Delhi District Court
State vs . Sandeep @ Sonu on 19 February, 2022
IN THE COURT OF SH. POORAN CHAND,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-02 (WEST), DELHI.
Sessions Case No. 57731/16
Assigned to Sessions on 31/08/2010
FIR No. 104/2010
Police Station Tilak Nagar
Under Section 302/397/201/411 IPC
Charged under section 302/397/201/411/174A IPC
State Vs. Sandeep @ Sonu
s/o Phool Chand
r/o: H.No. C-255, J.J. Colony,
Khayala, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi
Arguments heard on 04.12.2021
Date of Judgment 19.02.2022
Final Order Convicted
Appearance(s) : Sh. Alok Saxena, Ld. Addl. PP for the State.
Sh. Mahesh Patel, Ld Counsel for the accused.
JUDGMENT
PRELUDE:
1. The case pertains to the charge sheet u/s 173(2) Cr.P.C, in respect of FIR No.104/2010, U/s 302/397/201/411/174A IPC of PS Tilak Nagar, Delhi. The charge sheet was committed to the Ld. Sessions Judge (West), vide order dated 27.08.2010 of the Ld. MM, along with the accused for trial.
BRIEF FACTS:
2. The brief facts, as per the case of the prosecution, are that S.C No.57731/16 State Vs Sandeep @ Sonu Page 1 of 59 on 25.04.2010, on receipt of DD No. 29A, ASI Madan Singh alongwith Ct. Ravinder Kumar reached at the spot i.e DD Jewelers, 210A, Chand Nagar, Opposite Gurudwara Singh Sabha where HC Surender Singh who was on patrolling duty also found present there. The jewelery shop was found open and the injured had been shifted to Park hospital. Leaving HC Surender Singh at the spot, ASI Madan Singh alongwith Ct. Ravinder Kumar went to Park Hospital where the MLC of injured Ashok was obtained wherein the doctor has opined grievous injury on the head with sharp edged weapon and the injured was declared unfit for statement. After some time, the injured Ashok was declared dead by the doctor. The complainant Panne Lal, who was also in the hospital, met the ASI and gave his statement that he was also residing in JJ Colony, Khyala and that today at about 4.30 pm, while he was present at his house, he received a call from his cousin Deen Dayal who told him that his shop DD Jewelers was lying open and that Ashok Kumar was not present there and asked him to reach there. He reached at the shop and found nobody at the shop. Thereafter, he went inside the shop from the back side of the counter and entered the door of the workshop and found deceased Ashok in injured condition. Blood was oozing out from his neck and had a wound on his head. Thereafter, with the help of neighbourers, Ashok was shifted to Park Hospital.
Thereafter, crime team was called. In the meantime, the information was sent to the PS and on the basis of statement, present FIR was got registered. Inspector R.S. Meena recorded the statement of elder brother of deceased namely Deen Dayal. Incharge SI Kuldeep Singh inspected the scene of crime and S.C No.57731/16 State Vs Sandeep @ Sonu Page 2 of 59 prepared report and handed over the same to him. Finger print expert HC Udham Singh lifted chance prints and photographer Ct. Anil Kumar took the photographs. Their statements u/s 161 Cr.P.C. were recorded by the IO. IO prepared site plan at the instance of complainant. IO also lifted the exhibits from inside the shop i.e blood with the help of cotton, some hair, blood stained piece of floor mat, sample floor mat and also the Musal and four empty jewelery boxes having blood stains. All these articles were kept in separate containers/parcels and same were sealed with the seals of RS. IO recorded the statements of witnesses.
3. On 26.04.2010, post mortem of the dead body was got conducted, and thereafter, dead body was handed over to the brother of deceased. During Investigation, enquiries were made from two witnesses namely Lalit Kumar and Sunny Maheshwari who had seen the deceased Ashok Kumar with one Sandeep @ Sonu on the date of incident and their statements u/s 161 Cr.P.C were recorded.
4. During investigation, it was revealed that Sandeep @ Sonu who was last seen with the deceased, had been missing from his house since the date of incident. His family was also not aware about his whereabouts.
5. On 01.05.2010, IO alongwith SI Ravi Shankar and HC Jagbir Singh reached at Holi Chowk near Park hospital in plain clothes where secret informer told them that accused Sandeep @ Sonu S.C No.57731/16 State Vs Sandeep @ Sonu Page 3 of 59 would visit Kukreja hospital, Vishal Enclave, Rajouri Garden at about 3 pm to meet his father. Without wasting time, all three of them reached at the red light at Kukreja Hospital and asked 3-4 passersby to join the raiding party but none of them agreed. Thereafter, IO gave instructions to the staff as well as the complainant. After some time, accused Sandeep @ Sonu came there and at the instance of the secret informer, he was apprehended who revealed his name as Sandeep @ Sonu. He was interrogated and he confessed his guilt in the present case. Thereafter, he was arrested and his personal search was conducted. Documents were prepared. During his personal search, one polythene pouch of yellow colour with interlock was found in the right pocket of his trouser. The polythene pouch was opened and checked. It was containing one yellow coloured pouch on which DD Jewelers 210-A, Main Road Chand Nagar Opp. Gurudwara Singh Sabha New Delhi-18 was written. On opening it, one pair of ear tops, two rings and one piece of ear ring. There was blood on tag attached on the piece of ear ring. In the same polythene pouch, two blood stained tags were also found. IO prepared the pullanda of the articles and took them into police possession. Accused was carrying a bag. On checking, the bag was found containing one black colour pant, one red T-shirt. Blood stains were present on the pant and T shirt. Accused disclosed that he was wearing the said clothes at the time of committing the offence. IO put the said clothes in the bag and prepared a pullanda and same was seized. Disclosure statement of accused was recorded. Accused had disclosed that he could identify the scene of crime and get the weapon of offence and S.C No.57731/16 State Vs Sandeep @ Sonu Page 4 of 59 robbed jeweleries recovered from his house. From there, accused led them to the scene of crime. There, accused led them to the place where he had thrown weapon of offence i.e. paper cutter. Thereafter, they reached Govt Boys/Girls Sr Sec School,Khyala. Accused got recovered paper cutter from the roof top of the toilet of school. The said weapon of offence was blood stained. Same was wrapped with paper and pullanda was prepared and was sealed. Then IO prepared the pointing out memo and recovery memo of weapon offence i.e. paper cutter. IO prepared the site plan of the place of recovery of paper cutter. From there, accused led them to his house. Then accused led them on the roof of the second floor of his house. There were wooden planks and bricks lying on the roof. Accused got recovered a blood stained polythene of violet colour from underneath of said planks and bricks. Some of the robbed jewellery concealed under the bricks and planks lying on the roof of his house. The polythene was checked. There was a pouch of DD Jeweller. On checking the said pouch, there were six pairs of silver Panjeb, two rings and one locket found inside the pouch. On 04.05.2010, TIP of accused was got conducted, however, accused refused to participate in the TIP proceedings.
6. During the investigation of the case, IO prepared the site plan at the instance of complainant, arrested the accused and got conducted post mortem of deceased. Statement of witnesses were recorded and finding sufficient evidences available on the file, a challan was filed before the Ld. MM for the offence under section u/s 397/302/201/411 IPC against the accused.
S.C No.57731/16 State Vs Sandeep @ Sonu Page 5 of 59THE CHARGE
7. After the committal proceedings, the case was sent to Ld. Sessions Court and Ld. Predecessor of this court after considering the material on record and hearing the Addl. PP for the State and Ld Counsel for the accused, found a prima facie case for the offences punishable under section 397/302/201/411 IPC against the accused. The Charge was framed accordingly vide order dated 09.09.2010 to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter, matter was fixed for PE. During prosecution examination, accused was granted interim bail of 10 days and he was released on interim bail on 23.04.2015, however, accused failed to surrender in the jail after the expiry of interim bail period and thereafter, coercive process was issued against the accused. On 31.07.2015, accused was again arrested. Supplementary chargesheet was filed against accused for offence u/s 174A IPC. Charge was accordingly framed for offence punishable u/s 174A IPC on 20.10.2015.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
8. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined 33 witnesses, however, inadvertently. PW3 Sh Pawan Kumar, PW2 Sh Mukesh Kumar, PW3 Lalit Kumar, PW4 Sunny Maheshwari, PW5 Sunil Malhotra, PW6 Parveen Chawla, PW8 Hari Om Gupta, PW11 Sh. Deen Dayal and PW12/complainant Sh Panne Lal are the material public witnesses, while other witnesses are either police officials or medical/ expert witnesses who have S.C No.57731/16 State Vs Sandeep @ Sonu Page 6 of 59 participated during the course of investigation.
9. PW1 Pawan Kumar deposed that he used to supply nose pin to different jewelers including Deen Dayal, owner of DD Jewelers, Chand Nagar and on 25.04.2010 at about 5-5:15 pm, he visited the shop of Deen Dayal and found no one in the said shop and door of the workshop was also half opened. He called if someone is there but of no avail. Thereafter, he called Deen Dayal, who told him that his younger brother namely Ashok must be at the shop. He waited for some time at the shop but Ashok did not come there. He has also deposed that after some time Panna Lal came there and entered inside shop and came out by shouting that someone has killed his brother Ashok and he started raising alarm, shopkeepers from nearby collected, took out Ashok from inside the workshop and he noticed blood was oozing out from near neck of Ashok and he was taken to the Park Hospital in a car and thereafter he received call from Deen Dayal and apprised him about the above facts. Thereafter, Deen Dayal came at the spot and police also reached and he stated the aforesaid facts to the police on inquiry and his statement was recorded on next date.
10. PW-2 Mukesh Kumar deposed that he is a photographer by profession and on 05.04.2010, he was getting his shop painting and had kept the articles of the shop in his Santro Car no. DL- 3CAP-3989 in front of the shop and at about 5-5:15 pm, while he was washing his hands, he heard that Panna Lal, relative of Deen S.C No.57731/16 State Vs Sandeep @ Sonu Page 7 of 59 Dayal was shouting stating some one has killed his brother. He went there, other shopkeepers also gathered and body of the Ashok was taken out from the workshop of DD Jewelers and at the request of neighbours, he took Ashok in his Santro Car number above mentioned to the Park Hospital alongwith Panna Lal and one Raju.
11. PW-3 Lalit deposed that Deen Dayal, owner of DD Jewelers was known to him for last 6-7 years as he used to do electrical work in his shop as well as his home. On 25.04.2010 at about 2- 2:15 pm, he went to Jewelery shop of Deen Dayal in Chand Nagar as he had to collect some money in lieu of work done by him but at that time Deen Dayal was not present at his shop. But his brother Ashok Kumar (deceased) and one more person aged about 25 years wearing T Shirt and black coloured pant were present and were talking to each other. He asked the deceased regarding Deen Dayal and he stated that his brother had gone to Gurudwara. On this, he asked as to when Deen Dayal would come. But he showed ignorance about the time of his returning back. Deceased also asked him to take a plug, accordingly, he took the plug and thereafter, deceased and said other person told that he had to go to take meals and asked him to come later. Thereafter, he left the shop and at about 6 pm, he came to know that the Ashok has been murdered and PW3 has correctly identified the accused as the same person, who was present with the deceased at the Jewelery shop on 25.04.2010 at about 2-2:15 pm. S.C No.57731/16 State Vs Sandeep @ Sonu Page 8 of 59
12. PW-4 Sunny Maheshwari deposed that he was running scrap shop in 101 Chand Nagar, Delhi and on 25.04.2010, he came to attend marriage of daughter of Satpal at Gurudwara Singh Saheb, Chand Nagar and at about 3:00 pm parked his bullet motorcycle in front of DD Jewelers as his family had not arrived till that time and went inside the shop of Deen Dayal, owner of DD Jewelers but Deen Dayal was not present at his shop. But his brother Ashok Kumar (deceased) and one boy "that is accused"
were present. He asked the deceased regarding Deen Dayal and he stated that his brother had gone to Gurudwara. It was Sunday on that day. He further deposed that he asked the deceased to look after his bullet motorcycle and also asked regarding the value of gold on that day on which deceased stated the rates as 16000-16500/- and the boy who was sitting with the deceased Ashok stated that rate is 17000/- and above. In the meantime, PW-4 received a telephone call on his mobile phone and attended his phone at the gate of DD Jewelers shop and he noticed that his family had come outside the shop and he came out. He also deposed that accused was very much present during that time. Thereafter, PW-4 left the shop alongwith his family to attend the marriage and after attending the marriage went to his house in the evening and at around 5:30 - 6:00 pm came to know through TV that one person has been murdered inside DD Jewelers shop, Chand Nagar, he immediately contacted Deen Dayal on his mobile phone and his mobile phone was attended by his brother Sanjay Gupta, a friend of Deen Dayal and then only, he came to know that Ashok has been murdered. Thereafter, he called the S.C No.57731/16 State Vs Sandeep @ Sonu Page 9 of 59 PS and stated all the aforesaid facts to the IO. He has also deposed that on 26.05.2010 at about 7 pm at C Block, Khyala he had seen accused with police officials and stated to the police that he was the same boy to whom he had seen alongwith deceased Ashok on 25.04.2010 at about 3:00 pm at DD Jewelers shop.
13. PW-5 Sunil Malhotra, PW-6 Parveen Chawla and PW-8 Hari Om Gupta have deposed that they all were running jewelery shops and have sold gold to the DD Jewelers and proved the receipts/bills in this regard as Ex. PW5/A, Ex. PW5/6A, B and C and Ex. PW8/A respectively.
14. PW-7 SI Kuldeep Singh who was posted as Incharge Mobile Crime Team, PW9 HC Udham Singh (inadvertently HC Udham Singh is also examined as PW16 on the same evidence) and PW Ct. Anil Kumar, photographer, Crime Team ( also inadvertently examined as PW-15) have deposed that on 25.04.2010 on the information received from Control Room, SI Kuldeep Singh alongwith his team i.e. PW9 and PW15 visited the spot where PW9 lifted 10 chance prints and gave his report to IO Ex. PW9/A and PW15 took 21 photographs from various angels and after developing the same alongwith the CD, 13 negatives and photographs handed over to the IO, same are proved as Ex. PA (colly). SI Kuleep Singh prepared crime team report Ex. PW7/A and also given his remarks on the back of the same as Ex. PW7/B. S.C No.57731/16 State Vs Sandeep @ Sonu Page 10 of 59
15. PW-10 Dr. K.D. Tiwari deposed that on 22.04.2010 at about 6:30 pm he has given treatment to one patient namely Phool Chand who was suffering from Alcoholic liver disease, hypertension etc. and was discharged on 04.05.2010 with improved result and proved the discharge card as Ex. PW10/A.
16. PW11 Dr. O.P. Bansal deposed that on 25.04.2010 at about 5:30 pm, one patient namely Ashok was brought by Avtar Singh with alleged history of assault with sharp edged weapon on left side of neck. Patient was bleeding profusely. BP and pulse were not recordable. Patient was in a gasping state. All clothes (waist and shirt) were soaked in blood. It is further deposed by PW11 that there was a transverse cut injury on the neck on left side about 31/2 inch to 4 inch long extending from middle of neck going to back. Neck vessels were exposed and spurting blood (Carotid vessess). It is further deposed by PW11 that there were three lacerated wounds on the parito occipital region cutting deep scalp and bleeding profusely. ET done, stitching done, there was straight line ECG. The kind of weapon used was sharp edged for neck vessel, blunt injury on scalp and head. The nature of injuries were grievous and patient was unfit for statement. He further deposed that he prepared MLC no. 219 dated 25.04.2010. ASI Madan Singh collected the MLC and received the dead body. He further deposed that he had also given the death summary of patient Ashok which is Ex. PW11/B. He further deposed that despite all efforts patient could not be revived and declared dead S.C No.57731/16 State Vs Sandeep @ Sonu Page 11 of 59 on the same day i.e. 25.04.2010 at about 6:30 pm.
17. PW-11 Deen Dayal, brother of deceased (inadvertently examined as PW11 instead of PW12) deposed that he was running a jewelery shop at 210A, Chand Nagar, opposite Gurudwara in the name and style DD Jeweler and in his absence, his younger brother deceased Ashok used to look after the jewellery shop. He has also deposed that on 25.04.2010, he asked the deceased to sit and look after the shop at about 1:30 noon and he alongwith his family members went to Gurudwara Bangla Sahib. He has also stated to the deceased that he would come at about 4/5:00 pm. He has also deposed that at about 3:45 pm deceased made a call from telephone no. 25982174 at his mobile phone no. 9871467540 and inquired as to when he would come back to the shop and he replied that he just starting from there. Thereafter, he alongwith his family members went to Birla Mandir. At about 5:15pm. he received call from his supplier namely Pawan who stated that jewellery shop is opened and none is there. Accordingly, he asked the said Pawan to wait there, thinking that deceased would have gone nearby shop and would come but said Pawan stated to him that he was waiting since last 05 minutes, but no one is there inside the shop. Thereafter, he asked the said Pawan to send one Panne Lal, his mama's son. He has also deposed that thereafter, he made a call to the Panne Lal on mobile no. 9999480211 and asked him to reach immediately at the shop. He further deposed that after some time Panne Lal made a call to him and stated that S.C No.57731/16 State Vs Sandeep @ Sonu Page 12 of 59 deceased Ashok has received injuries and asked him to come immediately. He has also deposed that after some time, he again received call from Panne Lal asking him to reach at Park Hospital. He has also deposed that firstly, he reached his jewelry shop and again received call from Panne Lal to come to the hospital and accordingly he reached Park Hospital and on reaching in the hospital, he came to know that his brother has died. He also deposed that police reached in the hospital, dead body was sent to DDU Mortuary and at about 9-9:30 pm he alongwith Panne Lal came to his jewelery shop and came to know that accused Sandeep @ Sonu used to reside in their neighbourhood was seen lastly alongwith deceased Ashok. He has also deposed that accused Sandeep @ Sonu was a hooligan and awara type. He further deposed that on 26.04.2010, he identified the dead body vide memo Ex. PW11/A of his deceased brother Ashok which was handed over to him vide memo Ex.PW11/B. He has also deposed that on 28.04.2010, he went to PS and had given 05 bills to the IO which are proved as Ex. PW8/A, Ex. PW5/A, Ex. PW6/A, Ex. PW6/B and Ex. PW6/C and have also given list of missing articles Ex.PW11/C from his shop. He has also deposed that accused was absconding from his house from 25.04.2010 and before one or two days, he was found mingled with his brother/ deceased. Accused has been correctly identified by this witness in the court. He has also identified the case property i.e. one piece of floor matting having blood stained as Ex. P1. Another piece of floor matting without blood stained Ex. P2, one iron musal having a thorough whole as Ex. P3, four mushroom coloured jewellery box having blood stains as Ex. P4, one jeans pant, shirt, one S.C No.57731/16 State Vs Sandeep @ Sonu Page 13 of 59 underwear and one baniyan all having blood stained, worn by the deceased Ashok as Ex.P5 and jewelery articles recovered from the possession of accused collectively proved as Ex.P8.
18. PW-12 Panne Lal has deposed that he used to do tailoring work at shop no.34,35 DDA Market, Raghubir Nagar. He further deposed that on 25.04.2010 at about 04-04:30 PM, he was present at his aforesaid address, he received one mobile call of Deen Dayal, his bua's son on his mobile no. 9999480211 from the mobile of Deen Dayal i.e. 9871467540 and he stated to him that he has been informed by their Koka supplier namely Pawan that their jewellery shop by the name of DD Jewellers situated at Chand Nagar, in front of Gurudwara is found opened and Ashok Kumar, his brother is not present at the shop and Deen Dayal asked him to go to the shop. He reached at the DD Jewelers shop by running and after reaching at the shop, he did not find any person inside the shop. He went behind the counter i.e. the workshop, opened the gate of the shop and he found articles were lying scattered and almirah was found opened and in one corner, Ashok Kumar was lying in injured condition. He noticed that there were injuries on his head and on the neck. He came out from the shop and he stated regarding the said occurrence to the nearby shopkeeper and with the help of nearby shopkeeper, injured Ashok Kumar was kept in the vehicle of Yadein Studio and was taken to Park Hospital and got him admitted there. Doctor declared him brought dead. Police officials came at the hospital and body was removed to DDU Hospital. His statement was S.C No.57731/16 State Vs Sandeep @ Sonu Page 14 of 59 recorded by the police official vide Ex.PW12/A. Deen Dayal had also arrived at Park Hospital as he informed him that they are taking injured Ashok to Park Hospital. PW12 Panne Lal has further deposed that on 26.04.2010, he along with Deen Dayal went to DDU Hospital to bring dead body from there. After the post mortem, the dead body was given to them for funeral rites. His statement was also recorded by the police official regarding identification of dead body of Ashok Kumar, vide memo Ex.PW12/B. Handing over receipt of dead body is Ex.PW11/B. In the night of 25.04.2010 itself i.e. at about 10-10:30 PM, he along with police officials went at the DD Jewelers Shop, Crime team officials also reached at the shop and the police officials lifted the blood from inside the shop including the hairs, the piece of blood stained floor mat, piece of floor mat without blood, one blood stained Moosal and four empty jewelery box having blood stains, all these exhibits were lifted by police officials and kept in separate parcel and taken into possession vide Ex.PW12/C, D, E, F, G and H. On 01.05.2010, police officials namely Meena and two other police officials came at his residence for the purpose of inquiry. His Bua's son Deen Dayal also came there and at his saying, he along with them went at his residence situated at C- 255, J.J. Colony, Khyala, but he was not found there. Thereafter, they reached at Holi Chowk, near Park Hospital, Khyala in search of accused Sandeep @ Sonu. IO Meena made inquiry regarding the case and one person informed IO Meena that accused Sandeep @ Sonu would come to meet his father at Kukreja Hospital, Rajouri Garden and he can be arrested if a raid is conducted. Thereafter, they all reached near Kukreja Hospital S.C No.57731/16 State Vs Sandeep @ Sonu Page 15 of 59 and along with police officials have taken their positions near Kukreja Hospital at about 03:00 PM. At about 03:30 PM, he pointed towards one person who was coming on Najafgarh Road towards hospital and at his pointing out that person was apprehended by the police officials. He identified himself as accused Sandeep @ Sonu. IO Meena interrogated him and accused stated his name as Sandeep @ Sonu and stated that he was the only person who committed murder of Ashok at DD Jewelers Shop and robbed the articles. IO Meena conducted search of the accused and from the right pocket of his jeans pant, one yellow colour polythene on which DD Jewllers were written, was recovered. It was got opened and it was found containing one pair ear tops, one Bali. IO Meena kept the recovered articles in a parcel and the same was sealed with the seal. An amount of Rs.70/- was also recovered from you accused Sandeep @ Sonu. Accused Sandeep @ sonu was also having one military colour bag. The bag was also checked and it was found containing one black colour pant and one red colour t- shirt and accused Sandeep @ Sonu told that he was wearing these clothes at the time of committing the crime. That bag was also kept in a parcel along with the clothes and that was also sealed with the seal. Accused was interrogated by the IO Meena, vide disclosure statement Ex.PW12/I. Accused was arrested and IO prepared documents to this effect vide Ex.PW12/J and Ex.PW12/K. Thereafter, accused was taken to the shop of DD Jewelers and he pointed the place and IO prepared documents to this effect vide Ex.PW12/L. Thereafter, accused Sandeep has taken them towards the toilet, Saleti Building, Govt. Boys Senior S.C No.57731/16 State Vs Sandeep @ Sonu Page 16 of 59 Secondary School, Khyala and stated that after using the cutter knife, he has thrown the same at the roof of the toilet. Thereafter, police officials climbed over the roof and got recovered one cutter of red colour having black colour buttons. Police officials prepared sketch of the same vide Ex.PW12/M. Thereafter, the knife/cutter was kept in a parcel and was taken into possession through document Ex.PW12/N. Thereafter, all the police officials along with him and accused had gone to the house of accused at C-255, J.J. Colony, Khyala, 2 nd floor from where accused Sandeep @ Sonu got recovered one Jamuni blue colour polythene from beneath Baans Balli and bricks and DD Jewelers was written and it was containing 6 pairs of Panjeb of silver, one locket on which word '786' was written and two ladies rings were recovered. All these articles were kept in the same bag and converted into a parcel, police officials sealed it and taken the same into possession through Ex.PW12/O. Thereafter, they got down from the second floor. Mother and wife of accused Sandeep @ Sonu were informed regarding the arrest of the accused. Thereafter, police officials had taken accused along with them and he went to his residence. Place of occurrence where Ashok was murdered was shown to the police officials.
19. PW-13 ASI Madan Singh deposed that on 25.04.2010, he was posted at PS Tilak Nagar. On that day, on receipt of DD No. 25A at about 5:40PM, which is mark-A, he along with Ct. Ravinder went at 210A, DD Jewelers, Chand Nagar, Delhi. The said shop was found open. In the meanwhile, HC Surender who was on S.C No.57731/16 State Vs Sandeep @ Sonu Page 17 of 59 area patrolling duty, also came there. He further deposed that he came to know that injured had gone to Park Hospital, Vishnu Garden, Chand Nagar, Delhi. He directed HC Surender to remain at the spot to safeguard the site and he along with Ct. Ravinder went to Park Hospital. He further deposed that he collected MLC of injured Ashok. Injured Ashok was admitted in Park Hospital and after some time, injured Ashok was declared dead by the doctor. One person namely Panne Lal met him at Park Hospital. He inquired from him and recorded his statement, which is already Ex.PW12/A. He collected dead body from Park Hospital and directed Ct. Ravinder to take the dead body to mortuary DDU Hospital. Thereafter, he went at the place of occurrence. He further deposed that he made his endorsement on the statement of Panne Lal vide memo Ex.PW13/A and he gave tehrir to HC Surender for getting the case registered. He had mentioned in his endorsement to send mobile crime team officials at the spot and also to pass on the information to the senior officers. After some time, HC Surender along with Insp. R.S. Meena came at the spot as further investigation was given to Insp. R.S. Meena. He produced the DD entry and the MLC before Insp. R.S. Meena. Crime Team Officials also reached at the spot, who inspected the site and took the photographs. Insp. R.S. Meena recorded statement of one person namely Deen Dayal. Insp. R.S. Meena prepared site plan at the instance of Panne Lal who was also present at the spot. IO lifted the exhibits from inside the shop i.e. blood with the help of cotton, some hair, blood stained piece of floor mat, sample floor mat and also the iron Musal and four empty jewelery box, having blood stains. All S.C No.57731/16 State Vs Sandeep @ Sonu Page 18 of 59 these articles were kept in separate container/parcels and the same were sealed with the seal of RS and were taken into possession through seizure memo ExPW12/C, D, E, F, G and H. IO recorded statement of witnesses and thereafter, they came back at the PS. On 26.04.2010, post mortem was got conducted. Doctor produced one envelope and one parcel, duly sealed with the seal of hospital and two sample seals. IO had taken the same into his possession through seizure memo Ex.PW13/B.
20. PW-14 Avtar Singh deposed that he is running a school uniform shop by the name and titled Ludhiana Woolen and Readymade Agency, situated at shop no. 210B, Chand Nagar, opposite Chand Nagar Gurudwara,Delhi. On 25.04.2010 at about 05:30 PM, he was present at his shop, along with his wife Smt. Manjeet Kaur. Panne Lal, cousin brother of Deen Dayal known as DD, came out from the shop by the name and title DD Jewelers which is just adjacent to my shop and he started shouting that someone had killed his brother inside the shop. He further deposed that immediately, he rushed inside the shop of DD Jewelers and saw that brother of DD was lying inside the shop and he was smeared with blood and was lying in pool of blood. At that time, brother of DD was taking breaths. He further deposed that he also noticed that almirah of jewelery was opened and jewelery box were lying opened and scattered. He also noticed that there were injuries on the head of injured (brother of DD, whose name he did not remember at this moment) and also noticed that throat of brother of DD was cut.
S.C No.57731/16 State Vs Sandeep @ Sonu Page 19 of 59He further deposed that he called Sh. Mukesh, owner of Yaden Photo Studio to bring his car to take injured to Park Hospital. He made a call at 100 number from inside his shop, from my landline phone of Tata Company. That number starts with 65 but I am not recollecting the complete number at this moment as he had that landline number hardly for a period of 2-3 months. He with the help of Mukesh and Panne Lal have taken injured to Park Hospital in Santro Car of Mukesh. He remained in the hospital. Panne Lal and Mukesh went to call mother of DD. After some time, doctors at Park Hospital, declared injured dead.
21. PW-15 Mukesh deposed that he has been running Yadein Photo Studio at 182A, Chand Nagar, for the last 20 years. Shop of DD jeweler is situated at a distance of 4 shops from his shop. On 20.04.2010, again said it was on 25.04.2010, he was getting his Yaden Photo Studio shop painted/whitewashed. At about 5- 5:30 PM, Panne Lal, brother of DD was raising alarm "Bhai ko kuch ho gaya, Bhai ko kuch ho gaya". He came out from his shop, 3-4 persons were standing outside the shop of DD jewelers and Panne Lal was saying that someone has cut neck of his brother. He further deposed that he along with Sardarji namely Raju went inside the shop. Someone asked him to bring his car so as to take injured, brother of DD, to hospital. He, Sardarji Raju and Panne Lal have taken injured to Park Hospital in his Santro car no. 3989. At that time, injured was alive. Doctor at Park Hospital asked to arrange the amount for the treatment of injured. Raju Sardarji stated that he was having an amount of S.C No.57731/16 State Vs Sandeep @ Sonu Page 20 of 59 Rs.4-5,000/- with him and then Panne Lal stated to him to call mother of DD and he along with Panne Lal went to call mother of DD. Later on, they came to know that injured had expired.
22. PW-18 SI Mahesh Kumar deposed that on 06.07.2010, on the call of Insp. Meena, he reached PS Tilak Nagar and from there, he along with IO went at DD Jewellers, Shop No. 210 A, Chand Nagar, Tilak Nagar and at the instance of IO, he prepared rough notes and took measurement. Later on, he prepared scaled site plan which is Ex.PW18/A, which bears his signatures at point A.
23. PW-19 Ct. Karam Singh is a formal witness who has deposited the sealed parcel at FSL Rohini, vide RC no.69/21/10.
24. PW-20 HC Suresh Chand is the MHC(M) who has proved the fact of depositing of 11 sealed parcels and two sample seals on 26.04.2010, 4 sealed parcels and three sample seals on 01.05.2010 and two sealed parcels on 09.07.2020 by Inspector R.S Meena and made entires to this effect in the register. He further deposed that on 16.06.2010, 14.07.2010 and 15.07.2010, he sent exhibits to FSL Rohini vide RC No. 62, 68 and 69/21/10.
25. PW-21 Dr. Santosh Kumar, Sr. Resident, DDU Hospital, Department of Forensic Medicine, Delhi has deposed that on 26.04.2010, he conducted post mortem on the body of Ashok Kumar, 24 years old, male, vide his detailed PM report no.440/10 S.C No.57731/16 State Vs Sandeep @ Sonu Page 21 of 59 which is in his handwriting and the same is Ex.PW21/A, In his opinion, the cause of death was due to hemorrhagic shock subsequent to cut down injury to the neck vessel by a pointed sharp edged weapon. External injury no.9 and internal injury to the head could be possible by forceful blunt impact directly imparted over the head. External injury no.9 and 10 as mentioned in the PM report were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature individually and as well as in combination. All injuries were ante mortem and same in duration. He further deposed that on 16.06.2010, an application was moved by Insp. R.S. Meena alongwith two separately tagged parcels containing weapon of offence, for seeking subsequent opinion. He opened both the parcels and examined the exhibits therein i.e. conical shaped heave iron block and one knife (paper cutter). After examining the exhibits, he gave his detailed report which is Ex.PW21/B. After examining the exhibits, the same were packed in parcels and were sealed with the seal of DFMT, DDU Hospital and were handed over to Insp. R.S. Meena alongwith the report.
26. PW-22 HC Raju Lal is also a formal witness who deposed that on 14.07.2010, on the directions of the IO, he took 8 sealed pulandhas alongwith sample sealed from MHC(M) vide RC No. 68/21/10 Ex.PW20/E and deposited the same at FSL Rohini vide receipt Ex.PW22/A.
27. PW-23 ASI Jagbir Singh that on 01.05.2010, he was posted S.C No.57731/16 State Vs Sandeep @ Sonu Page 22 of 59 at PS Tilak Nagar. On that day, he joined the investigation of this case with SI Ravi Shankar and R.S. Meena. Panna Lal was also with them. He further deposed that they visited C-255, J.J. Colony, Khyala. Deen Dayal, brother of the deceased also joined the investigation and was relieved. Thereafter, acting upon a secret information, accused Sandeep @ Sonu present in court, (witness correctly identifies) was apprehended at the instance of Panna Lal when accused was coming from main Najafgarh Road towards Kukreja Hospital. Accused was overpowered by him and Insp. R.S. Meena. He further deposed that accused was interrogated and arrested, vide memo Ex.PW12/J. Accused Sandeep @ Sonu made disclosure statement vide Ex.PW12/I. On search of accused, one yellow polythene was recovered from right hand side pocket of his pant and on opening the same, it was found containing one pair of ear tops, two rings, one locket and one small ear ring and all were having blood stains. Two other tags having blood stains were also in the yellow polythene. The above said articles were kept back in the same polythene and converted into Pulanda and sealed with the seal of RS and seized vide memo Ex.PW12/O. The Jamatalashi of accused was conducted vide Ex.PW12/K. Accused was also having one army coloured bag and the same was also checked and it was found containing one black coloured pant and red coloured t-shirt, blood stains were also on the same although accused had disclosed that he had washed the clothes after commission of offence. The said clothes and bag were also converted into a Pulanda and sealed with the seal of RS and seized vide memo Ex.PW23/A. Accused identified the place of occurrence.
S.C No.57731/16 State Vs Sandeep @ Sonu Page 23 of 59Thereafter, accused led them to the Govt. Sr. Secondary School, Khyala and got effected the recovery of weapon of offence i.e. working cutter from the terrace of the toilets. There were blood stains on the cutter. IO prepared sketch of the same vide Ex.PW12/M of the cutter and the same was sealed in a Pulanda with the seal of RS and seized vide memo Ex.PW12/N. Thereafter, they went to house of the accused i.e. C-255, J.J. Colony, Khyala and he got effected recovery of a polythene containing jewellery from terrace of his house and the said polythene lying underneath the wooden planks and stones and there were blood stains on the polythene which was of violet colour. On checking, the violet colour polythene, there was one small jewellery bag of DD Jewellers and there were 6 pairs of silver Pajeb, one locket and word '786' was imbibed on the locket, two lady gold rings. IO mentioned the descriptions of these jewellery items in the seizure memo and these articles were sealed in a Pulanda with the seal of RS and seized vide memo Ex.PW12/O. He further deposed that he signed the memos.
28. PW-24 Ct. Lalit deposed that on 16.06.2010, on the instructions of the SHO, he took two sealed pulandas with the seal of RS from the Malkhana and went to DDU Mortuary. He further deposed that he handed over the same to a Doctor who opened the pulandhas and examined the same. After examining the same, he gave his opinion and the articles were taken out from the Pulandhas were again sealed in the same pulandhas S.C No.57731/16 State Vs Sandeep @ Sonu Page 24 of 59 with the seal of "DFMT" and returned to him. He came back to PS and deposited the pulandhas in the malkhana and handed over the subsequent opinion to IO/SHO. During the tenure the aforesaid Pulandhas were remained in his possession and nothing was tempered with them.
29. PW-25 HC Ram Lal deposed that on 25.04.2010, he was posted at PS Tilak Nagar as duty officer. He has proved the DD No. 29A as Ex.PW25/A, registration of FIR as Ex.PW25/B, his endorsement on tehrir as Ex.PW25/C and DD No. 31A as Ex.PW25/D and DD Entry No.32A as Ex.PW25/E.
30. PW-26 Dr. Vipin Kumar Jha deposed that on 01.05.2010, he was posted in Casualty as JR. On that day, HC Jagbir Singh brought one patient namely Sandeep Kumar @ Sonu i.e. accused for the examination. He had examined him vide MLC no. 8345. On examination, it was found that there was no external injury. His hair sample and blood samples were taken and sealed and handed over to IO. The MLC is Ex.PW26/A.
31. PW-27 Ct. Harikesh deposed that on 24.04.2010, he was posted as Constable at PS Tilak Nagar. On that day, Duty Officer HC Ram Lal had handed over him the computerized copy of FIR which he had delivered to Ld. MM, Joint CP and DCP concerned on the Govt. motor cycle no. DL-1SM-5186. He further deposed that he returned back to the PS at 2:00 am.
S.C No.57731/16 State Vs Sandeep @ Sonu Page 25 of 5932. PW-28 Lady Constable Sarika deposed that on 25.04.2010, she was posted in PCR (HQ). On that day, a PCR call was received at channel No.106, at around 5.41 PM. The call was regarding the robbery having been committed at Jeweller shop in front of Chand Nagar, Gurudwara. She transferred the call further to Command room. On that day, she had brought the PCR form and the said PCR form has been retrieved by SI Devender Kumar, the Nodal Officer who gave 65B certificate to the said effect. The PCR form is Ex PW28/A and Form 65B is Ex PW28/B.
33. PW-29 HC Surender Singh deposed that on 25.04.2010, he was posted at P.S. Tilak Nagar. On that day, he was on patrolling duty in his beat area Chand Nagar. While patrolling he was near DD Jewellers, near Chand Nagar Gurudwara. At that time, ASI Madan Singh alongwith Constable Ravinder came at the spot and found DD Jewellers lying opened. On reaching there, they came to know that the brother of the owner of DD Jeweller had been struck with some sharp edged weapon and had already been taken to Park Hospital by the nearby shopkeeper. ASI Madan Singh and Constable Ravinder proceeded to Park hospital and he was left at the spot. They came back to the spot after about half an hour after collecting the MLC. ASI Madan Singh prepared the ruqqa and sent him to the PS for registration of the FIR. He got the case FIR registered and further investigation was marked to Inspector R.S. Meena. He alongwith R.S. Meena came at the spot. Inspector R.S. Meena called the Crime team and the spot and got S.C No.57731/16 State Vs Sandeep @ Sonu Page 26 of 59 the spot photographed. IO Inspector R.S. Meena took the report of crime team and recorded their statement. Inspector R.S. Meena prepared the site plan at the instance of the complainant, Panne Lal. IO Inspector R.S. Meena had done various seizures at the spot and he also remained present throughout. However, IO obtained the signatures of ASI Madan Singh and Panne Lal on all such seizures. IO recorded his statement at the P.S.
34. PW-30 HC Vikram deposed that on 30.07.2015, he was posted as HC at Crime Branch Kotwali. On that day, a secret information was received that accused Sandeep @ Sonu who has jumped the bail in case FIR No 104/10 PS Tilak Nagar would come near Petrol Pump Pt Nishant Raj Marg, Darya Ganj. The information was passed on to the Senior Officers and a raiding party comprising of SI Virender Singh, SI Devender, ASI Jaswinder Singh, HC Naresh, HC Virender, HC Mehak Singh, Constable Vipin, Ct Manish, Ct Harinder, Ct Ajay, Ct Deepak and Ct Lalit, was constituted and they all proceeded to the place alongwith the secret informer vide DD No. 23. On reaching at the point i.e near Petrol Pump, Pt Nishant Raj Marg, Darya Ganj, accused Sandeep @ Sonu was apprehended and Kalandara 41.(1)(C) Cr.PC was prepared. Accused was arrested vide arrest memo Ex PW30/A and his personal search was carried out vide personal search memo Ex PW30/B. After arrest his medical examination was got conducted and his conviction slip was prepared Ex PW30/C. The departure was made vide DD No.23 dt 30.7.2015. True copy of it is Ex PW30/D. The information regarding the arrest and arrival was reduced into DD NO.26 dt 30.07.2015, running into two pages, which is Ex PW30/E. The Kalandara is Ex PW30/F. He filed S.C No.57731/16 State Vs Sandeep @ Sonu Page 27 of 59 the Kalandara and accompanying documents in the concerned Court.
35. PW-32 ASI Naresh Kumar posted in Crime Branch, Kotwali, was also a member of raiding party on 30.07.2015 and has deposed on the similar lines as that of PW-30, therefore, his testimony is not discussed here for the sake of brevity.
36. PW-33 HC Ravinder has deposed on the similar lines of PW- 13 ASI Madan Singh, therefore, his testimony is not discussed here for the sake of brevity.
37. PW-31 Inspector R.S. Meena is the IO of the case. He deposed that on 25.04.2010, he was posted as Inspector in PS Tilak Nagar. On that day the then Duty Officer handed over him the original tehrir, computerized copy of present case FIR. On the receipt of the same, he alongwith HC Surender Singh reached at the spot i.e. DD Jewellers, Chand Nagar, opposite Gurudwara Singh Sabha, Tilak Nagar where, they met ASI Madan Singh, SHO Tilak Nagar and ATO Tilak Nagar alongwith members of the crime team. ASI Madan Singh brief him about the facts and handed over to him DD No.29-A, MLC No. 219/10 of deceased Ashok Kumar. He further deposed that during investigation he had recorded the statement of Deen Dayal, elder brother of deceased Ashok Kumar and the complainant in the present matter I,e. Panne Lal. In the meanwhile, the crime team In-charge SI S.C No.57731/16 State Vs Sandeep @ Sonu Page 28 of 59 Kuldeep Singh inspected the spot and handed over the crime team report to him. The Finger Print Proficient HC Udam Singh developed 10 chance prints and handed over the same to him. Prior to the release of case property to the brother of deceased namely Deen Dayal, TIP of the case property was got conducted. PW-31 Inspector R.S. Meena further deposed that the Court passed the order to release the case property. Out of the case property which have been ordered to be released to Deen Dayal, he had taken four blood stained tags, blood stained plastic Polythene and two pouches of DD Jewellers. He prepared the pulanda of the said case property and sealed with the seal of RS and seized vide a seizure memo Ex PW31/F for the purpose of sending the same to FSL for expert opinion. On 10.07.2010, he went to Kukreja Hospital alongwith SI Basant and met with Dr K.D Tiwari, Medical Superintendent. He collected the photocopy of discharge card from Dr K.D. Tiwari and he recorded his statement U/S 161 Cr.PC. The seizure memo of the photocopy of receipt of jewellery items were taken into police possession vide memo Ex PW31/G, He prepared the charge sheet and filed the same in the Court. He identified the accused as well as case property in the court. He further deposed that he inspected the scene of crime. There was workshop in side the D.D Jewellers wherein there were pool of blood. He collected the exhibits i.e. hairs from the pool of blood lying on the ground of the workshop and seized vide seizure memo already Ex PW12/D. The same was sealed with the seal of RS. He also collected the blood which was on the corner of the workshop. The same was lifted through cotton and put in the envelope and sealed with the seal of RS. The same was taken S.C No.57731/16 State Vs Sandeep @ Sonu Page 29 of 59 into police possession vide seizure memo already Ex PW12/C. Then he collected the blood stained floor mat, sample floor mat, one blood stained iron Musad, four blood stained jewellery box from the corner of the workshop and prepared the pulanda and sealed with the seal of RS and took them into police possession. He obtained the signature of witness Panne Lal on each of the memos. He prepared the site plan at the instance of Panne Lal vide Ex PW31/A. He recorded the statement of Panne Lal. he made inquiry from nearby shops regarding the incident as well as the accused. He made inquiry from the shopkeeper of Ludhiana School Uniform shop and Yadein Studio, near the scene of crime. He also asked them regarding the description of accused but could not get any clue about him. He returned to the Police station and deposited the case property in P.S Malkhana and recorded the statement of witnesses. PW-31 Inspector R.S. Meena further deposed that on 26.04.2010, he went to mortuary of DDU Hospital alongwith ASI Madan Singh and Ct Ravinder. He met brother of deceased namely Deen Dayal and Panne Lal. They identified the dead body of deceased and he recorded the identification memo of the deceased. Thereafter, the postmortem of the dead body of deceased was conducted and dead body was handed over to the relatives of deceased. Dr Santosh handed over to him the exhibits i.e one envelope containing blood gauze pulanda containing clothes of deceased and two sample seals. The same were seized vide seizure memo Ex PW13/B. He further deposed that he returned to the PS and deposited the exhibits in PS Malkhana. He recorded the statement of ASI Madan Singh and Ct Ravinder. On the same day, S.C No.57731/16 State Vs Sandeep @ Sonu Page 30 of 59 public witnesses Sunny Maheshwari, Lalit Kumar, Pawan, Mukesh and Ram Avtar came to PS whom he had called to join the investigation. He recorded the statement U/S 161 Cr P C of aforesaid public persons. Sunny Maheshwari and Lalit Kumar told him that on 25.04.2010 they had seen the deceased Ashok Kumar and accused Sandeep @ Sonu sitting at the jewellery shop. On 27.04.2010, he alongwith ASI Madan Singh and Ct Lalit left the PS for investigation of the present case and reached Chokhandi, in the area of Tilak Nagar, Delhi. From Chokhandi, he called the secret informer, who came and met him there. He apprised him regarding the crime. The secret informer told him that there is a person namely Sandeep @ Sonu, of criminal mentality and he was missing since the day of incident. From there, they went to J.J Colony, Khyala. There he met Deepu, Ajay, Chanderpal and one another Ajay who were the common friend of deceased Ashok. They told him that they used to sit together alongwith deceased and accused Sandeep @ Sonu for the purpose of drinking. They also told him that accused Sandeep @ Sonu had borrowed money from deceased Ashok and Sandeep had been missing since the day of incident. They also told him that accused Sandeep @ Sonu was in the habit of not repaying the borrowed money to the people from whom he had taken money. Then he went to the house of accused Sandeep @ Sonu at C-255, JJ Colony, Khyala. His mother namely Kaushyla Devi was found present at the house. She told him that accused Sandeep @ Sonu had not returned to home since 25.04.2010. She also told him that her husband Phool Chand was admitted in Kukreja Hospital, Khyala, Delhi since 22.04.2010. From there, he S.C No.57731/16 State Vs Sandeep @ Sonu Page 31 of 59 alongwith his staff went to the house of the deceased where brother of the deceased namely Din Dayal met him. He told him that he had got information regarding the involvement of accused Sandeep @ Sonu in the murder of deceased as he came to know from his own source that accused has been missing since 25.04.2010 and he suspected that accused Sandeep @ Sonu had murdered his brother. Then he visited different places in Khyala in search of the accused but he could not be traced. Then they returned to P.S and apprised the SHO regarding the progress of investigation. On 28.04.2010, he alongwith HC Surender and HC Jagbir reached at his house. He met his mother Kaushyla Devi and his wife Riya. He asked them regarding the whereabouts of accused but they did not give any information. From there, he again reached the house of deceased. He met Deen Dayal, brother of deceased. He again reiterated the grave suspicion that no one but accused Sandeep @ Sonu had murdered his brother. From there, they came back to the P.S. Deen Dayal, brother of deceased also reached at the PS and met him. He gave him a complaint comprises the list of robbed articles. The said complaint is already Ex PW11/C. He also handed over to him the receipts of jewellery already Exhibited as Ex PW8/A, Ex PW5/A, Ex PW6/A, PW6/B and Ex PW6/C. He further deposed that on 01.05.2010, he alongwith SI Ravi Shanker and HC Jagbir left the PS for investigation and reached near Park Hospital, Khyala. He made inquiry from public persons regarding accused Sandeep @ Sonu. In the meantime, a secret informer met him there and informed him that accused Sandeep @ Sonu would come to Kukreja Hospital to meet his father at about 3.00 S.C No.57731/16 State Vs Sandeep @ Sonu Page 32 of 59 pm. They immediately reached outside the Kukreja Hospital. He requested 3-4 public persons to join the investigation but none agreed and left the place without disclosing their name and particulars. Panne Lal also joined the investigation on 01.05.2010, who met him on their way at his house. He and HC Jagbir stood on the right side of the hospital and instructed SI Ravi Shanker and Panne Lal to take position on the left side of the hospital. At about 3.30 pm, Panne Lal pointed towards a person who was coming from Nazafgarh road side by saying that the said person is accused Sandeep @ Sonu. He and HC Jagbir overpowered the accused on the road in front of the gate of the hospital. On interrogation, he disclosed his name as Sandeep @ Sonu and after sustained interrogation, he confessed his guilt in the present case. He arrested the accused Sandeep @ Sonu and his personal search was conducted and one polythene pouch of yellow colour was found in the right pocket of your trouser. He checked the polythene pouch. One pair of ear tops, two rings and one piece of ear ring. There was a blood on tag attached on the piece of ear ring. The same polythene pouch two blood stained tags were also found. He prepared the pulanda of the articles found in the polythene pouch sealed with the seal of RS and taken into police possession. He further deposed that the personal search of accused was taken vide memo already Ex. PW12/K. Accused was carrying a bag of Fauji colour. He checked the said bag, one black colour pant, one red T Shirt. Blood stained were present on the pant and T Shirt. Accused disclosed that he was wearing the said cloth at the time of committing the offence and blood came on the said clothes while he was S.C No.57731/16 State Vs Sandeep @ Sonu Page 33 of 59 committing the murder. He further disclosed that after committing the murder of the deceased he had gone to Kanpur and washed the said clothes. Then, IO put the said clothes in the bag prepared a pulanda of bag and blood stained clothes and sealed with the seal of RS. The same was seized vide seizure memo Ex PW23/A. He recorded his disclosure statement already Ex PW12/I. Accused had disclosed that he could identify the scene of crime and get recover the weapon of offence and robbed jeweleries from his house. From there accused led them to the scene of crime. There he prepared the pointing out memo at his instance which is already Ex PW12/L. After that, accused led them to the place where he had thrown weapon of offence i.e paper cutter. Thereafter they reached Govt Boys/Girls Sr Sec School,Khyala. Accused got recovered paper cutter from the roof top of the toilet of school. The said toilet is situated adjacent to the road inside the school. He prepared the sketch of paper cutter which is already Ex PW12/M. The said weapon of offence was blood stained. He wrapped the same with paper and prepared the pulanda of cutter and sealed with the seal of R.S. Then he prepared the pointing out memo and recovery memo of weapon offence ie paper cutter He prepared the site plan of the place of recovery of paper cutter. From there, accused led them to his house. Then accused led them on the roof of the second floor of his house. There were wooden planks and bricks lying on the roof. Accused got recovered a blood stained polythene of violet colour from underneath of said planks and bricks. Accused stated that he had robbed the jewellery from DD Jewellers and took the pouch and polythene of DD Jeweller from there itself and S.C No.57731/16 State Vs Sandeep @ Sonu Page 34 of 59 put the jewellery into the polythene. Some of the robbed jewellery concealed under the bricks and planks lying on the roof of his house. He handed over the polythene to the IO. He checked the polythene. There was a pouch of DD Jeweller. On checking the said pouch, there were six pairs of silver Pajeb, two rings and one locket found inside the pouch. He put the pouch inside the polythene and prepared the pulanda and sealed with the seal of RS and the same was taken into possession vide memo already Ex PW35/A. He prepared the site plan of the place of recovery vide Ex PW 31/B. He obtained the signature of Panne Lal,SI Ravi Shanker, HC Jagbir on all the memos prepared by him. From there he took accused to DDU hospital and got him medically examined. The blood sample and hair sample were taken by the Doctor at his request. The same were taken into police possession vide memo Ex PW31/C. They came to the P.S and deposited the case property in the Malkhana. Accused was put behind bar. On 02.05.2010, accused was produced in the Court in muffled face and was sent to J/C for two days. Accused was kept in muffled face since the time of his arrest. On 04.05.2010, he brought him from the lock up Tis Hazari and he was instructed to remain in muffled face but accused had not muffled his face. He moved an application for TIP in the Court where the accused had refused to participate in TIP proceedings. He obtained the copy of TIP proceeding and accused was sent to lock up. On 26.05.2010, he was standing at the canteen of PS Tilak Nagar near Santri post. At around 8.00 PM Lalit Kumar met him there and stated that he had seen accused in the custody of police at his house. Lalit Kumar told him that he had gone to S.C No.57731/16 State Vs Sandeep @ Sonu Page 35 of 59 repair electric plug of the DD Jewellery shop on the day of incident and he saw the deceased with accused sitting in the said shop. He recorded statement of Lalit Kmar to this effect. He further deposed that on 28.05.2010, he alongwith Ct Lalit was going for investigation in some other case to JJ Colony,Khyala on the way he met Sunny Maheshwari outside his Kabari shop. He asked him where he was going and wished him. During this conversation he stated to him that he had told him that on 26.05.2010 he had seen accused with police party. He further told him that accused is the same person whom he had seen with the deceased on 25.04.2010 at DD Jeweller shop. On that day, he had gone to attend a marriage in a Gurudwara in front of DD Jeweller and he parked his motor cycle in front of DD Jeweller shop. Sunny Maheheshwari inquired about the elder brother of deceased namely Din Dayal and asked him to watch his motor cycle during his absence. He had asked about the rate of the gold from the deceased who told him the rate of gold was 16,000/- 16,500/- per tola. On this accused intervened and told the rate of gold was 17,000/-. He told that the way accused behaved, was suspicious. He recorded the statement of Sunny Maheshwari U/S 161 Cr P.C. On 31.05.2010, Din Dayal had moved an application to the Court for the release of the jewellery and the same was adjourned and on 09.06.2010 the order for release of the jewellery to Deen Dayal was passed. He got prepared the scaled site plan. On 16.06.2010, he obtained the subsequent opinion. Rough sketch of weapon of offence was prepared. He collected the PCR form. He sent the chance print to Finger Print Bureau. He obtained the priority letter and sent the exhibits to S.C No.57731/16 State Vs Sandeep @ Sonu Page 36 of 59 FSL. He recorded the statement of MHC(M) Suresh Kumar and HC Raju. He sent notice to Parveen Chawla, Sunil Malhotra and Hari Om to join the investigation who used to deal in jewellery with DD Jewellers. They joined the investigation and he recorded their statement.
38. PW-34 Sh. Dharmender Rana, the then Ld. ACMM is a formal witness who has deposed that application for conducting TIP in respect of accused Sandeep @ Sonu was moved before him but accused Sandeep @ Sonu refused to participate in the TIP proceedings. Same are Ex.PW34/A.
39. PW-35 Inspector Ravi Shankar deposed that on 01.05.2010, he was posted at PS Tilak Nagar as Sub Inspector. On that day, he joined investigation alongwith IO Inspector R.S. Meena, HC Jagbir. Panney Lal was also with them. Thereafter, secret informer met them at the house of the complainant. Thereafter, they went to Kukreja Hospital, Main Nazafgarh Road. They took their position as per the instruction of IO. After some time a person was seen coming towards the Gate of Kukreja Hospital. On seeing the said person Panney Lal told them that he is the accused Sandeep @ Sonu. Accused was caught hold by them. He was personally searched. Ear tops and other jewellery items were recovered from the right pocket of DD Jewellers in a polythene. A Pulanda was prepared with the seal of RS and the same was taken into police possession and he was arrested and his personal search was conducted. IO recorded the disclosure S.C No.57731/16 State Vs Sandeep @ Sonu Page 37 of 59 statement of accused. Thereafter, the accused was taken to his house C-255, Khyala, Delhi. The accused led them on the roof top. The accused got recovered the jewellery items which were lying under the wooden planks. Thereafter, IO has taken the accused to Govt Boys/Girls Sr Sec School, Khyala and he accompanied the IO and the accused. On the instance of accused, a knife/cutter was got recovered from the roof top of a bathroom of the school. The measurement was taken by the IO and a sketch of recovered knife/cutter was prepared. The sketch of the knife/cutter is already Ex PW12/M. The said knife/cutter was sealed in a pulanda with the seal of RS. The knife/cutter was seized. The site plan of the place of recovery was also prepared by the IO in his presence, the same is Ex PW35/B. At the time of arrest of the accused, a bag containing blood stained cloths ie pant and T Shirt were recovered. The said cloths were washed but some blood stains were still present on those clothes. A pulanda was prepared of the said recovered clothes, sealed with the seal of RS. Thereafter accused was taken to hospital by HC Jagbir for his medical examination. IO deposited the sealed pulandas in the Malkhana of P.S. STATEMENT OF ACCUSED.
40. After completion of the prosecution evidence, the statement of accused, under section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded so as to enable him to personally explain the circumstances appearing in the evidence against him. All the incriminating S.C No.57731/16 State Vs Sandeep @ Sonu Page 38 of 59 evidence were put to the accused to which he has denied, as being incorrect and have stated that a false case has been registered against him and he has been falsely implicated in this case. Accused did not lead any defence evidence.
REASONS AND DECISION
41. I have heard the Ld Addl P.P for the State and Ld Counsel for the accused. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions being made by them and also perused the record carefully as well as written submissions filed by accused.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF ACCUSED
42. Ld Defence Counsel has vehemently argued that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. It is argued that there is not an iota of evidence available on record to connect the accused with the instant case.
43. It is argued that there is not a single eye witness to the alleged incident of crime and the entire case has been built up by the prosecution on the basis of circumstantial evidence and as such, it is the settled principle of law that in cases of circumstantial evidence, the entire chain of events should be complete and if there is a single gap in the chain, the accused is entitled to acquittal. It is further argued that in this case, there are many discrepancies in the story of the prosecution and hence, accused is entitled to be given benefit of doubt.
S.C No.57731/16 State Vs Sandeep @ Sonu Page 39 of 5944. It is argued that the material witnesses of the prosecution examined as PW-3 Lalit Kumar, in his examination in chief, has stated that he had seen the accused outside the P.S. on 26.05.2010 but in his cross examination, he stated that he was called by the police but he himself never informed the police about this fact. This contradiction is further supported by the cross examination of PW-35 who stated that he never received any call on 26.05.2010 from PW-3 regarding the fact that he had seen the accused.
45. Similarly, it is argued that PW-4 Sunny Maheshwari who has also been shown as a witness to prove last seen theory is also not trustworthy as he has deposed that he had seen the accused on 25.04.2010 before the murder of deceased and he also deposed that on 26.5.2010 at about 7 pm, at C Block, Khayala, he had seen the accused with police officials, however, there is no statement of this witness to this effect recorded by the IO.
46. It is argued that though both PW-3 and PW-4 have stated to have seen the accused on 26.05.2010, however, same cannot be true due to the fact that the accused was arrested on 01.05.2021 and after that, he was sent to judicial custody, hence, there was no possibility for these two witnesses to see accused who was already in judicial custody.
47. It is further argued that in view of the above S.C No.57731/16 State Vs Sandeep @ Sonu Page 40 of 59 contradictions, it becomes clear that both these witnesses are planted witnesses in order to build up the prosecution case and hence, they cannot be relied at all and hence, it further casts serious doubt over the prosecution story.
48. It is further argued that for any crime, motive is necessary to prove the guilt of any person, however, in the instant case, no motive whatsoever has been proved by the prosecution which could reflect the guilty mind of the accused to commit the murder of deceased.
49. It is argued that even in the FSL report, nothing incriminating has come against the accused. Therefore, it is argued that in the absence of any evidence connecting the accused with the alleged crime, it is clear that prosecution has miserably failed to establish its case against the accused and hence, accused is entitled for acquittal.
50. It is further argued that there is a major contradiction with regard to the time of death of deceased. As per prosecution, the deceased had died whereas as per the post mortem report, the time of death is 6.30 pm, however, both the PW-3 and PW-4 have stated that the murder took place at about 5.30 pm which further casts serious doubts over the prosecution story.
51. It is also argued that there are major contradictions regarding the recovery of weapon. IO and PW-23 state that when they reached at Govt School at 6 pm, it was closed, nobody met S.C No.57731/16 State Vs Sandeep @ Sonu Page 41 of 59 in the school. However, PW-12 Panne Lal stated that they reached at the School at 4.00 pm. These contradictions further raise serious doubts over the prosecution story.
52. It is also argued that no chance prints were lifted by the IO at the time of recovery of weapon of offence. It is a major lapse on the part of the IO of the case and hence, further creates doubts on the fairness of the investigation and case of the prosecution.
53. To substantiate his arguments, Ld. Defence Counsel has relied on following judgments:
(i) C. Chenga Reddy Vs. State of A.P. 1996 SCC (Crl.) 1205
(ii) Jai Prakash @Guddu Vs. The State (Govt of NCT) of New Delhi 2016(4) JCC
(iii) Satish Nirankari Vs. State of Rajasthan 2017(3) JCC 1726
(iv) Shantabai & Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra 2008 JCC 1080 (2008) SC 354 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ON BEHALF OF THE STATE
54. While opposing the arguments of the accused persons, Ld Addl PP for the State has argued that all the PWs examined by the prosecution have firmly stood the test of cross examination and have been able to prove the case of prosecution beyond the pale of reasonable doubts. It has been stated that the prosecution has been able to establish its case clearly and categorically and merely because there are some discrepancies in the testimony of PWs does not take away their clear and categorical deposition before the Court and the Court is not S.C No.57731/16 State Vs Sandeep @ Sonu Page 42 of 59 required to procure a parroted version of PWs. It is argued by Ld. State Counsel that the instant case is of circumstantial evidence and as per the evidence produced and proved on record, the prosecution has been able to prove its case against the accused.
55. It is argued that from the deposition of PW-1 Pawan Kumar, PW-11, PW-2 & 15 Mukesh, it is clear that Panne Lal had first seen the deceased Ashok in injured condition with injuries on his head and neck in the presence of PW-1 Pawan Kumar and thereafter, with the help of PW-2 Mukesh, deceased was shifted to Park Hospital.
56. It is further argued that both PW-3 Lalit and PW-4 Sunny Maheshwari have deposed that accused Sandeep @ Sonu was lastly seen with the deceased Ashok at the latter's shop. It is further argued that the time gap between the time of incident and the last presence of accused at the DD jeweler's shop is merely 2.5 hours which is quite narrow and if the last seen theory is applied, it clearly points out the role of accused behind the gruesome murder of deceased.
57. It is further argued that PW-21 Dr. Santosh has clearly opined that the cause of death of deceased Ashok was due to hemorrhagic shock subsequent to cut down injury to the neck vessel by a pointed sharp edged weapon. External injury no.9 and internal injury to the head could be possible by forceful blunt impact directly imparted over the head. The medical opinion is corroborated by the weapons recovered from the spot as well as S.C No.57731/16 State Vs Sandeep @ Sonu Page 43 of 59 at the instance of accused. The injury on the neck was caused by a pointed sharp edged weapon i.e. by knife/cutter in the present case. Similarly, the injury on the head by forceful blunt impact was caused by iron Musal. The opinion of the doctor on the cause of death gets duly corroborated from the weapons used in the commission of crime and recovered at the instance of accused.
58. It is further argued that the disclosure statement of accused becomes admissible when any recovery is effected on the basis of disclosure statement of accused. In the present case, disclosure statement of accused led to the recovery of weapon of offence i.e knife cutter as well as jewelery robbed by the accused from the shop of deceased. Therefore, the disclosure statement of accused recorded in the present case has evidentiary value and becomes admissible in the present case.
59. As regards the motive of crime, it is the case of the prosecution that accused was in need of money to repay the loan taken by accused from many persons and to take care of his father who was admitted in Kukreja hospital. Therefore, in order to get quick money, accused murdered the deceased and robbed the jewelery articles from his shop.
60. It is further argued that as per post mortem report Ex.PW21/A, conducted on 26.04.2010, the death of deceased has been opined to have occurred at 5.30 pm. As per the testimony of PW-3 Lalit, the accused was found present with the deceased in his shop at about 2.15 pm. Further PW-4 Sunny Maheshwari S.C No.57731/16 State Vs Sandeep @ Sonu Page 44 of 59 has also deposed that he had seen both accused and deceased at about 3.00 pm on the date of incident. Therefore, it is clear that deceased was lastly seen with the accused and thereafter, within two and a half hours, accused was murdered.
61. As regards the argument of defence that accused was in judicial custody on 26.05.2010, hence, there was no possibility for PW-3 and PW-4 to have seen accused on the said date is concerned, it is submitted that accused was granted permission to visit his house on 26.05.2010 on account of death of his father. Hence, both these witnesses are reliable and trustworthy and have given cogent evidence.
62. It is further argued that the present case is a case of last seen theory as well as the case based on circumstantial evidence. Both the last seen theory and the circumstantial evidences proved on record make the complete chain and sequence of events and clearly indicate towards the guilt of the accused.
63. As regards the contradictions with regard to recovery of weapon of offence are concerned, it is submitted that these are minor contradictions as one witness has stated the time as 4 pm, whereas other witness has stated the time for reaching the school as 6.00 pm and as such does not affect the prosecution case.
64. I have given my thoughtful considerations to the record, the S.C No.57731/16 State Vs Sandeep @ Sonu Page 45 of 59 arguments advanced by both the sides as well as the case laws relied by Ld. Defence Counsel.
65. It is a settled proposition of law that to bring home conviction, the prosecution has to establish its case beyond the pale of reasonable doubt by establishing an unbroken chains of events, leading to commission of the offence. It is further a settled proposition of law that once this chain is broken or a plausible theory of another possibility is shown, the accused becomes entitled to the benefit of doubt which ultimately leads to his/her acquittal. 1997 (3) Crimes 55 titled Sadhu Singh Vs State of Punjab.
66. Thus, the cardinal rule in the criminal law is that prosecution has to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt and the benefit of the doubt has to be given to the accused. In Batcu Venkateshwarlu Vs. Public Prosecutor High Court of A.P, (SC) 2009(1) R.C.R ( Criminal) 290 : 2009(1) R.A.J: 2008 (15) Scale 212, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:
"A person has, no doubt, a profound right not to be convicted of an offence which is not established by the evidential standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. Though this standard is a higher standard, there is, however, no absolute standard. What degree of probability amounts to "proof" is an exercise particular to each case..... Doubts would S.C No.57731/16 State Vs Sandeep @ Sonu Page 46 of 59 called reasonable if they are free from a zest for abstract speculation. Law cannot afford any favorite other than truth. To constitute reasonable doubt, it must be free from an over-emotional response. Doubts must be actual and substantial doubts as to the guilt of the accused persons arising from the evidence,or from the lack of it, as opposed to mere vague apprehensions. A reasonable doubt is not an imaginary, trivial or a merely possible doubt, but a fair doubt based upon reason and common sense. It must grow out of the evidence in the case."
67. Before adverting to the analysis of evidence which has come on record, it would be appropriate to first briefly discuss the offences with which the accused has been charged with.
68. In the instant case, the accused has been charged with the offence u/s 302/397/201/411 IPC.
69. The court shall firstly deal with the essential ingredients for offence u/s 302 IPC which prosecution is required to prove in order to establish the charge against the accused.
70. The offence of murder U/s 302 IPC is the most heinous crimes under the penal law which provides a maximum punishment uptil death. Section 302 IPC provides for punishment for murder in a very simple language thereby laying down that S.C No.57731/16 State Vs Sandeep @ Sonu Page 47 of 59 "whoever commits murder shall be punished with death or imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine". The substantive offence of murder is defined u/s 300 IPC which provides for a inclusive definition of murder, at the same time distinguishing it with section 299 IPC where the culpable homicide not amounting to murder has been explained. The offence of murder requires a perfect combination of important ingredients of crime which are mens rea and actus reus. It also prescribes that there should be a complete coherence between the actus and mens rea at the time of death of a person is committed. The section further provides that in case the degree of actus or mens rea is lessoned, or the circumstances falls under any of the exceptions as enumerated, in such an eventuality, the offence again slips back to Section 299 IPC. Simply stating in every offence of murder, there shall a culpable homicide as defined under section 299 IPC but not vice a versa. Reliance placed on (1997) 2 Crimes 78 titled Narsingh Challan Vs. State of Orissa.
71. When a death is caused by injuries, the case either covered within the purview of section 300, firstly, where the act is caused by intention of causing death or it may fall under section 300 thirdly where the intention of the accused is to cause bodily injuries on the deceased which are of such nature that they are sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death. The emphasize in later case is on sufficiency of injuries inflicted. This sufficiency is actually of such a nature that there is high probability of death being ensued in ordinary course of nature.
S.C No.57731/16 State Vs Sandeep @ Sonu Page 48 of 59When they do actually exist and death ensues as a result of causing of such intended injuries, the offence is murder. Reliance placed on 1997 CR. L.J. 2430 State Vs. Vishnu Daga Pagar.
72. Section 397 IPC is the aggravated form of robbery which deals with the offence of robbery or dacoity, with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt requires the following ingredients to be established:-
(i) Commission of Robbery or Dacoity by the accused persons;
(ii) At the time of commit robbery or dacoity, the accused person used deadly weapon or caused grievous hurt or attempt to cause death or grievous hurt;
(iii)The above acts were done during the commission of robbery or dacoity.
73. Further, it is pertinent to mention here that in cases like death / murder generally there are hardly any eye witness and law postulates in a criminal trial, two kinds of evidence adduced before the Court, one is the ocular evidence or the eye witness account which is basically taken to be a direct evidence and is based on the deposition of eye witness(es) on the basis of his/her observation made at the time of commission of crime. The other kind of evidence is circumstantial evidence which is basically known to be an indirect evidence, deduced from the existing facts and is an inference drawn from proved facts. Now this kind of evidence is also an admissible evidence in a criminal trial but S.C No.57731/16 State Vs Sandeep @ Sonu Page 49 of 59 this kind of evidence has to be treated with a lot of caution and circumspection by the criminal Court because of the inherent subjectivity in drawing the conclusions by the Court concerned. The jaw regarding the nature and character of proof of circumstantial evidence has been settled by several authorities of Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble High Courts in India. The locus classicus of the decision was rendered by Hon'ble Justice Mahajan of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Hanumant Vs State of Madhya Pradesh 1953 Crl L J 129 who expounded the concomitants of the proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence by holding:
"The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved.. it must be such as to show that within all human probability the act must have been done by the accused."
74. This was followed consistently by the Court in India in all future decision and was succinctly reiterated by a Full Bench Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex court in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs State of Maharastra, 1984 Crl L J 1738 where the Hon'ble Court while discussing the entire gamut of decision has laid down the five golden principles of proof in a case based on circumstantial evidence thereby laying down that the following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an accused can be fully established:
S.C No.57731/16 State Vs Sandeep @ Sonu Page 50 of 59(1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established.
(2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused that is to say, they should not be explained on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty.
(3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency.
(4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except that one to be proved, and (5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.
75. The case at hand is, based on circumstantial evidence. When a case rests on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances must not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused, but must also be inconsistent with his innocence meaning thereby that every reasonable possibility of innocence of accused must be excluded before the accused is held guilty of an offence on the strength of circumstantial evidence.
76. Further, in a case of circumstantial evidence, it is incumbent upon the court to satisfy itself that (1) various links in the chain of evidence led by the prosecution have been satisfactorily S.C No.57731/16 State Vs Sandeep @ Sonu Page 51 of 59 proved, (2) the said circumstance point to the guilt of the accused with reasonable definiteness, and (3) the circumstance is in proximity to the time and situation.
77. Now, I shall proceed to deal with the arguments of defence and determine if the circumstances in this case point towards the guilt of accused or his innocence.
78. As regards the argument of defence that the PW-3 is a planted witness, it is seen that his testimony is quite cogent and clear from any doubts. The argument of defence that he failed to inform the police about the presence of accused at the shop of deceased before the murder does not point out towards any contradiction. It is seen that generally a common man hesitates to reach out to police and provide vital information on his own. In the present case, when the police reached out to him, he immediately informed them about the presence of accused with deceased before the incident of murder. Therefore, the argument of defence does not hold any ground and is accordingly rejected.
79. Another argument raised to discredit the testimonies of PW-3 and PW-4 is that both have deposed that they had seen the accused on 26.05.2010, however, on that day, accused was in judicial custody. This argument has been duly countered by Ld. State Counsel and his arguments are in conformity with the record. Perusal of the record reveals that on the application of the accused for grant of custody parole for the performance of last rites of his deceased father, vide order dated 26.05.2010, Ld. S.C No.57731/16 State Vs Sandeep @ Sonu Page 52 of 59 M.M, West, Delhi had granted permission to the accused to visit his house for the said purpose. Therefore, the argument of defence is against the record and is accordingly rejected.
80. The other lame argument of defence is only of false implication without any supporting reasons. It is the settled proposition of law that in order to prove his innocence, the accused is under obligation to put forth the reasons and the circumstances leading to his false implication. However, in the present case, accused has failed to lead any defence evidence to prove his innocence.
81. Both PW-3 Lalit and PW-4 Sunny Maheshwari have deposed before the court that on the date of incident i.e 25.04.2010, they had seen the accused with the deceased at the latter's jewelery shop between 2.15 to 3.00 pm. As per the post mortem report Ex.PW21/A, the time of death is 5.30 pm. In other words, the deceased was lastly seen in the company of accused at the jewelery shop only 2.30 hours prior to the murder of deceased and as such the last seen theory comes into play.
82. The law with regard to the "last seen evidence" has been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a recent Judgment, titled Ganpat Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, reported as 2017 (4) JCC 2592, where the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows in para 10 of the Judgment:
"Evidence that the accused was last seen in the company of the deceased assumes significance when S.C No.57731/16 State Vs Sandeep @ Sonu Page 53 of 59 the lapse of time between the point when the accused and the deceased were seen together and when the deceased is found dead is so minimal as to exclude the possibility of a supervening event involving the death at the hands of another. The settled formulation of law as follows:
"The last seen theory comes into play where the time gap between the point of time when the accused and deceased were seen last alive and when the deceased is found dead is so small that possibility of any person other than the accused being the author of crime becomes impossible. It would be difficult in some cases to positively establish that the deceased was last seen with the accused when there is a long gap and possibility of other persons coming in between exists. In the absence of any other positive evidence to conclude that accused and deceased were last seen together, it would be hazardous to come to a conclusion of guilt in those cases".
83. Hon'ble Delhi High Court is case titled Deepak Chaddha Vs. State, reported as 2012 (1) JCC 540, has held that deceased and the appellant were last seen together at 07.30 pm when the two left the house of the deceased, and that the deceased was found grievously injured happens to be a public street at around 10.15 pm and this time gap of about 2 hours and 45 minutes does not rule out the possibility of somebody else being the assailant.
84. Again Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case titled Ravi Kumar S.C No.57731/16 State Vs Sandeep @ Sonu Page 54 of 59 @ Sonu Vs. State, reported as 2013 (2) JCC 1394, where gap of 15 hours was there between last seen evidence and recovery of the dead body and it was held that possibility cannot be ruled out that in the course of the night other persons would have boarded the TSR of the deceased for killing him.
85. Similar were the findings of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case reported as 2011 (3) JCC 1532 and 2017 (2) JCC
932.
86. Judging in the light of the said law laid down by the said Superior Courts with regard to last seen evidence, PW-3 Sh Lalit and PW-4 Sunny Maheshwari had seen the accused in the company of the deceased last time on 25.04.2010 at 03.00 pm, and as per the post mortem report Ex.PW21/A, the time of death of deceased is opined at 6.30 P.M. It is pertinent to note that PW- 1 Pawan had visited the DD Jewelers at around 5.00 P.M and thereafter, Panne Lal came there and he had first seen the deceased Ashok in injured condition with injuries on his head and neck in the presence of PW-1 Pawan Kumar. Therefore, it is clear from the circumstances that there was a time gap of only 02 hours and 30 minutes. In the said circumstances, there is no possibility of any other person intervening in between and the "last seen theory " is applicable in the present case.
87. As far as the contradictions pointed out in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses namely PW-12, PW-23 and PW-31 and PW- 35 are concerned, it is seen that all these witnesses have S.C No.57731/16 State Vs Sandeep @ Sonu Page 55 of 59 deposed regarding reaching the school for recovery of weapon of offence. All these witnesses have merely given different timings with regard to their reaching at the place of recovery with other minor contradictions. Perusal of the record shows that PW-23 was examined in the year 2014, PW-31 (IO of the case) was examined in the year 2016 and PW-35 was examined in the year 2018. All these witnesses have been examined after a gap of four years, six years and eight years respectively. Therefore, it cannot be expected of a human being to give accurate and exact details of the event after such a lapse of time. Also, these are minor contradictions considering the overall evidences brought on record and the circumstances of the case and as such, are not fatal to the case of the prosecution.
88. So far as the argument of defence that no chance prints have been lifted while the weapon of offence was recovered, it is seen that weapon of offence was recovered on 01.05.2010 i.e after 06 days of the incident and hence, there was remote possibility of getting the chance prints. Even otherwise, the incriminating evidence that has come on record against the accused is found sufficient to bring home the guilt of the accused. Also, when there is clear and cogent evidence, these lapses on the part of the IO can be ignored. It is the settled proposition of law that defence has to stand on his own legs and they cannot take advantage of the lacunas of the prosecution story.
89. I have perused the post mortem report conducted on S.C No.57731/16 State Vs Sandeep @ Sonu Page 56 of 59 26.04.2010. As per post mortem report Ex.PW12/A, the death of deceased has been opined to have caused by sharp edged like object on the neck injury and with a blunt object on the head. In the subsequent opinion Ex.PW21/B, PW-21 Dr. Santosh Kumar has opined that the external injury no. 3, 09, 10 and 11 could have been inflicted by the weapons of offence.
90. Therefore, in view of the post mortem report and the testimony of PW-3 and PW-4, it can be safely concluded that the presence of accused at the spot 2-3 hours prior to the incident has a proximate relation which clearly indicate towards the guilt of the accused.
91. Further, PW-12, PW-23 and PW-31 have also deposed to the effect that accused has disclosed to them that he had washed the clothes worn by him while committing the murder and based on this evidence, he is also found guilty of destruction of evidence.
92. Therefore, if the entire evidence that has come on record and the post mortem report is read cumulatively, they conclusively point towards a definite possibility that the deceased must have been killed by the accused and none else.
93. The recovery of jewelery articles from the possession of accused subsequent to his disclosure statement coupled with the fact that same were duly identified correctly by the brother of deceased who is also the owner of DD Jewelers during TIP S.C No.57731/16 State Vs Sandeep @ Sonu Page 57 of 59 proceedings, also point towards the guilt of the accused.
94. Perusal of the record also reveals that IO has moved an application for conducting TIP proceedings for identification of the accused by the prosecution witness, however, the accused refused to participate in the TIP proceedings. This refusal by the accused also goes against him.
95. This court is well aware of the settled principle of law that 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. However, in the instant case, there was no other possibility available and the entire evidence clearly indicates towards the only possibility that it was the accused who had committed the gruesome murder of deceased Ashok.
CONCLUSION.
96. Therefore, in view of the above discussion, I am of the considered opinion that being the position on facts and in law the chain of facts and circumstances and the connecting links stands proved. The prosecution has been able to establish or prove its version by proving circumstantial evidence unerringly pointing out towards the guilt of the accused and ruling out any hypothesis of innocence of the accused. In sum and substance, the prosecution has been able to bring the entire chain of evidences which, in totality, lead to a definite conclusion that in S.C No.57731/16 State Vs Sandeep @ Sonu Page 58 of 59 all human probability, it is the accused who on the date of incident, committed robbery of jewelery articles with the use of paper cutter and musal and also committed murder of deceased. Resultantly, the accused is held guilty of offences punishable u/s 302/397/411/201 IPC.
97. It is also clear from the record that accused has absconded during the trial and proclamation u/s 82 Cr.P.C was issued against him and later on, he was again arrested on 31.07.2015. Therefore, he is also held guilty of offence punishable u/s 174A IPC.
98. Let he be heard on the point of sentence.
Digitally signed by POORAN POORAN CHAND ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN CHAND Date: 2022.02.19 COURT ON THIS 19th day of 13:13:25 +0530 February, 2022 (POORAN CHAND) ADDI. SESSIONS JUDGE-02 (WEST):DELHI S.C No.57731/16 State Vs Sandeep @ Sonu Page 59 of 59