Delhi District Court
The State vs 1. Jasbir S/O Randhir Singh on 1 December, 2014
FIR No.1068/2006
D.O.D 1.12.2014 P.S Prashant Vihar
u/s 302/201/120 B/ IPC
IN THE COURT OF SH RAJESH KUMAR GOEL:
ADDITIONAL SESSION JUDGE -5 (NORTH),
ROHINI , DELHI
SESSION CASE NO. : 155/2014
UID NO . : 02404R0121792007
FIR No : 1068/2006
P. S : Prashant Vihar
u/s : 302/201/120 B/ IPC
The State versus 1. Jasbir S/O Randhir Singh
R/O Village Jhari, Sonepat
(Haryana)
2. Girdhari Lal S/O Mohar
Singh R/O Village Rollad, P. S
Mohana, Sonepat, Haryana.
3. Surender @ Binder S/O
Jeet Singh R/O Village
Salempur Trolley, P.S Mohana,
Sonepat, Haryana.
Date of committal to session court : 17.04.2007
Date of argument : 01-12-2014
Date of order : 01-12-2014
JUDGMENT
1 The matrix of the facts, unfolded during the course of trial, which needs a SC No. 155/14 State vs Jasbir & Ors (Page 1 of 66 ) FIR No.1068/2006 D.O.D 1.12.2014 P.S Prashant Vihar u/s 302/201/120 B/ IPC necessary mention for the purpose of deciding the case and emanating from the record, as claimed by the prosecution, is that in the intervening night of 12/13.12.2006 , at about 1:15 am, the labours working at Haiderpur Water Treatment Plant noticed dead body of a male person lying in the water. They informed, then electrician Shift Incharge posted at said plant namely Shambhu Nath Meena who is shown to have made a call to PCR. PCR police along with police officials from P.S Prashant Vihar reached there . Dead body was taken out from the water and was removed to BJRM hospital for Postmortem.
2 The information about the aforesaid
incident was recorded at P.S Prashant Vihar
vide DD no.6 A, which was entrusted to
Inspector K.P Tomar for investigation. Inspector K.P Tomar also reached at the aforesaid water plant. Crime team was called . Incharge crime team inspected the spot as well as dead body.
SC No. 155/14 State vs Jasbir & Ors (Page 2 of 66 )
FIR No.1068/2006
D.O.D 1.12.2014 P.S Prashant Vihar
u/s 302/201/120 B/ IPC
Photographer, who was with the crime team,
took the photographs from various angles.
Some papers /documents and visiting card were found in the pocket of the jacket worn by deceased, on the basis of which deceased was identified as Devender s/o Rajbir r/o Pithopra , Distt Sonepat, Haryana. Information was given to the brother of the deceased namely Ravinder Singh. Dr. Ashish Jain conducted the autopsy on the dead body of deceased Devender and opined the cause of death as Cranio cerebral as a result of head injury produced by heavy sharp edged cutting weapon and time since death was 10 days. After the postmortem, dead body was handed over to his relative.
3 According to the story of the prosecution Poonam, sister of Devender (deceased) was married with accused Jasbir and at that time, accused Jasbir was running an electrical shop at Guhana road, near bus stand, Sonepat, Haryana. Deceased Devender got SC No. 155/14 State vs Jasbir & Ors (Page 3 of 66 ) FIR No.1068/2006 D.O.D 1.12.2014 P.S Prashant Vihar u/s 302/201/120 B/ IPC married with Bindiya on 14.12.2005. After marriage Devender had sold about 8 bighas of his land to some outsider . Because of the sale of land, dispute was raised by the Uncles of Devender namely Injerjeet and Mahavir and they were not on speaking terms with Devender and his family. Devender had purchased two different vehicle i.e Canter bearing no.
HR-69-6160 and Tata 407 bearing no.
HR-55D-5673. Devender (deceased) kept one
Bhupender as driver on the Canter and he himself used to drive the Tata 407.
4 Leveling a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of events, in all, the prosecution claimed that on 1.12.2006, goods were loaded in Canter from Rithala for transporting the same to Baddi in Himachal. Bhupender was driving the Canter(HR-69-6160), and Ravinder, brother of the deceased Devender accompanied him. They shown to have left Delhi on 1.12.2006 for Baddi, SC No. 155/14 State vs Jasbir & Ors (Page 4 of 66 ) FIR No.1068/2006 D.O.D 1.12.2014 P.S Prashant Vihar u/s 302/201/120 B/ IPC Himachal. On 2.12.2006, Tata 407 was also loaded with the goods for transporting the same to Baddi , Himachal, and that vehicle was being driven by Devender(deceased) . After unloading the goods at Baddi, Ravinder (PW3 )and said Bhupinder returned to Chandigarh and loaded the goods for Delhi. It is further alleged that Ravinder along with Bhupinder had left Chandigarh for Delhi in Canter but Devender remained there at Chandigarh. Devender (deceased) is shown to have made a call to his mother Smt Vimla and his wife Bindiya and informed them that he is going to Dudhwa Village in Haryana to carry the buffaloes for accused Jasbir and accused Jasbir is with him. He also stated that he would return within two- three hours but thereafter, Devender (deceased) never returned.
5 According to the case of the prosecution, accused Surender and Girdhari were servants of the accused Jasbir . Accused SC No. 155/14 State vs Jasbir & Ors (Page 5 of 66 ) FIR No.1068/2006 D.O.D 1.12.2014 P.S Prashant Vihar u/s 302/201/120 B/ IPC Jasbir was not happy that Devender(deceased), who is his brother-in-law, had sold the land to some outsider as stated herein above. Accused Jasbir became annoyed on the fact of selling land and used to say that why Devender (deceased) had sold the land to someone else and if he wanted to sell it , he should have sold it to his own uncle's and Tau. It is alleged that accused Jasbir along with aforesaid two accused persons, who were shown to have been working with Jasbir, entered into a criminal conspiracy to eliminate Devender and in furtherance of said conspiracy they called Devender to Village Salimpur Trolley with his tempo and committed his murder by using sharp objects i.e "Daus", brought his dead body near Badwasni Nahar and threw the same in Canal and that is how the dead body was recovered on 13.12.2006 from Haider Pur Water Plant.
6 It is also the case of the prosecution that weapons of offence "Daus" which were SC No. 155/14 State vs Jasbir & Ors (Page 6 of 66 ) FIR No.1068/2006 D.O.D 1.12.2014 P.S Prashant Vihar u/s 302/201/120 B/ IPC used for committing the murder of Devender were got recovered by all the three accused persons from the fields of Vishal Singh and Sukhbir Singh, which were sealed and seized . It is also the case of the prosecution that accused persons got recovered their cloths worn by them at the time of committing murder.
7 Accused persons are shown to have pointed out the place of occurrence where they allegedly committed murder of Devender (deceased). From that place blood stained earth and scalp hair were lifted which was sealed and seized. Pointing out memo about the aforesaid places as well as place where the dead body is shown to have been thrown were also got prepared. All the three accused persons were arrested. Their personal search was carried out . Call details of four mobile numbers bearing no. 9315422851 in the name of deceased Devender 9354954738 in the name of one Jaibir Lakra , 9354850386 in the name of Satbir Kumar and SC No. 155/14 State vs Jasbir & Ors (Page 7 of 66 ) FIR No.1068/2006 D.O.D 1.12.2014 P.S Prashant Vihar u/s 302/201/120 B/ IPC 1303201893 in the name of Devender Singh, were also obtained. According to the prosecution, accused Jasbir was carrying the mobile number 9354850386. Case properties were sent to the FSL. Broken pieces of mobile phone belonging to deceased Devender is shown to have been identified by Ravinder (brother of deceased). In the background of these allegations and in the wake of statement of the complainant/witnesses, the present criminal case was registered against the accused persons, on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under sections 302/201/120B/ IPC, in the manner depicted here-in-above.
8 After completion of the investigation, the final police report (challan) was submitted by the police against the accused persons to face trial for the offences in question.
9 Vide order dated 20.03.2007, Ld MM
SC No. 155/14 State vs Jasbir & Ors (Page 8 of 66 )
FIR No.1068/2006
D.O.D 1.12.2014 P.S Prashant Vihar
u/s 302/201/120 B/ IPC
took the cognizance of the offences and
subsequently, since the offence u/s 302 IPC was exclusively triable by the court of sessions, therefore vide order dated 17.4.2007, case was committed to the court of sessions.
10 Vide order dated 21.08.2007, ld predecessor of this court decided the charges and accordingly, accused persons were charged for the offences u/s 302/201/120 B IPC to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
11 In order to prove its case, prosecution has examined as many as Thirty six witnesses. Although, the detailed testimonies of the relevant witnesses shall be discussed herein after in the subsequent para's, however, it would be appropriate to mention in brief the role of those prosecution witnesses to have an overview of the nature and kind of evidence which has come on the record.
SC No. 155/14 State vs Jasbir & Ors (Page 9 of 66 )
FIR No.1068/2006
D.O.D 1.12.2014 P.S Prashant Vihar
u/s 302/201/120 B/ IPC
12 Public witnesses examined by the
prosecution are being detailed as under:
i) PW3 Ravinder :- He is the brother of deceased Devender. He deposed that his sister Poonam was married with accused Jasbir,who was running a electrical shop on Guhana Road, Sonepat, Near Bus stand. Devender(deceased) his elder brother got married with Bindiya on 14.12.2005. After marriage his brother Devender has sold eight bighas of land and because of the same there was a dispute raised by his uncles namely Inderjeet and Mahavir and thereafter they were not on speaking terms with them. After selling the land, his brother Devender had purchased one vehicle Canter bearing registration number HR-69-6160 . After 5-6 months of the purchase of Canter, his brother Devender purchased one Tata 407 vehicle bearing registration no. HR 55 D-5673. His brother Devender kept one Bhupender as driver on Canter and his brother Devender used to drive the TATA -407 vehicle himself On 1.12.2006, the goods were loaded in Canter vehicle from Rithala for transporting the same to Baddi in Himachal Pradesh. Bhupender was driving the canter vehicle and he was accompanying him. They left Delhi on 1.12.2006 for Baddi. On 2.12.2006, Tata 407 vehicle was also loaded with the goods for transporting the same to Baddi. His brother Devender drove the said vehicle. After unloading the goods at Baddi, he and Bhupender returned to Chandigarh and loaded the goods for SC No. 155/14 State vs Jasbir & Ors (Page 10 of 66 ) FIR No.1068/2006 D.O.D 1.12.2014 P.S Prashant Vihar u/s 302/201/120 B/ IPC transporting to Delhi. Devender was with them at Chandigarh at that time. PW 3 further deposed that he left Chandigarh for Delhi in Canter vehicle and Devender remained at Chandigarh, it was on 3.12.2006.
On 4.12.2006, he received a telephone call from his brother Devender. His mother attended the same. Devended had talked with his wife Bindiya also. His mother informed him about the conversation with Devender . It was informed to him that Devender would be going to Dudhwa Village in Haryana to carry the buffaloes for Jasbir and that Devender would return within two -three hours. However, Devender did not return thereafter. On 4.12.2006, his mother made a call to accused Jasbir and inquired about Devender. However, accused Jasbir informed that Devender had not come to him. The call was made on the mobile number of accused Jasbir with number 9354850386. His mother again made a call to Jasbir on 5.12.2006 and at that time, accused Jasbir told them that Devender had not come to him.
PW3 further deposed that on 6.12.2006, he received a call from one Sonu who stated that Tata 407 is parked near a Dhaba near Country liquour shop at Singhu Border. On receipt of the said call from Sonu, he reached there where Vijender Maan(PW21) and one Bittoo also reached. He along with Vijender Maan (PW21) and Bitoo went to P.S Kundli , Distt Sonepat , informed about the condition of the vehicle and non availability of Devender(deceased). Police officials Kundli advised him to search Devender(Deceased) but Devender(deceased) could not be traced or found . Thereafter, SC No. 155/14 State vs Jasbir & Ors (Page 11 of 66 ) FIR No.1068/2006 D.O.D 1.12.2014 P.S Prashant Vihar u/s 302/201/120 B/ IPC they again went to P.S Kundli and lodged the report. They brought Tata 407 vehicle to their house.
PW3 further deposed that on 13.12.2006, he received a call from P.S Prashant Vihar about recovery of dead body . He went to BJRM Hospital and identified the dead body of his brother Devender. PW3 further deposed that his brother Devender (deceased) used to keep one mobile number 9315422851 , which was recovered in broken pieces and he identified the same as ExP1.
PW3 was cross examined at length by ld defence counsel.
ii) PW 7 Smt Bindiya: She is the wife of Devender (deceased) who deposed on the lines of PW3 Ravinder and also deposed that on 4.12.2006, at about 5:15 pm, Devender (deceased) made a telephone call to her and told her that he is going to bring buffaloes of his sister Poonam and accused Jasbir is with him in the said tempo. Devender(deceased) also talked with his mother Vimla Devi. PW7 was also cross examined by the ld defence counsels.
iii) PW8 Shambhu Nath Meena : He was working as Shift Incharge at Haiderpur Water Treatment Plant, Delhi . He had seen the dead body lying in the water and then had informed the police about the same.
iv) PW9 Smt Vimla Devi : She is the mother of Devender (Deceased). She has also deposed on the lines of PW3 SC No. 155/14 State vs Jasbir & Ors (Page 12 of 66 ) FIR No.1068/2006 D.O.D 1.12.2014 P.S Prashant Vihar u/s 302/201/120 B/ IPC Ravinder and PW 7 Smt Bindiya while deposing that on 4.12.2006, Devender (deceased) made a phone call and informed her that he is going to bring buffaloes for accused Jasbir and accused Jasbir is along with his two associates are with him and he is going to bring buffaloes with them in the said tempo. Devender had also talked with his wife. On 5.12.2006, she inquired from accused Jasbir on phone about the whereabouts of Devender(deceased) but accused Jasbir told him that Devender had not come to his house or had not met him . PW9 was also cross examined by the ld counsel for the accused persons.
v) PW10 Arvind : He identified the dead body of Devender vide statement ExPW10/A.
vi) PW11 Yogesh Kumar : On 6.12.2006, he noticed Tata 407 bearing no. HR-55D-5673 parked at Singhu Border near the wine shop DSIDC. He is shown to have informed Ravinder (PW3) brother of deceased Devender about the same.
vii) PW12 Ajeet Singh : He is a public witness. According to the prosecution, on 4.12.2006, Devender (deceased) along with accused Jasbir had visited him and he had seen both of them together. Ajit Singh completely turned hostile. He was cross examined by the prosecution.
Viii) PW13 Nathu Ram & PW14 Ramesh Kumar : PW13 is the Numberdar of the village Salempur Trolley and PW14 is SC No. 155/14 State vs Jasbir & Ors (Page 13 of 66 ) FIR No.1068/2006 D.O.D 1.12.2014 P.S Prashant Vihar u/s 302/201/120 B/ IPC the farmer of same village. According to the prosecution , both these witnesses joined the proceedings on 24.12.2006, when the weapons of offence were got recovered at the instance of the accused persons. If prosecution is to be believed then they both are the witnesses to the recovery and pointing out memo's of the place of occurrence but PW13 and PW14 were also declared hostile as they have not supported the case of the prosecution and they were cross examined by the then ld Adll . PP for the state.
ix) PW15 Nafe Singh & PW16 Balwan Singh : They are the another public witnesses who also turned hostile and were cross examined by the state. They have said nothing against the accused persons.
x) PW17 Anand : He is shown to have running a blacksmith work shop in the name and style of Anand Agriculture work and used to make agricultural instruments including Dau, Kasi etc,. According to the case of the prosecution, accused persons had purchased weapons of offence from him but PW17 Anand has also not supported the story of the prosecution in this regard . He also turned hostile and was cross examined by ld Adll PP for state.
xi)PW21 Sh Bijender Singh Maan : He deposed that on 5.12.2006, at about 8 or 9 am, he received a phone call from the mother of the deceased Devender Singh (deceased) who informed him that Devender was not responding. On SC No. 155/14 State vs Jasbir & Ors (Page 14 of 66 ) FIR No.1068/2006 D.O.D 1.12.2014 P.S Prashant Vihar u/s 302/201/120 B/ IPC 6.12.2006, he visited the house of Devender(deceased) and on 08.12.2006, he along with his brother and Jija namely Jasbir went to P.S Kundli Sonepat and informed about the missing of Devender and lodged missing report at P.S Kundli. On 6.12.2006 , Yogesh @ Sonu called him that vehicle of Devender is parked at Kundli near in front of country liquor shop. He along with Ravinder and accused Jasbir reached there and informed to the PS and after getting permission from the police they brought back the said vehicle. PW21 was cross examined by the ld counsel for the accused persons.
xii) PW22 Rajesh : He was running a restaurant in the name of Amit Fast Food at Kakroli road , Sonepat. According to the prosecution, accused Jasbir and Girdhari had visited him on 4.12.2006 at about 9:30 pm and dried their wet clothes on the tandoor. PW22 also turned hostile and has not supported the case of the prosecution.
xiii PW26 Om Parkash : He is another public witness. As per prosecution, accused persons are known to him and on 4.12.2006 at about 3:15 or 3:30 pm, all the accused persons visited him on Bullet motorcycle bearing no. HR-10-F-7481 and they left the motorcycle at his shop , which was taken away by accused Jasbir on the next day. PW26 has denied the aforesaid case and he turned hostile. He was cross examined by ld Addll PP for state.
xiv) PW31 Ravi Kumar : He is the photographer , who on SC No. 155/14 State vs Jasbir & Ors (Page 15 of 66 ) FIR No.1068/2006 D.O.D 1.12.2014 P.S Prashant Vihar u/s 302/201/120 B/ IPC 23.12.2006, took the photographs of the fields, as pointed out by the accused persons and proved the photographs as ExPW31/A1 to ExPW31/ A 29 and Negatives as ExPW31/B1 to ExPW31/B 29.
13 Following police officials were examined as prosecution witnesses:-
i)PW1 ASI Satpal : He was Incharge Mobile Crime team on 13.12.2006. On the request of IO, he reached at Water Treatment Plant Haider Pur and inspected the spot and dead body and prepared the report ExPW1/A . On 25.12.2006, he was again called at P.S Prashant Vihar for inspecting the tempo bearing no. HR-55D-5673 and he inspected the vehicle and gave his report ExPW1/B.
ii) PW2 H.C Rishi Prakash : on 14.12.2006, he was posted as duty office at P.S Prashant Vihar. He proved registration of FIR ExPW2/A .
Iii) PW5 Ct Kishor Kumar and PW34 Ct. Jarnail Singh :
They are police official from P.S Sonepat, Sadar, Haryana, who are shown to be with the IO on 24.12.2006 and they deposed on the lines of Inspector Ishwar Singh (PW36).
iv) PW 6 Ct. Ramesh Chander : On 25.12.2006, he along with crime team incharge went to P.S Prashant Vihar, where he took photographs of vehicle no. HR 55D-5673 ExPW6/B1 to B.4 and negatives are ExPW6/A1 to ExPW6/A4.
v) PW18 HC Ranjeet Singh : In the intervening night of 12/13.12.2006, he was posted with PCR police head quarter and at about 1:24 am, he received information regarding one SC No. 155/14 State vs Jasbir & Ors (Page 16 of 66 ) FIR No.1068/2006 D.O.D 1.12.2014 P.S Prashant Vihar u/s 302/201/120 B/ IPC dead body lying in water treatment plant outer ring road. Said information was filled up in PCR form.
vi) PW19 ASI Ramesh Chander : He was posted with mobile crime team on 13.12.2006 and on that day he reached at aforesaid water treatment plant and took the photographs ExPW19/B1 to ExPW19/B8. He proved their negatives as ExPW19/A1 to ExPW19/A8 .
Vii) PW20 S.I Manohar Lal : On 1.3.2007, he visited the fields of Vishal Singh and Sukhbir Singh and prepared rough notes and took measurement and on the basis of same he prepared scaled site plan ExPW20/A. On the same day he also visited the Haider Pur water plant took rough notes and measurement on the pointing out of IO and on the basis of same, he prepared the scaled site plan ExPW20/B.
ix) PW23 HC Suresh Kumar : He proved the DD no.6 A registered at P.S Prashant Vihar as ExPW23/A on the basis of which criminal machinery came into motion .
x ) PW24 Ct. Jitender Kumar : On 26.2.2007, at the instance of IO, he took the sealed pullands from MHC(M) and deposited same with FSL vide RC NO. 27/21 and so long case property remained in his possession nobody was allowed to temper with it.
xi) PW25 HC Dalbir Singh : He is formal witness who on the intervening night of 12th and 13th December 2006, handed over DD no. 6 A to S.I K.P Tomar for investigation.
SC No. 155/14 State vs Jasbir & Ors (Page 17 of 66 )
FIR No.1068/2006
D.O.D 1.12.2014 P.S Prashant Vihar
u/s 302/201/120 B/ IPC
Xii) PW27 Ct. Rohtash : He is just formal witness .
xiii) PW28 HC Tejvir Singh : HC Tejvir Singh was with Inspector K.P Tomar and Insp. Ishwar Singh. He has deposed on the line of aforesaid IO's.
xiv) PW29 HC Satish Kumar , : On 23.12.2006, he was posted at P.S Sonepat , Haryana and he had accompanied Delhi police officials during investigation. He has deposed on the line of PW35 Insp. K.P Tomar and PW36 Insp. Ishwar Singh.
xv) PW32 ASI Ram Tirath : He is witness from P.S Kundli , Sonepat. He deposed that on 10.12.2006, he recorded missing report vide DD no.8 ExPW32/A and on 16.2.2007, he handed over the attested copy of the said DD to Insp. P.S Prashant Vihar which was taken into possession vide memo ExPW32/B. xvi) PW33 Ct. Ram Dhan : He was with the IO during investigation and has deposed on the lines of IO .
xvii) PW35 Insp. K.P Tomar : He deposed that on 13.12.2006, receipt of aforesaid DD no.6 A, he along with constable Ramdhan (PW33) reached Haiderpur water treatment plant where he found dead body of male aged about 20-25 years . Body was taken out and crime team was called. There was injury on the head of the dead body. Crime SC No. 155/14 State vs Jasbir & Ors (Page 18 of 66 ) FIR No.1068/2006 D.O.D 1.12.2014 P.S Prashant Vihar u/s 302/201/120 B/ IPC team reached at the spot and inspected the scene of crime. Photographer took the photographs of the dead body and the scene of crime. Some papers and documents in the pocket of jacket worn by deceased were found which was seized vide seizure memo ExPW33/A. On the basis of telephone numbers, he called some persons for the identification of dead body and dead body was identified as of Devender s/o Rajbir by Ravinder Singh ,brother of deceased Devender and one Arvind. The dead body was removed to Mortuary BJRM Hospital. He further deposed that on 14.12.2006, he conducted the inquest proceedings and after postmortem dead body was handed over to Ravinder Singh vide receipt ExPW3/A. He made endorsement on DD no.6 A and prepared rukka ExPW35/A and got registered the FIR. After registration of FIR the case was marked to Inspector Ishwar Singh (PW36). He handed over relevant documents of the case to IO Inspector Ishwar Singh and he also joined him during investigation. PW35 has deposed further on the lines of PW36 Insp. Ishwar Singh . Ld counsel for the accused persons has cross examined PW35 at length.
xviii)PW36 Inspector Ishwar Singh : On 14.12.06, investigation of the present case was entrusted to him . Then SI K.P. Tomar(PW35) handed over all the documents related to this case to him. He along with SI K.P. Tomar reached at the spot and prepared the site plan ExpW35/B at the instance of SI K.P.Tomar. Thereafter, he along with SI K.P. Tomar and Bijender Maan reached at Singhu Border from where the SC No. 155/14 State vs Jasbir & Ors (Page 19 of 66 ) FIR No.1068/2006 D.O.D 1.12.2014 P.S Prashant Vihar u/s 302/201/120 B/ IPC vehicle TATA 407 bearing registration no. HR-55D-5673 was recovered. He obtained the call details of mobile no. 9315422851 ie., call details of mobile of deceased.
On 15.12.2006, he is shown to have recorded the statement of public witness Yogesh who had seen the vehicle of the deceased at Singhu Border.
PW36 deposed that on 17.12.06, he along with SI Vineet Pandey reached at the village of the deceased ie., Pithopura, Distt. Sonepat, Haryana and recorded the statement of Smt. Bimla ie., mother of the deceased, Smt. Bindiya ie., wife of the deceased and Ravinder ie., brother of the deceased. During the investigation, it was revealed that on 04.12.2006, deceased had made a call to his wife and mother and stated that he had gone to take the buffalo of his brother in law Jasbir Singh from village Dudhua along with two friends of the accused.
During the investigation, it was revealed that deceased had visited one Ajit at his residence in Sonepat on 04.12.2006 and took tea and during taking tea he was talking to someone for taking his buffalo. He met Ajit Singh and recorded his statement wherein he has stated that on 04.12.2006, deceased had come to his house at about 2PM and while taking tea he made a call to his "Jija"(brother-in-law) at about 2:45PM and deceased had left for his house after fifteen minutes.
PW36 Inspector Ishwar Singh further deposed that after analysis of the call details and statement of witnesses, accused Jasbir was suspected. He along with SI K.P. Tomar, SI SC No. 155/14 State vs Jasbir & Ors (Page 20 of 66 ) FIR No.1068/2006 D.O.D 1.12.2014 P.S Prashant Vihar u/s 302/201/120 B/ IPC Vineet Pandey, HC Suresh and HC Tejvir reached at Sonepat, Gohana Bus stand at the residence of accused Jasbir. On 21.12.2006, they reached the house of deceased at Village Pithopura , Distt Sonepat from where accused Jasbir was arrested vide arrest memo already Ex. PW28/B. Personal search of accused was conducted vide memo Ex PW28/C and his disclosure statement Ex. PW28/A was recorded. During his personal search Rs. 160/- cash and a mobile phone no. 9354850386 make LG was recovered. The said mobile phone was converted into parcel with the help of white cloth, sealed with the seal of ISM and seized vide seizure memo EX-PW 28/D . Accused also named his servants Girdhari Lal and Surender that they were also involved in the murder of Devender along with him.
Thereafter, they all along with accused Jasbir went to the shop of Jasbir at Sonepat City, near Gohana bus stand and on the pointing out of accused Jasbir, accused Girdhari Lal and Surender were apprehended. Both these accused persons were also interrogated and thereafter they were arrested vide memo already Ex. PW28/G & PW28/H respectively . Their personal search was also conducted vide memo Ex.PW-28/J and PW-28/K respectively. Their disclosure statements were also recorded vide memo Ex. PW28/E and F respectively.
During the personal search of accused Surender a mobile phone 9354954738 make Motorola having sim of Reliance company was recovered. The said mobile phone was also converted into parcel with the help of white cloth, sealed SC No. 155/14 State vs Jasbir & Ors (Page 21 of 66 ) FIR No.1068/2006 D.O.D 1.12.2014 P.S Prashant Vihar u/s 302/201/120 B/ IPC with the seal of ISM, seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW28/L .
PW36 further deposed that on 23.12.06, he along with police team and all the three accused persons and one private photographer Mr. Ravi Kumar had left PS Prashant Vihar and reached at PS Mohana, Distt. Sonepat Haryana from where HC Satish Kumar also joined them and thereafter they had reached at vill. Salempur trolley from where one Nathuram , who was the numberdar of the village and one public person Ramesh Kumar also joined them. Thereafter, these persons had taken them near the sugarcane fields and all three accused persons one by one had taken police party towards the fields of Prakash. There was a crop of wheat in the said field. All the accused persons one by one pointed out the place of occurrence where they murdered Devender on 04.12.2006. There was a blood on the field . Blood stained hair and broken mobile was lying there. Pointing out memo of Jasbir ExPW14/F , pointing out memo of Girdhari ExPW14/E and pointing out memo of Surender ExPW14/D were prepared. At his instance , photographer took the photographs from different angles . He prepared site plan ExPW36/A and had lifted the blood stained mud , blood stained hair and pieces of the broken mobile along with earth control. The same were packed in separate plastic containers and their pulandas were prepared and after sealing the same with the seal of ISM the same were taken into possession vide separate seizure memos . Blood stained hair were seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW13/A , Earth Control was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW13/B , blood stained soil was seized vide seizure memo SC No. 155/14 State vs Jasbir & Ors (Page 22 of 66 ) FIR No.1068/2006 D.O.D 1.12.2014 P.S Prashant Vihar u/s 302/201/120 B/ IPC Ex.PW13/C and broken pieces of mobile was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW13/E .
PW36 Inspector Ishwar Singh further deposed that thereafter, accused Jasbir had taken them towards the "heep of paral " which was lying in the field of one Balwan Singh and pointed out the heep of paral and while pointing out that heep of paral , had told them that this is the place where they had hidden both the offending "dau"(gandasa) which was used in the commission of murder of Devender. He prepared the pointing out memo of accused Jasbir Ex.PW14/A . Thereafter accused Girdhari had taken them towards the "heep of paral " which was lying in the field of one Balwan Singh and pointed out the heep of paral and while pointing out that heep of paral as a place where they had hidden both the offending "dau"(gandasa) which was used in the commission of murder of Devender. He prepared the pointing out memo of accused Girdhari Ex.PW14/B and in same way pointing out memo of accused Surender ExPW 14/C was prepared. At that time, the photograph of the "heep of the paral" were taken by the photographer. Thereafter, all the accused persons got recovered two "dau" after removing from the "heap of paral" . Both blade of dau were fully stained with dry blood. He prepared the separate sketches of both the "dau". The total length of one dau was 33.5 CM and length of its blade was 19.5 CM and the total length of other dau was 34CM and the length of its blade was 21CM. Thereafter, he prepared the separate pulanda of both the dau/gandasa and after sealing the same with the seal of ISM were taken into possession vide SC No. 155/14 State vs Jasbir & Ors (Page 23 of 66 ) FIR No.1068/2006 D.O.D 1.12.2014 P.S Prashant Vihar u/s 302/201/120 B/ IPC seizure memo ExPW13/D . He prepared sketches of both the dau Ex.PW13/F & Ex.PW13/G. He also prepared the site plan of the place of recovery of both the offending dau ExPW36/B. PW36 Insp. Ishwar Singh further deposed that thereafter, all the three accused persons had led the police party to village salempur trolley where one Nafe Singh Fauji met. Accused Surender produced one "checkdar" shirt of blue and green colour along with pant of 'saleti' colour along with one white sweater from his house and stated that these were the same clothes which he was wearing at the time of incident. He prepared the pulanda of the same and sealed with the seal of ISM and the same were taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW29/A . Thereafter accused Girdhari had taken them to his village Raulad and from his house he had produced one half sleave "checkdar" shirt and one "bhura"(brown) colour pant and stated that the same were worn by him at the time of incident. He prepared the pulanda of the same and sealed with the seal of IS and seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW29/B. Thereafter they along with accused left from there and reached at Sonepat and reached at Sarang Road, Anand Agriculture Shan works from where the accused persons had purchased both the "dau" and he recorded statement of shopkeeper namely Anand.
PW 36 Insp. Ishwar Singh deposed that on 24.12.2006, he along with police party and accused persons reached at P.S Sadar , Sonepat Haryana and he made arrival entry in P.S Sadar vide DD no. 13 . Ct. Kishore and Ct Jarnail Singh of SC No. 155/14 State vs Jasbir & Ors (Page 24 of 66 ) FIR No.1068/2006 D.O.D 1.12.2014 P.S Prashant Vihar u/s 302/201/120 B/ IPC Haryana Police P.S Sadar also joined investigation with them . They all went to Gohana bus stand , at Lakra Electricals, Sonepat . There was a shop on the ground floor and accused Jasbir used to reside at the first floor. From there accused Jasbir got recovered one grey colour pant and one check shirt by saying that he was wearing these clothes at the time of committing offence of murder of Devender. The clothes were wrapped in piece of cloths , converted into pullanda and was sealed with the seal of ISM and were seized vide seizure memo already ExPW5/D . In pursuance to the disclosure statement of the accused persons , they led police party to "Badwasni Nahar" where they had disposed off the dead body of Devender and accused pointed out the place and canal from where the dead body of Devender was thrown. Pointing out memo of accused Jasbir Singh is ExPW5/C, pointing out memo of accused Girdhari is ExPW5/A and pointing out memo of accused Surender is ExPW5/B . Accused Jasbir is shown to have led the police party to the house of Om Prkaash Pradhan where he parked his motorcycle no. HR-10F-7481 and went to Vill. Salempur Trolley in the tempo no. HR-55D-5673 of his brother in law deceased Devender where, he committed his murder. Accused persons led police party to Amit Fast Food, Kakroi road, Sonepat where they met Rajesh/owner of the said place and the accused disclosed that it is the same place where they took food after committing the murder of Devender and dried their clothes.
PW36 Inspector Ishwar Singh further deposed that
SC No. 155/14 State vs Jasbir & Ors (Page 25 of 66 )
FIR No.1068/2006
D.O.D 1.12.2014 P.S Prashant Vihar
u/s 302/201/120 B/ IPC
thereafter, they went to the village Pithopura, Sonepat,
Haryana from where motorcycle of accused Jasbir was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW35/C. Thereafter, they all along with Bijender Maan and accused persons reached near Singhu Border near Theka Sharab. The accused Surender pointed out the place where they parked the vehicle no.HR-55D- 5673 TATA 407, on dt.04.12.06 at about 10:30PM. The pointing out memo of accused Surender @ Bindra is Ex.PW35/D, pointing out memo of accused Girdhari is Ex.PW35/E. Aforesaid Tata 407 was seized by vide seizure memo ExPW3/C . On 14.02.07, on his direction , S.I K.P Tomar had obtained two pulandas duly sealed with seal of ISM from MHC(M) containing two iron "dau"/weapons of offence. He also handed over him postmortem report along with pulandas and an application dated 14.02.07, for the subsequent opinion from autopsy surgeon on the weapon of offence. S.I K. P Tomar took the above named document and exhibits vide DD no.17A and reached at BJRM hospital mortuary and presented the same to Autopsy Surgeon who gave opinion on the back of the said application which is Ex.PW30/C .
PW36 was cross examined by the Ld. Counsels for the accused persons.
Medical Evidence :
i) PW30 Dr. Ashish Jain : on 14.12.2006, he conducted postmortem on the dead body of deceased Devender Singh and prepared postmortem report ExPW30/A. On an application moved by IO for giving opinion on the weapon of offence SC No. 155/14 State vs Jasbir & Ors (Page 26 of 66 ) FIR No.1068/2006 D.O.D 1.12.2014 P.S Prashant Vihar u/s 302/201/120 B/ IPC produced before him in two sealed pullandas , he opened the same and prepared sketch of those weapon ExPW30/B and gave opinion ExPW30/C. Scientific evidence.
PW4 Col.A.K Sachdeva, Nodal Officer, Reliance Communications Ltd : He tried to prove the call details of 4 mobile phones bearing no. 9315422851 , 9354954738 , 9354850386 and 1303201983 as ExPW4/B , ExPW4/C , ExPW4/D and ExPW4/E. Here it is pertinent to mention that in the present case the certificate u/s 65 B Evidence Act has neither been filed nor proved.
14 Thereafter prosecution evidence was closed and statement of accused persons u/s 313 Cr. PC were recorded . During the statement u/s 313 CrPC, accused persons denied all the allegations made against them. They did not opt to lead evidence in their defence .
15 Ld counsel for the accused persons vehemently argued that it is not denied by the prosecution that present case is based upon the circumstantial evidence but prosecution has failed to brought on record the entire chain of SC No. 155/14 State vs Jasbir & Ors (Page 27 of 66 ) FIR No.1068/2006 D.O.D 1.12.2014 P.S Prashant Vihar u/s 302/201/120 B/ IPC circumstances which could be sufficient to bring home the guilt of accused persons. First circumstance, as per prosecution, is alleged recovery of weapons of offence from the place of occurrence at the instance of accused persons. It was pointed out that according to the prosecution one Nathu Ram(PW13) and Ramesh Kumar (PW14), who were the resident of same village, are the witnesses to the said recovery but they have denied the same. Further, recovery has been effected at the the instance of all the three accused persons which has no value in the eyes of law. By referring the CFSL result , Ld counsel for the accused persons submitted that no blood could be detected on the aforesaid weapons of offence and as per subsequent opinion of Doctor Ashish Jain, it was only a possible weapon of offence.
16 Ld counsels further argued that as far as pointing out memo's regarding the placed from where the dead body was recovered, was already within the knowledge of the police authorities. He SC No. 155/14 State vs Jasbir & Ors (Page 28 of 66 ) FIR No.1068/2006 D.O.D 1.12.2014 P.S Prashant Vihar u/s 302/201/120 B/ IPC further submitted that there is material contradictions in the testimonies of even police officials regarding the pointing out memo's of Badwasni Nahar where dead body was allegedly thrown by accused persons. He further submitted that although, recovery of cloths worn by accused persons have been shown but same is also doubtful because some witnesses says that memo regarding seizure of those clothes were prepared at the spot but few says that it was prepared at the police station.
17 Regarding accused Girdhari, ld counsel further submitted that except disclosure statement, there is no evidence against the accused Girdhari. He submitted that the only circumstances brought by the prosecution are the alleged recovery of weapons of offence, recovery of clothes and certain pointing out memos which are not sufficient to connect the accused persons to the offence of murder .
18 Refuting the argument made by the ld
SC No. 155/14 State vs Jasbir & Ors (Page 29 of 66 )
FIR No.1068/2006
D.O.D 1.12.2014 P.S Prashant Vihar
u/s 302/201/120 B/ IPC
defence counsel for the accused persons, ld Addll PP for the state submitted that there are sufficient evidence on record which show that all the three accused persons entered into a criminal conspiracy to commit the murder of Devender. He pointed out that accused Jasbir was annoyed with Devender as Devender had sold out his land to some outsider and not to his real Uncles. He further submitted that it is not denied that accused Jasbir is brother-in-law of Devender (deceased ) . Ld Adll PP for the state has taken me to the testimonies of prosecution witnesses, particularly testimony of PW35 Inspector K.P Tomar and PW36 Inspector Ishwar Singh and submitted that they had explained the mode and manner in which the offence was committed by the accused persons. Ld Adll PP further submitted that prosecution has been able to prove its case against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt as all the incriminating circumstances against them stands established.
19 I have heard the Ld Addll PP for the state
SC No. 155/14 State vs Jasbir & Ors (Page 30 of 66 )
FIR No.1068/2006
D.O.D 1.12.2014 P.S Prashant Vihar
u/s 302/201/120 B/ IPC
and the ld counsel for the accused persons. I have also perused the record very carefully.
20 The prosecution case is that the accused persons committed the murder of Devender. Nobody witnessed the occurrence and the case rests on circumstantial evidence. It is well settled law that where a case rests squarely on circumstantial evidence, the inference of guilt can be justified only when all the incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or the guilt of any other person. The circumstances from which an inference as to the guilt of the accused is drawn have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and have to be shown to be closely connected with the principal fact sought to be inferred from those circumstances.
21 The legal position regarding the standard of proof and the test which the circumstantial evidence must satisfy is well-settled by a long line of decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is unnecessary to SC No. 155/14 State vs Jasbir & Ors (Page 31 of 66 ) FIR No.1068/2006 D.O.D 1.12.2014 P.S Prashant Vihar u/s 302/201/120 B/ IPC burden this judgment by making reference to all such decisions. I may content with reference to decisions in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra , (1984) 4 SCC 116, wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down the following five tests to be satisfied in a case based on circumstantial evidence:
(1) The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established.
(2) The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty.
(3) The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency.
(4) They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and (5) There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.
SC No. 155/14 State vs Jasbir & Ors (Page 32 of 66 ) FIR No.1068/2006 D.O.D 1.12.2014 P.S Prashant Vihar u/s 302/201/120 B/ IPC 22 In the case in hand the prosecution in order to prove its case mainly relied on the following circumstances:
i) The death of Devender was homicidal in nature.
ii) Motive: Devender sold his 8 bigha land to some outsider and not to his real uncle's due to which accused Jasbir was annoyed.
iii) Devender (deceased) had made a call on 4.12.2006 and had talked with his mother Vimla Devi and wife Bindiya.
iv) Recovery of vehicle bearing no. HR -55 D-5673 Tata 407 belonging to Devender(deceased) from Singhu Border.
v) Recovery of pieces of broken mobile phone belonging to Devender (Deceased) .
vi) Recovery of weapons of offences i.e Daus at the instance of accused persons.
Vii) Certain pointing out memos.
SC No. 155/14 State vs Jasbir & Ors (Page 33 of 66 )
FIR No.1068/2006
D.O.D 1.12.2014 P.S Prashant Vihar
u/s 302/201/120 B/ IPC
i) THE DEATH OF DEVENDER WAS HOMICIDAL IN NATURE
23 The autopsy on the body of Devender was
conducted by Dr. Ashish Jain(PW30) . According to him following injuries were found on the body of deceased :
External injuries on the body of deceased :
1. Chop incise wound of size 7 cm X 1.5 cm present over dorsum of right wrist, cutting both forearms bone, over right hand and fingers were partially cut. Incise wound of size 1 cm X half cm X muscle deep over left shoulder.
2. Multiple incise wound present over scalp tissue A) of size 14 cm X 1 cm X 7 cm deep cutting occipital bone, dura and brain tissue , 8 cm above neck, B) of size 7 cm X 0.7 cm X bone cut, 5 cm above A. C) multiple wounds behind left ear over temporal region , all cutting bones and one going into brain cavity of size 4 cm X 0.6 cm X 0.7 cm. D) Three wounds over left side frontal region , bone deep and over left parietal region, cavity deep.
3. Chop incise wound of six 7 cm X 1 cm over face cutting tip of nose, upper lip and maxillary bones and gums on left side.
4. Incise wound of size 3 cm X 1 cm X muscle deep over left side of chin.
SC No. 155/14 State vs Jasbir & Ors (Page 34 of 66 ) FIR No.1068/2006 D.O.D 1.12.2014 P.S Prashant Vihar u/s 302/201/120 B/ IPC On Internal examination of Head Head :- As mentioned with multiple fracture and cut over bone, with chip fracture of occipital bone, dura and brain tissues were also cut at places corresponding to injuries. Brain tissues very much softened. Rest of the internal viscera were NAD.
24 PW30 Dr. Ashish Jain opined that the cause of death was cranio cerebal as a result of head injury produced by heavy sharp edged cutting weapon. Time since death was approximately 10 days. The detailed postmortem report prepared by him in this regard is ExPW30/A. 25 Accused has not disputed the postmortem report ExPW30/A . Accused has also not disputed that autopsy on the body of the deceased was done on 14.12.2006. The postmortem report ExPW30/A indicates that postmortem was done on 14.12.2006 and time since death was opined 10 days. Meaning thereby the death took place on or around 4.12.2006 . This has also not been disputed by the accused persons as there is no cross examination SC No. 155/14 State vs Jasbir & Ors (Page 35 of 66 ) FIR No.1068/2006 D.O.D 1.12.2014 P.S Prashant Vihar u/s 302/201/120 B/ IPC on this point .
26 Even during his cross examination, PW30 Dr. Ashish Jain has denied that aforesaid injuries were possible while taking out dead body from the water plant . He categorically stated that said injuries were anti mortem in nature.
27 Further, the subsequent opinion ExPW30/C reads as under:
".. After examination of weapons produced and going through p.m report the injuries mentioned in p.m report no. 1181/06 were possible with either of both weapon or similar such weapon."
28 From the aforesaid subsequent opinion at least it is clear that it was a murder and injuries sustained by Devender were possible from a weapon like weapon of offence allegedly recovered at the instance of accused persons. Here this court is not giving any opinion that whether those weapons were really recovered at the instance of accused persons or not as it would be discussed little further but it SC No. 155/14 State vs Jasbir & Ors (Page 36 of 66 ) FIR No.1068/2006 D.O.D 1.12.2014 P.S Prashant Vihar u/s 302/201/120 B/ IPC stands established that such type of weapons were used for causing the death of Devender which lends the support to the case of the prosecution. From the aforesaid circumstances and accepting the medical evidence, it is clear that Devender (deceased) suffered a homicidal death on 4.12.2006 .
ii)Motive: Devender sold his 8 bigha land to some outsider and not to his real uncle's due to which accused Jasbir was annoyed.
29 It is true that absence of motive may not necessarily be fatal to the prosecution. Where the case of the prosecution has been proved beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of the material produced before the Court, the motive loses its significance. But in cases based on circumstantial evidence, motive for committing the crime assumes great importance. In such circumstances, absence of motive would put the Court on its guard to scrutinize the evidence very closely to ensure that suspicion, emotion or conjecture do not take the place of proof (See Surinder Pal Jain v. Delhi Administration 1993 SC No. 155/14 State vs Jasbir & Ors (Page 37 of 66 ) FIR No.1068/2006 D.O.D 1.12.2014 P.S Prashant Vihar u/s 302/201/120 B/ IPC Supp (3) SCC 681 and Tarseem Kumar v. Delhi Administration 1994 Supp (3) SCC 367).
30 Again reiterating the role played by motive in deciding as to whether the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt against an accused, Hon,ble Apex in the case of Suresh Chandra Bahari v. State of Bihar : 1995 Supp (1) SCC 80 held as under:
"Sometimes motive plays an important role and become a compelling force to commit a crime and therefore motive behind the crime is a relevant factor for which evidence may be adduced. A motive is something which prompts a person to form an opinion or intention to do certain illegal act or even a legal act with illegal means with a view to achieve that intention. In a case where there is motive it affords added support to the finding of the Court that the accused was guilty for the offence charged with. But the evidence bearing on the guilt of the accused nonetheless becomes untrustworthy or unreliable because most often it is only the perpetrator of the crime alone who knows as to what circumstances prompted him to adopt a certain course of action leading to the commission of the crime."
31 Present case as indicated is based upon circumstantial evidence, therefore, motive has relevance to know as to why accused persons would commit the murder of Devender. According to the prosecution, Devender had sold eight bighas of his SC No. 155/14 State vs Jasbir & Ors (Page 38 of 66 ) FIR No.1068/2006 D.O.D 1.12.2014 P.S Prashant Vihar u/s 302/201/120 B/ IPC land to some outsider and not to his uncle and tau. His uncles namely Inderjeet and Mahavir were not happy with Devender and were not speaking terms with him and his family. It is alleged that aforesaid uncles brought this fact to the knowledge of accused Jasbir, as he was the real brother-in-law of Devender. Accused Jasbir started visiting their houses and became annoyed with Devender and his family and asked Devender as to why he has sold out his land to outsider and not to his real uncles.
32 During their examination in chief, PW3 Ravinder , brother of deceased Devender ,PW7 Bindiya, wife of Devender and PW9 Smt Vimla Devi, mother of Devender have deposed on the line of aforesaid motive but during their cross examination, said motive loses its base.
33 Relevant portion of cross examination reads as under:-
SC No. 155/14 State vs Jasbir & Ors (Page 39 of 66 ) FIR No.1068/2006 D.O.D 1.12.2014 P.S Prashant Vihar u/s 302/201/120 B/ IPC Cross of PW3 Ravinder, brother of Devender ".....It is correct that I , my brother Devender, my mother and sister Poonam(i.e. wife of accused Jasbir) have sold out 8 bighas of land without any pressure from anyone. Jasbir also did not restrain or restrict his wife Poonam in selling the land. It is correct that with the sale proceeds of our 8 bhighas of land we purchased one canter and some land in village Bajana. It is correct that after selling the land of village Bajana, my brother Devender and Vijender Maan purchased land in village Kissan, District Kaithal, Haryana. There was no dispute on the 8 bigha land which was sold by us from any of the co-villagers or family members........."
Cross of PW7 Smt. Bindia, wife of Devender "......I do not know as to in whose name the said sold land stood before sale. Vol. it was already sold before my marriage....."
Cross of PW9 Smt.Vimla, mother of Devender "The 8 bigha land in my village was in the name of myself, Devender, Ravinder, Rani, Poonam and Sonia. The said land was sold by us voluntarily without any pressure from anyone. Jasbir had quarrel with Poonam i.e his wife when she was to sell the land along with other owners. Accused Jasbir had quarreled with Poonam in my house on this issue. It is wrong to suggest that accused Jasbir did not quarrel with Poonam or restrained her in anyway in selling the said 8 bighas of land along with us. The sale of said 8 bighas of land had taken place about one year prior to death of Devender. It is wrong to suggest that there was no dispute between me and my Devar and Jeth about partition of the land or sell and purchase of the land. We had sold our land to one Rajkumar. I do not know if there is any dispute between Rajkumar on one hand and my Devar and Jeth on other hand. It is wrong to suggest that the family of my devar and Jeth did not contact accused Jasbir or started visiting his house thereafter and became annoyed on the fact of selling of land or was exhorting us "AAPNE SC No. 155/14 State vs Jasbir & Ors (Page 40 of 66 ) FIR No.1068/2006 D.O.D 1.12.2014 P.S Prashant Vihar u/s 302/201/120 B/ IPC KYON JAMEN KISI AUR KO BECHI BHECHNI THI TO AAPNE CHACHA TAU KO DETE". After selling the said land at my native village we purchased land at Kathal.
34 From the aforesaid testimonies , it has come on record that the land in question was sold out at least one year prior to the death of Devender; that Devender(deceased) was not the exclusive owner of the said land as it was sold out by all the family members ; that according to Smt Vimla Devi(PW9) there was no dispute between the Uncle and amongst them over the sale of land ; that accused Jasbir never restrained Devender from selling the land. Further, no other corroborating evidence to establish that accused Jasbir was not happy with Devender over the issue of sale of land, has been brought on record. Moreover, it is improbable that a person would carry grudge for one year for such a small issue, as accused Jasbir was not going to get any monetary benefit from that.
iii) Devender (deceased) had made a call on 4.12.2006 and had talked with his mother Vimla Devi(PW9) and wife SC No. 155/14 State vs Jasbir & Ors (Page 41 of 66 ) FIR No.1068/2006 D.O.D 1.12.2014 P.S Prashant Vihar u/s 302/201/120 B/ IPC Bindiya(PW7).
35 PW3 Ravinder, PW7 Bindiya and PW9 Vimla Devi have testified that on 4.12.2006, Devender (deceased) made a call and had talked with his mother PW9 Vimla Devi and with his wife PW7 Bindiya and had stated that he is calling from village Salempur Trolley and he is going to carry buffaloes for accused Jasbir and at that time Jasbir is present with him.
36 Prosecution made an attempt to consider it as like last seen evidence as on 4.12.2006, Devender had talked with his family members last time and told them that at that time accused Jasbir was with him.
37 The story of the prosecution starts from 1.12.2006. PW3 Ravinder deposed that goods were loaded from Rithala for transporting the same to Baddi in Himachal. Bhupender was driving the Canter(HR -69-6160), and they left Delhi on SC No. 155/14 State vs Jasbir & Ors (Page 42 of 66 ) FIR No.1068/2006 D.O.D 1.12.2014 P.S Prashant Vihar u/s 302/201/120 B/ IPC 1.12.2006. On 2.12.2006 Tata 407 bearing no. HR-55D-5673 was also loaded with the goods for transporting the same to Baddi , Himachal, which was being driven by Devender(deceased). After unloading the goods at Baddi,Ravinder (PW3 )and Bhupinder returned to Chandigarh and loaded the goods for transporting the same to Delhi . At that time, Devender(deceased) was with them at Chandigarh. He further deposed that he (Ravinder) along with Bhupender left for Delhi in aforesaid Canter but Devender remained at Chandigarh on 3.12.2006.
38 Meaning thereby , on 3.12.2006, Devender was at Chandigarh and at that time Bhupender and Ravinder (PW3) were also present at Chandigarh. At that time none of the accused persons were in the picture. During his cross examination , PW3 Ravinder replied that he does not remember the name of the company for whom the goods were loaded for Baddi, Himachal Pradesh. He also could not tell the owner of the said company .He could not tell the name of the company where the SC No. 155/14 State vs Jasbir & Ors (Page 43 of 66 ) FIR No.1068/2006 D.O.D 1.12.2014 P.S Prashant Vihar u/s 302/201/120 B/ IPC goods were unloaded. No documentary proof in this regard has been brought on record.
39 PW36 Inspector Ishwar Singh during his cross examination replied that he had make inquiries from the company situated at Rithala from where on 2.12.2006, deceased Devender is shown to have loaded the goods in his vehicle to be delivered at Baddi, Himachal Pradesh but he could not tell the name of that company. He admitted that he had not recorded the statement of the officials of the said company and he had not taken into possession any , bill or GR or any other documents from the company to show that the goods were actually loaded by the deceased Devender from the company on 2.12.2006.
40 PW36 further replied that on his direction S.I K.P Tomar went to Baddi for making inquiry that a person namely Devender had come to baddi to deliver the goods in Canter but Insp. K.P Tomar is silent about this. This has created a slight doubt SC No. 155/14 State vs Jasbir & Ors (Page 44 of 66 ) FIR No.1068/2006 D.O.D 1.12.2014 P.S Prashant Vihar u/s 302/201/120 B/ IPC about the loading of goods by Devender on 2.12.2006 at Delhi to be deliver to Baddi and having seen by Ravinder (PW3) at Chandigarh on 3.12.2006.
41 Futher, PW7 Bindiya , during her cross examination, admitted that cleaner who was with her husband did not meet her after the incident, therefore, there was no question of making inquiry from him by her and she did not get the address of said cleaner. Whereas PW3 Ravinder, during his cross examination stated that his brother was not having any helper with him at that time. Both these witnesses who are the family members of deceased , one is wife and another is brother of deceased, are giving contradictory statement regarding the presence of cleaner/helper with Devender (deceased).
42 Even if for the sake of argument it is presumed that goods were actually loaded and delivered during that period still it would not make any difference as prosecution has failed to prove on record that on 4.12.2006, Devender(deceased) had SC No. 155/14 State vs Jasbir & Ors (Page 45 of 66 ) FIR No.1068/2006 D.O.D 1.12.2014 P.S Prashant Vihar u/s 302/201/120 B/ IPC made a call to his wife Bindiya (PW7) and his mother Vimla Devi(PW9) and stated that he is going to carry buffaloes for accused Jasbir and at that time accused Jasbir was with him.
43 It has come on record that when the vehicle bearing no. HR-55D-5673 Tata 407 was spotted on 6.12.2006, information was given to P.S Kundli. PW3 Ravinder , who is the brother of Devender(deceased) deposed that on 6.12.2006 he received a telephonic call from one Sonu who told him that aforesaid Tata 407 is parked near "dhaba" near country liquor shop at Singhu Border. On receipt of the said call, he went there. He contacted Vijender Maan and Bittoo , who also reached there. Thereafter, he along with them went to P.S Kundli and informed the police officials there about non availability of Devender. During his cross examination, PW3 replied that upto 6.12.2006, they had not lodged any complaint about the missing of Devender. On 6.12.2006, after recovery of Tata 407 they lodged report at P.S Kundli and on 6.12.2006, when he had visited P.S Kundli, he had narrated all the facts which were within his SC No. 155/14 State vs Jasbir & Ors (Page 46 of 66 ) FIR No.1068/2006 D.O.D 1.12.2014 P.S Prashant Vihar u/s 302/201/120 B/ IPC knowledge to the police. Along with him Bijender Maan and his Sala Bitto were also there. They also narrated the facts to the officials of P.S Kundli which were in their knowledge. He further replied that on 10.12.2006, he again visited P.S Kundli and he narrated all the facts which were within his knowledge by that day and and DD no.8 dated 10.12.2006 ExPW3/D was recorded on the basis of the information available to them.
44 PW32 ASI Ram Tirath was posted at P.S Kundli on 10.12.2006. He is shown to have recorded DD no. 8 ExPW32/A (ExPW3/D). During his cross examination he replied that complainant of said DD namely Ravinder(PW3) did not come to PS prior to recording of DD on 10.12.2006, whereas it is the case of the prosecution that PW3 Ravinder had visited P.S Kundli on 6.12.2006.
45 The copy of said DD ExPW32/A (PW3/D ) is on reord. In the aforesaid DD it is nowhere mentioned that on 4.12.2006, Devender(deceased) SC No. 155/14 State vs Jasbir & Ors (Page 47 of 66 ) FIR No.1068/2006 D.O.D 1.12.2014 P.S Prashant Vihar u/s 302/201/120 B/ IPC had made any call either to his mother or to his wife. When PW3 Ravinder , who is the real brother of Devender(deceased) has categorically stated during his cross examination that entire facts which were in their knowledge ,were stated to the official of P.S Kundli , in that eventuality there was no occasion for them not to mention that Devender (deceased ) had made a call to his mother and wife two days back.
46 Further, stand of PW3 that he had gone to P.S Kundli on 6.12.2006 for lodging missing report also does not found support from any documentary or oral evidence of officials of P.S Kundli . Had it been so that Devender (deceased) had made a call on 4.12.2006 stating that he is going to carry buffaloes for accused Jasbir and at that time accused Jasbir is with him, the moment they spotted Tata 407 on 6.12.2006 at Singhu Border and when they are claiming to have lodged missing complaint at P.S Kundli, which was recorded vide DD no.8, same facts should have been found mentioned in that DD. This all has created a serious doubt about the claim of the SC No. 155/14 State vs Jasbir & Ors (Page 48 of 66 ) FIR No.1068/2006 D.O.D 1.12.2014 P.S Prashant Vihar u/s 302/201/120 B/ IPC prosecution that on 4.12.2006 , Devender (deceased) had made a call to his wife and mother 47 PW7 Bindiya, wife of Devender (deceased) during her cross examination replied that she did not tell Kundli Police before 13.12.2006 about the telephonic conversation between her and her husband Devender. She has not lodged any police report in the present case on 6.12.2006 when Tata 407 was recovered. She further replied that except the statement recorded by the IO of the present case, she did not lodge any complaint or FIR to any police.
48 PW9 Vimla during her cross examination replied that she did not tell to the police that on 4.12.2006, Devender(deceased) had made a call to her informing that he had gone to Dadhua village for bringing the buffaloes of accused Jasbir .
49 It is also the case of the prosecution that on 4.12.2006, one Ajeet Singh (PW12) who is relative of Devender(deceased) told the police that Devender SC No. 155/14 State vs Jasbir & Ors (Page 49 of 66 ) FIR No.1068/2006 D.O.D 1.12.2014 P.S Prashant Vihar u/s 302/201/120 B/ IPC had visited him at his residence at Sonepat on 4.12.2006. There he took tea and at that time he was talking to someone for taking his buffaloes. He is also shown to have stated to the police that thereafter, Devender left for Sonepat. Ajit (PW12) further is shown to have stated that Devender (deceased) had come to him on 4.12.2006 at about2:00 pm and he made a call to his "Jija" accused Jasbir and left him at about 2:45 pm. 50 The aforesaid story cannot be believed for two reasons . Firstly , said Ajit Singh has appeared in the witness box as PW12 . He has denied the case of the prosecution completely and turned hostile. Ajit Singh (PW12) deposed that Devender(deceased) had visited him at Sonepat about 3 months prior to the present incident and he left him. He has categorically stated that Devender(deceased) had not visited him on 4.12.2006. Even during his cross examination by state he denied the case of the prosecution which was put to him by way of suggestion by then ld Adll PP for state. Secondally, PW12 deposed that SC No. 155/14 State vs Jasbir & Ors (Page 50 of 66 ) FIR No.1068/2006 D.O.D 1.12.2014 P.S Prashant Vihar u/s 302/201/120 B/ IPC Devender is son of his Bua but PW7 Bindiya, who is the wife of Devender(deceased), during her cross examination replied that she does not know if said Ajit Singh is their relative of her deceased husband. According to the prosecution PW12 Ajit Singh is the Ist cousin of Devender but wife of Devender (decased) has shown her ignorance about this.
51 Prosecution tried to bring on record that Devender(deceased) had talked with his wife and mother on 4.12.2006, and at that time accused Jasbir was with him, by trying to prove the call details of mobile phones bearing no. 9315422851 , 9354954738 , 9354850386 and 1303201983.
52 The testimony of PW4 Sh A.K Sachdeva , Nodal Officer , reliance communication , would not help the prosecution for two reasons . Firstly, the certificate u/s 65 B Evidence Act has not been filed or proved as per law so the said call details furnished by the said company through Sh A.K Sachdeva can not be looked into. Secondly, even if for the sake of SC No. 155/14 State vs Jasbir & Ors (Page 51 of 66 ) FIR No.1068/2006 D.O.D 1.12.2014 P.S Prashant Vihar u/s 302/201/120 B/ IPC argument it is presumed that the call details are true there is nothing on record which could suggest that any of the aforesaid phone belongs to either accused Jasbir or family members of Devender(deceased). As per letter dated ExPW4/A , phone bearing no. 9315422851 is in the name of deceased Devender, 9354954738 is in the name of one Jaibir Lakra , 9354850386 is in the name of Satbir Kumar and 1303201983 is in the name of Devender Singh and the call details of aforesaid numbers are ExPW4/B , ExPW4/C , ExPW4/D and ExPW4/E . Prosecution has miserably failed to connect the aforesaid phones with the accused persons.
53 As stated herein above two mobile phones belongs to deceased Devender , one mobile phone belongs to one Jaibir Lakra and one mobile belongs to one Satbir Kumar. How their phones came into possession of accused persons remains unexplained. Even aforesaid Jaibir Lakra and Satbir neither have been cited as prosecution witness or have been examined to show prima facie that these phones were being used by either of the accused persons on SC No. 155/14 State vs Jasbir & Ors (Page 52 of 66 ) FIR No.1068/2006 D.O.D 1.12.2014 P.S Prashant Vihar u/s 302/201/120 B/ IPC the date of incident.
54 The last effort of the prosecution in this regard was showing the recovery of mobile phone number 9354850386 from the possession of the accused Jasbir. PW36 Inspector Ishwar Singh deposed that during personal search of the accused Jasbir Rs 160/- and mobile phone was recovered . Personal search memo ExPW28/C of accused Jasbir is on record wherein it is not mentioned that mobile phone was recovered during his personal search. During his cross examination,PW35 Insp.K.P Tomar admitted that during the personal search of accused Jasbir no mobile was recovered. He replied that mobile was seized by the IO separately as it was a case property. This has created a doubt about the recovery of said mobile phone from the possession of the accused. As discussed herein above, how the mobile phone came into possession of accused Jasbir and how it was used by accused Jasbir, has not surfaced. In the light of my aforesaid discussion, prosecution vainly attempted to prove that on SC No. 155/14 State vs Jasbir & Ors (Page 53 of 66 ) FIR No.1068/2006 D.O.D 1.12.2014 P.S Prashant Vihar u/s 302/201/120 B/ IPC 4.12.2006, Devender (deceased ) had made a call to his mother and his wife or accused Jasbir was with him on that day.
iv) Recovery of vehicle bearing no. HR -55 D-5673 Tata 407 belonging to Devender(deceased) from Singhu Border.
55 PW3 Ravinder deposed that on 6.12.2006, he received a telephone call from one Sonu , who told him that their vehicle Tata 407 was parked near a dhaba near country liquor shop at Singhu Border. He contacted Vijender Maan and Bittoo and reached at Singhu Border. Vijender Maan and Bittoo also reached there. They went to P.S Kundli, Distt Sonepat and informed the police officials about the condition of the vehicle and non availability of Devender (deceased). Police officials advised them to search for Devender in the area. They made efforts to search his brother but could not find any clue , therefore, they again went to P.S Kundli and lodged report . Police officials advised them to take the SC No. 155/14 State vs Jasbir & Ors (Page 54 of 66 ) FIR No.1068/2006 D.O.D 1.12.2014 P.S Prashant Vihar u/s 302/201/120 B/ IPC vehicle.
56 PW27 Ct. Rohtash , who was with IO Insp.
Ishwar Singh (PW36) deposed that on 3.1.2007 , vehicle bearing no. HR-55D-5673 was seized by the IO from outside the house of deceased vide seizure memo ExPW3/C . The inspection of aforesaid vehicle is shown to have been carried out by crime team (PW1) on 25.12.2006 at the police station and inspection report is ExPW1/B. If the vehicle is shown to have been seized on 3.1.2007, then under what circumstances and how it was available at P.S on 25.12.2006 for aforesaid inspection by the crime team, has not been explained . This also goes against the prosecution.
v) Recovery of broken pieces of mobile phone belonging to Devender (deceased) 57 According to the prosecution , broken pieces of mobile phone belonging to deceased Devender were recovered from the place where the SC No. 155/14 State vs Jasbir & Ors (Page 55 of 66 ) FIR No.1068/2006 D.O.D 1.12.2014 P.S Prashant Vihar u/s 302/201/120 B/ IPC incident had occurred which were lifted by IO and seized vide seizure memo ExPW13/E .
58 PW3 Ravinder, brother of the deceased is shown to have identified the said broken pieces of phone and battery as ExP-1. Not only that aforesaid broken pieces were put to TIP and as per TIP proceedings dated 29.3.2007, PW3 is shown to have identified the same which is highly unbelievable and cannot be digested for the reason that how a person can identify the mobile phone by its battery and that too when the mobile was of some other person and not of the person who is identifying the mobile. In my opinion identification of a mobile phone through its battery or pieces is next to impossible . This piece of evidence cannot be relied upon and hereby rejected.
vi) Recovery of weapons of offences i.e Daus at the instance of accused persons.
59 According to the prosecution, weapons of
SC No. 155/14 State vs Jasbir & Ors (Page 56 of 66 )
FIR No.1068/2006
D.O.D 1.12.2014 P.S Prashant Vihar
u/s 302/201/120 B/ IPC
offence i.e "Dau's" which were used for committing the murder of Devender, were recovered at the instance of the accused persons. PW36 Inspector Ishwar Singh deposed that all the accused persons led the police team towards the 'heep of Paral' and while pointing out the same told the police that they had hidden both weapons of offence i.e Dau which were used in the commission of murder of Devender. Pointing out memo ExPW14/A of accused Jasbir, pointing out memo ExPW14/B of accused Girdhari and pointing out memo ExPW14/C of accused Surender were prepared in this regard . Aforesaid weapons of offence is shown to have been seized vide seizure memo ExPW13/D. 60 As per the story of prosecution Nathu Ram, numberdar of Village Salempur Troley and Ramesh Kumar, farmer of same village are the witnesses to the said recovery. Said Nathu Ram and Ramesh Kumar, appeared in the witness box as PW13 and PW14 respectively but they turned hostile and denied of having witnessed any such recovery.
SC No. 155/14 State vs Jasbir & Ors (Page 57 of 66 )
FIR No.1068/2006
D.O.D 1.12.2014 P.S Prashant Vihar
u/s 302/201/120 B/ IPC
61 Further , it is the case of the prosecution
that accused persons had purchased the weapon of offence "Daus" from Anand Agricultural Shan works . Owner of the said shop namely Anand appeared in the witness box as PW17. He has also not supported the case of the prosecution. He turned hostile and was cross examined by the ld Adll PP for state.
62 Further, according to the prosecution aforesaid weapons of offence have been recovered at the instance of all the three accused persons. Meaning thereby, it was a joint recovery, which in my opinion, has no value in the eyes of law in the given facts and circumstances of the present case.
63 Both the "Daus" were sent to the FSL for examination. As per FSL report no. FSL-2007/B-0660 dated 16.4.2007, given by Ms Anita Chhari, no blood was detected on the aforesaid weapons of offence i.e "Daus", whereas PW36 Inspector Ishwar Singh and PW35 S.I K.P Tomar deposed that Blade of both the SC No. 155/14 State vs Jasbir & Ors (Page 58 of 66 ) FIR No.1068/2006 D.O.D 1.12.2014 P.S Prashant Vihar u/s 302/201/120 B/ IPC 'daus' were stained with dry blood at the time of recovery. The 'Daus" are shown to have been recovered on 23.12.2006 and were sent to the FSL for examination through constable Jitender(PW24) on 26.2.2007 who is shown to have deposited the same vide RC NO. 27/21. If there was dry blood on the "daus" at the time of recovery, how it could disappear at the time of FSL examination. It is not the case of the prosecution that "daus" were washed out or somebody has tempered with it.
64 Further, the incident is dated 4.12.2006.
"Daus " in question are shown to have been recovered on 23.12.2006 i.e about after 19 days from the fields of Vishal Singh and Sukhbir Singh . It is not the case of the prosecution that accused persons were in exclusive possession of the said area from where the "Daus " are shown to have been recovered. Public were having access to the said area or fields . In the background of the fact that the place from where the weapon of offence was recovered, was open place and was accessible and SC No. 155/14 State vs Jasbir & Ors (Page 59 of 66 ) FIR No.1068/2006 D.O.D 1.12.2014 P.S Prashant Vihar u/s 302/201/120 B/ IPC visible to general public, therefore, the recovery of "Daus " have become doubtful.
65 Moreover, even if for the sake of argument it is presumed that recovery of "Daus" i.e weapons of offence were made it would not help the prosecution. The said weapon of offence was sent to for subsequent opinion and Dr. Ashish Jain (PW30) had given the said opinion and same is ExPW30/C . As per the said opinion ExPW30/C, the injuries as mentioned in the postmortem report ExPW30/A were possible with either of both weapons or similar such weapons.
66 Now, the question arises whether only on the basis of this circumstance i.e recovery of possible weapons of offence at the instance of the accused persons, can accused persons be convicted for the offence of murder. The simple answer is' NO. In this regard , I may take the help of the decision of a case titled as Deepak Chaddha vs State of Delhi, 2012 (1) JCC 540 wherein Hon'ble High Court SC No. 155/14 State vs Jasbir & Ors (Page 60 of 66 ) FIR No.1068/2006 D.O.D 1.12.2014 P.S Prashant Vihar u/s 302/201/120 B/ IPC of Delhi held " We do not propose to deal with the purity of the evidence relating to the two recoveries i.e the recovery of the shirt and the knife at the instance of the appellant, for the reason, in the decisions reported as Kallo Passi Vs State, 2009(2) vs Chhatrasing & Ors., AIR 1977 SC 1753; Surjit Singh vs State of Punjab, AIR 1994 SC 110; Deva Singh Vs State of Rajasthan , 1999 CriLJ 265 , & Prabhoo vs State of UP, AIR 1963 SC 1113 the Supreme Court held that in the absence of other incriminating evidence, the circumstances of seizure of blood stained clothes at the instance of the accused as also the recovery of a possible weapon of offence at the instance of the accused are wholly in sufficient to sustain the charge of murder against the accused".
vii) Certain Pointing out memo's 67 PW36 Insp. Ishwar Singh deposed that on 23.12.2006, he along with other police staff and accused persons reached at P.S Mohana, Distt Sonepat, Haryana from where HC Satish Kumar also joined them and thereafter they had reached to Village Salempur Troley from where one Nathu Ram (PW13) numberdar of the village and Ramesh Kumar (PW14) farmer of same village, were made to join the investigation by him. They had parked their vehicle SC No. 155/14 State vs Jasbir & Ors (Page 61 of 66 ) FIR No.1068/2006 D.O.D 1.12.2014 P.S Prashant Vihar u/s 302/201/120 B/ IPC half kilometer away from the place of incident i.e near the sugarcane fields and all three accused persons one by one had taken them towards the fields of Prakash. Firstly, accused Jasbir took them to the field of Rati Ram and Sukhbir and pointed out the place of occurrence where he along with co-accused persons had murdered his brother-in-law Devender on 4.12.2006. Thereafter , they took accused Jasbir to near the vehicle and custody of the accused Jasbir was handed over to the police officials present there. Thereafter, accused Girdhari led them to the place of occurrence and he pointed out the place of incident in the field. Accused Girdhari was taken to near the vehicle and the custody of the accused Girdhari was handed over to constable and thereafter, accused Surender led them to the place of incident and had also pointed out the place of occurrence. PW36 further deposed that he prepared the pointing out memo of Jasbir, Girdhari and Surender vide memo ExPW14/F, ExPW14/E and ExPW14/D respectively.
68 PW36 further deposed that on 24.12.2006,
SC No. 155/14 State vs Jasbir & Ors (Page 62 of 66 )
FIR No.1068/2006
D.O.D 1.12.2014 P.S Prashant Vihar
u/s 302/201/120 B/ IPC
pursuant to the disclosure statement of the accused persons, accused persons led the police party to Badwasni Nahar where they had disposed off the dead body of Devender and accused persons one by one pointed out the place and canal from where the dead body of Devender was thrown. He prepared pointing out memo of Accused Jasbir, Girdhari and Surender ExPW5/C, ExPW5/B and ExPW5/A respectively.
69 As per the story of prosecution the pointing out memo's of accused persons vide which they pointed out the place of occurrence are shown to have been prepared in the presence of Nathu Ram, numberdar and Ramesh, farmer of village Salem pur Troley. Said Nathu Ram and Ramesh have been examined as PW13 and PW14 by the prosecution but they have denied the same and they were declared hostile by ld Addll PP for state. PW13 and PW14 deposed that accused persons, present in the court today, were never seen by them at their village or nothing was got recovered by them or pointed out SC No. 155/14 State vs Jasbir & Ors (Page 63 of 66 ) FIR No.1068/2006 D.O.D 1.12.2014 P.S Prashant Vihar u/s 302/201/120 B/ IPC in their presence. That being so, much reliance cannot be placed upon such pointing out memo's. Same is the case with the pointing out memo's ExPW5/A, ExPW5/B and ExPW5/C pertaining to the Badwasni Nahar where the dead body of Devender was allegedly disposed off. There is no independent corroboration to said memo's. The manner in which aforesaid memo's were prepared, without any corroboration from public witness cannot be relied upon. Moreover, at the most it may be one of the circumstance against the accused which in my opinion is again not sufficient to convict them.
70 Here it is pertinent to mention that prosecution has also tried to bring one more circumstance against the accused persons i.e recovery of cloths of accused persons vide seizure memo ExPW5/D, ExPW29/B of ExPW29/A pertaining to the accused Jasbir, Girdhari and Surender respectively. Without going into the contradictions in the testimonies of the witnesses to said recovery, here it would suffice to mention that prosecution has SC No. 155/14 State vs Jasbir & Ors (Page 64 of 66 ) FIR No.1068/2006 D.O.D 1.12.2014 P.S Prashant Vihar u/s 302/201/120 B/ IPC failed to connect the aforesaid cloths with the crime. It has come on record that there was no blood on the cloths of the accused persons . As per the FSL report FSL-2007/B-0660 dated 16.4.2007, given by Ms Anita Chhari, no blood was detected on the aforesaid cloths, therefore, said recovery is of no value for prosecution.
71 In the present case, I find that the prosecution has failed to prove the offences against the accused persons beyond shadow of doubt. The chain of evidence as brought on record by the prosecution is not so complete from which the conclusion of guilt against the accused persons can be drawn. Thus, I am left with no option but to acquit the accused persons. Accused Jasbir, Girdhari Lal and Surender @ Binder therefore stands acquitted from the charges u/s 302/201/120 B IPC .
72 In terms of section 437(A) CrPC, accused persons are directed to furnish bail bond in the sum of Rs 10,000/- with one surety in the like amount.
SC No. 155/14 State vs Jasbir & Ors (Page 65 of 66 )
FIR No.1068/2006
D.O.D 1.12.2014 P.S Prashant Vihar
u/s 302/201/120 B/ IPC
73 File be consigned to record room after
necessary compliance.
Announced in the open (Rajesh Kumar Goel)
Court today i.e 1-12-2014 ASJ-5, North
Rohini Court
SC No. 155/14 State vs Jasbir & Ors (Page 66 of 66 )