Delhi District Court
State vs . on 27 August, 2010
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIRENDER KUMAR GOYAL
ADDL SESSIONS JUDGE: FAST TRACK COURT
ROHINI:DELHI
SC No. 20/1
Unique Identification No. 02404R1282322005
State Vs.
1) Anju Verma
W/o late Sh. Trilok Verma
R/o 53/41, West Punjabi Bagh,
Delhi.
2) Purshottam Lal
Son Ram Lal
R/o E4/1, IIIrd Floor,
Sector-7, Rohini,
Delhi.
3) Baljinder Singh @ Bobby
Son of Sh. Purshottam Lal
R/o E4/1, IIIrd Floor,
Sector-7, Rohini,
Delhi.
FIR No. 886/05
PS - Punjabi Bagh
U/s. 120B/302/201 r/w. Sec. 120B of IPC
Date of Decision: 25/08/2010
Date of order on Sentence: 27/08/2010
ORDER ON SENTENCE
27/08/2010
Present. Learned Addl. PP for the State.
Convict Anju Verma, Purshottam Lal, Baljinder @ Bobby from J.C with
counsel Sh. Rajesh Khanna.
I have heard learned Addl. PP for State and Sh. Rajesh Khanna, counsel
SC No.20/1 1
for the convicts on the point of sentence.
Learned defence counsel submits that convict Anju Verma is aged about
44 years. She has two children, who are school going, aged about 19 years and 9
years. After the death of her husband, she is the only major person to support the
family.
Learned defence counsel further submits that convict Purshottam Lal is
aged about 75 years, living retired life.
Learned defence counsel further submits that convict Baljinder @ Bobby
is aged about 32 years having family to support.
Learned defence counsel further submits that considering the above facts
and circumstances and also that convicts remained on bail alongwith the facts that
they have not been convicted in any other case nor are habitual offenders, hence a
lenient view be taken. Learned defence counsel further submits that the case does
not fall within the category of the rarest of the rare case. Hence, minimum sentence
be imposed.
On the other hand, learned Addl. PP for the State assisted by Sh. Vipin
Sanduja, counsel for the complainant states that convicts have committed murder of
the husband of accused Anju Verma and both the children have lost love and
affection of their father. The children have also lost the financial support for their
living. Hence, maximum sentence provided be imposed.
Considering the above facts, circumstances and submissions of learned
Addl. PP and learned defence counsel, I am of the opinion that this case does not
fall within the category of rarest of rare case.
Offence U/s. 120B of IPC is punishable in the same manner as if he had
abetted such offence, if the offence committed is punishable with death, or
imprisonment for life or RI for two years or upwards.
According to section 109 of IPC, if no express provision is made for
punishment of such abetment, which act abetted has been committed, in
consequence of the abetment, then the same is punishable with the punishment
SC No.20/1 2
provided for the offence.
Offence U/s. 302 of IPC is punishable with death or imprisonment for
life and shall also be liable with fine.
In view of the same, sentence of imprisonment for life is imposed upon
convicts Anju Verma, Purshottam Lal and Baljinder @ Bobby alongwith fine of Rs.
25,000/- each u/s 120B of IPC. In default of payment of fine, each convict shall
further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three years.
Sentence for imprisonment for life is imposed upon convicts Anju
Verma, Purshottam Lal and Baljinder @ Bobby alongwith fine of Rs. 25,000/- each
u/s 302 of IPC read with section 120B of IPC. In default of payment of fine, each
convict shall further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three years.
Learned Addl. PP for state assisted by Sh. Vipin Sanduja, counsel for
complainant submits that maximum sentence as provided U/s. 201 of IPC be
awarded against all the three convicts. In support of the same, he has also relied
upon 2007 Criminal Law Journal 2282 titled as Yogesh Narain Saxena Vs. State
of Uttranchal and further submits that in the judgment, the facts were similar of this
case and the Session Court awarded sentence of seven years U/s. 201 of IPC, which
was upheld by Hon'ble High Court and thereafter by the Supreme Court of Delhi.
In view of the facts, circumstances and the submissions made by learned
Addl. PP and learned defence counsel, sentence of seven years S.I. is imposed upon
each convict i.e. Anju Verma, Purshottam Lal and Baljinder @ Bobby with fine of
Rs. 25,000/- each U/s. 201 of IPC read with Section 120B of IPC. In default of
payment of fine, each convict shall further undergo simple imprisonment for a
period of one year and six months.
Convict Anju Verma remained in the custody for three years, four
months and 19 days in this case.
Convict Purshottam Lal remained in custody for one year, nine months
and 28 days in this case.
Convict Baljinder @ Bobby remained in custody for four years, seven
SC No.20/1 3
months and six days in this case.
Learned defencre counsel Sh. Rajesh Khanna for the convicts has
contended that benefit of Section 428 of CrPC be given to the convicts and in
support of the same, has relied upon AIR 1985 Supreme Court 1050 titled as
Bhagirath V. Delhi Administration wherein it has been held that :
"The assumption that the word 'term' implies a concept of
ascertainability or conveys a sense of certainty is contrary to the letter of the law,
as we find it in that section. Even the marginal note to the section does not bear out
that assumption. It rather belies it. And marginal notes are now legislative and not
editorial exercises. The marginal note of S. 428 shows that - the object of the
Legislature in enacting the particular provision was to provide that 'the period of
detention' undergone by the accused' should 'be set off against the sentence of
imprisonment' imposed upon him. There are no words of limitation either in the
section or in its marginal note which would justify restricting the plain and natural
meaning the word 'term' so as to comprehend only sentences which are imposed for
a fixed or ascertainable period.'
"To say that a sentence of life imprisonment imposed upon an accused is
a sentence for the term of his life does not offence neither to grammar not to the
common understanding of the word 'term' . To say otherwise would offend not only
against the language of the statute but against the spirit of the law, that is to say,
the object with which the law was passed. A large number of cases in which the
accused suffer long undertrial detentions are cases punishable with imprisonment
for life. Usually, those who are liable to be sentenced to imprisonment for life are
not enlarged on bail. To deny the benefit of S. 428 to them is to withdraw the
application of a benevolent provision form a large majority of cases in which such
benefit would be needed and justified."
Fine is not deposited by all the convicts.
All the convicts are remanded to serve the sentence.
Benefit of Section 428 of CrPC be given to all the convicts.
All the substantive sentences of imprisonment shall run concurrently.
File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the Open Court on
dated 27th of August, 2010 (Virender Kumar Goyal)
Additional Sessions Judge
Fast Track Court
Rohini : Delhi
SC No.20/1 4
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIRENDER KUMAR GOYAL
ADDL SESSIONS JUDGE: FAST TRACK COURT
ROHINI:DELHI
SC No. 20/1
Unique Identification No. 02404R1282322005
State Vs.
1) Vijay Kumar @ Kittu
Son of Sh. Purshottam Lal
R/o E4/1, IIIrd Floor,
Sector-7, Rohini,
Delhi.
FIR No. 886/05
PS - Punjabi Bagh
U/s. 201 of IPC
Date of Decision: 25/08/2010
Date of order on Sentence: 27/08/2010
ORDER ON SENTENCE
27/08/2010
Present. Learned Addl. PP for the State.
Convict Vijay Kumar @ Kittu from J.C.
I have heard learned Addl. PP for State and Sh. Raj Kumar, counsel for
the convict Vijay Kumar @ Kittu on the point of sentence.
Learned defence counsel submits that convict Vijay Kumar @ Kittu is
aged about 39 years having two children to support. He was bus operator. He is the
only bread earner of his family. He has lost his business. Learned defence counsel
further submits that wife of convict Vijay Kumar @ Kittu is under treatment from
IHBAS for the last about two and half year and he was released on interim bail from
time to time on this ground. Learned defence counsel further submits that the
medical treatment record has already been submitted during the hearing of interim
SC No.20/1 5
bail applications. Learned defence counsel further submits that in view of the
illness of his wife, convict VijayKUmar @ Kittu is the only member to look after
his children. Hence, a lenient view be taken.
Learned Addl. PP for state assisted by Sh. Vipin Sanduja, counsel for
complainant submits that maximum sentence as provided U/s. 201 of IPC be
awarded against the convict. In support of the same, he has also relied upon 2007
Criminal Law Journal 2282 titled as Yogesh Narain Saxena Vs. State of
Uttranchal and further submits that in the judgment, the facts were similar of this
case and the Session Court awarded sentence of seven years U/s. 201 of IPC, which
was upheld by Hon'ble High Court and thereafter by the Supreme Court of Delhi.
Learned defence counsel submits that the judgment relied upon by the
learned addl. PP is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case
as convict Vijay Kumar @ Kittu has not been convicted for the offfence U/s. 302 of
IPC.
Convict Vijay Kumar @ Kittu has remained in the custody for four
years, six months and 14 days.
In view of the above facts and circumstances, sentence of four years and
six months S.I. is imposed upon convict Vijay Kumar @ Kittu with fine of Rs.
25,000/- u/s 201 of IPC. In default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo
simple imprisonment for a period of one year and six months.
Fine is deposited by the convict.
Benefit of Section 428 of CrPC be given to the convict.
File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the Open Court on .
dated 27th of August, 2010 (Virender Kumar Goyal)
Additional Sessions Judge
Fast Track Court
Rohini : Delhi
SC No.20/1 6
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIRENDER KUMAR GOYAL
ADDL SESSIONS JUDGE: FAST TRACK COURT
ROHINI:DELHI
SC No. 20/1
Unique Identification No. 02404R1282322005
State Vs.
1) Anju Verma
W/o late Sh. Trilok Verma
R/o 53/41, West Punjabi Bagh,
Delhi.
2) Jaswant Kaur
W/o Sh. Baljeet Singh
R/o BF20, Shalimar Bagh,
Delhi.
3) Purshottam Lal
Son Ram Lal
R/o E4/1, IIIrd Floor,
Sector-7, Rohini,
Delhi.
4) Vijay Kumar @ Kittu
Son of Sh. Purshottam Lal
R/o E4/1, IIIrd Floor,
Sector-7, Rohini,
Delhi.
5) Baljinder Singh @ Bobby
Son of Sh. Purshottam Lal
R/o E4/1, IIIrd Floor,
Sector-7, Rohini,
Delhi.
6) Sardool Singh
Son of Sh. Gurmukh Singh
R/o 565, Mahala Kamalpur
Near T.B. Hospital, Phagwara Road,
Hoshiyarpur, Delhi.
FIR No. 886/05
PS - Punjabi Bagh
U/s. 364/365/328/302/201/120B/34 of IPC
SC No.20/1 7
Date of institution of the case: 21/12/2005
Arguments heard on: 12/08/2010
Date of reservation of order: 12/08/2010
Date of Decision: 25/08/2010
JUDGMENT
One D.K. Tiwari of Shakti Enterprises Security Service, E-266, Karampura, New Delhi, had given a complaint to SHO, PS Punjabi Bagh on 03/10/2005 on information received from a guard, who was provided by him at 53/41, Punjabi Bagh,Delhi, at about 9.30 that Mrs. Verma, resident of 53/41A had given Rs. 40,000/- to guard Akhilesh and he requested that inquiry be conducted as to why the money was given to the guard.
Later on, on 05/10/2005, one Mr. M.S. Verma, father of Trilok Verma gave complaint to the SHO, PS Punjabi Bagh that his son Trilok Verma was missing since 30/09/2005 from his H.No. 53/41, West Punjabi Bagh. His son had come on that day from his factory to the house at about 9.00 p.m. Thereafter, he had some dispute with his wife i.e. Anju Verma and thereafter Anju Verma's father Purshottam Kumar Singh and younger brother Bobby came to his residence and they all left for Rohini around 12.30 a.m. in Honda City car No. HR-26L-7202. Afterwards nobody knows where he has gone.
Mr. M.S. Verma has further alleged that elder brother in law Mr. Kittu had taken some money from Trilok Verma and was not returning the same. So, matter be looked into.
On 07/10/2005, case U/s. 365 of IPC was registered at PS Punjabi Bagh. On 05/10/2005, DD No. 18A was also recorded at PS Punjabi Bagh at about 1.30 day on the complaint of Mr. M.S. Verma.
On 01/10/2005, in the morning at 6.30 am, DD No. 6 was also recorded at Indirapuram, Ghaziabad, on the information of one Kapil Singhal Son of Ramesh Chandra, R/o H.No. 572, Sector-4, Vaishali, Ghaziabad, that when he had gone for morning walk towards Ambedkar Park, he saw a dead body in front of H.No. 601, SC No.20/1 8 Sector-4, Vaishali of unknown person. He made inquiries and further requested to take necessary action. Panchnama was prepared of the dead body by the police of PS Indirapuram, Ghaziabad, and it was sent for postmortem on 07/10/2005. According to postmortem, death took place due to antemortem chest injuries internal hamerrohage shock. Photograph of the dead body was also taken. Hue and cry notice was published.
On 08/10/2005, accused Baljinder, Vijay Kumar , Purshottam Lal and Anju Verma were arrested in this case. On 09/10/2005, accused Jaswant Kaur was arrested. On 02/12/2005, accused Sardool Singh was arrested in this case. All the accused persons made disclosure statements. On 10/10/2005, accused Baljinder pointed out the place, where Honda city car No.HR-26L-7202 was dropped after committing murder of Trilok Verma. Accused Purshottam Lal, Baljinder, Vijay Kumar and Anju Verma pointed out the place i.e. Vaishali, Indirapuram, Ghaziabad, where they had thrown the dead body of Trilok Verma on 01/10/2005 at about 4.30 a.m. Car No. HR-26L-7202 was seized from PS Janakpuri, Saharanpur Malkhana on 10/10/2005. Clothes of deceased Trilok Verma were taken into possession by Delhi Police from MHC(M) of PS Indirapuram, Ghaziabad, which were deposited with MHC(M), PS Indirapuram, Ghaziabad, after postmortem of the dead body on 10/10/2005.
During investigation, accused Sardool Singh also pointed out H.No. 53/41, West Punjabi Bagh, where he had given six injections to Trilok Verma.
During investigation, rough site plan of the spot, from where dead body was recovered, was prepared and rough site plan of the pointing out place, from where the car was dropped, was also prepared. Scaled site plan of Ambedkar Park, where the dead body was thrown, was also prepared alongwith the scaled site plan of H.No. 53/41, West Punjabi Bagh, Delhi.
Statements of witnesses were recorded. Hue and cry notice was identified by complainant M.S. Verma. Postmortem report and other documents were obtained from police of PS Indirapuram, Ghaziabad and on completion of SC No.20/1 9 investigation, charge sheet was filed against all the accused persons U/s. 364/365/328/302/201/120B/34 of IPC.
Case was committed to the Court of Session on 12/01/2006 and was received in the Court of Session.
On 06/05/2006, charge was framed against all the accused U/s. 120B of IPC, 302 read with Section 120B of IPC, 302 read with Section 120B of IPC, 328 read with Section 120B of IPC, 364 read with Section 120B of IPC, 365 read with Section 120B of IPC and 201 read with Section 120B of IPC to which they have pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
To prove its case, prosecution has examined PW1 to PW21 in all. Statements of accused persons were recorded.
Accused Anju Verma has stated that "she does not remember the exact date, but it was at the fag end of September, 2005. On that day, she had a quarrel with her husband because he had an old relation with a girl and he told her that he wanted to marry her and because of his drinking habits, he assaulted her. Her father and younger brother Bobby came to her house. They tried to patch up the matter. They all came to her mother's place at Rohini. Her husband told them to go upstairs and he will follow them after parking the car. They had hardly reached the staircase, he started his car and went away without saying anything. He did not contact them and his mobile phone was also off."
She has further stated that "her husband was not maintaining good relations with her father in law and other members of his family. They were not on visiting terms with her in-laws. In the 16 years of her married life, they had met 3 or 4 times because her husband had married her against the wishes of his father. After coming to know that her husband had died, he in connivance with Sh. Kuldeep Verma, who is husband of her Nanad Smt. Harsh Verma, concocted the story and with the help of police, they got her arrested and this false case is planted on her. Even after knowing that dead body of her husband was found, Sh. M.S. Verma and Sh. Kuldeep Verma took her to PS Rohini on 04/10/2005 and a missing report was lodged which was written by her on their dictation. They insisted her to write that the incident had taken place on 30/09/2005. Since she was very nervous and wanted to search her husband, she obeyed them. After sending her in custody, they filed several civil suits and a civil suit in High Court to get the property."
Accused Purshottam Lal has stated that "his daughter was married to Sh. Trilok Verma in the year 1990. They were blessed with two children. Trilok Verma started his own business and they all had helped him because his parental side was not happy with his marriage with his daughter. After coming to know that SC No.20/1 10 Trilok Verma has died, his father M.S. Verma and his son in law Kuldeep Verma concocted this story with the police and they have falsely implicated his entire family because they wanted to grab the property left over by his son in law after his death.
Accused Vijay @ Kittu has stated that "he was falsely implicated in the present case at the instance of M.S. Verma and Kuldeep Verma in connivance with the police officials of PS Punjabi Bagh."
Accused Baljinder has stated that "his sister was married to Sh. Trilok Verma in the year 1990. They were blessed with two children. Trilok Verma started his own business and they all had helped him because his parental side was not happy with his marriage with his sister. After coming to know that Trilok Verma has died, his father M.S. Verma and his son in law Kuldeep Verma concocted this story with the police and they have falsely implicated his entire family because they wanted to grab the property left over by his brother in law after his death."
Accused Jaswant Kaur has stated that "she is innocent. She has been falsely implicated in the present case by the police to shield the real culprits."
Accused Sardool Singh has stated that "he is innocent and the present case has been falsely planted on him."
DW1 and DW2 have been examined in defence.
I have heard learned Addl. PP for State and learned defence counsels for the accused persons and have gone through the material place on record with evidence adduced.
Accused Anju Verma, Purshottam Lal, Vijay @ Kittu, Baljinder, Jaswant Kaur and Sardool Singh have been charged for offences U/s. 120B of IPC, 302 read with Section 120B of IPC, 302 read with Section 120B of IPC, 328 read with Section 120B of IPC, 364 read with Section 120B of IPC, 365 read with Section 120B of IPC and 201 read with Section 120B of IPC.
The case is based on last seen evidence and circumstantial evidence. Last Seen Evidence:
In this respect, prosecution has examined PW1 Akhilesh Singh. He was working as Guard at H. No. 53/41, West Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi. He has stated that on 30/09/2005, he was working as Guard at the above said house. He was SC No.20/1 11 deputed there through Shakti Enterprises Security, He used to remain on duty from 8.00 p.m. to 8.00 a.m. He has further stated that on 30/09/2005, accused Purshottam Lal alongwith his sons Kittu and Bobby i.e. accused Vijay Kumar and Baljinder came to the house of deceased Trilok Verma at about 12 in the night.
They remained there for about two hours and on their way back, they took Trilok Verma with them alongwith his both children and accused Anju Verma. He tried to speak with Trilok Verma, but he did not respond as he was unconscious. He did not ask the persons accompanying Trilok Verma as to how and why he was unconscious. They left in hurry in a car.
PW1 Akhilesh Singh has further stated that on the next morning, mother in law of Trilok Verma came to the house to take maid servant along with her. Two days after the night, when Trilok Verma had been taken away, accused Anju Verma came to him and handed over Rs. 30,000/- to him. He asked as to why she was giving the money to him, but she did not give any reason. On the same night, accused Kittu @ Vijay Kumar, who was already inside the house, also gave Rs. 10,000/- to him and asked him to leave for his village. Accused Kittu @ Vijay Kumar told him that if four persons would visit him, how he would manage the situation.
PW1 Akhilesh Singh has further stated that in the next morning, he told to the other residents of the society that Anju Verma had given Rs. 30,000/- and Kittu @ Vijay Kumar had given Rs. 10,000/- to him and that Trilok Verma had not been seen for the last three days. He was feeling disturbed on this account. He then returned the money to Mr. Bhatia, resident of the same society. He also informed Sh. D.K. Tiwari, Supervisor of his company. Sh. D.K. Tiwari took him to PS Punjabi Bagh, where written complaint was made. PW1 Akhilesh Singh has identified accused Purshottam Lal, Anju Verma, Bobby and Kittu i.e. accused Baljinder and Vijay Kumar before the court.
Learned Addl. PP has put some leading question after taking permission from the court to PW1, wherein he has denied that two more persons had come to SC No.20/1 12 the house of Trilok Verma on 30/09/2005 prior to accused Purshottam Lal and his sons. He has been shown accused Sardool Singh and Jaswant Kaur , but he has stated that they had not come to the house of Trilok Verma on that day. Even he has denied the suggestion that he has forgotten the facts due to lapse of time, but has admitted that when Trilok Verma was being taken in unconscious condition, accused Anju Verma had told him that he was being taken to hospital as he was unwell.
In the cross examination, he has stated that on 30/09/2005, Trilok Verma came to his house at about 8.00 or 9.00 p.m. Maid Servant had not gone with the family members in the night of 30/09/2005. He has also given the details of the currency notes, which were handed over to him. He has further stated that he did not count the money, but it was told by Mr. Bhatia and Mr. Shekhar that these were Rs. 40,000/-. He has further stated that he informed Sh. D.K. Tiwari about these facts on 03/10/2005 at about 9.30 p.m. He has further stated that he had worked at the house of Trilok Verma for almost one year prior to the occurrence.
Learned defence counsel has contended that in complaint made by Sh. D.K. Tiwari to the police on 03/10/2005, all these facts are not mentioned. Only it is mentioned that D.K. Tiwari on 03/10/2005 received an information at 9.30 from PW1 Akhilesh Singh that accused Anju Verma had given Rs. 40,000/- to him, which have been returned by the Guard Akhilesh. D.K. Tiwari has requested to the police to investigate as to why the money was given. So, all these facts, as deposed by PW1 Akhilesh Singh before the court, are improvements.
In this respect, PW1 has stated in the cross examination that IO did not ask him. So, the contention of learned defence counsel is not tenable in any manner.
PW3 Dharminder Kumar Tiwari has corroborated PW1 Akhilesh Singh and has stated that he runs a security agency under the name of Shakti Enterprises at E-266, Karam Pura, Delhi. PW1 Akhilesh Singh was working with him for the last four years. In September/October, 2005, he was deputed as Guard at H.No. 53/41, Punjabi Bagh, Delhi. On 03/10/2005 at about 9.30 p.m., he received a phone call SC No.20/1 13 from PW1 Akhilesh Singh that accused Anju Verma had given him Rs. 40,000/-. He reached at the society and a meeting was held at the flat of Mr. Shekhar Khirbat. Thereafter, he went to PS Punjabi Bagh with PW1 Akhilesh Singh and lodged a complaint, which is Ex. PW3/A. In the cross examination, PW1 Akhilesh Singh has also stated that Shivangi Verma was present in the house on 30/09/2005.
PW2 Shekhar Khirbat has also stated that deceased Trilok Verma and his wife accused Anju Verma were occupying a flat on the ground floor of the society at 53/41, Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi. One Akhilesh was security guard on night duty in their society during the months of September and October 2005. In the early morning hours at about 6.30/6.45 a.m. in October 2005, PW1 Akhilesh stopped him and told that some money was given by accused Anju Verma to him and he had been directed to move for his village. He sought his advise as to what he should do with the money.
PW2 Shekhar Khirbat has further stated that he called meeting of the society and went to the house of accused Anju Verma and asked as to why she had given money to PW1 Akhilesh Singh. Accused Anju Verma denied having given any money to PW1 Akhilesh Singh. They asked her about Trilok Verma and she said that he was out of station for business and would return in the same evening. The money was retained by Mr. Bhasin with a view to speak to Mr. Trilok Verma on his return. The money was subsequently collected by accused Anju Verma on the same day as she had told the society members that she had kept the money with PW1 Akhilesh for safe custody as her husband was not in town.
Another witness is PW5 Narender Bhasin, who has stated that PW1 Akhilesh Singh was working as security guard in their society. He is neighbour of deceased Trilok Verma and accused Anju Verma. On 2/3.10.2005, PW1 Akhilesh Singh informed some residents of the flats that he had been paid Rs. 40,000/- by accused Anju Verma and she also told him to leave for his native village. PW5 Narender Bhasin was told by PW1 Akhilesh Singh about these facts. PW5 and SC No.20/1 14 some other flat owners met accused Anju Verma and she stated that she had given the money to PW1 Akhilesh Singh because her husband was involved with some other woman and she wanted to save the money. PW1 Akhilesh Singh handed over the entire money to PW5 because he has not interest in the same. PW5 Narender Bhasin handed over the same to accused Anju Verma in presence of his mother.
Learned defence counsel has contended that IO met PW5 Narender Bhasin for the first time on 03/10/2005 and made inquiries from him but statement of this witness has been recorded U/s. 161 CrPC on 07/10/2005. PW5 has further stated in the cross examination that he did not meet the IO after his statement was recorded. So, this witness cannot be relied upon in any manner. His statement recorded U/s. 161 CrPC is false and fabricated.
In my view, PW5 Narender Bhasin has nowhere stated that on 03/10/2005, his statement was recorded. He has simply stated that IO had made inquiries from him at his residence. He has nowhere stated that after 03/10/2005, IO did not meet him. All these witnesses have corroborated each other and their testimonies inspire confidence.
So, in all, from the depositions of PW1 Akhilesh Singh, PW2 Shekhar Khirbat, PW3 D.K. Tiwari and PW5 Narender Bhasin what the prosecution has been able to prove is that deceased Trilok Verma came to his house on 30/09/2005 at about 8.00 or 9.00 p.m. It has also been proved that PW1 Akhilesh Singh was on duty from 8.00 p.m. to 8.00 a.m. in the night of 30/09/2005. It has also been proved that at about 12 night, accused Purshottam Lal alongwith his sons i.e. accused Vijay Kumar @ Kittu and Baljinder @ Bobby came there and after about two hours, they went back with accused Anju Verma and her both children, while taking Trilok Verma in unconscious condition. It is also proved that accused Anju Verma had given Rs. 30,000/- to PW1 Akhilesh Singh and accused Vijay Kumar @ Kittu had given Rs. 10,000/- to PW1 Akhilesh Singh and threatened him and also asked him to leave for his village, the purpose of which was to conceal the last seen fact when they had taken away Trilok Verma in unconscious condition in the night of SC No.20/1 15 30/09/2005.
The fact of giving money to PW1 Akhilesh Singh was disclosed by him to the other occupants of the flats and accused Anju Verma was confronted with the same. She gave different explanations. A complaint was also lodged by PW3 D.K. Tiwari Ex. PW3/A to investigate the matter as to why Rs. 40,000/- were given to PW1 Akhilesh Singh.
It has appeared in the deposition of PW1 Akhilesh Singh that while Trilok Verma was being taken, accused Anju Verma told that he was being taken as he was not well.
It is suggested to PW 1 Akhilesh Singh in the cross examination that he was slapped by accused Anju Verma in June 2006 for having mishandled and spoiled the water pump. It is also suggested to PW1 Akhilesh Singh that on the issue of water pump, accused Anju Verma had an altercation with members of society and also with him. It is also suggested that PW1 has deposed at the instance of Mr. M.S. Verma. All these suggestions have been denied by PW1 Akhilesh Singh.
It is highly improbable that for the incident of June, 2005, if at all had happened, PW1 simply a guard, could have planned to falsely implicate accused Anju Verma in any case or in any manner. Even otherwise, till that time, no one was knowing that Trilok Verma would not return because it was told to PW1 Akhilesh Singh that he was being taken to the hospital as he was unwell. So, at that time or even thereafter, there could not have been any planning in the mind of PW1 Akhilesh Singh to concoct such a story to falsely implicate accused Anju Verma in this case.
PW1 Akhilesh Singh has also denied that on 02/10/2005 at about 8.30 p.m., some police officials with M.S. Verma came and took accused Anju Verma, Shivangi, Aman and the maid servant to the police station. Rather, he has stated that Anju Verma had come in the morning of 02/10/2005 and were not seen by him at the house after the night of 02/10/2005.
SC No.20/1 16It has appeared in the deposition of PW2 Shekhar Khirbat that accused Anju Verma told them that Trilok Verma was out of station for business and would return in the same evening. PW2 has also stated that money was subsequently collected by accused Anju Verma. If the money was not belonging to accused Anju Verma, why she accepted the money from the society members. Again contrary suggestions have been given to PW2 Shekhar that accused Anju Verma told him that she had kept the money with PW1 Akhilesh Singh for safe custody as her husband was not in town. I ask a question to myself whether it is probable. PW1 is simply a guard. At the most having wooden cabin for his duty, could he be able to safely keep the money in comparison to accused Anju Verma, who was residing in a flat having lock and key and might be having iron safe in the house. According to the deposition of PW1 Akhilesh Singh, there are six flats in the society, where he was deputed and there are two entrance gates adjoining each other. One is for the vehicles and the other is for pedestrians. So, flats were more secure than the duty place of the guard.
PW3 D.K. Tiwari has denied the suggestion that on 03/10/2005, accused Anju Verma was produced before him at PS Punjabi Bagh. So, PW1 Akhilesh Singh and PW3 D.K. Tiwari have denied that accused Anju Verma was produced by the police before them on 02/10/2005 or on 03/10/2005.
Trilok Verma did not return till 02/10/2005 or 03/10/2005. According to PW1 Akhilesh Singh, he had seen accused Anju Verma in the house on 02/102/005. It is strange enough that till that time, accused Anju Verma had not lodged any complaint with the police that her husband was missing and had not returned till that time. It could have been possible only in one situation that accused Anju Verma was knowing that he would not return because he was killed and his body was disposed off.
PW2 Shekhar Khirbat has denied the suggestion that PW1 was slapped by accused Anju Verma on account of spoiling the water pump and after that he had an altercation with accused Anju verma. PW1 Akhilesh Singh, PW2 Shekhar SC No.20/1 17 Khirbat, PW3 D.K. Tiwari and PW5 Narender Bhasin were not having any enmity with accused Anju Verma to falsely implicate her in this case and to depose against her. PW2 Shekhar Khirbat and PW5 Narender Bhasin are neighbours of accused Anju Verma. There is no suggestion that there were not having cordial relations and both PW2 Shekhar and PW5 Narender Bhasin were having any motive to depose falsely about the facts against accused Anju Verma.
PW1 Akhilesh Singh is simply a guard. He could not have any motive or enmity to depose against accused Anju Verma and other accused persons falsely to implicate them in this case. PW1 Akhilesh Singh even had no interest in any manner. Had he been interested, then he could have easily fled away to his village after receiving Rs. 40,000/- and would not have discussed the matter with other neighbours about giving of Rs. 40,000/- to him by accused Anju Verma and accused Vijay Kumar @ Kittu.
Different explanations have been given by accused Anju Verma regarding giving of money to PW1 Akhilesh Singh, which are highly improbable and do not inspire any confidence. PW5 has stated in his examination in chief that when he alongwith some other neighbours confronted accused Anju Verma, she told that she had given money to PW1 Akhilesh because her husband was involved with some other woman and she wanted to save the money. Again the explanation is strange. I do not think that it was the best method to save money by handing over the same to the guard, who was not having any place to put the money in safe custody. Accused Anju Verma is not an illiterate lady. She could have saved the money by depositing the same in the bank. So, this explanation is not believable in any manner. Rather, at different times, she had given different explanations to distract the persons, who had confronted her about Trilok Verma.
The contention of learned defence counsel that in complaint dated 03/10/2005 Ex. PW3/A, the facts as mentioned by PW1 Akhilesh Singh before the court, are not mentioned, is not material in any manner and is not tenable because the complaint was given by PW3 D.K. Tiwari and not by PW1 Akhilesh Singh.
SC No.20/1 18More so, PW1 Akhilesh Singh has stated that he had told all the facts to Mr. D.K. Tiwari. PW1 Akhilesh Singh has also stated that Sh. D.K. Tiwari was supervisor of his company. So in fact according to the mind set of PW1 Akhilesh Singh as he was deputed there by security agency, he fulfilled his duty after narrating the facts to D.K. Tiwari and in fact, it was for Sh. D.K. Tiwari to disclose all these facts in his complaint, which he has not done. PW3 D.K. Tiwari has not been cross examined in any manner that the facts, as deposed by PW1 Akhilesh Singh, were not told to him by PW1 Akhilesh Singh at the time of lodging complaint Ex. PW3/A. So, if these facts are not mentioned in complaint Ex. PW3/A, then PW1 Akhilesh Singh cannot be disbelieved in any manner.
PW2 Shekhar Khirbat and PW5 Narender Bhasin have also corroborated with PW1 Akhilesh Singh and conduct of accused Anju Verma and accused Vijay Kumar @ Kittu shows that they had given money of Rs. 30,000/- and Rs. 10,000/- to PW1 to leave for his village. Not only this, even he was threatened by accused Vijay Kumar @ Kittu that if four persons would visit him, then how he will manage the situation. Instead of keeping the money and going to his village, PW1 Akhilesh Singh disclosed these facts to the neighbours and ultimately the money was returned to accused Anju Verma, which was accepted by her. If the money was not given by accused Anju Verma, then there was no occasion for her to accept the money.
Another witness to the last seen theory of the case of prosecution is PW4 Shivangi Verma. She has stated that she is student of class X. her parents lived together at Punjabi Bagh alongwith herself and her younger brother. Prior to 2004, they were residing at Shalimar Bagh. Her parents have cordial relations till 2005. Her maternal grandfather Purshottam Lal and maternal uncles Vijay and Baljinder used to visit her father almost daily. Her maternal uncle Baljinder had a factory near the factory of her father and her maternal grandfather used to meet his father on the way to the factory of his maternal uncle Baljinder.
PW4 Shivangi Verma has further stated that on 30/09/2005, she was SC No.20/1 19 present at her house. Her father had returned home at about 7/8 p.m. She was strolling in the garden. She went inside the house sometime later and saw that his mother and father were quarreling on the issue of her father's habit of drinking. Her mother used to tell her father to stop drinking, but he did not listen to her. When the dispute increased, her mother called up her maternal grandfather Purshottam Lal. At this, her maternal grandfather Purshottam Lal and her maternal uncle Baljinder reached their house. They tried to console her father, but he did not agree and said that they should take her mother with them. On this, her father offer to drop them back in his car. So, she, her younger brother, her mother, her maternal grandfather Purshottam Lal and her maternal uncle Baljinder came to the house of her maternal grandmother at Rohini. Couple of days later, she asked her mother as to where her father was. She replied that since he was not mending his ways, they would go to him only, if he will improve himself.
PW4 Shivangi Verma has further stated that on 05/06.10.2005, she, her brother, her maternal aunts and her maternal grandmother had shifted to Shahdara at the house of her maternal grandmother's sister. On 8th or 09/10/2005, they were taken by the police from Shahdara to Punjabi Bagh police station for investigation. She was then informed by the police that her father had expired. She was interrogated by the IO, but her statement was not recorded.
Now before declaring hostile, according to her examination in chief, at least she has stated certain facts, which are corroborating with the deposition of PW1 Akhilesh Singh. Firstly, the incident is of 30/09/2005. Secondly, she was present in her house. Thirdly, her father returned at home at about 7.00/8.00 p.m., whereas PW1 Akhilesh Singh has stated that Trilok Verma had come to his house at about 8.00 or 9.00 p.m. Fourthly, a quarrel took place between her father and mother on the point of drinking habit of her father.
Learned defence counsel has contended that PW1 Akhilesh Singh has nowhere stated that any quarrel took place between Trilok Verma and accused Anju Verma. On the other hand, learned Addl. PP has contended that duty of PW1 SC No.20/1 20 Akhilesh Singh was on the main gate. So, he did not hear any shrieks or screams coming from the house of Trilok Verma on 30/09/2005 and it was quite natural because the quarrel had taken place inside the house and there was no occasion for him to hear the quarrel of Trilok Verma and accused Anju Verma. So, neither this is a contradiction nor it can be said that both witnesses have not corroborated each other.
PW4 Shivangi Verma has further corroborated that her maternal grandfather Purshottam Lal and maternal uncle Baljinder reached at their house. Here PW1 Akhilesh Singh and PW4 Shivangi Verma have contradicted each other. PW1 Akhilesh Singh has stated that accused Purshottam Lal alongwith his sons Baljinder and Vijay Kumar reached there at about 12 night, whereas PW4 Shivangi Verma has stated that her maternal grandfather Purshottam Lal and her maternal uncle Baljinder came there.
PW1 Akhilesh Singh and PW4 Shivangi Verma have further corroborated each other that after sometime, they left their house i.e. she, her younger brother, her mother, her maternal grandfather Purshottam Lal, her maternal uncle Baljinder alongwith Trilok Verma in the car. The contradiction and non- corroboration is only to the respect as to whether Trilok Verma was conscious or unconscious.
Now again the conduct of accused persons is evident from the further deposition of PW4 Shivangi Verma, who has stated that on 05/06.10.2005, she, her brother, her maternal aunts and her maternal grandmother shifted to the house of her maternal grandmother's sister. If we see, firstly, PW4 has not stated that accused persons also shifted to maternal grandmother's sister house. Secondly, what was the reason of shifting from Rohini to Shahdara. No reason has been given, which indicates that accused persons were apprehending the arrival of the police at any moment after the complaint of M.S. Verma dated 05/10/2005, but at last on 08/09.10.2005, they were taken to PS Punjabi Bagh from Shahdara, where PW4 Shivangi Verma came to know that her father had expired.
SC No.20/1 21After the permission of the court, PW4 Shivangi Verma has been cross examined by learned APP for State, wherein she has denied the knowledge, if her father had given a loan of Rs. 10 lacs to her maternal grandfather Purshottam Lal and maternal uncles Baljinder and Vijay. She has also denied knowledge, if her father used to quarrel with her mother on the issue that her brothers and father had not returned Rs. 10 lacs, which they had borrowed from him. She has also denied as to when her father started drinking. She has denied the knowledge as to whether her father used to drink prior to 2005 also. She has denied that suggestion that her father and mother did not quarrel on the issue of her father's drinking habit. She has denied that quarrel took place on account of non-return of money.
PW4 Shivangi Verma has admitted that she knows accused Jaswant Kaur, a friend of her mother and a frequent visitor of their house, but she has denied the knowledge about accused Sardool Singh and has stated that he might be cousin of accused Jaswant Kaur.
PW4 Shivangi Verma has further admitted that she did not make any statement, but answered the questions, which were put to her by the police. She has further stated that she has not stated to the IO that her maternal grandfather Purshottam Lal and her maternal uncles Bobby and Kittu i.e. accused Baljinder and Vijay Kumar had taken a loan of Rs. 10 lacs from her father, due to which, her father and mother used to quarrel with each other as they did not return the money.
PW4 Shivangi Verma has also denied that she had stated to the IO that on 30/09/2005 at about 11.30 p.m., accused Jaswant Kaur and her cousin-accused Sardool Singh came to their house and after about half an hour, her maternal grandfather and maternal uncles Bobby and Kittu i.e. accused Baljinder and Vijay Kumar also reached there. She has been confronted with her previous statement. So, she has also corroborated PW1 Akhilesh Singh that neither PW1 and PW4 had seen accused Sardool Singh and Jaswant Kaur on that day, while coming or going to the house of Trilok Verma.
PW4 Shivangi Verma even has denied that she saw her mother SC No.20/1 22 preparing a glass of milk for her father, in which, accused Jaswant Kaur mixed some powder. She has also denied that said glass of milk was given by her mother to her father, which he consumed or that during discussion, her father demanded Rs. 10 lacs and a scuffle started between her father and her maternal uncles Bobby and Kittu and her maternal grandfather Purshottam Lal. She has also denied that accused Sardool Singh gave a strong punch to her father and she raised an alarm, on which, her mother shut her mouth and accused Kittu threatened her. She has also denied that thereafter her father lost consciousness and was taken from the house by her maternal uncles Bobby and Kittu and her mother. She has also denied that her father was made to sit in his car bearing registration No. HR-26-L-7202. She has been confronted with these facts with her previous statement. She has also denied to be stated to the IO that in her maternal grandmother's house, her mother left her with her maternal grandmother and maternal uncle Kittu saying that her father was to be taken to hospital. She has also denied to be stated to the IO that her maternal grandfather and maternal uncle Bobby and her mother took her father away in his car and thereafter she did not meet her father or that her mother used to say that he was out of station. Again she has also been confronted with her previous statement.
PW4 Shivangi Verma has further stated that she does not know as to where her mother was, when she alongwith her maternal aunt and her younger brother was taken to Shahdara at the house of her maternal grandmother's sister and she did not make any inquiry about her father from her mother.
PW4 Shivangi Verma has further denied the suggestion that she has deposed falsely at the instance of her maternal grandmother and other accused persons, who are her immediate family members.
In the cross examination, PW4 Shivangi Verma has admitted that PW1 Akhilesh Singh was security guard in the society, but has denied the suggestion that PW1 Akhilesh was their personal servant in the house.
Thereafter, again an application was filed U/s. 311 CrPC for recalling of this PW4 Shivangi Verma on the ground that certain documents came to the notice SC No.20/1 23 of the prosecution during the registration of FIR No. 1048/06, which was registered at the instance of Varsha, wife of accused Baljinder Singh @ Bobby. In the said FIR, presence of PW4 Shivangi Verma has been shown, so, she needs to be confronted on the basis of FIR No. 1048/06, PS Rohini. It was allowed. PW4 Shivangi Verma was again recalled on 12/05/2009 for further examination in terms of order dated 10/10/2007. she has told about her schooling, date of birth, name of her mother, her mother's date of birth, name of her maternal uncles and their date of birth and also about her mausi Priyanka alongwith the date of birth. PW4 has further admitted that these facts were recorded by her in personal diary/notebook maintained by her, which has been produced by leaned Special P.P. She has admitted that same bears entries in her handwriting. The diary is Ex. PX. She has further stated that her father was in the habit of consuming milk about one hour after his dinner. He was engaged in the business of manufacturing paints. Both of her maternal uncles were also engaged in similar trade.
Learned Addl. PP has referred entries dated 29/09/2005 and 30/09/2005, which PW4 Shivangi Verma has admitted that these are in her handwriting. Contents of the diary ostensibly entered on 30/09/2005 were read over to the witness, which PW4 has admitted that the same were written by her. PW4 has stated that the date of 30/09/2005 mentioned at point B on page-8 of diary Ex. PX was not written by her as the occurrence allegedly took place in the night of 30/09/2005,therefore, the entry could not have been made on that date. Thereafter, her cross examination was deferred.
Her cross was conducted on 18/05/2009 after about one week and during the cross examination on 18/05/2009, she has admitted her testimony from point A to A as correct, which she has deposed on 23/04/2007 i.e. her previous examination before re-examination. She has further admitted that accused Vijay @ Kittu, Jaswant Kaur and Sardool Singh had not come to their house on that day.
Now, PW4 Shivangi Verma has turned hostile towards the fact, which she has admitted in her reexamination and has stated that diary Ex. PX was brought SC No.20/1 24 by her late grandfather Sh. M.S. Verma and his son in law Kuldeep Verma after her statement dated 23/04/2007 and they made her to make entries on page -1 and last six pages, under coercion. The dates 29/09/2005 and 30/09/2005 at page-5 and 8 are not written by her and are not in her handwriting. Mr. M.S. Verma and Kuldeep Verma had met her in the month of May, 2007. Her cousin sister i.e. daughter of Kuldeep Verma,namely, Deepika Verma had also studied in KTS Public School and therefore the staff of KTS Public School knew Mr. Kuldeep Verma. She was asked by them to record portion A to A on page -1 of the diary. When the diary was brought by the aforesaid persons, only pages No. 2,3,5 to 7 have been written. Portion B to B on page-1 of the diary is in past tense as it was entered on a later date.
She has further stated that in the night of 30/09/2005, she, her mother and her brother were at the house of her maternal grandfather at Rohini alongwith her maternal uncle and aunts and her father returned to his house at Punjabi Bagh. She has further stated that she is not in the habit of maintaining a regular diary. She has stated that she has not written any diary on 30/09/2005.
Again, PW4 Shivangi Verma has been reexamined by learned Special P.P. for the State, wherein she has stated that she lived with her grandfather late Sh. M.S. Verma in January, 2008 for about 15 days and she went back to hostel on 01/02/2008. She never lived with her paternal grandfather prior to January, 2008. However, he used to speak to her on phone. She has further stated that her grandfather, during his telephonic conversation, indicated that he wanted to falsely implicate her mother in some criminal case. She has denied the suggestion that her paternal grandfather M.S. Verma and Kuldeep Verma never met her in May, 2007 and as such the question of coercing her to make any particular entry in the diary did not arise.
Learned defence counsel has contended that prosecution has not been able to brought on record the source of diary and from the cross examination of PW4 Shivangi Verma, it is clear that the same is false and fabricated and has been SC No.20/1 25 prepared to rope the accused persons, which is evident from the cross examination of PW4, wherein she has clearly stated that after her statement dated 23/04/2007, her grandfather M.S. Verma and his son in law Kuldeep Verma met her to make entries on page 1 and last six pages, under coercion. Learned defence counsel has further contended that PW4 Shivangi Verma has further deposed in the cross examination that her grandfather, during his telephonic conversation, indicated that he wanted to falsely implicate her mother in some criminal case. Learned defence counsel has further contended that in the cross examination of PW4 conducted after her reexamination, she has specifically stated that accused Vijay @ Kittu, Jaswant Kaur and Sardool Singh had not come to their house on that day.
On the other hand, learned Addl. PP has contended that PW4 was also examined on 11/01/2008, wherein her statement was recorded regarding shifting of her custody to her grandfather Sh. M.S. Verma. PW4 has stated before the court that she feared for her life at the hands of her maternal grandparents and family. She alongwith her younger brother have been living with their maternal grandparents since 24/12/2007. During this period, her maternal grandfather has been hitting her physically and severely beating her younger brother Aman. They have been denied food also. All the inmates of the house including her maternal grandmother and maternal aunts have been scolding and using foul language with her and her younger brother. She feels uncomfortable and scared at the house of maternal grandparents. She wants to live with her grandfather Sh. M.S. Verma.
Learned Addl. PP has further contended that from this statement, it is clear that she has been won over by the accused persons because in the cross examination of her reexamination, she has deposed against late Sh. M.S. Verma and certainly there was no apprehension in deposing the same because M.S. Verma had already expired till that time. Learned Addl. PP has further contended that Kuldeep Verma is not a witness of this case, hence, the facts, as deposed by PW4 Shivangi Verma cannot be relied upon. She is not trustworthy in this respect.
Learned Addl. PP has further contended that in the cross examination of SC No.20/1 26 reexamination, PW4 has admitted that in the night of 30/09/2005, she, her mother and her brother were at the house of her maternal grandfather at Rohini alongwith her maternal uncle and aunts and her father returned to his house at Punjabi Bagh. She has further admitted that she has not written any diary on 30/09/2005. Learned Addl. PP has further contended that purpose of this admission in the cross examination is only to provide explanation to the accused persons that after dropping them at their maternal grandfather's house at Rohini, Trilok Verma left for his house at Punjabi Bagh, whereas in her first examination, PW4 has not stated so. This shows as to how she has been won over by the accused persons because earlier also, she has not stated that accused Vijay @ Kittu, Jaswant Kaur and Sardool Singh had come to their house on that day. So, cross examination of witness after reexamination cannot be relied upon in any manner.
If we assume that PW4 Shivangi Verma was won over by the accused persons and she deposed according to their wishes and admitted certain facts in the cross examination, which was conducted after her reexamination, even then, the fact remains so as to whether accused Vijay Kumar @ Kittu had gone to the house of Trilok Verma in the night of 30/09/2005 or not because PW1 Akhilesh Singh has stated that he had seen Trilok Verma being taken unconscious by Purshottam Lal and his sons i.e. accused Vijay Kumar @ Kittu and Baljinder @ Bobby alongwith accused Anju Verma and her two children, whereas PW4 Shivangi Verma has stated that her father offered to drop them back in the car. She, her younger brother, her mother, her maternal grandfather Purshottam Lal and her maternal uncle Baljinder came to the house of her maternal grandmother at Rohini. PW4 Shivangi Verma has not stated that her father was unconscious. Secondly, she has not stated that at that time, after dropping them, her father left the house and went back to Punjabi Bagh.
Learned defence counsel has contended that a complaint Mark Ex. PW13/A was given on 04/10/2005 by accused Anju Verma and the same has been admitted by accused , wherein she has stated that her husband left in the night of 30/09/2005 from E4/1, Sector-7, Rohini, and has not returned. They have tried to SC No.20/1 27 trace out him, but could not find him. Thereafter, she has further written therein that in the night of Friday, he had come to the house at about 9.00 p.m. and a quarrel took place. The cause was having some relation of her husband with a girl and he told her that he wanted to marry that girl. He was under the influence of liquor and he had also given her beatings. Her father and younger brother came and tried to settle the matter. Thereafter, they went to Rohini. Her husband told that she should go and he will come after closing the car. As and when they went towards the stairs, meanwhile, he started the car and without telling anything left and has not contacted them. His mobile phone was found switched off and so necessary action be taken.
Learned defence counsel has further contended that accused Anju verma has herself gave th is complaint explaining the facts. So, there is no dispute about the last seen that she, her father and her younger brother were taken by her husband to Rohini. From there, he left and did not return.
On the other hand, learned Addl. PP has contended that Trilok Verma went missing on 30/09/2005. Accused persons reached at the house of Trilok Verma at 12 night. They remained there for about two hours and thereafter they all left for the house of accused Purshottam Lal at Rohini after about two hours. They must have reached there at about 2.30 a.m. night.
Learned Addl. PP has further contended that the complainant was given on 4th day of the incident after preparing the defence that Trilok Verma left Rohini at his own and did not return. This complaint has not been proved in any manner. This was admitted by PW13 M.S. Verma, but his cross examination was deferred. Later on, he expired and his cross examination could not be conducted. Hence, evidence of PW13 M.S. Verma cannot be looked into and considered. Learned Addl. PP has further contended that in view of above, accused Anju Verma has not been able to prove the complaint in any manner and mere admission of this document by the accused is not sufficient.
SC No.20/1 28Motive and dying declaration:
Father of the deceased/complainant M.S. Verma lodged a complaint with the police on 05/10/2005 Ex. PW13/1 mentioning therein that his son had some dispute with accused Anju Verma, her father i.e. accused Purshottam Lal and younger brother Bobby i.e. accused Baljinder and they all left for Rohini at around 12.30 a.m. in in Honda City car No. HR-26L-7202. Afterwards, his son is not traceable. In the complaint, it is further mentioned that accused Kittu i.e. accused Vijay Kumar, brother in law of his deceased son, had taken some money and was not returning the same. So, action be taken. In the complaint, description has been given of the deceased as age 42, colour fair, height 5'7", identification cut mark, sear on right side of cheek. On this complaint, FIR U/s. 365 of IPC was registered.
According to PW7 Sunil Kumar and PW8 Yogender, friends of deceased Trilok Verma, they visited the father of the deceased and told him that Trilok Verma was missing. Consequently, he lodged the report in the PS. PW7 Sunil Kumar has stated that he knew deceased Trilok Verma for the last more than ten years as he used to supply him paint raw material. He had family relations with deceased Trilok Verma. They used to sit together in his factory. He was disturbed on account of his family dispute and had told him that his in-laws i.e. brothers in law and father in law had borrowed Rs. 10 lacs from him and were not returning the same. He was also apprehending threat to his life at their hands. He had also strained relations with his wife because she used to help her brother and her father.
PW7 has further stated that on 30/09/2005, he called up Trilok Verma on his phone, but he did not respond for a couple of days. He then spoke to Yogender, another common friend, on 01/10/2005 and told that Trilok Verma was not contactable.
Similarly, PW8 Yogender Singh has stated that he is also running a factory of manufacturing of varnish. He knew the deceased because of business SC No.20/1 29 relations. He had a very close and friendly relations with him. Deceased Trilok Verma used to share his business, family and personal problems with him. He used to describe that his wife and in-laws did not listen to him. He used to tell him that his brother in law Kittu used to tell him on telephone that some person was following him. He was also upset on account of Rs. 10 lacs, which accused Purshottam Lal, Kittu @ Vijay Kumar and Bobby @ Baljinder had to return him. It was to be returned by the last week of September, 2005.
PW8 has further stated that on 26/09/2005, deceased Trilok Verma had told him that Bobby i.e. accused Baljinder asked him not to follow up their house to demand repayment of loan as their father was upset. Accused persons had entered into a settlement with the deceased to pay Rs. 10 lacs within a period of three months, which had elapsed on 26/09/2005. PW8 when lastly met with the deceased, he had told him that he used to pay Rs. 30,000/- to his wife as household expenses and further told that accused persons had not returned the loan amount because he had to make further payment.
PW8 has further stated that deceased had told him that he was apprehending threat to his life at the hands of his brothers in law and father in law. On 01/10/2005, PW7 Sunil Kumar spoke to him on telephone and asked him the whereabouts of Trilok Verma as he had not been able to speak with Trilok Verma. PW8 has further stated that he tried to speak on telephone with Trilok Verma at his factory, but all went in vain. On the next day, his worker called him to inquire about deceased Trilok Verma. Then, he went to his house and met with accused Anju Verma. She told that deceased used to return home in drunken condition and on 30/09/2005, she had called her brothers and father and he thereafter left and has not returned. He told her that deceased did not used to drink. He returned home and called up her again to make inquiries about the return of Trilok Verma, but accused Anju Verma instead discussed with him as to how to start the factory. Then he alongwith PW7 Sunil Kumar and another person went to father of deceased Trilok Verma and told him about missing of his son, who lodged report with the police.
SC No.20/1 30Learned defence counsel has contended that both these witnesses i.e. PW7 Sunil Kumar and PW8 Yogender Singh are interested witnesses and cannot be relied upon. During investigation, no record has been searched that any loan of Rs. 10 lacs was taken by the accused persons. Statement of any employee of the factory of deceased Trilok Verma has also not been recorded in this respect. So, this is all a concocted story.
In my view, PW7 Sunil Kumar and PW8 Yogender Singh have specifically stated that before 30/09/2005, deceased Trilok Verma had told them that he was apprehending threat to his life at the hands of the accused persons. PW7 Sunil Kumar, in the cross examination, has specifically narrated the details of Rs. 10 lacs and has stated that Rs. 7 lacs were paid for the purchase of flat and Rs. 3 lacs were due for the paint supply by the deceased to the accused persons. From the depositions of PW7 Sunil Kumar and PW8 Yogender Singh, it is clear that they were close to deceased Trilok Verma and deceased used to share his family and business problems with them. From the cross of PW7 Sunil Kumar, it is clear that PW7 used to visit the factory of the deceased almost every second or third day as his factory was also located near the factory of the deceased. Both PW7 and PW8 have denied that Trilok Verma used to drink or they used to drink together. PW7 Sunil Kumar has specifically stated that deceased Trilok Verma never consumed liquor in his presence. PW7 Sunil Kumar has also stated that he and PW8 Yogender had gone to the house of the complainant after the deceased went missing and it was probably on 03/10/2005 in the evening. PW8 Yogender Singh has admitted in the cross examination that Trilok Verma was under debt of Rs. 20 lacs for the house constructed in Punjabi Bagh. PW7, PW8 alongwith one more person had gone to the house of complainant i.e. father of deceased on 04/10/2005 in the afternoon, which shows that they informed the father of the deceased and later on, on 05/10/2005, complainant M.S. Verma lodged a complaint with the police.
So, from the depositions of both these witnesses, who inspire confidence and are trustworthy, prosecution has been able to prove some facts that deceased SC No.20/1 31 Trilok Verma was not in the habit of consuming liquor. Secondly, he was apprehending threat to his life at the hands of the accused persons. Thirdly, accused persons had borrowed Rs. 10 lacs from him, which accused persons were not returning. Fifthly, deceased Trilok Verma was under heavy debt of Rs. 20 lacs and he was in need of money. PW7 Sunil Kumar has also given the bifurcation of Rs. 10 lacs. PW7 Sunil Kumar has also identified the accused persons before the court. Sixthly, from the cross examination of PW7 Sunil Kumar, it is also proved that he had called up the deceased on 30/09/2005 at about 12 in the night from Kurukshetra, where he had gone for Surya Grahan. He had called him up to arrange for Rs. One lac, which he had to pay to some persons in the next morning. This fact is not disputed in any manner. This shows that deceased Trilok Verma was alive till 12 p.m. night of 30/09/2005.
Learned defence counsel has contended that both the witnesses i.e. PW7 and PW8 were having some ill-will against accused Anju Verma. So, they have deposed falsely. Learned defence counsel has further contended that it has been suggested to PW7 Sunil Kumar and PW8 Yogender Singh that about 3 or 4 weeks prior to the occurrence, both PW7 and PW8 alongwith one more person had gone to the house of deceased in inebriated condition alongwith the deceased and in that condition, deceased Trilok Verma desired his wife to share bed with his friends. It is also suggested that on the refusal of accused Anju Verma, deceased had torn away her shirt. It is also suggested that they left the house after accused Anju Verma raised protest. Ld. Addl. PP has contended that all these suggestions have been denied by both PW7 and PW8.
Learned defence counsel has further contended that the deceased was having extra marital affairs. PW7 Sunil Kumar has denied knowledge about this that deceased was having extra marital relations with one Geeta and wanted to marry her. He has further stated that deceased used to speak with a lady on telephone, but he does not know, who she was.
Learned Addl. PP has contended that similarly, these suggestions have SC No.20/1 32 also been denied by PW8 Yogender.
Both PW7 and PW8 have stated that they did not go to the house of deceased Trilok Verma, as suggested by learned defence counsel to the witnesses. PW8 Yogender has also denied the suggestion that he does not know if any lady by the name of Geeta had met Trilok Verma about 4/5 days prior to the occurrence. He has denied the suggestion that deceased Trilok Verma had told him that he wanted to marry with Geeta. In view of denial of PW7 and PW8 regarding this suggestion, it cannot be said that deceased Trilok Verma was having any extra marital affairs with Geeta and he wanted to marry with her. This denial shows that PW7 and PW8 were not having any enmity with accused Anju Verma to depose against her and other accused persons in any manner.
Recovery and identification of dead body:
According to PW16/A1 to A9, DD No. 6, on 01/10/2005, was recorded at PS Indirapuram, Ghaziabad, at about 6.30 a.m. on the information of one Kapil Singhal that when he was going for walking in the morning towards Ambedkar Park, he saw a dead body in front of H.No. 4/601, of one unknown person. So, he informed the police for necessary action. This DD was recorded and was handed over to SI Rakesh Kumar for further investigation. SI Rakesh Kumar reached at the spot and prepared documents Ex. PW16/A1 to A9 i.e. Panchnama of the dead body. According to the Panchnama, deceased was wearing yellow colour shirt having some white print, orange colour knicker and black colour underwear. According to observation of SI Rakesh Kumar, the deceased was of wheatish colour, height 5'4"
and age about 38 years. He was also having one cut mark on the cheek of the left side of the face. Dead body was sent for finger prints after the photograph, but the finger prints could not be taken. There were some scratches on the fingers. Dead body was sent for postmortem.
SI Rakesh Kumar has been examined as PW16. He has stated that on 01/10/2005, he was posted at PS Indirapuram, Ghaziabad. On that day, at around SC No.20/1 33 6.30 a.m., an information was received about an unknown dead body lying near Ambedkar Park road, opposite H.No. 601. He took Panchayatnama from the PS and alongwith other police staff reached there. He inspected the dead body in presence of Panch witnesses of that locality and filled up necessary form and recorded the proceedings.
PW16 SI Rakesh Kumar has further stated that dead body was wearing yellow colour shirt with some bootis, orange knicker and black underwear. The apparent age of the deceased was 38 years and height was 5 feet 4 inches approximately. He made efforts to get the body identified, but no one was available. Photograph of the dead body was also taken. Dead body was wrapped in a cloth and seal of "RKY" was appended. The specimen seal impression was taken on a paper. An application was made to get the finger prints of the dead body. An application was also made for getting the postmortem conducted with request to send the clothes of deceased after the postmortem. Dead body was sent to mortuary through Constable Nathu Ram and Constable Kalu Ram. He prepared inquest papers Ex. PW16/A1 to A9, which bears his signatures at point X. PW16 SI Rakesh Kumar has further stated that one hue and cry notice with photograph of the deceased was also pasted on the noticeboard of the police station. One positive photograph of the dead body is also available on the file. This photograph was taken at the place, from where the dead body was seized. The negative of the photograph and the original hue and cry notice were misplaced during white wash in the PS. In this respect, PW16 has also produced DD No.21, which was recorded on 24/11/09 at 10.10 a.m. in PS Indirapuram Ex. PW16/B. The positive photograph is Ex. PW16/C. Photocopy of the hue and cry notice is Ex. PW16/D. PW16 SI Rakesh Kumar has also identified the clothes of the deceased i.e. yellow colour shirt, pinkish colour knicker and a torn black underwear, which the deceased was wearing at that time as Ex. PX1 to Ex. PX3.
PW15 is Dr. M.M. Tripathi, Senior Specialist, CMO Office, SC No.20/1 34 Murabadbad, U.P. He has conducted postmortem on the dead body of deceased Trilok Verma. He has stated that on 01/10/2005, he was posted as Senior Medical Officer/In-charge District TB Clinic, Ghaziabd. He was on postmortem duty on that day. One unknown male dead body, duly sealed in a cloth bundle, was sent by Station Officer, PS Indirapuram, Ghaziabad. Seal of the cloth bundle covering the dead body was tallied with the sample seal. The body was recognized by CP No. 1937 Nathu Ram and CP No. 258 Kalu Ram. Postmortem examination of this dead body was conducted by him at 4.30 p.m. The age was about 28 years. Rigor mortis was absent from all over the body. The body was robust, fair and apparently in good health. Height of the body was 150 c.m., the sole was 23 c.m. and hair was 7 c.m.
According to PW15, he observed following antemortem injuries:
i) Multiple contusions on right side upper chest coalescing over area of 12 c.m. x 20 c.m.
ii) lacerated wound on right side of jaw border 4 c.m. right to be median point. It was 4 c.m. x 0.5 c.m. x muscle deep.
iii) The Echymoses (contusion or clotted blood) over right eye surrounding area seen.
In his opinion, death occurred 1½ day earlier due to antermortem chest injury resulting into internal haemorrhage and shock. PW15 has stated that one underwear, one knicker, one shirt from the body of the deceased were sealed and handed over to the Constables alongwith nine enclosures i.e. inquest papers, which were sent alongwith the dead body and were signed by him. Postmortem report is in his handwriting and bears his signatures at point A. Same is Ex. PW16/A. PW15 has also identified his signatures at point A on inquest papers.
PW6 HCP Gajender Singh has also been examined from PS Indirapuram, Ghaziabad. He has stated that on 01/10/2005, he was posted at PS Indirapuram, Ghaziabad, as MHC(M). Constable Nathu Ram, No. 937, had deposited one sealed pullanda with the seal of Hospital containing the clothes of the deceased with him. He made entry to this effect in register at serial No. 16. Photocopy of the entry is Ex. PW6/A. He has further stated that on 10/10/2005, HC SC No.20/1 35 Ashok Kumar from PS Punjabi Bagh took the pullanda in case FIR No. 886/05, U/s. 365/302 of IPC vide memo Ex. PW6/B, which bears his signatures at point A. In the cross examination, PW6 has stated that arrival of HC Ashok on 10/10/2005 has also been mentioned in the general diary. He had obtained signatures of HC Ashok on register malkhana at entry made at serial No. 16. One Sub Inspector was also accompanying HC Ashok. PW6 has not been cross examined more than this in any manner.
So, from the depositions of PW16 SI Rakesh Kumar, PW6 HCP Gajender Singh and PW15 Dr. M.M. Tripathi, prosecution has been able to prove beyond reasonable doubts that a dead body was found lying in front of H.No. 4/601. It was taken into possession and was sealed in a cloth pullanda with the seal of "RKY" and was sent for postmortem examination. According to Panchnama, dead body was wearing yellow colour shirt having white print, one orange colour knicker and one black underwear. It has also been stated so by PW15 Dr. M.M. Tripathi, who has conducted postmortem examination of the dead body. He had sealed the clothes and handed over the same to the Constables, which were deposited by the Constable with PW6 HCP Gajender, who was working as MHC(M) at PS Indirapuram, Ghaziabad and he made entry in this respect in the malkhana register at Serial No. 16. Later on, this sealed pullanda was transferred to PS Punjabi Bagh on 10/10/2005 through HC Ashok Kumar.
Learned defence counsel has raised some questions regarding the identity of the dead body because in Panchnama, age of the dead body has been mentioned as 38 years and height as 5 feet 4 inches, whereas in the complaint Ex. PW13/1, age has been mentioned as 42 years and height as 5 feet and 7 inches, whereas PW15 Dr. M.M. Tripathi has mentioned the age of the dead body as 28 years and height as 156 c.m.
Learned defence counsel has contended that the variations in the age and height are major. Learned defence counsel has further contended that according to opinion of PW15 Dr. M.M. Tripathi, death occurred 1½ day earlier. According to SC No.20/1 36 postmortem report Ex. PW15/A, postmortem was conducted on 01/10/2005 at ab out 4.30 p.m. So, according to PW15 Dr. M.M. Tripathi, death took place at about 4.30 a.m. morning on 30/09/2005, which is contradictory to the statement of the witnesses.
Learned defence counsel has further contended that it also seems that description of the dead body has been written down on complaint Ex. PW13/1 later on because according to the news item published on 09/10/2005 in Times of India, it has been mentioned that police has received a missing complaint from Trilok Verma's father on 30/09/2005 and found dead body of Trilok Verma a day later in Ghaziabad, which shows that Delhi Police was having knowledge about recovery of dead body and all these documents have been fabricated.
Learned defence counsel has further contended that DW1 has proved this news as Ex. DW1/A. The news item was obtained from IANS India Private Limited. Copy of agreement has also been placed on record Mark DW2/X. Another copy of the news item is x. DW2/A. Learned defence counsel has further contended that it is not known, who cremated the dead body and when, because there is no document produced on record that this dead body was cremated. It also shows some foul play and support his contention that Delhi Police came to know about recovery of dead body on 01/10/2005 itself. Learned defence counsel has further contended that PW16 SI Rakesh Kumar has stated that he cannot tell what was the date and time of cremation. On the other hand, learned Addl. PP has contended that PW16 SI Rakesh Kumar has stated in the cross examination that he got cremated the dead body after 72 hours according to Hindu rites and customs. So, if the witness is unable to tell the date and time, then it is not material in any manner and it cannot be said that it was not cremated after about 72 hours by the police.
If it is believed that Delhi Police came to know on 01/10/2005 itself, then it could not have been cremated without identification after about 72 hours by the SC No.20/1 37 police as unidentified dead body. Although accused persons were not available on 01/10/2005, but parent of the deceased were available and if Delhi Police was knowing about the fact of recovery of the dead body, then the parents of Trilok Verma could have been informed because according to the news item, father of Trilok Verma has given missing report on 30/09/2005 itself. According to the depositions of the witnesses, Trilok Verma was alive and was available in his house till 12 p.m. night. So, news item cannot be believed in any manner. Although there are discrepancies in the age and height of the dead body in the inquest proceedings, postmortem report and complaint Ex. PW13/1, but photograph of the dead body, which was taken at the spot, is proved beyond reasonable doubts. Hue and cry notice has also been proved by leading secondary evidence. PW16 SI Rakesh Kumar has sufficiently explained that original hue and cry notice and negative of the photograph went misplaced during whitewash in the PS and DD No. 21 dated 24/11/2009 at 10.10 a.m. was recorded. Even otherwise as PW13 complainant M.S. Verma died before his cross examination, so it cannot be said that complaint Ex. PW13/1 has been proved.
In all circumstances, it cannot be said that DD No. 21 was recorded at PS Indirapuram on 24/11/2009 in any anticipation of these facts, but was recorded in normal course in the PS. So, the hue and cry notice and photograph are not doubtful and cannot be objected to in any manner. It is not disputed that the original photograph is not of deceased Trilok Verma. From the photograph itself, it is evident that it was taken at the spot, where the dead body was lying on the ground having some blood stains on the right lower jaw and some blood stains on the collar and upper portion of the shirt and photograph itself is showing dead person wearing yellow colour printed shirt. Accused Anju Verma has not denied in her statement that it is not the photograph of deceased Trilok Verma.
Now, we have to consider whether height, age and time since death are material and to what extent are relevant to prove the identity of the dead body. Regarding the age and height as mentioned by PW16 SI Rakesh Kumar in the SC No.20/1 38 inquest papers Ex. PW16/A1 to A9, he has submitted that it was mentioned approximately. It is a matter of observation for each individual to assess the age and height of another person. It has not come on record that PW16 SI Rakesh Kumar has measured the length of the dead body with the help of measuring tape. So, age and height is mentioned in the inquest papers according to observation and approximation of PW16. Similarly, PW15 Dr. M.M. Tripathi has also mentioned the age and height as per approximation.
These facts have not been disputed by accused Anju Verma in her statement nor contrary to these facts, any suggestion has been given to the witness that actually age of deceased Trilok Verma was so and so and height was such and such. Accused Anju Verma is wife of deceased Trilok Verma. In question No.71, age and height of the deceased was put up to accused Anju Verma and in reply to the same, she has stated that she does not know about the height, age and wearing clothes of the dead body and further regarding positive photograph of deceased Ex. PW16/C, she has stated that this is a matter of record. So, specifically she has not denied that it is not the photograph of deceased Trilok Verma.
Testimony of PW16 SI Rakesh Kumar, PW15 Dr. M.M. Tripathi and PW6 HCP Gajender inspire confidence. They have corroborated each other. They were not having any motive to depose falsely against the accused persons. Even they were not knowing the identity of the dead body. Nothing was recovered from the wearing clothes of the deceased. So, identity could not be established till the time of cremation of the dead body. Had it been so, then certainly, the dead body could have been claimed at that point of time by parents of the deceased. Even no particulars regarding identification of dead body have been mentioned in hue and cry notice Ex. PW16/D, which shows that till the cremation of the dead body, dead body was not identified by anyone or at least by the LRs of the deceased and only reason for this is that they were not knowing about the recovery of the dead body.
Regarding time since death, it is well settled proposition of law that medical opinion could not prevail over ocular version and in support of the same, I SC No.20/1 39 rely upon 2003 V AD (S.C.) 541 titled as O. Ayyar Thavar and Anr. Vs. State.
Learned Addl. PP has contended that according to the medical jurisprudence, at the moment of death, the muscles relax completely- a condition called "primary flaccidity." The muscles then stiffen , perhaps due to coagulation of muscle proteins or a shift in the muscle's energy containers (ATP-ADP), into a condition known as rigor mortis. All of the body's muscles are affected. Rigor mortis beings within two to six hours of death, starting with the eyelids, neck and jaw. The sequence may be due to the difference in lactic acid levels among different muscles, which corresponds to the difference in glycogen levels and to the different types of muscle fibers. Over the next four to six hours, rigor mortis spreads to the other muscles, including those in the internal organs such as the heart. The onset of rigor mortis is more rapid if the environment is cold and if the decedent had performed hard physical work just before death. Its onset also varies with the individual's age, sex, physical condition, and muscular build. After being in this rigid condition for twenty-four to eighty-four hours, the muscles relax and secondary laxity (flaccidity) develops, usually in the same order as it began. The length of time rigor mortis lasts depends on multiple factors, particularly the ambient temperature. The degree of rigor mortis can be determined by checking both the finger joints and the larger joints and ranking their degree of stiffness on a one-to three-or four-point scale. Many infant and child corpses will not exhibit perceptible rigor mortis. This decreased perceptible stiffness may be due to their smaller muscle mass.
Learned Addl. PP has further relied upon 2007 CRI.L.J. (NOC) 158 tiled as Balasaheb Ramchandra Gharpankar V. State of Maharashtra, wherein it has been held that "if time since death is inconsistent with the evidence of the witnesses and if the postmortem report is showing that rigor mortis has completely set in, if incident is taking place during summer time, rigor mortis under such climatic condition sets in faster. Considering said fact, doctor's evidence about probable time of death being incorrect liable to be discarded."
It has also been held in AIR 2008 Supreme Court 1747 titled as Ram SC No.20/1 40 Swaroop Vs. State of Rajasthan that " a doctor usually confronted with such questions regarding different possibilities or probabilities of causing those injuries or postmortem features, which he noticed in the medical report; may express his views one or other way depending on the manner the question was asked, but the answer given by the witness to such question need not become the last word of such possibilities, after all he gave only his opinion regarding such question, but to discard the testimony of any eye witness simply on the strength of such opinion expressed by the medical witness is not conducive to the administration of criminal justice."
In view of the above, as according to the depositions of the witnesses, even PW4 Shivangi Verma, daughter of deceased, Trilok Verma was alive till 12 pm. night on 30/09/2005 and his dead body was found in the morning of next day on 01/102/2005 at about 6.30 a.m. and postmortem was conducted at 4.30 p.m. on 01/102/005, is contrary to the time since death as opined by PW15 Dr. M.M. Tripathi as 1½ day since the time of the postmortem. So, the fact as deposed by PW15 Dr. M.M. Tripathi that time since death is 1½ day from the day of postmortem is liable to be discarded.
From the depositions of PW6, PW15 and PW16, prosecution has been able to prove beyond reasonable doubts that dead body of one unknown person, whose photograph is Ex. PW16/C, was found at about 6.30 a.m. in the area of PS Indirapuram, Ghaziabad, wearing yellow colour shirt, orange colour knicker and black underwear. Prosecution has also been able to prove beyond reasonable doubts that PW16 SI Rakesh Kumar sealed the dead body after taking photograph Ex. PW16/C and sent it for postmortem.
It is also proved that during postmortem, PW15 Dr. M.M. Tripathi gave opinion regarding cause of death and handed over sealed clothes of the deceased to the Constables, which were deposited by them with PW6, who was working at that time as MHC(M) and later on, these were transferred to PS Punjabi Bagh on 10/10/2005 through HC Ashok Kumar. The photograph of deceased, as stated by the prosecution witnesses of the Trilok Verma, has not been disputed or denied in any manner nor any suggestion has been given to any of the witness that it was not of SC No.20/1 41 Trilok Verma. The variations in the height and age have been given by the witnesses are in approximation and according to their observations. So, these are not material and do not goes to the extent that it was not the dead body of Trilok Verma. Time since death is contrary to the ocular evidence. So, in view of the judgment relied upon by learned Addl. PP, the same is liable to be discarded. Arrest:
Investigating Officer of the case is PW17 SI Mukesh Kumar. On 05/10/2005, PW17 was posted as SI at PS Punjabi Bagh. On that day, complaint M.S. Verma lodged a missing report about his son Trilok Verma vide DD No. 18/A, copy of which is Mark XA. It was marked to him for inquiry. He sent all India message and also informed Control Room vide documents Ex. PW17/A and Ex. PW17/B. He also made inquiries from the residence and factory of Trilok Verma alongwith complainant M.S. Verma on the same day.
PW17 has further stated that on 07/10/2005, on the complaint, he made endorsement at point X and got registered FIR of this case U/s. 365 of IPC. Watchman Akhilesh of society and Supervisor D.K. Tiwari came to police station. He interrogated them and recorded their statements. Thereafter, he alongwith complainant visited Village Neelwal, PS Tikri and interrogated associate and friend of Trilok Verma i.e. Yogender Singh and recorded his statement U/s. 161 CrPC. Thereafter, he alongwith complainant visited Village Tilangpur Kotla and interrogated another associate and friend of Trilok Verma i.e. Sunil Kumar and recorded his statement. Thereafter, he visited the house of Trilok Verma in Punjabi Bagh and recorded the statements of the neighbours of the society i.e. Mr. Shekhar and Mr. Bhasin.
PW17 has further stated that on 08/10/2005, he alongwith SI Jarnail Singh, SI Ishwar Singh, HC Labh Singh, W/Ct Mamta and Constable Harjeet alongwith complainant visited Naveen Shahdara and Yamuna Vihar in search of the accused persons as their relatives were residing there. There, they came to know that SC No.20/1 42 accused Anju Verma alongwith her father and brothers had gone to Patiala and were residing somewhere in a hotel near bus stand Patiala. On the directions of SHO, SI Ishwar Singh and SI Jarnail Singh alongwith Constable Harjeet went to Patiala. He alongwith other police staff and complainant continued the search of the accused persons. SI Ishwar Singh gave information that the accused persons had already departed from Patiala to Delhi. So, he alongwith complainant, HC Labh Singh and W/Constable Mamta stationed at G.T. Karnal Bypass and started waiting for the accused persons. After sometime, in the afternoon, accused Anju Verma alongwith her father Purshottam Lal and brothers Vijay @ Kittu and Baljinder Singh came by bus. They were identified by complainant M.S. Verma. All the four were apprehended and interrogated.
PW17 has further stated that during interrogation, they admitted their involvement. Accused Vijay and Baljinder were arrested vide memos Ex. PW13/6 and Ex. PW13/7. Accused Anju Verma and accused Purshottam Lal were arrested vide memos Ex. PW11/A and Ex. PW13/5. He signed all these memos. Personal search of accused Purshottam Lal, Vijay Kumar and Baljinder were taken vide memos Ex. PW13/2, Ex. PW13/3 and Ex. PW13/4. He signed these memos. Personal search of accused Anju Verma was taken by W/Constable Mamta vide memo Ex. PW11/B, which was signed by him. He recorded disclosure statements of accused Anju Verma Ex. PW13/8, of accused Purshottam Lal Ex. PW13/9, of accused Vijay Ex. PW13/10 and of accused Baljinder Ex. PW13/11 and signed the same. PW17 has also identified all the accused persons before the court.
PW14 HC Labh Singh joined the investigation with PW17 SI Mukesh Kumar and has stated that on 08/10/2005, he alongwith SI Ishwar Singh, SI Jarnail Singh, lady Constable Mamta and complainant M.S. Verma went to Shahdara and Yamuna Vihar in search of the accused persons, but could not find them. In the meanwhile, PW17 SI Mukesh Kumar received secret information to send some police officials to Patiala as the accused persons had gone there. SI Ishwar Singh was sent to Patiala on 08/10/2005 itself. SI Ishwar Singh gave information to PW17 SC No.20/1 43 SI Mukesh Kumar that accused persons had already left from Patiala to Delhi. So, he alongwith PW17 SI Mukesh Kumar, lady Constable Mamta and complainant M.S. Verma reached Bypass Karnal i.e. Mukerba Chowk and started checking the buses entering Delhi from the side of Punjab and Karnal.
PW11 has further stated that in the meanwhile, complainant identified some persons alighting from the bus coming from the side of Karnal/Punjab and identified them as accused persons. PW14 HC Labh Singh has also identified all the accused persons before the court i.e. accused Purshottam Lal, Anju Verma, Vijay Kumar and Baljinder. PW14 has also deposed that all the accused persons were interrogated. They were arrested. Their personal search were conducted and they also made disclosure statements. PW14 has also signed all these documents, which have been also deposed by PW17 SI Mukesh Kumar.
PW11 Constable Mamta has stated that on 08/10/2005, she was posted at PS Punjabi Bagh. On that day, she alongwith PW17 SI Mukesh Kumar, PW14 HC Labh Singh and complainant M.S. Verma reached at bypass of Azadpur, Delhi, and started checking the passengers, who were coming in buses from Punjab side. Sometime later, four persons came down from a bus and complainant M.S. Verma identified them as accused Bobby, Purshottam Lal, Anju Verma and another brother of accused Anju Verma. PW11 has identified all the accused persons before the court as Purshottam Lal, Anju Verma, Bobby @ Baljinder and Kittu @ Vijay. Again she had deposed the same facts as of PW14 HC Labh Singh and PW17 SI Mukesh Kumar regarding the arrest, person search and disclosure statements of the accused persons.
Learned defence counsel has contended that all these three witnesses i.e. PW11 W/Constable Mamta, PW14 HC Labh Singh and PW17 SI Mukesh Kumar have contradicted each other on material facts. Learned defence counsel has pointed out that on 08/10/2005, firstly, according to PW17 SI Mukesh Kumar, they visited Yamuna Vihar and Naveen Shahdara in search of the accused persons and there they had come to know that accused persons had gone to Patiala, whereas SC No.20/1 44 PW11 W/Constable Mamta has nowhere stated that she also accompanied the police party and also had gone for search of accused persons to Shahdara and Yamuna Vihar.
Learned defence counsel has further contended that PW11 W/Constable Mamta has nowhere stated as to where they came to know that accused persons had gone to Patiala or the police officials were sent to Patiala in search of the accused persons. PW14 HC Labh Singh has stated that SI Ishwar Singh was sent to Patiala on 08/10/2005 itself, whereas PW17 SI Mukesh Kumar has stated that according to the directions of the SHO, SI Ishwar Singh and SI Jarnail Singh alongwith Constable Harjeet went to Patiala.
Learned defence counsel has further contended that all these three police officials i.e. SI Ishwar Singh, SI Jarnail Singh and Constable Harjeet have not been examined by the prosecution. So, the prosecution has not been able to prove the fact that PW17 SI Mukesh Kumar had received any information that accused persons had gone to Patiala. Secondly, whether SI Jarnail Singh and SI Ishwar Singh both were sent to Patiala with Constable Harjeet Singh or only SI Ishwar Singh was sent to Patiala on 08/10/2005 itself.
Learned defence counsel has further contended that Patiala is not near about to Delhi. It took five hours to reach Patiala. It is not disclosed as to at what time, who had gone to Patiala and at what time information was received that the accused persons had already left Patiala and were coming to Delhi.
Learned defence counsel has further contended that according to the arrest memos of the accused persons, accused persons were arrested at about 6.35 p.m. on 08/10/2005 at GT Karnal Road Bypass, which shows that they must have boarded the bus at about 1.35 p.m. Learned defence counsel has further contended that cash of Rs. 350/- was recovered only in personal search of accused Baljinder. Cash of Rs. 410/- was recovered from accused Vijay Kumar. Cash of Rs. 400/- was recovered from accused Purshottam Lal and nothing was recovered from accused Anju Verma. Learned defence counsel has further contended that no bus travel SC No.20/1 45 tickets were recovered during the personal search of the accused persons. Even except cash, no other document was recovered from their possession, which shows that their arrest has been manipulated by showing the same from GT Karnal Road Bypass and in fact, they were lifted from their house.
Learned defence counsel has further contended that there is tampering in the date, wherein digit "7" has been changed into digit "8" by altering the same in the arrest memos of accused Vijay Kumar, Baljinder and accused Anju Verma, which shows the overwriting made by the police.
Learned defence counsel has further contended that according to the cross examination of PW11 W/Constable Mamta, they had left the PS at about 4.30 p.m. and accused persons were apprehended at about 6.30 p.m. It is highly improbable that within two hours, they visited Yamuna Vihar and Shahdara also and reached at bypass for the apprehension of the accused persons. Learned defence counsel has further contended that from the cross examination of PW11 W/Constable Mamta, it is clear that she had not gone to Shahdara and Yamuna Vihar in search of the accused persons alongwith the police party as PW11 W/Constable Mamta has stated that the route adopted was via inner ring road touching Prem Bari and Shalimar Bagh. The police party stopped at Karnal Bypass on GT Karnal Road, Delhi. They reached there within half an hour. Learned defence counsel has further contended that according to PW11 W/Constable Mamta, they left the bypass at 6.15 p.m., whereas arrest of the accused persons has been shown at 6.30 p.m. It also shows that no document was prepared at the spot, but all the proceedings are forged and fabricated.
Learned defence counsel has further contended that PW14 HC Labh Singh has also been confronted with the fact of visit to Naveen Shahdara , which is not recorded in the statement of PW14 HC Labh Singh Ex.PW14/DA. PW14 has also been confronted with the fact that SI Ishwar Singh and SI Jarnail Singh also accompanied them to Naveen Shahdara, which is not appearing his statement Ex. PW14/DA. Even this fact is not appearing in the statement Ex. PW14/DA that SC No.20/1 46 PW14 HC Labh Singh with PW17 SI Mukesh Kumar had received an information about the accused persons that they had gone to Patiala and SI Ishwar Singh had gone to Patiala and that accused persons had left Patiala for Delhi.
Learned defence counsel has further contended that according to cross of PW14 HC Labh Singh, they left the police station at 10 a.m. on 08/10/2005 and remained at GT Karnal Road Bypass from 5.30 p.m. to 8.00 p.m., which is also contrary to the deposition of PW11 W/Constable Mamta, who has stated that they left GT Karnal Road Bypass at 6.15 p.m. Learned defence counsel has further contended that according to cross examination of PW14 HC Labh Singh, Constable Harjeet Singh was present at Mukerba Chowk with the police party, whereas according to PW17 SI Mukesh Kumar, Constable Harjeet Singh was sent to Patiala alongwith SI Ishwar Singh and SI Jarnail Singh on the directions of the SHO. So, it is doubtful whether Constable Harjeet Singh was present at GT Karnal Road Bypass or had gone to Patiala with SI Ishwar Singh and SI Jarnail Singh or only SI Ishwar had gone to Patiala.
On the other hand, learned Addl. PP has contended that PW14 HC Labh Singh has stated in the cross examination that alteration in the date from '7" to "8" as appearing in the arrest memos of accused Baljinder, Vijay Kumar and Anju Verma is a clerical error.
Learned defence counsel has further contended that PW14 Head Constable Labh Singh has stated in the cross examination that all the proceedings were carried out at a police booth i.e. nearby GT Karnal Road Bypass , whereas according to PW11 W/Constable Mamta, they had left the bypass at about 6.15 p.m. So, it is doubtful whether the proceedings were conducted at GT Karnal Road Bypass or somewhere else, which creates doubt on the arrest of the accused persons from GT Karnal Road Bypass , as stated by the witnesses.
PW17 has further stated that after the arrest, accused persons led the police party and complainant to Sector-4, Vaishali, Ghaziabad, near Ambedkar Park near the bushes and pointed out the place, where dead body was thrown and a SC No.20/1 47 pointing out memo was prepared, which is Ex. PW11/C. He also prepared site plan of the same Ex. PW13/12. Thereafter, the police party, complainant and the accused persons went to concerned police station Indirapuram and entry to that effect was made in PS Indirapuram in the intervening night of 08.09/10/2005. Copy of DD No.2 dated 09/10/2005 is Mark PX1.
PW17 has further stated that complainant identified the photograph of his son Trilok Verma on hue & cry notice affixed on the noticeboard of the police station. The photograph of the deceased is Ex. PW16/C. Copy of hue & cry notice is Ex. PW16/D. PW17 has further stated that he received inquest papers from PW16 SI R.K. Yadav. Thereafter, he with the accused persons, complainant and police staff came to Delhi. Accused persons were got medically examined. Applications for medical examination are Ex. PW17/C1 to C4. Thereafter, the case file and the accused persons were handed over to SHO for further investigation as the offence was converted to Section 302 of IPC.
PW11 W/Constable Mamta has stated that during investigation, accused persons led the police party to a place near Vaishali, Ghaziabad, where they had thrown the dead body of Trilok Verma. Pointing out memo Ex. PW11/C was prepared. Thereafter, the accused persons were taken to Police Post Vaishali, Ghaziabad, where the officials had shown the photograph of the dead body recovered from the area of Vaishali, which the accused persons had identified to be of Trilok Verma. Photograph is Mark-X. PW14 HC Labh Singh has stated that accused persons took the police party alongwith complainant to Vaishali Ghaziabad and pointed out a place on the pavement on service road, where dead body of Trilok Verma was thrown. PW17 SI Mukesh Kumar had prepared pointing out memo Ex. PW11/C. Thereafter, the police party, complainant and accused persons went to PS Vaishali, Ghaziabad and complainant identified the photograph, affixed outside the PS, to be of his son Trilok Verma. Thereafter, they all came back to PS and his statement was recorded by the IO.SC No.20/1 48
In the cross examination, PW11 W/Constable Mamta has stated that on 08/10/2005, they came back at about 2.00 a.m. night. She has further stated that they left the Bypass at about 6.15 p.m., but she did not notice the time, when they reached at Ghaziabad. They remained there for half an hour. PW14 HC Labh Singh has also corroborated PW11 W/constable Mamta in this respect and has stated that they had returned to the PS shortly after 12 in the midnight of 08/10/2005.
Learned defence counsel has contended that PW14 HC Labh Singh has admitted that accused Vijay was medically examined at Maharaja Agrasen Hospital, Punjabi Bagh, at 9.45 p.m. on 08/10/2005. Learned defence counsel has further contended that this fact itself falsify the case of the prosecution that the accused persons led the police party to Vaishali, Ghaziabad and pointed out the place, where they had thrown the dead body because according to PW11 W/Constable Mamta, they left GT Karnal Road Bypass at 6.15 p.m. to Ghaziabad, whereas PW14 HC Labh Singh has stated that they remained at bypass from 5.30 p.m. to 8.00 p.m. and if we assume that they left bypass at about 8.00 p.m., even then, it was not possible that accused Vijay Kumar could have been medically examined from Maharaja Agrasen Hospital, Punjabi Bagh, at about 9.45 p.m. because till that time, they had already reached at Vaishali, Ghaziabad. Learned defence counsel has further contended that it shows that accused Vijay Kumar was not with the police party and was not arrested from GT Karnal Road Bypass or documents in respect of all these proceedings have been fabricated.
Learned defence counsel has further contended that from the cross of PW17 SI Mukesh Kumar, it is clear that IO did not collect the call details of the mobile phone of Trilok Verma, although it was mentioned in the complaint Ex. PW13/1. From the call details, location of Trilok Verma could have been ascertained. Learned defence counsel has further contended that during investigation, IO did not try to trace out ownership of Honda City car No. HR-26L- 7202. Learned defence counsel has further contended that IO has also not verified the fact that Trilok Verma had left his house situated at Punjabi Bagh without SC No.20/1 49 stating anything because M.S. Verma was residing at 121, West Mukherjee Nagar, Delhi.
Learned defence counsel has further contended that in the Missing Person Form Ex. PW17/B, it is not mentioned as to what Trilok Verma was wearing, when he went missing or when he was last seen. So, identification of the clothes of deceased Trilok Verma by PW17-IO SI Mukesh Kumar has no meaning because in none of the complaint, either of PW3 D.K. Tiwari or in the complaint of Anju Verma or in the complaint of M.S. Verma, it has been mentioned as to what Trilok Verma was wearing, when he was last seen.
On the other hand, learned Addl. PP has contended that a DD No. 18/A, copy of which is Mark XA, was recorded in which description and colour of wearing clothes is mentioned.
Learned defence counsel has further contended that even PW17 SI Mukesh Kumar after collecting the complaint of D.K. Tiwari dated 03/10/2005 did not record statement of SI Ishwar Singh on 07/10/2005, to whom , same was assigned for investigation.
Learned defence counsel has further contended that PW17 SI Mukesh Kumar has also stated in the cross examination that arrest memos and personal search memos were prepared at bypass and not in the PS, which is highly improbable considering the cross examination of PW11 W/Constable Mamta and PW14 HC Labh Singh. Learned defence counsel has further contended that PW17 SI Mukesh Kumar has further stated that after about one and a half hour of the apprehension of the accused persons, Constable Harjeet came there from Patiala and hence, his signatures are appearing in arrest memo. Learned defence counsel has further contended that PW17 SI Mukesh Kumar has admitted that this fact is not mentioned in the statements of PW11 W/Constable Mamta and PW14 HC Labh Singh. So, PW17 cannot be relied upon in this respect.
Learned Addl. PP has contended that due to this reason, PW11 W/Constable Mamta and PW14 HC Labh Singh have not deposed about presence of SC No.20/1 50 Constable Harjeet at GT Karnal Road Bypass and further about his arrival at GT Karnal Road Bypass after about one and half hour of the apprehension of the accused persons, who come from Patiala.
Learned defence counsel has further contended that arrival of Constable Harjeet at GT Karnal Road Bypass from Patiala is a false and concocted story and his signatures have been obtained on fabricated documents.
Learned defence counsel has further contended that all these witnesses i.e. PW11 W/Constable Mamta, PW14 HC Labh Singh and PW17 SI Mukesh Kumar have admitted that no ticket or any bill of hotel, spare clothes, bag and luggage were recovered from the possession of the accused persons at the time of their arrest. Learned defence counsel has further contended that according to PW17 SI Mukesh Kumar, they remained at GT Karnal Road Bypass from 5.00 p.m. to 8.00 p.m., which is also contrary to statement of PW11 W/Constable Mamta.
Learned defence counsel has further contended that PW17 SI Mukesh Kumar has also contradicted with PW14 HC Labh Singh, who has stated that writing work was done in police booth, whereas PW17 SI Mukesh Kumar has stated that they had not done the writing work at the police post. It was done on the parafit of the wall on the nala. From there, they went to Vaishali alongwith all the accused persons. Till midnight, they remained at Vaishali, Ghaziabad and returned to PS at around 1.00 a.m. in the intervening night of 08/09.10.2005. Learned defence counsel has further contended that PW17 has admitted overwriting on the date from "7" to "8" in the arrest memos of accused Baljinder, Vijay and Anju Verma.
PW12 HC Dalbir Singh was posted at PS Punjabi Bagh as Duty Officer from 5.00 p.m. to 1.00 a.m. On that day, at about 7.25 p.m., he received ruqqa from PW17 SI Mukesh Kumar for registration of the case, on the basis of which, he recorded FIR of this case, copy of which is Ex. PW12/A. He made endorsement Ex. PW12/B on the ruqqa and handed over copy of FIR and original ruqqa to PW17 SI Mukesh Kumar.
PW20 Constable Rampal Singh has appeared from PS Indirapuram, SC No.20/1 51 Ghaziabad and produced summoned record of DD No.2 dated 09/10/2005 recorded at 00./45 a.m. , copy of which is Ex. PW20/A. He has also produced the original register. According to this DD, PW17 SI Mukesh Kumar of PS Punjabi Bagh, Delhi, visited the PS alongwith accused Baljinder, Vijay etc and complainant in the intervening night of 08/09.10.2005 at 00.45 a.m. Learned Addl. PP has contended that PW20 has admitted in the cross examination that DD No.2 is in the handwriting of PW17 SI Mukesh Kumar himself, which proves that PW17 SI Mukesh Kumar visited PS Indirapuram, Ghaziabad with the complainant and accused persons.
Documents regarding medical examination of Vijay and pointing out memo of dead body:
Learned defence counsel for accused Vijay Kumar @ Kittu has contended that except PW1 Akhilesh, no one has named accused Vijay Kumar @ Kittu in any manner. PW4 Shivangi has not stated that accused Vijay Kumar @ Kittu had also come on that day. Learned defence counsel has further contended that even in complaint Ex. PW13/1 of M.S. Verma, it is not mentioned that accused Vijay Kumar @ Kittu had also gone to the house of deceased Trilok Verma on that day. Learned defence counsel has further contended that according to pointing out memo Ex. PW11/C, all the four accused persons led the police party to Sector-4, Vaishali, Ghaziabad, near Ambedkar Park and pointed out the place, where accused Baljinder @ Bobby, Anju Verma and Purshottam Lal had thrown the dead body of Trilok Verma on 01/10/2005 at about 4.30 a.m. So, accused Vijay Kumar @ Kittu has also not pointed out the place , where the dead body was thrown, although his signatures are appearing on this memo, which shows that his signatures have been obtained on this memo.
Learned defence counsel has further contended that even in the disclosure statement Ex. PW13/10, accused Vijay Kumar @ Kittu has nowhere disclosed that he accompanied the remaining accused persons for throwing the dead body at the place, as pointed out. Rather, he has stated that he was told by his sister, SC No.20/1 52 father and brother that after committing murder of Trilok Verma, they had thrown his dead body in U.P. So, if accused Vijay Kumar @ Kittu has not made any disclosure statement regarding the place, where the dead body was thrown, then his signatures appearing on the pointing out memo are of no value and it cannot be said that he pointed out the place, where the dead body was thrown.
Learned defence counsel for accused Vijay Kumar @ Kittu has further contended that according to the medical examination application of accused Vijay Kumar @ Kittu Ex. PW17/DA, he was produced for examination in Maharaja Agrasen Hospital on 08/10/2005 at about 9.45 p.m., which is also contrary to the depositions of PW11 W/Ct. Mamta, PW14 Head Constable Labh Singh and PW17 SI Mukesh Kumar, who have stated that after the arrest of the accused persons from GT Karnal Road Bypass, they left for Ghaziabad, U.P. This shows that accused Vijay @ Kittu was not arrested from GT Karnal Road Bypass or if he was arrested, then he did not lead the police party to Ghaziabad and pointed out the place, where the dead body was thrown. Accused Vijay @ Kittu was taken to Maharaja Agrasen Hospital for his medical examination on 08/10/2005 at about 9.45 p.m. by Constable Devender Singh, who has not been examined by the prosecution. Hence, it is not known under what circumstances, accused Vijay Kumar @ Kittu was taken to Maharaja Agrasen Hospital at that time because accused Anju Verma was sent for her medical examination on 09/10/2005 in Maharaja Agrasen Hospital at about 2.25 a.m and accused Baljinder @ Bobby and Purshottam Lal were taken for their medical examination there at about 1.25 a.m. on 09/10/2005. Learned defence counsel has further contended that in view of these circumstances, involvement of accused Vijay Kumar @ Kittu is doubtful regarding the last seen evidence or his arrest from GT Karnal Road Bypass and to the fact that he pointed out the place in Ghaziabad, where the dead body was thrown.
Arrest of accused Jaswant Kaur:
PW17 SI Mukesh Kumar has further stated that on the same day, he SC No.20/1 53 alongwith Inspector Ramesh Chand, PW11 W/Ct. Mamta, accused Anju Verma and other police staff went to Shalimar Bagh, Delhi, in search of accused Jaswant Kaur. On the identification of accused Anju Verma, accused Jaswant Kaur was arrested vide memo Ex. PW11/D. Her personal search was conducted vide memo Ex. PW11/E by W/Ct. Mamta. Her disclosure statement was recorded, which was signed by him. Thereafter, all the five accused persons were produced before learned Metropolitan Magistrate. Accused Vijay Kumar @ Kittu was sent to JC, whereas remaining four accused persons were taken on PC.
PW11 W/Ct. Mamta has stated that on 09/10/2005, she again joined the investigation of this case with SHO/Inspector Ramesh Chander. Accused Anju Verma led the police party to H.No. BF-20, Shalimar Bagh (East), Delhi, and pointed out the house of her friend Jaswant Kaur, who had called her brother to the house of accused Anju Verma and he had administered injections to Trilok Verma. Accused Jaswant Kaur was arrested vide memo Ex. PW11/D. Her personal search was conducted vide memo Ex. PW11/E. Her disclosure statement Ex. PW11/F was recorded. She signed all these memos. PW11 W/Ct. Mamta has not been cross examined regarding arrest of accused Jaswant Kaur. In the cross examination, she has stated that on 09/10/2005, they reached at the house of accused Jaswant Kaur at about 9.10 a.m. and they came back to PS at about 11 a.m. PW11 has denied the suggestion that she did not join the investigation on 08/10/2005 or 09/10/2005 or that no arrest memo, personal search memo or disclosure statement etc. were recorded.
PW18 is Sh. Ramesh Chander , ACP, Tilak Nagar, Delhi. He has stated that on 09/10/2005, he was posted as SHO, PS Punjabi Bagh, when he took up investigation of this case. Accused Anju Verma was in custody of PW17 SI Mukesh Kumar. He interrogated her. Accused Anju Verma led the police party to Shalimar Bagh and pointed out the house of accused Jaswant Kaur. She was found present in her house. She was interrogated and arrested vide memo Ex. PW11/D. PW11 W/Ct Mamta conducted her personal search vide memo Ex. PW11/E. SC No.20/1 54 Accused Jaswant Kaur made disclosure statement Ex. PW11/F. Thereafter, they had come back to PS. All the five accused persons were produced before the court and accused Vijay Kumar @ Kittu was sent to JC, whereas PC remand of remaining accused was obtained. PW18 has not been cross examined on behalf of accused Jaswant Kaur in any manner, which shows that accused Jaswant Kaur has not disputed her arrest in this case, as deposed by the witnesses i.e. PW11 W/Ct. Mamta, PW17 SI Rakesh Kumar and PW18 Sh. Ramesh Chander, ACP. Accused Jaswant Kaur has also been identified by these witnesses before the court. Recovery of Honda City car No. HR-26L-7202:
PW17 SI Mukesh Kumar has further stated that on 10/10/2005, he alongwith Constable Suresh and accused Baljinder went to Saharanpur, U.P. There, accused pointed out the place, where he had left Honda City car No. HR-26L-7202. He prepared pointing out memo Ex. PW17/D. Thereafter, he alongwith Constable Suresh and accused Baljinder went to PS Janak Puri and moved an application before the SHO for release of Honda City car No. HR-26L-7202. He obtained the car on superdari vide memo Ex. PW17/E. In this regard, DD No. 37 dated 10/10/2005 was registered in PS Janakpuri, Saharanpur, U.P. and he obtained the photocopy of the same.
PW17 SI Mukesh Kumar has further stated that copy of DD No. 37 is Mark PX2 and copy of DD No. 26 dated 04/10/2005 is Mark PX2A. The said car was driven to Delhi by Constable Suresh and was deposited in the malkhana of PS Punjabi Bagh. Accused Baljinder was lodged in the lockup of PS Punjabi Bagh.
PW17 SI Mukesh Kumar has identified the car on the basis of photographs produced from malkhana of PS Punjabi Bagh. Photographs are collectively exhibited as Ex. PW17/F as learned defence counsels had not objected the physical production of the car before the court.
In the cross examination, PW17 SI Mukesh Kumar has also denied the suggestion that they had received information about the car found abandoned in the SC No.20/1 55 jurisdiction of PS Janakpuri, Saharanpur through District Crime Record Bureau of Janakpuri, Saharanpur. PW17 has specifically stated that no police official of PS Janakpuri, Saharanpur had met him in Delhi in relation to inquiry qua Honda City car No. HR-26L-7202.
PW19 Head Constable Sanjay Tyagi has been examined from PS Janakpuri, Saharanpur, U.P. He has produced original DD No. 37 dated 10/10/05 of PS Janakpuri, Saharanpur, U.P., photocopy of which is Ex. PW19/A. According to this DD, Honda City car No. HR-26L-7202 was given on superdari to PW17 SI Mukesh Kumar of PS Punjabi Bagh. He also signed the relevant entry in mal register dated 04/10/2005, copy of which is Ex. PW19/B. PW19 has also produced attested copy of DD No. 37 and attested copy of Mal register Ex. PW19/A and Ex. PW19/B respectively. PW19 has also produced copy of application dated 10/10/2005 submitted by PW17 SI Mukesh Kumar Ex. PW19/C, copy of superdarinama dated 10/10/2005 Ex. PW19/D and attested copy of DD No. 26 dated 04/10/2005 vide which this car was deposited in the malkhana of PS by SI Inder Singh after the same was recovered by him in abandon condition. Copy of DD No. 26 is Ex. PW19/E. Learned defence counsel has contended that PW19 Head Constable Sanjay Tyagi has produced the record only. These entries have not been made by him in his handwriting. So, he cannot be believed in any manner as he has no personal knowledge of the same.
In my view, this official record is maintained during the normal course. Hence, it was not required to examine the same person, who has made entries. It has not been suggested to the witness i.e. PW19 Head Constable Sanjay Tyagi that these entries are forged and fabricated. Entries could not have been made in anticipation as before the arrest of the accused persons, PW17 SI Mukesh Kumar was not knowing that the said car was lying deposited in PS Janakpuri, Saharanpur, U.P. Learned defence counsel has contended that in the application Ex. PW19/A, PW17 SI Mukesh Kumar has mentioned that Honda City car No. HR-
SC No.20/1 5626L-7202 was wanted in case FIR No. 886/05, PS Punjabi Bagh, Delhi, which was deposited in PS on 04/10/2005 as abandoned. Learned defence counsel has further contended that this fact itself shows that it was within the knowledge of PW17 SI Mukesh Kumar that car was lying deposited in PS Janakpuri, Saharanpur, U.P. Learned defence counsel has further contended that according to the cross examination of PW19 Head Constable Sanjay Tyagi, after depositing the abandoned car, message was sent to all police stations in U.P. and District Crime Bureau, U.P. and according to the record, SI Inder Singh had done all the relevant things on 04/10/2005 itself. Learned defence counsel has further contended that message was also sent all over India. So, it was within the knowledge of PW17 SI Mukesh Kumar that car was lying deposited there, which itself is evident from his application of superdari.
In my opinion, it has not been stated by the witnesses or has come in the cross examination that application was prepared by PW17 SI Mukesh Kumar in Delhi. He might have prepared the application in PS Janakpuri, Saharanpur, U.P., just after coming to know about the facts of depositing of the car as abandoned there after pointing out of the place by accused Baljinder, where he had left the car abandoned. So, it cannot be presumed or seemed to be more probable that PW17 SI Mukesh Kumar was already knowing that Honda City car No. HR-26L-7202 was lying deposited in PS Janakpuri, Saharanpur, U.P. PW17 SI Mukesh Kumar has further stated that on 19/11/2005, he took PW9 SI Mahesh Kumar , Draughtsman to Vaishali, Ghaziabad where he took rough notes and measurements of the place, from where dead body was allegedly recovered by U.P. Police. Thereafter, he took PW9 SI Mahesh Kumar to the house of deceased in Punjabi Bagh, where at his instance, PW9 SI Mahesh Kumar took rough notes and measurements.
PW9 SI Mahesh Kumar has corroborated PW17 SI Mukesh Kumar in this case and has stated that on 19/11/2005, he was posted as Draughtsman in Crime Branch, Police Headquarter. On that day, he visited two places i.e. one from where SC No.20/1 57 the dead body was recovered i.e. near Ambedkar Park, Vaishali, Ghaziabad and the other at H.No. 53/41, West Punjabi Bagh, Delhi i.e. house of accused Trilok Verma, alongwith PW17 SI Mukesh Kumar. He took rough notes and measurements at the instance of PW17 SI Mukesh Kumar and prepared scaled site plans of both the places. He destroyed the rough notes and measurements thereafter. Site plan of the place from where the dead body was recovered is Ex. PW9/A and the site plan of the place of occurrence is Ex. PW9/B. The witness is of formal nature. Nothing came out from his cross examination to disbelieve his testimony. Arrest of accused Sardool Singh:
PW10 Constable Brijpal has stated that on 02/12/2005, he joined the investigation of this case alongwith the Investigating officer and one person was also with him. They reached at Transport Centre, Punjabi Bagh, near Petrol Pump. At the instance of the informer, accused Sardool Singh was apprehended. His personal search was prepared vide memo Ex. PW10/A. His arrest memo Ex. PW10/B was also prepared. He made disclosure statement Ex. PW10/C. On the same day, accused Sardool Singh pointed out H.No. 53/41, West Punjabi Bagh, Delhi, and disclosed that it was the same house, where he had administered six injections to Trilok Verma. Pointing out memo Ex. PW10/D was prepared. Merely suggestions have been given to the witness. So, arrest of accused Sardool Singh, as deposed by PW10 Constable Brij Pal, is not disputed in any manner.
PW21 SI Surender Sandhu has stated that on 02/12/2005, he was posted in PS Punjabi Bagh. On that day, he arrested accused Sardool Singh vide memo Ex. PW10/B in presence of PW10 Constable Brij Pal. In his search, some articles were recovered vide memo Ex. PW10/A. Accused Sardool Singh made disclosure statement Ex. PW10/C. Again merely suggestions have been given to the witness that accused Sardool Singh was apprehended from Hoshiyarpur and the place of arrest, as shown in the arrest memo, is false. It is also suggested that an intimation with regard to the apprehension of accused Sardool Singh was given at PS Sadar, Hoshiyarpur, Punjab. These suggestions have been denied by the witness. So, in SC No.20/1 58 such manner, arrest of accused Sardool Singh is not disputed.
Learned Addl. PP has contended that accused Anju Verma has not denied the working of PW1 Akhilesh as Guard at H.No. 53/41, West Punjabi Bagh, Delhi. The date of incident is also not denied specifically. It is also not denied that after quarrel, accused Purshottam Lal and Baljinder @ Bobby came to the house of deceased, but accused Anju Verma has denied that accused Vijay Kumar @ Kittu has also come there.
Learned Addl. PP has further contended that accused Anju Verma has taken different stands regarding missing of Trilok Verma and regarding handing over of Rs. 40,000/- to PW1 Akhilesh. Learned Addl. PP has further contended that accused Anju Verma has also not disputed the complaint made by Supervisor D.K. Tiwari in PS Punjabi Bagh. Learned Addl. PP has further contended that it is also admitted by accused Anju Verma that later on, she collected Rs. 40,000/- and she has also admitted that PW1 Akhilesh was deputed as Guard at H.No. 53/41, West Punjabi Bagh, Delhi, in September-October 05. It is also admitted by accused Anju Verma that she handed over Rs. 40,000/- to PW1 Akhilesh for safe custody. She has also admitted that money was returned to her by mother of PW5 Narender Bhasin. She has also admitted that PW7 Sunil and PW8 Yogender were known to her husband, but they were not having any family relations.
Learned Addl. PP has further contended that accused Anju Verma has stated in her statement that her father in law and brother in law came to know on 02.03/10/2005 that dead body of her husband was found by police in Ghaziabad and after that, in order to grab the entire property left over by her husband, both connived and manipulated the case in connivance with the police with the help of legal brains.
If the accused persons came to know about recovery of dead body of husband of accused Anju Verma, then why they did not take any step to get the dead body for cremation or even they did not inform the police about this fact in any SC No.20/1 59 manner,which shows that this is a false and fabricated contention and is an afterthought.
The dead body was recovered in the morning of 01/10/2005 and postmortem was conducted at about 4.30 p.m. Thereafter, it was preserved for 72 hours. So, if the accused persons came to know about the recovery of dead body, then they could have easily get the dead body for cremation. This also indicates the guilt of the accused persons because they did not inform the police about recovery of the dead body nor claimed the dead body in any manner from police of Ghaziabad, U.P. because cremation of dead body, as unknown, could have helped the accused persons to cover up their guilt.
Learned Addl. PP has further contended that similarly, accused Purshottam Lal has also admitted that on 30/09/2005, he alongwith his son Bobby i.e. accused Baljinder went to the house of his daughter. They tried to patch up the matter. His son in law took them to his house at Rohini. While they were going upstairs and he was parking his car, he went away in the car without saying anything. Thereafter, they tried to contact him on his mobile phone, but it was switched off. Learned Addl. PP has further contended that similarly accused Baljinder @ Bobby has also admitted this fact.
Accused Vijay Kumar @ Kittu, Baljinder @ Bobby and Purshottam Lal in reply to question No. 43 have stated that they did not remember the exact date of incident. It was either 28 or 29/09/2005, but no such suggestion has been given to any of the witness that the incident did not take place on 30/09/2005. Even PW4 Shivangi Verma, daughter of accused Anju Verma has deposed the date of incident as 30/09/2005. So, it is just an afterthought and accused persons have not raised this contention earlier at any time.
Accused Anju Verma has stated that she gave complaint Mark PW13/A, admitted by her, "at the instance of complainant M.S. Verma and M.S. Verma had forced her to mention the date of incident as 30/09/2005". Complaint was given on 04/10/2005. Even after that, no one had restrained accused Anju Verma to retreat SC No.20/1 60 from this complaint and she could have given another complaint mentioning therein the true facts as these were according to her knowledge. Even then, if this complaint was given by accused Anju Verma at the instance of complainant M.S. Verma on 04/10/2005 regarding the incident of 30/09/2005, this itself shows the conduct of accused Anju Verma that her husband was missing from 30/09/2005 and she was not bothering about the same nor she has mentioned in the complaint that she has made any inquiries from the friends and relatives about her husband Trilok Verma. Even she did not bother to report the matter to the police, which indicates that she was knowing that Trilok Verma was not alive as he had been murdered by them. Findings against accused Anju Verma, Purshottam Lal, Vijay Kumar @ Kittu and Baljinder @ Bobby:
In view of the depositions of PW1 Akhilesh and PW4 Shivangi Verma, prosecution has been able to prove beyond reasonable doubts that on 30/09/2005, a quarrel took place between accused Anju Verma and Trilok Verma. Accused Purshottam Lal alongwith his sons Baljinder @ Bobby and Vijay Kumar @ Kittu reached there at about 12 a.m. night. They remained there for about two hours and thereafter they all three alongwith accused Anju Verma and her both children took Trilok Verma with them. According to PW1 Akhilesh, Trilok Verma was unconscious, whereas according to PW4 Shivangi Verma, he was not unconscious and her father took them to Rohini in the car. PW1 Akhilesh and PW4 Shivangi Verma have also contradicted each other as to whether accused Vijay Kumar @ Kittu had also come in that night or not.
It is not disputed even by the accused persons i.e. Anju Verma, Purshottam Lal and Baljinder @ Bobby that they had gone to the house of Trilok Verma on that day at that time and thereafter they tried to console and settle down the dispute between accused Anju Verma and Trilok Verma. Later on, Trilok Verma took them to drop them in Rohini in the car. So lastly, Trilok Verma was seen with accused Anju Verma, Purshottam Lal and Baljinder @ Bobby . It is doubtful as both PW1 Akhilesh and PW4 Shivangi Verma have contradicted each other as to SC No.20/1 61 whether accused Vijay Kumar @ Kittu had also gone to the house of Trilok Verma in the night of that day at about 12 p.m. The defence taken by the accused persons is that after dropping them, Trilok Verma left Rohini and went back to his house at Punjabi Bagh, but according to the case of prosecution, dead body of Trilok Verma was found at about 6.30 a.m. in the area of Vaishali, PS Indirapuram, Ghaziabad, U.P. Police of PS Indirapuram, Ghaziabad was informed. Photograph of the dead body was taken and it was sent for postmortem by PW16 SI Rakesh Kumar Yadav. Accused Anju Verma, Purshottam Lal and Baljinder @ Bobby have not been able to prove that after dropping them at Rohini, Trilok Verma left from there.
It has been held in State of Goa V. Sanjay Thakran, 2007(2) RCR (Criminal) 458 as to what has to be seen in the last seen evidence. It has been held that:
"The prosecution case is based on the circumstantial evidence and it is a well-settled proposition of law that when the case rests upon circumstantial evidence, such evidence must satisfy the following tests:
i) The circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to b e drawn, must be cogently and firmly established;
ii) those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused;
iii) 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
iv) the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence."
From the evidence brought on record, according to the depositions of the witnesses i.e. PW1 Akhilesh and PW4 Shivangi Verma, Anju Verma, Purshottam Lal, Vijay Kumar @ Kittu and Baljinder @ Bobby reached at the house of Trilok Verma in the night of 30/09/2005 at about 12 p.m. They remained there for about two hours. Thereafter, they left from Punjabi Bagh with Trilok Verma in the car, SC No.20/1 62 who was conscious or unconscious and had gone to Rohini. So, they must have taken at least 30 to 45 minutes to reach at Rohini. It is not disputed that they had gone to Rohini and it is otherwise also not improbable because they had to drop children at their maternal grandfather's house.
The prosecution has been able to prove beyond reasonable doubts that dead body of Trilok Verma was recovered in the area of Vaishali, PS Indirapuram, Ghaziabad, at 6.30 a.m. so, there is time gap of four hours only, out of which, accused persons must have consumed 1½ hours to reach in the area of Vaishali, Ghaziabad from Rohini. So, in all probability, accused persons must have reached in the are of Vaishali, Ghaziabad at about 4.00 a.m. That was early morning as it was month of September. So, none noticed the accused persons, while throwing the dead body there and it was noticed at about 6.30 a.m. when one Kapil Singhal was going for morning walk near Ambedkar Park.
So far as the deposition of PW1 Akhilesh is concerned, the same inspires confidence. He is trustworthy. He has no reason to depose against the accused persons falsely in any manner. The suggestion given on behalf of accused Anju Verma that he was slapped by accused Anju Verma on the issue of mishandling of water pump has been denied by the witness. Moreover, it was a very small issue and could not have created any motive in the mind of PW1 Akhilesh to implicate the accused persons falsely in this case by deposing the last seen evidence. Even otherwise, PW4 Shivangi Verma, who is daughter of Trilok Verma, has also deposed the same facts except the fact that she has not named accused Vijay Kumar @ Kittu in the last seen evidence.
The prosecution has also been able to prove beyond reasonable doubts that to commit murder of Trilok Verma, accused Anju Verma, Purshottam Lal and Baljinder @ Bobby entered into a criminal conspiracy, which is evident from the facts and circumstances and after the quarrel, accused persons Anju Verma, Purshottam Lal and Baljinder @ Bobby took Trilok Verma in unconscious condition in the car and disposed off his body after committing his murder.
SC No.20/1 63It has been held in Criminal appeal No. 19/2007 decided on 27/08/2009 tiled as Rakesh Kumar V. State of Hon'ble Delhi High Court that "there are three essential elements of offence of conspiracy i.e. i) a criminal object, which may be either the ultimate aim of the agreement, or may constitute the means, or one of the means by which that aim is to be accomplished; ii) a plan or scheme embodying means to accomplish that object and iii) an agreement or understanding between two or more of the accused persons whereby, they become definitely committed to cooperate for the accomplishment of the object by the means embodied in the agreement, or by any effectual means."
From the facts and circumstances alongwith the evidence of the witnesses, the prosecution has been able to prove beyond reasonable doubts that accused Anju Verma, Purshottam Lal and Baljinder @ Bobby entered into a criminal conspiracy to commit murder of Trilok Verma and after committing murder, disposed off his body by throwing the same in the area of Vaishali, PS Indirapuram, Ghaziabad.
From the depositions of PW1 and PW4, it is proved that Anju Verma, Purshottam Lal and Baljinder @ Bobby took Trilok Verma with them. PW1 Akhilesh has stated that Trilok Verma was unconscious at that time, whereas PW4 Shivangi Verma has stated that her father offered himself to drop them at Rohini in his car. So, it is doubtful whether Trilok Verma was unconscious or was conscious and himself offered the accused persons alongwith his wife and children to drop them at Rohini. Hence, it cannot be said that accused persons in furtherance of their criminal conspiracy abducted Trilok Verma in order that he may be murdered. The prosecution has also not been able to prove beyond reasonable doubts from the depositions of PW1 and PW4 in this respect that the accused persons kidnapped or abducted Trilok Verma with the intention of causing the said Trilok Verma to be secretly and wrongfully confined because PW1 and PW4 both have stated that accused persons took Trilok Verma with them to Rohini, where both the children have to be dropped. Hence, it cannot be said that the accused persons abducted Trilok Verma with the intention of causing him to be secretly and wrongfully confined in any manner. He was not confined in any manner nor was abducted in SC No.20/1 64 any manner. It was seen by PW1 Akhilesh that Trilok Verma was being taken by the accused persons and PW4 Shivangi Verma, daughter of deceased Trilok Verma, has also stated so that their father took them to their maternal grandfather's house at Rohini. So, offence U/s. 364 read with section 120B of IPC and 365 read with Section 120B of IPC are not proved against accused Anju Verma, Purshottam Lal and Baljinder @ Bobby, for which they are acquitted.
The prosecution has also not been able to prove beyond reasonable doubts offence U/s. 328 of IPC against accused Anju Verma, Purshottam Lal and Baljinder @ Bobby as according to the postmortem report it was not a case of poisoning in any manner. So, all these accused persons are acquitted for offence U/s. 328 read with Section 120B of IPC.
Learned defence counsel has contended that the prosecution has not been able to prove all the circumstances from which conclusion of guilt is to be drawn against the accused persons. So, accused persons are entitled to benefit of doubt. In support of the same, he has relied upon AIR 1990 Supreme Court 2140 titled as Kishore Chand V. State of Himachal Pradesh.
Learned defence counsel has further relied upon Criminal Appeal No. 731/2009 titled as Ajay Kumar V. State of Delhi and has contended that the suspicion, howsoever great, cannot be a substitute of proof in a criminal trial and prosecution has not been able to prove offences as charged against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubts.
Learned defence counsel has further contended that testimony of PW1 Akhilesh cannot be relied upon as he did not disclose the last seen facts to anyone in the society or to the police until his statement was recorded by the police and it raises a strong suspicion that he was not a witness to the last seen facts. In support of the same, learned defence counsel has relied upon 2009(4) JCC 3179 titled as Abdul Sattar & Another V. State.
SC No.20/1 65I am not agree with the learned defence counsel in any manner because testimony of PW1 Akhilesh has been corroborated by PW4 Shivangi Verma, daughter of deceased Trilok Verma, who has deposed the same facts except with minor variations and further except the presence of accused Vijay Kumar @ Kittu. So, the contentions of learned defence counsel are not tenable in any manner. Accused persons have also admitted so in their statements recorded U/s. 313 CrPC that deceased Trilok Verma took them to Rohini in his car.
It has been held in Criminal Appeal No. 19/2007 titled as Rakesh Kumar V. State that "the statement made by accused under Section 313 CrPC can certainly be taken aid of to lend credence to the evidence led by the prosecution." So, PW1 Akhilesh PW4 Shivangi Verma and admission of accused persons in their statements recorded U/s. 313 CrPC has corroborated the fact that Trilok Verma was lastly seen with accused Anju Verma, Purshottam Lal and Baljinder @ Bobby on 30/09/2005 at about 2.00 a.m. night. From the deposition of PW4 Shivangi Verma, the prosecution has also been able to prove beyond reasonable doubts that they all had gone to Rohini in the car, where they were dropped.
It has also been proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubts that after dropping them at Rohini, Trilok Verma went missing and accused persons have not been able to prove their defence that Trilok Verma left Rohini without telling them anything and he had gone back to his house at Punjabi Bagh.
It has also been deposed by PW7 that he had called up the deceased on 30/09/2005 at about 12 in the night from Kurukshetra, where he had gone for Surya Grahan. He had called him up to arrange for Rs. One lac, which he had to pay to some persons in the next morning. It shows that Trilok Verma was alive till that time on 30/09/2005.
The prosecution has also been able to prove beyond reasonable doubts that dead body of Trilok Verma was found at about 6.30 a.m. on 01/10/2005 in the SC No.20/1 66 area of Vaishali, PS Indirapuram, Ghaziabad, which is contrary to the defence of the accused persons and the time gap is so less that it indicates only towards the guilt of the accused persons.
The prosecution has not been able to prove the diary Ex. PX and the relevant entries therein on record regarding the incident of 30/09/2005 as PW4 Shivangi Verma has not supported the case of prosecution in this respect and even in the cross examination conducted by learned Addl. PP, she has stated that complainant M.S. Verma and Kuldeep Verma coerced her to make entries in the diary. So, the diary Ex. PX cannot be relied upon in any manner.
The conduct of the accused persons is also relevant to these circumstances because no missing report was lodged by accused Anju Verma till 04/10/2005, which she too has stated that it was made at the instance of Sh. M.S. Verma, father of deceased Trilok Verma, which shows that she was not willing to lodge any missing report or till that time, she was not having any intention to lodge any report that Trilok Verma was missing, which leads to the conclusion that she was knowing that Trilok Verma was murdered and his body was disposed off by them.
The conduct of accused Anju Verma is also leading to the guilt of the accused persons because she has given different explanations to the persons, who confronted her regarding the absence of Trilok Verma. At the time of last seen, she told that Trilok Verma was not well, hence, he was being taken to hospital. To the society members i.e. PW2 and PW5, she told that he was out of station. Not only this, she gave Rs. 30,000/- to PW1 Akhilesh and asked him to leave for his village. Even accused Vijay Kumar @ Kittu also handed over Rs. 10,000/- to PW1 Akhilesh and asked him to leave for his village. Accused Anju Verma has given a highly improbable explanation in this respect that she had given the money to PW1 Akhilesh as she wanted to save money and it was given to him for safe custody. Accused Anju Verma has also given a lame excuse regarding handing over the money to PW1 Akhilesh that she wanted to save money as her husband was having SC No.20/1 67 some extra marital affairs. Was it a best method to save money and to keep it in safe custody by handing over the money to PW1 Akhilesh. The answer is certainly a big No because PW1 Akhilesh was not having any means to put the money in safe custody and the only conclusion which can be drawn from these circumstances is that the money was given by accused Anju Verma and accused Vijay Kumar @ Kittu to PW1 Akhilesh to conceal the last seen evidence and by asking him to leave for his village is for the removal of the eye witness from the scene of crime.
Regarding the motive, PW7 Sunil and PW8 Yogender, who are friends of deceased Trilok Verma, have stated that Trilok Verma had disclosed to them that he was apprehending threat to his life at the hands of the accused persons. The bone of dispute was money of Rs. 10 lacs, which was given to accused persons as loan and they were not returning the same to Trilok Verma despite demands. PW7 Sunil has also given the bifurcation of the money that Rs. 7 lacs were paid to the accused persons for purchase of flat and Rs. 3 lacs were due for the paint supply. Certainly PW7 Sunil Kumar came to know about these facts only from Trilok Verma, which shows that how close he was with Trilok Verma during his lifetime, otherwise, he could not have come to know about these facts. So, from the depositions of PW7 Sunil Kumar and PW8 Trilok Verma, prosecution has been able to prove beyond reasonable doubts that the accused persons were having a motive to commit murder of Trilok Verma as they had to return Rs. 10 lacs to Trilok Verma, which they were not returning despite demands.
Accused Anju Verma was having more motives to commit murder of Trilok Verma as according to her, Trilok Verma was having extra marital affairs with one Geeta. She was also fed up with the drinking habit of Trilok Verma, although it has been denied by PW7 Sunil Kumar and PW8 Yogender that Trilok Verma used to drink liquor, but PW4 Shivangi Verma has stated that in the night of 30/09/2005, a quarrel had taken place on this issue between her mother and father in the house. On behalf of accused Anju Verma, it has also been suggested to PW7 Sunil Kumar and PW8 Yogender that they reached at the house of Trilok Verma SC No.20/1 68 with Trilok Verma in inebriated condition, where Trilok Verma asked accused Anju Verma to share bed with his friends and on refusal, Trilok Verma had torn the shirt of accused Anju Verma.
It has also come in the evidence of PW7 And PW8 that deceased Trilok Verma was under heavy debt of Rs. 20 lacs and he was in need of money, which is also fortified with the applications moved by learned defence counsel for interim bail of accused Anju Verma during the proceedings , in which, it has been disclosed that house has been auctioned by one finance company to recover its debts against accused Trilok Verma and remaining surplus amount was to be distributed amongst the LRs of deceased Trilok Verma. So, this fact itself proves that Trilok Verma was under debt, so, he was demanding Rs. 10 lacs back from the accused persons, who were not returning the same despite demands.
From the depositions of PW6 HCP Gajender Singh l, PW15 Dr. M.M. Tripathi and PW16 SI Rakesh Kumar Yadav, prosecution has been able to prove beyond reasonable doubts that dead body of Trilok Verma was recovered in the area of Vaishali, PS Indirapuram, Ghaziabad, at about 6.30 a.m. on 01/10/2005. It was sent for postmortem, which was conducted at about 4.30 p.m. on the same day and cause of death was antemortem chest injury resulting into internal haemorrhage and shock.
The conduct of accused Anju Verma also pointing towards the guilt of accused persons as she also accepted Rs. 40,000/- from the society members. If accused Anju Verma had not given the money to PW1 Akhilesh, then there was no occasion for her to accept the same back from the society members.
The arrest of accused persons i.e. Anju Verma, Purshottam Lal, Vijay Kumar @ Kittu and Baljinder @ Bobby is doubtful from GT Karnal Road Bypass, as deposed by PW11 W/Ct Mamta, PW14 HC Labh Singh and PW17 SI Mukesh Kumar, but these three witnesses have corroborated each other that accused persons led the police party to the area of Vaishali, PS Indirapuram, Ghaziabad, and pointed out the place, where accused Anju Verma, Purshottam Lal and Baljinder @ Bobby SC No.20/1 69 had thrown the dead body of Trilok Verma. It is doubtful that accused Vijay Kumar @ Kittu was arrested from GT Karnal Road Bypass and he also led the police party to Vaishali, Ghaziabad because he had not disclosed this fact in his disclosure statement. So, there could not be any discovery of fact on his pointing out and it seems that his signatures have been obtained on the pointing out memo, which also is not stating the name of accused Vijay Kumar @ Kittu as the person, who had thrown the dead body of Trilok Verma there.
The prosecution has also been able to prove beyond reasonable doubts that accused Baljinder @ Bobby pointed out the place, where he had left Honda City car No. HR-26L-7202, which was recovered by the police of PS Janakpuri, Saharanpur, U.P. abandoned and was deposited in the malkhana. The prosecution has also been able to prove that the Honda City car No. HR-26L-7202 was transferred to PS Punjabi Bagh from PS Janakpuri, Saharanpur, U.P., which was taken on superdari by PW17 SI Mukesh Kumar. This is also discovery of fact and is against the accused persons. It is also leading to the guilt of the accused persons because if it was not so, then accused Baljinder @ Bobby could not have pointed out the place, where he had left Honda City car No. HR-26L-7202 abandoned.
Learned defence counsel has contended that arrest of the accused persons from GT Karnal Road Bypass is doubtful. Hence, PW11 W/Ct Mamta, PW14 HC Labh Singh and PW17 SI Mukesh Kumar cannot be relied upon and benefit of doubt should be given to the accused persons.
I am not agree with the contention of learned defence counsel. Even hostile witness can be believed after scrutinizing his testimony. It has been held so in 1994(1) RCR 429 titled as Dhananjoy Chatterjee Alias Dhanna V. State of West Bengal, wherein it has been held that "testimony of hostile witness need not be ignored. Court can scrutinize the testimony of hostile witness and accept that portion of the same, which receives corroboration from other evidence on record."
It has also been held in 2002 VIII AD (SC) 385 titled as Gangadhar Behera and Ors. V. State of Orissa, wherein it has been held that :
SC No.20/1 70"Even if major portion of evidence is found to be deficient, in case residue is sufficient to prove guilt of an accused, notwithstanding acquittal of number of other co-accused persons, his conviction can be maintained. It is the duty of Court to separate grain from chaff. Where chaff can be separated from grain, it would be open to the Court to convict an accused notwithstanding the fact that evidence has been found to be deficient to prove guilt of other accused persons. Falsity of particular material witness or material particular would not ruin it from the beginning to end. The maxim "falsus in uno falsus in omnibus" has no application in India and the witnesses cannot be branded as liar. The maxim "falsus in uno falsus in omnibu" has not received general acceptance nor has his maxim come to occupy the status of rule of law. It is merely a rule of caution. All that it amounts to, is that in such cases testimony may be disregarded, and not that it must be disregarded. The doctrine merely involves the question of weight of evidence which a Court may apply in a given set of circumstances, but it is not what may be called 'a mandatory rule of evidence' (see Nisar Alli Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1957 SC 366). Merely because some of the accused persons have been acquitted , though evidence against all of them, so far as direct testimony went, was the same does not lead as a necessary corollary that those who have been convicted must also be acquitted. It is always open to a Court to differentiate accused who had been acquitted from those who were convicted. (See Gurucharan Singh and Anr. Vs. State of Punjab (AIR 1956 SC 460). The doctrine is a dangerous one specially in India for if a whole body of the testimony were to be rejected, because witness was evidently speaking an untruth in some aspect, it is to be feared that administration of criminal justice would come to a dead-stop. Witnesses just cannot help in giving embroidery to a story, however, true in the main. Therefore, it has to be appraised in each case as to what extent the evidence is worthy of acceptance, and merely because in some respects the Court considers the same to be insufficient for placing reliance on the testimony of a witness, it does not necessarily follow as a matter of law that it must be disregarded in all respects as well."
So, except the portion of arrest of accused persons, remaining portions of the testimonies of PW11 W/Ct Mamta, PW14 HC Labh Singh and PW17 SI Mukesh Kumar can be accepted, who have corroborated each other. They inspire confidence and their testimonies are credible. Before the pointing out of the place by the accused persons as to where the dead body was thrown and where the Honda City car No. HR-26L-7202 was dropped, it was not within the knowledge of police officials of PS Punjabi Bagh. So, it cannot be said that accused persons did not make any discovery of fact,which was within their knowledge only. The same also SC No.20/1 71 led to the guilt of the accused persons.
In view of above discussion, the prosecution has been able to prove the last seen evidence with circumstantial evidence against accused Anju Verma, Purshottam Lal and Baljinder @ Bobby beyond reasonable doubts that they entered into a criminal conspiracy to commit murder of Trilok Verma and took him with them and committed his murder. The prosecution has also been able to prove beyond reasonable doubts that accused Anju Verma, Purshottam Lal and Baljinder @ Bobby disposed off the dead body of Trilok Verma by throwing in the area of Vaishali, PS Indirapuram, Ghaziabad. Accordingly, they are held guilty for offences punishable U/s. 120B of IPC, 302 read with Section 120B of IPC and 201 read with Section 120B of IPC.
The last seen evidence against accused Vijay @ Kittu is doubtful. So, benefit of doubt is given to accused Vijay Kumar @ Kittu, but the prosecution has been able to prove beyond reasonable doubts that he gave Rs. 10,000/- to PW1 Akhilesh and asked him to leave for his village and also threatened him that if four persons would visit him, then how he will manage the situation. It shows that he was knowing that Trilok Verma was murdered and by offering Rs. 10,000/- to PW1 Akhilesh, caused the evidence of the commission of that offence to disappear with the intention to screen the offender from legal punishment. Accordingly, prosecution has also been able to prove offence punishable U/s. 201 of IPC against accused Vijay Kumar @ Kittu.
The prosecution has not been able to prove offences punishable U/s. 120B of IPC, 302 read with Section 120B of IPC, 328 read with Section 120 B of IPC, 364 read with section 120B of IPC, 365 read with section 120 B of IPC against accused Vijay Kumar @ Kittu, for which he is acquitted. Finding qua accused Jaswant Kaur and Sardool Singh:
Neither PW1 Akhilesh nor PW4 Shivangi Verma has stated that accused SC No.20/1 72 Jaswant Kaur or Sardool Singh were lastly seen by them in the house of Trilok Verma or they accompanied remaining accused persons, while Trilok Verma was taken by them in the night of 30/09/2005. The case of prosecution is that accused Sardool Singh gave six injections to Trilok Verma with the help of accused Jaswant Kaur, who was friend of accused Anju Verma. It has not been stated so by PW4 Shivangi Verma. It is not disputed that PW4 Shivangi Verma was present in the house when quarrel took place. She has specifically stated that neither Jaswant Kaur nor Sardool Singh were present in the house or were seen by her.
According to postmortem report of deceased Trilok Verma, he died due to antermortem chest injury resulting into internal haemorrhage and shock. PW15 Dr. M.M. Tripathi has nowhere stated that it was because of poisoning. So, prosecution has not been able to prove any last seen evidence alongwith circumstantial evidence against accused Jaswant Kaur and Sardool Singh. Prosecution has also not been able to prove that accused Sardool Singh gave six injections to deceased Trilok Verma. It is also not proved in any manner that accused Jaswant Kaur and Sardool Singh also entered into any criminal conspiracy alongwith other accused persons, who committed murder of Trilok Verma. So, the prosecution has not been able to prove beyond reasonable doubts offences U/s. 120B of IPC, 302 read with Section 120B of IPC, 328 read with Section 120B of IPC, 364 read with section 120B of IPC, 365 read with Section 120B of IPC and 201 read with Section 120B of IPC against accused Jaswant Kaur and Sardool Singh. Accordingly, both these accused are acquitted.
Announced in the Open Court on .
dated (Virender Kumar Goyal)
Additional Sessions Judge
Fast Track Court
Rohini : Delhi
SC No.20/1 73
SC No.20/1 74