Delhi District Court
State vs Pardeep Maan on 17 October, 2022
-1-
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHEFALI SHARMA: ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE-02
( NORTH ):ROHINI DISTRICT COURTS : DELHI
In the matter of:-
(Sessions Case No. 729/2017)
FIR No. 316/2017
Police Station Alipur
Charge sheet filed Under Section 302 IPC
Charge framed Under Section 302 IPC
State V/s Pardeep Maan
S/o Sh. Devender Maan
R/o H.No. 1553, Dhulia Colony,
Alipur, Delhi.
......Accused
Date of institution 30.11.2017
Arguments concluded on 28.09.2022 &
17.10.2022
Judgment Pronounced on 17.10.2022
Decision Acquitted
JUDGMENT
BRIEF FACTS
1. Events which set the prosecution machinery into motion is that on the intervening night of 11/12.08.2017, a call was received regarding a female dead body lying in a vacant plot near the fields of Amar Singh Duliya Colony, Village Alipur, Delhi. The same was identified as that of one girl Pooja, D/o SC No. 729/17, FIR No. 316/17, PS Alipur Page No. 1 of 50 State Vs. Pradeep Maan -2- Suresh Prakash aged around 21 years. As per the postmortem report, the cause of death was found to be asphyxia consequent to ligature strangulation. All injuries were found fresh in duration and ante mortem in nature. After making inquiries, statement of witnesses had been recorded who deposed that the deceased was last seen in the company of the accused Pradeep during the evening hours of 11.08.2017 at Dayal Market and had also made a call to her mother that she was with the accused and would return shortly. Eventually during investigation, the IO recorded statement of the witnesses and after completion of investigation, charge sheet for the offence u/S. 302 IPC was filed in the court and accused Pardeep Maan was charged under Section 302 IPC.
CHARGE
2. On committal of the case to the Court of Sessions, vide order dated 31.01.2018 charge under Section 302 IPC against accused Pradeep Maan was found to be prima facie made out. The formal charge as above was framed on the said date to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
3. Thereafter, prosecution in support of its case have examined 20 witnesses in all.
PW1 is Ct. Naveen, who deposed that on 18.09.2017, he was working as a draftsman at Mapping Section, Rohini District and on that day visited PS Alipur and thereafter the spot i.e. Khasra no. 327, at vacant plot, SC No. 729/17, FIR No. 316/17, PS Alipur Page No. 2 of 50 State Vs. Pradeep Maan -3- Dulia Colony, Alipur, Delhi along with IO, Inspector Satish Kumar, where on the pointing out of Inspector Satish Kumar, he took the measurements and prepared rough notes. That on the basis of measurements and rough notes, he prepared scaled site plan on 22.09.2017 Ex. PW1/A. PW2 is Dr. Mukesh Kumar. He had deposed that on 13.08.2017, at 12:45 pm, he had conducted the postmortem on the dead body of deceased Pooja D/o Sudesh Prakash and he had mentioned the external and internal injuries in the PM report no. 802/17 dated 13.08.2017. He further deposed that in his opinion, the cause of death was due to asphyxia consequent to ligature strangulation. That all injuries were fresh in duration, ante mortem in nature. He further deposed that during the examination, viscera was preserved and sealed, blood in gauze, clothes, nail clipping of both hands, anal and vaginal swab was taken. He has proved his detailed PM report NO. 802/17 dated 13.08.2017 running into 4 pages as Ex. PW2/A. He has further deposed that as per the FSL result dated 27.12.2017 prepared by Sh. Amit Rawat, Assistant Director (Chemistry), FSL, Delhi, on Chemical, Microscopic & TLC examination, metallic, ethyl and methyl alcohol cyanide, phosphide, alkaloids, barbiturates, tranquilizers and pesticides could not be detected in exhibits '1A', '1B' & '1C'. Thus, the cause of death of Pooja D/o Suresh Prakash would be asphyxia consequent to ligature strangulation.
PW3 SI Akashdeep has deposed that on 12.08.2017, he was posted at Mobile Crime Team, Rohini District as Incharge and on that day, at about 12:50 pm, a call was received from control room and accordingly, he SC No. 729/17, FIR No. 316/17, PS Alipur Page No. 3 of 50 State Vs. Pradeep Maan -4- alongwith his staff consisting of HC Arvind (photographer) and SI Manish (finger print expert) reached at the spot i.e. in a vacant plot near the fields of Amar Singh, Duliya Colony, Village Alipur, Delhi, where they met Inspector Satish and other police officials.
He further deposed that he had inspected the said place of occurrence and on his instructions, photographer HC Arvind took photographs from different angles. That after inspection, he had prepared crime team report Ex. PW3/A and handed over the said report to the IO.
PW4 HC Arvind Kumar has deposed that on 12.08.2017, he was posted as photographer with Mobile Crime Team, Rohini District and on that day, at about 12:50 pm, a call was received from control room and accordingly, he alongwith crime team Incharge SI Akashdeep and SI Manish (finger print expert) reached at the spot i.e. in a vacant plot near the fields of Amar Singh, Duliya Colony, Village Alipur, Delhi, where they met Inspector Satish and other police officials.
He further deposed that at the spot, crime team Incharge had inspected the said place of occurrence and at the instance of SI Akashdeep and Inspector Satish, he took 11 photographs of the said place from different angles. He further deposed that after developing, he had handed over the said photographs to the IO. He has identified the said photographer and proved the same as Ex. PW4/A (colly) and has also proved the 11 negatives as Ex. PW4/B (colly).
PW5 is Smt. Premlata, who is the mother of the deceased Pooja. She has deposed that she is a permanent resident of Village Alipur and SC No. 729/17, FIR No. 316/17, PS Alipur Page No. 4 of 50 State Vs. Pradeep Maan -5- was having two children i.e. one son namely Ankit and one daughter namely Pooja (since deceased) and her husband is a motor mechanic. She has deposed that during the period of occurrence, her daughter Pooja was not attending any formal school or college, but she was taking English tuitions twice in a week. The friends of her daughter Pooja had stated to her that Pooja had developed friendship with Pradeep S/o Devender. When the said fact came into her knowledge, she talked to her daughter Pooja and made her understand that Pradeep is not a boy of good character and was also not of their caste and thus she requested her for not meeting Pradeep in future. That her daughter Pooja adhered to her said request and stopped meeting Pradeep.
She further deposed that on 10.08.2017, accused Pradeep, came to our gali and while standing at in front of their house, accused started raising the noises by saying "Pooja, Pooja". Upon hearing the said noises, initially, she came outside the house i.e. the house of her jeth where they were residing and thereafter her husband Sh. Sudesh also came outside the house. Her husband made accused Pradeep understand for not raising such noises. She also noticed accused Pradeep was under the influence of liquor. Her husband had requested accused Pradeep for leaving the said place, otherwise they will call the police by dialing at 100 number and accused replied for calling the police by dialing 200 number. That in the meantime, her son Ankit had also reached outside the house and after few minutes, she, her husband and her son came inside their house and bolted the door of their house.
She further deposed that on the next day i.e. on 11.08.2017, in between 6:00 to 6:30 pm, her daughter Pooja left the house for market. That on SC No. 729/17, FIR No. 316/17, PS Alipur Page No. 5 of 50 State Vs. Pradeep Maan -6- or about 7:00 pm, she made a call to her daughter Pooja on her mobile having last digits as 614 and she inquired from her daughter as to by what time she would be returning to house. Her daughter replied over the phone that she had met accused Pradeep on the way and accused Pradeep had been teasing and misbehaving her and she further stated to her that she would be reaching home soon. She waited for some time, but her daughter had not returned back. That in between 7:30 - 8:00 pm, she had again made a call to her daughter, but the said call was picked by accused Pradeep and accused Pradeep had replied that my daughter was in his custody and thereafter he disconnected the said call.
She further deposed that thereafter, she had again made call on the mobile of her daughter Pooja, but her mobile was found switched off. Thereafter, she left her house and her husband and sister-in-law also accompanied her and they searched for Pooja, but in vain. That thereafter, she and aforesaid persons went to PS Alipur, where she had informed the police about the aforesaid facts. Thereafter, the police had accompanied them to the house of accused Pradeep. In the said house, they met the mother of accused Pradeep. Police had inquired about the whereabouts of accused Pradeep from his mother, but his mother replied that Pradeep was not available at house and they were not allowed to enter the said house. That upon inquiry, by the police, the mother of accused Pradeep had replied that she had also made calls at the mobile of Pradeep, but the mobile of accused Pradeep was found switched off. They returned back and on the next day, i.e. on 12.08.2017, while she was searching for her daughter, her jeth Sh. Satbir had informed her that he had seen Pooja in the company of accused Pradeep during the evening hours of SC No. 729/17, FIR No. 316/17, PS Alipur Page No. 6 of 50 State Vs. Pradeep Maan -7- 11.08.2017, at Dayal Market. That while she was searching for her daughter, she had received a call from the police and police requested her for coming to PS alongwith the photographs of Pooja. Accordingly, she went to PS Alipur from where she and her husband were taken to a vacant plot at near Dhulia Colony. Upon reaching there, they found many public persons and police officials gathered there. That the body of her daughter Pooja was lying in the said plot and she had identified her dead body and at the said plot, one police official had recorded her statement Ex. PW5/A. She had identified the 11 photographs of the place of occurrence including the photographs of Pooja and identified the said photographs to be of her daughter Pooja.
Upon asking a leading question by Ld. Addl. PP for the State she admitted that when accused came at in front of her house and was raising noises Pooja-Pooja, her nephew Vicky was also present over there and he also made accused Pradeep understand and accused Pradeep had stated to Vicky that Pooja has now started talking with some other boy.
PW6 is W/Ct. Nisha, who has deposed that on 12.08.2017, she was posted at PS Alipur and was on duty as DD Writer and on that day at about 12:26 pm, Wireless Operator came to DO room and gave an information to the effect that one girl aged about 16-17 years has been lying unconscious at Alipur Dhulia Colony, Khasra No. 327 under a tree and she could be dead also. That on the basis of said information, she lodged DD No. 26B in the roznamacha and informed the contents of DD No. 26B to SI Rajbir over telephone and also informed the contents of DD No. 26B to Inspector Satish Kumar also She has proved the true copy of DD No. 26B as Ex.PW6/A. SC No. 729/17, FIR No. 316/17, PS Alipur Page No. 7 of 50 State Vs. Pradeep Maan -8- PW7 is ASI Fateh Singh, who deposed that on 12.08.2017, she was posted at PS Alipur and was on duty as Duty Officer. That on that day at about 12:45 am, one Premlata W/o Sh. Sudesh came to PS Alipur and met him and informed that her daughter Pooja aged about 21 years R/o 1835, Budhi Maim Chowk who was wearing blue shirt, black pant and hawai chappal and had left her house on 11.08.2017 at about 7 pm without informing any of her family members. Smt. Premlata had also informed him that her daughter Pooja had not yet returned and they had made efforts to search but in vain. That on the basis of said information, he had lodged DD No. 6A in the roznamach and informed the contents of DD No. 6A to ASI Virender and also informed the contents of DD No. 6A to MPS through telephone. He has proved the true copy of DD No. 6A as Ex.PW7/A. PW8 is W/Ct. Renu. She has deposed that on 12.08.2017, she was posted at CPCR PHQ and was on duty at channel no. 125 from 8:00 am to 2:00 pm. That on that day, at about 12:23:36 hours, a call was received from phone no. 7678151211 and caller has informed "Yahan ped ke neeche 16-17 years ki ek ladki behosh padi hai, dead bhi ho sakti hai" and the caller has also informed that the said place to be at Alipur Dulia Colony, Khasra No. 327. That she had fed the said information in PCR form and transmitted the said information to the concerned District/Wireless Operator through console. She has proved the PCR form as Ex. PW8/A. PW9 is Smt. Kalawati. She has deposed that on 12.08.2017 during morning hours i.e. between 10 to 11 am. she came outside her house and some passerby had informed her that dead body of one girl was lying in a SC No. 729/17, FIR No. 316/17, PS Alipur Page No. 8 of 50 State Vs. Pradeep Maan -9- vacant plot situated at Khasra No. 326/327. Accordingly, she had made a call at 100 number.
PW10 HC Sanjeev Kumar has deposed that on 27.10.2017, he was posted at PS Alipur. On that day, on the instructions of IO Inspector Satish Kumar, he had collected 6 sealed pulandas and two FSL forms from MHC (M) vide RC No. 211/21/17 and 213/21/17 and deposited the same at FSL, Rohini and handed over the acknowledgment to MHC (M).
He further deposed that on 30.10.2017, on the instructions of IO Inspector Satish Kumar, he had collected 4 sealed pulandas and two FSL forms from MHC (M) vide RC No. 215/21/17 and 216/21/17 and deposited the same at FSL, Rohini and handed over the acknowledgment to MHC (M). That he had also collected one Hard Disk and four empty pen drives and deposited the same at FSL, Rohini on 30.10.2017.
PW11 is Sh. Sudesh Prakash, who deposed that on 13.08.2017, he was called by the investigation officer in the mortuary of BJRM Hospital, where IO had conducted the inquest proceedings. In the said mortuary he had identified the dead body of Pooja being his daughter and proved his statement Ex. PW11/A. That on the same day, postmortem on the body of her daughter was conducted by the concerned autopsy surgeon and after postmortem, the body of Pooja was handed over to him vide receipt Ex. PW11/B. PW12 is Ct. Mahavir Singh. He has deposed that on 12.08.2017, he was posted at PS Alipur. On that day, at about 12:26 pm, an information was received from PCR that at Alipur Duliya Colony, Khasra no. 327, under a tree, one girl aged about 16 / 17 years has been lying unconscious, SC No. 729/17, FIR No. 316/17, PS Alipur Page No. 9 of 50 State Vs. Pradeep Maan -10- may be dead. That on the basis of said statement, DD No. 26B was lodged by duty officer and DD No. 26B was marked to SI Jaibir. Accordingly, he had accompanied SI Jaibir and Inspector Satish Kumar to the aforesaid place and upon reaching there, we found the dead body of one girl aged about 20 / 21 years lying there. That upon the inspection of the said body, they found blood clots over her neck. The said body was found wearing black colour T-shirt and black colour pants. That near the said body, they found one plastic mobile cover and one pair of plastic / rubber slippers lying. Efforts were made to affix the identity of the said girl. Smt. Prem Lata i.e. mother of said girl had also reached at the spot and she identified the said body to be of her daughter Pooja. That Inspector Satish Kumar had recorded the statement of Smt. Prem Lata. Inspector Satish Kumar had also called crime team at the spot. Crime team incharge had inspected the place of occurrence and prepared his report and crime team photographer took the photographs of the spot from different angles.
He has further deposed that on the basis of statement made by Smt. Prem Lata and facts and circumstances of the case, Inspector Satish Kumar prepared rukka and rukka was handed over to him. Accordingly, he went to PS in a government motorcycle and handed over said rukka to DO. Accordingly, duty officer registered FIR No. 316/17 and handed over to him computerized copy of FIR and original rukka. Thereafter, he returned back to the spot and handed over copy of FIR and original rukka to IO Inspector Satish Kumar. Thereafter, he had left the said place of occurrence.
SC No. 729/17, FIR No. 316/17, PS Alipur Page No. 10 of 50 State Vs. Pradeep Maan -11- He further deposed that during the evening hours of the same day i.e. on 12.08.2017, on the instruction of IO Inspector Satish Kumar, he took accused Pradeep to SRHC hospital, where he was got medically examined, where concerned doctor had also taken the blood sample of accused Pradeep and after sealing handed over the said blood sample alongwith sample to him. That he returned back to PS and handed over the said exhibits to IO Inspector Satish Kumar, which he seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW12/A. He further deposed that on 13.08.2017, he had again joined the investigation and on that day IO had got conducted postmortem on the body of Pooja. That after postmortem, the concerned doctor had handed over the exhibits in sealed condition, which IO had seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW12/B. PW13 is Sh. Satbir Singh. He has deposed that on 11.08.2017, he was going to his house via Dayal Market. At about 6:30 pm, he saw Pooja, who was my niece and accused Pradeep Maan were passing from the road in the Dayal market. He asked Pooja as to where she was going and told her to go back home. Thereafter, he went to his house. That on the next day, he came to know that my niece was missing. The said fact was being said by many persons in the locality / gali, as the public persons were whispering with regard to the same. He informed the mother of Pooja that he had seen Pooja with accused Pradeep Maan in the Dayal Market in the last evening. That he alongwith his relatives went to BJRM Hospital, where he identified the dead body of Pooja. He proved his statement Ex. PW13/A. That after postmortem, the dead body was handed over to the relatives of the deceased.
SC No. 729/17, FIR No. 316/17, PS Alipur Page No. 11 of 50 State Vs. Pradeep Maan -12- PW14 is SI Jaibir. He has deposed that on 12.08.2017, he was posted at PS Alipur. On that day, on receipt of DD No. 26B regarding one girl was lying unconscious under the tree, Dulia Colony, Khasra no. 327, Alipur, Delhi, he alongwith Ct. Sandeep went to the spot. Inspector Satish and Ct. Mahavir also reached there. That in a vacant plot, one dead body of a girl aged about 20-21 years having blood on her neck was lying. The legs of the dead body were on North side and the dead body was wearing black colour T-shirt and black colour pant. One mobile phone of blue colour and a pair of plastic chappal were also lying near the dead body. That the dead body was identified by complainant Smt. Prem Lata. The crime team was called. Incharge crime team inspected the scene of crime and photographer took the photographs of the scene of crime from different angles. The dead body was sent to the mortuary through Ct. Sandeep.
He further deposed that Inspector Satish made endorsement on the statement of Smt. Prem Lata and prepared rukka which was handed over to Ct. Mahavir at 3:00 pm. Ct. Mahavir went to PS for registration of FIR. Ct. Mahavir came back with copy of FIR and original rukka and presented the same to the IO.
He has deposited the blue colour mobile cover having three holes in its back as Mark 1, the pair of sleepers of blue and yellow colour as Mark 2, the grass under the dead body as Mark 3, one baingni colour button having black colour thread lying under the dead body as Mark 4. He has also proved all the four pulandas as Ex. PW14/A. SC No. 729/17, FIR No. 316/17, PS Alipur Page No. 12 of 50 State Vs. Pradeep Maan -13- He has further deposed that the mother of deceased informed that her daughter has been killed by accused Pradeep Maan with whom she had friendship and she also informed that accused had visited their house one day ago. She also informed that she received a call of her daughter, who informed that she is with accused on 11.08.2017. He alongwith Inspector Satish and Ct. Mahavir left for the search of the accused and they received secret information. That during the search of the accused, they reached at Alipur, Firni Road, near Pulia. The secret informer pointed out the accused, who was coming on the Firni Road, near pulia Alipur and on the pointing out of the secret informer, they apprehended accused Pradeep Maan.
He further deposed that the accused was interrogated and he admitted that he had committed the murder of Pooja. They all with accused reached at PS Alipur, where the accused was interrogated and arrested. He proved the arrest memo Ex. PW14/B, personal search of the accused was also conducted and two mobile phone sets make Samsung and Carbon Model J7 and K490 respectively were found in possession of the accused. That the accused revealed that the Samsung mobile phone belonged to Pooja and Carbon mobile phone belonged to him. He has proved the seizure memo of both the phones as PW14/C. He has also proved the personal search memo of accused as Ex. PW14/D. PW15 is Sh. Krishan Kumar Jain, who deposed that on 15.05.2007, he had purchased a plot measuring 860 Sq. Yards in khasra no. 326 situated in village Alipur, Delhi from Ravinder Singh S/o Indraj Singh. There was boundary on the said plot. He was called by the police in the month SC No. 729/17, FIR No. 316/17, PS Alipur Page No. 13 of 50 State Vs. Pradeep Maan -14- of August, 2017 as one dead body of a girl was found in his land. He informed the police that he is owner of the said plot. He had also handed over the photocopies of the documents regarding ownership on the said plot and marked as Mark PW15/A (colly).
PW16 is Sh. Deepak Kumar, who deposed that he worked in Play and Craft Traders owned by Sh. Rajesh Arora and used to operate the office at Kirti Nagar and he managed the factory and godown of Play and Craft Traders situated at Khasra no. 330-331, Alipur, Delhi. They had installed CCTV cameras, which are connected with DVR.
He further deposed that on 14.08.2017, police officials of PS Alipur reached at their godown. They had seen the CCTV footage in the screen installed in our office and after watching the CCTV footage dated 11.08.2017, police had loaded the footage and copy the footage in a pen drive. The DVR was taken in possession by the police and wrapped in a piece of cloth. He has proved the seizure memo of the same as Ex. PW16/A. He also gave certificate u/s 65-B of Indian Evidence Act with regard to footage stored in the DVR and proved the same as Ex. PW16/B. He has also proved the DVR as Ex. P7, pen drive as Ex. P8.
PW17 is W/ASI Phoolwati, who deposed that on 12.08.2017 she was posted at PS Alipur as ASI and was working as DO from 8.00a.m to 4.00p.m. That day, at about 3.20p.m. Ct. Mahavir came to the police station with a rukka sent by Inspector Satish Kumar and on the basis of which, she registered the present FIR in a computer with the help of computer operator and proved the same as Ex.PW17/A. She also made endorsement Ex.PW17/B SC No. 729/17, FIR No. 316/17, PS Alipur Page No. 14 of 50 State Vs. Pradeep Maan -15- on rukka and I also issued certificate u/s 65-B Evidence Act with respect to the present FIR and proved the same as Ex.PW17/C. PW18 is Vikas, who deposed that on 09.08.2017, he was present at his house. The house of his uncle Sudesh Prakash is adjacent to his house. He further deposed that his cousin sister Pooja D/o my uncle Sudesh Prakash was acquainted with Pardeep resident of our village. That accused Pardeep was having relation with his cousin sister Pooja and they used to meet each other and roam in the area. He further deposed that he alongwith his family members objected to their relations and made Pooja to understand their reputation in the village. That on that day, at about 9.00p.m. accused Pardeep came in front of the house of his uncle Sudesh Prakash and started calling 'Pooja-Pooja' and mother of Pooja namely Smt. Prem Lata came out of her house and requested accused not to call Pooja and go away from in front of their house. That he also came out of his house and requested accused to go away and leave the place and not to call Pooja. That Smt. Prem Lata threatened accused Pardeep that if he did not leave the place, she would make a call to police at 100 number, to which accused replied that "100 kya 200 number pe call kar do, mein nahi jaunga". Thereafter, he communicated with accused who told him that Pooja started talking with some other boy, if she did not talk to him (accused), she would face the dire consequences and thereafter, accused left the said place. He further deposed that later on, he came to know that the dead body of my cousin sister Pooja was found.
PW18 further deposed that on 14.08.2017, he was called by the IO in the police station. He accompanied with Police officials towards the place SC No. 729/17, FIR No. 316/17, PS Alipur Page No. 15 of 50 State Vs. Pradeep Maan -16- where the dead body of his cousin sister was found, via Shiv Mandir. They found CCTV camera installed in one Godown on the way to the place where the dead body of Pooja was found. They entered the said Godown where they met the manager of the said Godown. He further deposed that police officials check the CCTV footage of dated 11.08.2017. That in the CCTV footage of dated 11.08.2017 in the evening at about 7.00p.m. they saw accused with Pooja walking in the said Gali. That Pooja was wearing black colour T-shirt and black colour capri in the CCTV footage of 11.08.2017. The said CCTV footage of that relevant day and time were loaded in the pendrive from DVR. The said DVR and pendrive were separately taken in possession by the police and the DVR was wrapped in a piece of cloth and converted into pullanda and sealed with the seal of SK. The said pullanda was taken into possession and seized. The pendrive sandisk Ext-PD 1 Ex.P8 is played on the computer. The said pendrive containing the CCTV footage of dated 11.08.2017. In the said CCTV footage of camera no. 01 of dated 11.08.2017 at 18:54:10 to 18:54:46, one boy and one girl were seeing from their back walking on the road going straight. The back of both girl and boys are visible in the CC footage. He has identified the boy as accused Pradeep and the girl as Pooja and both are walking with each other and seen in the footage. He has also identified DVR Ex.P7.
PW19 is IO Inspector Satish Kumar. He deposed that on 12.08.2017, he was posted at PS Alipur as Inspector (Investigation). That on that day, on receipt of DD No. 26B regarding one girl was lying unconscious under the tree, Dulia Colony, Khasra no. 327, Alipur, Delhi, SI Jaiveer alongwith Ct. Sandeep went to the spot. He along with Ct. Mahavir also SC No. 729/17, FIR No. 316/17, PS Alipur Page No. 16 of 50 State Vs. Pradeep Maan -17- reached there. He further deposed that in a vacant plot, one dead body of a girl aged about 20-21 years was lying having blood clotting on her neck. The legs of the dead body were on North side and the dead body was wearing black colour T-shirt and black colour pant. One mobile phone cover of blue colour and a pair of plastic chappal were also lying near the dead body. That the dead body was identified as Pooja by complainant Smt. Prem Lata. The crime team was called and Incharge crime team inspected the scene of crime and photographer took the photographs of the scene of crime from different angles. The dead body was sent to the mortuary through Ct. Sandeep. The statement of Smt. Prem Lata was recorded.
He further deposed that he made endorsement EX.PW19/A on the statement of Smt. Prem Lata and prepared rukka which was handed over to Ct. Mahavir at 3:00 pm and Ct. Mahavir went to PS for registration of FIR. Ct. Mahavir came back with copy of FIR and original rukka and presented the same to him.
He further deposed that the blue colour mobile cover having three holes in its back was measured and wrapped in a piece of cloth, converted into a pulanda and marked as Mark 1. He further deposed that the pair of sleepers of blue and yellow colour were wrapped in a piece of cloth, converted into a pulanda, which was sealed with the seal of SK and marked as Mark 2. He further deposed that the grass under the dead body was taken and put in a plastic container, wrapped with doctor tape, sealed with the seal of SK and marked as Mark 3. That one baingni colour button having black colour thread was lying under the dead body which was taken in a plastic container, wrapped SC No. 729/17, FIR No. 316/17, PS Alipur Page No. 17 of 50 State Vs. Pradeep Maan -18- with doctor tape, sealed with the seal of SK and marked as Mark 4. He further deposed that all the four pulandas were taken in possession vide seizure memo Ex. PW14/A. He further deposed that the mother of deceased informed that her daughter has been killed by accused Pradeep Maan with whom she had friendship and she also informed that accused had visited their house one day prior. She also informed that she received a call of her daughter Pooja, who informed that she is with accused on 11.08.2017. He prepared site plan Ex.PW19/B. That he alongwith SI Jaiveer and Ct. Mahavir left for the search of the accused and they received secret information. During the search of the accused, they reached at Alipur, Firni Road, near Pulia. The secret informer pointed out the accused, who was coming on the Firni Road, near pulia Alipur and on the pointing out of the secret informer, they apprehended accused Pradeep Maan. That accused was interrogated and accused admitted that he had committed the murder of Pooja. They all with accused reached at PS Alipur, where the accused was interrogated and arrested. Personal search of the accused was also conducted and two mobile phone sets make Samsung and Carbon Model J7 and K490 respectively were found in possession of the accused. The accused revealed that the Samsung mobile phone belonged to Pooja and Carbon mobile phone belonged to him. Both the phones were separately wrapped in a piece of cloth and converted into pulanda and sealed with the seal of SK and even marked as Mark phone 1 and Mark phone 2. Both the pulandas were taken in possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW14/C. The personal search memo of accused was conducted vide memo Ex. PW14/D. The SC No. 729/17, FIR No. 316/17, PS Alipur Page No. 18 of 50 State Vs. Pradeep Maan -19- accused made disclosure statement Ex.PW19/C. He further deposed that pursuance to the disclosure statement, accused led them to his house and there was an almirah to the side of the door. The almirah was opened by the accused and he produced one shirt, which he used in the commission of the offence for strangulating the girl namely Pooja. The shirt having logo of Hollister 100% cotton black colour, having printed white dots, having five buttons and top button is missing on the shirt. The said shirt was wrapped in a piece of cloth, converted into a pulanda and said pulanda was sealed with the seal of SK and was seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW14/E. He further deposed that the accused also pointed out the place of occurrence vide pointing out memo Ex. PW14/F. He further deposed that on 12.08.2017, he along with accused and Const. Mahavir went to SRH, Hospital Narela, where the accused was medically examined and the blood sample of accused were taken in plain and EDTA Vial and the same was handed over to Const. Mahavir which he handed over the same to him and sealed the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW12/A. The accused was medically examined vide MLC No. 4795 dated 12.08.2017.
He further deposed that on 13.8.2017, he along with relative of deceased Sudesh Prakash and Satbir Singh reached at BJRM Mortuary and met with Ct. Sandeep. Ct. Mahavir was with him. The dead body was identified by the relative of deceased and he recorded their statement Ex.PW11/A and Ex.PW13/A. That he had already filled up Form 25.35(1) (B) Ex.PW19/D and an application Ex.PW19/E. That the Postmortem was conducted on the dead body of the deceased and after postmortem, Autopsy Surgeon handed over SC No. 729/17, FIR No. 316/17, PS Alipur Page No. 19 of 50 State Vs. Pradeep Maan -20- him sealed exhibits along with sample seal which he seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW12/B. That the dead body was handed over to the relative of deceased, vide dead body handing over memo Ex.PW11/B and he recorded the statement of witnesses.
He further deposed that on 14.08.2017, he along with my staff went to Shiv Mandir Road in the godown of toys in order to find out the CCTV footage if any. He found the CCTV footage dated 11.08.2017. After seeing the CCTV footage, he found that accused was going with the deceased towards the place of incident at 6:56 pm. He took the footage from DVR in a pen drive and took in possession the DVR. That the make of said DVR is "American Access" which was wrapped in a piece of cloth and converted into pulanda, which was sealed with the seal of SK. The said pulanda was taken in possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW16/A in the presence of Vikas and Deepak. He recorded the statement of Vikas and Deepak and deposited the case property with MHC(M).
He got developed the three photographs Mark PW19/F1 to F3 from the CCTV footage in pen drive and placed the same on record. He deposed that in the photographs, the accused along with Pooja were seen going together just before the commission of offence.
He further deposed that on 18.09.2017, he along with Ct. Naveen, Assistance Draftsman went to the scene of crime where Draftsman took measurement and prepared rough notes for scaled site plan at his instance and he recorded statement of Ct. Naveen.
That on 27.10.2017, on his directions as well as of SHO, HC SC No. 729/17, FIR No. 316/17, PS Alipur Page No. 20 of 50 State Vs. Pradeep Maan -21- Sanjeev was directed to collect the exhibits from the MHC(M) for depositing the same in FSL Rohini. He collected the same from the MHC(M) and deposited the same with FSL vide RC No. 211 and 213 and obtained the acknowledgment of FSL which he handed over to MHC(M) on his return to the PS. He further deposed that on 03.11.2017, he met with Smt. Kalawati who made a call to the police on 100 number on 12.08.2017 and he recorded the statement of Smt. Kalawati u/s 161 Cr.PC. He also met with Krishan Kumar Jain, who is owner of the property / place where the dead body of deceased Pooja was lying. He collected the photocopy of documents of ownership from Krishan Kumar Jain and recorded his statement.
He further deposed that he collected the scaled site plan, PCR form and crime team report with photographs and placed the same on record. He collected the CAP and CDR from the service provider pertaining to Mobile Nos. 7550598285 (Aircel), 7053104614 (Aircel), 8802726998 (Aircel) and 7503727323 (Aircel) along with location charts and placed the same on record. He prepared charge-sheet which was forwarded by the SHO and sent to court by ACP concerned.
He collected the FSL result dated 06.12.2017 prepared by Sh. Saurabh Pathak Ex. P1, FSL result dated 27.12.2017 prepared by Sh. Amit Rawat Ex. P2 and FSL result dated 27.12.2017 prepared by Sh. Parsuram Singh Ex. P3.
He further deposed that on 07.05.2019, he moved an application Ex. PW19/G and filed the FSL results dated 29.04.2019 prepared by Dr. Bharti SC No. 729/17, FIR No. 316/17, PS Alipur Page No. 21 of 50 State Vs. Pradeep Maan -22- Bhardwaj and Dr. Jagjeet Singh Ex. P4 & Ex. P5 with certificate u/s 65-B of Indian Evidence Act and pendrive.
He has identified the case property and identified the button and thread as Ex. P1, one blue colour cover of mobile phone having three holes identified as Ex. P2, one pair of slippers of yellow blue and greenish colour as Ex. P3, one mobile phone make Samsung Model J-7 having IMEI no. 359473073774677 and 359474073774675 as Ex. P4, one mobile phone make Karbonn Model K-490 having IMEI no. 911449202249469 and 911449202249477 having Memory Card and SIM as Ex. P5, one shirt as Ex. P6, one DVR AMERICAN ACCESS as Ex. P7.
PW20 is Dr. Mukesh Bharti. He has deposed that on 12.08.2017 at 11 pm Pradeep was brought by Ct. Mahaveer Singh for medical examination and blood sample i.e. alleged history of accused of strangulation yesterday. He further deposed that on examination, multiple abrasions on face and upper anterior chest wall were present. That patient had taken bath and changed his clothes including undergarments after incident. That his nail was also cut very short. He further deposed that blood sample of patient was taken in plain and EDPA Vial and after sealing the same, handed over to Ct. Mahaveer. He further deposed that he prepared the MLC No. 4797 Ex.PW20/A. STATEMENT OF ACCUSED U/S 294 CR.P.C.
4. Vide his statement under Section 294 Cr.P.C. recorded on 27.08.2022, the accused has admitted the following documents, although without admitting his guilt:
SC No. 729/17, FIR No. 316/17, PS Alipur Page No. 22 of 50 State Vs. Pradeep Maan -23-
1. FSL report no. FSL-2017/B-8076 dated 06.12.2017 prepared Ex.P1 by Saurabh Pathak
2. FSL report no. FSL-2017/C-8076 dated 27.12.2017 prepared Ex.P2.
by Amit Rawat
3. FSL report no. FSL-2017/B-8076/PHY dated 27.12.2017 Ex.P3. prepared by Parshuram Singh
4. FSL report no. FSL-2017/CFU-8125/P-188/19 dated Ex.P4. 29.04.2019 prepared by Dr. Bharti Bhardwaj
5. FSL report no. FSL-2017/CFU-8125 dated 22.04.2019 Ex.P5 prepared by Dr. Jagjeet Singh
6. Affidavit under Section 65B Indian Evidence Act dated Ex. P5/X 22.04.2019 given by Dr. Jagjeet Singh
7. The CAF and CDR with affidavit of the service Ex. PX/1 provider/Nodal Officer Shishir pertaining to Mobile No. (colly.) 7550598285 (Aircel) (01.07.2017 to 24.10.2017 running into 12 pages) and location chart of said mobile number
8. The CAF and CDR with affidavit of the service Ex.PX/2 provider/Nodal Officer Shishir pertaining to Mobile No. (colly.) 7053104614 (Aircel) (01.07.2017 to 24.10.2017 running into 13 pages) and location chart of said mobile number 9 The CAF and CDR with affidavit of the service Ex.PX/3 provider/Nodal Officer Shishir pertaining to Mobile No. (colly.) 8802726998 (Aircel) (01.07.2017 to 24.10.2017 running into 2 pages) and location chart of said mobile number 10 The CAF and CDR with affidavit of the service Ex.PX/4 provider/Nodal Officer Shishir pertaining to Mobile No. (colly.) 7503727323 (Aircel) (01.05.2017 to 24.10.2017 running into 2 pages) and location chart of said mobile number SC No. 729/17, FIR No. 316/17, PS Alipur Page No. 23 of 50 State Vs. Pradeep Maan -24- STATEMENT OF ACCUSED UNDER SECTION 313 Cr.P.C
5. After closure of PE, the statement of the accused Pradeep Maan was recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. on 27.08.2022, wherein he denied all the evidence put to him and stated that he was having simple friendship with deceased Pooja at the relevant period but their friendship was misunderstood by her family members and when this incident happened her family members falsely named him in the present case and that all the witnesses have falsely deposed against him. He further submitted that he is innocent and has been implicated by the police officials in connivance with the family members of deceased. All the proceedings were conducted by the IO while sitting at PS and case property planted upon him. He never gave any disclosure statement neither pointed out any place of incident, rather his signatures were obtained by the police forcibly on several blank papers which were later converted into indiscriminate documents against him to falsely implicate him in the present case. He further submitted that he was never arrested at the place and manner as shown by the prosecution. That no such incident ever took place because of him or in his presence. That nothing was recovered from him or at his instance.
Accused chose to lead defence evidence .
DEFENCE EVIDENCE
6. DW1 is Devender Maan, who is the father of accused Pradeep Maan. He deposed that from the year 2015, he was running a Dhabha under the name of Maan Dhabha at GT Road, Murthal, Sonipat and his son Pradeep Maan (accused) used to assist him in his work at Maan Dhabha and they both SC No. 729/17, FIR No. 316/17, PS Alipur Page No. 24 of 50 State Vs. Pradeep Maan -25- used to live at Dhabha only and occasionally came to their house once in a week at their house at Alipur.
DW1 further deposed that on 12.08.2017, he received a call between 8 to 9 am from PS Alipur and they inquired about his son Pradeep and asked for his appearance in PS Alipur immediately. They did not specify any reason for calling Pradeep in PS. When he along with his son reached at PS Alipur, the police officials told that his son Pradeep has committed a murder on 11.08.2017 of a girl named Pooja. He along with his son resisted the statement of police officials and told them that Pardeep was at Dhabha from last 5- 6 days. That his son Pardeep was arrested on the same day by the police officials and was sent in judicial custody. He further deposed that the family members of the deceased were present in the police station at that time and were raising hue and cry and were fighting with them.
He further deposed that his son Pradeep is innocent and has not committed any murder of deceased Pooja and that he has been falsely implicated in the present case by the police officials in connivance with the family members of deceased Pooja.
7. Thereafter, matter was fixed for final arguments.
ARGUMENTS
8. I have heard Sh. Harvinder Nar, Ld. Addl. PP for the State and Sh.Ujjwal Puri, Ld. counsel for the accused.
SC No. 729/17, FIR No. 316/17, PS Alipur Page No. 25 of 50 State Vs. Pradeep Maan -26-
9. It was argued by Ld. Addl. PP for the State that the allegations levelled against the accused are of serious nature and through the testimonies of material witnesses PW5, PW13 and PW18 the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. It was argued that through the testimony of last seen witness PW13, the forensic evidence and the three photographs of the CCTV Footage, the prosecution has been able to prove the complete chain of events beyond reasonable doubt and accused deserves conviction.
It was further argued that all the police officials have clearly proved the chain and the manner of investigation and merely because the witnesses are police officials their testimony cannot be disbelived and for this reliance is placed on the case of Girija Prasad Vs. State of M.P. (2007) 7 SCC
625.
10. On the contrary, Sh. Ujjwal Puri, Ld. counsel for the accused has argued that accused has been falsely implicated. It was argued that there is no eye witness to the crime and the testimony of last seen witness PW13 is highly doubtful. It is further argued that the conduct of other prosecution witness, specially PW5 and PW13 is improbable and there are material contradictions in their testimonies from their earlier statements. That accused has been falsely implicated by the family members of the deceased as they were opposed to their relationship being from different caste. There was no mention of the name of the accused or the family members suspected him in the missing complaint and only when the next day the dead body had been recovered, the accused was wrongfully arrested from his place. That the forensic evidence also does SC No. 729/17, FIR No. 316/17, PS Alipur Page No. 26 of 50 State Vs. Pradeep Maan -27- not support the case of the prosecution and benefit of doubt has to be granted to the accused. That there is no public witness examined by the prosecution. There is no motive which has been attributed and accordingly, accused deserves acquittal.
11. I have heard the arguments at length and perused the entire record.
FINDINGS
12. The accused Pradeep Maan had been charged for the commission of offence punishable under Section 302 IPC.
13. Briefly stated, the prosecution story is that on the intervening night of 11/12.08.2017, a call was received regarding a female dead body lying in a vacant plot near the fields of Amar Singh Duliya Colony, Village Alipur, Delhi. The same was identified as that of one girl Pooja, D/o Suresh Prakash aged around 21 years. As per the postmortem report, the cause of death was found to be asphyxia consequent to ligature strangulation. All injuries were found fresh in duration and ante mortem in nature. After making inquiries, statement of witnesses had been recorded who deposed that the deceased and the accused were having a relationship and she was last seen in the company of the accused Pradeep during the evening hours of 11.08.2017 at Dayal Market and had also made a call to her mother that she was with the accused and would return shortly. A CCTV footage dated 11.08.2017 in the late evening was also obtained and loaded in the pen drive and eventually during SC No. 729/17, FIR No. 316/17, PS Alipur Page No. 27 of 50 State Vs. Pradeep Maan -28- investigation, the IO recorded statement of the witnesses and after completion of investigation, charge sheet for the offence u/S. 302 IPC was filed in the court and accused Pardeep Maan was charged under Section 302 IPC vide orders dated 31.01.2018 by the Ld. Predecessor of this Court.
14. The relevant Section is reproduced as under:
SECTION 302 IPC "Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or [imprisonment for life], and shall also be liable to fine".
15. It is a settled law of criminal jurisprudence that a person is believed to be innocent till the guilt is proved against him. This principle is called The Presumption of Innocence. In another words, the accused is entitled to take advantage of reasonable doubt in respect of his crime. The principle finds its genesis in the Declaration of Human Rights under Article 11 Section 1 incorporated by the United Nations in 1948. It is also mentioned in the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights in Article 6 Section 2 and United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights under Article 14, Section 2.
Presumption of Innocence is a re-statement of the rule that in criminal matters the prosecution has the burden of proving guilt of the accused in order to be convicted of the crime of which he is charged.
In Chandrashekhar Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh decided on 06.07.2018 relying on judgment of Data Ram Singh Vs. State of UP passed SC No. 729/17, FIR No. 316/17, PS Alipur Page No. 28 of 50 State Vs. Pradeep Maan -29- by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 06.02.2018, it was held that:
"the freedom of an individual is utmost important and cannot be curtailed specially when guilt if any, is yet to be proved. It is settled law that till such time guilt of a person is proved, he is deemed to be innocent........ A fundamental postulate of criminal juris prudence is a presumption of innocence meaning thereby that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty..........
Thus, it is a settled law that it is for the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
16. At the very outset, it is pertinent to mention that there is no eye witness and the whole case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence.
In this backdrop, I proceed to delve upon the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution.
MATERIAL WITNESS
17. The prosecution has heavily relied upon the testimony of PW5 Premlata (mother of deceased), PW13 Satbir Singh (uncle of deceased) and PW18 Vikas (cousin brother of deceased).
Witnesses PW5 Premlata, PW13 Satbir Singh and PW18 Vikas have deposed regarding an incident dated 10.08.2017 i.e. one day prior to the death of the deceased Pooja.
PW5 had deposed that on 10.08.2017 the accused Pradeep had come outside their house and was shouting the name of deceased "Pooja SC No. 729/17, FIR No. 316/17, PS Alipur Page No. 29 of 50 State Vs. Pradeep Maan -30- Pooja" and she went out and so did her husband Sudesh, who made the accused understand not to raise his voice and requested the accused who was in a state of intoxication to leave the said place else they would call the police. After few minutes, the said witness PW5 and her husband and son who had also come by that time, came back in their house and bolted the door. Admittedly, accused and the deceased were having close friendship which was objected to by the family members owing to the character and conduct of the accused.
Interestingly, the testimony of PW11 Sudesh Prakash, husband of PW5 and the father of deceased is completely silent about the alleged incident dated 10.08.2017. PW18 Vikas deposed that it was on 09.08.2017 at around 9.00 p.m. that accused came in front of their house which is a material contradiction from the testimony of PW5 as she quoted an incident of 10.08.2017 and not 09.08.2017.
The next important incident is the fateful day of 11.08.2017 when as per the testimony of PW5 at around 6 to 6.30 p.m. her daughter Pooja left the house for market and about 7.00 p.m. she made a call to her daughter, who replied that she had met accused Pradeep on the way, who had been teasing and misbehaving with her and she would be reaching home soon. That at 7.30 to 8.00 p.m. she again made a call to her daughter but the said call was picked up by accused Pradeep himself who allegedly stated that her daughter Pooja was in his custody and thereafter he disconnected the call.
The factum of teasing/misbehaving was a material improvisation from the earlier statement given to the police Ex.PW5/A by the said witness SC No. 729/17, FIR No. 316/17, PS Alipur Page No. 30 of 50 State Vs. Pradeep Maan -31- and she was duly confronted in her cross examination. Also, the factum of accused Pradeep picking up the call and allegedly saying that Pooja was in his custody is again a material improvisation from her earlier statement Ex.PW5/A where it was not so recorded and she was duly confronted in her cross- examination.
Further, the conduct of the said witness, who is the mother of deceased is highly improbable. If she knew that her daughter was with accused Pardeep in the evening of 11.08.2017 then why she waited and did not lodge a complaint until 12.50 p.m. at night and in the missing complaint also strangely she did not mention the name of accused Pradeep anywhere. PW7 ASI Fateh Singh had been produced by the prosecution, who was duty officer on the given date and who deposed that at around 12.45 a.m. one Premlata i.e. PW5 had informed him about his daughter Pooja, who had left her house on 11.08.2017 at about 7.00 p.m. and had not returned despite the family members made search for her and he proved the copy of the DD NO.6A Ex.PW7/A. However, in the said DD, the name of the accused has not been mentioned. If PW5 knew her daughter was with Pradeep as alleged whey she did not straightway go to the PS or house of Pradeep instead of searching for her. This conduct is highly improbable since on one hand the witness PW5 i.e. mother had stated that she received a call at around 7.00 p.m. in the evening that her daughter was in custody of accused Pradeep, who was allegedly misbehaving and teasing her, on the other hand, she waits till midnight and does not disclose the said facts to the police or any family member.
She had stated to IO that friends of her daughter Pooja had stated SC No. 729/17, FIR No. 316/17, PS Alipur Page No. 31 of 50 State Vs. Pradeep Maan -32- to her that Pooja had developed friendship with accused Pradeep Mann but she was confronted with the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Ex.PW5/A where the knowledge through friend of Pooja has not been specifically mentioned. Also in her deposition, she does not mention any specific name of such friend nor any such friend had been produced in the witness box.
She stated that she came to know that accused Pradeep was not of a good character through her neighbour but she could not tell the name of said neighbour. She further deposed that did not remember if she stated to IO that accused Pradeep belongs to some other caste but was confronted with statement Ex.PW5/A wherein it is not so recorded.
She further deposed as PW5 that she did not remember if she had stated to IO that her husband also came outside and made him understand for not raising such noises or that my husband requested accused Pradeep for leaving such place or that we shall call the police by dialing at 100 number and accused Pradeep replied for calling the police by dialing 200 number, which was material improvisation and she was confronted with the statement Ex.PW5/A wherein it is not so recorded.
She deposed that Ankit, her son had not reached in front of their house when accused Pradeep came on 10.08.2017. On the other hand she had stated to IO that on 10.08.2017 while accused Pradeep was present in front of their house, we entered i.e. I, my husband and my son Ankit and bolted the door from inside which was a material confrontation from her earlier statement Ex.PW5/A wherein it is not so recorded.
SC No. 729/17, FIR No. 316/17, PS Alipur Page No. 32 of 50 State Vs. Pradeep Maan -33- Again she deposed that she had stated to IO that on 11.08.2017 her daughter Pooja left their house for market but this was a material improvisation and she was confronted with the statement Ex.PW5/A wherein the word "market" and time are not recorded.
She had deposed that she stated to IO that when she talked to Pooja over phone, she informed her that accused Pradeep had been teasing / misbehaving her which was a material improvisation and she was duly confronted with the statement Ex.PW5/A wherein the factum of teasing / misbehaving is not so recorded. Further, admittedly, she had not lodged any complaint before the police. She waited and searched for Pooja after 9 pm and then went to PS and lodged her missing complaint which is an improbable behaviour. If she knew that her daughter was with accused Pardeep in the evening of 11.08.2017 then why she waited and did not lodge a complaint until 12.50 p.m. at night and in the missing complaint also strangely she did not mention the name of accused Pradeep anywhere.
Again, she had stated to IO that one of the said phone calls was picked by accused Pradeep or that he stated to her that Pooja was in his custody which is a material confrontation with the statement Ex.PW5/A where it is not so recorded.
She had stated to IO that when they visited the house of accused Pradeep, his mother did not allow them to enter into the house but she was confronted with Statement Ex. PW5/A, where it is not so recorded.
Se further deposed that she had met her jeth PW13 Sh. Satbir in the morning hours on 12.08.2017 at about 7 - 7:30 am and received information at SC No. 729/17, FIR No. 316/17, PS Alipur Page No. 33 of 50 State Vs. Pradeep Maan -34- about 9 am that her daughter had expired on 12.08.2017 from Police Station but PW13 had deposed that he informed the mother of Pooja that he had seen Pooja with accused Pradeep Maan in the Dayal Market in the last evening. This is a material contradiction between the testimony of PW5 and PW13 which remains unexplained by the prosecution.
She admitted that when PW13 when allegedly informed her that he had seen Pooja and the accused together in Dayal Market in the evening hours 11.08.2017, her jethani i.e. wife of PW13 was also present. Yet, when her jethani accompanied PW5 to the PS, as was deposed by her, for lodging the complaint, even then they do not make a mention of accused Pardeep or furnish his particulars to the police despite opposing to their relation alleging accused to be a bad character, who was heard misbehaving and teasing with her daughter as per the own version of PW5 and had created ruckus prior to the incident outside their house. Yet they do not disclose the particulars or name of the accused in the complaint even as a suspect which is a very improbable behaviour in common parlance.
Thus, the testimony of PW5 cannot be solely relied upon the same being full of improvisations and doubts.
The next material witness was PW18 is the cousin brother of the deceased namely Vikas. He had deposed regarding the CCTV Footage of 11.08.2017. He stated that he was asked by the police officials to check the said footage on 14.08.2017 during the course of investigation and he deposed that in the said footage he saw deceased Pooja walking in a gali. The said DVR had been seized and sent for further investigation vide seizure memo SC No. 729/17, FIR No. 316/17, PS Alipur Page No. 34 of 50 State Vs. Pradeep Maan -35- Ex.PW16/A. The pen drive Ex.P8 was played in the computer which was containing the CCTV footage of Camera No.1 dated 11.08.2017 at 18:54:10 to 18:54:46, where one boy and one girl were seen from their back both walking on the road going straight and only the back of both the girl and boy were visible. The witness identified the accused Pradeep as the boy and his cousin sister Pooja as the girl., However, it is pertinent to mention that only one girl and boy are seen going in a direction and their backs are towards the camera. The faces are not visible and from the said CCTV Footage it cannot be clearly made out if the boy was the accused or not and there is categorical court observation in this regard made by the Ld. Predecessor of the Court while recording the cross examination of the witness PW18 on 04.03.2020. The prosecution has failed to adduce any further evidence to clarify the said point.
Further, in his cross-examination, PW18 himself admitted that he did not meet Pooja on 11.08.2017 and it is correct that he did not know what clothes were worn by her. This creates doubt in his version.
18. It is pertinent to mention that none of the material witness is eye witness and prosecution has relied upon the theory of last seen with the accused as deposed by PW13, who is a material prosecution witness. PW13 Satbir Singh, who is the uncle of the deceased had deposed that on 11.08.2017, he was going to his house via Dayal Market. At about 6:30 pm, he saw Pooja, who was my niece and accused Pradeep Maan were passing from the road in the Dayal market. He asked Pooja as to where she was going and SC No. 729/17, FIR No. 316/17, PS Alipur Page No. 35 of 50 State Vs. Pradeep Maan -36- told her to go back home. Thereafter, he went to his house. That on the next day, he came to know that my niece was missing. The said fact was being said by many persons in the locality / gali, as the public persons were whispering with regard to the same. He informed the mother of Pooja that he had seen Pooja with accused Pradeep Maan in the Dayal Market in the last evening. That he alongwith his relatives went to BJRM Hospital, where he identified the dead body of Pooja. He proved his statement Ex. PW13/A. That after postmortem, the dead body was handed over to the relatives of the deceased.
19. Before moving forward, it is imperative to analyse the law related to circumstantial evidence based as the last seen alive principle.
20. At this stage, reliance is placed upon Sharad Birdhi Chand Sarda vs State Of Maharashtra AIR 1984 SC 1622, wherein it is held that:
"3:3. Before a case against an accused vesting on circumstantial evidence can be said to be fully established the following conditions must be fulfilled as laid down in Hanumat's v. State of M.P. [1953] SCR 1091. [163C] and reiterated in Tufail (Alias) Simmi v. State of Uttar Pradesh [1969] 3 SCC 198; Ramgopal v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1972 SC 656; Shivaji Sahabrao Babode & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra [1973] 2 SCC 793.
1. The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established;
2. The facts so established should be consistent with the hypothesis of guilt and 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 SC No. 729/17, FIR No. 316/17, PS Alipur Page No. 36 of 50 State Vs. Pradeep Maan -37- 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 th accused.
These five golden principles constitute the panchsheel of the proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence.
In Madho Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan 2003 (2) crime 111 (SC) Hon'ble Supreme Court held that:
"the last seen together has to be applied cautiously and in such a prudent manner that unless the court get some circumstantial or corroborating evidence the accused should not be convicted on the basis of last seen theory done if the accused provides such a chain of evidence that benefit of doubt arises.
Nizam Vs. State of Rajasthan decided on 04.09.2015 Hon'ble Supreme Court relying on State of Rajasthan Vs. Kashiram (2006) 12 SCC 254 held as under:
"Elaborating the principle of "last seen alive" in State of Rajasthan vs. Kashi Ram, (2006) 12 SCC 254, this Court held as under:- "23. It is not necessary to multiply with authorities. The principle is well settled.
The provisions of Section 106 of the Evidence Act itself are unambiguous and categoric in laying down that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of a person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him. Thus, if a person is last seen with the deceased, he must offer an explanation as to how and when he SC No. 729/17, FIR No. 316/17, PS Alipur Page No. 37 of 50 State Vs. Pradeep Maan -38- parted company. He must furnish an explanation which appears to the court to be probable and satisfactory. If he does so he must be held to have discharged his burden.
If he fails to offer an explanation on the basis of facts within his special knowledge, he fails to discharge the burden cast upon him by Section 106 of the Evidence Act. In a case resting on circumstantial evidence if the accused fails to offer a reasonable explanation in discharge of the burden placed on him, that itself provides an additional link in the chain of circumstances proved against him. Section 106 does not shift the burden of proof in a criminal trial, which is always upon the prosecution. It lays down the rule that when the accused does not throw any light upon facts which are specially within his knowledge and which could not support any theory or hypothesis compatible with his innocence, the court can consider his failure to adduce any explanation, as an additional link which completes the chain. The principle has been succinctly stated in Naina Mohd., Re. (AIR 1960 Mad 218)" The above judgment was relied upon and reiterated in Kiriti Pal vs. State of West Bengal, (2015) 5 Scale 319."
21. The credibility of the 'last seen' witness PW13 in the present case is doubtful and his conduct is highly improbable. He had deposed that had seen his niece/deceased Pooja and the accused passing from the road Dayal Market at around 6,.30 p.m. on 11.08.2017 when he was going to his house via Dayal Market. PW5 Premlata had stated that she had received a call at about the same time that she is with accused Pradeep, who is teasing and misbehaving with her. As already discussed above, this element of teasing and SC No. 729/17, FIR No. 316/17, PS Alipur Page No. 38 of 50 State Vs. Pradeep Maan -39- misbehaving was an improvisation from her original complaint. The said PW13 interestingly is aware and opposed to the friendship between the deceased and the accused, sees her with accused in the market but does not inform anyone in the family even till late night when the missing complaint was lodged at about 12.50 p.m. In fact PW5 in her cross examination stated that only on the next day i.e. 12.08.2017 around 7.30 a.m. her Jeth Satbir/PW13 informed that he had seen the accused and the deceased on last evening. In his cross-examination, PW13 admitted that he and other family members did not like the relationship between the accused and his niece as they were from different caste and in fact he himself counseled both of them not to continue with the said relationship. He further admitted that he did not reveal these facts to the parents of Pooja on that evening. This conduct is highly improbable since a person of the family who himself is fully aware that the family did not like the accused and allegedly who created a scene on 10.08.2017 but does not inform anyone that he saw the deceased with him. He even does not disclose the said fact at the time of lodging of the missing complaint at around 12.50 p.m. when the whole family allegedly is searching for Pooja and disclosed only on the next day around the time when the dead body of Pooja was found.
22. Also as alleged, the place where the accused and the deceased Pooja were last seen by the witness is a busy market namely Dayal Market and there must have been several other persons who must have been present but no such public person has been produced by the prosecution. There must have SC No. 729/17, FIR No. 316/17, PS Alipur Page No. 39 of 50 State Vs. Pradeep Maan -40- been a CCTV Footage of the market place which the IO has not seized leave aside send the same for FSL for further investigation. It is the case of the accused that he was working with his father at a Dhabha at the relevant time as proved by DW1. In the absence of any cogent evidence and the highly improbable conduct of last seen witness which makes his testimony doubtful, it cannot be said that the necessary links in the chain of circumstantial evidence has been proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt or that all the circumstances point to the guilt of the accused with reasonable definiteness. Even if it is assumed that the accused and the victim met in the late evening, it no where relates to the presence of the accused even at the time and place of death and the place where the dead body was found at Khasra No. 327 Dhulia Colony which is a vacant plot. As laid down in the case of Madho Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan (Supra) by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the last seen together principle has to be applied cautiously and in such a prudent manner that unless the court get some circumstantial or corroborating evidence the accused should not be convicted on the basis of last seen theory alone if the accused provides such a chain of evidence that benefit of doubt arises. In the light of aforesaid discussion, the testimony of the said last seen witness PW13 is not sufficient enough to hold the guilt of the accused.
23. Moving forward to trace out the links if any, of circumstantial evidence, I shall now delve upon the vital piece of evidence i.e. forensic evidence.
SC No. 729/17, FIR No. 316/17, PS Alipur Page No. 40 of 50 State Vs. Pradeep Maan -41- MEDICAL/FORENSIC/SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE
24. From the testimony of PW2 Dr. Mukesh Kumar, the prosecution has proved that the death of deceased was due to asphyxia consequent to ligature strangulation. The PM Report no. 802/17 dated 13.08.2017 running into 04 pages is proved as Ex.PW4/A. The concerned doctor PW2 Dr. Mukesh Kumar further proved the FSL result dated 27.12.2017 which ruled out any chemicals detected in the viscera of the deceased. It was the story of the prosecution that the accused disclosed that he had strangulated the girl with one shirt having logo of Hollister, Black in colour having printed white dots, having 05 buttons and the top button was missing from the shirt. The said shirt was sealed and seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW14/E. It was the case of the prosecution that the one baingani colour button Mark-4 which was collected from below the dead body was the button of the shirt of the accused. It was alleged that the said shirt was got recovered from the almirah of accused which he allegedly used for strangulating the girl, as per the story of the prosecution.
But, in the DNA analysis by the FSL result dated 27.12.2017 Ex. P-3 relied by the prosecution itself, no DNA profile matched. A blackish colour thread attached with button in Ex.1 had been lifted from the place from where the dead body was found. However, the same was found different in respect of shade of colour, number of strands, thickness and microscopic appearance from the thread attached with the buttons of the shirt Ex.4. Thus, from the FSL result Ex.P-3 and Ex.P-1, no incriminating evidence could be culled out against the accused.
PW14 SI Jagbir had deposited the blue colour mobile cover SC No. 729/17, FIR No. 316/17, PS Alipur Page No. 41 of 50 State Vs. Pradeep Maan -42- having three holes in its back as Mark 1, the pair of sleepers of blue and yellow colour as Mark 2, the grass under the dead body as Mark 3, one baingni colour button having black colour thread lying under the dead body as Mark 4. He has also proved all the four pulandas as Ex. PW14/A. also conducted and two mobile phone sets make Samsung and Carbon Model J7 and K490 respectively were found in possession of the accused. He deposed that the accused revealed that the Samsung mobile phone belonged to Pooja and Carbon mobile phone belonged to him. The seizure memo of both the phones i.e. Ex.PW14/C. PW14 has also proved the personal search memo of accused Ex. PW14/D. The blue colour mobile cover Mark-1 could not be connected by the prosecution to be cover of the mobile phone either the deceased or the accused. PW14 had deposed that in the personal search of the accused two mobile phone sets one Samsung Mark Phone-1 and other of Carbon Model J7 Mark Phone-2 have been recovered vide search memo proved as Ex.PW14/D. The cross- examination of PW14 reveals that statement of no independent witness had been recorded at the time of alleged seizure of the shirt with which allegedly committed the offence or the seizure of the mobile phones. PW14 further admits that he did not remember in which pant pocket the accused was carrying the mobile phones and his disclosure had been recorded in the police station.
25. There is no independent witness to the alleged recovery. At this stage reliance is placed on the following landmark judgments by the Hon'ble Superior Courts.
SC No. 729/17, FIR No. 316/17, PS Alipur Page No. 42 of 50 State Vs. Pradeep Maan -43-
26. In the landmark judgment of State (NCT of Delhi) Vs. Sunil 2001 SCC, (Cri) 248, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that:
"when discovery is made pursuant to any facts deposed by the accused, the discovery memo prepared by the IO is necessarily attested by the independent witnesses but if no witness is present, it is difficult to lay down as a proposition that the recovery must be tainted or that or unreliable. But in such a situation, the court has to consider the report of the IO on its own merits".
In Mani Vs. State of Tamilnadu decided on 08.01.2008, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it has been held that:
"Discovery is a weak kind of evidence and cannot be wholly relied upon and conviction in such a serious matter cannot be based upon discovery".
In the case of Naveen kumar Verma Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) decided by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi on 03.07.2013 relying on the landmark judgment of Mohd. Jabbar Vs. State decision 21.05.2010 Crl. A. 1022/18, it has been reiterated that:
"The courts have to be cautioned and to vigilant against the non practice of the police to plaint ordinary objects on the accused persons to prove access by the accused to the place where the crime was allegedly committed".
In Prabhu Vs. State AIR 1963, Supreme Court 1113, recovery of a blood stained shirt and a dhoti as also on an axe on which human blood was detected was held to be a weak evidence as was also held in the case of Narsinghbhai Prajapati Etc. Vs. Chatrasingh & Ors. AIR 1977 Supreme Court 1753, where recovery of a blood stained shirt and a dhoti and also a dharia (weapon of offence) were held to be a weak evidence.
SC No. 729/17, FIR No. 316/17, PS Alipur Page No. 43 of 50 State Vs. Pradeep Maan -44- In the case of Surjit Singh Vs. State of Punjab AIR 1994 Supreme Court 110, the watch of the deceased and a dagger stained with the blood of the same group as that of the deceased was held to be weak evidence.
27. There is also one chappal which was found lying near the dead body in the immediate adjacent field as is revealed from the crime visit report Ex.PW3/A. The slippers were exhibited as Ex.P3 during the testimony of PW14, who stated that they were found in a plot adjacent to a place where the dead body was lying and appears to be of same person but the prosecution has failed to prove with certainty whether they belonged to the deceased or perpetrator.
28. The DVR containing the CCTV footage had been extracted and the three photographs Ex.PW19/F1 to F3 had been relied upon the prosecution and the FSL report in this regard is Ex.P4 dated 29.04.2019. The pen drive Ex.P8 was played in the computer which was containing the CCTV footage of Camera No.1 dated 11.08.2017 at 18:54:10 to 18:54:46, where one boy and one girl were seen from their back both walking on the road going straight and only the back of both the girl and boy were visible. The witness identified the accused Pradeep as the boy and his cousin sister Pooja as the girl., However, it is pertinent to mention that only one girl and boy are seen going in a direction and their backs are towards the camera. The faces are not visible and from the said CCTV Footage it cannot be clearly made out if the boy was the accused or not and there is categorical court observation in this regard made by the Ld. SC No. 729/17, FIR No. 316/17, PS Alipur Page No. 44 of 50 State Vs. Pradeep Maan -45- Predecessor of the Court while recording the cross examination of the witness PW18 on 04.03.2020. The prosecution has failed to adduce any further evidence to clarify the said point.
29. Neither the recovery of shirt which is alleged weapon of offence used for strangulating matched with the accused, nor CCTV footage/ photographs showed the faces of the girl or boy. Thus, even from the forensic evidence, no incriminating evidence could be brought forth which could prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
MOTIVE
30. It is an admitted case of the prosecution that the accused was having a close friendship with the deceased. On the contrary, the family members of the deceased were opposed to their relationship. PW18 had deposed that he communicated with accused who told him that Pooja started talking with some other boy, if she did not talk to him (accused), she would face the dire consequences and thereafter, accused left the said place. Even if the version of prosecution is believed, it can be safely inferred that in common parlance the boy who against all odds and against the wishes of family members still continues his friendship with the girl, why would he himself cause injury or murder the girl when admittedly even the girl continued her friendship despite the resistance of her family members as is revealed from the testimonies of PW5, PW13 and PW18. No such other boy was named and prosecution story is based on hypothesis and surmises without cogent SC No. 729/17, FIR No. 316/17, PS Alipur Page No. 45 of 50 State Vs. Pradeep Maan -46- evidence. There is no clear motive which has been proved by the prosecution which becomes an essential element in a case based on circumstantial evidence.
31. Reliance has been placed on in the case titled as NANDU SINGH VERSUS STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH (NOW CHHATTISGARH), Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No(s). 7998 of 2021), wherein it is held that by the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India that:
".....11.In Anwar Ali vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, this Court made the 1(2020) 10 SCC 1665 legal position clear in following words:-
24.Now so far as the submission on behalf of the accused that in the present case the prosecution has failed to establish and prove the motive and therefore the accused deserves acquittal is concerned, it is true that the absence of proving the motive cannot be a ground tor eject the prosecution case. It is also true and as held by this Court in Suresh Chandra Bahri vs. State of Bihar that if motive is proved that would supply a link in the chain of circumstantial evidence but the absence thereof cannot be a ground to reject the prosecution case.
However, at the same time, as observed by this Court in Babu Vs. State of Kerala (2010) 9 SCC 189, absence of motive in a case depending on circumstantial evidence is a factor that weighs in favour of the accused...........
"38. ... the motive is a thing which is primarily known to the accused themselves and it is not possible for the prosecution to explain what actually promoted or ex-cited them to commit the particular crime.
39. The motive may be considered as a circumstance which is relevant for assessing the evidence but if the evidence is clear and unambiguous and the circumstances prove the guilt of the accused, the same is not weakened even if the motive is not a very strong one. It is also settled law that the motive loses all its importance in a case where direct evidence of eyewitnesses is available, because even if there may be a very strong motive for the accused persons to commit a particular crime, they cannot be convicted if the evidence of eye- witnesses is not convincing. In the same way, even if there may not be an apparent motive but if the evidence of the eyewitnesses is clear SC No. 729/17, FIR No. 316/17, PS Alipur Page No. 46 of 50 State Vs. Pradeep Maan -47- and reliable, the absence or inadequacy of motive cannot stand in the way of conviction.
'26. This Court has also held that the absence of motive in a case depending on circumstantial evidence is a factor that weighs in favour of the accused.
32. In the subsequent decision in Shivaji Chintappa Patil vs. State of Maharashtra, Hon'ble Supreme Court relied upon the decision in Anwar Ali vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, this Court made the 1 (2020) 10 SCC 1665 and observed as under:-
"27.Though in a case of direct evidence, motive would not be relevant, in a case of circumstantial evidence, motive plays an important link to complete the chain of circumstances."
NO INDEPENDENT PUBLIC WITNESS
33. There appears to be no sincere efforts were made by police officials concerned to join independent public witnesses in the concerned police proceedings at any of the available stages especially at the time of recovery if alleged weapon of offence or mobile phone at the time of arrest of accused. In this regard reliance is being placed on the following judgments:-
In case law reported as "Anoop Joshi Vs. State" 1992(2) C.C. Cases 314(HC), High Court of Delhi had observed as under:-
"18. It is repeatedly laid down by this Court in such cases it should be shown by the police that sincere efforts have been made to join independent witnesses. In the present case, it is evidence that no such sincere efforts have been made, particularly when we find that shops were open and one or two shop-keepers could have been persuaded to join the raiding party to witness the recovery being made from the appellant. In case any of SC No. 729/17, FIR No. 316/17, PS Alipur Page No. 47 of 50 State Vs. Pradeep Maan -48- the shopkeepers had declined to join the raiding party, the police could have later on taken legal action against such shopkeepers because they could not have escaped the rigours of law while declining to perform their legal duty to assist the police in investigation as a citizen, which is an offence under the IPC".
In a case law reported as "Roop Chand Vs. The State of Haryana" 1999 (1) C.L.R. 69, the Punjab & Haryana High Court held as under:-
"3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the evidence with their help. The recovery of illicit liquor was effected from the possession of the petitioner during noon time and it is in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses that some witnesses form the public were available and they were asked to join the investigation. The explanation furnished by the prosecution is that the independent witnesses were asked to join the investigation but they refused to do so on the ground that their joining will result into enmity between them and the petitioner". "4. It is well settled principle of the law that the Investigating Agency should join independent witnesses at the time of recovery of contraband articles, if they are available and their failure to do so in such a situation casts a shadow of doubt on the prosecution case. In the present case also admittedly the independent witnesses were available at the time of recovery but they refused to associate themselves in the investigation. This explanation does not inspire confidence because the police officials who are the only witnesses examined in the case have not given the names and addresses of the persons contacted to join it is a very common excuse that the witnesses from the public refused to join the investigation. A police officer conducting investigation of a crime is entitled to ask anybody to join the investigation and on refusal by a person from the public the Investigating Officer can take action against such a person under the law. Had it been a fact that the witnesses from the public had refused to join the SC No. 729/17, FIR No. 316/17, PS Alipur Page No. 48 of 50 State Vs. Pradeep Maan -49- investigation, the Investigating Officer must have proceeded against them under the relevant provisions of law. The failure to do so by the police officer is suggestive of the fact that the explanation for non-joining the witnesses from the public is an after thought and is not worthy of credence. All these facts taken together make the prosecution case highly doubtful".
34. The remaining prosecution witnesses were formal police witnesses who merely deposed regarding the manner of investigation.
CONCLUSION
35. It is a settled law that in case of circumstantial evidence, the paramount requirement is that every possible link in the chain should be complete along with other incriminating circumstances including motive and the recovery of weapon of offence and should unequivocally point towards the guilt of the accused and cannot be solely based on the last seen testimony. The prime prosecution witness PW13 had deposed that he had seen the deceased along with the accused around 7.00 p.m. in a busy market whereas the dead body was recovered on the next day morning on 12.08.2017 in a totally vacant plot and there is a gap of more than 8 to 10 hours and the prosecution could not adduce any cogent evidence to pass the proximity test of both time and place.
Further, the material witnesses specially PW5 and PW13 could not bring home the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Even vide the forensic evidence, no incriminating evidence could be proved against the accused as discussed above. The CCTV footage/photographs also did not reveal the faces of the persons seen in the footage.
SC No. 729/17, FIR No. 316/17, PS Alipur Page No. 49 of 50 State Vs. Pradeep Maan -50- Thus, in view of the aforesaid detailed findings, there is no hesitation in holding that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts and accordingly the accused Pradeep Maan deserves a benefit of doubt and hence stands acquitted of the charges levelled against him.
36. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Dictated and announced in the open (Shefali Sharma) Court on 17.10.2022 Addl. Session Judge-02 (running in 50 pages) (North), Rohini Courts/Delhi SC No. 729/17, FIR No. 316/17, PS Alipur Page No. 50 of 50 State Vs. Pradeep Maan