Delhi District Court
State vs Shyam Babu Chaudhary on 29 November, 2014
IN THE COURT OF SHRI RAJEEV BANSAL,
ASJ-03 (SOUTH DISTRICT), SAKET COURTS,
NEW DELHI.
SC No. 10/13
(Unique ID No.02406R0266502011)
FIR No.: 229/11
U/S: 302/364A/201 IPC
PS: Mehrauli
State
Versus
Shyam Babu Chaudhary
S/o Sh. Viswanath Chudhary
R/o Shambhu Yadav ka Makaan,
Ward No. 6, Mehrauli,
New Delhi.
(Permanent R/o Village- Sisotia,
PS- Malhawa, Distt. Sarlahi,
Janakpur, near Anchal, Nepal)
Date of Institution : 01.10.2011
Date of Institution in Session Court : 17.10.2011
Date of Pronouncement Order : 29.11.2014
JUDGMENT
1. On 21.05.2011, the complainant Suresh Chaudhary gave a written complaint to SHO, P.S. Mehrauli that his son Abhishekh Chaudhary went missing from his house on 21.05.2011 SC No. 10/13 : FIR No. 229/11 : 'State v. Shyam Babu Chaudhary' 1 /48 at about 8:00 a.m and he was wearing a red and black striped shirt, blue Nickker and Hawai Chappal. On this complaint, Rukka was prepared and FIR No. 229/11 was registered on 21.05.2011 under Section 363 IPC. On 03.06.2011, the complainant went to P.S Mehrauli and showed a letter to HC Subhash wherein the writer claimed that the boy was with him and he demanded a sum of Rs. 5 lacs for releasing the boy with direction to send the money through Kamlesh to India Gate at 4:00 p.m on 05.06.2011. The complainant Suresh Chaudhary informed the police that he received a secret information about his son that he could be found at India Gate and this information was recorded vide DD No. 16A on 05.06.2011 at 3:45 p.m. Despite efforts of police, child could not be found at India Gate. On 29.06.2011, complainant Suresh Chaudhary handed over two more letters to police for demand of ransom. Complainant doubted the accused Shyam Babu Chaudhary. The accused was interrogated and he made a disclosure that he had killed the kidnapped boy Abhishekh by cutting his throat and threw his dead body in Jamali Kamali Jungle. He also got recovered the bonny remains of the dead body, his SC No. 10/13 : FIR No. 229/11 : 'State v. Shyam Babu Chaudhary' 2 /48 clothes and the knife. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet under Section 302/364A/201 IPC was filed.
2. Since the offence under Section 302 IPC is exclusively triable by the Sessions Court, the matter was committed to this court.
3. On 16.11.2011, charges under Section 364A/302/201 IPC was framed against the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. In support of its case, prosecution examined 28 witnesses.
4.1 PW-1 Vijay Kumar stated that in March 2011, he left for his village for crop harvesting and at that time, he gave his sim card No. 9560749237 to his brother Sanjay for use. He proved the Customer Application Form as Ex.PW1/A and his photo identity card as Ex.PW1/B. SC No. 10/13 : FIR No. 229/11 : 'State v. Shyam Babu Chaudhary' 3 /48 4.2 PW-2 Sanjay Kumar stated that he is a TSR Driver. On 26.06.2011 at about 6:45 p.m, a passenger hired his auto from Anand Vihar Bus Stand near Petrol Pump for going to Mehrauli. At about 8:00 p.m when he reached in front of P.S. Mehrauli, the passenger started moving after getting down. On being asked for fare, the said passenger handed him over his mobile phone and his bag stating that he would come back shortly and would pay the fare. He waited for about one hour but the passenger did not come back. He came back to his house and put the sim card of mobile No. 9560749237, which was given to him by his brother Vijay Kumar, in the said mobile phone. He identified the accused in the court to be that passenger. He further stated that on 27.07.2011, he was called by police of P.S. Mehrauli and he handed over the said mobile phone and bag to police, which they seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW2/A. He identified the bag as Ex. P-1 and the mobile phone as Ex. P-2. In his cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that he was not handed over any bag or mobile phone by the accused or that he had kept the mobile phone with him as a stolen property which was received by some other person. He also SC No. 10/13 : FIR No. 229/11 : 'State v. Shyam Babu Chaudhary' 4 /48 denied the suggestion that he did not bring the accused from Anand Vihar or that he identified the accused in court at the instance of police.
4.3 PW-3 Ram Chhabila Chaudhary is a vegetable seller of Mehrauli Sabji Mandi. He stated that accused was also working in the said Sabji Mandi of Mehrauli. He stated that about one year ago, accused wanted to buy a mobile connection and he (witness) provided him his own ID proof with which accused obtained a mobile phone connection. He identified his photograph on the Customer Application Form of Phone No. 7838115837 as Ex.PW3/A and his ID proof as Ex. PW3/B. In his cross- examination, he stated that he had not given his photograph to the accused. He denied the suggestion that he himself had obtained a telephone connection No. 7838115837 or that the said connection was never used by the accused.
4.4 PW-4 Smt. Sudesh stated that she runs a small shop of toffee and chips at her house at Mehrauli. Accused used to work SC No. 10/13 : FIR No. 229/11 : 'State v. Shyam Babu Chaudhary' 5 /48 in Sabji Mandi and resided in the back side of Gali of her house. At 5:00 p.m of a date which she could not tell, she stated that some children were playing in the street and told her that a letter was lying. She picked up that letter. At that time, accused came there and she handed over the letter to him, who read the same and stated that it was for Suresh Chaudhary regarding demand of money qua kidnapping of his son. He asked her to give the letter to Suresh Chaudhary and next day, she did so. She stated that the letter was written in blue ink. In her cross-examination, she stated that she did not see the accused throwing that letter. She stated that she picked up that letter and when Shyam Babu came there, she handed it over to him for being read.
4.5 PW-5 Bhole is an 11 years old child and after satisfying itself, the court permitted him to depose. He stated that he is a rag picker of Ghajipur area. About 2-3 months ago, the accused met him outside the gate of Ghajipur Mandi and told him that he would pay him Rs. 10/- and he was only required to speak on mobile phone which the accused was having. Accused made a SC No. 10/13 : FIR No. 229/11 : 'State v. Shyam Babu Chaudhary' 6 /48 call from the mobile and he spoke 'Mammi-Papa' and then accused took away the mobile phone from him and the call was disconnected. Accused paid him Rs. 10/- and told him that parents of the child were in distress as the child was missing and they will feel good and satisfied. After sometimes, police made inquires from him and he was also taken to court where he narrated all the facts before a Judge, who recorded his statement. He identified his statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C as Ex.PW5/A. He also identified the accused in the court. In his cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that accused was introduced to him by the police or that the accused never met him before or that accused never made him to make a call from his mobile phone. 4.6 PW-6 Smt. Rekha is mother of the victim. She stated that her son Abhishekh, who was aged 4 ½ years at the time of the incident, was kidnapped by the accused. She identified him in the court. She stated that accused was arrested after sometime. Her husband had lodged a complaint with police. Police took her and her husband to AIIMS Hospital for conducting DNA test and her SC No. 10/13 : FIR No. 229/11 : 'State v. Shyam Babu Chaudhary' 7 /48 blood sample was taken by the Doctor.
4.7 PW-7 Kanhaiya stated that he used to drive Truck TATA-407 No. DL 1LE 3933 from Mehrauli Mandi to Okhla Mandi for bringing vegetables. Accused Shyam Babu used to sell vegetables in Mehrauli Mandi and was known to him. He stated that he (witness) was having mobile No. 9999371032 and had saved telephone number of the accused 7838115837 in his mobile and they used to talk on telephone. He identified the accused in the court.
4.8 PW-8 Suresh Choudhary is the father of the victim. He stated that at the time of the incident, he was residing in the house of Laxmi in Ward No. 6, Mehrauli. Abhishekh Choudhary his son was aged 4 ½ years. On 21.5.2011, his son went missing. He lodged a complaint with P.S. Mehraulit. He was wearing red and black stripped shirt, a blue colour Nicker, a bracelet in his hand and red slippers. He proved his complaint made to the police as Ex. PW8/A. Police searched his son in and outside Delhi but he SC No. 10/13 : FIR No. 229/11 : 'State v. Shyam Babu Chaudhary' 8 /48 could not be traced. On 03.06.2011, his brother-in-law Nawal Choudhary received a letter which he gave him and in that letter, a demand of Rs. 5 lacs was made to be paid and that the child was with them. The money was asked to be paid through one Kamlesh at India Gate. He provided that letter to the police. He identified the accused Shyam Babu in the court and stated that he suspected Shyam Babu regarding kidnapping of his son. Police apprehended him and he was interrogated but thereafter he was allowed to go. Thereafter, accused Shyam Babu called him on telephone stating that he had received a letter from the kidnapper and that he had met him at Qutab Minar alongwith Vijay Chaudhary. He gave that letter to the police, which was seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW8/B. Accused produced a letter written in red ink and in that letter also, there was a demand of money and that only after payment of money, his son would be released. During this time, Suresh Bua, a resident of Mehrauli also gave him a letter which she had picked up from near her shop and at that time Shyam Babu had come to her shop. In that letter, a demand of Rs. 3 lacs was made. He gave these two letters to police which was seized vide Ex. SC No. 10/13 : FIR No. 229/11 : 'State v. Shyam Babu Chaudhary' 9 /48 PW8/C. Police again apprehended accused Shyam Babu and accused made a disclosure before the police that he had killed his son in the Jungle of Jamali Kamali. Accused took him and the police official to the Jungle area Jamali Kamali and he pointed out the place of kidnapping his son. He got recovered a skull, 33 small and big bones, which were sealed and seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW8/D. The chappals and clothes of his son, namely, nicker, shirt and Baniyan were identified by him (witness) and they were sealed and seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW8/E. A knife was also recovered from near that place and it was sealed and seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW8/F. Police also took grass and sample of the soil from the spot, which were sealed and seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW8/G and Ex. PW8/H. The soil of the place from where the knife was recovered was also sealed and seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW8/J. The police had done videography of the said place of recovery and the video tape cassette was sealed and seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW8/K. Police prepared sketch of the knife before sealing the same. Then they came back to the PS. On 05.07.2011, police again took him (witness) and the accused to SC No. 10/13 : FIR No. 229/11 : 'State v. Shyam Babu Chaudhary' 10 /48 Jungle area of Jamali Kamali where after a detailed search of the place and on the pointing out of the accused, two silver Karas of his son were also recovered which the witness identified and the police sealed the same and seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW8/L. He identified the skull, other pieces of bones, nicker, T-shirt, baniyan, pair of slippers, rusted knife and Karas. The Baniyan was exhibited as Ex. PW8/P1. In his cross-examination, he stated that police had recorded his first statement on 21.05.2011 and in that statement, he had not stated that his son was wearing Karas. The Nani of his son had gifted the Karas to his son on his birthday. Police did not record the statement of Nani of his son. He could not recall, if he had gone to the PS on 04.07.2011 or if he had met with police on that day. After 21.05.2011, he met with police twice at PS and apart from it, police official visited his house from time to time but he could not tell the exact number of such visits. He could not tell as to how many times police had recorded his statement. Twice he had visited the PS for handing over the letter. Except India Gate, he did not go with police for search of his son. He stated that he went alongwith the police personnel to Jungle for SC No. 10/13 : FIR No. 229/11 : 'State v. Shyam Babu Chaudhary' 11 /48 three days in search of his son but he could not tell those days. His brother-in-law (Saala) also accompanied him at that time to Jungle. A number of public persons also accompanied him and police to the Jungle but accused did not accompany. After about one month from 21.05.2011, he alongwith police started to visit Jungle continuously for three days. He stated that he and accused both belong to Nepal and their houses were located at a distance of 15-20 k.m from each other and they both were working in India. He denied the suggestion that because they were in the same profession of selling vegetables, the complainant became inimical towards the accused and he falsely implicated the accused in the present case when his son went missing.
4.9 PW-9 Sunil Choudhay stated that he was selling vegetables at Mehrauli Subji Mandi and had mobile connection No. 9873330071. He stated that he knew accused Shyam Babu, who also used to sell vegetables in Subji Mandi and Shyam Babu had mobile connection No. 7838115837 and they used to talk each other on mobile.
SC No. 10/13 : FIR No. 229/11 : 'State v. Shyam Babu Chaudhary' 12 /48 4.10 PW-10 Sh. R.K. Singh is Nodal Officer of Bharti Airtel. He brought records pertaining to mobile phone No. 9560749237 which was in the name of Vijay Kumar. He proved a copy of the Customer Application Form as Ex. PW1/A and copy of the Election card was proved as Ex. PW1/B. He proved the letter for giving information to police as Ex. PW10/A. The Call Detail Records of this mobile phone for the period 01.05.2011 to 03.06.2011 were proved by him as Ex. PW10/B. Cell ID chart was proved by him as Ex. PW10/D. He proved the Certificate under Section 65(B) of Evidence Act as Ex. PW10/E. 4.11 PW-11 Ct. Rishi Kumar stated that on 21.05.2011, on receipt of DD No. 16A, he alongwith ASI Raj Pal reached at House No. 746, Ward No.6, Mehrauli and found one Suresh - complainant there. Suresh informed that his 4 ½ years old son has been kidnapped. He gave a written complaint to the IO and a Tehrir was prepared which he took to the PS and gave it to Duty Officer HC Nahar Singh, who registered the FIR. He obtained the copy of the FIR and original Tehrir and reached at the spot with SC No. 10/13 : FIR No. 229/11 : 'State v. Shyam Babu Chaudhary' 13 /48 HC Subhash and handed over the copy of the FIR and Tehrir to the IO. They made efforts to search the boy but he could not be traced. In his cross-examination, he stated that they reached the house of the complainant at about 8:30 p.m. 4.12 PW-12 Sh. Deepak is Nodal Officer from Vodafone. He stated that as per request of the police, details with respect to mobile No. 8860416625 were given vide letter Ex. PW12/A. This mobile phone, as per records, was in the name of Vimla Bhatt and a copy of the Customer Application Form was proved as Ex. PW12/B and copy of the Election ID card was proved as Ex. PW12/C. The Call Detail Records of this mobile phone for the period 01.05.2011 to 30.06.2011 were proved as Ex. PW12/D. He proved his Certificate under Section 65 (B) of the Evidence Act as Ex. PW12/E. He also provided details regarding mobile phone No. 7838115837 vide letter Ex. PW12/F. This mobile was in the name of Ram Chhabila Chand. Copy of the Customer Application Form was proved as Ex. PW3/A, copy of the Election ID proof was proved as Ex. PW3/B, Call Detail Records from 01.05.2011 to SC No. 10/13 : FIR No. 229/11 : 'State v. Shyam Babu Chaudhary' 14 /48 30.06.2011 were proved as Ex. PW12/G and his Certificate under Section 65 (B) of the Evidence Act was proved as Ex. PW12/H. 4.13 PW-13 Dr. Kartik Krishna stated that on 07.07.2011, he examined Shyam Babu vide MLC No. 48979 and he proved the same as Ex.PW13/A. Police sought his opinion regarding the injury which was an incised wound of 6 cm length on outer aspect of the left arm of the patient and he had opined after examining the injury that the possibility of self infliction of this injury cannot be ruled out. In his cross-examination, he stated that the injuries could have been caused three days prior to his examination. He stated that it was possible that injury may be caused to him by some other persons.
4.14 PW-14 Ct. Parshottam is the Photographer of a Mobile Crime Team. He stated that on 04.07.2011, he alongwith SI Vijay Pal and HC Bhagwan Singh reached at the spot in the Jungle of Jamali Kamali and he took 21 photographs of the remnants of the dead body of a small child which was skeleton. The scene was SC No. 10/13 : FIR No. 229/11 : 'State v. Shyam Babu Chaudhary' 15 /48 also videographed by a video camera. Later on, he gave the video cassette to the IO, which was seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW8/K. The photographs were also later on given to the IO. The photographs were proved as Ex. PW14/A1 to Ex.PW14/A20. The negatives were proved as Ex. PW14/B1 to Ex. PW14/B20. The video cassette was proved as Ex. PW14/PX. In his cross- examination, he stated that they left the office of Pushp Vihar at about 1:30 p.m. First, they went to PS Mehraulit and then they reached the Jungle of Jamali Kamali at 3:00 p.m. They entered about 400/500 meters inside the Jungle from road on foot. No police personnel was present at the spot from earlier when they reached there. Accused had taken them to the spot in the Jungle. He did not notice any public person with the police. He remained at the spot for about 1 ½ hours . He did videography and also took photographs from the spot. Bones were lying on the land and were not dug out from under the soil. The knife was half visible and half inside the soil. It is correct that public persons could easily come and go in the forest area and there was no restriction or fencing in the Jungle. Video cassette was seized by the IO at the spot. The SC No. 10/13 : FIR No. 229/11 : 'State v. Shyam Babu Chaudhary' 16 /48 videography was shown by him to the IO on his camera before the cassette was seized.
4.15 PW-15 Sh. Rajender Singh is the Metropolitan Magistrate, who had recorded the statement of master Bhole under Section 164 Cr.P.C. He proved recording the said statement on 15.09.2011 as Ex. PW5/A. He proved his proceedings as Ex. PW15/A, his Certificate as Ex. PW15/B, his order for sealing the statement in an envelope as Ex. PW15/C and allowing the copy of the statement to be given to the IO as Ex. PW15/D. 4.16 PW-16 Dr. Sudipta Ranjan Singh conducted autopsy on the body of Abhishekh Choudhary on 05.07.2011 at about 2:00 p.m. She stated that there was a skeletonisation and there were animal gnawing marks on the bones. Time since death could not be determined with certainty. There was no soft tissue and no injury was appreciable on the skeleton remains. She proved her report as Ex. PW16/A. She stated that even no definite opinion regarding sex could be given with absolute certainty. SC No. 10/13 : FIR No. 229/11 : 'State v. Shyam Babu Chaudhary' 17 /48 Anatomically, the bones seemed to be of human origin and they could be of a child as the bones were smaller and lighter. The skull was also smaller and lighter and only the upper jaw was present and mandible was missing. The upper jaw had total 12 teeth, out of which 2 showed only crowning. The age of the deceased could be more than 4 years but less than 7 years. Later on, on 07.07.2011, IO requested for collection of the blood samples of the parents of the deceased. She examined Rekha - mother of the deceased vide Ex. PW16/B and Suresh - father of the deceased vide Ex. PW16/C. Blood sample of both these persons were taken and were preserved with the seal of the hospital and given to the IO. She proved the request of the IO as Ex. PW16/D. In the cross-examination, she stated that there could be an error in age approximation towards higher side to nine year. She stated that she did not check documentary proof regarding identity of Rekha and Suresh Chaudhary.
4.17 PW-17 HC Chander Bhan stated that on 07.07.2011, at the instructions from the IO, he alongwith Ct. Ajay Kumar took SC No. 10/13 : FIR No. 229/11 : 'State v. Shyam Babu Chaudhary' 18 /48 accused Shyam Babu to AIIMS Hospital and from there he brought accused to court where IO/Inspector Rajeev Kumar took permission from the court for taking specimen writing of accused Shyam Babu. He signed the said writing as witness. Copy of the sample writing was marked as 17/A-1 to A-13. On 15.09.2011, he brought witness Bhole to court and he was produced before Sh. Rajender Singh, Ld. M.M, who took the witness in his chamber and recorded his statement. He identified the witness on the proceedings recorded before the Metropolitan Magistrate i.e Ex. PW15/A. He identified the accused in the court. In his cross- examination, he stated that he brought the child from Ghazipur at the instructions of the IO to PS where they stayed for 25 minutes. IO did not inquire the child within those 25 minutes. He stated that they did not tutor the child. Father of the child was with him and he also accompanied the child to the court.
4.18 PW-18 Ct. Sher Singh proved deposit five pullandas with FSL on 09.09.2011. He proved the Road Certificate No. 96/21/11 as Ex. PW18/A. SC No. 10/13 : FIR No. 229/11 : 'State v. Shyam Babu Chaudhary' 19 /48 4.19 PW-19 ASI Ravi Shankar stated that on 05.06.2011, one complainant Suresh came in the PS and stated that his son may be found at India Gate. On the directions of Inspector Rajeev Malik, he went with the complainant to India Gate. He proved DD No. 16A as Ex. PW19/A in this regard. They could not find the child at India Gate and came back to the PS and DD No. 37B was recorded in this regard which was proved as Ex. PW19/B. In his cross-examination, he stated that they left the PS at about 3:30 p.m, reached India Gate at about 4:15 p.m and remained there till 5:30 p.m. 4.20 PW-20 SI Mahesh Kumar stated that on 01.09.2011, he alongwith Inspector Pankaj Singh and SI Surender Pal Singh went to Jamali Kamali Jungle and at the instance of SI Surender Pal Singh, he took rough notes and measurement of the spot. On 26.09.2011 he prepared scaled site plan of the spot which was proved by him as Ex. PW-20/A. In his cross examination he stated that he reached the spot at about 5:00 p.m and the main road was about 66 meters from the spot. He did not notice any SC No. 10/13 : FIR No. 229/11 : 'State v. Shyam Babu Chaudhary' 20 /48 residential house near the spot. There was no arrangement of light at the spot as it was a jungle area. He remained at the spot upto 6:00 pm. 4.21 PW-21 Ct. Subhash Chand stated that on 08.09.2011 vide Road Certificate No. 94/21/11 and 95/21/11. He took exhibits from the MHC(M). The exhibits taken vide RC No. 94/21/11 were deposited with the DNA Division but other exhibits could not be deposited as FSL form was not properly filled up. Road Certificate No. 94/21/11 was proved as Ex. PW21/A. 4.22 PW-22 HC Subhash Chander stated that on 21.05.2011, Ct. Rishi gave him original Tehrir and copy of the FIR No. 229/11. He alongwith Ct. Rishi reached 746, Ward No.6, Basti Mehrauli. ASI Raj Pal was already there. The witness made efforts to trace Abhishekh Choudhary but no clue could be found. He recorded the statements of Suresh Choudhary and Ct. Rishi under Section 161 Cr.P.C. He came back to the PS and flashed SC No. 10/13 : FIR No. 229/11 : 'State v. Shyam Babu Chaudhary' 21 /48 wireless message and did other proceedings of publication etc for tracing the boy. On 03.06.2011, complainant Suresh Choudhary came to the PS and showed a letter of demand of ransom. He produced the complaint before SI S.P. Singh and after discussion with SHO, Section 364A IPC was added and the case was entrusted to SI S.P. Singh. The letter produced by Suresh Choudhary was seized by the IO vide memo Ex. PW8/B. The letter was Q-1 and was exhibited as Ex. PW22/P1. On 29.06.2011, complainant Suresh Choudhary again came to the PS and he handed over two letters - one written in blue ink and other written in red ink. The writing was improper and demand of ransom was made regarding kidnapping of child Abhishekh. SI S.P. Singh seized those letters vide Ex. PW8/C. The said letter was Q-2 and was exhibited as Ex. PW22/P2 and P3 respectively. He again joined the investigation on 04.07.2011. Shyam Babu came to the PS after he was served with a notice by the IO. He was interrogated by the IO. He confessed his crime. He proved his disclosure statement as Ex. PW22/A. His arrest memo was proved as Ex. PW22/B and his personal search memo was proved as Ex. PW22/C. The accused SC No. 10/13 : FIR No. 229/11 : 'State v. Shyam Babu Chaudhary' 22 /48 disclosed that he was under debt of account of marriage of his sister and wanted to have money by kidnapping Abhishekh. He further disclosed that Abhishekh was killed by him in Jungle area Jamali Kamali on the day of kidnapping. Thereafter, investigation of the case was given to Inspector Rajeev Malik. Witness himself remained in the PS. IO came back to the PS and handed over one sealed plastic box which contained skull and bones of the child. He got them preserved in AIIMS mortuary. On 26.07.2011, on the directions of Inspector Pankaj Singh, he went to AIIMS mortuary and collected the sealed parcels and gave it to the IO, who sealed and seized the same vide seizure memo Ex. PW22/D. In his cross- examination, he stated that on 03.06.2011, complainant Suresh Choudhary came in the PS during day time and he was alone. He stated that no public witness was present when disclosure of the accused was recorded. He denied the suggestion that no ransom letter was given by the complainant or that the said document was manipulated by the IO to implicate the accused.
SC No. 10/13 : FIR No. 229/11 : 'State v. Shyam Babu Chaudhary' 23 /48 4.23 PW-23 H.C. Jaiveer is MHC(M), who produced Register No. 19. He stated that on 04.07.2011, IO Inspector Rajeev Malik deposited sealed pullandas alongwith video tape in a sealed pullanda vide Entry No. 3307 and he proved the said entry as Ex. PW23/A. He further stated that on 05.07.2011, Inspector Rajeev deposited one mobile phone and hand bag in unsealed condition and Karas in sealed condition in malkhana vide Entry No. 3309 which was proved as Ex. PW23/B. He further stated that on 02.09.2011, handwriting document and specimen handwriting were sent to FSL through HC Abhey Raj vide RC No. 91/21/11 which was proved as Ex.PW23/C. He stated that on return, HC Abhey Raj gave proof of deposit of pullandas with the FSL which he proved as Ex.PW23/D. He further stated that on 08.09.2011, three sealed pullandas with the sample seal of 'AIIMS', were sent to FSL, Rohini through Ct. Subhash vide RC No. 94/21/11. Ct. Subhash handed over proof of deposit of pullandas as Ex. PW23/E. He stated that on 09.09.2011, five pullandas were sent to FSL, Rohini through Ct. Sher Singh vide RC No. 96/21/11 and the proof of deposit was proved as Ex. PW23/F. He stated that all the SC No. 10/13 : FIR No. 229/11 : 'State v. Shyam Babu Chaudhary' 24 /48 pullandas remained in safe custody with him till they were with him and were not tempered with.
4.24 PW-24 HC Abhey Raj stated that on 02.09.2011, MHC(M) handed over sixteen pages of sample handwriting vide RC No. 91/21/11 which he deposited in the FSL.
4.25 PW-25 SI S.P. Singh is the part IO. He stated that he was given the investigation of this case on 03.06.2011. Complainant Suresh Chaudhary gave him a letter of ransom (Ex.PW22/P-1), which he seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW8/B. He stated that on 29.06.2011, complainant Suresh Chaudhary again gave him two letters of demand of ransom (Ex. PW22/P-2 and P-3 respectively), which he seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW2/C. He stated that the accused was arrested by him on 04.07.2011 and he proved his arrest memo as Ex. PW22/B and his personal search memo was proved as Ex. PW22/C. Disclosure statement of the accused was recorded wherein he disclosed that he had killed the child in the jungle of 'Jamali Kamali' and he could get recovered SC No. 10/13 : FIR No. 229/11 : 'State v. Shyam Babu Chaudhary' 25 /48 the dead body of child. He stated that he informed the SHO and the investigation was given to Inspector Rajeev Malik. He alongwith Inspector Rajeev Malik, accused and the complainant reached in the jungle of 'Jamali Kamali' where at the pointing out of the accused, from near the bushes, he got recovered a skull bone and 33 bones of different sizes to be of the child 'Abhishekh'. The bones were kept in a jar and sealed with the seal of 'RKM' and were seized vide memo Ex. PW8/D. From the spot of recovery, dry grass etc. was taken and sealed in a pullanda with the seal of 'RKM' and were seized vide memo Ex. PW8/G. Cloth of the child
- Nikkar, shirt and one baniyan and two pieces of chappal were also got recovered at the instance of the accused, which were sealed in a pullanda with the seal of 'RKM' and were seized vide memo Ex. PW8/E. Accused pointed out the place of bushes and got recovered a knife which he had used to kill the child. Sketch of the knife was prepared as Ex. PW25/A, which was sealed with the seal of 'RKM' and seized vide memo Ex.PW8/F. Earth sample from beneath the place of recovery of knife was taken and sealed with the seal of 'RKM' and seized vide memo Ex. PW8/J. The SC No. 10/13 : FIR No. 229/11 : 'State v. Shyam Babu Chaudhary' 26 /48 entire investigation regarding recovery of these articles was video- graphed and the cassette was sealed with the seal of 'RKM' and seized vide memo Ex.PW8/J. Then, they came back to the Police Station and the pullandas were deposited in the malkhana. On 05.07.2011, accused again took them to the place of incident in the jungle of 'Jamali Kamali' where after the search, two small Karas of the child were found from the place pointed out by the accused. The Karas were identified by the complainant. They were kept in a pullanda, sealed with the seal of 'RKM' and memo Ex. PW8/L was prepared. He further stated that in the evening hours, one Sanjay Kumar came to the Police Station, who was a TSR Driver, to whom the accused had given a mobile phone and one bag. He produced the mobile phone and the bag to the IO. He stated that same were given to him by the accused at Mehrauli as the accused was unable to make payment of the fare from Anand Vihar to Mehrauli. The mobile phone and the bag were seized vide memo Ex. PW2/A. He stated that Sanjay Kumar also identified the accused. Then, he stated that on 06.07.2011, accused took them to EDM Mall, near Ghazipur, where accused had asked one boy SC No. 10/13 : FIR No. 229/11 : 'State v. Shyam Babu Chaudhary' 27 /48 Bhola to talk to the father of the deceased on mobile phone asking Bhola to say 'Papa' on the mobile phone. He stated that Bhola and the accused identified each other. IO prepared the site plan of the place and the pointing out memo was proved as Ex.PW25/B. Then, he stated that on 01.09.2011, he took Draftsman SI Mahesh Kumar with him at the place of incident and on his pointing out, SI Mahesh Kumar prepared rough notes and took measurement of the places. In his cross-examination, he stated that when accused was arrested, no public person was available nor any public person was available at the time of recording of his disclosure statement. He stated that after getting down from the vehicle, the bones of the deceased were recovered from a place which was less than 100 meters away. The clothes of the deceased were lying at a little distance of the place from where the bones were recovered. The knife was also found nearby the place from where bones and clothes were recovered. He could not tell whether the TSR Driver was called in the Police Station by giving him notice under Section 160 Cr.P.C or he came of his own. They reached EMD Mall, Ghazipur, between 3:00-4:00 p.m on 06.07.2011. Bhola was found SC No. 10/13 : FIR No. 229/11 : 'State v. Shyam Babu Chaudhary' 28 /48 roaming alone around EDM Mall. He did not visit the house of Bhola.
4.26 PW-26 Insp. Rajeev Kumar is the IO. (A D.V cassette was played in the court, in which the accused was seen leading a policeman inside jungle. After walking for sometime, the jungle becomes dense. At his pointing out from a place, a pair of pink rubber slippers of the size of the child, a skull of the size of the child, a knife having mud and rust and a Nikker were recovered. Two other clothes were found in muddy earth. Some bones were also recovered). He stated that on 04.07.2011, he was posted as Inspector (Investigation) at PS-Mehrauli. The accused was arrested by SI S. P. Singh and during the interrogation, accused Shyam Babu Chaudhary had disclosed that he had murdered the missing child-Abhishekh Chaudhary on 21.05.2011, in the Jungle of Jamali-Kamali, Mehrauli, and thereafter, had sent letter for ransom from the father of deceased-Abhishekh. After disclosing the facts of murder and kidnapping for ransom in the present case, further investigation of the case was taken over by him on SC No. 10/13 : FIR No. 229/11 : 'State v. Shyam Babu Chaudhary' 29 /48 04.07.2011. During the investigation by him, he called Crime Team including Photographer, and as per disclosure statement of accused-Shyam Babu Chaudhary, he alongwith accused in custody, SI S. P. Singh, HC Roop Ram, SI Shiv Dev, HC Chander Bhan and Crime Team departed from the police station for the place of occurrence, at the instance of the accused. Accused guided the team to the Jungle behind Jamali-Kamali, Mehrauli, and took the team in a dried big pond, where he had murdered the deceased. On the instance and identification of the accused, the skull of a child was found lying on the dried grass. Nearby the skull, there were small and big human-like bones, which were scattered. There a t- shirt, nicker, baniyaan and two slippers of the size of a child, were also found nearby. On the instance of the accused, a knife was also found from near the spot, which was told to be used for murdering the child by the accused. The area was inspected, photographed and videographed. A rough sketch was prepared during the inquest proceedings, which was proved as EX.PW26/A. The recovered skull and scattered bones totalling 33 in number, were kept in plastic jar, and the same were converted into pullanda, duly sealed SC No. 10/13 : FIR No. 229/11 : 'State v. Shyam Babu Chaudhary' 30 /48 with the seal of 'RKM', and seized vide pointing-out-cum seizure memo, which is already EX.PW8/D. The recovered T-shirt, nicker, baniyaan and two slippers were kept together in another plastic jar, and the same were converted into pullanda, duly sealed with the seal of 'RKM', and seized vide pointing-out-cum seizure memo EX.PW8/E. The knife recovered, was placed on a white paper and its sketch was prepared as EX.PW25/A. As per the measurement, the knife was of 15 inch length out of which, 10 inch was size of the blade and 5 inch was handle. The handle was made of wood. The width of blade was 2 inch, whereas, the width of the handle was 1 ½ inch. The recovered knife was wrapped in a paper and seized through a pullanda, vide pointing-out-cum-seizure memo EX.PW8/F. Earth-control i.e. ghaas-foos (grass) from the place, from where the skull was recovered and the same was kept in a plastic container and converted into pullanda, duly sealed with the seal of 'RKM', and seized vide seizure memo as EX.PW8/G. Earth beneath the nicker and T-shirt, and earth from the place from where the knife was recovered, were also taken separately in plastic containers, converted into pullanda, duly sealed with the SC No. 10/13 : FIR No. 229/11 : 'State v. Shyam Babu Chaudhary' 31 /48 seal of 'RKM', and seized vide seizure memo as EX.PW8/H and EX.PW8/J respectively. All the process of reaching to the spot on the instance and guidance of the accused, as well as pointing out and seizure of all the exhibits, were videographed by Ct. Purushottam of Crime Team, who produced the cassettes of the videography, which was taken into possession, duly sealed with the seal of 'RKM', and seized vide seizure memo as EX.PW8/K. As it became dark in the Jungle, so they alongwith accused and witnesses, came to the police station. The jar containing the bones, was sent to the AIIMS Mortuary, through HC Subhash, for preservation, and his request to the CMO, In-charge, Mortuary, AIIMS, was proved as EX.PW26/B. Remaining exhibits were deposited in the Maalkhana. Statement of Ct. Purushottam, SI S. P. Singh and father of deceased were recorded. Accused was also got medically examined, and thereafter, he was put behind the lockup. He further stated that on 05.07.2011, accused was again interrogated and he was produced before the concerned Court and was taken on two-day PC remand. On the request of the father of the deceased, he alongwith SI S.P. Singh and father of the deceased SC No. 10/13 : FIR No. 229/11 : 'State v. Shyam Babu Chaudhary' 32 /48 again went to the place of murder of child-Abhishekh, as Suresh (father of deceased) told that the child was wearing two silver karas in his hand, at the time of his missing. On further intensive search at the place of murder, two similar metal karas having about 1 ½ Inch diameter, were also found from the place, from where skull and bones of the deceased Abhishekh had recovered. Both the karas were sealed and seized vide seizure memo as EX.PW8/L. Thereafter, he came back to the police station. After coming to the police station, he found one Sanjay Kumar waiting in the police station, who produced a black cream colour bag and a black colour mobile phone saying that these were given to him by accused Shyam Babu Chaudhary, who was identified by him being present in the police station. The said mobile phone and bag were taken into police possession and seized vide seizure memo as EX.PW2/A. A request was made to the Doctor in AIIMS, for conducted postmortem, but it was told that it would take time, as it requires some x-rays and tests to be conducted, so the bones and skull were got preserved. The said request is EX.PW26/E and EX.PW26/F. He further stated that on 06.07.2011, as per SC No. 10/13 : FIR No. 229/11 : 'State v. Shyam Babu Chaudhary' 33 /48 disclosure of the accused, he was taken to Gajipur, near EDM Mall and container depot. On the instance and pointing out of the accused, a rough map was prepared of the place where accused disclosed to have got a child talked to the father of deceased, in order to get him believed that his child was alive. The said rough sketch was proved as EX.PW26/C. On the search nearby, accused identified a child, aged about 10-12 years, stating that he was the same boy, who was given Rs. 10/- by him, to talk with the father of the deceased. He also prepared pointing out memo, which was proved as EX.PW25/B. He further stated that on 07.07.2011, accused was produced before the Court. After having permission from the Court, his specimen signatures on 13 sheets were obtained and the same were proved as EX.PW26/D1 to D-13. Blood sample of father and mother of the deceased were collected in AIIMS, through SI Shiv Dev, and the same were deposited in Maalkhana. He identified the case property i.e one nicker, one half sleeves T- shirt, one pair slipper, one baniyaan as EX.PW26/P-1 (nicker), EX.PW26/P-2 (half sleeves t-shirt) and EX.PW26/P-3 (one pair of slipper). He also identified the knife as Ex.PW26/P-4 and the skull SC No. 10/13 : FIR No. 229/11 : 'State v. Shyam Babu Chaudhary' 34 /48 and bones as Ex. PW26/P-8. He also identified the other case properties i.e soil, earth control, bones, blood-in-gauze of parents of Abhishekh, Karas, video cassette, mobile phone, bag etc. In his cross examination, he stated that the disclosure statement of the accused had been recorded by the earlier IO prior to 2.00 PM. The father of the deceased was present in the police station. They left the police station at about 2.30 PM. The bones, which were recovered were broken bones. He could not tell whether there was any 'cut' mark on the bones or on the recovered clothes, which corresponded with the 'cut' mark of the alleged recovered knife. The recovered clothes and bones were not sent by him to FSL, to ascertain whether there was any cut mark on the bones and the clothes, which corresponded with the cut marks of the recovered knife. The handle of the knife was visible and the blade was partially inserted in the earth. The jar containing the bones was sent to AIIMS Mortuary on the same day immediately after I reached the police station. He stated that the kadas produced in the Court, were in the same condition, as had been recovered by him. The kadas were not having any mud or grass material on them, and SC No. 10/13 : FIR No. 229/11 : 'State v. Shyam Babu Chaudhary' 35 /48 he had seized and sealed them in the same condition, in which they were found. The Court made an Observation that "No earth-like substance was visible on the said kadas by naked eye, nor any such material was found in the plastic polythene, in which the said kadas were kept". Sanjay Kumar had come to the police station in response to the call given to him by the previous IO on 05.07.2011. He did not find anything inside the bag, which connected the accused with that bag. On 06.07.2011, he reached near EDM Mall and Container Depot at about 4.30/5.00 PM. The boy Bholu met them, after about 15 minutes of our reaching there. They went to the house of Bholu but none was present at the house. 4.27 PW-27 HC Nahar Singh, is the Duty Officer who proved recording of FIR. He stated that on 21.05.2011, at about 10.20 PM, he received rukka from Ct. Rishi, which was sent by ASI Raj Pal Singh and on the basis of rukka, he got recorded FIR bearing no. 229/11 u/s 363 IPC which he proved as EX.PW27/A. He proved his endorsement on rukka as EX.PW27/B. SC No. 10/13 : FIR No. 229/11 : 'State v. Shyam Babu Chaudhary' 36 /48 4.28 PW-28 Insp. Pankaj Singh, stated that on 14.07.2011, he received present case-file from previous IO/Insp. Rajeev Malik, as he was transferred from there. He sent exhibits of the present case to FSL, on different dates. He also collected the call detail records and also obtained scaled site plan. After completing investigation, he filed Challan in the court. Later on, on 06.08.2012, he also submitted FSL result in the court and he proved the same as DNA report, biological and physical reports as EX.PW28/B, EX.PW28/C and EX.PW28/D, respectively. He stated that on 04.06.2012, he also collected FSL result in respect of specimen handwriting of accused Shyam Babu Chaudhary, and proved the FSL handwriting report as EX.PW28/F.
5. All the incriminating circumstances were put to the accused and his statement was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C but he denied to have kidnapped any person for the purpose of demanding ransom or to have committed his murder. He stated that he did not write any ransom letter to anyone at any point of time nor he gave any ransom letter to anybody. He stated that he SC No. 10/13 : FIR No. 229/11 : 'State v. Shyam Babu Chaudhary' 37 /48 was wrongly arrested and the disclosure statement was not voluntary. He stated that nothing had been recovered from his possession or at his instance and the knife was planted upon him. He stated that he did not point out any place for recovery of skull and bones. He stated that he was forced by the police personnel to go to 'Jamali Kamali' jungle but he did not lead the police and at that point of time, he was videographed. He stated that the call detail records are manipulated. He stated that he was selling vegetables in Mehrauli Sabji Mandi and Suresh Chaudhary - father of the deceased, was also selling vegetables in Mehrauli Sabji Mandi. They were competitors and because they were competing each other in selling vegetables in Sabji Mandi, Suresh Chaudhary falsely implicated him in this case. However, he did not lead any evidence in his defence.
6. Shri Rajeev Jain, Legal Aid Counsel has argued that the accused is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He has stated that there is no eye-witness in this case and the prosecution case rests on circumstantial evidence. He has stated SC No. 10/13 : FIR No. 229/11 : 'State v. Shyam Babu Chaudhary' 38 /48 that in a case of circumstantial evidence, prosecution is duty bound to prove all the circumstances beyond all reasonable doubts and the circumstances should complete the chain of circumstances and if there is any break in the chain of circumstances, its benefit necessarily has to go to the accused. It has been stated that the sample handwriting of the accused was taken which was sought to be matched with the handwriting in the three ransom letters but as per the FSL result, his handwriting did not match with the handwriting in any of those three ransom letters. He further stated that in fact, the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubts that the skeleton and the bones which were recovered, were of deceased Abhishekh as no DNA could be extracted by the FSL scientists from the said bones so as to give an opinion that the said bones belonged to the offspring of the complainant Suresh Chaudhary. He has stated that Karas have been shown to be recovered on 05.07.2011 whereas other recoveries of clothes, bones and knife were made on 04.07.2011, which shows that the recovery of Karas is planted. He has stated that the depositions of the prosecution witnesses have many loopholes which are fatal to SC No. 10/13 : FIR No. 229/11 : 'State v. Shyam Babu Chaudhary' 39 /48 the prosecution case. He argued that the accused has been falsely implicated in this case as he was a competitor of Suresh Chaudhary as they both used to sell vegetables in Mehrauli Sabji Mandi. On these grounds, acquittal has been prayed for the accused.
7. Ld. Addl. PP, on the other hand, has stated that the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts. He has stated that the accused himself pointed out the place where he killed Abhishekh and from that place, the weapon of offence i.e knife, skull and bones of Abhishekh and his clothes, slippers were recovered and the entire process of recovery was videographed. He has stated that the very pointing out of the said place by the accused, shows his complicity. He has stated that the accused had made a rag-picker Bhola to speak with Suresh Chaudhary at EDM Mall. The accused also left his mobile phone and bag with the Auto Driver - PW-2 Sanjay Kumar when he came back from EDM Mall to Mehrauli. Reliance has also been placed by him on the call detail records which show that the mobile phone, which was earlier used by the accused, was then used by SC No. 10/13 : FIR No. 229/11 : 'State v. Shyam Babu Chaudhary' 40 /48 brother of Sanjay Kumar. On these grounds, Ld. Addl. PP has stated that the accused may be convicted for the offences for which he was charged with by this court.
8. I have heard both the sides and have perused the records of the case. The accused has faced trial for kidnapping of Abhishekh for ransom, for murdering him and for causing disappearance of evidence of his crime. Case of the prosecution is that the accused kidnapped Abhishekh, son of the complainant PW-8 Suresh Chaudhary on 21.5.2011 and murdered him same day in the jungle of jamali-kamali and thereafter he wrote three ransom letters demanding ransom to release him. Further it has been claimed that on 26.6.2011 the accused made one boy Bhole (PW-5) of Ghazipur area, speak with Suresh Chaudhary on phone to give him an impression that his son Abhishekh was in captivity of the accused and that was done with a view to extract money from Suresh Chaudhary. Going of accused to Ghazipur is sought to be proved from the deposition of Sanjay (PW-2) an auto driver who brought accused back from Ghazipur to Mehrauli on that day and SC No. 10/13 : FIR No. 229/11 : 'State v. Shyam Babu Chaudhary' 41 /48 when he got down at Mehrauli, instead of giving auto fare, he left his mobile phone and bag with Sanjay. From the Call Detail Records, it has been sought to be proved by the prosecution that the accused was using one particular mobile number and one particular phone phone, having a unique IMEI number and the same IMEI number was used on a sim card of Sanjay from 27.6.2011. In order to prove that the murder was committed by accused, the prosecution relied upon the recovery of bones, etc. at the instance of the accused from the jungle of jamali-kamali and this process was videographed and the said video cassette was also brought on record. To prove the demand of ransom, three letters purportedly written by the accused, were also brought on record by the prosecution.
9. There is no eye witness to the offence, said to be committed by the accused. There is not even any witness who could vouch that he saw the accused last in the company of the deceased. Prosecution has heavily relied upon the depositions of PW-2 Sanjay Kumar and PW-5 Bhole. In a case of murder, where SC No. 10/13 : FIR No. 229/11 : 'State v. Shyam Babu Chaudhary' 42 /48 a body or remnants are found, it is always the duty of the prosecution to prove beyond all reasonable doubts that the said corpse or remnants are of the person said to have been killed by the accused. In the present case, no corpse could be found which could be identified by the near and dears of the deceased, but a skull and 33 bones were found. The bony remains were examined by PW-16 Dr. Sudipta Ranjan Singh in post mortem but she could not give any definite opinion even about the gender of the said remnants. Doctors also took blood samples of Smt. Rekha (PW-6) and Suresh Chaudhry (PW-8), who are parents of the missing boy Abhishekh for the purpose of DNA profiling with the remnants, but as per DNA Report (Ex. PW-28/B) no opinion could be offered as no DNA profile could be generated from the skull and bones which were found. This is quite strange that the scientists could not generate DNA profile from as many as 33 bones and a skull. Recovery of clothes of missing boy Abhishekh near the skull and bones, does not prove conclusively that the said skull and bones are of none else, than those of the missing boy Abhishekh. As such, it cannot be said with certainty that the bonny remnants, which were SC No. 10/13 : FIR No. 229/11 : 'State v. Shyam Babu Chaudhary' 43 /48 found in the jungle on 4.7.2011 were those of only Abhishekh and of none else.
10. According to prosecution, the accused had murdered Abhishekh by cutting his neck with the knife recovered from the jungle of jamali-kamali. However, PW-16 Dr. Sudipta Ranjan stated that she found no cut marks on any of the bones examined by her. As such, even this claim of the prosecution falls flat. According to FSL result (Ex. PW-29/C) of knife, blood was detected on the said knife but regarding blood group, the opinion was 'no reaction'. PW-16 Dr. Sudipta Ranjan also could not give any opinion as to time since death. As such, even on these scores, there is nothing to connect the accused with the crime.
11. Three ransom letters were seized in this case by the police. It is nobody's case that the said letters were given by the accused to the parents of the missing boy Abhishekh. The handwriting on those three letters (Ex. PW-22/PA, Ex. PW-22/P2 and Ex. PW-22/P3) were sought to be matched with the specimen SC No. 10/13 : FIR No. 229/11 : 'State v. Shyam Babu Chaudhary' 44 /48 handwriting of the accused of both hands (Ex. PW-26/D1 to D13) but the FSL could not give any definite opinion regarding the authorship of the three letters as per FSL result (Ex. PW 28/F). As such, even the ransom letters do not connect the accused with the present case.
12. Deposition of PW-5 Bhole is one piece of evidence which is against the accused as he stated that the accused made him to speak Papa to a person on phone. Call Details Record (Ex. PW-12/G) show that on 26.6.2011 at 6.51 pm a call was made from mobile number 7838115837 (used by accused) to mobile number 8860416625 (used by complainant). However, even if it is true, although there are glitches in this piece of evidence as well, yet this circumstance also does not show that the accused demanded ransom and killed Abhishekh. There are glitches in this piece of evidence, as firstly, finding this boy Bhola by police on 6.7.2011, without there being any address or even name of that boy, from near EDM Mall, Ghazipur is highly doubtful. Secondly, his meeting with police also becomes doubtful as there is no SC No. 10/13 : FIR No. 229/11 : 'State v. Shyam Babu Chaudhary' 45 /48 explanation as to why his statement u/s 164 Cr PC was got recorded after more than 2 months thereafter as the said statement Ex. PW-15/A was recorded on 15.9.2011. Thirdly, tutoring of this witness cannot be ruled out as he was examined in Court on 23.12.2011 wherein he stated that about 2-3 months ago, the accused asked him to talk on telephone and say Papa. He could not tell the date on which the accused had asked him to so speak. Interestingly, the expression used by him is '2-3 months ago' which actually is repetition of his statement u/s 164 Cr PC which was recorded about 2-3 months after the said incident, forgetting that he was deposing in Court after 6 months of the incident. Be that as it may, his deposition also does not inspire confidence.
13. Deposition of PW-2 Sanjay is also not free from doubts. PW-25 SI SP Singh stated that PW-2 Sanjay came in police station on 5.7.2011. PW-26 also stated that Sanjay came in police station on 5.7.2011. As against this, PW-2 Sanjay himself stated that he went to police station on 27.7.2011 on being called there. There are thus material discrepancies in the prosecution case SC No. 10/13 : FIR No. 229/11 : 'State v. Shyam Babu Chaudhary' 46 /48 on this point as well.
14. Clothes, slippers etc. of the missing boy Abhishekh were seized by police from the jungle of jamali-kamali on 4.7.2011. As per FSL result (Ex. PW-28/B) no blood could be detected on the recovered nicker, T-shirt, baniyan and chappal. It is highly improbable that if the missing boy Abhishekh was done to death by cutting his neck, his clothes would not be smeared with blood. No karas of the missing boy Abhishekh were found from the said spot on 4.7.2011. However, karas were found from there on 5.7.2011 which is not very convincing as there was no mention in Ex. PW-8/A (Tehrir) that the missing boy Abhishekh was also wearing karas when he went missing. Thus, much reliance cannot be placed on this recovery. Since the recoveries do not connect the accused with the offence as per the FSL results, even the videography of the process of recovery, does not help the prosecution. For all these reasons, the prosecution case that the accused killed Abhishekh for ransom, is highly doubtful. SC No. 10/13 : FIR No. 229/11 : 'State v. Shyam Babu Chaudhary' 47 /48
15. It is well settled that the prosecution is duty-bound to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts and in case of murder based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution is under a stringent duty to prove all the links in the chain so as to prove that it was the accused and only the accused who could have done the murder and none else and in case any link goes missing in the chain, its benefit has to go to the accused. As noticed in preceding paras, there are various missing links in the prosecution story and its benefit has to go to the accused. The accused is thus entitled to be acquitted and it is so ordered.
Announced in the open Court. (Rajeev Bansal)
Dated: 29.11.2014. ASJ-3/South District
Saket Courts, New Delhi
SC No. 10/13 : FIR No. 229/11 : 'State v. Shyam Babu Chaudhary' 48 /48