Delhi District Court
State vs Anup Sinha Etc on 30 November, 2023
1
(Judgment) SC No. 51788/16
State Vs. Anoop Sinha & Ors.
FIR No. 83/12
PS Keshav Puram
U/s.364A/302/120B/201A IPC
IN THE COURT OF BABRU BHAN, ADDITIONAL
SESSIONS JUDGE - 03, NORTH WEST, ROHINI
COURTS, NEW DELHI
DLNW01-000168-2012 SC No. 51788/16
FIR No. 83/12
PS Keshav Puram
U/s. 364A/302/120B/201A IPC
(a) Session Case No. 51788/16
(b) Date of offence 03.04.2012
(c) Accused 1. Anoop Sinha
S/o. Anjni Sinha
R/o. B-386/3, Gauri Shankar
Enclave, Prem Nagar-II, Delhi
2. Avinash Kumar Srivastava
S/o. Adarsh Srivastava
R/o. S-19B, Rajdhani Park,
Nangloi, Delhi
3. Anil Kumar
S/o. Nawal Kishore
R/o. B-25, Kamruddin Nagar,
Nangloi, Delhi
(d) Offence U/s.364A/302/120B/201A IPC
(e) Plea of accused Not Guilty
(f) Final Order Accused Anoop Sinha convicted
u/s.302 & 201 IPC.
Accused Anil Kumar and Avinash
Kumar Srivastava are acquitted.
(g) Date of institution 30.07.2012
(h) Date when judgment 30.11.2023
was reserved
(I) Date of judgment 30.11.2023
2
(Judgment) SC No. 51788/16
State Vs. Anoop Sinha & Ors.
FIR No. 83/12
PS Keshav Puram
U/s.364A/302/120B/201A IPC
JUDGMENT
BRIEF FACTS
1. On 03.04.2012, Jonny (hereinafter referred to as deceased) had left for his work in the morning at about 09:00 AM. At about 06:45 PM, Jonny informed his elder brother Rinku that he would be coming late. Family of Jonny waited for him till 10:30 PM but he did not return. At about 11:42 PM, Ravinder Kumar, father of the deceased made a call to PCR which was received by Ct. Vijay Singh PW-9 at PCR control room. Thereafter, Ravinder along-with police officers from PS Paschim Vihar went to the contractor where deceased Jonny was working. Contractor informed them that Jonny had already left the construction site at about 06:00 p.m.
2. They returned to PS Paschim Vihar. In the meanwhile, Ashok Kumar PW-11 who was friend of deceased also visited PS Paschim Vihar and informed them that Jonny had visited him at about 06:15 PM and thereafter, left at about 06:30 PM. Ashok Kumar further told them that deceased had left stating that he had to meet accused Anoop Sinha. Since the deceased was last seen in the jurisdiction of PS Keshav Puram, therefore, Ravinder and Ashok were instructed to visit PS Keshav Puram.
3. Ashok Kumar PW-11 lodged a missing report at PS Keshav Puram vide DD No. 7B at 03:15 AM. DD was recorded by SI Sonu Ram PW-41.
4. Ravinder Kumar PW-10 again visited the PS on 04.04.2012 at 3 (Judgment) SC No. 51788/16 State Vs. Anoop Sinha & Ors.
FIR No. 83/12PS Keshav Puram U/s.364A/302/120B/201A IPC about 08:30 a.m. SI Sonu Ram recorded statement of Ravinder Ex.PW10/A. He prepared rukka Ex.PW41/A on the said statement. On basis of rukka, SI Veena PW-23 registered the present FIR Ex.PW23/A.
5. Thereafter, a supplementary statement of Ravinder PW-10 was recorded wherein he stated that he had received a ransom call from mobile number of his son Jonny and the caller had demanded Rs. 1 Crore and in case of non payment, caller had threatened to kill Jonny.
6. During further course of investigation, Insp. Vijay Kumar PW-42 obtained the call detail record of mobile phone of complainant Ravinder and Jonny. He analyzed the CDR of the mobile phone of deceased Jonny wherein it was revealed that on 03.04.2012, multiple calls were made on the mobile phone of the deceased from mobile phone of accused Anoop Sinha and vice versa. The location of both the mobile phones were also found moving in the same direction on that day. Ashok Kumar PW-11 further confirmed that after meeting him, deceased had gone to meet accused Anoop Sinha and this fact was confirmed by accused Anoop Sinha when Ashok Kumar made call to Anoop Sinha. IO also examined one Rahul PW-43, friend of accused Anoop Sinha who told that on 03.04.2012, at about 09:00 p.m., he had gone to meet accused Anoop Sinha. Thereafter, he again received phone call from Anoop Sinha wherein Anoop Sinha informed him that Jonny had been kidnapped. Anoop Sinha requested PW-43 to tell the police that he was with him (PW-43) from 06:00 p.m. to 4 (Judgment) SC No. 51788/16 State Vs. Anoop Sinha & Ors.
FIR No. 83/12PS Keshav Puram U/s.364A/302/120B/201A IPC 09:00 p.m.
7. Insp. Vijay Kumar got suspicious about the involvement of Anoop Sinha in kidnapping of Jonny. Accordingly, police interrogated him wherein accused Anoop Sinha confessed his involvement in the kidnapping of Jonny. He further disclosed about the involvement of Avinash Kumar and Anil Kumar. He was arrested and two mobile phones were recovered from his possession. He also got recovered the motorcycle of deceased from a parking near Peera Garhi Metro Station.
8. Subsequently, at instance of accused Anoop Sinha, accused Avinash Kumar was arrested from his residence. One motorcycle key was recovered from his possession. One train ticket in the name of father of deceased was recovered from possession of Avinash. Allegedly, this ticket was purchased by them under a pre-plan. IO further seized his mobile phone.
9. Thereafter, accused Anil was arrested vide proper arrest documents. Certain documents belonging to the motorcycle of deceased Jonny were recovered from possession of accused Anil. Same were seized by the IO vide proper seizure memo. Thereafter, on 06.04.2012, all the accused persons led the police party to a place in Kamruddin Nagar where they pointed out the exact place where dead body of the deceased was buried. On pointing out of the accused persons, body of the deceased was exhumed. Same was identified to be that of deceased Jonny.
10.Body was removed to hospital for postmortem. After postmortem, body was handed over to the family members vide 5 (Judgment) SC No. 51788/16 State Vs. Anoop Sinha & Ors.
FIR No. 83/12PS Keshav Puram U/s.364A/302/120B/201A IPC proper handing over memos.
11.During further course of investigation, IO got prepared scaled site plan, collected crime team reports, exhibits were sent to FSL for forensic analysis and statement of all the relevant witnesses were recorded.
12.On completion of investigation, IO filed the charge-sheet accusing the accused persons namely Anoop Sinha, Avinash Kumar Srivastava and Anil Kumar for the offences under Sections 364A/302/201/120B /411 IPC.
13.On the basis of the material collected during investigation, charges for the offences under Sections 364A/302/201/120B/411 IPC were framed against the accused on 26.09.2012 to which accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
14.To prove its case, Prosecution has examined 49 witnesses. The brief of the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses are as follows :
15.Sh. Harbhajan Singh/ PW 1 has deposed in his court statement recorded on that on 03.04.12, he was posted at PS Paschim Vihar and working as duty officer. On that day, at about 11.45 p.m., an information was received from Rajender regarding missing of his son Jonny. PW1 recorded this information in rojnamcha vide DD no.4A. DD was assigned to ASI Suresh Kumar. He has also proved arrival entry of ASI Suresh Kumar in PS on 04.04.12 as Ex.PW1/B.
16.Ashok Kumar/PW2 has proved ownership documents of vehicle i.e. motorcycle bearing no. DL8SAA-3450 registered in 6 (Judgment) SC No. 51788/16 State Vs. Anoop Sinha & Ors.
FIR No. 83/12PS Keshav Puram U/s.364A/302/120B/201A IPC the name of Sh. Kishan pal as Ex.PW2/A. He has also proved ownership documents of motorcycle bearing registration no.DL11 SB-4903 as Ex.PW2/B.
17.Sh. Satya Prakash/PW3 has proved ownership record of scooter bearing no.DL4SAN 2755 make Chetak in the name of Sh. Sushil Kumar Saxena as Ex.PW3/A.
18.Dr. Sudesh Kumar/PW4, Medical Officer, Department of Forensic Medicine, BJRM Hospital has proved postmortem report of the deceased as Ex. PW4/A. He further deposed that IO Inspector Vijay Kumar had produced a metallic wire in sealed cover for the opinion on the injuries caused to the deceased. This witness opined via his report Ex.PW4/B that injuries found on the person of deceased were possible to be caused with the metallic wire produced by the IO.
19.Sh. Manjeet Singh/ PW5, Reservation Supervisor, Grade-II, has proved railway reservation journey ticket as Ex.PW5/A.
20.Sh. Kishan Pal /PW6 was owner of motorcycle bearing no.DL8SAA-3450 and has deposed that he had sold the same to accused Avinash @ Masterji for an amount of Rs.17,500 on 20.03.2009. This witness had provided copy of affidavit and photocopy of voter ID card to IO. The witness proved seizure memo Ex.PW6/A of affidavit Ex.PW6/B of accused Avinash and voter list showing the name of accused at sl.no.656 as Ex.PW6/C.
21.As per case of prosecution, Mukesh/PW7 had sold salt to the accused persons but in his court statement, he denied having sold 7 (Judgment) SC No. 51788/16 State Vs. Anoop Sinha & Ors.
FIR No. 83/12PS Keshav Puram U/s.364A/302/120B/201A IPC the sacks of salt to the accused persons. He stated that he did not remember anything regarding the same.
22.Ms.Suman Lata/ PW8, Chief Reservation Supervisor, Kirti Nagar, Indian Railway Reservation Office, Delhi has proved notice U/s 91 Cr.P.C. as Ex.PW8/A, her endorsement in reply to same as Ex.PW8/B and seizure memo of same as Ex.PW8/C. She also proved original requisition form as Ex.PW8/D and reply with regard to installation of CCTV cameras as Ex.PW8/E.
23.Ct. Vijay Singh/PW9 was working in PCR control room at relevant time. On that day, at about 11.35 p.m., he received a call from a mobile number 981160635 from caller Ravinder regarding the missing of his son Jonny. He filled the PCR form Ex.PW9/A and transferred the message to PCR van.
24.Ravinder Kumar/PW10 is the complainant. In his court statement recorded on 08.01.2014, he has deposed that on 03.04.2012, his younger son Jonny had left for his work at 9 a.m. on his Pulsar Motorcyle DL-4SAN -2775 At about 6.45 p.m. in the evening, Jonny informed his elder brother that he would be coming late that day. When Jonny did not return till 10.30 p.m., they inquired from his friends. Thereafter, at about 11.45 p.m., this witness made a PCR call regarding non returning of Jonny. He also visited PS Paschim Vihar and thereafter, along-with police officials from PS Paschim Vihar, he went to the contractor, where Jonny was working. Contractor told them that Jonny had left at 6 p.m. Thereafter, Ashok/ friend of Jonny also reached at PS Paschim Vihar and told them that Jonny had 8 (Judgment) SC No. 51788/16 State Vs. Anoop Sinha & Ors.
FIR No. 83/12PS Keshav Puram U/s.364A/302/120B/201A IPC visited him at about 6.15 p.m. and thereafter, left at 6.30 p.m. Jonny had also received a phone call from Anoop at that time. Thereafter, they came at PS Keshav Puram. At PS Keshav Puram, Ashok lodged a complaint. On 04.04.2012, this witness along-with family members visited the PS and lodged a complaint Ex.PW10/A. On 03.04.2012, at about 11.51 p.m., he received a call on his mobile phone no. 98..............35 from mobile phone of Jonny wherein caller demanded sum of RS. 1 crore as ransom for releasing Jonny. The caller had also threatened to kill Jonny in case the matter was reported to police. Therefore, this witness had not told these facts to the police on 03.04.2012.
(i) On 06.04.2012, at about 5.15 p.m., witness visited Shri Balaji Dharamkanta, Amar Colony, Kamruddin Nagar, Ph-3, Delhi where Inspector Ajay told the witness that his son had been murdered. Accused persons were also in the custody of police at that time. Thereafter, on pointing out of the accused persons, door of the plot was opened and police dug at a specified place and recovered body of Jonny wrapped in a polythene bag. He was wearing same clothes which he was wearing by leaving for the office on 03.04.2012. Witness identified the body vide memo Ex.PW10/B. After postmortem, he received the dead body vide receipt Ex.PW10/C. Police also handed over belongings of the deceased vide memo Ex.PW10/D. During investigation, this witness also identified belt of the deceased in TIP Proceedings Ex.PW10/A. This witness identified belt, clothes and the 9 (Judgment) SC No. 51788/16 State Vs. Anoop Sinha & Ors.FIR No. 83/12
PS Keshav Puram U/s.364A/302/120B/201A IPC polythene in which the body of deceased was found. Same are Ex.P1 to P3.
25.Ashok/ PW11 has deposed that on 03.04.2012, at about 6.15 p.m., his friend Jonny had come to meet him on his motorcycle bearing registration no. DL 4SAN-2775 make Pulsar Black colour. He had come to borrow a book. He remained there for 15-20 minutes. Thereafter, deceased received a phone call from Anoop Sinha and therefore, he left on pretext of meeting Anoop Sinha. At about 7.45 p.m., this witness made a phone call on mobile number 9582493436 of Anoop Sinha from his mobile number 9811345891 wherein Anoop Sinha told him that he was with Jonny. In the meanwhile, this witness also received a phone call from Ravinder Kumar / father of Jonny. Witness told Ravinder that Jonny had left for meeting Anoop Sinha.
(i) About 11 p.m., in the night, this witness again made a call on the mobile number of Anoop Sinha and asked him about whereabouts of Jonny. Thereafter, this witness went to house of Jonny and met his father Ravinder. Father of Ravinder made a PCR call. From PS Paschim Vihar, they went to PS Keshav Puram where this witness made a complaint.
26.ASI Suresh Kumar/PW12 has deposed that on 03.04.2012, he received the DD o.4A Ex.PW1/A and went to the house of complainant who told him regarding missing of his son. He took the caller to PS Keshav Puram and lodged missing report vide DD no.7B Ex.PW1/B.
27.Ct. Subhash/PW13 is photographer and on 05.04.2012, he was 10 (Judgment) SC No. 51788/16 State Vs. Anoop Sinha & Ors.
FIR No. 83/12PS Keshav Puram U/s.364A/302/120B/201A IPC posted with Mobile Crime Team, NW Distt., Delhi. On that day, on receiving the message in control room, he along-with I/C crime team SI Sanjeev Verma and other staff reached at the spot i.e. Peera Garhi Metro Station Parking, where IO Inspector Vijay Vyas met him. On directions of IO, he took photographs Ex.PW13/A1 to A-6 of motorcycle bearing no. DL-4S-AN 2775 through his digital camera. After developing the photographs, he handed over the same and CD Ex.PW13/B to IO.
(i) On 06.04.12, at about 4.30 a.m., on receipt of message in control room, he along-with I/C crime team and other staff members reached at PS and from there, they along-with IO reached at an open plot in Kh. no.128/3/1, Kamruddin Nagar, Amar Colony, Ph-III, Delhi where on the pointing out of accused persons, one dead body, wrapped in a polythene was taken out after digging the ground. He took 27 photographs Ex.PW13/C-1 to Ex.PW13/C27 from different angles through digital camera. He handed over photographs and CD Ex.PW13/D to IO.
28.Rinku/ PW14 is brother of deceased Jonny. He has deposed in sync with Ravinder Kumar, PW10. In addition to the facts deposed by Ravinder Kumar, this witness was also identified dead body of deceased vide memo Ex. PW14/A. This witness has also identified the belt, clothes and the polythene sheet in which the body of the deceased was recovered. Same are Exs. P1 to P4 respectively.
29.Sh. Israr Babu/PW15 is Alternate Nodal Officer, Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd. He has proved CAF of mobile 11 (Judgment) SC No. 51788/16 State Vs. Anoop Sinha & Ors.
FIR No. 83/12PS Keshav Puram U/s.364A/302/120B/201A IPC no.9582493436 issued in the name of accused Anoop Singh as Ex.PW15/A, Photocopy of ID proof as Marked A, the computer generated record of CDR of said number for the period 01.01.2012 to 10.04.2012 as Ex.PW15/B, Certificate U/s 65 B of Indian Evidence Act as Ex.PW15/C.
(i) He has also proved CAF of mobile no.9811606035 issued in the name of Ravinder Kumar as Ex.PW15/D, Photocopy of ID proof as Marked B, the computer generated record of CDR of said number for the period 01.01.2012 to 10.04.2012 as Ex.PW15/E, Certificate U/s 65 B of Indian Evidence Act as Ex.PW15/F. He has also proved CAF of mobile no.9899787340 issued in the name of Sandeep as Ex.PW15/G, Photocopy of ID proof as Marked E, the computer generated record of CDR of said number for the period 01.01.2012 to 10.04.2012 as Ex.PW15/H, Certificate U/s 65 B of Indian Evidence Act as Ex.PW15/I.
30.Sh. Rajeev Sharda/ PW, Alternate Officer, Reliance Communications Ltd. PW-16 He has proved signatures of Sh. Sanjeev, Alternate Nodal Officer on the document Ex.PW16/A, CAF of mobile number 9311451565 which was in the name of Avinash Ex.PW16/C and Certificate U/s 65 B of Indian Evidence Act Ex.PW16/B. He also proved CDR for period 01.01.12 to 05.04.2012 as Ex.PW16/D.
31.Sh. Gagan Prakash/PW17 is owner of the plot bearing no. 128/3/1, Amar Colony, Kamruddin Nagar, Nangloi, Delhi. He has stated that he had given the aforesaid plot on rent through Amit Yadav. He had demanded ID proof from the tenant many 12 (Judgment) SC No. 51788/16 State Vs. Anoop Sinha & Ors.
FIR No. 83/12PS Keshav Puram U/s.364A/302/120B/201A IPC times wherein he assured that he will keep his goods on the plot after supplying the ID proof. He later on came to know that real name of the tenant was Avinash Srivastav. He also came to know that a dead body was concealed in the said plot.
32.Ct. Dinesh/PW18 has deposed that on 12.06.2012, he was posted at PS Keshav Puram and on the instructions of IO, he had collected seven sealed pullandas from MHC(M) along-with sample seal vide RC no.52/21/12 for depositing the same with FSL, Rohini and deposited the same and handed over the acknowledgement receipt to MHC(M).
33.Ct. Yavendra/PW19 was working as DD writer on 04.04.12. At about 3.15 a.m., Ashok Kumar came to PS and lodge report regarding missing of their friend Jonny. He recorded DD no.7B dt.04.04.2012 Ex.PW19/A.
34.Sandeep/PW20 has deposed that accused Anil Kumar was his brother-in-law (jija) and used to reside in their house. He has deposed that accused Avinash had taken a Sim card having mobile number 9899787340 on his identity for his use.
35.Rajiv Ranjan /PW21, Nodal Officer, TATA Tele Services has brought summoned record pertaining to mobile no.9250600147 issued in the name of Jonny Gupta S/o Ravinder Gupta. He proved call details record of the aforesaid mobile for the period from 01.01.2012 to 10.04.12 as Ex.PW21/A, CAF as Ex.PW21/B, attested copy of ID proof of applicant as Ex.PW21/B-1. He has also proved location chart of the aforesaid mobile from 01.01.12 to 10.04.12 as Ex.PW21/C and certificate 13 (Judgment) SC No. 51788/16 State Vs. Anoop Sinha & Ors.
FIR No. 83/12PS Keshav Puram U/s.364A/302/120B/201A IPC U/s 65 B of Indian Evidence Act as Ex.PW21/D. He also identified signatures of M.M.Vijayan on letter Ex.PW21/E at point A.
36.Sh. Shishir Malhotra, Nodal Officer/PW22, Aircel Ltd. has brought the record pertaining to mobile no.7503449299 issued in the name of Anoop Sinha. He has proved the CDR as Ex.PW22/A, CAF as Ex.PW22/B. Copy of driving licence of Anoop Sinha as Ex.PW22/C. The location chart as Ex.PW22/D. Certificate U/s 65 B of Indian Evidence Act as Ex.PW22/E. The forwarding letter vide which these details were forwarded by him to IO as Ex.PW22/F.
37.SI Veena/ PW23 has deposed that on 04.04.2012, she was working as duty officer at PS Keshav Puram. At about 9.05 a.m., IO SI Sonu Ram produced one rukka and on basis of which she recorded FIR no.83/12 Ex.PW23/A. She has further proved certificate U/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act as Ex.PW23/B and endorsement on rukka as Ex.PW23/C.
38.Inspector Manohar Lal/PW24 was Draftsman. He has deposed that on 20.06.2012, on receipt of a call from IO, he went to PS Keshav Puram and joined investigation in this case. He along- with IO and SI Rakesh Duhan visited the spot i.e. plot khasra no.128/3/1, Amar Colony, Ph-III, Kamruddin Nagar and at pointing out of SI Rakesh Duhan, he prepared rough notes of the site. Thereafter, he prepared scaled plan Ex.PW24/A on the basis of rough notes.
39.Ct. Jitender/PW25 has deposed that on 06.04.2012, he along-
14 (Judgment) SC No. 51788/16 FIR No. 83/12PS Keshav Puram U/s.364A/302/120B/201A IPC with IO joined the investigation. He along-with IO SHO Vijay Kumar, Inspector Investigation Ashok Kumar, SI Devi Lal, SI Rakesh Dewan, Ct. Manjeet, Ct. Jeet Tomar, HC Subhash and accused Avinash Srivastava @ Masterji, accused Anil Kumar and accused Anoop Sinha went to the spot i.e. Amar Colony, Kamruddin Nagar where at the pointing out of accused persons, he and Ct. Manjeet had dug the plot no.128/3/1 near right side of the wall from the inner gate of the said plot. He and Ct. Manjeet dig the soil up to 2½ - 3 feet with the help of spade(Fawra). After removing the dirt, a polythene sheet in which a male body was wrapped was found. Foul smell was coming out of the dead body. Salt was found sprinkled on the dead body. Five plastic kattas of common salt were also recovered. When the dead body was taken out and was checked, it was found that words "Civil Engineer" were tattooed on the right hand of the dead body. Dead body was identified by Ravinder Kumar and Rinku who told that it was of Jonny Kumar. The dead body was taken into possession by the IO.
40.Ct. Lokesh/PW26 has deposed that on 04.04.12, he was posted at PS Keshav Puram. On that day, he was handed over copy of FIR and original rukka by the duty officer which he took to the spot i.e. at BG-6/284B, Paschim Vihar and handed over the same to SI Sonu Ram.
41.SI Sanjeev Verma/PW27, was posted as Incharge Crime Team, North West District at relevant time. On receipt of an information through control room wireless, he along-with 15 (Judgment) SC No. 51788/16 State Vs. Anoop Sinha & Ors.
FIR No. 83/12PS Keshav Puram U/s.364A/302/120B/201A IPC photographer Ct. Subhash and Ct. Ramesh, Finger print proficient reached at Peera Garhi metro station where they met Inspector Vijay Vats along-with the staff and one accused Anoop Sinha. One motorcycle was found covered with dust. Ct. Sandeep took the photographs. Finger Print Proficient made efforts to lift chance prints, but could not succeed. He has proved his report in this regard as Ex.PW27/A.
(i) This witness had also joined the proceedings of recovery of dead body of deceased on 05.06.2012. His testimony on the aspect of recovery is in sync with PW25 /Ct. Jitender. In addition, he has deposed that he inspected the spot and prepared his report as Ex.PW27/B. Witness has also identified the articles recovered from the place where dead body of the deceased was recovered. He has also identified the case property i.e. one empty liquor bottle, two plastic glasses, four empty pouches of water, brand Lehar, one pouch of namkeen brand puja as Ex.PW27/P1 to P4. He has further identified the fawra as Ex.PW27/P.5, cylindrical frame of doctor tape as Ex.PW27/P6. Five plastic sac as Ex.PW27/P.6 and wire as Ex.P.1.
42.HC Jitender/PW28 has deposed that on 05.04.2012, he joined the investigation with Inspector Vijay Kumar. At the PS, accused Anoop Sinha was present and on inquiries made by IO, he had informed that on 03.04.2012, he had called his friend Jonny for some exertion who came on his motorcycle. Anoop Sinha got his motorcycle parked in the street adjacent to the metro parking. Thereafter, accused Anoop took Jonny on his motorcycle to 16 (Judgment) SC No. 51788/16 State Vs. Anoop Sinha & Ors.
FIR No. 83/12PS Keshav Puram U/s.364A/302/120B/201A IPC Kamruddin Nagar and introduced him with his friends Anil and Avinash. IO arrested accused Anoop vide arrest memo Ex.PW28/A, conducted his personal search as Ex.PW28/B. Two mobile sets were found from accused Anil and seized by the IO vide seizure memo Ex.PW28/C and Ex.PW28/D. Accused Anoop Sinha had got recovered the motorcycle bearing no.DL- 11-SB-4903 which was found stationed outside PS Keshav Puram which was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW28/F. Thereafter, accused led police party at a place and pointed out towards a place where one motorcycle bearing no. DL-4S-AN-2775 was found stationed. Accused informed that deceased Jonny had come to meet him on that motorcycle. IO prepared the site plan Ex.PW28/F and took the motorcycle into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW28/G.
(i) Further deposed that thereafter, accused Anoop led the police party to the house of accused Avinash @ Masterji at Rajdhani Park, Nangloi. Accused Avinash @ Masterji was arrested at the instance of accused Anoop. Thereafter, accused Anoop led the police party to the house of accused Anil situated at Kamrudin Nagar, Amar Colony, Nangloi where at his instance, accused Anoop was arrested. Thereafter, they came back to PS.
(ii) This witness has further deposed in sync with PW25 and PW27 with regard to recovery of dead body of deceased Jonny. He proved pointing out memo as Ex.PW28/H and site plan as Ex.PW28/J.
(iii) PW28 further deposed that on 07.04.2012, he again joined the 17 (Judgment) SC No. 51788/16 State Vs. Anoop Sinha & Ors.
FIR No. 83/12PS Keshav Puram U/s.364A/302/120B/201A IPC investigation with Inspector Vijay. They along-with all three accused persons reached at the place where the motorcycle of Jonny was stationed. Accused Avinash and Anil had informed that the shoes, belt and bag of deceased Jonny were thrown by them after murder of Jonny at a canal between village mundka and Ranhola. Thereafter, they reached at the said canal where accused Avinash and Anil pointed out towards the place where they thrown the shoes, belt and bag. Efforts were made to trace out all the items, however, only a leather belt was found from the mud as there was not much water. IO prepared site plan Ex.PW28/K. The belt was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW28/I. He proved pointing out memos of canal as Ex.PW28/M to Ex.PW28/P.
(iv) He has further deposed that accused Anil and Avinash led the police party to grocery shop at Bahadurgarh area, Hayana and pointed out towards a shop from where both of them purchased five sacks of salt. The shopkeeper identified one of them as one of the person who had purchased sack of salts. Thereafter, they all reached at GT Karnal Bye Pass and searched for mobile and purse of deceased Jonny but same were not found. He identified mobile set black and golden colour make Samsung as Ex.PW28/P.1 and another mobile set make NOKIA as Ex.PW28/P.2. He has identified the belt as Ex.P.1. He has also identified the motorcycle of accused Anoop Sinha as Ex.PW28/P.3.
(v) He has also identified the case property i.e. one empty liquor 18 (Judgment) SC No. 51788/16 State Vs. Anoop Sinha & Ors.
FIR No. 83/12PS Keshav Puram U/s.364A/302/120B/201A IPC bottle, two plastic glasses, four empty pouches of water, brand Lehar, one pouch of namkeen brand puja as Ex.PW27/P1 to P4. He has identified the fawra as Ex.PW27/P.5, cylindrical frame of doctor tape as Ex.PW27/P.6. Five plastic sac as Ex.PW27/P.6 and wire as Ex.P.1. He has identified the belt as Ex.P-28/1. He has identified the motorcycle bearing no. DL-4S-AN-2775 as Ex.PW30/11. The witness also identified the motorcycle in photographs as Ex.PW13/A1 to Ex.PW13/A6.
43.HC Naresh Kumar/PW29 was MHC(M). He proved entry in register no.19 at sl. no.2742 as Ex.PW29/A. He further proved entry no.2744 in register no.19 as Ex.PW29/B. The entry no.2749 as Ex.PW29/C. The copy of vide RC no.39/21/12 as Ex.PW29/D and acknowledgement as Ex.PW29/E. He also proved RC no.52/21/12 as Ex.PW29/F and acknowledgement as Ex.PW29/G.
44.Ct.Manjeet Singh/PW29A has deposed in sync with PW25 Ct.Jitender. He identified plastic sacks as Ex.PW27/P-7. Photographs of dead body as mark PW29/I to PW29/8.
45.SI Rakesh Duhan/PW30 has deposed in sync with PW25 Ct. Jitender, PW27 SI Sanjeev Kumar and PW28 HC Jitender on aspect of recovery of dead body and interrogation of accused Anoop Sinha. In addition, he has deposed that accused Anoop Sinha had led the police party at the residential house of co- accused Avinash which was at S-19B, Rajdhani Park. Accused had pointed out towards Avinash and identified him. At the instance of accused Anoop, Avinash was apprehended from his 19 (Judgment) SC No. 51788/16 State Vs. Anoop Sinha & Ors.
FIR No. 83/12PS Keshav Puram U/s.364A/302/120B/201A IPC house and IO/PW42 had made enquiries from him. Accused Avinash confessed about his crime and accused Avinash was arrested vide arrest memo Ex. PW30/A and his personal search was conducted. In the personal search of accused Avinash a key ring was recovered having a key of motorcycle alongwith it a key of a lock. IO had kept this key with him for further investigation. He proved the personal search memo as Ex.PW 30/B. Further stated that IO Insp. Vijay/PW42 had recorded detailed disclosure statement of accused Avinash as Ex.PW 30/C. Accused Avinash had produced one mobile set and informed that it was of Jonny. The mobile set was of make Tata company. It was having the battery and the SIM and was of black color. Accused Avinash had also informed that a ransom demand was made through this mobile phone from the father of Jonny Gupta. This mobile phone was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW 30/D. Accused Avinash had produced a railway ticket by taking out it from the pocket of his wearing pant which was of Gomti Express Train from Delhi to Lucknow and the date of travel was 07.04.2012. Accused Avinash had informed that he had got this ticket booked in the name of father of the deceased. He further disclosed that they were anticipating that father of deceased would travel on this ticket with the ransom amount and during this transit they would take the ransom amount from him.
(i) IO had taken the railway ticket into police possession vide seizure memo as Ex.PW 30/E. The railway ticket bearing PNR No. 256-2972195, is Ex.PW5/A. Accused Avinash had produced 20 (Judgment) SC No. 51788/16 State Vs. Anoop Sinha & Ors.
FIR No. 83/12PS Keshav Puram U/s.364A/302/120B/201A IPC one mobile set by taking out the same from his wearing trouser, make Micromax. This mobile set was having battery and one SIM number of which was found 9311451565. Accused Avinash informed that he used to remain in contact with other accused persons. IO Insp. Vijay had converted the same into pullinda and sealed the pullinda with the seal of VK and took the same into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW 30/F. Accused Avinash had informed that he had conversation with accused Anoop Sinha through his Micromax mobile set number. Accused Avinash had also informed that he could get his co-accused Anil arrested from his house. Accused Avinash had also informed that he alongwith his associate Anil had murdered Jonny Gupta by strangulating his neck through a clutch wire and had buried the body inside the plot. He informed that a plot was situated at Kamruddin Nagar of Amar Colony.
(ii) PW30 has also proved the recovery of motorcycle bearing registration no. DL-8SAA-3450, which was make Bajaj CT-100 at instance of accused Anoop Sinha which was seized by the IO Insp. Vijay vide seizure memo Ex.PW30/G.
(iii) He has also proved the colored xerox cares of DL in the name of Jonny Gupta as Ex.P-30/1, the colored xerox copy of RC of the motorcycle number DL-4SAN-2775 as Ex.P-30/2, the colored xerox card of the Institute of Civil Engineers (India) in the name of Jonny Kumar as Ex.P-30/3, the membership card of Youth Congress in the name of Jonny Kumar is Ex.PW30/4. The witness has identified the dead body of deceased through 21 (Judgment) SC No. 51788/16 State Vs. Anoop Sinha & Ors.
FIR No. 83/12PS Keshav Puram U/s.364A/302/120B/201A IPC photographs as Mark 29/A1 to Mark 29/A7. He further deposed that the pointing out cum recovery memo Ex.PW30/H of the body of deceased Jonny was prepared at the instance of accused Avinash and Anil by IO Insp. Vijay. These five plastic sacks of salt were also converted into pullinda and were sealed with the seal of VK, vide seizure memo Ex.PW 30/J. The soil mixed with salt was also lifted from the pit and was kept in a plastic container. The container was sealed with the seal of VK and was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW 30/K. IO had also lifted the earth control from this pit and kept in a plastic container which was also sealed with the seal of VK. This earth control container was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW 30/L. Moist soil was also lifted from the pit and was kept in a plastic container which was sealed with the seal of VK and was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW30/M. From one of the aboveseized five plastic sacks some salt was found which was separated from the sack and was kept in plastic container. The container was sealed with the seal of VK and was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW30/N.
(iv) He has further deposed that accused Avinash and Anil had pointed out towards the North direction of the plot/godown where a clutch wire was lying and both of them informed that by this clutch wire, which was found there, they had strangulated the deceased Jonny. Plot/godown was walled from all four sides. The photographs of this place was also got clicked. IO had taken the same into possession. On the one side of this clutch 22 (Judgment) SC No. 51788/16 State Vs. Anoop Sinha & Ors.
FIR No. 83/12PS Keshav Puram U/s.364A/302/120B/201A IPC wire, round shape of wire was found. The wire was measured by the IO and the total length of the wire was 1.85 cm. The same was converted into pullinda and the pullinda was seized and was sealed with the seal of VK. This pullinda was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW 30/O.
(v) PW30 has further deposed that accused Avinash and Anil had also taken them into a temporary hut (jhopri) inside the said plot and both of them had informed that they had murdered deceased Jonny inside that hut. Inside this jhopri/hut both of them pointed out towards one phawra and informed that with the help of this phawra the pit from which body of deceased Jonny was recovered was digged. The phawra was wrapped in a piece of cloth and was sealed with the seal of VK. This sealed phawra was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW 30/P. Further that both of them had also informed that with this fawra they had covered the pit after putting the body inside the pit. In this jhopri accused Avinash had pointed two empty plastic glasses, one empty namkeen packet of Pooja brand, four empty pouches of water of Lehar Premium make. One liquor bottle which was lying outside the hut was also pointed out by both the accused persons. On this bottle description of Black Delux Whiskey was written and it was an empty bottle. All these were taken together and were kept in a polythene and covered into a cloth pullinda. The pullinda was sealed with the seal of VK. This pullinda was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW 30/Q. 23 (Judgment) SC No. 51788/16 State Vs. Anoop Sinha & Ors.
FIR No. 83/12PS Keshav Puram U/s.364A/302/120B/201A IPC
(vi) He has further deposed that in the hut both the accused Avinash and Anil had pointed out towards one frame of Dr. Tape. Both of them had informed that it was used for sealing the polythene after keeping the dead body of deceased Jonny. The same was converted into a cloth pullinda and was sealed with the seal of VK. The same was taken into police possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW 30/R.
(vii) Further deposed that IO had also prepared the pointing out memo of the spot which was pointed out by accused Avinash, Anil and Anoop separately. The memo prepared at the instance of accused Avinash is Ex.PW 30/S. Dead body was shifted to the hospital in the custody of Manoj in the Pvt., Ambulance.
(viii)Further deposed that IO had also taken into possession the pad lock and the key. This pad lock was found on the gate of the plot by which the said plot was found locked, when they reached first time at this plot. On this lock Haryson was written. The key of this lock and this pad lock both were converted into cloth pullinda and was sealed with the seal of VK and were taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex. PW30/T. The key was sealed with the key ring in which the key of the motorcycle of accused Avinash was attached.
(ix) This witness has identified the colored photographs of the motorcycle bearing registration no. DL-4SAN-2775 which are attached with judicial file and already Ex.PW-13/A1 to 13/A6 which was got recovered by accused Anoop. Witness has also 24 (Judgment) SC No. 51788/16 State Vs. Anoop Sinha & Ors.
FIR No. 83/12PS Keshav Puram U/s.364A/302/120B/201A IPC identified Micromax mobile set is Ex.P-30/1, Tata Indicom mobile set is Ex.P-30/2. This Alcatel mobile set is Ex.P-30/3. The clutch wire which was got recovered and seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW-30/O. The clutch wire is already Ex.P.1.
46.Ct. Jeet Tomar/PW31 was posted at PS Keshav Puram on 06.04.2012. On that day, on instructions of the IO, he joined the investigation and conducted videography of recovery of dead body of the deceased from Khasra No.128/3/1. After videography, he returned the camera alongwith cassette in Malkhana. He has identified the camera and cassette as Ex. PW30/12.
47.PW32/Manoj Kumar has deposed that he was posted as Constable at PS Keshav Puram on 06.04.2012. On said day, IO of the case had handed over a male dead body to him to take the same to BJRM Hospital. After postmortem, he has has received four pulandas which he handed over to Inspector Vijay Kumar which he seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW32/A.
48.ASI Pramod Kumar/PW33 deposed that on 30.04.12, he was head constable posted in PS Keshav Puram. On instructions of the IO, he had obtained one sealed pullanda along with a sample seal from MHCM for being deposited in FSL. He took the same vide road certificate no. 39/21/12. After depositing the pullanda in FSL, he brought back the receipt and handed it over to the MHCM.
49.ASI Ompal/PW34 deposed that on 05.04.12, he was posted as a Head Constable at PS Keshav Puram. On that day, he had 25 (Judgment) SC No. 51788/16 State Vs. Anoop Sinha & Ors.
FIR No. 83/12PS Keshav Puram U/s.364A/302/120B/201A IPC joined investigation of this case along with Insp. Vijay Kumar. On 05.04.12, at about 11 am, police party left PS Keshav Puram vide DD no. 9A & 10A. During course of briefing, Insp. Vijay had informed that he had to accompany him for investigation of this case. Two raiding parties were formed. One under Insp. Vijay & the other under Insp. Ashok. He was with Insp. Vijay. They had gone to area of Keshav Puram, Ashok Vihar, NSP and finally returned back to the PS at around 5 pm. During course of the proceedings there, they had made inquiries from general public about the incident.
(i) Further deposed that accused Anoop Sinha came to the police station along with the complainant. On basis of CDRs examined by the SHO, accused Anoop Sinha was interrogated. On basis thereof, he was formally arrested in this case. His disclosure statement was recorded. On basis of disclosure statement of accused, police party went to metro station Peeragarhi. Motorcycle of deceased was recovered from there at instance of accused Anoop Sinha. After getting it inspected from the crime team, it was seized vide a seizure memo. At about 11 pm, they left the metro station from Rajdhani Park. Mobile phone of deceased Jonny, mobile phone of Avinash, a railway ticket were seized from accused Avinash. The same were seized vide seizure memos. Motorcycle of accused Avinash was also seized. Thereafter, they left that place at about 12.10 am for Amar Colony. Around 12.15 am, they reached house of accused Anil where he was arrested at instance of Anoop Sinha. He was 26 (Judgment) SC No. 51788/16 State Vs. Anoop Sinha & Ors.
FIR No. 83/12PS Keshav Puram U/s.364A/302/120B/201A IPC formally arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW34/1 which bears my signature at point mark X. His personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW34/2. His disclosure statement Ex.PW34/3 was recorded. Mobile phone recovered at his instance was also seized. Accused Anil also produced copy of driving license, I- card, membership card and copy of RC of motorcycle of deceased from almirah in the room. The same were seized vide memo Ex.PW34/4, The mobile phone was seized vide memo Ex.PW34/5.
(ii) Further deposed that they all then returned back to the PS at around 2 am. All the three accused were again separately interrogated by the SHO. At about 4.30 am, police party left for Kamruddin nagar, Amar Colony along with the three accused. They went to plot khasra no. 128/3/1, Amar Colony. Lock of door of plot was opened by accused Avinash. Anil and Avinash pointed out a spot towards right side in the plot as being the spot where dead body was buried. Ct. Manjit and Ct. Jitender dug up the place. A male dead body wrapped in polythene was recovered about 2.5-3 ft. under the ground. It was taken out. Polythene was removed and the body was shown to father and brother of the deceased who were with them. They identified it to be of Jonny. Inquest papers were prepared by the IO. Body was got inspected by the crime team and photographs were taken. Ct. Manoj took the body to BJRM hospital in a private vehicle for postmortem examination. Some samples were lifted there by the IO. One clutch wire, empty liquor bottle, one packet 27 (Judgment) SC No. 51788/16 State Vs. Anoop Sinha & Ors.
FIR No. 83/12PS Keshav Puram U/s.364A/302/120B/201A IPC of namkeen, four pouches of water, doctor's tape and a fawra had also been seized from the spot. 5 Kattas of salt found in the pit with the dead body were also seized.
50.ASI Rajesh/PW35 has deposed that vide order dtd. 10.07.14 passed by worthy DCP PCR, all old records of CPCR / PCR for the period 01.01.12 to 31.06.12 had been ordered to be destroyed and were subsequently destroyed. Copies of relevant orders in that regard are filed as Mark P-35/A, B & C.
51.ASI Subhash/PW36 has deposed in sync with PW30 Rakesh Duhan.
52.SI Devi Lal/PW37 had joined the investigation alongwith Inspector Vijay Kumar on 05.04.2012. He has deposed about arrest of accused Anoop Sinha and the recoveries effected at his instance. He has deposed in sync with other police witnesses on these aspects. In addition, he is also attesting witness of the pointing out memo Ex. PW37/1 whereby accused persons had pointed out the place from where the dead body of the deceased Jonny was recovered.
53.Dr. Adesh Kumar/ PW38 Sr.Scientific Officer, Chemistry, FSL, Rohini has deposed that on 30.04.2012, he received exhibits containing various pieces of internal organs of a human being along-with sample seal. He conducted chemical examination of these exhibits and prepared his report as Ex.PW38/A.
54.ASI Rajpal/PW39 has deposed that he could not bring the PCR form as the same was destroyed in compliance of the circular issued by Addl. Deputy Commissioner of Police dt.02.02.2017.
28 (Judgment) SC No. 51788/16 FIR No. 83/12PS Keshav Puram U/s.364A/302/120B/201A IPC He proved the copy of said circular as Ex.PW39/A. The additional copy of the same is Ex. PW39/B.
55.Inspector Ashok/PW40 was IO of the present case from 08.06.2012 to 15.06.2012. He has deposed that on 08.06.2012, he recorded the statement of Kishan Pal, owner of motorcycle bearing no.DL8SAA-3450. He has proved documents already Ex.PW6/A to Ex.PW6/C. He further deposed that he deposited various documents related to this case in FSL, Rohini on 11.06.12 for forensic examination. Further, on 12.06.2012, he sent the exhibits of this case to FSL, Rohini through a constable.
56.PW41 Statement of SI Sonu Ram No. D-4879, PS Aman Vihar, Delhi has deposed that on 04.04.2012, he was posted as SI in PS Keshav Puram. He was on night emergency duty in the PS during the night intervening between 03.04.2012 and 04.04.2012. During that night, one Ashok Kumar alongwith the family members of his friend Jonny(deceased) came to the PS and lodged a missing report in respect of Jonny. The missing information was recorded as DD No. 7B at 03.15 AM. He started search for the missing person namely Jonny. He flashed wireless messages throughout India. Sh. Ravinder Kumar, the father of Jonny again came to the PS at about 08.30 AM on 04.04.2012. Witness recorded his statement Ex.PW10/A wherein he expressed doubt that his son might had been kidnapped by somebody. He prepared rukka on the basis of his statement Ex. PW41/A. He again searched for the missing person Jonny. He made enquiries from his friends but nobody was able to provide 29 (Judgment) SC No. 51788/16 State Vs. Anoop Sinha & Ors.
FIR No. 83/12PS Keshav Puram U/s.364A/302/120B/201A IPC any clue about him. In the evening of the same day le 04.04.2012, Jonny's father Ravinder Kumar again came to the PS and stated that he had received a ransom call in the evening of 03.04.2012 from the mobile phone of his son Jonny and the caller demanded a sum of Rs. 1 crore as ransom. He recorded his statement. He recorded the statement of Constable who was assisting him. Witness got Section 364A IPC added in the FIR accordingly. Thereafter, he handed over the file to the SHO.
(i) Further deposed that on 05.04.2012, the SHO Inspector Vijay Kumar interrogated accused Anoop Sinha. The subsequent deposition made by this witness is in sync with ASI Jitender PW28, who has deposed about the details of investigation and recoveries effected.
57.PW42 Insp. Vijay Kumar is IO of the case. He has deposed in sync with PW30 SI Rakesh Duhan and PW41 SI Sonu Ram. In addition to this, he has also proved form 25.35 as Ex.PW42/A, forwarding letter as Ex.PW42/B, request letter for inquest papers as Ex.PW42/C, reply to the notice as Ex.PW42/D. Specimen handwriting of accused Avinash S.1 to S.35 as Ex.PW42/E, seizure memo of video cassette as well as CD as Ex.PW42/F, the information regarding recovery of dead body vide letter Ex.PW42/G and subsequent opinion of the doctor as Ex.PW42/H, he has also deposed about the further investigation conducted, details of which have already been elaborated by the police witnesses in their testimonies already discussed above.
58.PW-43 Rahul Sanoriya has deposed that deceased Jonny was his 30 (Judgment) SC No. 51788/16 State Vs. Anoop Sinha & Ors.
FIR No. 83/12PS Keshav Puram U/s.364A/302/120B/201A IPC friend for about three years before his death. Accused Anoop Sinha had also become his friend through deceased Jonny. On 03.04.2012, at about 06:00 to 07:00 pm, this witness received a phone call from accused Anoop Sinha wherein he asked to meet the witness. At about 08:30 pm, this witness again received call from Anoop Sinha. Anoop Sinha enquired about the whereabouts of the witness. Thereafter, accused Anoop Sinha asked the witness to meet him in BG 8 Block, Paschim Vihar. At about 09:00 PM, witness reached there and called the accused. Accused remained with the witness till 10:00 PM. Thereafter, he left.
(i) This witness has further deposed that at about 12 midnight, he received a call from accused Anoop Sinha. He told the witness that he was standing at Petrol Pump in Jwala Heri Market and further told that Jonny had gone missing. He called the witness to the aforesaid place but witness expressed his inability to go there. At about 07:00 AM, next morning, accused Anoop again called the witness and requested him to skip the college that day but the witness denied as he had exams. Accused further instructed the witness that if anyone calls him and enquire about him, the witness would tell that he (accused Anoop Sinha) was in company of the witness from 07:00 to 10:00 PM on 03.04.2010. Witness again refused to make any such false statement to anyone. Witness also enquired from the accused about his whereabouts, 07:00 PM onwards on 03.04.2012, on which accused told that he was with his friends. Witness has also 31 (Judgment) SC No. 51788/16 State Vs. Anoop Sinha & Ors.
FIR No. 83/12PS Keshav Puram U/s.364A/302/120B/201A IPC deposed about the details of mobile number, he was using at the relevant time. Witness has further deposed that in the evening on 04.04.2012, he was called in PS Keshav Puram where he told the same facts to the IO which he deposed in the Court.
59.PW-44 Rajbir Singh, Assistant Fitter, Transport Authority, Janak Puri has produced the summoned record i.e. ownership record of motorcycle bearing no. DL4SAN2775 make Pulsar. As per record, the motorcycle was registered in the name of Ravinder Kumar.
60.PW-45 Sh. Vishal Singh, Ld. Addl. District and Sessions Judge has proved the TIP proceedings of belt of the deceased as Ex.PW10/E.
61.PW-46 Alok Kumar Mehta, Senior Scientific Officer, RFSL, Chanakya Puri, Delhi had examined the questioned document i.e. Railway reservation slip Ex.PW8/D and the specimen writing Ex.PW42/E. After examination, he opined vide his report Ex.PW46/1 that the author of the questioned and specimen writing was the same person. He has also proved the forwarding letter Ex.PW46/2 addressed by director FSL to SHO Keshav Puram.
62.PW-47 Ms. Sunita Gupta, Senior Scientific Officer (Biology), FSL, Rohini, Delhi had conducted serological analysis on the exhibits sent from PS Keshav Puram. After examination, she gave her reports Ex.PW47/1 and Ex.PW47/2.
63.PW48 Ms. Kavita Goel, Assistant director, FSL, Delhi, had conducted chemical examination on the exhibits pertaining to 32 (Judgment) SC No. 51788/16 State Vs. Anoop Sinha & Ors.
FIR No. 83/12PS Keshav Puram U/s.364A/302/120B/201A IPC this case. After examination, she gave her report Ex.PW48/1.
64.PW-49 ASI Ram Singh has deposed that on 06.04.2012, he was posted as MHC(M) at PS Keshav Puram. At about 04:20 AM that day, he had handed over one video camera and cassette to Ct. Jeet Tomar. He made relevant entry regarding the same in the relevant register. Ct. Jeet Tomar returned the camera, cassette and one CD to this witness at about 09:00 PM same day. Witness deposited the same in the malkhana. The relevant entry in this regard is Ex.PW49/A. Further stated that on 29.06.2012, he handed over the abovesaid cassette and CD in unsealed condition to Insp. Vijay Kumar. He kept the cassette in the envelope and sealed the same with seal of 'VK'. IO seized the cassette and CD vide seizure memo Ex.PW44/F. Witness has identified the cassette and CD in the court. Same are Ex.PW30/12 and Ex.PW49/B respectively.
65.The prosecution evidence was followed by statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein entire incriminating evidence was put to them. Accused persons denied the case of the prosecution and pleaded innocence with the explanation that they were falsely implicated in this case by interested witnesses. Accused Anoop Sinha opted to lead defence evidence.
66.In his defence, accused Anoop Sinha has examined Yuvraj Singh, DW1. He has deposed that on 03.04.2012, at about 8.00 p.m., he had gone to house of accused Anoop Sinha as his wife was there. When he was watching news on TV in the house of accused Anoop Sinha, accused Anoop Sinha received a call from house 33 (Judgment) SC No. 51788/16 State Vs. Anoop Sinha & Ors.
FIR No. 83/12PS Keshav Puram U/s.364A/302/120B/201A IPC of his friend Jonny. Accordingly, Anoop Sinha left. Thereafter, witness returned back at about 10.00 p.m. At about 11.00 p.m., when he was present at his house, he received a call from father of accused Anoop Sinha, who requested to accompany him to PS Paschim Vihar. They first visited PS Paschim Vihar and thereafter, they went to PS Keshav Puram. He returned back at about 3.00 a.m. This witness again went to PS on 04.04.2012 at about 6.00 p.m. Anoop Sinha was present in the PS at that time.
67.Arguments from the Ld. Addl. PP for the State and Ld. Defence Counsel heard.
68.As the evidence elaborated above reveals that there is no direct eye witness to any of the three murders in question. The entire case of the prosecution is premised upon the chain of circumstances. In case titled as Hanumant vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, the Court has expounded various concomitant of proof of a case purely based upon circumstantial evidence. The Court has pointed out that "the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one propose to be proved". In light of the aforesaid parameters laid down for establishing a case based upon circumstantial evidence, this Court now shall proceed to evaluate the incriminating circumstances and the evidence brought on record to prove those circumstances for purpose of bringing home the guilt for the accused persons.
69.To prove its case against the accused persons, the prosecution has sought to prove following incriminating circumstances 34 (Judgment) SC No. 51788/16 State Vs. Anoop Sinha & Ors.
FIR No. 83/12PS Keshav Puram U/s.364A/302/120B/201A IPC against the accused persons :
a. Deceased Jonny had told his friend Ashok Kumar on date of incident that he was going to meet accused Anoop Sinha. b. Ashok Kumar had talked to accused Anoop Sinha on telephone on the date of incident wherein he confirmed that deceased was with him.
c. On the date of incident, accused Anoop Sinha had met with Rahul PW-43 and on next day, he tried to persuade Rahul to tell everyone that he (Anoop Sinha) was in his company from 7:00 to 10:00 PM on 03.04.2012.
d. Recovery of motorcycle of the deceased at instance of accused Anoop Sinha.
e. Recovery of dead body of deceased Jonny at instance of all the accused persons.
f. Recovery of clutch wire vide memo Ex. PW30/O, recovery of bottle of liquor and empty plastic glasses vide seizure memo Ex. PW30/Q, recovery of Fawra (shovel) vide memo Ex. PW30/P, recovery of plastic sacks vide memo Ex. PW30/J and recovery of round frame of tape vide memo Ex. PW30/R at instance of accused Avinash Srivastava and Anil.
g. Recovery of documents mentioned in seizure memo Ex.
PW34/4 from possession of accused Anil.
h. Recovery of mobile phone of the deceased from possession of accused Avinash.
i. Recovery of belt of the deceased from accused Avinash and 35 (Judgment) SC No. 51788/16 State Vs. Anoop Sinha & Ors.FIR No. 83/12
PS Keshav Puram U/s.364A/302/120B/201A IPC Anil.
j. The call detail record and location of the mobile phones of the accused persons near the proximity of place of incident at relevant time.
k. Recovery of keys of the plot from accused Avinash. l. Recovery of railway ticket from accused Avinash.
70. Ravinder Kumar PW-10 is father of deceased Jonny. He has deposed in his court statement that his son usually would return from his work early in the evening. However, on the date of incident, deceased informed Rinku, elder son of Ravinder that he would reach at about 08:30 PM. When deceased did not return till 10:30 PM, Ravinder enquired from his friends and also reported the matter to police. When Ravinder was present in PS Paschim Vihar, Ashok Kumar PW-11 who was friend to deceased also reached there. He informed Ravinder that on date of incident, at about 06:15 PM, deceased had visited his office for borrowing a book. He stayed there for about 15 minutes and thereafter left saying that he was going to meet Anoop. PW-11 has further deposed that at about 07:45 PM, he made a call on mobile number 9582493436 of accused Anoop Sinha from his mobile number 9811345891. PW-11 enquired from Anoop that where he was going with Jonny. Accused Anoop replied that they were going to have some fun. PW-11 has further deposed that he again made a call to Anoop at about 11:00 PM in the night and enquired about Jonny on which Anoop replied that he was not aware about Jonny. The fact that PW-11 Ashok had 36 (Judgment) SC No. 51788/16 State Vs. Anoop Sinha & Ors.
FIR No. 83/12PS Keshav Puram U/s.364A/302/120B/201A IPC talked to accused Anoop Sinha is confirmed by the CDR Ex.PW15/C. As per the CDR, PW-11 had talked to Anoop Sinha in the evening and after 11:00 PM, on 03.04.2012. During cross- examination of PW-11, besides a bald suggestion that the witness had not talked to the accused on the fateful night, neither any material question was asked nor any other relevant suggestion was given. PW-11 has deposed in his court statement that Anoop Sinha was known to him as he had done the diploma course with him. It appears that there was friendly relationship between accused Anoop Sinha and Ashok Kumar PW-11. Since the relationship between accused Anoop Sinha and witness Ashok Kumar were friendly and no enmity between them has been suggested by the defence counsel, this court has no reason to believe that witness Ashok Kumar has deposed falsely on the aspect that he had talked to accused Anoop Sinha on the date of incident wherein he had told Ashok Kumar that Jonny was with him and they were going to have some party. Thus, it stands proved that accused Anoop Sinha had told and admitted before Ashok Kumar PW-11 that deceased Jonny was in his company on the fateful night.
71. The CAF and CDR of mobile number 9503449299 Ex.PW22/A and Ex.PW22/B would reveal that this mobile number is registered in the name of accused Anoop Sinha and on date of incident, accused had repeatedly talked to deceased Jonny on his mobile number 9250600147. The ownership of this mobile number in the name of deceased Jonny has been confirmed by 37 (Judgment) SC No. 51788/16 State Vs. Anoop Sinha & Ors.
FIR No. 83/12PS Keshav Puram U/s.364A/302/120B/201A IPC CAF Ex.PW21/B and CDR Ex.PW21/C. Thus, the version given by PW-11 is further corroborated by the CDR of the aforesaid mobile numbers that deceased Jonny had gone to meet accused Anoop Sinha in the evening of 03.04.2012. This admission of accused Anoop Sinha before Ashok is admissible against him u/s.6 of Indian Evidence Act.
72. The second circumstance sought to be proved by the prosecution which would be relevant against the accused Anoop Sinha is his conduct when he met Rahul Sanoriya PW-43 in the evening of 03.04.2012 and again on 04.04.2012. To prove this circumstance, prosecution has produced Rahul Sanoriya PW-43. He has deposed that on 03.04.2012, he had received a call from accused Anoop Sinha, at about 06:00 to 07:00 p.m. and asked him to meet. Again at 08:30 PM, this witness received a call from accused Anoop Sinha wherein he again requested the witness to meet him in BG Block, Paschim Vihar. Thereafter, witness met the accused. During their meeting, accused purchased a beer from a liquor vend in Jwala Heri Market and finished the same while they were talking. At about 12 midnight, accused again called PW-43 and asked him to come at Patrol Pump in Jwala Heri Market but witness expressed his inability to meet the accused at that time. Next morning, at about 07:00 AM, accused Anoop again called the witness and requested him not to go to college as he had some work to do. The witness declined the request of the accused saying that he had exams in near future. During the conversation, accused Anoop Sinha requested 38 (Judgment) SC No. 51788/16 State Vs. Anoop Sinha & Ors.
FIR No. 83/12PS Keshav Puram U/s.364A/302/120B/201A IPC PW-43 that if anyone calls him (PW-43) and ask about him (accused Anoop Sinha) he should tell that he (Anoop Sinha) was in Rahul's company from 07:00 PM to 10:00 PM on 03.04.2012. PW-43 has further deposed that since he was pursuing his course of journalism, therefore, he was aware that his location could be traced easily. Thus, he declined the request of accused Anoop Sinha and told him that he would speak only truth. PW-43 further enquired from accused Anoop Sinha as to where he was from 7:00 PM onwards on which, he told that he was with his friends.
73. Rahul PW-43 has stated in his court statement that on date of incident, he had received a call from accused Anoop Sinha from a mobile number 7503449299 on his mobile number 9953437275. Shishir Malhotra, Nodal Officer, Aircel ltd has appeared as PW-22 and has produced original customer form of the aforesaid mobile number as Ex.PW22/B. As per the aforesaid customer application form, the aforesaid mobile number was issued in the name of accused Anoop Sinha. The subscription of the aforesaid mobile phone in the name of accused Anoop Sinha does not appear to be in dispute as no question or suggestion was asked to PW-22 in this regard. Similarly, the subscription of mobile phone of PW-43 is also not disputed and therefore, this court has no reason to disbelieve PW-43 that mobile number 9953437275 was issued in his name. The version given by PW- 43 stands confirmed by CDR of aforesaid mobile phone of the accused which has been filed as Ex.PW22/D. As per this CDR, 39 (Judgment) SC No. 51788/16 State Vs. Anoop Sinha & Ors.
FIR No. 83/12PS Keshav Puram U/s.364A/302/120B/201A IPC the accused had made a call to PW-43, at about 12:50 PM, on 03.04.2012. He again made two calls to him in the midnight. So, that portion of testimony of PW-43 that on the date of incident, accused had met him near Jwala Heri Park, at about 09:00 PM has been sufficiently corroborated by the CDR.
74. During cross-examination of PW-43, Ld. Defence Counsel appearing on behalf of accused Anoop Sinha subjected him to some questions about the timing of call received by this witness on 04.04.2012. The witness satisfactorily explained the timing. He was also questioned about presence of other persons in the PS when he visited there on 04.04.2012 to which the witness stated that some friends of the deceased Jonny were also present there. This court has perused the entire cross-examination of PW-43 but has not noticed anything indicating that this witness has lied on any aspect. PW43 was friend to accused Anoop Sinha and he had gone to meet the accused at 09:00 PM in the night. He even answered the call of the accused at 12 in the midnight. During cross-examination, no motive or object for deposing anything against accused Anoop Sinha has been suggested. Thus, this court can safely believe that whatever PW-43 has deposed is nothing but truth.
75. Now, the issue is what inference can be drawn by this Court from the conduct of accused Anoop Sinha which has been disclosed by Rahul PW-43. PW-43 has deposed that on 03.04.2012, accused Anoop Sinha had come to meet him. They talked for few minutes. During the conversation, accused Anoop 40 (Judgment) SC No. 51788/16 State Vs. Anoop Sinha & Ors.
FIR No. 83/12PS Keshav Puram U/s.364A/302/120B/201A IPC Sinha was having beer. Apparently, accused Anoop Sinha had no specific business or any important urgency to meet PW-43 on that day. It appears that on that day, accused Anoop Sinha had purposely planned meeting with PW-43 to fabricate a false defence of alibi. This objective of accused Anoop Sinha is confirmed by the second conversation which took place between PW-43 and accused Anoop Sinha wherein accused requested PW-43 to tell, if asked, that accused was with him from 07:00 PM to 10:00 PM on 03.04.2012. This conduct of accused Anoop Sinha indicates that he had come to meet PW-43 on 03.04.2012 after committing something wrong. The sole purpose of visiting PW-43 was to manufacture a defence that he was with the witness at relevant time. His request to claim that the witness that he was with him from 07:00 PM to 10:00 PM confirms that he was somewhere else during this time period but he wanted others to believe that he was with PW-43. It is also relevant to note that it was the same time when he admitted to Ashok Kumar PW-11 that deceased Jonny was in his company. All these facts and circumstances, when taken into consideration, are indicating that accused Anoop Sinha was in company of deceased Jonny in the evening of 03.04.2012 but he attempted an alibi that he was in company of Rahul PW-43. This conduct of accused would definitely go against him.
76. Ravinder Kumar PW-10 has deposed in his court statement that on the date of incident, deceased Jonny had gone to his office on motorcycle bearing no. DL4SAN2775. Same facts has been 41 (Judgment) SC No. 51788/16 State Vs. Anoop Sinha & Ors.
FIR No. 83/12PS Keshav Puram U/s.364A/302/120B/201A IPC deposed by Ashok Kumar PW-11. He has also deposed in his court statement that on 03.04.2012 when deceased Jonny came to meet him, he was on a motorcycle bearing no. DL4SAN2775 make Pulsar Black. The cross-examination of aforesaid two witnesses would reveal that nobody has disputed this fact that deceased Jonny was riding on the aforesaid motorcycle on the date of incident.
77. The case of the prosecution is that the aforesaid motorcycle of the deceased was recovered at instance of accused Anoop Sinha. Insp. Vijay Kumar PW-42 has deposed that after his arrest, accused Anoop Sinha led the police party to Peeragari Metro Station. At Peeragari Metro Station, he pointed out towards a motorcycle parked in Gali near wall of parking of metro station. Crime team inspected the motorcycle, however, no chance print could be found. Thereafter, the motorcycle was photographed and seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW28/G. Thereafter, IO prepared a rough site plan of the spot of recovery Ex.PW28/F. HC Jitender PW-28 is another witness to the recovery of the motorcycle. He had also attested the relevant documents in this regard.
78. During cross-examination of PW-42 and PW-28, Ld. Counsel for accused Anoop Sinha suggested to the aforesaid witnesses that the motorcycle was not recovered at instance of accused Anoop Sinha. Ld. Counsel further suggested that the whereabouts of the motorcycle were already within the knowledge of the police witnesses as same was told to them by the father of the deceased.
42 (Judgment) SC No. 51788/16 FIR No. 83/12PS Keshav Puram U/s.364A/302/120B/201A IPC Both witnesses i.e. PW-42 and PW-28 denied these suggestions. The cross-examination of Ravinder PW-10 who is father of the deceased has also been perused. He has nowhere deposed in his court testimony that he had told anything about motorcycle of his son to the police or the same was recovered at his instance. In considered opinion of this court, a uncorroborated suggestion given to the recovery witnesses that the motorcycle was recovered on the basis of information given by father of deceased shall not be sufficient to serve the purpose of defence.
79. While disputing the recovery of motorcycle, Ld. Defence Counsel for accused Anoop Sinha has argued that motorcycle was recovered from a public place where number of public persons might be available, but they were not joined in the process of recovery. Ld. Counsel has raised the contention that non-joining of public witnesses shall render the recovery doubtful and unreliable.
80.It is not the legal mandate that every evidence has to be discarded solely because it came to be collected through a police officer. There is no presumption of falsity of the version given by a police officer. Their testimonies also needs to be evaluated on the same parameters which are applied to public witnesses. In case titled as State of UP vs. M.K. Antony, Hon'ble Apex Court of India has held that "while appreciating the evidence of a witness, the approach must be whether the evidence of the witness read as a whole, appears to have a ring of truth. Once that impression is formed, it is undoubtedly necessary for the 43 (Judgment) SC No. 51788/16 State Vs. Anoop Sinha & Ors.
FIR No. 83/12PS Keshav Puram U/s.364A/302/120B/201A IPC court to scrutinize the evidence more particularly keeping in view the deficiency, drawbacks and infirmities, pointed out in the evidence as a whole and evaluate them to find out whether it is against the general tenor of evidence given by the witnesses and whether the earlier evaluation of the evidence is shaken as to render it unworthy of belief".
81.In case in hand, this Court has scrutinised the testimonies of the police witnesses who had recovered the motorcycle of the deceased at instance of accused Anoop Sinha. They have remained consistent in their version. Nothing has been observed in their testimonies, which may indicate towards any falsity. Thus, the recovery of motorcycle cannot be discarded merely because it was effected by police witnesses.
82. Inspector Vijay Kumar, PW42 has deposed that after analysing the call details record of the mobile phone of the deceased, he came to know that on the day when deceased went missing, repeated telephonic conversations had taken place on the mobile phone of the deceased with a mobile number 7503449299. As per customer application form (CAF) Ex. PW22/B produced by Shishir Malhotra PW22, this mobile number was issued in name of accused Anoop Sinha. On basis of this information, IO got suspicious about the involvement of accused Anoop Sinha. Accordingly, IO interrogated accused Anoop Sinha and arrested him vide arrest memo Ex. PW28/A. This memo was attested by HC Jitender / PW28 also. PW28 has also deposed same facts about arrest of accused Anoop Sinha. The case of the prosecution 44 (Judgment) SC No. 51788/16 State Vs. Anoop Sinha & Ors.
FIR No. 83/12PS Keshav Puram U/s.364A/302/120B/201A IPC further says that at instance of accused Anoop Sinha, remaining accused persons namely Avinash Kumar Srivastava and Anil Kumar were arrested. Their disclosure statements were recorded. In their disclosure statements, they revealed the place at Kamruddin Nagar, where body of the deceased was buried by them after committing murder. Investigating Officer prepared proper pointing out memos Exs. PW30/S, PW37/1 and PW28/H. Thereafter, the dead body was recovered from Khasra no.128/3/1, Amar Colony, Ph-III, Kamruddin Nagar, Delhi. The IO prepared the memo of recovery of dead body which is already Ex. PW30/H.
83. The argument of the prosecution is that the dead body was recovered at instance of all the accused persons, therefore, recovery of dead body is sought to be proved against all the accused persons in terms of section 27 of Indian Evidence Act. The authenticity of the recovery shall be discussed subsequently, first this Court shall take up the issue as to whether the recovery can be used against all the accused persons or not. A recovery of a fact can be used against an accused u/s.27 of Indian Evidence Act, if that fact has been recovered solely on the basis of information given by the accused. If the information in pursuant to which, any recovery has been effected has already come to the knowledge of the police, subsequent recovery cannot be used against the accused because the recovery is not result of the information given by the accused.
84. Here in this case, the case of the prosecution is that accused 45 (Judgment) SC No. 51788/16 State Vs. Anoop Sinha & Ors.
FIR No. 83/12PS Keshav Puram U/s.364A/302/120B/201A IPC Anoop Sinha was the first person to be arrested by the Investigating Officer. As per arrest memo Ex. PW28/A, accused Anoop Sinha was arrested on 05.04.2012 at about 8.00 p.m. whereas accused Avinash was arrested on 05.04.2012 at 11.30 p.m. vide memo Ex. PW30/A. Thereafter, accused Anil Kumar was arrested on 06.04.2012 at about 12.30 a.m. vide memo Ex. PW34/1. So, these arrest memos are showing that Anoop Sinha was the first person to be arrested. Now, the next question which arises before this Court is whether the recovery of dead body of the deceased was in pursuant to the information jointly given by all the three persons or accused Anoop Sinha had already told the place where dead body was buried by them. In the first case, the recovery can be used against all the accused persons but in the second situation, if accused Anoop Sinha had already given the information to the police, information given by remaining two accused persons in this regard would be of no use, reason being that information had already reached to the police through accused Anoop Sinha.
85. In his cross-examination, PW42 has cleared the entire dust from the confusion on the information which led to recovery of the dead body. During cross-examination, PW42 stated that accused Anoop Sinha was first interrogated by him on 05.04.2012 at about 6.30 p.m. From his disclosure statement Ex.PW28/C, IO came to know that Jonny had been killed. PW42 has further deposed that accused Anoop Sinha had told the police that body of deceased Jonny had been buried inside a plot in Kamruddin 46 (Judgment) SC No. 51788/16 State Vs. Anoop Sinha & Ors.
FIR No. 83/12PS Keshav Puram U/s.364A/302/120B/201A IPC Nagar. These facts have also been recorded in the disclosure statement of accused Anoop Sinha which is Ex.PW28/C. The IO also conceded in his cross-examination that during interrogation of accused Anoop Sinha, he he come to know about the exact location at Kamruddin Nagar, where the dead body of deceased was buried. The aforesaid cross-examination of PW42 leaves no room for doubt that accused Anoop Sinha was the first accused to be arrested and in his disclosure statement, which was given by him to the police prior to arrest of remaining accused persons, he had disclosed the exact location and details of the place from where the dead body of deceased Jonny was recovered. So, by the time remaining two accused persons were arrested, the police was already having knowledge about the place where the dead body of deceased was buried. Thus, there was no new fact disclosed by accused Avinash Kumar Srivastava and Anil Kumar which could have led to discovery of the body of deceased. Accordingly, the recovery of dead body cannot be read against accused Avinash Kumar Srivastava and Anil Kumar. That recovery is relevant against accused Anoop Sinha only.
86. Now, coming to the authenticity of the recovery of dead body. To prove the recovery of dead body, the prosecution has placed reliance upon statement given by Insp. Vijay Kumar PW-42. PW-42 has deposed that the information given by the accused persons led the police party to Khasra no. 128/3/1, Amar Colony, Ph-III, Kamruddin Nagar, Delhi from where the dead body of the deceased was dug out. Same statement has been given by PW /SI 47 (Judgment) SC No. 51788/16 State Vs. Anoop Sinha & Ors.
FIR No. 83/12PS Keshav Puram U/s.364A/302/120B/201A IPC Rakesh Duhan PW-30. Ravinder PW-10 who is father of deceased and Rinku PW-14 who is brother of the deceased have also deposed the same facts. The recovery of dead body also confirmed by ASI Subhash PW-36. Ct. Jeet Tomar PW-31 had conducted the photography of the recovery. He has proved the video camera and cassette Ex.PW30/12 in this regard. Ct. Manjeet PW-29 and Ct. Jitender PW-25 have also deposed same facts regarding recovery of dead body. Ct. Subhash PW-30 was photographer with the crime team at the time of recovery and he has deposed that on 06.04.2012, at about 04:00 AM in the morning, on receiving a message from control room, he alongwith SI Sanjeev Verma, Incharge of the crime team PW-27 had gone to Khasra no.128/3/1, Kamruddin Nagar, Amar Colony, Phase -III wherein at pointing out of the accused person, one dead body wrapped in polythene bag was recovered. He took 27 photographs of the dead body from different angles from his digital camera. Photographs are Ex.PW13/C-1 to Ex.PW13/C-
27. The CD of the same is Ex.PW13/D. The dead body was identified by Ravinder PW-10 vide memo Ex.PW10/B and Rinku PW-14 vide memo Ex.PW14/A. Both these witnesses were present at the time of recovery. This court has perused the testimonies of the aforesaid recovery witnesses. During cross- examination, no material contradiction or improvement has been noticed. Some of the witnesses like the photographer of crime team have not even been cross-examined. In addition to the testimonies, this court has also seen the video footage wherein 48 (Judgment) SC No. 51788/16 State Vs. Anoop Sinha & Ors.
FIR No. 83/12PS Keshav Puram U/s.364A/302/120B/201A IPC the recovery is being effected from a plot in presence of huge crowd. The statement of aforesaid witnesses, photographs and video footage is sufficient to prove that recovery was effected from the place alleged by the prosecution. This recovery of dead body, as has been discussed above, is a relevant evidence against accused Anoop Sinha u/s 27 of Indian Evidence Act.
87. As per case of the prosecution, the property i.e. clutch wire vide memo Ex. PW30/O, recovery of bottle of liquor and empty plastic glasses vide seizure memo Ex. PW30/Q, recovery of Fawra (shovel) vide memo Ex. PW30/P, recovery of plastic sacks vide memo Ex. PW30/J and recovery of round frame of tape vide memo Ex. PW30/R was also effected from plot no.128/3/1, Amar Colony, Phase-III, Kamruddin Nagar, Delhi, at instance of accused Avinash Srivastava and Anil. This place from where the aforesaid recoveries were effected is the same place from where the dead body of the deceased was recovered. As has been discussed in the forgoing discussion, address of this particular plot from where the dead body was recovered was disclosed to the police by accused Anoop Sinha even before the accused Avinash Srivastava and Anil were arrested. It is not necessary for a recovery u/s.27 Indian Evidence Act that the person against whom it is to be proved has to point out towards the property by himself. If the complete specification of the exact place has been given to the police, the police may recover the same at its own. The recovery so effected shall amount to recovery of fact in terms of section 27 of Indian Evidence Act.
49 (Judgment) SC No. 51788/16 FIR No. 83/12PS Keshav Puram U/s.364A/302/120B/201A IPC Here, in this case, the place from where the aforesaid articles were recovered had already been disclosed to the police by accused Anoop Sinha. Since the place of recovery was already within the knowledge of the police, there was nothing new which was disclosed by accused Avinash Srivastava and Anil Kumar, which led to recovery of aforesaid articles. Therefore, the recovery of aforesaid articles shall also be admissible against accused Anoop Sinha only and definitely not against remaining two accused persons namely Avinash Srivastava and accused Anil.
88. As per case of prosecution, accused Anil had got recovered the documents detailed in seizure memo Ex. PW34/4. These documents are coloured xerox of driving licence of deceased Jonny, RC of his motorcycle, xerox of his identity card and membership card of youth Congress. When the dead body of the deceased was recovered, his all wearing apparels including clothes, rings and other jewellery articles were found on his body. As per case of prosecution, the shoes, belt and mobile phone of the deceased were thrown by the accused persons on some deserted places to destroy the evidence. When the entire body of the deceased was buried alongwith clothes and jewellery, it appears highly unusual and unnatural that accused Anil would have carried useless documents as mentioned in the aforesaid seizure memo with him. He could have either buried the same alongwith the body of the deceased or could have disposed them off like they allegedly disposed of his shoes and 50 (Judgment) SC No. 51788/16 State Vs. Anoop Sinha & Ors.
FIR No. 83/12PS Keshav Puram U/s.364A/302/120B/201A IPC belt. So, the recovery of these documents prima-facie appears to be planted. Moreover, the recovery memo shows that recovery was effected in presence of police witnesses only. The recovery was allegedly effected from the house of accused Anil. In case, no public person was available, police could have joined at least family members of the accused. In case of refusal, statutory notice could have also been given to them. However, no such notice was given. It appears that no sincere efforts were made by the police to join the public witnesses in the recovery of aforesaid documents. This Court is conscious of the practical difficulty that it is not practically possible for the police to join public witnesses in every recovery. Still, some sincere efforts made by the police should be reflected from the record. Those efforts are missing in this case.
89.In case titled as Anoop Joshi Vs. State 1999(2) C.C. Cases 314 (HC) Hon'ble Delhi High Court has held that :
"18. It is repeatedly laid down by this court that in such cases it should be shown by the police that sincere efforts have been made to join independent witnesses. In the present case, it is evident that no such sincere efforts have been made, particularly when we find that shops were open and one or two shopkeepers could have been persuaded to join the raiding party to witness the recovery being made from the appellant. In case any of the shopkeepers had declined to join the raiding party, the police could have later on taken legal action against such shopkeepers because they could not have escaped the rigours of law while declining to perform their legal duty to assist the police in investigation as a citizen, which is an offence under the IPC".51 (Judgment) SC No. 51788/16 FIR No. 83/12
PS Keshav Puram U/s.364A/302/120B/201A IPC
90.Further, in Roop Chand Vs. State of Haryana, 1999 (1) (C), CLR, it has been held as follows :
"It is well settled principle of the law that the Investigating Agency should join independent witnesses at the time of recovery of contraband articles, if they are available and their failure to do so in such a situation casts a shadow of doubt on the prosecution case investigation. This explanation does not inspire confidence because the police officials who are the only witnesses examined in the case have not given the names and addresses of the persons contacted to join. It is a very common excuse that the witnesses from the public refused to join the investigation. A police officer conducting investigation of a crime is entitled to ask anybody to join the investigation and on refusal by a person from the public the Investigating Officer can take action against such a person under the law. Had it been a fact that he witnesses from the public had refused to join the investigation, the Investigating Officer must have proceeded against them under the relevant provisions of law. The failure to do so by the police officer is suggestive of the fact that the explanation for non-joining the witnesses from the public is an after thought and is not worthy of credence. All these facts taken together make the prosecution case highly doubtful..."
91. This Court is not saying that police has to join public witnesses in each and every case. This Court is conscious that same is not the legal position. The testimonies of police witnesses needs to be evaluated on the same parameters as the other witnesses, but for sake of caution, testimonies of official witnesses should be corroborated by supporting evidence and circumstances, including joining of public witnesses, if available. At least, the record should reflect the sincerity of efforts made by the police 52 (Judgment) SC No. 51788/16 State Vs. Anoop Sinha & Ors.
FIR No. 83/12PS Keshav Puram U/s.364A/302/120B/201A IPC for including public persons in the process of recovery. That sincerity is not reflected in the aforesaid recovery of documents. Thus, same has to be viewed with doubt.
92. Further, the prosecution has claimed that after committing murder of Jonny, accused Anil and Avinash had consumed liquor in Khasra No.128/3/1, Amar Colony, Phase-III, Kamruddin nagar, Delhi. The empty liquor bottle and plastic glasses were recovered from the plot via a seizure memo mentioned in the preceding paragraphs. That being the case, the accused persons must have left their finger prints on the liquor bottle and plastic glasses. Had the IO taken the pain to get the chance prints lifted, same could have been easily detected. But that exercise was also not carried out. Non-collection of a probable incriminating evidence shall also go against the case of the prosecution and render it doubtful.
93. The next evidence sought to be proved against all the accused persons by the prosecution is their CDR and location of their mobile phones. Mobile phones bearing no. 7503449299 & 9582493436 were registered in the name of accused Anoop Sinha. This fact is established by the CAF form Ex.PW22/B produced by Shishir Malhotra PW-22 and CAF form Ex. PW15/A produced by Israr Babu, Alternate Nodal Officer. Whereas the mobile phone bearing no. 9250600147 was registered in the name of deceased Jonny. The CAF Ex.PW21/B of this phone shall establish the subscription of the said phone. As per CDR of the aforesaid two numbers, there had been 53 (Judgment) SC No. 51788/16 State Vs. Anoop Sinha & Ors.
FIR No. 83/12PS Keshav Puram U/s.364A/302/120B/201A IPC repeated conversation between these two mobile phones on the date of incident. Some of the locations are of the proximate places. As per CDR Ex. PW21/A of mobile number 9250600147 registered in the name of deceased, deceased had called the mobile bearing no. 7503449299 of accused Anoop Sinha on the date of incident i.e. 03.04.2012 at 18:55, 19:06 hours. As per call details record of mobile number 7503449299, accused Anoop Sinha had called the deceased on the date of incident at 13:14, 17:35, 18:43 and 18:45 hours. As per location chart, the presence of accused Anoop Sinha was at Lawrence Road, Peera Garhi, Jwala Heri and Paschim Vihar in the evening of 03.04.2012. It appears from the aforesaid call details record that accused Anoop Sinha had contacted the deceased from the aforesaid two mobile numbers on the date of incident. Their location are also showing that they were roaming in the same locality on the day when deceased went missing. The aforesaid call details record would also corroborate the statement of Ashok Kumar, PW11 who has stated that in the evening of 03.04.2012, deceased had left stating that he was going to meet accused Anoop Singh. One of the locations of the mobile phone of the accused is at Peera Garhi, where he had called PW43 Rahul, who has deposed that in the evening of 03.04.2012, accused had called him to meet him near Paschim Vihar i.e. near Peera Garhi. This call details report thus corroborates the version of PW43 Rahul that accused had called him on 03.04.2012 near Peera Garhi. So the aforesaid call details record are showing that accused had called the 54 (Judgment) SC No. 51788/16 State Vs. Anoop Sinha & Ors.
FIR No. 83/12PS Keshav Puram U/s.364A/302/120B/201A IPC deceased in the evening of 03.04.2012 and the deceased had gone to meet him. These call details record are therefore, strong proof of the fact that deceased was last known to be present in the company of accused Anoop Sinha.
94. As per CAF Ex. PW15/G produced by Israr Babu, Nodal Officer Vodafone, who appeared as PW15, mobile phone bearing no. 9899787340 was issued in name of one Sandeep. Sandeep has appeared in the Court as PW20 and in his Court statement, he has deposed that the aforesaid number was given to accused Anil Kumar and he was using the same. During cross-examination of this witness, this fact has not been disputed that the aforesaid mobile phone issued in the name of Sandeep was being used by accused Anil Kumar as no such question or suggestion disputing this fact was given to PW20. Hence, stands proved that aforesaid mobile number was being used by accused Anil.
95. Now, this Court would see the proximity of calls between accused Anoop Sinha and Anil. Afore-noted CDR of mobile number 7503449299 Ex.PW22/A would reveal that accused Anoop Sinha had not made any call to accused Anil on the date of incident.
96. Prosecution has produced CAF Ex. PW16/C of mobile number 9311451565 as per which, this mobile was issued in the name of accused Avinash Kumar. There is no dispute on subscription of the mobile phone as PW16 Rajiv Sharda who had produced the relevant CAF documents has not been cross-examined. As per CDR of mobile number 7503449299 of accused Anoop Sinha.
55 (Judgment) SC No. 51788/16 FIR No. 83/12PS Keshav Puram U/s.364A/302/120B/201A IPC Accused Anoop Sinha had made three calls on the aforesaid mobile of accused Avinash, whereas accused Avinash had made one call to accused Anoop Sinha on the date of incident. On the basis of aforesaid conversation of accused Anoop Singh and Avinash, the prosecution has attempted to prove that the frequent telephonic conversations indicate that they had participated in the crime in question. On the other hand, Ld. Defence Counsel has submitted that accused Anoop and Avinash are long time friends and there was no unusual frequency in their telephonic conversation on the date of incident. While inviting the attention of the Court towards the call details record, Ld. Counsel has submitted that it was routine for the accused persons to call each other everyday, therefore, nothing can be inferred against accused Avinash and Anil merely because they were telephonically connected with accused Anoop Sinha. On location of mobile, Ld. Defence Counsel has submitted that accused Anil is a resident of Kamruddin Nagar, Delhi and accused Avinash Srivastava is a resident of Rajdhani Park, Nangloi. Since the place of residence of the accused persons is near the place of incident, therefore, there is nothing unnatural or unusual that their location was found in proximity of place of incident.
97. This Court has perused the CDR and location chart of all the accused persons. Accused Anil did not have any telephonic conversation with deceased or accused Anoop Sinha on the date of incident. Although, accused Anoop Sinha had some conversation with accused Avinash and Avinash had some 56 (Judgment) SC No. 51788/16 State Vs. Anoop Sinha & Ors.
FIR No. 83/12PS Keshav Puram U/s.364A/302/120B/201A IPC telephonic conversations with accused Anil, but nothing unusual has been noticed in the frequency and duration of the telephonic conversations. They were having two / three telephonic conversations everyday even prior to the incident. On the date of incident also, there were few calls between them for a very brief period. In the considered opinion of this Court, it cannot be assumed merely on the basis of these telephonic calls between the accused persons that accused Avinash and Anil were with accused Anoop Sinha and had committed the offence in question.
98. As far as location of mobiles is concerned, one mobile tower covers a large area. Accused Anil is resident of Kamruddin Nagar and accused Avinash is resident of Rajdhani Park. There is no dispute regarding the place of their residence. The location chart and would show their location in the places near the place of their residence. Since their place of residence happened to be near the place of incident, this Court thinks that nothing adverse can be deducted from their locations also. Their presence there was natural. So the telephonic conversations alone shall not prove anything against accused Avinash and Anil. Prosecution shall have to provide some corroboration to the aforesaid telephonic conversation.
99. Inspector Vijay Kumar, PW42 has deposed that after his arrest, accused Avinash produced a mobile phone belonging to deceased Jonny. The said phone was taken out by accused Avinash from a bed at his home. The same was seized by him 57 (Judgment) SC No. 51788/16 State Vs. Anoop Sinha & Ors.
FIR No. 83/12PS Keshav Puram U/s.364A/302/120B/201A IPC vide seizure memo Ex. PW30/D. In seizure memo Ex. PW30/D, the Investigating Officer has mentioned that the mobile phone was produced by accused Avinash. It has not been mentioned anywhere in the seizure memo that the mobile phone of the deceased was recovered from a bed in his house. To the contrary, in the Court statement, PW42 has stated that mobile phone of the deceased was recovered from a bed of his house. In case, the mobile phone was produced by accused Avinash, then it should have been recovered during his personal search, but admittedly it was not recovered from his personal search. Moreover, IO should have prepared site plan of the recovery. However, no such site plan was also prepared. When the recovery of dead body of the deceased was photographed and videographed, nothing had prevented the IO from doing the same with the recovery of the mobile. However, no such exercise was done by him. Recovery of mobile phone of the deceased was recovery of a very important evidence, therefore, IO should have called Crime Team at the time of recovery, but the Crime Team was also not called. The recovery memo has been signed by SI Rakesh Duhan, PW30 and HC Subhash, PW36. Both these witnesses have stated that the mobile phone of the deceased was recovered from accused Avinash. None of these two witnesses have stated anywhere that the mobile phone was got recovered from a bed in the house of accused Avinash. Furthermore, neither any public witness was joined in the recovery, nor any efforts to join the same were apparently made by the IO. As per the case of 58 (Judgment) SC No. 51788/16 State Vs. Anoop Sinha & Ors.
FIR No. 83/12PS Keshav Puram U/s.364A/302/120B/201A IPC prosecution, the deceased was kidnapped and murdered for ransom. The murder was allegedly not committed for robbery and, therefore, the accused persons had allegedly disposed of all the belongings of the deceased. Even the jewellery including golden rings were found intact on body at the time of recovery. So, when the accused persons had not robbed anything from the deceased, it is hard to believe that they would have taken his mobile phone alongwith them.
100. In view of the afore-noted circumstances, the recovery of mobile phone is also rejected.
101. Another incriminating circumstance which the prosecution has sought to prove against accused Avinash and Anil is recovery of belt of the deceased. To prove this recovery, prosecution has again placed reliance upon statement of Inspector Vijay Kumar, PW42, who has deposed that during investigation, one belt belonging to deceased was recovered from a dried up canal near Mundka Village at the instance of accused Avinash and Anil. This belt was seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW28/L. Since the prosecution first needed to establish that belt was belonging to the deceased, therefore, they first produced PW10 Ravinder Kumar, father of the deceased for the said identification. During cross-examination, PW10 Ravinder stated that at the time of TIP proceedings, 8-10 belts were available. He further stated that he could not tell any particular specification which could distinguish the said belt of the deceased from other belts. He also added that he could not tell the name of the brand or company of 59 (Judgment) SC No. 51788/16 State Vs. Anoop Sinha & Ors.
FIR No. 83/12PS Keshav Puram U/s.364A/302/120B/201A IPC the belt of the deceased. PW10 also clarified that it took about half an hour to him to identify the belt of the deceased. Belt is a common article openly available in every market. In opinion of this Court, in absence of any specific mark, it is not possible for anyone to identify such a general article. Moreover, it had taken about half an hour to PW10 to identify the belt of his son. Had he been acquainted with the belt of the deceased, he could have identified the same in no time, within a minute or less. In these circumstances, this Court is not inclined to place much reliance upon the identification of the belt by PW10.
102. The discussion done above in relation to the documents of the deceased allegedly recovered from accused Anil also applies to recovery of the belt also. The accused persons had allegedly killed the deceased and thereafter buried his body without removing his clothes, shoes and jewellery. Under the circumstances, the prudent and natural conduct of the accused persons would have been to bury the belt alongwith the dead body of the deceased. There is no logical reason, which could have prompted the accused persons to remove the valueless belt of the deceased and dispose it of somewhere else as claimed by the prosecution.
103. Again, the recovery of the belt was also not witnessed by any public person. None of the police witnesses has explained the reasons for non-joining of public witnesses despite the recovery effected from a public place, where they could have been easily available.
60 (Judgment) SC No. 51788/16 FIR No. 83/12PS Keshav Puram U/s.364A/302/120B/201A IPC
104. In view of the above discussion, it would not be safe to take the recovery of belt in judicial calculus.
105. As per case of prosecution, on personal search of accused Avinash Kumar Srivastava, a railway ticket from Lucknow to Delhi, dated 07.04.2012 was recovered from his possession. Same was seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW30/E. The case projected by the prosecution is that the railway ticket was obtained by the accused persons under a plan to make ransom call to the father of the deceased from running train. Therefore, the said railway ticket was purchased. PW8 Suman Lata, Chief Reservation Supervisor has proved the requisition form for purchasing the ticket as Ex. PW8/D. As per the report Ex. PW46/2 given by handwriting expert Alok Kumar Mehta PW46 was filled in handwriting of accused Avinash Srivastava. So, it stands proved that the ticket Ex. PW5/A was issued on a requisition form submitted by accused Avinash Srivastava.
106. Since the railway reservation ticket was issued on a requisition form, which was filled by accused Avinash Srivastava, lets believe that same was recovered from his possession. However, this Court still has to decide upon the alleged purpose for which the said ticket was got issued by the accused. As per the case of the prosecution, PW10 Ravinder Kumar had received a ransom call from the mobile number of the deceased on 03.04.2012 at about 11.51 p.m. PW10 has deposed during his cross- examination that after receiving the ransom call, he had visited the PS in the morning of 04.04.2012 alongwith family members 61 (Judgment) SC No. 51788/16 State Vs. Anoop Sinha & Ors.
FIR No. 83/12PS Keshav Puram U/s.364A/302/120B/201A IPC and lodged a complaint Ex. PW10/A. During cross-examination, this witness was confronted with the statement Ex. PW10/A wherein he was asked a specific question regarding disclosure of the ransom call to SI Sonu Ram, who had recorded his statement. The statement was also confronted to him. However, no such fact was found recorded in the complaint. Inspector Vijay Kumar PW42 was also asked the same question, wherein he clarified that complainant Ravinder had visited the PS between the alleged ransom call and registration of FIR, but he did not disclose any such fact to the IO. The statement Ex. PW10/A has been perused, wherein no such fact has been recorded. So, this Court is of the considered opinion that had PW10 received any ransom call, he would have definitely revealed about the same in his statement Ex. PW10/A. Not mentioning of the ransom call specifically in the complaint which was lodged subsequent to the alleged ransom call shall create doubt upon the theory that the murder was committed for purpose of ransom and the ticket was purchased for making the call from running train.
107. Even otherwise, a sole train ticket without any corroboration cannot be a ground to believe the theory that the murder was committed for ransom and ticket was purchased for the said purpose.
108. Another circumstance the prosecution has sought to prove against accused Avinash Srivastava is that a key of lock of the plot was recovered from his possession alongwith key of 62 (Judgment) SC No. 51788/16 State Vs. Anoop Sinha & Ors.
FIR No. 83/12PS Keshav Puram U/s.364A/302/120B/201A IPC motorcycle during his personal search. Accused Anoop Sinha was the first person arrested in connection with this case. As stated by IO / PW42, accused Anoop Sinha had disclosed the exact location of the plot from where the dead body of the deceased was recovered. Accused Avinash Srivastava was arrested about 3 hours subsequent to the disclosure made by accused Anoop Sinha. PW42 further went to admit that even after the location of the plot was disclosed by accused Anoop Sinha, no investigation was conducted there till the recovery of the body on next morning. So, police had sufficient time to plant the lock and key upon accused Avinash Kumar Srivastava after the disclosure made by accused Anoop Sinha. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to place much reliance on the recovery of the key.
109. Accused Anoop Sinha has also pleaded defence of alibi on basis of statement of DW1 Yuvraj Singh. As far as testimony of DW1 Yuvraj Singh is concerned, same does not appear to be reliable because he has stated during his cross-examination that was not the summoned witness. He had appeared to depose in the Court at instance of family members of accused Anoop Sinha as he had good relations with the family of accused. In view of the relations, possibility cannot be ruled out that he appeared in the Court at instance of family members and gave a favourable statement due to his good relations with accused. Further, he could have informed about the alleged false implication of accused Anoop Sinha to higher police authorities stating that he 63 (Judgment) SC No. 51788/16 State Vs. Anoop Sinha & Ors.
FIR No. 83/12PS Keshav Puram U/s.364A/302/120B/201A IPC was present with accused Anoop Sinha at his residence from 8.00 p.m. to 10.00 p.m. on 03.04.2012. On other hand, no such steps were taken by him. This conduct of not reporting the matter would also effect the credibility of this witness. Furthermore, testimony of this witness is contradictory to testimony of Rahul PW43, who has deposed that accused Anoop Sinha had come to meet him on 03.04.2012 at about 8.30 p.m. The version of Rahul is supported by the call details record of his mobile phone which shows that accused Anoop Sinha had telephonically contacted him on 03.04.2012 at relevant time, but there is no such corroboration to the testimony of the defence witness. Since the accused had gone to meet Rahul PW43 on the date of incident, he could not be possibly present at his residence, as stated by the defence witness. So the testimony of defence witness is not credible to provide the alibi to accused Anoop Sinha. In other words, testimony of DW1 cannot be given preference over testimony of PW43.
110. In addition to the above, prosecution has cited another witness namely Gagan Prakash, examined as PW17 to prove that plot bearing no.128/3/1, Amar Colony, Kamruddin Nagar, Nangloi, Delhi, was given on rent to accused Avinash Srivastava, where dead body of the deceased was found. The argument of the prosecution is that since Avinash was the tenant of the plot, where dead body was recovered, his involvement in the case cannot be ruled out. In his Court's statement, PW17 has deposed that he had given the plot to one Master Ji through some Amit 64 (Judgment) SC No. 51788/16 State Vs. Anoop Sinha & Ors.
FIR No. 83/12PS Keshav Puram U/s.364A/302/120B/201A IPC Yadav. He further stated that he had neither seen Master Ji, nor had obtained any ID documents from him. He has also failed to identify accused Avinash Srivastava in the Court. In opinion of this Court, no prudent person would give any property on rent without ascertaining the identity of a person and without obtaining his ID proof. In case in hand, PW17 has neither identified accused Avinash Srivastava in the Court, nor has produced any identity document deposited by the accused at the time of taking the plot on rent. Thus, testimony of PW17 proves nothing against accused Avinash Srivastava that he had taken the plot on rent from Gagan Prakash, PW17. As far as Amit Yadav is concerned, he is neither cited as a witness, nor he has been examined by the prosecution.
111. In case titled as Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra (1984) SC, the Apex Court has held that :
i) The circumstances from which the conclusion is drawn should be fully established.
ii) The circumstances should be conclusive in nature.
iii) All the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt of the accused and should also be inconsistence with the innocence of the accused.
iv) The circumstances should, to a moral certainty, exclude the possibility of guilt of any person other than the accused."
112. In light of the parameters laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid case, this Court shall now conclude as to whether the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable 65 (Judgment) SC No. 51788/16 State Vs. Anoop Sinha & Ors.
FIR No. 83/12PS Keshav Puram U/s.364A/302/120B/201A IPC doubt or not. As per case case of prosecution, accused Anoop Sinha had telephonically called the deceased on the date of incident. This fact was told by the deceased to Ashok Kumar PW11. In the night of 03.04.2012, when murder was committed, accused Anoop Sinha had called Rahul, PW43. The accused Anoop Sinha was drinking during his meeting with Rahul and he did not disclose any specific purpose for the meeting. Again, he tried to persuade Rahul PW43 to say that he was with him (accused Anoop Sinha) in the evening of 03.04.2012. This conduct of accused Anoop Sinha indicates that he was trying to create a false plea of alibi with aid of PW43 Rahul. Subsequently, after his arrest, accused Anoop Sinha disclosed the exact place where dead body of the deceased and other articles were recovered. The movement of accused Anoop Sinha and his contact with the deceased are further strengthened by the CDR and location of mobile. There is no doubt that deceased was last seen alive in company of accused Anoop Sinha. Thereafter, he went missing. So, the chain of circumstances is complete against accused Anoop Sinha beyond reasonable doubt.
113. Coming to the evidence against Avinash Kumar Srivastava and Anil Kumar, the prosecution has shown some recoveries at instance of accused Avinash Kumar Srivastava and accused Anil Kumar from the plot from where the dead body of the deceased was recovered. This Court has already discussed above that those recoveries cannot be read against accused Avinash Kumar Srivastava and Anil Kumar because exact location of that place 66 (Judgment) SC No. 51788/16 State Vs. Anoop Sinha & Ors.
FIR No. 83/12PS Keshav Puram U/s.364A/302/120B/201A IPC was already in knowledge of the police through disclosure statement of accused Anoop Sinha and no new fact which may be admitted u/s.27 Indian Evidence Act was discovered in pursuant to the disclosure statement of accused Avinash Kumar Srivastava and Anil Kumar. As far as the identification of belt by Ravinder Kumar is concerned, same does not appear to be reliable. Prosecution has also attempted to support its case against these two accused persons on basis of phone calls of accused Anoop Sinha with accused Avinash Kumar Srivastava and Anil Kumar. As discussed above, no unusual frequency was observed in the phone calls on date of incident. The pattern of phone calls between them was similar as it was before the commission of the crime. The location of mobile phones of accused Avinash Kumar Srivastava and Anil Kumar shall also not prove anything substantial against them as they are resident of the locality where their location was found at the time of commission of offence. Since they are resident of same locality, there is nothing unusual that their location was found there. The prosecution has also failed to probablise the theory that the ticket recovered from accused Avinash Kumar Srivastava was purchased for purpose of making ransom calls. The chain of circumstances thus, is not complete against accused Avinash Kumar Srivastava and Anil Kumar. Case against them is highly doubtful.
114. The real factual picture which appears from the circumstances is that accused Anoop Sinha had called the deceased to the plot 67 (Judgment) SC No. 51788/16 State Vs. Anoop Sinha & Ors.
FIR No. 83/12PS Keshav Puram U/s.364A/302/120B/201A IPC bearing Khasra No. 128/3/1, Amar Colony, Ph-III, Kamruddin Nagar, New Delhi. There, they consumed alcohol. This fact is established by viscera report of the deceased Ex. PW38/A, wherein his blood samples were found containing traces of ethyl alcohol. It appears that during conversation over drinks, some dispute arose between accused Anoop Sinha and deceased, wherein accused Anoop Sinha strangulated the deceased to death with the clutch wire, which was subsequently recovered from that plot. This fact is further substantiated by the postmortem report Ex. PW4/A, which says that cause of death was asphyxia consequent upon strangulation due to ligature pressure over the neck. After committing murder, accused Anoop Sinha buried the body of deceased to conceal evidence. Accused Anoop Sinha is accordingly convicted for the offence u/s.302 & 201 IPC. There is no evidence of criminal conspiracy or recovery of stolen property or abduction against him. He is acquitted of the remaining charges. As far as accused Avinash Kumar Srivastava and Anil Kumar are concerned, they are acquitted from all the charges levelled against them.
Announced in open (BABRU BHAN)
Court on 30th day of ASJ-03(NORTH-WEST)
November 2023 ROHINI COURTS
DELHI/30.11.2023