Delhi District Court
State vs . Jagtar Singh Etc. on 29 November, 2010
1
State Vs. Jagtar Singh Etc.
FIR No. 264/03 & 265/03
IN THE COURT OF MS. BARKHA GUPTA : ADDITIONAL
SESSIONS JUDGE - IV: ROHINI (OUTER) : DELHI
Date of Committal ----- 17/09/03
Date of Institution
before this Court ----- 26/09/03
Date on which reserved
for Judgment ----- 23/11/10
Date of Judgment ----- 29/11/10
Final Order -----
1. The accused Jagtar, Sheela,
Gian Chand and Ashok @
Ganja have been convicted
U/s 302/34 IPC and the
accused Jagtar is further
convicted U/s 25/27 Arms
Act.
2. The accused Jitender is
acquitted of all the charges
levelled against him.
Sessions Case No. : 123/08
FIR No. : 264/03
PS : S. P.Badli
Under Sections : 302/307/120B/34 IPC
R/W Section 25/27 Arms Act
State Versus 1. Jagtar Singh
S/o Gian Chand
R/o Village Biholi, District Panipat,
Haryana.
2. Sheela @ Chabili
1/100
2
State Vs. Jagtar Singh Etc.
FIR No. 264/03 & 265/03
D/o Gian Chand
R/o Village Biholi, District Panipat,
Haryana.
3. Jitender @ Nanu
S/o Jagbir
R/o Village Biholi, District Panipat,
Haryana.
4. Gian Chand
S/o Lakhi Ram
R/o Village Biholi, District Panipat,
Haryana.
5. Ashok Kumar @ Ganja
S/o Surjeet
R/o Village Bapoli, District Panipat,
Haryana.
JUDGMENT
1. Prosecution has filed the charge-sheet u/s 173 Cr.P.C U/Ss 302/307/120B/34 IPC r/w Sections 25/27 Arms Act against five accused persons namely Jagtar Singh S/o Gian Chand, Sheela @ Chabili D/o Gian Chand, Jitender @ Nanu S/o Jagbir, Gian Chand S/o Lakhi Ram & Ashok Kumar @ Ganja S/o Surjeet for committing murders of Bimla, her husband Lakhan and his brother Bindeshwari and also that the accused Jagtar was found in unauthorised possession of one countrymade pistol and live cartridges without any licence.
2/100 3State Vs. Jagtar Singh Etc. FIR No. 264/03 & 265/03 2 (a) Succinctly state the case of prosecution is that the accused Gian Chand who is the real paternal uncle of the Bimla (deceased) was annoyed as she had married Lakhan (deceased) who was a Bihari and did not belong to their caste due for which he and his family had to face a lot of humiliation in the society and also that Bimla and Lakhan had been residing in the house No.328, Gali Shrikant Wali, S.P. Badli, Delhi which was in his name and despite his repeated requests and warnings, they were not willing to leave/vacate the said premises and Lakhan had even called his brother Bindeshwar Yadav to reside with them and the accused Gian Chand had also suspected that they would rather grab his house whereupon the accused Gian Chand along with his son Jagtar, daughter Sheela @ Chabili, would be son- in-law Ashok Kumar @ Ganja and Jitender (a friend of Jagtar) entered into a criminal conspiracy to murder them during the dead of night of 07/06/03 in their house.
(b) It is further the case of prosecution that on the intervening night of 6.6.03 and 07/06/03 at about 2:30 a.m. (night), all the aforesaid accused persons in furtherance of their common intention inflicted repeated injuries on the persons of Lakhan, Bindeshwari Yadav and Bimla on vital parts of their bodies while they were asleep with Axe and murdered them. It is further the case of prosecution that thereafter when the accused persons tried to flee away from the spot, Madan Prasad who was working as chowkidaar tried to catch hold of them during which, the accused Jagtar fired at him from the desi katta which he possessed without any licence with such intention and knowledge and under such circumstances that if by the said act, Madan 3/100 4 State Vs. Jagtar Singh Etc. FIR No. 264/03 & 265/03 Prasad would have died, he would have been guilty of culpable homicide amounting to murder, however the accused Jagtar & Sheela @ Chabili were apprehended by Madan Prasad with the help of other villagers who were beaten & were arrested.
(c) It is further the case of prosecution that information was immediately given to the police officials and PCR and wireless message was also sent at about 3:30 a.m. whereupon Sub Inspector L. N. Saini who was on patrol duty along with Constable Rajbir reached at the spot where Madan Prasad handed them over one Desi Katta and two live cartridges along with the custody of accused Jagtar and Sheela @ Chabili.
(d) It is further the case of prosecution that due to receiving aforesaid injuries as inflicted by the accused persons, Lakhan died at the spot itself whereas Bimla and Bindeshwari Yadav and Madan Prasad were immediately taken to Hospital, however Bimla and Bindeshwari Yadav died and Madan Prasad was discharged after medical treatment and in the meantime, the Senior police officials were also informed who reached at the spot and investigation commenced during which the other accused persons namely Gian Chand, Jitender and Ashoka Kumar @ Ganja were also gradually arrested at whose instance, their blood stained clothes were recovered,however weapon of offence i.e. Axe and other case property was lifted from the spot and after completion of investigation, charge-sheet u/s 173 Cr.P.C. u/ss 302/307/120B/34 IPC r/w section 25/27 Arms Act was filed in the Court of the Ld. MM who after compliance of necessary legal 4/100 5 State Vs. Jagtar Singh Etc. FIR No. 264/03 & 265/03 provisions u/s 207 Cr.P.C. had committed the case to Court of Sessions.
3. My Ld. Predecessor, after hearing both parties, vide order dated 11/10/04 had served the charges U/ss 302/307/120B/34 IPC on all the accused persons and a separate charge u/s 25/27 Arms Act was also served on the accused Jagtar Singh to which all the accused persons had pleaded not guilty and preferred to face trial.
4. The prosecution has examined forty three witnesses in all so as to bring home guilt of all the accused persons on record which include Chandeshwari Mishra as PW1, Harender as PW2, Madan Prasad as PW3, Raju Yadav as PW4, Smt. Santosh as PW5, Nafe Singh as PW6, Raghbir as PW7, HC Ram Rattan as PW8 and PW24, Dr. B. N. Acharya (CMO, BJRM Hospital) as PW9, Suresh as PW10, Upendra as PW11, SI Manohar Lal (Draftsman) as PW12, , Constable Chunni Lal as PW13, HC Ram Singh as PW14, Kanta Yadav (Record Clerk, Sushruta Trauma Centre, Civil Lines, Delhi) as PW15, Dr. Jitender Kumar as PW16 and PW20, Constable Satish Kumar as PW17, Constable Arvind Kumar as PW18, SI Mataddin as PW19, SI Laxmi Narain as PW21, Bijender as PW22, HC Jitender as PW23, Lady Constable Sunita as PW25, SI Sukhbir Singh as PW26, HC Ram Phool as PW27, Constable Om Parkash as PW28, HC Ramesh as PW29, HC Parfulla as PW30, HC Ravinder Singh as PW31, Constable Sanjay Kumar as PW32, HC Jai Bhagwan as PW33, Sh. R. P. Gautam (Retired ACP) as PW34, Inspector Satpal as PW35, Constable Suresh Chand as PW36, Retired SI 5/100 6 State Vs. Jagtar Singh Etc. FIR No. 264/03 & 265/03 Mahinder Singh as PW37, HC Rajvir as PW38, Mr. K. C. Varshney (Asstt. Director, FSL, Rohini, Delhi) as PW39, Constable Mahender Singh as PW40, Constable Devender Singh as PW41, HC Ram Roop as PW42 & Sh. R. S. Yadav (DIG, Goa police) as PW43.
5(a). Thereafter, statements of all the accused persons were recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. wherein the accused Gian Chand has submitted that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case and has also contended that at the time of incident, he was present at his house in Village Biholi, Samalkha, Panipat, Haryana and when later on, he came to meet his father (Lakhi Bawariya) at his residence at S. P. Badli, he enquired as to why the police officials had gone to his village Biholi whereupon his father informed him about the occurrence on which he went to Police Station S. P. Badli and told the police officials that he does not know anything about the case but they demanded Rs. Two lacs from him as bribe and as he could not pay the said amount, hence he was falsely implicated in the present case.
(b) The accused Sheela and Jagtar in their statements as recorded u/s 313 Cr. P.C. have submitted that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the case. They have further contended that during their vacations, on 6.6.03, they came to said house No. 328, Gali Shrikant Wali, S.P. Badli, Delhi belonging to their grand father Late Sh. Lakhi Bawariya for seeing Delhi and also that they had been sleeping on the roof of the said house in the evening of 06/06/03, however they picked up by the police officials at about 6.45 am on 07/06/03 and were forcibly taken to the Police 6/100 7 State Vs. Jagtar Singh Etc. FIR No. 264/03 & 265/03 Station S. P. Badli where they were falsely implicated in the present case.
(c) The accused Ashok Kumar @ Ganja in his statement as recorded U/s 313 Cr. PC has stated that he is also innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case.
(d) The accused Jitender @ Nanu has explained in the statement U/s 313 Cr. PC that he is not connected with the present case in any manner and also that he has been falsely implicated as he had enmity with the accused Jagtar and his family members. He has also submitted that at the relevant time, he was present at his village Biholi, Panipat, Haryana where he was taking care of his buffaloes but the police officials came who apprehended him and got him falsely implicated in the present case. He has also stated that in fact the accused Jagtar, Sheela @ Chabili, Ashok Kumar @ Ganja and Gian Chand have committed the present offences and also that when he was brought to the Police Station, the accused Sheela and Jagtar were already apprehended by the police officials, however the accused Ashok Kumar @ Ganja had managed to flee away from the spot.
(e) The accused Gian Chand, Jagtar and Sheela have preferred to examine Sh. Balle Ram and Sh. Suresh Kumar in their defence as DWs 1 & 2, however the accused Ashok and Jitender did not examine any witness in support of their case.
6. In the present case, as per record, the most material witnesses as 7/100 8 State Vs. Jagtar Singh Etc. FIR No. 264/03 & 265/03 examined by the prosecution are Raju Yadav (PW4), Madan Prasad (PW3), Chandeshwari Mishra (PW1), Harender (PW2), Smt. Santosh (PW5), Bijender (PW22), Nafe Singh (PW6), Raghbir (PW7) HC Ram Rattan (PW8), Suresh (PW10) and SI Manohar Lal (PW12), hence their testimonies are discussed on priority.
7(a). Raju Yadav (PW4-the key witness who is shown to have witnessed the entire occurrence) has deposed that Bindeshwari Yadav (deceased) was his co-villager who had come to meet his brother Lakhan (deceased) at his house at village Badli. He has further testified that on 06/06/03, he had come to meet Bideshwari there and they conversed till about 7:00 p.m. and since it got dark, hence Bindeshwari asked him to stay there and accordingly they had meals after which he went upstairs on the roof of said house and slept on the cot. He has further testified that at about 2:30 a.m., he heard the noise of gun shot fire on which he woke up and saw that the accused Ganja who had also visited Lakhan (deceased) as a guest was running away and heard the noise of firing from gate of house of Lakhan (deceased). He has further testified that he saw that Lakhan was given beatings by the accused Sheela and Ashok Kumar @ Ganja whereas Bindeshwari was given beatings by the accused Jagtar and Gian Chand and the accused Ashok Kumar @ Ganja had also inflicted injuries on the person of Bindeshwari and Lakhan with axe.
He has further testified that the said accused persons had also 8/100 9 State Vs. Jagtar Singh Etc. FIR No. 264/03 & 265/03 inflicted injuries on the persons of Bimla and has very categorically stated that ".....Bimla aur Lakhan ko kaat diya..." and has further testified that the injured persons were taken to the hospital.
During his further examination, PW4 has correctly identified the accused Jagtar, Sheela, Gian Chand and Ashok Kumar @ Ganja to be the same persons who had inflicted said injuries on the persons of deceased and has also testified that after some time, somebody had also fired at the Chowkidar but he did not see that the assailant and has also deposed that thereafter, the police officials came, however in the mean time, the villagers were able to catch hold of the accused Sheela and Jagtar and the accused Ashok Kumar @ Ganja had managed to run away who was later on apprehended and also that the accused Gian Chand was also apprehended afterwards.
(b) During cross-examination by the Ld. APP for the State, he has very specifically denied that at the relevant time the accused Jitender @ Nanu had also come along with two persons at the house of Lakhan (deceased) and has also denied if after talking to Sheela, the accused Jitender @ Nanu along with those persons went upstairs.
(c) During cross-examination on behalf of the accused persons, he has inter-alia stated that he had been knowing Lakhan and Bindeshwari and he would also help them whenever they needed. He has also stated that he 9/100 10 State Vs. Jagtar Singh Etc. FIR No. 264/03 & 265/03 had visited earlier also Lakhan on several occasions and as such there was no room on the roof of the house of Lakhan and there were four rooms only on the ground floor of said house. He has also stated that he had told to the police officials as to which of the accused persons had caused injuries on the persons of the particular injured/deceased and denied if he is deposing falsely at the instance of police officials or that he is a procured witness or that he did not witness the occurrence. He has also clarified that on seeing the occurrence, he did not come downstairs and remained on the roof of the house itself as he had got frightened and has denied if he did not raise any hue and cry.
8 (a). Madan Prasad (PW3 - Injured) has testified that at the relevant time, he was working as a Chowkidar at Shri Kant Wali Gali, Badli and at about 2:30 p.m., he saw that two boys, one girl and one villager were quarreling at a short distance from him and when he asked the reason, one of those two boys fired at the villager, however the bullet passed through near the right side of his head from temple region leaving a scratch mark, on which he fell down and did not know as to what happened thereafter. He expressed his inability to identify the assailants as it was dark.
(b) During cross-examination by the Ld. APP for State, he has denied if at the relevant time, he heard the noise of human cry or saw one man and one woman coming out of house No. 328 which belonged to Lakhi Bawariya or that with the help of other villagers, he apprehended those persons or that that said man had fired at him and the bullet passed while touching his right 10/100 11 State Vs. Jagtar Singh Etc. FIR No. 264/03 & 265/03 temple. He has also denied if the accused Jagtar and Chabili were apprehended or the accused Jagtar had fired at him or if he handed over the Katta recovered from the possession of accused Jagtar to SI Laxmi Narain (PW21) or that from the possession of Jagtar, two live cartridges were also recovered. He has fairly conceded that his blood stained shirt was taken into possession by the police officials vide memo Ex. PW3/A and identified the same as Ex. P7.
(c) None of the accused persons preferred to cross examine him on any aspect whatsoever despite opportunity afforded.
9. Chandeshwari Mishra (PW1-who reached to the spot later on) has testified that his nephew Bijender had told him that Bindeshwari Yadav (deceased) who belonged to his village was murdered on 07/06/03 on which he went to the spot at Village Badli where he saw that blood was coming out in a drain and the dead body of Bindeshwari Yadav was lying in the Gher. He has also testified that one knife and one axe were also lying near the said Gher and one pillow and one gadda which were soaked with blood were also lying and has further testified that the police officials lifted blood from earth, converted it into pullinda and also picked up one blood stained brick as well as another brick from the spot. He has also testified that the police officials had also seized the said knife and axe vide memos Exhibits PW1/A & PW1/B respectively and also seized the blood sample and bricks vide memo Ex. PW1/C as well as seized the pillow and gaddha vide memos Ex. PW1/D and PW1/E respectively. He has identified the grey 11/100 12 State Vs. Jagtar Singh Etc. FIR No. 264/03 & 265/03 coloured pillow, gaddha, shawal, axe, four pieces of bricks and knife as exhibits P1 to P5 respectively.
(b) During cross-examination by the Ld. APP, he stated that the police officials had taken into possession the Desi Katta which was lying at the spot near the dead body and denied if he had made any statement to the police officials on 07/06/03.
(c) During cross-examination by the Ld. Defence Counsel, he stated that the police officials had reached at the spot at about 2:30 a.m. and remained there till around 8:00 a.m. and also that some of the police officials had remained at the spot for about 2/3 days. He has also stated that the above mentioned articles were already seized by the police officials prior to his reaching at the spot and his signature were obtained on the same day on certain papers at about 6:00-7:00 a.m. 10(a). Smt. Santosh (PW5-a neighbour) has deposed that the house No. 328, Village Badli belonged to Lakhi Bawariya (complainant and since deceased) who was residing there along with his grand daughter Bimla (deceased) and at the relevant time, her husband Lakhan (since deceased) was also residing with her. She has further testified that she does not know anything about the present occurrence and on the next day, at about 10.00 am when she came to the place of her work i.e. for pressing the clothes, she saw that certain police officials were present from whom she came to know that the present incident has taken place.
12/100 13State Vs. Jagtar Singh Etc. FIR No. 264/03 & 265/03
(b) During cross-examination by the Ld. APP, she denied having made any statement to the police officials and has further denied if she had seen the accused Jagtar along with Sheela and other persons at the house of Lakhi Bawariya on 05/06/03. During suggestion given by the Ld. APP, she stated that "...it is incorrect to suggest that Gian Chand and his son compromised the matter with Bimla and Lakhi Bawariya and they again started visiting the house of Lakhi Bawariya...".
(c) The accused persons did not to cross-examine her at all on any count.
11 (a). Nafe Singh (PW6-another neighbour) has testified that about 6/7 years ago, Raghubir had left Bimla (deceased) at the house of her grand father namely Lakhi Bawariya at Delhi but he did not know the reasons thereof.
(b) During cross-examination by the Ld. APP, he stated that Bimla was residing at the house of Gian Chand with Gian Chand and his family and denied if the accused, in order to grab the plot at Delhi, had earlier also burnt Bimla with intention to kill her earlier.
(c) No cross-examination was offered to him by or on behalf of any of the accused persons despite opportunity given.
13/100 14State Vs. Jagtar Singh Etc. FIR No. 264/03 & 265/03 12(a). Bijender (PW22 - brother of the deceased Lakhan) has deposed that at the relevant time, he was at his house when a neighbour told him that somebody was giving beatings to his brother Lakhan and when he reached at the Gher at village Badli at the house of Lakhi Bawariya where Lakhan was also residing, he also saw that the accused Ashok, whose name he came to know later on, who was wearing a cap and had covered his face with a cloth. He has further deposed that in the mean time, other persons also gathered and he was busy in looking after his brother Lakhan .
(b) During cross-examination by the Ld. APP, he denied if Ashok Kumar @ Ganja got recovered the black cap from the house of Lakhi Bawariya from one room.
(c) No cross examination was offered to him by or on behalf of any of the accused persons.
13. Raghubir (PW7) has testified that he does not know anything about the present case whereupon he was cross-examined by the Ld. APP wherein he stated that the accused Gian Chand was residing with his family at Village Badli and denied if earlier, Gian Chand had also tried to burn Bimla whereupon she was sent to Delhi to reside with Lakhi Ram (her grand father). He was not at all cross examined by or on behalf of any of the accused persons.
14(a) Harender (PW2- who was residing as a tenant in the said 14/100 15 State Vs. Jagtar Singh Etc. FIR No. 264/03 & 265/03 house) has deposed that nothing happened in his presence as at the relevant time, he had gone to attend his duty during night and when he came back, he saw that the police officials had come at the said house.
(b) During cross-examination by Ld. APP, he stated that the number of said house was H. No. 328, Shrikant Wali Gali, S.P. Badli, Delhi and he was residing in one room as a tenant at monthly rent of Rs. 300/- and has denied if the accused Sheela @ Chabili and Jagtar along with one other person came there who threatened him to vacate the said room within ten days. He has further denied if on 6/06/03, all the said persons were present in the house.
(c) The accused persons preferred not to cross-examine him on any aspect despite opportunity given.
15(a). Suresh (PW10- tenant in the said house) has deposed that he was residing at the said house in his capacity as a tenant at monthly rent of Rs. 300/- , however he had not seen any such occurrence. He has also deposed that he had not been knowing any of the accused persons nor can identify them whereupon he was cross-examined by the Ld. APP during which he denied if on 05/06/03, he had seen one woman and two boys with Bimla(deceased). The accused persons did not cross-examine him on any aspect despite opportunity given.
16(a). Upendra (PW11-another tenant) has testified that he does not 15/100 16 State Vs. Jagtar Singh Etc. FIR No. 264/03 & 265/03 know the accused Chabili @ Sheela and Jagtar and they had never extended any threats to him or to anyone else in his presence.
(b) During cross-examination by the Ld. APP, he denied that on 05/06/03, he had seen Sheela @ Chabili, Jagtar and Ashok Kumar @ Ganja with Bimla or that the accused persons had ever extended any threats to Bimla to vacate the house.
(c) The accused persons did not prefer to cross-examine him despite opportunity afforded.
17. In the present case, except the witnesses as already discussed above, the other witnesses are who include are doctors, police official and FSL expert.
18(a) SI Mahinder Singh (PW37) has testified that on the intervening night of 06-07/06/03, he was posted at PCR Van T-26 in North-West Zone and at about 3:45 a.m., on receiving the information regarding firing, he reached at Sri Kant Wali Gali, Village Badli where he saw that some public persons had apprehended and detained one man and one woman whose names were revealed as Jagtar and Sheela whom they brought to the BJRM Hospital at about 4:20/4:30 a.m. as they were injured and handed over their custody to the Duty Constable and also informed the Control Room of PCR.
16/100 17State Vs. Jagtar Singh Etc. FIR No. 264/03 & 265/03
(b) During cross-examination on behalf of the accused persons, he has stated that his duty hours on the PCR Van were from 8:00 p.m. to 8:00 a.m. (next day) and he had received the said information at about 3:30 a.m while he was near the byepass. He has also stated that he did not ask the name of the public persons who had caught hold of accused Jagtar and Sheela as the urgency was to take the injured to the Hospital.
19(a). HC Ravinder Singh (PW31) has deposed that on 07/06/03, he was on Patrol duty and on receiving the information regarding the occurrence, he reached at the House No. 328, Shrikant Wali Gali, S.P. Badli, while patrolling and saw that one dead body was lying in the angan of the said house and lot of blood was also found scattered. He has further deposed that in the mean time, the SHO along with other police officials including SI Laxmi Narain (PW21) also reached there and left him along with SI Laxmi Narain (PW21) at the spot itself to take care of the spot and he himself went to the hospital and after about two hours, the SHO again came back at the spot. He has further deposed that the SHO had also recorded statement of Lakhi Bawariya, prepared Rukka and handed it over to him to get the FIR registered and accordingly he went to the police station S. P. Badli and after getting the FIR registered, he came back at the spot with the copy of FIR and original Rukka which he handed them over to the SHO.
(b) During cross-examination on behalf of accused persons, he has stated that he was alone when he reached at the spot and the SHO had 17/100 18 State Vs. Jagtar Singh Etc. FIR No. 264/03 & 265/03 reached at about 2:40 a.m.. He has emphasized that the statement of Lakhi Bawariya was recorded in his presence and the SHO handed him over the Rukka at about 7:30 a.m. and he reached to the police station at about 7:45 a.m. and came back with copy of FIR and Rukka at about 9:00 a.m. He has denied if the proceedings were conducted while sitting in the police station or that the accused persons have been falsely implicated.
20.(a) HC Prafulla (PW30) has testified that on the intervening night of 06-07/06/03, he was posted at PCR, Head Quarter on the night duty and at about 3:30 a.m, he received an information from one Karan Singh from Phone No. 9810633987 from village Badli regarding the said firing and dacoity whereupon he filled up the requisite form Ex. PW30/A bearing his signature at point 'A'.
No cross-examination was offered to him by or on behalf of any of the accused persons.
21(a). HC Ram Phool (PW27) has testified that on 07/06/03, he was posted at PCR Van No. Commander - 97 from 8:00 p.m. to 8:00 a.m. and at about 3:32 p.m., he received a call from the Control Room to the effect that at village Badli, Gali Sri Kant Wali, bullets were being fired whereupon he reached at the spot within four/five minutes and found that ten/fifteen persons were already present there. He has further deposed that thereafter, he went inside the house where three/four persons were found lying in injured condition and he removed three of them to 18/100 19 State Vs. Jagtar Singh Etc. FIR No. 264/03 & 265/03 Trauma Centre by the van, however, one of them was declared brought dead by the Doctor and remaining two injured were admitted in the Hospital. He further deposed that he also informed the Control Room accordingly.
(b) During cross-examination by the Ld. Defence Counsel, he stated that he did not ascertain the number of injured persons as it was dark in the house.
22(a) SI Laxmi Narain (PW21 - who had partly conducted the investigation) has testified that on 07/06/03, he was on patrol duty along with Constable Rajbir (PW38) at Mukarba Chowk and at about 3:30 a.m., he received a wireless message to the effect that bullets were being fired at Gali Sri Kant Wali, Village Badli and within about two minutes, he along with Constable Rajbir reached at the place of occurrence where many persons had already gathered and after some time, the SHO along with other police officials/staff also reached. He has further deposed that on entering the house No. 328, Shrikant Wali Gali, S.P. Badli, they found that dead body of one male person was lying in the angan whereas two of the injured persons were removed to the Hospital by the PCR Van and after leaving him and other staff at the spot, the SHO alongwith other staff, left for the Hospital. He further deposed that Madan Prasad who was the Chowkidar had handed him over one country made Katta and two live cartridges and when the SHO returned back to the spot, he prepared the sketch of the Katta 19/100 20 State Vs. Jagtar Singh Etc. FIR No. 264/03 & 265/03 and of the live cartridges which are Ex. PW21/A and Ex. PW21/B respectively and that of the fired bullet which is Ex. PW21/C. He has further deposed that four/five public persons were asked to join the investigation but none agreed. He also deposed that the Katta, live cartridges and the fired cartridge were converted into separate pullindas and after sealing them with the seal of 'LNS', they were seized them vide memo Ex. PW21/D and the FSL Form was also filled at the spot. He has further deposed that Madan Prasad had also handed him over the suitcase which was found containing clothes, one pair of chappal, one photograph and a purse containing Rs. 138/- which were seized vide memo Ex. PW21/E and thereafter, he prepared Tehrir Ex. PW21/F and sent it through Constable Rajbir for getting the FIR registered who after registration of FIR came back to the spot. He has further deposed that he had recorded statement of Madan Prasad and when he came back to the police station, the accused Jagtar Singh was also present there who was arrested vide memo Ex. PW21/G. He has further deposed that he had left Madan Prasad at the spot who reached to the police station prior to the arrest of accused Jagtar Singh who had also identified Jagtar Singh as one of the assailants after which he took Madan Prasad to the spot again and at his instance, he prepared site plan Ex. PW21/H and also recorded supplementary statements of Madan Prasad and Constable Rajbir. He has further deposed that he had also deposited the exhibits of the case at the Malkhana prior to the arrest of accused Jagtar and wrote a letter for sending the exhibits to FSL and thereafter, he was transferred.
20/100 21State Vs. Jagtar Singh Etc. FIR No. 264/03 & 265/03 He has identified the Desi Katta which was handed over to him by Madan Prasad as Ex. P7, one live cartridge and one test fired cartridge as Exhibits P8 & P9, one fired cartridge as Ex. P10 and an unsealed attache containing clothes etc. as Ex. P11.
(b) During cross-examination on behalf of the accused persons, he stated that he reached at the spot at about 3:45/3:50 am and Madan Prasad met him after about 5/10 minutes who produced the said Katta, live cartridge and also that the suitcase was lying in the Gali. He has also stated that it took about 20-25 minutes to prepare the seizure memos and Tehrir and thereafter at about 6:00/6:35 a.m., Constable Rajbir came back after registration of the case after about 1-1½ hour. He has also stated that the house was lit and in that light, he conducted the proceedings and also that there was light in the Gali and the electric pole was at a distance of about 20-25 feet from the place where he conducted the proceedings. He has also stated that the SHO reached at the spot at about 3:50 a.m. and remained there for about 5-10 minutes and he did not know as to what happened to the dead body. He has volunteered that it must have been sent by the SHO who came back to the spot at about 5:00/5:50 a.m. and Madan Prasad remained with him till the SHO arrived. He also stated that Madan Prasad came to the police station at about 5:00 p.m. and he had seen the accused Jagtar for the first time in the police station at about 5:00 p.m. He has denied if the entire proceedings were manipulated or fabricated or that the accused Jagtar has been falsely implicated in this case.
21/100 22State Vs. Jagtar Singh Etc. FIR No. 264/03 & 265/03 23(a). HC Rajvir (PW38) has testified that on the intervening night of 06-07/06/03, he was posted at PS S. P. Badli on checking duty along with SI Laxmi Narain (PW21) and at about 3:30 a.m., an information was received on the wireless set of SI Laxmi Narain (PW21) that an incident of firing had taken place in village Badli near Sri Kant Wali Gali whereupon they proceeded to the spot where the Chowkidar met them who handed over the Katta along with two live cartridges to SI Laxmi Narain (PW21) and also told them while he was doing Chowkidari in the Gali during night he heard some noise in the Gali and when he reached at the place of noise i.e. at the House No. 328, Sri Kant Wali Gali, Village Badli, one boy who was trying to escape was apprehended by the public persons who had also gathered from whose possession one Katta and 2 live cartridges were recovered. He has further deposed that the said Katta was opened by SI Laxmi Narain (PW21) and an empty cartridge was also recovered from that Katta and its sketch Ex. PW21/A was also prepared and the sketches of both the live and one empty cartridge were also prepared which are Exhibits PW21/B and Ex. PW21/C respectively. He has further deposed that the said Katta, two live cartridges and one empty cartridge were converted into Pullindas with the help of white cloth and after sealing them with the seal of 'LNS', the same were seized vide memo Ex. PW21/D at which point of time ,SI Laxmi Narain (PW21) had asked the public persons to join the proceedings but none had agreed. He has further deposed that from House No. 328, one suitcase was recovered which was containing certain clothes, a pair of Chappal and clothes were also seized vide memo Ex. PW21/E. He has further testified that SI Laxmi Narain (PW21) had prepared the Rukka, 22/100 23 State Vs. Jagtar Singh Etc. FIR No. 264/03 & 265/03 handed it over to him to get the case registered and after registration of FIR, he handed over the copy of the FIR and Rukka to SI Laxmi Narain (PW21). He has further deposed that the accused Jagtar (whom he had correctly identified) met them in the police station who was arrested by SI Laxmi Narain (PW21) vide memo Ex. PW21/G and he has also identified the Katta as Ex. P7, live cartridge and test fired cartridge as Ex. P8 & P9 respectively, the empty cartridge as Ex. P10 and the attachee/suitcase as Ex. P11.
(b) During cross-examination by the Ld. Defence Counsel, he stated that at the time when they received the said information, they were present at the Mukarba Chowk in Government Gypsy and the distance between the place of occurrence i.e. the House No. 328 and the Mukarba Chowk is about 2/3 kms. He stated they reached at the spot after about 10-15 minutes. He also stated that in his presence, statement of Chowkidar was recorded by the Investigating Officer and he remained at the spot from 3:30 a.m. till about 8:00 a.m. 24(a). SI Matadin (PW19) has deposed that on 07/06/03, he was posted at PS S. P. Badli and at about 3:29 a.m, HC Jitender (PW23) handed him over DD No. 34A wherein it was mentioned that bullets were fired and two anti-social elements were apprehended at Sri Kant Wali Gali, Village Badli whereupon he along with Constable Ravinder (PW31) and HC Jitender (PW23) reached at the spot and inside the angan of that house, the dead body of a male person was found lying and shortly thereafter the SHO Inspector R. P. Gautam (PW34) along with SI Laxmi Narain (PW21) also 23/100 24 State Vs. Jagtar Singh Etc. FIR No. 264/03 & 265/03 reached there. He has further deposed that three injured persons were removed to Trauma Centre and after leaving the other staff at the spot, he along with SHO also reached at the Trauma Centre from where the SHO had collected the MLC of Madan, Lakhan and Bimla. He was further deposed that Bimla was found unfit for making statement, Lakhan was declared brought dead and Madan Prasad was discharged. He has further deposed that the Duty Constable Ranbir (PW38) posted at the Trauma Centre had also handed him over the clothes and Pajeb of Bimla along with the sample seal and he came back to the police station with the pullindas and with the injured Madan Prasad and deposited the said pullindas at the Malkhana and also produced Madan Prasad before the SHO.
(b) During cross-examination by the Ld. Defence Counsel, he stated that his statement was recorded by the Investigating Officer on 07/06/03 itself and age of the deceased (whose body was found lying at the spot) was about 35 years and also that the said house was a single storeyed building. He also stated that at the Hospital, only Madan Prasad was declared fit for making statement and the SHO had made inquiries from him regarding the occurrence. He also stated that he had brought two parcels and one sample seal from the Hospital and also that the Investigating Officer had not recorded the statement of Madan Prasad in the Hospital in his presence.
25(a). HC Jitender (PW23) has testified that on 07/06/03, he was posted at PS S.P. Badli when the Duty Officer communicated him information regarding the present call to further deliver to SI Matadin 24/100 25 State Vs. Jagtar Singh Etc. FIR No. 264/03 & 265/03 (PW19), however, he met SI Matadin (PW19) at the gate of the police station itself and immediately, he passed the information over to him and thereafter they reached at H. No. 328, Sri Kant Wali Gali, Village Badli, where the dead body of one male person was found lying inside the house and three injured persons were already removed to the Hospital. He has further deposed that in the mean time, SI Laxmi Narain (PW21) also reached at the spot and after some time, the SHO also reached there who left him and SI Laxmi Narain (PW21) at the spot itself and the SHO along with SI Matadin (PW19) went to the Hospital and came back again after about one -two hours who had also called the Crime Team at the spot which took photographs. He has further deposed that a blood stained knife and a blood stained axe were also found lying inside the house, both of which were converted into pullinda and sealed with the seal of 'RP'. He has also deposed that earth control, blood from the spot and blood stained earth were also lifted from the spot and taken into possession and one blood stained gadda which was found lying at the spot was also vide memo Exs. PW1/A to Ex. PW1/D respectively and thereafter, the SHO had sent Constable Ravinder (PW31) to the police station for registration of FIR and dead body was sent to the Mortuary through Constable Satish (PW17) and he alongwith the SHO came back where the public persons had already apprehended the accused Sheela and Jagtar and the SHO made inquiries from the said accused persons whose clothes were stained with blood which were also seized. He has further testified that thereafter, the accused Sheela and Jagtar were arrested vide memos Ex. PW23/A and Ex.PW-23-B respectively and their personal searches were also conducted vide memos Ex. PW23/C & D respectively.
25/100 26State Vs. Jagtar Singh Etc. FIR No. 264/03 & 265/03 He has further testified that SI Satpal (PW35) also reached at the police station who had produced the accused Jitender @ Nanu before the SHO who was interrogated and arrested vide memo Ex. PW23/E whose personal search was conducted vide memo Ex. PW23/F. He has further deposed that on 10/06/03, he along with SI Satpal (PW35) and Constable Anar Singh reached at Village Bhaoli, District Panipat, Haryana from where the accused Ashok Kumar @ Ganja was arrested from his house from Nalva Colony vide arrest memo Ex. PW23/G and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex. 23/H who was interrogated and he took them to Village Biholi from where he got recovered one blue coloured pant from the house which was converted into pullinda, sealed with the seal of 'SPS' and seized vide memo Ex. PW23/I. He has further deposed that thereafter, the accused Ashok Kumar @ Ganja took them to Village Biholi at the house of accused Gian Chand and he had disclosed that his shirt and the papers pertaining to property were lying with the accused Gian Chand at his house and also deposed that SI Satpal (PW35) had also interrogated the accused Gian Chand who was arrested vide memo Ex. PW23/J and his personal search was also conducted vide memo Ex. PW23/K. He has further deposed that the accused Gian Chand had produced one shirt of sky blue colour and the papers of property which were seized vide memo Ex. PW23/L and Ex. PW23/M and he also identified the property papers as Ex. PX1.
(b) During leading question put by the Ld. APP, he stated that the shirt of Madan Prasad (chowkidaar) was also taken into possession by the police officials.
26/100 27State Vs. Jagtar Singh Etc. FIR No. 264/03 & 265/03
(c) During cross-examination on behalf of the accused persons, he stated that he reached at the spot at about 3:30 a.m. and the SHO reached after about 15-20 minutes and he remained at the spot till about 7:00/7:30 a.m. whereas the SHO left the spot at about 4:00 p.m. who returned back after about 2-2½ hours and also that the Crime Team was informed on wireless. He also stated that there were three rooms in the House No. 328, Gali Sri Kant Wali, Village Badli and one room was just at the entrance whereas two other rooms were at the back side of the plot. He also stated that the gadda, knife, pillow and axe were found lying in the open space and not in any room and he could not tell the distance between the dead body and the place where the said articles were found lying. He has also stated that the dead body was found lying in the Angan which was at a distance of about 5/6 steps from the main door and did not remember the distance between the main door and the place where the aforesaid articles were found lying. He has also stated that he and Constable Ravinder (PW31) had remained inside the house and did not remember as to how many persons were present outside the house at the Gali till the SHO returned back at the spot and one person was with him who was around 27/28 years old. He also stated that the memos were prepared after the SHO had arrived which work were done while sitting at a wooden stool. He also stated that one public person who had accompanied the police officials had also signed the memos. He also stated that SI Matadin (PW19) had shown the knife, axe and gadda to the SHO and expressed his inability to tell as to how much time it took to prepare memos Ex. PW1/A and Ex. PW1/E after which the SHO had also 27/100 28 State Vs. Jagtar Singh Etc. FIR No. 264/03 & 265/03 recorded the statement of that public person. He has also stated that the Tehrir was prepared on the statement of one Lakhi Bawariya (since expired) whose statement was also recorded as he was present at the said house since beginning. He also stated that Constable Ravinder (PW31) had left the spot alongwith Tehrir at about 7:30 a.m. and it took about one hour in recording the statement of Lakhi Bawariya and there was one Neem Tree in the said house No. 328 under which his statement was recorded. He also stated that the accused Jitender @ Nanu was brought to the police station by SI Satpal (PW35) at about 4:00 p.m. and his arrest memo was prepared in his presence. He also stated that message at the wireless regarding arrest of accused Jitender @ Nanu was sent to the SSP, Panipat and denied if he was produced by his family members. He has further stated that he could not tell the name of the public persons who came along with police officials at the police station when the accused Jagtar and Sheela were brought at the police station. He has also stated that they reached at the house of Ashok Kumar @ Ganja at about 12:00 noon and remained there for about 1-1½ hour and no public person from the village was joined in the investigation and also that at the relevant time, none else except the accused Ashok @ Ganja was present at his house.
(d) During further cross-examination on behalf of accused persons, he also stated that the house of accused Gian Chand was near to the house of accused Ashok Kumar @ Ganja and they reached there in the afternoon which took only about 20-25 minutes but as such no public person was asked to join the investigation and also that Gian Chand was also alone in his house 28/100 29 State Vs. Jagtar Singh Etc. FIR No. 264/03 & 265/03 at that time. He had denied if the accused Gian Chand was arrested after he came to village Badli on hearing about the death of his relative or that he was forcibly detained in the police station after he was lifted him from his house or that no recovery was effected from his person in pursuance of his disclosure statement as deposed by him or that the accused persons have been falsely implicated in the case .
26(a). Sh. R. P. Gautam (PW34-the Investigating Officer) has deposed that on 07/06/03, he came to know that a DD Entry No. 34A which is Ex. PW24/D regarding firing in the Sri Kant Wali Gali, Village Badli was recorded and also that two dacoits were apprehended whereupon he, by the Government vehicle along with Driver and Operator reached at the spot at House No. 328, Sri Kant Wali Gali, Village Badli where SI Laxmi Narain (PW21) and SI Matadin (PW19) were also present alongwith staff and he found dead body of a male person lying in the courtyard of that house and lot of blood was also found lying around it and he came to know that the injured persons were already shifted to the Trauma Centre. He has further deposed that thereafter, he along with SI Matadin (PW19) reached at the Trauma Centre leaving SI Laxmi Narain (PW21) and Constable Ravinder (PW31) at the spot itself where he found that three injured persons namely Lakhan, Bimla and Madan Prasad were admitted and Lakhan was declared brought dead whereas Madan Prasad was found unfit for statement and the injured Bimla was being operated upon as she had received injuries with sharp edged weapon and he also collected their MLCs and left SI Matadin (PW19) at the Trauma Centre. He has further deposed that in the 29/100 30 State Vs. Jagtar Singh Etc. FIR No. 264/03 & 265/03 meantime, he came to know that the accused Jagtar and Sheela @ Chabili were also admitted at BJRM Hospital and accordingly, he directed the Duty Officer to depute some police officials reach at BJRM Hospital to keep a watch on the accused persons and he himself again came back at the spot and called the Crime Team and the photographer who took several photographs from various angles and the scene was also inspected by the In- charge, Crime Team. He has further testified that thereafter, he contacted Lakhi Bawariya, the owner of the said house and recorded his statement Ex. PW34/A read over to him and also obtained his thumb impression at point 'A' after which he made endorsement Ex. PW34/B and also that Chandeshwari Mukhiya who was the neighbour of the deceased had identified the dead body of Bindeshwari Yadav. He has also deposed that in the meantime, SI Laxmi Narain (PW21) had produced a country made pistol which the public persons had snatched from near the accused who were apprehended from the spot and it was found containing two live cartridges and a fired cartridge whereupon, he directed SI Laxmi Narain (PW21) to conduct legal proceedings. He has further deposed that thereafter, he sent Constable Ravinder to get the FIR registered and also directed the duty Officer to send Special Reports to the offices of Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate and other Senior Police Officers. He has further testified that he also found one blood stained knife with wooden handle which was lying on the Takhat near the dead body which he measured and its total length was 26.5cms and he also prepared its sketch which is Ex. PW34/C, converted it into parcel, sealed it with the seal of 'RP' and seized it vide memo Ex. PW1/A. He has further deposed that the blood stained 30/100 31 State Vs. Jagtar Singh Etc. FIR No. 264/03 & 265/03 axe was also found lying near the dead body, the total length of which was 51cms and he prepared its sketch Ex. PW34/D, converted it into a Pullinda and after sealing it with the seal of 'RP', he had seized it vide memo Ex. PW1/B. He also deposed that thereafter, he collected blood sample of blood lying on the spot with the help of cotton, blood mixed earth, earth control and kept in the plastic containers, sealed them with the seal of 'RP' and seized them vide memo Ex. PW1/C. He had also deposed that he also found a blood stained pillow lying on the Takhat which he converted into a separate Pullinda, sealed with the seal of 'RP and seized it vide seizure memo Ex. PW1/D and the blood stained mattress of cotton gudri was also found lying on a cot near the Takhat which was also blood stained which was also converted into parcel, was sealed with the seal of 'RP after which it was seized vide memo Ex. PW1/F. He has further testified that he had also prepared the inquest papers regarding dead body of Bindeshwari Yadav i.e. application for conducting its postmortem which is Ex. PW9/D, brief facts of the inquest as Ex. PW34/E and filled up the Form No. 25.35 (1) (B) which is Ex. PW34/F, recorded statements of Phula Mukhiya and Chandeshwari Mukhiya which are Exhibits PW34/G and PW34/F respectively regarding identification of dead body of Bindeshwari Yadav and also moved an application Ex. PW34/J for preserving the said dead body and also which sent the said dead body to Mortuary of BJRM Hospital along with all the relevant documents. He has further deposed that in the meantime, Constable Ravinder (PW31) also 31/100 32 State Vs. Jagtar Singh Etc. FIR No. 264/03 & 265/03 reached at the spot along with copy of the FIR and original Rukka and handed it over to him and he also prepared site plan Ex. PW34/K at the instance of Lakhi Bawariya and the Crime Team In-charge had also handed him over the Inspection Report which is Ex. PW34/L. He has further deposed that thereafter, he went to the police station along with the case property and deposited it with the MHC(M) and on the same day itself, one of the injured persons namely Madan Prasad came to the police station after he was discharged from the Hospital who was wearing a blood stained shirt which he had also been wearing at the time of incident which he took into possession, converted into a parcel, sealed it with the seal of 'RP' and seized it vide memo Ex. PW3/A. He has further deposed that on the same day at about 3:00 p.m., the accused persons namely Jagtar and Sheela were also brought to the police station after they were discharged from BJRM Hospital who were interrogated and arrested vide memos Ex.PW23/A and Ex. PW23/B respectively, their personal searches were also conducted vide memos Ex.PW23/C and Ex. PW23/D respectively and their body inspection memos were also prepared which are Ex.PW34/M and Ex. PW34/N respectively. He has also deposed that he had seized the blood stained shirt of Jagtar, sealed it with the seal of 'RP' and seized it vide memo Ex. PW34/O and also seized the blood stained clothes as worn by the accused Sheela, converted them into parcel and after sealing them with the seal of 'RP', he seized them vide seizure memo Ex. PW25/A in the presence of Lady Constable Sunita (PW25) who had in fact taken the search of accused Sheela @ Chabili at his instructions. He has further deposed that the accused Jitender @ Nanu who was apprehended by SI Satpal (PW35) from his village 32/100 33 State Vs. Jagtar Singh Etc. FIR No. 264/03 & 265/03 was also brought to the police station who was interrogated and arrested vide memo Ex. PW23/E whose personal search was conducted vide memo Ex. PW23/F and his body inspection report Ex. PW34/P was also prepared and the case property was deposited with the MHC(M). He has further testified that on the same day, SI Matadin (PW19) had also handed him over the seizure memo of clothes of Bimla which is Ex. PW34/Q. He has further testified that on 08/06/03, on receiving DD No. 29A which is Ex. PW24/C regarding the death of Bimla in Trauma Centre, he reached there and conducted inquest proceedings regarding dead bodies of Lakhan and Bimla, prepared brief facts which are Ex. PW34/R and Ex. PW9/E, filled up Form No. 25.35 which are Ex. 34/S1 and Ex. PW34/S2, recorded statements of Phula Mukhiya and Chandeshwari Mukhiya regarding identification of said dead bodies which are Ex PW34/S3 to PW34/S6 and vide his applications ExPW9/E and Ex.PW34/S6, he requested that their dead bodies be preserved in the Mortuary of BJRM Hospital. He has further testified that on 08/06/03, the accused Jagtar, Sheela @ Chabili and Jitender @ Nanu were produced in the Court and he made reques for police custody remand of the accused Jagtar and Jitender @ Nanu and the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate had ordered two days' police custody remand regarding them, however the accused Sheela was sent to Judicial Custody. He has further testified that on 09/06/03, the accused Jagtar Singh during the interrogation made disclosure statement Ex. PW34/T wherein he had also disclosed the names of other accused persons as Ashok Kumar @ Ganja and Gian Chand and also disclosed their involvement in commission of the present offences and also disclosed that those accused persons can also get the recovery of other case 33/100 34 State Vs. Jagtar Singh Etc. FIR No. 264/03 & 265/03 property effected whereupon a team was constituted consisting of SI Satpal and other police officials who left to Panipat for further investigation. He has further deposed that on 10/06/03, Shanker Yadav (brother of the deceased Lakhan and Bindeshwari Yadav) reached to Delhi from Bihar who had identified their dead bodies in the Mortuary of BJRM Hospital. He has further deposed that he had taken the sealed parcels consisting of axe and knife to the Mortuary of BJRM Hospital and also that postmortem examination on the dead bodies of Lakhan, Bindeshwari Yadav and Bimla was conducted. He has also deposed that vide his application Ex. PW34/U, he collected information regarding weapon of offence and also that the injuries on the persons of deceased could have been caused by the said weapons of offence i.e. knife and axe and Dr. B. N. Acharya (PW9), the then Autopsy Surgeon gave the said opinion which is Ex. PW9/C who also prepared sketches of both the said weapons of offence which are Ex. PW9/B and Ex. PW9/I respectively after which, he resealed the parcels containing the weapons of offences with the seal of 'MS BJRM Hospital' and handed them over to him alongwith the sample seal. He has further deposed that SI Sukhbir Singh (PW26) had collected the sealed parcels of clothes and blood sample of deceased Bindeshwari Yadav and Lakhan and blood sample of deceased Bimla from the Mortuary vide memos Ex. PW7/A, Ex. PW26/A and Ex. PW18/A respectively and handed them over to him and deposited the case property with the MHC(M) and he also deposited parcels of knife and axe with MHC(M) and after the postmortems on dead bodies were conducted, they were handed over to Shanker Yadav vide memos Exhibits PW34/B1 to Ex. PW34/B3. He has further deposed that in the evening of 34/100 35 State Vs. Jagtar Singh Etc. FIR No. 264/03 & 265/03 10/06/03, the raiding/investigation team consisting of SI Satpal (PW35) and other police officials returned to Delhi who had produced the accused Ashok Kumar @ Ganja and the accused Gian Chand who were further produced in the Court and the accused Ashok Kumar @ Ganja was directed to remain in muffled face as his judicial TIP was to be conducted. He has further deposed that on 11/06/03, the accused Ashok Kumar @ Ganja had pointed out towards the place of occurrence and got recovered one black coloured cap from the room of the house where the dead body was found lying which was converted into Pullinda, sealed with the seal of 'RP' and was seized vide memo Ex. PW34/W and the accused Ashok Kumar @ Ganja also disclosed that he had left his cap there inadvertently on the day of occurrence. He has further deposed that thereafter, he moved an application regarding TIP of accused Ashok Kumar @ Ganja which is Ex. PW34/X and on 26/06/03, the judicial TIP of accused Ashok Kumar @ Ganja was conducted by the Ld. MM wherein the witnesses namely Smt. Santosh (PW5) and Raju Yadav (PW4) had correctly identified the accused and he also obtained the copy of the said proceedings Mark 'B' vide his application mark 'A'. He has further deposed that on 28/07/03, he sent the parcels/exhibits of the case to the office of FSL, Malviya Nagar through Constable Sanjay vide RC No. 130/21. He further deposed that on 09/08/03, he had also called SI Manohar Lal (Draftsman - PW12) and they reached at the spot where SI Manohar Lal (PW12) took rough notes of the place of occurrence at the pointing out of Lakhi Bawariya and he handed him over the scaled site plan which is Ex. PW12/A. He has also deposed that 35/100 36 State Vs. Jagtar Singh Etc. FIR No. 264/03 & 265/03 thereafter, he collected the MLCs of injured persons along with their X-Rays, recorded statements of witnesses and after completion of investigation, he filed the Charge-Sheet. He has also identified the Pillow, Gadda, Shawal, Axe, Brick pieces, knife, grey coloured shirt (belonging to the injured Madan Prasad as seized by inspector R. P. Gautam -PW34), one maroon coloured shirt, one cap (which was got recovered at the instance of accused Ashok Kumar @ Ganja from the spot) as Exhibits P1 to P13 respectively and the shirt, salwar @ duppata belonging to the accused Sheela @ Chabili collectively as Ex. PW14.
(b) During cross-examination on behalf of accused persons, he stated that he came to know about the said incident of firing from the Duty Officer at about 3:30 a.m. and made departure entry while leaving and reached at the spot at about 3:45 a.m. where he remained for about 15-20 minutes after which he left for Trauma Centre from where the copy of MLC was collected from the Duty Constable posted there at about 4:00 a.m. and came to know about death of Lakhan at about 4:00 a.m. He has also stated that the Crime Team and Photographer were called at about 6:00/7:00 a.m. He denied if no proceedings were conducted in his presence or that the accused have been falsely implicated in this case or that the accused Jagtar and Sheela were not apprehended at the spot. He also stated that the Takhat on which the knife & axe were found lying was in the open courtyard which was very much within the premises of said house and he was having the scale in the bag (Investigating Officer's Bag) with which he had measured the weapons of offence. He also stated that the said Gudri was found in open 36/100 37 State Vs. Jagtar Singh Etc. FIR No. 264/03 & 265/03 space in the courtyard of the house and was visible to anybody who would enter the courtyard. He stated that after registration of the FIR, Constable Ravinder (PW31) reached at the spot at about 9:00 a.m. and denied if he did not prepare the site plan at the instance of Lakhi Bawariya. He stated that he had gone to the Hospital on the same day at about 4:00 a.m. to record statement of Madan Prasad but he was not fit for statement at that time and was discharged from the Hospital only at about 2:30 p.m. He denied if he did not conduct the investigation properly or that he had falsely implicated the accused persons as they had not fulfilled his illegal demands for money.
(c) During further cross-examination by the Ld. Defence Counsel, he also stated that SI Satpal (PW35) had handed him over the custody of accused Jitender @ Nanu on 07/06/03 at about 4:30 p.m. and it took about half an hour to interrogate him. He also stated that the accused Ashok Kumar @ Ganja was produced before him on 10/06/03 after about 8:00 p.m. and denied if he was not kept in muffled face in the police station till his judicial TIP was conducted. He also stated that on 11/06/03, he along with HC Ramesh (PW29) and two other Constables left the police station at about 11:00 a.m. in a Government Gypsy and reached at the place of occurrence at about 11:20 a.m. and also that the black coloured cap was not recovered prior to 11/06/03 as it was found hidden/kept in a corner of a room and they did not come to know of it earlier. He also stated that Lakhi Bawariya was residing in one room and denied if he was an interested witness and further denied if no such cap was recovered from the house of Lakhi Bawariya. He stated that the documents were prepared at the spot itself while sitting on a 37/100 38 State Vs. Jagtar Singh Etc. FIR No. 264/03 & 265/03 chair and the seal of 'RP' after use was handed over to Bijender Mukhiya.
27(a). Constable Arvind Kumar (PW18) has testified that on 08/06/03, he along with the SHO reached at the Trauma Centre where the SHO handed him over inquest papers regarding Ms. Bimla Devi (deceased) and he shifted her dead body to the Mortuary of BJRM Hospital whose postmortem examination was conducted on 10/06/03 after which the dead body was handed over to Shanker Yadav. He has also deposed that the Assistant of the Mortuary had handed him over the blood sample of Bimla Devi along with sample seal which he handed over to SI Sukhbir Singh (PW26) who seized it vide memo Ex. PW18/A and has further deposed that none had tempered with the said dead body so long as it remained in his custody.
(b) During cross-examination on behalf of the accused persons, he stated that he did not recollect the time when he removed the said dead body to BJRM Hospital but handed it over to the conceerned Assistant at Mortuary and did not remember either his name or token number. He has also stated that he handed over the pullinda to the Duty Officer at about 1:00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m. on that day.
28(a). HC Ramesh (PW29) has testified that on 09/06/03 at about 11:00 a.m., he was present in the police station S. P. Badli when the accused Jagtar was brought there on police custody remand who was interrogated by the SHO in his presence during which his disclosure statement was also 38/100 39 State Vs. Jagtar Singh Etc. FIR No. 264/03 & 265/03 recorded.
(b) During cross-examination on behalf of the accused persons, he stated that disclosure statement of accused Jagtar was recorded in the room of the SHO which took about half an hour which is in his handwriting as per directions of the SHO at which point of time no public person was present.
29(a). Constable Chunni Lal (PW13) has testified that on 07/06/03, the In-charge Crime Team had received a call from the Control Room whereupon he alongwith SI Hemant Mishra, HC Satpal (PW35-Finger Print Expert) reached at the spot at House No. 328, Gali Sri Kant Wali, Village Badli at about 4:30 p.m. and found that one dead body was lying outside the said house near a cot and blood was also found lying there. He has further deposed that on the directions of Inspector R. P. Gautam (PW34), he took nine photographs and proved the negatives of the said photographs as Ex. PW13/A1 to Ex. PW13/A9 and the positive photographs as PW13/A10 to Ex. PW13/A18.
(b) During cross-examination by the Ld. Defence Counsel, he stated that his statement was recorded by the police officials.
30(a). Inspector Satpal (PW35 - who is also one of the Investigating Officers) has testified that on 09/06/03, he joined the investigation of the 39/100 40 State Vs. Jagtar Singh Etc. FIR No. 264/03 & 265/03 case as per directions of Inspector R. P. Gautam (PW34) and constituted a raiding party consisting of himself, HC Jitender (PW23), HC Ajay, Constable Anar and Constable Mukesh and they went to village Biholi and Bhaboli in Panipat along with the accused Jagtar who was already arrested and was with them on police custody remand. He has further testified that in village Biholi, at the pointing out of accused Jagtar, the other accused Jitender @ Nanu was also arrested and thereafter, the accused Jagtar led them to village Bhabholi at Nalwa Colony where he pointed out towards the house of accused Ashok Kumar @ Ganja but the said accused was not present there, so they along with the accused Jitender @ Nanu, came back to Delhi and he handed over custody of said accused to Inspector R. P. Gautam (PW34) who arrested him. He has further deposed that on 10/06/03, he along with other police officials went to village Bhaboli and from Nalwa Colony, the accused Ashok Kumar @ Ganja was apprehended who was interrogated and arrested vide memo Ex. PW23/G whose personal search was conducted vide memo Ex. PW23/H and he made a disclosure statement Ex. PW35/A in pursuance of which he got the blood stained pant recovered from his house and his blood stained shirt was recovered from the house of accused Gian Chand who was already arrested. He has also stated that the said pant was converted into Pullinda, sealed with the seal of 'SPS' and was seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW23/I and the accused Ashok @ Ganja had also led them to the house of accused Gian Chand who was interrogated and arrested vide memo Ex. PW23/J whose personal search was conducted vide memo Ex. PW23/K and the accused Gian Chand also got the blood stained shirt of accused Ashok Kumar @ Ganja 40/100 41 State Vs. Jagtar Singh Etc. FIR No. 264/03 & 265/03 recovered which was lying inside an iron box from his house and the accused Ashok Kumar @ Ganja had also stated that he was wearing the said shirt at the time of incident which was converted into Pullinda, sealed with the seal of 'SPS' and seized vide memo Ex. PW23/L. He has further deposed that the accused Gian Chand also handed over the original documents pertaining to property along with carbon copies and stated that there was property dispute between the deceased and him, which he seized vide memo Ex. PW23/M and identified the same collectively as PX1. He has further deposed that he made efforts to search for the other accused persons namely Ranvir and Nafe Singh but they could not be traced out. He further deposed that the accused Ashok Kumar @ Ganja was brought to Delhi in muffled faces and he as well as the accused Gian Chand were produced before the SHO and he deposited the case property with the MHC(M). He has further deposed that on 28/08/03, on the directions of the SHO, he recorded statements of Constable Suresh and Lady Constable Prefulla u/s 161 Cr.P.C and has identified the blood stained pant and blood stained shirt belonging to the accused Ashok Kumar @ Ganja as Ex. P15 and Ex. P16 respectively.
(b) During cross-examination on behalf of accused persons, he stated that at the time of recovery at the instance of accused persons, he had asked public persons to join the raiding party, investigation and recovery but they refused for which he did not serve any notice being busy with the proceedings of this case. He has fairly conceded that he did not obtain signature of the accompanying police officials on the seizure memos of pant 41/100 42 State Vs. Jagtar Singh Etc. FIR No. 264/03 & 265/03 and shirt of the accused and denied if no such recovery was effected at the instance of the accused as deposed by him. He has also stated that the accused Ashok Kumar @ Ganja had told him that the accused Gian Chand was his father-in-law and has further clarified that infact, the accused Ashok had mentioned "Hone Wala" prior to "Sasur" in Ex. PW23/L as he was told by the accused Ashok @ Ganja that Gian Chand was his 'would be father-in-law'. He has also stated that on 09/06/03, they had left from the police station at about 10:00 a.m. in a private Tata Sumo in which regard he made the relevant departure entry and they reached at village Bhaboli at about 12:30 p.m. and the accused Jitender @ Nanu was arrested at about 1:00 p.m. and they came back to the police station at about 4:00 p.m. He has also stated that on 10/06/03, they reached at village Bhaboli at about 3:00 p.m. by a private vehicle & at the time of arrest and disclosure statement of the accused Ashok Kumar @ Ganja, he requested certain public persons to join but none had agreed and has fairly conceded that he did not prepare any site plan of the spot from where the accused Ashok Kumar @ Ganja got his blood stained pant recovered. He also stated that they remained there till about 5:30 p.m. and also that the seal after use was handed over to HC Jitender (PW23) and thereafter, they reached to village Biholi at about 6:00 p.m. and finally reached at the police station at about 9:00 p.m. He has denied if he is deposing falsely or did not conduct the investigation in the aforesaid manner as deposed by him or that the accused persons have been falsely implicated.
31(a). Lady Constable Sunita (PW25) has deposed that on 07/06/03, 42/100 43 State Vs. Jagtar Singh Etc. FIR No. 264/03 & 265/03 in her presence, the concerned SHO had interrogated the accused Sheela whose wearing clothes were stained with blood which were taken into possession by her in the ladies room and has also deposed that she had also conducted personal search of accused Sheela. She has also testified that the clothes of Sheela which were seized consisted of her Salwar, Kamiz and Chunni and also that nothing was recovered from her personal search. She has further testified that the said clothes were sealed with the seal of 'RP' and were seized by the Investigating Officer vide seizure memo Ex. PW25/A. She has also proved on record the personal search memo and arrest memo of the accused Sheela as Ex. PW23/B and Ex. PW23/C respectively.
(b) During cross-examination by the Ld. Defence Counsel, she stated that accused Sheela was brought to the police station at about 2:00 p.m. and could not say as to who had brought her there.
32(a). HC Ram Singh [PW14-(MHCM)] has testified that on 07/06/03, Inspector R. P. Gautam (PW34) had handed him over 12 pullindas which were duly sealed with the seal of 'RPFSTC' which he deposited in the Malkhana vide entry No. 4015/03 in Register No. 19. He has further testified that on 10/06/03, SI Sukhbir Singh (PW26) had also deposited 5 pullindas duly sealed with the seal of 'BJRM' and on the same day, SI Satpal (PW35) had also deposited 2 pullindas duly sealed with the seal of 'SPS' in which regard he made entry in Register No. 19 at Serial No. 4020. He has 43/100 44 State Vs. Jagtar Singh Etc. FIR No. 264/03 & 265/03 further testified that on 11/06/03, Inspector R. P. Gautam (PW34) had also deposited one pullinda duly sealed with the seal of 'RPG' regarding which he made entry in Register No. 19 at Serial No. 4023. He has also testified that on 10/06/03, Inspector R. P. Gautam (PW34) had collected two pullindas consisting of knife and axe and also sought opinion from the Doctor after which he deposited them again in the malkhana on the same day itself at which point of time, they were duly sealed with the seal of 'BJRM Hospital, Jahangir Puri'. He has further testified that all the exhibits of the case were sent to the Office of FSL, Malviya Nagar, Delhi through Constable Rajesh Kumar vide RC No. 130/21 after which Constable Rajesh came back and handed him over the receipt regarding the deposits. He has also deposed that the pullindas were received back along with FSL result on 10/02/05 as brought by Constable Biri Singh and has proved on record, the copies of relevant entries made in Register No. 19 as Ex. PW14/A and has also proved on record the copy of RC as Ex. PW.14/B. He has further testified that so long as the case property/pullindas remained in his custody, they remained intact and nobody tempered with them.
(b) During cross-examination by the Ld. Defence Counsels, he denied if the said case property or exhibits were ever tempered with.
33(a). Constable Satish Kumar (PW17) has testified that on 07/06/03, he had gone to House No. 328, Village Badli at about 7:00 a.m. where Inspector R. P. Gautam (PW34) handed him over the inquest papers as prepared by him regarding Bindeshwari Yadav (deceased) and as per 44/100 45 State Vs. Jagtar Singh Etc. FIR No. 264/03 & 265/03 directions, he shifted his dead body to the Mortuary of BJRM Hospital, Jahangir Puri, Delhi.
He has further deposed that on 10/06/03, the SHO reached at the said Hospital and got the postmortem examination on said dead body conducted after which it was handed over to Shanker Yadav (his brother). He has further deposed that the Clerk of the Mortuary had also handed him over one sealed pullinda which was duly sealed with the seal of 'MS-BJRM Hospital' which contained an underwear and sample seal which he handed over to SI Sukhbir Singh (PW26) who at the relevant time was posted as Duty Officer at the Police Station who prepared the requisite document Ex. PW17/A in this regard. He has also deposed that the concerned SHO had also recorded his statement on 10/06/03.
(b) The accused persons did not prefer to cross examine him on any aspect.
34(a). HC Ram Rattan (PW8- who has also been examined as PW24) has testified that on 07/06/03, he was working as Duty Officer at PS Rohini from 1:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. and at about 7.50 am, Constable Ravinder (PW31) had handed him over one Rukka as sent by Inspector R. P. Gautam (PW34) on the basis of which he recorded FIR No. 264/03 u/ss 302/307/34 IPC and u/s 25/54/59 Arms Act and also recorded the Kayami Entry vide DD No. 2A and 3A. He has also proved on record the carbon copy of said FIR as Ex. PW8/A and has further testified that he had handed it over the copy of 45/100 46 State Vs. Jagtar Singh Etc. FIR No. 264/03 & 265/03 FIR and original Rukka to Constable Ravinder to hand them over to Inspector R. P. Gautam (PW34).
He has further deposed that on the same day at about 8:52 a.m., on the basis of Rukka as brought by Constable Rajbir (PW38) as sent by SI Laxmi Narain (PW21), he recorded another FIR No. 265/03 u/s 25/27/54/59 Arms Act vide Kayami Entry No. 4A and proved on record the carbon copy of said FIR as Ex. PW24/A. He has also proved on record the copy of DD No. 34A to the effect that in Gali Sri Kant Wali, Village Badli, the bullet was fired and two dacoits were apprehended and has also proved its carbon copy on record as Ex. PW24/B. He has further deposed that DD No. 29A was also recorded by him at about 1:50 a.m. on the basis of telephonic information as received from Trauma Centre from Constable Suresh to the effect that Bimla who was brought vide MLC No. 41136 dated 07/06/03 was declared brought dead at about 1:30 a.m. and proved its true copy as Ex. PW24/A.
(b) During cross-examination by the Ld. Defence Counsel, he denied if the Rukka or aforesaid DD entries were never received by him or that he had manipulated the said documents.
35(a). SI Sukhbir Singh (PW26- Duty Officer) has deposed that on 10/06/03, he was posted as Duty Officer at PS S. P. Badli on which day Constable Om Prakash (PW28), Constable Arvind Kumar (PW18) and Constable Satish (PW17) handed him over three sealed pullindas each which 46/100 47 State Vs. Jagtar Singh Etc. FIR No. 264/03 & 265/03 were duly sealed with the seal of 'MS-BJRM Hospital' which they had brought from the Hospital in which regard he prepared memos Ex. PW17A, Ex. PW18/A and Ex. PW36/A respectively.
(b) During cross-examination by the Ld. Defence Counsels, he denied if no such pullindas were ever handed over to him or no such memos were ever prepared by him or if the said memos were ever manipulated.
36(a). SI Manohar Lal (Draftsman - PW12) has testified that on 09/08/03, he along with Inspector R. P. Gautam (PW34- the Investigating Officer) reached at the House No. 328, Shrikant Wali Gali, S.P. Badli, Delhi where Lakhi Bawariya met them and at his instance, he took rough notes and measurements of the spot on the basis of which he prepared scaled site plan Ex. PW12/A and handed it over to the Investigating Officer after which he destroyed the rough notes and measurements.
(b) During cross-examination on behalf of the accused persons, he denied if the said site plan Ex. PW12/A is not correct or is not as per site/spot or that it was not prepared at the instance of Lakhi Bawariya.
37(a). Constable Om Prakash (PW28) has testified that on 08/06/03, he had shifted the dead body of Lakhan Yadav from Trauma Centre to the Mortuary of BJRM Hospital and he remained there till 10/06/03 on which day,its postmortem was conducted after which it was handed over to his brother. He has further deposed that the doctor had also handed him over 47/100 48 State Vs. Jagtar Singh Etc. FIR No. 264/03 & 265/03 three sealed pullindas along with sample seal which he handed over to SI Sukhbir Singh (PW26) who seized them vide memo Ex. PW26/A.
(b) During cross-examination by the Ld. Defence Counsels, he denied if he never handed over the said pullindas PW26 as deposed by him.
38(a). Constable Suresh Chand (PW36) has testified that on the intervening night of 07-08/06/03, he was posted at PS Civil Lines as Constable and was posted at Trauma Centre Hospital and on that night, one lady namely Bimla was admitted there in injured condition vide MLC No. 41136/03 who was later on declared dead and accordingly, he informed the Duty Officer of PS S. P. Badli about her death at about 1:50 a.m. who made the entry in DD Register vide DD No. 29A.
(b) During cross-examination by the accused persons, he stated that his duty was only to inform the concerned police officials and not to make any inquiry as such.
39(a). Sh. R. S. Yadav (PW43 - DIG, Goa) has testified that on 23/07/03, in pursuance of powers delegated upon him vide order No. 36740- 840/C&T/AC-I/PHQ dated 09/11/2000, he granted sanction u/s 39 Arms Act to prosecute the accused Jagtar in case FIR No. 265/03, PS S. P. Badli u/s 39 Arms Act and proved it on record as Ex. PW42/A. He has further deposed that he had granted the said sanction after going through the requisite material on record and the documents placed before him which 48/100 49 State Vs. Jagtar Singh Etc. FIR No. 264/03 & 265/03 included the report u/s 173 Cr.P.C., statements of witnesses as recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C., seizure memo Ex. PW21/D and the FSL report of the Ballistic Expert which is Ex. PX. He has further deposed that as per record, the accused Jagtar, on 7.6.03 at about 2.30 pm was found in conscious possession of one country made pistol of .315 Bore without licence along with one improvised .315 Bore live cartridge, one .30 fired empty cartridge and one improvised mis-fired cartridge which was in contravention of Section 3 of Arms Act, 1959.
(b) None of the accused had preferred to cross-examine him on any aspect despite the fact that sufficient opportunity was given to them 40(a). It would be pertinent to mention here that HC Ram Roop (PW42) has deposed on the lines of PW43, hence his examination in chief is not repeated for the sake of brevity to that extent, however during cross examination on behalf of accused persons, nothing has been place on record that the said sanction under section 39 of Arms Act was not granted by Sh. R.S. Yadav (PW43). During cross examination, he denied if he did not work under the supervision of PW43 or did not see him writing and signing.
41(a). HC Jai Bhagwan (PW33) has deposed that on 07/06/03, he was posted as Constable at PS S. P. Badli and delivered the special reports containing copies of FIR of the present case to the office Ld. MM and other Senior Officers including Joint Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner of police .
49/100 50State Vs. Jagtar Singh Etc. FIR No. 264/03 & 265/03
(b) During cross examination on behalf of accused persons, he stated that prior to his deposing before the court, he had gone through his statement as recorded by the Investigating Officer.
42(a). Constable Sanjay Kumar (PW32) has deposed that on 28/07/03, he was posted at PS S. P. Badli and as per the directions of SHO, he was handed over sixteen sealed parcels/pullindas along with the Road Certificate No. 130/21 which he deposited at the Office of FSL, Malviya Nagar and after coming back, he handed over the received copy of Road Certificate to MHC(M). He has further testified that so long as the said parcels remained in his custody, none tempered with them.
(b) During cross-examination by the Ld. Defence Counsels, he stated that said pullindas were sealed with different seals i.e. Seal of RP, Medical Superintendent of BJRM Hospital, STC and SPS and expressed his inability to specifically state as to which of the said parcels was sealed with which seal. He also stated that he cannot tell about the contents of said parcels as they were not sealed in his presence.
He also stated that on that day, he left the police station to go to Office of FSL at about 9:30/10:00 a.m. and the name of concerned MHC(M) was HC Ram Singh and also stated that after returning back at about 7:30 p.m., he handed over the received copy of RC to the MHC(M) and denied if he had ever tempered with the said parcels/pullindas.
50/100 51State Vs. Jagtar Singh Etc. FIR No. 264/03 & 265/03 43(a). Constable Mahender Singh (PW40) has deposed that on 21/07/03, SI Laxmi Narain (PW21) had directed him to collect the exhibits of the case from the Office of FSL in which regard, he was given an authority letter and accordingly he collected four sealed parcels and one envelope containing the result from the Dealing Clerk, FSL, Malviya Nagar which he handed over to the concerned MHC(M). He has further deposed that seals on the said exhibits remained intact so long as they remained in his custody and he did not temper with their seals. He has also testified that the Investigating Officer had also recorded his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C.
(b) During cross-examination by the Ld. Defence Counsels, he stated that he had collected the said results at about 2:30 p.m. on that day and deposited it with the MHC(M) on the same day itself at about 5:00 p.m. He has denied if he had ever tempered with the seals of the said exhibits.
44(a). Constable Devender Singh (PW41) has testified that on 01/07/03, as per instructions of SI Randhir, he had collected three sealed parcels which were duly sealed with the seal of 'LNS' alongwith one FSL Form which was also sealed with the seal of 'LNS' pertaining to case FIR No. 265/03 u/s 25/27/54/59 Arms Act, PS Badli(pertaining to the accused Jagtar) and vide Road Certificate No. 107/21, he deposited them in the Ballistic Division of FSL, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi in which regard the concerned official had also issued the receipt which he handed over to the Investigating Officer. He has further deposed that the seals on the said exhibits remained intact till they remained in his custody and none tempered with them. He has 51/100 52 State Vs. Jagtar Singh Etc. FIR No. 264/03 & 265/03 also deposed that the Investigation Officer had also recorded his statement U/s 161 Cr. PC.
(b) During cross-examination by the Ld. Defence Counsels, he expressed his inability to state as to when he had collected the said exhibits from MHC(M) but stated that he had collected them in the morning and deposited them at the Office of FSL, Malviya Nagar during noon time and also stated the distance between the police station and the Office of FSL to be approximately 25-30 kms. He has categorically denied if he had tempered with the seals of the said exhibits.
45(a). Dr. Jitender Kumar (PW16 who was also examined as PW20) has testified that on 07/06/03, he had examined Madan Prasad (Injured) vide detailed MLC Ex. PW16/A who was brought to the hospital by the police officials with alleged history of gun shot injury. He has also testified that on local examination, one lacerated wound 3cm X 1cm was found on his right temporal region with surrounding abrasion and blackening of the area was around 6cm X 5cm.
He has further deposed that on 07/06/03 at about 4:00 a.m., he had also examined an unknown person who was brought by PCR with alleged history of assault and on examination but he was unconscious and did not respond to any stimuli. He has further deposed that on local examination, an incised wound with sharp margin 4cm X 1cm was found over anterior aspect of his neck below cricoid cartilege, an incised wound 52/100 53 State Vs. Jagtar Singh Etc. FIR No. 264/03 & 265/03 with sharp margin (5cm X 1cm) over anterior aspect of neck below first wound was also observed; an incised wound with sharp margin (6cm X 1cm) over anterior aspect of lower part of neck was also found and an incised wound (4cm X 1cm) over nape of neck with punctured wound with sharp margin (6cm X 2cm) with protruded omentum at left lateral aspect of abdomen at about middle was also noticed.
He has also deposed that though urgent CPR was started, yet the patient did not show any sign of recovery and on clinical grounds, he was declared brought dead whose body was handed over to the Duty Constable. He further deposed that vide MLC Ex. PW20/A, he gave opinion that he was brought dead and weapon used was sharp.
He has further deposed that on 07/06/03, he had also examined Bimla w/o unknown, aged 30 years who was brought by the PCR with the alleged history of assault (stab injury). He further deposed that on examination, she was found to be conscious, restless and in respiratory distress; her pulse was 86 per minute, BP was 138/80, pupil was bilateral and it was normal size normal reaction and CVS and per abdomen normal, Chest and Air entries right side decreased.
He further deposed that on local examination, lacerated wound (3cm X 2cm) at medial aspect of right eyebrow; punctured wound with sharp margin (3cm X 1cm) was observed at anterior aspect of lower part of right side of chest; one punctured wound with sharp margin (3cm X 1cm) at lateral 53/100 54 State Vs. Jagtar Singh Etc. FIR No. 264/03 & 265/03 aspect of upper part of right thigh was found and thereafter he prepared MLC Ex. PW20/B bearing his signature at point 'A' and advised her admission to neuro surgery. He has further opined that injury no. 1 was found to be caused by blunt object while injury nos. 2 & 3 were caused by sharp object.
(b) During cross-examination by the Ld. Defence Counsel, he stated that though Madan Prasad and Bimla were advised for neuro-surgery yet his advice was not adhered to. He has also stated that as per MLC of Madan Prasad, he was unfit for making statement at 4:00 a.m. and was fit for statement at about 7:45 a.m. 46(a). Dr. B. N. Acharya (PW9 - CMO, BJRM Hospital) has testified that on 10/06/03, he had conducted postmortem examination on the dead body of Bindeshwari Yadav which was sent as per orders of Inspector R. P. Gautam (PW34) as identified by Constable Om Prakash (PW28) and the brief history as per inquest papers was that he was found dead on 07/06/03 at 3:20 a.m. with history of assault with a sharp edged weapon. He has further testified the said dead body was found wearing a red coloured blood stained underwear and also that built of the body was normal and rigor mortis was present all over the body He has further testified that postmortem staining was found on its back except pressure point, eyes were open, conjunctivae pale and cornea hazy. He has further deposed that its mouth was closed, tongue was inside mouth, nails were pale and there was no discharge from natural orifices. He has also testified that on external 54/100 55 State Vs. Jagtar Singh Etc. FIR No. 264/03 & 265/03 examination, he noticed an incised wound on the right side neck just above the clavide i.e. 1.5 cm above claride and 2 cm lateral to midline size 4cm X 1.5 cm X 3 cm deep, tailing wound was medically on cut section muscle and vessel underneath was also cut and also that CLW on the back of left ear was of size 2.5 cm X 1.5 cm bond deep and CLW on the left temporal region was 7 cm above the left ear and 12 cm which was above the lateral end of eyebrow of size 2 cm X 1.5 cm.
He further deposed that on internal examination of the body, scalp tissues were found normal except injury site, the skull bone was intact, brain mater meninges and cerbral vessles pale, base of skull intact. Nhylid bone was intact, thyroid cartilage cricoid cartilage and tracheal rings intact, tracheal mucosa blood, blood in trachea division was found. Muscle and vessel of neck below the injury are cut. Blood extravasated in the sub curaneous tissues and muscle. Thoracic verte brae at T1 is fractured anteriorily. Bony case of chest intact, plleural cavitites normal, lungs pale and gall bladder pale, spleen, kidneys, pancreas pale and stomach contain semi digest food, mucosa normal, no abnormal smell, bowis gases, urinary bladder empty, rectum full.
He further deposed that all the injures were ante mortem in nature and injury No. 1 was caused by heavy cutting weapon and injury nos. 2 & 3 were caused by the blunt portion of weapon and has further deposed that the death was due to haemorrhage shock consequent to injuries to neck vessel on right side which is sufficient to cause death in 55/100 56 State Vs. Jagtar Singh Etc. FIR No. 264/03 & 265/03 ordinary course of nature and also opined that time since death was about 84 hours back. He has also deposed that he had preserved the blood and clothes of the deceased in gauze piece and handed them over to the police officials and proved his detailed report in this regard is Ex. PW9/A. He has also testified that on 10/06/03, he had received a sealed packet which was sealed with the seal of 'RP' containing the weapon of offence i.e. an axe with a wooden handle and he prepared its sketch which is Ex. PW9/B. He also opined that the injuries as mentioned in postmortem report No. 404/03 dated 10/06/03 could be possible with the said axe or similar type of weapon. He has also opined that injury no. 1 was caused by sharp edged and injury Nos. 2 & 3 could be possible by blunt portion of the axe. He further deposed that thereafter, the weapon was resealed with the seal of 'Medical Superintendent, BJRM Hospital' and was handed over to the police officials and proved his detailed report in this regard as Ex. PW9/C bearing his signature at point 'A' and has also proved the inquest papers as Ex. PW9/D. He has further testified that on 10/06/03, he had also conducted postmortem examination on the dead body of Lakhan Yadav aged 30 years S/o Beni Yadav as brought by Inspector/SHO R. P. Gautam of PS S. P. Badli which was duly identified by Constable Biri Singh. He further deposed that the history as per inquest papers was that the deceased had died on 07/06/03 at 4:00 a.m. with history of assault and was brought dead to Sushruta Trauma Centre on the said date and time and the said dead body was wearing only an 56/100 57 State Vs. Jagtar Singh Etc. FIR No. 264/03 & 265/03 underwear, the built of body was normal and rigor mortis present all over the body and postmortem stains were found on the back except pressure point, eyes open, conjunctivae pale, cornea hazy, mouth closed, tongue inside the mouth, nails pale and there was no discharge from natural orifices.
He further deposed that on external examination, it was found that the incised stab wound was present on the left lumber region on flanks placed vertically with acute angle upward of size 5cm X 2cm X 14cm situated 16.5cm lateral to midline, 2.5cm below the anterior axillary line and 17cm left and obliquely from left nipple on cut section it cut the skin and muscle of the abdomen and it perforated the peritinium piece through mesentry and small intestine and cuts the left lower lobe and also that whole tract was filled with blood and blood clot.
He also testified that the incised wound on the left side of neck up to right side was 5cm below the right mendible and 7cm below the left mendible and wound was tepporing towards right side and placed almost horizontally and has further deposed that the incised would was on the left side of neck situated 11cm below left mendible and 1.5cm below injury No. 3 size 10cm X 1cm skin deep and it tappers towards right side and the injury nos. 3 & 4 cuts trachea on middle of neck and that the incised wound was on the back of neck which was 3.5cm X 1.8 cm and below the hair line 7cm backward to angle of mendible left and 4cm from midline; acute angle anteriorily depth 4cm.
57/100 58State Vs. Jagtar Singh Etc. FIR No. 264/03 & 265/03 He also deposed that on internal examination, he found scalp tissues normal except injury site, skull bone intact, brain matter meninges and cerbral vessels pale, base of skull intact and the hylid bone was intact, thyroid cartilage cricoid cartilage and tracheal rings intact, tracheal mucose blood, blood in trachea division was found and muscle and vessel of neck below the injury are cut. Blood extravasated in the sub cutaneous tissues and muscle and thoracic verte brae at T1 is fractured anteriorily and bony case of chest intact, plleural cavitites normal, lungs pale and adherent to chest wall, no abnormaity was found in heart and liver showed tear on left lobe lower surface 2cm full of blood and clot and spleen, kidneys, pancreas pale and stomach contain semi digest food, mucosa normal, no abnormal smell, bowls gases, urinary bladder empty and rectum was full.
He opined that all the said injuries were ante mortem in nature which were caused by heavy sharp weapon and injuries No. 1was sufficient to cause death and death was due to haemorrhagic shock consequent to injuries to liver mesentary and intestine and time since death was about 84 hours back. He had also preserved the blood in gauze piece and clothes of the deceased and handed them over to the police officials and proved his detailed report in this regard as Ex. PW9/E and also proved the inquest papers as Ex. PW9/E. He also testified that on 10/06/03, he had also conducted postmortem examination on the dead body of Bimla aged 22 years w/o Lakhan Yadav as brought by Inspector R. P. Gautam which was identified by 58/100 59 State Vs. Jagtar Singh Etc. FIR No. 264/03 & 265/03 Constable Arvind Kumar and as per inquest papers, she had died at the Sushruta Trauma Centre on 08/06/03 at 1:30 a.m. with history of assault (stab injuries). He also deposed that the dead body was wearing nothing, built of body was normal, rigor mortis was present all over the body, post mortem stains were found on back, the eyes were closed, conjunctivae pale, cornea hazy mouth closed, tongue inside, nails pale, bleeding from nasal.
He further stated that on external examination, he found the following injuries on the person of Bimla :-
"Stitched wound right lower chest of size 6.5cm in length with 7 stitches. It was 11cm below nipple and 8cm lateral to midline, drainage tube on right chest 8cm above the injury on cut section wound passes through 8th and 9th rib and cuts liver through and through upto stomach, stomach wall was repaired.
Stitched wound right eyebrow with five stitches at medial end. Stitched wound on nose 2cm in length with three stitches. Stitched wound on right thigh on middle and lateral aspect with four stitches and 6cm in length.
Laprotomy stitched wound on middle of abdomen with 16 stitches and 21cm. Drainage tube on left chest and left ilia fossil.
Stitched wound left lower jaw below lip with three stitches 2cm in length.
He has further deposed that on internal examination, scalp tissues normal except injury site, skull bone intact, brain matter meninges and 59/100 60 State Vs. Jagtar Singh Etc. FIR No. 264/03 & 265/03 cerbral vessels pale, base of skull intact. Hylid bone was intact, thyroid cartilage cricoid cartilage and tracheal rings intact, tracheal mucosa blood, blood in trachea division was found. Muscle and vessle of neck below the injury were cut. Blood extravasated in the sub cutaneous tissues and muscle. Thoracic verte brae at T1 is fractured anteriorily. Bony case of chest intact, plleural cavitites normal, lungs pale and adherent to chest wall, no abnormality was found in heart. Liver and gal bladder pale, liver cut mark through and through with sponge dressing on upper surface size 2.5cm. Stomach contained blood mixed fluid, stomach wall and mucosa repaired, no abnormal smell was found, small and large bowels gases, bladder empty, uterus enlarged with foetus of length 1cm."
He has also opined that "All the injuries were ante mortem in nature. Death in this case was due to haemorrhagic shock consequent to liver injuries associated with stomach injury. Time since death was mentioned in the Hospital" and proved the detailed report in this regard as Ex. PW9/G and inquest papers as Ex. PW9/H. He has further deposed that on 10/06/03, a sealed parcel which was duly sealed with the seal of 'RP' was also produced by Inspector R. P. Gautam containing weapon of offence i.e. knife and he prepared its sketch which is Ex. PW9/I and opined that the injuries as mentioned in the postmortem report No. 405/03 dated 10/06/03 could be possible with that knife or similar type of knife after which the said weapon/knife was resealed with the seal of 'Medical Superintendent, BJRM Hospital' and was 60/100 61 State Vs. Jagtar Singh Etc. FIR No. 264/03 & 265/03 handed over to the police officials and proved his report in this regard as Ex. PW9/C bearing his signatures at point 'B'.
(b) None of the accused persons preferred to cross examine him despite opportunity afforded.
47(a). Sh. Kanta Yadav (PW15 - Record Clerk, Sushruta Trauma Center, Civil Lines, Delhi) appeared on behalf of Dr. Sandip Aggarwal, who has testified that he is conversant with the hand writing and signatures of said doctor and identified the handwriting and signature of Dr. Sandip Aggarwal on MLC No. 41135 pertaining to Madan Prasad dated 07/06/03. He has also proved on record the opinion of Doctor Sandip Aggarwal at mark 'A' and proved the said MLC as mark 'B'.
(b) No cross-examination was offered to him by or on behalf of any of the accused persons.
48(a). Mr. K. C. Varshney (PW39-Asstt. Director, FSL, Rohini, Delhi) has testified that on 01/07/03, three sealed parcels which were duly sealed with the seal of 'LNS' were received in the Office of FSL along with a forwarding letter which were marked to him for examination and opinion and at that time, the seals on the said parcels were intact and on opening parcel No. 1, it was found containing one country made pistol i.e. Katta of .315 inch bore; parcel No. 2 was found containing one empty cartridge case of .30 inch and a polythene was also wrapped around the head of empty cartridge case 61/100 62 State Vs. Jagtar Singh Etc. FIR No. 264/03 & 265/03 and parcel No. 3 was found containing two improvised i.e. locally made cartridges which were marked as Ex. F1, EC1, A1 & A2 respectively.
He has further testified that the country made pistol marked F1 was in working order and the test fire was conducted successfully. He has also deposed that improvised cartridge mark A1 was live and was test fired through the country made pistol mark F1 and the test fired cartridge case was marked as TC1. The other improvised cartridge marked A2 was mis-fired. The empty cartridge case marked EC1 was the fired empty cartridge and was found to have been fired from the country made pistol marked F1 and when he compared the individual characteristics of firing pin marks on EC1 and on the test fired cartridge case TC1, under the comparison microscope, the country made pistol marked F1 was found a fire arm and the improvised cartridges and cartridge case marked A1, A2 and EC1 were ammunition as defined in the Arms Act. He has further deposed that the said exhibits were resealed and were sent back with the seal of 'KCV, FSL, Delhi' after examination.
He has proved on record the detailed analysis report dated 21/07/03 as Ex. PX bearing his signatures at point X1 and X2 and has also identified the country made pistol/Katta as Ex. 1, live mis-fired cartridge as Ex. P8, test fired cartridge as Ex. P9 and another fired cartridge as Ex. P10.
(b) No cross-examination was offered to him by or on behalf of any of the accused persons at all on any aspect whatsoever despite opportunity 62/100 63 State Vs. Jagtar Singh Etc. FIR No. 264/03 & 265/03 afforded.
49. In the present case, The accused Jagtar, Sheela and Gian Chand have examined Balle Ram as DW1 and Suresh Kumar as DW2 in their defence.
50(a) Sh. Balle Ram (DW1) has testified that on 6.6.03, while he was sitting in his bethak along with some other persons including the accused Gian Chand, one police official came who asked Gian Chand to accompany him on which he intervened and requested that he himself would produce Gian Chand at the police station on next day and accordingly, he produced Gian Chand in the police station on the following day. He has also testified that the antecedents of the accused Gian Chand are not bad and he is a good villager.
(b) During cross examination by Ld. APP, he has inter alia stated that on 7.6.2003, the accused Gian Chand was present at his village and in the same breath, he again stated that being illiterate do not remember the month.
51(a). Suresh Kumar (DW2) has testified that Gian Chand used to work for him whenever the crops were ripe and has further testified that the accused Gian Chand came to him on 6.6.2003 at about 8.00 pm to collect his emoluments.
(b) During leading question put by defence counsel, he stated that 63/100 64 State Vs. Jagtar Singh Etc. FIR No. 264/03 & 265/03 on that day, they had dinner together and on his asking, the accused Gain Chand collected "Tura" from some distant field who again came back to him on next day at about 7.00 a.m. after which he made the payment, the accused left to his house.
(c) During cross examination by Ld. APP, he stated that he used to take dinner at about 8.30 p.m and would go to sleep at about 10.30 p.m. He also stated that during that night, the accused was busy in bringing the "Tura",
52. I have heard the final arguments as advanced by Shri Shiv Kumar, Ld. APP for the State and advocate Ms. Sadhna Bhatia, Ld. Defence Counsel for all the accused persons and have gone through the rival submissions made by them and have also carefully gone through the material as placed on record.
53 (a) Ld. APP has vehemently argued that in the present case, Raju Yadav (PW4) who is an eye-witness has very categorically deposed regarding the entire occurrence, the way it occurred as he had clearly seen the accused persons namely Gian Chand, Jagtar, Sheela @ Chabili and Ashok Kumar @ Ganja at the H.No. 328, Shrikant Wali Gali, S.P. Badli, committing murders of Bimla, Lakhan and Bindeshwari as on that day where he came to meet Bindeshwari being his friend and since it got late, he stayed there during night and at about 2.30 am (night), he woke up on hearing noise, he saw that the said accused persons were inflicting injuries on the person of 64/100 65 State Vs. Jagtar Singh Etc. FIR No. 264/03 & 265/03 Bimla, her husband Lakhan and his brother Bindeshwari Yadav with axe also and has submitted that his testimony which has nowhere been rebutted and is sufficiently corroborated on all essential aspects by other prosecution witnesses as well as and by the documents which were prepared during course of investigation and have duly placed and proved on record. He has further contended that though, Madan Prasad (PW3) who was the Chowkidaar had not identified the accused Jagtar and Sheela to be the assailants, yet the same does not collapse the case of prosecution as he, at the most, can depose regarding the injuries caused on his own person and admittedly is not a witness as far as murders of Bimla, Lakhan and Bindeshwari Yadav are concerned.
(b) Ld. APP has further argued that after the occurrence, certain other public persons had also gathered at the spot, however by that time, the accused persons had already committed the said murders and even if they have not identified the accused to be the culprits or as murderers, yet it would not effect the case of the prosecution adversely as admittedly, they were not present at the spot when the incident took place.
(c) Ld. APP has also contended that the accused Jagtar and Sheela @ Chabili were apprehended red handed near the spot itself by the chowkidaar Madan Prasad with the help of other villages while they were trying to escape and one katta alongwith live cartridges was also recovered from the possession of accused Jagtar with which he had shot at Madan Prasad while he was trying to apprehend him. He has further elaborated that in fact the 65/100 66 State Vs. Jagtar Singh Etc. FIR No. 264/03 & 265/03 police officials also reached to the spot promptly and detailed investigation was conducted during which the accused Jagtar and Sheela @ Chabili who were already apprehended at the spot were arrested and the other accused persons namely Gian Chand, Ashok Kumar @ Ganja and Jitender @ Nanu were arrested during further investigation in pursuance of disclosure statements of other accused persons and also that at their instance, further recoveries of blood stained clothes which they were wearing at the time of occurrence and weapons of offence were used in commission of murder also effected from the spot itself which also connect the accused persons with commission of murders of Bimla, Lakhan and Bindeshwari Yadav. He has also submitted that the FSL reports have also been duly proved on record which unerringly point out that the said Katta was used by the accused Jagtar for firing at Madan Prasad and the FSL Reports Exhibits Z1 & Z2 also point out regarding involvement of accused persons in commission of murders of Lakhan, Bimla and Bindeshwri Yadav as human blood was detected on their clothes which were the accused Jagtar and Sheela were wearing at the time of arrest and other accused persons got also their blood stained clothes recovered in pursuance of their disclosure statements which further prove the case of prosecution as none of the accused has been able to show as to how human blood particularly that of the deceased persons was found on their clothes which they got recovered in pursuance of their disclosure statements. Ld. APP has submitted that the defence witnesses i.e. DWs 1 and 2 as examined by the accused persons have nowhere been able to say if the accused did not commit the said offence.
66/100 67State Vs. Jagtar Singh Etc. FIR No. 264/03 & 265/03
(d) Ld. APP has also submitted that since the prosecution has succeeded in bringing home the guilt of all the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt regarding their committing murders of Bimla, Lakhan and Bindeshwari at the relevant time and also regarding causing injuries on the person of Madan Prasad (chowkidaar) and has also proved the guilt of accused Jagtar regarding possession of Katta and cartridges unauthorisedly, hence they must be convicted for the offences as alleged against them U/s 302/307/34 IPC and has further prayed that the accused Jagtar must also be convicted for committing offence as punishable U/s 25/27 Arms Act.
54(a). Ld. Defence Counsel has vehemently rebutted the same contending that all the public witnesses including Madan Prasad (Chowkidaar) who is the injured have turned hostile and none of them have anywhere deposed if any of the accused persons are involved in committing the murders of Bimla, Lakhan and Bindeshwari Yadav or if they or any of them had ever fired at injured Madan Prasad. She has also argued that the sole material witness who has supported the case of prosecution is Raju Yadav (PW4), however he cannot be relied upon as he was friend of one of the deceased namely Bindeshwari Yadav and is accordingly an interested witness and it is very strange that though he was friend of Bindeshwari Yadav, yet he did not come forward to help him when as per his version the accused persons were inflicting injuries on the persons of deceased and being such a close friend, he preferred not to come to their rescue which is unbelievable and as such, his witnessing the occurrence is not trustworthy and his testimony must be outrightly rejected as it is not corroborated by any 67/100 68 State Vs. Jagtar Singh Etc. FIR No. 264/03 & 265/03 independent witness.
(b) Ld. Defence Counsel has also contended that even the complainant Lakhi Bawariya who is also shown as eye witness of the occurrence has not been examined and accordingly, the complaint has not been proved on record which also raise doubt regarding genuineness of case of the prosecution. She has further averred that the other witnesses as examined by the prosecution include only the Doctors who had examined the injured/deceased, the FSL Experts who had examined the exhibits and proved their respective reports and the police officials who had reached to the spot only later on and conducted investigation but none of them have thrown any light on merits of the case as admittedly they had not witnessed the occurrence and have come into picture only later on after the incident has taken place and accordingly as except Raju Yadav, there is no other material witness who has deposed anything incriminating against the accused persons.
(c) Ld. Defence counsel has also contended that infact nothing was recovered from the possession of either of the accused persons or at their instance and the entire case property and the blood stained clothes were planted on them later and it was under compulsion and due to coercive tactics as adopted by the police officials that they had made the said disclosure statements admitting their guilt.
(d) Ld. Defence counsel of the accused persons has further argued that as such the accused persons had no motive at all to commit such an 68/100 69 State Vs. Jagtar Singh Etc. FIR No. 264/03 & 265/03 henious offence like murder and that too of their near and dear ones as the deceased were neither any outsiders nor strangers and infact the deceased Bimla was the real niece of accused Gian Chand and was accordingly the cousin sister of the accused Jagtar and Sheela and the deceased Lakhan was her husband and the deceased Bindeshwari Yadav was the brother of Lakhan and accordingly, all the accused and deceased were very near relatives and as such it cannot expected that the accused would be murdering them. She has further submitted that further the defence witnesses have also falsified the case of the prosecution who have proved on record that the accused Gian Chand was not present at the relevant time at the place of occurrence.
(e) Ld. Defence counsel has prayed that since the prosecution has miserably failed to bring home guilt of any of the accused persons on record regarding their committing the alleged murders and also that there is nothing on record if the accused Jagtar was found in possession of katta and live cartridges without licence. hence they must be acquitted of the charges as leveled against them.
55. Ld. APP in rebuttal, has contended that it is settled law that conviction can be based even on the sole testimony of one witness, if it inspires confidence of court and as such no corroboration is required and in the present case, Raju Yadav (PW4) cannot be termed as an interested witness as he was only a friend of the deceased Bindeshwari Yadav and it was per chance, that he had come to meet them at their house and since he got late in the night , so at the request of Bindeshwari, he took meals and 69/100 70 State Vs. Jagtar Singh Etc. FIR No. 264/03 & 265/03 preferred to stay in their house during night and hence his presence at the spot at the relevant time and his witnessing the occurrence in the manner in which he has deposed cannot be discarded. He has also apprised that in fact due to noise, Raju Yadav who was sleeping on the roof of the said house woke up from where he was undisputedly in a position to see the entire occurrence and could also see the assailants and he has also narrated the specific role of each of the accused persons in committing the ghastly offence whereby three persons of the same family were brutally murdered and that the motive behind it was that Bimla married Lakhan who was a Bihari against the wishes of the accused Gian Chand, Jagtar and Sheela who were her real uncle and first cousins who were also annoyed as Bimla along with her husband Lakhan and his brother Bindeshwari was residing in the house of her paternal grand father Lakhi Bawariya which in fact was in the name of accused Gian Chand who were not ready and willing to vacate the said house despite requests of the accused persons and rather certain rooms were lent on rent and in order to get the property vacated, papers of which were in the name of accused Gian Chand, the accused Gian Chand, Jagtar and Sheela entered into a criminal conspiracy wherein they also alluring the accused Ashok @ Ganja that marriage of Sheela would be solemnized him for it he join them in committing the said offence for which he agreed and also further involved the accused Jitender who was the friend of accused Jagtar and as such though the accused Ashok @ Ganja and Jitender had no direct interest in committing the said murders of deceased persons, yet they had also criminally conspired with the other accused and participated in murders of Bimla, Lakhan and Bindeshwari Yadav and in the process, 70/100 71 State Vs. Jagtar Singh Etc. FIR No. 264/03 & 265/03 while trying to flee away, injuries were also caused on the person of Madan Prasad by the accused Jagtar who used Katta for the purpose. He has also submitted that undoubtedly, the complainant Lakhi Bawariya has not been examined for which the reason is beyond the control of prosecution as he has already expired however, his complaint has been duly proved on record as Ex.PW34/A wherein, he has very specifically mentioned the name of accused persons to be the assailants and it was on Ex. PW34/A, that the FIR was registered. Ld. APP has also emphasized that the Doctors, FSL Experts and the police officials are not merely formal witnesses and in fact, the MLCs and the postmortem reports have lend sufficient corroboration to the testimonies of prosecution witnesses, the reports of FSL are strong evidence against the accused persons and the police officials had reached to the spot in a short while who had conducted detailed investigation and as such, none of them is under challenge so far as their genuineness is concerned and they throw light on merits of the case on material aspects and have succeeded in bringing home the guilt of all the accused persons on record beyond reasonable doubt for committing murders of Bimla, Lakhan and Bindeshwari and that the accused Jagtar was found in unauthorised possession of katta and cartridges regarding which also sufficient evidence has come on record.
56. I have heard at the length the final arguments as advanced by both the parties, however at this stage, court is of the considered opinion that before proceeding any further, it would be appropriate to discuss the relevant provisions of Sections 300,307,120-B and 34 of Indian Penal Code 1860.
71/100 72State Vs. Jagtar Singh Etc. FIR No. 264/03 & 265/03
57. (a) Section 300 IPC is defined as under: -
"Murder : Except in the cases herein after excepted, culpable homicide is murder, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or Secondly, if it is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused, or Thirdly, if it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any any and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death , or Fourthly, if the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it must , in all probability , cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid.
Exceptions : when culpable homicide is not murder: Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, whilst deprived of the power of self- control by grave and sudden provocation, causes the death of the person who gave the provocation or causes the death of any other person by mistake or accident.
The above exception is subject to the followings provisions:
Firstly, that the provocation is not sought or voluntarily proved by the offender as an excuse for killing or doing harm to any person.
Secondly, that the provocation is not given by anything done in obedience to the law , or by a public servant in the lawful exercise of the powers of such public servant.
Thirdly, that the provocation is not given 72/100 73 State Vs. Jagtar Singh Etc. FIR No. 264/03 & 265/03 by anything in the lawful exercise of the right of private defence."
(b) Section 307 IPC is defined as under : Attempt to murder : Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender shall be liable either to imprisonment for life, or to such punishment as is herein before mentioned.
Attempts by life-convicts: When any person offending under this section is under sentence of imprisonment for life, he may, if hurt is caused, be punished with death.
(c) Section 120-B IPC defined as under: (1) "whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or upwards, shall where no express provision is made in this Code for the punishment of such a conspiracy, be punished in the same manner as if he had abetted such offence.
(2) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy other than a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable as aforesaid shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term not exceeding six months or with fine or with both.
(d) Section 34 IPC is defined as under:73/100 74
State Vs. Jagtar Singh Etc. FIR No. 264/03 & 265/03 "When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone."
58. In the present case, though the testimonies of all the prosecution witnesses have already been discussed at length, yet in order to appreciate the evidence available on record and whether or not it connects the accused persons with commission of alleged offences, the relevant portions of their versions are being discussed again even at the cost of repetition.
59(a) As per record, Raju Yadav (PW4) is the key witness being an eye witness to the occurrence i.e. murder of Bimal, Lakhan and Bindeshwari, who has been very categoric in testifying before the court that on 6.6.2003, he had gone to meet his friend Bindeshwari Yadav at the said H.No. 328, Shrikant Wali Gali, S.P. Badli and they conversed till 7.00 p.m. and since it got late, so Bindeshwari requested him to stay there during night and accordingly he took meals and went up-stairs on first floor i.e. the roof to sleep where as such no room was constructed and he slept on the cot. He has also testified that at about 2.30 a.m. (night), he woke up on hearing noise and witnessed the entire occurrence on his own and has very clearly narrated the manner in which Bindeshwari, Lakhan and Bimla were brutally murdered by all the accused persons except the accused Jitender. He has also very emphatically deposed that on that day, the accused Ashok @ Ganja had also visited the said house as a guest who was also involved in the said murder and not only this but he himself had seen that Lakhan (deceased) was 74/100 75 State Vs. Jagtar Singh Etc. FIR No. 264/03 & 265/03 given beatings by the accused Sheela and Ashok @ Ganja, Bindeshwari was given beatings by the accused Jagtar and Gian Chand and the accused Ashok @ Ganja had also inflicted various injuries on the person of Bindeshwari and Lakhan with the axe. Now so far as murder Bimla is concerned, he has clearly mentioned that the accused Ashok @ Ganja had also caught hold of the deceased Bimla and had also inflicted injuries upon her person. It would be all the more appropriate to mention that at this juncture, Raju Yadav in his own words has categorically described before the court that ..........."Bimla Aur Lakhan Ko Kat Diya....."
(b) Raju Yadav (PW4) was cross examined at length on behalf of the accused persons wherein several questions were put to him so as to show that he was not at all present at the spot at the relevant time and did not witness the occurrence and also that he had not seen any of the accused persons inflicting any injuries on the persons of the deceased Bimla, Lakhan and Bindeshwari which resulted in deaths, however after going through his detailed cross examination, nothing is shown or placed on record which cast doubt regarding genuineness or truthfulness of the version of Raju Yadav (PW4) or to come to the conclusion that he was not present at the spot at the relevant date, time and place or he did not witness the entire occurrence in the manner as deposed by him or that he had not seen the accused Jagtar, Sheela, Gian Chand and Ashok @ Ganja inflicting injuries on the person of deceased in the manner as described by him.
75/100 76State Vs. Jagtar Singh Etc. FIR No. 264/03 & 265/03 In fact, Raju Yadav has also been very straightforward and specific in explaining before the court that he did not come down stairs to help the deceased Bindeshwari though he was his friend as he himself had got terrified which in considered opinion of the court seems quite genuine as no reasonable person in such circumstances and more particularly when he is alone and un-armed would prefer to come forward to save the deceased and more so when the accused were four in number who were also armed with axe who also seemed adamant to cause injuries on the persons of deceased to the extent of their deaths.
(c) After going through the detailed cross examination of Raju Yadav (PW4), nothing is shown to have been placed on record if he had not seen the occurrence wherein accused Jagtar , Sheela, Gian Chand and Ashok @ Ganja had caused injuries on he persons of Bimla, Lakhan and Bindeshwari and murdered them and has very clearly described the role of each of the accused persons by mentioning their respective roles, however it is noticed that as such he has not mentioned anything incriminating against the accused Jitender or even regarding his presence at the spot at the relevant time or that if at all he had also participated in the said murder and is absolutely silent about him as if the accused Jitender had never existed so far as present case is concerned.
After going through the entire version of Raju Yadav (PW4), as such no artificiality or exaggeration is observed which raise doubt regarding his presence at the place of occurrence at the relevant time or 76/100 77 State Vs. Jagtar Singh Etc. FIR No. 264/03 & 265/03 his witnessing the occurrence in the manner as described by him or otherwise render his deposition un-believeable or liable to rejected. The contention of Ld. Defence counsel that Raju Yadav (PW4) is the sole material witness whose testimony must be rejected on two counts as it is not corroborated by any other independent witness and also that he is an interested witness, does not seem to hold any water as it is well settled law that conviction can be based on the sole testimony of a witness if it inspires confidence of court and no corroboration is required to be looked forward in such circumstances and in fact, it is the quality of evidence and not the quantity or number of witness(s) who are required to prove any fact.
(d) In the present case, as per record, the presence of Raju Yadav (PW4) at the spot and his witnessing the entire incident could not be rebutted by the accused Jagtar, Sheela, Gian Chand and Ashok @ Ganja on any material aspects despite the fact that he was cross examined at length. Further no contradictions, as such have crept on record in his initial, version, his testimony before the court and medical evidence which can make his version doubtful. The postmortem reports of deceased Bindeshwari Yadav, Lakhan Yadav and of Bimla which are Ex.PW9/A, Ex.PW9/E and Ex.PW9/G have clearly described the nature and the manner in which they had received said injuries and time since their death also matched which has also corroborated the material details as narrated by Raju Yadav(PW4) that the deceased Bindeshwari Yadav, Lakhan 77/100 78 State Vs. Jagtar Singh Etc. FIR No. 264/03 & 265/03 Yadav and Bimla had received injuries on various parts of their bodies as inflicted by the accused persons by axe and all of them actively participated and is further corroborated by the recovery of their blood stained clothes which the accused Jagtar and Sheela had been wearing at the time of their arrest as they were apprehended at the spot itself and the accused Gian Chand and Ashok had got recovered their blood stained clothes in pursuance of their disclosure statements which are further corroborated by the FSL results as per which the human blood found on the clothes of accused Jagtar, Sheela, Gian Chand and Ashok @ Ganja and also on the axe (which was the weapon of offence used by the accused persons) which matched with the blood of deceased and accused persons have nowhere disputed if the said clothes did not belong to them or that the blood was not human and was not of deceased.
(e) The settled proposition that the evidence of eye witnesses cannot be discarded merely on the ground that he is a relative of the deceased as has been clearly laid down by the Hon'ble S.C in case titled as State of Rajasthan Versus Hanuman, 2000 (1) Crimes , 13 ( SC).
In fact Raju Yadav (PW4) has described about the whole incident in a very clear, convincing, natural and trustworthy manner who has very categorically asserted that it were the accused Jagtar, Sheela @ Chabili, Gian Chand and Ashok @ Ganja who had inflicted various injuries on the persons of deceased Lakhan Yadav, Bindeswari Yadav and Bimla also with axe and despite his searching cross examination, 78/100 79 State Vs. Jagtar Singh Etc. FIR No. 264/03 & 265/03 nothing material could be elicited from him to raise doubt regarding the genuineness of case of prosecution or to disbelieve his version or to show his interestedness in false implicating the accused persons or anything may cast doubt on his credibility.
From the postmortem reports of deceased Bindeshwari, Lakhan Yadav and Bimla which are Ex. PW9/A, PW9/E and PW9/G respectively, the injuries as found on their persons are believable to have been caused in the manner as narrated by Raju Yadav and as per opinion of doctors, the said injuries were caused by sharp edged weapons, were ante-mortem and sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause their deaths and time since death has further corroborated the ocular version of PW4. As per PW4, the axe was also used by the accused persons in inflicting said injuries and as per opinion of concerned doctors, injuries could have been caused by weapon like axe which has nowhere been challenged. Apart from the said injuries, the doctors have also observed various other injuries all over the bodies of the deceased persons which further strengthens the version of PW4 that the accused persons had inflicted various injuries on the deceased persons. In fact no serious contradictions at all have crept on record in the account as narrated by Raju Yadav (PW4) and the medical evidence which raise doubt regarding genuineness of case of prosecution or to discarding the said versions.
60. In the present case, so far as Madan Prasad (PW3) who is an injured is concerned who as per case of prosecution, had with the help of 79/100 80 State Vs. Jagtar Singh Etc. FIR No. 264/03 & 265/03 other villagers, apprehended the accused Jagtar and Sheela while they were also trying to escape during which the accused Jagtar had fired at him, it is clear that though he has not categorically stated if it was the accused Jagtar who had inflicted injuries upon his person and did not identify Jagtar and Sheela, yet the nature of injuries as received by him has also been corroborated by the medical evidence on material aspect and it is clear that at the relevant date and time, he had received the injuries, however, considering that he has nowhere stated if the said fire was shot by the accused Jagtar from his katta or anyone else as and he has not identified the assailant and accordingly though one katta alongwith cartridges was recovered from the possession of accused Jagtar, yet it cannot be said with certainty that it was the accused Jagtar who had fired at Madan Prasad in his effort to escape from the spot, however it remains undisputed that the accused Jagtar and Sheela were apprehended near the spot whose custody were handed over to the police officials and the Katta and cartridges were recovered from the possession of accused Jagtar which he has nowhere disputed.
61(a) Now, so far as Chandeshwari Mishra (PW1), Harender (PW2), Raju Yadav (PW4), Smt Satnosh (PW5), Nafe Singh (PW6) and Bijender (PW22) are concerned, it appears that none of them had witnessed the occurrence and it is also the case of prosecution that none of them had witnessed the occurrence and admittedly all of them had reached to the spot only after the occurrence has taken place.
80/100 81State Vs. Jagtar Singh Etc. FIR No. 264/03 & 265/03 Considering that the said witnesses have been very specific in narrating before the court that they had not seen anybody inflicting any injuries on the persons of the deceased and it is also not the case of prosecution that any of them is an eye-witness to the incident but as per all of them, Bimla, Lakhan and Bindeshwari were murdered.
(b) Before proceeding further, it would be worth mentioning that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Case titled as Hari Singh M. Vasana Vs. State of Gujrat 2002 (1) JCC, 521 has laid down that merely because two or the three witnesses have turned hostile, yet it cannot be a ground for disbelieving the version of third witness who has supported the case of the prosecution if it is otherwise credible as his presence at the place of occurrence is natural.
In the present case, even though the said witnesses have nowhere stated if the accused Jagtar, Sheela, Gian Chand and Ashok @ Ganja had committed the murders of Bimla, Lakhan and Bindeshwari, yet it does not collapse or adversely effect the case of prosecution as admittedly they are not witnesses to the killings.
62. In the present case, even at the cost of repetition, it would be worthy to mention that aforesaid witnesses admittedly did not witness the occurrence who were not present at the spot at the relevant time and the prosecution has examined them only to the extent that the accused persons had been earlier threatening some of them to vacate the said house wherein they were residing as tenants and some of them had only later on gathered at the spot and as such none of them can admittedly can throw any light on 81/100 82 State Vs. Jagtar Singh Etc. FIR No. 264/03 & 265/03 merits of the case. They are not in a position to say whether at all, any of the accused persons had or had not inflicted any injuries on the persons of the deceased and in considered opinion of the court, their testimonies are practically of no relevance either to the prosecution or to the accused persons however, they have very categorically testified and identified regarding the place of occurrence and also that Bimla, Lakhan and Bindeshwari resided in that house and also that weapon of offence was also lying there and the blood stained pillow, gadda (mattresses) were found lying there and in fact have also narrated about the investigation as conducted by the police officials in their presence. In fact, the chowkidar Madan Prasad (injured) has turned hostile only to the extent regarding identification of accused Jagtar and Sheela, however so far as other aspects regarding their apprehension is concerned, he has fully supported the case of the prosecution and as per record, it is very clear that the accused Jagtar and Sheela were apprehended near the spot whose custody was handed over to the police officials and it is also clear on record that the country made katta alongwith the cartridges was also recovered from the possession of accused Jagtar which he possessed without any authority, justification or valid licence in which regard, the concerned DCP has proved on proved on record the sanction as granted U/s 39 Arms Act to prosecute him. It would also be appropriate to mention here that Madan Prasad had stated that at the relevant time, he had seen two boys and one girl and one villager who were quarreling and on being questioned, one of them shot at the villager but the bullet passed from near the temple region leaving a scratch mark where upon he fell down. He has also mentioned that at that point of time , somebody had definitely fired and those 82/100 83 State Vs. Jagtar Singh Etc. FIR No. 264/03 & 265/03 accused persons/assailants were apprehended and detained with the help of villagers whose custody were handed over to the police officials and as per record it is clear that they were accused Jagtar and Sheela who were apprehended red handed at the spot whose clothes were also stained with blood and katta along with cartridges were also recovered from the possession of the accused Jagtar. In these circumstances, even though Madan Prasad has preferred not to identity the said accused persons and the court is of the concerned opinion that the circumstances and his version regarding their apprehension at the spot and recovery of Katta and cartridges from the possession of accused Jagtar has been clearly established as the man may tell lie but the circumstances do not.
63(a) It is clear from the record that none of the public witnesses had joined at the time of investigation of the case, arrest of the accused persons, their disclosure statements and at the time of recovery in pursuance of their disclosure statements, however there is sufficient evidence and explanation by the prosecution that though the investigating officer had made requests to the villagers/neighbourers and other persons to join at the time of investigation, arrest and recovery but none of them agreed and accordingly in these circumstances non association of public witnesses at the time of arrest and recovery is explained to be beyond the control of the police officials which it itself is not an infirmity sufficient in itself to throw or to collapse the case of the prosecution.
(b) It is a known fact that in general, the police officials are often 83/100 84 State Vs. Jagtar Singh Etc. FIR No. 264/03 & 265/03 faced with the handicap that the general public persons do not come forward for various reasons for which the police officials cannot always be blamed, and their testimonies cannot be doubled for the said reason alone and as such the case cannot be termed or treated as a false one.
It is well settled law as held in case titled as Jawahar Versus the State , 2007 (2) JCC (Narcotics) 76, that there is no presumption that the police witnesses are not credible witnesses and the testimony of every witness whether from the public or from the police has to be judged on his own merits and the court can believe or disbelieve the police witnesses considering the intrinsic value of its testimony. It was further observed that the police officials are equally good witnesses and the equally bad witnesses as any other witnesses and the testimony of police witnesses cannot be rejected merely on the ground that they are official witnesses.
(c) In the present case, the information was promptly given to PCR who without loss of time, reached at the spot and keeping in view the urgency, the injured were immediately shifted to the hospital and in the meantime, local police officials were also informed who also immediately reached at the spot and without any delay, investigation commenced. The detailed testimony(s) of Investigating Officers and the accompanying police officials have been already discussed at length who have very been clear and categoric in deposing that at the time of arrest of the accused persons, they had asked public persons to join the investigation and recovery, however they refused and for that reason, the case of prosecution does not seem to suffer from any infirmity. As per record, the accused Jagtar and Sheela who 84/100 85 State Vs. Jagtar Singh Etc. FIR No. 264/03 & 265/03 were already apprehended at the spot and were arrested who were wearing not only the blood stained clothes which were recovered immediately and even the katta and live cartridges were also recovered from the possession of accused Jagtar in which regard, FSL experts Sh. K.C. Varshney (PW39) has also testified and proved requisite reports and the accused Jagtar preferred not to offer any cross examination and has admitted his version in totality. It is also shown on record that the blood stained axe was also recovered from the spot and as per opinion of concerned doctors, injuries on the persons of deceased were possible by it or similar type of weapon which has also nowhere been rebutted. Further, the nature of injuries as opined on the persons of the deceased were sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause their deaths and were ante-mortem. Even the FSL result/reports have fully corroborated the ocular versions of Raju Yadav and the said police officials which has clearly proved that the said injuries were caused on the persons of the deceased/injured by the said axe as well and as such the accused preferred not to rebut it nor shown the same to be false. The prosecution has examined several witnesses including police officials, who have proved on record the recovery of the blood stained clothes of the accused persons and the weapon i.e. axe used in the commission of the offence and as such nothing is shown if any of them had any axe to grind with the accused or any motive to plant them on the accused persons to falsely implicate them in the present case. The accused persons have nowhere denied if the said blood stained clothes did not belong to them or that it did not contain blood stains of blood of deceased and failed even to whisper regarding presence of human blood on their clothes. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in 85/100 86 State Vs. Jagtar Singh Etc. FIR No. 264/03 & 265/03 case titled as Sanjay @ Kaka etc. Versus State 2001 (1) Crimes, 268 SC held that as per section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, the disclosure statement of the accused is admissible in evidence in pursuance of which recovery has been effected and in the present case, recovery has been duly established.
64. One of the most important circumstances as put forward by the prosecution to connect the accused persons with the commission of the crime is the disclosure statements consequent to which recoveries of their blood stained clothes and docuemts of said property were recovered which by no stretch of imagination can be discarded solely on the ground that the said disclosure statements which led to the recoveries were made to the police officials during the investigation and no public persons were joined and they are not shown to have been tainted sources.
65. In the present case, the prosecution has also placed on record various circumstances to prove the case and to bring home the guilt of the accused persons which are: -
(a) Medical Evidence (b) Disclosure statements of accused persons in pursuance of
which recovery of blood stained clothes were effected;
(c) Recovery of weapon of offence (d) FSL Reports and Results (e) Motive 86/100 87 State Vs. Jagtar Singh Etc. FIR No. 264/03 & 265/03 (f) The complaint Ex. PW34/A is duly proved. 65. (a) Medical Evidence: From postmortem reports of the deceased
Bimla, Lakhan and Bindeswari Ex. Ex.PW9/G, Ex.PW9/E and Ex.PW9/A and report of FSL Expert Z-1 and Z-2, it is clear proved that they had received said injuries on vital portions of their person by sharp edged instrument i.e. Axe in the manner as deposed by Raju Yadav (PW4) at the relevant date, time and place and their deaths were the definite result of aforesaid injuries as caused by the accused Jagtar, Sheela, Gian Chand and Ashok @ Ganja which were sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause their deaths and all the said injuries have also been proved to be ante-mortem in nature which have been nowhere shown to be false, frivolous or manipulated and nowhere rebutted which have lend sufficient corroboration to the version of Raju Yadav on all material aspects.
(b) Disclosure statements of accused persons in pursuance of which recovery of blood stained clothes were effected. As per record, it is proved that the accused Jagtar and Sheela were apprehended near the spot whose custody were immediately handed over to the police officials and also the Katta alongwith live cartridges was also recovered from the possession of accused Jagtar and it is also proved that the wearing clothes f accused Jagtar and Sheela were blood stained which were seized without any delay and as per FSL reports, human blood and that too blood of deceased were detected on them and it is also proved that they were almost immediately apprehended at which point of time, their clothes had blood stained which matched with 87/100 88 State Vs. Jagtar Singh Etc. FIR No. 264/03 & 265/03 that of deceased and pursuance of their disclosure statements of other accused, they also got recovered their blood stained clothes also and it is proved on record that in pursuance of their disclosure statements, they were wearing them at the time of the commission of the offence which were also stained with human blood matching to blood group of deceased which have not been challenged or disputed by or on behalf of any of the accused persons and as such, no effective cross examination was offered to prosecution witnesses regarding their recovery and regarding presence of human blood matching blood group of deceased, they are nowhere explained as to how human blood and that too blood group of deceased was detected on their clothes shortly after the occurrence.
(c) Recovery of weapon of offence: -As per record, it is established that one blood stained axe which was used as weapon of offence was recovered from the spot in which regard, there is sufficient corroborative evidence. Raju Yadav (PW4) has also categorically mentioned that Axe was used in inflicting injuries on the person of deceased and nothing is shown by or on behalf of accused persons if said Axe was never used in inflicting injuries on the person of deceased or that the injuries on their persons could not have been caused by that Axe which has also been duly identified and as per opinion of Expert, it is also established that the injuries that resulted in the death of deceased were inflicted by that Axe.
(d) FSL Reports and Result: - from the FSL reports Ex. Z-1 and Z- 2, it is established that human blood as detected on the cloths of Jagtar, 88/100 89 State Vs. Jagtar Singh Etc. FIR No. 264/03 & 265/03 Sheela, Gian Chand and Ashok @ Ganja matched with the blood group of the deceased and accused have nowhere been able to show as to how human blood group and that too of deceased had come on their clothes and admittedly none of them have cross examined the FSL Expert and disputed the said reports.
(e) Motive - As per record, it is shown that in fact, the accused Gian Chand was the real uncle of Bimla who got married to Lakhan who did not belong to their caste for which he was not happy at it had brought dis-repute the family thereafter Bimla alongwith Lakhan started residing at the house of paternal grand father Lakhi Bawariya which property was in the name of accused Gian Chand (as per documents of said property produced by him in pursuance of his disclosure statement) and despite his persistent efforts, Bimla and Lakhan did not vacate the said house and rather Lakhan had also called his brother Bindeshwari to reside there. It is shown that simply in order to get the said property vacated, the accused persons planned to eliminate them and also joined the accused Ashok @ Ganga in commission of said murders by alluring him that after the occurrence, marriage of Sheela would be solemnized with him for which he readily agreed as he also developed an interest and as such there was sufficient motive available with the accused Jagtar, Sheela, Gian Chand and Ashok @ Ganja to cuase their death. In considered opinion of the court, the motive is clearly established behind the said ghastly murder. It would be pertinent to state that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove or show or even whisper on record the motive or interest of the accused Jitender in committing said offence and 89/100 90 State Vs. Jagtar Singh Etc. FIR No. 264/03 & 265/03 even at the cost of repetition, it would be appropriate to discuss that name of accused Jitender as one of the assailants or regarding participation, either actively or passively has nowhere crept or even whispered on record in testimonies of any of the prosecution witness except that he was arrested and his disclosure statement was recorded, however nothing was recovered from his possession or at his instance in pursuance of his disclosure statement.
It would also be relevant to mention that on the basis of material as placed on record, it is established that the accused persons except the accused Jitender had sufficient motive, however it is nowhere transpired as to what actual criminal conspiracy took place between them, however it is clearly shown that all the accused persons except the accused Jitender had inflicted fatal injuries on the person of deceased in furtherance of their common intention and had actively participated It has been laid down in catena of cases that sometimes motive is not clear and sometimes the motive as shown is so trivial that it is difficult to believe if it can lead to such a ghastly offence as of murder, however, the human psyche is unpredictable and sometimes the issues which seem to very minor and negligible may take a dramatic turn and result in disasters.
There is no whisper at all regarding false implication of accused persons in the present case which is in fact is triple murder case and as such no motive is attributed to Raju Yadav (PW4) regarding his deposition wherein he has categorically identified the accused Jagtar, Sheela, Gian Chand and Ashok @ Ganja and nothing is shown as to why he would falsely name them and implicate them. The sole reason shown for their false implication is that the police officials had been demanding bribe and when 90/100 91 State Vs. Jagtar Singh Etc. FIR No. 264/03 & 265/03 the accused persons could not pay the money, they were falsely implicated in the present case which does not seem genuine at all as the prosecution has succeeded in placing and proving on record that motive behind the said murder was the annoyance of all the accused due to property and also that Raju Yadav (PW4) has very clearly identified the accused Jagtar, Sheela, Gian Chand and Ashok @ Ganja to be the assailants.
(f) The complaint Ex. PW34/A is duly proved:- It would be appropriate to mention that one of the most material prosecution witnesses could have been Lakhi Bawariya upon whose statement/complaint, the FIR was registered which has been duly proved on record as Ex. PW34/A, however Lakhi Bawariya was not examined as he had expired. After going through the Ex. PW34/A which is the statement of Lakhi Bawariya and bear his signatures and thumb impression has been duly proved on record, however none of the accused persons have preferred to challenge or rebut the same and did not cross examine on any aspect regarding the contents of Ex. PW34/A which has been appropriately proved on record.
66(a) After going through the testimonies of DWs 1 and 2, it is apparent on the face of it, that none of them was admittedly present at the spot at the relevant date and time. They have very fairly conceded that they had not witnessed the occurrence nor can say whether or not the accused Gian Chand has committed the said offence. In fact, DW1 has made an effort to give good character certificate to the accused Gian Chand, however, he has nowhere stated that he could not and had not committed the said murders.
91/100 92State Vs. Jagtar Singh Etc. FIR No. 264/03 & 265/03
(b) From the testimony of (DW1), there is nothing on record to show if at all the accused Gian Chand are innocent and did not commit the alleged offences and as such DW1 has miserably failed to show regarding the presence of accused Gian Chand at any other place at the time when said offences were committed.
(c) Now so far as DW2 is concerned, it would be appropriate to discuss that the accused Gian Chand is trying to take the plea of Alibi which admittedly is double edged and as such, DW2 has nowhere been able to show stated if during the whole night, the accused Gian Chand was busy in bringing Tura or he was with him throughout night or that the accused was not able to go anywhere in between and admittedly, he is not in a position to say if at the relevant time, the accused Gian Chand was bringing Tura only and did not go anywhere else. He has not certified or shown his presence with him except till 8.30 pm whereas offence was committed at 2.30 am (night). In the present case, though prosecution witness, as such the presence of the accused Gian Chand at the place of occurrence at the relevant time is not shown doubtful, more particularly when Raju Yadav (PW4) had witnessed and seen him also inflicting injuries on the persons of deceased.
(d). In considered opinion of the court, none of the defence witnesses as examined by the accused have inspired confidence of the court as none of them have anywhere stated if the accused Gian Chand had not committed the said offence and have only given him a good character certificate and made fake efforts to show regarding his being busy in bringing Tura which was never the defence of the accused and PW4 and none of the prosecution 92/100 93 State Vs. Jagtar Singh Etc. FIR No. 264/03 & 265/03 witness was ever given even a suggestion that the accused Gian Chand was busy in loading/uploading Tura doing whole night and moreover, the accused Gian Chand nowhere even in his statement as recorded U/s 313 Cr. PC has mentioned of it and simply stated that when on next day of occurrence, he came to meet his father Lakhi Bawaria, he came to know of incident and since he was not able to fulfill illegal documents of money by police officials, he has been falsely implicated and has nowhere shown his engagement in bringing Tura doing the entire night and it is for the first time that such a contention is raised in testimony of DW2 and that too in itself, has nowhere substantiats the contention of accused Gian Chand regarding his presence at any other place than at the place of occurrence at the relevant time.
76 (a). In the present case, prosecution has succeeded in showing the actus-reus of all the accused persons except the accused Jitender regarding whom not even a single witness has deposed anything incriminating at all and his presence at the spot is not whispered by any of the witnesses and he is not shown to be either actively or passively involved in commission of offence and mens rea of accused accused Jagtar, Sheela, Gian Chand and Ashok @ Ganja is very clear from their conduct itself when they brutally inflicted injuries on the person of deceased.
(b). In fact, there is not confusion or ambiguity so far as the identity, presence and actus-reus of the accused accused Jagtar, Sheela, Gian Chand and Ashok @ Ganja is concerned and as already discussed mens rea is 93/100 94 State Vs. Jagtar Singh Etc. FIR No. 264/03 & 265/03 evident from their acts and conduct during which the said accused persons have came prepared who were armed with axe during the dead of night and inflicted injuries on the vital parts of deceased and the contention of Raju Yadav (PW4) that the accused Ashok @ Ganja had remained in the said house during night as a guest has also nowhere been challenged and shown to be false and accordingly, his presence alongwith accused accused Jagtar, Sheela and Gian Chand at the spot at the relevant time is also nowhere in dispute.
68. In the present case, on the basis of the material as placed on record and on careful analysis of testimonies of prosecution witnesses and the witnesses as produced by the accused persons, court is of the considered opinion that the witnesses as examined by the prosecution are cogent, convincing and inspire confidence of the court in so far as they have come forward with true and clear picture of the occurrence and in fact, sufficient corroboration is available on record on all material aspects to the ocular testimonies of various witnesses as examined by the prosecution through documentary evidence as placed on record and the injuries on the person of deceased Lakhan, Bimla and Bindeshwari Yadav have also been duly established on record in which regard their postmortem reports have been proved which have nowhere been disputed or rebutted on any count whatsoever and clearly point out that they had died due to injuries received in the said manner and said injuries were sufficient to cause their deaths ain ordinary course of nature and also that they were ante morterm and were inflicted by accused Jagtar, Sheela, Gian Chand and Ashok @ Ganja. It 94/100 95 State Vs. Jagtar Singh Etc. FIR No. 264/03 & 265/03 would also be pertinent to mention even at the cost of repetition that as discussed earlier, the recoveries of blood stained clothes of accused Jagtar and Sheela were immediately effected which stains were of human blood and matched with the blood group of deceased. In the present case, the other accused Gian Chand in pursuance of their disclosure statements. Though the accused accused Jagtar, Sheela and Gian Chand have examined DWs 1 and 2 but they have miserably failed to state if the accused are innocent or were not present at the spot or did not commit alleged offence.
69. Considering the totality of facts and circumstance, on the basis of evidence as adduced by the prosecution as placed on record, Court is of the considered opinion that: -
(a) There is direct evidence of Raju Yadav (PW4) regarding the entire occurrence who has been very clear in identifying the accused persons namely Jagtar, Sheela, Gian Chand and Ashok @ Ganja at the spot at the relevant time and their murdering Bimla, Lakhan and Bindeshwari and as such neither presence of PW4 at the spot nor his witnessing the entire occurrence in the manner as deposed by him has been rebutted
(b) Further, there is sufficient circumstantial evidence on record as already discussed earlier, from which the inference of guilt regarding commission of murders of Bimla, Lakhan and Bindeshwari by the accused persons namely Jagtar, Sheela,Ashok @ Ganga, Gian Chand and Jitender in the manner as alleged has been cogently and firmly established which unerringly and convincingly point out towards the active involvement and 95/100 96 State Vs. Jagtar Singh Etc. FIR No. 264/03 & 265/03 guilt of all the said accused persons.
(c) Circumstances taken cumulatively form a chain so complete that there is no doubt at all if the accused Jagtar, Sheela, Jitender, Gian Chand and Ashok @ Ganga had not caused the deaths of Lakhan, Bimla and Bindeswari Yadav in the manner as alleged.
(d) From the ocular version of witnesses, it is proved on record beyond reasonable doubt that the accused persons namely Jagtar, Sheela, Gian Chand and Ashok @ Ganja had caused the deaths of Bimla, Lakhan and Bindeshwari amounting to murder on the aforesaid date, time and place and their intention is revealed from their conduct itself that they inflict repeated injuries on their person including vital parts of their bodies and it is also established that they had died due to said injuries which were sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause their deaths.
It is established on record that the accused Jagtar, Sheela, Gian Chand and Ashok @ Ganja had caused the deaths of Bimla, Lakhan and Bindeshwari for which they inflicted injuries with sharp edged weapon on vital parts of their bodies with the intention of causing such bodily injuries as they knew likely to cause their death and also that said injuries have been proved to be sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause their death and further, the said accused were well aware that the injuries inflicted by them were so imminently dangerous that they in all probability cause death and have committed said acts without any grave and sudden provocation at all or while exercising the right of private dance or it was without pre-mediation in 96/100 97 State Vs. Jagtar Singh Etc. FIR No. 264/03 & 265/03 a sudden fight in heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel.
70. As per material placed on the record and has already been discussed at length, it is clear on the face of the record that none of the prosecution witnesses have deposed a single incriminating word against the accused Jitender either regarding his involvement in commission of the present offence either actively or even passively as no body has even whispered on record even remotely that at the time when Bimla, Lakhan and Bindeswari were attacked by other accused persons , either the accused Jitender was present there or nearby or if he was guarding or if at all he had in any manner participated in the commission of the said offences or if at all he ever pre-mediated conspired with them regarding said murder or had any intention or motive to eliminate them. It would also be pertinent to state that his name has also been no where reflected or even whispered by any of the prosecution witness regarding inflicting injuries on the person of Chowkidar Madan Prasad as well and even at the cost of repetition it is being discussed that not even a single prosecution witness has testified anything incriminating at all against him and though the police officials had shown his arrest in which regard only his disclosure statement is proved, yet is remains admitted by the prosecution that neither any blood stained clothes were recovered from him or at his instance nor any weapon of offence was recovered from his possession or at his instance or in pursuance of his disclosure 97/100 98 State Vs. Jagtar Singh Etc. FIR No. 264/03 & 265/03 statement and admittedly he not participate in commission of said offence in any manner. Raju Yadav (PW4) has mentioned the names of all other accused persons as culprits and did not name him and there is no reason that he been prefer not to mention his name and he has also nowhere stated if there was some other person also except Jagtar, Sheela, Gian Chand and Ashok @ Ganja who has also committed the said murders. Admittedly, there is nothing on record as per which by any stretch of imagination, it can be said that there is anything at all on record against the accused Jitender and accordingly in these circumstances as prosecution has miserably failed to bring home guilt of accused Jitender, hence the accused Jitender is acquitted of all the charges leveled against him for committing offences as punishable under section302/307/120B/34 IPC .
71. In the present case, so far as the accused Jagtar, Sheela, Gian Chand and Ashok @ Ganja are concerned, in view of foregoing discussion, the court is of the considered opinion that as per material placed on the record, the witnesses examined by the prosecution are cogent, convincing and inspire confidence of the court in as far as they have come forward with true and clear picture of the occurrence and in fact, sufficient corroboration is available on record on all material aspects to the ocular versions of the witnesses not only from each other but even from the documentary evidence particularly medical evidence and FSL results which have been duly proved and has led sufficient corroboration on all material aspects. The presence of witness Raju yadav (PW4) at the spot at the relevant time is natural who has narrated the incident in a very natural and straightforward manner in which it 98/100 99 State Vs. Jagtar Singh Etc. FIR No. 264/03 & 265/03 has taken place. Further, from the detailed investigation as proved on record, it is revealed that the blood stained clothes which the accused were wearing at the time of occurance and the weapons of offences used by them in committing the ghastly offence have also been recovered as already discussed which also connect them with commission of murder of Bimla, Lakhan and Bindeshwari. Accordingly, in view of above, the only irresistible conclusion that can be drawn is that the accused persons namely Jagtar, Sheela, Gian Chand and Ashok @ Ganja in furtherance of their common intention, had inflicted deadly injuries upon the persons of Bimla, Lakhan and Bindeswari Yadav on the vital parts of their bodies with sharp edged instrument during night at about 2.30 am (night) at H. No. 328, Shrikant Wali Gali, Village Badli, S.P. Badli and consequently, caused their deaths which injuries were ante-mortem and have been proved to be sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause deaths. Accordingly, the accused Jagtar, Sheela, Gian Chand and Ashok @ Ganja are convicted for committing offences as punishable under section 302/34 IPC and as prosecution could not succeed in proving criminal conspiracy and has also failed to prove if the accused Jagtar had shot at Madan Prasad, accordingly all the accused Jagtar, Sheela, Gian Chand and Ashok @ Ganja are acquitted of charges levelled against them U/s 120B IPC and U/s 307 IPC.
72. The prosecution has also succeeded in placing and proving on record the recovery of katta and live cartridges from the possession of the accused Jagtar which have been proved to Arms and ammunition in which regard there is sufficient corroboration to the ocular versions of witnesses 99/100 100 State Vs. Jagtar Singh Etc. FIR No. 264/03 & 265/03 with the documentary evidence particular FSL result which has nowhere been challenged, and the requisite sanction U/s 39 Arms Act regarding their unauthorised possession without licence has also been established on record, and accordingly, the accused Jagtar is further convicted for committing offence as punishable under section 25/27 of Arms Act. Let all the convicts namely Jagtar, Sheela, Gian Chand and Ashok @ Ganja be heard on point of sentence.
Announced in the open Court (BARKHA GUPTA)
on this 29.11.2010 Additional Sessions Judge - IV
Outer District
Rohini District Courts
Delhi
100/100