Delhi District Court
State vs Ravinder Rathi Etc on 24 November, 2010
IN THE COURT OF SHRI R.K.CHAUHAN: A S J/SPL JUDGE
(NDPS) (WEST) DELHI
FIR no. 327/08
Unique Case ID no.0241R1241732008
Police station Timarpur
U/s 365/302/201/392/411/34 IPC
State V/s Ravinder Rathi etc
1. Session Case no. : SC no. 14/08
2. Name of the accused and : 1. Ravinder Rathi S/o Fakir Chand
parentage R/o House no. 2/1, Circular
Road, Sonia Vihar, Delhi.
2. Laljit @ Sonu S/o Madan Lal
R/o Gali no.4, Chaman Vihar,
Loni, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh.
3. Lalit Kumar Mishra S/o
Rajender Prasad R/o H. no. 449,
Gali no. 2, DBlock, Sonia
Vihar, Delhi.
3. Date of commission of : 28/6/2008
offence
4. Date of reserving judgment : 20/10/2010
5. Date of pronouncement of : 24/11/2010
Judgment
6. Date of final order : 25/11/2010
JUDGMENT
1) According to the prosecution case on 30/06/2008 complainant Ajit Singh came to the Police Station Timarpur and lodged a missing report of his son Devender Singh vide DD no.61B. On next day i.e 01/07/2008 Ajit Singh alongwith taxi driver Butta FIR no. 327/08 Page ........1/81 Singh again came to the Police Station and lodged report Ex.PW1/B stating that accused Ravinder Rathi alongwith two other persons namely Guddu and Chotu had hired the taxi bearing registration no DL3CW0870 Indica car of his son for going to Bullandshahr; the taxi was hired by accused Ravinder Rathi for going to Bullandshahr for giving "Chhuchhak" to his sister. It is further stated that Guddu and Chotu got down from the taxi on reaching at Sonia Vihar and accused Ravinder Rathi remained in the hired taxi; on the statement of Ajit Singh a case under section 365/34IPC was registered. During investigation, the address of accused Ravinder Rathi was traced at Circular road, Sonia Vihar and on reaching there it was found that accused Ravinder Rathi was missing for many days and was seen at Yamuna Pusta, Sonia Vihar by the secret informer and on the identification of Butta Singh he was arrested while standing on the Pusta and interrogated and he confessed his guilt wherein he has disclosed that he has murdered Devender by stopping the vehicle on the pretext of urinating in the field at a distance of 700800 meters from the main road and asked the deceased driver to take the taxi at semi metaled road Kharanja leading to Dholi Village. The dead body of Devender was found on 29/6/2008 at about 11.00am lying in the field of one Sher Mohd of village Kroli Police station Kotwali, Dehat, Bullandshahr, U.P by Vijay Bahadur who had also found handkerchief and one belt on the neck of the FIR no. 327/08 Page ........2/81 dead body. On the disclosure and on identification by the accused Ravinder Rathi the place of occurrence was seen and site plan was prepared; on his pointing out accused Lalit Mishra was arrested from his house and got recovered the car of the deceased from Sonia Vihar, 3rd Pusta near C and D block and there was no number plate on the back side of the car. Thereafter both these accused persons led the police party at the house of accused Vijay (facing trial before JJ Court ) where he was arrested on the identification of accused Ravinder Rathi. All the three accused persons then led the police party to the house of fourth accused Laljit @ Sonu and at their instance he was arrested. All the three accused persons taken to the Bullandshahr where they have pointed out the place of occurrence; while returning from Bullandshahr on the way leading to Yamuna Bhumi, Khandar near Mandu village where accused Lalit Kumar Mishra dug a place and recovered a number plate of the vehicle DL 3CW 0870 which was taken into possession by the IO. After completion of investigation the challan was filed.
2) On 18/03/2009 after hearing Ld Amicus Curiae Ms.Sadhana Bhatia advocate for the accused persons and Ld Addl.PP for the State, charge for the offences under section 365/302/201/392/34IPC was framed against all the accused persons. Separate charge under section 411 IPC was framed against accused Laljit @ Sonu and Lalit Kumar Mishra, to which they pleaded not FIR no. 327/08 Page ........3/81 guilty and claimed trial.
3) In support of its case prosecution has examined in total 32 witnesses.
MATRIAL WITNESSES
4) PW1 Ajit Singh is the father of the deceased and running a taxi stand by the name of Timarpur Taxi Stand at Tikona Park, near Mother Diary, Timar Pur, Delhi and deceased Devender used to assist him in his business deposed that on 28/6/2008 Boota Singh taxi driver working at Balakram Taxi Stand near their taxi stand came at about 2.00 p.m in Indica car no. DL 3CAF 6692 alongwith three passengers; he told them that those passengers went to hire tax for Bullandshahr and would return in the evening; one of the passengers i.e accused Ravinder Rathi told him that they would return in the evening after attending the ceremony of his sister at Bullandshahr who was blessed with a baby; other two passengers were sitting in the car and he did not have any conversation with them. He further deposed that Bootta Singh further told them that he has taken those boys in the morning to Palval, Haryana and he had asked him to arrange his taxi for them. He further deposed that his son Devender @ Pammu took those three passengers in Indica no. DL 3CW 0870 to Bullandshahr and left the taxi stand at 2.00p.m; his son did not return in the evening and he received a FIR no. 327/08 Page ........4/81 telephonic call from his son at about 8.45 p.m in the night who had informed him that he would return on the next day as passengers were refusing to return as they wanted to visit their village. Next day, his son did not return for the whole day; on the third day in the morning he called Butta Singh and alongwith him they gone to Connaught place and met with one Shankar who had told them that Chotu and Guddu were his brotherinlaws (Sala in relation) and Ravinder Rathi was their friend and disclosed the identity of those three passengers to them. He further deposed that ultimately he had made application Ex.PW1/A to the police on 30/6/2008. On next day, 01/7/2008 after 1.00 p.m in the Police Station his statement Ex. PW1/B was recorded on the basis of which case was registered. He further stated that on 19/9/2008 he handed over the bill of Rs.1200/ of TATA mobile Ex. PW1/C of his son Devender to the police and told the number 9211274161. He further stated that he came to know that dead body of his son Devender was found in Bullandshahr and he took his dead body and cremated him in his native village Chhajja, District Roper, Punjab.
5) PW4 Butta Singh has deposed that on 28th of the month in summer in the year 2008 his brother Amarjit telephonically informed him that Shankar has booked the taxi and asked him to reach at Tribune office, Connaught place and accordingly at about 6.00AM he reached there in his taxi bearing no. DL 3C AF 669, FIR no. 327/08 Page ........5/81 Indica V2 where Shankar met him and sent with him his two brotherinlaws namely Guddu and Chotu. He further deposed that they went to Nanaksar Gurudwara, near Sonia Vihar where Guddu had telephonically talked to someone and asked him to reach at Gurudwara and he alongwith Guddu and Chotu in his taxi reached at the Gurdwara at about 7.00AM where accused Ravinder Rathi met them who came there on motorcycle dropped by his brother. He further deposed that accused Ravinder Rathi sat with him on the front seat and he asked him to wear belt but he refused saying that he was in Delhi Police. He further deposed that he returned in the evening alongwith daughter of Shankar and dropped her at Delhi Gate Red Light where Shanker was waited on a two wheeler and after Shankar left, Ravinder Rathi asked him to go to Bullandshahr as he wanted to visit his sister's house who was blessed with a son; he showed his inability as he was having another booking for 4.30PM and accused Ravinder Rathi asked him to arrange another taxi. He further deposed that he asked other taxi owners and informed them about these passengers for going to Bullandshahr and while going to drop accused Ravinder Rathi at ISBT bus stand he received the telephonic call from Devender S/o Ajit Singh and stating that he was informed by Babbu about the passengers. He further deposed that on reaching at Timarpur taxi stand he met Devender S/o Ajit Singh and one Balbir Singh and thereafter FIR no. 327/08 Page ........6/81 Ravinder Rathi alongwith Guddu and Chotu took the taxi of Devender and left the taxi stand for going to Bullandshahr in his taxi no. DL 3CW 0870. He further deposed that on 2nd or 3rd day Ajit Singh made a telephonic call to him and informed that his son Devender did not return; he asked Shankar who gave a telephone number of an old person living at the house of the Ravinder Rathi and Sucha Singh made a telephonic call to said person to know about Ravinder Rathi who told that the house of Ravinder Rathi locked as they had gone to the Village of his sister; Then with the help of Chotu and Guddu brotherinlaw of Shankar they traced the house of Ravinder Rathi and made efforts to know whereabouts of Devender and his taxi. He further deposed that on 30/6/2008 made complaint to police and someone informed the police that Ravinder Rathi was seen at Yamuna Pusta, Sonia Vihar and he alongwith Sucha Singh accompanied the police and went there and identified Ravinder Rathi stating that he had taken the taxi of Devender son of Ajit Singh from Timarpur taxi stand and police then arrested him and enquired from him and in the beginning he did not disclose anything and lateron he has disclosed that Devender had been killed. He has proved the arrest memo of accused Ravinder Rathi Ex.PW4/A and his personal search memo Ex. PW4/B.
6) In his crossexamination by Ld Amicus Curiae on behalf of accused Ravinder Rathi and accused Laljit, he has stated that FIR no. 327/08 Page ........7/81 from Delhi Gate after payment he left for dropping Ravinder Rathi, Guddu and Chotu at ISBT. At about 2.00pm he dropped these passengers at Tikona Park, Taxi stand, Timarpur. He further deposed that he has seen Ravinder Rathi on 01/07/2008 at Yamuna Pusta when he was apprehended by the police and he has identified him who tried to run away but was over powered by the police; he was interrogated by the police on the spot while standing on the spot; they remained at Yamuna Pusta for about 1 hour.
7) PW7 Shankar Lal has deposed that on 28/6/2008 Guddu and Chotu when reached at Connaught Place; they were accompanied by accused Ravinder Rathi and all these three persons then went in the taxi of Bootta Singh at about 9.00AM and at about 4.00PM all these four persons came to his office alongwith his daughter Pinki; he had paid the hire charges to taxi driver Boota Singh and then they left his office immediately and his daughter remained with him. He further deposed that on 02/08/2008 he was called in Police Station Timarpur where his statement was recorded and lateron he came to know from Amarjit Singh brotherinlaw of Bootta Singh that accused Ravinder Rathi had murdered the taxi driver who accompanied him.
8) In his crossexamination on behalf of accused Ravinder Rathi he has stated that his brotherinlaws Chotu and Guddu were knowing accused Ravinder Rathi and he came to know this fact on FIR no. 327/08 Page ........8/81 28/06/2008 when he came with Chotu and Guddu in his office; he did not object the company of Ravinder Rathi with his brotherin laws for bringing his daughter from Mathura and he told to Butta Singh about company of Ravinder Rathi with his brotherinlaws; he has also told to Amarjit about accompanying of Ravinder Rathi with his brotherinlaws for bringing his daughter.
9) PW8 Chhotu @ Karan has deposed that he is brother inlaw of Shanker Lal who telephonically informed him on 28/06/2008 in the morning and requested to bring his daughter from Mathura; he alongwith Guddu reached at Sonia Vihar in an Auto where accused Ravinder Kumar Rathi met them; he knew accused Ravinder as he was working as a Conductor on a Jeep and at that time he was working on the Jeep as a Driver; Ravinder Rathi asked him as to where they were going and when they informed him that they were going to Mathura for brining the daughter of Shanker Lal; accused Ravinder Rathi also sat with them and then they reached at Connaught Place; on reaching Connaught Place Shanker Lal alongwith his wife met them and he arranged one Indica Car no. 6692 and he alongwith Guddu and accused Ravinder Rathi went to Mathura; they returned from Mathura to Connaught Place alongwith the daughter of Shanker Lal at about 3:30/4:00 p.m where daughter of Shanker Lal got down from the Taxi at Connaught Place. He further deposed that accused Ravinder Rathi asked the driver of the FIR no. 327/08 Page ........9/81 India car Butta Singh if he wanted to go to Bullundshahr; Butta Singh showed his inability for going to Bullundshahr and assured him to arrange another Taxi; they all including the accused Ravinder Rathi and Guddu sat in the car of Butta Singh and reached at Timarpur Taxi Stand Tpoint where he arranged another vehicle no.0870 for accused Ravinder Rathi; he alongwith Guddu got down on the way at Sonia Vihar and the driver alongwith accused Ravinder Rathi left the place for going to Bullandshahr.
10) In his crossexamination he has stated that Ravinder Rathi met him 23 times before 28/06/2008 in a period of one week at Khajuri Khas as he was asking him to help in getting the work and he remained with him for about 24 hours. He further stated that accused Ravinder Rathi used to stand at any place like Khajuri Khas, Pusta alongwith 45 boys; they met him alone on 28/06/2008 at Nanaksar, Sonia Vihar at about 8.00am/8.30am; because of the friendship he had accompanied them as he told him that they were going to Mathura. He further deposed that after reaching at Connaught place, Shankar Lal asked him and Guddu to leave the taxi at Irvin hospital but accused Ravinder Rathi was adamant to going to Bullandshahr; driver agreed to drop them at Timarpur Taxi stand; they reached at Timarpur taxi stand at about 4.00pm; only one taxi was stationed at Tikona Park, Timarpur stand.
11) PW9 Guddu has deposed that on 28/06/2008 he alongwith FIR no. 327/08 Page ........10/81
Chotu hired an auto reached at Pusta, Sonia Vihar where accused Ravinder Rathi met them and accused Ravinder Rathi also accompanied them and they reached at Connaught place where Shankar arranged one car for going to Mathura and they left at about 9:00 a.m for Mathura and returned at about 3.00 pm/4.00 p.m alongwith daughter of Shanker Lal. He has corroborated the version of PW8 Chotu @ Karan on all material points regarding asking of accused Ravinder Rathi to the taxi driver to go to Bullandshahr and that he wanted to visit his sister's house for giving of Chhoochhak but taxi driver refused to go there and taxi driver assured accused Ravinder Rathi that he would arrange another taxi for him for going to Bullundshahr and they all reached at Timarpur Taxi Stand and another taxi was hired for accused Ravinder Rathi. He has also deposed that he alongwith Chhotu also sat in that Taxi no.0870 and got down at Sonia Vihar Red Light and Ravinder Rathi went with the driver of Taxi No.0870 for Bullandshahr to his destination.
12) In his crossexamination by Ld Amicus Curiae for accused he has stated that Chotu had called Ravinder Rathi by making telephone on his mobile and asked him to accompany to Mathura; he accompanied them from Sonia Vihar in TSR and thereafter from Connaught place and accompanied them in taxi.
13) PW13 Dharampal Singh has deposed that he has been driving the taxi in Timarpur Taxi stand, Tikona Park and knew FIR no. 327/08 Page ........11/81 deceased Devender who was son of his maternal uncle; on the night of 28.6.2008 at about 10.00 PM when he reached at the taxi stand he asked from Ajit Singh the father of Devender as why he was not present at the Taxi stand; Ajit Singh stated that Devender had taken 34 passengers in the taxi to Bullandshahar. He further deposed that on that night at about 10.15 p.m he called Devender on his mobile 9211274161 from his mobile no. 9873118745 and Devender told him that he was present on the road of Anoop Shahr at Bulandshahr and the passengers had gone at the tea stall and they were taking liquor there and he was sitting in his taxi; on his asking he said that he would come back in the morning and disclosed that there was not much balance in his mobile and he would talk with him in the morning and on the next day Devender did not come and later on he came to know that he was murdered.
14) PW12 Balbir Singh was running a taxi stand at Timarpur in front of Trikona Park and deposed that on 28.6.2008 in the afternoon Butta Singh came to him in his Indica car bearing no. DL 3C 6692 and at that time there were three passengers in the said car and accused Ravinder Rathi present in the court came out of the said Indica car and stated that he has to go to Bullandshahr at the inlaws house of his sister who had been blessed with a baby and he has to go with "Chhuchhak" and they would come back around 11.00 p.m from Bullandshahar. He has further deposed that he had sent his FIR no. 327/08 Page ........12/81 nephew Devender @ Pammu (deceased) with Indica car bearing no. DL 3CW 0870 as driver with them; he was further informed by them that they had already settled the hire charges with Butta Singh; Ajit Singh, father of Devender was also present when Devender left with Indica car for Bulandhshar alongwith said passengers. Devender with Indica car did not return on said night and he had not returned even on next day; on the third day, he contacted Butta Singh and also made efforts for search of Devender to find out why he did not return; Butta Singh told him about the residence of Ravinder Rathi and he alongwith 23 other persons went to his house at Sonia Vihar where his father told them that he was not residing there and they were not aware about his whereabouts; he also went after that to the Police Station Timarpur where report was not lodged on that day; on the fourth day, they again went to the Police Station Timarpur, after 12.00 "O" clock in the noon, they lodged the complaint and the case was registered on the statement of Ajit Singh; on the fourth day, accused Ravinder Rathi was apprehended and he had told before the police that he had killed Devender.
15) In his crossexamination he has stated that he generally remained present on the taxi stand from 8.00am to 8.00pm and on 28/6/2008 he and Devender were available on his taxi stand as no other driver was present and Ajit singh came there when Devender FIR no. 327/08 Page ........13/81 was leaving with the Indica taxi and the passengers.
16) PW23 Vijay Bahadur has deposed that on 29/6/2008 at about 11.00am he went in the field for roaming and when he coming to his house he noticed that one dead body was lying in the field belonged to Sher Mohd situated 600/700 meters from main road to link road of Bullandshahr to Anoop Shahar; One belt and one handkerchief were lying in the neck of the dead body and appeared to be murdered by throattling with belt and handkerchief; he informed the Police Station Nai Mandi Dehat, Bullandshahr; SI Rawat alongwith his staff reached there and prepared Panchnama of the dead body Ex.PW19/B. He has identified the belt Ex. P9 and the piece of cloth Ex.P8 (handkerchief).
FORMAL WITNESSES
17) PW2 Sucha Singh has identified the dead body of the deceased on 02/07/2008 and his statement Ex PW2/A was recorded and dead body was handed over to him from the mortuary of Bullandshahr, U.P vide memo Ex.PW2/B.
18) PW10 Karamjit Kaur is the registered owner of the vehicle no. DL 3CW 0870, TATA Indica car which was taken on Superdari by her vide Superdaginama Ex. PW10/A.
19) PW17 Jerry Denial has purchased the mobile no. 9211274161 on his IDproof and given the same to Devender @ FIR no. 327/08 Page ........14/81 Pammu brother of his friend.
20) PW20 Sher Mohd was the owner of the fields where the dead body of the deceased was recovered.
OFFICIAL/POLICE WITNESSES
21) PW3 HC Dharam Singh is the duty officer who was working from 4.00pm to 12.00 midnight on 01/07/2008 and proved the FIR Ex. PW3/A and his endorsement on the rukka as Ex.PW3/B. He has also proved the complaint received on 30/06/2008 vide entry Ex.PW3/C.
22) PW5 HC Raj Pal has deposed that on 02/07/2008 he alongwith SI Sahib Singh, HC Pushpender, Ct. Naresh, Ct. Jitender went to Bullandshahr U.P and reached at the concerned police post alongwith 34 relatives of the deceased Devender and on reaching there photograph of the deceased was identified by the relatives; thereafter the dead body of the Devender @ Pammu was identified by them in the Mortuary of Bullandshahr. After postmortem the dead body was handed over to its relative vide memo Ex. PW2/B.
23) PW6 Ct. Madhukar has deposed that on 21/08/2008 on the instructions of the SHO he has taken 4 sealed parcels from the MHC (M) and deposited the same in FSL, Rohini vide RC no. 120/21. He has deposed that so long the sealed parcels remained with him same were intact.
FIR no. 327/08 Page ........15/81 24) PW11 M. N. Vijayan is the Nodal officer who has proved
the call details of the mobile no. 9211274161 for the period from 15/06/2008 to 01/07/2008 Ex. PW11/A (collectively containing 21 pages). He has also proved the call details Ex. PW11/B (collectively containing 16 pages) and also proved the certificate u/s 65B (4) (c) of the Evidence Act Ex. PW11/C.
25) PW14 HC Sanjeev is working as MHC(R) in Police Station Khajuri Khas and proved the involvement record of the accused Ravinder Rathi vide Ex. PW14/A. He has proved the index police messal of FIR no. 121/01 Ex. PW14/B and the form no. 27.9(1) regarding FIR no. 27/04 Ex. PW14/C.
26) PW15 V.Sankaran Narayanan, Senior Scientific Assistant (Biology) FSL, Rohini proved his reports Ex.PW15/A and Ex. PW15/B.
27) PW16 Ct. Jitender Singh has deposed that on 02.07.2008 he alongwith SI Sahab Singh and public witness Boota Singh reached at Sonia Vihar, Pahla Pusta there the secret informer met them and informed that Ravinder Rathi the accused wanted in the present case was roaming on the Pusta; on the pointing out of secret informer accused Ravinder Rathi, present in the court was apprehended in the present case and interrogated by the Investigating Officer and his disclosure statement Ex. PW4/C was recorded; the accused was arrested in the present case vide memo FIR no. 327/08 Page ........16/81 Ex. PW4/A and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW4/B. He further deposed that in his presence the local police including Ct. Pankaj had joined the investigation and the accused Ravinder Rathi pointed out the place where they had thrown the dead body after committing its murder; Investigating Officer prepared the pointing out memo Ex. PW16/A and on inspection of the site, it was found that the grass was turned down towards the earth and the blood was also lying on the spot at two places; the blood samples and earth control samples were taken from the spot vide memo Ex.PW16/B by the Investigating Officer and converted into a cloth parcels sealed with the seal of SS and seal after use was handed over to him; Investigating Officer had seized the postmortem report alongwith document of inquest papers and exhibits from the police post vide memo Ex. PW16/C; they all alongwith accused Ravinder Rathi came back to Delhi and the accused was kept in lockup and tried to trace the other accused person wanted in the present case but they were not traceable at that time.
28) PW18 SI Samar Pal has deposed that on 05/07/2008 he was posted as Chowki Incharge of Police Post Jhroda and on that day he alongwith Inspector Ram Avtar Meena, HC Raj Kumar and other staff had taken the accused persons Vijay, Lalit Kumar Mishra and Laljit @ Sonu who were on police remand for the purpose of FIR no. 327/08 Page ........17/81 investigation; One accused Vijay is facing trial before the Juvenile Justice Board; the accused Laljit led them to his house at Gali no.4, Chaman Vihar, Loni, Ghaziabad and got recovered the TATA Indicom mobile of black colour which was lying behind the book kept in the almirah from his room; accused Laljit disclosed that the abovesaid mobile was of the deceased Devender @ Pappu which was robbed by them; the mobile was converted into a cloth parcels alongwith its battery and SIM and sealed with the seal of RA and seized vide memo Ex.PW18/A; the seal after use was handed over to HC Raj Kumar. He has identified the TATA Indicom black colour as Ex. P1 which was got recovered by the accused Laljit.
29) PW19 Ct. Pankaj has joined the investigation at mortuary Bullandshahr on 02/07/2008 when relatives of the deceased Devender @ Pammu identified the dead body and the statement of the witnesses recorded regarding the identification of the dead body Ex. PW2/A and Ex. PW19/A; after postmortem the dead body was handed over to its relatives vide memo Ex. PW2/B; the sealed bundle of the clothes of the deceased containing Tabiz alongwith thread, socks with shoes, Kara, belt, pant, shirt baniyan underwear, neck handkerchief alongwith sample seal and police papers to him which were handed over to the Investigating Officer by him. He has proved the Punchnama Ex.PW19/B. He further deposed that thereafter accused Ravinder Rathi led them to the place of FIR no. 327/08 Page ........18/81 occurrence where he had thrown the dead body and on his pointing out Investigating Officer prepared the pointing out memo Ex.PW16/A. He has corroborated the other witnesses regarding the investigation carried on the spot of occurrence on all material points; the blood was lying on the spot and the same was taken as a sample and the earth control sample was also taken from the spot and sealed with one seal of SS and were seized vide memo Ex.PW16/B. He further deposed that on 06/07/2008 the police officials of Police Station Timarpur alongwith three accused persons namely Lalit Kumar Misra, Vijay Singh and Laljit @ Sonu reached at the chowki Nai Mandi of Police Station Dehat where the accused persons led them to the place of occurrence and on their pointing out Investigating officer prepared the pointing out memo Ex.PW19/C.
30) PW22 SI B.S. Rawat has deposed that on 29/6/2008 he was posted at Police Post Nai Mandi, Police Station Kotwali Dehat, Bullandshar U.P and on that day on receiving an information from Vijay Bahadur Sharma S/o Ramesh Chand Sharma that one dead body was lying in the field of Sher Mohd; on receiving the said information he alongwith his staff reached there and found one dead body having a belt and one handkerchief in its neck. He further deposed that he tried to identify the dead body from nearby places but the same could not be identified and at about 11.40am he FIR no. 327/08 Page ........19/81 prepared the Panchnama of the dead body Ex. PW19/B ( consisting of 4 pages) in his own handwriting. The information regarding the lying of dead body in the fields was recorded in the Rojnamacha vide DD no. 22 at 11.00am on 29/6/2008 by the duty constable deputed at that time, the carbon copy of the same Ex.PW22/A and report sent to the Senior officer alongwith six other documents Ex.PW22/B1 to Ex.PW22/B6; the photographs of the dead body were taken as Ex. PW22/C, Ex. PW22/C1 and Ex. PW22/C3; the information regarding lying of the dead body was given to the other police station which was prepared by him in his own handwriting and photocopy of the same Ex.PW22/D .
31) PW24 SI Manohar Lal is the draftsman who has inspected the site and prepared the scaled site plan Ex. PW24/A.
32) PW25 HC Meda Lal has verified the school leaving certificate of accused Vijay Singh who is facing trial before JJ Court. He has proved his detailed report Ex. PW25/A and the statement of Chote Lal Rathor Ex. PW25/B and the school verification report Ex. PW25/C.
33) PW26 HC Vijender Kumar was working as MHC/M and the case property was deposited in the malkhana by the Investigating Officer vide entry at serial no. 3449 in register no. 19 Ex. PW26/A; personal search articles of the accused Lalit Mishra and one vehicle no. DL 3C W 0870 vide entry at serial no. 3451 as FIR no. 327/08 Page ........20/81 Ex. PW26/B; the above said vehicles was released on 19.7.2008 to Ajit Singh by the order of Ld. MM Shri Partap Singh Malik and the same was mentioned in front of Ex. PW26/B; mobile phone alongwith SIM and battery which was deposited in the malkhana vide entry at serial no. 3453 as Ex. PW26/C; the number plate of vehicle DL 3CW 0870 and the articles belonged to deceased vide entry at serial no. 3457 Ex.PW26/D; four sealed parcels were sent to FSL, Rohini vide RC no. 120/21 through Ct. Madhukar vide entry at serial no. 3449 as Ex.PW26/E; on 8.11.2008 the result from the FSL was collected and four sealed parcels were deposited in the malkhana and the result was handed over to Inspector K.S Rawat and entry in this respect is Ex.PW26/F; the photocopy of the RC no. 120/21 Ex. PW26/G.
34) PW27 HC Raj Kumar has deposed that on 3.7.2008 he alongwith SI Sahab Singh, SI Samarpal, HC Pusphender, HC Rajpal and Ct. Ajit had joined the investigation on the directions of Inspector Ram Avtar Meena; the accused Ravinder Rathi led them to the house of Lalit Kumar Mishra at house no. 449, Gali no. 2, Tisra Pushta, Sonia Vihar and a raid was conducted in the house and the accused Lalit Kumar Mishra was duly identified by the accused Ravinder Rathi and was apprehended and brought out to the police vehicle and interrogated by the Investigating officer and he was arrested in the present case vide arrest memo Ex. PW27/A and his FIR no. 327/08 Page ........21/81 personal search was conducted vide memo Ex. PW27/B; the accused made his disclosure statement which was recorded by the Investigating officer Ex. PW27/C. He further deposed that then accused Lalit Kumar Mishra led them to C and D Block, Tisra Pushta on the side of the road of CBlock from where he pointed out towards a vehicle Indica bearing no. DL 3CW 0870 of silver colour and there was no number plate on the back side of the vehicle; the Indica car was seized by the Investigating officer vide memo Ex.PW27/D. He further deposed that on the identification of the accused Ravinder Rathi and Lalit Kumar Mishra, the third accused Vijay (facing trial before the JJ Court ) was arrested in the present case and thereafter all the three accused persons led them to Gali no. 4, Chaman Vihar, Near Sonia Vihar from where the accused Laljit @ Sonu was arrested and interrogated by the Investigating officer and arrested vide arrest memo Ex. PW27/E and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex. PW27/F; the accused Laljit made his disclosure statement which was recorded by the Investigating officer Ex. PW27/G; thereafter, all the four accused persons were brought to the police station and further interrogated by the Investigating officer and kept in the lock up on that day. On 5.7.2008 they again taken out from the lock up and the accused Laljit @ Sonu disclosed regarding the mobile phone and he led them to his house from where he got recovered one mobile phone from FIR no. 327/08 Page ........22/81 his room which was kept in the almirah behind the books and disclosed that the said mobile TATA Indicom of black colour was belonged to the deceased Devender and stated that he had put the SIM card of his own mobile was seized by the Investigating officer alongwith SIM and battery and was sealed with the seal of RA and was seized vide memo Ex.18/A and the seal after use was handed over to him; the accused Ravinder Rathi was produced in the court and he was sent to judicial custody. He further deposed that on 6.7.2008 the accused persons Lalit Kumar, Laljit and Vijay were led them to the spot of occurrence in the fields situated before the Dholi village in front of Makadana factory and pointed out the place of occurrence that they had murdered Devender, taxi driver and also had robbed the cash amount and his mobiles. He further deposed that on their pointing out Investigating officer prepared the pointing out memo of the spot Ex. PW19/C. He further deposed that on the identification of accused Vijay one polythene was got recovered which was lying in the fields containing RC of vehicle no. DL 3CW 0870, Insurance certificate of the above said vehicle, two DL of the deceased Devender, one pollution control certificate of the above said vehicle, one phone book of TATA Indicom, one raxin purse containing some visiting cards and document which were belonged to deceased Devender which were seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW27/H; the accused Lalit Kumar Mishra got recovered the number FIR no. 327/08 Page ........23/81 plate of vehicle no. DL 3CW 0870 from Khajuri, Yamuna Khadar lying in digging land (Khada) and the said number plate was seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW27/I. He further deposed that they came back to the police station and the case property was deposited in the Malkhana by the Investigating officer. He has identified the mobile TATA Indicom of black colour which was got recovered by accused Laljit Ex. P1 with battery and SIM card and he has also identified the number plate of vehicle no. DL 3CW 0870, Ex. P11 which was got recovered by the accused Lalit Kumar and one polythene containing one purse of black colour Ex. P12, visiting cards, some documents collectively Ex. P13 and one phone book of TATA Indicom Ex.P14 which was got recovered at the instance of accused Vijay. The other four documents mentioned in Ex. PW27/H in original were placed in the judicial file of the accused Vijay. But the photocopies of RC and Insurance are placed in this judicial record which are Ex. PW27/J comprising of 3 pages.
35) PW28 SI Sahab Singh is the Investigating Officer of the case. He has deposed that On 30/6/2008 Ajit Singh S/o Bhagat Ram lodged a missing report at the Police Station regarding his son Devender Singh vide DD no. 61B Ex. PW28/A which was marked to him for investigation; the missing report was lodged in writing by Ajit Singh Ex. PW1/A; The WT message was flashed to trace Devender Singh and he also made enquires to trace him from Buta FIR no. 327/08 Page ........24/81 Singh taxi driver who was driven the taxi at Balakram Taxi stand but no clue was found about Devender Singh. He further deposed that on next day, on 1/7/2008 Ajit Singh alongwith Buta Singh came to the Police Station Timarpur and lodged his report Ex. PW1/B in which he named the accused Ravinder Rathi alongwith two other person who hired the taxi no DL 3CW 0870 Indica for Bullandshahr which was driven by his son Devender; Ajit Singh disclosed that he had enquired from Buta Singh who disclosed that he had come to know from Shankar who was working in Tribune Newspaper that one Guddu and Chotu who were brother inlaws of Shankar and Ravinder Rathi was their friend had taken the taxi to Bullandshahr. The taxi was hired by Ravinder Rathi for going to Bullandshahr for giving "Chhuchhak" to his sister and Guddu and Chotu got down from the taxi on reaching at Sonia Vihar. Ajit Singh further disclosed on the next date that Ravinder Rathi was residing in Sonia Vihar and the taxi alongwith his son was in his possession; the case was registered under section 365/34IPC and the complaint lodged by Ajit Singh was Ex. PW1/B; on 2/7/2008 Ajit Singh and Buta Singh disclosed him that he had traced the residential address of Ravinder Rathi at Circular Road, Sonia Vihar; on receiving the abovesaid information he organized a raiding party comprising of Ct. Jitender, HC Raj Kumar, Ajit Singh, Buta Singh and other staff; they all reached at Sonia Vihar Yamuna Pusta no.1 as they received FIR no. 327/08 Page ........25/81 an information that Ravinder Rathi who was found missing for many days was seen at Yamuna Pusta1 Sonia Vihar; the secret informer identified the accused Ravinder Rathi present in the court and was confirmed by Buta Singh as the accused was standing on the Pusta1; the accused was apprehended and interrogated and the accused admitted his guilt stating that he alongwith his three associates namely Lalit Kumar Mishra, Laljit @ Sonu and Vijay had taken the taxi to Bullandshahr and the persons Guddu and Chotu resident of Loni got down from the taxi at Chungi of Sonia Vihar; the accused Ravinder Rathi confessed his guilt stating that he alongwith his associates has committed the murder of driver Devender Singh for the purpose of looting the car; the relatives of the deceased Kashmira Singh and Sucha Singh also reached at Sonia Vihar and they all went to Bullandshahr to verify the facts as disclosed by the accused regarding the murder of Devender Singh; they reached at police post Dehat at Bullandshahr; on reaching there they came to know that the dead body was found in a Dholi village from the fields and the dead body was preserved in the mortuary after postmortem; accused Ravinder Rathi also with them; they all reached in the mortuary of Bullandshahr and the dead body of Devender @ Pammu S/o Ajit Singh was duly identified by the relatives namely Kashmir Singh and Sucha Singh vide statements Ex. PW2/A and PW19/A were recorded by him; the dead body was FIR no. 327/08 Page ........26/81 handed over to its relatives as the postmortem was already conducted on it vide memo Ex.PW2/B; they alongwith local police official Ct. Pankaj with accused Ravinder Rathi reached at the spot i.e at Dholi Village; the accused Ravinder Rathi led them to the spot at Dholi Village on Anoop Shahar Road on Kharanja towards inside about 700800 metre in the vacant fields where he pointed out the place of occurrence thereby stopping the vehicle on the pretext of urinating and had committed the murder of Devender; he prepared pointing out memo Ex. PW16/A and prepared the site plan Ex.PW28/B; they noticed the blood was lying on the spot and the blood sample and earth control sample was seized from the spot after keeping them in small bottles and were sealed with the seal of SS vide seizure memo Ex. PW16/B; the photographs of the spot were taken by the private camera; eight photographs alongwith negative exhibited as Ex. PW 28/1 to Ex.PW28/8 and the negatives Ex. PW28/9 to PW28/16. He further deposed that from the place of occurrence, the accused Ravinder Rathi was brought to the police Chowki, Nai Mandi , Dehat; on reaching there from the duty officer HC Charan Singh , the inquest papers (10 in number) were received alongwith postmortem report which were seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW16/C; the postmortem report is Ex. PW21/A and the inquest papers Ex. PW21/1 , Ex. PW19/B , Ex. PW22/A, Ex. PW22/ B1, Ex. PW22/B2, Ex. PW22/ B3 , Ex. PW22/B4, Ex. PW22/B5. The FIR no. 327/08 Page ........27/81 sealed parcel containing the clothes of the deceased alongwith one tabiz with thread , one pair of shoes , one golden colour kada , belt , shirt, socks , baniyan , underwear , one hanky from neck alongwith sample seal were received from HC Charan Singh and seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW28/C. Investigating Officer had taken one earth control sample separately from the spot which was seizure vide memo Ex. PW28/D and was sealed with the seal of SS and from Bullandshahr they came back to Delhi at the Police Station and the sealed parcels were deposited in the malkhana and the statement of the witnesses were recorded u/s 161 Cr.PC and Section 302/34 IPC was added and the investigation was handed over to Inspector Ram Avtar Meena by the SHO. He further deposed that on 3.7.2008 the accused Ravinder Rathi was produced before Ld. MM and an application for PC remand of the accused by the Investigating Officer Inspector Ram Avtar Meena moved; the carbon copy of the application markPA regarding the PC remand of the accused Ravinder Rathi. He further deposed that thereafter he along Inspector Ram Avtar Meena, Ct. Ajit and HC Rajkumar and other staff reached at Sonia Vihar at the house of Lalit Mishra; accused Lalit Mishra present in the court was apprehended on the pointing out of accused Ravinder Rathi from his house and interrogated and made his disclosure statement Ex. PW27/C which was recorded by the Investigating Officer; the accused was arrested FIR no. 327/08 Page ........28/81 in the present case vide arrest memo Ex. PW27/A and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex. PW27/B; the accused Lalit Mishra got recovered the car of the deceased bearing number DL 3CW 0870 from the Sonia Vihar, third Pushta near C and D block; there was no number plate on the back side of the car and the car was seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW27/D ; the car was sent to the Police Station by one staff member; thereafter they alongwith the two accused persons Ravinder Rathi and Lalit Mishra reached at the house of Vijay (facing trial before JJ Court ) Kachi Basti, Chaman Vihar; the accused Vijay was apprehended on the identification of accused Ravinder Rathi and was arrested vide photocopy of the arrest memo Ex. PW28/E and his personal search conducted vide photocopy of the memo Ex. PW28/F; all the three accused persons led them to the house of fourth accused Laljit @ Sonu and at their instance accused Laljit was apprehended and the accused was arrested present in the court vide memo Ex. PW27/E and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW27/F and the disclosure statement made by the accused is Ex. PW7/G ; all the four accused persons were brought to the Police Station and they were got medically examined and kept in the lock up; on the next date 4.7.2008 , three accused persons Lalit Parshad, Laljit and Vijay were produced before the court of Ld. MM and an application was made by the Investigating Officer for three days; the carbon copy of FIR no. 327/08 Page ........29/81 the application of PC remand for the three accused persons mark B. The accused persons were interrogated by the senior officers but no recovery was effected on that date due to late hours; he joined the investigation again in the present case on 6.7.2008; all the three accused persons namely Lalit Mishra, Laljit and Vijay were taken to the Bullandshar alongwith draftsman and the other staff; on the way to Bullandshahr accused Vijay got recovered the articles belonging to the deceased i.e one purse, two DL (private licence) one insurance certificate and one possession certificate, one phone book of TATA Indicom , one RC of vehicle number DL 3CW 0870 lying in a polythene in the fields situated near the road of Badalpur village which was seized by the Investigating Officer vide seizure memo Ex. PW27/H (photocopy); the disclosure statement of the accused Vijay was recorded by the Investigating Officer when he was arrested which is Ex. PW8/G (photocopy); on reaching at Bullandshahr the arrival entry was made at Police Post, Nai Mandi , Dehat; thereafter the accused persons led them to the place of occurrence i.e Village Dholi, Anoop Shahr Road, Kharenja Wala Road which was 700800 meters inside from the main road and on their pointing out Investigating Officer prepared the pointing out memo Ex. PW19/C; SI Manohar Lal took rough notes of that place at my instance for preparing the scaled site plan ; thereafter they came back to Delhi along with the accused persons; before reaching FIR no. 327/08 Page ........30/81 Delhi on the way on reaching Yamuna Bhumi, Khandar near Mandu village by digging the land the accused Lalit Kumar got recovered a number plate of the vehicle DL 3CW 0870 which was seized by the Investigating Officer vide memo Ex. PW27/I. Thereafter they came back to the Police Station and the case property was deposited in the malkhana by the Investigating Officer and his statement was recorded by Investigating Officer; the photographs mark PC and PD of the car bearing no. DL 3CW 0870 were shown to the witness who identified same which was got recovered by the accused Lalit Mishra; the photograph of mark PD is not showing the number plate of the vehicle on back side. He has identified the number plate bearing no. DL 3CW 0870 which was got recovered by the accused Lalit Mishra; the number plate is Ex P11; one purse of black colour Ex. P12, visiting cards, some documents collectively Ex.P13, one phone Book of Tata Indicom Ex. P14 which was got recovered from accused Vijay; the four documents mentioned in Ex.PW27/H in original were placed in the judicial file of accused Vijay (facing trial before JJ ) but the photocopies of RC and insurance placed in this regard are Ex. PW27/J comprising of 3 pages. He has also identified the car Ex. P15.
36) PW29 Jagmohan Kashyap Chowki Incharge of Police Station Kotwali, Dehat Bullandshahr has deposed that on 29/6/2008 Shri Vijay Bahadur Sharma came to the Chowki at about 11.00am FIR no. 327/08 Page ........31/81 and informed that forest of Dholi a dead body was lying in the fields which belonged to Sher Mohd; he had written the abovesaid information in the register and alongwith the staff reached there and on reaching there they found that a male dead body was lying and in his neck one belt alongwith one handkerchief were tied and it seems that the death was due to throttling; he directed to SI B.S. Rawat to do the needful. He has proved the carbon copy attested by the Police Station Kotwali, Dehat vide DD no. 22 is Ex. PW29/A and the departure entry was made on the back side of DD no. 22 Ex. PW29/B.
37) PW30 ACP Ram Avtar Mina has deposed that on 03/07/2008 he was posted at Police Station Timarpur as Inspector (investigation); on that day the present case was handed over to him for further investigation; the accused Ravinder Rathi present in the court was already arrested by the earlier IO SI Sahib Singh; the accused was produced before the court and he was taken on PC remand vide application Ex. PW30/A earlier markPA (carbon copy); he alongwith his staff and the accused Ravinder Rathi went to Sonia Vihar from where the accused Lalit Mishra was arrested vide arrest memo Ex. PW27/A his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex. PW27/B; the accused Lalit Mishra made his disclosure statement which was recorded Ex. PW27/C; accused Lalit Mishra got recovered car no. DL 3CW 0870 from Sonia FIR no. 327/08 Page ........32/81 Vihar , IIIPusta which was standing on the side of the road going towards C&D block; the car was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW27/D; on the inspection of car the back number plate was found missing; accused Ravinder Rathi also identified the car Indica and the car was sent to the Police Station by one staff member; thereafter they alongwith the two accused persons Ravinder Rathi and Lalit Mishra reached at the house of Vijay (facing trial before JJ court) from Kachi Basti Chaman Vihar; the accused Vijay was apprehended on the identification of Ravinder Rathi and was arrested vide photocopy of arrest memo Ex. PW28/E and his personal search was conducted vide photocopy of memo Ex.PW28/F; the disclosure statement of the accused Vijay was recorded Ex.PW28/G(photocopy); all the three accused persons led them to the house of fourth accused Laljit @ Sonu and at their instance the accused Laljit was apprehended and he was arrested vide memo Ex.PW27/E and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW27/F and the disclosure statement of accused Ex.PW27/G. He has further corroborated the deposition of PW27 and other material witnesses on all material points.
38) PW31 Ct. Charan Singh has deposed that on 02.07.2008 he was posted at the Police Station at Bullandshahr on that day Delhi Police Officials brought Ravinder Rathi present in the court today at Police Station Kotwali at about 4.00pm or 4.30 pm and FIR no. 327/08 Page ........33/81 they disclosed regarding the facts of the present case and they shown them the photograph of a dead body Ex. 22/D which was recovered from the fields situated at village Dholi and that photograph of dead body was identified by the relatives of the deceased who had also accompanied with the Delhi Police Officials that the photograph of the dead body Devender @ Pappu; on the request of the police officials Ct. Pankaj was deputed for going to Mortuary Bullandshahar from where the dead body was handed over to its relatives and he handed over the postmortem report to the Delhi Police officials on which the postmortem was conducted as unknown; they inquest papers and the sealed parcels alongwith sample seal handed over to the IO which were taken into custody by the Investigating Officer vide memo Ex. PW 16/C ; the DD entries regarding the arrival and departure of Delhi police officials are in my handwriting Ex. 29/A and 29/B.
39) PW32 Inspector Investigation K.S. Rawat has deposed that on 30/07/2008 he was working as additional SHO and the investigation of the present case was marked to him; all the four accused persons were already arrested and recorded the statement of the witnesses U/s 161 Cr. PC; the accused had produced his birth certificate which was got verified and was being juvenile and sent before the JJ Board; the sealed Exhibits were sent to FSL Rohini through Ct. Madhukar vide RC No. 120/21 on 21/08/2008 and the FIR no. 327/08 Page ........34/81 statements of Ct. Madhukar and HC Vijender MHC(M) was recorded U/s161 Cr. PC; in the challan Section 392 IPC was converted from 397 IPC as no weapon was found to be used for committing murder of the deceased. He further deposed that on 20/09/2008 he had gone to Bullandshahr there and recorded the statement of witnesses i.e SI Bijender Singh Rawat, SI Jagmohan, Sher Mohd and Vijay Bahadur Sharma U/s 161 Cr. PC. After completing the investigation the challan was prepared and filed in the court for judicial verdict. The report from the FSL was received later on and placed on record already Ex. PW 15/A and Ex.15/B. MEDICAL WITNESSES
40) PW21 Dr. M. L. Aggarwal Senior Consultant, District Hospital Bullandshahr, U.P has conducted the postmortem on the dead body of the deceased and deposed as under: "On 29/6/2008 I was working in the District Hospital Bullandshar as Senior Consultant. On that day, on the request of SO Kotwali Dehat, Bullandshar I conducted postmortem on the dead body of unknown male aged about 38 years at about 4.30 pm average built and rigomorties were present all over the body and the length of the body was 5ft 10inch, length of sole was 10inch, scalp hair black and 8 to 10 cm long. The mental foramina present just above midline Antimortem injuries (1) contused swelling 8cm X 6cm on left side face and forehead. Hemtoma present underneath (2) a ligature mark 34 cm X 1.5cm on middle of neck (after cutting the hanky from the neck it was FIR no. 327/08 Page ........35/81 found). Mark horizontally placed continuous around the neck. Echymosis present underneath cornua of hyoid bone and larynx found fracture (3) abrasion size 4cm X2.5cm on front of left knee joint. The photograph and fingerprints done by enclosure no. 10 and 6 respectively on the papers produced by the police. "Om in Hindi" tattoo mark present on back of right hand. External: eyes closed and congested , bleeding was present on mouth and nostril tongue was protruded between teeth . Penis was not circumsized .
Internal examination: membranes, brain, plura, both lungs, liver, spleen and kidney were congested and about 250gm semidigested food was present in stomach.
I prepared the postmortem report in detail and gave the opinion of death.
Opinion: death due to asphyxia as result of strangulation and time since death was about 3/4th day .
My report is Ex. PW21/A bears my signatures at point- A. After postmortem the seal bundle of clothes containing Tabiz alongwith thread, socks with shoes, Kara, belt, pant, shirt baniyan underwear, neck handkerchief alongwith sample seal and 10 inquest papers to Ct. Pankaj which are Ex. PW21/B1 to PW21/B9 alongwith postmortem report. All the inquest papers bears my signatures at point- X. He has identified the articles i.e underwear is Ex. P2, pant Ex. P3, pair of socks P4 and pair of shoes Ex.P5 and one kara Ex. P5A. The shirt is Ex. P6, baniyan Ex. P7, one piece of cloth Ex. P8, one belt Ex. P9 , one locket alongwith thread (tabiz) Ex. P10."
41) In their statements under section 313 CrPC the accused persons had denied the allegations stating that they were innocent and falsely implicated. Accused Laljit @ Sonu stated that he was an FIR no. 327/08 Page ........36/81 auto rickshaw driver and was picked up by the police from Khajuri auto stand and he did not know the other coaccused. Accused Ravinder Rathi stated that he was falsely implicated in his case after lifting from his house. Accused Lalit Kumar Mishra has stated that he used to visit at the house of Kiranpal who was brother of accused Ravinder Rathi but he did not know accused Ravinder Rathi was the brother of Kiranpal and police apprehended him from his house on 01/07/2008.
42) DW1 Rajender Prasad Mishra examined in defence and deposed that on 1.7.2008, 4/5 persons in civil clothes reached at their house at about 4.00 p.m and entered directly in the house as the door was opened at that time; on his asking for what purpose they had come but no reply was given by them; they asked for his son Lalit; On his asking from where they had come they did not disclose anything; One out of those persons disclosed that they had come from special staff; his son Lalit was apprehended and taken by them; he reached at the office of special staff at Welcome where he made to sit till 8.00 9.00 p.m; on enquries they disclosed that no one was brought at that place; on that night at about11.00 p.m he informed the police on 100 number ; on the next date, he visited at civil line special branch but no clue was found about his son Lalit; on 2.7.2008 he fax to police commissioner at 2.51 p.m; the copy of Fax Ex. DW1/A; then he visited to Police Station Khajuri Khas FIR no. 327/08 Page ........37/81 there he did not know anything; on 3.7.2008 he came to know in the evening from someone that to reach at Police Station Timarpur as his son might had taken there; he reached there but he was not allowed to meet his son; Inspector Sahib Singh who was in civil cloth meet him at Police Station Timarpur and disclosed that Lalit was at the Police Station Timarpur and was booked under section 302 IPC; the DD no. 29 A (attested copy) dated 1.7.2008 Police Station Khajuri Khas was lodged regarding the lifting of Lalit Ex. DW1/B and DD no. 30 A (attested copy ) dated 1.7.2008 Police Station K. Khas Ex. DW1/C .
43) I have heard Ms. Sadhana Bhatia Ld Amicus Curiae for the accused who argued that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case because the alleged public witnesses are family members/friends of the deceased who are interested witnesses and therefore are not reliable; the accused persons have been falsely implicated; that the motive for the commission of the offence has not been established; the case is totally based on circumstantial evidence and the chain of alleged circumstances has not been completed; there are material contradictions in the deposition of public witnesses on various material points. It is further argued that case of the prosecution suffers from various infirmities because no public witness has been joined at the time of recovery of car, mobile and other belongings of the deceased allegedly recovered at the FIR no. 327/08 Page ........38/81 instance of the accused persons. It is not established that mobile recovered with battery and SIM card Ex. P1 belonged to the deceased as no evidence has been placed on record in that regard. No fingerprints were found on the alleged weapon of offence Ex.P8 and Ex. P9 and same cannot link the accused persons as author of the crime of the murder of the deceased. It is argued that all the recovery has been manipulated as there is 23 days gap in the alleged disclosure statement and the recovery of the taxi Indica car, number plate and mobile of the deceased and no site plan of the alleged place of recovery was prepared. Ld Amicus Curiae therefore vehementally argued that case of the prosecution is not proved beyond reasonable doubt and all the accused persons are entitled to acquittal.
44) Ld Addl. PP for the State on the other hand argued that the prosecution has established the chain of circumstances beyond any reasonable doubt; the contradictions as pointed out are minor in nature which are liable to be ignored; there is no major discrepancy in the prosecution story and all material witnesses have fully supported the prosecution case and there is nothing in their lengthy crossexamination so as to assail their deposition. Regarding the deposition of PW1 and PW4 Ld Addl. PP for the State vehementally argued that there is no bar to believe the public witness who happens to be relative of the deceased because their FIR no. 327/08 Page ........39/81 deposition is natural and trustworthy and has nowhere been assailed in the crossexamination.
45) Ld Addl. PP for the State has referred and relied case of Vinay Kumar Rai and Another Vs . State of Bihar 2008 V AD (Cr. ) (SC) 392 . In para no. 6 and 13 it was held as under : Para no. 6: Merely because the eyewitnesses are family members their evidence cannot per se be discarded. When there is allegation of interestedness, the same has to be established. Mere statement that being relative of the deceased they are likely to falsely implicate the accused cannot be a ground to discard the evidence which is otherwise cogent and credible. We shall also deal with the contention regarding interestedness of the witnesses for furthering prosecution version. Relationship is not a factor to affect credibility of a witness. It is more often than not that a relation would not conceal actual culprit and make allegations against an innocent person. Foundation has to be laid if plea of false implication is made. In such cases, the court has to adopt a careful approach and analyse evidence to find out whether it is cogent and credible.
Para no. 13: The over insistence on witnesses having no relation with the victims often results in criminal justice going away. When any incident happens in a dwelling house the most natural witnesses would be the inmates of that house, it is upragmatic to ignore such natural witnesses and insist on outsiders who would not have even seen any thing. If the court has discerned from the evidence or even from the FIR no. 327/08 Page ........40/81 investigation records that some other independent person has witnessed any event connecting the incident in question then there is justification for making adverse comments against non examination of such person as prosecution witness. Otherwise, merely on surmises the court should not castigate a prosecution for not examining other persons of the locality as prosecution witnesses. Prosecution can be expected to examine only those who have witnesses the events and not those who have not seen it though the neighborhood may be replete with other residents also.
46) Ld Addl. PP for the State vehementally argued that the prosecution had established its case by completing the chain of circumstantial evidence and the evidence on record has nowhere been assailed in any manner therefore, accused be convicted for the offence of murder .
47) I have considered the rival submissions made at bar and carefully gone through the evidence on record.
48) The prosecution has tried to establish the following circumstances in evidence against the accused persons: A) PW7 Shankar had hired taxi of the Butta Singh on 28/9/2008 and asked him to reach at Tribune Office, Connaught Place where he reached at about 6.00am in his taxi bearing no. DL 3C AF 669, Indica V2 and Shankar met him and sent with him his two brotherinlaws namely Guddu and Chotu and went to Nanaksar Gurdwara, Sonia FIR no. 327/08 Page ........41/81 Vihar in the said taxi and Guddu had talked to Ravinder Rathi and asked him to reach their at the Gurdwara. B) At about 7.00am, PW4 Butta Singh in his above mentioned taxi along with PW9 Guddu and PW8 Chotu reached at Gurdwara Nanaksar, Sonia Vihar where accused Ravinder Rathi met them as he was dropped by his brother on his motorcycle. Accused Ravinder Rathi sat with Butta Singh on the frond seat and Butta Singh asked him to wear belt but he had refused saying that he was in Delhi Police.
C) Accused Ravinder Rathi alongwith witness Guddu and Chotu in the taxi of the Buta Singh had gone to Mathura to bring the daughter of Shankar to Delhi and she was dropped at Delhi Gate Red Light and after Shankar left Ravinder Rathi asked Butta Singh to go to Bullandshahr as his sister blessed with a son and he has to go their for giving chhuchhak.
D) PW4 Butta Singh showed his inability stating that he was already having booking but asked Ravinder Rathi to arrange another taxi at Timarpur Tikona Park Taxi Stand where deceased Devender met him alongwith Balbir Singh and accused Ravinder Rathi alongwith Guddu and Chotu hired taxi of Devender S/o Ajit Singh bearing no.
FIR no. 327/08 Page ........42/81 DL 3CW 0870 for going to Bullandshahr and left the Timarpur Taxi stand at about 2.00pm.
E) PW9 Guddu and PW8 Chhotu @ Karan got down from the taxi of Devender hired by accused Ravinder Rathi at Sonia Vihar and accused Ravinder Rathi alongwith driver Devender left the place for going to Bullandshahr. F) On 28/6/2008 Devender ( deceased) had made telephonic call at his father's mobile no. 9871556033 at about 8.45pm in the night from his mobile no. 9211274161 and informed him that passengers were refusing to return as they wanted to go to their village and he would return on the next day and on the next day the telephone number of Devender was responding Switched off and could not be contacted.
G) In the night on 28/6/2008, PW13 Dharampal Singh another taxi driver of Timarpur Taxi Stand has contacted the deceased at telephone no. 9211274161 at about 10.50pm from his mobile no. 9873118745 and deceased Devender told him that he was present at the road of Anoop Shahr at Bullandshahr and passengers had gone at tea stall and were taking liquor and he was sitting in his taxi and would return in the morning.
H) When deceased did not return on the next day FIR
FIR no. 327/08 Page ........43/81
was registered on the statement of Ajit Singh and the identity of the accused Ravinder Rathi was disclosed by Shanker, Chotu and Guddu and accused Ravinder Rathi was searched and was missing from his house.
I) The dead body of Devender was found in the field of PW20 Sher Mohd, Village Dholi, Police Station Kotwali, Bullandshahr, U.P. J) On 29/6/2008 Police Station Kotwali Dehat police was informed by Vijay Bahadur about lying of dead body in the field of Sher Mohd where PW22 SI B.S. Rawat reached and at about 1.40 prepared the Punchnama of the dead body which could not be identified.
K) PW23 Vijay Bahadur has found the belt Ex. P9 and the handkerchief Ex. P8 near the dead body and same identified belonged to the deceased Devender. PW29 SI Jagmohan Kashyap Chowki Incharge Police Station Kotwali, Dehat Bullandhshahr had reached the spot where the male dead body was lying and in his neck one belt alongwith handkerchief were tied and noticed that death was due to throttle/strangling.
L) The postmortem on the dead body of the deceased Devender was conducted by Dr. M. L. Aggarwal at Bullandshahr and in his opinion the death was due to FIR no. 327/08 Page ........44/81 asphyxia as a result of strangulation.
M) Possibility of use of belt Ex. P9 and handkerchief Ex.P8 as weapon of offence in strangulating the deceased in causing his death as per opinion in postmortem report Ex. PW21/A N) As per FSL report Ex. PW15/A and Ex. PW15/B human blood of groupA was detected on belt Ex. P9. O) Time of death as per Postmortem report almost corresponding to the time of possible presence of the deceased on the spot of occurrence and commission of murder of Devender by him after 10.30pm on 28/6/2008. P) The time gap when the deceased was last seen alive in the company of the accused and his death to be small and not very large.
Q) Motive of the crime to rob the personal belongings of the driver/deceased and also his taxi and to sell the same for money.
R) On 02/07/08 accused Ravinder Rathi who was missing from his house for many days and was seen at Yamuna Pusta, Sonia Vihar and on the pointing out of secret informer and on the identification of Butta Singh and Ajit Singh he was arrested and interrogated and he FIR no. 327/08 Page ........45/81 has admitted his guilt and suffered his disclosure statement Ex. PW4/C. S) In pursuance to disclosure statement Ex.PW4/A he led the police party headed by PW28 SI Sahab Singh to the spot at Dholi Village, Anoop Shahr road about 700800 meters inside the main road in the vacant fields and pointed out the place where he had committed murder of Devender vide pointing out memo Ex.PW16/A T) The place of murder has been established as shown in the site plan Ex. PW28/B. U) On the pointing out of accused Ravinder Rathi accused Laljit was arrested and interrogated and he has suffered disclosure statement Ex. PW27/C and got recovered the car of the deceased DL3CW0870 Indica car from Sonia Vihar, 3rd Pusta near C and D block. V) The mobile of deceased make TATA Indicom Ex.P1 Was got recovered at the instance of accused Laljit from his house lying behind the books kept in almirah in his room and taken into possession vide memo Ex. PW18/A. W) Thereafter accused Ravinder Rathi and Laljit reached at the house of coaccused Vijay (facing trial before the JJ court) and he was apprehended on their identification and arrested and and they led to the house of FIR no. 327/08 Page ........46/81 fourth accused Laljit @ Sonu who was arrested and made disclosure statement Ex. PW7/G. X) When they were returning for Delhi reached at Yamuna Khadar, near Mandu Village accused Lalit after digging land got recovered the number plate DL 3CW 0870 which was seized vide memo Ex. PW27/F. The number plate is Ex.P11.
49) What is required by the prosecution to prove its case on the basis of circumstantial evidence has been recently analysed in Bantu Vs. State of U.P, 2009 I AD (Criminal) (SC) 175. The Hon'ble Apex court was pleased to hold as under :
10. Before analyzing factual aspects it may be stated that for a crime to be proved it is not necessary that the crime must be seen to have been committed and must, in all circumstances be proved by direct ocular evidence by examining before the Court those persons who had seen its commission. The offence can be proved by circumstantial evidence also.
The principal fact or factum probandum may be proved indirectly by means of certain inferences drawn from factum probans, that is, the evidentiary facts. To put it differently circumstantial evidence is not direct to the point in issue but consists of evidence of various other facts which are so closely associated FIR no. 327/08 Page ........47/81 with the fact in issue that taken together they form a chain of circumstances from which the existence of the principal fact can be legally inferred or presumed.
11. 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 Vs. State of Rajasthan AIR (1977 SC 1063); Eradu and Ors. Vs. State of Hyderabad (AIR 1956 SC 316); Earabhadrappa Vs State of Karnataka (AIR 1983 SC 446); State of U.P Vs Sukhbasi and Ors, (AIR 1985 SC 1224); Balwinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab (AIR 1987 SC 350); Ashok Kumar Chatterjee Vs 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 Vs. State of Punjab (AIR 1954 SC 621), it was laid down that where the 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 FIR no. 327/08 Page ........48/81 reasonable doubt.
12. We may also make a reference to a decision of this court in C. Chenga Reddy and Ors Vs. 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........"
18. A reference may be made to a later decision in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs State of Maharasthra, (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 FIR no. 327/08 Page ........49/81 infirmity of lacuna in prosecution cannot be cured by false defence or plea. The 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
FIR no. 327/08 Page ........50/81
evidence so compete 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.
50) Even our own High Court in Arun @ Kharag Singh
appellant Vs. State of Government of NCT respondent in
Criminal appeal no. 1052/09, Judgment dated 05/08/2010 has analyzed the requirement of proof in a case based on circumstantial evidence as under: "It is a settled proposition of law that in a case based on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances from which a conclusion of guilt is sought to be drawn should be fully and firmly established and should be conclusive in nature and tendencey. The circumstances, taken together, must form a chain which is complete, leaving no material gap in between and should be incompatible with any hypothesis other than that of the guilty of the accused. The circumstances established against the accused must show that in all probability, no one, other than him, had committed the crime for which he was indicted."
51) I have closely scrutinized the evidence and the material on record to find out whether the prosecution has succeeded in fulfilling the above requirement and has established its case beyond reasonable doubts.
FIR no. 327/08 Page ........51/81 52) Now, I proceed to discuss the circumstances enumerated in
para. no. 48 of the judgment to find out whether the circumstances have been established by the prosecution and the chain of the circumstances has been completed or not?
53) With regard to circumstanceA, B and C, PW7 Shanker Lal has stated that on 28/6/2008 he had called his brotherinlaws Guddu and Chotu at Connaught place for bringing his daughter from Mathura and both of them reached at Connaught place at about 8.30am and a taxi of Butta Singh brotherinlaw of Amarjit Singh was hired and brought at Connaught Place and Guddu and Chotu were accompanied by accused Ravinder Rathi; all these there persons then went from there in the taxi of Butta Singh at about 9.00am; at about 4.00pm all these persons came to his office alongwith his daughter Pinki and he paid the hire charges to taxi driver Butta Singh and then they left his office immediately. In his crossexamination he has stated that his brotherinlaws Chotu and Guddu were knowing accused Ravinder Rathi and he came to know this fact on 28/6/2008 as he had inquired from them about his identity when he came with them in his office.
54) PW8 Chotu has deposed that accused Ravinder Rathi had accompanied them from Sonia Vihar and reached with them at Connaught place where Shankar Lal met them and arranged one Indica car no. 6692 and he alongwith Guddu and accused Ravinder FIR no. 327/08 Page ........52/81 Rathi went to Mathura. He further deposed that they returned to Delhi from Mathura alongwith daughter of Shankar Lal at about 3.00pm4.00pm and accused asked the driver of Indica car Butta Singh for going to Bullandshahr for chhuchhak of his sister but Butta Singh showed his inability and assured him to arrange another taxi. He further deposed that he alongwith accused Ravinder Rathi and Guddu sat in the car of Butta Singh and reached at Timarpur Taxi stand Tpoint where another vehicle no. 0870 was arranged for accused Ravinder Rathi. Thus, the deposition of these witnesses has established the circumstance A, B and C beyond any reasonable doubt.
55) With regard to circumstance D, PW1 Ajit Singh father of deceased has deposed that on 28/6/2008 Butta Singh taxi driver working at Balakram Taxi stand near their taxi stand came at about 2.00pm in his Indica car along with three passengers and told him that those passengers wanted to go to Bullandshahr and would return by evening. He further deposed that one of those passengers was a tall boy and he had correctly identified the accused Ravinder Rathi as the said tall boy (passenger) stating that he has told him that they would return in the evening after attending the family of his sister at Bullandshahr who had been blessed with a baby; the other two passengers remained sitting in the car and did not have any conversation with him. He further deposed that his son FIR no. 327/08 Page ........53/81 Devender @ Pammu took those three passengers in Indica no. DL 3CW 0870 to Bullandshahr and left the taxi stand at about 2.00pm; his son did not return in the evening.
56) PW4 Butta Singh in that regard deposed that he reached at Timarpur taxi stand alongwith accused Ravinder Rathi, Chotu and Guddu because Ravinder Rathi had asked him to arrange another taxi; at Timarpur taxi stand (deceased Devender) son of Ajit Singh and Balbir Singh met him; accused Ravinder Rathi alongwith Guddu and Chotu took the taxi of Devender S/o Ajit Singh and left the taxi stand for going to Bullandshahr in taxi no. DL 3CW 0870.
57) Similarly, PW12 Balbir Singh who had been running a taxi at Timarpur Taxi stand has also corroborated PW1 Ajit Singh and PW4 Butta Singh on all material points regarding hiring of taxi by accused Ravinder Rathi and going in the taxi alongwith Guddu and Chotu bearing no. DL 3CW 0870. He categorically deposed that Butta Singh came in his indica taxi no. DL 3C 6692 alongwith three passengers and accused Ravinder Rathi present in the court came out of the said Indica and stated that he had to go to Bullandshahr for giving "Chhuchhak" of his sister who has been blessed with a baby; accused Ravinder Rathi further told that they would come back around 11.00pm; on this he sent his nephew Devender @ Pammu with his Indica car no. DL 3CW 0870 as driver; father of Devender was also present when Devender left with his indica for FIR no. 327/08 Page ........54/81 Bullandshahr alongwith those passengers brought by Butta Singh; Devender with his Indica did not return on the said night and even on the next day. Even in his crossexamination on behalf of accused persons he has stated that he and Devender were the only drivers available on the taxi stand at that time and Ajit Singh father of Devender had also come there when Devender was leaving with his Indica taxi and the passengers.
58) Thus, there is nothing in the crossexamination of material witness so as to discredit their testimony regarding their having been present at Tikona Park Taxi Stand Timarpur when accused Ravinder Rathi had hired taxi of Devender for going to Bullandshahr and has actually left the taxi stand alongwith Chotu and Guddu. Thus circumstance D stands duly established beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution.
59) With regard to circumstanceE, PW8 Chotu stated that on 28/6/2008 when he alongwith Guddu reached at Sonia Vihar in an Auto for going to Connaught place having been called by Shankar Lal, the accused Ravinder Kumar Rathi met them; he knew accused Ravinder Rathi as he was working as a conductor on a jeep and at that time he was working on the jeep as driver; the accused Ravinder Rathi asked them as to where they were going and when they told him that they were going to Mathura to bring daughter of Shankar Lal, the accused Ravinder Rathi sat with them and then FIR no. 327/08 Page ........55/81 they all reached at Connaught place. He has further deposed that all of them went to Mathura in the taxi of Butta Singh and returned at Timarpur Taxi stand where Butta Singh arranged another taxi no. 0870 for accused Ravinder Rathi; He alongwith Guddu got down at Sonia Vihar and the driver alongwith accused Ravinder Rathi had gone to Bullandshahr. In his crossexamination he has stated that accused Ravinder Rathi met them alone at Nanaksar, Sonia Vihar at about 8.30am and because of friendship accused Ravinder Rathi accompanied them to Mathura; they reached at Timarpur at about 4.00pm and only one taxi was stationed at Tikona park Timarpur taxi stand. In his crossexamination he has denied the suggestion that after returning from Mathura accused Ravinder Rathi was dropped at Sonia Vihar at about 5.45pm.
60) Similarly, PW9 Guddu has deposed that accused Ravinder Rathi accompanied them to Mathura on 28/6/2008 and accused Ravinder Rathi asked the driver of the taxi for going to Bullandshahr as he wanted to go for giving chhuchhak of his sister but the taxi driver refused and told accused Ravinder Rathi that he would arrange another taxi for him; they all then reached at Timarpur taxi stand where another taxi was hired for accused Ravinder Rathi for going to Mathura; he alongwith Chotu had also sat in that taxi no. 0870 and he alongwith Chotu got down from the said taxi at Sonia Vihar red light and accused Ravinder Rathi went FIR no. 327/08 Page ........56/81 with the driver of taxi no. 0870 to his destination.
61) From the crossexamination of Guddu and Chotu, it becomes apparent that it has been admitted on behalf of accused Ravinder Rathi that he had gone with Guddu and Chotu but had got down at Sonia Vihar from the taxi of Butta Singh and then Guddu and Chotu had gone to Timarpur Taxi stand. No evidence has been led by accused Ravinder Rathi to establish the fact that he had not gone to Timarpur Tikona Park taxi stand alongwith Guddu and Chotu and had got down at Sonia Vihar. In his statement U/S 313 Cr. P. C. he has admitted that he along with Guddu and Chotu had gone to Timarpur Taxi stand, where taxi was taken but he got donw in the taxi at Sonia Vihar. Considering the unchallenged testimony of PW1 Ajit Singh, PW4 Butta Singh and PW12 Balbir Singh, I find no substance in the version of accused Ravinder Rathi that he had got down at Sonia Vihar even in the taxi of Butta Singh. The circumstanceE has been established beyond reasonable doubt.
62) With regard to circumstance F and G, the testimony of PW1 Ajit Singh and PW13 Dharmpal Singh regarding their conversation with the deceased at 8.45pm and 10.50pm respectively is unchallenged and there is nothing to discredit their version. Moreover, their testimony has been corroborated by the call details Ex. PW11/A and Ex. PW11/B of the mobile no. 9211274161 which was with the deceased in his taxi. The call details Ex. PW11/A is FIR no. 327/08 Page ........57/81 showing the incoming call on the above mobile of deceased on 28/6/2008 at 22.13.30 from mobile no. 9873118745 which corresponds to the conversation between the deceased and PW13 Dharmpal Singh. PW13 Dharmpal has deposed that on the night of 28/06/2008 at about 10.15pm he had called Devender on his mobile no. 9211274161 from his mobile no. 9873118745 and Devender told him that he was present on the road of Anoop Shahar at Bullandshahr and the passengers had been taking liquor on a tea stall and he was sitting in the taxi and would come in the morning.
63) Similarly, the call details Ex. PW11/A showing the out going calls from the mobile of the deceased on 28/6/2008 at 20.43.16 to the mobile no. 9871556033. The said call was made to his father PW1Ajit Singh by the deceased. This record thus corroborates the deposition of PW1 Ajit Singh wherein he has stated that he had received a telephonic call from his son at about 8.45pm in the night who informed him that he would return on the next day as the passengers were refusing to return as they wanted to go to their village. He has further deposed that he had received the call on the mobile no. 9871556033 from the mobile no. 9211274161. PW11 Shri M. N. Vijayan, Nodal officer of TATA Indicom has proved the certificate u/s 65 B (4) (c) of the Indian Evidence Act regarding the call details of mobile no. 9211274161 as Ex. PW11/C stating that the call details have been produced from the computer FIR no. 327/08 Page ........58/81 system by using the printer and the contents were true reproduction of the original to the best of his knowledge and belief.
64) In order to prove that the deceased was having the mobile no. 9211274161 the PW17 Jerry Denial has been examined who has stated that two years back he has purchased mobile no. 9211274161 from the shop at Bhajanpura after giving photocopy of his DL as IDproof and handed over the said SIM card to his friend's brother Devender @ Pappu who was working as a taxi driver at Tikona Park. He further stated that the said mobile used by the Devender was obtained on the address of A65/1 Gali no. 8 Bhajanpura Delhi. In his crossexamination he has stated that name of brother of deceased Devender was Happy and Happy was known to him for the last four years as he studied with Happy in 9th 10th class and also used to play cricket with him and at that time he was having two SIMs. The deposition of these witnesses has established that the deceased was having mobile no. 9211274161 with him in the taxi and had conversation from the said mobile to his father PW1 Ajit Singh and PW13 Dharmpal Singh on the fateful night of 28/6/2008 sometime before his murder.
65) With regard to circumstanceH , PW1 Ajit Singh stated that next day his son did not return for the whole day and they waited for his return till next morning and on the third day in the morning he called Butta Singh and then he and Butta Singh went to Connaught FIR no. 327/08 Page ........59/81 Place to meet Shankar who told them that Guddu and Chotu were his brotherinlaws and Ravinder Rathi was their friend and thus disclosed the identity of those three passengers to them; he made the application to the police on 30/6/2008 at Police Station Timarpur which was Ex. PW1/A; on the next day i.e 01/07/2008 at about 1.00pm in the Police Station his statement Ex. PW1/B was recorded and case FIR was registered. He further deposed that he came to know that the dead body of his son Devender was found in Bullandshahr and then took his dead body and cremated him in native village Chhajja, District Roper, Punjab.
66) PW2 Sucha Singh has identified the dead body of Devender on 02/7/2008 at Bullandshahr U.P vide his statement Ex. PW2/A stating that after postmortem of the dead body the same was handed over to them from mortuary Bullandshahr U.P vide Ex. PW2/B.
67) PW4 Butta Singh has deposed that after hiring taxi of Devender by accused Ravinder Rathi and others he left the taxi stand and had gone to his duty at Gurgaon; on 2nd or 3rd day Ajit Singh made a telephonic call to him informing him that his son did not return. He further deposed that Shankar gave them a telephone number of an old person living at the house of Ravinder Rathi and Sucha Singh brother of Ajit Singh made a telephonic call to the said old person to know about Ravinder Rathi and the old man told that house of Ravinder Rathi was locked as they had gone to Village of FIR no. 327/08 Page ........60/81 his sister. He further deposed that Guddu and Chotu were traced at Bhajanpur but Chotu told that he was not knowing the house of Ravinder Rathi and in these circumstances Ajit Singh lodged a complaint with the police on 30/6/2008 about his son and his taxi. Thus circumstanceH stands established beyond reasonable doubt.
68) With regard to circumstance I, J and K, the deposition of PW20 Sher Mohd , PW22 SI B .S. Rawat and PW23 Vijay Bahadur has established that dead body of Devender was found in the field of PW20 Sher Mohd at Village Dholi by PW23 Vijay Bahadur near his field at a distance of about 700 meters from the main road to link road of Bullandshahr to Anoop Shahr. PW23 who has noticed the dead body has stated that one belt and one handkerchief were lying in the neck of the dead body and it appeared that someone had murdered by throttling with belt and handkerchief. He has informed the police at police station Nai Mandi Dehat Bullandshahr where SI B.S.Rawat PW22 reached there and prepared the Punchnama of dead body vide Ex. PW22/B. PW23 Vijay Bahadur has identified the belt Ex. P9 and piece of cloth Ex. P8 stating that it were the same which he had seen in the neck of the dead body. PW22 SI B.S.Rawat has proved the photographs of the dead body Ex. PW22/C, Ex.PW22/C1 and Ex.PW22/C3. (It seems that the photograph Ex. PW22/C1 and Ex.PW22/C3 has been inadvertently exhibited as photographs of dead body whereas these are the FIR no. 327/08 Page ........61/81 photographs of the Indica car of the deceased and the photograph of the dead body having a visible cloth in his neck is Ex. PW22/C). He has also proved the information of an unidentified dead body in his handwriting and its photocopy Ex. PW22/D. Thus, these circumstances I to K has been established by the prosecution which has proved that the dead body of Devender was found in the fields near the main Highway to link road of Bullandshahr to Anoop Shahr and the belt Ex. P9 and handkerchief Ex. P8 were in the neck of the deceased.
69) With regard to circumstance L, M, N and O, PW21 Dr. M. L. Aggarwal who has conducted postmortem on the dead body of Devender has opined that the death was due to asphyxia as a result of strangulation and the time since death was about 3/4th day (about 18 hours before postmortem). As per his report the handkerchief Ex. P8 was removed from the neck of the dead body after cutting the handkerchief. According to the deposition of PW13 Dharmpal Singh he had conversation with the deceased at about 10.45pm in the night of 28/6/2008 and the deceased told him that he was present at Anoop Shahr, Bullandshahr and passengers were taking liquor on a tea stall. The postmortem was conducted at about 4.30pm on 29/6/2008. This fact establishes that the deceased was murdered around 12.00 'O' clock in the night of 28/6/2008 because the place of death has been established to be near the link road of FIR no. 327/08 Page ........62/81 Bullandshahr to Anoop Shahr as was discussed in the conversation between the deceased and PW13Dharmpal Singh.
70) The death has been caused by strangulation using handkerchief and belt also stands established from the fact that the handkerchief Ex. P8 was found tied in the neck of the deceased at the time of postmortem and the belt Ex. P9 and the Ex. P8 were also found in the neck of the dead body when the same was taken into possession by PW22 SI B.S. Rawat. The human blood has been detected on belt Ex. P9 vide FSL report Ex.PW15/B. Thus, these circumstances have been sufficiently established by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.
71) With regard to circumstance P, the deposition of PW1 Ajit Singh, PW4 Butta Singh, PW12 Balbir Singh, PW8 Chotu and PW9 Guddu has sufficiently established that the deceased Devender had left the taxi stand alongwith his taxi no. DL3CW 0870 in the company of accused Ravinder Rathi, PW9 Guddu and PW8 Chotu and Guddu and Chotu got down at Sonia Vihar and deceased Devender had gone with accused Ravinder Rathi in his taxi to Bullandshahr after 4.00pm. The deceased has informed his father on telephone at about 8.45pm that passengers were not returning and he would return in the morning. It is also established from the deposition of PW13 Dharampal that deceased Devender has called on his telephone at about 10.15pm when he was present at Anoop FIR no. 327/08 Page ........63/81 Shahar, Bullandshahr alongwith the passengers. As per postmortem report the possible time of death of deceased Devender was midnight on or before 12.00 "O" clock. It is also established that the passenger in the taxi of the deceased Devender was accused Ravinder Rathi when he had left Sonia Vihar alongwith deceased in his taxi no. DL 3CW 0870 after hiring the same from Tikona Park, Timarpur taxi stand and left Sonia Vihar after 4.00pm on 28/06/2008. Thus, it is established that accused Ravinder Rathi being passenger in the taxi of deceased Devender was with him till past 10.00 pm on 28/6/2008 before his death about midnight. Thus the time gap when the deceased was alive in the company of accused and his death was not very large. This circumstance also stands established conclusively from the evidence on record which leads to the conclusion that it was accused Ravinder Rathi who is author of crime. Reliance can be placed on Raju Vs. The State 2009 III AD (SC) 610 wherein it was held that: " According to him (PW7) he had seen the deceased and the accused engaged in wordy tussle around 9.00 p.m. The wife of the deceased PW1 found his dead body at about 9.30 p.m. The time gap when the deceased was last seen alive in the company of the accused and when his dead body was seen is not very large. Admittedly, the bone of contention between the deceased and FIR no. 327/08 Page ........64/81 the accused was non payment of the commission on account of which they were quarreling. The trial Court and the High Court have rightly held the appellant to be the author of the crime."
72) With regard to circumstance Q, according to the prosecution case, motive of crime was to rob personal belongings of the deceased and also his taxi and sell the same for money. Ld Addl. PP for the State pointed out that all the accused persons has admitted in their disclosure statement that taxi was kept in the possession of accused Lalit Kumar Mishra for selling the same and the same has been recovered at the instance of accused Lalit Kumar Mishra in the area where accused Ravinder Rathi also residing. Ld Addl. PP for the State further argued that mobile and other personal belongings had been got recovered by the accused persons which established that they had committed murder for stealing articles including his taxi.
73) Regarding the motive of crime, in Dhananjay Chattarjee Vs. State of Bangal,1995 AIR SCW,510, the Hon'ble Apex court has observed that in a case based on circumstantial evidence, the existence of motive assumed significance though the absence of motive does not necessarily discredit the prosecution case, if the case stands otherwise established by other conclusive circumstances FIR no. 327/08 Page ........65/81 and the chain of circumstantial evidence is so complete and is consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and inconsistent with the hypothesis of his innocence .
74) In the present case there is sufficient evidence on record to show that the accused had a motive to commit murder of deceased and there is no substance in the arguments as advanced on behalf of accused persons that they had been falsely implicated.
75) Ld Amicus Curiae has questioned the relevancy and admissibility of the deposition of PW1, PW4, PW12 and PW13 on the ground that they were relative/friend of the deceased and are hostile and inimical to the accused persons and thus falsely implicated them. In that regard the Hon'ble Apex Court in Harbans Kaur vs. State of Haryana reported as 2005 (1) JCC 490 was pleased to hold that when a plea of partiality is raised regarding testimony of related witnesses, the reason has to be shown for that and it has to be established that they have reason to shield actual culprit and falsely implicate the accused.
76) Reliance can be placed upon Arjun Mahto Vs. State of Bihar , 2008 V AD (Cr.) (SC) 19. Para no. 5 and 6 are relevant and reads as under: Para. 5: Merely because the eyewitnesses are family members their evidence cannot per se be discarded. When there is allegation of interestedness, the same has to be FIR no. 327/08 Page ........66/81 established. Mere statement that being relatives of the deceased they are likely to falsely implicate the accused cannot be a ground to discard the evidence which is otherwise cogent and credible. We shall also deal with the contention regarding interestedness of the witnesses for furthering prosecution version. Relationship is not a factor to affect credibility of a witness. It is more often than not that a relation would not conceal actual culprit and make allegations against an innocent person. Foundation has to be laid if plea of false implication is made. In such cases, the court has to adopt a careful approach and analyse evidence to find out whether it is cogent and credible.
Para. 6 :In Dalip Singh and Ors. Vs. The State of Punjab (AIR 1953 SC 364) it has been laid down as under: "A witness is normally to be considered independent unless he or she springs from sources which are likely to be tainted and that usually means unless the witness has cause, such as enmity against the accused, to wish to implicate him falsely. Ordinarily a close relation would be the last to screen the real culprit and falsely implicate an innocent person. It is true, when feelings run high and there is personal cause for enmity, that there is a tendency to drag in an innocent person against whom a witness has a grudge along with the guilty, but foundation must be laid for FIR no. 327/08 Page ........67/81 such a criticism and the mere fact of relationship far from being a foundation is often a sure guarantee of truth. However, we are not attempting any sweeping generalization. Each case must be judged on its own facts. Our observations are only made to combat what is so often put forward in cases before us as a general rule of prudence.
There is no such general rule. Each case must
be limited to and be governed by its own
facts.
The testimony of these public witnesses PW1, PW4, PW12 and PW13 is found to be natural and coherent and they have successfully with stood the test of the crossexamination and I find no reason to disbelieve their testimony just because they are relative and family friend of the deceased.
77) With regard to circumstance R, S and T, PW1 Ajit Singh and PW4 Butta Singh has deposed that after identification of the passengers they searched the mobile number of an old man living in the neighborhood of accused Ravinder Rathi and contacted him who told him that accused Ravinder Rathi and his family had been gone to Bullandshahr and their house was locked. He was apprehended at the instance of secret informer when he was roaming in the Yamuna Pusta and was identified by Ajit Singh and Butta Singh. Regarding admission of his guilt in his disclosure statement, the same is no doubt cannot be read in evidence against him being hit by Section FIR no. 327/08 Page ........68/81 25 of the Indian Evidence Act. There is no much relevancy of the pointing out memo of the place of occurrence by accused Ravinder Rathi because the defence can always raise a question that the said place of occurrence was already become known to the prosecution and the witnesses before arrest of the accused.
78) However, there are certain replies given by the accused Ravinder Rathi in his statement u/s 313 CrPC wherein either he has falsely replied some of the questions or some of his replies have linked him with hiring of the taxi of the deceased Devender in the presence of his father Ajit Singh. One such question his question no. 10 in his statement u/s 313 CrPC which is reproduced as under
alongwith reply: "Question:It is in evidence against you that other two passengers were sitting in the car did not have any conversation with Ajit Singh What do you say?
Ans. It is incorrect. Chhottu and Guddu both had talk with Ajit Singh and I did not have any conversation with Ajit Singh."
79) Reply to the question no. 4 also proves that accused Ravinder Rathi was present at Timarpur Taxi stand at about 4.00pm and same are reproduced as under: "Question:It is in evidence against you that on 28/6/08 Buta Singh PW4 reached at the taxi stand of Ajit Singh at about 2pm in Indica car no. DL 3CAF 6692 alongwith three passengers including you and Guddu and Chhottu. What do you say?
Ans. It is correct that I was with Buta Singh, Guddu and Chhottu in the taxi of Buta Singh, number I do not remember and we reached at a taxi stand in Timarpur at about 4pm and I do not know if taxi stand was of Ajit Singh."
FIR no. 327/08 Page ........69/81 80) His reply to question no. 7 also establishes that he had gone
in the taxi of Devender from Tikona Park Taxi Stand . He has not led any evidence to prove that he had got down from the taxi at Nanaksar stand after crossing Wazirabad, Yamunapar and his other reply is found to be false and contradictory to the evidence of the prosecution against him.
81) Similarly, question no. 9 and its reply also proves that accused Ravinder Rathi was present at the time of hiring of the taxi of Devender S/o Ajit Singh and are reproduced as under: "Question:It is in evidence against you that you one of those passengers told to Ajit Singh PW1 that you all were returned in the evening after attending the family of his sister at Bullandshahr who was blessed with a baby. What do you say?
Ans. It is incorrect. I did not tell to Ajit Singh that we will come in the evening and the above fact was told to Ajit Singh by Chhottu."
82) Similarly, he has given false reply to the question no. 14 that he was present at his house at that time and was not with the other passengers.
83) Moreover, in reply to the question no. 48 he has stated that "It is correct that we reached at Timarpur taxi stand at about 4pm".
84) Similarly, he has given false reply to the question no. 53 where he has stated that "Chotu booked the taxi and I do not know if the taxi driver was Devender and I got down at Sonia Vihar and did not go with them."
85) Again he has given false reply to the question no. 81 FIR no. 327/08 Page ........70/81
wherein he has denied that he pointed out the place of occurrence where he has thrown the dead body after committing murder because Investigating Officer had prepared the pointing out memo Ex. PW16/A in the presence of Ct. Pankaj of local police who joined the investigation with SI Sahab Singh and Ct. Jitender.
86) In State of Maharashtra Vs. Suresh reported as JT 1999 (9) SC 513, It was held that the false answer offered by accused when his attention was drawn to the aforesaid circumstance (incriminating circumstance) renders that circumstance capable of inculpating him . In a situation like this such a false answer can also be counted as providing "a missing link" for completing the chain .
Earlier also in Swapan Patra V. State of West Bengal , (1999) 9 SCC 242, the Supreme Court held that in a case of circumstantial evidence when the accused offers an explanation and that explanation is found not to be true then the same offers an additional link in the chain of circumstances to complete the chain.
The above principle have been reiterated in Anthony D'Souza Vs. State of Karnataka 2003 CRI. L. J. 434, The full Bench of Supreme Court consisting of Hon'ble R.C. Lahoti, Brijesh Kumar and H. K. Sema, JJ opined in para. 15 as under:
"By now it is well established principle of law that in a case of circumstantial evidence where an accused offers false answer in his FIR no. 327/08 Page ........71/81 examination under 313 CrPC against the established facts that can be counted as providing a missing link for completing the chain."
87) Thus the above discussion shows that evidence of the prosecution has sufficiently established that it was accused Ravinder Rathi who had hired the taxi of deceased Devender from Timarpur Taxi stand and had gone to Bullandshahr on the pretext of giving chhuchhak of his sister and had been present with deceased till midnight when he was murdered. The false reply to some of the questions has to be considered to be completing the missing link if any in the evidence so as to establish by circumstantial evidence that accused Ravinder Rathi was the author of crime of murder of deceased.
88) With regard to circumstance U, V, W and X, in order to link the accused Laljit @ Sonu and Lalit Mishra with the commission of murder of deceased Devender in furtherance of their common intention with accused Ravinder Rathi, the prosecution tired to establish their guilt by proving that both the accused persons were arrested at the instance of accused Ravinder Rathi and accused Lalit Mishra got recovered the car of the deceased bearing no. DL3CW 0870 from Sonia Vihar, 3rd Pusta near C and D block in pursuant to disclosure statement Ex. PW27/C.
89) The prosecution has tried to prove the guilt of accused Laljit @ Sonu and Lalit Mishra by proving the recovery of mobile FIR no. 327/08 Page ........72/81 Ex. P1 and Indica car Ex. P15 alongwith number plate from accused Laljit @ Sonu and Lalit Mishra respectively. There is no other admissible evidence against them except their disclosure statement and the recovery of these articles at their instance. With regard to the recovery of mobile phone allegedly belonging to the deceased at the instance of accused Laljit @ Sonu, PW27 HC Raj Kumar has stated that accused Lalit Kumar Mishra and Laljit were arrested at the instance of accused Ravinder Rathi; next day on their arrest they were produced in the court and and all the three accused persons i.e Laljit @ Sonu, Lalit Mishra and Vijay (facing trial before JJ court) were on Police Custody remand and were interrogated by the Investigating Officer but they did not disclose anything and were kept in the lockup; on 05/7/2008 they again taken out from the lock up and accused Laljit @ Sonu disclosed regarding mobile phone and he has led the police party to his house from where he got recovered one mobile from his room which was kept in the almirah behind the books and disclosed that the said mobile was belonged to deceased Devender and further stated that he had put SIM card of his own mobile. Witness has however proved the recovery of the said TATA Indicom mobile of black colour alongwith SIM and battery vide Ex. PW18/A. In his cross examination he has stated that they reached at the house of accused Laljit at about 8.30/8.45pm; there were other houses situated near the house of FIR no. 327/08 Page ........73/81 accused Laljit; he could not tell the number of the house; he did not remember who had entered the house of accused Laljit; he did not remember who was present at the house of accused Laljit except the accused; he did not remember any neighbour was called or not. The mobile was got recovered on 05/7/2008 at about 1.00pm; he entered the room where mobile was got recovered by the accused but he did not remember regarding the other police officials who had entered in the room; no site plan was prepared at the place of recovery of mobile and he did not remember who had prepared the seizure memo. PW18 Samarpal who was also witness of recovery of said mobile has stated that he alongwith HC Raj Kumar and Investigating Officer and the accused entered in the room from where the recovery of the mobile was effected; one almirah and bed alongwith some other small articles were lying in the room; the almirah was made of iron and after taking the key from the top of the almirah it was opened by the accused; he did not remember any site plan was prepared by the Investigating Officer or not; family members of the Laljit were not allowed to enter in the room at the time of recovery of the mobile, Investigating Officer did not call any public person at the time of recovery.
90) Ld Amicus Curiae pointed out that HC Raj Kumar has stated nothing about the almirah and the opening of the almirah by the accused and has contradicted PW18 SI Samarpal in that regard.
FIR no. 327/08 Page ........74/81 Investigating Officer PW30 Ram Avtar Meena in that regard stated that house of the accused Laljit was single storey; he did not remember as to how many rooms were there; father and mother and some other children were present there; no site plan was prepared at the place of recovery of mobile phone. He has stated in his cross examination that no recovery was effected from accused Laljit on 03/7/2008; the house of accused Laljit was situated in the thickly populated area; he asked neighbours to join the investigation but he cannot tell their names; he did not remember the house number of accused Laljit. Ld Amicus Curiae pointed out that Investigating Officer had contradicted other two witnesses on the point of joining of the public witnesses as SI Samarpal has stated that no public witness was asked to join by the Investigating Officer. Ld Amicus Curiae further argued that accused was arrested and disclosure was allegedly made on 03/7/2008 whereas the alleged recovery was effected after 23 days i.e on 05/7/2008 which shows that alleged mobile has been planted and there are material contradictions in the deposition by the witnesses and no site plan was prepared and no public witness was joined at the time of alleged recovery and as such prosecution has miserably failed to prove the recovery of mobile phone of deceased from accused Laljit @ Sonu.
91) As per seizure memo Ex. PW27/E accused Laljit was arrested on 03/7/2008 at about 9.15pm. The disclosure statement FIR no. 327/08 Page ........75/81 Ex. PW27/G was allegedly made on the same day i.e 03/07/2008. It was admitted by the Investigating Officer that nothing was recovered at the instance of accused Laljit on 03/7/2008. The alleged recovery of mobile phone from accused Laljit vide recovery memo Ex. PW 18/A was done on 05/7/2008 and no public witness was joined and no site plan at the place of recovery was prepared and no photograph of the almirah where the alleged mobile was kept by the accused were taken by the Investigating Officer. The presence of family members and their accessibility to the alleged placed of recovery is not ruled out by the prosecution. The prosecution thus miserably failed to prove that alleged mobile was in the exclusive possession of the accused. Moreover, the recovery of the said mobile on 05/7/2008 could not be established beyond reasonable doubt in pursuance of disclosure statement and the chances of the planting of alleged mobile at the place of recovery is not ruled out. Regarding the recovery of the car and its number plate at the instance of accused Lalit Mishra, Ld Amicus Curiae has vehementally argued that car was allegedly recovered at his instance at about ½KM from the house of accused Lalit from a street; no public witness was joined at the time of alleged recovery despite the area being thickly populated area and no site plan of alleged recovery of place at the instance of accused was prepared; regarding recovery of number plate of the Indica car vide memo Ex.PW27/ I FIR no. 327/08 Page ........76/81 at the instance of accused Lalit Mishra it is argued that the same has been allegedly recovered after 3 days of his disclosure statement and moreover the place of recovery was not in the exclusive possession of the accused and chances of its planting at the place is not ruled out. PW27 HC Raj Kumar has stated that accused Ravinder Rathi was on police remand and led them to the house of accused Lalit Kumar Mishra at house no. 449, Gali no.2, Tisra Pusta, Sonia Vihar and raid was conducted in this house and accused Lalit Kumar Mishra was duly identified by the accused Ravinder Rathi and was apprehended and was brought out of the house to the police vehicle where he was interrogated by the Investigating Officer and arrested vide arrest memo Ex. PW27/A. He further stated that accused made his disclosure statement Ex.PW27/C and thereafter led them to the Sonia Vihar, C and D block Tistra Pusta on the side of the road of C block from where he pointed out towards a vehicle Indica car bearing no. DL 3CW 0870 of sliver colour; the Indica car was taken into possession vide memo Ex. PW27/D. In the crossexamination he has stated that they have reached at the house of accused Lalit Mishra at about 5.30pm in the evening; the house was situated in residential area; public persons were asked to stop at a some distance as it was thickly populated area; the full team alongwith the accused Ravinder Rathi had entered in the house of accused Lalit Kumar Mishra; he did not FIR no. 327/08 Page ........77/81 remember who was present at the house of accused Lalit Kumar Mishra and also cannot tell the number of the room in his house. PW28 SI Sahab Singh has stated that accused Lalit Mishra got recovered the car of deceased from Sonia Vihar third Pusta C and D block and car was sent to the police station by one staff member. The name of the said staff member is not disclosed by the prosecution. Ld Amicus Curiae pointed out that examination of that person was necessary to prove that the car was allegedly recovered from Third Pusta. Ld Amicus Curiae therefore submitted that non examination of this witness has left the alleged recovery doubtful especially in the circumstance when no public witness was joined and no site plan of the place of recovery was made. Investigating Officer PW30 Ram Avtar Meena has also stated that the car was sent to the Police Station by one staff member and he has failed to disclose the name of the said staff member. In his crossexamination he has stated that car no. DL 3CW 0870 was recovered from Sonia Vihar and the distance between the house of the accused and the place from where the car was recovered was about ½ KM. He further stated that no site plan was prepared at the place of recovery of the car and number plate. The above deposition of these recovery witnesses shows that the Investigating Officer has failed to join public witness despite their availability in number at the time of alleged recovery of car at the instance of accused Lalit Mishra. He FIR no. 327/08 Page ........78/81 has failed to prepare the site plan of the place of recovery. Investigating Officer however failed to disclose the name of the staff member who has taken the car from the spot of the recovery to the Police station. It cannot be stated that the car standing at the place ½ KM from the house of the accused on the road was in the exclusive knowledge and possession of the accused. Because of the above discrepancies in the investigation the prosecution has failed to establish the recovery of the car of the deceased at the instance of accused Lalit Mishra beyond reasonable doubt.
92) Admittedly, there is no other admissible evidence against the accused Lalit Mishra and Laljit to link them with the offence of commission of murder of deceased in furtherance of their common intention with the accused Ravinder Rathi. Nothing is brought on record by the prosecution to show that accused Lalit Mishra and Laljit were known to the accused Ravinder Rathi. Nothing is alleged on behalf of prosecution about the antecedents of these two accused persons and their involvement in similar offences. None has seen these accused persons i.e Laljit and Lalit Kumar Mishra sitting in that car of the deceased and nothing was communicated by the deceased to his father and PW13Dharmpal Singh in their telephonic conversation about the description of these two accused persons.
93) Nothing is brought on record by the prosecution that driver of the Indica car (deceased) was forced or compelled or by any FIR no. 327/08 Page ........79/81 deceitful means was induced by accused Ravinder Rathi and others to Bullandshar in his Indica car . Further the evidence on record is not sufficient to prove that the personal belongings and the taxi no. DL 3CW 0870 after murder of its driver deceased Devender were stolen by the accused persons. The recovery of the said vehicle at the instance of accused persons cannot be established beyond reasonable doubt. Evidence on record is not sufficient to prove the offence u/s 365,392/34IPC as well as 411/34 IPC separately framed against accused Laljit and Lalit Kumar Mishra. Accused Lalit and Lalit Kumar Mishra are accordingly acquitted from the charges framed against them.
94) From the above discussions, I am of the considered opinion that from the evidence of the prosecution it has been established that in the night of 28/6/2008at a distance of about 700800 meters from the main road link to Anoop Shahr to road to Bullandshahr in the fields of Dholi village district Bullandshahr, U.P, accused Ravinder Rathi has committed murder of deceased Devender @ Pammu. The prosecution has succeeded in proving its case against the accused Ravinder Rathi for the offence under section 302 IPC by establishing all the circumstances conclusively and by completing the chain of circumstantial evidence which is so complete and consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and inconsistent with the hypothesis of his innocence. The FIR no. 327/08 Page ........80/81 circumstances are conclusively established and has unmistakenly linked the accused Ravinder Rathi with the offence by proving that he is the author of crime of murder of deceased. I therefore hold the accused Ravinder Rathi guilty and convict him under section 302 IPC.
95) From the evidence of the prosecution it is also established that after committing murder of deceased the dead body was thrown into the fields by accused Ravinder Rathi in order to make evidence connecting with his murder to disappear. I therefore hold the accused Ravinder Rathi guilty and convict him under section 201IPC.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 24/11/2010 (RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) ASJ/SPECIALJUDGE(NDPS (WEST)DELHI FIR no. 327/08 Page ........81/81 IN THE COURT OF SHRI RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE/SPECIAL JUDGE (NDPS) TIS HAZARI COURTS:(WEST) DELHI FIR no. 327/08 Police station Timarpur U/s 365/302/201/392/411/34 IPC State V/s Ravinder Rathi etc ORDER ON SENTENCE Present: Shri G.S Guraya , substitute Ld Addl. PP for the State.
Convict is in judicial custody with Ld. Amicus Curiae Ms. Sadhna Bhatia, advocate.
I have heard Ld Amicus Curiae for the convict who argued that the convict is of young age i.e. 25 years. He is having a family comprising old aged parents,wife and a small daughter aged 4 years . It is, therefore, submitted that in these given circumstance a lenient view may be taken against convict while awarding sentence to him.
Ld Addl. PP for the State on the other hand argued that deceased Devender was of young age and having a family dependent upon him and because of act and deeds of the convict, a life was lost in its prime youth. It is further FIR no. 327/08 Page ........82/81 submitted that convict was previously involved in another case (already acquitted) and his antecedents are not clear . Ld Addl. PP for the State, therefore, submitted that maximum sentence be awarded to the convict.
I have considered the rival submissions made at bar and also carefully examined the facts and circumstances of the case.
Considering the gravity of offence and the fact that a young life was lost because of the acts and deeds of the convict, the convict is sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 10,000/ (Rupees Ten Thousands only) for the offence u/s 302 IPC. In default of payment of fine the convict shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month.
The convict is further sentenced to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 years and to a fine of Rs.2000/ for the offence u/s 201 IPC. In default of payment of fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month.
Benefit of Section 428 CrPC is given to the convict. The period of imprisonment already suffered by him during trial be set off against the sentence of imprisonment awarded FIR no. 327/08 Page ........83/81 to the convict . Both the sentence of imprisonment shall run concurrent.
Copy of the judgment and order on sentence be supplied to convict free of cost.
File be consigned to record room.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 25th November, 2010 (RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) ASJ/SPECIALJUDGE:NDPS (WEST)DELHI FIR no. 327/08 Page ........84/81