Delhi District Court
State vs Shivam on 11 February, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. GEETANJALI
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE (FTC)- 03; SOUTH EAST
DISTRICT SAKET COURTS: DELHI
S.C. NO. 595/2018
FIR NO. 542/2018
PS JAITPUR
U/S. 302/365/392/201/120B/411/ 34 IPC
CNR : DLSE01-010248-2018
THE STATE
VERSUS
1. SHIVAM
S/O SH. BHOORE SINGH @ BHURI SINGH
R/O H. NO. A-427, J. J. COLONY,
MADANPUR KHADAR, NEW DELHI
2. SUMIT
S/O SH. NEM SINGH
R/O H. NO. 1532, RAJ NAGAR PHASE-III,
J. J. COLONY, MADANPUR KHADAR, NEW DELHI
3. HEERA LAL @ AJAY
S/O SH. ISHWARI PRASAD
R/O H. NO. 1535, RAJ NAGAR PHASE-III,
J. J. COLONY, MADANPUR KHADAR, NEW DELHI
4. MUKEEM @ MUKIM KHAN
S/O SH. ALI SHER
R/O H. NO. C/68, GALI NO. 14,
SAMOSA CHOWK, KACCHI COLONY,
SC No. 595/2018 FIR No. 542/2018, PS. Jaitpur State Vs. Shivam & Ors Page no. 1 of 75
Digitally
signed by
GEETANJALI
GEETANJALI Date:
2025.02.11
17:28:52
+0530
MADANPUR KHADAR, NEW DELHI.
.....ACCUSED PERSONS.
Date of Institution : 14.12.2018
Order reserved on : 04.02.2025
Order delivered on : 11.02.2025
JUDGMENT
1. The accused persons namely Shivam, Sumit, Heera Lal and Mukeem @ Mukim Khan are facing trial for the offence U/s. 365/392/302/201/120-B/34 IPC and additional charge u/s 411 IPC has been framed against accused Heera Lal in the present case.
BRIEF FACTS
2. The case of prosecution is that on 03.09.2018 on receipt of DD no. 51-A regarding missing of one boy, ASI Kumher Singh along with Ct. Mukesh Kumar reached at the spot i.e. A-1/233, J.J. Colony, Madan Pur Khadar where they met complainant Rama Shankar and he told that his elder son namely Deepak who went to deposit money in the bank, is missing from last two and half days. The statement of the complainant was recorded wherein he stated that " on 03.09.2018 in between 2.00- 2.30 p.m. his elder son namely Deepak was going to bank for depositing sum of around Rs.4,00,000/- to Rs.4,50,000/- and in the meanwhile he received a phone call from a boy namely Shivam and accordingly Deepak went along with him in the car; that there were 2 -3 more boys in the car and his son Deepak did not return home even after considerable time; that he failed to trace out his son and accordingly he called 100 number". He expressed his suspicion on Shivam and his associates. On the basis of said statement, ASI SC No. 595/2018 FIR No. 542/2018, PS. Jaitpur State Vs. Shivam & Ors Page no. 2 of 75 Digitally signed by GEETANJALI GEETANJALI Date:
2025.02.11 17:29:02 +0530 Kumher prepared rukka and got the FIR registered u/s. 365/34 IPC. 2.1. During course of investigation ASI Kumher Singh arrested accused Shivam, Sumit and Heera Lal who made their respective disclosures statements mentioning therein that they had taken Deepak S/o Sh. Rama Shankar in the car of accused Mukeem on the pretext of showing movie and strangulated him on the way with the help of a rope and had thrown his dead body in a canal near kasba Kher, District Aligarh and had robbed the amount of Rs.4,50,000/- from the deceased and gave his mobile phone to their associate namely Kishan for destruction. Accordingly, charge u/s. 302/392/120-B IPC was added in the FIR and investigation was handed over to the officer of Inspector rank.
2.2. On 04.09.2018 IO/ Inspector Sanjay Singh along with SI Rajeev, SI Prateek, SI Arvind, HC Raghuraj and other team members including the complainant Sh. Rama Shankar proceeded to the kasba Kher near the canal, District Aligarh where dead body of deceased Deepak was dumped. The dead body of Deepak was recovered below the Godali flyover near the canal within the bushes, which was duly identified by the father of the deceased namely Sh. Rama Shankar.
One blue nylon rope was found lying at some distance from the dead body. The Crime team members and the private photographer Budh Ram also reached at the spot and the Crime team inspected the spot from where the dead body of the deceased and the rope used in commission of the offence were recovered. 2.3. During further course of investigation on 05.09.2018, IO/ Inspector Sanjay Sinha along with SI Rajiv Kumar, SI Arvind Kumar, Digitally signed by SC No. 595/2018 FIR No. 542/2018, PS. Jaitpur State Vs. Shivam & Ors Page no. 3 ofGEETANJALI 75 GEETANJALI Date:
2025.02.11 17:29:09 +0530 HC Rajender Singh, Ct. Mukesh Jha and complainant Rama Shankar took the accused persons namely Shivam, Sumit and Heera Lal @ Ajay on police custody remand to the house of accused Heera Lal i.e. house no. 1535, Raj Nagar, Phase-III, Madanpur Khadar, New Delhi, from where accused Heera Lal @ Ajay got recovered red and black coloured bag containing currency notes totaling Rs.4,22,150/- on the identification of complainant Rama Shankar. The cash was seized by the IO Inspector Sanjay Sinha.
2.4. During the course of further investigation on 05.09.2018, IO/ Inspector Sanjay Sinha along with complainant and accused persons namely Shivam, Sumit and Heera Lal @ Ajay went in search of other co-accused Mukeem to his house situated at C-68, gali no. 14, Samosa Chowk, Madanpur Khadar, New Delhi and he was arrested from his house on the identification of complainant and other accused persons. Co-accused Mukeem disclosed that deceased Deepak abused him and threatened him while he was drunk about 3-4 days back and accordingly he along with other accused persons made a plan to teach a lesson to him; that acting under that plan accused Shivam called him at his house and he went there in his car make Maruti Zen bearing registration no. DL-4CR-7287 and thereafter they went to the house of accused Sumit where they met accused Heera Lal and they made a plan to kill deceased Deepak at the house of accused Heera Lal under the pretext of showing movie. They took the deceased Deepak in the said car and strangulated him on the way under the plan and disposed off his body in a canal near kasba Kher, District Aligarh. Thereafter co-accused JCL Kishan was arrested on the identification of other SC No. 595/2018 FIR No. 542/2018, PS. Jaitpur State Vs. Shivam & Ors Page no. 4 of 75 Digitally signed by GEETANJALI GEETANJALI Date:
2025.02.11 17:29:15 +0530 accused persons who got recovered auto bearing no. DL-1RW-4316 outside his house and mobile phone of the deceased from the bushes in front of Agra canal.
2.5. During the course of further investigation on 05.09.2018, the postmortem on the body of deceased was got conducted at the AIIMS hospital and thereafter body was handed over to his family for his last rites. On the suspicion of the witness regarding their involvement in the crime, accused Shivam, Sumit, Heera Lal @ Ajay and Mukeem were arrested for commission of the crime. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed against all the accused persons for the offence u/s. 365/392/302/120-B/34 IPC.
3. On the basis of charge-sheet so submitted before Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate, cognizance of offence was taken by the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate and after compliance with the provisions of Section 207 Cr.PC, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions and was assigned to this Court.
CHARGE
4. After hearing arguments on point of charge and finding a prima facie case against accused persons, requisite charges u/s.
365/302/392/120-B/34 IPC was framed against all the accused persons and additional charge u/s. 411 IPC was framed against accused Heera Lal to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
5. In support of its case, the prosecution has examined as Digitally many as thirty three witnesses. signed by GEETANJALI GEETANJALI Date:
2025.02.11 17:29:20 +0530 SC No. 595/2018 FIR No. 542/2018, PS. Jaitpur State Vs. Shivam & Ors Page no. 5 of 75 5.1. PW-1 Shri Rama Shankar is the father of deceased. His testimony in detail shall be discussed in the later part of judgment. 5.2. PW-2 HC Budhi Ram has deposed that "on 06.09.2018, he joined the investigation of present case along with IO Inspector Sanjay Sinha, Ct. Anil, Ct. Naresh, Ct. Pawan, Ct. Karambir; that he took accused Mukeem to AIIMS Hospital on the instructions of IO where his MLC was conducted; that he collected MLC and sealed exhibits from the concerned doctor along with sample seal pertaining to accused Mukeem and handed over the same IO Insp. Sanjay Sinha vide memo Ex.PW2/A". He was cross examined by ld. defence counsel.
5.3. PW-3 Insp Lakhmi Chand has deposed that "on 04.09.2018, he was posted as Sub Inspector/ Incharge Crime Team, CR Park and he received information from Control Room to visit the spot i.e. near canal, Godoli Flyover, Village Khair, Aligarh, Uttar Pradesh; that thereafter he constituted a team consisting of Ct. Anand (Finger Print proficient), Ct. Ashwani (photographer) and one private photographer and went to the spot where he met Insp. Sanjay Sinha along with other police officials; that photographer took photographs of the scene of crime from several angles; that one blue color nylon rope tied with one multi color cloth was found lying at the spot and one dead body was also found there; that light ligature mark was found present on the neck of said dead body; that he prepared detailed report vide memo Ex.PW3/A; that he correctly identified the photographs which are Ex.PW3/1 (colly.). He was cross examined by ld. defence counsel. 5.4 PW-4 ACP Mukesh Kumar Jain has deposed that "on SC No. 595/2018 FIR No. 542/2018, PS. Jaitpur State Vs. Shivam & Ors Page no. 6 of 75 Digitally signed by GEETANJALI GEETANJALI Date:
2025.02.11 17:29:27 +0530 21.11.2018 he alongwith SI Rajiv and HC Raghuraj went to the spot i.e. near canal, Godoli Flyover, Village Khair, Aligarh, Uttar Pradesh and inspected the same and took measurements and prepared rough notes; that he prepared scaled site plan Ex. PW4/A on the basis of rough notes and measurement. He was cross examined by ld. defence counsel.
5.5 PW-5 Constable Pawan has deposed that "on 06.09.2018, he joined the investigation of present case alongwith IO/ Insp Sanjay Sinha and Ct. Anil, Ct. Naresh, Ct. Budhi Prakash, Ct. Karambir; that he took accused Shivam to AIIMS Hospital on the instructions of IO where his MLC was got conducted and he collected MLC and sealed exhibits from the concerned doctor along with sample seal and further handed over the same to IO/ Insp Sanjay Sinha vide memo Ex.PW5/A. He was cross examined by ld. defence counsel. 5.6 PW-6 HC Karamvir has deposed that "on 06.09.2018, he joined the investigation of present case along with IO/ Insp. Sanjay Sinha and Ct. Anil, Ct. Naresh, Ct. Budhi Prakash and Ct. Pawan and went to AIIMS Hospital for conducting medical examination of accused Shivam, Hira Lal @ Ajay, Sumit, Mukim and Kishan; that he got accused Hira Lal @ Ajay medically examined and the MLC was prepared to this effect; that after the medical examination, concerned doctor handed over the blood sample of accused in sealed condition along with sample seal; that thereafter they all returned back to the police station and he handed over the blood sample of accused Hira Lal along with sample seal to IO which was seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW 6/1. He was cross examined by ld. defence counsel.
SC No. 595/2018 FIR No. 542/2018, PS. Jaitpur State Vs. Shivam & Ors Page no. 7 of 75 Digitally signed by GEETANJALI GEETANJALI Date:
2025.02.11 17:29:34 +0530 5.7 PW-7 HC Anil has deposed that "on 06.09.2018, he joined the investigation of present case along with IO/ Insp. Sanjay Sinha and Ct. Karambir, Ct. Naresh, Ct. Budhi Prakash and Ct. Pawan and they went to AIIMS Hospital for getting medical examination of accused Shivam, Hira Lal @ Ajay, Sumit, Mukim and Kishan; that he got accused Sumit medically examined and his MLC was prepared to this effect; that after medical examination, concerned doctor handed over the blood sample of accused in sealed condition alongwith sample seal; that thereafter they returned back to the police station;
that he handed over the blood sample of accused Sumit along with sample seal to IO which was seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW 7/1. He was cross examined by ld. defence counsel. 5.8 PW-8 Shri Ajit Singh is the Alternate Nodal Officer, Vodafone Idea Ltd. and he has deposed that " on 10.11.2018 on the request of investigating agency, he had handed over the CDRs of mobile numbers 9718060173 and 9718225370 which are Ex.PW8/4 (colly.) alongwith CAFs Ex.PW8/2 and Ex.PW8/3 respectively and the certificate u/s 65 B of the Indian Evidence Act Ex.PW8/1; that he also identified the signatures of Shri Saurabh Aggarwal on certified copies of CAFs and CDRs in respect of mobile nos. 8750776824, 9711229633, 8860130545 and 8368557310 for period 01.09.2018 to 04.09.2019 and certificate u/s. 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act which are collectively Ex.PW8/5. He was cross examined by ld. defence counsel.
5.9 PW-9 Sh. Surender Kumar is the Nodal officer, Bharti Airtel Ltd. and he has deposed that "on 10.11.2018, he had handed SC No. 595/2018 FIR No. 542/2018, PS. Jaitpur State Vs. Shivam & Ors Page no. 8 of 75 Digitally signed by GEETANJALI GEETANJALI Date:
2025.02.11 17:29:40 +0530 over the CDRs of mobile numbers 9667568020 and 9599869640 for the period 01.09.2018 to 04.09.2018 along with Customer application forms to the IO and also issued a certificate U/S 65-B of Indian Evidence Act which is Ex. PW 9/1; that certified copies of Customer application forms is Ex. PW-9/2 and Ex. PW-9/3 and certified copies of the CDRs of both the mobile phones for the said period are exhibited as Ex. PW 9/4 (colly) (running into 4 pages). He was cross examined by ld. defence counsel.
5.10 PW-10 Sh. Budh Ram is the private photographer and he has deposed that "on 04.09.2018 at around 2:00-2-30 midnight he received a call from one police official Ravi Kumar and thereafter they went to village Kher, District Aligarh along with the team where they met other police officials; that he took photographs Ex.
PW-3/1D, Ex. PW-3/1(colly), Ex. P1 (running into 7 pages) of a dead body at the spot and later on gave print out of same to the police . He was cross examined by ld. defence counsel. 5.11 PW-11 Sh. J.K. Sharma is the Manager Jew PWIL Plaza, Yamuna Express-way and he has deposed that " on 09.09.2018 he received notice u/s. 91 Cr.P.C. from IO/Inspector Sanjay Sinha, which is Ex. PW11/A; that he again received reminder of aforesaid notice on 20.11.2018 which is Ex.PW11/B; that he furnished the details of car Zen bearing no. DL-4CR-7287 dated 03.09.2018 alongwith CCTV footage; that computer generated transaction review of both sides of vehicle Zen bearing no. DL-4CR-7287 dated 03.09.2013 is Ex.PW11/C (colly)(running into 2 pages); that he had also furnished pendrive containing CCTV footage of said vehicle going and coming SC No. 595/2018 FIR No. 542/2018, PS. Jaitpur State Vs. Shivam & Ors Page no. 9 of 75 Digitally signed by GEETANJALI GEETANJALI Date:
2025.02.11 17:29:47 +0530 on 03.09.2018 which is Ex. PW11/D; that he also furnished certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act pertaining to computer generated transaction review and pen drive of CCTV footage which is Ex.PW11/E. He was cross examined by ld. defence counsel. 5.12 PW-12 Sh. Pankaj Sharma is the Nodal Officer of Reliance Jio and he has deposed that " he handed over the CDRs of mobile no.
8851033991 for period w.e.f. 01.09.2018 to 04.09.2018 which is Ex.PW12/A alongwith CAF which is Ex.PW12/B in the name of Deepak to police; that he also furnished certificate u/s. 65 of Indian Evidence Act qua genuineness of same which is Ex. PW12/C; that he also proved signature of Shri Kamal Kumar on CDRs of mobile no. 798251904 in the name of Muneer Khan which is Ex.PW12/D (colly.); that Sh. Kamal Kumar had also furnished customer application form of mobile no. 7982571904 in the name of Muneer Khan which is Ex. PW12/E and he identified his signatures on certificate u/s. 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act which is Ex.PW12/F. 5.13 PW-13 Sh. Sajid Khan was the registered owner of TSR bearing no. DL-1RW-4316 which he purchased from Bagga Link, Pahar Ganj, New Delhi; that he got the said auto financed through Annapurana Auto dealer since he was under heavy debt; that he was unable to pay the debt therefore he sold the same to one Ramesh vide form 29 and 30 Mark A (colly) however he could not transfer the ownership of the same for the next five years since purchase due to rider clause. He was cross examined by ld. defence counsel. 5.14 PW-14 Sh. Ramesh has deposed that "he purchased TSR bearing registration no. DL-1RW-4316 from Sajid Khan vide form 29 SC No. 595/2018 FIR No. 542/2018, PS. Jaitpur State Vs. Shivam & Ors Page no. 10 of 75 Digitally signed by GEETANJALI GEETANJALI Date:
2025.02.11 17:29:52 +0530 and 30 and copy of same are Mark A (colly.) however since there was rider clause, owner could not transfer the ownership of the auto for the next five years since purchase and hence the RC was in his name; that on 01.09.2018 he gave the said TSR to accused Kishan (CCL) for driving at the rate of Rs.300/- per day who was known to him for last 7-8 years; that on 05.09.2018 accused Kishan was apprehended by the police and his auto was taken to police station in murder case . He was cross examined by ld. defence counsel. 5.15 PW-15 Shri Vipin Rautela has deposed that "he purchased second hand car make of Maruti Zen DL-4CR-7287; that on 03.04.2017 he sold his said Maruti Zen car to Shri Rakesh Kumar vide vehicle sell receipt, Form 30 and Form 29 which are Mark A, Mark B and Mark C respectively and identified the photographs of said car as Ex.P-5 to Ex.P-8; that he asked said Rakesh Kumar Goel to get RC transferred in his name to which he replied that he got transferred the RC in his name but later on he came to know that Rakesh Kumar Goel had sold the aforesaid car to somebody else without getting RC transferred. He was cross examined by ld. defence counsel.
5.16 PW-16 Shri Rakesh Kumar Goel has deposed that "he purchased the Maruti Zen car bearing registration no.DL-4CR-7287 from Shri Vipin Rautela vide vehicle sell receipt, Form 30 and Form 29 which are Mark A, Mark B and Mark C respectively; that he further sold the said car to accused Mukeem in June 2017; that he asked accused Mukeem to get the RC of said car in his name to which he replied that he got the same transferred; that later on he came to SC No. 595/2018 FIR No. 542/2018, PS. Jaitpur State Vs. Shivam & Ors Page no. 11 of 75 Digitally signed by GEETANJALI GEETANJALI Date:
2025.02.11 17:30:11 +0530 know that accused Mukeem was involved in the murder case and used the said car; that he identified the photographs of said car as Ex.P-5 to Ex.P-8. He was cross examined by ld. defence counsel. 5.17 PW-17 Dr. Naresh Kumar is the SSO Biology FSL. Rohini and he has deposed that "on 06.09.2018 he visited police station Jaitpur for inspection of car bearing no. DL4CR7287 on the request of the IO; that he inspected the car along with his team members and suspected biological material was lifted and marked as serial no. 1, 2 & 3; that item no. 1 contained hair which were found on footmat of front left side seat, item no. 2 contained pieces of mat taken from the dickey below the base-tube and item no. 3 contained pieces of sheet cover from the rear seat; that after lifting the samples, same were kept in separate envelops and sealed by IO and he prepared report in this regard which is Ex. PW 17/A. He was cross examined by ld. defence counsel.
5.18 PW-18 Ms. Shashi Bala Pahuja is the SSO Biology, FSL.
Rohini and she has deposed that "on 12.11.2018, 13 sealed parcels were received in the office of FSL in the present FIR; that the seals on parcels were intact as per the forwarding letter; that she opened the said parcels and examined the exhibits and prepared detailed report which is Ex. PW18/A and she also prepared the allelic data Ex.PW18/B. She was cross examined by ld. defence counsel. 5.19 PW 19 Dr. Swati, Assistant Professor, Department of Forensic Medicines, AIIMS, New Delhi has deposed that "on 05.09.2018, she conducted the postmortem of deceased Deepak S/o Sh. Rama Shankar, 23 years male vide postmortem report Ex.PW-19/A wherein SC No. 595/2018 FIR No. 542/2018, PS. Jaitpur State Vs. Shivam & Ors Page no. 12 of 75 Digitally signed by GEETANJALI GEETANJALI Date:
2025.02.11 17:30:17 +0530 she opined the cause of death "Asphyxia due to cumulative effect of strangulation and smothering, which is sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature" She was cross examined by ld. defence counsel.
5.20 PW-20 ASI Surjeet has deposed that "on 12.11.2018 he sent thirteen sealed parcels and one viscera parcel to FSL Rohini through PW-21 HC Jagram vide RC Ex.PW20/A and Ex.PW20/B and acknowledgment qua same is Ex.PW20/C and Ex.PW20/D respectively; that he also proved the relevant entries in register no. 19 as Ex.PW20/E (colly.)(OSR).
5.21 PW-21 HC Jagram has deposed that "on 12.11.2018, ASI Surjeet sent thirteen sealed parcels and one viscera parcel to FSL Rohini through him vide RC Ex.PW20/A and Ex.PW20/B and acknowledgment qua same is Ex.PW20/C and Ex.PW20/D respectively. He was cross examined by ld. defence counsel. 5.22 PW-22 Dr. Adarsh Kumar is the Professor, Forensic Medicine, AIIMS and he has deposed that " on 12.07.2021 he gave subsequent opinion on weapon of offence on the basis of postmortem report and FSL report which is Ex.PW22/A; that he opined amended cause of death as "asphyxia due to cumulative effects of strangulation and smothering in presence of ethyl alcohol which is sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature"; that he further opined that the ligature mark present on the neck of the deceased could be produced by the rope as submitted and examined . He was cross examined by ld.
defence counsel. Digitally
signed by
GEETANJALI
GEETANJALI Date:
2025.02.11
17:30:23
+0530
SC No. 595/2018 FIR No. 542/2018, PS. Jaitpur State Vs. Shivam & Ors Page no. 13 of 75 5.23 PW-23 Dr. Kavita Goyal, Assistant Director, Chemistry, FSL Rohini has deposed that "on 12.11.2018, one sealed corrugated box in connection with present case was received in their office for examination; that the said box contained exhibits 1A, 1B, 1C & ID and after examination, she gave detailed report Ex. PW-23/A; that as per chemical, microscopic, TLC and GC-HS examination Ex. IA, Ex.
IB and Ex. IC were found containing Ethyl Alcohol and Ex. IC was found containing Ethyl Alcohol 35.7 mg per 100 ml of blood; that metallic poisons, Ethyl and Methyl Alcohol, Cyanide, Phosphide etc. could not be detected in Ex. ID as mentioned at point 3 under result of examination in my said report; that after examination, the remnants of the exhibits were resealed with the seal of KG, FSL, Delhi . 5.24 PW-24 ASI Raghuraj has deposed that "on 03.09.2018 he joined the investigation along with ASI Kumher and HC Deepak and complainant Rama Shankar with respect to DD no. 51A and went to the residence of accused Shivam in search of Deepak (deceased); that complainant told that his son deceased Deepak went to meet Shivam, Sumit and Hira Lal @ Ajay in the vehicle of one Mukeem @ Mustkeem; that accused Shivam was found present at his residence and he took them to the residence of co-accused Sumit and Heera Lal; that complainant identified accused Shivam, Sumit and Heera Lal as friends of his son deceased Deepak and they brought the said accused persons to police station for interrogation where they were handed over to SI Rajeev; that during interrogation, accused Shivam, Sumit and Heera Lal confessed to have killed the deceased Deepak by strangulation after taking him in the vehicle of Mukeem and they SC No. 595/2018 FIR No. 542/2018, PS. Jaitpur State Vs. Shivam & Ors Page no. 14 of 75 Digitally signed by GEETANJALI GEETANJALI Date:
2025.02.11 17:30:36 +0530 further disclosed that the dead body was hidden in a canal situated at Khair, Aligarh; that they further disclosed that they had robbed deceased Deepak of Rs. 4.5 lakh and his mobile phone and gave his mobile phone to their friend Kishan for hiding the same; that thereafter accused Shivam was arrested and personally searched vide memo Ex. PW 1/B and Ex. PW 1/C, accused Sumit was arrested and personally searched vide memos Ex.PW1/D and Ex.PW1/E, accused Heera Lal was arrested and personally searched vide memos Ex.PW1/F and Ex. PW 1/G; that thereafter he along with IO/ Insp. Sanjay Sinha, SI Rajeev, Ct. Deepak, Ct. Navtej, Ct. Ravi, one private photographer, complainant and accused persons went to the canal situated at Khair Aligarh for recovery of the dead body where they met local police official from PS Khair; that the dead body was recovered from the canal with the help of local public persons at the instance of accused persons and same was also identified by complainant as that of his son i.e. Deepak; that one rope (blue color) was also recovered at the instance of accused Shivam from the bushes near the canal which was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/I; that photographs of the dead body was also taken which are Ex. PW 3/1 (colly) and was taken into possession vide memo Ex. PW 1/K; that Crime team was called at the spot and they inspected the same; that the dead body was sent through Ct. Ravi and Ct. Ram Avtar to AIIMS for preservation. He was cross examined at length by the ld.
defence counsel.
5.25 PW-25 Ct. Ram Avtar has deposed that "on 04.09.2018, he along with Ct. Ravi, Crime team and one private photographer SC No. 595/2018 FIR No. 542/2018, PS. Jaitpur State Vs. Shivam & Ors Page no. 15 of 75 Digitally signed by GEETANJALI GEETANJALI Date:
2025.02.11 17:30:43 +0530 namely Budh Ram went to canal near Khair gaon, Aligarh where they found one dead body and photography of the same was got conducted there; that thereafter, he along with Ct. Ravi shifted the dead body to AIIMS Mortury; that he correctly identified photographs of the dead body which are Ex. PW 3/1D and Ex. PW3/1 (colly ). He was cross examined by ld. defence counsel.
5.26 PW-26 HC Deepak Malik has deposed that "on 03.09.2018 he came to know about missing of one Deepak and same was marked to ASI Kumher and Ct. Mukesh Jha; that father of the abovesaid missing boy came to PS and he along with HC Raghuraj, Ct. Navtej, ASI Kumher Singh and father of missing boy went to the house of accused Shivam situated at A-427, J.J. Colony; that accused Shivam was apprehended from the aforesaid address and inquiries were made from him who disclosed the involvement of other co-accused Sumit, Heera Lal @ Ajay and Mukeem; that accused Shivam led them to the house of accused Sumit and Heera Lal @ Ajay from where they both were apprehended and brought them to police station and handed over their custody to SI Rajeev Kumar; that SI Rajeev interrogated the accused persons and they have confessed to have committed the murder of Deepak and thrown his dead body in canal near Khair village, Aligarh; that thereafter IO arrested the accused persons vide arrest memos Ex. PW 1/B, Ex. PW 1/D and Ex. PW 1/F and conducted their personal search vide memos Ex. PWI/C, Ex. PW 1/E and Ex. PW 1/G; that all the accused persons led them to Khair village where they first went to concerned police station and made entry in this regard and one Sub Inspector of concerned PS SC No. 595/2018 FIR No. 542/2018, PS. Jaitpur State Vs. Shivam & Ors Page no. 16 of 75 Digitally signed by GEETANJALI GEETANJALI Date:2025.02.11 17:30:49 +0530
accompanied them to the canal near Khair gaon, Aligarh; that the accused persons pointed towards the canal and disclosed that they had thrown the dead body of Deepak at that point and they could take out the dead body from canal with the help of local public persons which was identified to be of Deepak by his father; that in the meanwhile Crime Team along with private photographer reached at the spot and inspected the spot and took photographs of the dead body and spot; that one rope was recovered at the instance of the accused persons which was seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW 1/KI and IO also seized the dead body of deceased Deepak vide seizure memo Ex. PW-1/K; that thereafter, dead body was shifted to AIIMS Mortuary; that he correctly identified the nine photographs of the dead body which are Ex. PW 3/ID and Ex. PW3/1 (colly ). He was cross examined by the ld. defence counsel.
5.27 PW-27 SI Kumher Singh has deposed that "on 03.09.2018 at about 08.08 PM on receipt of DD no. 51A, he along with Ct. Mukesh reached at A-1/233, JJ colony Madanpur Khadar, New Delhi where they met complainant Rama Shankar who told that his son Deepak, who had gone to deposit cash in the afternoon did not return; that he further informed that the person namely Shivam and Deepak have come back whereas Deepak has not returned and there were 2-3 persons along with them; that they searched for Deepak along with complainant but could not find him and he recorded the statement of complainant which is Ex. PW1/A; that he prepared tehrir Ex. PW 27/A and got the case registered through Ct. Mukesh and further investigation was handed over to SI Rajeev; that on the same night at SC No. 595/2018 FIR No. 542/2018, PS. Jaitpur State Vs. Shivam & Ors Page no. 17 of 75 Digitally signed by GEETANJALI GEETANJALI Date:
2025.02.11 17:30:55 +0530 about 12.30 AM, he along with beat staff apprehended accused Sumit, Shivam and one Ajay @ Hiralal from their houses and brought them to police station and handed over to SI Rajeev; that SI Rajeev interrogated them and they disclosed that they have murdered Deepak and disposed off his dead body in a canal at Khair Aligarh . He was cross examined by the ld. defence counsel. 5.28 PW-28 SI Soamya has deposed that "on 05.09.2018, she got the postmortem of deceased conducted on the instructions of IO; that doctor gave her the exhibits which she handed over to Ct. Ravi Kumar for handing over the same to IO who seized the same vide seizure memo Ex. PW 28/A; that after the postmortem dead body was handed over to family members of deceased . He was cross-examined by Ld. Defence Counsels.
5.29 PW-29 HC Rajinder has deposed that "on 05.09.2018, three accused persons namely Shivam, Sumit and Heera Lal @ Ajay were in custody in present case and he along with IO Insp. Sanjay Sinha and other police staff took the said accused persons from the lockup to old police station Madanpur Khadar (now PS Jaitpur) where they met complainant Rama Shankar; that they took all the aforesaid accused persons to the house of accused Heera Lal at house no. 1535, Madanpur Khadar, Phase III from where accused Heera Lal got recovered one red black color bag from his bed (dewan box) and on opening the said bag, it was found containing different denominations of currency notes totaling Rs.4,22,150/- and said bag and money was identified by the complainant; that IO seized the aforesaid currency notes in five different plastic transparent jars and IO also seized the SC No. 595/2018 FIR No. 542/2018, PS. Jaitpur State Vs. Shivam & Ors Page no. 18 of 75 Digitally signed by GEETANJALI GEETANJALI Date:
2025.02.11 17:31:01 +0530 said red black bag in a sealed pullanda sealed with the seal of SS vide seizure memo of currency notes and bag Ex. PW1/N; that IO prepared recovery site plan Ex. PW1/P; that during search of other accused persons, they went to the house of accused Mukim i.e. H.no. C-68, gali no. 14, Kacchi Colony, Madanpur Khadar where accused Mukim was found in the said house who was identified by co- accused Shivam, Sumit, Heera Lal @ Ajay and the complainant; that IO arrested the accused Mukim vide arrest memo Ex. PW1/H, his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW1/J and his disclosure statement was recorded wherein he stated that he can get recovered the Zen Maruti car used in the crime; that thereafter, accused Mukim led them to Samosa Chowk, Madanpur Khadar, near Badi Masjid and pointed out towards one car bearing registration no. DL- 4CR-7287 parked in front of masjid and same was seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW1/Q; that IO prepared the site plan pertaining to recovery of said car which is Ex. PW 29/A; that thereafter they went to the house of CCL 'K' at Phase-III, Madanpur Khadar where he was found present and the co-accused persons identified CCL 'K'; that IO arrested CCL 'K' vide arrest memo Ex. PW 29/B and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex. PW 29/C; that CCL 'K' got recovered auto no. DL-1RW-4316 which was stationed in front of his house and same was seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW 29/D; that thereafter, CCL. 'K' led them to Kalindi Kunj Metro station near Agra canal and pointed out towards one mobile phone which was lying behind the bushes and he disclosed that the said mobile phone belongs to deceased Deepak and he had thrown the same after the SC No. 595/2018 FIR No. 542/2018, PS. Jaitpur State Vs. Shivam & Ors Page no. 19 of 75 Digitally signed by GEETANJALI GEETANJALI Date:
2025.02.11 17:31:06 +0530 incident; that the said mobile was lifted from the the bushes and CoolPad was written on the same; that there were two sim cards of Jio and Idea company in the said mobile phone; that he seized the said mobile phone vide seizure memo Ex. PW 29/E and IO also prepared the recovery site plan of the said mobile phone vide memo Ex. PW 29/F; that he correctly identified four photographs of Maruti car bearing registration no. DL4CR-7287 golden color as Ex. P5 to Ex. P8, the red black bag as Ex. P3, the copies of the currency notes as Ex. P4 (colly) and the mobile phone as Ex. PX1. He was cross- examined by Ld. Defence Counsels.
5.30 PW-30 SI Rajiv Kumar has deposed that "on 04.09.2018 he received the copy of FIR and original tehrir from Duty Officer for further investigation of the present case and after some time ASI Kumer Singh, Ct. Deepak, Ct. Nitesh, HC Raghuraj and complainant came to the police station with three accused persons namely Shivam, Sumit and Heera Lal; that ASI Kumer Singh apprised him that deceased Deepak lastly went with the abovesaid accused persons; that he interrogated the abovesaid accused persons and they confessed their guilt during interrogation and disclosed that they took the deceased Deepak in the car of Mukim and in the mid way, they strangulate deceased Deepak by using the rope and also robbed his money and thereafter they had thrown the dead body of deceased in canal near Khair Village, Aligarh; that they further disclosed that the mobile phone of the deceased was given to one Kishan who was brother of accused Sumit and they added the section 302, 392, 201, 120B IPC as per the instruction of SHO of concerned PS and further SC No. 595/2018 FIR No. 542/2018, PS. Jaitpur State Vs. Shivam & Ors Page no. 20 of 75 Digitally signed by GEETANJALI GEETANJALI Date:
2025.02.11 17:31:12 +0530 investigation was marked to Inspector Sanjay Sinha; that the accused persons were arrested by IO/Inspector Sanjay Sinha vide arrest memos Ex.PW1/B, Ex.PW1/D and Ex.PW1/F, their personal search was conducted vide memos Ex.PW1/C, Ex.PW1/E and Ex.PW1/G and their disclosure statements were recorded vide memos Ex.PW30/A, Ex.PW30/B and Ex.PW30/C; that thereafter the abovesaid accused persons namely Shivam, Sumit and Heera Lal led him along with IO/Inspector Sanjay Sinha, SHO, HC Raghuraj, Ct. Deepak, Ct. Mukesh to Khair Village in government vehicle and the complainant and the private photographer also accompanied them; that firstly they went to the local police station and one SI Shabir Singh from Kher Police Station also accompanied them to the spot; that they reached at the canal near Godhuli Flyover where accused Shivam, Sumit and Heera Lal pin pointed the bushes from where the dead body of deceased Deepak was dumped and the same was got searched and the dead body of deceased Deepak was recovered from in between the bushes and the flowing water and complainant namely Rama Shankar identified the same to be of his son Deepak; that IO/ Insp. Sanjay Sinha called the Crime team and he prepared the pointing out memo of the place of recovery of dead body and the seizure memo of the recovery of the dead body of deceased Deepak which is Ex. PW1/K; that all the accused Shivam, Sumit and Heera Lal also pin pointed the place where the plastic rope of blue colour was dumped after strangulating Deepak and same was also seized by the IO vide seizure memo Ex. PW1/K1; that the IO also prepared the site plan of the recovery of dead body and the plastic rope/ string vide SC No. 595/2018 FIR No. 542/2018, PS. Jaitpur State Vs. Shivam & Ors Page no. 21 of 75 Digitally signed by GEETANJALI GEETANJALI Date:
2025.02.11 17:31:18 +0530 memo Ex. PW1/L; that the photographs of the place of recovery of the dead body, the dead body and the rope/string were also got done by the IO which are Ex. PW3/1D and Ex. PW3/1 (Colly) and same are nine in numbers; that the dead body of deceased Deepak was sent for preservation to AIIMS, Hospital, New Delhi; that after completion of the investigation they all returned to Police Station Khair where the IO recorded the statement of SI Shahbir and the photographer and thereafter they returned to PS Jaitpur where his statement was recorded by the IO; that he had also obtained the PC remand of all the three accused persons from the Illaka Magistrate for two days on the directions of IO Insp. Sanjay Sinha; that on 05.09.2018 he again joined the investigations with the IO, SI Arvind, HC Raghuraj, Ct. Mukesh and all the three accused persons were taken to the old building of the PS Jaitpur where they met complainant Rama Shankar and he also joined the investigation and thereafter the team reached the house of accused Heera Lal i.e. no.
1535, Raj Nagar, Madanpur Khadar-III, New Delhi and accused Heera Lal took out black and red coloured bag from the bed placed in the room of the said house which was identified by the complainant to be the same very bag robbed from Deepak; that the said bag was checked and currency notes worth Rs.4,22,150/- were recovered in the denomination of Rs. 2,000/- to Rs. 10 except of the denomination of Rs. 1,000/- from the said bag and same were sealed with the seal of 'SS' and seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW1/N; that IO also prepared the site plan of the place of recovery of the bag vide memo Ex.PW1/P; that thereafter they reached at the house of the fourth SC No. 595/2018 FIR No. 542/2018, PS. Jaitpur State Vs. Shivam & Ors Page no. 22 of 75 Digitally signed by GEETANJALI GEETANJALI Date:
2025.02.11 17:32:20 +0530 accused namely Mukeem, situated at C/68, Gali No. 14, Samosa Chowk, Kachi Colony, Madanpur Khadar, New Delhi at the instance of other accused persons where accused Mukeem was found present; that accused Mukeem was interrogated by IO/Insp. Sanjay Sinha and he was arrested and personally searched vide memos Ex. PW1/H and Ex. PW1/J and his disclosure statement was also recorded vide memo Ex. PW30/D; that accused Mukeem got recovered his Zen car which was used in the commission of offence from some distance from his house near Badi Masjid, Samosa Chowk and he handed over the keys of the said car to the IO and the car alongwith its key were seized vide pointing out cum seizure memo Ex. PW1/Q; that the IO also prepared the site plan of the place of recovery of the car which is Ex. PW29/A; that pursuant to disclosure statement of accused persons they reached at the house of the accused Kishan (JCL) situated at H. No. 1532, Raj Nagar, Madanpur Khardar, Phase-III, New Delhi where accused Kishan was found present and he was interrogated by IO; that accused Kishan (JCL) was arrested and personally searched vide memos Ex. PW29/B and Ex. PW29/C and his disclosure statement was recorded vide memo Ex. PW30/E; that accused Kishan had disclosed that he helped in taking the petrol in a can in his auto at some place on Yamuna Expressway, the car of the accused person ran short of petrol and he had taken the petrol for refueling in the car in which Deepak (since deceased) was being taken away by the other four accused persons and a mobile phone make Coolpad of Champagne gold containing sim cards of Idea and Jio of deceased Deepak was handed over to accused Kishan (JCL) by the other SC No. 595/2018 FIR No. 542/2018, PS. Jaitpur State Vs. Shivam & Ors Page no. 23 of 75 Digitally signed by GEETANJALI GEETANJALI Date:
2025.02.11 17:32:27 +0530 accused persons for disposal; that accused Kishan (JCL) pin pointed the place situated in a gali opposite his house at Madanpur Khadar, Phase-III towards an auto bearing registration no. DLI-RW-4316 and the same was seized vide memo Ex. PW29/D; that accused Kishan (JCL) also disclosed that he had thrown the said mobile phone in the bushes opposite Kalindi Kunj Metro Station and same was seized by IO vide memo Ex.PW29/E and the IO also prepared the site plan of the place of recovery of mobile phone; that on 06.09.2018, the FSL team came to police station for inspection of the Zen car bearing no.
DL4CR7287 and the Crime team under the supervision of Sh. Naresh Kumar had lifted the hair from the foot mat below the left front side of the seat, pieces of mat from the dickey and pieces of seat cover of the rear seat and placed them in three different brown colour envelopes which were handed over to the IO and same were sealed and seized vide memo Ex. PW30/F; that on 20.11.2018, the Draughtsman Insp. Mukesh Kumar Jain came on the directions of IO Insp. Sanjay Sinha who along with PW-30 and HC Raghuraj went to the place of recovery of the dead body of deceased Deepak near Godhuli Flyover and Inspector Mukesh Kumar Jain prepared the scaled site plan of the same which is Ex. PW4/A; that he correctly identified the seven photographs of the dead body which are Ex. P-1, one rope of blue colour which was recovered on pin pointing of accused persons namely Shivam, Sumit and Heera Lal as Ex. P-2, one bag red and black colour got recovered on 04.09.2018 on pin pointing of accused person Heera Lal as Ex. P-3, the photocopies of the recovered currency notes contained in the bag Ex. P-3 as Ex. P-4 SC No. 595/2018 FIR No. 542/2018, PS. Jaitpur State Vs. Shivam & Ors Page no. 24 of 75 Digitally signed by GEETANJALI GEETANJALI Date:
2025.02.11 17:32:33 +0530 (Colly), four photographs of the Zen car no. DL4CR7287 as Ex. P-5 to Ex. P-8, mobile phone make Coolpad of Champagne Gold as Ex.
P-9. He was cross examined at length by ld. defence counsel. 5.31 PW-31 SI Sahbir Singh has deposed that "on 04.09.2018 at about 04:30 am, SHO of PS Jaitpur, Delhi he along with three accused persons namely Shivam, Ajay and Sumit reached in PS Khair and arrival entry in this regard was made in PS Khair; that thereafter the accused persons led them to side of the canal near Gondwali flyover from where they got recovered the dead body of Deepak which was identified by father of the deceased Deepak as of his son; that one rope was also recovered at the instance of the abovesaid accused persons; that IO seized the dead body and recovered rope; that local public persons helped them to take out the dead body of the deceased from the canal; that he correctly identified nine photographs of the spot which are Ex.PW3/1D, Ex.PW3/1 (colly); he further identified one plastic rope as Ex.P-2. He was cross-examined by Ld. Defence Counsels.
5.32 PW-32 Inspector Vipin Yadav has deposed that "in the month of March, 2021, on the basis of the FSL results which are Ex. PW-18/A, Ex. PW-18/B and Ex. PW-23/A, he prepared a supplementary charge sheet for offences under section 302/365/392/411/201/120-B/34 IPC against already charge-sheeted accused namely Shivam, Sumit, Mukeen @ Mukin Khan and Heera Lal @Ajay which was filed before Ld. MM on 16.03.2021; that as the subsequent opinion regarding the weapon of offence and injuries so mentioned in the postmortem report no. 1295/18 dated 05.09.2018 SC No. 595/2018 FIR No. 542/2018, PS. Jaitpur State Vs. Shivam & Ors Page no. 25 of 75 Digitally signed by GEETANJALI GEETANJALI Date:
2025.02.11 17:32:46 +0530 was required to be obtained, he prepared an application Ex. PW32/A addressed to HOD Department of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology, AIIMS, New Delhi, alongwith the pulinda containing weapon of offence i.e. plastic rope sealed with the seal of "SBP FSL DELHI"
and alongwith the above-mentioned postmortem report, copies of the FSL reports, MLC and FIR and on receipt of subsequent opinion which is Ex. PW- 22/A, he prepared subsequent/second supplementary charge sheet against the above named accused persons on 18.10.2021 and the same was also submitted before Ld. Court for purposes of effective trial. He was cross examined by ld. defence counsel.
5.33 PW-33 IO/Insp. Sanjay Sinha has deposed that "on 03.09.2018 he was officiating SHO and on receipt of DD No. 51A Ex. A-2, ASI Kumher Singh alongwith Ct. Mukesh Kumar reached at the place of incident at A-1/233, J.J. Colony, Madanpur Khadar where the informant Rama Shankar made his statement to ASI Kumher Singh which is Ex. PW1/A upon which ASI Kumher Singh prepared rukka Ex. PW27/A and sent the same for registration of the case and after registration of the FIR Ex. A-1, the case was marked to SI Rajeev Kumar for further investigation; that in the meantime ASI Kumher Singh brought three accused persons namely Shivam, Sumit and Hira Lal and handed over them to SI Rajeev Kumar who in turn made inquires from the arrested accused persons who made their respective disclosures statements while mentioning therein that they had taken Deepak s/o Sh. Rama Shankar on the pretext of showing movie in the car of accomplice namely Mukeem and on the way they had SC No. 595/2018 FIR No. 542/2018, PS. Jaitpur State Vs. Shivam & Ors Page no. 26 of 75 Digitally signed by GEETANJALI GEETANJALI Date:
2025.02.11 17:32:52 +0530 strangulated Deepak (deceased) with the help of a rope and had thrown his dead body for the purposes of destroying the evidence and for hiding the dead body at Kasba Kher, near a canal within the jurisdiction of District Aligarh and had robbed the amount of Rs. 4,50,000/- which were in the possession of Deepak (deceased); that the accused persons further disclosed that the mobile of Deepak (deceased) was also taken away by them and was handed over to one of their accomplice namely Kishan for the purpose of disposal and on coming to know about these facts charges u/s 302/392/201/120B IPC were also invoked in the investigations and the investigations were then marked to him; that on the intervening night of 03/04.09.2018 he arrested three accused persons namely Shivam, Sumit and Hira Lal @ Ajay, vide memos Ex. PW1/B, Ex. PW1/D and Ex. PW1/F respectively and personally searched them vide memos Ex. PW1/C, Ex. PW1/E and PW1/G respectively; that he also recorded their respective disclosure statements after due interrogation vide memos Ex. PW30/A to Ex. PW30/C and he correctly identified accused persons namely Shivam, Sumit and Hira Lal @ Ajay; that he formed raiding party including SI Rajeev, SI Prateek, SI Arvind, HC Raghuraj and other team members including the complainant Sh. Rama Shankar and proceeded to the place of the disposal/ hiding of the dead body of deceased Deepak at Kasba Kher near the canal, District Aligarh by the morning of 04.09.2018; that he asked Ct. Ravi to sent for Crime team as well as private photographer namely Budh Ram to Kasba Kher near canal, District Aligarh; that the local police of PS Kher was also requested to join the investigation and once they SC No. 595/2018 FIR No. 542/2018, PS. Jaitpur State Vs. Shivam & Ors Page no. 27 of 75 Digitally signed by GEETANJALI GEETANJALI Date:
2025.02.11 17:32:58 +0530 reached at PS Kher, SI Shabir Singh of PS Kher, accompanied them to the place of dumping/hiding the dead body of deceased Deepak; that the accused persons pin pointed a place of dumping of the dead body of deceased Deepak below the Godali flyover near the canal within the bushes where the dead body of the deceased namely Deepak was recovered which was duly identified by the father of the deceased namely Sh. Rama Shankar; that near the dead body of Deepak one rope which was stated to have been used in strangulation of the deceased was also found lying at some distance from the dead body which was also pin pointed and got recovered by all the said three accused persons; that the Crime team members and the private photographer Budh Ram also arrived at the spot and the Crime team inspected the spot from where the dead body of the deceased and the rope used in commission of the offence were recovered; that the photographer took the nine photographs which are Ex. PW3/1 (colly) and he prepared the site plan of the place of recovery of the dead body and the string which is Ex. PW1/3; that he also prepared the pointing out of the place of the recovery of dead body of Deepak (deceased) and its seizure memo which is Ex. PW1/K; that he also seized the nylon rope of blue colour which was pin pointed by the accused persons namely Shivam, Sumit and Heera Lal @ Ajay vide seizure memo Ex. PW1/K and thereafter the dead body of deceased Deepak was sent to mortuary AIIMS through Ct. Ram Avatar and Ct. Ravi Kumar for preservation; that thereafter he reached at PS Khair where he recorded the statements of the Crime Team In-charge SI Laxmi Chand, SI Shabir Singh of PS Khair and also recorded the SC No. 595/2018 FIR No. 542/2018, PS. Jaitpur State Vs. Shivam & Ors Page no. 28 of 75 Digitally signed by GEETANJALI GEETANJALI Date:
2025.02.11 17:33:05 +0530 supplementary statement of complainant Rama Shankar, private photographer Budh Ram, SI Rajiv Kumar, HC Raghu Raj, Ct. Deepak Malik, Ct. Mukesh Jha, ASI Kumher Singh and others and returned back to PS Jaitpur along with other staff and accused persons; that accused persons were locked in lock up and the case property was deposited with the MHC(M); that 04.09.2018 the accused persons namely Sumit, Shivam and Heera Lal @ Ajay were produced in the court of Illaqa Magistrate and he moved an application Ex. PW33/A requesting to grant two days PC remand for effecting recovery of the robbed amount of Rs. 4.5 lacs and the same was granted vide the Ld. Duty MM, Ms. Ankita Lal vide order Mark O; that on 05.09.2018 he along with SI Rajiv Kumar, SI Arvind Kumar, HC Rajender Singh, Ct. Mukesh Jha, complainant Rama Shankar and other staff took out the accused persons namely Shivam, Sumit and Heera Lal @ Ajay from the lock up of the police station for recovery of the robbed cash and in this process they reached the house of accused Heera Lal situated at House No. 1535, Raj Nagar, Phase-III, Madanpur Khadar, New Delhi and accused Heera Lal @ Ajay pin pointed a room inside his house and there was a bed placed in the said room and from inside the said bed the accused Heera Lal @ Ajay took out red and black colour bag which was identified by the complainant Rama Shankar to be the same very bag which was taken by his son Deepak (deceased) on 03.09.2018 for depositing the cash in the bank; that the said bag was opened and found containing currency notes totaling Rs.4,22,150/- and there were 41 currency notes of denomination of Rs. 2000/- each, 418 currency notes of the SC No. 595/2018 FIR No. 542/2018, PS. Jaitpur State Vs. Shivam & Ors Page no. 29 of 75 Digitally signed by GEETANJALI GEETANJALI Date:
2025.02.11 17:33:11 +0530 denomination of Rs. 500/- each, 66 currency notes of denomination of Rs. 200/- each, 717 currency notes of the denomination of Rs. 100/- each, 275 currency notes of denomination of Rs. 50/- each, 448 currency notes of denomination of Rs. 20/- each, 2354 currency notes of denomination of Rs. 10/- each; that the currency notes so got recovered were kept in five different transparent jars and all the jars were wrapped with the help of doctor tape and sealed with the seal of 'SS' and the cash totaling of Rs.4,22,150/- and the bag were seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW1/N ; that he also prepared the site plan of the place of seizure of the currency notes which is Ex. PW1/P; that before proceeding from the police station for effecting the recovery of the robbed cash, he had directed SI Soumya to go to AIIMS Mortuary for getting the postmortem conducted on the dead body of deceased Deepak; that on 05.09.2018 all the three accused persons Shivam, Sumit, Heera Lal @ Ajay, led the police team to the house of the absconding accused Mukim situated at C/68, gali No. 14, Samosa Chowk, Kacchi Colony, Madanpur Khadar, New Delhi where accused Mukim Khan S/o Sh. Sher Ali Khan was found present, who was identified by the other accused persons as well as by the complainant Rama Shankar; that accused Mukim Khan was interrogated wherein he disclosed about his involvement in the present case and he was arrested and personally searched vide memos Ex. PW1/H and Ex. PW1/J ; that he recorded the disclosure statement of the accused Mukim Khan which is Ex. PW30/D and he correctly identified accused Mukim Khan; that accused Mukim Khan confessed his involvement in the commission of the present offence SC No. 595/2018 FIR No. 542/2018, PS. Jaitpur State Vs. Shivam & Ors Page no. 30 of 75 Digitally signed by GEETANJALI GEETANJALI Date:
2025.02.11 17:33:16 +0530 of committing robbery, kidnapping and commission of murder of Deepak (deceased) by strangulation with the help of rope and he also disclosed that the car make Maruti Zen bearing registration no. DL-4CR-7287 belongs to him and on 03.09.2018, he had taken his car to the house of accused Shivam after receiving a call from him and from there both of them had gone to the house of accused Sumit where the other accused namely Heera Lal @ Ajay was also present and there they carried out a plan to kill Deepak, after taking him on the pretext of showing a movie and as per their plan, Deepak was called by accused Shivam and he was informed that they will go to GIP Noida for watching a movie and that Mukeem is bringing his car for this purpose; that on this Deepak informed Shivam that he had to collect the cash from two locations and thereafter he has to go to the bank for depositing the same and once he got free then they will go to watch the movie; that thereafter also Shivam had dialed the Deepak (deceased) and at about 01.30-02.00 PM they all gone to the house of Deepak and made him sit in his car and the said car was being driven by accused Mukeem while on the side front seat Deepak (deceased) was made to sit and on the rear seat the other accused persons namely Sumit, Shivam and Heera Lal @ Ajay were sitting; that after Deepak (deceased) sat inside the car and he informed them he is having a sum of Rs. 4.5 lacs in his bag which is to be deposited at SBI, Okhla Branch and thereafter they will move towards GIP for watching the movie; that it was further disclosed by accused Mukeem that he drove the car towards the direction of Kalindi Kunj and when the car reached near Mahamaya Flyover they tried to strangulate Deepak SC No. 595/2018 FIR No. 542/2018, PS. Jaitpur State Vs. Shivam & Ors Page no. 31 of 75 Digitally signed by GEETANJALI GEETANJALI Date:
2025.02.11 17:33:22 +0530 (deceased) through his neck upon which he started shouting and on this accused Shivam strangulated his neck with the help of the rope brought by him while his legs were held by accused Mukeem and his mouth was covered by accused Sumit and accused Heera Lal @ Ajay caught hold of his both the hands; that thereafter, the car was driven towards Yamuna Expressway where it was stopped and the dead body of Deepak (deceased) was kept in dicky of the car and on further moving the petrol in the car was exhausted and accused Sumit had dialed his cousin brother Kishan to bring petrol and also dialed Highway Customer Care for petrol and after 25-30 minutes approx. five liters petrol was brought by Highway Customer Care and the payment was made in cash by accused Sumit; that Kishan had also brought his auto and approx. two liters petrol which was transferred from his auto to the car of accused Mukeem; that the mobile of Deepak (deceased) was handed over by accused Sumit to Kishan and he was directed that the mobile be thrown away in running condition in the nala situated at Kalindi Kunj Red Light; that it was further disclosed that thereafter Kishan left the spot and they had also paid toll of both the sides at the toll gate near Jewar and he also disclosed that the dead body of Deepak (deceased) was thrown near the canal in Kasba Khair within jurisdiction of District Aligarh ahead of Tappal while the robbed amount of Rs.4.5 lacs contained in the bag was retained by accused Heera Lal @ Ajay with a thinking that same will be distributed amongst themselves after some time; that he also informed that he dropped accused Shivam, Sumit and Heera Lal @ Ajay at about 06.30 PM on the same day near sector -37 Noida SC No. 595/2018 FIR No. 542/2018, PS. Jaitpur State Vs. Shivam & Ors Page no. 32 of 75 Digitally signed by GEETANJALI GEETANJALI Date:
2025.02.11 17:33:29 +0530 Mahamaya Flyover and he returned to the Badi Masjid situated near Samosa Chowk; that he also disclosed that he received a number of calls from the house of Deepak (deceased) and he informed his family members that his car broke down at Kalindi Kunj and Deepak (deceased) had left from there on the motorcycle of one of his friends and he is not aware as to where Deepak is now; that thereafter accused Mukeem led the police party to a place near Badi Masjid where he pin pointed a silver colour Zen car bearing no. DL-4CR-7287 which was identified by the complainant Rama Shankar as well and the said car was seized along with its key vide memo Ex.PW1/Q and he also prepared the site plan of the place of recovery of the said car vide site plan Ex PW29/A; that the complainant Rama Shankar was discharged from the spot since he had to perform the last rites of his deceased son; that on the same day i.e 05.09.2018 he along with accompanying staff and all the four arrested accused persons reached at the house of Kishan situated at H. No. 1532, Raj Nagar Phase-III, JJ Colony, Madanpur Khadar, New Delhi, where all the four accused persons identified Kishan who was present in his house and he was arrested and personally searched vide memos Ex. PW29/B and Ex. PW29/C; that he interrogated accused Kishan and recorded his disclosure statement vide memo Ex.PW30/A; that accused Kishan was found to be juvenile / CCL, therefore he carried out the investigation in terms of the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act; that on the basis of the disclosure statement of accused Kishan (CCL) he seized an auto (TSR) bearing no. DL-1RW-4316 along with its key which was parked and pin pointed SC No. 595/2018 FIR No. 542/2018, PS. Jaitpur State Vs. Shivam & Ors Page no. 33 of 75 Digitally signed by GEETANJALI GEETANJALI Date:
2025.02.11 17:33:36 +0530 by him outside his house in a gali and the same was seized vide memo Ex. PW29/D; that thereafter the accused Kishan (CCL) in pursuance of his disclosure statement led the police team towards a place in front of Kalindi Kunj Metro Station near Agra Canal in the bushes where the mobile phone of Deepak (deceased) which was handed over to him by accused Sumit for disposing in running condition and from the bushes accused Kishan (CCL) took out a mobile phone of of gold colour make Coolpad containing two SIM cards of IDEA and JIO company and it was having three IMEI numbers which was kept in a transparent plastic jar wrapped by doctor tape and sealed by seal of 'SS' and the same was seized by him vide seizure cum pin pointing memo Ex. PW29/E; that he also prepared the site plan of the place of recovery of the said mobile phone vide memo Ex. PW29/F; that thereafter he along with all the arrested accused persons and the seized case property returned to police station with the help of accompanying team and the case property was deposited with the MHC(M) and he incorporated section 411 IPC as well in the investigations; that when he returned to the PS, SI Soumya informed him that the postmortem on the body of deceased Deepak was got conducted vide PMR no. 1295/18 and SI Soumya handed him few exhibits along with the sample seal contained in a transparent plastic box having nail clipping of the right hand of the deceased, another transparent box having nail clipping of the left hand of the deceased Deepak, one sealed envelope containing blood in the gauze, viscera contained in a carton box for sample seals, a sealed pulanda containing the clothes of the deceased; that all the SC No. 595/2018 FIR No. 542/2018, PS. Jaitpur State Vs. Shivam & Ors Page no. 34 of 75 Digitally signed by GEETANJALI GEETANJALI Date:
2025.02.11 17:34:33 +0530 exhibits along with the sample seals bearing the impressions Department of Forensic Medicine, AIIMS, New Delhi, were seized vide memo Ex. PW28/A and same was taken into possession and deposited with MHC(M); that the opinion of the postmortem report Ex. PW19/A states that the cause of death was asphyxia due to strangulation and smothering; that he recorded the statement of SI Soumya, Ct. Ravi Kumar, the supplementary statement of the complainant, SI Rajiv Kumar, SI Arvind Kumar, HC Rajender and of Ct. Mukesh Jha and also recorded the statement of the neighbour of the complainant namely Sh. Vedant Sharma; that on 06.09.2018 all the arrested accused persons were sent for their medical examination in the custody of police staff and on their medical examination the accompanying police staff brought them along with their respective blood samples and the samples seals which were taken into police possession vide memos Ex. PW5/A, Ex. PW6/1, Ex. PW2/A, Ex. PW7/1; that the blood samples in respect of accused Kishan (CCL) was seized vide memo Ex. PW33/B; that he recorded the statements of the constables who took accused persons for their medical examination and all the accused persons were produced before the court of Ld. Ilaqa Magistrate and on the application of SI Rajiv Kumar, all the accused persons were remanded to JC; that on 06.09.2018 he called the FSL mobile team from FSL Rohini for inspection of the car bearing registration no. DL4CR7287 used in the commission of the offence which was seized on pin pointing of accused Mukeem; that the mobile FSL team lifted the exhibits from the said car which were three in number and the same were placed in SC No. 595/2018 FIR No. 542/2018, PS. Jaitpur State Vs. Shivam & Ors Page no. 35 of 75 Digitally signed by GEETANJALI GEETANJALI Date:
2025.02.11 17:34:39 +0530 khakhi (brown) colour envelopes and the same were handed over to him and he duly sealed the same with the seal of 'SS' and seized vide memo PW30/F; that he recorded the statements of the member of the FSL team member namely Sh. Naresh Kumar; that on 08.09.2018 he directed the Manager/ concerned officer, Jewar Toll Plaza, Taj Express Highway vide notice u/s. 91 CrPC Ex. PW11/A to provide the details of the receipt issued on 03.09.2018 in respect of Maruti Zen Car No. DL4CR7287, the CCTV footage for the said period of the passing/ crossing of the car from the said toll plaza and also sought the other relevant information; that during the course of further investigation on 08.09.2018 he issued notice Ex. PW-33/C to the MLO, Transport Authority, Mall Road, Delhi to provide the duplicate registration certificate (R/C) of auto rickshaw bearing no. DL-1RW-4316 involved in the incident being plied by accused Kishan and also made a request to provide the documents annexed by the owner in respect of the said rickshaw at the time of applying for the RC and also to provide any other relevant information, upon which the copy of the RC of the said auto rickshaw Ex. A4 alongwith the copy of badge of one Shazid Khan, copy of his driving licence and copy of his Aadhar Card which are Ex. A6 (colly.) was handed over to him at a later stage by the concerned officer of the Transport Department; that on the very same day i.e. 08.09.2018 he also gave notice u/s 91 Cr.P.C. to MLO Transport Authority, Janak Puri, New Delhi to provide the duplicate RC of Maruti Zen car no. DL-4CR-7287 alongwith the details of the documents attached by the owner at the time of moving application for issuance of the RC and Digitally signed by GEETANJALI GEETANJALI Date:
2025.02.11 SC No. 595/2018 FIR No. 542/2018, PS. Jaitpur State Vs. Shivam & Ors Page no.17:34:46 36 of 75 +0530 any other relevant information upon which the copy of the RC duly certified which is Ex. A5 was provided to him at the later stage of investigation by the concerned employee of the Transport Authority; that on the basis of the information so provided by the respective transport authority he issued notice u/s 160 Cr.P.C. Ex. PW-33/D to Sh. Vipin Rautela, the owner of Maruti Zen Car No. DL-4CR-7287, who disclosed that the said car has already been sold by him on 03.04.2017 to one Sh. Rakesh Kumar Goyal R/o New Ashok Nagar, Delhi who produced the photocopy in respect of the sale of the said car alongwith his copy of Aadhar Card alongwith copy of transfer of ownership forms No. 29 & 30, the copy of documents so provided by him in the form of vehicle sale report is Mark A, the copy of the form No. 30 is Mark B and copy of form No. 29 is Mark C and the copy of his Aadhar Card is Mark D and he also recorded his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C.; that the purchaser Sh. Rakesh Kumar Goyal was produced by Sh.Vipin Rautela at later stage, who was served with a notice u/s 160 Cr.P.C. Ex. PW33/E who informed that said Zen car bearing no. DL-4CR-7287 has already been sold by him to accused Mukeem in the year 2017 but no transfer documents were got prepared by accused Mukeem despite his requests; that he also collected the copy of voter I-card of Sh. Rakesh Kumar Goyal which is Mark E; that similarly, the auto rickshaw owner namely Shazid Khan was also served with the notice u/s 160 Cr.P.C. Ex. PW-33/F and he was questioned in respect of the auto rickshaw bearing no. DL-1RW-4316 to which he informed that the same has already been sold by him to one Sh. Ramesh Kumar R/o JJ Colony, Madan Pur Khadar, Delhi in SC No. 595/2018 FIR No. 542/2018, PS. Jaitpur State Vs. Shivam & Ors Page no. 37 of 75 Digitally signed by GEETANJALI GEETANJALI Date:
2025.02.11 17:34:52 +0530 the year 2018 and he provided the copy of Form Nos. 29 and 30, which are Mark A (colly.); that on the basis of the information so provided by Sh. Shazid Khan, Sh. Ramesh Kumar the purchaser of the mentioned auto was called who informed that he had handed over the said auto to accused Kishan for plying, who was known to him for last about 7-8 years and he resides in the vicinity; that his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded to this effect; that during the course of further investigation, he collected the data provided by the Manager of Jewar Toll Plaza to whom a notice u/s 91 Cr.P.C. was served upon which he provided the footage in the form of stills (2 in number) in respect of Zen car no. DL-4CR-7287, depicting the same to be passing through said Toll Plaza on 03.09.2018 at 4:17:37 PM and returning on the same very day at 6:18:32 PM and this still photograph is Ex. PW-11/C (colly.) (running into 2 pages); that simultaneously he was also handed over the CCTV footage in respect of the passing off (going and coming) from the said Toll plaza on 03.09.2018 and the pen drive was taken on record vide Ex. PW-11/D; that he was also handed over the photographs of the place of recovery of the dead body depicting the recovery of the dead body of deceased Deepak alongwith the photograph of rope used in commission of offence and these nine photographs are Ex. PW-3/1 (colly.); that he correctly identified the photographs which are annexed with the case file; that during the course of further investigations, he collected the documentary proof in respect of the age of JCL Kishan and also got a scaled site plan Ex. PW4/A of the place of incident through the police draughtsman who was accompanied by SI Rajeev to the place of SC No. 595/2018 FIR No. 542/2018, PS. Jaitpur State Vs. Shivam & Ors Page no. 38 of 75 Digitally signed by GEETANJALI GEETANJALI Date:
2025.02.11 17:34:59 +0530 recovery of the dead body at Kasba Khair which is already Ex. PW4/A; that the accused persons were regularly produced for their medical examination during which their blood samples were also obtained and their MLCs were prepared which are collectively Ex. A7 (Colly), Ex. A8 (Colly), Ex. A9 (Colly) and Ex. A10 (Colly); that the record of the calls in the form CDRs and CAFS, were also obtained in respect of the different mobile phones belonging to the accused persons as well as the deceased and they were tallied and it was found and established that accused Shivam talked to the deceased Deepak on 03.09.2018 and there was a continuity of movement of all these mobile phones of accused persons except JCL Kishan from J.J Colony, Madanpur Khadar towards the side of the place of recovery of the dead body at Kasba Khair via Express way and Jewar Toll Plaza; that the mobile phone of deceased Deepak was shown as switch off on Express way while the mobile phone of JCL Kishan depicts the movement at a later time on 03.09.2018; that there was a talk between accused Sumit and JCL Kishan as depicted from the CDRs and the CDRs which are Ex. PW8/4 (Colly), Ex. PW9/4 (Colly) and Ex. PW12/D (Colly) and the certificates in terms of section 65 B of the Indian Evidence Act was also provided by the respective Nodal Officers which were taken on record; that the case property i.e. the cash amounting to Rs.4,22,150/- were ordered to be released on superdari to the complainant Shri Rama Shankar against indemnity bond for a sum of Rs. 4,50,000/- as as ordered by the Court of Ld. Ilaka Magistrate vide order dated 18.09.2018 and the photograph depicting the handing over of the case property is Mark SC No. 595/2018 FIR No. 542/2018, PS. Jaitpur State Vs. Shivam & Ors Page no. 39 of 75 Digitally signed by GEETANJALI GEETANJALI Date:
2025.02.11 17:35:08 +0530 P; that the auto rickshaw no. DL1RW-4316 was also ordered to be released on superdari to its owner Sh. Sajid Khan which was accordingly released against indemnity bond and the photograph depicting handing over of the same is Mark R; that the exhibits so collected or handed over by the FSL team and the doctors on duty were sent to FSL, Rohini on 12.11.2018 through Ct. Jag Ram against road certificate which were obtained from the MHC(M) HC Sarjeet and he recorded their respective statements in this regard; that after completion of the investigations, the preliminary charge-sheet was prepared and filed against accused Shivam, Sumit, Heera Lal @ Ajay and Mukeem while the result of the FSL was still awaited in respect of the exhibits deposited with them and the PIR in respect of JCL Kishan was submitted separately at a later stage; that he identified the CCTV clipping handed over by the Manager of Jewar Toll Plaza Sh. J.K. Sharma in respect of the passing of Maruti Zen car number DL-4CR-7287 on 03.09.2018, nine photographs of the dead body attached as Ex. PX (Colly), one rope of blue colour as Ex. P-2, one bag red and black colour containing currency notes worth Rs.4,22,150/- which was got recovered from the house of accused Heera Lal as Ex. P-3, photocopies of the currency notes contained in the bag Ex. P-3 as Ex. P-4 (Colly), four photographs of the Zen car no. DL-4CR-7287 as Ex. P-5 to Ex. P-8, one mobile phone make Coolpad of Champagne Gold which was got recovered on pin pointing of JCL Kishan as Ex. P-9 and one photograph of auto bearing no. DL1RW4316. He was extensively cross examined by ld.
Digitally defence counsel for the accused persons. signed by GEETANJALI GEETANJALI Date:
2025.02.11 17:35:14 SC No. 595/2018 FIR No. 542/2018, PS. Jaitpur State Vs. Shivam & Ors Page no.+0530 40 of 75
6. During the prosecution evidence, statement of accused Shivam, Sumit, Heera Lal @ Ajay and Mukeem @ Mukim Khan was recorded u/s.294 Cr.PC whereby they admitted FIR no. 542/2018, PS Jaitpur as Ex.A-1, DD no. 51-A dated 03.09.2018 as Ex.A-2, PCR call form as Ex.A-3, vehicle no. DL-4RW-4316 particulars from transport department as Ex.A-4, vehicle no. DL-4CR-7287 particulars from transport department as Ex.A-5, MLC of deceased Deepak as Ex.A-6, their respective MLCs as Ex.A-7 (colly.), Ex.A-8 (colly.), Ex.A-9 (colly.) and Ex.A-10 (colly.) and prosecution evidence was closed.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED
7. After completion of prosecution evidence, all the incriminating material was put to all the accused persons under section 313 Cr.PC. They pleaded innocence and stated that they have been falsely implicated by the police and have no concern with the present case. Accused Shivam took a plea that police called me at the police station and roped him in the present case. He did not murder the deceased Deepak.
7.1. Accused Heera Lal @ Ajay took a plea that no cash was recovered at his instance and cash so recovered is planted upon him; that IO asked money from him to get rid of the present case and on his refusal he falsely implicated him in the present case; that police also made him to sign on some blank pages.
7.2. Accused Mukeem took a plea that he is not the owner of Zen car and that since he is native of village Ghonda he often commute to there; that the police made him to sign on certain blank SC No. 595/2018 FIR No. 542/2018, PS. Jaitpur State Vs. Shivam & Ors Page no. 41 of 75 Digitally signed by GEETANJALI GEETANJALI Date:
2025.02.11 17:35:19 +0530 papers.
7.3. Accused Sumit took a plea that he did not call anyone on the date of incident nor he handed over any mobile to accused Kishan (JCL) as alleged; that accused Kishan (JCL) is his cousin brother and he used to talk to him; that he was also made to sign certain blank papers by the police.
7.4. All the accused accused persons have preferred to lead any defence evidence and matter was fixed for defence evidence.
DEFENCE EVIDENCE
8. In defence accused Shivam has examined Shri Rakesh Kumar as DW-1. DW-1 Sh. Rakesh Kumar has deposed that he used to run a rehri to sell the banana and accused Shivam used to sell the bananas on wholesale basis and he used to sell the banana on the retail basis; that on the day of incident, he put rehri in J. J. Colony Madanpur Khadar between 03:00 PM to 03:30 PM and accused Shivam came at his said rehri with goods (banana); that they were doing the said business for the last eight years; that accused Shivam used to sell the banana to him on the daily basis at his rehri at J. J. Colony, Madanpur Khadar, New Delhi in between at about 03:00 PM to 03:30 PM. He was cross examined by Ld. Addl.P.P. for the State. 8.1. Accused Mukeem has examined DW-2 Smt. Ramjano and Shri Mohd. Zenus Khan. DW-2 Smt. Ramjano has deposed that on 03.09.2018, he along with his son accused Mukeem had gone to Khair, Aligarh to meet his brother who was not well at that time; that he along with accused Mukeem left from Madanpur Khadar at around 11:30 AM and took a private bus and reached Khair, Aligarh after SC No. 595/2018 FIR No. 542/2018, PS. Jaitpur State Vs. Shivam & Ors Page no. 42 of 75 Digitally signed by GEETANJALI GEETANJALI Date:
2025.02.11 17:35:26 +0530 about 02.00 to 02:30 hours where they sat along with his brother and discussed about partition of property and also about marriage of his son accused Mukeem Khan; that thereafter they left from Khair, Aligarh at about 05:30 PM in order to return back to their house at Madanpur Khadar; that accused Mukeem Khan was arrested by police in the present case when he returned from Khair, Aligarh; that he did not know whether police officials investigated any person related to the bus nor they asked for any ticket from him. He was cross examined by Ld. Addl.P.P. for the State.
8.2. DW-3 Sh. Mohd Zenus Khan has deposed that accused Mukeem Khan is his cousin brother and he used to visit at his residence; that on 03.09.2018, accused Mukeem Khan visited his residence along with his father as his father was not well and had called them to discuss some issues relating to partition of his father's ancestral property; that accused Mukeem Khan along with his father reached at his residence at around 03:30 PM to 04:00 PM and stayed there for around two hours and after discussing the aforementioned issue, they left from there; that they came by bus and returned through the same mode of transport and he gone to see off accused Mukeem Khan and his aunt Ramzano at bus stop which is at about 500 meters away from his home. He was cross examined by Ld. Addl.P.P. for the State.
ARGUMENTS
9. It was argued by Ld. Addl. PP for the State that PW-1 has fully supported the case of Prosecution and deposed that he had witnessed the call of accused Shivam and also deposed that his SC No. 595/2018 FIR No. 542/2018, PS. Jaitpur State Vs. Shivam & Ors Page no. 43 of 75 Digitally signed by GEETANJALI GEETANJALI Date:
2025.02.11 17:35:31 +0530 deceased son namely Deepak had left the house with accused Shivam to deposit the cash amount in the bank; that he had also deposed that when his deceased son not reached to the bank to deposit the cash amount then accused Shivam replied that he had left the deceased at the bank; that no substantive contradiction/ improvements have established in the testimony of PW-1 regarding the last seen of the deceased Deepak with the accused Shivam; that the dead body of deceased Deepak was recovered at the instance of accused Shivam, Hira Lal and Sumit; that the plastic rope of blue colour which was used in the commission of offence was also recovered at the instance of accused Shivam, Hira Lal and Sumit; that one black and red colour bag containing currency notes of Rs. 4,22,150/- was recovered at the instance of accused Shivam, Hira Lal and Sumit; that the mobile phone of deceased was also recovered in pursuance of disclosure statement of accused which also support the case of Prosecution; the car make Maruti Zen which was used in the commission of offence by accused persons were also seen in the CCTV footage; that the call details and location chart of the mobile phone of accused persons and deceased Deepak also shows that deceased Deepak was with the accused persons which cast duty upon the accused persons to explain as to how they had parted with the company of the deceased but they did not show anything in this regard which shows that the accused persons in connivance of each other had committed the murder of deceased Deepak; that the police witnesses has also supported the case of Prosecution and they were intact during the course of recording of their testimonies in support of case of Prosecution; that SC No. 595/2018 FIR No. 542/2018, PS. Jaitpur State Vs. Shivam & Ors Page no. 44 of 75 Digitally signed by GEETANJALI GEETANJALI Date:
2025.02.11 17:35:37 +0530 no motive was established by the accused persons as to why they have been falsely implicated in the present case. Therefore it is prayed to the Court that all the accused persons should be convicted for the offences charged in the light of last seen theory together with the accused persons, location chart of the mobile phone of the accused persons, recovery of dead body, Maruti Zen car and other incriminating evidences.
9.1. Per contra it was argued from the side of accused Heera Lal & Sumit that the progression of trial in the present matter has only vindicated innocence of accused and Prosecution has miserably failed to adduce any substantial material on record to prove the aforesaid charges and has blindly relied and confined itself to the testimony of PW-1 i.e. father of the deceased; that there are various material defects and irregularities in the investigation which are going to the root of the case; that the investigation in the present case is a sham and face saving exercise; that the edifice of the Prosecution's case stands on the pillar of sole testimony of PW-1 and apparently that pillar is dilapidated and cannot be relied for deriving conviction on charged offences upon accused persons; that the testimony of PW-1 does not satisfy the test of last seen theory' as his deposition is full of major contradictions; that further the case of the Prosecution against the accused Hira Lal and Sumit is only based on disclosure statements of other accused persons; that even Informant/Complainant namely Rama Shankar i.e. PW-1 has failed to identify the accused Hira Lal and Sumit; that accused is falsely implicated in the present case being the neighbor; that he had gone to meet his relative in Khair, Aligarh SC No. 595/2018 FIR No. 542/2018, PS. Jaitpur State Vs. Shivam & Ors Page no. 45 of 75 Digitally signed by GEETANJALI GEETANJALI Date:
2025.02.11 17:35:43 +0530 on the date of alleged incident; that this aspect has been deposed by his mother and relative from Khair whose depositions have gone un- impeached and raise a reasonable doubt qua false implication of the accused in the present case; that no recovery was affected from accused Hira Lal or Sumit; that there is no witness to the alleged recovery from them; that accused Hira Lal and Sumit are not visible in the CCTV footage of the Toll Tax booth; that no public witness was joined in the recovery proceedings; that accused Hira Lal was not arrested from his house but he himself surrendered at the police station; that accused Mukeem was neigbour of accused Hira Lal and at his instance Hira Lal was arrested in the present case; that there is no videography or photography of the present proceedings of recovery nor there is any independent witness to the same; that complainant Rama Shankar failed to identify any of the accused persons. 9.2. It was argued from the side of accused Shivam that there is only one public witness i.e. father of the deceased namely Shri Rama Shankar who is the witness of last seen however last seen is also not proved; that there is no recovery effected from any of the accused persons and there is nothing recovered from accused Shivam; that the motive of murder i.e. looting Rs.4,50,000/- is not proved nor any official from the concerned bank was examined in the present case;
that there is no explanation to the fact that when the said money i.e. Rs.4,50,000/- was not deposited in the Bank why the complainant did not call at 100 number; that no call was made at 100 number despite the fact that sufficient time has already passed since deceased left the home; that accused Shivam was found present in his home and he did SC No. 595/2018 FIR No. 542/2018, PS. Jaitpur State Vs. Shivam & Ors Page no. 46 of 75 Digitally signed by GEETANJALI GEETANJALI Date:
2025.02.11 17:35:50 +0530 not try to flee from there even after knowing to know about the missing of deceased Deepak; that the complainant stated different amounts of shortfall in his examination in chief as well as in cross examination; that the contact number of accused Shivam was arranged through someone however the said person was not examined as witness in the present case; that another son of the complainant namely Sonu was not examined in the present case; that recovery of amount was done at the instance of other accused person and not from accused Shivam; that there is no mention of shortfall money sent through younger son in the statement of the complainant u/s. 161 Cr.PC.; that the complainant could not tell the denomination of money sent through his deceased son nor did he see the accused persons taking the deceased alongwith them; that he did not even know the addresses of the accused persons nor he was aware about their phone numbers; that the deceased himself was of a criminal nature. 9.3. It was argued from the side of accused Mukeem that Prosecution miserably failed to adduce any substantial material on record to prove the charges against accused Mukeem and relied on the sole testimony of father of deceased i.e. PW-1 Shri Rama Shankar;
that there are various material defects and irregularities going to the root of the allegations; that the investigation in the present case is a sham face saving exercise; that the edifice of the Prosecution's case stands on the pillar of sole testimony of PW-1 and apparently the said pillar is dilapidated and cannot be relied for deriving conviction upon accused as none of the offences charge are proved beyond reasonable doubt by the Prosecution; that the testimony of PW-1 does not satisfy SC No. 595/2018 FIR No. 542/2018, PS. Jaitpur State Vs. Shivam & Ors Page no. 47 of 75 Digitally signed by GEETANJALI GEETANJALI Date:
2025.02.11 17:35:56 +0530 the test of "last seen theory" as the same is full of major contradictions; that the fundamental principle of law regarding oral evidence is that oral evidence must be direct evidence and the same must inspire confidence however the deposition of star witness i.e. PW-1 is full of contradictions on major aspects creating several snaps in the chain of evidences sought to be relied upon by the Prosecution; that the role attributed to accused Mukeem that the alleged incident occurred in his car since he was driving the same therefore he aided in commission of offence is vividly unraveled as he is not the owner of the offending vehicle nor there is any document on record to show the sale-purchase of same in his name; that the recovery of alleged offending vehicle was effected in presence of PW-1 however he deposed that no recovery was effected in his presence; that no notice was given to public persons who refused to join the investigation at the time of recovery of said car; that there is no un-impeached chain of evidence on the aspect when did accused Mukeem participate in abducting deceased Deepak or when did his common intention came into action to hatch a criminal conspiracy for committing alleged offence or to abduct, rob, murder deceased Deepak and to cause evidence to disappear in order to screen himself from legal punishment; that only incriminating evidence against the accused is only the disclosure statement of other co-accused persons; that PW-1 Rama Shankar failed to identify the accused; that false implication of accused is vividly apparent as there are substantial contradictions in deposition of several witnesses; that as per arrest memo of accused Ex.PW1/H he was arrested on 05.09.2018 at 4.00 p.m. whereas PW-1 SC No. 595/2018 FIR No. 542/2018, PS. Jaitpur State Vs. Shivam & OrsPage no. 48 of 75 Digitally signed by GEETANJALI GEETANJALI Date:
2025.02.11 17:36:07 +0530 has deposed that he was arrested on 03.09.2018; that accused has been falsely implicated in the present case being due to the reason that he was residing in the neighbourhood of the co-accused and deceased; that deposition of defence witnesses qua the fact that accused went to meet his relatives in Khair, have gone un-impeached and raised a doubt on prosecution story; that the star witnesses alleged that several neighbors including staff of mosque were present near the place of alleged recovery of Zen car; that neither they nor any other independent public witnesses was associated at any stage of investigation; that no statement was recorded of any public witnesses to find out the conduct of accused persons and also to enquire about allegation of PW-1; that the prosecution failed to examine a single independent witnesses in the present case. In view of the same it has been prayed that all accused persons be acquitted of the offences charged.
ANALYSIS OF EVIDENCE AND FINDINGS
10. I have heard the Ld. Addl. PP for the State as well as Ld. Counsel for both the accused persons and perused the record. 10.1. The accused persons are facing trial for the offence U/s.
302/365/392/201/120B/411 IPC. The essential ingredients of the offence U/s. Section 302 IPC are as follows :
1. Death of a human being was caused;
2. Such death was caused by or in consequence of the act of the accused;
3. Such act was done;
a. with the intention of causing death, or b. that the accused knew it to be likely to cause death, or SC No. 595/2018 FIR No. 542/2018, PS. Jaitpur State Vs. Shivam & Ors Page no. 49 of 75 Digitally signed by GEETANJALI GEETANJALI Date:
2025.02.11 17:36:19 +0530 c. that the injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.
10.2. Section 365 IPC deals with kidnapping or abducting with intent secretly and wrongfully to confine person. It states that:
"Whoever kidnaps or abducts any person with intent to cause that person to be secretly and wrongfully confined, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine."
10.3. The essential ingredients required to be proved in the case of an offence u/s. 365 IPC are:-
(i) That the accused kidnapped or abducted a person.
(ii) That he did so with intent to confine him secretly and wrongfully.
(iii) That he had such intention at the time of kidnapping or abduction.
10.4. In order to prove the offence U/s.302 IPC against the accused persons the Prosecution has to prove :
A. The presence of accused persons on the spot at the time of incident.
B. Their identification by the eye witness. C. The injuries caused to the deceased and medical opinion as regards cause of death.
D. The motive of the accused persons in causing death of deceased.
10.5. Section 392 IPC provides the punishment for robbery and section 390 IPC deals with the offence of robbery. It states that in all robbery there is either theft or extortion and in the given facts and circumstances, there is aggravated form of theft due to actual SC No. 595/2018 FIR No. 542/2018, PS. Jaitpur State Vs. Shivam & Ors Page no. 50 of 75 Digitally signed by GEETANJALI GEETANJALI Date:
2025.02.11 17:36:24 +0530 attempted violence or by causing fear of violence. The point requiring proof are:
I. Where theft is robbery:-
1. That the property in question is movable property;
2. That it was in possession of a person;
3. That the accused moved it;
4. That he did so without the consent of the possessor;
5. That he did so in order to take it out of his possession;
6. and with intent to cause wrongful gain to himself or wrongful loss to the possessor.
7. That the accused caused or attempted to cause death, or hurt or wrongful restraint to any person, or that he attempted to cause or caused fear of instant death or instant hurt or instant wrongful restraint;
8. that he did so voluntarily;
9. That he did it, in order to commit theft, or in committing theft, or in carrying away or attempting to carry away property obtained by theft.
10.6. Section 411 IPC deals with dishonestly receiving the stolen property. For the sake of convenience section 411 IPC is reproduced below:-
"Who ever dishonestly receives or retains any property stolen property, knowing or having reason to believe the same to be stolen property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extent to three years or with fine or with both."
10.7. The necessary ingredients of section 411 IPC are as under:-
(1) That a theft was committed and certain articles were stolen and SC No. 595/2018 FIR No. 542/2018, PS. Jaitpur State Vs. Shivam & Ors Page no. 51 of 75 Digitally signed by GEETANJALI GEETANJALI Date:
2025.02.11 17:36:32 +0530 (2) that the stolen articles were recovered from the possession of the accused.
10.8. Section 201 IPC deals with causing the disappearance of evidence of an offence or giving false information to screen the offender. This section plays a pivotal role in ensuring that the destruction or concealment of evidence does not obstruct justice. 10.9. Section 120B IPC deals with whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence.
11. Coming to the first ingredient i.e. death, as per the MLC Ex.A-6 deceased Deepak was brought dead to the hospital at 11.40 am on 04.09.2018. The genuineness of the MLC was not challenged from the side of the accused persons since same was admitted document u/s. 294 Cr.PC. The postmortem report Ex.PW-19/A disclosed the cause of death asphyxia due to cumulative effect of strangulation and smothering which is sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. Thus as per the postmortem report, Deepak suffered an unnatural death on 04.09.2018. During cross examination ld. defence counsel failed to show any circumstance which may challenge the veracity of the postmortem report or the opinion given therein.
Ocular Evidence
12. There is no eye witness in the present case. Since there is no direct evidence with regard to any aspect of the matter in the present case, the Prosecution has relied on the testimony of PW-1 Sh. Rama Shankar to prove the circumstances that lead to the conclusion that it Digitally signed by GEETANJALI SC No. 595/2018 FIR No. 542/2018, PS. Jaitpur State Vs. Shivam &GEETANJALI Ors Page no. Date:
52 of 75 2025.02.11 17:36:39 +0530 was the accused persons who murdered his son Deepak. 12.1. PW-1 Sh. Rama Shankar is the father of deceased Deepak and he has deposed that "on 03.09.2018 my son namely Deepak was about to go to Bank from house to deposit money that is about Rs.4,50,000/- then in the meantime he received a call of Shivam the friend and schoolmate. He asked my son as to where he was, my son replied that he was at house and going to bank to deposit money.
Then Shivam asked him to go with them for watching some film and he will bringing his car and asked to met on the way." He has further deposed that "thereafter my son left the house with aforesaid money and went along with Shivam. Immediately thereafter, I sent my younger son Sonu with Rs.25,000/- to deposit along with the aforesaid money in the bank that is SBI Bank Jasola. Upon reaching in the bank it was revealed to my son Sonu that my son Deepak did not reach in the bank. There upon I made search of my son Deepak but he could not be found. I search the mobile phone number of Shivam and I find the same at about 6:30 PM from someone while I was searching my son. I made a call on the mobile number of Shivam and he told me that he was in Noida. I asked Shivam that my son Deepak was with him and where they left him. On this Shivam replied that he had left Deepak at the Bank in Jasola." He has further deposed that "I told Shivam that Deepak had not reached in the bank and asked him who is with him then he told that two three persons with him then I asked him to come immediately and meet me. Thereafter Shivam came and meet me but he was alone and the remaining two to three persons were not with him. When Shivam was Digitally signed by GEETANJALI GEETANJALI Date:
2025.02.11 17:36:45 SC No. 595/2018 FIR No. 542/2018, PS. Jaitpur State Vs. Shivam & Ors Page no. 53 of 75+0530 at my home at about 7:30 Pm then I made a call at 100 number to police. Police reached at my home. Police took Shivam to police station and I also accompanied them to the police station. There my statement was recorded by police which is Ex. PW1/A bears my signature at point A." He has further deposed that "I returned to my house but later on in the night I again reached in the police station at about 4:00 Am. Police arrested Shivam and he associate Heeralal and Sumit." He has further deposed that "After the interrogation accused Sumit, Shivam, and Heeralal had got recovered the dead body of my son Deepak from near the river in the area of Khair Aligarh UP. " He was cross examined at length by the ld. defence counsel. 12.2. From the above said testimonies it is evident that the case of prosecution purely rests on circumstantial evidence. The above narration of the facts shows that the prosecution has attempted to prove the circumstance that the deceased was last seen alive in the company of the accused persons which led to inference that accused persons committed his murder. It is a well-settled proposition of law that when the case rests upon circumstantial evidence, such evidence must satisfy the following tests: -
(1) The circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established; (2) Those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused; (3) The circumstances, 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 (4) The circumstantial evidence in order to sustain Digitally signed by GEETANJALI GEETANJALI Date:
2025.02.11 17:36:52 +0530 SC No. 595/2018 FIR No. 542/2018, PS. Jaitpur State Vs. Shivam & Ors Page no. 54 of 75 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.
LAST SEEN TOGETHER EVIDENCE
13. The most important circumstance which the prosecution has relied against the accused persons is the last seen evidence of the deceased being last seen alive in the company of the accused persons on 03.09.2018 at about 02:00 PM to 02:30 PM. On the issue of last seen together evidence, in State of Goa Vs. Sanjay Thakran, 2007 (3) Scale 740, the Supreme Court has held as follows:
"28. ... It is a settled rule of criminal jurisprudence that suspicion, however grave, cannot be substituted for a proof and the courts shall take utmost precaution in finding an accused guilty only on the basis of circumstantial evidence. This Court has applied the above-mentioned general principle with reference to the principle of last seen together in Bodh Raj alias Bodha and Ors. v. State of Jammu and Kashmir : 2002 (8) SCC 45 as under:
"31. The last-seen theory comes into play where the timegap between the point of time when the accused and the deceased were seen last alive and when the deceased is found dead is so small that possibility of any person other than the accused being the author of the crime becomes impossible. It would be difficult in some cases to positively establish that the deceased was last seen with the accused when there is a long gap and possibility of other persons coming in between exists. In the absence of any other positive evidence to conclude that the accused and the deceased were last seen together, it would be hazardous to come to a conclusion of guilt in those cases..."
SC No. 595/2018 FIR No. 542/2018, PS. Jaitpur State Vs. Shivam & Ors Page no. 55 of 75 Digitally signed by GEETANJALI GEETANJALI Date:
2025.02.11 17:37:03 +0530 "In Ramreddy Rajesh Khanna Reddy and Anr. v. State of Andhra Pradesh JT 2006 (4) SC 16 (para 29)] the Court further opined that even in the cases where time gap between the point of time when the accused and the deceased were last seen alive and when the deceased was found dead is too small that possibility of any person other than the accused being the author of the crime becomes impossible, the courts should look for some corroboration.
In Jaswant Gir v. State of Punjab (2005) 12 SCC 438, it was observed that:
"5. ...In the absence of any other links in the chain of circumstantial evidence, it is not possible to convict the appellant solely on the basis of the 'last-seen' evidence, even if the version of PW 14 in this regard is believed..." xxx From the principle laid down, the circumstance of last- seen together would normally be taken into consideration for finding the accused guilty of the offence charged with when it is established by the prosecution that the time gap between the point of time when the accused and the deceased were found together alive and when the deceased was found dead is so small that possibility of any other person being with the deceased could completely be ruled out. The time gap between the accused persons seen in the company of the deceased and the detection of the crime would be a material consideration for appreciation of the evidence and placing reliance on it as a circumstance against the accused. But, in all cases, it cannot be said that the evidence of last seen together is to be rejected merely because the time gap between the accused persons and the deceased last seen together and the crime coming to light is after a considerable long duration. There can be no fixed or straight jacket formula for the duration of time gap in Digitally signed by SC No. 595/2018 FIR No. 542/2018, PS. Jaitpur State Vs. Shivam & Ors Page GEETANJALI no. 56 of 75 GEETANJALI Date:
2025.02.11 17:37:09 +0530 this regard and it would depend upon the evidence led by the prosecution to remove the possibility of any other person meeting the deceased in the intervening period, that is to say, if the prosecution is able to lead such an evidence that likelihood of any person other than the accused, being the author the crime, becomes impossible, then the evidence of circumstance of last seen together, although there is long duration of time, can be considered as one of the circumstances in the chain of circumstances to prove the guilt against such accused persons. Hence, if the prosecution proves that in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, there was no possibility of any other person meeting or approaching the deceased at the place of incident or before the commission of the crime, in the intervening period, the proof of last seen together would be relevant evidence. For instance, if it can be demonstrated by showing that the accused persons were in exclusive possession of the place where the incident occurred or where they were last seen together with the deceased, and there was no possibility of any intrusion to that place by any third party, then a relatively wider time gap would not affect the prosecution case."
(Emphasis Supplied)
14. Thus in view of the above discussed law, the evidence led by the prosecution has to be examined in the context of proximity of not only time but of place as well. In this regard, Prosecution has extensively relied upon the testimony of PW-1 Mr. Rama Shankar who is the father of deceased and is the sole witness to the effect that deceased was lastly seen in the company of accused Shivam.
15. PW-1 Shri Rama Shankar has deposed that "on 03.09.2018 SC No. 595/2018 FIR No. 542/2018, PS. Jaitpur State Vs. Shivam & Ors Page no. 57 of 75 Digitally signed by GEETANJALI GEETANJALI Date:
2025.02.11 17:37:15 +0530my son namely Deepak was about to go to Bank from house to deposit money that is about Rs.4,50,000/- then in the meantime he received a call of Shivam the friend and schoolmate. He asked my son as to where he was, my son replied that he was at house and going to bank to deposit money. Then Shivam asked him to go with them for watching some film and he will bringing his car and asked to met on the way." He has further deposed that "thereafter my son left the house with aforesaid money and went along with Shivam. Immediately thereafter, I sent my younger son Sonu with Rs.25,000/- to deposit along with the aforesaid money in the bank that is SBI Bank Jasola. Upon reaching in the bank it was revealed to my son Sonu that my son Deepak did not reach in the bank. There upon I made search of my son Deepak but he could not be found. I search the mobile phone number of Shivam and I find the same at about 6:30 PM from someone while I was searching my son. I made a call on the mobile number of Shivam and he told me that he was in Noida. I asked Shivam that my son Deepak was with him and where they left him. On this Shivam replied that he had left Deepak at the Bank in Jasola." He has further deposed that "I told Shivam that Deepak had not reached in the bank and asked him who is with him then he told that two three persons with him then I asked him to come immediately and meet me. Thereafter Shivam came and meet me but he was alone and the remaining two to three persons were not with him. When Shivam was at my home at about 7:30 Pm then I made a call at 100 number to police. Police reached at my home. Police took Shivam to police station and I also accompanied them to the police SC No. 595/2018 FIR No. 542/2018, PS. Jaitpur State Vs. Shivam & Ors Page no. 58 of 75 Digitally signed by GEETANJALI GEETANJALI Date:
2025.02.11 17:37:30 +0530 station. There my statement was recorded by police which is Ex. PW1/A bears my signature at point A." He has further deposed that "I returned to my house but later on in the night I again reached in the police station at about 4:00 Am. Police arrested Shivam and he associate Heeralal and Sumit." He has further deposed that "After the interrogation accused Sumit, Shivam, and Heeralal had got recovered the dead body of my son Deepak from near the river in the area of Khair Aligarh UP." He was cross examined by the ld. defence counsel.
15.1. From the aforesaid testimony the picture which appears is that PW-1 has deposed that his son Deepak i.e. deceased lastly talked with accused Shivam. He has deposed that " on 03.09.2018 my son namely Deepak was about to go to Bank from house to deposit money that is about Rs.4,50,000/- then in the meantime he received a call of Shivam the friend and schoolmate. He asked my son as to where he was, my son replied that he was at house and going to bank to deposit money. Then Shivam asked him to go with them for watching some film and he will bringing his car and asked to met on the way." No question was asked from the witness by the ld. defence counsel thereby disputing the fact that deceased Deepak did not receive any call from accused Shivam on 03.09.2018. The fact that deceased Deepak received call from the accused Shivam has been proved by the testimony of PW-8 Shri Ajit Singh who is the Alternate Nodal Officer, Vodafone Idea Ltd. He has proved that mobile number 9711229633 stands registered in the name of accused Shivam vide CAFs and CDRs Ex.PW8/5 (colly.). Digitally signed by GEETANJALI GEETANJALI Date:
2025.02.11 SC No. 595/2018 FIR No. 542/2018, PS. Jaitpur State Vs. Shivam & Ors Page no.17:37:36 59 of 75 +0530 15.2. Similarly the fact that deceased Deepak received call from the accused Shivam has been proved by the testimony of PW-12 Sh.
Pankaj Sharma who is the Nodal Officer of Reliance Jio. He has proved that mobile number 8851033991 stands registered in the name of deceased Deepak vide CDRs and CAFs Ex.PW12/A (colly.) and Ex.PW12/B respectively. Perusal of the CDRs of accused Shivam and deceased Deepak reveals that accused Shivam called deceased Deepak on 03.09.2018 at about 11.16 hours as well as on 11.57.47 hours. 15.3. However perusal of the CDRs of the deceased further reveals that he lastly called the number 8076219704 which does not belong to either of the accused persons. In view of the same it cannot be said that the deceased lastly talked with accused Shivam on the alleged date of incident. PW-1 has further deposed that his son i.e. deceased Deepak went to the State Bank of India for depositing money of Rs.4.50 lacs and immediately thereafter he sent his younger son Sonu with sum of Rs.25,000/- to be deposited alongwith the aforesaid money in the bank where his younger son came to know that his son Deepak did not reach the bank thereafter which he started searching for his son. However in the quest of his son, he did not bother to call him even once as apparent from CDR of the deceased Deepak which is Ex.PW12/A (colly.). During his cross examination, PW-1 has stated that his younger son called him from bank at around 2.45 p.m. however neither the CDR of PW-1 nor that of his son was collected during the course of investigation. 15.4. It is pertinent to note here that PW-1 Shri Rama Shankar was examined by the Prosecution in order to prove the last seen SC No. 595/2018 FIR No. 542/2018, PS. Jaitpur State Vs. Shivam & Ors Page no. 60 of 75 Digitally signed by GEETANJALI GEETANJALI Date:
2025.02.11 17:37:44 +0530 theory but the theory falls on the ground when PW-1 has admitted in his cross examination that "he had not seen the accused persons meeting Deepak at Samosa Chowk Masjid". The fact that accused Shivam went along with deceased Deepak on the date of incident has also been specifically denied by the accused Shivam in his statement u/s. 313 Cr.PC.
15.5. In view of the aforesaid discussions, the Prosecution has failed to establish the fact that deceased Deepak was with the accused Shivam on 03.09.2018 at about 02:00 PM to 02:30 PM or that the deceased was lastly seen in the company of accused Shivam on 03.09.2018 at about 02:00 PM to 02:30 PM.
CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE/ RECOVERIES
16. The police machinery was set into motion by call made by PW-1 Shri Rama Shankar who is father of the deceased Deepak and it was on the suspicion raised by him only that accused persons were arrested in the present case and their disclosure statements were recorded. The accused persons disclosed that they took the deceased Deepak in the car of accused Mukeem under the pretext of showing movie and deceased Deepak told them that he will go for movie after depositing the sum of Rs.4.50 lacs in the bank; that as per the plan they took the car in the direction of Kalindi Kunj and stopped the vehicle by the side of Mahamaya flyover and strangulated him with a rope on the way; that they put the body of deceased Deepak in the dicky of the car at Yamuna Expressway where petrol of the car was exhausted and they called Highway Customer Care as well as accused Kishan (JCL) for bringing petrol; that Highway Customer SC No. 595/2018 FIR No. 542/2018, PS. Jaitpur State Vs. Shivam & Ors Page no. 61 of 75 Digitally signed by GEETANJALI GEETANJALI Date:
2025.02.11 17:37:50 +0530 Care refilled their car with five liters petrol against cash payment and in the meanwhile accused Kishan (JCL) also reached there in his auto who gave them two liters of petrol; that accused Kishan (JCL) was also handed over mobile phone of deceased Deepak for disposing the same in the drain near Kalindi Kunj red light; that on the way they paid the toll tax at Jewar Toll Plaza; that they threw the dead body of deceased Deepak as well nylon rope in canal near kasba Khair, Aligarh and accused Hira Lal @ Ajay kept the sum of Rs.4.50 lacs with him to be distributed among themselves. 16.1. Undoubtedly, the court cannot rely upon the disclosure statement of the accused, however, the fact remains that the same can be relied upon U/s. 27 of Indian Evidence Act, when any fact is deposed to and discovered in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovery may be proved. In Siju Kurian vs. State of Karnataka, Crl. Appeal No. 64 of 2021 decided by Hon'ble SC on 17/04/2023, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that "19. It is a trite law that in pursuance to a voluntary statement made by the accused, a fact must be discovered which was in the exclusive knowledge of the accused alone. In such circumstances, that part of the voluntary statement which leads to the discovery of a new fact which was only in the knowledge of the accused would become admissible under Section
27. Such statement should have been voluntarily made and the facts stated therein should not have been in the knowhow of others."
SC No. 595/2018 FIR No. 542/2018, PS. Jaitpur State Vs. Shivam & Ors Page no. 62 of 75 Digitally signed by GEETANJALI GEETANJALI Date:
2025.02.11 17:37:56 +0530 16.2. In the case of Ramanand @ Nand Lal Bharti Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh Crl. Appeal 6465 of 2022 decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 13.10.2022, held that:
"27. How much of information received from accused may be proved. Provided that, when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved."
64. The conditions necessary for the applicability of Section 27 of the Act are broadly as under:
(1) Discovery of fact in consequence of information received from accused; (2) Discovery of such fact to be deposed to; (3) The accused must be in police custody when he gave information; and (4) So much of information as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered is admissible - Mohmed Inayatullah v. The State of Maharashtra: AIR (1976) SC 483 Two conditions for application- (1) information must be such as has caused discovery of the fact; and (2) information must relate distinctly to the fact discovered Earabhadrappa v. State of Karnutuka: AIR (1983) SC 446"
16.3. In the Constitution Bench decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Deoman Upadhyaya reported in AIR (1960) SC 1125, in paragraph 71 explains the position of law as regards the Section 27 of the Evidence Act:
"71. The law has thus made a classification of accused persons into two: (1) those who have the danger brought home to them by detention on a charge; and (2) those SC No. 595/2018 FIR No. 542/2018, PS. Jaitpur State Vs. Shivam & Ors Page no. 63 of 75 Digitally signed by GEETANJALI GEETANJALI Date:
2025.02.11 17:38:02 +0530 who are yet free. In the former category are also those persons who surrender to the custody by words or action. The protection given to these two classes is different. In the case of persons belonging to the first category the law has ruled that their statements are not admissible, and in the case of the second category, only that portion, of the statement is admissible as is guaranteed by the discovery of a relevant fact unknown before the statement to the investigating authority. That statement may even be confessional in nature, as when the person in custody says: "I pushed him down such and such mineshaft", and the body of the victim is found as a result, and it can be proved that his death was due to injuries received by a fall down the mineshaft." [Emphasis supplied] 16.4. The scope and ambit of Section 27 of the Evidence Act were illuminatingly stated in Pulukuri Kottaya and Others v. Emperor, AIR 1947 PC 67, which have become locus classicus, in the following words:
"10.....It is fallacious to treat the "fact discovered" within the section as equivalent to the object produced; the fact discovered embraces the place from which the object is produced and the knowledge of the accused as to this, and the information given must relate distinctly to this fact. Information as to past user, or the past history, of the object produced is not related to its discovery in the setting in which it is discovered. Information supplied by a person in custody that "I will produce a knife concealed in the roof of my house" does not lead to the discovery of a knife; knives were discovered many years ago.
16.5. Thus, what is admissible being the information, the same has Digitally signed by GEETANJALI GEETANJALI Date:
2025.02.11 17:38:07 SC No. 595/2018 FIR No. 542/2018, PS. Jaitpur State Vs. Shivam & Ors Page no. 64 of+0530 75 to be proved and not the opinion formed on it by the police officer. In other words, the exact information given by the accused while in custody which led to recovery of the articles has to be proved. It is, therefore, necessary for the benefit of both the accused and the prosecution that information given should be recorded and proved and if not so recorded, the exact information must be adduced through evidence. The basic idea embedded in Section 27 of the Evidence Act is the doctrine of Confirmation by subsequent events. The doctrine is founded on the principle that if any fact is discovered as a search made on the strength of any information obtained from a prisoner, such a discovery is a guarantee that the information supplied by the prisoner is true. The information might be confessional or non inculpatory in nature but if it results in discovery of a fact, it becomes a reliable information. The "fact discovered"
envisaged in the section embraces the place from which the object was produced, the knowledge of the accused as to it, but the information given must be relate distinctly to that effect. 16.6 In that series PW-33 IO/Inspector Sanjay Sinha has deposed that he formed raiding party including SI Rajeev, SI Prateek, SI Arvind, HC Raghuraj and other team members including the complainant Sh. Rama Shankar and proceeded to the place of the disposal/ hiding of the dead body of deceased Deepak at Kasba Kher near the canal, District Aligarh by the morning of 04.09.2018; that he asked Ct. Ravi to sent for Crime team as well as private photographer namely Budh Ram to Kasba Kher near canal, District Aligarh; that the local police of PS Kher was also requested to join SC No. 595/2018 FIR No. 542/2018, PS. Jaitpur State Vs. Shivam & Ors Page no. 65 of 75 Digitally signed by GEETANJALI GEETANJALI Date:
2025.02.11 17:38:14 +0530 the investigation and SI Shabir Singh of PS Kher accompanied them to the place of dumping/ hiding the dead body of deceased Deepak; that the accused persons pin pointed the place of dumping of the dead body of deceased Deepak below the Godali flyover near the canal within the bushes from where the dead body of the deceased namely Deepak was recovered which was duly identified by the father of the deceased namely Sh. Rama Shankar. He has further deposed that near the dead body of Deepak one rope which was stated to have been used in strangulation of the deceased was also found lying at some distance from the dead body which was also pin pointed and got recovered by all the said three accused persons. The crux of the abovesaid testimony is that the dead body of the deceased Deepak and the weapon of offence i.e. nylon rope was recovered in presence of his father i.e. PW-1 Shri Rama Shankar whereas PW-1 has denied in cross examination that no recovery was effected in his presence.
16.7 It was further disclosed by accused Shivam that deceased Deepak used to forcibly take money from him and did not return the same and used to intimidate him when he asked for his money; that he made the plan along with other accused persons namely Mukeem, Sumit and Hira Lal to teach him a lesson; that on 03.09.2018 at about 9.00-9.30 a.m. he called accused Mukeem who came in his Zen car bearing no. DL-4CR-7287 to his house and from there they went to the house of co-accused Sumit where they met co-accused Hira Lal;
that they called deceased Deepak on the pretext of seeing a movie and planned to kill him and to rob him of his money. Under that plan SC No. 595/2018 FIR No. 542/2018, PS. Jaitpur State Vs. Shivam & Ors Page no. 66 of 75 Digitally signed by GEETANJALI GEETANJALI Date:
2025.02.11 17:38:19 +0530 they met deceased Deepak near his house and took him along with them in the vehicle of accused Mukeem. It was disclosed by accused Mukeem Khan that the car make Maruti Zen bearing registration no. DL4CR7287 belongs to him but it was not found to be registered in the name of accused Mukeem and accordingly the Prosecution examined PW-15 Shri Vipin Rautela and PW-16 Shri Rakesh Kumar Goel to prove that the said car was in the possession of accused Mukeem at the time of alleged incident.
16.8 In that series PW-15 Shri Vipin Rautela has deposed that he purchased second hand car make of Maruti Zen DL-4CR-7287 and sold the same to Shri Rakesh Kumar vide vehicle sell receipt, Form 30 and Form 29 which are Mark A, Mark B and Mark C respectively and identified the photographs of said car as Ex.P-5 to Ex.P-8; that he asked said Rakesh Kumar Goel to get RC transferred in his name on which he replied that he got transferred the RC in his name but later on he came to know that Rakesh Kumar Goel had sold the aforesaid car to somebody else without getting RC transferred. He was cross examined by ld. defence counsel but he failed to extract anything during the cross examination which may show that witness was speaking lie. The said Shri Rakesh Kumar Goel was examined as PW-16 and he has deposed that he purchased the Maruti Zen car bearing registration no.DL-4CR-7287 from PW-15 Shri Vipin Rautela vide vehicle sell receipt, Form 30 and Form 29 which are Mark A, Mark B and Mark C respectively and he sold the same to accused Mukeem in June 2017; that he asked accused Mukeem to get the RC of said car in his name to which he replied that he got the SC No. 595/2018 FIR No. 542/2018, PS. Jaitpur State Vs. Shivam & Ors Page no. 67 of 75 Digitally signed by GEETANJALI GEETANJALI Date:2025.02.11 17:38:26 +0530
same transferred; that later on he came to know that accused Mukeem was involved in the murder case and used the said car; that he identified the photographs of said car as Ex.P-5 to Ex.P-8. He too was cross examined by ld. defence counsel but nothing has come in the cross examination which may cast doubt on his deposition. 16.9. It was also disclosed by accused Mukeem Khan that on 03.09.2018, he had taken his car to the house of accused Shivam after receiving a call from him and from there both of them had gone to the house of accused Sumit where the other co-accused namely Heera Lal @ Ajay was also present and there they carried out a plan to kill Deepak after taking him on the pretext of showing a movie and as per their plan Deepak was dialed by accused Shivam and he was informed that they will go to GIP Noida for watching a movie and that accused Mukeem is bringing his car for this purpose; that on this Deepak had informed Shivam that he had to collect the cash from two locations and thereafter he has to go to the bank for depositing the same and once he gets free then they will go to watch the movie; that thereafter also Shivam had dialed the Deepak (deceased) a number of times and at about 01.30 -02.00 PM, they all had gone to the house of Deepak and make him sit in his car and the said car was being driven by accused Mukeem while on the side front seat Deepak (deceased) was made to sit and on the rear seat the accused persons namely Sumit, Shivam and Heear Lal @ Ajay were sitting and after Deepak (deceased) sat inside the car and Deepak informed them he is having a sum of Rs. 4.5 lacs in his bag, which is to be deposited at Okhla Branch, SBI and thereafter they will move Digitally signed by GEETANJALI GEETANJALI Date:
SC No. 595/2018 FIR No. 542/2018, PS. Jaitpur State Vs. Shivam & Ors 2025.02.11 Page no. 68 of 75 17:38:32 +0530 towards GIP for watching the movie; that accused Mukeem drove the car towards the direction of Kalindi Kunj and when the car reached near Mahamaya Flyover they tried to strangulate Deepak (deceased). He has further disclosed that the car was driven towards Yamuna Expressway where it was stopped and the dead body of Deepak (deceased) was kept in dicky of the car and on further moving the petrol in the car was exhausted and accused Sumit had dialed his cousin brother Kishan to bring petrol and had also dialed Highway Customer Care for petrol and after 25-30 minutes the petrol approx 5 liters was brought by Highway Customer Care and the payment was made in cash by accused Sumit. 16.10. In that series IO/ Inspector PW-33 Sanjay Sinha deposed that on 08.09.2018 he directed the Manager/ concerned officer, Jewar Toll Plaza, Taj Express Highway vide notice u/s. 91 CrPC Ex.
PW11/A to provide the details of the receipt issued on 03.09.2018 in respect of Maruti Zen Car No. DL4CR7287, the CCTV footage for the said period of the passing/ crossing of the car from the said toll plaza and also sought the other relevant information. The said CCTV footage was proved by PW-11 Shri J.K. Sharma who has deposed that on 09.09.2018 he received notice u/s. 91 Cr.P.C. from IO/Inspector Sanjay Sinha, which is Ex. PW11/A; that he again received reminder of aforesaid notice on 20.11.2018 which is Ex.PW11/B; that he furnished the details of car Zen bearing no. DL-4CR-7287 dated 03.09.2018 along with CCTV footage; that computer generated transaction review of both sides of vehicle Zen bearing no. DL-4CR-7287 dated 03.09.2013 is Ex.PW11/C (colly) Digitally signed by GEETANJALI GEETANJALI Date:
2025.02.11 17:38:39 +0530SC No. 595/2018 FIR No. 542/2018, PS. Jaitpur State Vs. Shivam & Ors Page no. 69 of 75 (running into 2 pages); that he had also furnished pendrive containing CCTV footage of said vehicle car going and coming on 03.09.2018, which is Ex.PW11/D; that he also furnished certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act pertaining to computer generated transaction review and pen drive of CCTV footage, which is Ex.PW11/E. He was cross examined by ld. defence counsel and during cross examination he has submitted that only the vehicle number is visible in the footage and neither the passengers nor the driver can be seen in the same. In view of the same, the Prosecution has failed to prove the fact that deceased and the accused namely Sumit, Shivam, Heear Lal @ Ajay and Mukeem were in the Zen Car bearing no. DL4CR7287 on 03.09.2018.
16.11. IO has further deposed that on 06.09.2018 he called the FSL mobile team from FSL Rohini for inspection of the car used in the commission of the offence which was seized by him on pin pointing accused Mukeem; that the mobile FSL team lifted three exhibits from the said car. The FSL expert was examined as PW-17. 16.12. PW-17 Dr. Naresh Kumar, SSO Biology FSL, Rohini has deposed that on 06.09.2018 he visited police station Jaitpur for inspection of car no. DL4CR7287 on the request of the IO; that he inspected the car along with his team members and suspected biological material was lifted and marked as serial no. 1, 2 & 3; that item no. 1 contained hair which were found on footmat of front left side seat, item no. 2 contained pieces of mat taken from the dickey below the base-tube and item no. 3 contained pieces of sheet cover from the rear seat; that after lifting the samples, same were kept in Digitally signed by GEETANJALI GEETANJALI Date:
2025.02.11 17:38:50 SC No. 595/2018 FIR No. 542/2018, PS. Jaitpur State Vs. Shivam & Ors Page no. 70 of 75 +0530 separate envelops and sealed by IO and he prepared report in this regard which is Ex. PW 17/A. He was cross examined by ld. defence counsel. The said samples were sent to FSL for examination and the FSL report was proved by PW-18 Ms. Shashi Bala Pahuja, SSO Biology, FSL, Rohini vide detailed report which is Ex. PW18/A. However no blood could be detected on the said exhibits neither any DNA profile was generated from the said exhibits. 16.13 One of the series of events is the recovery of robbed amount of Rs.4.50 lacs from the house of accused Heera Lal @ Ajay. PW-1 Shri Rama Shankar has deposed that on 03.09.2018 his son namely Deepak was about to go to Bank from house to deposit money that is about Rs.4,50,000/- then in the meantime he received a call of his friend and school mate namely Shivam. IO has deposed that accused Hira Lal @ Ajay disclosed that the dead body of Deepak (deceased) was thrown near the Canal in Kasba Khair, within jurisdiction of District Aligarh, ahead of Tappal, while the robbed amount of Rs.4.5 lacs contained in the bag was retained by accused Heera Lal @ Ajay with a thinking that same will be distributed amongst themselves, after some time gap. Pursuant to said disclosure statement IO along with SI Rajiv Kumar, SI Arvind Kumar, HC Rajender Singh, Ct.
Mukesh Jha and other staff reached at house of accused Heera Lal @ Ajay at at House No. 1535, Raj Nagar, Phase-III, Madanpur Khadar, New Delhi; that the accused Heera Lal pin pointed a room inside his house and there was a bed placed in the said room and from inside the said bed the accused Heera Lal @ Ajay took out red and black colour bag, which was identified by the complainant Rama Shankar Digitally signed by GEETANJALI GEETANJALI Date:
2025.02.11 17:38:58 +0530SC No. 595/2018 FIR No. 542/2018, PS. Jaitpur State Vs. Shivam & Ors Page no. 71 of 75 to be the same very bag which was taken by his son Deepak (deceased), on 03.09.2018 for depositing the cash in the bank; that the said bag was opened and the same was found containing currency notes totaling to Rs 4,22,150/- and there were 41 currency notes of denomination of Rs. 2000/- each, 418 currency notes of the denomination of Rs. 500/- each, 66 currency notes of denomination of Rs. 200/- each, 717 currency notes of the denomination of Rs.100/- each, 275 currency notes of denomination of Rs. 50/- each, 448 currency notes of denomination of Rs. 20/- each, 2354 currency notes of denomination of Rs. 10/- each.
16.14. The crux of the above testimony is that the robbed amount was recovered from the house of accused Heera Lal on the identification of the complainant but that whole exercise was shattered by the one answer of the complainant i.e. PW-1 Rama Shankar who has stated in his cross examination that he is not the witness to the recovery of money and same was told by the police to him.
17. From the aforesaid this Court comes to the conclusion that the Prosecution has failed to prove that the accused persons took deceased Deepak in the car of accused Mukeem under the pretext of showing movie or that the amount recovered from the house of accused Heera Lal was the one which was robbed from deceased Deepak by the accused persons.
MOTIVE
18. It is the case of the Prosecution that deceased Deepak used to forcibly take money from accused Shivam and did not return the Digitally signed by GEETANJALI GEETANJALI Date:2025.02.11 17:39:04 +0530
SC No. 595/2018 FIR No. 542/2018, PS. Jaitpur State Vs. Shivam & Ors Page no. 72 of 75 same and used to intimidate him when he asked for his money; that henceforth he made the plan along with other accused persons namely Mukeem, Sumit and Hira Lal to teach him a lesson; that on 03.09.2018 at about 9.00-9.30 a.m. he called accused Mukeem who came in his Zen car bearing no. DL-4CR-7287 to his house and from there they went to the house of co-accused Sumit where they met co-
accused Hira Lal; that they called deceased Deepak on the pretext of seeing a movie and planned to kill him and to rob him of his money. PW-1 Shri Rama Shankar has nowhere deposed about any enmity between his deceased son Sh. Deepak and accused Shivam and because of this reason only did he made no effort to search his son prior to 06:00 PM, the son who had left in the afternoon at about 02:15 PM and was not responding to his calls since 02:45 PM. Not only that he came to know about the fact that deceased Deepak was not traceable as soon as 02:45 PM. Secondly, PW-1 has deposed that on 03.09.2018 his son namely Deepak was about to go to Bank from house to deposit money that is about Rs.4,50,000/- then in the meantime he received a call of his friend and schoolmate namely Shivam which is showing the cordial relation between his son deceased Deepak and accused Shivam. Thirdly, during cross- examination, PW-1 has shown the source of the said money to the milk supply but he did not remember the exact quantity of milk which they sold on the date of incident. He gave the approximate amount of Rs. 1,75,000/- and further stated that the cash of approximate of Rs. 4,75,000/- was lying in the home due to bank holiday but failed to account of the said amount. Fourthly, the Digitally signed by GEETANJALI GEETANJALI Date:
2025.02.11 17:39:10 +0530 SC No. 595/2018 FIR No. 542/2018, PS. Jaitpur State Vs. Shivam & Ors Page no. 73 of 75 Prosecution did not examine any person from the bank to support the version of PW-1 that deceased Deepak infact went to the bank for depositing the money.
18.1 In cases based entirely on circumstantial evidence, the Court has to satisfy itself that the prosecution proves each circumstance alleged against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and also further proves that each link in the chain of circumstances, equally, beyond reasonable doubt. Further, the Court has to always bear in mind that the circumstances proved should be so strong as to unerringly point to the guilt of the accused and none else and lastly that even a single hypothesis of innocence is ruled out ( Reliance placed on Hanumant v. The State of Madhya Pradesh; AIR 1952 SC 343 and Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra : (1984) 4 SCC 116). 15.2. However the prosecution has failed to prove the chain of events in the present case that the accused persons in furtherance of their common intention took away deceased Deepak in the Zen car of the accused Mukeem to Noida under the pretext of showing movie. The Prosecution has further failed to prove that as per the plan accused persons took the car in the direction of Kalindi Kunj and stopped the vehicle by the side of Mahamaya flyover and strangulated him with a rope on the way. The Prosecution has further failed to prove that after murdering Deepak, accused persons robbed off his money and thereafter thrown his body in the canal near Kasba Kher, District UP. There are so many lose ends in the story of prosecution.
19. In view of the aforesaid discussion and the material available Digitally signed by GEETANJALI GEETANJALI Date:
2025.02.11 SC No. 595/2018 FIR No. 542/2018, PS. Jaitpur State Vs. Shivam & Ors 17:39:18 Page no. 74 of 75 +0530 on record, I am of the considered view that the Prosecution has failed to establish the circumstances in which the accused persons alleged to have killed the deceased Deepak. The testimony of the witnesses examined by the Prosecution is insufficient to prove the involvement of the accused persons in the incident. As the Prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of the accused namely Shivam, Heera Lal @ Ajay, Sumit and Mukeem @ Mukim Khan, they are hereby acquitted of the charge for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 302/365/392/201/120-B/34 IPC and accused Heera Lal @ Ajay is also acquitted for offence punishable u/s 411 IPC.
20. The family members of deceased Deepak are hereby referred to District Legal Services Authority, South East District for consideration of suitable compensation amount.
21. The case properties are confiscated to State. If no appeal is preferred by the Prosecution against the acquittal of the accused persons within the prescribed period of limitation, the case properties be disposed off as per rules.
Digitally signed by GEETANJALI Typed to the direct dictation and GEETANJALI Date:
announced in the open court on this 11th day of February, 2025 2025.02.11 17:39:24 (Geetanjali) +0530 Addl. Session Judge (FTC)-03 South East District,Saket Courts New Delhi/11.02.2025 SC No. 595/2018 FIR No. 542/2018, PS. Jaitpur State Vs. Shivam & Ors Page no. 75 of 75