Delhi District Court
State vs . Chandrakant Jha on 5 February, 2013
IN THE COURT OF Dr. KAMINI LAU: ADDL. SESSIONS
JUDGE-II (NORTH-WEST): ROHINI COURTS: DELHI
Session Case No. 89/2011
Unique Case ID No.: 02404R0999632007
State Vs. Chandrakant Jha
S/o Radhey Kant Jha
R/o Village and Post Office Ghasi,
Police Station Chausa,
Distt. Madhepura, Bihar
(Convicted)
FIR No. : 243/2007
Police Station: Hari Nagar
Under Sections : 302/201 IPC
Date of committal to sessions Court: 5.10.2007
Date on which judgment was reserved: 19.1.2013
Date on which Judgment pronounced: 24.1.2013
JUDGMENT:
(1) In the year 2006 and 2007 Delhi was rocked and shaken by serial killings. In these killings the author of the crime followed a definite pattern where he killed the victims by decapitating their heads and he thereafter chopped their various body parts and threw the decapitated bodies of these young men outside the Central Jail Tihar and scattered their body parts at various places around Delhi. He did not stop at that and followed his crime precisely. After throwing the decapitated bodies he used to inform the police about the crime (in two cases) and the place where he had thrown the decapitated body. Along with these bodies he also left a note / letter (two cases) wherein he challenged the Law Enforcement Agencies to catch him. In the last case which came to light on 18.5.2007, he had also threatened to send similar gifts St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 1 (decapitated bodies) to the Delhi Police after every 15 days. Three such cases were registered in respect of the decapitated bodies thrown outside Central Jail Tihar on 20.10.2006, 25.4.2007 and 18.5.2007 in respect of FIR Nos. 609/2006, 243/2007 and 279/2007 were registered at Police Station Hari Nagar in which the accused Chanderkant Jha is the accused. All these cases though not consolidated, have been taken up together the pattern of crime / modus operandi being similar; major investigations being common; the evidence in the form of electronic records; forensics etc. being common.
(2) In the present case as per the allegations, the accused Chandrakant Jha had on the intervening night of 24/25.4.2007 committed the murder of Upender by beheading his body and thereafter wrapped the headless / decapitated body of Upender in a gunny bag which he threw outside Gate No.3, Central Jail, Tihar. In order to conceal the identity of the deceased and to cause disappearance of evidence of murder in order to screen himself from legal punishment, he also threw the head / body parts of the decapitated body at various places in Delhi. (3) The dead body of Upender without head, arms, private pars, arms and legs above knee was recovered on 25.4.2007 at about 8:34 AM on Patri, Jail Road, Near Gate No.3, Tihar Jail, Near UTI Delhi.
BRIEF FACTS/ CASE OF THE PROSECUTION:
(4) The case of the prosecution is that on 25.04.2007 an information was received vide DD No. 15-A that one plastic bag was lying near UTI ATM, Gate No. 03, Tihar Jail and blood was oozing out from the said plastic bag which appeared suspicious. On receipt of this information, SI Manohar Lal, alongwith Const. Ajit Singh reached the spot near UTI ATM, located near gate No. 03, Tihar Jail and found a St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 2 large size carton of the water cooler which was lying near the boundary wall. This carton was containing a plastic bag which was having blood stains. SI Manohar Lal called the Crime Team to the spot and got the scene of crime inspected through the Crime Team as well as got the scene of crime photographed. The plastic bag was taken out from the carton box and on checking was found to contain a male dead body without head, without both hands, both legs which were chopped off and without private parts. The dead body was wrapped in a white sheet and was tied with ropes. Apart from above, other materials of packing etc. were also found with the dead body and one light parrot coloured shirt was also found. The dead body appeared to be a male person aged around 28-30 years, medium built, shallow complexion with a half sleeves PT vest and grey colour underwear. The Crime Team lifted two chance prints from the carton during inspection and the Investigating Officer lifted exhibits from the spot. After carrying out the investigation at the spot, the Investigating Officer sent the dead body to DDU Hospital Mortuary through Const. Ajit Singh for preservation and identification as the victim was still unidentified. Thereafter, the Investigating Officer prepared a rukka and sent the same to Police Station Hari Nagar pursuant to which the FIR of the present case was registered and investigations were taken up by Inspr. Hoshiyar Singh, the then SHO PS Hari Nagar. (5) During the course of investigations, the Investigating Officer made efforts for identification of the dead body. On the same day i.e. 25.04.2007 an information was received from PCR that one leg of some person was lying near Haidarpur drain in the area of Police Post Pitam Pura, North-West District on which the Investigating Officer visited the spot and proceedings about the left leg was carried out by ASI Naresh Kumar of Police Post Pitam Pura. Thereafter, on 29.04.2007 an St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 3 information was received from Police Station Loni that on 25.04.2007 at about 10.00 AM two unclaimed cartons were found in the Subzi Mandi in the area of Police Post Lal Bagh, Police Station Loni and on checking one hand and private parts of some person had been recovered from the said cartons and inquest proceedings in this regard were carried out by SI Krishan Baldev Yadav of Police Post Town, Loni. Thereafter, the Investigating Officer carried out investigation and made efforts for identification of dead body but the dead body could not be identified.
On 19.05.2007 the left leg which was deposited in the mortuary of BJRM Hospital was collected and Postmortem examination of the same as well as of the dead body was carried out in DDU Hospital Mortuary. (6) On 20.05.2007 pursuant to a secret information the accused Chanderkant Jha S/o Radhakant Jha R/o Shiv Mandirwali gali, Alipur, Delhi, permanent R/o Village-Gosai, Thana-Goshi, Distt. Madhaipura, Bihar, aged-35 years, was arrested in another case bearing FIR No. 609/06, under Section 302/201 IPC, Police Station Hari Nagar who had confessed having killed one Upender and had thrown away his dead body on 25.04.2007 near Tihar Jail and disclosed the name of victim as Upender a resident of Maharajganj, U.P. who was in his contact in the recent past because he was not having good character and who had scolded him earlier. A piece of paper was recovered from the accused Chanderkant Jha at the time of his arrest which was containing contact number of one Pankaj, who was later found to be a relative of deceased Upender. During course of investigation, the said Pankaj Rathore was examined by the Investigating Officer and his statement was recorded. On transfer of Inspr. Hoshiyar Singh, the remaining investigations were conducted by Inspector Sukesh Singh who arrested the accused Chanderkant Jha on 29.05.2007 in this case. After completion of St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 4 investigations the charge sheet was prepared on 20.09.2007 and was sent in the Court for trial.
EVIDENCE:
(7) In order to prove its case the prosecution has examined as many as Sixty One witnesses. However, before coming to the testimonies of individual witnesses, the details of the witnesses examined by the prosecution; the documents proved by them and details of the case property are hereby put in a tabulated form as under:
List of witnesses:
Sr. PW No. Name of the Details of witness
No. witness
1. PW 1 Sh. Pankaj Public witness who is the brother of victim
Upender and has proved the use of mobile phone
no. 9211463742 by the accused Chanderkant Jha
2. PW 2 Sh. Sri Ram Public witness / father of the deceased
3. PW 3 Sh. Harender Public witness / brother of the deceased
4. PW4 Master Devender Public witness who is the nephew of Pujari of
Baba Ram Dev Mandir, Haiderpur.
5. PW 5 Sh. Azad Singh Public witness who is the Pujari at Ramdev
Mandir in Haiderpur, near the Nehar
6. PW 6 Sh. Akhilesh Public witness / security guard who was on duty
Yadav at UTI ATM machine near Gate No. 3 Tihar Jail
on 25.04.2007 and had discovered the unattended carton
7. PW 7 Sh. Anil Kumar Public witness / Incharge of Electric Crematorium Punjabi Bagh
8. PW 8 Sumit Kumar Public witness / security guard who was on duty at gate No.3, PRO Office, Tihar Jail on 25.4.2007
9. PW 9 Sh. Rajeev Public witness/ landlord of House No.229/2, Kumar Haiderpur, Delhi, where the accused Chanderkant Jha was residing on rent
10. PW 10 Sh. Akash Public witness / Driver of the Maruti Van Ambulance bearing No. DL2CL-0981 St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 5
11. PW 11 Mohd. Yasin Public witness / juice Seller who used to put his Malik fruit rehri at Lal Bagh Subzi Mandi, Loni and had noticed two cartons containing a human hand and private parts on 25.4.2007 at 10:00 AM and informed the police
12. PW 12 HC Satyawan Police witness / Control Room Official
13. PW 13 Ct. Raj Kumar Police witness/ Crime Team photographer
14. PW 14 Ct. Suresh Kumar Police witness / Crime Team photographer (West District)
15. PW 15 ASI Ajender Police witness / Finger Print Expert of the Mobile Singh Crime team (West District)
16. PW 16 Sh. Naresh Forensic Expert Kumar
17. PW 17 SI Naresh Kumar Police witness who on 25.4.2007 had gone to AU Block Jhuggies, near Pitampura on receipt of information regarding discovery of a leg
18. PW 18 ASI Sangeeta Police witness / Duty Officer
19. PW 19 SI Mahesh Kumar Police witness / Draftsman
20. PW 20 HC Vijender Police witness who had joined investigations with Singh Inspector Sukesh Singh
21. PW 21 Sanjay Kumar Public witness / private photographer
22. PW 22 HC Ram Avtar Police witness / special messenger who had delivered the copies of FIR to senior officers
23. PW 23 HC Ajeet Singh Police witness who had gone to the spot i.e. in front of gate no.3, Tihar Jail, Near UTI ATM
24. PW 24 Ct. Jagdish Police witness who had joined investigations with ASI Naresh Kumar
25. PW 25 HC Vinod Police witness / MHC (M) Police Station Loni District Ghaziabad (U.P.)
26. PW 26 Insp. Lait Kumar Police witness / Incharge Crime Team
27. PW 27 Insp. Anil Kumar Police witness/ Incharge Mobile Crime Team West District
28. PW 28 HC Hari Ram Police witness/ MCHM Police Station Hari Nagar
29. PW 29 ASI Rajbir Singh Police witness who had joined investigations with Inspector Sukesh Singh
30. PW 30 Insp. Satya Police witness/ Incharge Chowki Police Post Prakash Pitam Pura
31. PW 31 Ct. Ramesh Police witness / Photographer of Mobile Crime Chander Team, North-West District St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 6
32. PW 32 Ct. Meghpal Police witness / DD writer
33. PW 33 HC Rajbir Police witness / PCR official
34. PW 34 ASI Bal Kishan Police witness / Duty Officer
35. PW 35 SI Baljeet Police witness / Incharge Mobile Crime Team
36. PW 36 HC Surender Police witness / Finger Print Expert
37. PW 37 Ct. Sevey Rathod Police witness / PCR Official
38. PW 38 Ct. Ramveer Police witness / PCR Official Singh
39. PW 39 ASI Hari Chand Police witness / PCR Official
40. PW 40 Ct. Jai Singh Police witness / DD Writer
41. PW41 SI Sarvesh Yadav Police witness / In-charge Police Post Lal Bagh, PS Loni, District Ghaziabad (UP)
42. PW42 Sh. Jay Jeet Singh Official witness / Nursing Orderly at World Blood Bank, DDU Hospital
43. PW43 ASI Virender Police witness / Member of the Special Staff Singh West District
44. PW44 Insp. Dalip Police witness / Member of the Special Staff Kaushik West District
45. PW45 SI Narender Police witness / Member of the Special Staff West District
46. PW46 SI Manohar Lal Police witness / initial Investigating Officer
47. PW47 Dr. A K Forensic Expert / DNA Fingerprinting Expert Srivastava
48. PW48 Sh. M.N. Vijayan Nodal Officer
49. PW49 Sh. V. Forensic Expert Shankarnarayana
50. PW 50 SI Sharat Kohili Police witness who had joined investigations with Inspector Sukesh Singh
51. PW51 HC Manohar Lal Police witness / PCR Official (PHQ)
52. PW52 HC Banwari Police witness / Duty Officer
53. PW53 Insp. Sunder Police witness / Member of the Special Staff Singh West District
54. PW54 Dr. Anil Shandil Autopsy Surgeon
55. PW55 Insp Hoshiyar Police witness/ subsequent Investigating Officer Singh
56. PW56 Dr. P K Singh Autopsy Surgeon (Ghaziabad)
57. PW57 SI Krishan Police witness / Incharge Police Post Town Loni, Baldev District Ghaziabad St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 7
58. PW58 Inspector Sukesh Police witness / subsequent Investigating Officer
59. PW59 Ms. Kavita Goyel Forensic Expert
60. PW60 K.N Singh Police witness / Finger Print Expert
61. PW61 Sh. Rishi Pal Addl. DCP List of Documents exhibited:
Sr. Exhibit No. Details of documents Proved by
No.
1. Ex.PW3/D-A to B Photocopies of photographs Harender Lakhwa
2. Ex.PW7/A DD No. 333 regarding cremation of Anil Kumar
dead body
3. Ex.PW9/A Seizure memo of documents Rajeev Kumar
pertaining to House No.229/2,
Haiderpur, Delhi
4. Ex.PW12/A PCR Form HC Satyawan
5. Ex.PW13/A-1 to Negatives Ct. Raj Kumar
A17
6. Ex.PW13/B-1 to Photographs
B17
7. Ex.PW14/A-1 to Negatives Ct. Suresh
A19
8. Ex.PW14/B-1 to Photographs
B18
9. Ex.PW15/A Finger Print Report ASI Ajender Singh
10. Ex.PW16/A Biological Report Sh. Naresh Kumar
11. Ex.PW16/B Serological Report
12. Ex.PW17/A DD No.8 regarding recovery of leg SI Naresh Kumar
13. Ex.PW17/B Form 25:35
14. Ex.PW17/C Inquest paper
15. Ex.PW17/D Application for preservation of leg
16. Ex.PW17/E Request for opinion and postmortem
with regard to dismembered leg
recovered from AU Block Jhuggi
Pitampura
17. Ex.PW17/F Seizure memo of photographs
St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 8
18. Ex.PW18/A Copy of FIR ASI Sangeeta
19. Ex.PW18/B Endorsement on rukka
20. Ex.PW18/C DD No. 15
21. Ex.PW18/D DD No. 16A
22. Ex.PW18/E DD No. 20A
23. Ex.PW46/A Rukka SI Narender
24. Ex.PW18/C DD No.15/A ASI Ajender Singh
25. Ex.PW18/D DD No.16/A
26. Ex.PW18/E DD No.20/A
27. Ex.PW18/F DD No.21 A
28. Ex.PW19/A Scaled Site plan of the spot where SI Mahesh Kumar
the decapitated body was found lying
29. Ex.PW19/B Scaled Site plan of the spot at Subzi
Mandi, Loni Border
30. Ex.PW19/C Scaled Site plan of House No. 229/2,
Ambedkar Nagar, Haider Pur
31. Ex.PW19/D Scaled Site plan of the spot at
Pitampura near Western Yamuna
Canal
32. Ex.PW20/A Seizure memo of photographs of HC Vijender Singh
deceased Upender
33. Ex.PW21/DA Statement of Rajesh Kumar Rajesh Kumar
Photographer (U/s 161 Cr. P. C.)
34. Ex.PW23/A Seizure memo of blood and stone HC Ajeet Singh
35. Ex.PW23/B Seizure memo of shirt, packing box
of water cooler, plastic bag
(polythene), red coloured Cardboard
and rope
36. Ex.PW23/C Seizure memo of exhibits
37. Ex.PW23/D Seizure memo of photographs of the
dead body
38. Ex.PW23/E Seizure memo of photocopies of the
documents
39. Ex.PW25/A Photocopy of register no.19 HC Vinod
40. Ex.PW26/A Crime Team Report Insp. Lalit Kumar
41. Ex.PW27/A Crime Team Report Insp. Anil Kumar
42. Ex.PW28/A Copy of entry No. 2819 in Register HC Hari Ram
No.19
St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 9
43. Ex.PW28/B Copy of entry no. 2850 in Register
No. 19
44. Ex.PW28/C Copy of entry no. 3001 in register
no. 19
45. Ex.PW28/D Copy of entry no. 3017 in register
no. 19
46. Ex.PW28/E Copy of RC No. 47/21/07
47. Ex.PW28/F Copy of RC No. 48/21/07
48. Ex.PW28/G Copy of RC No. 59/21/07
49. Ex.PW28/H Copy of RC No. 60/21/07
50. Ex.PW28/I FSL receipt
51. Ex.PW28/J Copy of FSL receipt
52. Ex.PW29/A Seizure memo of photographs ASI Rajbir Singh
severed leg
53. Ex.PW29/B Call details regarding phone No.
9211463742
54. Ex.PW29/C Seizure memo of documents
55. Ex.PW29/D Call details regarding phone No.
9211463743
56. Ex.PW33/A Wireless log book HC Rajbir
57. Ex.PW33/B-1 to Certificate
B-2
58. Ex.PW34/A DD No.21/A ASI Bal Kishan
59. Ex.PW34/B DD No.22A
60. Ex.PW34/DX-1 Reply of RTI application
61. Ex.PW35/A Crime Team Report (NW District) SI Baljeet Singh
62. Ex.PW40/A DD No.19 regarding arrival entry Ct. Jai Singh
63. Ex.PW40/B Information regarding recovery of
parts to Incharge PP Lal Bagh
64. Ex.PW41/A Seizure memo of PM and other Sarvesh Yadav
inquest papers
65. Ex.PW43/A Arrest memo of Chandra Kant Jha ASI Virender Singh
66. Ex.PW43/B Personal Search Memo of accused
Chander Kant Jha
67. Ex.PW43/C Disclosure statement of Chander
Kant Jha
68. Ex.PW43/C-1 Pointing out memo and seizure of
photograph
St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 10
69. Ex.PW43/D Pointing out memo and seizure of
weapons
70. Ex.PW43/E Pointing out memo of the Juice Shop
at Lal Bagh, Loni near which the
accused had dropped the right hand
and private part of the deceased
Upender @ Pintoo
71. Ex.PW43/F Pointing out memo of Southern Gate
of Central Hall, where the accused
had dropped the right hand of
deceased Upender on 18.5.2007
72. Ex.PW43/G Pointing out memo of Baba Ramdev
Mandir, Pitampura
73. Ex.PW43/H Pointing out memo of Radha
Krishan Mandir Road, Swaroop
Nagar near shop no. 8226, in front of
MCD Primary School, where the
accused had thrown the right leg of
deceased Upender @ Pintoo on
25.4.2007
74. Ex.PW43/I Pointing out memo of Jail No.1,
Gate No.3, Tihar towards Postal
Letter Box where the accused had
thrown the decapitated body on
25.4.2007
75. Ex.PW43/DX1 Copy of Newspaper cutting
76. Ex.PW44/DX-2 Statement of SI Dalip Kaushik U/s Insp. Dalip Kaushik
161 Cr. P. C.
77. Ex.PW44/A Pointing out memo and seizure
memo of Rickshaw
78. Ex.PW44/B Pointing out memo and seizure
memo Exhibits
79. Ex.PW44/C Sketch of knives
80. Ex.PW44/D Seizure memo of pant of deceased,
mobile phone, paper bearing phone
number and photographs of wall
81. Ex.PW44/E Seizure memo of telephone numbers
copied from wall
82. Ex.PW46/A Site plan SI Narender
83. Ex.PW46/C Death report
84. Ex.PW46/D Request for extend the time of
preservation of dead body
St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 11
85. Ex.PW47/A DNA Fingerprinting Report Dr. A K Srivastav
86. Ex.PW48/A Customer Application Form in Sh. M N Vijayan
respect of mobile No. 9211463742
87. Ex.PW48/B Copy of DL
88. Ex.PW48/C Customer Application Form in
respect of mobile No. 9211463743
89. Ex.PW48/D Copy of DL
90. Ex.PW48/E Certificate U/s 65-B of Indian
Evidence Act
91. Ex.PW48/DX-1 Authorization Letter
92. Ex.PW49/A Biological Report Sh. V. Shankar
93. Ex.PW49/B Serological Report Narayanan
94. Ex.PW50/A Arrest memo SI Sharat Kohli
95. Ex.PW50/B Copy of certificate of BDO
96. Ex.PW50/C Seizure memo of exhibits collected
from Loni, UP
97. Ex.PW50/D Site plan of the place of recovery of
parts at Lal Bagh
98. Ex.PW51/A PCR Form HC Manohar Lal
99. Ex.PW52/A Copy of FIR HC Banwari Lal
100. Ex.PW53/A Site plan of place of recovery at Insp. Sunder Singh
Tihar Jail
101. Ex.PW53/B CDR of phone No. 9211541254
102. Ex.PW53/C Location Chart
103. Ex.PW53/D Certificate U/s 65B
104. Ex.PW53/E Photocopy of paper which bearing
phone numbers
105. Ex.PW53/DX-1 Photocopy of News paper dated
20.05.2007
106. Ex.PW54/A Postmortem Report Dr. Anil Shandilya
107. Ex.PW54/B Viscera Report
108. Ex.PW55/A Request for PM Examination Insp. Hoshiyar
109. Ex.PW55/DX-1 Receipt of dead body Ashes Singh
110. Ex.PW56/A Postmortem Report Dr. P.K. Singh
111. Ex.PW57/A Death Report SI Kishan Baldev
112. Ex.PW57/B Dead body sketch
St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 12
113. Ex.PW57/C Request for preservation of Dead
body parts
114. Ex.PW57/D Form 13 (Inquest papers at
Ghaziabad)
115. Ex.PW57/E Request for fingerprint of dead body
and report
116. Ex.PW57/F Sample seal
117. Ex.PW58/A Copy of electricity bill Insp. Sukesh Singh
118. Ex.PW58/B Copy of DL of Rajeev Kumar
119. Ex.PW58C Postmortem Report
120. Ex.PW58/D Seizure memo of photocopies of
documents
121. Ex.PW58/E Seizure memo of photographs of PM
122. Ex.PW58/F Seizure memo of photographs
123. Ex.PW58/G Photograph
124. Ex.PW58/H Site plan (Haiderpur)
125. Ex.PW60/A Report of Chance Print Sh. K N Singh
126. Ex.PW60/B Memorandum regarding Chance
print
127. Ex.PW61/A Corrigendum reply of RTI Rishi Pal
application
128. Ex.PW61/DX-1 RTI reply
List of case property:
Sr. Ex. No. Details of the Previously Renumbered and now to
No. case property numbered as be read as
1 P1 Skull 1 P1
2 P2 Jaw 2 P2
3 P3 Red cloths 10 P3
4 P4 Ghaghri 11 P4
5 P5 knife/Chopper 12 P5
6 P6 Knife/Chopper 13 P6
7 P7 Knife/Chopper 14 P7
8 P8 Nunchaku 15 P8
St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 13
kilometer from the mandir and he did not telephone Police Station Samaipur Badli. Witness has further deposed that police officials from local Police Station came to his shop at 8:30 AM but he cannot tell at what time the officials of Police Station Hari Nagar arrived and met him.
The witness has admitted that his statement was recorded by police officials of Hari Nagar on the same day. Witness has further deposed that he does not remember the name of police officials of Police Station Hari Nagar and states that they were in uniform. He is unable to tell exactly the time when his statement was recorded by police and has explained that it was evening. According to him, his statement was recorded at Police Station and police also recorded the statement of his nephew Devender. Witness has denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely.
(22) Akhilesh Singh Yadav (PW6) is the security guard who was on duty at UTI ATM machine near Gate No. 3 Tihar Jail on 25.04.2007. He has deposed that around 7:45 AM on the said date he went to urinate. According to him, probably at that time no article was lying near gate No. 3 Tihar Jail and at around 8 AM when he came back from Urinal he found one carton (gathe ke dabba) on the corner of the road near to UTI ATM booth and he went to gate No. 3 Tihar Jail and informed the police official posted there on which jail police staff called up the PCR and the PCR van came there.
(23) In his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel, witness has deposed that his statement was recorded by the police on the same day when they came to the spot and his statement recorded by PCR van came at spot thereafter he was called by SHO at Police Station there also his statement was recorded and he signed on his statement. According to him, the statements were read over to him and the PCR vehicle came at St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 22 8:30 AM in the morning. He has deposed that his duty was over at 8 PM in the night on 24.04.2007 and he went back to his house at about 9:30 AM. Witness has further deposed that when police arrived at the spot several public persons were also gathered and police did not record statement of any public person or jail staff. According to him, the ATM machine is situated about 25 paces from gate No.3 Tihar Jail and there were around 100 persons gathered at gate No. 3 to meet the inmates. He has further deposed that no inquiry was made by the police from the persons gathered at gate No.3 of Tihar Jail. He has stated that there is a double road in front of ATM machine. Witness has admitted that many people were coming and going on the said road at about 8 AM. He has deposed that as many people were gathered surrounding the said carton (gathe ka dibba) so he was back to his duty at ATM machine so he could not see who firstly touched the said carton and what happened with said carton. Witness has denied the suggestion that he is a tutored witness or that he never saw the said carton. The witness has also deposed that he had not brought I card of his employment and he cannot say whether his duty record is available or not. Witness has denied the suggestion that he was not deployed in front of said ATM machine on 24.04.2007 or that he has deposed falsely.
(24) Anil Kumar (PW7) is the Incharge of Electric Crematorium Punjabi Bagh. He has deposed that on 20.05.2007 he was on duty and on that day a dead body was received through Ct. Ajeet Singh for cremation. According to him, the said unknown body was received in FIR No. 243/07 Police Station Hari Nagar and it was cremated vide entry No. 333 dated 20.05.2007, copy of which is Ex.PW7/A. Witness has further deposed that after cremation the remains (asthiya) of the body were kept in Punjabi Bagh crematorium against token No. 18.
St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 23(25) In his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel, witness has deposed that he cannot show any document to the fact that he was working at Punjabi Bagh crematorium on 20.05.2007. Witness has denied the suggestion that he was not working in Punjabi Bagh crematorium on 20.05.2007 or that he was tutored witness or that he was deposing falsely at the instance of the investigating officer. (26) Sumit Kumar (PW8) was on duty at gate No.3, PRO office, Tihar Jail. He has deposed that on 25.04.2007, he was on duty from 8 AM to 4 PM and at about 8 AM Akhlesh Singh Yadav who was on duty at UTI ATM booth, gate No. 3, Tihar Jail, came to him and told that a card board was lying on the patri near ATM booth and appeared to be suspicious. According to him, he also came out and saw that cardboard carton lying on the patri and blood was oozing out from the same on which he gave information to PCR from his mobile phone in this regard and after sometime the PCR Van reached there and in the meantime police officer from Police Station Hari Nagar also reached the spot in his presence. He has deposed that investigating officer recorded his statement in this case on 28.08.2007.
(27) In his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel, the witness has deposed that his statement was recorded by the investigating officer at PRO office Tihar Jail. According to the witness, no entry is required if a person visits to the PRO office. Witness has denied the suggestion that he does not see any card board lying at gate No. 3 or that he is not known to any Akhilesh Singh Yadav.
(28) Rajeev Kumar (PW9) is the landlord of House No.229/2, Haiderpur, Delhi, where the accused Chander Kant Jha had previously resided with his family on rent. According to the witness, he is a resident of House No.155, Haiderpur, Delhi and has deposed that he also owns St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 24 property bearing no. 229/2, which was in the name of his grand mother Ram Kali which property is constructed with about 12 rooms out of which eight rooms have been constructed on the ground floor and four rooms have been constructed on the first floor, which have been let out on rent. According to the witness, in October 2004 he had rented out one room to Vikas, who was a resident of Bihar who remained there till December 2005. He has further deposed that in the month of April, 2006, Vikas came to him along with Chander Kant Jha (whom the witness has correctly identified in the Court) and introduced Chander Kant to him as his maternal uncle and requested him to rent out the said room to Chander Kant Jha as at that time, said room was lying vacant. According to the witness, he rented out the said room to Chander Kant Jha on a monthly rent of Rs.700/- and thereafter, accused started living in the said room along with his wife and children and he told him that he was working at the Azadpur Mandi. The witness has further deposed that in the month of April, 2007 the accused shifted his wife and children to some other place while he used to occasionally visit the said room as his belongings were lying in the said room. He has also proved having handed over the photocopy of the certificate issued by BDO, Gram Sabha, Haiderpur pertaining to H. No.229/2, Haiderpur, electricity bill of the said house and a photocopy of his driving licence which were seized by the police vide seizure memo Ex.PW9/A signed by him at point A. (29) In his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel, the witness has deposed that he had studied upto 12 th standard and he had seen the accused for the last time on one of the earlier court hearings. According to him, police had recorded his statement only once in the present case which was recorded on his dictation and he had signed the same. Witness has further deposed that his statement was recorded at H.No. St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 25 229/2, Ambedkar Nagar, Haiderpur. According to him, he had visited Police Station Hari Nagar after the arrest of accused in the year 2007 and inquiries were made from him by the police. Witness has further deposed that a seizure memo of the documents, which were handed over by him were prepared and he was not told about the details of the seizure memo. According to the witness, he does not remember the name and rank of the police official, who recorded his statement and prepared seizure memo and has explained that the police officials who recorded his statement was not in uniform but the official who prepared the seizure memo Ex.PW9/A was in uniform. He is unable to tell the number of the FIR in which his statement was recorded. He has admitted that his real bua is residing in the adjacent house of H.No. 229/2, Ambedkar Nagar, Haiderpur and his bua's house number is also same as it is constructed on the same plot. According to him, there are 12 rooms constructed on the plot bearing No.229/2 besides the accommodation which is in the possession of his Bua and all the rooms in this plot are residential. Witness has admitted that in some rooms, only males were tenants whereas in some rooms families consisting male, female and children were residing in the above said rooms at the time of arrest of the accused. According to him, in the adjacent rooms of the room of accused, families were residing. He has testified that one Rajender was also his tenant who is still residing in the said premises and in his absence, Rajender used to manage the cleaning of drainage as well as operating the water motor. The witness has testified that he had informed his all the tenants that in case of any problem, they could contact his bua or Rajender and they in turn, would inform him. Witness has further deposed that basically his bua looks after the said tenanted premises on daily basis and he was having daily meetings with his bua.
St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 26He has further stated that his house is situated at a distance of about 300 yards from the tenanted premises of accused and it takes five minutes to reach at the tenanted premises from his house on foot. According to him, he used to visit tenanted premises daily. He has deposed that he does not remember exact date and month when accused told him to vacate the tenanted premises on the 20 th day of that month in the year 2007 but on 18th day of that month of 2007, police came to him and inquired about the accused. Witness has further deposed that in his presence, accused was never brought to tenanted premises by the police and on 20.05.2007 police official came to search the room of the accused and he was present at that time at that premises. He has also deposed that the room was locked and the police official broke the lock of the room and his bua informed him about the arrival of the police. Witness has further deposed that police officials remained there at the room for about one and one and a half hours and he did not join the investigation with the police officials on 20.05.2007 though he was present there at the tenanted premises. According to him, even after 20.05.2007, police visited the said tenanted premises once again and on 20.05.2007 after breaking the lock, police officials put their own lock. The witness has admitted that Vikas was a tenant in the room in the year 2007. He was shown the photograph Ex.PW9/DA but the witness was unable to identify the same as that of Vikas (according to the counsel for accused this photograph was of the bhanja/ nephew of Chander Kant). According to him, Chander Kant (wrongly typed as Chander Kumar in the evidence) never remained as a tenant in the room as shown in the photograph Ex.PW9/DA. The witness has also deposed that he is the grandson of Ramkali, who was the recorded owner of the said premises and his grandmother died ten years ago and has clarified that the property St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 27 No. 229/2 still stands in her name. Witness has also deposed that no rent receipt was issued to the accused Chander Kant and there is no rent agreement executed with accused Chander Kant. According to the witness, he can produce the original of certificate issued by gram sabha, Haiderpur. He has testified that he had seen the accused prior to the court date when he was living as a tenant in one of the room situated at premises No. 229/2 but he does not remember the exact date and month of such meeting. Witness has further deposed that police never came to H. No.229/2 prior to this case to inquire about involvement of accused Chander Kant in police cases or to arrest him. Witness has denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely or that accused never resided in H. No. 229/2. He has denied the suggestion that his some other property was in the illegal possession of some persons and the police officials got his said property vacated from that illegal possession and due to this obligation of police he was deposing falsely against the accused. Witness has denied the suggestion that he never joined the investigations of the present case or that he signed the documents while sitting in the Police Station without knowing the nature of those documents. (30) Akash (PW10) is the Driver of the Maruti Van Ambulance bearing No. DL2CL-0981, which he used to station at DDU Hospital. He has deposed that on 25.04.2007, on the call of police, he along with his said van reached at UTI Bank ATM near Tihar Jail, gate No. 3. According to him, SI Manohar Lal along with other police staff met him there at a short distance from ATM counter and a carton was lying and police officials told him that there was a dead body in the said carton. He has testified that on the instructions of investigating officer, he with the help of some public persons, kept the said carton containing dead body in his van and shifted the same to mortuary, DDU hospital.
St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 28Witness has further deposed that Ct. Ajit also accompanied him to DDU Hospital and there, at the DDU Hospital, Ct. Ajit had given a request letter for preserving the said dead body in the mortuary and then, with the help of hospital staff, dead body was deposited in the mortuary. According to him, at that time, he had seen the dead body. (31) In his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel, witness has deposed that he cannot tell the exact time but it was morning hours when he had reached at the spot. Witness has denied the suggestion that he never joined the investigation in the present case or that he was deposing falsely.
(32) Mohd. Yasin Malik (PW11) is the Juice Seller who used to put his fruit rehri at Lal Bagh Subzi Mandi, Loni. He has deposed that on 25.04.2007 at about 10:00 AM he was present at his sugarcane juice rehri, at that time, some ladies informed him that two unclaimed cartons were lying near his rehri. He has testified that he with the help of some people working in the mandi, checked those cartons and one carton was containing a human hand and other carton was containing human penis. Witness has further deposed that they informed the police of Police Station Loni and police officials carried out the proceedings in this regard. The witness has also deposed that on 08.09.2007, investigating officer of the present case made inquiries from him at his said rehri and prepared site plan at his instance which is Ex.PW11/A and recorded his statement.
(33) In his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel, witness has admitted that he did not open cartons at the spot and that cartons were opened by the police at police station. According to him, at the police station, he had also seen the human hand and the human penis, which were in the said carton boxes and number of persons from the mandi St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 29 were there at the police station. He has further deposed that the site plan Ex.PW11/A was prepared by the investigating officer of Delhi police at his rehri and his statement was recorded by the police at the spot itself. According to him, he does not remember whether he had put his thumb impression or signature on the statement or not. Witness has denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely at the instance of the investigating officer or that he had never joined the investigation of the present case.
(34) Sh. Sanjay Kumar (PW21) is the Photographer who is running a Photo Studio with the name and style Sanjay Photo Studio at WZ-72, Titarpur, Tagore Garden, Delhi. He has deposed that on 25.4.2007 he was called by the Investigation Officer to take the photographs at Tihar Jail gate no.3, UTI ATM. The witness has deposed that he reached the spot & found one dead body was kept in plastic katta / bag and after removing it from the plastic katta / bag he took the photographs by his camera from different angles. According to him, after developing the photographs same were handed over to the investigation officer. He has proved the 12 photographs which are Ex.PW21/1 to Ex.PW21/12. This witness has further deposed that on 20.05.07 he was called at DDU hospital for taking the photographs of the postmortem of the dead body and one leg. According to him, after developing the photographs the same were handed over to the investigation officer. He has testified that photographs were 12 in number and their negatives were 14 and two negatives were defective. He has proved the nine photographs of postmortem no. 458 which are Ex.PW21/A-1 to A-9; three photographs of postmortem no.459 which are Ex.PW21/A-10 to A- 12 and their negatives are Ex.PW21/N-1 to N-12. He has further deposed that investigation officer recorded his statement.
St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 30(35) In his cross-examination this witness has deposed that he studied upto Class Twelve and he is witness in three cases of the accused. He has explained that he is called by the name Sanjay as well as Rajesh and his address is 11/15 Ashok Nagar and WZ-72, Titar Pur both are correct. He has explained that one is his residential address whereas the other is the address of his shop. The witness has further deposed that he told to the police in his statement about his residential address as well as his shop address in all the cases and that he told his address as 11/15 Ashok Nagar, Delhi to the investigation officer in this case while recording of his statement. He does not remember how many statements were recorded in this case nor does he remember the date when his statements were recorded. According to him, he is running only one photography studio at WZ-72, Titar Pur, Tagore Garden, Delhi and in this case he took the photographs in front of gate No.3, Tihar Jail where the dead body was lying in a bag. The witness has further deposed that he took the photographs on 25.04.07 but he is not aware of the name of the police official who called him at Tihar jail. He has also deposed that he was called from the Police Station Hari Nagar by phone at his mobile phone on which he directly reached in front of Tihar jail and after taking the photographs he returned back to his house and after changing his clothes he went to his shop. The witness has testified that his statement was recorded on 25.04.07 by Inspector Hoshiyar Singh but he does not remember the date when the photographs were handed over to the Investigating Officer. The witness has deposed that he does not remember if the investigation officer obtained his signatures on any memo in respect of seizing the photographs and states that he handed over the photographs to the Inspector Hoshiyar Singh. According to the witness, he was called by the police officials to take photographs of other St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 31 cases of the area as well. The witness has deposed that on 25.04.07 he stated his address as 11/15 Ashok Nagar, Tilak Nagar, Delhi. However when confronted with his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Ex.PW21/DA where the address is recorded as 72, Titar Pur, Prop. Sanjay Photo Studio. He has denied the suggestion that he did not take the photographs as deposed by him.
(36) Sh. Jay Jeet Singh (PW42) has deposed that on 27.07.2007 he was posted as Nursing Orderly at World Blood Bank, DDU Hospital and on the permission granted to Inspector Sukesh Singh by Director Medical Superintendent, he accompanied him to Hari Nagar Police Station and from there, he went with him and with the rest of the police team to FSL laboratory, Rohini, where he took the sample for DNA examination of Shri Ram, S/o Parshad, R/o UP and Smt. Dharmi Devi, W/o Shri Ram, R/o UP. According to the witness, after taking the blood sample, he handed over the samples of both the persons to Dr. Ashutosh Kumar, which he preserved.
(37) In reply to leading question put by Ld. APP to him on the address of the Shri Ram and Dharmi Devi, he has admitted that both Shri Ram and Smt. Dharmi are residents of village Biswa @ Kotiya, district Maharajganj, UP.
(38) In his cross examination, the witness has deposed that they left DDU hospital at about 1:30 PM and Shri Ram and Dharmi Devi were already present in the Police Station Hari Nagar, when they reached there. He has also deposed that they remained at Police Station Hari Nagar for about 1- 1½ hours and both these persons were around 60 years of age. According to the witness, he did not sign any document at the FSL, Rohini. He has denied the suggestion that no blood samples were collected by him as deposed by him and or that at the instance of St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 32 the investigating officer. This witness has stated that so far as he recollects, his statement was never recorded by the Investigating Officer.
Medical Witnesses:
(39) Dr. Anil Shandil (PW54) is the Autopsy Surgeon who had conducted the postmortem examination of the decapitated body of unknown male person aged about 30 years on 20.5.2007 at 11:30 AM.
He has deposed that on 20.05.2007, he was posted as Senior Resident, DDU Hospital and had conducted postmortem examination on the decapitated body sent by Inspector Hoshiyar Singh, Police Station Hari Nagar with alleged history that on 25/04/2007, an unknown dead body was found lying near gate No.3, Tihar Jail. According to him, both the hands, head and both the legs below knee and private parts of the dead body were missing. He has deposed that on general description of the dead body, which was to the effect that clothes, chadar with panni, baniyan, underwear and jute rope. According to him, the body was decapitated headless with no genitalia absent both upper limbs from shoulder joint and both lower limbs missing from level of knee. He has also deposed that both thighs tied with jute rope with the chest with depressive groove along line of tying. The witness has testified that the wound of lower broader part of neck, both shoulder, both knee and perinium was clean cut well defined regular margins with dried up blood and clots over the wound. He has testified that the tying of both thighs with chest showed no effusion of blood and clots in underlying depressed tissue on incision. According to description of head given by PW54, decapitation in front at the level above the anterior clavicular joint and in the back cut over the seventh cervical vertebra, the inter vertebral disc between C 6-7 clean cut, trachea attached with cut part of St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 33 the base of neck and not drown in chest cavity with above five rings of trachea absent. The witness has also deposed that no definite opinion regarding cause of death could be given, however, postmortem findings were consistent with homicidal death and the wounds mentioned in postmortem report were caused by sharp edged weapon. He has testified that clothes of the deceased, chader with panni around the body, jute rope, blood and viscera for chemical analysis and sternum for DNA finger printing preserved, labeled, sealed and handed over to concerned police official for FSL examination. He has proved the postmortem report which is Ex.PW54/A. The witness has also been shown viscera report Ex.PW54/B in the Court indicating that before his death, the deceased had consumed alcohol.
(40) This witness has not been cross examined on behalf of accused. This Court, however asked the witness to inform about the cause of death i.e. whether on account of cutting of the body parts or whether the body was cut after the death of the deceased and also if any subsequent opinion had been taken after taking the viscera report, to which, the witness has replied that cause of death in this case was consistent with decapitation of head, the head was decapitated/cut before the death. He has voluntarily explained that cause of death was decapitation of head. Further, he does not recollect about giving any subsequent opinion but according to him since the opinion was not present on the report, hence it implies that subsequent opinion was not taken. (41) The witness has also been asked by the Court to respond after seeing the viscera report, if there was any change in his earlier opinion, to which, he replied that after seeing the viscera report, his earlier opinion remains the same as there is no indication of poison prior to the death of the deceased, which rules out poisoning prior to the St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 34 death of the deceased or cause of death. However, the viscera report Ex. PW54/B shows the presence of ethyl alcohol indicating the consumption of alcohol prior to the death of deceased. (42) Dr. P.K. Singh (PW56) is the Medical Officer at District Hospital, Ghaziabad. He has proved that on 26.04.2007 he conducted the postmortem on the human part i.e. left arm and penis and scrotum of the body of unknown person sent by police official PS Loni, District Ghaziabad in the sealed parcel along with the inquest documents nine in number vide Postmortem report Ex.PW56/A. He has further deposed that on both the parts there had been no anti-mortem injury and that blisters all over the upper arms present. According to him, the anatomical appearance was suggestive of a male arm and the total length of the arm was 70 cms from the upper part of the humerous bone till fingers. He has testified that penis with scrotum were suggestive of being a male human body and time since death was about two days and the cause of death in this case could not be ascertained for these organs. He has further deposed that both parts were preserved in formalin for further forensic analysis. This witness has not been cross examined on behalf of accused and his testimony remained unassailed.
Forensic Experts:
(43) Sh. Naresh Kumar (PW16) is the Senior Scientific Assistant, FSL Rohini. He has deposed that on 30.07.2007 he received one sealed parcel and the seals were intact as per FA letter. The witness has further deposed that another sealed parcel sealed with the seal AKS, FSL Delhi was received on 01.05.08 from DNA Unit and the parcels were opened by breaking the seal. According to the witness, he had given serial no.S1 & 2 and the contents of the parcel were given Ex.S1/A, S1/B, S1/C, St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 35 S1/D, S1/E, S1/F & 2 and he examined all the exhibits biologically and prepared his detailed report which is Ex.PW16/A. The witness has testified that he also examined the exhibits serologically and prepared his detailed report vide Ex.PW16/B and after examination of parcels, the same were sealed with the seal of NK, FSL and parcel no.2 after examination was returned to DNA Unit. He has not been cross-examined by the Ld. Defence Counsel despite opportunity in this regard and his testimony has gone uncontroverted.
(44) Dr. A. K. Srivastava (PW47) is the Assistant Director, Biology, Finger Print Unit, FSL Rohini. He has deposed that on 27.7.2007, eight forensic samples (out of which one was a sample seal) were received in their office regarding DNA finger printing test which samples were sealed with the seal of DFMT DDU Hospital and that only parcel no. 6 was not sealed. According to him, the parcels were opened and parcel no.1 was found to be containing Ex.1 i.e. one bone piece having foul odour described as sternum; parcel no.2 was found to be containing Ex.2 i.e. one glauze cloth piece having dark brown stains and described as blood sample; parcel no. 3 was found to be containing Ex.3 i.e. sample seal; parcel no.4 was found to be containing Ex.4 i.e. one bone piece having foul odour described as fibula tibia; parcel no. 5 was found to be containing Ex.5 i.e. one empty bag described as a bag containing severed leg; parcel no. 6 was found to be containing Ex.6 i.e. some liquid material containing tissue pieces described severed body parts; parcel no. 7 was found to be containing Ex.7 i.e. blood sample of Sri Ram collected on 27.7.2007 and parcel no. 8 was found to be containing Ex.8 i.e. blood sample Smt. Dharma collected on 27.7.2007.
He has proved that DNA from all the above exhibits except Ex.5 and 6 were isolated and were subjected to DNA amplification. According to St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 36 him, DNA could not be amplified for the Ex.1 and 4. He has further deposed that DNA profile (STR analysis) was prepared for the Ex.2, 7 and 8. The witness has testified that data was analyzed by using Genescan and Genotype Software. On examination, the alleles as from the source of Ex.7 (Sri Ram) and alleles as from the source Ex.8 (Smt Dharma) were found accounted in the Ex.2 (gauze piece). He has testified that DNA profiling (STR analysis) performed on the exhibits provided was sufficient to conclude that the Ex.7 (Shri Ram) and Ex. 8 (Smt Dharma) were the biological father and mother of Ex.P2 i.e. blood sample gauze piece). He has proved having prepared his detailed report in this regard which is Ex.PW47/A (running into 5 pages).
(45) In his cross examination, the witness has deposed that STR analysis has been used for matching of the DNA. He has admitted that the DNA report is based upon probabilities and there can never be a 100% matching in case of forensic samples and has voluntarily explained that where there are more than 10 bands matching out of 15 bands, the probability that the DNA is of the same origin, is very high. According to him, in the present case all 15 out of 15 bands were matching and it is for this reason that he concluded that the DNA was of the same origin. He has denied the suggestion that he gave his report on the asking of the Investigating Officer.
(46) Sh. V. Shankarnarayanan (PW49) is the Senior Scientific Officer FSL Rohini. He has deposed that on 27.7.2007 four sealed parcels were received in office of FSL, Rohini in the present case which parcels were opened by him and he examined the exhibits biologically. According to him, parcel No. A was found containing Ex.A (i) i.e. one shawl having brown stains, Ex.A (ii) i.e. one baniyan having darker St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 37 stains, Ex.A(iii) i.e. underwear having brown stains, Ex.A(iv) i.e. one polythene having brown stains, Ex.A (v) i.e. pieces of rope having darker stains, parcel No. A-1 was found containing Ex.A-1 i.e. gauze piece having darker stains described as blood sample, parcel No. A-2 was found containing Ex.A-2 i.e. cemented material having darker stains, parcel No. A-3 was found containing Ex.A-3 i.e. cemented material. He has proved that on biological examination blood was detected on exhibits A(i), A (ii), A (iii), A(iv), A(v), A-1 and A-2. He has testified that blood could not be detected on Ex.A-3 and his detailed biological report is Ex.PW49/A (running into two pages). The witness has also proved that on serological examination of the above exhibits, Ex. A(i), A(ii), A(iii), A-1 and A-2 showed reaction for human origin of blood only, whereas Ex.A(iv), Ex. A(v) and A-3 showed no reaction with respect of human origin of blood. He has further deposed that his detailed serological report is Ex.PW49/B. He has further deposed that remnants of the above said exhibits were sealed with the seal of VSN FSL DELHI. This witness has not been cross examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused hence, his testimony remained unassailed.
(47) Ms. Kavita Goyal (PW59) is the expert who had given the report on the viscera examination of the deceased. She has deposed that on 30.07.2007, one parcel in connection with this case was duly received with the intact seal, sent by SHO Police Station Hari Nagar through SI Sharat Kohli. She has further deposed that the sealed parcel was marked as 1 and seals were tallied with the specimen seal as per forwarding letter (FSL form) after which the parcel No.1 was opened it and found to contain one wooden box duly sealed with the seal of DDU hospital, DFMT containing viscera which was found to contain Ex.1A and 1B. According to the witness, the Ex.1A i.e. stomach and piece of small St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 38 intestine with contents was found kept in a sealed jar and Ex.1B i.e. pieces of liver, spleen and kidney was found kept in another sealed jar. She has testified that on chemical, TLC and GC-HS examination, Ex.1A and Ex.1B were found to contain Ethyl alcohol and the quantification of Ethyl alcohol could not be done in the absence of blood sample. She has further deposed that the exhibits/ remnants sent to laboratory for examination after sealing the same with the seal of KG FSL Delhi were sent back to the forwarding authority. She has proved her detailed report in this regard which is Ex.PW54/A. She has not been cross examined by the Ld. Defence Counsel and her testimony has gone uncontroverted.
(48) Sh. K.N. Singh (PW60) is the Finger Print Expert, Delhi Police. He has deposed that on 17.09.2007 the case was marked to him by the director FPB for examination on which he issued questionnaires/ memo dated 03.03.2008 to the Investigating Officer in case FIR No. 243/07 questioning whether chance print marked Q1 and Q2 are identical with any of the finger/ palm prints of the person mentioned at para 1(C) or not, whether chance prints marked Q1 and Q2 are identical with any of the finger prints on the record of the bureau or not. According to the witness, no palm print was sent by the Investigating Officer to their office in response to the aforesaid memo therefore chance print marked Q1 was not compared with the exhibits sent for comparison, hence it could not be searched on the record of the bureau. He has further deposed that chance print marked Q2 was partial and smudged and did not disclose sufficient number if ridge details in their relative position for comparison hence it was UNFIT for comparison/search. He has proved his detailed report in this regard which is Ex.PW60/A and the memorandum in this regard is Ex.PW60/B. This witness has also not been cross examined by the Ld. Defence Counsel and hence his St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 39 testimony has gone uncontroverted.
Official Witnesses of Electronic Record:
(49) Sh. M. N. Vijayan (PW48) Nodal Officer, Tata Services Ltd.
has deposed that mobile No. 9211463742 is in the name of Rahul Jain S/o Shri Hari Om Jain. He has proved the copy of the application form which is ExPW48/A; copy of the driving licence in support of address of Rahul Jain which is ExPW48/B. He has also proved the call detail record of Mobile No. 9211463742 for the period 1.4.2000 to 20.5.2007 which are Ex.PW29/B. The witness has brought the original record of the mobile no.9211463743 which is in the name of Rahul Jain s/o Shri Hari Om Jain and the copy of the application form which is ExPW48/C; copy of the driving licence in support of address of Rahul Jain which is ExPW48/D and the call detail record of Mobile No. 9211463743 for the period 11.3.2007 to 20.5.2007 which is Ex.PW29/D. He has also placed on record the certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act in respect of both the aforesaid mobile numbers, which is ExPW48/E. (50) In his cross examination, this witness has deposed that the above call details record has been got retrieved from the main server at Hyderabad. He has admitted that he personally did not retrieve the above CDRs and it was sent to them by the Hyderabad branch. He has further deposed that the said record had been saved by their office on the request of the senior police officers of West District but he does not know their names. He has denied the suggestion that they do not have power back up and there is frequent shutting down of the system, due to which reason the data is not accurate and has voluntarily explained that they have a power back up system for 24 hours. The witness has further St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 40 denied the suggestion that the record as aforesaid has been fabricated and manipulated at the instance of the police. He has further deposed that the certification regarding the authenticity has been given by him in his capacity as a competent authorized officer being the Nodal Officer and he has been duly authorized by the senior officers to issue the certificate u/s 65 of the Evidence Act being the Nodal Officer vide authorization letter which is Ex.PW48/DX1. He has denied that the record available on the server can be modified at any time and has voluntarily explained that necessary security measures have been taken and it is not possible to tamper / change the same without detection. He has further denied that the authorization has been given and he had issued the certificate in routine on the asking of the senior police officers.
Police Witnesses:
Police Witnesses of Special Staff of West District:
(51) Inspector Sunder Singh (PW53) is the Investigating Officer of the case bearing FIR No. 609/06 under Section 302/201 PS Hari Nagar. He has deposed that on 20.10.2006 he had reached the scene of crime in his capacity as Inspector Investigations, Police Station Hari Nagar. He has further deposed that while he was conducting investigations in the above FIR, by the end of year 2006 he was transferred to Special Staff, West District, Tagore Garden and investigations were continued by him. He has testified that on 25.04.2007, he got the information that one of the dead body was dropped at Tihar Jail on which he reached there and met Inspector Hoshiyar Singh Investigating Officer of the case FIR No.243/07 Police Station Hari Nagar and discussed with him in detail. He has further deposed that on 18.05.2007, Inspector Omvir Singh intimated to him St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 41 through telephone that one more dead body has been dropped in respect of which another case FIR No.279/07, Police Station Hari Nagar has been registered. He has testified that on the same date, he had received a secret information that the criminal, who is dropping the dead body, would be coming at Tihar Jail and he along with staff had departed for Tihar Jail but they could not succeed in catching him and on 19.05.2007, informer had informed them that the criminal was residing near Chhota Shiv Mandir, Alipur. According to the witness, on 20.05.2007 informer came to their office at Tagore Garden and with the directions of the Senior Officers, a team was constituted from special staff comprising of himself, SI Dalip Kaushik, SI Narender, Ct. Rohtash, SI Jai Parkash of Police Station Nangloi, SI Jarnail Singh ICPP Mianwali Nagar, ASI Virender Tyagi and other staff left in a government vehicle Tata 407 bearing registration no. DL1LD-5031 along with driver ASI Prem Singh and the secret informer after which they reached at Alipur, Delhi. He has testified that at about 12 noon they reached near Shivmandir wali gali where they kept a watch in the area and at about 2:00 pm the accused Chanderkant Jha was apprehended at the instance of secret informer from the street near Shivmandir Mianwali Nagar. He has proved that the accused was thereafter interrogated but he initially did not cooperate with the police but later when thoroughly interrogated, he disclosed that he was residing as a tenant at Haiderpur colony where he used to bring the poor boys and keep them with him. According to the witness, the accused further disclosed that he used to take the services of these boys in good faith and thereafter used to commit their murder and in order to harass the police officials, he then left the various parts of the bodies of the deceased at different places including Gate of Tihar Jail by using his rickshaw operated with engine. The witness has also deposed that on St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 42 being satisfied, the accused was arrested in this case i.e. FIR No.609/06, under Section 302/201 IPC Police Station Hari Nagar, by him vide memo Ex.PW43/A; his personal search was also conducted vide memo Ex.PW43/B and his disclosure statement was recorded regarding killing, weapon of offence and lying the same in his rented room which disclosure statement was recorded vide Ex.PW43/C running into four pages written on both sides. According to him, the accused was kept in muffled face for the purpose of TIP and the rickshaw which was operated by engine was also found parked near his house in the street was pointed out by the accused as belonging to him after which the said rickshaw was also taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW44/A. He has also deposed that thereafter they all reached at Haiderpur where he called the crime team and FSL experts at main road Haiderpur after which they reached at the corner of Gali No. 2 Haiderpur colony where the accused Chanderkant Jha pointed out towards his rented room situated at ground floor of house bearing no.229 which was belonging to one Mangal Sain Pandit and got the lock broken open. The witness has further testified that the room was got photographed by the photographer of the crime team and the members of crime team inspected the room, the crime team expert took the four chance prints/finger prints. He has further deposed that the FSL expert Dr. Naresh Kumar, inspected the spot and lifted the blood from the floor from near the gate of the room and kept the same in a yellow coloured envelope, which envelope was marked with "A";
blood stained earth control and kept the same in the yellow envelope, which envelope was marked with "B"; three big size knives which the accused Chanderkant had disclosed were the weapons of offence with which he executed the killings from which knifes the blood stains were lifted along with the blood from the place from where the knives were St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 43 lifted which blood was kept in another envelope of yellow colour which envelope was marked with "C" and broken floor piece which he (Dr. Naresh) converted into pulunda and sealed the same with the seal of NK FSL, Delhi which parcel was marked with 'D'. According to Inspector Sunder Singh, all the above exhibits were taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW44/B after which he prepared the sketch of knife which was recovered from the room of accused vide Ex.PW44/C. According to the witness, the knife was measured and found to be 41.5 cm long, length of the blade was 28 cm, length of the handle was of 13.5 cm and the width of the blade was 4.5 cm which knife was given mark E; other knife was also measured and found to be 39.8 cm long, its blade was of 27 cm, handle was of 12.5 cm and the width of the blade was 7 cm which knife was given mark F; the third knife was also measured and found to be 59 cm long, width of the blade was 5 cm which knife was given mark G. He has proved having converted all the knives into separate parcels and sealed the same with the seal of NK FSL, Delhi and thereafter he seized all the knives vide memo ExPW43/D and having recorded the statements of crime team staff and Dr. Naresh Kumar of FSL and they were relieved. The witness has further testified that he inspected the room and searched the "taand" (partition in the room) and recovered one "nunchaku" (an instrument/ weapon used by Karate fighter) which nunchaku was having double chain and on both the sides there were wooden handles and thereafter he converted the same into parcel and sealed the same with the seal of SSY and took the same into possession vide seizure memo ExPW44/D. According to him, he took one jeans pant from the "khoonti" from the said room and also got recovered one mobile phone make Indicom from the Almirah kept in his room and informed that the said mobile phone was belonging to one of St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 44 the deceased. The witness has proved having taken into possession the said pant and mobile after converting them into parcels vide common seizure memo Ex.PW44/D. He has also deposed that he noted down the telephone numbers which were found mentioned on the wall of the room and photography was also got done by him after which he prepared the site plan vide Ex.PW53/A. He has further deposed that he recorded the statement of Dr. Naresh, SI Anil and Ct. Rakesh (Photographer) under Section 161 Cr. P.C. (52) According to him on 21.5.2007 in the morning hours, they went to Police Station and deposited the case property in the malkhana and recorded the statement of SI Dalip after which they reached Kishanganj where the accused got down from the vehicle and took them across the railway line near ganda nalla and pointed out the place where he threw legs of the body of deceased on 18.5.2007 after which they all came back to Tis Hazari Courts where the accused Chanderkant Jha led them in front of State Bank, Tis Hazari compound and pointed out the place where he left two hands of the body of the deceased and his private parts after packing the same in the straw board box. According to the witness, they had taken the accused for preparation of the dossier and taking his finger prints at Dossier Cell, West District after which the accused was sent to DDU Hospital for his medical examination and was produced before Ld. MM at Rohini Courts and with the permission of the court, they took the specimen handwriting and signatures of accused Chanderkant Jha in this case i.e. FIR No. 609/06 of Police Station Hari Nagar, which specimen handwriting of accused after which he took the police remand of accused till 28.5.07.
(53) According to Inspector Sunder Singh on 22.5.2007 the accused Chandrakant Jha took them near Railway Phatak Shalimar Bagh and got St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 45 down from the vehicle and pointed out near Baba Ramdev Mandir Pitampura, where he had hanged the left leg after keeping the same in a cloth bag on 25.4.2007, pursuant to which he prepared the memo of pointing out which is Ex.PW43/G. The witness has further deposed that on the same day, Inspector Hoshiyar Singh came to the Special Staff, West District, Tagore Garden and he handed over the copies of the relevant documents in connection with arrest of accused Chandrakant Jha to him, who seized the said documents vide memo Ex.PW23/E and recorded his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C.
(54) The witness has further deposed that on 23.5.07, he along with SI Dalip Kumar Kaushik, ASI Virender Tyagi, Ct. Vijender Singh along with staff and the accused Chanderkant Jha left in government vehicle Tata 407 no.DL1LD5031 and reached at ISBT Flyover, ISBT where accused took them on the bank of Yamuna river and pointed out the place where he had thrown the head of deceased Upender @ Pintoo on 25.4.2007 and at the same time, the accused pointed out towards the east side of the Yamuna river where he had thrown the head of deceased Dalip on 18.5.07 after wrapping the same in the ghagri and red colour cloth of his daughter and after wrapping the same in a polythene. According to the witness, they then called the nao-wala (owner of the boat) and a swimmer and tried to search for the head of the deceased which could not be recovered at that time and since it was late night, he therefore relieved the swimmer and nao-wala. According to the witness, he thereafter sent ASI Virender Tyagi to bring the search light pursuant to which ASI Virender Tyagi brought the search light along with the staff and with the help of search light they again tried to search the head of both the deceased. The witness has also deposed that while they were going towards east side of Yamuna river towards Seelampur and when St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 46 they reached about three-four steps ahead from the metro pillar, they found one red cloth and one ghaghri which were identified by the accused as the same in which he had wrapped the head of the deceased Dilip and thrown the same in the river. According to the witness, on reaching near the said cloth they found skull and the lower jaw which the accused had identified the jaw as belonging to Dalip as he was into habit of taking gutkha and paan and also identified the skull of Dalip. The witness has testified that he called the photographer Rajesh @ Sanjay who took 11 photographs of the jaw and skull. He has deposed that thereafter he called SI Satender from Police Station Seelampur and converted the said skull and jaw into parcel in the presence of SI Satender and also converted the red cloth and ghaghri into parcel and sealed the same with the seal of DK after which the said parcel was taken into possession in FIR No. 609/06 PS Hari Nagar. He has proved having prepared the site plan at the place from where the skull and jaws were recovered in FIR No. 609/06 PS Hari Nagar. The witness has testified that he took both the parcels to DDU hospital mortuary through Ct. Vijender. He has further deposed that on 24.5.2007 he along with ASI Virender Tyagi and other staff along with accused left in Tata 407 along with SI Prem Singh for pointing out the spot by the accused. (55) He has further deposed that on 24.5.2007, he along with ASI Virender Tyagi and other staff along with accused left in Tata 407 along with SI Prem Singh for pointing out of the spot. According to him, they all reached at Lal Bagh Chowki, where the accused pointed out the Juice Shop near which he had dropped the right hand and private part of the deceased Upender @ Pintoo after keeping the same in a panni and thereafter in a box on which he prepared pointing out memo Ex.PW43/E. He has testified that thereafter, they came to Tis Hazari St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 47 Court where the accused pointed out the place near Southern Gate of Central Hall, where he had dropped the right hand of deceased Upender on 18.5.2007 on which he prepared the memo of pointing out vide Ex.PW43/F. The witness has also deposed that thereafter, the accused took them near Radha Krishan Mandir Road, Swaroop Nagar and pointed out near the shop no. 8226, in front of MCD Primary School, where he had thrown the right leg of deceased Upender @ Pintoo on 25.4.2007 on which he prepared the memo of pointing out which is Ex.PW43/H. He has testified that thereafter, they all went to many places in Delhi as pointed out by the accused and when they reached near Jail No.1, Gate No.3, Tihar, the accused pointed out towards Postal Letter Box, where he had thrown the trunk of the body i.e. the thoracic and the abdominal portion of the body on 25.4.2007 in a carton box on which he prepared the memo of pointing out vide Ex.PW43/I. According to the witness, the accused also disclosed that he had also left the letters along with the body. The witness has deposed that he thereafter recorded the statement of Narender under Section 161 Cr.PC.
(56) According to Inspector Sunder Singh on 4.7.2007 he handed over two photographs along with their seizure memo to Inspector Sukesh Singh which were produced by the accused and his statement was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. He has testified that on 30.8.2007, the copy of the pointing out memo of Tihar Jail was handed over to Inspector Sukesh Singh, who had recorded his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The witness has also deposed that on 13.9.2007, he had reached the house no. 229/2, Haiderpur Colony, where SI Mahesh Kumar had taken rough notes and measurements and thereafter he prepared the scaled site plan which is Ex.PW19/D. He has testified that Inspector Sukesh Singh recorded his statement under section 161 Cr.P.C.
St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 48(57) Witness has correctly identified the accused in the Court and also identified the case property i.e. knife/chopper recovered from the room of the accused at his instance which is Ex.P12 (since there are no exhibits from P3 to P9 hence for the sake of convenience and to avoid any confusion this exhibit shall be henceforth read as Ex.P5); another knife / chopper recovered from the room of the accused at his instance which is Ex.P13 (since there are no exhibits from P3 to P9 hence for the sake of convenience and to avoid any confusion this exhibit shall be henceforth read as Ex.P6); another knife / chopper recovered from the room of the accused at his instance which is Ex.P14 (since there are no exhibits from P3 to P9 hence for the sake of convenience and to avoid any confusion this exhibit shall be henceforth read as Ex.P7); one nunchaku recovered from machan / taand of the room of the accused at his instance which is Ex.P15 (since there are no exhibits from P3 to P9 hence for the sake of convenience and to avoid any confusion this exhibit shall be henceforth read as Ex.P8); denim jeans along with black belt recovered from khoonti from the room of the accused at his instance which is Ex.P16 (since there are no exhibits from P3 to P9 hence for the sake of convenience and to avoid any confusion this exhibit shall be henceforth read as Ex.P9) and one Indicom mobile phone recovered from Almirah kept in the room of the accused at his instance which is Ex.P17 (since there are no exhibits from P3 to P9 hence for the sake of convenience and to avoid any confusion this exhibit shall be henceforth read as Ex.P10).
(58) Inspector Sunder Singh has been exhaustively cross examined by the accused wherein he has admitted that he is a witness in all the three cases pending against the accused i.e. the present FIR and also FIR No.297/07 and 243/07 from Police Station Hari Nagar and he has St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 49 deposed on the basis of his memory. According to the witness, the accused was in police custody for seven days. He has admitted that during this period of police custody remand the accused did not misbehave with them nor he became violent but is not aware if the accused made any objections or demands regarding food or other articles including tobacoo or narcotis during the period of police custody remand. He has stated that the accused did not try to escape during the period of his custody remand and the behaviour of the accused was normal during the period of police remand and he did not observe any deviation or psychiatric problem during this period of remand. He has denied the suggestion that the newspaper used to come to the office of the Special Staff and is not aware about availability of the television facility in the office but has voluntarily explained that the newspaper and television facility was available in Recreation Room. The witness has also deposed that on 20.05.2007 the raiding party was constituted at about 9AM which raiding party was constituted at Special staff and thereafter other members had joined at Hari Nagar. According to him, he was in civil dress, SI Dalip was in uniform, SI Jarnail Singh, SI Jai Parkash and their staff were in uniform and other persons of the special staff were in civil dress. He has testified that he was carrying his official pistol and the entire staff had gone to apprehend the accused had gone in one vehicle i.e. TATA 407. The witness has further deposed that they started from Police Station Hari Nagar at about 9:30 AM and took the route via Peeragarhi, Rohini and then reached Alipur and reached at Alipur at about 12 PM and had taken SI Jai Parkash from Nangloi area and straight away reached Alipur. He has testified that the secret informer remained with them till the end i.e. till Alipur and the staff along with SI Jarnail Singh and SI Jai Parkash had left the investigations St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 50 after the arrest of accused. According to him, they did not inform the local police at Police Station Alipur when they reached there along with raiding party. He has stated that he was having his personal mobile phone bearing No. 9911115185 at that time and has also deposed that the vehicle in which they had gone to Alipur had been stopped at Chota Shiv Mandir gali where the accused was apprehended at about 2 PM from the gali in front of his residence i.e. about 100 steps from his house where his wife and five children used to reside. He has admitted that when they apprehended the accused he did not try to resist or escape. He has explained that the name of the accused and his address came to be known to him after his apprehension. He has denied the suggestion that the accused had been apprehended inside the house and has explained that the accused was first caught by SI Narender. He has further deposed that they remained at the spot till about 5PM and admits that the area is residential and thickly populated and lot of people had collected. According to the witness, while he was on his way, he had requested the neighbours and the public persons to join the police party, but nobody was prepared and left without giving their names and addresses on the pretext that they were to go for urgent work. He has denied the suggestion that they were all in civil clothes and the accused was swiftly lifted and put in the vehicle and none of the public persons came to know about the same. He has denied the suggestion that they had first questioned one Ram Sagar who was running a parchun shop in the area and asked him to call the accused from his house but when he did not agree, he (witness) and other police officers went inside the house of accused and lifted him from there. He has further deposed that the secret informer had pointed out the accused to him and SI Narender and that first time the secret informer had given the information to SI Dalip and to St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 51 him. He has also deposed that the informer had informed that the person who was involved in dropping of dead bodies could be apprehended near Chota Shiv Mandir, Alipur. The witness has further explained that the accused was standing in the gali at the time of apprehension. He has deposed that when he left the Special Staff Office he had recorded the small detail of secret information in the departure entry. He has further explained that the raiding party was constituted in the morning of 20.05.2007 and not earlier to that and at that time he was not aware about the previous involvements of the suspect. He has conceded that the secret informer had not given any photograph of the suspect to him and that no police staff who were present in the raiding party were in a position to identify the accused having known him previously prior to his arrest at Alipur and has voluntarily explained that only the secret informer was aware of the same. According to the witness, the secret informer had not informed them that the said person / criminal used to kill the victims at his residence at Alipur nor did he tell them regarding the employment/ avocation or mobile number of the accused nor anything about the room at Haiderpur. He has also deposed that immediately when the accused was apprehended he was searched by him and has voluntarily explained that the accused was interrogated later. He has testified that at the time when the accused was searched there were no public persons and the search of accused was taken at the place of apprehension only. According to him, the residence of accused was on the ground floor but he does not remember the exact number of rooms in the said premises. The witness has further deposed that he is not aware if the owner of the house also reside in the same premises. He has also deposed that at the time of arrest and reaching to the residence of accused no one was present except his wife and according to him, the St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 52 accused was wearing pant - shirt at the time of his arrest though he did not notice if the accused was wearing his slippers or shoes at that time but admits that the accused did not have anything in his hand like bag etc. He does not remember if the handcuffs were put on the accused after apprehension or after the proceedings at Haiderpur. According to him, during the personal search Rs.220/-, one watch, folded papers which were having different phone numbers on it and one mobile phone was recovered from the accused. He is unable to give the detail number of the mobile phone recovered from the possession of the accused. The witness has deposed that no photographs or any pocket dairy were recovered from the personal search of the accused. He is unable to tell if any inland letter was also recovered from the search of the accused. Witness has explained that all documentation was done while sitting at the spot and at the time when the personal search of the accused was taken his wife was also present there and the information regarding arrest of accused was given to his wife. According to the witness, when the accused had got recovered two photographs from his room his wife and children were not present there and has voluntarily explained that his wife came there only later. He has testified that no site plan of recovery of rickshaw was prepared. He has denied the suggestion that no documentation was done at the spot and all the documentation was done while sitting in the Police Station when he signed in the Police Station or that no photographs had been recovered from the premises of the accused and the same has been planted upon him by the police party. He has also denied the suggestion that the accused had not made any disclosure statement and the same has been recorded by him which he has only signed in the mechanical manner. He has further denied the suggestion that the accused did not have any motor rickshaw which he got recovered St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 53 or that the said rickshaw has been planted upon the accused only to work out the present case. He has denied the suggestion that there was no occasion for the accused to possess a motorable rickshaw. (59) Further, in his cross examination Inspector Sunder Singh has stated that from Alipur they straight away went to Haiderpur and has denied the suggestion that Ram Sagar who had refused to co-operate during the investigations was also lifted by them. He has explained that they reached Haiderpur at about 5:50 PM and remained there till about 10-11 PM. He has further deposed that he had asked public persons to join the investigations in the house of Mangal Sain Pandit at Haidepur but none agreed. According to him the room in question was situated on ground floor of the premises which were double storied which had about 4-5 rooms. Witness has deposed that they did not give any intimation to the local police nor to the landlord nor he had inquired about the ownership/ occupancy of the said premises as accused himself had led them to the said room. Witness has denied the suggestion that no proceedings took place at the said house and it is for this reason that no public person had been joined in the proceedings. According to him, the rooms adjoining the room which was got opened by the accused were all joined to each other in a row. He has denied the suggestion that all the rooms had one door opening with each other. He has explained that there was no window in the said room and has denied the suggestion that there was no source of light in the room after which he has voluntarily explained that there was an electric bulb which was switched on by the accused. According to the witness, the room appeared to be in a shabby condition and foul smelling and they had opened the gate of the said room. Witness has further deposed that all the knives were lying on the floor in the south west corner of the room and there was only one lock on St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 54 the door of the room. According to the witness the photographs were clicked in the room of Haiderpur by the photographer of the crime team and the indications in the room with the white chalk showing the place of recovery were made by Naresh Kumar from the FSL team and it was the FSL official who told them that the choppers / knives were blood stained. He has testified that this opinion regarding the choppers being blood stained was given after Naresh Kumar had examined the knives personally by naked eye. The witness has explained that he had seen the expert Sh. Naresh Kumar using some instrument using while examining the knives/ choppers and while lifting the knives Naresh Kumar was wearing gloves and has further explained that the knives / choppers were lying open in the room and were not covered by any cloth or paper and both photographer and the FSL team were doing their jobs simultaneously. He has denied the suggestion that the proceedings regarding recovery and seizure of the knives/ choppers were not conducted in his presence and all the knives were planted upon the accused. He has also deposed that the floor of the room was broken by Naresh Kumar with some instrument which appear to be a chheni which was already present with Naresh Kumar but he does not recollect if the photographer had taken any photograph of Naresh Kumar breaking the floor. Witness has admitted that the photographer had taken the photographs on his directions. According to him, the crime team and the FSL team had left after completing their job while they were still there and at the time when the pullandas were prepared the crime team and the FSL team were still at the spot. Witness has further deposed that the photographs regarding preparation of pullands were not taken and the stitching material was already present with him. Witness has denied the suggestion that the photographs had been taken after setting of the room St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 55 and planting the incriminating material to implicate the accused. He has admitted that the accused himself had given the name of the deceased at the time of recovery of the blue jeans. The witness has denied the suggestion that no such pant was got recovered by the accused or that the accused had never told to him that the pant belong to one of the deceased. He has testified that after starting from Alipur they had straightaway come to Haiderpur. Witness has admitted that without seeing the position of room at Haiderpur he had called the mobile crime team and FSL expert. According to him, the mobile crime team had reached the spot in their own vehicle and Sh. Naresh Kumar had accompanied them in their vehicle upto Haiderpur room. Witness has further deposed that at the time of leaving of the Haiderpur Room the two other neighbours in rooms namely Ram Singh and Mahesh had come but they were also in a hurry as they were to go to meet some known person who had met with some accident. Witness has further deposed that he was not aware if on 20.5.2007 the news with regard to arrest and apprehension of the accused was flashed in the electronic as well as print media. He has denied the suggestion that the accused was already in custody of the special staff and it is in this regard that the news with regard to his apprehension and arrest had been published in the Dainik Jagran Newspaper dated 20.5.2007 copy of which is Ex.PW53/DX1 collectively and has voluntarily explained that this news does not have any name of arresting official, accused name or any photograph related to the arrest. The witness has further deposed that he cannot tell if the photographs of the rickshaw so got recovered by the accused were taken on not. Witness has denied the suggestion that no photographs of the rickshaw were taken because there was no recovery of the said rickshaw from the accused. According to him, the said rickshaw which was St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 56 allegedly recovered at the instance of the accused was also put in the Tata 407 and was taken to the Police Station and the said rickshaw remained in the vehicle till evening i.e. even they went to Haiderpur and thereafter when they reached Police Station Hari Nagar. He has testified that the said rickshaw was still in the Malkhana of the Police Station Hari Nagar. Witness has denied the suggestion that prior to the production of the accused before the court he had been shown to the electronic and print media in unmuffled face and has voluntarily explained that the accused himself was keeping his face unmuffled despite being asked to keep himself muffled and these facts had been mentioned in DD entry and in the case dairy. He has denied the suggestion that the accused was produced in the court in unmuffled face or that before producing the accused in the court and in the media, no proceedings were conducted. He has also deposed that on 21.5.07 after getting the police remand the accused was taken to special staff office and after taking the police remand they had started from the court at about 4-5 PM. According to him the police remand had taken from the Link MM and the seizure prepared there is in his handwriting. He has testified that the accused had told him the date i.e. 18.05.2007 on which he had thrown the limbs in the ganda nala where they remained (i.e. at ganda nala) for about 1-1 ½ hours till about 2 PM. According to the witness, the total staff who was present at Sarai Rohilla ganda nala had gone to Tis Hazari and there is no discrepancy with regard to the date on the seizure memo and all proceedings were conducted on 21.5.2007. Witness has further deposed that they had departed from the Special Staff Tagore Garden at about 9:00 AM for recovery of legs and hands of victim Dalip for Sarai Rohilla and Tis Hazari Courts and again returned to West District dossier cell for taking finger prints and thereafter they had gone to Tis Hazari Courts for St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 57 production of the accused before the Hon'ble Court. He has also deposed that the help of "gota khor" (diver) was taken for searching of the legs at ganda nala, Kishanganj and the "gota khor" was called from the Yamuna since he had personal knowledge of the same as he remained Incharge of Police Post of the area during the period 1997-2000. According to him they were called by him by telephonic message but he does not recollect the name of the said "gota khor". Witness has further deposed that there is no record of taking of the help of "gota khor" and he had not taken the photography of process of searching of legs in ganda nala. Witness has admitted that the memo of pointing out of Tis Hazari bears the signatures of SI Narender, SI Dalip Kaushik and ASI Virender. He has further deposed that the specimen handwriting of the accused was taken in the court of Sh. Bhupesh Kumar on 21.5.07 which handwriting was taken pursuant to the written permission from the Ld. MM which had been taken by him and had shown the paper containing the specimen handwriting of the accused to Ld. MM after taking the same in the court and seized the same through seizure memo. According to the witness, the accused was produced before the hon'ble court along with case file and the Ld. MM did not sign on the disclosure statement of the accused and has voluntarily explained that the disclosure was not made in the open court in the presence of the Ld. MM.
(60) Further in his cross examination the witness has testified that on 23.5.07 they started from the Tagore Garden office of Special Staff and had reached the Yamuna Bank at about 11-12 PM (afternoon) and he had called the divers at the spot itself but no public persons were associated in the investigations as he had made efforts to join them but they expressed their inability. According to him, the photographs were taken at the spot by a private photographer who had been taken to the St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 58 spot by them and stayed at the spot with them till evening and the entire police team which had gone to the spot remained there till late evening and they all left the spot together. Witness has denied the suggestion that the accused did not accompany them to ISBT Yamuna banks and was brought there much later after the skull had been planted only to implicate him. The witness has deposed that no senior officers of the rank of ACP and DCP were present during the proceedings and at the time of their departure for Tihar Jail from Police Station Hari Nagar on 20.10.2006 the Duty Officer was ASI Bal Kishan. Witness has further deposed that he left the Police Station at about 7:45 AM and it was around 8:15 AM when ASI Balkishan informed him on telephone that he had received a call from the criminal who had asked mobile number of SHO Police Station Hari Nagar on which he immediately intimated this fact to Inspector Hoshiyar Singh but does not recollect at what time criminal had telephoned to Inspector Hoshiyar Singh and states that he had recorded the statement of ASI Balkishan on 20.10.2006 at evening time. According to him he did not suggest to Inspector Hoshiyar Singh to record the conversation of the criminal nor he told Inspector Hoshiyar Singh to keep free his telephone number since the offender was supposed to call on his mobile phone. Witness has also deposed that he recorded the statement of Inspector Hoshiyar Singh in the evening of 20.10.2006 in the Police Station itself and the statement of the STD servant Ram Babu Chaurasiya was recorded at about 7:00 PM to 8:00 PM on 20.10.2006. According to him, the statement of Ram Babu Chaurasiya was again recorded on 26.6.2007 in the Court premises itself when he identified the accused Chandra Kant Jha and the contents of the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of Ram Babu Chaurasiya was read over to him. Witness has also deposed that Ram Babu Chaurasiya was St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 59 called to the Court over telephone and the accused was probably produced before the Court in FIR No.243/07, Police Station Hari Nagar and the witness Ram Babu identified the accused on 26.6.2007 in the Court at about 3:00 PM. He does not recollect the name of the Ld. MM in whose court the accused was to be produced on 26.6.2007. Witness has admitted that there is an overwriting in the date mentioned in the statement of SI Narender under Section 161 Cr.P.C. regarding the dropping of the skull of Anil Mandal and has voluntarily explained that the date has been wrongly mentioned as 25.4.2007 which was corrected as 20.6.2006. Witness has explained that the distance between the Railway Phatak Shalimar Bagh and the Baba Ramdev Mandir is about 30-35 steps. According to the witness the statements of SI Narender and ASI Virender Tyagi under section 161 Cr.P.C. were recorded at Special Staff Office, Tagore Garden at about 6:00 PM. He has admitted that there is a cutting of date in the statement of SI Dalip Kaushik wherein the date 20.5.2007 was over written as 21.5.2007. Witness has also deposed that he does not recollect whether SI Dalip Kaushik had mentioned in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. with regard to the proceedings conduced at Ganda Nala Kishanganj/ Sarai Rohilla and SBI Tis Hazari. He has admitted that in the statement of SI Narender and ASI Virender Tyagi the date of dropping of the dead body of the deceased is mentioned as 19.5.2007 and has voluntarily explained that it has been wrongly mentioned but it was 18.5.2007. According to the witness he had recorded the statement of SI Narender Singh regarding the proceedings conducted at Ganda Nala Kishanganj/ Sarai Rohilla and SBI Tis Hazari. (61) The witness has denied the suggestion that the accused was never produced in the court of Ld. MM and had only been taken to Tagore Garden Office of Spl. Staff after producing him in the media and St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 60 no remand had been taken or that no sample specimen handwriting of the accused had been taken in the court. He has also denied the suggestion that there was no recovery of any motor-rickshaw, chopper / knives or body parts and clothes effected at the instance of the accused or that the same have been planted upon the accused only to workout the present as the police was under immense public pressure.
(62) Inspector Sunder Singh (PW53) was again recalled for additional examination pursuant to the application of Ld. Addl. PP for the State, under Section 311 Cr. P.C. wherein the witness has deposed that on 20.05.2007 he had arrested the accused Chander Kant Jha and from his personal search Ex.PW43/B one mobile make TATA SAMSUNG was recovered having ESSN No. 8562-A099 and having SIM of TATA INDICOM No. 9211463742 in respect of which the CDRs which are Ex.PW29/B collectively (running into 9 pages both sides) and mobile number 9211463743 CDR of which is Ex.PW29/D collectively (running into 10 pages both sides). The witness has testified that the CDR of mobile number 9211541254 which reported to be in the name of one person namely Dalip who is still missing is Ex.PW53/B collectively (running into six single pages); location chart of the mobile make TATA is Ex.PW53/C (running into 18 single pages) and Certificate U/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act in respect of mobile No. 9211463742 and number 9211463743 is Ex.PW53/D with the relevant locations. Witness has also deposed that the mobile number 9211463742 was used in mobile having ESN No. 8562A09A,which was used and shown as marked X1 to X3 in Ex.PW29/B; the SIM number 9211463742 was also used in ESN No. 8781 FA 97 which is marked as X4 and at point X5. Mobile which was recovered from the accused shows the entry in this regard which is X6 in Ex.PW29/B which telephone call received from Bhiwari.
St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 61According to the witness, the ESN number and the SIM number were ascertained only after the CDRs were obtained and the number mentioned on the SIM i.e. 8562A099 and the number mentioned in the CDR is the same thereby establishing that the CDRs pertained to the SIM recovered from the mobile used by accused Chander Kant Jha. The witness has correctly identified the SIM of blue color having No. 8562A099 was so recovered as a part of jamatalashi/ personal search of the accused which SIM is Ex.PW/53/I. According to the witness, the memo of the telephone numbers found on the wall of the room in premises number A-229, Haiderpur was prepared which is Ex.PW44/E shows at point X that above numbers i.e 9211463742 and 9211463743 were duly encircled. He has clarified that the memo had been prepared by him after the photograph of the wall was taken and is in the same position in which the numbers were written on the wall. He has testified that during the investigations, it was revealed that both the SIMs i.e 9211463742 and 9211463743 were used in the same mobile set bearing ESN No. 8562A099 so recovered from the personal search of accused Chander Kant Jha. He has further deposed that the accused Chander Kant Jha also got recovered another mobile make TATA INDICOM having ESN No. 8781FA97 seized vide memo Ex.PW44/D which mobile set has also been used while operating on SIM No. 9211463742 as indicated in the CDRs. The witness has identified the mobile phone TATA SAMSUNG which is Ex.PW53/2 (since there are no exhibits from P3 to P9 hence for the sake of convenience and to avoid any confusion this exhibit shall be henceforth read as Ex.P12) having number A3LSCHS109 and another mobile which is Ex.PW53/1 (since there are no exhibits from P3 to P9 hence for the sake of convenience and to avoid any confusion this exhibit shall be henceforth read as St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 62 Ex.P10) (TATA INDICOM) bearing ESN No. 07981C4F and PCC number 2682840208 bearing SIM No. 8781FA97 and the CDR already exhibited showing ESN No. 8781FA97 establishing that the SIM was being used in the above set. He has also deposed that the seizure memo of telephone numbers recovered in jamatalashi Ex.PW43/B show that many of the numbers which are also reflected in the various CDRs of the numbers being used by the accused. According to the accused, in the jamatalashi of the accused some of the papers were recovered and the relevant photocopy of Jamatalashi is Ex.PW53/E which are mentioned in the CDR of both the mobile bearing numbers used by the accused. He has testified that in the jamatalashi of the accused, some of the papers were recovered and the relevant photocopy of Jamatalashi is Ex.PW53/E reflecting the name of PW Pankaj R/o Bhiwari and other mobile numbers, which are mentioned in the CDR of both the mobile bearing numbers 9211463742 and 9211463743. He has testified that on 30.04.2007 one call from Bhiwari was made to the mobile number 9211463742 which is marked X-6 and on 17.05.2007 another call from Bhiwari was made to the mobile no. 9211463742 at point marked X-7. The witness has further deposed that from Bhiwari, Rajasthan, calls were made on mobile bearing number 9211463743 which is marked Y-1, Y-2, Y-3 and Y-4 which calls were made by Pankaj to the mobile set of accused Chandrakant Jha for talking with his brother Upender from the STD Booths at Bhiwari (Rajasthan). He has further deposed that as per Cell ID Location chart the user of the mobile number 9211463742 and call detail chart dated 24 and 25 April 2007 which is marked as Z-1 to Z-6 at page 11 of Ex.PW22/Z-16, (in FIR No. 609/06 PS Hari Nagar, copy of which is now placed on record of the present case and for the sake of convenience in order to avoid confusion is given a fresh exhibit St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 63 number as Ex.PW53/F to be henceforth read as such), the user starts from Alipur and reach Sector 13 Rohini subsequently Kashmere Gate, then Tukmirpur (Shahdara), Model Town and return to Alipur and on the same night. According to him as per disclosure statement of the accused Chandra Kant, he killed the victim Upender at Haiderpur, dropped his headless dead body at Tihar Jail subsequently he moved towards Tis Hazari Courts and threw the hand of Upender and then he moved towards Yamuna and dropped the head of Upender and subsequently he reached Lalbagh (Loni) area and dropped the hand of Upender and then returned to Alipur and the parts of the body recovered on the same day. (63) In his cross examination the witness has deposed that no finger prints were lifted from the mobile Ex.P27 (now corrected as Ex.P12) recovered in the personal search of the accused and has voluntarily explained that attempt was made to lift the chance prints from the mobile phone got recovered by the accused at his house at Haiderpur. He has denied the suggestion that chance prints from the mobile which was recovered from the personal search of the accused was deliberately not lifted as it was not recovered from the possession of the accused. According to him, as per the call details record, the location of the mobile number 9211463742 was in the area of Alipur on 19.05.2007 through out the day and the details of 20.05.2007 onwards are not available in the CDR and therefore he is unable to tell the location on 20.05.2007. Witness has further deposed that on 24.04.2007 the location of the mobile No. 9211463742 is shown to be at Alipur from 5:50 to 8:40 PM and thereafter at sector 13 Rohini on 25.04.2007 at 6:18 AM and at 8:26 AM at Kashmere Gate and at 10:26 to 13:40 at Shadara and thereafter at Model Town at 18:21 and at Alipur at 18:46. He has testified that they had not examined Rahul Jain and has voluntarily St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 64 explained that his address was found to be fake. He has denied the suggestion that the mobile phone belongs to Rahul Jain and in order to save him he has been wrongly shown as the user and Rahul Jain has been withheld from the court. According to the witness, they have checked the address given in the customer application form supported by address proof and has voluntarily explained that the investigations with regard to the address was made by Inspector Ombir Singh and the address was found to be non existing. He has also deposed that he came to know about the aforesaid from Inspector Ombir Singh as they were regularly discussing about the investigations in the connected cases and used to share information. He has admitted that he has no personal knowledge if the address of Rahul Jain in existing or not existing and has voluntarily explained that he was deposing on the basis of what was told by Inspector Ombir Singh. According to the witness, he personally did not carry out investigations in respect of two mobile numbers 9891271886 and 9312804827 of Upender which was mentioned on the wall of the room i.e. scene of crime at Haiderpur. He has denied the suggestion that accused was not produced before the court of Ld. MM on 26.06.2007. (64) ASI Virender Singh (PW43), Inspector Dalip Kaushik (PW44) and SI Narender (PW45), who were all members of the Special Staff, West District headed by Inspector Sunder Singh (PW53) and had joined the investigations on various dated from 20.05.2007 to 25.5.2007 and have in their respective testimonies corroborated what has been earlier deposed by Inspector Sunder Singh.
(65) ASI Virender Singh (PW43), Inspector Dalip Kaushik (PW44) and SI Narender (PW45) have all proved having joined the investigations on 20.5.2007. They have proved that on 20.5.2007 they along with Inspector Sunder Singh, SI Jarnail Singh, I/C PP Mianwali Nagar, SI Jai St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 65 Parkash of Police Station Nangloi and other staff, left in a government vehicle Tata 407 bearing registration no.DL1LD-5031 alongwith driver ASI Prem Singh and on a secret informer they reached at Alipur, Delhi. They have proved the apprehension and arrest of the accused at Shivmandir Mianwali Nagar, Alipur. They have further proved the investigations conducted and the various documents prepared at Shivmandir Mianwali Nagar, Alipur, Haiderpur in the house of Mangal Sain Pandit. The said witnesses have also proved that when the accused led them at his rented room at Haiderpur, he took out two photographs (one was showing the picture of two persons and other was showing the photo of three persons in which the accused has identified the deceased Upender @ Pinto). According to him, Inspector Sunder Singh took both the photograph into possession vide memo Ex.PW43/C1. (66) ASI Virender Singh (PW43), Inspector Dalip Kaushik (PW44) and SI Narender (PW45) have all proved have further proved the investigations conducted on 21.5.2007 at Kishanganj, Tis Hazari Courts and preparation of dossier of the accused, his medical examination and the Investigating officer having taken the specimen handwriting and signatures of the accused Chandrakant Jha in the court after due permission from the Ld. MM.
(67) ASI Virender Singh (PW43) and SI Narender (PW44) have also proved that on 22.5.2007, the accused led them at PP Lal Bagh PS Loni, U.P. where he pointed out a sugarcane juice shop where he had dropped the left hand and private part of deceased Upender @ Pinto after keeping the same in a box, pursuant to which Inspector Sunder Singh prepared the pointing out memo in this regard which is Ex.PW43/E. They have all corroborated the testimony of Inspector Sunder Singh and the various documents prepared by him.
St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 66(68) Further, ASI Virender Singh (PW43), Inspector Dalip Kaushik (PW44) and SI Narender (PW45) have all proved the investigations and documents proved by Inspector Sunder Singh on 23.5.2007 when the accused took them to ISBT Flyover and banks of river Yamuna from where he got recovered one skull and jaw wrapped in a ghaghri of red colour. ASI Virender Singh has also proved that on the instructions of Inspector Sunder Singh, he had arranged and brought the search light to the spot.
(69) ASI Virender Singh (PW43), Inspector Dalip (PW44) and SI Narender (PW45) have also proved the investigations and proceedings conducted on 24.5.2007 Shop No. 8226, near MCD Primary School, Swaroop Nagar, Gate No. 1 Tihar near Nari Niketan, Gate No. 3 and Central Jail, Tihar.
(70) Inspector Dalip Kaushik (PW44) has further proved the investigations and proceedings conducted on 26.05.2007 and on 27.5.2007. All these witnesses i.e. ASI Virender Singh (PW43), Inspector Dalip (44) and SI Narender (PW45) have correctly identified the accused Chanderkant Jha in the court.
(71) ASI Virender Singh (PW43), Inspector Dalip (44) and SI Narender (PW45) have correctly identified the accused Chanderkant Jha in the Court and have also identified the skull which is Ex.P1, the jaw which is Ex.P2, red cloth as recovered along with the skull which is Ex.P10 (since there are no exhibits from P3 to P9 hence for the sake of convenience and to avoid any confusion this exhibit shall be henceforth read as Ex.P3), Ghaghri which is Ex.P11 (since there are no exhibits from P3 to P9 hence for the sake of convenience and to avoid any confusion this exhibit shall be henceforth read as Ex.P4), one knife/ chopper which is Ex.P12 (henceforth to be read as Ex.P5 as observed in St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 67 the testimony of Inspector Sunder Singh) recovered from the room of the accused at his instance, another knife / chopper which is Ex.P13 (henceforth to be read as Ex.P6 as observed in the testimony of Inspector Sunder Singh) recovered from the room of the accused at his instance, third knife/ chopper which is Ex.P14 (henceforth to be read as Ex.P7 as observed in the testimony of Inspector Sunder Singh), one nunchaku which is Ex.P15 (henceforth to be read as Ex.P8 as observed in the testimony of Inspector Sunder Singh) recovered from machan/ taand of the room of the accused at his instance, denim jeans along with black belt which is Ex.P16 (henceforth to be read as Ex.P9 as observed in the testimony of Inspector Sunder Singh) recovered from khoonti from the room of the accused at his instance and one Indicom mobile phone which is Ex.P17 (henceforth to be read as Ex.P10 as observed in the testimony of Inspector Sunder Singh) recovered from the Almirah kept in the room of the accused at his instance.
(72) In their cross examination all these three witnesses i.e. ASI Virender Singh (PW43), Inspector Dalip (44) and SI Narender (PW45) have corroborated each other and also Inspector Sunder Singh on material particulars and there are no major contradictions. In so far ASI Virender Singh is concerned, he has in his cross examination proved that at the time of the investigations he used to carry and maintain a mobile bearing number 9873077071. The accused has also specifically put to him the news item published in newspaper Jansatta dated 20.5.2007 copy of which is Ex.PW23/DX1 but he has denied the contents of the same and the suggestion put to him by the accused that he was already in custody of the Special Staff on 20.5.2007. Further, in so far as Inspector Dalip Kaushik is concerned, he was involved in a case under the Prevention of Corruption Act and in his cross examination by the St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 68 accused the said proceedings were put to him which he has admitted. He has also admitted that he was transferred from West District to Special Cell / SB in the year 2008 but he does not recollect if it was vide order 16.9.08. He has further admitted that FIR No. 396/98 under Section 468/471/201/120B IPC was also registered against him and has voluntarily explained that this case was registered on the basis of a complaint before the Magistrate u/s 156(3) Cr.PC and has been quashed by the Delhi High Court. According to the witness, he was under
suspension in the year 2010 pursuant to a case registered against him by the CBI under Section 7 of the PC Act and has voluntarily explained that it was a counter blast to an earlier case registered by him against one of the SHOs where he was a complainant and was motivated against him, which is still pending. He has denied the suggestion put by the accused that he had never participated in the investigations or that the accused has been falsely implicated only to workout the present case.
Members of the Crime Team:
(73) Ct. Raj Kumar (PW13) is the Photographer of the Crime Team. He has deposed that on 25.04.2007, he along with Incharge Crime Team SI Lalit Kumar reached at the spot i.e. Tihar Jail, near gate No. 3, jail road near UTI ATM and found that a cardboard box containing one headless dead body without hands and half legs was wrapped with shawl and plastic bag. According to him, SI Lalit Kumar inspected the spot and he took seventeen photographs on the instructions of the investigating officer from different angles negatives of which photographs are Ex.PW13/A-1 to Ex.PW13/A-17 and the photographs are Ex.PW13/B-1 to Ex.PW13/B-17. According to him, his statement was recorded by the investigating officer. This witness was not cross-St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 69
examined by Ld. Defence counsel and his testimony has gone uncontroverted.
(74) Ct. Suresh Kumar (PW14) is the Photographer of the Mobile Crime Team (West District). He has proved that on 20.05.2007 he along with SI Anil Kumar, ASI Ajinder Finger print expert reached at the house of accused i.e. house No. 339, Gali No. 2, Haiderpur. According to him, Inspector Sunder Singh met them with team at gate of house of the accused along with accused (whom the witness has correctly identified in the Court). Witness has further deposed that accused pointed out towards his room of house No. 339 in which he used to reside and on the instructions of Inspector Sunder Singh lock of the room was broken then he along with SI Anil Kumar and ASI Ajender inspected the room. He has proved that on the instructions of the investigating officer, he took the 19 photographs from different angles, negatives of which are Ex.PW14/A-1 to Ex.PW14/A-19 and the photographs are Ex.PW14/B-1 to Ex.PW14/B-18. Witness has further deposed that negative No.7 was washed out and his statement was recorded.
(75) In his cross examination, the witness has deposed that on 20.05.2007 he started from his office at Police Station Janakpuri for Haiderpur and he started with SI Anil Kumar, ASI Ajender and himself. According to him, they had taken a TSR and started around 4:30 PM and he met Inspector Sunder Singh at Outer Ring Road which leads towards Haiderpur. Witness has further deposed that he does not remember whether Dr. Naresh Kumar was with Inspector Sunder or not but states that he met Dr. Naresh Kumar at the room of the accused. According to him, he was following Inspector Sunder Singh vehicle in a TSR and the St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 70 accused was with the team of Inspector Sunder. Witness has also deposed that the accused was present with police staff and was caught with the hands but he does not remember what clothes were worn by the accused at that time. The witness has further deposed that he does not remember whether the accused was wearing shoes or chappal and states that the face of the accused was not covered. He has stated that he had taken the photograph of the main gate of the house where the room of the accused was situated. Witness has further deposed that the incharge of his team was SI Anil Kumar and he had taken the photographs on the instructions of Inps. Sunder Singh. According to him, they reached at the room of the accused at about 5:50 PM. Witness has stated that he had photographs as evidence to produce in the court and has further stated that on that day he had taken total nineteen photographs and he can identify the photographs. According to him, the lock of the room of accused was broken with the help of stone but he is not aware whether investigating officer called owner of the house or any other tenant of the room when the lock was broken. Witness has further deposed that he is not aware whether investigating officer called owner of the house or any other tenant of the room when the lock was broken. He has stated that he did not see Dr. Naresh Kumar at the time of breaking of the lock. He also does not remember whether he had taken a photograph of the locked room and whether he was given instructions by investigating officer of incharge of his team to take the photograph of locked room of the accused. Witness has further deposed that the door of the room was of wood but he does not remember the position of the lock of the room and he did not notice how many locks were there at the door. According to him, he does not remember whether it was with the iron chain or with the kundi and he also did not notice any curtain behind the door. Witness St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 71 has also deposed that the lock was the system of lock and key but he does not remember the size of the lock and whether it was steel, iron or brass. The witness has testified that the door used to open towards the room. According to him, he does not recollect whether investigating officer seized the broken lock or not and states that he had not taken photograph of broken lock. He also does not recollect whether his team incharge or investigating officer instructed him to take the photograph of broken lock. Witness has also deposed that there was dark in the room when they first entered and investigating officer and his team incharge made the arrangement of light in the room. According to him, it might be possible at first instance for making arrangement of light 4-5 persons entered the room. He has testified that he had taken photographs of weapon of offence lying in a corner of the room and there were three weapon of offence recovered from the room. According to him, all the three weapon of offence were lying without cover of cloth of polythene and he is not aware who had first touch the weapon of offence because he had had taken the photographs and left the room. Witness has further deposed that in his presence weapon of offences were not seized and sealed and he had written description before taking photographs as shown in Ex.PW14/B-14. According to him, he is not aware about sketch of weapon of offence. He has deposed that the floor of the room was broken by FSL expert Dr. Naresh Kumar with the help of chheni/hatora and during this period the weapons remained at the place where he had taken the photographs. According to the witness, he is not aware as to who brought the hatroa and chheni nor is he aware whether the broken portion of the floor was seized or sealed. He also does not remember exactly the portion of the room was photographed at the last. Witness has further deposed that during their proceedings neither any St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 72 tenant nor owner of the room was allowed to enter inside the room. He has testified that he had photographed the whole scene of the crime and he is not aware whether any instrument of karate i.e. nunchaku was recovered from the room or not. According to him, the team of the investigating officer and his team did not shift any of the article in the room prior to taking the photographs and the accused was present at the door of the room. Witness has also deposed that he left the room after taking photographs at 7:15 PM and he is not aware when Dr. Naresh Kumar left the room. He has deposed that he never visited the room thereafter or prior to taking the photographs. According to him, he was carrying whole kit with him and his statement was recorded by the investigating officer on 22.05.2007 Inspector Hoshiyar Singh at his office but he does not recollect the exact time. According to the witness, he does not remember the exact name of the accused and states that it may be Shashikant Jha. Witness has further deposed that he was given information that accused was the person who has kept the dead body at Tihar Jail gate and he had seen the accused at about 5:15 PM. According to the witness, he had no information through newspaper, TV news or radio news that a serial killer had been apprehended. Witness has denied the suggestion that he has deposed falsely.
(76) ASI Ajender Singh (PW15) is Finger Print Expert of the Mobile Crime team (West District). He has proved that on 20.05.07 they received an information from control room. The witness has deposed that he along with Incharge SI Anil Kumar and member of other mobile crime team when they were moving they received information to reach Police Station Kirti Nagar where they met inspector Sunder Singh, he also joined them after which they reached at house no.229, Ground Floor, Haiderpur Colony. The witness has also deposed that the house was St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 73 locked from outside and the same was broken and the door was opened. He has testified that the house was pointed out by the accused and the lock was broken in his presence. According to him, they examined the scene of crime to obtain the finger prints and Ct. Suresh, photographer took the photographs of the scene of crime. The witness has proved having lifted four chance prints from the spot and on two different articles and after developing the same it was sent to Finger Print Bureau for comparison. During the examination of this witness the scene of crime examination report taken out from the Judicial file of FIR No.609/06 photocopy of which is Ex.PW15/A. (77) In the cross-examination this witness deposed that on 20.05.07 they left the office of Crime Team, situated at Police Station Janak Puri and he accompanied with SI Anil Kumar, Incharge, photographer Ct. Suresh and driver. The witness has further deposed that they left the office at around 4:00 PM. He is unable to tell about the contents of his bag and about the articles which were with the other members of the Crime Team. The witness has deposed that they received the message from the Control Room to reach Police Station Hari Nagar and thereafter, they were asked to report at Police Station Kirti Nagar on which he reached Police Station Kirti Nagar at about 4.30/5.00 PM but he did not see the accused there. According to the witness, they reached Haiderpur at around 5.30 PM. He is unable to tell the registration number of the vehicle of Mobile Crime Team. He has testified that Inspector Sunder Singh already met them at Kirti Nagar and he directed them to reach at scene of crime and they reached at around 5.30 PM but the vehicle was not able to reach at the room/ house of the accused, they walked down and reached after fifteen minutes. The witness has also deposed that the mobile crime team vehicle was TATA 407 and HC Jai Singh was the St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 74 driver of the said vehicle TATA 407 in which they went to the scene of crime. The witness has deposed that the police staff broken the lock but he is unable to tell the name of the said staff. He is not aware with the help of which instrument the police staff broke the lock but states that he had heard the noise of breaking of lock. The witness has further deposed that he did not notice whether any public person was present at the time of breaking of lock. He is not aware whether police staff seized the lock or thrown away. The witness has deposed that at the first instance SI Anil Kumar entered into the room with accused and there was no light in the room. The witness has further deposed that when he had entered in the room, he had seen the weapons i.e. three knives, which were lying the corner of the room but he does not remember whether the above said knives were covered with any polythene or any handkerchief etc. and states that the knives were photographed. He has also deposed that Ct. Suresh Kumar photographer had written with chalk after encircling the spot of recovery of three knives and he himself told the other members of the Crime Team that there were blood stains on the knives. The witness has deposed that he examined the knives on lifting the chance print and apart from a bulb, photographer also light up his search light under which he examined the three knives for lifting the chance print and has explained that there was no tube-light in the room. The witness has deposed that he did not see how and when the three knives were sealed by the police staff and that he was present when police staff lifted the blood stains under the knife. He is not aware as to who lifted the blood stains from the floor of the room as he was doing his job. The witness has further deposed that he did not know who lifted the piece of floor containing blood stains and he has no knowledge whether any nunchaku was recovered from the room. He has admitted that till the crime team St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 75 was conducting the proceedings, no one was allowed to enter the room and he examined the room till 7.15 PM. The witness has further deposed that chance prints lifted from one Sony FM Radio and from a mirror but both were very blur. He is unable to tell whether the articles were lying properly or they scattered because prior to this he had never seen the room. The witness has further deposed that his statement was recorded on 20.05.07 after 7.15 PM by one associate of Inspector Sunder Singh but he is unable to tell the name of official who recorded his statement. The witness has further deposed that the Form Ex.PW10/A was handed over to an official from special staff whose name he is unable to tell. He has also deposed that the details regarding the house number was told to him by special staff, thereafter, he inscribed the same in Form Ex.PW10/A. He has admitted that the actual house number was 229 and has voluntarily explained that due to clerical error the said house number was mentioned as 329. According to him, he left the spot on 20.05.07 with mobile crime team. He has denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely at the instance of the Investigating Officer or that he fabricated the record at the instance of the Investigation Officer of the case or that nothing incriminating were found at the said scene of crime. The witness has further deposed that they went to Haiderpur from Police Station Kirti Nagar and he along with Incharge SI Anil Kumar and photographer Ct. Suresh were in the crime team but he does not remember if he told on the last occasion that he had seen the accused at Police Station Kirti Nagar.
(78) Inspector Lalit Kumar (PW26) is Incharge Crime Team who has been examined by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW26/1 (as per the provisions of Section 296 Cr.P.C.) wherein he has deposed that on 25.04.07 he along with the crime team had reached at spot near gate no.3, St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 76 Tihar Jail near ATM counter, where a dead body was lying, which was wrapped in a plastic bag. The witness has deposed that the crime team had opened the plastic bag and checked and inspected the scene of crime and took photographs from different angles. The witness has further deposed that he inspected the scene of crime and prepared the scene of crime report dated 25.04.07 which is Ex.PW26/A and copy of the inspection report was handed over to the investigating officer and further necessary action was taken after which his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded by Sh. Hoshiyar Singh, the then SHO Police Station Hari Nagar on 25.04.07.
(79) In his cross-examination this witness has deposed that he had received the information at about 9 AM and he reached the spot at 9.30 AM and they were three persons in all including him. The witness has deposed that when he reached the spot public persons were present. According to the witness, he had prepared his report at the spot itself but he did not take the signatures of any public persons present at the spot and has voluntarily added that it was not required. This witness has denied the suggestion that he prepared the report on the asking of investigating officer and the senior officers.
(80) Inspector Anil Kumar (PW27) is the Incharge Mobile Crime Team, West District. He has been examined by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW27/1 (as per the provisions of Section 296 Cr.P.C.) wherein he has deposed that on 20.05.07 on receipt of information from Inspector Sunder Singh he along with the Crime Team had reached house no.229, Ground Floor, Haider Pur Colony, where accused Chander Kant Jha pointed out a room and thereafter the lock of the said room was got broken by Inspector Sunder Singh and Constable Suresh Gupta, photographer Crime Team took the photographs of the room and ASI St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 77 Harjinder Singh, Finger Print Expert also inspected the room. This witness has further deposed that he had inspected the said room and prepared the scene of crime and report in FIR no.609/06 U/s 302/201 IPC PS Hari Nagar which is Ex.PW27/A. According to the witness, during investigation his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded by Sh. Hoshiyar Singh, the then SHO Police Station Hari Nagar on 22.05.07.
(81) In his cross-examination the witness has deposed that they received the information from Inspector Sunder Singh at about 4 PM and they reached at the spot at about 5 PM and remained there from 5.15 PM to 7.15 PM. The witness has deposed that apart from the accused Chander Kant Jha one officer Dr. Naresh from FSL Rohini was also present but he did not observe if any public person had also joined in the investigation. The witness has further deposed that the room which was pointed out by Chander Kant Jha was at the ground floor. He does not recollect the number of floors but states that there were stairs leading on the top. He has testified that there were many rooms in the house but he cannot tell the exact number and has explained that there may be 5-6 rooms on the ground floor. He is unable to tell whether these rooms were occupied or not however those rooms were closed when they visited the spot. He is not aware whether owner of the house was called at the spot at the time of their visit or not. According to him, all the police officials who had come along with the accused were in uniform. He is unable to tell the details of the lock nor as to how it was opened by the investigating officer because he was standing at some distance. The witness has also deposed that there was electricity inside the room which was lighted by the investigating officer and the room was dirty when they entered and large number of phone numbers were written on the St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 78 wall and some stains on the floor which were photographed. According to the witness, there was dust on the floor and it was the FSL team who examined the floor and other articles in the room. He has denied the suggestion that the room was got photographed selectively and not from all angles. The witness has further deposed that the other rooms were adjacent to the room which was pointed out by the accused and they did not notice any other persons because the doors were closed. He does not recollect if the entry/ exit to the room pointed out by the accused was one or more than one. The witness has further deposed that the knives which had been allegedly got recovered by the accused were duly photographed by Constable Suresh. He has denied the suggestion that the knives were planted in the room of the accused by the police and after manipulating the scene of crime and he in connivance with the investigating officer got the spot photographed. The witness has further denied the suggestion that he had given the report Ex.PW27/A on the asking of the investigating officer.
(82) Constable Ramesh Chander (PW31) is the Photographer of Mobile Crime Team, North-West District who has been examined by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW31/1 (as per the provisions of Section 296 Cr.P.C.) wherein he witness has deposed that on 25.04.07 on receipt of information from ASI Naresh Kumar Police Post Pitam Pura, Police Station Shalimar Bagh, he alongwith SI Baljit Singh Incharge Mobile Crime Team North West District reached the place of occurrence i.e. near canal bridge near AU Block, Jhuggies, Haider Pur village on the left side of the bridge, where one left leg of some person in chopped condition was found lying and one polythene was wrapped on the chopped portion of the leg and ASI Naresh Kumar was found available on the spot. The witness has further deposed that ASI Naresh Kumar had carried out the St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 79 proceedings vide DD no.8 dated 25.04.07 Police Post Pitam Pura in this regard. He has testified that SI Baljit Singh inspected the scene of crime and as per directions of ASI Naresh Kumar, he had taken the photographs of scene of crime where the chopped leg was lying from different angles and later on he had handed over 12 photographs to HC Rajbir Singh and kept the negatives with producing the same at the time of evidence. The witness has further deposed that investigating officer recorded his statement on 06.09.07. He has proved the said photographs which are Ex.PW31/A-1 to Ex.PW31/A-6 and the negatives of the same are Ex.PW31/B. (83) In his cross-examination this witness has deposed that he is unable to tell the time the information was received by the Incharge Crime Team and has voluntarily explained that they had reached the spot at about 9.15 AM. He has admitted that public persons were standing at the spot and ASI Naresh was making inquiries from them. The witness has also deposed that he did not take any photograph of any public person present at the spot from whom the inquiries were made by ASI Naresh. He has denied the suggestion that the photographs had been taken collectively only to the assist investigating officer and to work out the present case.
(84) SI Baljit Singh (PW35) is the Incharge Mobile Crime Team / North-West District who has been examined by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW35/1 (as per the provisions of Section 296 Cr.P.C.) wherein he has deposed that on 25.04.07 on receipt of information form ASI Naresh Kumar Police Post Pitam Pura, Police Station Shalimar Bagh, he alongwith the Mobile Crime Team had reached the place of occurrence near canal bridge near AU Block Jhuggies near Village Haider Pur on the left side of the bridge where one left leg of some person in chopped St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 80 condition was found lying and one polythine was wrapped on the chopped portion of the leg and ASI Naresh Kumar was found available on the spot. The witness has also deposed that ASI Naresh Kumar was carrying out the proceedings vide DD No.8 dated 25.04.07 Police Post Pitam Pura in this regard. He has testified that Constable Ramesh Chander photographer Crime Team had taken photographs of the scene of crime which scene of crime was thereafter inspected and the original report of the inspection of scene of crime which is Ex.PW35/A was handed over to Inspector Sukesh Singh investigating officer of the case on 06.09.07 and the investigating officer had recorded his statement on 06.09.07.
(85) In his cross-examination this witness has deposed that the information was received by him at about 9 AM and they had reached the spot at about 9.15 AM. He has admitted that public persons were standing at the spot and ASI Naresh was making inquiries from them. He has denied the suggestion that the report has been prepared by him on the asking of the investigating officer and the senior police officer. (86) HC Surender (PW36) is the Finger Print Expert in Mobile Crime Team, West District who has been examined by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW36/1 (as per the provisions of Section 296 Cr.P.C.) wherein he has deposed that on 25.04.2007 on receipt of information, he along with the Crime Team had reached the spot near UTI ATM Counter, Tihar Jail gate No.3, where a dead body was found lying, which was wrapped in a plastic bag. He has further deposed that the said plastic bag was got opened and the dead body was got inspected and photographs were taken from different angles and two chance prints were lifted from the spot. He has also stated that during investigation, his statement was recorded by Shri Hoshiyar Singh, the then SHO Hari Nagar on St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 81 25.04.2007.
(87) In his cross examination, PW36 HC Surender has deposed that information was received by the incharge mobile team on wireless and on that day, he had lifted chance prints from gate No. 3, Tihar. He has denied the suggestion that no chance prints were found and has voluntarily added that two chance had been found and lifted. The witness has also denied that no chance prints were found and he had manipulated the record with regard of the lifting of the chance print at the instance of the senior police officers.
Formal Police Witnesses:
(88) HC Satyawan (PW12) is a formal witness and has deposed that on 25.04.2007 at 8:23 AM, he received an information from telephone No. 9871014200 that one leg of a person was lying near AU block jhuggi on which and he recorded the same on police control room form-I. According to him, he informed the concerned commander Net 29/(C-29) and informed the OMEGA-50 and his statement was recorded by the investigating officer. He has proved the original police control room form-I, copy of which is Ex.PW12/A. This witness was not cross-
examined by Ld. Defence counsel and his testimony has gone uncontroverted.
(89) ASI Sangeeta (PW18) is a formal witness who had recorded the FIR being the Duty Officer at Police Station Hari Nagar from 8.00 am to 4.00 pm. She has deposed that on 25.04.2007 at about 11.50 am Ct. Ajit brought a rukka sent by SI Manohar Lal for registration of FIR. The witness has deposed that she recorded the FIR of this case, carbon copy of which is Ex.PW18/A and also made an endorsement on Rukka which is Ex.PW18/B. She has also proved DD register containing DD St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 82 no.15A according to which at about 8.34 am on 25.04.07 information was received that one petti containing plastic katta lying near the UTI ATM in front of gate no.3 Tihar Jail and blood was flowing from that petti, which DD is Ex.PW18/C. The witness has further deposed the said DD No. 15A was handed over to SI Manohar Lal who left the Police Station with Ct. Ajit and information was also given to SHO. She has testified that on the same day at about 8.35 AM, she made entries regarding the departure of the SHO, Ct. Aniruddh, Ct. Suresh through Government vehicle and she also made departure entry of SI Dilip Kaushik in DD no.16A copy of which is Ex.PW18/D. She has proved the DD no.20A in respect of registration of FIR, copy of which is Ex.PW18/E. According to her, copy of DD no.20A in respect of registration of FIR and departure of Ct. Ram Avtar as special messenger for handing over the copies to the senior officers and Ld. Area Magistrate, copy of which is Ex.PW18/F. (90) In his cross-examination by the Ld. Defence counsel, this witness has deposed that her statement was recorded by Inspector Hoshiyar Singh on the same day at Police Station but she does not remember the time when her statement was recorded.
(91) SI Mahesh Kumar (PW19) is the Draftsman who had prepared the scaled site plan. He has deposed that on 20.06.07 he was called by Inspector Hoshiyar Singh, SHO Police Station Hari Nagar for preparation of scaled site plan of scene of crime on which he along with Inspector Hoshiyar Singh and SI Manohar Lal reached at footpath, in front of boundary wall of Tihar Jail and near Tihar Haat Gate as well as gate no.3 Tihar Jail and near UTI ATM. The witness has deposed that he took rough notes and measurements at the instance of SI Manohar Lal and on the basis of those measurements, he prepared scaled site plan St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 83 which is Ex.PW19/A which he handed over to the Investigation Officer. He has further deposed that after preparation of scaled site plan rough notes & measurements were destroyed. The witness has deposed that on 13.09.07 he was again called by the investigation officer on which he along with investigation officer reached at Sabzi Mandi, Loni Border where at the instance of Yasin Malik he took rough notes & measurements of the area of Kishan Lal Bagh, Subzi Mandi on the basis of which he prepared the scaled site plan which is Ex.PW19/B. According to him, on 13.09.07 he also visited house of Rajiv Kumar S/o Mangal Sen at H. No.229/2, Ambedkar Nagar, Haider Pur where he took rough notes & measurements at the instance of Inspector Sunder Singh, who also accompanied him which scaled site plan is Ex.PW19/C. He has proved that on the same day he also inspected scene of crime at Pitampura near Western Yamuna Canal where he took rough notes & measurements at the instance of ASI Naresh Kumar PP Pitam Pura and prepared the scaled site plan which is Ex.PW19/D. He has testified that preparation of scaled site plan, all the rough notes & measurements were destroyed.
(92) In his cross-examination by Ld. Defence counsel, the witness has deposed that he does not remember how many statements were recorded by the investigation officer in this case nor does he remember as to on which date his first statement was recorded. The witness has further deposed that he inspected the scene of crime of jail on 20.06.07. He does not remember the place which was visited by him first on 13.09.07 and states that he along with the Investigating Officer and other staff reached Loni in a car. The witness does not remember whether the same was a government vehicle or private nor does he remember the registration number of that car. He is unable to tell the name of the driver St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 84 of the said car and left for Loni from Police Station Hari Nagar in noon hours and they went Loni via Wazirabad. The witness has also deposed that he inspected the scene of crime at Loni in respect of this case only and at Pitam Pura in the day hours but he is unable to tell the exact time and the jhuggies were situated at some distance from the canal at Pitam Pura. This witness had denied the suggestion that the jhuggies were situated just near canal.
(93) HC Ram Avtar (PW22) is a formal witness who is the Motorcycle Rider who had delivered the copies of the FIR to the senior officers. He has deposed that on 25.04.07 he was posted at Police Station Hari Nagar and on that day duty officer handed over three envelopes containing the FIR of this case for delivering the same to the DCP, Joint CP and concerned area Magistrate. According to the witness, he went on motorcycle no.DL-1-SN-4108 and firstly he reached to the office of DCP at Rajouri Garden then to the police headquarters in the office of Joint CP and then to the residence of concerned area Magistrate at Karkardooma. He has further deposed that he delivered all the envelopes to the senior officers after which he returned back and his statement was recorded by the Investigating Officer. This testimony of this witness remained unassailed as he is not cross-examined by Ld. Defence counsel.
(94) Ct. Seveya Rathod (PW37) is a formal witness who has been examined by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW37/1 (as per the provisions of Section 296 Cr.P.C.) wherein he has deposed that on 25/04/2007, he was posted in PCR/West Zone and on that day, he was on duty at PCR Van Power-33, along with ASI Hari Chand and Constable (Driver) Ranveer Singh. According to the witness on that day, at about 8.28 AM information was received that one carton was lying near gate St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 85 No.3, Tihar Jail, near UTI ATM and there was one plastic bag in the said carton, which was containing blood stains. He has further deposed that on receipt of this information, he along with the PCR Van Power-33 reached the spot immediately and after verifying the facts, informed the PCR. He has also deposed that on that day SI Manohar Lal had reached the spot and checked the plastic bag, in which one human body was kept. He has testified that SI Manohar Lal had called the Crime Team on the spot and after checking the plastic bag, one male dead body of 20/25 years old male person, shallow complexion was found. The witness has testified that both legs below knee, head and both hands of the dead body were severed and dead body was without hands, head and legs below knee and the deceased was wearing shabby P.T. vest white, light green underwear and one shirt of light green colour, which was soaked in blood, was found kept on the neck of the body. According to him, during proceedings SHO/Hari Nagar along with the staff had also reached the spot. He has deposed that on 28.08.2007 he was called by Inspector Sukesh Singh, the then SHO/Hari Nagar when the Investigating Officer recorded his statement.
(95) In his cross examination, this witness has admitted that he had not participated in any investigations of the case and has voluntarily stated that he had only gone to the spot pursuant to the PCR call along with ASI Hari Chand and Ct. Ranbir Singh. According to him, there were 5-6 public persons present at the spot when they reached there but he is unable to tell their names or other details because he did not participate in the investigations. He has denied the suggestion that he did not reach the spot as deposed by him.
(96) Ct. (Retd. Driver) Ranveer Singh (PW38) is a formal witness who has been examined by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW38/1 (as per St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 86 the provisions of Section 296 Cr.P.C.). He was the driver of PCR Van Power-33 on 25.04.2007 and has corroborated the testimony of PW37 Ct. Seveya Rathod in toto.
(97) ASI Hari Chand (PW39) is a formal witness who has been examined by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW39/1 (as per the provisions of Section 296 Cr.P.C.). On 25.4.2007 he was on duty at PCR Van Power-33 and has corroborated the testimony of PW37 Ct. Seveya Rathod and PW38 Constable (Driver) Ranveer Singh in toto. (98) In his cross examination, the witness has deposed that they received the call at about 8:30 AM and reached the spot after about 7-10 minutes. He has admitted that he had not participated in any investigations of the case and has stated that he had only gone to the spot along with driver Ct. Ranbir Singh and gun man Ct. Seveya Rathod. According to him, when they reached the spot, there were about 5-10 passersby. He has also deposed that the Investigating Officer did not stop any public person in his presence and has voluntarily explained that call with them was only with regard to abandoned and unclaimed bag. According to the witness, he remained at the spot till about 30-45 minutes and has voluntarily stated that they left as soon as the SHO/local police reached there. He has further stated that his statement was recorded in the Police Station later, on 28.08.2007 by the Investigating Officer. He has denied the suggestion that he did not reach the spot as deposed by him.
(99) Ct. Jai Singh (PW40) is a formal witness being DD Writer who has been examined by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW40/1 (as per the provisions of Section 296 Cr.P.C.) wherein he has deposed that on 25.04.2007, he was posted as DD Writer in the Duty Officer Room, Police Station Loni District, Ghaziabad (UP) and at about 11 AM Sh.
St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 87Mohd. Yasin son of Karimuddin, R/o Village Salla Pur, PS Haldar, PP Ambhara, District Bijnore (UP) had submitted a written complaint in Hindi stating that he is running a shop of sugarcane juice in Lal Bagh Subzi Mandi, Loni and on 25.04.2007, at 10 AM some unknown person had left two unclaimed boxes near his shop, out of which, one box was containing private parts of some person and the other box was containing a chopped hand of some person pursuant to which he had lodged an information in this regard vide DD No. 19, PS Loni copy of which is Ex.PW40/A. According to him, a copy of the DD entry was sent to SI Krishan Baldev Yadav for necessary action. He has testified that Inspector Sukesh Singh Investigating Officer of the case had recorded his statement on 08.09.2007 in this regard. He has proved the complaint of Mohd. Yasin S/o Karimuddin which is Ex.PW40/B. (100) In his cross examination this witness has deposed that Mohd. Yasin had come to the Police Station alone and met him at 11 AM. He has further deposed that he did not make any inquiries from Mohd. Yasin and has voluntarily added that he had gone to the chowki Incharge SI Krishan Baldev Singh and spoken to him. According to the witness, he was only asked to record the DD and is unable to tell what transpired between SI Krishan Baldev Singh and Mohd. Yasin and on what aspects he was interrogated. He has further deposed that Mohd. Yasin was aged about 45 years and he was not known to him prior to this. He has denied the suggestion that the record, with regard to the complaint and DD entry, has been created and fabricated in connivance with the Delhi police.
(101) SI Sarvesh Yadav (PW41) is a formal witness who has been examined by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW41/1 (as per the provisions of Section 296 Cr.P.C.) wherein he has deposed that on St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 88 08.09.2007, he was posted as In-charge Police Post Lal Bagh, PS Loni, District Ghaziabad (UP) and on that day as asked by Investigating Officer Inspector Sukesh Singh, the then SHO Police Station Hari Nagar, he had handed over the documents of PM No. 548/07 and original documents of inquest papers of DD No. 19 dated 25/04/2007 to him which were taken over by him through a seizure memo which is Ex.PW41/A. According to the witness, he had signed the seizure memo and the Investigating Officer had recorded his statement on that day i.e.08.09.2007.
(102) In his cross examination, this witness has stated that there is no DD entry regarding the visit of Inspector Sukesh Singh and has voluntarily added that there is no rojnamcha kept in the chowki and all entries are made in the Police Station and therefore he is unable to tell. He has denied the suggestion that he did not give any intimation regarding handing over the PM report and the inquest papers to Delhi police and has voluntarily explained that he had given this information in the office. He has admitted that he had not participated in any investigations. The witness has testified that the seizure memo had been prepared at Lal Bagh Chowki where he signed the same. He has also denied the suggestion that the seizure memo was prepared anti datedly which he signed later on in connivance with the investigating officer. (103) Ct. Jagdish (PW24) is a formal witness who has been examined by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW24/1 (as per the provisions of Section 296 Cr.P.C.) wherein he has deposed that on 25.04.07 he was posted as Constable in Police Post Pitam Pura, Police Station Shalimar Bagh and on that day on receipt of information vide DD no.8 dated 25.04.07 Police Post Pitam Pura, he alongwith ASI Naresh Kumar had reached the spot near AU Block Jhuggies near canal Bridge St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 89 near village Haider Pur on the left side where one left leg of some person in chopped condition was found lying and the polythene was wrapped on the chopped portion of the leg. The witness has deposed that ASI Naresh Kumar conducted necessary proceedings in this regard and had called the Mobile Crime Team/North West District at the scene of crime after which the crime team had inspected the spot and took the photographs of scene of crime and he had deposited the said chopped left leg in the mortuary of BJRM Hospital on 25.04.07. The witness has also deposed that his statement in this regard was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. by Inspector Sukesh Singh, investigating officer of the case on 06.09.07. (104) In his cross-examination this witness has admitted that he had not signed any document on record. This witness has denied the suggestion that his signatures were not present on any of the document prepared at the spot because he had not gone there along with ASI Naresh Kumar and that he was deposing falsely at the instance of the investigating officer.
(105) HC Vinod (PW25) is also a formal witness being MHC (M) Police Station Loni District Ghaziabad (U.P.) who has been examined by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW25/1 (as per the provisions of Section 296 Cr.P.C.) wherein he has deposed that on 25.04.07 human organs/ body parts were recovered in the area of Police Station Loni and postmortem of the same was done at Hindon River Mortuary vide postmortem no.548/07 dated 26.04.07. According to him the said organs were got preserved in Jar and deposited in the Malkhana of Police Station Loni on 20.05.07. The witness has deposed that on 10.07.07, the said Jar on which two slips of the doctor were pasted had been handed over to SI Sharat Kohli, on his application, as per directions of Incharge Police Station Loni, as the same were reportedly related to case FIR St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 90 No.243/07 U/s 302 IPC Police Station Hari Nagar. The witness has further deposed that during the period of deposit of that Jar in the Police Station Loni Malkhana under his custody, it was not disturbed. He has testified that he had written his report on the application of SI Sharat Kohli and SI Sharat Kohli recorded his statement U/s 161 Cr. P. C. on 10.07.07 in this regard. The witness has further deposed that on 08.09.07 he had handed over the photocopy of extract of Malkhana Register of Police Station Loni containing the details of entry at serial no.42 dated 20.05.07 pertaining to this case and the details of entry of depositing the case property of the above noted case in Police Station Malkhana vide DD no.19 dated 25.04.07. He has also deposed that his supplementary statement in this regard was recorded by investigating officer/ Inspector Sukesh Singh the then SHO Police Station Hari Nagar on 08.09.07. He has proved the copy of Malkhana register of Police Station Loni, District Ghaziabad vide entry no.18/07 dated 20.05.07 which is Ex.PW25/A. The witness has testified that on 10.07.07 the Jar containing human organ duly sealed with the seal of District Hospital, Ghaziabad was handed over to SI Sharat Kohli.
(106) In his cross-examination this witness has denied the suggestion that the entries in the register no.19 have been fabricated on the asking of the Delhi Police and at their instance or that there was tampering in the case property during the time it remained in his possession. (107) HC Hari Ram (PW28) is a formal witness being the MHC (M) Police Station Hari Nagar who has been examined by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW28/1 (as per the provisions of Section 296 Cr.P.C.) wherein he has deposed that in the year 2007-08 he was posted as MHC (M) Police Station Hari Nagar and he remained associated in the investigation of the above case. He has testified that on 25.04.07 and St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 91 20.05.2007 case property were received / deposited in the Malkhana of Police Station Hari Nagar in his custody as per entries in register no.19 of Malkhana of Police Station Hari Nagar by SI Manohar Lal and Sh. Hoshiyar Singh, Inspector, the then SHO Police Station Hari Nagar vide mud no.2819 dated 25.04.07 and mud no.2850 dated 20.05.07 respectively. According to him, on 10.07.07 and 17.07.07 case property i.e. exhibits of the case were received / deposited in the Malkhana of Police Station Hari Nagar in his custody as per entries in register no.19 of Malkhana of Police Station Hari Nagar by investigating officer Inspector Sukesh Singh the then SHO Police Station Hari Nagar and ASI Zora Singh vide mud no.3001 dated 10.07.07 and mud no.3017 dated 17.07.07 respectively. He has testified that on 27.07.07 as per directions of Investigating Officer Sukesh Singh the then SHO Police Station Hari Nagar, exhibits of case FIR No.243/07 U/s 302/201 IPC Police Station Hari Nagar which were deposited in the Malkhana of Police Station Hari Nagar were handed over to SI Sharat Kohli for depositing in the FSL vide RC no.48/21/07 dated 27.07.07 for Bio-test and vide RC no.47/21/07 dated 27.07.07 for DNA test. The witness has further deposed that on 30.07.07 as per directions of Inspector Sukesh Singh other exhibits of the case were handed over to SI Sharat Kohli for depositing in the FSL vide RC no.59/21/07 dated 30.07.07 for Viscera test and vide RC no.60/12/07 dated 30.07.07 for Bio Division test. According to him, after depositing the above exhibits in the FSL SI Sharat Kohli handed over the receipt copy of the Road certificate to him. He has proved that till the above exhibits remained in his custody the same were not disturbed and that investigating officer Inspector Sukesh Singh recorded his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. on 27.07.07 and his supplementary statement on 30.07.07. The witness has proved the St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 92 entries in register no.19 at serial number 2819 dated 25.04.07 copy of which is Ex.PW28/A (running into three pages), entry at serial number 2850 dated 20.05.07 which is Ex.PW28/B (running into one page), serial number 3001 dated 10.07.07 copy of which is Ex.PW28/C (running into one page) and serial number 3017 dated 17.07.07 copy of which is Ex.PW28/D (running into one page). He has also proved the entries in register no.21 vide RC no.47/21/07 copy of which is Ex.PW28/E running into one page, RC no.48/21/07 copy of which is Ex.PW28/F running into one page, RC no.59/21/07 copy of which is Ex.PW28/G running into two pages, RC no.60/21/07 copy of which is Ex.PW28/H running into one page and the receipt of FSL copy of which are Ex.PW28/I & Ex.PW28/J respectively.
(108) In his cross-examination this witness has deposed that his statements were recorded by the investigating officer on two occasions and so far as he recollect he has not deposed in any other court with regard to the above case properties. He is unable to tell without seeing the record whether he had been cited as a witness in any other case with regard to the above case property. The witness has admitted that he was a witness in another case of the accused bearing FIR no.609/06 Police Station Hari Nagar. He is unable to tell if the date of the seizure memo 28.05.07 has been over written and fabricated later on and has voluntarily explained that he had only signed as a witness. The witness has further deposed that the signatures of the officer depositing the case property were not present in the register no.19 and the entries have been made on the basis of the details mentioned in the seizure memo. According to the witness he has no personal knowledge of the same because he did not verify it. He has denied the suggestion that he had fabricated the entries at the instance and on the asking of his senior St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 93 officers.
(109) This witness was recalled for further cross-examination on an application of the accused moved under Section 311 Cr.P.C. wherein he has deposed that the Investigating Officer had deposited a piece of paper containing phone numbers in the Malkhana but he does not recollect the time. According to him, after 20.05.07, the exhibits were sent to FSL on 30.07.07 and were taken out from the Malkhana. The witness has further deposed that the personal search articles were still lying in the Malkhana and had not released so far and has voluntarily explained that only the paper containing the telephone numbers were taken by Inspector Sunder Singh for investigation. He has testified that as per record papers were never taken by anybody and has voluntarily explained that only the photocopy was got done on 28.05.07 and the original was kept in the Malkhana as the said paper contained a large number of telephone number and could have been helpful in the investigation. (110) ASI Rajbir Singh (PW29) is a formal witness who has been examined by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW29/1 (as per the provisions of Section 296 Cr.P.C.) wherein he has deposed that on 03.09.07 he was posted as Head Constable in Police Station Hari Nagar and on that day, Inspector Sukesh Singh had given him a requisition for Nodal Officer, Tata Teleservice Ltd. Office at 2-A, Old Ishwar Nagar, Main Mathura Road, New Delhi for obtaining certified copy of call details of Mobile no.9211463742 from 01.04.07 to 20.05.07. The witness has deposed that accordingly, on 03.09.07 he had reached the above office and collected the certified copy of the above noted call details from Sh. Vijyan, Nodal Officer and handed over the same to Inspector Sukesh Singh the then SHO Police Station Hari Nagar, the same day and Inspector Sukesh Singh recorded his statement on 03.09.07. The witness St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 94 has further deposed that on 05.09.07 as per directions of investigating officer Inspector Sukesh Singh he had collected 12 photographs vide DD no.8 from the office of Mobile Crime Team and that he had collected the certified copy of the call details of Mobile no.9211463743 from the office Tata Tele-Service Mathura road and all the above documents were handed over to the investigating officer, who had received the same through a seizure memo, which bears his signatures. The witness has further deposed that his supplementary statement in this regard was also recorded by the investigating officer on 05.09.07. He has proved the seizure memo dated 05.09.07 regarding seizure of 12 photographs taken by mobile crime team, North West which is Ex.PW29/A; call details record of telephone number 9211463742 which are Ex.PW29/B running into 18 pages printed on both sides; seizure memo of documents which is Ex.PW29/C and the call details of mobile phone number 9211463743 which are Ex.PW29/D collectively running into 20 pages printed on both sides which also he handed over to the investigating officer. (111) In his cross-examination this witness has stated that the directions given to him by the investigating officer were oral and not in writing. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely at the instance of the investigating officer.
(112) Inspector Satya Prakash (PW30) is a formal witness who has been examined by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW30/1 (as per the provisions of Section 296 Cr.P.C.) wherein he witness has deposed that on 25.04.07 he was posted as Incharge Chowki Police Post Pitam Pura and on the same day vide DD no.8 Police Post Pitam Pura an information was received that left leg of some person is lying on bridge of Haider Pur Canal near AU Block, Jhuggies, Haider Pur, which was wrapped in a white polythene bag. According to him, in this regard inquest St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 95 proceedings were carried out by ASI Naresh Kumar, Police Station Shalimar Bagh and after necessary proceedings the said left leg was sent to BJRM Hospital Mortuary, Jahangir Puri for further proceedings. The witness has deposed that after investigation his statement was recorded by Inspector Hoshiyar Singh, the then SHO Police Station Hari Nagar on 25.04.07.
(113) In his cross-examination this witness has deposed that he had received information vide DD no.8 at 8.35 AM and he reached the spot at about 8.50 AM and remained there till about 11.00 AM. The witness has deposed that he had only flashed the message to the control room and he made some inquiries from the public person present at the spot but he could not tell their names & addresses. According to the witness, ASI Naresh recorded their statements and his signatures are not present in any of the proceedings / documentations. He has denied the suggestion that he was a planted witness and he did not participate in any proceedings and it is for this reason that his signatures were not present on any documents. He has stated that his statement was recorded at the spot itself twice. The witness has denied the suggestion that his statement was not recorded by Inspector Hoshiyar Singh at the spot. (114) Constable Meghpal (PW32) is a formal witness being the DD Writer who has been examined by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW32/1 (as per the provisions of Section 296 Cr.P.C.) wherein he has deposed that on 25.04.07 he was posted as Constable in Police Post Pitam Pura, Police Station Shalimar Bagh and on that day while he was on duty as DD writer in Police Post Pitam Pura an information was received at 8.35 AM from Omega 50 (through wireless) that only a leg of some person is lying near AU Block Jhuggies, Pitam Pura which information received through PCR was lodged in the Daily Dairy vide DD no.8 dated 25.04.07 St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 96 Police Post Pitam Pura which is Ex.PW32/A and a copy of the same was given to ASI Naresh Kumar, who had left for the spot alongwith Constable Jagdish for doing the needful. The witness has further deposed that Inspector Sukesh Singh had recorded his statement in this regard on 06.09.07.
(115) In his cross-examination the witness has deposed that the information was received through wireless. He has admitted that he did not participate in any investigation.
(116) ASI Rajbir (PW33) is a formal witness who has been examined by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW33/1 (as per the provisions of Section 296 Cr.P.C.) wherein he has deposed that on 25.04.07 he was posted in the North West Zone PCR and was on duty as Commander on PCR Van 29 and on that day at about 8.25 AM, he had received information from HC Satyawan no.597/PCR, Channel 117/PCR that one leg of some person was lying near AU Block Jhuggies. According to the witness, on receipt of that information he immediately reached the spot and on reaching there, the call was found to be true after verification. The witness has deposed that there on the spot one left leg of some person was found lying which was in chopped condition below knee and ASI Naresh Kumar Police Post Pitam Pura Police Station Shalimar Bagh also reached the spot on receipt of information, who had also called the Mobile Crime Team North-West District on the spot and carried out further proceedings. The witness has further deposed that his statement in this regard was recorded by the investigating officer Inspector Sukesh Singh the then SHO Police Station Hari Nagar on 11.09.07. He has proved the call book Commander 29 copy of which is Ex.PW33/A and the original call book of all PCR Zones Pertaining to St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 97 period 01.01.07 to 30.06.07 relating to CPRC and CR Branch have been destroyed and the certificate to this effect was Ex.PW33/B-1 and Ex.PW33/B-2.
(117) In his cross-examination this witness has admitted that he did not participate in the investigations and he only record the information. This witness has denied the suggestion that the log book have been manipulated by him on the asking of the senior officers and he was deposing falsely.
(118) ASI Bal Kishan (PW34) is a formal witness who has been examined by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW34/1 (as per the provisions of Section 296 Cr.P.C.) wherein he has deposed that on 20.05.07 he was posted as Duty officer in Police Station Hari Nagar and on that day Inspector Sunder Singh, Special staff/ West District had given an information over telephone at Police Station Hari Nagar at 4.15 PM that he had arrested accused Chander Kant Jha S/o Late Radha Kant Jha R/o Shiv Mandir Gali, Alipur, Delhi in case FIR no.609/06 U/s 302/201 Police Station Hari Nagar and the said accused has disclosed of his own about the murder cases of Police Station Hari Nagar. According to the witness, pursuant to the said information he had lodged this information in Daily Dairy of Police Station Hari Nagar vide DD no.21- A dated 20.05.07 copy of which is Ex.PW34/A and he had informed the concerned investigating officers in this regard. The witness has also deposed that his statement in this regard was recorded by investigating officer Inspector Sukesh Singh the then SHO/ Police Station Hari Nagar on 06.09.07. He has also proved the DD no.22A dated 20.05.07 copy of which is Ex.PW34/B. (119) In his cross-examination this witness has admitted that he had not participated in the investigations and the DD no.21A was lodged on St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 98 the basis of telephonic information. This witness has denied the suggestion that the record has been fabricated on the asking of the SHO and senior officers and he was deposing falsely on their instance. (120) This witness was recalled for further cross-examination on an application of the accused moved under Section 311 Cr.P.C. wherein he has deposed that on 20.10.06 his duty hours were from 12 midnight till 8.00 AM and after his duly hour he was in the Police Station in his barrack as he used to stay there only. The witness has further deposed that after his duty hours were over it was the person who takes-over who looks after the subsequent work. According to him, on 20.05.07 one Mukesh Tiwari had called up at about 7.05 AM and he had informed SHO Police Station Hari Nagar about this information received at 7.05 AM but he informed Inspector Sunder Singh much later and on 20.10.06 his statement was recorded in the late evening hours. The witness has deposed that he had read his statement recorded by the investigating officer. He has admitted that at 7.20 AM he had received a call from Control Room that some Mukesh Tiwari had called up and informed that he had thrown the body parts outside the gate no.3 of Tihar Jail. He has also deposed that he had received another call from Mukesh Tiwari at 8.20 AM asking for telephone number of his SHO and he was still at the spot and was handing over his charge to the subsequent duty Officer when this call was received and since he was standing at the spot, he picked up the phone. According to him, on receipt of this call he had informed Inspector Sunder Singh at about 8.30 AM since he was not able to contact SHO Police Station Hari Nagar. He has denied the suggestion that he was not the Duty Officer and it was one Head Constable Kishan 136/West who was the Duty Officer as evident from the RTI reply Ex.PW34/DX1. The witness has further deposed that at that time their St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 99 Police Station did not have a caller ID facility in the official telephone of the Police Station due to which reason they could not know the number from which the call was made. The witness has further deposed that the information incorporated in DD no.21A which is Ex.PW34/A was received from Inspector Sunder Singh on telephone. He has further deposed that on 20.05.07 his duty was from 4.00 PM to 12.00 midnight and on that day there was no caller ID facility on telephone of the Police Station and therefore, he could not tell the number of the phone from which Inspector Sunder Singh gave the information. He is unable to tell the number of the telephone installed in the Police Station on which the call of Inspector Sunder Singh was received and states that there were two telephones in the Police Station at that time. The witness has further deposed that one of the telephone number was 28525719 but he does not recollect about another phone. According to the witness, the phone had been received by him at 4.15 PM. He has also testified that the DD was lodged on the basis of whatever was told to him by Inspector Sunder Singh and he did not incorporate anything of his own. The witness has further deposed that it took him about ten minutes to write what Inspector Sunder Singh was telling him. He has denied the suggestion that the said DD no.21A dated 20.05.07 was fabricated by him on the instructions of Inspector Sunder Singh much later ante-datedly. (121) HC Manohar Lal (PW51) is a formal witness who has deposed that on 25.04.2007, he was posted as Constable at Police Control Room, Police Head Quarter and on that day, one Sumit Kumar had given the information from mobile phone No. 9868834618 at about 8.28 hours (AM) that one petti was lying near UTI ATM, Gate No.3, Tihar Jail in which there was a plastic bag/katta, which was blood stained and was lying in suspicious condition. He has proved having filled in St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 100 PCR form which is Ex.PW51/A. This witness has not been cross examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused, hence, his testimony remained unassailed.
(122) HC Banwari (PW52) is a formal witness being the Duty officer who has deposed that on 20.10.2006, he was posted at Police Station Hari Nagar and on that day while he was working as Duty Officer, at about 10.30AM, SI Kartar Singh brought the rukka sent by Inspector Sunder Singh on the basis of the same, he recorded FIR No 609/06, copy of which is Ex.PW52/A. This witness has not been cross examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused, hence, his testimony remained unassailed.
Other Police Witnesses:
(123) SI Naresh Kumar (PW17) was posted as ASI at Police Post Pitampura of Police Station Shalimar Bagh. He has deposed that on 25.04.07 on receiving DD No. 8, which is Ex.PW17/A, he along with Ct.
Jagdish reached at AU Block, Pitampura near Jhuggies. According to the witness, one piece of human left leg was lying in a plastic bag near the canal & bridge on which photographs of the piece of human leg was taken and thereafter he prepared inquest Papers Form 25.35 which is Ex.PW17/B (carbon copy) and original inquest paper which is Ex.PW17/C. The witness has deposed that he prepared a request for preserve the piece of human left leg to the Autopsy Surgeon, BJRM Hospital, vide carbon copy of the request which is Ex.PW17/D. The witness has deposed that the leg was removed to BJRM Hospital and deposited in the mortuary and the inquest papers were sent to Police Station Hari Nagar through DCP (NW) vide letter Ex.PW17/E. He has also testified that after developing photographs of the piece of human St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 101 leg, same were handed over to the investigation officer of this case vide memo Ex.PW17/F and the two photographs were prepared in four copies. The witness has proved the photograph of the piece of left leg and bag which are Ex.PW17/G1 and Ex.PW17/G2. He has also deposed that since the photographs were taken by the Mobile Crime Team, therefore, the negatives of the same were not available. The witness has further deposed that on 13.09.07, Inspector Sukesh called him at the spot on which he reached there where Draftsman SI Mahesh Kumar was already present. According to him, on his direction the draftsman took rough notes & measurement of the place of recovery of the piece of left leg and a bag of blue colour, in which the piece of leg was lying for preparation of scaled site plan. The witness has also deposed that the Investigation Officer recorded his statement. Witness has correctly identified one blue colour bag having label of Kohinoor Basmati Rice containing the piece of human leg as Ex.PW17/X and after taking out the piece of human leg, photographs were taken.
(124) In his cross-examination this witness has deposed that the Investigation Officer recorded his statement twice in this case and the last statement was recorded on 13.09.07 by Inspector Sukesh Kumar at the spot and the first statement was recorded by Inspector Hoshiyar Singh on 25.04.07 at Police Station Hari Nagar. The witness has also deposed that at about 8/8.30 AM he received DD no.8, that a piece of human leg was lying and the distance between the spot from where piece of human leg was found and Baba Ramdev Mandir is around 250 sq. yards but he is unable to tell the distance between Baba Ramdev Mandir and railway crossing, Shalimar Bagh. The witness has also deposed that in his presence Mobile Crime Team did not reach and he remained at the spot where piece of human leg was found throughout. He has testified St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 102 that no police official from Police Station Hari Nagar visited the spot. He does not recollect if he had told the Investigating Officer in his statement that the negatives of the photographs will be produced at the time of evidence. The witness has further explained that he had told to the investigation officer that there were four photographers and given serial number as 1, 2, 3 & 4 and there were only two photographs but each photograph was having four copies, therefore, they were given serial number as 1, 2, 3 & 4. He has also deposed that no other photographer took photographs of the piece of human leg except him and there was no jhuggi near the place from where the piece of human leg was found. He has denied the suggestion that there are jhuggies near the place from where human leg was found but he intentionally & deliberately did not join any public person in the proceedings. He has further denied the suggestion that he did not fairly conducted the proceedings or that he fabricated the documents pertaining to the recovery of piece of human leg.
(125) HC Vijender Singh (PW20) has deposed that on 04.07.07 he was posted at Police Station Hari Nagar as Constable and on that day he joined the investigation of this case alongwith Inspector Sukesh Singh when they went to the office of Special Staff, West District. He has further deposed that Inspector Sunder Singh met them there who handed over two photographs of deceased Upender and one pointing out memo & seizure memo in this regard which were seized vide memo Ex.PW20/A. The witness has deposed that investigation officer recorded his statement. He has identified the said photographs reflecting Upender in blue shirt & black pant which photographs are Ex.PW20/1 & Ex.PW20/2.
St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 103(126) In his cross-examination this witness has deposed that his statement was recorded at the spot where the photographs were seized by Inspector Sukesh. The witness has deposed that Inspector Sunder Singh had informed about the photographs of Upender as detailed by him in his examination in chief and no other fact disclosed by Inspector Sunder Singh to Inspector Sukesh in his presence except as stated by him in his examination in chief. This witness has denied the suggestion that he signed the memos while sitting at Police Station and he never accompanied with Inspector Sukesh.
(127) HC Ajit Singh (PW23) was on emergency duty on 25.04.07at Police Station Hari Nagar from 8.00 am to 8.00 pm. He has deposed that on receipt of DD no.15-A at about 8.34 a.m. he along with investigation officer & SI Manohar Lal reached in front of gate no.3, Tihar Jail, Near UTI ATM where they found that one petti like thing was lying near the wall in between UTI ATM and gate no.3. According to him, that was a plastic katta and blood was oozing out from the said katta and one gatta / card board of water cooler was also lying. He has testified that word single blower was also written on the cooler and photograph of cooler and photograph of cooler was on the gatta. According to him, the Investigation Officer called the crime team and photographer at the spot pursuant to which member of the crime team reached there and they inspected the scene of crime and photographs were also taken by the private photographer. The witness has also deposed that katta was opened and it found containing one male dead body without head and both the hands from the shoulder and both the legs below the knee. The witness has further deposed that its private part was also not there and the dead body was tied by a nylon cord in a white shawl. According to the witness, one red colour gatta was taken out from katta having a St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 104 tattoo mark and the word "Original Jerry and Tom (R) for the little kids Do Boond Zindagi Ki and a Star Paanch Saal Ke Pratek Bache Ko Najdeeki Pulse Polio Se Bachati Hai" was also engraved. He has testified that one Shirt was also found there and the gatta was also having engraved SIP and the colour of the shirt was Totiya colour (parrot green). He has also deposed that the dead body was opened and was checked and the age of the person was looking between 28-30 years, colour sanwala (wheatish) and jism darmiyana (medium). The witness has further deposed that height could not be ascertained as the legs & head were not there and the dead body was wearing sandow vests and one underwear of grey colour. This witness has deposed that investigation officer lifted two chance print and some blood lying on the ground was also lifted and sample earth control was also lifted and turned into small plastic boxes. He has proved that Investigation Officer sealed the plastic boxes with the seal of ML and it was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW23/A. The witness has deposed that the gatta petty of water cooler, one plastic katta of white colour, one plastic panni and one red colour gatta having tattoo mark, one shirt of Totiya colour (parrot green) and nylon rope was turned into cloth parcel and sealed with the seal of ML which was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW23/B. He has also deposed that dead body was removed by Ambulance to DDU Hospital for preservation for 72 hours and he accompanied with the dead body and after got deposited in the DDU hospital, he returned back to the spot. He has proved that at the spot investigation officer prepared rukka and handed over to him for registration of FIR pursuant to which he went to the Police Station and after registration of FIR returned back at the spot and handed over copy of FIR and rukka to Inspector Hoshiyar Singh, who recorded his statement. According to the witness, the dead body was of unknown St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 105 person and thereafter he was directed by the investigation officer to reach the hospital for the safety of the dead body. According to him, from 25.04.07 to 20.05.07 he remained in the DDU hospital for safety of the dead body and on 20.05.07 the Investigation Officer reached to Mortuary, DDU Hospital for got conducting the postmortem of the dead body and after postmortem, doctor handed over seven sealed parcels with sample seal. He has further deposed that five exhibits were of postmortem no. 458/07 and two exhibits of postmortem no. 459/07. This witness has deposed that the postmortem of the dead body and of one leg was conducted and parcels were seized by the investigation officer vide Ex.PW23/C. According to him, the dead body was taken to Electric Cremation Ground, Punjabi Bagh and dead body along with the legs were handed over to Electric Cremation Officer namely Sh. Anil Kumar. He has further deposed that after cremation of the dead body Anil Kumar handed over a copy of register record CR no.333 dated 20.05.07. According to the witness, Investigating Officer also instructed to Anil Kumar that after the cremation the ashes of the burnt dead body should be kept in safe custody so that it may be delivered to claimants of the dead body and after cremation Anil Kumar also handed over token no.18 in respect of the ashes of the dead body. The witness has testified that Investigation Officer recorded the statement of Anil Kumar and thereafter, they returned back to Police Station where the case property was deposited by the investigation officer with MHC (M) and Investigation officer recorded his statement.
(128) According to the witness on 22.05.07 he again joined the investigation of this case with investigation officer and on that day photographer Rajesh Kumar, Proprietor of Sanjay Photo Studio, H. No.72, Village Titarpur, New Delhi handed over 12 coloured St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 106 photographs to the investigation officer which were taken by him at the time of recovery of dead body. He has further deposed that Investigation officer had given all the photographs serial no.1 to 12 and on the same day, ASI Naresh Kumar from Police Station Shalimar Bagh handed over four post card size coloured photographs it was taken vide DD No.8 PP Pitam Pura about recovery of left leg from near Nahar Ka Pull, Hyderpur Village, Delhi. He has proved that the Investigation Officer seized the photographs vide memo Ex.PW23/D and the photographs given by ASI Naresh Kumar were seized vide memo Ex.PW17/F. According to the witness, on the same day he joined the investigation of the present case and on that day Inspector Sunder Singh handed over photocopy of the disclosure statement, pointing out memo of accused Chander Kant Jha in case FIR no.609/06 u/s 302/201 IPC, Police Station Hari Nagar. According to him, Investigation Officer seized the photocopy papers vide memo Ex.PW23/E and investigation officer recorded his statement. He has identified 12 photographs of the dead body which were handed over by photographer Rajesh Kumar which are Ex.PW20/1 to Ex.PW20/12 and also identified one carton (gatta petti) of Campa Cola Soft drink company and it found contained another carton of water cooler, one shirt, one plastic katta, one plastic polythene, one nylon rope and another small carton having words of Tom and Jerry of Red colour which the witness has identified as the articles recovered along with the dead body which articles are collectively Ex.P18. (since there are no exhibits from P3 to P9 hence for the sake of convenience and to avoid any confusion this exhibit shall be henceforth read as Ex.P11).
(129) In his cross-examination this witness has deposed that about 10-12 persons were standing around the box at the distance of about 20- 25 steps and crime team reached at the spot within 15-20 minutes. He St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 107 has further deposed that he left the spot firstly at about 11.10 am with dead body and he returned back at about 11.40 pm and left the spot with rukka at about 11.45 pm and returned back alongwith the rukka and copy of FIR at about 1.15 pm. The witness has also deposed that before his leaving the spot with rukka only the seizure memos of all the articles, the application for preservation of dead body in the mortuary and the rukka were prepared by SI Manohar Lal. The witness has testified that on 20.05.07 investigation officer came to the mortuary at about 10.45 am and remained there upto 3.30 pm. According to him, the Investigation Officer had prepared seizure memos regarding handing over of exhibits to him by the doctor and his statement was recorded by the investigation officer on 25.04.07 on the spot itself and on 20.05.07 in the mortuary and also on 22.05.07 in the police station. This witness has denied the suggestion that he never joined any proceedings in the present case or that he signed the memos while sitting at the Police Station at the instance of the senior officers.
(130) SI Manohar Lal (PW46) has deposed that on 25.4.2007, he was posted at Police Station Hari Nagar and on that day he was on emergency duty from 8 AM to 8 PM. According to the witness, on that day at 8:34 AM he received DD No. 15A regarding the fact that a bag was lying near Gate No. 3, Tihar Jail from which blood was oozing out which DD is Ex.PW18/C. According to him on receipt of this information, he along with Ct. Ajeet reached the spot and found one carton box of water cooler lying between the wall of Gate No. 3 Tihar Jail and UTI ATM, from which, blood was oozing out. He has further deposed that he immediately called the photographer and the Crime Team to the spot and after the crime team reached the spot along with photographer, the official of the crime team opened the carton box and it St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 108 was found to contain a plastic katta which was containing a polythene bag of white colour from which blood was coming out. According to the witness, the polythene was wrapped inside the katta but was visible from the top from where it was tied with a rope. He has also deposed that after the crime team took photographs, the crime team opened the plastic katta and white colour polythene which was found to contain a dead body with missing limbs, missing head, missing both hands and missing private parts, which had been folded into the katta with the help of polythene and a shawl. The witness has also deposed that a shirt was also found inside the katta which was lying on one side and there was another cardboard/ gatta of red colour with the words Tom and Jerry for kids do boond jindagi ki, bachon ko najdik polio booth pe polio ki khurak piliay' written on it. According to him, the body was having a half sleeve baniyan and underwear of grey colour. He has also deposed that the photographs of the cut dead body were taken by the photographer and the crime team member officials inspected the scene of crime and prepared their report after which he took into possession the rope with which the katta was tied, the katta, the polythene, the shawl, the shirt, the carton box and cardboard/ gatta and converted the same into pullanda by putting them together and sealed with the same of ML. He has also deposed that he prepared the seizure memo of the same which is Ex.PW23/B and blood sample was lifted from the spot with the help of a gauze. He has proved having lifted the blood sample and the blood stained clothes and the earth control and that he prepared the seizure memo of the same, which is Ex.PW23/A. He has further deposed that he sent the cut body to the mortuary of DDU hospital through Ct. Ajeet and thereafter he prepared the rukka, which is Ex.PW46/A on DD entry and after Ct. Ajeet returned, he sent the rukka to the Police Station Hari Nagar at St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 109 about 11:45 AM through Ct. Ajeet. He has testified that Ct. Ajeet came back at about 1:15 PM along with original rukka and copy of the FIR. He has further deposed that in the meanwhile, Inspector Hoshiyar Singh came at the spot and Ct. Ajeet handed over the copy of FIR and original rukka to Inspector Hoshiyar Singh. He has also deposed that he also handed over the seizure memo prepared by him to inspector Hoshiyar Singh, who prepared the site plan on his pointing out, which is Ex.PW46/B. The witness has proved having prepared the punchnama of the dead body before sending it to the mortuary, which is Ex.PW46/C and when he sent Ct. Ajeet to mortuary, he gave him a request letter addressed to the CMO (Mortuary), which is Ex.PW46/D requesting him to preserve the dead body. According to him, he returned to Police Station and in the evening, his statement was recorded by inspector Hoshiyar Singh.
(131) This witness has further deposed that on 19.5.2007, he again joined investigation with Inspector Hoshiyar Singh and on the directions of Inspector Hoshiyar Singh, he went to BJRM hospital Jahangirpuri, where he met ASI Naresh Kumar Police Station Shalimar Bagh, who handed over to him an unsealed polythene bag duly tied with a rope containing one foot, which he brought to DDU hospital mortuary and deposited the same after which he returned to the Police Station and thereafter, his statement was recorded by Inspector Hoshiyar Singh. (132) This witness has identified the case property i.e. carton of water cooler, one shirt, one plastic katta, one polythene, one nylon rope and another carton having words Tom and Jerry of red colour which were recovered along with the dead body which articles are Ex.P18 collectively (henceforth to be read as Ex.P11 as already observed in the testimony of PW23).
St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 110(133) In his cross examination, this witness has admitted that when they reached the spot on receipt of the call, large number of public persons had gathered and has voluntarily explained that there were about 10-12 persons but has denied that the scene of crime had been disturbed. He has further deposed that the public persons were standing about 20- 25 steps away from the box. According to him, the crime team reached the spot within 15-20 minutes i.e. by 9:15 - 9:30 AM and he remained at the spot till about 3 - 3:30 PM and did not leave the spot during that period. He has further deposed that Ct. Ajeet left the spot at about 11:10 AM along with the dead body and request letter. He has testified that at the time when Ct. Ajeet first left the spot at 11:30 AM, both the seizure memos and the panchnama of the dead body had already been prepared and that his statements were recorded by the Inspector Hoshiyar Singh on 25.4.2007 and 19.5.2007 at police station. According to the witness, he went to BJRM hospital on 19.5.07 at about 11 AM - 12 noon and remained there for about three hours. He has denied the suggestion that he never joined any proceedings in the present case or that he signed the memos, while sitting at the Police Station at the instance of the senior officers. The witness has also denied that nothing was sealed and seized at the spot or that the documents and evidence were fabricated against the accused.
(134) SI Sharat Kohli (PW50) has deposed that on 29.6.2007, he was posted as Sub Inspector in Police Station Hari Nagar and on that day, he joined investigations along with Inspector Sukesh Singh. He has further deposed that he along with inspector Sukesh Singh had gone to Tihar Jail no.1 where the accused Chander Kant Jha was already in judicial custody in case FIR No. 609/06 and after taking permission from Superintendent Jail, Tihar, the accused Chander Kant Jha was produced St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 111 in the room of the Superintendent, where he was interrogated by Inspector Sukesh Singh in his presence and thereafter formally arrested vide memo Ex.PW50/A. According to him, on 7.7.2007 he along with Inspector Sukesh Singh went to house no. 229/2, Haiderpur, Delhi, where they met one Rajeev Kumar, who claimed himself to the owner of the said property. He has also deposed that Rajeev Kumar informed Inspector Sukesh Singh that the accused Chander Kant Jha (whom the witness has correctly identified in the Court) was residing as a tenant in one of the rooms on the ground floor, which he had taken on rent in the year 2006. The witness has testified that he also informed Inspector Sukesh that initially one boy Vikas used to stay in the premises as his tenant and it was Vikas, who introduced Chander Kant to him and it was on the asking of Vikas that he had given room to Chander Kant. He has also deposed that Rajeev Kumar also produced one BDO certificate issued by the Gram Panchayat, which is Ex.PW50/B and the said document was duly seized by inspector Sukesh vide memo Ex.PW9/A. He has also deposed that on 10.7.2007, on the directions of inspector Sukesh Singh, he went to Police Staion Loni, Gaziabad where the MHC(M) HC Vinod Kumar handed over to him one transparent glass jar duly closed but not sealed with the slip mentioning the words 'hindon river mortuary vide PM No. 542/07, the same was containing human parts. According to the witness, he brought the same to Police Station Hari Nagar and handed over the same to Inspector Sukesh who seized the same vide memo Ex.PW50/C and thereafter deposited the said jar in the malkhana. He has testified that on 27.7.2007, the parents of the deceased Upender namely Sri Ram and Dharmi @ Dharmo came to Police Station Hari Nagar and met Inspector Sukesh Singh and on the directions of Inspector Sukesh Singh, he took the exhibits containing the body parts St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 112 recovered at the instance of the accused to the FSL Rohini vide RC No. 47/21/07 and 48/21/07 and deposited the same in the FSL Rohini. He has also deposed that Sri Ram and Dharmi @ Dharmo accompanied him to FSL Rohini along with Inspector Sukesh Singh where their blood samples were taken by the experts for DNA finger printing / examination. According to the witness, there a form had been filled up, where he was also a witness and the same is Annexure-II (two pages) to the document/ DNA report which is Ex.PW47/A bearing the thumb impressions of Sri Ram at point D1 on first page of Annexure-II and thumb impressions of Dharmi @ Dharmo at point D2 on page 2 of Annexure-II, which he identified as he had seen them affixing them. He has identified the photograph of Sri Ram and Dharmi @ Dharmo at point E1 and E2 on Annexure-II on both the pages, which he identified as they had personally accompanied him to FSL Rohini. The witness has further deposed that thereafter, they returned to Police Station where his statement was recorded by the Investigating Officer. He has testified that on 30.7.2007, he along with Inspector Sukesh Singh went to FSL Rohini and vide RC No. 59/21/07 deposited a petti containing the viscera of the deceased in the Chemistry Division. According to him, they also deposited the other exhibits in the biology division vide RC No. 60/21/07 and thereafter, they returned to the PS, where his statement was recorded by the Investigating Officer.
(135) SI Sharat Kohli has further deposed that on 8.9.2007, he along with Inspector Sukesh Singh went to Police Station Loni Gaziabad, where he met HC Vinod, the MHC (M) and obtained the copy of the register no. 19 of the Malkhana from him. He has also deposed that Inspector Sukesh Singh also met SI Sarvesh Yadav Incharge Police Post Lal Bagh and collected the original inquest papers pertaining to PM No. St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 113 548/07, CMO No. 542/07, inquest form no. 211, DD entry no. 19 dated 25.4.07 PS Loni, Form no. 379, report of CMO, Challan form, report of senior prosecuting officer and sample seal, which were thereafter seized vide memo Ex.PW41/A. He has also deposed that thereafter they went to the market of area Lal Bagh where they met Mohd. Yamin and on the nishandehi / pointing out of Mohd. Yamin, Inspector Sukesh Singh prepared the site plan of the place from where the body parts were recovered which site plan is Ex.PW50/D. He has further deposed that after they returned to Police Station Hari Nagar and his statement was recorded by the Investigating Officer.
(136) In his cross examination, this witness has deposed that they reached at House No. 229/2 Haiderpur on 7.7.2007 during noon hours and Rajeev Kumar met them at some other house in the same locality. He is unable to tell the address of the house of Rajeev Kumar and states that the house of Rajeev Kumar was at a distance of about 10-15 minutes walk in the area of Haiderpur. According to him, firstly they went to House No. 229/2 Haiderpur where about 5-6 rooms in the said house at ground floor and except one room, all the rooms were occupied by tenants. He does not remember how many stories were there in House No. 229/2. According to him, address of the house of Rajeev was informed to them by the tenants. He has further deposed that Rajeev Kumar was a middle aged man aged about 30-35 years. He does not remember whether statement of any tenant at 229/2 was recorded or not. According to the witness, they remained at Tihar Jail No.1 for about one hour when they interrogated and formally arrested the accused. He has admitted that the jar containing human body parts, which he brought from Loni Gaziabad, were not sealed and has also denied that the above said case property was tampered during they remained in his possession.
St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 114He has admitted that said case property was not sealed even at Police Station Hari Nagar at the time of its deposit in the Malkhana. The witness has also deposed that on 27.7.2007, only Sri Ram and Dharmi were with them, when they went to FSL Rohini for taking samples of blood and no relative of Sri Ram and Dharmi were with them at that time. He has admitted that Sri Ram and Dharmi were not known to him prior to that day. According to the witness, Inspector Sukesh Singh told him about the identification of Sri Ram and Dharmi. He has also admitted that blood samples were not taken in his presence and has voluntarily explained that the entry inside the room, where the samples were taken, is restricted and none can enter except the person, whose samples are taken and strict secrecy is maintained by the FSL. According to the witness, he was waiting outside the said room, where only Sri Ram and Dharmi had entered, while their samples were taken. He has denied the suggestion that he had never joined the investigations of this case on any date or that he signed all the documents, while sitting in the police station. He has further denied that he never visited the Police Station Loni Gaziabad in connection with the present case or that he never visited the house no. 229/2, Haiderpur. He has also denied the suggestion that he never met Rajeev Kumar at Haiderpur or that he was deposing falsely at the instance of the Investigating Officer. (137) Inspector Hoshiyar Singh (PW55) has deposed that on 25.04.2007, he was posted at Police Station Hari Nagar and on that day, he had received an information vide DD no.15A Ex.PW18/C regarding a carton box lying between gate no.3, Tihar Jail, near UTI ATM containing a plastic katta from which blood was oozing out and appeared suspicious. According to him, SI Manohar Lal was deputed by the Duty Officer to go to the spot on which SI Manohar Lal and Ct Ajit went to St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 115 the spot i.e. gate no.3 Tihar Jail. He has testified that he was in the Police Station at that time and was on patrolling/picket checking duty and he immediately left the Police Station vide DD no.16A Ex.PW18/D and thereafter, he reached Tihar Jail gate no.3 near UTI ATM. The witness has further deposed that SI Manohar Lal along with Ct Ajeet Singh were already present there and that he noticed an old carton box of a water cooler on which the words "single blower" was written and the design of water cooler was printed on the same. He has testified that the said carton box was containing a plastic katta from which blood was oozing out. According to him, SI Manohar Lal informed him that he had already called the photographer and the crime team and he waited for the crime team to come. He has further deposed that meanwhile private photographer Rajesh Kumar who was called to the spot reached there and after 15-20 minutes crime team reached the spot and inspected the spot of crime and the photographs were taken from different angles both by the photographers of the crime team and the private photographer. According to the witness, thereafter the officials of the crime team opened the katta / bag and it was found to contain a white plastic bag, which was also opened and inside the same there was a cut body with missing body parts wrapped inside a shawl and was tied with a brown coloured nylon rope and jute rope. He has also deposed that after it was opened, the body was found to be decapitated and the head, arms, legs below the knee and private parts were missing, while the body had been bend from the legs and blood was oozing out from the same and inside the said polythene bag along with the body there was also one red coloured card board on which there was a tattoo with the words "The original jeery and TOM(R) for little kids" and further the words "do boond jindage ki" followed by a star, further written "paanch saal k St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 116 partek bachae ko nazdigi polio booth pe polio ke khurak pilay. Polio ki khurak apke bachhe ko polio se bachate hai". He has further deposed that apart from the above cardboard, one shirt of light parrot green coloured was also lying in the katta. According to the witness, the dead body on inspection was found to be of a male aged around 28-30 years, medium built, shallow complexion and was having a sleeve less baniyan and a grey coloured underwear. This witness has further deposed that after the photographs were taken and the inspection was completed, SI Manahor Lal converted the carton box, katta, polythene bag, cardboard and shirt into a pullanda and duly sealed the same with the seal of ML and thereafter seized the same vide memo Ex.PW23/B. According to him, SI Manohar Lal also lifted the blood stains from the spot, blood sample from the place where the carton box was lying, earth sample and converted the same into pullanda and sealed with the seal of ML and seized the same vide memo Ex.PW23/A. He has testified that SI Manohar Lal thereafter prepared the panchanama of the dead body and send the same to mortuary DDU hospital through Ct Ajeet along with the request to the CMO for preserving the dead body for 72 hours. According to the witness SI Manohar Lal prepared the rukka which is Ex.PW46/A and send the same to the Police Station through Ct Ajeet for getting the case registered. He has also deposed that SI Manohar Lal recorded the statement of the guard Akhilesh Yadav and after the FIR was registered Ct Ajeet returned to the spot along with the copy of FIR which is Ex.PW18/A and the original rukka which he handed over to him. The witness has proved having prepared the site plan at the instance of SI Manohar Lal, which is Ex.PW53/A. According to him, thereafter he sent message to control room that the cut body had been recovered and in case if any body part recovered it should be reported to St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 117 SHO Police Station Hari Nagar. He has also deposed that SI Lalit, Incharge of the crime team and HC Surender also submitted the report to him at the spot itself, which is Ex.PW26/A. (138) According to the witness on the same day i.e. on 25.04.2007, they received an information from the PCR that one human leg had been recovered in the area of police post Pitampura, Police Station Shalimar Bagh and proceedings in this regard is being carried out by ASI Naresh Kumar, Police Post Pitampura. He has further deposed that thereafter, he along with the staff and case property reached Police Post Pitampura and conducted necessary inquiries and efforts were also made information about any missing person but to no avail. According to him, thereafter he alongwith the staff returned back to the Police Station where SI Manohar Lal deposited the case property in the malkhana. He has also deposed that thereafter he examined certain witnesses and recorded their statements and thereafter, he conducted the investigation of this case and made efforts to get the dead body identified and to arrest the accused. The witness has further proved that on 19.05.2007 on his directions, SI Manohar Lal collected the severed human leg from Police Station Shalimar Bagh which was deposited at the mortuary of DDU hospital for preservation of the same and the postmortem of the same was conducted on 20.05.2007 vide his request dated 19.05.2007 which is Ex.PW55/A. He has testified that on 20.05.2007 the postmortem examination of the dead body as well as leg was conducted after which Ct Ajeet took the sealed exhibits totaling seven in number which he handed over to him on which he seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW23/C. He has further deposed that thereafter, the exhibits were deposited in the malkhana of the Police Station and the unidentified dead body was sent to Punjabi Bagh Crematorium for cremation and his ashes were St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 118 preserved. The witness has also deposed that on 20.05.2007 vide DD No.21A which is Ex.PW34/A regarding the apprehension and arrest of accused Chandrakant Jha (correctly identified by the witness) in case FIR No. 609/06, PS Hari Nagar, pursuant to which he spoke to Inspector Sunder Singh who informed him that the accused was in police custody remand in that case. The witness has testified that he requested Inspector Sunder Singh to provide him the copy of the disclosure statement of the accused Chandrakant Jha and on 22.05.2007, Inspector Sunder Singh produced accused Chandrakant Jha at Police Station Hari Nagar and handed over to him five documents i.e. disclosure statement, Ex.PW43/C, pointing out cum recovery memo of weapons Ex.PW43/D, pointing out cum seizure memo of exhibits Ex.PW44/B, pointing out memo of the place where body parts had been dropped Ex.PW43/F and pointing out memo of the place where body parts had been dropped Ex.PW43/G. According to the witness, on the same day i.e. 22.05.2007, photographs were received from ASI Naresh Kumar of Police Post Pitampura and also from the private photographer namely Rajesh Kumar on which he prepared the seizure memo of the photographs received from photographer Rajesh Kumar vide Ex.PW23/D and that of the photographs received from ASI Naresh vide Ex.PW23/F. He has identified the photographs Ex.PW21/I to Ex.PW21/12, which were handed over to him by photographer Rajesh Kumar and Ex.PW17/G-1 and Ex.PW17/G-2 along with two more photographs were handed over to him by ASI Naresh. He has testified that during the course of investigation, he recorded the statement of various witnesses and on 24.05.07, he was transferred from Police Station Hari Nagar and he handed over the file to the MHC(R) of PS Hari Nagar.
St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 119(139) In his cross examination, the witness has deposed that he does not remember the name of the duty officer, who was posted at Police Station Hari Nagar from 2PM to 8PM on 20.05.2007. According to him, he is deposing before the Court on the basis of his personal memory and has voluntarily stated that he had also refreshed his memory from the official record. He has further deposed that he remained as SHO Police Station Hari Nagar from 06.06.2006 till 24.05.2007 and was transferred from Police Station Hari Nagar on 24.05.2007 to District Lines. According to the witness, his transfer was normal/ routine transfer and not on account of some punishment or complaint. He has also deposed that the cremation of deceased Upender took place on 20.05.2007 and has voluntarily explained that it was at Punjabi Bagh Electric Cremation Ground. He does not recollect if on 20.05.2007, he was carrying his personal mobile. He has testified that so far as he remember, he made a ravangi in the Police Station before leaving for the hospital for getting the postmortem. According to him, on that day he had left the Police Station at about 10-10:30 AM but he does not recollect the exact time. He also does not recollect if on 20.05.2007 any raiding party was constituted by Inspector Sunder Singh and has voluntarily explained that he was in the hospital for getting the postmortem conducted. He has admitted that prior to 20.05.2007, he was involved in the investigations of another case relating to recovery of a dead body outside Tihar Jail. The witness has also deposed that there is no television installed at Police Station Hari Nagar nor there is regular system of supply of Newspapers at Police Station Hari Nagar. He has also admitted that he was involved in the investigations of the cases relating to serial killing outside Tihar Jail and was updated with the latest investigations in relation to the same. According to him, on 20.05.2007 it was in the late St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 120 evening hours that he came to know that the serial killer, who used to throw the dead bodies outside the Tihar Jail, had been arrested since they had received this information vide DD No. 21A and it was after the dead body of Upender was cremated that they got this information regarding the arrest of the accused. He does not recollect who had written the DD regarding his Wapsi on 20.05.2007 and has voluntarily explained that he had made the wapsi. The witness has testified that he recorded the statement of Pankaj Kumar brother of deceased Upender on 22.05.2007 who had been called and had not come voluntarily. He does not recollect the time when Pankaj came to the Police Station nor does he recollect who had brought Pankaj to the Police Station and from where. According to the witness, Pankaj did not hand over any photo of Upender to him on 22.05.2007. He does not recollect if he had demanded any photograph of Upender from Pankaj and states that the statement had been made by Pankaj voluntarily and they did not record the same of their own. The witness has testified that it was Pankaj who told them that Chanderkant Jha used to work in the Subzi Mandi but he did not write anything which Pankaj had not stated and has voluntarily explained that statement recorded by them was as per what Pankaj had stated. He has admitted that Pankaj had told them that the younger brother of Upender namely Pawan had run away from the house and was at Prayas at Jahangirpuri and at that time, his father had also come to Delhi to fetch Pawan. The witness has also deposed that Pankaj had told them that when their father had came to Delhi, he stayed at Sannot in the room of Upender. He does not recollect if any investigations were made confirming if Upender had ever stayed at Sannot. He witness has denied the suggestion that above facts have been mentioned by them for their own and Pankaj never mentioned about the same to them or that they had St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 121 deliberately not made any investigations with regard to the accommodation of Upender at Sannaut and suppressed this fact from the court because it would have been adverse to their case and beneficial in showing the innocence of the accused. He does not recollect if any inquiry was made in the subzi mandi on the aspect if Upender and Chander Kant were working in the subzi mandi. After seeing the record, the witness has voluntarily stated that no inquiry was made at subzi mandi. According to the witness, he also did not make any inquiry at Haiderpur to ascertain whether Upender used to reside there with the accused or not not he took Pankaj either to Haiderpur or to Azadpur subzi mandi. He has further deposed that Pankaj had disclosed that he had spoken to Upender on his mobile phone till 24.04.2007 but he did not collect the CDRs of the mobile of Upender bearing No. 9211463743 as given by Pankaj. According to him, he did not record any statement of the factory owners at Barwala namely Naresh nor collected any documents from them after he came to know that Upender, who was employed at factory at Barwala where he was also previously employed, was not going there for 3-4 days. He has further deposed that he had recorded the statement of real brother of Upender namely Harender on 24.05.2007. According to the witness, he had recorded the statement of Harender in his presence. This witness has denied the suggestion that he recorded the statement of Harender of his own. He has testified that the memo regarding received of ashes of Upender was received by his brother Harender was prepared which is Ex.PW55/DX1 but he is unable to tell who had written the same. According to him, in so far as he recollect he had interrogated ASI Naresh Kumar twice, first at Police Post Pitampura and thereafter at Police Station Hari Nagar and has voluntarily explained that his statement was recorded at Police Post St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 122 Pitampura and on 22.05.2007 at Police Station Hari Nagar but he does not recollect the time. He has denied the suggestion that he never recorded the statement of ASI Naresh Kumar. He has further deposed that in so far as he recollects, he had recorded the statement of SI Satya Parkash only once on 25.04.2007. According to him, he does not remember if he had also recorded any other statement of SI Satya Parkash on 25.04.2007. He does not remember the dates when he had recorded the statements of SI Anil Kumar, ASI Harjinder Singh and Ct. Suresh Gupta. He has further deposed that he had recorded the statement of SI Anil Kumar as per his own version. He has admitted that all the three witnesses i.e. SI Anil Kumar, ASI Harjinder Singh and Ct. Suresh Gupta had stated in their statements recorded on 22.05.2007 that as per the pointing out of accused Chander Kant Jha, Inspector Sunder Singh had broken the lock of the room and the crime team had conducted further proceedings at house No. 229, Haiderpur. He has further admitted that on 29.04.2007, information was received from Police Station Loni that one hand and private parts of some known person had recovered in the area of Police Station Loni. He has also admitted that accused Chanderkant Jha was never lodged in the lock up of Police Station Hari Nagar. The witness has denied that he did not carry out the investigations fairly and independently or that he was led by his senior officers during the investigations into falsely implicating the accused and it is for this reason, he did not bring the complete facts on record. (140) Inspector Hoshiyar Singh (PW55) was recalled for additional examination pursuant to the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C wherein he has deposed that accused Chanderkant Jha was arrested by Inspector sunder Singh in case FIR No. 609/06 under Section 302/201 IPC Police Station. Hari Nagar and in his personal search Ex.PW43/B, St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 123 one mobile make TATA SAMSUNG was recovered having ESN No. 8562-A099 and having SIM of TATA INDICOM No. 9211463742 in respect of which the CDRs which are Ex.PW29/B (running into nine pages) and Ex.PW29/D (running into ten pages) were obtained which also show the location chart of the said mobile. He has also deposed that he examined Pankaj who informed him that he used to speak to Upender from village Bhiwari on the mobile number of accused Chanderkant 9211463742 and 9211463743.
(141) In his cross-examination, this witness has deposed that the mobile phone had been got recovered by the team headed by Inspector Sunder Singh and therefore, he is unable to tell whether any finger prints were lifted from the mobile set recovered from the personal search of accused Chanderkant Jha or not. He has admitted that the number on which Pankaj used to speak to Chanderkant is not in the name of Chanderkant Jha. He is unable to tell the name of the subscriber and has voluntarily explained that the phone was being used by Chander Kant Jha. The witness has testified that he does not recollect the name of the person/ subscriber but he can tell after seeing the record and after seeing the record the witness has stated that both the numbers being used by Chanderkant Jha were in the name of Rahul Jain. He has further deposed that he is not aware if Rahul Jain had been interrogated with regard to the use of the said number and has voluntarily explained that he was transferred during the investigations. According to him, Upender did not have any separate phone and according to Pankaj he used to speak to Upender on the mobile phone of accused Chanderkant Jha on both the numbers stated above. He also does not recollect if Pankaj had accompanied him and joined the investigations and if after recording the statement of Pankaj some investigations were conducted where Pankaj St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 124 joined them.
(142) SI Krishan Baldev (PW57) has deposed that on 25.04.2007, he was working as Incharge Police Post Town Loni, District Ghaziabad and on that day, at about 11AM, information had been received that some person left two boxes containing private part/ penis and one head near the shop of the juice, near Subzi Mandi Khadanja. According to him, this information was recorded vide DD No. 19 dated 25.04.2007 at Police Station Loni after which he along with his staff reached at Chowki Lal Bagh, where he found the aforesaid box in a plastic thaili. He has further deposed that he checked the boxes and one box was found to contain one hand and other box was found to contain the penis. He has proved having prepared the panchnama which is Ex.PW57/A running into two pages on both sides and took the signatures of public witnesses who were the witnesses of panchnama namely Yasin, Mobin, Chand, Arif and Sunil Kumar on the aforesaid panchnama. He has proved the copy of GD on which they reached the police post which is Ex.PW40/A. The witness has testified that he prepared the "photo naas" vide Ex.PW57/B and got the aforesaid part photographed. According to him, he prepared the request made to CMO, MMG hospital, Ghaziabad, which is Ex.PW57/C for getting the said part preserved. He has also proved having filled up Form 13 which is Ex.PW57/D and having prepared the report which is Ex.PW57/E. He has also deposed that this document was prepared for ascertaining the finger print addressed to senior public prosecutor, Ghaziabad and he prepared the sample of seal vide Ex.PW57/F and the aforesaid parts were sent to mortuary MMG hospital, Ghaziabad for getting the postmortem conducted. He has testified that he handed over the copy of postmortem report to the Investigating Officer Inspector Sukesh Singh and that Inspector Hoshiyar St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 125 Singh recorded his statement. This witness has not been cross examined in any manner on behalf of accused hence, his testimony remained unassailed.
(143) Inspector Sukesh Singh (PW58) has deposed that on 24.05.2007, the previous Investigating Officer Inspector Hoshiyar Singh has been transferred and further investigation of this case was handed over to him and he received the case file from MHC(R) which he perused. He has testified that on 20.06.2007, he called the Draftsman SI Mahesh and took him to the spot i.e. Gate No.3, Tihar Jail, who took the measurement and rough notes at the instance of SI Manohar Lal and prepared the scaled site plan, which is Ex.PW19/A. According to him, on 28.06.2007 he had come to the Court of Sh. Manoj Kumar, Ld. MM, Rohini Court and moved an application before Ld. MM seeking permission to interrogate the accused Chander Kant Jha, who was already in judicial custody in case FIR No. 609/06, Police Station Hari Nagar and after taking permission from Ld. MM on 28/06/2007, the accused was interrogated on 29.06.2007. He has further deposed that after being satisfied, the accused was arrested in case vide memo Ex.PW50/A. He has also deposed that on 04.07.2007, Inspector Sunder Singh handed over two photographs (one was having two persons and second reflecting three persons). He has further deposed that both the photographs were having picture of deceased Upender and the photocopy of the said photographs are Ex.PW3/D and Ex.PW3/DB. According to him, he took the said photographs into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW20/A. According to him, on 07.07.2007, he called Sh. Rajiv Kumar through SI Sharat Kohli and was interrogated who informed him that he had given his room to the accused Chanderkant Jha on the asking of one Vikas, who was known to the accused Chanderkant Jha.
St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 126According to the witness, Vikas was a tenant of Rajiv and therefore, Rajiv knew him even previously. He has further deposed that the said Rajiv Kumar handed over to him one photocopy of certificate issued by Gramin Sabha, Haider Pur showing that the said house is in the name of grandmother and photocopy of electricity bill, photocopy of DL, which was in the name of Rajiv Kumar. According to the witness, he took the aforesaid documents into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW9/A and the certificate is Ex.PW50/B, the electricity bill is Ex.PW58/A and the copy of the DL is Ex.PW58/B. (144) He has further testified that on 10.07.2007, he sent SI Sharat Kohli to Police Station Loni, District Ghaziabad to collect the jar containing the left hand and penis, which was unsealed. He has further deposed that SI Sharat Kohli had brought the same and handed over to him and he took the said jar into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW50/C. He has further deposed that on 13.07.2007, he went to DDU hospital and collected the postmortem report No. 458/07 Ex.PW54/A and PM report No. 459/07, which is Ex.PW58/C, prepared by Dr. Anil Shandilya of DDU hospital. The witness has also deposed that on 27.07.2007, he along with SI Sharat Kohli, Sh. Jai Jeet, the nursing orderly of blood bank DDU hospital, Shri Ram, father of the deceased Upender and mother Smt. Dharmi went to FSL Rohini along with the exhibits of this case where the exhibits were deposited at FSL Rohini vide RC No. 47-48/21/07. According to the witness, the FSL official Sh. Srivastava, Assistant Director, FSL and aforesaid Jai Jeet took the blood sample of Shri Ram and his wife Smt. Dharmi and thereafter, they came back to the Police Station. According to the him, on 30.07.2007, he along with SI Sharat Kohli again came to FSL Rohini and deposited the viscera in FSL vide RC No. 59-60/21/07. He has St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 127 proved having recorded the statements of SI Sharat Kohli, Shri Ram, Smt. Dharmi, Sh. Srivastava and Jaijeet U/s. 161 of Cr.P.C. He has also deposed that on 28.08.2007, he recorded the statement of Sh. Seveya Rathore of PCR, Warder Sh. Sumit Kumar, Ct. Driver Ram Vir Singh of PCR, HC Ramavatar of Police Station Hari Nagar, special messenger and ASI Hari Chander of PCR U/s. 161 Cr.P.C. According to the witness, on 30.08.2007, Inspector Sunder Singh handed over to him three copies of pointing out memos, which he prepared in case FIR No. 609/06 of Police Station Hari Nagar on which he prepared the seizure memo of the aforesaid photocopies vide Ex.PW58/D which photocopies of memo of pointing out are Ex.PW43/IU, Ex.PW43/H and Ex.PW43/E. According to him, on 04.09.2007, photographer Rajesh Kumar handed over to him 12 photographs along with 14 negatives including 2 damaged negative, which he took into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW58/E. He has also deposed that on 05.09.2007, HC Rajbir Singh went to mobile crime team, Pitam Pura and brought 12 photographs and handed over same to him. The witness has further deposed that he handed over the call details of two mobile phones from Tata Telecoms services of mobile No. 9211463743/ 42 which he took into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW29/A which call details of mobile phone No. 9211463742 and 43 are Ex.PW29/B and Ex.PW29/D respectively. According to him, the call details reveals that brother of deceased Upender namely Pankaj Rathore used to call from Bhiwari on the aforesaid two mobile numbers and that the mobile phone No. 9211463743 showed only two calls on 27.03.2007, whereas the mobile phone No. 9211463742 showed various calls on 17.05.2007. The witness has also deposed that on 06.09.2007, Ct Habib Khan handed over to him 17 photographs, which he took into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW58/F which photographs are St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 128 Ex.PW58/G-1 to Ex.PW58/G-17. He has further testified that on 06.09.2007, he went to Police Post Pitam Pura, where he met ASI Naresh Kumar after which they both reached at AU Block, near Canal, from where, one leg was recovered where he (witness) prepared the site plan, which is Ex.PW58/H. According to him, on 08.09.2007, he went to Police Station Loni along with his staff and met SI Sarvesh Yadav, Incharge Police Post Town Loni, District Ghaziabad and collected the original documents including panchnama Ex.PW57/A and Ex. PW40/A, Ex. PW57/B to Ex.PW57/F and Ex.PW56/A. According to the witness, he called Mohd. Yasin Malik in the Police Post and thereafter, they went near the Juice shop, from where, the leg and penis were recovered in the box and thereafter he prepared the site plan at the instance of Mohd. Yasin which is Ex.PW50/D. He has proved having recorded the statement of Mr. Vijayan, Nodal Officer of Tata Telecoms. The witness has further deposed that on 13.09.2007, he called SI Mahesh, draftsman and they went to Police Station Loni where he prepared the measurement and rough notes at the aforesaid place i.e. near Juice shop and further prepared the scaled site plan and handed over the same to him, which is Ex.PW13/B. He has also deposed that thereafter, they both reached at AU Block, Pitam Pura where SI Mahesh Kumar prepared the rough notes and measurement at the instance of ASI Naresh Kumar. He then prepared the scaled site plan which is Ex.PW19/D. According to him, they both came at Haiderpur and called Inspector Sunder Singh at whose instance SI Mahesh Kumar prepared the rough notes and measurement and thereafter SI Mahesh Kumar prepared the scaled site plan, which is Ex.PW19/C which was handed over to him. He has proved having recorded the statements of witnesses and prepared the charge sheet. He has correctly identified the accused Chanderkant Jha in the Court and has St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 129 also identified 12 photographs which are Ex.PW21/1 to Ex.PW21/12, which were handed over by photographer Rajesh.
(145) In his cross examination, this witness has denied the suggestion that the site plan Ex.PW13/B was not prepared in his presence or that he did not prepare the site plan Ex.PW58/H and Ex.PW50/D. He has deposed that he took permission from Ld. MM Sh. Manoj Kumar on 28.07.2007 and on the next day i.e. on 29.07.2007, he interrogated the accused in Jail No.1 in the Office of superintendent, Tihar Jail. He has further deposed that he did not record the disclosure of the accused either in the court or in the jail. He has admitted that the accused was not arrested by him and has voluntarily deposed that the accused was formally arrested in this case as he was already running in judicial custody. The witness has also deposed that two photographs were produced by Inspector Sunder Singh, which he took into possession. He has admitted that he cannot identify deceased Upender in the photograph as the photographs were not handed over to him by the family members of Upender and has voluntarily explained that the said photographs were handed over to Inspector Sunder Singh by the brother of deceased Upender. According to him, he did not interrogate Vikas nor he made any efforts to find out who is Vikas. He has admitted that the site plan prepared by SI Mahesh does not bear his signatures and has voluntarily explained that the said site plan was prepared by SI Mahesh in the office and not in his presence. He has denied the suggestion that the name of Vikas is imaginary and does not exist and his name was only brought in the investigations by him only to complete the sequence. He has further denied that the entire documentation was done, while sitting in the Police Station on the directions of the senior police officers and he signed the same only on their asking, or that he had deposed falsely on the St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 130 instructions of the senior officials only to work out the present case and to ensure the penal consequences to the accused.
(146) Sh. Rishi Pal (PW61), Addl. DCP West district, Delhi, has deposed that on 27.12.2011, he was working as Addl. DCP-I, West District-cum-Public Information Officer and on that day, he had supplied the information to Chanderkant Jha, UTP under RTI vide Ex.PW34/DX1. He has further deposed that on 17.01.2011, he had issued the corrigendum with regard to the previous information, which is Ex.PW61/A. (147) In his cross examination, this witness has deposed that corrigendum Ex.PW61/A had been issued after it was brought to his notice that the reply given to the applicant Chander Kant Jha was not in accordance with the official record and appeared to be incorrect. He has denied the suggestion that deliberately an incorrect reply was given to the applicant Chanderkant Jha in the RTI on two occasions i.e. vide Ex.PW34/DX1 and vide Ex.PW61/DX1 only to mislead him. He has further denied that he was filling up the lacunas in the case and has voluntarily explained that he was the public information officer, who had issued the corrigendum.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED/ DEFENCE EVIDENCE:
(148) After completion of prosecution evidence the statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein all the incriminating evidence was put to him which he has denied. (149) According to the accused he was working at Sabzimandi Azadpur where there is a police chowki near the place where his adda was being put and the police officers from the chowki used to often come to him for taking vegetables without making payment for the same to St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 131 which he objected but his vegetables were forcibly taken. He has further stated that they also used to take money from various vegetables vendors including himself as a monthly / protection money and initially they used to take Rs.200/- to Rs.300/- in the year 1990 but later on they increased the rate to almost Rs.2,000/- in the year 1995-96. According to him, after he got married in the year 1997 he could not pay them because of his increased expenses and therefore he was falsely implicated by them in criminal cases. He has further stated that in the year 1998, there was a murder in the Azadpur Mandi where the body which was recovered had been beheaded and the head was missing wherein he was also taken for inquires by the police along with other persons from the Mandi.
According to the accused, in the same year he was told by the junior officers to procure a bike for the senior officer and he was also told that he may not make the payment of monthly till Holi, on which he told them that he could not pay as he had to go home on Diwali. The accused has further deposed that on this he was lifted from his house at Sarai Pipalthala before Diwali and was detained in the Police Station for five days after which he was falsely implicated in the said murder case which had taken place at Azadpur Mandi. According to him, the other boys from the Mandi who had come to secure his release namely Chhuttan, Jawar and his brother Sadanand were also falsely implicated. He has also stated that he remained in jail for three years after which he was acquitted by the court and after he was released, he worked for some days in the Mandi but the police again started harassing him and therefore in the year 2003 he left the job of sale of vegetables and started the work of sale of plastic items of domestic use which he used to sell in the weekly bazars and at homes as well. According to him, in year 2003 he shifted from Sarai Pipalthala to village Sahipur in the house of St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 132 Dilawar Singh where he stayed till the year 2005 and in November 2005 he was falsely implicated in a case of scooter theft under Section 411 IPC by the police of Police Station Samaipur Badli and had to remain in jail till 17 July 2006. The accused has stated that he had secured a bail in that case when he was released in July 2006 and in the meanwhile his wife and children continued to reside at village Sahipur. He has also stated that he had to vacate the said house thereafter as his landlord refused to permit him to stay in the house on account of his involvements after which he shifted to the house of Sanjay in Gali No.6, Haiderpur where his youngest daughter was born in August, 2006. He has further stated that he could not afford the rent of the said room and therefore after two months during the Diwali of 2006 he started residing at Alipur in a house at Dayal market which was behind the house from where he was lifted by the police. According to the accused in the initial months of 2007, he had gone to the court to attend a date and was appearing in the court of Sh. Prashant Kumar, MM, when he was picked up from there and taken to Police Station Hari Nagar. The accused has further stated that after his interrogation, he was left after a few hours and they also saw the room where he was staying with his family which he had shown to them. He has also stated that on three or four occasions he was called by the police from the room for purposes of inquiries in some murder cases and that they also took copies of the charge sheets of his other cases. According to the accused they also inquired from him about the details of the other persons who had been facing criminal trial along with him in other cases and he told them that his brother had gone back home. He has further stated that he told them that Mohd. Chhuttan had gone back home because of the Rojas and he had no links with Jawar Singh. According to him, since police used to frequently visit his house, his St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 133 children were scared that he may again be implicated by the police and he told them that they would change the house and not inform the police and they need not be scared and therefore he changed the room and shifted to House No. 592, Alipur in the house of Dayal Singh Maan. He has stated that from the said house he continued the work of sale of articles of domestic use by putting a thaiya on his cart and also used to sell these articles in the weekly bazars. According to him, on 19.5.2007 in the evening while he and his family were about to take dinner suddenly some police official i.e. SI Narender entered the room and inquired about his name and after he disclosed his name to him (SI Narender) he called him outside and when he tried to speak to him, he was not prepared to listen. The accused has further stated that his wife Mamta also objected but in the meanwhile a large number of police officials came and lifted him and took him to Haiderpur. He has further stated that later on, when his wife had come to visit him after seven days, she told him that even she and children and their neighbour Ram Sagar were also lifted and taken away. ACP Anil Lal and SI Dalip Kaushik were already present in the said vehicle in which his was lifted. According to him, in Haiderpur he was kept for hardly five minutes in the house of Rajiv Kumar who had come to the court to depose where they spoke to some person and said something to them and again brought him back to the Rajouri Garden Police Station where he was kept in handcuffs. He has also stated that throughout the night he was shifted to various police stations and large number of papers were prepared. The accused has further stated that he insisted that his family should be informed about his arrest where he was being kept but he was asked to keep quite and told that they would permit him to meet his family in the police station. According to him, in the morning he was shifted to the St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 134 office of special staff where he was kept for ten days during the period of remand. He has further stated that he was not permitted to speak anything during this period and paraded before the media after they caught hold of him from all sides. He has denied having made any disclosure to the police or having pointed out any place. According to him, all documents have been prepared by the police of their own and he was compelled to sign various witnesses by torturing him and he had no option but to comply. He has stated that nothing was recovered at his instance and the Jamatalasi as shown by the police has been planted. According to the accused the police officers have all made false statements. He has further stated that he is a poor man and a victim of the police system and of the atrocities committed by them. He has further stated that he has been falsely implicated in this case because the police was under immense pressure to workout the various cases and it was only because of his earlier murder case of Police Station Azadpur where a beheaded body had been found in the Mandi in which case he had been acquitted by the Hon'ble court, that the police in order to workout the later cases have now implicated him in the present case, with which he has no concern. He has further stated that deceased Anil Mandal was not known to him and he has no concern with him or his family and the question of his having any reason to cause any harm to him does not arise. He has alleged that all the documents so produced by the investigating agency have been created by the police to implicate him and when he was arrested, the police officials had given kharcha (expenses) for two three months to his wife and told the landlord not to harass his wife for rent of the house. According to him, the police also told his wife that she would not worry and he would be released after one to one and a half year. He has also stated that the police promised him St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 135 that if he admit his involvement in these cases, they would leave him after about one to one and a half year. He has further stated that he has been targeted by the police being poor person.
(150) The accused Chanderkant Jha has examined himself as his own witness as DW1 wherein he has deposed that he has falsely implicated in the present case earlier in the year 2002 in which case he was acquitted by the Hon'ble Court and copy of the said judgment is Mark X1 (collectively). According to him, he was in jail in the year 2006 from 29th November 2005 to 17 th July 2006 and in this regard the RTI Informations received from Information Officer, Central Jail Tihar and Rohini are Ex.DW1/A and Ex.DW1/B. He has relied upon the news reports Ex.DW1/C collectively and has deposed that he was never produced in the Court from jail on 26.6.2007 and in this regard the RTI reply from Information Officer, District Jail Rohini is Ex.DW1/D collectively running into four pages and the RTI reply received from Third Battalion is Ex.DW1/E collectively running into three pages. The accused/ witness has also placed his reliance upon the RTI reply received from Information Officer, Sh. Rishi Pal, Addl. DCP First, regarding his release in FIR No. 620/2003 PS Hair Nagar from the court, copy of which reply is Ex.DW1/F; the RTI reply received from Sh. B. K. Singh, Public Information Officer, Outer District, Delhi Police regarding his release from the court of Sh. Sanatan Prasad, MM, Rohini in case FIR No. 749/05 PS Mongolpuri, copy of which reply is Ex.DW1/G; RTI reply pertaining to the fact that SI Jai Prakash was not a part of raiding party on 20.5.2007, copy of which reply is Ex.DW1/H; RTI reply received from the office of Commissioner of Police, Delhi showing that he (accused) had never remained in jail with the Anil Mandal @ Amit S/o Tiwari Mandal, Village Oghari, PO Maijsa Munda, PS Khalgaon, St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 136 Distt. Bhagalpur, Bihar, which reply is Ex.DW1/I collectively running into 21 pages.
(151) The accused has further placed on record the certified copy of judgment dated 30.10.2009 passed by Sh. Sudhanshu Kaushik, Ld. M.M. Rohini Court in case State Vs. Mohd. Vaseem etc. FIR No. 452/03, U/s 457/380/411/34 IPC of P.S. S.P. Badli wherein he has been acquitted, which judgment is Ex.DW1/J; certified copy of judgment dated 20.08.2009 passed by Sh. Sudhanshu Kaushik, Ld. M.M. Rohini Court in case State Vs. Chander Kant Jha, FIR No. 531/03, U/s 380/451/411/34 IPC of P.S. S.P. Badli wherein he has been acquitted, which is Ex.DW1/K; RTI information dated 24.08.2009 received from Superintendent Jail Tihar, Jail No. 8/9 which is Ex.DW1/L alongwith the photograph which is Ex.DW1/M; RTI dated 27.04.2009 received from General Manager (OP & CPIO) K.L. Bhawan, Janpath, Delhi which is running into four pages which is Ex.DW1/N; RTI dated 26.11.2010 received from Central Public Information Officer-cum-Addl. Deputy Commissioner of Police-I, West District, New Delhi is running into two pages which is Ex.DW1/O. (152) DW2 Narender Rana Warden from Rohini Jail has brought the summoned record pertaining to accused Chander Kant Jha S/o Sh. Radhey Kant. According to him, as per the jail record, Chander Kant Jha was lodged in Rohini jail from 18.03.2006 to 17.07.2006 in the following cases:
1. FIR No. 1003/05, U/s 379 IPC, P.S. Shalimar Bagh.
2. FIR No. 1004/05, U/s 379/411 IPC, P.S. Shalimar Bagh.
3. FIR No. 452/03, U/s 457/380/411/34 IPC, P.S. S.P. Badli.
4. FIR No. 531/03 U/s 457/380/411/34 IPC,P.S. S.P. Badli.
5. FIR No. 531/04 U/s 457/380/411/34 IPC, P.S. Narela.St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 137
6. FIR No. 912/05 U/s 411 IPC, P.S. S.P. Badli.
(153) Witness has proved the detailed report of the Deputy Superintendent, District Jail Rohini which is Ex.DW2/A and the copy of register is Ex.DW2/B. (154) In his his cross examination by Ld. Addl. PP for the State, the witness has deposed that as per the record the accused remained in custody throughout this period i.e. 18.03.2006 to 17.07.2006 and was never enlarged on bail/ interim bail/ parole. According to him in case if an under trial prisoner is released on interim bail or parole an indication to this effect is made in the said register itself and has voluntarily explained that in the present case the accused had never been released on any interim bail or parole and only released on 17.7.2006. He has further deposed that the said endorsement is not made in the register which he has produced in the Court and in case if a person was on interim bail it is mentioned on the warrant. According to the witness he has brought the warrants of Chander Kant Jha in respect of the above periods and there is no endorsement on the same to the effect that he had been ever released on interim bail/ parole.
(155) DW3 Mrs. Mamta is the wife of the accused who has deposed that she was married to him in the year 1997 in Delhi and she has five daughters. According to the witness, her eldest daughter is about 14 years of age who was born at Azadpur, Delhi and her youngest daughter is about 5 years of age. Witness has further deposed that earlier they used to reside at Azadpur after which they resided at Sahipur, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi, thereafter in gali No. 6, Haiderpur, Delhi and thereafter they finally went to Alipur. She has also deposed that her husband Chander Kant was arrested at the house at Alipur where they previously resided. She has testified that her husband was involved in the sale of plastic St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 138 articles in the weekly market and used to leave for purchases at 10AM and returned by 3 PM and again used to go in the evening for sale of articles. The witness has further deposed that they used to reside along with their children i.e. five daughters in one room tenement. According to the witness, her in-laws did not stay with them. She has alleged that her husband Chander Kant was lifted by the police on 19.05.2007 from their house at Alipur where they were staying i.e. house of Sanjay and in the evening hours 10-15 plain clothes persons claiming to be police officials had come to their house and picked up Chander Kant Jha and took him somewhere in a car. She has further alleged that she along with her children and one Ram Sewak were also lifted and put in a jeep like vehicle and taken to some place which appeared to be Police Station / office. According to the witness, they were detained there for about four days and not permitted to meet Chander Kant and they were told by these persons that Chander Kant would be released within one or two years. She has testified that they were told that they should continue to reside in the said house without even paying the rent after which she was left at her house from where she was lifted and was also given two-three thousand rupees. According to the witness, her room had been locked and hence they broke the lock and told him that she need not fear and should continue to reside there. Witness has further deposed that the behaviour of Chander Kant with her and with children had been good and they has no complaints and he has been falsely implicated. (156) In her cross examination by Ld. Addl. PP for the State, witness has deposed that her eldest daughter was born on 14.02.1998; her youngest daughter was born on 02 nd of August, 2006; her second daughter was born in the year 2003 and her third daughter was born in the year 2004. According to the witness, her daughter elder to the St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 139 youngest was born on 19.03.2005 and her four daughters were born at home, only one i.e. the second daughter was born in the hospital. She has further deposed that all her children used to go to school and the date of births which she has given in the Court are the same which she had given in the school record of the children. She does not remember the year, but they resided in the house at gali No. 6, Haiderpur where her youngest daughter was born at home. She does not recollect the name of the landlord and states that there were only two rooms outside and has voluntarily explained that the landlord used to reside inside so she is unable to tell how many rooms were there inside. She has denied the suggestion that her mother-in-law had also come to Delhi and stayed in the house at Haiderpur and has voluntarily explained that she had come to Delhi when her husband was first implicated in a murder case, when she stayed at Azadpur where she was residing at that time. Witness has further deposed that she does not recollect the year and states that thereafter her mother-in-law never came to Delhi nor her mother has ever come to Delhi. She has testified that she is totally illiterate and only put her thumb impressions. According to the witness, her husband used to earn about five-six thousand rupees per month. She does not remember the time period for which they resided at Sahipur, Shalimar Bagh and has voluntarily explained that the houses were started demolishing and thereafter on the asking of landlord they left. The witness has further deposed that at present her husband is languishing in jail in three murder cases and prior to that he was acquitted in another murder case. She is not aware if any other cases are or were pending against her husband nor she is able to tell the size of the tenanted room in which they used to reside along with her five daughters. The witness has admitted that there was one door to the said room opening to the gallery outside and has St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 140 voluntarily explained that the room also had a window. She has denied the suggestion that there was no window in the said room or that she was residing in the room which was inside the building and has voluntarily explained that the room was outside and opened towards outside. She does not remember therefore she cannot tell any other date on which police took her husband in custody in any other case. The witness has denied the suggestion that the date 19.05.2007 has been tutored to her or that she has taken legal assistance prior to her deposition in the court. She has also deposed that she did not make any complaint on 100 number regarding lifting of his husband by 10-15 persons claiming themselves as police officials and has voluntarily explained that she was also lifted along with children and hence there was no occasion. She has denied the suggestion that she, her children and Ram Sewak were never lifted by any of the police officials at any time or that she in this regard she deposed falsely since accused is her husband. Witness has further deposed that her husband used to go to sell the plastic articles in a paddle rickshaw. She has denied the suggestion that motor had been affixed on the said rickshaw. According to the witness, they used to pay Rs.600/- as rent in the house at Alipur and Rs.550/- in the house at Haiderpur. The witness has denied the suggestion that she has deposed falsely to save her husband from penal consequences.
(157) DW4 Sh. Man Mohan Assistant Superintendent, Central Jail No.1, Tihar has brought the summoned record pertaining to Chander Kant Jha S/o Sh. Radhey Kant. According to him, as per the jail record, Chander Kant Jha was lodged in Tihar jail from 29.11.2005 to 18.03.2006 in the following cases:
1. FIR No. 1003/05, U/s 379 IPC, P.S. Shalimar Bagh.
2. FIR No. 1004/05, U/s 379/411 IPC, P.S. Shalimar Bagh.St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 141
3. FIR No. 452/03, U/s 457/380/411/34 IPC, P.S. S.P. Badli.
4. FIR No. 531/03 U/s 457/380/411/34 IPC,P.S. S.P. Badli.
5. FIR No. 531/04 U/s 457/380/411/34 IPC, P.S. Narela.
6. FIR No. 912/05 U/s 411 IPC, P.S. S.P. Badli.
(158) Witness has proved the details of the prisoner Chander Kant Jha which are Ex.DW4/A (running into two pages containing his old as well as new photographs and record which photographs are admitted by the accused) and the copy of the register no. 1 showing the case details which is Ex.DW4/B (running into two pages).
(159) In his cross examination by Ld. Addl. PP for the State, the witness has deposed that as per the record the accused remained in custody through out this period i.e. 29.11.2005 to 18.03.2006 and was not on any interim bail / parole at any point of time and has voluntarily explained that thereafter, the accused was shifted to Rohini Jail i.e. after 18.03.2006 and his records are maintained there. He has admitted that on Ex.DW4/A name of accused is mentioned as Chander Kumar S/o Radhey Kant.
FINDINGS:
(160) I have heard the arguments advanced by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State and the Ld. Defence Counsel. I have also gone through the written synopsis/ memorandum of arguments filed on behalf of the parties and the evidence on record. I first propose to deal with all the averments made by the various witnesses so examined by the prosecution individually in a tabulated form as under and later on comprehensively.St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 142
Sr. Name of the Details of deposition No. witness Public witnesses: 1. Pankaj (PW1) He is the brother of the deceased Upender who is a labour
by profession. He has deposed on the following aspects:
1. That in May, 2007 he was working with Bhramik Ayurved Ashram Bhiwari as labourer and Upender was son of his paternal aunt who came to Delhi and started working in Azad Pur in the year 2003 after which he (deceased) started working in Barwala.
2. That the deceased Upender thereafter worked at Sanaut, Bawana and it was here that he had met the accused Chander Kant Jha (whom the witness has correctly identified in the Court).
3. That Upender left his job in Sanuat Bawana and started working with accused Chander Kant Jha in Azadpur Subzi Mandi.
4. That Upender had introduced him to accused Chander Kant Jha when his brother Pawan had come to his house as he (Pawan) had been apprehended and kept in Prayas and it is in this connection that he met Chander Kant Jha.
5. That Upender was having a mobile phone and accused Chander Kant Jha was also having a mobile phone and he was given the numbers of both the mobile phones so that he could talk to them on the said numbers.
6. That he told Upender that accused (Chanderkant Jha) did not appear to be a good person and hence he should leave his company on which Upender replied that he had full confidence on the accused and that accused would do no wrong to him.
7. That Upender visited him on the occasion of Holi at Bhiwari in March, 2007 and thereafter returned to Delhi from Bhiwari.
8. That Upender started living with accused Chander Kant Jha in his house after he left the job of Sanaut Bawana.
9. That when Upender started working with the accused, he started living with him in Haiderpur.
10. That when Upender returned to Delhi after the occasion of Holi, they did not talk much on telephone and on one occasion in the month of April, 2007 he made a call to his brother Upender and suggested to him that they should go home to their village but Upender told him that accused St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 143 Chander Kanta Jha was not permitting him and hence he is unable to go to the village with him.
11. That Upender had told him that he was working in a factory in village Barwala and that he has left the work of Chander Kant but he was still living with him.
12. That he had spoken to Upender on telephone till 24.04.2007 but thereafter when he made a telephone call to Upender on mobile it showed switched off and hence he made a telephone call to accused Chander Kant who told him that Upender had cheated him and caused him a loss of Rs.20,000/- and that he (Upender) had run away with his rehri (Rickshaw) and thereafter the accused disconnected the phone call saying that he was not aware of the whereabouts of Upender.
13. That son of one Wali Mohd. working in village Barwala company, was working with him in Bhiwari and he contacted Wali Mohd. through his son and asked him whether he knew the whereabouts of Upender, when he (Wali Mohd.) told him that Upender was not coming for his duties for the last four-five days and was also not seen nearby.
14. That thereafter he again made a call to the accused Chander Kant Jha and his daughter picked up the phone and told him that it was a wrong number but he (witness) insisted to her that it was not a wrong number and asked her to give the phone to accused Chander Kant on which she (daughter of Chander Kant) told him that he could have a talk after about ten minutes.
15. That again after ten minutes he made a telephone call and this time it was attended to by Chander Kant who repeated what he told him earlier and said "Jaisa usska karaam tha voh wahan paunnch gaya" and disconnected the phone thereafter.
16. That after three to four days police came to him at Bhiwari after which he (witness) was brought to police post Hari Nagar.
17. That before this incident he had also informed at his house in native village that Upender was not traceable and his whereabouts were not known.
18. That when he was contacted by the police they showed him the photograph of the accused Chander Kant Jha on which he told the police that his brother Upender was living with the accused St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 144 Chander Kant Jha and identified him.
19. That it was then that he was told by the police that Upender had been murdered by Chander Kant Jha.
20. That when he went to Police Station Hari Nagar, he came to know that accused Chander Kant Jha has confessed about murdering his cousin Upender Rathore and that his (witness's) telephone number 01493-220678 and the address of his factory were recovered/ found from him (accused).
21. That the number of mobile phone of Upender was 9211463743 and the number of mobile phone of Chander Kant was 9211463742 and further admitted that the phone number of Barwala factory was 27822525.
22. That when they met Chander Kant and Upender for releasing of Pawan from Prayas, at that time they came to know from Azadpur Mandi and Haiderpur that accused Chander Kant was involved in many cases and had remained in custody in a murder case and also that he was a Bad Character of the area and they had asked Upender to leave his company or else he would kill him.
2. Shri Ram (PW2) He is the father of the deceased Upender and has deposed that about one and a half to two years ago, he and his wife Smt. Dharmi were brought to Delhi by police where he came to know his son Upender was killed and in that connection, his blood sample and his wife's blood sample was taken in hospital. According to him, his wife Smt. Dharmi had expired and his other son Harender took the ashes of parts of body of deceased Upender for last rites.
3. Harender Lakhwa He is the brother of deceased Upender a resident of (PW3) Village Biswa @ Kotia, Distt. Maharajganj, Uttar Pradesh. He has deposed on the following aspects:
1. That on coming to know about the murder of his brother Upender, he came to Delhi and had received the ashes/ remains of Upender for performing his last rites.
2. That his brother Upender used to live with the accused Chander Kant Jha in Delhi.
3. That his mother Dharmi @ Dharmo has expired in the year 2008 and on 27.07.2007 her blood sample was taken in the hospital along with the blood sample of his father Shri Ram.
4. Master Devender He is a child witness aged around 12 years who is the (PW4) nephew of Pujari of Baba Ram Dev Mandir, Haiderpur.
He has deposed on the following aspects:
St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 1451. That on 25.04.2007 he was studying in sixth class.
2. That on that day he woke up in the morning at 7:15 AM, when his chacha Azad Singh told him that one blue color bag is hanging on the gate of Mandir, after which he (chacha) took out the bag and handed it over to him which he had thrown across the nehar.
3. That he saw one bone coming out from the bag.
5. Azad Singh (PW5) He is the Pujari at Ramdev Mandir in Haiderpur, near the Nehar and has deposed as under:
1. That on 25.04.2007 at 7:15-7:45 AM he had noticed a thaila (Bag) of bluish tone hanging near the main gate of the mandir on which he thought probably that the thaila / bag might be containing a "parasad".
2. That he checked that thailla and found bone pieces in it on which he gave that thaila to his nephew Devender and instructed him to throw the same near the nehar.
3. That accordingly his nephew Devender took that thaila containing bones pieces and thrown it near the nehar and somebody had informed the police.
4. That police came to the mandir and he narrated the above facts to the police.
6. Akhilesh Singh He is the security guard who was on duty at UTI ATM Yadav (PW6) machine near Gate No. 3 Tihar Jail on 25.04.2007. He has deposed as under:
1. That on 25.4.2007 around 7:45 AM on the said date he went to urinate and probably at that time no article was lying near gate No. 3 Tihar Jail.
2. That at around 8 AM when he came back from Urinal he found one carton (gathe ke dabba) on the corner of the road near to UTI ATM booth.
3. That he went to Gate No. 3 Tihar Jail and informed the police official posted there on which jail police staff called up the PCR and the PCR van came there.
7. Anil Kumar He is the Incharge of Electric Crematorium Punjabi Bagh (PW7) and has proved that on 20.05.2007 he was on duty and on that day a dead body was received through Ct. Ajeet Singh for cremation which unknown body was received in FIR No. 243/07 Police Station Hari Nagar and it was cremated vide entry No. 333 dated 20.05.2007, copy of which is Ex.PW7/A. He has further proved that after cremation the remains (asthiya) of the body were kept in Punjabi Bagh crematorium against token No. 18.St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 146
8. Sumit Kumar He was on duty at gate No.3, PRO Office, Tihar Jail and (PW8) has deposed on the following aspects:
1. That on 25.04.2007, he was on duty from 8 AM to 4 PM and at about 8 AM Akhlesh Singh Yadav who was on duty at UTI ATM booth, gate No. 3, Tihar Jail, came to him and told that a card board was lying on the patri near ATM booth and appeared to be suspicious.
2. That he also came out and saw that cardboard carton lying on the patri and blood was oozing out from the same on which he gave information to PCR from his mobile phone in this regard.
3. That after sometime the PCR Van reached there and in the meantime police officer from Police Station Hari Nagar also reached the spot in his presence.
9. Rajeev Kumar He is the landlord of House No.229/2, Haiderpur, Delhi, (PW9) where the accused Chander Kant Jha had previously resided with his family on rent. He has deposed on the following aspects:
1. That he is a resident of House No.155, Haiderpur, Delhi and has deposed that he also owns property bearing no. 229/2, which was in the name of his grand mother Ram Kali.
2. That the said property is constructed with about 12 rooms out of which eight rooms have been constructed on the ground floor and four rooms have been constructed on the first floor, which have been let out on rent.
3. That in October 2004 he had rented out one room to Vikas, who was a resident of Bihar who remained there till December 2005.
4. That in the month of April, 2006, Vikas came to him along with Chander Kant Jha (whom the witness has correctly identified in the Court) and introduced Chander Kant to him as his maternal uncle and requested him to rent out the said room to Chander Kant Jha as at that time, said room was lying vacant.
5. That he rented out the said room to Chander Kant Jha on a monthly rent of Rs.700/- and thereafter, accused started living in the said room along with his wife and children and he told him that he was working at the Azadpur Mandi.
6. That in the month of April, 2007 the accused shifted his wife and children to some other place while he used to occasionally visit the said room as his belongings were lying in the said room.St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 147
7. That he handed over the photocopy of the certificate issued by BDO, Gram Sabha, Haiderpur pertaining to H. No.229/2, Haiderpur, electricity bill of the said house and a photocopy of his driving licence which were seized by the police vide seizure memo Ex.PW9/A.
10. Akash (PW10) He is the Driver of the Maruti Van Ambulance bearing No. DL2CL-0981, which he used to station at DDU Hospital. He has deposed on the following aspects:
1. That on 25.04.2007, on the call of police, he along with his said van reached at UTI Bank ATM near Tihar Jail, gate No. 3.
2. That SI Manohar Lal along with other police staff met him there at a short distance from ATM counter and a carton was lying and police officials told him that there was a dead body in the said carton.
3. That on the instructions of investigating officer, he with the help of some public persons, kept the said carton containing dead body in his van and shifted the same to mortuary, DDU hospital.
4. That Ct. Ajit also accompanied him to DDU Hospital and there, at the DDU Hospital, Ct. Ajit had given a request letter for preserving the said dead body in the mortuary and then, with the help of hospital staff, dead body was deposited in the mortuary.
5. That he had seen the dead body at that time.
11. Mohd. Yasin Malik He is the Juice Seller who used to put his fruit rehri at Lal (PW11) Bagh Subzi Mandi, Loni and has deposed as under:
1. That on 25.04.2007 at about 10:00 AM he was present at his sugarcane juice rehri, at that time, some ladies informed him that two unclaimed cartons were lying near his rehri.
2. That he with the help of some people working in the mandi, checked those cartons and one carton was containing a human hand and other carton was containing human penis.
3. That they informed the police of Police Station Loni and police officials carried out the proceedings in this regard.
4. That on 08.09.2007, investigating officer of the present case made inquiries from him at his said rehri and prepared site plan at his instance which is Ex.PW11/A and recorded his statement.
12. Sanjay Kumar He is the Private Photographer who is running a Photo (PW21) Studio with the name and style Sanjay Photo Studio at WZ-St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 148
72, Titarpur, Tagore Garden, Delhi. He has deposed on the following aspects:
1. That on 25.4.2007 he was called by the Investigation Officer to take the photographs at Tihar Jail gate no.3, UTI ATM.
2. That he reached the spot & found one dead body was kept in plastic katta / bag and after removing it from the plastic katta / bag he took the photographs by his camera from different angles.
3. That after developing the photographs same were handed over to the investigation officer, which 12 photographs are Ex.PW21/1 to Ex.PW21/12.
4. That on 20.05.07 he was called at DDU hospital for taking the photographs of the postmortem of the dead body and one leg.
5. That after developing the photographs the same were handed over to the investigation officer.
6. That photographs were 12 in number and their negatives were 14 and two negatives were defective.
He has proved the nine photographs of postmortem no. 458 which are Ex.PW21/A-1 to A-9; three photographs of postmortem no.459 which are Ex.PW21/A-10 to A-12 and their negatives which are Ex.PW21/N-1 to N-12.
13. Jay Jeet Singh He has deposed that on 27.07.2007 he was posted as (PW42) Nursing Orderly at World Blood Bank, DDU Hospital. He has proved that on the permission granted to Inspector Sukesh Singh by Director Medical Superintendent, he accompanied him to Hari Nagar Police Station and from there, he went with him and with the rest of the police team to FSL laboratory, Rohini, where he took the sample for DNA examination of Shri Ram, S/o Parshad and Smt. Dharmi Devi, W/o Shri Ram R/o village Biswa @ Kotiya, district Maharajganj, UP. According to the witness, after taking the blood sample, he handed over the samples of both the persons to Dr. Ashutosh Kumar, which he preserved.
Medical Evidence
14. Dr. Anil Shandil He is the Autopsy Surgeon who had conducted the (PW54) postmortem examination of the decapitated body of unknown male person aged about 30 years on 20.5.2007 at 11:30 AM, vide Postmortem Report Ex.PW54/A. He has proved the following aspects:
1. That on 20.05.2007, he was posted as Senior Resident, DDU Hospital and had conducted postmortem examination on the decapitated body sent by Inspector Hoshiyar Singh, Police Station St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 149 Hari Nagar with alleged history that on 25/04/2007, an unknown dead body was found lying near gate No.3, Tihar Jail.
2. That both the hands, head and both the legs below knee and private parts of the dead body were missing.
3. That on general description of the dead body, which was to the effect that clothes, chadar with panni, baniyan, underwear and jute rope.
4. That the body was decapitated headless with no genitalia absent both upper limbs from shoulder joint and both lower limbs missing from level of knee.
5. That both thighs tied with jute rope with the chest with depressive groove along line of tying.
6. That the wound of lower broader part of neck, both shoulder, both knee and perinium was clean cut well defined regular margins with dried up blood and clots over the wound.
7. That the tying of both thighs with chest showed no effusion of blood and clots in underlying depressed tissue on incision.
8. That description of head in front at the level above the anterior clavicular joint and in the back cut over the seventh cervical vertebra, the inter vertebral disc between C 6-7 clean cut, trachea attached with cut part of the base of neck and not drown in chest cavity with above five rings of trachea absent.
9. That no definite opinion regarding cause of death could be given, however, postmortem findings were consistent with homicidal death and the wounds mentioned in postmortem report were caused by sharp edged weapon.
10. That cause of death in this case was consistent with decapitation of head, the head was decapitated / cut before the death. He has voluntarily explained that cause of death was decapitation of head.
11. That clothes of the deceased, chader with panni around the body, jute rope, blood and viscera for chemical analysis and sternum for DNA finger printing were preserved, labeled, sealed and handed over to concerned police official for FSL examination.
12. That the viscera report Ex.PW54/B indicates that before his death, the deceased had consumed alcohol but there is no indication of poison prior St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 150 to the death of the deceased, which rules out poisoning prior to the death of the deceased or cause of death.
15. Dr. P.K. Singh He is the Medical Officer at District Hospital, Ghaziabad (PW56) and has proved the following aspects:
1. That on 26.04.2007 he conducted the postmortem on the human part i.e. left arm and penis and scrotum of the body of unknown person sent by police official PS Loni, District Ghaziabad in the sealed parcel along with the inquest documents nine in number vide Postmortem report Ex.PW56/A.
2. That on both the parts there had been no anti-
mortem injury and that blisters all over the upper arms present.
3. That the anatomical appearance was suggestive of a male arm and the total length of the arm was 70 cms from the upper part of the humerous bone till fingers.
4. That penis with scrotum were suggestive of being a male human body.
5. That time since death was about two days and the cause of death in this case could not be ascertained for these organs.
6. That both parts were preserved in formalin for further forensic analysis.
Forensic Evidence
16. Sh. Naresh Kumar He is the Senior Scientific Assistant, FSL Rohini and has (PW16) proved the Biological and Serological Reports in respect of the exhibits examined by him which are Ex.PW16/A and Ex.PW16/B respectively.
17. Dr. A.K. He is the Assistant Director (Biology), Finger Print Unit, Shrivastava FSL Rohini who has proved the DNA Fingerprinting (PW47) Report which is Ex.PW47/A and has also proved the following aspects:
1. That on 27.7.2007, eight forensic samples (out of which one was a sample seal) were received in their office regarding DNA finger printing test which samples were sealed with the seal of DFMT DDU Hospital and that only parcel no. 6 was not sealed.
2. That parcel no.1 was found to be containing Ex.1 i.e. one bone piece having foul odour described as sternum.
3. That parcel no.2 was found to be containing Ex.2 i.e. one gauze cloth piece having dark brown stains St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 151 and described as blood sample.
4. That parcel no. 3 was found to be containing Ex.3 i.e. sample seal.
5. That parcel no.4 was found to be containing Ex.4 i.e. one bone piece having foul odour described as fibula tibia.
6. That parcel no. 5 was found to be containing Ex.5 i.e. one empty bag described as a bag containing severed leg.
7. That parcel no. 6 was found to be containing Ex.6 i.e. some liquid material containing tissue pieces described severed body parts.
8. That parcel no. 7 was found to be containing Ex.7 i.e. blood sample of Sri Ram collected on 27.7.2007.
9. That parcel no. 8 was found to be containing Ex.8 i.e. blood sample Smt. Dharma collected on 27.7.2007.
10. That DNA from all the above exhibits except Ex.5 and 6 were isolated and were subjected to DNA amplification.
11. That DNA could not be amplified for the Ex.1 and Ex.4.
12. That DNA profile (STR analysis) was prepared for the Ex.2, Ex.7 and Ex.8.
13. That data was analyzed by using Genescan and Genotype Software.
14. That on examination, the alleles as from the source of Ex.7 (Sri Ram) and alleles as from the source Ex.8 (Smt Dharma) were found accounted in the Ex.2 (gauze piece).
15. That DNA profiling (STR analysis) performed on the exhibits provided was sufficient to conclude that the Ex.7 (Shri Ram) and Ex. 8 (Smt Dharma) were the biological father and mother of Ex.P2 i.e. blood sample gauze piece). He has proved having prepared his detailed report in this regard which is Ex.PW47/A (collectively running into 5 pages).
18. Sh. V. He is the Senior Scientific Officer FSL Rohini and has Shankarnarayanan proved the Biological and Serological Reports in respect of (PW49) the exhibits examined by him which reports are Ex.PW49/A and Ex.PW49/B respectively.
19. Ms. Kavita Goyal She is the Forensic Expert who had given the report on the (PW59) viscera examination of the deceased vide her report Ex.PW59/A according to which on chemical, TLC and St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 152 GC-HS examination, Ex.1A i.e. stomach and piece of small intestine with contents and Ex.1B i.e. pieces of liver, spleen and kidney were found to contain Ethyl alcohol and the quantification of Ethyl alcohol could not be done in the absence of blood sample.
20. Sh. K.N. Singh He is the Finger Print Expert, Delhi Police and has proved (PW60) the following aspects:
1. That on 17.09.2007 the case was marked to him by the director FPB for examination on which he issued questionnaires/ memo dated 03.03.2008 to the Investigating Officer in case FIR No. 243/07 questioning whether chance print marked Q1 and Q2 are identical with any of the finger/ palm prints of the person mentioned at para 1(C) or not, whether chance prints marked Q1 and Q2 are identical with any of the finger prints on the record of the bureau or not.
2. That no palm print was sent by the Investigating Officer to their office in response to the aforesaid memo therefore chance print marked Q1 was not compared with the exhibits sent for comparison, hence it could not be searched on the record of the bureau.
3. That chance print marked Q2 was partial and smudged and did not disclose sufficient number if ridge details in their relative position for comparison hence it was UNFIT for comparison/search.
He has proved his detailed report in this regard which is Ex.PW60/A and the memorandum in this regard is Ex.PW60/B. Official Witnesses of Electronic Record:
21. Sh. M. N. Vijayan He is the Nodal Officer, Tata Services Ltd. who has proved (PW48) that mobile No. 9211463742 is in the name of Rahul Jain S/o Shri Hari Om Jain. He has also proved the copy of the application form which is ExPW48/A; copy of the driving licence in support of address of Rahul Jain which is ExPW48/B; Call detail record of Mobile No. 9211463742 for the period 1.4.2000 to 20.5.2007 which are Ex.PW29/B. He has further proved the original record of the mobile no.9211463743 which is in the name of Rahul Jain s/o Shri Hari Om Jain and the copy of the application form is ExPW48/C; copy of the driving licence in support of address of Rahul Jain is ExPW48/D and the call detail record of Mobile No. 9211463743 for the period 11.3.2007 to 20.5.2007 which is Ex.PW29/D. He has also proved the St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 153 certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act in respect of both the aforesaid mobile numbers, which is ExPW48/E. Police Witnesses of Special Staff of West District
22. Inspector Sunder He is the Investigating Officer of the case bearing FIR No. Singh (PW53) 609/06 under Section 302/201 PS Hari Nagar and has proved the apprehension and arrest of the accused and the various recoveries. He has proved the various investigations conducted by him and the following documents:
Ex.PW43/A Arrest memo of the accused
Ex.PW43/B Personal search memo
Ex.PW43/C Disclosure statement of the accused
Ex.PW44/A Seizure memo of motor-rickshaw
Ex.PW44/B Seizure memo of the exhibits lifted from
the room of the accused
Ex.PW44/C Sketch of the knife
Ex.PW43/D Seizure memo of the knives
Ex.PW44/D Seizure memo of nunchaku, jeans pant and
mobile phone belonging to one of the
deceased
Ex.PW53/A Site plan of the room of accused at
Hairderpur
Ex.PW43/G Pointing out memo of Baba Ramdev
Mandir, Pitampura
Ex.PW23/E Seizure memo of documents pertaining to
arrest of the accused
Ex.PW43/E Pointing out memo of the Juice Shop at
Lal Bagh, Loni near which the accused
had dropped the right hand and private
part of the deceased Upender @ Pintoo
Ex.PW43/F Pointing out memo of Southern Gate of
Central Hall, where the accused had
dropped the right hand of deceased
Upender on 18.5.2007
Ex.PW43/H Pointing out memo of Radha Krishan
Mandir Road, Swaroop Nagar near shop
no. 8226, in front of MCD Primary School,
where the accused had thrown the right
leg of deceased Upender @ Pintoo on
25.4.2007
St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 154
Ex.PW43/I Pointing out memo of Jail No.1, Gate
No.3, Tihar towards Postal Letter Box
where the accused had thrown the
decapitated body on 25.4.2007
Ex.PW19/D Scaled site plan of the room of accused at
Haiderpur
Ex.PW53/B CDR of mobile number 9211541254 in the
name of Dalip
Ex.PW53/C Location chart of the mobile make TATA.
Ex.PW53/D Certificate U/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act
in respect of mobile No. 9211463742 and
number 9211463743
Ex.PW53/I SIM of blue color having No. 8562A099 so
recovered as a part of jamatalashi/
personal search of the accused
Ex.PW44/E Seizure memo of the telephone numbers
found on the wall of the room in premises
number A-229, Haiderpur
23. ASI Virender Singh They were all members of the Special Staff, West District
(PW43), Inspector headed by Inspector Sunder Singh (PW53) and had joined
Dalip Kaushik the investigations on various dated from 20.05.2007 to
(PW44) and SI 25.5.2007 and have in their respective testimonies
Narender (PW45) corroborated what has been earlier deposed by Inspector
Sunder Singh.
Members of the Crime Team
24. Ct. Raj Kumar He is the Photographer of the Crime Team and has proved
(PW13) that on 25.04.2007, he had taken the photographs of
decapitated body at Tihar Jail, near gate No. 3, jail road near UTI ATM negatives of which are Ex.PW13/A-1 to Ex.PW13/A-17 and the photographs are Ex.PW13/B-1 to Ex.PW13/B-17.
25. Ct. Suresh Kumar He is the Photographer of the Mobile Crime Team (West (PW14) District) who has proved that on 20.05.2007 he took 19 photographs at the house of accused i.e. house No.229, gali No. 2, Haiderpur from different angles, negatives of which are Ex.PW14/A-1 to Ex.PW14/A-19 and the photographs are Ex.PW14/B-1 to Ex.PW14/B-18.
26. ASI Ajender Singh He is Finger Print Expert of the Mobile Crime team (West (PW15) District) who has proved on 20.05.07 he along with Incharge SI Anil Kumar and member of other mobile crime team they reached at house no.229, Ground Floor, Haiderpur Colony (i.e. the room of the accused) and they examined the scene of crime to obtain the finger prints. He has proved having lifted four chance prints from the spot St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 155 on two different articles and after developing the same it was sent to Finger Print Bureau for comparison.
27. Inspector Lalit He is Incharge Crime Team who has proved that on Kumar (PW26) 25.04.07 he along with the crime team had reached at spot near gate no.3, Tihar Jail near ATM counter, where a dead body was lying, which was wrapped in a plastic bag which plastic bag was opened and checked and inspected the scene of crime and took photographs from different angles. The witness has proved having inspected the scene of crime and prepared the scene of crime report dated 25.04.07 which is Ex.PW26/A which was handed over to the investigating officer.
28. Inspector Anil He is the Incharge Mobile Crime Team, West District who Kumar (PW27) has proved that on 20.05.07 on receipt of information from Inspector Sunder Singh he along with the Crime Team had reached house no.229, Ground Floor, Haider Pur Colony, where accused Chander Kant Jha pointed out a room which was inspected after which he prepared his report which is Ex.PW27/A.
29. Ct. Ramesh He is the Photographer of Mobile Crime Team, North-West Chander (PW31) District who has proved that on 25.04.07 on receipt of information from ASI Naresh Kumar Police Post Pitam Pura, Police Station Shalimar Bagh, he alongwith SI Baljit Singh Incharge Mobile Crime Team North West District reached the place of occurrence i.e. near canal bridge near AU Block, Jhuggies, Haider Pur village on the left side of the bridge, where one left leg of some person in chopped condition was found lying and one polythene was wrapped on the chopped portion of the leg and ASI Naresh Kumar was found available on the spot. He has proved that as per directions of ASI Naresh Kumar, he had taken the photographs of scene of crime from different angles which photographs are Ex.PW31/A-1 to Ex.PW31/A-6 and the negatives of the same are Ex.PW31/B.
30. SI Baljit Singh He is the Incharge Mobile Crime Team / North-West (PW35) District who has proved that on 25.04.07 on receipt of information form ASI Naresh Kumar Police Post Pitam Pura, Police Station Shalimar Bagh, he along with the Mobile Crime Team had reached the place of occurrence near canal bridge near AU Block Jhuggies near Village Haider Pur on the left side of the bridge where one left leg of some person in chopped condition was found lying and one polythene was wrapped on the chopped portion of the leg and ASI Naresh Kumar was found available on the spot. He has proved having inspected the scene of crime St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 156 and prepared his report which is Ex.PW35/A which was handed over to Inspector Sukesh Singh on 06.09.07.
31. HC Surender He is the Finger Print Expert in Mobile Crime Team, West (PW36) District who has proved that on 25.04.2007 on receipt of information, he along with the Crime Team had reached the spot near UTI ATM Counter, Tihar Jail gate No.3, where a dead body was found lying, which was wrapped in a plastic bag. He has proved having lifted two chance prints from the spot.
Formal Police Witnesses:
32. HC Satyawan He is the Control Room official who has proved that on (PW12) 25.04.2007 at 8:23 AM, he received an information from telephone No. 9871014200 that one leg of a person was lying near AU block jhuggi on which and he recorded the same on police control room form-I, copy of which is Ex.PW12/A.
33. ASI Sangeeta She was the Duty Officerwho has proved having recorded (PW18) the FIR copy of which is Ex.PW18/A; her endorsement on Rukka which is Ex.PW18/B; DD no.15A which is Ex.PW18/C according to which at about 8.34 am on 25.04.07 information was received that one petti containing plastic katta lying near the UTI ATM in front of gate no.3 Tihar Jail and blood was flowing from that petti; DD No. 16A which is Ex.PW18/D regarding the departure of the SHO, Ct. Aniruddh, Ct. Suresh through Government vehicle and DD no.20A in respect of registration of FIR, copy of which is Ex.PW18/E.
34. SI Mahesh Kumar He is the Draftsman who had prepared the scaled site plan (PW19) of the spot where the decapitated body was found lying which site plan is Ex.PW19/A; scaled site plan at Subzi Mandi, Loni Border which is Ex.PW19/B; scaled site plan at H. No.229/2, Ambedkar Nagar, Haider Pur which Ex.PW19/C and scaled site plan at Pitampura near Western Yamuna Canal which site plan is Ex.PW19/D.
35. HC Ram Avtar He is a formal witness being the Special Messenger who (PW22) had delivered the copies of FIR to senior officers on 25.04.07.
36. Ct. Seveya Rathod He is a formal witness being on duty at PCR Van Power-
(PW37) 33 on 25.04.2007 and has proved that at about 8.28 AM information was received that one carton was lying near gate No.3, Tihar Jail, near UTI ATM and there was one plastic bag in the said carton, which was containing blood stains, on which he along with the PCR Van Power-33 reached the spot immediately and after verifying the facts, St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 157 informed the PCR.
37. Ct. (Retd. Driver) He was the driver of PCR Van Power-33 on 25.04.2007 Ranveer Singh and has corroborated the testimony of PW37 Ct. Seveya (PW38) Rathod in toto.
38. ASI Hari Chand He was the Incharge of PCR Van on 25.4.2007 and has (PW39) corroborated the testimony of PW37 Ct. Seveya Rathod and PW38 Constable (Driver) Ranveer Singh in toto.
39. Ct. Jai Singh He is a formal witness who has deposed that on 25.04.2007 (PW40) he was posted as DD Writer in the Duty Officer Room, Police Station Loni District, Ghaziabad (UP) and at about 11 AM Sh. Mohd. Yasin son of Karimuddin, R/o Village Salla Pur, PS Haldar, PP Ambhara, District Bijnore (UP) had submitted a written complaint in Hindi stating that he is running a shop of sugarcane juice in Lal Bagh Subzi Mandi, Loni and on 25.04.2007, at 10 AM some unknown person had left two unclaimed boxes near his shop, out of which, one box was containing private parts of some person and the other box was containing a chopped hand of some person pursuant to which he had lodged an information in this regard vide DD No. 19, PS Loni copy of which is Ex.PW40/A. He has also proved the complaint of Mohd. Yasin S/o Karimuddin which is Ex.PW40/B.
40. SI Sarvesh Yadav This witness has proved that on 08.09.2007 he was posted (PW41) as In-charge Police Post Lal Bagh, PS Loni, District Ghaziabad (UP) and on that day on the asking of Investigating Officer Inspector Sukesh Singh, he had handed over the documents of PM No. 548/07 and original documents of inquest papers of DD No. 19 dated 25/04/2007 to him which were taken over by him through a seizure memo which is Ex.PW41/A.
41. Ct. Jagdish He is a formal witness who has proved that on 25.04.07 (PW24) vide DD no.8 dated 25.08.07 Police Post Pitam Pura, he along with ASI Naresh Kumar reached the spot near AU Block Jhuggies near canal Bridge near village Haider Pur on the left side where one left leg of some person in chopped condition was found lying and the polythene was wrapped on the chopped portion of the leg.
42. HC Vinod (PW25) He is the MHC (M) Police Station Loni District Ghaziabad (U.P.) and has proved the copy of Malkhana register of Police Station Loni, District Ghaziabad vide entry no.18/07 dated 20.05.07 which is Ex.PW25/A.
43. HC Hari Ram He is the MHC (M) Police Station Hari Nagar who has (PW28) proved the various entries made by him in Register No. 19 and 21 on various dates vide Ex.PW28/A, Ex.PW28/B, Ex.PW28/C, Ex.PW28/D, Ex.PW28/E, Ex.PW28/F, St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 158 Ex.PW28/G, Ex.PW28/H, Ex.PW28/I and Ex.PW28/J.
44. ASI Rajbir Singh He has proved that on 03.09.07 on the asking of Inspector (PW29) Sukesh Singh he had obtained the certified copy of call details of Mobile No. 9211463742 from 01.04.07 to 20.05.07. He has further proved that on 05.09.07 as per directions of Inspector Sukesh Singh he had collected 12 photographs vide DD no.8 from the office of Mobile Crime Team and also collected the certified copy of the call details of Mobile no.9211463743.
45. Inspector Satya He has proved that on 25.04.07 vide DD No.8 Police Post Prakash (PW30) Pitam Pura an information was received that left leg of some person was lying on bridge of Haider Pur Canal near AU Block, Jhuggies, Haider Pur, which was wrapped in a white polythene bag and inquest proceedings were carried out by ASI Naresh Kumar.
46. Ct. Meghpal He is the DD Writer at Police Post Pitampura who has (PW32) proved that on 25.04.2007 at 8.35 AM an information was received from Omega 50 (through wireless) that a leg of some person is lying near AU Block Jhuggies, Pitam Pura which information received through PCR was lodged in the Daily Dairy vide DD no.8 dated 25.04.07 Police Post Pitam Pura which is Ex.PW32/A and a copy of the same was given to ASI Naresh Kumar.
47. ASI Rajbir (PW33) He is the PCR Official who has proved that on 25.04.07 at about 8.25 AM, he had received information from HC Satyawan no.597/PCR, Channel 117/PCR that one leg of some person was lying near AU Block Jhuggies on which he immediately reached the spot and on reaching there, the call was found to be true after verification. He has proved the call book Commander 29 copy of which is Ex.PW33/A and the original call book of all PCR Zones Pertaining to period 01.01.07 to 30.06.07 relating to CPRC and CR Branch have been destroyed and the certificate to this effect was Ex.PW33/B-1 and Ex.PW33/B-2.
48. ASI Bal Kishan This witness has proved that on 20.05.07 Inspector Sunder (PW34) Singh had informed through telephone at 4.15 PM that he had arrested accused Chander Kant Jha in case FIR no.609/06 who had disclosed of his own about the murder cases of Police Station Hari Nagar, which informed was recorded by him (witness) vide DD No. 21-A copy of which is Ex.PW34/A. He has also proved the DD no.22A dated 20.05.07 copy of which is Ex.PW34/B.
49. HC Manohar Lal This witness was posted at Police Control Room, Police (PW51) Head Quarter and has proved that on 25.04.2007 one Sumit Kumar had given the information from mobile phone No. 9868834618 at about 8.28 hours (AM) that one petti St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 159 was lying near UTI ATM, Gate No.3, Tihar Jail in which there was a plastic bag/katta, which was blood stained and was lying in suspicious condition. He has proved having filled in PCR form which is Ex.PW51/A.
50. HC Banwari He is Duty officer who has proved that on 20.10.2006, he (PW52) was posted at Police Station Hari Nagar and on that day while he was working as Duty Officer, at about 10.30AM, SI Kartar Singh brought the rukka sent by Inspector Sunder Singh on the basis of the same, he recorded FIR No.609/06, copy of which is Ex.PW52/A. Other Police Witnesses:
51. SI Naresh Kumar This witness has proved the following aspects:
(PW17) 1. That on 25.04.07 on receiving DD No. 8, which is Ex.PW17/A, he along with Ct. Jagdish reached at AU Block, Pitampura near Jhuggies where he found one piece of human left leg was lying in a plastic bag near the canal & bridge on which photographs of the piece of human leg was taken.
2. That thereafter he prepared inquest Papers Form 25.35 which is Ex.PW17/B (carbon copy) and original inquest paper which is Ex.PW17/C.
3. That he prepared a request for preserve the piece of human left leg to the Autopsy Surgeon, BJRM Hospital, vide carbon copy of the request which is Ex.PW17/D.
52. HC Vijender Singh This witness has proved that on 04.07.07 he along with (PW20) Inspector Sukesh Singh went to the office of Special Staff, West District where Inspector Sunder Singh met them there who handed over two photographs of deceased Upender and one pointing out memo & seizure memo in this regard which were seized vide memo Ex.PW20/A. He has identified the said photographs reflecting Upender in blue shirt & black pant which photographs are Ex.PW20/1 & Ex.PW20/2.
53. HC Ajit Singh He was on emergency duty on 25.04.07 at Police Station (PW23) Hari Nagar from 8.00 am to 8.00 pm and has proved the following aspects :
1. That on receipt of DD no.15-A at about 8.34 a.m. he along with investigation officer SI Manohar Lal reached in front of gate no.3, Tihar Jail, Near UTI ATM where they found that one petti like thing was lying near the wall in between UTI ATM and gate no.3.
2. That crime team and photographer at the spot pursuant to which member of the crime team St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 160 reached there and they inspected the scene of crime and photographs were also taken by the private photographer.
3. That the dead body was opened and was checked and the age of the person was looking between 28- 30 years, colour sanwala (wheatish) and jism darmiyana (medium).
4. That investigation officer lifted two chance print and some blood lying on the ground was also lifted and sample earth control was also lifted and turned into small plastic boxes and also sealed the plastic boxes with the seal of ML and it was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW23/A.
5. That the gatta petty of water cooler, one plastic katta of white colour, one plastic panni and one red colour gatta having tattoo mark, one shirt of Totiya colour (parrot green) and nylon rope was turned into cloth parcel and sealed with the seal of ML which was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW23/B.
6. That dead body was removed by Ambulance to DDU Hospital for preservation for 72 hours and he accompanied with the dead body and after got deposited in the DDU hospital, he returned back to the spot.
7. That at the spot investigation officer prepared rukka and handed over to him for registration of FIR pursuant to which he went to the Police Station and after registration of FIR returned back at the spot and handed over copy of FIR and rukka to Inspector Hoshiyar Singh.
8. That from 25.04.07 to 20.05.07 he remained in the DDU hospital for safety of the dead body and on 20.05.07 the Investigation Officer reached to Mortuary, DDU Hospital for got conducting the postmortem of the dead body and after postmortem, doctor handed over seven sealed parcels with sample seal and five exhibits were of postmortem no. 458/07 and two exhibits of postmortem no. 459/07.
9. That on 22.05.07 he again joined the investigation of this case with investigation officer and on that day photographer Rajesh Kumar, Proprietor of Sanjay Photo Studio, H. No.72, Village Titarpur, New Delhi handed over 12 coloured photographs to the investigation officer which were taken by him at the time of recovery of dead body.St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 161
10. That Investigation officer had given all the photographs serial no.1 to 12 and on the same day, ASI Naresh Kumar from Police Station Shalimar Bagh handed over four post card size coloured photographs it was taken vide DD no.8 PP Pitam Pura about recovery of left leg from near Nahar Ka Pull, Hyderpur Village, Delhi.
54. SI Manohar Lal He has deposed that on 25.4.2007, he was posted at Police (PW46) Station Hari Nagar and on that day he was on emergency duty from 8 AM to 8 PM. He has deposed on the following aspects :
1. That at 8:34 AM he received DD No. 15A regarding the fact that a bag was lying near Gate No. 3, Tihar Jail from which blood was oozing out which DD is Ex.PW18/C on which he along with Ct. Ajeet reached the spot and found one carton box of water cooler lying between the wall of Gate No. 3 Tihar Jail and UTI ATM, from which, blood was oozing out.
2. That he immediately called the photographer and the Crime Team to the spot and after the crime team reached the spot along with photographer, the official of the crime team opened the carton box and it was found to contain a plastic katta which was containing a polythene bag of white colour from which blood was coming out.
3. That he prepared the seizure memo of the articles which is Ex.PW23/B and blood sample was lifted from the spot with the help of a gauze.
4. That he lifted the blood sample and the blood stained clothes and the earth control and that he prepared the seizure memo of the same, which is Ex.PW23/A.
5. That he sent the cut body to the mortuary of DDU hospital through Ct. Ajeet and thereafter he prepared the rukka, which is Ex.PW46/A on DD entry and after Ct. Ajeet returned, he sent the rukka to the Police Station Hari Nagar at about 11:45 AM through Ct. Ajeet.
6. That he also handed over the seizure memo prepared by him to inspector Hoshiyar Singh, who prepared the site plan on his pointing out, which is Ex.PW46/B.
7. That he prepared the punchnama of the dead body before sending it to the mortuary, which is Ex.PW46/C.
8. That when he sent Ct. Ajeet to mortuary, he gave him a request letter addressed to the CMO St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 162 (Mortuary), which is Ex.PW46/D requesting him to preserve the dead body.
55. SI Sharat Kohli This witness has proved the following aspects:
(PW50) 1. That on 29.6.2007, he along with inspector Sukesh Singh had gone to Tihar Jail No.1 where the accused Chander Kant Jha was already in judicial custody in case FIR No. 609/06 and after taking permission from Superintendent Jail, Tihar, the accused Chander Kant Jha was produced in the room of the Superintendent, where he was interrogated by Inspector Sukesh Singh in his presence and thereafter formally arrested vide memo Ex.PW50/A.
2. That on 7.7.2007 he along with Inspector Sukesh Singh went to house no. 229/2, Haiderpur, Delhi, where they met one Rajeev Kumar, who claimed himself to the owner of the said property who informed Inspector Sukesh Singh that the accused Chander Kant Jha (whom the witness has correctly identified in the Court) was residing as a tenant in one of the rooms on the ground floor, which he had taken on rent in the year 2006.
3. That Rajeev Kumar also produced one BDO certificate issued by the Gram Panchayat, which is Ex.PW50/B and the said document was duly seized by inspector Sukesh vide memo Ex.PW9/A.
4. That on 10.7.2007, on the directions of inspector Sukesh Singh, he went to Police Staion Loni, Gaziabad where the MHC(M) HC Vinod Kumar handed over to him one transparent glass jar duly closed but not sealed with a slip mentioning the words 'hindon river mortuary vide PM No. 542/07, the same was containing human parts which he handed over to Inspector Sukesh who seized the same vide Ex.PW50/C.
5. That on the directions of Inspector Sukesh Singh, he took the exhibits containing the body parts recovered at the instance of the accused to the FSL Rohini vide RC No. 47/21/07 and 48/21/07 and deposited the same in the FSL Rohini. He has also deposed that Sri Ram and Dharmi @ Dharmo accompanied him to FSL Rohini along with Inspector Sukesh Singh where their blood samples were taken by the experts for DNA finger printing / examination.
6. That on 30.7.2007, he along with Inspector Sukesh Singh went to FSL Rohini and vide RC No. 59/21/07 deposited a petti containing the viscera of St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 163 the deceased in the Chemistry Division and also deposited the other exhibits in the biology division vide RC No. 60/21/07 and thereafter, they returned to the PS, where his statement was recorded by the Investigating Officer.
7. That on 8.9.2007, he along with Inspector Sukesh Singh went to Police Station Loni Gaziabad, where he met HC Vinod, the MHC (M) and obtained the copy of the register no. 19 of the Malkhana from him.
8. That Inspector Sukesh Singh also met SI Sarvesh Yadav Incharge Police Post Lal Bagh and collected the original inquest papers pertaining to PM No. 548/07, CMO No. 542/07, inquest form no. 211, DD entry no. 19 dated 25.4.07 PS Loni, Form no.
379, report of CMO, Challan form, report of senior prosecuting officer and sample seal, which were thereafter seized vide memo Ex.PW41/A.
9. That thereafter they went to the market of area Lal Bagh where they met Mohd. Yamin and on the nishandehi / pointing out of Mohd. Yamin, Inspector Sukesh Singh prepared the site plan of the place from where the body parts were recovered which site plan is Ex.PW50/D.
56. Inspector Hoshiyar He is the initial Investigating Officer who has proved the Singh (PW55) various investigations conducted by him and has also proved the various documents.
57. SI Krishan Baldev This witness was the Incharge Police Post Town Loni, (PW57) District Ghaziabad and has proved the following aspects:
1. That on 25.4.2007 at about 11 AM, information had been received that some person left two boxes containing private part/ penis and one head near the shop of the juice, near Subzi Mandi Khadanja which information was recorded vide DD No. 19 dated 25.04.2007 at Police Station Loni after which he along with his staff reached at Chowki Lal Bagh, where he found the aforesaid box in a plastic thaili and thereafter prepared the panchnama which is Ex.PW57/A.
2. That he prepared the "photo naas" vide Ex.PW57/B and got the aforesaid part photographed.
3. That he prepared the request made to CMO, MMG hospital, Ghaziabad, which is Ex.PW57/C for getting the said part preserved.
4. That he filled in Form 13 which is Ex.PW57/D and the report which is Ex.PW57/E. St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 164
58. Inspector Sukesh He is the subsequent Investigating Officer who has proved Singh (PW58) the following documents:
Ex.PW58/A Electricity bill of Rajeev Kumar
Ex.PW58/B Copy of driving license of Rajeev
Kumar
Ex.PW58/C Postmortem report No. 459/07
Ex.PW58/D Seizure memo of three copies of
pointing out memos
Ex.PW58/E Seizure memo of negatives and
photographs dated 4.9.2007
Ex.PW58/G-1 to Photographs
Ex.PW58/G-17
Ex.PW58/H Site plan at AU Block, near canal
Pitampura
59. Sh. Rishi Pal He is the Addl. DCP West District, Delhi who has proved
(PW61) that on 27.12.2011 he had supplied the information to
Chanderkant Jha, UTP under RTI vide Ex.PW34/DX1 and that on 17.01.2011, he had issued the corrigendum with regard to the previous information, which is Ex.PW61/A. (161) Coming now to the microscopic evaluation of the evidence against the accused.
No Ocular / Direct Evidence:
(162) Ocular evidence/ eye witness count is the best evidence in any case but unfortunately in the present case there is no direct ocular evidence and the entire case of the prosecution rests upon circumstantial, electronic, forensic and other evidence.
Medical Evidence / Cause of Death:
(163) The case of the prosecution is that the death of the deceased was homicidal caused on account of decapitation of head in the intervening night of . In this regard they have placed their reliance on the postmortem report and the opinion given by the Autopsy Surgeon Dr. St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 165 Anil Shandil (PW54) and Dr. P.K. Singh (PW56) whose testimonies have gone uncontroverted as the accused has chosen not to cross- examine him.
(164) Dr. Anil Shandil has proved having carried out the postmortem examination on 20.5.2007 at 11:30 AM on the decapitated body which was found lying near Gate No.3, Tihar Jail on 25.4.2007. The said postmortem report is Ex.PW54/A according to which no definite opinion regarding cause of death could be given, however, postmortem findings were consistent with homicidal death and the wounds mentioned in postmortem report were caused by sharp edged weapon. He has proved that the blood and viscera for chemical analysis and sternum for DNA finger printing was preserved and handed over to the police for FSL examination. On a Court Question to the witness to inform about the cause of death i.e. whether it was on account of cutting of the body parts or whether the body was cut after the death of the deceased and also if any subsequent opinion had been taken after taking the viscera report, to which, the witness has replied that cause of death in this case was consistent with decapitation of head, the head was decapitated/cut before the death and hence conclusion that the cause of death was decapitation of head. After seeing the Viscera Report which is Ex.PW54/B the witness has proved that there is no indication of poison prior to the death of the deceased, which ruled out poisoning prior to the death of the deceased or cause of death. The viscera report Ex.PW54/B shows the presence of ethyl alcohol indicating that the deceased had consumed alcohol prior to his death. However, the time of death has not been given by the Autopsy Surgeon. (165) Dr. P.K. Singh (PW56) Medical Officer at District Hospital, Ghaziabad who had carried out the postmortem examination on the St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 166 recovered body parts i.e. left arm and penis and scrotum of the body vide postmortem report Ex.PW56/A. He has proved that he had conducted the postmortem examination on 26.04.2007 at about 5:30 PM and has also proved that the time since dead of the above parts was about two days meaning thereby that the death would have occurred in the intervening night of 24-25.4.2007 after which the dead body was discovered at the patri near Gate No.3, Tihar Jail in the morning of 25.4.2007 at about 8:30 AM. He has proved that the anatomical appearance was suggestive of a male arm and the total length of the arm was 70 cms from the upper part of the humorous bone till fingers.
However, cause of death could not be ascertained for these organs. He has proved that both parts were preserved in formalin for further forensic analysis and I hereby hold that there is no question of any tampering the above postmortem report since Delhi Police was not aware of the same.
(166) The above reports of both the Autopsy Surgeons have gone uncontroverted and conclusively establish that the death of the deceased (Upender) occurred on the intervening night of 24-25.4.2007 which was on account of decapitation of the head. Here, I may specifically note that the postmortem report conclusively establishes that death of the deceased was due to decapitation and decapitation was not subsequent to death.
Motive of Crime / Accused - a Serial Killer:
(167) The case of the prosecution is that the accused Chanderkant Jha is a Serial Killer who is a serious problem for the Law Enforcement Agencies whose motives may not become very obvious initially but the manner in which he had executed the serial killings of young boys St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 167 belonging to extremely poor families by taking advantage of their weak socio-economic status and vulnerability and after having won their confidence indicates the planned manner in which the accused had been throwing a challenge to the Law Enforcement Agencies. It is argued by the Ld. Addl. Public Prosecutor that the only task of the accused which can be gathered from the various letters that he had been leaving along with the decapitated bodies allegedly thrown by him in front of the Central Jail Tihar, shows that he takes pleasure in throwing a challenge to the legally constituted Systems of this Country i.e. Police, Jail Authorities etc. and his only motive is to target and harass the Law Enforcement Agencies. The Ld. Addl. PP has also argued that the victims were chosen very carefully by the accused and he used to kill them to seek revenge on account of his disagreement with them and their ways and then in order to challenge the system he scattered their body parts at various places.
(168) The Ld. Defence Counsel on the other hand has vehemently argued the prosecution case that the motive behind the murder was because the accused was not happy with the habits of the deceased of eating non vegetarian food, eating paan-guthkha, of not washing their utensils etc. as alleged in the disclosure statement of the accused is contrary to the claims now being made by the prosecution. He has further submitted that the prosecution has not been able to establish any of the motives so attributed to the accused and the allegations have been made only on mere conjectures and surmises which do not find support from any material brought on record by them. (169) I have considered the rival contentions and given my careful consideration to the same. Motive is only an attitude of mind and an emotion prompting the act i.e. love, compassion, fear, jealousy, St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 168 perverseness, lust, hatred, wish to frighten, gesture, desire for money etc. (Ref.: Criminal Law, 7th Edition P.S. Acthuthen Pillai). It is relevant to a limited extent since it may lead to creation of intention for commission of offence. It has to be gathered from the surrounding circumstances and such evident should form one of the links to the chain of circumstantial evidence. The proof of motive would only strengthen the prosecution case and fortify the court in its ultimate conclusion but in the absence of any connecting evidence or link which would be sufficient in itself from the face of it, the accused cannot be convicted. Motive is best known to the perpetrator of the crime and not to others. Motives of men are often subjective, submerged and unamenable to easy proof that courts have to go without clear evidence thereon if other clinching evidence exists. A motive is indicated to heighten the probability that the offence was committed by the person who was impelled by the motive but if the crime is alleged to have been committed for a particular motive, it is relevant to inquire whether the pattern of the crime fits in which the alleged motive.
(170) Regarding the motive of crime, it may be observed that in a case based on circumstantial evidence, the existence of motive assumed significance though the absence of motive does not necessarily discredit the prosecution case, if the case stands otherwise established by other conclusive circumstances and the chain of circumstantial evidence is so complete and is consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and inconsistent with the hypothesis of his innocence. (171) Existence of motive for committing a crime is not an absolute requirement of law but it is always relevant fact, which will be taken into consideration by Courts as it will render assistance to Courts while analysing prosecution evidence and determining guilt of accused. [Ref.:St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 169
IV (2012) SLT 257].
(172) Applying the settled principles of law to the facts of the present case, I may observe that the prosecution seeks to prove the Motive so attributed to the accused by placing their reliance on the letters recovered from the gunny bag along with the decapitated bodies recovered outside Central Jail Tihar on 20.10.2006 (FIR No. 609/2006 Police Station Hari Nagar) and 18.5.2007 (FIR No.279/2007). (173) In so far as the disclosure statement of the accused made to the Police which is Ex.PW43/C is concerned the same is inadmissible in evidence except to the disclosure of the relevant fact. The documentary evidence which has come on record in the form of letter written by the alleged killer who had committed the offence i.e. the accused is self explanatory. The said letter shows the gross defiance of the accused / assailant to the lawful constituted establishments and the challenge which he had thrown to the System when he says "... iska saboot ye hai ki 2003 ke november mahine mein jo ek number par main-ne murder karke dala usko bhi tum log nahin khol sake aur na hi is case ko khol paoge kyonki ye hamara vada hai varna nahin to najayaj case lagana band karo ya phir case khol sako to case khol kar dikha do....". The handwriting of the letter has tallied with the handwriting of the accused Chanderkant Jha and the contents of the said letter (as above) reflect his state of mind at the relevant time when the crime had been committed and how he had thrown a challenge to the System. This motive further gets strengthened when the accused left another letter with a decapitated body on 18.5.2007 (in FIR No. 279/07, Police Station Hari Nagar which has been proved to be in his handwriting) wherein he has again mocked the System and challenged the police to apprehend him and to put a reward on him as per his acts when he wrote "....delhi Police ke jaanbaz St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 170 D.H.G. se lekar I.P.S. Tum sabhi ko tumhare jijaji aur tumhare daamad ke taraf se khullam-khulla challenge hai ki agar vakai mein tumlogon ki maa ko tumlogon ke hi baap ne chodkar paida kiya hai to mujhe pakarkar dikhao varna tum saare upar se niche tak ke delhi Police ka staff najayaz maa + baap ka paidaish kahlaoge...." and further that ".....Aur shale delhi Police ke chote se bare ohdedaaroon tumhe zara si bhi akal nahin hai ki kam se kam itna murder karne vale ke upar abhi tak nahin kuch to 50 hazar inaam to rakh hi doon ya upar valoon se is CC ke baare mein jyada se jyada khunkhar aur khatarnaak ka upadhi de kar inaam rakhvaane ka koshih karo taki is khel mein kuch maja aaye kyonki tum to shale sharif ke baare mein akhbar aur challan mein aise darshaate ho jaise ki vo janamjaat peshevar criminal ho lekin madarchod delhi Police vale main teri maa behan chod raha hoon khullam-khulla to mere upar inaam kyon nahin rakh rahe ho. Main apne upar inaam ki raashi jaanne ke liye ati utsuk hoon. Dhyan rakhna ki mere kaam ke laayak inaam jarur hona chahiye varna meri beijjati hogi to main tum sabki beijjati karva doonga.....". It is this which confirms that the motive of the serial killings carried out by the accused was to throw a challenge to the Law Enforcement Agencies. (174) Dr. Mike Aamodt of Radford University Department of Psychology in his work "Serial Killer IQ" while studying the behaviour of Organized nonsocial offenders usually have above average intelligence, with a mean IQ of 113, observed that these persons often planned their crimes quite methodically, usually abducting victims, killing them in one place and disposing of them in another. They often lured the victims with ploys appealing to their sense of sympathy. They maintain a high degree of control over the crime scene and usually have a solid knowledge of forensic science that enables them to cover their St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 171 tracks, such as burying the body or weighing it down and sinking it in a river. They follow their crimes in the news media carefully and often take pride in their actions, as if it were all a grand project. The organized killer is usually socially adequate, has friends and lovers and sometimes even a spouse and children. They are the type who, when/if captured, are most likely to be described by acquaintances as kind and unlikely to hurt anyone.
(175) It is writ large that the profile of the accused Chanderkant Jha / alleged author of the crime / the serial killings which took place in the year 2006 - 2007 in respect of the which FIR No.609/2006, FIR No. 243/2007 and FIR No. 279/2007 of Police Station Hari Nagar all under Sections 302/201 IPC absolutely fits into the description of an Organized Serial Killer as put forth by Dr. Mike Aamodt. It is evident that after leaving the decapitated bodies outside Central Jail Tihar the accused used to inform the police telephonically regarding the keeping of the body and was abused to the person who attended the call. He also left the letters along with two of the decapitated bodies to boast about his actions i.e. past as well as present. It is evident from the above letters that he not only confessed to the killings of the victims whose decapitated bodies were found along with the letters but also disclosed his involvement in other previous killings in clear terms. In the letter left with the body on 18.5.2007 he had boasted of previously thrown a decapitated body outside Gate No.1 Central Jail Tihar in November 2003 which case the police had not been able to workout till date. The manner of the killings of the victims with extreme brutality by decapitating and severing of their heads and body parts establish the excessive violence and perversity involved in the crime and the manner in which the decapitated parts of the bodies of the victims have been thrown at St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 172 various places establish the planned manner in which the crime has been executed and the thrills that the accused was deriving by throwing a challenge to the System (police). It is also evident that the accused had been following his crimes in the news and media and was taking pride in his actions, as is reflected in the letter left by him along with the decapitated body found outside Tihar Jail on 18.5.2007 wherein the accused has taunted and mocked at the Delhi Police not only for their failure to catch him but also for their failure to establish the identity of the deceased in the said case which he then disclosed was Amit and asked the Delhi Police to inform the media about the letter ".......delhi Police ke liye tohfa bheja tha uske andar jo letter nahin mila to bechare akhbar vale bhi pareshaan ho gaye ki aakhir delhi Police valoon ke damaad aur jijajine abki baar letter kyon nahin bheja. Isliye main aap logoon ke shikayat par gaur pharmaya hai..." and then added that "...Ye letter akhbar valoon ko bhi padhwa dena.."
(176) Further, the manner in which the killings have been executed in all the cases i.e. FIR bearing No. 609/2006, FIR No.243/2007 and FIR No. 279/2007 all of Police Station Hari Nagar reflect a definite pattern / design. This definitely establishes that the accused is Mission Oriented and Task Oriented Serial Killer whose only motive / mission is to expose, mock and challenge the police who as per his allegations had falsely implicated him in many criminal cases.
Discovery of facts pursuant to the disclosure of the accused:
(177) The case of the prosecution is that pursuant to his arrest on 20.5.2007 the accused Chanderkant Jha had allegedly made a disclosure statement to the police wherein not only did he disclosed the police his involvement in the various serial killings dated (20.10.2006, 24- St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 173
25.4.2007 and 18.5.2007) after which he had thrown the bodies of the victims at various places around Delhi but also the details of the victims, the reason why he killed them, the manner of their killings, how he disposed off their bodies, the letters which he had left along with the bodies, the telephone calls which he made to the police after committing the offences and the place where he had kept the weapons of offence and the conveyance i.e. rickshaw fitted with engine of a scooter in which he used to carry the mutilated bodies and dismembered parts which he disposed off in and around Delhi.
(178) In support of their case the prosecution seeks to rely upon the disclosure statement of the accused and the various recoveries which were got effected pursuant to the same whereas on the other hand the Ld. Defence Counsel has vehemently denied that any such disclosure was made by the accused to the police. He has argued that even otherwise the disclosure if any made by the accused while in Police Custody is hit by Section 27 of the Evidence Act.
(179) I have considered the rival contentions but before coming to the merits of the argument, it is necessary to first briefly discuss the relevant provisions of law. As per the provisions of Section 27 of Evidence Act, which is in the nature of a proviso to Section 26 of the Act, to the extent it is relevant, when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved. Thus the requirement of law is that before the fact discovered in consequence of an information received from an accused is allowed to be proved, he (accused) needs to be in the custody of a police officer.
St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 174(180) Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act explains the meaning of the word Fact. It provides that a fact means and includes:
a) Anything, state of things, or relation of things, or capable of being perceived by the senses,
b) Any mental condition of which any person is conscious. (181) It further provides five illustrations as to what would constitute a fact which are as under:
a) That there are certain objects arranged in a certain order in a certain place, is a fact
b) That a man heard or saw something, is a fact.
c) That a man said certain words, is a fact.
d) That a man holds a certain opinion, has a certain intention, acts in good faith, or fraudulently, or uses a particular word in a particular sense, or is or was at a specified time conscious of a particular sensation, is a fact.
e) That a man has a certain reputation, is a fact.
(182) A co-joint reading of Section 3 and Section 27 of Evidence Act would apply that as much of the statement as would relate to the discovery of fact connected with the accused would be admissible in evidence. The discovery of the fact is not only the discovery of the articles but also the discovery of the fact that the articles were kept by a particular accused at a particular place because in principle there is no difference between the statement made by the accused to the effect that "I will show you the person to whom I have given the articles" and the statement that "I will show you the place where I have kept the articles". (183) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K. Chinnaswamy Reddy Vs. State of A.P. reported in AIR 1962 SC 1788 had exhaustively St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 175 discussed the scope and ambit of Section 27 of the Evidence Act had considered the question as to whether the statement of the accused to the effect that "he had hidden them (the ornaments)" and "would point out the place", where they were, is wholly admissible in evidence under S. 27 or only that part of it is admissible where he stated that he would point out the place but not that part where he stated that he had hidden the ornaments. In the above case the Ld. Sessions Judge had relied upon the judgment of Pulukuri Kotayya Vs. King-Emperor reported in 74 Ind App 65: AIR 1947 PC 67 where a part of the statement leading to the recovery of a knife in a murder case was held inadmissible by the Judicial Committee. It was observed by My Lords of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that in the above case (Pulukuri Kotayya) the Judicial Committee considered S. 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, as under:-
"Provided that when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a person, accused of any offence, in the custody of a police officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved......"
".... this section is an exception to Ss. 25 and 26 which prohibit the proof of a confession made to a police officer or a confession made while a person is in police custody unless it is made in immediate presence of a Magistrate. Section 27 allows that part of the statement made by the accused to the police "whether it amounts to a confession or not" which relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered to be proved. Thus even a confessional statement before the police which distinctly relates to the discovery of a fact may be proved under S. 27. The Judicial Committee had in that case to consider how much of the information given by the accused to the police would be admissible under S. 27 and laid stress on the words "so much of such information........... as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered" in that connection. It held that the extent of the information St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 176 admissible must depend on the exact nature of the fact discovered to which such information is required to relate. It was further pointed out that "the fact discovered embraces the place from which the object is produced and the knowledge of the accused as to this, and the information given must relate distinctly to this fact...."
"........Information as to past user, or the past history of the object produced is not related to its discovery in the setting in which it is discovered.
This was exemplified further by the Judicial Committee by observing that the information supplied by a person in custody that 'I will produce a knife concealed in the roof of my house' leads to the discovery of the fact that a knife is concealed in the house of the informant to his knowledge and if the knife is proved to have been used in the commission of the offence, the fact discovered is very relevant. If, however, to the statement the words be added 'with which I stabbed A', these words are inadmissible since they do not relate to the discovery of the knife in the house of the informant......"
(184) After considering the settled principles the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under:
"......If we may respectfully say so, this case clearly brings out what part of the statement is admissible under S. 27. It is only that part which distinctly relates to the discovery which is admissible; but if any part of the statement distinctly relates to the discovery it will be admissible wholly and the court cannot say that it will excise one part of the statement because it is of a confessional nature. Section 27 makes that part of the statement which is distinctly related to the discovery admissible as a whole, whether it be in the nature of confession or not. Now the statement in this case is said to be that the appellant stated that he would show the place where he had hidden the ornaments. The Sessions Judge has held that part of this statement which is to the effect "where he had hidden them" is not admissible. It is clear that if that part of the statement is excised the remaining statement (namely, that he would show the place) would be St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 177 completely meaningless. The whole of this statement in our opinion relates distinctly to the discovery of ornaments and is admissible under S. 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. The words "where he had hidden them" are not on a par with the words "with which I stabbed the deceased" in the example given in the judgment of the Judicial Committee. These words (namely, where he had hidden them) have nothing to do with the past history of the crime and are distinctly related to the actual discovery that took place by virtue of that statement. It is however urged that in a case where the offence consists of possession even the words "where he had hidden them"
would be inadmissible as they would amount to an admission by the accused that he was in possession.
There are in our opinion two answers to this argument. In the first place S. 27 itself says that where the statement distinctly relates to the discovery it will be admissible whether it amounts to a confession or not. In the second place, these words by themselves though they may show possession of the appellant would not prove the offence, for after the articles have been recovered the prosecution has still to show that the articles recovered are connected with the crime, i.e., in this case, the prosecution will have to show that they are stolen property. We are, therefore, of opinion that the entire statement of the appellant (as well as of the other accused who stated that he had given the ornament to Bada Sab and would have it recovered from him) would be admissible in evidence and the Sessions Judge was wrong in ruling out part of it. Therefore, as relevant and admissible evidence was ruled out by the Sessions Judge, this is a fit case where the High Court would be entitled to set aside the finding of acquittal in revision though it is unfortunate that the High Court did not confine itself only to this point and went on to make rather strong remarks about other parts of the evidence....."
(185) Later in the year 1969 the Three Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has in the case of Zaffar Hussain Dastagir Vs. State of Maharastra reported in 1969 (2) SCC 872 while dealing with the St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 178 applicability of the provisions of Section 27 of the Indian Evident Act relied upon the case of K. Chinnaswamy Reddy Vs. State of A.P. observed as under:
"....in order that the Section may apply the prosecution must establish the information given by the accused led to the discovery of some fact deposed to by him and the discovery must be of some fact which the police had not previously learnt from other sources and that the knowledge of the fact was first derived from information given by the accused.
The essential ingredient of the Section is that the information given by the accused must led to the discovery of the fact which is the direct outcome of such information; secondly only such portion of the information given as is distinctly connected with the said discovery is admissible against the accused and thirdly the discovery of the fact must relate to the commission of some offence..."
(186) In the said case the Hon'ble Supreme Court further went to explain that:
"..... In a case where the accused is charged with theft of articles or receiving stolen articles states to the police "I will show you the articles at the place where I have kept them" and the articles were actually found there, there can be no doubt that the information given by the accused led to the discovery of a fact that is keeping of the articles by the accused at the place mentioned. However, the discovery of the fact deposed to in such a case is not the discovery of the articles but the discovery of the fact that the articles were kept by the accused at a particular place. It was observed that in principle, there is no difference between the above statement and that made by the accused in the case which in effect is that "I will show you the person whom I have given the diamonds exceeding 200 in number". The only difference between the two statements is that a "named person" is substituted for "the place" where the articles are kept. In neither case are the articles of the diamonds, in fact St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 179 discovered. There can be no doubt that the portion of the alleged statement of the accused would be admissible in evidence......"
(187) In the recent past the Hon'ble Supreme Court has in the case of State (NCT of Delhi) Vs. Navjot Sandhu with Shaukat Hussain Guru Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in AIR 2005 SC 3820 reinforced the above view when it observed that "discovery of fact" should be read with the definition of "fact" as contained in Section 3 of the Evidence Act which defines the "fact" as meaning and including anything, state of things or relation of things, capable of being perceived by the senses and also includes any mental condition of which any person is conscious (emphasis supplied). It was held that the provisions of Section 27 would apply whenever there is discovery which discovery amounts to be confirmatory in character guaranteeing the truth of the information given to which facts the police officer had no access earlier which also includes recovery of material object. The Hon'ble Court further observed that so much of the information as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered is admissible.
(188) Applying these principles to the facts of the present case I may observe that as per the case of the prosecution the accused after his arrest on 20.5.2007 the accused made a detail disclosure statement to the police wherein he gave information regarding the identity of the various victims, the object and motive of his killing them, the manner of their killings, the manner he disposed off their bodies, the letters which he had left along with the bodies, the telephone calls which he made to the police after committing the offences and the place where he had kept the weapons of offence and the conveyance i.e. rickshaw fitted with engine of a scooter in which he used to carry the mutilated bodies and St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 180 dismembered parts which he disposed off in and around Delhi. I have gone through this disclosure statement and the perusal of the said statement shows that in his disclosure the accused Chanderkant Jha had given the following information:
➢ That in the year 2002 after he released from the Jail he started residing at Azadpur in Char Khambe Wali Gali and during those days he got acquainted with one Anil Mandal @ Amit a resident of Bhagalpur, Bihar who was introduced to him by one Arvind. ➢ That he become fed up with the acts of Anil Mandal @ Amit since Anil Mandal used to frequently borrow money from him which he failed to return despite his asking.
➢ That when Anil @ Amit Mandal had gone to Rohini Court for attending a date, he took Anil @ Amit Mandal along with him and took him to his room at the house of Mangal Sen Pandit. ➢ That he had killed Anil @ Amit Mandal after beheading him. ➢ That he put the decapitated body of Anil @ Amit Mandal in a tokri and also put a letter in the said tokri.
➢ That he threw the decapitated body of Anil @ Amit Mandal on the parti / footpath between the Gate No.3 and ATM of Central Jail Tihar.
➢ That thereafter he threw the head of Amit @ Anil Mandal in a pit of water near Loni.
➢ That thereafter he went to Tilak Nagar from where he made a call at Police Station Hari Nagar from a STD Booth and took the mobile number of Inspector Hoshiyar Singh. ➢ That he had spoken to Inspector Hoshiyar Singh on his telephone bearing No. 9871284644 and while he was still talking to Inspector Hoshiyar Singh the STD Booth owner had suspicion on St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 181 him due to which reason he immediately went away from there. ➢ That he can point out the place where he had committed the offence and can got recover the motor-rickshaw on which he had thrown the body parts at various places.
➢ That in the month of March-April 2007 he got acquainted with one boy Upender who was a resident of Maharajganj, Uttar Pradesh.
➢ That Upender used to reside with him and he was having the mobile phone numbers of Upender and his friends / relatives which phone numbers were recovered during his personal search (jamatalashi).
➢ That he was having the photograph of Upender and his relative Pankaj at his room at Alipur which photograph he can get recovered.
➢ That there was a disputed between him and Upender in respect of a mobile phone.
➢ That he took Upender to his room at Haiderpur where he committed the murder of Upender by decapitating his head, hands, legs and private pats.
➢ That he had put one leg of Upender in a thaila and left the same at Shalimar Bagh Mandir; left another leg at Samay Nagar; one hand at Tis Hazari Courts, Central Gate; another arm and private part at Lal Bagh Loni (Uttar Pradesh) near a sugarcane juice shop and had thrown the head in Yamuna River from the ISBT Flyover.
➢ That he had kept the weapon of offence in his room at Haiderpur and the rickshaw fitted with engine on which he had taken the various body parts and had thrown the decapitated body St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 182 of Upender at Gate No.3, Central Jail Tihar was lying at his house at Alipur which he can recover.
➢ That when he was lodged in Jail he met with one Surender who was also lodged in Jail No.3 in a case under Section 379/411 IPC. ➢ That through Surender he got acquainted to one Dalip a resident of Bihar.
➢ That Dalip was residing with him for the last 15-16 days and told him that he wanted to work as electrician for which reason he (accused) helped him by giving clothes, food, mobile etc. but thereafter Dalip started telling lies.
➢ That he was in search of persons who could not be identified easily and by killing him he wanted to take revenge from Jail and Police Authorities.
➢ That Dalip used to consume alcohol and non vegetarian food and was involved in womanizing.
➢ That one day Dalip had eaten fish but did not clean the utensils. ➢ That on 17.5.2007 at about 4:00 PM when he met Dalip, he took him to his room at Haiderpur where he committed his murder by decapitating his head, hands, legs and private parts.
➢ That he put the decapitated body in a plastic katta, tied it with a rope and left the same in front of Gate No.1, Central Jail Tihar by using his motor-rickshaw.
➢ That he had put a two pages letter along with the decapitated dead body in which letter he had mentioned the details of the killings done by him.
➢ That thereafter he went to Titarpur from where he made calls to Police Station Hari Nagar and also at 100 number from a St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 183 STD Booth.
➢ That on 18.5.2007 he packed the legs of Dalip in a cardboard box and threw the same in Ganda Nala of Sarai Rohilla and threw the head of Dalip in Yamuna river by wrapping the same in a ghaghri and a red cloth whereas both the hands and private parts of Dalip were packed in a cardboard box and threw the same in front of State Bank of India at Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
➢ That he can point out the various places where he had thrown the dead body and various parts of the dead body.
(189) It is writ large from the above that the identity of the decapitated bodies recovered outside Central Jail Tihar could only be discovered on the basis of the information given by the accused Chandrakant Jha in his disclosure statement. The Investigating Agency was not in the knowledge of the identity of the decapitated bodies discovered outside Tihar Jail on 20.10.2006 (FIR No. 609/2006), 25.4.2007 (FIR No. 243/2007) and 18.5.2007 (FIR No. 279/2007). For the first time it was only after the above disclosure made by the accused and on the information given by him that it came to be known that the decapitated body found outside Central Jail Tihar on 20.10.2006 belonged to one Anil @ Amil Mandal original resident of Bhagalpur, Bihar. Similarly it was only after the above disclosure made by the accused that it came to be known that the decapitated body found outside Central Jail Tihar on 25.4.2007 belonged to one Upender original resident of Maharajganj, Uttar Pradesh who used to reside with him. The accused was in the know of the mobile phone numbers of friends and relatives of Upender which phone numbers were recovered during his St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 184 personal search (jamatalashi). Again it was only after the above disclosure made by the accused that it came to be known that the decapitated body found outside Central Jail Tihar on 18.5.2007 (FIR No. 279/2007) belonged to one Dalip original resident of Bihar whose parentage and other particulars the Investigating Agency has not been able to confirm till date.
(190) Further, it was only on account of the disclosure made by the accused that it came to be known to the Investigating Agency that Anil @ Amit Mandal was involved in a criminal case and had come to attend a hearing at Rohini Court on 19.10.2006 which fact was not earlier in the knowledge of Investigating Agency and now stands confirmed on the basis of the Judicial Record of the case against Anil Mandal (FIR No.628/2003, Police Station Shalimar Bagh under Sections 25/54/59 of Arms Act. Here, I may observe that it was much later in the year 2010 in the further investigations that the identity of the decapitated body could be finally confirmed after tracing the family of Anil @ Amit Mandal R/o Bhagalpur Bihar on the basis of the DNA Report and had it not been for the disclosure of the accused that the deceased was involved in a criminal case and had come to attend a date in the Rohini Courts on 19.10.2006 that the identity of the deceased would not have been established. In fact in the slip recovered from the possession of the accused at the time of his arrest bearing various mobile numbers, this Court has observed that there is one name mentioned i.e. Rajesh Goel. It is now at final stage when this Court suo-moto called for judicial record of case FIR No. 628/03 that it was revealed that on 19.10.2006 the deceased Anil Mandal appeared before Sh. Rajesh Goel, Ld. MM, Rohini. This fact was not within the knowledge of anyone that the Court where the deceased Anil Mandal had the hearing of his case listed was of St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 185 Sh. Rajesh Goel MM and it is now at this final stage that it has been revealed (from judicial record suo-moto called by the Court) that it was in the Court of Sh. Rajesh Goel MM (whose name finds reflected in the slip found in possession of the accused at the time of his arrest). It is this fact which lends credibility to the disclosure statement of the accused and also to the paper slip (containing many telephone numbers and names) recovered from the possession of the accused. (191) Pursuant to his disclosure the accused had also led the police party to Yamuna Banks where he had allegedly thrown the skulls of two of the victims whom he had killed i.e. Dalip and Anil Mandal. This fact that the skull had been wrapped in a ghaghri and red cloth and thrown on the banks of river Yamuna was not in the knowledge of the Investigating Agency. It was the accused Chanderkant Jha who pointed out the place where he had thrown both the skulls out of which one skull and jaw could be recovered on his pointing out. According to the accused the said skull and jaw appeared to be of Dalip who used to consume gutkha but the DNA Fingerprinting report conclusively established that the same was of Anil Mandal @ Amit the victim in FIR No. 609/2006 whose decapitated was discovered outside Tihar Jail on 20.10.2006 (not of Dalip - in fact skull of Dalip could not be found).
(192) The accused also disclosed that after killing his victims he used to cut off their body parts and threw their parts at various places in and around Delhi with the help of his motorable rickshaw (which rickshaw he got recovered from his house at Alipur immediately after his arrest). Though many of these body parts were recovered at various places in Delhi even before the arrest of the accused yet I may observe that they could not be connected to the victims so killed by the accused. It was only pursuant to the arrest of the accused that the body parts i.e. one leg St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 186 put recovered at Ramdev Mandir, Shalimar Bagh, arm and private part at Lal Bagh Loni (Uttar Pradesh) which had been found near a sugarcane juice shop were dismembered parts of body of Upender (FIR No. 243/2007) and the lower limbs and the private parts which had been recovered near State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Courts belonged to Dalip (confirmed by the DNA Fingerprinting Report). This is discovery of fact as contemplated under Section 27 of Evidence Act and is admissible in evidence.
(193) Further, pursuant to his disclosure the accused led the police party to his room at Haiderpur from where he got recovered three choppers and a nunchaku which he used for killing his victims. The FSL Report confirms the presence of blood stains of AB Group on one of the choppers / knives and also on the concrete floor of the room which is the blood group belonging to the last victim of the accused i.e. Dalip (FIR No. 279/2007) whom he had killed about five to six days prior to his arrest.
(194) It is evident that the place where the decapitated body was recovered was already within the knowledge of the police but the Investigating Agency was not able to connect these body parts being recovered from various places to the victims until it was the accused who disclosed to them at what place he had thrown the dismembered body part of which victim. Further, it was also not within the knowledge of the Investigating Agency as to how the decapitation of the victims had been done unless it is the accused who disclosed to them that he had done it with the help of choppers / knives which he got recovered from his house at Haiderpur. It was also not within the knowledge of the Investigating Agency that the slip recovered from the pocket of the accused contained the telephone numbers of the relatives of Upender one St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 187 of the victim in FIR No. 243/2007. Pursuant to the above disclosure it was the accused who not only led the police to his room at Haiderpur but also got recovered from there, the choppers / knives and also one mobile phone which he disclosed was belonging to one of his victims (last victim Dalip in FIR No. 279/2007) and it is this which is discovery of relevant fact. The portion of the disclosure statement of the accused which is discovery of facts as aforesaid is admissible in evidence and is a strong pointer towards the guilt of the accused.
Recovery of the letter in FIR No. 609/2006 & FIR No. 279/2007 along with the decapitated body/ Report of the Handwriting Expert/ Letters are in the nature of Confession:
(195) The case of the prosecution is that in all the serial killings which had taken place in respect of which three FIRs i.e. FIR No.609/2006, FIR No. 243/2007 and FIR No.279/2007 were registered, a definite pattern was observed by the Investigating Agency. Along with the decapitated bodies in two cases i.e. FIR No. 609/2006 & FIR No.279/2007 the killer had also placed a handwritten letter in which he not only confessed his having killed the victims but also mocked the Law Enforcement Agency and challenged them to lay their hands on him.
The Ld. Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State has placed his reliance on the said letters recovered along with the decapitated bodies (in FIR No.609/2006 & FIR No.279/2007) which according to the prosecution reflects that the killings were the handiwork of only one person and it is in this regard that in the letter recovered on 18.5.2007 (in FIR No.279/2007) not only does the killer disclose the identity of the decapitated body recovered on 20.10.2006 (in FIR No.609/2006) but also confesses to having thrown the decapitated body outside Gate No.3, Tihar Jail in FIR No. 243/2007 after killing his victim around 24 th of St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 188 April.
(196) On the other hand it is argued by the Ld. Defence Counsel that the said letters recovered along with the decapitated body on 20.10.2006 (in FIR No. 609/2006) and on 18.5.2007 (in FIR No. 279/2007) have been planted upon the accused by the police later on to create evidence against the accused. It is submitted that in both the cases i.e. FIR No. 609/2006 and 279/2007 the said letters do not find a mention either in the Crime Team Reports nor are reflected in the photographs taken by the Crime Team which clearly show that they have been planted only to work out the case. Ld. Defence Counsel has also pointed out that despite the fact that the said letters have been allegedly seized by the Investigating Officer on the same day yet in both the cases they have not been sealed or deposited in the Malkhana at the earliest showing that they have been planted much later.
(197) The Ld. Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State has sought to counter the arguments advanced by the Ld. Defence Counsel by submitting that the fact that the letters were recovered along with the decapitated bodies find a mention in the Tehrir/ Rukka prepared by the Investigating Officer at the spot itself on the basis of which the respective FIRs containing the said contents have been registered. He has further submitted that the inquest papers prepared at the spot after which the decapitated body was sent to the Autopsy Surgeon for purposes of postmortem, also contain the original tehrir / rukka which bear the signatures of the Autopsy Surgeon thereby establishing that the said letters could not have been planted later. Ld. Addl. Public Prosecutor has further submitted that even otherwise there is no legal requirement of sealing the said letters and the Investigating Officer by choice had deliberately not sealed the same since the said letters were the St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 189 only source / clue which could have possibly lead the Investigating Agency to the alleged serial killer.
(198) I have heard the rival contentions and duly considered the same. Before proceeding further at the very outset I may observe that the argument advanced by the Ld. Defence Counsel that the fact of the letter being recovered along with the decapitated bodies does not find reflected either in the crime team report or in the photographs taken by the Photographer of the Crime Team in both the cases i.e. FIR No. 609/2006 and FIR No. 279/2007. At the same time it is also correct that the aspect of the letters having being found along with the decapitated body cannot be doubted because the said fact finds a mention in the rukka / Tehrir prepared in both the cases (i.e. FIR No.609/2006 and 279/2007) and the resultant FIR copies of which have been proved to be dispatched to the senior officers including the Illaka Magistrates and there is no question of the same having been planted later. Further, the Tehrir forms a part of the Inquest papers in both the cases and the signatures of the Autopsy Surgeon find reflected on the same (now encircled by the Court as Z1 for the sake of convenience). The Autopsy Surgeon Dr. Anil Shandil is an independent person and there is no reason for him to colluded with the Investigating Agency in this regard. The question which now arises is whether the letters produced before the Court are the same which were found along with the decapitated bodies or have been swapped / changed. Here, I may observe that the handwriting expert has in both the cases i.e. FIR No. 609/2006 and FIR No. 279/2007 proved that the handwriting in the said letters match with the sample handwriting of the accused Chanderkant Jha (which sample handwriting's in both the cases were taken with the permission of the Ld. Illaka Magistrate in his presence and hence cannot be doubted). It is not the case of the accused St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 190 that while in police custody he was compelled to write these letters. Hence in this background the accused having failed to explain as to how then the said letters allegedly recovered along with the decapitated bodies contained handwriting which according to the expert matched with his handwriting there is no reason to doubt the version of the prosecution.
(199) Coming first to the letter recovered along with the decapitated body found outside Central Jail Tihar on 20.10.2006 (FIR No.609/2006) which has been duly exhibited, the contents of the same are as under:
"... delhi police teri maa ki bhosra, teri maa ki chut. Ab kaan khol kar saare delhi police sun lo ki ab tak main najayaj case jhelta raha lekin main ab hakikat mein murder kiya hoon. Agar is murder mein tum mujhe pakar sako to pakar kar dikhao tab main samjhunga ki tum saare ke saare delhi police uper se niche tak ke staff apne asal maa-baap ke paidaish ho. Nahin to najayaj case lagana band karo varna ye shilshila hamesha hamesha ke liye jari rahega aur tum log mujhe kabhi bhi nahin pakar paoge kyonki main koi gangvar nahin hoon ki mujhe case khulne ka dar laga rahega kyonki iska saboot ye hai ki 2003 ke november mahine mein jo ek number par main-ne murder karke dala usko bhi tum log nahin khol sake aur na hi is case ko khol paoge kyonki ye hamara vada hai varna nahin to najayaj case lagana band karo ya phir case khol sako to case khol kar dikha do. Tumhare intzar mein tum logon ka baap + jijaji. CC...."
(200) It is writ large from the above that the author of the said letter has in clear terms voluntarily and without any fear not only confessed to the killing of the victim of the decapitated body but also to another killing which took place in November 2003 decapitated body of which victim was also thrown outside Gate No.1 which could not be worked out by the Delhi Police. It is evident that this was a fact which was only St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 191 in the special knowledge of the alleged killer and none else. (201) Coming next to the letter recovered along with the decapitated body found outside Central Jail Tihar on 18.5.2007 (FIR No.279/2007) which has been duly exhibited, the contents of the same are as under:
"...... Mere priyajano. delhi police ke jaanbaz D.H.G. se lekar I.P.S. Tum sabhi ko tumhare jijaji aur tumhare daamad ke taraf se khullam-khulla challenge hai ki agar vakai mein tumlogon ki maa ko tumlogon ke hi baap ne chodkar paida kiya hai to mujhe pakarkar dikhao varna tum saare upar se niche tak ke delhi police ka staff najayaz maa + baap ka paidaish kahlaoge aur tum log yahi sochna ki vakai mein tum logon ki maa aur behan kisi aur adhikar wallon se chudne wali hai kyonki (maadarchodon) maadarchodon ke aulaad tum delhi police vale bahut hi behanchod aur maa chod ho kyonki tum log najayaz case lagakar ek sharif aadmi ko bahut hi galat tarike se pareshaan aur mazbur tatha badnaam kar dete ho ki vo kamane - khane ke laayak bhi nahin reh pata hai. Lekin saale tum log ye bhul jaate ho ki jab ek sharif aadmi sharafat chor kar crime karta hai to phir tum logon ki aise hi maa behan chudi hai jaisa ki Tihar Jail par hota aaya hai aur hota hi rahega jab tak ki tum log mujhe (DCP) Manish Kumar Aggarwal se nahin baat karva doge aur main ek baat (SHO Hoshiyar Singh ji) se jarur kehna chahoonga ki abhi jo pichle hi saal
20.10.2006 ko laash mili thi usme us laash ka app logoon ne thik dhang se muaayena nahin kiya tha kyonki us laash par uske haath par (Amit) naam likha tha lekin aap loogoon ne akhbaar mein uska naam bhi nahin dalwaya tha. Vaise main ye letter likhta to nahin lekin abhi jo shayad 24 ya uske ek aadh din aage-piche April mein main-ne murder karke Tihar Jail par delhi police ke liye tohfa bheja tha uske andar jo letter nahin mila to bechare akhbar vale bhi pareshaan ho gaye ki aakhir delhi police valoon ke damaad aur jijajine abki baar letter kyon nahin bheja. Isliye main aap logoon ke shikayat par gaur pharmaya hai. Mujhe ummid hai ki ye shilshila aise hi chalta rahega aur delhi police valoon ki maa + St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 192 behan chudti rahegi varna mujhe (DCP Manish Kumar Aggarwal) se baath karva do nahin to shale har 15 din mein aisa tohfa bhejna shuru kar doonga aur tum log mera jhaant bhi nahin bigar paaoge. Kramshah Pr CC Main CC ye baat sina taan kar kabul kar raha hoon ki karib karib saal mein kam se kam 7-8 murder har haal mein karta hoon varna mera dimaag pagal hone lagta hai kyonki ye madarchod delhi police vaaloon ne mujhe najayaz case laga-
lagakar itna majboor kar diya ki mujhe majburan ye kadam uthana pada taki unko bhi pata chale ki jab koi sharif aadmi apne haath mein hathiyar uthata hai to uska irada kitna jyada khatarnaak hota hai. Aur shale delhi police ke chote se bare ohdedaaroon tumhe zara si bhi akal nahin hai ki kam se kam itna murder karne vale ke upar abhi tak nahin kuch to 50 hazar inaam to rakh hi doon ya upar valoon se is CC ke baare mein jyada se jyada khunkhar aur khatarnaak ka upadhi de kar inaam rakhvaane ka koshih karo taki is khel mein kuch maja aaye kyonki tum to shale sharif ke baare mein akhbar aur challan mein aise darshaate ho jaise ki vo janamjaat peshevar criminal ho lekin madarchod delhi police vale main teri maa behan chod raha hoon khullam-khulla to mere upar inaam kyon nahin rakh rahe ho. Main apne upar inaam ki raashi jaanne ke liye ati utsuk hoon. Dhyan rakhna ki mere kaam ke laayak inaam jarur hona chahiye varna meri beijjati hogi to main tum sabki beijjati karva doonga. Ye letter akhbar valoon ko bhi padhwa dena. Aage phir Tohfa ko samay par bhej doonga - tum loogoon ka - jijaji + daamaad = C.C....."
(202) It is writ large from the above that the author of the above letter was already aware of the fact that the Delhi Police was unable to establish the identity of the victim of the decapitated body found outside Tihar Jail 20.10.2006 and disclosed to them that the said body was of one Amit whose name has also been tattooed on his arm. He has also confessed to the murder of the victim whose decapitated body was found outside Tihar Jail around 24 th of April of the same year. He has further St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 193 confessed to having killed at-least 7-8 persons in a year and has threatened that he would continue to leave the gifts for the Delhi Police (i.e. decapitated bodies) in a similar manner after every fifteen days. (203) I may observe that the seizure memos of the above letters not only mentions the details of the contents of the same but also gives the detail description of the papers on which they were written. In FIR No. 609/2006 the letter was written on a ruled paper a fact which finds a specific mention in seizure memo Ex.PW1/B and further in FIR No. 279/2007 the fact that the letter was written on a yellow page with green ink on both the sides continues on the white sheet which was the backside of a Geography paper of some school, also finds a specific mention in the seizure memo Ex.PW26/A and hence there is no reason to doubt that the same (questioned document) could have been changed. (204) Sh. Puran Chand, Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate in whose Court the sample handwriting of the accused Chanderkant Jha had been taken, has been examined and exhaustively cross-examined. The Ld. MM has proved that he had granted the permission to take the sample handwriting of the accused Chanderkant Jha which sample handwriting was taken by the Investigating Officer in the Court in his presence which samples also bear his counter signatures and authentication. Numerous suggestions have been put to the Ld. MM by the accused but the Ld. MM has stood by his version that the handwriting was taken in his presence all of which papers (containing the sample handwriting) bear his signatures. The only argument of the accused is that the samples allegedly taken in the Court were swapped and changed and hence the report given does not pertain to his handwriting. The Ld. Magistrate has very categorically denied this charge of the accused and has confirmed after seeing all the papers containing the sample handwriting that the said sample handwriting was St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 194 the one which was given by the accused in his presence in the open Court which bear his counter signatures. There is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of the Ld. Magistrate on this aspect. The accused has also alleged that there are 64 papers on which the sample handwriting was taken and it is just not feasible that the same could have been taken on one date. In this regard I may observe that the proceedings conducted by Sh. Pooran Chand Ld. MM which are Ex.PW28/F (proceeding sheet dated 8.6.2007) are succinctly clear and reflect that on 7.6.2007 the specimen handwriting and signatures could not be taken as sufficient time was consumed in conducting TIP proceedings of refusal of the accused on which the application had to be adjourned for 8.6.2007 on which day in his presence handwriting of the accused in Hindi and specimen signatures were obtained on 64 sheets all of which were duly endorsed by him as signatures and handwriting taken in his presence and also in the presence of the counsel for the accused (Sh. Vivek Gupta Advocate). There is a presumption of correctness of the Judicial Proceedings and there is no reason to doubt the same. In so far as FIR No.609/2006 is concerned the record of the said proceedings are a part of the Judicial Record of the said case. The Investigating Officer Inspector Sunder Singh and other witnesses who were present at the time of production of the accused before the Ld. Illaka Magistrate having proved that a request had been made to the Ld MM vide an application for taking the sample handwriting of the accused in the said case which request was allowed by Sh. Bhupesh Kumar, Ld. MM after which the sample handwriting of the accused was taken in the presence of the Ld. MM. The original application along with the proceeding sheets and order are a part of the Judicial Record and is presumed to be correct. The accused Chanderkant Jha has not raised any objection to the proceedings St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 195 conducted before Sh. Bhupesh Kumar, Ld. MM in this regard (no suggestion has been made by the accused to the official witnesses including Inspector Sunder Singh who have deposed about the said proceedings).
(205) Coming now to the aspect of the report of the handwriting expert in both FIR No. 609/2006 and FIR No. 279/2007. I may observe that Sh. Sanjeev Kumar Senior Scientific Officer (Documents), FSL, Delhi has proved his report in both the cases. In FIR No. 609/2006 he has proved his report Ex.PW47/A to the extent that the person who wrote the blue writings stamped and marked as S1 to S7 had also written the red writings similarly stamped and marked Q1 & Q2. He has identified the questioned documents which is Ex.PW22/B and the sample handwriting which are Ex.PW22/U-1 to Ex.PW22/U-7. Further, in FIR No. 279/2007 he has again proved his report which is Ex.PW38/A according to which the person who wrote the blue enclosed writings stamped and marked S1 to S64 also wrote the red enclosed writings similarly stamped and marked Q1 to Q3.
(206) The accused has challenged the correctness of the said report and has argued that the same is no authentic and has been given on the asking of the Investigating Officer and hence cannot be relied upon. Before coming to the argument advanced before me, I may observe that it would depend upon the appreciation of report / opinion of handwriting expert and other attending circumstances as to whether the said report can be relied upon or not and to what extent.
(207) Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act lay down that when the court has to form an opinion as to the identity of hand writing or finger impressions, the opinions upon that point of the persons expert in that science are relevant facts. If the two hand writings match with each St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 196 other, this itself is an evidence as per the Indian Evidence act. To say it differently, the matching of two hand writings is itself a substantial evidence under Section 45 of Indian Evidence Act and the opinion of the hand writing expert is sought only to facilitate the court to form an opinion on this point. Therefore, to say that conviction can be or cannot be based solely upon the report of hand writing expert would be misleading. The appropriate interpretation of Section 45 of Indian Evidence Act is that court is competent to form its own opinion on the point of identity of hand writing and for that purpose the court may call for the report of a hand writing expert. Therefore, the relevant fact before this court is the matching or non matching of the hand writing of the accused with the questioned hand writing. If the hand writings match, there cannot be any hitch in convicting the accused even if further corroborative evidence is not available. I quote from the judgment dated 5.7.2011 passed by the division Bench of Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Ravindra Bhatt and Hon'ble Mr. Justice G. P. Mittal in the case of Jaipal Vs State Criminal appeal No. 137/98 and Rajendra Vs. State Criminal Appeal No. 181/98 as under :
"......It is true that except the handwriting Expert's report Ext.PW4/A there is no corroboration that the ransom letter Ext.PW12/A was in the handwriting of Appellant Jaipal. The question was dealt in detail by the Supreme Court in Murari Lal v. State of M. P., AIR 1980 SC 531. The Court observed that handwriting expert is not an accomplice and there is no justification for condemning his opinion evidence. It was held that if the Court is convinced from the report of an expert that the questioned handwriting was of the accused, there is no difficulty in relying upon the expert's opinion without any corroboration."St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 197
(208) It is pertinent to note that High Court of Delhi had relied upon Murari Lal Vs. State of M.P. Reported in AIR 1980 SC 531 wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court held that there was no rule of law nor any rule of prudence that the evidence of handwriting expert must not be acted upon, unless substantially corroborated. I would like to quote from this judgment extensively as under:
"....... An expert is no accomplice. There is no justification for condemning his opinion-evidence to the same class of evidence as that of an accomplice and insist upon corroboration. True, it has occasionally been said on very high authority that it would be hazardous to base a conviction solely on the opinion on a handwriting expert. But, the hazard in accepting the opinion of any expert, handwriting expert or any other kind of expert, is not because experts, in general, are unreliable witness-the quality of credibility or incredibility being one which an expert shares with all other witness-, but because all human judgment is fallible and an expert may go wrong because of some defect of observation, some error of premises or honest mistake of conclusion. The more developed and the more perfect a science, the less the chance of an incorrect opinion and the converse if the science is less developed and imperfect. The science of identification of finger-prints has attained near perfection and the risk of an incorrect opinion is practically non-existent. On the other hand, the science of identification of handwriting is not nearly so perfect and the risk is, therefore, higher. An expert deposes and not decides. His duty is to furnish the judge with the necessary scientific criteria for testing the accuracy of his conclusion, so as to enable the judge to form his own independent judgment by the application of these criteria to the facts proved in evidence.
(para4) Expert testimony is made relevant by S.45 of the Evidence Act and where the Court has to form an opinion upon a point as to identity of handwriting, the St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 198 opinion of a person 'specially skilled' in questions as to identity of handwriting is expressly made a relevant fact. There is nothing in the Evidence Act, as for example like illustration (b) to S. 114 which entitles the Court to presume that an accomplice is unworthy of credit, unless he is corroborated in material particulars, which justifies the Court in assuming that a handwriting expert's opinion is unworthy of credit unless corroborated. The Evidence Act itself (S.3) tells that 'A fact is said to be provided when, after considering the matters before it, the Court either believes it to exist or considers its existence so probable that prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it exists.' Further, under S. 144 of the Evidence Act, the Court may presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened, regard being had to the common course of natural events, human conduct, and public and private business, in their relation to facts of the particular case. It is also to be noticed that S. 46 of the Evidence Act makes facts, not otherwise relevant, relevant if they support or are inconsistent with the opinions of experts, when such opinions are relevant.
(Para 6) There is no rule of law, nor any rule of prudence which has crystalised into a rule of law, that opinion evidence of a handwriting expert must never be acted upon, unless substantially corroborated. But, having due regard to the imperfect nature of the science of identification of handwriting, the approach should be one of caution. Reasons for the opinion must be carefully probed and examined. All other relevant evidence must be considered. In appropriate cases, corroboration may be sought. In cases where the reasons for the opinion are convincing and there is no reliable evidence through a doubt, the uncorroborated testimony of a handwriting expert may be accepted.
There cannot be any inflexible rule on a matter which, in the ultimate analysis, is no more than a question of testimonial weight. (Cases law discussed).
(Para 11) St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 199 Evidence Act expressly enables the Court to compare disputed writings with admitted or proved writings to ascertain whether a writing is that of the person by whom it purports to have been written. Where there are expert opinions, they will aid the Court. Where there is none, the Court will have to seek guidance from some authoritative text book and the Court's own experience and knowledge. But discharge it must, its plain duty, with or without expert, with or without other evidence.
(Para 12) (209) It is borne out from the above that when a case is being pressed by the prosecution solely on the basis of handwriting expert, the court should be very cautious and the reasons for the expert opinion must be carefully examined. In case where reasons for opinion are convincing and there is no reliable evidence throwing a doubt upon it, the testimony of handwriting expert may be accepted.
(210) Now applying these principles to the facts of the present case it is writ large that the expert Sanjeev Kumar has proved having carefully and thoroughly examined all the documents with the scientific instruments such as stereo microscope, video spectral comparitor- IV, docucenter and VSC - 2000/HR etc. under different lighting conditions and has also correctly identified the two letters which have been examined by him. I may observe that the expert Sh. Sanjeev Kumar has prepared his reports in a very scientific manner. He has given detail reasons and I appreciate the manner in which the entire work has been done in a thoroughly professional and scientific manner. A specific suggestion was put to the expert as to why he did not take the photographs of the sample and questioned handwriting for comparison on which he has satisfactorily explained that it was not necessary since the material i.e. both sample and questioned handwriting was sufficient St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 200 and it is only in cases where the material is insufficient that such a technique is necessitated.
(211) Further, I have also personally examined the question document i.e. the above letters recovered along with the decapitated bodies (in FIR No.609/2006 & FIR No.279/2007) in original under a high power magnifying glass in sufficient light and compared them with the sample handwriting's of the accused which were sent to the expert for examination and also with the admitted handwriting of the accused present on his arrest memo, personal search memo, disclosure statement, various pointing out memos, recovery memos and the certified copies of the charge sheet in case FIR No. 452/03, under Section 452/380/411/34 IPC which is Ex.DW1/J (which is admitted and relied upon by the accused Chanderkant Jha himself) and the signatures put by the accused Chanderkant Jha on his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in the present cases and I may observe that on comparison by me the said handwriting present on the questioned document has been found to be matching with these handwriting / signatures of the accused Chanderkant Jha, though written at a different point of time, in broad features like spacing, size & proportion of characters and nature of commencing and termination of strokes. In this background there is no reason to disbelieve the reports by the expert in both the FIR No. 609/2006 and FIR No. 279/2007.
(212) Further, I may observe that the contents of the letters as discussed herein above are in the nature of confession not only to the serial killings in all the three cases i.e. FIR No.609/2006, 243/2007 and 279/2007. In this regard the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sita Ram vs. State of UP reported in AIR 1966 SC 1096 under similar circumstances held the letter recovered along with the dead body to be in St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 201 the nature of a confession. In the above case the accused Sita Ram had after killing his wife Smt. Sindura Rani placed a letter addressed to the Sub Inspector Jagbir Singh on the table near the dead body under his signatures in Urdu reading as "...I have myself committed the murder of my wife Smt. Sindura Rani. Nobody else perpetrated this crime. I would appear myself after 20 or 25 days and then will state everything. One day the law will extend its hands and will get me arrested. I would surrender myself.
(Sd. in Urdu).Sita Ram Naroola, 14th September, 1962."
(213) On the back of this letter the following was written:
"..It is the first and the last offence of my life. I have not done any illegal act nor I had the courage to do that, but this woman compelled me to do so and I bad to break the law..".
(214) The majority view of Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mudholkar and Hon'ble Chief Justice A.K. Sarkar was that this letter contained a confession addressed to a police officer but it does not come within the bar created under Section 25 of Evidence Act as the police officer was not near by when the latter was written or knew that it was being written and hence the letter could not be a confession made to a police officer. (215) Now applying the ratio to the facts of the present case, it is writ large that the above letters so addressed to the police officer contains the inculpatory portions wherein the author of the crime has confessed to the killings by decapitation of bodies of the victims which he had thrown in front of Central Jail Tihar in the month of November 2003, on 20.10.2006, then on 25.4.2007 and finally on 18.5.2007. (216) The relevant portion of the letter recovered along with the decapitated body on 20.10.2006, is as under:
St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 202"...Agar is murder mein tum mujhe pakar sako to pakar kar dikhao....."
".... kyonki iska saboot ye hai ki 2003 ke november mahine mein jo ek number par main-ne murder karke dala usko bhi tum log nahin khol sake aur na hi is case ko khol paoge..."
(217) Further, the relevant portion of the letter recovered along with the decapitated body on 18.5.2007, is as under:
".....main ek baat (SHO Hoshiyar Singh ji) se jarur kehna chahoonga ki abhi jo pichle hi saal 20.10.2006 ko laash mili thi usme us laash ka app logoon ne thik dhang se muaayena nahin kiya tha kyonki us laash par uske haath par (Amit) naam likha tha lekin aap loogoon ne akhbaar mein uska naam bhi nahin dalwaya tha. Vaise main ye letter likhta to nahin lekin abhi jo shayad 24 ya uske ek aadh din aage- piche April mein main-ne murder karke Tihar Jail par delhi police ke liye tohfa bheja tha uske andar jo letter nahin mila to bechare akhbar vale bhi pareshaan ho gaye ki aakhir delhi police valoon ke damaad aur jijajine abki baar letter kyon nahin bheja...."
(218) It is writ large from the above that in the said letters he has not only confessed to an earlier killing of November 2003 in a similar manner after which he threw the decapitated body in front of Gate No.1, Central Jail Tihar. In so far as the incidents of 20.10.2006 (FIR No. 609/2006), 25.4.2007 (FIR No. 243/3007) and 18.5.2007 (FIR No. 279/2007) apart from the above confessions there is sufficient independent corroboration forthcoming pointing towards the involvement of the accused in the said killings. I hereby hold that these letters which are in the nature of confession are strong pointers to the guilt of the accused in FIR No. 609/2006, FIR No.243/2007 and 279/2007.
St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 203Pankaj has proved the use of telephone numbers 9211463742 and 9211463743 by the accused Chanderkant Jha:
(219) The case of the prosecution is that at the time of the incident the accused Chanderkant Jha was using mobile phone with numbers 9211463742 and 9211463743. At the time of his arrest his personal search revealed a mobile phone make TATA Samsung having ESN No. 8562-A099 and having SIM of TATA INDICOM No. 9211463742.
Also, at the time of his arrest a slip of paper was recovered from the possession of the accused containing some telephone numbers (which slip is Ex.PW22/Z-9 in FIR No. 609/2006). In this piece of paper the address of one Pankaj Rathor R/o F-140, RICCO Industrial Area Bhiwadi, Alwar, Rajasthan Phone No. 01493-220679 was also found written and the words in Hindi "Pintoo Upender Ka Dost" with some telephone numbers written on it. During interrogation the accused Chanderkant Jha explained in his disclosure that the above telephone numbers pertained to some relatives of some of his victims/ deceased including Upender (whose decapitated body was found outside Tihar Jail on 25.4.2007). Being unaware of the identity of the deceased it was then that the Investigating Agency contacted the persons whose name and details were mentioned on this slip of paper which led them to Pankaj Rathor and it came to be known to them that this Pankaj Rathor was the brother of Upender and was known to Chanderkant Jha through his brother Upender who according to him was residing in Delhi with Chanderkant Jha.
(220) During interrogations Pankaj revealed that his cousin brother Upender @ Pintoo had been staying with one Chanderkant Jha with whom he had been communicating on telephone No. 9211463742. It is this Pankaj (PW1) who independently corroborates the disclosure made St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 204 by the accused. Pankaj has proved that his deceased brother Upender was using mobile phone No. 9211463743 and the accused Chanderkant Jha was using mobile No.9211463742. According to Pankaj, he was regularly communicating to his brother Upender till 24.4.207 but thereafter when he made a call it was switched off and thereafter he made call to the phone of Chanderkant Jha who informed him that Upender had cheated him (accused) and caused him a loss of Rs.20,000/- and that Upender had run away with the rehri after which he cut the phone call saying that he was not aware of whereabouts of Upender. Thereafter Pankaj again made a call to the accused Chanderkant Jha and this time his daughter picked up the phone and told him that it was a wrong number but on his insistence she told him to call after ten minutes. According to Pankaj (PW1) after ten minutes he again made a call to the accused and talked to the accused who repeated what he had told him earlier by saying "Jaisa usska karaam tha voh wahan paunnch gaya" and thereafter disconnected the phone. The relevant portion of his testimony is as under:
"....... I had talks with Upender on telephone till 24.4.2007. Thereafter when I made a telephone call to Upender on mobile it showed switched off so I made a telephone call to accused Chander Kant he told me that Upender had cheated him and caused him a loss of Rs.20,000/- and that he had run away with Rehri and he cut the phone call saying that he does not know the whereabouts of Upender. Son of one Bali Mohd. working in Village Barwala Company was working with him in Bhiwadi. I contacted Bali Mohd. through his son and asked him whether he knew about the whereabouts of Upender. He told me that Upender was not coming for the duties for the last 4-5 days and was not seen nearby. Thereafter I again made a call to the accused Chanderkant Jha and his daughter picked up the phone and told me that it was a wrong number, I St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 205 insisted her that it was not a wrong number and asked her to give phone to accused Chander Kant and she told me that I can have a talk after about 10 minutes. After 10 minutes I again made a telephone call. This time it was attended by Chander Kant and he repeated he told me earlier and said Jaisa usska karaam tha voh wahan paunnch gaya and cut the phone. After 3-4 days police came to me at Bhiwadi and I was brought to Police Post Hari Nagar........"
(221) Pankaj (PW1) is an independent witness who is the cousin brother of the deceased / victim Upender whose decapitated body was found outside Tihar Jail on 25.4.2007. This Pankaj (PW1) has been exhaustively cross-examined by the accused in all the three FIRs i.e. FIR No. 609/2006, 243/2007 and 279/2007. He is an illiterate rustic villager and at some places in his cross-examination has got confused on the aspect of the telephone numbers and has explained that he could not recollect the exact number but that will not fatal to the prosecution case since after being reminded he confirmed the telephone numbers on which he used to speak to his brother Upender. Pankaj has also explained that he was known to Chanderkant Jha even prior to this incident through his brother Upender and has further explained that first time he met Chanderkant Jha was with Upender when he had come to Delhi for getting one boy by the name of Pawan released from "Prayas". His testimony to the extent that he was regularly in touch with Upender on mobile numbers 9211463742 and 9211463743 which fact find independent corroboration from the Call Detail Records of the above numbers which have been placed by the prosecution and duly proved in accordance with law by the service providers.
(222) Further, I may note that at the time of the arrest of the accused he was found in possession of a mobile phone make Tata Samsung St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 206 bearing ESN No. 8562A099 along with SIM No. 9211463742 (also reflected from the Jamatalashi / personal search memo which has been duly proved) and the Call Detail Records prove the use of SIM No. 9211463742 and 9211463743 on the mobile phone bearing ESN No. 8562A099. Further, the Call Detail Records prove that the call had been received by the accused Chanderkant Jha on his mobile phone No. 9211463742 from Bhiwari, Rajasthan. It is this which independently lends credence to the testimony of Pankaj (PW1) as being truthful (oral testimony of Pankaj finds corroboration from the electronic record). (223) There is no history of any kind of animosity between Pankaj and Chanderkant Jha and there is no reason why Pankaj would have falsely implicate him in the present case. It therefore stands established that the accused Chanderkant Jha was using the mobile numbers 9211463742 and 9211463743 of which one mobile set make TATA Samsung having ESN No. 8562-A099 which was recovered from the possession of the accused Chanderkant Jha at the time of arrest containing the above SIM bearing No. 9211463742.
Extra Judicial Confession made by the accused Chanderkant Jha to Pankaj:
(224) The case of the prosecution is that Pankaj the brother of the deceased Upender was in regular contact with the deceased Upender who was residing along with Chanderkant Jha. According to Pankaj (PW1), he was regularly communicating with his brother Upender till 24.4.207 on telephone but thereafter when he made a call on the mobile phone numbers 9211463742 and 9211463743 (more frequently on 9211463743) and the last time he spoke to the deceased was on 24.4.2007 after which the mobile phone on which he used to speak to St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 207 Upender was coming switched off and hence he thereafter made a call on the mobile phone bearing No. 9211463742 of Chanderkant Jha first on 30.4.2007 (finds reflected in the Call Detail Records of the said phone) and then in the month of May 2007 (Call Detail Records reflect that repeated calls were made by the witness on 17.5.2007). He has clarified that first when he made the call the daughter of Chanderkant Jha picked up the phone and told him that it was a wrong number but then he again made a call on the same number and insisted that the number was correct and he wanted to speak to Chanderkant on which he was asked to call again after ten minutes. Thereafter when he again made repeated calls on the number 9211463742 it was picked up by the accused Chanderkant Jha whom he knew previously and whose voice he could identify clearly having spoken to him even previously when he used to make calls to his brother Upender. The witness Pankaj informed the Court that it was then that Chanderkant Jha who attended to his call which he had made from Bhiwari and he informed him that Upender had cheated him (accused) and caused him a loss of Rs.20,000/- and that Upender had run away with the rehri after which he cut the phone call saying that he was not aware of whereabouts of Upender. Here, I may note that there is no reason to disbelieve Pankaj in this regard because his testimony finds due corroboration from the Call Detail Records of mobile no. 9211463742 proving that four repeated calls were made from Bhiwari on the said number on 17.5.2007. According to Pankaj (PW1) when he again made a last call to the accused Chanderkant Jha, the accused repeated what he had told him earlier and said "Jaisa usska karaam tha voh wahan paunnch gaya" and thereafter disconnected the phone. This testimony of Pankaj of having made four calls from Bhiwari to the number 9211463742, stand confirmed since the Call Detail Records indicates the St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 208 four calls made from Bhiwari on 17.5.2007 last of which was at 21:19:52 hours which lasted for a duration of 622 seconds (10.36 minutes).
(225) When this material was put to the accused Chanderkant Jha in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. he is unable to offer any explanation to the same nor has he been able to produce any defence as to why Pankaj (PW1) would falsely implicate him and how mobile phone bearing SIM No. 9211463742 came into possession and reflect the calls made by Pankaj. It is this statement of Chanderkant Jha that "Jaisa usska karaam tha voh wahan paunnch gaya" which he made to Pankaj, which is in the nature of an Extra Judicial Confession. (226) The Hon'ble Supreme Court has in the case of Kusuma Ankama Rao Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, reported in AIR 2008 SC 2819 observed that:
"...... Extra-judicial confessions are generally those that are made by a party to or before a private individual which includes even a judicial officer in his private capacity. It also includes a Magistrate who is not especially empowered to record confessions under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the 'Code') or a Magistrate so empowered but receiving the confession at a stage when Section 164 does not apply. As to extra-judicial confessions, two questions arise: (i) were they made voluntarily ? and
(ii) are they true ? As the section enacts, a confession made by an accused person is irrelevant in criminal proceedings, if the making of the confession appears to the court to have been caused by any inducement, threat or promise, (1) having reference to the charge against the accused person, (2) proceeding from a person in authority, and (3) sufficient, in the opinion of the court to give the accused person grounds which would appear to him reasonable for supposing that by making it he would gain any advantage or avoid any evil of a temporal nature in reference to the proceedings against him....."St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 209
(227) Applying the above principles to the facts of the present case it is writ large that the above statement was made by the accused Chanderkant Jha who was previously known to the witness Pankaj the brother of the deceased Upender. Firstly the said statement was made voluntarily by the accused and Secondly the accused by way of this statement informed Pankaj of the status of his brother Upender about whom Pankaj was inquiring from him. Lastly the words "Jaisa usska karaam tha voh wahan paunnch gaya" (as were his deeds, he has reached there) indicate that not all was well with Upender and something had happened to him.
(228) Pankaj (PW1) has explained that on hearing this from Chanderkant Jha he immediately informed his family at the native village regarding the same but in the meanwhile within a few days of the said call the police had already reached him making inquiries about Chanderkant Jha when he disclosed to them as to how he was known to Chanderkant Jha.
(229) Although an extra judicial confession is per se admissible, yet the courts insist upon a cautionary approach while evaluating its probative value. In the present case the testimony of Pankaj finds independent corroboration from the electronic record confirming that Firstly after 24.4.2007 the mobile no. 9211463743 on which Pankaj used to normally speak to Upender through Chankderkant Jha was switched off (Call Detail Records confirm that the phone was switched off from 24.4.2007 till 3.5.2007). Secondly the Call Details Record confirm the calls made from Bhiwari to the mobile phone bearing ESN No. 8562A099 and SIM No. 9211463742 on 30.4.2007 and four calls on 17.5.2007 last of which lasted for more than ten minutes. Thirdly in the letter left by the killer (accused Chanderkant Jha) along with the St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 210 decapitated body on 18.5.2007 he confirms that he had killed another person on around 24th of April 2007 whose body he had left outside Central Jail Tihar (which portion of the said letter has also been held to be in the nature of a confession). Lastly the DNA Fingerprinting Report confirms that the decapitated body found outside Central Jail Tihar on 25.4.2007 was of Upender.
(230) Hence, in view of the aforesaid corroboration independently forthcoming to the statement of Pankaj I hereby hold that the statement made by the accused Chanderkant Jha to Pankaj to the extent that Jaisa usska karaam tha voh wahan paunnch gaya" are in the nature of an Extra Judicial Confession made to Pankaj and a strong pointer against the accused.
Electronic Record:
(231) The next question which arises is relating to the authenticity and correctness of the electronic record sought to be relied upon by the prosecution. In this regard I may observe that Sh. M. N. Vijayan (PW48) Nodal Officer, Tata Services Ltd. has proved that mobile No. 9211463742 was allotted to one Rahul Jain S/o Shri Hari Om Jain. He has proved the copy of the application form which is ExPW48/A; copy of the driving licence in support of address of Rahul Jain which is ExPW48/B. Sh. M.N. Vijayan (PW48) has also proved the call details record of Mobile No. 9211463742 for the period 1.4.2000 to 20.5.2007 which are Ex.PW29/B. He has proved that the mobile no.9211463743 was also allotted to Rahul Jain s/o Shri Hari Om Jain and the copy of the application form which is ExPW48/C; copy of the driving licence in support of address of Rahul Jain which is ExPW48/D and the call detail record of Mobile No. 9211463743 for the period 11.3.2007 to 20.5.2007 St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 211 which is Ex.PW29/D. (232) I have gone through the above record and it is writ large that both the SIMs bearing numbers 9211463742 and 9211463743 have been allotted to only one person i.e. Rahul Jain who as per the evidence on record has been found to be a non existing person. The prosecution has placed its reliance on the testimony of Pankaj the brother of the deceased Upender who was in regular contact with his brother Upender on the above numbers of Chanderkant Jha who was using the said numbers. As discussed herein above there is no reason to doubt the testimony of Pankaj in this regard more so because the location chart of the above numbers confirm that the user of the said numbers was operating in the area of Alipur and Haiderpur where incidentally the accused Chanderkant Jha used to reside.
(233) The Call Details Records also indicate and prove the incoming and outgoing calls along with the location showing the movement of the user of the said phone at various point of time and not only does it confirm that the accused Chanderkant Jha was using the mobile No. 9211463742 the SIM of which was recovered from the Tata Samsung mobile bearing ESN No. 8562A099 which mobile phone was recovered from his possession in his personal search at the time of his arrest on 20.5.2007 but also confirms that calls had been received on the said number from Bhiwari (Rajasthan) i.e. from Pankaj. The relevant entries of the calls so made on the number 9211463742 from Bhiwari (as reflected from the Call Detail Records - 1493 is the STD code of Bhiwari) are reproduced as under:
Sr. Date Time Dura Calling No. Called No. Cell ESN No. Nature No. tion ID of call 1 20070430 210444 572 1493513863 9211463742 28834 8562A099 In 2 20070517 210545 51 1493512553 9211463742 8562A099 In St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 212 3 20070517 210555 61 1493512553 9211463742 29026 8562A099 In 4 20070517 211941 622 1493512553 9211463742 8562A099 In 5 20070517 211952 622 1493512593 9211463742 29635 8562A099 In (234) The above calls conclusively establishes that the witness Pankaj (PW1) used to talk to his cousin Upender (deceased) through the mobile phone of accused Chanderkant Jha who was using mobile No. 9211463742 thereby lending credibility to the testimony of Pankaj (PW1). Further, the Call Details Records of mobile phone No. 9211463743 (on which Pankaj used to frequently speak to Upender) confirms the testimony of Pankaj that this phone number 9211463743 was coming switched off from 24.04.2007 onwards (Call Detail Records Ex.PW29/D indicate that mobile no. 9211463743 remained closed from 24.4.2007 till 3.5.2007). It also indicates that both the phones were being used by Chanderkant Jha and his family members because the SIM No. 9211463742 and 9211463743 have been used interchangeably on the mobile set bearing ESN No. 8562A099 (recovered from the personal search of the accused Chanderkant Jha at the time of his arrest). The said details are reproduced as under:
Sr. Date Time Dura Calling No. Called No. Cell ESN No. Nature No. tion ID of call 1 20070424 132022 65 9211463743 9211463742 28867 8562A09A out 2 20070503 173741 418 9211463743 9211463742 28867 8562A09A out (235) Further, the most important aspect is that the analysis of Call Detail Records of Mobile Phone No. 9211463742 used by the accused Chanderkant Jha and his Location Chart reflect that the location of the accused / user of mobile phone No. 9211463742 in the mobile set bearing ESN No. 8562A099 (recovered from the personal search of the accused at the time of his arrest) coincides with the various places from St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 213 where the body parts of the deceased had been recovered. After ananlysis of the above data for the sake of convenience I am now putting the same in a tabulated form along with the specific location of the accused on the date of the alleged crime i.e. intervening period i.e. 24.4.2007 and 25.4.2007:
Sr. Date Time Calling No. Called No. Cell ID Nature Position No. of call 1 20070424 175217 9211463742 9312662591 28866 Out Alipur 2 20070424 181931 9211463742 9971449287 28867 Out Alipur 3 20070424 190635 9211463742 9210565615 28867 Out Alipur 4 20070424 191902 9211463742 9210661810 28867 Out Alipur 5 20070424 203816 9210565615 9211463742 28867 In Alipur 6 20070424 203935 9210565615 9211463742 28867 In Alipur 7 20070424 204009 Out Alipur (8:40 pm) 9211463742 9210565615 28867 8 20070425 61812 9211463742 9210565615 29090 Out Sec-13 Rohini (on the (6:18 way from Alipur to am) Baba Ramdev Mandir Haiderpur where body parts of Upender were recovered) 9 20070425 82636 9211463742 9210565615 17682 Out Kashmiri Gate (8:26 (Tis hazari Courts am) where body parts of Upender were recovered) 10 20070425 102601 9211463742 9210565615 21521 Out Biharipur Sahadra (10:26 (on way to Loni am) Ghaziabad from Kashmere Gate where body parts of Upender were recovered) 11 20070425 102959 9211463742 9210661810 21521 Out Biharipur sahadara (10:29 am) 12 20070425 134049 9211576717 9211463742 21521 In Biharipur sahadara (1:40 pm) 13 20070425 134120 9211576717 9211463742 In Biharipur sahadara (1:41 pm) 14 20070425 182128 9911020406 9211463742 22449 In Model town III (6:21 pm) 15 20070425 182212 9911020406 9211463742 out St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 214 16 20070425 184635 9911020406 9211463742 28366 In Alipur 17 20070425 192021 9211463742 9911020406 28866 Out Alipur 18 20070425 195344 9911020406 9211463742 In 19 20070425 195357 9911020406 9211463742 In 20 20070425 201818 9911020406 9211463742 215522 In Biharipur Shahdara 21 20070425 201901 9911020406 9211463742 In 22 20070425 205059 9911020406 9211463742 21521 In Biharipur Sahdara 23 20070425 205143 9911020406 9211463742 In 24 20070425 223110 9211463742 9911020406 22497 Out Takmirpur 25 20070425 230445 9211463742 9911020406 29635 Out 26 20070425 235832 9911020406 9211463742 28866 In Alipur (236) It is evident from the aforesaid that the user of the mobile number 9211463742 (Call Detail Records Ex.PW53/F point Z-1 to Z-6 on page 11) starts from Alipur and reaches Sector 13 Rohini subsequently Kashmere Gate, then Tukmirpur (Shahdara), Model Town and return to Alipur and on the same night. According to the disclosure statement of the accused Chandra Kant Jha he had killed the victim Upender at Haiderpur, dropped his leg at Baba Ramdev Mandir, dropped his headless dead body at Tihar Jail subsequently moved towards Tis Hazari Courts and threw the hand of Upender and then he moved towards Yamuna and dropped the head of Upender and subsequently he reached Lalbagh (Loni) area and dropped the hand of Upender and then returned to Alipur and the parts of the body recovered on the same day.
The electronic record as aforesaid conclusively establishes the following route taken by the accused:
➢ At 8:40 PM on 24.4.2007 the accused was in the area of Alipur where he resided.
➢ At 6:18 AM on 25.4.2007 the accused was in the area of Sector
-13, Rohini which is on the way from Alipur to Baba Ramdev Mandir Haiderpur where the leg of Upender was discovered by St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 215 Azad Singh at 7:15 AM.
➢ Between 7:45 - 8:00 AM on 25.4.2007 the decapitated body of the deceased was discovered by guard of the UTI ATM namely Akhilesh Singh Yadav (Here, I may note that the distance between Sector - 13 Rohini and Central Jail Tihar via Outer Ring Road is hardly 30-45 minutes and much less in the early morning hours if the traffic is less).
➢ At 8:26 AM on 25.4.2007 the location of the accused is at Kashmere Gate i.e. Tis Hazari Courts where according to the accused he had thrown one arm the deceased Upender (could not be recovered).
➢ At 10:00 AM on 25.4.2007 Yasin Malik a fruit seller in Fruit Mandi, Loni Ghaziabad notices carton containing human upper and lower limbs and private parts which according to the disclosure of the accused were of Upender which he had thrown at that place. (Here, I may note that the motorable distance between the Tis Hazari Courts and the Fruit Mandi Loni is about 45 minutes to one hour or may be slightly more in case heavy traffic and the route taken for the same would be via ISBT and Shahdara). ➢ At 10:26 AM on 25.4.2007 the location of the accused is at Biharipur Shahdara which is on the way while returning from Loni Ghaziabad to Alipur (via Outer Ring Road).
(237) The aforesaid electronic evidence independently corroborates the recovery of the various body parts and is compatible with the time which could have been taken on route. It conclusively connects the accused Chanderkant Jha with the offence.St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 216
(238) I may mention that this Court had carried out the spot inspection on 25.2.2012 as per the provisions of Section 310 Cr.P.C. and had inspected various places of incidents including the places where the parts of the dead bodies were thrown and found that the route taken by the accused was a Highway and much of the area from which the body parts had been found were connected or were adjoining to the Highway on the route allegedly taken by the accused and was compatible to the time which could have been taken to reach to various places. The prosecution having proved the recovery of the above mobile phone from the possession of the accused and the call details record showing the movement of the accused and confirms that it was the accused Chanderkant Jha who was using the said mobile. The onus of disproving and contradicting the same shifted upon the accused which onus he has failed to discharge. When the entire material was put to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the accused simply denied the same but has not lead any evidence in his defence on this aspect. How this mobile phone bearing SIM No. 9211463742 came into his possession? How the Call Detail Record (Location Chart) shows the location of the user of the phone at the area of residence of the accused? How the Call Detail Records indicating the location and time of the user coincides with the location and time of the places where the decapitated body and the body parts were discovered? Why if Pankaj (PW1) was not known to the accused Chanderkant Jha did he identify him as the person with whom his brother Upender was previously residing and working? All these are facts which would have been in the special knowledge of the accused but he himself having failed to offer any valid explanation, I hold that there is no reason to doubt the above evidence placed before this Court by the prosecution which conclusively links the accused with the crime.St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 217
Forensic Evidence:
(239) The entire case of the prosecution is based upon circumstantial, electronic and forensic evidence which have come to the aid of the prosecution there being no direct evidence.
Chemical Analysis Report:
(240) The case of the prosecution that after the postmortem examination on the decapitated body which was discovered at Gate No.3, Central Jail Tihar the viscera was preserved for chemical analysis which was later on sent to FSL Rohini for examination and the report of the Viscera examination confirms the presence of alcohol in the body of the deceased.
(241) Ms. Kavita Goyal (PW59) has proved that on 30.07.2007, one parcel containing viscera which was found to contain Ex.1A i.e. stomach and piece of small intestine with contents was found kept in a sealed jar and Ex.1B i.e. pieces of liver, spleen and kidney was found kept in another sealed jar, were marked to her for examination. She has proved that on Chemical, TLC and GC-HS examination Ex.1A and Ex.1B were found to contain Ethyl alcohol and the quantification of Ethyl alcohol could not be done in the absence of blood sample and her detailed report in this regard is Ex.PW54/A. The aforesaid chemical analysis report proves the presence of alcohol in the body of the deceased.
DNA Fingerprinting Report conclusively establishes the identity of the decapitated body as that of Upender S/o Shri Ram:
(242) The case of the prosecution is that on 25.4.2007 the decapitated body was found near UTI ATM, Gat No.3, Central Jail Tihar and there being nothing on the body or around it on the basis of which the identity could be confirmed and it was only after the arrest of the St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 218 accused when he disclosed that the decapitated body belonged to Upender that it was for the first time that the Investigating Agency came to know of the same. Incidentally on the same day on which the decapitated body was found i.e. on 25.04.2007 at another place i.e. near Haidarpur drain in the area of Police Post Pitam Pura, North-West District one human leg was found lying in respect of which a PCR call was made. Also, at around 10.00 AM on the same day two unclaimed cartons were found in the Subzi Mandi in the area of Police Post Lal Bagh, Police Station Loni, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh which on checking was found to contain one hand and private parts of a human being. This fact was not initially not in the knowledge of Delhi Police and it was only after the arrest of the accused Chanderkant Jha, that the investigating agency came to know that the dead body was of one Upender pursuant to which one Panakj the cousin Upender was contacted and it was revealed that the deceased Upender was the son of Sriram R/o Kaptan Enclave, Village Kotia, Distt. Maharajganj, Uttar Pradesh.
Thereafter the Delhi Police reached to the parents of the deceased Upender through his brother Pankaj (who was known to Chanderkant Jha) and the blood samples of Shriram and his wife Smt. Dharmo were collected. The witness Shriram (PW2) has proved that he and his wife Smt. Dharmi was brought to Delhi by police where he came to know his son Upender was killed and in that connection, his blood sample as well as of his wife were taken in the hospital.
(243) Dr. A. K. Srivastava (PW47), Assistant Director, Biology, Finger Print Unit, FSL Rohini, has proved that on 27.7.2007, eight forensic samples (out of which one was a sample seal) were received in their office regarding DNA finger printing test. He has proved that the parcel no.1 was found to be containing Ex.1 i.e. one bone piece having St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 219 foul odour described as sternum; parcel no.2 was found to be containing Ex.2 i.e. one glauze cloth piece having dark brown stains and described as blood sample; parcel no. 3 was found to be containing Ex.3 i.e. sample seal; parcel no.4 was found to be containing Ex.4 i.e. one bone piece having foul odour described as fibula tibia; parcel no. 5 was found to be containing Ex.5 i.e. one empty bag described as a bag containing severed leg; parcel no. 6 was found to be containing Ex.6 i.e. some liquid material containing tissue pieces described severed body parts; parcel no. 7 was found to be containing Ex.7 i.e. blood sample of Sri Ram collected on 27.7.2007 and parcel no. 8 was found to be containing Ex.8 i.e. blood sample Smt. Dharma collected on 27.7.2007. Sh. A.K. Shrivastava has proved that DNA from all the above exhibits except Ex.5 and 6 were isolated and were subjected to DNA amplification but DNA could not be amplified for the Ex.1 and Ex.4. He has further proved that DNA profile (STR analysis) was prepared for the Ex.2, Ex.7 and Ex.8 and data was analyzed by using Genescan and Genotype Software. According to the witness, on examination the alleles as from the source of Ex.7 (Sri Ram) and alleles as from the source Ex.8 (Smt. Dharma) were found accounted in Ex.2 (gauze piece) and the DNA profiling (STR analysis) performed on the exhibits provided was sufficient to conclude that the Ex.7 (Shri Ram) and Ex.8 (Smt. Dharma) were the biological father and mother of Ex.P2 i.e. blood sample gauze piece. He has proved his detailed report in this regard which is Ex.PW47/A. The above DNA Fingerprinting Reports conclusively establish that the decapitated body recovered near UTI ATM, Gate No.3 Central Jail Tihar on 25.4.2007 belong to Upender who was the son of Shri Ram and Smt. Dharmo @ Smt. Dharmi R/o Kaptan Enclave, Village Kotia, Distt. Maharajganj, Uttar Pradesh.
St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 220(244) In view of the above, I hereby hold that the prosecution has been able to establish that the decapitated body discovered near UTI ATM, Gate No.3, Central Jail Tihar belong to Upender @ Pintoo who was the son of Shri Ram and Smt. Dharmo @ Smt. Dharmi R/o Kaptan Enclave, Village Kotia, Distt. Maharajganj, Uttar Pradesh.
Spot Inspection carried out by the Court on 25.2.2012:
(245) During the course of trial this Court had on 25.2.2012 carried out the inspection of various spots (under Section 310 Cr.P.C.) which included the places where the decapitated bodies and the various body parts had been found from time to time in respect of which case FIR No. 609/2006, 243/3007 and 279/2007 were registered. The sketches showing the location of the area and the position of the spot where the said body parts were allegedly recovered was confirmed by me i.e. at Central Jail Tihar Gate No.1, Gate No.3 and the spot near the UTI ATM.
The area at the banks of river Yamuna from where the skull and jaw were recovered was also inspected and I found that the same was approachable from the side of ISBT flyover on foot. The area in front of SBI Tis Hazari Courts, Baba Ramdev Temple Haiderpur from where the body parts of the various victims had been recovered was also inspected. Further the house at Alipur where the accused was residing with his family at the time of his arrest and the spot from where he was apprehended and arrested was inspected. I also inspected the room at Haiderpur from where the accused had allegedly got recovered the choppers, nunchaku and the mobile phone of make Tata Samsung bearing ESN No. 8562A099. The notes of the spot inspection were prepared by me which are present on the judicial file copies of which were supplied to the accused [in terms of provisions of Section 310 (2) St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 221 Cr.P.C.].
(246) Since it had come on record that the accused possessed a motorable rickshaw (rickshaw rehri fitted with an engine of a scooter which had been seized by the police and produced in the Court and exhibited) and it was alleged that he used that motroable rickshaw to ferry the body parts and the decapitated bodies at various places where he disposed them off, I carefully during the spot inspection observed and analyzed the entire route which according to the prosecution the accused allegedly took while disposing off the decapitated bodies and their parts at various places in and around Delhi in the above cases (FIR No.609/2006, FIR No.243/2007 & FIR No.279/2007) so as to examine and evaluate the estimated time which could have been consumed in the said process.
(247) I further observed that much of the route undertaken by the author of the crime was a part of a Highway and the places where the different body parts had been discovered were either connected or adjoining to the Highway / route undertaken by him. I also noticed that the area around Alipur (leading to the house of the accused) from the National Highway (GT Road) has large isolated and vacant spots of land and also large green area, fields and jungles (thick natural vegetative growth) at many places (around both Alipur and Haiderpur).
Discrepancies & Contradictions:
(248) The Ld. Defence Counsel for the accused has vehemently argued that the witnesses examined by the prosecution are untrustworthy and cannot be relied upon. He has in support of his claim highlighted the various contradictions in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses including Pankaj the brother of the victim in case FIR No. 243/2007. He St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 222 has vehemently argued that the discrepancies and contradictions occurring in the testimonies of the various prosecution witnesses are material on account of which they cannot be relied upon. He has submitted that the close scrutiny of the testimonies of the official witnesses particularly the members of the Special Staff who were involved in the arrest and subsequent proceedings connected with the accused thereafter would show that there are material contradictions in their statements on the aspect as to the details of the members of the police party and the persons who had joined the same at the time of the arrest of the accused; the time when the crime team had reached the spot and the number of photographs taken; the place where the forensic expert Dr. Naresh Kumar had been picked up and the manner in which he was brought to the room at Haiderpur; availability and source of light inside the room at Haiderpur; the status of the room at Haiderpur as to whether it was locked or unlocked and who first opened the same and how; the place where the knives and nunchaku were kept; the person who first lifted the knives / choppers and the manner of their seizure. He has further pointed out that in so far as the alleged proceedings of recovery of the skull and jaw at the banks of river Yamuna are concerned, again there are material contradictions in the testimonies of these witnesses on the aspects of the person who called the divers at river Yamuna; the time of recovery of skull and jaw; availability of light and its source at the banks of river Yamuna where the proceedings took place and regarding the availability of the private photographer and taking of photographs. (249) He has also placed his reliance to the various replies from the Police Department obtained by the accused under the RTI and has vehemently argued that the formal record of the Daily Diaries have been manipulated only to corroborate the main investigations.St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 223
(250) The Ld. Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State on the other hand has vehemently argued that there are no contradictions and discrepancies as alleged. He submits that the contradictions so pointed out by the Ld. Defence Counsel are not material and would not affect the merits of the case at all. He has further submitted that in so far as the RTI replies are concerned they are neither primary nor secondary evidence and otherwise cannot taken the place of substantive evidence. He has argued that the attempt of the accused is only to create a confusion and doubt in the mind of the Court and it is only because of the same that he has been mischievously putting misleading questions to the Department and thereafter using the replies by twisting them to suit his convenience. (251) I have considered the rival contentions but before dealing with the same on merits it is necessary to briefly discuss the law on the subject. In the case of State of H.P. Vs. Lekhraj and another reported in JT 1999 (9) SC 43 it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that:-
"In the depositions of witnesses there are always normal discrepancy, however, honest and truthful they may be. Such discrepancies are due to normal errors of observation, normal errors of memory due to lapse of time, due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of occurrence, and the like......... .......The traditional dogmatic hyper technical approach has to be replaced by rational, realistic and genuine approach for administering justice in a criminal trial."
(252) Further, in the case of Surender Singh Vs. State of Haryana reported in JT 2006 (1) SC 645, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has observed as under :-
"It is well-established principle of law that every discrepancy in the witness statement cannot be treated St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 224 as a fatal to the prosecution case. The discrepancy, which does not affect the prosecution case materially, does not create infirmity."
(253) As far as minor inconsistencies are concerned in the statement of the witnesses it is held in the case of Ousu Varghese Vs. State of Kerala, reported in (1974) 3 SCC 767 that minor variations in the accounts of the witnesses are often the hallmark of the truth of their testimony. In the case of Jagdish Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in AIR 1981 SC 1167, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that when the discrepancies are comparatively of minor character and did not go to the root of the prosecution story, they need not be given undue importance. Mere congruity or consistency is not the sole test of truth in the depositions. Also in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Kalki, reported in (1981) 2 SCC 752 it has been held that in the depositions of witnesses there are always normal discrepancy, however, honest and truthful they may be. Such discrepancies are due to normal errors of observation, normal errors of memory due to lapse of time, due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of occurrence, and the like. Material discrepancies are those which are not normal, and not expected of a normal person.
(254) Even otherwise, when an eye witness is examined at length it is quite possible for him to make some discrepancies. No true witness can possibly escape from making some discrepant details. Perhaps an untrue witness who is well tutored can successfully made his testimony totally non-discrepant. Courts have to bear in mind that it is only when discrepancies in evidence of witness are so incompatible with the credibility of his version that the Court is justified in jettisoning his evidence. Too serious a view to be adopted on mere variations falling in St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 225 the narration of incident (either as between the evidence of two witnesses or as between two statements of the same witness) is an unrealistic approach for judicial scrutiny.
(255) It may be observed that it is a general handicap attached to all eye witnesses, if they fail to speak with precision their evidence would be assailed as vague and evasive, on the contrary if the speak to all events very well and correctly their evidence becomes vulnerable to be attacked as tutored. Both approaches are dogmatic and fraught with lack of pragmatism. The testimony of a witness should be viewed with broad angles. It should not be weighed in golden scales, but with cogent standards. In a particular case an eyewitness may be able to narrate the incident with all details without mistake if the occurrence had made an imprint on the canvas of his mind in the sequence in which it occurred. He may be a person whose capacity for absorption and retention of events is stronger than another person. It should be remembered that what he witness was not something that happens usually but a very exceptional one so far as he is concerned. If he reproduces it in the same sequence as it registered in his mind, the testimony cannot be dubbed as artificial on that score alone. (Ref.: Bhag Singh and Others Vs. State of Punjab, reported in 1997 VII AD SC 507).
(256) The Supreme Court had an opportunity to discuss as to why discrepancies arise in the statements of witnesses. In the judgment of Bharwada Boginbhai Hijri Bhai Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in 1983 (CRI) GJX 0252 SC: AIR 1983 SC 7453 (1), the Supreme Court pointed out the following reasons as to why the discrepancies, contradictions and improvements occur in the testimonies of the witnesses.
(a) By and large a witness cannot be expected to possess a photographic memory and to recall the details of an incident. It is not as if a video tape is St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 226 replayed on the mental screen.
(b) Ordinarily it so happens that a witness is overtaken by events. The witness could not have anticipated the occurrence which so often has an element of surprise. The mental faculties therefore cannot be expected to be attuned to absorb the details.
(c) The powers of observation differ from person to person. What one may notice, another may not. An object or movement might emboss its image on one person's mind, whereas it might go unnoticed on the part of another.
(d) By and large people cannot accurately recall a conversation and reproduce the very words used by them or heard by them. They can only recall the main purport of the conversation. It is unrealistic to expect a witness to be a human tape recorder.
(e) In regard to exact time of an incident, or the time duration of an occurrence, usually people make their estimates by guess work on the spur of the moment at the time of interrogation. And one cannot expect people to make very precise or reliable estimates in such matters. Again, it depends on the time sense of individuals which varies from person to person.
(f) Ordinarily a witness cannot be expected to recall accurately the sequence of events which take place in rapid succession or in a short time span. A witness is liable to get confused, or mixed up when interrogated later on.
(g) A witness, though wholly truthful, is liable to be overawed by the court atmosphere and the piercing cross-examination made by counsel and out of nervousness mix up facts, get confused regarding sequence of events, of fill up details from imagination on the spur of the moment. The subconscious mind of the witness sometimes so operates on account of the fear of looking foolish or being disbelieved through the witness is giving a truthful and honest account of the occurrence witnessed by him perhaps it is a sort of psychological defence mechanism activated on the moment.
St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 227(257) Applying the settled principles of law to the facts of the present case and I may at the very outset observe that in so far as the replies to the RTI are concerned the same cannot take the place of substantive evidence led in the Court. In case if any of the parties seek to rely upon such replies in their support the same should have been brought on record as a part of evidence and subjected to a similar examination and cross-examination as any other evidence which has not been done. Rather, on the contrary despite sufficient opportunity and time being given to him by the Court at the stage of final arguments, the accused has not done so.
(258) Further, I may observe that certain discrepancies have been pointed out by the Ld. Defence Counsel in the statement of Pankaj (PW1) the cousin brother of the victim Upender with regard to the date, time and phone numbers are concerned. I may note that the examination of Pankaj is relevant in all the three cases (FIR No. 609/2006, 243/2007 & 279/2007) to the extent of proving the use of mobile numbers 9211463742 and 9211463743 by the accused. Also, in FIR No. 243/3007 he is relevant because he is the person who had last spoken to the deceased victim on 24.4.2007 after which the mobile phone No. 9211463743 on which he was regularly speaking to the deceased was switched off. He is also relevant in the said case because when Pankaj spoke to the accused Chanderkant Jha on 17.5.2007 to find out the whereabouts of his brother Upender (victim) certain remarks were made by the accused Chanderkant Jha (which this court has observed were in the nature of Extra Judicial Confession). Pankaj is a rustic illiterate villager. It is only natural for him to have been overawed by the court atmosphere and the piercing cross-examination made by accused and his counsel at the time of his repeated appearances (in all the three cases) St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 228 and of having got mixed up with facts and getting confused out of nervousness or having filled up details from imagination on the spur of the moment. Also with regard to the witness Pankaj not recollecting the telephone number during his examination, I may observe that it is common for a person to forget the mobile numbers not in use for many years. Pankaj was produced in the Court as a witness after many years of the incident and he has conceded that he had forgotten the numbers on account of passage of time but soon he was permitted to refresh his memory he was able to admit and tell the said numbers. [Ref.:Bharwada Boginbhai Hijri Bhai Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in 1983 (CRI) GJX 0252 SC: AIR 1983 SC 7453 (1)].
(259) Further, as regards the contradictions in the timings, presence of a particular police official at a particular time, description of the house at Haiderpur where the accused had allegedly committed the offence and the other contradictions as highlighted above by the Ld. Defence Counsel, I may observe that by and large witnesses are not expected to possess a photographic memory so as to recall all the details and to reply them as a video tape on the mental screen. Further, the power of observation may differ from person to person and what one member of the investigating team may notice while standing at a particular place, the other may not notice. In respect of the discrepancies as regards time or duration it is a matter of common knowledge that usually people make their estimates by guess work at the spur of the moment and one cannot expect them to make precise and reliable estimates in such matters as it depend upon sense of time of an individual witness. Also, in case where a large number of events take place in a rapid succession it is natural for the witness to get confused with regard to the sequence of events and hence in this background the discrepancies and contradictions so pointed St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 229 out by the Ld. Defence Counsel in the testimonies of the various police officials / members of the police party who had carried out the investigations are not material and would not be fatal to the prosecution case. Hence, in view of the above background I am of the considered view that the contradictions and discrepancies so pointed out by the Ld. Defence Counsel are too immaterial and irrelevant as it is the evidence of the prosecution witness regarding the commission of the offence by the accused which is more important than the investigation conducted in the present case.
(260) I may further observe that the contradictions and discrepancies as pointed out herein above which relate to the investigation and procedural lapses. I may observe that merely because there are contradictions in the evidence regarding investigation or even if there is faulty investigation, the same would not absolve the accused of his liability as it is the evidence of the material and star witnesses which is more important than the evidence of the witnesses of the investigation and in this regard I am supported by the Hon'ble Supreme Court who in the case of State of U. P. Vs. Jagdeo & Others., reported in (2003) 1 Supreme Court Cases 456 and also in the case of Rabinder Kumar Pal @ Dara Singh Vs. Republic of India reported in AIR 2011 SC 1436 observed that:
"...... Mere faulty investigations cannot be a ground for acquittal of the accused. For the fault of the prosecution the perpetrators of a ghastly crime cannot be allowed to go scot-free........"
(261) In view of the above I do not find any force in the submission of the counsel for throwing out the case of the prosecution merely on the ground of certain discrepancies / contradictions in the deposition of various prosecution witnesses. I am of the considered view that such St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 230 discrepancies are bound to occur in the deposition of various witnesses being usual and natural and even otherwise as they are found to be formal in nature without striking at the root of the matter and the same cannot be treated as fatal for the prosecution.
Place where the killings took place not conclusively established - Will not be fatal to the prosecution case:
(262) The case of the prosecution is that the accused Chanderkant Jha used to commit the murders in his rented room at Haiderpur. On the other hand the Ld. Defence Counsel has argued that in case the accused was committing murders at Haiderpur then where were his wife and children at that time, which question the police has not been able to answer.
(263) I have considered the submissions made before me and I may observe that it is correct that till date the Investigating Agency has not been able to conclusively establish and confirm the place where the alleged crimes (of decapitation and homicide) had been committed.
Merely because the accused in his disclosure has stated that he had committed the killings at the room at Haiderpur does not establish the same as correct.
(264) I may observe that the Call Detail Record/ Cell ID Chart confirms the presence of the accused in the area of Alipur in the intervening night (i.e. 24-25.4.2007) when the crime had been committed in the present case and hence the possibility of the crime of killing not having been committed at Haiderpur (as claimed by the accused in his disclosure) or being committed at any other place which was conveniently available to the accused (which includes the fields and vacant places as observed in the spot inspection by the Court) cannot be ruled out. Merely because the prosecution has not been able to St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 231 conclusively establish the spot where the killings had actually taken place would not be fatal to the case of the prosecution, the other evidence connecting the accused with the accused being unequivocal and conclusive.
Sequence of events established:
(265) On the basis of the evidence on record the following sequence of events which now emerge and stand established are as under:
Dated 25.4.2007:
➢ That on 25.4.2007 at about 8:00 AM, Akhilesh Singh Yadav (PW6) noticed a carton near UTI ATM Booth, Gate No.3, Central Jail Tihar which appeared to be suspicious.
➢ That Akhilesh Singh Yadav immediately informed another security guard namely Sumit Kumar (PW8) who in turn informed the PCR at about 8:28 AM.
➢ That at 8:34 AM information was sent to Police Station Hari Nagar regarding lying an unattended carton box pursuant to which information DD No. 15-A (Ex.PW18/C) was lodged and SI Manohar Lal along with Ct. Ajeet reached the spot.
➢ That a large size carton of the water cooler was found lying near the boundary wall and was containing a plastic bag which was having blood stains.
➢ That Crime Team was call to the spot and the scene of crime was inspected and photographed through the Crime Team. ➢ That the plastic bag was taken out from the carton box and on checking was found to contain a male dead body aged around 28-30 years, medium built, shallow complexion with a half sleeves PT vest and St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 232 grey colour underwear which decapitated body was without head, without both hands, both legs which were chopped off and without private parts.
➢ That the dead body was wrapped in a white sheet and was tied with ropes and other materials of packing etc. were also found with the dead body and one light parrot coloured shirt was also found. ➢ That the Crime Team lifted two chance prints from the carton during inspection and the Investigating Officer lifted exhibits from the spot.
➢ That thereafter the dead body was sent to DDU Hospital Mortuary for preservation and identification as the victim was still unidentified. ➢ That SI Manohar Lal prepared a rukka on the basis of which the present bearing FIR No. 243/2007 was registered and investigations were commenced.
➢ That on the same day at about 7:15 AM Azad Singh (PW5) spotted a bag containing a severed leg on the gate of Baba Ramdev Temple in Haiderpur near the Canal.
➢ That Azad Singh asked his nephew Master Devender (PW4) to throw the said bag pursuant to which Master Devender threw the bag containing the severed leg across the canal.
➢ That at 8:25 AM a PCR call was made regarding discovery of a severed leg near AU Block Jhuggies pursuant to which information was given to Police Post Pitampura at 8:35 AM vide DD No. 8 (Ex.PW32/A).
➢ That pursuant to DD No.8 ASI Naresh Kumar reached the spot i.e. AU Block Jhuggies near canal Bridge near village Haider Pur on the left side where one left leg of some person in chopped condition was found lying and the polythene was wrapped on the chopped portion of St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 233 the leg.
➢ That ASI Naresh Kumar conducted necessary proceedings in this regard and Mobile Crime Team / North West District was called who inspected the spot and took the photographs after which the said chopped left leg was got deposited in the mortuary of BJRM Hospital. ➢ That on the same day at about 10:00 AM Mohd. Yasin Malik a fruit seller at Lal Bagh Subzi Mandi, Loni was informed by some ladies that two unclaimed cartons were lying near his rehri. ➢ That Mohd. Yasin Malik with the help of some people working in the mandi, checked those cartons and one carton was containing a human hand and other carton was containing human penis.
➢ That thereafter information was given to Police Station Loni District, Ghaziabad (UP) vide DD No. 19 (Ex.PW40/A) pursuant to which proceedings were conducted by SI Krishan Baldev (PW57).
Dated 26.4.2007:
➢ That Dr. P.K. Singh (Medical Officer at District Hospital, Ghaziabad) conducted the postmortem on the human part i.e. left arm and penis and scrotum of the body of unknown person (vide Postmortem Report Ex.PW56/A) and opined the time of death to be two days (i.e. intervening night of 25-25.4.2007).
Dated 20.5.2007:
➢ That at 11:30 AM postmortem examination on the decapitated body found at Gate No.3, Central Jail Tihar on 25.4.2007 was conducted by Autopsy Surgeon Dr. Anil Shandil.
➢ That at about 2:00 PM pursuant to a secret information the accused Chanderkant Jha was apprehended near Shivmandir Mianwali St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 234 Nagar by the Special Staff West District (i.e. Inspector Sunder Singh, Inspector Dalip Kaushik, SI Narender and ASI Virender). ➢ That the accused was interrogated during which he disclosed having killed many persons by decapitating their heads and having thrown their various body parts in and around Delhi. ➢ That the accused also disclosed the name of the deceased in this case as Upender and also disclosed that he used to throw the various decapitated bodies and their parts at various places by using a rickshaw fitted with scooter engine.
➢ That from the personal search of the accused a mobile phone make TATA SAMSUNG was recovered having ESN No.8562-A099 and having SIM of TATA INDICOM No. 9211463742 was recovered (Ex.P12).
➢ That the said rickshaw fitting with the engine of a scooter was found parked outside the room of the accused at Alipur (house of Sanjay Mann) which rickshaw was thereafter taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW44/A. ➢ That the accused Chanderkant Jha thereafter led the police party to his rented room situated at ground floor of house bearing no.229/2, Haiderpur which was belonging to one Mangal Sain Pandit.
➢ That the room was got photographed by the photographer of the crime team and the members of crime team inspected the room, the crime team expert took four chance prints/finger prints. ➢ That the FSL expert Dr. Naresh Kumar was called who also inspected the room of the accused and lifted the blood from the floor; blood stained earth control and three blood stained big size knives which the accused Chanderkant had disclosed were the weapons of offence and broken floor piece, which were taken into possession and seized vide St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 235 memo Ex.PW44/B. ➢ That the police team inspected the room and searched the "taand" (partition in the room) and recovered one "nunchaku" (an instrument/ weapon used by Karate fighter) which nunchaku was having double chain and on both the sides there were wooden handles, which was also seized vide memo Ex.PW44/D. ➢ That one jeans pant from the "khoonti" of the said room and one mobile phone make Indicom (Ex.P-10 bearing ESN No.8781FA97) from the Almirah kept in the room were also recovered, which the accused Chanderkant Jha disclosed were belonging to one of the deceased Dalip, which pant and mobile phone were also taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW44/D. ➢ That certain mobile phones were also written on the wall of the room which phone numbers were noted down by the members of the raiding party.
➢ That the accused informed the police party about the various places where he had thrown the various dismembered body parts.
Dated 21.5.2007:
➢ That the accused led the police party to various places including Kishanganj across the railway line near ganda nalla where he had thrown legs of the body of deceased on 18.5.2007 and State Bank, Tis Hazari compound where he had left two hands of the body of the deceased and his private parts after packing the same in the straw board box.
Dated 22.5.2007:
➢ That on 22.5.2007 the accused led the police party near Railway Phatak Shalimar Bagh and got down from the vehicle and pointed out St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 236 near Baba Ramdev Mandir Pitampura, where he had hung the left leg after keeping the same in a cloth bag on 25.4.2007 (Ex.PW43/G).
Dated 23.5.2007:
➢ That on 23.5.2007 pursuant to his disclosure statement the accused Chanderkant Jha got recovered one skull and jaw (which according to the accused was of deceased Dalip) from the banks of river Yamuna.
Dated 24.5.2007:
➢ That the accused led the police party near the Juice Shop, Lal Bagh, Loni where he had dropped the right hand and private part of the deceased Upender @ Pintoo after keeping the same in a panni and thereafter in a box (Ex.PW43/E).
➢ That the accused pointed out the place near Southern Gate of Central Hall, Tis Hazari Courts where he had dropped the right hand of deceased Upender on 18.5.2007 (Ex.PW43/F). ➢ That a piece of paper was recovered from the accused Chanderkant Jha at the time of his arrest which was containing contact number of one Pankaj who was later found to be a relative of deceased Upender S/o Shri Ram R/o Village Biswa @ Kotia, Distt. Maharajganj, Uttar Pradesh. ➢ That on 24.5.2007 the ashes of the decapitated body which was cremated at Punjabi Bagh Crematorium, was received by Harender Singh (the brother of deceased Upender).
➢ That Pankaj Rathore was interrogated by the Investigating Officer wherein he informed the police that his brother Upender was residing with accused Chanderkant Jha.St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 237
Dated 27.7.2007:
➢ That blood samples of Shir Ram and Smt. Dharmo Devi, R/o Village Biswa @ Kotia, Distt. Maharajganj, Uttar Pradesh were collected at FSL Rohini for DNA examination.
FINAL CONCLUSIONS:
(266) In the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharastra, AIR 1984 SC 1622, the Apex Court has laid down the tests which are pre-requisites before conviction should be recorded, which are as under:
1. The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established.
The circumstances concerned 'must or should' and not 'may be' established;
2. The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty;
3. The circumstances should be of conclusive nature and tendency;
4. They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and
5. There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.
(267) Applying the above principles of law to the present case it is evident that it stands established that on 25.4.2007 at about 8:00 AM, Akhilesh Singh Yadav (PW6) noticed a carton near UTI ATM Booth, Gate No.3, Central Jail Tihar which appeared to be suspicious; that Akhilesh Singh Yadav immediately informed another security guard St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 238 namely Sumit Kumar (PW8) who in turn informed the PCR at about 8:28 AM; that at 8:34 AM information was sent to Police Station Hari Nagar regarding lying an unattended carton box pursuant to which information DD No. 15-A was lodged and SI Manohar Lal along with Ct. Ajeet reached the spot; that a large size carton of the water cooler was found lying near the boundary wall and was containing a plastic bag which was having blood stains; that Crime Team was call to the spot and the scene of crime was inspected and photographed through the Crime Team; that the plastic bag was taken out from the carton box and on checking was found to contain a male dead body aged around 28-30 years, medium built, shallow complexion with a half sleeves PT vest and grey colour underwear which decapitated body was without head, without both hands, both legs which were chopped off and without private parts; that the dead body was wrapped in a white sheet and was tied with ropes and other materials of packing etc. were also found with the dead body and one light parrot coloured shirt was also found; that the Crime Team lifted two chance prints from the carton during inspection and the Investigating Officer lifted exhibits from the spot; that thereafter the dead body was sent to DDU Hospital Mortuary for preservation and identification as the victim was still unidentified; that SI Manohar Lal prepared a rukka on the basis of which the present bearing FIR No. 243/2007 was registered and investigations were commenced; that on the same day at about 7:15 AM Azad Singh spotted a bag containing a severed leg on the gate of Baba Ramdev Temple in Haiderpur near the Canal; that Azad Singh asked his nephew Master Devender to throw the said bag pursuant to which Master Devender threw the bag containing the severed leg across the canal; that at 8:25 AM a PCR call was made regarding discovery of a severed leg near AU Block Jhuggies pursuant to which information was St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 239 given to Police Post Pitampura at 8:35 AM vide DD No. 8; that pursuant to DD No.8 ASI Naresh Kumar reached the spot i.e. AU Block Jhuggies near canal Bridge near village Haider Pur on the left side where one left leg of some person in chopped condition was found lying and the polythene was wrapped on the chopped portion of the leg; that ASI Naresh Kumar conducted necessary proceedings in this regard and Mobile Crime Team / North West District was called who inspected the spot and took the photographs after which the said chopped left leg was got deposited in the mortuary of BJRM Hospital; that on the same day at about 10:00 AM Mohd. Yasin Malik a fruit seller at Lal Bagh Subzi Mandi, Loni was informed by some ladies that two unclaimed cartons were lying near his rehri; that Mohd. Yasin Malik with the help of some people working in the mandi, checked those cartons and one carton was containing a human hand and other carton was containing human penis; that thereafter information was given to Police Station Loni District, Ghaziabad (UP) vide DD No. 19 pursuant to which proceedings were conducted by SI Krishan Baldev; that on 26.4.2007 Dr. P.K. Singh (Medical Officer at District Hospital, Ghaziabad) conducted the postmortem on the human part i.e. left arm and penis and scrotum of the body of unknown person and opined the time of death to be two days (i.e. intervening night of 25-25.4.2007).
(268) It further stands established that on 20.5.2007 at 11:30 AM postmortem examination on the decapitated body found at Gate No.3, Central Jail Tihar on 25.4.2007 was conducted by Autopsy Surgeon Dr. Anil Shandil; that at about 2:00 PM pursuant to a secret information the accused Chanderkant Jha was apprehended near Shivmandir Mianwali Nagar by the Special Staff West District (i.e. Inspector Sunder Singh, Inspector Dalip Kaushik, SI Narender and ASI Virender); that the St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 240 accused was interrogated during which he disclosed having killed many persons by decapitating their heads and having thrown their various body parts in and around Delhi; that the accused also disclosed the name of the deceased in this case as Upender and also disclosed that he used to throw the various decapitated bodies and their parts at various places by using a rickshaw fitted with scooter engine; that from the personal search of the accused a mobile phone make TATA SAMSUNG was recovered having ESN No.8562-A099 and having SIM of TATA INDICOM No. 9211463742 was recovered; that the said rickshaw fitting with the engine of a scooter was found parked outside the room of the accused at Alipur (house of Sanjay Mann) which rickshaw was thereafter taken into possession.
(269) It also stands established that the accused Chanderkant Jha thereafter led the police party to his rented room situated at ground floor of house bearing no.229/2, Haiderpur which was belonging to one Mangal Sain Pandit; that the room was got photographed by the photographer of the crime team and the members of crime team inspected the room, the crime team expert took four chance prints/finger prints; that the FSL expert Dr. Naresh Kumar was called who also inspected the room of the accused and lifted the blood from the floor; blood stained earth control and three blood stained big size knives which the accused Chanderkant had disclosed were the weapons of offence and broken floor piece, which were taken into possession and seized; that the police team inspected the room and searched the "taand" (partition in the room) and recovered one "nunchaku" (an instrument/ weapon used by Karate fighter) which nunchaku was having double chain and on both the sides there were wooden handles, which was also seized; that one jeans pant from the "khoonti" of the said room and one mobile phone make Indicom St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 241 (bearing ESN No.8781FA97) from the Almirah kept in the room were also recovered, which the accused Chanderkant Jha disclosed were belonging to one of the deceased Dalip, which pant and mobile phone were also taken into possession; that certain mobile phones were also written on the wall of the room which phone numbers were noted down by the members of the raiding party; that the accused informed the police party about the various places where he had thrown the various dismembered body parts; that on 21.5.2007 the accused led the police party to various places including Kishanganj across the railway line near ganda nalla where he had thrown legs of the body of deceased on 18.5.2007 and State Bank, Tis Hazari compound where he had left two hands of the body of the deceased and his private parts after packing the same in the straw board box; that on 22.5.2007 the accused led the police party near Railway Phatak Shalimar Bagh and got down from the vehicle and pointed out near Baba Ramdev Mandir Pitampura, where he had hung the left leg after keeping the same in a cloth bag on 25.4.2007; that on 23.5.2007 pursuant to his disclosure statement the accused Chanderkant Jha got recovered one skull and jaw (which according to the accused was of deceased Dalip) from the banks of river Yamuna; that on 24.5.2007 the accused led the police party near the Juice Shop, Lal Bagh, Loni where he had dropped the right hand and private part of the deceased Upender @ Pintoo after keeping the same in a panni and thereafter in a box; that the accused pointed out the place near Southern Gate of Central Hall, Tis Hazari Courts where he had dropped the right hand of deceased Upender on 18.5.2007; that a a piece of paper was recovered from the accused Chanderkant Jha at the time of his arrest which was containing contact number of one Pankaj who was later found to be a relative of deceased Upender S/o Shri Ram R/o Village Biswa @ St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 242 Kotia, Distt. Maharajganj, Uttar Pradesh; that on 24.5.2007 the ashes of the decapitated body which was cremated at Punjabi Bagh Crematorium, was received by Harender Singh (the brother of deceased Upender); that Pankaj Rathore was interrogated by the Investigating Officer wherein he informed the police that his brother Upender was residing with accused Chanderkant Jha; that on 27.7.2007 blood samples of Shir Ram and Smt. Dharmo Devi, R/o Village Biswa @ Kotia, Distt. Maharajganj, Uttar Pradesh were collected at FSL Rohini for DNA examination. (270) On the basis of the aforesaid, I hold that it is further established that the accused is Mission Oriented and Task Oriented Serial Killer whose only motive / mission is to expose, mock and challenge the police who as per his allegations had falsely implicated him in many criminal cases; that the letters recovered along with the decapitated dead bodies discovered on 20.10.2006 and 18.5.2007 (FIR No. 609/2006 and FIR No. 279/2007) are in the handwriting of the accused Chanderkant Jha which is in the nature of confession; that the statement made by the accused Chanderkant Jha to Pankaj to the extent that Jaisa usska karaam tha voh wahan paunnch gaya" are again in the nature of an Extra Judicial Confession made to Pankaj; that the accused Chanderkant Jha was using the mobile numbers 9211463742 and 9211463743 of which one mobile set make TATA Samsung having ESN No. 8562-A099 which was recovered from the possession of the accused Chanderkant Jha at the time of arrest containing the above SIM bearing No. 9211463742; that the electronic evidence independently corroborates the recovery of the various body parts and is compatible with the time which could have been taken on route and it is all this which conclusively connects the accused Chanderkant Jha with the offence and also establishes that the offence has been committed in a preplanned manner.
St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 243(271) Further, the medical evidence in the form of postmortem reports establish that the death of the deceased (Upender) occurred on the intervening night of 24-25.4.2007 which was on account of decapitation of the head (decapitation was not subsequent to death). The forensic evidence in the form of DNA Fingerprinting Report conclusively establishes that the decapitated body discovered near UTI ATM, Gate No.3, Central Jail Tihar was of Upender @ Pintoo who was the son of Shri Ram and Smt. Dharmo @ Smt. Dharmi R/o Kaptan Enclave, Village Kotia, Distt. Maharajganj, Uttar Pradesh.
(272) The circumstantial evidence pointing out towards the guilt of the accused Chanderkant Jha as the author of the crime is over-whelming and the coincidences are far too many and convincing. (273) There are two stages in the criminal prosecution. The first obviously is the commission of the crime and the second is the investigation conducted regarding the same. In case the investigation is faulty or has not been proved in evidence at trial, the question which arises is whether it would absolve the liability of the culprit who has committed the offence? The answer is obviously in negative, since any lapse on the part of the investigation does not negate the offence. (274) The prosecution has proved the identity of the accused, the manner in which the offence has been committed, the investigation including the documents prepared, postmortem report, etc. There is nothing which could shatter the veracity of the prosecution witnesses or falsify the claim of the prosecution. All the prosecution witnesses have materially supported the prosecution case and the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses do not suffer from any infirmity, inconsistency or contradiction and are consistent and corroborative. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses is natural and trustworthy and corroborated by St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 244 medical & forensic evidence and the witness of the prosecution have been able to built up a continuous link.
(275) In view of the above, I hereby hold that the prosecution has been able to prove and substantiate the intention and knowledge of the accused Chanderkant Jha to cause death of Upender S/o Shri Ram R/o Kaptan Enclave, Village Kotia, Distt. Maharajganj, Uttar Pradesh (by decapitating his head which was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature) as contemplated under Section 299 and 300 Indian Penal Code for which the accused Chanderkant Jha is held guilty for the offence under Section 302 Indian Penal Code. Further, the accused Chanderkant Jha is also held guilty under Section 201 Indian Penal Code for having caused disappearance of evidence of murder in order to screen himself from legal punishment, by throwing the head / body parts of the decapitated body at various places in Delhi. The accused is accordingly convicted for the same.
(276) Be listed for arguments on sentence on 2.2.2013.
Announced in the open court (Dr. KAMINI LAU)
Dated: 24.1.2013 ASJ-II(NW)/ ROHINI
St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 245
IN THE COURT OF Dr. KAMINI LAU: ADDL. SESSIONS
JUDGE-II (NORTH-WEST): ROHINI COURTS: DELHI
Session Case No. 89/2011
Unique Case ID No.: 02404R0999632007
State Vs. Chandrakant Jha
S/o Radhey Kant Jha
R/o Village and Post Office Ghasi,
Police Station Chausa,
Distt. Madheypura, Bihar
(Convicted)
FIR No. : 243/2007
Police Station: Hari Nagar
Under Sections : 302/201 IPC
Date of Conviction: 24.1.2013
Arguments heard on: 2.2.2013
Date of Sentence: 5.2.2013
APPEARANCE:
Present: Sh. P.K. Verma, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State.
Convict Chanderkant Jha in Judicial Custody with Sh. Deepak Sharma Advocate / Amicus Curiae.
ORDER ON SENTENCE:
In the year 2006 and 2007 Delhi was rocked and shaken by serial killings. In these killings the author of the crime followed a definite pattern where he killed the victims by decapitating their heads and thereafter chopped their various body parts and threw the decapitated bodies of these young men outside the Central Jail Tihar and scattered their dismembered body parts at various places around Delhi. He did not stop at that and followed his crime precisely. After throwing the St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 246 decapitated bodies he used to inform the police about the crime (in two cases) and the place where he had thrown the decapitated body. Further, along with these bodies he also left a note / letter (two cases) wherein he boasted of his criminal acts and challenged the Law Enforcement Agencies to catch him. In the last crime which came to light on 18.5.2007 (present case), he had also threatened to send similar gifts (decapitated bodies) to the Delhi Police after every 15 days. Three such cases were registered in respect of the decapitated bodies thrown outside Central Jail Tihar on 20.10.2006, 25.4.2007 and 18.5.2007 in respect of FIR Nos. 609/2006, 243/2007 and 279/2007 were registered at Police Station Hari Nagar in which the accused Chanderkant Jha is the accused.
All these cases though not consolidated, were taken up together the pattern of crime / modus operandi being similar; major investigations being common; the evidence in the form of electronic records; forensics etc. being common.
In the present case as per the allegations, the accused Chandrakant Jha had on the intervening night of 24/25.4.2007 committed the murder of Upender by beheading him and thereafter wrapped the headless / decapitated body of Upender in a gunny bag which he threw outside Gate No.3, Central Jail, Tihar. In order to conceal the identity of the deceased and to cause disappearance of evidence of murder in order to screen himself from legal punishment, he also threw the head and other body parts of the decapitated body at various places in Delhi.
On the basis of the testimonies of the various prosecution witness and also on the basis of medical, forensic, electronic and other circumstantial evidence on record, this Court vide judgment dated 24.1.2013 held that it stood established that on 25.4.2007 at about 8:00 AM, Akhilesh Singh Yadav noticed a carton near UTI ATM Booth, Gate St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 247 No.3, Central Jail Tihar which appeared to be suspicious; that Akhilesh Singh Yadav immediately informed another security guard namely Sumit Kumar who in turn informed the PCR at about 8:28 AM; that at 8:34 AM information was sent to Police Station Hari Nagar regarding lying an unattended carton box pursuant to which information DD No. 15-A was lodged and SI Manohar Lal along with Ct. Ajeet reached the spot; that a large size carton of the water cooler was found lying near the boundary wall and was containing a plastic bag which was having blood stains; that Crime Team was call to the spot and the scene of crime was inspected and photographed through the Crime Team; that the plastic bag was taken out from the carton box and on checking was found to contain a male dead body aged around 28-30 years, medium built, shallow complexion with a half sleeves PT vest and grey colour underwear which decapitated body was without head, without both hands, both legs which were chopped off and without private parts; that the dead body was wrapped in a white sheet and was tied with ropes and other materials of packing etc. were also found with the dead body and one light parrot coloured shirt was also found; that the Crime Team lifted two chance prints from the carton during inspection and the Investigating Officer lifted exhibits from the spot; that thereafter the dead body was sent to DDU Hospital Mortuary for preservation and identification as the victim was still unidentified; that SI Manohar Lal prepared a rukka on the basis of which the present bearing FIR No. 243/2007 was registered and investigations were commenced; that on the same day at about 7:15 AM Azad Singh spotted a bag containing a severed leg on the gate of Baba Ramdev Temple in Haiderpur near the Canal; that Azad Singh asked his nephew Master Devender to throw the said bag pursuant to which Master Devender threw the bag containing the severed leg across the canal; that St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 248 at 8:25 AM a PCR call was made regarding discovery of a severed leg near AU Block Jhuggies pursuant to which information was given to Police Post Pitampura at 8:35 AM vide DD No. 8; that pursuant to DD No.8 ASI Naresh Kumar reached the spot i.e. AU Block Jhuggies near canal Bridge near village Haider Pur on the left side where one left leg of some person in chopped condition was found lying and the polythene was wrapped on the chopped portion of the leg; that ASI Naresh Kumar conducted necessary proceedings in this regard and Mobile Crime Team / North West District was called who inspected the spot and took the photographs after which the said chopped left leg was got deposited in the mortuary of BJRM Hospital; that on the same day at about 10:00 AM Mohd. Yasin Malik a fruit seller at Lal Bagh Subzi Mandi, Loni was informed by some ladies that two unclaimed cartons were lying near his rehri; that Mohd. Yasin Malik with the help of some people working in the mandi, checked those cartons and one carton was containing a human hand and other carton was containing human penis; that thereafter information was given to Police Station Loni District, Ghaziabad (UP) vide DD No. 19 pursuant to which proceedings were conducted by SI Krishan Baldev; that on 26.4.2007 Dr. P.K. Singh (Medical Officer at District Hospital, Ghaziabad) conducted the postmortem on the human part i.e. left arm and penis and scrotum of the body of unknown person and opined the time of death to be two days (i.e. intervening night of 25- 25.4.2007).
It has also been established that on 20.5.2007 at 11:30 AM postmortem examination on the decapitated body found at Gate No.3, Central Jail Tihar on 25.4.2007 was conducted by Autopsy Surgeon Dr. Anil Shandil; that at about 2:00 PM pursuant to a secret information the accused Chanderkant Jha was apprehended near Shivmandir Mianwali St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 249 Nagar by the Special Staff West District (i.e. Inspector Sunder Singh, Inspector Dalip Kaushik, SI Narender and ASI Virender); that the accused was interrogated during which he disclosed having killed many persons by decapitating their heads and having thrown their various body parts in and around Delhi; that the accused also disclosed the name of the deceased in this case as Upender and also disclosed that he used to throw the various decapitated bodies and their parts at various places by using a rickshaw fitted with scooter engine; that from the personal search of the accused a mobile phone make TATA SAMSUNG was recovered having ESN No.8562-A099 and having SIM of TATA INDICOM No. 9211463742 was recovered; that the said rickshaw fitting with the engine of a scooter was found parked outside the room of the accused at Alipur (house of Sanjay Mann) which rickshaw was thereafter taken into possession.
It has further been established that the accused Chanderkant Jha thereafter led the police party to his rented room situated at ground floor of house bearing no.229/2, Haiderpur which was belonging to one Mangal Sain Pandit; that the room was got photographed by the photographer of the crime team and the members of crime team inspected the room, the crime team expert took four chance prints/finger prints; that the FSL expert Dr. Naresh Kumar was called who also inspected the room of the accused and lifted the blood from the floor; blood stained earth control and three blood stained big size knives which the accused Chanderkant had disclosed were the weapons of offence and broken floor piece, which were taken into possession and seized; that the police team inspected the room and searched the "taand" (partition in the room) and recovered one "nunchaku" (an instrument/ weapon used by Karate fighter) which nunchaku was having double chain and on both the sides St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 250 there were wooden handles, which was also seized; that one jeans pant from the "khoonti" of the said room and one mobile phone make Indicom (bearing ESN No.8781FA97) from the Almirah kept in the room were also recovered, which the accused Chanderkant Jha disclosed were belonging to one of the deceased Dalip, which pant and mobile phone were also taken into possession; that certain mobile phones were also written on the wall of the room which phone numbers were noted down by the members of the raiding party; that the accused informed the police party about the various places where he had thrown the various dismembered body parts; that on 21.5.2007 the accused led the police party to various places including Kishanganj across the railway line near ganda nalla where he had thrown legs of the body of deceased on 18.5.2007 and State Bank, Tis Hazari compound where he had left two hands of the body of the deceased and his private parts after packing the same in the straw board box; that on 22.5.2007 the accused led the police party near Railway Phatak Shalimar Bagh and got down from the vehicle and pointed out near Baba Ramdev Mandir Pitampura, where he had hung the left leg after keeping the same in a cloth bag on 25.4.2007; that on 23.5.2007 pursuant to his disclosure statement the accused Chanderkant Jha got recovered one skull and jaw (which according to the accused was of deceased Dalip) from the banks of river Yamuna; that on 24.5.2007 the accused led the police party near the Juice Shop, Lal Bagh, Loni where he had dropped the right hand and private part of the deceased Upender @ Pintoo after keeping the same in a panni and thereafter in a box; that the accused pointed out the place near Southern Gate of Central Hall, Tis Hazari Courts where he had dropped the right hand of deceased Upender on 18.5.2007; that a a piece of paper was recovered from the accused Chanderkant Jha at the time of his arrest St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 251 which was containing contact number of one Pankaj who was later found to be a relative of deceased Upender S/o Shri Ram R/o Village Biswa @ Kotia, Distt. Maharajganj, Uttar Pradesh; that on 24.5.2007 the ashes of the decapitated body which was cremated at Punjabi Bagh Crematorium, was received by Harender Singh (the brother of deceased Upender); that Pankaj Rathore was interrogated by the Investigating Officer wherein he informed the police that his brother Upender was residing with accused Chanderkant Jha; that on 27.7.2007 blood samples of Shir Ram and Smt. Dharmo Devi, R/o Village Biswa @ Kotia, Distt. Maharajganj, Uttar Pradesh were collected at FSL Rohini for DNA examination.
It has also been held that the letters recovered along with the decapitated dead bodies discovered on 20.10.2006 and 18.5.2007 (FIR No. 609/2006 and FIR No. 279/2007) are in the handwriting of the accused Chanderkant Jha which is in the nature of confession; that the statement made by the accused Chanderkant Jha to Pankaj to the extent that Jaisa usska karaam tha voh wahan paunnch gaya" are again in the nature of an Extra Judicial Confession made to Pankaj; that the accused Chanderkant Jha was using the mobile numbers 9211463742 and 9211463743 of which one mobile set make TATA Samsung having ESN No. 8562-A099 which was recovered from the possession of the accused Chanderkant Jha at the time of arrest containing the above SIM bearing No. 9211463742; that the electronic evidence independently corroborates the recovery of the various body parts and is compatible with the time which could have been taken on route and it is all this which conclusively connects the accused Chanderkant Jha with the offence.
It has been further observed that the medical evidence in the form of postmortem reports establish that the death of the deceased (Upender) occurred on the intervening night of 24-25.4.2007 which was St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 252 on account of decapitation of the head (decapitation was not subsequent to death). The forensic evidence in the form of DNA Fingerprinting Report conclusively establishes that the decapitated body discovered near UTI ATM, Gate No.3, Central Jail Tihar was of Upender @ Pintoo who was the son of Shri Ram and Smt. Dharmo @ Smt. Dharmi R/o Kaptan Enclave, Village Kotia, Distt. Maharajganj, Uttar Pradesh. This Court also observed that the circumstantial evidence pointing out towards the guilt of the accused Chanderkant Jha as the author of the crime is over-whelming and the coincidences were far too many and convincing. The accused Chanderkant Jha was therefore held guilty of having committed the murder of Upender S/o Shri Ram R/o Kaptan Enclave, Village Kotia, Distt. Maharajganj, Uttar Pradesh by decapitating his head and having caused disappearance of evidence of murder in order to screen himself from legal punishment, by throwing the head / body parts of the decapitated body at various places in Delhi, for which he has been convicted for the offence under Sections 302 and 201 Indian Penal Code.
Heard arguments on the point of sentence. The convict is stated to be aged about 46 years having a family comprising of his wife and five minor daughters. He has studied till 7 th and was doing the job of selling plastic goods. Ld. Amicus Curiae has prayed for mercy since any stern view would cause mental, financial and social trauma to his wife and five minor children of the convict who are totally dependent upon him. It is submitted that the convict is a patient of Asthma and is in Judicial Custody for the last almost five years. Ld. Amicus Curiae has pointed out that there is no direct evidence against the accused and the conviction has been based only on the basis of circumstantial evidence and hence a lenient view be taken against the convict. He has placed his St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 253 reliance on the judgment in the case of Prem Sagar Vs. Dharambir & Ors. reported in AIR 2004 SC 21.
Ld. Additional Public Prosecutor for the State has vehemently argued for death penalty in the present case. It is argued that the deceased Upender an unmarried young boy of 19-20 years of age had been killed by the convict in a most gruesome & grotesque manner. Ld. Additional Public Prosecutor has pointed out that not only was Upender beheaded resulting into his death but his arms, legs and private parts were also chopped after which the convict scattered the decapitated body and the dismembered parts at various parts of Delhi with the sole intent of throwing a challenge to the Law Enforcement Agencies and hence under the given circumstances except death, no other sentence would be appropriate. He has also pointed out that the convict has a track record of violence and was involved in many serious offences whose details are as under:
Sr. FIR No. Under Section Police Station No. 1. 61/1997 457/380 IPC Adarsh Nagar 2. 202/1997 457/380 IPC Adarsh Nagar 3. 282/1997 457/380 IPC Adarsh Nagar 4. 277/1998 302/201 IPC Adarsh Nagar 5. 538/1998 307/34 IPC & 27/54/59 Arms Adarsh Nagar Act 6. 541/1998 25,35/54/59 Arms Act Adarsh Nagar 7. 251/2002 25/54/59 Arms Act Adarsh Nagar 8. 123/2003 25/54/59 Arms Act Adarsh Nagar 9. 210/2003 302/201 IPC Alipur 10. 620/2003 302/201 IPC Hari Nagar 11. 749/2005 302/201 IPC Mangol Puri St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 254 12. 609/2006 302/201 IPC Hari Nagar 13. 243/2007 302/201 IPC Hari Nagar 14. 279/2007 302/201 IPC Hari Nagar
Ld. Addl. Public Prosecutor has in this regard he has placed his reliance on the authorities of Bachan Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in 1980 SCC (Crl.) 580; Machhi Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab reported in 1983 SCC (Crl.) 681 and Mohd. Mannan @ Abdul Mannan Vs. State of Bihar reported in 2011 Crl.L.J. 3380 and has argued that keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, there is no alternative before this court but to impose death sentence upon the convict Chanderkant Jha. The Ld. Addl. Public Prosecutor has also placed his reliance on the judgment of Shivaji Vs. State of Maharastra reported in 2008 (4) AD (CR.) SC 665 and has argued that death penalty could be awarded in cases even where the conviction is based on circumstantial evidence.
I have considered the submissions made before me and on the basis of the rival contentions, I take a stock of rulings relied upon by the parties. In the case of Bachan Singh Vs. State of Punjab [AIR 1980 SC 898], it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the death penalty can be inflicted only in the gravest of the grave cases. It was also held that such death penalty can be imposed only when the life imprisonment appears to be inadequate punishment. The Hon'ble Court further cautioned that while imposing the death sentence, there must be balance between circumstances regarding the accused and the mitigating circumstances and that there has to be overall consideration of the circumstances regarding the accused as also the offence. Some aggravating circumstances were also culled out, they being:-
St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 255(a) where the murder has been committed after previous planning and involves extreme brutality; or
(b)where the murder involves exceptional depravity.
The mitigating circumstances which were mentioned were:-
(a) That the offence was committed under the influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance;
(b) The age of the accused. If the accused is young or old, he shall not be sentenced to death;
(c) The probability that the accused would not commit criminal acts of violence as would constitute a continuing threat to society;
d) The probability that the accused can be reformed and rehabilitated. The State shall by evidence prove that the accused does not satisfy the conditions (c) and (d) above;
(e) That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the accused believed that he was morally justified in committing the offence;
(f) That the accused acted under the duress or domination of another person; and
(g) That the condition of the accused showed that he was mentally defective and that the said defect impaired his capacity to appreciate the criminality of his conduct.
The law was further settled in the decision in Machhi Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab [AIR 1983 SC 957], where Hon'ble Supreme Court insisted upon the mitigating circumstances being balanced against the aggravating circumstances. The aggravating circumstances were described as under:-
(a) When the murder is in extremely brutal manner so as to arouse intense and extreme indignation of the community.
(b) When the murder of a large number of persons of a particular caste, community, or locality is committed.
(c) When the murder of an innocent child, a helpless woman is committed.St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 256
The matter was further considered in Devender Pal Singh Vs. State of NCT of Delhi [AIR 2002 SC 1661], wherein, after examining both the aforementioned cases, it was held that when a murder is committed in an extremely brutal manner, or for a motive which suggests total depravity and meanness or where the murder is by hired assassin for money or reward, or a cold blooded murder for gains, the death sentence is justified. Similar such observation was made even in the decision in Atbir Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi [JT 2010 (8) SC 372]. Relying on all these cases, Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Criminal Appeal Nos. 127-130 of 2008 (C. Muniappan & Ors. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu) decided on 30.8.2010, confirmed the death sentence. The unprovoked attack on the bus and the burning of the bus by sprinkling petrol on the bus, and the death of three students as a result of such burning was viewed by Hon'ble Supreme Court as a barbaric and inhuman act of the highest degree. The offence was viewed as brutal, diabolical, grotesque and cruel, shocking the collective conscience of society. It was on that account that the death sentence was confirmed.
In the case of Atbir Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi (supra), which was a case dependent upon a dying declaration, the allegation was that the accused had stabbed all the three persons of a family so that he and his brother could enjoy the entire property and money. The repeated stabbing of the deceased was viewed as the act for which the accused could be legitimately awarded death sentence. The incident therein had occurred on 22.1.1996 while the Sessions Judge had awarded the death sentence on 27.9.2004. The High Court had confirmed the death sentence on 13.1.2006 while Hon'ble Apex Court affirmed this sentence vide its judgment dated 9.8.2010, after taking the stock of the aggravating circumstances and mitigating circumstances, as pointed out in Bachan St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 257 Singh Vs. State of Punjab (cited supra) and Machhi Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab (cited supra), came to the conclusion that though Atbir was a young person of 25 years of age and had already spent 10 years in jail, that was not a mitigating circumstance in his favour. The three murders were held to be extremely brutal and diabolical, committed with deliberate design in order to inherit the entire property of Jaswant Singh without waiting for his death. In Sushil Murmu Vs. State of Jharkhand [AIR 2004 SC 394], which was a case of human sacrifice of a 9 years old child, Hon'ble Supreme Court found the accused guilty on the basis of circumstantial evidence. While culling out the aggravating circumstances, hon'ble Supreme Court once again named five circumstances on the basis of the earlier case law in Machhi Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab (supra), Bachan Singh Vs. State of Punjab (supra) and Ediga Anamma Vs. State of A.P. [AIR 1974 SC 799]. In the said case, the Hon'ble Court recorded that the murder was a dastardly murder by sacrificing a hapless and helpless child of another for personal gain and to promote his fortunes by pretending to appease the deity or was a brutal act which is amplified by the grotesque and revolting manner in which it was committed. This case was even relied upon by the High Court while confirming the death sentence.
In another decision in Gurdev Singh & Anr. Vs. State of Punjab with Piara Singh & Anr. Vs. State of Punjab [AIR 2003 SC 4187], the Hon'ble Supreme Court specifically held in Para 19 that there could be no fixed or rigid formula or standard for invoking extreme penalty of death sentence.
I have also given my careful consideration to the judgment relied upon by the Ld. Amicus Curiae in the case of Prem Sagar Vs. Dharambir & Ors. reported in AIR 2004 SC 21. I may mention that this St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 258 authority would not apply to the facts of the present case as the above judgments deal with cases where convictions were based on evidence which was either too weak or circumstantial with no direct credible evidence. In the present case the evidence is convincing and credible. Even otherwise, I may observe that in the case of Shivaji Vs. State of Maharashtra (Supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court considered as to whether or not circumstantial based conviction should be taken to be the mitigating factor and had observed that the plea that in case of a circumstantial evidence, death should not be awarded, is without any logic. It was also observed that if the circumstantial evidence is found to be of unimpeachable character in establishing the guilt of the accused, which forms the foundation for conviction, that have nothing to do with the question of sentence as has been observed in various cases while awarding death sentence. The Hon'ble Court was of the view that to treat circumstantial evidence as mitigating circumstances would amount to consideration of an irrelevant aspect and in a case which falls in the Rarest of Rare category death sentence should be awarded.
Coming now to the facts of the present case, before arriving at a decision whether the case falls in the category of rarest of the rare cases, this Court is required to list aggravating or mitigating circumstances and prepare balance sheet of the same before arriving at a decision. The division bench of our own High Court in case of State v. Raj Kumar Khandelwal reported in 164 (2009) DLT 713 (DB) observed that for the said purpose circumstances can be listed under six heads:
1. Circumstances personal to the offender.
2. Pre-offence conduct of the offender and in particular the motive.
3. Contemporaneous conduct of the offender while committing the offence St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 259
4. Post offence conduct of the offender
5. Role of the victim in commission of the crime.
6. Nature of evidence.
In the said case the Hon'ble High Court also listed illustrations by way of judicial decision as to what amount to mitigating factors and aggravating factors.
Now, applying the same to the circumstances of the present case, the various mitigating and aggravating factors can be listed as under:
The only mitigating factor in the present case is that the convict has a family comprising of wife and five small daughters who are totally dependent upon him.
The aggravating factors on the other hand are:
➢ Manner of killing is extremely brutal, grotesque, diabolical, revolting, or dastardly manner so as to arose intense and extreme indignation of the community.
➢ The offence has been committed in exceptional depravity and extreme brutality. The postmortem report confirms that the death in this case was a result of decapitation (not a case where decapitation followed death).
➢ Mental/ physical suffering inflicted on the victim before his death is immense (on account of the brutal nature of the killing). ➢ There is significant degree of planning/ premeditation on the part of the convict while committing the murder.
➢ That the convict betrayed the trust and confidence which the victims who were known to him previously, had reposed in him. He had chosen his victim carefully who were young men from poor families whose confidence he could easily win. The victim in St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 260 the present case namely Upender was a young boy of 19-20 years from an extremely poor family who had come to Delhi to earn a living and had been working with him (convict) and staying with him.
➢ The serial killings were senseless and committed in a planned manner. Earlier too the convict is involved in throwing the decapitated bodies on 20.10.2006 and 25.4.2007 outside Central Jail Tihar (large number of persons had been murdered). ➢ That the intent of the convict was to cause a public outrage only because he wanted to avenge the wrong done to him by the Police System in falsely implicating him in cases and to some extent he succeeded in the same. The said killings did cause a public outrage and shook the faith of the people in the Law Enforcement Agency.
➢ That he even threatened vide his letter recovered along with the decapitated body on 18.5.2007 to send similar gifts (decapitated bodies) to police after every 15 days reflecting the lack of remorse and his resolve to repeat his criminal act.
➢ That he had been held guilty and convicted in case FIR No. 279/2007, Police Station Hari Nagar, under Section 302/201 IPC wherein vide order of this Court dated 4.2.2013 he has been sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment to the Rest of his Life.
There are just three mitigating factors which are in favour of the accused / convict i.e. he has a large family to support and that he had himself perhaps been a victim of the Policing System of our country. It is writ large that the aggravating circumstances far outweigh the mitigating circumstances. From the facts as recapitulated above, it St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 261 would be seen that the present case falls in the category of rarest of rare cases, it meets three circumstances as set out in Machi Singh's case for determining rarest of rare cases. The First circumstance being that the offence is such which may be taken as shocking the collective conscience of the community justifying infliction of death penalty. The murder had been committed in an extremely brutal, diabolical, revolting and dastardly manner. The Second circumstance being the motive for crime which evinces total depravity, vengeance, perversity and meanness. The murder of Upender was in cold blood without any immediate provocation by the deceased. The Third circumstance being the probability that the convict would again commit a similar act of violence and constitute a continuing threat to the society (this in view of the threats and challenge issued by the convict to the System to catch him stating that after every 15 days he will send a similar gift i.e. decapitated bodies to the police).
The convict is a Mission Oriented and Task Oriented Serial Killer whose only motive / mission was to expose, mock and challenge the police who as per his allegations had falsely implicated him in many criminal cases and in order to fulfill this mission he went on a killing spree. The brutality so inflicted on the body of the deceased demonstrates that the convict does not possess basic humanness and lacks the psyche or mind set which may be amenable for any reform which psyche was displayed during the commission of offence. It is writ large that the convict Chanderkant Jha had stooped so low as to unleash his monstrous self on the innocent, helpless and defenceless young man who had reposed his faith and confidence in him.
The convict is a menace to the society and the manner in which he has engaged himself into senseless serial killings shows that he St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 262 is beyond reform. Certain category of perpetrators of crime who if not removed from the circulation of the society would destroy it. This act no doubt has invited extreme indignation of the community and shocked the collective conscience of the society and their expectation from the authority conferred with the power to adjudicate, is to inflict the death sentence which is natural and logical. This Court cannot ignore the loud cry for justice by the society in this case involving heinous crime of murder of a young man from a poor family and his grotesque killing and will respond by imposition of proper sentence least people loose faith in the Judicial System and take law into their hands. In view of the above I hereby award the following sentences to the convict Chanderkant Jha:
1. The convict is sentenced to death for offence punishable under Section 302 Indian Penal Code and fine of Rs.10,000/-.
Accordingly he be hanged by the neck till he is dead. In default of payment of fine the convict shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of One month.
2. The convict is further sentence to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment (RI) for a period of Seven (7) years and fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 201 Indian Penal Code. In default of payment of fine, the convict is further sentence to undergo simple imprisonment (SI) for a period of one month.
The death penalty reference is being sent to Hon'ble High Court of Delhi for the confirmation of the same.
The convict is also informed that he can file the appeal against the judgment within a period of 30 days as per Article 115 of The Limitation Act, 1963.
St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 263Certified copy of the judgment and order on sentence alongwith duly attested copy of charge, evidence, statement of accused, exhibited documents be given to the convict, free of cost. Since the convict has demanded that he be supplied the copies of the Judgment and Sentence in Hindi as well, the Office shall take all necessary steps to ensure that the translated copy of the Judgment and Sentence is provided to the convict in Hindi at the earliest. In this regard the Office shall be at liberty to get the translation done from the Official Translator available in Delhi High Court by making a request through proper channel as per rules.
The exhibits be preserved till the confirmation of death penalty by the Hon'ble High Court. The file be prepared as per Rule 34 of Chapter 24 Part B Vol. III of Delhi High Court Rules and be sent to Hon'ble High Court as per rules.
Announced in the open court (Dr. KAMINI LAU)
Dated: 5.2.2013 ASJ-II(NW)/ ROHINI
St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 243/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 264