Delhi District Court
State vs ) Vijay Kumar @ Monti on 28 February, 2013
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIRENDER KUMAR GOYAL
ADDL SESSIONS JUDGE: FAST TRACK COURT
ROHINI:DELHI
SC No. 67/01/10
Unique Identification No. 02404R0393022006
State
Versus
1) Vijay Kumar @ Monti
Son of Sh. Ramesh Chand
R/o B2/233, Gali No.13,
Harash Vihar, PhaseI,
Delhi.
FIR No. 780/06
PS - Mangolpuri
U/s. 364A/302/201/34 of IPC
Date of Decision: 25/02/2013
Date of order on Sentence:28/02/2013
ORDER ON SENTENCE
28/02/2013
Present. Ld. APP for State.
Convict Vijay Kumar @ Monti from J.C with Amicus Curiae Sh.
Dhirender Singh.
Ld. defence counsel submits that the convict Vijay Kumar @ Monti is 30
years of age. He is unmarried. He is having aged parents to support being the sole
bread earner of his family. Ld. Defence counsel further submits that the offence
proved against the convict does not fall within the definition of rarest of rarer case,
hence be not awarded with capital punishment. He is also not a previous convict and
not a habitual offender.
SC No. 67/01/10 1
On the other hand, Ld. APP has contended that accused Vijay Kumar
@ Monti has been convicted for offences U/s. 364A/34 of IPC, U/s. 302/34 of
IPC and U/s.201/34 IPC. Hence, he be dealt with accordingly.
I have considered the submissions of learned defence counsel and
Ld. APP for State. The offences committed has caused a huge loss to the
family of the deceased, who was aged about 22 years. Due to his murder, his
family has also suffered a lot and lost the love and affection alongwith financial
loss. Not only this but besides the murder of Anil, ransom of Rs.10 lacs was
demanded from the father of deceased.
After considering the age, character and antecedents of the convict
Vijay Kumar @ Monti and the circumstances in which the murder was
committed, I am of the view that this case is not falling within the ambit of
rarest of the rare cases.
Offence U/s. 364A of IPC is punishable with death or imprisonment
for life and shall also be liable to fine.
Accordingly, sentence of imprisonment for life is imposed U/s.
364A/34 of IPC with fine of Rs.5000/ upon convict Vijay Kumar @ Monti,
in default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo five years simple
imprisonment.
Offence U/s. 302 of IPC is punishable with death or imprisonment
for life and shall also be liable to fine.
Accordingly, sentence of imprisonment for life is imposed U/s.
302/34 of IPC with fine of Rs. 5000/ upon convict Vijay Kumar @ Monti, in
default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo five years simple
imprisonment.
SC No. 67/01/10 2
Offence U/s.201 of IPC, is punishable with imprisonment either for
a term which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine, if it is
related to capital offence punishable with death.
Accordingly, sentence of imprisonment of seven years is imposed
U/s.201/34 of IPC with fine of Rs.5000/ upon convict Vijay Kumar @ Monti,
in default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo one and half years
simple imprisonment.
All the substantive sentences of imprisonment shall run
concurrently.
Fine not deposited.
Convict Vijay Kumar @ Monti is in custody from 22/10/2006 till
today.
Benefit of Section 428 of Cr.P.C. be given to convict Vijay Kumar @
Monti.
Convict Vijay Kumar @ Monti be remanded to JC to serve the
sentence.
Announced in the open court
today on 28 of February, 2013
(Vi render Kumar Goya)
Additional Sessions Judge
Fast Track Court, Rohini Courts,
Delhi.
SC No. 67/01/10 3
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIRENDER KUMAR GOYAL
ADDL SESSIONS JUDGE: FAST TRACK COURT
ROHINI:DELHI
SC No. 67/01/10
Unique Identification No. 02404R0393022006
State
Versus
1) Vijay Kumar @ Mannu
Son of Sh. Pitam Singh
R/o A171, Peer Wali Gali
Harash Vihar, PhaseII,
Gazhiabad, U.P.
FIR No. 780/06
PS - Mangolpuri
U/s. 364A/302/201/34 of IPC
Date of Decision: 25/02/2013
Date of order on Sentence:28/02/2013.
ORDER ON SENTENCE
28/02/2013.
Present. Ld. APP for State.
Convict Vijay Kumar @ Mannu from J.C. with counsel Sh. Mukesh
Thakur.
Ld. defence counsel submits that the convict Vijay Kumar @ Mannu is
30 years of age. He is having wife and one daughter aged about 7 years. He is also
having aged parents to support being the sole bread earner of his family. Ld. Defence
counsel further submits that the offence proved against the convict does not fall
within the definition of rarest of rarer case, hence be not awarded with capital
punishment. He is also not a previous convict and not a habitual offender.
SC No. 67/01/10 4
On the other hand, Ld. APP has contended that accused Vijay Kumar
@ Mannu has been convicted for offences U/s. 364A/34 of IPC, U/s. 302/34 of
IPC and U/s.201/34 IPC. Hence, he be dealt with accordingly.
I have considered the submissions of learned defence counsel and
Ld. APP for State. The offences committed has caused a huge loss to the
family of the deceased, who was aged about 22 years. Due to his murder, his
family has also suffered a lot and lost the love and affection alongwith financial
loss. Not only this but besides the murder of Anil, ransom of Rs.10 lacs was
demanded from the father of deceased.
After considering the age, character and antecedents of the convict
Vijay Kumar @ Mannu and the circumstances in which the murder was
committed, I am of the view that this case is not falling within the ambit of
rarest of the rare cases.
Offence U/s. 364A of IPC is punishable with death or imprisonment
for life and shall also be liable to fine.
Accordingly, sentence of imprisonment for life is imposed U/s.
364A/34 of IPC with fine of Rs.5000/ upon convict Vijay Kumar @ Mannu,
in default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo five years simple
imprisonment.
Offence U/s. 302 of IPC is punishable with death or imprisonment
for life and shall also be liable to fine.
Accordingly, sentence of imprisonment for life is imposed U/s.
302/34 of IPC with fine of Rs. 5000/ upon convict Vijay Kumar @ Mannu,
in default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo five years simple
imprisonment.
SC No. 67/01/10 5
Offence U/s.201 of IPC, is punishable with imprisonment either for
a term which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine, if it is
related to capital offence punishable with death.
Accordingly, sentence of imprisonment of seven years is imposed
U/s.201/34 of IPC with fine of Rs.5000/ upon convict Vijay Kumar @
Mannu, in default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo one and
half years simple imprisonment.
All the substantive sentences of imprisonment shall run
concurrently.
Fine not deposited.
Convict Vijay Kumar @ Mannu is in custody from 22/10/2006 till
today.
Benefit of Section 428 of Cr.P.C. be given to convict Vijay Kumar
@ Mannu.
Convict Vijay Kumar @ Mannu be remanded to JC to serve the
sentence.
Announced in the open court
today on 28 of February, 2013.
(Vi render Kumar Goya)
Additional Sessions Judge
Fast Track Court, Rohini Courts,
Delhi.
SC No. 67/01/10 6
SC No. 67/01/10 7
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIRENDER KUMAR GOYAL
ADDL SESSIONS JUDGE: FAST TRACK COURT
ROHINI:DELH
SC No. 67/01/10
Unique Identification No. 02404R0393022006
State
Versus
1) Vijay Kumar @ Monti
Son of Sh. Ramesh Chand
R/o B2/233, Gali No.13,
Harash Vihar, PhaseI,
Delhi.
2) Vijay Kumar @ Mannu
Son of Sh. Pitam Singh
R/o A171, Peer Wali Gali
Harash Vihar, PhaseII,
Gazhiabad, U.P.
3) Azaim Mian @Rahul
Son of Sh. Sajjan Mian
R/o F2/560, Sunder Nagari,
Delhi.
4) Mohd. Nayed
Son of Sh. Mohd. Farman
R/o Tyre shop opposite M Block
Sunder Nagari, Delhi.
5) Chander Kant @ Summit Pathak
Son of Sh. Uma Kant Pathak
R/o Vill. Tighara,
PS Peepee Ganj,
Gorakhpur, U.P.
SC No. 67/01/10 8
FIR No. 780/06
PS - Mangolpuri
U/s. 364A/302/201/120(B)/34 of IPC
Date of institution of the case: 19/01/2007
Arguments heard on: 18/02/2013
Date of reservation of order:18/02/2013
Date of Decision: 25/02/2013
JUDGMENT
This case was registered on the statement of one Sanjay U/s. 364A of IPC on 21/10/2006 at PS Mangolpuri.
On the same day, panchnama of dead body of an unknown person was prepared. One Anil Kumar had informed about the dead body. The proceedings were conducted by SI S.S. Yadav of Police Chowki Hindan, Thana Sahibabad, District Ghaziabad, U.P. and it was sent for postmortem. During the proceedings, dead body of the said unknown person was identified as of Anil, son of Bhura singh, for which, a report of kidnapping was lodged by his brother Sanjay.
From the place of recovery of dead body, blood stained earth, earth control, leaves and sticks and sample leaves and sticks were taken into possession. Crime team report was obtained.
Accused Vijay Kumar @ Monti, Vijay Kumar @ Mannu, Azim Mian and Mohd. Nayed were arrested in this case on 22/10/2006 and their personal searches were conducted. All the four accused persons made disclosure statements.
Accused Vijay Kumar @ Mannu got recovered one broken piece of Ustara. Sketch of the same was prepared and it was taken into possession by preparing a memo. Accused Vijay Kumar @ Monti got recovered from his house, motorcycle No. DL7SAG6827, make TVS Apache of silver colour, which was used in throwing the dead body. Accused Vijay Kumar @ Mannu also got recovered another motorcycle No. UP14Z6671, which was used to bring Anil from Outer Ring road, near Jhuggi, Mangolpuri. Accused Vijay Kumar @ Monti also got recovered one mobile phone make SC No. 67/01/10 9 Nokia bearing No. 9810602127, which was used in making calls of ransom. Same was seized by preparing a memo. Accused Vijay Kumar @ Mannu also got recovered a mobile phone make Nokia, which was sealed and seized in this case by preparing a memo. Accused Vijay Kumar @ Monti also got recovered from his house, one jacket, which he was wearing at the time of occurrence. It was sealed and seized by preparing a memo. Accused Vijay Kumar @ Mannu also got recovered certain clothes with the help of which, blood stains were removed. These were also sealed and seized by preparing a memo. Accused Vijay Kumar @ Mannu also got recovered one pant, in which, an open Ustara was found kept. The pant was also sealed and seized by preparing a memo. Accused Azim Mian also got recovered one Tshirt of Bhagwa colour ,having blood stains and one light blue colour jeans pant, which were sealed and seized in this case by preparing a memo.
Rough site plan of the place of recovery of jacket, place of murder and the place, where the dead body was found, were prepared. Accused Vijay Kumar @ Monti and Vijay Kumar @ Mannu pointed out the place of murder i.e. B19, Dilshad Colony, Delhi, vide separate pointing out memos. Accused Vijay Kumar @ Monti also pointed out the place, where dead body was thrown after committing the murder. Photographs of the place of recovery of dead body were taken and photographs of H.No. B19, Dilshad Colony, Delhi, were also taken. Rough site plan was got prepared of the place, where the dead body was thrown and also of the place, where alleged murder was committed.
During investigation, rent agreement of property No. B19, in the name of Vijay Kumar was also seized. Bill of Nokia mobile phone 7710, in the name of deceased Anil Kumar, was also taken into possession. One GPA was collected. Call details of the mobile phones were collected.
On 07/11/2006, accused Chander Kant @ Summit Pathak was arrested in this case. Before that, his curriculum vitae was collected from his employer. His personal search was also conducted. Accused Chander Kant @ Summit Pathak also pointed out the place of murder i.e. H.No. B19, Dilshad Colony, Delhi, and also the place, where the dead body was thrown after committing murder. On the pointing of accused Chander Kant @ Summit Pathak, one pair of shoes belonging to deceased Anil were recovered. These were sealed and seized by preparing a memo.
SC No. 67/01/10 10
On completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed against all the accused persons U/s. 364A/302/201/34 of IPC and U/s. 120B of IPC. Case was committed to the Court of Session on 27/01/2007 and was received on 06/02/2007.
Charge U/s. 120B of IPC, U/s. 302 read with Section 120B of IPC, U/s. 364A read with Section 120B of IPC and U/s. 201 read with Section 120B of IPC was framed against all the five accused persons on 02/11/2007, to which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
To prove its case, prosecution has examined PW1 to PW31 in all.
On completion of evidence of prosecution, statements of all the accused persons were recorded. They have denied the case of the prosecution and have stated that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case.
Accused Vijay Kumar @ Monti has examined DW1 Ramesh Chand in his defence. DW2 Israt Hussain has been examined on behalf of accused Azim Mian.
I have heard learned APP for the State, Sh. R.P. Dhania, learned counsel for accused Azim Mian, Sh. J.S. Khushwaha, learned counsel for accused Vijay Kumar @ Monti, Ms. Rizwana, learned counsel for accused Mohd. Nayed, Sh. Mukesh Thakur, learned counsel for accused Vijay Kumar @ Mannu and Sh. Vaibhav Sinha, learned counsel for accused Chander Kant @ Summit Pathak and have gone through the material placed on record with evidence adduced.
Recovery of dead body:
According to PW7 Anil Kumar, he used to reside at Bedchamber Nagar, Sanjay Colony, Arthala, Sahibabad, Ghaziabad, U.P. On 21/10/2006, at about 9/9.30 a.m., while he was coming towards Hindan Bridge from Vasundhara, he saw dead body of one unknown person, aged about 22 years, on the bank of river, just ahead of 100 steps from railway bridge. Thereafter, he went to PS Sahibabad and informed about lying of dead body. Later on, police had recorded his statement. In the cross examination, PW7 Anil Kumar has stated that he had personally gone to police post and had left the PS after giving the information. So, nothing came out from his cross examination to disbelieve his testimony regarding seeing of the dead body.
SC No. 67/01/10 11
According to PW29 Mohd. Hussain Kazmi, on 21/10/2006, at about 11.00 a.m., he had seen a dead body lying near Hindan Pushta near Sai Mandir. At that time, SI Shailender Singh, who was incharge of police chowki Hindan Pushta, joined him in the panchnama proceedings regarding the dead body, which was also seen by him and the same is Ex. PW11/A. PW29 Mohd. Hussain Kazmi has further deposed that on the next day, Inspector Azad Singh of Delhi Police met him and he told him about the inquest proceedings and his statement was recorded. In the cross examination, mere suggestions have been given that he did not join the inquest proceedings and did not sign the panchnama, which the witness has denied.
According to PW14 SI Shailender Singh Yadav, on 21/10/2006, on receipt of information at about 10.05 a.m. from one Anil (PW7), one DD No. 24 was recorded and he alongwith Constable Naresh Pal Singh and Constable Shiv Kumar reached at the spot. One dead body was found lying near the bank of Hindan river near railway bridge. Public persons gathered there. He tried to get the dead body identified, but the same could not be identified.
PW14 SI Shailender Singh Yadav has further deposed that one photographer was called, who took photographs of the dead body. Panchnama of the dead body was prepared. Dead body was sealed in a pullanda with the seal of "SSY" and was sent to mortuary MMD i.e. District Hospital Ghaziabad through PW11 Constable Naresh Pal and Constable Shiv Kumar. He seized from the place, one chappal, one blood stained wooden piece and plain wooden piece after preparing pullanda with the seal of "SSY". PW14 has proved the copy of DD No. 24 Ex. PW14/A, rough sketch of the dead body Ex. PW14/B, panchnama proceedings Ex. PW14/CF and main panchnama Ex. PW11/A. PW11 Constable Naresh Pal Singh has also deposed the same facts. Nothing came out from the cross examination to disbelieve his testimony regarding the recovery of dead body from this place and also seizure of certain articles.
According to PW24 HC Shyam Pal Singh of U.P. Police, on 22/10/2006, he was posted as MHC(M) at PS Sahibabad, District Ghaziabad, U.P. On that day, PW14 SI Shailender Singh, Chowki incharge, PP Hindan, alongwith PW11 HC Naresh Pal Singh and SC No. 67/01/10 12 Ct Ashok Kumar, on receipt of DD No. 23 dated 21/10/2006, had got conducted postmortem on the dead body of deceased Anil. Thereafter, Ct Shiv Kumar handed over sealed pullandas to him, which he had collected from the doctor. He deposited the same in the malkhana. Later on, on 14/11/2006, these pullandas were transferred to PS Mangolpuri through HC Harkesh. PW24 has proved the relevant entries in the record as Ex. PW24/A and Ex. PW24/B. According to PW18 Sh. V. Shankar Narayanan, one sealed pullanda with the seal of "SSB UPP" containing Ex. 14 i.e. one sandal, Ex. 15 with the same seal containing vegetative material having darker stains, Ex. 16 with the same seal containing vegetative material have been examined and blood was detected on Ex. 15 i.e. vegetative material having darker stains. According to Ex. PW18/B, Ex. 15 was found having human blood with no reaction, whereas blood group of deceased Anil was of "B" group.
According to PW30 Inspector Azad Singh, he received further investigation of this case and reached at Pushta Hindan River near Sai Mandir on 22/10/2006 and met there with SI Joginder Singh of PS Mangolpuri with his staff, who was investigating the case and had arrested one of the accused Vijay @ Monti.
PW30 Inspector Azad Singh has further deposed that at about 4.20 or 4.25 p.m., crime team reached there, who inspected the spot. Photographs were taken. After inspection, exhibits were lifted from the spot. He lifted earth control, blood stained earth, dry leaves and sticks with blood and sample dry leave and sticks, which were sealed with the seal of "AS" and were seized vide memos Ex. PW26/A to Ex. PW26/D. According to FSL report Ex. PW18/A, blood was detected on Ex. 1 i.e. blood stained earth and Ex. 3 i.e. blood stained leaves and sticks and according to report Ex. PW18/B, both these exhibits were found having human blood with no reaction. So, the exhibits lifted by PW14 Shailender Singh Yadav from the place of recovery of dead body and also lifted by PW30 Inspector Azad Singh have not been connected with the blood group of deceased Anil, but the testimonies of PW7 Anil Kumar, PW11 Constable Naresh Pal Singh, PW14 SI Shailender Singh Yadav and PW29 Mohd. Hussain Kazmi are corroborating each other regarding recovery of one dead body from that place, as deposed by them, and further it has been corroborated by PW1 Jaswant Singh, PW2 Sanjay Kumar SC No. 67/01/10 13 and PW3 Bhura Singh that the said dead body was identified by them in the mortuary of District Hospital, Ghaziabad as of deceased Anil, so, prosecution has been able to prove beyond reasonable doubts that dead body was recovered from the place, as deposed by these witnesses, on 21/10/2006 and the same was of deceased Anil and further that the place of recovery of dead body was pointed out by accused Vijay @ Monti during police custody, which till that time was not within the knowledge of Delhi police officials. Place of murder:
According to PW28 Inspector Joginder Singh, on 22/10/2006, accused Vijay @ Monti was arrested from his house. He made disclosure statement Ex. PW20/C and pointed out the place, where dead body of Anil was thrown. Thereafter, they reached at the mortuary, where dead body of Anil was identified by his brother Sanjay. Again, they came back to Hindan River Pusta and further investigation was handed over to Inspector Azad Singh. After lifting the exhibits from the spot, sealing and seizing them, they reached at B19, Dilshad Colony, Delhi, which was stated to be place of occurrence, where crime team inspected the spot and photographs were taken. Blood was seen at the chair and on the floor, but the same could not be lifted. Accused Vijay @ Monti also pointed out the place of occurrence and pointing out memo was prepared vide Ex. PW26/V. Thereafter, place of occurrence was locked and key was handed over to Constable Naresh and he was left there to safeguard the spot.
PW28 Inspector Joginder Singh has further stated that on 23/10/2006 , during the police custody of accused Vijay @ Monti, they again reached at B19, Dilshad Colony, Delhi. FSL team from Rohini was taken alongwith accused Vijay @ Monti. Thereafter, in charge of FSL team Sh. V. Shankar Narayanan collected blood from chair and floor. These were put in different envelopes and sealed with the seal of "VSN", which were seized vide memo Ex. Pw26/U. According to FSL report Ex. PW18/A, Ex. 17 sealed with the seal of "VSN FSL Delhi" containing gauze cloth piece having darker stains and Ex. 18 sealed with the same seal containing gauze cloth piece having darker stains, blood was detected on these exhibits 17 and 18 and according to biological report Ex. PW18/B, Ex. 17 was found containing human blood of "B" group.
SC No. 67/01/10 14
According to PW18 Sh. V. Shankar Narayanan, he had visited B19, Dilshad colony, Delhi, on 23/10/2006 alongwith Undress Kumar Mishra, Lab Assistant (Bio) and Sh. Sanjeev Gupta, SSO (Photo) and examined the scene of crime for the purpose of presence of biological clue material. Blood stains were lifted from the floor and from the chair. These were handed over to the IO for further transmission to FSL after sealing the same with the seal of "VSN FSL Delhi". His report in this respect is Ex. PW18/A and Ex. PW18/B. According to PW10 Pankaj Kumar, he is owner of Property No. B19, Dilshad Colony, Delhi. He rented out the same to Vijay Kumar, son of Pritam Singh, at a monthly rent of Rs. 3000/ on 17/10/2006 and rent agreement in this respect was also executed. The said Vijay Kumar had paid a sum of Rs. 3000/ as advance rent. The premises was rented out to Vijay Kumar through Krishan Kumar, who was brother in law of Vijay Kumar. Later on, police came to him and he handed over the rent agreement and rent receipt to the police, which are Ex. PW8/A and Ex. PW10/A. These were seized vide memo Ex. PW10/B. His statement was also recorded. PW10 has also identified said Vijay Kumar as accused Vijay @ Mannu before the Court.
PW8 Yatinder has stated that Pankaj Gupta i.e. PW10, owner of H.no. B19, Dilshad Colony, had rented out his house to Vijay Kumar @ Mannu @ Rs. 3000/ per month on 17/10/2006 and he had also received a sum of Rs. 3000/ as advance as one month rent. Rent agreement and rent receipt were executed. Rent agreement is Ex. PW8/A. Later on, he was called at PS Mangolpuri and his statement was recorded. PW8 Yatinder has also identified accused Vijay Kumar @ Mannu, to whom, PW10 Pankaj Gupta, had rented out his Flat No. B19, Dilshad Colony, in his presence.
Both PW8 Yatinder and PW10 Pankaj have admitted that rent agreement Ex. PW8/A and rent receipt Ex. PW10/A are not bearing the signatures of accused Vijay Kumar @ Mannu, so, without signatures of accused Vijay Kumar @ Mannu on the rent agreement and rent receipt, it is not proved in any manner that Flat No. B19, Dilshad Colony was taken on rent by accused Vijay Kumar @ Mannu on 17/10/2006 at a monthly rent of Rs. 3000/.
Learned defence counsel has contended that according to PW15 SI Suraj Bhan, incharge Crime team, he also visited B19, First Floor, Dilshad Colony, Delhi, on SC No. 67/01/10 15 22/102/2006. He did not see any blood or any finger prints at first floor, B19. It was found clean and photographs of the same were taken. He prepared his inspection report Ex. PW15/A. Learned defence counsel has further contended that on 22/10/2006, no blood was seen at B19, Dilshad Colony, Delhi, then how during the visit of PW18 Sh. V. Shankar Narayanan, on 23/10/2006, blood stains could have been lifted from the floor and chair, so, the same seems to be doubtful.
In the cross examination, PW15 SI Suraj Bhan has stated that he does not remember, which type of articles were lying in the room and in the examination, he has stated that B19 was clean,so, in such circumstances, presence of chair in this room also seems to be doubtful. Chair itself has not been seized as case property, hence, prosecution has not been able to prove and connect that blood stains were taken from the chair, which was found lying in Flat No. B19, First Floor, Dilshad Colony, Delhi. Even if, it is assumed that Anil was murdered at first floor, B19, Dilshad Colony, then certainly, his body must have been removed from there through stairs and the clothes of deceased Anil were found blood stains, which shows that he was bleeding from his injuries and in such circumstances, there must be some blood stains in the staircase, which were not seen by the police party or crime team incharge on 22/10/2006. The dead body was recovered on 21/10/2006, so, there might be possibility of cleaning of blood stains, but no other occupant has been examined by the police officials in this respect as to whether they had heard any noise or that anyone had seen removing the dead body of Anil by the accused persons or that accused Vijay @ Mannu or any other accused was found present or was seen by any of the occupants of said building at any time at first floor, B19, Dilshad Colony, Delhi, so, all this evidence seems to be doubtful against the accused persons.
According to PW26 ASI Laxman Singh, on 22/10/2006, after pointing out the place, where dead body was thrown, accused Vijay @ Monti led the police party to H.No. B19, Dilshad Colony, Delhi. Crime team had also accompanied him with photographer. Information was also given to FSL to collect the exhibits, but being Sunday, expert could not reach there. Police officials were deputed for safety of the spot. Crime team was discharged from the spot.
In the cross examination, PW26 ASI Laxman Singh has stated that crime team SC No. 67/01/10 16 reached at about 4.00 p.m. According to PW17 ASI Ramesh Chander, who had taken photographs, they had also reached at the spot at about 4/4.30 p.m. PW26 ASI Laxman Singh has further stated in the cross examination that PW15 SI Suraj Bhan was incharge of crime team.
PW28 Inspector Joginder Singh has also stated that they reached on 22/10/2006 at B19, Dilshad Colony, Delhi. Crime team had inspected the spot and photographs were taken. Blood stains were seen on the chair and on the floor, but the same could not be lifted. Pointing out memo was prepared Ex. PW26/V. After the proceedings, place of occurrence was locked and key was handed over to Constable Naresh and he was left there to safeguard the spot.
Learned defence counsel has contended that Constable Naresh has been examined as PW20. Her has not deposed anything about these facts that accused Vijay @ Monti pointed out the place of murder i.e. B19, Dilshad Colony, Delhi. PW20 Constable Naresh has also not deposed that Flat No. B19, Dilshad Colony, Delhi, was locked after inspection by the crime team and key was handed over to him and further, he was deputed to safeguard the same, so, this fact is not corroborating with the depositions of other witnesses in any manner.
Learned defence counsel has further contended that according to PW15 SI Suraj Bhan, they did not see any blood or finger prints etc. as first floor B19 was clean, whereas according to the deposition of PW28 Inspector Joginder Singh, blood stains were seen on the chair and on the floor but the same could not be lifted, so, the contradiction is material, hence, witnesses cannot be relied upon.
According to PW30 Inspector Azad Singh, at B19, Dilshad colony, crime team had inspected the spot and photographs were taken. Blood stains were seen on the chair and on the floor, but the same were not in a position to be lifted, so, he prepared pointing out memo Ex. PW26/V. After the inspection, premises was locked up and keys were handed over to PW20 constable Naresh and he was deputed to safeguard the same. PW30 Inspector Azad singh has also not been cross examined on any material fact except that he reached at Dilshad Colony at about 4.35 p.m., which is corroborating with the depositions of other witnesses.
SC No. 67/01/10 17
Now, the question is as to whether Flat No. B19, Dilshad Colony, Delhi, was place of murder. The witnesses have contradicted about the fact as to whether at first instance, blood was seen on the floor and chair, which could not be lifted. According to crime team incharge PW15 SI Suraj Bhan, he did not see any blood stains in B19, Dilshad Colony, Delhi. According to the witnesses, this flat after inspection was locked and key was handed over to Constable Naresh and he was deputed to safeguard the same, but PW20 constable Naresh has not deposed this fact in any manner. Even he has not deposed that he had gone to B19, Dilshad Colony, Delhi, with the police party. So, it is not proved in any manner beyond reasonable doubts that Anil was murdered at B19, Dilshad Colony, Delhi.
Statements of PW8 Jitender and PW10 Pankaj Kumar are also seems to be doubtful as neither rent agreement nor rent receipt is bearing signatures of accused Vijay @ Mannu. Both were not called at any time at B19, Dilshad Colony, Delhi, during investigation. The chair, from which, the blood sample was taken by PW18 Sh. V. Shankar Narayanan from FSL, has also not been seized in this case as case property. No one has been examined from the said building to prove the fact that accused Vijay @ Mannu or other accused persons were seen after 17/10/2006 in the said flat at any time. No such key and lock of said flat was seized in this case, hence, except the fact that Flat No. B19, Dilshad colony, Delhi, was pointed out by the accused persons as place of murder, it has not been proved in any manner that actually murder of Anil was committed by the accused persons at B19, Dilshad Colony, Delhi, or was taken on rent by accused Vijay @ Mannu on 17/10/2006.
Cause of death:
According to PW21 Dr. M.M. Aggarwal, on 22/10/2006, he conducted postmortem on the body of Anil, brought by Constable Naresh Pal Singh and Constable Shiv Kumar of PS Sahibabad, District Ghaziabad, at 3.00 p.m., in sealed bundle of clothes. On that day, he found incised wound measuring 8 c.m. x 1 c.m. x muscle deep on front of neck horizontally, incised wound measuring 3 c.m. x .5 c.m. x bone deep on left side damaging aorta. Half piece of knife was recovered from the wound. Contusion measuring 14 c.m. x 5 c.m. on back and middle of back was also observed. According to his opinion, cause of SC No. 67/01/10 18 death was shock and hamerrohage as a result of antemortem injuries. Time since death was about 23 days. Injuries No. 1 and 2 were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature.
PW21 Dr. M. M. Aggarwal has further deposed that he signed the police papers and returned. Clothes of the deceased were sealed in a cloth pullanda. Piece of knife recovered from injury No. 2 was preserved by putting in a sealed envelope with blood sample of deceased and were handed over to police. He prepared postmortem report Ex. PW21/A. He had signed panchnama papers (9) Ex. PW11/A. PW21 Dr. M.M. Aggarwal has also identified the wearing clothes of deceased before the court i.e. Tshirt as Ex. P3, jeans pant as Ex. P2, wind chitter as Ex. P7, underwear as Ex. P21, rubber band as Ex. P22 and also piece of knife, which was recovered from injury No. 2 as Ex. P24 and has further deposed that injury No. 1 was possible with the portion of the blade of knife, which was recovered from injury No. 2.
It has come in the cross examination that he did not prepare sketch of this piece of knife, which was recovered from injury No.2. This fact itself is not sufficient to disbelieve the testimony of PW21 Dr. M. M. Aggarwal, hence, from the deposition of PW21 Dr. M. M. Aggarwal, prosecution has been able to prove the cause of death due to the injuries caused with knife, half piece of which was recovered from injury No. 2 during postmortem from the body of deceased Anil.
According to the depositions of the witnesses, Anil went missing on 20/10/2006 and time since death has been told as 23 days. Postmortem was conducted on 22/10/2006 at 3.00 p.m., which shows that murder of Anil was committed at about 3.00 p.m. on 20/10/2006. This is also fortified with the call detail record of mobile phone of Anil Ex. PW16/F, according to which, mobile phone of deceased bearing No. 9910454946, having IMEI no. 355021001099650 was working till 3.13 p.m. on 20/10/2006 and thereafter, SIM card of mobile phone of deceased Anil was used by accused Vijay @ Monti by inserting the same in his mobile phone, having IMEI No. 352524004230290, so, this corroborates the time of murder approximately 3.00 p.m. on 20/10/2006.
Findings qua accused Vijay @ Monti and Vijay @ Mannu:
In the FIR, Sanjay, brother of deceased, had told to the police that his brother SC No. 67/01/10 19 Anil, aged about 17 years, on 19/10/2006, had gone to their sister Hemlata at F123, Mangolpuri and on 20/10/2006, in the morning at about 10 a.m., his brother Anil had left Mangolpuri to reach back at his house, but has not returned.
Sanjay further told to the police that on 20/10/2006, at about 12.02 p.m., a call was received from the mobile phone of Anil bearing No. 9910454946 on the mobile phone No. 9210106792 of his father that Anil was in their possession and they should arrange Rs. 10 lacs and they will tell about the place of delivery of money later on, if police will be informed, then they will kill Anil. Sanjay also gave description of his brother as height 5 feet 4 inches, round face, stout built, wheatish colour, wearing white shirt having red stripes and dark blue pant. Sanjay requested that his brother be searched.
Before the Court, Sanjay has been examined as PW2. He has stated that on 19/10/2006, his brother Anil left their house to go to the house of their sister Hemlata situated at F123, Mangolpuri, to give sweets on the festival of Diwali. His brother in law Jaswant Singh informed him, on inquiry, that Anil had left his house on 20/10/2006 to go to his house at about 10.00 a.m., but Anil did not reach till the morning of 21/10/2006. PW2 Sanjay has further deposed that his brother Anil was having mobile phone make Nokia bearing No. 9910454946, when he had left their house to go to Mangolpuri. At about 12.02 p.m. on 21/10/2006, a phone call was received from the mobile phone of his brother Anil on the mobile of his father Bhura Singh bearing No. 9210106792, which was received by his father.
PW2 Sanjay has further deposed that he asked his father about the details of phone call and his father told that caller told him that Anil was in their possession and they were asking to arrange Rs. 10 lacs in lieu of the release of Anil and further told that they will tell about the appropriate place for the delivery of the money and further told that if police will be informed, then they will kill Anil.
PW2 Sanjay has further deposed that on 21/10/2006, he alongwith his father and relatives including his brother in law Jaswant went to PS Mangolpuri and lodged the FIR, copy of which is Mark A, bearing his signatures. When his brother Anil left the house, he was wearing shirt of white colour having stripes and dark blue colour jeans pant.
PW3 Bhura Singh, father of deceased, has deposed that on 19/10/2006, his son SC No. 67/01/10 20 Anil, aged about 17 years, had left for Delhi to meet his sister Hemlata, who was residing at F1230, Mangolpuri, Delhi, at about 5.30 p.m. Anil stayed at the house of Hemlata in the intervening night of 19/20.10.2006. He made a phone call on the mobile phone No. 9910454946 at about 10.30 a.m. on 20/10/2006, at which, Anil told him that he was present at bus stand Madhuban Chowk and was coming back to house by bus and he was waiting for the bus there. PW3 Bhura Singh has further deposed that he informed at his house situated at Gagan Vihar from Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar, where he was doing work of making of body of trucks, in this regard. His son did not reach at the house on 20/10/2006 till 4.00 p.m. His family members told him on the phone that Anil had not come back to the house from Delhi, so, he left for his house from Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar and reached at his house at about 5.00 p.m. he searched his son in the neighbourhood and made inquiries from relatives and friends of Anil, but did not find any clue.
PW3 Bhura Singh has further deposed that on 21/10/2006, at about 12.02 p.m., he received a phone call on his mobile No. 9210106792 from the mobile phone of his son Anil and the caller asked him "ta bhura bol raha hai" and also asked him by abusing "bhosidi ke das lakh ka bandobast kar le" and thereafter disconnected the phone. The same caller again called him from the same phone on his mobile and asked him to arrange currency notes of Rs. 500/ and Rs. 1,000/ and thereafter disconnected the phone by saying that he will tell about the place, where he had to deliver the money. The caller also told that Anil was in their custody and he will release him after receiving the amount.
PW3 Bhura Singh has further deposed that at about 8.18 p.m. on 21/10/2006, he again received a phone call from the mobile phone of his son Anil on his mobile phone and the caller again asked him to arrange the money in lieu of release of his son and further told that he will tell about the place later on and thereafter disconnected the phone.
PW3 Bhura Singh has further deposed that at about 8.43 p.m., he again received a phone call on his mobile phone from the phone of his son Anil and the caller asked him to come behind Gagan Cinema, situated in the area of Sunder Nagri alongwith cash amount of Rs. 10 lacs. He requested the caller to arrange a talk with his son Anil, but he told that "Ladka 12 baje raat ko ghar pahoonch jayega" and disconnected the phone.
PW3 Bhura Singh has further deposed that at about 9.10 p.m., he again SC No. 67/01/10 21 received a phone call on his mobile phone and the same caller asked him again to come behind Gagan Cinema and PW3 Bhura Singh told him that he had arranged the amount of Rs. 10 lacs and was coming behind Gagan Cinema. PW3 Bhura Singh has further deposed that he told the caller that he will pay the amount to him only, when he will have a talk with his son or will see his son personally. The caller did not respond and disconnected the phone.
PW1 Jaswant Singh has deposed that his brother in law (Sala) Anil came to his house in the evening of 19/10/2006 on Diwali festival and stayed in their house in the said night. At that time, Anil was wearing Bhagwa colour Tshirt and dark blue colour jeans. Anil was also having another clothes with him for change, when he came to their house. In the morning of 20/10/2006, Anil had taken breakfast with him. Anil was having mobile phone make Nokia 7710 with him at that time, which was purchased by Anil. At about 9.30 a.m., Anil received a phone call on his mobile phone and left the breakfast. He went outside the room to attend the call and again joined the breakfast. Anil had told him that phone call was made by his friend Mannu and further told that Mannu informed him on phone that he had purchase a new motorcycle and was going to give a party to him. Anil after taking breakfast asked him to give his Tshirt and on his request, he gave him his shirt having white and red stripes, which was worn by Anil in his house and he kept his Bhagwa colour Tshirt with his other clothes, which he had brought with him for change. Thereafter, Anil left his house at about 10.00 a.m. and he dropped him at red light of outer ring road, F Block. Thereafter, he came back to his house and went to his work.
Learned defence counsel has contended that deposition of PW1 Jaswant Singh regarding the fact that Anil had told him about the phone call made by his friend Mannu and further, who had purchased a new motor and was giving party, is hearsay. Learned defence counsel has further contended that this objection was raised at the time of recording of evidence of PW1 Jaswant Singh, hence, this fact cannot be looked into in any manner.
I am not agree with the contention of learned defence counsel. Firstly, PW1 Jaswant Singh has not been cross examined on this aspect in any manner. Secondly, according to Section 32 of Indian Evidence Act, a statement of relevant fact whereby a persons, who is dead, if it relates to his cause of death, is itself relevant. In the present case, SC No. 67/01/10 22 Anil had left house of PW1 Jaswant Singh at about 10 a.m. on 20/10/2006 and according to postmortem report, time since death comes to 3.00 p.m. on 20/10/2006, so, this fact relates to his cause of death, hence, cannot be treated as hearsay.
PW1 Jaswant Singh has further deposed that in the evening of 20/10/2006, he came to know at his house from his wife that Anil had not reached at his house. He was also informed by his another brother in law Sanjay that Anil had not reached at his house. He told Sanjay that Anil had left his house at about 10.00 a.m. On 21/10/2006, his brother in law Sanjay i.e. PW2 and father in law Bhura Singh i.e. PW3 came to his house and they all went to PS Mangolpuri and statement of Sanjay was recorded.
According to PW4 Praveen Sagarnath, on 19/10/2006, he went to the house of Anil, who was his schoolmate. He remained with him in his house upto 1.00 p.m. and in his presence, mother of Anil told that Anil had to go to the house of his sister at Mangolpuri, Delhi, on the eve of Diwali festival to give some gifts/sweets, so, he came back to his house. PW4 has further deposed that in the morning, he went to the house of Anil and his mother told that Anil had already left for Delhi on 19/10/2006 and on 20/10/2006, PW4 Praveen Sagarnath received a phone call from Anil on his mobile phone No. 9871889820 and Anil told that he was having party with his friends Vijay @ Monti and Vijay @ Mannu to celebrate the purchase of motorcycle by accused Vijay @ Mannu and was present with them. He received the call at 4.30 p.m. on that day. On 20/10/2006, at about 11.30 p.m., he received a call from father father of Anil, who made inquiries about Anil and he told father of Anil that he received a call from Anil at about 4.30 p.m., who had informed that he was having a party with Vijay @ Monti and Vijay @ Mannu.
Learned defence counsels have contended that PW4 Praveen Sagarnath has made material improvements and the fact that he had told father of Anil that Anil was having a party with accused Vijay @ Monti and Vijay @ Mannu is not appearing in his statement Ex. PW4/DA. Learned defence counsels have further contended that this fact has not been corroborated by PW3 Bhura Singh in any manner that on 20/10/2006, he was informed by PW4 Praveen Sagarnath about the fact of party of his son Anil with accused Vijay @ Monti and Vijay @ Mannu, rather he has stated that on 20/10/2006, he came back to his house at 5.00 p.m. from Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar and he searched for his son in SC No. 67/01/10 23 the neighbourhood and made inquiries from relatives and friends and also from the friends of Anil, but they did not find any clue and thereafter, PW3 Bhura Singh has deposed about the facts of 21/10/2006 and has not deposed at all that he had any talk with PW4 Praveen Sagarnath on 20/10/2006 at about 11.30 p.m., so, in absence of any corroboration, PW4 Praveen Sagarnath cannot be believed to the extent that he had received any phone call from Anil that he was having a party with accused Vijay @ Monti and Vijay @ Mannu.
According to the call details, PW3 Bhura Singh received calls from mobile No. 9910454946 on 21/10/2006 at about 12.01, 12.02 and 12.04 noon on his mobile No. 9210106792. PW1 Jaswant Singh, PW2 Sanjay Kumar and PW3 Bhura Singh have deposed about the call of 21/10/2006 received at about 12.02 noon. The next call was made, as deposed by PW3 Bhura Singh, at 8.18 p.m. on 21/10/2006. According to call details Ex. PW16/F of mobile phone of Anil, calls were made on the mobile of PW3 Bhura Singh by using the SIM card of Anil in the mobile phone of accused Vijay @ Monti on 21/10/2006 at about 11.47, 11.58, 11.59 a.m., 12.02 p.m., 6.50, 8.17 p.m., 8.41 p.m. and 21:09 p.m., which shows that ransom calls were made by accused Vijay @ Monti by using the SIM card of Anil in his mobile phone, having IMEI No. 352524004230290, as deposed by PW3 Bhura Singh.
Call details of mobile phone No. 9910454946 i.e. of Anil are Ex. PW16/F. According to PW4 Praveen Sagarnath, he received phone call from Anil on his mobile phone on 20/10/2006 at about 4.30 p.m. and the same is not showing having made any call from mobile phone of Anil to the mobile phone of PW4 Praveen Sagarnath at about 16:30 hours because the calls of 20/10/2006 on the mobile phone of Anil are ending at 15:13 hours, rather only one call seems to be made from the mobile phone of Anil to the mobile phone of PW4 Praveen Sagarnath on 20/10/2006 at about 14:15 hours i.e. 2.15 p.m., which shows that Anil had a talk with PW4 Praveen Sagarnath on 20/10/2006 at about 2.15 p.m., so, PW4 Praveen Sagarnath might have failed to tell the exact time of the call made by Anil to him due to lapse of time, so, the contention of learned defence counsel is not tenable in any manner.
According to cross examination of PW4 Praveen Sagarnath, he had visited the house of Anil in the year 2006 from July to December about 70 to 75 times. He used to visit SC No. 67/01/10 24 the house of Anil several times in a single day, which shows that they were known to each other very well, but as PW4 Praveen Sagarnath had not told to the police about the call made by Anil to him in his statement, so it could not be verified at that stage, but it is clear from the call record Ex. PW16/F that from the mobile phone of Anil, a call was made by Anil to PW4 Praveen Sagarnath on his mobile phone at about 2.15 p.m., hence, the fact, which had been disclosed by Anil to him that he was having a party with accused Vijay @ Mannu and Vijay @ Monti cannot be disbelieved in any manner.
The mobile phone, which PW3 Bhura Singh was using at that time, was actually in the name of PW6 Bittoo, who was partner of PW3 Bhura Singh and they used to work together. In the year 2006, PW6 Bittoo had purchased one mobile phone of TATA bearing No. 9210106792 and handed over the same to his partner PW3 Bhura Singh for his personal use. Nothing came out from his cross examination to disbelieve this fact, rather he has stated that he did not receive any consideration from PW3 Bhura Singh in lieu of handing over the mobile to him. This handing over of mobile phone is not unnatural in any manner, hence, it cannot be disbelieved that PW3 Bhura Singh was not having mobile phone No. 9210106792 with him and was not using the same on 19/10/2006 onwards.
PW9 S.K. Gulati has stated that on 11/02/2006 his salesman Surinder Kumar had sold a mobile phone make Nokia 7710, IMEI No. 355021001099651 to one Anil Kumar and had issued bill No. 2686, which is Ex. PW1/A. PW9 S.K. Gulati has not been cross examined in any manner, hence, it is also proved that Anil had purchased and was having mobile phone No. 9910454946 with above IMEI No. 355021001099651.
According to PW16 R.K. Singh, Nodal Officer, Bharti Airtel Ltd, mobile phone No. 9910454946 is in the name of one Satish Kumar Bansal, son of Sh. Charan Singh, R/o C2/115, Nand Nagri, Delhi, and copy of the record is Ex. PW16/C and Ex. PW16/D and call detail record is Ex. PW16/E. Learned defence counsels have further contended that according to PW16 R.K. Singh, Nodal Officer, Bharti Airtel Ltd., mobile number SIM card, which Anil was using, was belonging to one Satish Kumar Bansal, who has not been examined in any manner and it has been suggested to PW3 Bhura Singh in the cross examination that the SIM card in the mobile of deceased was in the name of one Dheeraj, who is having a chemist shop in front SC No. 67/01/10 25 of their house, so, it is not certain as to in whose name this SIM card was issued and how it came in possession of Anil , so, prosecution has not been able to connect that Anil was using this SIM card, which was handed over to him either by Dheeraj or by Satish Kumar Bansal and the same was used by Anil in his phone having IMEI No. 355021001099651.
The contentions of learned defence counsel are not forceful in any manner because PW16 Sh. R. K. Singh, Nodal Officer, Bharti Airtel Ltd., has stated that call detail record Ex. PW16/A and Ex. PW16/F are in the format of Bharti Airtel Ltd., Delhi Circle,which they use to maintain in the due course of business. PW16 has further deposed that this call record is true copy of the same, hence, objection of the learned defence counsel that original has not been produced is not tenable in any manner. PW16 has specifically stated that record of 2006 is not available in the computer system.
In the cross examination, PW16 has deposed that he has been authorized to appear in the court as a witness. Except raising objection during examination regarding originals of the call details, even it is not suggested to PW16 that the call detail record Ex. PW16/E and Ex. PW16/F is forged and fabricated, hence, testimony of PW16 R.K. Singh is unshaken and is inspiring confidence.
The contention of leaned defence counsel regarding the issuance of SIM card, which deceased Anil was having , that it was not known whether it was in the name of Satish Kumar Bansal or Dheeraj, is not forceful in any manner. PW16 Sh. R.K. Singh has deposed before the Court that Sim card of mobile no. 9910454946 was in the name of Satish Kumar Bansal, resident of Nand Nagri and has also produced record of the same. Even if it was not in the name of deceased Anil, then from the call detail record, it is clear and proved that Anil was using this number on his mobile handset having IMEI No. 355021001099651. Even otherwise, it is not known how the suggestion has been given that this SIM card was in the name of one Dheeraj, hence, it has been proved beyond reasonable doubts that this mobile No. 9910454946 was being used by Anil in his mobile phone make Nokia, which was later on recovered from the possession of accused Vijay @ Mannu and was used for making ransom calls by accused Vijay @ Monti.
According to the case of the prosecution, accused Vijay @ Monti got recovered one mobile phone bearing No. 9810602127, having IMEI No. 35252400/423029/1. Call SC No. 67/01/10 26 details of this mobile phone have also been obtained. These are Ex. PW16/E. Same are showing IMEI No. 352524004230290 and according to the details, on 20/10/2006, calls were made at 10.30 a.m.,10.44 and 10.53 a.m, which shows that accused had a talk with Anil on 20/10/2006 at about 10.30, 10.44 and 10.53. These were incoming calls, which shows that Anil had made these calls on mobile phone No. 9810602127. According to PW1 Jaswant Singh, Anil had left his house at 10 a.m. on 20/10/2006, which shows that deceased Anil had a talk on the mobile phone of accused Vijay Kumar @ Monti.
PW16 R.K. Singh, Nodal officer, Bharti Airtel Ltd, has also produced the Airtel Prepaid Enrollment, according to which, mobile phone No. 9810602127 was issued to accused Vijay @ Monti. In support of this, application form and DL of accused Vijay Kumar @ Monti were given. Photocopies of these documents have been produced and have been exhibited as Ex. PW16/A and Ex. PW16/B. This itself negates the contentions of learned defence counsel about the SIM card, which was being used by Anil, so, the same are not forceful.
PW3 Bhura Singh has stated that after waiting for the caller upto 34.00 a.m., behind Gagan Cinema, in the intervening night of 20/21.10.2006, he reached at PS Nand Nagri and told that caller could be Monti as he could recognize his voice due to the fact that he used to visit their house. PW3 Bhura Singh has further deposed that he had told to the police that he was not knowing the address of accused Vijay @ Monti at that time. It was told to SI Jogender at PS Nand Nagri.
According to PW4 Praveen Sagarnath, on 20/10/2006, he accompanied PW3 Bhura Singh, father of Ail, to the house of accused Vijay @ Monti and after pointing out towards the house of accused Vijay @ Monti, he left.
It has been suggested to PW3 Bhura Singh that he had a quarrel with accused Vijay @ Monti and his family, so, on that account, he had falsely implicated accused Vijay @ Monti. From this suggestion, it is clear that accused Vijay @ Monti was known to PW3 Bhura Singh and his family members and was friend of deceased Anil because if they were entirely unknown to each other, then there could not be any possibility of quarrel with accused Vijay @ Monti and his family and on that account, there could not be any motive to implicate him.
SC No. 67/01/10 27
According to PW28 Inspector Joginder Singh, on 21/10/2006, after registration of FIR, investigation of this case was handed over to him and on 22/10/2006, he alongwith HC Laxman and Constable Naresh left the PS for investigation and reached at Nand Nagri near Gagan Cinema, where PW2 Sanjay met them and joined investigation with them. He made inquiries from him, who disclosed about Praveen, friend of Anil, and told that he could point out the house of Praveen. Then, Sanjay took them to the house of Praveen and Praveen met them and he recorded his statement.
PW28 Inspector Joginder Singh has further deposed that Praveen i.e. PW4 told them that he had a talk with Anil on his mobile phone, who told that he would go to the house of accused Vijay @ Monti for a party. Thereafter, Praveen led the police party to the house of accused Vijay @ Monti at B2/233, PhaseI, Harsh Vihar, Delhi, where they met with accused Vijay @ Monti. He made inquiries from accused Vijay @ Monti and arrested him vide memo Ex. PW20/A. He also prepared his personal search memo Ex. PW20/B. Accused Vijay @ Monti also made disclosure statement Ex. PW20/C and in furtherance of his disclosure statement, led the police party to Hindan River Pusta near Meer Farm House and pointed out the place, where they had thrown the dead body of Anil. He prepared pointing out memo Ex.P W20/D. He informed the SHO about death of Anil and made inquiries from the nearby persons and came to know that one day before, dead body was recovered and was taken by the local police of Ghaziabad,so, they reached at PP Hindan.
PW28 Inspector Joginder Singh has further deposed that in PP Hindan, it was revealed that dead body of similar description was recovered and was lying in the mortuary of Ghaziabad. They reached there, where PW2 Sanjay, brother of Anil, identified the dead body. Again, they came to Hindan River Pusta. Meanwhile, SHO and Inspector Azad singh with staff also reached there. He briefed them and produced accused Vijay @ Monti before them. Further investigation was handed over to Inspector Azad Singh.
Learned defence counsels have further contended that PW2 Sanjay has nowhere deposed regarding joining of investigation and arrest of accused Vijay @ Monti and further that accused Vijay @ Monti led the police party to Hindan River Pusta and pointed out the place, where dead body was thrown, but has deposed that he identified the dead body of his brother Anil in the mortuary of Ghaziabad on 22/10/2006, whereas PW4 SC No. 67/01/10 28 Praveen Sagarnath has deposed that he had pointed out the house of accused Vijay @ Monti on 20/10/2006 and thereafter left that place. Police had recorded his statement in this regard on 22/10/2006. Learned defence counsels have further contended that this shows that house of accused Vijay @ Monti was pointed on 20/10/2006 and statement of PW4 Praveen Sagarnath was recorded in this respect on 22/10/2006, so, PW28 Inspector Joginder Singh, PW2 Sanjay Kumar and PW4 Praveen Sagarnath have not corroborated each other regarding the pointing out of house of accused Vijay @ Monti as to whether it was pointed out on 20/10/2006 or 22/10/2006 or was pointed out by PW4 Praveen Sagarnath or whether PW2 Sanjay Kumar had accompanied the police party at that time.
Learned defence counsels have further contended that even in the cross examination, PW28 Inspector Joginder Singh has stated that they reached at the house of PW4 Praveen at about 12/12.15 noon and statement of PW4 Praveen was recorded at his house. PW2 Sanjay Kumar and PW4 Praveen Sagarnath accompanied him to the house of accused Vijay @ Monti. Learned defence counsels have further contended that according to cross examination of PW28 Inspector Joginder Singh, disclosure statement of accused Vijay @ Monti was recorded at his house, but signatures of either PW2 Sanjay Kumar or of PW4 Praveen Sagarnath were not obtained on the disclosure statement, so, it is doubtful whether they were present and it is further doubtful that PW4 Praveen Sagarnath had pointed out the house of accused Vijay @ Monti either on 20/10/2006 or 22/10/2006.
Learned defence counsels have further contended that whenever the investigation remained with him, PW2 Sanjay joined the investigation, so, why the signatures of PW2 Sanjay and PW4 Praveen Sagarnath are not appearing on the documents, which were prepared in respect of accused Vijay @ Moty in their presence. Learned defence counsels have further contended that according to cross examination of PW28 Inspector Joginder Singh, PW4 Praveen had disclosed the address of accused Vijay @ Monti, whereas PW4 Praveen Sagarnath has stated that he had pointed out the house of accused Vijay @ Monti and thereafter left that place, so, due to these contradictions, PWs cannot be believed.
I am not agreed with the contention of learned defence counsel. If accused Vijay @ Monti's house was pointed out by PW4 Praveen Sagarnath on 20/10/2006, then he SC No. 67/01/10 29 could have been arrested on 20/10/2006 itself, but he was arrested on 22/10/2006 and the contradiction in respect of pointing out of house of accused Vijay @ Monti are minor contradictions, on the basis of which, witnesses cannot be disbelieved. A suggestion has been given to PW28 Inspector Joginder Singh that PW2 Sanjay and PW4 Praveen Sagarnath were having enmity with accused Vijay @ Monti due to which they named him as a suspect, itself shows that accused Vijay @ Monti was known to them. Testimony of PW28 Inspector Joginder Singh in this respect is unshaken and repeatedly in the cross examination conducted by different defence counsels on behalf of accused persons, he has consistently stated that on 22/10/2006, PW2 complainant Sanjay met him near Gagan Cinema at about 11.00 a.m. and they reached at the house of PW4 Praveen at about 12 noon. PW2 Sanjay also accompanied him besides HC Laxman and Constable Naresh and they reached at the house of accused Vijay Kumar @ Monti in the noon time at about 12.30 or 12.35 p.m. Although PW28 Inspector Joginder Singh has not been able to assign any reason as to why he did not obtain signatures of PW2 Sanjay and PW4 Praveen Sagarnath on the disclosure statement of accused Vijay @ Monti, but only on this ground, the witness cannot be disbelieved.
Even DW1 Ramesh, father of accused Vijay @ Monti, has also admitted in the cross examination that accused Vijay @ Monti was arrested on 22/10/2006.
Joginder Singh has denied the suggestion that accused Vijay @ Monti was brought in the PS and his signatures were obtained on some blank papers, which were later on converted into his disclosure statement. This suggestion itself proves and shows that accused Vijay @ Monti was arrested on 22/10/2006, so, there is no discrepancy in the depositions of the witnesses in this respect and prosecution has been able to prove this fact beyond reasonable doubts that accused Vijay @ Monti was arrested on 22/10/2006.
Constable Naresh is a witness to the disclosure statement of accused Vijay @ Monti Ex. PW20/C. He has been examined as PW20. He has stated that on 22/10/2006, he joined the investigation of this case. One Praveen Sagar i.e. PW4 led the police party to the house of accused Vijay @ Monti and pointed out towards him, who was arrested vide memo Ex.PW20/A. His personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW20/B and accused also made disclosure statement Ex. PW20/C. In the cross examination, PW20 constable Naresh SC No. 67/01/10 30 Kumar has stated that they had gone in a vehicle and HC Laxman was with him. Although PW20 constable Naresh Kumar failed to tell the time of various proceedings but only on this ground, he cannot be disbelieved in any manner.
PW26 ASI Laxman is also a witness to the disclosure statement Ex. PW20/C. He has stated that on 22/10/2006, he joined the investigation of this case with PW28 SI Joginder Singh and PW20 Constable Naresh. On that day, in his presence, one Praveen Sagar told the address of accused Vijay @ Monti. He also joined the investigation and led the police party to the house of accused Vijay @ Monti i.e. B2/33, Gali No.13, Harsh Vihar, PartI, Delhi, and pointed out towards one boy Vijay @ Monti, who was apprehended and was arrested vide memo Ex. PW20/A. His disclosure statement was also recorded. In the cross examination, PW26 ASI Laxman has stated that Sanjay, brother of deceased was called by the IO at Gagan Cinema on 22/10/2006 at about 11.00 a.m. , who took them to the house of one Praveen Sagar i.e. PW4. They reached at the house of accused Vijay @ Monti at about 1.00 p.m., which is corroborating with the depositions of PW20 constable Naresh Kumar and PW28 Inspector Joginder Singh.
According to PW28 Inspector Joginder Singh, accused Vijay @ Monti after his arrest led the police party to Hindan River Pusta, near Meer Farm House and pointed out the place, where they had thrown dead body of Anil, so, he prepared pointing out memo Ex. PW20/D and on inquiry, he came to know that dead body was recovered one day before and was taken by the local police of Ghaziabad, so, they reached at PP Hindan and in the mortuary, Ghaziabad, PW2 Sanjay identified the dead body of Anil and also informed at his house about the recovery of the dead body. Again, they came back to Hindan River Pusta, where SHO and Inspector Azad Singh with staff had reached and he handed over the further investigation to Inspector Azad Singh.
Now, it has to be seen whether the place of throwing of dead body was already within the knowledge of police or not and who identified the dead body in the mortuary and when.
According to PW7 Anil Kumar, he used to reside in Ghaziabad. On 21/10/2006, at about 9/9.30 a.m., he was coming towards Hindan bridge from Vasundhara and he saw a dead body of unknown person, aged about 2022 years, on the bank of river, SC No. 67/01/10 31 just ahead of 100 steps from railway bridge. Thereafter, he reached at PS Sahibabad and informed the police regarding lying of dead body near the bank of Hindan river. Later on, police recorded his statement. Nothing came out from his cross examination to disbelieve him in any manner. He is an independent person. According to his cross examination, he had personally gone to police post and had left the PS after giving the information.
According to PW14 SI Shailender Singh Yadav, who was posted at PP Hindan of PS Describable, U.P. on 21/10/2006, on that day, at about 10.05, one Anil came and informed about lying of a dead body near Hindan Pusta near railway bridge. On receipt of this information, DD No. 24 was recorded and he alongwith PW11 Constable Naresh Pal Singh and Constable Shiv Kumar reached at the spot. One dead body was found lying near the bank of Hindan river. Public persons gathered there. He tried to get the dead body identified, but the same could not be identified.
PW14 SI Shailender Singh Yadav has further deposed that one photographer was called, who had taken photographs of the dead body. Panchnama was prepared. One stab wound was found on the throat and scratch mark was found on the back of deceased. Dead body was sealed in a pullanda with the seal of "SSY" and was sent to mortuary MMD i.e. District Hospital Ghaziabad through PW11 Constable Naresh Pal and Constable Shiv Kumar. One chappal lying near the dead body, one blood stained wood piece in the form of stick and plain wooden piece were also found lying near the dead body. These were taken into possession after preparing pullanda with the seal of "SSY".
PW11 Constable Naresh Pal Singh has also deposed the same facts as of PW14 SI Shailender Singh Yadav and has also deposed that dead body was wearing red and white colour Tshirt, blue colour jeans with blue colour wind chetter. He has also identified the panchnama Ex. PW11/A, which was signed by him and photograph of the dead body as Ex. P6.
According to PW11 Constable Naresh Pal Singh, on 22/10/2006, father and brother of deceased reached in the mortuary. They also reached there. Both father and brother identified the dead body. Thereafter, postmortem was conducted. Wearing clothes of deceased were handed over by the doctor in a sealed pullanda, which were deposited in the office and dead body was handed over to the father of deceased. SC No. 67/01/10 32
According to cross examination of PW11 constable Naresh Pal Singh, writing work was done at the spot and he signed the Panchnama. He had also signed the sealed pullanda of blood stained earth. They got conducted the postmortem of the dead body at about 3.30 p.m. on 22/10/2006. He does not know who informed father and brother of deceased. According to cross examination of PW14 SI Shailender Singh Yadav, father and brother of deceased had reached directly to the mortuary and he cannot tell, who told them that dead body was lying in the mortuary. He did not make any inquiry from them as to how they came to know that dead body was lying in the mortuary. He was called from police chowki on telephone and father and brother of deceased had identified the dead body in his presence in the mortuary. PW14 has further stated in the cross examination that SI Joginder i.e. PW28 came to PP Hindan, but he does not remember at what time he had come.
Learned defence counsels have further contended that according to the depositions of PW11 Constable Naresh Pal Singh and PW14 SI Shailender Singh Yadav, dead body was identified by father and brother of deceased. It is not deposed either by PW11 Constable Naresh Pal Singh or by PW14 SI Shailender Singh Yadav or both of them that dead body was identified by Sanjay only, while he reached at the mortuary of Ghaziabad with the police party and accused Vijay @ Monti. Learned defence counsels have further contended that from the deposition of PW14 SI Shailender Singh Yadav, it is clear that PW28 Inspector Joginer Singh came to Police chowki Hindan alone, which shows that accused Vijay @ Monti had not led the police party to Hindan River Pusta, where dead body was thrown and further had not gone with the police party to the mortuary of Ghaziabad, where PW2 Sanjay had identified the dead body.
According to PW1 Jaswant Singh, on 22/10/2006, they came to know from the police that dead body of Anil was recovered at Hindan River, District Ghaziabad. Thereafter, he alongwith police officials went to the mortuary and he identified the dead body of Anil.
It seems that PW2 Sanjay informed about the dead body at his house, then PW1 Jaswant Singh and PW3 Bhura Singh had reached in the mortuary and had identified the dead body. Sanjay could have come to know about the dead body only, if he had joined the investigation and accused Vijay @ Monti had pointed out the place, where dead body was SC No. 67/01/10 33 thrown because from this place only, they came to know about the recovery of dead body, so, the contentions of learned defence counsel are not forceful in this respect in any manner and all the witnesses have corroborated each other to the extent that dead body was found lying at Hindan River Pushta and before pointing out the same by accused Vijay @ Monti, it was not within the knowledge of complainant and Delhi Police.
PW2 Sanjay has stated that on 22/10/2006, he had gone to District Mortuary, Ghaziabad situated at Hindan River and identified the dead body of his brother Anil. At that time, his deceased brother was wearing a blue colour jeans and Tshirt of white colour having red stripes and blue colour wind chetter.
PW3 Bhura Singh has stated that on 22/10/2006, after receiving information about lying of dead body of his son Anil in the mortuary of Hindan river, District Ghaziabad, U.P., he alongwith his son in law Jaswant Singh i.e. PW1 and his son Sanjay i.e. PW2 reached there. He identified the dead body of his son Anil lying there, who was wearing blue colour jeans and one Tshirt alongwith one blue colour jacket/wind chetter. His son in law Jaswant Singh identified the Tshirt, which he had given to Anil at his house to change the same.
According to PW3 Bhura Singh, on 19/10/2006, his son Ail had left the house to go to Delhi in the evening in his presence. He was wearing Matmela colour Tshirt and blue colour jeans. He was also carrying one pair of clothes in a polythene i.e. one jeans pant and one Tshirt. According to PW3 Bhura Singh, when he identified the dead bodyof his son in the mortuary, he was wearing blue colour jeans pant and one Tshirt alongwith blue colour jacket/wind chetter.
PW3 Bhura Singh has also identified the Tshirt and jeans pant as Ex. P1 and Ex. P2 and another Tshirt of white colour having red stripes, one blue colour jeans pant and one jacket/wind chetter as Ex. P3 and P4 except the wind chetter, which was not belonging to Anil. So, according to PW3 Bhura Singh, when Anil had left, he was wearing Matmela colour Tshirt and blue colur jean and was also having one pair of clothes i.e. one jean pant and one Tshirt.
According to PW2 Sanjay Kumar, when he identified the dead body of Anil in the mortuary, at that time, his deceased brother was wearing blue colour jeans and Tshirt of SC No. 67/01/10 34 white colour having red stripes and blue colour wind chetter and has further stated that T shirt, which his deceased brother was wearing, was belonging to his brother in law Jaswant Singh i.e. PW1. PW2 Sanjay Kumar has also stated that his brother Anil had taken one pair of clothes with him and has further stated that he had identified the clothes shown to him by the police, which were kept in transparent plastic polythene, which were seen by him on the dead body before postmortem. PW2 Sanjay Kumar has also identified the Tshirt of Bhagwa colour and jeans pant as Ex. P1 and Ex. P2 and Tshirt of red stripes, one jeans pant and one wind chetter as the same, which were found on the dead body of Anil.
According to PW1 Jaswant Singh, when Anil came to his house, he was wearing Bhagwa colour Tshirt and dark blue colour jeans. He was also having another clothes to change. On the next day, after taking breakfast, PW1 Jaswant Singh handed over his Tshirt having white and red stripes to Anil and thereafter Anil had left the house at 10.00 a.m. PW1 Jaswant Singh has also identified the jeans pant and Tshirt of Bhagwa colour as the same, in which, Anil had come to his house on 19/10/2006 as Ex. P1 and Ex. P2 and also another blood stained Tshirt of red and white stripes as Ex. P3, so, all these three witnesses have corroborated each other regarding identification of dead body and his wearing clothes.
According to seizure memo Ex. PW26/E, accused Vijay @ Monti, during police custody, got recovered one mobile phone from his house. The seizure memo was prepared by Additional SHO, Mangolpuri and was witnessed by SI Joginder Singh and HC Laxman. They are examined as PW30, PW28 and PW26.
PW26 ASI Laxman Singh has stated in this respect that during police custody, accused Vijay @ Monti led the police party to his house at Harsh Vihar, PartI and from his house got recovered one mobile phone make Nokia, which was without SIM. It was sealed in a pullanda with the seal of "AS" and was seized vide memo Ex. PW26/E. PW26 ASI Laxman has also identified this mobile phone before the court as Ex. P27. PW26 has not been cross examined regarding the recovery of mobile phone by accused Vijay @ Monti from his house, which was seized vide memo Ex. PW26/E, hence, his testimony is unrebutted and unshaken.
PW28 Inspector Joginder Singh has deposed that after pointing out the place of SC No. 67/01/10 35 occurrence, they came back to the house of accused Vijay @ Monti, where on his pointing, mobile phone make Nokia No. 9810602127 was recovered and was sealed in a pullanda with the seal of "AS" and was seized vide memo Ex. PW26/E. PW28 has also not been cross examined regarding recovery of mobile phone on the pointing of accused Vijay @ Monti,from his house, which was seized vide memo Ex. PW26/E, hence, his testimony is also unrebutted and unshaken.
PW30 Inspector Azad Singh has also deposed that accused Vijay @ Monti got recovered one mobile phone, which was sealed in a pullanda with the seal of "AS" and was seized vide memo Ex. PW26/E. PW28 Inspector Joginder Singh and PW30 Inspector Azad Singh have also identified this mobile phone before the court as Ex. P27.
According to cross examination of PW30 Inspector Azad Singh, he received investigation of this case on 22/10/2006 at about 3.30 p.m. PW28 Inspector Joginder Singh has also deposed the same facts, so, they both have corroborated in this respect. Only suggestion has been given to PW30 Inspector Azad Singh that no mobile phone make Nokia was recovered from the house of accused Vijay @ Monti at his instance. So, PW26 ASI Laxman, PW28 Inspector Joginder Singh and PW30 Inspector Azad Singh have corroborated each other that mobile phone make Nokia was got recovered by accused Vijay @ Monti during police custody from his house, which was sealed and seized in this case vide memo Ex. PW26/E. All these three witnesses have also identified the mobile phone before the Court as the same, so, prosecution has been able to prove beyond reasonable doubts recovery of this mobile phone from the possession of accused Vijay @ Monti.
According to these witnesses, accused Vijay @ Monti also got recovered motorcycle No. DL7SAG6827 from his house and one blood stained jacket, which were sealed and seized in this case. Motorcycle was seized vide memo Ex. PW26/F1 and jacket was seized vide memo Ex. PW26/F. Testimonies of all these witnesses regarding the recovery of motorcycle No. DL7SAG6827 and blood stained jacket are unshaken despite cross examination at length. According to FSL report Ex. PW18/A, blood stained jacket Ex. 5 was found having blood on the same and according to report Ex. PW18/B, on the jacket, human blood of "B" group was found. So, the blood found on the jacket of accused Vijay @ Monti recovered at his instance is connected with the blood group of deceased. SC No. 67/01/10 36
According to seizure memo Ex. PW26/F1, motorcycle No. DL7SAG6827, make TVS Apache, silver colour, was used in disposing off the dead body of Anil, but this motorcycle has not been examined by Forensic Expert nor any evidence of blood was found, so, the same could not be connected with the fact that this motorcycle was used in carrying and throwing the dead body in Hindan River Pushta, of deceased Anil. According to the witnesses of the prosecution, deceased Anil was called by the accused persons on the pretext of giving a party on the eve of purchasing of new motorcycle but it is also not established that this motorcycle was the same, which was recently purchased by accused persons.
According to PW26 ASI Laxman, accused Vijay @ Monti led the police party to the house of coaccused Vijay @ Mannu in Harsh Vihar, PartII, where on the pointing of accused Vijay @ Monti, accused Vijay @ Mannu was apprehended. He was interrogated and arrested vide memo Ex. PW26/G and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex. PW26/H. Accused Vijay @ Mannu also made disclosure statement Ex. PW26/I and also got recovered one mobile phone make Nokia, stated to be of deceased Anil. Accused Vijay @ Mannu also produced one plastic polythene, which was found containing one old towel and one sofa cover and told that these were the same, with which, blood was cleaned from the spot and clothes were also washed. Accused Vijay @ Mannu also produced another polythene, which was found containing one light grey colour pant stained with blood and told that it was the same, which he was wearing at the time of occurrence. One blood stained broken knife in the shape of Ustara was also recovered.
PW26 ASI Laxman has further deposed that accused Vijay @ Mannu also got recovered one motorcycle bearing No. UP14Z6671 make Pulsar, on which, Anil was brought from Mangolpuri.
PW26 ASI Laxman has further deposed that sketch of the recovered knife was prepared. These articles were sealed in the pullandas with the seal of "AS" and were seized vide memo Ex. PW26/J,K, L and M. Motorcycle No. UP14Z6671 was also seized vide memo Ex. PW26/N. PW28 Inspector Joginder Singh has also deposed the same facts regarding the arrest of accused Vijay @ Mannu and recovery of certain articles as he was heading the police party. Only suggestions have been given to PW26 ASI Laxman and PW28 Inspector SC No. 67/01/10 37 Joginder Singh regarding the arrest of accused Vijay @ Mannu, so, nothing came out from the depositions of these witnesses to disbelieve their testimonies.
PW30 Inspector Azad Singh has also deposed the same facts as of PW26 ASI Laxman Singh and PW28 Inspector Joginder Singh as he was also in the police party. Again, only suggestions to this witness, that nothing was recovered and all these articles have been planted against the accused, were given. Merely that there is no public person to these proceedings does not mean that no such proceedings/investigation were conducted and these articles were not recovered from the possession of accused Vijay @ Mannu. Witnesses have denied the suggestion that mobile phone make Nokia belonging to deceased Anil was handed over to the police party by the officials of PS Hindan, so, the testimonies of these three witnesses cannot be disbelieved in any manner. More so, articles recovered with dead body were seized and sealed by U.P. Police and one day later, recovery of dead body came to the knowledge of Delhi Police after the arrest of accused Vijay @ Monti, when he pointed out the place, where dead body was thrown, so, there could not be any possibility of handing over the mobile phone of deceased Anil by U.P. Police to Delhi Police.
According to the police witnesses, one mobile phone belonging to deceased Anil was recovered from the possession of accused Vijay @ Mannu. PW3 Bhura Singh, father of deceased Anil has identified this mobile phone before the Court as of his son. It is Ex. P5. The IMEI number of this mobile is 355021001099651. According to PW9 S.K. Gulati, his salesman Surinder Kumar had sold this mobile on 11/02/2006 to one Anil for a sum of Rs. 19690/ vide bill No. 2686. The bill is Ex. PW1/A. PW9 S.K. Gulati has not been cross examined in any manner, hence, testimony of PW9 S.K. Gulati is unrebutted and unshaken.
PW1 Jaswant Singh has also stated that during the course of investigation, he handed over invoice/cash memo of the mobile phone purchased by Anil Kumar to the IO. It was arranged by him from the house of Anil, which is Ex. PW1/A. It was taken into possession by the IO vide memo Ex. PW1/B. So, from the depositions of these witnesses, prosecution has been able to prove beyond reasonable doubts that mobile phone make Nokia bearing IMEI No. 355021001099651 recovered on the pointing of accused Vijay @ Mannu, was belonging to deceased Anil.
SC No. 67/01/10 38
According to the depositions of police witnesses, one old towel and one sofa cover were also recovered at the instance of accused Vijay @ Mannu, with which, blood was cleaned from the spot and was also washed. These have been examined by FSL and according to the report of FSL Ex. PW18/A, these were marked as Ex. 6a i.e. one towel having darker stains, Ex. 6b i.e. one sofa cover and as per result, blood was detected on Ex. 6a but blood could not be detected on Ex. 6b. According to further biological report Ex. PW18/B, Ex. 6a i.e. towel was found having human blood, but for the grouping, there was no reaction. Hence, prosecution has not been able to connect the towel and sofa cover with the incident to the extent that both these clothes were used to wipe out blood from the spot by the accused persons.
According to the witnesses, accused Vijay @ Mannu has also produced one light grey colour pant, stained with blood, which he was wearing at the time of occurrence. One blood stained broken knife in the shape of Ustara was also recovered in this pant. According to FSL report, one pant has been examined by giving it Ex. 7 and according to biological report Ex. PW18/B, this Ex. 7 was found containing human blood of "B" group i.e. similar to the blood group "B" of deceased Anil.
The wearing clothes of deceased Anil were sealed with the seal of mortuary Ghaziabad District. According to the report Ex. PW18/A, two micro slides, having brownish smear, sealed with the seal of "Mbs MORTUARY GHAZIABAD DISTT.", were given Ex. 12a and Ex. 12b i.e. blood sample of deceased Anil. Blood was detected on both these slides as per report and further according to biological report Ex. PW18/B, micro slide Ex. 12b was found containing human blood of "B". This proves that deceased Anil was having blood group of "B" and the same was found on the pant of accused Vijay @ Mannu, which he got recovered in this case during investigation.
In this wearing pant of accused Vijay @ Mannu, one broken portion of knife was also recovered. Sketch of the same is Ex. PW30/C and it was seized vide memo Ex. PW26/M. According to the FSL report Ex. PW18/A, this broken portion of knife was given Ex. 9 and as per result, blood could not be detected on this exhibit. One broken knife having brown stains, which was recovered from the dead body, was given Ex. 13, sealed with the seal of "Mbs MORTUARY GHAZIABAD DISTT.". The same was recovered as mentioned SC No. 67/01/10 39 in Ex. PW14/A, the panchnama proceedings. According to biological report Ex. PW18/B, Ex. 13 i.e. broken blade of knife having brown stains was found having human blood of "B" group i.e. of deceased Anil. According to another report Ex. PW31/A, Ex. 9 i.e. handle of knife with broken blade and Ex. 13 broken blade of a knife were examined by the FSL official physically and under magnification and these were found to be physically fitted, when placed in Juxta position, which indicates that Ex. 13 and Ex. 9 were part of one knife.
PW14 SI Shailender Singh Yadav, who was posted at PP Hindan of PS Sahibabad, U.P., on 21/10/2006, had conducted the panchnama proceedings by reaching at the spot. Dead body was sealed with the seal of "SSY" and was removed to mortuary Ghaziabad. Nothing came out from his cross examination to disbelieve his testimony in this respect. PW21 Dr. M. M. Aggarwal had conducted the postmortem on the body of deceased Anil. Half piece of knife was recovered from one incised wound measuring 3 c.m. x 1 c.m. x bone deep on left side of neck. It was sealed in an envelope and was handed over to the police. PW21 has also identified this piece of knife before the Court, which was recovered during examination of dead body as Ex. P24.
Learned defence counsels for accused persons have contended that according to cross examination of PW21 Dr. M.M. Aggarwal, who had conducted postmortem on the dead body of deceased Anil, he had not prepared sketch of the piece of knife, which was recovered from injury No.2, nor he has been able to tell the measurement of the recovered piece of knife, hence, this recovery of piece of knife from the dead body seems to be doubtful and is planted one.
I am not agree with the contention of learned defence counsel. PW21 Dr. M.M. Aggarwal is an independent witness. Dead body was recovered on 21/10/2006 and postmortem was conducted on 22/10/2006. The piece of knife, according to PW21 Dr. M.M. Aggarwal, was found inside the wound. It was bone deep and according to him, there was no need to prepare sketch of the said piece of knife. Testimony of PW21 Dr. M.M. Aggarwal is unrebutted and unshaken regarding the fact that the piece of knife was recovered from the wound and was sealed in an envelope. It was handed over to the police. According to PW14 SI Shailender Singh Yadav and according to panchnama Ex. PW14/A, these sealed pullandas were sent to PS Mangol Puri, so, the contention of learned defence SC No. 67/01/10 40 counsel is not forceful in this respect.
According to PW24 HC Shyam Pal Singh, on 22/10/2006, he was working as MHC(M) at PS Sahibabad, District Ghaziabad, U.P. On that day, PW14 SI Shailender Singh, Chowki incharge, PP Hindan, had got conducted postmortem on the dead body of deceased Anil. After that, Ct Shiv Kumar handed over to him sealed pullandas, which were collected from the doctor. He deposited the same in the malkhana.
PW24 HC Shyam Pal Singh has further deposed that on 14/11/2006, HC Rakesh came from PS Mangolpuri and he handed over the exhibits to him alongwith postmortem report and inquest papers. Till the pullandas remained in his possession, none tampered with the same. He also made entry in the record, copy of which is Ex. PW24/A. He also obtained receipt from HC Harkesh regarding handing over of pullandas, copy of which is Ex. PW24/B. PW24 has not been cross examined on any material aspect except suggesting that case property was tampered with. So, PW24 HC Shyam Pal Singh has corroborated with PW14 SI Shailender Singh and also with PW21 Dr. M.M. Aggarwal regarding the recovery of broken piece of knife from the wound of deceased Anil during postmortem, which was seized by U.P. police.
PW22 HC Surinder Kumar was working as MHC(M) at PS Mangolpuri on 22/10/2006 and on 14/11/2006, HC Harkesh got deposited with him four sealed pullandas with the seal of "SSY UPP" alongwith two sealed envelopes, which were deposited by him in the malkhana vide entry No. 6355. On 04/12/2006, vide RC No. 509, these pullandas alongwith other pullandas were sent to FSL through Constable Vijender Singh. PW22 HC Surinder Kumar has produced original register No. 19 and RC. Copy of the entry is Ex. PW22/A and copy of RC is Ex. PW22/B. PW22 has also deposed that on 22/10/2006, Inspector Azad Singh got deposited with him 11 sealed pullandas with the seal of "AS" and two motorcycles, which were deposited in the malkhana vide entry No. 6307. Copies of these entries are Ex. PW22/A and Ex. PW22/B. Nothing came out from the cross examination of this witness also to disbelieve his testimony.
PW19 constable Virender Singh had removed the pullandas to FSL on 04/12/2006 vide RC No. 509/21/06. He deposited the same in FSL Rohini and handed over the receipt to the MHC(M). Only suggestions have been given to this witness regarding SC No. 67/01/10 41 tampering with the case property, which he has denied, so, nothing came out from the cross examination of this witness also to disbelieve his testimony.
In view of above, all these witnesses have corroborated each other regarding the recovery of piece of knife from the wound of deceased Anil during postmortem, which was sealed in the mortuary and was seized by U.P. police. It was transferred to Delhi Police at PS Mangolpuri and was deposited in the malkhana. The broken piece of knife with handle and this piece of knife recovered from the dead body were sent to FSL through PW19 and were examined by PW18 Sh. V. Shankar Narayanan, SSA (Biology), FSL Rohini, who has given his report in this respect. On 04/12/2006, he had received 18 sealed parcels, which were examined by him and he gave his report Ex. PW18/A and further given biological report Ex. PW18/B. PW18 has also identified exhibits before the Court as the same, which were examined by him. PW18 has denied the suggestion that he did not receive parcels with intact seal and has given his report at the instance of IO. So, from his cross examination, nothing surfaced in the light to disbelieve his testimony regarding his examination of the exhibits and his findings, as given in Ex. PW18/A and Ex. PW18/B. Broken piece of ustara recovered from the body of deceased Anil and broken piece of ustara with handle recovered from the possession of accused Vijay @ Mannu were further examined by PW31 Parshuram Singh, SSO (Physics), FSL Rohini. On 18/04/2007, he received four sealed parcels. Two parcels were containing blood stained earth and earth control. Other two were containing handle of the knife with broken blade and blade of knife. He examined Ex. 9 and 13 i.e. broken blade with handle and broken piece of knife and after examination gave his findings in his report Ex. PW31/A to the extent that Ex. 9 and Ex. 13 were part of one knife. PW31 has also identified both these exhibits before the Court as the same, which were examined by him. PW31 has not been cross examined by counsel for the accused persons in any manner, hence, his testimony is unrebutted and unshaken. Accordingly, prosecution has been able to prove beyond reasonable doubts recovery of broken piece of knife from the possession of accused Vijay @ Mannu as part of the knife,which was recovered from the wound of deceased Anil during postmortem by PW21 Dr. M.M. Aggarwal and was examined by PW18 Sh. V. Shankar Narayanan and PW31 Sh. Parshuram Singh.
SC No. 67/01/10 42
One motorcycle No. UP14Z6671 make Pulsar was also recovered on the pointing of accused Vijay @ Mannu. It is the case of the prosecution that on this motorcycle, deceased Anil was brought from Mangolpuri, but there is no evidence to prove this fact, hence, recovery of this motorcycle in this case is of no consequence.
In defence evidence, accused Vijay @ Monti has examined Ramesh Chand, his father, who has deposed that on 21/10/2006, on the day of festival of Diwali, after Puja, in the night, they had taken their meals at about 11/11.15 p.m. Police officials knocked at their door, at which, he had come out at the main gate and opened the door. When he opened the main gate,67 police officials entered in the house and started taking forcibly his son accused Vijay @ Monti, who was sleeping in the house. On inquiry, police officials told that they were taking him to PS Nand Nagri. Police officials also took away one motorcycle from the courtyard of his house.
DW1 Ramesh Chand has further deposed that after about half an hour, he alongwith his wife reached at PS Nand Nagri, where he made inquiries about his son accused Vijay @ Monti. The person present there told that no such person had come in the police custody, so, they came back. On the next day, in the evening, police officials brought his son accused Vijay @ Monti in the house and at that time, they had told that they had brought accused Vijay @ Monti from PS Mangol Puri and asked him to provide warm clothes to accused Vijay @ Monti as he was not wearing the same, at which, he told that weather was not so cold and as to why they were asking for the jacket. On the asking of the police officials, he handed over the jacket of his son accused Vijay @ Monti to them. After about three months, when the copy of the chargesheet was supplied, he came to know that the said jacket was planted against his son accused Vijay @ Monti.
In the cross examination, DW1 Ramesh Chand has admitted that his son accused Vijay @ Monti was arrested by SI Joginder Singh of PS Mangol Puri on 22/10/2006 at about 1.00 p.m. from H.No. B2/233, Gali No. 13, Harsh ViharI, Delhi. He has also admitted that Ashok is brother of accused Vijay @ Monti but he does not know whether information about his arrest was given to Ashok. He has also denied the knowledge regarding recovery of mobile phone make Nokia on the pointing of accused Vijay @ Monti and blood stained jacket from inside the bed lying in the room of his house. He has also SC No. 67/01/10 43 denied the knowledge that accused Vijay @ Monti got recovered one motorcycle make Apache bearing No. DL7SAG6827, which was seized in this case.
DW1 Ramesh Chand did not make any complaint to the senior police officials regarding planting of jacket and lifting of accused Vijay @ Monti from the house in the night of 21/10/2006, rather has admitted the arrest of accused Vijay @ Monti as per the case of the prosecution and also that Ashok was informed about the arrest. DW1 has denied the knowledge of recovery of mobile phone and jacket and also motorcycle No. DL7SAG6827, which is contrary to his examination in chief, wherein he has stated that jacket and motorcycle were taken away by the police in the night of 21/10/2006, so, he cannot be relied upon in any manner due to these contradictions and also being interested witness.
DW1 Ramesh Chand had not given any information to the senior police officials regarding lifting of accused Vijay @ Monti in the night of 21/10/2006, so, his testimony is not inspiring any confidence in this respect.
In view of above discussion, the contentions of learned defence counsels of accused Vijay @ Monti and Vijay @ Mannu are not forceful and are not tenable in any manner. From the depositions of the witnesses, who have corroborated each other and have inspired confidence, the prosecution has been able to complete the chain of evidence against both accused Vijay @ Monti and Vijay @ Mannu beyond reasonable doubts as under:
i) that from the depositions of PW1 Jaswant Singh, PW2 Sanjay Kumar and PW3 Bhura Singh, it has been proved that Anil had left his house on 19/10/2006 for his sister's house at Mangol Puri and stayed there in the night. On the next day, he received phone call on his mobile phone and left his sister's house at about 10 a.m. From the call details of mobile phone of Anil Ex. PW16/F, it has also been proved that he remained in contact of accused Vijay @ Monti on mobile phone.
ii) that deceased Anil had also told to PW1 Jaswant Singh in his house in the morning of 20/10/2006 about receiving a call from accused Vijay @ Mannu, who was giving a party on the eve of purchase of new motorcycle.
iii) that accused Vijay @ Monti made ransom calls on the mobile phone of PW3 Bhura Singh at various intervals on 21/10/2006, as per call details Ex. PW16/F, by SC No. 67/01/10 44 using the SIM card of Anil in his mobile phone, which was recovered from his possession.
iv) that PW4 Praveen Sagarnath pointed out the house of accused Vijay @ Monti on 22/10/2006 and also he received a call from Anil on 20/10/2006, who informed him that he was having a party with accused Vijay @ Monti and Vijay @ Mannu.
v) from the depositions of the witnesses, it has been proved that accused Vijay @ Monti was arrested on 22/10/2006 and he got recovered one mobile phone, which was taken into possession in this case. Accused Vijay @ Monti was having mobile No. 9810602127 and PW16 R.K. Singh has proved the application form and DL of accused Vijay @ Monti, on the basis of which, he had obtained this mobile number and in the handset of his mobile phone, he made ransom calls by inserting the SIM card of mobile phone of deceased Anil on 21/10/2006.
vi) that from the depositions of the witnesses, it has been proved that accused Vijay @ Monti was known to the family of deceased Anil and PW4 Praveen Sagarnath.
vii) that after his arrest, accused Vijay @ Monti made disclosure statement Ex.
PW20/C and in furtherance of the same, pointed out the place, where dead body of Anil was thrown i.e Hindan River Pushta and according to PW7 Anil Kumar, PW29 Mohd. Hussain Kazmi, PW14 SI Shailender Singh and PW11 Ct Naresh Pal, dead body was recovered on 21/10/2006 from there and the same was removed to mortuary of District Hospital, Ghaziabad.
viii) that at the time of pointing out of place of throwing of the dead body by accused Vijay @ Monti, police party came to know about the recovery of dead body one day prior from the same place by UP police officials, so, the dead body was also identified in the mortuary by PW1 Jaswant Singh, PW2 Sanjay Kumar and PW3 Bhura Singh as the same of deceased Anil.
ix) that during the custody of accused Vijay @ Monti, again the police party came back to Hindan River Pushta and from there, again accused Vijay @ Monti led the police party to his house and got recovered one mobile phone make Nokia without SIM, which was taken into possession in this case. He also got recovered one blood stained jacket, which after examination from the FSL, was found having human blood of "B" group i.e. similar to blood group of deceased Anil.
SC No. 67/01/10 45
x) that thereafter, accused Vijay @ Monti led the police party to the house of coaccused Vijay @ Mannu and on his pointing, accused Vijay @ Mannu was arrested, who also got recovered one mobile phone make Nokia stated to be of deceased Anil. From the deposition of PW9 S.K. Gulati, prosecution has been able to prove that this mobile phone recovered from the possession of accused Vijay @ Mannu was sold to deceased Anil on 11/02/2006.
xi) that accused Vijay @ Manny got recovered one light grey pant and one blood stained broken knife in the shape of Ustara. According to FSL reports, the light grey colour pant was found having human blood of "B" group, which was of deceased Anil. According to FSL report, the broken piece of ustara with handle was part of the another broken piece of ustara, which was found in one of the injury of deceased Anil during postmortem.
xii) that both the articles were sealed and seized according to the recovery memo and were sent to FSL and were examined by FSL officials , whose testimonies are unrebutted and unshaken regarding their examination.
xiii) that the place, where the dead body was thrown was not within the knowledge of either complainant or police party and was firstly pointed out by accused Vijay @ Monti during police custody and thereafter by accused Vijay @ Mannu.
xiv) that Anil died due to the injuries caused with said ustara type knife and injuries No. 1 and 2 were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. The broken piece of knife/ustara was recovered from injury no. 2.
xv) that according to postmortem report, Anil died at about 3.00 p.m. on 20/10/2006, which is further corroborated with the calls details of mobile phone of Anil Ex. PW16/F, which shows that the SIM card of his mobile phone was working till 3.13 p.m. on 20/10/2006.
Finding qua accused Azim Mian:
Regarding arrest of accused Azim Mian, PW26 ASI Laxman has further deposed that accused Vijay @ Monti led them to H.No. F2/560, F Block, Sunder Nagri, Delhi, where on seeing a boy, he pointed out towards him and told that he was accused SC No. 67/01/10 46 Azim Mian @ Rahul, who was also involved in the incident. Accused Azim Mian was arrested vide memo Ex. PW26/O. His personal search was conducted vide memo Ex. PW26/P. His disclosure statement was also recorded. Thereafter, accused Azim Mian from the roof of his house near water tank, got recovered one polythene, which was found containing one Tshirt and one pant and told that same were of deceased Anil. These were sealed in a pullanda with the seal of "AS" and were seized vide memo Ex. PW26/Q. PW26 ASI Laxman has identified this Tshirt of Bhagwa colour and jeans pant of blue colour as Ex. P1 and Ex. P2, which accused Azim Mian got recovered in this case.
PW28 Inspector Joginder Singh has also deposed the same facts and has stated that disclosure statement of accused Azim Mian is Ex. PW28/A. PW28 Inspector Joginder Singh has also identified the Tshirt of Bhagwa colour and jeans pant of blue colour as the same, which accused Azim Mian got recovered, as Ex. P1 and Ex. P2.
PW30 Inspector Azad Singh has also deposed the same facts regarding pointing out and arrest of accused Azim Mian and also that accused Azim Mian got recovered one transparent polythene from the roof of his house near water tank containing one shirt and one pant, which were sealed in a pullanda with the seal of "AS" and were seized vide memo Ex. PW26/Q. PW30 has also identified the Tshirt of Bhagwa colour and one jeans pant of blue colour as the same, which accused Azim Mian got recovered, as Ex. P1 and Ex. P2.
Learned defence counsel has contended that according to the cross examination of PW30 Inspector Azad Singh, it was a transparent polythene, whereas PW28 Inspector Joginder Singh has stated in the cross examination that the polythene was of white colour. Learned defence counsel has further contended that there is no public witness to the recovery nor signatures of any public person have been taken on seizure memo of clothes. Learned defence counsel has further contended that according to cross of PW28 Inspector Joginder Singh , the staircase leading to the roof of the house of accused Azim Mian was of brick, whereas according to cross of PW30 Inspector Azad Singh, staircase of the house of accused Azim Mian was cemented one, which shows that the police party has not gone to the house of accused Azim Mian and the clothes Ex. P1 and Ex. P2 have been planted upon him. Learned defence counsel has further contended that according to PW26 ASI Laxman, he had not gone upstairs of the house of accused Azim Mian, whereas according to cross of SC No. 67/01/10 47 PW30 Inspector Azad Singh, he alongwith HC Jogender and HC Laxman had gone upstairs, so, the contradictions in this respect are material, hence, witnesses cannot be relied upon.
According to the cross examination of PW3 Bhura Singh, police officials present in the mortuary had also shown him one jeans pant of blue colour and one Tshirt of Matmela colour, which were kept in a polythene. He has also identified the said clothes as the same, which his son Anil was wearing at the time, when he had left the house lastly. If both these wearing clothes of deceased Anil Ex. P1 and Ex. P2 were seen and were identified by PW3 Bhura Singh in the mortuary, then the same could not have been recovered from the possession of accused Azim Mian, so, the prosecution has not been able to prove the recovery of wearing clothes of deceased Anil from the possession of accused Azim Mian beyond reasonable doubts.
The witnesses have identified one Tshirt of Bhagwa colour and one light blue colour jeans pant as Ex. P1 and Ex. P2. According to FSL report Ex.PW18/A, both these clothes were given exhibits 8a and 8b and according to the result, blood was detected on Ex. 8a i.e. Bhagwa colour Tshirt and blood could not be detected on light blue colour jeans pant Ex. 8b. According to biological report Ex. PW18/B, Ex. 8a i.e. Tshirt of Bhagwa colour was having human blood but for the purpose of grouping, no reaction was found, hence, prosecution has not been able to connect the blood stains on Ex. 8a i.e. Tshirt of deceased Anil with his "B" group blood.
Finding qua accused Nayed:
PW30 Inspector Azad Singh has stated that after recovery of clothes at the instance of accused Azim Mian, all the three accused persons led the police party to the shop of accused Nayed, which was a tyre puncture shop in Sunder Nagri. Accused Nayed was found present there and at the instance of coaccused persons, he was arrested vide memo Ex. PW26/R and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW26/S. He also got recorded his disclosure statement Ex. PW26/T. Thereafter, accused persons got medically examined from SGM hospital and they came back to PS and case property was deposited in the malkhana and accused persons were locked up.
PW26 ASI Laxman Singh and PW28 Inspector Joginder Singh have also SC No. 67/01/10 48 deposed the same facts regarding arrest of accused Nayed. In the cross examination, PW26 ASI Laxman Singh and PW28 Inspector Joginder Singh have corroborated each other regarding their arrival at the shop of accused Nayed at about 7.30/8.00 p.m. and further that, they all were in uniform. It is corroborated by the witnesses that writing work was done at the shop of accused Nayed. PW30 Inspector Azad Singh has also deposed the same facts in the cross examination as of PW26 ASI Laxman and PW28 Inspector Joginder Singh regarding the reaching of police party at the shop of accused Nayed and further that, they had gone there in a TATA Sumo. They all were in uniform. So, nothing came out to disbelieve these witnesses regarding arrest of accused Nayed on the pointing of coaccused persons.
Nothing has been recovered from the possession of accused Nayed nor at his instance relating to the incident and only on the basis of disclosure statement, accused Nayed cannot be held guilty for the offences charged against him. No evidence has been brought on record that accused Nayed entered into a criminal conspiracy with coaccused persons to demand ransom and to commit murder of Anil and further to dispose of his body. Accused Nayed is not known to the remaining accused persons and nothing has been brought on record that the accused persons were known to each other, hence, prosecution has not been able to prove the involvement of accused Nayed in the murder of Anil in any manner or entering into any criminal conspiracy or involved in making ransom calls or assisting in disposing off the dead body.
Finding qua accused Chander Kant Pathak:
PW30 Inspector Azad Singh has further deposed that thereafter, accused Vijay @ Monti led the police party in the area of Mayur Vihar and other places in search of accused Sumit Pathak, but he could not be found. The accused also led the police party to Sector6, Noida in a company in the name of Mother Sons Sumi Systems. Only one chowkidar was found present there, so, they came back to PS and accused Vijay @ Monti was put in lockup.
PW30 Inspector Azad Singh has further deposed that thereafter, they again reached at Mother Sons Sumi Systems alongwith accused Vijay @ Monti and obtained bio SC No. 67/01/10 49 data of accused Sumit Pathak and they came to know that actual name of Sumit was Chander Kant Pathak. They also came to know that accused Chander Kant Pathak was not coming on his duty since 05/10/2006. Biodata is Ex. PW5/A. Thereafter, they came back to PS. PW30 has further deposed that on 27/10/2006, he sent SI Joginder Singh and other staff to Gorakhpur to arrest accused Chander Kant Pathak, but he could not be found there and on 07/11/2006, accused Chander Kant Pathak had surrendered before the Court. With the permission of the court, he was interrogated and formally arrested in this case vide memo Ex. PW23/A and his personal search was also conducted vide memo Ex. PW23/B. He also made disclosure statement Ex. PW23/C and two days PC remand of accused Chander Kant Pathak was obtained and thereafter, they came back to PS and accused Chander Kant Pathak was put in lockup.
PW30 Inspector Azad Singh has further deposed that on 08/11/2006, he alongwith accused Chander Kant Pathak and PW25 HC Harkesh reached at Hindan Pushta, where accused Chander Kant Pathak pointed the place, where dead body was thrown. He prepared pointing out memo Ex. PW25/A. Thereafter, accused Chander Kant Pathak led the police party to B19, Dilshad Colony, Delhi, and pointed out the place vide memo Ex. PW25/B. Thereafter, accused Chander further led the police party to DDA Market, Mayur Vihar, PhaseIII and from one shop, he got recovered one pair of shoes, which were sealed in a pullanda with the seal of "AS" and were seized vide memo Ex. PW25/C. Thereafter, they came back to PS. Case property was deposited in the malkhana and accused was locked up and on the next day, he was remanded to J.C. No evidence has been brought on record regarding entering into criminal conspiracy of accused Chander Kant Pathak with coaccused persons and both the place, where the dead body was thrown and also where the murder was committed, were within the knowledge of police, hence, this was not at all a pointing out of a place by accused Chander Kant Pathak as a new fact, hence, the same cannot be relied upon against the accused in any manner.
One pair of shoes got recovered by accused Chander Kant Pathak has been examined by FSL and according to report Ex. PW18/A, these have been marked as Ex. 10. SC No. 67/01/10 50 Blood could not be detected on Ex. 10. According to the seizure memo Ex. PW25/C, accused Chander Kant Pathak was wearing this pair of shoes at the time of murder, but the prosecution has not been able to connect these shoes with the murder of deceased Anil as no blood could be detected on the same as per FSL report Ex. PW18/A, hence, prosecution has not been able to connect accused Chander Kant Pathak with the murder of Anil or making ransom calls or that he assisted in disposing off the dead body in any manner. Finding qua offence U/s. 120B of IPC:
In this respect, prosecution has not been able to bring any evidence on record except the disclosure statements of accused persons. It has also not been proved beyond reasonable doubts that accused Vijay @ Mannu had taken Flat No. B19, Dilshad Colony, Delhi, on rent on 17/10/2006 for the purpose of committing murder of Anil, for which, they had entered into a criminal conspiracy prior to that, so, prosecution has not been able to prove offence U/s. 120B of IPC in any manner.
In view of above discussion, prosecution has not been able to prove offence U/s. 120B of IPC against any of the accused, accordingly, all the accused persons namely Vijay @ Monti, Vijay @ Mannu, Azim Mian, Nayed and Chander Kant Pathak are acquitted for the same.
In view of above discussion, prosecution has been able to bring on record unshaken and trustworthiness chain of evidence against accused Vijay @ Monti and Vijay @ Mannu, from which, it is proved that both accused Vijay @ Monti and Vijay @ Mannu acted in furtherance of their common intention, so, prosecution has been able to prove offence U/s. 364A/34 of IPC against accused Vijay @ Monti and Vijay @ Mannu beyond reasonable doubts. Accordingly, both are held guilty and convicted for the same.
The prosecution has also been able to prove the chain of circumstantial evidence against both accused Vijay @ Monti and Vijay @ Mannu, which leading to only one conclusion that Anil was murdered by both these accused persons in furtherance of their common intention, so, both these accused are held guilty and convicted for offence U/s. 302/34 of IPC.
SC No. 67/01/10 51
The prosecution has also been able to prove beyond reasonable doubts that in furtherance of common intention, both accused Vijay @ Monti and Vijay @ Mannu threw the dead body of deceased Anil at Hindan River Pushta, a place, which was pointed out by both accused Vijay @ Monti and Vijay @ Mannu during the police custody, which was neither within the knowledge of Delhi Police nor within the knowledge of complainant, hence, offence U/s. 201/34 of IPC is also proved, for which, both accused Vijay @ Monti and Vijay @ Mannu are held guilty and convicted for the same. Announced in the open court today on 25th of February, 2013 (Vi render Kumar Goya) Additional Sessions Judge Fast Track Court, Rohini Courts, Delhi.
SC No. 67/01/10 52 SC No. 67/01/10 53