Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

(State vs . Sonu & Ors. Sc.No.293/2007) Page 1 Of 63 on 4 June, 2013

           IN THE  COURT OF SH.  RAMESH KUMAR - II,   
         ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE - 01/North­East District,
                KARKARDOOMA COURTS,  DELHI.
Case ID Number.                          02402R0710282007
Sessions Case No.                        293/2007
Assigned to Sessions.                    28.11.2007
Arguments heard on                       15.05.2013
Date of judgment                         04.06.2013
FIR No.                                  644/2007
                                         1.  Sonu   @   Saklesh,   S/o   Sh.   Ram
                                         Singh,   aged   32   years,   R/o   C­1/115,
                                         Nand Nagari, Delhi.
                                         2. Rakesh, S/o Sh. Balwant, aged 32
                                         years,   R/o   Buddhi   Ka   Makaan,
                                         Village Saboli, Delhi.
                                         3.  Sonu   @   Vinod,   S/o   Sh.   Ram
                                         Singh,   aged   30   years,   R/o   C­Block,
                                         P.S.   Shahibabad,   Distt.   Ghaziabad,
                                         U.P.
                                         4.  Vipin,   S/o   Sh.   Nandan,   aged   29
                                         years,   R/o   I­335,   Punjab   Lane,
                                         Railway Colony, Ghaziabad, U.P.
P.S.                                     Nand Nagari
Under Sections                           365//// IPC
JUDGMENT

1. Standards of proof to convict a person on circumstantial evidence has been couched by the Apex Court in the proposition that the (State Vs. Sonu & Ors. SC.No.293/2007) page 1 of 63 circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established. Those circumstances should be of definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused, when taken cumulatively should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human possibilities the crime was committed by the accused and none else, and 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 guild of the accused but should be inconsistent with with his innocence. It needs no reminder that legally established circumstances and not merely anguish of the court can form basis of conviction and more serious the crime the greater should be the care taken to scrutinize the evidence, lest suspicion takes place of proof.

2. Whether the prosecution could establish a complete chain of evidence which is conclusive in nature and consistent with the hypothesis of guilt of the accused and inconsistent with his innocence? For an answer facts of the present case assume importance. The factual position unfolded by the police report is that on 21.07.2007 a call vide DD No.26­A was received in P.S. Nand Nagari and the same was assigned to ASI Bhupender Singh who had reached at house number A­2/117, Nand Nagari, Delhi, where, the caller namely Bahar Alam was present and he (State Vs. Sonu & Ors. SC.No.293/2007) page 2 of 63 apprised ASI Bhupender Singh about the missing of his son but he had not lodged any formal report in this regard. However, on 24.07.2007, complainant Bahar Alam came in P.S. Nand Nagari and gave his statement regarding circumstances in which his son Shahnawaj Alam went missing from the B­3 Park, Nand Nagari, Delhi and in his statement he had also named accused Vipin S/o Kishan Lal as the one who had kidnapped his son alongwith one of his associates and Bahar Alam further stated in his statement that there had occurred a quarrel between his son Shahnawaj Alam and accused Vipin some days prior to his missing. On the statement of Bahar Alam the present case was registered vide FIR No.644/2007 u/S 365 IPC and the investigation was taken up by ASI Bhupender Singh.

3. ASI Bhupender Singh had also recorded the statement of PW Sonu @ Pahari and PW Vipin who were with the Shahnawaj Alam in B­3 Park, Nand Nagari in the intervening night of 20 & 21.07.2007 and also claimed to have seen accused Vipin and one of his associates who had come to the B­3 Park, where, Shahnawaj Alam was present.

4. ASI Bhupender Singh had also recorded the statement of PWs Mohd. Anwar and Shyam Sunder who had claimed that on seeing the posture of missing person they had identified the missing person as one whom they had seen in the B­3 Park, Nand Nagari and the the four accused persons had taken Shahnawaj Alam in a Maruti Esteem car on the pretext that he (State Vs. Sonu & Ors. SC.No.293/2007) page 3 of 63 was being taken to GTB Hospital due to excessive drinking of liquor.

5. ASI Bhupender Singh had made search of the suspects but they could not be found.

6. On 30.07.2007, the investigation of this case was assigned to S.I. Ajay Singh Negi, In­charge, Police Post - Harsh Vihar, P.S. Nand Nagari had interrogated the complainant Bahar Alam and thereupon Bahar Alam had stated that his son Shahnawaj Alam was last seen in the company of accused persons namely Rakesh S/o Balwant, Sonu S/o Rampal, Sonu S/o Ram Singh and Vipin S/o Nandan in the intervening night of 21/21.07.2007.

7. SI Ajay Singh Negi had also recorded the statement of PW Mohd. Anwar and PW Shyam Sunder who had also claimed to have seen the Shahnawaj Alam in the company of four persons near the B­3 Park, Nand Nagari, Delhi.

8. On 31.07.2007, S.I. Ajay Singh Negi had searched for the suspects at their respective residences but they were found absconding since 21.07.2007 and thereafter on 01.08.2007 suspects Rakesh S/o Balwant and Sonu S/o Rampal had been apprehended and interrogated and recorded their disclosure statements in which they disclosed that after kidnapping Shahnawaj Alam he was taken to Bulandsahar, U.P. and he was killed and thrown away at some distance ahead from Laxmi Dhaba (State Vs. Sonu & Ors. SC.No.293/2007) page 4 of 63 and thereupon S.I. Ajay Singh Negi alongwith complainant and other staff proceeded to Bulandsahar, U.P. and there he came to know from the S.I. Rakesh, Police Post Thandi Pyau that a dead body of a young boy was found at some distance ahead from Mahalaxmi Dhaba.

9. S.I. Rakesh, P.P. Thandi Pyau, had also shown the photograph of the dead body and apprised S.I. Ajay Singh Negi that deceased was cremated after his postmortem because he could not be identified within the period of seventy two hours from its recovery.

10.Thereafter, the accused persons namely Rakesh and Sonu S/o Rampal were arrested in this case.

11.During investigation the Maruti Esteem Car bearing reg. no. DL­6C­ 4358 was recovered from Radhu Palace, Delhi in the abandoned condition at the instance accused Rakesh. The gold chain of the deceased was also recovered at his instance from his rented house.

12.On 02.08.2007, accused Sonu S/o Ram Singh was arrested at the instance of accused Sonu S/o Ram Pal and the wrist watch of deceased Shahnawaj Alam was recovered at his instance.

13.On 03.08.2007, accused Vipin was formally arrested from Tihar Jail, New Delhi.

14.During the investigation, all the accused persons had refused to undergo the TIP proceeding and on 08.08.2007, the purse of the deceased (State Vs. Sonu & Ors. SC.No.293/2007) page 5 of 63 containing Rs.200/­, his two passport size photographs, his driving license, five visiting cards and form no.6 were recovered at the instance of accused Vipin.

15.During the course of investigation accused Sonu S/o Ram Singh had also got recovered ring of the deceased.

16.After the completion of investigation the four accused persons had been chargesheeted for offence u/s 362/302/201/404/411/34 IPC and the challan was filed before Ld. Ilaka Magistrate after completing pre­ committal formalities including the supply of copies to the accused persons and the case was committed to the court of my Ld. Predecessor. CHARGE:

17.After hearing the Ld. Addl. PP for the State and Ld. counsel for accused persons my Ld. Predecessor had framed charge for offences punishable u/s 365/302/201/404/34 IPC against all the accused persons and charge u/s 411 IPC was also framed against all the accused persons namely Vipin S/o Nand, Sonu S/o Rampal, Rakesh S/o Balwant and Sonu S/o Ram Singh for retaining the purse (containing articles of deceased), wrist watch make Titan, gold chain and gold ring of the deceased respectively. PROSECUTION WITNESSES:

18.In order to prove its case the prosecution has examined as many as twenty three witness. Out of these PW­1 Vipin, PW­2 Bahar Alam, PW­3 Shyam Sunder, PW­5 Mohd. Anwar, PW­6 Mahesh Singh, PW­7 Sushil, (State Vs. Sonu & Ors. SC.No.293/2007) page 6 of 63 PW­8 Wasim, PW­9 Sonu @ Pahari, PW­11 Mohd. Shahid, PW­12 Mohd. Mursalim and PW­23 S.I. Rakesh Kumar, P.P. Thandi Pyau, U.P. are material witnesses and other witness including the first, second and third investigating officers of this case namely PW­20 ASI Bhupender Singh, PW­16 S.I. Ajay Singh Negi and PW­21 Inspector C.M. Meena.

19.PW­1 Vipin in his testimony has stated that on 20.07.2007 at about 12:00midnight his brother had organized a 'Mata Ki Chowki' in front of his Gali and several boys had attended the said function and at that time Shahnawaj Alam (deceased in this case) and Sonu @ Pahari had come there under drunken condition and they asked to accompany for a drink session who initially refused but on being forced by them he accompany them for having liquor. This witness further stated that deceased and PW Sonu @ Pahari had taken him to a chowk just ahead of his Gali and they forcibly offered him liquor and he consumed the same. This witness further stated that deceased Shahnawaj Alam lighted a cigarette and while smoking it he fell down in the Nala and thereupon the shopkeeper raised alarm that Shahnawaj Alam had fallen in the Nala and thereafter he alongwith PW Sonu @ Pahari had reached towards the Nala and taken out Shahnawaj and in the meanwhile a vehicle of white colour came there in which two persons were sitting. This witness has further stated that the two persons had enquired him as to what had happened and he had apprised them that Shahnawaj Alam had fallen in the Nala. This witness (State Vs. Sonu & Ors. SC.No.293/2007) page 7 of 63 further stated that the two persons had left spot and thereafter Shahnawaj Alam was washed out after arranging water and was laid on a cot. This witness further stated that his mother had reached there and gave him beatings and took him from that place. This witness has further stated that after one/two days police officials came to his house and had enquired him about the incident and that the had come to know about the death of Shahnawaj Alam after about 2/3 days of the incident. Since, this witness was resiling from his statement made to police, thereafter, Ld. Addl. PP had cross examined this witness but nothing material could come out in the cross examination of this witness done by Ld. Addl. PP. This witness had also stated in the cross examination done by Ld. Addl. PP that he did not know any of the accused persons.

20.In his cross examination PW Vipin had stated that he was taken by Sonu @ Pahari and deceased Shahnawaj Alam at about 12:00midnight but he claimed ignorance about the time that his mother took him from the spot after beating him. This witness had also stated that his statement was recorded by the police after two­three days of the incident in police station. This witness had further stated that there was darkness near the Nala and there was no road inside the park and one grossery shop was open at that time and that he had left his house after about twenty minutes of reaching the Maruti Esteem Car at the spot. This witness had further stated in his cross examination that deceased Shahnawaj Alam and PW (State Vs. Sonu & Ors. SC.No.293/2007) page 8 of 63 Sonu @ Pahari were in highly drunken condition when they had approached him and that he was not in full senses after taking liquor and that no injury was caused to Shahnawaj Alam due to falling in the Nala. This witness has further stated in his cross examination that the drain water also entered into his mouth and the dirty water was taken out by pressing his stomach and the deceased also vomited and that deceased did not regain his consciousness after he was washed out. This witness had also stated that the contents of deceased were taken out by him from his pocket and same were handed over to his brother on the next day in the morning. This witness had also stated that no family members of deceased had turned up till the time he remained at the spot and that the deceased was not wearing any ring.

21.Another material prosecution witness is PW­9 Sonu @ Pahari who was with the deceased Shahnawaj Alam and PW Vipin in the B­3 Park, Nand Nagari, Delhi as per the prosecution story. This witness had stated in his statement that in the intervening night of 20/21.07.2007 at about 12/12:30midnight he was present alongwith deceased in B­3 Park and this witness had further deposed that PW Vipin also joined them and they all had consumed liquor at some liquor shop and thereafter they had also consumed liquor in the park. This witness has further deposed that he alongwith PW Vipin and deceased Shahnawaj Alam were sitting in the park due to heavy drunken condition and deceased was sitting on the (State Vs. Sonu & Ors. SC.No.293/2007) page 9 of 63 patri of the Nala and due to drunken condition deceased fell down in the Nala and thereafter he alongwith Vipin had taken him out from the Nala. This witness has further deposed that one white Esteem Car had come at the spot at some distance ahead from the park and one boy came down from the said car and asked from PW Vipin as to who the deceased was, uttering "YEH LADKA KAUN HAI". Thereupon, PW Vipin told the name of the deceased to that boy as Shahnawaj Alam. This witness has further stated that he had asked from PW Vipin about the boy making enquiry about Shahnawaj Alam and PW Vipin had disclosed the name of the said boy as Vipin. This witness has further testified that he came to know from the deceased Shahnawaj Alam that a quarrel between him and Vipin (accused) had taken place. This witness has further deposed that he left Shahnawaj Alam in the park and went to his house to inform his family members and he met his brother and father and told them that Shahnawaj Alam was under the heavy drunken condition and was lying in the park and also told about the boy (accused Vipin) who was making enquiry regarding Shahnawaj Alam. This witness had further deposed that the brother of the deceased namely Mohsin had accompanied him to the said park and his father had also reached after sometime but Shahnawaj Alam was not found there in the park and that only his two wheeler scooter was found there. This witness has also deposed that the Esteem Car was also not there at that time and for this reason this witness (State Vs. Sonu & Ors. SC.No.293/2007) page 10 of 63 became suspicious that Shahnawaj Alam was taken away by the occupant of the car. This witness has identified accused Vipin by pointing towards him as the same boy who was making enquiry about Shahnawaj Alam from his friend PW Vipin. This witness has also identified the Maruti Esteem Car of white colour bearing registration number DL­6C­4358 saying that it was the same car which was seen by him in the intervening night of 20/21.07.2007.

22.In his cross examination PW­9 Sonu @ Pahari had stated that the house of Sh. Bahar Alam, father of the deceased, was about two minutes' walking distance from park B­3. This witness has further stated that he had gone to the house of Bahar Alam on foot in that intervening night, where, Bahar Alam met him and he stayed at his house for about one or two minutes and that Bahar Alam was coming behind him in the B­3 park and there he had stayed for 15 minutes thereafter. This witness has also admitted that Bahar Alam was known to him for about fifteen years as he was also resident in the same locality. This witness had stated that he did not know any person by the name of Mohd. Anwar and Shyam Sunder (both are public witnesses). This witness has further stated that he had met Bahar Alam for the first time on Sunday after 21.07.2007 and remained with him for the next two days thereafter and tried to search Shahnawaj Alam but they did not approach the police nor any police official met them. This witness has further stated that deceased was (State Vs. Sonu & Ors. SC.No.293/2007) page 11 of 63 wearing light cream colour pant and light yellow colour shirt at the time of his missing and that he alongwith deceased had consumed approximately one bottle of liquor and that Shahnawaj was highly intoxicated and was not in a position even to speak any word. This witness had denied the suggestion on behalf of accused Sonu S/o Ram Singh that deceased was indulged in criminal activities and stated that no criminal case was pending against the deceased. This witness had stated in the cross examination on behalf of accused Vipin that he had consumed liquor for the first time in his life along with deceased Shahnawaj Alam on 21.07.2007 although he had started consuming liquor in the year 2004 and on 21.07.2007 Shahnawaj Alam had met him by chance while he was going to school for his some personal work. This witness has deposed that he and Shahnawaj Alam had consumed the liquor between 4:00pm to 11:30pm and reached for the first time in B­3 park at about 12:00midnight. Contrary to his version in his examination­ in­chief this witness had not consumed liquor in the park and that there was no electricity in the park and stated that he was not aware as to at how much distance the electricity pole was situated from the another gate of the park. This witness had further stated that PW Vipin had met them at about 10:30pm at B­4, Nand Nagari, Delhi and all three had arrived in B­3 Park on the two wheeler scooter of Shahnawaj Alam. This witness has further stated that PW Vipin had also consumed liquor with him and (State Vs. Sonu & Ors. SC.No.293/2007) page 12 of 63 deceased. This witness has also stated that the place where Shahnawaj Alam was laid after taking him out from the Nala, was not visible from the road outside the park. This witness had subsequently denied the suggestion that the place where Shahnawaj was laid, was not visible from the road outside the park. This witness has further stated in the cross examination on behalf of accused Vipin that while Shahnwaj Alam was being removed one car came near the spot and one person came down from the car and enquired who was he (Shahnawaj Alam) and thereupon PW Vipin replied that he was Shahnawaj Alam. This witness has further stated that although he was not known to accused Vipin prior to that day but deceased Shahnawaj Alam had disclosed about three­four months back that a quarrel had taken place between him and accused Vipin. This witness has further stated that accused Vipin remained in the park for about ten minutes. In answering to a court question, "as to how he did come to know accused Vipin by his name", this witness had stated that PW Vipin had told him the name of accused Vipin in the night of incident that he was Vipin Ghoriwala and that is why he know him (accused Vipin) by his name. This witness has admitted the suggestion that before going to police station for the registration of this case he had disclosed PW Bahar Alam that accused Vipin had enquired about the deceased Shahnawaj Alam. This witness has further stated that he had disclosed above fact to family members of Shahnawaj Alam and had also (State Vs. Sonu & Ors. SC.No.293/2007) page 13 of 63 disclosed this fact to police officials at police station. This witness has further stated that on 23.07.2007 PW Bahar Alam had taken him for the first time to police station for the registration of this case. Although, he had claimed ignorance about the time when he had gone to police station alongwith Bahar Alam. This witness further stated that he did not visit the police station after 23.07.2007, nor made any statement to the police officials after 23.07.2007. This witness has also stated in his cross examination that he had passed by the car when he went to call PW Bahar Alam and at that time two persons were sitting inside the car and that he did not disclose about the identity or description of those two persons as the same was not asked for by the police. This witness has also stated that he had not seen the registration number and make of the car. This witness further stated that deceased Shahnawaj Alam was wearing light yellow colour shirt and creme colour pant on the day of incident and that the deceased used to wear a ring but he did not notice whether it was of gold or silver. This witness had also stated that the liquor was arranged with contribution and that Shahnawaj Alam had given hundred rupees from his purse and that he (deceased) was having only hundred rupees at that time. This witness had denied the suggestion that he was not present in the park or that he had not seen accused Vipin making enquiry with Shahnawaj Alam. This witness had also denied the suggestion that PW Vipin had not disclosed name of accused Vipin as (State Vs. Sonu & Ors. SC.No.293/2007) page 14 of 63 Vipin Ghoriwala.

23.The next material witness of the prosecution is PW­3 Shyam Sunder and he has deposed that in the intervening night of 20/21.07.2007 at about 12:00midnight he was returning to his house after day's collection from the market and while passing from B­3 Park Nand Nagari he saw a child lying on a table in the park and one Esteem Car of white colour was also parked at that time outside the park and the number of the car was also disclosed by this witness as 4358. This witness had further pointed out towards accused Vipin as one whom he had seen standing near the said child. He had further stated that he went inside the park and enquired from accused Vipin as to what happened to the child and the accused Vipin told him that they were taking the child to hospital. This witness has also stated that the accused Vipin did not tell him as to what had happened with the child. This witness has further pointed out towards accused Sonu S/o Rampal as other accused who had come from the car and he alongwith accused Vipin had carried away the child upto the car and thereafter made him sit inside the car and and at that time one person was sitting on the driver seat of the car and the other one was also sitting beside him inside the car. This witness had stated that he cannot identify the driver of the car as well as the person who was sitting beside driver seat. This witness has further stated that the vehicle left from there alongwith the said child and thereafter he came back to his house. This (State Vs. Sonu & Ors. SC.No.293/2007) page 15 of 63 witness had further stated that on 25.07.2007 he saw a poster of the said child to whom he had found lying on the table in the park, outside P.S. Nand Nagari, Delhi and in that poster he was shown to have been missing. On seeing the poster this witness had identified the child and immediately went to police station and informed the police officials the facts narrated by him as above. During his examination in the court, this witness had further stated that police had recorded his statement in this regard and also took him to the park where the child was found by him on the bench there and there he had pointed out the place to police. This witness has further stated that he had also gone to Tihar Jail to participate in the TIP proceeding regarding some accused persons arrested by the police but the accused persons had not participated in the said proceeding. This witness has further stated that thereafter he was never shown other persons who were sitting in the aforesaid car.

24. In his cross examination, PW Shyam Sunder, on behalf of accused Vipin had stated that he had reached at Nand Nagari Mandi at about 11:00pm on 20.07.2007 to collect the money and he had also disclosed the name of one of several persons from whom he had collected the money as Ikram and stated that Rs.2100/­ were collected from Ikram. This witness has further stated that the B­3 Park falls in the area where he was to collect money from different customers. This witness has further stated that he had seen the incident when he was passing from the area on his (State Vs. Sonu & Ors. SC.No.293/2007) page 16 of 63 motorcycle. This witness had further stated that he was unable to tell the colour of the clothes of the child, however, this witness has also stated that besides four accused persons one other person was also standing there. This witness has further stated that he was knowing the said child as he used to supply goods in Shahdara Mandi and that he also knew him by his name and also knew his father's name and face. This witness has also stated that he did not tell the description of the four boys to police but stated that he had told the police that he can identify those boys if they be shown to him. This witness has also stated that he had seen them in police station on 25.07.2007. When all the four accused were present in the police station he also identified them. This witness has further stated that he remained in the police station for about ten minutes on 24.07.2007 and during the said period Bahar Alam did not visit the police station and he also did not visit the house of Bahar Alam on that day i.e. 24.07.2007. This witness has further stated that Bahar Alam met him on 26.07.2007 but he did not take him to police station. This witness has also stated that police had recorded his statement at P.S. Harsh Vihar (Police Post) when he had identified all the four accused persons over there. This witness had admitted in his cross examination that during the period 21­24.07.2007 he did not tell anybody till he entered the police station that he had seen Shahnawaj Alam while lying on a table in the park at Nand Nagari. This witness has also stated that he remained at the (State Vs. Sonu & Ors. SC.No.293/2007) page 17 of 63 spot for about 5­7 minutes and did not tell those boys (accused) that he knew Shahnawaj Alam and neither he took him to hospital, nor helped those boys (accused) for taking him to hospital. This witness had denied the suggestion on behalf of accused Rakesh that he had identified him on the asking of deceased and also that he had not seen the incident. In his cross examination on behalf of accused Sonu S/o Rampal this witness had stated that he had seen the incident from outside the park and that there was a electric pole inside the park and that till the the child was shifted inside the car he was present outside the park. This witness has further stated that he used to pass from the park area even till today (on the day of his cross examination). This witness has further stated that he did not know accused Sonu S/o Rampal prior to this incident. This witness had denied the suggestion that Bahar Alam was his friend.

25.Another material witness of prosecution is PW­5 Mohd. Anwar and as per the prosecution case this witness had also seen the deceased in the company of the four accused persons in the B­3 Park, Nand Nagari on 20/21.07.2007 around 12:30midnight. This witness had deposed on the similar lines as PW­3 Shyam Sunder and had stated that in the intervening night of 20/21.07.2007 at about 12:30midnight he was returning after delivering bakery items at C­3 Block, Nand Nagari and while passing by the side of the park he had noticed one boy sitting in the park and other boys standing near him and in the meanwhile a car had (State Vs. Sonu & Ors. SC.No.293/2007) page 18 of 63 come over there and two occupants of the car came down and reached near those boys who were already present in the park and they had talked with the boy who was standing there. This witness has further stated that occupants of the car had lifted the boy who was sitting there and made him to sit in the car at back seat. This witness had asked from them as to why they were taking him (the boy who was sitting in the park) to which they old him that the boy was in heavy drunken condition and that they were taking him to GTB Hospital and thereafter they left with the said body in the car towards DTC bus stop of route number 212. This witness has stated that he did not know the name of the boy who was sitting in the park as well as the names of other boy who was standing in the park by the side of sitting boy. This witness had also stated that he did not know the name of the occupants of the car. This witness, however, had identified two occupants of the car by pointing out fingers towards accused Sonu S/o Ram Pal and Vipin. This witness has further stated that he had seen the posters of the boy who was taken away by the aforesaid accused persons namely Sonu S/o Ram Pal and Vipin, in the locality and that he had told the police officials of the area that he witnesses the persons. This witness was cross examined by Ld. Addl. PP as he was not telling the certain facts and during his cross examination this witness had stated that he did not recollect whether he had told the police in his statement Ex.PW5/A that the make of the vehicle/car was Maruti Esteem.

(State Vs. Sonu & Ors. SC.No.293/2007) page 19 of 63 This witness further admitted that one occupant of the car came down from the car and went inside the park and brought the boy who was sitting on the bench and made him site on the rear seat of the car while to boys were already sitting inside the car. This witness has also admitted that there were four boys sitting inside the car and that he had given his statement to police on 25.07.2007. This witness had also admitted that he had seen the posters in the are of Sunder Nagari and the name of the person was mentioned on the poster and Shahnawaj Alam. During his cross examination by Ld. Addl. PP this witness had also identified other two accused persons namely Rakesh and Sonu S/o Ram Pal as the ones who were sitting inside the car. In his cross examination on behalf of accused Vipin, this witness had stated that he had not seen the missing person prior to occurrence nor he was knowing the name of the father of the missing person. Although, he had voluntarily said that he knew him at present (at the time of deposing in the court). This witness further stated that he had witnessed the incident from a distance of about 30 feet and that there was a streetlight in the park and that the streetlight was at the distance of 10 feet from the bench where the victim (deceased Shahnawaj Alam) was sitting. This witness has further stated that he had remained at the spot for about 2­4 minutes. This witness has further stated that the boy who was sitting on the bench was wet and that he had seen the poster of that boy within a period of 4­5 days from the day of incident. This (State Vs. Sonu & Ors. SC.No.293/2007) page 20 of 63 witness had claimed that he was illiterate, hence, he was unable to tell whether the name and address of the missing person was mentioned in the posture. This witness had further stated that other persons were reading the poster and that he had come to know about kidnapping of the boy shown in the poster from them. This witness further stated that he had informed one police official about the poster and that police official had taken him inside police station and produced before some other police official who was sitting there. This witness had stated that he had not given any description of those boys whom he had seen at the time of incident in the said vehicle as well as outside the vehicle. This witness further stated that police had recorded his statement on 25.07.2007 and that he remained in the police station four about 45 minutes. This witness has also stated in his cross examination that police did not show him those boys (accused persons) at any point of time and that he had seen the accused persons first time in the court after incident. This witness had further stated in his cross examination that the person who was in drunken condition was lying unconscious. This witness had also stated in the cross examination on behalf of accused Sonu S/o Ram Singh that he had not gone inside the park to see any articles of the said boy who was lying on the bench but he had gone near the car and talked with the boy who was sitting inside the park and also stated that he can identify the boy whom he had talked. In cross examination on behalf of accused (State Vs. Sonu & Ors. SC.No.293/2007) page 21 of 63 Sonu S/o Rampal this witness had stated that there was no long tree and shed were inside the park. This witness further stated that as soon as he had reached near the park the Maruti car also reached simultaneously and it had come from the opposite direction from where he had come over there and that the Maruti car had left the spot in his presence after about 5/6 minutes prior to his departure from the spot. This witness had also stated that he had not noticed any passerby during said period and that the car had left in the direction from where he had reached the spot. This witness has also stated that the boy was brought from the park and immediately was put in the vehicle and that the distance between the vehicle and the bench was around twenty feet. This witness had also stated that the car was standing just near him and that he had seen the face of the said boy when he was brought near the car and that he was wearing pant/shirt but this witness could not tell the colour of the clothes of that boy. This witness further stated that he did not meet the family members of the deceased from the period he had witnessed the incident till recording of his statement and also that he had met the father of the deceased when he had come to attend the court on the last date of hearing and that the father of the deceased used to meet him thereafter.

26.The next material witness examined by the prosecution is the father of deceased Shahnawaj Alam, namely Sh. Bahar Alam and he was examined as PW­2. In his deposition, this witness had stated that (State Vs. Sonu & Ors. SC.No.293/2007) page 22 of 63 deceased Shahnawaj Alam, aged about 21 years, was his son and that on 20.07.2007 the deceased had left the house alongwith his friends namely PWs Vipin and Sonu @ Pahari for getting certificate from his school and he did not turn up to the house. It was further stated by this witness that he was told by PW Sonu @ Pahari that his son had consumed liquor in excess quantity and that he was lying in a park situated in B­3, Nand Nagari, Delhi and thereafter he along with his other son Mosin had gone to the park but the deceased was not found there and that he could only see the two wheeler scooter of the deceased bearing registration number DL­SL­6366 in the park. He had made some enquiries from some persons present in the park regarding deceased and he was informed by some public persons that the deceased had fallen in the Nala and he was taken out from the Nala and thereafter he was put on a bench in the park and that certain boys had come there in a vehicle and took his son in the said vehicle. On this he had informed the police about this fact and police officials had come there after sometime. He had further stated that police officials had asked him to search for the deceased at his own level and thereafter to inform them. He had further stated that he had tried to search his son (deceased) during the whole night but he could not find him. This witness had further stated that on 24/25.07.2007 he had gone to police station to lodge a report and police had recorded his statement Ex.PW2/A and that in this statement he had mentioned the name of (State Vs. Sonu & Ors. SC.No.293/2007) page 23 of 63 accused Vipin and his associates upon whom he was having suspicion to the effect that they had taken his son in the vehicle. This witness has further stated that on 25.07.2007 he had joined the investigation with the police and accompanied them to Bulandsahar, U.P. alongwith two accused persons namely Rakesh and Sonu and police had taken the two accused persons near the police Chowki in the area of Thandi Pyau, Bulandsahar, Khurja Road and the accused persons had pointed out the place where they had thrown the dead body of his son Shahnawaj Alam after committing murder and memo in this regard were prepared which are Ex.PW2/B and Ex.PW2/C respectively on which he had identified his signature at point A. He had further stated that thereafter he was introduced to S.I. Rakesh Kumar, Incharge, Police Post, Thandi Pyau, who had produced a photograph before him and the said photograph was identified by him to be of his son Shahnawaj Alam and he had also identified his son from his clothes as well as mark of identification i.e. word 'S' on the left arm. He had further stated that the accused persons namely Rakesh and Sonu had confessed their involvement in the offence in his presence and their disclosure statement Ex.PW2/D and Ex.PW2/E respectively were recorded and he had identified his signature at point A on the both the disclosure statements. He had also stated that when his son had left the house he was wearing light yellow colour shirt and white colour pant and he was also wearing one silver ring having gold polish, (State Vs. Sonu & Ors. SC.No.293/2007) page 24 of 63 one Titan wrist watch of white colour, one thin gold chain and that he was also carrying a torn purse of black colour having driving license and some other documents. This witness had identified all the articles belonging to deceased Shahnawaj Alam i.e. yellow metal ring, gold chain, wrist watch make Titan, black purse, driving license, two passport size photographs, five visiting cards of Anas Fresh Bakery, one application form number 6 of election office, photocopy of ration car and one attested photocopy of driving license. He had also identified the clothes of the deceased and the photograph Mark X which is of the deceased. He had further deposed that he had identified his deceased son only from his photograph as well as his belongings.

27.In his cross examination PW Bahar Alam had stated that PW Sonu @ Pahari had come to his house at about 12:30midnight to inform regarding his son that he was lying in the park which is situated at the distance of 100 meters from his house. On hearing this he had left his house within 4­5 minutes for going to park. He further stated that Sonu @ Pahari had told him that he had left his son in the company of PW Vipin but PW Vipin did not meet him in the park when he reached there. He further stated that he had tried to talk PW Vipin and met him once before the registration of the FIR. This witness has also told that when he was informed by some public persons that some water was poured upon his son so that garbage could be removed from his body. This witness was (State Vs. Sonu & Ors. SC.No.293/2007) page 25 of 63 not able to recollect whether any belonging of his son was given to him by public persons or PW Vipin to his family members at his house. However, he had stated that he was shown articles of his deceased son first time in the court during proceeding. This witness has further stated that police party had reached at Thandi Pyau at around 03:30/04:00pm in a Qualis vehicle and he along with police personnel and the two accused persons namely Sonu and Rakesh had reached at Police Chowki at Bulandsahar and that no local police officials had accompanied them from Police Chowki, Bulandsahar to the spot. This witness had stated the time of signing of pointing out memo at Buland Sahar as after 04:00pm. On being asked the date when he had accompanied the police to Bulandsahar this witness stated that he was not aware of the date whether it was 25.07.2007 or some other date. This witness had also stated that he was not aware about the contents of the documents prepared by the police on which police had obtained his signatures. He further stated that the spot was by the side of a road at Bulandsahar and no photograph of the spot were taken in his presence and no disclosure statement of accused Sonu as well as of Rakesh was recorded. He had stated that he remained at Police Chowki, Bulandsahar for about fifteen minutes and that Delhi Police officials did not record the statement of any local police officials in his presence there. In his further cross examination on behalf of accused Vipin this witness had stated that his son Sahnawaj Alam was (State Vs. Sonu & Ors. SC.No.293/2007) page 26 of 63 facing some criminal cases pertaining to offences of robbery, Arms Act and the cases u/s 107/151 Cr.P.C. Although, he had voluntarily stated that his son had been falsely implicated in those criminal cases. He had stated that he did not know the Vipin S/o Kishan Lal, R/o Gagan Vihar, Ghaziabad, U.P. but he further stated that accused Vipin had himself told his name, parentage and age after arrest and that prior to his arrest he was not aware of his particulars. This witness had stated that he did not mention in the missing report regarding belongings of his deceased son which he was wearing and having at the time when he left the house. This witness had further told that he had gone to police station for lodging the report on 24.07.2007 and that he had collected the particulars i.e. parental address of Vipin prior to lodging his report but voluntarily this witness stated that he had talked with Kisan Lal, father of the accused Vipin prior to lodging the report through one mohalla boy whose name he could not recollect. This witness had stated that he had come to know about the fact that the dead body of his deceased son was thrown away at Bulandsahar, after 10­12 days of the registration of FIR. He had further states that this fact was was disclosed by accused persons namely Sonu S/o Rampal and Rakesh to police. This witness had stated in his report (FIR) Ex.PW2/A that his son was wearing clothes mentioned by him in his statement and also wearing gold chain, wrist watch, ring and purse and therefore he was confronted with his statement Ex.PW2/A (State Vs. Sonu & Ors. SC.No.293/2007) page 27 of 63 where these facts were not recorded. He admitted that the statement Ex.PW2/A was read over to him by the police and he had signed the same after admitting the same to be correct but he has further stated that he does not recollect whether police had mentioned all the facts in his statement Ex.PW2/A mentioned by him. This witness had also stated that actual father of accused Vipin had died and now the mother of accused Vipin started leaving with one Kisan Lal (uncle/chacha). This witness had admitted the suggestion put to him that accused present in the court is the S/o Nandan R/o 1/335, Punjab Lane, Railway Colony, Ghaziabad, U.P.

28.The last set of the material prosecution witnesses are PW­6, PW­7, PW­8 and PW­11, who are important link in the story of prosecution in so far as they had seen the dead body of the deceased found lying in agricultural field, near G.T. Road, Bhasoli, Bulandsahar, U.P. Out of this four witnesses PW­6 Mahesh Singh and PW­7 Sushil, both sons of Sh. Ram Chander, are the owner of the field where the body of deceased Shahnawaj was found lying.

29.In his statement PW­6 Mahesh Singh had stated that on 21.07.2007 at about 07:00am he had received an information through a person of his village that a dead body was found lying in his field and thereupon he had reached at his field and saw the dead body of an unknown person on the way to field and police had reached there and conducted panchnama (State Vs. Sonu & Ors. SC.No.293/2007) page 28 of 63 vide Ex.PW6/A and he had signed the same at point A.

30.PW­7 Sushil and PW­11 Mohd. Shahid have also deposed on the similar lines and they had identified the signature on the punchnama Ex.PW6/A at points B and D respectively.

31.PW­8 Wasim had also deposed the similar facts. Although, he could deposed the entire facts when he was cross examined by Ld. Addl. PP.

32.The other material link witness is PW­12 is Mohd. Mursalim. He had stated that in the month of July while he was going to village Chaula, Distt. Bulansahar from his house at about 09:00/10:00am he had reached near the field of Mahesh in village Bhasoli and noticed many public persons present near G.T. Road in the field of Mahesh and one male dead body, aged about 25 years, was found lying in the field, police officials were also present there. Inquest proceeding was conducted by the police and panchnama Ex.PW6/A was prepared and on this the witness had identified his signature at point X.

33.Further material link in the story of the prosecution is PW­23, S.I. Rakesh Kumar Singh. This witness had stated in his examination that on 21.07.2007 he was posted with PP Thandi Pyau of P.S. Kotwali Delhi, Bulandsahar, U.P. and on that day copy G.D. No.18, Ex.PWB­4 was assigned to him in connection with one dead body lying at a distance of four kilometers from P.S. Between Bulandsahar to Khurja Highway, thereupon this witness along with Ct. Devender Sharma and Ct. Iliyas (State Vs. Sonu & Ors. SC.No.293/2007) page 29 of 63 reached over there and found a dead body lying on grass at a distance of fourteen steps from the aforesaid highway towards village Bhasoli. He inspected the male dead body, aged about 20­25 years which was wearing pant and shirt and also got photographed the same and prepared inquest form. This witness had identified the deceased in the photograph Mark X which is available in judicial file and stated that it was the same dead body in respect of which he had conducted inquest proceeding. This witness had proved the inquest form Ex.PW14/B­2. This witness had made efforts regarding identification of the dead body but in vain. This witness had prepared the R.I. Report Ex.PW14/B­5, CMO report Ex.PW14/B­6, challan number 13 Ex.PW14/B­7, sketch of dead body Ex.PW14/B­8, report for photograph of the deceased Ex.PW14/B­9 and specimen seal impression Ex.PW14/B­10. The panchnama Ex.PW6/A testified by PW Nos.6, 7, 8, 11 and 12 is the part of the inquest for Ex.PW14/B­2. This witness had got hue and cry notice issued and got the dead body preserved for 72 hours in the mortuary for the purpose of its identification and since no one had come forward to claim the dead body and therefore after postmortem cremation of the dead body was performed by a constable being unclaimed. The sealed parcels etc. were deposited with MHC(M), P.S. Kotwali, Dehat, Bulandsahar, U.P. This witness has further deposed that on 01.08.2007, S.I. Ajay Singh Negi along with staff of Delhi Police had come to his P.P. alongwith two (State Vs. Sonu & Ors. SC.No.293/2007) page 30 of 63 accused persons. He had further stated one of them was accused Rakesh and identified him in the court. This witness was unable to identify the other accused who was brought by the Delhi Police to his police post due to long gap of time. This witness had further stated that the Delhi Police officials had enquired him about the recovery of the dead body under the jurisdiction of his police station and thereupon this witness had shown one photograph of the dead body and they had also matched that photograph with the other photograph which was with them. This witness had further stated that he had enquired from Delhi Police officials about the murder and they told him that one person had been kidnapped from the jurisdiction of their police station (Delhi Police). This witness further stated that thereafter Delhi Police officials returned. This witness had further stated that on the evening of same day Delhi Police officials along with another inspector had come to our police post. This witness had further stated that he had led the Delhi Police officials to the place of recovery of dead body and on the same day he had delivered the photocopy of the inquest papers to Delhi Police officials. This witness was cross examined by Ld. Addl. PP as he was resiling from his previous statement. In his cross examination by Ld. Addl. PP this witness had denied the suggestion that accused Sonu @ Saklesh S/o Ram Pal was also accompanying Delhi police officials on 01.08.2007 and thereafter this witness was suggested that he was not identifying the accused Sonu @ (State Vs. Sonu & Ors. SC.No.293/2007) page 31 of 63 Saklesh S/o Rampal being won over by him.

34. In his cross examination, S.I. Rakesh Kumar has stated that he had not prepared the site plan of the place where unclaimed dead body was found by him and further added that there was no such practice in such cases. It was admitted by this witness that corresponding entries of column number 5 of Ex.PW14/B­2 refers to the cause of death "due to injuries received from falling from unknown vehicle". But, he further added that this entry was made by him on the basis of the assessment of the PW­6 Mahesh. This witness further added that he was not sure about the above fact.

35.The next important link in the story of prosecution is PW­20 ASI Bhupender Singh and in his deposition before the court he has stated that in the intervening night of 20/21.07.2007, he was on night emergency duty at P.S. Nand Nagari from 08:00pm to 08:00am and during his duty hours at about 10:35pm DD No.26­A Ex.PW20/A was assigned to him to take action in the matter and this DD was regarding missing of Shahnawaj Alam and he along with Ct. Ashok reached at B­3 Park where Bahar Alam met him and told that his son Shahnawaj Alam was missing from the aforesaid park and had also disclosed that his son had consumed liquor in the park. This witness had made search of missing Shanawaj Alam on that day but in vain, thereafter, this witness had returned to police station and filled up missing persons form Ex.PW20/B and sent (State Vs. Sonu & Ors. SC.No.293/2007) page 32 of 63 the same to missing persons cell to take action in this matter. This witness had also made W.T. message all over India through wireless and proved its copy Ex.PW20/C. This witness had also sent information regarding missing of Shahnawaj to CBI vide letter Ex.PW20/B and also sent the copies thereof Ex.PW20/E, Ex.PW20/F and Ex.PW20/G to Doordarshan, Akashvani and CBI. This witness further stated that on 24.07.2007 PW Bahar Alam had come at police station and told him that his son Shahnawaj had been kidnapped and thereafter this witness had recorded the statement of PW Bahar Alam Ex.PW2/A and after making his endorsement Ex.PW20/H he got the present case registered vide FIR Ex.PW4/A and began investigation. This witness along with complainant Bahar Alam had reached at the spot i.e. B­3 Park, Nand Nagari, Delhi and prepared the site plan of the place of occurrence at the instance of PW Sonu @ Pahari.

36.In his cross examination, ASI Bhupender Singh had admitted that no report was lodged at P.S. Nand Nagari about missing of Sahnawaj Alam on 21.07.2007. This witness had also admitted that he had visited B­3 Park but Bahar Alam had not disclosed on that day i.e. intervening night of 20/21.07.2007 that his son Shahnawaj was kidnapped in some park. This witness has further admitted that the column meant for other articles worn or carrying by missing person was blank and had further admitted that the column was blank because Bahar Alam had not disclosed about (State Vs. Sonu & Ors. SC.No.293/2007) page 33 of 63 the carrying and wearing articles by the deceased Shahnawaj Alam. This witness had denied the suggestion that he had filled up all the required forms on 24.07.2007. This witness had stated in his cross examination that on 25.07.2007 pamphlet Ex.PW20/DA of hue & cry notice of Shahnawaj Alam was published and the same was prepared at the computer section of P.S. Nand Nagari and that 250 copies of the pamphlet were got prepared by him and the same were sent through Crime Records Office. This witness had further stated that he had seen one copy of pamphlet affixed at P.S. Nand Nagari but he was unable to tell the date when it was affixed. This witness had also stated that on 21.07.2007 he had gone inside the B­3 Park but he had not counted the seats or benches in the park. This witness had further stated that there were no seats and benches in the aforesaid park. This witness had also stated that Shahnawaj Alam had been involved in 6­7 cases from different police stations but he claimed ignorance as to how many cases out of those 6­7 cases pertain to P.S. Nand Nagari. On being shown DD No.26­A, Ex.PW20/A, this witness had admitted that DD No.26­A talks about the lifting of deceased Shahnawaj Alam by three or four persons in civil clothes who were claiming themselves to be police officials. This witness had denied the suggestion that DD No.26­A was the first FIR and not a missing report.

37.Next important witness of the prosecution is the second Investigation (State Vs. Sonu & Ors. SC.No.293/2007) page 34 of 63 Officer namely S.I. Ajay Singh Negi who has been examined as PW­16. This witness had stated that on 31.07.2007 the investigation of this case was assigned to him and after collecting the case file from previous I.O./PW­20, ASI Bhupender Singh, he had constituted a raiding party including HC Ravinder & Ct. Ramesh and reached at the house of complainant Bahar Alam and recorded his statement in which Bahar Alam had disclosed the names of accused Vipin, Sonu S/o Rampal, Sonu S/o Ram Singh and Rakesh as ones who had kidnapped his son Sahnawaj Alam due to some previous enmity. Thereafter, S.I. Ajay Singh Negi had searched for the accused persons at their houses but their presence could not be procured there. This witness has further stated that on 01.08.2007 accused Sonu S/o Rampal and Rakesh were brought from their house to P.P. (police post) Harsh Vihar for interrogation. On interrogation, accused Rakesh had disclosed that in the intervening night of 20/21.07.2007 he alongwith his associates had kidnapped Shahnawaj Alam from B­3 Park, Nand Nagari, Delhi and thereafter, he was taken on Bulandsahar, U.P. in Maruti Esteem Car belonging to his associate Vipin and Shahnawaj Alam was killed there and his dead body was thrown away there nearby the road. On interrogation accused Sonu S/o Rampal had disclosed the same facts as disclosed by accused Rakesh. This witness has further stated that he had taken both the abovesaid suspects namely Rakesh and Sonu S/o Rampal to Bulandsahar alongwith his team (State Vs. Sonu & Ors. SC.No.293/2007) page 35 of 63 and made efforts there to search for the place where the dead body was thrown. There, at Bulandsahar both the abovesaid suspects had taken the S.I. Ajay Singh Negi and his team at a distance of about 4­5 kilometers at Khurja Road, Bulandsahar, U.P., at a place situated about 25­30 steps ahead from Mahalaxmi Dhaba and pointed out the place firstly by accused Rakesh and thereafter by accused Sonu S/o Rampal. Thereafter, this witness had made local enquiries and thereupon he came to know that on 21.07.2007 at about 09:00am one young male dead body was seen lying there and that some proceedings in connection with the dead body had been conducted by the police officials from P.P. Thandi Pyau, P.S. Kotwali Dehat, Bulandsahar, U.P. Thereafter, this witness alongwith both the suspects and his team had gone to meet the Incharge of P.P. Thandi Pyau namely S.I. Rakesh Kumar and there narrated the facts of the present case to him and had also shown the photograph of the Shahnawaj Alam to him. On seeing the photograph of Shahnawaj Alam S.I. Rakesh Kumar (PW­23) had confirmed that the dead body of Shahnawaj Alam had been lifted by him from the place near Mahalaxmi Dhaba and also conducted inquest proceedings. On coming to know this fact, this witness had informed the duty officer and SHO of P.S. Nand Nagari telephonically about this revelation. This witness was directed by the SHO to stay at P.P. Thandi Pyau with the instructions that the investigation of the case had been assigned to Insp. C.M. Meena and that (State Vs. Sonu & Ors. SC.No.293/2007) page 36 of 63 he would be reaching at Bulandsahar sometime in the evening alongwith complainant Bahar Alam. This witness has further stated that on the same day at about 06:00pm Insp. C.M. Meena alongwith complainant Bahar Alam reached at P.P. Thandi Pyau. This witness had apprised about the facts of this case to Insp. C.M. Meena and thereafter joined the investigation of this case with him. This witness has further stated that during the course of investigation conducted by Insp. C.M. Meena the complainant had identified the dead body of his son Shahnawaj Alam on seeing the photograph of the dead body on being produced by S.I. Rakesh Kumar, Incharge, P.P. Thandi Pyau. This witness had further stated that the I.O. had collected the inquest papers of deceased Shahnawaj Alam including the photograph of the dead body, postmortem report and copy of the DD entries from S.I. Rakesh Kumar. This witness has further stated that the I.O./Insp. C.M. Meena had interrogated accused Sonu S/o Rampal and Rakesh and recorded their disclosure statements and thereafter they had pointed out the place near Mahalaxmi Dhaba and a pointing out memo was prepared. This witness has further stated that after completion of proceeding he alongwith the police team, complainant Bahar Alam and I.O. had come back to Delhi. This witness has further stated that both the accused/suspects led them to B­3 Park, Nand Nagari and pointed out the place in the park from where the deceased had been kidnapped and a pointing out memo was also prepared (State Vs. Sonu & Ors. SC.No.293/2007) page 37 of 63 there. This witness had further stated that the accused Sonu S/o Rampal had led his house at Nand Nagari, Delhi and got recovered the wrist watch of the deceased Shahnawaj Alam and the same was seized by the I.O. This witness had also stated that accused Rakesh had also led at his house at village Saboli and got recovered the gold chain of deceased and the same was seized by the I.O. This witness had further stated that both the accused/suspects had also led the I.O. and his team to a place, near Radhu Palace Cinema, Guru Angad Nagar, Delhi and got recovered one Maruti Esteem Car, white colour, bearing reg. no.DL­6C­4358 which had been stationed near the wall towards Khureji and I.O. had seized this vehicle. This witness had further joined the investigation of this case on 02.08.2007 and on that day he along with I.O. and other team members and accused Sonu S/o Rampal was taken up from the lockup and he had also led them to Delhi­U.P. border, Ghaziabad, U.P. for the arrest of co­ accused Sonu @ Vinod S/o Ram Singh. This witness has further stated that at the pointing out of Sonu S/o Rampal, accused Sonu @ Vinod S/o Ram Singh was arrested from his house. This witness has further stated that in pursuant to his disclosure statement accused Sonu @ Vinod S/o Rampal had got recovered one golden colour ring stated to be of deceased from his house and the same was seized by the I.O. Thereafter, accused Sonu @ Vinod S/o Rampal had led this witness and other team members to Radhu Palace Cinema. This witness had identified the wrist (State Vs. Sonu & Ors. SC.No.293/2007) page 38 of 63 watch, gold chain and the golden ring of the deceased and also identified the Maruti Esteem Car.

38.In his cross examination, S.I. Ajay Singh Negi had stated that the distance between the house of accused Sonu S/o Rampal and the complainant Bahar Alam was about 150­200 meters. This witness had further stated that he had gone to the house of accused Sonu S/o Rampal on 31.07.2007 and remained there for about fifteen minutes but he had not conducted the search of the said house and neither prepared any documents pertaining to the present case on that day i.e. 31.07.2007. In his further cross examination, this witness had stated that he had gone through the DD No.26­A dated 21.07.2007 before the investigation of this case but he had not tried to find out the informant of this DD during his investigation. This witness had also voluntarily stated that the investigation was with him for the time less than 24 hours only. In response to the question whether it came into his notice that accused Sonu S/o Rampal was suspect in the present case when he received the file of this case for investigation. This witness had answered that on 31.07.2007 after receiving the investigation of this case he had interrogated Bahar Alam and he had shown his suspicion upon accused Sonu S/o Ramapl responsible for the kidnapping of his son Shahnawaj Alam. After going through the case diary dated 31.07.2007, this witness had submitted that the abovesaid fact was mentioned therein. This (State Vs. Sonu & Ors. SC.No.293/2007) page 39 of 63 witness was confronted with his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. dated 01.08.2007, where the factum of PW Bahar Alam expressing his suspicion upon accused Sonu S/o Rampal was not recorded.

39. In his further cross examination, this witness had stated that between 09:45am on 01.08.2007 till their arrest accused Sonu S/o Rampal and Rakesh were kept at P.P. Harsh Vihar and thereafter they were taken to Bulandsahar, U.P. and that till the time of their arrest both the accused/suspects were free to leave P.P. Harsh Vihar as well as to make telephone calls to their relatives and they were not under any kind of police control. This witness has further stated that he had not noted down the substance of interrogation of both the accused/suspects namely Sonu S/o Rampal and Rakesh prior to their arrest and that he had passed on the substance of the interrogation to Insp. V.S. Tyagi, SHO, on the same day. He had further stated that he had not prepared any pointing out memo of the place that the two suspects had pointed out near Mahalaxmi Dhaba, Khurja Road, Bulandsahar, U.P. He had further stated that he along with his team and two suspects had stayed at the place of pointing out for about 15­20 minutes and at that time public persons were present but none of them were associated in the investigation. This witness had also stated that he had not made any DD entry at PP Thandi Pyau that he had visited the spot with two suspects, however, this witness had also stated that he had disclosed this fact to Incharge of PP Thandi Pyau. He had (State Vs. Sonu & Ors. SC.No.293/2007) page 40 of 63 further stated that Insp. C.M. Meena had reached PP Thandi Pyau at about 06:00pm along with complainant Bahar Alam and that he had not recorded the statement of any witness before the arrival of Insp. C.M. Meena at PP Thandi Pyau. This witness had admitted that no site plan of the place, where the dead body was stated to have been thrown by the two suspects, was prepared in his presence by the I.O. This witness had also stated that on 02.08.2007 he alongwith I.O., HC Ravinder, Ct. Vijay and Ct. Ramesh and accused Sonu S/o Rampal & Sonu S/o Ram Singh had gone to the place where the dead body was thrown in the area of Bulandsahar. This witness had also stated in his cross examination that complainant had not disclosed on 31.07.2007 the description of the articles which his son Shahnawaj Alam was carrying and wearing. He had also stated that on 01.08.2007 complainant had told the I.O. that deceased was wearing wrist watch, gold chain and gold ring. This witness had also stated that he had visited the B­3 Park, Nand Nagari for the first time on 01.08.2007 and that there were some damaged benches when he reached there.

40.The next material witness of the prosecution is PW­21 Insp. C.M. Meena, the third and final I.O. of this case. In his testimony before the court, he had stated that on 01.08.2007 he was assigned investigation of this case at about 03:30pm and he was also told by the SHO that S.I. Ajay Singh Negi had gone to Bulandsahar, U.P. along with the two (State Vs. Sonu & Ors. SC.No.293/2007) page 41 of 63 suspects/accused Sonu S/o Ram Pal and Rakesh for the investigation of this case, and as per the directions of SHO he had gone to Bulandsahar along with Bahar Alam and reached at P.P. Thandi Pyau and found S.I. Ajay Singh Negi and other police officials and the two suspects.

41. This witness had received the case file from S.I. Ajay Singh Negi and had come to know from him that one male dead body had been recovered within the area of PP Thandi Pyau and the descriptions of the dead body were found to be the same as photograph of deceased Shahnawaj Alam available in the file. Rakesh Kumar Incharge P.P. Thandi Pyau had produced the photograph of male dead body and the complainant Bahar Alam had identified the dead body of his son on seeing the abovesaid photograph. This witness had identified the photograph Mark X available on judicial file on being shown to him. This witness had collected the postmortem report and inquest papers from S.I. Rakesh Kumar and interrogated suspects/accused Sonu S/o Rampal and arrested him vide memo Ex.PW16/A and conducted his personal search vide memo Ex.PW16/B. The disclosure statement Ex.PW16/E of the accused Sonu S/o Rampal was also recorded by this witness. This witness had further interrogated the other suspect namely Rakesh and arrested him and conducted his personal search vide memo Ex.PW16/C and Ex.PW16/D respectively and had recorded his disclosure statement Ex.PW16/F. This witness has further stated that in pursuant to the disclosure statement (State Vs. Sonu & Ors. SC.No.293/2007) page 42 of 63 made by the above said two accused persons, they led this witness and his team and complainant Bahar Alam to a place near Mahalaxmi Dhaba, Khurja Road, Buland Sahar, U.P. and there accused Sonu S/o Rampal and Rakesh had pointed out the place one by one where dead body of deceased was thrown and a pointing out memo Ex.PW2/B and Ex.PW2/C were prepared. After completing the writing work this witness alongwith his team, aforesaid two accused persons and complainant Bahar Alam had come back to Delhi. This witness has further stated that in pursuant to their disclosure statements the accused persons had led them to B­3 Park, Nand Nagari, Delhi and pointed out the place of abduction and pointing out memo Ex.PW16/G and Ex.PW16/H were prepared. In pursuance of disclosure statement the accused Sonu S/o Rampal had led this witness to his house and got recovered one silver colour wrist watch, make Titan and the same were seized vide memo Ex.PW3/I. Thereafter, accused Rakesh led to his tenanted house and from there he got recovered one gold chain which was seized vide memo Ex.PW16/J. Thereafter, both the abovesaid accused persons had led the I.O. and his team to Radhu Palace Cinema and pointed out the white colour Esteem Car stationed by the side of the wall of Radhu Palace Cinema and the same was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW16/K. The car was brought to PP Harsh Vihar by a crane. This witness has further stated that on 02.08.2007 at about 05:00am accused Sonu S/o Rampal was taken out (State Vs. Sonu & Ors. SC.No.293/2007) page 43 of 63 from the lockup and he led him and his team to the house of his associate namely accused Sonu S/o Ram Singh at Gagan Vihar, Bhopura, Ghaziabad, U.P. and there he was apprehended and arrested vide memo Ex.PW16/L and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW16/M. The disclosure statement of accused Sonu S/o Ram Singh, Ex.PW16/N was recorded. In pursuant to his disclosure statement accused Sonu S/o Ram Singh had got recovered one gold ring kept in an iron box and the same was seized vide memo Ex.PW16/O. The accused Sonu S/o Ram Singh had led this witness and his team to B­3 Park, Nand Nagari and pointed out the place from where deceased was abducted and pointing out memo Ex.PW16/P was prepared. Accused Sonu S/o Ram Singh had led this witness and his team to Radhu Palace Cinema and pointed out the place where the Esteem car was recovered and pointing out memo Ex.PW16/Q was prepared. Thereafter, accused Sonu S/o Ram Singh had led this witness and his team to the place where the dead body of the deceased was thrown at a place in the jurisdiction of PP Thandi Pyau and pointed out that place and a pointing out memo Ex.PW16/R was prepared. This witness has further stated that during the course of investigation it had come to his notice that one accused namely Vipin, one of the accused in this case, was in JC in some other case and therefore he had moved an application for his production in the court but the court had directed to interrogate accused Vipin in the jail itself (State Vs. Sonu & Ors. SC.No.293/2007) page 44 of 63 therefore on 03.08.2007 he alongwith one police official had reached at Tihar Jail and after the permission of Jail Authority, accused Vipin was arrested vide memo Ex.PW10/B and on interrogation this accused had made a disclosure statement Ex.PW10/A, wherein, he had disclosed that he can get recovered the pocket purse of the deceased containing photocopy of ration car, driving license of deceased, some visiting cards and approximately Rs.2,000/­ which were kept in his house at Gagan Vihar, Ghaziabad, U.P. This witness had also moved an application for the production of this accused in muffled face before concerned court on 04.08.2007 and on that day the accused Vipin was produced in muffled face in the court. This witness had also moved an application for TIP of all the four accused persons including that of accused Vipin but all the four accused persons had refused to undergo TIP proceeding. This witness had obtained the police custody remand of accused Vipin on 08.08.2007 and on that day accused Vipin had got recovered pocket purse containing the belongings of the deceased from his house and it was seized vide memo Ex.PW15/C. Thereafter, the accused Vipin had also led Insp. C.M. Meena and his team to B­3 Park, Nand Nagari and also at a place near Mahalaxmi Dhaba, within the area of PP Thandi Pyau, Bulandsahar, U.P. and pointed out the respective places vide pointing out memo Ex.PW15/B and Ex.PW15/A respectively on 09.08.2007. This witness had got the TIP of the case property conducted (State Vs. Sonu & Ors. SC.No.293/2007) page 45 of 63 in pursuance of his application Ex.PW21/F.

42.In his cross examination, this witness has stated that the complainant Bahar Alam had stated in this statement that the deceased was wearing Titan wrist watch but he claimed ignorance about the date of such statement and when attention of this witness was drawn to the statement of Bahar Alam dated 25.07.2007, this witness stated that make Titan is not mentioned in the said statement. This witness had also collected information regarding recovery of Maruti Esteem car and it came to his notice that owner of the car resides in the area of Okhla, Delhi but he had not examined the owner of that car to ascertain as to how his car had reached near Radhu Palace Cinema. In answer to a court question 'as to how he had come to know about the address and parentage of the accused Sonu S/o Ram Singh', this witness had stated that this fact he had come to know from the disclosure statement made by the accused himself.

43.The other witness examined by the prosecution is PW­4 HC Deshraj who had proved the FIR Ex.PW4/A which was registered by him on 24.07.2007 at about 09:17pm while he was working as duty officer on that day.

44.PW­10 Ct. Mahavir Singh is a witness who had accompanied Insp. C.M. Meena, I.O. of this case to Tihar Jail on 03.08.2007 and on that day accused Vipin was interrogated by the Insp. C.M. Meena. This witness in his statement before the court had stated that on 03.08.2007 he had (State Vs. Sonu & Ors. SC.No.293/2007) page 46 of 63 accompanied Insp. C.M. Meena to Tihar Jail, where accused Vipin was interrogated and arrested and an application for his production at Karkardooma Courts was moved by the I.O. on 04.08.2007.

45. In his cross examination, this witness had stated that the accused Vipin was interrogated four about 1 ½ to 2 hours.

46.PW­13, HC Naresh Kumar is the MHC(M) and he had proved the case property recovered during the investigation of this case time to time which was deposited in the Malkhana. In his testimony before the court this witness has proved the photocopies of the relevant entries of register number 19 i.e. Ex.PW13/A, Ex.PW13/B, Ex.PW13/C and Ex.PW13/D. This witness had further stated that on 14.08.2007 he had delivered the four sealed parcels of this case to the I.O. for the purpose of TIP proceeding and made endorsement to this effect in register no.19, Ex.PW13/E and further stated that on the same day the aforesaid sealed parcels were deposited back to him by the I.O. and that the parcels were sealed with the seal of NB.

47.PW­14, Dr. Aditya Pal Saini, was the Medical Superintendent, who had conducted the postmortem on the dead body of deceased at Police Hospital, Bulandsahar, U.P. In his testimony before the court this witness had stated that on 21.07.2007 he was on duty at aforesaid hospital and on that day at about 04:00pm he had conducted postmortem examination of unknown male dead body, aged about 24 years, who was sent by the (State Vs. Sonu & Ors. SC.No.293/2007) page 47 of 63 police. During postmortem this witness had noticed a tattoo mark 'S' on the right forearm of the dead body and found two injuries i.e. (i) Abraded contusion, 5.5X3cms, right side of forehead and (ii) contused traumatic swelling, size 8X6cms on the right side back of head. The cause of death was opined by this witness 'due to comma as a result of ante­mortem head injuries' and the time since death was opined 18 hours prior to the time of postmortem. This witness had proved his detailed postmortem report, Ex.PW14/A and also put his initial at point A on ten inquest papers, Ex.PW14/B­1 to Ex.PW14/B­10.

48.In his cross examination, PW doctor Aditya Pal Saini had stated that cause of death was given on the basis of postmortem observations and not on inquest paper and that contusion appears immediately after hitting the point. This witness had further stated that ante­mortem injury number

(i) & (ii) may also appear due to accidental fall of a person against hard surface. It has further come in the testimony of this witness that he had found not blood oozing on the dead body and neither there was any sign making any point of oozing blood on the dead body. In his cross examination on behalf of accused Vipin, this witness had stated that the dead body was of a Hindu male person.

49.The next witness of the prosecution is PW­15 HC Ramesh Chand. He is a witness who had joined the investigation of this case in the company of S.I. Ajay Singh Negi on 01.08.2007 and also had remained in the (State Vs. Sonu & Ors. SC.No.293/2007) page 48 of 63 investigation conducted by the next I.O./Insp. C.M. Meena. This witness had stated on the similar lines as PW­16 S.I. Ajay Singh Negi and PW­21 Insp. C.M. Meena. He had also identified the case property recovered in his presence during the course of investigation from 01.08.2007 to 08.08.2007.

50. PW­17 Ct. Devender Kumar is the witness who had accompanied PW­ 23 S.I. Rakesh Kumar alongwith Ct. Mohd. Iliyas after receiving of information regarding a dead body lying by the side of road in village Bhasoli, Bulandsahar, U.P. In his testimony before the court this witness had testified on similar line as PW­23 had identified the deceased from the photograph Mark X available on judicial file. He had also stated about the preparation of inquest papers by S.I. Rakesh Kumar. This witness has further stated that he alongwith Ct. Iliyas had taken the dead body for postmortem to the mortuary of District Govt. Hospital and got preserved the dead body in mortuary and delivered the inquest papers to the concerned dealing clerk in the presence of the doctor. Other facts were also testified by this witness on the same lines as that testified by PW­23.

51.PW­18 S.I. Mukesh Kumar Jain is draughtsman and he had prepared the scaled site plan. This witness in his testimony before the court had deposed that on 06.10.2007 he was called by the I.O. of this case and he reached at P.S. Nand Nagari and from there he had accompanied the I.O.

(State Vs. Sonu & Ors. SC.No.293/2007) page 49 of 63 to the spot i.e. village Bhasoli, Aligarh­Bulandsahar Road, Distt. Bulandsahar, U.P., where, S.I. Rakesh Kumar from PP Thandi Pyau was present. This witness had taken measurements and notes of the spot at the instance of I.O. and on the basis of those rough notes and measurements he had prepared the scaled site plan Ex.PW18/A.

52.In his cross examination, this witness had stated that the Dhaba was situated at a distance of about 80­100 meters from the spot. This witness had also stated that he had shown in the site plan the Mahalaxmi Dhaba as situated towards P.S. Kotwali Dehat, Bulandsahar, U.P. from the spot.

53.PW­19, is retired ASI Chitter Singh who was the MHC(M) at P.S. Kotwali Dehat, U.P. This witness had stated in his testimony that on 21.07.2007 Ct. Devender Kumar had deposited one sealed parcel sealed with the seal of District Hospital containing clothes etc. of unknown male dead body and one sealed envelope duly sealed with the same seal containing sample seal in the Malkhana. On 06.10.2007, Delhi police official of P.S. Nand Nagari had reached at his P.S. and he had handed over the aforesaid sealed parcel etc. at his request as the same were related to the present case and seizure memo Ex.PW19/A was prepared to this effect. This witness has also stated that he had made entry in Roznamcha and register in this regard.

54.In his cross examination, this witness had denied the suggestion that the dates mentioned as 21.07.2007 and 06.10.2007 are imaginary and (State Vs. Sonu & Ors. SC.No.293/2007) page 50 of 63 fabricated.

55.PW­22, Ms. Niraja Bhatia, the then Ld. MM, had conducted the TIP proceedings of the accused persons and also the TIP proceedings of the case property. In her testimony before the court she had stated that on 06.08.2007 accused Sonu S/o Rampal, Rakesh, Sonu @ Vinod S/o Ram Singh and Vipin had refused to undergo TIP in separate proceedings. This witness had proved the TIP refusal proceedings by the accused persons vide Ex.PW21/B & Ex.PW22/A, Ex.PW20/C & Ex.PW22/B, Ex.PW21/D & Ex.PW22/C and Ex.PW21/E and Ex.PW21/D respectively. This witness has further stated that on 14.08.2007 she had conducted the TIP of the case property vide Ex.PW21/G, Ex.PW21/H, Ex.PW21/I and Ex.PW21/J and stated that PW Bahar Alam had correctly identified the TIP proceeding. In her cross examination on behalf of accused Sonu S/o Rampal this witness had stated that it was not possible to detail each and every description of the articles brought for mixing and due to above reason the satisfaction of the fact that articles brought for mixing were almost 'identical' is only recorded and similarly in the present case the same facts had been recorded.

STATEMENT OF ACCUSED PERSONS U/S 313 Cr.P.C.:

56.After prosecution evidence, statements of accused persons u/s 313 Cr.

P.C. were recorded where accused persons had denied all the allegations, evidence and circumstances put to them and claimed to be innocent.

(State Vs. Sonu & Ors. SC.No.293/2007)                                       page  51 of 63
    DEFENCE WITNESSES 

57.The accused Sonu S/o Rampal had got examined four defence witnesses namely DW­1 Smt. Rani, DW­2 Smt. Guddi and S.I. Dhanchand as DW­ 3 & DW­4.

58. DW­1 Smt. Rani in her testimony before the court had stated that on 31.07.2007 between 08­09:00am three four police officials, out of them two were in civil dress, had lifted accused Sonu S/o Ram Pal in a car from the first floor of her house and thereafter she had made a call at 100 number in this regard two times from a STD booth in front of her house and also made one call from the mobile phone of one passerby but police did not come on her calls. She further stated that thereafter her son accused Sonu S/o Rampal had not come to her till date.

59.This witness was cross examined by Ld. Addl. PP and in that she had stated that she had not made any complaint to higher police officials regarding the alleged lifting of her son from her house. This witness had also admitted that none of her family members either made any written complaint to higher police officials in this regard.

60.DW­2 Smt. Guddi had also deposed on similar lines as DW­1 and she further stated that police officials had not come at aforesaid house after 31.07.2007 and that the accused Sonu S/o Rampal had not come to her house after his arrest and prior to his bail.

61.This witness was cross examined by Ld. Addl. PP and she had stated that (State Vs. Sonu & Ors. SC.No.293/2007) page 52 of 63 she had not made any complaint to higher police officials regarding alleged trespass and the alleged lifting of her nephew accused Sonu S/o Rampal by the police.

62.DW­3 & DW­4 is one and the same person, however, he had brought different records and therefore he had been examined as DW­3 in respect of the records brought by him on 18.04.2013 and as PW­4 in respect of the records brought by him on 20.04.2013. This witness had brought the DD entries of P.S. Nand Nagari and proved the same on 18.04.2013.

63. This witness was cross examined by Ld. Addl. PP and he admitted that none of the entries were made in his presence because he was not posted with P.S. Nand Nagari in the year 2007 and he had also stated that he had no personal knowledge about the contents of the various DDs brought by him. This witness had also stated in his cross examination that firstly we make entry in DD register about the information received at P.S. without verifying those facts whether the information received was right or not and thereafter the information is verified by an officer to whom the a particular DD was assigned.

64.As DW­4 this witness had brought the DD entries concerned with PP Harsh Vihar and proved the same and on being cross examined by Ld. Addl. PP this witness had again stated that entries were made in his presence as he was not posted with P.S. Nand Nagari before the year 2009.

(State Vs. Sonu & Ors. SC.No.293/2007) page 53 of 63

65.Ld. Addl. PP for the State has presented the facts of the case and also the facts coming on record against each of the accused persons. Ld. Addl. PP had submitted that there is sufficient evidence on record to connect all the four accused persons with the offence with which they have been charged.

66.Ld. Addl. PP had submitted that the case of the prosecution is based on following circumstances:

(a) That the deceased Shahnawaj Alam was present in B­3 Park, Nand Nagari along with PWs Vipin and Sonu @ Pahari at the relevant date and time.

(b) That deceased Shahnawaj Alam and PWs Sonu @ Pahari and Vipin had consumed liquor on that day.

(c) That deceased was last seen in the B­3 Park, Nand Nagari by PWs Sonu @ Pahari, Vipin, Shyam Sunder and Mohd. Anwar.

(d) That deceased Shahnawaj was seen in the company of PW Vipin by another PW Sonu @ Pahari and at that time accused Vipin had come and made enquiries about the identity of the deceased.

(e) That PW Sonu @ Pahari had left the Park B­3 Nand Nagari for going to the house of deceased Shahnawaj Alam to inform his family members that Shahnawaj Alam was in highly drunken state and at that time PW Vipin remained with Shahnawaj Alam.

        (f)     That   PW   Shyam   Sunder   had   seen   all   the   accused   persons


(State Vs. Sonu & Ors. SC.No.293/2007)                                     page  54 of 63

coming to Park in a Esteem Car while PW Vipin and deceased Shahnawaj Alam were present there.

(g) That deceased Shahnawaj Alam was taken away by all the four accused persons from the B­3 Park and he was made to sit in the same Esteem car in which they had come.

(h) That all the four accused persons had taken the deceased Shahnawaj Alam in Esteem car on the pretext that he was being taken to GTB Hospital due to heavy drunken condition.

(i) That the time of deceased being taken by the accused persons in the car was something between 12:20am and 01:00am.

(j) That the dead body of the deceased Shahnawaj Alam was found lying by the side of the road in fields at village Bhasoli, Distt.

Bulandsahar, U.P. on 21.07.2007 and was noticed by the villagers in the morning hours at around 07­08:00am.

(k) That the police officials of PP Thandi Pyau of P.S. Kotwali, Dehat had reached at that place and after conducting the inquest proceeding they had got the postmortem conducted on the dead body and that the photograph of the dead body was also taken and the belongings of the deceased were also seized.

(l) That the FIR was registered on the statement of PW Bahar Alam in which he had named one of the four co­accused persons namely Vipin.

(State Vs. Sonu & Ors. SC.No.293/2007)                                        page  55 of 63
         (m)     Publication   of   pamphlets   regarding   missing   of   deceased

Shahnawaj and the identification of the deceased by PWs Shyam Sunder and Mohd. Anwar from the pamphlets.

(n) The complainant disclosing the names of other accused persons namely Sonu S/o Rampal, Sonu S/o Ram Singh, and Rakesh besides the name of accused Vipin to police on 30.07.2007 to PW­16 S.I. Ajay Singh Negi.

(o) The interrogation of accused Sonu S/o Rampal and accused Rakesh and also their disclosure about the kidnapping of deceased Shahnawaj Alam alongwith their associates Sonu S/o Ram Singh and killing of Shahnawaj Alam by them.

(p) The accused Sonu S/o Rampal and Rakesh leading S.I. Ajay Singh Negi and his team to the place where the dead body of the deceased Shahnawaj Alam was thrown (which is situated in the area of PP Thandi Pyau, P.S. Kotwali Dehat, Distt. Bulandsahar, U.P.) and pointing out that place.

(q) S.I. A.S. Negi making enquiry from the abovesaid PP by showing the photograph of Shahnawaj Alam and coming to know that the dead body of Shahnawaj Alam was lifted by S.I. Rakesh Kumar of PP Thandi Pyau on 21.07.2007 at about 09:00am.

(r) The identification of the deceased by his father PW Bahar Alam by the photograph taken by U.P. Police before the postmortem (State Vs. Sonu & Ors. SC.No.293/2007) page 56 of 63 of the deceased.

(s) The autopsy surgeon pointing out the time since death as 18 hours which is in close proximity with the time of killing of deceased (deceased being lifted at about 12:30midnight on 21.07.2007 and postmortem conducted at about 04:00pm on 21.07.2007).

(t) The pointing out of the place by accused Sonu S/o Rampal and Rakesh from where the dead body was recovered.

(u) The recovery of the wrist watch at the instance of accused Sonu S/o Rampal and the recovery of the gold chain of the deceased at the instance of accused Rakesh and the recovery of the Maruti Esteem Car at the instance of both the aforesaid accused.

(v) The recovery of golden ring of deceased from accused Sonu S/o Ram Singh and the recovery of the purse of the deceased containing his belongings from accused Vipin.

(w) The identification of the belongings of the deceased by his father during TIP proceeding by his father during TIP proceeding.

(x) The refusal of the accused persons from undergoing the TIP proceeding.

(y) That there occurred a quarrel between deceased Shahnawaj Alam and accused Vipin sometime before and that the accused Vipin (State Vs. Sonu & Ors. SC.No.293/2007) page 57 of 63 was having enmity and grudge against the deceased.

67.Ld. Addl. PP had submitted that the circumstance (a) is established by PWs Vipin, Sonu @ Pahari ; circumstance (b) is also established by PWs Sonu @ Pahari and Vipin ; circumstance (c) is established by PWs Sonu @ Pahari, Shyam Sunder and Mohd. Anwar ; circumstance (d) is established by PW Sonu @ Pahari; circumstance (e) is again established by PW Sonu @ Pahari ; circumstance (f) is established by PW Shyam Sunder ; circumstances (g) & (h) also established by PWs Shyam Sunder and Mohd. Anwar; circumstance (i) is established by PW Shyam Sunder and Mohd. Anwar ; circumstance (j) is established by PWs Mahesh Singh, Sushil, Wasim, Mohd. Shahid, Mohd. Mursalim ; circumstance (K) is established by PWs - S.I. Rakesh Kumar Singh and Ct. Devender ; circumstance (m) is established by PWs Shyam Sunder and Mohd. Anwar ; circumstance (n) is established by PW Bahar Alam and S.I. Ajay Singh Negi ; circumstances (o) & (p) are established by S.I. Ajay Singh Negi ; circumstance (q) is established by S.I. Ajay Singh Negi and S.I. Rakesh Kumar Singh ; circumstance (r) is established by PWs Bahar Alam, S.I. Ajay Singh Negi, Insp. C.M. Meena ; circumstance (s) is established by Dr. Aditya Pal Singh Saini and circumstances (t), (u) & (v) by Insp. C.M. Meena, S.I. Ajay Singh Negi, HC Ramesh Chand and circumstance (w) is established by PWs Ms. Nirja Bhatia, the then Ld. MM and complainant Bahar Alam ; circumstance (x) is established by (State Vs. Sonu & Ors. SC.No.293/2007) page 58 of 63 Ms. Nirja Bhatia and circumstance (y) is established by PW Bahar Alam.

68.Ld. Addl. PP had submitted that the circumstances mentioned establish that it was the accused persons who had committed this crime and therefore he submits that the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused persons beyond the shadow of reasonable doubts.

69.Per contra, the counsel for the accused persons have submitted that there are many links missing in the story of prosecution and it has been submitted that even the prosecution has not established that the dead body was of deceased Shahnawaj Alam because the autopsy surgeon had stated in his testimony that it was a dead body of a 'Hindu male'. It has been further submitted that PW Vipin had stated that the purse of the deceased was taken up by him and was handed over to the brother of the deceased on the next date and therefore the recovery of the purse from accused Vipin is planted one. It is further claimed by the counsel for the accused persons that there was no proper identification of the Esteem car and that no blood was found inside the car and also that no mud was found in the car and that even the car was not got examined by the forensic expert.

70. It has been further submitted that no site plan of the place of pointing out was prepared where the dead body of the deceased was allegedly thrown by the accused persons and that the alleged recovery of wrist watch, gold chain, golden ring by the prosecution is not established (State Vs. Sonu & Ors. SC.No.293/2007) page 59 of 63 because it has never come during investigation that deceased was wearing wrist watch make Titan. It has also been submitted that the father of the deceased had never told any of the investigating officers about the belongings (carrying and wearing) of the deceased at the time when he went missing and therefore the recoveries are undoubtedly planted by the police at the behest of the father of the deceased. It has been also submitted by the counsel for the accused persons that father of the deceased had called up police at 100 number in the night on 21.07.2007 and in that he had stated that his son had been lifted by the policemen from the B­3 Park, Nand Nagari, Delhi and that the policemen were in civil dress and therefore subsequent naming of the accused persons by him is without any base.

ARGUMENTS HEARD. RECORD PERUSED.

71. I have considered the rival submissions of the parties and carefully perused the record. On the perusal of record, including the testimony of the autopsy surgeon PW­14 Dr. Aditya Pal Saini and the postmortem report Ex.PW14/A. Testimony of this witness was very much relevant for the just decision of this case. As per the testimony of this witness, this witness has stated that he had conducted postmortem on a Hindu male, whereas, case of the prosecution is that missing person was a Muslim person. Even, otherwise also even if prosecution succeeds to prove its case then this fact remains disputed.

(State Vs. Sonu & Ors. SC.No.293/2007) page 60 of 63

72. As per the case of prosecution, the complainant Bahar Alam had become aware of the fact that one person was making enquiry about the identity of his deceased son in the B­3 Park, Nand Nagari and despite that while calling by the police on 21.07.2007 he had not mentioned this fact in his information given to police person to which DD No.26­A was registered and it also creates doubt.

73.PW Vipin had categorically stated in his statement before the court that the contents of the pocket of the deceased Shahnawaj Alam were taken by him and handed over to his brother on the next day in the morning and therefore I find weight in the submissions of Ld. counsel for the accused persons that when the contents of the pocket of deceased were removed by PW Vipin there was no occasion for any recovery of purse from the person of the deceased as claimed by the prosecution.

74.PW Bahar Alam had also not stated about the particulars of belongings (wearing and carrying) by his deceased son and even at the time when he lodged the FIR on 24.07.2007 i.e. after three days of the missing of his son Shahnawaj Alam, and therefore the recoveries of the wrist watch, golden chain and gold chain is also appears to be doubtful.

75.That one of the star witness of the prosecution namely PW Vipin had turned hostile and he did not identify any of the four accused and especially to accused Vipin who had made enquiry from him about the identity of the deceased in B­3 Park, Nand Nagari.

(State Vs. Sonu & Ors. SC.No.293/2007) page 61 of 63

76.The other material witness namely PW­3 Shyam Sunder and PW­5 Mohd. Anwar appeared to have been introduced at the behest of the father of the deceased after registration of FIR on 25.07.2007 and therefore their testimony do not inspire confidence.

77.It is very strange that S.I. Ajay Singh Negi had not prepared any pointing out memo at the time when accused Sonu S/o Rampal and Rakesh had pointed out the place where dead body of the deceased Shahnawaj Alam was allegedly thrown by them alongwith other accused persons especially when S.I. Ajay Sing Negi was investigating officer on that day i.e. 31.08.2007 and nothing prevented him from preparing the pointing out memo at the very time when the abovesaid two accused had pointed out the place of incident.

78. It also sounds very strange that PW Bahar Alam had stated in his testimony that on 25.07.2007 he had accompanied the police to Bulandsahar, U.P. and there the accused persons had pointed out the place where the dead body of Shahnawaj Alam was thrown by the accused persons, whereas, the case of the prosecution is that S.I. Ajay Singh Negi had gone to Bulandshar only on 01.08.2007 and the proceedings of the pointing out by the accused persons were on 01.08.2007.

79. After considering all the facts and circumstances, this court is of the view that the prosecution has been miserably failed to prove its case (State Vs. Sonu & Ors. SC.No.293/2007) page 62 of 63 against all the four accused persons beyond reasonable doubts.

80. Accordingly, in the absence of sufficient evidence against the accused persons namely Sonu S/o Ram Singh, Sonu S/o Ram Pal, Rakesh and Vipin this court acquits them from the charges punishable u/S 365/302/201/34 and 411 IPC by giving them benefit of doubt.

81.In terms of Section 437­A Cr. P.C. accused persons are directed to execute bail bond in sum of Rs.25,000/­ each with one surety in the like amount for the period of six months. Order accordingly, file be consigned to record room.

PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 04.06.2013 (RAMESH KUMAR­II) ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE­01/NORTH EAST KARKARDOOMA COURTS: DELHI (State Vs. Sonu & Ors. SC.No.293/2007) page 63 of 63