Delhi District Court
State vs Anadil Hasan on 30 March, 2024
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIRENDER KUMAR KHARTA,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE (FTC)-02, CENTRAL
DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
In the matter of:-
(Sessions case no. 27451/2016)
FIR No. 139/2011
Police Station I. P. Estate
Charge-sheet filed under 364A/302/394/201/120-B/34 IPC &
Sections Sec. 25/27/54/59 of Arms Act
Charge framed against 120B IPC, 302 IPC read with Sec.
accused persons namely 120B IPC, 364A IPC read with Sec.
Anadil Hasan, Raju Lal 120B IPC, 394 IPC read with Sec.
Jat, Mohd. Javed, 120B IPC & 201 IPC read with 120B
Mehboob Alam and IPC.
Firoz Alam.
Charge framed against 120B IPC, 302 IPC read with Sec.
accused Mukesh Kumar. 120B IPC, 364A IPC read with Sec.
120B IPC, 394 IPC read with Sec.
120B IPC & 201 IPC read with 120B
IPC & Sec. 25 Arms Act.
State Versus 1. Anadil Hasan,
S/o Sh. Mursaleen,
R/o Village Umari Kalan Jumma
Ka Bazar, PS: Chhajlet, District
Moradabad, Uttar Pradesh.
2. Raju Lal Jat,
S/o Sh. Hanuman Sahay Jat,
R/o Village Umari Kalan Jumma
Ka Bazar, PS: Chhajlet, District
Moradabad, Uttar Pradesh.
3. Mohd. Javed,
S/o Sh. Firoz Ahmed,
R/o Village & PO Joya Mohalla,
Iqbal Nagar, PS Didoli, District,
J. P. Nagar, Uttar Pradesh.
State Vs. Anadil Hasan & Ors.
FIR No. 139/2011, PS I. P. Estate Page No. 1 of 102
4. Mehboob Alam,
S/o Sh. Mohd. Taushif,
R/o Village Umari Kalan Jumma
Ka Bazar, PS: Chhajlet, District
Moradabad, Uttar Pradesh.
5. Firoz Alam,
S/o Sh. Mohd. Hafiz,
R/o Village Sonali, PS: Didoli,
District J. P. Nagar, Uttar Pradesh
6. Mukesh Kumar,
S/o Sh. Dal Chand,
R/o Vill. Sarkadi Aziz, PS Didoli,
District J. P. Nagar, Uttar Pradesh.
...Accused persons.
Date of Institution of case 17.10.2012
Date of Arguments 30.03.2024
Judgment reserved on 30.03.2024
Judgment pronounced on 30.03.2024
Accused persons
namely Anadil Hasan,
Mehboob Alam & Raju
Decision Lal Jaat have convicted
while accused persons
namely Mohd. Javed,
Mukesh Kumar &
Firoz Alam have been
acquitted
JUDGMENT
1. Accused persons namely Anadil Hasan, Raju Lal Jat, Mohd. Javed, Mehboob Alam, Mukesh Kumar & Firoz Alam are facing trial under Sec. 120B IPC, 364A IPC read with Sec. 120 State Vs. Anadil Hasan & Ors.
FIR No. 139/2011, PS I. P. Estate Page No. 2 of 102 IPC, 302 IPC read with Sec. 120B IPC, 394 IPC read with Sec. 120B IPC & 201 IPC read with Sec. 120B IPC. Additionally accused Mukesh is also facing trial under Sec. 25 of The Arms Act 1959. The prosecution story is that on or before 21.11.2011 all the abovesaid accused persons conspired together to do an illegal act of abducting/kidnapping deceased Rohit Ahlawat for ransom and demanded a sum of Rs. 50,00,000/- from PW-1 complainant Sh. R. R. Ahlawat (father of Rohit Ahlawat) for releasing him from their custody. It is further alleged that all the abovesaid accused persons in pursuance of said criminal conspiracy caused hurt to deceased Rohit Ahlawat at the time of committing robbery upon him by snatching his ATM card and thereafter, in pursuance of said conspiracy entered into by all of them, committed murder of deceased Rohit Ahlawat, on the intervening night of 21/22.11.2011 at the approach road leading to Chaudhar Pur Village from main Sambhal Road, UP. Further, all the accused persons in pursuance of said criminal conspiracy, caused certain evidence connected with the said offence to disappear with the intention to screen themselves from punishment. It is further alleged that accused Mukesh Kumar was found in possession of an illegal country made pistol.
2. The brief facts which are borne out from the record of this case are that on 22.11.2011, complainant Sh. Ram Ratan Ahlawat gave a written complaint to SHO PS I.P. Estate regarding kidnapping of his son deceased Rohit Ahlawat and demand of Rs. 50 lakh as ransom from him for his safe release. On the basis of said complaint, SHO registered the present FIR under Sec. 364A State Vs. Anadil Hasan & Ors.
FIR No. 139/2011, PS I. P. Estate Page No. 3 of 102 IPC at PS I. P. Estate. Thereafter on 22.11.2011 kidnappers called PW-1 complainant Sh. R. R. Ahlawat from mobile number of deceased Rohit Ahlawat and asked him to bring the ransom amount at the Sarai Kale Khan Bus Stand and board the bus for Karoli, Rajasthan at 08:00 pm. The caller threatened the PW-1 complainant Sh. R. R. Ahlawat that if he intimated the police, they would kill his son. The complainant showed his inability to proceed for Karoli on 22.11.20211 by stating that his wife was admitted at Aggarsen Hospital, Punjabi Bagh, Delhi. Thereafter the caller told complainant Sh. Ram Ratan Ahlawat that they would collect the ransom amount by 12 mid night from the gate of Agarsen Hospital and asked him to come there with ransom amount but they did not come there on that date.
3. On 23.11.2011, kidnappers again called PW-1 complainant Sh. R. R. Ahlawat and asked him to follow earlier fixed programme for Karoli. Thereafter, Police constituted a raiding party under the supervision of PW-32 Insp. Keshav Kumar of PS I. P. Estate. On 23.11.2011, complainant Sh. Ram Ratan Ahlawat boarded the bus for Karoli alongwith police team and at that time PW-32 Insp. Keshav Kumar noticed that the bus which the PW-1 complainant Sh. R. R. Ahlawat had boarded, was being followed by a Taxi bearing registration no. RJ14-TB-1116. On that day also, the kidnappers did not collect the ransom amount from complainant Sh. Ram Ratan Ahlawat and threatened him that he had brought the police team with him. During investigation, it was informed by the family of deceased Rohit Ahlawat to the Police that on 21.11.2011 a sum of Rs. 8,500/- had been State Vs. Anadil Hasan & Ors.
FIR No. 139/2011, PS I. P. Estate Page No. 4 of 102 withdrawn from the Union Bank Account of Rohit. During investigation, PW-34 IO/SI Rajesh Sah collected the CCTV footage of ATM room/booth of the relevant date and time in which two boys could be seen entering the ATM room/booth.
4. On 24.11.2011, PW-34 IO/SI Rajesh Sah searched for the accused persons and the deceased on the basis of mobile phone location of deceased Rohit Ahlawat and thereafter he reached at Chaudhary Hotel, Bandikui, Rajasthan where accused persons namely Anadil Hasan, Mehbood Alam and Raju Lal Jat were found and the abovesaid taxi was also found parked at the abovesaid hotel. On interrogation, abovesaid accused persons disclosed that they along with their co-accused persons namely Firoz, Javed and Mukesh had kidnapped deceased Rohit Ahlawat and after killing him his dead body was thrown by them in the agricultural fields of Village Asgaripur, District Bhim Nagar, Moradabad, UP. Thereafter PW-34 IO/SI Rajesh Sah arrested accused persons namely Anadil Hasan, Mehboob Alam and Raju Lal Jat and recorded their disclosure statements. Thereafter accused persons namely Anadil Hasan and Mehboob Alam led the Police party to Village Asgaripur, District Bhim Nagar, Moradabad, UP and from the sugarcane fields, they got recovered the dead body of deceased Rohit Ahlawat which was identified by his brother PW-14 Sh. Prashant Ahlawat and other prosecution witnesses. Thereafter, PW-13 SI Rishi Pal from PS Asmoli prepared the Panchnama and sent the dead body for Postmortem to Moradabad Hospital. Mobile phone was recovered from possession of accused Anadil Hasan. At the State Vs. Anadil Hasan & Ors.
FIR No. 139/2011, PS I. P. Estate Page No. 5 of 102 instance of accused Firoz Alam, the Purse of deceased Rohit Ahlawat was recovered from the bushes of Gajrola Village, near Delhi Moradabad Highway, which also contained his PAN Card and Voter ID card. The country-made pistol/desi katta was recovered at instance of accused Mukesh. Thereafter Police conducted investigation regarding the mobile numbers allegedly used by accused persons. PW-10 Dr. Ashok Kumar, Autopsy Surgeon, Civil Hospital, Moradabad, UP opined the cause of death of deceased Rohit Ahlawat as 'Asphyxia' as a result of Anti-mortem strangulation. Other proceedings during the investigation were also conducted by the IO. Accused persons were arrested and their disclosure statements were recorded by the IO. On completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed by the IO before the Court through the SHO. The supplementary charge-sheet was also filed before the Court w.r.t the FSL report.
5. Vide order dated 2 7 . 0 7 . 2 0 1 2 , copies of the charge- sheet under Section 207 Cr.P.C were supplied to the accused persons n a m e l y Anadil Hasan, Raju Lal Jat, Mohd. Javed, Mehboob Alam and Mukesh Kumar and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions under Sec. 209 Cr.P.C and at that time the inquiry with respect to age of accused Firoz Alam was pending before the Ld. JJB.
6. Thereafter the age inqury of accused Firoz Alam was conducted by the Ld. Juvenile Justice Board-I, Kingsway Camp, Delhi. Vide order dated 09.11.2012, the JJB-I declared accused Firoz Alam as major on the date of commission of offence. Vide order dated 10.10.2012, Ld. MM committed the case of accused State Vs. Anadil Hasan & Ors.
FIR No. 139/2011, PS I. P. Estate Page No. 6 of 102 Firoz Alam also to the court of Sessions under Sec. 209 Cr.PC.
7. On 13.02.2013 Ld. Predecessor Court framed charges against the accused persons namely Anadil Hasan, Raju Lal Jat, Mohd. Javed, Mehboob Alam and Firoz Alam under Sections 120B IPC, 302 IPC read with Sec. 120 IPC, 364A IPC read with Sec. 120B IPC & 394 IPC read with Sec. 120B IPC. A separate charges under Sec. U/s 25 Arms Act was also framed against accused Mukesh Kumar. On 15.02.2014, charges under Sec. 120B IPC, 364A IPC read with 120B IPC, 302 IPC read with 120B IPC, 394 IPC read with 120B IPC and Sec. 201 read with 120B IPC was framed against accused Mukesh Kumar. Separate charge under Sec. 201 IPC read with 120B IPC was also framed against accused persons Anadil Hasan, Raju Lal Jat, Mohd. Javed, Mehboob Alam and Firoz Alam. Accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
8. To prove its case, prosecution has examined 38 witnesses. The accused persons have not examined any witness in their defence. The testimonies of persecution witnesses along with its nature has been discussed briefly in the following paragraphs:-
9. PW: 1 Sh. R.R. Ahlawat is the complainant as well as father of deceased Rohit Ahlawat who proved his complaint Ex. PW-1/A. He deposed that on 21.11.2011, his son deceased Rohit Ahlawat left home as usual for his duty but did not return home on that day. He further deposed that he tried to call at his mobile phone but his mobile phone was found either switched off or out of range. He further deposed that he again called at mobile State Vs. Anadil Hasan & Ors.
FIR No. 139/2011, PS I. P. Estate Page No. 7 of 102 number of deceased Rohit Ahlawat which was picked by one unknown person who on inquiry told that Rohit Ahlawat was in their custody and told him that if he wanted to save the life of his son, he should pay a ransom in sum of Rs. 50,00,000/- by 4 o'clock on the next day. He also deposed that the caller gave the phone to deceased Rohit who told him 'papa me inki custody mein hu, inko paise de do' He also deposed that after repeated negotiations, kidnappers agreed to reduce the ransom amount from Rs. 50 lakhs to Rs. 25 lakhs. He also deposed that whenever, he received calls from the kidnappers, they threatened him that if he intimated the police, they would kill his son and they also talked with him in filthy language.
10. PW-1 complainant Sh. R.R. Ahlawat further deposed that on 22.11.2011, in the morning, he had given written complaint Ex. PW-1/A to SHO PS I. P. Eastate about missing of his son. PW-1 complainant Sh. R. R. Ahlawat told the kidnappers/callers that he could not arrange Rs. 25 lakh, however, he told them with great difficulty he could only arrange Rs. 15 lac. Upon this, the caller abused him in filthy language and thereafter told him to collect the dead body of his son and disconnected the phone. He further deposed that after some time, he again received a call from them and they told him that they are ready to take Rs. 15 lac in lieu of release of his son and disconnected the phone. He also deposed that after few minutes, father of deceased/complainant again received call from the kidnappers and the caller told him that he had to take a bus of Rajasthan Roadways from Kale Khan Bus Stand at about 08:30 pm for Karoli, Rajasthan on which he State Vs. Anadil Hasan & Ors.
FIR No. 139/2011, PS I. P. Estate Page No. 8 of 102 expressed his inability to proceed for Karoli stating that his wife was admitted in Agarsen Hospital, Punjabi Bagh. He further deposed that thereafter, he again received a call from the kidnappers who told him that they would collect the ransom amount by 12:00 mid night from the gate of Aggrasen Hospital and asked him to come there with ransom amount. Upon receipt of this information, police had arranged a trap at Agrasen hospital but no kidnappers came there till 2/2.30 am.
11. PW-1 Complainant Sh. R.R Ahlawat further deposed that on 23.11.2011, kidnappers instructed him to follow the earlier fixed programme of Karoli. He further deposed that police had constituted a raiding party under the supervision of Insp. Kesav Kumar of PS I.P. Estate. He further deposed that as per instructions of kidnappers, he went to Sarai Kale Khan Bus Terminal along with ransom amount. He further deposed that at about 02.10 am, bus reached Mahuwa and accordingly, he got down there and sat at the stairs of Central Bank of India. He further deposed that in the meantime, police had arranged a trap. He also deposed that thereafter, a taxi of the kidnappers came there but taxi did not stop there to collect the amount and went away. He further deposed that on 25.11.2011, he came to know that another police team had apprehended the kidnappers. He also deposed that he had handed over the bus tickets Ex. PW-1/B to the Police which was seized by the police vide seizure memo Ex. PW-1/C. This witness was cross-examined at length on behalf of accused persons. In his cross-examination, PW-1 Sh. R.R. Ahlawat denied the suggestion that he had not received any State Vs. Anadil Hasan & Ors.
FIR No. 139/2011, PS I. P. Estate Page No. 9 of 102 ransom call or that he did not go to Rajasthan. He also deposed that nine police officials accompanied him to Rajasthan and the police team was led by Insp. Keshav Kumar. He also denied the suggestion that no taxi had passed over from the road and that the police had not made any trap at Mahuwa.
12. PW-2 Sh. Purshotam Sharma is the Bank Manager of Union Bank of India, Sector-12 Noida, who proved the CCTV Footage of the ATM Room. He also proved the seizure memo of the said CCTV footage Ex. PW-2/A. In his cross-examination, he admitted that police had not asked him to give certificate under Sec. 65 B of Indian Evidence Act regarding the said CCTV footage.
13. PW-3 Sh. Manoj Gupta deposed that he was running a shop at 5238 at Barauti Chowk, Sadar Bazar, Delhi and having an agency of Tata Indicom. He further deposed that he did not know the lady namely Sarita nor he was subscriber of mobile connection having no. 9560497168 and he had not given his mobile phone no. 9210491564 as reference for selling SIM of mobile phone no. 9560497168. This witness was not cross- examined on behalf of accused persons despite opportunities given to them.
14. PW-4 Sh. Sumit Gupta is the son of landlady of accused Mohd. Javed. He deposed that accused Mohd. Javed was his tenant at B-50, Second Floor, Sector-10, Noida, UP. He proved rent agreement Ex. PW-4/A executed between accused Mohd. Javed and his mother Smt. Madhu Bala. He further deposed that State Vs. Anadil Hasan & Ors.
FIR No. 139/2011, PS I. P. Estate Page No. 10 of 102 Police had seized the rent agreement vide seizure memo Ex. PW- 4/B. In his cross-examination he admitted that he had never seen accused Mohd. Javed bringing girls at the said premises.
15. PW-5 HC Radha Krishan is the duty officer who proved FIR no. 139/2011 Ex. PW-5/A alongwith endorsement on rukka Ex. PW-5/B. He also proved DD No. 14A Ex. PW-5/C(OSR) alongwith certificate under Sec. 65B of Evidence Act as Ex. PW- 5/D.
16. PW-6 Sh. Raj Mohan is a relative of deceased Rohit Ahlawat. He deposed that on 25.11.2011, he alonwith his cousins namely Prashant and Prateek accompanied the Police team to Chodharpur Road, UP where at the instance of accused persons namely Anadil Hasan and Mehboob Alam, the dead body of deceased Rohit Ahlawat was recovered. He proved recovery memo of dead body as Ex. PW-6/A. He also correctly identified accused persons namely Anadil Hasan and Mehboob Alam in the Court. In his cross-examination he deposed that when they reached near the place of recovery, no other person was present. He also deposed that local police was called. He denied the suggestion that he did not accompany the police official to the place of recovery of the dead body. He denied the suggestion that he did not participate in the investigation in the present case.
17. PW-7 HC Brij Lal deposed that on 08.12.2012 he collected four exhibits vide RC NO. 11/21/12 and three exhibits vide RC No. 12/21/12 from MHC(M) in sealed condition and deposited the same at FSL Rohini and thereafter handed over the State Vs. Anadil Hasan & Ors.
FIR No. 139/2011, PS I. P. Estate Page No. 11 of 102 acknowledgment and copy of RC to SHO. In his cross- examination he denied the suggestion that he did not deposit the said exhibits at FSL, Rohini.
18. PW-8 HC Ajit Singh deposed that on 03.12.2011 on instruction of SHO he went to PS Asmoli, District Bhim Nagar, UP from where he collected the duly sealed exhibits of case FIR No. 139/2011 and handed over the same to the IO of the present case who seized the same vide seizure memo Ex. PW8/A.
19. PW-9 HC Maharaj Singh is the MHC(M). He proved the entries made by him in the register no. 19 and 21 Ex. PW-9/A to Ex. PW-9/N. In his cross-examination he deposed that he had seen the car physically in the police station when the same was deposited before him.
20. PW-10 Dr. Ashok Kumar is the Doctor who conducted the post-mortem on the body of deceased Rohit Ahlawat. He proved the application assigned to him by CMO as Ex. PW-10/A. He further proved his post-mortem report Ex. PW-10/B and opined that the the death was caused due to asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem strangulation. He further deposed that ligature mark on the neck could be noticed due to decomposition of body. In his cross-examination he denied the suggestion that he had given his opinion on the basis of brief notes furnished to him by the police. He further deposed that he cannot say whether any injury could have been caused by gun shot. He also deposed that it is not possible that one can strangulate himself by his hands. He also denied the suggestion that injury no. 1 to 5 could be State Vs. Anadil Hasan & Ors.
FIR No. 139/2011, PS I. P. Estate Page No. 12 of 102 caused by simple fall from the height.
21. PW-11 Sh. Anis Ahmad is owner of sugar cane field from where the dead body of deceased Rohit Ahlawat was recovered. He deposed that he came to know that one dead body was found by the Police in his field. He further deposed that when he reached his field, the dead body had already been taken out by the police from his field. This witness resiled from his earlier statement and he was confronted by the Ld. Add. PP for the State with his statement recorded under Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. In his cross examination by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State, he denied the suggestion that accused persons namely Anadil Hasan, Mehboob Alam and Raju Jat were present with the police when he reached there. He also deposed that he cannot say whether the said accused persons were present with the police at that time or not as he did not notice so carefully. He further deposed that SI Rishi Pal had prepared a Punchnama marked Ex. PW-11/1 and he put his thumb impression on it.
22. PW-12 Mohd. Yameen is the resident of Village Asgaripur from where the dead body of deceased Rohit Ahlawat was recovered. He deposed that he saw a crowd at Chaudhar Pur Road near field (Khet) where it was revealed that one dead body was lying in sugar cane filed which belonged to Anis Ahmad. He further deposed that police from PS Asmoli was also present there. Police had prepared the document Ex. PW-11/1 which was signed by him. This witness turned hostile and was cross examined by the Ld. Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State. In his cross-examination, after seeing towards accused persons namely State Vs. Anadil Hasan & Ors.
FIR No. 139/2011, PS I. P. Estate Page No. 13 of 102 Anadil Hasan, Mehboob Alam and Raju Lal Jat he deposed that he cannot say whether the said accused persons were present there or not as he did not notice them so minutely.
23. PW-13 SI Rishi Pal Singh is the police officer of PS Asmoli who deposed that on 25.11.2011, he received information from public person and in the meantime SI Rajesh Shah also reached at PS Asmoli and informed that one dead body was recovered at the instance of accused persons in the case FIR No. 139/2011, PS I. P. Estate, Delhi and stated that the inquest proceedings were to be conducted of the dead body. He further deposed that he alongwith Ct. Devender and Ct. Raj Kumar and SI Rajesh Shah reached to the place of occurrence where Insp. Raghu Raj Khatana along with police staff met him. He also deposed that two accused persons namely Anadil Hasan and Mehboob Alam were also present there. He further deposed that he inspected the dead body and found that it was in decomposed condition. He also deposed that after inspection he prepared Punchnama Ex. PW11/1. He also deposed that the relatives of deceased namely Prashant, Prateek and Raj Mohan were also witnesses to the Punchnama proceedings. He also proved DD No. 18, Ex. PW-13/A. He also proved the sketch of dead body, Ex. PW-13/B and filled Form No. 33, Ex. PW-13/C. He also deposed that he had given a written application Ex. PW-13/E addressed to CMO and also sent intimation to Reserve Inspector vide application Ex. PW-13/F. He correctly identified accused persons namely Anadil Hasan and Mehboob Alam in the Court. In his cross-examination, PW-13 SI Rishi Pal deposed that no separate State Vs. Anadil Hasan & Ors.
FIR No. 139/2011, PS I. P. Estate Page No. 14 of 102 DD was recorded when intimation was given by the villagers nor the name of any villager was mentioned in DD No. 18. He further deposed that SI Rajesh Shah told him that dead body was recovered at the pointing out of accused persons and the recovery memo of dead body was not prepared in his presence.
24. PW-14 Sh. Prashant Ahlawat is the younger brother of deceased Rohit Ahlawat. He deposed that on 25.11.2011 he joined the investigation along with police party and accused persons namely Anadil Hasan and Mehboob Alam. He deposed that they went to Joya village where accused persons namely Anadil Hassna and Mehboob Alam pointed out towards the dead body of his brother Rohit Ahlawat which was lying in the filed of sugarcane. This witness correctly identified the dead body of his brother deceased Rohit Ahlawat. He also deposed that local Police reached there and prepared Punchnama, Ex. PW-11/1 and he had signed the same alongwith the recovery memo Ex. PW- 6/A.
25. PW-15 Sanjay deposed that Tohid, S/o Sh. Munnan was his tenant in his property in Village Hazrat Pur, Bazit Pur, Sector- 63, Noida, UP. He deposed that on 17.12.2011, police came along with one accused whose name he did not recollect. He further deposed that police had recovered one yellow colour Hero Honda Motorcycle having registration no. 6720. He further deposed that he had signed on the document which was prepared by the Police at the time of recovery of vehicle Ex. PW-15/A. This witness was declared by Ld. Addl. PP for State. In his cross-examination, PW-15 Sanjay deposed that one old person met him outside the State Vs. Anadil Hasan & Ors.
FIR No. 139/2011, PS I. P. Estate Page No. 15 of 102 Court Room and asked him to depose that no motorcycle was recovered from his house and he further told him that he was the father of accused Javed. He also deposed that when he reached his house, police was leaving after taking the motorcycle from the house of Tohid.
26. PW-16 Tohid, deposed that he was tenant of Sanjay. He further deposed that on 22.12.2011, accused Javed came to him parked his motorcycle at his shop and thereafter accused Javed did not come to take the motorcycle. He further deposed that after about one month accused Javed came to his shop alongwith the police and police seized his motorcycle vide seizure memo ex. PW15/A. In his cross-examination, Ld. Addl. PP for the State, he admitted that police came to his shop with accused Javed on 17.12.2011 and about 20-25 days prior to 17.12.2011, accused Javed had parked his motorcycle at his shop.
27. PW-17 Sh. Amar Nath is the Nodal Officer of IDEA Cellular Ltd. He proved the notice, CDR, CAF and location chart/cell ID chart of mobile phone no. 9911210095 issued in the name of accused Mohd. Javed alongwith certificate under Sec. 65B of The Indian Evidence Act exhibit as EX. PW17/A to Ex. PW-17/F. He also deposed about the calls, messages and the location of the abovesaid mobile phone number. In his cross- examination, he deposed that from 21.11.2011 between 06:00 PM to 1:49 AM of 22.11.2011 the location of abovesaid mobile phone was either at Sector 10, Noida or Sector 8 Noida.
28. PW-18 Sh. Hussain M. Zaidi is the Nodal Officer of State Vs. Anadil Hasan & Ors.
FIR No. 139/2011, PS I. P. Estate Page No. 16 of 102 IDEA Cellular Ltd. He proved the CAF, CDR and Cell ID Chart of mobile phone no. 9568442492 alongwith certificate under Sec. 65B of The Indian Evidence Act Ex. PW18/A to Ex. PW18/H which was issued in name of one Gomati wife of Ram Singh. He also deposed about the calls, messages and the location of the abovesaid mobile phone number. In his cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that the data shown in the CDR was manipulated at the instance of police.
29. PW-19 Ms. Fariyal is the star witness of prosecution. As per the prosecution story, this witness had lastly seen deceased Rohit Ahlawat alive in complany of accused persons. She deposed that on 21.11.2011 at about 11.30 AM, her friend Nishu came to her house and thereafter with the permission of her mother, she accompanied Nishu for shopping to Delhi Gate. She further deposed that Nishu made a call to her friend Javed from her mobile phone. She also deposed that after ten minutes, accused Javed reached there in a taxi, which was being driven by accused Raju. She also deposed that accused Anadil also accompanied them. She further deposed that thereafter, they went to coffee shop at Delhi Gate and after some time, deceased Rohit Ahlawat also reached in the said coffee shop. She further deposed that Rohit left the coffee shop and thereafter she alonwith Nishu, accused Anadil, Javed and Raju went to cloth factory at Noida in the taxi of Javed. She further deposed that after reaching factory, Raju had brought cold drink for us. She further deposed that accused Anadil told her that he had to pick up Rohit from coffee shop as Rohit had made a call to him and State Vs. Anadil Hasan & Ors.
FIR No. 139/2011, PS I. P. Estate Page No. 17 of 102 thereafter she accompanied accused Anadil to the said coffee shop and after taking Rohit from coffee shop Delhi Gate, they returned to factory at Noida. She further deposed that she saw Nishu, accused Anadil, accused Javed and accused Mukesh in a room at the abovesaid factory. She further deposed that when they came back along with deceased Rohit, accused Anadil and deceased Rohit entered the room in which Nishu was already there along with accused Javed and accused Mukesh. She further deposed that thereafter, accused Anadil and accused Raju had dropped them at Bajanpura Bus Stand. She also proved her statement recorded under Sec. 164 Cr.PC, Ex. PW-19/A. She correctly identified accused persons namely Anadil Hasan, Mohd. Javed , Raju Lal Jaat, Mukesh Kumar and Mehboob Alam. In her cross-examination, she denied the suggestion that she had falsely identified the accused persons. She also denied the suggestion that there was no girl in the name of Nishu. She also deposed that she did not meet any of the accused persons either prior to 21.11.2011 or after 21.11.2011. She also deposed that police had shown her the photographs of deceased Rohit Ahlawat. She also explained as to how she came to know about the names of accused persons. This witness was confronted with her statement, Ex. PW-19/A on several points.
30. PW-20 Sh. Rajender Chaudhary is the owner of Chaudhary Hotel situated at Bandikui, Rajasthan where accused persons namely Anadil Hasan, Mehboob Alam and Raju Lal Jat were staying before their apprehension by the police. He proved the copy of visitor register as PW-20/A. He deposed that on State Vs. Anadil Hasan & Ors.
FIR No. 139/2011, PS I. P. Estate Page No. 18 of 102 intervening night of 24/25.11.2011, Delhi police came to his hotel and apprehended three persons staying at room no. 33. This witness correctly identified accused Mehboob Alam but failed to identify accused Anadil Hasan and Raju Lal Jat. In his cross- examination he denied the suggestion that entry in the Hotel register Ex. PW20/A was fabricated at the instance of police. He denied the suggestion that no vehicle was recovered from his hotel.
31. PW-21 Ms. A. C. Dhana Laxmi, Sr. Branch Manager, Syndicate Bank has proved the attested copy of account opening form and statement of account of deceased Rohil Ahlawat, Ex. PW-21/A and Ex. PW-21/B respectively. She also deposed that as per the bank statement of account of deceased Rohit Ahlawat, there was withdrawal of Rs. 3,000/- through slip and Rs. 8,500/- through ATM. She also proved the certificate under Sec. 65B of the Evidence Act in this regard exhibit as Ex. PW-21/D.
32. PW-22 Sh. R. S. Yadav, JTO (CDR) MTNL, Telephone Exchange Tis Hazari, Delhi proved the notice for supplying CDR, Cell ID and ownership of Mobile phone no. 9868481898 for period 16.11.2011 to 25.11.2011, CDR of aforesaid mobile number, certificate under Sec. 65B of The Evidence Act, Cell ID chart of aforesaid mobile number and covering letter as Ex. PW- 22/A to Ex. PW-22/E respectively.
33. PW-23 Sh. Mohd. Irfan is the owner of Seema Lodge, 3745, Churi Walan, Chawari Bazar, Delhi where accused persons namely Anadil Hasan, Mehboob and Raju Lal Jat had taken room State Vs. Anadil Hasan & Ors.
FIR No. 139/2011, PS I. P. Estate Page No. 19 of 102 on rent on 22.11.2011. He proved the relevant entry in visitor register as Ex. PW-23/A alongwith seizure memo of register Ex. PW23/B. In his cross-examination he denied the suggestion that the document Ex. PW23/A was not in handwriting of his Manager.
34. PW-24 Sh. Kamal Kishore Aggarwal is the Manager at My Cab Aditya Tele Link Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur to which the Taxi baring registration no. RJ 14 TB 1116 belonged. He deposed that on 18.11.2011, the said taxi was booked in the name of one Sonu and duty slip no. 570 for the same was issued to driver Raju Lal Jaat (accused) which was seized by the police. He proved the seizure memo and copy of slip exhibit as as Ex. PW-24/A and Ex. PW-24/B. He also deposed that the said taxi was being driven by their Driver accused Raju Lal Jaat who did not come back to their office after the incident and on 26.11.2011, they had given a complaint in this regard at the police station. He correctly identified accused Raju Lal Jaat in the Court.
35. PW-25 Dr. N. P. Waghmare, Assistant Director (Ballistics), FSL, Rohini proved his report Ex. PW-25/A and opined that the red colour plastic under shot wad marked W-1 is a part of ammunition as defined under Arms Act. He also deposed that Ex. F-1 was a country made pistol capable of chambering and firing standard 12 bore ammunition. He also proved his detailed report dated 04.06.2012 Ex. PW 25/B and opined that Ex. F-1 was in normal working order. He correctly identified the country-made pistol Ex. P-1.
State Vs. Anadil Hasan & Ors.
FIR No. 139/2011, PS I. P. Estate Page No. 20 of 102
36. PW-26 Sh. Ved Prakash is the Nodal Officer of Reliance. He proved the CAF, CDR and location ID chart of mobile nos. 9311112302 and 9555622233 issued in name of one Mohd. Usman and Mukesh Kumar respectively alongwith certificate under Sec. 65B of The Evidence Act as Ex. PW-26/A to Ex. PW- 26/H.
37. PW-27 Sh. Tarun Kumar is the Ex-Nodal Officer of Bharti Airtel. He proved the CAF, CDR and location ID chart of mobile nos. 9560497168 and 9818971707 issued in name of one Sarita and Rohit Ahlawat respectively alongwith certificate under Sec. 65B of The Evidence Act as Ex. PW-27/A to Ex. PW-27/I.
38. PW-28 Sh. Rohit Singhal deposed that Advocate Sh. Pasha had given him one mobile phone and he had handed over the same to the IO who seized the same vide seizure memo Ex. PW-28/A.This witness was declared hostile by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State and was cross-examined by him. In his cross- examination, he denied the suggestion that brother of accused Firoz namely Farid came to Tis Hazari Courts or that Farid had handed over the said phone to Advocate Sh. Pasha.
39. PW-29 Ms. Anita Chhari is the Senior Scientific Officer (Biology). She proved the biological and serological report of blood sample reports Ex. PW-29/A and Ex. PW-29/B. In her cross-examination, she deposed that query no. 2 was related to ballistic report.
40. PW-30 SI Sushil Kumar deposed that he had joined the investigation in the present case on different days and he has State Vs. Anadil Hasan & Ors.
FIR No. 139/2011, PS I. P. Estate Page No. 21 of 102 deposed about the proceedings conducted by the IO in his presence. This witness deposed about the recovery of dead body of deceased Rohit Ahlawat at the instance of accused persons namely Anadil Hasan and Mehboob Alam and also correctly identified them in the Court. He also deposed about the recovery of desi katta, one purse belonging to deceased Rohit Ahlawat containing Pan Card, Voter ID card, SIM card and mobile phone etc. He also proved the documents Ex. PW30/A to Ex. PW30/F prepared by the IO. He also identified the fire arm Ex. P-1, purse Ex. P-2, Pan Card Ex. P-3 and Voter ID card Ex. P-4, Sim Card Ex. P-5 and Mobile phones Ex. P-6 and Ex. P-7. This witness was cross-examined at length. In his cross-examination, he admitted that no public witness were present at the time of recovery of pistol. He also admitted that no notice was given by the IO to public person to join the investigation. He denied the suggestion that he was not associated with the IO in the investigation or that he was deposing falsely.
41. PW-31 Ct. Tejender is the member of police team who joined the investigation in the present case on 24.11.2011. He deposed about the proceedings conducted by the IO druing the investigation. He also proved arrest memo of accused persons namely Anadil Hasan, Mehboob Alam and Raju Lal Jat Ex. PW- 31/A, Ex. PW-31/B and Ex. PW-33/C respectively. He also deposed about the recovery of dead body of deceased Rohit Ahlawat at the instance of accused persons namely Anadil Hasan and Mehboob Alam. In his cross-examination he admitted that they had not reached the spot of recovery of dead body of State Vs. Anadil Hasan & Ors.
FIR No. 139/2011, PS I. P. Estate Page No. 22 of 102 deceased Rohit Ahlawat at the instance of accused Raju Lal Jaat.He also deposed that accused Anadil was apprehended by him, accused Mehboob Alam was apprehended by SI Rajesh Shah and accused Raju Lal Jaat was apprehended by Ct. Parmanand. He also deposed that he did not remember the make of private vehicle, their registration number or colour. He also deposed that accused Raju Lal Jaat was kept seated in the vehicle at the time of recovery of dead body.
42. PW-32 Inspector Keshav Kumar was the In-Charge of one of the raiding party constituted to trace deceased Rohit Ahlawat and accused persons. He deposed that on the direction ransom caller, he made complainant to board the bus from Sarai Kale Khan bus stand to Karoli, Rajasthan. He also deposed that two police officials namely SI Sushil and Ct. Raghubir in plain clothes were also made to sit in the said bus to watch the situation. He deposed that he alongwith his team followed the bus from Sarai Kale Khan bus stand at about 9 p.m. and when the bus reached Dhola Kuan, one taxi bearing registration no. RJ-14- TB-1116 also started following the said bus. He also deposed that when the said taxi started following the said bus he had a strong suspicion over the occupants of the said taxi. He also deposed that SI Sushil and Ct. Raghubir who were seating in the bus alongwith the complainant were giving them the information regarding the progress of receiving mobile phone calls by complainant Sh. Ram Rattan Ahlawat. He also deposed about the deboarding of bus by complainant and SI Sushil and Ct. Raghubir at Mahuwa at the instruction of accused persons and State Vs. Anadil Hasan & Ors.
FIR No. 139/2011, PS I. P. Estate Page No. 23 of 102 passing of taxi from there. He also deposed that the ransom caller asked complainant to board some truck and to reach them but he did not allow the complainant to go in any truck. He also deposed that when he alongwith his raiding team and compainant started driving towards Alwar, the complainant received a phone call from a different number. In his cross-examination he admitted that he was not inside the bus. He also deposed that the instructions were given by the caller to the complainant to board some truck about 2:30 AM.
43. PW-33 Ct. Raghubir Singh, deposed on the lines of PW- 30 SI Sushil Kumar. He deposed about the proceedings conducted by IO on 18.12.2011 and 05.02.2012. He deposed about the preparation of the pointing out memo Ex. PW30/A by the IO at the instance of accused persons namely Javed, Firoz Alam and Mukesh. He also deposed about the recovery of desi katta at instance of accused Mukesh which was seized by the IO vide seizure memo Ex. PW30/C. He also deposed about the recovery of purse of deceased Rohit Ahlwaat at the instance of accused Firoz Alam which was seized by the IO vide seizure memo Ex. PW30/D. He also deposed about the seizure of the register and photocopy of the register of Hotel Seema Lodge Ex. PW23/B. He also correctly identified accused persons namely Firoz Alam, Javed and Mukesh. He also identified the case property i.e. Desi Katta Ex. P-1, purse of deceased Rohit Ahlawat Ex. P-2, Pan Card Ex. P-3, Voter Id card Ex. P-4 and the register Ex. PW33/A. In his cross-examination, he admitted that there was no green colour polythene with black spots on it in the parcel State Vs. Anadil Hasan & Ors.
FIR No. 139/2011, PS I. P. Estate Page No. 24 of 102 produced by the MHC(M) containing the Katta. He also admitted that the said katta was not recovered from any pond or any wet area. He denied the suggestion that accused persons did not lead the way to the spot. He admitted that on 18.12.2011, they did not visit the house of accused Mukesh. He also deposed that Manager of Lodge told them the concerned entry in the register was in his handwriting.
44. PW-34 SI Rajesh Shah, is the first IO of the present case. He deposed about the proceedings conducted by him in capacity of IO as well as, as a member of team as he joined the investigation with the second IO PW-36 Insp. R.R. Khatana. He deposed that on 22.11.2011, the investigation of the present case was handed over to him after the registration of FIR. He deposed about his visit to the office of deceased Rohit Ahlawat, seizure of the CCTV footage of the ATM from where cash was withdrawn, his visit at Bandhikui and apprehension & arrest of accused persons namely Anadil Hasan @ Sonu, Mehboob Alam and Raju Lal Jaat. He also deposed about the recovery of mobile phone Make Nokia from accused Anadil Hasan containing the SIM card having number 9560497168 which was used for making ransom call to complainant Sh. R.R. Ahlawat. He also proved the recovery of taxi. He also deposed about his visit to the factory of accused Javed at Noida alongwith above-said accused persons. He also proved the arrest memo of accused persons namely Anadil Hasan and Mehboob Alam Ex. Pw31/A and Ex. PW31/B alongwith their personal seach memo Ex. PW34/A and Ex. PW34/B. He also proved the disclosure statement of accused State Vs. Anadil Hasan & Ors.
FIR No. 139/2011, PS I. P. Estate Page No. 25 of 102 persons namely Anadil Hasan and Mehboob Alam Ex. PW34/C and Ex. PW34/D. He also proved the recovery of dead body of deceased Rohit Ahlawat from sugar cane field of village Asgaripur at instance of accused persons namely Anadil Hasan and Mehboob Alam. He also proved the pointing out memo of dead body Ex. PW6/A, site plan of the place of recovery Ex. PW34/E seizure memo of accused Mehboob Alam Ex. PW34/F, recovery of mobile phone from accused Anadil Hasan Ex. PW34/G and the seizure memo of the exhibits from the spot of recovery Ex. PW34/H. He also proved the arrest memo of accused Raju Lal Jaat Ex. PW31/G, his personal search Ex. PW34/1 and his disclosure statement ExPW34/II alongwith the seizure memo of taxi Ex. PW34/J. He also proved the seizure memo of the mobile phone of deceased Rohit Ahlawat Ex. PW34/L, arrest memo of accused Mohd. Javed, Firoz Alam and Mukesh Ex. PW34/M, Ex. PW34/O and Ex. PW34/Q alonwith their personal search memo Ex. PW34/N, EX PW34/P and Ex. PW34/R. He also identified the accused persons and case properties in the Court during the trial. This witness was cross- examined at length on behalf of accused persons. In his cross- examination, he deposed that he had not inquired about the manner of attendance of employees of BIS. He denied the suggestion that phone having number 9868497168 was not recovered from accused Anadil Hasan. He also deposed that Chaudhary Hotel was just opposite to the Railway complex. He also deposed that there were 5-6 vehicles in which they travelled from Delhi to Joya. He admitted that the ransom calls started from 21.11.2011 and kept on coming till 24.11.2011.
State Vs. Anadil Hasan & Ors.
FIR No. 139/2011, PS I. P. Estate Page No. 26 of 102
45. PW-35 Amar Pal Singh, Assistant Director (Chemistry), FSL Rohini has proved the Viscera report deceased Rohit Ahlawat vide report Ex. PW-35/A.
46. PW-36 Inspector R. R. Khatana, is the second IO of the case. He deposed about all the proceedings conducted by him in capacity of IO and the proceedings conducted by first IO PW-34 SI Rajesh Shah. He deposed that on the complaint of complainant, he made endorsement Ex. PW36/A and got the present FIR registered. He deposed on the lines of PW-34 SI Rajesh Shah. He deposed that he visited the factory of co- accused Javed but no incriminating article were recovered regarding the present case. He proved the seizure memo of mobile phone of deceased Rohit Ahlawat Ex. PW34/L, site plan of site of recovery Ex. PW36/D, seizure of the register of hotel cinema lodge, arrest memo and personal search memos of accused persons namely Javed, Firoz Alam and Mukesh Ex. PW34/M, Ex. PW34/N to Ex. PW34/R, seizure memo of motorcycle Ex. PW15/A, seizure memo of desi Katta at instance of accused Mukesh Ex. PW 30/C, seizure memo of purse of deceased Rohit Ahlawat Ex. PW30/D, seizure memo of mobile phone of accused Mukesh Ex. PW30/F, seizure memo of mobile phone of accused Firoz Ex. PW30/E. He also deposed that he got the statement of PW-19 Fariyal recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. He also deposed that accused Anadil Hasan had made 04 calls to deceased Rohit Ahlawat and through the phone of deceased Rohit Ahlawat, he made 43 calls to the complainant in addition to 09 calls made by him by using mobile phone number State Vs. Anadil Hasan & Ors.
FIR No. 139/2011, PS I. P. Estate Page No. 27 of 102 9560497168. He also identified the accused persons and case properties in the court. This witness was cross-examined at length on behalf of accused persons. In his cross-examination, he admitted that no belonging of deceased was recovered at the instance of accused Raju Lal Jaat. He also admitted that he had not filed any application for the TIP of accused Raju Lal Jaat by PW-Fariyal. He also deposed that being a police official, he felt that the surface of the Katta was not smooth and it was not possible on rough surface to develop the fingerprint. He deposed that he did not sent the green colour polythene in which desi katta was wrapped to the fingerprint examiner. He denied the suggestion that mobile phone and desi katta have been planted upon accused Mukesh. He denied the suggestion that PW- Fariyal or Nishu were in sex trade and he had allowed PW-19 Fariyal to escape penal liabilities under ITP Act and thereby induced PW-19 Fariyal to give false statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C to the Ld. MM. He denied the suggestion that he had not conducted the investigation in a fair manner.
47. PW-37 Ms. Aslam Khan, the then DCP proved the sanction granted by her under Section 39 of Arms Act for the prosecution of accused Mukesh exhibit as Ex. PW37/A. In her cross-examination, she deposed that she did not remember by whom case file and desi katta were produced before her.
48. PW-38 Sh. Yogesh Tripathi, Alternate Nodal Officer, Reliance Communication proved the CDR of mobile phone number 9311112302 and mobile phone number 955562223 alongwith certificate under Section 65 B Evidence Act exhibit as State Vs. Anadil Hasan & Ors.
FIR No. 139/2011, PS I. P. Estate Page No. 28 of 102 Ex. PW38/A to Ex. PW38/B.
49. After closing of Prosecution Evidence, separate statements of the all the accused persons were recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C, wherein they denied all the charges against them. They denied any recovery from them. They also disputed the proceedings conducted by the IO during the investigation of present case. The accused persons did not lead any defence evidence.
50. Final arguments were advanced by Sh. Pankaj Kumar Ranga, Ld. Addl. PP for the State, Sh. R.R. Ahalwat (complainant), Sh. Kanhaiya Singhal, Ld. Counsel for accused persons namely Anadil Hasan, Javed and Mehboob Alam, Sh. Vikas Padora, Ld. Counsel for accused Mukesh and Raju Lal Jaat and Sh. Ajay Verma, Ld. Counsel for accused Firoz Alam.
51. Ld. Addl. PP for the State and complainant argued that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and all the prosecution witnesses have supported the prosecution story and have corroborated each other's version. To substantiate their submissions, they argued that the motive of murder of accused has been proved by the prosecution through the testimony of PW- 1 Sh. R.R. Ahalwat. They also argued that the dead body of deceased Rohit Ahalwat has been recovered at instance of accused Anadil Hasan and Mehboob Alam. They also argued that the mobile phone used for making ransom call has been recovered from possession of accused Anadil Hasan. They also argued that as per the CDR of the mobile phones used by the accused persons, they were in contact with each other and their location was same and hence the offence of criminal conspiracy State Vs. Anadil Hasan & Ors.
FIR No. 139/2011, PS I. P. Estate Page No. 29 of 102 punishable under Section 120-B IPC has been duly proved by the prosecution. They also argued that PW-19 Ms. Fariyal had lastly seen deceased Rohit Ahalwat in the company of accused persons and the testimony of PW-19 Ms. Fariyal is of sterling quality and should be relied upon. They also argued that the recovery of case properties i.e. mobile phones, desi katta and the taxi has been duly proved by the prosecution. They also argued that accused persons have not taken any specific defence and their replies to the questions put to them under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C are evasive in nature. They also argued that the chain of circumstantial evidence in the present case is complete. They also argued that the possession of mobile phones having specific numbers by the accused persons and the fact that they were in touch with each other has also been proved by the prosecution. They also argued that the prosecution has proved its case against accused persons under all the Sections under which charges have been framed against them beyond reasonable doubt and hence accused persons should be convicted under all the Sections of Law under which charges have been framed against them.
52. Ld. Counsels for accused persons argued that accused persons have been falsely implicated in the present case. They argued that the present case is based on circumstantial evidence and prosecution has failed to prove the complete chain of circumstances against the accused persons. To substantiate their points they argued that PW-19 Ms. Fariyal is a planted witness which is clear from her three different versions brought on record and the said witness cannot be relied upon. They also argued that State Vs. Anadil Hasan & Ors.
FIR No. 139/2011, PS I. P. Estate Page No. 30 of 102 the alleged mobile phone numbers were not in name of accused persons and they were not using the said mobile phone at the relevant time and the real subscribers of said mobile phone numbers have not been examined by the prosecution and hence the CDR data cannot be read in evidence against the accused persons. They also argued that the recovery of articles at instance of accused persons is disputed as no independent witnesses were joined in the investigation at the time of recovery of said articles. They also argued that PW-10 Dr. Ashok Kumar who conducted the post mortem on the body of deceased Rohit Ahalawat deposed that he cannot say that whether any of the injuries was caused by gun shot and he has not mentioned anything like that in his post mortem report exhibit as Ex. PW10/B. They also argued that PW- Rajinder Chaudhary failed to identify accused persons namely Anadil Hasan and Raju Lal Jaat. They also argued that the identity of accused persons namely Firoz and Mehboob Alam has not been established through the CCTV footage of ATM room/booth as their photographs were not sent to FSL for comparison. They further argued that prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt and hence the accused persons should be acquitted under all the Sections under which charges have been framed against them.
53. Charges under Sec. 120B, 364A read with 120B IPC, 302 read with 120B IPC, 394 read with 120B and 201 read with 120B IPC have been framed against all the accused persons. Additional charges under section 25 Arms Act has been framed against State Vs. Anadil Hasan & Ors.
FIR No. 139/2011, PS I. P. Estate Page No. 31 of 102 accused Mukesh Kumar. These Sections have been elaborated as follows:-
2. Section 120-B IPC provides punishment for criminal conspiracy which has been defined U/s 120 A IPC which reads as under:-
120 A Criminal Conspiracy When two or more persons agree to do, or cause to be done-
(1) an illegal act, or (2) an act which is not illegal by illegal means, such an agreement is designated a criminal conspiracy:
Provided that no agreement except an agreement to commit an offence shall amount to a criminal conspiracy unless some act besides the agreement is done by one or more parties to such agreement in pursuance thereof.
Explanation: It is immaterial whether the illegal act is te ultimate object of such agreement, or is merely incidental to that object.
Section 302 IPC provides punishment for the commission of offence of murder which has been defined U/s 300 IPC 300 Murder Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or Secondly- If it is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused, or Thirdly- If it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or State Vs. Anadil Hasan & Ors.
FIR No. 139/2011, PS I. P. Estate Page No. 32 of 102 Fourthly-If the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause death, or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid.
Exception 1 When culpable homicide is not murder. Culpable homicide is not murder if the offendor, whilst deprived of the power of self control by grave and sudden provocation, causes the death of the person who gave the provocation or causes the death of any other person my mistake or accident.
The above exception is subject to the following provisos:-
First-That the provocation is not sought or voluntarily provoked by the offendor as an excuse for killing or doing harm to any person.
Secondly- That the provocation is not given by anything done in obedience to the law, or by a public servant in the lawful exercise of the powers of the public servant.
Thirdly-That the provocation is not given by anything done in the lawful exercise of the right of private defence.
Explanations: Whether the provocation was grave and sudden enough to prevent the offence amounting to murder is a question of fact.
Exception 2: Culpable homicide is not murder if the offendor, in the exercise in good faith of the right of private defence of person or property, exceeds the power given to him by law and causes the death of the person against whom he is exercising such right of defence without premeditation, and without any intention of doing more harm then is necessary for the purpose of such defence.
Exception 3: Culpable homicide is not murder if the offendor, being a public servant or adding a public servant acting for the advancement of public justice, exceeds the power given to him by law and causes death by doing an act which he, in good faith, believes to be lawful and necessary for the due discharge State Vs. Anadil Hasan & Ors.
FIR No. 139/2011, PS I. P. Estate Page No. 33 of 102 of his duty as such public servant and without ill-will towards the person whose death is caused.
Exception 4: Culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed without pre meditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the offendor's having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner.
Explanation : It is immaterial in such cases which party offers the provocation or commits the first assault.
Exception 5: Culpable homicide is not murder when the person whose death is caused, being above the age of eighteen years suffers death or takes the risk of death with his own consent.
364 A Kidnapping for ransom etc. Whoever kidnaps or abducts any person or keeps a person in detention after such kidnapping or abduction, and threatens to cause death or hurt to such person, or by his conduct gives rise to a reasonable apprehension that such persom may be put to death or hurt, or causes hurt or death to such person in order to compel the Government or [any foreign State or international inter-governmental organisation or any other person] to do so or abstain from doing any act or to pay a ransom, shall be punishable with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.
Section 394 Voluntary causing hurt in committing robbery If any person, in committing or in attempting to commit robbery, voluntarily causes hurt, such person, and any other person jointly concerned in committing or attempting to commit such robbery shall be punished with imprisonment or with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to 10 years and shall also be liable to fine.
201. Causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender Whoever, knowing or having reason to believe that an offence has been committed, causes any evidence of the commission of that offence to disappear, with the intention of State Vs. Anadil Hasan & Ors.
FIR No. 139/2011, PS I. P. Estate Page No. 34 of 102 screening the offender from legal punishment, or with that intention gives any information respecting the offence which he knows or believes to be false, if a capital offence - shall, if the offence which he knows or believes to have been committed is punishable with death, be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine;
if punishable with imprisonment for life - and if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment which may extend to ten years, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine;
if punishable with less than ten years; imprisonment
- and if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for any term not extending to ten years, shall be punished with imprisonment of the description provided for the offence, for a term which may extend to one-fourth part of the longest term of the imprisonment provided for the offence, or with fine, or with both.
Illustrations:-
A, knowing that B has murdered Z, assists B to hide the body with the intention of screening B from punishment. A is liable to imprisonment of either description for seven years, and also to fine.
Section 25 of Arms Act provides punishment for the possession of arms without any license which has been defined as under:-
(1) Whoever--
(a) [manufactures, obtains, procures], sells, transfers, converts, repairs, tests or proves, or exposes or offers for sale or transfer, or has in his possession for sale, transfer, State Vs. Anadil Hasan & Ors.
FIR No. 139/2011, PS I. P. Estate Page No. 35 of 102 conversion, repair, test or proof, any arms or ammunition in contravention of section 5; or
(b) shortens the barrel of a firearm or converts an imitation 3 firearm into a firearm [or convert from any category of firearms mentioned in the Arms Rules, 2016 into any other category of firearms] in contravention of section 6; or
(d) brings into, or takes out of, India, any arms or ammunition of any class or description in contravention of section 11, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall 5 not be less than [seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life] and shall also be liable to fine.
[(1A) Whoever acquires, has in his possession or carries any prohibited arms or prohibited ammunition in contravention of section 7 shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term 7 which shall not be less than [seven years but which may extend to fourteen years] and shall also be liable to fine.
[Provided that the Court may, for any adequate and special reasons to be recorded in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than seven years.] [(1AB) Whoever, by using force, takes the firearm from the police or armed forces shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years but which may extend to imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine.] (1AA) whoever manufactures, sells, transfers, converts, repairs, tests or proves, or exposes or offers for sale or transfer or has in his possession for sale, transfer, conversion, repair, test or proof, any prohibited arms or prohibited ammunition in contravention of section 7 shall be punishable with 9 imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than [ten years] but which may extend to imprisonment for life and shall State Vs. Anadil Hasan & Ors.
FIR No. 139/2011, PS I. P. Estate Page No. 36 of 102 also be liable to fine.] [(1AAA)] Whoever has in contravention of a notification issued under section 24A in his possession or in contravention of a notification issued under section 24B carries or otherwise has in his possession, any arms or ammunition shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be 11 less than [seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life] and shall also be liable to fine.
(1B) Whoever--
(a) acquires, has in his possession or carries any firearm or ammunition in contravention of section 3; or
(b) acquires, has in his possession or carries in any place specified by notification under section 4 any arms of such class or description as has been specified in that notification in contravention of that section; or
(c) sells or transfers any firearm which does not bear the name of the maker, manufacturers number or other identification mark stamped or otherwise shown thereon as required by sub- section (2) of section 8 or does any act in contravention of sub- section (1) of that section; or
(d) being a person to whom sub-clause (ii) or sub-clause (iii) of clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 9 applies, acquires, has in his possession or carries any firearm or ammunition in contravention of that section; or
(e) sells or transfers, or converts, repairs, tests or proves any firearm or ammunition in contravention of clause (b) of sub- section (1) of section 9; or
(f) brings into, or takes out of, India, any arms or ammunition in contravention of section 10; or
(g) transports any arms or ammunition in contravention of section 12; or State Vs. Anadil Hasan & Ors.
FIR No. 139/2011, PS I. P. Estate Page No. 37 of 102
(h) fails to deposit arms or ammunition as required by sub- section (2) of section 3, or sub-section (1) of section 21; or
(i) being a manufacturer of, or dealer in, arms or ammunition, fails, on being required to do so by rules made under section 44, to maintain a record or account or to make therein all such entries as are required by such rules or intentionally makes a false entry therein or prevents or obstructs the inspection of such record or account or the making of copies of entries therefrom or prevents or obstructs the entry into any premises or other place where arms or ammunition are or is manufactured or kept or intentionally fails to exhibit or conceals such arms or ammunition or refuses to point out where the same are or is manufactured or kept, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall 12 not be less than [two years but which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine] and shall also be liable to fine:
Provided that the Court may for any adequate and special reasons to be recorded in the judgment impose a sentence of 13 imprisonment for a term of less than [two years].] [(1C) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1B), whoever commits an offence punishable under that sub-section in any disturbed area shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three years but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation.--For the purposes of this sub-section, disturbed area means any area declared to be a disturbed area under any enactment, for the time being in force, making provision for the suppression of disorder and restoration and maintenance of public order, and includes any areas specified by notification under section 24A or section 24B.] State Vs. Anadil Hasan & Ors.
FIR No. 139/2011, PS I. P. Estate Page No. 38 of 102 (2) Whoever being a person to whom sub-clause (i) of clause
(a) of sub-section (1) of section 9 applies, acquires, has in his possession or carries any firearm or ammunition in contravention of that section shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.
[(3) Whoever sells or transfers any firearm, ammunition or other arms--
(i) without informing the district magistrate having jurisdiction or the officer in charge of the nearest police station, of the intended sale or transfer of that firearm, ammunition or other arms; or
(ii) before the expiration of the period of forty-five days from the date of giving such information to such district magistrate or the officer in charge of the police station, in contravention of the provisions of clause (a) or clause (b) of the proviso to sub-section (2) of section 5, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine of an amount which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.] (4) Whoever fails to deliver-up a licence when so required by the licensing authority under sub-section (1) of section 17 for the purpose of varying the conditions specified in the licence or fails to surrender a licence to the appropriate authority under sub-section (10) of that section on its suspension or revocation shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine of an amount which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.
(5) Whoever, when required under section 19 to give his name and address, refuses to give such name and address or gives a name or address which subsequently transpires to be false shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine of an amount which may extend to two hundred rupees, or with both.
State Vs. Anadil Hasan & Ors.
FIR No. 139/2011, PS I. P. Estate Page No. 39 of 102 [(6) If any member of an organised crime syndicate or any person on its behalf has at any time has in his possession or carries any arms or ammunition in contravention of any provision of Chapter II shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years but which may extend to imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine.
(7) Whoever on behalf of a member of an organised crime syndicate or a person on its behalf, -
(i) manufactures, obtains, procures, sells, transfers, converts, repairs, tests or proves, or exposes or offers for sale or transfer, conversion, repair, test or proof, any arms or ammunition in contravention of section 5; or
(ii) shortens the barrel of a firearm or converts an imitation firearm into a fire arm or converts from any category of firearms mentioned in the Arms Rules, 2016 into any other category of firearms in contravention of section 6; or
(iii) brings into, or takes out of India, any arms or ammunition of any class or description in contravention of section 11, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years but which may extend to imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation.--For the purposes of sub-sections (6) and (7),--
(a) organised crime means any continuing unlawful activity by any person, singly or collectively, either as a member of an organised crime syndicate or on behalf of such syndicate, by use of violence or threat of violence or intimidation or coercion, or other unlawful means, with the objective of gaining pecuniary benefits, or gaining undue economic or other advantage for himself or any person;
(b) organised crime syndicate means a group of two or more persons who, acting either singly or collectively, as a syndicate or gang indulge in activities of organised crime.
State Vs. Anadil Hasan & Ors.
FIR No. 139/2011, PS I. P. Estate Page No. 40 of 102 (8) Whoever involves in or aids in the illicit trafficking of firearms and ammunition in contravention of sections 3, 5, 6, 7 and 11 shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years but which may extend to imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation.--For the purposes of this sub-section, illicit trafficking means the import, export, acquisition, sale, delivery, movement or transfer of firearms and ammunition into, from or within the territory of India, if the firearms and ammunition are not marked in accordance with the provisions of this Act or are being trafficked in contravention of the provisions of this Act including smuggled firearms of foreign make or prohibited arms and prohibited ammunition.
(9) Whoever uses firearm in a rash or negligent manner or in celebratory gunfire so as to endanger human life or personal safety of others shall be punishable with an imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine which may extend to rupees one lakh, or with both.
54. I have thoughtfully considered the arguments advanced, perused the material available on record, scrutinized the evidence led by the prosecution and gone through the relevant provisions of law. I have also considered the judgments relied upon by the Ld. Addl. PP for the state, complainant as well as Ld. Counsels for accused persons.
55. The present case is based on circumstantial evidence. It is established principle of law that a witness may lie but not the circumstances. In the present case, there is no eye witness of the alleged incidents of commission of offence of criminal conspiracy, kidnapping/abduction and murder of deceased Rohit Ahalawat.
56. The guilt of the accused persons in the present case has to State Vs. Anadil Hasan & Ors.
FIR No. 139/2011, PS I. P. Estate Page No. 41 of 102 be proved by the prosecution through the circumstantial evidence. The circumstantial evidence has to be appreciated as per the established principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. The standard of proof required for conviction in case of circumstantial evidence is that the circumstances relied upon in support of conviction must be fully established and the chain of evidence proved by the prosecution must be so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused.
57. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Judgment titled as 'Sharad Bridhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra cited as (1984) 4 SCC 116' has laid down the five golden priciples for appreciation of circumstantial evidence and has termed the same as Panchsheel of the Proof of Case based on circumstantial evidence. The said five golden principles are as follows:-
(3) The circumstances from which the conclusion of the guilt is to be drawn should be and not merely 'may be' fully established. (4) The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypotheses of the guilt of accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypotheses except that the accused is guilty.
(5) The circumstances should be of conclusive nature and tendency.
(6) They should exclude every possible hypotheses State Vs. Anadil Hasan & Ors.
FIR No. 139/2011, PS I. P. Estate Page No. 42 of 102 except the one to be proved.
(7) There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all probability the act must have been done by the accused.
58. Thus, before recording the conviction of any of the accused persons, the abovesaid five condition must be satisfied. The prosecution has to establish its case on the basis of abovesaid five golden principles and to secure conviction of any accused, the prosecution must fulfill the following requirements:-
(i) The circumstances from which the inference of the guilt of the accused is to be drawn must be firmly established.
(ii) The established circumstances must be of such definite tendency that points out towards the guilt of accused.
(iii) The chain of the circumstances must be so complete and there should not be any snap in the chain of circumstances.
(iv) The chain of circumstances must be so complete and incapable of any other hypotheses then that the guilt of the accused and same should also be inconsistent with State Vs. Anadil Hasan & Ors.
FIR No. 139/2011, PS I. P. Estate Page No. 43 of 102 the innocence of the accused and must exclude every other possible hypotheses except with the hypotheses pointing out towards the guilt of the accused.
59. Prosecution has relied upon the following circumstances which have been brought on record through the evidence:-
(i) Deceased Rohit Ahlawat was lastly seen alive in company of five accused persons (except accused Firoz Alam) by PW-19 Ms. Fariyal.
(ii) Analysis of CDRs and location charts of the mobile phones of deceased Rohit Ahlawat, complainant Sh.
R. R. Ahlawat and accused persons.
(iii) CCTV footage of ATM booth of Union Bank of India, Sector-12, Noida, dated 21.11.2011.
(iv) Use of SIM card having no. 9818971707 of deceased Rohit Ahlawat by accused Anadil Hasan in his phone handset having IMEI No. 359858034647990 in which earlier he was using SIM card having no. 9560497168.
(v) Recovery of dead body of deceased Rohit Ahlawat at instance of accused Anadil Hasan and Mehboob Alam.
(vi) Recovery of mobile phone of deceased Rohit Ahlawat at instance of accused Mehboob Alam.
State Vs. Anadil Hasan & Ors.
FIR No. 139/2011, PS I. P. Estate Page No. 44 of 102
(vii) Recovery of desi Katta at instance of accused Mukesh.
(viii) Recovery of purse of deceased Rohit Ahlawat at instance of accused Firoz Alam.
(ix) Motive for the commission of offence, criminal conspiracy and apprehension of accused persons namely Anadil Hasan, Mehboob Alam and Raju Lal Jaat.
60. The evidence led by prosecution through the abovesaid circumstances relied upon by the prosecution has been analyzed as follows:-
(i). Deceased Rohit Ahlawat was lastly seen alive in company of five accused persons (except accused Firoz Alam) by PW-19 Ms. Fariyal.
As per the prosecution story, deceaed Rohit Ahlawat was abducted/kidnapped on 21.11.2011 and he was murdered on the intervening night of 21.11.2011 and 22.11.2011. As per the case of prosecution, PW-19 Ms. Fariyal lastly seen alive deceased Rohit Ahlawat in company of accused persons namely Anadil Hasan, Raju Lal Jaat, Mohd. Javed, Mehboob Alam and Mukesh on 21.11.2011 at factory of accused Javed situated at second floor of B-50, Sector- 10, Noida. Thus, the theory of last seen together is applicable in the present case.
The last seen together theory shifts the burden of proof on the accused requiring him to explain how the incident had occurred. If the accused is not in a position to explain as and State Vs. Anadil Hasan & Ors.
FIR No. 139/2011, PS I. P. Estate Page No. 45 of 102 when he parted with the deceased before his death an inference may be drawn against him. Failure on the part of accused to furnish any explanation in this regard, will give rise a strong presumption of commission of offence by him.
The last seen together by itself is not a conclusive proof but that has to be supported by the connecting circumstances like relationship between the accused and deceased, enmity between them, recovery of any incriminating material from accused, previous history of any kind of hostility etc. The time gap between the last scene alive and the death of the deceased must be so small that the possibility of any person other than the accused being the author of crime become impossible. It would be difficult in some cases to positively establish that the deceased was last seen with the accused when there is long time gap and there is possibility of other persons meeting the deceased during the said long time gap.
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Judgment titled as 'Prithipal Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab and Anrs. cited as (2012) 1 SCC 10' while confirming the conviction of appellant observed as under:-
"53. In 'State of West Bengal Vs. Mir Mohammad Omar' this court held that if fact is especially in the knowledge of any person, then burden of proving the said fact is upon him. It is impossible for the prosecution to prove certain facts particularly within the knowledge of accused. Section 106 is not intended to relieve the State Vs. Anadil Hasan & Ors.
FIR No. 139/2011, PS I. P. Estate Page No. 46 of 102 prosecution of its burden to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. But the Section would apply to cases where the prosecution has succeeded in proving the facts from which a reasonable inference can be drawn regarding the existence of certain other facts, unless the accused by virtue of his special knowledge regarding such facts failed to offer any explanation which might drive the Court to draw a different inference. Section 106 of the Evidence Act is designed to meet certain exceptional cases, in which it would be impossible for the prosecution to establish certain facts which are particularly within the knowledge of accused"
"79. Both the Courts below have found that the appellant accused had abducted Sh. Jaswant Singh Khalra. In such a situation, only the accused person could explain as to what happened to Sh. Khalra and if he had died, in what manner and under what circumstances he had died and why his corpus delicti could not be recovered. All the appellants accused failed to explain any inculpating circumstance even in their statements u/s 313 Cr.P.C. Such a conduct also provides for an additional link in the chain of circumstances. The fact as to what had happened to the victim after his abduction by the accused persons, has been within the special knowledge of State Vs. Anadil Hasan & Ors.
FIR No. 139/2011, PS I. P. Estate Page No. 47 of 102 accused persons, therefore they could have given some explanation. In such a fact situation, the Courts below have rightly drawn the presumption that the appellants were responsible for his abduction, illegal detention and murder".
Similarly, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Judgment titled as 'Ravirala Laxmaiah Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh cited as (2013) 9 SCC 283' has held that:-
"where the accused has been seen with the deceased victim, it become the duty of the accused to explain the circumstances under which the death of victim had occurred".
In a criminal trial, the prosecution has to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and it is possible only when the testimony of prosecution witnesses is cogent, trustworthy and credible. To secure a conviction of accused, the testimony of the prosecution witnesses must be of sterling quality.
In case titled as Rai Sandeep @ Deepu Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) cited as (2012) 8 SCC 21, it is held that :
"22. In our considered opinion, the "sterling witness" should be of a very high quality and caliber whose version should, therefore, be unassailable. The court considering the version of such witness should be in a position to accept it for its face value without any hesitation. To test the quality of such a witness, the status of the witness would be immaterial State Vs. Anadil Hasan & Ors.
FIR No. 139/2011, PS I. P. Estate Page No. 48 of 102 and what would be relevant is the truthfulness of the statement made by such a witness. What would be more relevant would be the consistency of the statement right from the starting point till the end, namely, at the time when the witness makes the initial statement and ultimately before the court. It should be natural and consistent with the case of the prosecution qua the accused. There should not be any prevarication in the version of such a witness. The witness should be in a position to withstand the cross examination of any length and howsoever strenuous it may be and under no circumstances should given room for any doubt as to the factum of the occurrence, the persons involved, as well as the sequence of it. Such a version should have corelation with each and every one of other supporting material such as the recoveries made, the weapons used, the manner of offence committed, the scientific evidence and the expert opinion. The said version should consistently match with the version of very other witness. It can even be stated that it should be akin to the test applied in the case of circumstantial evidence where there should not be any missing link in the chain of circumstances to hold the accused guilty of the offence alleged against him. Only, if the version of such a witness qualifies the above test as well as all other such similar tests to be applied, can it be held that such a witness can be called as a "sterling witness' whose version can be accepted by the court without any corroboration and based on which the guilty can be punished. To be more precise, the version of the said State Vs. Anadil Hasan & Ors.
FIR No. 139/2011, PS I. P. Estate Page No. 49 of 102 witness on the core spectrum of the crime should remain intact while all other attendant materials, namely, oral, documentary and material objects should match the said version in material particulars in order to enable the court trying the offence to rely on the core version to sieve the other supporting materials for holding the offender guilty of the charge alleged."
In case of Ramdas Vs. State of Maharashtra cited as (2007) SCC 170, it is held that :
"23. It is no doubt true that the conviction in a case of rape can be based solely on the testimony of the prosecutrix, but that can be done in a case where the court is convinced about the truthfulness of the prosecutrix and there exist no circumstances with cast of shadow of doubt over her veracity. It the evidence of the prosecutrix is of such quality that may be sufficient to sustain an order of conviction solely on the basis of her testimony. In the instant case we do not fine her evidence to be of such quality."
Thus, from the above said judgments, it is clear that the version of the witnesses should be natural one and it must corroborate the prosecution case. Such version must match with the testimony of other prosecution witnesses. It should be of such a quality that there should not be any shadow of doubt upon it.
Three different versions of PW-19 Ms. Fariyal have come in record i.e. in form of statement dated 20.12.2011 recorded by the IO under Sec. 161 Cr.PC, statement Ex. PW-19/A recorded by the Ld. MM on Oath under Sec. 164 Cr.PC and the statement recorded State Vs. Anadil Hasan & Ors.
FIR No. 139/2011, PS I. P. Estate Page No. 50 of 102 in the court on oath in capacity of PW-19. All these three statements of PW-19 Ms. Fariyal need to be analyzed in detail for the just decision of the case.
PW-19 Ms. Fariyal in her cross-examination dated 02.08.2014 deposed that police did not record her statement at any point of time however PW-36 IO/Inspector R. R. Khatana deposed that he recorded statement of PW-19 Ms. Fariyal under Sec. 161 Cr.PC. This raises serious doubts on the prosecution story, investigation conducted by PW-36 IO/Inspector R. R. Khatana and the veracity of PW-19 Ms. Fariyal.
PW-19 Ms. Fariyal in her statement recorded under Sec. 164 Cr.PC by the Ld. MM, Ex. PW-19/A stated that Nishu called her friend namely Javed who reached Delhi Gate within 5-7 minutes and thereafter they all three went to a Coffee shop, however, in her statement recorded under Sec. 161 Cr.PC, she stated that Javed came to Delhi Gate along with his friend Anadil Hasan and Mehboob Alam. Contrary to the abovesaid two versions PW-19 Ms. Fariyal, in her testimony recorded in the court, deposed that Javed reached Delhi Gate in Taxi which was being driven by accused Raju and accused Anadil also accompanied him. Thus, three different versions have come on record with respect to the same set of facts in which different persons/accused accompanied accused Mohd. Javed to Delhi Gate which raises serious doubts on the veracity of PW-19 Ms. Fariyal.
PW-19 Ms. Fariyal in her statement recorded under Sec. 164 Cr.PC, Ex. PW-19/A stated that they (Fariyal, Javed and Nishu) went to Coffee Shop and took coffee and thereafter they went to Noida in a Taxi being driven by accused Raju. She further stated State Vs. Anadil Hasan & Ors.
FIR No. 139/2011, PS I. P. Estate Page No. 51 of 102 that she met Rohit at Noida factory for the first time which means that she did not meet deceased Rohit at the Coffee shop. However, in her statement recorded under Sec. 161 Cr.PC, she stated that she along with Javed, Mehboob and Anadil Hasan went to Coffee shop where they met with one person namely Rohit (since deceased). In the court PW-19 Ms. Fariyal deposed that she, Anadil and Javed met Rohit in the Coffee shop. Thus, three different versions of PW- 19 Ms. Fariyal have come on record in which the persons who met deceased Rohit in the Coffee shop have also changed. This raises serious doubts on the veracity of PW-19 Ms. Fariyal.
In her statement recorded under Sec. 164 Cr.PC, Ex. PW- 19/A, PW-19 Ms. Fariyal stated that at the factory Nishu went inside room with Javed, Mehmood (accused Mehboob Alam) and Rohit. However, in her statement recorded under Sec. 161 Cr.PC, she stated that at about 03:30 pm, accused Anadil and accused Raju (Raju Lal Jaat) went to take Rohit and returned to Noida factory at about 04:30 pm. In the court PW-19 Ms. Fariyal deposed that Anadil told her that he had to pick up Rohit from Coffee shop as Rohit had made call to him and accordingly she accompanied Anadil to the said Coffee shop and after taking Rohit from Coffee shop they returned to Noida factory. Thus, different versions with respect to the fact as to who went to Coffee shop to take Rohit to Noida factory and whether PW-19 Ms. Fariyal had accompanied any of the accused for the said purpose have come on record which raises serious doubt on the veracity of PW-19 Ms. Fariyal.
PW-19 Ms. Fariyal in her statement recorded under Sec. 161 Cr.PC and her statement recorded under Sec. 164 Cr.PC, Ex. PW-19/A had not named accused Mukesh. However, in court she State Vs. Anadil Hasan & Ors.
FIR No. 139/2011, PS I. P. Estate Page No. 52 of 102 deposed that accused Mukesh was also present in the factory and she identified him in the court. This is a material improvement in the version of PW-19 Ms. Fariyal which raises serious doubt on her veracity.
PW-19 Ms. Fariyal in her examination-in-chief deposed that there was only one room in the factory, however, in her cross- examination she deposed that there were two rooms in the factory. PW-4 Sh. Sumit Gupta son of the landlady of factory situated at B- 50, Sector-10, Noida deposed that accused Javed was tenant of his mother. He deposed that second floor of B-50, Sector-10, Noida was given on rent to accused Javed by his mother through rent agreement Mark PW-4/A and he himself was running a cloth factory at the ground floor of B-50, Sector-10, Noida. However, PW-19 Ms. Fariyal has nowhere deposed that the said factory of Javed was situated at the second floor or that there was any cloth factory of PW-4 Sh. Sumit Gupta at the ground floor. As per prosecution story, deceased Rohit Ahlawat was taken to the abovesaid factory between 04:00-05:00 pm. However, PW-4 Sh. Sumit Gupta who was running a cloth factory at the ground floor of the same premises deposed that he had never seen accused Mohd. Javed bringing girls at his premises. He has also not deposed that PW-19 Ms. Fariyal or Nishu or the other accused persons had visited the said premises on 21.11.2011. These circumstances raises serious doubts on the prosecution story.
PW-19 Ms. Fariyal deposed that she did not know accused Javed prior to 21.11.2011, however, as per CDR of mobile phone, Ex. PW-38/A relied by the prosecution, telephonic conversation took place between mobile phone no. 9555622233 State Vs. Anadil Hasan & Ors.
FIR No. 139/2011, PS I. P. Estate Page No. 53 of 102 allegedly used by accused Javed and mobile phone no. 9289306518 allegedly used by PW-19 Ms. Fariyal, three times on 20.11.2011. PW-19 Ms. Fariyal in her statement recorded under Sec. 161 Cr.PC stated that she knew accused Javed since 6-7 months. Thus, three different versions of PW-19 Ms. Fariyal with respect to her acquaintance with accused Javed have come on record and all the three versions cannot stand together and hence cannot be relied upon.
PW-19 Ms. Fariyal correctly identified accused persons namely Anadil Hasan, Raju Lal Jaat, Mehboob Alam, Mohd. Javed and Mukesh in the court, however, when she was asked about certain questions about her memory she could not answer the same. Moreover, in her cross-examination, she stated that her statement under Sec. 164 Cr.PC, Ex. PW-19/A was recorded by a female Magistrate, however, as per record, the statement under Sec. 164 Cr.PC, Ex. PW-19/A of PW-19 Ms. Fariyal was recorded by Sh. Chander Mohan, the Ld. MM who was a male judicial officer. Thus, this raises serious doubts on the memory of PW-19 Ms. Fariyal qua identification of accused persons by her whom she allegedly met only once on 21.11.2011 as well as on her veracity.
PW-19 Ms. Fariyal deposed that she had given the mobile number of Nishu to IO and Nishu used to call her after every 2-3 days on phone. She also deposed that she did not make any call to Nishu to inform her that Police was looking for her. PW- 19 Ms. Fariyal in her statement Ex. PW-19/A has specifically stated that Nishu was resident of Khajoori Khas and she was doing Mehndi work with her. PW-36/IO Inspector R. R. Khatana could not give any satisfactory explanation as to how Nishu could not be State Vs. Anadil Hasan & Ors.
FIR No. 139/2011, PS I. P. Estate Page No. 54 of 102 traced despite availability of her mobile phone number and area of her resident at Khajoori Khas, Delhi. PW-36 IO/Inspector R. R. Khatana has not mentioned as to which mobile number belongs to Nishu in the CDRs collected by him during the investigation. This raises serious doubts as to whether any girl with the name of Nishu really existed or not.
PW-19 Ms. Fariyal deposed that after 3-4 days of 21.11.2011, police visited her house and told that Rohit had been murdered and the police had apprehended three accused persons and thereafter police took her to PS I. P. Estate where she saw accused Javed in handcuffs. It is pertinent to mention that accused Javed was not arrested after 3-4 days and rather he had surrendered before the court on 16.12.2011 i.e. after about 25 days of the alleged incident. Thus, there was no possibility of seeing of accused Javed in Handcuffs at Police Station by PW-19 Ms. Fariyal after 3- 4 days of the alleged incident. In her cross-examination PW-19 Ms. Fariyal deposed that she did not meet any of the accused persons either prior to 21.11.2011 or after 21.11.2011 which is against her own version wherein she deposed that she saw accused Javed at Police Station in handcuff. Morever, PW-36 IO/Inspector R. R. Khatana did not get the TIP of any accused conducted through PW- 19 Ms. Fariyal. PW-36 IO/Inspector R. R. Khatana deposed that accused persons were taken to the house of PW-19 Ms. Fariyal where she identified them. However, PW-19 Ms. Fariyal has not deposed on that lines and her examination-in-chief is silent on the said aspect. PW-19 Ms. Fariyal has been confronted on various points during her cross-examination conducted on behalf of accused persons. In these circumstances the testimony of PW-19 State Vs. Anadil Hasan & Ors.
FIR No. 139/2011, PS I. P. Estate Page No. 55 of 102 Ms. Fariyal is not reliable.
The testimony of PW19 Ms. Fariyal who is the star witness of prosecution and who has lastly seen deceased Rohit Ahlawat in company of accused persons namely Anadil Hasan, Raju Lal Jaat, Mehboob Alam, Mohd. Javed and Mukesh on 21.11.2011 is to be appreciated in the light of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the abovesaid judgments. Applying the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rai Sandeep (supra) and Ramdas (Supra), this court is of the considered opinion that PW 19 Ms. Fariyal is not a witness of sterling quality as her version is not natural and s h e h a s f a i l e d t o withstood the test of cross examination. This court is of the considered opinion that the testimony of PW-19 Ms. Fariyal is not clear, cogent, credible, trustworthy and consistent and hence it is not safe to rely upon her testimony.
(ii) Analysis of CDRs and Location Charts of mobile phones of deceased Rohit Ahlawat, complainant Sh. R. R. Ahlawat and accused persons.
In the present case, the prosecution has relied upon the three types of mobile phone numbers which have been allegedly used by deceased, complainant and the accused persons. These are:-
(A) Issued in name of complainant, deceased and accused persons.
(B) Recovered from possession of accused persons but issued in name of other persons who have not been examined as prosecution witnesses.
State Vs. Anadil Hasan & Ors.
FIR No. 139/2011, PS I. P. Estate Page No. 56 of 102 (C) Issued in name of other persons but neither recovered from possession of accused persons nor their subscribers examined as prosecution witness.
(ii)(a). Analysis of CDRs of mobile phone of deceased Rohit Ahlawat, complainant Sh. R. R. Ahlawat and mobile phone numbers used by accused Anadil Hasan.
As per prosecution story, mobile phone number 9818971707 was being used by deceased Rohit Ahlawat just before his death and it was also issued in his name. PW-27 Sh. Tarun Khurana, Ex-Nodal Officer, Bharti Airtel Ltd. has proved the Customer Application Form along with Photo ID card and its CDR along with certificate under Sec. 65B of The Indian Evidence Act, exhibited as PW-27/D to Ex. PW-27/I. As per the said record, the said mobile number was issued in the name of Rohit Ahlawat (deceased).
As per prosecution story, mobile no. 9868481898 was being used by complainant PW-1 Sh. R. R. Ahlawat and he had received ransom calls at the said number and it was issued in his name. PW-22 Sh. R. S. Yadav, JTO (CDR), MTNL Telephone Exchange has proved the CDR, Subscriber's detail, Cell ID Chart along with certificate under Sec. 65B of The Evidence Act, exhibited as PW-22/A to Ex. PW-22/E. As per the record, mobile phone no. 9868481898 was issued in the name of Sh. A. R. Ahlawat, R/o BG-2/12-B, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi-110063. The complainant, PW-1 Sh. R. R. Ahlawat has argued that his name has been mentioned as A. R. Ahlawat which is a clerical State Vs. Anadil Hasan & Ors.
FIR No. 139/2011, PS I. P. Estate Page No. 57 of 102 mistake. No objection has been taken in this regard on behalf of accused persons. Thus, it has been proved by the prosecution that the said mobile phone number was issued in the name of complainant Sh. R. R. Ahlawat and he had received the ransom calls on the said mobile number.
As per the case of prosecution, three SIM cards were used by accused Anadil Hasan. Mobile phone having SIM No. 9560497168 was recovered from possession of accused at the time of his apprehension while SIM cards having mobile numbers 9828135149 and 9358595196 were recovered from his personal search. No CDR of mobile phone number 9358595196 which was recovered from possession of accused Anadil Hasan during his personal search, Ex. PW-34/A has been placed on record by the prosecution. As per prosecution story, mobile number 9828135149 was used in the booking of the Taxi bearing registration no. RJ-14-TB-1116, from Jaipur by accused Anadil Hasan. PW-24 Sh. Kamal Kishore Aggarwal, the then Manager of My Cab Aditya Tele Link Pvt. Ltd. has proved the booking slip of Taxi bearing registration no. RJ-14-TB-1116, exhibited as Ex. PW-24/B and its seizure memo Ex. PW-24/A vide which accused Raju Lal Jaat was assigned as a driver for the said Taxi. As per the booking slip, Ex. PW-24/B, the said Taxi was booked in name of one Sonu who had used mobile number 9828135149 which was recovered from possession of accused Anadil Hasan. At the time of apprehension of accused Anadil Hasan, accused Raju Lal Jaat who was the driver at the abovesaid Taxi was also found present with him and the mobile phone number used for booking the taxi was also recovered from possession of accused State Vs. Anadil Hasan & Ors.
FIR No. 139/2011, PS I. P. Estate Page No. 58 of 102 Anadil Hasan while the booked taxi was also recovered from the parking of Chaudhary Hotel which shows that accused Anadil Hasan had used mobile number 9828135149 for booking the abovesaid Taxi and he had impersonated himself as Sonu.
PW-27 Sh. Tarun Khurana, Ex-Nodal Officer, Bharti Airtel has proved the Customer Application Form and the CDR of mobile phone no. 9560497168 along with Certificate under Sec. 65B of The Evidence Act exhibited as PW-27/A to Ex. PW-27/D. As per the record, the abovesaid mobile number was issued in the name of one Ms. Sarita. PW-36 IO/Inspector R. R. Khatana has deposed that as per the investigation conducted by him, the abovesaid SIM card was issued on the basis of forged Voter ID card which was not issued in the name of said Ms. Sarita. Thus, the subscriber of the abovesaid mobile number could not be traced.
As per the CDR of mobile phone no. 9818971707 exhibited as Ex. PW-27/F, four phone calls were made from mobile phone number 9560497168 recovered from possession of accused Anadil Hasan to the mobile phone number 9818971707 of deceased Rohit Ahlawat on 21.11.2011 at 14:58, 15:30, 15:36 & 15:42. Thereafter several calls were made from mobile number 9818971707 of deceased Rohit Ahlawat to PW-1 Sh. R. R. Ahlawat on his mobile phone no. 9868481898, which have been duly proved by PW-27 Sh. Tarun Khurana through the CDR, Ex. PW-27/F and Ex. PW-27/G. As per the CDR of mobile phone no. 9560497168, exhibited as PW-27/C nine ransom calls on 24.11.2011 at 5:47, 6:00, 6:09, 7:46, 12:35, 12:51, 13:08, 13:10 & 15:24 were made State Vs. Anadil Hasan & Ors.
FIR No. 139/2011, PS I. P. Estate Page No. 59 of 102 to the PW-1 complainant Sh. R. R. Ahlawat on his mobile phone number 9868481898 and same was found in possession of accused Anadil Hasan which was got issued on the basis of forged Voter ID card, the burden lies upon accused Anadil Hasan under Sec. 106 of The Indian Evidence Act to explain the possession of the said SIM card. Accused Anadil Hasan has failed to explain the possession of abovesaid SIM card which has been duly proved by the prosecution. The location of mobile phone number 9560497168 recovered from possession of accused Anadil Hasan has been corroborated by the prosecution story and on 24.11.2011 his location was at Tower No. 58832 i.e. at place of Sh. Rajinder Singh Choudhary, S/o Sh. Sukh Ram, Khasra No. 175, Ward No. 8, Sikandara Road, Opposite Railway Station, Bandikui, District Dausa, Rajasthan from where accused Anadil Hasan was apprehended with the abovesaid mobile. It is pertinent to mention that accused Anadil Hasan, Mehboob Alam and Raju Lal Jaat were apprehended only on the basis of location of abovesaid mobile numbers. Thus, in view of the recovery of the abovesaid SIM card from possession of accused Anadil Hasan, prosecution has established the fact beyond reasonable doubt that the abovesaid mobile number was being used by accused Anadil Hasan for making call to deceased Rohit Ahlawat as well as for making nine ransom calls to PW-1 complainant Sh. R. R. Ahalwat and hence same is relevant under the provisions of The Indian Evidence Act.
(ii)(b). Analysis of CDRs of mobile phone numbers used by accused persons namely Mohd. Javed, Firoz Alam, State Vs. Anadil Hasan & Ors.
FIR No. 139/2011, PS I. P. Estate Page No. 60 of 102 Mukesh and Raju Lal Jaat and mobile phone used by PW-19 Ms. Fariyal.
As per prosecution story, mobile phone nos. 9911210095 and 9555622233 were being used by accused Mohd. Javed. PW- 17 Sh. Amar Nath, Nodal Officer, Idea Cellular Ltd. has proved the Customer Application Form, Copy of Driving License, CDR, Cell ID Chart along with certificate under Sec. 65B of The Indian Evidence Act of mobile phone no. 9911210095, exhibited as Ex. PW-17/A to Ex. PW-17/F. As per the record, the mobile phone number 9911210095 was issued in name of Mohd. Javed S/o Hazi Firoz Ahmad. Thus, the mobile phone number 9911210095 was issued in the name of accused Mohd. Javed. As per prosecution story, this mobile phone number was not used for contacting deceased or for making ransom calls to complainant PW-1 Sh. R. R. Ahlawat. However, as per prosecution story this mobile phone number was used by accused Mohd. Javed to make phone calls to PW-19 Ms. Fariyal at her mobile phone no. 9289306518. PW-19 Ms. Fariyal has also deposed that Nishu made a call to her friend Javed from her mobile phone number, however, she also deposed that she did not remember her mobile phone number. The prosecution has not placed on record the Customer Application Form and the CDR of mobile phone no. 9289306518. Though, as per the CDR of mobile phone no. 9911210095, Ex. PW-17/D, there were phone calls between the abovesaid phone numbers on 20.11.2011 and 21.11.2011 but the prosecution has not proved as to who was the subscriber of mobile phone no. 9289306518 and in these circumstances, it cannot be concluded that the said mobile phone belonged to PW-
State Vs. Anadil Hasan & Ors.
FIR No. 139/2011, PS I. P. Estate Page No. 61 of 102 19 Ms. Fariyal. Thus, the communication between abovesaid mobile phone numbers does not have much evidentary value.
PW-26 Sh. Ved Prakash, Nodal Officer, Reliance has proved the Customer Application Form, CDR and Cell ID chart of mobile phone no. 9555622233, exhibited as Ex. PW-26/D to Ex. PW-26/F along with certificate under Sec. 65B of The Evidence Act, Ex. PW-26/C. PW-38 Sh. Yogesh Tripathi has also proved the CDR of this mobile phone number from 01.11.2011 to 23.11.2011, along with certificate under Sec. 65B of The Evidence Act, Ex. PW-38/B. As per Customer Application Form, Ex. PW-26/E the mobile phone no. 9555622233 was issued in name of one Mukesh Kumar S/o Sh. Ram Prasad. The photograph of accused Firoz Alam has been pasted on the said form and address of the factory of accused Mohd. Javed i.e. B- 50, Second Floor, Sector-10, Noida. The SIM card of abovesaid mobile phone number could not be recovered. It has been argued on behalf of complainant that the accused persons had got issued the abovesaid mobile phone number for commission of offence and for communication between the accused persons. As per prosecution story, this mobile phone number was not used for contacting deceased or for making ransom calls to complainant PW-1 Sh. R. R. Ahlawat. The abovesaid SIM card was issued in name of Mukesh Kumar S/o Sh. Ram Prasad while the father's name of accused Mukesh Kumar is Dal Chand and he has a different address. Due to the non-recovery of the abovesaid SIM card from possession of any of accused persons and non-fixing the identity of the real subscriber of abovesaid SIM card, the CDR of abovesaid mobile phone number does not have much State Vs. Anadil Hasan & Ors.
FIR No. 139/2011, PS I. P. Estate Page No. 62 of 102 evidentary value.
As per prosecution story, mobile phone no.
9311112302 and 7520923851 were being used by accused Firoz Alam. PW-26 Sh. Ved Prakash has proved the Customer Application Form, Photocopy of ID and CDR along with certificate under Sec. 65B of The Indian Evidence Act, exhibited as Ex. PW-26/A to Ex. PW-26/C pertaining to mobile phone no. 9311112302. PW-38 Sh. Yogesh Tripathi has also proved the CDR of this mobile phone number from 16.11.2011 to 30.11.2011, exhibited as Ex. PW-38/A. As per record, the abovesaid mobile phone number was issued in name of Mohd. Usman. The subscriber of abovesaid mobile phone number has not been examined as prosecution witness to prove that he had given the said mobile SIM card to accused Firoz Alam despite the fact that Mohd. Usman was traced by IO. In these circumstances, the CDR and the location chart of abovesaid mobile phone number does not have much evidentary value. Moreover, no calls were made with the aforesaid mobile phone number either to the deceased or to the complainant. The Customer Application Form and the CDR of other mobile phone no. 7520923851 allegedly used by accused Firoz Alam has not been placed on record by the IO. In these circumstances, it cannot be concluded that mobile phone no. 7520923851 was used by accused Firoz Alam.
As per prosecution story, mobile phone no. 9568442492 was used by accused Mukesh and the SIM card was recovered from his possession. PW-18 Sh. Hussain M. Zaidi, Nodal Officer, Idea Cellular Ltd. has proved the Customer Application Form, State Vs. Anadil Hasan & Ors.
FIR No. 139/2011, PS I. P. Estate Page No. 63 of 102 copy of Voter ID card of subscriber, CDR and Cell ID chart along with certificate under Sec. 65B of The Indian Evidence Act exhibited as Ex. PW-18/A to Ex. PW-18/H. As per the Customer Application Form, Ex. PW-18/A, the abovesaid mobile phone number was issued in name of one Gomati W/o Ram Singh. The subscriber of abovesaid mobile phone number namely Gomati W/o Ram Singh has not been examined as PW to prove that she had handed over her SIM card to accused Mukesh for use. In these circumstances, it cannot be concluded that mobile phone no. 9568442492 was used by accused Mukesh. Other mobile phone number i.e. 8958900967 allegedly used by accused Mukesh could not be recovered and the CAF and CDR of said mobile phone number was also not placed on record by the prosecution. Moreover, no calls were made with the aforesaid mobile phone numbers either to the deceased or to the complainant.
As per prosecution story, accused Raju Lal Jaat was using mobile phone no. 9784498825. However, the prosecution has not placed on record, the Customer Application Form and CDR of the abovesaid mobile phone number.
Thus, through the CDR of mobile phone numbers allegedly used by accused persons namely Mohd. Javed, Firoz Alam, Mukesh, Raju Lal Jaat and Anadil Hasan, it has been brought on record that the persons who were in possession of abovesaid SIM cards were in contact with each other from 16.11.2011 to 24.11.2011. The alleged incident took place on 21.11.2011 and on the intervening night of 21-22.11.2011. As per the analysis of CDRs on record, total three calls took place State Vs. Anadil Hasan & Ors.
FIR No. 139/2011, PS I. P. Estate Page No. 64 of 102 between mobile phone no. 9560497168 allegedly used by accused Anadil Hasan and mobile phone no. 9555622233 allegedly used by accused Mohd. Javed and Mukesh, four calls took place between mobile phone no. 9560497168 allegedly used by accused Anadil Hasan and mobile phone no. 9818971707 alleged used by deceased Rohit Ahlawat, one call took place between mobile phone no. 9358595196 allegedly used by accused Anadil Hasan and mobile phone no. 9555622233 allegedly used by accused Mohd. Javed and Mukesh, one call took place between mobile phone no. 9358595196 allegedly used by accused Anadil Hasan and mobile phone no. 9311112302 alleged used by accused Firoz Alam, one call took place between mobile phone no. 9311112302 allegedly used by accused Firoz Alam and mobile phone no. 9911210095 allegedly used by accused Mohd. Javed, one call took place between mobile phone no. 9311112302 allegedly used by accused Firoz Alam and mobile phone no. 9358595196 allegedly used by accused Anadil Hasan, one call took place between mobile phone no. 9311112302 allegedly used by accused Firoz Alam and mobile phone no. 9555622233 allegedly used by accused Mohd. Javed and accused Mukesh, one call took place between mobile phone no. 9911210095 allegedly used by accused Mohd. Javed and between mobile phone no. 9311112302 allegedly used by accused Firoz Alam, six calls took place between mobile phone no. 9911210095 allegedly used by accused Mohd. Javed and mobile phone no. 9289306518 allegedly used by PW-19 Ms. Fariyal, two calls took place between mobile phone no. 9555622233 allegedly used by accused Mohd. Javed and mobile State Vs. Anadil Hasan & Ors.
FIR No. 139/2011, PS I. P. Estate Page No. 65 of 102 phone no. 9289306518 allegedly used by PW-19 Ms. Fariyal, one call took place between mobile phone no. 9555622233 allegedly used by accused Mohd. Javed and mobile phone no. 9358595196 allegedly used by accused Anadil Hasan, three calls took place between mobile phone no. 9555622233 allegedly used by accused Mohd. Javed and mobile phone no. 9560497168 allegedly used by accused Anadil Hasan, one call took place between mobile phone no. 9555622233 allegedly used by accused Mohd. Javed and mobile phone no. 9311112302 allegedly used by accused Mohd. Firoz Alam and four calls took place between mobile phone no. 9818971707 allegedly used by deceased Rohit Ahlawat and mobile phone no. 9560497168 allegedly used by accused Anadil Hasan. The communication between the persons having the possession of abovesaid mobile phone numbers and the location of abovesaid mobile phone numbers may not itself be sufficient to prove the guilt of accused persons.
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in judgment titled as 'Kiriti Pal Vs. State of West Bengal cited as (2015) 11 SCC 178' has held that telephonic calls may raise suspicion against the accused but mere suspicion itself cannot take the place of proof. Thus, the evidence in form of CDR is only corroborative in nature and conviction cannot be based merely on the basis of CDR record. Thus, in view of the fact that some of the SIM cards could not be recovered and the subscribers of some other SIM cards have not been examined by the prosecution as PW and the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in 'Kriti Pal (supra)', a suspicion has arisen against accused persons State Vs. Anadil Hasan & Ors.
FIR No. 139/2011, PS I. P. Estate Page No. 66 of 102 namely Firoz Alam, Mohd. Javed and Mukesh but the suspicion cannot take the place of proof.
(iii) CCTV footage of ATM booth of Union Bank of India, Sector-12, Noida, dated 21.11.2011.
As per prosecution story, accused persons namely Mehboob Alam and Firoz Alam robbed the ATM card of deceased Rohit Ahlawat and went to ATM room/booth of Union Bank of India, Sector-12, Noida and withdrew an amount of Rs. 8,500/-. Prosecution has relied upon the CCTV footage of the abovesaid ATM room/booth. PW-2 Sh. Purshotam Sharma, the then bank Manager has proved the CCTV footage of abovesaid ATM room/booth through CD Ex. PW-2/A. The abovesaid CD was played in the court at the time of examination of PW-34 IO/SI Rajesh Shah who deposed that the person who was without helmet was accused Firoz and the person who was carrying full covered helmet was Mehboob Alam. PW-2 Sh. Purshotam Sharma has not filed the certificate under Sec. 65B of The Indian Evidence Act with respect to the abovesaid CCTV footage. Thus, the abovesaid CCTV footage cannot be taken into consideration. As per the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in 'Arjun Panditrao Khotkar Vs. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal, cited as AIR 2020 SC 4908'. Secondly, the faces of persons seen in the CCTV footage of CD Ex. PW-2/A are not clearly visible. The said CCTV footage was not sent to FSL for comparison of the faces of the alleged accused persons with the faces of persons seen in the CCTV footage to prove that the persons seen in the CCTV footage are accused Mehboob Alam and Firoz Alam.
State Vs. Anadil Hasan & Ors.
FIR No. 139/2011, PS I. P. Estate Page No. 67 of 102 PW-34 SI Rajesh Shah had not seen the accused persons while entering the ATM booth and hence identification by him only through watching the CCTV footage is not proper for fixing the identity of accused persons. Moreover, the persons in the CCTV footage are not seen withdrawing amount from the ATM machine. No fingerprints of alleged accused persons were collected from the ATM booth and the ATM card could not be recovered from possession of alleged accused persons. In these circumstances, this court of considered opinion that identity of persons seen in the CCTV footage of CD, Ex. PW-2/A has not been established and hence same cannot be read in evidence against accused persons namely Mehboob Alam and Firoz Alam.
(iv). Use of SIM card having no. 9818971707 of deceased Rohit Ahlawat by accused Anadil Hasan in his phone handset having IMEI No. 359858034647990 in which earlier he was using SIM card having no. 9560497168. PW-27 Sh. Tarun Khurana, Ex-Nodal Officer, Bharti Airtel Ltd. has proved the Customer Application Form along with Photo ID card and its CDR along with certificate under Sec. 65B of The Indian Evidence Act, exhibited as PW-27/D to Ex. PW-27/I. As per the abovesaid record, the said mobile number was issued in the name of Rohit Ahlawat (deceased).
As per the case of prosecution, mobile phone having SIM No. 9560497168 was recovered from possession of accused Anadil Hasan at the time of his apprehension from Chaudhary Hotel, Bandi Kui, Rajasthan along with mobile handset make Nokia having IMEI No. 359570018205616 in which SIM card having no. 9560497168 was inserted, which was seized by the IO State Vs. Anadil Hasan & Ors.
FIR No. 139/2011, PS I. P. Estate Page No. 68 of 102 vide seizure memo Ex. PW-34/G. PW-27 Sh. Tarun Khurana, Ex- Nodal Officer, Bharti Airtel has proved the Customer Application Form and the CDR of mobile phone no. 9560497168 along with Certificate under Sec. 65B of The Evidence Act exhibited as PW- 27/A to Ex. PW-27/D. The mobile phone handset of deceased Rohit Ahlawat was recovered at instance of accused Mehboob Alam which was seized by the IO vide seizure memo Ex. PW- 34/L. As per the seizure memo Ex. PW-34/L, the IMEI number of mobile phone of deceased Rohit Ahlawat is 359858034647998.
Thus to analyse the CDR of mobile phones used by deceased Rohit Ahlawat and accused Anadil Hasan, the IMEI number of the handsets used by them is of vital importance. It is pertinent to mention that the last digit of IMEI number is irrelevant and this aspect has been discussed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Judgment titled as 'Suraj Vs. State cited as 2022 SCC online DEL 4572' wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi observed as under:-
"27 The deceased's Nokia mobile phone was seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW 28/H from appellant Sonu Dahiya with the IMEI number 358290034757208 which matches with the IMEI number in the CDR of deeased i.e. 358290034757200 (last digit as per the settled law as decided in Gajraj Vs. Sate Supra being irrelevant"
State Vs. Anadil Hasan & Ors.
FIR No. 139/2011, PS I. P. Estate Page No. 69 of 102 Similarly Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in judgment titled as State (NCT) of Delhi Vs. Navjot Sandhu @ Afsan Guru cited as (2005) 11 SCC 600 observed as under:-
" 195. One more point has to be clarified.
In the seizure memo Ex. 61/4, the IMEI number of Nokia phone found in the truck was noted as 350102209452432. That means the last digit varies from the call records wherein it was noted as 350102209452430. Thus there is a seeming descrepancy as far as the last digit is concerned. This descrepancy stands explained by the evidence of PW-78, a computer Engineer workin as Manager Seimens. He is stated, while giving various details of the 15 digits that the last one digit is a spare digit and the last digit, according to GSM specification should be transmitted by the mobile phone as 0."
Thus as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, the last digit of IMEI number mentioned in the mobile handset and the IMEI number mentioned in the CDR will be different and the last digit of IMEI number will be replaced by 0. On the perusal of CDRs State Vs. Anadil Hasan & Ors.
FIR No. 139/2011, PS I. P. Estate Page No. 70 of 102 of mobile phone numbers 9818971707 of deceased Rohit Ahlawat and mobile no. 9560497168, it is revealed that accused Anadil Hasan used SIM card having no. 9818971707 of deceased Rohit Ahlawat in his mobile handset having SIM No. 9560497168 and the IMEI No. 359858034647990 of handset of deceased Rohit Ahlawat in which SIM card no. 9818971707 of deceased Rohit Ahlawat was being used, changed on 22.11.2011 at 22:02 and it remained same till 11:44 am on 23.11.2011 to IMEI No. 359570018205610, the IMEI of the phone number 9560497168 which was recovered from possession of accused Anadil Hasan. Accused Anadil Hasan has failed to take any defence in this regard and hence the prosecution has successfully proved that the accused Anadil Hasan was having possession of the SIM card of deceased Rohit Ahlawat and he made ransom call of PW-1 complainant Sh. R. R. Ahlawat by using that SIM card in the mobile handset of deceased Rohit Ahlawat as well as in his mobile handset.
(v) Recovery of dead body of deceased Rohit Ahlawat at instance of accused Anadil Hasan and Mehboob Alam.
PW-34 SI Rajesh Shah deposed that he recorded disclosure statement of accused persons namely Anadil Hasan and Mehboob Alam exhibited as Ex. PW-34/C & Ex. PW-34/D in which they disclosed that they had murdered deceased Rohit Ahlawat with the help of accused Mohd. Javed, Firoz Alam and Mukesh and they had thrown the dead body of deceased Rohit Ahlawat in sugarcane field situated on Chaudharpur Road near village Asgaripur. PW-34 SI Rajesh Shah deposed that the dead body of deceased Rohit Ahlawat was recovered from the abovesaid spot State Vs. Anadil Hasan & Ors.
FIR No. 139/2011, PS I. P. Estate Page No. 71 of 102 at instance of accused persons namely Anadil Hasan and Mehboob Alam. Recovery of dead body and other incriminating material at instance of accused persons on the basis of disclosure statements made by them is an important circumstantial evidence. Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act is an exception to Section 25 and Section 26 of the said act. Section 27 is based on the doctrine of confirmation by subsequent events. The principle u/s 27 of Indian Evidence Act is based on the principle that if any fact is discovered on the basis of disclosure statement of accused, the discovery of said fact is a guarantee that the information given by the accused in his disclosure statement is true. Such information may be confessional or non-inculpating in nature but if any new fact is discovered from such information it will be considered as a reliable information.
The fact discovered on the basis of disclosure of statement of accused must be relevant facts. Such information must be given by the person who is accused of an offence and the recovery of article or discovery of fact must be based upon the information given by such accused.
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Judgment titled as 'Pawan Kumar @Monu Mittal Vs. State of U.P & Anr. cited as (2015) 7 SCC 148' has held that:-
"the facts discovered u/s 27 of Indian Evidence Act embraces the place from which object was produced and knowledge of the accused as to it and if the accused are denying their role without proper explanation as to the State Vs. Anadil Hasan & Ors.
FIR No. 139/2011, PS I. P. Estate Page No. 72 of 102 knowledge about the incriminating material recovered on the basis of their statements in police custody, would justify the presumption drawn by the Courts below as to the involvement of the accused in the Crime".
PW-34 first IO/SI Rajesh Shah deposed that after making disclosure statements, accused persons namely Anadil Hasan and Mehboob Alam led them to the sugarcane field at village Asgaripur and got recovered the dead body of deceased Rohit Ahlawat which was partly decomposed. Similarly, PW-6 Sh. Raj Mohan (cousin of deceased Rohit Ahlawat), PW-14 Sh. Prashant Ahlawat (brother of deceased Rohit Ahlawat) have also deposed that both the abovesaid accused persons led the police party towards sugarcane field and pointed out the place where they had thrown the dead body and the dead body of deceased Rohit Ahlawat was recovered at their instance. Similarly, PW-11 Sh. Anis Ahmad (owner of the sugarcane field from where the dead body was recovered) and PW-12 Mohd. Yamin have also deposed that dead body was recovered from the sugarcane field by the police. PW-11 Sh. Anis Ahmad also deposed that he had also signed the punchnama. Similarly, PW-13 SI Rishipal Singh from PS Asmoli who had also joined the proceedings deposed that Inspector Raghu Raj Khatana along with police staff met him at the spot and two accused persons namely Anadil Hasan and Mehboob Alam were also present there and dead body was recovered. He also proved punchnama prepared by him, State Vs. Anadil Hasan & Ors.
FIR No. 139/2011, PS I. P. Estate Page No. 73 of 102 exhibited as Ex. PW-11/1. Though, PW-11 Sh. Anis Ahmad and PW-12 Mohd. Yamin could not identify the accused persons but the other abovesaid witnesses have specifically deposed that the dead body was recovered at instance of accused Anadil Hasan and Mehboob Alam and these witnesses have correctly identified the both the accused persons in the court during the trial. The place of recovery is not a public place but it was situated on the side of the road where sugarcane was grown and the dead body was not visible to the passers-byes. Before the recording of disclosure statements of accused persons namely Anadil Hasan and Mehboob Alam, the investigating agency who was tracing the deceased in Rajasthan and Noida had no knowledge that the dead body of deceased Rohit Ahlawat had been thrown and concealed in the sugarcane field of village Asgaripur. Thus, the recovery of body at instance of both the accused persons is a relevant fact under Sec. 27 of The Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Both the accused persons have not given any reasonable explanation in this regard. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in judgment titled as 'Sunder alias Sunderarajan Vs. State by Inspector of Police, cited as AIR 2013 SC 777' has observed as under:-
"28. we may now refer to some further material on record of the case, to substantiate our aforesaid conclusion. In this behalf it would be relevant to mention, that when the accused/appellant was detained on 30.07.2009 he had made a confessional statement in State Vs. Anadil Hasan & Ors.
FIR No. 139/2011, PS I. P. Estate Page No. 74 of 102 presence of Kasinathan (PW-13) stating that he had strangulated Suresh to death, whereupon his dead body was put into gunny bag and thrown into Meerankulam Tank. It was thereafter on the pointing out of the accused/appellant that the dead body of Suresh was recovered from Meerankulam Tank. It was found in a gunny bag as stated by the accused/appellant. Dr. Kathirvel (PW-12) concluded after holding the postmortem examination on the dead body of Suresh, that Suresh had died on account of suffocation prior to having been drowned. The instant case clearly nails the accused/appellant as perpetrator of murder of Suresh."
In the present case, the dead body of deceased Rohit Ahlawat has been recovered at the instance of accused persons namely Anadil Hasan and Mehboob Alam on the basis of their disclosure statements Ex. PW-34/C and Ex. PW-34/C in which they had disclosed that they had murdered deceased Rohit Ahlawat by strangulation with a chunni. PW-34 IO/SI Rajesh Shah has proved the pointing out-cum-recovery memo of dead body exhibited as Ex. PW-6/A. PW-10 Dr. Ashok Kumar who conducted the postmortem on the body of deceased Rohit, proved the postmortem report, Ex. PW-10/A in which he opined that the death of deceased Rohit was caused Asphyxia as result of ante- mortem strangulation. As per punchnama, Ex. PW-11/A, when State Vs. Anadil Hasan & Ors.
FIR No. 139/2011, PS I. P. Estate Page No. 75 of 102 the dead body of deceased Rohit Ahlawat was recovered, one chunni (chundari) of green and white colour was found wrapped around his neck which is also visible in the photograph Ex. P-12. Thus, applying the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in 'Sunder alias Sunderarajan (Supra)', this court is of considered opinion that accused persons namely Anadil Hasan and Mehboob Alam are the perpetrator of the murder of deceased Rohit Ahlawat after he was abducted by them for the purpose of ransom.
Since the dead body of deceased Rohit Ahlawat was taken to village Asgaripur and was thrown into a sugarcane field so that it could not be traced by anyone, both the accused persons namely Anadil Hasan and Mehboob have caused the disappearance of evidence with the intention to screen themselves from legal punishment and hence they have also committed offence punishable under Sec. 201 IPC.
(vi). Recovery of mobile phone of deceased Rohit Ahlawat at instance of accused Mehboob Alam.
As per prosecution story, the mobile phone of deceased Rohit Ahlawat was recovered at instance of accused Mehboob Alam after he made disclosure statement to the IO. PW-34 SI Rajesh Shah deposed that on 29.11.2011 accused Mehboob Alam led them to the disclosed place i.e. Jaipur Highway near Burja Bypass opposite Apna Hotel Place and got recovered mobile phone of deceased Rohit Ahlawat make LG black colour from the bushes which was seized by him vide seizure memo Ex. PW- 34/L. PW-36 IO/Inspector R. R. Khatana has also deposed on State Vs. Anadil Hasan & Ors.
FIR No. 139/2011, PS I. P. Estate Page No. 76 of 102 same lines. PW-36 IO/Inspector R. R. Khatana deposed that IMEI number of the recovered mobile phone was 35985803464799. As per the CDR of mobile phone of deceased Rohit Ahlawat, Ex. PW-27/F, the IMEI number of the mobile handset of deceased Rohit Ahlawat was 359858034647990. Thus, the prosecution has scientifically proved that the recovered mobile phone belongs to deceased Rohit Ahlawat as the IMEI number of the recovered phone handset matched with the CDR Ex. PW-27/F [last digit of CDR will differ as per judgment 'Navjot Sandhu @ Afsan Guru (Supra)']. Before the recording of disclosure statement of accused Mehboob Alam, investigating agency had no knoweldge about the whereabouts about the missing mobile handset of deceased Rohit Ahlawat. Thus, from the recovery of mobile phone of deceased Rohit Ahlawat, it is clear that the deceased Rohit Ahlawat was in company of accused Mehboob Alam before his death. Accused Anadil Hasan had used the abovesaid mobile handset of deceased Rohit Ahlawat as well as his SIM card in his mobile phone. PW-1 complainant Sh. R. R. Ahlawat has specifically deposed that when he talked with Rohit Ahlawat at about 02:00 am he realized that he was tortured as his voice was not clear. PW-10 Dr. Ashok Kumar has proved the postmortem report of deceased Rohit Ahlawat, Ex. PW-10/A. As per postmortem report, Ex. PW-10/A, there were several injuries on the body of deceased Rohit Ahlawat i.e. on the chin, upper lip, right side of skull, fractures in the bones of skull, on the back of skull which means that the accused persons namely Anadil Hasan and Mehboob Alam had voluntarily caused hurt on the body of deceased while robbing State Vs. Anadil Hasan & Ors.
FIR No. 139/2011, PS I. P. Estate Page No. 77 of 102 mobile phone from him. Thus, the ingredients of offence punishable under Sec. 394 IPC have been brought on record by the prosecution against accused persons namely Anadil Hasan and Mehboob Alam.
(vii) Recovery of desi Katta at instance of accused Mukesh.
As per prosecution story, accused Mukesh had fired upon deceased Rohit Ahlawat after his body was thrwon in sugarcane field of village Asgaripur. PW-36 IO/Inspector R. R. Khatana deposed that accused Mukesh made a disclosure statement and got recovered on desi Katta from the bushes situated at village Sarkari which was found wrapped in polythene of green colour with black dots and he seized the same vide seizure memo Ex. PW-30/C. On the perusal of seizure memo Ex. PW-30/C , it is revealed that the IO had put the recovered desi katta in green polythene with black dots and had prepared the pullanda of the same which was sealed by him with the seal of 'RRK' before its seizure. PW-25 Dr. N. P. Waghmare who examined the desi katta and prepared his report Ex. PW-25/B has not deposed that the said desi katta was found wrapped in a green polythene having black dots. Moreover, when desi katta Ex. P-1 was produced in the court in a sealed pullanda, no green polythene with green dots was found. In his cross-examination, PW-36 IO/Inspector R. R. Khatana deposed that he had not sent the green polythene to the FSL along with desi katta. Since as per seizure memo Ex. PW- 30/C, the pulanda was sealed after keeping the desi katta in green polythene with black dots, the same could not have been taken out without tempering with the pullanda. In these circumstances, State Vs. Anadil Hasan & Ors.
FIR No. 139/2011, PS I. P. Estate Page No. 78 of 102 the recovery of desi katta at instance of accused Mukesh has become doubtful and same cannot be read in evidence against him. Since the recovery of desi katta, Ex. P-1 has become doubtful, the sanction under Sec. 39 Arms Act, 1959 to prosecute accused Mukesh, Ex. PW-37/A given by PW-37 Sh. Aslam Khan, DCP is not relevant.
As per prosecution story, plastic wad was found under the head of deceased Rohit Ahlawat at the time of recovery of his dead body. PW-10 Dr. Ashok Kumar who conducted the postmortem on body of deceased Rohit Ahlawat deposed that he cannot say whether any of the injury to deceased Rohit Ahlawat could have been caused by gun-shot as he had not mentioned the same in his report, Ex. PW-10/B. There is no eyewitness of firing of gun-shot on deceased Rohit Ahlawat. PW-25 Dr. N. P. Waghmare proved his report in this regard, Ex. PW-25/A and deposed that the shot-wad mark W-1 was part of ammunition as defined in Arms Act. In his cross-examination, he deposed that half of the barrel of the desi katta was rusted. He also deposed that he did not notice any gun powder or any pellet inside the barrel of desi katta Ex. P-1. Thus, from the evidence on record, it is clear that the wad found under the head of deceased Rohit Ahlawat was ammunition but as per the expert opinion of PW-10 Dr. Ashok Kumar, it could not be determined as to whether any gun-shot injury was caused to the deceased. Moreover, no gun power was found in the barrel of desi katta and the same was not compared with the wad found under the head of deceased Rohit Ahlawat. In these circumstances coupled with the fact that recovery of desi katta, Ex. P-1 has become doubtful, the said desi State Vs. Anadil Hasan & Ors.
FIR No. 139/2011, PS I. P. Estate Page No. 79 of 102 katta allegedly recovered at instance of accused Mukesh cannot be connected with the commission of offence.
(viii) Recovery of purse of deceased Rohit Ahlawat at instance of accused Firoz Alam.
As per prosecution story, the purse of deceased Rohit Ahlawat was recovered at instance of accused Firoz Alam after he made disclosure statement to IO. PW-36 IO/Inspector R. R. Khatana deposed that accused Firoz Alam led the police team near Pehalwan Dhaba situated near Gajrola Town on the way of Delhi-Moradabad Highway from where accused Firoz Alam took out one purse from the bushes which contained PAN card and Voter ID card of deceased Rohit Ahlawat. It has been argued by Ld. Counsel for accused Firoz Alam that the identity of the recovered purse had not been fixed and the PAN card and the Voter ID card are generally not carried by people in their purse and these have been planted upon the accused. As per the prosecution story, the said purse belongs to deceased Rohit Ahlawat, however, the finger print of deceased Rohit Ahlawat were not lifted from the said purse for comparison. The said purse Ex. P-2 has not been shown to complainant PW-1 Sh. R. R. Ahlawat who could have identified the said purse. Moreover, the said purse has been recovered from a public place near highway. In these circumstances, the recovery of said purse has become doubtful.
(ix) Motive for the commission of offence, criminal conspiracy and apprehension of accused persons namely Anadil Hasan, Mehboob Alam and Raju Lal Jaat.
State Vs. Anadil Hasan & Ors.
FIR No. 139/2011, PS I. P. Estate Page No. 80 of 102 The prosecution has established that deceased Rohit Ahlawat was abducted and murdered by accused persons namely Anadil Hasan and Mehboob Alam. Since the present case is based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution has to prove the motive for the commission of the offence of kidnapping and murder of deceased Rohit Ahlawat. Motive is relevant under Sec. 8 of The Indian Evidence Act. Motive is a force that moves a man to do a particular work. Generally there can be no action without any motive. Under Section 8 of Evidence Act, several factors including preparation, previous threat, previous altercation, previous litigation between the accused and the victim becomes relevant.
The motive for the commission of offence is of vital importance in a criminal trial and in cases based on circumstantial evidence motive itself will be a circumstance which the Court has to consider deeply. The existence of motive which operates in the mind of perpetrator may not be known to others and hence it has to be inferred from the facts and circumstances of this case.
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in judgment titled as Sheo Shankar Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand and Anr cited as (2011) 3 SCC 654 observed as under:-
"15. The legal position regarding proof of motive as an essential requirement for bringing home the guilt of accused is fairly well settle by a long line of decision of this Court. These decisions have made a clear distinction between State Vs. Anadil Hasan & Ors.
FIR No. 139/2011, PS I. P. Estate Page No. 81 of 102 cases where the prosecution relies upon the circumstantial evidence on one hand and those were relies upon the testimonies of the eye witnesses on the other. In the former category of cases proof of motive is given the importance it deserves, for proof of motive itself constitutes a link in the chain of circumstances upon which the prosecution may rely. Proof of motive, however, recedes into background in cases where the prosecution relies upon and eye witness account of the occurrence. That is because if the Court upon a proper appraisal of the deposition of the eye witnesses comes to the conclusion that the version given by them is credible, absence of evidence to prove the motive is rendered inconsequential. Conversely, even if the prosecution succeeds in establishing a strong motive for the commission of the offence, but the evidence of the eye witnesses is found unreliable or unworthy of credit, existence of motive does not by itself provide a safe basis for convicting the accused. That does not, however, mean that proof of motive State Vs. Anadil Hasan & Ors.
FIR No. 139/2011, PS I. P. Estate Page No. 82 of 102 even in a case which rests on an eye witness account does not lend strength to the prosecution case or fortify the Court in its ultimate conclusion proof of motive in such a situation certainly helps the prosecution and supports the eye witnesses."
Similarly, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in judgment titled as Chunni Lal Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh cited as (2010) SCC 496 observed as under:-
"12. This in our estimation is the reason and motive for the crime and not the one which was advanced by the Counsel appearing for the appellant, or by the time the incident had taken place, the deceased had legalized his relationship and married the said Chandrakaliya thereby giving legal status to PW-1 and PW-2 as his sons. In that situation, there was no possibility at all of the appellant inheriting the property of his uncle and therefore the plea taken by the appellant regarding motive appears to be without merit. Rather on the other hand, we find clear motive on the part of appellant/accused committing the murder of his uncle".
As per prosecution story, deceased Rohit Ahlawat was abducted by accused persons for the purpose of ransom. PW-1 State Vs. Anadil Hasan & Ors.
FIR No. 139/2011, PS I. P. Estate Page No. 83 of 102 complainant Sh. R. R. Ahlawat has specifically deposed that on 21.11.2011 he received a phone call from the mobile phone of his son deceased Rohit Ahlawat and the person attending the call told him that they had kidnapped deceased Rohit Ahlawat from Faridabad Mall and if he wanted to save the life of his son, he should pay a ransom of Rs. 50 lakhs by 04:00 pm on next day. PW-1 also deposed that on his request, the amount of ransom was reduced to Rs. 25 lakhs. In the present case, PW-1 complainant Sh. R. R. Ahlawat has received about fifty ransom calls from mobile number of deceased Rohit Ahlawat as well as from the mobile number which was recovered from the possession of accused Anadil Hasan. The CDRs of the mobile phones of deceased Rohit Ahlawat, PW-1 complainant Sh. R. R. Ahlawat and the mobile phone recovered from possession of accused Anadil Hasan has been duly proved by the prosecution. PW-1 Sh. R. R. Ahlawat, PW-30 SI Sushil Kumar, PW-31 Ct. Tejinder, PW-34 IO/SI Rajesh Shah and PW-36 IO/Inspector R. R. Khatana have also deposed that PW-1 complainant Sh. R. R. Ahlawat took the ransom money with him and boarded the bus for Karoli and the accused persons tried to collect the ransom money several times. Thus, the prosecution has proved that the motive for the commission of offence of kidnapping and murder of deceased Rohit Ahlawat to receive the ransom amount.
The case of the prosecution is that all the accused persons entered into a criminal conspiracy to kidnap deceased Rohit Ahlawat and in pursuance of said conspiracy deceased Rohit Ahlawat was kidnapped and murdered. The prosecution has led the evidence in form of circumstantial evidence to prove the State Vs. Anadil Hasan & Ors.
FIR No. 139/2011, PS I. P. Estate Page No. 84 of 102 criminal conspiracy entered by accused persons.
Section 120 B provides punishment for the commission of offence of criminal conspiracy. The offence of criminal conspiracy is a substantive offence. When two or more persons agree to do or cause to be done an illegal act or an act which is not illegal by illegal means, the agreement entered by such persons will constitute the offence of criminal conspiracy. The most important ingredient of offence of criminal conspiracy is the agreement between two or more person to do an illegal act. It is intention to commit crime and joining hands with persons having the same intents. The offence of criminal conspiracy is a separate and distinct offence.
Generally the conspiracy is hatched up in utmost secrecy and in these circumstances it becomes very difficult to prove the same by direct evidence. The conspiracy in such cases is to be incurred on the facts and circumstances of the case. The circumstances of a particular case before, during and after the commission of offence have to be taken into consideration to infer the criminal conspiracy. Inferences from such proved circumstances regarding the guilt may be drawn only when such circumstances are incapable of any other reasonable explaination.
The term "Criminal Conspiracy" has been explained by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Judgment titled as Major E.G. Barsey Vs. State of Bombay (1962) 2 SCR195 wherein Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under:-
"31.... The gist of the offence is an agreement to break the law. The parties to such an agreement will be State Vs. Anadil Hasan & Ors.
FIR No. 139/2011, PS I. P. Estate Page No. 85 of 102 guilty of criminal conspiracy, though the illegal act agreed to be done has not been done. So too, it is not an ingredient of the offence that all the parties should agree to do a single illegal act. It may comprise the commission of number of acts".
Similarly, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in K.R. Purushothaman Vs. State cited as AIR 2006 SC 35 has held that:-
to constitute a conspiracy, meeting of minds of two or more person for doing an illegal act or an act by illegal means is the first and primary condition and it is not necessary that all the conspirators must know each and every details of conspiracy.
Neither it is necessary that everyone of the conspirator take active part in the commission of each and every conspiratorial acts.
61. Thus, the criminal conspiracy in the present case is to be inferred from the facts and circumstances of the present case. It has been established by the prosecution that deceased Rohit Ahlawat was kidnapped/abducted for the purpose of ransom. It has also been established that the dead body of deceased Rohit Ahlawat was recovered at instance of accused persons namely State Vs. Anadil Hasan & Ors.
FIR No. 139/2011, PS I. P. Estate Page No. 86 of 102 Anadil Hasan and Mehboob Alam and they have committed murder of deceased Rohit Ahlawat. No substantial evidence has come on record against accused persons namely Mukesh, Firoz Alam and Mohd. Javed either in form of CDR or through the recovery of case properties. The pointing out of the spot of recovery of dead body by accused persons namely Mukesh, Firoz Alam and Mohd. Javed after the recovery of dead body at instance of accused persons namely Anadil Hasan and Mehboob Alam is of no relevance as the said spot was already in knowledge of the IO. However, there are certain circumstances through which the prosecution has proved that accused persons namely Anadil Hasan, Mehboob Alam and Raju Lal Jaat entered into a criminal conspiracy to kidnap/abduct deceased Rohit Ahlawat for ransom which are as under:-
(a) PW-24 Sh. Kamal Kishore Aggarwal deposed that on 18.11.2011 he was working as a Manager at My Cab Aditya Tele Link Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur and from there taxi bearing registration no. RJ 14TB 1116 was booked in name of one Sonu and duty slip no. 570 for the same was issued to driver Raju Lal Jaat (accused). He proved the seizure memo and the copy of slip, Ex. PW-
24/A and Ex. PW-24/D. As per the contents of booking slip, Ex. PW-24/B, the said Taxi was booked by using mobile phone no. 9828135149. As per the booking slip, Ex. PW-24/B, the said Taxi was booked in name of one Sonu who had used mobile number 9828135149 which was recovered from possession of accused Anadil Hasan. On 25.11.2011, accused persons namely State Vs. Anadil Hasan & Ors.
FIR No. 139/2011, PS I. P. Estate Page No. 87 of 102 Anadil Hasan, Mehboob Alam and Raju Lal Jaat were apprehended from Chaudhary Hotel, Bandikui and at that time accused Raju Lal Jaat (driver of the taxi) was also present with them along with the taxi which shows that accused Anadil Hasan had used mobile number 9828135149 for booking the abovesaid Taxi and he had impersonated himself as Sonu. Accused Raju Lal Jaat has not taken the defence that the said taxi was booked by any other person with the name of Sonu. Thus, from the abovesaid facts, it is clear that the said Taxi was booked by accused Anadil Hasan by using mobile phone no. 9828135149 and the driver of said Taxi was accused Raju Lal Jaat.
(b) PW-24 Sh. Kamal Kishore deposed that the said Taxi was booked from Jaipur to Agra. However, the said Taxi which was being driven by accused Raju Lal Jaat was never taken to Agra. PW-23 Mohd. Irfan, owner of Hotel Seema Lodge, Chawari Bazar, Delhi deposed that on 22.11.2011 at about 11:00 pm, three guests checked into their lodge and accordingly he made entry at serial no. 3174 and the name of the guests were Raju Lal Jaat, Anadil and Mehboob and all the three guests checked out from the lodge on 23.11.2011 at about 11:00 am. It is pertinent to mention that on 22.11.2011, the ransom caller told PW-1 Sh. R. R. Ahlawat that they will collect the ransom amount from the gate of Aggarsen Hospital, Punjabi Bagh, Delhi at 12:00 mid night. On the same night, accused persons namely State Vs. Anadil Hasan & Ors.
FIR No. 139/2011, PS I. P. Estate Page No. 88 of 102 Anadil Hasan, Mehboob Alam and Raju Lal Jaat took a room on rent at Seema Lodge, Chawari Bazar, Delhi which shows that they were present at Delhi at that time. PW-23 Mohd. Irfan also proved the relevant record of the register of the hotel along with its seizure memo, Ex. PW-23/A and Ex. PW-23/B. Thus, as per version of PW-23 Mohd. Irfan, all the three accused persons namely Anadil Hasan, Mehboob Alam and Raju Lal Jaat were staying together at his lodge in one room. Generally, a driver does not reside in the room of passenger who has hired the taxi and hence this fact is relevant for showing that accused Raju Lal Jaat was not merely a driver and rather he had become a companion of accused persons namely Anadil Hasan and Mehboob Alam and he had joined the conspiracy for kidnapping/abduction of deceased Rohit Ahlawat.
(c) PW-20 Sh. Rajender Chaudhary, owner of Chaudhary Hotel, Bandikui deposed that on 24.11.2011, three persons i.e. Mehboob Alam and two others came to his hotel at about 07:25 am and he made an entry in his Hotel register and allotted room no. 33 to them. It is pertinent to mention that on 23.11.2011, PW-1 complainant Sh. R. R. Ahlawat was asked to board a bus for Karoli, Rajasthan and on the night of 23.11.2011, the ransom callers tried to collect the ransom amount at Mahua between 02:10 am to 05:00 am and after 2-3 hours, they checked into Chaudhary Hotel, Bandikui which shows that the accused persons State Vs. Anadil Hasan & Ors.
FIR No. 139/2011, PS I. P. Estate Page No. 89 of 102 namely Anadil Hasan, Mehboob Alam and Raju Lal Jaat were present at Mahua as well as Bandikui at the relevant time. This fact has also been proved by the prosecution through the Tower Location of mobile phone no. 9818971707 of deceased Rohit Ahlawat and mobile no. 9560497168 recovered from possession of accused Anadil Hasan. He also deposed that the said persons came into Indigo car. PW-34 IO/SI Rajesh Shah deposed that on the basis of location of the mobile phone being used by the caller who was demanding ransom, he along with his team and Sh. Rajender Chaudhary, owner of the hotel reached Chaudhary Hotel and went to room no. 33 where accused persons namely Anadil Hasan, Mehboob Alam and Raju Lal Jaat were found. PW-20 Sh. Rajender Chaudhary has also deposed on the same lines and he has further deposed that on opening the door, all the three persons had become perplexed. PW-34 IO/SI Rajesh Shah deposed that taxi bearing registration no. RJ 14TB 1116 was also found parked at the hotel which was seized by the IO. Thus, from these circumstances it is clear that accused Anadil Hasan was making call with the mobile phone no. 9818971707 of deceased Rohit Ahlawat and other mobile phone number 9560497168 which was recovered from his possession and all the three accused persons were residing in one room at Delhi as well as at Bandikui and they were travelling together. During the period of State Vs. Anadil Hasan & Ors.
FIR No. 139/2011, PS I. P. Estate Page No. 90 of 102 four days about 50 ransom calls were made to complainant PW-1 Sh. R. R. Ahlawat by using the abovesaid mobile phone numbers and one mobile SIM was recovered from possession of accused Anadil Hasan while mobile handset of deceased Rohit Ahlawat was recovered at the instance of accused Mehboob Alam. In these circumstances it is not possible that accused Raju Lal Jaat was not having knowledge of the making of ransom calls by accused Anadil Hasan. Thus, it is clear that accused Raju Lal Jaat, Anadil Hasan and Mehboob Alam had entered into criminal conspiracy of kidnapping of deceased Rohit Ahlawat for ransom.
(d) PW-24 Sh. Kamal Kishore Aggarwal deposed that the Taxi was booked on 18.11.2011 for 3-4 days and when the driver (accused Raju Lal Jaat) did not return after four days, they made call to him and he told them that the guest had extended the tour for two days and thereafter they made call to customer Sonu (accused Anadil Hasan) who confirmed the same. The six days of the booking expired on 23.11.2011 but accused Raju Lal Jaat did not return to the office of his company at Jaipur. PW-24 Sh. Kamal Kishore deposed that whenever any driver fails to come back in time, their office contact the said driver on his mobile phone. He further deposed that when Raju Lal Jaat did not report on 24.11.2011, they send a person to his house and his family members told them that he had already reached State Vs. Anadil Hasan & Ors.
FIR No. 139/2011, PS I. P. Estate Page No. 91 of 102 Bandikui and would reach Jaipur by 25.11.2011 and on that day they had also gone to PS for lodging report against accused Raju Lal Jaat but the police did not lodge the report and police lodged the report on next date i.e. 26.11.2011. It is pertinent to mention that accused Raju Lal Jaat was having mobile phone which was recovered from his personal search and he was also contacted by his company and in the morning of 25.11.2011, he was found in company of accused persons namely Anadil Hasan and Mehboob Alam at Chaudhary Hotel, Bandikui. From the abovesaid circumstances it is clear that accused Raju Lal Jaat has shared common intention with accused persons namely Anadil Hasan and Mehboob Alam and he was involved in the criminal conspiracy of kidnapping of deceased Rohit Ahlawat for ransom and in pursuance of that conspiracy deceased Rohit Ahlawat was kidnapped/abducted for ransom. As per the charge- sheet filed by the IO, accused Raju Lal Jaat was involved in conspiracy of kidnapping only and he was not involved in the murder of deceased Rohit Ahlawat. PW-36/IO Inspector R. R. Khatana has specifically deposed that nothing was recovered from possession of accused Raju Lal Jaat. Thus, accused Raju Lal Jaat was not involved in the criminal conspiracy entered into by accused Anadil Hasan and Mehboob Alam for committing the murder of deceased Rohit Ahlawat and State Vs. Anadil Hasan & Ors.
FIR No. 139/2011, PS I. P. Estate Page No. 92 of 102 robbery upon deceased Rohit Ahlawat and the conspiracy for causing the disappearance of evidence.
62. The basic purpose of recording of statement of accused under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C is to put in the incriminating evidence brought on record against him by the prosecution and to accord him an opportunity to explain the circumstances appearing against him.
63. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Judgment titled as Neel Kumar Vs. State of Haryana cited as (2012) 5 SCC 766 has held that:-
it was the duty of the accused to explain incriminating circumstances proved against him while making statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. Keeping silent and not furnishing any explanation for such circumstance was an additional link in chain of circumstances to sustain charges against you.
64. Similary Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Judgment titled as Phula Singh Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh AIR 2014 SC 1256 has held that:-
if the accused remains silent or in complete denial, the Court can take adverse intense against you.
State Vs. Anadil Hasan & Ors.
FIR No. 139/2011, PS I. P. Estate Page No. 93 of 102
65. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in judgment titled as Sidhartha Vashisht Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) cited as (2010) 6 SCC 1 while convicting the accused and taking adverse inference against him with respect to the false answers given by him u/s 313 Cr.P.C observed as under:-
"130. This Court has time and again held that where an accused furnishes false answers as regards proved facts, the Court ought to draw an adverse inference qua him and such an inference shall become an additional circumstance to prove the guilt of the accused in the present case, the appellant Manu Sharma has inter alia has taken false pleas in reply to question no. 50, 54, 55, 56,57,64, 65,67,72,75 and 201 put to him under Section 313 of the Code."
66. In the present case, the statements of accused persons under Sec. 313 Cr.PC were recorded and in reply to the most of the questions put to them they have stated either 'I do not know' or 'it is incorrect'. In answers, they have also stated that the prosecution witnesses were planted witnesses and they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. All the accused persons have not taken any specific defences either in the cross examination of prosecution witnesses or in their statements recorded under Sec. 313 Cr.PC. The answers given by the accused persons are evasive in nature and accused persons have not explained as to why, they have been falsely implicated in the present case or as to why the prosecution witnesses have deposed against them or as to how accused Anadil Hasan was in State Vs. Anadil Hasan & Ors.
FIR No. 139/2011, PS I. P. Estate Page No. 94 of 102 possession of particular mobile phone number by which ransom calls were made and how accused Anadil Hasan and Mehboob Alam knew the spot where dead body of deceased Rohit Ahlawat was thrown/hidden and how accused Mehboob Alam knew the spot from where the mobile phone of deceased Rohit Ahlawat was recovered. Accused Raju Lal Jaat also failed to explain as to why he did not return to Jaipur despite the period of tour decided by his company and how he was staying in the rooms of accused persons namely Anadil Hasan and Mehboob Alam at Delhi as well as Bandikui despite the fact that he was their taxi driver only and during his stay with accused Anadil Hasan and Mehboob Alam, accused Anadil Hasan was continously making ransom calls to PW-1 complainant Sh. R. R. Ahlawat. In these circumstances, applying the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in 'Neel Kumar (supra), Phula Singh (Supra and Sidharth Vashisth (supra)'. This court is of considred opinion that accused persons have not furnished any explanation for these circumstance hence these circumstances are additional link in the chain of circumstances evidence against them.
67. Through the CDRs and the location chart of the mobile phones allegedly used by accused persons namely Mohd. Javed, Firoz Alam and Mukesh, a suspicion has been created against these accused persons. However, some of the SIM cards were not in name of these accused persons and their real subscribers have also not been examined as PW. Moreover, the recovery of purse of deceased Rohit Ahlawat at instance of accused Firoz Alam and recovery of desi Katta at instance of accused Mukesh has also State Vs. Anadil Hasan & Ors.
FIR No. 139/2011, PS I. P. Estate Page No. 95 of 102 become doubtful. These three accused persons did not stay with accused persons namely Anadil Hasan, Mehboob Alam and Raju Lal Jaat either at Seema Lodge, Chawari Bazar, Delhi or at Chaudhary Hotel, Bandikui. No ransom call was made from the mobile phone numbers allegedly used by accused persons namely Mohd. Javed, Firoz Alam and Mukesh. In these circumstances, the prosecution has been successful in creating suspicion against these accused persons but same cannot take the place of proof.
68. It is established principle of law that if two views are possible, the view favourable to the accused must be accepted. The benefit of doubt must always go to the accused as the prosecution has to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.
69. The Hon'ble Apex court in Rang Bahadur Singh Vs. State of U.P. reported in AIR 2000 SC 1209 has held as follows:
"The timetested rule in that acquittal of a guilty person should be preferred to conviction of an innocent person. Unless the prosecution establishes the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt a conviction cannot be passed on the accused. A criminal court cannot afford to deprive liberty of the appellants, lifelong liberty, without having at least a reasonable level of certainty that the appellants were the real culprits."
State Vs. Anadil Hasan & Ors.
FIR No. 139/2011, PS I. P. Estate Page No. 96 of 102
70. In yet another decision in State of U.P. Vs. Ram Veer Singh and Another reported in 2007(6) Supreme 164 the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as follows:
"The golden thread which runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two view are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. The paramount consideration of the Court is to ensure that miscarriage of justice is prevented. A miscarriage of justice which may arise from acquittal of the guilty is no less than from the conviction of an innocent. In a case where admissible evidence is ignored, a duty is cast upon the appellate Court to reappreciate the evidence where the accused has been acquitted, for the purpose of ascertaining as to whether any of the accused really committed any offence or not."
71. In the present case, due to not making of any ransom call from the mobile phones allegedly used by accused persons namely Mohd. Javed, Firoz Alam and Mukesh, non-examination the real subscribers of mobile phone used by them despite their availability, non-recovery of dead body at their instance, no record of their staying with accused persons namely Anadil State Vs. Anadil Hasan & Ors.
FIR No. 139/2011, PS I. P. Estate Page No. 97 of 102 Hasan, Mehboob Alam and Raju Lal Jaat at Seema Lodge, Chawari Bazar, Delhi and Chaudhary Hotel, Bandikui and doubtful recovery of desi Katta/countrymade pistol and purse of deceased Rohit Ahlawat, doubts have been created on the prosecution story and two views are possible with respect to the role of accused persons namely Mohd. Javed, Firoz Alam and Mukesh in this case and hence apply the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in 'Rang Bahadur Singh (Supra)' and 'Ram Veer Singh (Supra)' the benefit of doubt must go to them.
72. On appreciation of entire evidence led by the prosecution and applying the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Sharad Birdichand Sharda (Supra), this court has reached on the following conclusions:-
1. This court is of the considered opinion that the evidence led by the prosecution against accused persons namely Mohd. Javed, Firoz Alam and Mukesh is not clear, cogent, credible and trustworthy. The commission of offences by abovesaid accused persons have not been fully established and the circumstances brought on record by the prosecution against them are not conclusive in nature and tendency. The facts established by the prosecution against the abovesaid accused persons have not excluded every possible hypotheses except the one which has been brought by the prosecution and the chain of evidence led by the prosecution against accused persons namely Mohd. Javed, Firoz State Vs. Anadil Hasan & Ors.
FIR No. 139/2011, PS I. P. Estate Page No. 98 of 102 Alam and Mukesh is not complete and the ingredients of offences under which charges have been framed against them have not been proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubts.
2. From the facts and circumstances of the case, the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused persons namely Anadil Hasan, Mehboob Alam and Raju Lal Jaat entered into criminal conspiracy to kidnap/abduct deceased Rohit Ahlawat for ransom and in pursuance of said criminal conspiracy deceased Rohit Ahlawat was abducted by them. Prosecution has also proved that accused persons namely Anadil Hasan and Mehboob Alam conspired together and committed robbery of phone of deceased Rohit Ahlawat, murder of deceased Rohit Ahlawat and caused disappearance of evidence in order to screen themselves from legal punishment and their guilt has been fully established.
3. From the evidence on record, prosecution has successfully established the facts constituting the alleged offences discussed above and the established facts indicating towards the guilt of accused persons namely Anadil Hasan, Mehboob Alam and Raju Lal Jaat are consistant.
4. The circumstances proved by the prosecution are conclusive in nature and tendency.
State Vs. Anadil Hasan & Ors.
FIR No. 139/2011, PS I. P. Estate Page No. 99 of 102
5. The facts established by the prosecution have excluded every possible hypotheses except the one which has been proved by the prosecution against accused persons namely Anadil Hasan, Mehboob Alam and Raju Lal Jaat.
6. The chain of evidence led by the prosecution is so complete that it does not leave any ground for conclusion consistent with the innocene of accused persons namely Anadil Hasan, Mehboob Alam and Raju Lal Jaat and it has been proved by the prosecution that in all probability, accused persons namely Anadil Hasan, Mehboob Alam and Raju Lal Jaat entered into criminal conspiracy to kidnap/abduct deceased Rohit Ahlawat for ransom and in pursuance of said conspiracy deceased Rohit Ahlawat was kidnapped and in pursuance of criminal conspiracy entered into by accused Anadil Hasan and Mehboob Alam, deceased Rohit Ahlawat robbed by causing hurt on his person and thereafter he was killed by accused persons namely Anadil Hasan and Mehboob Alam and they also threw the dead body of deceased Rohit Ahlawat in sugarcane fields of Village Asgaripur in order to cause disappearance of evidence in order to screen themselves from punishment.
73. In the light of aforesaid discussion, this court is of the State Vs. Anadil Hasan & Ors.
FIR No. 139/2011, PS I. P. Estate Page No. 100 of 102 considered opinion that prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against accused persons namely Anadil Hasan, Mehboob Alam and Raju Lal Jaat under Sec. 120B IPC and Sec. 364A IPC read with 120B IPC. Prosecution has also proved its case beyond reasonable doubts against accused persons namely Anadil Hasan and Mehboob Alam for offences punishable under Sec. 302 IPC read with 120B IPC, Sec. 394 IPC read with 120B IPC & Sec. 201 IPC read with Sec. 120B IPC. However, prosecution has failed to prove its case against accused persons namely Mohd. Javed, Firoz Alam and Mukesh for the offences punishable under Sec. 120B IPC, 364A IPC read with Sec. 120B IPC, Sec. 302 IPC read with 120B IPC, Sec. 394 IPC read with 120B IPC & Sec. 201 IPC read with Sec. 120B IPC. Prosecution has also failed to prove its case against accused Mukesh for the offence punishable under Sec. 25 of The Arms Act, 1959.
74. Accordingly, accused persons namely accused persons namely Anadil Hasan, Mehboob Alam and Raju Lal Jaat are hereby convicted for the offences punishable under Sec. 120B IPC and Sec. 364A IPC read with 120B IPC. Accused persons namely Anadil Hasan and Mehboob Alam are also hereby convicted for offences punishable under Sec. 302 IPC read with 120B IPC, Sec. 394 IPC read with 120B IPC & Sec. 201 IPC read with Sec. 120B IPC.
75. Accused persons namely Mohd. Javed, Firoz Alam and Mukesh are hereby acquitted for the offences punishable under Sec. 120B IPC, 364A IPC read with Sec. 120B IPC, Sec. 302 IPC read with 120B IPC, Sec. 394 IPC read with State Vs. Anadil Hasan & Ors.
FIR No. 139/2011, PS I. P. Estate Page No. 101 of 102 120B IPC & Sec. 201 IPC read with Sec. 120B IPC. Accused Mukesh is also hereby acquitted for the offence punishable under Sec. 25 of The Arms Act, 1959.
VIRENDER Digitally signed by
Announced in the open court KUMAR
VIRENDER KUMAR
KHARTA
on 30th day of March, 2024 KHARTA
Date: 2024.03.30
15:08:20 +0530
(Virender Kumar Kharta)
Additional Sessions Judge-(FTC)-02
Central District, Tis Hazari Courts
State Vs. Anadil Hasan & Ors.
FIR No. 139/2011, PS I. P. Estate Page No. 102 of 102