Delhi District Court
Fir No. 922/14 State vs . Arun Chauhan 1/56 on 6 April, 2019
IN THE COURT OF MS. MANJUSHA WADHWA
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-03
SHAHDARA DISTRICT, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI.
FIR No. : 922/2014
Under Section : 302IPC
Police Station : Jyoti Nagar
Sessions Case No : 89/2016
Unique I.D. No. : 02402R0076912015
In the matter of :-
STATE
..... PROSECUTION
Vs.
Arun Chauhan
S/o Sh. Bijender Singh Chauhan
R/o C-183, Gali No. 7,
Ganga Vihar, Delhi
Permanent Address : Village Bhakpura,
Tehsil Bhastana,
District Itawa, U.P.
.....ACCUSED
Name and particulars of : SI Dinesh Kumar
complainant PS Jyoti Nagar
Date of Institution : 14.02.2015
Date of Committal : 28.02.2015
Date of receiving in this Court : 05.03.2015
FIR No. 922/14 State Vs. Arun Chauhan 1/56
Date of reserving judgment : 23.03.2019
Date of pronouncement : 06.04.2019
Decision : Convicted
JUDGMENT
Brief facts as per the investigation :
1. The criminal machinery was set into motion in the present case in the morning of 15.11.2014 after SI Mahavir Prasad (PW-10), Incharge of PCR Van was informed by one person at about 9.25 a.m. about the dead body of a male (Aakash @ Soni) lying between Kardampuri sewerage and Cemetery (Kabristan), beneath under construction Metro Railway Line, Kardampuri, Delhi. The following facts emerged during investigation:-
2. Accused Arun Chauhan was arrested in FIR no. 117/14, PS Gokalpuri for murder of his wife Smt. Kavita. There he disclosed about having murdered Aakash @ Soni as he suspected the two having an illicit affair and had seen the deceased in compromising position with his wife. At about 5.00 AM in the morning of 15.11.2014, he first murdered his wife and thereafter took the deceased with him on the motorcycle on the pretext of searching for his son Pintu. Then, he took Aakash @ Soni with him at the same place where the dead body of Aakash @ Soni was found and he FIR No. 922/14 State Vs. Arun Chauhan 2/56 murdered Aakash @ Soni after stabbing him many times with knife.
The deceased was a young man aged about 22 years who used to give tuitions to the children of the accused and was son of sister-in- law of his landlord. (makan malik ki saali ka ladka).
3. IO visited the spot where the dead body was found, after DD No. 10-A was recorded about the incident on information received from SI Mahavir. Thereafter, the FIR was registered and he prepared various documents and recorded statement of witnesses. The dead body was handed over to relatives after inquest and postmortem. After the information of disclosure of accused in FIR No. 117/14 was received, IO arrested the accused in present case with permission of court and obtained his PC for two days on 16.11.2014 itself. The shirt worn by accused at the time of commission of offence was got recovered at his instance during PC on 16.11.2014, from a place at some distance from the location of dead body. He also got recovered the motorcycle no. DL 5S 3620 make Hero Honda Passion Plus used during commission of offence. Further, he also got recovered the knife used during commission of offence on the second day of PC, which was sent to FSL along with other exhibits such as clothes of victim and that of accused etc. Scaled site plan was prepared and CDRs of accused and deceased were obtained showing that accused had contacted the deceased three times in the morning of murder. After completing the investigation, the challan was filed.
FIR No. 922/14 State Vs. Arun Chauhan 3/56
4. To prove its case, prosecution examined 24 witnesses as:-
PW Name of Role of witness Proved document/article No. Witness PW-1 Subhash Chand Landlord of the Proved his statement u/s accused 161 Cr.PC as Ex.
PW1/D1. He had lastly seen the deceased in the company of the accused.
PW-2 Sh.Prashant Resident of Ganga Witness to last seen
Goswami Vihar, who ran a gym theory.
PW-3 Sh.Vishal Younger brother of Document for
Kumar the deceased identification of dead body
as Ex. PW3/A, Site plan
as Ex. PW3/D1 and
Shawl as Ex. PW3/Article
1.
PW-4 Sh.Pankaj Friend of maamaji of Witness to last seen
Sharma the deceased theory.
PW-5 Sh. Anil Maamaji of deceased Document for
Aakash in whose identification of dead body
house the deceased of the deceased as Ex.
had been living PW5/A, carbon copy of
receiving dead body as
Mark P5-A, Shade Card
as Ex.PW5/B
PW-6 Sh.Sanjeev Regular user of Proved seizure memo of
Kumar motorcycle Hero the motorcycle as Ex
Honda Passion Plus. PW6/A and RC of the
motorcycle as Ex PW6/B.
FIR No. 922/14 State Vs. Arun Chauhan 4/56
PW-7 W/HC Poonam DO who recorded DD Proved copy of DD entry
no. 10-A regarding No. 10A as Ex.PW7/A,
dead body of Copy of FIR as
deceased Ex.PW7/B; Endorsement
on rukka as Ex.PW7/C,
Copy of relevant entry of
registration of FIR vide
DD entry No. 14A as
Ex.PW7/D and Copy of
completion of recording of
FIR vide DD No. 15A as
Ex.PW7/E.
PW-8 HC Zile Singh Photographer of Photographs and
mobile crime team. negatives as Ex. PW8/A1
to Ex. PW8/A12
PW-9 SI Suman Incharge, mobile Scene of Crime(SOC)
crime team report as Ex.PW9/A
PW-10 SI Mahavir Gave information
Prasad about dead body to
control room
PW-11 Ct.Manish Witness to formal Arrest memo as
Sharma arrest of accused . Ex.PW11/A, Personal
search memo as
Ex.PW11/B and
disclosure statement of
the accused as
Ex.PW11/C
PW-12 Ct. Jai Singh Delivered copies of
FIR to ld. MM and
senior police officers.
PW-13 Insp. Mahesh Draftsman who Scaled Site Plan as
Kumar prepared scaled site
Ex.PW13/A
plan at the instance
of IO.
FIR No. 922/14 State Vs. Arun Chauhan 5/56
PW-14 Ct. Vedveer Remained part of Seizure memo of shirt of
investigation. the accused as
Ex.PW14/A; Shirt as PW-
14/Art 2
Site plan of recovery of
motorcycle as
Ex.PW14/B;
Sketch memo of knife as
Ex.PW14/C; Knife as PW-
14/Art 1; Seizure memo of
Knife as Ex.PW14/D
and
Statements dated
16.11.2014 and
17.11.2014 of Sh.
Ramesh as Ex. PW14/P1
and Ex. PW14/P2
PW-15 ASI Virender Collected
Pal postmortem report of
deceased
PW-16 HC Rajesh Proved the entries Copy of entries in register
Kumar regarding deposit No. 19 at Sr. No. 1314/14
and movement of and 1316/14 as
case properties. Ex.PW16/A and
Ex.PW16/B respectively;
Copy of entry in register
no. 19 as Ex.PW16/C,
copy of RC as
Ex.PW16/D and
acknowledgement as
Ex.PW16/E
PW-17 SI Nitesh Remained part of Site plan of recovery of
investigation. shirt as Ex.PW17/A,
pointing out memo of
place of recovery of knife
as Ex.PW17/B,
FIR No. 922/14 State Vs. Arun Chauhan 6/56
PW-18 SI Dinesh Remained part of Rukka is Ex.PW18/A, Site
investigation (First plan as Ex.PW18/B,
IO) Seizure memo of loi as
Ex.PW18/C, Seizure
memo of chappals as
Ex.PW18/D, seizure
memo of blood in gauze
as Ex.PW18/E , seizure
memo of blood stained
soil and soil as
Ex.PW18/F, Slippers as
Ex.PW18/Article 1 and full
sleeved T shirt as
Ex.PW18/Article 2
PW-19 Sh. Naanaji of deceased Witness to last seen
Ramchander and father of witness theory.
Anil Kumar.
PW-20 Ct.Suneel Remained part of Carbon copy of receipt of
Kumar investigation. dead body as Ex.PW20/A
and seizure memo of one
sealed envelope having
blood in gauze of the
deceased and sealed
pullinda having clothes of
the deceased, and one
specimen seal as
Ex.PW20/B.
PW-21 Ct. Hari Mohan Beat Constable Typed Disclosure
Statement dated
17.11.2014 of the
accused as Ex.PW21/D1,
FIR No. 922/14 State Vs. Arun Chauhan 7/56
PW-22 Insp.Ramesh IO of the case. Death Report as
Kalsan Ex.PW22/A;
Request for postmortem
as Ex.PW22/B;
Request dated
27.11.2014 for opinion in
respect of knife as Ex.
PW22/C;
DPCR form as
Ex.PW22/D,
Request letters dated
10.02.2015 for obtaining
CDRs as Ex.PW22/E and
Ex.PW22/F.
PW-23 Sh. Israr Babu Nodal officer CDR of mobile number
8585992235 as
Ex.PW23/A(colly);
Copy of CAF of the
Aakash as Ex PW-23/B
Copy of D/L of the Aakash
as Ex PW-23/B
Certificate u/s 65B
Evidence Act as
Ex.PW23/D
PW-24 Sh. Pawan Nodal officer CDR of mobile number
Singh 9990323261 as
Ex.PW24/A(colly);
CAFs as Ex.PW24/B and
Ex.PW24/C;
Copy of DL and Voter ID
as Ex.PW24/D and
Ex.PW24/E, certificate u/s
65B Evidence Act as
Ex.PW24/F and complaint
dated 22.9.2017 as
Ex.PW24/G.
FIR No. 922/14 State Vs. Arun Chauhan 8/56
Evidence of Public Witnesses
5. PW-1, Subhash Chand is landlord of the accused. He deposed that deceased had two children namely Pintu and Khushi and accused Arun was working as driver. He further deposed that on 15.11.2014, in the morning at about 7.00 am, he was going down stairs for his duty and met the accused in the stairs who had moved on the stairs for 2-3 times and asked him if he had seen his son Pintu, which he answered in negative. It is further deposed that thereafter, he as well as accused both came out of the house.
Deceased was already present outside the house of witness on a red colour motorcycle. Accused sat on his motorcycle, thereafter, both of them went away. PW-1 also proceeded to his office at Police Headquarter, ITO. On his way, he received a telephonic call from his son that wife of accused was lying unconscious in her room. Thereafter, he asked his son to make a 100 number call and he himself called brother of Kavita namely Manoj to inform him about condition of his sister and advised him to visit her. After he reached his office, he received another call from his son about murder of Kavita as well as Aakash. When he inquired about presence of accused at his residence, his son told him that the accused had not come back. PW-1 did not see the accused thereafter at his home. He identified the accused before the court.
6. During his cross-examination by ld. counsel for the accused, he stood by the test. However, the testimony regarding the witness having inquired his son about presence of accused and reply of his FIR No. 922/14 State Vs. Arun Chauhan 9/56 son that accused had not come back home, were not mentioned in 161 Cr.PC statement of the witness. Further, his testimony that he had received a call from his son and his son informed him that Kavita was lying unconscious and he asked his son to call at 100 number but he informed that Pintu had already made such call were not mentioned in his statement u/s 161 Cr.PC. Similarly, his testimony regarding making call to brother of Kavita and receiving call from his son about murder of Kavita and Aakash have also not been mentioned in his statement u/s 161 Cr. PC. He admitted during cross-examination that accused worked as driver and sometimes, the accused used to go out early in the morning and returned late night hours. He stated that accused had been his tenant for the last about 5-6 years prior to the incident. He could not tell the model of motorcycle of deceased Aakash. He deposed that the accused Arun was wearing pant-shirt, however, he did not remember colour of clothes worn by the accused on the date of incident nor remember the description of clothes of deceased for that day. He denied the suggestion that he deposed falsely at the instance of IO being working in Delhi Police or that he had not seen the accused in the morning of 15.11.2014.
7. PW-2, Prashant Goswami is another resident of Ganga Vihar, who ran a gym. He deposed that on the date of incident at about 7.00 am, he was standing outside his gym in the gali. Accused and deceased came from the side of C-Block on a red colour motorcycle. He knew both of them as they were residents of same locality. Deceased was wearing a shawl. Deceased Aakash asked FIR No. 922/14 State Vs. Arun Chauhan 10/56 him if he had seen Pintu i.e. son of accused to which the witness replied in negative. Thereafter, both of them proceeded further on motorcycle. He deposed that Arun was residing in the house at a distance of around 100-150 meters from his house / gym. The witness further deposed that on the same day, he got to know that the wife of accused namely Kavita was murdered and deceased Aakash was also missing along with accused Arun. Thereafter, he had seen the dead body of deceased Aakash with stab wounds. He had not seen accused Arun coming back after he had left with deceased Akash on motorcycle.
8. During his cross-examination, the witness could not tell the make/model of motorcycle of Aakash, deceased. Regarding the shawl worn by deceased, he stated that he had not noticed the same properly and therefore he could not tell that it was plain/printed/designed. He further stated that he did not notice the same shawl on dead body of Aakash as he had seen just a glimpse of the dead body. He also could not give description of clothes worn by accused and did not recall about the lower apparel of the deceased Akash. He denied the suggestion that he had deposed falsely at instance of IO and had not seen accused in the morning of 15.11.2014.
9. PW-3, Vishal Kumar is the younger brother of the deceased. As deposed by him, he was present in the house of Anil i.e. his maamaji, along with the deceased on the date of incident, having come to Delhi on 01.11.2014 and stayed there upto 16.11.2014.
FIR No. 922/14 State Vs. Arun Chauhan 11/56 Deceased had been staying in the house of Anil during those days. He deposed that PW-1, Subhash is his uncle(mausaji) and was residing in the same locality, Ganga Vihar. The witness deposed that at around 6.30 am on 15.11.2014, his brother received 2-3 telephonic calls while both of them were present in the house of maamaji Anil. Thereafter, deceased Aakash had told him that he was called by father of Pintu i.e. the accused and he was going to his place. Accused was residing as tenant in the house of his uncle, PW-1. Deceased asked the witness to close the main gate and witness came downstairs and went upto the gate of the house with deceased. Witness saw that accused Arun was standing with the motorcycle on the corner of gali at 30-40 yards distance from the gate. Deceased took driver seat on that motorcycle and accused took the seat of pillion rider and thereafter both of them moved away and deceased never returned thereafter. Upon inquiry by uncle Anil, the witness told him that the deceased had gone alongwith Arun. Thereafter, the witness alongwith Anil went to the house of Subhash uncle. At his house, number of persons and police officials were present where witness came to know that Arun had killed his wife. The call made by Sh. Ram Chander Singh, maternal grandfather of Aakash to the deceased was picked by someone from PS, Jyoti Nagar. Upon receiving information, the witness visited the spot of murder and saw dead body of Aakash lying there on the ground. Since then he had not seen the accused. He identified the accused in the court.
FIR No. 922/14 State Vs. Arun Chauhan 12/56
10. During cross examination, PW-3 deposed that deceased was wearing a lower and a shawl of matiala colour. A question was also put to him regarding the distance between location of the houses of his maama Anil and his mausaji Subhash which he replied that they were located in different lanes of same locality. The witness was also asked questions about the occupants in the house of his maamaji Anil which he answered. Witness denied knowledge about any dispute between deceased and the accused and stated that deceased knew the accused and his family members because he used to visit the house of his mausaji Subhash where the accused lived as tenant with his family. Witness identified the shawl of the deceased, Ex.PW3/article-1. He stated that perhaps he had seen the shawl near dead body of his brother at the spot but he was too shocked to notice in detail if any other article was also lying there or not. Also, he did not remember the exact position of the shawl. He stated that accused Arun had come on a red colour motorcycle but could not tell its model or make. He denied the suggestion that he deposed falsely at the instance of his maamaji Anil or that he had not come downstairs with the deceased in the morning of incident or that had not seen the deceased going with accused in the morning.
11. PW-4 is one Pankaj Sharma, friend of maamaji (Anil) of the deceased. He deposed that as his motorcycle got punctured on the night previous to the incident at about 10.00 pm, at some distance from the house of Anil and repair shops had been closed by that time, he left his motorcycle at the house of Anil and took black Bajaj Pulsar motorcycle from Anil to go back to his own home. Next FIR No. 922/14 State Vs. Arun Chauhan 13/56 morning at about 6.45 am, while going to house of Anil in order to take his motorcycle, he saw deceased coming on a motorcycle from Ganga Vihar side and going towards Gokalpuri while accused was sitting on back seat of motorcycle. Around noon time, he received information via telephone from Anil that deceased Akash was murdered. He had previously known the accused as the accused was tenant of PW-1, Subhash, who was brother in law of Anil, his friend and the witness had met him at the residence of Subhash on some occasions/functions.
12. During cross-examination, he stated that it would take around 10-15 minutes to walk from Gokalpuri flyover where his motorcycle got punctured, to the house of Anil at Ganga Vihar. He further deposed that in the night of 14.11.2014, keys of Anil's motorcycle were handed over to him by the victim. He further stated that on 15.11.2014 while going to house of Anil, he did not meet Anil's father nor noticed him on the way. He had also not noticed the clothes worn by deceased and accused in the morning of that day. He was asked about details of family members of accused, which he answered correctly but could not tell their names. He also correctly told the name of Anil's father. He denied knowledge about relations between accused, Anil and Subhash. He denied the suggestion that he had deposed falsely at instance of IO or had neither seen the accused nor the victim in the morning of incident day nor had visited house of Anil in the night of 14.11.2014.
FIR No. 922/14 State Vs. Arun Chauhan 14/56
13. PW-5 is Anil, maamaji of deceased Akash in whose house the deceased had been residing since 2004. He was employed in Delhi Police. He deposed that his sister Babita who was landlady of accused Arun, informed him telephonically about Kavita W/o accused Arun lying unconscious at home. Later on, when he reached to the house of Babita at about 8.15 am, he got to know that Kavita was murdered. Some police staff at the house of Babita informed him about dead body having been found near kabristan, Kardampuri. He went there and found it to be body of Aakash with his shawl lying nearby. He identified the accused as well as the shawl of deceased before court.
14. During his cross-examination, the witness denied any knowledge about any dispute/quarrel between deceased Akash, accused Arun and his family. He denied the suggestion that accused and his family members used to visit Aakash or that Akash used to visit house of accused Arun. He stated that son and daughter of Arun used to come to his (witness) house to take tuitions from Aakash. Thereafter, he was asked about the clothes worn by the deceased and he stated that he had seen one lower and one full sleeved jersey with chain on the dead body of Aakash. He denied the suggestion that because he was working in Delhi Police, therefore, he falsely implicated accused Arun Chauhan in the present case.
15. PW-19, Sh. Ram Chander is naanaji of deceased and father of witness Anil Kumar. He deposed that on 15.11.2014 at about 7.00 FIR No. 922/14 State Vs. Arun Chauhan 15/56 am while he was coming back home after morning walk and reached Reliance Fresh store located on main road, Ganga Vihar, he saw the deceased Aakash and accused Arun going on motorcycle, which was being driven by Aakash towards Gokalpuri side. He did not see Aakash alive after that. Witness further deposed that he knew Arun as he was tenant in house of his daughter Babita. He identified accused before court.
16. During his cross-examination, the witness could not tell about make, model, colour of the motorcycle nor about the colour of shawl worn by deceased or the clothes of the accused. He further stated that Reliance Fresh store located about 200-250 yards from his home, was open at that time. He deposed during his cross- examination that he used to go for walk at Ambedkar Park at a distance of about 1 km from his home and used to walk for around 1 hour there. He denied the suggestion that he did not see accused Arun along with deceased Aakash as stated by him or deposed falsely in this respect.
17. PW-6 is one Sanjeev Kumar, owner of motorcycle Hero Honda Passion Plus, red colour, bearing No. DL-5SY 3620, which as per case of prosecution, was used by accused Arun during the incident. The witness deposed that accused used to take his motorcycle whenever he needed it and lastly he took the motorcycle on the date of incident. Accused had come to the house of witness around 6.00- 6.30 am and asked for the motorcycle saying that he had to go to Yamuna Vihar. The witness got agreed but requested him to return FIR No. 922/14 State Vs. Arun Chauhan 16/56 the motorcycle by 9.00 am as he had to go for his duty. Before coming to his house, accused had made telephonic call to him which he could not pick up. After about half an hour of taking the motorcycle, the accused called the witness on his mobile No. 9911914013 and told him that he had parked his motorcycle behind Gokulpuri PS near garbage house and told the witness that he was leaving the motorcycle at that place as he had to go urgently to some other place. The accused told him that keys of motorcycle were left in the motorcycle itself. The witness accordingly went there and took back the motorcycle. He further deposed that on 16.11.2014, police along with the accused visited him, asked him about the motorcycle and took away the same. He proved his signature on the seizure memo of motorcycle, Ex.PW6/A and correctly identified the accused. The identity and existence of motorcycle was not disputed by defence, therefore, the production of same was dispensed with by the ld. Predecessor Judge of this court.
18. During cross-examination, the witness deposed that a black colour dicky of local company was attached to motorcycle at that time. He denied the suggestion that he did not have any telephonic contact with the accused on 15.11.2014. The witness was asked about description of clothes worn by accused which he replied by saying that accused was wearing pant and shirt, however, he did not remember the colour and description of the same. He stated that he reached home with motorcycle at around 7.15 am. He admitted the colour of his motorcycle and of its petrol tank as black with red FIR No. 922/14 State Vs. Arun Chauhan 17/56 strips. He denied the suggestion that he has deposed falsely at the instance of police or that accused did not ask for his motorcycle on 15.11.2014.
Evidence of Formal Witnesses
19. PW-7 is W/HC Poonam, DO who recorded DD no. 10-A regarding dead body of deceased lying near Shamshan Ghat, Kardampuri, near nala and proved the same as Ex. PW-7/A. She also registered FIR, Ex PW-7/B and made endorsement, Ex PW-7/C on the rukka. She was not cross-examined.
20. PW-8 HC Zile Singh is another formal witness i.e. photographer of mobile crime team. He proved 12 photographs of the spot and its negatives as Ex.PW8/A-1 to 12. PW-9 is SI Suman, Incharge, mobile crime team. He proved scene of crime (SOC) report as Ex.PW9/A. PW-10 SI Mahavir Prasad is a witness from PCR who deposed that at about 9.25 am, when he alongwith other police officials of PCR van was present in front of Ambedkar college, one person came to him and informed about dead body of male lying near Kabristan, Kardampuri, near drain. He gave information about dead body to control room and reached to the spot where he had seen the dead body, bearing several injuries. He deposed that after sometime, SHO Jyoti Nagar alongwith staff reached at the spot. He informed him about the facts observed by him and thereafter he returned to Ambedkar College. During cross examination, he deposed that dead body was not having shoe or sleeper in his feet FIR No. 922/14 State Vs. Arun Chauhan 18/56 and he did not notice any cloth near the dead body where he remained for about 10 minutes. PW-11 Ct. Manish Sharma is a witness to formal arrest, personal search and recording of disclosure statement of accused Arun Chauhan, in the present case. PW-12, Ct. Jai Singh received FIR from Duty Officer and delivered copy of FIR to ld. MM and senior police officers. PW-13 Insp. Mahesh Kumar is draughtsman who prepared scaled plan at the instance of IO/Insp. Ramesh Kalsan, and proved the site plan as Ex.PW13/A. PW-15, ASI Virender Pal, collected postmortem report of deceased and handed over to IO. PW-16 is Ct. Raj Kumar, MHC(M), who proved the entries regarding deposit and movement of case properties i.e. motorcycle and other articles and proved the same from Ex.PW16/A-E.
21. PW-23 Israr Babu is Vodafone nodal officer who proved the CDR of the mobile phone number possessed by the deceased. He proved the same as Ex.PW23/A, CAF as Ex.PW23/B, copy of DL as Ex.PW23/C, certificate u/s 65-B of Evidence Act as Ex.PW23/D. It appears that there is error in his evidence regarding the name of victim as Adarsh instead of Aakash, whereas the documents filed by PW-23 are of deceased Aakash. PW-24 is Idea Cellular nodal officer. He proved the customer application form (CAF) of mobile phone nos. 9990323261 and 8750438628 of accused Arun Chauhan as Ex.PW24/B and Ex.PW24/C. He proved the CDR of accused Arun Chauhan as Ex. PW24/A colly. He further proved the copy of DL and Voter ID as Ex.PW24/D and Ex. PW24/E respectively and certificate u/s 65B of Evidence Act as Ex.PW24/F. As per customer application FIR No. 922/14 State Vs. Arun Chauhan 19/56 form (CAF), both the sims were in the name of the accused. He denied the suggestion that all the documents were forged but admitted that the identification related documents i.e. original D/L and voter ID of accused were not seen by him.
22. PW-20 Ct. Sunil Kumar deposed that he went to the spot along with SI Dinesh after receipt of DD no. 10-A dated 15.11.2014 at about 10.00-10.15 am regarding the dead body of a male person. He had seen the dead body with injury marks. In his presence, crime team inspected the spot and photographs were taken. He had taken the dead body to mortuary, GTB Hospital on instructions of SI Dinesh. ACP and SHO / Inspector Ramesh Kalsan had also reached there. Further, as deposed by witness, the dead body was handed over to his relatives as per procedure in his presence. Nothing worth mentioning was asked during his cross-examination.
23. SI Dinesh (PW-18) deposed that after receiving DD No.10-A at about 9.55 am, he had immediately visited the spot alongwith Ct. Sunil and found the dead body lying at Kabristan, Near Kardam puri. He mentioned about clothes/slippers of the deceased and the loi/shawl found lying near the body. In his presence, crime team visited the spot, took photographs and prepared the report. He prepared the rukka Ex. PW18/A and handed over the same to Ct. Hari Mohan for registration of FIR. Thereafter, he sent the dead body to mortuary and instructed one constable to guard the same at mortuary. After registration of FIR, IO / Inspector Ramesh Kalsan prepared site plan of spot at his instance. He proved the site plan as FIR No. 922/14 State Vs. Arun Chauhan 20/56 Ex.PW-18/B. IO also seized the shawl and other articles such as slippers of the deceased and the relevant memos were signed by this witness. The witness remained present while the IO lifted the blood lying on the spot on gauze, sample earth control and blood stained earth control and seized the same. He proved his signature on the documents of seizure of different articles. The witness identified the slippers, shawl, lower, full sleeve T-shirt, under-wear etc of the deceased.
Key Police Witnesses :
24. PW-21 Ct. Hari Mohan is the beat constable who had taken the rukka prepared by SI Dinesh to PS for registration of FIR. This witness remained part of investigation throughout with other witnesses namely PW-14 Ct. Vedveer, PW-17 SI Nitesh, and PW-22 IO/SHO/Insp. Ramesh Kalsan. PW-22 IO/SHO/Insp. Ramesh Kalsan deposed that while the accused was produced in Karkardooma Courts in DD No. 18A relating to murder of his wife, permission was taken to arrest the accused and 2 days police custody remand was obtained. All the above mentioned witnesses had participated in the investigation conducted during PC.
25. It has come in their deposition that after recording of disclosure statement of accused, the police team proceeded from PS along with accused Arun Chauhan to the spot i.e. Kardampuri near Kabristan and Metro construction site. Accused pointed towards a drain(nala) and told that he had thrown the knife towards the drain. Despite FIR No. 922/14 State Vs. Arun Chauhan 21/56 search, the knife could not be recovered on that day i.e. 16.11.2014. Thereafter, accused led the police team to a place behind wall of Ambedkar College and pointed towards a heap of bricks and stones and told them that he had kept his shirt there and got recovered the same. The shirt was seized by IO and seizure memo was prepared. Also the pointing out memo/site plan of place of recovery was prepared by SI Nitesh on direction of IO/SHO. Thereafter, the accused led the police team to house of PW-6 Sanjeev Kumar for recovery of motorcycle. He pointed to motorcycle parked outside the house of witness Sanjeev. It was seized by the IO and relevant documents were prepared by SI Nitesh.
26. On 17.11.2014, the police team once again went to spot along with accused Arun Chauhan in search of knife. Accused demonstrated the manner in which he had thrown the knife towards drainage. Police searched for knife in that direction and found the same lying in the mud just at the end of slope of drainage. Again SI Nitesh prepared sketch on instruction of IO and IO seized the knife. Relevant documents regarding seizure/pointing out memo/site plan of place of recovery of knife were prepared by SI Nitesh on direction of IO. Thereafter, accused led the police team to the corner in gali No. 1, Ganga Vihar and pointed out that he had taken deceased Aakash from that place on motorcycle. The site plan of same was prepared. The witnesses identified the knife and shirt before the court during evidence.
FIR No. 922/14 State Vs. Arun Chauhan 22/56
27. There are some differences between the evidence of these key witnesses and the role played by them in the investigation, which are as follows :-
28. Additionally, the IO has deposed about the proceedings conducted on the date of incident i.e. 15.11.2014 after the dead body of deceased was recovered. His evidence about the proceedings conducted on 15.11.2014 after recovery of dead body is on the same lines as PW-18 SI Dinesh who had first visited the spot after receiving DD No. 10A about lying of dead body on the spot.
29. In addition to what was deposed by PW-18, IO/PW-22 deposed about the handing over of dead body of the deceased as per procedure and getting the postmortem conducted and also deposit of sealed exhibits in malkhana. He also deposed about having arrested the accused with permission of ld. duty MM on 16.11.2014 after he was produced there by Gokalpuri PS staff. He deposed about preparing the arrest related documents of the accused and also about interrogation of the accused wherein he disclosed about his involvement in murder of the deceased. He mentioned about having applied for secondary opinion with respect to weapon of offence i.e. knife and getting prepared the scaled site plan of the spot of recovery of dead body. He further deposed about having collected the CDRs/CAF of mobile phones used by the accused and deceased. He also identified different case properties and the exhibits seized by him as follows:
FIR No. 922/14 State Vs. Arun Chauhan 23/56
(a) Container alongwith soil as Ex PW-22/Article1.
(b) Container alongwith blood stained earth as Ex PW-
22/Article2.
(c) Container alongwith blood stained white cloth as Ex PW- 22/Article3.
(d) Shirt of accused as Ex PW-14/Article2
(e) Shawl as Ex PW-3/Art1
(f) Slippers as PW-18/Art1
(g) Clothes of deceased i.e. one lower, under-wear, nicker, T- shirt and one full sleeve T-shirt as Ex PW-18/Art2
(h) Envelope alongwith blood stained gauze as Ex PW- 22/Article 4.
30. Now coming to cross-examination of these witnesses, all of them denied the suggestion that accused had not led them to any place or that no incriminating material i.e. the knife, shirt or motorcycle was recovered at his instance. They denied the suggestion put to contrary. All of them denied that they had not joined the investigation or that no such proceedings had actually taken place or that knife and shirt were planted in this case or that all the documents were prepared later at PS. The evidence of witnesses PW-17, PW-21 and PW-22 during cross-examination is identical and they have been able to stand the test of cross- examination.
31. So far as PW-14 Ct. Vedveer is concerned, he had deposed that on 16 and 17 November 2014, IO/Insp. Ramesh Kalsan had FIR No. 922/14 State Vs. Arun Chauhan 24/56 not accompanied the police team and only Ct. Hari Mohan, SI Nitesh and the witness himself had gone to the sites of recovery along with accused. He even denied the suggestion put by ld. Addl. PP in that regard that Insp. Ramesh Kalsan had led the investigation on the above mentioned two dates. In response to court query, this witness answered that SI Nitesh had driven the motorcycle to PS and accused Arun had provided the keys of the same to him and accused had got recovered the key of motorcycle from a bed kept in a room but no separate memo with respect to key recovery and seizure was prepared. The witness of course denied the suggestion that he did not join the investigation or that nothing was recovered in his presence or that he signed memos in the PS at later stage at the instance of IO.
32. At this stage, it is important to note that the defence had admitted the following documents on 01.10.2016 as :-
(I) PM report of deceased
(ii) Subsequent report about weapon of offence
(iii) FSL reports
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED
33. The accused has taken a defence that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated. He denied knowledge of his implication in the present case. He stated that he has small children to look after and may be released. He also stated that false and concocted story has been presented against him before the court.
FIR No. 922/14 State Vs. Arun Chauhan 25/56 ARGUMENTS BY SH. VIKAS KUMAR, ADDITIONAL PP FOR THE STATE AS WELL AS SH. ROOP KISHORE, LD. LEGAL AID COUNSEL FOR THE ACCUSED.
34. Ld. Addl. PP for State submitted that the deceased was last seen in the company of the accused by the prosecution witnesses i.e. PW-1, PW-2, PW-3, PW-4 and PW-19 on the date of incident around 7.00 am. It is his further contention that the accused had firstly killed his wife in the morning and thereafter killed the deceased by inflicting stab injuries through knife which was recovered at the instance of the accused. It is also his contention that the shirt worn by the accused was recovered at the instance of the accused and blood group on the shirt of the accused matches with the blood group on the clothes of the deceased as per FSL result. He further submitted that motorcycle was also recovered at the instance of the accused from the house of the Sanjeev, PW-6. He also urged that the accused had called three times at the mobile number of the deceased at 6.40 am; 6.59 am and 7.02 am from his mobile no. 9990323261 on the day of incident. He thus argued that the aforesaid incriminating evidence points out that the accused committed murder of the deceased by inflicting stab injuries from knife which has been opined as weapon of offence.
35. Ld. Legal Aid Counsel for the accused has argued that the shirt allegedly recovered at the instance of the accused, did not belong to the accused nor was the motorcycle allegedly used during FIR No. 922/14 State Vs. Arun Chauhan 26/56 commission of offence so recovered and same is the defence with respect to alleged weapon of offence i.e. knife.
36. Ld. Legal Aid Counsel for the accused further argued that there were no blood stains on the motorcycle. Further, no public witnesses were joined which vitiates the recovery.
37. Ld. Legal Aid Counsel for the accused has pointed out the contradictions in the evidence of different police witnesses, while witness Ct. Vedveer stated that police team had gone to spot in Swift car of SI Nitesh, the other witnesses deposed that they had gone in official gypsy. Ct. Vedveer also maintained that IO/SHO Ramesh Kalsan had not visited the spot on 16 th and 17th November, 2014 when the recoveries of shirt, motorcycle and knife were effected at the instance of accused.
38. Ld. Legal Aid Counsel for the accused has further attempted to dissociate the accused from the offence by arguing that admittedly no chance prints were lifted from spot, therefore, it could not be said that he had been present at the spot of murder.
39. Ld. Legal Aid Counsel for the accused has further argued that while some witnesses described colour of motorcycle as red, while it was of black colour as per the version of PW-6, Sh. Sanjeev Kumar, who had been regularly using the motorcycle.
FIR No. 922/14 State Vs. Arun Chauhan 27/56
40. Ld. Legal Aid Counsel for the accused further argued that while the IO and SI Nitesh mentioned about a loi/shawl being present near the dead body and even identified the same before court, the PCR witness who first saw the dead body did not notice the same. Also, PW-2 did not notice the same when he went to the spot.
41. Ld. Legal Aid Counsel for the accused has further argued that PW-1 landlord of the accused admitted that accused who was driver, used to leave early and return late from work.
Appreciation of evidence A. LAST SEEN EVIDENCE
42. There is no eye witness who has seen the accused stabbing the deceased Aakash with the knife. According to the prosecution, the accused Arun Chauhan disclosed to have murdered Aakash @ Soni as he suspected deceased Akash to be paramour of his wife Kavita and had seen Kavita, his wife in compromising position with the deceased Aakash. At about 05:00 am on 15.11.2014, he first murdered his wife and thereafter took the deceased with him on the pretext of searching his son Pintu. The accused had taken the deceased at the same place where his body was found lying after stabbing him many times with the knife. There is no eye witness to the occurrence but the deceased had been last seen with the accused on a motorcycle.
FIR No. 922/14 State Vs. Arun Chauhan 28/56
43. PW-1 Subhash Chand, who is landlord of the accused testified that accused met him in the stairs and asked him if he had seen his son Pintu and thereafter, PW-1 came alongwith the accused outside the house and seen the deceased Akash on a red colour motorcycle. Similarly, PW-3, Vishal Kumar, younger brother of the deceased testified that at around 06:30 am on 15.11.2014, when he was present alongwith his deceased brother in the house of mamaji Anil, his brother received telephone calls, which he had told to have received from the accused. After the call, the deceased asked the PW-3 to close the main gate whereupon PW-3 accompanied the accused to the main gate and saw Arun standing with motorcycle on the corner of gali at a distance of 30-40 yards from the gate. He had also seen his brother, Aakash taking driver seat and accused Arun taking pillion seat on the motorcycle.
44. Similarly, PW-2, Prashant Goswami testified that on the date of incident at about 7.00 am, when he was standing outside his gym in the gali, he saw accused and deceased coming from the side of C Block on a red colour motorcycle and the accused was wearing a shawl. PW-4, Pankaj Sharma also testified that at about 6.45 am, when he was going to the house of Anil, in order to take his motorcycle, he saw deceased coming on a motorcycle from Ganga Vihar side and going towards Gokalpuri. He had also seen the accused sitting as pillion rider on the said motorcycle. Further, PW- 19, Ram Chander, nanaji of the deceased also deposed that on 15.11.14 at about 7.00 am, while coming from morning walk, he saw at Reliance fresh store located on main road Ganga vihar, the FIR No. 922/14 State Vs. Arun Chauhan 29/56 deceased Akash and accused Arun going on motorcycle, which was being driven by Akash towards Gokalpuri.
45. It is apparent from the testimony of the aforesaid witnesses i.e. PW-1, PW-2, PW-3, PW-4 and PW-19 that the deceased was seen lastly in the company of the accused on the motorcycle. The aforesaid witnesses testified that they had not seen the deceased thereafter.
46. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Rishi Pal V. State of Uttarakhand, 2013 (2) ACR 147, held as under:
"16. In Mohibur Rahman and Anr. v. State of Assam, (2002) 6 SCC 715, this Court held that the circumstance of last seen does not by itself necessarily lead to the inference that it was the accused who committed the crime. It depends upon the facts of each case. There may however be cases where, on account of close proximity of place and time between the event of the accused having been last seen with the deceased and the factum of death, a rational mind may be persuaded to reach an irresistible conclusion that either the accused should explain how and in what circumstances the victim suffered the death or should own the liability for the homicide. Similarly in Arjun Marik and Ors. v. State of Bihar: 1994 Supp (2) SCC 372, this Court reiterated that the solitary circumstance of the accused and victim being last seen will not complete the chain of circumstances for the Court to record a finding that it is con- sistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. No conviction on that basis alone can, therefore, be founded. So also in Godabarish Mishra v. Kuntala Mishra and Anr. : (1996) 11 SCC 264, this Court declared that the theory of last seen together is not of universal application and may not always be sufficient to sustain a conviction unless supported by other links in the chain of circumstances. In Bharat v. State of M.P. :
FIR No. 922/14 State Vs. Arun Chauhan 30/56 (2003) 3 SCC 106; two circumstances on the basis whereof the Appellant had been convicted were
(i) the Appellant having been last seen with the deceased and
(ii) Recovery of ornaments made at his instance. This Court held:
........Mere non-explanation cannot lead to the proof of guilt against the Appellant. The prosecution has to prove its case against the Appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The chain of circumstances, in our opinion, is not complete so as to sustain the conviction of the Appellant....."
47. It is explicit from the ratio enunciated by Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment that last seen theory is not sufficient to convict the accused unless there is other corroborative evidence available forming a chain of circumstances leading to the only inference for guilt of the accused. The last seen theory is thus a week kind of evidence by itself to found conviction upon the same singularly. However, the last seen theory in the instant case is also corroborated by other evidence which shall be discussed hereinafter.
B. Recovery of weapon of offence i.e. knife, motorcycle and shirt of the accused on the basis of disclosure statement of the accused
48. It is relevant to note herein that upon disclosure of the accused, knife used for commission of the offence had been recovered at his instance on 17.11.2014 itself and seized vide seizure memo, Ex PW- 14/D. The accused had also got recovered his shirt on 16.11.2014 FIR No. 922/14 State Vs. Arun Chauhan 31/56 which was seized vide seizure memo, Ex PW-14/A. He had also got recovered the motorcycle bearing No. DL 5S 3620 make Hero Honda Passion Plus used during the commission of offence. It is now necessary to find out as to whether the aforesaid recovery of shirt, knife and the motorcycle are connected to the murder of the deceased Akash.
49. PW-22 IO/ Inspector Ramesh Kalsan deposed that after the accused was arrested on 16.11.2014, consequent upon his disclosure in FIR relating to murder of his wife, his PC was granted. PW-22 IO/Insp. Ramesh Kalsan; PW-14 Ct. Vedveer; PW-17 SI Nitesh and PW-22 Ct. Hari Mohan had participated in the investigation conducted during PC. The police team proceeded from PS along with the accused Arun Chauhan to spot i.e. Kardampuri near Kabristan and Metro construction site where accused pointed towards a nala i.e. drain and told that he had thrown the knife towards the drain. Despite search, the knife could not be recovered on that day i.e. 16.11.2014. Thereafter, accused led the police team to a place behind wall of Ambedkar College and pointed towards a heap of bricks and stones and told them that he had kept his shirt there and got recovered the same. Thereafter, the accused led the police team to house of Sanjeev Kumar for recovery of motorcycle. He pointed to motorcycle parked outside the house of witness Sanjeev which was seized by the IO.
50. On 17.11.2014, the police team once again went to the spot along with accused Arun Chauhan in search of knife. Accused FIR No. 922/14 State Vs. Arun Chauhan 32/56 demonstrated the manner in which he had thrown the knife towards drainage. Police searched for knife in that direction and found the same lying in the mud just at the end of slope of drainage. Thereafter, accused led the police team to the corner in gali no. 1, Ganga Vihar and pointed out that he had taken deceased Akash from that place on motorcycle.
51. In Madhu vs. State of Kerala (2012) 2 SCC 399, the Hon'ble Apex Court while discussing the mandate of Section 27 of the Evidence Act held as under:-
"17. The most significant issue in the present controversy is the veracity of the confessional statements made by the accused Madhu and Sibi before P.J. Thomas PW21, Circle Inspector of Police on 13.5.1998. It is evident that the aforesaid statements were made by the accused before a police officer while the accused were in custody of the police. Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act postulates that a confession made by an accused to a police officer cannot be proved against him. Additionally, Section 26 of the Indian Evidence Act stipulates that a confession made by an accused while in police custody cannot be proved against him. It is evident from the factual position narrated hereinabove, that the statements made by the accused Madhu and Sibi were made to a police officer while the accused were in police custody. It is, therefore, apparent that in terms of the mandate of Sections 25 and 26 of the Indian Evidence Act, the said statements could not be used against accused Madhu and Sibi. But then, there is an exception to the rule provided for by Sections 25 and 26 aforesaid, under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act is being extracted hereunder:
FIR No. 922/14 State Vs. Arun Chauhan 33/56 "27. How much of information received from accused may be proved - Provided that, when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved."
As an exception, Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act provides that a confessional statement made to a police officer or while an accused is in police custody, can be proved against him, if the same leads to the discovery of an unknown fact. The rationale of Sections 25 and 26 of the Indian Evidence Act is, that police may procure a confession by coercion or threat. The exception postulated under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act is applicable only if the confessional statement leads to the discovery of some new fact. The relevance under the exception postulated by Section 27 aforesaid, is limited "...as it relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered....". The rationale behind Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act is, that the facts in question would have remained unknown but for the disclosure of the same by the accused. Discovery of facts itself, therefore, substantiates the truth of the confessional statement. And since it is truth that a court must endeavour to search, Section 27 aforesaid has been incorporated as an exception to the mandate contained in Sections 25 and 26 of the Indian Evidence Act."
52. The ratio enunciated by the aforesaid judgment and which is also the mandate of conjoint reading of Section 25, 26 & 27 of Evidence Act that discovery of facts consequent to the disclsoure statement of accused even if made in custody of police officer is admissible in evidence. Adverting to the case of prosecution, FIR No. 922/14 State Vs. Arun Chauhan 34/56 discovery of motorcycle, knife as weapon of offence and shirt of the accused pursuant to disclosure statement of the accused is accordingly admissible in evidence. The recovery of motorcycle was also corroborated by the testimony of PW-6, Sanjeev Kumar and last seen evidence, already noted above. PW-1, PW-2, PW-3, PW-4 and PW-19 had lastly seen the deceased in the company of the accused on the motorcycle. PW-6, Sanjeev Kumar, regular user of motorcycle Hero Honda Passion Plus, bearing No. DL-5SY-3620, testified that accused used to take his motorcycle whenever he needed it and on the date of incident also, accused had come to the house of witness around 6.00- 6.30 am and taken the motorcycle and after about half an hour of taking the motorcycle, the accused called the witness on his mobile no. 9911914013 and told him he was leaving the motorcycle with keys behind Gokulpuri PS near garbage house. Accordingly, PW-6 had taken back the motorcycle. The fact of receiving call by PW-6, Sanjeev Kumar has been corroborated by the CDR of mobile No. 9990323261 of the accused from which it is apparent that he had made call at 7.32 am on 15.11.2014 to aforesaid mobile no. 9911914013 of PW-6, Sanjeev.
53. Further, knife recovered at the instance of the accused was opined as weapon of offence used for inflicting stab injuries on the deceased as per the medical opinion discussed hereinafer.
C. Medical opinion about possibility of injury inflicted by the said knife:-
FIR No. 922/14 State Vs. Arun Chauhan 35/56
54. Pertinently, vide order dated 01.10.2016, defence counsel admitted certain documents as :-
(a) Post mortem examination report- Ex. A-1 (colly) in three pages.
(b) Subsequent opinion given by Dr. Vishwajeet Singh regarding examination of injuries on the death body with the knife produced before him as a weapon of offence- Ex. A-2 (colly in 2 pages).
(c)FSL reports as Ex. A-3 and Ex. A-4.
55. As per the post mortem report dated 16.11.2014, there were 12 incised stab wound injuries on the body of the deceased which are stated to be antemortem in nature. The cause of death as per post mortem report is "Haemorrhagic shock as a result of antemortem injury to neck, chest and abdomen produced by single edged sharp cutting weapon. Injury no. (1), (4),(5), (7), (8) (9), (10) and (11) are sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature individually and collectively. All injuries antemortem in nature. Injury no. 2, 3, 6 and 12 are produced by sharp edged weapon".
56. The subsequent medical opinion was sought from the MS, GTB Hospital, Dilshad Garden Delhi vide letter dispatched on dated 27.11.2014, Ex. PW22/C by IO / Inspector Ramesh Kalsan to the effect as to whether the aforesaid injuries on the deceased could be possible with the recovered knife. Dr. Vishawajeet Singh had given an opinion dated 29.12.2014 that after going through the post FIR No. 922/14 State Vs. Arun Chauhan 36/56 mortem report and examination of articles, injury no.1-12 are possible with the type of weapon (knife) given for examination.
57. It is apparent from the aforesaid medical opinion, Ex. A-2 (colly) that injuries on the body of the deceased were possible with the knife recovered at the instance of the accused.
D. FSL EXAMINATION
58. The police team had also seized the shawl /loi vide seizure memo Ex.PW-18/C, chappals vide seizure memo Ex.PW-18/D, blood in gauze vide seizure memo Ex.PW-18/E, blood stained earth vide seizure memo, Ex.PW-18/F from the spot on 15.11.2014 itself. After the post mortem, the clothes of the deceased and his blood in gauze were also seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW-20/B and aforesaid seized articles including the weapon of offence and recovered shirt of the accused were sent to FSL for examination.
59. As per FSL report, the remarks are 'no reaction' for knife, blood stained earth and pair of chappals whereas remarks are 'AB' group on the shirt of the accused; cloth piece, gauze cloth piece, lower, underwear, nicker, T-shirts of the deceased except shawl of the deceased where the remarks are inconclusive. It is the contention of Ld. Legal Aid Counsel for the accused that since the remarks are 'no reaction' on the stained knife, it is not established that the injuries were caused on the deceased with the said knife. The FSL report mentions the reason for 'no reaction' as "group FIR No. 922/14 State Vs. Arun Chauhan 37/56 specific antigens degenerated". In this regard, suffice is to state that though nothing conclusive about use of knife could be established through FSL result but its use as a weapon of offence is discernible from the subsequent medical opinion, Ex.A-2. It is also not out of place to mention here that as per testimony of PW-17, SI Nitesh, the knife was found lying in the mud, just at the end of drainage. The recovery of knife from the mud might be probably the reason for no reaction during FSL examination.
E. SAME BLOOD GROUP ON SHIRT OF THE ACCUSED AND THE CLOTHES OF THE DECEASED.
60. What is incriminating in the FSL result is the similarity of blood group 'AB' on the shirt of the accused and clothes of the deceased. The shirt was recovered at the instance of the accused himself and FSL result has not been disputed by the accused. Though the Ld. Legal Aid Counsel has taken defence that the shirt is not of the accused and has been planted by the police, the said defence does not inspire any confidence. There was no reason given by the Ld. Legal Aid Counsel for falsely implicating the accused. The fact cannot be overlooked that PW-1, Subhash Chand and PW6, Sanjeev Kumar stated in their testimony that the accused was wearing pant-shirt on the date of the incident.
FIR No. 922/14 State Vs. Arun Chauhan 38/56
F. TELEPHONE CALL DETAILS
61. The prosecution has also connected the accused with the offence with the help of telephone call details of the accused and the deceased. It has come in the testimony of PW-22, Insp. Ramesh Kalsan that he had collected the CDR of mobile number 9990323261 of accused Arun and mobile number 855992235 of deceased Akash between 6.46 a.m to 7.02 a.m of the date of incident i.e. 15.11.2014.
62. The prosecution has also examined Sh. Israr Babu, Alternate Nodal Officer, Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd. as PW-23. PW-23 testified that as per Customer Application Form(CAF), mobile no. 8585992235 was registered in the name of Adarsh S/o Sahendra Singh(appears to have been wrongly typed as Adarsh instead of Aakash). PW-23 also furnished the copy of DL annexed with the CAF and produced CDR of aforesaid mobile number for the relevant period w.e.f. 01.11.2014 to 02.02.2015. The prosecution has also examined Sh. Pawan Singh, Nodal Officer, Idea Cellular Ltd. Noida, U.P as PW-24 who was summoned to produce the original application form of mobile number 9990323261 and 8750438628 in the name of Arun Chauhan. He testified that as per customer application form (CAF), the aforesaid mobile numbers were registered in name of Arun Chauhan, accused. He proved the call detail record of the accused for the period from 01.11.2014 till 15.11.2014 as Ex.PW-24/A(colly).
FIR No. 922/14 State Vs. Arun Chauhan 39/56
63. Perusal of CDR of the mobile number 9990323261,
Ex. PW24/A (colly) which is in the name of accused Arun shows that he had made calls to mobile number 8585992235 on 15.11.2014 at 6.46 a.m, 6.59 a.m and 7.02 a.m. Meaning thereby, the accused had telephoned thrice to the deceased in the morning of 15.11.2014, date of incident. No sufficient explanation has been given by the accused in his statement recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C for making three phone calls to the deceased on 15.11.2014 morning. The specific question was put to the accused in this regard in the statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C as:-
"Q. 29. It has further come in evidence against you that on 15.11.2014, you had called the deceased on his mobile number 8585992235 at 6.46 a.m, 6.59 a.m and 7.02 a.m from your mobile phone number 9990323261. What you have to say? Ans. It is correct that this phone number belongs to me but I did not call the deceased. Some other family member of mine must have called him."
64. The accused has not given any detail as to in whose possession, his mobile was on 15.11.2014 morning. Simple bald averment regarding the making of mobile calls by some family member is not suffice in the eyes of law. It is not out of place mention herein that the accused has not led any defence evidence to show that his mobile was in possession of some other person or somebody else had called from his mobile number to the deceased.
FIR No. 922/14 State Vs. Arun Chauhan 40/56 G. MOTIVE BEHIND THE MURDER
65. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused had motive to murder the deceased Aakash which the accused disclosed vide disclosure statement, Ex.PW-11/C recorded on 16.11.2014 to the effect that he had seen his wife Kavita (since deceased) and Akash @ Soni in an objectionable position with her paramour, deceased and thereafter he killed his wife at about 5.00 a.m in the morning of 15.11.2014 and after that, he called the deceased Aakash on the pretext of searching his son Pintoo and took him to Cemetary (Kabristan) of Kardampuri and killed him after stabbing him many times with knife and ran away from there. He had also disclosed that he could get recover the weapon of offence and the clothes worn by him at the time of murder.
66. The accused denied to have made the said disclosure statement. It has been brought to the notice of this court by the Ld. Addl. PP for State that the accused has been held guilty of murder of his wife Kavita in SC No. 44673/15 titled as State Vs. Arun Chauhan vide judgment dated 09.07.2016. In fact, the accused has admitted about the conviction during his statement recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C, which is reproduced as :-
"Q. 17 Is it correct that you have been convicted for murder of your wife Kavita?
Ans. Yes."
FIR No. 922/14 State Vs. Arun Chauhan 41/56
67. The prosecution has been able to establish the motive behind the dual murder occurred on the same date i.e. 15.11.2014, one at the house of the accused and another at kabristan of Kardampuri.
H. CONDUCT OF THE ACCUSED
68. Absence of the accused even in his own house on 15.11.2014 morning when Kavita, wife of the deceased was reported to be died. PW-1 admitted during cross examination that accused Arun was a driver and sometimes, Arun used to go out early in the morning and sometimes he used to come back during late hours. Ld. Legal Aid Counsel tried to dissociate the accused from the commission of murder on the ground that his non presence in the house is accounted for. He further contended that the accused has also stated in his statement u/s 313 Cr.PC that he had left his house at about 5.30 -5.40 am on that day. The said plea taken by the accused does not appears to be plausible for the simple reason that the accused Arun did not give any justification for his not being present in his own house and also did not furnish any details where he had gone on that day.
I. Proximity between time of death and last seen together and test of proximity of distance -
69. The proximity between the time of death and last seen together is essential to conclude that the accused and deceased were last seen together without the probability of other persons coming in between exists.
FIR No. 922/14 State Vs. Arun Chauhan 42/56
70. Adverting to the facts of instant case, it has come in the testimony of PW14, Ct. Vedveer that the spot of incident i.e. Kabristan, Kardam Puri was an isolated place where one or two persons were found passing during day time. He further deposed that distance between Gokulpuri, where motorcycle was parked and Kabristan was about 1 to 1.5 km. Similarly, PW17, SI Nitesh testified during cross examination that it took about 1- 1 ½ hours in search proceeding of knife near drainage on 16.11.2014. No public person reached there during the period. He volunteered that it was a lonely place. It is also his testimony that under construction site of metro was not under process of construction at that time. He also deposed that they stayed at that place for around one hour but no person/employee was seen by them in Kabristan and they had not checked inside the Kabristan. Similarly, PW-22/IO testified that they stayed for 1- 1 ½ hours on 17.11.2014 at the place of recovery of knife and no one was found inside the Kardampuri Kabristan. But he testified that during their stay, there was public movement.
71. It is explicit from the conjoint reading of testimony of PW14, Ct. Vedveer and PW17, SI Nitesh and PW-22/IO that the place of incident was quiet place where few persons were seen. Moreover, no metro construction was in progress at that time. Further, the distance between the place of occurrence at Kabristan and place where the deceased was staying is about 3-4 kms as per testimony of PW17 SI Nitesh, which is not very long distance. There was time gap of about 2-2 ½ hours between last seen testimony and noticing the dead body of Aakash, which is not too wide. From the testimony FIR No. 922/14 State Vs. Arun Chauhan 43/56 of PW-14, PW-17 and PW-22 coupled with photographs of scene of crime, it is apparent that the place of occurrence was a lonely place.
72. The murder of the deceased in the morning of 15.11.2014 is also corroborated by the postmortem report as the Department of Forensic Science, GTB Hospital, Delhi received the dead body for postmortem on 16.11.2014 at 10.30 am and opined that time since death is about one day.
73. The question which is relevant for consideration is whether any other person could murder the deceased during the period between last seen evidence at about 7.00 am and the time when dead body was seen by SI Mahavir Parsad on being informed about the same at about 9.25 am. At the first blush, it appears that the possibility of murder by some other person except the accused cannot be ruled out; but the recovery of motorcycle, knife and shirt at the instance of accused, telephone call details, FSL result, subsequent medical opinion unerringly points towards the guilt of accused. As per CDR as furnished, the accused made three call to the deceased in the morning of 15.11.2014 at 6.40 am, 6.59 am and 7.02 am and also made call to Sh. Sanjeev Kumar, PW6, on his mobile number 9911914013 at about 7.32 am to return the motorcycle. All the aforesaid calls are duly notified in CDRs of the mobile No. 9990323261 of the accused.
74. The explanation given by the accused in his statement under section 313 Cr.PC that some other family member of the accused FIR No. 922/14 State Vs. Arun Chauhan 44/56 would have called the deceased does not appear to be plausible in the absence of any evidence led in this regard. Had it been so, the accused would have disclosed the name of family member who was having possession of mobile on the given day. Insofar as planting of knife, motorcycle and shirt on account of non joining of public person is concerned, PW14, Ct. Vedveer has given explanantion in his testimony that that the spot of incident i.e. Kabristan, Kardam Puri was an isolated place where one or two persons were found passing during day time. Similarly, PW17, SI Nitesh testified during cross examination that it took about 1 - 1 ½ hours in search proceeding of knife near drainage on 16.11.2014 and no public person reached there during the said period. He volunteered that it was a lonely place. He further testified that on 17.11.2014, no person / employee was seen by them in the Kabristan and they had not checked inside the Kabristan.
75. During cross-examination, PW14 Ct. Vedveer denied that the drainage near Kabristan, Kardampuri was thoroughfare. He testified that SI Nitesh had not asked any person to join the investigation in his presence on 16.11.2014 and 17.11.2014. He volunteered that at the relevant time, only one or two persons were passing through the place. The crux of the testimony of aforesaid prosecution witnesses and the photographs of scene of crime is that non joining of public persons in the facts of the present case is not fatal to the case of the prosecution. Pertinently, recovery of knife, motorcycle and shirt of the accused, FSL result and supplementary medical opinion coupled with the testimony of prosecution witnesses establish the chain of FIR No. 922/14 State Vs. Arun Chauhan 45/56 evidence pointing towards the guilt of the accused. Before proceeding further, it is necessary to consider the contentions raised by Ld. Legal Aid Counsel for the accused.
APPRECIATION OF ARGUMENTS OF LEGAL AID COUNSEL FOR THE ACCUSED.
I. Presence of Loi / shawl near dead body.
76. It is the contention of the Ld. Legal Aid Counsel that while the IO and SI Nitesh mentioned about the loi / shawl being present near the dead body and even identified the same before court, the PCR witness who first saw the dead body did not notice the same. Also PW-2 did not notice the same when he went to the spot.
77. In so far as PW-2 is concerned, he deposed that Aakash was wearing a shawl and also mentioned the colour of the shawl as mat malia during his cross-examination. He deposed that he did not notice the same shawl on dead body of Akash and had taken just a glimpse of his dead body. Once the PW-3 states that he had just taken a glimpse of dead body, there is possibility that noticing of shawl would have missed his attention. The non-observance of the shawl at the place of incident by one of the PCR witness, PW-10 is not material contradiction to affect the case of the prosecution.
FIR No. 922/14 State Vs. Arun Chauhan 46/56 II. VARIATION IN THE TESTIMONY OF POLICE WITNESSES.
78. It is the contention of Ld. Legal Aid Counsel for the accused that Ct. Vedveer stated that police team had gone to the spot in Swift Car of SI Nitesh whereas other witnesses stated that they had gone in official gypsy. PW-14, Ct Vedveer deposed that on 16.11.2014, they reached at drainage, kabristan, Kardampuri in the Swift car of SI Nitesh whereas SI Nitesh, PW-17 during his cross-examination deposed that they proceeded from police station in evening hours on 16.11.2014 and used one vehicle i.e. official gypsy for transport. The said contradiction in the description of the vehicle is not so material which will go to the root of the matter and demolish the case of prosecution.
79. It is also pointed out that Ct. Vedveer, PW-14 had not mentioned the presence of IO / SHO Ramesh Kalsan on 16.11.2014 and 17.11.2014 when the recoveries of shirt, motorcycle and knife were made at the instance of accused. PW-14 Ct. Vedveer testified that on the instructions of SHO, he along with Ct. Hari Mohan, SI Nitesh and accused Arun Chauhan went to the spot. He maintained the said stand even during cross-examination by Ld. Addl. PP for the State. Be that as it may, the fact cannot be over looked that PW-14, Ct. Vedveer has identified the accused Arun in court. He has also identified the knife, Ex.PW-14/Article 1; its sketch as Ex.PW-14/C and Seizure memo of Knife as Ex.PW14/D. He has also identified the shirt having stains as Ex.PW-14/Article 2 and its seizure memo as Ex PW-14/A. He has also admitted the seizure memo of FIR No. 922/14 State Vs. Arun Chauhan 47/56 motorcycle Ex.PW-6/A, site plan of recovery of motorcycle, Ex.PW- 14/B.
80. Pertinently, the seizure memo of shirt, Ex.PW-14/A was prepared by Sh. Ramesh Kalsan and witnessed by Ct. Hari Mohan and Ct. Vedveer. Similarly, site plan of recovery of motorcycle Ex.PW-14/B, sketch of knife, Ex.PW-14/C, seizure memo of knife, Ex.PW-14/D were prepared by Sh. Ramesh Kalsan and witnessed by Ct. Hari Mohan and Ct. Vedveer. The said documents have not been disputed by Ct. Vedveer, so, there appears to be no merit in the contention of Ld. Legal aid counsel for the accused that the doubt created by the Ct. Vedveer about the non presence of Ramesh Kalsan in the investigation carried out on 16/17.11.2014 is material to the case of prosecution.
81. In State Vs. Saravanan & Anr. AIR 2009 SC 152, while dealing with a similar issue, this Court observed as under :-
".....while appreciating the evidence of a witness, minor discrepancies on trivial matters without affecting the core of the prosecution case, ought not to prompt the court to reject evidence in its entirety. Further, on the general tenor of the evidence given by the witness, the trial court upon appreciation of evidence forms an opinion about the credibility thereof, in the normal circumstances the appellate court would not be justified to review it once again without justifiable reasons. It is the totality of the situation, which has to be taken note of. Difference in some minor detail, which does not otherwise affect the core of the prosecution case, even if present, that itself would not prompt the court to reject the evidence on minor variations and discrepancies."
FIR No. 922/14 State Vs. Arun Chauhan 48/56
82. It is also the contention of Ld. Legal aid counsel for the accused that the recovery was not effected by the police in the presence of any public witness. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the recent judgment dated 15.02.2019 passed in Crl. Appeal No. 2100 of 2008 titled as Kripal Singh Vs State of Rajasthan has held that there is no legal proposition to say that evidence produced by police offi- cials is unworthy of acceptance without the support of an indepen- dent witness. Relevant paras are reproduced hereunder as:-
"8. Learned senior counsel further submits that the recov- ery memos of axe(Exh. 40), dhoti(Exh. 36) and motorcycle(Exh. 51) has been attested by the police per- sonnel with no independent witnesses i.e. PW 15 Dhara Singh and PW 22 Raghuveer Singh for axe and Birdhi Chand, SHO(PW20) and Shafiq Mohammed(Head Consta- ble) PW23 for motor cycle have been produced to attest the said recoveries and a presumption with regard to state-
ment by police officer as independent evidence cannot be presumed under Section 114 of the Evidence Act.
17. The submission of the learned senior counsel for the appellant that recovery has not been proved by any independent witness is of no substance for the reason that in the absence of independent witness to support the recovery in substance cannot be ignored unless proved to the contrary. There is no such legal proposition that the evidence of police officials unless supported by indepen- dent witness is unworthy of acceptance or the evidence of police officials can be outrightly disregarded."
83. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Baldev Singh Vs. State of Haryana 2015(17) SCC 554 has observed as under:-
FIR No. 922/14 State Vs. Arun Chauhan 49/56 "10. There is no legal proposition that evidence of police officials unless supported by independent evidence is unworthy of acceptance. Evidence of police witnesses cannot be discarded merely on the ground that they belong to police force and interested in the investigation and their desire to see the success of the case. Prudence however requires that the evidence of police officials who are interested in the outcome of the result of the case needs to be carefully scrutinized and independently appreciated. Mere fact that they are police officials does not by itself give rise to any doubt about their creditworthiness."
84. Adverting to the facts of the case, minor discrepancies pointed out by ld. Legal aid counsel in the testimony of witnesses would not prompt the court to reject the evidence in its entirety as the said minor discrepancies on trivial matters do not affect the core of the prosecution case.
III. NO BLOOD STAINS ON THE MOTORCYCLE AND COLOUR OF THE MOTORCYCLE.
85. It is the contention of Ld. Legal aid counsel for the accused that no blood stains were noticed on the motorcycle and there is discrepency in the testimony of the witnesses regarding the colour of the motorcycle. PW-1 Subhash Chand in his testimony deposed that Aakash was already present outside his house on a red colour motorcycle. PW-2 Sh. Prashant Goswami had also seen Arun @ Bablu and Aakash @ Soni coming from the side of C Block on a red colour motorcycle. PW-3 Sh. Vishal Kumar, younger brother of the deceased saw the accused standing with motorcycle on the corner of the gali at a distance of around 30-40 yards from the gate of FIR No. 922/14 State Vs. Arun Chauhan 50/56 house and testified during his cross-examination that accused had come on the motorcycle of red colour. PW-4, Sh. Pankaj Sharma had also seen Soni @ Aakash coming on a motorcycle from the side of Ganga Vihar and going towards Gokalpuri but he did not state about any colour of the motorcycle. PW-6, Sh Sanjiv Kumar user of the motorcycle deposed that black coloured dikki of local company was attached to his motorcycle at that time. He also testified that the colour of his motorcycle is black with red stipes.
86. In so far as the deposition of PW-6 is concerned, he has mentioned about the use of red colour in the motorcycle along with the black colour. The deposition of the aforesaid witnesses, PW-1 to PW-3 about the last seen of the deceased in the company of the accused on the red colour motorcycle does not mean that the motorcycle was not having black colour dikki or it was not having black colour more so when PW-6 himself deposed that the motorcycle is black having red stripes. Further, photographs of the mototrcycle are on record which makes it apparent that the colour of the motorcycle is more red than the black.
87. The contention of Ld. Legal aid counsel for the accused that the motorcycle seized vide seizure memo, Ex.PW-6/A was not having blood stains has no significance. The reason for stating so it that the said motorcycle belongs to PW-6, Sh. Sanjeev Kumar, who testified that the accused used to take his motorcycle whenever he needed the same and lastly he took the motorcycle on 15.11.2014 when the accused came to his house at about 6.00-6.30 a.m. After FIR No. 922/14 State Vs. Arun Chauhan 51/56 about half an hour, the accused called PW-6 on his mobile No. 9911914013 and told him to take the motorcycle parked with keys behind Gokalpuri police station near garbage house. Accordingly, PW-6 brought back the motorcycle to his house. The motorcycle was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW-6/A on 16.11.2014 when police along with other persons came to his house in the evening.
88. It is apparent from the testimony of PW-6, Sh. Sanjeev Kumar that the accused had parked the motorcycle at one place which is near garbage house, behind Gokulpuri PS, which infers that the accused had left the vehicle before committing the offence. Further, the motorcycle was seized from house of PW-6, Sh. Sanjeev Kumar. So, the absence of blood stains on the motorcycle has no relevance. The testimony of PW-6, Sh. Sanjeev Kumar that he had given the motor cycle to the accused on 15.11.2014 in the morning, the said circumstance also connects the accused with last seen theory of the accused with the deceased Aakash on the motorcycle.
89. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Sharad Birdhi Chand Sarda vs State Of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116, observed that the cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence is that a case can be said to be proved only when there is certain and explicit evidence and no pure moral conviction. The Hon'ble Apex Court has reiterated the principles that before a case against an accused vesting on circumstantial evidence can be said to be fully established, the following conditions must be fulfilled as laid down in Hanumat's v. State of M.P. [1953] SCR 1091 as:
FIR No. 922/14 State Vs. Arun Chauhan 52/56
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 with the hypothesis of guilt and 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.
90. In Appeal (crl.) 641 of 1998, State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Sanjay Rai decided on 25 March, 2004, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as under:-
"It has been consistently laid down by this Court that where a case rests squarely on circumstantial evidence, the inference of guilt can be justified only when all the in incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be in compatible with the innocence of the accused or the guilt of any other person. (See Hukam Singh v. State of Rajasthan AIR (1977 SC 1063); Eradu and Ors. v. State of Hyderabad (AIR 1956 SC 316); Earabhadrappa v. State of Karnataka (AIR 1983 SC 446); State of U.P. v. Sukhbasi and Ors. (AIR 1985 SC 1224); Balwinder Singh v. State of Punjab (AIR 1987 SC 350); Ashok Kumar Chatterjee v. State of M.P. (AIR 1989 SC 1890). The cir FIR No. 922/14 State Vs. Arun Chauhan 53/56 cumstances 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 circum stances. In Bhagat Ram v. State of Punjab (AIR 1954 SC
621), it was laid down that where the case depends upon the conclusion drawn from circumstances the cumulative effect of the circumstances must be such as to negative the innocence of the accused and bring the offences home beyond any reasonable doubt."
91. Applying the ratio of aforesaid cases to the facts of instant case, the circumstances which unerringly points towards the guilt of the accused in the present case are as :-
(i) After last seen theory, the accused was not found present in his own house though on the date of incident i.e. 15.11.2014, Kavita, wife of the deceased was reported to be died at about 5:00 AM in the house itself.
(ii). The defence of the accused in his statement u/s 313 Cr.PC that he had left his house at about 5.30 -5.40 am on that day is not suffice in the eyes of law as no explanation has been put forth by the accused about the place where he went so early in the morning.
(iii). Proximity of time and place - The time gap between the last seen testimony and noticing of dead body is about two to two and half hours which is not very wide. Further, the distance between the place of occurrence and house of the deceased as well as accused is about 3 km which is also not very long distance. The place of occurrence is also quiet place as FIR No. 922/14 State Vs. Arun Chauhan 54/56 apparent from the testimony of PW-14, Vedveer and photographs placed on record. The metro construction work was also stated to be not going on, meaning thereby the passerby would be very few or even no passerby at the place of occurrence during morning hours when the incident happened.
(iv). PW-1, PW-2, PW-3, PW-4 and PW-19 had lastly seen the deceased in the company of the accused on the motorcycle around 7.00 am on the day of incident. The aforesaid witnesses testified that they had not seen the deceased thereafter.
(v). Three Telephone calls on the same day i.e. 15.11.2014 by the accused to the deceased on his mobile number points towards the guilt of the accused. Similarly, telephone call to Sanjeev, owner of the motorcycle at about 7.32 am, on the day of incident by the accused also connects the accused with the crime.
(vi). Disclosure Statement of the accused is admissible to the extent of recovery of shirt, motorcycle and the knife.
(vii). Medical opinion by Dr. Vishwajeet Singh to the effect that injuries on the dead body of the deceased could be possible with the recovered knife.
(viii). Same blood group on the shirt of the accused and the clothes of the deceased is also a circumstance which points towards the guilt of the accused.
FIR No. 922/14 State Vs. Arun Chauhan 55/56
(ix). The accused/appellant did not give any satisfactory
explanation in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.PC. The accused was lastly seen on a motorcycle with the deceased around 7.00 am but he did not disclose the place where he got separated from the deceased. The accused was bound to disclose the facts which were within his special knowledge as per Section 106 of Evidence Act. He did not offer any explanation about the place of severance from the deceased while he was lastly seen with the deceased on the motorcycle.
92. The aforesaid incriminating circumstances have been fully established against the accused and falls within the parameters laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in Sharad Birdhi Chand Sarda vs State Of Maharashtra, (supra). The aforesaid chain of circumstances is so complete and show that in all human probability, the murder of deceased Aakash has been done by the accused.
93. In view of the above, the prosecution has established beyond reasonable doubt that the accused Arun Chauhan had committed the murder of the deceased Aakash and is hereby convicted under Digitally signed by Section 302 IPC. MANJUSHA WADHWA MANJUSHA Location: Shahdara WADHWA District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi Date: 2019.04.06 16:56:03 +0530 Announced in the open court (MANJUSHA WADHWA) today on 06.04.2019 Additional Sessions Judge-03 Shahdara District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi FIR No. 922/14 State Vs. Arun Chauhan 56/56