Delhi District Court
34 In Sunder @ Lala And Ors. vs . State 2009 Vii Ad (Delhi) on 7 October, 2013
IN THE COURT OF SHRI. S.K. SARVARIA
DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE
NORTH WEST DISTRICT, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
Session Case No. 32/2011
StateVersus : Munna Pandit
S/o Sh. Ambika Pandit
R/o Vill. Dulam Chak, P.S Sahar/Chauvari,
District Bhojpur Ara, Bihar.
FIR NO. : 155/11
Police Station : Bawana
Under Section : 302/182 IPC
Date of institution : 29.08.2011
Date when the arguments
were heard : 23.09.2013
Date of judgment : 01.10.2013
JUDGEMENT
1 The SHO of Police Station Bawana has filed challan against the accused in the court of Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate for the trial of the accused for the offences under Sections 302/182 IPC. After supplying the copies to the accused and compliance of provisions of the section 207 Cr.P.C. the learned Metropolitan Magistrate committed the case to the court of Sessions under Section 209 Cr. P.C. for trial of the accused.
S/v Munna Pandit, FIR No.155/11, PS Bawana Page no.1/54 BRIEF FACTS 2 The prosecution case as disclosed in the challan filed against the accused after completion of investigation of the case is that on 03.05.2011 SI Ramesh received telephonic information that in Sector-3 Bawana H.No. 193 perhaps one boy has been murdered, 3-4 boys came to kill him and the blood was also present in the wall. On this information, SI Ramesh Chand went to the spot at Factory no. H 193, Sector-3, DSIDC Bawana and at the third floor on the left side room of the factory, a male dead body was present on the quilt. The statement of brother of deceased, namely, Munna Pandit was recorded in which he has stated that he, Mukesh and Lal Babu used to reside in the room at the third floor of the factory H 193, Sector-3, DSIDC. His brother Meghnath Pandit also used to reside with them. The factory was under construction. His brother Meghnath Pandit used to work as labourer in the factory in the day time and in the night he used to work as security guard. He (Munna Pandit) used to work in another factory 4-5 plots away from there from 9.00 p.m to 9.00 a.m. His two companions Mukesh and Lal Babu used to work from 9.00 a.m to 9.00 p.m in H-167, Sector-3 DSIDC Bawana, Delhi. On 3/5/12011, he (Munna Pandit) was present with his brother in the evening in the room and his two companions had gone for duty. At about 8.45 p.m, he and his brother took dinner and then he (Munna Pandit) went for his duty. At about 10.00 p.m, he made a mobile phone call from no. 9717953121 to Mukesh on mobile no. 8527985167 and he called him to come at once to the room as some incident has taken place with his (Munna Pandit) brother. He (Munna Pandit) immediately left the duty and S/v Munna Pandit, FIR No.155/11, PS Bawana Page no.2/54 reached H-193, Sector-3 where he met Mukesh and Lal Babu who were frightened. They informed that in the above room Meghnath Pandit was lying in injured condition. They went to the room and found the blood stained dead body of Meghnath Pandit at the quilt and the walls had blood stains. Adjacent to the dead body was a blood stained phawara with broken wooden handle. One blood stained wooden stick was also there. Then, he, Mukesh and Lal Babu got down the building and informed Raj Kumar Jha at the tea stall and then telephonically informed the police. SI Ramesh Chand recorded the statement of Munna Pandit. In the meantime, Inspector Kapil Dev and Incharge Crime team came to the spot. The spot was got photographed. The copy of DD no. 46A was brought by Beat Constable Ankush. The dead body of victim was sent to BSA mortuary, Rohini through Constable Ankush. The rukka was sent to police station Bawana through Constable Manjeet for registration of the case. Further investigation was handed over to A.T.O Bawana. The copy of FIR was sent to senior officers and Ld M.M concerned through special messenger.
During the investigation, Inspector Kapil Dev prepared unscaled site plan and recorded statement of Ashok Kumar regarding strained relationship between Munna Pandit and his brother Meghnath and about quarrel between them. On interrogation, accused Munna confessed before the police of committing murder of his brother Meghnath. The accused was arrested. He pointed out the place of incident, his disclosure statement was recorded, the blood stained clothes of accused Munna Pandit were recovered at the instance of accused and S/v Munna Pandit, FIR No.155/11, PS Bawana Page no.3/54 the exhibits were sent to FSL, Rohini. The postmortem report was obtained. The statements of witnesses were recorded and on completion of investigation accused was challaned as referred above.
CHARGE AND PLEA OF ACCUSED 3 Prima-facie case for the offences punishable under Sections 302/182 IPC was found to be made out against accused. Accordingly, charges were framed against the accused on 24.09.2011 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE 4 In support of its case, prosecution examined 22 witnesses in all. To have access to the prosecution evidence, it would be appropriate to give a short resume of the statement of prosecution witnesses recorded in the court. It is given below:
5 PW-1 is Sub Inspector Narender Kumar. He deposed that on 03.05.2011, he was working as duty officer from 5 pm to 1 am. On that day, at about 10.22 pm, he received information from wireless operator that Sector-3 , House No 193, Bawana caller was saying perhaps murder of boy was committed, 3-4 boys came to kill and blood was on wall from phone no. 8826587375. The information was received through wireless operator through lady Ct Renu No 8182 PCR. DD entry was lodged vide DD No. 46A in this regard and copy of the DD was sent to SI Ramesh Chand through Ct Manjeet for appropriate action. Attested copy of DD No S/v Munna Pandit, FIR No.155/11, PS Bawana Page no.4/54 46A is proved by the witness as Ex PW1/A. On the same day while working as duty officer after midnight at 0015 hours he received rukka brought by Constable Manjeet which was sent by SI Ramesh Chand. On the basis of rukka, FIR No 155/2011 Under Sec 302 IPC was recorded on computer through computer operator on his dictation. The copy of computerized copy of FIR is proved as Ex PW1/B. He also made endorsement over the rukka which is proved as Ex PW1/C. After recording FIR, copy of FIR along with original rukka was handed over to Constable Manjeet for giving it to Insp. Kapil Dev for investigation. On the aforesaid day, the computer system was under his supervision and was in proper working order. He had also sent the copies of the FIR to Ilaqa MM, DCP, Addl DCP, Joint CP through Ct Uday Shankar and in this regard DD No 3A was recorded. Photocopy of the DD No. 2A and copy of DD No 3A are proved by PW1 as Ex PW1/D and Ex PW1/E respectively.
6 PW-2 is Nirmal Singh. He deposed that at Plot No. H-193, Sec. 3 DSIDC, Delhi their factory was under construction for about last one year. At the said factory chowkidar namely Megh Nath was deputed for the last 4-5 months who was working with them prior to that also. Chowkidar Megh Nath was working with them for last about one year and used to do labour work in day time also besides his job as chowkidar. Megh Nath used to reside at the third floor of the said factory. Prior to about 4-5 months of this incident, two boys of the native village of Megh Nath also came there and started residing with him at the said factory. Prior to about one month of the incident elder brother of Munna also S/v Munna Pandit, FIR No.155/11, PS Bawana Page no.5/54 came there and started residing with Megh Nath. They all four used to reside at the room at third floor of the factory, however, he did not charge any rent for that room.
It is further deposed by PW-2 that on 4.5.2011, he came to know about the murder of Megh Nath from the police station Bawana. Regarding Megh Nath they were not maintaining any record. Investigating officer recorded his statement. The witness identified accused in court.
7 PW-3 is Ashok Kumar. He deposed that he is working at the factory for the last about five years and used to reside at the factory at third floor. Besides him other boys namely Sri Bhagwan, Sonam and 3-4 other male workers used to reside. Lal Babu and Mukesh were also working at the factory who used to reside in the other factory at which floor was under construction. On the intervening night of 3/4.5.2011, he was on night duty from 9 pm to 9 am. At about 9 or 9.15 pm, when Lal Babu and Mukesh met him at the gate of factory, he asked them that they had come soon after taking meal. On this Lal Babu said that "meri factory main kaand ho gaya hai" .Both of them were appearing nervous( ghabraye huye) and both of them told him that Munna had murdered his brother Megh Nath. When he (PW-3) asked the reason then they told him that both brothers i.e. Megh Nath and Munna used to quarrel with each other off and on. Thereafter both of them left and he went inside his factory. On 4.5.2011, in the evening at about 8 pm police came to factory, met him, made inquiries from him and recorded his S/v Munna Pandit, FIR No.155/11, PS Bawana Page no.6/54 statement. This witness also stated that he is not acquainted with Munna.
8 PW-4 is Dr. J.V. Kiran Kumar Sr Resident Baba Sahab Ambedkar Hospital Rohini Delhi. He deposed that on 6.5.2011, he was posted at BSA hospital as Senior resident and on that day he conducted postmortem at about 3.30 PM to 4.30 PM on the body of Megh Nath Pandit S/o Ambika Pandit R/o Vill Dulanchak PS Chauvri Distt Bhojpur Ara, Bihar, 29 yrs, male. The body was received at the mortuary from Insp Kapil Dev of PS Bawana under FIR No 155/2011 dated 4.5.2011 of PS Bawana along with 09 inquest papers. The brief history as per investigating officer was that the deceased was found dead at H 193, Sec. 3, DSIDC Bawana Factory in a room on the third floor. Allegedly, the deceased was hit by his brother on 3.5.2011 at about 9 PM. He prepared detailed postmortem report No 133/2011 dated 06.05.2011. There were 19 injuries over the dead body on external examination as mentioned by him in his report which is running into 07 pages which is proved as Ex. PW4/A. It is further deposed by PW-4 that as per his opinion cause of death was craniocerebral damage consequent to blunt force trauma to the head. All injuries were antemortem, fresh in duration sustained by blunt force by blunt object. After the postmortem, dead body was handed over to the relatives of the deceased through investigating officer. The clothes of deceased and blood sample of deceased on gauze, were converted into separate pullandas which were sealed with the seal of Dr. BSA Hospital of forensic department and handed over to investigating S/v Munna Pandit, FIR No.155/11, PS Bawana Page no.7/54 officer. The inquest papers, application of investigating officer for postmortem, Ex PW4/B1, brief facts Ex PW4/B2, copy of FIR Ex PW4/B3 and Ex PW4/B4, Form 25.35(B) Ex PW4/B5, statement of body identification Ex PW4/B6 and B7, Form of preservation of body Ex PW4/B8 and copy of DD No.46A dated 03.05.2011, Ex PW4/B9 bear his signature at point A respectively.
On 19.05.2011, investigating officer put his request before him (PW-4) for subsequent opinion on weapon of offence and produced one sealed parcel having six seals of K.D. On opening the pullanda after removing the seal, one part of a balli with only the longitudinal half of balli present was taken out. The balli was stained with dry blood at one end and on the other end of the balli there was black stain. The length of balli was 90 cm and the circumference was 17 cm to 18 cm in the middle of the balli. On examination of the injuries on the body of deceased and the said weapon of offence, he opined that injuries mentioned in PM report including the head injury could be caused by the wooden balli, the said weapon of offence which was examined by him. After examination, the weapon of offence was resealed with the seal of Dr. BSA Hospital and handed over to investigating officer along with sample seal. His subsequent report is proved as Ex PW4/C. The application of investigating officer is Mark PW4/A. This witness identified the balli as Ex PW4/1 which was examined by him.
9 PW-5 is Constable Sandeep Kumar. He deposed that on 03.05.2011, he was posted at Crime Team Outer District as S/v Munna Pandit, FIR No.155/11, PS Bawana Page no.8/54 constable/photographer. On that day at about 10.55 pm, one call was received at his office. On the asking of incharge crime Sub Insp Anil Kumar, he accompanied him (Sub Insp Anil Kumar) and head constable Satish Kumar to H-193, Sector 3, DSIDC, Bawana, at teesri manzil (second floor) in a room where dead body of a male aged about 19-20 years was lying on quilt on the floor smeared with blood. Investigating officer along with staff was also present there. On the instruction of investigating officer and incharge crime team he took 13 photographs of spot with his official camera. After completing the proceedings, IO recorded his statement and thereafter he left the spot. When photographs were developed, IO collected the same. This witness has identified the photographs and proved the same as Ext. PW5/A1 to A13 which were taken by him. He has also proved the negatives as Ex PW5/B1 to Ex PW5/B13.
10 PW-6 is Lal Babu Shah. He deposed that previously he was residing at factory no. H 193, Sec. 3, DSIDC Bawana with Meghnath, Munna and Mukesh at third floor in a room. He along with Mukesh were working in factory no. H-167, Sec. 3 where the plastic tirpal was prepared. About one month prior from 3.5.2011 brother of Munna namely Megh Nath also came to Delhi from the village who was also residing with them. On 13-14 April, one telephone came from the house of Munna that his son has expired. Munna demanded some money from Megh Nath for going to village but the Meghnath said that " tere jane say bachha jinda nahi ho jayega" and refused to give money. Thereafter Munna asked S/v Munna Pandit, FIR No.155/11, PS Bawana Page no.9/54 Megh Nath "agar tumhara bachha hota tab tumko samjh ata" then Meghnath asked "jo bachha tha woh tumhara tha ya kisi aur ka tha". Thereafter both of them started quarreling. Thereafter, Munna was having ill will with his brother Megh Nath. On 3.5.2011 when he (PW-6) along with Mukesh were going on duty, at that time both the brothers namely Munna and Megh Nath were quarreling. Munna was threatening Megh Nath that he (Munna) will kill him (Megh Nath). He (PW6) along with Mukesh intervened in the matter and went for their job. At about 9.15 pm, they returned back to their room and found that Megh Nath was lying on a quilt and was already dead. Munna was not present there . Blood was found lying there. He was in suspicion that Munna killed Megh Nath. He and Mukesh became perplexed and got down from the stairs and went to their factory. One person namely Ashok who was working at the gate of factory met them there. He told the fact to him. Munna telephoned Mukesh who was having the SIM of Megh Nath for its use and asked him (Mukesh) as to whether they reached the room. They asked him (Munna) that his brother Megh Nath was killed. Thereafter, Munna within a few minutes came at the gali of H- 193. They all three again went to the room. He asked Munna that he (Munna) was quarreling with his brother Megh Nath in the morning and he has suspicion of him (Munna) that he (Munna) killed his brother. Then, Munna confessed that he committed the murder of his brother and also threatened them not to tell this fact to anybody otherwise he (Munna) will kill them in the same manner. They fearing from his threat had got down from the room. Munna asked one person namely Rajkumar Jha that his brother has been killed by 4-5 S/v Munna Pandit, FIR No.155/11, PS Bawana Page no.10/54 persons and he (Rajkumar Jha) call 100 number police. At the instance of Munna , Rajkumar telephoned police at 100 number. He (PW-6) identified accused in the court who killed his brother Megh Nath. Police came at the spot. His statement was recorded by the police.
11 PW-7 is Mukesh. He corroborated with the statement of PW-6 Lal Babu Shah regarding quarrel between Munna and Megh Nath and the murder of Megh Nath. It is further stated by PW-7 that police took the photographs of scene of crime and lifted exhibits from the spot ie one lakri( wooden) danda, Mobile phone, broken favra, one topi blood stained, one quilt of yellow and red colour etc. Police prepared parcels of the exhibits and sealed with the seal of KD. The dead body was wearing one wrist watch and chain which was taken into a separate parcel and sealed with the seal of KD. Police prepared seizure memo which is proved by this witness as Ex PW7/A and exhibits are proved as PW7/B. Police recorded his statement. This witness has also identified one wooden piece of balli as Ex PW4/1, one favra with broken handle as Ex PW7/1, mobile phone as Ex PW7/2, one dirty cap as Ex PW7/3, one dirty quilt as Ex PW7/4 and one broken wooden piece as Ex PW7/5 which were found lying at the spot.
12 PW-8 is Sub Insp. Anil Kumar. He deposed that on the intervening night of 3/5/2011, he was posted at mobile crime outer Distt as incharge mobile crime team and on receipt of call at about 10.55 pm dated 3.5.11 from control room, he along with Head Constable Satish and S/v Munna Pandit, FIR No.155/11, PS Bawana Page no.11/54 Constable Sandeep went to H 193, Sec. 3 DSIDC, Bawana, Delhi in official van. At spot, one dead body of a male person was lying at the second floor room on quilt. Over the left eyebrow of the dead body there was cut mark injuries. Blood was there on the dead body as well as on the quilt. One favra having broken handle, one mobile phone and blood stained wooden balli type of about 3 feet length which was burnt( jali hui thee) from one side were lying. He and his accompanying staff inspected the spot. The spot was photographed by crime team photographer. No chance prints could be found at the spot. He prepared his report and handed it over to investigating officer which is proved as Ex PW8/A. He had also advised IO to collect the exhibits i.e. blood sample, earth control, kassi( favra) with wooden handle and quilt from the spot and to send the dead body to hospital for postmortem. Investigating officer recorded his statement. The name of deceased he came to know as Megh Nath son of Ambika, 19 years old.
13 PW-9 is R.K Singh Nodal Officer, Bharti Airtel Ltd D 184, Okhla Phase-I New Delhi. As per record, he deposed that the subscriber of mobile no. 8527985167 is Suresh Kumar son of Khiladi Lal, r/o F-215, Sec.3, DSIDC, Bawala, Delhi. Permanent resident of 93, Bachhechhar Kala Distt Mahoba (Uttar Pradesh). The attested scanned computerized copy of the customer application form bearing photograph of the subscriber is proved as Ex PW9/A, the voter Identity card is proved by this witness as Ex PW9/B. S/v Munna Pandit, FIR No.155/11, PS Bawana Page no.12/54 PW-9 further deposed, as per record, that the subscriber of mobile no. 9717953121 is Lalita Devi wife of Ambika Pandit r/o H. No. H-193, Sec. 3 DSIDC, Bawala, Delhi. Permanent resident of H No. 94, Village Chakchaudhary P.O.Dullmachak Distt Bhojpur. The attested scanned computerized copy of the customer application form bearing photograph of the subscriber is proved as Ex PW9/C and the voter Identity card is proved by this witness as Ex PW9/D. The computer generated CDR of mobile no. 9717953121 for the period 3.5.2011 to 4.5.2011( running into two pages) is proved as Ex PW9/E and CDR of mobile no. 8527985167 for the period 3.5.2011 to 4.5.2011 is proved as Ex PW9/F. A certificate under Sec. 65B Indian Evidence Act is proved by this witness as Ex PW9/G. This witness has also proved the computer generated cell I.D chart as Ex PW9/H and stated that as per the CDR of mobile no. 9717953121 call dated 03.05.2011 at 21.48.36 of duration 49 seconds was made i.e. outgoing at mobile no. 8527985167 from mobile no. 9717953121. As per the CDR of mobile no. 8527985167 call dated 03.05.2011 at 21.48.36 of duration 50 seconds was received i.e. incoming call at mobile no. 8527985167 from mobile no. 9717953121.
14 PW-10 is Constable Mukesh Kumar. He deposed that on 23.6.2011, MHCM gave him 11 sealed exhibits along with sample seal of BSA hospital in an envelope for depositing the same at FSL, Rohini, Delhi vide RC No. 99/21/11. He deposited the exhibits at FSL , Rohini and after depositing the same, he came back to police station and handed over copy of acknowledgment to MHCM. So long as the exhibits remained in S/v Munna Pandit, FIR No.155/11, PS Bawana Page no.13/54 his custody, it remained intact and not tampered with. The details of the exhibits was mentioned by the MHCM in RC. The attested copy of RC is proved as Ex PW 10/A and attested copy of acknowledgment is proved as Ex PW10/B. 15 PW-11 is Sub Insp Manohar Lal. He deposed that on 12/6/11, he was posted at North West District as draftsman and was called by the I.O. Insp kapil Dev at PS Bawana. He went to police station Bawana and from there, he accompanied IO Insp Kapil Dev to H 193, Sec. 3 DSIDC, Bawana Delhi where he inspected the spot and prepared rough notes and measurements. IO recorded his statement. Thereafter, they left for the spot. Later on, on 13/6/11 on the basis of rough notes and measurements, he prepared scaled site plan which is proved as Ex PW11/A. After preparing the scaled site plan, he destroyed rough notes and measurements. IO collected the scaled site plan.
16 PW-12 is Amar Pandit who is nephew (Bhanja) of deceased Meghnath. He deposed that he received information regarding death of Meghnath from Delhi police through telephone. On the next day, he along with Ambika Pandit reached at P. S. Bawana, Delhi and from there they went to mortuary BSA hospital where he identified the dead body of Megh Nath on 6.5.2011. His statement regarding the identification of dead body proved as Ex PW4/B-6 was recorded. After the postmortem, the dead body was handed over to them and last rites of deceased were performed at Delhi. On being questioned by Ld Additional Public Prosecutor, this S/v Munna Pandit, FIR No.155/11, PS Bawana Page no.14/54 witness replied that on 04.05.2011 he received information regarding death of Meghnath.
17 PW-13 is W. Constable Renu. She deposed that on 3.5.11, she was posted at CPCR PHQ Delhi as operator and at about 22.21.34 an information from phone no. 8826587377 that " Caller Kah Raha Hai Ki Shyad Ek Ladke Ka Murder Ho Chuka Hai Jisse 3-4 Ladke Marne Aaye The Diwar Par Kafi Khun Laga Hua Hai". She recorded the said information and passed it on net through channel no. 131 for necessary action by the concerned. The PCR Form is proved by this witness as Ex PW 13/A. 18 PW-14 is Constable Manjeet Kumar. He deposed that on 03.05.2011, the duty officer handed over DD no. 46A ( copy of the same is proved as Ex. PW 1/A) to him and he took the same to the spot i.e H-193, Sector - 3, DSIDC, Bawana. On reaching there, he handed over the aforesaid DD to SI Ramesh. Thereafter, SI Ramesh handed over rukka to him and he took the same to police station and got the case FIR no. 155/11, u/s 302 IPC registered. After getting the case registered, he came back to the spot and handed over computerized copy of the FIR and rukka in original to Inspector Kapil Dev. Thereafter, he came back to the police station and his statement was recorded by the IO.
19 PW-15 is Constable Ankush Malik. He deposed that on the S/v Munna Pandit, FIR No.155/11, PS Bawana Page no.15/54 intervening night of 3/4.5.11, at the direction of duty officer, he went to the spot i.e factory no. H- 193, Sector- 3, DSIDC Bawana, Delhi where Inspector Kapil Dev and SI Ramesh along with their staff were already present . Thereafter, he was directed to remove the dead body to BSA hospital and accordingly, he removed the same and got preserved there. He remained in the hospital in order to safeguard the dead body. On 6.5.11, Inspector Kapil Dev got established the identification of the dead body through its relatives and the statement of Ambika Pandit - father of the deceased & Amar Pandit - maternal uncle of deceased were recorded in this case. Thereafter, Inspector Kapil Dev got conducted the postmortem upon the dead body and the dead body was handed over to its relatives. After the postmortem doctor handed over three envelop parcels along with a sample seal. He (PW-15) handed over the said parcels to the IO who took the same in his possession vide memo Ex. PW 15/A. His (PW-15) statement was recorded by the IO in this regard.
20 PW-16 is Constable Raj Kumar. He deposed that on 3.5.2011, SI Ramesh Kumar received information about DD no. 46 and after receiving the said information, he accompanied him to the spot i.e third floor of house no. H-193, Sector-3, DSIDC, Bawana where one dead body of male was found lying on RAJAI (quilt). The head of the dead body was towards south side near the wall and the feet were towards north side. One cap and fawra was also found lying near the head of the dead body . One mobile phone was also lying near the dead body and one wooden piece was also found lying there and its one corner was S/v Munna Pandit, FIR No.155/11, PS Bawana Page no.16/54 stained with blood and other corner was burnt. The pant which the dead body was wearing was in open condition. After some time, Inspector Kapil Dev also reached the spot along with the staff . Thereafter, crime team also reached there who inspected the spot and took the photographs of the crime scene with different angles. Crime team also prepared inspection report at the spot. In the meantime, Constable Manjeet reached the spot and handed over DD no. 46A to SI Ramesh Kumar Thereafter, he (PW-16) was directed to go in the locality and find the clue of the crime. His statement was recorded by the IO. This witness identified one fawra as Ex. PW7/1, mobile phone as PW7/2, one dirty cap Ex PW 7/3, dirty quilt as Ex. PW7/4 and one wooden piece (one corner is stained with blood and other corner is burnt) as Ex. PW7/5.
21 PW-17 is Constable Satbir. He deposed that on 04/05/2011, he along with Constable Subhash and IO Inspector Kapil Dev participated in investigation of the present case and went to Factory No. H-193, Sector-3, DSIDC, Bawana where Lal Babu, Mukesh and Munna Pandit met them. IO interrogated all three of them separately and recorded statement of Mukesh and Lal Babu wherein, they had told to IO that Munna Pandit had murdered his brother Megh Nath. During interrogation, accused Munna Pandit confessed his guilt and also admitted to have committed murder of his brother Megh Nath. IO recorded disclosure statement of accused Munna Pandit which is proved as Ex. PW17/A. Thereafter, accused in pursuant to his disclosure, led S/v Munna Pandit, FIR No.155/11, PS Bawana Page no.17/54 them to the place where he committed murder i.e. 3rd Floor at H - 193, Sector - 3, DSIDC, Bawana. The pointing out memo prepared in this regard is proved as Ex. PW17/B. During his (accused) disclosure statement, the accused also disclosed that he had concealed his clothes in the empty plot behind H - 194, Sector - 3, DSIDC, Bawana which he was wearing at the time of incident and those clothes were having blood stains. Thereafter, accused led them to the said plot from where he (accused) got recovered one pant and t-shirt from under the mud from the said plot. IO prepared pullanda of those clothes and sealed it with his seal. IO seized the pullanda of clothes while preparing seizure memo. The pointing out-cum-seizure memo of the clothes is proved as Ex. PW17/C. IO gave him (PW-17) seal after use. The accused was arrested by the IO at 8:40 p.m. while preparing arrest memo and his personal search was also conducted. The arrest memo and personal search memo of accused are proved as Ex. PW17/D and Ex. PW17/E. Thereafter, on the instructions of IO, he alongwith Constable Subhash took the accused to MB Hospital for his medical examination. After that, accused was taken to Police Station Bawana and was lodged in the lockup after providing him food. IO deposited case property in the malkhana. After the case property was deposited in Malkhana, he handed over seal to IO. IO recorded his statement. This witness identified the t-shirt and pant which were recovered at the pointing out of accused Munna Pandit and seized by IO as Ex. PW17/P1 and Ex. PW17/P2 respectively S/v Munna Pandit, FIR No.155/11, PS Bawana Page no.18/54 22 PW-18 is Constable Uday Shanker. He deposed that on 04/05/2011, the duty Officer handed over copy of FIR for delivering the same to the senior officers as well as Ld. area Magistrate. He went on Government motorcycle no. DL 1 SS 2632 and delivered the same to the house of Ld. MM, DCP, Joint CP and ACP. IO recorded his statement.
23 PW-19 is Constable Subhash. He corroborated with the statement of PW-17 Constable Satbir regarding investigation of the present case and identification of clothes got recovered by the accused.
24 PW-20 is HC Mahi Lal. He deposed that on 04/05/2011, he was posted at police station Bawana and was working as MHC(M). On that day, Inspector Kapil Dev, IO of the case deposited 10 sealed pullandas bearing seal of 'KD' and personal search of accused Munna Pandit, under FIR No. 155/11 u/s 302 IPC, PS - Bawana, Delhi alongwith copy of seizure memo in Malkhana. He made entry in this regard in register no. 19 at serial no. 305 and regarding personal search of accused at serial no. 313. Photostat copy of entry no. 305 is proved by this witness as Ex. PW20/A and photocopy of entry no. 313 is proved as Ex. PW20/B. The details of the exhibits were entered by him in the said entry. On 06/05/2011, IO Inspector Kapil Dev had deposited two sealed pullandas, sealed with the seal of BSA, DEPT, FM, Delhi Govt. alongwith sample seal of the BSA Hospital alongwith copy of seizure memo. In this regard, he made entry in register no. 19 at serial no. 317 and the Photostat copy of the said entry is proved as Ex. PW20/C. The details of S/v Munna Pandit, FIR No.155/11, PS Bawana Page no.19/54 the exhibits were entered by him in the said entry. On 06/05/2011, Inspector Kapil Dev, IO of the case took pullanda of wooden danda having seal of 'KD' from Malkhana for seeking opinion of the Doctor, BSA Hospital, Delhi. He made entry in this regard in register no. 19 against serial no. 305 which is proved as Ex.PW20/A. It is further deposed by PW-20 that on 19/05/2011, IO Inspector Kapil Dev deposited the pullanda of wooden danda sealed with the seal of BSA Hospital after getting the subsequent opinion of the Doctor. He made entry in this regard in register no. 19 against serial no. 305 which is proved as Ex. PW20/A. On 23/06/2011, on the instructions of the IO, he had sent 11 sealed parcels along with one sealed envelop containing sample seal of Dr. BSA Hospital, DEPT of FM, Delhi Govt. as detailed in the RC No. 99/21/11 to FSL, Rohini through Constable Mukesh Kumar No. 2570/OD alongwith RC no. 99/21/11. He made entry in this regard in register no. 19 at serial no. 305 which is proved as Ex. PW20/A. After depositing the exhibits at the FSL, Rohini, Constable Mukesh came back to the police station and handed over him copy of acknowledgment issued by the FSL Authority. The photostat copy of RC No. 99/21/11 is proved as Ex. PW20/D. Photostat copy of the acknowledgment is proved as Ex. PW20/E. On 29/11/2011, the FSL Result in sealed condition along with 11 sealed pullandas, sealed with the seal of FSL, were deposited in Malkhana by Constable Sumit No. 2732 OD. He made entry in this regard in register no. 19 against serial no. 305 which is proved as Ex. PW20/A. He handed over the FSL result to Inspector Kapil Dev, who filed the same before this Court on 30/11/2011 S/v Munna Pandit, FIR No.155/11, PS Bawana Page no.20/54 and entry in this regard is made on Ex. PW20/A. So long as the exhibits/case property remained in his custody, it remained intact and was not tempered with.
25 PW-21 is SI Ramesh Chand. He deposed that on 03/05/2011 DD No. 46A was received by him and copy of the DD is proved as Ex. PW13/A regarding murder of boy at Sector - 3, Bawana, House No. 193. Thereafter, he alongwith Constable Raj Kumar went to H - 193, Sector - 3, DSIDC, Bawana Factory and reached third floor where a dead body of a male was lying inside the room. The head of the dead body was towards southern side and legs towards north side. The dead body was lying on a quilt which was smeared in blood. Near the dead body, one cap, one fawda having broken handle, one mobile and one blood stained lakdi (wood) and edge of that lakdi from one side appeared to have burnt. Inspector Kapil Dev alongwith the staff also reached at the spot. Crime Team staff also reached at spot who inspected the spot. Photographer of Crime Team took the photographs of the spot. IO lifted blood stained floor piece with the help of hammer and chisel, sample of control and prepared their separate pullandas and sealed with the seal of 'KD'. Prior to that, IO also sealed the said piece of lakdi (wood), fawda, mobile phone, blood stained cap, broken handle of the fawda and converted into separate pullandas which were sealed with the seal of 'KD' and the exhibits Serial No. 1-8 were seized by the IO vide Ex. PW7/A. Prior to lifting the said exhibits, he had prepared Rukka on the statement of accused Munna Pandit. The statement of Munna Pandit is proved as Ex.
S/v Munna Pandit, FIR No.155/11, PS Bawana Page no.21/54 21/A which was recorded by him on the dictation of Munna Pandit. His endorsement over statement of accused Munna Pandit is proved by this witness as Ex. PW21/B. It is further deposed by PW-21 that he handed over the Rukka to Constable Manjeet for getting the FIR Registered from PS - Bawana. He corroborated with the statement of PW-7 Mukesh regarding preparation of seizure memo Ex PW 7/B and identification of articles seized in this case. He has also identified one watch SONIC and one chain as Ex PW 21/1 collectively which were taken out and possessed from the body of the deceased.
26 PW-22 is Inspector Kapil Dev. He corroborated with the statement of PW-7 Mukesh and PW-21 SI Ramesh Chand regarding investigation of this case, proceedings conducted at the spot and identification of articles seized in this case. This witness further deposed that he inspected the spot and prepared unscaled site plan at the pointing out of accused Munna Pandit which is proved as Ex PW 22/A. He also recorded statements of SI Anil Kumar, IC Crime Team, Ct Sandeep, photographer and crime team u/S 161 Cr.P.C as well as statements of accused Munna Pandit, Lal Babu and Mukesh u/S 161 Cr.P.C. After completing the investigation they came back to P.S after giving the instructions to beat staff to get the clues in the case and about the offender. He deposited case property in malkhana and recorded statement of SI Ramesh, Ct. Manjeet and Ct. Uday Shankar u/S 161 Cr.P.C.
S/v Munna Pandit, FIR No.155/11, PS Bawana Page no.22/54 It is further stated by PW-22 that in the evening of 04.05.2011 at about 7.30 p.m he along with HC Wajeer Singh, Ct Satbeer Singh and Ct. Subhash left from the P.S in a private vehicle for the investigation of the case and went to Sec. 3 DSIDC H-Block, Bawana Delhi. When they reached in front of factory H-193 and were making inquiries from the labourers, one person namely Raju Kumar Chauhan who used to run tea and kirana (Parchoon) shop met him who told that person namely Lal Babu and Mukesh used to reside with the deceased at factory H-193. Raju Kumar Chauhan also told that on 03.05.2011 Munna Pandit purchased yogurt and sugar and at about 8.00 p.m Meghnath gave him (Raju) remaining Rs 20/- and thereafter he kept himself busy at his shop. At about 10.00 p.m when he (Raju) was about to close the shop, Munna, Lal Babu and Mukesh came to his (Raju) shop and Munna told him that 3-4 boys had killed his (Munna's) brother Meghnath and requested him (Raju) to make call to police on 100 number. Thereafter Raju made call on 100 number through his mobile phone no. 8826587377. He (PW-22) recorded his (Raju) statement u/S 161 Cr.P.C and relieved him. Thereafter they went to factory no. H-167 Sec. 3 DSIDC Bawana where one person namely Ashok Kumar S/o Keshav met him and told that he used to reside there at the factory no. H-167. Ashok also told him (PW-22) that Mukesh and Lal Babu also used to work at the said factory H-167 but they used to reside at factory H-193 Sec. 3 DSIDC. Mukesh and Lal Babu used to work on the shift from 9.00 a.m to 9.00 p.m and on 03.05.2011 Lal Babu and Mukesh went to their room after completing their duties at 9.00 p.m and came back at about 9.15 p.m to H-167. They (Lal Babu and S/v Munna Pandit, FIR No.155/11, PS Bawana Page no.23/54 Mukesh) were appearing nervous and on asking of Ashok Kumar, both of them told him (Ashok) that Meghnath is lying smeared in blood and they had suspicion over Munna that he (Munna) killed his (Munna's) brother Meghnath as many times Munna quarreled with Meghnath. Thereafter Lal Babu and Mukesh left after meeting with owner of factory and he (Ashok) went to sleep but he could not tell the same to police. This witness recorded the statement of Ashok u/S 161 Cr.P.C.
27 PW-22 Inspector Kapil Dev corroborated with the statement of PW-17 Constable Satbir with regard to recording statement of Lal Babu and Mukesh, disclosure statement, arrest and personal search of accused Munna Pandit and pointing out cum seizure memo of clothes.
This witness also stated that after completing the proceeding, accused was taken to M.B. Hospital where he was got medically examined. Thereafter they came back to P.S and accused was lodged in the lock up. The case property was deposited in the malkhana. He recorded statements of Ct. Satbeer, Ct. Subhash and Ct. Raj Kumar. On the next day accused was produced before Ld M.M and he was sent to J/C. On 06.05.2011, he requested the autopsy surgeon to conduct postmortem on the body of deceased vide application Ex PW 4/B-1. The dead body of Meghnath was got identified by the person namely Amar Pandit and Ambika Pandit vide memos Ex PW 4/B-6 and Ex PW 4/B-7. He prepared inquest papers which are proved as Ex PW 4/B-2, Ex PW 4/B-5, Ex PW 4/B-3 and Ex PW 4/B-9. The doctor conducted postmortem on the dead body of Meghnath and after the postmortem, dead body was S/v Munna Pandit, FIR No.155/11, PS Bawana Page no.24/54 handed over to the father of deceased. Ct Ankush produced one sealed pulanda with the seal of hospital, one envelope containing blood gauze of deceased sealed with the seal of hospital and one envelope containing sample seal which was sealed with the seal of hospital. He seized the same while preparing seizure memo Ex PW 15/A. Thereafter, he moved application to the autopsy surgeon for giving opinion regarding the weapon of offence and the sealed pulanda of the wooden danda (balli) was also produced before the doctor. His application in this regard is proved as Ex PW 22/B. Dr. J.V. Kiran furnished his opinion before him (PW-22) which is proved as Ex PW 4/C. On 19.05.2011 he received the sealed pulanda of the wooden balli from the autopsy surgeon sealed with the seal of BSA hospital, Delhi along with subsequent opinion. Thereafter, he deposited the case property in malkhana and kept the opinion of doctor on the file. So long as the case property remained in his custody, the pullanda remained intact and not tampered with. He recorded statement of Constable Ankush at the police station. After having discussion with the Senior police officials Section 182 IPC was added into the case. On 07.05.2011, he recorded statement of owner of factory of H-193 Sec. 3 DSIDC Bawana u/S 161 Cr.P.C and made inquiries from the supervisor at K-72 Sec. 3 DSIDC Bawana, Delhi about the accused Munna Pandit. On 19.05.2011, he collected the P.M report which is proved as Ex PW 4/A. It is further stated by this witness that on 12.06.2011, he has called SI Manohar Lal draftsman at his office at P.S Bawana from where both of them went to the place of incident i.e teesri manjil H-193 Sec.3 S/v Munna Pandit, FIR No.155/11, PS Bawana Page no.25/54 DSIDC Bawana, Delhi. SI Manohar Lal inspected the spot and took rough measurements and prepared rough notes. He (PW-22) recorded statement of SI Manohar Lal and relieved him. He (PW-22) came back to the police station. After 13.06.2011, he collected the scaled site plan which is proved as Ex PW 11/A. During investigation, he had collected the CDR of mobile phone no. 9717953121 for the period of 03.05.2011 to 04.05.2011 registered in the name of Lalita Devi W/o Ambika Pandit and of mobile no. 8527985167 which stands registered in the name of Suresh Kumar S/o Kheladi Lal which are proved as Ex PW 9/C, Ex PW 9/D, Ex PW 9/A, Ex PW 9/B, Ex PW 9/E to H respectively. On 23.06.2011, during investigation the MHC(M) on his directions sent 12 sealed items to FSL through Constable Mukesh Kumar as per details mentioned in the RC no. 99/21/11. He recorded statement of Constable Mukesh when he came back to P.S after depositing the exhibits at FSL. He (PW-22) also recorded statement of MHC(M) HC Mahi Lal. During the investigation, he collected photographs of the spot from the crime team which are proved as Ex PW 5/A-1 to A-13. He had also collected the PCR form which is proved as Ex PW 13/A. On completion of investigation, challan was prepared. After getting the result of FSL, he submitted the same in the court vide his application dated 30.11.11 which is proved by him as Ex PW 22/C and tendered the FSL report no. 2011/D-3369 Bio no. 678/11 dated 28.11.11 which is proved as Ex PW 22/D. The serological report and forwarding letter are proved by this witness as Ex PW 22/E and Ex PW 22/F respectively.
S/v Munna Pandit, FIR No.155/11, PS Bawana Page no.26/54 28 PW-22 Inspector Kapil Dev also deposed that the SIM of mobile no. 8527985167 was provided to Mukesh by the deceased as told by Mukesh to him during investigation and it was the number at which Mukesh received call of accused Munna at 9.45 p.m on 03.05.2011. He identified accused Munna Pandit. He has also identified the following articles:- one wooden piece of balli (the balli is burnt on one edge and on the other edge there are blood marks visible) as Ex PW4/1 which was seized by him; one small plastic container having FSL chit containing blood stained floor pieces as Ex PW 22/1 which was lifted by him from the spot; one small plastic container having FSL chit containing earth control as Ex PW 22/2 which was lifted by him from the spot; the pant and shirt as Ex PW 22/3 which were worn by the dead body; one black colour mobile phone of make "Aroma" bearing Mud no. 313/11 and FIR no. 155/11 having battery and two SIM cards, out of one is of Airtel bearing SIM no. 89915251000011024535 H5 and another SIM is of Airtel bearing no. 8991101101207175221 H1 as Ex PW 22/4 which were recovered in the personal search of accused; t-shirt and pant as Ex. PW17/P1 and Ex. PW17/P2 which were recovered at the pointing out of accused Munna Pandit and seized by him; one gauze cloth piece stated to have contained blood sample of deceased which was preserved by the autopsy surgeon as Ex PW 22/5.
PLEA AND DEFENCE OF THE ACCUSED 29 Accused in his statement recorded under Section 313 CrPC has either denied the prosecution evidence put to him or has expressed S/v Munna Pandit, FIR No.155/11, PS Bawana Page no.27/54 his ignorance about the same. He has declined to lead evidence in defence. He has also stated that he had very cordial relations with his brother that is why they were staying together. They never had any kind of arguments or quarrel. He came to know about the murder of his brother through their room mates Lal Babu and Mukesh who sometimes quarreled with his brother. Lal Babu and Mukesh have killed his brother and he had told this fact to the police later on. The FIR was recorded by the police on his complaint. He has fully cooperated with the police and remain present at the house. The police with a view to solve the case has falsely implicated him. The accused did not lead any evidence in his defence.
ARGUMENTS & FINDINGS 30 The ld. Public Prosecutor has argued that there is last seen evidence of PW6 Lal Babu Shah & PW7 Mukesh, who have lastly seen the accused & the victim together. It is argued that accused has made extra judicial confession before these witnesses also & the blood of the victim and that blood found on the weapon of the offence i.e "phawra" matched in FSL report. To misguide the police accused himself become complainant and lodged a false complaint that his brother was killed by some other persons. It is argued that CDR also shows that the accused has made a phone call. It is argued that the motive for the crime is proved by PW2 Nirmal, owner of the factory & the accused was annoyed with his brother as he did not allow him to go to the native village at the time of death of his son and soon thereafter. Therefore, all the circumstances of S/v Munna Pandit, FIR No.155/11, PS Bawana Page no.28/54 incriminating evidence are proved by the prosecution and accused is liable to convicted for both the charges u/S 302 IPC and 182 IPC.
31 The arguments on behalf of the accused are that there is no eye witness in this case. The PW3 Ashok Kumar in the cross examination has stated that he never met Meghnath and Munna Pandit. He has also recollected the things to 15 minutes ago so, he is not a reliable witness. PW4 Dr. J.V. Kiran Kumar in the cross examination stated that exact time is not mentioned in the postmortem report. PW6 Lal Babu and PW7 Mukesh were confronted in their cross examinations with their previous statements u/S 161 Cr.PC. It is argued that evidence shows that one Raju sells tea near the spot and the IO has failed to join him in the investigation so prosecution is liable to adverse inference. It is argued that IO has not done proper investigation and at the time of arrest of accused public witnesses were not joined. The clothes recovered did not belong to the accused. It is argued that since the accused was residing in the same room even if murder is committed by any other persons, the presence of blood stains on the clothes of the accused was natural as the clothes of the accused were lying in the room at the time of incident. It is argued that some other persons have committed murder of the victim and accused is falsely implicated in this case. The accused has lodged a correct report with the police so, prosecution has failed to prove charges against him and accused is entitled to be acquitted of both the charges.
32 I have heard ld. Chief Public Prosecutor/Addl. PP for the S/v Munna Pandit, FIR No.155/11, PS Bawana Page no.29/54 State, ld. Amicus Curiae-Ms. Neeru Nagpal-Advocate for accused and have gone through the records of the case and relevant provisions of law.
33 The case is based upon circumstantial evidence as nobody has witnessed the commission of murder of victim Meghnath Pandit. The chain of circumstances appearing as incriminating evidence against the accused and the important aspect of this case are dealt with under the following headings for the sake of convenience and proper appreciation of evidence of this case.
LEGAL POSITION AS TO THE CASES BASED ON CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE 34 In Sunder @ Lala and Ors. Vs. State 2009 VII AD (Delhi) 615 it was held as under:
" It is settled law that circumstances play very important role in the appreciation of evidence. The conduct of witnesses is a very important facet to determine their creditworthiness. "
As evidence, there is no difference between direct and circumstantial evidence. The only difference is in that as proof, the former directly establishes the commission of the offence whereas the latter does so by placing circumstances which lead to irresistible inference of guilt. (See Dalpat Singh v. State of Rajasthan 2005 Cr LJ 749 (Raj) (DB)). The evidence has not to be considered merely as a number of bits of evidence, but the whole of it together and the cumulative effect of it has to S/v Munna Pandit, FIR No.155/11, PS Bawana Page no.30/54 be weighed. (See Dukharam Nath V Commercial Credit Corpn Ltd AIR 1940 Oudh 35). No distinction has, therefore, to be made between circumstantial and direct evidence. {See Miran Baksh V Emperor AIR 1931 Lah 529 and Thimma V State of Mysore (1970) SCC (Cr) 320}. The court must satisfy itself that the cumulative effect of the evidence, led by the prosecution, establishes the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. (See Shankar Bhaka Narsale V State of Maharashtra AIR 1972 SC 1171 and Chanan Singh V State of Haryana AIR 1971 SC 1554) In Padala Veera Reddy v State of AP, AIR 1990 SC 79 relied upon by Ld. counsel for accused, it 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 of any other hypothesis than that of guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his S/v Munna Pandit, FIR No.155/11, PS Bawana Page no.31/54 innocence. (See Shivu & Anr. v R. G., High Court of Karnataka, 2007 Cr LJ 1806 (SC)) In Raju Vs. The State by Inspector of Police - AIR 2009 SC 2171, as regards circumstantial evidence, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under:
" It has been consistently laid down by this Court that where a case rests squarely on 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 the guilt of any other person. (See Hukam Singh v. State of Rajasthan AIR (1977 SC 1063); Eradu and Ors. v. State of Hyderabad (AIR 1956 SC 316); Earabhadrappa v. State of Karnataka (AIR 1983 SC 446); State of U.P. v.
Sukhbasi and Ors. (AIR 1985 SC 1224); Balwinder Singh v. State of Punjab (AIR 1987 SC 350); Ashok Kumar Chatterjee v. State of M.P. (AIR 1989 SC 1890). The circumstances from which an inference as to the guilt of the accused is drawn have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and have to be shown to be closely connected with the principal fact sought to be inferred from those circumstances. In Bhagat Ram v. State of Punjab (AIR 1954 SC 621), it was laid down that where the S/v Munna Pandit, FIR No.155/11, PS Bawana Page no.32/54 case depends upon the conclusion drawn from circumstances the cumulative effect of the circumstances must be such as to negative the innocence of the accused and bring the offences home beyond any reasonable doubt.
We may also make a reference to a decision of this Court in C. Chenga Reddy and Ors. v. State of A.P. (1996) 10 SCC 193, wherein it has been observed thus:
"In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the settled law is that the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is drawn should be fully proved and such circumstances must be conclusive in nature. Moreover, all the circumstances should be complete and there should be no gap left in the chain of evidence. Further the proved circumstances must be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and totally inconsistent with his innocence....".
In Padala Veera Reddy v. State of A.P. and Ors.
(AIR 1990 SC 79), it 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 S/v Munna Pandit, FIR No.155/11, PS Bawana Page no.33/54 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 of 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.
In State of U.P. v. Ashok Kumar Srivastava, (1992 Crl.LJ 1104), it was pointed out that great care must be taken in evaluating circumstantial evidence and if the evidence relied on is reasonably capable of two inferences, the one in favour of the accused must be accepted. It was also pointed out that the circumstances relied upon must be found to have been fully established and the cumulative effect of all the facts so established must be consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt.
S/v Munna Pandit, FIR No.155/11, PS Bawana Page no.34/54 Sir Alfred Wills in his admirable book "Wills' Circumstantial Evidence" (Chapter VI) lays down the following rules specially to be observed in the case of circumstantial evidence: (1) the facts alleged as the basis of any legal inference must be clearly proved and beyond reasonable doubt connected with the factum probandum; (2) the burden of proof is always on the party who asserts the existence of any fact, which infers legal accountability; (3) in all cases, whether of direct or circumstantial evidence the best evidence must be adduced which the nature of the case admits; (4) in order to justify the inference of guilt, the inculpatory facts must be incompatible with the innocence of the accused and incapable of explanation, upon any other reasonable hypothesis than that of his guilt, (5) if there be any reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused, he is entitled of the right to be acquitted".
There is no doubt that conviction can be based solely on circumstantial evidence but it should be tested by the touch-stone of law relating to circumstantial evidence laid down by the this Court as far back as in 1952.
In Hanumant Govind Nargundkar and Anr. V. State S/v Munna Pandit, FIR No.155/11, PS Bawana Page no.35/54 of Madhya Pradesh, (AIR 1952 SC 343), wherein it was observed thus:
"It is well to remember that in cases where the evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be in the first instance be fully established and all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. Again, the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should be such 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 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."
A reference may be made to a later decision in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (AIR 1984 SC 1622). Therein, while dealing with circumstantial evidence, it has been held that onus was on the prosecution to prove that the chain is complete and the infirmity of lacuna in prosecution cannot be cured by false defence or plea. The S/v Munna Pandit, FIR No.155/11, PS Bawana Page no.36/54 conditions precedent in the words of this Court, before conviction could be based on circumstantial evidence, must be fully established. They are:
(1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The circumstances concerned 'must' or 'should' and not 'may be' established;
(2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty;
(3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency;
(4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and (5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.
These aspects were highlighted in State of Rajasthan v. Raja Ram (2003 (8) SCC 180), State of Haryana v. Jagbir Singh and Anr. (2003 (11) S/v Munna Pandit, FIR No.155/11, PS Bawana Page no.37/54 SCC 261), Kusuma Ankama Rao v State of A.P. (Criminal Appeal No.185/2005 disposed of on 7.7.2008) and Manivel and Ors. v. State of Tami Nadu (Criminal Appeal No.473 of 2001 disposed of on 8.8.2008)."
MOTIVE OF CRIME 35 The importance of motive in the cases based on circumstantial evidence cannot be undermined. In Shiv Narayan Vs State (NCT of Delhi) 2001 V AD (DELHI) 761 the Division Bench of our High Court has held:
"It is well settled principle of law that in a case based on circumstantial evidence motive assumes considerable importance. However, failure to establish motive would not affect prosecution case if there is positive evidence and establishes the charge against the accused. If other circumstances are such as to complete the chain connecting accused with crime then lack or absence of motive is not fatal. "
In Tarsem Kumar v Delhi Admn 1995 Cr LJ 470 (SC), JT 1994 (5) JT 264 (SC), the Supreme Court has laid down that where the case of the prosecution has been proved beyond all reasonable doubt on the basis of material produced before court, the motive loses its importance, but in a case based on circumstantial evidence, motive for committing the crime on the part of the accused assumes great S/v Munna Pandit, FIR No.155/11, PS Bawana Page no.38/54 importance. It was further emphasised that if each of the circumstances proved on behalf of the prosecution is accepted by the court for the purpose of recording a finding that it was the accused who committed the crime in question, then even in the absence of any proof of a motive for commission of such crime the accused can be convicted. [See also State of Madhya Pradesh v Digvijay Singh AIR 1988 SC 1740, 1981 Cr LJ 1278; Arun Kumar v State 1996 Cr LJ 2280 (Del) (DB)].
In Budha Satya Venkata Rao v State of Andhra Pradesh 1 (1995) CCR 35 (SC), the Supreme Court again emphasised that in a case of circumstantial evidence, the aspect of motive assumes considerable importance. A similar view is taken in several other cases (See Surinder Pal Jain v Delhi Admn AIR 1993 SC 1723, 1993 Cr LJ 1871 (SC); Sarbir Singh v State of Punjab 1993 Supp (3) SCC 41, 1993 Cr LJ 1395 (SC)). In Prem Kumar v State of Bihar (1995) 3 SCC 228, 1995 Cr LJ 2634 (SC), the Apex Court held that if motive is proved or established, it affords a key or a pointer, to scan evidence in the case, and as a satisfactory circumstance corroboration. It is a very relevant and important aspect:
(i) to highlight intention of the accused; and, (ii) the approach to be made in appreciating the totality of
circumstances including evidence discussed in the case.
Absence of motive cannot be said to be fatal to the prosecution case but motive assumes pertinent significance in a case solely based on circumstances, as existence of motive is an enlightening factor in the process of presumptive reasoning in such a case; the S/v Munna Pandit, FIR No.155/11, PS Bawana Page no.39/54 absence of motive, however, puts the court on its guard to scrutinise the circumstance more carefully to insure that suspicion and conjecture do not take the place of legal proof.[See Surinder Pal Jain v Delhi Admn 1993 (3) SCC 681; Mahender Singh Dhaviya v State 2003 (1) AD 733 (Del)] In a case of circumstantial evidence, motive helps in the process of presumptive reasoning. However, by itself it is not sufficient to convict a person [See Chet Ram v State 1997 Cr LJ 1029 (Del) (DB)]. Motive is a relevant factor in all criminal cases whether based on the testimony of eyewitnesses or circumstantial evidence [See State of Uttar Pradesh v Babu Ram 2000 Cr LJ 2457 (SC)].
Therefore, the motive assumes importance in the criminal cases based on circumstantial evidence.
36 PW6 Lal Babu Shah has stated that on 13th - 14th April, 2011 a telephonic information was received from the village that the son of the accused has expired. The accused demanded some money from victim for going to the village but he stated that "TERE JANE SE BACHA JINDA NAHI HO JAYEGA" and refused to give money. Thereafter accused asked Meghnath "Agar tumarha bacha hota tab tume samaj aata". Then, the victim Meghnath asked "jo bacha tha wo tumara tha ya kisi or ka tha"
thereafter both of them started quarrelling. PW6 further stated that after that accused Munna was having ill-will with his brother Meghnath. He also stated that on 3-5-11 when he (PW6 Lal Babu Shah) along with (PW7 Mukesh) were going on duty the accused and deceased Meghnath were S/v Munna Pandit, FIR No.155/11, PS Bawana Page no.40/54 quarrelling. Accused threatened Meghnath that he would kill him. Similar statement is made by PW7 Mukesh corroborating the statement of PW6 Lal Babu Shah. Therefore, the evidence of ill-will of the accused against victim Meghnath is proved by the prosecution on record and thereby motive of crime is proved on record against the accused.
EXTRA JUDICIAL CONFESSION
37 An extra-judicial confession made to one who is not a person in authority and which is free from any suspicion as to its voluntary character and has also a ring of truth in it, is admissible in evidence and deserves to be acted upon. [See Poolin Haldar Vs. State, 1996 Cri. L.J. 513, 520 (Cal)].
Extra-judicial confession may or may not be a weak evidence. Each case is required to be examined on its own facts. [See Seva Kumar Vs. State, (2006) 1 SCC (Cri) 470 (SC)].
If the evidence about extra-judicial confession comes from the mouth of witnesses who appear to be unbiased, not even remotely inimical to the accused, and in respect of whom nothing is brought out which may tend to indicate that he may have a motive for attributing an untruthful statement of the accused; the words spoken to by the witness are clear, unambiguous and unmistakably convey that the accused is the perpetrator of the crime and nothing is omitted by the witness which may militate against it the extra-judicial confession can be accepted and can be the basis of a conviction. [See State of UP Vs. M.K. Anthony, A 1985 SC 48, 57 : 1985 Cri.L.J 493; Babar Mahesh Dhirubhai Vs. State, 2004 S/v Munna Pandit, FIR No.155/11, PS Bawana Page no.41/54 (3) Guj. LR 2360].
38 PW6 Lal Babu Shah has stated that he asked accused that he was quarrelling with his brother Meghnath in the morning and he (PW6 Lal Babu Shah) has suspicion on him that he killed his brother. Then accused Munna confessed that he committed the murder of his brother and he also threatened them not to tell this fact to anybody otherwise he will kill them in the same manner. The similar statement is made by PW7 Mukesh before this court. There is nothing in the cross examination of PW7 Lal Babu Shah or PW7 Mukesh which may discredit the above statements made by them in the examination-in-chief. Therefore, the extra judicial confession of accused before the two witnesses PW6 Lal Babu Shah and PW7 Mukesh of the guilt of the accused that he committed murder of deceased Meghnath is proved on record against the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
LAST SEEN EVIDENCE 39 The theory of being last seen together is one where two persons are seen together alive and after an interval of time, one of them is found alive and the other dead. {See, Rajan Vs. State of Kerala (2000) Cr.L.J 3531 (Ker) (DB)}. Though, it is ordinarily believed that when a person is accused of committing murder, the fact that the accused and the deceased were last seen together in the company of each other, and the failure of the accused to satisfactorily account for the disappearance of the deceased is considered a circumstance of incriminating character.
S/v Munna Pandit, FIR No.155/11, PS Bawana Page no.42/54 However, that itself is not sufficient unless the same is established beyond reasonable doubt that the accused must have caused the death of the deceased. {See, Chandraiangari Ananthareddi and others Vs State of Andhra Pradesh (1996) Cr.L.J 2109 (AP) (DB), Arjun Malik Vs State of Bihar (1994) Supp. 2 SCC 372, Didar Singh Vs State of Haryana (1993) Supp.2 SCC 557}.
40 PW6 Lal Babu Shah has stated that on 3-5-2011 when he along with PW7 Mukesh were going on duty. Both the brothers, namely, accused Munna and victim Meghnath were quarrelling. Munna was threatening Meghnath that he (Muna) will kill him (Meghnath). PW6 Lal Babu Shah and PW7 Mukesh then intervened in the matter and went to their job. When they returned at 9.15pm to their room where they all were living, they found that Meghnath was lying on a quilt and was already dead and accused Munna was not present there. PW7 Mukesh has also made similar statement corroborating the statement of PW6 Lal Babu Shah in this regard. Therefore, the important chain of circumstances appearing against the accused viz the last seen evidence of PW6 Lal Babu Shah and PW7 Mukesh showing the accused and victim Meghnath were seen last by them in the room in question is proved on record by the prosecution.
RECOVERY OF WEAPON OF OFFENCE 41 The weapon of offence is stated to be thick wooden stick (balli). This wooden stick balli Ex.PW4/1 is seized by the IO/Inspt. Kapil S/v Munna Pandit, FIR No.155/11, PS Bawana Page no.43/54 Dev from the spot vide memo Ex.PW7/A. It is identified by the PW4 Dr.J.V. Kiran Kumar who had conducted postmortem of the deceased. The recovery of weapon of offence i.e wooden balli is, therefore, established on record by PW7 Mukesh and PW22 Inspt. Kapil Dev, who is witness of the seizure memo Ex.PW7/A. Besides PW21 SI Ramesh has also proved the seizure memo, therefore, wooden balli is proved by the prosecution which recovery is assumes importance in the light of statement of PW4 Dr. J.K. Kiran Kumar, who has opined that the wooden balli which was found near body of the deceased could cause the head injury on the person of the deceased. The report of PW4 Dr. J.V. Kiran Kumar is Ex.PW4/C in this regard.
MEDICAL EVIDENCE 42 The postmortem report of the deceased is proved by PW4 Dr. J.V. Kiran Kumar, Sr. Resident, Dr. Baba Sahab Ambedkar Hospital as Ex.PW4/A. In this report running into seven pages the said doctor has given that cause of death of deceased Meghnath was craniocerebral damage consequent to blunt force trauma to the head. He has also opined that all injuries on the person of the deceased were antemortem. In his further opinion, he has stated that wooden balli which was recovered was stained with blood. The said balli has been used in causing injuries mentioned in postmortem report including head injury on the person of the victim. Therefore, the prosecution has not only proved the cause of death of the victim was injuries on his person leading to craniocerebral damage consequent to blunt force trauma to the head but S/v Munna Pandit, FIR No.155/11, PS Bawana Page no.44/54 has also established by medical evidence that the weapon of offence i.e wooden balli recovered from the spot might have caused these injuries on the person of the victim which are shown in the postmortem report Ex.PW4/A. RECOVERY OF BLOOD STAINED CLOTHES OF ACCUSED 43 PW7 Ct.Satbir has stated that IO recorded disclosure statement of accused Munna Mandit which is Ex.PW17/A and accused in pursuance to his disclosure statement, led them to the place where he committed murder and pointing out memo Ex.PW17/B was prepared in this regard. He also stated that during his disclosure statement accused also disclosed that he had concealed his clothes in the empty plot behind H-194, Sector-3, DSIDC Bawana which he was wearing at the time of the incident as those clothes were having blood stains. Thereafter accused led them to the said plot and from there he got recovered one pant and T- shirt under the mud from the said plot. IO prepared pullanda of these clothes & prepared seizure memo. This witness proved the pointing out cum seizure memo of the clothes of accused as Ex.PW17/C. PW22 Inspt. Kapil Dev, who has seized these blood stains articles at the instance of the accused has also corroborated with the statement of the PW17 regarding seizure of the blood stained clothes of the accused got recovered by him from the empty plot behind factory No.H-194, Sector-3, DSIDC Bawana vide memo Ex.PW17/C. Therefore, recovery of blood stained clothes of the accused from the vacant plot behind H-194, Sector-3, DSIDC Bawana is established by the prosecution against the S/v Munna Pandit, FIR No.155/11, PS Bawana Page no.45/54 accused. These blood stained clothes of the accused connect him to the crime in question. I do not find any force in the argument of ld. Amicus Curiae for accused that these clothes were bound to contain blood stains as accused was living in the same room and even if the murder is committed by any other person the blood stains might have fallen on the clothes of accused and other articles lying in the room at the time of commission of murder of the victim. This arguments is not acceptable as accused got recovered his blood stained clothes not from the room in question where the alleged murder was committed but from the plot i.e behind factory no. H-194, Sector-3, DSIDC Bawana Industrial Area, therefore, these blood stained clothes in my view form important piece of the evidence in the chain of circumstances against the accused in this case for the simple reason that recovery of blood stained clothes of accused is not effected from room where victim was murdered but some other place at the instance of accused which shows that the accused had been wearing these clothes at the time of incident and has concealed these clothes at the place of recovery.
ACCUSED ALONE WITH THE VICTIM 44 Both PW6 Lal Babu Shah and PW7 Mukesh by their corroborative statements have proved that the accused was quarrelling with his deceased brother Meghnath at the time both these PW6 and PW7 left for their duty. As already discussed the accused was seen last with the victim on account of corroborative statement made by these two witnesses. Therefore, accused and victim Megnath were alone in the S/v Munna Pandit, FIR No.155/11, PS Bawana Page no.46/54 room in question in which they both along with PW6 Lal Babu Shah and PW7 Mukesh were living. When, two persons are in a room and one of them is murdered the other person proved to be with the victim needs to explain who committed the murder of the victim. If he does not state so or makes false statements then, the presumption arises that the victim was murdered by him.
45 In the present case, PW6 Lal Babu Shah and PW7 Mukesh have proved that the accused and victim were quarrelling when they had left for their duty. Therefore, when victim Megnath is found murdered the burden lies on the accused u/S 106 of the Indian Evidence Act to prove his innocence. He was required to prove who committed murder of Megnath but he has not done it. The natural presumption arises that he committed murder of the victim. The accused in the statement u/S 313 Cr.PC has alleged that PW6 Lal Babu Shah and PW7 Mukesh have committed murder of Megnath but he failed to prove this fact by leading evidence. In the given facts and circumstances of the case strong presumption arises that accused committed murder of his brother Megnath.
ADDITIONAL/MISSING LINK IN THE CHAIN OF CIRCUMSTANCES 46 Once the fact of last seen together is proved, a duty is cast on the accused to explain the circumstances in which they parted company. The failure of the accused to explain the circumstances in which he parted company with the deceased may well serve as additional link in S/v Munna Pandit, FIR No.155/11, PS Bawana Page no.47/54 the chain of circumstances thereby fortifying the prosecution case. (See Yogesh Karki v. State of Sikkim 2006 Cr LJ 509 (Sikkim) (DB).
It is a well settled principle that in a case of circumstantial evidence when the accused offers an explanation and that explanation is found to be untrue then the same offers an additional link in the chain of circumstances to complete the chain. (See Swepan Patra v State of West Bengal (1999) 9 SCC 242; Anthony D'Souza & ors v State of Karnataka 2002 (10) AD 37 (SC)) A false answer offered by the accused when his attention was drawn to a circumstance renders that circumstance capable of inculpating him. In such a situation a false answer can also be counted as providing 'a missing link' for completing the chain. (See State of Maharashtra v Suresh 2000 (1) SCC 471, 2000 SCC (Cr) 263; Kuldeep Singh & ors v State of Rajasthan 2001 Cr LJ 479 (SC), (2000) 5 SCC 7; Joseph v State of Kerala AIR 2000 SC 1608, (2000) 5 Sec 197; Jalasab Shaikh v State of Goa AIR 2000 SC 571, 2000 AIR SCW 111.) Where the accused on being asked, offers no explanation or explanation offered is found to be false, then that itself forms an additional link in the chain of circumstances to point out the guilt. (See Chandrasekhar Kao v Ponna Satyanarayana AIR 2000 SC 2138, JT 2000 (6) 465 SC; State of Tamil Nadu v Rajendran AIR 1999 SC 3535, 1999 Cr LJ 4552; Hari Lal v State 2001 Cr LJ 695 (All) (DB); Madho Singh & etc v State of Rajasthan 2001 Cr LJ 2159 (Raj) (DB); Sonatan Mahalo v State of West Bengal 2001 Cr LJ 3470 (Cal) (DB).) 47 In the present case, the accused was last seen with the victim S/v Munna Pandit, FIR No.155/11, PS Bawana Page no.48/54 Megnath and was with him alone and he has levelled false allegations against prosecution witnesses PW6 Lal Babu Shah and PW7 Mukesh in the statement u/S 313 Cr.PC that they committed murder of his brother. This false statement of accused and his lodging a false FIR in the matter in the given facts and circumstances of the case is an additional/missing link in the chain of incriminating circumstantial evidence appearing against the accused.
CONCLUSION 48 The above discussion under different headings shows that in this case based on circumstantial evidence the prosecution has proved extra judicial confession of the accused, the accused was last seen with the victim prior to the murder of Megnath, the weapon of offence the wooden balli (thick stick) is also recovered and proved and possibly connected with the crime due to medical evidence, the blood stained clothes of the accused were also recovered from the spot besides the accused was alone with the victim prior to murder of the victim in the same room and has given false answer to the questions put to him in the statement u/S 313 Cr.PC which becomes additional incriminating circumstance against the accused and can be treated as a missing link in the chain of incriminating circumstances appearing against the accused. Therefore, prosecution in my view has proved all the links in the chain of circumstances against the accused for the charge u/S 302 IPC by proving its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. 49 As regards, the offence u/S 182 IPC on account of alleged S/v Munna Pandit, FIR No.155/11, PS Bawana Page no.49/54 false FIR lodged by the accused in this case, the prosecution has not been able to prove the complaint as envisaged by Section 195 (1) (a) (i) Cr.P.C. Therefore, although the prosecution has been able to prove that a false FIR was lodged by the accused in this case but, on account of technical reason that the prosecution has failed to prove that a complaint in writing by the officer concerned was made for prosecution of the accused for the offence u/S 182 IPC, the cognizance of the said offence u/S 182 IPC is barred by Section 195 (1) (a) (i) Cr.PC. Therefore, due to this reason accused cannot be convicted u/S 182 IPC.
RESULT OF THE CASE 50 In view of the above discussion, accused is convicted of the charge u/S 302 IPC and is acquitted for the charge u/S 182 IPC. Let he be heard separately on the point of sentence.
Announced in the open Court on 01-10-2013.
(S. K. Sarvaria)
District & Sessions Judge (N/W)
Rohini Court/01.10.2013*rk
S/v Munna Pandit, FIR No.155/11, PS Bawana Page no.50/54
State Versus : Munna Pandit
FIR NO. : 155/11
Police Station : Bawana
Under Section : 302 IPC
07-10-2013
Present : Ld. Public Prosecutor for the State.
Accused/Convict Munna Pandit produced from JC.
Ms. Neeru Nagpal, Amicus Curiae on behalf of the accused/convict in person.
Arguments on Point of Sentence heard.
Vide separate detailed Order, Order on Sentence has been announced separately today itself.
In view of the efforts made by Ms. Neeru Nagpal, ld. Amicus Curiae in recording of evidence and also lengthy arguments addressed by her from time to time, her fee is fixed Rs.20,000/- to be paid by the Government/Competent Authority to her.
File be consigned to record room.
(S. K. Sarvaria) District & Sessions Judge (N/W) Rohini Court/ 07.10.2013*rk S/v Munna Pandit, FIR No.155/11, PS Bawana Page no.51/54 S/v Munna Pandit, FIR No.155/11, PS Bawana Page no.52/54 IN THE COURT OF SHRI. S.K. SARVARIA DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE NORTH WEST DISTRICT, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI Session Case No. 32/2011 StateVersus : Munna Pandit S/o Sh. Ambika Pandit R/o Vill. Dulam Chak, P.S Sahar/Chauvari, District Bhojpur Ara, Bihar.
FIR NO. : 155/11Police Station : Bawana Under Section : 302 IPC ORDER ON SENTENCE
Vide my judgment dated 01.10.2013, the convict/accused Munna Pandit is convicted under Section 302 IPC.
2. Ld. Public Prosecutor has argued for awarding extreme death penalty as he has committed murder of his own brother by causing repeated injuries on his body.
3. Learned Amicus Curie Ms Neeru Nagpal for the convict/accused on the other hand, has argued that convict/accused Munna Pandit has clean antecedents and case is bases on circumstantial evidence, so lenient view should be taken against him on the point of sentence. Therefore, lessor punishment provided under Section 302 IPC may be awarded to convict/accused.
4. I have heard learned Public Prosecutor for the State and learned Amicus Curiae for the accused/convict Ms Neeru Nagpal, advocate and have gone through the record of the case and relevant provisions of law, carefully.
S/v Munna Pandit, FIR No.155/11, PS Bawana Page no.53/54
5. The punishment awarded should be proportionate to the crime committed by the convict/accused. In murder cases besides fine there may be sentence of capital punishment or imprisonment for life. Section 354 (3) Cr.P.C. requires that the Court should give special reasons for awarding the death sentence under Section 302 IPC. The settled legal position is that the death penalty is awarded only in rarest of rare murder case. Therefore, the special reasons envisaged by Section 354 (3) CrPC are those which make the case fall amongst the rarest of rare cases.
6. Keeping in view the overall facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find this case to be one amongst rarest of rare cases to justify awarding the capital punishment to the convict. Therefore, the convict Munna Pandit is awarded sentence of life imprisonment for the offence under Section 302 IPC. However, in the light of Bidhan Nath alias Parijat Kusum Nath & Ors. Vs. State of Assam 2000 CrLJ 1144 (Gau) (DB) there is no need to award fine in the given facts and circumstances of the case.
7. Judgment and order on sentence be sent to server (www.delhidistrict courts. nic.in). Copy of judgment and order of sentence be supplied to convict/accused free of cost. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open Court on 07.10.2013 (S. K. Sarvaria) District & Sessions Judge (N/W) Rohini Court/07.10.2013 S/v Munna Pandit, FIR No.155/11, PS Bawana Page no.54/54