Delhi District Court
State vs . on 1 May, 2010
1
IN THE COURT OF SURINDER KUMAR SHARMA
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE - NORTH EAST
KARKARDOOMA COURTS:DELHI
State
Vs.
1. Shah Alam @ Mukaddam
S/o Sh. Nathuwa Khan
R/o Vill. Nawada,
Tehsil Sikandarabad,
Police Station Kotwali Dehat,
Distt. Bulandshahar, U.P.
2. Smt. Vinita @ Bhudevi
W/o Sh. Satpal
R/o G-4/766, Chaman Vihar,
Loni, Ghaziabad, U.P.
3. Shripal
S/o Sh. Chander Pal
R/o Village Bhamori,
Tehsil Bisoli,
Police Station Wazeer Ganj,
Distt. Badaun, U.P.
FIR No.444/2005
P.S. : Khajuri Khas
U/s : 363/364-A/302/120-B/
201/34 IPC
Sessions Case No. : 83/2009
Sessions Case No. 83/09 Page 1 / 21
2
Date of Institution of case : 04.09.2006
Date on which reserved for Judgment : 17.04.2010
Date of Judgment : 01.05.2010
JUDGMENT:
In brief the case of the prosecution is that on 22.10.2005 one Daya Shankar S/o Sh. Nathu Ram came to the Police Station Khajuri Khas and lodged a report regarding missing of his son Sachin aged about seven years, which was recorded vide DD No. 42-B and same was handed over to A.S.I. Ram Kishore for enquiry. On 23.10.2005 Sh. Daya Shanker came in the Police Station and made a statement to Duty Officer, wherein he has stated that he was running a confectionery shop under the name and style of Sweet India near his house. On 19.10.2006 his son namely Sachin aged seven years was playing at temple in the street in front of his house. After 3.00 p.m. he had seen his son in the gali, but he was not playing there. He kept on searching his son and contacted his relations but his son was not found. He alleged in his complaint that his son was kidnapped by some unknown person by enticing him.
On the said statement, ASI Ram Kishore made his endorsement and got the present case registered vide FIR No. 444/2005 U/s 363 IPC in the Police Station Khajuri Khas and Sessions Case No. 83/09 Page 2 / 21 3 investigation was carried out. On 1.11.2005 the complainant informed the I.O./ASI Ram Kishan that he had received a ransom call on his telephone No.22969912 and the call was made from mobile telephone No.9927111415. During investigation, all the three accused persons were arrested and after completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against them for the offences punishable U/s 363/364-A/302/120-B/201/34 IPC.
Ld.M.M after supply of copies etc. to the accused committed the case to the court of Sessions.
Vide orders dated 16.09.2006, my Ld. Predecessor framed a charge for offences punishable U/s 120-B IPC, U/s 363 read with section 120-B IPC, U/s 364 read with section 120-B IPC, U/s 364-A read with section 120-B IPC, U/s 302 read with section 120-B IPC and U/s 201 IPC against all the three accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
In support of its case, the prosecution has examined 17 witnesses. Thereafter the statements of the accused persons were recorded U/s 313 Cr.P.C. wherein they denied the allegations against them. They have stated that they are innocent and falsely implicated in this case.
Accused Shah Alam has stated that he was lifted by the police on 7.4.2006 from Village Dayalpur where he had gone to take medicine. He was detained in the police station and was given beatings. Thereafter, he was falsely implicated in this case.
Sessions Case No. 83/09 Page 3 / 21 4The accused persons did not lead any evidence in his defence.
PW-1 Dinesh Kumar is a Videographer by profession. On 11.4.2006 he along with accused Shah Alam, Shri Pal and police went to Badaun and at the pointing out of both the accused, one skeleton was recovered by the police from a place near the river bank from a forest area, which was seized by the police vide memo Ex. PW-1/A. He did videography of entire episode and he handed over the cassette of videography to Insp. B.P.Sharma. He identified the video cassette as Ex. P-1.
PW-3 is Jai Prakash, who is running a PCO shop at his house in village Manpur Distt.Eta ( U.P.) On 31.10.2005 it was Deepawali Festival, during day hours, Ajay Pal Singh came to his shop to purchase a sim card. He took him to the shop of Pradeep Kumar, which was located in Kashganj. Ajay Pal Singh gave photo copy of his ration card and his photograph and a sim card was issued to him.
PW-4 Smt. Bhagwan Devi. She stated that Bhu Devi was residing as a tenant in their house and remained at her house for about six months. She left her house about 20-22 days prior to kidnapping of his son. Sachin was her younger child and Dharambir is her elder son elder Sachin went missing on 19th October. After kidnapping her son Sachin, Bhu Devi used to visit her house and used to express sympathy with her stating ''jo tera Sessions Case No. 83/09 Page 4 / 21 5 baccha le gaya uska nash ho''. She further stated that she suspected that Bhu Devi has kidnapped her son Sachin. However, she could not assign any reason of her suspicion towards her ( Bhu Devi ) for kidnapping of her son.
PW-5 SI Rama Nand was duty officer, who recorded the FIR No. 444/05 U/s 363 IPC on the statement of complainant Daya Shanker and proved the carbon copy of the same as Ex. PW5/A. After registration of the FIR. the investigation was assigned to ASI Ram Kishore.
PW-6 Sh. Deepak Grover is running a mobile shop under the name of Bhagwati Couriers Company at Chandosi, Muradabad, U.P. He has stated that he did not recollect the exact date and month, however, in the beginning of the year 2006, Delhi Police Officials had come to his shop and enquired him about mobile connection No. 9927341793. After checking the record, he told the said police officials that this connection was issued in the name of Jai Prakash s/o Sh. Bhawani Ram R/o Village Kulinta, Muradabad, U.P. He further stated that this connection was issued through his sub-dealer, who used to run a mobile shop under the name and style of Limra Telecom Centre, Chandosi, which was being run by Wahid and his brother. He received documents regarding identification of customer on 23.12.2005 from Nimra Telecome Centre and he transmitted the original documents, form, and photographs of customer to the Sessions Case No. 83/09 Page 5 / 21 6 company. He further stated that since the above said connection was given to customer Jai Prakash by his sub-dealer Wahid, so he could not identify the said person namely Jai Prakash. The photo copy of identity proof furnished by Jai Prakash is mark X-6.
PW-7 is Dr. Ram Babu Aggarwal. E.M.O. Distt.
Hospital, Badayun, U.P., who conducted the post mortem on the ( body ) skeleton of deceased Sachin and it were only pieces of bones i.e. pieces of skull bones, lower jaw, vertebraes, ribs, humrous, radius ulna, femur, tibia with mud and soil attached to it, which were sent for autopsy examination. He sealed eight bones and handed over it to police for DNA test. He has stated that since there were only bones referred above, neither cause of death nor time since death could be ascertained and he proved his report as Ex. PW-7/A. PW-8 is Pradeep Shankar, who was running a mobile sale and repair shop at Billram Gate, Kas Ganj, Eta, U.P. He has stated that Jai Prakash was his sub-dealer. On the day of Dhan Teras of the year 2005, Delhi Police Officials came at his shop regarding the verification of mobile No. 9927111415. After checking his record, he told the police that the said connection was issued to Jai Prakash, Sub-Dealer and he had sold the said phone to one Ajay Singh. He ( Jai Prakash ) had submitted copy of I.D. Proof and photograph of Ajay Singh and he had submitted the said record to the company. He submitted the copy Sessions Case No. 83/09 Page 6 / 21 7 of the said record to the police and photo copies of the same are Mark X-8 and X-8-A. PW-9 Daya Shanker is the complainant. He has stated that Sachin was his son. He has a confectionery shop near his house under the name and style of Sweet India. On 19.10.2005 his son had gone for playing at temple in the street nearby his house. He had seen Sachin playing there at about 3.00 or 4.00 p.m. when he was going to Khajuri Red Light in connection with some work when he returned to shop, his wife and other family members were weeping and they informed him that Sachin was missing. Sachin was aged about seven years at that time and he was wearing blue colour nikkar and light blue colour shirt having stripes.
PW-9 Daya Shankar further stated that he searched Sachin in the locality and contacted his relations but he was not found. On 22.10.2005 he lodged the missing report in the Police Station. He tried to search Sachin but all in vain. On 23.10.2005 he lodged the FIR at Police Station Khajuri Khas, carbon copy of the same is Ex. PW-5/A. On 01.11.2005 he received a phone call in his shop at about 8.00 a.m. and the caller told that his (PW-9) child was in his possession and the caller demanded Rs.8 lacs for release of his son. The caller did not disclose his identity & the place where he (PW-9) had to go with money. Again on 5.11.2005 in the evening, he received a phone call. He noted Sessions Case No. 83/09 Page 7 / 21 8 down the said number and conveyed the same to police immediately. He further stated that on 11.11.2005 at about 8.00/9.00 a.m. he received a phone call on his telephone from that very number and police kept surveillance on his phone and conversation was being taped by the police. The caller threatened him that he would murder his son Sachin in case money is not arranged. On 11.11.2005 caller had arranged a talk of his child Sachin with him on phone and Sachin told him that '' Papa panch laakh le aao''. Sachin talked to her mother also and consoled his mother not to weep. Caller threatened him that he would murder Sachin. He conveyed these facts to police. He further stated that again he received a threatening call from another mobile number. He noted the said number and conveyed the same to police. Caller used to make frequent calls on some intervals. He did not remember the various dates when calls were made to him on his phone. He became too much perplexed and fearful. Caller repeatedly raised the same demand.
Accused Bhu Devi @ Vinita was residing as tenant at his house. She vacated his premises about one month prior to the incident. She was a quarrelsome lady and due to her ill- behaviour, he got his premises vacated from her. When his son went missing, she ( Bhu Devi ) used to visit his house. They became suspicious towards her and he conveyed these facts to police.
Sessions Case No. 83/09 Page 8 / 21 9PW-9 Daya Shankar further stated that in the month of April 2006 police called him at the police station Khajuri Khas. Accused Bhu Devi also met him. Police informed him that Sachin was probably no more. Police requested him to join the investigation. He handed over the photographs of Sachin to the police. On 10.4.2006 he joined the police team consisting of 5-6 police officials along with one photographer, Munna Lal and Pooran Singh. They reached police station Wazir Ganj Distt. Badyun, U.P. Accused persons Shah Alam @ Mukkadam and Sri Pal were also in police custody and they were taken to Village Bhaitra Bhamori. Accused persons led them to river bank at village Soti, it was near Village Bhaitra Bhamori. Both the accused persons pointed out the place where dead body of Sachin was burried. Several persons of the villages gathered there, the pointing memos of accused Sri Pal and Shal Alam are Ex. PW-9/A and Ex. PW-9/B. The accused persons dug the place and skeleton of child was recovered, which was wrapped in red colour cloth. He identified the skeleton on his son on the basis of his skull. He signed the inquest paper prepared by the police, which are Ex. PW-9/C. The skeleton was converted into separate cloth parcel and was taken to Civil Hospital Badayun. After the post mortem, the skeleton of his son was given to him vide receipt Ex. PW-9/D. He was taken to GTB Hospital along with his wife where his blood sample and blood sample of his Sessions Case No. 83/09 Page 9 / 21 10 wife were taken by the doctor.
PW-11 is Nathu Singh. He has stated that he is a farmer. When he was present on his fields, police came from Delhi in connection with the kidnapping of son of Daya Shanker. Local police was also present. Police dug up near his fields situated on the bank of the river and a skeleton was recovered. He cannot say whose skeleton it was. Police prepared punchnama and he put his signatures on the punchnama Ex.PW- 9/C. Daya Shanker was present when the proceedings were done by the police. He did not know as to how police came to know about the place from where skeleton was recovered. This witness was cross examined by Ld. Addl. P.P. for the State as he was not disclosing the complete facts, wherein he denied that Sri Pal had told the police about the place from where the skeleton was recovered. He admitted that memos Ex. PW-9/A and Ex. PW-9/B were prepared by the police but he did not know contents of the same. Neither he admitted nor denied the suggestion put by Ld. Addl. P.P. for the State that accused Sri Pal and Shah Alam pointed to the place from where skeleton was recovered.
PW-12 is S.I.Suresh Pal, who joined the investigation with IO Insp. B.P.Sharma and supported the case of the prosecution on all the material points.
PW-14 is Pankaj Asstt. Nodal Officer, Idea Mobile, who has produced the call details for cellular number Sessions Case No. 83/09 Page 10 / 21 11 9927111415 for the period from 12.8.2005 to 12.11.2005, which is Ex. PW-14/A, call details of No. 9927341793 for the period from 12.8.2005 to 12.11.2005, copies of the same are marked as PW-13/B-1 to PW-13/B-3, communication received from the IT Department in this regard along with the requisition made to the IT Department is Ex. PW-14/B and call details for the month of December 2005 in respect of phone No. 9927341793 is Ex. PW- 14/C. PW-15 is Tribhuwan. He deposed that he did not know anything about this case and nor he has given any statement to the police nor police enquired from him regarding this case. This witness was cross examined by Ld. Addl. P.P. for the State as he was resiling from his earlier statement made to the police. In his cross examination by Addl. P.P. he denied the suggestion that on 11.4.2006 police came at his village Bhamori or had shown him a photograph and stated the name of the boy in photograph as Sachin or that he had identified the photograph and stated to police that he had seen the said boy in the photograph along with one Sri Pal resident of village Bhamori and three other persons namely Pem Pal, Mahender and Pratap. He denied the suggestion of Ld. Addl. P.P. that he had stated to the police that he saw the boy in the photograph along with Prem Pal, Pratap, Mahender and Sri Pal.
PW-13 S.I. Satender Tomar is the first Investigating Sessions Case No. 83/09 Page 11 / 21 12 Officer of the case. He has stated that on 9.11.2005 while he was posted at Police Station Khajuri Khas, the investigation of this case was assigned to him. During investigation, he took the number of the phones from which the complainant was receiving calls for demand of ransom and came to know that the address of the subscribers of the phones were fake. He came to know about this fact from the Phone Company on the basis of IMEI number. He had collected the phone call details from the company and the same are Ex. PW-13/A-1 to Ex. PW-13/A-4 & Ex. PW-13/B-1 to Ex. PW-13/B-3. The copies of I.D. Proof of address collected by him are Ex. X-8/A and Ex. X-6. During investigation, he received secret information to the effect that Shah Alam @ Mukadam was involved in this case and that he was known criminal of District Bulandshahar and he came to know that Shah Alam had come to Delhi to the house of Bhu Devi. He further stated that on 9.4.2006 he along with S.I. Rajesh Dogra, HC Som Pal & Constable Sohanvir went to the house of Bhu Devi at Chaman Vihar, Loni and raided her house. From there, they apprehended accused Bhu Devi, Shah Alam and Shree Pal. He further stated that from the possession of accused Shah Alam a mobile phone Make Nokia -1100 was recovered and on checking the IEMI number of the phone was same from which the calls were received by the complainant as per the call records. A diary was recovered from the house of accused Bhu Devi in Sessions Case No. 83/09 Page 12 / 21 13 which name Mukadam was written and a phone number was also written besides the name. He arrested all the three accused namely Bhu Devi, Shah Alam, and Shree Pal vide arrest memos Ex. PW-2/A,Ex. PW-2/B and Ex. PW-3/C and their personal search were conducted vide memos Ex. PW-2/A1, Ex. PW-2/B1 and Ex. PW-2/C1. He also recorded their disclosure statements which are Ex. PW-8/F,Ex. PW-8/G and Ex. PW-8/H. He stated that during investigation, he seized the cell phone and the diary vide memo Ex. PW-2/D and Ex. PW-2/E, recorded statements of witnesses. Thereafter, the investigation was transferred to Insp. B.P.Sharma.
PW-2 SI Rajesh Dogra, PW-10 HC Sohanvir Singh have joined the investigation with the I.O. S.I Satender Tomar and they have corroborated the testimony of SI Satender Tomar on all the material points.
PW-17 Insp. B.P.Sharma is the Investigating Officer of the case. He has stated that on 10.4.2006 he was posted at Police Station Khajuri Khas. On that day, the investigation of this case was entrusted to him. He further stated that as accused Shah Alam and Shree Pal had made disclosure statements to the effect that they can get recover the dead body of deceased Sachin. He along with both the accused, Daya Shankar and staff reached at Wazirganj and from there, he got joined local police and reached at village Bahkra. He had shown the photograph of Sessions Case No. 83/09 Page 13 / 21 14 deceased Sachin to the villagers and one Tri Bhavan and Nathu had identified the photograph and told that the same boy was seen at the house of Prem Pal for one month. The accused persons pointed out the spot where they had dumped the dead body of Sachin and he prepared pointing out memos as Ex. PW- 9/A and Ex. PW-9/B. He had conducted the said proceedings under video graphy. After digging, skelton of child wrapped in cloth was got recovered by the accused persons. During investigation, he completed proceedings U/s 174 Cr.P.C., got conducted postmortem of the skelton, collected post mortem report Ex. PW-7/A. He also seized some substance for conducting DNA of the dead body along with sealed pulanda of clothes, pulanda of skelton, pulanda of a cloth and sample seal vide memo Ex. PW-17/A. He proved his requests for postmortem and for providing police force as Ex. PW-17/B and Ex. PW-17/C. Accused Shah Alam got recovered box of mobile Nokia-Make- 1100 with slip bearing IMEI-355692002705320 pasted with a slip containing a cash memo of Bhakti Communication and Associates, in the name of Sanjeev Kumar containing IDEA user booklet, which was seized vide memo Ex. PW-13/B after sealing the same with the seal of BPS. He prepared site plan of the spot from where skelton was recovered which is Ex. PW-17/D. He also got done the video graphy of the recovery of the skelton vide memo Ex. PW-1/A. He conducted Sessions Case No. 83/09 Page 14 / 21 15 raid at the house of accused Prem Pal,who ran away along with his family members. He conducted house search and one ration card was seized from his house vide memo Ex. PW-9/E. He made search for other accused Mahender and Pratap but they also could not be arrested. He got conducted proceedings u/s 82/83 Cr.P.C. against the accused Prem Pal, Pratap and Mahender and got them declared proclaimed offenders. He received requisition of CFSL Hyderabad to send samples of blood of the parents of the deceased. He obtained blood samples of Daya Shanker and Bhagwan Devi at GTB Hospital in EDTA kit sent by CFSL Hyderabad and sent the same to CFSL Hyderabad. The identification form of Bhagwati Deivi and Daya Shanker are Ex.PW1/F. He prepared supplementary challan on receipt of DNA Report. The DNA Report is Ex. PW-
17/E PW-16 is S.I. Kashmira Singh, who joined the investigation with I.O. Insp. B.P.Sharma. In his presence, the parents of deceased Sachin were taken to GTB Hospital and their blood samples were taken in the hospital in EDTA and the same were taken into possession by the IO vide memo Ex. PW-16/A. The I.O. had completed a form for the purpose of sending the same for DNA test.
I have heard Sh. Ashok Kumar Ld. Addl. P.P. for the State & Sh.J.S. Kushawha Ld. Counsel for all the accused persons.
Sessions Case No. 83/09 Page 15 / 21 16I have also gone through the file.
In this case prosecution has examined as many as 17 witnesses. The scrutiny of the prosecution evidence reveals that in the present case there is no direct evidence and prosecution case rests upon circumstantial evidence.
It was submitted on behalf of the State that the prosecution case stands proved from the statements of witnesses. It was submitted that all the prosecution witnesses have supported the prosecution case.
It was further submitted on behalf of the State that the deceased Sachin was last seen with the accused persons.
It was submitted on behalf of the State that a mobile phone make Nokia was recovered from the accused Shah Alam and accused Bhu Devi got recovered a diary of phone numbers.
It was submitted on behalf of the State that from the statements of witnesses, it is proved that chain of the circumstances is complete and prosecution case states proved.
On the other hand it was submitted by Ld. Counsel for the accused persons that the accused have been falsely implicated. It was submitted that there is no witness of the last seen.
The case of the prosecution is that from the said mobile phone which was recovered from accused Shah Alam, he used to make call for ransom to Daya Shanker father of the Sessions Case No. 83/09 Page 16 / 21 17 kidnapped boy. The IMEI Number of the mobile phone which was recovered from the possession of accused Shah Alam is 355692002705320. In this regard, PW-3 Jai Prakash has stated that Ajay Pal had come to his shop to purchase a sim card and he took him to the shop pf Pradeep Kumar. Ajay Pal Singh gave photo copy of his ration card and his photograph and thereafter a sim card was issued to him ( Ajay Pal Singh ) and he can identify Ajay Pal Singh. He stated that he cannot identify that person i.e Jai Prakash. PW-6 Deepak Grover has stated that he cannot identify the said person namely Jai Prakash who obtained sim-card.
The perusal of the file further reveals that PW-13 IO SI Satender Tomar during investigation came to know that the address of the subscriber of the phone was found to be fake. However, both the numbers were being used by the same handset i.e. cell phone. The IMEI number of the phone which was recovered from accused Shah Alam was the same from which the ransom calls were received by the complainant as per the call records and he proved the copies of the call details as Marks PW- 13/B-1, PW-13/B-2 and PW-13/B-3. To prove the call details of the phone numbers, the prosecution has examined Sh. Pankaj Asstt. Nodal Officer from IDEA Cellular Ltd. as PW-14. He stated that call details Marks PW-13/B-1, PW-13/B-2 and PW-13/B-3 could not be retrieved by the I.T. Department and he proved the Sessions Case No. 83/09 Page 17 / 21 18 communication received from the I.T. Deptt. in this regard along with the requisition made to the I.T. Deptt. as Ex. PW-14/B. In a recent judgment in a Criminal Appeal No. 793/2004 in the case of Devesh Kumar Vs. State ( NCT of Delhi ) the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has observed that where neither a certification from a responsible officer of the company having control over the computer or authorized to generate a print out from the computer was proved nor was anybody from the company examined to state that the computer gererated sheets were generated through the computers storing the information and the information generated was stored in the ordinary course of business of the service provider, cannot said to be proved as per Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act.
In the present case, certification from a responsible officer of the company having control over the computer or authorized to generate a print out from the computer was not proved. Nor there is any evidence to show that the computer generated sheets were generated through the computers storing the information and the information generated was stored in the ordinary course of business. Hence, the mere statement of the Investigating Officer or of an employee of service provider that he obtained the details, is without complying with the mandate of Section 65-B of the Evidence Act is of no use. Therefore, in my view the alleged calls details have not been proved in accordance Sessions Case No. 83/09 Page 18 / 21 19 with law and thus, the prosecution has failed to prove that it was the same mobile phone which was recovered from accused Shah Alam, who used to make ransom calls to the complainant.
As regards the recovery of the diary, which was recovered from the house of accused Bhu Devi at her instance, in my view the same is of no use for the prosecution as it contains only some phone numbers. It does not implicate the accused persons in any manner.
As per the case of the prosecution the dead body of the deceased Sachin was recovered at the instance of accused Shah Alam and Sri Pal.
As per the version of I.O. Insp. B.P.Sharma one Tri Bhavan and Nathu had identified the photograph of Sachin and they have told that the same boy was seen at the house of Prem Pal. As per the prosecution version, Tri Bhavan and Nathu have lastly seen Sachin with Shri Pal. Sh. Nathu was examined as PW- 11 and Tri Bhuwan was examined as PW-15 by the prosecution. The perusal of the file further shows that PW-15 Tri Bhuwan has stated that he did not know anything about this case. He did not support the prosecution case. PW-111 Nathu has not supported the prosecution case in this regard.
As discussed above, the perusal of the file shows that PW-7 Dr. Ram Babu Aggarwal has conducted the autopsy examination of the dead body/skeleton and proved his report as Sessions Case No. 83/09 Page 19 / 21 20 Ex. PW-7/A. PW-7 has stated that it were pieces of bones which were not for autopsy examination. However, since there were only bones which were sent for autopsy examination, hence, neither cause of death nor time since death could be ascertained.
As per the version of PW-7 Dr. Ram Babu Aggarwal eight bones were sealed and handed over to the police for DNA Test. The DNA Report is proved as Ex. PW-17/E. As per the DNA report the result of examination is as under :
The DNA profile of the source of exhibit A ( femur bone) does not match with the DNA profiles of the sources of exhibit 1 ( blood sample said to be of Smt. Bhagwan Devi ) and exhibit J ( blood sample said to be of Shri Daya Shanker ). The alleles shown in red colour in the enclosed table-1 in the NDA profile of the source of exhibit A are not accounted in any of the DNA profiles of the sources of exhibits 1 and J.
Conclusion :
The DNA test performed on the above exhibits provided is sufficient to conclude that the source of exhibit A ( femur bone) is not from the biological son of the sources of exhibit 1 (Smt. Bhagwan Devi ) and exhibit J (Shri Daya Shanker).
Therefore, in view of the DNA report Ex. PW- 17/E, the skeleton/ dead body does not match with the DNA Sessions Case No. 83/09 Page 20 / 21 21 profiles of blood samples of Smt. Bhagwan Devi and Sh. Daya Shanker( parents of deceased Sachin).
The main evidence of the prosecution in this case was that the accused persons had got recovered the dead body ( skeleton) of deceased Sachin. As discussed above the skeleton which was got recovered by the accused persons was not of deceased Sachin as per the DNA Report.
In view of the above discussion, I am of the considered view that prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused persons. Accordingly, all the accused persons are acquitted for the offences charged with.
The accused Shah Alam, who is in judicial custody be released from the custody forthwith if he is not wanted in any other case.
The bail bonds of accused Bhu Devi @ Vinita and Sri Pal are cancelled. Their sureties are charged.
The file be consigned to Record Room. Announced in Open Court on 1st May' 2010 ( Surinder Kumar Sharma ) Addl. Sessions Judge/North East KKD, Delhi.Sessions Case No. 83/09 Page 21 / 21