Delhi District Court
State vs Bhupender Singh on 28 March, 2007
1
IN THE COURT OF SH V.K. GOYAL, ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE: DELHI
SESSION CASE NO. 38/06.
FIR NO. 164/99
PS MUKHERJEE NAGAR.
U/S 302/399/34 OF IPC.
STATE
VERSUS
1. BHUPENDER SINGH,
S/O SH. YADU NATH SINGH,
R/O H NO. Y-9/62, BRAHAM PURI,
DELHI.
2. DROJAN SINGH,
S/O SH. BARE LAL,
R/O H. NO. X-4/62, BRAHAM PURI,
DELHI.
3. DINESH, (NOT TRACEABLE)
S/O JAWAHAR,
R/O VILLAGE SAHADATI,
P.O. AKASAR RATAN PURA,
DISTRICT SIWAN (BIHAR).
JUDGMENT:-
1. This case was registered on the statement dated 16.06.1999,of 2 one Jaswant Singh S/O Sh. Mansa Ram, R/O 339, Bhai Parmanand Colony, Delhi, wherein he has stated that he is residing with his family at the above address and is having a shop of clothes in Krishna Market, Chandni Chowk. As per routine, he has left his house for his shop at 10.00 AM and his wife Smt. Harbhajan Kaur was alone in the house. When he came back to his house at 9.30 PM, he saw his wife was lying in the bathroom and the articles of the house were found scattered. The door of the house was found opened. Cash, Jewellery, Silver Utensils and coins were found missing from two bed rooms.
2. Some unknown person put his wife in the bathroom and removed household articles by entering in the house. Before his reaching, they had already fled away. He does not know anything about the same and stated that he will furnish the list of looted articles.
3. On this statement, a rukka was prepared by SI Anil Kumar Yadav and he got registered a case under section 459/380 of IPC.
4. During the investigation, crime team, dog squad and photographer were called at the spot. Photographs were taken of the spot from different angles. Site plan was prepared by the IO at the instance of complainant. DO was directed to send a special messenger to inform the higher officials. ASI Narender Singh took four chance print and his statement under section 161 of Cr. P. C., was recorded. Statement of photographer constable 3 Yogesh Kumar was also recorded under section 161 of Cr. P. C. ASI Tek Chand also came at the spot and handed over the MLC of Harbhajan Kumar to the IO. According to the observation on the MLC, Harbhajan Kaur was stated to be brought dead in the hospital. Hence, section 460 of IPC was also added.
5. From the spot, during the investigation, one tape recorder alongwith one cassette and one lead, one steel chain grey colour broken from one place and attached with safety pin, one paper guarantee card, one iron locker having brass handle, ten keys of different types, one jute foot mat and some torn papers were seized.
6. On 17.06.1999, IO got conducted the postmortem on the body of Smt. Harbhajan Kaur from Hindu Rao Hospital and after the same, dead body was handed over to the legal heirs of the deceased. Statements of the witnesses were also recorded. On 18.06.1999, after consulting with the Higher Officials, the case was converted under section 302/392/34 of IPC and the investigation was handed over to one Inspector.
7. During the investigation by the said Inspector, draftsman Tirth Raj Singh was asked to prepared the site plan, who inspected the spot. Inmates and suspects were interrogated and finger prints were taken. Statements of witnesses were recorded. IO received the site plan on 10.07.1999. statement.
4
8. On 18.08.1999, he also obtained the postmortem report of the deceased. Thereafter, the investigation was handed over to SI Anil Kumar. On 23.08.1999, he got sent the finger prints of inmates and suspects to Finger Prints Bureau, Malviya Nagar.
9. On 21.09.1999, complainant told him during investigation about his suspicion on his previous servant Bhupender Singh @ Babu S/O Yadu Nath Singh because he had seen his house and was knowing all the moments of the members of the house and was also knowing that his wife used to remained alone in the house. About 1 ½ months before, Bhupender Singh @ Babu had left his service due to some annoyance. On this information, by giving notice under section 160 of Cr. P. C., on 22.09.1999 Bhupender Singh was called by the IO to join the investigation. He confessed that on 16.06.1999 at about 2 PM day, he alongwith his accomplices Drojan Singh @ Verma S/O Bare Lal and Dinesh S/O Jawahar, after planning the robbery, went to the house of Smt. Harbhajan Kaur and there they met with her and asked her for the water. As she turned to bring the water, his accomplice Dinesh put his hand on her mouth and he himself caught hold her hands and his another accomplice Drojan Singh caught hold her foot. Smt. Harbhajan Kaur resisted for sometimes and thereafter she became calm and they dragged her and put her in the latrine. They also removed around cash of Rs. 2.25,00,000/-, some silver 5 coins and rings from the bedroom and distributed the same equally.
10. On pointing of accused Bhupender Singh, accused Drojan Singh was also apprehended and who made the similar disclosure statement and they both were arrested in this case. One day PC remand of accused Drojan Singh and five days PC remand of accused Bhupender Singh was taken. During the PC remand, on 24.09.1999, accused Drojan Singh led the police party and the complainant to his rented room and got recovered Rs.10,000/- and one ring on which word HBK was found inscribed. Ring was identified by the complainant. All the recovered articles were seized.
11. On 27.09.1999, accused Bhupender Singh led the police party to his house at first floor and also got recovered from his house cash of Rs.15,000/- and one silver coin on which the words HAPPY BIRTHDAY GURUSIFT KAUR 08.03.1999 WITH BEST COMPLIMENTS FROM JASWANT SINGH JUNEJA were found inscribed. The same were also taken into possession. Finger prints of accused Drojan Singh were sent to Finger Prints Bureau, Malviya Nagar. The third accused Dinesh remained untraceable.
12. After completing the investigation, the charge sheet was filed against the accused Bhupender Singh and Drojan Singh under section 302/392/34 of IPC before the court of concerned learned Metropolitan Magistrate. It was committed to the court of sessions and was assigned to 6 this court.
13. On 08.02.2000, after hearing the arguments, charge was framed against both the accused persons under section 302/34 of IPC and 392/34 of IPC to which both of them pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
14. To prove its case, prosecution has examined PW-1 to 18 in all. Out of which PW-4 is the complainant Jaswant Singh. He has stated that accused Bhupender Singh @ Babu, present in the court today, was working on his shop and he was worked with him for more than 10 years. He asked for an advance of Rs.50,000/- from him in connection with the marriage of his sister which he refused to give to him. On this, he became annoyed with him. While he was working on his shop, he also used to visit his house off and on. He had left his employment for about 1 ½ months prior to the date of incident because he refused to give advance to him demanded from him.
15. He has further stated that on 16.06.1999 around 10.00 AM, he had left his house for his shop as usual. On that day, he returned from shop to his house around 9.30 PM and found the goods of his house lying scattered and his wife was lying trance in the bathroom. On seeing her, he started weeping and people from his neighbourhood collected at his house and someone informed the police. The police reached at the spot within half and hour of his reaching at his house from the shop. Police recorded 7 his statement Ex. PW-4/A which bears his signatures at point A. Thereafter, police took his wife Harbhajan Kaur to Hindu Rao Hospital and his son Joginder Singh accompanied the police to the hospital. His wife was declared "Brought Dead" by the doctors on reaching at the Hindu Rao Hospital.
16. On 16.06.1999, after police had taken his wife to HR hospital, crime team reached at his house, who lifted two finger prints Q1 and Q2 from a tape recorder lying in the lobby of his house, one finger print Q3 from the double bed and one finger print Q4 from a paper guarantee card. The police seized a footmat lying under the head of his wife in the bathroom, an iron safe with brass handle, 10 keys of different types lying near the safe and some torn papers were seized by the police vide seizure memo Ex. PW-3/B which bears his signatures at point B. The police had also seized one tape recorder, one steel chain (the two ends of which were closed with a safety pin) and paper guarantee card vide seizure memo Ex. PW-3/A which bears his signatures at point B.
17. On the next day i.e. 17.06.1999, he identified the dead body of his wife before the dead body was sent for postmortem. His statement was recorded by the police in this respect vide Ex. PW-4/B which bears his signatures at point B. After the postmortem, the dead body of his wife was handed over to him for cremation and he had told to the police that he 8 would give the details of the articles missing from his house after sometime as he was in a stage of shock at that time and could not prepare the entry of missing articles immediately.
18. On 22.06.1999, he handed over a list of missing articles to the police. He had found that a cash of Rs.2,25,000/-, gold jewellery, silver coins including one silver coin on which the following words were engraved:- "Happy Birthday, Gursift Kaur, 08.03.1999, with best compliments from Jaswant Singh Juneja" and two silver rings on which the initials of HBK were engraved were found missing from his house and all these items were mentioned by him in the list of missing articles given by him to the police. List of articles Ex. PW-4/C bears his signatures at point A.
19. On 05.09.1999, he went to police station and informed the police that he had a strong suspicion that accused Bhupender Singh @ Babu alongwith his associates was responsible for committing the murder of his wife. He raised his suspicion on him because he had left his employment about 1 ½ months prior to the date of incident as he was annoyed with him because he refused to give advance of Rs.50,000/- demanded by him. His suspicion against him was also on account of the fact that he was well aware that his wife Harbhajan Kaur was an old lady and she used to remain alone in the house when he used to be on his shop. He took advantage of 9 the above fact and committed the murder of his wife alongwith his associates.
20. On 24.09.1999, the police had informed him that the accused persons had been arrested. He was called to the police station for their identification. He identified the accused Bhupender Singh @ Babu at the police station because he knew him very well as he had worked with him for more than 10 years. He also accompanied the police, who took the accused persons for making recovery of stolen property. Accused Drojan Singh took the police party to his house and pointed out towards his house bearing no. 9/62, Gali No. 10, Brahmpuri and stated that he was residing as a tenant on the ground floor of the said house and thereafter went inside his house and took out a plastic envelope from a cloth bag and from the said plastic bag he got recovered to the police a cash of Rs.10,000/- and one silver ring bearing the initials of HBK. The recovered articles were kept in a pullanda and sealed with the seal of AKY by the IO and seized the same vide seizure memo Ex. PW-4/D. Seal after use was handed over to constable Ashok Kumar.
21. On 27.09.1999, he again visited the police station to enquire about the progress of case and found that the police was taking accused Bhupinder @ Babu to his house in connection with recovery of stolen property. He also accompanied with the police on that day. Accused 10 Bhupinder on reaching his house bearing no. 9/62, Gali No. 10, Brahampuri, Delhi, told the police in his presence that he was residing on the first floor of the said house and could get recover cash and jewellery from there. He went inside a room on the first floor of the house and took out a yellow colour plastic thalley from diwan and from the said thalley, he produced Rs.15,000/- and one silver coin engraved thereon "Happy Birthday, Gursift Kaur, 08.03.99, with best compliments from Jaswant Singh Juneja". He immediately identified the silver coin. The recovered articles were kept in a pullanda and sealed the same with the seal of AKY by the IO. Seal after use was given to Constable Ashok Kumar.
22. Thereafter, they came to Tis Hazari Courts and accused Bhupender Singh @ Babu was produced before the Magistrate. He was remanded to Judicial Custody on that day. On 15.12.1999, at the call of the IO, he handed over one salary voucher bearing no. 27, dated 05.12.1998 for Rs.2,500/- on which a revenue stamp was affixed having signatures of accused Bhupender Singh @ Babu thereon. The said salary voucher was also bearing the signatures of his son Joginder Singh and was seized by the police vide Seizure Memo Ex. PW-4/F which bears his signatures at point A. He has brought the original salary voucher Ex. PW-4/G.
23. He has also identified the case property before the court. One tape recorder as Ex. P-1, alongwith one cassette and one lead, one steel 11 chain as Ex. P-3 and one paper guarantee card as Ex. P-3 to be the same which were taken into possession by the IO in his presence. Iron Safe with brass handle alongwith ten keys as Ex. P-4, torn papers collectively as Ex. P-5, Footmat as Ex. P-6, cash amount as Ex. P-7 collectively and silver coin as Ex. P-8 which were recovered from the possession of accused Bhupender Singh @ Babu, cash amount of Rs.10,000/- as Ex. P-9 and silver coin bearing the words HBK as Ex. P-10 which were recovered from the possession of accused Drojan Singh.
24. PW-6 is Joginder Singh. He is the son of the deceased. He has stated that on 17.06.1999, he had identified the dead body of his mother in the mortuary of Hindu Rao Hospital in the presence of his father. His statement Ex. PW-6/A was recorded which bears his signatures at point A. After the postmortem, the dead body was handed over to his father Jaswant Singh Juneja, who received the same in his presence. On 15.12.1999, his father had handed over to the IO one voucher regarding the salary of accused Bhupender Singh @ Babu in his presence. IO seized the said voucher vide seizure memo Ex. PW-4/F which bears his signatures at point B. The original voucher is Ex. PW-4/G.
25. Witnesses to the investigation are PW-1,2,3,5,9,10,11,12,13,14, 15, 17 and 18.
26. PW-1 is Tirath Raj Singh, draftsman. On 18.06.1999, at the call of 12 IO, he reached the place of the occurrence and took rough notes and measurements at the instance of complainant Jaswant Singh and IO. After preparation of scaled site plan Ex. PW-1/A, he destroyed the rough notes and measurement. The notes shown on the scaled site plan Ex. PW-1/A encircled as A to A is in the handwriting of the IO.
27. PW-2 is constable Ravinder Kumar. On 16.06.1999, at about 10 PM, on receipt of DD No. 19A, he alongwith SI Anil Kumar, ASI Tek Chand and constable Ram Snehi reached at the place of occurrence where they found one lady in the unconscious condition in the bathroom and as per instructions of the IO, he accompanied by ASI Tek Chand took unconscious lady Harbhajan Kaur to Hindu Rao Hospital who was declared dead by the concerned doctor.
28. From the hospital, he alongwith ASI Tek Chand took the dead body of deceased Harbhajan Kaur to Mortuary HRH. ASI Tek Chand gave him necessary direction for the safe custody of the deceased, he himself left for the spot. On 17.06.1999, the postmortem was conducted on the body of deceased Harbhajan Kaur and after the postmortem, the dead body was handed over to her husband Jaswant Singh.
29. PW-3 is constable Ram Snehi. On 16.06.1999, on receipt of DD No. 19A, he accompanied by SI Anil Kumar, ASI Tek Chand and constable Ravinder Kumar and reached at the place of occurrence and found one 13 lady in unconscious condition lying in the bath room. All the articles were lying in the house in a scattered condition. Harbhajan Kaur was taken to the hospital by ASI Tek Chand and constable Ravinder Kumar. IO made his endorsement and gave the same to him which he took to the police station for getting the case registered. By that time SHO Mukherjee Nagar alongwith his staff also reached at the spot. After getting the case registered, he returned to the spot and handed over the tehrir and copy of FIR to the IO. Crime team inspected the spot and photographer took different photographs from different angles as per directions of the IO, dog squad was also called in his presence. IO took into possession from the veranda one tape recorder bearing no. RX FS 400 with one cassette and lead, one steel chain and one paper card vide seizure memo Ex. PW-3/A. IO also took into possession one iron cash box alongwith 10 keys, a few pieces of papers and one doormat vide seizure memo Ex. PW-3/B.
30. After about 3-4 months, he again joined the IO in the investigation of the case and a cash amount was got recovered by accused Bhupinder. No other recovery was effected in his presence. He has been cross examined by the learned APP as he is suppressing the truth.
31. In the cross examination, he has stated that police recorded his supplementary statement Ex. PW-3/C. He has admitted that on 27.09.1999, accused Bhupinder Singh took the police party to his house no. 14 X9/62, Gali No. 10-A and thereafter took them to the first floor of the house and took out one yellow colour plastic envelope from the bed lying in the house. Complainant Jaswant Singh was also with them. IO checked the plastic envelope which was containing cash of Rs.15,000/- with the denomination of 10 currency notes of Rs.500/- each, eight currency notes of Rs.100/- each and 40 currency notes of Rs.50/- each and one coin of silver type metal on which the word "Happy Birthday Gursift Kaur, 08.03.99 with best compliments from Jaswant Singh Juneja" and on the reverse of the said coin the picture of Sikh Guru was inscribed. Complainant has identified the coin as he had given as present on the birthday of his grand daughter. IO kept the cash amount and coin in a piece of paper and prepared a pullanda and affixed the seal of AKY on the same and seized the same vide seizure memo Ex. PW-3/D. Seal of AKY after use was handed over to constable Ashok. He has also identified the case property as Ex. P-1 to P-8 and the accused Bhupinder Singh before the court.
32. PW-5 is constable Yashpal. On 17.06.1999, he was posted at police station Saraswati Vihar and on that day at the call of IO, he had visited the spot of occurrence at Parmanand Colony and took five photographs of the scattered goods lying there. The negatives are Ex. PW- 5/A1 to A5 and the developed photographs are Ex. PW-5/B1 to B5.
33. PW-9 is ASI Narender Singh. On 16.06.1999, he was posted as 15 Finger Prints Experts in Crime Branch, ISBT, Delhi and at about 11.15 PM, he alongwith constable Ravinder Kumar reached the place of occurrence and inspected the spot. He remained at the spot from 11.15 PM to 1 night i.e. night intervening 16.6.1999 to 17.06.1999. He lifted the chance print from one tape recorder make RX-FX400 i.e. Q1 and Q2 using grey powder. He also lifted one chance print Q3 using black powder from double bed and similarly he lifted chance print Q4 using grey powder from polythene of guarantee card. Thereafter, he gave directions to the IO to sent the finger and palm impression of inmates and suspected persons to Finger Print Bureau, PTS, Malviya Nagar. His report in this respect is Ex. PW-9/A which bears his signatures at point A.
34. PW-10 is constable Bhupender. On 16.06.1999, he was handed over the special report by duty officer Rohtash Singh and the same was delivered by him to Ilaka Magistrate and Senior police officer i.e. Additional CP and DCP. After delivering the special report, he returned to the police station.
35. PW-11 is constable Lal Chand. He remained with the IO in the investigation of the case. On 22.09.1999, accused Bhupender was summoned in the police station for interrogation. At that time, constable Ashok Kumar and constable Narender Kumar also joined the investigation. In his presence, accused Bhupender made the disclosure statement Ex. 16 PW-11/A in which he had confessed the commission of offence and further disclosed that he would get recovered the cash amount and other articles from his house. He led the police party at house no. X-9/62, gali no. 10A and at the instance of him, accused Drojan present in the court today was apprehended. Accused Drojan and Bhopender pointed out the place of occurrence vide pointing out memo Ex. PW-11/B and Ex. PW-11/C. Accused Drojan made his disclosure statement Ex. PW-11/D and he also disclosed that he also would get recovered the cash amount and one silver ring from his house.
36. On 24.09.1999, he again joined the investigation with the IO. Complainant Jaswant Singh also accompanied them. Accused Drojan Singh led the police party to his house and took out one envelope. After checking the envelope, it was found to contain a cash of Rs.10,000/- and one silver type ring bearing the word of HBK, which was identified by the complainant as belonging to him. IO kept the recovered articles in a pullanda and sealed the same with the seal of AKY and seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW-4/D. He has identified the accused persons and case property as Ex. P-9 and Ex. P-10 before the court.
37. PW-12 is HC Rohtash Singh. On 16.06.1999, he was posted as duty officer in police station Mukherjee Nagar with duty hours from 5 PM to 1 night. At about 11.15 PM, he recorded FIR no. 164/99 under section 17 459/380 of IPC on receipt of rukka brought by constable Ram Snahei sent by SI Anil Kumar. Copy of FIR is Ex. PW-12/A. He also recorded DD no. 20A with regard to registration of the case. Section 302 of IPC was subsequently added in the FIR.
38. PW-13 is ASI Tek Chand. He has stated that on 16.06.1999 on receipt of DD no. 19A from duty officer HC Rohtash Singh, IO accompanied him, constable Ram Snehi and constable Ravinder Singh reached at the place of occurrence, where they found one lady named as Harbhajan Kaur lying on the ground floor in the unconscious condition in the toilet and the household articles were lying scattered in the house. With the help of constable Ravinder Singh, he took out that lady from the toilet and took her to Hindu Rao hospital in a government gypsy. SHO came there in that gypsy. In the hospital, doctor had written in the said MLC as brought dead. Due to inadvertent the doctor had written as brought by PCR as the doctor misunderstood him as police official of PCR. He filled in the form with regard to the inquest proceeding. He alongwith constable Ravinder Singh took the dead body to mortuary, Hindu Rao hospital and after leaving the dead body, he left the mortuary.
39. PW-14 is constable Narender Singh. He remained with the IO in the investigation of the case. On 22.09.1999, accused Bhupender @ Babu came to the police station in consequence compliance of notice under 18 section 160 of Cr. P. C. IO interrogated the accused Bhupender in which he confessed the commission of offence. He confessed that he alongwith his co-accused Drojan and another co-accused who could not be apprehended committed the murder of Harbhajan Kaur in house no. 339, Parmanand Colony. He also disclosed that he could get arrested his co- accused Drojan.
40. Thereafter, he led the police party comprising himself, IO, constable Ashok and constable Lal Chand at house no. X-9/62, Gali No. 10A and pointed towards accused Drojan, who was sitting in a room on the ground floor. Accused tried to ran away but he was overpowered by constable Lal Chand and thereafter he was arrested and interrogated. Accused Drojan also made a disclosure statement in which he confessed the commission of offence alongwith accused Bhupender Singh.
41. Accused Bhupender Singh before taking them to the house of accused Drojan pointed out the place of occurrence. After the arrest, accused Drojan Singh also pointed out the place of occurrence. On 23.09.1999 he again joined with the IO in the investigation of the case. Accused Drojan Singh was interrogated by the IO, in which he disclosed that after committing the murder of an old lady, they had removed the cash amount of Rs.2.25 lakhs, some silver coins and one silver ring. He further disclosed that he could get recovered a part of the said amount and the 19 silver coin from his house. Thereafter, IO took the police remand of accused for the said recovery.
42. PW-15 is constable Ashok Kumar. On 23.08.1999, he had taken the finger prints of 11 persons to Finger Print Bureau, Malviya Nagar and deposited the same and returned to the police station. On 22.09.1999, he again joined the investigation with the IO and on that day, accused Bhupender Singh had come to the police station after a notice under section 160 of Cr. P. C., was served to him. Thereafter, he alongwith constable Lal Chand and constable Narender Kumar joined the investigation with the IO and accused Bhupender Singh was interrogated, who made his disclosure statement Ex. PW-11/A in which he had confessed the commission of offence, which he had completed with co- accused Drojan and Dinesh. Accused was formally arrested.
43. He has further stated that he could get arrest his co-accused Drojan and let them to house no. X-9/62, Gali no. 9A, Brahampuri, where accused Bhupender pointed out accused Drojan, who was sitting on the ground floor of that house. He ran towards outside the house but was overpowered by constable Lal Chand. He was interrogated and he confessed the commission of offence. Accused Drojan Singh was formally arrested. After that, they returned to the police station.
44. On 23.09.1999, he alongwith constable Narender and constable 20 Lal Chand had taken out the accused from police lock up Model Town to police station Mukherjee Nagar. In interrogation, accused Drojan disclosed that he could get recovered the cash amount and one ring.
45. He has further disclosed that he had received the share of Rs.75,000/- out of which he had spent a plenty of money and now he could get recovered an amount of Rs.10,000/-. Thereafter, the accused persons were produced before the court and were remanded to police custody till 24.09.1999 and 27.09.1999.
46. On 24.09.1999, at about 12 noon, complainant came to the police station and also joined the investigation. The police party alongwith the complainant and both the accused persons left the police station to effect the recovery and accused Drojan led them to his house and took out one plastic envelope hanging on a tand took out one ring bearing words HBK and cash amount of Rs.10,000/-. Ring was identified by the complainant. IO seized the said cash amount and ring after preparing a parcel of the same and affixed the seal of AKY on the same and seal after use was handed over to him. IO seized the parcel vide seizure memo Ex. PW-4/D.
47. On 27.09.1999, he accompanied the IO, constable Ram Snehi, complainant and accused Bhupender Singh left the police station to effect the recovery in pursuance of his disclosure statement. Accused Bhupender get them all to house no. X-9/62, Gali No. 10A, Braham Puri. Accused 21 Bhupender Singh told them that he has been residing there with his mother and led them to the upper floor of the said house and took out a yellow colour plastic envelope from a dewan and further took out an amount of Rs.15,000/- and one silver type coin with words Happy Birthday Gursift Kaur, 08.03.99 with compliments from Jaswant Singh Juneja and on the other side of the coin, there was picture of Sikhguru. On seeing the said coin, complainant identified to be the same which he had got prepared on the birthday of his grand daughter. IO prepared a parcel of the cash amount and the said coin and affixed the seal of AKY and seized the same vide seizure memo Ex. PW-4/E. Seal after use was handed over to him. He has identified the case property before the court which were recovered from the possessions of the accused persons.
48. PW-16 is ASI Ramesh Kumar. On 26.11.1999, he obtained the NBW for execution against accused Dinesh S/O Jawahar. Accordingly, he went to native place i.e. village Sohadali, District Sewan, Bihar, but he could not execute the NBW against the accused and returned back. Thereafter, he had also obtained the process under section 82-83 of Cr. P. C. against the accused but the accused did not appear before the court within the stipulated time, hence the accused kept in Khana no. 2 by the IO of the case.
49. PW-17 is Inspector Avnish Trivedi. On 16.06.1999, he was posted 22 as SHO at police station Mukherjee Nagar, got a call around 10 PM about an incident at house no. 339, Bhai Parmanand colony, in the area of police station Mukherjee Nagar. He reached at the spot at around 10.30 PM and found a lady lying in the pool of blood which was shifted to hospital through ASI Tek Chand in his government gypsy. On 18.06.1999, section 302/392 of IPC were added in the FIR, he took up the investigation. On the same day, Sh. Tirth Raj Draftsman came and site was inspected. Detailed sketch was got prepared by him at his instance. Again on 22.06.1999, complainant came and gave a list of stolen articles like 2.25 lacs of rupees in cash, few silver coins with identification mark and jewellery, 1 golden ring with identification mark. His supplementary statement was also recorded on that day. On 18.08.1999, the investigation was handed over to SI Anil Kumar. The list of the stolen articles was given to him by complainant orally. After completing the formalities, IO submitted the challan to him, which he filed in the court. He has further stated that at the spot he found a lady in an unconscious condition. Complainant had given him a list of stolen articles with identification mark of HBK on one silver ring. On 22.09.1999, he had interrogated accused Bhupender Singh. He has identified the accused Bhupender before the court.
50. PW-18 is SI Anil Kumar. On 16.06.1999, on receipt of DD no. 19A, he alongwith constable Ram Snehi reached at the spot and found the 23 household articles were lying scattered in the bedroom and in the lavatory of the house. One old lady was found in the unconscious condition but no visible signs of injury were noticed. He send that lady to Hindu Rao hospital through ASI Tek Chand and constable Ravinder. Complainant was present on the spot, who gave his statement Ex. PW-4/A, which was read over to him and he signed the same at point A. He attested the same at point B and prepared rukka Ex. PW-18/A and gave it to the constable Ram Snehi for getting the case registered with the request to the duty officer to sent the crime team, dog squad, photographer at the spot and also to inform the senior officers. From the hospital, ASI Tek Chand came at the spot and informed him that the lady had been declared brought dead by the doctor and handed over to him the MLC and inquest form. Constable Ram Snehi reached at the spot and gave him the tehrir and the copy of FIR. Crime team headed by ASI Narender Singh reached at the spot and inspected the spot and lifted chance print from the tape recorder kept in the lobby of the house. He also lifted the chance print from the double bed and one guarantee paper card lying near the bed.
51. Meanwhile, photographer came at the spot, who took the photographs Ex. PW-5/A1 to 5 from different angles as per his instructions. Dog squad came at the spot and dog took up only to the street and thereafter stopped there and they did not get any clue. He recorded the 24 statement of ASI Narender Singh and constable Yashpal. He seized one tape recorder with one cassette and one lead, one steel grey colour chain tied with safety pin and one paper guarantee card vide seizure memo Ex. PW-3/A. He also seized one iron tizori with 10 keys, some torn papers lying near the tizori and one mat from the latrine vide seizure memo Ex. PW-3/B. Prior to this seizure process, he had inspected the spot and prepared site plan Ex. PW-18/B. The section 460 was added in the FIR after receipt of the MLC.
52. On 17.06.1999, the postmortem of the body of the deceased was conducted and after the postmortem, the dead body was handed over to her husband. He recorded the identification statement of complainant and his son.
53. On 18.06.1999, SHO after discussing with the senior officers, added section 302 and 392 of IPC in the FIR. On 22.08.1999, he again received the investigation of the case. On 23.08.1999, he took the finger prints of suspects and inmates and was sent to FSL, Malviya Nagar for comparison and he recorded his statement. On 05.09.1999, complainant expressed suspicion upon his former employee Bhupender Singh. He summoned accused Bhupender Singh to the police station on 22.09.1999 and interrogated him. Accused Bhupender Singh made his disclosure statement Ex. PW-11/A, in which he disclosed that he could get recovered 25 the silver coin and a cash amount of Rs.15,000/- of the robbed amount and articles from his house. Accused pointed the place of occurrence and he prepared pointing out memo Ex. PW-11/C. On the same day, he led them at house no. H9/62 for the arrest of co-accused Drojan and on reaching there, he pointed towards Drojan Singh who on seeing the police party, started running but was overpowered by constable Lal Chand. He interrogated him and recorded his disclosure statement Ex. PW-11/D, in which he had disclosed that he could get recovered a cash amount of Rs.10,000/- from his house. Accused Drojan has also pointed out the place of occurrence. He prepared pointing out memo Ex. PW-11/B. In the disclosure statement, both the accused persons disclosed that they could get recovered the cash from the looted amount and had not given the exact amount.
54. He prepared the personal search memo of accused Drojan Singh as Ex. PW-18/C and of accused Bhupender Singh as Ex. PW-18/D. On 24.09.1999, accused Drojan Singh led the police party comprising of constable Ashok Kumar, constable Lal Chand, constable Satpal besides him. Complainant had come to the police station on his information about the arrest of the accused persons. Complainant has identified the accused Bhupender Singh as his former employee. Accused led the police party and the complainant to his rented house X-9/62, Gali No. 10A, Brahampuri, 26 Delhi. One polythene lying in the bag, which was kept on the tand of the house. On checking the polythene, cash amount of Rs.10,000/- out of which 9 notes were in the denomination of Rs.500/- and 32 notes in the denomination of Rs.100/- and 46 notes in the denomination of Rs.50/-, and one silver type ring with the words HBK in English. He prepared a parcel of the recovered articles and sealed the same with the seal of AKY and seized the same vide seizure memo Ex. PW-4/D. Seal after use was handed over to constable Ashok Kumar. Thereafter, they returned to the police station. Accused was sent to the JC.
55. On 27.09.1999, complainant had come in the police station to enquire about the case and he told him that the police is going to effect the recovery as per the disclosure statement of accused Bhupender Singh and he joined them. He alongwith constable Ashok Kumar and constable Ram Snehi accompanied by complainant was led by accused Bhupender Singh to the house of his adopted mother and got recovered one plastic cover from a diwan lying in the house. On checking it, contains cash amount of Rs.15,000/-, out of which 10 notes of 500 denomination, 18 notes of 100 denomination and 40 notes of 50 denomination and one silver coin with the words Happy Birthday to Gursift Kaur, 08.03.1999 with best compliments from Jaswant Singh Juneja and on the another side of the coin, there was an idol of Guru Nanak Devi Ji, the said coin was identified by the 27 complainant. He seized the said case property sealed with the seal of AKY vide seizure memo Ex. PW-4/E. Seal after use was given to constable Ashok Kumar. He recorded the statements of the witnesses at the spot. Before effecting the recovery, he asked the public persons to join but no one agree. They returned to the police station and deposited the case property in the malkhana. Another co-accused Dinesh could not be arrested and he initiated the proceedings for getting him declared PO.
56. On 05.12.1999, complainant came to the police station and handed over to him the salary voucher of his ex-employee of accused Bhupender, which he seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW-4/F. The said salary voucher is Ex. PW-4/B. He recorded the statement of complainant in this regard.
57. On 23.08.1999, he had sent the chance print for comparison to FSL. The DD no. 19A entries is Ex. PW-18/E and DD entry no. 15A is Ex. PW-18/F, 66B is Ex. PW-18/G, 3A is Ex. PW-18/H, 15A dated 21.09.1999 is Ex. PW-18/I, 71 B is Ex. PW-18/J, 21A is Ex. PW-18/Q. The arrest memo of accused Bhupender Singh is Ex. PW-18/P and of Drojan Singh is Ex. PW-18/R. He conducted the inquest proceeding which is collectively Ex. PW-18/S including the brief facts. His notice to accused Bhupender singh is Ex. PW-18/T. During the investigation, he had obtained the postmortem report from the hospital. After completing the formalities, he submitted the 28 case property to the SHO. He has also identified the case property and both the accused persons before the court.
58. Witnesses to the MLCs are PW-7 and 8.
59. PW-7 is Dr. Keshav Sharma. On 17.06.1999, he was posted as Senior Resident in the Department of Forensic Medicine, Hindu Rao Hospital, Delhi and on that day at about 12.45 PM, he conducted the postmortem on the body of deceased Smt. Harbhajan Kaur aged about 60 years, which was brought to the hospital by constable Ravinder Kumar. The body was identified by Joginder Pal Singh and Jaswant Singh. During the conduction of the postmortem, he found that on external examination, the height of the body was 140 CM, weight 66 KG, built average and the following injuries were there on the body:-
1. Nail abrasion .3 X .2 CM over left mandibular region of face.
2. Nail abrasion .5 X .2 CM over left side face below angle of mouth.
3. Nail abrasion .4 X .1 CM over left side of face outer to injury no.2.
4. Nail abrasion .1 X .2 CM over front and left side upper part of neck.
5. Abrasion 1.2 X .2 CM over front and middle part of left side neck obliqely placed 2 CM below and inner to injury no. 4. 29
6. Abrasion 1.5 X 3 CM over front and slightly right side middle part of neck obliqely placed 1.5 CM below injury no. 5.
7. Abrasion 1 X .8 CM over front and middle right lower part of neck.
8. Abrasion .4 X .2 CM over left allanasae.
9. Bruice 14 X 10 CM over back of upper part of right arm.
10.Bruice 3 X 1.5 CM front and inner part of middle right forearm.
11.Abrasion .7 X .4 CM over base and palmer aspect of right index finger.
12.Real road pattern abrasions (a) 5 X 2 CM (b) 4.5 X 1.5 CM, (c) 3 X 2 CM, (d) 5 X 3.5 CM over left side back of lower chest parellel to each other and present in stepping pattern.
On internal examination, he found that abdomen peritoneum and peritoneal cavity intact.
(B) Stomach contents :- 150 gms. Semi digested food material other structures were intact and congested.
2. Pelvis :- (a) pelvic bones were intact, (b) urinary bladder was empty, (c) Overies (d) Uterus, both were intact.
3. Neck structures :- (a) Trachea (b) Oesophagus sub-cut tissues (c) hioered bone (d) thyroid cartilage, all were intact.
4. Chest :- (a) collar bones, ribs, strnum were intact (d) pluera (e) both side 30 sub-plearal haemorrhage (f) hard and pericardium (g) diaphragm were intact in heard, old scaring present.
5. Spinal column was intact.
OPINION Death in this case was due to asphyxia consequent to mechanical airway obstruction (smothering). Injury No. 5,6 and 7 were caused by some interrupted interlogued object. Injury No. 8,9,10,11,12 were caused by blunt force impact against hard surface/object. Time since death was approximately 14 to 15 hours. His report is Ex. PW-7/A which bears his signatures at point A.
60. PW-8 is Dr. S. M. A. Ahsan. On 16.06.1996, one patient by the name of Harbhajan Kaur was brought to the casualty with the alleged history of injury in a case of robbery. The body was brought by a PCR van. After medically examining the patient, he declared her as brought dead vide his report Ex. PW-8/A which bears his signatures at point A.
61. After completion of the evidence, statements of both the accused persons were recorded. Both accused persons have denied the evidence on record and stated that they are innocent and falsely implicated in this case. Accused Bhupender has stated that he was arrested by the police merely on suspicion leveled against him by the complainant because he was the ex-employee of the complainant. He demanded his remaining 31 arrears of salary but the complainant did not pay the same. Thereafter, he left the job of the complainant. The complainant has falsely implicated him due to enmity. Accused Drojan Singh has stated that he was picked up from his house and nothing was recovered from his possession.
62. In defence, DW-1 Smt. Beena has been examined by accused Bhupender Singh. She has stated that on 22.09.1999, police had come to her house at around 8 AM in the morning. Her house is situated at Braham Puri Gali no. 10A. They had told her that they were taking away Bhupender for finger prints informing that Bhupender would return after one hour.
63. After some day, police brought Bhpender and inquired her on that day. They checked up her bed. Nothing was recovered. They went away with Bhupender. She has further stated that Bhupender lives in their locality for quite for long time and no incident had happened.
64. Thereafter, SI Anil Kumar IO of the case was called by the court for some clarifications regarding collection of finger prints of accused Bhupender to which he told that these were taken on 23.08.1999 and were sent with the chance prints on the same day through constable Ashok Kumar for report to FPB, Malviya Nagar. The sample finger prints were taken in the police station and thereafter accused Bhupender was sent back. The opportunity to cross examined the witness was also given to both the learned defence counsels.
32
65. Thereafter, further statement of both the accused persons were recorded in respect of the examination of SI Anil Kumar by the court.
66. I have heard learned APP for the State assisted by Sh. S. C. Bhuttan counsel for the Complainant and counsel Sh. S.L. Jain for accused Bhupender and Sh. S. K. Sharma for accused Drojan Singh and also gone through the material placed on record.
67. The counsels for both the accused persons have contended that the accused have been falsely implicated in this case. It is further contended that the incident is of 16.06.1999 whereas the alleged recovery has been affected on 24.09.1999 from accused Drojan Singh and on 27.09.1999 from accused Bhupender Singh.
68. It is contended by the learned defence counsel for the accused Drojan Singh that the arrest memo Ex. PW-18/A of accused Drojan Singh showing the date of arrest as 22.06.1999 whereas the date bearing under the signatures of SI is 22.09.1999. It is also contended that from the evidence of the witnesses, it is clear that no list of stolen articles was given by the complainant, which has been exhibited by the prosecution as Ex. PW-4/C, hence the same is fabricated. It is further contended that no supplementary statement of the complainant has been recorded in this respect.
69. It is contended by the learned defence counsels that the 33 complainant has identified the silver coin instead of silver ring. It is also contended that the complainant has stated that he was called in the police station whereas PW-11 has stated that complainant came at his own. It is further contended that according to deposition of PW-17 no list of missing articles was given.
70. The learned defence counsel for the accused Bhupender Singh has contended that currency notes and silver coin have been allegedly recovered from the accused and only once chance print has been tallied as per report of Finger Prints Bureau, Malviya Nagar. It is contended that the accused has been arrested because he was ex-employee of the complainant and complainant had not given the arrears of salary of accused Bhupender.
71. The complaint Ex. PW-4/A is not in dispute in any manner which was lodged by the complainant Jaswant Singh on 16.06.1999 on which rukka Ex. PW-18/A was prepared and the case was registered initially under section 459/380 of IPC. During the investigation, scaled site plan Ex. PW-1/A was prepared. From the spot, one tape recorder alongwith one cassette and one lead, one steel chain grey colour broken from one place and attached with safety pin and one paper guarantee card were taken into possession vide memo Ex. PW-3/A. Chance prints Q1 to Q4 were lifted from these articles. One iron locker having brass handle, ten keys of 34 different types, some torn papers and one jute foot mat which was lying underneath of the head of the deceased were also taken into possession vide memo Ex. PW-3/B.
72. It is also not disputed that accused Bhupender was ex-employee of the complainant Jaswant Singh. Photographs of the spot Ex. PW-5/B1 to B5 are also not disputed. Postmortem of the body was conducted vide postmortem report Ex. PW-7/A. MLC of deceased is Ex. PW-8/A.
73. PW-1 who has prepared the scaled site plan has been cross examined by the learned counsel for the accused Bhupender only but nothing came out to disbelieve his testimony in any manner. PW-2 has stated that he had gone at the place of occurrence with the police party and found one lady in the unconscious condition in the bathroom and as per instructions of the IO, he accompanied by ASI Tek Chand took unconscious lady Harbhajan Kaur to Hindu Rao Hospital who was declared dead by the concerned doctor.
74. From the hospital, he alongwith ASI Tek Chand took the dead body of deceased Harbhajan Kaur to Mortuary HRH. ASI Tek Chand gave him necessary direction for the safe custody of the deceased, he himself left for the spot. On 17.06.1999, the postmortem was conducted on the body of deceased Harbhajan Kaur and after the postmortem, the dead body was handed over to her husband Jaswant Singh. The witness has 35 been cross examined by the learned counsel for accused Bhupender but nothing come out from his cross examination and nor any contradiction has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the accused Bhupender.
75. PW-3 has stated that he reached at the place of occurrence with the police party and found one lady in unconscious condition lying in the bath room. All the articles were lying in the house in a scattered condition. Harbhajan Kaur was taken to the hospital by ASI Tek Chand and constable Ravinder Kumar. IO made his endorsement and gave the same to him which he took to the police station for getting the case registered. After getting the case registered, he returned to the spot and handed over the tehrir and copy of FIR to the IO. Crime team inspected the spot and photographer took different photographs from different angles as per directions of the IO, dog squad was also called in his presence. IO took into possession from the veranda one tape recorder bearing no. RX FS 400 with one cassette and lead, one steel chain and one paper card vide seizure memo Ex. PW-3/A. IO also took into possession one iron cash box alongwith 10 keys, a few pieces of papers and one doormat vide seizure memo Ex. PW-3/B.
76. He has also identified his signatures on the arrest memo and further identified these articles before the court. He has corroborated with PW-2 regarding the fact that Harbhajan Kumar was removed to hospital by 36 ASI Tek Chand alongwith PW-2. This witness has been cross examined by both the learned counsels for both the accused persons only on the point that tape recorder was of red and black colour. This witness has clarified the colour of tape recorder as red and colour as mentioned in Ex. PW-3/A. He has stated that tape recorder was not sealed in a pullanda. He has admitted that the articles mentioned in Ex. PW-3/B were not sealed in a pullanda.
77. PW-5 has corroborated the fact that he had taken five photographs of the spot when he was called at the spot. The negatives are Ex. PW-5/A1 to A5 and developed photographs are Ex.PW-5/B1 to B5. Witness has not been cross examined by the counsels for the accused persons. Similarly, PW-6 is son of the deceased. He has identified the dead body of his mother vide his statement Ex. PW-6/A. Dead body was handed over to his father in his presence. Salary voucher of the accused Bhupender is handed over to IO by his father which was seized vide memo Ex. PW-4/F. The original voucher is Ex. PW-4/G.
78. This witness has been cross examined. In the cross examination, he has stated that voucher Ex. PW-4/G is of 05.12.1998 and the accused present in the court had received the same amount every month.
79. PW-10 is handed over the special report by duty officer Rohtash Singh and the same was delivered by him to Ilaka Magistrate and Senior 37 police officer i.e. Additional CP and DCP. After delivering the special report, he returned to the police station. PW-12 has recorded FIR no. 164/99 under section 459/380 of IPC on receipt of rukka brought by constable Ram Snehi sent by SI Anil Kumar. Copy of FIR is Ex. PW-12/A. He also recorded DD no. 20A with regard to registration of the case. Section 302 of IPC was subsequently added in the FIR. Both the witnesses are of formal nature.
80. PW-13 has stated that on 16.06.1999 on receipt of DD no. 19A from duty officer HC Rohtash Singh, IO accompanied him, constable Ram Snehi and constable Ravinder Singh reached at the place of occurrence, where they found one lady named as Harbhajan Kaur lying on the ground floor in the unconscious condition in the toilet and the household articles were lying scattered in the house. With the help of constable Ravinder Singh, he took out that lady from the toilet and took her to Hindu Rao hospital in a government gypsy. SHO came there in that gypsy. In the hospital, doctor had written in the said MLC as brought dead. Due to inadvertent the doctor had written as brought by PCR as the doctor misunderstood him as police official of PCR. Even otherwise the name of PW-13 is bearing as a person in the MLC. He alongwith constable Ravinder Singh took the dead body to mortuary, Hindu Rao hospital and after leaving the dead body, he left the mortuary.
38
81. After the cross examination, the witness has been re-examined regarding the articles which were seized from the spot and has identified these articles before the court. Nothing came out from the deposition of this witness, so far as they have deposed about their reaching and investigation regarding the spot and removal of the body of Harbhajan Kaur to HR hospital and also regarding the seizure of the articles from the spot as per Ex. PW-3/A and Ex. PW-3/B. The witnesses have corroborated each other in this respect and also regarding the registration of the FIR and inspection of the spot by the crime team and by dog squad and photographs taken by the photographer.
82. PW-4 complainant Jaswant Kumar has stated that accused Bhupender Singh @ Babu, present in the court today, was working on his shop and he was worked with him for more than 10 years. He asked for an advance of Rs.50,000/- from him in connection with the marriage of his sister which he refused to give to him. On this, he became annoyed with him. While he was working on his shop, he also used to visit his house off and on. He had left his employment for about 1 ½ months prior to the date of incident because he refused to give advance to him demanded from him. The learned APP has contended that it is the motive for which the accused persons committed the murder of the wife of PW-4 in furtherance of their common intention.
39
83. In the statement recorded under section 313 of Cr. P. C., of accused Bhupender Singh, he has stated that he was arrested by the police on mere suspicions leveled against him by the complainant because he was ex-employee and demanded his remaining arrears of salary amount from complainant but the same was not paid to him, hence he left the job of the complainant. He has been falsely implicated in this case.
84. From the deposition of PW-4, PW-6 and statement of accused Bhupender as well as salary voucher Ex. PW-4/G, it is clear that that accused Bhupender was ex-employee of the complainant. It is also proved that he had left the service of the complainant 1 ½ months prior to this incident. The plea of the complainant is that the accused Bhupender had demanded advance for the marriage of his sister which he refused to given to him. On this, accused annoyed and left his services. On the other hand, the plea of the accused Bhupender is that he demanded arrears of his salary which was not paid by the complainant, hence he left the services. He has been falsely implicated in this case.
85. PW-4 has been cross examined by the learned counsels for the accused persons. It has been suggested to PW-4 that accused has been falsely implicated due to some differences between him and the complainant, which was denied by the complainant. It is specifically not suggested to the PW-4 i.e. complainant that accused was falsely implicated 40 in this case as he had demanded his arrears of salary. PW-4 has not been cross examined at all on the fact that accused Bhupender Singh demanded Rs.50,000/- from which for the marriage of his sister which he refused to give to him, due to which he became annoyed with the complainant and left the services.
86. Similarly, PW-6 has not been cross examined by the learned counsels for the accused persons in any manner.
87. From the spot, one tape recorder alongwith one cassette and one lead, one steel chain grey colour broken from one place and attached with safety pin, one paper guarantee card, one iron locker having brass handle, ten keys of different types, one jute foot mat and some torn papers were seized and chance prints were lifted Q1 to Q4.
88. In this regard, PW-3 has been cross examined by the learned counsels for the accused persons, regarding the seizure of the tape recorder. He has stated that the same was not kept in a sealed pullanda. PW-4 complainant has also stated that crime team reached at his house, who lifted two finger prints Q1 and Q2 from a tape recorder lying in the lobby of his house, one finger print Q3 from the double bed and one finger print Q4 from a paper guarantee card.
89. In the cross examination conducted by the learned counsels, PW- 4 has denied the suggestion that he do not know what articles were taken 41 by the police in its possession from the spot. The articles seized by the police from the spot were taken by them in a piece of cloth. All the loose articles except almirah were kept by the police in a single piece of cloth and were same taken to the police station.
90. PW-13 has stated that one tape recorder alongwith one cassette and one paper guarantee card were taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex. PW-3/A and has identified the articles before the court which were seized by the IO. He has further stated that finger prints / chance prints were lifted from tape recorder, double bed and one paper guarantee card by the crime team.
91. In the cross examination, PW-13 has denied the suggestion that no crime team came at the spot in his presence and no finger prints were lifted by the crime team. Only suggestions have been given to the witness regarding the seizure of tape recorder, paper guarantee card and lifting of chance prints by the crime team from tape recorder, double bed and paper guarantee card.
92. PW-18 is IO of the case. He has stated that crime team team headed by ASI Narender Singh reached at the spot and inspected the spot and lifted chance print from the tape recorder kept in the lobby of the house. He also lifted the chance print from the double bed and one guarantee paper card lying near the bed.
42
93. He has further stated that thereafter he seized one tape recorder with one cassette and one lead, one steel grey colour chain tied with safety pin and one paper guarantee card vide seizure memo Ex. PW-3/A. He also seized one iron tizori with 10 keys, some torn papers lying near the tizori and one mat from the latrine vide seizure memo Ex. PW-3/B. He had identified these articles before the court.
94. In the cross examination conducted by the learned counsels that he had collected and seized the articles at the spot. He had not affixed any seal on them. He has further stated that ASI Narender Singh lifted four chance prints by using grey and black powder from the tape recorder, double bed and paper guarantee card and he told him that the chance print were clear and that is why they are lifted. The witness has not been cross examined on the aspect that no chance prints were lifted from the spot. It is not disputed that articles which were seized vide memo Ex. PW-3/A and Ex. PW-3/B, from the spot. From the depositions of the witnesses, who have corroborated each other, it is clear that the finger prints were taken from the articles at the spot by the crime team headed by ASI Narender Kumar, before the seizure of the same by the IO vide seizure memo Ex. PW-3/A and Ex. PW-3/B.
95. PW-9 has stated that he was posted as Finger Prints Experts in Crime Branch, ISBT, Delhi and at about 11.15 PM, he alongwith constable 43 Ravinder Kumar reached the place of occurrence and inspected the spot. He remained at the spot from 11.15 PM to 1 night i.e. night intervening 16.6.1999 to 17.06.1999. He lifted the chance print from one tape recorder make RX-FX400 i.e. Q1 and Q2 using grey powder. He also lifted one chance print Q3 using black powder from double bed and similarly he lifted chance print Q4 using grey powder from polythene of guarantee card. Thereafter, he gave directions to the IO to sent the finger and palm impression of inmates and suspected persons to Finger Print Bureau, PTS, Malviya Nagar. His report in this respect is Ex. PW-9/A which bears his signatures at point A.
96. In the cross examination, he has stated that he has brought the enlarged photographs of the chance prints lifted from the spot. These have been taken on record collected marked Ex. PW-9/B. The chance prints from tape recorder were taken from its handle and the same are Q1 and Q2. The witness has denied the suggestion that the document Ex. PW-9/A can not be trusted because it bears only his signatures.
97. In further cross examination, he has stated that the chance prints was not more than 1 week from that day when he visited the spot. He has assessed the time on the basis of developing the chance print. The duration can be less than one week but can not be more than one week. The chance prints are not clearly developed in case of duration of more 44 than seven days. The chance print can be developed if the duration is more than seven days and it will make the difference in quality.
98. From the deposition of PW-9, it is clear that chance prints were not old but were fresh. It is also come in evidence that accused Bhupender had already left the job of the complainant prior to 1 ½ months prior to the date of incident, hence there was no occasion for accused Bhupender to visit the house of complainant except on the day of incident. All the witnesses have corroborated each other and nothing came out from the cross examination to disbelieve their testimonies in any manner. It is proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubts that the chance prints Q1 and Q2 were lifted from the tape recorder and they were not old but were fresh.
99. PW-18 has stated that he summoned accused Bhupender to the police station on 22.09.1999. He interrogated him and accused made disclosure statement Ex. PW-11/A. He has further stated that on 23.08.1999, he took the finger prints of suspects and inmates and was sent to FSL, Malviya Nagar for comparison.
100. In the cross examination, this witness has stated that he had taken the finger prints of suspects and inmates which were 10 in number namely Bhupender, Joginder, complainant Jaswant Singh and one brother and sister of Joginder. Constable Ashok had taken the finger prints to the FSL 45 on 23.08.1999.
101. After the examination of DW-1, this witness was again examined by the court for some clarifications in which he has stated that he collected the sample prints from the accused Bhupender within a week prior to 23.08.1999 and after going through the record to refresh memory, he has stated that he had taken the sample finger prints of accused Bhupender on 23.08.1999 alongwith other inmates. The chance finger prints alongwith the sample prints were sent on the same day through constable Ashok Kumar, to FPB, Malviya Nagar, Delhi. The sample finger prints were taken in the police station and after taking the same, accused Bhupender was sent back.
102. In the cross examination, he has denied the suggestion that sample finger prints of accused Bhupender were taken on 22.09.1999 not on 23.08.1999. He has also denied the suggestion that finger prints were manipulated to falsely implicate the accused.
103. PW-9 has lifted the chance print from one tape recorder make RX- FX400 i.e. Q1 and Q2 using grey powder. He also lifted one chance print Q3 using black powder from double bed and similarly he lifted chance print Q4 using grey powder from polythene of guarantee card. Thereafter, he gave directions to the IO to sent the finger and palm impression of inmates and suspected persons to Finger Print Bureau, PTS, Malviya Nagar. His 46 report in this respect is Ex. PW-9/A which bears his signatures at point A.
104. According to the report Ex. PW-9/A, Q1 which was lifted from tape recorder make RX-FX400 is identical with S1 i.e finger impression of accused Bhupender @ Babu. It has also come in the cross examination that chance print can not be clearly developed if duration of the same is more than 7 days. The chance print can be developed if the duration is more than 7 days and it will make the difference in quality. Nothing material came out from the cross examination of PW-9 and PW-18 to disbelieve their testimonies in any manner.
105. Incident is dated 16.06.1999 and on the same day, the chance prints were lifted Q1 to Q2 from the tape recorder, which was found lying at the spot. Sample finger prints of suspects and inmates of accused Bhupender were also taken on 23.08.1999 and the same were sent to FPB, Malviya Nagar on the same day. According to the report Ex. PW-9/A, Q1 is identical with S1 i.e. finger impression of accused Bhupender. It has also come in evidence that accused had left the services of the complainant 1 ½ months prior to the date of incident, hence the prosecution has been able to prove the fact that accused Bhupender visited the house of the complainant on the day of incident i.e. 16.06.1999. Otherwise, the finger prints of accused Bhupender could not have been appeared on the tape recorder because from the deposition of PW-9, it is clear that good quality finger 47 prints can be developed if the prints are not old more than 7 days. From the cross examination of PW-9 and as per report Ex. PW-9/A, it is also clear that chance prints of accused Bhupender could not have been before 1 ½ months, when the accused was employee of the complainant and used to visit the house of the complainant.
106. The notice under section 160 and 170 of Cr. P. C. was issued to accused Bhupender vide memo Ex. PW-18/T and he was arrested in this case on 22.09.1999, when he was directed to appear before the police. Similarly, accused Drojan Singh was arrested in this case on 22.09.1999 on the pointing of accused Bhupender Singh.
107. The learned counsel for accused Drojan Singh has contended that as per arrest memo Ex. PW-18/R, the date of arrest of accused Drojan Singh has been shown as 22.06.1999 instead of 22.09.1999. Neither the IO nor the constable Lal Chand or constable Ashok, who have witnessed the arrest memo, has been cross examined by the learned defence counsel in this respect. It seems that inadvertently the date 22.06.1999 has been mentioned on the arrest memo of accused Drojan Singh because incident is 16.06.1999 and on 23.08.1999 sample finger prints of suspects of accused Bhupender were taken only and accused Drojan Singh was arrested on the pointing of accused Bhupender Singh on 22.09.1999. Even otherwise date 22.09.1999 has been mentioned by the IO under his 48 signatures on both arrest memos.
108. Accused Bhupender made his disclosure statement Ex. PW-11/A and also pointed out the place of incident vide memo Ex. PW-11/C. Accused Drojan Singh also made his disclosure statement Ex. PW-11/D which is also of 22.09.1999. Accused Drojan Singh also pointed out the place of incident vide memo Ex. PW-11/B. Personal search of both the accused persons were conducted vide memos Ex. PW-18/D and Ex. PW- 18/C.
109. Police custody of accused Bhupender was taken upto 27.09.1999 whereas police custody of accused Drojan Singh was allowed upto 24.09.1999. Recovery was effected of Rs.10,000/- and one silver finger ring on which words HBK was inscribed, on the pointing of accused Drojan Singh during the police custody, who led the police party in furtherance of his disclosure statement and got recovered the above articles from the tand of his room kept in a plastic envelope on 24.09.1999. As per seizure memo Ex. PW-4/D, complainant Jaswant Singh was also accompanying the police party including constable Lal Chand and constable Ashok Kumar and identified the silver ring as belonging of him.
110. Similarly, on 27.09.1999, accused Bhupender also led the police party to his house at first floor and got recovered Rs.15,000/- and one silver coin on which HAPPY BIRTHDAY GURUSIFT KAUR 08.03.1999 WITH 49 BEST COMPLIMENTS FROM JASWANT SINGH JUNEJA were engraved, kept in a plastic envelope. The silver coin was identified by the complainant who was accompanying the police including constable Ashok Kumar and constable Ram Snehi.
111. PW-4 has stated that on 17.06.1999, he had told to the police that he would give the details of the articles missing from his house after sometime as he was in a stage of shock at that time and could not prepare the entry of missing articles immediately. On 22.06.1999, he handed over a list of missing articles to the police. The same is Ex. PW-4/C dated 22.06.1999. The details of missing articles have been mentioned as cash of Rs.2,25,000/- consisting of currency notes of denomination of Rs.500/-, Rs.100/- and Rs.50/-, some silver coins and silver ring number unknown, silver coin on which the following words were engraved:- "Happy Birthday, Gursift Kaur, 08.03.1999, with best compliments from Jaswant Singh Juneja" and silver ring on which the initials of HBK were engraved and some gold jewellery.
112. The learned defence counsels have contended that according to the cross examinations of witnesses, no list was given as such the same has been planted later on to implicate the accused persons falsely in this case.
113. In cross examination of PW-4 i.e. complainant has stated that list 50 of missing articles was prepared by the police officials in their handwriting but the same was prepared at his instructions. He has further stated that he opened his shop after the chautha of his wife and on the day of incident, he could not compile the list of missing articles from his house due to the atmosphere of death of his wife. He has also stated that he had identified the coin/silver ring on the basis of words/engravings written on the coin/silver ring about the initial of HBK and regarding the birthday of his grand daughter.
114. The learned defence counsel has further contended that as per deposition of PW-17 the then SHO, police station Malviya Nagar, has admitted in the cross examination that the complainant had not told him the denomination of Rs.2,25,000/-. He has further admitted that the complainant had not furnished him the list of articles but he told him orally. In the cross examination, he has further admitted that no list of articles was given to him in writing. Later on complainant told him orally about the missing articles. The witness has further stated that the complainant had told him about the initial HBK on the silver ring.
115. PW-17 has further stated that he had recorded this fact in his statement and IO was preparing the document but he can not tell exactly what was that document. PW-18 has also corroborated in the cross examination that the complainant had given the specific mark of 51 identification to Inspector Avinash Trivedi and he had come to know about this fact from the case file.
116. From the depositions of PW-4, 17 and 18, it is clear that list of missing articles was told by the complainant orally to PW-17 but it was reduced into writing by the IO as told by PW-17 in his cross examination. He has stated that he does not remember what was the documents but it has not been stated by the witness that no list of missing articles was prepared, hence from the deposition of PW-4 and 17, it is clear and prosecution has been able to prove the fact that the list of missing articles was given by the complainant to PW-17 orally, which was reduced into writing by the IO and the same is Ex. PW-4/C. It is also attested by PW-17 on 22.06.1999.
117. Accused Bhupender Singh was arrested on 22.09.1999 and during interrogation, he made his disclosure statement Ex. PW-11/A witnessed by constable Lal Chand and Constable Ashok Kumar. Similarly, accused Drojan Singh arrested on 22.09.1999 and he also made his disclosure statement Ex. PW-11/D. PW-14 constable Narender Singh has stated that he joined the investigation with the IO on 22.09.1999 and accused Bhupender Singh was interrogated. He confessed the commission of offence and also disclosed that he could get arrested his co- accused Drojan Singh and led the police party to house no. X-9/62, Gali 52 No. 10A, Braham Puri, Delhi and pointed out accused Drojan Singh, who was overpowered by the police party. Accused Drojan Singh also made disclosure statement and confessed the commission of offence. Both the accused also pointed out the place of occurrence vide memos Ex. PW-11/B and Ex. PW-11/C.
118. In cross examination, nothing came out materially to disbelieve this witness. PW-14 has corroborated with other PWs i.e. constable Ashok Kumar and constable Lal Chand.
119. Witnesses to the recovery of Rs.10,000/- and one silver ring on which words HBK inscribed, are complainant Jaswant Singh, constable Lal Chand, constable Ashok Kumar and SI Anil Kumar.
120. PW-4 i.e. complainant has stated that on 05.09.1999, he went to police station and informed the police that he had a strong suspicion that accused Bhupender alongwith his associates was responsible for committing the murder of his wife. He raised his suspicion on him because he had left his employment about 1 ½ months prior to the date of incident as he was annoyed with him because he refused to give advance of Rs.50,000/- to him. His suspicion against him was also on account of the fact that he was well aware that his wife Harbhajan Kaur was an old lady and she used to remain alone in the house when he used to be on his shop. He took advantage of the above fact and committed the murder of 53 his wife alongwith his associates.
121. PW-4 complainant has further stated that on 24.09.1999, the police had informed him that the accused persons had been arrested. He was called to the police station for their identification. He identified the accused Bhupender Singh @ Babu at the police station because he knew him very well as he had worked with him for more than 10 years. He also accompanied the police, who took the accused persons for recovery of stolen property. Accused Drojan Singh took the police party to his house and pointed out towards his house bearing no. 9/62, Gali No. 10, Brahmpuri and stated that he was residing as a tenant on the ground floor of the said house and thereafter went inside his house and took out a plastic envelope from a cloth bag. From the said plastic bag, he got recovered to the police cash of Rs.10,000/- and one silver ring bearing the initials of HBK. The recovered articles were kept in a pullanda and sealed with the seal of AKY by the IO and seized the same vide memo Ex. PW-4/D. Seal after use was handed over to constable Ashok Kumar. He also signed the seizure memo. In the cross examination, he has stated that they went in a white Maruti Van and they were total seven persons including the accused persons.
122. PW-4 has further stated that Maruti Car was parked in the street near the place from where recovery was made. The accused persons alongwith the IO entered in the house of accused Drojan Singh before he 54 went inside the house. The outer door of that house was of iron. The IO had taken 30-45 minutes in making the recovery from the house of accused Drojan Singh. They have reached for making recovery around 1.00 PM. Witness has denied the suggestion that no recovery was effected in his presence from the house of Drojan Singh.
123. PW-11 is constable Lal Chand, who has stated that in his presence, accused Bhupender made the disclosure statement Ex. PW- 11/A, in which he had confessed the commission of offence and further disclosed that he would get recovered the cash amount and other articles from his house. On 24.09.1999, he again joined the investigation with the IO. Complainant Jaswant Singh also accompanied them. Accused Drojan Singh led the police party to his house and took out one envelope. After checking the envelope, it was found to contain a cash of Rs.10,000/- and one silver type ring bearing the word of HBK, which was identified by the complainant as belonging to him. IO kept the recovered articles in a pullanda and sealed the same with the seal of AKY and seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW-4/D. He has identified the currency notes of Rs.10,000/- as Ex. P-9 and silver type ring as Ex. P-10 before the court.
124. In the cross examination, PW-11 has stated that he has left the police station at about 11.45-12.00 Noon on 24.09.1999. He has corroborated the fact with PW-4 that they reached at the house of accused 55 Drojan Singh at about 1.00 PM. PW-4 and 11 have also corroborated that they had gone to the house of Drojan Singh for recovery and were led by the accused Drojan Singh. He has also corroborated the fact with PW-4 that they had gone at X-9/62, Gali No. 10, Brahampuri, in white colour van. He has further corroborated the fact with PW-4 that accused Drojan Singh has produced the articles from his house. He has further stated that the cash amount contained in the polythene also contained one silver type ring with the words HBK and the same was identified by the complainant and the polythene was produced from tand. From the cross examination of PW- 11, nothing came out to disbelieve his testimony and his testimony remained unrebutted. He has corroborated with PW-4 on all material facts.
125. PW-15 constable Ashok Kumar is common witness to the recovery from both the accused persons Bhupender and Drojan Singh. He has stated that on 24.09.1999, he had again joined the investigation with IO. At about 12 noon, complainant Jaswant Singh came to the police station and also joined the investigation. Thereafter, the police party comprising of complainant and both the accused persons left the police station to effect the recovery and accused Drojan led the police party to his house at Braham Puri in furtherance of his disclosure statement and took out one plastic envelope hanging on a tand took out one ring bearing words HBK and cash amount of Rs.10,000/-. Ring was identified by the 56 complainant. IO seized the said cash amount and ring after preparing a parcel of the same and affixed the seal of AKY on the same and seal after use was handed over to him. IO seized the parcel vide seizure memo Ex. PW-4/D.
126. PW-15 has corroborated with PW-4 and 11 that they left the police station at about 11.45-12.00 Noon. In the cross examination, PW-15 has denied the suggestion that no recovery has been effected from the house of accused Drojan Singh. The testimony of PW-15 inspire confidence and nothing came out to disbelieve his testimony in any manner.
127. PW-18 SI Anil Kumar has stated that on 24.09.1999, Accused led the police party and the complainant to his rented house X-9/62, Gali No. 10A, Brahampuri, Delhi and got recovered one polythene lying in the bag, which was kept on the tand of the house. On checking the polythene, cash amount of Rs.10,000/- out of which 9 notes were in the denomination of Rs.500/- and 32 notes in the denomination of Rs.100/- and 46 notes in the denomination of Rs.50/-, and one silver type ring with the words HBK in English. He prepared a parcel of the recovered articles and sealed the same with the seal of AKY and seized the same vide seizure memo Ex. PW-4/D. Seal after use was handed over to constable Ashok Kumar. He has identified the cash of Rs.15,000/- and one silver coin before the court as Ex. P-9 and Ex. P-10. Thereafter, they returned to the police station. 57 Accused was sent to the JC.
128. In the cross examination, PW-18 has corroborated the fact with other witnesses that they left the police station at about 11.00 PM in a maruti van. Complainant and accused Drojan were also with the police party. PW-18 has been cross examined regarding the structure of the house, where the accused Drojan led the police party. It has also explained by the witness that he requested some persons to join the recovery but none agreed. It is well known no public person wants to be a witness in such proceedings. PW-18 has further corroborated with other witnesses regarding the identification of silver ring having words HBK by the complainant at the spot at the time of recovery alongwith currency notes.
129. PW-18 has denied the suggestion that the ring recovered is easily available in the market. He has also denied the suggestion that the ring was planted upon the accused.
130. The learned defence counsel for the accused has contended that TIP of the recovered articles was not conducted. In my opinion, there was no need to conduct the TIP as the recovered articles were identified by the complainant at the spot at the time of recovery. Accused Drojan Singh had not claimed the ownership of the currency notes and ring as his own. The learned defence counsel has further contended that the witnesses to the recovery has contradicted each other on the point as to whether the 58 complainant was called in the police station or he came to police station at his own. In my opinion, such contradiction is immaterial as the same is not leading to the conclusion that witnesses are untrustworthy.
131. The witnesses to the recovery effected from the accused Drojan Singh on his pointing i.e. currency notes of Rs.10,000/- and one silver type ring having words HBK, have corroborated each other and their testimonies are unshaken and unrebutted. The testimonies of the witnesses inspire confidence and nothing has been brought on record to disbelieve their testimonies in any manner.
132. Witness to the recovery from accused Bhupender are complainant Jaswant Singh, constable Ashok, constable Ram Snehi and SI Anil Kumar.
133. PW-4 complainant Jaswant Singh has stated that on 27.09.1999, he again visited the police station to enquire about the progress of case and found that the police was taking accused Bhupinder @ Babu to his house in connection with recovery of stolen property. He also accompanied the police on that day. Accused Bhupinder on reaching his house bearing no. 9/62, Gali No. 10, Brahampuri, Delhi, told the police in his presence that he was residing on the first floor of the said house and could get recover cash and jewellery from there. He went inside a room on the first floor of the house and took out a yellow colour plastic thalley from diwan and from the said thalley, he produced Rs.15,000/- and one silver coin engraved thereon 59 "Happy Birthday, Gursift Kaur, 08.03.99, with best compliments from Jaswant Singh Juneja". He immediately identified the silver coin. The recovered articles were kept in a pullanda and sealed the same with the seal of AKY by the IO. Seal after use was handed over to constable Ashok Kumar.
134. Thereafter, they came to Tis Hazari Courts and accused Bhupender Singh @ Babu was produced before the Magistrate. He was remanded to Judicial Custody on that day.
135. In cross examination, witness has stated that he identified the coin on the basis of engravings on the coin about birth of of his grand daughter. He has denied the suggestion that recovered articles had not belonged to him. The witness has identified the cash amount of Rs.15,000/- and silver coin bearing words Happy Birthday, Gursift Kaur, 08.03.99, with best compliments from Jaswant Singh Juneja" and another cash of Rs.10,000/- and silver ring bearing words HBK, which were recovered from the accused persons on their pointing from their residence. Both these articles i.e. silver coin and silver ring have been mentioned by the complainant in the list of missing articles Ex. PW-4/C.
136. PW-15 constable Ashok Kumar has stated that on 27.09.1999, he accompanied the IO, constable Ram Snehi, complainant and accused Bhupender Singh and left the police station to effect the recovery in 60 pursuance of his disclosure statement. Accused Bhupender get them all to house no. X-9/62, Gali No. 10A, Braham Puri. Accused Bhupender Singh told them that he has been residing there with his mother and led them to the upper floor of the said house and took out a yellow colour plastic envelope from a dewan and further took out an amount of Rs.15,000/- and one silver type coin with words Happy Birthday Gursift Kaur, 08.03.99 with compliments from Jaswant Singh Juneja and on the other side of the coin, there was picture of Sikhguru. On seeing the said coin, complainant identified to be the same which he had got prepared on the birthday of his grand daughter. IO prepared a parcel of the cash amount and the said coin and affixed the seal of AKY and seized the same vide memo Ex. PW- 4/E. Seal after use was handed over to him. He has identified the articles before the court.
137. In the cross examination, PW-15 has stated that when they reached in the house of accused Bhupender, his mother and her children were present.
138. The learned defence counsel has contended that both the accused Drojan and Bhupender were apprehended on 22.09.1999 and even the house in question was visited by the police party with the complainant on 24.09.1999 with accused Drojan Singh but even then recovery was not effected from the house of accused Bhupender. PW-15 61 has explained that recovery on the pointing of accused Bhupender was not effected on 24.09.1999 because he had furnished the wrong information. In view of the explanation of PW-15, I am of the opinion that the same has been explained satisfactorily. PW-15 has not been cross examined further by the learned defence counsel for the accused Bhupender in any manner. PW-15 has denied the suggestion that he did not accompany the police party and the complainant to the house of accused Bhupender. He has further denied the suggestion that no recovery was effected at the instance of accused Bhupender.
139. PW-3 Ram Snehi has stated that on 27.09.1999, accused Bhupinder Singh took the police party to his house no. X9/62, Gali No. 10-A and thereafter took them to the first floor of the house and took out one yellow colour plastic envelope from the bed lying in the house. Complainant Jaswant Singh was also with them. IO checked the plastic envelope which was containing cash of Rs.15,000/- with the denomination of 10 currency notes of Rs.500/- each, eight currency notes of Rs.100/- each and 40 currency notes of Rs.50/- each and one coin of silver type metal on which the words "Happy Birthday Gursift Kaur, 08.03.99 with best compliments from Jaswant Singh Juneja" and on the reverse of the said coin the picture of Sikh Guru was inscribed. Complainant has identified the coin as he had given as present on the birthday of his grand daughter. IO kept the cash 62 amount and coin in a piece of paper and prepared a pullanda and affixed the seal of AKY on the same and seized the same vide memo Ex. PW-3/D. Seal of AKY after use was handed over to constable Ashok. PW-3 has identified the cash amount of Rs.15,000/- collectively as Ex. P-7 and silver coin as Ex. P-8 and stated that these are the same which accused Bhupender got recovered from his house.
140. PW-3 has not been cross examined by the learned defence counsel in any manner on any aspect regarding the recovery of Ex. P-7 and Ex. P-8 on the pointing of accused Bhupender.
141. PW-18 SI Anil Kumar has stated that on 27.09.1999, complainant had come in the police station to enquire about the case and he told him that the police is going to effect the recovery as per the disclosure statement of accused Bhupender Singh and he joined them. He alongwith constable Ashok Kumar and constable Ram Snehi accompanied by complainant led by accused Bhupender Singh went to the house of his adopted mother and got recovered one plastic cover from a diwan lying in the house. It was found containing cash amount of Rs.15,000/-, out of which 10 notes of 500 denomination, 18 notes of 100 denomination and 40 notes of 50 denomination and one silver coin with the words Happy Birthday to Gursift Kaur, 08.03.1999 with best compliments from Jaswant Singh Juneja and on the another side of the coin, there was an idol of Guru 63 Nanak Devi Ji, the said coin was identified by the complainant. He seized the said case property sealed with the seal of AKY vide memo Ex. PW-4/E. Seal after use was given to constable Ashok Kumar. He recorded the statements of the witnesses at the spot. Before effecting the recovery, he asked the public persons to join but none agreed.
142. He has identified the cash of Rs.15,000/- and silver coin as Ex. P- 7 and Ex. P-8 before the court.
143. In the cross examination, PW-18 has stated that at about noon time, police party had gone to the house of accused Bhupender with the complainant and the accused Bhupender. The witness has been cross examined about the structure of the house of the accused Bhupender. The learned defence counsel has contended that the witnesses to the recovery has contradicted each other on the point as to whether the complainant was called in the police station or he came to police station at his own. In my opinion, such contradiction is immaterial as the same is not leading to the conclusion that witnesses are untrustworthy.
144. PW-18 has denied the knowledge that such type of silver coin are easily available in the market. It is an admitted fact that the silver coin having photo of idols are easily available in the market but the coin was having words and date with the name of the complainant regarding the fact that it was gifted by the complainant to his grand daughter on her birthday, 64 can not be said to be easily available in the market. It is a normal practice that such type of coins are usually being prepared on order. Accused Bhupender has not claimed the currency notes of Rs.15,000/- and the silver coin as his own and possession of the same has not been explained in any manner.
145. PW-18 has further stated in the cross examination, accused Bhupender produced before the learned MM on 23.09.1999 and was remanded to police custody.
146. Accused Bhupender has examined one DW1 Smt. Beena in his defence. She has stated that police had come to her house on 22.09.1999 at about 8 AM in the morning. She has deposed the same address from where accused Bhupender got recovered the articles Ex. P-7 and Ex. P-8. She has further stated that it was told to her by the police that accused Bhupender was being taken away for obtaining finger prints and after some days, police came with accused Bhupender and they checked the bed but nothing was recovered.
147. The witness has been cross examined by the learned APP. In cross examination, DW-1 has denied the knowledge of any notice issued to accused Bhupender by the police on 22.09.1999. She has denied the recovery from accused Bhupender as stated by the prosecution witnesses. DW-1 has also stated that from 22.09.1999 to 27.09.1999 she used to live 65 her house around 8.30 AM and used to return by 4.30 PM. She has further stated that on 27.09.1999, she was working in her office. She has nowhere stated that she came to her house early on that day as per deposition of the witnesses examined by the prosecution, police party with the complainant alongwith accused Bhupender reached at the house of accused in the noon time and thereafter recovery was effected. It has come in the evidence that mother of the accused Bhupender was present with her children. DW-1 has stated that accused Bhupender used to call her aunty. In view of the above, it is clear that DW-1 was not present in the house at the time of recovery effected on the pointing of accused Bhupender, by the police on 27.09.1999. hence, she can not be relied upon in any manner.
148. In reference to the deposition of DW-1, PW-18 SI Anil Kumar was called by the court regarding some clarifications wherein he has stated that finger prints of accused Bhupender were taken within a week prior to 23.08.1999. Again after refreshing his memory from case diary, he has stated that he took finger prints of accused Bhupender on 23.08.1999 and in cross examination, he has denied the suggestion that finger prints of accused Bhupender were taken on 22.09.1999.
149. In view of the above discussions, prosecution has been able to prove beyond reasonable doubts the fact that currency notes of Rs.10,000/- Ex. P-9 and one silver ring having words HBK Ex. P-10 were recovered on 66 the pointing of accused Drojan Singh, when he led the police party in furtherance of his disclosure statement Ex. PW-11/D, to his house and the ring Ex. P-10 was identified by the complainant as belongs to him, at the time of recovery.
150. Prosecution has also been able to prove beyond reasonable doubts the fact that currency notes of Rs.15,000/- Ex. P-7 and one silver coin having words "Happy Birthday, Gursift Kaur, 08.03.1999, with best compliments from Jaswant Singh Juneja" Ex. P-8 were recovered on the pointing of accused Bhupender Singh, when he led the police party in furtherance of his disclosure statement Ex. PW-11/A, to his house and the coin Ex. P-8 was identified by the complainant as belongs to him, at the time of recovery.
151. PW-8 is Dr. S. M. A. Ahsan, the then GDMO, HR hospital has stated that one patient by the name of Harbhajan Kaur was brought to the casualty with the alleged history of injury in a case of robbery. The body was brought by a PCR van. After medically examining the patient, he declared her as brought dead vide his report Ex. PW-8/A which bears his signatures at point A. the witness has not been cross examined by the learned counsels of the accused persons, hence the testimony of the witness went unrebutted and unchallenged.
152. PW-7 Dr. Keshav Sharma, the then Sr. Resident, Department of 67 Forensic Medicine, HR hospital, has conducted the postmortem on the dead body of Smt. Harbhajan Kaur. In all, 12 injuries were found on the body of deceased Harbhajan Kaur and according to the opinion, Death in this case was due to asphyxia consequent to mechanical airway obstruction (smothering). injury No. 5,6 and 7 were caused by some interrupted interlogued object. Injury No. 8,9,10,11,12 were caused by blunt force impact against hard surface/object. Time since death was approximately 14 to 15 hours. His report is Ex. PW-7/A which bears his signatures at point A. The witness has been cross examined and he denied the suggestion that the death of deceased took place due to suffocation.
153. As per complaint Ex. PW-4/A, deceased was found lying in the bathroom. Nothing has been brought on record to suggest that Smt. Harbhajan Kaur was dying due to suffocation. From the nature and numbers of injuries found on the body of deceased Harbhajan Kaur, it is also clear that these could not have been caused by one person and this also shows that both the accused persons had caused these injuries to deceased Harbhajan Kaur at the time of robbery.
154. Nail Abrasions and Bruices itself suggest that it was not a case of suffocation as suggested by the learned defence counsel. Injury no. 5,6 and 7 were found on the neck and from the opinion it is clear that deceased Harbhajan Kaur died to asphyxia consequent to mechanical airway 68 obstruction.
155. In view of the above discussions, prosecution has been able to prove beyond reasonable doubts the facts as followed :-
(1)That accused Bhupender Singh demanded Rs.50,000/- from the complainant while he was working with the complainant, which he refused to give to him.
(2)That accused Bhupender Singh was in need of money in connection with the marriage of his sister and there was a motive for him to kill Smt. Harbhajan Kaur to rob the money from the house of the complainant. (3) That accused Bhupender Singh was having knowledge of the fact being employee of the complainant that Smt. Harbhajan Kaur used to remain alone in the house in the day time and was having knowledge about the details of the house and was also known to Smt. Harbhajan Kaur being their former employee.
(4) That accused Bhupender Singh alongwith accused Drojan Singh and accused Dinesh (not traceable) planned to rob the house of the complainant Jaswant Singh.
(5) That accused Bhupender Singh and accused Drojan Singh made disclosure statements to this effect and in furtherance of their disclosure statement got recovered Ex. P-7,8,9 and 10 belonging to complainant. (6) That finger prints of accused Bhupender were found on one tape 69 recorder which was found lying at the spot and after examination, it has been proved that finger prints on the tape recorder were of the accused Bhupender Singh, which were fresh whereas accused Bhupender had already left the job of the complainant Jaswant Singh about 1 ½ months before the day of incident.
156. Prosecution has been able to complete the chain of evidence against the accused persons leading to the conclusion that both the accused persons committed murder of Smt. Harbhajan Kaur while committing robbery in the house of the complainant and the robbed articles were recovered, which were belonging to complainant Jaswant Singh, from the possession of both the accused persons on their pointing from their houses in furtherance of their disclosure statements.
157. In view of the above, prosecution has been able to prove beyond reasonable doubts the offences punishable under section 302/34 of IPC and 392/34 of IPC against both the accused namely Bhupender Singh and Drojan Singh, hence both are held guilty for offences punishable under section 302/34 of IPC and 392/34 of IPC and are convicted for the same. ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 21.03.2007 (V. K.GOYAL) ADDITIONAL SESSION JUDGE, DELHI.
7021.03.2007.
Present :- APP for the State with complainant in person.
Accused Bhupender produced from JC.
Accused Drojan Singh present on bail with proxy Counsel, Sh.Anand Kumar for counsel, Sh.S.K.Sharma.
Vide judgment announced of even date on separate sheets, both the accused persons are held guilty for offences punishable under section 302/392/34 of IPC and are convicted for the same.
Accused Drojan Singh be taken into custody.
Adjourned for arguments on sentence on 28/03/2007.
(V. K.GOYAL) ASJ/DELHI.
71IN THE COURT OF SH V.K. GOYAL, ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE: DELHI SESSION CASE NO. 38/06.
FIR NO. 164/99
PS MUKHERJEE NAGAR.
U/S 302/392/34 OF IPC.
STATE VERSUS
1. BHUPENDER SINGH, S/O SH. YADU NATH SINGH, R/O H NO. Y-9/62, BRAHAM PURI, DELHI.
2. DROJAN SINGH, S/O SH. BARE LAL, R/O H. NO. X-4/62, BRAHAM PURI, DELHI.
ORDER ON SENTENCE 28/03/07 Present :- APP for the State.
Convict Bhupender Singh produced from J.C. with counsel Sh.I.M.Yadav.
Convict Drojan Singh produced from J.C. with counsel, Sh.S.K.Sharma.
Complainant with counsel, Ms.Kiran Singh.
72Heard on sentence.
It is contended by ld.counsel for accused Bhupender Singh that accused is aged about 37 and is unmarried having dependent parents. It is further contended that accused has no previous criminal history nor he is involved in any other case.
It is contended by ld.counsel for accused Drojan Singh that accused is aged about 28 years and is unmarried having dependent old parents. It is further contended that accused is having three unmarried sisters. It is further contended that accused has no previous criminal history nor he is involved in any other case. It is further contended that the case does not fall within the category of rarest of rare case.
On the other hand, learned APP has contended that the murder was committed by the convicts with a pre-determined mind set. It is further contended that murder was not committed at the spur of the moment. It is further contended that the parents of accused Bhupender are not residing with him. Hence, no leniency can be shown.
Considering the above facts and circumstances and the age, antecedents of both the convicts, sentence of imprisonment for life is imposed upon both the convicts alongwith fine of Rs.5,000/- each for offence u/s.302/34 of IPC. In default of payment of fine, both the convicts shall further undergo RI for one year.
Sentence of Rigorous imprisonment for 10 years is imposed upon both the convicts alongwith fine of Rs.5,000/- each for offence u/s.392/34 of IPC. In default of payment of fine, both the convicts shall further undergo RI for one year.
The sentence imposed u/s.392/34 of IPC shall run concurrently with the sentence imposed u/s.302/34 of IPC. Fine not deposited. File be 73 consigned to record room.
(V. K.GOYAL) ADDITIONAL SESSION JUDGE, DELHI.
7428/03/07 Present :- APP for the State.
Convict Bhupender Singh produced from J.C. with counsel Sh.I.M.Yadav.
Convict Drojan Singh produced from J.C. with counsel, Sh.S.K.Sharma.
Complainant with counsel, Ms.Kiran Singh.
Heard on sentence.
Vide judgment announced of even date on separate sheets, sentence of imprisonment for life is imposed upon both the convicts alongwith fine of Rs.5,000/- each for offence u/s.302/34 of IPC. In default of payment of fine, both the convicts shall further undergo RI for one year.
Sentence of Rigorous imprisonment for 10 years is imposed upon both the convicts alongwith fine of Rs.5,000/- each for offence u/s.392/34 of IPC. In default of payment of fine, both the convicts shall further undergo RI for one year.
The sentence imposed u/s.392/34 of IPC shall run concurrently with the sentence imposed u/s.302/34 of IPC. Fine not deposited. File be consigned to record room.
(V. K.GOYAL) ADDITIONAL SESSION JUDGE, DELHI.