Delhi District Court
S T A T E vs Mohd. Shakil @ Sanjay on 22 May, 2010
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. GURDEEP SINGH
ADDITIONAL SESSION JUDGE04, NORTHEAST DISTRICT
KARKARDOOMA COURTS : DELHI
FIR No. : 274/2006
Police Station : Shahdara, Delhi
Under Sections : 302/506 IPC
Unique ID No. : 02402R0538072006
S T A T E Versus Mohd. Shakil @ Sanjay
S/o Mohd. Hasimuddin
R/o Village Phulwari
Post Jagdishpur
District: Uttar Dinaz Pur,West Bengal
Date of Institution : 16/09/2006
Date of committal : 27/09/2006
Date of reserving judgment : 22/05/2010
Date of pronouncement : 22/05/2010
J U D G M E N T
1.Accused Mohd. Shakil @ Sanjay was sent up for trial by police of PS: Shahdara, Delhi to stand trial for offence punishable under Section 302/506 IPC on the allegations that on 21.06.2006, at about 12.20 AM, an information was received from duty officer that tenant in room at House No. 1/6950, FIR No. 274/2006 Page 1 of 40 2 Shivaji Park opened the room and found one girl unconscious. On this information, ASI Yoginder Singh alongwith the staff reached at the place of occurrence i.e House No. 1/6950 Shivaji Park Shahdara where the rented room of Surender Kumar was found open and lock along with key was found in 'kunda'. Surender Kumar was also found present. PCR van was present at the spot. In the meantime, SHO Sh. Z.H Khan also reached there. Some neighborers were also present there and in the room, a dead body of a young girl was found lying on the sofa whose legs were on the floor and rest of the body was on sofa. The dead body was covered with the cream colour bed sheet. She was wearing blue jeans pant and red Tshirt and white coloured panty under the jean, which was found torn. On inquiry, it was revealed that the deceased was the daughter of one Sardar Charanjit Singh residing at East Gorakh Park, Shahdara. He was informed through Ct. Rohtash Singh and Mr. Das Satvender to come at the spot. Sh. Charanjit Singh identified the dead body as that of his daughter Simranjit Kaur and made his statement and suspected the involvement of Mohd. Shakil @ Sanjay in the murder of his daughter. The FIR No. 274/2006 Page 2 of 40 3 Crime Team called at the spot and photographer took the photographs of the spot. The site plan was prepared. Bedsheet, chappals, lock and key were taken into possession vide seizure memo. The statement of the witnesses were recorded. The postmortem of the dead body was got conducted on 21.06.2006. After the postmortem, the dead body was handed over to her father. Accused Mohd. Shakil @ Sanjay was found absconding from the place of occurrence as well as from his rented room at Geeta Colony. During the investigation, the search of accused was made and the accused was apprehended at the instance of Surender Kumar @ Billa on 22.06.2006 from near Hanuman Mandir, G.T Road, Shahdara. He was interrogated in the presence of witness Surender @ Billa and accused confessed the murder. Accused Mohd. Shakil was arrested. He got recovered the duplicate key of the room and also got recovered papers prepared by him regarding his marriage alongwith deceased from the place of occurrence. After the completion of the investigation, chargesheet was filed against the accused. It is worthwhile to note that the cause of death was given as strangulation. However, till the FSL FIR No. 274/2006 Page 3 of 40 4 result, doctor withheld his opinion regarding the sexual assault and when doctor was examined as witness, he on the basis of report and FSL result opined that deceased had sexual intercourse before her death and gave the cause of death as manual strangulation.
2. After supplying the copies to the accused, the case was committed to the court of sessions vide order dated 27/09/2006.
3. My Ld. Predecessor vide order dated 08/01/2007, charged accused Mohd. Shakil @ Sanjay for the offence punishable U/s 302 IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. The prosecution in support of their case examined as many as twentyfive witnesses.
The material witnesses examined by the prosecution evidence are: PW3 Sh. Charan Jeet Singh, the father of the deceased who proved his statement made to the police Ex.PW3/A. He proved the identification of dead body of his daughter vide statement Ex.PW3/B and received the dead body of his daughter vide FIR No. 274/2006 Page 4 of 40 5 memo Ex.PW3/C He also proved the arrest memo of the accused Ex.PW3/D. PW6 Sh. Surender Kumar who proved the seizure memo of the bed sheet from the spot Ex.PW4/A, seizure of one pair of chappal vide memo Ex.PW4/B, seizure of lock of the room alongwith the key vide memo Ex.PW4/C. He is also the witness of arrest of the accused and recovery of bag belonging to the accused vide memo Ex.PW6/A. PW9 Das Satvinder who however, partly turned hostile towards the prosecution who had seen the dead body. PW14 Sanjeev who is the son of landlord and he had made a call to the police. The formal witnesses examined by the prosecution evidence are: PW1 H.C Santosh Kumar who recorded the DD No. 34A Ex.PW1/A and DD No. 36A Ex.PW1/B. PW2 ASI Sumer Singh was the duty officer who recorded the formal FIR Ex.PW2/A and made his endorsement on the rukka Ex.PW2/B. He also proved the kaymi entry Ex.PW2/C and deliver the copy of the FIR to the senior officers. PW5 Sh. Jitender Kumar who identified the dead body vide his statement Ex.PW5/A. PW10 FIR No. 274/2006 Page 5 of 40 6 SI Tara Dutt is the witness regarding the complaint lodged by one Sh. Ajit Singh regarding the missing of his grand daughter Ms. Simranpreet Kaur on 16.12.2005 who was recovered from West Bengal under the orders of Executive Magistrate and proved the DD Ex.PW1/A and court order Ex.PW10/B. PW11 S.I Mukesh Jain who prepared the scaled site plan Ex.PW11/A. PW12 Ct. Sanjeev who took the photographs of the spot from different angles and proved the photographs as Ex.PW12/1 to 9 and its negatives as Ex.PW12/10 to 18. PW13 S.I E.S Yadav who was the Incharge of mobile crime team who inspected the spot and prepared the inspection report Ex.PW13/A. PW15 Ct. Ramesh Chand who was posted as constable at PCR who received one message over 100 number from Sanjeev. He, however, turned hostile towards the prosecution. PW16 Dr. Parveen who was the CMO under whose supervision Dr. Deepak examined accused Shakil @ Sanjay and gave the opinion that there is no possibility to suggest that patient was unable to do sexual intercourse and proved the MLC Ex.PW16/A. PW17 Dr. Arvind Kumar who proved the postmortem report prepared by Dr. Barkha Gupta and gave the FIR No. 274/2006 Page 6 of 40 7 opinion that all the injuries were antemortem and caused by blunt force impact and cause of death in this case was opined as manual strangulation (throttling). PW18 Shardha was the owner of the house where accused was living but she completely turned hostile towards the prosecution. PW19 Rakesh Kumar who had handed over the DD entry to ASI Yoginder Singh at Shivaji Park. PW22 Dr. Adesh Kumar who examined the exhibits and proved his report as Ex.PW17/C. PW23 Dr. A.K Srivastava who also examined the exhibits and proved his report Ex. PW17/B. The witnesses of investigation examined by the prosecution evidence are: PW4 Ct. Khurshid Ahmed who reached at the spot with ASI Yogender Singh and he is the witness of seizure of bedsheet, chappal and lock and key. PW7 Ct. Rohtash who also reached at the spot and he is the witness of initial investigation who had gone to call the father of the deceased from his house. PW8 ASI Jaswant Singh who was entrusted with the dead body for conducting the postmortem and received the wooden box FIR No. 274/2006 Page 7 of 40 8 containing viscera duly sealed with the seal of hospital, postmortem report, which was handed over to the IO which was seized vide memo Ex.PW8/A. PW20 Inspector Z.H Khan is the initial Investigating officer. PW21 ASI Yogender Singh who reached at the spot initially and conduct the investigation. He proved his endorsement on the statement of Charanjit Singh Ex.PW21/A, site plan prepared at his instance Ex.PW21/B. He is also the witness of arrest of the accused, his disclosure statement, recovery of bag and duplicate key at the instance of accused. PW24 H.C Arvind Kumar who is the witness of arrest of the accused and recovery at the instance of accused. He got conducted the medical examination of the accused and had received the blood sample and semen sample from the doctor which was seized by the IO vide memo Ex.PW24/A. PW25 Inspector Hira Lal Saharan is the investigating officer. He proved the request for postmortem form Ex.PW 25/A, brief facts Ex.PW25/B, form 23.3 Ex.PW25/C. He is also the witness of arrest of the accused and recovery at his instance. FIR No. 274/2006 Page 8 of 40 9
5. After conclusion of Prosecution Evidence, Statement of accused was recorded U/s 313 Cr.PC wherein he denied the prosecution evidence and claimed innocence. Accused choose not to lead any defence evidence. In his statement, he stated that Simranjeet has gone with him with her free will as she was in love with him. He admitted that she was recovered by the police and brought by her father to Delhi. He stated that he did not make any call to the father of the deceased. He was afraid of him and he was not even going to the area where he was living. He stated that he was arrested from Vijay Park at Geeta Colony when he was waiting for Simranjeet (now deceased) to meet her. She had met him on the previous day at 4.30 PM and promised him to meet at Vijay Park on that day. He stated that the bag belongs to him was recovered from Geeta Colony where he was living with his friend Parvez. He further stated that he had not seen the house of Surender nor anything was recovered at his instance. He stated that the police officials had got the duplicate key made from Bada Bazar Shahdara in his presence after his arrest. He further stated that he has ever worked with Surender. However, he has worked with Dass FIR No. 274/2006 Page 9 of 40 10 Sikander at his juice shop for fourfive years before he went to Bengal. He further stated that the father of the deceased was not accepting him as his daughter had ran away with him, therefore, he has falsely deposed against him. He does not know as to why Surender has deposed against him. He had acquaintance with Surender through Das Sikander. He further stated that the deceased was in love with him and his father was not accepting the same and therefore out of the anger, he has raised suspicion against him. He has been arrested on the basis of suspicion and police has falsely implicated by him by planting key.
6. I have heard Sh. Virender Singh, Ld. Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State and Sh. K.K Sharma, Advocate, Amicus Curiae for the accused. I have also gone through the record.
7. PW6 Sh. Surender Kumar testified that he was residing in the house of Mahipal Singh as tenant one year prior to the incident. He was running his juice shop in Rohtash Nagar. He stated that Shakil @ Sanjay used to work at his juice shop. Shakil had visited once or twice at his house also. He stated that he was FIR No. 274/2006 Page 10 of 40 11 residing alone in the said house since his wife Geeta alongwith his daughter used to reside separately. He stated that earlier, Shakil @ Sanjay was working at the shop of his jeeja Dass Sikander at Babarpur Road. He stated that on 20.06.2006, Sanjay had told him that he has to go to take money from someone and that he will return after one hour. But on 20.06.2006, Sanjay did not turn up to his shop. After closing his shop, he reached his house in the night and when he opened his room and switched on the light, he saw one dead body of a girl was lying on a sofa lying in the room. He became perplexed. After some time, he called some neighborers including his landlord Mahipal and he had informed the police. Police came at the house. Prior to the incident that girl had visited his shop twice or thrice to take juice and Sanjay knew her. He stated that father of the girl had identified the deceased as his daughter namely Simranjit Kaur. He does not know whether any proceedings were conducted by the police at the spot as he was outside the room due to fear. FIR No. 274/2006 Page 11 of 40 12
8. PW3 Shri Charanjeet Singh i.e the father of the deceased testified that Simranjeet Kaur (now deceased) who was aged about 17 years was his daughter. On 13.12.2005, Simranjeet Kaur was abducted by Shakil @ Sanjay regarding which report was lodged by his father on 16.12.2005. Thereafter, a call was received from West Bengal police and he alongwith police officials went to West Bengal where the custody of his daughter was taken by the police through court and he obtained her custody. He brought back his daughter to Delhi. He stated that on 20.06.2006, at about 8.15 PM, she again left the house and she did not turn up thereafter. He stated that on the same night, at about 10.15 PM, a phone call was received on his mobile No. 9818049419. Call was made by Shakil @ Sanjay and he extended threat to him to handover his daughter to him, otherwise, he would destroy his life and would blast his house with bomb. He challenged him on phone to have a talk face to face and he replied in affirmative by saying that in case, it is required, he would face him any time. He stated that at 12.45 AM, midnight of 20/21.06.2006, Ct. Rohtash and Satvinder came to his house and knocked the door of his house. He FIR No. 274/2006 Page 12 of 40 13 opened the door and they made inquiry from him about his daughter. He told them that his daughter had left the house at 8.15 PM and did not turnup thereafter. They had informed him that dead body of a girl was found in house No. 1/6950, Shivaji Park and they requested him to accompany them. He accompanied them and went inside the house and he saw that the dead body was of his daughter which was lying in a room on the sofa. He went to the police station where his statement was recorded by the police which is Ex.PW3/A.
9. In his crossexamination, PW3 Sh. Charanjeet Singh has stated that he could not produce any document to prove that he had taken the custody of his daughter from West Bengal. and stated that the copy of the order is attached with judicial file. He admitted that his daughter was not under his control. He denied the suggestion that the daughter had gone with the accused of her own free will and wish and was never abducted by accused.
10. PW10 S.I Tara Dutt testified that on 16.12.2005, he was posted as ASI at PS Shahdara. On that day, DD No. 42B was got lodged by Sh. Ajit Singh, S/o Sardar Ghana regarding FIR No. 274/2006 Page 13 of 40 14 missing of his granddaughter Ms. Simranpreet Kaur, D/o Charanjit Singh. The said DD which is Ex.PW1/A was marked to him for inquiry. He stated that he flashed the message to all SSPs of Indian Territory, all SHOs of Delhi and also fleshed the photograph of Simran Preet Kaur on Doordarshan channel. He stated that on 04.01.2006, a wireless message was received by SHO Shahdara from PP: Dalhola, District Uttar Dinaz Pur, West Bengal regarding recovery of girl Simran Preet Kaur. The said wireless message on record is Ex.PW10/A. Thereafter, he informed the father of Simran Preet Kaur namely Sh. Charan Jeet Singh, who came to the police station. Thereafter, as per the direction of senior officer, he alongwith sardar Charan Jeet Singh, father of Simran Preet Kaur went to Dalhola, District Uttar Dinaz Pur, West Bengal. On reaching there, he made application to the incharge of police post Dalkhola regarding his arrival alongwith the father of the prosecutrix. Thereafter, from PP Dalkhola, he alongwith Charanjet Singh went to the court of Executive Magistrate Islampur, where the prosecutrix had to be produced. Thereafter, court released the prosecutrix Ms. Simran Preet Kaur to her father vide order Ex.PW10/B. FIR No. 274/2006 Page 14 of 40 15 Thereafter, they all came back to Delhi. On 21.06.2006, he handed over all the documents to the IO of the case.
11. The missing report, however, is not proved in accordance with Law and it is only a true copy. However, the order passed by Executive Magistrate has been proved, whereby, he had released the girl to her father.
12. One bag was also recovered from the possession of accused.
The question regarding the place from where it was recovered would be seen subsequently. At this stage, it is only seen that the said bag found containing one ring, one I card, one photograph of the accused, few visiting cards some documents i.e photocopy of Notary Certificate of marriage between Mohd. Shakil and Simranjeet, marriage agreement consisting of three papers which are collectively Ex.P5 which were seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW6/A. The same was put to the accused in his statement U/s 313 Cr.P.C, wherein, accused admitted that Simranjeet had gone with him and he also admitted that she was recovered by the police and brought back by her father to Delhi. He also admitted that bag was recovered from his FIR No. 274/2006 Page 15 of 40 16 possession but disputed the place. Therefore, from these documents and from the testimony of the father of the deceased, it is proved on record that accused Mohd. Sakil knew Simraj Jeet Kaur and she had eloped with him on 13.12.2005 and was brought back from West Bengal and he was having the documents with him purporting to be the marriage documents between him and the deceased.
13. Now coming to the next circumstance regarding the arrest of the accused and recovery effected from him.
14. PW3 Shri Charanjeet Singh testified that accused was arrested on 22.06.2006 in his presence vide memo Ex.PW3/D. He stated that he had suspicion on the accused for causing death of his daughter. The document Ex.PW3/D is the arrest memo of accused which bears the signatures of Sh. Charanjeet Singh and the place of arrest is shown as Hanuman Temple, G.T Road, Babarpur Road, Shahdara and the date and time of his arrest is shown as 22.06.2006 at 8 AM.
15. PW3 Sh. Charanjeet Singh in his crossexamination has stated that accused Shakil was arrested from Geeta Colony at about FIR No. 274/2006 Page 16 of 40 17 8.00 AM on 22.06.2006. He stated that he had signed Ex.PW3/D in the police station. He stated that Surender was not with him when he put his signatures on Ex.PW3/D. Accused was arrested from one park i.e Ramleela Ground in Geeta Colony.
16. PW6 Sh. Surender Kumar testified that on 22.06.2006, at about 7.00 or 7.30 AM, he was called by the Investigation Officer at PS to accompany him in search of accused. He alongwith the police party reached Geeta Colony and inquiries were made by the Investigating Officer from may people after disclosing physical description of the accused but nothing was revealed. Thereafter, police party reached Babarpur Road, Shahdara and search was effected on Babarpur Road, old bus stand and bus terminal and number of people were asked about the accused by disclosing his physical features but no clue was detected. After some time, when he and police party reached near Hanuman Mandir, G.T Road, he noticed the accused standing at a beetle shop. He pointed out towards the accused and he was apprehended by the police. At that time, he told the FIR No. 274/2006 Page 17 of 40 18 police party that he is the same person who was working at his juice shop and used to stay at his room on some occasions and that a bag and belongings of the accused were lying in his room. Thereafter, they alongwith the accused came to the room and on the pointing out of the accused, accused produced one bag from that room before the investigating officer and that bag was checked and was found containing some documents, photo, visiting cards etc. Bag alongwith documents was seized by the police after converting the same in sealed parcel, vide memo Ex.PW6/A.
17. In his crossexamination, PW6 Surender Kumar stated that he could not tell the specific dates as to when deceased came to his shop. He voluntarily stated that she had come to his shop a day or two prior to the incident. He admitted that he had not seen the deceased with the accused on 20.06.2006. He stated that he was not aware as to where accused had gone on that day, form his shop. He stated that the room was searched by the police when dead body was removed. He stated that Bag Ex.P6 was lying there at that time also. He did not point out towards the FIR No. 274/2006 Page 18 of 40 19 bag during that search to the police. He stated that on 21.06.2006, first of all they went to Geeta Colony area and effected the search of the accused for about 30 minutes. He stated that on 21.06.2006, at 5.30 PM, or so, accused had telephoned him and had confessed the murder of Simran by him and also asked him whether he is facing any problem or not due to such act of the accused. This portion was suggested to him that he has introduced this portion subsequently, and was confronted with this. This portion was improvement made by the witnesses subsequently. He stated that he does not know whether beetle shop owner was made a witness to the arrest of the accused or not. He stated that none except him was there from the public in the police party. Police officers stayed at the spot of arrest for about 57 minutes. He stated that no writing work was done by the police at the place of arrest of accused. From the place of arrest, accused was brought to the spot. He stated that his wife is living separately from him due to some dispute between them. He denied the suggestion that the dispute was because of the deceased Simrajeet. He further denied the suggestion that he had developed illicit relations FIR No. 274/2006 Page 19 of 40 20 with the deceased or that she had been residing with him or that when deceased started putting pressure upon him. He stated that he simply eliminated her falsely made accusation against accused. He denied the suggestion that no phone call was made by the accused to him on 21.06.2006.
18. As per the statement of PW6 Sh. Surender Kumar, none was present with the police party when accused was arrested. Whereas, PW3 Sh. Charanjit Singh, father of the deceased, has stated that accused was arrested in his presence. The place of arrest is also given differently by both the witnesses. Arrest memo surprisingly finds signatures of father of the deceased and personal search memo does not find the signatures of father of the deceased. The column for witness No. 2 is left blank and witness No. 3 is shown as one H.C Arvind. PW6 Sh. Surender Kumar is the witness of none of these two memos.
19. Now coming to the testimony of the police witnesses in this respect. PW21 ASI Yogender Singh testified that on 22.06.2006 at about 4.30 AM the occupant of the room Surender came to the police station as instructed by IO. FIR No. 274/2006 Page 20 of 40 21 Thereafter, he alongwith IO, Surender and HC Arvind went to the residence of the accused at Geeta Colony near Sarojini Naidu Park. IO made enquiries from several persons after disclosing the facts and the description of the accused. The residents of the locality have confirmed the identify of the accused, but could not tell the house number where he lives. Thereafter, they returned to Babarpur Road where public persons had disclosed regarding the presence of the accused in that area. During the search Surender pointed towards the accused as Sanjay alias Shakil who was standing in the front of closed pan shop and he also disclosed that he had worked in his juice shop for 810 days and also slept in his room where the dead body was found one one or two days. He was apprehended with the help of HC Arvind. Inspector had interrogated him and after finding sufficient evidence arrested him in this case vide arrest memo Ex PW3/D and personal search was conducted vide memo Ex PW3/DA. In the meantime, father of the deceased Sh. Charanjeet also reached at the place of arrest. Thereafter, accused confessed the crime and the IO recorded the disclosure statement Ex PW6/DB. Thereafter, he pointed FIR No. 274/2006 Page 21 of 40 22 out the place of occurrence vide memo Ex PW 6/DD. He also disclosed about the bag lying in the room as belonging to him. The bag was taken into possession by IO.
20. In his crossexamination, PW21 ASI Yogender Singh has stated that he does not remember whether public witness was joined in the disclosure statement or not. He stated that the signatures of Charan Jeet Singh, the father of the deceased was obtained on the arrest memo. The accused was arrested from GT Road, railway crossing, near Hanuman Mandir in front of kiosk shop.
21. PW24 H.C Arvind Kumar similarly corroborated regarding the arrest of the accused from in front of kiosk shop (pan) and at that time, the pan shop was closed. Accused made his disclosure statement and got recovered one bag of red and while colour having the chain of cloth containing the articles belonging to the accused from the place of occurrence. In his crossexamination, PW24 H.C Arvind Kumar has stated that they left the police station about 4:15PM (it appears to be typographical error, as it should be 4:15 AM, as subsequent FIR No. 274/2006 Page 22 of 40 23 crossexamination shows the time was AM and not PM). He stated that they reached Geeta Colony after 1015 minutes. IO had asked so many public person about the accused at 17 Block, Geeta Colony, but I could not tell the number of person from whom the IO had asked. He stated that one of them had told that the person like the description disclosed by the IO is seen in the area of Geeta Colony but he could not tell the name of that person. He also could not tell the block number of Geeta colony in which they have inquired the public persons about the accused. He stated that they remained in the area of Geeta Colony up to 7.00 AM. No police official was called from PS Geeta Colony to join them. He stated that they reached at Babar pur at about 7.15AM. They searched the accused at Babarpur Road, Shivaji Park, Shahdara GT Road, Railway Road. They searched him up to about 7.45AM. He could not tell the name of the public persons from whom IO had inquired about the accused at Babarpur Road, Shivaji Park, Shahdara GT Road, Railway Road. They reached near the Hanuman Mandir at about 7.50 AM from where accused was arrested. He admitted that public persons were coming and FIR No. 274/2006 Page 23 of 40 24 going there at that time. IO had tried to join the public persons at the time of arrest of the accused in the investigation but none agreed. He denied the suggestion that accused Shakil was arrested from Geeta Colony Vijay Park while he was sitting there.
22. PW25 Inspector Hira Lal Saharan who is the investigating officer similarly testified that on 22.06.2006, at about 4.30 AM, Surender came at the Police station. He alongwith Surender, ASI Yogender, H.C Arvind left the police station in search of the accused Shakil. They reached Geeta Colony, 17 Block from where, the telephonic call was made to the father of the deceased. They inquired from public persons about the accused after disclosing his description but no specific address could be ascertained. They returned back at the Babarpur road at about 8 AM. Surender pointed out towards accused Shakil who was standing near a pan shop near Hanuman Mandir at Babarpur road. Accused Shakil was apprehended by them. He interrogated him who admitted his guilt. He arrested accused Shakil vide arrest memo Ex.PW3/D and his personal search FIR No. 274/2006 Page 24 of 40 25 was conducted vide memo Ex.PW3/DA. He also made his disclosure statement Ex.PW6/DB. He stated that accused led the police party at the place of occurrence i.e House No. 1/6950, Shivaji Park, Shahdara and he picked up a bag which was lying at the corner of the room and produced the same to him. The bag was found containing marriage certificate of Mohd. Shakil and Simran jeet Kaur dated 21.12.2005, court of Islampur West Bengal, Congress Sewa Dal ID card of the accused, black and white passport size photograph of accused Shakil alongwith some visiting cards and one metallic ring engraved Sanjay, Simran on it. All the items were kept in an envelope and kept the same in a bag bearing the label of "Sheesh Mahal Chai" . The bag was also containing some clothes of the accused. He seized the above said items, clothes and bag vide seizure memo Ex.PW6/A. Accused also pointed out the place of occurrence vide memo Ex.PW6/DD.
23. In his crossexamination, PW25 Inspector Hira Lal Saharan stated that he could not tell the names and addresses of the person from whom he had made inquiries at 17 Block Geeta FIR No. 274/2006 Page 25 of 40 26 Colony. He does not remember whether he recorded the names of those persons in his case diary. He denied the suggestion that he has not inquired any public person at 17 Block, Geeta Colony regarding accused Shakil. He stated that he did not make any public witness regarding the arrest of the accused at Babarpur road. He does not know the name of the owner of the 'pan shop'. He does not know about the presence of board displayed on the pan shop but the said shop is near Hanuman Temple, Babarpur road. He stated that he asked four five public persons to join the investigation but none agreed to join the same. He did not call 'pujari' or any other person from the nearby temple. He denied the suggestion that accused had not made any confessional statement.
24. Therefore, there are material inconsistencies in the testimony of the public witnesses and the police officials. The father of the deceased was not the witness of arrest. However, the arrest memo finds his signatures. Whereas independent public witness Surender was the witness of arrest of the accused but the arrest memo and personal search memo does not bears the FIR No. 274/2006 Page 26 of 40 27 signatures of Surender, which creates serious doubt about the version given by him that he was present, at the time of arrest of the accused. There is also inconsistency between the testimony of the police witnesses regarding the time when they started from the police station and the area which they have visited before the arrest of the accused. Sh. Charanjeet Singh i.e the father of the deceased has stated that accused was arrested in his presence from Shastri Park, Ramleela Ground. The accused in his statement U/s 313 Cr.P.C had stated that he was arrested from Vijay Park at Geeta Colony when he was waiting for Simran to meet her as she had made promise to meet him. Therefore, the version of the prosecution that he was arrested in front of beetle shop is belied by their own witness i.e father of the deceased and by their own document that PW Surender joined the investigation with them and pointed towards the accused who was arrested at his instance.
25. Now coming to the important aspect of recovery of bag at the instance of the accused. The bag was lying in the same room from where the dead body was recovered as per the prosecution FIR No. 274/2006 Page 27 of 40 28 version. PW6 Surender Kumar in his crossexamination has categorically stated that the room was searched by the police when dead body was removed. Bag Ex.P6 was lying there at that time also. He stated that he did not point out the bag during the search made by the police. The conduct of this witness in unnatural as when he had seen the bag in the room which does not belongs to him but he did not point out to the police that this bag does not belongs to him and belongs to someone else. In his crossexamination, he also tried to make improvement by saying that on 21.06.2006, at about 5.30 PM, accused had telephoned him and had confessed his guilt. Therefore, the version of the prosecution that bag was recovered at the instance of the accused is firstly inadmissible U/s 27 of Indian Evidence Act as bag was already lying there and was within the knowledge of PW6 Surender and the police who had made thorough search of the room. Secondly, this is highly improbable that one bag is found lying in the same room, where the dead body was found and no search of the bag was made by the police. Moreover, when the tenant himself was present and knew that this bag does not belongs to him. Therefore, the FIR No. 274/2006 Page 28 of 40 29 plantation of the bag at the place of occurrence cannot be ruled out to show the presence of the accused at the spot. Further PW6 Sh. Surender in his examinationinchief has stated that when the accused was arrested, he told the police that bag and belongings of the accused were lying in his room. Meaning thereby that same is well within the knowledge of PW6 Surender that bag and belongings of the accused were lying in his room but for the reason best known to him he had not disclosed the same to the police earlier.
26. Now coming to the other aspect of the matter i.e the recovery of duplicate key at the instance of the accused. PW6 Sh. Surender Kumar testified that when he reached at his house and opened the room, he saw one dead body of a girl was lying on a sofa and lock of the room with key was seized by the police. PW4 Ct. Khurshid Ahmed testified that the door of the room was lying opened when they reached there. PW13 S.I E.S Yadav who was the Incharge of Mobile Crime Team in his cross examination stated that door of the room was opened and the main door of the house was also opened when he reached there. FIR No. 274/2006 Page 29 of 40 30 PW14 Sanjeev stated that at about 11.30 PM, he and his father were present in the house and they heard the voice of Surender and on hearing the same, they came at the ground floor from first floor and they found that dead body of man was lying on a sofa whose name was came to know as Simrajit Kumar from Surender. PW20 Inspector Z.H Khan, testified that the lock was opened and hanging on the door with key. The door was closed and they got the door opened. PW21 ASI Yogender Singh testified that the door of the room was opened. On one side of the plank of door, one lock was lying in the latch with key. PW25 Inspector Hiral Lal Saharan testified that he found one dead body of one female was lying on the sofa covered with the bed sheet in the room and the face of the dead body was visible and both the legs of the dead body were touching the floor. He also seized the open lock with its key from the latch of the door vide seizure memo Ex.PW4/C. Therefore, as to what were the circumstances when the police party reached are also inconsistent. Some claims that door was closed and it was got opened, whereas, some claims that door opened in which lock and key was lying in the 'kundi' but one fact emerges from FIR No. 274/2006 Page 30 of 40 31 the record that lock was opened by PW6 Surender from his own key and he had seen the dead body. The dead body, as per the prosecution version, was unidentified. As per PW4 Ct. Khurshid, Surender was present outside the house. Thereafter, one Das Satvinder came and met the IO and told the IO that lady was Simran Jeet Kaur. Whereas, surprisingly first informant to the police i.e PW14 Sanjeev stated that when they came after hearing the voice of Surender, they saw one dead body lying whose name they came to know from Surender. Meaning thereby that Surender had already knew the name of the deceased and deceased was acquainted with him. Even in his crossexamination, he claims that deceased used to come to his juice shop and accused had introduced her as his wife. Therefore, it is apparent that either part of his testimony is false. One that he knew Simranjeet Kaur when he saw the dead body who deliberately did not disclose the same to the police and one that Dass Satvinder came and identified the dead body or that accused Shakil was working with him on his juice shop where deceased used to come to meet him and to drink juice. Therefore, the testimony of this cannot be relied upon with FIR No. 274/2006 Page 31 of 40 32 respect to the fact that accused was working at his juice shop few days prior to the incident. Further, PW9 Das Satvinder who is the relative of Surinder does not testified at all that at the time of incident, accused was working with Surender. He had stated that Simran used to come to his shop for taking juice during the period the accused was employed with him. He denied the suggestion that there was a love affair between the accused Shakil and deceased Simran. He stated that he does not know whether accused was living as a tenant in House No. 1/6950 where the dead body of Simran was found. Therefore, the testimony of Surender cannot be relied upon.
27. Now coming to the last aspect of the matter. PW21 ASI Yogender Singh testified that accused in his disclosure statement has disclosed that he had made a duplicate key of the room of Surender Kumar and whenever he was not present in the room, he used to call Simran in the room and open the room with the help of duplicate key and where he used to enjoy with her and he had kept the said key at his residence. Thereafter, accused led them to house No. 37, Gali No.4 Block FIR No. 274/2006 Page 32 of 40 33 No. 17, Sarojini Naidu Park, Geeta Colony and produced one key lying in the room on a tand which was seized vide Memo Ex. PW6/DA. PW24 HC Arvind Kumar similarly deposed regarding the recovery of duplicate key at the instance of the accused from Geeta Colony. PW25 Inspector Hira Lal also deposed regarding the disclosure statement of the accused and in pursuance of the disclosure statement, recovery of the duplicate key from the tand of the room. He in his cross examination has stated that the disclosure statement of the accused was not written by the accused but the same was written in his own handwriting. He denied the suggestion that accused did not make any disclosure statement. He denied the suggestion that nothing was recovered at the instance of the accused. PW 24 HC Arvind Kumar in his crossexamination stated that they reached at the rented house of accused at Geeta Colony at about 10.30 AM. He, however, could not tell the measurement of the house. There were twothree rooms in the house. He stated that he does not remember whether it was single storey or double storey house. He does not know whether the landlord was resided in the same house or not. He stated FIR No. 274/2006 Page 33 of 40 34 that the main door of the house was lying opened when they reached there. He stated that the house was located in the residential area. IO had made inquiry from the neighborers about the accused. He does not know the name of the owner of the adjoining houses. The room of the accused was near the main door of the house. IO had opened the kundi of the room of the accused. He stated that the house hold articles were lying in the room of the accused and there was not cot in the room. He could not say whether the tand was 1 ft. long, 3 ft. long, 5 ft. long or 8 ft. long. He again stated that it was 8 ft. long and it was 2 ½ ft. wide. He stated that they had searched for the key maker at railway road, Babarpur Road, in the Shahdara area but the key maker could not be traced. He stated the he does not remember whether IO had prepared the site plan of the place of recovery of key from tand. No one from the neighborhood agreed to join the investigation. On the other hand, IO stated that he could not tell the area of the house at Geeta Colony where accused was accused was residing. He also could not tell as to how many rooms were built at that house. He made inquires from landlady of accused Sharda after 2 ½ months FIR No. 274/2006 Page 34 of 40 35 formally and recorded her statement. Landlady Sharda was not made the witness of seizure of lock and key. He stated that no public person was agreed to become the witness of the seizure of lock and key despite his pursuance. He does not remember the names of the persons residing nearby. He stated that the length of tand was 89 feet and its depth was 1½ feet. He could not tell the nature of material used to make the tand. He does not remember the colour of the white wash. He stated that he does not remember whether there was any wooden work on the tand or not. The key was produced by the accused after picking the same from the tand but he does not remember the direction from which the key was picked up by the accused from the tand. He did not prepare the site plan of the place from where the alleged recovery was effected.
28. The witnesses claimed that they had visited the place and they are the witnesses of recovery. However, they do not know as to what is the area of the house. PW 24 HC Arvind Kumar claims that there were 2/3 rooms. PW 25 IO could not tell as to how many rooms were built at that house. They do not know who FIR No. 274/2006 Page 35 of 40 36 was the neighbourers. No public witness was joined. Even as per the prosecution version, recovery of bag was done at 10 AM and recovery of key was effected at 10.30AM. At the time of recovery of bag, PW Surender was with the police and at the time of arrest of the accused, father of the deceased was present. It was at 8 AM and despite the presence of two public witnesses with them. As per the prosecution, all the recoveries were within two hours thereafter, but they were not joined as witnesses. From the crossexamination of these witnesses, it can only be inferred that they had never visited the alleged place from where allegedly duplicate key was recovered. Recoveries are highly doubtful. Even the statement of PW Sharda was recorded after 2 ½ months after alleged recovery which also creates doubt. On the other hand, PW Sharda herself stated that she had not seen the accused living in her house. Therefore, the version of the prosecution regarding the recovery of the key is doubtful and cannot be believed.
29. As per the prosecution, accused was working at the shop of Surender. PW25 IO in his crossexamination stated that he had FIR No. 274/2006 Page 36 of 40 37 inquired from juice shop of Surender and found that accused was working at his juice shop. The statement of no other public witness was recorded in this regard. He does not remember the names of any other public person from whom he made inquiries. He does not remember the exact area of the juice shop of Surender. He does not know the names of the shops or shopkeepers situated nearby the shop of Surender. Therefore, the version regarding the factum of accused working at the shop of Surender is also doubtful.
30. Now coming to the statement of father of the deceased that accused had made a telephonic call and extended threat to him to handover his daughter to him, otherwise, he would destroy his life and would blast his house with bomb. IO in his cross examination, stated that he had not made any inquiry from PCO from where the said telephonic call made. Even believing this version will only show that on 20.06.2006, the deceased was not with the accused and therefore, he was searching for the deceased. The reply to the incriminating circumstance is also believable that he he did not make any call to the father of the FIR No. 274/2006 Page 37 of 40 38 deceased and afraid of him and was not going to the area where he was living. Accused stated that deceased had met him on the previous date and had promised him to meet him on the next day. He was waiting in the park from where he was arrested would only show that he was infact waiting for the deceased but the deceased was not alive by then.
31. The case is based on circumstantial evidence and law on the subject is well settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of U.P. Vs. Satish, AIR 2005 Supreme Court 1000. Observed with approval the law laid down in Padala Veera Reddy Vs. State of A. P. (AIR 1990 SC 79) it was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that when a case rests upon circumstantial evidence, such evidence must satisfy the following tests :
a) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established ;
FIR No. 274/2006 Page 38 of 40 39
b) those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused;
c) the circumstance, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else;
and
d) the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence.
32. The prosecution in this case could prove the following instances: (1) That the deceased had eloped with the accused on 13.12.2005 and was brought back from West Bengal by her father, (2) Further, the bag of the accused containing documents pertaining to the marriage between the deceased and accused FIR No. 274/2006 Page 39 of 40 40 and one ring on which their names were written. However, it could not be proved that the bag was recovered from the place where the dead body was found. These two circumstances does not in any manner incriminate the accused. There is no evidence in which the accused was last seen with the deceased Simranjeet Kaur. There is no evidence on record of any motive of accused to commit the murder of the girl and chain of circumstances is not only incomplete but highly inadequate to point towards the accused as the person who is responsible for the murder of the Simranjeet Kaur (deceased).
33. Accordingly, as per the discussion above, I am of the opinion that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove their case against accused Mohd. Shakil @ Sanjay. Accused Mohd. Shakil @ Sanjay is acquitted from the charges against him. Accused Mohd. Shakil @ Sanjay be released from J/C forthwith, if not required in any other case. File be consigned to record room. Announced in the open court Today i.e. on 22.05.2010 GURDEEP SINGH ASJ04/KKD/22.05.2010 FIR No. 274/2006 Page 40 of 40