State vs 1. Sunil Pal S/O Jai Veer Singh, on 30 September, 2014

[Cites 16, Cited by 0]

Delhi District Court

State vs 1. Sunil Pal S/O Jai Veer Singh, on 30 September, 2014

IN THE COURT OF SH. RAKESH KUMAR
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE : NORTH EAST
KARKARDOOMA COURTS : DELHI

SC No. 51/2011
FIR No. 391/2006
Police Station Khajuri Khas
U/Section 302/201/120B/34 IPC
Received on assignment 01.12.2006
Reserved for orders on 12.09.2014
Judgment announced on 30.09.2014

State V/s 1. Sunil Pal S/o Jai Veer Singh,
R/o Village Bhahu Pura, PS Sirpura,
Distt Etah, UP.
2. Smt. Bhojwati W/o Harphool Singh,
R/o C343, Gali No.2, West Karawal Nagar,
Delhi.
3. Ram Naresh Pal S/o Bir Sahai,
R/o 1094, Gali No.13, Vijay Park,
PS Bhajanpura, Delhi.
4. Bhoop Singh S/o Jaiveer Singh,
R/o Village Bhahu Pura,
PS Sirpura, Distt. Etah UP.
5. Harender S/o Fakir Chand,
R/o C16, Gali No.3, Indra Enclave,
Loni, U.P.
6. Satender S/o Raghuraj Singh,
R/o Village Manipura, P.O. Roop Dhani,
District Etah, U.P.
State Vs. Sunil Pal and ors. (SC No.51/2011) Page No.1 of pages 66
:J U D G M E N T:

1. The above named accused persons were charge sheeted
by SHO PS Khajuri Khas U/s 302/201/120B/34 IPC and have
faced trial for having committed the offences punishable under
Sec.120B IPC, Sec.302 IPC read with Sec.120B IPC and Sec.
201 IPC read with Sec.120B IPC.
2. Brief facts, as per prosecution are that on 07.09.2006 on
receipt of DD No.24A at PS Khajuri Khas to the effect that "gali
no.2, block C, H. No.343, 28 Foota Road, Karawal Nagar, ek
aadmi hamara darwaja peet raha hai, darwaja kholo, kal mere
papa ko le gaye thei, aaj tak nahi aaya", ASI Ravi Karan
reached at the spot i.e H. No.343, 28 Foota Road, Karawal
Nagar, Delhi, where Kumari Pushpa D/o Harphool Singh met
him and she told that one man was banging their door and was
trying to forcibly enter into the house, who has now left away.
Thereafter, on making inquiry by ASI Ravi Karan from Smt.
Bhojwati, the mother of Pushpa, she revealed that one Ram
Naresh, who resides at Vijay Park, Yamuna Vihar, came to
their house and after knocking the door had gone away. She
had not opened the door. Thereafter, ASI Ravi Karan
telephonically informed Insp. Ramesh Dahiya, Addl. SHO PS
Khajuri Khas the said facts and then after getting DD No.28A
recorded at 2.15 a.m during the night intervening
07/08.09.2006, Insp. Ramesh Dahiya alongwith SI Kashmira
Singh Gill, Ct. Mehfooz Ali left for the spot. On reaching at the
spot, he made inquiry from Bhojwati and Pushpa and on
coming to know that the said Ram Naresh resides at H.No.
561, Gali No.13,Vijay Park, reached at the said address, where
one person namely Ram Naresh was found present. On
making inquiry, he narrated that in the night he had gone to
take Rs.30,000/ from Bhojwati. He also narrated that one

State Vs. Sunil Pal and ors. (SC No.51/2011) Page No.2 of pages 66
Sunil, his one of the relatives and the tenant of Bhojwati, had
telephonically talked with him on 05.09.2006 for getting
Herphool, the husband of Bhojwati, killed, for which he
demanded Rs. One Lakh and as per plan, in the morning of
06.09.2006 he alongwith Sunil, Bhojwati, Satender and Bhoop
Singh had killed Herphool Singh at his own house and after
killing the dead body Herphool Singh was dumped in jungle.
Thereafter, the said Ram Naresh, while leading the police party
in jungle of Kikar at GBlock, Sonia Vihar (around half
kilometer away Khajuri Khas pusta toll tax point, Kaccha
Rasta) pointed out towards a decomposed dead body lying
there, to be of Harphool Singh. The swelling were found on
the hand and the upper portion of dead body. The sign of
injuries were noticed on the private parts of dead body and
blood was also oozed out from there. The head and legs of
dead body were towards east and west directions respectively.
During investigation, Manphool Singh S/o Ho Ram R/o Village
Husupur, District Ghaziabad also reached at the spot and he
identified the dead body to be of his brother Harphool Singh.
Thereafter, on the basis of DD No.24A dated 07.09.2006 and
the facts and circumstances of the case, IO prepared a tehrir
and got the FIR registered U/s 302/201/34 IPC by sending the
same to PS through Ct. Mehfooz Ali. Then the investigation
was started and during investigation Crime Team and
Photographer were called at the spot and the dead body and
spot were got inspected and photographed. Blood stained
earth and earth control were seized from the spot and they
were taken into possession after getting the same sealed in the
separate pullandas. Dead body was sent to GTB Hospital.
Separate Site Plans of jungle G Block and House No.C343,
West Karawal Nagar, were prepared. Thereafter, accused Ram

State Vs. Sunil Pal and ors. (SC No.51/2011) Page No.3 of pages 66
Naresh, Sunil Pal, Bhoop Singh, Bhojwati were arrested in the
case. Their disclosure statements were recorded. Thereafter,
on 09.09.2006 the postmortem on the dead body was got
conducted and then the dead body was handed over to
Manphool Singh, the brother of deceased. Thereafter, the
viscera, clothes and blood in gauze were got preserved and
they were taken into police possession. On 26.10.2006,
exhibits were sent to CFSL, Kolkatta. The scaled Site Plans
were got prepared after calling the Draftsman. PM Report
bearing no.980/06 of Harphool Singh were obtained from GTB
Hospital. On the MLC doctor remarked opinion regarding
cause of death will be given after receipt of chemical analysis
of viscera from CFSL. During interrogation, accused Sunil S/o
Jaibir Singh made disclosure to the effect that he had
developed illicit physical relationship with Bhojwati and in order
to eliminate Harphool Singh, he alongwith Ram Naresh Pal,
Satender and Bhojwati hatched a conspiracy and as per their
plan, in the morning of 06.09.2006 Bhojwati got Harphool
Singh unconscious after administering tranquilizer pills (nashe
ki goliya) in his tea and thereafter, Satender caught the legs of
Harphool Singh and Sunil compressed his neck and Ram
Naresh Pal gave hammer blows on the private parts of
Harphool Singh, resultantly, Harphool Singh died and for the
said work, accused Ram Naresh was given Rs.50,000/ by
Bhojwati. Under said conspiracy accused Ram Naresh got the
tranquilizer pills arranged through Harender. Search for
remaining two accused persons namely Satender S/o
Raghuraj Singh and Harender S/o Fakir Chand were made but
they could not be arrested and NBWs against them were got
issued from Court. In the instant conspiracy, accused Sunil Pal
and Ram Naresh Pal were making calls to each other from

State Vs. Sunil Pal and ors. (SC No.51/2011) Page No.4 of pages 66
their mobile phones having no.9811964227 and 9818831950
respectively and accordingly their mobile phones were taken
into police possession and their calls details were obtained
from the concerned mobile companies. In the conspiracy
accused Bhoop Singh in his cycle rikshaw, threw the dead
body in jungle after keeping the dead body in a wooden box.
As per prosecution case in removal of nailed Diwan (wooden
box), help of Sonu and Deepak was taken and despite their
asking to remove the nail, so that Diwan becomes light by
removing its inside contents (i.e. dead body) the same was not
removed. The said wooden box and cycle rickshaw took into
police possession from accused Bhoop Singh. Accused Ram
Naresh was to be paid the balance amount of Rs.50,000/ after
the task was over, so he came and banged the door of the
house of Bhojwati on 07.09.2006 and uttered "work has been
done, give the balance amount". The door was not opened by
Bhojwati but she talked with Sunil. Pushpa, daughter of
Bhojwati made a call at 100 number. The Hammer, with which
injury was caused on the private part of deceased, was got
recovered by accused Sunil Pal. An efforts for apprehension of
accused Harender and Satender were made but it could not be
succeeded. Then after completion of investigation challan U/s
302/201/120B/34 IPC was filed against the accused persons
Ram Naresh Pal, Sunil Pal, Bhojwati and Bhoop Singh. Later
on, the accused Harender and thereafter, accused Satender
were arrested and sent up for trial by way of supplementary
challans. After hearing the rival submissions made on behalf
of prosecution and accused persons, charges U/Sec.302/
201/120B/34 IPC were framed against the accused person, to
which they pleaded not guilty and opted for trial.
It is pertinent to mention here that in this case, the MLC

State Vs. Sunil Pal and ors. (SC No.51/2011) Page No.5 of pages 66
was prepared and the postmortem was conducted by Dr.
Barkha Gupta on 09.09.2006 but in her report she withheld
opinion on the cause of death by stating that the cause of
death shall be opined on receipt of viscera report from CFSL.
Then after receipt of viscera report, on 22.11.2006 an
application was sent to Dr. Barkha Gupta for giving her
subsequent opinion. The subsequent given by Dr. Barkhs
Gupta was received. Then again vide an application dated
15.06.2007 further opinion regarding cause of death was
sought and the same was given by Dr. N.K. Aggarwal.
3. To prove its case the prosecution has cited as many as
twenty four witnesses out of them it has examined twenty two
witnesses.
4. PW1 Kumari Pushpa was the adopted daughter of
Harphool Singh as deceased Harphool Singh had adopted
Kumari Pushpa from his brother Manphool Singh and since her
childhood she was living with Harphool Singh. Bhojwati is the
wife of Harphool Singh. She while correctly identifying the
accused Sunil Pal, confirmed that Sunil Pal started residing at
their house as tenant for the last two months of the occurrence
and during his stay in their house, accused Sunil Pal and her
mother Bhojwati used to talk with each other and "ek dusre se
hansi majak aur cher char karte the aur mere papa yeh
dekh kar gussa karte the". Her father Harphool Singh
scolded both of them on many occasions but they did not care
and kept on talking with each other. Besides this, accused
Sunil started taking meal at their house and her father had not
liked his behaviour towards her mother Bhojwati. She further
stated that her mother kept on talking with Sunil and she did
not obey the directions of her father. On 05.09.2006 her father
had left the house for his duty in the early morning and in the

State Vs. Sunil Pal and ors. (SC No.51/2011) Page No.6 of pages 66
absence of her father, Ram Naresh, Bhoop singh and Satender
(correctly identified) came to their house and they had talked
with Sunil and her mother Bhojwati. Accused Ram Naresh,
Sunil and Bhojwati had a talk with each other separately also.
Thereafter, Ram Naresh left their house. She further stated
that on 06.09.2006, Ram Naresh came to their house in the
morning and at that time accused Sunil, Bhoop Singh and
Satender were present at their house and they had taken tea
with her father Harphool singh. She left for her school while
they were taking tea. She came back home at about 1.00 p.m.
She further stated that her father generally used to return by
8.30 p.m from his duty but on 06.09.2006 when her father had
not returned till 10.00 p.m, she asked Bhojwati about her father
and she replied "duty lag gayi hogi". On the next morning,
while she was ready for going to school, she again asked her
mother about her father. On this she shouted and told that
"gaon chala gaya hoga" and at that time accused Sunil and
Bhojwati were talking to each other while sitting on cot. On
07.09.2006, she again inquired about her father from accused
Bhojwati and she told that "time to lag hi jata hai jab gaon gaye
to". On the same night at about 11.00 p.m accused Ram
Naresh started knocking main gate of their house and accused
Sunil and Bhojwati had gone to the roof of the house for talking
each other. She heard Ram Naresh saying from outside the
house that "maine toh kaam kar diya hai baki paise do".
Sunil and Bhojwati then came down from the stairs. In the
meantime she picked up the mobile phone of Sunil and
informed to the police on 100 number that "mere papa do din
se lapata hai aur ek aadmi bahar se darwaja khat khata
raha hai aur uss ne kaha kaam ho gaya baaki paise de
do". Thereafter, police came to their house and made inquiry

State Vs. Sunil Pal and ors. (SC No.51/2011) Page No.7 of pages 66
from Sunil and Bhojwati and in the mean while Ram Naresh
brought the police, when 100 number gypsee was standing
there. She claimed that Ram Naresh brought the police in the
morning hours. Thereafter, police removed Bhojwati, Sunil,
Ram Naresh, Bhoop Singh and Satender to PS Khajuri Khas
and she was left at home at that time. After some time one
police official came to her house and on making inquiry from
him about her father Harphool Singh, he disclosed that her
father had been murdered by her mother and his dead body
was lying at Sonia Vihar. She further stated that she was not
shown the dead body of her father. Thereafter, she had made a
telephonic call to her relatives i.e. chacha Manphool and grand
father Horam telling them about the situation and they along
with covillagers came on 08.09.2006 at about 8.00 a.m.
During cross examination she could not tell her age as to
when her father adopted her as his daughter though confirmed
that she was residing with her father since childhood. She
stated that her school starts from 7.00 a.m in summer and from
7.30 a.m in winter as she used to go to school on foot and
reach at school within 30 minutes. She used to leave her
house at about 6.20 a.m in summer and at 6.45 a.m in winter.
She further stated that Sunil used to reside as a tenant in their
house along with his wife and children. There are four rooms at
the ground floor and two rooms at the first floor of their house.
Accused Sunil was residing in the room at ground floor towards
gali. Prior to Sunil, they had not given that room to anyone on
rent at any point of time. She explained that according to her
'cher char' means they used to lie together on the bed and
used to kiss and she had observed the first incident of cher
char of Sunil with her mother after about one month of
induction of Sunil as a tenant in their house. He started having

State Vs. Sunil Pal and ors. (SC No.51/2011) Page No.8 of pages 66
meals at their house regularly. She further stated that on
05.09.2006 by the time she left for school, her father had not
gone to his duty. She came back to her home from school at
about 1.00 p.m and thereafter, she remained at her house.
She further stated that she did not remember as to at what
time her father returned to home on 05.09.2006. On
05.09.2006, a fatty person came to their house and she had
seen that person for the first time. She further stated that her
mother, Sunil Pal and that fatty person were talking with each
other in room of Sunil while sitting there. That fatty person
again came in the morning of 06.09.2006 at their house at
about 6.15 a.m. She saw him sitting in middle varandah of their
house. Sunil Pal was a delivery man of gas cylinder of Gas
Agency. At the time when she made phone call to the police,
Bhojwati and Sunil were present at home. Neither her father
nor her mother was having mobile phone. The PCR official,
who had come to her house on her making telephone call had
a talk with her inside the home and at that time Bhojwati and
Sunil were present in the room. Police officials stayed there for
half an hour or one hour. Her father used to go for office by
bus at 7.30 a.m after having his meals at home and he used to
come back from office at about 9.00/9.30 p.m. He used to
have his dinner alone as mother used to serve him at that time.
Her father also used to carry tiffin to his duty. She could not
notice as to what clothes her father was wearing on
06.09.2006 while leaving for his duty. She never used to visit
the room of Sunil. Her school fees was Rs.60/ quarterly to
which her father used to pay. She used to sleep in separate
room in front of varandha, whereas her father and mother used
to sleep in varandha. Her father had visited Simbhawali in
May, 2006. Her chacha Manphool and dadaji never visited

State Vs. Sunil Pal and ors. (SC No.51/2011) Page No.9 of pages 66
their home at Delhi. There is no phone connection in the
house of her chacha Manphool and Dadaji. On 06.09.2006
when she came back from school at 1.00 p.m, Sunil was not
present at home. He came in the evening. She saw Bhojwati
and Sunil indulging in cher char in the room of Sunil on
06.09.2006 and on her seeing them, they drew curtain on the
door of the room of Sunil. She further stated that she came to
know in the morning of 08.09.2006 that her father had been
murdered and she came to know this fact from police at
around 6.00 a.m and at that time she was alone in the house.
Her mother and Sunil were not present in the house at that
time. She further stated that she was told by mohalla people
that both had been taken by the police for inquiry. She had
made telephonic call from the landline phone to her chacha at
5.00 a.m from the land line phone installed in the house of her
neighbour Suraj. She further stated that she had first made a
call to the person in the native village Simbhavali and
requested him to call her dadaji since her dadaji's house is at
some distance from that person's house. She further stated
that after making the first call to that person, she again made
a call and at that time she had a talk with her dadaji Horam.
She disclosed that her father was missing for last two days.
She did not tell her dadaji that her mother had been taken
away by the police. She further stated that on 08.09.2006 her
dadaji had come to their house at 9.00 a.m along with 30 co
villagers. She further stated that she was not taken to the place
of recovery of dead body of her father nor she went there of
her own. She further stated that when she told about the
conduct of Sunil Pal with her mother to her father, her father
had not scolded Sunil Pal or her mother in her presence nor
attitude of her father had changed towards them even after

State Vs. Sunil Pal and ors. (SC No.51/2011) Page No.10 of pages 66
revelation made by her to her father regarding the interaction of
Sunil Pal with her mother, in her presence. She further stated
that she knew that Manphool and Rakesh were her natural
parents. She was having normal and cordial relations with her
natural parents as she used to visit them at village during her
school vacations. She further stated that she was not aware
about immovable property in Delhi except the one where they
were living. There was no tenant in the name of one Girish
inducted in the upper stair room of Sunil Pal. She further
stated that she did not know if police had recovered any bed
from the house of Bhoop Singh. She further stated that police
had not shown her any article including bed in question
anywhere after the incident. She had physically not seen the
goods lying in the room of Sunil. She was not shown any bed
in the court during her testimony. She further stated that she
came to know the name of Ram Naresh through newspaper
dated 08.09.2006 and she had not told this fact to the police.
The photograph of Ram Naresh was also printed in newspaper
dated 08.09.2006. From the photograph appearing in news
paper dated 08.09.2006, she recalled that this fellow had
visited their house on 05.09.2006. She further stated that she
had seen accused Satender for the first time when he had
come to her house. She could not confirm as to if she had
seen accused Satender prior to 05.09.2006. She further stated
that she did not remember the time as to when accused Ram
Naresh had come to her house on 06.09.2006.
PW2 Shiesh Pal, the cousin of deceased Harphool
Singh confirmed that he had identified the dead body of
deceased vide statement Ex. PW 2/A.
PW3 Manphool, the younger brother of deceased
Harphool Singh, stated that Pushpa is his daughter and

State Vs. Sunil Pal and ors. (SC No.51/2011) Page No.11 of pages 66
Harphool had adopted her from her childhood as his brother
Harphool had no issue and Pushpa was residing with his
brother as his daughter. On 08.09.2006 Pushpa informed him
on telephone that her father Harphool was missing since
06.09.2006. Thereafter, he along with his family members
reached at Karawal Nagar, Delhi and Pushpa and her mother
Bhojwati met them there. On asking whether they had informed
to the police or not, they replied 'no' and added that they were
going to inform the police and on the way police met them and
informed that the dead body was lying in the jungle. They went
to jungle with police officials and he identified the dead body of
his brother vide his statement Ex. PW 3/A.
During cross examination, he admitted that his deceased
brother Harphool had agricultural land in village and he used to
lookafter his agricultural land in village. His brother had other
properties in Delhi also besides the house at Karawal Nagar.
He frequently used to visit his brother. Harphool had never told
him anything about the strained relationship with his wife
Bhojwati. He further stated that he received telephonic call
from Pushpa at about 4.305.00 a.m on 08.09.2006. He further
stated that Harphool had no landline phone connection and
even he did not have any land line phone at his residence. The
call from Pushpa was received at the residence of one Kannu,
his neighbour, but he did not disclose the name of Kannu in his
statement given to the police. No Site Plan was prepared by
the police in his presence. He further stated that after
identifying the body, it was removed to the hospital. He did not
accompany the police to the hospital. He did not participate in
any other activity except giving the statement to the police. He
stated that Pushpa is his eldest daughter, to whom he gave to
Harphool in adoption when she was about 5/6 months old. He

State Vs. Sunil Pal and ors. (SC No.51/2011) Page No.12 of pages 66
further deposed that about 1520 persons including male and
female were present near the dead body. Public persons were
coming and going from the spot. He remained present at the
spot for about 20 minutes and thereafter police removed the
dead body from the spot. Bed smell was coming from the dead
body. He further stated that no police official was present
before his reaching at the spot. 34 police officials met him on
the way when he was going to the PS and on narrating the
incident of missing of his brother since three days to them, the
police disclosed him that the dead body of male was lying in
the jungle thereafter he accompanied the police officials to the
spot where the dead body was lying. His father and his
daughter are residing in the house left by deceased Harphool
but he could not tell whether the said house was owned by
deceased Harphool or not. He stated that Pushpa informed
him on telephone "chacha papa do teen din se lapta hain, tum
jaldi aajao". Around 1012 persons had gone to Delhi on
receipt of said information. He conceded that there is an
advocate in his relation namely Rajender Pal and he was
present in the court on the day of cross examination. He stated
that he had accompanied the police officials upto the dead
body on foot, which was lying at a distance of 15 to 20 meters
from the pusta road. He occasionally used to visit the house of
Harphool around at the interval of about six months. Accused
Sunil was known to him as he was residing in the house of
Harphool and he had seen him twice during his visit at the
house of Harphool. He had never seen Sunil in the village.
PW4 Sonu confirmed that on 06.09.2006 at about 11.00
a.m, he along with his friend Deepak was standing outside his
house. Accused Sunil called them i.e Sonu and Deepak to his
room and asked them to remove his Deewan from that room as

State Vs. Sunil Pal and ors. (SC No.51/2011) Page No.13 of pages 66
he was vacating the room. Accused Bhoop Singh was also
present in that room. Accused Bhoop Singh, Sunil, he (Sonu)
and Deepak tried to lift that Deewan but could not lift the same
due to its heavy weight. Thereafter, Sonu and Deepak asked
Sunil and Bhoop Singh to remove the articles from Deewan but
they refused. Thereafter, accused persons called Shiv Sagar
and Ram Sagar, who were also present there and then they all
six persons took out the Deewan from the room and put on the
rickshaw. Thereafter, they came back to their houses.
During cross examination, he claimed that he knew Sunil
being his fellow resident and Bhoop Singh used to visit at the
room of Sunil Pal occasionally but he did not know him. He
further stated that he did not notice any movement of any
articles inside the Deewan. He also did not smell any odour
and the deewan was kept on the rickshaw/rehri in normal
position. He could not tell as to since when the accused Sunil
was tenant in the house of deceased Harphool. He could not
confirm as to whether the bed was removed by Sunil for the
purpose of vacating the room or otherwise. Rickshaw was in
the stationed position adjacent to the gate of the house of
Harphool. First the Diwan was kept outside the door and then
loaded in the rickshaw. He came to know on 08.09.2006 about
the death of Harphool at 11.00 a.m. Ram Sagar was known to
him since his childhood. After the arrest of Sunil, police came
to his house but he coul;d not tell the date.
PW5 SI Etendra Swaroop, the Incharge of Mobile
Crime Team, confirmed that on 08.09.2006 on receipt of call
th
from control room, he along with his staff reached at 5
Pushta, Sonia Vihar jungle, where he found one dead body of
male, lying there. He inspected the scene of crime and the
same was photographed by Ct. Sunil Kumar. He prepared

State Vs. Sunil Pal and ors. (SC No.51/2011) Page No.14 of pages 66
report Ex.PW 5/A and the same was handed over to IO
lateron.
PW6 Ram Sagar Yadav confirmed that on 06.09.2006
at about 11.00 a.m he along with his brother Shiv Sagar Yadav
was standing outside their house. Sunil came there and took
him and his brother to his room for lifting bed. Bhoop Singh,
Sunil, Sonu and Deepak met them in the room. They all lifted
the bed/deewan, which was fitted with nails and removed the
same from the room to rickshaw/rehri outside the room. Bhoop
Singh paddled the rickshaw/rehdi and Sunil pushed it from
behind. He further stated that after two days they came to
know that the dead body of landlord namely Harphool Singh
was in the bed/deewan. He further stated that they had asked
Sunil to remove the articles from inside the bed so that they
could carry it easily but Sunil refused by saying that "mere ko
double chakkar marna par jayega".
During cross examination he stated that in the year 2006,
he and his brother were students in Govt. Senior Secondary
School, Karawal Nagar and their school used to start at 12.30
noon and he was called by Sunil at 11.30 a.m. There was no
abnormal odour/smell while lifting the bed. He further stated
that he had not seen that bed till date after seeing it for the first
time on 06.09.2006 at the spot. He was not acquainted with
Sunil and his brothers prior to the occurrence. He confirmed
that his statement and statement of his brother were recorded
on 11.09.2006 in each other's presence. He could not tell as to
who had told him that there was a dead body in that wooden
box but he came to know about the same on 08.09.2006. He
further stated that Sunil was known to him two months prior to
this incident.
During cross examination, he confirmed that he knew

State Vs. Sunil Pal and ors. (SC No.51/2011) Page No.15 of pages 66
Bhojwati and Harphool since childhood. He came to know
about the death of Harphool and the fact that the dead body of
deceased Harphool was in a diwan which was removed from
the room of Sunil on 08.09.2006. He could not tell if accused
Sunil was living in the same street as a tenant before two
months prior to the incident.
PW7 Ct. Sunil, the photographer of the Mobile Crime
Team, stated that on a call received at around 9.00 a.m on
08.09.2006, he along with Incharge mobile crime team reached
at the spot i.e forest near Sonia Vihar, where IO of the case
namely Insp. Ramesh Dhaiya and some other persons were
already present. Dead body of Harphool was identified. He
took seven photographs of the spot from different angles which
are exhibited as Ex. PW 7/A1 to A7 and its negatives are Ex.
PW 7/B1 to B7.
During cross examination he deposed that 24 persons
were present at the spot besides the police officials. There was
a bad smell of dead body at the spot. He could not tell the
exact distance of the place (where dead body was lying) from
the main road, however, it was a jungle.
PW8 ASI Kashmira Singh (Retd.) stated that in the
intervening night of 07/08.09.2006 at around 2.00 a.m he along
with Insp. Ramesh Dhaiya reached at House No.C245, Gali
no. 2, 28 foota road, West Karawal Nagar where one Bhojwati
met them and she was interrogated. She informed them that
somebody was knocking the door of her house at night with
whom her husband had gone on 06.09.2006 and her husband
had not returned so far. She further disclosed the name of that
person as Ram Naresh Pal R/o 561/7 B Vijay Park, Yamuna
Vihar, Delhi. Thereafter, they went to the said address of Ram
Naresh Pal, who was found present at his home. He was

State Vs. Sunil Pal and ors. (SC No.51/2011) Page No.16 of pages 66
interrogated and he informed that on 05.09.2006 he had
received the phone call of Sunil Pal, who was the tenant of
Bhojwati. Sunil Pal had conveyed him that Bhojwati wanted to
get her husband eliminated and was ready to pay Rs.1 lakh to
Sunil for this act. Ram Naresh further disclosed that he along
with Sunil, Satender, Bhoop Singh and Bhojwati had killed
Harphool Singh with a hammer in his house and his dead body
was thrown by Bhoop singh in a rickshaw after keeping the
dead body in a wooden box and he could get the dead body
recovered. He proved on record the disclosure statement of
accused Ram Naresh Pal as Ex.PW8/A. Thereafter, accused
th
Ram Naresh Pal led the police party to the forest near 4
Pushta, Sonia Vihar, Delhi, where dead body was found lying
in swollen condition. Ram Naresh Pal pointed out towards the
dead body saying that it was the dead body of Harphool Singh.
Crime Team was called and they conducted the proceedings at
the spot. Thereafter, rukka was prepared by Insp. Dhaiya and
sent the same to PS. Insp. Dhaiya lifted blood samples,
samples of earth control from the spot, prepared site plan and
dead body was identified by Manphool (brother of deceased),
who reached at the spot. Thereafter, dead body was sent to
mortuary GTB hospital through Ct. Mehfooz. Accused Ram
Naresh Pal was arrested vide memo Ex.PW 8/B, his personal
search was conducted vide memo Ex. PW8/C. Thereafter,
they went to the house of Bhojwati, where Sunil Pal and
Bhojwati were found present. Accused Bhojwati was
interrogated and her disclosure statement was recorded vide
memo Ex.PW8/D. Thereafter, accused Sunil Pal was
interrogated and his disclosure statement was also recorded
vide memo Ex.PW8/E. In pursuance of disclosure statement
of Sunil Pal, one hammer was recovered which was lying

State Vs. Sunil Pal and ors. (SC No.51/2011) Page No.17 of pages 66
concealed inside the house of Bhojwati. He has proved the
sketch of hammer Ex.PW 8/F and the seizure memo of
hammer as Ex. PW 8/G. Sunil Pal has produced one mobile
phone to which IO took into possession vide memo Ex.PW
8/H. Accused Bhojwati and Sunil Pal were arrested vide their
arrest memos Ex. PW8/J and K and their personal search was
conducted vide memo Ex.PW8/J1 & Ex.PW8/K1 respectively.
th
Thereafter, accused Sunil Pal led the police to 4 pushta,
Sonia Vihar Gas Agency of Indian, Gas where accused Bhoop
Singh found present and he was interrogated and arrested vide
memo Ex.PW8/L, his personal search was conducted vide
memo Ex.PW8/L1. Disclosure statement of Bhoop Singh was
recorded vide Ex.PW 8/M, wherein he disclosed that cycle
rickshaw/thela and wooden box in which dead body was
transported to forest, were kept at his house and he could get
the same recovered. Thereafter, Bhoop Singh led them to his
house located at Bharat Vihar, house of Fauzi and at the
instance of Bhoop Singh one wooden box/Diwan which was
lying on ground floor of the said house in the room and cycle
rickshaw was found stationed at the boundary of that house
and these items were taken into possession vide memo
Ex.PW8/N. Two quilts were lying inside the Diwan and they
were also taken into possession along with Diwan. He has
proved the seizure memo of mobile phone as Ex.PW8/P and
seizure memo of blood samples as Ex.PW8/Q. On 09.09.2006
postmortem examination on the dead body of Harphool Singh
was got conducted. On 19.09.2006 he collected the viscera of
deceased which was seized and sealed vide Memo Ex.PW8/R.
He identified the mobile phone make Nokia bearing IMEI No.
35186401/339919/5 Ex.P2 to be the same which was received
from the possession of accused Sunil. He also identified the

State Vs. Sunil Pal and ors. (SC No.51/2011) Page No.18 of pages 66
mobile phone make Nokia bearing IME No.356650/00/133585/
2 having SIM Ex.P3 to be the same which were recovered from
the possession of accused Ram Naresh Pal. He further
identified a cycle rickshaw/thela Ex.P4 and wooden box/diwan
containing two quilts Ex.P5 (colly.) to be the same which were
recovered from the house of accused Bhoop Singh.
During cross examination, he stated that they remained
at the house of accused Bhojwati for about 1520 minutes and
at that time no writing work was done there. Inspector Dahiya
had reached the house of Bhojwati by Gypsy, however, he
alongwith Ct. Mehfooz Ali reached there by his motorcycle. He
further deposed that the spot where dead body was recovered
is located at the distance of 4 km from PS. He conceded that
the house of Ram Naresh does not fall within the jurisdiction of
PS Khajuri Khas. They remained at the house of Ram Naresh
Pal for about an hour. He could not tell if the house of Ram
Naresh Pal was single or double story house. The door of the
house was opened by Ram Naresh Pal, who was not know to
him prior to that event. On the asking of the IO, Ram Naresh
Pal had disclosed himself to be Ram Naresh Pal. IO and Ct.
Mehfooz Ali had entered in side the house. They reached at
the jungle of B Block, led by accused Ram Naresh Pal, around
6.00 a.m. Ram Naresh Pal was made to sit in the gypsy of IO
alongwith Ct. Mehfooz Ali. He followed the gypsy by his own
motorcycle. Gypsy and motorcycle remained stationed at the
Pusta and thereafter, they reached at the spot by foot. Further
the dead body was lying at the distance of about one and a
half/three fourth KM away from the Pushta. Foul smell was
coming from the dead body. The blood was oozing from the
head of the dead body. He left the spot, where the dead body
was recovered, around 10 AM and IO remained present there

State Vs. Sunil Pal and ors. (SC No.51/2011) Page No.19 of pages 66
up to that time. Except Crime Team and senior officers no
other police officials reached there. Accused Ram Naresh Pal
also remained present at the spot (where the dead body was
recovered) from 6.00 a.m to 10.00 a.m. No passers by came
near the dead body during this period. The dead body was
lifted from the spot at about 10.00 a.m and sent to GTB
hospital through government vehicle. He clarified that the dead
body was taken till pushta by him and Ct. Mehfooz Ali and then
taken to GTB Hospital through government vehicle. The dead
body was kept covered in white cloth, which was requisitioned
from the police station. He could not tell the exact time of
leaving the spot with rukka or returning/reaching at the spot
with copy of FIR and rukka by Ct. Mehfooz. In the meantime,
Crime Team took the photographs. He neither could tell as to
how many storied the house of Bhojwati was built nor about
the number of room in her house. He also could not tell about
the number of the members of the family of Bhoop Singh. He
further stated that he had not visited the house of Bhojwati
after 08.09.2006. He further stated that wooden box was lying
inside the house of Bhoop Singh and the same opens from
top. He neither could tell if any bed sheet was lying over the
wooden box or not when it was recovered nor if quilts were
kept in the wooden box or else where. He showed his
ignorance about the colour, size and designing of the quilts
recovered. He further stated that the disclosure statements of
Bhoop Singh, Sunil Pal, Ram Naresh Pal and Bhojwati were
recorded in his presence. Disclosure Statements of Bhojwati
and Sunil Pal were recorded at the house of Bhojwati and
disclosure statement of Ram Naresh and Bhoop singh were
recorded at their respective houses.
PW9 ASI K. P Singh confirmed that on 27.11.2006 he

State Vs. Sunil Pal and ors. (SC No.51/2011) Page No.20 of pages 66
had obtained the subsequent opinion from the GTB hospital at
the direction of IO where Dr. Barkha Gupta had given him
opinion paper and sealed parcel sealed with the seal of BG.
He lateron handed over the opinion paper to the IO and
deposited the case property in mal khana.
PW10 SI Vikram Chauhan, who had joined the
investigation with IO, has stated that on 09.09.2006 he was
present with IO in the investigation. IO interrogated accused
Ram Naresh Pal and Sunil and recorded their disclosure
statements Ex.PW10/A and B. On 10.09.2006, he again joined
the investigation with the IO. Accused Ram Naresh Pal and
Sunil Pal took the police party to Meet Nagar and they pointed
out the House No.D/182, Gali No. 8 which belong to Harender.
Further on 07.04.2007, he again joined the investigation with
the IO. On that day IO after taking permission of the court, had
arrested accused Harender vide Arrest Memo Ex.PW10/D and
his personal search was conducted vide personal search
memo Ex.PW10/E. His disclosure statement was recorded vide
memo Ex.PW10/F.
PW11 ASI Om Prakash, the MHC(M), has proved the
entry mentioned at sr. no. 1580 in register no. 19 Ex PW 11/A
vide which IO had deposited six sealed pulandas with him. He
has also proved the entry at sr no.1595 in register no.19 Ex.
PW 11/B vide which IO had deposited two sealed pulandas
and one sample seal. He also stated that on 24.10.2006 he
handed over the six sealed pulandas and one sample seal to
Ct. Chander prakash for depositing the same in the office of
FSL Kolkata vide Rc No. 222/21. After depositing the same Ct.
Chander Prakash handed over the copy of receipt to him. He
has proved the copy of RC register Ex.PW11/C. On 24.11.2006
he handed over one sealed pulanda to Ct. Chander Prakash

State Vs. Sunil Pal and ors. (SC No.51/2011) Page No.21 of pages 66
vide RC No.251/21 for depositing the same in GTB hospital.
On 27.11.2006 he brought back the pulanda and deposited the
same to him. He has proved the copy of RC register Ex.PW
11/D.
During cross examination he stated that pullanda were
deposited in the malkhana at about 5.00 p.m on 08.09.2006.
He conceded that he had not mentioned the time in the register
no.19.
PW12 HC Chander Prakash confirmed that he took six
sealed pulandas and one sample seal from the MHC(M) vide
RC No.222/21 and deposited the pulandas to FSL Kolkata and
deposited pulandas there. After depositing the pulandas, he
handed over the receipt to MHC(M).
PW13 R. K Singh, the Nodal Officer, has proved the
call details of mobile phone no. 9818831950 w.e.f 06.08.2006
to 07.09.2006 Ex.PW13/A. He stated that the customer of
telephone no.9818831950 is Ram Naresh Pal and he has
further proved the application of customer along with his
identity proof Ex.PW13/B.
PW14 ASI Ravi Karan, confirmed that he was on
emergency duty on 07.09.2006 from 8.00 p.m to 8.00 a.m and
on receipt of DD No. 24A he along with his staff went to House
No.C343 Gali No. 2, 28 foota road, West Karawl nagar, Delhi
where accused Bhojwati met him. On inquiry she disclosed
him that one Ram Naresh Pal who was known to her tenant
Sunil, had knocked her door. Accused Bhojwati got perplexed
when he inquired about the presence of her husband. She
further disclosed that while knocking the door accused Ram
Naresh Pal was asking about Rs. 30,000/ and thereafter he
informed IO Insp. Ram Chand Dahiya.
During cross examination he deposed that though he

State Vs. Sunil Pal and ors. (SC No.51/2011) Page No.22 of pages 66
was having his mobile phone with him but he did not remember
as to from whose phone he informed SHO concerned. He
further told that he had not made inquiry from the wife of Sunil
Pal. He further stated that he did not record the statement of
Bhojwati at that time. They remained there till the arrival of
SHO and SI Kashmira Singh. In his presence, the statement
of Bhojwati was not recorded by SHO and SI Kashmira Singh.
PW15 Anuj Bhatia, Nodal Officer from Vodafone
Mobile Services, has proved the call details pertaining to
mobile no.9811964227 w.e.f 6.08.2006 to 27.09.2006 as
Ex.PW15/A. The said number belongs to customer Sunil Pal.
He has proved the customer application alongwith his
identification as Ex.PW15/B.
PW16 SHO Ramesh Dhaiya, has stated that during the
intervening night of 07/08092006, on receipt of DD No. 24A
Ex. PW16/A and after receiving of information from ASI Ravi
Karan, he along with SI Kashmira Singh and Ct. Mehfooz Ali
went to house No.C343, Gali No. 2, 28 Foota road, West
Karawal nagar, Delhi where ASI Ravi Karan along with his
staff met him. Accused Bhojwati was also present there. He
made inquiries from her and she told him that one Ram Naresh
Pal had knocked her door and he was staying in Vijay Park
Area, Bhajan Pura, Delhi. He also made inquiries from Pushpa
D/o Bhojwati and she told that her father was taken by Ram
Naresh Pal and he had not yet returned back. Thereafter, he
along with police team reached at House No.561 Vijay Park,
Bhajan Pura where accused Ram Naresh met them and he
made inquiries from him. During inquiries he disclosed to him
that accused Sunil Pal is his distant relative and Sunil Pal was
having illicit relations with Bhojwati and as per asking of Sunil
Pal he along with Sunil Pal and other coaccused killed the

State Vs. Sunil Pal and ors. (SC No.51/2011) Page No.23 of pages 66
husband of Bhojwati in his house and thrown his dead body in
jungle at Sonia Vihar, Delhi. Thereafter, Ram Naresh Pal took
the police team to G block, Sonia Vihar and as per his pointing
out, the dead body of Harphool (husband of Bhojwati) was
recovered. He inspected the dead body and found blood near
his private part and body was in decomposed condition.
Manphool, brother of Harphool/deceased came at the spot and
identified the dead body of Harphool. Thereafter, he gave
endorsement Ex.PW16/B on DD No.24A and prepared a rukka
and handed over the same to Ct. Mehfooz Ali for registration of
FIR. Accordingly, Ct. Mehfooz Ali went to PS and after
registration of FIR he returned at the spot and gave him rukka
and copy of FIR to IO. He called the Crime Team and
photographer at the spot. They came at the spot and inspected
the spot, photographer took the photographs from different
angles. He lifted the blood stained earth and earth control
from the spot and kept them in separate pulanda and seized
the same vide memo Ex.PW8/Q. He prepared site plan Ex.
PW16/C. Dead body was shifted to GTB mortuary. Accused
Ram Naresh Pal was interrogated and he was arrested vide his
arrest memo Ex.PW8/B and his personal search was
conducted vide memo Ex.PW8/C. He seized the mobile phone
of Ram Naresh vide memo Ex.PW8/P. He was interrogated
thoroughly and he made disclosure statement Ex.PW8/A by
which he took the police team to House No.C343, Gali No.
228, West Karawal Nagar and on pointing out of Ram Naresh
Pal, accused Sunil Pal was apprehended. After interrogation
he was arrested vide memo Ex.PW8/K and his personal
search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW8/K1. Accused Sunil
Pal was interrogated and he made disclosure statement
Ex.PW8/E. Mobile phone of Sunil was seized vide memo

State Vs. Sunil Pal and ors. (SC No.51/2011) Page No.24 of pages 66
Ex.PW8/H. On disclosure statement accused Sunil Pal got
recovered one hammer from his house which was seized vide
memo Ex.PW8/G. Its sketch was prepared before it being
seized vide memo Ex.PW8/F. On disclosure of accused Ram
Naresh Pal and Sunil Pal, accused Bhojwati was apprehended
and arrested vide memo Ex.PW8/J, her personal search was
conducted by L/Ct vide memo Ex.PW8/J1. Thereafter she was
interrogated and her disclosure statement was recorded vide
memo Ex.PW8/D. He had prepared the site plan of the spot i.e
House No.C343, Gali No.2, 28 foota road, West Karawal
Nagar which is Ex.PW16/D. On disclosure of accused Ram
Naresh Pal, Sunil Pal and Bhojwati and on their pointing out,
accused Bhoop Singh was arrested vide memo Ex.PW8/L and
his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW8/L1.
His disclosure statement Ex.PW8/M was recorded, vide which
he took the police team to his house at Bhagat Vihar, Karawal
Nagar and as per his pointing out one cycle rickshaw and one
wooden box/Diwan, two quilts were seized vide memo
Ex.PW8/N. On 09.09.2006 the postmortem on the dead body
was got conducted. He vide Seizure Memo Ex.PW8/R seized
the sealed pulanda and one sample seal of GTB hospital,
which was handed over to him by SI Kashmira Singh. Accused
Ram Naresh Pal took the police team to the house of accused
Harender i.e House No.D158, meet Nagar but he was not
found present there. He sent SI Rakesh Kumar in search of
accused Satender to U.P but he could not be traced and he
was declared PO lateron. He further stated that the case
property were sent to FSL, scaled site plan was got prepared,
he recorded the statement of witnesses, collected the opinion
from the doctor, who conducted the postmortem regarding the
weapon of offence used (hammer), regarding cause of death

State Vs. Sunil Pal and ors. (SC No.51/2011) Page No.25 of pages 66
and then after completion of investigation, challan was filed
against the accused Ram Naresh, Sunil Pal, Bhojwati and
Bhoop Singh. Further on 08.09.2006 accused Bhoop Singh
and Sunil took the police team to jungle and got prepared
pointing out memo Ex.PW16/E & 16/F. He claimed that on the
same day accused Ram Naresh pointed out the ground floor of
House No.343 Gali No.2 West Karawal nagar where he along
with coaccused persons had killed the deceased and he had
prepared pointing out memo Ex.PW16/G. On 09.09.2006
accused Ram Naresh Pal and Sunil were interrogated and their
disclosure statements were recorded vide memo Ex.PW10/A
and Ex.PW10/B. Further on 07.04.2007 accused Harender was
arrested vide his arrest memo Ex.PW10/D and his personal
search memo Ex.PW10/E. He was interrogated and his
disclosure statement was recorded Ex.PW10/F.
This witness has proved the case properties i.e hammer
as Ex.P1, mobile phone make Nokia with SIM card bearing
IMEI No.35186401/339919/5 which was recovered from the
possession of accused Sunil as Ex.P2 (colly), another mobile
phone make NOKIA having SIM card bearing IMEI No.
3556650/11/133585/2 which was recovered from the
possession of accused Ram Naresh Pal as Ex.P3 and cycle
rickshaw/thela and wooden box/diwan containing two quilts as
Ex.P4 and P5 (colly.) respectively.
During cross examination, he stated that he had made
DD entry regarding the departure to the house of Bhojwati and
also about arrival at PS. He went to the house of Bhojwati
along with Mehfooz Ali by Govt. Motorcycle. SI Kashmira Singh
accompanied them on his motorcycle and they all were in
uniform. Before their reaching at the house of Bhojwati, ASI
Ravi Karan alone was already present there. They reached at

State Vs. Sunil Pal and ors. (SC No.51/2011) Page No.26 of pages 66
the house of Bhojwati at about 2.30 a.m on 07/08.09.2006 and
remained there for about half an hour and no writing work was
done during the said period. They reached at the house of Co
accused Ram Naresh Pal at about 3.45 a.m on the basis of
his address disclosed by accused Bhojwati. On knocking
accused Ram Naresh Pal opened the door of his house. They
remained there for about 2025 minutes. They did not enter in
the house of accused Ram Naresh Pal, however, he was
interrogated outside his house. Wife of accused Ram Naresh
had also reached there. He further stated that they went to
jungle of G block, Sonia Vihar at about 5.00 a.m at the
instance of Ram Naresh Pal and accused Ram Naresh Pal
was with SI Kashmira Singh on his motorcycle. He along with
ASI Ravi Karan and SI kashmira Singh remained present at the
spot where the dead body of deceased was recovered since
5.00 a.m to 11.00 a.m. Manphool and Sheesh Pal reached at
the spot at about 7.00 a.m on their own. They took the dead
body in a Govt. vehicle make TATA 407 which was parked at
Sonia Vihar pushta and the distance between the place where
the dead body was lying and the place where the vehicle was
parked was about half km. Dead body was lifted by Manphool,
Sheesh Pal, ASI Ravi Karan and SI Kashmira Singh. After
sending the rukka and before receiving the copy of FIR, he
prepared site plan, lifted earth control and blood stained earth
and prepared seizure memos of both the exhibits. Accused
was interrogated and arrested after receiving the copy of FIR
and rukka at about 10.45 a.m. He prepared inquest papers,
which were four in numbers. He further stated that first of all
he interrogated accused Sunil Pal and thereafter Bhojwati, at
their residence. The house of Bhojwati was single storey house
and three rooms were there. Accused Bhojwati was

State Vs. Sunil Pal and ors. (SC No.51/2011) Page No.27 of pages 66
interrogated in varandah and accused Sunil was interrogated in
his room. He had not entered in the room in occupation of
Bhojwati. They remained at the house of Bhojwati for about
one and a half hours. One Pushpa along with Bhojwati and
Sunil Pal were present at the house. He further stated that he
had not locked the room of Sunil after his arrest. Accused
Sunil produced one hammer from his room which they had
used for committing the murder of Harphool. Further rough site
plan of place of murder was prepared at the instance of
accused Sunil Pal. He further stated that accused Ram Naresh
Pal was duly identified by Pushpa therefore he had not taken
any steps for conducting TIP proceedings. He stated that he
had recorded the supplementary statement of Pushta on
17.11.2006. After recovery of dead body, he had interrogated
accused Sunil Pal first and than Bhojwati, at the house of
Bhojwati. He stated that no public person was gathered at the
house of accused Bhojwati, though, they were standing in front
of their houses. No public witness was joined in the recovery of
hammer. Room of Sunil, from which the hammer was got
recovered by accused Sunil Pal, was lying opened and not
locked. The hammer was lying on the floor of the room. He
remained at the house of accused persons for about one and a
th
half hour. Coaccused Bhoop Singh was arrested from 5
Pushta, Sonia Vihar, Delhi. The rickshaw was recovered from
the rented accommodation of Bhoop Singh at Bhagat Vihar,
Karawal Nagar. Diwan was also recovered from his room. No
TIP of bed allegedly involved in transportation of the dead body
of deceased Harphool was ever conducted by Sonu, Deepak,
Ram Sagar and Shiv Sagar. He further stated that such type
of bed are commonly available in the market. However, he
clarified that it was recovered from the house of Bhoop Singh.

State Vs. Sunil Pal and ors. (SC No.51/2011) Page No.28 of pages 66
He conceded that many persons were residing in the
neighbourhood of Bhoop Singh but he had not made any
public person as witness, to the recovery. He also conceded
that at the time of recovery of rickshaw, no public witness was
made as a witness. He further conceded that he did not get the
rickshaw identified from PWs Sonu, Deepak, Shiv Sagar and
Ram Sagar prior to production of the same in the Court.
PW17 SI Yash Pal Singh, is the Duty Officer, who on
receipt of information of PCR, recorded the DD No.24A
Ex.PW16/A and the said DD was handed over to ASI Ravi
Karan for necessary action.
PW18 HC Jagpal Singh, is the another Duty Officer,
who recorded the instant FIR and proved the copy of same on
record as Ex.PW18/A. He has also proved on record his
endorsement made on rukka as Ex.PW18/B.
PW19 SI Mukesh Kumar Jain, the Draftsman, stated
that he was summoned by IO Insp. Ramesh Dhaiya at the PS
Khajuri Khas and accordingly he reached there and from there
he along with IO went to house no.C343, Gali No.2, West
Karawal Nagar, Delhi. On his instruction he prepared rough
notes and measurement of the spot. Thereafter, he
accompanied him to Sonia Vihar Forest, Khajuri Khas, Delhi
and on his pointing out he prepared two scaled site plan
Ex.PW 19/A and 19/B.
During his cross examination he stated that none except
IO had accompanied him to the spot i.e C343 Karawal Nagar,
Delhi and to Sonia Vihar Jungle. He further stated that IO had
pointed out point A mentioned in the scaled site plan where the
deceased was killed. He did not suspect anything in the room.
The handwriting on Ex.PW19/A mark X does not belong to him.
At that time table, bed's head were lying in the room and no

State Vs. Sunil Pal and ors. (SC No.51/2011) Page No.29 of pages 66
other article was present there. In the forest they remained for
about half an hour and except IO and himself no other person
was there. He further stated that some public persons were
passing through the jungle nearby the spot.
PW20 Dr. Arvind Kumar is the witness, who appeared
on behalf of Dr. Barkha Gupta, who had conducted the
postmortem on the dead body of Harphool and Dr. N. K
Aggarwal had given the final opinion regarding the cause of
death. He has proved on record the postmortem report as
Ex.PW20/A, which is in the handwriting of Dr. Barkha Gupta
and bear her signatures at points A, B & C. He has also proved
the subsequent opinion Ex.PW20/B, given by Dr. Barkha
Gupta vide an application dated 22.11.2006. In subsequent
opinion, she opined that after examination the hammer and
considering the postmortem report, the injury mentioned in the
postmortem report on page 3 to the private part of the
deceased could be caused by the hammer examined. He also
stated that Subsequent opinion was also given by Dr. N. K
Aggarwal vide an application dated 15.06.2007 wherein he
opined that the body was highly decomposed and he proved
the same on record as Ex.PW20/C. He stated that there was a
possibility of death caused by compression of neck.
He stated that Dr. Barkha Gupta, made following general
observations as under:
"Dead body of an adult male wrapped in a plastic bag
wearing white shirt with small brown check, all buttons were
intact, two bottom buttoned, brown pant with black belt, zip
open, belt unbuckled, with sando Baniyan torn from shoulder
top, home made underwear of white and green strips torn from
front, light green check hanky, massive infestation of maggots
present all over the body. Lips partly eaten up by maggots,

State Vs. Sunil Pal and ors. (SC No.51/2011) Page No.30 of pages 66
maggots crawling in mouth, both nostrils and eye sochet, eye
balls were shrunken and partly eaten up by maggots, rectum
was prolapsed and maggots were crawling in anal canal, left
ear and fingers of hands of left hands eaten up by animals/
rodents including the soft tissue of palm, scalp hair were lying
loose on the scalp, greenish black discoloration of face neck,
chest and abdomen at places, marbleing were present on both
upper and lower limbs. Whole body distended, pealing of skin
present at places, postmortem blisters was present at the back
of chest and abdomen. Rigor mortis was passed off.
Postmortem staining cannot be appreciated due to blackish
discoloration of back, scrotum was distended.
On external examination, Dr. Barkha Gupta observed
following injuries:
(i). Radish black bruise of size 12 cm x 3 cm
vertically placed on left side of neck, extending
from just below left year up to root of neck
situated 8 cm left to mid line.
(ii).Radish black bruise of size 7 cm x 5 cm on the
outer aspect of left arm situated 6 cm below
shoulder tip.
(iii).Radish abrasion 3 cm x 2 cm in size of left
side of abdomen situated 16 cm left from mid
line and 24 cm below left nipple.
(iv).Radish abrasion 3.5 cm x 1.5 cm in size of
shin of right leg just below knee
(v).Radish abrasion 3.5 cm x 1.5 cm in size of shin
of right leg 2.5 cm below to injury no.4.
(vi).Multiple linear radish abrasion in an area of 13
cm x 8 cm horizontally placed on medial aspect
of left leg, 14 cm above medial malealous.

State Vs. Sunil Pal and ors. (SC No.51/2011) Page No.31 of pages 66
(vii).Radish abrasion 4 cm x 3 cm on shin of right
leg just above the ankle.
(viii).Radish abrasion 4 cm x 1 cm on the medial
aspect of upper part of left leg 5 cm below the
knee.
(ix).Radish abrasion 3 cm x 1 cm on the shin of
left leg just below knee.
On internal examination, Dr. Barkha Gupta observed the
following injuries:
On the neck, she found extra vasation of
blood present on left side and front of
soft tissue. No fracture was present,
haemorrhage's was present on the
epiglottis. Brain was liquefied but
manging were intact. Lungs were soft,
collapsed, brownish black in colour due
to putrefactions maggots were present.
Heart was soft and flabby. Stomach was
empty, walls of the stomach was soft and
radish brown discoloration. Intestine was
full of gases and walls soft and greenish
black discoloration was present. Liver
and kidney were soft and flabby, spleen
was liquefied, scrotal sac was containing
blood stained fluid and gases. Testes
were enlarged, edematous with effusion
of blood.
After postmortem, she opined that the time since death
was three days. Further during postmortem she preserved
viscera for chemical analysis, clothes (as mentioned earlier)
and blood in gouge and opinion regarding cause of death was

State Vs. Sunil Pal and ors. (SC No.51/2011) Page No.32 of pages 66
with held for want of chemical analysis of viscera. He further
stated that on 22.11.2006 Addl. SHO PS Khajuri Khas gave an
application for subsequent opinion to Dr. Barkha Gupta
alongwith sealed parcel and she gave opinion Ex.PW20/B on
24.11.2006 bearing her signature at point A. He stated that on
opening the parcel, she found a hammer of iron metal fixed in
a bamboo wooden handle with four nails. Yellow and blue
colour plastic rope was tied at the base of the handle. He
stated that she prepared rough sketch and dimensions were
written at point B. Further in subsequent opinion, she opined
that after examining the hammer and considering the
postmortem report, the injury mentioned in the postmortem
report on page 3 to the private parts of the deceased could be
caused by the hammer examined. He also stated that on
15.06.2007, Addl. SHO Khajuri Khas gave an application for
subsequent opinion and on 16.06.2007 Dr. N.K. Aggarwal
Head, Department of Forensic Medicine opined vide
Ex.PW20/C bearing his signature at point A that body was
highly decomposed. There was a possibility of death caused
by compression of neck.
PW21 Ct. Mehfooz Ali, who had joined investigation
with SI Kashmira Singh and Insp. Ramesh Dahiya confirmed
that he went to House No.C343, Gali No. 2, 28 foota road,
West Karawal Nagar, where ASI Ravi Karan along with staff
met them. Insp. Ramesh Dahiya made inquiries at the spot and
thereafter went to House No. 1094 Vijay Park near Yamuna
Vihar where accused Ram Naresh was apprehended. Insp.
Dahiya made inquiries from him. During inquiry he disclosed
that he along with his coaccused persons had committed
murder of Harphool. He took them to Sonia Vihar jungle and
pointed towards the dead body. The dead body was identified

State Vs. Sunil Pal and ors. (SC No.51/2011) Page No.33 of pages 66
by Manphool, brother of Harphool. IO prepared rukka and
handed over to him for registration of FIR. He went to PS and
got the FIR registered and handed over the copy of FIR and
original rukka to IO. He had accompanied the dead body to
GTB mortuary and dead body was kept there under his
supervision till postmortem. On 09.08.2006 postmortem over
the dead body was conducted and after postmortem the dead
body was handed over to relatives of deceased.
During cross examination he stated that they went to
House No. C343, West Karawal Nagar by Government vehicle
make TATA 407. IO had made inquiries from inside the house
and they remained there for half an hour. He stated that he
had not entered the house of Ram Naresh Pal. Accused Ram
Naresh Pal was taken to PS from his house. He further stated
that no writing work was done either at the house of Bhojwati
or at the house of Ram Naresh Pal. They reached at the Sonia
Vihar jungle where the dead body was lying at about 2.30 a.m
and they went there by Govt. vehicle make TATA 407. They
remained in the jungle for about two hours. The dead body was
shifted to GTB hospital mortuary by Govt. vehicle make TATA
407. The house of Bhojwati is of single story/ground floor only.
PW21A HC Lokender Talan, stated that on 02.11.2011
he was posted at PS C.R. Park South East District as Head
Constable and on that day he along with HC Sanjeev had left
the PS in search of Proclaimed Offenders. He stated that when
at about 3.15 p.m they were present near Bus Terminal, Sarai
Kalen Khan, there he received a secret information through
secret informer that one person namely Satender Pal R/o Etah,
UP, who was declared PO in case FIR No. 391/06, PS Khajuri
Khas would come at Bus Terminal Sarai Kalen khan. After
about five minutes, accused Satender Pal was seen while

State Vs. Sunil Pal and ors. (SC No.51/2011) Page No.34 of pages 66
coming out of the bus terminal and he was pointed out by
secret informer and on pointing out of secret informer he was
apprehended by them u/s 41.1 (c) Cr. P.C vide arrest memo
Ex.PW21/A1 and his personal search was also conducted vide
memo Ex.PW21/A2. Copy of Kalandra u/s 41.1 (c) Cr. P.C on
record is Ex. PW 21/A3. He further stated that the information
regarding his arrest was given to his brother namely Manoj
and to the IO of this case. He was produced before the court
concerned at KKD and IO of this case met him there itself.
From there accused was arrested by the IO.
During cross examination he deposed that accused
Satender was apprehended after 57 minutes of receiving the
information. No public witness was joined in the proceeding at
the time of arrest of accused Satender Pal. He further stated
that the informer did not disclose the place from where
accused Satender had to come at Sarai Kalen Khan. Nothing
was recovered from the search of accused Satender.
PW21 B Ct. Somvir, is the witness, who had joined the
investigation with IO Insp. Vivekanand when accused Satender
was to produce before the court concerned from lock up and
he was arrested by IO after seeking permission from the court
vide memo Ex.PW21/B1 and his personal search was
conducted vide memo Ex. PW21/B2. He also made disclosure
statement Ex. PW 21/B3. From there he was remanded to j/c.
PW21C Sh. Ankur Jain, MM, stated that he had
conducted the judicial TIP proceedings of accused Satender
vide an application Ex. PW 21/C/A moved by Insp. Vivekanand
but accused Satender had refused to participate the same. He
has proved the TIP proceedings Ex. PW 21/C/B.
PW22 Insp. Vivekanand, stated that he had arrested
the accused Satender, who was the PO, and was produced u/s

State Vs. Sunil Pal and ors. (SC No.51/2011) Page No.35 of pages 66
41.1(c) Cr. P.C. He had recorded the disclosure statement of
accused Satender and he had got conducted the judicial TIP of
accused Satender. He had also filed the supplementary charge
sheet qua accused Satender. He had arrested him and
personal search of this accused was conducted vide memo Ex.
PW 21/B1 and B2.
During cross examination he deposed that accused
Satender was arrested after taking permission from the court
concerned. He stated that he had recorded the disclosure
statement of this accused in his own handwriting and it was
recorded in the presence of a constable, whose name he did
not remember. He conceded that the signature of accused
Satender is in different ink.
5. After conclusion of prosecution evidence, the accused
persons were examined U/s 313 Cr.P.C and in their respective
statements they forcefully denied the story of prosecution and
claimed innocence on the plea of false implication in the
instant case.
Accused Sunil Pal and Bhoop Singh claimed that Pushpa
and her biological father have deposed against them because
they had concocted a story of illicit relationship of Bhojwati with
accused Sunil Pal only to disinherit Bhojwati from the house of
the deceased. Pushpa was real daughter of elder brother
Manphool of deceased and this conspiracy was hatched by the
family of the deceased to discredit the wife of the deceased.
The family of the deceased have already sold the house even
during the pendency of this trial which proves their conspiracy
to the hilt.
Accused Ram Naresh claimed that this is a false case
against him as some dispute has been crooked up between his
family and his cousin's family and also with the coaccused

State Vs. Sunil Pal and ors. (SC No.51/2011) Page No.36 of pages 66
Sunil Pal.
Accused Harender stated that he has been falsely
implicated in this case on the disclosure of coaccused and
PWs have deposed against him at the instance of police.
Accused Satender has claimed in his statement that he
has been falsely implicated in this case as some dispute has
been crooked up between his family and his cousin's family.
Accused Bhojwati has claimed in her statement recorded
U/s 313 Cr.P.C that she has been falsely implicated in this case
in order to disentitle her from inheriting the properties of her
deceased husband. She also stated that while she is in judicial
custody for last 7 years, properties in the name of her
husband i.e House No. C343 Gali No. 2, 28 foota road, West
Karawal Nagar and property situated at the native place of her
deceased husband has already been sold out by PW1 and
PW3 with connivance of interested relatives, without due
process of law on the basis of false and forged documents and
it was the only aim of the relative of the deceased, who had
deposed against her. Not only immovable property have been
disposed of, her valuables, articles and cash and jewellery
kept in her house along with house hold articles have also
been removed and misappropriated without her knowledge and
consent, without due process of law. She claimed innocence
and stated that the story narrated by PW1 about her relation
with coaccused Sunil Pal is concocted without iota of
evidence.
The accused persons opted to lead evidence in their
defence and accordingly examined Tara Chand as DW1.
6. The sole defence witness appeared in the witness box
namely DW1 Tara Chand confirmed that accused Bhojwati is
his real sister and the relations between Bhojwat and her

State Vs. Sunil Pal and ors. (SC No.51/2011) Page No.37 of pages 66
husband were cordial and there was no issue of his sister and
Harphool Singh. He was having visiting terms to the
matrimonial house of his sister at Karawal Nagar. On
06.09.2006 he was called by the police of PS Khajuri Khas by
stating that there was some matter between his sister and her
husband and he reached at PS Kahjuri Khas alongwith his son
at around 12.00 mid night where he was asked to see his
sister, who was sitting in the Police Station. At about 12.30 AM
he was told that Harphool singh was murdered and his dead
body was found near Pusta at Khajuri Khas. On 07.09.2006
she again went to PS Khajuri Khas where the family members
of Harphool Singh namely Horam Singh, Manphool Singh,
Sangita and Advocate Rajender Pal also reached alongwith
several other persons. Thereafter, his sister was booked in this
case. His sister had asked him to lookafter her property at
Karawal Nagar and he used to visit said property once or twice
in a year. Till 2009 he had seen and noticed that in the
aforesaid house father of the deceased namely Horam,
Manphool (brother of deceased) and daughter of Manphool
Sangeeta used to occupy the said property. When he visited
the said property in the year 2010, he found that some other
persons were occupying the said property. He told to them that
this property was of Harphool Singh, who is murdered and his
wife Bhojwati is his sister. But they did not entertain him and
ask him to go out. Thereafter, he filed a complaint in writing in
PS Khajuri Khas and inquiry was conducted, wherein it was
revealed that the property was in the name of Horam. From
further inquiry it was revealed that Horam Singh has
transferred the said property in the name of Sangeeta, who
has further sold the said property. He proved on record the
documents of the said Sale Transaction as Ex. DW1/A to C.

State Vs. Sunil Pal and ors. (SC No.51/2011) Page No.38 of pages 66
During the said inquiry, it was also reported by one Pundir that
sign and seal affixed on the documents are forged, which is
Ex.DW1/D. After revealing the aforesaid facts, he made inquiry
of other properties of deceased Harphool situated in Distt.
Hapur and then he also came to know that Sangeeta has also
sold the aforesaid property of deceased Harphool being his
adopted daughter vide sale Ex.DW1/E. He also stated that his
sister has been falsely implicated in this case to disentitle her
from inheriting the properties of her husband.
During cross examination he stated that his sister
Bhojwati was married with deceased in the year 1984. He
confirmed that from the wedlock of his sister with deceased,
there was no issue. After the marriage his sister started
residing with deceased at Hasupur Distt. Hapur, UP and she
remained there for about 56 years. Thereafter, deceased
Harphool Singh started living in Delhi on rent and they lived on
rent up to 1990 and in the year of 1990 they shifted in their
house at Karawal Nagar i.e House No.C343 Gali No.2 West
Karawal Nagar. He stated that he never visited to the rented
house of his sister, however, he used to visit at the house of
Harphool Singh about twice a year. He could not tell as to
when Sangeeta started living with Harphool Singh and his
sister. He denied that Sangeeta was residing with Harphool
and his sister even in their rented house or that his sister and
Harphool Singh had adopted as they were not having any
issue. He stated that Sangeeta was never adopted by his sister
and Harphool. Deceased Harphool had given a room to one
person namely Sunil Kumar 34 months prior to the date of the
incident. He had seen Sunil Kumar (correctly identified) once in
his room (rented) at the house of deceased Harphool Singh.
He denied that his sister Bhojwati had illicit relations with

State Vs. Sunil Pal and ors. (SC No.51/2011) Page No.39 of pages 66
accused Sunil Pal or that due to that reason he used to visit
the house of his sister occasionally. Further on 07.09.2006, he
came to know that his sister was arrested by the police in the
present case and also came to know later on that tenant of his
sister Sunil was also arrested in the present case. After the
marriage, her sister had gone under treatment for fertility of a
baby but he could not tell as to from where and from which
doctor she had taken the treatment. He denied that when even
after getting treatment his sister did not conceive, she and her
deceased husband had adopted Sangeeta @ Pushpa as their
daughter. He denied that he wanted to grab the property of
deceased Harphool or that only to grab the property of
deceased Harphool he filed civil suits or that his sister had illicit
relations with Sunil Pal who was her tenant or that she along
with Sunil Pal and other accused persons committed murder of
Harphool.
7. I have carefully heard the rival submissions of Sh.
Dharam Chand, Ld. Addl. PP for State, Sh. Rajender Pal &
Smt. Radha Yadav Advocates for complainant as well as of Sh.
Deepak Gandhi, Advocate Ld. Counsel for accused Sunil Pal
and Bhoop Singh, Sh. D.K. Bhatia, Advocate, for accused
Bhojwati, Sh. Abdul Sattar, Advocate Ld. Amicus Curiae for
accused Harender and Ram Naresh and Sh. Rajiv Prasad
Advocate for accused Satender. I have also given my
prolonged consideration to the matter in the light of evidence
adduced and the case laws relied upon by Ld. Counsels for the
parties.
8. The case of the prosecution can be summarized as
under:
(i). Accused Sunil Pal was inducted as a tenant by
the deceased Harphool Singh, husband of

State Vs. Sunil Pal and ors. (SC No.51/2011) Page No.40 of pages 66
accused Bhojwati in their house bearing
no.C343, Gali No.2, West Karawal Nagar, Delhi
for two months prior to the incident and accused
Bhojwati developed illicit relationship with
accused Sunil Pal, which was being objected to
by deceased Harphool Singh.
(ii).PW Pushpa, the adopted daughter of Harphool
Singh (the deceased) and Bhojwati had seen
accused Bhojwati in indulging in indecent and
free behaviour with Sunil Pal.
(iii).Due to this illicit liaison, a criminal conspiracy to
eliminate Harphool Singh physically was hatched
by accused Sunil Pal and Bhojwati alongwith the
other persons including accused Ram Naresh.
(iv).Accused Ram Naresh, a relative of accused
Sunil Pal demanded Rs. One Lakh to assist in
murder of Harphool Singh.
(v).Accused Bhowati handed over Rs.50,000/ in
advance to accused Sunil Pal, out of which Rs.
20,000/ was given by Sunil Pal to accused
Harender at the instance of Ram Naresh and in
pursuance of conspiracy to arrange drug to
make Harphool unconscious/intoxicated.
(vi).The drugs were accordingly brought by
Harender and handed over to Bhojwati in
presence of Sunil and Ram Naresh, for mixing
the same in the meals/eatable of Harphool
Singh.
(vii).The accused Satender and Bhoop Singh were
also involved in the plan and the task assigned
to Bhoop Singh was to dispose off the dead

State Vs. Sunil Pal and ors. (SC No.51/2011) Page No.41 of pages 66
body by removing the same in cycle rickshaw/
rehdi of Bhoop Singh.
(viii).Harphool Singh was given drug in the meals in
the night of 05.09.2006 by Bhojwati. The plan
could not be succeeded as Harphool Singh only
lost his consciousness and he did not die.
(ix).Ram Naresh was telephonically informed
accordingly on his mobile phone by Sunil Pal
from his own mobile phone and accordingly Ram
Naresh came to the house of deceased in the
next morning.
(x).In the morning of 06.09.2006, PW Pushpa,
when she was getting ready for going of her
school, had seen accused Ram Naresh, Sunil
Pal and Satender having tea with Bhojwati and
Harphool Singh in her house and thereafter, she
left for her school.
(xi).By the drug laced tea, served by Bhojwati,
Harphool Singh lost his consciousness and
thereafter, Bhojwati went to temple.
(xii).Thereafter, Harphool Singh was killed by Sunil
Pal, Ram Naresh and Satender and in
pursuance to the conspiracy, his dead body was
removed in Diwan (the board of which was
nailed to prevent body coming out) and kept and
taken away in cycle rickshaw/rehdi of Bhoop
Singh.
(xiii).In loading the box (diwan) containing the dead
body on the cycle rickshaw, the help/assistance
of Sonu and Deepak (the neighbourers) was
taken and despite of their asking to remove the

State Vs. Sunil Pal and ors. (SC No.51/2011) Page No.42 of pages 66
nail, so that Diwan becomes light by taking out
its inside contents (i.e. the dead body), the same
was not removed.
(xiv).Accused Ram Naresh was to be paid the
balance amount of ransom i.e. Rs.50,000/ after
the task was over and therefore, he came and
banged the door of the house of Bhojwati on
07.09.2006 and uttered the words loudly "work
has been done, give the balance amount".
(xv).Door was not opened by Bhojwati, rather, she
talked with Sunil.
(xvi).Pushpa (who was not being given reply
satisfactorily by the accused Bhojwati regarding
non arrival/missing of her father Harphool Singh
since 06.09.2006, made a call at 100 number.
(xvii).Police came and made inquiry about Harphool
Singh but she could not give satisfactory reply
and then at her instance police apprehended the
accused Ram Naresh, who then disclosed the
entire conspiracy and got the dead body of
Harphool Singh recovered from the forest near
th
4 Pushta, Sonia Vihar. His mobile phone make
Nokia having SIM Card bearing IMEI No.
3556650/11/133585/2 was also seized.
(xviii).Manphool, brother of deceased Harphool
Singh had identified the dead body at the spot.
(xix).Upon the disclosure of Ram Naresh, the co
accused Sunil Pal was apprehended from
C343, West Karawal Nagar, Delhi and he was
interrogated and his mobile phone make Nokia
having SIM card bearing IMEI No.35186401/

State Vs. Sunil Pal and ors. (SC No.51/2011) Page No.43 of pages 66
339919/5 was seized. He also got recovered the
hammer (the weapon of offence) from his house.
(xx).On disclosure of Ram Naresh and Sunil Pal,
accused Bhojwati was apprehended and she
made her disclosure.
(xxi).Upon the disclosure of Ram Naresh, Sunil and
Bhojwati, accused Bhoop Singh was
apprehended, who got recovered cycle rickshaw,
diwan and two quilts from his house at Bhagat
Vihar, Karawal Nagar.
(xxii).On 07.04.2007 accused Harender was
apprehended, whereas accused Satender
remained absconded and he was ultimately
apprehended and brought before the court by
way of supplementary challan.
9. According to the contention of Ld. Addl. PP for the State
and Ld. Counsels for complainant, the case of the prosecution
launched U/s 302/201/34, 120B IPC based on circumstantial
evidence is crystal clear. By the combined reading of the
consistent, natural and trustworthy statement of PW1 Pushpa
(the last seen evidence) and of PW3 Manphool, PW4 Sonu,
PW6 Ram Sagar Yadav, PW8 ASI Kashmira Singh (Retd.),
PW16 SHO Insp. Ramesh Dahiya and PW21 Ct. Mahfooz Ali
coupled with the medical and scientific evidence (in
consonance to the story of prosecution) and other evidence of
police officials, the case of the prosecution that the accused
Sunil Pal and Bhojwati (who are having illicit relationship)
entered into a criminal conspiracy to physically eliminate
Harphool Singh from the earth and after killing him dumped the
dead body of victim Harphool Singh in the jungle of Pusta
Sonia Vihar. The factum of unnatural death of Harphool Singh

State Vs. Sunil Pal and ors. (SC No.51/2011) Page No.44 of pages 66
(deceased) is not in dispute at all. The motive (which can be
gathered from the circumstances and the statements of the
witnesses) and the factum of criminal conspiracy amongst the
accused persons are fully established from the statement of
PW1 Pushpa and the technical evidence in the form of call
details of the accused Ram Naresh and Sunil Pal. The
disclosure statements of the accused persons particularly of
accused Ram Naresh Pal (in pursuance to which the dead
body was recovered) and the accused Bhoop Singh which led
to the recovery of rickshaw, bed and quilts are admissible U/s
27 of Indian Evidence Act further consolidates the case of
prosecution. The weapon of offence i.e. hammer was got
recovered from the exclusive possession of the accused Sunil
Pal. Further the act and conduct of the accused Bhojwati
gathered from the record particularly from the statement of
PW1 i.e. she gave evasive replies to the quarries raised by
PW1 to the accused Bhojwati regarding non returning of her
father like "duty lag gai hogi; gaon chala gaya hoga; time to lag
jata hai jab gaon gaye ho", on banging the door by Ram
Naresh she instead of opening the door went up stairs
alongwith Sunil, further consolidates case of prosecution.
Thus the evidence brought on record are of cogent and
clinching nature and by the unbreakable chain of evidence the
case of prosecution is firmly established and therefore, all the
accused persons are liable to suffer an order of conviction
against them.
On the other hand according to Ld. Counsels for accused
persons the prosecution has been miserably failed to prove th
charges leveled against the accused persons beyond the
shadow of doubt and therefore, the accused persons are
entitled for an order of acquittal in their favour.

State Vs. Sunil Pal and ors. (SC No.51/2011) Page No.45 of pages 66
As per Ld. Counsel for accused Sunil Pal and Bhoop
Singh first of all the story brought up by the prosecution is
opposed to the natural human conduct as it sounds most
unlikely that Ram Naresh who was an alleged contact killer
would come and bang the main gate and shout in the din
silence of the night that he had performed his part of duty and
therefore, balance amount to be paid to him. Further Pushpa
in her examination in chief has categorically confirmed that
their tenant Sunil Pal was living in their house alongwith his
wife and children and it is strange that the police or the
investigating agency neither named nor interrogated the wife of
Sunil Pal, who was the most natural witness to have been
confronted to ascertain truthfulness of the alleged illicit
relationship. Admittedly no Judicial TIP of the accused persons
were got conducted by the IO and it is a fatal lapse as
admittedly except Bhojwati and Sunil Pal (the tenant), all the
other accused persons were neither previously known to PW1
Pushpa nor she had ever seen them before. Further the
recovery of weapon of offence i.e. hammer is doubtful in the
absence of any independent public witness. Similarly, the
recovery of other articles like quilt, box bed etc. is also not free
from doubt. Further the prosecution has failed to pick up any
forensic evidence from the room of Sunil Pal like finger prints
from the hammer nor any piece of evidence has been collected
from the bed. The dead body when recovered from jungle has
signs of bleeding, then how come this blood was not found in
the bed and the quilts in which the dead body was wrapped, as
per allegations. Above all, the cause of death is not
conclusively established. The accused Sunil is innocent and he
has been falsely involved being the soft target (being the
tenant in the house) and so is Bhoop Singh being his brother.

State Vs. Sunil Pal and ors. (SC No.51/2011) Page No.46 of pages 66
According to Ld. Counsel for the accused Bhojwati, the
most important chain of the case i.e. motive remained not
established beyond doubt. The testimony of sole witness i.e.
PW1 Pushpa, who undisputedly is not the real daughter of
deceased and accused Bhojwati is not safely worthy of
reliance in the absence of any corroborative material and the
facts that it contains several discrepancies and contradictions
therein. Firstly, no judicial TIP of the accused persons has
been conducted in this case and it is a serious lapse on the
part of investigating agency particularly in the circumstances
when the accused persons except Sunil Pal and Bhojwati were
earlier not known to PW1 Pushpa. The place of incident is
also doubtful in this case as according to prosecution the
deceased was murdered in the room of Sunil Pal from where
the dead body was removed to the jungle by keeping the same
in a rickshaw rehdi with the help of PW4 Sonu but the said
Diwan and rikhshaw redhi were not shown and got identified by
the said witness in the court. Further the room was never kept
in safe custody by the IO. The manner in which the hammer
was allegedly recovered from the room of coaccused Sunil Pal
is not accepted and tenable in the Evidence Act. Moreover, the
rickshaw rehdi, diwan and quilts are commonly available.
These articles could not be affixed/attributed to the accused
persons in the absence of any independent witness of the
recovery of said articles. The cause of death is not certain as
the doctors have not opined the same with certainty. It is failed
to understand as to why three opinions were taken one after
another. Further there are material contradictions and
discrepancies amongst the testimonies of various PWs and
they caused dents in the case of the prosecution. Further the
CDR of accused Sunil Pal and Ram Naresh are not acceptable

State Vs. Sunil Pal and ors. (SC No.51/2011) Page No.47 of pages 66
as a legal piece of evidence in a trial as same is hit by Sec.79
of Information Technology Act. Further the last seen evidence
in the form of PW1 is not fully reliable as there was a gap of
three days between last seen and recovery of dead body.
It has been submitted on behalf of accused Harender and
Ram Naresh that the medical evidence is not in consonance
with the case of prosecution. Further the role assigned to
accused Harender is that he had procured the poisonous/
intoxicated tablets and the same was given to the accused
Bhojwati to administer the same to the victim/deceased but
there is no material on record in the form of supporting
documents like the receipt of chemist shop qua the purchase
of said tablets or even the details of the shop from where the
said purchase was made has been brought on record.
As regard to accused Ram Naresh, it is claimed that
neither the cause of death is firmly ascertained nor the place of
occurrence has been proved beyond doubt. Out of the four
witnesses of the transportation of the dead body to the jungle,
nobody has claimed that they had seen the dead body after
getting the bed opened. Admittedly no finger print from
hammer was collected to support the version of the
prosecution. Further the claim of prosecution that accused
Sunil Pal and Ram Naresh were in constant touch with each
other through telephonic conversation can not be completely
relied upon in the absence of further details to the effect that
the conversation was related to the conspiracy regarding
murder. Further out of nine external injuries mentioned in the
Postmortem Report, none is on private parts.
As regards to accused Satender it has been claimed that
except his own disclosure and disclosure statements of other
coaccused persons (which are not admissible in law), and in

State Vs. Sunil Pal and ors. (SC No.51/2011) Page No.48 of pages 66
the circumstances where no recovery was effected in
pursuance to the said disclosure statements from him and
further in the circumstances where there is no material on
record to confirm about the presence of accused Satender at
the spot or in the company of coaccused persons, no criminal
liability can be attached to the accused Satender.
10. 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 in consistent with his innocence.
In I (2008) SLT 682 titled as Sattatiya @ Satish
Rajanna Kartalla Vs. State of Maharashtra, it was held that,
"It is settled law that an offence can be proved not only by
direct evidence but also by circumstantial evidence where
there is no direct evidence. The Court can drawn an inference
of guilt when all the incriminating facts and circumstances are
found to be totally incompatible with the innocence of the
accused. Of course, the circumstances from which an
inference as to the guilt 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 Hanumant Govind Navgundkar Vs. State of MP, AIR
1952 SC 343, which is one of the earliest decisions on the
subject, the Apex Court of land observed as under:
"It is well to remember that in cases
where the evidence is of a circumstantial

State Vs. Sunil Pal and ors. (SC No.51/2011) Page No.49 of pages 66
nature, the circumstances from which the
conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should
be in the first instance be fully
established and all the facts so
established should be consistent only
with the hypothesis of the guilt of the
accused. Again, the circumstances
should be of a conclusive nature and
tendency and they should be such as to
exclude every hypothesis but the one
proposed to be proved. In other words,
there must be a chain of evidence so far
complete as not to leave any reasonable
ground for a conclusion consistent with
the innocence of the accused and it must
be such as to show that within all human
probability the act must have been done
by the accused."
In Padala Veera Reddy Vs. State of AP (1989) Supp (2)
SCC 706, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that when a case
rests upon circumstantial evidence, the following tests must be
satisfied:
(i). the circumstances from which an inference of
guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently
and firmly established;
(ii). Those circumstances should be of a definite
tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of
the accused;
(iii). the circumstances, taken cumulatively, should
form a chain so complete that there is no
escape from the conclusion that within all

State Vs. Sunil Pal and ors. (SC No.51/2011) Page No.50 of pages 66
human probability the crime was committed
by the accused and none else; and;
(iv). the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain
conviction must be complete and incapable of
explanation of any other hypothesis than that
of the guilt of the accused and such evidence
should not only be consistent with the guilt of
the accused but should be inconsistent with
his innocence."
In Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of
Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116, it was held that the onus
was on the prosecution to prove that the chain is complete and
falsity or untenability of the defence set up by the accused can
not be made basis for ignoring serious infirmity or lacuna in the
prosecution case. The Court then proceeded to indicate the
conditions which must be fully established before conviction
can be based on circumstantial evidence. These are:
(i). 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;
(ii). the facts so established should be consistent
only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the
accused, that it is to say, they should not be
explainable on any other hypothesis except
that the accused is guilty;
(iii). the circumstances should be of a conclusive
nature and tendency;
(iv). they should exclude every possible
hypothesis except the one to be proved; and
(iv). there must be a chain of evidence so

State Vs. Sunil Pal and ors. (SC No.51/2011) Page No.51 of pages 66
complete as not to leave any reasonable
ground for the conclusion consistent with the
innocence of the accused and must show
that in all human probability the act must
have been done by the accused."
In state of UP Vs. Ashok Kumar Srivastava, (1992) 2
SCC 86, it was pointed out that great care must be taken in
evaluating circumstantial evidence and if the evidence relied on
is reasonably capable of two inferences, the one in favour of
the accused must be accepted. It was also pointed out that the
circumstances relied upon must be found to have been fully
established and the cumulative effect of all the facts so
established must be consistent only with the hypothesis of
guilt.
The above noted propositions have been reiterated in
Bodhraj @ Bodha and Others Vs. State of Jammu and
Kashmir, V (2002) SLT 111; Bharat Vs, State of MP., I (2003)
SLT 724; Jaswant Gir Vs. State of Punjab, III (2006) CCR;
Harmuddin Vs. State of Delhi ILR (2008) II Delhi 107, AIR
2007 SC 2957.
In Ramreddy Rajesh Khanna Reddy and another Vs.
State of AP (Supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court while
reiterating the settled legal position observed:
"It is now settled that with a view to base
a conviction on circumstantial evidence,
the prosecution must establish all the
pieces of incriminating circumstances by
reliable and clinching evidence and the
circumstances so proved must form
such a chain of events as would permit
no conclusion other than one of guilt of

State Vs. Sunil Pal and ors. (SC No.51/2011) Page No.52 of pages 66
the accused. The circumstances can not
be on any other hypothesis. It is also
well settled that suspicion, however
grave it may be, can not be a substitute
for a proof and the Courts shall take
utmost precaution in finding an accused
guilty only on the basis of the
circumstantial evidence."
In Reg. Vs. Hodge [1838 2 Lewin 227], it was held that
"the mind was apt to take a pleasure in adapting circumstances
to one another, and even in straining them a little, if need be, to
force them to form parts of one connected whole; and the more
ingenious the mind of the individual, the more likely was it,
considering such matters, to overreach and mislead itself, to
supply some little link that is wanting, to take for granted some
fact consistent with its previous theories and necessary to
render them complete."
In Sarwan Singh Rattan Singh Vs. State of Punjab
[AIR 1957 SC 637], it has been held that "it is no doubt a
matter of regret that a foul cold blooded and cruel murder
should go unpunished. There may also be an element of truth
in the prosecution story against the accused. Considered as a
whole, the prosecution story may be true; but between 'may be
true' and 'must be true' there is inevitably a long distance to
travel and the whle of this distance must be covered by the
prosecution by legal, reliable and unimpeachable evidence
before an accused can be convicted."
As per settled law, it is not as if the conviction can only be
based on the sole ground of last seen as last seen together
may not by itself necessarily lead to the inference that it was
the accused who committed the crime. I consider it necessary
at this stage to refer to a decision of the Supreme Court of
State Vs. Sunil Pal and ors. (SC No.51/2011) Page No.53 of pages 66
India reported in State of Rajasthan Vs. Kanshi Ram AIR
2007 SC 145, where the law on this subject has been
discussed in detail. Relevant portion of the same reads as
under:
"Ld. counsel for the State strenuously
urged before us that the High Court
committed an apparent error in ignoring
the evidence on record which disclosed
that the respondent was last seen with

deceased Kalawati in his house on February 3, 1998 late in the afternoon.

Thereafter, he was not seen by anyone and his house was found locked in the morning. The evidence of PW--5, mother of the deceased Kalawati, and her brother Manraj, PW--2 clearly prove the fact that the house was found locked on February 4, 1998. The evidence also establishes beyond doubt that the doors were removed and dead bodies of the deceased Kalawati and her daughters were found inside the house on February 6, 1998. In these circumstances, the disappearance of the respondent was rather suspicious because if at all only he could explain what happened thereafter. He, therefore, submitted that in the facts of the case, in the absence of any explanation offered by the respondent, an inference must be drawn against the respondent which itself is a serious incriminating State Vs. Sunil Pal and ors. (SC No.51/2011) Page No.54 of pages 66 circumstance against him."

In Sahadevan alias Sagadevan Vs. State, represented by Inspector of Police, Chennai (2003) Vol.1 SCC 534, the prosecution established the fact that the deceased was seen in the company of the appellants from the morning of March 5, 1985 till at least 5 p.m. on that day when he was brought to his house, and thereafter his dead body was found in the morning of March 6, 1985. In the background of such facts, the court observed: "Therefore, it has become obligatory on the appellants to satisfy the court as to how, where and in what manner Vadivelu parted company with them.

This is on the principle that a person who is last found in the company of another, if later found missing, then the person with whom he was last found has to explain the circumstances in which they parted company. In the instant case, the appellants have failed to discharge this onus. In their statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C they have not taken any specific stand whatsoever."

11. The case in hand, is a case where there is no direct evidence and the entire case rests only on circumstantial evidence. In such cases, it is now well settled that the court has to first see whether the evidence of the circumstances is true and then see whether the circumstances which are found to be true lead to the sole and certain inference of the accused persons being guilty and whether they are inconsistent with the innocence of the accused persons. In examination the State Vs. Sunil Pal and ors. (SC No.51/2011) Page No.55 of pages 66 evidentiary effect of the circumstances, the Court has to guard itself against the tendency to substitute suspicion and supply links, which are missing to constitute the necessary chain of guilt. As pointed out by their Lordships of Supreme Court in Hanumant Vs. State of M.P AIR 1952 SC 343 in such cases there is always the danger that conjuncture or suspicion may taken the place of legal proof and therefore, it is right to recall the warning addressed by Baron Alderson to the Jury in Reg Vs. Hodge in (1838) 2 Levin 227, where he said "The mind was apt to take a pleasure in adopting circumstances to one another and even in straining them a little, if need be, to force them to form parts of one connected hole; and the more ingenious the mind of individual, the more likely was it, considering such matters to over reach and mislead itself, to supply some little link i.e. wanting to take for granted some fact consistent with its previous theories and necessary to render them completely."

12. Applying the aforesaid principles of law, I have examined the evidence on record and come to the conclusion that the prosecution has been failed in its mission of proving its case beyond the shadow of reasonable doubts and therefore, the accused persons are entitled for an order of acquittal in their favour by giving them benefit of doubt for the reasons given below: Firstly, in a case of homicidal death/murder it is the bounded duty of the prosecution to establish conclusively the cause of death. This is important to establish which injury ultimately caused the death of deceased. Because in the prosecution story specific overt acts have been attributed to each accused persons and cause of death would ultimately establish the role of each accused persons. In this case, the State Vs. Sunil Pal and ors. (SC No.51/2011) Page No.56 of pages 66 MLC was prepared and postmortem was conducted on 09.09.2006 and the said postmortem was conducted by Dr. Barkha Gupta but she did not give her opinion on the cause of death by stating that the cause of death shall be opined on receipt of the viscera report from CFSL. However, interestingly she did not even point out her finger towards any such injury marks around the neck area which could easily be the possibility of death due to compression of neck. When the viscera report did not point out towards any poisonous substance in the Viscera, then on 12.11.2006 (almost after 70 days of the postmortem) the second opinion was sought from the doctor and for the first time, the hammer was sent to the doctor for identifying with the nature of injury and possible cause of death. The said second theory was coined on the failure of first theory of poisoning. In case, the police had recovered hammer at the very first instance, as claimed, then why the same was not sent to the doctor at the time of first opinion. Thus it is doubtful that the so called hammer was in the possession of police at the first instance and the possibility of plantation of hammer subsequently can not be denied. However, the second opinion sought by police was again inconclusive as the doctor failed to connect the hammer with the injury which could be ultimate cause of death. Having no definite opinion on the cause of death, the Investigating Agency preferred an application on 15.06.2007 (more than nine months of the incident) and obtained the third opinion that too from another doctor namely Dr. N.K. Aggarwal. No reason has been given for taking the opinion from another doctor that too on the basis of postmortem conducted nine moths earlier and in the said third opinion the doctor had opined possibility of death due to compression of neck for the first time. The said State Vs. Sunil Pal and ors. (SC No.51/2011) Page No.57 of pages 66 opinion based on hearsay evidence and not having been raised on any personal observation and expertize, is not free from doubt. The said doctor did not have the dead body in his front and also he had not conducted the postmortem himself then how did he arrive to his opinion regarding the cause of death? It is not clear. Moreover, the cause of death is not certain as the doctors have not opined the same with certainty. When the cause of death is not certain, the accused persons can not be connected with the case on the basis of their disclosure statements.

Further, in the instant case, like the cause of death, place of occurrence is also not certain. As per the story of prosecution, the deceased was murdered in the room of Sunil Pal from where the dead body (after wrapping in a quilt and keeping in a wooden diwan) was removed to the jungle by keeping the same in a rickshaw rehri with the help of PW4 Sonu but the said diwan and the rickshaw rehri were not shown and got identified by the said witness to prove that the said articles are the same articles which were used by the accused persons. Further the room was never kept in safe custody by the IO for getting more scientific evidence to confirm that it was the place/room where the deceased was killed. Thus there is no evidence on record to show that murder was taken place in the room only. Interestingly, it has clearly been come on record in the evidence of PW1 that Ram Naresh while banging the door loudly stated that "MAINE TO KAM KAR DIYA HAI BAKI PAISE DO", it shows that whatever occurrence had taken place it had taken place outside the house. Further out of the four witnesses of the transportation of the dead body to the jungle, nobody has claimed that they had seen the dead body after getting the bed opened.

State Vs. Sunil Pal and ors. (SC No.51/2011) Page No.58 of pages 66 Significantly, non finding of blood stains on the articles like bed box, quilts or even hammer, is also an important factor which can not be ignored. Further admittedly no finger print from hammer was collected to support the version of the prosecution. Moreover, no where in the inquest proceedings it has been mentioned that the hammer blows were given.

As regards to the motives of commission of offence i.e. the accused Bhojwati, who has developed illicit relations with coaccused Sunil Pal (which had come in the knowledge of deceased) wanted to physically eliminate Harphool (the deceased) and to substantiate it, the prosecution has produced the sole witness i.e. PW1 Pushpa, who is admittedly not the real daughter of deceased and accused Bhojwati and there is no other corroborative evidence to her testimony and the scrutiny of her testimony reveals that it contains several discrepancies and contradictions and therefore, it can not be safely believed upon. Firstly, the chain of evidence is not complete to arrive on a conclusion that the accused Ram Naresh, Bhojwati, Sunil Pal, Bhoop Singh, Harender and Satender were the persons, who had conspired to finish the deceased. No judicial TIP of the accused persons has been conducted in this case and it is a serious lapse on the part of investigating agency particularly in the circumstances when the accused persons except Sunil Pal and Bhojwati were earlier not known to PW1 Pushpa. Further Pushpa in her examinationinchief has categorically confirmed that their tenant Sunil Pal was living in their house alongwith his wife and children and it is not digestible that the fluttering between Sunil Pal and Bhojwati which was noticed by fourteen year old daughter Pushpa remained unnoticed and unprotested by the wife of Sunil Pal. This goes to the root of genuineness of the State Vs. Sunil Pal and ors. (SC No.51/2011) Page No.59 of pages 66 allegations. Further it is strange that the police or the investigating agency neither named nor interrogated the wife of Sunil Pal, who was the most natural witness to have been confronted to ascertain truthfulness of the alleged illicit relationship. Further it is revealed from the record that in her statement Pushpa has claimed that she had communicated about the said illicit relations to her father Harphool (deceased) but surprisingly Harphool did not change his behaviour towards Sunil Pal. All these show that the story of illicit relationship between Sunil Pal and Bhojwati is only a figment of imagination.

Further in the instant case, all the six accused persons have been charged for the offence of entering into the criminal conspiracy for committing the murder of Harphool Singh (since deceased).

The criminal conspiracy has been defined u/Sec. 120A of IPC (hereinafter shall be referred to as Code) and it is punishable u/Sec. 120B of Code.

Section 120A IPC reads as under: When two or more persons agrees to do, or cause to be done,-

(1).an illegal act, or (2).an act which is not illegal by illegal means, such an agreement is designated a criminal conspiracy:

Provided that no agreement except an agreement to commit an offence shall amount to a criminal conspiracy unless some act besides the agreement is done by one or more State Vs. Sunil Pal and ors. (SC No.51/2011) Page No.60 of pages 66 parties to such agreement in pursuance thereof. Explanation.- It is immaterial whether the illegal act is the ultimate object of such agreement, or is merely incidental to that object.

The essence of a criminal conspiracy is the unlawful combination and ordinarily the offence is complete when the combination is framed. Offence of criminal conspiracy consists not merely in the intention of two or more, but in the agreement of two or more to do an unlawful act by unlawful means. So long as such a design rests in intention only, it is not indictable.

It was held in Hira Lal Hari Lal Bhagwati Vs. CBI 2003 SCC (Cri) 1121 that, "To bring home the charge of conspiracy within the ambit of Section 120B, it is necessary to establish that there was an agreement between the parties for doing an unlawful act. It is difficult to establish conspiracy by direct evidence."

In the present case to prove the criminal conspiracy punishable U/s 120 B IPC, the prosecution has produced/ proved on record the details of the phone calls of accused Sunil Pal and Ram Naresh but in the circumstances where admittedly they both are relatives to each other, in the absence of further details, it can not be firmly said that the calls between them, as shown in CDR, were related to the conspiracy regarding murder. Further the chain of evidence is not complete to arrive to the conclusion that the accused Ram Naresh, Bhojwati, Sunil Pal, Bhoop Singh, Harender and Satender were the persons, who had conspired to finish the State Vs. Sunil Pal and ors. (SC No.51/2011) Page No.61 of pages 66 deceased. No judicial TIP of the accused persons has been conducted in this case and it is fatal in the circumstances that except Bhojwati and Sunil (the tenant) the accused persons were not earlier known to PW1 Pushpa or even seen by her.

Since in the instant case as many as six persons have been charge sheeted for committing the offence of murder, so the factum of recoveries of the articles used in the crime like the hammer (weapon of offence), wooden bed box and quilts at the instance of accused persons assumes a great significance and therefore, this link of chain of the case of prosecution is required to be evaluated very carefully. In the case in hand, it is expected from the Investigating Officer, who is a very senior rank officer, that all the necessary due care and caution would be taken by him to make this case beyond the shadow of reasonable doubts, however, the careful scrutiny of record reveals that the alleged recoveries are claim to have been effected from the accused persons on the basis of their respective Disclosure Statements have not been effected in the presence of any public person. It is not the case of prosecution that public persons were not available near the spot from where the alleged recoveries were effected but no independent witness was asked to join investigation. Admittedly, at the time of recording of Disclosure Statements of accused persons particularly of Ram Naresh and Sunil Pal, no outsider or neighbour were called to become the witness. Further no serious efforts appears to be made by IO to join the public witnesses in the investigation as nothing has come on record to show that any notice u/s 160 Cr.P.C was given to any witness to join investigation. No plausible explanation from the side of the prosecution is forthcoming for not joining the independent witnesses in a case of serious nature like the State Vs. Sunil Pal and ors. (SC No.51/2011) Page No.62 of pages 66 present one. It may be that there is an apathy on the part of the general public to associate themselves with the Police raids or the recoveries but that apart, at least the I.O should have made an earnest effort to join the independent witnesses. No attempt in this direction appears to have been made and this, by itself, is a circumstance throwing doubt on the arrest or the recovery of the articles from the accused persons.

This Court is, however, conscious that the prosecution case cannot be thrown out or doubted on the sole ground of nonjoining of public witnesses as public witnesses keep themselves away from the Court unless it is inevitable, as has been held in Appabhai and another v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1988 SC 696. However, in the present case, it is not only the absence of public witnesses which raises a doubt on the prosecution but there are other circumstances too, as discussed hereinafter, which raise suspicion over the prosecution version.

As per prosecution, the dead body was removed from the room and loaded on rickshaw by by the accused Sunil and Bhoop Singh then how accused Ram Naresh could get recover the dead body from a dense jungle when he was not present at point of time when alleged body was removed in diwan from the spot/room. Further the manner in which the hammer was allegedly recovered from the room of coaccused Sunil Pal is not accepted and tenable in the Evidence Act. Moreover, it was a common object/weapon easily available and significantly there is no independent witness to its recovery. The rickshaw rehdi, diwan and quilts are commonly available. These articles could not be affixed/attributed to the accused persons in the absence of any independent witness of the recovery of said articles. Further the quilts could have been the best evidence State Vs. Sunil Pal and ors. (SC No.51/2011) Page No.63 of pages 66 for the prosecution to connect the said articles with the crime, if same would have been sent to FSL for DNA profile, as quilts must have plenty of blood and fluids which after examination could be linked with the deceased but ironically they were not sent to FSL. The weapon of offence i.e. hammer was not recovered in the presence of any public witness and the recovery of same is shrouded in most suspicious manner as it is highly oppose to the natural human conduct as it sounds most unlikely that a person, who had committed a murder, would retain the weapon of offence i.e. the hammer, in his house that too in an easily accessible open place. Significantly, the prosecution has failed to pick up any forensic evidence from the room of Sunil Pal like finger prints from the hammer nor any piece of evidence has been collected from the bed. Further the box bed which is shown to have been recovered from the house of Bhoop Singh is a common bed which is easily available in the market and there is no evidence to show that this bed looks like an extra piece of furniture in the room of Bhoop Singh and the said bed is also not possessed in the presence of any public witness. Further according to PW8 ASI Kashmira Singh, the blood was oozing from the head of dead body, and if it was so, then how come this blood was not found in the bed and the quilts in which the dead body was wrapped, as per allegations.

Moreover, the story brought up by the prosecution is opposed to the natural human conduct as it sounds most unlikely that Ram Naresh who was an alleged contact killer would come and bang the main gate and shout in the din silence of the night that he had performed his part of duty and therefore, balance amount to be paid to him. Further there are material contradictions and discrepancies amongst the State Vs. Sunil Pal and ors. (SC No.51/2011) Page No.64 of pages 66 testimonies of various PWs and they caused dents in the case of the prosecution. The time of recovery of dead body and lodging of FIR is disputed by the PWs like according to PW21 the dead body was recovered at about 2.30 a.m and they had finally left the spot after two hours i.e. at about 4.30 a.m, and between this period the FIR was registered by sending the rukka in the Police Station, however, as per record the time of registration of FIR was 11.30 a.m. Further in the testimonies of PW8, PW16 & PW21 there are contradictions qua the use of mode of conveyance in reaching the spot. The spot of recovery of dead body is doubtful and PW3 has deposed that the dead body was lying about 1520 meters from pusta road and public persons were coming and going from the spot, whereas according to PW8 the dead body was lying at the distance of 1¾ KM from the pusta road. As per PW16 the dead body was laying half K.M from pusta road. Further according to PW8 the blood was oozing from the head of deceased but the postmortem report is silent about the injury on the head of the body. House number of accused Ram Naresh has been given differently by the prosecution witnesses. Finally, so far as last seen evidence is concerned it is stated by PW1 that she has seen the accused persons together at her house in the early morning of 06.09.2006, however, she has left for school while they were still in her house. It is the case of prosecution that the dead body was recovered in the morning of 08.09.2006 and hence, there is a gap of three days between last seen and recovery of dead body. This evidence can not be accepted as last seen evidence because the deceased might have gone or met other persons thereafter, as there is a gap of three days. Further, as per the case of prosecution in pursuance to the conspiracy, the accused Harender had procured the State Vs. Sunil Pal and ors. (SC No.51/2011) Page No.65 of pages 66 poisonous/intoxicated tablets and the same was given to the accused Bhojwati to administer the same to the victim/ deceased but except the inadmissible disclosure statement of coaccused Ram Naresh, there is no material on record in the form of supporting documents like the receipt of chemist shop qua the purchase of said tablets or even the details of the shop from where the said purchase was made has been brought on record. Further the FSL result also does not indicate about the presence of poisonous material in the body of deceased.

13. In the light of aforesaid, I hereby hold that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt as mandated by law. All the accused persons are accordingly acquitted of the offences charged with. The existing bail bond of accused Harender is extended for another period of six months in terms of the order of the Hon'ble High Court. Accused Sunil Pal, Bhojwati, Ram Naresh, Bhoop Singh and Satender, who are in custody, be released forthwith, if not required to be detained in any other case. The said accused persons shall furnish there respective personal bonds in the sum of Rs.10,000/ with one surety of like amount and the said bonds shall be furnished by them after their release from jail within one week.

14. File be consigned to Record Room after completion of necessary formalities.

(Announced in Open court                (RAKESH KUMAR) 
          th 
on 30 September, 2014)                            Addl. Sessions Judge/North East
                                                            Karkardooma Courts, Delhi 




State Vs. Sunil Pal and ors. (SC No.51/2011)                              Page No.66 of pages 66

Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Delhi District Court

State vs 1. Sunil Pal S/O Jai Veer Singh, on 30 September, 2014