Delhi District Court
State vs (1) Malkit Singh @ Meeta on 20 October, 2016
IN THE COURT OF SH. REETESH SINGH, ASJ-02, NEW DELHI DISTRICT,
PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
Case ID No. 02403R1075242009
Sessions Case No. 68 of 2013
State Versus (1) Malkit Singh @ Meeta
Son of Harjit Singh
Resident of 93-A, Guru Nanak Avenue
Majeetha Road, Amritsar
Punjab.
(2) Wahengbam Thoithoiba Meitei
@ Momu
Son of W. Birdhaja Meitei
Resident of Ahallup Makha Leikai
PS Heingang, PO Mantripukihri
District Imphal East
Manipur.
(3) Thangboi Chonglai
Son of Nagamlun Chonglai
Resident of Khunkho,
PO Mantripukihri, Sadar Hills,
District Senapati, Manipur.
(4) Wahengban Dinamani Singh
@ W. John
Son of Chandermani Singh
Resident of Ahallup Makha Leikai
PS Heingang, PO Mantripukihri
District Imphal East
Manipur.
(5) Ningoban Surenderjit Singh
@ Elvin Singh
Son of Ningoban Bino Singh
Resident of Khorai Kangpal Sajor
Leiki, Imphal East
Manipur.
(6) Ranbir Singh @ Boboi
Son of Biren Singh
Resident of Kontha Ahallup Makha
Leikai, Imphal East
Manipur.
State vs. Malkit Singh & Ors. 1/123
FIR No. 566 of 2007, PS Special Cell
(7) R.K. Ricky @ Rajkumar @ Raju
@ King
Son of R.K. Rakesh
Resident of House No.35,
Village Hojai, District Naogoun,
Assam.
(8) N. Ojit Kumar @ Allen
Son of N. Joy Singh
Resident of Village Kwakaithel
PS Lamphel, District Imphal West
Manipur.
(9) Minthang @ David Chongloi
Son of Late Khuplal
Resident of House no.1
Village Jangloi, PS Saikul,
District Senapti
Manipur.
(10) L. Ranbir Singh @ Suleman
Son of L. Tarun Singh
Resident of House No.28
Manipur Basti, PS G.S. Road
District Kamrup
Assam.
(11) King @ Raju Khangembam
Son of K. Iboyaima
Resident Keisham Thonghobam
Leirak, Imphal West
Manipur.
FIR No. : 566 of 2007
U/s: 302/394/201/120B IPC
PS: Special Cell
Date of institution of the case : 11.04.2008
Date when the case reserved for judgment : 20.08.2016
Date of announcement of judgment : 20.08.2016
JUDGMENT
1. Malkit Singh @ Meeta, Wahengbam Thoithoiba Meitei @ Momu, Thangboi Chongloi, Wahengban Dinamani Singh @ W. John, Ningoban State vs. Malkit Singh & Ors. 2/123 FIR No. 566 of 2007, PS Special Cell Surenderjit Singh @ Elvin Singh, Ranbir Singh @ Boboi, R.K. Ricky @ Rajkumar @ Raju @ King, N. Ojit Kumar @ Allen, Minthang @ David Chongloi, L. Ranbir Singh @ Suleman and King @ Raju Khangembam are facing trial in this Court for the offences punishable under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), under Section 302 read with Section 120B of the IPC, under Section 394 read with Section 120B of the IPC and Section 201 read with Section 120B of the IPC.
CASE OF THE PROSECUTION:
2. The case of prosecution is that the deceased K. Hangsing was the chief of the Kuki Revolutionary Army (KRA) which had been formed in December, 1999 with the help of the National Socialist Council of Nagaland (NSCN-IM). Accused Minthang @ David Chongloi had joined KRA after being motivated by K. Hangsing. Minthang @ David Chongloi in 2003. In June 2007 Lunkhogin Chongloi, younger brother of Minthang @ David Chongloi was detained by K. Hangsing and on 21.08.2007 he was was shot dead. Minthang @ David Chongloi wanted to avenge the killing of his brother as he suspected that K. Hangsing was responsible for his death.
3. One Nando, brother-in-law of accused Ranbir Singh @ Boboi and Tombi Singh (accused yet to be arrested) was killed by KRA on 18.09.2007. The real name of Tombi Singh was Wahengbam Luwangamba @ Ramananda. After marriage Tombi Singh had changed his identity and was an active member of United National Liberation Front (UNLF). Tombi Singh was working as a courier for money for rebel outfits of Manipur for which he was being paid commission.
4. Accused King @ Raju Khangembam had also joined Tombi Singh who was member of UNLF in 2005. In March 2007 Tombi Singh had called King @ Raju Khangembam to Guwahati and he had come to Delhi with Tombi Singh for the treatment of one Shanti Kumar. They had resided at a flat at Bharat State vs. Malkit Singh & Ors. 3/123 FIR No. 566 of 2007, PS Special Cell Nagar, New Friends Colony for two months during which they became friends with Surenderjeet Singh and Dinamani Singh. Surenderjeet Singh and accused Dinamani Singh had become friends as they were using the same gym in the area of New Friends Colony in Delhi. Tombi Singh was an old classmate of accused Surenderjeet Singh. One Rabi relative of Shanti Kumar also had become their friend. They had gone to Chandigarh in a Tata Safari of one Bhupender, friend of Dinamani Singh for the treatment of Shanti Kumar to Chandigarh where they stayed for one month.
5. Minthang @ David Chongloi planned the murder the K. Hangsing and contacted one DT Haokip. DT Haokip had a personal grudge against K. Hangsing. K. Hangsing was also trying to kill DT Haokip. DT Haokip (accused yet to be arrested) contacted Tombi Singh to eliminate K. Hangsing and called him to Dimapur. Tombi Singh went to Dimapur with King @ Raju Khangembam. There they along with Allen met DT Haokip and conspired to kill K. Hangsing and decided to form a new organization after his murder. DT Haokip was aware that K. Hangsing was in Delhi and asked Minthang @ David Chongloi to go to Delhi to follow the movements of K. Hangsing. Minthang @ David Chongloi came to know that accused Thangboi Chongloi was studying in Delhi and that Thangboi Chongloi was a friend of the younger brother of K. Hangsing and used to frequently visit their premises. Tombi Singh met Surenderjeet Singh in Delhi and asked him for help in eliminating K. Hangsing to which he agreed.
6. Minthang @ David Chongloi came to Delhi on 22.10.2007 and resided with Solomon Gangte in Mehrauli a person whom he knew through his uncle Kamchoin Chongloi. Solomon Gongte at the request of Minthang @ David Chongloi arranged for an Idea Cellular mobile number 9891204529 through Abdul Manan Chaudhary. One day some relatives of Solomon Gangte had come to reside in his flat and due to lack of space he i.e. Minthang @ David Chongloi and Abdul Manan Chaudhary stayed at G.K. Guest House, 53/1 Yusuf Sarai, Delhi for one night. Minthang @ David Chongloi contacted Thangboi Chongloi State vs. Malkit Singh & Ors. 4/123 FIR No. 566 of 2007, PS Special Cell on his number 9871516589 and met him at Ashram, Delhi. They then took one room on rent at First Floor, 365, Sunlight Colony-1, Delhi where he shifted in the first week of November. Thangboi Chongloi gave a map of the flat of K. Hangsing to Minthang @ David Chongloi who asked Thangboi Chongloi to keep a watch on the movements of K. Hangsing.
7. On 05.11.2007 Ranbir Singh @ Boboi, Tombi Singh, Kullamani, Minthang @ David Chongloi, Raju @ King, Rabi came to Delhi by train, North East Express. Minthang @ David Chongloi met him at the flat of Dinamani Singh and Surinderjeet Singh at Bharat Nagar at their flat at 67A, Second Floor, Bharat Nagar, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi where Kamlen @ Allen, Raju @ King, Kulamani, Naoba @ Rabi were present. They planned the murder of K. Hangsing at the said flat. Minthang @ David Chongloi explained the map of flat of K. Hangsing to them and stayed overnight with them at the said flat at Bharat Nagar. During the course of their planning, they felt the the need to associate a North Indian who could get the door of the flat of K. Hangsing opened posing as a Delhi Police official.
8. Tombi Singh called up accused WTT Meitei, his cousin brother and a member of the BSF hockey team. WTT Meitei was thus involved in the conspiracy of the murder. Accused Malkit Singh was a member of the same BSF Hockey team which was stationed in Hazaribagh. There he came into contact with W.T.T. Meitei. Their team was to be shifted to Chandigarh. While at Hazaribagh, Malkit Singh had run up loans and credits in the camp. To repay the same asked W.T.T. Meitei for a loan but W.T.T. Meitei did not give him money. On 06.11.2007, their team proceeded from Hazaribagh by Kalka Mail for Chandigarh. While on their journey, W.T.T. Meitei, having already joined the conspiracy of the murder, told Malkit Singh him that if he required money, he would have to help his elder brother Tombi Singh in his plans against payment of money. Malkit Singh accepted the offer and got down from the train in Delhi on 07.11.2007 on the pretext that he had to meet one of his friends. On 07.11.2007 State vs. Malkit Singh & Ors. 5/123 FIR No. 566 of 2007, PS Special Cell Dinamani Singh and Tombi Singh received Malkit Singh from New Delhi Railway Station and brought him to the flat at 67 A, Second Floor, Bharat Nagar, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi. While at Delhi Malkit Singh delivered some whiskey bottles to Roop Singh a BSF Employee at Lodhi Road, Delhi.
9. On 11.11.2007 accused L. Ranbir Singh @ Suleman came to Delhi. He was to arrange for weapons but did not do so and . Tombi Singh and King @ Raju purchased one lighter pistol, two hammers and ropes. The hammer was purchased from M/s Ajay Paint and Hardware Shop at 8, Bharat Nagar, New Friends Colony. At about 6.30 pm on 11.11.2007 Minthang @ David Chongloi called up Thangboi Chongloi and asked him about the presence of K. Hangsing. Thangboi Chongloi went to his flat at about 8 pm and sent him an SMS stating "problem". At 10 pm Minthang @ David Chongloi called up Thangboi Chongloi asking him what the problem was and he told Minthang @ David Chongloi that there were four people present in the flat.
10. The accused persons divided themselves into three groups. Group-1 was of Malkit Singh, Naoba @ Rabi, Surinderjeet Singh, Dinamani Singh and Kulamani. The second group had Tombi Singh, Kamlen @ Allen and Raju @ King and the third group comprised Minthang @ David Chongloi, L. Ranbir Singh @ Suleman. All of them gathered near the wall of flyover at Hari Nagar near Ashram. Minthang @ David Chongloi alongwith Rabi led the rest to the flat of K. Hangsing. At about 12.15 midnight they together entered the flat of K. Hangsing at 3rd floor, H.No. 340, Hari Nagar, Ashram, Delhi whose main door was closed but not locked from inside. At that time S. Hangsing, Paolenlal, Paominthang and K. Hangsing were present in the flat. Tombi Singh and Dinamani Singh introduced themselves as Manipur Combined Force Commandos and asked the inmates of the flat to put their heads down. They were overpowered, their hands and legs tied and their faces covered. Minthang @ David Chongloi then pointed out K. Hangsing who requested them not to harm the other three who were his younger brothers. Tombi Singh, Raju @ King State vs. Malkit Singh & Ors. 6/123 FIR No. 566 of 2007, PS Special Cell and Kulamani took K. Hangsing in the other room and after sometime his head was crushed by Tombi Singh with the use of a hammer. Thereafter they took three mobile handsets and one laptop from the flat and left.
11. Minthang @ David Chongloi, Tombi Singh, L. Ranbir @ Suleman @ Boboi, Kulamani, Malkit Singh and Allen reached reached ISBT. All then took a bus and went to Chandigarh where they reached in the morning of 12.11.2007 and stayed at Hotel City Heart Residency, Sector 22 Chandigarh in room nos. 208 and 215. Rabi, Dinamani Singh and Surinderjeet Singh remained in Delhi and went to E-196, Second Floor, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi to the house of a common friend. On 12.11.2007 Tombi Singh called up WTT Meitie and told him that K. Hangsing had been killed and WTT Meitie went to Hotel City Heart at Chandigarh and met Tombi Singh and others. Tombi Singh had given one of the mobile phone handsets taken from the place of the incident and had given it to Malkit Singh. On the next day Malkit Singh left for his BSF Camp. He was paid Rs. 15,000/- by Tombi Singh for his assistance in the murder. On 14.11.2007, Minthang @ David Chongloi with Kulamani and Allen took a train to Kolkatta and went to Dimapur. Minthang @ David Chongloi went to Imphal. Rs.7,223/- was paid against one bill through an ICICI Bank Debit Card issued against an account in the name of Dinamani Singh.
12. In mid December 2007, Minthang @ David Chongloi went to Dimapur and met DT Haokip, Tombi Singh and others and decided to form a fraction of KRA by the name of KRA U (Unification). The meeting took place in the house of N. Ojit Kumar at Dimapur. On 21.12.2007 they had formed KRAU and faxed letter to the media and a letter to the editor of ISTV a local channel of Manipur regarding formation of KRAU and justification for the murder of K. Hangsing. On 13.01.2008 they were apprehended by Assam Rifles. Drafts of the letter prepared by Tombi Singh and DT Haokip which were recovered at the time of their apprehension.
State vs. Malkit Singh & Ors. 7/123 FIR No. 566 of 2007, PS Special Cell REPORTING OF THE INCIDENT AND INVESTIGATIONS:
13. The manner in which the offence alleged to have been committed by the accused persons were discovered have been explained in the police report under Section 173 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) as per which Daily Dairy (DD) entries no. 28, 29 and 31 were recorded in police post Sunlight Colony in the intervening night of 11/12.11.2007. DD No. 28 Ex. PW 41/A records that information was received at 12.45 am that there was a lot of hue and cry being raised in H.No. 340, Hari Nagar Ashram. DD No. 29 Ex. PW 41/B records that at 1.10 am information was received that one person had entered house no. 340, Second Floor. DD No. 31 Ex. PW 41/C records that at 1.50 am information was received from AIIMS that K. Hangsing resident of 340, Hari Nagar Ashram had been brought to AIIMS by his brother David for a gun shot injury in respect of which MLC No. 143309 had been prepared.
14. The same were marked for inquiry to Sub-Inspector (SI) Bishwjit who proceeded to the Flat no.340, Hari Nagar, Ashram, New Delhi where Head Constable (HC) Krishan Veer Singh along with staff were already present. It came to light that an injured person had been taken AIIMS. HC Krishan Veer Singh was left at the place of the incident and SI Bishwjit proceeded to AIIMS. At AIIMS, he found that Inspector (Insp.) Mahender Singh, SHO (Station House Officer) of Police Station (PS) Sriniwas Puri had already arrived and K. Hangsing was being treated for injuries was unconscious. Doctors had recorded in MCL No. 143309 of 2007 that the patient had received a gunshot injury on his head. Satminthang Hangsing, the younger brother of the injured was present in the hospital and his statement was recorded by SI Bishwjit.
15. In his statement, Satminthang Hangsing had stated that he was residing on the third floor of property no. 340, Hari Nagar, Ashram, New Delhi and was a student of PGDAV College at Nehru Nagar. He was residing at the said address with his elder brother David Hangsing and cousin Paolenlal. His State vs. Malkit Singh & Ors. 8/123 FIR No. 566 of 2007, PS Special Cell elder brother K. Hangsing had come to Delhi for treatment and was receiving treatment at Max Hospital, Saket. Two days ago, Paominthang, a friend of David Hangsing had also come to his house. In the evening of the incident, the informant Satminthang Hangsing, K. Hangsing, Paolenlal and Paominthang were sitting in the room watching a Manipuri movie on television. K. Hangsing and Paominthang were sitting on the floor and playing chess. The main door of the house was closed but was not locked from inside. At about 00:15hours, some persons entered their flat. Some of these persons had weapons in their hands and told Satminthang Hangsing and other persons in Manipuri language that they belonged to Manipur Combined Commando Force and directed all the four persons to lie down on the ground and all four got scared and lay down on the ground. These persons then tied the hands of all the four persons and asked them their names. 2-3 of these persons then took K. Hangsing into the other room and increased the volume of the television. After a few minutes all of them went away and picked up from the floor their mobile phones which had the numbers 9999895223, 9873315102 and 9899618957.
16. In his statement, Satminthang Hangsing further stated that his legs were not tightly tied and after making efforts he was able to free his legs and went to the other room and found his brother K. Hangsing was lying on the floor and a lot of blood was oozing out from his head and that he had been shot with a bullet on his head. Satminthang Hangsing then went down to the second floor and found a young boy and asked him to untie his hands. That boy asked Satminthang Hangsing about the matter and after Satminthang Hangsing told him the matter, that boy then said that he was going to call the police and Satminthang Hangsing then went down. Thangboi and Chochon were residing in a house close to that of Satminthang Hangsing and latter informed them about the incident and got his hands untied. These two boys went with Satminthang Hangsing to his flat and all of them took K. Hangsing in injured condition to AIIMS in a Taxi Scooter Rickshaw (TSR) and got him admitted there. Satminthang Hangsing further stated that his household articles had been State vs. Malkit Singh & Ors. 9/123 FIR No. 566 of 2007, PS Special Cell scattered and he would have to check to find out what all was missing. He stated that when he reached AIIMS, his brother David Hangsing also reached there.
17. After recording the statement Satminthang Hangsing and collecting MLC of the injured, SI Bishwjit prepared the rukka for the offences under Section 307, 394, 34 of the IPC and sent the same for registration of FIR through Constable (Ct) Mahender Singh. SI Bishwjit then proceeded to the place of the incident where he reached at about 00:15 hours of 12.11.2007 along with Satminthang Hangsing. SI Bishwjit prepared the site plan of the place of the incident at the instance of Satminthang Hangsing. South District Crime Team was called to the spot. It was inspected by SI Vinod Pal and photographed by Ct Anand, both of the Crime Team. A blood stained hammer was found lying in the south-west side of the room with engraved mark of 'RAJA 2lb'. The sketch of the hammer was prepared which was then put into a clothe parcel and sealed with the seal of BK. Some blood stained clothes, pieces of rope and blood samples were taken into possession and seized vide their respective seizure memos. The injured K. Hangsing died at AIIMS at about 4:30pm of 12.11.2007 and futher investigation was handed over Insp. Mahender Singh, SHO of PS Sriniwas Puri. Postmortem of K. Hangsing was carried out. Viscera of the deceased kept in a box. His undergarments, tabeez, blood gauze with sample seals were received by the IO Insp. Mahender Singh from doctors of AIIMS and deposited the same in the Malkhana of PS Sriniwas Puri. Thereafter on 14.11.2007, the further investigation of the case was transferred to Special Cell of Delhi Police, New Delhi Range (NDR), Lodhi Colony. In the Special Cell, the investigation was assigned to Insp. Mohan Chand Sharma.
18. As per the police report, the postmortem report when collected from AIIMS concluded that the cause of death due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of multiple injuries sustained by a blunt force. The signature fracture present on the skull bone was suggestive of injury caused by a hammer'. A State vs. Malkit Singh & Ors. 10/123 FIR No. 566 of 2007, PS Special Cell supplementary statement of Satminthang Hangsing was recorded in which he stated that on 11.11.2007, his friend Thangboi and Chochon had also come to his flat in the evening to watch football and were there for about two hours. Thangboi was using mobile number 9871516589 and Chochon was using 9873691196. Satminthang Hangsing was himself using a Sony Ericsson K-7501, black coloured mobile with number 9899618957. The deceased K. Hangsing was using Nokia N-94, brown / silver coloured using number 9999895223 and Paominthang was using Nokia-6030, black coloured with number 9873315102. He further stated that David Hangsing had a laptop make HCL and all these articles were taken away by the assailants. He also stated that he had assumed that his brother K. Hangsing had been shot by a bullet after seeing blood oozing from his head and that is what he told the police when his statement was recorded in the hospital. Paominthang and Paolenlal also stated that same facts in their supplementary statements.
19. The treatment records of K. Hangsing from Max Hospital Saket were collected during the course of the investigation. The investigation revealed that the deceased K. Hangsing was a self styled chief of Kuki Revolutionary Army (KRA) which was from in December, 1999 with the help of National Socialist Council of Nagaland (NSCN-IM). The mobile handsets taken away by the assailants were put under surveillance via their International Manufacturer Equipment Identity (IMEI) numbers. It was found that the mobile handset of Satminthang Hangsing with IMEI number 352558013325390 was being used with mobile number 9915182813 and the from the records of the concerned Telecom Service Provider and its Customer Application Form (CAF), this number was found to be subscribed in the name of Priya Brata Haldar. Investigation further revealed that this number was being used by a Border Security Force (BSF) hockey team member Malkit Singh in Jalandhar, Punjab.
MALKIT SINGH State vs. Malkit Singh & Ors. 11/123 FIR No. 566 of 2007, PS Special Cell
20. Malkit Singh was apprehended on 20.12.2007 from Laddowali Road, Jalandhar and was brought to Delhi. He was interrogated and gave a disclosure statement which was recorded on 21.12.2007 by Insp. Mohan Chand Sharma. In his disclosure statement, he stated that in Hazaribagh, he came into contact with W.T.T. Meitei, another hockey player. Their team was being shifted to Chandigarh. He had taken loans and credits in Hazaribagh Camp and sought a loan from W.T.T. Meitei to repay the same but he refused. On 06.11.2007, their team proceeded from Hazaribagh by Kalka Mail for Chandigarh. On the way, W.T.T. Meitei told him that if he required money, he would have to help his elder brother Tombi Singh to take revenge from another Manipuri. He disclosed that he accepted the said offer and got down from the train in Delhi on 07.11.2007 on the pretext that he had to meet one of his friends. In Delhi, Malkit Singh met Tombi Singh and Dinamani Singh at Old Delhi Railway Station and he stayed with them from 07.11.2007 to 11.11.2007 at their flat at Bahart Nagar, South Delhi. Malkit Singh further disclosed that in this period, they and their associates had planned to kidnap one Manipuri from their rival group and his role was to get their door opened by posing as a Delhi police officer.
21. Malkit Singh further disclosed that on 11.11.2007, he along with Tombi Singh and other associates King, Dinamani Singh @ John (Pahelwan), Surender, Gaura, Chhota and others went to Hari Nagar at Ashram at about 11pm in three TSR. Tombi Singh had a bag with a hammer and ropes and toy guns to scare the inmates. They collectively entered the third floor flat of house No. 340 where he followed them. The main door of the house was closed but not locked from inside. He entered the flat and the others immediately covered the faces of the four occupants of the flat and tied their hands and legs. Tombi Singh and Dinamani Singh @ John introduced themselves as Manipur Combined Force commandos. Thereafter John, Tombi Singh and two other persons took one of them inside the room after asking their names and later on, he came to know from John that the said person was murdered with a hammer. Thereafter on the instructions of Tombi Singh and John, Malkit Singh with Chhota took a State vs. Malkit Singh & Ors. 12/123 FIR No. 566 of 2007, PS Special Cell TSR and went to Nizammuddin Railway Station. John and Surenderjit also reached their. From the station, all of them went to ISBT Kashmiri Gate in two TSRs and then Malkit Singh with Chhota took a bus and reached Chandigarh in the early morning of 12.11.2007. Thereafter, Chhota handed over him a Sony Ericsson mobile phone handset lifted from the place of the incident because Malkit Singh phone handset was creating problems. Malkit Singh shifted SIM Card of no.9955328386 on this set which he was of Jharkhand and he used the same Delhi. Thereafter Tombi Singh, King, Gaura and Mota reached Chandigarh bus stand and met Malkit Singh. Tombi Singh gave Rs.10,000/- to Malkit Singh for his assistance. All of them then stayed in a hotel near main bus stand at Sector 17 Chandigarh where they took two rooms. On 13.11.2007, Malkit Singh left the hold and joined his team at Chandigarh in BSF Camp where he came to know that he was marked absent. There on 13.11.2007, he purchased on Hutch SIM Card no. 9988971079 on the ID proof provided by the shopkeeper and used the same on his earlier mobile and Sony Ericsson mobile phone. On 16.11.2007, he purchased Airtel connection number 9915182813 on the ID proof of Priya Brata, his colleague and since then he was using the said number on his Sony Ericsson mobile handset. Malkit Singh further disclosed that the said mobile handset was in his bag at barrack of BSF Camp, Jalandhar and that his hockey team with W.T.T. Meitei would move to Lakhnur Camp at Mohali, Chandigarh. He further disclosed he could identify the place where he stayed with Tombi Singh and John at Delhi and get them arrested. He could also identify hotel at Chandigarh and get his Sony Ericsson mobile phone handset recover from his barrack at Jalandhar.
22. On 23.12.2007, Malkit Singh led the police team to the place of the incident i.e. third floor of house no.340, Hari Nagar, Ashram which was recorded vide Ex. PW 1/N. Satminthang who was present in the flat identified Malkit Singh at that time. Thereafter, Malkit Singh led the police team to the house no.67A, Bharat Nagar Second Floor, Delhi and identified the same where he stayed with Dinamani, Surenderjit Singh, Tombi Singh and others from 07.11.2007 to State vs. Malkit Singh & Ors. 13/123 FIR No. 566 of 2007, PS Special Cell 11.11.2007 and planned to kill K. Hangsing which was recorded vide Ex. PW 1/B2. On 24.12.2007 and 27.12.2007, the supplementary statements Ex.PW81/E and Ex.PW81/F respectively were made by Malkit Singh.
23. On 26.12.2007, Malkit Singh led the police team to Chandigarh and pointed out Hotel City Heart Residency in Sector 22, Chandigarh where he with his associates stayed on 12.11.2007 which was recorded vide memo Ex. PW 57/A. He was identified by Rajneesh Kumar, Manager of the said hotel as the same person who had stayed in their hospital with some Manipuri persons on 12.11.2007. On that day in the presence of Malkit Singh documents regarding the stay of the accused persons were seized vide Ex. PW 29/A which included a credit card payment slip of ICICI Bank dated 14.11.2007 for payment of Rs. 7223/- with signature of Dinamani bearing no. 536118 Master Card and bills for room numbers 208 and 215 with mode of payment in cash and credit card. Ex. PW 29/D is the ICICI Bank payment slip. The same revealed that room numbers 208 and 215 had been booked and bill of the hotel was paid from the ICICI Bank debit card in the name of Dinamani Singh. The statement of the account and statement of debit card use were collected from ICICI Bank. The same revealed that debit card was used to make ATM withdrawals between 12.11.2007 to 15.11.2007 at Chandigarh. While at Chandigarh, Malkit Singh led the police team to an ATM at Sector 17 Chandigarh and pointed out the same from where Tombi Singh @ Daba took out Rs.5,000/- and handed it over to him.
24. In his supplementary disclosure statement dated 24.12.2007 Ex.PW81/E, Malkit Singh disclosed that while he was in Hazaribagh, Jharkhand, he was using mobile number 9955328386 which was also used by him during his stay at Delhi from 07.11.2007 to 12.11.2007. At that time Tombi Singh @ Dada was using mobile number 9953459274 and Dinamani Singh was using number 9873576738.
25. In his supplementary disclosure statement dated 27.12.2007, State vs. Malkit Singh & Ors. 14/123 FIR No. 566 of 2007, PS Special Cell Malkit Singh further disclosed that he had managed his stay in Delhi since his coach Mohan was to deliver some whiskey bottles to a BSF employee Roop Singh. Malkit Singh talked to Roop Singh on his mobile phone and handed over to him whiskey bottles at ICICI Bank Building, Near Sai Baba Mandir, Lodhi Colony. At that time, Dinamni @ John and his friend Bhupender had come with Malkit Singh in the car of Bhupender. He further disclosed that Tombi Singh had told him that they were planning to kill K. Hangsing because he had to take personal revenge. Malkit Singh was paid Rs.15,000/- for his assistance in two installments in Chandigarh.
W.T.T. MEITEI
26. As per the police report a police team of the Special Cell had gone to Mohali on 21.12.2007 and came to know that W.T.T. Meitei was coming at Landru Road, Mohali. The police team on the pointing out of a secret informer apprehended W.T.T. Meitei @ Momu. He was personally searched and was found to be in possession of -a mobile phone make Sony Ericssion model K- 750-i black silver colour with IMEI Number 352558013325390 with an Airtel SIM card of number-+ 8991020907018173892H-2 mobile number 9915182813 which he disclosed was lifted from the place of murder on 11.11.2007 and had been given by Tombi Singh to Malkit Singh. W.T.T. Meitei was then brought to Delhi. The same was seized vide memo Ex. PW 62/E.
27. W.T.T. Meitei He admitted to his involvement in the incident. He was brought to Delhi where his disclosure statement was recorded on 22.12.2007. In his disclosure statement Ex.PW81/D, W.T.T. Meitei disclosed that in October, 2007, he had come to Delhi while on leave and resided with Tombi Singh, his cousin brother at his flat at Bharat Nagar in South Delhi where Dinamani Singh and Surenderjit Singh were also residing. While coming from Hazaribagh to Chandigarh with the hockey team of BSF on 6/7.11.2007, Tombi Singh had called him from his mobile no. 9953459274 asking him to arrange a State vs. Malkit Singh & Ors. 15/123 FIR No. 566 of 2007, PS Special Cell non-Manipuri person as he had to settle his disputes with a person in Delhi for which he would pay money. Since Malkit Singh required money, he contacted Malkit Singh who accepted the offer and got down in Delhi on 07.11.2007 on the pretext that he had to meet some friend in Delhi.
28. W.T.T. Meitei further disclosed that Malkit Singh was received by Tombi Singh at Delhi with Dinamani Singh whom W.T.T. Meitei also met the station. W.T.T. Meitei then proceeded to Chandigarh and reached BSF Camp at Mohali on 08.11.2007 and remained in contact with Tombi Singh who told him that Malkit Singh would come back within a few days. On 09.11.2007, Malkit Singh was marked absent and W.T.T. Meitei informed him about it. On 12.11.2007, W.T.T. Meitei received a call from Tombi Singh who told him that task has been finished and they were residing in a hotel at Sector 22 Chandigarh. W.T.T. Meitei then went to the said hotel and met Tombi Singh, Malkit Singh, Rabi and three other Manipuri persons. W.T.T. Meitei was informed by Tombi Singh that they had killed K. Hangsing in Delhi by crushing his head with a hammer.
29. On 27.12.2007 the mobile handset Sony Ericcson recovered from WTT Meitei was identified by S. Hangsing as belonging to him and which had been taken away by the assailants at the time of the incident.
30. On 28.12.2007, W.T.T. Meitei gave a supplementary disclosure statement Ex.PW81/G. In the same, he gave the real identity of Tombi Singh as Wahengbam Luwangamba @ Ramananda and disclosed that he has changed his identity after marriage and was settled in Guwahati. He was an active member of United National Liberation Front (UNLF) and that K. Hangsing who was chief of KRA had killed the brother-in-law of Tombi Singh for which Tombi Singh wanted to take revenge. He disclosed Tombi Singh was working as a carrier for money for different rebel outfits of Manipur against payment of commission. He disclosed that on 06.11.2007, Tombi Singh had told him that all State vs. Malkit Singh & Ors. 16/123 FIR No. 566 of 2007, PS Special Cell preparations had been made to kill K. Hangsing for which they required one non-Manipuri person. In Chandigarh, Tombi Singh had withdrawn Rs.5,000/- from the SBI ATM Card of W.T.T. Meitei as he was in need of money which he promised to return. He further disclosed that he was using no. 9931117670 in Hazaribagh.
31. It is further stated in the police report that as per the CDR of mobile number 9953459274 used by Tombi Singh, it was in regular contact with number 9931117670 of W.T.T. Meitei @ Momu on 07.11.2007 which proves that W.T.T. Meitei @ Momu was part of the conspiracy.
THANGBOI CHONGLAI
32. It further stated in the police report that the number 9891204529 used during the incident was frequently in contact with 9871516589 which was referred by Satminthang Hangsing to be belonging to his friend Thangboi Chongloa who had visited his flat in the evening of 11.11.2007 to watch football. The number 9871516589 was found to be issued in the name of Thangboi Chonglai at the address third floor, 340, Hari Nagar, Ashram, Delhi.
33. On 21.01.2008, Thangboi Chonglai was arrested and he admitted to his involvement in the incident. His disclosure statement was recorded by Inspector Mohan Chand Sharma on 21.01.2008 vide Ex. PW 81/A. Thangboi Chonglai disclosed that he was motivated by David Chongloi of Manipur to join the conspiracy to kill K. Hangsing. Thangboi Chonglai was the friend of Satminthang Hangsing and used to visit his flat and was aware about the presence of K. Hangsing. He used to disclose information about K. Hangsing on number 9891204529 from his mobile number 9871516589. Thangboi Chonglai also disclosed that he had given details / map of the flat of K. Hangsing and had also arranged a room on rent for David Chongloi who residing at 365, Sunlight Colony, Delhi.
State vs. Malkit Singh & Ors. 17/123 FIR No. 566 of 2007, PS Special Cell
34. During the course of investigation on 21.01.2008 Thangboi Chonglai led the police team to First Floor, House No. 365, Sunlight Colony No. 1, New Delhi and pointed out the room which he had arranged in last week of October for Minthang @ David Chongloi. The same was recorded vide Ex. PW 81/J. On that day, certain articles belonging to tenant Minthang @ David Chongloi were seized vide memo Ex. PW 19/A upon being produced by Virender Singh.
SURENDERJIT SINGH, DINAMANI SINGH AND RANBIR @ BOBOI
35. In the police report, it is stated that mobile numbers 9862033661 used by Surenderjit and 9856971205 being used by Dinamani @ John were put under technical surveillance and interception after taking permission from the competent authority. On the basis of secret information, these three were apprehended from a house no.36, Sanjog Path, Hengrabari, Guwahati, Assam. Upon interrogation, they admitted to their involvement in the murder. The disclosure statements of these accused were recorded.
36. In his disclosure statement Ex.PW43/G, Surenderjit Singh disclosed that Dinamani Singh was using the same gym as Surenderjit Singh. They had come to Delhi in the year 2007 and were residing in the area of New Friends Colony and joined a gym. Tombi Singh who was his old classmate had met him in August, 2007 and took them to his room in a nearby area. On 5.11.2007, Tombi Singh which his six associates Kullamani, David, King, Rabi, Boboi and Raju came and told him that a person some rival group was residing in nearby area who had murdered the wife of David. Tombi Singh asked for help of Surenderjit Singh. He promised him all possible help and Tombi Singh told him that he would give him money. On 07.11.2007, Tombi Singh and Dinamani went to Old Delhi Railway Station and came back with Malkit Singh. On the next day, Tombi Singh arranged for a hammer. On 11.11.2007, Surenderjit Singh State vs. Malkit Singh & Ors. 18/123 FIR No. 566 of 2007, PS Special Cell along with other accused persons then went to Hari Nagar, Ashram Chowk where K. Hangsing was murdered. Surenderjit further disclosed that thereafter he along with Dinamani Singh went to Nizamuddin Railway Station where Malkit Singh and Raju were already present and they then went to ISBT from where Malkit Singh and Raju took a bus for Chandigarh while he and Dinamani Singh went to Gandhi Vihar to the house of a common friend and thereafter they came back to their own place. On 26.11.2007, Dinamani Singh left for Imphal and after 2-3 days, he also went there. He then went to Guwahati and resided with Tombi Singh in the area Hengrabari. He further disclosed that Tombi Singh had left the flat at Hengrabari and went to some other place.
37. The disclosure statement Ex.PW43/H of Dinamani Singh was similar to that of Surenderjit Singh. Ranbir Singh @ Boboi in his disclosure statement Ex.PW43/I stated that he knew Tombi Singh from his childhood. He had come to Delhi with Tombi Singh in November, 2007 along with Kullamani, David, King, Rabi and Raju by train North-East Express on 05.11.2007. In Delhi they resided with Surenderjit Singh and Dinamani @ John and on 07.11.2007 Malkit Singh also joined them and then on the asking of Tombi Singh, he accompanied them to Hari Nagar Ashram where the murder was carried out. Thereafter he along with Tombi Singh and David went to ISBT and then to Chandigarh by bus. At Chandigarh they stayed in a hotel where Malkit Singh and others also reached. After 3-4 days all of them left and he remained at PGI Chandigarh Hospital where his aunt was getting treatment. He then joined Surenderjit Singh in Hengerbari Guwahati on 14.01.2008.
38. After these accused persons were arrested, they were produced the Court of CJM Guwahati on 21.01.2008 where a request of transit remand of the accused persons had been made. The accused however sent to judicial custody for one day. On 22.01.2008, application was again moved in the Court of CJM Guwahati who then granted their transit remand. The accused had been taken to the jail by then. Their custody was taken from the jail and then they State vs. Malkit Singh & Ors. 19/123 FIR No. 566 of 2007, PS Special Cell were taken to railway station. They were further interrogated and a supplementary disclosure statements were made by Surenderjit and Dinamani Singh.
39. In his supplementary disclosure statement Ex.PW62/F, Dinmani Singh stated that he could get mobile phones used during the time of the murder recovered from their residence at Hengrabari. They further disclosed that Tombi Singh and Rabi had been arrested by Dimapur police. In his disclosure statement Ex.PW63/G, Surenderjit Singh also disclosed that he could get his mobile phones recovered. In pursuance of these disclosure statements, they led the police team to their house at Hengrabari.
40. At the said house, Dinamani Singh produced amongst others the following mobile phones from his bag which were seized vide Ex. PW 43/J:-
a) One mobile phone make SAGEM 9873576738
IMEI No. 358529000295945
SIM No. 89911100000028511625
b) One mobile phone Nokia 1110
IMEI No. 354539101198601014
SIM No. 70015200771
41. N. Surinderjeet Singh also produced amongst others the following mobile phones from his bag which were seized vide memo Ex. PW 43/K.
a) One mobile phone make SAMSUNG 98682033661 IMEI No. 357512/01/00845617 SIM No. 89911600000000353132 Airtel
b) One mobile phone Benq Seimens IMEI No. 359143001802680 SIM No. 9871922050 Airtel
42. Both these accused along with Ranbir Singh @ Boboi were arrested in Guwahati on 20.01.2008 by SI Rajender Sehrawat. The SIM Cards and handsets used by Surenderjit and Dinamani @ John were recovered at their instance from their rented premises at Guwahati. Another SIM Card of mobile State vs. Malkit Singh & Ors. 20/123 FIR No. 566 of 2007, PS Special Cell no. 9953459281 subscribed in the name of Tombi Singh had also been recovered which had been used in the commission of the offence. Surenderjit, Dinamani @ John and Ranbir Singh @ Boboi admitted to their involvement in the offence and they stated that they along with other co-accused committed the murder. They had gathered in a flat at Bharat Nagar where they had conceived the plan to kill K. Hangsing. After the murder, Surenderjit and Dinamani @ John with accused Ranbir Singh Boboi stayed in a flat of friend of Rabi at Second Floor, E-196, Gandhi Vihar, Delhi while others left for Chandigarh.
43. On 26.01.2008 another disclosure statement of Surenderjit Singh was recorded vide Ex.PW81/M. In the same, he disclosed that he could identify the place where he stayed with Dinamani Singh at Bharat Nagar, Gandhi Vihar, Delhi. Thereafter Surenderjit Singh led the police team of House no. E-196, Second Floor, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi which he identified where he along with Dinamani and Rabi had resided after the murder of K. Hangsingh which was recorded vide identification memo Ex. PW 81/N.
44. On 28.01.2008, a supplementary disclosure statement Ex.PW81/O was made by Dinamani Singh. In the said disclosure statement, Dinamani Singh also stated the same things as stated by Surenderjit Singh.
45. On 30.01.2008, all these accused persons individually identified the place of the murder at H.No. 340, Hari Nagar Ashram, New Delhi which was recorded by separate pointing out memos. The pointing out memo qua accused N. Surenderjit Singh is Ex. PW1/L, qua Dinamani Singh is Ex. PW1/M and qua L. Ranbir Singh is Ex. PW1/P. At that time Satmingthang was also present and he signed on the pointing out memos.
46. On 01.02.2008, Dinamani Singh and Surenderjit Singh made further disclosure statements Ex.PW81/P and Ex.PW81/Q. In his disclosure statement Ex.PW81/P, Dinamani Singh stated that they had an ICICI account State vs. Malkit Singh & Ors. 21/123 FIR No. 566 of 2007, PS Special Cell no. 004601536118 and he handed over its ATM card to Tombi Singh in October, 2007 and was being used by him since then. In Chandigarh on 15.11.2007, Tombi Singh gave him SIM card of Hutch mobile phone number which he had used in Delhi for safe keeping so that he could use it during his visits in Delhi. He disclosed that the same SIM Card with mobile number 9873576738 had been recovered with handsets from him at Guwahati. In his disclosure statement Ex.PW81/Q, Surenderjit further disclosed that during the planning to kill, K. Hangsing, they required some non-Manipuri person to get the door of the flat opened by posing himself as Delhi Police officials. Tombi Singh asked W.TT Meitei for help who motivated Malkit Singh to perform this task in return for money and therefore WTT Meitei was also part of the conspiracy. After the murder of K. Hangsing, he along with Dinamani Singh and Rabi had gone to Chandigarh to deliver bags of other associates to Tombi Singh where he met Tombi Singh, King and others in a hotel at Chandigarh.
47. Subsequently on 02.02.2008, Dinamani Singh led the police team to house no.67A, Second Floor, Bharat Nagar, Delhi which he pointed out was the rented flat where he stayed while plaining the murder. Satya Prakash Aggarwal identified Dinamani Singh and Surenderjit Singh as the persons who resided there. A toy gun was recovered from the rented flat of Surenderjit SIngh and Dinamani Singh @ John at the said flat which was seized vide Ex. PW 18/E. Rent agreement of the flat was produced by Satya Prakash Aggarwal, its owner which was taken into police possession vide memo Ex. PW 18/B. Specimen handwriting of Dinamani Singh and Surenderjit Singh were obtained. Voice samples of Dinamani Singh and Surenderjit Singh were recorded for matching with their intercepted conversations.
48. On 03.02.2008, Dinamani Singh led the police team to Second Floor, E-196, Gandhi Vihar, Delhi and pointed out that he resided there with Surenderjit and Rabi in the night of 11/12.11.2007. He was identified by the occupants of the flat Kennedy and Sadanand. The same was recorded vide Ex.
State vs. Malkit Singh & Ors. 22/123 FIR No. 566 of 2007, PS Special Cell PW 34/A.
49. Ranbir Singh @ Boboi disclosed that he and Tombi Singh @ Ramanand are real brothers. They had killed K. Hangsing as the latter killed his brother-in-law in Manipur. He disclosed that after committing murder, he with Tombi Singh and others went to Chandigarh and stayed in a hotel. Thereafter others left for Guwahati and Manipur while he resided with his cousin W.T.T. Meitei at the BSF Camp.
50. It is further stated in the police report that on 24.01.2008 Surenderjit Singh refused to participate in his TIP vide proceedings Ex. PW 76/F. Further on 25.01.2008 Ranbir Singh @ Boboi and Dinamani Singh @ John also refused to participate in their TIP vide Ex. PW 76/A and Ex. PW 76/B. MINTHANG @ DAVID CHONGLOI, N. OJIT KUMAR @ ALLEN, R.K. RICKY @ RAJKUMAR, L. RANBIR SINGH @ SULEMAN
51. It is stated in the police report that the intercepted conversations of Surenderjit and Dinamani @ John were in Manipuri and were translated into English. Their specimen voice samples were recorded which matched with the intercepted calls. Their specimen signatures were also taken which matched with their signatures on the rent agreement.
52. Surenderjit and Dinamani @ John had disclosed that Tombi Singh, David, Rabi and other co-accused had been arrested in Dimapur, Nagaland. It came to light that these persons have been arrested in FIR No. 2 of 2008 dated 13.01.2008, PS West Dimapur, Nagaland and were lodged in District Jail, Dimapur, Nagaland. Upon applications being made, production warrants were issued qua these seven accused persons. However Rabi and Tombi Singh managed to escape from the police custody of Dimapur in respect of which FIR No. 37 of 2002, PS East Dimapur, Nagaland was registered. Tombi Singh was granted bail from the Dimapur Court. Out of seven accused persons only David State vs. Malkit Singh & Ors. 23/123 FIR No. 566 of 2007, PS Special Cell Chongloi @ Minthang, N. Ojit Kumar @ Allen, R.K. Ricky @ Raj Kumar @ Raju and L. Ranbir Singh @ Suleman were available and were arrested at Dimapur, Nagaland. Some documents, mobile phone SIM Cards, ICICI Bank debit card and diaries were collected from PS West Dimapur relevant to the present case. A paper on which map of the flat of the deceased K. Hangsing in Delhi was also among the said documents / articles. On the reverse side of the said map, resume of Surenderjit was printed which reveals that the map of the said flat was prepared at the flat of Surenderjit and Dinamani @ John in Delhi. In the ICICI Bank debit card belonging to Dinamani and used by Tombi Singh to pay the hotel bill at Chandigarh and withdrew money from the ATM. Three draft letters in Manipuri language addressed to the media intimating formation of KRA (U) was also recovered. These letters were translated into English as per which KRA (U) claimed killing of K. Hangsing and reasons for the same. It was also claimed that Nokia mobile phone set N-95 of K. Hangsing was with them and that he had been killed by special mobile fighting team on 12.11.2007 at Sriniwaspuri, South Delhi. Details of expenditures mentioned in a paper dated 23.12.2007 containing names of Dinamani, Surender, David, Tombi and Kullamani, Naoba and others was found with amounts against the name.
53. In his disclosure statement dated 31.01.2008 Ex. PW 49/A recorded by SI Dharmender Kumar, Minthang @ David Chongloi disclosed that his brother Lunkhogin Chongloi had been killed by K. Hangsing and his associates on 21.08.2007 and then planned to take revenge from K. Hangsing with his associates. In November he alongwith R.K.Ricky @ Raj Kumar, N. Ojit Kumar, L. Ranbir Singh, Lokhomao had gone to Delhi and took a room on rent at the instance of Thangboi Chongloi in Bharat Nagar. On 11.12.2007 he alongwith Tombi Singh, Raj Kumar, Kulamani, Malkit Singh, R. K. Ricky and others had gone to the house of K. Hangsing on the information of Thangboi Chonglai and carried out the murder of K. Hangsing. They had taken three mobile phones and one laptop from the room. He was using one mobile phone at the time of his arrest which was in the custody of Dimapur Police.
State vs. Malkit Singh & Ors. 24/123 FIR No. 566 of 2007, PS Special Cell
54. L. Ranbir Singh @ Suleman gave his disclosure statement dated 31.01.2008 Ex. PW 49/B recorded by SI Dharmender Kumar admitting to his involvement in the incident of murder. He further disclosed that Minthang @ David Chongloi and Tombi Singh were using the mobile phones which had been taken away from the place of the murder.
55. N. Ojit Kumar gave a disclosure statement dated 31.01.2008 recorded by SI Dharmender Kumar vide Ex. PW 49/C in which he admitted to his involvement in the incident and gave a similar disclosure statement as that of others. R.K. Ricky @ Raj Kumar also gave his disclosure statement dated 31.01.2008 recorded vide Ex. PW 49/D by SI Dharmender Kumar, contents of which are identical to that of N. Ojit Kumar.
56. On 31.01.2008 one paper slip Ex. PW 49/K with two contact numbers were found from the possession of N. Ojit Kumar during his search which were seized vide memo Ex. PW 49/I. Similarly, one paper slip Ex. PW 49/L with seven contact numbers were found from the possession of Minthang @ David Chongloi during his search which were seized vide memo Ex. PW 49/J.
57. On 05.02.2008 TIP proceedings with respect to David Chongloi @ Minthang, N. Ojit Kumar @ Allen, R.K. Ricky @ Raj Kumar @ Raju and L. Ranbir Singh @ Suleman were conducted. They refused to participate in the TIP proceedings on the ground that they had been shown to the witness.
58. On 06.02.2008 Inspector M. C. Sharma recorded the disclosure statement of Minthang @ David Chongloi Ex. PW 81/X. In the same Minthang @ David Chongloi disclosed that he had joined KRA after being motivated by K. Hangsing but he left in 2003 because he was not satisfied with their policies. In June 2007 his younger brother Lunkhogin Chongloi was arrested by K. Hangsing and then he went to the village of K. Hangsing to rescue his brother.
State vs. Malkit Singh & Ors. 25/123 FIR No. 566 of 2007, PS Special Cell On 21.08.2007 his brother was shot dead. He came to know that K. Hangsing was responsible for killing of his younger brother. For this reason he got involved in the murder of K. Hangsing. He further disclosed that Nando, brother- in-law of Tombi Singh was killed by KRA on 18.09.2007 and his body had not yet been found. In October 2007 he planned the murder the K. Hangsing and contacted one DT Haokip who told him that K. Hangsing was in Delhi. DT Haokip contacted Tombi Singh to eliminate K. Hangsing. In middle of October 2007 Tombi Singh with his associates met DT Haokip at Dimapur and planned the murder of K. Hangsing and decided to form a new organization after his murder. DT Haokip asked Minthang @ David Chongloi to go to Delhi to collect movements of K. Hangsing. Minthang @ David Chongloi came to know that Thangboi Chongloi was studying in Delhi and he obtained his number.
59. Minthang @ David Chongloi further disclosed that he came to Delhi on 22.10.2007 and resided with Solomon Gangte in Mehrauli whom he knew through his uncle Kamchoin Chongloi. Solomon Gongte arranged for idea mobile number 9891204529 for Minthang @ David Chongloi through Abdul Manan Chaudhary. One day some relatives of Solomon Gangte had come to reside in his flat and due to lack of space he i.e. Minthang @ David Chongloi and Abdul Manan Chaudhary stayed at G.K. Guest House, Yusuf Sarai, Delhi for one night. He then contacted Thangboi Chongloi on his number 9871516589 and met him at Ashram. They then took one room on rent at Sunlight Colony where he shifted in the first week of November. Thangboi Chongloi gave a map about the flat of K. Hangsing and Minthang @ David Chongloi asked Thangboi Chongloi to keep a watch on the movements of K. Hangsing.
60. Minthang @ David Chongloi further disclosed that Thangboi Chonglai was a friend of the younger brother of K. Hangsing and used to frequently visit their premises. On 05.11.2007 Tombi Singh and his associates came to Delhi and Minthang @ David Chongloi met him at the flat of Dinamani Singh and Surinderjeet Singh at Bharat Nagar where Kamlen @ Allen, Raju @ State vs. Malkit Singh & Ors. 26/123 FIR No. 566 of 2007, PS Special Cell King, Kulamani, Naoba @ Rabi were present and they discussed the plan of the murder. Minthang @ David Chongloi explained the map of flat of K. Hangsing and stayed overnight with them at Bharat Nagar. They felt the requirement of a North Indian who could get the door of the flat of K. Hangsing opened posing himself to be a Delhi Police official. Tombi Singh then called up WTT Meitei who is his cousin brother and member of BSF hockey team and was involved in the conspiracy. WTT Meitei then motivated his team member Malkit Singh to join them in their conspiracy against payment of money. On 07.11.2007 Denamani Singh and Tombi Singh received Malkit Singh from New Delhi Railway Station and brought him to the flat at Bharat Nagar, Delhi. Role of Malkit Singh was to get the door of the flat of K. Hangsing opened by pausing as a Delhi Police Official. On 11.11.2007 L. Ranbir Singh @ Suleman came to Delhi and he was the person who was to arrange weapons but he could not do so. On that day, Tombi Singh and King @ Raju purchased one lighter pistol, two hammers and ropes. At about 6.30 pm on 11.11.2007 Minthang @ David Chongloi called up Thangboi Chonglai and asked him about the presence of K. Hangsing. Thangboi Chonglai went to his flat at about 8 pm and sent him an SMS stating "problem". At 10 pm Minthang @ David Chongloi called up Thangboi Chonglai asking him what the problem was and he told Minthang @ David Chongloi that there were four people present in the flat.
61. Minthang @ David Chongloi further disclosed that they divided themselves into three groups, group 1 consisted of Malkit Singh, Naoba @ Rabi, Surinderjeet Singh, Dinamani Singh and Kulamani. The second group consisted of Tombi Singh, Kamlen @ Hallen and Raju @ King and the third group comprised Minthang @ David Chongloi, L. Ranbir Singh @ Suleman. The plan was for the first group to enter the flat and to cover faces of all the occupants of the flat after overpowering them. Thereafter Minthang @ David Chongloi with other persons hired three TSR and reached Ashram Chowk. All of them gathered near the wall of flyover at Hari Nagar near Ashram. Minthang @ David Chongloi alongwith Rabi led the rest to the flat of K. Hangsing. Tombi Singh had State vs. Malkit Singh & Ors. 27/123 FIR No. 566 of 2007, PS Special Cell a bag with the hammer and ropes and toy guns to scare the inmates. At about 12.15 midnight they together entered the flat of K. Hangsing whose main door was closed but not locked from inside. Tombi Singh and Dinamani Singh introduced themselves as Manipur Combined Force Commandos and asked them to put their heads down. All the four persons were overpowered and their hands and legs were tied. Their faces were also covered. Minthang @ David Chongloi then pointed out K. Hangsing and asked him about money and he told them that he would give the money and requested not to harm the other three who were his younger brothers. Tombi Singh, Raju @ King and Kolamani took K. Hangsing in the other room and after sometime his head was crushed by Tombi Singh with the use of a hammer. Thereafter they took three mobile handsets and one laptop from the flat and left one by one.
62. Minthang @ David Chongloi further disclosed that he alongwith Tombi Singh and L. Ranbir @ Suleman reached ISBT in a TSR. Others also reached there. Minthang @ David Chongloi, Tombi Singh, Kulamani, Malkit Singh, L. Ranbir Singh @ Suleman and Allen took a bus and went to Chandigarh where they reached in the morning of 12.11.2007 and stayed at Hotel City Heart near ISBT Chandigarh in two rooms. Rabi, Dinamani Singh and Surinderjeet Singh remained in Delhi. On the next day Malkit Singh left for his BSF Camp. On 14.11.2007, Minthang @ David Chongloi with Kulamani and Allen took a train to Kolkatta and then to Deemapur. Minthang @ David Chongloi thereafter went to Imphal. In mid December 2007, Minthang @ David Chongloi went to Deemapur and met DT Haokip, Tombi Singh and others and decided to form a fraction of KRA by the name of KRAU (Unification). He disclosed that this meeting took place in the house of N. Ojit Kumar at Deemapur. On 13.01.2008 they were apprehended by Assam Rifles. On 21.12.2007 they had formed KRAU and faxed letter to the media and a letter to the editor of IS TV a local channel of Manipur regarding formation of KRAU and justification for the murder of K. Hangsing. Minthang @ David Chongloi further disclosed that the drafts of this letter were prepared by Tombi Singh and Haokip State vs. Malkit Singh & Ors. 28/123 FIR No. 566 of 2007, PS Special Cell which were recovered at the time of their apprehension. The motive for murder of K. Hangsing was revenge and the motive to form KRAU was protection from the family of K. Hangsing and KRA.
63. On 07.02.2008 Minthang @ David Chongloi led the police team and pointed out the third floor flat at Hari Nagar Ashram and the place inside the bathroom where Tombi Singh killed K. Hangsing which was recorded vide Ex. PW 1/O. He also pointed out the drawing room where in the night of 11/12.11.2007 K. Hangsing was present with the other three when they entered his flat. S. Hangsing was present at the time of pointing out proceedings qua Minthang @ David Chongloi who also signed on the pointing out memo. On the same day Minthang @ David Chongloi led the police team to House No. 67 A, Second Floor, Bharat Nagar Gandhi Nagar, Delhi where he alongwith Dinamani Singh, Surinderjeet Singh, Tombi Singh, Rabi, Malkit Singh and others had stayed when they planned the murder. Separate pointing out memo Ex. PW 81/Z to this effect was prepared. Thereafter on the same day Minthang @ David Chongloi led the police team to the first floor back side room of House no. 365, Sunlight Colony-1, Delhi and pointed out the place where he resided on rent in October - November 2007 till the murder of K.Hangsing and separate identification memo Ex. PW 81/AA was prepared.
64. On 08.02.2008 SI Dharmender Kumar alongwith Ct. Parvesh had gone to Dimapur, Nagaland and recorded the statement of Major S.P. Rao, 31 Assam Rifles, who was the complainant of FIR No. 2/2008 PS Dimapur West. On 10.02.2008 SI Dharmender Kumar collected the documents and articles which had been recovered from the accused persons and seized the same vide seizure memo Ex. PW 47/A.
65. On 12.02.2008 Minthang @ David Chongloi pointed out Hotel City Heart Residency at Chandigarh and room no. 208 and 215 where he and his associates had resided after the murder. The same was recorded vide memo State vs. Malkit Singh & Ors. 29/123 FIR No. 566 of 2007, PS Special Cell Ex.PW29/F. The same records that Rajneesh Kumar Hotel Manager had identified Minthang @ David Chongloi. There is a separate pointing out memo of the hotel pertaining to room numbers 208 and 215 pointed out by Minthang @ David Chongloi which is recorded vide memo Ex. PW 54/A.
66. On 13.02.2008 a supplementary disclosure statement of Minthang @ David Chongloi Ex. PW81/QQ was recorded in which he disclosed that he had explained the map of the flat of K. Hangsing to Tombi Singh and other accused persons at the Bharat Nagar Flat of Dinamani Singh. The disclosure statement further records that one map was shown to him by the IO which he confirmed was the same map and which map had been recovered from his possession at the time of his arrest at Dimapur. He further disclosed that he had made the said map as per information given to him by Thangboi Chonglai.
67. On 14.02.2008 Minthang @ David Chongloi led the police team to M.G. Guest House at 53/1, Yusuf Sarai, Delhi which he pointed out where he has resided for one day with Abdul Manan Chaudhary on 25.10.2007. The same was recorded vide Ex. PW 81/SS. The owner of the guest house Sumit Gupta handed over his guest register to the IO which was seized vide memo Ex. PW 17/A. KING @ RAJU KHANGEMBAM
68. As per the supplementary police report, King @ Raju Khangembam was arrested in FIR No. 186 (7) of 2008, PS Imphal. King @ Raju Khangembam had been shifted from Manipur Jail to Tihar Jail. Information of the same was received in the Special Cell. On 31.03.2009 an application was filed before the Court of the CMM, Delhi in pursuance of which he was produced before the said Court. On 02.04.2009 an application was moved for conducting his TIP which was fixed for 04.04.2009 in Tihar Jail. King @ Raju Khangembam refused to participate in his TIP on 04.04.2009. On 06.04.2009 he was produced State vs. Malkit Singh & Ors. 30/123 FIR No. 566 of 2007, PS Special Cell before the Court of the CMM and three days police custody of the accused was granted. He was interrogated and he admitted to his involvement in the offence. His disclosure statement Ex. PW 79/B was recorded by Inspector Sanjay Dutt on 06.04.2009.
69. In his disclosure statement, King @ Raju Khangembam disclosed that in 2005 he met Tombi Singh who was the member of UNLF and he also joined the said activities. In April 2006 he was arrested by Manipur Commandos. After release on bail he started campaigning for L. Jayanta Kumar. In March 2007 Tombi Singh called him to Guwahati and on his request came to Apollo Hospital, Delhi with Tombi Singh and family of Shanti Kumar who had to undergo a kidney transplant. All of them stayed together in a flat at Bharat Nagar, New Friends Colony for two months. During this period he and Tombi Singh became friends with Dinamani Singh and Surinderjeet Singh, who were also residing in the same area. Rabi, relative of Shanti Kumar also became friendly with them. They had gone to Chandigarh in a Tata Safari of one Bhupender, friend of Dinamani Singh for treatment of Shanti Kumar. They stayed for more than one month in Chandigarh. Dinamani Singh, Surinderjeet Singh and Rabi had also gone to Chandigarh for the operation. Thereafter he and Tombi Singh came back to Delhi. After residing for a few days with Dinamani Singh they went back to Guawhati.
70. King @ Raju Khangembam further disclosed that DT Haokip called Tombi Singh to Dimapur, Nagaland. King @ Raju Khangembam with Tombi Singh went to Dimapur and met Haokip where they and Allen conspired to kill K. Hangsing since Haokip had a personal grudge against him. Haokip told them that K. Hangsing was in Delhi and that Minthang @ David Chongloi was also involved in the conspiracy. At that time King @ Raju Khangembam came to know that K. Hangsing was responsible for the murder of brother of David Chongloi and brother in law of Tombi Singh. Further K. Hangsing was also trying to kill DT Haokip. On 06.11.2007, King @ Raju Khangembam with Tombi State vs. Malkit Singh & Ors. 31/123 FIR No. 566 of 2007, PS Special Cell Singh, Allen and Kullamani came to Delhi on a Spice Jet Flight. The tickets for the same had been booked by Tombi Singh in their names. They then came to Bharat Nagar and resided in the flat of Dinamani Singh. On the next day Minthang @ David Chongloi, who was already in Delhi and living in Sunlight Colony area also joined them. The rest of the disclosure statement of King @ Raju Khangembam is similar to that of Minthang @ David Chongloi.
71. During the course of investigation, on 07.04.2009 King @ Raju Khangembam led the police team to the place of the murder at Hari Nagar Ashram and pointed out the room where K. Hangsing was murdered. At that time S. Hangsing was present in the flat and he identified King @ Raju Khangembam vide identification memo Ex.PW79/C. King @ Raju Khangembam led the police team to the flat at Second Floor, 67 A, Bharat Nagar, Delhi where he had resided between 06.11.2007 to 11.11.2007 with Dinamani Singh and others which was recorded vide memo Ex.PW79/D. King @ Raju Khangembam thereafter pointed out M/s Ajay Paint and Hardware Shop at 8, Bharat Nagar, New Friends Colony from where he had purchased a hammer used in the murder of K. Hangsing which was recorded vide memo Ex.PW79/E. Satnarain Goel, owner of the said shop identified King @ Raju Khangembam as the person who had purchased the said hammer from his shop in Diwali in 2007.
72. On 08.04.2009, King @ Raju Khangembam pointed out Hotel City Heart Residency at Sector-22, Chandigarh where he with other accused had stayed after the murder. The same was recorded vide Ex. PW 73/D.
73. On the pointing of this accused, driving license Khangembam Rabi Kumar issued from Manipur was recovered which was found to be fake. Specimen handwriting of this accused was obtained and sent for comparison with his handwriting contained in the diary and handwritten paper which had been seized in FIR No.2 of 2008 PS Dimapur. The same mentioned the expenses of money incurred in the murder.
State vs. Malkit Singh & Ors. 32/123
FIR No. 566 of 2007, PS Special Cell
OTHER INVESTIGATIONS:-
74. The police report refers to statements of witnesses recorded during the course of investigation and the contents of the same. The statement of M.U. Mohan of the BSF hockey team which included Malkit Singh, Priya Brata Haldar and W.T.T. Meitei was recorded. He stated that on 07.11.2007, Malkit Singh had left the team at Delhi Railway Station on the way of Chandigarh on account of some personal work. M.U. Mohan had handed over bottles of whiskey to Malkit Singh for delivery to one Roop Singh of BSF at Delhi. Malkit Singh did not join the camp and he marked his absence on 09.11.2007. When Malkit Singh joined duty, he stated that he had gone to Amritsar as his mother was ill. At that time Malkit Singh was using a Sony Ericsson mobile phone handset. The statement of Priya Brata Haldar was also recorded who stated the same facts. He also stated that he himself purchased a Airtel Punjab SIM card no. 9915182813 on his identity but did not use it for some days because he had left his mobile handset at home. He then gave it for use to Malkit Singh who asked for it and never used the said number. He also stated that Malkit Singh was also using a Sony Ericsson mobile handset at Jalandhar.
75. Statement of BSF employee Roop Singh was recorded who stated that on 08.11.2007, Malkit Singh had handed over some bottles of whiskey near Sai Baba Mandir, Lodhi Colony which had been sent by his friend Mohan. Malkit Singh had told him that he was residing with friends in the area of New Friends Colony. The CDR of mobile number 9955328386 of Malkit Singh revealed that he was in contact with Roop Singh on number 9871729391 and on 08.11.2007 with its location at Lodhi Colony. The CDR of mobile number 9955328386 of Malkit Singh revealed that it was in Delhi between 07.11.2007 to 12.11.2007 and its location mostly all times at Bharat Nagar. It was also in contact with W.T.T. Meitei @ Momu who was using mobile number 9931117670. After the incident, it was in contact with numbers 9953759274 of Tombi Singh and 9873576738 of State vs. Malkit Singh & Ors. 33/123 FIR No. 566 of 2007, PS Special Cell Dinamani Singh.
76. Reports dated 03.03.2008 and 10.03.2008 were collected from Deputy Commandant BSF 69 BN as per which Ct Malkit Singh absented himself en route on 07.11.2007 at 21:30 hours which upon reaching Old Delhi Railway Station without any prior permission and information and then Malkit Singh reported to HQ 69 BN Lakhnur Mohali Punjab on 14.11.2007 at 11:00 hours.
77. Statement of Bhupender Yadav, a resident of Bharat Nagar was recorded during the investigation and he stated to the police that Surenderjit and Dinamani @ John were his friends and he had arranged for a flat on rent in Bharat Nagar for them. He confirmed that mobile number 9873576738 was being used by Dinamani @ John and numbers 9871922050 and 9862033661 were being used by Surenderjit. Bhupinder Yadav also stated that he had seen Malkit Singh residing in the flat at Bharat Nagar who was described as a friend of Dinamani @ John. Bhupinder Yadav had accompanied Dinamani @ John and Malkit Singh to Sai Baba Mandir at Lodhi Colony where Malkit Singh had supplied some whiskey bottles to some person. As per Bhupinder Yadav, Surenderjit and Dinamani @ John had left for Manipur and he remained in touch with them on number 9862033661, 9856080230 and 9856971205 since their landlord Satya Prakash Aggarwal was demanding outstanding rent.
78. The blood stained hammer, clothes and blood samples seized from the place of the incident were sent to CFSL, CGO Complex with blood samples of the deceased. As per the report dated 28.02.2008 of the CFSL, Lodhi Road all the blood stained exhibits were found to be of human species and of group 'B'. An opinion was sought from the Department of Forensic Sciences of AIIMS regarding cause of injuries suffered by the deceased. Report was obtained as per which the injuries for suggestive signatures fracture on the head which could have been produced by the use of the recovered hammer with force. Scaled site plan was prepared and CAFs and CDRs of all the mobile numbers were State vs. Malkit Singh & Ors. 34/123 FIR No. 566 of 2007, PS Special Cell collected from the respective Telecom Service Providers.
79. The CAFs of mobile number 9862033661 (used by Surenderjit Singh), 9862554802 (used by King @ Raju), 9955328386 (used by Malkit Singh), 9931117670 (used by W.T.T. Meitei) and 9871516589 (used by Thangboi) were collected from Telecom Service Providers. Sample handwritings of these accused persons were collected. From the CDRs of number 9862554802 used by King @ Raju Khangembam, it was found that it was active in Delhi in between 06.11.2007 to 12.11.2007and is subscribed in the name of Dayamoi Singh, brother of King @ Raju Khangembam. The CDRs of this number reveal that it was near the place of the incident. Bhupender Singh had identified King @ Raju Khangembam as the same person who along with other Manipuri persons had stayed at 67A, Bharat Nagar, New Delhi during Deepawali in 2007. His supplementary statement was recorded in this regard.
80. Statement of Jasvinder Singh was recorded who stated that the mobile number 9988971079 had not subscribed by him but his photographs and voter identity card had been used for issuance of the same. Statement of Sidharth Khaidam was recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. who stated that he had arranged SIM card of number 9990695162 on the identity of his room partner Ramananda Singh for his relative Tombi Singh to whom he used to talk on this number. Ramananda Singh in his statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. corroborated the statement of Sidharth Khaidam. Statement of witness Ram Kumar was recorded who stated that Rabi Khangembam was his tenant till March-April, 2007. Witness Boyton Singh stated that mobile number 9990468368 was being used by Rabi Khangembam to whom he was in touch with this number. Hesnam Dakeshwar in his statement confirmed that number 9953459281 was being used by King @ Raju Khangembam and also confirmed the presence of the said accused persons in Delhi on Deepawali in November, 2007. This number was subscribed in the name of Tombi Singh and SIM card of this number had been recovered from Dinamani from Guwahati. Statement of State vs. Malkit Singh & Ors. 35/123 FIR No. 566 of 2007, PS Special Cell Solomen Gangte was recorded who stated that he had received Minthang @ David Chongloi and had arranged one mobile phone no. 9891204529 through Abdul Mannan Chaudhary on his request. Statement of Abdul Mannan Chaudhary to this effect was also recorded.
81. During the course of investigation, CFSL report dated 31.03.2009 was obtained as per which the rent agreement of flat at second floor 67A, Bharat Nagar, New Friends Colony, New Delhi had the signatures of Surenderjit and Dinamani. The CAF of number 9873576738 had the signature of Dinamani. It was also opined that the paper recovered containing the handmade map with some words written were in the handwriting of Minthang @ David Chongloi.
82. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed. The names of Tombi Singh, Rabi @ Rabi Laikangbam and King @ Raju Khangembam were kept in column no.2 as they had not been apprehended till then. After the apprehension of King @ Raju Khangembam a supplementary charge-sheet qua him was filed. Charges as mentioned above were framed against the accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
83. The following witnesses were examined by the prosecution to bring home the charges against the accused persons:-
No. Name Relevance
PW1 Satminthang He is brother of the deceased and an eye-witness.
Hangsing
PW2 David Hangsing He is another brother of the deceased but not an
eye-witness to the incident.
PW3 Ct Anand He was the photographer of the Crime Team which
inspected the place of the incident.
PW4 HC Prem Kumar He was in PCR Eagle 97 at AIIMS.
PW5 HC Balbir Singh He was in PCR Eagle 90 and had gone to the spot of
the incident.
PW6 Paominthang He is an eye-witness to the incident.
PW7 SI Madan Pal He is the draftsman who prepared the scaled site
State vs. Malkit Singh & Ors. 36/123
FIR No. 566 of 2007, PS Special Cell
plan of the place of the incident.
PW8 HC Raj Kumar He was the Fingerprint Expert of the District Crime
Team which inspected the place of the incident.
PW9 Rajbir Singh He is the Record Clerk of the AIIMS who produced
the death summary papers of the deceased.
PW10 HC Kishnaram He had collected exhibits from the MHCM of PS
Special Cell and deposited the same with the
Physics Division and Documents Division of CFSL
CBI, CGO Complex, Delhi.
PW11 Atul Saini He was the resident of second floor, 340, Hari Nagar,
Ashram, Delhi to whom Satminthang Hangsing had
approached for untying his hands and who had
called the PCR.
PW12 Anand Singhal He was the resident of first floor, 340, Hari Nagar,
Ashram, Delhi.
PW13 Paolenlal Hangsing He is an eye-witness to the incident. PW14 Anil Kumar He is son of owner of House No.365, Sunlight Colony, New Delhi and identified accused Thangboi Chonglai and Minthang @ David Chongloi as the persons who had taken one room backside on first floor on rent in November, 2007.
PW15 Insp. C.L Rai He proved the suspension orders of Malkit Singh from the BSF Ex.PW15/A and Ex.PW15/B on account being involved in this case.
PW16 HC Roop Singh He is of BSF and had collected six bottles of liquor from accused Malkit Singh at Lodhi Colony, Delhi on 08.11.2007.
PW17 Sumit Gupta He is the owner of M.G. Guest House at 53/1, Yusuf Sarai, Delhi and produced its guest register as per which Minthang and Mannan Chaudhary stayed at the guest house between 25.10.2007 to 26.10.2007.
PW18 Satya Prakash He is owner of house at Bharat Nagar, New Friends Aggarwal Colony, Delhi and had rented two room on the fourth floor to Dinamani Singh and Surenderjit Singh vide rent agreement dated 05.10.2007.
PW19 Virender Singh He is owner of House No.365, Sunlight Colony, New Delhi and identified accused Thangboi Chonglai and Minthang @ David Chongloi as the persons to whom his son Anil Kumar had given on rent one room backside on first floor in November, 2007.
PW20 Dr. B.K. He had examined the exhibits and given his report
State vs. Malkit Singh & Ors. 37/123
FIR No. 566 of 2007, PS Special Cell
Mahapatra, SSO, Ex.PW20/A and also proved the report of Suresh
CFSL, CBI Kumar Singhala, SSO vide Ex.PW20/B.
PW21 Niraj Dalmia, He produced the records of account no.
Manager, ICICI 004601536118 of Dinamani Singh and account no.
Bank, Laxmi Nagar 004601533262 of Swaran Thokchom Singh. PW22 Vinod Singhal, He proved the letter Ex.PW22/A pertaining to Manager, ICICI correspondence address, permanent address and Bank, transaction confirmation of Rs.7223/- for account no.
Jhandewalan. 004601536118.
PW23 Ram Kumar He is resident of ground floor of E-114/115, Gandhi
Vihar, Delhi and has given his first floor on rent to
Ravi Laikanjbam.
PW24 Wahengam Boyton He is a friend of Ravi Laikanjbam and stated that the Singh said person was using no. 9990468368.
PW25 Jasvinder Singh He had taken no. 9780181230 from one Gaurav to whom he gave photocopy of his identity card. He said that he had never used number 9988971079.
PW26 Bhupender Yadav He is the neighbour of Surenderjit Singh and Dinamani Singh. He had gone to the house of Dinamani Singh at 67A, Bharat Nagar, New Friends Colony on Deepawali, 2007. He stated that he himself was using number 9871828219, Dinamani Singh was using 9873576738 and Surenderjit Singh was using number 9871922050 and 9862033661.
PW27 R.K. Singh, Nodal He produced the records of mobile phone Officer, Bharti Airtel connections of the following numbers:-
Ltd. 9878041067, 98785334522, 9915182813,
9931117670, 9955328386, 9862554802,
9862033661, 9871516589, 9871922050,
9862032922.
PW28 SI Kali Charan He proved the sanction orders for interception of
mobile phones vide Ex.PW28/B.
PW29 Rajneesh Kumar He is the Manager of Hotel City Residency
Chandigarh.
PW30 P.S. Sharma from He proved certain movement orders of the hockey
BSF team of BSF from Hazaribagh to Chandigarh, absent
report of Malkit Singh and arrival report of Malkit
Singh and other relevant records.
PW31 Pawan Singh, He has produced the records of mobile phone
Nodal Officer, Idea connections of the following numbers:-
Cellular 9990468368, 9891204529, 9990695163,
State vs. Malkit Singh & Ors. 38/123
FIR No. 566 of 2007, PS Special Cell
9990695162.
PW32 Dharam Pal He produced the records of interception orders of the
Home Secretary vide Ex.PW28/B and Ex.PW32/A.
PW33 Amit Kumar, Nodal He has produced the records of mobile phone Officer, Vodafone, connections of the following numbers:-
Punjab. 9988971079, 9873576738, 9953459274, 9780492230, 9780492328 and 9953459281.
PW34 Ch. Sadananda He was residing at E-196, Second Floor, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi and knew one Rabi who was friend of Dinamani Singh and Surenderjit Singh who resided in his flat in the night of 11/12.11.2007.
PW35 Kennedy He was also residing at E-196, Gandhi Nagar Delhi Kongkhan and knew one Rabi who was friend of Dinamani Singh and Surenderjit Singh who resided in his flat in the night of 11/12.11.2007.
PW36 Ct. George Kutty He was posted at police post AIIMS in the night of 11/12.11.2007.
PW37 Elangbam He had arranged SIM Card for no. 9990695162 Ramananda Singh using his ID card at request of his friend Siddhart Khaidam to whom he gave it for use.
PW38 HC Balram He proved PCR records vide Ex.PW38/A and Ex.PW38/B. PW39 Sunil Kumar He is Ahlmed of the Court of ASJ Sh. Inderjit Singh and produced the records of FIR No. 70 of 2006 PS Special Cell.
PW40 Jyotish Chandra He has produced the records of mobile phone Mohara, Nodal connections of the following numbers:-
Officer, Vodafone. 9953459281, 9953459274, 9899618957, 9873315102, 99998985223, 9873826056, 9780492330, 9988971079, 9780492328, 9873576738, 9953459274.
PW41 Ct Rajbir He was posted at PS Sriniwas Puri, PP Sunlight Colony and had recorded DD nos.28, 29, 31 and 33 and proved the same.
PW42 Heisnam He knew Raju Khangebam @ King and stated about Dhankeshwar mobile numbers used by the said accused which according to him were 9911811620, 99907604 and 9953459281.
PW43 HC Satender He along with SI Rajender Sehrawat and Ct Shiv
Kumar Mangal had gone to Guawhati on 20.01.2008 and
apprehended Surenderjit Singh, Dinamani Singh and State vs. Malkit Singh & Ors. 39/123 FIR No. 566 of 2007, PS Special Cell Ranbir Singh.
PW44 SI Noor Mohd. He was the Duty Officer at PS Sriniwas Puri and had registered the FIR Ex.PW44/A on rukka sent through Ct Mahender Singh by SI Bishwajit.
PW45 Ct Mahender He had accompanied SI Bishwajit Kumar in the night of 12.11.2007 to the place of the incident.
PW46 Ct Ramesh Chand He had accompanied SHO Mahender Singh and other officials with Satmingthang Hangsing and David Hangsing to mortuary of AIIMS on 12.11.2007. PW47 HC Parvesh Kumar He had accompanied SI Dharmender to Nagaland on 08.02.2008 for investigation.
PW48 Abdul Manan He had arranged for SIM card of mobile no.
Chaudhary 9891204529 on the identity proof for accused David Chongloi on the asking of his friend Solomon Gangte. He had resided in MG Guest House Yusuf Sarai on 25.10.2007 with David Chongloi on the request of Solomen Gangte as his relative had come to their house. He had also given his mobile number 9873826056 for use to David Chongloi.
PW49 ASI Anil Tyagi He had accompanied SI Dharmender to Nagaland on 31.01.2008 for investigation, PW50 Ajit Singh, Nodal He produced the record of mobile phone Officer, Idea connections. He produced the certificate under Cellular section 65 B of the Evidence Act for the numbers 9990468368, 9891204529, 9990695163, 9990695162.
PW51 HC Krishan Veer He had gone to the place of the incident with Ct Singh Kailash in the night of 11/12.11.2007 after receiving DD No.28.
PW52 Israr Babu, Nodal He produced the record of mobile phone
Officer, Vodafone connections. He produced certificate under section
65 B of the Evidence Act regarding CDR of mobile
numbers 9780492330, 9988971079, 9780492328,
9873576738, 9953459274, 9953459281,
9999895223, 9899618957, 9873315102,
9873826056
PW53 Sidharth Khaidam He is a relative of Tombi Singh @ Ramanand. He on
the asking of the said person arranged for SIM Card
of mobile no. 9990695162 for Tombi Singh using ID
proof his friend Ramanand in September, 2007.
PW54 HC Uday Vir He had taken sealed parcels from the MHCM Special
Cell and deposited the same with the CFSL CBI. He
State vs. Malkit Singh & Ors. 40/123
FIR No. 566 of 2007, PS Special Cell
was also part of the investigation carried out on
12.02.2008 and they had gone to Chandigarh along
with accused David Chongloi to Hotel City Heart
Residency.
PW55 ASI Shambhu He was on emergency duty at PP Sunlight Colony
Shah and had gone with Ct Sheikh Riaz for inquiry of DD
No.29.
PW56 SI Harender Singh He was present during the recording of voice samples of Surenderjit Singh and Dinamani Singh.
PW57 ASI Sanjiv Lochan He had accompanied SI Dharmender and other police officials with accused Malkit Singh on 26.12.2007 to Chandigarh.
PW58 Insp. Vinod Pal He was incharge of the District Crime Team which inspected the place of the incident in the night of 12.11.2007.
PW59 Cham Naryan He produced the records of MAX hospital Saket regarding treatment of patient K. Hangsing.
PW60 Satya Narain Goel He is owner of M/s Ajay Paint & Hardware store from where the accused persons were alleged to have purchased the hammer used in the murder.
PW61 M.U. Mohan from He was the coach of BSF Hockey Team which BSF included Malkit Singh and W.T.T. Meitei. He stated that he was accompanying the team from Hazaribagh to Delhi and had given liquor bottles to Malkit Singh for delivery to Roop Singh at Delhi.
PW62 Insp. Rajender On 20.12.2007, he along with other police staff had Sehrawat apprehended Malkit Singh from Laddowali Road Jalandhar.
On 21.12.2007, he had along with other police staff apprehended W.T.T. Meitei from Landro Road, Mohali, Punjab.
On 24.12.2007, he had gone with other police officials to Guawhati and on 20.01.2008 had apprehended Dinamani Singh, Surenderjit Singh and Ranbir Singh @ Boboi.
PW63 ASI Mathias Baxla He is the MHCM PS Special Cell and had produced registers no.19 and 21.
PW64 Dr. Imtiakum Jamir, He had first examined the deceased K. Hangsing AIIMS vide MLC Ex.PW9/B. PW65 HC Kishnaram He had collected exhibits from the MHCM PS Special Cell on 26.11.2008 and 27.05.2009 which he had deposited for examination with CFSL Lodhi Road, State vs. Malkit Singh & Ors. 41/123 FIR No. 566 of 2007, PS Special Cell New Delhi.
PW66 ACP Mahender He was SHO of PS Sriniwas Puri and had taken over Singh the investigation after Section 302 of the IPC was added to the FIR.
PW67 Deepak Kumar He had examined exhibits containing voice samples
Tanwar of Surenderjit Singh and Dinamani Singh and
SSO, CFSL CBI. compared them with intercepted conversations and
had given his report Ex.PW67/A.
PW68 Dr. Sudhir Gupta He conducted the postmortem examination of the
Forensic Medicine deceased and gave his report Ex.PW68/A and had
AIIMS also given his opinion regarding use of hammer vide
Ex.PW68/B.
PW69 Ct Priya Brata The mobile no. 9915182813 was subscribed by him
Haldar which he gave for use to Malkit Singh.
PW70 Paokho Minthang He was known to Insp. Mohan Chand Sharma and
Simte had translated intercepted conversations from
Manipuri to English and was witness to recording of
specimen voice samples of Surenderjit Singh and
Dinamani Singh. He had also translated some
documents in Manipuri into English on the asking of
the police officers.
PW71 ASI Zachamo He being the IO of FIR No.37 of 08, PS East
Ngullie Dimapur Nagaland proved the said FIR vide
Nagaland Police Ex.PW71/A1, FIR No.2 of 08 as Ex.PW71/B1 and
FIR no. 66 of 08 as Ex.PW71/C.
PW72 Vishal Gaurav He produced the records of mobile phone
Nodal Officer connections. He produced the records of number
Bharti Airtel Ltd. 9931117670 and 9955328386.
PW73 SI Dharmender He was part of the police team with apprehended
Kumar Malkit Singh from Jalandhar on 20.12.2007.
He had gone to Chandigarh with Malkit Singh on
26.12.2007 to Hotel City Heart.
On 26.01.2008, he had gone to Dimapur
Nagaland with police staff and had taken the custody of David Chongloi, L. Ranbir Singh, N. Ojit Kumar and R.K. Rickky @ Raj Kumar.
On 08.02.2008, he had gone to Dimapur Nagaland and collected documents recovered from accused persons in FIR No.2 of 2008, PS West Dimapur.
He had also subsequently gone to Dimapur to take the custody of Raju @ King who had been arrested in FIR No.2 of 2008 and was part of the State vs. Malkit Singh & Ors. 42/123 FIR No. 566 of 2007, PS Special Cell investigation on 02.04.2009, 07.04.2009 and 08.04.2009.
PW74 Shishir Malhotra He produced the records of mobile phone Nodal Officer connections. He produced the records of numbers Aircel Ltd. 9856971205 and 9856080230.
PW75 Solomon Gangte He had asked Abdul Mannan Chaudhary to arrange for a mobile connection 9891204529 for use for David Chongloi in October, 2007.
PW76 Sh. Sandeep He had conducted the TIP of Surenderjit Singh on Yadav 24.01.2008 vide Ex.PW76/F. He had conducted the TIP of Dinamani Singh and Ranbir Singh @ Boboi on 25.01.2008 vide Ex.PW76/A and Ex.PW76/B. He had conducted the TIP of Raj Kumar @ Rickky Ex.PW76/L, N. Ojit Kumar Ex.76/J, David Chongloi Ex.PW76/Q and L. Ranbir Singh Ex.PW76/O on 05.02.2008.
He had recorded the statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C. of Abdul Mannan Chaudhary Ex.PW76/U, Solomon Gangte Ex.PW76/V, E. Ramananda Singh Ex.PW76/W and Siddharth Kaidam Ex.PW76/X. PW77 Major S.P. Rao He had apprehended accused persons including Raj Kumar @ Rickky, N. Ojit Kumar, David Changloi, L. Ranbir Singh and Tombi Singh in FIR No. 2 of 08 PS West Dimapur.
PW78 Insp. Bishwjit He was posted at Chowki Incharge of PP Sunlight Colony and had gone to the spot of the incident for inquiry of DD No.28, 29 and 31.
PW79 Insp. Sanjay Dutt He had moved application for production warrants with regard to Raju @ King who was transferred from Manipur to Tihar Jail. He was part of the investigation on 02.04.2009, 04.04.2009, 06.04.2009 and 07.04.2009.
PW80 SI Ravinder Kumar He along with other police staff had accompanied Tyagi David Chongloi on 12.02.2008 to Chandigarh City Heart Hotel.
PW81 Insp. Rahul Kumar He was part of the investigation on 21.12.2007, Singh 22.12.2007, 23.12.2007, 24.12.2007, 27.12.2007, 28.12.2007, 21.01.2008, 24.01.2008, 26.01.2008, 28.01.2008, 30.01.2008, 01.02.2008, 02.02.2008, 03.02.2008, 05.02.2008, 06.02.2008, 07.02.2008, 11.02.2008, 13.02.2008, 14.02.2008, 02.04.2009, 06.04.2009, 07.04.2009, 09.04.2009 and State vs. Malkit Singh & Ors. 43/123 FIR No. 566 of 2007, PS Special Cell 23.10.2009.
PW82 Tarun Khurana He produced the records of mobile phone Nodal Officer connections. He produced the certificate under Bharti Airtel Ltd. section 65 B of the Evidence Act in respect of the records of the mobile phone numbers mentioned in the said certificate Ex. PW 82/A. PW83 Dr. D.R. Handa He had examined the sample handwritings and SSO, CFSL CBI questioned documents and had given his report Ex.PW73/C. PW84 Jeet Singh He had examined the sample handwritings and SSO, CFSL CBI questioned documents and given his report Ex.PW84/A. PW85 Sh. Naveen Arora, He had conducted the TIP proceedings of Rabir ASJ Singh @ Boboi on 10.03.2008 vide Ex.PW85/A. PW86 Sh. Manish He had conducted the TIP proceedings of King @ Yadhuvanshi, MM Raju on 04.04.2009 vide Ex.PW86/D. STATEMENTS OF ACCUSED UNDER SECTION 313 OF THE CR.P.C.
84. After completion of evidence of the prosecution, statements of the accused persons under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. were recorded. All of them denied the incriminating evidence put to them. None of the accused persons desire to lead any evidence in defence.
85. Malkit Singh in his statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. has stated that he has been falsely implicated in this case merely because he was known to W.T.T. Meitei who was his team-mate in the BSLF hockey team.
86. Accused W.T.T. Meitei has stated that he has been falsely implicated in this case on the basis of suspicion without any incriminating material.
87. Accused Thangboi Chonglai has stated that he has been falsely implicated and that he did not know any of the other accused persons in this State vs. Malkit Singh & Ors. 44/123 FIR No. 566 of 2007, PS Special Cell case.
88. Accused Dinamani Singh has stated that he had nothing to do with the incident. He was a champion body builder and got Mr. Manipur title in 2006 and gold medal for Mr. India, junior category on 11.02.2007. He was falsely implicated in this case. He knew N. Surenderjit Singh who was his friend but both have been falsely implicated in this case.
89. N. Surenderjit Singh has claimed false implication. He has stated that he was a computer software graduate from NIIT Imphal. He came across Dianmani Singh in Delhi. He was innocent and was not involved in the murder of any person.
90. Ranbir Singh @ Boboi has also claimed false implication. He stated that he was innocent and never came to Delhi. He was arrested only on the basis of suspicion. His identification by PW1 is illegal. He wanted to examine Y. Bancha in his defence. However when the matter fixed for recording of defence evidence on 22.05.2013, Ranbir Singh @ Boboi stated that he did not wish to lead defence evidence. His statement to this effect was recorded separately.
91. Accused R.K. Ricky @ Raj Kumar @ Raju has claimed false implication. He has stated that police was looking for accused King @ Raju but could not trace him and since he was available in Dimapur Jail in FIR No. 2 of 2008, he was falsely implicated as King @ Raju although there was nothing to show that he was known as King @ Raju.
92. Accused N. Ojit Kumar has stated that the police was looking for some persons involved in the present case but cold not trace them and merely because he was available in Dimapur Jail in FIR No. 2 of 2008, he was implicated in this case.
State vs. Malkit Singh & Ors. 45/123 FIR No. 566 of 2007, PS Special Cell
93. Accused Minthang @ David Chongloi has stated the he was innocent. PW13 Paolenlal was his cousin (son of sister of his father) and known to him since childhood and his family has close relation with the family of PW1. The village of PW1 and his own village were situated at a distance of one kilometer. He was very well known to PW1, PW6 and PW13 but they have falsely implicated him in this case.
94. L. Ranbir Singh @ Suleman has claimed false implication. He stated that he had never came to Delhi and was arrested on the basis of suspicion of the police. His signatures were obtained on blank papers and misused.
95. Raju Khangembam @ King @ Raju @ Apabi has also claimed false implication. He stated that he had never come to Delhi and was arrested on the basis of suspicion. His signatures were obtained on some blank documents and misused. His photographs were flashed in the newspaper by Dimapur Police on the basis of which Delhi Police came to Dimapur and arrested him.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ON BEHALF OF THE ACCUSED PERSONS
96. Sh. Sanjeev Kumar, Ld. Counsel made submissions on behalf of Malkit Singh. He had argued that mobile phone instrument Sony Ericsson alleged to have been taken away at the time of the incident was not recovered from Malkit Singh but had been recovered from accused WTT Meitei. Even the said recovery was doubtful. It was argued that the mobile number 9915182813 alleged to have been used with the said mobile phone instrument was not in the name of Malki Singh. The CDR of the number 9915182813 was not even called by the prosecution to show that it had been used with the said mobile phone instrument. It was alleged that the number 9915182813 was under interception State vs. Malkit Singh & Ors. 46/123 FIR No. 566 of 2007, PS Special Cell but no intercepted conversation or transcript of any such conversation was placed with the charge sheet. It was submitted that as per the case of the prosecution this mobile handset belonged to S. Hangsing (PW-1) in which he was using number 9899618957 but the CDR of this number was not called and placed on the file to show that this number was being used with the said mobile handset. It was further submitted that Malkit Singh was shown to the witness PW 1 S. Hangsing at the time of pointing out proceedings of the place of the murder. Malkit Singh was not put up for any TIP. His identification in Court therefore cannot be relied upon. It was submitted that the role assign to Malkit Singh as per the prosecution was that he was to pose as a Delhi Police Official and to get the door of the flat of the deceased opened. However, as per the case set up, the door was not bolted from inside and none of the eye witnesses have made any statement about any overt role of Malkit Singh.
97. Sh. Sanjeev Kumar, advocate further argued that Priya Brata Halder, PW 69 is the registered subscriber of the number 9915182813. He has stated that he gave it for use to Malkit Singh but never asked Malkit Singh to return it. He submitted that in the CAF of number 991518281, an alternate number 9988971079 was mentioned which was found to be in the name of Jaswinder Singh PW 25 but PW 25 has stated that he never used this number. He further submitted that as per the case of the prosecution Malkit Singh was apprehended while he was standing with M.U. Mohan PW 61 but PW 61 has not stated anything about the apprehension of Malkit Singh in his presence. He referred to the cross examination of PW 73 SI Dharmender Kumar who stated that there is no public witness to the apprehension of Malkit Singh and that Ex. PW 62/A and Ex. PW 62/B were in the handwriting of HC Udaivir who was not cited as a witness in this case. He referred to the statement of SI Rahul Kumar PW81 who stated that there was no recovery made in pursuance of the disclosure statement of Malkit Singh and that S. Hangsing did not identify Malkit Singh at the time of pointing out of the place of the incident. He lastly relied upon the report of PW 83 Dr. D.R. Handa, SSO, CFSL, CBI as per which the State vs. Malkit Singh & Ors. 47/123 FIR No. 566 of 2007, PS Special Cell handwriting on the CAF of number 9955328386 did not match with the specimen handwriting of Malkit Singh.
98. Sh. Rajesh Ranjan, learned Advocate argued on behalf of accused WTT Meitei, R.K. Ricky @ Rajkumar, N. Ojit Kumar, L. Ranbir Singh @ Suleman and King @ Raju Khangembam.
99. On behalf of WTT Meitei Sh. Rajesh Ranjan had argued that even as per the case of the prosecution, WTT Meitei was not in Delhi when the incident took place. The recovery of the Sony Ericcsion Mobile phone handset of S. Hangsing from WTT Meitei was doubtful. As per the case of the prosecution ten mobile handsets were in touch with each other. None of them were of WTT Meitei. The charge-sheet lists motives for the murder but none of them are attributed to him. He submitted that as per the case of the prosecution Malkit Singh was using number 9955328386 and WTT Meitei was using number 9931117670. There are no tape recorded conversations placed on record regarding these two numbers. It was the case of the prosecution itself that WTT Meitei had informed Malkit Singh that he had been marked as absent. He submitted that the BSF Hockey Team had left for Jalandhar from Mohali. Malkit Singh was claimed to have been arrested from Jalandhar. On that day the team had gone back to Mohali and that night WTT Meitei was arrested from Mohali. He submitted that when both the accused were available at Jalandhar there was no reason for the Special Cell officials not to arrest WTT Meitei from Jalandhar itself. He further submitted that as per PW 62 Inspector Rajinder Sehrawat, PW 81 SI Rahul Kumar was present when WTT Meitei was apprehended, but PW 81 in cross examination has stated that he was not a member of the police team which had gone to Mohali. It was submitted that the recovery memos pertaining to WTT Meitei were prepared on 21.12.2007 but his disclosure statement was recorded at Delhi on 22.12.2007. In these facts and circumstances the apprehension of WTT Meitei from Mohali and recovery of the Sony Ericcson mobile phone instrument was doubtful.
State vs. Malkit Singh & Ors. 48/123 FIR No. 566 of 2007, PS Special Cell
100. Sh. Rajesh Ranjan, counsel on behalf of accused R.K. Ricky @ Rajkumar and N. Ojit Kumar had submitted that as per the prosecution FIR No. 2/2008 dated 13.01.2008 PS Dimapur West had been registered and that Dinamani and Surinderjeet Singh had disclosed that these two accused persons along with others had been apprehended in the said FIR. It was submitted that Dinamani Singh was arrested on 28.01.2008 and in his disclosure statement recorded. On that day he had not given names of any of the eight accused persons who were apprehended in FIR No. 2/2008 PS Dimapur West. It was submitted that Surenderjeet Singh was arrested on 26.01.2008. These two accused persons along with other two accused persons were produced in the Court of the CMM, Delhi upon application being filed for issuance of production warrants. R.K. Ricky @ Rajkumar and N. Ojit Kumar had refused to participate in the TIP since their photographs had been published in the newspapers Nagaland Post and by Times of India, Delhi as well. The brother of the deceased K. Hangsing had come to Delhi with these accused persons in Rajdhani Express from Dimapur. They had also been shown to the witnesses in the office of the Special Cell at Lodhi Road. It was further submitted that PW1 S. Hangsing had not identified R.K. Ricky @ Rajkumar and N. Ojit Kumar in the Court. Even PW 6 has not identified them. PW 13 also did not identify any of the accused initially but later on identified all accused persons in a group identification. In cross examination PW 13 again admitted that he had not seen the faces of few of the accused persons. In his statement under section 161 Cr. P.C PW 13 has stated that he could see only a few faces because his face was covered, but in the Court he has improved in his version.
101. On behalf of L. Ranbir Singh @ Suleman, Sh.Rajesh Ranjan, advocate has argued that no recovery was made on the basis of his disclosure statement. The place of the incident of murder was not pointed out by him. Even after he refused to participate in the TIP, there is no separate identification memo of any of the eye witnesses qua L. Ranbir Singh @ Suleman. He State vs. Malkit Singh & Ors. 49/123 FIR No. 566 of 2007, PS Special Cell submitted that there is no mobile phone attributed to the accused and there is no recorded conversation of the said accused. He has not been identified by PW 1. He has been identified by PW 6. The identification of this accused by PW 13 cannot be relied upon in view of the testimony of the said witness in respect of which submissions have already been made.
102. On behalf of accused King @ Raju Khangembam, Sh. Rajesh Ranjan, Advocate argued that it was the case of the prosecution that the hammer used in the incident was purchased by King @ Raju Khangembam. He submitted that in the cross examination of Dr. Sushir Gupta PW 68, it has come on record that the hammer Ex. P-1 recovered from the place of the incident did not cause the injury suffered by K. Hangsing. PW 60 Satnarain Goel, the owner of the hardware shop has not stated that he had sold the hammer in question or that it was purchased by King @ Raju Khangembam. Mobile number 9953459274 is attributed to be used by King @ Raju Khangembam but PW 42 Dhakeshwar has not stated that it was used by the said accused. The CAF of number 9953459274 is in the name of accused Tombi Singh and not King @ Raju Khangembam. It was argued that this accused was identified by PW 1 and PW 6. With respect to PW 26 Bhupender Yadav it was submitted that this witness had not stated anything about King @ Raju Khangembam in his statement recorded under section 161 Cr. P.C. In his examination in chief PW 26 has stated that he had identified King @ Raju Khangembam in the police station on 06.04.2009. In his examination in chief on 11.09.2009 PW 26 has not given the physical appearance of King @ Raju Khangembam but he did so in his examination in chief on 31.08.2010. It was further argued that the diary collected from Dimapur Jail is not related to the present case. PW 26 Bhupender Yadav has stated that he had taken King @ Raju Khangembam to Chandigarh in February 2009 while the alleged incident has taken place in November 2007.
103. On behalf of accused Ranbir Singh @ Boboi and Dinamani Singh arguments were addressed by Ld. Counsel Sh. Jitender Sethi. He submitted that State vs. Malkit Singh & Ors. 50/123 FIR No. 566 of 2007, PS Special Cell PW 1 had identified Dinamani Singh and Ranbir Singh @ Boboi. However, PW 6 and PW 13 did not identify either of these two accused. He submitted that as per the statement of PW 1, 10-15 persons had entered the flat of the deceased and they were made to lie down on the floor, tied up and faces covered. In such circumstances it was not reasonably possible for any person to have any time to see the faces of the assailants so as to form any memory of the same. He submitted that PW 66 ACP Mahender Singh had prepared the inquest papers which mention the deceased to have suffered a gun shot injury. He relied on Ex. PW 38/A, PCR form which records that one Lalboi had stated that the incident was not of murder. As per PW 1, 6 and 13 the incident took place at 12.15 am. Crime team had been called to the spot and its report Ex. PW 58/A records the time of the incident to be 11.40 pm. PW 11 Atul Saini has stated that he heard voices at 11.30 pm. The MLC of the deceased records time as 1.30 am and that it took two hours to reach the hospital.
104. Sh. Jitender Sethi further argued that SI Biswajit PW 78 in cross examination stated that the statement of S. Hangsing and endorsement was in the handwriting of Inspector Mahender Singh. Inspector Mahender Singh PW 66 stated that he was handed over the investigation after section 302 IPC was added to the FIR. The intimation of death was received at 7.20 am and thus section 302 IPC could have been added to the FIR only after receiving intimation of death at 7.20 am. He submitted that the FIR was anti-timed. He further argued that PW 13 has stated that the police did not record his statement and statements of PW 1 and PW 6 at AIIMS. The postmortem examination report of the deceased K. Hangsing was received by SI Anil Malik on 05.12.2007.
105. As far as the apprehension of these two accused persons are concerned, PW 62 Inspector Rajinder Sehrawat has stated that he had gone to Guwahati on 24.12.2007 whereas HC Satinder PW 43 has stated that he had gone to the said place on 20.01.2008. Both accused are shown to have been apprehended on 21.01.2008 which would mean that PW 62 was in Guwahati State vs. Malkit Singh & Ors. 51/123 FIR No. 566 of 2007, PS Special Cell since one month prior to the date of his arrest. Sh. Jitender Sethi further argued that PW 1, PW 6 and PW 13 had stated that all the accused persons were armed but no weapons have been recovered. No gunshot injury has been caused to any person. He referred to DD No. 28, DD No. 29 and DD No. 31 which record conflicting versions. He submitted that as per the PCR record Ex. PW 38/A girls and boys had taken the deceased to the hospital and there was noise in the flat and that the doctor has stated that it was a gunshot injury.
106. Sh. Jitender Sethi, advocate further argued that on 24.01.2008 both the accused persons were brought to Delhi. Their TIP was conducted on 25.01.2008 in which they refused to participate as they had been shown to witnesses. He submitted that subsequently on 10.03.2008 another TIP of Ranbir Singh @ Boboi was conducted as he had stated that he could not understand Hindi or English. On 30.01.2008 both the accused were taken to the place of the incident where S. Hangsing was present at the time pointing out proceedings were being recorded. Both were shown to the witness. As far as the credit card of Dinamani Singh is concerned, it was used at Chandigarh subsequent to the incident. Rajneesh Kumar PW 29, Manager of Hotel City Heart Residency, Chandigarh has stated that the rooms were taken by S. Shah. He did not identify any of the accused persons. No investigation was done regarding as to who this S. Shah was.
107. Sh. Jitender Sethi, then made submissions on the intercepted conversations of Dinamani Singh and Surinderjit Singh. He submitted that at best the conversations can be taken to be having knowledge of the death of the murder victim. The same did not indicate any involvement in the conspiracy. The conversations had taken place in Manipuri language and were translated by PW 70 Paokhominthan. PW 70 was not the person who intercepted it. Further PW 70 was the same person who had come on 10.03.2008 during the second TIP of Ranbir Singh @ Boboi.
State vs. Malkit Singh & Ors. 52/123 FIR No. 566 of 2007, PS Special Cell
108. Sh. Sudershan Rajan, ld. Counsel had made submissions on behalf of the accused N. Surenderjit Singh. He submitted that the weapon of offence in this case was never recovered. The report Ex. PW 58/A of the crime team does not record presence of any hammer. This hammer has been found in the flat only after the postmortem examination of the deceased. No fingerprints were tried to be lifted from the said hammer. The opinion of PW 68 reveals that this hammer could not have been used in the incident. It was submitted that PW 66 ACP Mahender Singh has stated that the hammer was found on 12.11.2007 and the postmortem examination of the deceased took place from 3 pm to 4.30 pm on 12.11.2007. The opinion about use of the hammer was taken only on 13.03.2008 which is more than four months from the incident.
109. Sh. Sudershan Rajan further argued that PW 1 had identified N. Surenderjit Singh in the Court, but PW 6 did not. The statement of PW 13 was such that it could not be relied upon. The accused N. Surenderjit Singh had been shown to the witnesses in Guwahati as well as in the police station. The TIP of N. Surenderjit Singh was conducted in the Court where he was the only person present and therefore such TIP would obviously have resulted in identification of the accused.
110. Sh. Sudershan Rajan further submitted that as per the case of the prosecution a map of the flat of the deceased was drawn on the resume of N. Surenderjit Singh. This map was collected from the IO of FIR No. 2/2008 PS Dimapur West. N. K. Gogoi, IO of the said FIR who prepared the seizure memo was not examined as a witness in this case. The seizure memo Ex. PW 47/A at serial no. 13 mentions site plan of flat but the seizure memo of FIR No. 2 of 2008 PS Dimapur West does not mention anything about the said map or resume of N. Surenderjit Singh. He further argued that the photographs of N. Surenderjit Singh were already with the police and therefore his refusal to take part in the TIP was justified.
State vs. Malkit Singh & Ors. 53/123 FIR No. 566 of 2007, PS Special Cell
111. Sh. C.M. Kennedy, Ld. Advocate had made submissions on behalf of the accused Thangboi Chongloi. He had argued that the mobile phone phone attributed to Thangboi Chongloi is 9871516589 while the mobile phone attributed to Minthang @ Davit Chongloi is 9891204529. The conversations and SMS between these numbers is at 5.30 and 5.31 pm in the charge sheet. There is no CDR of prior to the date of the incident which could reveal any contact between those two numbers. The CDR dos not have any proof of the contents of the SMS. He argued that as per PW 1 S. Hangsing, he had gone to the house of Thangboi Chonglai, who had opened the tied hands after the incident. He further submitted that as per PW 1, PW 6 and PW 13 Thangboi Chongloi and Chochon had come to watch a football match at the house of the deceased and then left at 8 pm. This was almost four hours before the incident took place. As per the case of the prosecution Thangboi Chongloi had revealed to the accused persons about the presence of the deceased at his flat and thereafter he had come to the said flat and carried out the murder. However, since there was a gap of four hours it cannot be accepted that the alleged assailants acted on the said tip off. He further submitted that Thangboi Chongloi and Chochon were available at the place of the incident as per the version of PW 1 and also has come to the house of the PW 1. However, PW 1 in his examination in chief has not stated anything about the presence of Thangboi Chongloi and Chochon to have come to his house and then left at 8 pm. PW 6 has stated that these two i.e. Thangboi Chongloi and Chochon had come to their flat one hour prior to the incident which would be at 11 pm. PW 13 had stated that he came back to the premises at about 8 pm by which time Thangboi Chongloi and Chochon had already left which would be prior to 8 pm. He therefore submitted that the presence of Thangboi Chongloi in the flat of the incident is highly doubtful.
112. On behalf of accused Minthang @ David Chongloi Sh. C.M. Kennedy, Advocate argued that he has been falsely implicated in this case. Minthang @ David Chongloi was never in Delhi. He was in Manipur and had been arrested in Dimapur under the Arms Act. There is no role assigned to him State vs. Malkit Singh & Ors. 54/123 FIR No. 566 of 2007, PS Special Cell by any of the witnesses. PW1 has identified the accused. PW 6 has also identified the accused Minthang @ David Chongloi, who has stated that he had seen the accused in the police station. The identification by PW 13 is such that it cannot be relied upon. He argued that photograph of the accused Minthang @ David Chongloi were printed in newspapers in Dimapur at the time of his arrest and was available for all to see. He submitted that PW 5 HC Balbir Singh had stated that he had received the information about the deceased suffering an injury after falling in the bathroom and it was possible that the said injury could have been caused in such a manner. Abdul Manan Chaudhary PW 48 had arranged a SIM card of Minthang @ David Chongloi no. 9891204529.
113. I have heard the submissions of the Ld. Counsel for the accused persons and the Ld. Addl. PP for the State. I have gone through the record of this case. My findings are as under:-
CAUSE OF DEATH OF K HANGSING
114. After the incident K. Hangsing was taken to AIIMS where he was examined by PW 64 Dr. Imtiakum Jamir vide MLC Ex. PW 64/A. PW 64 stated that the deceased was brought to the hospital at 1.28 am by his brother David with alleged history of a gun shot injury over his head. He was unconscious and unresponsive. PW 64 upon local examination of K. Hangsing found a wound on right zygomatic aspect of head sized 4 x 4 cm laceration and 2 x 3 cm laceration on right frontal aspect of head. Bleeding with gray matter was also observed and the wound on left parietal aspect was a 3 x 3 laceration. PW 64 further stated that as per the casualty record of the hospital, K. Hangsing died at 4.30 am. PW 64 was not subjected to any cross-examination.
115. The postmortem examination of the deceased was conducted by Dr. Sudhir Gupta PW 68 vide his report Ex. PW 68/A. As per the said report, the postmortem examination started at 3 pm and concluded at 4.30 pm on State vs. Malkit Singh & Ors. 55/123 FIR No. 566 of 2007, PS Special Cell 12.11.2007. PW 68 has stated that he found the following ante-mortem external injuries on the body of K. Hangsing:-
"Antemortem External Injuries:-
1. lacerated wound stellate shaped measuring 3 cm x 2 cm x bone deep with four limb measuring as 3 cm x .25 cm x bone deep, 1 cm x 0.25cm x bone deep, 2 cm x 0.25 cm x bone deep and 3 cm x 0.25 cm x bone deep respectively is present over middle of top of head.
2. Lacerated wound Y shaped situated 4 cm about the left mastoid process, measuring each limb as 2.5 cm x .25 cm x bone deep, 1 cm x .25 cm x bone deep, 1 cm x .25 cm x bone deep respectively.
3. Lacerated wound measuring 5 cm x 3 cm x bone deep with margin contused is present over right side of face, just below outer angle of right eye.
4. three lacerated wounds parallel to each other measuring 3 cm x 5 cm x bone deep, 2.5 cm x .5 cm x bone deep and 3 cm x .5 cm x muscle deep respectively is present over right eye brow and above it.
5. Lacerated wound with surrounding area contused measuring 2 cm x 2 cm x muscle deep is present on right side of lower limb.
6. Abrasion measuring 2 cm x 1 cm is present just below right nostril.
On dessection of injury no. 2: the underlying bone (skull) shows a depressed fracture hexagonal shaped present over left side of temproparetal region in an area of 5 cm x 5 cm."
116. PW 68 found the following internal injuries on K. Hangsing:-
"1.Scalp - described
2. Skull - comminuted fracture of right parietotemporal skull bone present. A fissure fracture originated from the comminuted fracture and extended upto saggital suture measuring 14 cm in length. Anterior cranial fossa and maxila are fractured and fragmented upto multiple pieces. Meninges and cerebral vessels are lacerated along with fracture site. Brain shows subdural and subarachanoid all over the surface. Both side frontal lobes are irregularly lacerated."
117. PW 68 opined that the time since death was 12-24 hours and was caused due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of multiple injuries sustained by blunt force. He opined that all injuries were antemortem in nature and fresh State vs. Malkit Singh & Ors. 56/123 FIR No. 566 of 2007, PS Special Cell in duration. The signature fracture present on the skull bone was suggestive of injuries sustained by a hammer.
118. In view of the statement of PW68 and the postmortem examination report Ex.PW68/A, cause of death of K. Hangsing is shock and hemorrhage on account of multiple injuries sustained on his head by a blunt force opined to be inflicted by a hammer. Death of K. Hangsing was thus homicidal in nature.
PURCHASE OF THE HAMMER EX.P1, ITS RECOVERY AND USE IN THE MURDER OF K. HANGSING
119. As per the case of the prosecution, the hammer Ex.P1 was purchased by accused Tombi Singh and King @ Raju Khangembam from the shop of PW60 Satya Narain Goel M/s Ajay Paint and Hardware Shop at 8, Bharat Nagar, New Friends Colony. After being apprehended, King @ Raju Khangembam pointed out the said shop in the presence of PW60 who identified him as the person who purchased the said hammer from his shop. The pointing out proceedings are Ex.PW79/E.
120. Perusal of exhibit Ex.PW79/E reveals that it was prepared on 07.04.2009 and records that the accused King @ Raju Khangembam pointed out the said shop in police custody as the place from where he purchased the said hammer with Minthang @ David Chongloi and Tombi Singh. This document does not record that PW60 Satya Narain Goel was present at that time or that PW60 had identified King @ Raju Khangembam. There are no signatures of PW60 on this document.
121. PW60 in his examination in chief has only stated that two police officials had come to his shop to inquire whether any person had purchased any articles like hammer from his shop. These police officials were in civil clothes and were not accompanied by any person. He stated that his statement had been recorded by these police officials. He stated that he could not identify the State vs. Malkit Singh & Ors. 57/123 FIR No. 566 of 2007, PS Special Cell articles purchased from his shop. He was cross examined by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State. In cross-examination by the State, PW60 denied that King @ Raju Khangembam had come to his shop on 07.04.2009 with the police and that he had identified the said accused as the person who purchased a hammer from his shop. He denied the suggestion that hammers sold from his shop were marked as 'Raja 21B'. He could not identify the hammer Ex.P1 or whether the same was purchased from his shop.
122. The contents of Ex.PW79/E do not reflect the presence of PW60 at the time of pointing out of the said shop as this document does not record the presence of PW60 when it was prepared. It is not signed by PW60. There is no separate identification memo of PW60 regarding the said accused. PW60 has stated that there was no person accompanying the police officials when they had come to his shop. There is no documentary evidence of the sale of the said hammer.
123. Thus the prosecution has been unable to prove that the hammer Ex.P1 was purchased by the accused King @ Raju Khangembam from the shop of PW60.
124. With respect to the recovery of hammer Ex.P1, the memo Ex.PW1/C prepared by SI. Bishwajit PW78 records that it was recovered from the inner room (bedroom) where it was lying on the floor. The memo records that it has a wooden handle and blood stains on the same. The witnesses to this seizure memo are S. Hangsing and Ct Mahender. Ex.PW1/D is the sketch of this hammer. Its handle is found to be measuring 29cm and its head measures 4cmx8.5cm. The total length of the hammer including its handle is 33cm. The sketch of the hammer has names of S. Hangsing and Ct Mahender as its witnesses.
125. S. Hangsing PW1 in his examination in chief has stated that the State vs. Malkit Singh & Ors. 58/123 FIR No. 566 of 2007, PS Special Cell police of PS Sriniwaspuri had come to their house in the evening on 12.11.2007 and in his presence, the police had recovered the hammer Ex.P1. PW78 SI Bishwajit has stated in his examination in chief that he had gone to AIIMS where he met S. Hangsing and have recorded his statement Ex.PW1/A at the hospital. He made his endorsement Ex.PW78/A and then sent rukka to the police station through Ct.Mahender for registration of the FIR. Thereafter, he with the complainant went from the hospital to the place of the incident at Hari Nagar, Ashram. He stated that the place of the incident had also been inspected by the Crime Team who had taken photographs and tried to lift fingerprints. He found the hammer with blood stains lying on the floor near the bathroom door of the inner bedroom. In cross-examination, PW78 has stated that he had come back to the place of the incident at 4:15am of 12.11.2007.
126. Ct Mahender was examined as PW45. He has stated that he had gone to AIIMS with SI Bishwajit from where he took the rukka to the police station. He then came back to the place of the incident and handed over the rukka and copy of FIR to SI Bishwajit. He stated that the hammer Ex.P1 was recovered in his presence.
127. As per the case of the prosecution, the Crime Team had been called to the place of the incident. PW58 Insp.Vinod Pal was the In-charge of the Crime Team while PW3 Ct Mahender was the photographer and PW8 was the fingerprint expert of the team. PW58 has stated that he had gone to the place of the incident after being informed by the District Control Room and inspected it with his staff and had given his report Ex.PW58/A. He stated that chance prints were lifted and photographs had been taken. In cross-examination, PW58 admitted that his report did not mention that chance prints had been lifted or that photographs had been taken. He further deposed that he had not noticed any other incriminating thing at the spot except whatever he had mentioned in his report. PW3 has stated that he had taken photographs at the spot which were Ex.PW3/A (colly.) with its negatives Ex.PW3/B (colly.). PW8 has stated that he State vs. Malkit Singh & Ors. 59/123 FIR No. 566 of 2007, PS Special Cell had lifted three chance prints from the trolley of the TV and had sent the same to the Fingerprint Bureau. In cross-examination, he admitted that chance prints had been taken from the trolley of the television and not the television.
128. Ex.PW58/A is the report of the Mobile Crime Team prepared by PW58. It records 11:40pm of 11.11.2007 as the time of the incident. The time of the inspection is recorded as 3am to 4:30am. This report does not mention recovery of any hammer. It does not even mention that the place of the incident was photographed or that any chance prints were sought to be lifted from the spot. Even in his statement under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C., there is no mention of recovery of any hammer or taking of photographs and lifting of chance prints.
129. While the prosecution claimed that the hammer was recovered by SI Bishwajit when he had gone back to the place of the incident at 4:30am, PW1 has stated that the police had come in the evening of 12.11.2007 and had recovered the hammer. The dimensions of the hammer reveal its total length as 33cm which is of considerable size. A hammer of this size was not found by the District Crime Team even though it photographed the place of the incident and chance prints were sought to be lifted. The time of inspection of the place of the incident is mentioned in Ex.PW58/A as 3am to 4:30am. Thus the District Crime Team was present in the said flat for 1½ hours. The size of the room from which the hammer was recovered as per the scaled site plan Ex.PW7/A is 90 square feet. It is inconceivable that a District Crime Team with three officials present would not have noticed the said hammer in a room measuring 90 square feet even though they were present for 1½ hours.
130. PW66 is ACP Mahender Singh at the material point of time, he was posted as SHO of PS Sriniwaspuri. In his examination in chief, he has stated that after the death of K. Hangsing, Section 302 was added to the FIR and he had taken over the investigation. He stated that he had instructed the staff to call the Mobile Crime Team. Rukka had been sent by SI Bishwajit from AIIMS State vs. Malkit Singh & Ors. 60/123 FIR No. 566 of 2007, PS Special Cell hospital. Inquest papers were prepared in the morning of 12.11.2007. The same had been submitted to the Autopsy Surgeon. He further stated that during the proceedings of postmortem examination by the concerned doctor, he was told that no bullet was found in the body of the deceased and he told the doctor that he had mentioned history of shot injury in the inquest proceedings. He stated that the doctor told him that there was no gunshot injury and that the injury appeared to have been caused by a hammer like weapon. He i.e. PW66 told that a blood stained hammer had been seized during the investigation and doctor then told him that he could take an opinion in that regard later after showing the weapon.
131. In cross-examination, PW66 has deposed that even though he told the IO that the injury might have been caused by a hammer as per doctor, the IO had recorded the same as a blunt object. His statement has been read over to him. He did not ask the IO to correct his statement. He explained that in his opinion whether the injury is caused by a hammer like weapon or by a blunt object would have the same meaning. He again admitted that his statement had not recorded that he had told the doctor that a blood stained hammer was recovered from the spot. He deposed that he had the said conversation with the doctor at about 2pm. The postmortem examination was conducted between 12noon to 2pm. He had submitted the inquest papers with the doctor before the start of postmortem examination at about 11-11:30am.
132. The above statement of PW66 ACP Mahender Singh does not inspire any confidence. The reason for the same is that as per PW66 he had a conversation with the doctor in the midst of postmortem proceedings at 2pm and according to him, the same was conducted between 12noon to 2pm. However as per postmortem report Ex.PW68/A, the time of commencement of postmortem is recorded as 3pm and the time of conclusion as 4:30pm. Further the fact that the statement of PW66 under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. does not mention anything about a hammer also casts a doubt. There was no reason for State vs. Malkit Singh & Ors. 61/123 FIR No. 566 of 2007, PS Special Cell his statement to have recorded 'blunt object' instead of hammer when as per the prosecution it was a hammer which was recovered from the premises and PW66 had a specific discussion about the same with PW68.
133. It is also to be kept in mind that although the hammer is alleged to have been recovered on 12.11.2007 and the postmortem examination of the deceased was conducted on 12.11.2007 itself, the opinion regarding use of the said hammer was sought only in March, 2008.
134. In these facts and circumstances, the recovery of the hammer Ex.P1 from the place of the incident is doubtful.
135. As regards the use of the hammer in the incident, PW 68 has stated that on 13.03.2008 the IO of the case had filed an application with him to obtain his opinion regarding the alleged weapon of offence which was forwarded to him in a sealed CFSL packet. After consideration he opined that the findings were suggestive of a signature fracture on the head which could have been produced by the use of the hammer Ex. P-1 with force. He also made a sketch of the hammer on the reverse side of his opinion Ex. PW 68/B.
136. In cross-examination PW 68 deposed stated that he had prepared a diagram of the shape of the injury on his postmortem examination report Ex. PW 68/A at point X. He did not mention the measurements of the injury. He had prepared a diagram of the hammer sent to him for his opinion. He did not measure the hammer but he outlined the sketch of the hammer on the reverse side of his opinion Ex. PW 68/B. He stated that the diagram at point X on Ex. PW 68/A regarding the injury was round in shape while the sketch of the hammer on the reverse side of Ex. PW 68/B was of square shape as well as round shape. At that point of his cross-examination, the hammer Ex. P-1 was shown to PW 68. After examining the hammer PW 68 deposed that the outline of the hammer was square in shape but its most projecting impact surface was State vs. Malkit Singh & Ors. 62/123 FIR No. 566 of 2007, PS Special Cell round in shape. He stated that the depth of injury number 1 was bone deep about 1-2 cm. He stated that if the hammer Ex. P-1 is used to cause injury no. 1, the shape of the injury would be more or less square in shape. In answer to a specific question whether he noticed any square shaped injury on the skull of the deceased, he stated that he has not mentioned any square shaped injury on the skull of the deceased in his postmortem examination report.
137. From the statement of PW68 recorded in his examination in chief and his cross-examination, it is apparent that he had made a diagram of the injury suffered by the deceased and had also sketched the outline of the hammer when his opinion about its use was sought. In the court, the hammer Ex.P1 was put to him. He has stated that if the hammer Ex.P1 would be used to cause the injury, the shape of such injury would be square but he had not found any square shaped injury on the skull of the deceased. In these circumstances, the use of the hammer Ex.P1 in causing injuries to the deceased also falls into doubt.
138. For the reasons recorded above, the prosecution has failed to prove that the hammer Ex.P1 was purchased from the shop of PW60, that it was used to cause fatal injuries to the deceased and that it had been recovered from the place of the incident.
SUBMISSION ABOUT ANTE-DATING AND ANTE-TIMING OF THE FIR
139. As per the case of the prosecution, DD No.28, 29 and 31 were marked for inquiry to SI Bishwajit. He had gone to the place of the incident and when they did not find the injured there, SI Bishwajit proceeded to AIIMS. At AIIMS, SI Bishwajit recorded the statement of S. Hangsing prepared the rukka and sent the same to registration of an FIR through Ct Mahender Singh. Thereafter, he went to the place of the incident with S. Hangsing. At that time, the injured K. Hangsing was alive and rukka had been sent for among others, State vs. Malkit Singh & Ors. 63/123 FIR No. 566 of 2007, PS Special Cell the offence under Section 307 of the IPC. K. Hangsing died at about 4:30am after which Section 302 was added to the FIR and the investigation was handed over to Insp. Mahender Singh.
140. Insp. Mahender Singh as PW66 has deposed that the investigation of the FIR was taken over by him after Section 302 was added upon the death of K. Hangsing. Insp. Bishwajit as PW78 in his examination in chief has stated that he recorded the statement Ex.PW1/A of S. Hangsing on which he made his own endorsement Ex.PW78/A and sent Ct Mahender with the rukka. In cross- examination PW78 stated that the statement of S. Hangsing has been recorded in the handwriting of Insp. Mahender Singh and even the endorsement Ex.PW78/A was in the handwriting of Insp. Mahender Singh.
141. PW64 has stated that the time of death of K. Hangsing is recorded as 4:30am. PW66 Insp. Mahender Singh stated that the investigation was taken over by him after the death of K. Hangsing. The same therefore would be after 4:30am. However as per Ex.PW1/A and the rukka, it was sent for registration of FIR at 4am. The FIR has actually been registered at 4:20am vide DD No.26A by PW44 SI Noor Mohd., the Duty Officer. PW44 in his statement in the Court has stated that the rukka was received by him at 4:20am through Ct Mahender Singh which was sent by SI Bishwajit.
142. PW66 Insp. Mahender Singh in his statement has not deposed that it was he who recorded the said statement and prepared the rukka. At the same time, PW78 has claimed that he recorded the statement and prepared the rukka but the same are in the handwriting of PW66.
143. The evidence on record reveals that the statement of S. Hangsing was actually recorded by Insp. Mahender Singh and even the endorsement Ex.PW78/A on the same is in the handwriting of Insp. Mahender Singh. Thus the rukka itself was prepared by Insp. Mahender Singh and not by SI Bishwajit.
State vs. Malkit Singh & Ors. 64/123 FIR No. 566 of 2007, PS Special Cell
144. Now that from the statement of PW78, it is clear that the statement of S. Hangsing was recorded by PW66 and rukka was also prepared by PW66, it is apparent that the investigation of the case was always with PW66 Insp. Mahender Singh. PW66 could not have taken over the investigation after the death of K. Hangsing because he himself had prepared the rukka prior to his death recommending the registration of an FIR for amongst others, the offence under Section 307 of the IPC.
145. In these circumstances an inference arises that the recording of the statement of S. Hanging and preparation of rukka which led to the registration of the FIR has been subjected to manipulation. A doubt arises as to who was the particular police officer who recorded the statement of S. Hangsing and whether the statement of S. Hangsing which forms the basis of the rukka was actually his statement.
PRESENCE OF MALKIT SINGH, MINTHANG @ DAVID CHONGLOI, TOMBI SINGH, L. RANBIR @ SULEMAN @ BOBOI, ALLEN @ N. OJIT SINGH AND W.T.T. MEITEI AT HOTEL CITY HEART RESIDENCY, SECTOR 22, CHANDIGARH BETWEEN 12.11.2007 TO 14.11.2007
146. As per the case of the prosecution, the above accused persons after the murder of K. Hangsing had gone to Chandigarh and had resided in the above mentioned hotel. As per the police report, Malkit Singh had pointed out the said hotel on 26.12.2007 vide pointing out proceedings Ex.PW57/A and was identified by the Hotel Manager Rajneesh Singh PW29, Minthang @ David Chongloi pointed out the said hotel vide memo Ex.PW29/F on 12.02.2008 with separate pointing out memo of room no.208 and 215 as Ex.PW54/A, King @ Raju Khangebam pointed out the said hotel vide memo Ex.PW73/D on 08.04.2009. Even though there are other accused persons who are alleged to have resided in the said hotel, there was no pointing out of the said hotel by them.
State vs. Malkit Singh & Ors. 65/123 FIR No. 566 of 2007, PS Special Cell
147. Ex.PW57/A is the pointing out memo of the said hotel qua Malkit Singh. It does not record the presence of Rajneesh Singh as neither his name nor his signatures were on this document. Ex.PW29/F is the pointing out memo dated 12.02.2008 qua Minthang @ David Changloi regarding room no.208 and 215 of the said hotel. The same mentions the presence of Rajneesh Kumar and that he had identified the said accused as the person who had also stayed in their hotel between 12.11.2007 to 14.11.2007. Ex.PW29/F has the signatures of Rajneesh Kumar. Ex.PW54/A dated 12.02.2008 is the pointing out memo qua Minthang @ David Changloi regarding the said hotel but it does not record the presence of Rajneesh Kumar and signatures of latter are not on the same. Ex.PW73/D is the pointing out of the hotel qua accused King @ Raju Khangebam. Even this document does not mention the presence of Rajneesh Kumar nor does it have his signatures.
148. Rajneesh Kumar was examined as PW29. In his examination in chief, he has stated that on 12.11.2007, one Mr. Shah had come to his hotel and had booked room nos. 208 and 215. He could not state the names of the persons who had accompanied that Mr. Shah but they looked "Nepali". Rs.7223/- was paid by credit card and the remaining amount of Rs.3000/- was paid in cash. He stated that in February, 2008, police had brought one person having a beard in the hotel who was identified by him in respect of which memo Ex.PW29/F was prepared. In December, 2007, the police had brought another person to the hotel whom he identified had stayed with Mr. Shah. He identified Minthang @ David Changloi and Malkit Singh as the persons who had come to their hotel with the police but he stated that he had not seen them coming to the hotel with Mr. Shah and residing for two days. At that stage, the Ld. Addl. PP for the State was permitted to put a leading question and in response, he gave the following answer:-
"I have not seen both these accused persons identified today by me coming to our hotel in the company of Mr. Shah and staying in the hotel for two days. It is correct that both these accused persons had earlier come to the hotel and stayed as guest of Mr. Shah and were seen by me at that time".
State vs. Malkit Singh & Ors. 66/123 FIR No. 566 of 2007, PS Special Cell
149. In cross-examination, PW29 has stated that when the accused persons were residing in the hotel, four other guests were also staying in four rooms. He could not remember how many guests in total had occupied those four rooms. He stated that he would not be able to identify those four persons as he could identify at that stage only his regular guests. He admitted that Malkit Singh and Minthang @ Davind Changloi were not his regular guests. Their signatures were not obtained on the register of the hotel which was signed only by Mr. Shah. He admitted as correct that he had identified the accused persons as having stayed with Mr. Shah because the police had brought them in his hotel and asked them to say that they had stayed with Mr. Shah. He stated that he had met SI Dharmender that day. He then denied the suggestion that he had identified the accused on the asking of the police. At that stage the following court question was asked to the witness to which he gave the following answer:-
"Court question: Whether you have seen both the accused persons identified by you today coming to you hotel along with Mr. Shah and staying in the hotel 2-3 days.
Ans: Total 5 persons came including Shah, both the accused persons identified by me today and two more persons apparently looking as Manipuri had stayed in our hotel along with Mr. Shah."
150. Having gone through the examination in chief and cross- examination of PW29, it appears to this Court that he was categorical with his statement that the persons identified by him in the Court namely Malkit Singh and Minthang @ David Changloi had been brought by the police to the hotel but he had not seen them residing in the said hotel or coming to the hotel with Mr. Shah. Even when the Ld. Addl. PP for the State put leading questions to him, he gave two diametrically opposite answers, one to the effect that he had not seen them coming to their hotel with Mr. Shah and second that he had done so. He then stated that he had identified these two persons because the police had come with them to the hotel and asked him to do so. The statement of PW29 is absolutely unreliable and leans more towards the fact that he had not seen these two accused persons residing in the hotel.
State vs. Malkit Singh & Ors. 67/123 FIR No. 566 of 2007, PS Special Cell
151. At this stage, it must be kept in mind that as per the prosecution King @ Raju Khangembam had also pointed out the said hotel on 08.04.2009 vide Ex.PW73/D. However this witness has not stated anything about the said accused. Another disturbing aspect which comes to mind is that the presence and signatures of Rajneesh Kumar are not found recorded on Ex.PW57/A, Ex.PW54/A and Ex.PW73/D. It is so recorded only on Ex.PW29/F. Further Ex.PW29/F pertains to pointing out of the rooms by Minthang @ David Changloi on 12.02.2008. Ex.PW54/A is the pointing out of the hotel by the said accused on the same day i.e. 12.02.2008. It is surprising that the presence of Rajneesh Kumar and his signatures are recorded on one document but not on the other though both were prepared on the same day at the same time. The only inference which arises from these documents are that there has been some manipulation. Moreover no investigation was done regarding the person named S. Shah in whose names these rooms were booked.
152. In these facts and circumstances, the statement of Rajneesh Kumar is absolutely unreliable and his identification of the accused persons seems to be prompted at the instance of police officers. There is a possibility of manipulation of these memos. Thus the pointing out of the said hotel by the accused persons has not been established beyond reasonable doubt.
HANDING OVER OF LIQUOR BOTTLES BY MALKIT SINGH TO ROOP SINGH ON 08.11.2007
153. As per case of the prosecution, M.U. Mohan had given whiskey bottles to Malkit Singh which Malkit Singh delivered to Roop Singh at Sai Baba Mandir, Lodhi Colony, New Delhi. At that time Malkit Singh was accompanying with Dinamani Singh and Bhupender Yadav.
154. M.U. Mohan was examined as PW61. In his examination in chief he has stated that he was the coach of the BSF Hockey Team of which Malkit State vs. Malkit Singh & Ors. 68/123 FIR No. 566 of 2007, PS Special Cell Singh and WTT Meitei were players. On 07.11.2007, their team left from Hazaribagh for Chandigarh. He i.e. PW61 was carrying six bottles of liquor for his friend Roop Singh and when they reached Delhi, he asked if anybody had any work in Delhi and Malkit Singh told that he had some work. PW61 then handed over the liquor to Malkit Singh and to report to Chandigarh on 09.11.2007. However Malkit Singh did not reach Chandigarh and was marked absent. He actually came to Chandigarh on 14.11.2007 and told PW61 that he had fallen ill. In response to a court question, PW61 stated that Malkit Singh had not brought any medical certificate. He stated that Malkit Singh was using a mobile phone of make Nokia but when he came to Chandigarh, he had another mobile phone which he stated that had been given to him by his friend. In response to a leading question by the Ld. Addl. PP, PW61 stated that he could not remember if he told the police that the mobile phone brought by him was of make Sony Ericsson. When the said mobile phone instrument was produced by the MHCM, PW61 could not state with certainty that the said phone Ex.P1 was the one brought by Malkit Singh to Chandigarh.
155. In cross-examination, PW61 stated that he had no permit for the liquor brought by him. He did not give any copy of any bill of the shop / canteen to the police. The person to whom it was to be delivered had never met Malkit Singh.
156. Roop Singh was examined as PW16. In his examination in chief, he has stated that M.U. Mohan had told him to collect liquor bottles from him at a Railway Station in Delhi on 07.11.2007 as he would be passing from Delhi with his team while going to Chandigarh. PW16 has stated that on 07.11.2007, the train was late and his Commanding Officer had deputed him for some other duty and he then told him that he would ask someone to handover to him liquor bottles on the next morning and one player Meeta would call him on telephone. On 08.11.2007, Meeta called up him i.e. PW16 on his mobile phone no. 9871729391. PW16 told Meeta to come after 12noon at ICICI Bank near Sai State vs. Malkit Singh & Ors. 69/123 FIR No. 566 of 2007, PS Special Cell Baba Mandir. Meeta again called PW16 on his mobile phone. He went at ICICI Bank near Sai Baba Mandir and collected six bottles. PW16 identified Malkit Singh as the person to whom he collected liquor bottles. PW16 has not stated that Malkit Singh was accompanying with any other person when he handed over liquor bottles to him.
157. Bhupender Yadav was examined as PW26. In his examination in chief recorded on 12.08.2009, PW26 has stated that he knew Dinamani and Surenderjit as they were his neighbours at Bharat Nagar, New Friends Colony, Delhi. In his entire examination in chief recorded on 12.08.2009, PW26 has not made any reference to Malkit Singh or that he had accompanied the said accused with Dinamani Singh for delivery of liquor to Roop Singh. His examination in chief was deferred on 12.08.2009 for production of case property which he was required to identify. In his further examination in chief recorded on 11.09.2009, PW26 has stated as under:-
"Before Diwali one boy from Punjab came at the above flat for dropping some liquor etc. given by his boss. I can identify the said boy, the witness has correctly pointed out at accused Malkit Singh present in the court to be the said boy who came before Diwali."
158. From the statement of PW26 referred above, he has not stated that he had accompanied Malkit Singh and Dinamani Singh when Malkit Singh had gone to deliver liquor to Roop Singh. However in his cross-examination on behalf of Malkit Singh, he stated that he could not remember the date and time when Malkit Singh had come. He had not personally seen what was brought by him. He had not seen Malkit Singh in their flat but Malkit Singh had come with Dinamani Singh and met him under his house since Dinamani Singh had called him on his phone. Malkit Singh was with them for thirty minutes when they had gone to Lodhi Colony for dropping liquor to his boss. In response to a court question, PW26 stated that he had gone with them in his car.
159. From the statements of PW61 and PW16, it stands proved that State vs. Malkit Singh & Ors. 70/123 FIR No. 566 of 2007, PS Special Cell PW61 had handed over liquor bottles which Malkit Singh had delivered to PW16 at Lodhi Road, Delhi on 08.11.2007. The presence of Malkit Singh in Delhi on 08.11.2007 stands established. However, PW16 has not stated anywhere that Malkit Singh was accompanied with anybody. Even PW26 had not stated anything in his examination in chief regarding accompanying Malkit Singh with Dinamani Singh to Lodhi Road for delivery of liquor. The said statement of PW26 has come only in his cross-examination. It is therefore doubtful whether Dinamani Singh was also present with Malkit Singh when the latter had gone to handover liquor to Roop Singh on 08.11.2007.
PRESENCE OF ACCUSED PERSONS AT FLAT NO.67A, SECOND FLOOR, BHARAT NAGAR, NEW FRIENDS COLONY, NEW DELHI
160. As per the case of the prosecution, this flat had been taken on rent by N. Surenderjit Singh and Dinamani Singh and that Malkit Singh, Ranbir Singh @ Boboi, Tombi Singh, Kullamani, Minthang @ David Changloi, Raju @ King and Rabi had stayed at this flat where the murder of K. Hangsing was planned.
161. PW18 Satya Prakash Aggarwal is the owner of the said premises. He stated that he had leased the said premises on the recommendation of Bhupender Yadav to N. Surenderjit Singh and Dinamani Singh vide a rent agreement dated 05.10.2007 Ex.PW18/A. He stated that they remained his tenants for 5-6 months but did not pay rent after the initial advance payment of Rs.6000/-. He had contacted Bhupender Yadav regarding non payment of rent who told him that they had gone to Manipur and would return but despite waiting for 2½ months they did not come back. He then locked the rented premises. In February, 2008, he was informed by the Special Cell that his tenants had been caught in a criminal case. He then went to the leased premises at Bharat Nagar where the police was already present. There was only one lock on the door which was of PW18 and the other lock was not found. He called Bhupender Yadav who had the key of the premises and informed PW18 that the younger brother of the tenant had come from whom he got the key. The premises were State vs. Malkit Singh & Ors. 71/123 FIR No. 566 of 2007, PS Special Cell then opened with the key supplied by Bhupender and the room was searched. One toy pistol was found by the police. PW18 was not subject to any cross- examination.
162. It therefore stands proved that the said premises had been taken on rent by N. Surenderjit Singh and Dinamani Singh.
163. With regard to opening of the room of N. Surenderjit Singh and Dinamani Singh, PW26 Bhupender Yadav has stated that the younger brother of Dinamani Singh had come to him and told him that N. Surenderjit Singh and Dinamani Singh had been arrested in a murder case. PW26 then informed the landlord PW18 about the same after which PW18 put his own lock upon the lock of N. Surenderjit Singh and Dinamani Singh. He further stated that the police had brought N. Surenderjit Singh and Dinamani Singh to the premises and he had also been called. The police opened the locks of the said flat and one toy pistol was recovered which was taken into possession.
164. When the statements of PW18 and PW26 are looked at regarding opening of the flat and recovery of the toy pistol, it is to be considered that PW18 has stated that the flat was opened by the key supplied by PW26 whereas PW26 has not stated anything about giving the key of the accused persons to the police. While PW26 has stated that the flat was opened in the presence of N. Surenderjit Singh and Dinamani Singh, PW18 has not stated anything about the presence of the accused when the flat was opened and the toy pistol recovered.
165. There is therefore an unexplained discrepancy regarding the fact as to who was the person who had provided the key belonging to the accused persons vide which their lock was opened. There is also a doubt as to whether N. Surenderjit Singh and Dinamani Singh had accompanied the police persons when the said toy pistol was recovered.
State vs. Malkit Singh & Ors. 72/123 FIR No. 566 of 2007, PS Special Cell
166. In the case of Gopal Singh vs. State of M.P. reported in AIR 1972 SC 1557 and as followed in the case of Jaiveer Singh vs. State, reported in (1995) 57 DLT 479, it had been held that where there is no explanation about a key having surfaced for gaining access to any property, the recoveries made from such property cannot be relied upon. In view of the law laid down in the above cases, the recovery of the toy pistol from the said premises at the instance of N. Surenderjit Singh and Dinamani Singh is unreliable.
167. As per case of the prosecution, Bhupender Yadav had seen Malkit Singh at the said premises. However Bhupender Yadav PW26 in his examination in chief has stated that he had gone to the said premises of N. Surenderjit Singh and Dinamani Singh a few days diwali and had noticed 3-4 persons sleeping in their room. He had not seen them as they were sleeping. PW26 had only identified N. Surenderjit Singh and Dinamani Singh but stated that he could not identify any of their friends who were sleeping in their house. He could not state whether any of the accused were those persons who he had seen sleeping in their house.
168. Therefore the presence of other accused persons in the house of N. Surenderjit Singh and Dinamani Singh is not established.
RECOVERY OF THE MAP OF THE PREMISES OF THE DECEASED
169. As per the case of the prosecution, accused Thangboi Changloi had provided the details of the flat of the deceased to Minthang @ David Changloi. This map was drawn on the reverse side of the resume of N. Surenderjit Singh. This map had been recovered along with other articles in FIR No. 2 of 2008 PS Dimapur West Nagaland and had been collected by SI Dharmender Kumar PW73 who had gone along with HC Parvesh Kumar PW47.
170. It had been submitted by the counsel for the accused persons that State vs. Malkit Singh & Ors. 73/123 FIR No. 566 of 2007, PS Special Cell this map was never recovered in FIR No. 2 of 2008, PS Dimapur. The details of the said FIR do not mention recovery of the said document. No seizure memo of FIR no.2 of 2008, PS Dimapur was placed on record. The handing over memo Ex.PW47/A which mentions this map cannot be relied upon as the person who handed over these documents to SI Dharmender Kumar was not examined as a witness.
171. PW47 has stated that he had gone along with PW73 to Nagaland on 08.02.2008. They had recorded the statement of Major S.P. Rao. They then went to PS Dimapur West and met SI N.K. Gogoi from whom they collected documents relating to FIR No.2 of 2008 PS Dimapur West. The said documents were seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW47/A. PW47 was not subjected to any cross-examination. PW73 has also stated the same facts in his examination in chief. In cross-examination on behalf of Dinamani Singh and others, PW73 stated that the articles recovered from the accused persons in FIR no.2 of 2008 were not in sealed condition at the time of taking over the case property from Nagaland police. The particulars as to which articles was recovered from which accused was not mentioned. He denied the suggestion that the accused was forcibly made to write down on blank papers.
172. Major S.P. Rao was examined as PW77. He stated that he was posted at the material time with Assam Rifles, Dimapur Nagaland. He had apprehended eight persons including Ojit Singh, Ravi Kumar, Rickky Raj Kumar, Minthang @ David, Tomba Singh, Lakho Mao, Ranbir Singh and Ms. Anjali in FIR No.2 of 2008, PS Dimapur West for the offences under Sections 121A, 122, 123, 120B of the IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act. He stated that he had prepared a report Ex.PW77/A as per which the said persons had been apprehended along with a .32 pistol, two magazines and fifty .32 ammunition. He further stated that he handed over the copy of his report with the seizure memo Ex.PW77/B to the Officer Incharge of PS Dimapur West.
State vs. Malkit Singh & Ors. 74/123 FIR No. 566 of 2007, PS Special Cell
173. The document Ex.PW77/A is addressed to the Officer Incharge PS Dimapur West and is titled as 'First Information Report'. It states that the above persons had been arrested with a .32 pistol, two magazines and fifty .32 ammunition and that list of seized items mentioned in the seizure memo were being handed over along with the said communication. On the reverse side of Ex.PW77/A is an endorsement dated 13.01.2008 of SI N.K. Gogoi of PS Dimapur West for registration of FIR No.2 of 2008 on the basis of the said communication of Major S.P. Rao.
174. Ex.PW77/B is a seizure memo under the signatures of PW77 which mention items / articles seized from the place where the said accused have been apprehended. The same are reproduced as under:-
(i) Pt 32mm Pistol - 01 no.
(ii) Ammunition Pt 32mm - 50 nos.
(iii) Mag Pt 32mm Pistol - 02 nos.
(iv) Mobile Phone - 06 Nos.(Nokia-04, China
made-02)
(v) Yashie camera - 01 no.
(vi) Digital Camera (Kodak) - 01 no.
(vii) Mobile Phone Spare Battery - 01 no.
(viii) Indian currency - Rs.45,000/-(Notes
Rs.500x78, Rs.1000x02
and Rs.100x40)
(ix) Money Purse - 8 nos.
(x) CDs - 10 nos.
(xi) Diary - 01 no.
(xii) Pocket Diary - 05 nos.
(xiii) Bible - 01 no.
(xiv) Driving Licence - 02 nos.
(xv) ICICI Bank Master Card - 01 no.
(xvi) Wrist Watch Sanota - 01 no
(xvii) Memory Stick - 03 nos.
175. As per the statements of PW47 and PW73, the articles seized at the time of apprehension of the above persons by Assam Rifles were handed over by SI N.K. Gogoi to PW73 in the presence of PW47 which were seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW47/A. While Ex.PW77/B mentions 17 articles which had been seized, Ex.PW47/A records that 32 articles were handed over by SI N.K. State vs. Malkit Singh & Ors. 75/123 FIR No. 566 of 2007, PS Special Cell Gogoi. However upon a comparison of the contents of Ex.PW77/B with Ex.PW47/A, it is apparent that, amongst others, the following articles are shown to have been handed over in Ex.PW47/A whereas these particular articles are not mentioned to have been recovered in the seizure memo Ex.PW77/B:-
(i) Three handwritten papers in English (Manipuri) language in which the text is about death of K. Hangsing is mentioned.
(ii) One resume half page of Surenderjit Singh Ningombam on the back side of which map of 340 Ashram IIIrd Floor is drawn.
(iii) One paper (handwritten) in which expenditure / disbursement of Rs.10 lakhs of 23rd Dec. 2007 on the back side of the same paper something is written in Manipuri language.
176. The map which is mentioned at serial no.2 above is not at all recorded to have been seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW77/B. As per case of the prosecution, these documents were handed over to PW73 by SI N.K. Gogoi but for reasons best known, SI N.K. Gogoi has not been examined as a witness in this trial. Be that as it may, the fact that the map in question is not recorded to have been recovered vide seizure memo Ex.PW77/B in FIR no. 2 of 2008, it is doubtful whether this document was actually handed over to PW73 by SI N.K. Gogoi of Nagaland Police. As a result thereof it is not at all clear as to from where this map has surfaced.
177. The map Ex.P49 had been sent for forensic examination for comparison with the specimen handwriting of Minthang @ David Changloi. As per the report Ex.PW73/C, the questioned writings Q12 to Q14 on the map Ex.P49 matched with the specimen writings S12 to S20 of Minthang @ David Changloi. However as the recovery of this map is doubtful, the said report will not be of much assistance.
178. It may also to be seen that the memo Ex.PW47/A records two other articles which are three handwritten papers regarding death of K. State vs. Malkit Singh & Ors. 76/123 FIR No. 566 of 2007, PS Special Cell Hangsing as well as one handwritten paper with respect to expenditures. As per the prosecution, these documents recovered from the accused persons in FIR No. 2 of 2008 PS Dimapur West indicated their involvement in the incident. Again these documents are not mentioned in the seizure memo Ex.PW77/B pertaining to the said FIR casting a doubt whether they were handed over by Dimapur Police to the Special Cell vide memo Ex.PW47/A.
179. In these circumstances, no reliance can be placed on the said map which is marked as Ex.P-49 on the reverse side of the resume Ex.PW73/B as well as the other two documents mentioned above.
CONTACT BETWEEN MINTHANG @ DAVID CHANGLOI AND SOLOMON GANGTE IN DELHI AND TAKING A ROOM AT SUNLIGHT COLONY-1 ON RENT
180. As per the case of the prosecution on 22.10.2007, Minthang @ David Changloi came to Delhi and resided with Solomon Gangte. He also resided for one night with Abdul Mannan Chaudhary at a Guest House at Yusuf Sarai, Delhi and then Minthang @ David Changloi took one room on rent at first floor, 365, Sunlight Colony-I, Delhi.
181. Solomon Gangte was examined as PW75. He stated that he had received Minthang @ David Changloi from the railway station in October, 2007 on the reference of his friend K. Changloi of Guwahati. He then brought Minthang @ David Changloi to his house and on his asking Abdul Mannan Chaudhary arranged a SIM card of no. 9891204529 on his own identity for Minthang @ David Changloi. After 2-3 days, his driver left Minthang @ David Changloi at Maharani Bagh. In cross-examination PW75 denied the suggestion that he did not receive Minthang @ David Changloi from the railway station or that no SIM card was arranged for him by Abdul Mannan Chaudhary. He however stated that he never called Minthang @ David Changloi on the number 9891204529.
State vs. Malkit Singh & Ors. 77/123 FIR No. 566 of 2007, PS Special Cell
182. Abdul Mannan Chaudhary was examined as PW48. He stated that Solomon Gangte had brought Minthang @ David Changloi at his i.e. Solomon's residence. Subsequently, he i.e. PW48 shifted to the house of Solomon Gangte at Jai Apartments. On the asking of Solomon Gangte he arranged SIM Card of no. 9891204529 for Minthang @ David Changloi on his identity which was used by Minthang @ David Changloi. PW48 further stated that he had resided at MG Guest House for one night on 25.10.2007 with Minthang @ David Changloi as some relatives of Solomon Gangte had come and there was no place in his house. Only suggestions were given to PW48 during cross-examination which he denied.
183. PW17 is Sumit Gupta, owner of M/s MG Guest House at 53/A, Yusuf Sarai, New Delhi. He produced his guest register as per which Minthang @ David Changloi and Mannan Chaudhary had resided overnight on 25.10.2007 in their guest house. In cross-examination he denied the suggestion to the contrary.
184. From the statements of PW17, PW48 and PW75, it stands proved that Minthang @ David Changloi had come to Delhi in the month of October, 2007 and had resided with PW48 and PW75. His stay in the said guest house in the night of 25.10.2007 also stands proved.
185. As regards taking of room on rent at Sunlight Colony Part-1, PW14 Anil Kumar has stated that the said property belongs to him. He had given the room on rent in November, 2007 to Minthang @ David Changloi whom he correctly identified in the Court. He further stated that another boy used to come to meet Minthang @ David Changloi whom he identified in the Court as Thangboi Changloi. He further stated that Minthang @ David Changloi lived in his property for about seven days and left the same without information after locking it. Subsequently, there was some smell of leakage of gas from the said room and his father Virender Singh opened the room and handed over the State vs. Malkit Singh & Ors. 78/123 FIR No. 566 of 2007, PS Special Cell articles belonging to Minthang @ David Changloi to SI Rahul Kumar. PW14 was not subjected to any cross-examination.
186. PW19 Virender Singh who is the father of PW14 also stated the same facts. However he stated that after opening the room due to gas leakage, he kept the luggage in the room in another room which he handed over to the police vide memo Ex.PW19/A. In cross-examination, he admitted that he had not told the police in his statement about any gas leak.
187. From the unrebutted statement of PW14 and statement of PW19, it is stands proved that the room at first floor, 365, Sunlight Colony, Part-1 was taken on rent by Minthang @ David Changloi and that accused Thangboi Changloi used to visit Minthang @ David Changloi at the said room. However as per the seizure memo Ex.PW19/A the articles seized are ordinary day to day articles and not incriminating in any manner.
PRESENCE OF RABI, DINAMANI SINGH AND N. SURENDERJIT SINGH IN THE NIGHT OF 11/12.11.2007 AT E-196, SECOND FLOOR GHANDI NAGAR, DELHI
188. As per the case of the prosecution, after the murder of K. Hangsing these three accused persons had stayed overnight at the said flat. PW34 Sadananda has stated that he was residing at the above premises in the year 2007 and was known to Rabi who belongs to Manipur through his friend Kennedy. He stated that in the intervening night of 11/12.11.2007 at about 1am, Rabi along with his friends Dinamani Singh and Surenderjit Singh came to his above flat to stay for one night. They left his flat in the next morning at 10am. On 03.02.2008, Dinamani Singh had led the police to his flat and pointed it out vide memo Ex.PW34/A in his presence. PW34 identified Dinamani Singh and Surenderjit Singh in the Court. In cross-examination, he admitted that he had never met Dinamani Singh and Surenderjit Singh prior to 11/12.11.2007. He stated that he had seen them on 03.02.2008 when they were brought by the State vs. Malkit Singh & Ors. 79/123 FIR No. 566 of 2007, PS Special Cell police. He denied the suggestions given to him to the contrary.
189. PW35 Kennedy Kongkhan has stated that in the year 2007, he was living at the said premises and that PW34 was his room partner. Rabi had been introduced to him by his senior who was also residing in E-Block of Gandhi Vihar. He stated that in the intervening night of 11/12.11.2007, Rabi had come to their flat with Dinamani Singh and Surenderjit Singh wanting to stay overnight as they had become late. He permitted them to do so. They then left in the next morning. After a few months, Dinamani Singh had come to his flat with the police whom he identified vide identification memo Ex.PW34/A. In cross-examination, he denied that he had never seen Dinamani Singh and Surenderjit Singh.
190. The statements of PW34 and PW35 are consistent. There is nothing in their cross-examination by which their statements can be disbelieved. Both the have correctly identified Dinamani Singh and Surenderjit Singh.
191. It therefore stands proved that Dinamani Singh and Surenderjit Singh had stayed overnight in the said flat with Rabi in the intervening night of 11/12.11.2007.
CALL DETAIL RECORDS
192. The prosecution has relied upon call detail records of mobile phones used by the accused persons as well as call detail records of the connections of the complainant S. Hangsing and of the deceased. The following is a chart of the numbers whose CDRs were relied upon by the prosecution:-
Person concerned Number attributed S. Hangsing 9899618957 K. Hangsing 9999895223 Paominthang witness 9873315102 Thangboi Chongloi 9871516589 Malkit Singh 9955328386 & 9915182813 State vs. Malkit Singh & Ors. 80/123 FIR No. 566 of 2007, PS Special Cell HC Roop Singh 9871729391 WTT Meitei 9931117670 Tombi Singh 9953459274, 9953459281 Dinamani Singh 9873576738, 9856971205, 9873576738 Surenderjit 9862033661 and 9871922050 Rabi 9990468368 Minthang @ David Chongloi 9891204529 and 9910675388 Priya Brata Halder 9915182813
193. As far as the call detail records of the connection used by S. Hangsing is concerned i.e. number 9899618957, the records of the same were produced by PW40 and PW52. Ex.PW40/E is the Customer Application Form (CAF) of 9899618957 as per which it is in the name of S. Hangsing. The CDR of 9899618957 with effect from 01.10.2007 to 15.01.2008 is Ex.PW40/P which reveals that the said mobile connection was being used against mobile handset bearing IMEI No. 32558013325390.
194. As per the case of the prosecution, the Sony Ericsson mobile phone handset was recovered from WTT Meitei on 21.12.2007 from Landru Road Mohali and seized vide memo Ex.PW62/E. Ex.PW62/E records the IMEI number of this handset as 32558013325390. PW1 S. Hangsing had identified this mobile phone as belonging to him.
195. As per CAF Ex.PW40/E, 9899618957 is subscribed in the name of PW1. The CDR of 9899618957 reflects continuous use of this number against mobile handset with IMEI No. 32558013325390 which was recovered vide memo Ex.PW62/E. It therefore stands proved that the mobile handset phone recovered vide Ex.PW62/E make Sony Ericsson belongs to PW1.
196. As per the case of the prosecution, the mobile phone handset Sony Ericsson belonging to S. Hangsing was taken away from the place of the incident and was used by Malkit Singh against the number 9915182813. The State vs. Malkit Singh & Ors. 81/123 FIR No. 566 of 2007, PS Special Cell records of the same were produced by PW27. Ex.PW27/F is the CAF of this number as per which it was issued to Priya Brata Halder. Ex.PW27/K is the CDR of this number with effect from 01.10.2007 to 30.11.2007. Although the CDR is for the period from 01.10.2007 to 30.11.2007, the actual period for which the calls available are with effect from 16.11.2007 to 29.11.2007. The first thirteen calls made from no. 9915182813 on 16.11.2007 between 11:05:31 to 18:11:47 are with the handset with IMEI no. 350845204527520. Thereafter all the calls with effect from 18:13:26 on 16.11.2007 to 29.11.2007 have been made using mobile handset with IMEI No. 32558013325390.
197. Ex.PW27/J is the CDR of 9915182813 with effect from 01.12.2007 to 10.01.2008. As per the said CDR, the mobile handset used against this number has IMEI No. 32558013325390 for almost all the calls made during this period. However there are four calls on 05.12.2007 made between 19:34:34 to 21:37:32 through use of mobile phone with IMEI No. 350845204527520. Between 19:44:38 on 10.11.2007 to 10:03:39, six calls have been made through use of mobile phone with IMEI No. 350845204527520. Lastly on 19.12.2007 at 23:12:47 and at 23:12:55, there are two incoming SMS on this mobile number through use of mobile phone with IMEI No. 357592006452480.
198. Therefore from the CDR of number 9915182813 it is apparent that the said number has been used on three mobile handsets bearing IMEI No. 32558013325390, 350845204527520 and 357592006452480. While the handset with IMEI number 32558013325390 is of the Sony Ericsson handset of PW1, there is no clarity about the ownerships of the other two handsets with the said IMEI numbers.
199. Priya Brata Halder has been examined as PW69. He has stated that he was also a member of BSF hockey team with Malkit Singh. He stated that he had purchased the SIM Card of number 9915182813 on 16.12.2007 of Airtel from Chandigarh. He further stated that when their team reached State vs. Malkit Singh & Ors. 82/123 FIR No. 566 of 2007, PS Special Cell Chandigarh on 09.12.2007, Malkit Singh did not come with the team and reached after 6-7 days. Malkit Singh told him that his SIM Card of Airtel was having network problems and Malkit Singh wanted his SIM Card as his mother was seriously ill. He therefore gave his SIM Card with no. 9915182813 to Malkit Singh for use but Malkit Singh did not return his SIM Card till they remained in Chandigarh for the next 3-4 days. When their team when the Jalandhar Malkit Singh came with them. While the team was residing in the barracks, Malkit Singh used to go to his home. Despite repeated requests Malkit Singh did not return his SIM Card and when their team went to Chandigarh PW69 found out from the newspapers about Malkit Singh and WTT Meitei having been arrested by the Delhi Police. At the subsequent part of his examination in chief when the CAF of the number was shown to him, PW69 corrected himself and stated that he had purchased the SIM Card on 16.11.2007.
200. In cross-examination, PW69 stated that he did not have any mobile phone instrument when he had left Hazaribagh. He had purchased the SIM Card after reaching Chandigarh. He had purchased only one SIM Card but had not used the said connection for talking at home. He used to talk at his home from the phone of his batch mate by giving a missed call at his home. He used to talk on his father's mobile. He had purchased the SIM Card for his personal use.
201. As per PW69, he never used the number 9915182813. He had given it to Malkit Singh. However an aspect to be considered in the cross- examination of PW69 is that he had purchased a SIM Card even without having any mobile phone instrument. It is strange for a person to purchase a SIM Card without any mobile phone instrument.
202. As per the case of the prosecution, the number 9955328386 was subscribed in the name of Malkit Singh. The subscriber details of this number were produced by PW72 vide document Ex.PW72/B as per which it is in the name of Malkit Singh, son of Harjit Singh.
State vs. Malkit Singh & Ors. 83/123 FIR No. 566 of 2007, PS Special Cell
203. Ex.PW27/R is the CDR of number 9955328386 between 01.10.2007 to 30.11.2007. It has calls between 12.11.2007 to 15.11.2007 through use of mobile handset with IMEI no. 32558013325390 as well as 350845204527520. The use with IMEI No. 32558013325390 is continuous between 12.11.2007 to 14.11.2007 and the use of the said number between 14.11.2007 to 15.11.2007 is with handset 350845204527520.
204. Ex.PW27/Y is the CDR of the number 9955328386 between 01.10.2007 to 07.01.2008. It has calls between 07.11.2007 to 12.11.2007. All the calls have been made through use of handset with IMEI no. 350845204527520.
205. The CDR of the number 9955328386 for the period 01.12.2007 to 10.01.2008 is Ex.PW27/Q. The same has only three SMS between 08.12.2007 to 10.12.2007 through use of mobile handset with IMEI no. 350845204527520. Ex.PW84/A is the report of PW84 Jeet Singh, SSO, CFSL, CBI. As per the same, he had examined the specimen signatures of Malkit Singh on his questioned signatures Q1 to Q4 which are described to be on Airtel Prepaid Enrollment Form no. 117783 dated 30.07.2007 and on the photocopy of the supporting documents. He was unable to express any opinion because sufficient individual characteristics were not found between the specimen signatures and questioned signatures.
206. The CAF of the number 9955328386 is Ex.PW81/CCC. The same is in the name of Malkit Singh, son of Harjit Singh. The signatures on the same Q1 to Q4 were sent for comparison with the CFSL CBI but as per the report Ex.PW84/A, no opinion could be rendered.
207. As per the CDR of the number 9955328386 it has been used between 12.11.2007 to 14.11.2007 with mobile handset IMEI No. 32558013325390. This handset i.e. Sony Ericsson belongs to PW1 and has State vs. Malkit Singh & Ors. 84/123 FIR No. 566 of 2007, PS Special Cell been proved to be so.
208. Malkit Singh was apprehended on 20.12.2007 from Laddowali Road Jalandhar and brought to Delhi. He was arrested on 21.12.2007. Ex.PW62/A is the arrest memo dated 21.12.2007 of Malkit Singh. Ex.PW62/B is his personal search memo which records Malkit Singh to be in possession of two silver and copper rings, one kadha and one black thread. No mobile phone handset was found in his possession.
209. As recorded above, the evidence on record reveals that the number 9915182813 has been used on three mobile handsets - bearing IMEI No.32558013325390 (Sony Ericsson handset of PW1), IMEI No.350845204527520 and IMEI No.357592006452480. The ownership of the other two handsets has not been established. No mobile phone handset was recovered from Malkit Singh. With two other mobile phone handsets also used with number 9915182813, the prosecution has been unable to prove beyond reasonable doubt that it was Malkit Singh who used the Sony Ericsson mobile handset of PW1.
210. The CDRs of the other numbers were relied upon to prove that the accused persons were in touch with each other. However the said fact i.e. of the accused persons being in touch with each other can only be in support to the other evidence on record relied upon to prove their involvement in the murder of the deceased. The same on its own cannot be taken to be clinching evidence of their involvement in the conspiracy and murder of the deceased.
INTERCEPTED CONVERSATIONS OF DINAMANI SINGH AND SURENDERJIT SINGH
211. As per the case of the prosecution, the mobile phones being used by Dinamani Singh and Surenderjit Singh were under lawful interception and the contents of the same revealed that they were involved in the murder of K. State vs. Malkit Singh & Ors. 85/123 FIR No. 566 of 2007, PS Special Cell Hangsing. During the course of investigation, the voice samples of Dinamani Singh and Surenderjit Singh were recorded in presence of SI Harinder Singh PW56 and analyzed by Deepak Kumar Tanwar, SSO, CFSL CBI PW67. Vide his report Ex.PW67/A, Deepak Kumar Tanwar concluded that the voice samples of the said accused matched with their intercepted conversations. As regards the orders for interception of the said phone connections, PW28 SI Kali Charan and PW32 Dharampal proved the same vide Ex.PW28/B and Ex.PW32/A respectively.
212. Ex.PW70/D to Ex.PW70/J are the transcripts of the intercepted conversations. Some of them are between Dinamani Singh using no. 9856971205 and Surenderjit Singh using no. 9862033661.
213. Ex.PW70/J is the transcript of the intercepted conversation dated 05.01.2008 at 08:14 hours between Dinamani Singh and Surenderjit Singh. There is talk of sending of money by the brother of Dinamani Singh. There is talk of problem of money and Delhi guys being caught. There is talk of one mobile left through which they caught someone in Jalandhar. Dinamani Singh says that if all mobile are kept in their side they will not be caught. There is talk of money again and recharge of mobile phones. Dinamani Singh says that he is at Maram.
214. Ex.PW70/D is the transcript of the intercepted conversation dated 09.01.2008 at 07:22 hours between Surenderjit Singh and Dinamani Singh. There is talk of Dinamani Singh coming on 14 or 15 and that Sanjit had already taken a ticket. There is talk of a young lady coming with Sanjit and Dinamani Singh not wanting to accompanying them. Both are discussing about going to Guwahati.
215. Ex.PW70/E is the transcript of the intercepted conversation dated 10.01.2008 at 09:45 hours. This conversation is between Dinamani Singh and Rabi but the phone number of Rabi is not mentioned. The conversation is about State vs. Malkit Singh & Ors. 86/123 FIR No. 566 of 2007, PS Special Cell one Puna having being killed. There is talk of arranging advocates. There is mention of one Momo.
216. Ex.PW70/G is the transcript of the intercepted conversation dated 10.01.2008 at 12:39 hours between Dinamani Singh and Rabi. They are talking about some person being shot dead and news about Keirang.
217. Ex.PW70/H is the transcript of the intercepted conversation dated 11.01.2008 at 07:44 hours between Dinamani Singh and Kullamani. There is talk of KRA declaring yesterday about their work. They talk about kidnapping two persons and informing UNLF. There is talk about some persons killing and claiming responsibility by some other person.
218. Ex.PW70/I is the transcript of the intercepted conversation dated 13.01.2008 at 11:21 hours between Dinamani Singh and Morambo. They are talking about Tombi and his friends being caught at Dimapur by Assam Rifles including Rabi, King Phant. They are asking about the number of Pritam and had mentioned the name of Surender.
219. Ex.PW70/F is the transcript of the intercepted conversation dated 13.01.2008 at 11:23 hours between Dinamani Singh and Surenderjit Singh. There is talk of some persons arrested at Dimapur regarding King and their colleagues by Assam Rifles. There is talk of Pritam not being involved at one Tompi being also caught.
220. After going through all the conversations, the only conversation relevant to the case at hand is Ex.PW70/J in which Dinamani Singh and Surenderjit Singh are talking about Delhi guys being caught through mobile phone from Jalandhar.
221. The question which arises is whether this conversation alone can State vs. Malkit Singh & Ors. 87/123 FIR No. 566 of 2007, PS Special Cell be relied upon to link these two accused persons with the murder? It is to be kept in mind that this conversation is dated 05.01.2008 whereas the incident has taken place on 11/12.11.2007. The conversation is almost two months after the incident. At best it can be inferred that they were aware about someone in Jalandhar being caught through a mobile phone. With respect to the line that if all mobiles are kept with their side, they will not be caught, it is to be seen that in this case, only one mobile handset alleged to have taken from the place of the incident was recovered. There is no recovery of the other two mobile handsets and laptop alleged to have been taken from the place of the incident. The recovered mobile was not recovered from Dinamani Singh and Surenderjit Singh.
APPREHENSION OF MALKIT SINGH ON 20.12.2007 FROM JALANDHAR
222. Witnesses examined in this regard are Insp. Rajender Sehrawat PW62, SI Dharmender Kumar PW73 and ASI Sanjiv Lochan PW57.
223. With respect to apprehension of Malkit Singh, PW62 in his examination in chief deposed that on 20.12.2007, he along with SI Dharmender, ASI Sanjiv Lochan, ASI Vikram, HC Udaivir, HC Gulbir, HC Hansraj and other persons were present at BSF Chowk, Jalandhar looking for Malkit Singh. At about 8:30pm, a secret informer disclosed that Malkit Singh was present at Laddowali Road with his coach. The police team went to the said place and accused and his coach were surrounded by the police team upon being pointed out by the informer. One of the them disclosed his name as Malkit @ Meeta and other as M.U. Mohan, his coach. SI Dharmender interrogated Malkit Singh who confessed to his involvement in the case. He was arrested and his personal search was conducted. He was then brought to Delhi and his disclosure statement was recorded.
224. In cross examination on behalf of the accused Malkit Singh, PW62 State vs. Malkit Singh & Ors. 88/123 FIR No. 566 of 2007, PS Special Cell deposed that the police team was at Jalandhar for 7-8 days prior to 20.12.2007 in connection of investigation of the case. They had gone to Jalandhar after making departure entry and with the special permission of the senior police officials. He was not aware whether any DD entry or copy of the said special permission was placed on record. They had reached Laddowali Road from BSF Chow within 2-3 minutes which was a residential area. No person from the locality was asked to join the investigation. M.U. Mohan was also interrogated and his statement was recorded after coming to Delhi. They had reached Delhi in the early morning on 21.12.2007. The local police station at Jalandhar was not informed about the apprehension of Malkit Singh. The accused was also not produced before the Ld. CJM, Jalandhar. SPP Jalandhar was not informed about the arrest of Malkit Singh and him being taken to Delhi. Even In-charge of BSF Camp at Jalandhar was not informed about the arrest of Malkit Singh. He further stated that no recovery was effected from Malkit Singh at the time of his arrest or during the course of investigation.
225. With respect to apprehension of Malkit Singh, PW73 SI Dharmender Kumar in his examination in chief deposed that the IMEI numbers of the mobile phones looted were put under surveillance. One of these handsets was found out. On 04.12.2007, it came to light that one of the handsets was being used against number 9915182813 in the name of Priya Brata Haldar with alternative number 9988971079. The address of Priya Brata Haldar was at 69, BN (BSF) Camp, Lakuveil, Chandigarh. The technical surveillance was mounted and it was found that this number was being used by Malkit Singh at BSF Camp who at that time he was attached at Jalandhar, Punjab for All India Police Hockey Tournament. The secret inquiry was conducted and on 20.12.2007 at about 8:30pm, PW73 along with SI Rajender Sehrawat, ASI Vikram and other officials were present near BSF Chowk, Jalandhar and on the pointing out of secret informer, Malkit Singh was apprehended in the company of his coach M.U. Mohan. Thereafter his examination in chief is identical to that of PW62.
State vs. Malkit Singh & Ors. 89/123 FIR No. 566 of 2007, PS Special Cell
226. In cross examination on behalf of the accused Malkit Singh, PW73 has stated that they had left for Jalandhar 8-10 days prior to his arrest after making departure entry. He could not remember the number of the departure entry. They had taken permission to go to Jalandhar but copy of the said permission order was not placed on record. No TA / DA was claimed by PW73 for his visit. He voluntarily explained that Insp. Mohan Chand Sharma might had claimed it for the whole team. They were present at BSF Chowk, Jalandhar when they received the secret information at about 10:30pm. Public persons were present at the chowk and from where he was apprehended. He admitted that no public witness was cited as a witness regarding arrest. Malkit Singh was arrested at 11:30pm. Local police or senior officers of Malkit Singh were not informed about his arrest. They did not produce him before Illaqa Magistrate at Jalandhar. No departure entry / arrival entry was made in the local police station. Voluntarily, he explained that it was a secret operation. They had reached Delhi at 6am. They had made arrival entry in their office He further stated that coach of Malkit Singh was with them at the time of his arrest. The coach remained in other vehicle till the interrogation of Malkit Singh. He stated that no SIM card in the name of Malkit Singh was found. He admitted that no mobile phone with IMEI numbers kept under surveillance was recovered from Malkit Singh. He voluntarily submitted that the mobile phone used by Malkit was recovered from his colleague W.T.T. Meitei as disclosed by him. He did not put Malkit Singh for TIP. Insp. Mohan Chand Sharma was not present with their team on 20.12.2007 when Malkit Singh was apprehended. Malkit Singh was interrogated after his arrest and his disclosure statement was recorded by him i.e. PW73. The disclosure statement was recorded at the place of apprehension. After going through the judicial record, PW73 admitted that there is no such disclosure statement of Malkit Singh in his handwriting. Voluntarily, he explained that after cursory interrogation, Malkit Singh was handed over to Insp. Mohan Chand Sharma who recorded his disclosure statement on 21.12.2007 in the office. He could not remember whether Malkit Singh had disclosed that he had given his mobile phone to W.T.T. Metei. He stated that Ex.PW62/A and Ex.PW62/B were State vs. Malkit Singh & Ors. 90/123 FIR No. 566 of 2007, PS Special Cell in the handwriting of HC Udaivir who was not cited as witness to the said documents. He stated that Malkit Singh was not produced in muffled face at the time when his police custody remand application was filed. No currency notes were recovered from Malkit Singh at the time of his apprehension.
227. ASI Sanjiv Lochan PW57 in his examination in chief has not made any deposition regarding him being part of the police team along with PW62 and PW73 which apprehended Malkit Singh from Jalandhar on 20.12.2007. His examination in chief starts from investigation conducted on 26.12.2007 as per which he along with SI Dharmender, HC Gulbir and HC Mohan Lal had taken Malkit Singh to Chandigarh for investigation.
228. As per the prosecution, M.U. Mohan was present with Malkit Singh at the time of his apprehension. PW73 in his cross-examination has stated that M.U. Mohan, coach of Malkit Singh was present with them i.e. the police team at the time of apprehension of Malkit Singh and was sitting in another vehicle till the interrogation of the accused. M.U. Mohan PW61 has not stated anything about the apprehension of Malkit Singh in his presence. During the course of examination in chief of PW61 on 30.10.2010, the Ld. Addl. PP for the State was permitted to put leading questions to PW61 but even thereafter no leading question regarding apprehension of Malkit Singh in his presence was put to PW61.
229. PW73 in his cross-examination on 19.08.2011 has categorically stated that he i.e. PW73 recorded the disclosure statement of Malkit Singh at the place of his apprehension i.e. at Jalandhar. However PW73 could not identify any disclosure statement of Malkit Singh recorded by him in his handwriting. No such disclosure statement of Malkit Singh recorded by PW73 is on the judicial record. After perusing the record, PW73 stated that the disclosure statement of Malkit Singh was recorded by M.C. Sharma on 21.12.2007. This gives rise to a doubt as to whether any disclosure statement of Malkit Singh was recorded by State vs. Malkit Singh & Ors. 91/123 FIR No. 566 of 2007, PS Special Cell PW73 and if so, why the same was not placed on record.
230. While PW62 has stated that PW57 was present at the time of apprehension of Malkit Singh, PW57 has not stated so. In the absence of M.U. Mohan and PW57 stating anything about the apprehension of Malkit Singh on 21.12.2007, it is doubtful whether Malkit Singh was actually apprehended from Laddowali Road, Jalandhar at Punjab on 21.12.2007. Ex.PW62/A seems to be a manipulated document. The disclosure statements of Malkit Singh relied upon by the prosecution also become doubtful.
APPREHENSION OF WAHENGBAM THOITHOIBA MEITEI @ MOMU ON 21.12.2007 FROM SECTOR-43, MOHALI, CHANDIGARH
231. With respect to the apprehension of W.T.T. Meitei @ Momu, Insp. Rajender Sehrawat (PW62) in his examination in chief deposed that on 21.12.2007, he along with Insp. Mohan Chand Sharma, SI Rahul Kumar (PW81), SI Dharmender (PW73), ASI Sanjiv Lochan (PW57) and other staff reached Section-43, Mohali, Chandigarh. At that place, an advance team comprising of Insp. Ramesh Lamba with Insp. Kailash were already present. The advance team members disclosed that W.T.T. Meitei would be coming to Landru Road, Mohali between 9:30-10pm. The raiding team was organized and deployed. At about 10pm, a person looking like Manipuri came from the side of BSF Camp. The secret informer identified him who was apprehended and he disclosed his name as W.T.T. Meitei @ Momu to Insp. Mohan Chand Sharma. He disclosed his involvement in the case. He was arrested and his personal search was conducted. W.T.T. Meitei produced a mobile phone make Sony Ericsson with Airtel SIM card which he disclosed to be taken from the place of murder on 11.11.2007 and had been given by Tombi Singh to Malkit Singh and was currently being used by Malkit Singh. W.T.T. Meitei was then brought to Delhi.
232. In cross examination on behalf of the accused W.T.T. Meitei, State vs. Malkit Singh & Ors. 92/123 FIR No. 566 of 2007, PS Special Cell PW62 deposed that he did not join any public person as witness at Sohna Market, Landru Road, Mohali. The accused was arrested by Insp. Mohan Chand Sharma. BSF camp was not informed about the arrest. No local administrative / judicial authority was informed regarding the arrest.
233. Although PW62 stated that ASI Sanjiv Lochan PW57 was present with his team which went to Sector-43, Mohali from where W.T.T. Meitei was apprehended on 21.12.2007, PW57 has not deposed regarding this part of the investigation. His examination in chief starts from investigation conducted on 26.12.2007 as per which he along with SI Dharmender, HC Gulbir and HC Mohan Lal had taken Malkit Singh to Chandigarh for investigation.
234. Similarly, PW73 SI Dharmender Kumar in his examination in chief has not stated that he was part of the police team which apprehended W.T.T. Meitei on 21.12.2007 from Sector-43, Mohali.
235. SI Rahul Kumar Singh was examined as PW81. In examination in chief, he deposed that on 21.12.2007, Insp. Mohan Chand Sharma had interrogated Malkit Singh and recorded his disclosure statement Ex.PW81/C on which signature of PW81 was at point B. He stated that on 22.12.2007, Insp. Mohan Chand Sharma had recorded the disclosure statement of W.T.T. Meitei Ex.PW81/D on which his signature was at point X. He then deposed about investigation done on 23.12.2007 and onwards. PW81 has not at all deposed that he was part of any police team with Insp. Rajender Sehrawat PW62 which had gone to Sector-43, Mohali to apprehend W.T.T. Meitei.
236. Ex.PW62/D is the personal search memo of W.T.T. Meitei. The same records that one Nokia mobile phone handset and one purse with cash and other articles were recovered in the personal search of the said accused. Ex.PW62/E is the seizure memo of Sony Ericsson mobile phone. The same records that it was recovered in the personal search of W.T.T. Meitei. It is State vs. Malkit Singh & Ors. 93/123 FIR No. 566 of 2007, PS Special Cell surprising that the personal search memo Ex.PW62/D of the accused does not mention anything about the Sony Ericsson mobile phone having been found in the personal search of the accused but the seizure memo of the said phone records that it was found in the personal search of the said accused.
237. While PW62 had stated that WTT Meitei was apprehended by him from Landru Road Mohali on 21.12.2007 and had effected recovery of a mobile phone Sony Ericsson from him, PW57, PW73 and PW81 who were supposed to be with him i.e. PW62 at the time of apprehension of the said accused and recovery have not stated anything regarding any role played by any one of them in the apprehension of WTT Meitei. No public witness was associated with the apprehension and arrest of W.T.T. Meitei. The BSF Camp or any official of the BSF was not informed about the apprehension of W.T.T. Meitei. There are discrepancies in the personal search memo Ex.PW62/D and the seizure memo Ex.PW62/E. As a result thereof, the apprehension of WTT Meitei from Landru Road Mohali on 21.12.2007 and the recovery of the mobile phone Sony Ericsson from W.T.T. Meitei falls into doubt.
APPREHENSION OF DINAMANI SINGH @ W. JOHN, NINGOBAN SURENDERJIT SINGH @ ELVIN SINGH AND RANBIR SINGH @ BOBOI ON 20.01.2008
238. The witnesses examined in the apprehension of these three accused persons are HC Satender PW43 and Insp. Rajender Sehrawat PW62.
239. PW43 has stated that on 20.01.2008, he along with SI Rajender Sehrawat and Ct Shiv Mangal had gone to Guwahati. They reached at House No.36, Hengrabari, Guwahati, Assam accompanied with local police from where they apprehended Surenderjit, Dinamani and Ranbir Singh @ Boboi. Their were arrested and their disclosure statements were recorded. They were then brought to PS Dispur. Next day i.e. 21.01.2008, they were produced before the Court at Guwahati and sent to the judicial custody for one day. On 22.01.2008, they were State vs. Malkit Singh & Ors. 94/123 FIR No. 566 of 2007, PS Special Cell brought to the police station under the orders of the Court for their production in Delhi. They were again interrogated by SI Rajender Sehrawat and they disclosed about murder committed at Delhi. Thereafter Delhi Police officials with the local police and the accused persons went to House No.36, Hegrabari, Guwahati and on the pointing out of Surenderjit, two mobile phones make Samsung and Sony Ericsson were recovered and one mobile phone make Noka and another phone were recovered on the pointing out of Dinamani. All these phones were seized.
240. In cross examination on behalf of the accused Raju Khangembam and Rabir Singh @ Boboi, PW43 stated that DD entry was made by Insp. Rajender Sehrawat before leaving for Guwahati but he did not remember the said DD number. They had reached House No.36, Hegrabari, Guwahati at 6pm. The said house belonged to Rajni Kalita. He was not aware whether there was any search warrant for the said hour. No neighbours or residents of the locality were called to join the investigation at the time of search. He stated that Rajni Kalita might have joined the search but her signatures were not taken on the documents prepared at that time. Her statement was not recorded by the IO in his presence. He did not know if the IO had the information about the presence of the said accused persons at the said house when they started from Delhi. He knew before leaving the police station that they will be going to the said house. SI Rajender Sehrwat did not record the secret information in writing. They were at the said house for about 3½ hours but the house was not searched. Voluntarily he explained that the accused persons were arrested and from there they were taken to police station Dispur. Only Rajni Kalita was present in the house. There was no male member. Lady police was not called from the local police station. Public persons were standing outside the house at that time. The IO in his presence did not asked the public persons to join the investigation.
241. In cross examination on behalf of the accused Surenderjit Singh, PW43 again stated that Rajni Kalita was present in the house and public State vs. Malkit Singh & Ors. 95/123 FIR No. 566 of 2007, PS Special Cell persons were also standing downstairs when they were carrying out proceedings at the said house. Rajni Kalita was asked by the IO to join the investigation.
242. The cross examination of PW43 conducted on behalf of the accused Dinamani is identical to that conducted by counsel for the accused Surenderjit Singh.
243. PW62 Insp. Rajender Sehrawat in his examination in chief has stated that on 24.12.2007, he along with HC Satender and Ct Shiv Mangal had left for Guwahati in search of the accused persons and reached on the next day. He deployed sources at Guwahati. On 20.01.2008, a secret informer disclosed that these three accused persons hiding at house no. 30, Hangrawari, Guwahati. With the help of local police, the said house was raided and these three accused persons were apprehended. They admitted to their involvement in the case and were arrested and their disclosure statements were recorded. All the three accused were produced before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), Guwahati on 21.01.2008 and transit remand for Delhi was prayed for. They were sent to judicial custody for one day. On 22.01.2008, the Court of CJM granted transit remand for these accused persons. By that time, the accused persons had reached the jail. Along with the court order, PW62 reached the jail and custody of the accused persons were taken by him to go to Delhi. They went to PS Dispur as at that time there is no train which left for Delhi. Then PW62 again interrogated the accused Dinamani and Surenderjit who made disclosure statements. Thereafter PW62 with his police staff again went to the house of Rajni Kalita at Hangrawari, Guwahati with accused Dinamani and Surenderjit. These two persons produced their passports and two mobile phones each which were seized. On the next day i.e. 23.01.2008, PW62 with staff and Assam police left for Delhi where they reached on 24.01.2008. The custody of the accused persons and the recovered case property was handed over to Inps. Mohan Chand Sharma.
State vs. Malkit Singh & Ors. 96/123 FIR No. 566 of 2007, PS Special Cell
244. In cross examination on behalf of the counsel Sh. Rajesh Ranjan, PW62 stated that he had obtained special permission to go to Guwahati. They had gone to Guwahati after marking their departure. He did not know if IO of this case has filed any such document on record.
245. Having considered the statements of PW43 and PW62, the investigation conducted by them does not inspire any confidence. As per both these witnesses, all the three accused persons were apprehended from their premises at Hengrabari on 20.01.2008. Their premises were searched and their disclosure statements had been recorded. Their transit remand was granted by the Court of CJM Guwahati and on 22.01.2008, they had gone to the local jail to take them to Delhi. As there was no train for Delhi, they were taken to PS Dispur where they were interrogated again and their premises at Hengrabari were searched again leading to recovery of certain mobile phone handsets.
246. The upshot of their statements is that had there been any train leaving for Delhi on 22.01.2008, these accused would not have been subjected to any further interrogation and recording of further disclosure statements leading to fresh search of their premises and recovery of articles at their instance. The statements of PW43 and PW62 give rise to a possible inference that no such further interrogation was done on 22.01.2008 after the transit remand of these accused had been granted. The recoveries made in pursuance of the fresh / further interrogation and disclosure statements are doubtful, more so when nothing was recovered from their premises at the first instance on 20.01.2008.
247. The infirmities are compounded by the fact that even though the owner of the house Rajni Kalita was present, no attempt was made to secure any documents to establish that these three accused persons were residing in the said premises. She could have been made a witness to the apprehension of State vs. Malkit Singh & Ors. 97/123 FIR No. 566 of 2007, PS Special Cell the accused persons and recovery of the said articles but no attempt seems to have been made in this regard.
APPREHENSION OF THANGBOI CHONGLAI ON 21.01.2008
248. The relevant witness regarding apprehension of accused Thangboi Chonglai is PW81 Insp. Rahul Kumar Singh. In his examination in chief PW81 stated that on 21.01.2008 Thangboi was arrested by late Insp. Mohan Chand Sharma. Thereafter, he led the police to first floor of house no. 365, Sunlight Colony, New Delhi and pointed out the backside room which he had arranged on rent for his friend David Chongloi in the last week of October, 2007. Virender Singh, owner of the house was present when the pointing out memo Ex.PW81/J was prepared on which he signed at point A. Belongings of Minthang @ David Chongloi which were left in the house of Virender Singh were produced and seized. The statement of Virender Singh was recorded. Disclosure statement of Thangboi Chonglai was recorded by Insp. Mohan Chand Sharma.
249. In cross examination by Sh. C.M. Kennedy, Advocate on behalf of the accused Thangboi Chonglai, PW81 deposed that Thangboi Chonglai had been called to the office of Special Cell and interrogated. He was interrogated before his arrest. The connection of Thangboi Chonglai was mentioned in Annexure A of the charge-sheet which was prepared by the IO. He deposed that the contents of SMS sent by Thangboi Chonglai to other accused persons were not on record. He explained that technically it was not possible to obtain the text of SMS. He deposed that there was no proof that accused Thangboi Chonglai ever visited house no. 67A, Bharat Nagar, Delhi. He deposed that no recovery was made from Thangboi Chonglai except for the mobile phone. He admitted that Thangboi Chonglai was a close friend of the complainant Satminthang Hangsing but denied the suggestion that he was falsely implicated.
APPREHENSION OF N. OJIT KUMAR @ ALLEN, R.K. RICKY @ RAJKUMAR, L. RANBIR SINGH @ SULEMAN AND MINTHANG @ DAVID CHONGLOI State vs. Malkit Singh & Ors. 98/123 FIR No. 566 of 2007, PS Special Cell
250. Witnesses in respect of arrest of these four accused persons are SI Dharmender Kumar PW73.
251. PW73 in his examination in chief deposed that he along with ASI Anil Tyagi, ASI Satish and other police officials had gone to Dimapur on 26.01.2008. He moved an application before the Court of Ld. ACJM for issuance of production warrants qua these accused persons who had been arrested in FIR no. 2 of 2008, PS Nagaland West. In pursuance of the said application, custody of these accused persons was handed over to PW73. They were taken to PS Dimapur West for interrogation. They were interrogated and their disclosure statements were recorded. PW73 further stated that while frisking Minthang @ David Chongloi, a handwritten paper slip with phone number of his associates was recovered which was seized. Similarly, during frisking of N. Ojit Singh, a handwritten paper slip with phone numbers of his associates was recovered which was seized. All the four accused persons were arrested and brought to Delhi.
252. In cross examination on behalf of the accused Minthang @ David Chongloi, PW73 stated that he was arrested on 31.01.2008 and while frisking nothing except one paper slip with phone numbers was recovered. He admitted that the articles recovered from the accused persons in FIR No. 2 of 2008, PS Dimapur West were not in sealed condition. The particulars regarding which article recovered from which accused was not mentioned. He denied the suggestion that the accused was forcibly made to write on a paper recovered from him.
253. In cross examination on behalf of the accused N. Ojit Kumar @ Allen, R.K. Ricky @ Rajkumar, L. Ranbir Singh @ Suleman, PW73 was given suggestions which he denied. He stated that they have left from Dimapur on 31.01.2008 by Rajdhani but denied the suggestion that brother of the deceased was with them in the train.
State vs. Malkit Singh & Ors. 99/123 FIR No. 566 of 2007, PS Special Cell APPREHENSION OF KING @ RAJU KHANGEMBAM
254. The witnesses relevant to the arrest of King @ Raju Khangembam are PW73 SI Dharmender Kumar and PW79 Insp. Sanjay Dutt.
255. PW73 has stated that he had gone to Dimapur in the last week of January, 2008 with ASI Anil Tyagi and ASI Sanjeev Lochan and other police staff as an information was received that King @ Raju Khangembam had been arrested in FIR No. 2 of 2008. On filing of an application for issuance of production warrants, the accused was produced in the Court but was taken to the hospital from where he and one Tombi Singh escaped from the police custody. FIR No. 37 of 2008, PS Dimapur was registered regarding the said incident. Subsequently, this accused i.e. King @ Raju Khangembam was apprehended and was transferred to Tihar Jail. On 02.04.2009, he was produced before a Court at Tis Hazari upon issuance of production warrants. He was formally arrested on 02.04.2009.
TIP PROCEEDINGS OF THE ACCUSED PERSONS
256. On 24.01.2008, the TIP proceedings qua accused Ningoban Surenderjit Singh @ Elvin Singh were conducted by PW76 but he refused to participate in the same claiming that he was shown to the complainant by the police in Guwahati as well as in Delhi.
257. On 25.01.2008, the TIP proceedings with respect to Wahengban Dinamani Singh @ W. John and Ranbir Singh @ Boboi were conducted by PW76. Witnesses Satminthang Hangsing and Paolenlal Hangsing were present at Tihar Jail. However both the accused persons refused to participate in the TIP proceedings claiming that they had been shown to the witnesses by the police.
258. On 05.02.2008, the TIP proceedings qua N. Ojit Kumar @ Allen, State vs. Malkit Singh & Ors. 100/123 FIR No. 566 of 2007, PS Special Cell R.K. Ricky @ Rajkumar, L. Ranbir Singh @ Suleman and Minthang @ David Chongloi were conducted by PW76. Witnesses Satminthang Hangsing, Paominthang and Paolenlal were present at Tihar Jail. All these four accused persons had stated before PW76 Sh. Sandeep Yadav, the then Ld. MM that they could not speak in Hindi or English properly. IO arranged for the interpreter namely Paokho Minthang and the interpreter had explained meaning of TIP to these accused persons on the directions of PW76. These accused persons then stated that they had come to Delhi from Manipur for the first time and if they were pointed out by the witnesses, they were implicated in this case.
259. TIP proceedings of Ranbir Singh @ Boboi were again conducted on 10.03.2008 by PW81 Sh. Naveen Arora, the then Ld. MM. This accused person had stated before PW81 that he could not speak in Hindi or English properly. IO arranged for the interpreter namely Paokho Minthang and the interpreter had explained meaning of TIP to this accused on the directions of PW81. This accused then that he had come to Delhi from Manipur for the first time and if he was pointed out by the witnesses, he was implicated in this case and he was shown to the witness in the police station.
260. TIP proceedings of King @ Raju Khangembam @ Raju @ Apabi were conducted on 04.04.2009 by PW86 Sh. Manish Yaduvanshi, the then Ld. MM but he refused to participate in the same claiming that his photographs were taken on 02.04.2009 by two persons in civil dress and he suspected that the same with the police officer and the photographs had been taken in order to show to the witnesses.
261. Even though the above accused persons have refused to participate in their TIP, the findings in the paras below pertaining to the statements of the eye-witnesses PW1, PW6 and PW13 will reveal that nothing really turns on the said refusal. In ordinary course, this Court would have drawn and adverse inference on account of accused persons refusing to participate in State vs. Malkit Singh & Ors. 101/123 FIR No. 566 of 2007, PS Special Cell their TIP but the same is not so in the present case.
STATEMENTS OF EYE-WITNESSES TO THE INCIDENT
262. Now coming to the statements of eye-witness, Satminthang Hangsing, the brother of the deceased was examined as PW1. In his examination in chief, he has stated that on 11.11.2007 at about 9:30pm, he was present in his house. At that time, Paolenlal was watching the television while K. Hangsing and Paominthang were sitting on the floor and playing chess. David Hangsing had left in the morning. At about 12:15 in the midnight, about ten persons pushed open the door and entered their house saying that they were from Manipur Combined Commando Force and asked them not to move. They were holding guns and asked them to lie on the floor and all of them lying down on the floor with their faces towards the floor. These persons tied them up. PW1 stated that they forced him to put the sofa cover on his face and then asked their names. K. Hangsing told these persons that these three persons i.e. PW1, Paominthang and Paolenlal were students. The intruders raised the volume of the television and then took K. Hangsing to another room. After sometime volume of the television stopped and he heard sound of those persons going downstairs.
263. PW1 further stated that his legs had been tied loosely and he managed to free his legs and called Paominthang and moved towards him. Paominthang had his hands tired from the backside but he took out the sofa cover from his face. He i.e. PW1 then went to other room and saw K. Hangsing bleeding from his head lying on the floor with face towards the floor and his hands and legs were tied up. PW1 then went to second floor with for help but the residents did not help him. He thereafter went to the house of Thangboi who was residing there and Thanboi freed the hands of PW1. They then went towards the house of PW1 with Chochon. They i.e. PW1, Paominthang and Namkho Chongloi took K. Hangsing to the ground floor and rushed him to AIIMS in a TSR.
State vs. Malkit Singh & Ors. 102/123 FIR No. 566 of 2007, PS Special Cell
264. PW1 further stated that he had gone to the house of Thangboi. Thangboi had made a call to David Hangsing who also reached the hospital. Paolenlal also reached there. The doctors in the hospital stated that the condition of K. Hangsing was serious. The police had reached the hospital after which they went to the police station. In the morning at 4am, K. Hangsing was declared dead. He further stated that the intruders had searched his house, its almirah, drawers and bed and had taken a laptop computer of David Hangsing, Nokia mobile phone handset of K. Hangsing with number 9999895223, his i.e. PW1's mobile phone handset of Sony Ericsson with number 9899618957 and Pauminthang mobile phone handset with number 9873315102. He further stated that the police had come to his house in the evening of 12.11.2007 and in his presence the police recovered a hammer, ropes, blood stained clothes and lifted blood from the spot and the same were seized by the police. The body of his brother was handed over to him in AIIMS. In the Court, PW1 identified Malkit Singh, Ranbir Singh @ Boboi, David Chongloi, Dinamani, Surenderjit and K. Raju @ King as the person who had entered his flat at the time of the incident. He stated that he was unable to identify the remaining accused persons namely Wahengbam Thoithoiba Meitei @ Momu, Thangboi Chonglai, R.K. Ricky @ Rajkumar @ Raju @ King, N. Ojit Kumar @ Allen and L. Ranbir Singh @ Suleman. In response to a court question, PW1 stated that he could not assign any specific role to any of the accused persons as he was not able to see act of the accused persons while assaulting his brother since he was lying down with his face towards the floor. He further stated that after the postmortem examination, he came to know that his brother had been killed with use of a hammer. He stated that on 30.01.2008, three accused persons namely Dinamani, Surenderjit and Ranbir had come to his flat with the police. On 07.02.2008, he identified Minthang @ David Chongloi who had been brought to his flat. At that stage, another court question was put to PW1 to the effect whether other accused persons who were brought by the police to his residence for identification of the place of the occurrence have stated anything in his State vs. Malkit Singh & Ors. 103/123 FIR No. 566 of 2007, PS Special Cell presence to which he answered that all of them stated that they had murdered his brother.
265. In cross examination on behalf of the accused no.2 Wahengbam Thoithoiba Meitei @ Momu, no.6 Ranbir Singh @ Boboi, no.7 R.K. Ricky @ Rajkumar @ Raju @ King, and no.8 N. Ojit Kumar @ Allen, PW1 has stated that he had told the police that the intruders who entered his house were armed with gun. He was confronted with his statement Ex.PW1/A where the word 'gun' was not found to be so recorded. He stated that the door of the house was not locked / bolted from inside. He was sitting in the common room where the television was installed and he and Paolenlal were sitting on the sofa and watching television while K. Hangsing and Paominthang were sitting on the floor and playing chess in the common room. He stated that the distance between the common room and the main gate was four metres. He denied the suggestion that he identified Ranbir Singh in the Court because he was shown to him while being taken in the jail by the police or that he was shown photograph of the accused after summons were issued by the Court. He denied the suggestion that Ranbir Singh was not brought to his house on 30.01.2008 by the police.
266. In cross examination on behalf of the accused Malkit Singh, PW1 stated that K. Hangsing was the chief of KRA. He did not know whether KRA was a rebel outfit and did not know who become the chief of KRA after death of his brother. Police did not call him to identify Malkit Singh either in the Court or in Tihar Jail. He had seen the face of Malkit Singh when he was brought by the police at their residence on 23.12.2007. The documents were prepared by the police in the drawing room of his house on 23.12.2007 which were signed by him. He denied the suggestion to the contrary. He stated that his statement was recorded on 23.12.2007 in which he told the police that Malkit Singh was also present in their house on the date of occurrence. He was confronted with his statement Ex.PW1/D1 where it was not found so recorded. He denied the suggestion that Malkit Singh was not present in his house at the time of the State vs. Malkit Singh & Ors. 104/123 FIR No. 566 of 2007, PS Special Cell incident.
267. In cross examination on behalf of the accused no.4 Dinamani Singh and accused no.5 Surenderjit Singh, PW1 admitted as correct that none of them were facing the door when the accused persons came to their house. He denied the suggestion that they immediately lie down on the ground when they were asked to do so or that he was unable to see any of the accused persons. He stated that his hands were tied from backside. He denied the suggestion that Dinamani and Surenderjit Singh had not come to his house at the time of the incident. He deposed that he had seen Dinamani and Surenderjit Singh for the first time on 30.01.2008 but he again clarified that he had seen them at the time of the incident in the intervening night of 11/12.11.2007. He denied the suggestion that he identified the accused persons at the instance of the police.
268. In cross examination on behalf of the accused Thangboi Chonglai and Minthang @ David Chongloi, PW1 deposed that he would not be able to state as to who firstly entered the house on the date of the incident. He deposed that the assailants were carrying short weapons like pistol but could not state their colour. He did not see Thangboi Chonglai and Minthang @ David Chongloi prior to the date of the incident. He could not tell the colour of the dress of the intruders. He stated that there was a tube light and a bulb in the drawing room / common room. He could not remember which assailant had pointed gun towards him. All of them were saying that they were from Manipur Combined Force. His hands were tied from the backside. He denied the suggestion that he was unable to see the faces of any of the accused persons or that Thangboi Chonglai and Minthang @ David Chongloi did not come to his house at the time of the incident.
269. In cross examination on behalf of the accused King @ Raju Khangembam, PW1 deposed that he had told his brother David Hangsing that State vs. Malkit Singh & Ors. 105/123 FIR No. 566 of 2007, PS Special Cell the persons who entered his house, were from North-East and one was non North-East person as they were speaking Manipuri language and little bit Hindi. He did not give features / descriptions of these persons to the police. He voluntarily explained that he told the police that they were from Manipur Combined Force. Rest of his cross examination is in the form of suggestions which he denied.
270. PW2 David, the brother of PW1 and the deceased K. Hangsing ion his examination in chief deposed that on 11.11.2007, he went to JNU at about 1pm for having dinner with his friend Thang Pu. Thangboi had ranged him on his phone but the same was busy and therefore, Thangboi called him on the phone of Thang Pu at about 12:15/12:20 in the night informing him that K. Hangsing was attacked by some unidentified persons and asking him to rush to AIIMS. He reached AIIMS on a motorbike where he met Satminthang Hangsing, Paolenlal and Paominthang who told him that they were attacked by some unidentified persons and that 10-15 persons came into their house and murdered K. Hangsing. Police inquired from him about the persons who committed the crime to which he stated that he was not aware. His statement was recorded in the PS Sriniwas Puri. He handed over the documents of his house to the police on 13.03.2008. He stated that K. Hangsing was the chief of KRA and he was earlier attacked by Kukki National Army in the year 2003. He further stated that when he went back of his residence, his laptop computer was missing.
271. In cross examination on behalf of the accused R.K. Riki @ Raj Kumar, N. Ojit Kumar, W.T.T. Meitei and Ranbir Singh @ Boboi, PW2 deposed that he reached the hospital at about 12:25 in the night and got his brother admitted in the hospital. He deposed that he had not stated to the doctor at the time of admission of his brother about the gun short injury sustained by his brother. He voluntarily submitted that Paominthang told the doctor that his brother was shot.
State vs. Malkit Singh & Ors. 106/123 FIR No. 566 of 2007, PS Special Cell
272. PW6 Paominthang in his examination in chief has stated that on at about 12:15 in the night of 11/12.11.2007, he was present at house no. 340, third floor, Hari Nagar, Ashram, New Delhi. He was playing chess with K. Hangsing while Satminthang Hangsing and Paolenlal were watching television. About one hour prior to the incident, Chochan and Thangboi had come for watching English Premier League Football matches. Thangboi had gone back stating that match was not interesting. At about midnight, 7-8 persons pushed open the door forcefully who were having weapons in their hands. They about him and others not to move stating that they were from Manipur Police Combined Force. They forcefully pushed them to the floor and tied their hands from backside and their legs also tied and their faces covered with sofa covers and then they asked their names. PW6 further submitted that they stated their names to these persons who were asking about K. Hangsing. They were asking whether he was K. Hangsing. K. Hangsing stated so and then they asked K. Hangsing about the other persons i.e. them to which K. Hangsing stated that they were students and they should not be harmed. K. Hangsing was taken to another room and the volume of the television was raised to maximum. They did not heard any other sound except opening of the drawers of the almirahs. The incident took place within 5-7 minutes after which the volume of the television came down automatically since Manipuri movie got over. Then Satminthang asked him i.e. PW6 to open themselves. He told him to try himself. Satminthang however untied his legs and moved towards him i.e. PW6 and Satminthang removed the cloth from the face of PW6. PW6 stated that he then told Satminthang to lie down on the floor and then he removed cloth from his face. Satminthang went to the other room and stated that K. Hangsing was lying in a pool of blood and that his brother was killed. PW6 asked Satminthang to go to the second floor to get his hands untie but the person on the second floor refused to do so. He thereafter went to the house of Chochan and Thangboi. PW6 moved towards Paolenlal and removed the cloth from his face and asked him to untie his hands with his teeth. Paolenlal untied the hands of PW6 with his teeth and then PW6 untied hands Paolenlal. He then sent Paolenlal to call Nemkholam who was State vs. Malkit Singh & Ors. 107/123 FIR No. 566 of 2007, PS Special Cell staying nearby. PW6 then went and saw K. Hangsing lying in a pool of blood in the other room. His hands and lefts were tied and there was a cloth on his face. He i.e. PW6 went to the kitchen and took a knife and untied his hands and legs and removed cloth from his face. He tried to carry K. Hangsing downstairs but could not do so alone. In the meantime, Satminthang and Thangboi came there and they then took K. Hangsing downstairs. PW6 had asked his neighbour to call the PCR and one of their neighbours at the ground floor called the PCR several times but there was no response. Thereafter, Paolenlal, Nemkholam with his brother Gemgohn came and asked Gemgohn to call for a TSR. TSR was brought by Gemgohn and they took K. Hangsing to AIIMS. He i.e. PW6 along with Satminthang and Nemkholam had taken K. Hangsing to AIIMS. At AIIMS, David and his friend Thangpurichard Mangkholem were also present. K. Hangsing admitted in the hospital at about 1:30 am. He deposed that police took them to Sunlight Colony for interrogation with Paolenlal. Satminthang was taken by the police to his house and then he came to the police station. His statement was recorded in the afternoon of 12.11.2007.
273. PW6 further deposed that on 13.11.2007, his statement was recorded by Insp. Mohan Chand Sharma and disclosed that his mobile phone Nokia 6030 with number 9873315102, mobile hand set of Satminthang and K. Hangsing and laptop of David Hangsing had been taken away by them. He deposed that on 05.02.2008, he i.e. PW6 had been taken to Tihar Jail for TIP of Ricki @ Raj Kumar, Ojit Sen @ Allen, Ranbir, David Chongloi and Dinamani but they refused to participate. He deposed that on 06.02.2008, he called to PS at Lodhi Colony where he identified David Chongloi as the person who he saw at the time of the incident.
274. PW6 identified Minthang @ David Chongloi, Thangboi Chonglai and King @ Raju Khangembam in the Court but could not identify other accused persons. He further stated that Thangboi Chonglai was the friend of Satminthang who had drawn a map of the flat no.340, third floor, Hari Nagar, Ashram and had State vs. Malkit Singh & Ors. 108/123 FIR No. 566 of 2007, PS Special Cell given all information to the assailants about the movement of K. Hangsing from his mobile phone.
275. In cross examination on behalf of the accused Thangboi Chonglai and Minthang @ David Chongloi, PW6 deposed that he had not seen Minthang @ David Chongloi before the incident but had seen Thangboi Chonglai several time as he was living near the place of the incident. He did not know whether Thangboi Chonglai used to visit the residence of the deceased. He i.e. PW6 used to go occasionally to the place of the incident. He did not know whether Minthang @ David Chongloi was his neighbour at his home in Manipur or whether he studied in the same school where he studied. He could not notice what dress Minthang @ David Chongloi was wearing at the time of the incident. He denied the suggestion that Minthang @ David Chongloi was not present at the time of the incident. He had not seen Thangboi Chonglai drawing map of the flat or giving any information to the assailants.
276. In cross examination on behalf of the accused King @ Raju Khangembam, PW6 admitted that he had never seen King @ Raju Khangembam before date of the incident or that he did not know him from before. He had seen 7-8 boys when they entered the room and before they covered his face. Rest of his cross examination is in the form of suggestions which he denied.
277. Paolenlal Hangsing was examined as PW13. In his examination in chief, he stated that he along with K. Hangsing, Paominthang and Satminthang were present in the night of 11.11.2007 at house no. 340, third floor, Hari Nagar, Ashram, New Delhi. Chochon and Thangboi Chonglai had come to watch English Premier League Football match at their premises. That night, he had gone to Safdarjung for purchasing Manipuri CD at about 6pm and came back to the house at 8pm. By then Chochon and Thangboi had already left and only he himself, K. Hangsing, Paominthang and Satminthang were remained. He along State vs. Malkit Singh & Ors. 109/123 FIR No. 566 of 2007, PS Special Cell with his brothers started watching a Manipuri picture on the CD player in the common room and after sometime K. Hangsing and Paominthang started playing chess on the floor. At about 12 midnight, the door was pushed open as it was not bolted from inside. They had not bolted the door from inside since David Hangsing had not returned from JNU. About ten people entered their house and overpowered them. These intruders had pushed them down on the floor and asked them not to move. After identifying themselves as from Manipur Combined Commando Police and Force, they tied their hands and legs and cover their faces with sofa covers. They had weapons in their hands. On their asking they i.e. PW13 and others disclosed their identities. They asked about K. Hangsing who disclosed himself and stated that all others were students and should not be harmed. K. Hangsing was taken to other room. The volume of the television was raised to maximum. After sometime, the Manipuri movie got over and sound of the television felt silent. Satminthang asked him i.e. PW13 whether they had left. PW13 told him they might have left as their voice was silent. Satminthang untied his legs. PW13 asked him to come near to uncover his face as he could not breathe comfortably. Satminthang after uncovering the face of PW13 went to the other room and found K. Hangsing lying on the floor in a pool of blood. He shouted out that their bother had been killed. Satminthang went downstairs to the second floor to get his hands untied but the person on the said floor refused. Satminthang then went to Chochon and Thangboi and it was Thangboi who untie his hands. Paominthang then asked PW13 to untie his hands and PW13 did so with the help of his teeth. Paominthang then untied PW13.They both went to the other room where K. Hangsing was lying. Paominthang got a knife from the kitchen to untie K. Hangsing. PW13 then told Paominthang that he was going to the house of Nemkho for help. He went to her house and on the he way, he met Chochon. In the meantime, Satminthang and Thangboi had reached the house. PW13 asked Chochon to call his sisters Boinu and Heshi who were nurses in Apollo Hospital. At Nemkho's house her brother Genjon was present. PW13 called all of them to their house. Before PW13 left from the house of Nemkho, Satminthang and Thangboi had brought K. Kangsing State vs. Malkit Singh & Ors. 110/123 FIR No. 566 of 2007, PS Special Cell downstairs. Genjon went to look for a TSR and came back with one. Paominthang, Satminthang and Nemkho took K. Hangsing to AIIMS. PW13 on the asking of Satminthang went back to lock the door of the house and thereafter reached AIIMS in a TSR where David and some of his friends were present. K. Hangsing was admitted to hospital by David. They remained in the hospital for sometime after which they went to Sunlight Police Post. At the Police Post, they were asked about the incident. They told the police that K. Hangsing was shot by a weapon. At about 4am, they came to know that he had expired. In the morning, Crime Branch officials took them to their house and thereafter to the police station. Their house had been ransacked and the intruders had taken mobile phone handsets of K. Hangsing, Satminthang and Paominthang and laptop computer of David Hangsing. After postmortem examination, they came to know that K. Hangsing had been hit by a hammer and not shot by a weapon.
278. With respect to the identification of the accused persons in the Court and his statement thereafter, PW13 has stated that he could not identify the assailants because they have overpowered them. He had gone twice for TIP of the assailants at Tihar Jail which could not down as they refused to participate in the same. He again deposed that he could identify the assailants if shown to him. Thereafter PW13 saw the accused persons and pointed out Malkit Singh as the person who entered along with other assailants. He then correctly identified all the accused persons present in the Court. He also identified King @ Raju Khangembam in the Court. While identifying Thangboi, he stated that the said accused was friend of his brother Satminthang. He further stated that he could identify the accused persons in the Court because he had the occasion to see them when they entered in their house.
279. In cross examination on behalf of the accused Malkit Singh, PW13 stated that he could not remember the date when he was taken to Tihar Jail but stated that he had gone there with Insp. Mohan Chand Sharma who had told them that they have to identify the accused in the jail. He did not state the State vs. Malkit Singh & Ors. 111/123 FIR No. 566 of 2007, PS Special Cell names of the accused persons. He did not know whether Malkit Singh was asked to participate in TIP at Tihar Jail. He denied the suggestions given to him.
280. In cross examination of PW13 on behalf of the accused Rikki @ Raj Kumar and Ojit Singh, PW13 deposed that he did not know whether Rikki @ Raj Kumar and Ojit Singh were directed to participate in the TIP at Tihar Jail.
281. In cross examination on behalf of the accused Thangboi Chonglai and Minthang @ David Chongloi, PW13 deposed that he did not know whether Thangboi and David Chongloi were asked to participate in TIP at Tihar Jail. Rest of the cross examination is in the form of suggestions which he denied.
282. In cross examination on behalf of the accused Dinamani Singh and Surenderjit Singh, PW13 deposed that he did not know whether Dinamani Singh and Surenderjit were asked to participate in TIP proceedings at Tihar Jail. Rest of the cross examination is in the form of suggestions which he denied.
283. In cross examination on behalf of the accused L. Ranbir Singh, PW13 deposed that he did not know whether L. Ranbir Singh was asked to participate in TIP proceedings at Tihar Jail. Rest of the cross examination is in the form of suggestions which he denied.
284. In cross examination on behalf of the accused W.T.T. Meitei and Ranbir Singh @ Boboi, PW13 deposed that police met him for the time in AIIMS but he could not recollect the exact time. Police did not ask him about the incident when he met them for the first time. He i.e. PW13, Satminthang and Paominthang had gone to the police post Sunlight Colony. His statement along with of two others were recorded there. He could not remember whether he signed the statement. Police did not record the statements of the said three persons at AIIMS before recording of statements at Sunlight Police Post. They were at the said police post till 5am. The police took them to their house but he State vs. Malkit Singh & Ors. 112/123 FIR No. 566 of 2007, PS Special Cell did not recollect what time they reached. He did not remember any police person was present in their house when they came to their house from Sunlight police post. He could not remember whether any persons from the first and second floors were present there when they reached home. He has not given any description to the police about the assailants.
285. PW13 further deposed that he had not stated to the police that he could see few of the persons who entered the house. He was confronted with his statement Ex.PW13/DA where it was so recorded. He deposed that he did not help the injured when he was brought down from the house. He did not know who called the PCR. The PCR officials met them at AIIMS. He did not accompany the persons when the injured was taken to AIIMS. He helped them putting the injured in the TSR. Injured was bleeding and he had blood stains of the injures on his clothes. The police had taken those clothes from him but he could not recollect the exact time when the police did so. He did not see what kind of weapons the assailants had. He admitted that later on, he came to know that no weapon was used by the assailants. He explained that it was according to the postmortem report.
286. PW13 in cross examination further deposed that he did not know whether any weapon was used to assault his brother. His own statement was recorded three times but he did not whether any statement of Satminthang had been recorded or not. One of his statement was recorded on 12.11.2007 but he did not remember the date of recording of other statements. He stated that he told the police that they had not bolted the door from inside because David Hangsing has not returned. He was confronted with his statement Ex.PW13/DA where it was not found so recorded. He could not remember whether he told the police that K. Hangsing had asked the assailants not to harm others. He had told the police that after sometime, the Manipuri movie got over and sound of the television felt silent and that Satminthang asked him whether those people had left and he told him that they might have left as their voice was silent. He was State vs. Malkit Singh & Ors. 113/123 FIR No. 566 of 2007, PS Special Cell confronted with his statement Ex.PW13/DA where it was not found so recorded. He further stated that he told the police that he told Satminthang to come near him to uncover his face because he could not breathe comfortably and that Satminthang uncovered his face and went to the other room. He was confronted with his statement Ex.PW13/DA where these facts were not found so to be recorded. He could not remember whether he told the police that the person on the second floor refused to untie the hands of Satminthang. He could not remember whether he told the police that he untied the hands of Paominthang with the help of his teeth. He could not remember whether Paominthang gone to the kitchen and untied K. Hangsing with the knife or that he told Paominthang that he was going to the house of Nemkho for help or that he met Chochon on the way or that in the meantime, Satminthang and Thangboi had already reached the house or that he asked Chochon to call his sisters Boinu and Heshi as they were nurses in Apollo Hospital or that when reached house of Nemkho, her brother Genjol was present and he called all of them to their house. He further stated that he told the police that before he left the house of Nemkho, Satminthang and Thangboi had brought K. Hangsing downstairs and Genjol then went to search for a TSR and they decided to take K. Hangsing to AIIMS. He was confronted with his statement Ex.PW13/DA where these facts were not found so to be recorded. He further stated that he did not know whether there was any identification mark on the mobile phone handsets Nokia and Sony Ericsson. He had not told the police the description of mobile phones in his statement. He told the police that after postmortem examination, he came to know that no weapon had been used in the incident but a hammer had been used. The same was not found so recorded when confronted with his statement Ex.PW13/DA. He could not remember the date when he went to Tihar Jail for TIP proceedings. He stated that there were blood stains on the wall and K. Hangsing was lying on the floor with his mouth towards the floor. He could not remember whether the police had taken blood samples of the blood stains on the wall. He did not know the meaning of Hindi word 'dhilay'. The statement recorded by the police was not explained to him. Rest of his cross examination State vs. Malkit Singh & Ors. 114/123 FIR No. 566 of 2007, PS Special Cell is in the form of suggestions which he denied. However on the last line of his cross examination recorded on 21.04.2009, PW13 voluntarily stated that some of the accused persons were not seen by him at the time of the incident.
287. In cross examination on behalf of the accused King @ Raju Khangembam, PW13 admitted that he had never seen the said accused before the date of occurrence nor he knew him since before. He denied the suggestion that he identified the accused as his photographs were shown to him in the police station after his arrested. He was not called in the police station to identify the accused. He could not remember whether he had gone to the police station after 02.04.2009. He was not called by the police to identify identify the accused in the TIP. He could not remember if he had met the police after 02.04.2009. Rest of his cross examination is in the form of suggestions which he denied.
288. The statements of PW1, PW2, PW6 and PW13 recorded in examination in chief and cross-examination have been referred to in detail by this Court. It had been submitted on behalf of the accused persons that as per the case put up by the prosecution, the incident happened in such a manner which could not have given sufficient time to the witnesses to see the faces of the perpetrators so as to retain the same in their memory. At best the witnesses had a fleeting glance of the accused persons which was insufficient and therefore identification of the accused persons by PW1, PW6 and PW13 could not be relied upon.
289. At the first instance, it is to be seen that as per the case of the prosecution, PW1 S. Hangsing was the friend of Thangboi Chonglai and it was this accused who had given information of the whereabouts of K. Hangsing to the other accused persons as well as the layout plan of his flat. It was the case of the prosecution that Thangboi Chonglai had come to the flat of the deceased on 11.11.2007 and left at 8pm after giving information through SMS to Minthang @ David Chongloi. PW1 S. Hangsing however has not uttered a single word State vs. Malkit Singh & Ors. 115/123 FIR No. 566 of 2007, PS Special Cell regarding Thangboi Chonglai having come to his flat at any point of time on 11.11.2007. He has not stated that Thangboi Chonglai was his friend. The only reference to Thangboi Chonglai in the statement of PW1 was that after the incident PW1 had gone to the house of Thangboi Chonglai who had untied him. PW1 has not identified Thangboi Chonglai in the Court although the said accused was supposed to be his friend. PW1 was not declared hostile nor was any leading question put to him by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State regarding Thangboi Chonglai.
290. The fact that PW1 has not made any statement qua Thangboi Chonglai and failed to identify him casts a serious doubt on the case set up by the prosecution that it was the said accused who took advantage of being the friend of PW1 and passed on information about the deceased to accused Minthang @ David Chongloi in the evening of 11.11.2007 after visiting his flat.
291. PW1 has identified in Court Malkit Singh, Ranbir Singh @ Boboi, David Changloi, Dinamani, Surenderjit and K. Raju @ King as the persons who had entered his flat at the time of the incident. He has not identified Wahengbam Thoithoiba Meitei @ Momu, Thangboi Chonglai, R.K. Ricky @ Rajkumar @ Raju @ King, N. Ojit Kumar @ Allen and L. Ranbir Singh @ Suleman.
292. The identification of the said six accused persons by PW1 and his failure to identify the other accused persons will have to be considered along with the fact that during the course of investigation, the place of the incident was pointed out only by the six accused persons so identified by him.
293. As per the record of the case, Malkit Singh pointed out the flat of the deceased on 23.12.2007 vide pointing out memo Ex.PW1/N, Surenderjit Singh on 30.01.2008 vide memo Ex.PW1/L, Dinamani Singh on 30.01.2008 vide memo Ex.PW1/M, Ranbir Singh @ Boboi on 30.01.2008 vide memo Ex.PW1/P, Minthang @ David Chongloi on 07.02.2008 vide memo Ex.PW1/O and by King State vs. Malkit Singh & Ors. 116/123 FIR No. 566 of 2007, PS Special Cell @ Raju Khangembam on 07.04.2009 vide memo Ex.PW79/C. Admittedly, none of these accused persons had been taken to the said flat in muffled faces. PW1 S. Hangsing was present at the said flat on each of the occasions and his signatures were obtained on the said memos. In other words, PW1 had seen all these six accused persons when they were brought to his flat at the time of pointing out of the place of the incident. The persons identified by PW1 in Court are these very six persons whom he had seen when they pointed out the place of the incident in his presence.
294. At the same time, no pointing out proceedings of the said flat were conducted qua Wahengbam Thoithoiba Meitei @ Momu, Thangboi Chonglai, R.K. Ricky @ Rajkumar @ Raju @ King, N. Ojit Kumar @ Allen and L. Ranbir Singh @ Suleman. These were the very five remaining accused persons whom PW1 failed to identify in the Court.
295. An inference thus arises that PW1 was able to identify only those accused persons who had been brought to his flat in his presence at the time of pointing out and that he failed to identify the remaining five accused persons qua whom no pointing out proceedings regarding the place of the incident were conducted as he had no opportunity of seeing their faces. At this stage, I may note that it was not the case of the prosecution that W.T.T. Meitei was present at the place of the incident. Even then there are other four accused who were at the flat as per the case of the prosecution regarding whom no pointing out proceedings were held at they were not identified by PW1. In these circumstances getting the place of the incident identified / pointed out by the said six accused persons in the presence of PW1 appears to be a deliberate act to familiarize PW1 with their faces. Had it not been done, it is probable that PW1 would have been unable to identify even these six accused persons.
296. PW2 David Hangsing is the other brother of the deceased. He was not present when the incident took place. He was not present when the accused State vs. Malkit Singh & Ors. 117/123 FIR No. 566 of 2007, PS Special Cell Thangboi Chonglai was alleged to have come to the flat on 11.11.2007. His statement is thus of no consequence.
297. PW6 has stated that accused Thangboi Chonglai and Chochon had come to their flat, one hour prior to the incident. The incident is supposed to have taken place at about 12:15am as deposed to by PW1. DD No. 29 was recorded at 12:45am. Therefore as per PW6, Thangboi Chonglai and Chochon came to their flat at about 11pm and then had gone back. Now PW13 has stated that Thangboi Chonglai and Chochon had come to their flat to watch football match on their TV. PW6 had left the flat at 6pm to go to purchase a Manipuri CD and came back at 8pm by which time Thangboi Chonglai and Chochon had already left their flat. There is a great difference regarding the time when Thangboi Chonglai and Chochon had come to their flat. While PW13 has stated that they had left by the time he reached at 8pm, PW6 has stated that they came at about 11pm (one hour before the incident). This is a material contradiction in the versions of PW6 and PW13 regarding the same fact.
298. Out of the eleven accused persons PW6 has identified only three namely Minthang @ David Chongloi, Thangboi Chonglai and King @ Raju Khangembam. PW6 stated that Thangboi Chonglai was the friend of S. Hangsing and was known to him from before.
299. The identification of the accused persons by PW13 as recorded in his examination in chief on page no.4 needs to be reproduced to appreciate it:-
"I do not identify the assailants because they have overpowered us. I had gone twice for the purpose of Test Identification Parade at Tihar Jail. The TIP was not done because they refused to join the TIP. I can identify the assailants if shown to me. The witness has seen the accused persons present in the court and has pointed out accused Malkit Singh saying that as the assailants entered the house I had seen him alongwith other assailants. The witness has correctly identified all the assailants present in the court. He has pointed out while identifying the accused Thangboi that he was friend of my brother Sat Minthang. I have identified the accused persons present in the court because I had the occasion to see State vs. Malkit Singh & Ors. 118/123 FIR No. 566 of 2007, PS Special Cell them when they entered the house. My statement was recorded by the Police Station Special Cell on 05.12.2007. "
300. In cross-examination on 21.04.2009, PW13 in his last para has deposed as under:-
"I do not know the meaning of Hindi word 'Dilay'. The statement recorded by police was no explained to me. It is incorrect to suggest that I have not seen any occurrence as I was not present there. It is incorrect to suggest that no incident had taken place in my presence or that I have been made a witness later on by the police to boost up the false prosecution case. It is incorrect to suggest that I had not gone for TIP on any of the dates and I have identified the accused persons only because they are present in the court. It is incorrect to suggest that I have identified the accused persons at the instance of the IO / police persons. Vol. Some of the accused persons were not seen by me at the time of the incident."
301. The above statements of PW13 are of such nature that it persuades this Court not to rely upon it. The reason for the same is that at the first instance the witness clearly stated that he would not be able to identify any of the accused persons as he had been overpowered. He then again stated that he could identify them. He specifically identified only Malkit Singh and Thangboi Chongloi. It must be kept in mind that Malkit Singh was the only non North-East person amongst the accused persons and Thangboi Chongloi was previously known to the witness. He has voluntarily tried to say in his last statement made during his cross-examination on 21.04.2009 that he had not seen some of the accused persons at the time of the incident. It is not clear as to which accused was not seen by him when he in his examination in chief is recorded to have identified all the accused persons.
302. As regards King @ Raju Khangembam, the statements of PW1, PW6 and PW13 had already been recorded and they had been subjected to cross-examination prior to the last accused King @ Raju Khangembam being apprehended. The statements of PW1, PW6 and PW13 were again recorded afresh after King @ Raju Khangembam was apprehended and put to trial by State vs. Malkit Singh & Ors. 119/123 FIR No. 566 of 2007, PS Special Cell way of a supplementary charge-sheet. In the Court, King @ Raju Khangembam was the only accused required to be identified by the witnesses which they have done.
303. There is already some doubt upon the statement Ex.PW1/A of PW1 on the basis of which the FIR came to be registered. There is no clarity as to who was the particular police officer who recorded the said statement. PW1 did not state anything about Thangboi Chonglai even though this accused was supposed to be his friend. The identification of six accused persons by PW1 in the Court does not inspire any confidence as these were the very six accused who were seen by him at the time of pointing out and he failed to identify the remaining five accused whom he did not have any opportunity to see prior to identification in Court. There are material contradictions between the versions of PW6 and PW13. The identification of the accused persons by PW13 is of no consequence having regard to his deposition. These circumstances coupled with the overall evidence led in this case persuades this Court to discard the statements of PW1, PW6 and PW13.
CONCLUSIONS
304. The evidence led in this case leads to the following conclusions:-
(A) The death of K. Hangsing is homicidal in nature;
(B) The purchase of the hammer Ex.P1, its recovery and use in the
murder of K. Hangsing has not been proved;
(C) The recording of the statement Ex.PW1/A of S. Hangsing PW1 and
preparation of rukka for registration of the FIR seems to be ante- timed and manipulated;
(D) The presence of Malkit Singh, Minthang @ David Chongloi, L. Ranbir @ Suleman, Allen @ N. Ojit Singh and W.T.T. Meitei at hotel City Heart Residency Chandigarh between 12.11.2007 to 14.11.2007 is not proved;
(E) While the presence of Malkit Singh in Delhi on 08.11.2007 for
State vs. Malkit Singh & Ors. 120/123
FIR No. 566 of 2007, PS Special Cell
handing over of liquor bottles to Roop Singh stands established, it has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt that he was in the company of Dinamani Singh at that time;
(F) Except for N. Surenderjit Singh and Dinamani Singh having taken on rent flat no.67A, Second Floor, Bharat Nagar, New Friends Colony, Delhi on rent, the prosecution has failed to prove that a toy pistol was recovered from the said flat or that other co-accused persons were seen residing with them in that flat;
(G) The recovery of the map Ex.P49 of the place of the incident in FIR No.2 of 2008 PS Dimapur West Nagaland is not proved and the said document seems to have been introduced;
(H) Presence of Minthang @ David Chongloi in Delhi in October, 2007 and interaction with PW47 and PW75 and taking on rent room at first floor 365, Sunlight Colony, Part-I, New Delhi stands proved but this circumstance by itself is of no consequence;
(I) Presence of Dinamani Singh and N. Surenderjit Singh at E-196, Second Floor, Gandhi Nagar, New Delhi in the night of 11/12.11.2007 stands proved. Again this circumstance in isolation is of no value;
(J) The intercepted conversations of Dinamani Singh and N. Surenderjit Singh of 05.01.2008 almost 1 ½ months after the incident denotes knowledge of apprehension of some person in Jalandhar caught through a mobile phone. This stand alone conversation is insufficient to draw any conclusion that the said accused were connected with the murder of the deceased;
(K) The apprehension of Malkit Singh from Jalandhar on 20.12.2007 is not proved beyond reasonable doubt;
(L) The apprehension of W.T.T. Meitei from Mohali Chandigarh on 21.12.2007 and recovery of the Sony Ericsson mobile handset from him has also not been proved beyond reasonable doubt;
(M) The CDRs relied upon do not prove beyond reasonable doubt that it was Malkit Singh who had used the handset of PW1 after the murder;
(N) The statements of the eye-witnesses PW1, PW6 and PW13 and identification of the accused persons by them are unreliable; and (O) The statements made by the accused persons under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. regarding their false implication, getting blank papers State vs. Malkit Singh & Ors. 121/123 FIR No. 566 of 2007, PS Special Cell signed and fabrication of documents seems probable in view of the nature of the evidence led by the prosecution in this case.
305. The task of the prosecution is to establish its case against an accused beyond any reasonable doubt. The same has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in several cases. In the case of Paramjeet Singh vs. State of Uttarakhand (2010) 10 SCC 439 it was held that the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and that the law does not permit the Court to punish the accused on the basis of moral conviction or suspicion alone. The more serious the offence, stricter the degree of proof required, since a higher degree of assurance is required to convict the accused. In the case of Kali Ram vs. State of Himachal Pradesh (1973) 2 SCC 808 it was held that when two views are possible, one pointing to the guilt and other to the innocence of the accused, the view favourable to the accused must be taken. When Court entertains a reasonable doubt regarding the guilt of the accused, the accused must get the benefit of that doubt. In the case of Datar Singh vs. State of Punjab (1975) 4 SCC 272 it has been held that suspicion, however grave, cannot be a satisfactory basis for convicting an accused person. When the superstructure of the prosecution has crumbled, it is impossible to not give the benefit of the doubt to the accused.
306. Having regard to the findings rendered by this Court on the evidence led by the prosecution in this case, the only conclusion which can be drawn is that as in the case of Datar Singh vs. State of Punjab (supra), the superstructure of the prosecution in the present case has crumbled. This Court finds it impossible to not give the benefit of the doubt to the accused.
307. The net result of the above discussion is that all the accused persons are acquitted of all the charges framed against them.
Announced in the open Court (REETESH SINGH)
on 20th October, 2016 ASJ-02/FTC, PHC/NDD
20.10.2016
State vs. Malkit Singh & Ors. 122/123
FIR No. 566 of 2007, PS Special Cell
State vs. Malkeet Singh & Ors.
FIR No. : 566 of 2007
PS: Special Cell
20.10.2016
Present: Ld. Sub. Addl. PP for the State.
Accused L. Ranbir Singh @ Suleman is present on bail.
Accused Malkit Singh, W.T.T. Meitei @ Momu, Thangboi Chonglai, W. Dinamani Singh, N. Surenderjit Singh, Ranbir Singh @ Boboi, R.K. Ricky @ Rajkumar, N. Ojit Kumar @ Allen, Minthang @ David Chongloi and King @ Raju Khangembam are produced from JC. Sh. C.M. Kennedy and Sh. David A., Counsel for the accused Thangboi @ Chonglai, Minthang @ David Chongloi, L. Ranbir Singh and Dinamani.
Sh. M.N. Singh, counsel for the accused N. Surenderjit Singh.
Accused persons have furnished bail bonds in compliance of Section 437A of the Cr.P.C. Same are accepted.
Matter is fixed today for orders / clarifications. No clarifications are required.
Vide separate judgment, all the above mentioned accused persons are acquitted of all the charges framed against them. They be released from the judicial custody immediately, if not required in another case.
The bail bonds furnished by them shall remain in force for a period of six months from today.
At this stage, an application is filed by L. Ranbir Singh praying for return of FDRs furnished by his surety at the time of grant of bail. Since L. Ranbir Singh has furnished fresh bonds under Section 437A of the Cr.P.C, the previous bail bonds stand discharged. FDRs be returned to the surety.
File be consigned to the record room and be taken up again upon apprehension of the accused persons who are absconding.
(Reetesh Singh)
ASJ-02/FTC, New Delhi District,
Patiala House Courts, New Delhi
20.10.2016
State vs. Malkit Singh & Ors. 123/123
FIR No. 566 of 2007, PS Special Cell