Delhi District Court
State vs . 1) Anurag Mehra @ Annu on 29 January, 2020
IN THE COURT OF AJAY GOEL, ADDITIONAL SESSION
JUDGE/SPECIAL JUDGE (NDPS),
DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI.
Sessions Case No. 440776/16
State Vs. 1) Anurag Mehra @ Annu
S/o Sh. Anil Mehra
R/o H. No. 136/8/1 Gali No. 22, Sant
Nagar, Burari, Delhi
2) Charu Dass
W/o Late Sh. Aman Dass
R/O H. No. WZ112 B 1st Floor, Manas
Kung, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi.
FIR No. : 107/15
Police Station : Najafgarh
Under : 302/201/120B/34 IPC
Sections
Date of Institution of case : 14.05.2015
Date of Assignment to this court : 03.07.2017
at the stage of prosecution evidence
Date of Arguments : 24.01.2020
Date of Decision : 29.01.2020
JUDGMENT:
1. The case of the prosecution is that in the year 2015 SC No.440776/16 State Vs. Anurag Mehra @ Annu and Anr. Page 1 /101 accused Charu Dass was residing with her husband Sh. Aman Dass at house No. T5, Hari Vihar, Kakrola, New Delhi on rent which belonged to Sh. Ajender Singh (Landlord). Accused Charu Dass was having illicit relations with accused Anurag Mehra and they used to visit Mathura together. Sh. Deepak and Ms. Priyanka Dass persuaded accused Charu Dass not to indulge in extra marital affairs with accused Anurag Mehra but accused Charu Dass threatened Aman Dass to get him killed.
2. On 12.02.2015 an information was received at Police Control Room regarding lying of a dead body in Ganda Nala, Najafgarh and the same was passed to PS Najafgarh. On receipt of DD No. 17A ASI Krishan Chander along with HC Manjeet Singh reached the spot at Ganda Nala near Majar opposite ground and Nursary, Nangli Dairy, Najafgarh, New Delhi at at about 12 noon and a dead body of a male was found lying in the Ganda Nala which was later on identified as that of deceased Aman Dass. SC No.440776/16 State Vs. Anurag Mehra @ Annu and Anr. Page 2 /101 Inspector Anil Kumar had also reached at the spot and the Crime Team was called at the spot.
3. On 12.02.2015 SI Rakesh had inspected the spot at Ganda Nala and HC Ashok Kumar had taken 17 photographs. Dead body of deceased was shifted to RTRM Hospital where it was inspected by Dr. S.Dass. ASI Krishan Chander prepared rukka and sent Ct. Amar Pal to PS with Rukka. Ct. Amar Pal presented the rukka before HC Renu, who recorded FIR No. 107/15 at about 3.45 pm and made her endorsement on the rukka. After FIR the investigation was assigned to Inspector Anil Kumar who prepared site plan at the instance of ASI Krishan Chander.
4. On 13.02.2015 Inspector Anil Kumar made efforts to establish the identity of the deceased by checking the missing register of neighbouring police stations and sent wireless message circulating the photo of the deceased and intimation to Prashar Bharti Doordarshan Kendra.
SC No.440776/16 State Vs. Anurag Mehra @ Annu and Anr. Page 3 /101
5. On 15.02.2015 Sh. Deepak and Ms. Priyanka Dass identified the dead body of the deceased in RTRM Hospital and informed Inspector Anil Kumar that they had lodged the missing report at PS Dwarka North on 13.02.2015. On the same day accused Anurag Mehra was arrested by Inspector Anil Kumar and mobile phone make Videocon was recovered from his possession. Accused Anurag Mehra was interrogated and his disclosure statement was recorded and in pursuance of the same Santro Car No. DL8CF5776 from the parking of his residential society at Sant Nagar,Burari, Delhi was recovered. On inspection of the Santro Car two keys and a blood stained jacket were recovered and Inspector Anil Kumar sealed the jacket. During investigation it revealed that accused Anurag Mehra and Charu Dass had committed the murder of deceased Aman Dass on the intervening night of 5/6.02.2015 at house No. T5, Hari Vihar Kakrola, New Delhi after putting red chilly powder in his eyes and by hitting his SC No.440776/16 State Vs. Anurag Mehra @ Annu and Anr. Page 4 /101 head with base ball bat, iron pipe and wooden musli and also strangulated his neck and after committing murder accused Anurag Mehra and Charu Dass had carried the dead body of deceased in Santro Car No. DL8CF5776 and had thrown the same in Ganda Nala near Majar, Nangli Dairy, Najafgarh, New Delhi. Accused Anurag Mehra pointed out the place of occurrence at T5, Hari Vihar Kakrola, New Delhi and also got recovered two blood stained pieces of wooden bat of base ball from the bed room of deceased Aman Dass at the aforesaid house. Accused Anurag Mehra also got recovered chilly powder from the bed room kept in a plastic dibbi. Crime Team was also called at the spot and SI Khajan Singh inspected the spot and Santro Car.
6. On 16.02.2015 the place of occurrence at House No. T5, Hari Vihar, Kakrola, New Delhi was inspected by Sh. Indresh Kumar Mishra and during inspection he handed over one blood stained piece of Gadda and one blood stained piece of SC No.440776/16 State Vs. Anurag Mehra @ Annu and Anr. Page 5 /101 pillow and handed over the same to Inspector Anil Kumar. On the same day Sh. Indresh Kumar Mishra inspected Santro car No. DL8CF5776 and taken a blood stained piece of back seat and handed over the same to Inspector Anil Kumar.
7. On 17.02.2015 accused Charu Dass was arrested from Gali No. 5, Arjun Park, Nagal Dairy, New Delhi by Inspector Anil Kumar and her personal search was conducted. Accused Charu Dass was interrogated and her disclosure statement was recorded by Inspector Anil Kumar. Thereafter, accused Charu Dass got recovered a mobile phone make Samsung from 2 nd Floor House No. RZ5A, Arjun Park, New Delhi. Thereafter, accused Charu Dass got recovered two other mobile phones, one make Micromax and other make motorola from a bag from the same house. Accused Charu Dass pointed out the place of occurrence at house no. T5, Hari Vihar, Kakrola, New Delhi. On the same day accused Charu Dass got recovered a musli and iron pipe from SC No.440776/16 State Vs. Anurag Mehra @ Annu and Anr. Page 6 /101 house no. T5, Hari Vihar, Kakrola, New Delhi. Thereafter, accused Charu Dass pointed out the place at Najafgarh Drain near Majar.
8. On 18.02.2015 Inspector Anil Kumar filled Form 25/35 and recorded statements of Sh. Tapan Krishna Dass and Ms. Priyanka Dass regarding identification of the dead body. Upon completion of investigation accused Anurag Mehra and Charu Dass they were chargesheeted for the offences u/s 302/201/120B/34 IPC. After compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C. the case was committed to the court of Sessions. Charge against the accused:
9. Following charge was framed against accused Anurag Mehra and Charu Dass on 18.12.2015:
"That on 04.02.2015 you both entered into a criminal conspiracy to commit murder of Aman Das, husband of you accused Charu Das, and there by you both committed an SC No.440776/16 State Vs. Anurag Mehra @ Annu and Anr. Page 7 /101 offence punsihable U/s 120B IPC and within the cognizance of this court.
"Secondly, in the intervening night of 05/06.02.2015 at about 12.30 am at House No. T5, Hari Vihar, Kakrola, New Delhi, you both in pursuance of the aforesaid criminal consipiracy committed murder of Aman Das, S/o Sh. Tapan Krishan Das, aged about 25 years, by putting red chilli powder in the eyes of deceased, hitting his head with a baseball bat, iron pipe and wooden musli and strangulating his neck and thereby you both committed an offence punishable U/s 302 IPC read with section 120B IPC and within the cognizance of this court.
"Thirdly, in the intervening night of 05/06.02.2015, after committing murder of Aman Das, you both, in furtherance of your common intention, wrapped the dead body of Aman Das in a bedsheet, carried the same on the back seat of SC No.440776/16 State Vs. Anurag Mehra @ Annu and Anr. Page 8 /101 Santro Car No. DL8CF5776 and threw it into Ganda Nala, Near Mazar, Opposite Open Ground, Nangli Dairy, Najafgarh, Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS Najafgarh, with the intention to cause disappearance of evidence of murder in order to screen yourself from legal punishment and thereby you both committed an offence punishable U/s 201 IPC r/w section 34 IPC and within the cognizance of this court".
The accused persons pleaded not guilty to the aforesaid charges and duirng course of trial Prosecution has examined 30 witnesses.
10. Before proceeding further I would like to discuss the evidence led by the prosecution to prove its case. Witnesses examined:
PW1 HC Renu. She deposed that on 12.02.2015, she recorded FIR No. 107/15 at about 3.45 pm on the basis of rukke brought by SC No.440776/16 State Vs. Anurag Mehra @ Annu and Anr. Page 9 /101 Ct. Amarpal which was sent by ASI Krishan Chand. She further deposed that after recording the FIR, she made endorsement on the rukka and handed over the copy of FIR and rukka to Ct. Amarpal. She further deposed that copies of FIR were sent to the senior officers of police and area M.M through Special Messenger Ct. Ajay immediately after recording the FIR. She proved the FIR as Ex.PW1/A, her endorsement as Ex.PW1/B and certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act as Ex.PW1/C. PW2 ASI Krishan Chander. He deposed that on 12.02.2015 on receipt of DD No. 17 A, he along with HC Manjeet Singh reached the spot at ganda nala, Najafgarh at 12 noon. He further deposed that some public persons were found gathered at the spot and he noticed a dead body of a male lying in the ganda nala. He further deposed that Beat Staff of the area had also reached the spot. He further deposed that he called the Crime Team at the spot which reached there and dead body of the deceased was taken out from SC No.440776/16 State Vs. Anurag Mehra @ Annu and Anr. Page 10 /101 the Ganda nala with the help of Beat staff and public persons. He further deposed that the dead body was shown to the public persons for identification but the identity of the dead body could not be established. He further deposed that on inspection of the dead body, he noticed that there were three injury marks on the head. He further deposed that Crime Team conducted inspection of the spot and also took photographs. He further deposed that Inspector Anil Kumar had also reached the spot with other staff. He further deposed that dead body of deceased was sent to RTRM Hospital through HC Manjeet Singh. (He further deposed that dead body of deceased was sent to RTRM Hospital through HC Manjeet Singh). He further deposed that he made his endorsement on DD No. 17A and prepared rukka Ex.PW2/A and mentioned his observations regarding the condition of the dead body in the rukka. He further deposed that he handed over the rukka to Constable Amarpal and sent him to PS Najafgarh for SC No.440776/16 State Vs. Anurag Mehra @ Annu and Anr. Page 11 /101 registration of FIR. He further deposed that after registration of the FIR, the investigation was handed over to Inspector Anil Kumar. PW3 Dr. S.Das. He deposed that on 12.02.2015 at 3.38 pm unknown body of a male, aged about 27 years was brought to the casualty by the police. He further deposed that he inspected the body and it was found decomposed and body was declared dead clinically and was sent mortuary for postmortem. He further deposed that he prepared a detailed MLC vide Ex.PW3/A. PW4 Sh. Puneet Sharma. He deposed that accused Anurag Mehra is known to him since 2013 and in the month of March or April 2014 he had gone to Mathura with accused Anurag Mehra and Charu Dass and they had stayed in a hotel. This witness did not support the case of the prosecution and he was cross examined by the Ld. Addl.PP and despite that he denied the suggestion that the name of the hotel was Krishan Guest House. He further denied the suggestion that both the accused had stayed SC No.440776/16 State Vs. Anurag Mehra @ Annu and Anr. Page 12 /101 in one room in the said hotel.
PW5 SI Khazan Singh. He deposed that on 15.02.2015 he was posted as Incharge Crime Team and on receipt of an information he along with photographer and other members of the team had reached at PS Dwarka North and there he met with the IO of the present case who revealed him regarding the Santro Car involved in the present case. He further deposed that photographer of the Crime Team had taken the photographs of the car and later on they had reached at T5, Hari Vihar, Kakrola where the inspection of the spot was done. The photographer had also taken the photographs of the spot. He further deposed that after Inspection, a detailed inspection report was prepared vide Ex.PW5/A. He further deposed that during investigation, IO had also seized chilly powder box and baseball and he had also noticed there blood stained mattress.
PW6 Sh. Deepak. He deposed that deceased Aman Dass was SC No.440776/16 State Vs. Anurag Mehra @ Annu and Anr. Page 13 /101 his nephew (Bhanja) i.e. son of his real sister namely Smt. Aarti. He further deposed that Aman Dass was married with accused Charu and he was residing in Delhi with his wife Charu in a rented accommodation. He further deposed that Ms. Priyanka, sister of deceased Aman Das is his niece (bhanji) and she is residing with him and she works in private company in Noida. He further deposed that on 12.02.2015, he came to know that Aman Das and his wife Charu were missing from their house and they made search for them at their level and on 13.02.2015, he along with Priyanka Dass and Sh. Jaiyant father of accused Charu Dass had gone to a police station at Dwarka and lodged a missing report. He furher deposed that on the same day they were informed by the police that dead body of Aman Dass was recovered. He further deposed that he along with Priyanka had gone to a Government Hospital and found there dead body of deceased Aman Dass and they identified the dead body of Aman Dass SC No.440776/16 State Vs. Anurag Mehra @ Annu and Anr. Page 14 /101 before police. He further deposed that accused Charu Dass was having relations with accused Anurag Mehra and due to this quarrels used to take place between accused Charu Dass and deceased Aman Dass. He further deposed that accused Charu Dass had threatened Aman Dass to get him killed. He further deposed that he had also persuaded accused Charu Dass not to indulge in extra marital affairs with accused Anurag Mehra but she did not pay any heed. He further deposed that police had met him in connection with this case and made enquiries from him. This witness was cross examined by the Ld. Addl.PP after permission of the court and he admitted the fact that on 15.02.2015, he came to know from the police that one unknown dead body was recovered. He further admitted the fact that they did not come to know about dead body on 13.02.2015. He further admitted the fact that on receipt of this information he along with Priyanka Dass had gone to RTRM Hospital, Jaffarpur, New Delhi. SC No.440776/16 State Vs. Anurag Mehra @ Annu and Anr. Page 15 /101
He further admitted the fact that on enquiries they came to know that accused Charu was lastly seen with accused Anurag Mehra after missing of Aman Das and Charu. He further admitted the fact that he had expressed suspicion before the police that Aman Dass was murdered by accused Anurag Mehra and Charu Dass. He further admitted the fact that the marriage of deceased Aman Dass with Accused Charu Dass was a love marriage and they had married about 3 years earlier from the incident. He further admitted the fact that accused Charu Dass and deceased Aman Das had resided in Assam for about 1 year after their marriage and thereafter, they had come to Delhi. He further admitted that the fact that after coming to Delhi accused Charu Dass had started meeting with accused Anurag Mehra and this was objected by Aman Dass and due to this reason, their had been quarrels between accused Charu and deceased Aman. He further admitted the fact that he along with Priyanka and parents of Aman SC No.440776/16 State Vs. Anurag Mehra @ Annu and Anr. Page 16 /101 Dass had gone to house of Aman Dass and Charu several times and they persuaded Charu Dass not to indulge in illicit relations with accused Anurag Mehra.
PW7 Ms Priyanka Das. She deposed that in the year 2015 she was working in a private company at Noida and was residing with her maternal uncle namely Sh. Deepak. She further deposed that on 12.02.2015, she came to know that his brother Sh. Aman Das was missing. She further deposed that she tried at her level to trace her brother Sh. Aman Das by making inquiries from her relatives and mobile phone of his brother was responding as switch off. She further deposed that on 13.02.2015, she along with her maternal uncle Sh. Deepak and his wife went to PS Dwarka North and a missing report was lodged with police station. She further deposed that on 15.02.2015, Police of PS Dwarka North informed them about recovery of a dead body in the area of PS Najafgarh and they asked them to go to PS Najafgarh. She further SC No.440776/16 State Vs. Anurag Mehra @ Annu and Anr. Page 17 /101 deposed that on this she along with her uncle Sh. Deepak and his wife went to PS Najafgarh and Inspector Anil met them there and he told them about the dead body kept in RTRM Hospital, Jaffarpur. She further deposed that in the mortuary of RTRM Hospital, she identified the dead body of her brother Aman Das and her statement in this regard was recorded by the police vide Ex.PW7/A. She further deposed that prior to the incident, accused Charu Das, wife of her brother Aman Das used to give threat to his brother. She further deposed that her brother had told her that accused Charu Das was having affair with accused Anurag Mehra. She further deposed that when her brother told her about the same, they tried to make accused Charu Das understand and to refrain from the affair. She further deposed that accused Anurag Mehra had also used to give threats to her brother Aman Das. She further deposed that she had seen many times, accused Anurag Mehra and Charu Das together in SC No.440776/16 State Vs. Anurag Mehra @ Annu and Anr. Page 18 /101 Cannaught Place and once in Karol Bagh, Delhi. She furhter deposed that on 15.02.2015, she had gone to the house of acused Anurag Mehra with police at H. No. 136/8/1, 3 rd Floor, Gali No. 22, Sant Nagar, Burari, Delhi near Gopal Dairy, where accused Anurag Mehra was found present. On enquiries, accused Anurag admitted that he knows accused Charu and accused Anurag Mehra voluntarily accepted that he and accused Charu had committed murder of her brother Aman. She further deposed that accused Anurag also stated that he can show the place where the murder was committed and can also show the place where, he had thrown the dead body after murder. She further deposed that accused Anurag had also shown the Santro Car of golden car bearing No. DL8CF5776 by stating that the said car was used for the purpose of throwing the dead body of Aman and the said car was found parked on the ground floor. She further deposed that one mobile phone of dark gray colour of Videocon was also SC No.440776/16 State Vs. Anurag Mehra @ Annu and Anr. Page 19 /101 recovered from accused Anurag. She further deposed that the recovered mobile phone and said Santro car was seized by the IO Insp. Anil Kumar vide seizure memos Ex.PW7/B and Ex.PW7/C. She further deposed that accused Anurag was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW7/D and he was brought to the police station and after some time, a special team had come to the police station. She further deposed that accused Anurag had guided them to the house of her brother Aman at T5, Hari Vihar, Opposite MCD Office, nearby Metro Pillar No. 810, Kakrola, New Delhi and taken them there. She further deposed that local police was also with them at that time and after reaching there, accused Anurag stated that they were planning murder of Aman after their meeting in the marriage of Tanvi (sister of accused Anurag). She further deposed that accused Anurag had also told them that he and accused Charu were constantly in touch on mobile phone also and on 04.02.2015, they had met at Cannught Place at Central Park and SC No.440776/16 State Vs. Anurag Mehra @ Annu and Anr. Page 20 /101 they had finally decided for the murder. She further deposed that accused Anurag also disclosed that on the day of incident, he had come to the house of my brother and accused Charu had facilitated his entry in the house. She further deposed that accused Anurag further told that accused Charu had awaken her brother and put chili powder in his eyes. She further deposed that accused Charu had hit with a bread roller and accused Anurag had hit with a base ball danda and thereafter, accused Anurag had strangulated her brother manually as well as with the help of mobile charger wire. She further deposed that accused Anurag Mehra further disclosed that he and accused Charu had wrapped the dead body in a bed sheet and thereafter, had thrown the dead body in a drain. She further deposed that accused Anurag had also guided and pointed the place where the dead body was thrown. This witness was cross examined by the Ld. Addl.PP after permission of the court and she admitted the fact that SC No.440776/16 State Vs. Anurag Mehra @ Annu and Anr. Page 21 /101 when the accused Anurag was being interrogated and he told about the incident and the manner in which the murder was committed, his disclosure statement was recorded by the police/IO vide Ex.PW7/E. She further admitted the fact that on 15.02.2015, accused Anurag had produced one wooden baseball bat, which was broken from near the handle in two pieces before the police by stating that it was used while committing murder and the same was seized by the police vide seizure memo Ex.PW7/F. She further admitted the fact that pointing out memos Ex.PW7/G and Ex.PW7/H were prepared by the police of the place where the murder was committed and the dead body was thrown and these were prepared at the instance of the accused. She further admitted the fact that accused Anurag Mehar had produced a plastic container containing chilli powder before the police after taking out the same from H. No. T5, Hari Vihar, Kakrola, New Delhi (house of her brother) and the same was seized by the SC No.440776/16 State Vs. Anurag Mehra @ Annu and Anr. Page 22 /101 police vide seizure memo Ex.PW7/H1. She further deposed that her statements were recorded by the police. She identified the case property i.e. Santro car as Ex.P1, broken baseball as Ex.P2, chili powder as Ex.P3 and Mobile phone make Videocon as Ex.P4. PW8 Sh. Surender. He deposed that in the year 2015 he was called by the SHO Najafgarh to hospital Jafarpur Kalan. He further deposed that he had taken photographs Ex.PW8/A (colly 10 pages). He further proved the CD of videography as Ex.PW8/B and deposed that the same was done during postmortem of the deceased.
PW9 Dr. Parvindra Singh. He deposed that on 18.02.2015 at about 2 pm he conducted postmortem on the dead body of deceased Aman Dass. He further deposed that the cause of death in this case was due to Cranio cerebral damage (head injury) consequent to the injuries prescribed in the postmortem report. She further deposed that all the injuries were antemortem and SC No.440776/16 State Vs. Anurag Mehra @ Annu and Anr. Page 23 /101 were caused by hard blunt force impact and were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. He further deposed that time since death was approximately 1213 days at the time of postmortem examination. He proved postmortem report as Ex.PW9/A. PW10 HC Ashok Kumar. He deposed that on 12.02.2015 he was posted as HC in Mobile Crime Team SW District. He further deposed that on that day he along with SI Rakesh Kumar went to Ganda Nala near Majar, Najafgarh where they found one dead body in the nala. He further deposed that he took 17 photographs at the spot. He further deposed that after developing the prints, the photogaphs were given to the IO. He proved the photographs as Ex.PW10/A to Ex.PW10/A17 and negatives as Ex.PW10B1 to Ex.PW10/B17.
PW11 SI Rakesh. He deposed that on 12.02.2015, he was posted as incharge mobile crime team SW District and on that day SC No.440776/16 State Vs. Anurag Mehra @ Annu and Anr. Page 24 /101 on requisition of local police, he along with other members of the Crime Team, photographer HC Ashok Kumar reached at the spot at Drain (ganda nala) near Jai Vihar Road, Najafgarh near Majar, New Delhi at about 12:00 noon. He further deposed that dead body of a male was found lying in the water in drain. He further deposed that he inspected the scene of spot and HC Ashok Kumar had taken the photographs of the spot from different angles. He further deposed that he prepared detailed report of inspection which was conducted from 12 noon to 1.30 pm. He proved the inspection report as Ex.PW11/A. PW12 Sh. Hardeep Singh, Draftsmen. He deposed that on 09.04.2015 he along with IO Inspector Anil Kumar visited the place of occurrence at house no. T5, Hari Vihar, Kakrola, New Delhi. He further deposed that he had taken measurement of the spot on the pointing out of Inspector Anil Kumar and prepared rough notes and on the basis of the same on 10.04.2015 he prepared scaled SC No.440776/16 State Vs. Anurag Mehra @ Annu and Anr. Page 25 /101 site plan Ex.PW12/A. He further deposed that on the same day, he along with IO Inspector Anil Kumar also visited the place where the dead body was dumped at Najafgarh Ganda Nala near DDA Park, Nangli Dairy, New Delhi. He further deposed that he had taken the measurement of the spot on the pointing out of Inspector Anil Kmar and prepared rough notes and on the basis of the same on 10.04.2015, he prepared scaled site plan which is Ex.PW12/B. PW13 Sh. Indresh Kumar Mishra, Asstt. Director, Biology RFSL, Chanakyapuri, New Delhi. He deposed that on 16.02.2015, on the reqeust of the local police, he along with Sh. Anil Singh, SS (Photo), Ms. Ritika Gupta, LA (Bio) and Sh. Surjeet Singh, Lab Attendant visited the place of occurrence at house No. T5, Hari Vihar opposite MCD office, Kakrola, Delhi. He further deposed that the scene of spot was inspected and during inspection, blood stained pieces of gadda from the bed and blood stained pieces of pillow from the bed were lifted and handed over SC No.440776/16 State Vs. Anurag Mehra @ Annu and Anr. Page 26 /101 to IO. He further deposed that on the same day they had also inspected one Santro Car No. DL8CF5776 in the premises of PS Najafgarh. He further deposed that blood stained pieces of back seat of Santro Car were lifted and were handed over to the IO. He further deposed that a detailed report of inspection was prepared vide Ex.PW13/A. PW14 Sh. Prashant Kumar Alternate Nodal Officer, Vodafone Idea Ltd. He deposed that he had seen certified copy of Customer Application form in respect of mobile phone no. 9873738224 in the name of Anil Mehra S/o Sh. Ram Nath Mehra, R/o C78, C Block, Majlis Park, Delhi and certified CDRs of the above said phone from the period 01.04.2014 to 31.03.2015. He further deposed that he had also seen certificate U/S 65 B of Indian Evidence Act with regard to the aforesaid call details record. He proved the the certified copy of customer application form as Ex.PW14/A, the certified copy of CDRs as Ex.PW14/B and SC No.440776/16 State Vs. Anurag Mehra @ Annu and Anr. Page 27 /101 certificate U/S 65 B of Indian Evidence Act as Ex.PW14/C. He further deposed that he has seen certified copy of Customer Application form in respect of mobile phone no. 9654564568 in the name of Anurag Mehra S/o Sh. Anil Mehra, R/o B5, 1 st Floor, Sardar Nagar near C.C.Colony, Delhi09 and certified CDRs of the above said phone from the period 01.05.2014 to 31.03.2015. He further deposed that he has seen certificate U/S 65 B of Indian Evidence Act with regard to the aforesaid call details record. He further proved the certified copy of customer application form as Ex.PW14/D, the certified copy of CDRs as Ex.PW14/E and certificate U/S 65 B of Indian Evidence Act as Ex.PW14/F. He further proved the Cell ID Chart of Vodafone Delhi Cell as Ex.PW14/G. PW15 HC Kapil. He deposed that during investigation of this case, the call details, CAF and certificate under section 65B of Indian Evidence Act in respect of Mob. Ph No. 9654564568 and SC No.440776/16 State Vs. Anurag Mehra @ Annu and Anr. Page 28 /101 9873738224 were seized by the IO in his presence. PW16 Sh. Kishan Singh Verma. He deposed that he is owner of Krishnam Guest House, Mathura, U.P. As per record of their Guest House, Anurag Mehra S/o Sh. Anil Mehra R/o Delhi had come and stayed in their Guest House on two occasions, firstly on 08.03.2014 and secondly on 28.04.2014. He further deposed that during the investigation of this case, he had handed over the copy of relevant entries of Guest Register of the Guest House. He proved the entry dt. 08.03.2014 as Ex.PW16/A and the copy of entry dt. 28.04.2014 as Ex.PW16/B. PW17 Sh. Surender Kumar, Nodal Officer, Bharti Airtel Ltd. He deposed that he has seen the certified copy of Customer Application form in respect of mobile phone no. 9971830569 in the name of Suman Pandhi W/o Sh. Jayant Pandhi, R/o 580, DDA Tenaments, Four Storied Vishakl Enclave, New Delhi and certified CDRs of the above said phone from the period 01.05.2014 to SC No.440776/16 State Vs. Anurag Mehra @ Annu and Anr. Page 29 /101 06.04.2015. He further deposed that he has also seen certificate U/S 65 B of Indian Evidence Act with regard to the aforesaid call details record. He proved the certified copy of customer application form as Ex.PW17/A, the certified copy of CDRs as Ex.PW17/B and certificate U/S 65 B of Indian Evidence Act as Ex.PW17/C. He further deposed that he has seen certified copy of Customer Application form in respect of mobile phone no. 9971986474 in the name of Anil Mehra S/o Sh. Ramnath Mehra, R/o D5, Block B, DTC Colony, Delhi and certified CDRs of the above said phone from the period 01.05.2014 to 31.03.2015. He further deposed that he has seen certificate U/S 65 B of Indian Evidence Act with regard to the aforesaid call details record. He further proved the certified copy of customer application form as Ex.PW17/D, the certified copy of CDRs as Ex.PW17/E and certificate U/S 65 B of Indian Evidence Act as Ex.PW17/F. He further proved the Cell ID Chart of our Airtel Delhi Cell as SC No.440776/16 State Vs. Anurag Mehra @ Annu and Anr. Page 30 /101 Ex.PW17/G. PW18 Ms. Mridula Mehra. She deposed that she is registered owner of Santro Car no. DL 8CF 5776 and accused Anurag is her son. She further deposed that accused Anurag used to drive her car and he was using the said car in the year 2015. She further deposed that she has got the vehicle released the car on superdari. She further deposed that the car was seized by the police in the year 2015. She further deposed that she cannot recollect the date whether on 12.02.2015 the vehicle was with Anurag or not.
PW19 Ms. Kavita Goyal, Asstt. Director, chemistry, FSL, Delhi. She deposed that on 16.04.2015, one sealed wooden box pertaining to this case was received in the FSL. She further deposed that the same was marked to her for examination. She further deposed that the seal on the wooden box was found intact and tallied as per forwarding authority specimen seal. She further SC No.440776/16 State Vs. Anurag Mehra @ Annu and Anr. Page 31 /101 deposed that the wooden box was opened and the contents were examined by her. She further deposed that after examination the remnants of the exhibits were sealed with the seal of KG FSL DELHI. She proved the detailed report of examination as Ex.PW19/A. PW20 Dr. Jagjeet Singh, Sr. Scientific Officer, FSL, Rohini, Delhi. He deposed that on 16.04.2015, three sealed parcels pertaining to this case were received in the FSL and the same were marked to him for examination. He further deposed that the seals on the parcels were found intact and tallied with sample seal impression sent along with the forwarding letter. He further deposed that the parcels were opened and Parcel no. 1 was found containing one mobile phone make Samsung along with SIM Card make Aircel and memory card make Sandisc, Parcel no. 2 was found containing two mobile phones; one make Samsung along with one Airtel SIM Card and second mobile make Motorala with SC No.440776/16 State Vs. Anurag Mehra @ Annu and Anr. Page 32 /101 Airtel SIM and the 3rd parcel was found containing one mobile phone make Videocon with two SIM Cards of Airtel and Vodafon. He further deposed that he examined the above said exhibits and prepared a detailed examination report as Ex.PW20/A. He further deposed that he retrieved the data from exhibits and stored/saved the relevant data in compact disc vide Ex.PW20/B. He proved his certificate U/S 65B of Indian Evidence Act for the authenticity of supplied CD Ex.PW20/B as Ex.PW20/C. PW21 Ms. Imrana, Sr. Scientific Officer, Biology FSL, Rohini, Delhi. She deposed that on 16.04.2015, twelve sealed parcels pertaining to this case were received in the FSL and same were marked to her for examination. She further deposed that the seals on the parcels were found intact and tallied as per forwarding authority specimen seal. She further deposed that the parcels were opened and the contents thereof were examined by her. She further deposed that after examination the remnants of the exhibits SC No.440776/16 State Vs. Anurag Mehra @ Annu and Anr. Page 33 /101 were sealed with the seal of IM FSL DELHI. She proved the detailed report of examination is Ex.PW21/A. PW 22 Ct Sandeep. He deposed that on 15.02.2015 he was posted as Photoghrapher in Mobile Crime Team, South West District, Sector9, Dwarka, New Delhi and on that day on the requisition of local police, he along with SI Khajan Singh, Incharge Mobile Crime Team and ASI Kulbhushan reached PS Dwaraka North at about 2 pm. He further deposed that he had taken seven photographs of a Santro Car No. DL8CF5776 at the premises of Police Station Dwarka North from different angles and thereafter, the Crime Team including him reached at House No. T 5, Hari Vihar, Kakrola, New Delhi along with IO Inspector Anil Kumar of PS Najafgarh at about 3.30 pm. He further deposed that the scene of spot was inspected by SI Khajan Singh. He further deposed that he had taken 13 photographs of the scene of spot in the aforesaid house from different angles. He further deposed SC No.440776/16 State Vs. Anurag Mehra @ Annu and Anr. Page 34 /101 that after developing the prints the photographs were given to the IO. He proved the photographs of the car as Ex.PW22/A1 to Ex.PW22/A7 and the photographs of the spot i.e. house No. T5, Hari Vihar, Kakrola, New Delhi as Ex.PW22/B1 to Ex.PW22/B13. He also proved the negatives of the aforesaid photographs as Ex.PW22/C1 to Ex.PW22/C20.
PW 23 Ct. Shakti. He deposed that on 18.02.2015, he joined the investigation of the present case with IO Inspector Anil Kumar and on that day they reached RTRM Hospital, Jaffarpur, New Delhi, where the dead body of deceased Aman Das was identified by his father and sister. He further deposed that their statements were recorded by the IO and postmortem on the dead body of the deceased Aman Das was got conducted. He further deposed that during postmortem the photographs were taken and videography was done by a private photographer called by the IO. He further deposed that after postmortem the doctor handed over five SC No.440776/16 State Vs. Anurag Mehra @ Annu and Anr. Page 35 /101 exhibits in sealed condition along with two sample seals to IO Inspector Anil Kumar in his presence, who seized the same vide seizure memo as Ex.PW23/A. He further deposed that after returning to the police station the exhibits and sample seals were deposited in the malkhana by the IO.
PW24 ASI Ashok Kumar. He deposed that on 16.04.2015, he was posted at PS Najafgarh as Constable and on that day on the instructions of the IO, he had taken the sealed exhibits pertaining to this case along with forwarding letter to FSL, Rohini after receiving the same from MHCM. He further deposed that he had deposited the exhibits and forwarding letter in the FSL and obtained the receipt of FSL which he brought to the police station and handed over to MHCM.
PW 25 Sh. Ajender Singh. He deposed that he is owner of H. No. T5 Hari Vihar, Sector16, Dwarka New Delhi and in the year 2015, deceased was residing in the said house with his wife as a SC No.440776/16 State Vs. Anurag Mehra @ Annu and Anr. Page 36 /101 tenant. This witness was cross examined by the Ld. Addl.PP after permission of the court and he deposed that he can not say if the name of deceased was Sh. Aman Das. He further deposed that he can not say if the accused Charu is wife of Sh. Aman Das. He further deposed that he came to know from the police that his tenant was murdered.
PW 26 HC Manjeet Singh. He deposed that on 12.02.2015 he was on emergency duty with ASI Krishan Chander and on receipt of DD No. 17A at about 11.30 am, he along with ASI Krishan Chander reached the spot at Nazafgarh, Ganda Nala, near Majar at about 11.45 am where dead body of a male was found lying in the Ganda Nala. He further deposed that in the meantime beat staff also reached there and Crime Team was called at the spot which reached there. He further deposed that with the help of some public persons and beat staff the dead body of the deceased was taken out from the Ganda Nala. He further deposed that the SC No.440776/16 State Vs. Anurag Mehra @ Annu and Anr. Page 37 /101 identity of the deceased could not be established at the spot and he noticed that there were some injuries marks on the head of the deceased. He further deposed that the photographer of the crime team had taken photographs and the scene of spot was inspected by the crime time. He further deposed that Inspector Anil had also reached the spot. He further deposed that he had taken the dead body of the deceased to RTRM Hospital along with an application of preservation of the dead body in Harsh Van. He further deposed that he deposited the dead body in the mortuary at RTRM Hospital. He further deposed that in the hospital the doctor had prepared MLC and he brought the same to the spot and handed over the same to Inspector Anil Kumar.
PW27 W/Ct. Seema Devi. She deposed that on 17.02.2015, she joined the investigation with IO/Inspector Anil Kumar and during investigation she along with him, Ct. Amar Pal and accused Anurag had gone to Arjun Park A Block. She further deposed that SC No.440776/16 State Vs. Anurag Mehra @ Annu and Anr. Page 38 /101 accused Anurag pointed out towards a girl stating that she was Charu Dass. She further deposed that they stopped the said girl who was coming from the front side and inquiries were made from accused Charu Dass. She further deposed that accused Charu Dass told that she had come there to meet some known person namely Ankit. She further deposed that thereafter, at the instance of accused Charu Dass they had reached at House no. 5A, Arjun Park at 2nd Floor. She further deposed that on enquiries whether accused Charu Dass was involved in the murder or not, accused Charu Dass told that she and accused Anurag had committed murder. She further deposed that accused Charu Dass further told that she had not told anything about the case to his known Ankit. She further deposed that accused Charu Dass further disclosed that she can get recovered the Musli and the Pipe which were used in committing the murder. She further deposed that accused Charu Dass was arrested and her personal search was taken by SC No.440776/16 State Vs. Anurag Mehra @ Annu and Anr. Page 39 /101 her vide personal search memo Ex.PW27/A. She further deposed that thereafter, at the instance of the accused Charu Dass they had come to her rented house near MCD Office in Hari Vihar, Delhi. She further deposed that the said house was on the ground floor and accused Charu Dass pointed out towards a wooden Musli and Iron Pipe lying in the house stating that she and accused Anurag had committed murder with the said Musli and Pipe. She further deposed that the wooden Musli and Iron Pipe were taken into police possession by the IO Inspector Anil vide seizure memo Ex.PW27/B and thereafter, they had returned to the police station with the accused persons. She further deposed that accused Charu Dass was taken by her to RTRM Hospital, Jaffarpur for her medical examination and accused Charu Dass was produced on the same day in the court and she was sent to Tihar Jail. This witness was cross examined by the Ld. Addl.PP after permission of the court and she deposed that she SC No.440776/16 State Vs. Anurag Mehra @ Annu and Anr. Page 40 /101 can not say if the accused Anurag Mehra is the person who was in custody on that day. She admitted the fact that she is unable to identify accused Anurag Mehra due to the lapse of time of about more than four years. She further admitted the fact that the Musli and the Iron Pipe were sealed by the IO at the spot at the time of seizure. She further deposed that accused Charu Dass had also pointed out the place of occurrence vide memo Ex.PW27/C. She further deposed that accused Charu Dass had also pointed out the place where the dead body of the deceased was thrown and a memo in this regard was prepared in her presence vide Ex.PW 27/D. She further admitted the fact that accused Charu Dass had also got recovered a mobile phone make Samsung. She further deposed that the said mobile phone was got recovered by her from H. No. RZ5A, Arjun Park, 2 nd Floor. She proved the seizure memo of the mobile phone make Samsun as Ex.PW27/E . She further admitted the fact that on 17.02.2015 accused Charu Dass SC No.440776/16 State Vs. Anurag Mehra @ Annu and Anr. Page 41 /101 had also got recovered two other mobile phones, one make Motorola and Micromax and the same were seized by the IO in her presence vide seizure memo Ex.PW27/F . She proved the wooden Musli as Ex.P5 and Iron Pipe as Ex.P6. She further proved the mobile phone make Samsun as Ex.P7. She further proved the mobile phone make Micromax as Ex.P8 and Mobile phone make Motorola as Ex.P9.
PW 28 HC Sunil Kumar. He deposed that on 15.02.2015 Inspector Anil Kumar had deposited three sealed pullandas sealed with the seal of AKY and one Santro Car No. DL8CF5776 in the Malkhana with him and he made entry in Register No. 19 to this effect vide entry No. 3680 as Ex.PW28/A. He further deposed that on 16.02.2015 Inspector Anil Kumar had deposited five sealed pullandas sealed with the seal of AKY in the Malkhana with him and he made entry in Register No. 19 to this effect vide entry No. 3684 as Ex.PW28/B. He further deposed that on 17.02.2015 SC No.440776/16 State Vs. Anurag Mehra @ Annu and Anr. Page 42 /101 Inspector Anil Kumar had deposited three sealed pullandas sealed with the seal of AKY in the Malkhana with him and he made entry in Register No. 19 to this effect in continuation of entry No. 3684 as Ex.PW28/C. He further deposed that on 18.02.2015 Inspector Anil Kumar had deposited six sealed pullandas sealed with the seal of RTRM Hospital and two samples seal in the Malkhana with him and he made entry in Register No. 19 to this effect vide entry No. 3686 as Ex.PW28/D. He further deposed that till pullandas and sample seal remained in his custody the same were not tampered with.
PW 29 ASI Ashok. He deposed that on 16.04.2015 on the instructions of the IO/Inspector Anil Kumar, he had taken the exhibits in sealed condition pertaining to this case along with forwarding letter to FSL Rohini after receiving the same from the MHCM. He further deposed that he deposited the same in the FSL and obtained the receipt which he brought to the police station SC No.440776/16 State Vs. Anurag Mehra @ Annu and Anr. Page 43 /101 and handed over to MHCM. He further deposed that till the exhibits and forwarding letter remained in his custody the same were not tampered with.
PW 30 Inspector Anil Kumar. He deposed that on 12.02.2015 he was attending Delhi High Court in some matter when he received an information from the Police Station that a PCR call regarding recovery of a dead body in Najafgarh Drain has been received in the police station. He further deposed that on receiving this information, he came back to the area of Police Station and reached at the spot at Majar Nagal Dairy open ground near Najafgarh Drain at about 1.45 pm. He further deposed that there a team from the police station led by ASI Krishan Chand was on the spot and unknown dead body of a male person aged about 22 to 28 years approximately had been taken out from the drain. He further deposed that the body was in a decomposed state and it had multiple injuries on the head. He further deposed that the SC No.440776/16 State Vs. Anurag Mehra @ Annu and Anr. Page 44 /101 District Crime Team which was already at the spot had inspected the crime scene and had also photographed the dead body and the crime scene. He further deposed that efforts were made to identify the dead body by making enquiries from the gathered on lookers but no clue could be obtained, hence the dead body was sent to Rao Tula Ram Hospital for preservation. He further deposed that the first IO ASI Krishan Chand prepared the rukka and sent it to the police station for registration of the case and in the meantime he inspected the crime scene at the instance of ASI Krishan Chand and prepared rough site plan Ex.PW30/A. He further deposed that Ct. Amarpal reached the spot and handed over him the copy of FIR and original rukka, the same was kept with him for further investigation. He further deposed that the statements of witnesses U/s 161 Cr.P.C. were recorded by him. He further deposed that on 13.02.2015, during investigation efforts were made to establish the identity of the deceased by checking SC No.440776/16 State Vs. Anurag Mehra @ Annu and Anr. Page 45 /101 the missing register of neighbouring Police Stations and undertaking the other formalities in this regard. He further deposed that initially the case was registered for the offences U/s 302/201 IPC. He further deposed that on 15.02.2015, he was present in the police station when a lady namely Ms. Priyanka Dass along with his maternal uncle came to the police station and enquired about the deceased. He further deposed that they both were taken to mortuary RTRM Hospital where after seeing the dead body of the deceased of this case they identified it as Aman Dass s/o Sh. Tapan Dass and brother of Ms. Priyanka Dass. During enquiries from Ms. Priyanka Dass and her maternal uncle Deepak revealed that her brother Aman Dass and her sisterinlaw Charu Dass (wife of deceased Aman Dass) were missing from their rented house at T5 Hari Vihar near MCD Office, Kakrola, New Delhi since 12.02.2015 and they had lodged a missing report in this regard at PS Dwarka North on 13.02.2015. He further SC No.440776/16 State Vs. Anurag Mehra @ Annu and Anr. Page 46 /101 deposed that they also disclosed and raised suspicion about the involvement of one Anurag Mehra S/o Sh. Anil Mehra R/o H. No. 136/8/1, Gali No. 22, Sant Nagar, Burari, Delhi along with Charu Dass in committing the murder of Aman Dass. He further deposed that their statements in this regard were recorded U/s 161 Cr.P.C and thereafter, Ms. Priyanka Dass led the police team to the above mentioned house at Sant Nagar, Burari, New Delhi, where accused Anurag Mehra was found and he was identified by Ms. Priyanka Dass. He further deposed that he shared the facts of the case with accused Anurag Mehra and allegations made against him by Priyanka Dass and Deepak and made enquiries from him regarding the same. He further deposed that the accused Anurag Mehra admitted his involvement in the present case and he was arrested by him vide arrest memo Ex.PW7/D and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW30/B. He further deposed that apart from the articles of his personal search, a SC No.440776/16 State Vs. Anurag Mehra @ Annu and Anr. Page 47 /101 mobile phone was also recovered from the pocket of the pant of accused regarding which he stated that he used to talk with accused Charu Dass on this phone. He further deposed that the said phone was seized by him vide seizure memo Ex.PW7/B after sealing the same in a pullanda with the seal of AKY. He further deposed that the said mobile phone was of dark black gray colour of dual SIM and make Videocon. He further deposed that the accused Anurag Mehra was thoroughly interrogated and his disclosure statement was recorded wherein he disclosed that he along with Charu Dass had committed murder of Aman Dass on the intervening night of 05/06 February 2015 at the rented accommodation of Aman Dass and Charu Dass at Hari Vihar and thereafter, they had thrown the dead body of Aman Dass at Najafgarh Drain and he can get recovered his Santro Car, base ball bat and chilly powder and also can get arrested coaccused Charu Dass. He further deposed that disclosure statement of SC No.440776/16 State Vs. Anurag Mehra @ Annu and Anr. Page 48 /101 accused Anurag was recorded by him in the presence of Ms. Priyanka Dass and Ct. Amar Pal vide Ex.PW7/E. He further deposed that in pursuance of his disclosure statement accused Anurag Mehra led the police party including him to parking at ground floor to his residential society and pointed out a Santro Car No. DL8CF5776, the same was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW7/C. He further deposed that on inspection of the aforesaid Santro Car two keys with key ring and one Aircel plastic logo and one blood stained jacket were recovered from the back seat of the car. He further deposed that he sealed the blood stained jacket in a pullanda with seal of AKY and seized the same in the seizure memo Ex.PW7/C of car. He further deposed that thereafter, the accused Anurag Mehra led the police team to house no. T5, Hari Vihar, Kakrola, New Delhi and identified it as the place of occurrence. He further deposed that a pointed out memo at the instance of accused Anurag Mehra was prepared vide Ex.PW7/G. SC No.440776/16 State Vs. Anurag Mehra @ Annu and Anr. Page 49 /101 He further deposed that accused Anurag Mehra got recovered two blood stained pieces of a wooden bat of Base ball from the bed room of Aman Dass of the aforesaid house and same were sealed by him in a pullanda with the seal of AKY and seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW7/F. He further deposed that the detailed description of the recovered pieces of wooden bat were mentioned in the seizure memo Ex.PW7/F. He further deposed that thereafter, accused Anurag Mehra also got recovered some red chilly powder from the bed room which was kept in a plastic dibbi and same was sealed in a pullanda with seal of AKY and taken into police possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW7/H1. He further deposed that simultaneously, District Crime Team was called at the place of crime at Hari Vihar and it inspected the crime scene and also the Santro Car and the crime scene was also preserved for inspection by the FSL Team. He further deposed that thereafter, accused Anurag Mehra led the police team to Najafgarh SC No.440776/16 State Vs. Anurag Mehra @ Annu and Anr. Page 50 /101 Drain and identified and pointed out the place where he along with Charu Dass had dumped the body of deceased Aman Dass and a pointed out memo at his instance was prepared vide Ex.PW7/H. He further deposed that the case property was deposited in the Malkhana. He further deposited that on 16.02.2015, a FSL Team from Rohini visited the crime scene and after inspection of the crime scene, the FSL Team handed over one blood stained piece of Gadda from bed and blood stained piece of pillow from the bed to him and he sealed the same in a pullanda with the seal of AKY and had taken into police possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW 30/C. He further deposed that FSL Team also inspected the Santro Car and taken a blood stained piece of back seat and handed over the same to him and he sealed the same in an envelope with the seal of AKY and seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW30/D. He further deposed that thereafter, one cotton gadda and one pillow from which the FSL Team had taken blood stained SC No.440776/16 State Vs. Anurag Mehra @ Annu and Anr. Page 51 /101 pieces were seized by him vide seizure memo Ex.PW30/E after sealing the same in pullanda with the seal of AKY. He further deposed that the case property was deposited in the Malkhana and accused was produced before the concerned court and his three days police custody remand was obtained. He further deposed that on 17.02.2015, the accused Anurag Mehra was again interrogated thoroughly in police custody. He further deposed that the accused Anurag Mehra disclosed and led the police party to Gali No. 5, Arjun Park, Nagal Dairy, New Delhi where he used to often drop accused Charu Dass. He further deposed that after reaching Gali No. 5 a girl was noticed coming from opposite direction, she was identified by accused Anurag Mehra as Charu Dass. He further deposed that accused Charu Das was apprehended and the facts of the case were shared with accused Charu Dass. He further deposed that accused Charu Dass admitted her involvement in the present case. He further SC No.440776/16 State Vs. Anurag Mehra @ Annu and Anr. Page 52 /101 deposed that accused Charu Dass was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW30/F and her personal search vide memo Ex.PW27/A was conducted by Ct. Seema who was in the police team. He further deposed that accused Charu Dass was interrogated throughly and her disclosure statement vide memo Ex.PW30/G was recorded in which she confessed about her involvement in murder of Aman Dass and she also disclosed that she can get recovered the Musli, iron pipe and mobile phone of Aman Dass. He further deposed that thereafter, accused Charu Dass led the police team to House No. RZ5A, Arjun Park, 2nd Floor, and got recovered a mobile phone belonging to Aman Dass from a bag kept in the room at the above said address. He further deposed that the said mobile phone was of the make Samsung colour black and he seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW27/E. He further deposed that thereafter, accused Charu Dass got recovered her two mobile phones from a bag from the same house and he seized the said mobile phones SC No.440776/16 State Vs. Anurag Mehra @ Annu and Anr. Page 53 /101 vide seizure memo Ex.PW27/F. He further deposed that thereafter, accused Charu Dass led the police team to House No. T5, Hari Vihar, Kakrola, New Delhi and identified it as the place of occurrence and a pointing out memo at her instance was prepared vide Ex.PW27/C. He further deposed that thereafter, accused Charu Dass got recovered a musli and an iron pipe from the room adjoining the bed room of Aman Dass and same were sealed by him in a pullanda with seal of AKY and seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW27/B. He further deposed that the description of musli and iron pipe were mentioned by him in detail in the seizure memo Ex.PW27/B. He further deposed that thereafter, accused Charu Dass led the police team to Najafgarh Drain near Majar and vacant plot and pointed out the place where she along with accused Anurag Mehra had thrown the dead body of the deceased. He further deposed that a pointing out memo at her instance vide Ex.PW27/D was prepared by him. He further deposed that the SC No.440776/16 State Vs. Anurag Mehra @ Annu and Anr. Page 54 /101 penal sections 120 B/34 IPC were also added in the case. He further deposed that the case property was deposited in the Malkhana and witnesses were examined U/s 161 Cr.P.C. He further deposed that on 18.02.2015, the postmortem on the dead body of deceased was got conducted at Rao Tula Ram Hospital after the body was identified and he filled the Form 25/35 Ex.PW 30/H. He further deposed that he recorded statement of Sh. Tapan Krishna Dass and Ms. Priyanka Dass regarding the identification of the dead body vide Ex.PW30/H1 and Ex.PW 30/H2. He further deposed that entire process of postmortem was photographed and videographed and postmortem was conducted on his request vide Ex.PW30/H3. He further deposed that the dead body was handed over to close relative of the deceased. He further deposed that after the postmortem the doctor handed over certain exhibits along with sample seals which were seized by him vide seizure memo Ex.PW23/A. He further deposed that on SC No.440776/16 State Vs. Anurag Mehra @ Annu and Anr. Page 55 /101 25.02.2015 he along with one Puneet S/o Sh. Mahesh R/o 52 Aditya Sadan, Ashoka Road, New Delhi went to Mathura where Puneet led the police team to one Krishnam Guest House/Hotel where accused Anurag Mehra and Charu Dass used to stay during their visit to Mathura. He further deposed that the photocopy of the visitors register Ex.PW16/A and Ex.PW16/B were collected and were made part of record. He further deposed that the owner of the guest house was examined U/s 161 Cr.P.C. He further deposed that during further investigation PM report Ex.PW9/A was collected and placed on record. He further deposed that the spot was visited with draftsman Hardeep Singh who had taken measurements of the spot at his instance and prepared rough notes. He further deposed that he also prepared a site plan of the spot i.e. House No. T5, Hari Vihar, Kakrola vide Ex.PW30/H4. He further deposed that the CDR/CAF of mobile phone numbers 997198647 and 9654564568 of accused Anurag Mehra and SC No.440776/16 State Vs. Anurag Mehra @ Annu and Anr. Page 56 /101 mobile phone numbers 8802847881 and 9873738224 of accused Charu Dass and mobile phone number 9971830568 of deceased Aman Dass were collected from respective mobile operators and placed on record. He further deposed that during analysis it was revealed that the mobile number of deceased Aman Dass was closed at about 8 pm on the date of incident i.e. 05.02.2015. He further deposed that the location of phones of both the accused persons were also found to be at the place of occurrence i.e. House no. T5 Hari Vihar, Kakrola, New Delhi. He further deposed that the CDR analysis also revealed that both the accused persons were in regular touch with each other. He further deposed that during investigation the case property were sent to FSL Rohini for examination and other relevant witnesses were also examined at the relevant time. He further deposed that he also collected the reports and photographs from the Crime Team and also collected the attested copies of the relevant DD entries, PCR Form and MLC SC No.440776/16 State Vs. Anurag Mehra @ Annu and Anr. Page 57 /101 and made part of record. He proved the attested copy of DD No. 27 B as Ex.PW30/H5 and the attested copy of DD No. 65 B as Ex.PW30/H6. He further proved the attested copy of DD No. 17 A as Ex.PW30/H7 vide which the initial information was received at the Police Station regarding the dead body. He further proved that the copy of wireless message sent to the all SSPs in India and SHOs in Delhi regarding the recovery of dead body as vide Ex.PW30/H8. He proved the photographs of the dead body of the deceased as Ex.PW30/H9 and the intimation to Prashar Bharti Doordharshan Kender as Ex.PW30/H10. He further deposed that on completion of investigation chargesheet was filed and later on the FSL reports were received and were filed in the court by way of supplementary chargesheet. He proved the Santro Car No. DL8CF5776 as Ex.P1, pieces of broken base ball bat as Ex.P2, the plastic container containing chilly powder as Ex.P3, mobile phone make Videocon as Ex.P4, wooden musli as Ex.P5, Iron SC No.440776/16 State Vs. Anurag Mehra @ Annu and Anr. Page 58 /101 pipe as already Ex.P6, Samsung mobile phone as Ex.P7, mobile phone make Micromax as P8 and mobile phone make Motorola as Ex.P9.
11. Vide order dated 10.01.2020, prosecution evidence was closed on the submissions of Ld. Addl. PP as all the cited witnesses had been examined.
Statement U/s 313 Cr.P.C.
12. The statements of accused persons were recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. and the entire evidence was put to them which they denied and pleaded innocence. They denied their involvement in the murder of the deceased. No DE was lead on behalf of accused persons.
13. I have heard Sh. Dushyant Siwatch, Ld. Addl. PP for the State, Sh. Anish Bhola, Counsel for accused Anurag Mehra, Sh. Kunal Manav, Counsel for accused Charu Dass. They took me through the whole material and record which includes SC No.440776/16 State Vs. Anurag Mehra @ Annu and Anr. Page 59 /101 voluminous oral as well as documentary evidence. The material on record has been perused.
ARGUMENTS OF PROSECUTION:
14. It is submitted by Ld. Addl. PP for the State that both the accused persons conspired to commit murder of deceased Aman Dass and in pursuance of the said conspiracy they had committed murder of Aman Das on 05/06.02.2015 at about 12.30 am at House No. T5, Hari Vihar, Kakrola, New Delhi where deceased Aman Das was living with his wife accused Charu Das, by putting red chilly powder in his eyes and by hitting his head with base ball bat, iron pipe and wooden musli and after committing murder both the accused persons carried the dead body of deceased in Santro Car No. DL8CF57776 and thrown the same in Ganda Nala near Majar, Nangli Dairy, Najafgarh, New Delhi. It is further submitted that the on 12.02.2015 on receipt of an information regarding the dead body of the deceased Police had SC No.440776/16 State Vs. Anurag Mehra @ Annu and Anr. Page 60 /101 reached there and the dead body of the deceased was shifted to Rao Tula Ram Hospital, Jaffarpur, New Delhi and on 15.02.2015 the dead body was identified by Ms. Priyanka Das and Sh. Deepak as that of Sh. Aman Das. It is further submitted that on the same day accused Anurag Mehra was arrested and a mobile phone was recovered from his possession and in pursuance of his disclosure statement accused Anurag Mehra got recovered Santro Car No. DL8CF5776 from the parking of his residential society and a blood stained jacket was recovered. It is further submitted that thereafter accused Anurag Mehra had pointed out the house No. T5, Hari Vihar Kakrola, New Delhi, the place of murder and he got recovered two blood stained pieces of a wooden bat of base ball and red chilly powder. It is further submitted that on 17.02.2015 accused Charu Das was arrested from Gali No. 5, Arjun Park, Nagal Dairy, New Delhi and in pursuance of her disclosure statement she got recovered a Musili an iron pipe and mobile SC No.440776/16 State Vs. Anurag Mehra @ Annu and Anr. Page 61 /101 phone of deceased Aman Das. It is further submitted that both the accused persons had also pointed out the place where the dead body was thrown by them. It is further submitted that on inspection of the Santro Car got recovered by accused Anurag Mehra, blood stains were found on the back seat of the car and a piece of back seat was taken by the team of FSL and as per the FSL report Ex.21/A on the exhibit 5 i.e. blood stained piece of back seat of Santro Car blood was detected and on the exhibit 2 i.e. blood stained base ball danda blood was detected and the male DNA profile generated from the source of it was found to be similar with the DNA profile generated from the source of exhibit 9 i.e. blood gauze of deceased Aman. It is further submitted that it has come on record in the testimonies of PW7 Ms. Priyanka Dass and PW6 Sh. Deepak that accused Charu Dass was having illicit relations with accused Anurag Mehra and this was objected by deceased Aman Das and due to this reason there had been SC No.440776/16 State Vs. Anurag Mehra @ Annu and Anr. Page 62 /101 quarrels between deceased and accused Charu Dass. It is further submitted that the motive of offence has been duly proved. It is further submitted that blood stained Gadda, blood stained pillow were found at the spot and the blood thereon was found to be of the deceased and from this fact it has been duly proved that the murder of the deceased was committed in House No. T5, Hari Vihar Kakrola, New Delhi. It is further submitted that after the recovery of the dead body from ganda nala, the police was not aware about the place of murder and the police came to know about the said place only after the disclosure of the accused Anurag Mehra. It is further submitted that by way of the scientific evidence i.e. the FSL reports and PM report and the recoveries at the instance of the accused persons, the prosecution has proved its case against both the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. It is further submitted that both the accused persons are liable to be convicted for the offences charged. SC No.440776/16 State Vs. Anurag Mehra @ Annu and Anr. Page 63 /101 ARGUMENTS OF DEFENCE:
15. On the other hand, the respective counsels for accused Anurag Mehra and Charu Dass submitted that the accused persons have been falsely implicated in this case. It is further submitted by the counsel for the accused Anurag Mehra that prosecution story as deposed by the prosecution witnesses is full of discrepancies and material contradictions which clearly depicts that accused Anurag has been falsely implicated in the present case and the case of the prosecution is solely based on circumstantial evidence which ought to be established by the prosecution without any missing chain and the case is entirely based on the disclosure statement of the accused. It is further submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the accused that there is no last seen evidence available with the prosecution and whatever the witnesses has stated in their testimony that is only hearsay in nature which is apparent from the fact elicited from the statement SC No.440776/16 State Vs. Anurag Mehra @ Annu and Anr. Page 64 /101 of PW7 Ms. Priyanka that they came to know from their own sources that both the accused persons were seen together 23 days prior to their arrest as such nobody has come forward with the stern statement that accused persons were lastly seen with the deceased which falsify the version of the prosecution with regard to last seen theory. It is further submitted that story of the prosecution is doubtful as the missing report lodged at PS Dwarka that the deceased and his wife was missing from 03.02.2015 at 12 noon afterwards and the date of alleged incident is stated to be intervening night of 5/6.02.015 which is not credible. It is further submitted that in case the sister or family members were searching the deceased and his wife then why they had not complained about their suspicion on accused at the first instance to the police. It is further submitted that as per the alleged disclosure statement of the accused there is no discovery of fact making admissible in evidence as the alleged place of recovery SC No.440776/16 State Vs. Anurag Mehra @ Annu and Anr. Page 65 /101 was known to the police and was not in exclusive possession of the accused and even otherwise the alleged recovered chilly powder is easily available in all homes or can easily be planted for implicating the accused and moreover it has been admitted by the witnesses that the base ball danda and chilli powder does not have distinct identity. It is further submitted that even the recovery of jacket from Santro car at the instance of accused is doubtful when seen from the totality of events presented by the prosecution as the Jacket was not sent for examination to FSL and never been produced in the court. It is further submitted that prosecution did not interrogate any witness from the neighbourhood of the deceased which would have established that the accused was present on the alleged place of incident moreso when they say that one of the neighbourer helped the accused persons for pushing the Santro car on the alleged day of incident. It is further submitted that no public witness was involved SC No.440776/16 State Vs. Anurag Mehra @ Annu and Anr. Page 66 /101 by the IO during visit to the house of accused Anurag or visit to the house of deceased or during investigation at subsequent periods although it is admitted fact that all the places mentioned were thickly populated and even MCD office was situated opposite to the house of deceased and if sincere efforts could have been made by IO then employees of MCD could have been made witness to investigation. It is further submitted by the counsel for the accused Anurag that owner of the alleged house of the deceased, PW25 Ajender Singh did not establish the fact that deceased was tenant in his house as he did not know the name of deceased or accused Charu even he did not identify accused Charu and moreover accused Charu Dass also stated during her examination U/s 313 Cr.P.C. that the address T5, Hari Vihar, Delhi was not the correct address and as such the most important link which is the place of occurrence of offence i.e. the residence of deceased Aman Dass has not been established by the SC No.440776/16 State Vs. Anurag Mehra @ Annu and Anr. Page 67 /101 prosecution. It is further submitted by the counsel for the accused Anurag Mehra that it can not be presumed that a person who conspired to murder somebody would have thrown the dead body in the drain and would left the alleged blood stained base ball danda and chilly powder at the place of incident and other weapons as such the same does not appeal any prudent person to believe. It is further submitted that in none of the photographs relied by the prosecution for recovery of the base ball danda and chilly powder, accused Anurag is shown or seen and photographs clearly depicts that the base ball danda and chilly powder are implanted from the fact that the chilly powder is put on a pan/chalni. It is further submitted that no finger prints were found at the place of alleged incident i.e. T5, Hari Vihar Delhi. It is further submitted that it is the version of the prosecution that on 15.02.2015 the accused Anurag took the IO to T5, Hari Vihar, Delhi and got recovered the base ball danda and chilly powder SC No.440776/16 State Vs. Anurag Mehra @ Annu and Anr. Page 68 /101 and on the contrary on 17.02.2015 accused Charu took IO to the same house and got recovered wooden musili and iron pipe from that house but from another room however, in the cross examination IO stated that he had inspected all the rooms on 15.02.2015 itself as such the recovery of musili is highly doubtful more so as no photography or videography was done on 17.02.2015 however, crime team was called on 15.02.2015 for taking photography. It is further submitted that no evidence of whatsapp chat record has been proved by the prosecution. It is further submitted that recovered dead body was also not identifiable as deposed by PW9 Dr. Parvinder Singh. It is further submitted that no chilly powder was detected on Gadda and no chance/finger prints were found at the place of occurrence or on the base ball bat to connect the accused Anurag with the crime. It is further submitted that DNA profile could not be detected from piece allegedly taken from the back seat of Santro car. It is further SC No.440776/16 State Vs. Anurag Mehra @ Annu and Anr. Page 69 /101 submitted that identity of deceased is doubtful even father Tapan Dass who identified deceased was not examined and no explanation came forward from the prosecution as to why the statements regarding identification of dead body were recorded on 18.02.2015 and not on 15.02.2015 itself by IO. It is further submitted that PW4 Puneet Sharma did not support the case of prosecution as in his cross examination by Ld. APP for the State, the important aspect of allegation against the accused persons with respect to staying together in one room in Mathura was categorically denied by the witness and during his cross examination on behalf of accused persons he deposed that he was not aware about the date of his visit to Mathura and he was also confronted with respect to place i.e. Mathura or Vrindavan and he admitted that he had not provided any identity proof nor signed any register as such his version regarding visit to Mathura or Vrindavan with accused persons is doubtful. It is further SC No.440776/16 State Vs. Anurag Mehra @ Annu and Anr. Page 70 /101 submitted that PW6 Deepak also did not support the case of the prosecution as there are material contradictions with regard to the date of identification of deceased as during his examinationin chief he stated the date as 13.02.2015 and in his cross examination, he stated that as 15.02.2015. It is further submitted that PW6 Deepak in his cross examination by Ld. Addl. PP stated that he expressed suspicion before the police that Aman Dass was murdered by accused persons and during his cross examination on behalf of accused persons he stated that they had not expressed any suspicion before police that Aman Dass was murdered by accused persons. It is further submitted that PW6 Deepak in his cross examination admitted that no complaint to police was ever given for any threats or illicit relations or that any family meeting was held which is highly improbable under the circumstances and moreover, he admitted that he faced murder and theft trial as such his demeanor and his deposition clearly SC No.440776/16 State Vs. Anurag Mehra @ Annu and Anr. Page 71 /101 suggests that he is not a credible witness. It is further submitted that PW7 Priyanka Dass also did not support the case of the prosecution as in the cross examination she admitted that no complaint to police was ever given for alleged illicit relations or that they have not tried to contact family member of accused Anurag which is highly improbable. It is further submitted that she deposed that the colour of Santro car as "Golden" however the other witnesses have deposed about a different colour. It is further submitted that permission to visit Mathura was given by senior officer on 26.02.2015, however, as per version of prosecution IO went to Mathura with PW4 on 25.02.2015. It is further submitted that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case against accused Anurag Mehra beyond any reasonable doubt and as such he is liable to be acquitted.
16. It is submitted by the counsel for accused Charu Dass that nothing was recovered at her instance and the recoveries have SC No.440776/16 State Vs. Anurag Mehra @ Annu and Anr. Page 72 /101 been planted in order to make out a case against her. It is further submitted that the identity of the deceased has not been established in this case according to the principles/ standard of proofs given in Modi's Medical Jurisprudence. It is further submitted that the family members of the deceased were not happy with the marriage and there is very likelyhood that brother of Ms. Priyanka Dass had gone somewhere and there are some properties of the family of Aman Dass in Assam and in order to grab the said property the dead body recovered from the Ganda nala has been falsely identified by the family members of the alleged deceased. It is further submitted that there were burn mark on the right leg ankle of the deceased but when the dead body of the deceased was recovered, no such burn mark was found on the right leg ankle. It is further submitted that PW7 Ms. Priyanka Das in her cross examination has stated that her deceased brother and accused Charu Dass got love marriage and their SC No.440776/16 State Vs. Anurag Mehra @ Annu and Anr. Page 73 /101 family and family of accused Charu Dass were against their marriage. It is further submitted that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case against accused Charu Dass beyond any reasonable doubt and as such she is liable to be acquitted. JUDGMENT RELIED UPON BY LD. APP FOR STATE.
i) In Padala Veera Reddy v. State of A.P. and Ors. AIR
1990 SC 79
ii) 'Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of
Maharashtra, AIR 1984 SC 1622[(1984) 4 SCC
116.
iii) 'Ramreddy Rajesh Khanna Reddy and Anr. Vs.
State of A.P.'' (2006) 10 SCC 17
iv) ''Bhagat Ram Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1954 SC
621''.
v) Nathu Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
SC No.440776/16 State Vs. Anurag Mehra @ Annu and Anr. Page 74 /101
AIR 1973 SC 2783;
vi) Delias Christopher Vs. Customs 2004 (3)
JCC 147;
vii) Hon'ble Supreme Court titled Tahir Vs.
State 1996 (3) SCC 338;
viii) State of Haryana Vs. Mai Ram, (2008) 8
SCC 292;
ix) Govt. of NCT of Delhi Vs. Sunil (2001) 1
SCC 652.
JUDGMENT RELIED UPON BY LD. DEFENCE COUNSEL.
i) Vikramjit Singh @ Vicky Vs. State of Punjab (2006) 12 Supreme Court cases 306.
ii) Pawan Kumar Vs. Sate of UP 2016SC Online all 949 : (2017) 98 ACC 39: (2017) 1 All LJ 401.
FINDINGS.
17. It is evident that the case of the prosecution rests SC No.440776/16 State Vs. Anurag Mehra @ Annu and Anr. Page 75 /101 squarely on the circumstantial evidence as there is no direct eye witness to the crime. Experience shows that very rarely are the crime committed in full public view at public places. Often the crimes including murder are accomplished secretly far from public gaze so as to avoid there detection. In such cases, the culprits are tracked either on the basis of last seen together or other circumstances appearing on the scene including motive of crime from which their guilt is inferred. Such type of evidence is called circumstantial evidence. In cases based upon circumstantial evidence, burden upon the prosecution is heaveir to prove each and every circumstance leading to the death of deceased, beyond any reasonable doubt. Before adverting to the facts of the case, I would like to discuss the law with respect to circumstantial evidence when direct evidence is not available.
18. It is settled principle of law that such evidence SC No.440776/16 State Vs. Anurag Mehra @ Annu and Anr. Page 76 /101 must satisfy the following tests:
(i) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn must be cogently and firmly established.
(ii) Those circumstances should be of such tendency which point towards guilt of the accused.
(iii) The circumstances, taken cumulatively should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that with all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else and
(iv) the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanations of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with the innocence. SC No.440776/16 State Vs. Anurag Mehra @ Annu and Anr. Page 77 /101
19. In Padala Veera Reddy v. State of A.P. and Ors. AIR 1990 SC 79 it was laid down that when a case rests upon circumstantial evidence, such evidence must satisfy the following tests :
"(1) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established; (2) those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused; (3) the circumstances, taken cumulatively should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else; and (4) the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not SC No.440776/16 State Vs. Anurag Mehra @ Annu and Anr. Page 78 /101 only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence.
20. In Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1984 SC 1622 [(1984) 4 SCC 116], it was held that: ''the onus was on the prosecution to prove that the chain is complete and falsity or untenability of the defence set up by the accused cannot be made basis for ignoring serious infirmity or lacuna in the prosecution case. The Court then proceeded to indicate the conditions which must be fully established before conviction can be based on circumstantial evidence. These are:
(1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The circumstances concerned must or should and not may be established;
(2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to SC No.440776/16 State Vs. Anurag Mehra @ Annu and Anr. Page 79 /101 say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty; (3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency;
(4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and (5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused."
21. PW-9 Dr. Parvindra Singh had conducted postmortem on the dead body of the deceased Aman Dass and opined the cause of death in this case was due to Cranio-cerebral damage (head injury), consequent to the injuries prescribed in the postmortem report. All the injuries were antemortem and were caused by hard blunt force impact and were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. Time since death was approximately 12- SC No.440776/16 State Vs. Anurag Mehra @ Annu and Anr. Page 80 /101 13 days at the time of postmortem examination. Therefore, it is proved that deceased died of homicidal death and time of death was approximately 12-13 days from the time of conducting postmortem.
22. Now the question arises whether the prosecution has been successful in proving that the deceased Aman Dass was murdered by accused Anurag Mehra and Charu Dass and his dead body was thrown by them in Ganda Nala/drain in order to conceal the crime and shield/save themselves from punishment.
23. In order to prove the identity of the deceased and motive of murder, the prosecution has examined PW- 6 Sh. Deepak and PW-7 Ms. Priyanka Dass. In his testimony PW-6 Sh. Deepak has testified that he identified the dead body of Aman Dass before the police in the hospital and similarly PW-6 has also testified that on 15.02.2015 she along with her maternal Uncle Sh. Deepak SC No.440776/16 State Vs. Anurag Mehra @ Annu and Anr. Page 81 /101 went to RTRM Hospital Jaffarpur and a dead body was shown to them and on seeing the same they identified that dead body was of her brother Aman Dass. The arguments of the Defence that the identity of the deceased has not been established in this case have no force as both these witnesses have duly identified the dead body of the deceased in the hospital. It is uncommon that firstly a lady would falsely claim any dead body as that of her brother without the dead body being that of her brother and secondly being the real sister and a close relative there were apparently no chances of any error in identification of the dead body from the structure and height etc. So on this account the prosecution has been successful to prove that the dead body recovered from the Ganda Nala was of deceased Aman Dass. Apart from this the blood on the gadda/mattress Ex.P6 matched with the blood of the deceased which shows that the dead SC No.440776/16 State Vs. Anurag Mehra @ Annu and Anr. Page 82 /101 body was of a person of the resident of the place from where the gadda was seized. So there remains no doubt about the fact that the dead body recovered from the Ganda Nala was not of Aman Dass.
24. As far as the motive is concerned both these witnesses have deposed about the illicit relations between accused Anurag Mehra and accused Charu Dass and deceased Aman Dass was objecting the same. In her testimony PW-6 Sh. Deepak has testified that due to the said relations quarrels used to take place between accused Charu Dass and deceased Aman Dass and she had threatened Aman Dass to get him killed. He also deposed that they had persuaded accused Charu Dass not to indulge in extra marital affairs with accused Anurag Mehra but she did not pay any heed. The above facts finds corroboration from the testimony of PW-7 Ms. Priyanka Dass wherein she had deposed that accused SC No.440776/16 State Vs. Anurag Mehra @ Annu and Anr. Page 83 /101 Charu Dass was having affairs with accused Anurag Mehra and they tried to make her understand and to refrain from the affair. She had also deposed that many times she had seen Anurag Mehra and Charu Dass together in Cannaught Place and once in Karol Bagh, Delhi. In the testimony of PW-4 Sh. Puneet Sharma it has come on record that in the month of March and April -2014 he had gone to Mathura with accused Anurag Mehra and Charu Dass and they had stayed in a hotel. From the testimony of this witness it is established that both the accused persons had gone there together. The factum of going together of both the accused persons finds corroboration from the testimony of PW-16 Sh. Krishan Singh Verma owner of Krishan Guest House Mathura, UP. PW-16 Sh. Krishan Singh Verma had proved the copies of relevant entries of guest register dt. 08.03.2014 and 28.04.2014 and deposed that accused Anurag Mehra stayed in their SC No.440776/16 State Vs. Anurag Mehra @ Annu and Anr. Page 84 /101 guest house on two occasions.
25. From the testimonies of the aforesaid witnesses it is proved that accused Charu Dass was in extra marital affairs with accused Anurag Mehra and deceased Aman Dass was objecting for the same and the fact that both the accused persons were seen together many times and they had visited Mathura. So it can be inferred that there was a motive for them to get escape from deceased Aman Dass to continue their affairs and to remove the obstacles or barrier in their way. In view of the same the motive in this case stands established.
26. PW-30 Inspector Anil Kumar testified that on 12.02.2015 recovery of a dead body was effected from Najafgarh drain and on 15.02.2015 the dead body was identified by PW-6 Deepak and PW-9 Ms. Priyanka Dass as that of Aman Dass. He further testified that during enquiries from Ms. Priyanka Dass and her maternal Uncle SC No.440776/16 State Vs. Anurag Mehra @ Annu and Anr. Page 85 /101 Deepak it was revealed that her brother Aman Dass and accused Charu Dass were missing from their rented house and they had lodged a missing report in this regard at PS Dwarka North. He further testified that they raised suspicion about the involvement of accused Anurag Mehra and Charu Dass in commission of the murder of Aman Dass. PW-30 Inspector Anil Kumar who was the investigating officer of this case is a witness to the recovery of Santro Car at the instance of accused Anurag Mehra in pursuant of his disclosure statement and pointing out the place of murder i.e. T-5, Hari Vihar, Kakrola, New Delhi and recoveries of two blood stained pieces of a wooden bat of baseball and chilly powder from there at the instance of accused Anurag Mehra. PW-7 Priyanka Dass is also a witness of arrest of accused Anurag Mehra and to the aforesaid recoveries. Both these witnesses have further testified that on 17.02.2015 about the arrest SC No.440776/16 State Vs. Anurag Mehra @ Annu and Anr. Page 86 /101 of accused Charu Dass and recovery of mobile phone of deceased Aman Dass at her instance from House No. RZ- 5A, Second Floor, Arjun Park, Nangel Dairy, New Delhi and also about the recovery of a musili and an iron pipe from a room adjoining the bed room of deceased Aman Das at House No. T-5, Hari Vihar Kakrola, New Delhi. The version of these witnesses find corroboration from the testimony of PW-27 W/Ct. Seema Devi. The arguments of the defence that the recoveries were planted upon the accused persons because in the inspection report of the Crime Team there is mentioning of recovery of chilly powder and two pieces of broken baseball bat and as such the said articles were already recovered by the police and were not recovered at the instance of accused Anurag Mehra does not find any force because in the testimony of PW-30 Inspector Anil Kumar it has come on record that simultaneously District Crime Team was called at the spot SC No.440776/16 State Vs. Anurag Mehra @ Annu and Anr. Page 87 /101 and it inspected the crime scene and also the Santro car. So, there is nothing wrong or uncommon in mentioning of the articles in the Crime Inspection report by the Crime Team about the articles recovered during the proceeding conducted by the investigating officer in their presence. PW-30 Inspector Anil Kumar PW-27 Ct. Seema and PW-7 Ms. Priyanka Dass had categorically deposed that two blood stained pieces of a wooden bat of baseball and chilly powder were recovered at the instance of accused Anurag Mehra. In the cross examination of PW-7 Ms. Priyanka Dass, PW-27 Ct. Seema and PW-30 Inspector Anil Kumar nothing has come on record to sake their credibility and to impeach their testimonies. Before the pointing out of the house No. T-5, Hari Vihar, Kakrola, New Delhi from where the aforesaid recoveries were effected, the police was not aware about the place of murder and it came to their knowledge only after the disclosure statement of accused SC No.440776/16 State Vs. Anurag Mehra @ Annu and Anr. Page 88 /101 Anurag Mehra and pointing out the said place by him. It is settled law that the disclosure statement given by an accused before the police is not admissible in evidence being hit by section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act and the only part of the disclosure statement regarding any discovery of a fact or recovery can be used against him as per section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. The prosecution has been successful in proving the aforesaid recoveries at the instance of accused persons.
27. As per the FSL report Ex.PW-21/A biological and DNA examination was conducted and the relevant paras are as under
BIOLOGICAL EXAMINATION
1. Blood was detected on exhibits '2', '3', '4', '5', '6', '8a','8b','9',, '10a','10b','10c','11a', & '11b',.
2. Blood could not be detected on exhibits '1', '7', & '10d',.
SC No.440776/16 State Vs. Anurag Mehra @ Annu and Anr. Page 89 /101
3. Skin/tissue could not be detected on exhibits '11a', '11b',.
4. Chilli powder detected on exhibit '1'.
5. Chilli powder could not be detected on exhibits '6', '7', '10a', '10b', '10c','10d', DNA EXAMINATION.
The source of exhibits '2' (base ball bat), '3' (cloth piece), '4' (cloth piece), '5' (foam piece), '6' (mattress), '8a' (iron rod), '8b' (wooden danda) '9' (blood gauze of deceased Aman), '10a', '10b', '10c' (cloths of deceased), '11a', '11b'(nail clippings of deceased Aman)were subjected to DNA examination. Identifiler plus PCR amplification kit was used for PCR amplification. Gene mapper ID-X software was used for STR analysis & DNA profiling in each of the exhibits.
RESULTS OF ANALYSIS
1. Male DNA profile generated from the source of SC No.440776/16 State Vs. Anurag Mehra @ Annu and Anr. Page 90 /101 exhibits '2' '3', '4', '6', '10a', '10b', '10c', '11a', '11b' were found to be similar with the DNA profile generated from the source of exhibit '9' (blood gauze of deceased Aman).
2. However, DNA profile could not be generated from the source of exhibits '5', '8a', '8b',
28. From the FSL report Ex.PW-21/A it is evident that the male DNA profile generated from the base ball danda was found to be similar with the DNA profile generated from the source of blood of deceased Aman and the fact that on wooden musili and iron rod though the DNA profile could not be generated but blood was detected. Similarly, on the blood stained piece of seat of Santro Car blood was detected. The prosecution has been by way of this scientific evidence successful in proving the fact that the baseball bat recovered at the instance of accused Anurag Mehra was having the blood stains of the deceased and blood was detected on the musili, iron pipe SC No.440776/16 State Vs. Anurag Mehra @ Annu and Anr. Page 91 /101 recovered at the instance of accused Charu Dass. No explanation has come forward from accused Anurag Mehra as to how there were blood stains on the back seat of his car and his mother PW18 Ms. Mridula Mehra has testified that she was the registered owner of Santro Car No. DL8CF5776 and his son accused Anurag Mehra was using the same in the year 2015. From her testimony it is evident that accused Anurag Mehra was using the Santro Car, so, it was for the accused Anurag Mehra to explain how blood stains had come on the seat of the car. Similarly, in the circumstances, where the dead body of deceased Aman Dass, husband of accused Charu Dass was recovered from the Ganda Nala/Drain and he was missing from the house so it was for the accused Charu Dass to explain as to when she had left her matrimonial home and why she had not tried to know the well being of her husband for such a long period and as to why she has SC No.440776/16 State Vs. Anurag Mehra @ Annu and Anr. Page 92 /101 not raised any hue and cry about her missing husband but no explanation has come on record from her in this regard. The arguments of the accused that there is no last seen witness is of no help to the accused because if this argument is allowed to be stand then in such cases the accused will never be convicted. This is the reason why the circumstantial evidence is helpful in deciding such type of cases. The motive, mode and manner of the incident coupled with the recoveries are helpful in deciding this case. The sister of the deceased PW-7 Ms. Priyanaka has proved the motive as stated above and there is no reason with the court to discard the same. No plausible explanation has come from the accused persons regarding her deposition. The prosecution has been able to establish the connection between both the accused and the accused persons could not have rebutted the same. It is not a case where the two accused persons have taken a SC No.440776/16 State Vs. Anurag Mehra @ Annu and Anr. Page 93 /101 stand that they are stranger to each other. The brutality of murder can be seen from the photographs of the deceased and the mode and manner adopted by the accused persons. Merely, the independent witnesses have not been joined during the recoveries can not be always fatal to the case of the prosecution and it depends on the circumstances of the case.
29. Reliance has been placed on case titled as Nathu Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1973 SC 2783 by Ld. APP and he has argued that merely if the prosecution witnesses are police officers that is not sufficient to discard their evidence in the absence of evidence of their hostility to the accused persons. This was also reiterated in the case of Delias Christopher Vs. Customs 2004 (3) JCC 147. The Ld. APP has further argued that this is also fortified by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court titled Tahir Vs. State 1996 SC No.440776/16 State Vs. Anurag Mehra @ Annu and Anr. Page 94 /101 (3) SCC 338. Para 6 of this judgment reads as under:-
"6....... No infirmity attaches to the testimony of police officials, merely because they belong to the police force and there is no rule of law or evidence which lays down that conviction cannot be recorded on the evidence of the police officials, if found reliable, unless corroborated by some independent evidence. The Rule of Prudence, however, only requires a more careful scrutiny of the evidence, since they can be said to be interested in the result of the case projected by them. Where the evidence of the police officials, after careful scrutiny, inspires confidence and is found to be trustworthy and reliable, it can form basis of conviction and the absence of some independent witness of the locality to lend corroboration to their evidence does not in any way affect the creditworthiness of the SC No.440776/16 State Vs. Anurag Mehra @ Annu and Anr. Page 95 /101 prosecution case."
30. It is a trite that non-joining of public witnesses itself cannot become a ground for acquittal, if the case of prosecution is otherwise reliable. In State of Haryana Vs. Mai Ram, (2008) 8 SCC 292, it was observed that the ultimate question to be asked is, whether the evidence of the official witnesses suffers from any infirmity. The case of the prosecution cannot be held to be vulnerable for non-examination of persons who were not official witnesses. In such cases, if the statements of official witnesses corroborate the proceedings conducted, the case of the prosecution can not be disbelieved.
It is settled law as laid down in Govt. of NCT of Delhi Vs. Sunil (2001) 1 SCC 652 that "conviction can be based on the testimony of official witnesses provided their testimony is trustworthy and SC No.440776/16 State Vs. Anurag Mehra @ Annu and Anr. Page 96 /101 reliable and the court is required to scrutinize their testimony with due care and caution". The legal preposition settled in above judgment is fully applicable to the facts of the present case.
31. From the above said observations, though there is no direct evidence regarding the murder of deceased by the accused persons but from the testimonies of the witnesses, factum of recoveries, PM report and FSL report the prosecution has been able to prove the following circumstances:
(i) Deceased Aman Dass and accused Charu Dass were residing together at House No. T-5, Hari Vihar, Kakrola, New Delhi.
(ii) There was extra marital affair of accused Charu Dass with accused Anurag Mehra and deceased Aman Dass was objecting for the same.
(iii) Dead body of deceased Aman Dass was SC No.440776/16 State Vs. Anurag Mehra @ Annu and Anr. Page 97 /101 recovered from Ganda Nala/Drain Najafgarh.
(iv) Santro Car No. DL8CF5776 was recovered at the instance of accused Anurag Mehra and he was using the same.
(v) Two broken pieces of wooden baseball bat and chilly powder were recovered at the instance of accused Anurag Mehra in pursuance of his disclosure statement from House No. T-5, Hari Vihar, Kakrola, New Delhi.
(vi) Mobile phone of deceased Aman Dass, a wooden Musili and an iron pipe were recovered at the instance of accused Charu Dass.
(vii) The matching of blood of deceased with the blood stains found on the mattress/gadda recovered from H.No. T-5, Hari Vihar, Kakrola, New Delhi.
(viii) Blood was found on the back seat of the Santro Car being used by accused Anurag Mehra.
SC No.440776/16 State Vs. Anurag Mehra @ Annu and Anr. Page 98 /101
(ix) Matching of blood of deceased on wooden baseball bat recovered at the instance of accused Anurag Mehra.
(x) The dead body of the deceased was recovered from Ganda Nala/Drain Najafgarh, New Delhi.
32. The chain of circumstances so proved are unerringly points towards the guilt of both the accused persons beyond any reasonable doubt that they had committed murder of Aman Dass at House No. T-5, Hari Vihar, Kakrola, New Delhi and transported the dead body in Santro Car No. DL8CF5776 and had thrown it in Ganda Nala/Drain Najafgarh. The accused persons had thrown the dead body of the deceased there for causing disappearance of evidence of murder in order to screen themselves from punishment. As far as the conspiracy is concerned the conspiracies are hatched in dark and their rarely comes any direct evidence of the conspiracy and as SC No.440776/16 State Vs. Anurag Mehra @ Annu and Anr. Page 99 /101 such the courts have to draw an inference from the circumstances about the conspiracy. The manner in which both the accused persons had acted and thrown the dead body of the deceased in a Ganda Nala to disappear the evidence of murder an inference can safely be drawn that a conspiracy was hatched by the accused persons for committing the murder of deceased Aman Dass.
Accordingly, both the accused persons are held guilty for offences U/s 302/201/120B IPC.
33. Copy of this judgment be given dasti to the accused persons free of costs. The case property is confiscated to the State and in case no appeal is filed within the prescribed time, the same may be disposed of as per rules. At the request of counsel for accused persons, be put up for arguments on the point of sentence on 03.02.2020.
34. Before parting, I would also like a word of appreciation SC No.440776/16 State Vs. Anurag Mehra @ Annu and Anr. Page 100 /101 for Sh. Dushyant Siwatch, Addl. PP for the State, Defence Counsel Sh. Anish Bhola, Counsel for accused Anurag Mehra and Counsel Sh. Kunal Manav for accused Charu Dass and court staff along with the witnesses who had fully cooperated in conducting the trial of the case as lengthy proceeding and evidence have been recorded in this case and without their support this court could not have expedited the case after taking over the charge.
Pronounced in the open court. (Ajay Goel)
Dated:29.01.2020 Additional Sessions Judge
Special Judge (NDPS),
Dwarka Courts, New Delhi
Digitally
signed by
AJAY AJAY
Date:
GOEL
GOEL 2020.02.04
16:29:13
+0530
SC No.440776/16 State Vs. Anurag Mehra @ Annu and Anr. Page 101 /101