sant Parmanand Hospital and got the dead body shifted to MAMC. He went to MAMC Hospital and recorded the statement of Sachin Jain and Arun Jain, regarding the identification of dead body. The postmortem examination was conducted at his request, at the above-said MAMC Hospital and, after postmortem examination, dead body was handed over to relatives, vide handing over memo Ex.PW2/B. Rs.770/- which were found in the wearing kurta of deceased were handed over to Sachin Jain, vide handing over memo, Ex.PW2/B1. Five sealed pullandas, sealed with the seal of hospital, were handed over to him, by the concerned doctor and same were taken into police possession, vide memo Ex.PW10/C. The abovesaid sealed pullandas were containing viscera, clothes of deceased, blood on gauge, neck strapping, nail clippings of the deceased. After handing over the dead body to the relatives of the deceased, they came back to the PS. PW30 further deposed that he proceeded on leave and the file was handed over to another officer for further investigation. He, again, joined his duties and investigation of the present case was again marked to him. On 04.12.2014, he moved an application for taking the blood sample of the accused Rajveer, who was running in JC, and was arrested by the previous IO, during his leave. Accused, Rajveer, was produced before Ld. M.M. of the concerned PS and the accused was taken to Aruna Asaf Ali Hospital, for taking the blood sample of the accused. At Aruna Asaf Ali Hospital, blood sample of the accused, was taken by the concerned doctor and same was handed over to PW20, in sealed SC No.06/15 State Vs Rajveer etc Pages 31/58 condition, who prepared the seizure memo Ex.PW20/A. During the investigation, he came to know that accused ,Sarvesh, was lodged at Ferozabad Jail, U.P. and he moved an application for the production of abovesaid accused and, accordingly, he was produced on 09.12.2014. He interrogated the abovesaid accused and recorded his disclosure statement Ex.PW23/B and he was arrested, after permission of the court, vide memo Ex.PW23/A, bearing his signature at point B. He moved an application for fixing the TIP of accused, before Ld. M.M., and, same was allowed. The TIP of the accused was fixed for 11.12.2014 at Tihar Jail. On 11.12.2014, the accused was identified in TIP proceeding by complainant Ashu Jain. He obtained the copy of TIP proceedings, which is Ex.PW14/B.
52. PW30, Inspector Praveen Kumar, further deposed that, on 13.12.2014, he obtained PC remand of accused Sarvesh, and, during PC remand, accused was taken to JPN Hospital, where the blood sample of the accused was taken and it was handed over to PW30 and he prepared the seizure memo Ex.PW22/A. On 14.12.2014, the accused was, again, interrogated and his disclosure statement was recorded as Ex.PW23/C. In disclosure statement, the accused had disclosed that he had hidden one blue colour bag, alongwith, his wearing shirt, at his native place at village Sikandarpur, PS Mohammadabad, District Farukhabad, U.P. As per this witness, he had obtained the permission of senior officers to go to Farukhabad, U.P., alongwith accused. On 14.12.2014, he, alongwith accused Sarvesh, HC Anuj, public witness, Ajit, and other staff went to Farukhabad, U.P. They went to village Sikandarpur, PS Mohammadabad, at the house of accused and accused Sarvesh led them to the corner of left side of his house, where, one Atta Chakki of stone was kept. The Atta Chakki was removed and they had found that some bricks were there under the Atta Chakki. After digging out the bricks, one polythene and one carry bag was found. The polythene was printed with the words 'Modern Electronic & Gift SC No.06/15 State Vs Rajveer etc Pages 32/58 Centre'. The polythene was opened and it was found having one cream colour shirt, which was worn by the accused, at the time of incident, as told by accused, Sarvesh. The carry bag, which was recovered, at the instance of accused, Sarvesh, was also opened up and it was found containing Rs.1,51,000/- in the shape of denomination of Rs.500/- x 302. One old voter slip of the deceased, Vir Sen Jain, was also recovered from the abovesaid carry bag. The carry bag was printed with words 'Arun Vastra Bhandar'. The abovesaid articles were kept in two separate pullandas and sealed with the seal of JM-III. The abovesaid pullandas were taken into police possession, vide memo Ex.PW9/E. PW30 also prepared site plan of recovery which is Ex.PW9/F. After that, they came back to Delhi. On 15.12.2014, at the instance of accused, he prepared, pointing out memo Ex.PW16/C. On 30.01.2015, the scaled site plan was prepared by Draughtsman, Sonu Kaushik, at the request of PW30, thereafter, he prepared the charge-sheet and filed it before Ld. M.M. During investigation, PW30 collected the DD no.17A, dated 06.08.2015, Ex.PW30/B, DD no.21A, dated 06.08.2015, Ex.PW30/C and DD no.11A, dated 12.08.2015, Ex.PW30/D and filed the same with the charge- sheet. He also identified the case property, recovered by him, during his evidence, i.e. one pair sandal as Ex.P1. One helmet make SAFAR as Ex.P2, one white colour towel as Ex.P3. One blood stained bed sheet, one another bed sheet (odhne ki chadar), one pillow and one cushion as Ex.P4. one shirt of cream colour having some cuts, brownish stains of accused Sarvesh as Ex.P8. One voter slip, in the name of Viru Mal Jain, and one bag as Ex.P9. Relevant copy of register no.19 as Ex.PW23/E and he further stated that as per the said document, the currency notes recovered from accused Sarvesh was released, on 23.02.2015.
53. In the cross-examination, PW30, Inspector Praveen Kumar, deposed that, on 09.11.2014, at about 5.00 p.m, he came to know that Vir Sen Jain had SC No.06/15 State Vs Rajveer etc Pages 33/58 died, at 5.00 p.m. itself and he collected the MLC. He denied the suggestion that size of the shirt, recovered from the house of accused Sarvesh, was not of his size. He further stated that total recovery, in this case, was approximately Rs.22 lacs to Rs.23 lacs and he admitted that Ex.P9 was the only bag, mentioned by the complainant, in her complaint. He denied the suggestion that the recovered currency notes, of Rs.22 lacs to Rs.23 lacs, could not be kept in the bag Ex.P9. This witness further deposed that the size of the bag is 1 ft. x 9 inches x 6 inches. He further admitted that complainant, Ashu Jain, told him that accused, Rajveer, worked as a driver, under the employment of his younger brother, Sachin Jain, and he used to meet her father, whenever, her father made visit at the house at Chhippiwara. He further stated that he remained in PS Jama Masjid for three & half hours. The shops in the area of PS Jama Masjid were not closed, on any day. The day of the incident i.e. 09.11.2014 was Sunday. This witness further admitted that Vir Sen Jain used to visit the shop of Sachin Jain and Arun Vastra Bhandar belonged to Sachin Jain. He further admitted that, on the day of incident, the said shop was open and further admitted that house, at Chhippiwara, was situated in a congested area. The traffic moves in that area, at 10-20 km per hour, during day time, between 10.00 a.m. to 6.00 p.m. He further stated that he reached at the spot, at around 7.00 p.m, he met with Ashu Jain and his brother, Sachin Jain, in the hospital. Arun Jain, brother of Sachin Jain, did not meet him, in the hospital, nor, he met him at the spot, on that day. However, Arun Jain, met him in MAMC Hospital, on 10.11.2014. He further deposed that, when he reached at the spot, Ashu Jain opened the lock of the main gate. Thereafter, they entered into the house. He did not make any inquiry about number of keys of the said house. He further stated that complainant, Ashu Jain, resides in Daryaganj and distance from her house to spot could be covered in a rickshaw within 15 minutes. Two bedsheets, one pillow, one cushion and one angochha were lying on the big four seater sofa, kept in the room. There was a double bed, in the said SC No.06/15 State Vs Rajveer etc Pages 34/58 room, where that sofa was lying. There were another single seater sofa and one table lying in the room. Complainant, Ashu Jain, told him that, when, she entered in the room, accused Rajveer was in that room. The size of the room was 20 x 10 ft. approximately. This witness deposed that the complainant had not stated, in the complaint, that she had seen the accused persons, while committing the murder. He could not say, if accused, Rajveer, stayed for 5 minutes, after reaching of the complainant, at the spot. However, complainant talked with accused Rajveer for some moment. This witness further denied the suggestion that accused persons did not try to flee away, from the spot, after seeing complainant, Ashu Jain. During interrogation, accused persons told him that they had come to meet deceased, Vir Sen Jain, for their job. This witness admitted that accused Rajveer used to visit the deceased, occasionally, for the purpose of revival of his job. He denied the suggestion that accused told him that when he reached, at the spot, deceased was in the condition, as told by the complainant. This witness further deposed that complainant Ashu Jain told him that accused Rajveer was sitting near the feet of her father. He denied the suggestion that accused Rajveer, was pressing/rubbing the feet of deceased or accused Sarvesh was rubbing the head of the deceased or that when complainant reached, both the accused told her to take deceased to hospital, as his condition was not well.
54. PW31, Ms. Sunita Gupta, Sr. Scientific Officer (Biology), had examined the nine pullandas. She proved her report, as Ex.PW31/A, wherein she mentioned the detail of parcels/pullandas. She further deposed that blood was detected on the exhibits 1a (bedsheet), 1b (bedsheet), 1c (pillow), 1d (cushion), 2 (towel/angochha), 3a (kurta), 3b (pajama), 3c (underwear), 4 (blood stained gauge cloth piece of deceased), 5 (shirt of accused Rajveer), 6 (shirt of accused Sarvesh), 7 (nail clippings of deceased), 8 (blood gauge of accused Rajveer) and 9 (blood sample of accused Sarvesh). She further deposed that during, DNA SC No.06/15 State Vs Rajveer etc Pages 35/58 examination, DNA profile generated, from the source of exhibits 1a, 1b, 1c, 1d (bedsheets, pillow & cushion from spot), 2 (towel from spot), 3a, 3b, 3c (clothes of deceased), 5 (shirt of accused Rajveer), 6 (shirt of accused Sarvesh) & 7 (nail clippings of deceased's hand), is found to be similar with DNA profile generated, from the source of exhibit 4 (blood stained gauge cloth piece of deceased). After the examination, she prepared her, report Ex.PW13/A, bearing her signature at point A. Remnants were packed and sealed with the seal of SG FSL DELHI.
55 PW32, Sh.Chander Shekhar, Nodal Officer, Bharti Airtel, Ltd, deposed that he was working as Nodal Officer in Bharti Airtel Ltd., since 2013. In response to notice U/s 91 Cr.P.C. pertaining to case, FIR no.269/2014, PS Jama Masjid, issued by Inspector Parveen Kumar, he had submitted the CDR and CAF of three mobile phones bearing no.9810566033, 9871801243 and 9559680332 to the IO of that case.The mobile phone no.9810566033 was postpaid connection and in the name of Sachin Jain S/o Viru Mal Jain. The SIM of the said mobile number was issued on the basis of the driving license of Sachin Jain. He produced the original CAF and proved the photocopy of the same as Ex.PW32/A, photocopy of the driving license as Ex.PW32/B. He further deposed that he had also given the CDR of the aforesaid mobile phone for the period, from 08.11.2014 to 09.11.2014, as Ex.PW32/C.
56. PW-32, Sh Chander Shekhar, further deposed that, mobile phone no.9871801243, was prepaid connection and in the name of Ashu Jain W/o Yogesh Jain. The SIM of the said mobile number was issued on the basis of the voter ID card of Ashu Jain. He produced the the original CAF and proved the photocopy of the same, as Ex.PW32/D, photocopy of the voter ID card as Ex.PW32/E. He had also given the CDR of the aforesaid mobile phone for the period, from 08.11.2014 to 09.11.2014, as Ex.PW32/F, which bears seal of the company and his initial at point A. SC No.06/15 State Vs Rajveer etc Pages 36/58
57. He further deposed that the mobile phone no.9559680332 was prepaid connection, and, in the name of Prem Lata D/o Daya Parsad Singh. The SIM of the aforesaid phone was issued to Dharam Raj, in the year 2010, and, before 2013, the aforesaid connection, in the name of, Dharam Raj, was deactivated. The SIM of the said mobile number 9559680332 was issued in the name of Prem Lata D/o Daya Parsad Singh, in the year 2013, on the basis of the voter ID card. He produced the original CAF and proved the photocopy of the same, as Ex.PW32/G and photocopy of the voter ID card as Ex.PW32/H. Both bearing seal of the company and his initials at point A, on each page. He had also given the CDR of the aforesaid mobile phone, for the period from, 08.11.2014 to 09.11.2014, as Ex.PW32/J, which bears seal of the company and his initial at point A. He downloaded the aforesaid CDRs from his system for which, he had issued requisite certificate, U/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act, and, proved the same as Ex.PW32/K, which bears seal of the company and his signature at point A. He also submitted the Cell ID chart reflected tower ID, in the CDR of the aforesaid mobile phone. He proved the Cell ID Chart, as Ex.PW32/L, which bears seal of the company and his initial at point A.
58. PW-33, ASI Jai Narain deposed that, on 09.11.2014, he was on emergency duty, from 8.00 am to 8.00 pm, and, on that day, at around 3.30 pm, he received DD no.17A Ex.PW27/A and, upon receipt of said DD, he alongwith Ct Rahul Tyagi reached at H. No. 2470 Chhippiwara, Jama Masjid, where they found that main door of the house was closed. He made enquiry, in the locality, and, came to know that injured was shifted to Sant Parmanand Hospital. After knowing the said fact, he, alongwith, Ct Rahul Tyagi, reached at Sant Parmanand Hospital . After some time, police officials came there. He, alongwith Inspector Praveen, went to the emergency ward of the said hospital and came to know that SC No.06/15 State Vs Rajveer etc Pages 37/58 injured, Vir Sen Jain, had expired. Inspector Praveen received the MLC of the deceased and inspected the dead body and filled up the inquest form Ex.PW33/A, in his presence. PW33 further deposed that Inspector Praveen made enquiry from Ashu Jain, daughter of deceased and Sachin Jain, son of deceased, and, returned to the spot i.e. H. No. 2470 Chhippiwara, Jama Masjid. The door was got opened and crime team was also called. Inspector Praveen inspected the spot. Crime team also reached and took the photographs and crime team officials also inspected the scene of crime. In the room, there was a four seater sofa, two seater sofa and one centre table. One pair sandal was also lying in the said room. Pullanda of the said pair of sandal was made, sealed with the seal of JM-II and said pullanda was marked as Sr . No.1 One black colour helmet was on the centre table. Pullanda of the said helmet was made, sealed with the seal of JM-II and said pullanda was marked as Sr. No. 2. On the four seater sofa, there was one gamchha. Pullanda of the said gamchha was made, sealed with the seal of JM-II and said pullanda was marked as Sr. No.3. Aforesaid three pullandas were taken into possession, vide seizure memo Ex.PW10/A. PW33 further deposed that, on the four seater sofa, there were blood stained two bedsheets, one pillow and one cushion. IO prepared the pullanda of the said blood stained bedsheet, pillow and cushion and sealed with the seal of JM-II. The said pullanda was marked as Sr.No.4 and was taken into possession, vide seizure memo, Ex.PW10/B, bearing his signature at point B. Thereafter, Inspector Praveen recorded the statement of Ashu Jain and prepared the rukka and handed over the same to HC Amar Pal, who was at the spot, with them. HC Amar Pal went away to the PS and got registered the FIR. After registration of the FIR, he returned at the spot, with copy of FIR and, rukka, and handed over the same to Inspector Praveeen. Inspector Praveen prepared the site plan and from the spot, he returned to PS, where IO deposited the case property in malkhana.
SC No.06/15 State Vs Rajveer etc Pages 38/58
59. PW34, Inspector Prashant Kumar, deposed that, on 12.11.2014, he was posted at PS Jama Masjid as Inspector and, on that day, investigation of the present case was marked to him and he recorded the statement of Sachin Jain and, on 13.11.2014, he was present in the PS and SI Vishnu Dutt, PS Chandni Mahal, handed over the custody of accused Rajveer to him, alongwith, one mobile phone, recovered from accused Rajveer. He seized the mobile phone, vide memo Ex.PW10/D, after sealing the same with the seal of JM II, which bore his signature at point A. He interrogated accused, Rajveer, and, arrested him, vide memo Ex.PW10E, and took his personal search vide memo Ex.PW10/F. He also recorded the disclosure statement, vide Ex.PW10/G, in which accused disclosed about the commission of offence, alongwith, his associate, Sarvesh, and further told that he could get recovered the case property. He took the five days PC remand of accused and, on the same day, during the evening, accused Rajveer took them to the place of occurrence, and pointed out the place of offence, vide pointing out memo, Ex.PW10/G1. This witness further deposed that he recorded the statement of all the relevant witnesses, U/s 161 Cr.PC, and, thereafter, he, alongwith HC Amarpal, HC Anuj, Ct Prahlad, Ct Sunil, one Ajit Kumar, representative of Sachin Jain, alongwith, accused, Rajveer, went to Farukhabad, UP, in the search of co-accused Sarvesh and for recovery of case property. Accused, Rajveer, led them to his house situated, at village Secunder Pur, Distt. Ferozabad UP. The door of the house was locked and accused Rajvir procured the keys from his father, who, was residing nearby house, and the lock was opened and they all entered in the house. There was an almirah in a room and accused opened the locker of the almirah, where one bag, on which Aggarwal Hosiery was written, was recovered. The said bag was opened, in which another bag was found in it. On the second bag, the word 'Arun Vastra Bhandar' was written. It was also opened, and it was found having cash and on counting, it was SC No.06/15 State Vs Rajveer etc Pages 39/58 found Rs. 20,70,000/- of denominations 38 wads of Rs. 500/- one wad of Rs.1000/-, 60 notes of Rs. 1000/- and 20 notes of Rs. 500 were found. In the said bag, one visiting card was also found, on which 'Sachin Jain' and 'Arun Vastra Bhandar' was written. The recovered cash and the visiting card were put, in the same bag, in the same manner, as it was opened and a parcel was prepared, after wrapping the same in a white colour cloth, and, sealed with the seal of JM II. The said parcel was seized, vide seizure memo, already Ex.PW9/A. PW34 prepared the site plan of the recovery of the above mentioned case property, vide Ex.PW9/B. All the proceedings were duly photographed which is already Ex.PW10/H, Ex.PWPW10/H1 to Ex.PW10/H6. Thereafter, they came back to Delhi with case property and accused and case property was deposed in the malkhana.
60. PW34, Inspector Prashant Kumar, further deposed that, on 15.11.2014, he, alongwith HC Amarpal, HC Anuj, Ct Sunil, Ct Prehlad and Ajeet Kumar, again departed for the investigation from the police station with accused Rajveer, and they made search of accused Sarvesh, in the district Farukhabad, Eta, Mainpuri, in UP, but in vain. On 17.11.2014, accused Rajveer led them to house, in Gali no.6, Geetanjali Vihar, Loni, Ghaziabad, where one motorcycle, bearing registration No., DL 5SB V 5315, of make platina was standing. Accused brought the key from inside his house and opened the dickey of motorcycle, and one blood stained shirt, having white and sky blue stripes, one pay slip, issued by M/s Arun Vastra Bhandar Pvt Ltd, in the name of accused, Rajveer, one RC of the aforesaid motorcycle, in the name of accused, Rajveer, and one visiting card, having name of Sachin Jain, Arun Vastra Bhandar Pvt Ltd were found. PW34 prepared the pullanda of the shirt and he kept the visiting card, pay slip and RC in a plastic envelop. He seized the motorcycle and aforesaid articles vide memo Ex.PW9/C. He also prepared the site plan of the place of recovery, vide memo SC No.06/15 State Vs Rajveer etc Pages 40/58 Ex.PW9/D. Before making pullanda of the shirt, he clicked the photographs of the aforesaid articles and the motorcycle, Ex.PW10/H-7 and PW10/H8.
61. PW34, Inspector Prashant Kumar, further deposed that, on 18.11.2014, he produced accused, Rajveer, before the concerned MM and took three days PC remand and, during the said PC remand, search of co- accused Sarvesh, was made, but he could not be traced. Thereafter, on 22.11.2014, further investigation of the present case was assigned to Inspector Praveen, and he handed over the file to MHCR, on the directions of the SHO. PW34 also identified the case property i.e. mobile phone of accused Rajveer, as Ex.P1-A, shirt recovered from dickey of the bike, as Ex.P5, both bags as recovered with Rs. 20,70,000/- Ex.P6 and visiting card recovered from the house of accused Rajveer Ex P6-A. He also identified the salary slip Ex.P5-A and visiting card Ex.P5-B.
62. In the cross-examination, PW34, Inspector Prashant Kumar, had deposed that, SI Vishnu Dutt, told him that he apprehended accused, Rajveer from U.P. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely, in this regard or that SI Vishnu Dutt told him that accused Rajveer surrendered before him or that accused Rajveer did not confess about his involvement, in the present case, or, that, accused Rajveer did not point out the place of incident or that he knew the place of incident, prior to pointing out by the accused, Rajveer. He further denied that he took Ajit Kumar, representative of Sachin Jain, to the village of accused Rajveer to manipulate the recovery and other things or that, only Ajit Kumar was with them, while visiting the house of accused Rajveer and accused, Rajveer, was not with them at that time.
SC No.06/15 State Vs Rajveer etc Pages 41/58
63. After the completion of the prosecution evidence, matter was fixed for statement of the accused persons, wherein both the accused persons denied the evidence put to them and they opted for leading the defence evidence but did not produce any evidence, in their defence. Thereafter, the matter was fixed for the arguments.
64. I have heard Ld Addl PP for the State and Ld Defence counsel for the accused persons and have gone through the material available on the record file, including entire prosecution evidence.
65. In the present matter, it has been argued by Ld Addl PP for State, that life of an innocent person has been lost by the act of the accused persons, who strangulated Vir Sen Jain, with the ulterior motive to rob him. It is further argued that, both the accused persons, were seen, at the spot, by the daughter of the deceased, namely, Ashu Jain, when she reached there and she also asked both the accused persons about the condition of her father and asked them to help her, but, they both fled away from the spot, without saying anything. It is further argued that both accused persons were identified by the daughter of the deceased, namely, Ashu Jain, in the Court as well. It is further argued that, recovery of Rs. 20,70,000/- and Rs. 1,51,000, at the instance of accused Rajbir and Sarvesh, respectively, were also proved beyond reasonable doubts and accused persons could not give any plausible, explanation in their defence, regarding the possession of the said amount. It is further argued that motive behind the murder has also been proved by the prosecution, as accused Rajbir was working as a driver with the deceased and, later on, he was thrown out of job, by the son of the deceased and accused Rajbir being their ex-employee was aware of the fact that Vir Sen Jain, used to go to ancestral house i.e. House No. 2470, Gali Mandi wali, Chippriwara, Delhi, during the noon time for taking rest SC No.06/15 State Vs Rajveer etc Pages 42/58 and also the fact that some cash used to be available with the deceased, at that house.
66. It is further argued by Ld Addl PP for the State, that from the entire evidence led by the prosecution, it has been proved beyond reasonable doubt, that the murder of Vir Sen Jain was committed by both the accused persons, while committing robbery. It is further argued that the chain of evidence is complete and there is not even an iota of doubt regarding the fact that the offence has been committed by the accused persons, namely, Rajveer and Sarvesh and their identity has been proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. It is further contended that police witnesses have corroborated each other, regarding the manner, in which the investigation had been conducted and, from the day of the incident, till the accused persons were arrested and recovery of robbed amount had been effected from their possession. It is further argued that, from the call details of, Ashu Jain and Sachin Jain, it has been proved that both the witnesses have made call at the relevant time i.e. at about 3.00 pm. PW14, Ashu Jain, called PW16, Sanjeev Jain, to tell him about the incident. It is further contended by Ld Addl PP for the State that, from the entire evidence, as led by the prosecution, only one conclusion comes out and that is to the effect that accused persons had committed the offence of robbery and, while committing such robbery, they had committed murder of Vir Sen Jain.
67. Ld Addl PP for the State has further argued that all the public witnesses have deposed in consonance and have corroborated with each other and, from the deposition of these witnesses, prosecution has been able to prove its case, against both the accused persons, beyond reasonable doubt. It is further argued that presence of accused persons, at the spot, is clear from the deposition of PW14 Ashu Jain, who had seen both the accused persons, at the place of SC No.06/15 State Vs Rajveer etc Pages 43/58 crime and her father was lying on the sofa and was bleeding from the nose. It is further argued that PW14, Ashu Jain, had also seen that accused Rajveer was carrying one back pack and other accused was carrying blue colour bag of their shop, which, later on, was recovered, during the investigation, and huge amount of cash was recovered from the possession of both the accused persons. It is further contended that, from the deposition of PW9, Sh Ajeet Kumar, prosecution has proved the recovery of robbed amount of Rs. 20,70,000/- from accused Rajbeer and amount of Rs. 1,51,000/- from accused Sarvesh, from their respective houses. It is further contended that prosecution has also been able to prove the recovery of blood stained clothes i.e. shirt Ex.P5 of accused Rajbeer, which was recovered from the dickey of his bike, one pay slip of month of June 2014, Ex.P5A, and visiting card, as Ex.PW5B, bags in which cash amount was recovered as Ex.P6 and shirt of accused Sarvesh as Ex.P8. It is further contended by Ld Addl PP for the state that, as per the entire evidence, which has come on record file, prosecution has successfully established its case against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt and all the links, of the circumstances, are connected with each other, in such a manner, that these conclusively and firmly indicate the fact the accused persons committed robbery and, while committing robbery, they used angocha, for strangulation of deceased and, due to which, Vir Sen Jain died, and, hence, offences punishable U/s 302/392/394 have been proved by the prosecution, beyond reasonable doubt.
68. Ld Addl PP for State has further contended that, from the testimony of PW6, Dr Arun Kumar, prosecution has been able to prove that the murder was committed with the help of angocha, which was recovered from the spot. It is further contended that, from the testimony of PW31, Ms Sunita Gupta, prosecution has been able to prove the fact that blood, detected on the shirt of accused, Rajveer, and accused, Sarvesh, matched with the blood of deceased. It is further SC No.06/15 State Vs Rajveer etc Pages 44/58 contended that prosecution has clearly established that both the accused persons were involved in the murder of deceased, and, hence, they both be convicted, accordingly.
69. On the other hand, it has been contended by Ld defence Counsel that, prosecution has not been able to prove its case against the accused persons, beyond reasonable doubt, as, prosecution failed to show any motive, behind the committing of the alleged offence and, mens rea, which is the prime ingredient of section 302 of IPC, is also missing, and, in the absence of the same, it cannot be said that accused persons had committed the alleged offences. It has further been contended that there are material contradictions, in the statement of the witnesses, which, renders the prosecution story doubtful, untrustworthy and unreliable. Moreover, the public witnesses, examined, are the interested witnesses, being the relatives of the deceased.
70. Ld Counsel for accused persons has further argued that PW14, Ashu Jain, is material witness and she is also an interested witness, and there are material contradictions, in her deposition. It is further contended that PW14, Ashu Jain, has made improvements in her deposition, in the court, to the effect that accused Rajveer was carrying one back pack, whereas, other accused Sarvesh was carrying, blue colour bag, of their shop, but, the same has not been stated by her, in her statement given to the police. It is further contended that PW14, Ashu Jain, had deposed, in her cross-examination, that she did not notice any blood stains, on the clothes of accused Rajveer, whereas, PW9 Ajit Singh, had deposed that accused Rajveer got recovered one light blue colour shirt, having white stripes and blood stains on right arm, which shows that the same has been planted upon the accused, as the version of material witness, PW14, Ashu Jain, is that there was no blood stains, on his shirt. It is further contended that, SC No.06/15 State Vs Rajveer etc Pages 45/58 there are material contradictions in the deposition of witnesses, regarding the fact, as to whether the statement of PW14 was recorded in the presence of her brother or not or same has been recorded at the PS or at the hospital, as PW14, Ms Ashu Jain, had deposed, in her cross-examination, that when her statement was recorded, her brother Sachin was not present in the room and her statement was recorded at PS on the same day, at around 10.00 pm, whereas, PW16 Sachin Jain, stated that, statement of his sister, was recorded by the police, in his presence, in the emergency ward of the hospital. It is further contended that, in further cross-examination, PW14 had stated that, as far as she remembered, her statement was recorded in the hospital, which shows that this witness is not reliable, as she kept changing her version. It is further contended that there is also contradiction on the point, as to who reached the hospital first as PW14 stated, in her cross-examination, that her brother and other relatives were already in the hospital, when she reached there, whereas, PW16 Sachin Jain, had deposed, in his cross-examination, that in the hospital, his sister Ashu, his friend Sandeep and number of other persons met him, and, hence, from the above depositions and contradictions, it is clear that prosecution has not been able to prove its case against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. It is further contended that there was no eye witness, in the present case, and, being matter of circumstantial evidence, evidence should be led in such a manner so as to show that all the links are connected with each other, in such a manner, that it leads to only one conclusion, that the offence has been committed by none other, than, the accused persons, but it is not a case, in the present matter, as the chain of circumstances is not so linked with one another so as to point towards the guilt of the accused. It is further contended that PW14, Ashu Jain, was the first person to see her father, in such condition, and she, also, deposed that both the accused persons were present there, who left, after seeing her, and, she saw that, one white colour angocha was tied around the neck of her father,. It is further SC No.06/15 State Vs Rajveer etc Pages 46/58 contended that, it has not been proved by the prosecution that, the said angocha belonged to the accused persons and further it has also not been proved, in any manner, that the said angocha was used by the accused persons, in commission of offence, and, from this, it is amply clear that the case cannot be said to be proved against accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. It is further contended that PW16, Sachin Jain, had deposed that, on 12.11.2014 and 13.11.2014, they checked the ancestral house, and found that one blue colour bag containing Rs.25 lacs, and, cash amount of about Rs. 60/70 lacs, which his father was keeping in bed, was also missing. It is contended that recovery, in this case, is shown, as of Rs.20,70,000, from accused Rajveer and, Rs. 1,51,000/- from accused Sarvesh, and, it has not come in investigation, that police made efforts to recover the remaining amount, hence, the claim of PW16 that Rs. 60/70 lacs were missing, is vague, and, no money was found missing, rather, the money which is shown, as recovered, was planted upon the accused persons, just to solve the present case and accused persons have been falsely implicated. It is further contended that only PW9, Sh Ajit Kumar, was joined as a witness at the time of recovery, from the accused persons, but he cannot be said to be an independent witness, being an employee of Sachin Jain, as this witness could have been influenced by the son of the deceased, and, in the absence of any independent witness, it cannot be said that recovery has been proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. It is further contended that there are number of lacunae in, the present case, which goes to the root of the matter and makes it unreliable and untrustworthy and both the accused persons are liable to be acquitted.
71. It is further argued by Ld defence counsel that PW16, Sachin Jain, is also an interested witness, being the son of the deceased, and he had stated, in his examination-in-chief, that accused Rajveer had worked as driver with him, for one and a half year, and, he had left the job, on 06.08.2014, so, the bag of Arun SC No.06/15 State Vs Rajveer etc Pages 47/58 Vastra Bhandar and salary slip, of accused Rajveer of the month of June 2014, as shown recovered from accused Rajveer, cannot be treated as evidence, against accused Rajveer, as, he was earlier working as driver of PW-16 Sh Sachin Jain. It is further contended that money has been planted upon the accused persons, to solve the present case, but, no clear motive has been shown, on the part of the accused persons, to commit the alleged offence, and in view of the contradictions as pointed out above, it cannot be said that present case of prosecution is proved, beyond reasonable doubts.
72. It is further argued by Ld defence counsel that PW-16, Sh Sachin Jain, had also deposed, in his cross-examination, that his driver, namely, Rajveer, till his service, used to take his father, to their house, in the Chhipiwara, near Jama Masjid, on Saturday and Sunday, and thereafter, another driver, who replaced Rajveer, used to take his father, at the aforesaid house on Saturday and Sunday, but, the said driver has not been made witness, by the police, reason best known to them, to corroborate the fact that he had taken the father of Sachin Jain at Chippriwala house, on that day or on that particular time and this create doubt, in the prosecution case, as in the absence of testimony of said driver, it cannot be said that, at what time, father of Sachin Jain, reached at the house and, in what condition. It is further contended that all the police witnesses have deposed in a mechanical manner and their evidence cannot be taken as reliable evidence so as to convict the accused persons.
73. Ld Counsel for accused persons has further argued that prosecution has miserably failed to show that the angocha belonged to the accused persons, hence, the important link is missing and benefit of the doubt should be given to the accused persons, as it is the cardinal principle of law that, all the links should be connected in such a manner so as to show that, none, other than accused SC No.06/15 State Vs Rajveer etc Pages 48/58 persons, committed the crime.
74. It may be mentioned here that the relevant sections for the disposal of the present case are Section 34, Section 300, Section 302, Section 390, Section 392 and Section 394 of IPC and they are reproduced herein below for ready reference:-
75. Section 34 of IPC reads as under:-
"When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone"
76. Section 300 of IPC reads as under:-
"Murder.- Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or-
Secondly.-It it is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender know to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused, or-
Thirdly,-If it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary SC No.06/15 State Vs Rajveer etc Pages 49/58 course of nature to cause death, or-
Fourthly,-If the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid."
77. Section 302 of IPC reads as under:-
"Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall be liable to fine.
78. Robbery is defined in Section 390 of IPC, which reads as under:-
In all Robbery there is, either theft or extortion. When theft is robbery.-Theft is "robbery" if, in order to the committing of the theft, or in committing the theft, or in carrying away or attempting to carry away property obtained by the theft, the offender, for that end, voluntarily causes or attempts to cause to any person death or hurt or wrongful restraint, or fear of instant death or of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint.
SC No.06/15 State Vs Rajveer etc Pages 50/58
79. Section 392/394 of IPC, provides that:-
392. Punishment for robbery.- Whoever commits robbery shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if the robbery be committed on the highway between sunset and sunrise, the imprisonment may be extended to fourteen years.
394. Voluntarily causing hurt in committing robbery.-"If any person, in committing or in attempting to commit robbery, voluntarily causes hurt, such person, and any other person jointly concerned in committing or attempting to commit such robbery, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine".
80 After hearing the arguments, and going through the record file carefully, it is crystal clear that the present case is entirely based on circumstantial evidence. When a case rests upon circumstantial evidence, the inference of guilt can be justified only when all the incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or with the guilt of any other person. All the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency, and they should be of such a nature as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. In other words, there must be a chain of evidence, so far complete, as, not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show that, within all human probability, the act must have been done by the accused.
81. In Padala Veera Reddy v. State of A.P, And ors. AIR 1990 SC 79, it SC No.06/15 State Vs Rajveer etc Pages 51/58 was laid down that when a case rests upon circumstantial evidence, such evidence must satisfy the following tests:
"(1) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established;
(2) those circumstances should be of a definite tendency, unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused;
(3) the circumstances, taken cumulatively should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else; and (4) the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation on any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence."
82 The Supreme Court in Gagan Kanojia V. State of Punjab, (2006) 13 SCC 516, observed:
"1) There must be chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show that within all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.
SC No.06/15 State Vs Rajveer etc Pages 52/58
2) Circumstantial evidence can be reasonably made
the basis of an accused person's conviction, if it of such
character that it is wholly inconsistent with the innocence of the accused and is consistent only with his guilt.
3) There should be no missing links, but it is not that
every one of the links must appear on the surface of the
evidence. Since some of these links may only be inferred
from the proven facts.
4) On the availability of two inferences, the one in favour
of the accused must be accepted.
83 In the present matter, in the light of the evidence, led by the
prosecution, it has to be seen as to whether the chain of circumstances, as led by the prosecution evidence is complete, not to leave any doubt, regarding the innocence of the accused persons. The material witness, in the present case, is PW14, Ashu Jain, who had deposed that, at about 2.45/3.00 pm, she reached at the house of chhipiwara by rickshaw and upon reaching the house, she pressed the main door of the house and the same got opened as it was not locked from inside. She saw that her father was lying on the sofa, in the room, and, was bleeding from his nose. She saw accused Rajveer, in the house, standing near the feet of her father and other accused Sarvesh was standing near the head of her father. Now, nothing has come, in the cross-examination of this witness, to disbelieve this part of her deposition, regarding the fact that accused persons were present at her father's place, when she reached there.
SC No.06/15 State Vs Rajveer etc Pages 53/58
84. In the present matter, it may be pointed out that PW30, Praveen Kumar, in his cross examination, denied the suggestion, put by the Ld defence counsel to the fact that, "it is wrong to suggest that accused Rajveer was pressing/rubbing the feet of the deceased" and further that, "It is wrong to suggest that accused Sarvesh was rubbing the head of the deceased", and further that, " it is wrong to suggest that when complainant reached, both the accused told her to take deceased to hospital, as his condition was not well" which shows that it is not the case of the accused persons that they were not present, at the spot. Hence, the presence of both the accused persons, at the place of the incident, is fully established by the prosecution, beyond an iota of doubt.
85. Further, the conduct of the accused persons, when the complainant had reached there, is also relevant, as, both the accused persons, fled away from the spot, which shows that they were involved in the commission of crime and, seeing the complainant, they ran away from the spot. It is specifically deposed, by the complainant, that, when she reached there, she made inquiry from accused, Rajveer, as to whether he had called some doctor or not, but he did not give reply to her question. She saw that accused, Rajveer, and other accused started leaving the house. When she made inquiry as to why they were leaving in that situation, they did not respond to her question. This part of conduct of accused persons is relevant, to show the intention of the accused persons, as, normally, in such circumstances, any person would have helped in taking the injured to the hospital or by giving first aid, but accused persons fled away from there, without uttering any word.
86. In the present case, the other link which connects the accused persons with the offence, is deposition of PW31, Ms Sunita Gupta, who has SC No.06/15 State Vs Rajveer etc Pages 54/58 proved the fact that DNA generated from the Ex. 1A, 1b, 1c 1d i.e. bedsheets, pillow and cushion from spot, towel from spot, 3a, 3b,3c i.e. clothes of deceased, shirt of accused Rajveer, shirt of accused Sarvesh and nail clippings of deceased's hand is found similar, with DNA Profile generated from the source of exhibit 4 i.e. blood stained gauge cloth piece of deceased. Now, this deposition of PW31, has proved the fact that blood stains on the clothes of accused persons were of the deceased only, and there is no explanation on behalf of the accused persons as to how these blood stains had come on their clothes. This fact also proves the case of prosecution beyond an iota of doubt.
87. Another fact, which connects the accused persons, with the offence, is the recovery of robbed amount i.e. Rs. 20,70,000/- and 1,51,000/- from the accused persons. In the present matter, it may be pointed out that there is recovery of Rs. 20,70,000/- from accused Rajveer, consequent upon the disclosure statement made by him. It is pointed out by Ld Addl PP for State that, inadvertently, in charge U/s 411 of IPC, framed against accused Rajveer, the recovery amount is mentioned as Rs. 2,50,000/-, instead of Rs.20,70,000/-. It is further pointed out by Ld Addl PP that it seems to be a clerical mistake as recovery witnesses have also deposed about recovery of Rs. 20,70,000, at the instance of accused Rajveer. Ld defence counsel has also raised no objection regarding the same. There is no explanation, from the accused persons regarding the possession of recovered amount by them, and, about the fact, as to what was the source of the said amount. Prosecution has clearly proved the fact that, the same was robbed amount, as it was recovered consequent to the disclosure statement made by the accused persons. Further, prosecution has been able to prove motive behind the crime as accused, Rajveer, was working as driver, with Sachin Jain, and, later on, he had left the job or was thrown out of the job, and, SC No.06/15 State Vs Rajveer etc Pages 55/58 while he was in job, he was aware of the fact that, Vir Sen Jain, used to go at chhipirwala house on Saturday and Sunday. Further, the contention of Ld counsel for accused persons to the effect that angocha has not been linked with the accused persons and it is a missing link, is not tenable, looking at the conduct of the accused persons, at the scene of crime.
88. In the present matter, PW14, Ashu Jain, is not an eye witness, but she was the witness of the facts, immediately after the occurrence. She had seen both the accused persons standing at the place of incident i.e. in the room, where deceased was lying. No explanation has been given, on behalf of the accused persons, regarding their presence, at the scene of occurrence, in their statement U/s 313 Cr.PC. Even during the arguments, Ld Defence counsel has not been able to refute the presence of the accused persons, on the scene of occurrence. Thus, the presence of the accused persons, at the scene of the occurrence, is fully established, which has been proved by PW14, Ashu Jain. In the present matter, PW6 Dr Arun Kumar, who conducted postmortem of the deceased had opined that the death of the deceased was due to asphyxia as a result of ligature strangulation. In the present case, it has been proved beyond doubt that deceased died by strangulation by angocha. The cause of death was due to asphyxia, as per postmortem report and, the said injuries could have been caused by angocha, which was used by the accused persons, in committing the offence of murder of deceased, Vir Sen Jain. Thus, it is clearly, established beyond an iota of doubt that there was common intention of the accused persons, to commit murder of deceased, Vir Sen Jain, while committing robbery, and they had caused his death with the use of angocha, by tying the same, around his neck. Further, in the present matter, there is recovery of robbed amount from the possession of both the accused persons, consequent to their disclosure statements. The recovery of robbed amount has been proved, beyond an iota of doubt, by the evidence of prosecution witnesses, particularly, evidence of PW 9, SC No.06/15 State Vs Rajveer etc Pages 56/58 Sh Ajit, who was the witness of recovery. Further, the hurt was caused to the deceased, namely, Vir Sen Jain, by both the accused persons, in furtherance of their common intention, while committing robbery. Thus, ingredients of section 394 of IPC have also been established by the prosecution, beyond an iota of doubt.
89. In Sharvan Dashrath Darange V. State of Maharashtra, (1997) 2 Crime 47, it has been observed by the Court that:-
"not only the person, who actually causes hurt but an associate of his/her would be equally liable for the offence, as contemplated in section 394 of IPC."
90. I am also fortified with the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court taken in Laxminath V. State of Chhattisgarh, AIR 2019 Supreme Court 4387, wherein similar view has been taken, regarding the subsequent conduct of the accused persons, at the scene of crime and it has been held that :-
"The trial court rightly held that these two witnesses were not eye-witnesses, but they were witnesses of facts, immediately after the occurrence. They had seen the accused entering the room armed with an axe and leaving the room armed with an axe. In the meantime Kursan died because of blow of axe. This can lead to only one inevitable conclusion that it was the accused who murdered Kursan. The versions of these witnesses are supported by the medical evidence because the injuries found on the body of the deceased tally with the version given by the eye-witnesses."
SC No.06/15 State Vs Rajveer etc Pages 57/58
91. From the entire prosecution evidence, as already discussed above, it is clear that, in the present case, the chain of circumstantial evidence is complete and is proving that the robbery has been committed by both the accused persons, and, while committing such robbery, they have committed murder of Vir Sen Jain and all the facts of the present matter, are consistent with the guilt of both the accused persons and, in the present case, I do not find any missing link, which creates any doubt in the prosecution case. Hence, in my opinion, prosecution has been able to prove its case, beyond reasonable doubt, against, both the accused persons. Accordingly, both the accused persons are convicted for the offences punishable U/s 302/34 IPC and for the offence U/s 392/394/34 of IPC.
Announced in the open (Ramesh Kumar-1) Court on 19th of November 2019. Additional Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari Court, (Central), Delhi SC No.06/15 State Vs Rajveer etc Pages 58/58 SC No.06/15 State Vs Rajveer etc Pages 59/58 SC No.06/15 State Vs Rajveer etc Pages 60/58 SC No.06/15 State Vs Rajveer etc Pages 61/58