Delhi District Court
State vs . Satinder Singh @ Titu & Ors. -Sc No. 34 Of ... on 31 May, 2013
IN THE COURT OF SH. VINAY KUMAR KHANNA
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE - 04 & SPECIAL JUDGE (NDPS)
SOUTH EAST: SAKET COURTS: DELHI
Sessions Case No. 34/2013
Unique ID No. 02403R0001611996
FIR No. 750/1981
U/s 397/34 IPC
PS : Defence Colony
State
Versus
Satinder Singh @ Titu
s/o Sh. Raghbir Singh
r/o 1, Curzon Road,
New Delhi ..........Accused No. 1
Sarabjit Singh @ Bittoo
s/o Sh. Sukhdev Singh
r/o 33/7, Old rAjinder Nagar,
New Delhi ..........Accused No. 2
Gurvinder Singh @ Kuku@Bkhi
s/o Sh. Gurcharan Singh
r/o H. No. 352, Pocket No. 1
Paschim Puri, Delhi ..........Accused No. 3
Instituted on : 28th March, 1983
Argued concluded on : 27th May,2013
Decided on : 31st May, 2013
JUDGMENT
1. Criminal Law was set into motion in this case, more than three decades ago. On 07th September, 1981 at about 04:35 pm, an information vide Daily Diary No. 20-A was recorded at the Police Station Defence Colony to the State Vs. Satinder Singh @ Titu & Ors. -SC No. 34 of 2013 1/58 effect that a bank had been looted at NDSE-I. SI Rajpal Singh alongwith SI Harbhajan Singh and other police officials reached at G-23, First Floor, Canara bank, NDSE-I, where some bank employees were found to be confined in the strong room of the bank. Efforts were made for release of the employees from the strong room. In the meantime, one of the employees brought the keys of strong room from Green Park branch of the bank and then, the bank employees were got released. It was found that four persons namely Sh D. M. Gupta (PW-13), Sh. B. Bhaskar Nair (PW-10), Sh. Om Prakrash (PW-12) and Sh. Subhash Tyagi (PW-14) had sustained injuries. They were sent to AIIMS Hospital for medical examination.
2. Statement of Sh. Kavya Nanda Jha, clerk of the bank was recorded, who stated that on 07.09.1981 at about 03:34 pm, he was checking the cash in the cash cabin. He heard noise of 'khat khat' (knock knock) on the window of cabin. He saw that one person aged 20-22 years was having a revolver in his hand. He knocked at the adjacent window counter. Out of fear, he went in the midst of his colleagues. In the meantime, two other persons, one of whom appeared to be a 'sardar' was having a revolver and other persons with short mustaches, was having a dagger came inside and shouted "hands up" and asked them to go inside the store room. Out of fear, they went inside the room. Both persons took out Rs. 6,17,000/- from the cash counter. Key of State Vs. Satinder Singh @ Titu & Ors. -SC No. 34 of 2013 2/58 the strong room was demanded. After opening the strong room, they took out Rs. 26,843/-. It is stated that whosoever made any sound was given knife blow. Thus, four persons were given knife blows. Before leaving the bank, they confined them and closed the strong room from outside.
3. It is further stated that one of the bank employee namely, Matadin broke the glass of ventilator. In the meantime, some customer came upstairs and opened the door from outside and then all the employees came outside. Sh. Nair rang up at 100 number. Police reached at the spot. After bringing the keys from Green Park branch, strong room was opened. Injured were taken to hospital. It is alleged that Rs. 6,43,843/- were looted from the bank at the knife point and after causing injuries to his associates. On the basis of statement of Sh. Kavya Nand, FIR no. 750/81 u/s 394/397/392/342 r/w 34 IPC was registered. Police, crime team and dog squad inspected scene of crime. One leather cover of black colour was recovered from the spot. Clothes of injured given by the doctors of AIIMS were sealed and were seized on 08.09.1981. CFSL team inspected the spot.
4. On 22.11.1981, investigation was handed over to special staff but, no clue about the criminals was found. On 20.04.1982, investigation was transferred and handed over to Sh. S. D. Sharma, SHO, who received a secret information . On the basis of secret information, SHO went to Etah UP. On State Vs. Satinder Singh @ Titu & Ors. -SC No. 34 of 2013 3/58 21.04.1982, certain revolvers were recovered from Etha. On 21.04.1982 at about 01:30pm, SHO S. D. Sharma alongwith secret informant reached West Patel Nagar. One Shiv Charan joined the investigation with him. They reached at jhuggi camp at about 02:15pm. On the pointing out of secret informer, accused Satender Singh who was coming on a motorcycle no. DEX 5418 was arrested. He was taken to Police Station Defence Colony where his disclosure statement was recorded. On the pointing out of accused Satender Singh, police arrested other offender, Prem Chand Aggarwal and Gurvinder Singh from a car no. DEB 3668 at about 05:30pm near Alankar Cinema and Sarabjit Singh, who was on a scooter no. DEM 7265. Their disclosure statements were recorded. Accused Sarabjit Singh was handed over to SHO, Kalkaji. Accused Premchand Aggarwal were handed over to T. P. Sharma, SHO, S. N. Puri. Accused Gurvinder Singh was handed over to Ranvir Singh, SHO Vasant Vihar.
5. It is further the case of prosecution, that Inspector S. D. Sharma, SI Jawahar Singh with accused Satender Singh reached at 1/1, West Patel Nagar at 06:45pm and accused got recovered attachee of brown colour. On checking brief case, one country made pistol (katta), two cartridges of .12 bore, 04 sports caps, 03 naqabs, one pair of gloves and Rs. 1,53,753/- cash currency notes were recovered, which were sealed and seized. On the pointing out of accused Sarabjit Singh, one plastic bag, one country made revolver, 02 State Vs. Satinder Singh @ Titu & Ors. -SC No. 34 of 2013 4/58 cartridges and Rs. 35,278/- cash currency notes were recovered and seized. On the pointing out of accused Gurvinder Singh, Inspector Ranbir Singh recovered one dagger and Rs. 6,824/- cash in currency notes. On the pointing out of accused Premchand Aggarwal, one black colour VIP brief case containing one country made revolver, 02 cartridges and Rs. 29,179/- cash currency notes were recovered. During investigation, two other persons, Anil Sethi and Subhash Nair were also arrested and a sum of Rs. 463/- out of looted amount was recovered from accused Subhash Nair. On conclusion of investigation, IO filed charge sheet on 15.07.1982.
6. On compliance of proceedings u/s 207 Cr.P.C., Learned Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Session 17.03.1983. Charges under section 397,342,324 426 r/w Section 34 IPC were framed against all the accused persons on 07.07.1983 and a separate charge for the offence punishable under section 27 of Arms Act was framed against accused Satinder Singh @ Titu , Sarabjit Singh @ Bittoo and Gurvinder Singh @ Kuku @ Bkhi. Accused persons pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed trial.
7. Points which emerged for determination in this case are:
(i) Whether on 07.09.1981 at about 03:45pm at Canara Bank, NDSE-I, New Delhi, accused persons alongwith co accused Prem Chand Aggarwal, (approver) in furtherance of their common intention committed robbery of Rs. 6,43,863/- ?
(ii) Whether accused persons in furtherance of their common intention were armed State Vs. Satinder Singh @ Titu & Ors. -SC No. 34 of 2013 5/58 with deadly weapons i.e. country made pistol, country made revolvers and a dagger?
(iii) Whether accused persons alongwith Prem Chand Aggarwal (approver) in furtherance of their common intention wrongfully confined the bank employees of Canara Bank in strong room and store room?
(iv) Whether at the aforesaid time and place, accused Gurvinder Singh voluntarily caused hurt to employees of the bank i.e. Sh. B. Bhaskar Niak, B. M. Gupta, Subhjash Tyagi and Om Prakash Jain with a dagger?
(v) Whether accused persons alongwith Prem Chand Aggarwal (approver) in furtherance of their common intention committed mischief by cutting off the telephone cables installed in the bank?
8. In order to establish the accusations against the accused, prosecution examined 40 witnesses. Broad outline of the testimony of these witnesses is as under:
8.1 Prem Chand Aggarwal (PW-1) one of co-accused, who turned approver and was granted pardon. His testimony is discussed in detail in the later part of this judgment.
8.2 Shiv Charan (PW-2). He is witness to the disclosure statement (Ex. PW2/A) of accused Satinder Singh and recovery memo (Ex. PW2/B) of caps (Ex. P-7 to Ex. P-10) and four pair of gloves (Ex. P-11 to Ex. P-14).
8.3 Mulakh Raj Gulati (PW-3) did not support the case of prosecution.
State Vs. Satinder Singh @ Titu & Ors. -SC No. 34 of 2013 6/58 He was cross examined by Ld. Addl. PP. PW-3 was not sure regarding the identity of accused persons. In cross examination, he deposed that Puran Chand (witness) was seen by him for the first time at West Patel Nagar chowk at 06:15 or 06:30pm. They had gone from Kothi no. 1/1, West Patel Nagar chowk to Police Station Defence colony at about 02:15pm. He testified that in his presence, none of the accused signed documents (Ex. PW2/A to Ex. PW2/B). He did not tell to the police that Puran Chand was already with him. PW-3 deposed that Puran Chand was residing about 40-50 paces away from his jhuggi. He did not count the currency notes. According to PW-3, when the accused was moving with the police from one place to other, their faces were not covered at that time.
8.4 Puran Chand (PW-4). He did not support case of prosecution and was cross examined by Ld. Addl. PP for the State. In cross examination, PW-4 expressed his inability to identify accused Satinder Singh. He did not remember who brought attachee out of room. He could not tell what was recorded in the documents. He could not identify the currency notes. As per PW-4, police did not put stamp mark in his presence nor they obtained his signatures. PW-4 admitted that none of these accused signed anywhere in his presence. PW-4 admitted that police did not ask Sardar or Prem Chand to sign anywhere in his presence.
State Vs. Satinder Singh @ Titu & Ors. -SC No. 34 of 2013 7/58 8.5 Radhey Lal Gupta (PW-5) is witness to sketch of knife (Ex. PW5/A) , seizure memo of currency notes (Ex. PW5/B) .
8.6 SI Harbhajan Singh (PW-6) joined the investigation with Inspector Ranbir Singh.
8.7 Mahesh Chand Gupta (PW-7) placed on record sketch of revolver (Ex.PW7/A), seizure memo of bag, revolver and cartridges (Ex. PW7/B). 8.8 Kavya Nand Jha (PW-8) complainant, was not able to identify the accused persons. He deposed that sum of Rs.6,43,000/- had been looted from the bank. He placed on record his statement (Ex. PW8/A). PW-8 denied that he gave statement (Ex. PW8/A) to the police in the bank premises. He was cross examined by Ld. Addl. PP. He denied the suggestion that he had colluded with the culprits and deliberately tried to protect them while introducing the version of Naqab. He denied that since after the incident and during trial, accused contacted and threatened him and therefore, he was concealing the truth and was trying to protect them.
8.9 A. K. Nijhawan (PW-9) clerk in Canara Bank, NDSE-I was working on the counter of the bank. At about 03:45pm, he heard noise of people. He raised his head and saw three persons across the counter. One of them was standing across his counter and was wearing a cricket cap and another, who was present at some distance from the earlier one, was armed with a dagger State Vs. Satinder Singh @ Titu & Ors. -SC No. 34 of 2013 8/58 and was wearing a mask. He did not remember if that third person was armed or not. PW-9 could not identify, if any of accused was present in the bank at that time. According to PW-9, the man who was having revolver and the one having dagger came inside the counter. PW-9 deposed that he told them that the Manager had gone to airport and Sh. Subhash Tyagi, Manager had gone to other branch in NDSE-II. After inquiries, he was made to turn his face towards the wall. He could not thereafter see anything outside their small room. PW-9 testified that after the culprits had escaped, they knocked at the door and even broke open the ventilator panes of their small room . In the meantime, some customers opened the bolt of their room from outside and then, they came out. In cross examination, he denied that accused Sarabjit Singh was the person who aimed the revolver. PW-9 denied that Gurvinder Singh and Prem Chand Aggarwal were the culprits. He denied that accused Gurvinder Singh was armed with dagger and accused Prem Chand Aggarwal was armed with revolver.
8.10 P. Bhaskar (PW-10) Manager at Canara Bank, South Extension-I, New Delhi deposed that he saw a person who was wearing a white dress and a cricket cap and whose face was 'masked' and another wearing a jeans half sleeves shirt and a cricket cap, armed with a knife. PW-10 could not identify the accused persons. PW-10 stated that culprit who was armed with dagger gave a State Vs. Satinder Singh @ Titu & Ors. -SC No. 34 of 2013 9/58 slight hit with his dagger near the eye of B. M Gupta, accountant. PW-10 handed over the keys from his pocket to culprit. They had two keys - one was with him and the other was with B. M. Gupta. He deposed that third culprit entered the strong room and collected the cash in a moment and went out. PW-10 deposed that he was unable to see him minutely and was not able to identify him. PW-10 stated that culprits were not satisfied and asked for more cash and the culprit who was armed with dagger stabbed him at his thigh with his dagger. They asked them to hand over the keys of security locker. In cross examination conducted by Addl. PP, PW-10 deposed that during their operation, two culprits who were wearing a 'mask' on their faces had removed their mask, while the third one had no mask on his face. He could not identify accused Sarabjit Singh, Gurvinder Singh and Prem Chand Aggarwal. PW-10 denied that he had deliberately made a false statement in part or concealed the truth. 8.11 Kamal Kishore Kapur (PW-11) clerk in Canara Bank could not properly see the person having revolver. He could not identify the accused persons. He was cross examined by the prosecution. PW-11 denied that he deposed falsely because he had been won over by the accused. 8.12 Om Prakash Jain (PW-12) clerk in Canara Bank stated that he saw that three persons had come in the bank. Two of them were armed with revolvers and one was armed with a knife. He could not tell about their dress. State Vs. Satinder Singh @ Titu & Ors. -SC No. 34 of 2013 10/58 According to him, all of them were about 25-30 years of age. He was not in a position to identify those persons. He had seen the culprits but could not tell if those were the accused persons or not. He had seen Prem Chand Aggarwal. He could not tell if he was one of the person among those three dacoits PW-12 stated that he stood there for 4-5 minutes and so did the others. He could not tell and did not see, if any fourth dacoit came in. He was cross examined by Ld. PP. PW-12 stated that he did not pay heed, if fourth person aged 25-26 years having height of about 5'-7", having medium built, fair colour, holding a country made pistol and having a white cricket cap came there. He did not now if two public persons came there and were confined in store room. PW-12 could not tell if Prem Chand Agarwal was a dacoit. He denied that he was not identifying the accused persons due to fear. In cross examination, he stated that he never made any statement to the police. He only saw three persons and not four. PW-12 could not tell about the description or the facial features of those dacoits .
8.13 B. M. Gupta (PW-13) accountant in Canara Bank deposed that some bank employees were having their hands raised and he found that there were two persons with pistol. PW-13 had not seen any other person. PW-13 deposed that he was not in a position to identify those two persons. He was cross examined by Ld. PP. He deposed that there was a third person , who had State Vs. Satinder Singh @ Titu & Ors. -SC No. 34 of 2013 11/58 a chura with him, who gave him a knife blow near his eye brow and in the abdomen. PW- 13 could not see the third person as he had dragged him out. He could not tell about their height and built. PW-13 testified that the cash in the strong room was collected by the person having the pistol . PW-13 deposed that he did not state to the police that he could identify all the four persons who had looted the bank and had caused injuries him and his companion. He did not know if Prem Chand Aggarwal and accused persons were the four dacoits, who had looted the bank money and injured them. In cross examination, he deposed that he could not see the dacoits on account of the fact that they were masked. According to him, police came to the bank alongwith some person. They were called to the police station and were asked to identify some persons but they refused to identify anybody. PW-13 stated that no currency notes or daggers or revolvers were shown to him . PW-13 deposed that police officials lateron told him that there were four culprits but he told them that there were three persons. He told the police about the involvement of three persons and not four persons. He denied that he had stated to the police that he could not identify two persons as they had masked their faces with a black cloth. PW-13 did not know if there was any sardar or not, because he did not see the face of those dacoits and therefore, he could not say so.
8.14 Subhash Tyagi (PW-14) cashier in Canara bank reached outside State Vs. Satinder Singh @ Titu & Ors. -SC No. 34 of 2013 12/58 Canara bank branch. Somebody placed a revolver on his back. According to PW-14, he could not see that man at that time or thereafter, who was wearing a white cap. He could not see his facial features. PW-14 could not identify two persons allegedly seen by him. In cross examination conducted by ld. Addl. PP, PW-14 could not tell if there was any third person near the store room as he was inside the store room. PW-14 deposed that accused persons were not the culprits who came to the bank on that day. He could not identify them as he had not seen those two culprits and stated that he had not seen at all, the third person. PW-14 stated that he saw currency notes (Ex. P-15, Ex. P-16 , Ex. P-17 and Ex. P-18), which bore the bank's seal . He could not tell if those notes were looted from the bank on that day. He did not remember if he put his signatures on bundles (Ex. P-58 to Ex. P-61) on 07.09.1981 when they were stamped. He stated that stamps were affixed lateron also, on some currency notes bundles. PW-14 deposed that the manager had asked him that certain currency notes bundle did not bear his signatures although, they bore the stamp of the bank with date and on his asking, he signed those later on after some months. PW-14 denied that he had taken money from the accused persons and that is why he was making false statement. PW-14 testified that the bundles of all denomination of currency notes were ranging from rupee one to 100. PW-14 could not identify, if these bundles were the same or not. PW-14 was not sure State Vs. Satinder Singh @ Titu & Ors. -SC No. 34 of 2013 13/58 about dates on bundles when the stamp of the bank was affixed. PW-14 could not tell if stamp mark was affixed on the slips on 07.09.1981. PW-14 admitted that all the bundles of currency notes (Ex. P-30 to P-35, Ex. P-53 to Ex. P-56 and Ex. P-64) were affixed with square shape stamp mark of Canara Bank whereas, stamp mark on page (Ex. PW14/X-1) in register (mark Z) were rectangular in shape. On being asked that on currency note bundles (Ex. P-16, Ex. P-30 to P-35, P-53 to Ex. P-56 and Ex. P-64) the stamp mark of bank were square whereas on (Ex. P-14/X-1) of register (mark Z), the stamp marks of the same date were rectangular, PW-14 showed his ignorance about it. He stated that only one type of seal was kept so long as it was intact and the seal was only changed when the previous one was broken. He denied the suggestion that more than one seal was kept in a branch at the same time . PW-14 denied that he was concealing facts in order to protect the accused in collusion with them.
8.15 Ganesh Bahadur (PW-15) placed on record cover of dagger vide seizure memo (Ex. PW15/A). He took into possession four sealed parcels (Ex. PW15/2 to 6) vide seizure memo (Ex. PW15/B).
8.16 Captain Kuldeep Prakash Malhotra (PW-16) was General secretary of market association. According to him, on 07.09.1981, at about 04:00pm, he was standing in front of his shop. A person from Canara bank State Vs. Satinder Singh @ Titu & Ors. -SC No. 34 of 2013 14/58 came running to him. He wanted to use his phone to inform the police about the dacoity.
8.17 Matadin (PW-17) clerk in Canara Bank deposed that two persons who came with a dagger and a revolver were not amongst the accused. He was cross examined by Ld. PP. He specifically denied that accused persons were the persons who committed dacoity in their bank.
8.18 Phool Kumar (PW-18) photographer placed on record photographs (Ex. PW18/1 to Ex. PW18/6) of the place of occurrence. He deposed that negatives were destroyed pursuant to the order of ACP Crime. 8.19 B. Noitra (PW-19) senior scientific officer examined revolver (Ex. P-1) and two cartridge (Ex. P-2) .32 revolver (Ex. P-3). He placed on record his report (Ex. PW19/A). According to him, two .32 revolver live cartridges were "ammunition" as defined in the Arms Act. He placed on record report (Ex. PW19/B). According to him, two 12 bore cartridges were test fired by him were "ammunition" as defined in the Arms Act and were like one. Fired cartridges are (Ex. P.25 and Ex. P.26) and another report is (Ex. PW19/C). 8.20 Sh. J. M. Malik(PW-20), the then Metropolitan Magistrate, recorded the statement of approver Prem Chand Aggarwal in case FIR No. 750/81 Police Station Defence Colony and in FIR No. 658/81 Police Station Kalkaji (Ex. PWI/Y) . He placed on record certificate (Ex. PW13/A), copy of State Vs. Satinder Singh @ Titu & Ors. -SC No. 34 of 2013 15/58 statement (Ex. PW20/A), copy of questions and acceptance of the pardon of accused before recording statement (Ex. PW20/B) and copy of orders (Ex. PW20/C and Ex. PW20/D).
8.21 ASI Jai Govind (PW-21) identified the signatures of Sh. Ajay Aggarwal, the Deputy Commissioner of Police , South District on the sanction under section 39 of Arms Act (Ex. PW21/A to Ex. PW21/C) . 8.22 Tilak Raj (PW-22) deposed that he received an information that there was an incident of crime in Canara bank, South Extension, Part-II. He transmitted the said information to Police Station Defence Colony. 8.23 Smt. Nirmal (PW23). She was working in the bank. According to her, she had not seen faces of culprits hence, she could not identify them. She was cross examined by Ld. Addl. PP.
8.24 Smt. Manjeet Kaur (PW-24) deposed that she did not know anything about this case. She was cross examined by Ld. Addl. PP. 8.25 Ms. Indu Bala (PW-25) posted in the bank deposed that 3/4 assailants entered in the bank. She did not see the incident due to fear. PW-25 could not identify any of assailants. She denied the suggestion that accused persons were the same persons , who committed robbery in the bank. 8.26 Amar Singh (PW-25-A) deposed that on 22.04.1982, he was called by Mahesh Chand Gupta at Police station Defence colony. Articles i.e. State Vs. Satinder Singh @ Titu & Ors. -SC No. 34 of 2013 16/58 2/3 parcels, one sealed revolver as well as 3/4 sardar persons were shown to him. According to him, nothing more was done in his presence. He was made to sign one paper there. PW-25 was cross examined by ld. Addl. PP. 8.27 Rajender Parsad (PW-26) deposed that he was not associated in any investigation by SHO/Inspector Shiv Dutt Sharma on 23.04.1982. He did not know anything about this case. PW-26 was cross examined by Ld. Addl. PP. 8.28 Devki Nandan (PW-27), a book maker at Delhi Race Course deposed that he could not produce the records pertaining to the year 1981-1982. He was cross examined by Ld. Addl.PP. There is nothing in his cross-examination, which could be of any help to prosecution. 8.29 Bharat Bhushan (PW-28) could not identify accused Satender Singh and Gurvinder Singh. He stated that accused Sarabjit Singh appeared to be the same person who used to do the service of driver. He was cross examined by Ld. Addl. PP.
8.30 Phool Chand (PW-29) placed on record MLC no. 19745 (Ex. PW29/A) pertaining to M. C. Acharya .
8.31 Pyar Chand (PW-30) deposed that after about eight months, police brought persons and told them that four persons had committed dacoity in the bank. PW-30 was cross examined by Ld. Addl. PP. He denied the suggestion that Satender Singh, Sarabjit Singh, Gurvinder Singh and Prem State Vs. Satinder Singh @ Titu & Ors. -SC No. 34 of 2013 17/58 Chand Aggarwal were brought to the bank in custody or pointed out in his presence that they committed robbing in the bank .
8.32 Keshav Dutt (PW-31) LDC in Food and Supply Department, Circle no. 16, Sakurpur stated that on 13.07.1982, police came with card no. 38130. He checked register of FPS No. 4967. He deposed that police seized declaration form vide seizure memo (Ex. PW31/A).
8.33 Inspector Narender Pal Singh (PW-32) joined the investigation with Inspector S.D. Sharma, SHO Defence Colony ,Ct. Zile Singh and accused Subhash Nayyar and Anil Sethi. They reached at the house of accused Subhash Nayyar at cottage no. 13, West Patel Nagar. He deposed that search was conducted and from a wooden almirah lying in the house, accused produced Rs. 463/- seized vide seizure memo (Ex. PW32/A) and accused Anil Sethi took police party to his house at Z-15, West Patel Nagar. Nothing was recovered at his instance. Memo (Ex. PW32/B) was prepared. He placed on record pointing out memos (Ex. PW1/DX.2 and Ex. PW1/DX.3) of the place of occurrence, seizure memo (Ex. PW32/E) of sample seal , seal (Ex. PW32/P.1) and the recovered amount of Rs. 463/- from parcel (Ex. PW32/P.2). 8.34 M. N. Shenoy (PW-33) deposed that he was not present at the time of dacoity. He handed over photocopy of page no. 277 of cash register of the bank to the IO. Police seized the same vide memo (Ex. PW33/A). PW-33 State Vs. Satinder Singh @ Titu & Ors. -SC No. 34 of 2013 18/58 identified those notes as the same were bearing slip of Canara Bank, South Extension branch and initials.
8.35 T. P. Sharma (PW-34) placed on record site plan (Ex. PW34/A) of the house of Prem Chand.
8.36 ACP Ranbir Singh (PW-35) deposed that he arrested four accused persons. He placed on record site plan (Ex. PW35/A) of the place of recovery . 8.37 HC Narender Singh (PW-35-A) took three pullandas from malkhana mohrar (MHC (M)) having different seals vide RC no. 09/21 and deposited the same at CFSL, R. K. Puram. He handed over the copy of receipt to MHC(M).
8.38 Ram Prakash (PW-36) did not remember anything. He could not identify any accused persons or the case property. He stated that he had become blind due to a prolonged disease. He was given up by the prosecution. 8.39 Inspector Jawahar Singh (PW-37) joined the investigation with IO/Inspector S. D. Sharma, SHO, Police station Defence Colony on 21.04.1982. He is witness to the arrest of accused Satender Singh arrested from West Patel Nagar u/s 41.1 Cr. P. C alongwith his motor cycle no. DEX 5418 Yazdi make. PW-37 is witness to the disclosure statement (Ex. PW2/A) of accused Satender Singh. As per PW-37, at about 05:30pm, they reached at Alankar Cinema , Lajpat Nagar from where accused Sarabjit Singh alongwith scooter no. DEM State Vs. Satinder Singh @ Titu & Ors. -SC No. 34 of 2013 19/58 7265 was apprehended and accused Gurvinder Singh and Prem Chand Aggarwal were apprehended from car no. DEU 3668. They all were interrogated. PW-37 is the witness to the personal search memos (Ex. PW1/DX1, Ex.P37/B and Ex. PW37/1) of accused Prem Chand Aggarwal, Sarabjit Singh and Gurvinder Singh. Scooter no. DEM 7265 was seized vide seizure memo (Ex.PW37/C). Fiat car no. DEU 3668 was seized vide seizure memo (Ex.1/DX). Pursuant to the disclosure statement, he deposed that accused Satender Singh pointed ,out his house at 07:30pm and took the keys from Shiv Dutt Sharma, which was stated to be recovered from the personal search of the accused. A brown colour attache was recovered at his instance. From the attache , four cricket caps, four hand gloves of white colour ,three black masks, one country made pistol , two live cartridges and cash of Rs. 1,53,753/- were seized. PW-37 is the witness to the seizue memo of attache (Ex. PW2/B).
8.40 Babu Lal (PW-38) the then, Metropolitan Magistrate on 22.04.1982 conducted TIP proceedings (Ex. PW38/B) . He deposed that accused Satender Singh, Sarabjit Singh , Gurvinder Singh and Prem Chand Sharam (approver) refused to join the TIP proceedings. On 10.05.1982, PW-38 conducted TIP proceedings (Ex. PW38/H to Ex. PW38/J) of the case property. In cross examination, he deposed that it was clearly mentioned in the TIP State Vs. Satinder Singh @ Titu & Ors. -SC No. 34 of 2013 20/58 proceedings that currency notes were identified on the basis of bank slips affixed on the bundles.
8.41 S. D. Sharma (PW-39) SHO, Police Station Defence colony, investigated the case and placed on record documents prepared by him. 8.42 Dr. Jagdish Prasad (PW40) identified signatures and hand writing of Dr. Sunil Reddy ,who prepared MLC pertaining to injured B. M. Gupta, Subhash Tyagi, Om Prakash Jain and B. Bhaskar .
9. On conclusion of prosecution evidence, statement of accused persons u/s 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded. Accused Sarabjit Singh, Gurvinder Singh and Satender Singh pleaded innocence and falsely implication in this case. Accused Satender Singh stated that he was a married person with grand children and had a very good status and had no previous criminal record.
10. Accused persons produced Joginder Singh Chabra, Subhash Uppal, Harvinder Singh and Raghubir Singh as their defence witness.
11. Joginder Singh Chabra (DW-1) deposed that Raghubir Singh Chabra was his cousin brother. In the end of April 1982, he came at his shop. He and Paramjeet Singh, his elder brother had shops adjoining to each other. AT about 08:00pm,Paramjeet Singh, called him and told him that Raghubir Singh was in need of some money. He was having Rs. 35,000/- in his cash box. He gave Rs. 35,000/- to Paramjeet Singh, who also added some more amount State Vs. Satinder Singh @ Titu & Ors. -SC No. 34 of 2013 21/58 and in all gave Rs. 1,10,000/- to Raghubir Singh. DW-1 testified that lateron, he came to know that he needed money as the same was demanded by police in a case. Subsequently, they received back their money in installments.
12. Subhash Uppal (DW-2) Assistant Manager Issue Department , RBI placed on record a reply (Ex. DW2/B) issued by GM RBI to the application and eight papers alongwith report (Ex. DW2/B-1 to B-8).
13. Harvinder Singh (DW-3) deposed that last week of April 1982, Sardar Raghubir Singh came to him and told him that he was having some problem pertaining to his son Satender Singh and wanted some money . DW-3 gave a sum of Rs. 70,000/- to Sardar Raghubir Singh. After about 2 or 3 months, Raghubir Singh returned Rs. 70,000/- to him. In cross examination, he stated that he did not issue any receipt for the handing over of the money or at the time of its return and he did not maintain any book of account. PW-3 stated that no one had made inquiry from him.
14. Raghubir Singh (DW-4) deposed that on 20th April 1982, police came at his residence when Puja was being performed at his house at that time, as he had shifted this residence on 15 th April 1982. They were residing at A-124, Vishal Enclave. Police lifted his son on 20.04.1992. He received a telephone call from police, who told him to give money to them and then, they would release his son Satender Singh. DW-4 expressed his inability to pay the State Vs. Satinder Singh @ Titu & Ors. -SC No. 34 of 2013 22/58 money. Police persons threatened him that if he did not pay the money , they would lift him. After three or four days, he borrowed Rs. 1,10,000/- from his cousins Paramjit Singh, who has expired and Joginder Singh. He arranged Rs. 70,000/- from his nephew Harvinder Singh. He gave Rs. 2,30,000/- to Sh. Sharma SHO at the Police Station. DW-3 deposed that accused Satender Singh was falsely implicated by the police in this case. In cross examination, he stated that he did not lodge any complaint in writing against the police persons. He denied that no money was given by him to police or that accused Satender was not lifted from his house on 20.04.1982.
15. I have heard submissions advanced by Sh. Wasi Ur Rahman Learned Addl. PP for the State and Sh. J. R. Priani, Learned counsel for both accused and have perused the record carefully.
16. Ld. Addl. PP submitted that complainant has given description of the culprits in his complaint. Accused persons who were arrested in this case , made disclosure statements pursuant to which, they were also arrested in other case FIR No. 658/1981 PS Kalkaji. At the instance of accused persons, looted money was recovered. Accused Prem Chand Aggarwal , who turned approver got recovered one country made pistol from his house. He pointed out the place, where the stolen fiat car was found and used in the offence. It is submitted that accused satender @ Tito got recovered one country made pistol, State Vs. Satinder Singh @ Titu & Ors. -SC No. 34 of 2013 23/58 two live cartridges, four sport caps, four pairs of gloves and three wheels, three masks alongwith cash. Accused Sarabjit got recovered one country made pistol, two live cartridges and cash. He also got recovered a VIP brief case. Ld. Addl PP submitted that all the accused persons refused to participate in the TIP proceedings and were identified by the witnesses before the police.
17. He further argued that accused Prem Chand Aggarwal turned approver and his confession u/s 164 Cr P. C was recorded by the Metropolitan Magistrate on 16.06.1982 and he was tendered pardon vide order (Ex. PW1/Z) on 18.06.1982 by the Court of Ld. ACMM. He argued that in view of testimony of approver and recovery of incriminating articles, accused are liable to be convicted.
18. Ld. Addl. PP referred Suresh chand Bahri vs State of Bihar AIR 1994, SC 2420 wherein it was observed that when committing Magistrate committed the accused to the Court of Session without examining the person who had been tendered pardon and who had accepted the same. The full bench set aside the committal order and directed the committing Magistrate to hold a fresh enquiry in accordance with law. The ultimate result of the aforesaid discussion is that if the said defect of not examining the approver at the committal stage by the committing Magistrate is rectified later, no prejudice can be said to be caused to an accused person and therefore, the trial cannot be State Vs. Satinder Singh @ Titu & Ors. -SC No. 34 of 2013 24/58 said to be vitiated on that account. It was held that since in the present case, the defect was rectified , the argument that the trial was vitiated cannot be accepted.
19. He submits that it is now well settled by a long series of decisions that except in circumstance of special nature, it is the duty of the Court to raise the presumption raised by Section 114, Illustration (b) and the Legislature requires that the Courts should raise presumption. He further submits that it is clear that a definite rule has been crystallized to the effect that though a conviction can be based on uncorroborated evidence of an accomplice but as a rule of prudence it is unsafe to place reliance on the uncorroborated testimony of an approver as required by illustration (b) of Section 114 of Evidence Act. He submits that since recovery is effected from the accused and that in view of provisions of Section 27 of the Evidence Act if a fact is actually discovered in consequence of information given, some guarantee is afforded thereby that the information was true and consequently the said information can safely be allowed to be given in evidence because if such an information is further fortified and confirmed by the discovery of articles or the instrument of crime and which leads to the belief that the information about the confession made as to the articles of crime cannot be false.
20. Ld. Addl. PP placed reliance on "Sitaram vs State of Jharkhand"
State Vs. Satinder Singh @ Titu & Ors. -SC No. 34 of 2013 25/58 AIR2008 SC 391, to show that, "Section 133 of the Evidence Act expressly provides that an accomplice is a competent witness and the conviction is not illegal merely because it proceeds on an uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice. In other words, this section renders admissible such uncorroborated testimony. But this section has to be read alongwith Section 114, illustration (b) of the Evidence Act. In other words, the rule is that the necessity of corroboration is a matter of prudence. Except when, it is safe to dispense with such corroboration, it must be clearly present in the mind of the judge.
21. He submits that it is not necessary that there should be independent confirmation of every material circumstance in the sense that the independent evidence is required in the case, apart from the testimony of the complainant or the accomplice.
22. Per contra, Ld. counsel for accused submits that testimony of approver is not wrothy of credence . He drew attention of this Court towards his conduct and sequence of events. He argued that firstly Prem Chand Agarwal (PW-1) moved an application on 20.4.82 for making statement. He was produced before Sh. R.L. Chugh, the then Ld. ACMM on 24.4.82, but he refused to make any confessional statement and stated that his application was moved under pressure. He was not ready to make any statement. Ld. counsel State Vs. Satinder Singh @ Titu & Ors. -SC No. 34 of 2013 26/58 contended that it is clear from this that he was pressurized by police to become an approver. Then, he moved another application dated 15.6.82. His confessional statement (Ex. PWI/B) was recorded by Sh. M.L. Sahni, Ld. MM. After refusal to make confessional statement before Sh. R.L. Chugh on 20.05.82. Admittedly, he was sent to confinement in cell Ward no. 18. PW-1 admitted that the persons who violated the rules in jail were kept in ward no. 18 as punishment. After that, he was induced to give 'B Class' status and TV in Jail and promise of grant of pardon, and he was granted pardon on 18.6.82 by Shri J.M. Malik, the then ACMM.
23. Sh. Priani, Ld. counsel submitted that Prem Chand Aggarwal PW-1 (Approver) deposed that Satinder and Sarabjit were fond of betting in races and they lost enough money, they were alleged to be under debt and therefore, they planned to rob bank to return the debt. He was confronted with his previous statement, where this fact was not recorded. He submitted that there is no evidence either oral or documentary, to prove that any of the accused ever visited race course or was under debt. Devki Nandan (PW 27) who was book maker of Race Course and was produced by the prosecution did not identify any of the accused. He deposed that police had checked the betting record of the year 1981-82 and had also make enquiries, but nothing had come forward against any accused. No record has been placed on record State Vs. Satinder Singh @ Titu & Ors. -SC No. 34 of 2013 27/58 to prove whether any accused had ever visited the race course or had done any betting. Furthermore, PW-1 (approver) tried to involve Satender Singh and Sarabjeet Singh in horse racing to prove motive. Learned Counsel wondered as to what was his (approver) and Gurvinder's motive in committing robbery has not been indicated. Ld. counsel argued that the motive of the robbery is not proved.
24. Next, Ld. defence counsel argued that on 07.09.1981 at 4:35 p.m. DD No. 20-A was recorded. Statement of PW8 Kavyanand, Sr. Clerk was recorded by SI Rajpal Singh, who stated that he had seen three persons who had entered the bank. On the basis of his statement, FIR No. 750/1981 in this case was registered. He submits that no mention of any fourth person has come in his statement. Then, how four persons were involved by the prosecution? He submits that none of the eye witnesses identified any of the accused. Even none of four persons who were allegedly injured in the bank identified any of the accused.
25. Ld. counsel argued that it has come on record that accused were shown to bank employees in the police station and their photographs were also taken, that is why accused refused to participate in Test Identification Parade. He submits that on the very next day after the incident i.e. on 03.06.1981, police had shown some photographs to the bank employees and they recognized two State Vs. Satinder Singh @ Titu & Ors. -SC No. 34 of 2013 28/58 persons. Those two persons Subhash and Baljeet were arrested by the police who later on were discharged by the Court.
26. Ld. counsel contended that recovery of Currency Notes is highly doubtful. In this regard, Subhash Tyagi (PW14) cashier in his cross- examination deposed that stamps were affixed on some currency notes. PW-14 deposed that in fact, Manager had asked him that certain currency notes bundles did not bear his signatures although they bore the stamp of the bank with date. On asking, at the instance of Manager, he signed them. PW-14 deposed that he signed them later on i.e. after that date, which was after some months. On being asked as regards, the denomination of currency notes , which he signed later on, PW-14 replied that they were bundles of all denomination of currency notes ranging from 1 to 100. In cross examination, he deposed that only once, seal was kept so long as it was intact and the seal was changed when the previous one was broken. According to him on that day also there was only one seal. He did not know how it was that the bundles of currency notes pointed out to him had 'square' seal marks, while the register had rectangular seal marks. Ld. counsel argued that the difference in seal proved that the seals were put on bundles afterwards. Hence, from the statement of the cashier Subhash Tyagi (PW-14), it is crystal clear that the recovery was 'manipulated' and planted.
State Vs. Satinder Singh @ Titu & Ors. -SC No. 34 of 2013 29/58
27. Ld. counsel argued that identity of Revolvers, Pistols, Cartridges and Dagger is doubtful and prosecution failed to collect evidence about the person from whom these articles were procured. He submitted that there is no evidence of finger prints of any of the accused on any of the weapons and no eye witness identified any weapon. He submitted that testimony of Puran Chand (PW-4) shows that he was a false witness. He wrongly identified accused Sarabjeet Singh as Satinder Singh. He expressed his inability to identify accused Satinder. He admitted that he could not identify Prem Chand. PW-4 deposed that none of the accused signed any memo in his presence . Mahesh Chand (PW-7) who used to sell paan, biri, cigarette on patri in the area of Defence Colony was sanctioned license of gun on the recommendation of local police, to whom he expressed his apprehension of danger to his life at the hands of those persons against whom he used to appear as a stock witness. Amar Singh (PW25), a retired police officer and he had not supported the prosecution version of alleged recovery from accused Sarabjit Singh. He was introduced as a false witness.
28. As regards arrest, Ld. counsel contended that statement of IO/Shiv Dutt Sharma (PW39), is different from approver Prem Chand's statement. PW39 deposed that at about 5:30 p.m., accused Satinder took the police near Alankar cinema from where accused Prem Chand, Sarabjeet Singh State Vs. Satinder Singh @ Titu & Ors. -SC No. 34 of 2013 30/58 and Gurvinder Singh were arrested and their disclosure statements were recorded whereas, Prem Chand (approver) (PW1) deposed that he saw Satinder for the first time at 10:00 p.m. and thus, it is proved that the arrest was wrongly declared and the fact that the accused were picked up by the police from their residence. He argued that in view of above relevant facts , there is no reliable evidence to connect the accused persons with the offence. Hence, accused persons deserve to be acquitted.
29. In support, Learned counsel relied upon "Bhira Doula Patil vs State of Maharashtra" AIR 1963 SC 599; "Piara Singh vs State of Punjab" AIR 1969 SC 961 , "Ravinder Singh vs State of Haryana" AIR 1975 (SC) 856; "Suraj Mal vs State" AIR 1979 (SC) 1408; "Balwant Kaur vs Union Territory of Chandigarh" AIR 1988 SC 139 ; "Ram Pal Pithwa Rahidas & ors. vs State of Maharashtra" 1994 SCC 851; "P. V. Narshima Rao vs State through CBI" 97 (2002) DLT 452; "Mousm Singh Roy & ors vs State of West Bengal" 2003 (3) JCC 1358 ; "Crole S. Naidu vs State of AP & ors." 2004 (1) Crimes 212 (SC)
30. Before embarking upon the discussion of the evidence, it may be noted that in our system of administration of justice in a criminal case, a person arraigned as an accused is presumed to be innocent unless that presumption is rebutted by the production of evidence, which may show him to be guilty of the offence with which he is charged. The burden of proving the guilt of the accused State Vs. Satinder Singh @ Titu & Ors. -SC No. 34 of 2013 31/58 is upon the prosecution and unless it relives itself of that burden, the Courts cannot record a finding of the guilt of the accused. It is well settled that if some material is brought on the record consistent with the innocence of the accused which may reasonably be true, even though it is not positively proved to be true, the accused would be entitled to acquittal.
31. In Sarad Birdi Chand v. State of Mhashtra 1984 SCC (Cri.) 486, it was observed that a moral conviction, however strong or genuine, cannot amount to a legal conviction supportable in law. The well established rule of criminal justice is that "fouler the crime higher the proof", where on the evidence two possibilities are available or open, one which goes in favour of the prosecution and the other which benefits an accused, the accused is undoubtedly entitled to the benefit of doubt. Mere suspicion, however strong or probable it may be, is no effective substitute for the legal proof required to substantiate the charge of commission of a crime and graver the charge is, greater is the standard of proof required. Courts dealing with criminal cases has to constantly remember that there is difference between "may be true" and "must be true". This basic and golden rule helps to maintain the vital distinction between "conjectures" and "sure conclusions" to be arrived at on the touchstone of a dispassionate judicial scrutiny based upon a complete and comprehensive appreciation of all features of the case as well as quality and credibility of the State Vs. Satinder Singh @ Titu & Ors. -SC No. 34 of 2013 32/58 evidence brought on record.
32. Trial is a search for truth and in order to find answer to the question ,as to whether accused arraigned at the trial are guilty of the crime with which they are charged, Court has to test the evidence for its inherent consistency. Court has to scrutinize the evidence when there are testimonies of a large number of witnesses testifying before the Court, as in this case. There must be a string that should join the evidence of all the witnesses and thereby satisfying the test of consistency in evidence amongst the witnesses. Court has also to consider the manner of giving evidence, surrounding circumstances, probabilities, motive, if any for giving true or false evidence, intrinsic merit of the evidence and how it stands with other evidence adduced on record.
33. It may be emphasized that reliability of witnesses depends upon the accuracy of the witnesses, original observations of the evidence which he described; correctness and extent of what he remembers and his veracity and whether there is anything inherently improbable or unreliable in his evidence. His conduct during occurrence and subsequently also may be examined. Discrepancies which relate to material points, cannot be lightly glossed over but have to be assessed seriously, whereas trifling discrepancies have to be ignored. Thus, broad facts of the case and not minor details have to be considered in weighing the evidence. Court has to weigh the evidence carefully State Vs. Satinder Singh @ Titu & Ors. -SC No. 34 of 2013 33/58 in measuring its worth or worthlessness.
34. Now, as regards evidence of approver, in P. V. Narsimha Rao's case 97 (2002) DLT 452, reference was made by Hon'ble High court in Sarwan Singh Rattan Singh vs State of Punjab AIR 1957 SC 637 , wherein Hon'ble Apex Court held that "In other words, the appreciation of an approver's evidence has to satisfy a double test. His evidence must show that he is a reliable witness and that is a test, which is common to all witnesses. If this test is satisfied the second test which still remains to be applied is that the approver's evidence must receive sufficient corroboration. This test is special in the cases of weak or tainted evidence like that of the approver. Similar observations were made in Piara Singh vs State of Punjab reported on AIR 1969 SC 961 .
35. In Ravinder Singh vs State of Haryana's case AIR 1975 SC 856, it was held that an approver is a most unworthy friend, if at all, and he, having bargained for his immunity must prove his worthiness for credibility in Court. This test is fulfilled, firstly if the story he relates involves him in the crime and appears intrinsically to be a natural and probable catalogue of events that had taken palce. The story if given of minute details according with reality is likely to save it from being rejected brevimanu. Secondly, once that hurdle is crossed, the story given by an approver so far as the accused on trial is concerned, must State Vs. Satinder Singh @ Titu & Ors. -SC No. 34 of 2013 34/58 implicate him in such a manner as to give rise to a conclusion of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. In a rare case, taking into consideration all the factors, circumstances and situations governing a particular case, conviction based on the uncorroborated evidence of an approver confidently held to be true and reliable by the Court may be permissible ordinarily however, an approver's statement has to be corrborated in material particular bridging closely the distance between the crime and the criminal. Certain clinching features of involvement disclosed by an approver relating to an accused, if reliable by the touchstone of other independent credible evidence, would give the needed assurance for acceptance of his testimony on which a conviction may be based.
36. In Suraj Mal's case AIR 1979 SC 1408 , it was observed that it is well settled that witnesses make two inconsistent statements in their evidence either at one stage or at two stages, the testimony of such witnesses becomes unreliable and unworthy of credence and in the absence of special circumstances, conviction cannot be based on the evidence of such witnesses.
37. In Mousm Singh Roy's 2003 JCC 1358, it was observed that "it is no doubt a matter of regret that a foUl cold blooded and cruel murder should go unpunished. There may also be an element of truth in the prosecution story against the accused. Considered as a whole, the prosecution story may be true State Vs. Satinder Singh @ Titu & Ors. -SC No. 34 of 2013 35/58 but between 'may be true' and 'must be true' , there is inevitably a long distance to travel and the whole of this distance must be covered by the prosecution by legal, reliable and unimpeachable evidence before an accused can be convicted.
38. In Ram Pal Pithwa's case reported as 1994 SCC 851, while considering credibility of the approver and weight to be attached to his statement, the statement made in the bail application of approver can be looked into and Hon'ble Apex Court observed that the High Court did not consider the significance of variation in the statement .
39. In Gorle S. S. Naidu's 2004 (1) Crimes 212 (SC) was noted that in a criminal case if two views are possible on evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to innocence of accused should be adopted.
40. In Balwant's kaur vs Union Territory of Chandigarh AIR 1988 SC 139, which was a case of conspiracy to commit murder under section 300 r/w Section 120-B IPC, as regards evidence of approver , it was observed that the approver's evidence in regard to the complicity in the conspiracy lacked corroboration on certain material particulars necessary, therefore, accused was entitled to the benefit of doubt.
41. In Bhiva Doulu Patil's case reported as AIR 1963 SC 599, it was held that there should corroboration in material particulars and qua each State Vs. Satinder Singh @ Titu & Ors. -SC No. 34 of 2013 36/58 accused.
42. On the touchstone of tests noticed above, now I advert to the evidence of material witnesses.
43. Prem Chand Aggarwal (PW-1) was initially an accused in this case with allegations of participating actively in the commission of robbery having common intention with co accused . He was granted pardon under Section 306 Cr.P.C. Perusal of record shows that Prem Chand Aggarwal (PW-1) moved his first application on 20.04.1982 from jail showing his willingness to make his statement. He was produced before Sh. R. L. Chugh, CMM on 20.05.1982. Then, he refused to make confessional statement. In his deposition, he stated that he told Sh. Chugh (Ld. CMM) that the application made by him was under
pressure and so he was not ready to give any statement. Evidence on record indicates that his first application moved on 20.04.1982 for making confessional statement was not 'voluntarily' and appeared to have been made under pressure and once, he made this statement before Ld. CMM. His subsequent statement could not be believed. PW-1 has admitted that after his refusal to make statement, he was kept in a separate ward no. 18, a solitary cell,wherein the person who violated rules in jail were kept as punishment. On 26.04.1982, Prem Chand (PW-1) moved an application for grant of B class facility in Jail stating he was falsely implicated in this case. PW-1 was granted 'B' class in the State Vs. Satinder Singh @ Titu & Ors. -SC No. 34 of 2013 37/58 jail. According to Learned defence counsel, his statement under section 164 Cr.
P. C. was recorded by the then ACMM, New Delhi on oath under Section 281 Cr. P. C, oath is not to be administered to accused and PW-1 admitted that he told Sh. R. L. Chugh Ld. ACMM that he would make a statement provided pardon was granted.
44. Section 306 (3) Cr. P. C lays down that every Magistrate who tenders a pardon under sub-section (1) shall record his reasons for doing. Perusal of order of grant of pardon passed by Ld. ACMM (Ex. PW1/DXX) shows that the grounds given by Ld. ACMM were: (a) that the accused is not a principal offender and his role is minor as compared to others and his appearance will strengthen the prosecution's case otherwise the evidence of the prosecution does not appear to be sound and strong. These grounds are against the material on record, inasmuch as the role played by Prem Chand Aggarwal (PW-1) in the commission of offence was allegedly as per the prosecution's case was the same as allegedly played by other co-accused and secondly, there were allegedly ten eye witnesses cited in the case and recoveries were also alleged against all the accused. Therefore, the ground that it was a 'weak case' was against the material on record.
45. On perusal of evidence, statement of Prem Chand Aggarwal (PW-1) is found to be contradictory and not corroborated in material particulars State Vs. Satinder Singh @ Titu & Ors. -SC No. 34 of 2013 38/58 by other evidence, therefore, his evidence cannot be used for conviction of the accused. PW-1 tried to attribute motive to his co-accused for committing the offence by saying that accused Satender Singh and Sarabjit Singh used to go to Race Course for betting on horse racing and they lost in gambling and thus were indebted to a big liability. He was confronted with his statement (Ex. DA) where this fact was not mentioned.
46. There is no corroborating evidence in this regard. In this regard, the prosecution had produced Devki Nandan (PW-27) but he did not corroborate the version of PW. On the contrary, he deposed that the record of race course was destroyed after ten years and that the records were checked by the police. Since, no such copy of record is placed on the record of the case, which IO could have collected, it may be inferred that the records did not show presence of accused at race course on any day. PW-1 made material improvements in his statement and his testimony is inconsistent with the statement of other witnesses which shows that he was not present at the scene of robbery.
47. PW-1 deposed that they put the currency notes in the two bags which they were carrying. PW-1 could not tell the colour of those bags. He was confronted with statement (Ex. DA) where this facts of filling money in two bags were not recorded. He was confronted with his three previous statements (Ex. State Vs. Satinder Singh @ Titu & Ors. -SC No. 34 of 2013 39/58 DA) and statements under section 164 Cr. P. C (Ex. PW1/B) and (Ex. PW1/Y) where the fact of having two bags while coming back from Canara bank was not recorded. PW-1 admitted that he did not tell in his previous statement about keys of strong room, getting open strong room and taking out money. PW-1 deposed that he could not give any reason as to why he did not narrate before the police that Gurvinder Singh had injured the said bank employee. PW-1 did not tell the police that Satinder and Gurvinder thereafter confined the bank employees in the strong room. He had not told to the police that thereafter Satinder threatened the bank employees to stand quietly and had to face dire consequences if they raised any alarm. Anil Sethi met them there and had a dialogue with them. PW-1 did not tell the police that thereafter they returned to 1/1, West patel Nagar where they distributed the booty amongst them. PW-1 was confronted with (Ex. DA) where the shares of accused were not mentioned. PW-1 admitted that neither he told about Anil Sethi nor about going to Akbar Hotel with Satinder Singh and having talk with Anil Sethi telling him not to disclose this matter to anybody.
48. Scrutiny of evidence of PW-1 shows that he made improvements in his statement in Court and made inconsistent statements. PW-1 was confronted with statement (Ex. DA) where the fact of bringing country made revolvers, pistol and dagger by Satinder Singh, Gurvinder singh and Sarabjit State Vs. Satinder Singh @ Titu & Ors. -SC No. 34 of 2013 40/58 Singh from Etah or Bangla Sahib Gurudwara was not mentioned. According to PW-1, he stated before the police in his two statements that booty of his share was available on the top of the almirah of his house, booty was lying in brief case. PW-1 was confronted with statement (Ex. DX and Ex. PW1/DG) where it was not so recorded. PW-1 was confronted with statement (Ex. DA) where fact of country made pistol lying at the house was not mentioned . PW-1 admitted that he did not tell the police in both of his statements that bullets were also lying at his house. PW-1 was confronted with statements made before two Magistrates where this fact was not recorded.
49. PW-1 denied that Rs. 55,000/- were lying at his house. PW-1 was confronted with statement (Ex. DA) where this fact was recorded. PW-1 deposed that he did not tell to the police that Rs. 66,000/- fell to his share. He was confronted with statement (Ex. PW1/DG) where this fact was recorded. PW-1 contradicted his earlier version recorded in his application (Ex. PW1/DE) by stating that it was wrongly mentioned from portion A to A on (Ex. PW1/DE) that he was wrongly arrested and detained at various Police Station. PW-1 deposed that he had not told his counsel that he was shown to other people. PW-1 contradicted his statement recorded on 24.04.1982. He admitted that he was arrested by the police on 20.08.1982 from his house at Bali Nagar where he was sleeping. PW-1 stated that he was tortured at the Police Station during State Vs. Satinder Singh @ Titu & Ors. -SC No. 34 of 2013 41/58 his stay in the Police Station and according to PW-1, he was shown to some witnesses and due to that reason he was not prepared to join the TIP proceedings because he was kept without muffled face. PW-1 signed statements at two places as he was asked by the Magistrate to sign his statement. PW-1 deposed about his appearance after his statement, before Sh. R. L. Chugh, Ld. CMM , Sh. M.L. Sahni, Ld. MM on 16.06.1982 and before Sh. J. M. Malik the then MM on 18.06.1982 and thereafter, before Sh. Prem Kumar Ld. MM but admittedly, he did not complain that he made his statement before Sh. Babu Lal the then MM at the instance of co accused or his lawyer had made the application without his briefing. He deposed that he made similar statement before Sh.V. K. Jain , the then Ld. MM after two days on 26.04.1982.
50. It appeared that PW-1 made a false statement that his application signed by him and moved by his counsel Sh. T. L. Garg was without his instructions. PW-1 deposed that Sh. T. L. Garg was their counsel in case regarding burning of his cousin sister. He deposed that the case of burning of his cousin sister was still pending. PW-1 deposed that he had a discussion with Sh. T. L. Garg even after he became approver. Had it been so, he and his family would have protested and not continued with Sh. T. L. Garg, Ld. Counsel . Bhaskar Nair (PW-10) deposed that he did not take the keys. One key was with him and other was with Sh. B. M. Gupta. PW-1 deposed that he saw bank State Vs. Satinder Singh @ Titu & Ors. -SC No. 34 of 2013 42/58 employees opening the lock of the strong room as well as of the almirah. PW-1 contradicted PW-10 as one key was with Bhaskar Naik and other was with B. M. Gupta. PW-1 testified that when they entered the strong room. PW-1 deposed that about three persons sustained injuries through them in Canara bank at the time of incident. He was not corroborated as allegedly four persons were injured. Regarding arrest, PW-1 deposed that no document was prepared con-temporarily at the spot and they reached Police Station Defence Colony after about 15 minutes. He revealed his involvement in the dacoity at the Police Station. This is a major contradiction with the case of prosecution. PW-1 denied that the recording of disclosure statements and preparing personal search memos near Alankar Cinema as deposed by IO/S. D.Sharma (PW-39).
51. Prem Chand Aggarwal (PW-1) did not know that Satinder was at the Police Station or not nor did he see him. He saw Satinder for the first time on that day. This is again a major contradiction and falsifies the prosecution case. It shows that Satinder Singh did not point or lead to apprehension of Prem Chand Aggarwal (PW-1) , Gurvinder Singh and Sarabjeet Singh as deposed by S. D. Sharma (PW-39).
52. PW-1 deposed that all the currency notes recovered from him were old currency notes. He did not remember if there were soiled notes in the looted money. PW-1 could not explain as to how the recovered notes were State Vs. Satinder Singh @ Titu & Ors. -SC No. 34 of 2013 43/58 soiled. Presence of PW-1 at the spot is doubtful because because had any accused given any dagger blow to any bank employee in his presence, he would have been able to say about bleeding caused to any injured or blood on knife which was a natural consequences. Prem Chand Aggarwal (PW-1) deposed that he did not remember if he stated in statement dated 21.04.1982 that they were armed during the dacoity and that bank employees were injured by one of them. He was confronted with statement (Ex. DA) where it was not so recorded. PW-1 testified that he did not notice if the alleged knife welded by Gurvinder Singh, got smeared with blood.
53. Furthermore, Prem Chand Aggarwal (PW-1) deposed that he used the mask but he took off after some time. He was confronted with his previous statement where this fact was not mentioned. This is an improvement made by PW-1, making him unreliable. PW-1 testified that he was interrogated for about 15 minutes in the first interval at the Police Station. At about 06:00pm, he was taken to Patel Nagar. PW-39 deposed that at about 06:30pm, he discussed the matter with DCP. He interrogated Prem Chand Aggarwal (PW-1) at the place of apprehension and after recording his disclosure , he was brought to Police Station Defence Colony and PW-1 deposed that his disclosure statement was recorded before T. P. Singh , SHO and two other persons , whose name he did not remember whereas, Inspector T. P. Sharma (PW-34) could not tell about State Vs. Satinder Singh @ Titu & Ors. -SC No. 34 of 2013 44/58 this. As per record, no such disclosure was recorded at the police station before T. P. Singh , SHO. PW-1 deposed that police reached his house at about 06:30pm, and stayed there at his house for about two hours. Thereafter, he was put in the police lock up. None of the accused was present in the lock up at that time and they came subsequently. This version of PW-1 is contradictory to the version of S. D. Sharma PW-39 who deposed that Inspector T. P. Singh and A. K. Puri came to the police station at about 11:15 to 11:40pm and he was first to come with accused Satender Singh. PW-1 could not explain his description. PW-1 deposed that he could identify cashier but could not give his age description. He deposed that he had seen employees of the bank but could not give their ages and description.
54. Prem Chand Aggarwal (PW-1) refused to identify signatures of his brother Ram Kishore and Sh. T. L. Garg, his counsel on (Ex. PW1/DC) although admitted that he had signed in his presence. PW-1 admitted that his father also accompanied and Sh. T. L. Garg advocate was known to him for the last 4-5 years and engaged by his father. PW-1 admitted that he signed in different manner and there was no specific reason for adopting two different styles of signatures.
55. PW-1 deposed that he did not remember if there was any sikh out of the employees in Canara Bank. It should not have been difficult for him to State Vs. Satinder Singh @ Titu & Ors. -SC No. 34 of 2013 45/58 remember, if there was any sikh out of the employees in Canara bank because a sikh gentleman could be conspicuously remembered, specially when he stated that there were 20 persons in the hall when he entered into it and there were ladies also. Prem Chand Aggarwal (PW-1) could not tell if there was any panel of glass in the door of strong room. PW-1 could not tell how many drawers or racks were there in that almirah. He could not tell if currency notes were placed in one rack or two. PW-1 deposed that he had gone to Alankar cinema alongwith the accused to watch movie from 06:00 to 09:00pm, but the tickets had not been arranged yet and he was unable to tell about the movie they had gone to see or which was being shown. It is not believeable that a person was going to watch movie and waiting at Cinema Hall would not know the name of movie and no ticket would have been purchased. On perusal of the testimony of PW-1 and other witnesses, I find that he is not a reliable witness.
56. As regards, identification of accused persons, no reliable evidence has come on record. None of the accused was arrested from the spot. It is admitted case of prosecution that accused persons were brought to the bank in the presence of employees after their arrest. They were arrested in this case and produced in the Court. Then, they were arrested in other case FIR no. 658/1981 on the next day and photographs of accused persons appeared in 'Dharamyug' magazine. Kavya Nand Jha (PW-8) deposed that it was not State Vs. Satinder Singh @ Titu & Ors. -SC No. 34 of 2013 46/58 possible for him to identify the person who was pointing the fire arm towards him. It was not possible for him to identify the other person who was waving a knife in the hall. He had noticed three persons in the hall. PW-8 was not able to identify even third person, who was coming from the stairs. A. K. Nijhawan (PW-9) deposed that he had seen three accused persons. He could not identify if any of the accused was present in the bank at that time. On being asked, PW-9 admitted that Prem Chand Aggarwal (approver) was not present in the bank. PW-9 testified that accused Sarabjit could not be the culprit because Sarabjit was only 5'-5" tall. Bhaskar Naik (PW-10) could not tell if any of the accused was that person who was having knife. . He deposed that third culprit entered the strong room. He collected the cash in a moment and he (PW-10) was not able to see him minutely. PW-10 was not able to identify him. PW-10 denied the suggestion put to him by Ld. Addl. PP that accused Sarabjit knocked at the cash window. Kamal Kishore (PW-11) deposed that he was afraid, therefore, he could not properly see that person having revolver. He stated that he was not in a position to identify him. He could not give description of culprit . Om Prakash Jain (injured) (PW-12) deposed that he was not in a position to identify those persons. He had seen the accused persons but could not tell whether accused were the said persons or not. He had seen Prem Chand Aggarwa (PW-1) but could not tell if he was one of the persons amongst those State Vs. Satinder Singh @ Titu & Ors. -SC No. 34 of 2013 47/58 three dacoits. PW-13 could not tell if any fourth dacoit came in . He did not see any fourth dacoit. PW-12 stated that he never made any statement to the police so far. He saw only 3 persons not and 4. He could not give the description or the facial feature of those dacoits. B. N. Gupta (PW-13) deposed that he had seen two persons with pistol but he had not seen any other person. He was also not in a position to identify those two persons. He stated that infact, they were called to the police station and were asked to identify some persons but they refused to identify any body. Subhash Tyagi (PW-14) deposed that he returned to Canara bank after 20-25 minutes. Their branch was on 1st floor and when he went upstairs and reached outside Canara bank branch, somebody placed a revolver on his back. He could not see that man at that time and could not see his facial features and he also could not see second man. PW-14 could not identify those two persons. Matadin (PW-17) stated that those two persons who came with a dagger and a revolver were not amongst the accused . PW-17 denied that the three accused i.e. Sarabjit Singh, Satender Singh and Prem Chand Aggarwal were the persons who committed dacoity in their bank on 07.09.1981, in his presence.Smt. Nirmala (PW-23) deposed that she had not seen the faces of accused persons therefore, she could not identify them. Ms. Indu Bala (PW-25) deposed that she did not see any incident due to fear and she was not in a position to identify any of them who entered into bank. Thus, State Vs. Satinder Singh @ Titu & Ors. -SC No. 34 of 2013 48/58 all the alleged eye witnesses including the injured persons had not identified any of the accused persons in this case.
57. Case property consists of currency notes, revolver, pistol,cartridges, dagger, caps, masks and attache. In the FIR serial number of notes are not mentioned. There was no mention in FIR that note bear seal or had any signatures. There was no mention in the FIR about chits on the bundles of currency notes.
58. Sh. Babu Lal (PW-38) deposed that the witnesses identified the currency notes on the basis of printed slips of Canara bank. Witnesses categorically deposed that because of bank slips or dates , they identified the currency notes. It implied that without the chits, witnesses could not have identified currency notes. Subhash Tyagi (PW-14) deposed that he could not tell if currency notes were looted from the bank on that date. He deposed that stamps were affixed later on also on some currency notes and in fact, the Manager had told him that certain currency notes bundles did not bear his signatures, although they bear the stamp of the bank with date and at the instance of Manager, he signed them later on i.e. after some months. PW-14 did not remember how many bundles of currency notes he signed later on. On being asked, PW-14 deposed that bundles were having currency notes of all denomination ranging from 1 to 100. PW-14 deposed that only one seal was State Vs. Satinder Singh @ Titu & Ors. -SC No. 34 of 2013 49/58 kept so long as it was intact and the seal was changed when the previous one was broken and on that day also, there was only one seal. PW-14 did not know how it was that the bundles of currency notes pointed out to him had square seal marks while the relevant register (mark Z) had rectangular seal marks. The difference in seals also indicates that seals were put on bundles afterwards. Alleged recoveries were made on 22.04.1982 but TIP of currency notes was arranged on 18.05.1982. This delay also raises grave doubt. During this period, PW-14 was asked to put his signatures. Evidence on record about the seal, chits of bank and signatures of cashier put lateron on the bundles of currency notes of all the denominations ranging from 1 to 100 is highly doubtful in nature and thus, no reliable evidence on record to prove that the currency notes as allegedly seized by the investigation officers were the stolen property.
59. No credit worthy evidence has come on record to connect weapons with the incident of robbery. Prosecution has failed to collect evidence about the person from whom these weapons were allegedly procured. There is no evidence of finger prints of any of the accused on any of the weapons. No eye witness has identified any weapon. Story of the prosecution that the dagger was purchased from a man on patri is not believeable. Prosecution has failed to find out or point out any such vendor. There is no evidence of blood on the dagger. Further case of prosecution is that one leather cover (Ex. PW15/I) was State Vs. Satinder Singh @ Titu & Ors. -SC No. 34 of 2013 50/58 seized from the spot. There is no evidence that the leather cover was of any of the weapons seized by the police. There is no satisfactory evidence on record about the identity of caps, masks, brief case and attachee allegedly used in the robbery. IO/S. D. Sharma (PW-39) deposed that he had not got identified the masks . None of the eye witnesses identified other articles. There is no evidence as to where from those were procured. Although, the caps had allegedly special marks of identification yet neither specified of those description in their statements recorded by the police nor identified those in TIP proceedings. Prem Chand Aggarwal (approver) had also not given any identification mark of any article including the caps before identifying for the first time in the Court.
60. None of the eye witnesses including injureds Bhaskar Naik (PW-10), Om Prakash Jain (PW-12), S. M. Gupta (PW-13) and Subhash Tyagi (PW-14) have uttered that any of the accused caused any hurt to them. There is no evidence against any of the accused to hold them gulty u/s 324 or 342 r/w section 34 IPC. None of the eye witnesses has alleged that robbery was committed by the accused or accused persons used any weapon. No offence punishable under section 394 or 397 IPC is made out against the accused Gurvinder Singh for cutting of telephone wire. None of the witnesses has deposed about cutting of telephone wires by any of the accused. Hence, no State Vs. Satinder Singh @ Titu & Ors. -SC No. 34 of 2013 51/58 offence punishable under section 426 r/w 34 IPC is made out against accused persons.
61. Kavya Nand (PW-8) deposed that police came to their bank and recorded his statement in the police station. Moreover, he gave his statement about this incident. Statement (Ex. PW8/A) shows that same was recorded in the bank and not at the police station. There is no explanation for this discrepancy. IO/S. D. Sharma (PW-39) deposed that accused Satender was interrogated at the place of his apprehension. No such record of interrogation is or disclosure is placed on the record. PW-39 arrested accused under section 41.1 Cr P. C. His personal search was conducted. No such personal search memo was prepared at the spot. Arrest in case FIR No. 750/1981 shows the recovery of key in the personal search of accused Satinder. IO/PW-39 deposed that accused Satinder took the police near Alankar cinema from where accused Prem Chand, Sarabjit Singh and Gurvinder Singh were arrested and their disclosure statement were recorded. PW-1 deposed that he saw Satender for the first time at 10:00pm. He was taken to Police Station Defence Colony and his disclosure statement was recorded in the presence of Inspector T. P. Sharma and two other persons whose names he did not know. It falsifies the statement of Inspector S. D. Sharma about accused Satender leading to arrest of accused Prem Chand Aggarwal and others.
State Vs. Satinder Singh @ Titu & Ors. -SC No. 34 of 2013 52/58
62. Alleged recovery memo was prepared by 09:00pm and it was not in his hand which shows that Shiv Charan (PW-2) was not present alongwith the police party. PW-2 deposed that his statement was recorded at 03:30pm and no other statement was recorded. Shiv Charan (PW-2) appears to have been falsely shown as the witness of disclosure statements and witness of alleged seizure of property from1/1 West Patel Nagar. Admittedly, recovery memo (Ex. PW2/B) was not prepared in the hand of IO/Inspector S. D. Sharma (PW-39) which showed that the investigation was conducted in a perfunctory manner. Inspector S. D. Sharma (PW-39) deposed that an application for TIP (Ex. PW39/DA) was signed by him but did not know as to who had written it and who made endorsement thereon at portion A to A. . PW-39 had no knowledge about application (Ex. PW39/DA) and had seen the application for the first time on the date of making statement. PW-39 admitted that seizure memo (Ex. PW2/B) was not in his hand. PW-39 could not tell in whose handwriting seizure memo (Ex. PW2/B) was prepared. He testified that it was dictated and signed by him. PW-39 could not tell as to who had written document (Ex. PW38/D-4) . It was not in his knowledge that Prem Chand Aggarwal stated that beating was given to him, hence, he was not to give any statement. PW-39 admitted that he had not got identified the masks. PW-39 deposed that Subhash Nair and Anil Sethi were arrested in this case and some State Vs. Satinder Singh @ Titu & Ors. -SC No. 34 of 2013 53/58 notes were recovered from them but they were discharged. PW-39 admitted that he had not made any attempt to call any person residing in theneighbouring area. Personal search, which was prepared by ASI Hari Singh of accused took place at 03:30pm at Police Station Defence Colony. ASI Hari Singh was not produced by prosecution PW-39 did not know whether any addition was made in personal search memo . This was an important document in which key was falsely added. Seizure of key has not been proved. There is no 'memo' or 'document' to show that the key was taken from ASI Hari Singh and given to the accused at any stage. PW-39 admitted that there was over writing at portion 'A to A' which did not bear signatures of anybody. The fabrication of documents is reflected from the fact that the signatures of Puran Chand (PW-4) were obtained on the seizure memo (Ex. PW4/C) allegedly pertaining to recovery from Prem Chand Aggarwal and also from house no. 1/1 West Patel Nagar. This seems improbable because Puran Chand (PW-4) could not have joined two separate teams for alleged recovery at two places . In this regard, IO/PW-39 deposed that he could not comment whether Puran Chand , who was witness to recovery memo (Ex. PW4/C) and witness to his recovery was same person or not. This fabrication further makes case of prosecution doubtful. Puran Chand (PW-4) deposed that on 21.04.1982 at 05:30 or 06:00pm, he was going to the house of his brother to see him, whereas in cross examination, he State Vs. Satinder Singh @ Titu & Ors. -SC No. 34 of 2013 54/58 deposed that his brother had already died. PW-4 deposed that SHO and Shiv Charan met him there alongwith accused Satinder. According to the prosecution case, accused Satinder was with Inspector S. D. Sharma (PW-39) at Police Station Defence Colony up to 07:30pm. Puran Chand (PW-4) could not identify accused Satinder. He deposed that he was made to stand outside the house at the time of alleged seizure. PW-4 admitted that he could not identify Prem Chand Aggarwal. He deposed none of the accused signed anywhere in his presence. PW-4 deposed that he returned the seal to the thanedar at that very time, which shows that handing over of seal to him was meaningless. Amar Singh (PW-25) who was a retired police officer has not supported the prosecution version of recovery from accused Sarabjit Singh.
63. The recovery of revolver, pistol, dagger with finger prints of accused could have been an important place of evidence to connect those articles with the accused persons. No such evidence has been collected against any of the accused. In the FIR, it was mentioned that some bank documents alongwith cash were taken away by the accused persons. There is no recovery of any stolen bank documents from any of the accused. As per the case of prosecution, key of strong room were brought from Green Park branch and then strong room was opened. Keys were not recovered from the accused persons. On 24.04.1982 , accused persons refused to join the TIP proceedings on the State Vs. Satinder Singh @ Titu & Ors. -SC No. 34 of 2013 55/58 ground that they had been already been shown to the witnesses by the police, hence, they did not join TIP. None of the eye witnesses identified the accused persons in the Court. B. M. Gupta (PW-13) has deposed that they were called to the police station and asked to identify some persons but they refused to identify anybody and Shiv Charan (PW-2) deposed that the day when the accused persons were moving with the police from one place to other, their faces were not covered at that time.
64. To conclude, on appreciation of the evidence as a whole, this Court finds that testimony of approver (PW-1) has not been corroborated in material particular. He made a confessional statement after initially making statement to Ld. ACMM that he was pressurized and was not ready to make statement . He stated before making statement to Sh. Babu Lal the then Ld. MM, he was tortured at the police station. He was shown to the witnesses and due to that reason, he was not prepared to join the TIP proceedings as he was kept without muffled faces. He is not a reliable witness. He made material contradictions making him unworthy of credence. Aforesaid discussion shows that identity and complicity of the accused is not proved beyond doubt. Material witnesses, Kavya Nand Jha (PW-8), Bhaskar Naik (PW-10), O. P. Jain (PW-12), B. M. Gupta (PW-13), Matadin (PW-17) and Smt. Nirmal (PW-23), the eye witnesses as well as injured witness have not identified any of the accused State Vs. Satinder Singh @ Titu & Ors. -SC No. 34 of 2013 56/58 persons in the Court. Weapons have not been connected with the accused. Case property i.e. currency notes, caps, masks, attachee and weapon have not been proved beyond doubt. There is doubt about the recovery of the notes as neither of the sl. Number nor the fact about the seal or any mention of chit was noted in the FIR. Testimony of PW-8 , who conducted TIP proceedings shows that currency notes were identified due to chits thereon. There is doubt about the fact about whether the seal on the bundles was in 'circular' or in 'rectangular' shape. No forensic evidence, finger prints of the accused were collected from any of the recovered articles. None of the witness have supported the story that dagger was purchased from a man on patri, which even otherwise,does not seems to be probable.
65. None of the eye witness has deposed that any of the accused had caused hurt to them. There is no evidence that accused Gurvinder Singh had cut off the telephone cables. There is doubt about the time and place when the statement of witnesses and FIR was recorded the time and place where the accused persons were arrested. Recovery witnesses appears to be introduced witness. PW-7, who used to sell paan bidi etc. on patri admitted that he was a stock witness.
66. In view of totality of facts and circumstances noted above, this court is left with a strong suspicion that the case put forward by the prosecution State Vs. Satinder Singh @ Titu & Ors. -SC No. 34 of 2013 57/58 may not be true. This Court finds that it would be unsafe to rely on the testimony of prosecution witnesses and it would rather be safe to lean in favour of the accused persons and to accord them the benefit of doubt. In the result, prosecution having failed to establish the charges against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt, accused persons are hereby acquitted from the charges. Accused persons are directed to furnish personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- each with one surety of like amount as required u/s 438 of the Code. File be consigned to record room.
announced in the open court on st 31 May, 2013. (Vinay Kumar Khanna) Additional Sessions Judge-04 & Spl. Judge (NDPS) South East, New Delhi State Vs. Satinder Singh @ Titu & Ors. -SC No. 34 of 2013 58/58 \ \ Babu Lal, MM deposed that he was tortured, at the PS and interrogated regarding the place and Banks where certain robberies have been committed and during my stay in the P.S , I was shown to some witnesses and due to that reason I , was not prepared to join the identification parade because I was kept without muffled face ." PW1 deposed that I had signed the statement at two places as I was asked by the Ld Magistrate to sign my statement ." PW l has deposed at Page 36 about his appearance before Shri .RL Chugh CMM Shri ML Sahni MM on 16/6/82 before Shri JM Malik MM on 18/6/82 then I before Shri Prem Kumar MM but he did not complain [about having been advised to make false statement deposed that he made similar statement before Shri VK Jain on 26/4/82. Thus, his subsequent change of version makes him a liar and not reliable. A perusal of his statement Ex PWl/BC shows that it is detailed voluntary statement deposed "l have seen my signatures at point A on ExPW1/DC and the date was recorded by Shri Babu Lal MM New Delhi regarding my identification parade only gave this statement falsely as advised by the prisoners in the jail as well as by the accused in the case.
(B) Pwl Prem Chand approver moved his first application for making confessional statement on 20/4/82 and he was produced before 5hri RL Chugh CMM , Delhi on 24/4/82. He deposed So far as, I remember the application was made by me on 20/4/82 and appeared before Shri Chugh on 24/4/82 .It is correct that when I was called in the chamber by Shri Chugh I' was not in hand cuffs and there was no other person available excepting me and Shri Chugh . The application made by me was shown to me. t is correct that on 15/6/82, I gave another application to the duty Magistrate Patiala House Courts. PW1 has deposed that I cannot 'explain any reason why I was kept in a solitary Cell(Ward No.1) even after I refused to make statement had not made any application to the Magistrate or the jail authorities that I was being punished. while being kept in a solitary cell ." PWl Prem Kumar moved his first application dated 24/4/82/26/4/82 (before making Confessional Statement) for grant of (B' Class in jail before Shri R.S Khanna (Ex PW1/DC) in which it was stated applicant Prem Kumar is falsely involved in the above noted case". This application was declined by the court on 3/5/1982"
State Vs. Satinder Singh @ Titu & Ors. -SC No. 34 of 2013 59/58 (D) PW1 Prem Chand (Approver) has deposed that he was of course saying wrong and false things" .
(E) PW1 Prem Chand has deposed he sign in two different manner and some time I sign in one way and on the other time I sign in the other manner (F) PW1 Prem Chand (Approver ) has deposed that (on 18/6/82) I was not lodged in judicial lock up of the courts, yet an entry was got made in the register maintained there. It proves falsification of official records for the convenience of PW1 to induce him to make statement under the influence of police.
(2) None of the eye witnesses (PW8i PW9, PW10,' PW11 , PW12, PW13 I PW14, PW17, PW23 and PW24/25 ) including, the injured witnesses identified any of the accused as the culprit , (3) According to the prosecution case as contained in the FIR, some Bank Documents alongwith the cash were taken away by the culprits . No document of the Bank has been recovered from any of the accused .
(4) No finger print or foot print was lifted from the spot, weapons, strong room and any Almirah to ascertain the complicity of accused.
(5) The case property consists of 1currency notes ,(ii) Revolvers/Pistol, (iii) Dagger, (iv) Caps, (v) Masks, (vi) bags
(a) Recovery of currency notes-not reliable -not incriminating evidence.
(i) FIR does not contain the serial number or number of bundles of currency notes.
State Vs. Satinder Singh @ Titu & Ors. -SC No. 34 of 2013 60/58
(ii) There is no mention in the FIR that the notes bear seal or any signatures.
(iii ) There is no mention of chits on t~e bundles of currency notes.
(iv) PW14 Subhash Tyagi cashier has: deposed (afterseeing EX' PW15 to P18 bundles of currency notes)" in his examination in chief "I however cannot say if they were looted from the bank on that date" .In his cross examination by Ld Special pp deposed that stamps were affixed later on also on some currency notes". He deposed Infact the manager had asked me that certain currency notes bundles did not bear my signatures although they bore the stamp of the bank with date .On his asking I signed them. Later on i.e after that date. That was after some months," He has further deposed that he signed bundles of all denominations of currency notes ranging from 1 to 100. PW14 Subhash Tyagi , in .hls cross examination by the Ld Special pp deposed that only one seal is kept so long as it is intact and the seal is changed when the previous one is broken. That day also there. was only one seal', I do not know how it is that the bundles of currency notes pointed out to me , square seal marks, while the register mark 'Z' on has rectangutar seal marks," This difference in seal proves that the recovery -of bundles is not believable and the seals as well as signatures were put on the bundles subsequently , The recoveries are alleged to have been made on 22/4/82 but TIP of currency notes was arranged 'on 18/5/82 .This delay raises strong suspicion that during this period PW14 was asked to put six no.
Perusal of Ex PW8/A shows it was recorded in Bank and not at PS. The State Vs. Satinder Singh @ Titu & Ors. -SC No. 34 of 2013 61/58 endorsement Ex PX2 is contradicted by PW8. PW8 falsifies the version of prosecution about recording of statement Ex PW8/ A which has formed the basis ofF.I.R.
(ii) Pw39 Inspector SD Sharma [Examination in chief page 2 last 3 lines] says at about 5:30 PM accused .Satinder took the police near Alankar Cinema from where accused Prem Chand, Sarabjeet Singh and Gurvinder Singh were arrested their disclosure statements Ex PW1/DG , Ex PX4 and Ex PXS were recorded. PWl Prem Chand says he saw Satinder Singh for1ltt first time at 10 PM .[meaning thereby that accused Satinder Singh did not take police at 5:30 PM near Alankar Cinema from where Prem Chand and other accused were apprehended]. PW1 premchand says he was taken to PS Defence Colony and his Disclosure Statement was recorded in the presence of InspectorT. P. Sharma and two other persons, whose names he does not know . [It means his disclosure was not recorded near Alankar Cinema ].
(iii) PW39 Inspector SO Sharma has deposed at page 3 line 19 in examination in chief. that all. the accused were brought to Police Station at 6:30 PM. At about 7:30 PM , we left the police Station along with staff and accused Satender.(for recovery)[means police party reached West Patel Nagar after 7:30 PM ]. In cross examination Pw39 says recovery memo was prepared by 9 PM and it is not in my hand .(It means PW2 and PW4 were not present at that time ) . PW37 Retd. Inspector Jawahar Singh also says in .cross examination date.that the 'stayed at the place of recover till 10 Pm those public witnesses I were freed.of cross _ examination dated 11/01/2000]. PW12 Shiv Charan says his statement was recorded at 3:30 pm and no other statement was recorded '(It means he has been falsely shown as the witness of State Vs. Satinder Singh @ Titu & Ors. -SC No. 34 of 2013 62/58 disclosure of Satinder and others and also alleged recovery from 1/1 West Patel Nagar of which recovery memo was prepared at 9 PM]. PW2 has deposed in his cross examination dated 2i/11/85 on page 2 line 24: I left them (police) at about 3:00 PM In cross examination )He deposed that he reached Dakshinpuri.at about 8:30 PM.
(iv) Pw39 SD Sharma has deposed on page 6 line 16 to 21 dated 21/07/05 cannot comment whether witness Puran Chand who was witness to recovery memo Ex PW4/C and. also witness to my recovery (completed (v) PW4 Puran Chand has deposed that on 21/04/82 at 5:30 or 6 PM he was into the house of his brother. to see him .On Lal Batti Chowk, he came across SHO and Police Officials .Shiv Charan was also with them alongwith him one Sardar Satinder was also there.
PW39 SO Sharma proves that PW2 Shiv Charan and PW4Puran Chand are liars as PW39 SO Sharma came from PS Defence Colony after 7:30 PM ]. [On Page 85 line 16) : PW1 Prem Chand says "~ey was given by the same person from whom it was demanded . He gave the key to Satender accused. lt was a bunch of keys' consisting of 10-12 keys" . PWI0 Bhaskar Naik at page 221 lines 18 to 23 says" "He (Satender ) did we had two keys .One was with me and other was with BM Gupta PWl Prem Chand says[On Page 87 line 2) "I saw the Bank Employe opening the lock of the strong room as well as the Almirah" thus he PW39 Insp. SD Sharma says at 6:30 PM , he discussed with DCP andleft wi!h Satender Kumar and Staff at about 7:30 PM, .[PW1 could not have left PS Defence Colony before 6:30 PM and could not have reached at 6:30PM from Defence Colony to West Patel Nagar]PW1 has deposed the reached P.S Defence Colon at ab ut 10 PM .Thereafter I was put in the police lock up. None of the accused was present in the lock up at that time and they State Vs. Satinder Singh @ Titu & Ors. -SC No. 34 of 2013 63/58 came subsequentlv . PW39 Inspector SD Sharma has deposed in his cross examination on Inspector Tarsem Pal Singh, AK puri came to PS at about 11:15 to 11:40 PM and he was first to come with accused Satender Singh [According to PW1 Prem Chand he was taken by Inspector T.P Singh who accordin~ to PW39 returned with the accused in his custody (PW1 Prem Chand) at about 1.1:15 TO 11:40 Again he contradicts himself in answer to next two questions - Question: Can you read Hindi ? Ans: No .1 know only Urdu. Thus he is a Liar.
(xii) PWS Radhey Lal has deposed' at Page 164 (Iin.e 24 in answer to a question ) " At Paschim purr the police officer did not go to any neigbouring houses to get witnesses to join them and thereby contradicts PW6 SI Harbhajan Singh who has deltberatelv told lies by contradicting and by saying on Page 166 lines 2'0 to 24 that "before we entered the house , Inspector Ranbir Singh asked one or two neigbourers to join with him in the process of investigation but they refused" .
~-------- .. ~ ... ~
(xiii) PW7 Mahesh Chand Gupta has deposed in his examination in chief that on 21/04/82 at 8 PM I was passing near the bridge of Ganda Nala in the State Vs. Satinder Singh @ Titu & Ors. -SC No. 34 of 2013 64/58 area of PS Defence Colony, New Delhi .........the accused (Sarabjit Singh) was in hand cuffs ............................................:.one old sikh gentleman was also with the police party. He was Arnar Slngh .He has deposed in his cross examination dated 28/04/1986 at page 1 line 13 "Amar Singh is a retlred Police Officer."
, PW25 Amar singh contraadict PW7 by saying (examination in Chief Page <, lline 3) u/ I was called by Mahesh Chand Gupta at PS Defence Colony".
(xiv) !PW8 Kavya Nand deposed in, examination in chief at page 2 line 23- 25: "we had called some bodv in the hall .He opened the bolt of 'r---- _________~._ .•..•.. _. _ .. ____. __ .. __ , •.•.. _ ,,, •.... _ •••. ___________~._ .. - --_~_ •• •••••.• - • kitchen" [meaning thereby that the room in which they were confined, _ ..
-
.-----. -'-~.' " ....
had a bolt from outside which had been closed by the culprits] .
. •... ~ ..................". ~...... . - .-. . ". " ,., .. ,'. ,"
.
-
PWl Prem Chand contradicts and, says that there was 'no bolt affixed to the store room (lines 13 to 16 'on page 4 of examination in chief dated 6/12/83).The version of PWl Prem Chand is unnatural, State Vs. Satinder Singh @ Titu & Ors. -SC No. 34 of 2013 65/58 contradictory
-
' .
.
.
' .
~
-
.
-
-
-
-
_ .
-
-
-
.
.
.
• .
.
_ .
.
, .
.
.
• _ •••• H •• _0_ and false because, had there been no bolt ,PW Matadin would not have .-
(xv)
State Vs. Satinder Singh @ Titu & Ors. -SC No. 34 of 2013 66/58
. ". I
Broken the ventilator and Bank Officials confined in the room could have easily come out.
PW8 Kavyanand has deposed in his cross examination dated 16/04/87 ) on page 1 line 22 "'1 had told them (Police) that there 'Were three (persons)", PW12 Om Prakash Jain has deposed dated 14/9/87 on page 4 last para:
" I only saw three persons and not four,"
which of the accused is Satinder Singh (It proves that he was not a witness to recovery. Further in answer to the last question on the same , ' page he has deposed that when, the police went into the house of that Sardar, he was made to stand outside .It means PW4 is not a witness of recovery and thus contradicts PW2 and PW39 .:
(xx) PW4 Puran Chand in his cross examination dated 12/2/86 at page 5 in answer to first question, has deposed that none of the accused statad that he was going to meet his brother but infact , his67/58 State Vs. Satinder Singh @ Titu & Ors. -SC No. 34 of 2013 brother had I •••• ~ •. --.~ .• ~, ,. '_', ,_~ __ ~-.. .• , •. , .. _ .••• : •. ' •. ~ •• _"'" .,,', •. '" .• , .L",,' '", _:" .•• ',"" •• " .,'~,,' ..• ,,, .~ ",." "~.,, ,. ~""_.,' _" ,_, ,', .•.•• i: .. -.- .. :.-~:, .. :.:'~::. ~.:~.:::.::.~,':"'::;~.7:~': .. ~·~.-:
already died.
signed 1 anywhere in his presence . Thus he contradicts PW2 and PW39 about signatures on seizure memo 'and Personal sear.ch memo in respect of accused Satender Singh.
(xxi) PW4 Puran Chand in his cross examination dated 12/02/86 at page 6 contradicted his statement, Ex PW4/DA portionB to B where he had , , I .• --~., ....~-.- -.-~.-.,-"- .. :'" .. ,,, .. ,,,- .•... ",~.,,.' •........ ,.' ..•........ '"
(xxii) PW5 Radhey Lal in his examination in chief at Page 2 lines 8 to 11 has deposed that there was lable of the Bank in the chits and there was a date on those chits which was 9/7/81 again said it was 7/9/81. The label of the bank was United bank of Part I Greater Kailash. Thus he contradicts the prosecution version.
I (xxiii) PW3 Mulakh Raj in hisexamination in chief on page llast lines "after 7 State Vs. Satinder Singh @ Titu & Ors. -SC No. 34 of 2013 68/58 or 7-1/2 months of that day ,police brought to my restaurant 4 persons in custody" while PWl Prem Chand contradicts him by saying in his examination in chief on page 29 at last 3 lines "I was not
-
taken to that .
.
(xxiv) PW1 has deposed (on page sslast 5 lines) : There were stamps and date on the currency notes i.e on the first and the la,st currency notes of each bundle. He has again repeated this fact on Page 96 line 1 to 3 in respect The currency notes of united bank.
State Vs. Satinder Singh @ Titu & Ors. -SC No. 34 of 2013 69/58 \ State Vs. Satinder Singh @ Titu & Ors. -SC No. 34 of 2013 70/58 FIR No. 658/1981 Identification of accused persons Hazari Lal (PW-2) admitted that at the time of recording FIR, it was not clear whether there were three robbers or four robbers. PW-2 stated in his statement (Ex. PW2/DC) that there were five robbers.
P. P. Kayastha (PW-3) deposed that he might not be able to identify accused persons. He was not definite in identifying accused persons. He wrong identified Gajender Singh. He had suspected Baljeet and and Subhash as the robbers. PW-7 deposed that R. K. Jain (PW-7) identified their photographs as robbers. PW-3 was asked to tell the height of the robbers but he could not give the same.
PW-5 deposed that he had telephoned to the police mentioning 5/6 robbers.
PW-7 deposed that he could not identify that person who came from front gate. He could not see those two or three intruders. He could not recognize the intruder who had put knife on him.
Mumtaz Hussain (PW-17) could not identify Amjad.
State Vs. Satinder Singh @ Titu & Ors. -SC No. 34 of 2013 71/58
\ ~--~I------------~------
uncorroborated on the material particulars .The brief points with relevant case law have already been submitted in the concise memo of argum Qnl-~~ already submitted beforethe Hon'ble Court, State Vs. Satinder Singh @ Titu & Ors. -SC No. 34 of 2013 72/58 On 06.10.2007, at about 08:30pm a DD no. 24-A was registered at PS GK-I regarding the incident of inflicting the gun shot injury by five six persons upon the caller at 115, second floor, M -Block, GK-1, New Delhi. On receipt of DD, police reached at the spot and found one injured namely Saleem (now accused) and dead body of Kailash Chand Sethi (accountant of accused Saleem). Some exhibits like the blood stained knife, one lead portion of bullet, bunch of keys, blood stained spectacles were seized from the spot. Since , Saleem (injured) was not fit for statement , therefore, on the basis of information and the scene of occurrence, FIR was got registered. On 09.10.2007, injured Saleem (accused) was declared to be fit for statement but he did not give any statement to the police. He gave his statement after consultation with his counsel and in his presence on 11.10.2007. Injured Saleem (accused) had named several persons in commission of offence. During investigation, it was revealed that accused Saleem had named the persons falsely as he had to make the payment of Rs. 60-70lacs to those persons or to their relatives and in order to avoid said payment, he intentionally falsely named such persons in his statement to implicate them in the false case. During investigation, such persons were thoroughly examined and investigation was conducted at their native places where they were stated to have found present at the time of incident i.e. out of Delhi in UP, Bareilly, etc. In order to verify their elibi of such persons, several statements of independent witnesses were recorded . After thorough investigation, it was concluded that accused Saleem had hatched the conspiracy with co accused and committed the murder of Kailash chand Sethi with motive to falsely implicate the innocent persons to avoid their payments due upon him.
After conclusion of investigation 207 Cr. P. c. Charge was framed on State Vs. Satinder Singh @ Titu & Ors. -SC No. 34 of 2013 73/58 08.10.2009 under section 120-B IPC, 302 r/w 120-B IPC and 301/203 IPC to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Points for determination Prosecution examined 65 witnesses. The outline of the prosecution witnesses who were classified in separate heads is as under:
Relatives of the deceased Smt. Kiran Sethi (PW-2) wife of deceased who proved the relations with deceased, accused and visit of deceased on the fateful day at the house of accused .
Jalaj Sethi (PW-18) son of the deceased. He also deposed on the similar lines as of PW-2.
Jeevan Sethi (PW-23) son of the deceased. He identified the dead body of his deceased father in the mortuary, AIIMS.
Raj Kumar Bhatia (PW-3) is the previous landlord of accused as he was the owner of house no. 64, Vinoba Puri, Lajpat Nagar which was rented out to the accused . PW-3 deposed that about Rs.70-75,000/- of rent money due upon accused Saleem . He deposed that on 06.10.2007, he visited Khanna Market, Lodhi Colony alongwith accused and left the accused at his residence at N-115, GK at about 05:00/06:00pm and saw co-accused Rashid and servant of Saleem (accused) at the residence. Therefore, this witness proves the presence of Rashid at the place of occurrence.
Smt. Madhushri Sen Gupta (PW-27) is the neighbour of accused. He deposed that on 06.10.2007, at about 07:45pm, a great noise of music was coming from the flat no. N-115, second floor, GK-I. She went to the said flat where the accused was present and asked him to stop the noise of music. Accused Saleem did not stop the music and immediately closed the door. After 10-15 State Vs. Satinder Singh @ Titu & Ors. -SC No. 34 of 2013 74/58 minutes, police reached there and knocked her door and asked idhar khoon hua hai. During cross examination, she clarified that when she went to the flat of accused , she remained outside the door of the flat and did not enter inside the flat.
Ranjan Dass (PW-28) is servant at the guest house running at the ground floor at N-115, GK-I, New Delhi. He deposed that wife of accused called him telephonically and asked to see her husband (accused ) at N-115, second floor as she told him that her husband was being beaten by some one. He deposed that wife of accused was having his mobile phone number and she used to call him as and when required.
Mohd. Swami (PW-20) is brother-in-law (jeeja) who deposed regarding the relation between Irshad and accused Saleem. Naseem Ahmad (PW-1) used to work earlier with accused and there were dues upon accused and on the basis of which the relations between them strained . According to him, accused had given beating to him on 23.03.2007 and a case FIR No. 141/07 u/s 307 IPC PS Anand Parbat was registered against the accused and others.
Nagma (PW-22). She is wife of Naseem Ahmad (PW-1) . She deposed on the lines of PW-1 and deposed that on 06.10.2007, she had not visited the place of occurrence at any point of time.
Public witnesses Naseem Ahmad (PW-1) Liyakat Ali (PW-4) State Vs. Satinder Singh @ Titu & Ors. -SC No. 34 of 2013 75/58
2. It is admitted fact that deceased was present in the company of accused at the relevant time. Therefore, firstly, it is the accused who has to explained as to in what circumstances the murder took place State Vs. Satinder Singh @ Titu & Ors. -SC No. 34 of 2013 76/58 Naseem Ahmad (PW-1), deposed that accused Saleem Hussain alongwith his companions and his brother kidnapped him an took him to Kayam Ganj on 19.03.2007 and brought him to Delhi on 23.03.2007 and left him at his house and they deputed one person namely Ezaz Ahmed for his supervision at his residence. He deposed that at Kayam Ganj accused alongwith his accomplices gave him beating and threatened him not to disclose anything to anyone and Ezaz remained with him at his residence on 23.03.2007. PW-1 deposed that on 23.03.2007 at about 12 noon accused called his person namely Ezaz and asked Ezaz to take him at their residence at Patel Nagar. He deposed that Ezaz took him to Patel Nagar at the residence of Nayeem, his brother where Ezaz used to reside as tenant. Accused alongwith his accomplices reached there and accused Salim Hussain alongwith Hasim and four other persons, whose name he did not know came there and they took him on the third floor of the aforesaid house and threw him from the third floor of the house as a result his backbone was broken and both of his legs have become immobile and since then i.e. 23.03.2007, he have become handicapped. He deposed that regarding this incident, the case was registered on his complaint i.e. FIR No. 141/2007, PS Anand Parbat. PW-1 deposed that he is in the business of doing stitching of cushions etc in the name and style of G. R. Zari Art and accused in in the business of export of Zari items in the name and style of M/s. J. Bros. Zari Export and he had worked for the accused till the end of 2006. He deposed that there was a pending bill of Rs.14 lacs which the accused had to pay and some of the pending amount has been paid by the accused. PW-1 deposed that in discharge of this liability, he had given him a cheque of Rs.5 lacs, however, the said cheque has been dis-honoured. He deposed that he had demanded the money from the accused, but he had not paid and accused owes money to number of traders. He further deposed that State Vs. Satinder Singh @ Titu & Ors. -SC No. 34 of 2013 77/58 on 06.10.2007, he was at his home alongwith his wife Ms. Nagma and children as he was confined to bed due to his backbone broken and police had made inquiry from him regarding the accused on 19.03.2008. He had given the copies of the bill (Ex.PW1/A to Ex.PW1/G) of the amount which was due on account of his work, which he did for the accused i.e. stitching of cushions and embroidery work.
In his cross examination, he deposed that had stated to the police in his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.c. that accused Saleem Hussain alongwith his companions and his brother kidnapped him and took him to Kayam Ganj on 19.03.2007. He was confronted with his statement, wherein it is not so recorded. He deposed that he also stated to the police that accused persons had called him to Patel Nagar at the house of Nayeem and took him to the third floor of the house and threw him from there. He was confronted with his statement (Ex.PW1/DA), wherein it is not so recorded and only the words that "he was thrown from the floor at Anand Parbat" mentioned. He denied that he had fallen from the roof of the house of his brother Nayeem of his own and he had lodged a false complaint against the accused. PW-1 deposed that he did not maintain any account of his business dealing with accused. He simply used to issue bills for the work for which he do for the accused. He deposed that he knew Irshad and the business with accused started through Irshad. He deposed that he knew Firashat, Babbu, Sadique and Liyakat resident of Bareily and voluntarily stated that he had seen them in the office of the accused, where they used to come to demand their money from the accused. PW-1 deposed that it is not in his knowledge that in the month of December, 2006 Irshad had ran away from the office of accused alongwith cheques and some money. He deposed that accused had told him that Irshad had ran away from his office with some money and cheques. He denied that on 06.10.2007 his wife Nagma was not at State Vs. Satinder Singh @ Titu & Ors. -SC No. 34 of 2013 78/58 home with him. PW-1 also denied that he alongwith his wife and other persons from Baraielly had conspired together and had made an attempt to kill accused Salim and also killed his accountant through their men.
Smt. Kiran Sethi (PW-2), Dated : 13.03.2013 Doctor Raghvender (PW-29), The postmortem report thus, shows that it is a case of homicide. There is nothing in the cross examination of PW-29 and further more Learned Defence Counsel is not disputed during arguments that it is a case of homicide.
Now, the question is to be addresses is whether accused was a party to the conspiracy to commit murder of Kailash Chand Sethi and whether is was he, who alongwith Rashid in furtherance of the conspiracy commit his murder. State Vs. Satinder Singh @ Titu & Ors. -SC No. 34 of 2013 79/58