Delhi District Court
Special Judge (Pc Act) Cbi-13 vs Chandu on 25 March, 2022
CBI - 393/2019 RC No. 4(S)/2002
DLCT110015342019
IN THE COURT OF SH. PULASTYA PRAMACHALA
SPECIAL JUDGE (PC ACT) CBI-13,
ROUSE AVENUE DISTRICT COURT, NEW DELHI
Registration No. : CBI No.393/2019
Under Section : 302/201/120-B/379 IPC
Branch : CBI, SCB, New Delhi
FIR No. : RC No. 4(S)/2002
CNR No. : DLCT11-001-5342-2019
In the matter of: -
CBI
VERSUS
1. SH. HARISH KUMAR (A1)
S/o. Late Kasturi Lal,
R/o. 12/48, Geeta Colony, Delhi-31.
2. SH. HARMESH KUMAR @ RAMESH KUMAR @
KALU (A2)
S/o Late Krishan Lal,
R/o D-137, Rani Garden,
Shastri Nagar, Delhi-31.
3. SH. BANSI LAL (A3)
S/o Late Kasturi Lal,
R/o. 13/42, Geeta Colony, Delhi-31.
4. SH. PREM PUJARI (A4) (Since expired)
(Proceedings qua A4 abated vide order dated 12.07.2012)
S/o. Late Thasu Lal,
R/o. C-3, Rani Garden, Delhi-31.
Also At H.No. B-42, Jawhar Park,
Page 1 of 77 (Pulastya Pramachala)
Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-13,
Rouse Avenue District Court, New Delhi
CBI - 393/2019 RC No. 4(S)/2002
Sahibabad, U.P.
5. SH. TILAK RAJ (A5)
S/o Late Brij Lal,
R/o. 13/73, Geeta Colony, Delhi-31.
.....Accused Persons
Complainant : Sh. Suresh Kumar Mittal
S/o Late Attar Chand Mittal,
R/o D-248, Vivek Vihar, Delhi-95
Date of Institution : 25.11.2004
Date of reserving order : 08.03.2022
Date of pronouncement : 25.03.2022
Decision : All four aforesaid accused
persons are acquitted.
(Section 437-A Cr.P.C. complied with by all the four accused
persons)
JUDGMENT
THE CASE SET UP BY THE PROSECUTION :-
1. Briefly stated, the relevant facts of the case are that present case was registered by CBI on the directions of hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide order dated 06.05.2002, passed in Crl. Writ Petition No.1190/2001, Crl. Misc. No. 368/2002 and 1122/2001 to carry out further investigation in case FIR No.118/99, under Section 365 IPC, PS Geeta Colony. The said FIR was registered on the basis of statement of complainant Sh. Suresh Kumar Mittal, S/o late Attar Chand Mittal, R/o D-248, Vivek Vihar, Delhi-95 (i.e. brother of deceased Daulat Ram). Accordingly, CBI after completion of investigation in the present case filed chargesheet against Bansi Lal (A3) only on 25.11.2004 and kept accused Tilak Raj, Prem Pujari in column no. 2, being absconder. Vide order dated 16.03.2005 passed by ld. MM, cognizance against Page 2 of 77 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-13, Rouse Avenue District Court, New Delhi CBI - 393/2019 RC No. 4(S)/2002 accused Bansi Lal was taken and accordingly, accused Bansi Lal was summoned. However, accused Prem Pujari was already shown as absconder in this chargesheet, hence, bailable warrants against him were issued, thereby impliedly taking cognizance against accused Prem Pujari.
2. The facts, as enumerated from the chargesheet dated 29.10.2004, are that the complainant Sh. Suresh Kumar Mittal on 28.06.1999 at about 07:00 PM, made a complaint mentioning therein that his younger brother Daulat Ram had gone to the factory of Mohinder Pal i.e. M/s. Vishal Metal Works, situated at A/29, Rani Garden, Delhi with regard to business dealings. Daulat Ram was running the metal business in the name of A.D. Metal Industries. When Daulat Ram did not return to his house up to 11:00 PM, the complainant made a telephone call to the accused Mohinder Pal in his factory, who told him that Daulat Ram had left his factory at about 08:30 PM on his two-wheeler scooter, bearing registration no. DL7SG5693 along with a cheque of Rs.1,40,000/- and cash of Rs.2500/-. The complainant had suspicion that his brother might have been kidnapped by someone and accordingly he made this complaint. On the basis of this complaint, police registered the case under Section 365 IPC in PS Geeta Colony. Subsequently, on the recovery of burnt dead body of Daulat Ram in the area of PS Link Road, Ghaziabad, the Sections in the FIR were changed to 302, 201 and 120-B IPC.
3. Prior to this, on 25.09.1999, Delhi Police filed chargesheet against accused Mohinder Pal and Ved Prakash by showing accused Tilak Raj, Harish and Harmesh as absconders. Vide Page 3 of 77 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-13, Rouse Avenue District Court, New Delhi CBI - 393/2019 RC No. 4(S)/2002 judgment dated 27.08.2003, accused Ved Prakash was acquitted while accused Mohinder Pal was convicted and subsequently sentenced vide order on sentence dated 28.08.2003. Thus, trial against Mahender Pal and Ved Prakash was concluded in August 2003.
4. Thereafter, Delhi Police filed another chargesheet against accused Harish and Harmesh on 05.03.2002. Later on, accused Tilak Raj surrendered himself before the court on 04.12.2006 and thereafter, a supplementary chargesheet was filed against him by CBI in the court on 20.04.2007.
CHARGES :-
5. On 09.04.2003 charges were framed against Harish and Harmesh for offences punishable under Section 302 IPC read with Section 120-B and under Section 201/120-B IPC and separate charge for offence punishable under Section 404 IPC. It was alleged against them that accused Harish and Harmesh committed murder of Daulat Ram on 28.06.99 between 7.30 p.m. to 9.30 p.m. by strangulating him and after committing the murder of Daulat Ram, they caused the evidence of the offence of murder to disappear with the intention of screening themselves from legal punishment by loading a bag containing the dead body of Daulat Ram in a Tata Sumo no. DL9C 6182 belonging to Mahender Pal and same was taken to a place at Sahibabad, near the wall of Superfast factory, site no. 4, Sahibabad and was set on fire. It was further alleged against accused Harmesh @ Ramesh @ Kaler that on 17.12.2001 from D-137, Rani Garden, he dishonestly converted one gold chain to his own use with intention that the above mentioned article was in possession of Page 4 of 77 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-13, Rouse Avenue District Court, New Delhi CBI - 393/2019 RC No. 4(S)/2002 Daulat Ram deceased at the time of murder and since then article had not been in possession of any person entitled to it. It was further alleged against accused Harish that on 17.12.2001 from H.No.12/48, Geeta Colony, he dishonestly converted one gold ring and wrist watch to his own use with intention that the above mentioned articles were in possession of Daulat Ram deceased at the time of his murder and since then article had not been in possession of any person entitled to it. Thus, both accused persons committed the offences as mentioned herein above, to which they both pleaded not guilty and claimed trial and fresh trial commenced against Harish (A1) and Harmesh (A2).
6. Thereafter, accused namely Bansi Lal (A3), Prem Pujari (A4, since expired) and Tilak Raj (A5) were chargesheeted through supplementary chargesheet, on 12.05.2010 and charges were framed against these three accused persons for offences punishable under Section 120-B read with Section 302/201 IPC and under Section 302/201 read with 34 IPC. It was alleged against them that on 28.06.1999, they along with Harish, Harmesh (both separately chargesheeted) and Mahender Pal (since already convicted), hatched a conspiracy to commit the murder of deceased Daulat Ram with a view to avoid payment of money due towards the deceased and in furtherance to their said criminal conspiracy they all committed murder of above said deceased. They all in furtherance of aforesaid criminal conspiracy caused destruction to the evidence against them from receiving the legal punishment by burning the dead body of above named deceased. It was further alleged against aforesaid accused persons that in furtherance of their common intention, Page 5 of 77 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-13, Rouse Avenue District Court, New Delhi CBI - 393/2019 RC No. 4(S)/2002 they all after committing the murder of above named deceased, took his dead body in Tata Sumo Car bearing no. DL-9C6182 in the area of PS Link Road, Ghaziabad and thus, caused destruction to the evidence against them from receiving the legal punishment by burning the dead body of Sh. Daulat Ram, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. During proceedings of this case, proceedings qua accused Prem Pujari stood abated vide order dated 12.07.12. DESCRIPTION OF PROSECUTION EVIDENCE :-
7. Prosecution examined 60 witnesses in support of its case, as per following descriptions: -
Sl. No. & Role of witness & Description of Proved Name of documents documents/ Witness case properties PW-1/ Insp. He was entrusted with investigation of Ex.PW1/A & Prakash this case from Crime Branch, ACP. Ex.PW1/B Chand On 08.12.1999 PW1 made search of (specimen Mann accused Harmesh (A2) at his house. sheets of Pankaj (Again PW1 also made search of accused dated examined on Harish (A1) and Tilak Raj (A5). 03.01.2000 12.12.2019 PW1 obtained specimen signatures of Sh. Pankaj on for accused 03.01.2000, which were marked as S1 and S2.
Bansi Lal On 20.01.2000 PW1 seized job card (Ex.PW6/C) and M.R. (A3) and Slips of Tata Sumo bearing no. DL-9C-6182 from Nawab Tilak Raj Auto, Noida (A5)) PW-2/ Sh. He was running business of acid and chemical at A56, Gali Satish No.1, Kabir Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi, under name and style Sharma of M/s. C.B. Chemicals.
PW2 used to collect cheques from the factory of Mahender Pal namely M/s. Monica Manufacturing Company for delivery of raw materials on bills.
PW2 deposed that balance amount towards M/s. Monica Mnfg. Co. till 28.06.1999 was about Rs. 1,30,000. PW-3/ Sh. He used to deal in Bakelite powder and his firm used to Arun Kumar deal in chemicals with M/s. Monica Manufacturing Co.
PW3 used to take payment through cheques from Mahender Pal and cheques were being signed by him. On 23.06.99, Mahender Pal had issued a post dated cheque no.
Page 6 of 77 (Pulastya Pramachala)Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-13, Rouse Avenue District Court, New Delhi CBI - 393/2019 RC No. 4(S)/2002 Sl. No. & Role of witness & Description of Proved Name of documents documents/ Witness case properties 727482 amounting to Rs.1,72,000/- for 02.07.99, which was deposited by PW3 in his bank, but same was returned with the remarks as insufficient funds, though PW3 owed about Rs.4 lacs towards company of PW3 in the year 1999. PW-4/ Insp. He was posted as Sub-Inspector in PS Ex.PW4/A M.A. Khan Krishna Nagar. On receipt of (copy of entry information, about Harish, he dated 07.12.01 constituted a team including himself, regarding arrest HC Rameshwar, Ct. Aant Ram of PS of Harish (A1) Geeta Colony and HC Jagir Singh, Ct. vide DD No. Jasbir of PS Krishna Nagar on 120-A in PS 06.12.2001 and went to Baba Budda Krishna Nagar Singh Shah, Gurudwara Jullundhar Cantt. Punjab.
On the same day, PW4 apprehended accused Harish Kumar (A1/ since proclaimed offender at that time) from aforesaid Gurudwara, where A1 was residing as Sewadar. On 07.12.01, at about 7-8 a.m., they reached Delhi and accused Harish was arrested vide Kalandra u/s 41(1) (C) Cr.P.C. and information of his arrest was given to his brother Jugal Kishore. Information of his arrest was also sent to concerned IO.
Detail of arrest of accused Harish was made by PW4 vide DD no. 120 A dated 07.12.01, in PS Krishna Nagar. PW4 identified accused Harish (A1) during proceedings of this case.
PW-5/ SI On 08.12.2001, while he was posted at Ex.PW5/A Sh. S.N. PS Kalyanpuri, had gone to prosecution (copy of detail Rajora branch, Karkardooma Courts, in of arrest of A2 connection with disposal of his pending vide DD No.55 file vide DD No.36-B, when WSI Ramo at PS Devi met him. WSI Ramo Devi Kalyanpuri informed PW5 that she was informed by mentioned by the informer about coming of one PW5) proclaimed offender in FIR No. 118/99, PS Geeta Colony, namely accused Harmesh @ Kalu (A2) at Karkardooma Court to meet some lawyer.
On receipt of the aforesaid information, PW5 joined WSI Ramo Devi and went at the gate of KKD Courts, where on the point out of informer, he apprehended accused Harmesh @ Kalu (A2). PW5 confirmed the fact of accused Harmesh being PO in case FIR No. 118/99 from PS Geeta Colony and accordingly arrested him u/s 41(1) (C) Cr.P.C. PW5 mentioned the details of arrest of accused Harmesh Page 7 of 77 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-13, Rouse Avenue District Court, New Delhi CBI - 393/2019 RC No. 4(S)/2002 Sl. No. & Role of witness & Description of Proved Name of documents documents/ Witness case properties (A2) at PS Kalyanpuri, vide DD no. 55.
PW5 identified accused Harmesh @ Kalu during proceedings of this case.
PW-6/ Sh. He worked with Nawab Auto at Noida Ex.PW6/A Kashmiri from 1997 to July 2009. PW6 used to (seizure memo Lal prepare MR slips of the vehicles which of carbon copy were brought to Nawab Auto. of Bill, job no. PW6 identified his signature appearing 993436); at point B on the seizure memo, vide Ex.PW6/B & which police had seized carbon copy of Ex.PW6/C (Bill the Bill No.T/C/08876 dated No. T/C/08876 16.06.1999, job no.993436 regarding dated 16.06.99) vehicle no. DL9C6182. & Job card no.
PW6 also identified Bill No. T/C/08876 993281 dated dated 16.06.99. PW6 also identified job 09.06.99 of the card no.993281 dated 09.06.1999 of the vehicle no. vehicle no.DL9C6182. DL9C6182) PW-7/ Sh. He was working as Workshop Incharge Ex.PW7/A (bill Madan at Nawab Motors, C-24, Sector-8, no. T/C/08786 Mohan Noida. PW7 used to check the job card dated 11.06.99 Nayar after getting its print out. prepared in the PW7 identified bill no. T/C/08786 dated name of 11.06.99 prepared in the name of Mahender Pal);
Mahender Pal. Ex. PW7/B PW7 identified his signature appearing (seizure memo at point A on seizure memo dated dated 19.07.99);
19.07.99. Ex.PW7/C
PW7 identified photocopy of gate pass (photocopy of
no.992914 dated 15.06.1999 Time 1722 gate pass
hours of vehicle DL9C6182 Sumo; Bill no.992914 dated
and Job Card. 15.06.1999
Time 1722
PW7 also identified signature of PW6/ hours of Sumo
Sh. Kashmiri Lal appearing at point A vehicle DL-9C-
on Ex.PW7/C. 6182);
PW7 identified his signature at point X Ex.PW7/A-1 & and of mechanic namely Sh. Ved Ex.PW7/A-2 Prakash at point Y on Ex.PW6/C. (photocopy of Bill and job card.
PW-8/ SI On 15.12.2001 he was posted in Anti Ex.PW8/A Dinesh Homicide Cell, Crime Branch. PW8 (Disclosure Kumar accompanied Insp. M.C. Meena, Ct. statement of Radha Krishan and other staff as well as A1);
Page 8 of 77 (Pulastya Pramachala)Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-13, Rouse Avenue District Court, New Delhi CBI - 393/2019 RC No. 4(S)/2002 Sl. No. & Role of witness & Description of Proved Name of documents documents/ Witness case properties accused Harish Kumar (A1) in Ex.PW8/B connection with the investigation of this (Disclosure case. statement of PW8 correctly identified accused A2); Harish (A1) and Harmesh (A2) during Ex.PW8/C proceedings of this case. (seizure memo PW8 was witness to recovery and prepared in seizure of one ring and one wrist watch respect of one belonging to deceased, from the front ring and one right side pocket of one blue pant kept wrist watch of in the upper portion of Almirah in a deceased); room near stair case of H.No. 12/48, 2 nd Ex.PW8/D Floor, Geeta Colony, at the instance of (copy of ration accused Harish Kumar (A1) on card of A1); 17.12.2001. PW8 identified his Ex.PW8/E signature at point A on the seizure (seizure memo memo prepared by Insp. M.C. Meena in prepared in respect of aforesaid ring and wrist respect of one watch. PW8 also identified copy of chain belonged ration card of A1 taken from wife of A1 to deceased); by Insp. M.C. Meena.
Ex. PW8/F, PW8 was also witness to recovery and Ex. PW8/F1, seizure of one chain belonging to Ex. PW8/G to deceased, from right pocket of pant kept Ex.PW8/J in one iron box in store near kitchen of (Pointing out H.No. D-137, Rani Garden, Delhi, at memos); the instance of accused Harmesh Kumar (A2) on 17.12.2001. PW8 identified his Ex.P8, Ex.P9 & signature at point A on the seizure Ex.P10 (wrist memo prepared by Insp. M.C. Meena in watch, ring and respect of aforesaid chain. PW8 also chain of identified copy of ration card of A1 deceased); taken from wife of A1 by Insp. M.C. Meena.
PW8 was witness to preparation of separate pointing out memos prepared on the pointing of both accused A1 and A2. Vide these pointing out memos accused A1 and A2 had pointed out the place where they had burnt the dead body at A-29, Rani Garden; where they had thrown away the clothes, chappal and cane of deceased, where they had parked Tata Sumo bearing no. DL9C-6182 and where they had parked Maruti Zen car bearing no. DL-6CB-7700 at Ganga Ram Hospital. PW8 identified his signature at point A on Ex. PW8/G, Ex.
Page 9 of 77 (Pulastya Pramachala)Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-13, Rouse Avenue District Court, New Delhi CBI - 393/2019 RC No. 4(S)/2002 Sl. No. & Role of witness & Description of Proved Name of documents documents/ Witness case properties PW8/H, Ex. PW8/I and Ex. PW8/J. PW8 also identified aforesaid ring and wrist watch got recovered from A1 as well as aforesaid chain got recovered from A2, during proceedings of this case. PW8 along with Insp. M.C. Meena deposited the case property of this case in the Malkhana of PS Geeta Colony. PW-9/ Ct. On 03.01.2000 he accompanied Insp. Ex.PW9/A & Pravin P.C. Mann to Monika Manufacturing Ex.PW9/B Kumar Company, A-29, Rani Garden, where (specimen Insp. M.C. Meena obtained specimen signatures of signatures of one Pankaj Dhawan on Mr. Pankaj two separate sheets. The original Dhawan on two specimen were in two sheets and there separate sheets) were five signatures on each paper i.e. S1 and S2. PW9 identified his signatures appearing at point A and B on specimen signatures sheets.
PW-10/ Ct. On 21.12.2001, he was working as Ex.PW10/A Rajesh Malkhana Munshi in PS Geeta Colony. (photocopy of Kumar During proceedings of this case, PW8 entry made at deposed that on enquiry being made by serial no. Insp. M.C. Meena, he checked register 161/846 dated no.19 and found that at serial no. 30.09.99 in 161/846 there was entry regarding register no.19 at deposit of one mobile phone make PS Geeta Seimens S1088 and GSM by Insp. Vijay Colony); Suley on 30.06.99. Ex.PW10/B PW10 also deposed about entry at serial (entry made at no. 197/883 regarding one mobile serial no. phone make and model GH337 Erricson 197/883 dt. vide RC No.63/21 dated 02.08.99, PS 02.08.99); Rajender Nagar.
PW10 identified handwriting of HC Zahoor Ahmed, the then Malkhana Moharar, who made entry no.161/846 dated 30.06.1999, vide which Insp. Vijay Suley had deposited the case property.
PW8 also identified handwriting of Ct. Nanu Ram, the then Munshi of MHC(M), PS Geeta Colony, who made entry no.197/883.
PW-11/ SI On 05.07.99 he was posted as ASI in Ex.PW11/A Jai Singh DIU Cell, East District, Delhi. PW11 (seizure memo accompanied Insp. Virender Singh, dated 05.07.99 Insp. Jagdish Kumar, HC Raj Pal and prepared in Ct. Devinder to utensil factory at A-29, respect of Page 10 of 77 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-13, Rouse Avenue District Court, New Delhi CBI - 393/2019 RC No. 4(S)/2002 Sl. No. & Role of witness & Description of Proved Name of documents documents/ Witness case properties Rani Garden. sample piece of PW11 was witness to seizure of sample carpet); piece of carpet from the office of the Ex.PW11/B factory at A-29, Rani Garden and (seizure memo identified his signature at point X on the dated 05.07.99 seizure memo. prepared in PW11 was also witness to seizure of respect of three three pieces taken from the different pieces taken gunny bags as samples. PW11 identified from the his signature at point Y on the seizure different gunny memo. bags as samples);
On 19.07.99 he again accompanied Insp. Virender Kumar along with HC Ex.PW11/C Raj Pal Singh to Nawab Auto Works, C- (seizure memo 24, Sector 8, Noida, where some dated 19.07.99) photostate copy of original documents prepared in of Tata Sumo bearing No.DL-9C-6182 respect of were obtained from Sh. M.M. Nair. seizure of PW11 also identified his signature at documents point X3 on seizure memo prepared in marked as X1 to respect of seizure of documents marked X6; as X1 to X6. Ex.PW11/DA On 02.08.99, on the instruction of (statement of IO/Insp. Virender Kumar, PW11 PW11 recorded brought Maruti Zen car from malkhana under Section of PS Rajender Nagar to PS Geeta 161 Cr.P.C.) Colony. Maruti Zen car was having number plate bearing no. DL-8CB-2914 on its front as well as on back side.
Another number plate bearing no.DL-
6CB-7700 was also lying inside the car. PW11 deposited that Maruti Zen car in malkhana of PS Geeta Colony vide RC No.63/21/99.
PW-12/ ACP On 14.09.2000 PW12 was handed over Ex.PW12/DA
M.C. Meena investigation of this case by Insp. P.C. (Application
Maan, when accused A1 and A2 were dated
declared proclaimed offenders and 15.12.2001
required to be arrested. moved before
Once again, on 13.12.2001 PW12 was Metropolitan
assigned investigation of this case, Magistrate
when accused A1 and A2 were in seeking seven
judicial custody till 25.12.2001, vide days' police
DD No.6 recorded in Inter State Crime custody remand
of accused A1
Page 11 of 77 (Pulastya Pramachala)
Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-13,
Rouse Avenue District Court, New Delhi CBI - 393/2019 RC No. 4(S)/2002 Sl. No. & Role of witness & Description of Proved Name of documents documents/ Witness case properties Section, Crime Branch, Chanakya Puri, and A2); New Delhi. PW12 moved an application Again dated 15.12.2001 before Metropolitan Ex.PW12/DA Magistrate seeking seven days' police (arrest memo of custody remand of accused A1 and A2. accused PW12 deposed on the same lines as Harish/A-1 ); deposed by PW8 in respect of recovery Ex.PW12/DB of articles at the instance of accused A1(arrest memo of and A2. accused PW12 had moved an application for TIP Harmesh/A-2 ); of recovered articles at the instance of Ex.PW12/DC accused Harish Kumar (A1) and (reply dated Harmesh Kumar (A2), which were 18.12.2001 to correctly identified by Smt. Babita the application (wife of deceased) and her statement for TIP moved was recorded by him. PW12 also by accused A1 recorded statement of Anwar Khan on & A2);
15.01.2002, who was familiar with
some facts of this case. Ex.PW12/DX
(application
PW12 correctly identified case dated
properties and accused A1 & A2 during 15.12.2001 for proceedings of this case. TIP moved by During his testimony, he identified accused A1 & application seeking seven days' police A2); custody remand of accused A1 & A2;
arrest memo of accused A1 & A2; reply dated 18.12.2001 to the application for TIP moved by accused A1 & A2 & application dated 15.12.2001 for TIP moved by accused A1 & A2.
PW-13/ Sh. PW13 was declared as hostile witness. PW13/X Suresh @ As per his testimony, PW13 He had a (statement of Suneshwar bank account, which was opened with PW13 dated his address as of Mahender Pal's 02.01.2002 Factory. recorded u/s.161 Cr.P.C.);
PW-14/ Sh. PW14 was also declared hostile Ex.PW14/A, Balraj witness. Ex.PW14/B and
As per his testimony, PW14 used to Ex.PW14/C only prepare the cheques of the parties (entries mady by as per directions and instructions from PW14 in Sh. Mahender Pal in M/s. Monica counterfoil of Manufacturing Company. the cheque book pertaining to the PW14 identified his entries in Page 12 of 77 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-13, Rouse Avenue District Court, New Delhi CBI - 393/2019 RC No. 4(S)/2002 Sl. No. & Role of witness & Description of Proved Name of documents documents/ Witness case properties counterfoil of the cheque book period pertaining to the period 30.01.1999 till 30.01.1999 till 02.07.1999, whereby cheques were 02.07.1999);
issued to the parties. Ex.PW14/D PW14 identified his signature appearing (seizure memo at point C on seizure memo dated dated 04.07.99);
04.07.1999. Ex.PW14/XY
(statement of
PW14 dated
04.07.1999
recorded u/s.
161 Cr.P.C.)
PW-15/ Sh. He was working as Personal Secretary on deputation with
Narender Delhi Government from 31.12.1993 till November 2000.
Singh PW15 identified accused Bansi Lal (A3) during proceeding
of the case.
During his testimony, PW15 deposed that in the year 1999 accused Bansi Lal (A3) being municipal corporator, used to visit office of Minister Dr. A.K. Walia. PW-16/ Sh. He was known to PW13/Mr. Suneshwar, who was his Ram Ugrah brother-in-law in village relation. PW13/Mr. Suneshwar belonged to village Bhanwarkol. On 16.06.1999 PW16 himself had arranged and solemnized marriage of his niece (daughter of Rajender i.e. brother of PW16) as Rajender was no more alive at that time. PW13/Mr. Suneshwar met PW16 in his village Gyan Singera as niece of PW13/Mr. Suneshwar was also settled to be married on that occasion. PW13/Mr. Suneshwar left the village after that marriage ceremony was over. PW13/Mr. Suneshwar used to visit house of PW16 in Delhi on some occasions.
PW-17/ Sh. In January 2003 he was posted with Ex.PW17/A D.K. Physics Division, CFSL, CBI, CGO (request letter Tanwar Complex, N. Delhi. dated
PW17 identified his signature at point A 07.01.2003 and of Sh. C.K. Jain at point B on a received from request letter dated 07.01.2003 received SP, CBI);
from SP, CBI. Ex.PW17/B
PW17 along with Mr. D.S. Chakotra (memo prepared
and Mr. A.D. Shah inspected "Tata in respect of
Sumo" which was present in PS Geeta lifting two
Colony and after inspection PW17 chance finger
prepared report in this regard prints from the
mentioning registration number of rear view mirror
aforesaid Tata Sumo vehicle. in Tata Sumo
Page 13 of 77 (Pulastya Pramachala)
Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-13,
Rouse Avenue District Court, New Delhi CBI - 393/2019 RC No. 4(S)/2002 Sl. No. & Role of witness & Description of Proved Name of documents documents/ Witness case properties vehicle);
During inspection of vehicle, PW17 found and collected some bluish colour jute fiber and one brownish jute fiber. PW17 advised IO for sending those fibers for further analysis and examination to his laboratory. Mr. Shah, finger print expert, took up inspection of the vehicle to find out if any chance finger prints were available. Mr. Ganvir from photography division had taken photographs of the vehicle from different angles and to focus the points wherefrom they had collected their clues.
PW17 identified his signature appearing at point A on memo prepared in respect of proceedings of lifting two chance finger prints from the rear view mirror in the vehicle in the presence of CBI officer Mr. U.K. Goswami. PW-18/ Sh. On 07.01.2003 he was posted as Senior Scientific Officer, A.D. Shah CFSL, CBI, CGO Complex, Delhi.
PW18 deposed on the same lines as deposed by PW17 except to collecting and sending some bluish colour jute fiber and one brownish jute fiber, by PW17 to his laboratory through IO.
PW18 identified his signature at point B on Ex.PW17/B. PW-19/ Sh. In June 1999 he was posted in Delhi Ex.PW19/A Shaligram Secretariat at Reception. PW19 used to (Undertaking of issue a pass to the person visiting the PW19) secretariat after entering the name and address in the register available at reception.
PW19 identified his signature at point A on the undertaking in original for safe keeping of the visitors register and to produce it in the court. PW19 signed this undertaking after visitors register had been produced during CBI inquiry. PW-20/ Sh. He was independent witness. PW20 Ex.PW20/A Suraj along with his colleague Sh. Mahender (disclosure Prakash Pratap accompanied Insp. Ajay Singh statement of and accused Tilak Raj (A5) to Geeta accused Tilak Colony and Bahadurgarh on Raj (A5));
11.12.2006. Ex.PW20/B PW20 identified his signature at point A (pointing out and of accused Tilak Raj (A5) at point memo dated B on each page of disclosure statement 11.12.2006); of A5 and on pointing out memo Ex.PW20/C regarding proceedings taken place on (site plan drawn 11.12.2006. on 11.12.2006 at PW20 also identified his signature at the instance of point A on the site plan drawn on accused Tilak Page 14 of 77 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-13, Rouse Avenue District Court, New Delhi CBI - 393/2019 RC No. 4(S)/2002 Sl. No. & Role of witness & Description of Proved Name of documents documents/ Witness case properties 11.12.2006 at the instance of accused Raj (A5));
Tilak Raj (A5). Ex.PW20/D &
PW20 identified his signature at point A Ex.PW20/E
on each page and of accused Tilak Raj (pointing out
(A5) at point B on pointing out memo memo and site
regarding proceedings taken place on plan dated
13.12.2006 and on site plan drawn on 13.12.2006);
13.12.2006 at the instance of accused
Tilak Raj (A5).
PW20 identified accused Tilak Raj (A5) during proceedings of this case.
PW-21/ In February 1999, he joined private Ex.PW21/A
Captain service with Aritel Cellular Ltd. as (copy of cell bill
Rakesh security Manager as well as Nodal drawn and
Bakshi Officer. issued for cell
PW21 identified copy of cell bill drawn phone no.
and issued for cell phone no. 9810067883 in
9810067883 in the name of A D Metal the name of A D
Industries, Daulat Ram Gupta, 1/1825- Metal
A, Moti Ram Road, Shahdara, Delhi. Industries);
PW21 identified his signature at point A Ex.PW21/B
on all five pages of CDR of mobile no. (CDR of mobile
9810067883 with Customer ID 109753 no. 9810067883
for a period from 01.06.1999 to for a period
31.07.1999. from 01.06.1999
to 31.07.1999);
PW21 also identified his signature at
point A on all nine pages of CDR of Ex.PW21/C
mobile no. 9810072116 with Customer (CDR of mobile
ID 259632 issued in favour of accused no. 9810072116
Bansi Lal (A3) for a period from with Customer
01.06.1999 to 30.09.1999. PW21 also ID 259632
identified his signatures/ initials with issued in favour
stamp on all four pages of Tower ID/ of accused
Cell ID Chart and relevant annexure. Bansi Lal (A3)
for a period
from 01.06.1999
to 30.09.1999);
Ex.PW21/D &
Ex.PW21/E
(Cell ID chart &
and relevant
annexure);
PW-22/ Sh. PW22 was also declared vas hostile
Heera Singh witness.
Page 15 of 77 (Pulastya Pramachala)
Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-13,
Rouse Avenue District Court, New Delhi CBI - 393/2019 RC No. 4(S)/2002 Sl. No. & Role of witness & Description of Proved Name of documents documents/ Witness case properties PW-23/ Sh. On 10.12.2002, PW23 was Ex.PW22/A Rajneesh Metropolitan Magistrate holding (application Kumar Special DVB Court, Delhi. placed by IO Gupta Being Link MM to the Court of Sh. J.P. before PW23 on Narayan, PW23 recorded statement 10.12.2002); under Section 164 Cr.P.C of PW-13/ Sh. Ex.PW22/B Suresh @ Suneshwar in his court (statement under chamber, on the basis of an application Section 164 placed before him by IO/Deputy Cr.P.C of PW- Superintendent Sh. U.K. Goswami. 13/ Sh. Suresh PW23 identified aforesaid application. @ Suneshwar); PW23 also identified signatures of PW13 at point A and endorsement of Sh. U.K. Goswami at point B on statement of PW13. PW23 also identified his signature on this statement as well as on the certificate at point C. PW-24/ Sh. In the year 2006, he was posted as an Inspector in CBI, Ajay Singh Crime branch, New Delhi.
PW24 identified his signature at point C on Ex.PW20/B and at point A on Ex.PW20/C. PW24 also identified his signature on Ex.PW20/D and Ex.PW20/E. PW-25/ Sh. On 23.07.1999 he was Mohrar Ex.PW25/A Ashok Malkhana at PS Rajender Nagar, Delhi. (photocopy of Kumar PW25 made entry at serial no. 713 entry dt.
regarding deposit of one Maruti Zen 23.07.1999 Car bearing registration no.DL8CB2914 made at serial and articles lying inside the car, by Ct. no. 713 by Vijay Kumar on 23.07.1999 in Register PW25); no.19. Ex.PW25/B PW25 handed over aforesaid articles to (photocopy of ASI Jai Singh of PS Geeta Colony Vide entry regarding RC No.63/2/1999 on 02.08.1999. PW25 handing over of identified his signature at point A and of the articles to Sh. Ramesh Chander the then Addl. ASI Jai Singh); SHO PS Rajender Nagar at point B on Ex.PW25/C entry made for handing over of (one number aforesaid articles to ASI Jai Singh. plate bearing PW25 also identified entry made in his DL6CB7700, hand regarding one number plate one music bearing DL6CB7700, one music system, speaker, system, speaker, mobile phone, charger mobile phone, and one stepny present in the car. charger and one stepny present Page 16 of 77 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-13, Rouse Avenue District Court, New Delhi CBI - 393/2019 RC No. 4(S)/2002 Sl. No. & Role of witness & Description of Proved Name of documents documents/ Witness case properties PW25 identified mobile phone no. in the car); GH337 make Ericsson along with black Ex.MO1 colour cover; two number plates bearing (mobile phone registration no.DL8CB2194; car Maruti no. GH337 Zen; music system make Soni; speaker make Ericsson and charger. along with black PW25 again identified mobile phone colour cover); and two number plates bearing no. Ex.PW25/DA DL8CB2914 and DL6CB7700. (seizure memo During his testimony, PW25 identified dated seizure memo dated 23.07.1999, which 23.07.1999); was handed over to him by Ct. Vijay Kumar.
Ex.MO2 & Ex.MO3 (two number plates bearing no. DL8CB2194); Ex.P1 (car Maruti Zen); Ex.P2 (music system make Soni); Ex.P3(speaker); Ex.P4 (charger); Ex.P5, Ex.P6 & Ex.P7 (mobile phone and two number plates bearing no. DL8CB2914 and DL6CB7700, respectively);
PW-26/ ASI On 23.07.1999 he was posted as Duty Ex.PW26/DA Vijay Constable at Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, & Kumar Rajender Nagar, New Delhi. PW26 Ex.PW26/DB handed over one Maruti Car, number (statements plates bearing registration no. DL 6CB under Section 7700 and mobile phone with charger to 161 Cr.P.C. the Malkhana Officer i.e. PW-25/ Sh. dated Ashok Kumar. 18.02.2000 and 13.03.2000);
PW26 identified his signature at point B and of security officer of Sir Ganga Ram Hospital Sh. S.S. Gularia at point A on Ex.PW25/DA i.e. seizure memo dated 23.07.1999. PW26 identified mobile phone make and model Ericsson GH 337 as Ex.MO-1; its battery as Ex.MO-2 and one black colour cover of said phone as Ex.MO-3; registration number plates are Ex.MO-4 (broad) & Ex.MO-5 (narrow); Maruti Zen car as Ex.P1; music system as Ex.P2, speaker as Ex.P3 and charger as Ex.P4.
PW-27/ ASI He was posted as Constable in District Ex.PW27/A Devender Crime Cell, East District, Delhi. (ledger book Singh PW27 identified his signature at point X recovered from on Ex.PW14/D i.e. seizure memo dated accused Balraj 04.07.1999 prepared by Insp. Virender (A2) on Singh. PW27 identified ledger book 04.07.1999); recovered from Balraj on 04.07.1999. Ex.PW27/DA Page 17 of 77 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-13, Rouse Avenue District Court, New Delhi CBI - 393/2019 RC No. 4(S)/2002 Sl. No. & Role of witness & Description of Proved Name of documents documents/ Witness case properties PW27 also identified his signature at (search memo point X on search memo dated dated 04.07.99); 04.07.99. Ex.PW27/DB (statement of PW27 dt.
17.07.2000) PW-28/ Dr. In the year 1999, PW28 was posted at Ex.PW28/A Ajay Kumar District Women Hospital, Ghaziabad as (post mortem Aggarwal Anesthesia Specialist. PW28 used to report bearing conduct post mortem as and when S.No.916 /99 dt. assigned to him. PW28 had conducted 30.06.99 post mortem on the body of Daulat Ram conducted by (deceased) on 30.06.1999, which was PW28); brought by CP 303 Pramod Kumar and Ex.PW28/B CP 1990 Ramendra Mishra. (report dt.
PW28 identified his signature at point A 01.09.99 of on post mortem report bearing S.No.916 PW28) /99 dt. 30.06.99. Ex.MO-1A to PW28 prepared his report dt. 01.09.99 ExMO-5A after examination of rope (nylon cord) (partly burnt produced before him by Ct. Rajpal five pieces Singh. PW28 identified his signature at nylon cord of point A-1 on this report. blue colour); PW28 also identified one partly burnt nylon cord of blue colour in five pieces during proceedings of this case.
PW-29/ In June 1999, PW29 was posted as Ex.PW29/A Retd. Ct. Constable Moharrir at PS Link Road, (photocopy of Bhikchand District Ghaziabad, U.P. DD No.4 dated Gautam PW29 recorded "Chik FIR" bearing 29.06.99, time no.42/99 on 29.06.99 vide crime 1.45 a.m); number 75/99, u/s 302/201 IPC at PS Ex.PW29/B Link Road, District Ghaziabad, on the ("Chik FIR"
written complaint dated 29.06.99 of Sh. bearing Kamlesh Kumar Khare. PW29 also no.42/99 dated made endorsement to this effect on the 29.06.99, vide complaint dated 29.06.99. crime no. 75/99, PW29 proved photocopy of DD No.4 recorded at PS dated 29.06.99, time 1.45 a.m. Link Road, District PW29 identified his signature at point A Ghaziabad); on "Chik FIR" of crime number 75/99 recorded in his handwriting. Ex.PW29/C (endorsement of PW29 also identified his endorsement PW29 on Page 18 of 77 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-13, Rouse Avenue District Court, New Delhi CBI - 393/2019 RC No. 4(S)/2002 Sl. No. & Role of witness & Description of Proved Name of documents documents/ Witness case properties encircled in 'red', his signature with date complaint dt. and official seal of PS Link Road, 29.06.99); Ghaziabad, on complaint dt. 29.06.99. Ex.PW29/D PW29 also identified his signature on (photocopy of photocopy of nakal rapat no.34 dated nakal rapat 29.06.99 of PS Link Road, Ghaziabad, no.34 dated prepared by him. 29.06.99 prepared by PW29) PW-30/ In the month of June 1999, PW30 was Ex.PW30/A Retd. SI posted as SI in PS Link Road, District (memo (fard) Virender Pal Ghaziabad. After registration of FIR dated 29.06.99 Singh Ex.PW29/B vide Crime No.75/99, PS prepared at the Link Road on 29.06.99, PW30 visited spot by PW30 the spot where one dead body was for taking allegedly lying. PW30 seized one rope, unburnt tat and ash and semi burnt piece of mat (tat) at ash);
the spot. Ex.PW30/B On the direction of IO/SI Arvind Singh (memo (fard) Pundhir, PW30 prepared separate dated 29.06.99 memos (fard) dated 29.06.99 for taking prepared at the unburnt tat and ash and for taking spot by PW30 plastic rope into police possession at for taking the spot. PW30 also identified plastic rope);
signatures of Sh. Rambir and Sh. Prem Prakash at point B & C respectively on Ex.PW30/A and at point C & D respectively on Ex.PW30/B. PW30 also identified his signature at point A on panchayatnama dt. 29.06.99 of dead body, which was written by HCP Harvir Singh at the spot on the direction of SI Arvind Singh Pundhir.
PW-31/ Lt. In January 1999, he was Chief Security Officer at Sir Commander Ganga Ram Hospital, Rajendra Nagar, New Delhi. (Retd.) PW31 identified his signature at point C on Ex.PW25/DA.
Shamsher However, this witness was dropped being incapacitated Singh condition, for his examination in the trial of accused Bansi Guleria Lal and Tilak Raj. PW-32/Ct. In the month of June 1999, he was posted as Constable at Pramod PS Link Road, District Ghaziabad, U.P. Kumar On 29.06.99 at 11.00 PM, PW32 associated with Ct.
Ramender Mishra deposited the dead body of Daulat Ram for its postmortem, in the mortuary, District Ghaziabad.
Page 19 of 77 (Pulastya Pramachala)Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-13, Rouse Avenue District Court, New Delhi CBI - 393/2019 RC No. 4(S)/2002 Sl. No. & Role of witness & Description of Proved Name of documents documents/ Witness case properties Postmortem on the dead body was conducted on 30.06.99, thereafter, PW32 handed over the same to one of the relatives.
PW-33/ He was posted as Station Incharge of PS Ex.PW33/A Insp. Arvind Link Road, District Ghaziabad, U.P. (site plan); Singh from May 1999 to December 1999. Ex.PW33/B Pundir PW33 started investigation of FIR of (panchayatnama case crime no.75/99, u/s. 302/ 201 IPC, dt. 29.06.99);
PS Link Road, Ghaziabad as the same Ex.PW33/C
was entrusted to him. (letter dated
PW33 identified his signature at point 29.06.99 written
A, of witnesses Sh. Ramvir and Sh. by SI V.P. Singh
Prem Prakash at point B and C to Medical
respectively on Ex.PW30/A and Officer
Ex.PW30/B (seizure memos). Incharge,
PW33 had prepared one site plan at the Mortuary,
spot. PW33 identified his signature at Ghaziabad);
point A on the same. Ex.PW33/D
PW33 identified signature of HCP (sample seal Harvir Singh at point C on along with Ex. panchayatnama dt. 29.06.99, which was PW33/C); written by HCP Harvir Singh as dictated Ex.MO-33/A by SI V.P. Singh. (partially burnt PW33 also identified signature of SI jute pieces); V.P. Singh at point A on the letter dated Ex.MO-33/B 29.06.99 written by SI V.P. Singh to (partially burnt Medical Officer Incharge, Mortuary, blue colour Ghaziabad. PW33 also identified nylon cord in signature of SI V.P. Singh at point A on several pieces); sample seal sent along with aforesaid letter.
During proceedings of this case, PW33 identified partially burnt jute pieces and partially burnt blue colour nylon cord in several pieces.
PW-34/ Sh. He was Security Supervisor at Sir Ex.PW34/A Krishan Ganga Ram Hospital, New Delhi. (affidavit sworn Kumar PW34 produced one affidavit sworn by by Sh. M.P. Sh. M.P. Vargese, stating that parking Vargese, stating register for the month of July 1999, that parking could not be traced and it might have register for the destroyed in due course of weeding out. month of July PW34 identified signature of Sh. M.P. 1999, could not be traced);
Page 20 of 77 (Pulastya Pramachala)Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-13, Rouse Avenue District Court, New Delhi CBI - 393/2019 RC No. 4(S)/2002 Sl. No. & Role of witness & Description of Proved Name of documents documents/ Witness case properties Vargese at point A on each page and at point B on the last page of said affidavit.
PW-35/ Sh. In the year 1999, he was working with Sh. S.K. Bagga, Sachin Advocate as Assistant for accounting work till 2007. On Arora the direction of Sh. S.K. Bagga, Advocate, PW35 used to maintain the accounts of Monica Manufacturing Company. PW35 identified photocopy of ledger of A.D. Metals Ex.12/A (in SC No.55/99), which mentioned the debit balance of Rs.17,84,356.45/-.
PW-36/ Sh. He was eldest brother of deceased Ex.PW36/A Mahender Daulat Ram. (photocopy of Prasad PW36 proved photocopy of delivery delivery memo Gupta memo of dead body placed with first of dead body
chargesheet. PW36 identified his placed with first signature at point X on the same. chargesheet);
PW-37/ In June 1999, he was posted as SI in PS Geeta Colony, Insp. Delhi. Yasveer On 30.06.99, as per instruction of the then SHO/IO of FIR Singh No. 118 u/s 302 etc. IPC, PW37 visited village Saidowal,
Distt. Gurdaspur, Punjab, alongwith a team and made search of suspects namely accused Harish and Harmesh @ Ramesh there.
PW-38/ Sh. He was photographer and was running a Ex.PW-38/A, Babu Ram studio in the name of Akash Studio Ex.PW-38/B & since 1989 at Jhandapur, Site-4, Ex.PW-38/C Industrial Area, Sahibabad, Ghaziabad, (photographs U.P. PW38 was taken to a factory along with their namely Super factory in Site-4, respective Industrial Area, by police officials PS negatives);
- Link Road, Sahibabad. At that place, PW38 took around 3-4 photographs from different angles of one half burnt male body lying there.
PW38 developed the photographs and handed over the same to police officials of PS Link Road, Sahibabad. PW38 had deposited the negatives of those photographs in Karkardooma Court in the past, when he was summoned as a witness in this case.
PW38 compared the negatives with the positive photographs and identified them during proceedings of the case.
PW-39/ Sh. He worked from around 1997 to around 2002-03 in the Amit Gupta factory of Mr. Daulat Ram namely A.D Metals Industries.
PW39 used to collect money on his behalf and get the Page 21 of 77 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-13, Rouse Avenue District Court, New Delhi CBI - 393/2019 RC No. 4(S)/2002 Sl. No. & Role of witness & Description of Proved Name of documents documents/ Witness case properties materials weighed at the factory. PW39 also used to send materials to Vishal Works and Monika Manufacturing Pvt. Ltd. from AD Metals. PW39 also used to collect money from them on behalf of his factory i.e. AD Metals. Daulat Ram used to tell PW39 as to how much money was to be collected from a particular person and he used to send PW39 accordingly.
On 28.06.1999 also Daulat Ramji had talked telephonically to PW39 about the money to be collected from Mahender Pal. Daulat Ram asked PW39 to send the scooter of factory at his home and PW39 sent that scooter at about 5-6 p.m. through another person, at his home. That day, PW39 kept waiting for Daulat Ram at the factory, but neither did he come, nor did he make any call at factory. On that day, at about 6-7 p.m. PW39 had received telephonic call at his home from Sureshji, who informed him about murder of Daulat Ramji and recovery of his half burnt dead body from site for Industrial Area Sahibabad by police.
PW-40/ Sh. On 29.06.99, he was posted in PS Geeta Ex.PW40/A Mohan Colony as Sub Inspector. PW40 was (statement of Singh assigned investigation of this case Amit Gupta alongwith Ct. Nanu Ram. PW40 made recorded u/s 161 enquiry from complainant Sh. Suresh Cr.P.C. dated Gupta about this case for about 5-10 29.06.99) minutes, who was present in the PS. PW40 got sent wireless message to SPs of all over India as well as all SHOs and DCPs in Delhi regarding kidnapping of Daulat Ram and investigation being done by him. On the direction of the then SHO Insp. Vijay Sule, PW40 visited Telephone Exchange Jhilmil Colony alongwith Ct. Nanu Ram and complainant and directed for recording of conversations on telephone number of Daulat Ram and Suresh Gupta. Their telephone numbers were 2155206 & 2165052. They also visited Gola Restaurant at Cannaught Place because it was informed to them that Daulat Ram and Mahender used to take drinks and visit that restaurant for this purpose. However, the restaurant was closed on account of Tuesday.
PW40 started back for his police station and when they reached near Radhu Palace, Cinema Hall, then one secret informer met PW40 and informed that half burnt body of Daulat Ram was recovered in the area of PS Link Road, Ghaziabad.
Page 22 of 77 (Pulastya Pramachala)Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-13, Rouse Avenue District Court, New Delhi CBI - 393/2019 RC No. 4(S)/2002 Sl. No. & Role of witness & Description of Proved Name of documents documents/ Witness case properties SI Arvind Pundir was Officer Incharge of PS Link Road, who took PW40 and Insp. Sule to the place of recovery of dead body of Daulat Ram.
PW40 recorded statement of supervisor of A.D. Metals i.e. Factory of Daulat Ram at Shahdara.
PW40 handed over copy of statement of Amit Gupta alongwith file of this case because further investigation was taken over by him.
PW40 identified statement of Amit Gupta recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. dated 29.06.99, which was written in his handwriting.
PW-41/ Sh. PW41 was aslo declared as hostile witness. Ashok In June 1999 he was working as store keeper in Mahavir Kumar Cylinder Pvt. Ltd., Sahibabad, Site-4. His normal duty Pandey hours were from 9 am to 6 pm and he used to issue materials from the store. On 28.06.99 he left his factory at about 6-6.30 pm. He had straight away gone to his home and had not seen anything outside the factory. PW-42/ Sh. In June 1999, he used to help/assist his father in his factory Pankaj of manufacturing of surgical equipment. The factory was Dhawan being run from his residence at C-104, South Anarkali, Delhi-51.
Tata Sumo vehicle bearing no. DL-9C-6182 was purchased by his father in 1998 and remained upto June 1999. Thereafter, it was deposited in PS Geeta Colony. The registered owner of this vehicle was Vikas Pharma Ltd. Mr. Vijay Bajaj was owner of this company. Said vehicle was purchased by his father through his known person Mr. Daulat Ram.
PW-43/ Sh. He used to work of sales marketing in Monika Anil Gandhi Manufacturing Company from 1998 to 2000. PW43 used to visit retailers to take orders from them for products of aforesaid company and he also used to collect payments against sales.
On 30.06.1999, during early morning hours, he was present at Bhati Mines, when police officials of Geeta Colony came there and took him to PS Geeta Colony for enquiry. Police made enquiry from PW43 at PS and he responded to their questions. PW43 knew Mr. Harish, who used to deal in gold jewellery with his brother Mr. Mahender Pal. PW-44/ Sh. On 07.05.1999, he was posted in East Ex.PW-44/A Jagdish Delhi in District Crime Cell (East) and (seizure memo Prasad had joined investigation of this case dated 16.09.99) with Insp. Virender Kumar. On that day, they had visited Page 23 of 77 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-13, Rouse Avenue District Court, New Delhi CBI - 393/2019 RC No. 4(S)/2002 Sl. No. & Role of witness & Description of Proved Name of documents documents/ Witness case properties factory at A-29, Rani Garden, belonging to Mahender Pal. They had inspected the aforesaid factory and they pointed out the office, wherein Daulat Ram was stated to be murdered.
PW44 identified his signature at point X4 on seizure memo Ex.PW-42/P-1 and at point X5 on seizure memo Ex.PW- 42/P-2.
On 16.09.1999 also he along with Insp. Virender visited aforesaid factory. On that day, Insp. Virender made inquiry from accountant of that factory namely Balraj, regarding particulars of other employees of that factory. Balraj disclosed about other employees namely Raju, Sripal, Tarkeshwar and Chhotey Lal. All these persons were present in the factory and Insp. Virender collected their attendance card, which were seized vide seizure memo. Apart from the respective employees, PW44 as well as Mr. Balraj had signed on seizure memo as witness. PW44 identified his signature at point X on the seizure memo in the file of SC No.107/02 (Old No.15/2001) FIR No.118/1999, PS Geeta Colony (Ex.PW-46/A), which was prepared at that time.
PW-45/ Sh. On June 1999, he was in the business of printing and he Rajeev used to make stickers etc. PW45 knew Mr. Mahender Pal Kumar since around 1994, as he used to supply stickers to him.
PW45 used to collect payment by visiting factory of Mr. Mahender Pal and Mr. Mahender Pal used to make payment to him on the basis of notes given to PW45 by Mr. Mahender Pal. Payment was being made after around a week- 10 days from delivery of stickers. PW-46/ Sh. On 31.08.1999 IO/Insp. Virender Singh handed over one Rajpal application to him for seeking opinion and asked him to collect a sealed parcel of nylon rope from malkhana PS Geeta Colony.
On 01.09.1999, PW46 went to Malkhana PS Geeta Colony and collected a sealed parcel. PW46 took it to CMO Government Hospital, Ghaziabad and handed over the application of IO alongwith sealed parcel to him. On same day, CMO gave his opinion and PW46 brought back the parcel alongwith opinion of CMO. PW46 deposited the parcel in malkhana PS Geeta Colony alongwith copy of road certificate and handed over opinion of CMO to IO. The parcel remained sealed till the time it was handed over to CMO and CMO had opened the seal of the same. Thereafter, PW46 was handed over the opinion of CMO Page 24 of 77 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-13, Rouse Avenue District Court, New Delhi CBI - 393/2019 RC No. 4(S)/2002 Sl. No. & Role of witness & Description of Proved Name of documents documents/ Witness case properties with parcel in sealed condition and PW46 deposited that parcel in malkhana in sealed condition. On the instruction of IO, PW46 also took a sealed parcel from Malkhana PS Geeta Colony against road certificate no. 17/21 and deposited the same in CFSL, New Delhi with application of IO. PW46 had taken receipt from CFSL on the copy of road certificate and that copy was deposited back in the malkahana.
PW-47/ On 30.06.1999, he joined investigation Ex.PW47/A(Mr ASI Zahoor of this case with Insp. Vijay Sule. On . Mahender Pal Ahmad that day, they went to the house of bearing old Mahender Pal at 12/48, Geeta Colony. exhibit no. i.e. Ct. Virender was also accompanying Ex.PW32/E); them. Mr. Mahender Pal was present at Ex. PW47/B his home, who met them. Insp. Vijay (disclosure informed him about this case and statement of arrested him at his residence. Mahender Pal); PW47 identified his signature appearing Ex. PW47/C at point X on personal search memo of (Photocopy of Mr. Mahender Pal bearing old exhibit RC no.16/21/99) no. i.e. Ex.PW32/E. Ex. PW47/D After arrest, Mr. Mahender Pal was (photocopy of brought back to PS Geeta Colony. Insp. RC no. 17/99); Vijay Sule was SHO at that time.
IO/Insp. Vijay interrogated Mr. Ex. PW47/E Mahender Pal in their presence and (entry no. prepared a disclosure statement, as 163/848, made disclosed by Mahender Pal. PW47 by him in this identified his signature appearing at register on point X on disclosure statement of 05.07.1999); Mahender Pal having old exhibit no. i.e. Ex. PW47/F Ex. PW32/A. (entry no.
On 31.08.1999, PW47 had handed over 197/883 dated two sealed parcels to HC Rajpal. These 02.08.1999); parcels were given vide road certificate Ex. PW47/G no.16/21/99, which was prepared and (entry no. signed by him. PW47 identified his 198/884 dated signature appearing at point X on Road 02.08.99) Certificate no. 16/21/99 in register no.21. The parcel sent vide aforesaid Ex. PW47/H RC was received back on 01.09.1999. (entry no.
161/846 in register no.19 dated 30.06.99);
On 02.09.1999, PW47 had handed over 4 sealed parcels to Page 25 of 77 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-13, Rouse Avenue District Court, New Delhi CBI - 393/2019 RC No. 4(S)/2002 Sl. No. & Role of witness & Description of Proved Name of documents documents/ Witness case properties a police official, which were to be sent to CFSL as per instructions given by Insp. Virender/IO. These parcels were sent vide road certificate no. 17/1999, which was signed by PW47. PW47 identified his signature appearing at point X on RC no. 17/1999 in register no.21.
PW47 made entry of depositing of a mobile phone, a Tata Sumo vehicle and article seized during personal search of Mr. Mahender Pal in malkhana on 30.06.1999, in register no.19 vide entry no. 161/846.
PW47 also identified entry of depositing a sample of taat bori and a sample of carpet was deposited vide entry no. 163/848, made by him in this register on 05.07.1999. On 02.08.1999, he was Malkhana Incharge. As per this register on 02.08.1999, a maruti Zen car bearing no. DL- 6CB-7700 was deposited vide entry no. 197/883. The entry in this regard is made in the handwriting of Ct. Nanu. On same day, there is entry no. 198/884 related to deposit of two sealed parcels in this case. This entry is also made in the handwriting of Ct. Nanu.
PW-48/ Sh. He was brother of deceased Daulat Ram Gupta as well as Suresh complainant in the present case. PW48 was told by Daulat Kumar Ram that Daulat Ram had to recover a lot of money from Mittal Mr. Mahender Pal i.e. around Rs.90 lac. Daulat Ram had also told PW48 that there were dues against Mr. Mahender Pal on account of Chit Fund and supply of materials. PW48 identified his signature at point X on FIR No.118/99. PW-49/ Sh. He was practicing as CA since 1982 and Ex. PW49/A Mohan he knew M/s AD Metals Industries (statement of Agarwal because, he used to prepare income tax account in return as well as sales tax assessment of respect of the this firm till the around 2001. firm M/s PW49 identified his signature appearing Monika at point A on statement dated Manufacturing 16.07.1999 of account in respect of the Company, dated firm M/s Monika Manufacturing 16.07.1999) Company, for the period from 01.04.99 to 28.06.99.
PW-50/ HC In June 1999 PW50 was posted as Ex. PW50/A Narender Constable in PS Geeta Colony. (seizure memo On 30.06.99, PW50 joined dated 30.06.99 investigation in FIR No. 118/99, PS of mobile Geeta Colony with Insp. Vijay Sule as phone make he was IO of this case. Siemens and of black colour Page 26 of 77 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-13, Rouse Avenue District Court, New Delhi CBI - 393/2019 RC No. 4(S)/2002 Sl. No. & Role of witness & Description of Proved Name of documents documents/ Witness case properties PW50 was witness to seizure of mobile (Ex. PW28/A)) phone of company make Siemens and Ex.PW50/B of black colour and Tata Sumo vehicle. (seizure memo PW50 identified his signature at point dated 30.06.99 X, signature of Anup Mittal at point Y, of Tata Sumo signature of Mahender Pal at point Z vehicle (Ex. and signature of Insp. Vijay at point Z1 PW28/B)) on seizure memos dated 30.06.99 (Ex.
PW28/A & Ex.PW28/B).
PW-51/ Sh. He was younger brother of Daulat Ram. Ex. PW51/A Anup PW51 and Daulat Ram were the (seizure memo Kumar partners of M/s A.D. Metal Industries. dated 19.07.99 Mittal PW51 identified his signature at point Y vide which and of Smt. Babita Gupta at point Z on IO/Insp. certified statement i.e. Ex. PW49/A. Virender had PW51 also identified his signature at seized certified point Y on seizure memo Ex.PW50/A. account statement of PW51 identified his signature at point X Monika and of IO/Insp. Virender at point Y on Manufacturing the seizure memo dated 19.07.99 vide and mobile bill which IO/Insp. Virender had seized of Daulat Ram) certified account statement of Monika Manufacturing and mobile bill of Daulat Ram.
PW51 identified accused Bansi Lal, Harish, Harmesh & Tilak Raj during proceedings of this case.
PW-52/ He was posted as Constable in PS Geeta Ex. PW52/A ASI Nannu Colony, Delhi. Since 1996 till (Photocopy of Ram September 1999, he was assigned duty entries made by of Assistant Malkhana Incharge. In this PW52 in capacity, he used to make entry in register no. 19, Register no. 19 in respect of deposit of appearing at any case property in the malkhana or serial no. release of any case property from 197/883 & Malkhana. In case of sending any case 198/884) property to FSL etc., he also used to issue Road Certificate from Register no.
21.In respect of FIR no.118/1999, he identified the entries made by him in register no. 19, appearing at serial no. 197/883 & 198/884, except the portions encircled at points X, Y, Z, Z1, Z2 & Z3.
Road certificate bearing no. 16/21/99 as made in register Page 27 of 77 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-13, Rouse Avenue District Court, New Delhi CBI - 393/2019 RC No. 4(S)/2002 Sl. No. & Role of witness & Description of Proved Name of documents documents/ Witness case properties no. 21 was also written by PW52. PW52 identified signature of HC Zahur Ahmed at point X on Ex. PW47/C. PW-53/ Sh. On 14.01.02, PW53 was posted as MM Ex.PW53/A Ramesh Karkardooma Court, Delhi. PW53 (TIP proceeding Kumar-I identified his signature at point X on the dated 14.01.02 proceeding dated 14.01.02. As per this vide which TIP proceeding, TIP of one gold chain, one of one gold ring and one wrist watch was conducted chain, one ring by him on application being marked to and one wrist him by his ld. Link MM Sh. J.P. watch was Narayan. conducted by PW53);
PW53 identified his signature appearing at points X and X1 on the application of IO to conduct TIP of case property. He made endorsement on this application to fix the date of TIP on 14.01.02 with his signature appearing at point X1 and thereafter, he had remarks of conclusion of TIP proceedings on the same application with his signature appearing at point X. After conclusion of TIP, he allowed supply of copy to IO on his application and such order was signed by him on his application appearing at point X. PW-54/ PW54 was married to Sh. Daulat Ram Ex.PW54/ Smt. Babita in 1987. Article-1 (one Gupta PW54 identified her signature at point Y golden colour on Ex.PW53/A. PW54 identified her wrist watches); signature appearing at point Z on Ex.PW54/ Ex.PW49/A. Article-2 (a PW54 identified one golden colour golden ring with wrist watches, on the dial of which 'D' grafted using 'Swistar' and 'Quartz' were written; a diamond like golden ring with 'D' grafted using article) & diamond like article and a golden chain, Ex.PW54/ which were the same as belonging to Article-3 (a her husband, during proceedings of this golden chain) case.
PW-55/ Sh. In June 1999, he was posted as Ex. PW55/A
Virender Inspector in District Crime Cell (East) (site plan
Kumar in Delhi Police. PS Geeta Colony was prepared by
within area of East District. On PW55)
02.07.99, on the orders of DCP (East), Ex. PW55/B
investigation of this case i.e. FIR no. (Seizure memo
118/99, PS Geeta Colony was entrusted of two sealed
to PW55. SHO PS Geeta Colony pullanda
namely Insp. Vijay Sule had handed prepared at PS
over case file of this case to PW55. Link Road);
Page 28 of 77 (Pulastya Pramachala)Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-13, Rouse Avenue District Court, New Delhi CBI - 393/2019 RC No. 4(S)/2002 Sl. No. & Role of witness & Description of Proved Name of documents documents/ Witness case properties During site inspection, PW55 had taken Ex.PW55/C measurement of the rooms/cabins where (seizure memo incident had allegedly taken place and vide which Tata he had prepared a site plan as well. Sumo vehicle PW55 identified his signature appearing was seized); at point X on aforesaid site plan. Ex.PW55/D-1 Position/location of deceased was (statement of shown at point A. Mr. Nair PW55 had visited PS Link Road and recorded under had received two sealed pullanda from Section 161 that police station. PW55 had seized Cr.P.C. by those pullandas vide a seizure memo, PW55 on which was prepared in that PS itself. 19.07.1999) PW55 identified his signature at point X on said seizure memo and as per this seizure memo ASI Sripal Singh had handed over those pullandas to him. PW55 also identified signature of ASI Sripal appearing at point Y on Ex.PW55/B. In respect of evidence of Tata Sumo vehicle, PW55 had collected receipt of purchase from Sh. Anoop Mittal. PW55 identified his signature at point of X on the seizure memo, vide which said Tata Sumo vehicle was seized. PW55 had seized counter foil of cheque of Mahender Pal from Sh. Balraj vide seizure memo i.e. Ex.PW14/D. PW55 identified his signature at point A on the same. PW55 also identified his signature at point B on seizure memo Ex.PW7/B. PW55 visited several places in search of accused Sh. Harish, Sh. Harmesh and Sh. Tilak Raj i.e. Jaipur, Rohtak, Subhash Nagar and Ramesh Nagar in Delhi, Shalimar Garden in Delhi etc. PW55 identified his signature appearing at point Y on Ex. PW42/P-1 & Ex. PW42/P-2 i.e. the same seizure memos, which were prepared by him.
PW55 identified Ex.PW44/Article-1 to be the same carpet and Ex.PW44/Article-2 to be the same samples of jute material, which were seized by him in this case. PW55 identified these articles during proceeding of this case. PW55 had deposited aforesaid articles in the malkahana of PS Geeta Colony.
PW55 identified his signature at point Y on the same seizure memo Ex.PW51/A. Page 29 of 77 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-13, Rouse Avenue District Court, New Delhi CBI - 393/2019 RC No. 4(S)/2002 Sl. No. & Role of witness & Description of Proved Name of documents documents/ Witness case properties PW55 had examined widow of Sh. Daulat Ram, Sh. Anup Mittal and Sh. Suresh Mittal from the family of Sh. Daulat Ram in this case. PW55 had also recorded statement of Mr. Nair under Section 161 Cr.P.C. on 19.07.1999. After completion of investigation, PW55 filed chargesheet against accused Sh. Mahender Pal, Sh. Ved Prakash, Sh. Harish, Sh. Harmesh & Sh. Tilak Raj. Accused Sh. Harish and Sh. Harmesh were declared as PO in this case and in respect of accused Sh. Tilak Raj, PW55 had reported that Sh. Tilak Raj was not joining investigation and hence, further proceedings were being conducted against accused Sh. Tilak Raj. After filing chargesheet before the court, PW55 further investigated this case for next three months. Thereafter, investigation of this case was transferred to Crime Branch.
PW-56/ Sh. In the year 2002, he was posted as Ex.PW56/A Inderjeet Inspector in Anti Homicide Section, (supplementary Singh Crime Branch, Delhi Police. On chargesheet in 17.01.2002, PW56 was entrusted further respect of investigation in this case by orders of accused ACP, Crime Branch. Harmesh and Harish) PW56 went through the case file. PW56 examined accused Sh. Bansi Lal as suspect in this case. PW56 also examined SI M.A. Khan from PS Krishna Nagar, who had arrested accused Harish and had filed a Kalandara u/s 41.1 Cr.P.C. before the court. PW56 also examined SI S.N. Rajoura from PS Kalyan Puri, who had arrested accused Harmesh and had filed a Kalandara u/s 41.1 Cr.P.C. before the court. PW56 had examined the materials already collected by previous IO. PW56 also discussed the case with Insp. M.C. Meena and prepared supplementary chargesheet in respect of accused Harmesh and Harish, who were in judicial custody at that time. PW56 had filed the aforesaid supplementary chargesheet in the court against accused Harish and Harmesh. PW56 identified his signature at point X on aforesaid supplementary chargesheet. Even after filing of aforesaid supplementary chargesheet, further investigation continued in respect of role of accused Tilak Raj and Bansi Lal. Since accused Tilak Raj was not joining the investigation therefore, PW56 had obtained NBW against him. However, same could not be executed, because accused Tilak Raj was not traceable. The further investigation remained with PW56 till May 2002. At that time, an order was received from Delhi High Court Page 30 of 77 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-13, Rouse Avenue District Court, New Delhi CBI - 393/2019 RC No. 4(S)/2002 Sl. No. & Role of witness & Description of Proved Name of documents documents/ Witness case properties regarding transfer of investigation of this case to CBI and accordingly, PW56 handed over the case file to Reader of ACP.
PW-57/ Sh. In May 2002, he was posted in SCB, Ex. PW57/A Umesh CBI, New Delhi as Dy. SP. (carbon copy of Kumar Investigation of this case was assigned FIR dated Goswami to PW57 after about a week of it's 05.06.2002 ) registration, on 05.06.2002. PW57 Ex. PW57/B conducted this investigation upto (seizure memo 02.04.2004. FIR was registered in CBI (D-3)); by the then SP Sh. N.S. Virk. PW57 Ex. PW57/C identified signature of SP Sh. N.S. Virk (Letter D-9); at point X on carbon copy of FIR.
Ex. PW57/D PW57 identified signature of his SP Sh. (application for R.S. Dwivedi, at point C on getting copy of Ex.PW17/A. statement u/s PW57 identified his signature appearing 164 Cr.P.C of at point C on both pages of panchnama Sureshwar) of Tata Sumo vehicle. Ex. PW57/ PW57 had seized certain articles at PS Article - 1 Geeta Colony, including rear view (main parcel (in mirror on right side of driver seat of torn condition) Tata Sumo vehicle, some mobile phones having and sample of carpet and few other impression of things from Malkhana Incharge. PW57 seal of CFSL had prepared a seizure memo in respect CBI NEW of all the articles seized by him. PW57 DELHI CKJ identified his signature at point X on SSO on the back seizure memo (D-3). of it) PW57 also identified signatures of the person appearing at point Y on Ex.PW57/B, from whom the articles were seized by him (PW57). All the sealed parcels of exhibits were sent to CFSL alongwith certain queries, under signature of SP Sh. M.K. Jha. PW57 identified signature of SP Sh. M.K. Jha, at point X on letter (D-9). PW57 had interrogated accused Sh. Bansi Lal after calling him. PW57 obtained specimen handwriting of accused Sh. Bansi Lal. Specimen finger print impressions of accused Sh. Bansi Lal, was also obtained through expert from CFSL, New Delhi. Handwriting specimen of accused Sh. Bansi Lal, was obtained for it's comparison with some letters i.e. B/BL written on the backside of the battery of a mobile phone, found in the Maruti Zen car seized from Sir Ganga Ram Hospital. Finger print specimen of accused Sh Page 31 of 77 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-13, Rouse Avenue District Court, New Delhi CBI - 393/2019 RC No. 4(S)/2002 Sl. No. & Role of witness & Description of Proved Name of documents documents/ Witness case properties Bansi Lal, were obtained for comparison with the finger prints lifted during examination of Tata Sumo vehicle. PW57 had also applied for permission from the court to take specimen finger print impressions of other accused from jail namely accused Sh. Harish, Sh. Harmesh, Sh. Mahender Pal and Ved Prakash, through CFSL expert. PW57 had also obtained permission for examination of accused namely Sh. Harish, Sh. Harmesh, Sh. Mahender Pal and Ved Prakash, at the jail. Court had granted permission for both the purposes, thereafter, PW57 alongwith finger print expert namely Sh. A.D. Sah visited Tihar Jail for aforesaid purposes and finger print impressions of accused persons namely Sh. Harish, Sh. Harmesh, Sh. Mahender Pal and Ved Prakash, were obtained. PW57 also examined accused persons namely Sh. Harish, Sh. Harmesh, Sh. Mahender Pal and Ved Prakash. PW57 had examined one Sh. Suneshwar to confirm his previous statement. PW57 applied for recording of his (Sh. Suneshwar) statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. before the court. Accordingly, statement of Sh. Suneshwar was recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C. as well. PW57 identified his signature appearing at point X on that application i.e. Ex.PW23/A. PW57 had also moved application for getting copy of statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. and identified his signature at point X on it. PW57 had recorded statement of all the witnesses as per statement given by them before him in correct manner.
PW57 identified his handwriting encircled at point X on the main parcel (in torn condition) having impression of seal of CFSL CBI NEW DELHI CKJ SSO on the back of it. From this parcel one polybag containing some envelopes etc. and tagged with another yellow envelope were taken out.
PW57 had visited factory of accused Sh. Mahender Pal at A-29, Rani Garden in order to find any witness of the incident or any other clue or insight in the case. Subsequently, further investigation in the case was transferred to Insp. Rich Pal, vide orders of SP and PW57 handed over the case file to him.
PW-58/ Sh. In the year 2003, he was posted as SSO- Ex.PW58/A D.S. II cum Assistant Chemical Examiner to (photocopy of Chakoutra Govt. of India, CFSL, CBI, New Delhi. report dated PW58 had examined the exhibits 26.02.2003); contained in parcels bearing no. 1,4,8 & Ex. PW58/B Page 32 of 77 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-13, Rouse Avenue District Court, New Delhi CBI - 393/2019 RC No. 4(S)/2002 Sl. No. & Role of witness & Description of Proved Name of documents documents/ Witness case properties 9, which were sent by CBI along with (photocopy of letter no. 04.02.2003. Serological PW58 identified his signature at point X Examination on photocopy of report dated report dated 26.02.2003. PW58 identified signature 20.02.2003) & of Mr. O.S. Srivastava at point X on Ex. PW58/C photocopy of Serological Examination (photocopy of report dated 20.02.2003. PW58 report of identified signature of Sh. C.K. Jain examination (posted in Physics Division, CFSL, dated New Delhi during the year 2003) at 20.02.2003) point X on photocopy of report of examination dated 20.02.2003.
PW-59/ Sh. In the year 2004, he was entrusted with further Richhpal investigation of this case on the directions of SP of the Singh branch. Case file of this case was handed over to PW59 by Sh. U.K. Goswami, the then Dy. SP, in April 2004. PW59 studied the case file. PW59 recorded statement of two witnesses namely Sh. Suneshwar Singh and Sh. Ram Ugrah. Thereafter, PW59 prepared a supplementary chargesheet against accused Sh. Bansi Lal (A3) and filed the same before the court.
PW59 chargesheeted accused Bansi Lal (A3) for offence u/s 120-B IPC r/w Section 302 and 201 IPC, for the murder of Sh. Daulat Ram (deceased). PW59 mentioned the grounds for chargesheeting accused Bansi Lal (A3) in that supplementary chargesheet.
PW59 had filed aforesaid supplementary chargesheet in October 2004. Thereafter, on the directions of SP of the branch, further investigation was transferred to Sh. V. Chandu, the then Dy. SP and PW59 handed over the case file to him.
PW-60/ Sh. In May 2004, he was posted as Dy. SP. in SCB-I, CBI, New V. Chandu Delhi and remained in that branch till March 2010.
PW60 was entrusted further investigation of this case in the first week of December, 2006, by the orders of the then SP Sh. SJM Gillani. During his tenure, investigation was carried out only against accused Tilak Raj (A5). PW60 chargesheeted accused Tilak Raj for offence under Section 120- IPC read with Section 302, 201 IPC.
8. After conclusion of prosecution evidence, ld. Sr. PP for CBI Page 33 of 77 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-13, Rouse Avenue District Court, New Delhi CBI - 393/2019 RC No. 4(S)/2002 submitted drafts of evidence, which according to him were incriminating against accused persons, so as to connect them with the alleged charges. Ld. defence counsels took plea that there is no incriminating evidence against the accused persons, so as to connect them with the alleged charges. It will be appropriate to reproduce the drafts of evidence claimed to be incriminating by ld. Sr. PP for CBI, which are as follows:-
8.1. Evidence claimed to be incriminating against accused Harish (A-1)
1. PW-51/ Anoop Mittal Deposed that he knew Bansi Lal since 1992 because Bansi Lal used to come to purchase product from M/s Prem Rolling Mills along with Harish.
Deposed further that on 26.6.99 Bansi Lal and Harish had come to M/s A.D. Metal Industries at about 4 p.m. He along with Daulat Ram were present in the office of M/s AD Metal Industries.
Deposed further that Bansi Lal asked Sh. Daulat Ram (deceased) as to why Daulat Ram was asking his brother Sh. Suresh Kumar to make call to Mahender Pal for payment of dues.
Deposed further that Bansi Lal also told to Daulat Ram that he was defaming/giving bad name to them (Mahender Pal and others) in the market by spreading the news that they were not making the payment.
Deposed further that Bansi Lal further told Sh. Daulat Ram that in this way, he could not get the payment.
Deposed further that Shri Daulat Ram asked him to make payment of the dues and then Bansi Lal and Harish said they Page 34 of 77 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-13, Rouse Avenue District Court, New Delhi CBI - 393/2019 RC No. 4(S)/2002 would make the payment and that they were not running away.
Deposed further that Daulat ram further asked them to return back his TaTa Sumo vehicle, which was taken by Mahender Pal.
Deposed that Bansi Lal and Harish told Sh. Daulat Ram that they would return back that vehicle in 2-4 days.
Deposed further that after Bansi Lal and Harish left office then he talked with Daulat Ram. Daulat Ram had told him that there was dues of Rs. 90 lac against Mahender Pal on account of dues of M/s AD Metal Industries as well as on account of his own fund.
Deposed further that prior to 28.6.99 he had visited the factory of Mahender Pal at A-29, Rani Garden Geeta Colony, Delhi on, 1-2 occasions for taking payment.
Deposed further that bills were issued in the name of Vishal Metals i.e. the company of Bansi Lal (ExPW51/D7)).
Deposed further that Bansi Lal had provided S.T. 35 form to him in respect of Vishal Metals.
2. PW-37/Inspector Yashveer Singh, SHO, PS Welcome Delhi.
Deposed that on 30.6.99 SHO/IO of FIR No.118/99 instructed him to visit Saidowal. Distt. Gurdaspur, Punjab with a police party to search suspects Harish and Harmesh @ Ramesh.
Deposed further that he with a team of 4-5 police personnel visited said village on 30.6.99 at around 9 p.m. Deposed further that purpose of visit was to search, said two suspects, in the said village because there was an information that both had come to the residence of one Surender Nath.
Page 35 of 77 (Pulastya Pramachala)Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-13, Rouse Avenue District Court, New Delhi CBI - 393/2019 RC No. 4(S)/2002 Deposed further that on meeting Surender Nath informed him that Harish and Harmesh @ Ramesh had come to him in a Maruti Zen car in the night of 29.6.99.
Both i.e. Harish and Harmesh left the village for Gurdaspur for their night stay at the residence of the brother of Surender Nath.
Deposed further that Surender Nath informed PW37 that his brother from Gurdaspur informed him that aforesaid suspects told his brother in Gurdaspur that they had to leave for Delhi because of death of their sister-in-law (Bhabhi).
Sh. Surender Nath further informed PW37 that these two suspects were expected to join barat of his son on 30.6.99. He returned to Delhi.
3. PW-1/Sh. Prakash Singh Mann, Inspector He was entrusted with the investigation of this case (FIR No.118/99) on 8.12.1999.
Deposed that on 10.12.1999 he visited house of accused Harish was not found at his H.No.12/48 Geeta Colony, Delhi Deposed that he was not aware that accused Ved Prakash had mentioned in his disclosure statement dated 2.7.99 that Harish and Ramesh had removed clothes, rings, watch and chain of the deceased.(X-examination).
Deposed that he had not searched the almirah lying in the room because house was searched, in search of accused Harish.
Deposed that he was not aware about the description of missing jewellery.
4. PW-4/Sh. MA Khan Deposed that on 6.12.2001 while he was posted at PS Page 36 of 77 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-13, Rouse Avenue District Court, New Delhi CBI - 393/2019 RC No. 4(S)/2002 Krishna Nagar, Delhi, information was received that proclaimed offender in case FIR No.118/99 Harish and Harmesh are residing at Budda Singh Shah Gurudwara, Jullander Cantt. Punjab as sewadar.
Deposed further that on 6.12.2001 he alongwith team proceeded to Jullundhar Cantt Punjab and reached at said Gurudwara at about 4-5 PM. Accused Harish, identified by HC Rameshwar (team member) was apprehended.
Deposed that he returned to Delhi on 7.12.2001 with accused Harish.
5. PW-12/MC Meena, Delhi Police Deposed that he was entrusted with the investigation of this case on 13.12.2001 for the second time.
Deposed further that he took police remand on 15.12.2001 of accused Harish for 7 days.
Deposed further that he recorded disclosure statement of accused Harish ExPW8/A. Deposed further that on 17.12.2001, he alongwith Police team led by accused Harish (in Police Custody) reached at the residence of accused at H.No.12/48 Geeta Colony, There accused led Police team in a room to second floor of the house.
Deposed further that there was an iron almirah in the room. Accused took out blue colour pant from the inside of the almirah. From the front small size pocket of the pant, accused took out one ring and one wrist watch.
Deposed further that the ring was of golden colour and there was an alphabet 'D' affixed by small size stone on the top of ring.
Page 37 of 77 (Pulastya Pramachala)Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-13, Rouse Avenue District Court, New Delhi CBI - 393/2019 RC No. 4(S)/2002 Deposed further that the wrist watch was also with golden colour dial. The colour of chain was also golden. The dial of wrist watch was with inscription "Swiss Star" and below was the inscription "Quartz".
Deposed further that according to disclosure of accused Harish, ExPW8/A, that ring and wrist watch belonged to deceased Daulat Ram.
Deposed further that the ring as well as wrist watch were taken into cloth Pulandas separately. Seal M was affixed on the Pulandas and Pulanda containing ring is serial No.1 where as Pulanda containing watch is serial No.2. Pointing out cum seizure memo is ExPW8/C. Deposed further that accused Harmesh with Harish were taken to factory A-29 Rani Garden, Delhi (Ex.PW8/F).
Deposed further that accused also pointed the place where he had burnt the dead body pointing memo (Ex.PW8/F-1).
Deposed further that both accused pointed the place where they had thrown away the clothes, chappal and cane. Pointing memo (Ex.PW8/G & Ex.PW8/H).
Deposed further that accused pointed out place where they parked TaTa Sumo DL-9C 6182. Pointing out memo (Ex.PW8/I).
Deposed further that accused (both) pointed out place at Sri Ganga Ram Hospital New Delhi where they parked Maruti Zen No.DL 6 CB 7700. Pointing out Memo Ex.PW8/J). (x-examination).
Deposed further that he had recovered Ex P8 at the instance of accused Harish from his house.
Deposed further that he had recovered Ex P9 at the Page 38 of 77 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-13, Rouse Avenue District Court, New Delhi CBI - 393/2019 RC No. 4(S)/2002 instance of accused Harish from his house.
Deposed further that he filed an application in court on 9.1.2002 to get the recovered articles at the instance of accused Harish and Harmesh to be identified in TIP.
Deposed further that on 14.1.2002 Ms Babita wife of deceased Daulat Ram, appeared. TIP proceedings were conducted in the court chamber of Magistrate.
Deposed further that he produced case property in sealed condition and the property to be mixed with the case property in TIP.
Deposed further that Babita correctly identified the case property.
6. PW-8/Shri Dinesh Kumar, SI Delhi Police Deposed that, he was associated with Inspr. MC Meena in connection with the investigation of this case (FIR 118/99). Police custody remand of accused Harish was obtained from the Court on 15.12.2001.
Deposed further that Inspr. MC Meena recorded the disclosure statement of accused Harish to which he is also signatory. Disclosure statement is EX PW8/A. Deposed further that on 17.12.2001, Inspr. MC Meena with him and Const. Radhakishan, led by accused Harish Kumar reached house No.12/48, Geeta Colony.
Deposed further that at the house Inspr. MC Meena asked 5-6 public persons to join the recovery but none became ready.
Deposed that accused Harish led the police party to H.No.12/48 second floor, to a room near staircase. There, from the upper portion of Almirah, after opening took out one blue Page 39 of 77 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-13, Rouse Avenue District Court, New Delhi CBI - 393/2019 RC No. 4(S)/2002 colour pant and from right side pocket of that pant, one ring and one wrist watch was produced and told that it belonged to deceased (Daulat Ram), and same was taken out by them.
Deposed that Pullandas were prepared and the same were sealed with the seal of MCM and same were seized vide Seizure Memo ExPW8/C. Copy of ration card of accused Harish was taken out by Inspr. MC Meena from the wife of Harish (ExPW8/D).
Deposed further that accused Harmesh with Harish were taken to factory A-29 Rani Garden, Delhi (Ex.PW8/F).
Deposed further that accused also pointed the place where he had burnt the dead body pointing memo (Ex.PW8/F-1).
Deposed further that both accused pointed the place where they had thrown away the clothes, chappal and cane. Pointing memo (Ex.PW8/G & Ex.PW8/H).
Deposed further that accused pointed out place where they parked TaTa Sumo DL-9C 6182. Pointing out memo (Ex.PW8/I).
Deposed further that accused (both) pointed out place at Sri Ganga Ram Hospital New Delhi where they parked Maruti Zen No.DL 6 CB 7700. Pointing out Memo Ex.PW8/J). (x-examination).
Deposed that one sealed Pullanda was opened. One writ watch came out (P8).
Deposed that one more pullanda opened and one ring ExP- 9 came out (seized from Harish Kumar).
7. PW-54/Smt. Babita Gupta Deposed that on 28.6.99 when her husband had left residence for the factory of Mahender Pal, he was wearing shirt Page 40 of 77 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-13, Rouse Avenue District Court, New Delhi CBI - 393/2019 RC No. 4(S)/2002 and pant of grey colour, leather footwear. He was also wearing his wrist watch mark Swiss Star of golden colour. He was also wearing a gold chain and a gold ring with diamonds.
Deposed that on 14.1.2002 she was called at Karkardooma court. She was asked to identify some belongings of her husband.
Deposed that in Karkardooma court she was asked to identify some belongings of her husband in the court of Sh. Ramesh (Court No.24 at 12.30 p.m.) She was called in chamber of Judge Sahab.
Deposed that on the table there were 5 or 7 separate sets of wrist watch, chain and ring.
Deposed that she first segregated chain, then ring and thereafter wrist watch and informed the Judge that these articles belong to her husband.
Deposed that thereafter Judge Sahab wrote on paper about identification of those articles by me and asked me to sign the same.
Deposed further that, thereafter Judge Sahab called IO inside and confirmed about the identification of articles by me.
Deposed further that ExPW53/A is the memo of proceedings signed by me.
Deposed that wrist watch shown to her in Court is ExPW54/Article-1, Ring is ExPW54/Article-2 and Golden chain is ExPW/54/Article-3.
8. PW-53/Sh. Ramesh Kumar Deposed that on 14.1.2002 while functioning as M.M, Karkardooma Court Delhi had conducted TIP of case property. The proceeding dated 14.1.2002 bear his signature. This TIP was Page 41 of 77 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-13, Rouse Avenue District Court, New Delhi CBI - 393/2019 RC No. 4(S)/2002 in respect of one gold chain, one ring and one wrist watch.
Deposed further that TIP proceeding is ExPW53/A. Smt. Babita had appeared to identify the case properties. After completion of TIP, record was sealed and sent to Link MM Sh. JP Narayan. Case properties were handed over to IO of the case.
9. PW-55/Sh. Virender Deposed that during investigation conducted by him (FIR 118/99) he had brought one car found at Sir Ganga Ram Hospital in this case because Harish and Harmesh @ Ramesh had absconded in that car in the intervening night of 28-29/6/1999.
Deposed that Harish and Harmesh were absconding, therefore he obtained NBW against them. Thereafter, proceeding u/s. 82&83 Cr.PC were conducted against these two accused persons and their movable properties were attached in this case. 8.2. Evidence claimed to be incriminating against accused Harmesh Kumar (A-2)
1. PW-48/ Sh. Suresh Kumar Mittal Deposed that on 25.6.1999 when he made telephonic call at factory of Mahender Pal, the call was picked by Harmesh and he assured him to get a talk arranged with Mahender Pal.
2. PW-37/Inspector Yashveer Singh, SHO, PS Welcome Delhi.
Deposed that on 30.6.99 SHO/IO of FIR No.118/99 instructed him to visit Saidowal. Distt. Gurdaspur, Punjab with a police party to search suspects Harish and Harmesh @ Ramesh.
Deposed further that he with a team of 4-5 police personnel visited said village on 30.6.99 at around 9 p.m. Deposed further that purpose of visit was to search said Page 42 of 77 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-13, Rouse Avenue District Court, New Delhi CBI - 393/2019 RC No. 4(S)/2002 two suspects, in the said village because there was an information both had come to the residence of one Surender Nath.
Deposed further that on meeting Surender Nath informed him that Harish and Harmesh @ Ramesh had come to him in a Maruti Zen car in the night of 29.6.99.
Deposed further that both i.e. Harish and Harmesh left the village for Gurdaspur for their night stay at the residence of the brother of Surender Nath.
Deposed further that Surender Nath informed PW37 that his brother from Gurdaspur informed him that aforesaid suspects told his brother in Gurdaspur that they had to leave for Delhi because of death of their sister-in-law (Bhabhi).
Deposed further that Sh. Surender Nath further informed PW37 that these two suspects were expected to join barat of his son on 30.6.99. He returned to Delhi.
3. PW-55/Sh. Virender Kumar Deposed that during investigation conducted by him he had brought one car found at Sir Ganga Ram Hospital in this case because Harish and Harmesh @ Ramesh had absconded in that car in the intervening night of 28-29/6/1999.
Deposed further that Harish and Harmesh were absconding. Therefore, he obtained NBW against them. Thereafter proceeding u/s. 82&83 Cr.PC were conducted against these two accused persons and their movable properties were attached in this case.
4. PW-1/Inspector Prakash Singh Mann He deposed that He was entrusted with the investigation of this case (FIR No.118/99) on 8.12.1999.
Page 43 of 77 (Pulastya Pramachala)Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-13, Rouse Avenue District Court, New Delhi CBI - 393/2019 RC No. 4(S)/2002 Deposed further that He reached the house of accused Harmesh on 10.12.99 at D-137 Rani Garden. Accused Harmesh was searched. Wife and children of accused Harmesh were unware about the present whereabout of accused Harmesh.
Deposed further that he had no knowledge about the missing articles of deceased by reading the statement of the wife of deceased (Daulat Ram) Smt. Babita. He further deposed that he had not searched the house of Harmesh in order to make recovery of any jewellery articles.
Deposed further that he was not aware that accused Ved Prakash had mentioned in his disclosure statement dated 2.7.99 that Harish and Ramesh (Harmesh) had removed clothes, rings, watch and chain of accused.
Deposed Further that he had searched the house of accused Harmesh in search of him but he was not found.
5. PW-5/Sh. S.N Rajora, SI, Delhi Police Deposed that on 8.12.01 while he was posted at PS Kalyanpuri at about 11.30 a.m. he had gone to prosecution branch, KKD Courts.
Deposed further that lady SI Ramo Devi posted at Provision and Line informed him that she was informed by the informer that one proclaimed offender Harmesh in case FIR No.118/99 PS Geeta Colony has come to KKD Court.
Deposed further that she further informed that accused was about to go. On this information, he joined (W) SI Ramo Devi immediately and at the pointing out of informer at the gate of KKD Courts accused Harmesh @ Kalu- present in Court - correctly identified was apprehended.
Page 44 of 77 (Pulastya Pramachala)Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-13, Rouse Avenue District Court, New Delhi CBI - 393/2019 RC No. 4(S)/2002 Deposed further that he confirmed this fact from PS Geeta Colony that Harmesh is P.O. in case FIR No.118/99. Accused Harmesh was arrested under section 41(1) Cr.PC.
Deposed further that the wife of accused Harmesh visited at spot and identified accused Harmesh.
6. PW-12/MC Meena, Delhi Police He deposed that he was entrusted with the investigation of this case on 13.12.2001 for the second time.
Deposed further that Obtained police remand of accused Harmesh on 15.12.2001 for seven days.
Deposed further that Recorded disclosure statement of accused Harmesh ExPW8/B. Deposed further that on 17.12.2001, accused Harmesh led Police team of PW12 to a H. Durgawati-137 Rani Garden within the area of PS Geeta Colony.
Deposed further that in the house one iron box was kept in a store room adjoining kitchen. Accused Harmesh opened iron box and took out a cherry colour pant. Accused took out one chain golden colour from the front pocket of that pant. Accused had disclosed that chain belongs to Daulat Ram which he had removed from the person of Daulat Ram after his murder.
Deposed further that Physical inspection revealed that chain had a hook in the shape 'S' for closing and opening it.
Deposed further that Chain was kept into a cloth pullanda giving serial No.3. Pointing out and seizure memo of that Pullanda is Ex.PW8/E. Deposed further that thereafter, on being asked wife of accused Harmesh provided photocopy of ration card X1, being Page 45 of 77 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-13, Rouse Avenue District Court, New Delhi CBI - 393/2019 RC No. 4(S)/2002 signed by accused Harmesh. This ration card was of previous address.
Deposed further that accused Harish and Harmesh led police team to factory at A-29 Rani Garden. There both pointed out the spot where they had killed Daulat Ram by strangulating the victim.
Deposed further that Pointing out memos are Ex/PW8/F and F-1.
Deposed further that both accused took police team to a factory premises A/21/1, Industrial Area Sahibabad, UP. There they pointed out the spot where they had taken body of deceased Daulat Ram in a TATA Sumo vehicle and set the body on fire on that place. Pointing out memo is Ex.PW8/F & G. Deposed further that both accused then took police team to a site Kaushambhi Apartment situated on NH24. There they pointed out a Nala and told that cloths pair of chappals and cane had been thrown there. No recovery could be collected. Pointing out memo is Ex.PW8/H. Deposed further that accused person took police team to spot premises 12/4B, where both accused parked TaTa Sumo after carrying out the said activities.
Deposed further that thereafter both accused left that spot in a Maruti Zen car of accused Mahender Pal.
Deposed further that both accused further took police team Sir Ganga Ram Hospital parking. From this parking that Maruti Zen car had already been seized.
Pointing out memo is Ex.PW8/J. Deposed further that he filed an application in court on Page 46 of 77 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-13, Rouse Avenue District Court, New Delhi CBI - 393/2019 RC No. 4(S)/2002 9.1.2002 to get the recovered articles at the instance of accused Harish and Harmesh to be identified in TIP.
Deposed further that on 14.1.2002 Ms Babita wife of deceased Daulat Ram, appeared. TIP proceedings were conducted in the court chamber of Magistrate.
Deposed further that he produced case property in sealed condition and the property to be mixed with the case property in TIP.
Deposed further that Babita correctly identified the case property.
Deposed further that he identified the Golden colour chain ExP-10, recovered at the instance of accused Harmesh from the store of his house.
7. PW-8/SI Dinesh Kumar, Delhi Police Deposed that he was associated with Inspr. MC Meena in connection with the investigation of this case (FIR 118/99). Police custody remand of accused Harmesh was taken from the Court.
Deposed further that Inspr. MC Meena recorded disclosure statement of accused Harmesh to which he was also signatory (ExPW8/B).
Deposed further that Accused Harmesh Kumar led police team to his house No.D-137 Rani Garden Delhi. Accused led police team to store near kitchen. One iron box was kept in the store room. One pant was taken out. From the right pocket of pant one chain was recovered and to that the same belonged to Daulat Ram (deceased).
Deposed further that Chain was kept in a pullanda and the Page 47 of 77 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-13, Rouse Avenue District Court, New Delhi CBI - 393/2019 RC No. 4(S)/2002 same was sealed with the seal of MC Meena. Seizure Memo is ExPW8/E. Deposed further that Pullanda opened in Court. One chain came out Ex.P.10 recovered from Harmesh Kumar.
Deposed further that one photocopy of ration card mark X- 1 given by wife of Harmesh Kumar, Neelam was also taken from her.
Deposed further that accused Harmesh with Harish were taken to factory A-29 Rani Garden, Delhi (Ex.PW8/F).
Deposed further that accused also pointed the place where he had burnt the dead body pointing memo (Ex.PW8/F-1).
Deposed further that both accused pointed the place where they had thrown away the clothes, chappal and cane. Pointing memo (Ex.PW8/G & Ex.PW8/H).
Deposed further that accused pointed out place where they parked TaTa Sumo DL-9C 6182. Pointing out memo (Ex.PW8/I).
Deposed further that accused (both) pointed out place at Sri Ganga Ram Hospital New Delhi where they parked Maruti Zen No.DL 6 CB 7700. Pointing out Memo Ex.PW8/J).
(x-examination).
8. PW-54/Smt. Babita Gupta Deposed that on 14.1.2002 she was called at Karkardooma court. She was asked to identify some belongings of her husband.
Deposed further that on 28.6.99 when her husband had left residence for the factory of Mahender Pal, he was wearing shirt and pant of grey colour, leather footwear. He was also wearing his wrist watch mark Swiss Star of golden colour. He was also wearing a gold chain and a gold ring with diamonds.
Page 48 of 77 (Pulastya Pramachala)Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-13, Rouse Avenue District Court, New Delhi CBI - 393/2019 RC No. 4(S)/2002 Deposed further that in Karkardooma court she was asked to identify some belongings of her husband in the court of Sh. Ramesh (Court No.24 at 12.30 p.m.) She was called in chamber of Judge Sahab.
Deposed further that on the table there were 5 or 7 separate sets of wrist watch, chain and ring.
Deposed further that she first segregated chain, then ring and thereafter wrist watch and informed the Judge that these articles belong to her husband.
Deposed further that thereafter Judge Sahab wrote on paper about identification of those articles by me and asked me to sign the same.
Deposed further that, thereafter Judge Sahab called IO inside and confirmed my identify.
Deposed further that ExPW53/A is the memo of proceedings signed by me.
Deposed further that wrist watch shown to her in Court is ExPW54/Article-1, Ring is ExPW54/Article-2 and Golden chain is ExPW/54/Article-3.
9. PW-53/Sh. Ramesh Kumar Deposed that on 14.1.2002 while functioning as M.M, Karkardooma Court Delhi had conducted TIP of case property. The proceeding dated 14.1.2002 bear his signature. This TIP was in respect of one gold chain, one ring and one wrist watch.
Deposed further that TIP proceeding is ExPW53/A. Smt. Babita had appeared to identify the case properties. After completion of TIP, record was sealed and sent to Link MM Sh. JP Narayan. Case properties were handed over to IO of the case.
Page 49 of 77 (Pulastya Pramachala)Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-13, Rouse Avenue District Court, New Delhi CBI - 393/2019 RC No. 4(S)/2002 8.3. Evidence claimed to be incriminating against accused Bansi Lal (A-3)
1. PW-51/ Sh. Anoop Mittal He deposed that he knew Bansi Lal since 1992 because Bansi Lal used to come to purchase product from M/s Prem Rolling Mills along with Harish.
Deposed further that on 26.6.99 Bansi Lal and Harish had come to M/s A.D. Metal Industries at about 4 p.m. He along with Daulat Ram were present in the office of M/s AD Metal Industries.
Deposed further that Bansi Lal asked Sh. Daulat Ram as to why Daulat Ram was asking his brother Sh. Suresh Kumar to make call to Mahender Pal for a payment of dues.
Deposed further that Bansi Lal also told to Daulat Ram that he was defaming/giving bad name to them (Mahender Pal and others) in the market by spreading the news that they were not making the payment.
Deposed further that Bansi Lal further told Sh. Daulat Ram that in this way, he could not get the payment.
Deposed further that Shri Daulat Ram asked him to make payment of the dues and then Bansi Lal and Harish said they would make the payment and that they were not running away.
Deposed further that Daulat ram further asked them to return back his TaTa Sumo vehicle, which was taken by Mahender Pal.
Deposed that Bansi Lal and Harish told Sh. Daulat Ram that they would return back that vehicle in 2-4 days.
Deposed further that after Bansi Lal and Harish left our Page 50 of 77 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-13, Rouse Avenue District Court, New Delhi CBI - 393/2019 RC No. 4(S)/2002 office then he talked with Daulat Ram. Daulat Ram had told him that there was dues of Rs. 90 lac against Mahender Pal of account of dues of M/s AD Metal Industries as well as on account of his own fund.
Deposed further that prior to 28.6.99 he had visited the factory of Mahender Pal at A-29, Rani Garden Geeta Colony, Delhi on 1-2 occasions for taking payment.
Deposed further that bills were issued in the name of Vishal Metals i.e. the company of Bansi Lal (ExPW51/07).
Deposed further that Bansi Lal had provided S.T. 35 form to him in respect of Vishal Metals.
2. PW-54/ Smt. Babita Gupta Deposed that she is the wife of Daulat Ram (deceased) since 1987. In the year 1999 telephone No.2165206 was installed at her residence.
Deposed further that she knew Mahender Pal and Bansi Lal.
Deposed further that on 27.6.99 Daulat Ram had heated talk with Mahender Pal on telephone and when she enquired, Daulat Ram had told that Mahender Pal had to make payment for raw material supplied to him as well as in respect of some lucky draw/chit fund. Daulat Ram had told that Mahender Pal neither making payment nor returning our TATA Sumo vehicle.
Deposed further that on 28.6.99 she received a telephonic call made by Mahender Pal at about 6.30 p.m. She told Mahender Pal that Daulat Ram is not feeling well, then Mahender Pal asked her to give a message to Daulat Ram that, Mahender Pal was ready with the payment and even Bansi Lal was with Page 51 of 77 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-13, Rouse Avenue District Court, New Delhi CBI - 393/2019 RC No. 4(S)/2002 him.
Deposed further that Mahender Pal asked her to send her husband to collect the payment.
Deposed further that she conveyed the message of Mahender Pal to her husband but asked him not to go due to his bad health.
Deposed further that after 5-7 minutes she again received a telephonic call from Mahender Pal for the same purpose. This time Daulat Ram talked to Mahender Pal over phone. Daulat Ram thereafter told her, that he had to go because Mahender Pal was asking Daulat Ram to collect the payment.
Deposed further that at 7 p.m. Daulat Ram left home telling her that he was going to Mahender Pal at Geeta Colony to collect payment on a scooter brought by Amit from the factory.
Deposed further that after her husband left home, in about 15-20 minutes she received another call on landline phone from Bansi Lal who asked her whether her husband had left home or not. She told Bansi Lal that her husband had already left, though he was not well.
Deposed further that Bansi Lal told her that he was waiting for Daulat Ram in the factory of Mahender Pal and he wanted to know whether Daulat Ram was reaching there or not.
Deposed further that at about 8 p.m. Raju @ Anup Mittal came to her home to make inquiry about health of her husband. She told Anup Mittal that he was not well, but he had gone to collect money at the insistence of Bansi Lal.
Deposed further that when her husband did not return home till 10.30 p.m. she called Suresh Mittal and told that Daulat Page 52 of 77 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-13, Rouse Avenue District Court, New Delhi CBI - 393/2019 RC No. 4(S)/2002 Ram had gone to collect payment but had not returned back by that time.
3. PW-48/ Sh. Suresh Kumar Mittal.
Deposed that Daulat Ram (deceased) was his real brother. A.D. metals was formed by Daulat Ram in 1989 to manufacture base of Aluminium utensil.
Deposed further that Daulat Ram had told him about his business relations with Mahender Pal of Vishal Metal and Monika Manufacturing.
Deposed further that, Daulat Ram told him that Vishal Metal used to be controlled by Bansi Lal and he (Daulat Ram) used to deal with Mr. Bansi Lal. Later on control of this firm came into hands of Mahender Pal.
Deposed further that Daulat Ram was having one TATA Sumo and one Maruti 800 car. Daulat Ram had informed him in June 1999 that his TATA Sumo vehicle was taken by Mahender Pal and Mahender Pal was not returning the same and due to which they had altercation also on some occasions.
Deposed further that on 21-22/6/99 Daulat Ram had told him that, he had to recover a lot of money from Mahender Pal (around Rs.90 lacs).
Deposed further that on 23.6.99 Daulat Ram had told him that he made telephonic call to Mahender Pal for payment but Mahender Pal was reluctant to make payment.
Deposed further that he (PW48) called Mahender Pal over his mobile phone and told him about receiving call from Daulat Ram and he asked him to make payments even in parts.
Deposed further that Mahender Pal assured him that he Page 53 of 77 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-13, Rouse Avenue District Court, New Delhi CBI - 393/2019 RC No. 4(S)/2002 would think over it.
4. PW-1/Sh. Prakash Chand Mann He deposed that Yashpal Ahuja brother of accused Tilak Raj (PO) stated that Bansi Lal brother of accused Mahender Pal and others can tell, about the whereabout of Tilak Raj as he (Bansi Lal) used to give household expenses to the wife of Tilak Raj.
Deposed further that he interrogated accused Bansi Lal. Bansi Lal stated that he was not aware about the present whereabouts of accused Harish and Harmesh. Accused Bansi Lal stated that his mobile phone No.9810072116 was lost on 30.6.99 and same has not been found.
5. PW-10/Rajesh Kumar, Const., Delhi Police.
He deposed that on 2.8.99 at Sl.No.197/883 one mobile phone vide RC No.63/21 dated 2.8.99 PS Rajender Nagar was deposited in the Malkhana of PS Geeta Colony FIR No. 118/99. The photo state copy of the entry is ExPW10/B.
6. PW-55/Sh. Virender Kumar, IO Deposed further that, he had interrogated Bansi Lal in this case in respect of mobile phone recovered from the Maruti Zen car parked at Sir Ganga Ram Hospital (ExPW25/DA).
Deposed further that Bansi Lal admitted that one of two mobile phone was misplaced and he had reported about that misplacement.
Deposed further that (x-examination) on the battery of phone recovered from Maruti Zen car 'BL' was written and Bansi Lal had stated that it was his phone.
Deposed further that, this statement of Bansi Lal before Page 54 of 77 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-13, Rouse Avenue District Court, New Delhi CBI - 393/2019 RC No. 4(S)/2002 him is evidence of connection between that mobile phone and Bansi Lal.
Deposed further that he do not remember if Bansi Lal had told him that his mobile phone number is 9810072116.
7. PW-14/Sh. Narender Singh Deposed that he cannot confirm that on 28.6.1999 accused Bansi Lal had come in the office to meet Shri A.K.Walia, Health Minister Delhi Govt. during day time at Secretariat.
8. PW-21/ Sh. Rakesh Bakshi Deposed that mobile phone No.9810072116 with customer ID 259632 was in the name of Shri Bansi Lal 13/52 Geeta Colony, Delhi 31.
Deposed further that the call details record for the period 01.06.1999 to 30.9.99 (ExPW21/A was generated by him from server on the request of IO (CBI) and was given to him.
Deposed further that ExPW21/D is the details of address/locations of the mobile phone tower.
Deposed further that Ex.PW21/E is the details of Towers in a particular area with tower ID/Cell ID.
Deposed further that on 24.8.1999 he was working with Airtel Cellular Ltd.
9. PW-25/Sh. Ashok Kumar Deposed that, on 23.7.99 he had entered in the malkhana register No.19 at page 240 Sl.No.713. Articles entered in the malkhana vide said entry were subsequently handed over to ASI Jai Singh of PS Geeta Colony vide RC No.63/2/1999 on 2.8.1999 because it was found connected with FIR 118/99 of PS Geeta Colony.
Page 55 of 77 (Pulastya Pramachala)Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-13, Rouse Avenue District Court, New Delhi CBI - 393/2019 RC No. 4(S)/2002 Deposed and Identified one mobile Phone produced from the malkhana of PS Geeta Colony Delhi, No. GH 337 Make Ericsson being the same deposited by Ct. Vijay Kumar of PS Rajinder Nagar.
10. PW-26/Ct. Vijay Kumar, PS Rajinder Nagar.
Deposed that on 23.7.99 he was on duty at Sir Ganga Ram Hospital as beat Constable. Sh. SS Guleria, Chief Security Officer of the hospital informed that one Maruti car Registration No.DL 8 CB-2914 is parked in the parking area of the hospital since long. He inspected the car from the outside and saw two number plates of registration No.DL6CB7700. One mobile phone with charger was kept on the driver seat of the car.
Deposed further that car was not locked. He seized the car u/s 66 of D.P. Act and deposited in the Malkhana of PS Rajinder Nagar.
Deposed and identified the mobile phone found on the Driver seat of the car as GH 337 (Ericsson) Ex MO-1 with battery and charger.
11. PW-23/Sh. Rajneesh Kumar Gupta Deposed that, he recorded the statement of witness Sureshwar @ Suresh on 10.12.2002 u/s. 164 Cr.PC Statement is ExPW23/13.
12. PW-57/ Sh. U.K. Goswami Deposed that, after registration of FIR of this case in CBI he had conducted further investigation.
Deposed further that he interrogated accused Bansi Lal. Obtained his specimen hand writing for its comparison with some letters i.e. B/BL written on the backside of the battery of a Page 56 of 77 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-13, Rouse Avenue District Court, New Delhi CBI - 393/2019 RC No. 4(S)/2002 mobile phone, found in the Maruti Zen Car seized from Sir Ganga Ram Hospital.
Deposed further that he was able to confirm the presence of accused Bansi Lal at the factory of Mahender Pal on 28.6.99 at about 4 p.m. through call records of mobile phone of Bansi Lal Deposed further that he had collected CDR of mobile No.9810071226 treating it to be of Bansi Lal. Deposed further that, Bansi Lal during his interrogation had told him that his aforesaid mobile phone was stolen on 30.06.99. 8.4. Evidence claimed to be incriminating against accused Tilak Raj (A-5)
1. PW-48/Sh. Suresh Kumar Mittal He deposed that, he called Mahender Pal on 23.6.99. Telephone was picked in the factory by one Tilak Raj, who informed that Mahenderpal was not present there at that time and he assured me to get a talk arranged with him subsequently.
2. PW53 - Virender Kumar, Delhi Police He deposed that, in respect of Tilak Ra,j he had reported that he was not joining investigation and hence further proceedings were being conducted against him.
3. PW-1 Prakash Chand Mann Deposed that on 8.12.99 he was entrusted with the investigation of FIR No.118/99 PS Geeta Colony. Delhi.
Deposed that, he made enquiries from one Yash Pal Ahuja brother of Tilak Raj (P.O.) regarding Tilak Raj about his whereabouts.
Deposed further that, Yash Pal Ahuja had disclosed that Bansi Lal brother of accused Mahender Pal and others can tell Page 57 of 77 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-13, Rouse Avenue District Court, New Delhi CBI - 393/2019 RC No. 4(S)/2002 whereabouts of Tilak Raj as he used to give the house hold expenses to wife of Tilak Raj.
Deposed that he made enquiries from Yashpal Ahuja, brother of Tilak Raj (PO) regarding Tilak Raj. But his whereabouts could not be known.
4. PW.20 - Amit Gupta (Actually PW39) Deposed that, on 28.6.99 Daulat Ram (deceased) had talked him over landline telephone while he was in factory of Daulat Ram and had told that he would talk to Mahendar Pal in respect of money to be collected from him.
Deposed further that, Daulat Ram asked him to send the scooter of factory at his home and I sent that scooter through another person at his home. This talk could take place at 4-5 p.m. Deposed further that scooter was sent at about 5-6 p.m. on 28.6.99.
Deposed further that scooter sent to Daulat Ramji in the evening of 28.6.99 was registered in my name. By saying that this scooter was of factory, I meant to convey this scooter was used for factory purposes only, though scooter was purchased in my name by Daulat Ramji.
Deposed further that (x-examination by prosecution) I do not remember if registration number of that scooter which was sent to Daulat Ramji was DL-7SG-5693 hence I cannot admit or deny that it was number of that scooter.
5. PW-54 - Babita Gupta Deposed that on 28.6.99 at 7 p.m. Daulat Ram left home telling her that he was going to Mahender Pal at Geeta Colony to Page 58 of 77 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-13, Rouse Avenue District Court, New Delhi CBI - 393/2019 RC No. 4(S)/2002 collect payment on a scooter brought by Amit from the factory.
6. PW.24 - Ajay Singh (CBI) Deposed that on 11.12.2006 he had recorded disclosure statement of accused Tilak Raj, ExPW20A, while he was in police custody. However, nothing (Scooter) could be recovered pursuant to that disclosure statement.
7. PW.20 - Suraj Prakash Deposed that Disclosure statement of accused Tilak Raj, pursuant to an interrogation by Sh. Ajay Singh, Inspr., CBI, on 11.12.2006 was reduced in writing, Ex.PW20/A.
9. ARGUMENTS OF ACCUSED PERSONS NAMELY SH. HARISH KUMAR (A1), SH. HARMESH KUMAR (A2), SH. BANSI LAL (A3) & SH. TILAK RAJ (A5).
9.1. All the ld. defence counsels sought an order of acquittal after dispensing with the recording of statement of accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C., taking plea that the prosecution evidence appearing on the record does not connect the accused persons to the alleged charges and thus, there is no incriminating evidence against any accused in respect of charges framed in the case. On the basis of this plea, it was argued that this court should pass an order of acquittal against all the accused persons as provided u/s 232 Cr.P.C. Ld. defence counsels also argued that even for the purpose of putting incriminating evidence before the accused for his response u/s 313 Cr.P.C., the court can only look into the admissible piece of evidence. It was further argued that the projected witness of the prosecution to support the allegations of conspiracy among accused Bansi Lal, Mahender Pal and others, did not support the case of prosecution. The case of prosecution Page 59 of 77 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-13, Rouse Avenue District Court, New Delhi CBI - 393/2019 RC No. 4(S)/2002 otherwise was based on circumstantial evidence, but even for this purpose, there is no evidence on the record to complete the chain of circumstances against any of the accused persons. 9.2. Ld. counsel for accused Bansi Lal submitted inter alia that no substantive charge under Section 120B IPC has been framed against accused Bansi Lal, Tilak Raj and Prem Pujari. Hence, in the absence of specific substantive evidence of conspiracy, accused persons cannot be convicted under Section 302 IPC or any other substantive offence with the aid of 120-B; PW13/Sh. Suneshwar has not supported the case of CBI and the supporting witness PW16/Sh. Ram Ugrey also did not confirm the presence of PW13 in the factory of Mahender Pal; that one Sh. Ram Kumar, who was examined during the trial of Mahender Pal and Ved Prakash, did not support the alleged story of prosecution and he was not examined in this case, though he was summoned and was present in the court and thus, alleged conspiracy could not be proved either by CBI or by Delhi Police; that there is no alleged incriminating evidence of eye witnesses, so as to prove circumstantial evidence.
9.3. Ld. counsels for accused Bansi Lal and accused Tilak Raj filed written submissions alongwith relied upon case laws which are as follows:
● Ram Nath Madhoprasad v. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1953 SC 420 ● Deonandan Mishra v. State of Bihar, AIR 1955 SC 801 ● Suraj Deo Mehto & Anr. v. State of Bihar, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 542.
10. ARGUMENTS OF CBI Page 60 of 77 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-13, Rouse Avenue District Court, New Delhi CBI - 393/2019 RC No. 4(S)/2002 10.1. Ld. Sr. PP for CBI argued that even before proceedings u/s 232 Cr.P.C., the court is supposed to examine the accused and therefore, in any circumstances, examination of accused persons u/s 313 Cr.P.C. is must. He further submitted that this is not the stage to look into the credibility or sufficiency of the evidence against the accused persons in respect of charges leveled against them, as this exercise can be done only after hearing both the parties on the point of appreciation of evidence. Ld. Sr. PP referred to certain judgments during his argument, which are as follows:
● Ranjan Dwivedi & Anr. v. CBI, 2008 Cri.L.J. 1440 (DHC) ● Sivamani & Anr. v. State of Kerala, 1993 Cri.L.J. 23 (Kerala) ● Madan Mohan Jagga v. The State, 1984 Cri.L.J. 681 (Himachal Pradesh) ● State of Kerala v. Mundan, 1981 Cri.L.J. 1795 (Kerala) APPRECIATION OF ARGUMENTS ON THE PARAMETERS OF LAW, FACTS & EVIDENCE
11.In view of plea taken by rival parties, as mentioned herein above, I find it appropriate to refer to certain legal provisions. Section 232 Cr.P.C. provides as under:
"Acquittal- If, after taking the evidence for the prosecution, examining the accused and hearing the prosecution and the defence on the point, the Judge considers that there is no evidence that the accused committed the offence, the judge shall record an order of acquittal."
12. Section 233 provides as under:
"Entering upon defence. - (1) Where the accused is not acquitted under section 232, he shall be called upon to enter on his defence and adduce any evidence he may have in support thereof. (2) If the Page 61 of 77 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-13, Rouse Avenue District Court, New Delhi CBI - 393/2019 RC No. 4(S)/2002 accused puts in any written statement, the Judge shall file it with the record. (3) If the accused applies for the issue of any process for compelling the attendance of any witness or the production of any document or thing, the Judge shall issue such process unless he considers, for reasons to be recorded, that such application should be refused on the ground that it is made for the purpose of vexation or delay or for defeating the ends of justice."
13. Section 234 Cr.P.C. further provides that when examination of the witness of accused, if any is complete, the prosecutor shall sum up his case and thereafter the accused shall be entitled to respond to the arguments of the prosecutor. Section 235 Cr.P.C. further provides that after hearing arguments and points of law (if any), the judge shall give a judgment in the case.
14. Section 313 Cr.P.C. provides as under: -
"Power to examine the accused - (1) In every inquiry or trial, for the purpose of enabling the accused personally to explain any circumstances appearing in the evidence against him, the Court- (a) may at any stage, without previously warning the accused, put such questions to him as the Court considers necessary; (b) shall, after the witnesses for the prosecution have been examined and before he is called on for his defence, question him generally on the case: Provided that in a summons- case, where the Court has dispensed with the personal attendance of the accused, it may also dispense with his examination under clause (b).
(2) No oath shall be administered to the accused when he is examined under sub- section (1).
(3) The accused shall not render himself liable to punishment by refusing to answer such questions, or by giving false answers to them.
(4) The answers given by the accused may be taken into consideration in such inquiry or trial, and put in evidence for or against him in any other inquiry into, or trial for, any other offence which such answers may tend to show he has committed.
15. As it is evident from the language used in Section 313 Cr.P.C., Page 62 of 77 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-13, Rouse Avenue District Court, New Delhi CBI - 393/2019 RC No. 4(S)/2002 this provision talks about any circumstance appearing in the evidence against the accused. On the basis of such language, practically the courts have been using the term as incriminating evidence. The purpose or objective behind the provision under section 313 Cr.P.C. is also evident from the language of the provision, where it is mentioned that 'for the purpose of enabling the accused personally to explain'. Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Rajan Dwivedi (supra) was examining the scope and content of Section 313 Cr.P.C. and in that process, Delhi High Court referred to following observations made by hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jai Dev v. State of Punjab, AIR 1963 SC 612: "the ultimate test in determining whether or not the accused has been fairly examined under Section 342 Cr.P.C. (similar provision under old Act), would be to enquire whether, having regard to all the question put to him, he did get an opportunity to say what he wanted to say in respect of prosecution case against him. If it appears that the examination of the accused person was defective and thereby a prejudice has been caused to him, that would no doubt be a serious infirmity.". Taking view of object behind Section 313 Cr.P.C., Delhi High Court observed that "19. Thus, it is well settled that the provision is mainly intended to benefit the accused and as it's corollary to benefit the court in reaching the final conclusion. 20. At the same time, it should be borne in mind that the provision is not intended to nail him to any position, but to comply with the most salutary principle of natural justice enshrined in the maxim 'audi alteram partem'."
16.Delhi High Court further made observations in the same case in Page 63 of 77 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-13, Rouse Avenue District Court, New Delhi CBI - 393/2019 RC No. 4(S)/2002 the following terms:
"24. We think that a pragmatic and humanistic approach is warranted in regard to such special exigencies. The word 'Shall' in clause b to Section 313 (1) of the code is to be interpreted as obligatory on the court and it should be complied with when it is for the benefit of the accused."
Delhi High Court was dealing with a different situation in the concerned case, however, in that process, the court did come up with clear cut observations that the principle underlying Section 313 Cr.P.C. is audi alteram partem, to afford an opportunity to the accused to explain adverse material or circumstances. The court further made it clear that this provision is intended for the benefit of the accused, to explain circumstances, which may appear adverse to him, so that he can explain them. For the purpose of eliciting the objective behind Section 313 Cr.P.C., Delhi High Court referred and relied upon the judgment passed by Supreme Court in the case of Basavraj R. Patil v. State, 2000 (Cri.L.J.) 4604.
17.In the case of Sivamani (supra) while examining the scope of section 232 Cr.P.C., hon'ble Kerala High Court observed that an accused can be acquitted u/s 232 only when there is no evidence that he committed the offence. In that case, Kerala High Court dealt with the term of 'there is no evidence' and in that process the court referred to observations made by Division Bench of same court in the case of Mundan (supra) to the effect that where there is some evidence connecting the accused with the commission of crime, it is the duty of the judge to pass on to Section 233 and not to appreciate that evidence and find out whether it was reliable or not, to pass an order u/s 232 of the Page 64 of 77 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-13, Rouse Avenue District Court, New Delhi CBI - 393/2019 RC No. 4(S)/2002 Code. In the case of Mundan (supra), Kerala High Court had further observed that the words 'no evidence' in Section 232 Cr.P.C. cannot be construed and interpreted to mean absence of sufficient evidence for conviction or absence of satisfactory or trustworthy or conclusive evidence in support of the charge. The judge has to see whether any evidence has been let in on behalf of the prosecution in support of their case that the accused committed the offence alleged, and whether that evidence is legal and relevant. It is not the quality or quantity of the evidence that has to be considered at this stage. If there is any evidence to show that the accused has committed the offence, then the judge has to pass on to the next stage. It is not open to him to evaluate and consider the reliability of the evidence at that stage.
18.In the case of Madan Mohan Jagga (supra), even High Court of Himachal Pradesh examined the scope of 'no evidence' as appearing in Section 232 Cr.P.C. to observe that "this term neither means total absence of evidence, nor does it mean absence of cogent, convincing, reliable and trustworthy evidence. All that it means is that there is no inculpatory evidence against the accused in the sense that even if the prosecution evidence adduced is accepted at it's face value, it would not amount to legal proof of the evidence, charged against the accused. In such a case, the court is not required to marshal the evidence with a view to find out if it would be safe to act upon it or not."
19.In view of above-mentioned observations made by higher courts, it has to be seen if at all examination of an accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C. is necessary in all the circumstances. As per Section 313 Page 65 of 77 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-13, Rouse Avenue District Court, New Delhi CBI - 393/2019 RC No. 4(S)/2002 Cr.P.C., the inculpatory evidence appearing against the accused is to be put to him, so as to give his explanation. As per Section 232 Cr.P.C., if the judge considers that there is no evidence that the accused committed the offence, the judge shall record an order of acquittal. On conjoint reading of Section 232 and Section 313 Cr.P.C., it becomes amply clear that the focus of the court has to be on inculpatory evidence. However, the expression 'no evidence' as mentioned in Section 232 Cr.P.C. has an important role to decide if examination u/s 313 Cr.P.C. is mandatory in all circumstances. If there is no admissible evidence on the record, so as to indicate towards the accused for commission of alleged offence, then there remains no occasion to seek any kind of explanation from the accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C. In other words, if there is no inculpatory evidence on the record to connect the accused with the offences charged against him, then it is not a viable situation to seek any kind of explanation from him. Therefore, the term 'examining the accused' as used in Section 232 Cr.P.C. has to include in it's meaning the term 'dispensing the examination of the accused'. If it is assumed that examination of accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C. is mandatory in all circumstances, then it shall be a useless exercise because, it shall not be in furtherance of objective behind 313 Cr.P.C., so as to afford opportunity to the accused to explain inculpatory evidence against him. Accused is otherwise not required to explain evidence of any such fact which does not connect him with the offences charged against him. Section 232 Cr.P.C. becomes relevant only for such situation. Therefore, it cannot be said that in all the circumstances, accused must be examined u/s 313 Page 66 of 77 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-13, Rouse Avenue District Court, New Delhi CBI - 393/2019 RC No. 4(S)/2002 Cr.P.C. or that even before proceeding u/s 232 Cr.P.C., accused must be examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C. It is also important to bear in mind that any response given by accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C. does not become a piece of evidence at all. Hence, I am not in agreement with the contention of prosecution that even before proceeding u/s 232 Cr.P.C., accused must be examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C.
20.Examination of accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C. becomes necessary only when the court finds that there is some evidence on the record which if taken on it's face value, connects the accused with the offences charged against him. It shall be a matter of appreciation of evidence on the record, before taking a call whether the court should proceed u/s 232 Cr.P.C. or should proceed u/s 235 Cr.P.C.
21.For this purpose as per law explained by higher courts, appreciation of the evidence on the record has to be done on limited para meters i.e. without looking into the credibility and sufficiency of the evidence to convict the accused for the offences charged with.
22.Now, I shall proceed further to look into the evidence on the record alleged to be incriminating against accused persons by the prosecution, so as to appreciate if same are admissible and to further appreciate, if the same are taken on their face value, then whether they connect the accused with the offences charged against them. Before I proceed further to look into the alleged incriminating evidence against the accused persons, it is appropriate to mention here that case of prosecution was based on circumstantial evidence against the accused persons, to allege that they committed murder of Sh. Daulat Ram in conspiracy Page 67 of 77 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-13, Rouse Avenue District Court, New Delhi CBI - 393/2019 RC No. 4(S)/2002 with each other as well as with Mr. Mahender Pal (already convicted). In other words, prosecution did not come up and rely upon evidence of any eye witness to the murder or conspiracy. For the purpose of allegations of involvement in conspiracy of murder of Sh. Daulat Ram and to burn his dead body, prosecution came up and relied upon the evidence of two witnesses namely Mr. Suneshwar and Mr. Ram Ugrey, besides certain other circumstances. However, both these witnesses did not support the case of prosecution as per their given role and were thus, declared hostile by the prosecution. Prosecution still continued with evidence of other circumstances. It is, therefore, necessary to appreciate the requirement of law to connect the accused persons with the alleged crime of murder and deliberate disappearance of evidence, on the basis of circumstantial evidence. It is well settled legal principle that evidence of different circumstances must be complete. In other words, chain of all relied upon facts must be proved by the prosecution, in order to connect the accused with the alleged crime. This would mean that if prosecution comes up with evidence of certain circumstances in bits and pieces, without completing the chain of all relied upon circumstances, then it cannot be said that the evidence of some of the facts/circumstances can be treated as inculpatory evidence, without there being evidence of connected facts/circumstances.
EVIDENCE AGAINST A1 & A2:
23.Prosecution has referred to evidence of PW51 Anoop Mittal, PW37/Insp. Yashvir Singh, PW-1/Insp. P.S. Mann, PW4/Sh. M.A. Khan, PW12/Insp. M.C. Meena, PW8/SI Dinesh Kumar, Page 68 of 77 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-13, Rouse Avenue District Court, New Delhi CBI - 393/2019 RC No. 4(S)/2002 PW54/Smt. Babita Gupta, PW53/Ramesh Kumar and PW55/Insp. Virender, for A1. In respect of A2 prosecution has referred to evidence of PW48/Sh. S.K. Mittal, PW37/Insp. Yashvir Singh, PW-1/Insp. P.S. Mann, PW4/Sh. M.A. Khan, PW12/Insp. M.C. Meena, PW8/SI Dinesh Kumar, PW54/Smt. Babita Gupta, PW53/Ramesh Kumar and PW5/SI S.N. Rajora.
24.As far as A1 is concerned, from the evidence of above- mentioned witnesses, it has come on the record that A1 had come to M/s A.D. Metal Industries on 26.09.1999 alongwith co- accused A3, when A3 asked Sh. Daulat Ram as to why he was making his brother Suresh to make call to Mahender Pal for payment of dues. Bansi Lal also told Daulat Ram that Daulat Ram was giving bad name to Mahender Pal and others in the market and in this way, Daulat Ram could not get the payment. Daulat Ram asked Bansi Lal to make payment of dues and then, A1 & A3 said that they would make the payment and that they were not running away. They also assured Daulat Ram to return Tata Sumo vehicle in 2-4 days.
25.PW37 was instructed to visit Saidowal, Punjab with a police party in search of A1 & A2 and he did so on 30.06.99. He met one Surender Nath, who informed him that A1 & A2 had come in a Maruti Zen car in the night of 29.06.99 and after night stay they left for Gurdaspur. In nutshell this witness did not find A1 & A2.
26.PW1 had also searched for A1 & A2, but he could not find them. PW4 went to Jalandhar Cantt., Punjab on 06.12.2001 with police team and apprehended A1 from B.S. Shah Gurudwara. PW12 & PW8 deposed about disclosure statement being given by A1 & Page 69 of 77 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-13, Rouse Avenue District Court, New Delhi CBI - 393/2019 RC No. 4(S)/2002 A2. According to their evidence, A1 lead police team on 17.12.2001 to his residence and he took out a blue colour pant from an almirah. From the pocket of that pant, A1 took out ring and wrist watch, which was seized by PW12. A1 confessed that same were belonging to deceased Daulat Ram. Certain pointing out memos were allegedly prepared at the instance of A1 & A2.
27.Similarly, A2 also led them to a house in Rani Garden and A2 took out a cherry colour pant from an iron box. From the pocket of that pant, A2 took out a golden colour chain and disclosed that same belonged to deceased Daulat Ram which was removed by him from the body of Daulat Ram after his murder. This chain was also seized by PW12. Allegedly disclosure statement and pointing out memos were prepared at the instance of A2.
28.PW54 identified the golden chain, ring and the wrist watch during TIP of the same, before PW53 on 14.01.2002, as belonging to her deceased husband Daulat Ram and PW53 conducted and prepared memorandum of aforesaid TIP proceedings. PW55 brought a car found at Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, because A1 & A2 had absconded in that car and he had obtained NBWs against them. PW48 had made a telelphonic call on 25.06.99 at the factory of Mahender Pal, which was picked by a person introducing himself as Harmesh, who assured to arrange a talk with Mahender Pal. PW5 arrested A2 on 08.12.2001 on information being given by WSI Ramo Devi and at the pointing out of one informer.
29.On the basis of above-mentioned evidence, none of A1 or A2 can be said to be part of any conspiracy either of murder of Daulat Ram or to burn his dead body or to remove articles from the dead Page 70 of 77 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-13, Rouse Avenue District Court, New Delhi CBI - 393/2019 RC No. 4(S)/2002 body. These evidence even do not suggest any kind of role played by A1 & A2 in the murder of Daulat Ram, burning his body or removal of articles from his dead body. It is worth to mention here that the draft of alleged incriminating evidence, though refers to alleged confessional statement and pointing out memos at the instance of A1 & A2, but same are inadmissible piece of evidence, except to the fact that one gold chain, wrist watch and a ring presumably belonging to deceased Daulat Ram were recovered at the instance of A1 or A2. As far as charge for offence u/s 302 and 201 IPC read with 120B IPC are concerned, there is nil evidence to connect A1 or A2 with the same. A1 or A2 being related to convict Mahender Pal in any manner, cannot become an evidence to say that they were part and parcel of conspiracy of murder of Daulat Ram.
30. As far as charge for offence u/s 404 IPC is concerned, I would refer to observation made by Supreme Court in respect of same offence and on the basis of almost same piece of evidence i.e. recovery of certain items belonging to deceased. In the case of Preetam v. State of M.P. (1996) 10 Supreme Court Cases 432, Supreme Court observed as under: -
".........Once the confession is left out of consideration - as it has got to be - the only other piece of evidence to connect the appellant with the alleged offences are the recoveries allegedly made pursuant to his statement. Even if we proceed on the assumption that the evidence led by the prosecution in this behalf is reliable, still, considering its nature, we are unable to hold that it can make the sole basis for conviction even for the offence under Section 404 IPC."
31. Besides the observations as mentioned herein above, it is also to be appreciated that there is no evidence from the prosecution to show that A1 or A2 had actually removed these three articles Page 71 of 77 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-13, Rouse Avenue District Court, New Delhi CBI - 393/2019 RC No. 4(S)/2002 from the dead body of Daulat Ram or to show that they received it knowing the same to be belonging to deceased Daulat Ram with any dishonest intention. Even Section 114 Evidence Act cannot be pressed into to raise any kind of presumption provided therein against A1 & A2, especially in view of long gap between death of Daulat Ram and recovery of these articles. Thus, there is no evidence at all to even suggest that A1 or A2 dishonestly misappropriated these three articles, knowing that these articles were in possession of deceased Daulat Ram at the time of his death. Therefore, mere on the basis of recovery of these articles at the instance of A1 & A2, they cannot be connected with offence u/s 404 IPC as well.
EVIDENCE AGAINST A3:
32. Prosecution has referred to evidence of PW51 Anoop Mittal, PW54/Smt. Babita Gupta, PW48/Sh. S.K. Mittal, PW-1/Insp. P.S. Mann, PW10/Ct. Rajesh Kumar, PW-1/Insp. P.S. Mann, PW55/Insp. Virender, PW14/Sh. Narender Singh, PW21/Sh. Rakesh Bakshi, PW25/Sh. Ashok Kumar, PW26/Ct. Vijay Kumar, PW23/Sh. Rajneesh Kumar Gupta and PW57/Sh. U.K. Goswami, to show incriminating evidence against A3. From the evidence of these witnesses, it has come on the record that PW51 knew Bansi Lal/A3 and that A3 alongwith A1 had come to M/s A.D. Metal Industries on 26.09.1999, when A3 asked Sh. Daulat Ram as to why he was making his brother Suresh to make call to Mahender Pal for payment of dues. Bansi Lal also told Daulat Ram that Daulat Ram was giving bad name to Mahender Pal and others in the market and in this way, Daulat Ram could not get the payment. Daulat Ram asked Bansi Lal to make payment of Page 72 of 77 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-13, Rouse Avenue District Court, New Delhi CBI - 393/2019 RC No. 4(S)/2002 dues and then, A1 & A3 said that they would make the payment and that they were not running away. They also assured Daulat Ram to return Tata Sumo vehicle in 2-4 days. Bills were issued in the name of Vishal Metals i.e. company of A3 and A3 had provided ST-35 form to PW51.
33.PW54 also knew A3 and on 28.06.99, she had received a call from Mahender Pal at about 6.30 p.m. when Mahender Pal asked her to give a message to Daulat Ram to collect payment from him and that even A3 was with him. PW54 conveyed this message to Daulat Ram, who was otherwise not well. Thereafter, Daulat Ram had again received call from Mahender Pal and after having conversation with him, Daulat Ram left for factory of Mahender Pal to collect the payment at 7 p.m. After about 15-20 minutes, PW54 again received another call on her landline phone from A3, who asked about whereabouts of Daulat Ram and PW54 told him that Daulat Ram had already left. A3 told PW54 that he was waiting for Daulat Ram in the factory of Mahender Pal.
34.PW48 referred to informations given to him by Daulat Ram regarding control over Vishal Metals by A3 and regarding dealing between Daulat Ram and A3. However, control over this firm subsequently came into hands of Mahender Pal, who had to pay around 90 lacs to Daulat Ram and also to return a Tata Sumo vehicle. PW1 referred to his conversation with one Sh. Yashpal Ahuja, who was brother of A5. According to information given by Mr. Ahuja, A3 used to give household expenses to the wife of A5/Tilak Raj and A3 could tell about whereabouts of A5. PW10 had deposited one mobile phone in the malkhana of PS Geeta Page 73 of 77 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-13, Rouse Avenue District Court, New Delhi CBI - 393/2019 RC No. 4(S)/2002 Colony. PW55 had interrogated A3 in respect of mobile phone recovered from Maruti Zen car found parked in Sir Ganga Ram Hospital. Rest of the evidence of PW55 regarding alleged statement given by A3 to him is not admissible hence, I am not mentioning the same.
35.PW14 could not confirm if on 28.06.99, A3 had come in the office of the then Health Minister, Delhi Government during day time in the Secretariat. PW21/Sh. Rakesh Bakshi had generated CDR of mobile no. 9810072116 in the name of Sh. Bansi Lal. Same was given to IO. Details of locations of mobile phone tower and the details of towers in a particular area were also given. One Maruti Zen car with number plate of DL8CB2914 was found parked in the parking of Sir Ganga Ram Hospital on 23.07.99. Two number plates with number of DL6CB7700, one mobile phone make Ericson with battery and charger were found in that car. PW23 had recorded statement of Sh. Suneshwar Kumar u/s 164 Cr.P.C. on 10.12.2002. PW57 had interrogated and obtained specimen handwriting of A3 for comparison with letters 'B'/'BL' written on the back side of the battery of the mobile phone found in the above-mentioned Maruti Zen car.
36. If I start with reference to letters 'BL' written on the battery of mobile phone as mentioned herein above, admittedly it was not found in the handwriting of A3. Sh. Suneshwar Kumar as already mentioned herein above did not support the case of prosecution to say that he reported for duty in the factory of Mahender Pal in the morning of 30.06.99, when he met Prem Pujari and that Prem Pujari informed him about murder of Daulat Ram or to say that he heard conversation among A3, A1, A2, A5 and Mahender Pal Page 74 of 77 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-13, Rouse Avenue District Court, New Delhi CBI - 393/2019 RC No. 4(S)/2002 on 28.06.99 at 4 p.m. Therefore, statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. does not help the case of prosecution because same is not substantive piece of evidence and it can be used only for limited purpose of corroboration and contradiction. A mobile phone with the SIM card issued in the name of A3 being found in an abandoned car after gap of around a month from the alleged date of murder in itself does not incriminate A3 for alleged charges.
37.Whatever was informed to PW1 by Mr. Yashpal Ahuja, also cannot incriminate A3 for two reasons. Firstly, it was only an information given to PW1, which could be true or false and PW1 did not state or come up with any evidence to show truthfulness of that information. Secondly, assuming that this information about A3 supporting wife of A5, was correct, still it does not support the allegations of being part of conspiracy to murder Daulat Ram and to burn his dead body.
38.Similarly any information given by Daulat Ram to PW48 regarding his transaction with Mahender Pal, does not incriminate A3. Even if A3 had conversation with Daulat Ram on 26.06.99 regarding dues against Mahender Pal and assuring return of the same alongwith Tata Sumo vehicle, it cannot be a basis to make any presumption or to raise any inference regarding any complicity of A3 in the murder of Daulat Ram. This could be at the most an evidence of one of the circumstances from the chain of circumstantial evidence, which in absence of evidence of other facts in that chain, becomes insignificant.
39.The evidence of PW54 regarding having received a telephonic call in the evening after 7 p.m. on 28.06.99 from A3, is limited to Page 75 of 77 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-13, Rouse Avenue District Court, New Delhi CBI - 393/2019 RC No. 4(S)/2002 the extent that speaker on the other side introduced himself as A3 and asked about Daulat Ram. The oral testimony of PW54 is silent in respect of her ability to identify voice of that speaker being that of Bansi Lal. In that situation, even if her statement is taken on it's face value, same cannot become a basis to say that the said speaker was actually Bansi Lal. Similarly, CDR of mobile phone in the name of A3 establishes only one circumstance regarding presence of holder of that mobile phone in a particular area at a particular time. The evidence of PW21 does not establish presence of A3 in the factory of Mahender Pal at the alleged time of murder of Daulat Ram. Thus, even against A3 the evidence produced by prosecution is found to be in the category of 'no evidence' as contemplated u/s 232 Cr.P.C., so as to connect him with the alleged charges. EVIDENCE AGAINST A5:
40. Prosecution has referred and relied upon evidence of PW48/Sh. S.K. Mittal, PW53/Insp. Virender Kumar, PW1/Insp. P.C. Man, PW20/Sh. Amit Gupta, PW54/Smt. Babita Gupta, PW24/Sh. Ajay Singh and PW20/Sh. Suraj Prakash, against A5. According to their evidence PW48 called Mahender Pal on 23.06.99 at his factory which was picked by one who introduced himself as Tilak Raj. PW53, PW1 & PW24 conducted investigation, wherein PW53 simply reported that A5 was not joining investigation. PW1 had made enquiries about A5 from his brother Mr. Yashpal Ahuja, but he could not find A5. PW24 interrogated A5 and recorded his disclosure statement, but nothing could be recovered pursuant to that disclosure statement. Evidence of PW54 and PW20 referred to a scooter, however, no Page 76 of 77 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-13, Rouse Avenue District Court, New Delhi CBI - 393/2019 RC No. 4(S)/2002 connection of A5 with that scooter is established on the record through any evidence and therefore, their evidence becomes insignificant against A5.
41.In fact it is found that A5 was chargesheeted merely on the basis of disclosure statement without there being any recovery or other admissible evidence. Disclosure statement by accused is not admissible in evidence at all, without there being discovery of any fact, coupled with any recovery pursuant to such discovery. Hence, I find that it is a case of nil evidence against A5. FINAL FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION
42. In view of my foregoing discussions and observations, I find that there is no incriminating evidence against A1, A2, A3 or A5, so as to connect them with the charges framed against them. I would like to make it clear that while appreciating the evidence at this stage, I have simply assessed the evidence with objectivity to find connection of accused persons with the alleged charges. I have not assessed the evidence from the perspective of their credibility or reliability or from the perspective of there being evidence beyond reasonable doubt to establish guilt of above- mentioned accused persons. Hence, I find that this is the fit case, wherein statement of accused persons u/s 313 Cr.P.C., has to be dispensed with and this court should proceed u/s 232 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, all accused namely Harish Kumar (A1), Harmesh Kumar (A2), Bansi Lal (A3) and Tilak Raj (A5) are acquitted of all the charges leveled against them in this case.
Digitally signed by PULASTYA PULASTYA PRAMACHALA
PRAMACHALA Date: 2022.03.25
16:45:11 +0530
Announced in the open court (PULASTYA PRAMACHALA) today on 25.03.2022 Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-13, (This judgment contains 77 pages) RADC, New Delhi Page 77 of 77 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-13, Rouse Avenue District Court, New Delhi