Delhi District Court
State vs . 1. Vinod Goswami, on 24 December, 2014
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAKESH KUMAR
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE :NORTH EAST:
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
SC No.114/2009
FIR No.173/2009
PS Bhajan Pura
U/s 365/302/201/34 IPC
State Vs. 1. Vinod Goswami,
S/o Mool Chand Goswami,
R/o B1/42, Yamuna Vihar, Delhi.
2. Pankaj Giri, S/o Gagan Prasad,
R/o Village Ram Pur, PS Palli,
District Aligarh, U.P.
:J U D G M E N T:
1. The above named accused persons have been charge
sheeted by SHO PS Bhajanpura U/s 365/302/201/34 IPC and
have faced trial for having committed the offence punishable
u/s 364/302/201/34 IPC.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 28.04.2009 a missing
report was lodged by Sh. Mahender Kumar regarding missing
of his son Rajeev Gupta and the said missing report was
registered vide DD No.22A. Information regarding the same
was also sent to Missing Persons Squad. Further on
05.05.2009 Mahender Kumar came to the Police Station and
got recorded his statement, wherein he alleged that "his son
namely Rajeev was doing the work of printing with him and on
28.04.2009, he went away without telling anything. He also
gave description of the physique and clothes worn by his son.
State Vs. Vinod Goswami & Anr. (SC No.114/2009) Page No.1 of pages 48
He also stated that his son had been kidnapped by some
unknown person". On this complaint a case U/s 365 IPC was
registered. Investigation was carried out and posters of missing
person were flashed. CBI was also informed about the same.
Further during investigation, Manoj Gupta, brother of missing
boy Rajeev Gupta, told him that on 28.04.2009 his brother
Rajeev had told him that he was going to meet Vinod Kumar
resident of B1 Block, Yamuna Vihar. On this information,
Vinod Goswami and his brother Rinku Goswami were
interrogated. Police collected the call details of mobile phones
of missing boy Rajeev Gupta (i.e. 0971248077 and 910487072)
and accused Vinod Goswami (i.e. 9990723510) and on
collection of said details, it came to be known that on
28.04.2009 at about 10.30 p.m call was made from mobile
phone number 9711508585 to mobile phone number
9810487072. It was further revealed that IMEI number of
mobile phone no.9990723510 of Vinod Goswami and mobile
phone number 9711508585, from which phone call was made
on the mobile phone of missing boy Rajeev Gupta, were the
same i.e. 354574011440930. On suspicion Vinod Goswami and
Rinku Goswami were interrogated and arrested. Accused
Vinod Goswami made disclosure statement interalia stating
that "he had taken Rs.70,000/ from Rajeev Gupta on loan.
Rajeev started demanding his money back and told him to
arrange money either by selling his wife or sister. He also
stated that he was not able to arrange money and Rajeev
started keeping an evil eye on his wife. He talked to his friend
Rinku Goswami and decided to eliminate Rajeev and also
included Pankaj Goswami (his cousin) in their plan. As per
their plan, on 27.04.2009 he alongwith accused Rinku went to
Aligarh, U.P in his WagonR Car No.DL3CAW1708 and took
Pankaj with them and came to Delhi. Further on 28.04.2009 in
State Vs. Vinod Goswami & Anr. (SC No.114/2009) Page No.2 of pages 48
the morning accused Vinod Goswami called Rajeev Gupta
from mobile having SIM No.9711508558 at about 10.20 a.m.
He asked Rajeev to meet him at Gandhi Juice Corner, BBlock,
Yamuna Vihar on the pretext that AC was to be installed in the
car and had to go to Bhopra. After some time Rajeev came
and they all sat in the car. He further stated that he himself
was driving the car. Rajeev sat in front seat with him and
Rinku and Pankaj sat on the rear seat and they all left towards
Ashok Nagar fly over. On the way of his signal Rinku gave jack
blow on the head of Rajeev and Pankaj put a rope around the
neck of Rajeev and pulled it and after some time Rajeev died.
Then they went towards Meerut and threw the dead body in a
nala. He further disclosed that before throwing the dead body
of Rajeev, he had removed the gold chain and kara worn by
Rajeev". Accused Pankaj Giri also made disclosure statement
that "on 27.04.2009 he had received call from his cousin Vinod
Goswami on his mobile phone no.9720439591, who asked him
to come to Delhi. He stated to him that he had no money on
which Vinod said that he would come and pick him up in his
car. On 28.04.2009 Vinod alongwith his friend Rinku came in
the Wagon R Car and took him to Delhi. On the way they told
him about their plan to kill Rajeev Gupta. Pankaj further
disclosed that initially he refused to join them but when Vinod
told him about wrong things stated by Rajeev for his (Vinod)
wife and sister and agreed to give him money, he joined hands
with them. Then in pursuance of their planning, they called
Rajeev on the pretext of installation of AC in the car and when
he came, they all left for Bhopura. In the way, Rinku gave jack
blow on the head of Rajeev 23 times and he put rope around
the neck of Rajeev and Vinod caught hold of one of hand of
Rajeev. Further he pulled the rope around the neck of Rajeev
and in few minutes, Rajeev died. Then they proceeded towards
State Vs. Vinod Goswami & Anr. (SC No.114/2009) Page No.3 of pages 48
Meerut with a view to dispose off the dead body of Rajeev and
threw the body in bushes in an isolated place. He also
disclosed that before throwing the dead body, Vinod Goswami
had removed the gold chain and kara worn by Rajeev".
Statement of Yogesh Mehta was got recorded under Sec.164
Cr.P.C to whom accused Vinod Goswami had allegedly sold
the gold chain and kara of deceased Rajeev Gupta. After
arrest of accused Pankaj Giri, his phone call details were also
collected. During investigation accused Rinku Goswami was
found to be juvenile, so his challan was filed before Juvenile
Court. During investigation police got recovered the jack which
was used in the commission of offence from/at the instance of
Rinku and mobile phone of deceased were also got recovered
at the instance of Vinod Goswami from Hindon river
Ghaziabad, U.P and the Wagon R Car No.DL3C AW1708 was
also seized by the police. Statements of witnesses were
recorded U/s 161 Cr.P.C by the police and Site Plan was also
prepared by police in this case. Then after completion of
investigation, charge sheet U/s 365/302/201/34 IPC was filed
against the accused persons namely Vinod Goswami and
Pankaj Goswami before the court of concerned Metropolitan
Magistrate to face the trial.
3. After supply of copies etc, Ld.MM committed the case to
the court of Sessions where after due deliberation charge
charge under Sec.364/302/201/34 IPC was framed against all
the accused persons, to which they pleaded not guilty and
claimed trial.
4. Prosecution examined 29 witnesses in all.
5. PW1 Mahender Kumar, is the father of deceased, and
after missing of his son Rajeev Gupta, he lodged the missing
report vide DD no.22A dated 28.04.2009 Ex.PW10/A and on
State Vs. Vinod Goswami & Anr. (SC No.114/2009) Page No.4 of pages 48
05.05.2009 he lodged the FIR No.173/09 Ex.PW11/A. He
stated that on 06.05.2009, police of PS Bhajanpura
apprehended the accused Vinod Goswami and he was
interrogated by the police and he took the police at U.P and
pointed out the place where from the dead body of Rajeev
Gupta was recovered by UP Police of PS Jani District Meerut
U.P on 29.04.2009. He had also produced the receipt of gold
kara and gold chain photocopies of which are Ex.PW1/A &
Ex.PW1/B respectively. While production of mobile phone of
deceased Rajeev before the court, he could not identify the
said mobile and stated that his elder son can identify the
mobile phone. He correctly identified black colour pajama and
Tshirt of deceased as Ex.P3 & P4.
PW2 Gaurav stated that he used to work with deceased
Rajeev at Darya Ganj, Delhi and on 28.04.2009 at about 10.30/
10.45 a.m he received a mobile phone call from his partner
Rajeev (since deceased) from his mobile phone no.
9212487072 (which was in the name of his mother Smt.
Santosh Gupta) on his mobile phone no.9212487073 to the
effect that he could come a little late as he is with one Vinod,
Pankaj and Rinku. He further stated that Rajeev told him that
he was going with Vinod, Pankaj and Rinku to Bhopura and he
asked him to reach at shop at Paharganj and further told that
he would come after some time. After waiting for some time,
he made calls to Rajeev but the calls were not attended.
Thereafter, from the shop, he came to the house of Rajeev and
informed the parents of Rajeev. Father of Rajeev namely
Mahender Kumar Gupta made call to Vinod but initially the call
was not attended but after sometime phone was attended and
Mahender Kumar Gupta had talked with Vinod. Vinod had also
come to the house and he was inquired about Rajeev and he
State Vs. Vinod Goswami & Anr. (SC No.114/2009) Page No.5 of pages 48
told that Rajeev was with him for 1015 minutes in the morning
time and thereafter, he went away. He stated that accused
Vinod is known to him as he was out friend and Vinod was
having money transaction with Rajeev. Further they had made
search for Rajeev but he could not be traced. Thereafter, Vinod
went to Vaishno Devi and after his coming back from there, he
was called in the PS and was interrogated by police.
PW3 Smt. Santosh, is the mother of deceased Rajeev,
and as per her version stated on 28.04.2009 at about 10.15 or
10.30 a.m her son Rajeev without talking and break fast went
out of the house while saying that Vinod had called him and he
would return back after 10 minutes and thereafter, he would
take bath and break fast and thereafter, he would go to
Paharganj. His son was wearing orange colour TShirt, black
colour pajama, gold chain, gold kara and took his two mobile
phones while leaving the house. After waiting for some time
when Rajeev did not return back, she informed her husband
about the said fact and her husband made a call from his
mobile no.9310177556 to Vinod and Vinod told her husband
that Rajeev was with him for 1015 minutes but presently he is
not with him and he also told that at present he is in Gurgaon.
Accused Vinod came to their house in the evening time and
assured that he would help them in searching Rajeev.
PW4 Yogesh Mehta, who is jeweler by profession,
stated that on 29.04.2009 at about 10.30 p.m when he was
present at his shop, one boy came there and had shown him a
gold kara and gold chain weighting 27 gms and 22 gms
respectively and that boy told him that he wanted to sell the kra
and chain but he refused to purchase the same. That boy had
come in Wagon R Car bearing registration no.DL3CAW1708
and while giving his mobile no.9990223510, he told him that his
State Vs. Vinod Goswami & Anr. (SC No.114/2009) Page No.6 of pages 48
father was not well and his condition is very serious.
Considering the circumstances and his request, he purchased
the above gold kara and gold chain from that boy for the
consideration of Rs.62,000/. Thereafter, that boy left his shop.
He identified accused Vinod to be the same person, who had
come to his shop to sell one gold kara and one gold chain. He
further stated that he had melted the above purchased gold
kara and gold chain to ascertain the purity and thereafter, he
had made the payment. Further on 09.05.2009 Insp. Ram
Kishore brought accused Vinod Goswami at his shop and
made inquiry about the sale/purchase of gold kara and gold
chain and also about the identification of accused. He
identified the accused and his statement was recorded to that
effect. On 16.05.2009 his statement U/s 164 Cr.P.C Ex.PW4/A
bearing his signature at point A was recorded by Ld. MM.
PW5 Shailender Yadav (another public witness and
neighbour of Mahender Gupta) stated that he knew Mahender
Gupta and his sons Rajeev Gupta & Manoj Gupta being
neighbour. On 28.04.2009 at about 10.00/10.15 a.m, he was
present in balcony of his house and he was ready to go to his
hop, he saw Rajeev and accused Vinod standing there in front
of the house of Rajeev and they were talking with each other
and within five minutes both Rajeev Gupta and Vinod moved
towards the side of Cblock. Thereafter, he came inside and
then went to his shop.
PW6 Manoj Kumar (real brother of deceased) stated
that on 28.04.2009 at about 10.15 a.m his brother Rajeev
(since deceased) told him that as he had received the phone of
Vinod Goswami, so he was going to meet Vinod and would
come after 1015 minutes. At that time his brother Rajeev was
wearing orange colour Tshirt, black colour pajama and rubber
State Vs. Vinod Goswami & Anr. (SC No.114/2009) Page No.7 of pages 48
slippers. He was also wearing one gold chain, gold kara and
carrying two mobile phones both make Nokia having no.
9810487072 (model N.70) and 9212487072 (model Nokia
folder). Further connection no.9212487072 was in the name of
his mother Smt. Santosh Gupta while other was in his own
name. He waited for his brother till 11/11.30 a.m and then he
went to his office at Paharganj and he came back from his
office to his house in noon time and by that time his brother
Rajeev had not returned back home and they kept on
searching him. At about 4.00/5.00 p.m, accused Vinod
Goswami told them that he would help them in tracing Rajeev.
Thereafter, his father lodged complainant at PS Bhajanpura.
On 08.05.2009 he alongwith Gaurav went in the area of PS
Jani District Bhagpat alongwith police and Vinod & Rinkoo
(juvenile), where police officials of PS Jani had shown some
clothes to them, which he identified to be the same which were
worn by his brother Rajeev when he left the house for meeting
accused Vinod Goswami. The said clothes were taken into
possession by the police after converting them into parcel vide
memo Ex.PW6/A. Police officials of PS Jani had also shown
some photographs of dead body of his brother Rajeev and he
had identified the photographs of dead body to be of his
brother Rajeev. Police also took into possession the said
photographs vide memo Ex.PW6/B. The said photographs on
record are Ex.P1 (colly.). Then accused took them to the spot
where they had dumped the dead body of his brother after
committing his murder on 28.04.2009. He further stated that
police had also prepared the pointing out memo Ex.PW6/C1 &
Ex.PW6/C2 of spot, pointed out by accused Vinod and Rinku,
where they had dumped the dead body of his brother after
killing him. Thereafter, they were taken to PS Jani and then
State Vs. Vinod Goswami & Anr. (SC No.114/2009) Page No.8 of pages 48
returned to PS Bhajanpura. Before coming to PS Bhajanpura,
accused persons had taken them to Hindon river and from
there they got recovered mobile phone model N70, which was
taken into police possession, after converting the same into
parcel, vide seizure memo Ex.PW6/D bearing his signature at
point A. After reaching at PS Bhajanpura, he had produced
the bill Ex.P2 of mobile phone Nokia Folder which was being
used with the SIM of Tata No.9212487072 and same was
seized vide memo Ex.PW6/E. One car jack was also recovered
near the dead body of his brother Rajeev within the jurisdiction
of PS Jani District Meerut, on the pointing out of accused
Rinku, which was seized vide memo Ex.PW6/F. He further
stated that he had also signed at point A on the Disclosure
Statement of accused Rinku Ex.PW6/G. He correctly identified
the jack as Ex.P6 to be the same which was recovered at the
instance of accused Rinku. He also identified clothes of
deceased i.e. one black colour pajama, orange colour T Shirt,
one rudrash mala, one part/piece of underwear, one bank of
hand as Ex.P3, PW4, Ex.P7, Ex.P8 and Ex.P9 respectively.
He also identified Nokia mobile phone model no.2505 as
Ex.P10, which was recovered from Hindon river.
PW7 SI (Retd.) Manohar Lal is the witness, who proved
on record the mechanical inspection report of vehicle WagonR
having registration no.DL3CAW1708 as Ex.PW7/A being his
signature at point A.
PW8 Mayur is the diver at Hindon river stated that at
about one year back 5/6 police officials had come at Hindon
river and they told him that he has to search for a mobile
phone. Accordingly at their instance, he went in the river but no
mobile phone could be recovered. He stated that thereafter,
they got his signatures on blank papers and then they left.
State Vs. Vinod Goswami & Anr. (SC No.114/2009) Page No.9 of pages 48
This witness was duly cross examined by Ld. Addl. PP but
nothing incriminating has come on record about the recovery of
phone belongs to deceased. He denied that Ex.PW6/D was
not a blank document when it was signed by him.
PW9 SI Mukesh Kumar Jain is the Draftsman, who
proved on record Site Plan Ex.PW10/A bearing his signature at
point A.
PW10 SI Krishan Dutt (the then Duty Officer at PS
Bhajanura) proved on record the DD entry no.22A as
Ex.PW10/A.
PW11 SI Balbir Singh (another Duty Officer at PS
Bhajanpura) proved on record the computerized copy of FIR as
Ex.PW11/A and his endorsement made on rukka as
Ex.PW11/B.
PW12 HC Braham Prakash stated that on 06.5.2009 he
had joined the investigation of this case with SI Hari Singh,
who called Vinod Goswami and Rinku Goswami to the PS vide
notice under section 160 Cr.P.C. Accused Vinod and Rinku
came to the PS and IO SI Hari Singh had interrogated them
and on sustained interrogation accused Vinod Goswami told
him that on 28.4.2009 at about 10.00 a.m he had called Rajiv
Gupta at Gandhi Juice Corner, Yamunna Vihar. Accused
Vinod, Pankaj and Rinku were present already at B1, block
Yamunna Vihar and Rajiv Gupta also came. Accused persons
had than taken Rajiv Gupta towards Bhopura side in a Wagon
R and when the vehicle had reached Ashok Nagar Fly over,
accused Rinku had struck on head of Rajiv Gupta and accused
Pankaj had put a string around the neck of Rajiv Gupta and
pulled it. When deceased Rajiv was strangulated, he had
struggled (chatpatya) on which accused Vinod Gowasmi, who
was driving the vehicle also caught the hand of the deceased.
State Vs. Vinod Goswami & Anr. (SC No.114/2009) Page No.10 of pages 48
When Rajiv Gupta died, his dead body was thrown in the
Meerut jungle. Further accused Vinod and Rinku were arrested
vide memo arrest memo Ex.PW12/A and PW12/B and their
personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW 12/A1 and
PW12/B2 bearing his signature at pointA. The disclosure
statement of accused Vinod Ex.PW12/C and that of accused
Rinku Ex.PW12/D was recorded which also bears his
signatures at pointD.
PW13 HC Ram Gopal [the then MHC(M) at PS
Bhajanpura] stated that on 5.5.2009 SI Hari Singh has
deposited personal search of accused Vinod Goswami and
same was entered at serial No. 2310. Further on 08.05.2009,
Insp. Ram Kishore had deposited the case property comprising
of Jack and mobile phone etc. which was entered at serial No.
2316. On 29.6.09 the exhibits were sent to FSL Rohini vide RC
No. 57/21. On 3.8.2009 the result from the FSL Rohini had
been received along with a sealed envelop through Ct. Jeet
Pal. On 7.6.2010 four sealed parcels from FSL Rohini were
received through Ct. Hawa Singh. The report was handed over
to IO Insp. Hans Raj. Further on 9.5.2009 a Wegnar Car No.
DL3CAW1708 was deposited in the malkhana. On 17.7.09 the
vehicle was released on superdari on the orders of the court.
On 25.6.09 the said car vide RC No.54/21 was sent to FSL
Rohini. On the same day the car was deposited back in the
malkhana. The entires was made at serial No.2321. On
25.6.09 two envelops duly sealed was deposited by Insp. Ram
Kishore and the same was entered at serial No.2398. He
proved on record the photocopies of relevant entries as
Ex.PW13/A (colly.).
PW14 Dr. Ravi Prakash (Consultant Orthopedic, District
Hospital, Meerut, U.P) is the witness, who appeared before the
State Vs. Vinod Goswami & Anr. (SC No.114/2009) Page No.11 of pages 48
court to depose on behalf of Dr. N.P.Sharma. He stated that as
per record of postmortem report bearing No.504/09
Ex.PW14/A (bearing the signature of Dr. N. P. Sharma at point
A) conducted by Dr. N.P.Sharma, on 02.05.2009 at about 2.20
p.m. a postmortem was conducted on an unknown dead body
on the request of IO. As per Postmortem report Ex.PW14/A,
Dr. N.P.Sharma opined the cause of death "due to shock and
hemorrhage because of antemortem injuries and time since
death about four days". After the postmortem Dr. N. P. Sharma
handed over two sealed parcels duly sealed with the seal of
Hospital to concerned police official. At the time of conducting
the postmortem Dr. N. P. Sharma also mentioned the fact that
the body of unknown person about 25 year of age male body.
During his cross examination, he conceded that injuries
mentioned in the postmortem report at Sl. No.1 to 3 can be
sustained by way of accident.
PW15 Sh. Surender Kumar (Asstt. Nodal Officer, Idea
Cellular) produced before the court certificate U/s 65 B of the
Evidence Act along with the called records pertaining to the
period between 24.04.2009 till 05.05.2009 in respect of Mobile
No.9990223510. He stated that as per record, the registered
user of the said mobile number having SIM number as
89910434020856197908 is of Lakhan Singh S/o Khichdu Mal
and the address as per record is H. 48/1, Jai Prakash Marg,
Ghonda, Delhi53. He proved on record the copy of same as
Ex.PW15/A (OSR). He also proved on record the certificate
U/s 65 B Evidence Act as Ex.PW15/B bearing his signature at
point A. He has produced before the court the Cell ID chart
details comprising of 48 pages and proved on record as
Ex.PW15/C. He further proved on record the call details of the
above mentioned number for the afore mentioned period as
State Vs. Vinod Goswami & Anr. (SC No.114/2009) Page No.12 of pages 48
Ex.PW15/D. He further stated that the Cell ID located by
counting the last but one four digits of the cell ID example if the
last five digits of the cell ID are 31353 then the cell ID is 3135.
As per record the said mobile number was a prepaid
connection.
PW16 Sh. Manish Kumar Singh (Assistant Nodal
Officer, Tata Tele Services Ltd.) produced before the court
certificate U/s 65 B of the Evidence Act along with the called
records pertaining to the period between 20.04.2009 till
30.4.2009 in respect of Mobile No. 9212487072. He stated that
as per record the registered user of the said mobile CDMA and
the address as per record is B1/233 Yamuna Vihar B1 Block,
Delhi. He proved on record copy of the same as Ex.PW16/A.
He also proved on record the certificate U/s 65 B of Evidence
Act as Ex.PW16/B bearing his signature at point A. He also
produced before the court the Cell ID chart details comprising
of 17 pages and proved the same on record as Ex.PW16/C.
He further proved on record the call details of the above
mentioned number for the aforesaid said period as
Ex.PW16/D and stated that the abovesaid mobile number is
postpaid connection.
PW17 SI Subhash Chand (the then Head Muharrar at
PS Jani, District Meerut) stated that on 02.05.2009, Ct. Vijay
and Home Guard Devender had deposited a pullenda Bandal
regarding unknown deceased and he had retained the same in
the Malkhana. One photograph was also kept along with the
pullenda Bandal. On 08.05.2009, One Inspector had come
from Delhi to PS Jani, who was also accompanied by three
persons namely Vinod, Rinku and one other person. On the
asking of SO PS Jani, after opening the sealed pullanda he
had shown the clothes comprising a baniyan, one Tshirt of
State Vs. Vinod Goswami & Anr. (SC No.114/2009) Page No.13 of pages 48
orange colour, one black coloured lover with strip on the side,
one rudraksh mala and one patti used for tying on the hand, to
them. The photo was identified as belonging to deceased
Rajeev by his brother. The clothes were again be sealed and
the pullenda was made vide seizure memo Ex. PW 16/A
signed by me at point A. The pullenda of the clothes was
handed over the IO. He correctly identified the Pajama, orange
Tshirt, Mala, hand band and underwear as Ex.P3, Ex.P4,
Ex.P7, Ex. P8 and Ex. P9 respectively.
PW18 SI Satyal Pal Singh stated that on 29.04.2009 he
was posted in PS Jani District Meerut as SI. Bhopal Singh
pradhan of Village Panchli had informed the police station that
near the fields of Mahipal an unknown dead body is lying. On
receipt of the information he alongwith Ct. Vijay Singh, Home
Guard Devender reached the spot. He had observed an
unknown dead body lying in the nala. He had called the
photographer and the photographs of the dead body were
taken. He had called five public persons and prepared the
panchnama. He tried to know the identity of the dead body but
nothing could be found. He handed over the body to Ct. Vijay
Singh and Home Guard Devender and the same was sent to
mortuary at Medical College Meerut. The dead body was
preserved for 72 hours and the PM was got conducted on
02.05.2009. The constables brought back the clothes etc. of
the dead body and the pullenda was deposited in the
Malkhana. On 08.05.2009, Inspector Ram Kishore along with
one subinspector, two constables, two accused persons and
one other person, who later on identify himself being the
brother of the deceased had come to PS Jani. He had handed
over to them three photographs, copy of panchayatnama etc.
He had also taken them to the spot where the dead body was
State Vs. Vinod Goswami & Anr. (SC No.114/2009) Page No.14 of pages 48
found and shown them the place. The IO has prepared the site
plan etc. He correctly identified the photographs as
Ex.PW18/A(colly.). He stated that photographs were seized by
the IO vide Ex.PW6/B. He proved on record the
panchayatnama, GD Entry No.18 dated 29.04.2009 and police
form no.13 i.e. filled up along with the panchayatnama as
Ex.PW18/B, mark P18/A & Ex.PW18/C respectively. He
stated that he had also prepared the documents relating to
finger print, report to reserve inspector, report to CMO, sample
seal vide documents Ex.PW18/E, Ex.PW18/F, Ex.PW18/G
and Ex.PW18/H. On the request of Ld. Addl. PP, he was cross
examined wherein he conceded that the information regarding
the dead body was registered in the case vide GD No.18 dated
29.04.2009 at 09:20 a.m and he had stated that age of the
deceased was about 25 years, Height about 5.6" bearing
orange Tshirt and black trouser pant. He further conceded that
one person had accompanied with the IO of the present case
at PS Jani, who had seen the photographs of the dead body
and identified the dead body from the photographs as being of
his brother Rajeev Gupta.
PW19 V. Sankaranarayanan (Expert from FSL Rohini)
stated that on 25.6.2009 he along with Indresh Kumar Mishra
(Scientific Asst.) and Yogesh Kumar (Scientific Associate)
inspected the vehicle Maruti Wagon R Car No. DL 3C AN 1708
at FSL Campus. The above said vehicle was thoroughly
examined for blood and other biological clue materials. The
blood stained cutting from rear seat and blood stained cutting
of mat from rear seat side were taken and handed over to IO
for onward transmission to FSL for further examination. He
proved on record his report as Ex.PW19/A signed by him at
pointA. He correctly identified the vehicle i.e. Wagon R Car
State Vs. Vinod Goswami & Anr. (SC No.114/2009) Page No.15 of pages 48
No.DL3C AN 1708 at the time of its production before the
Court to be the same which he had examined.
PW20 Israr Babu (Internet Nodal Officer Vodafone)
produced before the court certificate U/s 65 (B) (4) (c)
Evidence Act signed by him at point A and proved on record
the same as Ex.PW20/A. He also produced and proved on
record the call details in respect of mobile number 9711508558
from 25.4.2009 to 5.5.2009 as Ex.PW20/B. He stated that as
per record the above said telephone number is in the name of
one Jagmohan Singh S/o Ram Prasad R/o A216, Gali No.8,
South Gamri Ghonda, Delhi. He further stated that applicant
had also produced photocopy of ration card Ex.PW20/D along
with the application Ex.PW20/C. He also proved on record the
Cell ID Chart Details compromising of 67 pages as Ex.PW
20/E. As per record, the said mobile phone was a prepaid
connection. He also proved on record the computer generated
call details of mobile phone no.9720439591 pertaining to the
period 26.04.2009 to 28.04.2009 alongwith the certificate u/s
65 B (4) (c) of the Evidence Act. He stated that this connection
is in the name of Pankaj Kumar S/o Ganga Prasad R/o 82,
Rampur Gusai Atorli, Aligarh, U.P. He also proved on record
the subscription form filled up at the time of issuing the
connection alongwith photograph of subscriber and photocopy
of election I Card given for connection with application as
Ex.PW20/D. He further proved on record Sale I.D of UP West
Circle of Vodafone as Ex.PW20/J. During cross examination he
conceded that as per their register, consumer of mobile phone
no.9711508558 was Jagmohan Singh. Further he can not tell,
who was the user of said number. The service of this number
was stopped on 10.11.2009.
PW21 HC Surinder Singh stated that on 09/05/2009 he
State Vs. Vinod Goswami & Anr. (SC No.114/2009) Page No.16 of pages 48
had joined the investigation of present case with SI Shishupal
and IO Inspector Ram Kishore. IO had taken out the accused
Vinod Goswami from the lockup and they all left for Aligarh in a
private vehicle. They came to know that coaccused Pankaj
Giri had gone to village Gangori. Thereafter, they all reached
village Gangori. There IO met the chacha of Pankaj Giri, who
informed him that Pankaj Giri has gone to Yamuna Vihar, Delhi.
Thereafter, when they were coming back to Delhi and on the
way they have reached at shop no.3, Nehru Nagar, Ghaziabad,
U.P., accused Vinod Goswami pointed out the shop and told
the IO that it was the same shop where he had sold the gold
Kada and gold chain. Thereafter, accused Vinod Goswami got
recovered a wagon R car from a park near his house bearing
no.DL3C AW 1708 and same was seized vide seizure memo
Ex. PW21/A signed by him at point A. Thereafter, they reached
one Yamuna Vihar where on the pointing out of accused Vinod
Goswami, other accused Pankaj Giri was arrested and his
personal search was conducted by the IO vide memos
Ex.PW21/B and PW21/B1 respectively. He correctly identified
the above said car as Ex.PX1. He stated that accused Pankaj
Giri was arrested and he made his disclosure statement
Ex.PW21/C. Accused Pankaj also pointed out the place of
commission of offence vide pointing out memo Ex.PW21/D.
PW22 Ms. Shivani Sharma, the then Ld. MM, confirmed
that on 16.05.2009 she recorded the statement of witness
Yogesh Mehta U/s 164 Cr.P.C which is Ex.PW4/A and she also
proved her certificate to the correctness of the statement. She
however, stated that she had not gone through the statement
of witness recorded by IO U/s 161 Cr.P.C before recording the
statement U/s 164 Cr.P.C.
PW23 HC Yashvir Singh [the then MHC(M) at PS
State Vs. Vinod Goswami & Anr. (SC No.114/2009) Page No.17 of pages 48
Bhajan Pura] confirmed that on 06.05.2009 SI hari Singh
deposited the personal search of accused Vinod Goswami in
the malkhana and he made the entry in this regard in register
no.19 at Sl. No.2310. He further confirmed that on 08.05.2009
Insp. Ram Kishore deposited the case property comprising of
jack and mobile phone etc. which was entered at Sl. No.2316.
He further confirmed that on 29.06.2009, the exhibits were sent
to FSL Rohni vide RC No.57/21 and on 03.08.2009 the result
from FSL Rohini was received through Ct. Jeet Pal. On
07.06.2010, four sealed parcels from FSL Rohini were received
through Ct. Hawa Singh. He further confirmed that on
09.05.2009 WagonR Car No.DL3CAW1708 was deposited in
malkhana and on 17.07.2009 the said vehicle was released on
superdari on the order of court and on 25.06.2009, the said car
was sent to FSL Rohini vide RC No.54/21. The entries to that
regard was made at Sl. No.23/21. On 25.06.2009 two
envelopes duly sealed was deposited by Inasp. Ram Kishore
and teh same was registered at Sl. No.2398. The photocopies
of relevant entries are Ex.PW13/A (colly.).
PW24 Ct. Hawa Singh stated that on 25.06.2009 he
accompanied Insp. Ram Kishore, who had taken the aforesaid
Wagon R Car to FSL Rohini for examination/inspection. After
inspection of the car, the expert handed two envelopes one
containing blood stains of back seat and pieces of mat. Both
the parcels were sealed with the seal of RK and they were
seized vide memo Ex.PW24/A. On 29.06.2009 he had taken
four sealed parcles from MHC(M) vide RC No.57/21 for
depositing the same to FSL Rohini. After depositing the
parcels, the copy of RC and receipt of MHC(M).
During cross examination he stated that he had not
noticed any blood stained mark in the car as he was sitting in
State Vs. Vinod Goswami & Anr. (SC No.114/2009) Page No.18 of pages 48
the front seat. He had not observed any material change in the
car while returning from FSL. He could not confirm as to
whether any articles were there inside the car or some foot
mats were there in the car or not.
PW25 SI Hari Singh stated that on 28.04.2009 on
receipt of DD No.22A regarding missing of one boy namely
Rajeev Gupta aged about 24 years and the same was
assigned to him for necessary action. Computerized missing
report is Ex.PW25/A. He flashed WT message, sent
information to missing person square and other authorities to
trace the missing boy. The missing person form is Ex.PW25/B
and WT message is Ex.PW25/C. He further stated that on
05.05.2009, Mahender Kumar came to PS and got recorded
his statement Ex.PW1/A upon which he made endorsement
Ex.PW25/D and got the FIR Ex.PW11/A registered thereupon.
He claimed that the brother of missing boy namely Manoj told
him that Rajeev (missing boy) had told him lastly that he was
going to meet Vinod. On 06.05.2009, the accused Vinod was
interrogated and arrested vide memo Ex.PW12/B and his
personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW12/B1. His
disclosure statement Ex.PW12/C was also recorded. Then he
obtained the call details of the mobile phone of Rajeev.
Subsequently, accused Pankaj and Rinku were also arrested in
this case. Lateron, in this case offence U/s 302 IPC was also
added. On 08.05.2009, in the morning, he alongwith accused
Vinod, Rinku and other staff besides IO and son of
complainant namely Manoj went to Meerut by pass, where the
accused persons led them towards a dry drain made of small
bridge surrounded by bushes and covering up around 15 to 20
meters on foot, the accused persons pointed out a place where
bridge was broken and pointed out towards a palm tree and
State Vs. Vinod Goswami & Anr. (SC No.114/2009) Page No.19 of pages 48
some bushes where they had dump the dead body of Rajeev
after killing him on 28.04.2009 vide pointing out memo
Ex.PW6/C1 & C2. The body was brought in the Wagon R car
no. DL3SAW1708. They also went to PS Jani where Incharge
of PS SI Om Prakash confirmed that on 29.04.2009 at the
place pointed out by the accused, the body of a young person
was found and the same was recovered by SI Satpal, who
handed over three photographs of the recovered body which
was seized by the IO vide memo Ex.PW6/B. The public
witness Manoj identified the photographs to be of his deceased
brother Rajeev. SI Satpal also handed over a cloth parcel
containing the clothes of deceased which were identified by
Manoj to be of deceased Rajeev and teh said clothes were
seized vide memo Ex.PW6/A. Thereafter, they came back to
the place where the dead body was thrown. At that place Rinku
got recovered a jack from a sugarcane field which was seized
vide Memo Ex.PW6/F. On the way back at Hindon river at
Ghaziabad, the accused persons had pointed out the place i.e.
river where they had thrown two mobile phones of the
deceased. IO handed them the stones and asked them to
throw the stones near the place where they had thrown the
mobile phone and they complied. Thereafter, one diver namely
Mayur was called, who got recovered one mobile phone from
the place between pillar no.3 & 4. PW Manoj had identified the
said mobile phone to be of his deceased brother Rajeev. The
Nokia mobile phone having one Tata Indicom SIM was seized
vide memo Ex.PW6/D. However, despite best efforts another
mobile phone could not be recovered.
During cross examination he conceded that at the time of
lodging of missing report father of the deceased namely
Mahender Gupta had not shown any suspicion on any person.
State Vs. Vinod Goswami & Anr. (SC No.114/2009) Page No.20 of pages 48
He conceded that from the period 28.04.2009 till the date of
recording of FIR i.e. 05.05.2009, no clue was with them
regarding accused of the case and the accused persons are
not named in the FIR. He admitted that Mahender Gupta,
Manoj Gupta, Shailender Yadav and Gaurav Seth had not met
him between 28.04.2009 to 05.05.2009 during inquiry initiated
on DD No.22A. He conceded that during the oral inquiry they
did not place any suspicion on accused persons. He admitted
that he had made endorsement on the statement of Mahender
Gupta on which FIR was registered but he did not tell about the
call details collected by him regarding the phone number of
Rajeev Gupta at the time of lodging of FIR. He claimed that
Manoj Gupta had disclosed the name of Vinod Goswami in his
statement recorded on 05.05.2009. The phone numbers of
deceased weer given to him by Manoj Gupta after lodging of
missing report and before lodging of FIR but he did not obtain
any documentary record regarding the phone numbers. He
had called the accused Vinod Goswami on 06.05.2009 in the
PS but he had not collected any documentary proof regarding
friendship between deceased and Vinod Goswami. He
conceded that the deceased and Vinod goswami were not the
immediate neighbours. He admitted that as per the statements
of Gaurav Seth and Shailender Yadav dated 07.05.2009 they
had also seen the deceased going with accused Vinod
Goswami on 28.04.2009. At the time of arrest of accused
Vinod Goswami there was no public person present in the PS.
In their statements, Mahender Gupta and Manoj Gupta had not
disclosed regarding any money transaction between deceased
Vinod Goswami.
PW26 SI Shishu Pal stated that on 09.05.2009 he
alongwith Insp. Ram Kishore and accused Vinod Goswami
State Vs. Vinod Goswami & Anr. (SC No.114/2009) Page No.21 of pages 48
went to Aligarh for the arrest of coaccused Pankaj but he
could not be traced there. On the way back to Delhi IO made
inquiry from a shop of gold smith, at the instance of accused
Vinod Goswami, to whom he had sold the stolen property.
Thereafter, aforesaid Wagon R of metallic silver colour was
recovered from B1 Block, Yamuna Vihar. Thereafter in the way
at the instance of accused Vinod Goswami accused Pankaj
was interrogated and arrested vide memos Ex.PW21/B & B1.
His disclosure statement Ex.PW21/C was recorded and then
the pointing out memo of the place of dumping of dead body of
Rajeev Ex.PW21/D was prepared.
PW27 Inspector Hansraj Thakran stated that on
14.07.2009, investigation of the case was handed over to him
and on 18.07.09 he carried out the inspection of vehicle
"Wagon R" DL 3CAW 1708 from the Motor Vehicle Expert
namely Manohar Lal Dhyani, who handed over him his
inspection report Ex.PW7/A. Vehicle was released on
superdari to the Superdar. On 21.07.09 he collected the bone
age report qua Rinku from GTB hospital. Further on 23.07.09
Ld. MM directed for getting the inquiry done from Medical
Board regarding his age. On 03.08.09 Mahender Kumar
handed him the photocopy of the receipt of Kada (gents
bangle) and of chain Ex.PW1/A and Ex.PW7/B. He seized the
same through seizure memo Ex.PW27/A. He collected the
FSL report. He also got verified the mobile numbers used by
accused persons no. 9990223510 and 9711508558. It was
revealed that these numbers were got issued on fake
identification. Identity proof given for issuance of the SIM
cards were found to be non existence. He tried to collect the
subsequent opinion relating to weapon of offence used in this
case i.e Jack (used for used in opening the wheel of the
State Vs. Vinod Goswami & Anr. (SC No.114/2009) Page No.22 of pages 48
vehicle) but the doctor who had conducted the post mortem
report was found admitted having with ailment of cancer, so the
subsequent opinion could not be obtained despite efforts.
PW28 Ms. Anita Chhari [FSL Expert (Biology Section)
Rohini, Delhi] stated that in this case four sealed parcels all
with the seal of RK except one parcel which was in the seal of
OP SIUPP. were received in her office on 29.06.09, out of
which two were sealed envelops and two were cloth parcels.
From parcel no.1 which was with the seal of OP SIUPP five
sub parcels kept in polythene bags were taken out which were
numbered as Ex.1a, 1b, 1c,1d and 1e. From Ex.1a one damp
foul smelling cut/torn dirty Tshirt was taken out, From Ex. 1b
one damp foul smelling cut/torn dirty Payjama was taken out,
From Ex. 1c one damp foul smelling dirty cloth piece was taken
out, From Ex. 1d one damp foul smelling maala was taken out,
From Ex. 1e one damp foul smelling dirty threads were taken
out. From parcel no.2 which was with the seal of RK one jack
(usually used to opening the wheel of the vehicle) was taken
out. From parcel no.3 sealed envelop with the seal of RK cloth
pieces described as blood stained cutting from the rear seat of
the car was taken out. From parcel no.4 sealed envelop with
the seal of RK Raxine pieces described as blood stained
cutting of mat from the rear seat side of the car was taken
out. All those exhibits were examined with the help of scientific
equipment and apparatus and on all the exhibits referred
above blood was detected. On further examination no reaction
was found regarding spices of origin except of jack which was
of human blood. She proved her report on record as
Ex.PW28A bearing her signature at point A
PW-29 Inspector Ram Kishore (another IO of the case)
stated that on 07.05.2009 investigation of the case was
State Vs. Vinod Goswami & Anr. (SC No.114/2009) Page No.23 of pages 48
assigned to him. On 08.05.09 in the morning he alongwith SI
Hari Singh, Ct. Pradeep and another constable besides brother
of deceased Manoj Gupta left the PS with accused Vinod and
juvenile Rinkoo for village panchli pur, Meerut and on Baghpat
road towards a dry drain broken culvert where accused Vinod
and Rinkoo pointed out the place where they had thrown the
dead body of deceased Rajeev Gupta vide pointing out memo
Ex.PW6/C2 and Ex.PW6/C1 respectively. They went to PS
Jani where Incharge of PS SI Om Prakash met them, who told
them that from that spot one dead body was recovered by
them on 29.04.09. It was recovered as unknown dead body
and proceeding qua that was being done by SI Satpal.
Accordingly, he met SI Satpal, who had shown him three
photographs of the recovered dead body Ex.PW18/A(colly.)
and after seeing the photographs, Manoj (brother of deceased)
identified the dead body of his brother namely Rajeev Gupta.
He took the photographs into police possession vide memo
Ex.PW6/B and SI Satpal and Manoj signed as witnesses. HC
Subash after opening the sealed parcel shown the Tshirt, one
trouser, one underwear, one Rudraksh maala and one pant of
nylon (all stained in blood) to Manoj Gupta (brother of
deceased), who identified the same be of his brother Rajeev.
Thereafter, he took all these items into police possession vide
seizure memo Ex.PW 6/A and then went to the spot with all the
members stated above and SI Satpal of UP police where, SI
Satpal had shown him the spot from where the dead body was
recovered. Then they came to the police station Jahanvi and
interrogated the accused and juvenile. Both of them made
disclosure statement Ex.PW5/F and 6/G. On his request, the
UP police officials handed him the post mortem report
Ex.PW14/A, the inquest paper/form Ex.PW18/B, seizure memo
State Vs. Vinod Goswami & Anr. (SC No.114/2009) Page No.24 of pages 48
Ex.PW18/A and other corresponding documents including
Ex.PW18/C,D,E,F,G and H. He made DD entry in this regard
at PS Jahanvi vide DD entry Ex.PW29/B. Thereafter juvenile
Rinkoo pointed out towards the sugarcane field and picked up
one iron jack, which was used for opening the vehicle and he
told that by that jack he had hit deceased on his head. He took
into possession the said jack vide memo Ex.PW6/F. The
sugarcane field was near to the place where the dead body
was thrown/dump. Thereafter, they left for Delhi and on being
pointed out by accused Vinod and juvenile Rinkoo they
stopped at Hinden River bridge while going from Ghaziabad to
Mohan Nagar. Accused Vinod and juvenile Rinkoo stood up
between pillar no.3 and 4 and threw stones in the river showing
the place in the river where they had thrown two mobile phones
of deceased after killing him. Mobile make N72 Nokia was
thrown by Rinkoo and Nokia 2505 was thrown by Vinod.
Thereafter he called the divers and they dove inside the river to
find out the mobile instrument phone. After some time, the
diver namely Mayur found one folding Nokia mobile and on
opening it found containing the SIM card of TATA Indicom.
Brother of the deceased Manoj gupta identified the mobile
instrument phone to be of his brother. After noting down the
numbers of the mobile phone he took into possession the said
mobile vide seizure memo Ex.PW6/D. However, the another
mobile phone make Nokia Modal N72 could not be traced.
Accused Vinod took them to his house i.e B1/42 Yamuna
vihar, Delhi and got recovered one mobile phone, which was
also took into possession vide memo Ex.PW29/A. In the PS
Manoj Gupta, brother of deceased handed him the original
receipt Ex.P2, which was seized vide memo Ex.PW6/E.
Statement of diver Mayur Ex.PW29/B was recorded. On
State Vs. Vinod Goswami & Anr. (SC No.114/2009) Page No.25 of pages 48
09.05.09 he left the PS with SI Shishu Pal, Ct. Surender and
accused Vinod after taking permission from the senior officer in
private vehicle and went to Aligarh in search of coaccused
Pankaj. First of all they reached village Gosain, Ram Pur but
accused Pankaj was not found there. On interrogation it was
revealed that Pankaj had gone to Gangari at the house of
maternal uncle of Vinod namely Kishan Giri. Accordingly, they
reached Gangari, where Kishan giri met them and he told that
Pankaj has gone to the house of his uncle Mool Chand,
Yamuna Vihar, Delhi. On the way back to Delhi from Aligarh
accused pointed out one shop no.III H196 Nehru Nagar,
Ghaziabad and told that at this jeweller shop he had sold the
bracelet (kada) and chain of deceased, both were of gold. One
Yogesh Mehta met them in the shop. He was interrogated and
told that accused Vinod had sold the above stated two gold
items to him and he had paid Rs. 62,000/ to Vinod and
subsequently he got melted. For this reason the gold Kada and
chain could not be recovered. Thereafter, they returned to
Delhi and accused Vinod took to B1 block near his house and
got recovered one Maruti Wagon R bearing no.DL3CAW 1708
of Metallic Silver colour. Some blood mark was there on the
rear seat of the driver seat and the front seat. Accused persons
had told that in that very car they had removed the dead body
of deceased Rajeev Gupta and thrown the same within the
jurisdiction of PS Jahanvi and in that vehicle only he was killed.
The car was taken into possession vide seizure memo
Ex.PW21/A. Thereafter, accused Pankaj was found coming
towards them. Accused Vinod had pointed out towards Pankaj,
who was with him in commission of this crime. Accused Pankaj
was apprehended and he was arrested in this case vide arrest
memo Ex.PW4/B and his personal search was also conducted
State Vs. Vinod Goswami & Anr. (SC No.114/2009) Page No.26 of pages 48
vide personal search memos Ex.PW4/B1. Accused Pankaj
made disclosure statement Ex.PW4/C. Thereafter, accused
took them to the place where he along with Vinod and juvenile
Rinkoo had thrown the dead body of Rajeev near village
Panchali Pur, Meerut, Bagpat, UP near the broken bridge and
pointed out the said place vide pointing out memo Ex.PW4/D.
On 16.05.09 the statement of witness Yogesh Mehta was got
recorded U/s 164 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, he obtained the mobile
phone call details of Pankaj Giri no.9720439591 and then on
analyzing the same with the call details of coaccused Vinod's
no.9990223510, it transpired that on 27.04.09 both had
conversed with each other for 67 times. All the phone calls
were made from the mobile phone number of accused Vinod
and location of accused Pankaj was found to be of the area
Aligarh on 27.04.09 but his position got changed on 28.04.09
and it was found to be of the area Sahibabad, Ghaziabad, UP.
The location indicated that the way from Jamuna Vihar to the
place where the dead body was thrown. On further analysis of
the phone of Vinod, it was found that after inserting the
different SIM card of no.9711508558 he had called on the
numbers of deceased Rajiv Gupta i.e. 9210487072 and
9810487072. Accused Vinod had taken out the regular SIM no.
9990223510 which he had been using at about 9.00 a.m on
28.04.2009 and again inserted the same in the instrument
approximately about 3.00 p.m. On 12.06.09 he along with
draftsman SI Mukesh Kumar Jain had visited the broken pulia
village Panchali Distt. Meerut where he took the measurement
of the spot and prepared the site plan Ex.PW10/A. Further on
25.06.09 the aforesaid Wagon R through RC no.53/21/09 was
taken to FSL Rohini for expert examination and the same was
got examined the expert and after examination they handed
State Vs. Vinod Goswami & Anr. (SC No.114/2009) Page No.27 of pages 48
over him two envelopes and he sealed the same with his seal
and took into police possession through seizure memo
Ex.PW24/A. On 29.06.09, on his instruction Ct. Hawa Singh
had collected four sealed parcels through RC57/21 with
forwarding letter to the FSL for depositing the same. On
07.07.09 he moved application Ex.PW29/E to MLO Shekh Sarai
Authority, new Delhi for providing the ownership of Wagon R
car No. DL 3 CAW 1708. It was informed to him that the
vehicle belongs to the family of accused Vinod. He sent
application to the service provider of Vodafone to give the
ownership details of the subscriber no. 9990223510 and it
was revealed that it belong to one Lakhan Singh but he could
not be traced as his addressed could not be found verified.
Rinkoo was juvenile as per his certificate. He also identified the
case properties.
During cross examination, he conceded that names of
both the accused namely Vinod and Pankaj were not figured by
the father of the deceased Sh. Mahender Gupta in a missing
report, which was reduced into writing vide DD No.22A dated
28.04.2009 and in the FIR of the present case. He further
conceded that accused Vinod had already been arrested prior
to assigning the investigation of the present case to him. He
stated that he did not find any blood or any other mark of
identity from the place where the dead body was recovered by
the official of PS Jhani. He conceded that they did not seize
any register pertaining the sale and purchase of PW Yogesh
Mehta and on asking/enquiring Yogesh Mehta disclosed that
after melting the chain and kada he prepared the new jewellery
of above said those articles and further he had already sold the
said new jewellery. He also conceded that he did not seize the
sale proceeds of the said jewellery which was prepared after
State Vs. Vinod Goswami & Anr. (SC No.114/2009) Page No.28 of pages 48
melting the case property from Yogesh Mehta. He further
admitted that at the time of recovery of jack of car from PS Jani
District Meerut, official of PS Jani were not joined by him in the
investigation.
6. After conclusion of prosecution evidence, statements of
accused persons U/s 313 Cr.P.C were recorded, wherein they
claimed innocence on the ground of false implication in this
case. They both have particularly stated that they have been
falsely implicated by the complainant in this case despite of the
fact that their names were not mentioned in the missing report
i.e. DD No.22A dated 28.04.2009 and even in FIR No.173/2009
dated 05.05.2009 and lateron the local police and complainant
in connivance with each other falsely implicated them. The
accused persons opted not to lead any evidence in their
defence.
7. I have carefully heard the rival submissions of Ld. counsel
for accused persons as well as Ld. Addl. Public Prosecutor for
the State and also of Ld. Counsel for the complainant. I have
also given my prolonged consideration to the matter in light of
evidence adduced and the case law relied upon by Ld.
Counsels for parties.
8. The case of the prosecution can be summarized as
under:
(i). On 28.04.2009 a missing report was lodged
by Sh. Mahender Kumar regarding missing of
his son Rajeev Gupta vide DD No.22A.
(ii).On 05.05.2009 Mahender Kumar came to
the Police Station and got recorded his
statement, mentioning therein the description
of the physique and clothes worn by his son.
He also stated that his son had been
State Vs. Vinod Goswami & Anr. (SC No.114/2009) Page No.29 of pages 48
kidnapped by some unknown person" and
upon the said statement instant FIR was
registered.
(iii).During investigation, Manoj Gupta, brother of
missing boy Rajeev Gupta, told him that on
28.04.2009 his brother Rajeev had told him
that he was going to meet Vinod Kumar
resident of B1 Block, Yamuna Vihar. On this
information, Vinod Goswami and his brother
Rinku Goswami were interrogated.
(iv).Police collected the call details of mobile
phones of missing boy Rajeev Gupta and
accused Vinod Goswami from which it came
to be that on 28.04.2009 at about 10.30 p.m
call was made from mobile phone number
9711508585 to mobile phone number
9810487072. It was further revealed that IMEI
number of mobile phone no.9990723510 of
Vinod Goswami and mobile phone number
9711508585, from which phone call was
made on the mobile phone of missing boy
Rajeev Gupta, were the same i.e.
354574011440930.
(v).On suspicion Vinod Goswami and Rinku
Goswami were interrogated and arrested.
Accused Vinod Goswami and Rinku made
their respective disclosure statements and
admitted their involvement in the crime and at
their instance coaccused Pankaj Giri was
also apprehended and his disclosure
statement was also recorded.
State Vs. Vinod Goswami & Anr. (SC No.114/2009) Page No.30 of pages 48
(vi).During investigation, it is revealed that
accused Vinod Goswami had taken Rs.
70,000/ from Rajeev Gupta on loan and on
his demanding back his money, on
expression of his inability to pay back the
amount, Rajeev Gupta asked him to arrange
money at any cost either by selling his wife or
sister. Accused Vinod Goswami was in
suspicion that Rajeev had started keeping an
evil eye on his wife. Accordingly, to eliminate
Rajeev, Vinod Goswami talked to his friend
Rinku Goswami and also included Pankaj
Goswami (his cousin) in their plan.
(vii).In pursuance to the plan, on 27.04.2009
accused Vinod alongwith accused Rinku
went to Aligarh, U.P in his WagonR Car
No.DL3CAW1708 and took Pankaj with
them and came to Delhi. Further on
28.04.2009 in the morning accused Vinod
Goswami called Rajeev Gupta from mobile
having SIM No.9711508558 at about 10.20
a.m and asked Rajeev to meet him at Gandhi
Juice Corner, BBlock, Yamuna Vihar on the
pretext that AC was to be installed in the car
and had to go to Bhopra. After some time
Rajeev came and they all sat in the car.
(viii).Accused Vinod was driving the car and
Rajeev sat in front seat with him and Rinku
and Pankaj sat on the rear seat and they all
left towards Ashok Nagar fly over. On the
way, on his signal, Rinku gave jack blow on
the head of Rajeev and Pankaj put a rope
State Vs. Vinod Goswami & Anr. (SC No.114/2009) Page No.31 of pages 48
around the neck of Rajeev and pulled it and
after some time Rajeev died. Then they went
towards Meerut and threw the dead body in a
nala, however, before throwing the dead body
of Rajeev, he had removed the gold chain
and kara worn by Rajeev.
(ix).On 29.04.2009 they sold the above said gold
chain and kara to deceased to one Yogesh
Mehta, a jeweller of Ghaziabad and his
statement to that effect U/Sec.164 Cr.P.C was
also got recorded.
(x).After arrest of accused Pankaj Giri, his
phone call details were also collected. During
investigation accused Rinku Goswami was
found to be juvenile, so his challan was filed
before Juvenile Court.
(xi).During investigation police got recovered the
jack which was used in the commission of
offence from/at the instance of Rinku and
mobile phone of deceased were also got
recovered at the instance of Vinod Goswami
from Hindon river Ghaziabad, U.P (to which
accused persons thrown in the Hindon river
while coming back to Delhi) and the Wagon
R Car No.DL3C AW1708 was also seized by
the police.
9. According to the contentions of Ld. Addl. PP for the State,
the case of the prosecution launched U/s 302/364/201/34 IPC,
based on the circumstantial evidence, is crystal clear. By the
combined reading of the consistent, natural and trustworthy
statements of PW1 Mahender Gupta (father of deceased),
PW2 Gaurav Seth (friend and business partner of deceased),
State Vs. Vinod Goswami & Anr. (SC No.114/2009) Page No.32 of pages 48
PW3 Smt. Santosh (mother of deceased), PW6 Manoj Gupta
(brother of deceased) and PW4 Yogesh Mehta (the jeweller)
coupled with the medical and scientific evidence together with
other evidence of police officials, the case of the prosecution
that accused persons in furtherance of their plan killed the
Rajeev Gupta and thereafter destroyed the evidence regarding
commission of such offence. The factum of unnatural death of
Rajeev Gupta (the deceased) is not in dispute at all. Further
the testimonies of aforesaid public witnesses are in
consonance to the medical and scientific evidence brought on
record in the form of MLC and Postmortem Report, which
confirms that the cause of death was "asphyxia due to
antemortem strangulation by ligature". FSL Result further
corroborates the case of the prosecution. Further evaluation of
the calls details of the mobile phone of deceased reveals that
accused persons including accused Rinku (juvenile) were in
touch with each other and the deceased was called by
accused Vinod at Gandhi Juice Corner, BBlock Yamuna Vihar
on the pretext that AC was to be installed in the car and had to
go to Bhopra. Accordingly Rajeev (since deceased) reached
that and accused made him to sit in the car and took him
alongwith them and in the way they killed him and thereafter in
the way towards Meerut, they dumped his dead body in a nala
in an isolated place. The respective disclosure statements of
accused persons confirmed their involvement in the crime. The
recovery of one of the mobile phones of deceased from Hindon
river with the help of diver and jack (i.e. weapon of offence)
used in the crime at the instance of accused persons further
strengthen the story of prosecution that it were the accused
persons, who committed the offence alleged. Further the
contradictions and short comings, as pointed out by Ld.
State Vs. Vinod Goswami & Anr. (SC No.114/2009) Page No.33 of pages 48
Defence Counsel, are of minor and negligible nature and they
have been failed to cause any dent to the case of prosecution.
Besides, the medical and scientific evidence, the other
documents like FIR, seizure memos, memos of arrest and
personal search of accused persons and also their disclosure
statements have been proved by the prosecution witnesses in
their respective testimonies. From the aforesaid, the
prosecution has been able to form an unbreakable chain of
evidence against the accused persons to draw an inference of
guilt totally incompatible to the innocence of accused persons
and it can be said that the case of the prosecution is firmly
established.
Per contra, according to Ld. Counsel for accused persons,
the prosecution has been miserably failed in its mission of
proving its case beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt and
therefore, both the accused persons are entitled for an order of
acquittal in their favour by giving them benefit of doubt. Firstly,
there is no direct evidence on record to show that the accused
persons in connivance of each other had committed the
murder of Rajeev Gupta and dumped the dead body of Rajeev
Gupta in a nala at an isolated place in the way towards Meerut.
The evidence of last seen witnesses in the form of PW2,
PW3 & PW6 is manipulated and afterthought which is
reflected from the material short comings and discrepancies in
their testimonies. Further in the instant case no independent
public witness was joined in the investigation at any point of
time. The recoveries, shown to be effected at the instances of
accused persons are not beyond doubt particularly in the
circumstances where one of the material links of chain of the
case of prosecution i.e. PW8 Mayur (the diver) did not support
the case of prosecution and categorically denied the recovery
State Vs. Vinod Goswami & Anr. (SC No.114/2009) Page No.34 of pages 48
of mobile phone belonging to deceased from Hindon river,
Ghaziabad, U.P and there are number of material
contradictions amongst the testimonies of the prosecution
witnesses which goes to the root of the case and the scientific
evidence is also not supportive to the case of prosecution and
as such both the accused persons are entitled for an order of
acquittal in their favour on account of benefit of doubt.
10. In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the settled
law is that the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt
is drawn should be fully proved and such circumstances must
be conclusive in nature. Moreover, all the circumstances
should be complete and there should be no gap left in the
chain of evidence. Further, the proved circumstances must be
consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused
and totally in consistent with his innocence.
In I (2008) SLT 682 titled as Sattatiya @ Satish Rajanna
Kartalla Vs. State of Maharashtra, it was held that, "It is
settled law that an offence can be proved not only by direct
evidence but also by circumstantial evidence where there is no
direct evidence. The Court can drawn an inference of guilt
when all the incriminating facts and circumstances are found to
be totally incompatible with the innocence of the accused. Of
course, the circumstances from which an inference as to the
guilt is drawn have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and
have to be shown to be closely connected with the principal
fact sought to be inferred from those circumstances.
In Hanumant Govind Navgundkar Vs. State of MP, AIR
1952 SC 343, which is one of the earliest decisions on the
subject, the Apex Court of land observed as under:
"It is well to remember that in cases
where the evidence is of a circumstantial
State Vs. Vinod Goswami & Anr. (SC No.114/2009) Page No.35 of pages 48
nature, the circumstances from which the
conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should
be in the first instance be fully
established and all the facts so
established should be consistent only
with the hypothesis of the guilt of the
accused. Again, 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. In other words,
there must be a chain of evidence so far
complete as not to leave any reasonable
ground for a conclusion consistent with
the innocence of the accused and it must
be such as to show that within all human
probability the act must have been done
by the accused."
In Padala Veera Reddy Vs. State of AP (1989) Supp (2)
SCC 706, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that when a case
rests upon circumstantial evidence, the following tests must be
satisfied:
(i). the circumstances from which an inference of
guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently
and firmly established;
(ii). Those circumstances should be of a definite
tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of
the accused;
(iii). the circumstances, taken cumulatively, should
form a chain so complete that there is no
escape from the conclusion that within all
State Vs. Vinod Goswami & Anr. (SC No.114/2009) Page No.36 of pages 48
human probability the crime was committed
by the accused and none else; and;
(iv). the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain
conviction must be complete and incapable of
explanation of any other hypothesis than that
of the guilt of the accused and such evidence
should not only be consistent with the guilt of
the accused but should be inconsistent with
his innocence."
In Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of
Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116, it was held that the onus
was on the prosecution to prove that the chain is complete and
falsity or untenability of the defence set up by the accused can
not be made basis for ignoring serious infirmity or lacuna in the
prosecution case. The Court then proceeded to indicate the
conditions which must be fully established before conviction
can be based on circumstantial evidence. These are:
(i). the circumstances from which the conclusion
of guilt is to be drawn should be fully
established. The circumstances concerned
must or should and not may be established;
(ii). the facts so established should be consistent
only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the
accused, that it is to say, they should not be
explainable on any other hypothesis except
that the accused is guilty;
(iii). the circumstances should be of a conclusive
nature and tendency;
(iv). they should exclude every possible
hypothesis except the one to be proved; and
(iv). there must be a chain of evidence so
State Vs. Vinod Goswami & Anr. (SC No.114/2009) Page No.37 of pages 48
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."
In state of UP Vs. Ashok Kumar Srivastava, (1992) 2
SCC 86, it was pointed out that great care must be taken in
evaluating circumstantial evidence and if the evidence relied on
is reasonably capable of two inferences, the one in favour of
the accused must be accepted. It was also pointed out that the
circumstances relied upon must be found to have been fully
established and the cumulative effect of all the facts so
established must be consistent only with the hypothesis of
guilt.
The above noted propositions have been reiterated in
Bodhraj @ Bodha and Others Vs. State of Jammu and
Kashmir, V (2002) SLT 111; Bharat Vs, State of MP., I (2003)
SLT 724; Jaswant Gir Vs. State of Punjab, III (2006) CCR;
Harmuddin Vs. State of Delhi ILR (2008) II Delhi 107, AIR
2007 SC 2957.
In Ramreddy Rajesh Khanna Reddy and another Vs.
State of AP (Supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court while
reiterating the settled legal position observed:
"It is now settled that with a view to base
a conviction on circumstantial evidence,
the prosecution must establish all the
pieces of incriminating circumstances by
reliable and clinching evidence and the
circumstances so proved must form
such a chain of events as would permit
no conclusion other than one of guilt of
State Vs. Vinod Goswami & Anr. (SC No.114/2009) Page No.38 of pages 48
the accused. The circumstances can not
be on any other hypothesis. It is also
well settled that suspicion, however
grave it may be, can not be a substitute
for a proof and the Courts shall take
utmost precaution in finding an accused
guilty only on the basis of the
circumstantial evidence."
In Reg. Vs. Hodge [1838 2 Lewin 227], it was held that
"the mind was apt to take a pleasure in adapting circumstances
to one another, and even in straining them a little, if need be, to
force them to form parts of one connected whole; and the more
ingenious the mind of the individual, the more likely was it,
considering such matters, to overreach and mislead itself, to
supply some little link that is wanting, to take for granted some
fact consistent with its previous theories and necessary to
render them complete."
In Sarwan Singh Rattan Singh Vs. State of Punjab
[AIR 1957 SC 637], it has been held 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; but between 'may be
true' and 'must be true' there is inevitably a long distance to
travel and the whle of this distance must be covered by the
prosecution by legal, reliable and unimpeachable evidence
before an accused can be convicted."
As per settled law, it is not as if the conviction can only be
based on the sole ground of last seen as last seen together
may not by itself necessarily lead to the inference that it was
the accused who committed the crime. I consider it necessary
at this stage to refer to a decision of the Supreme Court of
State Vs. Vinod Goswami & Anr. (SC No.114/2009) Page No.39 of pages 48
India reported in State of Rajasthan Vs. Kanshi Ram AIR
2007 SC 145, where the law on this subject has been
discussed in detail. Relevant portion of the same reads as
under:
"Ld. counsel for the State strenuously
urged before us that the High Court
committed an apparent error in ignoring
the evidence on record which disclosed
that the respondent was last seen with
deceased Kalawati in his house on February 3, 1998 late in the afternoon.
Thereafter, he was not seen by anyone and his house was found locked in the morning. The evidence of PW--5, mother of the deceased Kalawati, and her brother Manraj, PW--2 clearly prove the fact that the house was found locked on February 4, 1998. The evidence also establishes beyond doubt that the doors were removed and dead bodies of the deceased Kalawati and her daughters were found inside the house on February 6, 1998. In these circumstances, the disappearance of the respondent was rather suspicious because if at all only he could explain what happened thereafter. He, therefore, submitted that in the facts of the case, in the absence of any explanation offered by the respondent, an inference must be drawn against the respondent which itself is a serious incriminating State Vs. Vinod Goswami & Anr. (SC No.114/2009) Page No.40 of pages 48 circumstance against him."
In Sahadevan alias Sagadevan Vs. State, represented by Inspector of Police, Chennai (2003) Vol.1 SCC 534, the prosecution established the fact that the deceased was seen in the company of the appellants from the morning of March 5, 1985 till at least 5 p.m. on that day when he was brought to his house, and thereafter his dead body was found in the morning of March 6, 1985. In the background of such facts, the court observed: "Therefore, it has become obligatory on the appellants to satisfy the court as to how, where and in what manner Vadivelu parted company with them.
This is on the principle that a person who is last found in the company of another, if later found missing, then the person with whom he was last found has to explain the circumstances in which they parted company. In the instant case, the appellants have failed to discharge this onus. In their statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C they have not taken any specific stand whatsoever."
11. Applying the aforesaid principles of law, I have examined the evidence on record and come to the conclusion that the prosecution has been failed in its mission of proving its case beyond the shadow of reasonable doubts and therefore, the accused persons are entitled for an order of acquittal in their favour by giving him benefit of doubt for the reasons given below:
12. The case of the prosecution rests entirely on State Vs. Vinod Goswami & Anr. (SC No.114/2009) Page No.41 of pages 48 circumstantial evidence, which has been elaborated above. To prove the prosecution case, the prosecution was supposed to prove and link all the chains with each other without even an iota of doubt, but such is not the case herein.
PW1 Mahender Gupta, the lodger of missing report vide DD No.22A Ex.PW25/A did not name any of the accused persons either in DD No.22A nor in the FIR No.173/2009 and he had also not given any information regarding wearing of gold chain and gold kara by the deceased Rajeev Gupta at the time of leaving of his house on 28.04.2009 at 10.00 a.m. Further in his testimony, PW1 has made several improvements and on making confrontation with his earlier statements recorded before the police, he conceded in his cross examination that PW2 Gaurav Seth, PW5 Shailender Kumar yadav and PW6 Manoj Kumar had visited the Police Station with him and the police of PS Bhajan Pura had also visited the house of PW1 in the presence of PW2, PW5 & PW6 and there were conversation of PW1, PW2, PW5 & PW6 with the police during the period between 28.04.2009 to 05.05.2009 but PW2, PW5 & PW6 neither to PW1 nor to the police had disclosed that they had seen the deceased going with the accused Vinod on 28.04.2009 at about 10.15 a.m. from his house towards Yamuna Vihar, which is very significant. Moreover, PW1 has also admitted in his cross examination that there was no enmity between deceased Rajeev Gupta and Vinod Goswami prior to the incident. Further PW1 has also admitted in his cross examination that he had handed over the photocopy of the bill of kara and chain in the month of August, 2009 to the police but admittedly police did not visit the shop of jeweler for verifying the bills. Thus the testimony of PW1 is not fully trustworthy to believe upon to connect the accused State Vs. Vinod Goswami & Anr. (SC No.114/2009) Page No.42 of pages 48 persons with the alleged offence.
Like wise the testimony of PW2 Gaurav Seth is also not worthy of credence as he has admitted in his cross examination that he had told to PW1, PW6 that Rajeev Gutpa had gone with accused Vinod Goswami, Rinku and Pankaj on 28.04.2009 at about 10.15 a.m but it is very strange on the part of PW1, PW2, PW5 & PW6 that they did not tell to the police till 06.05.2009 that PW2, PW5 & PW6 had seen the deceased going with accused persons on 28.04.2009 at about 10.00/10.10 a.m. Thus it is clear that PW2, PW5 & PW6 had not seen deceased Rajeev Gupta going with accused Vinod Goswami and police had subsequently manipulated the last seen evidence of PW2, PW5 & PW6, which is not believable and reliable.
Similarly, PW3 Santosh (mother of deceased) has also admitted in her cross examination that when Rajeev Gupta had left the house with accused Vinod Goswami on 28.04.2009 at 10.00/10.15 a.m, her son namely Manoj was sleeping at that time. If it was so, then the claim of PW6 Manoj Kumar to the effect that at the time of leaving the house, deceased had told to him that he was going with accused Vinod Goswami, can not be believed upon.
Further PW4 Yogesh Mehta (the goldsmith) has conceded in his cross examination that he did not obtain any receipt from Vinod Goswami on any paper towards the payment of Rs.62,000/ to him and he claimed that he had shown the purchase of the said gold items in his regular register but admittedly no where in the said register he had obtained the signature of Vinod Goswami nor any such register was brought before the Court. Further more, as per the said witness he purchased the kara and gold chain from Vinod State Vs. Vinod Goswami & Anr. (SC No.114/2009) Page No.43 of pages 48 Goswami on 29.04.2009 and melted both the items on the same day and prepared new jewellery items from the said gold and sold the prepared jewellery before the raid of the police of PS Bhajan Pura but very strangely IO did not seize the sale proceed of the said jewellery nor tried to find out the particulars of the purchaser of the said new jewellery. The act on the part of IO of non seizing the sale proceed money from PW4 further creates a doubt about the story of prosecution.
In the instant case PW8 Mayur (the diver), one of the most important witnesses of prosecution to prove the factum of recovery of the mobile phone belonging to the deceased at the instance of the accused persons, has not supported the case of prosecution and categorically denied the recovery of mobile phone belonging to deceased from Hindon river Ghaziabad, U.P and it is a big blow to the story of prosecution. Further PW29 Insp. Ram Kishore has conceded in his testimony that mobile phone bearing no.9990723510 belongs to one Lakhan Singh but he could not trace out the said Lakhan Singh nor his address could be verified till the investigation remained with him. Further admittedly he did not join any pubic person during the time of recovery of jack from the field of area of Village Pancholi, District Meerut, U.P nor he sought the assistance of local police of PS Jani to join the investigation at the time of recovery of jack from the place which was already visited by the police prior to the recovery of said jack, so the recovery of the jack by the police is also not free from doubt. Moreover, the factum of recovery of mobile phone from the accused Vinod Goswami is also doubtful because the alleged mobile phone was not found in his name and even the signature of the father of Vinod Goswami was not obtained by the IO in the seizure memo despite of the fact that he was very much State Vs. Vinod Goswami & Anr. (SC No.114/2009) Page No.44 of pages 48 present at his house. The non examination of Mahipal, the person from whose field the dead body of deceased was got recovered, is also a material lapse on the part of investigating officer.
Reliance is placed on paragraph 6 of the judgment in Pawan Kumar v. The Delhi Administration, 1989 Cri.L.J. 127, wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi had observed as under: " ... According to Jagbir Singh, he did not join any public witness in the case while according to Kalam Singh, no public person was present there. It hardly stands to reason that at a place like a bus stop near Subhas Bazar, there would be no person present at a crucial time like 07.30 p.m. when there is a lot of rush of commuters for boarding the buses to their respective destinations. Admittedly, there is no impediment in believing the version of the Police officials but for that the prosecution has to lay a good foundation. At least one of them should deposed that they tried to contact the public witnesses or that they refused to join the investigation. Here is a case where no effort was made to join any public witness even though number of them were present. No plausible explanation from the side of the prosecution is forthcoming for not joining the independent witnesses in a case of serious nature like the State Vs. Vinod Goswami & Anr. (SC No.114/2009) Page No.45 of pages 48 present one. It may be that there is an apathy on the part of the general public to associate themselves with the Police raids or the recoveries but that apart, at least the I.O. should have made an earnest effort to join the independent witnesses. No attempt in this direction appears to have been made and this, by itself, is a circumstance throwing doubt on the arrest or the recovery of the knife from the person of the accused."
This Court is, however, conscious that the prosecution case cannot be thrown out or doubted on the sole ground of nonjoining of public witnesses as public witnesses keep themselves away from the Court unless it is inevitable, as has been held in Appabhai and another v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1988 SC 696. However, in the present case, it is not only the absence of public witnesses which raises a doubt on the prosecution but there are other circumstances too, as discussed hereinafter, which raise suspicion over the prosecution version.
As regards to the injury sustained/inflicted on the body of deceased Rajeev Gupta, it is admitted by PW14 Dr. Ravi Prakash in his cross examination that the injuries mentioned in postmortem at Sl. No.1, 2 & 3 could be sustained by way of accident. Further according to PW28 Ms. Anita Chari (FSL Expert) four sealed parcels were sent to FSL for comparison and opinion and on examining the same with scientific equipments and apparatus and on all the exhibits referred above blood was detected but on further examination no reaction was found regarding spices of origin except of jack, State Vs. Vinod Goswami & Anr. (SC No.114/2009) Page No.46 of pages 48 which was of human blood. However, there is nothing on record to show as to what was the blood group of deceased Rajeev Gupta and in these circumstances mere finding of human blood on the jack, can not be a incriminating evidence against the accused persons.
The prosecution has further tried to show the involvement of accused Vinod by producing the call details of mobile phone of deceased and Vinod Goswami and conversation on cell phone of deceased Rajeev Gupta i.e. 9212487072 and 9810487072 and cell phone no.9990223510 allegedly used by Vinod Goswami which was in the name of one Lakhan Singh S/o Sh. Khechedu Mal, R/o H. No.48/1, Jai Parkash Marg, Ghonda, Delhi53 but the prosecution has totally failed to trace the above said person and no verification regarding the same was done by prosecution.
13. The entire case of prosecution revolves on the circumstantial evidence. However, no motive could be proved by the prosecution against the accused persons and the only circumstance that the accused and deceased were lastly seen together is doubtful and even otherwise these circumstances are not sufficient to hold the accused persons guilty.
Besides non joining of public witnesses there are other factors also to disbelieve the recoveries allegedly effected from the accused persons.
The standard of proof required to convict a person on circumstantial evidence is now well settled by Hon'ble Apex Court in a series of decisions. According to said criteria, the circumstances relied upon in support of the conviction must be fully established and the chain of evidence furnished by those circumstances must be so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the State Vs. Vinod Goswami & Anr. (SC No.114/2009) Page No.47 of pages 48 innocence of the accused. The circumstances from which the conclusion of the guilt is to be drawn are not only to be fully established but also that all the circumstances so established should be of a conclusive nature and consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and should not be capable of being explained by any other hypothesis and that all the circumstances cumulatively taken together should lead to the only irresistible conclusion that the accused alone is the perpetrator of the crime. However, in the case in hand it is not so and therefore, both the accused persons are entitled for an order of acquittal in their favour by giving them benefit of doubt. It is ordered accordingly. Existing Bail Bonds of accused persons are extended for the further period of six months in terms of the order of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
14. File be consigned to Record Room after completion of necessary formalities.
(Announced in Open court (RAKESH KUMAR)
on 24th December, 2014) Addl. Sessions Judge/North East
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
State Vs. Vinod Goswami & Anr. (SC No.114/2009) Page No.48 of pages 48