Delhi District Court
State vs . Chandrakant Jha on 6 February, 2013
IN THE COURT OF Dr. KAMINI LAU: ADDL. SESSIONS
JUDGE-II (NORTH-WEST): ROHINI COURTS: DELHI
Session Case No. 90/2011
Unique Case ID No. 02404R0429472007
State Vs. Chandrakant Jha
S/o Radhey Kant Jha
R/o Village and Post Office Ghasi,
Police Station Chausa,
Distt. Madhepura, Bihar
(Convicted)
FIR No.: 609/2006
Police Station: Hari Nagar
Under Section: 302/201 Indian Penal Code
Date of committal to the Sessions Court: 11.9.2007
Date on which judgment was reserved: 19.1.2013
Date on which judgment was announced: 24.1.2013
JUDGMENT:
(1) In the year 2006 and 2007 Delhi was rocked and shaken by serial killings. In these killings the author of the crime followed a definite pattern where he killed the victims by decapitating their heads and he thereafter chopped their various body parts and threw the decapitated bodies of these young men outside the Central Jail Tihar and scattered their body parts at various places around Delhi. He did not stop at that and followed his crime precisely. After throwing the decapitated bodies he used to inform the police about the crime (in two cases) and the place where he had thrown the decapitated body. Along with these bodies he also left a note / letter (two cases) wherein he challenged the St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 1 Law Enforcement Agencies to catch him. In the last case which came to light on 18.5.2007, he had also threatened to send similar gifts (decapitated bodies) to the Delhi Police after every 15 days. Three such cases were registered in respect of the decapitated bodies thrown outside Central Jail Tihar on 20.10.2006, 25.4.2007 and 18.5.2007 in respect of FIR Nos. 609/2006, 243/2007 and 279/2007 were registered at Police Station Hari Nagar in which the accused Chanderkant Jha is the accused. All these cases though not consolidated, have been taken up together the pattern of crime / modus operandi being similar; major investigations being common; the evidence in the form of electronic records; forensics etc. being common.
(2) As per the allegations, the accused Chandrakant Jha had on the intervening night of 19-20.10.2006 committed the murder of Anil Mandal @ Amit by beheading his head and thereafter wrapped the headless / decapitated body of Amit Mandal in a gunny bag which he threw outside Gate No.3, Central Jail, Tihar. Along with the decapitated body, he left a letter written by him mocking and challenging constitutionally and legally established system of the country (Police Authorities, Jail Authorities and the Courts). In order to conceal the identity of the deceased and to cause disappearance of evidence of murder in order to screen himself from legal punishment, he also threw the head / body parts of the decapitated body at various places in Delhi.
BRIEF FACTS/ CASE OF THE PROSECUTION:
(3) The case of the prosecution is that on 20.10.2006 at 7:20 AM DD No-8-A was received at Police Station Hari Nagar from PCR that one Mukesh Tiwari had informed the police that one bundle containing a dead body was lying near the Gate No. 3, Central Jail, Tihar. Pursuant to St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 2 the said DD, ASI Sukhdev Singh along with Ct. Surender Singh reached the spot where he found a headless body of a male in a tokri wrapped with a rope in pieces of plastic and gunny bag. In the meantime Inspector Sunder Singh also reached the spot and on inspection, it was found that one headless dead body of a male aged about 25-30 years normal built, shallow complexion, wearing a 85 CM grey colored underwear of AMUL brand was found tied with a nylon grey colored rope. The headless dead body was found wrapped in old newspapers, white plastic gunny bag material and the tied bundle was kept inside of the packing seems to be the tokri used by the vegetable / fruits sellers.
The dead body had Bichchhoo (Scorpio) tattoo mark on its left shoulder, the words AMIT written in Hindi, a tattoo mark of Scorpion on right arm, two bluish marks were observed on right elbow and one bluish mark on the left lower back was found. A letter written by the culprit was also found near the dead body which letter contained challenge to the system and reflected that even previously the author of the letter had been throwing dead bodies out side the gate of Central Jail, Tihar. Postmortem examination of the decapitated body was got conducted at DDU Hospital on 30.10.2006 after which the Autopsy Surgeon handed over the blood gauze, gunny bag, two under-wears, Nylon rope, Sternum of the victim and finger phalanges of the victim which finger phalanges were later sent to FPB. The blood stained news papers which were found along with the decapitated body were sent to CFPS (NCRB) and efforts were made to search the accused and also to identify the victim. (4) On 25.04.2007 another headless/ limbless dead body was found at UTI ATM near Gate No. 3, Central Jail, Tihar in respect of which separate case was registered vide FIR No.243/07, under Section 302/201 IPC Police Station Hari Nagar. Again on 18.05.2007 a headless/ St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 3 limbless dead body was found at Gate No. 1, Central Jail, Tihar along with a letter which contained similar threats to the system/ police and also reflected the previous act of the writer / author of the letter in respect of which the FIRs had been registered under section 302/201 IPC. (5) On 20.5.2007 the accused Chander Kant Jha was arrested on the instance of secret informer from his tenanted house 592, Gulia Colony, near Chhota Shiv Mandir, Alipur, Delhi. From the personal search of the accused a mobile phone, a wrist watch, some papers written with telephone numbers and Rs.220/- were found. During Interrogation the accused Chander Kant Jha disclosed about his involvement in various cases wherein he used to murder young boys of poor families known to him by decapitating their heads. Pursuant to his disclosure, he also got recovered from in front of his tenanted house, one Rickshaw Rehra fitted with an engine, which he allegedly used for carrying the dead bodies of the victims which he dropped at different places. The accused Chander Kant Jha also allegedly identified the various places where he had killed the victims and dropped the dead bodies or their severed body parts. He also got recovered the skull and lower jaw of one of the victims from the banks of river Yamuna near ISBT, Kashmere Gate. Further, three choppers and a mobile phone allegedly belonging to one of the victims, was also got recovered by him from his tenanted room at Haiderpur. After completion of investigations charge sheet was filed before the Court.
CHARGE:
(6) Charges under Sections 302/201 Indian Penal Code were settled against the accused Chanderkant Jha to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 4
EVIDENCE:
(7) In order to prove its case the prosecution has examined as many as Forty Seven witnesses. However, before coming to the testimonies of individual witnesses, the details of the witnesses examined by the prosecution, the documents proved by them and the details of the case properties are hereby put in a tabulated form as under:
List of witnesses:
Sr. PW No. Name of the Details of the witness
No. Witness
1. PW1 SI Kartar Singh Police witness who had gone to the spot and
found the dead body in front of Gate No.3,
Tihar Jail
2. PW2 Dr. Anil Shandil Autopsy Surgeon who has proved the
postmortem report
3. PW3 HC Sushil Kumar Police witness who had deposited the exhibits
to FSL
4. PW4 Ct. Rakesh Kumar Crime Team Photographer who had taken the
photographs at Gate No.3, Tihar Jail
5. PW5 Ct. Mukesh Kumar Police witness/ special messenger who had
delivered the copy of FIRs to senior officers
6. PW6 HC Hari Ram Police witness/ MHCM
7. PW7 ASI Bal Kishan Police witness/ Duty Officer
Sharma
8. PW8 Ct. Babu Lal Police witness/ Computer Operator who had
prepared the sketch of the accused
9. PW9 SI Anil Kumar Police witness/ Crime Team Incharge who had
inspected the scene of crime at Gate No.3, Tihar
Jail and again at the house of the accused i.e.
House No. 329, Gali No.2, Haiderpur Colony
10. PW10 ASI Ajender Singh Police witness/ Finger Print Expert
11. PW11 Sh. Naresh Kumar FSL Expert
12. PW12 Ram Babu Public witness who was working on STD/ PCO
Chaurasiya Booth from where the accused had made a call
to PS Hari Nagar
13. PW13 Sanjay Mann Public witness who had rented out the room to
accused
St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 5
14. PW14 Ct. Suresh Kumar Police witness/ photographer of crime team who
had taken the photographs at the house of
accused at Haiderpur
15. PW15 HC Banwari Lal Police witness/ Duty Officer who has proved
having registered the FIR of the present case.
16. PW16 HC Bane Singh Police witness who had deposited the exhibits at
FSL
17. PW17 ASI Sukhdev Singh Police witness who had gone to Gate No.3 at
Tihar Jail pursuant to DD No. 7A & 8A
18. PW18 SI Mahesh Kumar Police witness/ Draftsman who had prepared the
scaled site plan of the spot where the dead body
was thrown
19. PW19 HC Vijender Singh Police witness/ witness to the seizure of skull
and jaw
20. PW20 Sanjay Kumar @ Public witness/ private photographer who had
Rajesh taken the photographs of the dead body and also
of skull and jaw
21. PW21 Ct. Surender Singh Police witness who had gone to the spot at Gate
No.3, Tihar Jail
22. PW22 Insp. Sunder Singh Investigating Officer of the present case/
member of Special Staff West District
23. PW23 ASI Virender Police witness/ member of Special Staff West
District
24. PW24 Insp. Dalip Kaushik Police witness/ member of Special Staff West
District
25. PW25 HC Bijender Police witness/ PCR Van official
Kumar
26. PW26 HC Ram Avtar Police witness who had gone to to NCRB,
Central Finger Print Bureau, R.K. Puram, New
Delhi for comparison
27. PW27 HC Hari Singh Police witness / MHCM
28. PW28 HC Sohan Singh Police witness who had handed over the dossier
of Anil Mandal to Inspector Jai Singh
29. PW29 HC Nachhatra Police witness/ Incharge PCR Van
Singh
30. PW30 Rajeev Kumar Public witness/ owner of the house at Alipur
where the accused was residing at the time of
his arrest
31. PW31 SI Satender Mohan Police witness who proved the seizure of skull
and jaw
St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 6
32. PW32 SI Narender Kumar Police witness/ member of Special Staff West
District
33. PW33 Tarun Khurana Nodal Officer
34. PW34 Insp. Hoshiyar Subsequent Investigating Officer
Singh
35. PW35 Sh. A K Forensic Expert / DNA Fingerprint Expert
Shrivastava
36. PW36 Insp Harpal Singh Police witness / Investigating officer
37. PW37 Ravinder Kumar Police witness / Finger Print Expert
38. PW38 Ct. Chaman Lal Police witness who had obtained the dossier of
Anil Mandal
39. PW39 Smt. Bharti Devi Public witness / wife of Anil Mandal
40. PW40 Baby Manda Child witness / daughter of Anil Mandal
41. PW41 Master Vijay Child witness / son of Anil Mandal
42. PW42 Smt. Paro Public witness / Bua of Anil Mandal
43. PW43 Sh. Rishi Pal Addl. DCP West District who had given the
replies to the RTI application of the accused
44. PW44 Insp. Jai Singh Subsequent Investigating Officer
45. PW45 Pankaj Public witness who is the brother of one of the
victim namely Upender (FIR No. 243/2007) and
has proved the use of mobile phone no.
9211463742 by the accused Chanderkant Jha
46. PW46 Sh. M.N. Vijayan Nodal Officer
47. PW47 Sh. Sanjeev Kumar Forensic expert / Handwriting Expert
List of documents exhibited:
Sr. Exhibited Name of documents Proved by
No.
1. Ex.PW1/A Seizure memo of blood stained SI Kartar Singh
Newspapers
2. Ex.PW1/B Seizure memo of Written Note
3. Ex.PW1/C Seizure memo of Plastic Katta
4. Ex.PW1/D Seizure memo of Pant and Shirt
5. Ex.PW1/E Seizure memo of earth control
6. Ex.PW1/F Seizure memo of Tokri and Pieces of
Plastic Rope
St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 7
7. Ex.PW2/A Postmortem Report Dr. Anil Shandil
8. Ex.PW4/A1 to Negatives HC Sushil Kumar
Ex.PW4/A9
9. Ex.PW4/B1 to Photographs
Ex.PW4/B9
10. Ex.PW6/A Copy of RC 15/21/07 HC Hari Ram
11. Ex.PW6/B Copy of RC 62/21/07
12. Ex.PW6/C Copy of RC 63/21/07
13. Ex.PW6/D Copy of RC 69/21/07
14. Ex.PW7/A DD NO 7A dated 20/10/06 ASI Bal Kishan
15. Ex.PW7/B DD NO 8A dated 20/10/06
16. Ex.PW7/DX1 RTI Reply
17. Ex.PW8/A Sketch of Accused Ct. Babu Lal
18. Ex.PW9/A Crime Team Report SI Anil Kumar
19. Ex.PW 9/B Crime team Report
20. Ex.PW10/A Finger Print Report ASI Ajender
Singh
21. Ex.PW11/A Biological Report Naresh Kumar
22. Ex.PW11/B Serological Report
23. Ex PW14/A-1 to Photographs Ct. Suresh Kumar
Ex.PW14/A-18
24. Ex.PW15/A Carbon copy of FIR HC Banwari Lal
25. Ex.PW15/B Endorsement on Rukka
26. Ex.PW15/C DD NO. 12A Dated 20/10/06
27. Ex.PW15/D DD No 13A Dated 20/10/06
28. Ex.PW15/E DD No. 15/A Dated 20/10/06
29. Ex.PW15/F DD NO. 3A Dated 21/05/07
30. Ex.PW17/A DD NO. 8A Dated 20/10/06 ASI Sukhdev
31. Ex.PW17/B Application for preserving the dead body Singh
for 72 hours
32. Ex.PW18/A Scaled Site plan SI Mahesh Kumar
33. Ex.PW19/A Seizure memo of skull with both human HC Vijender
jaw and Cloth Singh
34. Ex.PW20/1 to Photographs of the spot where the dead Sanjay Kumar @
Ex.PW20/22 body was recovered Rajesh
St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 8
35. Ex.PW20/A1 to Photographs of the spot from where the Ex.PW20/A-11 skull and jaw was recovered
36. Ex.PW22/A Rukka Inspector Sunder
37. Ex.PW22/B Written Letter Singh
38. Ex.PW22/C Site plan
39. Ex.PW22/D Seizure memo of exhibits of deceased
40. Ex.PW22/E Seizure memo of Blood sample
41. Ex.PW22/F Seizure memo of Gunny bag and two underwear
42. Ex.PW22/G Seizure memo of sternum
43. Ex.PW22/H Application for making portrait
44. Ex.PW22/I Arrest memo of accused
45. Ex.PW22/J Personal search memo of accused
46. Ex.PW22/K Disclosure statement
47. Ex.PW22/L Seizure memo of Rickshaw
48. Ex.PW22/M Seizure memo of blood from the knives
49. Ex.PW22/N Sketch of knife
50. Ex.PW22/O Seizure memo of knifes
51. Ex.PW22/P Seizure memo of nunchaku, jeans pant, mobile phone and paper containing the phone numbers
52. Ex.PW22/Q Seizure memo of telephone Numbers
53. Ex.PW22/R Site plan
54. Ex.PW22/S Pointing out memo of Kishanganj gandanala where the accused had thrown the legs of the body of deceased on 18.5.2007
55. Ex.PW22/T Pointing out memo of the place at Tis Hazari where the accused left two hands of the body of the deceased and his private parts after packing the same in the straw board box.
56. Ex.PW22/U1 to Specimen handwriting and signatures of Ex.PW22/U7 accused Chanderkant Jha
57. Ex.PW22/V Pointing out memo where the accused had thrown the skull in river Yamuna St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 9
58. Ex.PW22/W Pointing out memo of the place / near the shop of sugar cane juice where the accused had dropped the left hand and sexual part of deceased Upender @ Pintoo
59. Ex.PW22/X Pointing out memo of the place in front of State Bank, Tis Hazari Court complex where the accused had dropped the right hand of deceased Upender @ Pintoo.
60. Ex.PW22/Y Pointing out memo of house No. 206, Pipal Thala Chowk where the accused had killed one Shekhar in June/ July 2003 whose body he had thrown in Mukhmailpur ganda nala
61. Ex.PW22/Z Pointing out memo at the house of Rajpal bearing No. 43/3 Sarai Pipal thala where the accused killed one Umesh in November 2003
62. Ex.PW22/Z1 Pointing out memo at Baba Ramdev Mandir where the accused had thrown the left leg of Upender on 25.4.2007
63. Ex.PW22/Z2 Pointing out memo of house No. 51 belonging to one Dalbir Singh where the accused had killed one Guddu in the month of October 2005 and had thrown his body in ganda nala Mangolpuri
64. Ex.PW22/Z3 Site plan of the place from where the skull and jaws were recovered.
65. Ex.PW22/Z4 Pointing out memo at Mukhmailpur Nala National Highway No.1.
66. Ex.PW22/Z5 Pointing out memo at Mangolpuri Ganda Nala near Sulabh Sauchalya.
67. Ex.PW22/Z6 Pointing out memo near MCD Primary School, Swaroop Nagar.
68. Ex.PW22/Z7 Memo of pointing out at Gate No. 3, Tihar Jail.
69. Ex.PW22/Z8 Seizure of photocopy of the paper containing mobile numbers recovered in personal search of accused.
70. Ex.PW22/Z9 Paper containing the mobile numbers recovered from the personal search of the accused St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 10
71. Ex.PW22/Z10 Application for conducting TIP proceedings
72. Ex.PW22/Z11 TIP Proceedings
73. Ex.PW22/Z12 Application for obtaining the copy of TIP proceedings
74. Ex.PW22/Z13 Envelope containing TIP proceedings
75. Ex.PW22/Z14 Photographs
76. Ex.PW22/Z15 Seizure of call details of mobile phone no. 9871284644 and 9818250805.
77. Ex.PW22/Z16 CDR of mobile no. 9211463742
78. Ex.PW22/Z17 CDR of Mobile no. 9211463743
79. Ex.PW22/Z 18 CDR of Mobile No. 9211541254
80. Ex.PW22/Z19 Cell ID Chart
81. Ex.PW22/Z20 Certificate U/s 65B
82. Ex.PW22/DX1 Copy of New paper
83. Ex.PW22/DX2 Copy of New Paper
84. Ex.PW22/DX3 Copy of New Paper
85. Ex.PW22/DX4 Copy of New Paper
86. Ex.PW22/DX5 Photograph put by the accused
87. Ex.PW22/DX6 Photograph put by the accused
88. Ex.PW25/1 Affidavit of HC Bijender Kumar HC Bijender Kumar
89. Ex.PW26/1 Affidavit of HC Ram Avtar HC Ram Avtar
90. Ex.PW27/1 Affidavit of HC Hari Singh HC Hari Singh
91. Ex.PW27/A Copy of Register no. 19 vide entry No. 2987
92. Ex.PW27/B Copy of Register no. 19 vide entry no.3004
93. Ex.PW28/1 Affidavit of HC Sohan Singh HC Sohan Singh
94. Ex.PW28/A Dossier of Anil Mandal (Record)
95. Ex.PW28/B Dossier of Anil Mandal (Finger Print)
96. Ex.PW29/1 Affidavit of HC Nachhatra Singh HC Nachhatra
97. Ex.PW29/A Certificate regarding records Singh
98. Ex.PW30/A Notice of special cell Rajeev Kumar
99. Ex.PW30/B Certificate of BDO
100. Ex.PW30/C Copy of DL St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 11
101. Ex.PW33/A Customer Application Form of Mobile Tarun Khurana No.9871284644 (Insp. Hoshiyar Singh)
102. Ex.PW33/B Copy of DL
103. Ex.PW33/C Copy of Ration Card
104. Ex.PW33/D Certificate under Section 65B Evidence Act
105. Ex.PW33/E Cell Id Chart
106. Ex.PW33/DX1 Authorization letter
107. Ex.PW35/A DNA Fingerprinting Report Sh. A.K.
108. Ex.PW35/B DNA Fingerprinting Report Shrivastava
109. Ex.PW35/C Forwarding Letter
110. Ex.PW35/D DNA Fingerprinting Report
111. Ex.PW35/E Geno Type DATA
112. Ex.PW35/F DNA Fingerprinting Report
113. Ex.PW35/G Forwarding Letter
114. Ex.PW35/H Application for conducting DNA Fingerprinting Test
115. Ex.PW36/A Chance prints Report Inspector Harpal
116. Ex.PW36/B Copy of police complaint given by Smt. Singh Bharti
117. Ex.PW38/A Seizure memo of Dossier Ct. Chaman Lal
118. Ex.PW39/A Photograph of Anil Mandal Smt. Bharti Devi
119. Ex.PW42/PX Statement of Paro Smt. Paro
120. Ex.PW43/A Corrigendum with RTI Reply Sh. Rishipal Addl.
121. Ex.PW43/DX1 RTI Reply DCP
122. Ex.PW44/A Application for finger print bureau Inspector Jai
123. Ex.PW44/B Request for Report Singh
124. Ex.PW44/DX1 Application for comparison of finger flanges of Deceased with finger prints of suspected of identification
125. Ex.PW46/A Certificate Us 65B Evidence Act Sh. M.N Vijayan
126. Ex.PW46/DX1 Authorization letter
127. Ex.PW47/A Handwriting report Dr. Sanjeev
128. Ex.PW47/B Forwarding Letter Kumar St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 12 List of Case Property:
Sr. Ex. No. Details of case Property
No.
1 P1 Tokri
2 P2 Pieces of Rope
3 P3 Bori
4 P4 Plastic Rope
5 P5 Underwear
6 P6 Underwear
7 P7 Pant
8 P8 Shirt
9 P9 Paper
10 P10 News paper
11 P11 Taat Bori
12 P12 Plastic Kata
13 P13 Skull
14 P14 Jaw
15 P15 Red cloth
16 P16 Ghagri
17 P17 Knife/ Chopper
18 P18 Knife/ Chopper
19 P19 knife/Chopper
20 P20 Nunchaku
21 P21 Denim Jeans along with black belt
22 P22 Idicom mobile Phone
23 P23 Blood stained earth
24 P24 Blood stained earth
25 P25 Rickshaw
26 P25A Jars Finger flanges
27 P26 Blood gauze
28 P27 Samsung Mobile Phone
(8) Coming now to the testimonies of the various witnesses
examined by the prosecution.
St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 13
Public witnesses:
(9) Ram Babu Chaurasiya (PW12) is the person who was
running the STD / PCO Booth at Tilak Nagar where the telephone number 25993011 had been installed. The witness has deposed that the above STD/PCO Booth is in the name of Mahesh Bhatia, Handicap Booth. According to the witness on 20.10.2006 at about 8:30-8:45 AM he was present on this booth when a person aged about 40 years came there and after making a call went away and gave him Rs 12/- for the same. However, after some time, he received a telephone call from Inspector Hoshiyar Singh SHO Police Station Hari Nagar on this number of the STD booth and Inspector Hoshiyar Singh asked him to catch hold of the person, who had made a call from his STD booth. Witness has deposed that since the said person who made the call, had already left the booth, hence despite his efforts to search for him, the said person could not be traced. The witness has further deposed that thereafter he was called by the Inspector to the Police Station where he informed them about the detail description of the caller. According to the witness the said caller was tall in height with brownish complexion and was using Eastern Hindi dialect. Inspector thereafter recorded his statement.
(10) In the court, this witness Ram Babu Chaurasiya has correctly identified the accused Chander Kant Jha as the same person who had made this call from his STD booth on 20.10.2006. (11) Witness Ram Babu Chaurasiya has also proved that on 26.10.2006, he came to Rohini Court from where he was taken to Tihar Jail but was sent back from the Tihar Jail from outside itself. He has explained that he had gone to Tihar Jail to identify the accused but the TIP proceedings were not conducted and thereafter he had identified the accused through his photographs. According to the witness, he also got St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 14 prepared the portrait/ sketch of the accused on computer in the Police Station after which his statement was recorded by the police. (12) In his his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel the witness has explained that he has studied upto 8 th class and states that the police officials recorded his statement three times i.e. first statement was recorded on 20.10.2006, second statement on 10.11.2006 and third statement was recorded on 26.11.2007 none of which are signed. Witness has further explained that accused had made a telephone call from his STD booth on 20.10.2006 and it was on the same day at around 10 - 11 AM that his statement was recorded by Inspector Sunder Singh at Police Station Hari Nagar. Witness has deposed that he open his STD booth at around 7:30 AM and even on 20.10.2006, he was himself attending the STD booth and has also explained that he used to sell cigarette, biri and pouches of Pan masala and Supari. He has testified that the accused made telephone at about 8:30-8:45 AM in the morning from his STD booth and has explained that he was having only one phone on his STD Booth which was in fact a PCO. According to the witness, he charged Rs 2/- per minute in the year of 2006 and accused paid him Rs.12/- and the accused had himself made the payment of this amount in change (khulle paise). Further, in his cross examination the witness has explained that the accused was talking with somebody but he did not pay attention to the words uttered by the accused because he did not care at that time as to what kind of talk was happening on the telephone and to whom the accused was talking or what he was talking. He has testified that he did not hear the name of accused when he was talking on phone. He has further stated that he had received the call from Police Station after five minutes of calling by the accused.
St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 15(13) Also in his cross examination, the witness has explained that the sketch of the accused was got prepared on 20.11.2006 after he was called through telephone and pursuant to which the police vehicle came to him and he accompanied them for preparation of the portrait. According to the witness, he got prepared the portrait at Police Station Rajouri Garden. He has explained that he did not sign any paper when the portrait was got prepared. Witness has further deposed that he can identify the portrait if shown to him and he got prepared the portrait without the beard. He has also deposed that he had seen the accused in front of Court No. 108, Rohini Court complex on 26.6.2007. According to the witness, he was called by the police on phone for identification of the accused and for going to Tihar and has also stated that he reached at Rohini Court Complex where Inspector Sunder Singh was with him. Witness has stated that on 26.06.2007, he identified the accused in front of court No. 108, Rohini Court Complex by pointing out to the Investigating Officer that he was the same person, who made a call from his PCO booth on 20.10.2006. Witness has further deposed that he identified the accused in the court and he was resembling the portrait got prepared by him as the same person who telephoned from his booth on 20.10.2006. According to the witness, on the day of his deposition he came to the court at about 10:30-11AM when other witnesses were also present outside the court but no discussion took place with the police witnesses. Witness has denied the suggestion that he had identified the accused on the instructions of the investigating officer or that accused is not the same person, who made the call from his PCO booth on the day of incident.
(14) Sanjay Mann (PW13) is the landlord of the house where the accused Chander Kant Jha used to reside with his family at the time of St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 16 his arrest. Witness has deposed that he has a plot in the village Alipur, Delhi where he had constructed eight rooms which rooms were given on rent to various tenants. According to him, on 10.05.2007 wife of the accused Chander Kant Jha (whom the witness has correctly identified) came to him with her children and he had given her two rooms in the monthly rent in the sum of Rs 600/- per month. Witness has deposed that he had seen accused Chander Kant Jha there one or two occasion but he never talked to the accused. According to him three months prior from the day of his deposition the wife and five children of the accused shifted to another place. The witness has also correctly identified the accused Chander Kant Jha in the court as the person who was his tenant. (15) During his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel, the witness has deposed that he has studied upto 12 th class. Witness has admitted that his parents has been residing separately in other premises, whereas he has been residing on the back side of the said plot, where the accused was residing. According to him, his parents reside at house No. 139 and at that time arrest of the accused he was residing in the same premises, though, he was not present at the time of his arrest. Witness has further deposed that his house is at a distance of five minutes walk from his parents home and his house is situated in the Chhota Shiv Mandir Gali, near Dhulia Colony Chowk. According to him, on 01.08.2007 police officials of crime branch called at their office and recorded his statement and only one statement was recorded by the police. Witness has further deposed that he does not remember the name of the police official who recorded his statement. He has deposed that on one occasion police had also visited the premises where the accused was residing and he was told by the police that the accused was arrested in the cases of murder and also that he used to throw the dead bodies in St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 17 front of Tihar Jail. Witness has denied the suggestion that police twice recorded his statement i.e. on 01.08.2007 and 02.08.2007 or that he was deposing falsely at the instance of the investigating officer. (16) Sanjay Kumar @ Rajesh (PW20) has deposed that he is running a photo studio with the name and style of Sanjay Photo Studio at WZ-172, Titarpur, Tagore Garden, Delhi. According to him, he was called by the investigating officer to take the photographs at DDU hospital at the time of postmortem of the dead body without head on 30.10.2006, on which he took the photographs by his digital camera and after developing the photographs same were handed over to the investigating officer, which photographs were 22 in number. Witness has proved the photographs which are Ex.PW20/1 to Ex.PW20/22. According to him the investigating officer recorded his statement. Witness has further deposed that on 23.05.2007 he accompanied the police party to bank of Yamuna and he took the photographs of a skull, clothes and jaw which were recovered from there and after developing the same total 11 photographs were handed over to the investigating officer, which photographs are Ex.PW20/A1 to Ex.PW20/A11. According to the witness, he took the photographs at the instance of the investigating officer after which the investigating officer recorded his statement.
(17) In his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel the witness has explained that he is known by two names i.e. Rajesh and Sanjay and he is running his photo studio in the name and style of Sanjay Photo Studio. He has denied the suggestion that he is not photographer Rajesh who took the photographs as deposed or that he was deposing falsely at the instance of the investigating officer. Witness has deposed that his statement was recorded on 05.08.2007 at the time of handing over the St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 18 photographs.
(18) Rajeev Kumar (PW30) is the landlord of House No.229/2, Haiderpur, Delhi, where the accused Chander Kant Jha had previously resided with his family on rent. According to the witness, he is a resident of House No.155, Haiderpur, Delhi and has deposed that he also owns property bearing no. 229/2, which was in the name of his grand mother Ram Kali which property is constructed with about 12 rooms out of which eight rooms have been constructed on the ground floor and four rooms have been constructed on the first floor, which have been let out on rent. According to the witness, in October 2004 he had rented out one room to Vikas, who was a resident of Bihar who remained there till November-December 2005 and after about 5-6 months this room remained vacant. According to the witness, in the month of March-April 2006 he on the reference of one Vikas had rented out one room to Chander Kant Jha who stayed there along with his family including his mother, who had come to stay with him for some time but later on the mother went away. He has testified that he had rented out the said room to Chander Kant for Rs.700/- who had told him that he was working in Azadpur subzimandi. According to the witness, in the month of April 2007, the wife and children of Chander Kant Jha shifted to other place while the said room still contained some articles and belongings of Chander Kant Jha and was in his possession on which he (accused Chander Kant Jha) had put his lock. According to the witness, since Chander Kant Jha had already paid rent for the entire month, hence, he did not object to his articles and belongings lying in the said room, which he (accused) had locked. The witness has deposed that later he came to know that Chander Kant Jha has been arrested in a Murder case by the police and it was on the next day in the month of July, which date he St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 19 does not recollect that the police came to their house and inspected the room which was still bearing the lock of Chander Kant Jha which had not been opened by anybody. The witness has further deposed that on 23.7.2007 he was called to Police Station for interrogation by way of a notice under Section 160 Cr.PC from the Special Cell which is Ex.PW30/A pursuant to which he went to the office of Special Cell and handed over them the copy of BDO certificate in the name of his grandmother Smt Ram Kali which is Ex.PW30/B and also gave them a copy of his driving license, copy of which is Ex.PW30/C. (19) In his cross examination the witness has deposed that police recorded his statement on two occasion, once at Tagore Garden and second time at Police Station Hari Nagar. He does not recollect the name of police officer who had recorded his statement nor can he tell the details of FIR, in which his statements were recorded. According to him, the police had visited his premises twice, first around 18 th of July 2007, but he was not sure about the date and again after two to four days. He has also deposed that some officers were in civil and others were in uniform and on both the occasions, Chander Kant Jha was not with them. The witness has testified that at the time of the first visit, it was the police who broke open the lock of the room of accused Chander Kant Jha and thereafter put their own lock. He has further deposed that on second occasion when the police came, they had some bag with them and has voluntarily explained that they had broken the floor and seized the same. He has also deposed that on the second occasion when the police came they did not put the lock and the room was left open. The witness has further deposed that on both the visits the police inspected the room but in his presence, no articles were taken. He does not recollect what the police had done with the broken lock belonging to accused.
St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 20According to the witness, for the first time he met Chander Kant Jha in the year 2006 when the room was rented out to him. He has deposed that Vikas had told him that he was known to accused Chander Kant Jha and has voluntarily explained that Vikas had told him that he had some relation with Chander Kant Jha and has further explained that normally people belonging to the same place claim themselves to be relatives. He has further deposed that the accused was residing in the tenanted room along with his wife and five children and has voluntarily added that his mother had also stayed there for some days and then went away. He has admitted that other rooms were also occupied by tenants and that some of the tenants were residing with their families and has voluntarily explained that many of them were single. He has denied the suggestion that room belonging to the accused was the first room from the main entrance and has voluntarily explained that the rooms were constructed in L shape and it was the last room in the row situated in front of the main entrance. He has also admitted that one child of the accused was born in the said room. According to him, he had noticed that there was a photographer with the police who had come with the police party and in so far as he recollect and remained at the spot after he was called from his house on both the visits when police had come. The witness has further deposed that he did not notice if the accused was having a rickshaw with scooter engine and has voluntarily added that there was no space to park the same. He has admitted that no rent agreement was executed between him and the accused and no rent receipt were issued to him. He has denied the suggestion that the accused was not the tenant at his premises and it is for this reason that there was no rent receipt. According to the witness, at the time when the accused was inducted as a tenant, he took the photograph of the accused to the Police Station and St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 21 informed them that he has been inducted as tenant but nothing was given in writing. Witness has further deposed that he was not maintaining any receipt book but states that the details of the tenants were written on a paper. He has admitted that he cannot produce any documentary proof to prove that the accused had been tenant at his premises. He has denied the suggestion that he has deposed falsely at the instance of the police officials as they used to help him to get his premises vacated on previous occasions.
(20) Mrs. Bharti Devi (PW39) is the wife of the deceased Anil Mandal @ Amit resident of Kela Godown, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi and has deposed that she is a resident of the aforementioned address where she is residing along with with her four children. According to the witness, her husband Anil Mandal, S/o Tiwari Mandal was a resident of District Bhagalpur, Bihar and was a daily wages labour (majdoori). Witness has further deposed that about 5-6 years ago her husband Anil Mandal had left her at her village when she was pregnant. Thereafter he came to Delhi and she also came with him. According to her, in the morning, Anil Mandal went away stating that he was going to the Court to attend the date but thereafter did not return. The witness has identified the photograph of Anil Mandal @ Amit Mandal which photograph is attached to the dossier of Anil Mandal @ Amit Mandal, S/o Tiwari Mandal and is Ex.PW39/A. (21) This Court observed that while the witness was being examined, she became highly emotional on seeing the photograph of her husband Anil Mandal and stated crying. She informed the court that she had been repeatedly requesting the police to trace her missing husband but till date she was not aware of his whereabouts.
St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 22(22) The witness has proved that the police had taken the blood samples of her father-in-law and her mother-in-law in Bihar and also the blood samples of her children Vijay and Manda in Delhi and states that she along with her bua sas Smt. Paro Devi had taken her children to FSL Rohini for giving the blood samples of the children and in order to prove their identity she had shown the electricity bill to the officials present there.
(23) Leading questions were put to the witness with the permission of the court where she has admitted that her husband had gone to Rohini Court on 19.10.2006 after which she did not see him again. Witness has admitted that she had gone to FSL Rohini for collection of blood sample of her children on 30.11.2011. She has explained that she did not recollect the date on account of passage of time.
(24) In her cross examination the witness has admitted that she had given a complaint to the police which is Ex.PW36/B wherein she had expressed her suspicion on the surety of her husband in the criminal case as the person who was responsible for any mishap with her husband. Witness has admitted that she did not give the name of the surety. According to the witness Anil Mandal was totally illiterate and he did not carry anything with him when he went to attend the court proceedings on 19.10.2006 and has voluntarily explained that he had told her to prepare the food for him and he would come back and would have his lunch. Witness has further deposed that in so far she recollects he did not carry his identity card/ "pahchan pater" with him and she was not aware if her husband Anil Mandal used to get the date written on a parchi/ paper whenever he used to go to the court to attend his date. According to the witness, her youngest child was born after about 22 days of Anil Mandal having gone missing.
St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 23(25) Master Vijay (PW40) aged 10 years and Baby Manda (PW41) aged 7-8 years are both the children of the deceased Anil Mandal and Smt. Bharti Devi and have been examined without oath. They have corroborated the testimony of their mother Bharti Devi and have proved the collection of their blood samples at the FSL, Rohini. (26) Smt. Paro (PW42) is the wife of late Sh. Chander Mandal, age about 50 years, R/o Kela Godown, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi, is the paternal aunt / bua of the deceased Anil Mandal. She has corroborated the testimony of Smt. Bharti Devi and her children and proved that the blood samples of the children were taken in FSL Rohini and she had accompanied them.
(27) Smt. Paro has further deposed that at the time of the incident she was residing with the family of her nephew deceased Anil Mandal who had left the house stating that he was going to attend the court date but thereafter did not return. She has identified the photograph of her nephew Anil Mandal which photograph is Ex.PW9/A and stated that Anil Mandal, Husband of Bharti did not return after he had gone to attend the court date.
(28) When leading questions were put to the witness with due permission of the court, she has not been able to recollect the date since when her nephew had gone missing i.e. whether it was 19.10.2006 or not. (29) In her cross examination the witness has deposed that she is totally illiterate. She has deposed that her nephew Anil Mandal was residing in Delhi for more than 7-8 years and that after the marriage of Anil Mandal, Bharti was residing with him in Delhi and she reside separately i.e. in the same area. According to the witness she was not at home when her nephew left for court and has voluntarily explained that he had told his wife Bharti that he was going to attend a court date.
St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 24Witness is further unable to give the details of the case which her nephew had gone to attend nor she is able to tell the name of the person who had stood surety for Anil Mandal in his court cases. (30) Sh. Pankaj (PW45) is the son of Sh. Mahender Rathore, a resident of Village Hari Ram Pur, Post Gauri Bazar, district Devariya, UP is the brother of one Upender Rathore another victim whose decapitated body was found outside Central Jail Tihar on 24.04.2007 pursuant to which FIR No. 243/07 Police Station Hari Nagar was registered. Pankaj has been examined by the prosecution in the present case to prove that the accused Chander Kant Jha was using a mobile Number 9211463742 at the time when the various killings were taking place. This Pankaj had met the accused Chander Kant Jha prior to the death of Upender and had even spoken to him to inquire about his brother Upender who according to him used to work with Chander Kant Jha, and was not traceable.
(31) Pankaj has deposed that in the year 2006 his brother Upender was residing at village Sanaut, near Narela, Delhi. According to the witness, he was residing at Bhiwari, Rajasthan and he used to speak to his brother Upender on mobile numbers 9211463742 and 9211463743 from STD Booth. The witness has deposed that usually the call was received by the accused Chander Kant Jha, whom the witness has correctly identified, and it was thereafter he used to speak to his brother Upender. According to Pankaj he had last spoken to his brother on 20.04.2007. He has explained that he had met Chander Kant Jha along with his brother when he came to Delhi to meet his brother at village Sanaut. Witness has further deposed that he met accused Chander Kant first time at Jahangirpuri as two children from his native place came Delhi and they were kept at Prayas Children Home and the relatives of St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 25 the children came to Delhi and they met him and then he asked his brother Upender to get those children released when Upender told him that accused Chander Kant Jha could help to get them released and therefore his brother introduced him to accused Chander Kant Jha. (32) Witness has further testified that after 20 th April, 2007 when he could not contact his brother on the mobile number given to him i.e. 9211463742, he tried to contact him on the other number given to him by his brother i.e. 9211463743 and called him up on this number 9211463743 in May, 2007 which was picked up by a girl and when he asked her to connect him to Chander Kant Jha, she told him her father was not available and he should call back after ten minutes. The witness has further deposed that again after about 10-15 minutes he called up on the same number i.e 9211463743 which call was attended to by Chander Kant Jha whose voice he could identify as he had been previously speaking to him on the other mobile number 9211463742 i.e. when he used to call Upender. According to the witness, Chander Kant and his brother Upender used to work together in a mandi in partnership where they used to put a rehri of subzi in the mandi. According to the witness, this was the last time when he met Upender along with Chander Kant i.e. two-three months prior to 20.04.2007 when he last spoke to Upender. He has further testified that when he asked Chander Kant Jha about the whereabouts of Upender he told him that Upender had taken Rs.20,000/- and had also taken his rehri/ thela and gone away somewhere. The witness was shown the Ex.PW22/Z9 where the witness has identified his name and address mentioned at point X. (33) In his cross examination the witness has deposed that whenever he used to came Delhi he used to meet the accused Chander Kant Jha. He has deposed that he did not meet his brother Upender in February, St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 26 2007 at Haiderpur. According to him, his statement was recorded by Inspector Hoshiyar Singh. He has testified that he 10 th class pass and he had gone through his statement which was recorded by the police. According to the witness, it may be possible at the time of recording of his statement he told to the police that he met Upender at Haiderpur in February, 2007 and has voluntarily explained that he has forgotten these facts due to lapse of time of about seven years. Witness has further deposed that he told to the police meaning of CC i.e. Chander Chander. The witness has also testified that the children who came to Delhi, one of them was his real brother namely Pawan, whereas the other was his friend namely Kundan and he told to the police about his brother but the police recorded that brother of Upender came to Delhi from native place. Witness has explained that meaning of both the facts are same. According to the witness at that time father of Upender did not came to Delhi from native place for rescue of children and when both the children were got released from the Prayas Sanstha, at that time he stayed at village Sannaut at the house of his brother Upender where accused Chander Kant Jha was also present. Witness has further deposed that some other persons from the native place were also residing there. He is not aware of the place at Azadpur Mandi where his brother used to work and he never visited the place where he used to work. According to the witness, it was the deceased Upender who informed him about his working at Azadpur Mandi. He has also deposed that the father of Upender came to Delhi in Nirankari Samagam and he took him to village Sannaut where they came to know that accused Chander Kant Jha was involved in another murder case in the year November, 2006. Witness has also deposed that some persons residing in neighbourhood at Sannaut who were also working in the Mandi, told them about the involvement of St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 27 accused Chander Kant Jha in a murder case and at that time father of Upender asked him to leave the company of accused Chander Kant Jha. He does not remember if he had talked to Upender on phone in November 2006. According to him when he met first time with the accused Chander Kant Jha for getting released the children from Prayas, it was prior to Deepawali in the year of 2006. He also does not remember if he had spoken to his brother upto 24.04.2007. Witness has further deposed that he never met accused Chander Kant Jha at Azadpur Subzi Mandi or at Haiderpur and has voluntarily explained that he met accused Chander Kant Jha in a room prior to Azadpur Mandi but he does not remember the locality. According to him father of Upender never accompanied with him to Azadpur Subzi Mandi and in the year 2005- 2006 one of his known person was residing at Haiderpur and he left Delhi in the year 2006 and went to Bhiwari Rajasthan. Witness has further deposed that he is not aware of when and how his brother Upender came in contact with accused Chander Kant Jha and initially one Wali and he himself were working at village Barwala in a factory and prior to this Upender was also working there. According to the witness when he came to know that Upender was missing he also contacted to Wali about the missing of Upender who told him that Upender had not come to meet him. Witness has also deposed that he did not tell the police that Wali told him that Upender did not come to the factory for his work since two-four days. However, when confronted with statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. it has been found to be so recorded. Witness has also deposed that Upender did not tell him that he again joined the factory at Barwala. However, when confronted with his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. it has been found to be so recorded that Upender again joined the factory. He does not remember the dates St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 28 but states that it was in the year 2005 that Upender joined the factory at Barwala and he left the said factory and started work at Mandi and police came to Bhiwari and told him that they knew about his number from a document recovered from the possession of Chandra Kant Jha and they asked him as to whether he knew Chander Kant Jha on which he replied "Yes" and thereafter he came to Delhi at Police Station Hari Nagar. Witness has further deposed that when he contacted last time in the month of May 2007 to Chander Kant Jha on mobile number 9211463743 he told him that "Upender ka jaisa karam tha, maine usko wahan pahucha diya hai". The witness has further testified that he tried for search Upender in the house of relatives, friends etc. but he was not traceable. He does not remember the name of the place where he met Upender lastly and has voluntarily explained that he can identify the place by going there. Witness has admitted that immediately after last call with the accused Chander Kant Jha he did not make any complaint to the police and has voluntarily explained that he tried to search for Upender at his own. Witness has further deposed that he is not aware as to how many persons were in contact of Upender and has voluntarily explained that Upender was residing with the accused Chander Kant only. He has denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely at the instance of the police officials or that he never met Upender or that the accused Chander Kant Jha. Witness has also denied the suggestion that he never had a talk with accused Chander Kant Jha on telephone numbers as stated by him in his examination in chief.
Medical Witnesses:
(34) Dr. Anil Shandil (PW2) is the autopsy surgeon who 30.10.2006 had conducted postmortem examination on the decapitated St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 29 body of unknown male aged about 25-30 years found outside Gate No. 3, Central Jail, Tihar. He has proved the history given in the inquest papers of the decapitated body being found on 20.10.2006 at about 7:20 hours outside Central Jail Tihar. He has proved the general description given in the postmortem report according to which one grey colored underwear of Amul Brand was found on the body which was naked and tied with a nylon rope with its head missing and one underwear over the wound. He has further deposed that all molar tooth present and there was Bichchho / scorpion Tattoo mark on its left shoulder and words Amit tattooed on the right forearm ventral aspect. Witness has further deposed that dried up blood stains were found adjacent and over the wound, over both shoulders, chest, back and over lower limbs and upper limbs; postmortem lividity over back of body. Body was removed from gunny bag which too had reddish brown blood stains.
(35) According to him, the body was tied up with nylon plastic rope with both lower limbs fixed at hip joint, knee joint and both thighs in approximation to anterior chest with both arms and the forearms with hand at back of body along west in several layers. Witness has further deposed that on removal of the nylon rope and the dissection underneath the underline tissue was yellowish with no infiltration of blood and clots, not swollen, suggestive of postmortem tying of body. The witness has testified that decapitated wound (headless, neck-less body) of 13 cm Radius clean cut well defined regular margins with dried up dark reddish blood clots all over the wound and adjacent areas. He has proved that on examination of chest and abdomen no abnormality was found. He has also proved having opined that the cause of death was decapitated injury ante-mortem in nature caused by sharped edged weapon which was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature.
St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 30The witness has further proved that the time since death was approximately about Ten and a half days prior to postmortem examination. Witness has deposed that blood in gauze piece, gunny bag, nylon rope, two underwear and sternum for DNA finger printing preserved, sealed and handed over to concerned police official. The witness has proved the postmortem report which is Ex.PW2/A. He has not been cross-examined by the Ld. Defence Counsel and hence his testimony has gone uncontroverted.
Forensic Experts:
(36) Sh. Naresh Kumar (PW11) is the Forensic Expert (Chemistry) who had carried out the biological and serological examination of the exhibits. He has deposed that on 31.07.2007 he received five sealed parcels seals were intact as per FA letter and all the parcels were opened by breaking the seal and he had given serial No. 1,2,3,4 and 6 and the contents of the parcels were given Ex1 to 3a,3b, 4 and 6. According to the witness, he examined all the exhibits biologically and prepared his detailed report which is Ex.PW11/A and also examined the exhibits serologically and prepared his detailed report vide Ex.PW11/B. Witness has further deposed that after examination of the parcels were sealed with the seal of NK FSL and parcel containing No. 1,3 , 4 and 6 were sent to DNA division as per Inquiry No. 4 and 5 of the investigating officer. He has testified that Parcel No.1 after DNA examination again returned to him and it was again sent to physics division along with parcel No. 2. He has not been cross-examined by the Ld. Defence Counsel and hence his testimony has gone uncontroverted.
(37) Sh. A.K. Srivastava (PW35) is the Assistant Director (Biology), DNA Finger Printing Unit, FSL, Rohini, Delhi. He has St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 31 deposed that on 31.07.2007 one forensic sample and two liquid blood samples regarding DNA finger printing testing in case FIR No. 609/06 of Police Station Hari Nagar and two blood samples of Hari Singh and Smt. Saroj Devi were received in the office on 22.08.2007 duly sealed with the seal of DFMT, DDU Hospital containing Ex1 (i.e one bone piece having fowl smell described as sternum of victim) vide postmortem No. 982/06. According to the witness the blood sample of Hari Singh was given Ex.2 and blood sample of Smt. Saroj Devi was given Ex3. He has proved that Ex1, Ex 2 and Ex 3 were subjected to DNA isolation and DNA was isolated from the exhibits 1, 2 and 3 after which DNA finger printing profiles were prepared for the exhibits 1,2 and 3 and STR analysis was used for each of the sample. Witness has further deposed that Data was analyzed by using Genescan and Genotype software and the alleles as from the source of exhibit 1 i.e. bone piece sternum vide PM No. 982/06 was not matching with alleles from the source of Ex 2 i.e. blood sample of Hari Singh and alleles from the source of Ex.3 i.e. blood sample of Smt. Saroj Devi. According to him the DNA profiling (STR analysis) performed on the exhibits provided was sufficient to conclude that the Ex 1 i.e. bone piece - sternum did not have any biological relation with the Ex.2 i.e. blood sample of Hari Singh and Ex3 i.e. blood sample of Saroj Devi. Witness has proved his detailed report in this regard which is Ex.PW35/A running into two pages bearing his signatures at point A. (38) According to the witness on 13.03.2008 five forensic samples in this case were sent to the office in DNA unit regarding DNA finger printing test of the aforesaid samples. He has testified that Parcel No. 1 duly sealed with the seal of NK FSL Delhi was marked Ex.1 and found to contain some black earth material described as concrete material;St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 32
Parcel No. 3 duly sealed with the seal of NK FSL Delhi was marked Ex.3a and 3b i.e. one plastic sheet having dark brown stains and one gunny bag (jute) sheet having dark brown stains respectively; Parcel No.4 duly sealed with the seal of NK FSL Delhi was marked Ex.4 i.e. one bundle of newspaper having dark brown stains; Parcel No.6 duly sealed with the seal of NK FSL Delhi was marked Ex.6 i.e. one piece of gauze cloth having dark brown stains. The witness has further deposed that DNA from the exhibits 1, 3a, 3b, 4 and 6 were subjected to DNA isolation but DNA could not be isolated from the exhibits 1, 3a, 3b and 4. However DNA isolated from the exhibit 6 could not be amplified and therefore no opinion was offered by the laboratory. He has proved his detailed report in this regard which is Ex.PW35/B bearing his signatures at point A and this report was forwarded to SHO Police Station Hari Nagar vide forwarding letter Ex.PW35/C. (39) Witness has further deposed that on 30.11.2011 two blood samples in this case regarding DNA finger printing test in the DNA Unit were received. According to him, the Sample No.1 was pertaining to master Vijay which was marked as Ex.P2 and sample No.2 was pertaining to Ms. Manda which was marked as Ex.P3. He has testified that the aforesaid exhibits were subjected to DNA Isolation and DNA was isolated from the exhibit 2 and 3 after which the DNA finger printing profile was prepared on the Ex 3. However a partial DNA profile was prepared for the Ex2 and STR analysis was used for sample. According to him, Data was analyzed by using Genescan and Gene Mapper ID-X software. The witness has proved that one set of alleles of the source of the exhibit 3 are accounted in source of exhibit 1 i.e. bone piece i.e. sternum vide PM No. 982/06 received in DNA unit vide case FSL No. 2007/DNA-2849 reported on 03.12.2008. He has testified that St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 33 the DNA profiling (STR analysis) performed on the exhibits provided was sufficient to conclude that the source of exhibit 1 (bone piece) i.e. sternum vide PM No. 982/06 received in the DNA unit vide FSL No. 2007/DNA-2849 reported on 03.12.2008 was biological father of source of the exhibit 3 i.e. blood sample of Ms. Manda. He has proved his detailed report in this regard running into two pages which is Ex.PW35/D bearing his signatures at point A and the Geno type data which is Ex.PW35/E bearing his signatures at point A. He has further deposed that in reference to letter No. 5079 Police Station Hari Nagar dated 26.12.2011 regarding matching the DNA finger printing profile of teeth of recovered skull prepared in FSL Rohini vide FSL No. 2007/DNA-2804 and DNA profile of bone piece i.e. sternum of deceased vide FSL No. 2007/DNA-2849 in case FIR No. 279/07 and FIR No. 609/06 of Police Station Hari Nagar. He has deposed that the alleles as from the source of Ex.3 i.e. teeth vide FSL No. 2007/DNA-2804 were accounted in alleles as from the source of Ex.1 (sternum of victim) vide FSL No. 2007/DNA-2849. He has proved that the DNA profiling (STR analysis) performed on the exhibits 3 and 1 were sufficient to conclude that the DNA profile of source of Ex.3 i.e. teeth vide FSL No. 2007/DNA-2804 was matching with the DNA profile of the Ex.1 (sternum of victim) vide FSL No. 2007/DNA/2849. According to the witness, his detailed report in this regard is Ex.PW35/F which report was forwarded to the SHO vide forwarding letter Ex.PW35/G. The request in this regard made to the director FSL Rohini is Ex.PW35/H which was received in the office on his behalf by Sh. Gagandeep. (40) In cross examination this witness has deposed that STR analysis has been used for matching of the DNA. He has admitted that the DNA report is based upon probabilities and there can never be a St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 34 100% matching in case of forensic samples and has voluntarily explained that where there are more than 10 bands matching out of 15 band the probability that the DNA is of the same origin is very high. According to him, in the present case where the source was the blood sample of Ms. Manda and sternum of the deceased there was a matching of 15 out of the 15 bands and it is for this reason that he concluded that the DNA was of the same origin. Witness has denied the suggestion that the report has been given on the asking of the Investigating officer. (41) Sh. Sanjeev Kumar (PW47) is the Senior Scientific Officer (Document), FSL, Delhi, (Handwriting Expert) has proved that on 10.08.2007 he was posted as Senior Scientific Officer (document), FSL Delhi-cum- ex officio chemical examiner to the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi and on that day he received documents with forwarding letter of this case FIR No. 609/06 dated 20.10.2006 U/s 302/201 IPC of Police Station Hari Nagar. According to the witness, the question document having red pencil enclosed writing marked Q1 and Q2 on both side of a ruled sheet whereas the standard blue enclosed writing mark S1 to S7 of Sh. Chander Kant Jha. Witness has further deposed that all the documents were carefully and thoroughly examined with scientific instruments such as Stero Microscope, Video Spetral Comparator IV, Docucenter and VSC-2000/HR, Etc. under different lighting conditions after which he prepared his detailed report and opined that the person who wrote the blue enclosed writing stamped and marked S1 to S7 also wrote the red pencil enclosed writing similarly stamped and marked Q1 and Q2. He has proved having prepared his detailed reason in his detailed report which is Ex.PW47/A. He has correctly identified the envelope having Ex.P9 which found to contain one letter which is Ex.PW22/B which is the questioned document and the witness stated St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 35 that he marked the said question document as Q1 and Q2 at point X and Y and also stamped the said letter at point Z having FSL result Number. According to the witness the writing was encircled with the writing on the question document on both side and he identified the letter Ex.PW22/B which was examined by him at FSL and also identified seven specimen documents which are Ex.PW22/U-1, Ex.PW22/U-2, Ex.PW22/U-3, Ex.PW22/U-4, Ex.PW22/U-5, Ex.PW22/U-6 and Ex.PW22/U-7 which were examined at FSL and all the documents having the seal impression of the FSL and also bearing the FSL Number at point B on each document. Witness has further deposed that during the examination the writing which was examined was encircled with the blue pencil and all the documents were duly attested by the Investigating officer. He has testified that after examination the question document and the specimen documents along with the detailed report was sent to the forwarding authority in a sealed envelope duly sealed with the seal of DOC FSL, which forwarding letter is Ex.PW47/B. (42) In his cross examination the witness has deposed that the questioned Handwriting and the specimen handwriting is received in their department in the receiving counter/ section at FSL Rohini and the receipt is issued by the receiving section. He has testified that when he received the question document and the specimen handwriting, only an entry was made in their section in the case register. According to him, they maintain a proforma in their department on which signature is taken where the clerk who has delivered the document signs the same which reflect the chain of custody of document. Witness has also deposed that only the details of the documents received is mentioned in the register but not the number of pages because the same was sealed and has voluntarily explained that the number of pages received is mentioned by St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 36 the receipt department. Witness has further deposed that on the questioned page bearing the handwriting on both the sides, the stamp of FSL had been put by him and has voluntarily explained that he has mentioned this fact in the report also. Witness has denied the suggestion that in FIR No. 279/07 the question and specimen documents do not bear the stamp of the FSL and has voluntarily explained that it bears the stamp of FSL on all the pages which is now mark at point X on all the pages on the exhibited documents. The witness has further admitted that the stamp of the FSL does not show his name nor it bears his signatures on all the pages of the questioned and specimen documents and has voluntarily explained that it is not required. He has further explained that the stamp on document is of the department. He has admitted that he has a stamp of his name and has voluntarily explained that it is only the result which is stamped by his name and also bears his signatures. According to him the reports in both FIR No. 609/06 and FIR No. 279/07 have been prepared by him. He has deposed that in case FIR No. 609/06 he had not put the date under the stamp on the questioned document. He is unable to tell the details of the seal which had been put on the questioned and the specimen documents since the seal is broken at the receipt counter only after which a file is prepared and sent to him. He is unable to tell as to who was the clerk who had received the documents at the counter. The witness has deposed that most of the questioned and specimen documents received in their department are received in open condition and has voluntarily explained that they were opened by the receipt section and converted into an official file before it is send to their department. According to him, once the documents are received in FSL there are no chances of tampering or changing the same after the receipt at the counter and has voluntarily explained that in case of any such St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 37 eventuality/ exigency the matter is reported. Witness has further deposed that he can tell after checking the records as to who was the officer who had made the request for examination of the questioned handwriting and the request is always made in the name of Director, FSL and has voluntarily explained that request is never by name. Witness has testified that in his career he must have examined about one thousand hand writings which include Hindi, English, Urdu and has voluntarily explained that the principal handwriting is independent of the script. According to him the specimen handwriting sent to him (running into 64 pages) only bear the signatures of the Ld. Magistrate and no other witness. After seeing the specimen handwriting Ex.PW22/U1 to Ex.PW22/U7 the witness is unable to tell where it was taken whether in the Police Station or in the court and has voluntarily explained that where ever it was taken it is immaterial because it does not effect their opinion. Witness has denied the suggestion that he has mentioned any where in his report in both FIR how many pages received by him and has voluntarily explained that it is mentioned in the forwarding letter as well as his report.
(43) According to the witness, he received formal training in examination of handwriting from a Forensic Science Laboratory, National Institute of Criminology and Forensic Science and he had undergone training in GEQD (government examiner of questioned documents) Calcutta and had also under gone training at handwriting bureau CID Bhuvneshwar, Orissa. The witness has testified that he has an experience of more than twelve years and till date to his knowledge there is no report given by him which has been disbelieved by the court. Witness has denied the suggestion that the maximum errors occur in the reports given by the handwriting expert, as they are not near to accuracy.
St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 38He has further deposed that the difference in the handwriting can be on account of Hand Injury but the basic character of the handwriting will not change depending on the health of the individual. According to the witness it is possible to find out the age of the handwriting and has voluntarily explained that they can find out the relative age on the basis of the page and the written ink used. According to him, it is not necessary that the admitted handwriting is the best for comparison. The witness has deposed that he does not believe that the request/ specimen handwriting is not adequate for comparison and he cannot gave any opinion on the aspect under which mental condition the specimen handwriting was given by the maker and has voluntarily explained that whatever the mental condition, it will not make any difference to the result/ opinion as the basic characteristic remains the same. Witness has further deposed that it is not necessary that for every examination of the handwriting a photograph is required to be taken and has voluntarily explained that if the handwriting is clear there is no need for the photograph but the content of the handwriting to be examined is very less that if it is only the signature only then the photograph is taken. He has also deposed that in the present case i.e. FIR No. 609/06 and also in FIR No. 279/07 the photography was not done by him and has voluntarily explained that the material was sufficient. Witness has further deposed that shading of a handwriting becomes relevant only in case if the handwriting is written by a fountain pen and handwriting rhythm is mostly used in the cursive handwriting but in both the present cases i.e. in FIR No. 609/06 and 279/06 the same was not used as it was not required on account of nature of handwriting. The witness has also deposed that at the time of examination neither they are told, nor informed nor they are concerned as to whose handwriting they are St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 39 examining and what is the background and it is not necessary that the specimen handwriting to the taken on the same type of paper and ink as used in the questioned handwriting. He has denied the suggestion that there was a difference in the ink of the questioned document and the specimen document and has voluntarily explained that both have been written in blue ink though the paper is different but it does not make any difference in the result, even if the ink and paper is different. Witness has further deposed that even if the same person writes on paper of two different qualities, he can tell whether it belongs to same person or not. He has denied the suggestion that he had not properly examined the questioned handwriting or that the report has been given on the asking of the Investigating Officer in both FIR No. 609/06 and 279/07. According to him, the exhibits in case FIR No. 609/06 were received in the office of FSL by Dr. Virender Singh as per record and special messenger HC Ram Avtar brought the exhibits to the counter and has voluntarily explained that at the counter if the envelope of exhibits are found sealed only then it is opened and the documents kept in the envelope may be compared and then the receipt is issued by the counter itself. He has testified that in case FIR No. 609/06 total eight sheets were received at the counter. He is unable to tell if the envelope received at the counter was sealed or not because they accept the same in open condition after comparing the forwarding letter and same is reply of case FIR No. 279/07 of Police Station Hari Nagar.
Official Witnesses of Electronic Record:
(44) Sh. Tarun Khanna (PW33) is the Nodal Officer, Bharti Airtel Ltd. He has proved that mobile No. 9871284644 is in the name of Hoshiyar Singh, son of Sh. Ram Singh, R/o RZ-168, Indira Park, Uttam St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 40 Nagar. He has proved the copy of the customer application form which is Ex.PW33/A; the copy of the driving licence and copy of the ration card in support of address of Hoshiyar Singh which are Ex.PW33/B and Ex.PW33/C respectively and the call detail record of mobile no.
9871284644 for the period 19.10.2006 to 21.10.2006 which is Ex.PW22/Z15. The witness has produced the certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act in respect of the aforesaid mobile number, which is Ex.PW33/D and the Cell ID Chart showing the location of various Cell IDs (running into 166 pages) which is Ex.PW33/E collectively.
(45) In his cross examination, the witness has deposed that the above call details records have been got retrieved by Sh. R.K. Singh from the system installed at the Circle Office situated at Okhla. He has admitted that he personally did not retrieve the above CDRs and has voluntarily stated that the said record had been saved by their office on the request of the senior police officers of West District, but he does not know their names. He has denied the suggestion that they do not have a power back up and due to frequent shutting down of the system, the data is not accurate and has voluntarily explained that they have a power back up system for 24 hours. He has further denied the suggestion that record has been fabricated and manipulated at the instance of the police. According to the witness, the certification regarding the authenticity has been given by him in his capacity as a competent authorized officer being the Nodal Officer and he has been duly authorized by the senior officers to issue the certificate U/s. 65 of the Evidence Act being the Nodal Officer. The witness has placed on record the authorization letter/ Special Power of Attorney from the company, copy of which is Ex.PW33/DX1. He has denied the suggestion that the record available St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 41 on the server can be modified at any time and has voluntarily stated that necessary security measures have been undertaken and it is not possible to tamper/change the same without detection. He has further denied the suggestion that the authorization has not been given and he had issued the certificate in routine on the asking of the senior police officers. (46) Sh. M.N. Vijayan (PW46) is the Alternative Nodal Officer of Tata Teleservices. He has proved the call details of mobile No. 9211463742 for the period 1.4.2007 to 20.5.2007 which is Ex.PW22/Z16 (collectively running into 18 single pages) and also the call details of mobile No. 9211463743 (running into 20 single pages) which are Ex.PW22/Z-17 which had been issued by him to the Investigating Officer pursuant to the request during the investigation of FIR No. 243/2007. He has also proved the certificate under Section 65B of Evidence Act in respect of the above call details which certificate is Ex.PW46/A. (47) In his cross examination, the witness has deposed that the above call details records have been got retrieved from the main server at Hyderabad. He has admitted that he personally did not retrieve the above CDRs and has voluntarily stated that the said record had been saved by their office on the request of the senior police officers of West District, but he does not know their names. He has denied the suggestion that they do not have a power back up and due to frequent shutting down of the system, the data is not accurate and has voluntarily explained that they have a power back up system for 24 hours. He has further denied the suggestion that record has been fabricated and manipulated at the instance of the police. According to the witness, the certification regarding the authenticity has been given by him in his capacity as a competent authorized officer being the Nodal Officer and he has been St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 42 duly authorized by the senior officers to issue the certificate U/s. 65 of the Evidence Act being the Nodal Officer. The witness has placed on record the authorization letter/ Special Power of Attorney from the company, copy of which is Ex.PW46/DX1. He has denied the suggestion that the record available on the server can be modified at any time and has voluntarily stated that necessary security measures have been undertaken and it is not possible to tamper/change the same without detection. He has further denied the suggestion that the authorization has not been given and he had issued the certificate in routine on the asking of the senior police officers.
Police Witnesses:
Police Witnesses of Special Staff of West District:
(48) Inspector Sunder Singh (PW22) is the Investigating Officer of the present case who on 20.10.2006 had reached the scene of crime in his capacity as Inspector Investigations, Police Station Hari Nagar. He has deposed that on 20.10.2006, he along with Inspector Ombir Singh, Addl. SHO Police Station Hari Nagar, SI Kartar Singh and other staff along with driver Ct. Krishan left the Police Station at about 7:45 AM vide DD No. 10B and reached Gate No. 3 Tihar Jail and reached there at about 7:53 AM where they met ASI Sukhdev Singh and Ct. Surender who had reached there on receipt of DD No.7A and DD No. 8A dated 20.10.2006. Witness has deposed that on reaching the spot he met Inspector Hoshiyar Singh and ASI Sukhdev Singh who informed him that they had found one gunny bag containing dead body. He has deposed that he inspected the spot after which the Crime Team along with its photographer also reached the spot and took the photographs of the dead body after taking out the same from the gunny bag which dead St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 43 body was found wrapped in the pieces of newspaper and the severed neck was found covered with underwear, one plastic rope was also found lying there and one letter written against the police official was also found lying in a small polythene. He has further deposed that one purple colored pant and sky blue colored shirt was also found wrapped with the body and according to him the dead body was found lying in a cane basket and the dead body was found tied with the grey colored plastic rope and blood was found fallen on the ground from the dead body. On inspection, they estimated the age of the dead person to be around 25-30 years who was of dark complexion and found a tattoo mark of 'Amit' in Hindi mentioned on the right arm with an old bluish mark on the knee, a tattoo mark of 'Scorpion / Bichoo' on left shoulder and some bluish mark on the ribs of left side towards back. According to the witness, the Crime Team inspected the dead body and prepared the Crime Team Report which is Ex.PW9/A after which the dead body was sent to mortuary DDU hospital for getting the same preserved through ASI Sukhdev Singh and Ct. Surender in the same TATA vehicle driven by Ct.
Krishan. He has deposed that thereafter he prepared the rukka Ex.PW22/A which was sent to the Police Station through SI Kartar Singh at 10:15 AM. He has also deposed that the Duty Officer ASI Balkishan had informed him of having received a telephone from a person who had asked for the mobile phone number of SHO (Inspector Hoshiyar Singh) as he wanted to talk to the SHO on which ASI Balkishan had given the mobile number of Inspector Hoshiyar Singh i.e. 987284644 to the caller. However, since ASI Balkishan could not contact Inspector Hoshiyar Singh on this number which was coming busy hence he had requested him (witness) to inform the SHO about the same on which he gave this information to SHO Inspector Hoshiyar Singh after St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 44 reaching the other side of carriage.
(49) Inspector Sunder Singh has proved that since Inspector Hoshiyar Singh (SHO) was busy with the arrangement of BJP demonstration on the issue of not deciding case of Afzal Guru for capital punishment, hence he (witness) had conducted the investigations. He has proved having recorded the statement of crime team and the photographer after which they were relieved and has deposed that at about 11:15 AM SI Kartar Singh had brought the copy of FIR Ex.PW15/A and original rukka which he handed over to him after which ASI Sukhdev had had come from DDU Hospital after getting the body preserved for 72 hours who informed him that he had left Ct. Surender at the mortuary for guarding the body. The witness has further proved having collected the newspaper in which the body was found wrapped and converted the same into parcel and sealed the same with the seal of SSY which parcel was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/A; having lifted the blood stained earth and earth control from the spot and converted the same into two separate parcels and sealed the same with the same seal which parcels were taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/E; having seized the letters written against the police officials vide memo Ex.PW1/B which letter written on both sides is Ex.PW22/B attested by him; having converted the gunny bag and plastic bag stained with blood into parcel and sealed the same with the same seal and took into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/C; having lifted the pant and shirt from the body and took into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/D; having lifted the cane basket and nylon rope from the spot and converted the same into parcel and sealed the same with the same seal which said parcel was also taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW1/F. According to the witness, the seal after use was St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 45 handed over to ASI Sukhdev Singh. The witness has further deposed that thereafter he prepared the site plan at the instance of ASI Sukhdev Singh vide Ex.PW22/C and brought the aforesaid case property to the Police Station Hari Nagar and got the same deposited in malkhana. He has also deposed that thereafter he along with aforesaid staff reached at gate No. 3 Tihar Jail and in the meanwhile Inspector Hoshiyar Singh informed him that he had received a call from a criminal from land line phone No. 25993011 who wanted to talk with DCP Sh. Manish Aggarwal and that the said criminal informed him that he would continue dropping the bodies in front of jail because he had been harassed by the Tihar officials. The witness has testified that thereafter they all reached at the telephone booth which was of a handicapped person namely Mahesh Bhatia where his servant Ram Babu met them and informed that Inspector Hoshiyar Singh had directed him to stop the person who had spoken to Inspector Hoshiyar Singh but the said criminal left immediately from the booth after making the call. According to Inspector Sunder Singh, Ram Babu Chaurasiya who was running the STD booth had given the description of the caller as approximately 30-35 years of age with blackish complexion who was speaking in Bihari language and had paid him Rs.12/- for the call. Ram Babu Chaurasiya had told them that he could identify the caller if shown to him on which he thereafter recorded the statement of Ram Babu under Section 161 Cr. P.C. and then returned back to the Police Station and continued searching for the accused and the identity of the deceased for many days. The witness has further deposed that on 30.10.2006 the postmortem on the body was got conducted at DDU Hospital mortuary and the doctor concerned handed over the exhibits of the deceased i.e. finger phalanges preserved by them duly sealed with the seal of DFMT DDU Hospital St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 46 along with the sample seal to him in the presence of Ct. Surender which he took into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW22/D. He has proved that the doctor concerned had also handed over the blood gauze preserved by him and sample seal duly sealed with the seal of DFMT, DDU Hospital which he (witness) took into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW22/E and also handed over the gunny bag, two underwear and plastic rope along with the sample seal duly sealed with the same seal which he (the witness) took into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW22/F. He has further deposed that the doctor concerned further handed over sternum and sample seal duly sealed with the seal of DFMT, DDU Hospital which he (witness) took into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW22/G. According to PW22, the photographer Sanjay @ Rajesh was called at the mortuary at the time of postmortem who took the photographs of postmortem proceedings after which he recorded the statements of Ct. Surender and photographer Sanjay under Section 161 Cr. P.C. and thereafter he and Ct. Surender came back to the Police Station and got the case property deposited with the MHC (M). (50) The witness has proved that on 10.11.2006 he took Ram Babu Chaurashiya and came to the Dossier Cell where the portrait of the criminal who made the call to Inspector Hoshiyar Singh was prepared which portrait is Ex.PW8/A and his request in this regard is Ex.PW22/H. He has proved having recorded the supplementary statement of Ram Babu and Ct. Babu Lal who prepared the sketch/portrait of the accused. The witness has testified that on 25.11.2006 he recorded the statement of Ct. Mukesh, special messenger who circulated the copies of FIR to senior officers and Ld. MM and thereafter he was transferred to Special Staff, West District but the investigations remained with him.
St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 47(51) Inspector Sunder Singh has further deposed that on 25.4.2007, Inspector Hoshiyar Singh informed him that another body was recovered by him at Gate No. 3, Tihar Jail pursuant to which FIR No. 243/2007 was registered at Police Station Hari Nagar after which he met Inspector Hoshiyar Singh and discussed the issue. The witness has deposed that on 03.05.2007 he received the postmortem report of the present case i.e. FIR No.609/06, PM No. 982/06 vide Ex.PW2/A and on 04.05.2007 he sent the blood stained newspapers to Central finger print bureau RK Puram through HC Susheel.
(52) Inspector Sunder Singh has further testified that on 18.05.2007, Inspector Ombir Singh informed him on telephone that another headless body along with a letter written against police official was found at Gate No.3 Tihar Jail on 18.05.2007 on which he reached there along with his staff and met Inspector Ombir who informed him that another FIR bearing No. 279/07 has been registered in this regard at Police Station Hari Nagar. He has deposed that on the same day secret informer met them and informed that the accused was available in the area of Tihar Jail on which they made efforts to trace the accused but he could not be traced despite their efforts and therefore they left for the office of the special staff.
(53) The witness Inspector Sunder Singh has further deposed that on 19.05.2007 the secret informer met him and informed that the accused who was dropping the parts of the body, resides near Shiv Mandir Alipur and on 20.05.2007 informer came to their office at Tagore Garden and gave the specific information that the accused was available in his room at Alipur on which with the directions of the Senior Officers, a team was constituted from special staff, himself, SI Dalip Kaushik, SI Jai Parkash of Police Station Nangloi, SI Jarnail Singh ICPP Mianwali Nagar, ASI St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 48 Virender Tyagi and other staff left in a government vehicle Tata 407 bearing registration no.DL1LD-5031 alongwith driver ASI Prem Singh and reached at Alipur, Delhi. He has testified that at about 12 noon they reached near Shivmandir wali gali where they kept a watch in the area and at about 2:00 pm the accused Chanderkant Jha was apprehended at the instance of secret informer from the street near Shivmandir Mianwali Nagar. He has proved that the accused was thereafter interrogated but he initially did not cooperate with the police but later when thoroughly interrogated, he disclosed that he was residing as a tenant at Haiderpur colony where he used to bring the poor boys and keep them with him. According to the witness, the accused further disclosed that he used to take the services of these boys in good faith and thereafter used to commit their murder and in order to harass the police officials, he then left the various parts of the bodies of the deceased at different places including Gate of Tihar Jail by using his rickshaw operated with engine. The witness has also deposed that on being satisfied, the accused was arrested in this case i.e. FIR No.609/06, under Section 302/201 IPC Police Station Hari Nagar, by him vide memo Ex.PW22/I; his personal search was also conducted vide memo Ex.PW22/J and his disclosure statement was recorded regarding killing, weapon of offence and lying the same in his rented room which disclosure statement was recorded vide Ex.PW22/K running into four pages written on both sides. According to him, the accused was kept in muffled face for the purpose of TIP and the rickshaw which was operated by engine was also found parked near his house in the street was pointed out by the accused as belonging to him after which the said rickshaw was also taken into possession vide memo ExPW22/L. He has also deposed that thereafter they all reached at Haiderpur where he called the crime team and FSL St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 49 experts at main road Haiderpur after which they reached at the corner of Gali No. 2 Haiderpur colony where the accused Chanderkant Jha pointed out towards his rented room situated at ground floor of house bearing no.229 which was belonging to one Mangal Sain Pandit and got the lock broken open. The witness has further testified that the room was got photographed by the photographer of the crime team and the members of crime team inspected the room, the crime team expert took the four chance prints/finger prints. He has further deposed that the FSL expert Dr. Naresh Kumar, inspected the spot and lifted the blood from the floor from near the gate of the room and kept the same in a yellow coloured envelope, which envelope was marked with "A"; blood stained earth control and kept the same in the yellow envelope, which envelope was marked with "B"; three big size knives which the accused Chanderkant had disclosed were the weapons of offence with which he executed the killings from which knifes the blood stains were lifted along with the blood from the place from where the knives were lifted which blood was kept in another envelope of yellow colour which envelope was marked with "C" and broken floor piece which he (Dr. Naresh) converted into pulunda and sealed the same with the seal of NK FSL, Delhi which parcel was marked with 'D'. According to Inspector Sunder Singh, all the above exhibits were taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW22/M after which he prepared the sketch of knife which was recovered from the room of accused vide Ex.PW22/N. According to the witness, the knife was measured and found to be 41.5 cm long, length of the blade was 28 cm, length of the handle was of 13.5 cm and the width of the blade was 4.5 cm which knife was given mark E; other knife was also measured and found to be 39.8 cm long, its blade was of 27 cm, handle was of 12.5 cm and the width of the blade was 7 cm which knife St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 50 was given mark F; the third knife was also measured and found to be 59 cm long, width of the blade was 5 cm which knife was given mark G. He has proved having converted all the knives into separate parcels and sealed the same with the seal of NK FSL, Delhi and thereafter he seized all the knives vide memo ExPW22/O and having recorded the statements of crime team staff and Dr. Naresh Kumar of FSL and they were relieved. The witness has further testified that he inspected the room and searched the "taand" (partition in the room) and recovered one "nunchaku" (an instrument/ weapon used by Karate fighter) which nunchaku was having double chain and on both the sides there were wooden handles and thereafter he converted the same into parcel and sealed the same with the seal of SSY and took the same into possession vide seizure memo ExPW22/P. According to him, he noted down the telephone numbers from the wall on a paper which paper was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW22/Q and thereafter he took one jeans pant from the "khoonti" from the said room and also got recovered one mobile phone make Indicom from the Almirah kept in his room and informed that the said mobile phone was belonging to one of the deceased. The witness has proved having taken into possession the said pant and mobile after converting them into parcels vide common seizure memo Ex.PW22/P and also proved having prepared the site plan vide Ex.PW22/R. (54) According to Inspector Sunder Singh on 21.5.2007 in the morning hours, they went to Police Station and deposited the case property in the malkhana and recorded the statement of SI Dalip after which they reached Kishanganj where the accused got down from the vehicle and took them across the railway line near ganda nalla and pointed out the place where he threw legs of the body of deceased on 18.5.2007. He thereafter prepared the memo of pointing out vide St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 51 ExPW22/S and then they all came back to Tis Hazari Courts where the accused Chanderkant Jha led them in front of State Bank, Tis Hazari compound and pointed out the place where he left two hands of the body of the deceased and his private parts after packing the same in the straw board box pursuant to which he prepared the memo of pointing out vide memo Ex.PW22/T. According to the witness, they had taken the accused for preparation of the dossier and taking his finger prints at Dossier Cell, West District after which the accused was sent to DDU Hospital for his medical examination and was produced before Ld. MM at Rohini Courts and with the permission of the court, they took the specimen handwriting and signatures of accused Chanderkant Jha in this case i.e. FIR No. 609/06 of Police Station Hari Nagar, which specimen handwriting of accused (already marked S1 to S7 by the FSL Official) is Ex.PW22/U-1 to Ex.PW22/U-7 after which he (the witness) took the police remand of accused till 28.5.07.
(55) According to the witness on 22.05.2007 the accused took them at main road leading towards Loni from Karawal Nagar, near Lal Bagh and further took them towards the "kacha rasta" about 400 steps ahead and pointed out a pit which was having some water as the same pit in which he had thrown the skull of victim Anil Mandal @ Amit. There, they made efforts to trace the skull but same could not be traced after which he prepared the memo of pointing out which is Ex.PW22/V. He has also deposed that thereafter the accused took them near the shop of sugar cane juice and pointed out the shop/ kiosk where he had dropped the left hand and sexual part of deceased Upender @ Pintoo after keeping the same in a polythene and further in a box near the counter of the said shop pursuant to which he prepared the memo of pointing out which is Ex.PW22/W. He has testified that thereafter the accused St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 52 brought them in front of State Bank, Tis Hazari Court complex and disclosed that he had dropped the right hand of deceased Upender @ Pintoo after wrapping the same in the newspaper on 25.04.2007 pursuant to which he prepared the memo in this regard which is Ex.PW22/X. Inspector Sunder Singh has further proved that thereafter the accused took them at chowk pipal thala and after getting down from the vehicle the accused took them at house No. 206 belonging to one Ashok Mehta and pointed out towards a room on the first floor and disclosed that he had killed one Shekhar in the month of June/July 2003 whose body was thrown in Mukhmailpur ganda nala, pursuant to which he (the witness) prepared the memo to this effect which is Ex.PW22/Y. According to the witness, thereafter the accused took them in the house of Rajpal bearing No. 43/3 Sarai Pipal thala and pointed out the room where he killed one Umesh in the month of November, 2003 whose body was thrown by him at gate No.1, Tihar Jail pursuant to which he (the witness) prepared the memo of pointing out vide Ex.PW22/Z. He has testified that thereafter the accused took them near railway phatak Shalimar Bagh and got down from the vehicle and thereafter took them near Baba Ramdev Mandir and disclosed that he had thrown left leg of deceased Upender @ Pintoo on 25.04.2007 after wrapping the same in the cloth bag, pursuant to which the witness has prepared the memo of pointing out which is Ex.PW22/Z1. The accused then took them near railway phatak Shalimar Bagh and got down from the vehicle and thereafter took them at house No. 51 which was the house of one Dalbir Singh and disclosed that he had killed one boy namely Guddu in the month of October, 2005 in the said room and had thrown his dead body in ganda nala Mangolpuri, pursuant to which he prepared the memo of pointing out vide memo Ex.PW22/Z2.
St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 53(56) He has further deposed that on 23.5.07, he along with SI Dalip Kumar Kaushik, ASI Virender Tyagi, SI Narender, Ct. Vijender Singh along with staff and the accused Chanderkant Jha left in government vehicle Tata 407 no.DL1LD5031 and reached at ISBT Flyover, ISBT where accused took them on the bank of Yamuna river and pointed out the place where he had thrown the head of deceased Upender @ Pintoo on 25.4.2007 and at the same time, the accused pointed out towards the east side of the Yamuna river where he had thrown the head of deceased Dalip on 18.5.07 after wrapping the same in the ghagri and red colour cloth of his daughter and after wrapping the same in a polythene. According to the witness, they then called the nao-wala (owner of the boat) and a swimmer and tried to search for the head of the deceased which could not be recovered at that time and since it was late night, he therefore relieved the swimmer and nao-wala. According to the witness, he thereafter sent ASI Virender Tyagi to bring the search light pursuant to which ASI Virender Tyagi brought the search light along with the staff and with the help of search light they again tried to search the head of both the deceased. The witness has also deposed that while they were going towards east side of Yamuna river towards Seelampur and when they reached about three-four steps ahead from the metro pillar, they found one red cloth and one ghaghri which were identified by the accused as the same in which he had wrapped the head of the deceased Dilip and thrown the same in the river. According to the witness, on reaching near the said cloth they found skull and the lower jaw which the accused had identified the jaw as belonging to Dalip as he was into habit of taking gutkha and paan and also identified the skull of Dalip. The witness has testified that he called the photographer Rajesh @ Sanjay who took 11 photographs of the jaw and skull. He has deposed that St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 54 thereafter he called SI Satender from Police Station Seelampur and converted the said skull and jaw into parcel in the presence of SI Satender and also converted the red cloth and ghaghri into parcel and sealed the same with the seal of DK after which the said parcel was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW19/A which seal after use was handed over to SI Narender. He has proved having prepared the site plan at the place from where the skull and jaws were recovered which is vide Ex.PW22/Z3 and having recorded the statement of SI Satender who was thereafter relieved. The witness has testified that he took both the parcels to DDU hospital mortuary through Ct. Vijender. He has further deposed that on 24.5.2007 he along with ASI Virender Tyagi and other staff along with accused left in Tata 407 along with SI Prem Singh for preserving of the spot and they all reached at Mukhmailpur Nala National Highway No.1 where the accused took them on the way between Budhpur and Mukhmailpur village and further took them towards a pullia ganda nala and disclosed that he had dropped the dead body of Shekhar in the month of June/July, 2003 in the said ganda nala, pursuant to which the witness prepared the memo of pointing out which is Ex.PW22/Z4. The witness has also deposed that thereafter the accused took them at main road between Mangolpuri and Sultanpuri and got down from their vehicle and further took them between T and U Block Mangolpuri Ganda Nala and pointed out a place near Sulabh Sauchalya in which he had thrown the dead body of Guddu in the month of October, 2005 pursuant to which the witness prepared the memo of pointing out which is Ex.PW22/Z5. According to Inspector Sunder Singh, the accused thereafter took them at shop No. A-226, near MCD Primary school, Swaroop Nagar and pointed out towards stairs and disclosed that he had thrown the polythene bag of red color containing St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 55 right leg of deceased Upender @ Pintoo after cutting the same from his body. He has proved having prepared the memo of pointing out which is Ex.PW22/Z6 after which the accused took them near gate No.1, near Nari Niketan Tihar and pointed out the place where he had thrown the dead body of Umesh in the month of November, 2003 after keeping the same in a bag and had also pointed out the place near gate No. 3 where he had dropped the headless dead body of Anil Mandal @ Amit on 20.10.2006 and at the same place he had thrown the body of Upender @ Pintoo on 25.04.2007 and also towards Postal Letter Box where he had thrown the trunk of the body of Dalip i.e. the thoracic and the abdominal portion of the body on 18.5.2007 in a plastic bag. The witness has proved having prepared the memo of pointing out at Gate No. 3, Tihar Jail vide Ex.PW22/Z7. Inspector Sunder Singh has further deposed that the accused had disclosed to them that he had left the letters along with the decapitated bodies.
(57) According to Inspector Sunder Singh on 26.05.2007 Inspector Omvir Singh the Investigating Officer of case FIR No.279/07 Police Station Hari Nagar had come to their office at special staff Tagore Garden and the photocopies of relevant documents were handed over to him. The witness has further deposed that on 28.05.2007 he took the photocopy of the paper containing mobile numbers recovered in personal search of accused for the purpose of identification of deceased which documents were taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW22/Z8 and the document is Ex.PW22/Z9. According to the witness, since the accused was on police remand till 28.05.2007 therefore he was produced before Ld. MM and he was got sent to judicial custody. He has proved having made a request to Ld. MM for Test Identification Parade and Ld. Link MM had fixed the said application for TIP for 04.06.2007. He has St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 56 further testified that on 04.06.2007 he took the witness Ram Babu Chaurasiya and brought him to Rohini court complex and Ld.MM directed him to take him (witness Ram Babu) to Tihar Jail to participate in TIP and on that day the TIP proceedings was got conducted in which the accused had refused to participate. The witness has proved his application for conducting the TIP which is Ex.PW22/Z10; proceedings are Ex.PW22/Z11 (admitted by the accused); application for getting the copy of the proceedings which is Ex.PW22/Z12 which application was allowed and thereafter he collected the copy of the proceedings, the envelope containing the proceedings is Ex.PW12/Z13. (58) According to the witness, on 11.06.2007 Inspector Omvir Singh came to the Special Staff when he (witness) handed over to him (Inspector Omvir Singh) the original copies of recovery memo and seizure memo of knives, broken floor, cotton gauze, etc. lifted by Sh. Naresh Kumar, SSA FSL, Rohini, sketch of knives, Site plan prepared at Yamuna River and pointing out memo prepared at Kishan Ganj railway line and Tis Hazari. According to the witness, he sent HC Ram Avtar to CFPB, RK Puram along with the finger prints of accused Chander Kant Jha who brought the CFPB report along with the pullanda of the newspaper which have been sent for the opinion. He has deposed that on 21.06.2007 he called SI Mahesh Kumar, Draftsman and took him at jail No. 3, Tihar who prepared the rough measurements for the purpose of preparing scaled site plan and after preparing the scaled site plan handed over the same to him which is Ex.PW8/A after which he recorded the statement of SI Mahesh Kumar, Draftsman. He has testified that on the same day one Hari Singh and his wife Smt. Saroj R/o village and Police Station Lakhnor, District Darbhanga, Bihar had come in the office claiming that they came to know through the newspaper that their son St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 57 Amit had been killed in Delhi and a case FIR No. 195/06 Police Station Lucknor under Section 365 IPC was registered at Police Station Lucknor, on which he (witness) had recorded their statements under Section 161 Cr. P.C. The witness has also testified that on 26.06.2007 he along with Ram Babu Chaurasiya had come to court room No. 108, Rohini court complex where the accused had been produced from judicial custody on which the witness Ram Babu saw the accused out side the court while he was being produced and identified him as the same person who had made a call to Inspector Hoshiyar Singh on 20.10.2006. He has proved having recorded the supplementary statement of Ram Babu regarding identification of accused Chander Kant Jha under Section 161 Cr. P.C. The witness has also deposed that on 04.07.2007 he handed over two photographs produced by the accused from his room on 20.05.2007 (one was having photo of two persons and other was having the photo of three persons in which the accused had identified the deceased Upender @ Pintoo wearing blank pant and blue shirt in both the photographs) and the seizure memo of the photographs to Inspector Sukesh Singh. He has proved that on 20.07.2007 he recorded the statement of HC Nichatar Singh and Ct. Bijender under Section 161 Cr.P.C. in south zone PCR. The witness has further deposed that on 21.07.2007 he had gone to Police Station Hari Nagar and discussed with the SHO Sh. Sukesh Singh and Inspector Omvir Singh and it was decided that all the exhibits recovered in the present case i.e. of FIR No. 609/06 P.S Hari Nagar would be deposited at FSL for biological and DNA analysis by Inspector Omvir Singh. According to the witness, on 23.07.2007 Rajeev Sain S/o Sh. Mangal Sain owner of house No. 229/2, Haiderpur colony had come to their office and his statement was recorded under Section 161 Cr. P.C. He has testified that on the same day he left Delhi for district Darbhanga St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 58 Bihar and investigated the matter and recorded the statements of witnesses under Section 161 Cr. P.C. and came back to Delhi on 28.07.2007. He has also deposed that on 31.07.2007 he got deposited the exhibits through HC Baney Singh at FSL Rohini vide RC No.62/21/07 and 63/21/07. The witness Inspector Sunder Singh has further deposed that on 01.08.2007 one Sanjay Mann S/o Dayal Singh, R/o House No. 592, Chota Shiv Mandir, Alipur had come in the office who had in his statement stated that the accused Chander Kant Jha was residing along with his family in his house as tenant. According to the witness, on the same day he had gone to Janakpuri, Crime Branch Mobile crime team and took 38 photographs from photographer Ct. Suresh Gupta, two sets of 19 Photographs are Ex.PW22/Z14-A1 to Ex.PW22/Z14-A38. The witness has proved that he had taken nine photographs from Ct. Suresh Gupta which was taken by him at gate No. 3 on 20.10.2006 which photographs are Ex.PW14/B-1 to Ex.PW14/B-9 and he recorded the statement of Ct. Suresh Gupta under Section 161 Cr. P.C. He has testified that on 05.08.2007 he went to the office of Nodal Officer, Airtel at Okhla and obtained the call details of mobile of Inspector Hoshiyar Singh of mobile phone no. 9871284644 and 9818250805 which Call Details Record from 19.10.2006 to 21.10.2006 are Ex.PW22/Z15 running into ten pages. He has proved having collected two sets of 11 photographs and 22 photographs from Sanjay @ Rajesh which are Ex.PW20/A-1 to Ex.PW20/A-11 and Ex.PW20/1 to Ex.PW20/22. He has testified that on 10.8.2007 he had sent the specimen handwriting and the questioned documents to FSL, Rohini vide RC No. 69/21/07 through HC Ram Avtar and recorded the statement of HC Ram Avtar and HC Hari Ram under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The witness has testified that on 14.08.2007 he prepared the charge sheet and filled in the court.
St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 59According to him, on 19.08.2007 Hari Singh and Saroj Bala had come in their office and on that day they were taken to FSL Office where their blood sample was taken for the purpose of DNA. The witness has testified that thereafter he was transferred to vigilance branch Police headquarter therefore further investigations was handed over to Inspector Ombir Singh.
(59) The witness has correctly identified the accused Chandrakant Jha in the Court and also identified the case property i.e. one tokri and pieces of nylon rope which are Ex.P1 & Ex.P2 respectively; one bori which is Ex.P3; plastic rope is Ex.P4 and two under wears are Ex.P5 & Ex.P6 collectively; one pant which is Ex.P7 and shirt which is Ex.P8; newspapers of Dainik Jagran from December 2004 to January 2005 Panipat Edition and Punjab Kesri from January 2005 Delhi Edition having blood stains which newspapers are Ex.P10; a taat bori which is Ex.P11 and the plastic katta which is Ex.P12; skull recovered from the Yamuna Bank which is Ex.P13 and the jaw is Ex.P14; one red cloth which is Ex.P15 and the Ghaghri which is Ex.P16; three knives which are Ex.P17, Ex.P18 & Ex.P19; the nunchaku which is Ex.P20; denim jeans along with black belt which is Ex.P21; one Indicom mobile phone which was recovered from Almirah kept in the room of the accused which is Ex.P22; blood stained earth lifted from the spot which is Ex.P23; earth control lifted from the spot which is Ex.P24; one rickshaw (rehra) having Chetak scooter handle with engine no. 35MBEC67902 and rickshaw frame no. C436006 which was recovered from Alipur near Chota Shiva Mandir gali at the instance of accused which rickshaw is Ex.P25; two plastic transparent jars containing finger phalanges related to PM No. 982/06 dated 30.10.2006 which were handed over to him by the doctors which jars are collectively Ex.P25(A); blood gauze related to St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 60 PM No. 982/06 dated 30.10.2006 which was handed over to him by the doctors which blood gauze is Ex.P26.
(60) Inspector Sunder Singh has been exhaustively cross examined by the accused wherein he has admitted that he is a witness in all the three cases pending against the accused i.e. the present FIR and also FIR No.297/07 and 243/07 from Police Station Hari Nagar and he has deposed on the basis of his memory. According to the witness, the accused was in police custody for seven days. He has admitted that during this period of police custody remand the accused did not misbehave with them nor he became violent but is not aware if the accused made any objections or demands regarding food or other articles including tobacoo or narcotis during the period of police custody remand. He has stated that the accused did not try to escape during the period of his custody remand and the behaviour of the accused was normal during the period of police remand and he did not observe any deviation or psychiatric problem during this period of remand. He has denied the suggestion that the newspaper used to come to the office of the Special Staff and is not aware about availability of the television facility in the office but has voluntarily explained that the newspaper and television facility was available in Recreation Room. The witness has also deposed that on 20.05.2007 the raiding party was constituted at about 9AM which raiding party was constituted at Special staff and thereafter other members had joined at Hari Nagar. According to him, he was in civil dress, SI Dalip was in uniform, SI Jarnail Singh, SI Jai Parkash and their staff were in uniform and other persons of the special staff were in civil dress. He has testified that he was carrying his official pistol and the entire staff had gone to apprehend the accused had gone in one vehicle i.e. TATA 407. The witness has further deposed that they St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 61 started from Police Station Hari Nagar at about 9:30 AM and took the route via Peeragarhi, Rohini and then reached Alipur and reached at Alipur at about 12 PM and had taken SI Jai Parkash from Nangloi area and straight away reached Alipur. He has testified that the secret informer remained with them till the end i.e. till Alipur and the staff along with SI Jarnail Singh and SI Jai Parkash had left the investigations after the arrest of accused. According to him, they did not inform the local police at Police Station Alipur when they reached there along with raiding party. He has stated that he was having his personal mobile phone bearing No. 9911115185 at that time and has also deposed that the vehicle in which they had gone to Alipur had been stopped at Chota Shiv Mandir gali where the accused was apprehended at about 2 PM from the gali in front of his residence i.e. about 100 steps from his house where his wife and five children used to reside. He has admitted that when they apprehended the accused he did not try to resist or escape. He has explained that the name of the accused and his address came to be known to him after his apprehension. He has denied the suggestion that the accused had been apprehended inside the house and has explained that the accused was first caught by SI Narender. He has further deposed that they remained at the spot till about 5PM and admits that the area is residential and thickly populated and lot of people had collected. According to the witness, while he was on his way, he had requested the neighbours and the public persons to join the police party, but nobody was prepared and left without giving their names and addresses on the pretext that they were to go for urgent work. He has denied the suggestion that they were all in civil clothes and the accused was swiftly lifted and put in the vehicle and none of the public persons came to know about the same. He has denied the suggestion that they had first St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 62 questioned one Ram Sagar who was running a parchun shop in the area and asked him to call the accused from his house but when he did not agree, he (witness) and other police officers went inside the house of accused and lifted him from there. He has further deposed that the secret informer had pointed out the accused to him and SI Narender and that first time the secret informer had given the information to SI Dalip and to him. He has also deposed that the informer had informed that the person who was involved in dropping of dead bodies could be apprehended near Chota Shiv Mandir, Alipur. The witness has further explained that the accused was standing in the gali at the time of apprehension. He has deposed that when he left the Special Staff Office he had recorded the small detail of secret information in the departure entry. He has further explained that the raiding party was constituted in the morning of 20.05.2007 and not earlier to that and at that time he was not aware about the previous involvements of the suspect. He has conceded that the secret informer had not given any photograph of the suspect to him and that no police staff who were present in the raiding party were in a position to identify the accused having known him previously prior to his arrest at Alipur and has voluntarily explained that only the secret informer was aware of the same. According to the witness, the secret informer had not informed them that the said person / criminal used to kill the victims at his residence at Alipur nor did he tell them regarding the employment/ avocation or mobile number of the accused nor anything about the room at Haiderpur. He has also deposed that immediately when the accused was apprehended he was searched by him and has voluntarily explained that the accused was interrogated later. He has testified that at the time when the accused was searched there were no public persons and the search of accused was taken at the place of St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 63 apprehension only. According to him, the residence of accused was on the ground floor but he does not remember the exact number of rooms in the said premises. The witness has further deposed that he is not aware if the owner of the house also reside in the same premises. He has also deposed that at the time of arrest and reaching to the residence of accused no one was present except his wife and according to him, the accused was wearing pant - shirt at the time of his arrest though he did not notice if the accused was wearing his slippers or shoes at that time but admits that the accused did not have anything in his hand like bag etc. He does not remember if the handcuffs were put on the accused after apprehension or after the proceedings at Haiderpur. According to him, during the personal search Rs.220/-, one watch, folded papers which were having different phone numbers on it and one mobile phone was recovered from the accused. He is unable to give the detail number of the mobile phone recovered from the possession of the accused. The witness has deposed that no photographs or any pocket dairy were recovered from the personal search of the accused. He is unable to tell if any inland letter was also recovered from the search of the accused. Witness has explained that all documentation was done while sitting at the spot and at the time when the personal search of the accused was taken his wife was also present there and the information regarding arrest of accused was given to his wife. According to the witness, when the accused had got recovered two photographs from his room his wife and children were not present there and has voluntarily explained that his wife came there only later. He has testified that no site plan of recovery of rickshaw was prepared. He has denied the suggestion that no documentation was done at the spot and all the documentation was done while sitting in the Police Station when he signed in the Police Station or St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 64 that no photographs had been recovered from the premises of the accused and the same has been planted upon him by the police party. He has also denied the suggestion that the accused had not made any disclosure statement and the same has been recorded by him which he has only signed in the mechanical manner. He has further denied the suggestion that the accused did not have any motor rickshaw which he got recovered or that the said rickshaw has been planted upon the accused only to work out the present case. He has denied the suggestion that there was no occasion for the accused to possess a motorable rickshaw. (61) Further, in his cross examination Inspector Sunder Singh has stated that from Alipur they straight away went to Haiderpur and has denied the suggestion that Ram Sagar who had refused to co-operate during the investigations was also lifted by them. He has explained that they reached Haiderpur at about 5:50 PM and remained there till about 10-11 PM. He has further deposed that he had asked public persons to join the investigations in the house of Mangal Sain Pandit at Haidepur but none agreed. According to him the room in question was situated on ground floor of the premises which were double storied which had about 4-5 rooms. Witness has deposed that they did not give any intimation to the local police nor to the landlord nor he had inquired about the ownership/ occupancy of the said premises as accused himself had led them to the said room. Witness has denied the suggestion that no proceedings took place at the said house and it is for this reason that no public person had been joined in the proceedings. According to him, the rooms adjoining the room which was got opened by the accused were all joined to each other in a row. He has denied the suggestion that all the rooms had one door opening with each other. He has explained that there was no window in the said room and has denied the suggestion that St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 65 there was no source of light in the room after which he has voluntarily explained that there was an electric bulb which was switched on by the accused. According to the witness, the room appeared to be in a shabby condition and foul smelling and they had opened the gate of the said room. Witness has further deposed that all the knives were lying on the floor in the south west corner of the room and there was only one lock on the door of the room. According to the witness the photographs were clicked in the room of Haiderpur by the photographer of the crime team and the indications in the room with the white chalk showing the place of recovery were made by Naresh Kumar from the FSL team and it was the FSL official who told them that the choppers / knives were blood stained. He has testified that this opinion regarding the choppers being blood stained was given after Naresh Kumar had examined the knives personally by naked eye. The witness has explained that he had seen the expert Sh. Naresh Kumar using some instrument using while examining the knives/ choppers and while lifting the knives Naresh Kumar was wearing gloves and has further explained that the knives / choppers were lying open in the room and were not covered by any cloth or paper and both photographer and the FSL team were doing their jobs simultaneously. He has denied the suggestion that the proceedings regarding recovery and seizure of the knives/ choppers were not conducted in his presence and all the knives were planted upon the accused. He has also deposed that the floor of the room was broken by Naresh Kumar with some instrument which appear to be a chheni which was already present with Naresh Kumar but he does not recollect if the photographer had taken any photograph of Naresh Kumar breaking the floor. Witness has admitted that the photographer had taken the photographs on his directions. According to him, the crime team and the St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 66 FSL team had left after completing their job while they were still there and at the time when the pullandas were prepared the crime team and the FSL team were still at the spot. Witness has further deposed that the photographs regarding preparation of pullands were not taken and the stitching material was already present with him. Witness has denied the suggestion that the photographs had been taken after setting of the room and planting the incriminating material to implicate the accused. He has admitted that the accused himself had given the name of the deceased at the time of recovery of the blue jeans. The witness has denied the suggestion that no such pant was got recovered by the accused or that the accused had never told to him that the pant belong to one of the deceased. He has testified that after starting from Alipur they had straightaway come to Haiderpur. Witness has admitted that without seeing the position of room at Haiderpur he had called the mobile crime team and FSL expert. According to him, the mobile crime team had reached the spot in their own vehicle and Sh. Naresh Kumar had accompanied them in their vehicle upto Haiderpur room. Witness has further deposed that at the time of leaving of the Haiderpur Room the two other neighbours in rooms namely Ram Singh and Mahesh had come but they were also in a hurry as they were to go to meet some known person who had met with some accident. Witness has further deposed that he was not aware if on 20.5.2007 the news with regard to arrest and apprehension of the accused was flashed in the electronic as well as print media. He has denied the suggestion that the accused was already in custody of the special staff and it is in this regard that the news with regard to his apprehension and arrest had been published in the Dainik Jagran Newspaper dated 20.5.2007 copy of which is Ex.PW22/DX1 collectively and has voluntarily explained that this news does not have St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 67 any name of arresting official, accused name or any photograph related to the arrest. The witness has further deposed that he cannot tell if the photographs of the rickshaw so got recovered by the accused were taken on not. Witness has denied the suggestion that no photographs of the rickshaw were taken because there was no recovery of the said rickshaw from the accused. According to him, the said rickshaw which was allegedly recovered at the instance of the accused was also put in the Tata 407 and was taken to the Police Station and the said rickshaw remained in the vehicle till evening i.e. even they went to Haiderpur and thereafter when they reached Police Station Hari Nagar. He has testified that the said rickshaw was still in the Malkhana of the Police Station Hari Nagar. Witness has denied the suggestion that prior to the production of the accused before the court he had been shown to the electronic and print media in unmuffled face and has voluntarily explained that the accused himself was keeping his face unmuffled despite being asked to keep himself muffled and these facts had been mentioned in DD entry and in the case dairy. He has denied the suggestion that the accused was produced in the court in unmuffled face or that before producing the accused in the court and in the media, no proceedings were conducted. He has also deposed that on 21.5.07 after getting the police remand the accused was taken to special staff office and after taking the police remand they had started from the court at about 4-5 PM. According to him the police remand had taken from the Link MM and the seizure prepared there is in his handwriting. He has testified that the accused had told him the date i.e. 18.05.2007 on which he had thrown the limbs in the ganda nala where they remained (i.e. at ganda nala) for about 1-1 ½ hours till about 2 PM. According to the witness, the total staff who was present at Sarai Rohilla ganda nala had gone to Tis Hazari and there St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 68 is no discrepancy with regard to the date on the seizure memo and all proceedings were conducted on 21.5.2007. Witness has further deposed that they had departed from the Special Staff Tagore Garden at about 9:00 AM for recovery of legs and hands of victim Dalip for Sarai Rohilla and Tis Hazari Courts and again returned to West District dossier cell for taking finger prints and thereafter they had gone to Tis Hazari Courts for production of the accused before the Hon'ble Court. He has also deposed that the help of "gota khor" (diver) was taken for searching of the legs at ganda nala, Kishanganj and the "gota khor" was called from the Yamuna since he had personal knowledge of the same as he remained Incharge of Police Post of the area during the period 1997-2000. According to him they were called by him by telephonic message but he does not recollect the name of the said "gota khor". Witness has further deposed that there is no record of taking of the help of "gota khor" and he had not taken the photography of process of searching of legs in ganda nala. Witness has admitted that the memo of pointing out of Tis Hazari bears the signatures of SI Narender, SI Dalip Kaushik and ASI Virender. He has further deposed that the specimen handwriting of the accused was taken in the court of Sh. Bhupesh Kumar on 21.5.07 which handwriting was taken pursuant to the written permission from the Ld. MM which had been taken by him and had shown the paper containing the specimen handwriting of the accused to Ld. MM after taking the same in the court and seized the same through seizure memo. According to the witness, the accused was produced before the hon'ble court along with case file and the Ld. MM did not sign on the disclosure statement of the accused and has voluntarily explained that the disclosure was not made in the open court in the presence of the Ld. MM.
St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 69(62) Further in his cross examination the witness has testified that on 23.5.07 they started from the Tagore Garden office of Special Staff and had reached the Yamuna Bank at about 11-12 PM (afternoon) and he had called the divers at the spot itself but no public persons were associated in the investigations as he had made efforts to join them but they expressed their inability. According to him, the photographs were taken at the spot by a private photographer who had been taken to the spot by them and stayed at the spot with them till evening and the entire police team which had gone to the spot remained there till late evening and they all left the spot together. Witness has denied the suggestion that the accused did not accompany them to ISBT Yamuna banks and was brought there much later after the skull had been planted only to implicate him. The witness has deposed that no senior officers of the rank of ACP and DCP were present during the proceedings and at the time of their departure for Tihar Jail from Police Station Hari Nagar on 20.10.2006 the Duty Officer was ASI Bal Kishan. Witness has further deposed that he left the Police Station at about 7:45 AM and it was around 8:15 AM when ASI Balkishan informed him on telephone that he had received a call from the criminal who had asked mobile number of SHO Police Station Hari Nagar on which he immediately intimated this fact to Inspector Hoshiyar Singh but does not recollect at what time criminal had telephoned to Inspector Hoshiyar Singh and states that he had recorded the statement of ASI Balkishan on 20.10.2006 at evening time. According to him he did not suggest to Inspector Hoshiyar Singh to record the conversation of the criminal nor he told Inspector Hoshiyar Singh to keep free his telephone number since the offender was supposed to call on his mobile phone. Witness has also deposed that he recorded the statement of Inspector Hoshiyar Singh in the evening of 20.10.2006 St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 70 in the Police Station itself and the statement of the STD servant Ram Babu Chaurasiya was recorded at about 7:00 PM to 8:00 PM on 20.10.2006. According to him, the statement of Ram Babu Chaurasiya was again recorded on 26.6.2007 in the Court premises itself when he identified the accused Chandra Kant Jha and the contents of the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of Ram Babu Chaurasiya was read over to him. Witness has also deposed that Ram Babu Chaurasiya was called to the Court over telephone and the accused was probably produced before the Court in FIR No.243/07, Police Station Hari Nagar and the witness Ram Babu identified the accused on 26.6.2007 in the Court at about 3:00 PM. He does not recollect the name of the Ld. MM in whose court the accused was to be produced on 26.6.2007. Witness has admitted that there is an overwriting in the date mentioned in the statement of SI Narender under Section 161 Cr.P.C. regarding the dropping of the skull of Anil Mandal and has voluntarily explained that the date has been wrongly mentioned as 25.4.2007 which was corrected as 20.6.2006. Witness has explained that the distance between the Railway Phatak Shalimar Bagh and the Baba Ramdev Mandir is about 30-35 steps. According to the witness the statements of SI Narender and ASI Virender Tyagi under section 161 Cr.P.C. were recorded at Special Staff Office, Tagore Garden at about 6:00 PM. He has admitted that there is a cutting of date in the statement of SI Dalip Kaushik wherein the date 20.5.2007 was over written as 21.5.2007. Witness has also deposed that he does not recollect whether SI Dalip Kaushik had mentioned in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. with regard to the proceedings conduced at Ganda Nala Kishanganj/ Sarai Rohilla and SBI Tis Hazari. He has admitted that in the statement of SI Narender and ASI Virender Tyagi the date of dropping of the dead body of the deceased is mentioned St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 71 as 19.5.2007 and has voluntarily explained that it has been wrongly mentioned but it was 18.5.2007. According to the witness he had recorded the statement of SI Narender Singh regarding the proceedings conducted at Ganda Nala Kishanganj/ Sarai Rohilla and SBI Tis Hazari. (63) The witness has denied the suggestion that the accused was never produced in the court of Ld. MM and had only been taken to Tagore Garden Office of Spl. Staff after producing him in the media and no remand had been taken or that no sample specimen handwriting of the accused had been taken in the court. He has also denied the suggestion that there was no recovery of any motor-rickshaw, chopper / knives or body parts and clothes effected at the instance of the accused or that the same have been planted upon the accused only to workout the present as the police was under immense public pressure.
(64) The witness has further deposed that the accused while making his disclosure statement had disclosed that he and his known persons had taken Rs.1000/- and documents from Anil Mandal. He has explained that the statement of Ct. Vijender was recorded at Mortuary on 23.05.2007 and on 01.8.2007 he had recorded the statement of Ct. Suresh Gupta wherein he had wrongly stated that he had taken the photographs on 20.10.2006. Witness has further deposed that in the intervening night of 20/21.05.2007 at 1:00 AM (midnight) he had deposited the jamatalashi with MHC(M) Hari Nagar and one paper which was the part of the jamatalashi was containing 20-30 phone numbers. He does not recollect as to how many names of the persons were written on that paper nor does he recollect as to whether any phone number of the relative of accused was written on that paper or not. He has denied the suggestion that the seizure memo of the paper containing telephone numbers Ex.PW22/Z8 was in fact prepared in advance on 20.05.2007 and later on the date was St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 72 changed to 28.05.2007 only to plant the said paper on the accused and implicate him. He is unable to tell whether the rickshaw shown in Ex.PW22/DX2 (copy of the newspaper report of Metro Now dated 02.06.2007) encircled X is the same rickshaw which was got recovered by the accused and has voluntarily explained that the rickshaw appeared to be similar to this but he was not sure if it is the same rickshaw or not. Witness has also deposed that the seal on the choppers/ knives shown in the photograph copy of which is Ex.PW22/DX3 (copy of the newspaper report of Metro Now dated 02.06.2007) encircled Y does not belongs to him and has voluntarily explained that the seal was of NK. He has also deposed that he can identify the accused in the photograph Ex.PW22/DX4 (copy of the newspaper Jansatta dated 22.05.2007) encircled at point X but he cannot tell the place where it was taken and has voluntarily explained that officials of the special staff are visible in the photograph. According to the witness, he had never gone to Haiderpur premises prior to 20.05.2007 and after 20.05.2007 except on one occasion on 13.09.2007 while investigating case FIR No. 243/07 for preparing the site plan. Witness has denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely at the instance of his senior officers only to ensure penal consequences to the accused as they had not been successful in apprehended the actual culprit. Witness has denied the suggestion that the various incriminating articles have been planted upon the accused only to work out the present case and to secure a credit for the same or that he was deposing falsely.
(65) Pursuant to further investigations and filing of the supplementary charge sheet in the present case, Inspector Sunder Singh (PW22) was again recalled for further examination wherein he has deposed that since the main challan has already been filed in this case on St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 73 16.08.2007 and the further investigations were continuing to ascertain the identity of the decapitated dead body which the accused had disclosed during his interrogation dated 20.5.2007, was of one Amit wherein he had also disclosed that the deceased Anil Mandal @ Amit was his associate who was a resident of Bhagalpur Bihar and that due to some dispute between him and deceased Anil Mandal @ Amit, he had severed his neck from the body and his body without neck was left by him in front of the Gate No. 3 of Tihar Jail whereas he had thrown his head at Lal Bagh in the area of Chowki, Loni which skull could not be recovered. According to Inspector Sunder Singh, on 23.05.2007 the accused Chandrakant had got recovered a skull and jaw from the banks of river Yamuna which were seized and deposited in mortuary DDU hospital which Chanderkant Jha had disclosed belonged to Dalip. Inspector Sunder Singh has further deposed that on 11.06.2007 he handed over the original documents relating to FIR No. 279/07 Police Station Hari Nagar to Inspector Ombir which were seized by him. He has deposed that on 21.07.2007 he had met Inspector Ombir and Inspector Sukesh Singh, SHO Police Station Hari Nagar wherein it was decided that the DNA/biology analysis would be got conducted by Inspector Ombir Singh and hence when the samples of Hari Singh and Saroj Devi the alleged parents of one Anil Mandal @ Amit Mandal the witnesses in FIR No.195/06 of Police Station Lakhnor, Bihar, were got matched with the decapitated body of the victim, they were found to be not matching with that of the decapitated body and hence it was concluded that the decapitated body recovered on 20.10.2006 did not belong to this Anil Mandal @ Amit Mandal who was the son of Hari Singh and Saroj Devi. The witness has stated that thereafter he was transferred from the Police Station and further investigations of this case St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 74 was handed over to Inspector Ombir Singh and he handed over the case file to MHC(R).
(66) In his further cross-examination by the accused, the witness has deposed that he is not aware if a telephone call was received from one Mukesh Tiwari at Police Station Hari Nagar on 20.10.2006 at 7:05 AM informing the Duty Officer that he had thrown a dead body at Tihar Jail. According to him, Inspector Hoshiyar Singh intimated that one telephone call was received by him from land phone line no. 25993011. He has admitted that Inspector Hoshiyar Singh had stated in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. that criminal had telephoned him and informed him that he (criminal) was arrested in a case under Arms Act on 30.9.2006 and he was released on 3.10.2006. Witness has further deposed that in this regard fact was not verified as no name and details of the criminal was known and at the time of arrest of the accused Chandra Kant Jha on 20.05.2007 the above fact was not verified. According to him with regard to first information received at 7.05AM on 20.10.2006 lodged vide DD No.7A at Police Station Hari Nagar was also verified by him and it was found that the telephone was made from Nangal Raya. Witness has further deposed that he reached there at about 5.00 PM on the same day and found one Mr. Tanwar at that STD booth who was found to be drunk, therefore he could not give him the relevant information and this fact was mentioned in his case diary. He does not recollect the telephone number of that STD booth at Nanagal Raya and has explained that he had gone to the STD booth alone in a TATA 407 driven by Ct. Krishan and that they came to know about the number of STD booth from PCR. He does not recollect as to how many locks were there on the door of the room of the accused at Haiderpur but states that it might be that there was one lock on the door of the said room. Witness St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 75 has admitted that two locks are shown in the photograph Ex.PW22/Z-14 to Ex.PW22/Z-A-30. Witness has also admitted that the accused is shown in the photograph Ex.PW22/DX-5 wearing white T Shirt and blue coloured payjami. He does not recollect as to whether recovered knives were covered with handkerchief or paper and has voluntarily explained that these were kept on the floor. He is unable to tell specifically as to what scrap was lying near the knives in encircle on the photograph Ex.PW22/Z-14 to Ex.PW22/ZA-30. According to the witness, the accused has told him in his disclosure statement that one nunchaku is lying in the room at Haiderpur before reaching there and that one blue jeans pant is lying in the room at Haiderpur. He has also deposed that he recorded the disclosure statement of accused at Alipur and has voluntarily explained that he does not remember whether the fact of pant was disclosed by the accused or not at Alipur. He has denied the suggestion that he had got the photograph taken of the pant hanging in the room specifically. Witness has also explained that the accused had himself disclosed about the blue colour jeans pant as belonging to one of the deceased but he did not make any inquiries from the accused with regard to the pant hanging on the wall as shown in the photograph nor the accused told him about the same. He is unable to tell the place where the photograph Ex.PW22/DX-6 was taken. He has admitted that photography of nunchaku could not be conducted as it was got recovered from "Taand". He has denied the suggestion that the nunchaku was not present at the house of the accused or that it was planted after it was fetched by Ct. Vijender on his instructions or that due to this reason that the nunchaku has not been reflected in any of the photographs. He has testified that the pullanda of the nunchaku was made in the room itself and the accused has himself disclosed about the mobile as belonging to St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 76 one of the deceased. According to the witness, he further asked the accused about the mobile to which the accused stated that he did not remember nor he is aware as to when and by whom Pankaj, brother of deceased Upender was called. Witness has further deposed that he made enquiry regarding one Nagpal at Azadpur but he does not remember the date nor he recollects if someone had accompanied him at the time of making enquiries from Nagpal. He has testified that he had given the information to the Duty Officer of Police Station Hari Nagar on 20.05.2007 regarding apprehension of the accused at about 4.00PM and the information was given to the Duty Officer from the area of Alipur. Witness has further deposed that he had not given the complete information regarding the detailed disclosure of the accused but only given the gist of the same to ASI Bal Kishan. Witness has admitted that the accused Chander Kant Jha is original native of Bihar. He has denied the suggestion that nothing incriminating was recovered from or at the instance of the accused or that the disclosure statement of the accused recorded by him time to time was recorded of his own or that accused did not disclosed anything or that no information was given by him to ASI Balkishan on telephone on 20.05.2007 or that the same was fabricated at police station.
(67) This witness Inspector Sunder Singh (PW22) was again recalled for additional examination pursuant to the application of Ld. Addl. PP for the State, under Section 311 Cr. P.C. wherein the witness has deposed that on 20.05.2007 he had arrested the accused Chander Kant Jha and from his personal search Ex.PW22/J one mobile make TATA SAMSUNG was recovered having ESSN No. 8562-A099 and having SIM of TATA INDICOM No. 9211463742 in respect of which the CDRs which are Ex.PW22/Z16 collectively (running into 18 single St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 77 pages) and mobile number 9211463743 CDR of which is Ex.PW22/Z17 collectively (running into twenty single pages). The witness has testified that the CDR of mobile number 9211541254 which reported to be in the name of one person namely Dalip who is still missing is Ex.PW22/Z18 collectively (running into six single pages); location chart of the mobile make TATA is Ex.PW22/Z19 (running into 18 single pages) and Certificate U/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act in respect of mobile No. 9211463742 and number 9211463743 is Ex.PW22/Z20 with the relevant locations. Witness has also deposed that the mobile number 9211463742 was used in mobile having ESN No. 8562A09A,which was used and shown as marked X1 to X3 in Ex.PW22/Z-16; the SIM number 9211463742 was also used in ESN No. 8781 FA 97 which is marked as X4 and at point X-5 on Ex.PW22/Z-16. According to the witness, the ESN number and the SIM number were ascertained only after the CDRs were obtained and the number mentioned on the SIM i.e. 8562A099 and the number mentioned in the CDR is the same thereby establishing that the CDRs pertained to the SIM recovered from the mobile used by accused Chander Kant Jha. The witness has correctly identified the SIM of blue color having No. 8562A099 was so recovered as a part of jamatalashi/ personal search of the accused which SIM is Ex.P28. According to the witness, the memo of the telephone numbers found on the wall of the room in premises number A-229, Haiderpur was prepared which is Ex.PW22/Q shows at point X that above numbers i.e 9211463742 and 9211463743 were duly encircled. He has clarified that the memo had been prepared by him after the photograph of the wall was taken and is in the same position in which the numbers were written on the wall. He has testified that during the investigations, it was revealed that both the SIMs i.e 9211463742 and 9211463743 were used in the St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 78 same mobile set bearing ESN No. 8562A099 so recovered from the personal search of accused Chander Kant Jha. He has further deposed that the accused Chander Kant Jha also got recovered another mobile make TATA INDICOM having ESN No. 8781FA97 seized vide memo Ex.PW22/P which mobile set has also been used while operating on SIM No. 9211463742 as indicated in the CDRs. The witness has identified the mobile phone TATA SAMSUNG which is Ex.P27 having number A3LSCHS109 and another mobile which is Ex.P22 (TATA INDICOM) bearing ESN No. 07981C4F and PCC number 2682840208 bearing SIM No. 8781FA97 and the CDR already exhibited showing ESN No. 8781FA97 establishing that the SIM was being used in the above set. He has also deposed that the seizure memo of telephone numbers recovered in jamatalashi Ex.PW22/Z9 show that many of the numbers which are also reflected in the various CDRs of the numbers being used by the accused. According to the accused, in the jamatalashi of the accused some of the papers were recovered and the relevant photocopy of Jamatalashi is Ex.PW22/Z-9 reflecting the name of Pankaj R/o Bhiwari and other mobile numbers which are mentioned in the CDR of both the mobile bearing numbers 9211463742 and 9211463743 as per call detail Ex.PW22/Z16. He has testified that on 30.04.2007 one call from Bhiwari was made to the mobile number 9211463742 which is marked X-6 and on 17.05.2007 another call from Bhiwari was made to the mobile no. 9211463742 at point marked X-7. The witness has further deposed that from Bhiwari, Rajasthan, calls were made on mobile bearing number 9211463743 which is marked Y-1, Y-2, Y-3 and Y-4 which calls were made by Pankaj to the mobile set of accused Chandrakant Jha for talking with his brother Upender from the STD Booths at Bhiwari (Rajasthan). He has further deposed that as per Cell St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 79 ID Location chart the user of the mobile number 9211463742 and call detail chart dated 24 and 25 April 2007 which is marked as Z-1 to Z-6 at page 11 of Ex.PW22/Z-16, the user starts from Alipur and reach Sector 13 Rohini subsequently Kashmere Gate, then Tukmirpur (Shahdara), Model Town and return to Alipur and on the same night. According to him as per disclosure statement of the accused Chandra Kant, he killed the victim Upender at Haiderpur, dropped his headless dead body at Tihar Jail subsequently he moved towards Tis Hazari Courts and threw the hand of Upender and then he moved towards Yamuna and dropped the head of Upender and subsequently he reached Lalbagh (Loni) area and dropped the hand of Upender and then returned to Alipur and the parts of the body recovered on the same day. (68) In his cross examination the witness has deposed that no finger prints were lifted from the mobile Ex.P27 recovered in the personal search of the accused and has voluntarily explained that attempt was made to lift the chance prints from the mobile phone got recovered by the accused at his house at Haiderpur. He has denied the suggestion that chance prints from the mobile which was recovered from the personal search of the accused was deliberately not lifted as it was not recovered from the possession of the accused. According to him, as per the call details record, the location of the mobile number 9211463742 was in the area of Alipur on 19.05.2007 through out the day and the details of 20.05.2007 onwards are not available in the CDR and therefore he is unable to tell the location on 20.05.2007. Witness has further deposed that on 24.04.2007 the location of the mobile No. 9211463742 is shown to be at Alipur from 5:50 to 8:40 PM and thereafter at sector 13 Rohini on 25.04.2007 at 6:18 AM and at 8:26 AM at Kashmere Gate and at 10:26 to 13:40 at Shadara and thereafter at Model Town at 18:21 and at St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 80 Alipur at 18:46. He has testified that they had not examined Rahul Jain and has voluntarily explained that his address was found to be fake. He has denied the suggestion that the mobile phone belongs to Rahul Jain and in order to save him he has been wrongly shown as the user and Rahul Jain has been withheld from the court. According to the witness, they have checked the address given in the customer application form supported by address proof and has voluntarily explained that the investigations with regard to the address was made by Inspector Ombir Singh and the address was found to be non existing. He has also deposed that he came to know about the aforesaid from Inspector Ombir Singh as they were regularly discussing about the investigations in the connected cases and used to share information. He has admitted that he has no personal knowledge if the address of Rahul Jain in existing or not existing and has voluntarily explained that he was deposing on the basis of what was told by Inspector Ombir Singh. According to the witness, he personally did not carry out investigations in respect of two mobile numbers 9891271886 and 9312804827 of Upender which was mentioned on the wall of the room i.e. scene of crime at Haiderpur. He has denied the suggestion that accused was not produced before the court of Ld. MM on 26.06.2007.
(69) ASI Virender Tyagi (PW23), Inspector Dalip Kaushik (PW24) and SI Narender (PW32), who were all members of the Special Staff, West District headed by Inspector Sunder Singh (PW22) and had joined the investigations on various dated from 20.05.2007 to 25.5.2007 and have in their respective testimonies corroborated what has been earlier deposed by Inspector Sunder Singh. HC Vijender Singh (PW19) was also a member of the Special Staff, West District, and had joined the investigations on 23.5.2007 along with Inspector Sunder Singh and has St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 81 in his testimony corroborated what has been stated by other members of the police party as herein above.
(70) ASI Virender Tyagi (PW23), SI Narender (PW32) and Inspector Dalip (24) have all proved having joined the investigations on 20.5.2007. They have proved that on 20.5.2007 they along with Inspector Sunder Singh, SI Jarnail Singh, I/C PP Mianwali Nagar, SI Jai Parkash of Police Station Nangloi and other staff, left in a government vehicle Tata 407 bearing registration no.DL1LD-5031 alongwith driver ASI Prem Singh and on a secret informer they reached at Alipur, Delhi. They have proved the apprehension and arrest of the accused at Shivmandir Mianwali Nagar, Alipur. They have further proved the investigations conducted and the various documents prepared at Shivmandir Mianwali Nagar, Alipur, Haiderpur in the house of Mangal Sain Pandit. (71) ASI Virender Tyagi (PW23), SI Narender (PW32) and Inspector Dalip (24) have all proved have further proved the investigations conducted on 21.5.2007 at Kishanganj, Tis Hazari Courts and preparation of dossier of the accused, his medical examination and the Investigating officer having taken the specimen handwriting and signatures of the accused Chandrakant Jha in the court after due permission from the Ld. MM.
(72) ASI Virender Tyagi and SI Narender have also proved and corroborated the testimony of Inspector Sunder Singh and the various documents prepared by him on 22.5.2007 at Lal Bagh, Loni, Gaziabad, House No. 206 belonging to Ashok Mehta at Chowk Pipalthala, Delhi and at the house of Rajpal bearing no. 46/3, Sarai Pipalthala, Delhi, Baba Ram Dev Mandir, Railway Phatak, Shalimar Bagh at house No. 51 belonging to one Dalbir, Railway Phatak, Shalimar Bagh.
St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 82(73) Further, HC Vijender Singh (PW19), ASI Virender Tyagi (PW23), SI Narender (PW32) and Inspector Dalip Kaushik (24) have all proved the investigations and documents proved by Inspector Sunder Singh on 23.5.2007 when the accused took them to ISBT Flyover and banks of river Yamuna from where he got recovered one skull and jaw wrapped in a ghaghri of red colour. ASI Virender Tyagi has also proved that on the instructions of Inspector Sunder Singh, he had arranged and brought the search light to the spot.
(74) ASI Virender Tyagi (PW23), SI Narender (PW32) and Inspector Dalip (24) have also proved the investigations and proceedings conducted on 24.5.2007 at Mukhmail Pur nala National Highway No. 1, Shop No. 8226, near MCD Primary School, Swaroop Nagar, Gate No. 1 Tihar near Nari Niketan, Gate No. 3 and Central Jail, Tihar. (75) Inspector Dalip Kaushik (PW24) has further proved the investigations and proceedings conducted on 26.05.2007 and on 27.5.2007. All these witnesses i.e. ASI Virender Tyagi (PW23), SI Narender (PW32) and Inspector Dalip (24) have correctly identified the accused Chanderkant Jha in the court.
(76) ASI Virender Tyagi (PW23), SI Narender (PW32) and Inspector Dalip (24) have also identified the one white box having a skull and lower jaw as the same as recovered from the bank of Yamuna river at the instance of accused, the skull is Ex.P13 and the jaw is Ex.P14; one red cloth and one ghaghri as the same as recovered along with the skull which Red cloth is Ex.P15 and the Ghaghri is Ex.P16; one knife / chopper as the same as recovered from the room of the accused at his instance which is Ex.P17; one knife / chopper as the same as recovered from the room of the accused at his instance which is Ex.P18; one knife / chopper as the same as recovered from the room of the St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 83 accused at his instance which is Ex.P19; one nunchaku as the same as recovered from machan / taand of the room of the accused at his instance which is Ex.P20; denim jeans along with black belt as the same as recovered from khoonti from the room of the accused at his instance which is Ex.P21 and one Tata Indicom mobile phone as the same as recovered from Almirah kept in the room of the accused at his instance which is Ex.P22. In so far as HC Vijender Singh (PW19) is concerned, he has correctly identified the one white box having a skull and lower jaw as the same as recovered from the bank of Yamuna river at the instance of accused, the skull is Ex.P13 and the jaw is Ex.P14; one red cloth and one ghaghri as the same as recovered along with the skull which Red cloth is Ex.P15 and the Ghaghri is Ex.P16, having participated only in the proceedings conducted on 23.5.2006. (77) In their cross examination all these four witnesses i.e. HC Vijender Singh (PW19), ASI Virender Tyagi (PW23), SI Narender (PW32) and Inspector Dalip (24), have corroborated each other and also Inspector Sunder Singh on material particulars and there are no major contradictions. In so far ASI Virender Tyagi is concerned, he has in his cross examination proved that at the time of the investigations he used to carry and maintain a mobile bearing number 9873077071. The accused has also specifically put to him the news item published in newspaper Jansatta dated 20.5.2007 copy of which is Ex.PW23/DX1 but he has denied the contents of the same and the suggestion put to him by the accused that he was already in custody of the Special Staff on 20.5.2007. Further, in so far as Inspector Dalip Kaushik is concerned, he was involved in a case under the Prevention of Corruption Act and in his cross examination by the accused the said proceedings were put to him which he has admitted. He has also admitted that he was transferred St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 84 from West District to Special Cell / SB in the year 2008 but he does not recollect if it was vide order 16.9.08. He has further admitted that FIR No. 396/98 under Section 468/471/201/120B IPC was also registered against him and has voluntarily explained that this case was registered on the basis of a complaint before the Magistrate u/s 156(3) Cr.PC and has been quashed by the Delhi High Court. According to the witness, he was under suspension in the year 2010 pursuant to a case registered against him by the CBI under Section 7 of the PC Act and has voluntarily explained that it was a counter blast to an earlier case registered by him against one of the SHOs where he was a complainant and was motivated against him, which is still pending. He has denied the suggestion put by the accused that he had never participated in the investigations or that the accused has been falsely implicated only to workout the present case.
Witnesses of Mobile Crime Team:
(78) Ct. Rakesh Kumar (PW4) is a photographer of the Mobile Crime Team West District, Janakpuri. He has proved that on 20.10.2006 he was posted as Constable Photographer and on that day he along with Incharge SI Anil Kumar went to Gate No. 3, Tihar Jail and on the instructions of SHO Hari Nagar he had taken photographs of the dead body, plastic polythene packet, newspapers and he took photographs from different angles. Witness has also proved the negatives total in nine number which are Ex.PW4/A1 to Ex.PW4/A9 and the photographs are Ex.PW4/B1 to Ex.PW4/B9. He has not been cross-examined by the Ld. Defence Counsel and hence his testimony has gone uncontroverted. (79) SI Anil Kumar (PW9) is the Incharge, Mobile Crime Team, West District. He has proved that on 20.10.2006 after receiving the information, he along with his staff reached at the spot at Gate No. 3, St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 85 Tihar Jail where he met investigating office Inspector Sunder Singh, ASI Sukhdev Singh and SI Kartar Singh. He has proved having inspected the scene of crime and prepared his report which is Ex.PW9/A and photographer took the photographs. Witness has further deposed that on 20.05.2007, he was called by the investigating officer Inspector Sunder Singh and thereafter, he along with his staff reached at H. No. 329, Gali No. 29, Haiderpur Colony where he met investigating officer along with accused Chander Kant Jha (whom the witness has correctly identified in the Court) and Dr. Naresh of FSL, Rohini. According to the witness, he along with the investigating officer entered into the room, photographer took the photographs and the fingerprint expert lifted the chance print.
Witness has further deposed that three blood stained knives were lying in the corner of the room and various phone numbers were written on the wall. He has proved having prepared his detailed report which is Ex.PW9/B. (80) In his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel witness has deposed that in his crime team, there was one photographer, who was having his camera and the fingerprint experts had their own kit for lifting chance print. According to the witness, he started from his office at Janakpuri for Haiderpur at about 4:30 PM in the evening and the team was consisting of himself, one photographer and one finger print expert. Witness has further deposed that they went there in a TSR but he does not remember the auto registration number. According to him, they met the team of Inspector Sunder Singh at the corner of gali where house of accused was situated and Dr. Naresh Kumar was with Inspector Sunder Singh. He has further deposed that Inspector Sunder Singh was along with four-five police officials and accused but he is unable to tell their names. According to him, Inspector Sunder Singh was in civil clothes St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 86 and not in uniform and the other police staff members were also in civil clothes. Witness has also deposed that the accused was caught hold with the hand by the police and the accused was not handcuffed. He does not remember what clothes were worn by the accused at that time and he also does not remember whether accused was wearing shoes or chappals. Witness has also deposed that accused was unmuffled. According to the witness, he along with Inspector Sunder Singh and accused went to H. No. 329, Dr. Naresh Kumar also accompanied them and they had reached at the room of the accused at 5:50PM. Witness has admitted that he was Incharge of crime team and that prior to visiting the room of accused, photographer had taken the photograph of the entrance of the premises. He has also admitted that prior to entering into the premises, a photograph of the accused was taken while standing outside the house. Witness has further deposed that the photographer did not take photographs on his instructions. According to him when they reached at the room of the accused, it was locked but he does not remember whether there was curtain at the door of the house of the accused. He has also deposed that there was only one lock at the door of the house of the accused and Inspector Sunder Singh broke open the lock which door was of wood. According to the witness, the door used to open inside towards the room and the lock was put on a kundi. The witness is unable to recollect whether the lock was of iron or steel or brass and he also did not remember the shape of the lock. He also does not remember whether the lock was old or new and has explained that the lock was of medium size. Witness has testified that he does not remember of the system whether the lock was having key system, number system or button system and he also does not remember whether photograph of locked door was taken by the photographer or not. He has admitted that lock St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 87 was broken by Inspector Sunder Singh. Witness has further deposed that the lock was broken with the help of iron rod and does not remember whether the owner of the premises was called at the time or prior to breaking of lock, however accused was present. According to him Dr. Naresh Kumar was also present and the staff along with Inspector Sunder Singh was also present. Witness has admitted that photographer was having a camera and was also standing there. He has testified that one lock was broken at the door and he does not aware whether the broken lock was thrown or seized by the investigating officer. (81) The witness has testified that when police party entered into the room after breaking the lock, the room was dark without any light and Inspector Sunder Singh was the first person who entered into the room and who put on the lights in the room. According to the witness, he does not remember what articles were with Inspector Sunder Singh when he entered into the room. He has further deposed that first photographer went into the room after the lightening and thereafter, other members of the police staff and he was present when photographs were taken by the photographer. According to the witness, the articles were scattered in the room and the photographs were taken as per the situation of the room and no police official disturbed any articles of the room at the time of taking the photographs. He has testified that they had seen three blood stained knives in the room but he did not pick up those three knives and saw while standing. According to him, he had seen the blood stains on the knives in the light which was available in the room as there was a electric bulb in the room. He has deposed that all the three knives were opened, they were not covered with cloth or polythene. According to him Inspector Sunder Singh had written Chaku hathyar prior to taking photograph and all the three knives were not seized and sealed in his St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 88 presence. Witness has also deposed that he was not present when investigating officer lifted the earth control at the room and he did not see investigating officer taking out piece of cloth with blood stain. According to the witness, he did not remember whether any Nonchuck was recovered from the room. He has further deposed that he left the room at about 7:15 PM and first Crime Team left the room of the accused. Witness has admitted that photographer and finger print expert also left the room. According to him, the Investigating Officer recorded his statement on 20.05.2007 and also recorded the statement of photographer and finger print expert. Witness does not recollect if the Investigating Officer did not allow any other co-tenant or public person or owner to go inside the room during proceedings. According to the witness, he had filled up Crime Report form Ex.PW9/B which he had filled at the room of the accused and he handed over this form to the investigating officer. He has also deposed that he came to know that he was joining the proceedings in a case when he had reached at the room that is a case of serial killer Chander Kant Jha which fact was told to him by the investigating officer. He has admitted that when he had reached at the spot then he came to know about the arrest of the accused. Witness has also deposed that he had no knowledge on 20.05.2007 in the morning through newspaper or TV that accused Chander Kant Jha was arrested in this case.
(82) ASI Ajender Singh (PW10) is the Finger Print Bureau Expert in Mobile Crime Team, West District and has proved that on 20.05.2007 he along with SI Anil Kumar, Incharge Crime Team and other staff went to 229/2, Ground Floor for inspection of scene of crime. According to him the spot was pointed out by the accused himself to the police and the room was locked from the outside. Witness has also deposed that it was St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 89 broken and thereafter, they entered into the room and they examined the scene of crime and he tried to lift four chance print from the spot and after developing the same, the report was handed over to the investigating officer who recorded his statement. He has proved his detailed report which is Ex.PW10/A. He has correctly identified the accused Chander Kant Jha in the court.
(83) In his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel the witness has deposed that on 20.05.2007, they left the office of Crime Team, situated at Police Station Janakpuri and he accompanied with SI Anil Kumar, Incharge, photographer Ct. Suresh and driver. According to him they left the office at around 4 PM. He is unable to tell about the contents of his bag and the articles which were with the other members of the crime team. Witness has also deposed that they received the message from the Control Room to reach Police Station Hari Nagar and thereafter they were asked to report at Police Station Kirti Nagar. According to him they reached at around 5:30 PM at Haiderpur. He is unable to tell the registration number of the vehicle of mobile crime team. Witness has further deposed that Inspector Sunder Singh already met them at Kirti Nagar and Inspector Sunder Singh was with the accused Chander Kant Jha (whom he has correctly identified in the Court) and he directed them to reach at the scene of crime. According to them, they reached at around 5:30 PM and the vehicle was not able to reach at the room/house of the accused they walked down and reached after 15 minutes. He has further deposed that the police mobile crime team vehicle was TATA 407 and for the first time he had seen the accused at Police Station Kirti Nagar at about 4:30 PM and then at the room of the accused. According to the witness police staff broken the lock, but he is unable to tell the name of the said staff and he did not St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 90 know with the help of which instrument police staff broken the lock. Witness has also deposed that he had heard the noise of breaking of lock but did not notice whether any public person was present at the time of breaking of lock and states that the accused at that time was caught hold by hands of the police staff. He has further deposed that he is not aware whether police staff seized the lock or thrown away and at the first instance SI Anil Kumar entered into the room with accused. According to him, there was no light in the room and he does not remember that who had switched on the light. Witness has further deposed that when he had entered in the room he had seen the weapons i.e. three knives and they were lying in a corner of the room. According to the witness, he does not remember whether the above said knives were covered with any polythene or any handkerchief etc. and knives were photographed. Witness has further deposed that Ct. Suresh Kumar photographer had written with chalk after encircling the spot of recovery of three knives and he himself told other members of the crime team that there were blood stains on the knives. According to the witness, he examined the knives on lifting the chance print and apart from a bulb, photographer also light up his search light under which he examined the three knives for lifting the chance print. Witness has testified that there was no tube- light in the room and he did not see how and when the three knives were sealed by the police staff and he was present when police staff lifted the blood stains under the knife. He does not remember what other staff and crime team member in the room as he was concentrating on his job of lifting the chance print and he also does not know who lifted the blood stains from the floor of the room as he was doing his job. He has has further deposed that he is not aware who lifted the piece of floor containing blood stained and he had no knowledge whether any St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 91 nunchaku was recovered from the room. Witness has admitted that till the crime team was conducting the proceedings, no one was allowed to enter the room. According to him, he examined the room till 7:15 PM and chance print lifted from one Sony FM radio and from a mirror but both very blur. He is unable to tell whether the articles were lying properly or they scattered because prior to this he never seen the room and his statement was recorded on 20.05.2007 after 7:15 PM by one associate of Inspector Sunder Singh/ Investigating Officer but he is unable to tell the name of the police official who recorded his statement. Witness has further deposed that the form Ex.PW10/A was handed over to an official from special staff but he is unable to tell the name of said official. According to him, the details regarding the house number was told to him by Special staff, thereafter he inscribe the same in form Ex.PW10/A. Witness has admitted that the actual house number is 229 and has voluntarily added that due to clerical error the said house number was mentioned as 329. Witness has further deposed that he left the spot on 20.05.2007 with mobile crime team. Witness has denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely at the instance of the investigating officer or that he fabricated the record at the instance of the investigating officer of the case or that nothing incriminating were found at the said scene of crime.
(84) Ct. Suresh Kumar (PW14) is the photographer of Mobile Crime Team (West). He has deposed that on 20.05.2007 he along with SI Anil Kumar, ASI Ajinder, Finger Print Expert reached at the house of accused i.e. house No. 339, Gali No. 2, Haiderpur. According to him Inspector Sunder Singh met them with team at gate of house of the accused along with accused (whom the witness has correctly identified in the Court). Witness has further deposed that accused pointed out St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 92 towards his room of house No. 339 in which he used to reside and on the instructions of Inspector Sunder Singh lock of the room was broken. According to the witness, he along with SI Anil Kumar and ASI Ajender inspected the room and on the instructions of the investigating officer, he took the 19 photographs from different angles (negatives of which have been deposited in the FIR No. 243/07) during which photographs are Ex.PW14/A-1 to Ex.PW14/A-18 and negative No.7 was washout. (85) In his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel witness has deposed that his statement was recorded by Inspector Sunder Singh on 20.05.2007 at the spot at Haiderpur and on 20.10.2006 his statement was never recorded pertaining to this case. According to the witness he did not visit Tihar Jail on 20.10.2006 for taking photographs and on 20.05.2007 he started from his office at Police Station Janakpuri for Haiderpur. Witness has further deposed that he started with SI Anil Kumar, ASI Ajender and they had taken a TSR and they started around 4:30 PM. He has testified that he met Inspector Sunder Singh at outer Ring Road which leads towards Haiderpur and they went in a TSR to Haiderpur i.e. room of accused. Witness has also deposed that he followed the government vehicle in which Inspector Sunder Singh and other members of the team were sitting but he did not notice where accused was sitting when they reached at red light Haiderpur. According to the witness he had seen accused for the first time at the gate of room of accused on 20.05.2007 but he does not remember whether Dr. Naresh Kumar was with Inspector Sunder or not. He has deposed that he met Dr. Naresh Kumar at the room of the accused. Witness has also deposed that he was following Inspector Sunder Singh's vehicle in a TSR and the accused was with the team of Inspector Sunder and was caught with the hands. He does not remember what clothes were worn by the accused at St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 93 that time and he also does not recollect whether the accused was wearing shoes or chappal. Witness has further deposed that the face of the accused was not covered and he had taken the photograph of the main gate of the house where the room of the accused was situated. According to him the Incharge of his team was SI Anil Kumar and he had taken the photographs on the instructions of Inspector Sunder Singh. He has testified that they had reached at the room of the accused at about 5:50 PM. Witness has admitted that he had taken the photographs as evidence to produce in the court and on that day he had taken a total of nineteen photographs. According to him the lock of the room of accused was broken with the help of stone but he is not aware whether Investigating Officer called owner of the house or any other tenant of the room when the lock was broken. Witness has further deposed that he did not see Dr. Naresh Kumar at the time of breaking of lock and also does not remember whether he had taken a photograph of the locked room. He also does not recollect whether he was given instructions by the investigating officer of Incharge of his team to take the photograph of locked room of the accused. According to the witness, the door of the room was of wood but he does not recollect the position of the lock of the room and also did not notice how many locks were there at the door. Witness has also deposed that he did not notice any curtain behind the door and the lock was the system of lock and key and also does not remember the make of lock whether it was steel, iron or brass. He has testified that the door used to open towards the room but he does not recollect whether investigating officer seized the broken lock or not and had not taken photograph of broken lock. He also does not remember whether his team Incharge or investigating officer instructed him to take the photograph of broken lock. Witness has also deposed that it was dark St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 94 in the room when they first entered and investigating officer and his team incharge made the arrangement of light in the room. According to the witness, it might be possible at first instance for making arrangement of light 4-5 persons had entered the room. He has testified that he had taken photograph of weapons of offence (three in number) which was lying in a corner of the room without cover of cloth or polythene. He is not aware who had first touched the weapon of offence and has explained that he had taken the photographs and left the room. According to him in his presence weapon of offences were not seized and sealed. He has further deposed that he had written the description before taking photographs as shown in Ex.PW14/A-6. He is not aware of anything about sketch of weapon of offence and states that the floor of the room was broken by FSL expert Dr. Naresh Kumar and during this period the weapons remained at the place where he had taken the photographs. According to him Dr. Naresh Kumar broken the floor with the help of chheni/ hathora but he is not aware who brought the hathora and cheeni. He is also not aware whether the broken portion of the floor was seized or sealed nor does he remember exactly the portion of the room which was photographed at the last. Witness has further deposed that during their proceedings neither any tenant nor owner of the room was allowed to enter inside the room and he had photographed the whole scene of the crime. He is not aware whether any instrument of karate nanchak was recovered from the room or not and states the team of the investigating officer and his team did not shift any of the article in the room prior to taking the photograph. Witness has further deposed that the accused was present at the door of the room and he (witness) left the room after taking photographs at 7:15 PM. According to the witness, he never visited the room thereafter or prior to taking of photographs and he was carrying St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 95 whole kit with him. Witness has further deposed that he does not recollect the time when his statement was recorded by the investigating officer and he was given information that accused was the person who has kept the dead body at Tihar Jail gate. According to him he had seen the accused at about 5:15 PM and he had no information through newspaper, TV news or radio news that a serial killer has apprehended.
Formal Witnesses:
(86) HC Sushil Kumar (PW3) is a formal witness who had deposited the exhibits to NCRB, R. K. Puram. He has deposed that on 04.05.2007 he was posted as Head Constable at Police Station Hari Nagar and on that day exhibit sealed pullandas duly sealed with the seal of SSY containing newspaper in a sealed condition taken to NCRB, R.K. Puram, New Delhi vide RC No. 15.21.07 and deposited there. According to him, this exhibits sealed pullanda handed over to him by the MHC(M) Hari Nagar and sealed pullanda was not tampered during his possession and remained intact. He has not been cross-examined by the Ld. Defence Counsel and hence his testimony has gone uncontroverted.
(87) Ct. Mukesh Kumar (PW5) is a formal witness who had delivered the copy of the FIR to the various officers. He has proved that on 20.10.2006 he was posted as Constable at Police Station Hari Nagar and on that day he was performing duty as Motorcycle rider. According to him on receipt of carbon copy of FIR No. 609/06 U/s 302/120 IPC from Duty Officer, he delivered the same to Ld. Illaka MM, Joint CP and DCP (W) where he went on motorcycle No. DL1SN-5542 and departed from the Police Station vide DD No. 13A. He has proved that he delivered the copy of FIR first at Rohini Court to the Ld. Illaka MM, thereafter joint CP at PHQ and lastly to DCP (west) Rajouri Garden. He St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 96 has not been cross-examined by the Ld. Defence Counsel and hence his testimony has gone uncontroverted.
(88) HC Hari Ram (PW6) is again a formal witness who was posted as MHC (M) at Police Station Hari Nagar. He has proved that on 04.05.2007 HC Sushil Kumar took from him one sealed pullanda sealed with the seal of SSY with seal intact vide RC No. 15/21/07 dated 04.05.2007 to deposit the same Nation Crime Record Bureau, R.K Puram. According to him HC Sushil Kumar came back after depositing the pullanda and handed over to him an acknowledged copy of RC which is Ex.PW6/A having acknowledgment at point X. He has also deposed that on 31.07.2007 he was posted as MHC(M) Police Station Hari Nagar when HC Banney Singh collected from him five pullandas and two sample seals, out of these five pullandas three were having the seal of SSY, one pullanda was having the seal of NCRB and the fifth was having the seal of DFMT DDU Hospital. According to the witness the sample seals were of DFMT DDU hospital and of NCRB and HC Banney Singh collected the above articles vide RC No. 62/21/07 with seals intact to deposit the same to FSL, Rohini, Delhi. Witness has deposed that HC Banney Singh came back on the same day after depositing the above pullandas and handed over to him an acknowledged, copy of RC Ex.PW6/B having acknowledgment of FSL at point X. He has testified that on 31.07.2007 HC Banney Singh also collected one sealed pullanda sealed with the seal of DFMT DDU hospital along with its sample seal and FSL form vide RC No. 63/21/07 and on the same day HC Banney Singh came back after depositing the above articles with FSL and gave him an acknowledged of RC which is Ex.PW6/C having acknowledgment at point X. Witness has further deposed that on 10.08.2007 HC Ram Avtar collected from him two hand written pages St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 97 written on both sides marked as Q-1 and seven pages marked S1 to S7 i.e. the specimen handwriting of accused Chander Kant Jha vide RC No. 69/21/07 with forwarding letter etc. According to the witness, HC Ram Avtar came back on the same day and handed over to him an acknowledged copy of the RC Ex.PW6/D having acknowledgment at point X. He has proved that so long as the above articles remained in his possession, no one tampered the same. He has not been cross-examined by the Ld. Defence Counsel and hence his testimony has gone uncontroverted.
(89) ASI Bal Kishan Sharma (PW7) is also a formal witness being a DD Writer. He has proved that on 19/20.10.2006, he was posted as DD Writer at Police Station Hari Nagar from 12 midnight to 8AM and at 7:05AM on 20.10.2006, he received a telephone call from a person who gave his name as Mukesh Tiwari and gave him an information which he reduced into writing vide DD No. 7A, copy of which is Ex.PW7/A (which DD is to the effect that one Mukesh Tiwari had made a call to inform that he had kept a dead body at Gate No. 3, after which the said person started abusing him and also the police officials generally), which DD was given to ASI Sukhdev Singh for inquiry and the matter was reported to the SHO.
(90) He has also deposed that on 20.10.2006, at 7:20AM he registered DD No. 8A on receiving a call from PCR about a dead body lying outside Jail No. 3, Tihar Jail copy of which DD is Ex.PW7/B which was given to ASI Sukhdev Singh for investigation. (91) In his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel, the witness has deposed that his statement was never recorded by the police in this case and during his duty hours, Mukesh Tiwari called at Police Station two times firstly it came about 7:05 AM and thereafter, at about 8:45 St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 98 AM. According to him, at about 8:45 AM call, Mukesh Tiwari asked for mobile number of SHO Inspector Hoshiyar Singh and he is not aware from what place and from which telephone number, Mukesh Tiwari called him first. Witness has further deposed that he did not take any permission of Inspector Hoshiyar Singh before providing his mobile number to Mukesh Tiwari and there were no instructions from Inspector Hoshiyar Singh to provide his mobile phone if any person namely Mukesh Tiwari makes a call at Police Station. He has deposed that in his phone call, Mukesh Tiwari told him that he had thrown a headless body outside the Tihar Jail. Witness has further deposed that after one to two minutes, he called Inspector Hoshiyar Singh to intimate him regarding the call received from said Mukesh Tiwari. He has admitted that when he called SHO Hoshiyar Singh, initially his mobile phone was busy. Witness has further deposed that he did not talk to Inspector Hoshiyar Singh on his mobile phone on that day. He has admitted that as mobile of Inspector Hoshiyar Singh was busy, so he intimated Inspector Investigation Sunder Singh on his mobile No. 9811115185. According to him he did not record the above said fact in the DD Register. Witness has denied the suggestion that he fabricated the records at the instance of the investigating officer for his convenience.
(92) Ct. Babu Lal (PW8) is a formal witness who was posted as Computer Operator in dossier cell, Police Station Rajouri Garden. He has proved that on 10.11.2006 the Investigating Officer had came to the Dossier Cell along with a person namely Ram Babu Chaurasiya after which he prepared a computer sketch on the description told to him by Ram Babu Chaurasiya which is Ex.PW8/A. (93) In his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel, the witness has deposed that he does not remember the name of the investigating St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 99 officer. According to him, the complainant had not told him the name of the accused and investigating officer had not recorded his statement. Witness has further deposed that he had not joined the investigations at the later stage.
(94) HC Banwari Lal (PW15) is a formal witness being the Duty Officer. He has proved that on 20.10.2006 he was posted at Police Station Hari Nagar from 8 AM to 4PM and on that day at 10:30 AM SI Kartar Singh came to him and handed over a rukka for registration of FIR, which rukka was sent by Inspector Sunder Singh. According to him, he recorded FIR No. 609/06, U/s 302/201 IPC carbon copy of which is Ex.PW15/A. He has proved having made endorsement on the rukka which is Ex.PW15/B. Witness has brought the DD register containing DD No. 12A which pertains to starting/ reducing into writing of registration of FIR, attested copy of which is Ex.PW15/C. The witness has proved that DD No.13A in respect of registration of FIR and handing over the copy of rukka and copy of FIR to SI Kartar Singh for delivering the same to the investigating officer and special report was sent to the senior officers and Ld. Area Magistrate through Ct. Mukesh, driver of the government motorcycle DL-1SN-5542, attested copy of which is Ex.PW15/D. Witness has also proved DD No. 15A dated 20.05.2007 which pertains to arrival and departure entry of the police officials, attested copy of which is Ex.PW15/E. The witness has further proved that DD No.3A dated 21.05.2007 which pertains to arrival of the police party with the accused and deposit of case property with MHC(M), attested copy of which is Ex.PW15/F. (95) In his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel witness has denied the suggestion that the FIR is ante-dated and ante-timed or that he made entries in daily diary register ante-time and ante-dated or that he St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 100 was deposing falsely at the instance of the investigating officer. (96) HC Bane Singh (PW16) is a formal witness who had deposited the exhibits at FSL Rohini. He has deposed that on 31.07.2007 he was posted at special staff, Tagore Garden and on that day he was called by Inspector Sunder Singh at Police Station Hari Nagar. According to him, he reached there and as per his instructions he collected the exhibits, FSL form from MHC (M) for depositing the same to FSL Rohini. Witness has further deposed that he reached FSL and deposited the case property vide RC No. 62/21 and 63/21 and after depositing the case property he returned back at Police Station and handed over receipt of FSL to the MHC(M). According to him investigating officer recorded his statement and the sealed parcels/case property remained intact till they remained in his possession.
(97) In his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel, witness has deposed that he collected the sealed parcels of case property from MHC(M) HC Hari Ram and the parcels were intact and sealed. According to him some parcels were having seal of SSY, some were having seal of DDU hospital DFMT and some parcels were having seal NCRB and his statement was recorded by the investigating officer on the same day.
(98) SI Mahesh Kumar (PW18) is the draftsman who had prepared the scaled site plan of the scene of crime. He has deposed that on 20.06.2007 he was called by Inspector Sunder Singh of special staff west for preparation of scaled site plan of scene of crime then he along with Inspector Sunder Singh reached at near gate No. 3 Tihar Jail and near UTI ATM and footpath, in front of boundary wall of Tihar Jail. According to him, he took rough notes and measurements at the instance of Inspector Sunder Singh and on the basis of those measurements, he St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 101 prepared scaled site plan and handed over the same to the investigating officer which scaled site plan is Ex.PW18/A. Witness has further deposed that after preparation of scaled site plan, rough notes and measurements were destroyed.
(99) In his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel witness has deposed that he does not remember as to whether his statement in this case was recorded or not and he was called by Inspector Sunder Singh. (100) HC Bijender Kumar (PW25) is a formal witness being the driver of the official vehicle and has been examined by way of way of affidavit which is Ex.PW25/I (as per the provisions of Section 296 Cr.P.C.) wherein he has deposed that on the intervening night of 19- 20/10/06, from 8 PM to 8 AM, he was deputed as Constable (Driver) on the PCR Van P-33 of West Zone alongwith HC Nachhatar Singh. According to him, at about 07:20 hours, on 20.10.2006, a call was received on which he along with HC Nachhatar Singh reached at the Gate No.03 of Tihar Jail and found a gunny bag was lying. He has deposed that on opening, it was found to be containing a head less dead body after which the Incharge van had told the situation to control room (P-1) through wireless set. He has testified that they protected the place of crime and on arrival of ASI Sukhdev Singh and local Police from Police Station Hari Nagar, the spot was handed over to him and they had returned to their base. He has further deposed that on 20.07.2007 his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded by Inspector Sunder Singh I/C Special Staff/ West District, Tagore Garden, Delhi. (101) In his cross examination, the witness has deposed that he reached the spot at about 7.15 AM and the entry with regard to the same had been made in the logbook maintained in the PCR van. He has admitted that he had made entries in the logbook in his own handwriting St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 102 however, he has not produced the logbook.
(102) HC Ramavtar (PW26) is a formal witness who has been examined by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW26/1 (as per the provisions of Section 296 Cr.P.C.) wherein he has deposed that on 11.06.2007 he was posted as Head Constable at Special Staff/West District, Tagore Garden, Delhi when he was directed by Inspector Sunder Singh, Special Staff/ West District, Tagore Garden, Delhi to carry the fingerprints of the accused Chander Kant Jha along with a requisition letter 116/OPS Cell/West Distt dated 08/06/2007 to NCRB, Central Finger Print Bureau, R.K. Puram, New Delhi. According to the witness, on the same date, he had handed over the fingerprints of the accused Chander Kant Jha and requisition letter 116/OPS Cell, West District dated 08/06/2007 to Sh. T.R. Biswas, I/C, Central Finger Print Bureau, NCRB, R.K. Puram, New Delhi, and requested him to compare the finger prints of the accused with the chance prints if any found on the newspapers already deposited at their office on 04.05.2007. The witness has testified that Sh. T.R. Biswas, I/C, Central Finger Print Bureau had given him the result of the comparison along with a sealed pullanda stated to be containing newspapers and he had handed over the sealed pullanda in intact seal condition to HC Hari Ram, MHC(M), Police Station Hari Nagar and result of the Central Finger Print Bureau was handed over to Inspector Sunder Singh, who recorded his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. at his office at Tagore Garden. The witness has also deposed that on 10.08.2007 he was again directed by Inspector Sunder Singh pursuant to which he had taken the specimen handwriting of accused Chander Kant Jha, a handwritten letter found with dead body and FSL form vide RC No. 69/21/07, Police Station Hari Nagar to FSL Rohini. According to him, the Road Certificate was written by HC Hari Ram and after handing St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 103 over the RC No. 69/21/07, he obtained the receipt and handed over a copy of receipt of Road Certificate to HC Hari Ram. He has also deposed that thereafter Inspector Sunder Singh recorded his statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. in this regard at his office at Tagore Garden.
(103) In his cross examination, the witness has deposed that the directions given by Inspector Sunder Singh were in writing and he had made the DD entries/ Rawangi, when he had gone there and also the wapsi on his return in the register, but he does not recollect the number of the same. According to the witness, the results were handed over by him to Inspector Sunder Singh and the pullanda was given to MHC(M). (104) HC Hari Singh (PW27) is also a formal witness who has been examined by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW27/1 (as per the provisions of Section 296 Cr.P.C.) wherein he has deposed that on 20.10.2006, he was working as MHCM at Police Station Hari Nagar and on that day at bout 6 PM Inpsr. Sunder Singh the Investigating Officer of case FIR No.609/06, u/s 302/201 of IPC handed over him exhibits of above case as per seizure memo pursuant to which he made entries in malkhana register at Mud number 2987 copy of which is Ex.PW27/A and after entries in Malkhana register, he had taken back a hand written letter marked Q-1 and he had signed as a receipt of it. He has also deposed that on 30.10.2006, Inspector Sunder Singh (Investigating Officer of case FIR No. 609/06 PS Hari Nagar) had come to Malkhana after postmortem of victim and handed over the exhibits as per seizure memo to him on which he had made entries ad Mud no. 3004 which is Ex.PW27/B. He has proved that the case property related to FIR No. 609/06, PS Hari Nagar, remained in malkhana in intact condition.
St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 104(105) In his cross examination, the witness has admitted that the entry dated 30.10.2006 Ex.PW27/B does bear the signatures of the Investigating Officer and has voluntarily deposed that the signatures were present in the entry Ex.PW27/A. He has denied the suggestion that the entries have been made ante dated at the instance of the Investigating Officer.
(106) HC Hari Singh (PW27) was again recalled on the application under Section 311 Cr.PC for cross examination wherein he has deposed that the Investigating Officer had deposited a piece of paper containing phone numbers in the malkhana but he does not recollect the time. According to him, after 20.05.2007 the exhibits were sent to FSL on 30.07.2007 and were taken out from the malkhana. He has further deposed that the personal search articles are still lying in the malkhana and have not released so far and has voluntarily deposed that only the paper containing the telephone numbers were taken by Inspector Sunder Singh for investigation. He has testified that as per the record the papers were never taken by anybody and has voluntarily explained that only photocopy was got done on 28.05.2007 and the original was kept in the malkhana as the said paper contains a large number of telephone number and could have been helpful in the investigation. (107) HC Sohan Singh (PW28) is a formal witness and has been examined by way of affidavit under Section 296 Cr.PC which affidavit is Ex.PW28/1 wherein he has deposed that on 08.06.2010, he was posted as MHC(R) at Police Station Shalimar Bagh, North-West District, New Delhi and on that day Inspector Jai Singh, C&I of Police Station Hari Nagar, along with Ct Chaman came at Police Station Shalimar Bagh, Delhi for investigation of the present case FIR. According to the witness, he handed over a dossier with photographs of accused Anil St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 105 Mandal son of Tiwari Manda, R/o Jhuggi AA Block, Shalimar Bagh, New Delhi, permanent Address Vill-Ogari, PS Kahalgoan, District Bhagalpur, Bihar, prepared in case FIR No. 26/03, U/s. 25 of Arms Act, PS Shalimar Bagh, Delhi which was taken into police possession through a seizure memo by the Inspector vide Ex.PW28/A. The witness has also proved the finger prints contained in the dossier of Anil Mandal son of Tiwari Mandal, R/o Jhuggi AA block, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi which is Ex.PW28/B (running into two pages).
(108) In his cross examination, the witness has stated that the dossier Ex.PW28/A is the hard copy present in their old record of the year 2003. He has admitted that the dossier was not in his handwriting and has voluntarily explained that he had only handed over the same to Inspector Jai Singh through Ct. Chaman Singh. He has denied the suggestion that the documents Ex.PW28/A and Ex.PW28/B were fabricated record. (109) HC Nachhatara Singh (PW29) has been examined by way of of affidavit which is Ex.PW29/1 (as per the provisions of Section 296 Cr.P.C.) wherein he has deposed that on the intervening night of 19- 20.10.2006, from 8 p.m. to 8 a.m., he was deputed as I/C PCR Van P-33 of West Zone along with Constable (driver) Bijender Kumar. According to the witness, on 20.10.2006, at about 07:20 hours, a call was received through wireless of PCR on which he along with Constable Bijender Kumar reached Gate No. 03 of Tihar Jail and found that a bundle packed in gunny bag was lying. According to the witness, on opening it was found to be containing a head less dead body on which he informed the situation to the Control Room (P-1) through wireless set. He has proved that they protected the place of crime and on arrival of ASI Sukhdev Singh, Inspector Sunder Singh and local Police from Police Station Hari Nagar, the spot was handed over to him and they returned back to their St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 106 base. According to the witness, the logbook has been destroyed, therefore, he cannot produce the same and the certificate in this regard is Ex.PW29/A. (110) In his cross examination the witness has deposed that the call was received at about 7.20 a.m. and they reached there within two to three minutes. According to him, not many public persons were present when they reached there and but he did not make any inquiry from them nor their names and addresses were noted by him. He has denied the suggestion that the scene of crime was totally tampered by the time Inspector Sunder Singh and ASI Sukhdev arrived in view of presence of large number of public persons.
Other police/ official witnesses:
(111) SI Kartar Singh (PW1) has deposed that on 20.10.2006 when he was posted at Police Station Hari Nagar, he accompanied Inspector Sunder Singh and other police staff on a government vehicle to investigate DD No. 10B to Gate No. 3, Tihar Jail. According to him, they reached there at 7:55 AM and met ASI Sukhdev Singh and Ct.
Surender who were present there as there was some dharna of Bhartiya Janta Party. Witness has further deposed that ASI Sukhdev Singh and Ct. Surender disclosed to investigating officer about the recovery of a dead body in a bori / gunny bag found near gate No. 3, Tihar Jail on which Inspector Hoshiyar Singh, SHO Police Station Hari Nagar was informed who reached the spot and Inspector Sunder was directed to conduct the proceedings/ investigations. Witness has further deposed that Investigating Officer called the crime team and photographer at the spot who arrived at about 9-9:15 AM and at that time the said bori / gunny bag was opened. He has testified that he had seen a male headless dead St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 107 body in said bori / gunny bag and the body was tied with a rope and was wrapped in newspaper and except underwear, no other cloth was there on the dead body. According to the witness, near the bori, a blood stained shirt and pant were also found and the said bori containing the dead body was found from a tokri / basket. Witness has further deposed that suchlike tokries are used by the fruit sellers to place their fruits for the purpose of sale and a handwritten note on a paper was also found near/ beneath the tokri. He has testified that the dead body was taken out from the bori and was inspected by the Investigating Officer and he had seen the name "Amit" was engraved on the right hand of the dead body and a sign of "Bichhu/ Scorpion" on the left forearm of the body. He has also deposed that the handwritten note on a piece of paper was inspected and it contained some letters in Hindi and at the end of the page, word "CC" were found written. He has testified that the dead body was sent to DDU hospital under the supervision of Ct. Surender Singh. According to him, the Investigating Officer had seized the said blood stained newspaper and converted it in a pullanda which was sealed with "SSY" seal and seized vide memo Ex.PW1/A and the said written note was given number Q-1 and was seized vide memo Ex.PW1/B. Witness has also deposed that the Investigating Officer had also seized bori / gunny bag and plastic katta after converting the same in a pullands which was sealed with "SSY" seal and taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW1/C and the pant and shirt blood stained were seized vide memo Ex.PW1/D. He has testified that the blood stained earth from near gate No. 3, Tihar Jail, was kept in a piece of paper which was then placed in a polythene and converted in a pullanda. According to him earth control was also taken in a similar manner and both these pullandas were then sealed with "SSY" seal and seized vide memo Ex.PW1/E which seal after use was St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 108 given to ASI Sukhdev. The witness has further deposed that the Investigating Officer had converted DD No. 8A into rukka Mark A and handed over the same to him for registration of FIR on which he took rukka to Police Station Hari Nagar and handed over the same to duty officer who registered FIR mark B. According to the witness the Duty Officer handed over to him original rukka and copy of FIR which he had brought to gate No. 3, Tihar Jail and handed over them to Investigating Officer.
(112) He has correctly identified the case property i.e. tokri and pieces of plastic rope which are Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 respectively as the same which were seized by the Investigating Officer from the spot; one gunny bag / bori which is Ex.P3; plastic rope which is Ex.P4; two underwear which are Ex.P5 and Ex.P6; the pant and shirt which are Ex.P7 and Ex.P8; paper Q1 which is Ex.P9 which was seized by the IO vide memo Ex.PW1/B; newspaper of Dainik Jagran of December 2004, January 2005, Panipat Edition and Newspaper Punjab Kesri of January, 2005 Delhi edition and one plastic panni as these newspapers were used for wrapping the dead body, the newspapers are collectively Ex.P10; one plastic katta of white color bearing words M.H. Foam and taat bori as the same which was seized by the investigating officer, the taat bori is Ex.P11 and plastic katta which is Ex.P12.
(113) In his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel, the witness has deposed that he along with Investigating Officer Inspector Sunder Singh reached the spot. According to him they started at 7:45 AM from Police Station Hari Nagar and reached at about 8AM at Tihar Jail gate No. 3. Witness has also deposed that ASI Bal Kishan, Duty Officer after recording DD regarding information of keeping dead body and threat to police asked them (witness) to reach at Tihar Jail Gate No. 3. He has St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 109 denied the suggestion that when they reached at Gate No. 3, Tihar Jail, then ASI Sukhdev Singh and Ct. Surender were doing the investigation. He has admitted that both were present at the spot prior to them. Witness has also deposed that the gunny bag and plastic cover was packed when he reached there. He has admitted that blood was oozing out from the dead body. According to him, no private photographer was present there and the newspapers were seized and sealed at the spot. Witness has further deposed that Investigating Officer Sunder Singh had written the seizure memo of newspapers and investigating officer himself prepared the pullanda of seizing the newspapers. He has testified that the Investigating Officer himself kept the sealed pullanda and ASI Sukhdev Singh signed the seizure memo apart from him. The witness has also admitted that the sample of the blood oozing out from the dead body was also collected. Witness has further deposed that investigating officer prepared the sealed pullanda but he does not remember who had written the seizure memo of blood samples. According to the witness, the Investigating Officer prepared two parcels of sample mud and blood stained mud and two parcels were prepared with the help of polythene. Witness has further deposed that Inspector Sunder Singh himself prepared both the parcels and sealed and himself kept the case property with him. According to him, he does not remember as to who reduced into writing the memo of taat bori and plastic katta and has voluntarily added that some memos were prepared by him at the instance of Investigating Officer. Witness has further deposed that Investigating Officer himself prepared parcel of taat bori and plastic katta and he along with ASI Sukhdev signed the memo of taat bori and plastic katta as witness. According to him, the seal SSY was used on the parcels and the letter which was recovered was turned into cloth parcel and sealed St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 110 which sealed parcel was remained with the investigating officer. He does not remember as to who reduced into writing the seizure memo of the letter and the seizure memo was prepared at the spot. According to PW1, he along with ASI Sukhdev signed as a witness on the seizure memo of the letter and he does not remember as to whether he signed first the memos or ASI Sukhdev signed first. Witness has also deposed that the letter was of one page and the words CC was written on the letter and the contents of the letter were about the threat to the Delhi Police. He has testified that the letter was seized in the same form in which it was recovered but he does not remember as to who reduced into writing the seizure memo of the pant shirt. Witness has further deposed that he had seen the pant shirt at the spot but he does not remember the color of the same. According to him, the parcel was prepared and sealed with the seal of SSY and does not remember as to who prepared the parcel of pant shirt at the spot and has voluntarily added that as per directions of the investigating officer, some parcels were prepared by him and some were prepared by the investigating officer. Witness has also deposed that the seizure memo was signed by ASI Sukhdev and himself as witnesses but he does not remember as to whether he signed the seizure memo of pant shirt at first or ASI Sukhdev. According to him the sealed parcel of pant shirt was also remained with the investigating officer but he does not remember if the investigating officer took search of the pant and shirt prior to seizure. He does not remember if any paper was recovered from the pant or shirt and states that he remained at the spot for about 2 or 2:15 hours. According to him, he is not aware if duty officer ASI Balkishan telephoned to Inspector Sunder Singh on his mobile when he was present at the spot and his statement was recorded by the investigating officer at the spot. He is unable to tell the number of St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 111 documents which were signed by him at the spot and that there was information about he demonstration of the BJP near the Gate No. 3, Tihar Jail. He has also deposed that when they reached in front of Gate No. 3 at that time, the demonstration of BJP was not there. Witness has further deposed that he does not remember if any words were written on the right palm of the dead body.
(114) ASI Sukhdev Singh (PW17) has proved that on 20.10.2006 he was posted at Police Station Hari Nagar. He has deposed and on that day he received DD No.7A and 8A of Police Station Hari Nagar attested copy of which DDs are Ex.PW7/A and Ex.PW17/A. According to the witness, he along with Ct. Surender Singh reached at the spot i.e. gate No.3, Tihar Jail, Jail road, Delhi and found that one dead body of male without head was found in a tokri wrapped in pieces of plastic and taat (jute) bori and also having rope. Witness has further deposed that the plastic pieces were having words "MH FOAM" and blood was on the plastic pieces and also was flowing from the tokri at the floor on which he informed to the police station. According to him at about 7:55AM Inspector Sunder Singh, SI Kartar Singh and SHO with other staff reached the spot and mobile crime team was called at the spot. Witness has further deposed that they inspected the scene of crime and photographs of the scene were taken by photographer and when body was lifted one threat letter to Delhi police was also recovered and on the bottom of said letter CC was written. According to him the body was of dark complexion and its built was strong and one scorpion was engraved on the left hand of the body. Witness has further deposed that the body was having one underwear of grey color with the label of Amul Parag 85 cm. According to him two newspaper of Dainik Jagran of December, 2004 and December, 2005 of Panipat Edition were also recovered and St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 112 Inspector Sunder Singh took the exhibits and turned the same into separate parcels and sealed with the seal of SSY and seal after use was handed over to him. Witness has further deposed that after inspection crime team handed over their report to the investigating officer and investigating officer prepared seizure memos regarding the exhibits lifted from the spot and he signed the seizure memos of earth control Ex.PW1/E, seizure memo of wooden tokri/ basket, nylon rope is Ex.PW1/F. He has proved the seizure of the letter which is Ex.PW1/A; seizure memo of taat bori and plastic katta which is Ex.PW1/C and Seizure memo of pant and shirt recovered from tokri is Ex.PW1/D. Witness has testified that investigating officer prepared rukka and handed over to SI Kartar Singh for registration of FIR and after some time SI Kartar Singh returned back at the spot and handed over copy of FIR and rukka to him. According to him the investigating officer prepared site plan of the spot at his instance and dead body was sent to the hospital through Ct. Surender. Witness has further deposed that he prepared an application for preservation of the dead body for 72 hours which application is Ex.PW17/B and investigating officer made inquiries at the spot regarding identification of dead body and the person who threw the tokri in front of Tihar Jail. Witness has also deposed that investigating officer also inquired from the person of ATM booth near the spot but he informed that he had gone to attend the call of nature and in between somebody threw the same and investigating officer also mentioned word Q1 with red ink on the said letter after which investigating officer recorded his statement. He has correctly identified the envelope as the same which was recovered at the spot with dead body which is Ex.P9; one tokri and pieces of plastic rope as the same tokri in which dead body was kept and was tied with the pieces of the nylon rope, St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 113 which tokri is Ex.P1, pieces of rope is Ex.P2; the bori / gunny bag which is Ex.P3; the plastic rope which is Ex.P4; two underwear which are Ex.P5 and Ex.P6. According to the witness, one underwear was worn by the dead body whereas the other was kept on the neck part without head. He has also identified one pant and shirt as the same clothes which were lying near the dead body and seized by the investigating officer which pant is Ex.P7 and shirt is Ex.P8; newspapers of Dainik Jagran from December 2004 to January, 2005 Panipat Edition and Punjab Kesri from January 2005 Delhi Edition as the same which were used for wrapping the dead body and having blood stained, which newspapers are collectively Ex.P10; one plastic katta of white color bearing words MH foam and taat boori as the same which was used for wrapping the dead body and was seized from the spot, the taat bori which is Ex.P11 and plastic katta which is Ex.P12.
(115) In his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel witness has deposed that his statement was recorded by Inspector Sunder Singh at the spot during the noon hours and he does not remember the number of the documents which were signed by him at the spot. According to him, he remained at the spot from 7:20 AM to 2 PM and all the investigations was conducted by the investigating officer at the spot in his presence and seizure memos were got prepared by Inspector Sunder Singh. Witness has further deposed that he along with SI Kartar Singh signed as a witness and the papers were turned into the parcel by the investigating officer at the spot. According to him investigating officer himself prepared parcel of the blood stained mud and earth control and the seizure memo of the earth control was prepared by the investigating officer. Witness has further deposed that all the parcels prepared by the investigating officer at the spot and they were remained with him and St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 114 seizure memo regarding the taat bori and plastic katta was prepared by the investigating officer. According to him the parcel of the pant shirt was prepared by the investigating officer and its seizure memo was got prepared by the investigating officer, which pant shirt was recovered in his presence. Witness has further deposed that the color of pant was Jamuni (purple) and the shirt was of Aasmani (sky blue) color and he along with SI Kartar Singh signed as witnesses. He does not recollect if the pant and shirt were searched by the investigating officer prior to its seizure and the seizure memo of the letter was got prepared by the investigating officer. Witness has further deposed that the seizure memo of letter was signed by him and SI Karat Singh but he does not remember whether the parcel of the letter was prepared by the investigating officer or not. According to him he cannot admit or deny as to whether the parcel of the letter was prepared or not. Witness has further deposed that SI Kartar Singh reached at the spot after his arrival at the spot and the letter was of one page and nothing was written on the right palm of the hand of the dead body and has thereafter voluntarily explained that the arms were having tattoo. Witness has admitted that on the day of incident, a demonstration was organized by the BJP at Tihar Jail. Witness has further deposed that he was aware about the fact that many telephones were attended by Inspector Sunder Singh on his mobile and also cannot tell if the calls were made by the duty officer ASI Bal Kishan. According to him he did not call SI Kartar Singh at the spot. Witness has denied the suggestion that he never visited the spot as narrated by him in his examination in chief or that the documents were fabricated while sitting at Police Station or that he was deposing falsely at the instance of the investigating officer or that no recovery was effected in his presence regarding letter.
St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 115(116) Ct. Surender Singh (PW21) has deposed that on 20.10.2006 he was posted at Police Station Hari Nagar and on that day, investigating officer received DD No. 7A and 8A of Police Station Hari Nagar, then he along with ASI Sukhdev Singh reached at gate No. 3, Jail Road, Tihar Jail. According to him they found that one dead body without the head wrapped in the newspaper tied with the rope was found in a tokra / basket and tokra was kept in a katta / gunny bag with MH foam engraved on it. Witness has further deposed that some blood was oozing out from that katta / gunny bag and SHO and other staff also reached at the spot. He has deposed that on that day there was a demonstration of Bhartiya Janta Party. Witness has further deposed that investigating officer called crime team and photographer at the spot and crime team inspected the scene of crime and photographs of the dead body were taken. According to him the dead body appeared to be of 25-28 years and the complexion was wheatish (saanwala). Witness has further deposed that one hand of the dead body was having tattoo of Scorpio and the other hand was having the tattoo of name in Hindi i.e. Amit, the dead body had an underwear on it. According to him one hand written letter was also found in a polythene near the dead body and it was against Delhi police and word CC was also written on it. Witness has further deposed that investigating officer conducted investigation and dead body was removed to DDU Hospital in his custody in a tempo TATA 407. According to him ASI Sukhdev also reached to the hospital and got preserved the dead body for 72 hours and no body could identify the dead body and his statement was recorded by the investigating officer. (117) In his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel, witness has deposed that he reached at the spot at about 7:30 AM in the morning and crime team reached at the spot at about 7:55 AM. According to him St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 116 investigating officer did writing work at the spot and there were four officials in the crime team and they remained at the spot for about 30 minutes. Witness has further deposed that the crime team itself took out the alleged letter and he did not read the said letter. According to him he had only seen the letter and the SHO was going through the letter. Witness has further deposed that he cannot tell whether it was one page, two page or three page letter and states that the said letter was taken out by crime team member from a separate polythene kept with dead body. According to him a pant and shirt were also recovered near the dead body and he cannot say if the investigating officer checked those clothes. Witness has further deposed that investigating officer recorded his statement at the spot on the same day and he does not remember the time of recording of statement. According to him he does not recollect the time when he left the spot. Witness has denied the suggestion that he never joined the investigations of this case or that no proceedings were carried out in his presence or that he was deposing falsely at the instance of the investigating officer.
(118) SI Satender Mohan (PW31) has stated that on 23.5.2007, he was posted at Police Station Seelam Pur and on that day he had received information from control room that a human skull and some clothes were lying on the bank of river Yamuna. According to the witness, when he went there Inspector Sunder Singh and accused Chander Kant were already present and he noticed one human skull its lower jaw lying there and some clothes in a polythene bag and there was a red cloth and one ghaghri of a child. He has deposed that the Investigating Officer prepared the parcel of the human skull and jaw and sealed the same with the seal of DK. According to him, the parcel of the cloths was also prepared and duly sealed with the seal of DK. He has testified that the St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 117 skull and the clothes had been got recovered by the accused Chander Kant Jha. He has proved that the Investigating Officer prepared the seizure memo of the skull, jaw and the old clothes which is Ex.PW19/A. (119) He has correctly identified the accused in the Court and also identified the skull which is Ex.P13, human lower jaw which is Ex.P14, red cloth which is Ex.P15 and ghaghri of a child which is Ex.P16. (120) In his cross examination, the witness has deposed that he reached the spot at about 8:30-8:45 PM and found four-five police persons and accused present at the spot. According to him, the Police personnels were not in uniform. He has testified that he remained at the spot for about one and a half hours. He has admitted that there were no electricity poles or other source of light at the spot and there was only light was from the search light which Investigation were being carried. The witness has also admitted that the human skull and other body parts were already lying at the spot when he reached there and has voluntarily stated that they had received a wireless message from Police Station Seelampur sent by Inspector Sunder Singh of special staff Hari Nagar that some body parts and clothes had been recovered and some official from the local police should be sent pursuant to which, he was sent by the SHO. He has further admitted that the place from where the skull, jaws and the clothes were recovered, is an isolated place with not many people passing through that area. According to him, there is a motorable road about 500-600 meters away from the spot of recovery which is the nearest area visited by people. He has testified that the spot of the recovery was at the banks of the river. He has denied the suggestion that other human bones are also normally lying at the spot being an area where the last rites are performed by people and has voluntarily explained that the spot is not near the cremation ground and no last rites St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 118 were performed. The witness has also deposed that he had left the spot at about 10:15 PM. According to the witness in the present case i.e. FIR No. 609/06, his statement was recorded at the spot but in FIR No. 279/07, it was recorded at the Police Station Seelampur. He has denied the suggestion that he has deposed falsely at the instance of the IO or that he was a tutored witness or that he never joined the proceedings in the present case or in case FIR No. 279/07. He has further denied that he signed all the documents, while sitting at Police Station Seelampur. (121) Inspector Hoshiyar Singh (PW34) was the SHO Police Station Hari Nagar. He has proved that on 20.10.2006 at about 8:30 AM he reached near Gate No. 3 Tihar Jail as he was on official duty in an arrangement in front of Tihar Jail when in the meanwhile he received an information from the Duty Officer regarding a katta lying in front of Gate No.3, Tihar Jail from which blood was oozing out on which he immediately reached gate No. 3 where he found ASI Sukhdev Singh and Inspector Sunder Singh along with his staff already present there. According to the witness, the investigations were being conducted by Inspector Sunder Singh and he joined the same. He has further deposed that Inspector Sunder Singh also informed him that Duty Officer from Police Station Hari Nagar wanted to speak to him as he had received some information from one Mukesh Tiwari that he was the person who had dumped the said katta containing the dead body at gate No. 3 and wanted to speak to him and his mobile number had been given to him by the duty officer. According to the witness, he was also directed by Inspector Sunder Singh to leave his mobile phone open and after about 10-15 minutes he received a call on his mobile phone and the person who was talking on other side identified himself as CC who told him that he had thrown the dead body at Gate No.3 Tihar and had cut the head and St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 119 parceled it outside Delhi. The witness has testified that the said person asked him to give the number of DCP Sh. Manish Aggarwal as he wanted to speak to him at length since he (speaker) had been falsely implicated by him in an other case pertaining to Arms Act. Witness has further deposed that when he asked the person speaking on the phone to which Police Station the said case was pertaining to, the speaker refused to give him the details stating he had remained in custody from 30 th to 3rd and the persons at Tihar Jail were also not good "jail wale admi bhi thik nahi hai". According to the witness, the speaker also told him that HC Balbir who knew him previously and was in Central Jail, Tihar had also tortured him ("jayadti ki hai") and told him that he will confirm the number and give it to him on which the said person told him not to take the trouble since he will himself procure the number of DCP Sh. Manish Aggarwal. The witness has testified that he tried to engage him (the speaker) into further talk but the speaker disconnected the same. According to the witness, at that time he was having a mobile Number 987284644 and he received the call from the number 25993011 and after disconnection of the telephone he called back on the said number which was call was connected to one Ram Babu Chaurasyia who informed him that it was a telephone booth in front of Delhi Jal Board office, Tilak Nagar by the name of Mahesh Bhatia Viklang booth. According to the witness he disclosed to Ram Babu that he was Hoshiyar Singh, SHO Hari Nagar on the line and that he should stop the person who had made the call and detain him but Ram Babu told him that the said person had already left after making the call. Witness has further deposed that he passed on this information to Inspector Sunder Singh who was handling the investigations in the case so that he could interrogate the person from the PCO booth and further investigate the investigations and his St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 120 statement was recorded by Inspector Sunder Singh. He has clarified that his complete mobile number is 9871284644.
(122) In his cross examination the witness has deposed that ASI Balkishan was the duty officer from 5 AM to 10AM on 20.10.2006. He does not recollect if the said person Mukesh Tiwari had also made a call to the Police Station prior to the call which was communicated to him which call was at 7:05 AM. The witness was confronted with DD No. 7A copy of which is Ex.PW7/A after which the witness has admitted that the first call was at 7:05 AM which was received by ASI Balkishan and the second call was at 7:20 AM which was again received by ASI Balkishan in respect of which DD No. 7A and 8A has been recorded. Witness has further deposed that Inspector Sunder Singh had informed him about the call received from duty officer at about 8:30 AM and he did not make any arrangement to record the voice of Mukesh Tiwari despite the fact that he was told by Inspector Sunder Singh about the information received from the duty officer.
(123) On a specific Court Question the witness has replied that he does not recollect the make of his mobile instrument which he was using at that time but he was sure that it did not have a recording facility. (124) Witness has admitted that the said person who claimed himself to be Mukesh Tiwari told him that he had remained in custody from 30.09.2006 to 03.10.2006 and has admitted that the said person also told him that he had remained in custody about five - six months prior to this as well. Witness has further deposed that he had passed on this information about what was told to him by the speaker alleged Mukesh Tiwari and also gave the details to Inspector Sunder Singh of the custody period given to him but he is unable to tell whether Inspector Sunder Singh made the inquiries of the same or not and has voluntarily St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 121 explained that he did not make the inquiries because he was not the Investigating Officer. According to the witness, he does not recollect from which mobile phone he had called back on the number from the call had been received on his mobile i.e. whether it was his own mobile or it was some other phone and the phone was reverted back by her to the number from which the call had come after some minutes and has voluntarily explained that it may be after two-three or five minutes. He does not recollect if he had immediately made some call from his mobile to any other number nor can he tell the time when the first call was made by him from his mobile to any other number. He also does not recollect if after the said call he had made the first call at 10:54:44 seconds after receipt of this call. Witness has further deposed that his statement was recorded at Police Station Hari Nagar on 20.10.2006 in the evening time and he does not recollect if he had met Ram Babu Chaurasiya on 20.10.2006. Witness has denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely at the instance of Investigating officer Inspector Sunder Singh. Witness has denied the suggest that he was a planted witness only to work out the present case.
(125) Inspector Harpal Singh (PW36) has deposed that after transfer of Inspector Sunder Singh, the further investigations was handed over to Inspector Ombir Singh but he could not conduct any investigations in this case as he left the services therefore the investigations was further handed over to Inspector Jai Singh. According to the witness, Inspector Jai Singh made inquiries from CRO Kamla Market New Delhi regarding previous involvement/ criminal record of the deceased Anil Mandal @ Amit who found that the criminal record of Anil Mandal @ Amit was available in CRO. He has testified that Inspector Jai Singh collected the criminal record of deceased Anil St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 122 Mandal @ Amit from CRO, Kamla Market for the purpose of finger prints. Witness has further deposed that Inspector Jai Singh verified about the tattoo mark and mark of Scorpion on the shoulder and arm respectively and Inspector Jai Singh had collected the record dossier of the similar person as of Anil Mandal @ Amit from Police Station Shalimar Bagh which was pertaining to case FIR No. 26/03, Police Station Shalimar Bagh Under Arms Act. He has proved the dossier of said Anil Mandal @ Amit which is Ex.PW28/A having the photograph of Anil Mandal and the result of comparison of chance print found in case FIR No. 609/06 Police Station Hari Nagar was taken from Ravinder Kumar in which it was concluded that search slip of unidentified dead body and specimen left finger/palm/ palm prints slip contained in dossier No. 03/S Bagh/26 and 3063/NW are of the same person i.e. of Anil Mandal S/o Tiwari Mandal. Witness has further deposed that the said report is Ex.PW36/A bearing signature of Ravinder Kumar at point A and Inspector Jai Singh was transferred from the Police Station therefore further investigations was handed over to him and he received the case file from MHC(R) and perused the same.
(126) Witness has further deposed that on 29.10.2011 he went to village Ugri Police Station Kahal Gaon, district Bhagalpur Bihar and made inquiries about deceased Anil Mandal to which his parents informed him that their son Anil Mandal used to reside in the jhuggies at Kela godown Azadpur Delhi and was missing from last many years and they also informed him that the wife of Anil Mandal @ Amit namely Bharti Devi used to reside in the jhuggies Kela godown Railway line, Azadpur near fly over, Shalimar Bagh along with her children and bhua of Anil Mandal namely Paro Devi. The witness has testified that he requested the parents of Anil Mandal for giving the blood sample for the St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 123 purpose of DNA test in order to match the headless body of Anil Mandal on which Sh. Tiwari Mandal and his wife Smt. Madho Devi, parents of Anil Mandal @ Amit were taken to government hospital, Kahalgaon, Bhagalpur, Bihar and the sample of both the persons were separately taken. Witness has further deposed that on arrival at Delhi the aforesaid blood samples duly sealed with the seal of HPS were deposited in the malkhana and thereafter the same was sent to FSL Rohini to match the same with the DNA profile. According to him the DNA official has specified that DNA finger printing profiles could not be prepared due to non amplification of DNA and due to non availability of DNA profile for the source of Ex.2 and 3 no comparison of DNA profiles could be made with DNA profile of Ex.1 i.e bone piece-sternum vide PM No. 849 dated 03.08.2008. Witness has also deposed that thereafter he reached at jhuggi No. 45, patli gali, railway line, kela godown, AA block, Shalimar Bagh near Fortis Hospital, New Delhi where wife Anil Mandal namely Smt. Bharti Devi met him and he requested her to give the blood sample of her children and recorded her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. wherein she told that on 19.10.2006 her husband Anil Mandal had gone to Rohini Court and thereafter did not return and in this regard she had made a complaint to the police after which he (witness) collected the photocopy of the police report, which is Ex.PW36/B. According to the witness on 30.11.2011 he brought Smt. Bharti Devi and her son Vijay aged about 10 years, her daughter aged about 7 years along with bua Paro Devi at FSL Rohini and FSL official took their blood sample for the purpose of DNA test and he collected the report from FSL Office which is Ex.PW35/D. According to the witness, on the basis of the said report the identity of headless dead body has been matched with Anil Mandal @ Amit, S/o Sh. Tiwari Mandal, Village Ugri, Police Station Kahalgaon, St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 124 District Bhagalpur, Bihar and recorded the statements of concerned witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C after which he filed the supplementary charge sheet upto the investigations of matching of the DNA. The witness has further deposed that the further investigations remained continued as the head of the deceased could not be recovered and the DNA test of the skull with teeth recovered in case FIR No. 279/07 of Police Station Hari Nagar has already been done. According to him on the directions of senior officers the DNA test of bone piece i.e. sternum of the deceased was got done vide FSL report No. 2007/DNA/2849 on 31.07.2007. Witness has further deposed that on 26.12.2011 he made request to office FSL Rohini seeking report in this case, on which FSL has supplied the FSL report No. 2007/DNA/2804 and 2849 and as per the aforesaid reports the skull and the headless body were matched as of Anil Mandan @ Amit therefore he submitted an another supplementary charge sheet before this Hon'ble Court. (127) In his cross examination the witness has denied the suggestion that accused had never disclosed that the deceased Anil Mandal @ Amit was a person of criminal nature. He has admitted that disclosure statement of the accused do not find mentioned deceased Anil Mandal was a person of criminal nature. He has admitted that he did not investigate on the aspect of the facts mentioned in the complaint of Smt. Bharti Devi which is Ex.PW36/B that her husband was taken by one surety in Rohini court and thereafter he did not return. Witness has further deposed that he along with Vijay and Manda reached at FSL Rohini on 30.11.2011 after lunch and the fact regarding deceased been resident of Bhagalpur is mentioned in disclosure statement of the accused. Witness has admitted that he cannot tell all the districts of all the states in India. Witness has denied the suggestion that he himself St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 125 added word person of criminal nature regarding the deceased Anil Mandal @ Amit or that the suggestion that he manipulated the evidence against the accused at the instance of the senior police officers. He has denied the suggestion that he never went to FSL Rohini with Vijay and Manda on 30.11.2011 or that he was deposing falsely to implicate the accused falsely in the present case.
(128) Sh. Ravinder Kumar (PW37) is the Fingerprint Expert posted in Fingerprint Bureau, Police Station Kamla Market, Delhi. He has proved that on 09.06.2010 a letter bearing No.1135 dated 09.06.2010 was received from SHO Police Station Hari Nagar along with the dossier of one Anil Mandal son of Tiwari Mandal for comparison with the search slip bearing No. 50099294 which search slip was already available with them. According to the witness, he compared the above mentioned dossier and search slip and he concluded that the search slip of unidentified dead body (Tin no.50099294) and specimen left finger/ palm print slips contained in dossier no. 03/S.Bagh/26 and 3063/NW were of the same person i.e. Anil Mandal son of Tiwari Mandal. He has proved his detailed report in this regard which is Ex.PW36/A; the dossier of Anil Mandal which is Ex.PW28/A and the search slip which is Ex.PW28/B. This witness has not been cross examined on behalf of accused in any manner.
(129) Ct. Chaman Lal (PW38 ) has deposed that on 08.06.2010, he was posted as Constable at Police Station Hari Nagar and on that day he along with Inspector Jai Singh went to Police Station Shalimar Bagh, where Inspector Jai Singh obtained the dossier of Anil Mandal son of Tiwari Mandal Ex.PW28/A which was seized vide memo Ex.PW38/A. According to him, thereafter they came back to Police Station Hari Nagar and his statement was recorded by the Investigating Officer. This St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 126 witness has also not been cross examined on behalf of accused, in any manner.
(130) Sh. Rishi Pal (PW43), Addl. DCP West District, Delhi has deposed that on 27.12.2011 he was working as Addl. DCP-I, West District-cum-Public Information Officer and on that day he had supplied the information to Chander Kant Jha, UTP under RTI vide Ex.PW7/DX1. According to the witness, on 17.01.2011 he had issued the corrigendum with regard to the previous information, which is Ex.PW43/A. (131) In his cross examination the witness has stated that the corrigendum Ex.PW43/A had been issued after it was brought to his notice that the reply given to the applicant Chander Kant Jha was not in accordance with the official record and appeared to be incorrect. Witness has denied the suggestion that deliberately an incorrect reply was given to the applicant Chander Kant Jha in the RTI on two occasions i.e. vide Ex.PW7/DX1 and vide Ex.PW43/DX1 only to mislead him. Witness has denied the suggestion that he was filling up the lacunas in the case and has voluntarily explained that he is the Public Information Officer who had issued the corrigendum.
(132) Inspector Jai Singh (PW44) has deposed that on 20.08.2008 he was posted at Police Station Hari Nagar and on that day further investigations of this case were marked to him on which he had taken the file from MHC(R) and perused the same. According to him, since the accused had disclosed in his disclosure statement that the deceased Anil Mandal @ Amit, resident of Bihar was a person of criminal nature therefore he inquired this fact from CRO Kamla Market New Delhi regarding criminal record of deceased Anil Mandal @ Amit where he came to know that his criminal record is available in the CRO. Witness St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 127 has further deposed that he moved an application in the CRO to collect the dossier of Anil Mandal @ Amit, S/o Tiwari Mandal and when he perused the record, he found that the identification mark of Anil Mandal as mentioned in the record was tattoo of "bichoo" on the left arm and also noticed that this Anil Mandal had been held guilty in the offence under Section 25/54/59 Arms Act in FIR No. 26/03, Police Station Shalimar Bagh. According to the witness he thereafter went to Police Station Shalimar Bagh and collected the original dossier which is Ex.PW28/A and Ex.PW28/B vide seizure memo Ex.PW38/A which were produced before him by HC Shanshil in the presence of Ct. Chiman Lal. Witness has further deposed that thereafter he reached at finger print bureau, Malviya Nagar where he moved an application which is Ex.PW44/A for comparison of finger prints of unknown dead body found in the present case i.e. case FIR No. 609/06 with a finger print of Anil Mandal. According to the witness on his request the report vide Ex.PW36/A was given in which it was concluded that the search slip of unidentified body and specimen left finger/ palm print slips contained in the dossier No. 3/S Shalimar Bagh/ 26 and 3063/NW are of the same person i.e. of Anil Mandal S/o Tiwari Mandal. He has testified that thereafter he made efforts to trace the family members of deceased Anil Mandal @ Amit S/o Tiwari Mandal at jhuggi No. 207, AA Block, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi but they could not be traced and thereafter he was transferred therefore further investigations of this case was handed over to Inspector Harpal Singh and he handed over the case file to him. (133) In his cross examination the witness denied the suggestion that accused did not disclosed in his disclosure statement that the deceased Anil Mandal @ Amit was a person of a criminal nature. Witness has admitted that he had moved an application in the court of Sh. Sanjay St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 128 Kumar Ld. ASI Rohini for comparison of finger prints of deceased with finger prints of suspected for the purpose of identification, copy of which is Ex.PW44/DX1 running into two pages which is undated. Witness has denied the suggestion that the fact of the deceased Anil Mandal remained in Jail along with the accused is incorrect and his imagination.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED/ DEFENCE EVIDENCE:
(134) After completion of prosecution evidence the statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein all the incriminating evidence was put to him which he has denied. (135) According to the accused he was working at subzimandi Azadpur where there is a police chowki near the place where his adda was being put and the police officers from the chowki used to often come to him for taking vegetables without making payment for the same to which he objected but his vegetables were forcibly taken. He has further stated that they also used to take money from various vegetables vendors including himself as a monthly / protection money and initially they used to take Rs.200/- to Rs.300/- in the year 1990 but later on they increased the rate to almost Rs.2,000/- in the year 1995-96. According to him, after he got married in the year 1997 he could not pay them because of his increased expenses and therefore he was falsely implicated by them in criminal cases. He has further stated that in the year 1998, there was a murder in the Azadpur Mandi where the body which was recovered had been beheaded and the head was missing wherein he was also taken for inquires by the police along with other persons from the Mandi.
According to the accused, in the same year he was told by the junior officers to procure a bike for the senior officer and he was also told that he may not make the payment of monthly till Holi, on which he told them St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 129 that he could not pay as he had to go home on Diwali. The accused has further deposed that on this he was lifted from his house at Sarai Pipalthala before Diwali and was detained in the Police Station for five days after which he was falsely implicated in the said murder case which had taken place at Azadpur Mandi. According to him, the other boys from the Mandi who had come to secure his release namely Chhuttan, Jawar and his brother Sadanand were also falsely implicated. He has also stated that he remained in jail for three years after which he was acquitted by the court and after he was released, he worked for some days in the Mandi but the police again started harassing him and therefore in the year 2003 he left the job of sale of vegetables and started the work of sale of plastic items of domestic use which he used to sell in the weekly bazars and at homes as well. According to him, in year 2003 he shifted from Sarai Pipalthala to village Sahipur in the house of Dilawar Singh where he stayed till the year 2005 and in November 2005 he was falsely implicated in a case of scooter theft under Section 411 IPC by the police of Police Station Samaipur Badli and had to remain in jail till 17 July 2006. The accused has stated that he had secured a bail in that case when he was released in July 2006 and in the meanwhile his wife and children continued to reside at village Sahipur. He has also stated that he had to vacate the said house thereafter as his landlord refused to permit him to stay in the house on account of his involvements after which he shifted to the house of Sanjay in Gali No.6, Haiderpur where his youngest daughter was born in August, 2006. He has further stated that he could not afford the rent of the said room and therefore after two months during the Diwali of 2006 he started residing at Alipur in a house at Dayal market which was behind the house from where he was lifted by the police. According to the accused in the initial months St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 130 of 2007, he had gone to the court to attend a date and was appearing in the court of Sh. Prashant Kumar, MM, when he was picked up from there and taken to Police Station Hari Nagar. The accused has further stated that after his interrogation, he was left after a few hours and they also saw the room where he was staying with his family which he had shown to them. He has also stated that on three or four occasions he was called by the police from the room for purposes of inquiries in some murder cases and that they also took copies of the charge sheets of his other cases. According to the accused they also inquired from him about the details of the other persons who had been facing criminal trial along with him in other cases and he told them that his brother had gone back home. He has further stated that he told them that Mohd. Chhuttan had gone back home because of the Rojas and he had no links with Jawar Singh. According to him, since police used to frequently visit his house, his children were scared that he may again be implicated by the police and he told them that they would change the house and not inform the police and they need not be scared and therefore he changed the room and shifted to House No. 592, Alipur in the house of Dayal Singh Maan. He has stated that from the said house he continued the work of sale of articles of domestic use by putting a thaiya on his cart and also used to sell these articles in the weekly bazars. According to him, on 19.5.2007 in the evening while he and his family were about to take dinner suddenly some police official i.e. SI Narender entered the room and inquired about his name and after he disclosed his name to him (SI Narender) he called him outside and when he tried to speak to him, he was not prepared to listen. The accused has further stated that his wife Mamta also objected but in the meanwhile a large number of police officials came and lifted him and took him to Haiderpur. He has further St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 131 stated that later on, when his wife had come to visit him after seven days, she told him that even she and children and their neighbour Ram Sagar were also lifted and taken away. ACP Anil Lal and SI Dalip Kaushik were already present in the said vehicle in which his was lifted. According to him, in Haiderpur he was kept for hardly five minutes in the house of Rajiv Kumar who had come to the court to depose where they spoke to some person and said something to them and again brought him back to the Rajouri Garden Police Station where he was kept in handcuffs. He has also stated that throughout the night he was shifted to various police stations and large number of papers were prepared. The accused has further stated that he insisted that his family should be informed about his arrest where he was being kept but he was asked to keep quite and told that they would permit him to meet his family in the police station. According to him, in the morning he was shifted to the office of special staff where he was kept for ten days during the period of remand. He has further stated that he was not permitted to speak anything during this period and paraded before the media after they caught hold of him from all sides. He has denied having made any disclosure to the police or having pointed out any place. According to him, all documents have been prepared by the police of their own and he was compelled to sign various witnesses by torturing him and he had no option but to comply. He has stated that nothing was recovered at his instance and the Jamatalasi as shown by the police has been planted. According to the accused the police officers have all made false statements. He has further stated that he is a poor man and a victim of the police system and of the atrocities committed by them. He has further stated that he has been falsely implicated in this case because the police was under immense pressure to workout the various cases and it was only St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 132 because of his earlier murder case of Police Station Azadpur where a beheaded body had been found in the Mandi in which case he had been acquitted by the Hon'ble court, that the police in order to workout the later cases have now implicated him in the present case, with which he has no concern. He has further stated that deceased Anil Mandal was not known to him and he has no concern with him or his family and the question of his having any reason to cause any harm to him does not arise. He has alleged that all the documents so produced by the investigating agency have been created by the police to implicate him and when he was arrested, the police officials had given kharcha (expenses) for two three months to his wife and told the landlord not to harass his wife for rent of the house. According to him, the police also told his wife that she would not worry and he would be released after one to one and a half year. He has also stated that the police promised him that if he admit his involvement in these cases, they would leave him after about one to one and a half year. He has further stated that he has been targeted by the police being poor person.
(136) The accused Chanderkant Jha has examined himself as his own witness as DW1 wherein he has deposed that he has falsely implicated in the present case earlier in the year 2002 in which case he was acquitted by the Hon'ble Court and copy of the said judgment is Mark X1 (collectively). According to him, he was in jail in the year 2006 from 29th November 2005 to 17 th July 2006 and in this regard the RTI Informations received from Information Officer, Central Jail Tihar and Rohini are Ex.DW1/A and Ex.DW1/B. He has relied upon the news reports Ex.DW1/C collectively and has deposed that he was never produced in the Court from jail on 26.6.2007 and in this regard the RTI reply from Information Officer, District Jail Rohini is Ex.DW1/D St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 133 collectively running into four pages and the RTI reply received from Third Battalion is Ex.DW1/E collectively running into three pages. The accused/ witness has also placed his reliance upon the RTI reply received from Information Officer, Sh. Rishi Pal, Addl. DCP First, regarding his release in FIR No. 620/2003 PS Hair Nagar from the court, copy of which reply is Ex.DW1/F; the RTI reply received from Sh. B. K. Singh, Public Information Officer, Outer District, Delhi Police regarding his release from the court of Sh. Sanatan Prasad, MM, Rohini in case FIR No. 749/05 PS Mongolpuri, copy of which reply is Ex.DW1/G; RTI reply pertaining to the fact that SI Jai Prakash was not a part of raiding party on 20.5.2007, copy of which reply is Ex.DW1/H; RTI reply received from the office of Commissioner of Police, Delhi showing that he (accused) had never remained in jail with the Anil Mandal @ Amit S/o Tiwari Mandal, Village Oghari, PO Maijsa Munda, PS Khalgaon, Distt. Bhagalpur, Bihar, which reply is Ex.DW1/I collectively running into 21 pages.
(137) The accused has further placed on record the certified copy of judgment dated 30.10.2009 passed by Sh. Sudhanshu Kaushik, Ld. M.M. Rohini Court in case State Vs. Mohd. Vaseem etc. FIR No. 452/03, U/s 457/380/411/34 IPC of P.S. S.P. Badli wherein he has been acquitted, which judgment is Ex.DW1/J; certified copy of judgment dated 20.08.2009 passed by Sh. Sudhanshu Kaushik, Ld. M.M. Rohini Court in case State Vs. Chander Kant Jha, FIR No. 531/03, U/s 380/451/411/34 IPC of P.S. S.P. Badli wherein he has been acquitted, which is Ex.DW1/K; RTI information dated 24.08.2009 received from Superintendent Jail Tihar, Jail No. 8/9 which is Ex.DW1/L alongwith the photograph which is Ex.DW1/M; RTI dated 27.04.2009 received from General Manager (OP & CPIO) K.L. Bhawan, Janpath, Delhi which St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 134 is running into four pages which is Ex.DW1/N; RTI dated 26.11.2010 received from Central Public Information Officer-cum-Addl. Deputy Commissioner of Police-I, West District, New Delhi is running into two pages which is Ex.DW1/O. (138) DW2 Narender Rana Warden from Rohini Jail has brought the summoned record pertaining to accused Chander Kant Jha S/o Sh. Radhey Kant. According to him, as per the jail record, Chander Kant Jha was lodged in Rohini jail from 18.03.2006 to 17.07.2006 in the following cases:
1. FIR No. 1003/05, U/s 379 IPC, P.S. Shalimar Bagh.
2. FIR No. 1004/05, U/s 379/411 IPC, P.S. Shalimar Bagh.
3. FIR No. 452/03, U/s 457/380/411/34 IPC, P.S. S.P. Badli.
4. FIR No. 531/03 U/s 457/380/411/34 IPC,P.S. S.P. Badli.
5. FIR No. 531/04 U/s 457/380/411/34 IPC, P.S. Narela.
6. FIR No. 912/05 U/s 411 IPC, P.S. S.P. Badli.
(139) Witness has proved the detailed report of the Deputy Superintendent, District Jail Rohini which is Ex.DW2/A and the copy of register is Ex.DW2/B. (140) In his his cross examination by Ld. Addl. PP for the State, the witness has deposed that as per the record the accused remained in custody throughout this period i.e. 18.03.2006 to 17.07.2006 and was never enlarged on bail/ interim bail/ parole. According to him in case if an under trial prisoner is released on interim bail or parole an indication to this effect is made in the said register itself and has voluntarily explained that in the present case the accused had never been released on any interim bail or parole and only released on 17.7.2006. He has further deposed that the said endorsement is not made in the register which he has produced in the Court and in case if a person was on interim bail it is St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 135 mentioned on the warrant. According to the witness he has brought the warrants of Chander Kant Jha in respect of the above periods and there is no endorsement on the same to the effect that he had been ever released on interim bail/ parole.
(141) DW3 Mrs. Mamta is the wife of the accused who has deposed that she was married to him in the year 1997 in Delhi and she has five daughters. According to the witness, her eldest daughter is about 14 years of age who was born at Azadpur, Delhi and her youngest daughter is about 5 years of age. Witness has further deposed that earlier they used to reside at Azadpur after which they resided at Sahipur, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi, thereafter in gali No. 6, Haiderpur, Delhi and thereafter they finally went to Alipur. She has also deposed that her husband Chander Kant was arrested at the house at Alipur where they previously resided. She has testified that her husband was involved in the sale of plastic articles in the weekly market and used to leave for purchases at 10AM and returned by 3 PM and again used to go in the evening for sale of articles. The witness has further deposed that they used to reside along with their children i.e. five daughters in one room tenement. According to the witness, her in-laws did not stay with them. She has alleged that her husband Chander Kant was lifted by the police on 19.05.2007 from their house at Alipur where they were staying i.e. house of Sanjay and in the evening hours 10-15 plain clothes persons claiming to be police officials had come to their house and picked up Chander Kant Jha and took him somewhere in a car. She has further alleged that she along with her children and one Ram Sewak were also lifted and put in a jeep like vehicle and taken to some place which appeared to be Police Station / office. According to the witness, they were detained there for about four days and not permitted to meet Chander Kant and they were told by these St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 136 persons that Chander Kant would be released within one or two years. She has testified that they were told that they should continue to reside in the said house without even paying the rent after which she was left at her house from where she was lifted and was also given two-three thousand rupees. According to the witness, her room had been locked and hence they broke the lock and told him that she need not fear and should continue to reside there. Witness has further deposed that the behaviour of Chander Kant with her and with children had been good and they has no complaints and he has been falsely implicated. (142) In her cross examination by Ld. Addl. PP for the State, witness has deposed that her eldest daughter was born on 14.02.1998; her youngest daughter was born on 02 nd of August, 2006; her second daughter was born in the year 2003 and her third daughter was born in the year 2004. According to the witness, her daughter elder to the youngest was born on 19.03.2005 and her four daughters were born at home, only one i.e. the second daughter was born in the hospital. She has further deposed that all her children used to go to school and the date of births which she has given in the Court are the same which she had given in the school record of the children. She does not remember the year, but they resided in the house at gali No. 6, Haiderpur where her youngest daughter was born at home. She does not recollect the name of the landlord and states that there were only two rooms outside and has voluntarily explained that the landlord used to reside inside so she is unable to tell how many rooms were there inside. She has denied the suggestion that her mother-in-law had also come to Delhi and stayed in the house at Haiderpur and has voluntarily explained that she had come to Delhi when her husband was first implicated in a murder case, when she stayed at Azadpur where she was residing at that time. Witness has St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 137 further deposed that she does not recollect the year and states that thereafter her mother-in-law never came to Delhi nor her mother has ever come to Delhi. She has testified that she is totally illiterate and only put her thumb impressions. According to the witness, her husband used to earn about five-six thousand rupees per month. She does not remember the time period for which they resided at Sahipur, Shalimar Bagh and has voluntarily explained that the houses were started demolishing and thereafter on the asking of landlord they left. The witness has further deposed that at present her husband is languishing in jail in three murder cases and prior to that he was acquitted in another murder case. She is not aware if any other cases are or were pending against her husband nor she is able to tell the size of the tenanted room in which they used to reside along with her five daughters. The witness has admitted that there was one door to the said room opening to the gallery outside and has voluntarily explained that the room also had a window. She has denied the suggestion that there was no window in the said room or that she was residing in the room which was inside the building and has voluntarily explained that the room was outside and opened towards outside. She does not remember therefore she cannot tell any other date on which police took her husband in custody in any other case. The witness has denied the suggestion that the date 19.05.2007 has been tutored to her or that she has taken legal assistance prior to her deposition in the court. She has also deposed that she did not make any complaint on 100 number regarding lifting of his husband by 10-15 persons claiming themselves as police officials and has voluntarily explained that she was also lifted along with children and hence there was no occasion. She has denied the suggestion that she, her children and Ram Sewak were never lifted by any of the police officials at any time or that she in this regard St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 138 she deposed falsely since accused is her husband. Witness has further deposed that her husband used to go to sell the plastic articles in a paddle rickshaw. She has denied the suggestion that motor had been affixed on the said rickshaw. According to the witness, they used to pay Rs.600/- as rent in the house at Alipur and Rs.550/- in the house at Haiderpur. The witness has denied the suggestion that she has deposed falsely to save her husband from penal consequences.
(143) DW4 Sh. Man Mohan Assistant Superintendent, Central Jail No.1, Tihar has brought the summoned record pertaining to Chander Kant Jha S/o Sh. Radhey Kant. According to him, as per the jail record, Chander Kant Jha was lodged in Tihar jail from 29.11.2005 to 18.03.2006 in the following cases:
1. FIR No. 1003/05, U/s 379 IPC, P.S. Shalimar Bagh.
2. FIR No. 1004/05, U/s 379/411 IPC, P.S. Shalimar Bagh.
3. FIR No. 452/03, U/s 457/380/411/34 IPC, P.S. S.P. Badli.
4. FIR No. 531/03 U/s 457/380/411/34 IPC,P.S. S.P. Badli.
5. FIR No. 531/04 U/s 457/380/411/34 IPC, P.S. Narela.
6. FIR No. 912/05 U/s 411 IPC, P.S. S.P. Badli.
(144) Witness has proved the details of the prisoner Chander Kant Jha which are Ex.DW4/A (running into two pages containing his old as well as new photographs and record which photographs are admitted by the accused) and the copy of the register no. 1 showing the case details which is Ex.DW4/B (running into two pages).
(145) In his cross examination by Ld. Addl. PP for the State, the witness has deposed that as per the record the accused remained in custody through out this period i.e. 29.11.2005 to 18.03.2006 and was not on any interim bail / parole at any point of time and has voluntarily explained that thereafter, the accused was shifted to Rohini Jail i.e. after St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 139 18.03.2006 and his records are maintained there. He has admitted that on Ex.DW4/A name of accused is mentioned as Chander Kumar S/o Radhey Kant.
FINDINGS:
(146) I have heard the arguments advanced by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State and the Ld. Defence Counsel. I have also gone through the written synopsis/ memorandum of arguments filed on behalf of the parties and the evidence on record. I first propose to deal with all the averments made by the various witnesses so examined by the prosecution individually in a tabulated form as under and later on comprehensively.
Sr. Name of the Details of deposition
No. witness
Public witnesses
1. Ram Babu He is the person who was running the STD / PCO Booth at
Chaurasiya Tilak Nagar where the telephone number 25993011 had been
(PW12) installed. He has deposed on the following aspects:
1. That the above STD/PCO Booth is in the name of
Mahesh Bhatia, Handicap Booth.
2. That on 20.10.2006 at about 8:30-8:45 AM he was present on this booth when a person aged about 40 years came there and after making a call went away and gave him Rs 12/- for the same.
3. That after some time, he received a telephone call from Inspector Hoshiyar Singh SHO Police Station Hari Nagar on this number of the STD booth and Inspector Hoshiyar Singh asked him to catch hold of the person, who had made a call from his STD booth.
4. That since the said person who made the call, had already left the booth, hence despite his efforts to search for him, the said person could not be traced.
5. That thereafter he was called by the Inspector to the Police Station where he informed them about the detail description of the caller.
6. That the said caller was tall in height with brownish complexion and was using Eastern Hindi dialect.
Inspector thereafter recorded his statement.
St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 1407. That on 26.10.2006, he came to Rohini Court from where he was taken to Tihar Jail but was sent back from the Tihar Jail from outside itself.
8. That he had gone to Tihar Jail to identify the accused but the TIP proceedings was not conducted and thereafter he had identified the accused through his photographs.
9. That he also got prepared the portrait/ sketch of the accused on computer in the Police Station after which his statement was recorded by the police.
In the court, this witness Ram Babu Chaurasiya has correctly identified the accused Chander Kant Jha as the same person who had made this call from his STD booth on 20.10.2006.
2. Sanjay Mann He is the landlord of the house where the accused Chander (PW13) Kant Jha used to reside with his family at the time of his arrest. He has deposed on the following aspects:
1. That he has a plot in the village Alipur, Delhi where he had constructed eight rooms which rooms were given on rent to various tenants.
2. That on 10.05.2007 wife of the accused Chander Kant Jha (whom the witness has correctly identified) came to him with her children and he had given her two rooms in the monthly rent in the sum of Rs.600/- per month.
3. That he had seen accused Chander Kant Jha there one or two occasion but he never talked with the accused.
4. That three months prior from the day of his deposition the wife and five children of the accused shifted to another place.
The witness has also correctly identified the accused Chander Kant Jha in the court as the person who was his tenant.
3. Sanjay Kumar This witness is the private photographer and has deposed on @ Rajesh the following aspects:
(PW20) 1. That he is running a photo studio with the name and style of Sanjay Photo Studio at WZ-172, Titarpur, Tagore Garden, Delhi.
2. That he was called by the investigating officer to take the photographs at DDU hospital at the time of postmortem of the dead body without head on 30.10.2006, on which he took the photographs by his digital camera and after developing the photographs same were handed over to the investigating officer, which photographs were 22 in number, which photographs are Ex.PW20/1 to Ex.PW20/22.
3. That on 23.05.2007 he accompanied with the police party to bank of Yamuna and he took the photographs St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 141 of a skull, clothes and jaw which were recovered from there and after developing the same total 11 photographs were handed over to the investigating officer, which photographs are Ex.PW20/A1 to Ex.PW20/A11.
4. That he took the photographs at the instance of the investigating officer after which the investigating officer recorded his statement.
4. Rajeev Kumar He is the landlord of House No.229/2, Haiderpur, Delhi, (PW30) where the accused Chander Kant Jha had previously resided with his family on rent. This witness has deposed on the following aspects:
1. That he is a resident of House No.155, Haiderpur, Delhi and also owns property bearing no. 229/2, which was in the name of his grand mother Ram Kali which property is constructed with about 12 rooms out of which eight rooms have been constructed on the ground floor and four rooms have been constructed on the first floor, which have been let out on rent.
2. That in October 2004 he had rented out one room to Vikas, who was a resident of Bihar who remained there till November-December 2005 and after about 5-6 months this room remained vacant.
3. That in the month of March-April 2006 he on the reference of one Vikas had rented out one room to Chander Kant Jha who stayed there along with his family including his mother, who had come to stay with him for some time but later on the mother went away.
4. That he had rented out the said room to Chander Kant for Rs.700/- who had told him that he was working in Azadpur subzimandi.
5. That in the month of April 2007, the wife and children of Chander Kant Jha shifted to other place while the said room still contained some articles and belongings of Chander Kant Jha and was in his possession on which he (accused Chander Kant Jha) had put his lock.
6. That since Chander Kant Jha had already paid rent for the entire month, hence, he did not object to his articles and belongings lying in the said room, which he (accused) had locked.
7. That later he came to know that Chander Kant Jha has been arrested in a Murder case by the police and it was on the next day in the month of July, which date he does not recollect that the police came to their house and inspected the room which was still bearing St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 142 the lock of Chander Kant Jha which had not been opened by anybody.
8. That on 23.7.2007 he was called to Police Station for interrogation by way of a notice under Section 160 Cr.PC from the Special Cell which is Ex.PW30/A pursuant to which he went to the office of Special Cell and handed over them the copy of BDO certificate in the name of his grandmother Smt Ram Kali which is Ex.PW30/B and also gave them a copy of his driving license, copy of which is Ex.PW30/C.
5. Mrs. Bharti She is the wife of the deceased Anil Mandal @ Amit resident Devi (PW39) of Kela Godown, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi and has deposed on the following aspects:
1. That she is a resident of the aforementioned address where she is residing along with with her four children.
2. That her husband Anil Mandal, S/o Tiwari Mandal was a resident of District Bhagalpur, Bihar and was a daily wages labour (majdoori).
3. That about 5-6 years ago her husband Anil Mandal had left her at her village when she was pregnant.
4. That thereafter he came to Delhi and she also came with him.
5. That on 19.10.2006 in the morning, Anil Mandal went away stating that he was going to the Court to attend the date but thereafter did not return.
6. That the police had taken the blood samples of her father-in-law and her mother-in-law in Bihar and also the blood samples of her children Vijay and Manda in Delhi and she along with her bua sas Smt. Paro Devi had taken her children to FSL Rohini for giving the blood samples of the children on 30.11.2011 and in order to prove their identity she had shown the electricity bill to the officials present there.
7. The witness has identified the photograph of Anil Mandal @ Amit Mandal which photograph is attached to the dossier of Anil Mandal @ Amit Mandal, S/o Tiwari Mandal and is Ex.PW39/A. This Court observed that while the witness was being examined, she became highly emotional on seeing the photograph of her husband Anil Mandal and stated crying.
She informed the court that she had been repeatedly requesting the police to trace her missing husband but till date she was not aware of his whereabouts.
6. Master Vijay He is a child aged about 10 years who is the son of deceased (PW40) Anil Mandal and Smt. Bharti Devi and has been examined without oath. He has have corroborated the testimony of his St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 143 mother Bharti Devi and has proved the collection of his blood samples at the FSL, Rohini.
7. Baby Manda She is a child aged 7-8 years who is the daughter of the (PW41) deceased Anil Mandal and Smt. Bharti Devi and has been examined without oath. She has corroborated the testimony of her mother Bharti Devi and has proved the collection of her blood samples at the FSL, Rohini.
8. Smt. Paro She is the paternal aunt / bua of the deceased Anil Mandal (PW42) and has corroborated the testimony of Smt. Bharti Devi and her children and proved that the blood samples of the children were taken in FSL Rohini and she had accompanied them. According to her at the time of the incident she was residing with the family of her nephew deceased Anil Mandal who had left the house stating that he was going to attend the court date but thereafter did not return. She has identified the photograph of her nephew Anil Mandal which photograph is Ex.PW9/A and stated that Anil Mandal, Husband of Bharti did not return after he had gone to attend the court date.
9. Sh. Pankaj He is the brother of one Upender Rathore another victim (PW45) whose decapitated body was found outside Central Jail Tihar on 24.04.2007 pursuant to which FIR No. 243/07 Police Station Hari Nagar was registered. Pankaj has been examined by the prosecution in the present case to prove that the accused Chander Kant Jha was using a mobile Number 9211463742 at the time when the various killings were taking place. This Pankaj had met the accused Chander Kant Jha prior to the death of Upender and had even spoken to him to inquire about his brother Upender who according to him used to work with Chander Kant Jha, and was not traceable. He has deposed on the following aspects:
1. That in the year 2006 his brother Upender was residing at village Sanaut, near Narela, Delhi.
2. That he was residing at Bhiwari, Rajasthan and he used to speak to his brother Upender on mobile numbers 9211463742 and 9211463743 from STD Booth.
3. That usually the call was received by the accused Chander Kant Jha, whom the witness has correctly identified, and it was thereafter he used to speak to his brother Upender.
4. That he had met Chander Kant Jha along with his brother when he came to Delhi to meet his brother at village Sanaut.
5. That he met accused Chander Kant first time at Jahangirpuri as two children from his native place came Delhi and they were kept at Prayas Children St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 144 Home and the relatives of the children came to Delhi and they met him and then he asked his brother Upender to get those children released when Upender told him that accused Chander Kant Jha could help to get them released and therefore his brother introduced him to accused Chander Kant Jha.
6. That he had last spoken to his brother on 20.04.2007 and after 20.4.2007 when he could not contact his brother on the mobile number given to him i.e. 9211463742, he tried to contact him on the other number given to him by his brother i.e. 9211463743 and called him up on this number 9211463743 in May, 2007 which was picked up by a girl and when he asked her to connect him to Chander Kant Jha, she told him her father was not available and he should call back after ten minutes.
7. That again after about 10-15 minutes he called up on the same number i.e 9211463743 which call was attended to by Chander Kant Jha whose voice he could identify as he had been previously speaking to him on the other mobile number 9211463742 i.e. when he used to call Upender.
8. That Chander Kant and his brother Upender used to work together in a mandi in partnership where they used to put a rehri of subzi in the mandi.
9. That this was the last time when he met Upender along with Chander Kant i.e. two-three months prior to 20.04.2007 when he last spoke to Upender.
10. That when he asked Chander Kant Jha about the whereabouts of Upender he told him that Upender had taken Rs.20,000/- and had also taken his rehri/ thela and gone away somewhere.
11. The witness was shown the document Ex.PW22/Z9 where the witness has identified his name and address mentioned at point X. Medical witness
10. Dr. Anil Shandil He is the Autopsy Surgeon who on 30.10.2006 had conducted (PW2) postmortem examination on the decapitated body of unknown male aged about 25-30 years found outside Gate No. 3, Central Jail, Tihar vide postmortem report Ex.PW2/A. He has proved the following aspects:
1. That one grey colored underwear of Amul Brand was found on the body which was naked and tied with a nylon rope with its head missing and one underwear over the wound.
2. That all molar tooth present and there was Bichchho / scorpion Tattoo mark on its left shoulder and words St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 145 Amit tattooed on the right forearm ventral aspect.
3. That dried up blood stains were found adjacent and over the wound, over both shoulders, chest, back and over lower limbs and upper limbs; postmortem lividity over back of body.
4. That body was removed from gunny bag which too had reddish brown blood stains.
5. That the body was tied up with nylon plastic rope with both lower limbs fixed at hip joint, knee joint and both thighs in approximation to anterior chest with both arms and the forearms with hand at back of body along west in several layers.
6. That on removal of the nylon rope and the dissection underneath the underline tissue was yellowish with no infiltration of blood and clots, not swollen, suggestive of postmortem tying of body.
7. That decapitated wound (headless, neck-less body) of 13 cm Radius clean cut well defined regular margins with dried up dark reddish blood clots all over the wound and adjacent areas.
8. That on examination of chest and abdomen no abnormality was found.
9. That the cause of death was decapitated injury ante-
mortem in nature caused by sharped edged weapon which was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature.
10. That time since death was approximately about Ten and a half days prior to postmortem examination.
11. That blood in gauze piece, gunny bag, nylon rope, two underwear and sternum for DNA finger printing preserved, sealed and handed over to concerned police official.
Forensic Evidence:
11. Sh. Naresh He has proved the biological report which is Ex.PW11/A and Kumar (PW11) the serological report which is Ex.PW11/B in respect of the Forensic Expert various exhibits sent to him for examination. (Chemistry)
12. Sh. A. K. He is the Assistant Director (Biology), DNA Finger Printing Srivastava Unit, FSL, Rohini, Delhi and has proved his detailed reports (PW35) which are Ex.PW35/A, Ex.PW35/B, Ex.PW35/D, Ex.PW35/E and Ex.PW35/F. According to DNA Fingerprinting Report Ex.PW35/A the bone piece - sternum did not have any biological relation with the blood sample of Hari Singh and blood sample of Saroj Devi. However, as per the DNA Fingerprinting Report Ex.PW35/D the source of bone piece i.e. sternum of deceased was biological father of source of the blood sample of Baby Manda (D/o Smt. Bharti St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 146 Devi and Anil Mandal). Further, according to DNA Fingerprinting Report Ex.PW35/F the DNA profile of source of teeth was matching with the DNA profile of the sternum of victim (thereby proving that the skull got recovered by the accused was of victim Anl Mandal @ Amit).
13. Sh. Sanjeev He is the Handwriting Expert who has proved that on Kumar (PW47) 10.08.2007 he has examined the questioned document with Senior Scientific scientific instruments such as Stero Microscope, Video Officer Spetral Comparator IV, Docucenter and VSC-2000/HR and (Document) has given his detailed report which is Ex.PW47/A. He has proved having opined that the person who wrote the blue enclosed writing stamped and marked S1 to S7 also wrote the red pencil enclosed writing similarly stamped and marked Q1 and Q2.
Official witnesses of Electronic record:
14. Sh.Tarun He has proved the relevant record pertaining to mobile No. Khanna 9871284644 in the name of Hoshiyar Singh i.e. customer (PW33) Nodal application form which is Ex.PW33/A; copy of the driving Officer, Bharti licence and copy of the ration card in support of address of Airtel Ltd. Hoshiyar Singh which are Ex.PW33/B and Ex.PW33/C respectively, and the call detail record of mobile no.
9871284644 for the period 19.10.2006 to 21.10.2006 which is Ex.PW22/Z15. He has also placed on record the Certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act in respect of the aforesaid mobile number, which is Ex.PW33/D and the Cell ID Chart showing the location of various Cell IDs (running into 166 pages) which is Ex.PW33/E collectively.
15. Sh. M.N. He has proved the call details of mobile No. 9211463742 for Vijayan (PW46) the period 1.4.2007 to 20.5.2007 which is Ex.PW22/Z-16 Alternative (collectively running into 18 single pages) and also the call Nodal Officer, details of mobile No. 9211463743 (running into 20 single Tata pages) which are Ex.PW22/Z-17 which had been issued by Teleservices him to the Investigating Officer pursuant to the request during the investigation of FIR No. 243/2007. He has also proved the certificate under Section 65B of Evidence Act in respect of the above call details which certificate is Ex.PW46/A. Police witnesses of Special Staff of West District
16. Inspector He is the Investigating Officer of the present case and has Sunder Singh proved the various proceedings conducted by him during the (PW22) investigations. He has proved the following documents:
St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 147 Ex.PW22/A Rukka
Ex.PW22/B Letter written by the accused against
the police officials
Ex.PW22/C Site plan at the instance of ASI Sukhdev
Singh
Ex.PW22/D Seizure memo of finger phalanges
preserved by the Autopsy Surgeon
Ex.PW22/E Seizure memo of blood gauze preserved
by the Autopsy surgeon
Ex.PW22/F Seizure memo of gunny bag, two
underwear and plastic rope
Ex.PW22/G Seizure memo of the sternum preserved
by the Autopsy Surgeon
Ex.PW22/H Request for preparing the portrait of
accused
Ex.PW22/I Arrested memo of accused
Ex.PW22/J Personal search of accused
Ex.PW22/K Disclosure statement
ExPW22/L Seizure of rickshaw
Ex.PW22/M Seizure of exhibits lifted from the room
of accused at Haiderpur
Ex.PW22/N Sketch of knife
ExPW22/O Seizure of the knives
ExPW22/P Seizure of 'nunchaku',jeans pant and
mobile phone
Ex.PW22/Q Seizure of the telephone numbers noted
down from the wall.
Ex.PW22/R Site plan of room of the accused at
Haiderpur
ExPW22/S Pointing out memo of Kishanganj
gandanala where the accused had
thrown the legs of the body of deceased
on 18.5.2007
Ex.PW22/T Pointing out memo of the place at Tis
Hazari where the accused left two
hands of the body of the deceased and
his private parts after packing the same
in the straw board box.
St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 148
Ex.PW22/U-1 to Specimen handwriting and signatures of
Ex.PW22/U-7 accused Chanderkant Jha
Ex.PW22/V Pointing out memo where the accused
had thrown the skull in river Yamuna
Ex.PW22/W Pointing out memo of the place / near
the shop of sugar cane juice where the
accused had dropped the left hand and
sexual part of deceased Upender @
Pintoo
Ex.PW22/X Pointing out memo of the place in front
of State Bank, Tis Hazari Court
complex where the accused had
dropped the right hand of deceased
Upender @ Pintoo.
Ex.PW22/Y Pointing out memo of house No. 206,
Pipal Thala Chowk where the accused
had killed one Shekhar in June/ July
2003 whose body he had thrown in
Mukhmailpur ganda nala
Ex.PW22/Z Pointing out memo at the house of
Rajpal bearing No. 43/3 Sarai Pipal
thala where the accused killed one
Umesh in November 2003
Ex.PW22/Z1 Pointing out memo at Baba Ramdev
Mandir where the accused had thrown
the left leg of Upender on 25.4.2007
Ex.PW22/Z2 Pointing out memo of house No. 51
belonging to one Dalbir Singh where
the accused had killed one Guddu in the
month of October 2005 and had thrown
his body in ganda nala Mangolpuri
Ex.PW22/Z3 Site plan of the place from where the
skull and jaws were recovered.
Ex.PW22/Z4 Pointing out memo at Mukhmailpur
Nala National Highway No.1.
Ex.PW22/Z5 Pointing out memo at Mangolpuri
Ganda Nala near Sulabh Sauchalya.
Ex.PW22/Z6 Pointing out memo near MCD Primary
School, Swaroop Nagar.
Ex.PW22/Z7 Memo of pointing out at Gate No. 3,
Tihar Jail.
St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 149
Ex.PW22/Z8 Seizure of photocopy of the paper
containing mobile numbers recovered in
personal search of accused.
Ex.PW22/Z9 Paper containing the mobile numbers
recovered from the personal search of
the accused
Ex.PW22/Z10 Application for conducting TIP
proceedings
Ex.PW22/Z11 TIP Proceedings
Ex.PW22/Z12 Application for obtaining the copy of
TIP proceedings
Ex.PW12/Z13 Envelope containing TIP proceedings
Ex.PW22/Z14-A1 Photographs
to
Ex.PW22/Z14-A38
Ex.PW22/Z15 Seizure of call details of mobile phone
no. 9871284644 and 9818250805.
Ex.PW22/Z16 CDRs of mobile No. 9211463742
Ex.PW22/Z17 CDRs of mobile No. 9211463743
Ex.PW22/Z-18 CDRs of mobile No. 9211541254
Ex.PW22/Z-19 Location chart of mobile make Tata
Ex.PW22/Z-20 Certificate under Section 65 Evidence
Act
17. ASI Virender They were all members of the Special Staff, West District
Tyagi (PW23), headed by Inspector Sunder Singh (PW22) and had joined
Inspector Dalip the investigations on various dated from 20.05.2007 to
Kaushik 25.5.2007 and have in their respective testimonies
(PW24), SI corroborated what has been earlier deposed by Inspector
Narender Sunder Singh.
(PW32) and
HC Vijender
Singh (PW19)
Witnesses of Mobile Crime Team:
18. Ct. Rakesh He is a photographer of the Mobile Crime Team West
Kumar (PW4) District, Janakpuri who has proved the negatives Ex.PW4/A1
to Ex.PW4/A9 and the photographs Ex.PW4/B1 to
Ex.PW4/B9.
19. SI Anil Kumar He is the Incharge, Mobile Crime Team, West District who
(PW9) has proved his reports which are Ex.PW9/A and Ex.PW9/B.
St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 150
20. ASI Ajender He is the Finger Print Bureau Expert in Mobile Crime Team,
Singh (PW10) West District and has proved that his detailed report which is
Ex.PW10/A.
21. Ct. Suresh He is the photographer of Mobile Crime Team (West) who
Kumar (PW14) proved having taken the photographs of the room of the
accused at Haiderpur which photographs are Ex.PW14/A-1 to Ex.PW14/A-18.
FORMAL WITNSSES 22 HC Sushil He is a formal witness who had deposited the exhibits to Kumar (PW3) NCRB, R. K. Puram on 04.05.2007 vide RC No. 15.21.07.
23. Ct. Mukesh He is a formal witness who had delivered the copy of the FIR Kumar (PW5) to senior officers on 20.10.2006.
24. HC Hari Ram He is again a formal witness who was posted as MHC (M) at (PW6) Police Station Hari Nagar and has proved the various entries in register no. 19 and 21 vide Ex.PW6/A, Ex.PW6/B, Ex.PW6/C and Ex.PW6/D.
25. ASI Bal Kishan He is also a formal witness being a DD Writer. He has Sharma (PW7) proved that on 19/20.10.2006 on receipt of a telephone call from a person who gave his name as Mukesh Tiwari and gave him an information which he reduced into writing vide DD No. 7A, copy of which is Ex.PW7/A. He has also proved having registered the DD No.8A on receiving a call from PCR about a dead body lying outside Jail No. 3, Tihar Jail copy of which DD is Ex.PW7/B.
26. Ct. Babu Lal He is a formal witness who was posted as Computer Operator (PW8) in Dossier Cell, Police Station Rajouri Garden and has proved that on 10.11.2006 on the instructions of the Investigating Officer and as description given by Ram Babu Chaurasiya, he prepared a computer sketch on the vide Ex.PW8/A.
27. HC Banwari Lal He is a formal witness being the Duty Officer and has proved (PW15) having registered the FIR Ex.PW15/A, endorsement on the rukka Ex.PW15/B, attested copy of DD No. 12A Ex.PW15/C, DD No.13A attested copy of which is Ex.PW15/D, DD No. 15A attested copy of which is Ex.PW15/E and DD No.3A attested copy of which is Ex.PW15/F.
28. HC Bane Singh He is a formal witness who had deposited the exhibits at FSL (PW16) Rohini vide RC No. 62/21 and 63/21.
29. HC Bijender He is a formal witness being the driver of the PCR Van P-33 Kumar (PW25) of West Zone and has proved that at about 07:20 hours, on 20.10.2006 a call was received on which he along with HC St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 151 Nachhatar Singh reached at the Gate No.03 of Tihar Jail and found a gunny bag was lying and on opening, it was found to be containing a head less dead body after which the Incharge van had told the situation to control room (P-1) through wireless set.
30. HC Ramavtar This witness has proved the following aspects:
(PW26) 1. That on 11.06.2007 he was posted as Head Constable at Special Staff/West District, Tagore Garden, Delhi when he was directed by Inspector Sunder Singh, Special Staff/ West District, Tagore Garden, Delhi to carry the fingerprints of the accused Chander Kant Jha along with a requisition letter 116/OPS Cell/West Distt dated 08/06/2007 to NCRB, Central Finger Print Bureau, R.K. Puram, New Delhi.
2. That on the same date, he had handed over the fingerprints of the accused Chander Kant Jha and requisition letter 116/OPS Cell, West District dated 08/06/2007 to Sh. T.R. Biswas, I/C, Central Finger Print Bureau, NCRB, R.K. Puram, New Delhi, and requested him to compare the finger prints of the accused with the chance prints if any found on the newspapers already deposited at their office on 04.05.2007.
3. That Sh. T.R. Biswas, I/C, Central Finger Print Bureau had given him the result of the comparison along with a sealed pullanda stated to be containing newspapers and he had handed over the sealed pullanda in intact seal condition to HC Hari Ram, MHC(M), Police Station Hari Nagar and result of the Central Finger Print Bureau was handed over to Inspector Sunder Singh.
4. That on 10.08.2007 he was again directed by Inspector Sunder Singh pursuant to which he had taken the specimen handwriting of accused Chander Kant Jha, a handwritten letter found with dead body and FSL form vide RC No. 69/21/07, Police Station Hari Nagar to FSL Rohini.
5. That after handing over the RC No. 69/21/07, he obtained the receipt and handed over a copy of receipt of Road Certificate to HC Hari Ram.
31. HC Hari Singh He is also a formal witness being the MHC (M) at Police (PW27) Station Hari Nagar who has proved the entries made by him in register no. 19 and 21 which are Ex.PW27/A and Ex.PW27/B.
32. HC Sahan Singh He is a formal witness who has proved the following aspects:
(PW28) 1. That on 08.06.2010, he was posted as MHC(R) at Police Station Shalimar Bagh, North-West District, St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 152 New Delhi and on that day Inspector Jai Singh, C&I of Police Station Hari Nagar, along with Ct Chaman came at Police Station Shalimar Bagh, Delhi for investigation of the present case FIR.
2. That he handed over a dossier with photographs of accused Anil Mandal son of Tiwari Manda, R/o Jhuggi AA Block, Shalimar Bagh, New Delhi, permanent Address Vill-Ogari, PS Kahalgoan, District Bhagalpur, Bihar, prepared in case FIR No. 26/03, U/s. 25 of Arms Act, PS Shalimar Bagh, Delhi which was taken into police possession through a seizure memo by the Inspector vide Ex.PW28/A.
3. That the finger prints contained in the dossier of Anil Mandal son of Tiwari Mandal, R/o Jhuggi AA block, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi which is Ex.PW28/B (running into two pages).
33. HC Nachhatara He is the Incharge PCR Van who has proved as under:
Singh (PW29) 1. That on 20.10.2006, at about 07:20 hours, a call was received through wireless of PCR on which he along with Constable Bijender Kumar reached Gate No. 03 of Tihar Jail and found that a bundle packed in gunny bag was lying.
2. That on opening it was found to be containing a head less dead body on which he informed the situation to the Control Room (P-1) through wireless set.
3. That they protected the place of crime and on arrival of ASI Sukhdev Singh, Inspector Sunder Singh and local Police from Police Station Hari Nagar, the spot was handed over to him and they returned back to their base.
4. That the logbook has been destroyed, therefore, he cannot produce the same and the certificate in this regard is Ex.PW29/A. Other Police / Official witnesses
34. SI Kartar Singh This witness has proved the following aspects:
(PW1) 1. That on 20.10.2006 when he was posted at Police Station Hari Nagar, he accompanied Inspector Sunder Singh and other police staff on a government vehicle to investigate DD No. 10B to Gate No. 3, Tihar Jail where they reached at 7:55 AM.
2. That ASI Sukhdev Singh and Ct. Surender met them there as there was some dharna of Bhartiya Janta Party.
3. That ASI Sukhdev Singh and Ct. Surender disclosed to investigating officer about the recovery of a dead body in a bori / gunny bag found near gate No. 3, Tihar Jail on which Inspector Hoshiyar Singh, SHO Police St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 153 Station Hari Nagar was informed who reached the spot and Inspector Sunder was directed to conduct the proceedings/ investigations.
4. That Investigating Officer called the crime team and photographer at the spot who arrived at about 9-9:15 AM and at that time the said bori / gunny bag was opened.
5. That he had seen a male headless dead body in said bori / gunny bag and the body was tied with a rope and was wrapped in newspaper and except underwear, no other cloth was there on the dead body.
6. That near the bori, a blood stained shirt and pant were also found and the said bori containing the dead body was found from a tokri / basket which are used by the fruit sellers to place their fruits for the purpose of sale.
7. That a handwritten note on a paper was also found near/ beneath the tokri.
8. That the dead body was taken out from the bori and was inspected by the Investigating Officer.
9. That he had seen the name "Amit" was engraved on the right hand of the dead body and a sign of "Bichhu/ Scorpion" on the left forearm of the body.
10. That the handwritten note on a piece of paper was inspected and it contained some letters in Hindi and at the end of the page, word "CC" were found written.
11. That the dead body was sent to DDU hospital under the supervision of Ct. Surender Singh.
12. That the Investigating Officer had seized the said blood stained newspaper and converted it in a pullanda which was sealed with "SSY" seal and seized vide memo Ex.PW1/A and the said written note was given number Q-1 and was seized vide memo Ex.PW1/B.
13. That the Investigating Officer had also seized bori / gunny bag and plastic katta after converting the same in a pullands which was sealed with "SSY" seal and taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW1/C and the pant and shirt blood stained were seized vide memo Ex.PW1/D.
14. That the blood stained earth from near gate No. 3, Tihar Jail, was kept in a piece of paper which was then placed in a polythene and converted in a pullanda.
15. That earth control was also taken in a similar manner and both these pullandas were then sealed with "SSY" seal and seized vide memo Ex.PW1/E which seal after use was given to ASI Sukhdev.
St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 15416. That the Investigating Officer had converted DD No. 8A into rukka Mark A and handed over the same to him for registration of FIR on which he took rukka to Police Station Hari Nagar and handed over the same to duty officer who registered FIR mark B.
17. That the Duty Officer handed over to him original rukka and copy of FIR which he had brought to gate No.3, Tihar Jail and handed over them to Investigating Officer.
35. ASI Sukhdev This witness has proved that on 20.10.2006 he was posted at Singh (PW17) Police Station Hari Nagar and on that day pursuant to DD No. 8A which is Ex.PW17/A he along with Ct. Surender Singh reached at the spot i.e. gate No.3, Tihar Jail, Jail road, Delhi and found that one dead body of male without head was found in a tokri wrapped in pieces of plastic and taat (jute) bori and also having rope. He has also proved having prepared the application for preservation of the dead body for 72 hours which is Ex.PW17/B.
36. SI Mahesh He is the Draftsman who had prepared the scaled site plan of Kumar (PW18) the scene of crime vide Ex.PW18/A.
37. Ct. Surender This witness has corroborated the testimony of ASI Sukhdev Singh (PW21) (PW17) in toto.
38. SI Satender This witness has proved that on 23.5.2007 he had received Mohan (PW31) information from control room that a human skull and some clothes were lying on the bank of river Yamuna on which he reached the spot and the seizure memo of the skull, jaw and old clothes was prepared which is Ex.PW19/A.
39. Inspector He was the SHO Police Station Hari Nagar and has proved Hoshiyar Singh the following aspects :
(PW34) 1. That on 20.10.2006 at about 8:30 AM he reached near Gate No. 3 Tihar Jail as he was on official duty in an arrangement in front of Tihar Jail and in the meanwhile he received an information from the Duty Officer regarding a katta lying in front of Gate No.3, Tihar Jail on which he reached the spot and found ASI Sukhdev Singh and Inspector Sunder Singh along with his staff already present there.
2. That Inspector Sunder Singh informed him that Duty Officer from Police Station Hari Nagar wanted to speak to him as he had received some information from one Mukesh Tiwari that he was the person who had dumped the said katta containing the dead body at gate No. 3 and wanted to speak to him and his mobile number had been given to him by the duty officer.
St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 1553. That he was also directed by Inspector Sunder Singh to leave his mobile phone open and after about 10-15 minutes he received a call on his mobile phone and the person who was talking on other side identified himself as CC who told him that he had thrown the dead body at Gate No.3 Tihar and had cut the head and parceled it outside Delhi.
4. That the said person asked him to give the number of DCP Sh. Manish Aggarwal as he wanted to speak to him at length since he (speaker) had been falsely implicated by him in an other case pertaining to Arms Act.
5. That when he asked the person speaking on the phone to which Police Station the said case was pertaining to, the speaker refused to give him the details stating he had remained in custody from 30th to 3rd and the persons at Tihar Jail were also not good "jail wale admi bhi thik nahi hai".
6. That the speaker also told him that HC Balbir who knew him previously and was in Central Jail, Tihar had also tortured him ("jayadti ki hai") and told him that he will confirm the number and give it to him on which the said person told him not to take the trouble since he will himself procure the number of DCP Sh. Manish Aggarwal.
7. That he tried to engage him (the speaker) into further talk but the speaker disconnected the same.
8. That at that time he was having a mobile Number 9871284644 and he received the call from the number 25993011.
9. That after disconnection of the telephone he called back on the said number which was call was connected to one Ram Babu Chaurasyia who informed him that it was a telephone booth in front of Delhi Jal Board office, Tilak Nagar by the name of Mahesh Bhatia Viklang booth.
10. That he disclosed to Ram Babu that he was Hoshiyar Singh, SHO Hari Nagar on the line and that he should stop the person who had made the call and detain him but Ram Babu told him that the said person had already left after making the call.
11. That he passed on this information to Inspector Sunder Singh who was handling the investigations in the case so that he could interrogate the person from the PCO booth and further conducted the investigations.
St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 15640. Inspector He is the subsequent Investigating Officer who has proved the Harpal Singh following aspects:
(PW36) 1. That Inspector Jai Singh made inquiries from CRO Kamla Market New Delhi regarding previous involvement/ criminal record of the deceased Anil Mandal @ Amit who found that the criminal record of Anil Mandal @ Amit was available in CRO.
2. That Inspector Jai Singh collected the criminal record of deceased Anil Mandal @ Amit from CRO, Kamla Market for the purpose of finger prints.
3. That Inspector Jai Singh verified about the tattoo mark and mark of Scorpion on the shoulder and arm respectively and Inspector Jai Singh had collected the record dossier of the similar person as of Anil Mandal @ Amit from Police Station Shalimar Bagh which was pertaining to case FIR No. 26/03, Police Station Shalimar Bagh Under Arms Act.
4. That the dossier of said Anil Mandal @ Amit having the photograph of Anil Mandal and the result of comparison of chance print found in case FIR No. 609/06 Police Station Hari Nagar was taken from Ravinder Kumar in which it was concluded that search slip of unidentified dead body and specimen left finger/palm/ palm prints slip contained in dossier No. 03/S Bagh/26 and 3063/NW are of the same person i.e. of Anil Mandal S/o Tiwari Mandal which report is Ex.PW36/A.
5. That on 29.10.2011 he went to village Ugri Police Station Kahal Gaon, district Bhagalpur Bihar and made inquiries about deceased Anil Mandal to which his parents informed him that their son Anil Mandal used to reside in the jhuggies at Kela godown Azadpur Delhi and was missing from last many years and they also informed him that the wife of Anil Mandal @ Amit namely Bharti Devi used to reside in the jhuggies Kela godown Railway line, Azadpur near fly over, Shalimar Bagh along with her children and bua of Anil Mandal namely Paro Devi.
6. That he requested the parents of Anil Mandal for giving the blood sample for the purpose of DNA test in order to match the headless body of Anil Mandal on which Sh. Tiwari Mandal and his wife Smt. Madho Devi, parents of Anil Mandal @ Amit were taken to government hospital, Kahalgaon, Bhagalpur, Bihar and the sample of both the persons were separately taken.
St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 1577. That on arrival at Delhi the aforesaid blood samples duly sealed with the seal of HPS were deposited in the malkhana and thereafter the same was sent to FSL Rohini to match the same with the DNA profile.
8. That the DNA official has specified that DNA finger printing profiles could not be prepared due to non amplification of DNA and due to non availability of DNA profile for the source of Ex.2 and 3 no comparison of DNA profiles could be made with DNA profile of Ex.1 i.e bone piece-sternum vide PM No. 849 dated 03.08.2008.
9. That thereafter he reached at jhuggi No. 45, patli gali, railway line, kela godown, AA Block, Shalimar Bagh near Fortis Hospital, New Delhi where wife of Anil Mandal namely Smt. Bharti Devi met him and he requested her to give the blood sample of her children.
10. That Smt. Bharti Devi informed him that on 19.10.2006 her husband Anil Mandal had gone to Rohini Court and thereafter did not return and in this regard she had made a complaint to the police after which he (witness) collected the photocopy of the police report, which is Ex.PW36/B.
11. That on 30.11.2011 he brought Smt. Bharti Devi and her son Vijay aged about 10 years, her daughter aged about 7 years along with bua Paro Devi at FSL Rohini and FSL official took their blood sample for the purpose of DNA test and he collected the report from FSL Office which is Ex.PW35/D.
12. That on the basis of the said report the identity of headless dead body has been matched with Anil Mandal @ Amit, S/o Sh. Tiwari Mandal, Village Ugri, Police Station Kahalgaon, District Bhagalpur, Bihar.
13. That he filed the supplementary charge sheet upto the investigations of matching of the DNA.
14. That the further investigations remained continued as the head of the deceased could not be recovered and the DNA test of the skull with teeth recovered in case FIR No. 279/07 of Police Station Hari Nagar has already been done.
15. That on the directions of senior officers the DNA test of bone piece i.e. sternum of the deceased was got done vide FSL report No. 2007/DNA/2849 on 31.07.2007.
16. That on 26.12.2011 he made request to office FSL Rohini seeking report in this case, on which FSL has supplied the FSL report No. 2007/DNA/2804 and St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 158 2849 and as per the aforesaid reports the skull and the headless body were matched as of Anil Mandan @ Amit therefore he submitted an another supplementary charge sheet before this Court.
41. Sh. Ravinder He is the Fingerprint Expert posted in Fingerprint Bureau, Kumar (PW37) and has proved that on 09.06.2010 a letter bearing No.1135 dated 09.06.2010 was received from SHO Police Station Hari Nagar along with the dossier of one Anil Mandal son of Tiwari Mandal for comparison with the search slip bearing No. 50099294 which search slip was already available with them. He has proved that he compared the above mentioned dossier and search slip and he concluded that the search slip of unidentified dead body (Tin no.50099294) and specimen left finger/ palm print slips contained in dossier no. 03/S.Bagh/26 and 3063/NW were of the same person i.e. Anil Mandal son of Tiwari Mandal. He has proved his detailed report in this regard which is Ex.PW36/A; the dossier of Anil Mandal which is Ex.PW28/A and the search slip which is Ex.PW28/B.
42. Ct. Chaman Lal This witness has proved that on 08.06.2010 he along with (PW38 ) Inspector Jai Singh went to Police Station Shalimar Bagh, where Inspector Jai Singh obtained the dossier of Anil Mandal son of Tiwari Mandal Ex.PW28/A which was seized vide memo Ex.PW38/A.
43. Sh. Rishi Pal He is the Addl. DCP West District, Delhi and has proved that (PW43) on 27.12.2011 he was working as Addl. DCP-I, West District-
cum-Public Information Officer and on that day he had supplied the information to Chander Kant Jha, UTP under RTI vide Ex.PW7/DX1. According to the witness, on 17.01.2011 he had issued the corrigendum with regard to the previous information, which is Ex.PW43/A.
44. Inspector Jai He has deposed that on 20.08.2008 he was posted at Police Singh (PW44) Station Hari Nagar and on that day further investigations of this case were marked to him. He has proved the following aspects:
1. That he collected the dossier of Anil Mandal @ Amit, S/o Tiwari Mandal from CRO and he found that the identification mark of Anil Mandal as mentioned in the record was tattoo of "bichoo" on the left arm and also noticed that this Anil Mandal had been held guilty in the offence under Section 25/54/59 Arms Act in FIR No. 26/03, Police Station Shalimar Bagh.
2. That he thereafter went to Police Station Shalimar Bagh and collected the original dossier which is Ex.PW28/A and Ex.PW28/B vide seizure memo Ex.PW38/A which were produced before him by HC St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 159 Shanshil in the presence of Ct. Chiman Lal.
3. That thereafter he reached at finger print bureau, Malviya Nagar where he moved an application which is Ex.PW44/A for comparison of finger prints of unknown dead body found in the present case i.e. case FIR No. 609/06 with a finger print of Anil Mandal.
4. That on his request the report vide Ex.PW36/A was given in which it was concluded that the search slip of unidentified body and specimen left finger/ palm print slips contained in the dossier No. 3/S Shalimar Bagh/ 26 and 3063/NW are of the same person i.e. of Anil Mandal S/o Tiwari Mandal.
5. That he made efforts to trace the family members of deceased Anil Mandal @ Amit S/o Tiwari Mandal at jhuggi No. 207, AA Block, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi but they could not be traced.
(147) Coming now to the microscopic evaluation of the evidence against the accused.
No Ocular / Direct Evidence:
(148) Ocular evidence/ eye witness count is the best evidence in any case but unfortunately in the present case there is no direct ocular evidence and the entire case of the prosecution rests upon circumstantial, electronic, forensic and other evidence.
Medical evidence/ Cause of Death:
(149) The case of the prosecution is that the death of the deceased was a homicidal death caused on account of decapitation of head. In this regard they have placed their reliance on the postmortem report and the opinion given by the Autopsy Surgeon Dr. Anil Shandil (PW2) whose testimony has gone uncontroverted as the accused has chosen not to cross-examine him.St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 160
(150) The Autopsy Surgeon Dr. Anil Shandil (PW2) has proved the postmortem report prepared by him which is Ex.PW2/A establishing that the postmortem of the dead body was conducted on 30.10.2006 at 2:30 PM and the time of death is ten and half days prior to postmortem examination. He has proved that the cause of death was decapitated injury antimortem in nature caused by sharped edged weapon which was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. The said report of the Autopsy Surgeon has gone uncontroverted and establishes that the death of the deceased occurred on the intervening night of 19-
20.10.2006 (time of death being ten and a half days prior to the postmortem examination) which was on account of decapitation of the head. Here, I may specifically note that the postmortem report conclusively establishes that death of the deceased was due to decapitation and decapitation was not subsequent to death.
Identity of the deceased established as Anil Mandal S/o Tiwari Mandal / last seen alive by his wife on 19.10.2006:
(151) The case of the prosecution is that the headless/ decapitated dead body discovered outside Gate No.3, Central Jail Tihar on 20.10.2006 belonged to one Anil Mandal @ Amit. Initially the identity of the body could not be established. The only clue was that there was a tattoo on the arm of the deceased where words 'Amit' was written in Hindi and another tattoo mark of a Scorpio on the other hand. In the letter left by the killer along with the decapitated body on 20.10.2006 the identity of the victim has not been disclosed. However, in the letter left by the killer along with another decapitated body on 18.5.2007 (after almost seven months) the alleged killer mocked at the failure of the Delhi Police to establish the identity of the deceased and informed them that in St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 161 case if they would have carefully inspected the body, then they would have realized that the words 'Amit' were tattooed on the hand of the deceased. It is for the first time after the arrest of the accused Chanderkant Jha that it became known to the Investigating Agency that the deceased was in fact Anil @ Amit Mandal a resident of Bhagalpur, Bihar and was involved in some criminal cases pending in Rohini Court.
On the basis of this clue the Police initially traced the family of one Anil Mandal S/o Hari Ram but unfortunately the DNA of the deceased did not match with the DNA of the said Hari Singh and Saroj Devi, parents of Anil Mandal and hence the police then initiated further investigations to ascertain the identity of the deceased.
(152) During these further investigations Inspector Jai Singh made inquiries from CRO - Kamla Market and was able to trace the involvements / criminal record of one Anil Mandal @ Amit. He got the said record collected for the purposes of comparison and also verified that the said Anil Mandal @ Amit had a tattoo mark of Scorpion on the shoulder / arm. It was also came to be known that this Anil Mandal @ Amit was having a case bearing FIR No. 628/2003, Police Station Shalimar Bagh, under Sections 25/54/59 of Arms Act. On account of the aforesaid the said dossier of Anil Mandal @ Amit which is Ex.PW28/A with the photograph of this Anil Mandal @ Amit was taken for the purposes of comparison of the chance prints found in the present case and the specimen left finger/ palm/ palm prints slip was found matching with the dossier of the said person. Pursuant to the same on 29.10.2011 Inspector Harpal Singh (PW36) went to village Ugri Police Station Kahal Gaon, District Bhagalpur, Bihar and made inquiries about the deceased on which he was able to trace his parents from where he obtained the information regarding the wife (Smt. Bharti Devi) and children (Master St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 162 Vijay and Baby Manda) of the said Anil Mandal @ Amit who were residing at jhuggies Kela godown Railway line, Azadpur near fly over, Shalimar Bagh along with the bua (paternal aunt) of Anil Mandal namely Paro Devi. Thereafter the blood samples of the children of said Anil Mandal @ Amit were obtained and sent to FSL. The forensics (DNA Fingerprinting) then came to the aid of the Investigating Agency and the identity of the body was established as belonging to this Anil Mandal @ Amit S/o Tiwari Mandal who was the husband of Bharti Devi who was involved in a criminal case bearing FIR No.628/06, under Sections 25/54/59 of Arms Act, Police Station Shalimar Bagh. Bharti Devi then disclosed that Anil Mandal had been last seen alive by her on 19.10.2006 when in the morning he had left his house stating that he was going to the Court to attend a court date but thereafter did not return and in this regard she had even lodged a missing report with the police on 30.3.2007 (before arrest of the accused). The prosecution has in this regard placed its reliance upon the testimony of Bharti Devi.
(153) I have gone through the testimony of Smt. Bharti Devi (PW39) which is succinctly clear. She has deposed that in the morning of 19.10.2006 her husband Anil Mandal S/o Tiwari Mandal had told her that he was going to Rohini Court to attend a Court date and thereafter did not return ever since. In this background she thereafter waited for the deceased but when he did not return for many months, she made a complaint to the police on 30.3.2007 which complaint is Ex.PW36/B wherein she had expressed her suspicion on the surety of her husband. This complaint has not been disputed by the accused (who does not cross-examine Bharti Devi on this aspect).
(154) Neither the prosecution nor the accused had disputed the aspect of the deceased Anil Mandal being involved in case FIR No. 628/2006 St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 163 Police Station Shalimar Bagh and unfortunately the Judicial Record of the said case was not called by either of them (prosecution or the defence) and hence this Court suo moto called for the original Judicial Record of case FIR No.628/06, under Sections 25/54/59 of Arms Act, Police Station Shalimar Bagh from the Record Room and the proceeding sheet dated 19.10.2006 lends credit to the testimony of Smt. Bharti Devi. The proceeding sheet dated 19.10.2006 reveals that Anil Mandal S/o Tiwari Mandal had actually appeared before the Court of Sh. Rajesh Goyal, the then Ld. MM and his presence finds marked in the Court (there is a presumption regarding correctness of the Judicial Proceedings and Judicial Notice can be taken of the same). This establishes that Anil Mandal @ Amit (deceased) was alive on 19.10.2006 and confirms that his death was caused only thereafter.
Motive of Crime / Accused - a Serial Killer:
(155) The case of the prosecution is that the accused Chanderkant Jha is a Serial Killer who is a serious problem for the Law Enforcement Agencies whose motives may not become very obvious initially but the manner in which he had executed the serial killings of young boys belonging to extremely poor families by taking advantage of their weak socio-economic status and vulnerability and after having won their confidence indicates the planned manner in which the accused had been throwing a challenge to the Law Enforcement Agencies. It is argued by the Ld. Addl. Public Prosecutor that the only task of the accused which can be gathered from the various letters that he had been leaving along with the decapitated bodies allegedly thrown by him in front of the Central Jail Tihar, shows that he takes pleasure in throwing a challenge to the legally constituted Systems of this Country i.e. Police, Jail St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 164 Authorities etc. and his only motive is to target and harass the Law Enforcement Agencies. The Ld. Addl. PP has also argued that the victims were chosen very carefully by the accused and he used to kill them to seek revenge on account of his disagreement with them and their ways and then in order to challenge the system he scattered their body parts at various places.
(156) The Ld. Defence Counsel on the other hand has vehemently argued the prosecution case that the motive behind the murder was because the accused was not happy with the habits of the deceased of eating non vegetarian food, eating paan-guthkha, of not washing their utensils etc. as alleged in the disclosure statement of the accused is contrary to the claims now being made by the prosecution. He has further submitted that the prosecution has not been able to establish any of the motives so attributed to the accused and the allegations have been made only on mere conjectures and surmises which do not find support from any material brought on record by them. (157) I have considered the rival contentions and given my careful consideration to the same. Motive is only an attitude of mind and an emotion prompting the act i.e. love, compassion, fear, jealousy, perverseness, lust, hatred, wish to frighten, gesture, desire for money etc. (Ref.: Criminal Law, 7th Edition P.S. Acthuthen Pillai). It is relevant to a limited extent since it may lead to creation of intention for commission of offence. It has to be gathered from the surrounding circumstances and such evident should form one of the links to the chain of circumstantial evidence. The proof of motive would only strengthen the prosecution case and fortify the court in its ultimate conclusion but in the absence of any connecting evidence or link which would be sufficient in itself from the face of it, the accused cannot be convicted. Motive is best known to St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 165 the perpetrator of the crime and not to others. Motives of men are often subjective, submerged and unamenable to easy proof that courts have to go without clear evidence thereon if other clinching evidence exists. A motive is indicated to heighten the probability that the offence was committed by the person who was impelled by the motive but if the crime is alleged to have been committed for a particular motive, it is relevant to inquire whether the pattern of the crime fits in which the alleged motive.
(158) Regarding the motive of crime, it may be observed that in a case based on circumstantial evidence, the existence of motive assumed significance though the absence of motive does not necessarily discredit the prosecution case, if the case stands otherwise established by other conclusive circumstances and the chain of circumstantial evidence is so complete and is consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and inconsistent with the hypothesis of his innocence. (159) Existence of motive for committing a crime is not an absolute requirement of law but it is always relevant fact, which will be taken into consideration by Courts as it will render assistance to Courts while analysing prosecution evidence and determining guilt of accused. [Ref.:
IV (2012) SLT 257].
(160) Applying the settled principles of law to the facts of the present case, I may observe that the prosecution seeks to prove the Motive so attributed to the accused by placing their reliance on the letters recovered from the gunny bag along with the decapitated bodies recovered outside Central Jail Tihar on 20.10.2006 (FIR No. 609/2006 Police Station Hari Nagar) and 18.5.2007 (FIR No.279/2007). (161) In so far as the disclosure statement of the accused made to the Police which is Ex.PW22/K is concerned the same is inadmissible in St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 166 evidence except to the disclosure of the relevant fact. The documentary evidence which has come on record in the form of letter written by the alleged killer who had committed the offence i.e. the accused is self explanatory. The said letter shows the gross defiance of the accused / assailant to the lawful constituted establishments and the challenge which he had thrown to the System when he says "... iska saboot ye hai ki 2003 ke november mahine mein jo ek number par main-ne murder karke dala usko bhi tum log nahin khol sake aur na hi is case ko khol paoge kyonki ye hamara vada hai varna nahin to najayaj case lagana band karo ya phir case khol sako to case khol kar dikha do....". The handwriting of the letter has tallied with the handwriting of the accused Chanderkant Jha and the contents of the said letter (as above) reflect his state of mind at the relevant time when the crime had been committed and how he had thrown a challenge to the System. This motive further gets strengthened when the accused left another letter with a decapitated body on 18.5.2007 (in FIR No. 279/07, Police Station Hari Nagar which has been proved to be in his handwriting) wherein he has again mocked the System and challenged the police to apprehend him and to put a reward on him as per his acts when he wrote "....delhi Police ke jaanbaz D.H.G. se lekar I.P.S. Tum sabhi ko tumhare jijaji aur tumhare daamad ke taraf se khullam-khulla challenge hai ki agar vakai mein tumlogon ki maa ko tumlogon ke hi baap ne chodkar paida kiya hai to mujhe pakarkar dikhao varna tum saare upar se niche tak ke delhi Police ka staff najayaz maa + baap ka paidaish kahlaoge...." and further that ".....Aur shale delhi Police ke chote se bare ohdedaaroon tumhe zara si bhi akal nahin hai ki kam se kam itna murder karne vale ke upar abhi tak nahin kuch to 50 hazar inaam to rakh hi doon ya upar valoon se is CC ke baare mein jyada se jyada khunkhar aur khatarnaak ka upadhi de St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 167 kar inaam rakhvaane ka koshih karo taki is khel mein kuch maja aaye kyonki tum to shale sharif ke baare mein akhbar aur challan mein aise darshaate ho jaise ki vo janamjaat peshevar criminal ho lekin madarchod delhi Police vale main teri maa behan chod raha hoon khullam-khulla to mere upar inaam kyon nahin rakh rahe ho. Main apne upar inaam ki raashi jaanne ke liye ati utsuk hoon. Dhyan rakhna ki mere kaam ke laayak inaam jarur hona chahiye varna meri beijjati hogi to main tum sabki beijjati karva doonga.....". It is this which confirms that the motive of the serial killings carried out by the accused was to throw a challenge to the Law Enforcement Agencies. (162) Dr. Mike Aamodt of Radford University Department of Psychology in his work "Serial Killer IQ" while studying the behaviour of Organized nonsocial offenders usually have above average intelligence, with a mean IQ of 113, observed that these persons often planned their crimes quite methodically, usually abducting victims, killing them in one place and disposing of them in another. They often lured the victims with ploys appealing to their sense of sympathy. They maintain a high degree of control over the crime scene and usually have a solid knowledge of forensic science that enables them to cover their tracks, such as burying the body or weighing it down and sinking it in a river. They follow their crimes in the news media carefully and often take pride in their actions, as if it were all a grand project. The organized killer is usually socially adequate, has friends and lovers and sometimes even a spouse and children. They are the type who, when/if captured, are most likely to be described by acquaintances as kind and unlikely to hurt anyone.
(163) It is writ large that the profile of the accused Chanderkant Jha / alleged author of the crime / the serial killings which took place in the St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 168 year 2006 - 2007 in respect of the which FIR No.609/2006, FIR No. 243/2007 and FIR No. 279/2007 of Police Station Hari Nagar all under Sections 302/201 IPC absolutely fits into the description of an Organized Serial Killer as put forth by Dr. Mike Aamodt. It is evident that after leaving the decapitated bodies outside Central Jail Tihar the accused used to inform the police telephonically regarding the keeping of the body and was abused to the person who attended the call. He also left the letters along with two of the decapitated bodies to boast about his actions i.e. past as well as present. It is evident from the above letters that he not only confessed to the killings of the victims whose decapitated bodies were found along with the letters but also disclosed his involvement in other previous killings in clear terms. In the letter left with the body on 18.5.2007 he had boasted of previously thrown a decapitated body outside Gate No.1 Central Jail Tihar in November 2003 which case the police had not been able to workout till date. The manner of the killings of the victims with extreme brutality by decapitating and severing of their heads and body parts establish the excessive violence and perversity involved in the crime and the manner in which the decapitated parts of the bodies of the victims have been thrown at various places establish the planned manner in which the crime has been executed and the thrills that the accused was deriving by throwing a challenge to the System (police). It is also evident that the accused had been following his crimes in the news and media and was taking pride in his actions, as is reflected in the letter left by him along with the decapitated body found outside Tihar Jail on 18.5.2007 wherein the accused has taunted and mocked at the Delhi Police not only for their failure to catch him but also for their failure to establish the identity of the deceased in the said case which he then disclosed was Amit and St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 169 asked the Delhi Police to inform the media about the letter ".......delhi Police ke liye tohfa bheja tha uske andar jo letter nahin mila to bechare akhbar vale bhi pareshaan ho gaye ki aakhir delhi Police valoon ke damaad aur jijajine abki baar letter kyon nahin bheja. Isliye main aap logoon ke shikayat par gaur pharmaya hai..." and then added that "...Ye letter akhbar valoon ko bhi padhwa dena.."
(164) Further, the manner in which the killings have been executed in all the cases i.e. FIR bearing No. 609/2006, FIR No.243/2007 and FIR No. 279/2007 all of Police Station Hari Nagar reflect a definite pattern / design. This definitely establishes that the accused is Mission Oriented and Task Oriented Serial Killer whose only motive / mission is to expose, mock and challenge the police who as per his allegations had falsely implicated him in many criminal cases.
Discovery of facts pursuant to the disclosure of the accused:
(165) The case of the prosecution is that pursuant to his arrest on
20.5.2007 the accused Chanderkant Jha had allegedly made a disclosure statement to the police wherein not only did he disclosed the police his involvement in the various serial killings dated (20.10.2006, 24- 25.4.2007 and 18.5.2007) after which he had thrown the bodies of the victims at various places around Delhi but also the details of the victims, the reason why he killed them, the manner of their killings, how he disposed off their bodies, the letters which he had left along with the bodies, the telephone calls which he made to the police after committing the offences and the place where he had kept the weapons of offence and the conveyance i.e. rickshaw fitted with engine of a scooter in which he used to carry the mutilated bodies and dismembered parts which he disposed off in and around Delhi.
St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 170(166) In support of their case the prosecution seeks to rely upon the disclosure statement of the accused and the various recoveries which were got effected pursuant to the same whereas on the other hand the Ld. Defence Counsel has vehemently denied that any such disclosure was made by the accused to the police. He has argued that even otherwise the disclosure if any made by the accused while in Police Custody is hit by Section 27 of the Evidence Act.
(167) I have considered the rival contentions but before coming to the merits of the argument, it is necessary to first briefly discuss the relevant provisions of law. As per the provisions of Section 27 of Evidence Act, which is in the nature of a proviso to Section 26 of the Act, to the extent it is relevant, when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved. Thus the requirement of law is that before the fact discovered in consequence of an information received from an accused is allowed to be proved, he (accused) needs to be in the custody of a police officer.
(168) Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act explains the meaning of the word Fact. It provides that a fact means and includes:
a) Anything, state of things, or relation of things, or capable of being perceived by the senses,
b) Any mental condition of which any person is conscious.
(169) It further provides five illustrations as to what would constitute a fact which are as under:St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 171
1. That there are certain objects arranged in a certain order in a certain place, is a fact
2. That a man heard or saw something, is a fact.
3. That a man said certain words, is a fact.
4. That a man holds a certain opinion, has a certain intention, acts in good faith, or fraudulently, or uses a particular word in a particular sense, or is or was at a specified time conscious of a particular sensation, is a fact.
5. That a man has a certain reputation, is a fact.
(170) A co-joint reading of Section 3 and Section 27 of Evidence Act would apply that as much of the statement as would relate to the discovery of fact connected with the accused would be admissible in evidence. The discovery of the fact is not only the discovery of the articles but also the discovery of the fact that the articles were kept by a particular accused at a particular place because in principle there is no difference between the statement made by the accused to the effect that "I will show you the person to whom I have given the articles" and the statement that "I will show you the place where I have kept the articles". (171) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K. Chinnaswamy Reddy Vs. State of A.P. reported in AIR 1962 SC 1788 had exhaustively discussed the scope and ambit of Section 27 of the Evidence Act had considered the question as to whether the statement of the accused to the effect that "he had hidden them (the ornaments)" and "would point out the place", where they were, is wholly admissible in evidence under S. 27 or only that part of it is admissible where he stated that he would point out the place but not that part where he stated that he had hidden the ornaments. In the above case the Ld. Sessions Judge had relied upon St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 172 the judgment of Pulukuri Kotayya Vs. King-Emperor reported in 74 Ind App 65: AIR 1947 PC 67 where a part of the statement leading to the recovery of a knife in a murder case was held inadmissible by the Judicial Committee. It was observed by My Lords of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that in the above case (Pulukuri Kotayya) the Judicial Committee considered S. 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, as under:-
"Provided that when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a person, accused of any offence, in the custody of a police officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved......"
".... this section is an exception to Ss. 25 and 26 which prohibit the proof of a confession made to a police officer or a confession made while a person is in police custody unless it is made in immediate presence of a Magistrate. Section 27 allows that part of the statement made by the accused to the police "whether it amounts to a confession or not" which relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered to be proved. Thus even a confessional statement before the police which distinctly relates to the discovery of a fact may be proved under S. 27. The Judicial Committee had in that case to consider how much of the information given by the accused to the police would be admissible under S. 27 and laid stress on the words "so much of such information........... as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered" in that connection. It held that the extent of the information admissible must depend on the exact nature of the fact discovered to which such information is required to relate. It was further pointed out that "the fact discovered embraces the place from which the object is produced and the knowledge of the accused as to this, and the information given must relate distinctly to this fact...."
"........Information as to past user, or the past history of the object produced is not related to its discovery in the setting in which it is discovered.
This was exemplified further by the Judicial Committee St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 173 by observing that the information supplied by a person in custody that 'I will produce a knife concealed in the roof of my house' leads to the discovery of the fact that a knife is concealed in the house of the informant to his knowledge and if the knife is proved to have been used in the commission of the offence, the fact discovered is very relevant. If, however, to the statement the words be added 'with which I stabbed A', these words are inadmissible since they do not relate to the discovery of the knife in the house of the informant......"
(172) After considering the settled principles the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under:
"......If we may respectfully say so, this case clearly brings out what part of the statement is admissible under S. 27. It is only that part which distinctly relates to the discovery which is admissible; but if any part of the statement distinctly relates to the discovery it will be admissible wholly and the court cannot say that it will excise one part of the statement because it is of a confessional nature. Section 27 makes that part of the statement which is distinctly related to the discovery admissible as a whole, whether it be in the nature of confession or not. Now the statement in this case is said to be that the appellant stated that he would show the place where he had hidden the ornaments. The Sessions Judge has held that part of this statement which is to the effect "where he had hidden them" is not admissible. It is clear that if that part of the statement is excised the remaining statement (namely, that he would show the place) would be completely meaningless. The whole of this statement in our opinion relates distinctly to the discovery of ornaments and is admissible under S. 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. The words "where he had hidden them" are not on a par with the words "with which I stabbed the deceased" in the example given in the judgment of the Judicial Committee. These words (namely, where he had hidden them) have nothing to do with the past history of the crime and are distinctly related to the St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 174 actual discovery that took place by virtue of that statement. It is however urged that in a case where the offence consists of possession even the words "where he had hidden them" would be inadmissible as they would amount to an admission by the accused that he was in possession. There are in our opinion two answers to this argument. In the first place S. 27 itself says that where the statement distinctly relates to the discovery it will be admissible whether it amounts to a confession or not. In the second place, these words by themselves though they may show possession of the appellant would not prove the offence, for after the articles have been recovered the prosecution has still to show that the articles recovered are connected with the crime, i.e., in this case, the prosecution will have to show that they are stolen property. We are, therefore, of opinion that the entire statement of the appellant (as well as of the other accused who stated that he had given the ornament to Bada Sab and would have it recovered from him) would be admissible in evidence and the Sessions Judge was wrong in ruling out part of it. Therefore, as relevant and admissible evidence was ruled out by the Sessions Judge, this is a fit case where the High Court would be entitled to set aside the finding of acquittal in revision though it is unfortunate that the High Court did not confine itself only to this point and went on to make rather strong remarks about other parts of the evidence....."
(173) Later in the year 1969 the Three Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has in the case of Zaffar Hussain Dastagir Vs. State of Maharastra reported in 1969 (2) SCC 872 while dealing with the applicability of the provisions of Section 27 of the Indian Evident Act relied upon the case of K. Chinnaswamy Reddy Vs. State of A.P. observed as under:
"....in order that the Section may apply the prosecution must establish the information given by the accused St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 175 led to the discovery of some fact deposed to by him and the discovery must be of some fact which the police had not previously learnt from other sources and that the knowledge of the fact was first derived from information given by the accused.
The essential ingredient of the Section is that the information given by the accused must led to the discovery of the fact which is the direct outcome of such information; secondly only such portion of the information given as is distinctly connected with the said discovery is admissible against the accused and thirdly the discovery of the fact must relate to the commission of some offence..."
(174) In the said case the Hon'ble Supreme Court further went to explain that:
"..... In a case where the accused is charged with theft of articles or receiving stolen articles states to the police "I will show you the articles at the place where I have kept them" and the articles were actually found there, there can be no doubt that the information given by the accused led to the discovery of a fact that is keeping of the articles by the accused at the place mentioned. However, the discovery of the fact deposed to in such a case is not the discovery of the articles but the discovery of the fact that the articles were kept by the accused at a particular place. It was observed that in principle, there is no difference between the above statement and that made by the accused in the case which in effect is that "I will show you the person whom I have given the diamonds exceeding 200 in number". The only difference between the two statements is that a "named person" is substituted for "the place" where the articles are kept. In neither case are the articles of the diamonds, in fact discovered. There can be no doubt that the portion of the alleged statement of the accused would be admissible in evidence......"St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 176
(175) In the recent past the Hon'ble Supreme Court has in the case of State (NCT of Delhi) Vs. Navjot Sandhu with Shaukat Hussain Guru Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in AIR 2005 SC 3820 reinforced the above view when it observed that "discovery of fact" should be read with the definition of "fact" as contained in Section 3 of the Evidence Act which defines the "fact" as meaning and including anything, state of things or relation of things, capable of being perceived by the senses and also includes any mental condition of which any person is conscious (emphasis supplied). It was held that the provisions of Section 27 would apply whenever there is discovery which discovery amounts to be confirmatory in character guaranteeing the truth of the information given to which facts the police officer had no access earlier which also includes recovery of material object. The Hon'ble Court further observed that so much of the information as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered is admissible.
(176) Applying these principles to the facts of the present case I may observe that as per the case of the prosecution the accused after his arrest on 20.5.2007 the accused made a detail disclosure statement to the police wherein he gave information regarding the identity of the various victims, the object and motive of his killing them, the manner of their killings, the manner he disposed off their bodies, the letters which he had left along with the bodies, the telephone calls which he made to the police after committing the offences and the place where he had kept the weapons of offence and the conveyance i.e. rickshaw fitted with engine of a scooter in which he used to carry the mutilated bodies and dismembered parts which he disposed off in and around Delhi. I have gone through this disclosure statement and the perusal of the said statement shows that in his disclosure the accused Chanderkant Jha had St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 177 given the following information:
➢ That in the year 2002 after he released from the Jail he started residing at Azadpur in Char Khambe Wali Gali and during those days he got acquainted with one Anil Mandal @ Amit a resident of Bhagalpur, Bihar who was introduced to him by one Arvind. ➢ That he become fed up with the acts of Anil Mandal @ Amit since Anil Mandal used to frequently borrow money from him which he failed to return despite his asking.
➢ That when Anil @ Amit Mandal had gone to Rohini Court for attending a date, he took Anil @ Amit Mandal along with him and took him to his room at the house of Mangal Sen Pandit. ➢ That he had killed Anil @ Amit Mandal after beheading him. ➢ That he put the decapitated body of Anil @ Amit Mandal in a tokri and also put a letter in the said tokri.
➢ That he threw the decapitated body of Anil @ Amit Mandal on the parti / footpath between the Gate No.3 and ATM of Central Jail Tihar.
➢ That thereafter he threw the head of Amit @ Anil Mandal in a pit of water near Loni.
➢ That thereafter he went to Tilak Nagar from where he made a call at Police Station Hari Nagar from a STD Booth and took the mobile number of Inspector Hoshiyar Singh. ➢ That he had spoken to Inspector Hoshiyar Singh on his telephone bearing No. 9871284644 and while he was still talking to Inspector Hoshiyar Singh the STD Booth owner had suspicion on him due to which reason he immediately went away from there. ➢ That he can point out the place where he had committed the offence and can got recover the motor-rickshaw on which he had St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 178 thrown the body parts at various places.
➢ That in the month of March-April 2007 he got acquainted with one boy Upender who was a resident of Maharajganj, Uttar Pradesh.
➢ That Upender used to reside with him and he was having the mobile phone numbers of Upender and his friends / relatives which phone numbers were recovered during his personal search (jamatalashi).
➢ That he was having the photograph of Upender and his relative Pankaj at his room at Alipur which photograph he can get recovered.
➢ That there was a dispute between him and Upender in respect of a mobile phone.
➢ That he took Upender to his room at Haiderpur where he committed the murder of Upender by decapitating his head, hands, legs and private pats.
➢ That he had put one leg of Upender in a thaila and left the same at Shalimar Bagh Mandir; left another leg at Samay Nagar; one hand at Tis Hazari Courts, Central Gate; another arm and private part at Lal Bagh Loni (Uttar Pradesh) near a sugarcane juice shop and had thrown the head in Yamuna River from the ISBT Flyover.
➢ That he had kept the weapon of offence in his room at Haiderpur and the rickshaw fitted with engine on which he had taken the various body parts and had thrown the decapitated body of Upender at Gate No.3, Central Jail Tihar was lying at his house at Alipur which he can recover.St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 179
➢ That when he was lodged in Jail he met with one Surender who was also lodged in Jail No.3 in a case under Section 379/411 IPC. ➢ That through Surender he got acquainted to one Dalip a resident of Bihar.
➢ That Dalip was residing with him for the last 15-16 days and told him that he wanted to work as electrician for which reason he (accused) helped him by giving clothes, food, mobile etc. but thereafter Dalip started telling lies.
➢ That he was in search of persons who could not be identified easily and by killing him he wanted to take revenge from Jail and Police Authorities.
➢ That Dalip used to consume alcohol and non vegetarian food and was involved in womanizing.
➢ That one day Dalip had eaten fish but did not clean the utensils. ➢ That on 17.5.2007 at about 4:00 PM when he met Dalip, he took him to his room at Haiderpur where he committed his murder by decapitating his head, hands, legs and private parts. ➢ That he put the decapitated body in a plastic katta, tied it with a rope and left the same in front of Gate No.1, Central Jail Tihar by using his motor-rickshaw.
➢ That he had put a two pages letter along with the decapitated dead body in which letter he had mentioned the details of the killings done by him.
➢ That thereafter he went to Titarpur from where he made calls to Police Station Hari Nagar and also at 100 number from a STD Booth.
➢ That on 18.5.2007 he packed the legs of Dalip in a cardboard box and threw the same in Ganda Nala of Sarai Rohilla and St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 180 threw the head of Dalip in Yamuna river by wrapping the same in a ghaghri and a red cloth whereas both the hands and private parts of Dalip were packed in a cardboard box and threw the same in front of State Bank of India at Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
➢ That he can point out the various places where he had thrown the dead body and various parts of the dead body.
(177) It is writ large from the above that the identity of the decapitated bodies recovered outside Central Jail Tihar could only be discovered on the basis of the information given by the accused Chandrakant Jha in his disclosure statement. The Investigating Agency was not in the knowledge of the identity of the decapitated bodies discovered outside Tihar Jail on 20.10.2006 (FIR No. 609/2006), 25.4.2007 (FIR No. 243/2007) and 18.5.2007 (FIR No. 279/2007). For the first time it was only after the above disclosure made by the accused and on the information given by him that it came to be known that the decapitated body found outside Central Jail Tihar on 20.10.2006 belonged to one Anil @ Amil Mandal original resident of Bhagalpur, Bihar. Similarly it was only after the above disclosure made by the accused that it came to be known that the decapitated body found outside Central Jail Tihar on 25.4.2007 belonged to one Upender original resident of Maharajganj, Uttar Pradesh who used to reside with him. The accused was in the know of the mobile phone numbers of friends and relatives of Upender which phone numbers were recovered during his personal search (jamatalashi). Again it was only after the above disclosure made by the accused that it came to be known that the decapitated body found outside Central Jail Tihar on 18.5.2007 (FIR No. St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 181 279/2007) belonged to one Dalip original resident of Bihar whose parentage and other particulars the Investigating Agency has not been able to confirm till date.
(178) Further, it was only on account of the disclosure made by the accused that it came to be known to the Investigating Agency that Anil @ Amit Mandal was involved in a criminal case and had come to attend a hearing at Rohini Court on 19.10.2006 which fact was not earlier in the knowledge of Investigating Agency and now stands confirmed on the basis of the Judicial Record of the case against Anil Mandal (FIR No.628/2003, Police Station Shalimar Bagh under Sections 25/54/59 of Arms Act. Here, I may observe that it was much later in the year 2010 in the further investigations that the identity of the decapitated body could be finally confirmed after tracing the family of Anil @ Amit Mandal R/o Bhagalpur Bihar on the basis of the DNA Report and had it not been for the disclosure of the accused that the deceased was involved in a criminal case and had come to attend a date in the Rohini Courts on 19.10.2006 that the identity of the deceased would not have been established. In fact in the slip recovered from the possession of the accused at the time of his arrest bearing various mobile numbers, this Court has observed that there is one name mentioned i.e. Rajesh Goel. It is now at final stage when this Court suo-moto called for judicial record of case FIR No. 628/03 that it was revealed that on 19.10.2006 the deceased Anil Mandal appeared before Sh. Rajesh Goel, Ld. MM, Rohini. This fact was not within the knowledge of anyone that the Court where the deceased Anil Mandal had the hearing of his case listed was of Sh. Rajesh Goel MM and it is now at this final stage that it has been revealed (from judicial record suo-moto called by the Court) that it was in the Court of Sh. Rajesh Goel MM (whose name finds reflected in the slip found in possession of the St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 182 accused at the time of his arrest). It is this fact which lends credibility to the disclosure statement of the accused and also to the paper slip (containing many telephone numbers and names) recovered from the possession of the accused.
(179) Pursuant to his disclosure the accused had also led the police party to Yamuna Banks where he had allegedly thrown the skulls of two of the victims whom he had killed i.e. Dalip and Anil Mandal. This fact that the skull had been wrapped in a ghaghri and red cloth and thrown on the banks of river Yamuna was not in the knowledge of the Investigating Agency. It was the accused Chanderkant Jha who pointed out the place where he had thrown both the skulls out of which one skull and jaw could be recovered on his pointing out. According to the accused the said skull and jaw appeared to be of Dalip who used to consume gutkha but the DNA Fingerprinting report conclusively established that the same was of Anil Mandal @ Amit the victim in FIR No. 609/2006 whose decapitated was discovered outside Tihar Jail on 20.10.2006 (not of Dalip - in fact skull of Dalip could not be found).
(180) The accused also disclosed that after killing his victims he used to cut off their body parts and threw their parts at various places in and around Delhi with the help of his motorable rickshaw (which rickshaw he got recovered from his house at Alipur immediately after his arrest). Though many of these body parts were recovered at various places in Delhi even before the arrest of the accused yet I may observe that they could not be connected to the victims so killed by the accused. It was only pursuant to the arrest of the accused that the body parts i.e. one leg put recovered at Ramdev Mandir, Shalimar Bagh, arm and private part at Lal Bagh Loni (Uttar Pradesh) which had been found near a sugarcane juice shop were dismembered parts of body of Upender (FIR No. St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 183 243/2007) and the lower limbs and the private parts which had been recovered near State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Courts belonged to Dalip (confirmed by the DNA Fingerprinting Report). This is discovery of fact as contemplated under Section 27 of Evidence Act and is admissible in evidence.
(181) Further, pursuant to his disclosure the accused led the police party to his room at Haiderpur from where he got recovered three choppers and a nunchaku which he used for killing his victims. The FSL Report confirms the presence of blood stains of AB Group on one of the choppers / knives and also on the concrete floor of the room which is the blood group belonging to the last victim of the accused i.e. Dalip (FIR No. 279/2007) whom he had killed about five to six days prior to his arrest.
(182) It is evident that the place where the decapitated body was recovered was already within the knowledge of the police but the Investigating Agency was not able to connect these body parts being recovered from various places to the victims until it was the accused who disclosed to them at what place he had thrown the dismembered body part of which victim. Further, it was also not within the knowledge of the Investigating Agency as to how the decapitation of the victims had been done unless it is the accused who disclosed to them that he had done it with the help of choppers / knives which he got recovered from his house at Haiderpur. It was also not within the knowledge of the Investigating Agency that the slip recovered from the pocket of the accused contained the telephone numbers of the relatives of Upender one of the victim in FIR No. 243/2007. Pursuant to the above disclosure it was the accused who not only led the police to his room at Haiderpur but also got recovered from there, the choppers / knives and also one mobile St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 184 phone which he disclosed was belonging to one of his victims (last victim Dalip in FIR No. 279/2007) and it is this which is discovery of relevant fact. The portion of the disclosure statement of the accused which is discovery of facts as aforesaid is admissible in evidence and is a strong pointer towards the guilt of the accused.
Recovery of the letter along with the decapitated body/ Report of the Handwriting Expert:
(183) The case of the prosecution is that in all the serial killings which had taken place in respect of which three FIRs i.e. FIR No.609/2006, FIR No. 243/2007 and FIR No.279/2007 were registered, a definite pattern was observed by the Investigating Agency. Along with the decapitated bodies in two cases i.e. FIR No. 609/2006 & FIR No.279/2007 the killer had also placed a handwritten letter in which he not only confessed his having killed the victims but also mocked the Law Enforcement Agency and challenged them to lay their hands on him.
The Ld. Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State has placed his reliance on the said letters recovered along with the decapitated bodies (in FIR No.609/2006 & FIR No.279/2007) which according to the prosecution reflects that the killings were the handiwork of only one person and it is in this regard that in the letter recovered on 18.5.2007 (in FIR No.279/2007) not only does the killer disclose the identity of the decapitated body recovered on 20.10.2006 (in FIR No.609/2006) but also confesses to having thrown the decapitated body outside Gate No.3, Tihar Jail in FIR No. 243/2007 after killing his victim around 24 th of April.
(184) On the other hand it is argued by the Ld. Defence Counsel that the said letters recovered along with the decapitated body on 20.10.2006 St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 185 (in FIR No. 609/2006) and on 18.5.2007 (in FIR No. 279/2007) have been planted upon the accused by the police later on to create evidence against the accused. It is submitted that in both the cases i.e. FIR No. 609/2006 and 279/2007 the said letters do not find a mention either in the Crime Team Reports nor are reflected in the photographs taken by the Crime Team which clearly show that they have been planted only to work out the case. Ld. Defence Counsel has also pointed out that despite the fact that the said letters have been allegedly seized by the Investigating Officer on the same day yet in both the cases they have not been sealed or deposited in the Malkhana at the earliest showing that they have been planted much later.
(185) The Ld. Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State has sought to counter the arguments advanced by the Ld. Defence Counsel by submitting that the fact that the letters were recovered along with the decapitated bodies find a mention in the Tehrir/ Rukka prepared by the Investigating Officer at the spot itself on the basis of which the respective FIRs containing the said contents have been registered. He has further submitted that the inquest papers prepared at the spot after which the decapitated body was sent to the Autopsy Surgeon for purposes of postmortem, also contain the original tehrir / rukka which bear the signatures of the Autopsy Surgeon thereby establishing that the said letters could not have been planted later. Ld. Addl. Public Prosecutor has further submitted that even otherwise there is no legal requirement of sealing the said letters and the Investigating Officer by choice had deliberately not sealed the same since the said letters were the only source / clue which could have possibly lead the Investigating Agency to the alleged serial killer.
St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 186(186) I have heard the rival contentions and duly considered the same. Before proceeding further at the very outset I may observe that the argument advanced by the Ld. Defence Counsel that the fact of the letter being recovered along with the decapitated bodies does not find reflected either in the crime team report or in the photographs taken by the Photographer of the Crime Team in both the cases i.e. FIR No. 609/2006 and FIR No. 279/2007. At the same time it is also correct that the aspect of the letters having being found along with the decapitated body cannot be doubted because the said fact finds a mention in the rukka / Tehrir prepared in both the cases (i.e. FIR No.609/2006 and 279/2007) and the resultant FIR copies of which have been proved to be dispatched to the senior officers including the Illaka Magistrates and there is no question of the same having been planted later. Further, the Tehrir forms a part of the Inquest papers in both the cases and the signatures of the Autopsy Surgeon find reflected on the same (now encircled by the Court as Z1 for the sake of convenience). The Autopsy Surgeon Dr. Anil Shandil is an independent person and there is no reason for him to colluded with the Investigating Agency in this regard. The question which now arises is whether the letters produced before the Court are the same which were found along with the decapitated bodies or have been swapped / changed. Here, I may observe that the handwriting expert has in both the cases i.e. FIR No. 609/2006 and FIR No. 279/2007 proved that the handwriting in the said letters match with the sample handwriting of the accused Chanderkant Jha (which sample handwriting's in both the cases were taken with the permission of the Ld. Illaka Magistrate in his presence and hence cannot be doubted). It is not the case of the accused that while in police custody he was compelled to write these letters. Hence in this background the accused having failed to explain as to how then the said St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 187 letters allegedly recovered along with the decapitated bodies contained handwriting which according to the expert matched with his handwriting there is no reason to doubt the version of the prosecution. (187) Coming first to the letter recovered along with the decapitated body found outside Central Jail Tihar on 20.10.2006 (FIR No.609/2006) which has been duly exhibited, the contents of the same are as under:
"... delhi police teri maa ki bhosra, teri maa ki chut. Ab kaan khol kar saare delhi police sun lo ki ab tak main najayaj case jhelta raha lekin main ab hakikat mein murder kiya hoon. Agar is murder mein tum mujhe pakar sako to pakar kar dikhao tab main samjhunga ki tum saare ke saare delhi police uper se niche tak ke staff apne asal maa-baap ke paidaish ho. Nahin to najayaj case lagana band karo varna ye shilshila hamesha hamesha ke liye jari rahega aur tum log mujhe kabhi bhi nahin pakar paoge kyonki main koi gangvar nahin hoon ki mujhe case khulne ka dar laga rahega kyonki iska saboot ye hai ki 2003 ke november mahine mein jo ek number par main-ne murder karke dala usko bhi tum log nahin khol sake aur na hi is case ko khol paoge kyonki ye hamara vada hai varna nahin to najayaj case lagana band karo ya phir case khol sako to case khol kar dikha do. Tumhare intzar mein tum logon ka baap + jijaji. CC...."
(188) It is writ large from the above that the author of the said letter has in clear terms voluntarily and without any fear not only confessed to the killing of the victim of the decapitated body but also to another killing which took place in November 2003 decapitated body of which victim was also thrown outside Gate No.1 which could not be worked out by the Delhi Police. It is evident that this was a fact which was only in the special knowledge of the alleged killer and none else. (189) Coming next to the letter recovered along with the decapitated body found outside Central Jail Tihar on 18.5.2007 (FIR No.279/2007) St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 188 which has been duly exhibited, the contents of the same are as under:
"...... Mere priyajano. delhi police ke jaanbaz D.H.G. se lekar I.P.S. Tum sabhi ko tumhare jijaji aur tumhare daamad ke taraf se khullam-khulla challenge hai ki agar vakai mein tumlogon ki maa ko tumlogon ke hi baap ne chodkar paida kiya hai to mujhe pakarkar dikhao varna tum saare upar se niche tak ke delhi police ka staff najayaz maa + baap ka paidaish kahlaoge aur tum log yahi sochna ki vakai mein tum logon ki maa aur behan kisi aur adhikar wallon se chudne wali hai kyonki (maadarchodon) maadarchodon ke aulaad tum delhi police vale bahut hi behanchod aur maa chod ho kyonki tum log najayaz case lagakar ek sharif aadmi ko bahut hi galat tarike se pareshaan aur mazbur tatha badnaam kar dete ho ki vo kamane - khane ke laayak bhi nahin reh pata hai. Lekin saale tum log ye bhul jaate ho ki jab ek sharif aadmi sharafat chor kar crime karta hai to phir tum logon ki aise hi maa behan chudi hai jaisa ki Tihar Jail par hota aaya hai aur hota hi rahega jab tak ki tum log mujhe (DCP) Manish Kumar Aggarwal se nahin baat karva doge aur main ek baat (SHO Hoshiyar Singh ji) se jarur kehna chahoonga ki abhi jo pichle hi saal 20.10.2006 ko laash mili thi usme us laash ka app logoon ne thik dhang se muaayena nahin kiya tha kyonki us laash par uske haath par (Amit) naam likha tha lekin aap loogoon ne akhbaar mein uska naam bhi nahin dalwaya tha. Vaise main ye letter likhta to nahin lekin abhi jo shayad 24 ya uske ek aadh din aage-piche April mein main-ne murder karke Tihar Jail par delhi police ke liye tohfa bheja tha uske andar jo letter nahin mila to bechare akhbar vale bhi pareshaan ho gaye ki aakhir delhi police valoon ke damaad aur jijajine abki baar letter kyon nahin bheja. Isliye main aap logoon ke shikayat par gaur pharmaya hai. Mujhe ummid hai ki ye shilshila aise hi chalta rahega aur delhi police valoon ki maa + behan chudti rahegi varna mujhe (DCP Manish Kumar Aggarwal) se baath karva do nahin to shale har 15 din mein aisa tohfa bhejna shuru kar doonga aur tum log mera jhaant bhi nahin bigar St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 189 paaoge. Kramshah Pr CC Main CC ye baat sina taan kar kabul kar raha hoon ki karib karib saal mein kam se kam 7-8 murder har haal mein karta hoon varna mera dimaag pagal hone lagta hai kyonki ye madarchod delhi police vaaloon ne mujhe najayaz case laga-lagakar itna majboor kar diya ki mujhe majburan ye kadam uthana pada taki unko bhi pata chale ki jab koi sharif aadmi apne haath mein hathiyar uthata hai to uska irada kitna jyada khatarnaak hota hai. Aur shale delhi police ke chote se bare ohdedaaroon tumhe zara si bhi akal nahin hai ki kam se kam itna murder karne vale ke upar abhi tak nahin kuch to 50 hazar inaam to rakh hi doon ya upar valoon se is CC ke baare mein jyada se jyada khunkhar aur khatarnaak ka upadhi de kar inaam rakhvaane ka koshih karo taki is khel mein kuch maja aaye kyonki tum to shale sharif ke baare mein akhbar aur challan mein aise darshaate ho jaise ki vo janamjaat peshevar criminal ho lekin madarchod delhi police vale main teri maa behan chod raha hoon khullam-khulla to mere upar inaam kyon nahin rakh rahe ho. Main apne upar inaam ki raashi jaanne ke liye ati utsuk hoon. Dhyan rakhna ki mere kaam ke laayak inaam jarur hona chahiye varna meri beijjati hogi to main tum sabki beijjati karva doonga. Ye letter akhbar valoon ko bhi padhwa dena. Aage phir Tohfa ko samay par bhej doonga - tum loogoon ka - jijaji + daamaad = C.C....."
(190) It is writ large from the above that the author of the above letter was already aware of the fact that the Delhi Police was unable to establish the identity of the victim of the decapitated body found outside Tihar Jail 20.10.2006 and disclosed to them that the said body was of one Amit whose name has also been tattooed on his arm. He has also confessed to the murder of the victim whose decapitated body was found outside Tihar Jail around 24th of April of the same year. He has further confessed to having killed at-least 7-8 persons in a year and has St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 190 threatened that he would continue to leave the gifts for the Delhi Police (i.e. decapitated bodies) in a similar manner after every fifteen days. (191) I may observe that the seizure memos of the above letters not only mentions the details of the contents of the same but also gives the detail description of the papers on which they were written. In FIR No. 609/2006 the letter was written on a ruled paper a fact which finds a specific mention in seizure memo Ex.PW1/B and further in FIR No. 279/2007 the fact that the letter was written on a yellow page with green ink on both the sides continues on the white sheet which was the backside of a Geography paper of some school, also finds a specific mention in the seizure memo Ex.PW26/A and hence there is no reason to doubt that the same (questioned document) could have been changed. (192) Sh. Puran Chand, Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate in whose Court the sample handwriting of the accused Chanderkant Jha had been taken, has been examined and exhaustively cross-examined. The Ld. MM has proved that he had granted the permission to take the sample handwriting of the accused Chanderkant Jha which sample handwriting was taken by the Investigating Officer in the Court in his presence which samples also bear his counter signatures and authentication. Numerous suggestions have been put to the Ld. MM by the accused but the Ld. MM has stood by his version that the handwriting was taken in his presence all of which papers (containing the sample handwriting) bear his signatures. The only argument of the accused is that the samples allegedly taken in the Court were swapped and changed and hence the report given does not pertain to his handwriting. The Ld. Magistrate has very categorically denied this charge of the accused and has confirmed after seeing all the papers containing the sample handwriting that the said sample handwriting was the one which was given by the accused in his presence in the open Court St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 191 which bear his counter signatures. There is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of the Ld. Magistrate on this aspect. The accused has also alleged that there are 64 papers on which the sample handwriting was taken and it is just not feasible that the same could have been taken on one date. In this regard I may observe that the proceedings conducted by Sh. Pooran Chand Ld. MM which are Ex.PW28/F (proceeding sheet dated 8.6.2007) are succinctly clear and reflect that on 7.6.2007 the specimen handwriting and signatures could not be taken as sufficient time was consumed in conducting TIP proceedings of refusal of the accused on which the application had to be adjourned for 8.6.2007 on which day in his presence handwriting of the accused in Hindi and specimen signatures were obtained on 64 sheets all of which were duly endorsed by him as signatures and handwriting taken in his presence and also in the presence of the counsel for the accused (Sh. Vivek Gupta Advocate). There is a presumption of correctness of the Judicial Proceedings and there is no reason to doubt the same. In so far as FIR No.609/2006 is concerned the record of the said proceedings are a part of the Judicial Record of the said case. The Investigating Officer Inspector Sunder Singh and other witnesses who were present at the time of production of the accused before the Ld. Illaka Magistrate having proved that a request had been made to the Ld MM vide an application for taking the sample handwriting of the accused in the said case which request was allowed by Sh. Bhupesh Kumar, Ld. MM after which the sample handwriting of the accused was taken in the presence of the Ld. MM. The original application along with the proceeding sheets and order are a part of the Judicial Record and is presumed to be correct. The accused Chanderkant Jha has not raised any objection to the proceedings conducted before Sh. Bhupesh Kumar, Ld. MM in this regard (no St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 192 suggestion has been made by the accused to the official witnesses including Inspector Sunder Singh who have deposed about the said proceedings).
(193) Coming now to the aspect of the report of the handwriting expert in both FIR No. 609/2006 and FIR No. 279/2007. I may observe that Sh. Sanjeev Kumar Senior Scientific Officer (Documents), FSL, Delhi has proved his report in both the cases. In FIR No. 609/2006 he has proved his report Ex.PW47/A to the extent that the person who wrote the blue writings stamped and marked as S1 to S7 had also written the red writings similarly stamped and marked Q1 & Q2. He has identified the questioned documents which is Ex.PW22/B and the sample handwriting which are Ex.PW22/U-1 to Ex.PW22/U-7. Further, in FIR No. 279/2007 he has again proved his report which is Ex.PW38/A according to which the person who wrote the blue enclosed writings stamped and marked S1 to S64 also wrote the red enclosed writings similarly stamped and marked Q1 to Q3.
(194) The accused has challenged the correctness of the said report and has argued that the same is no authentic and has been given on the asking of the Investigating Officer and hence cannot be relied upon. Before coming to the argument advanced before me, I may observe that it would depend upon the appreciation of report / opinion of handwriting expert and other attending circumstances as to whether the said report can be relied upon or not and to what extent.
(195) Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act lay down that when the court has to form an opinion as to the identity of hand writing or finger impressions, the opinions upon that point of the persons expert in that science are relevant facts. If the two hand writings match with each other, this itself is an evidence as per the Indian Evidence act. To say it St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 193 differently, the matching of two hand writings is itself a substantial evidence under Section 45 of Indian Evidence Act and the opinion of the hand writing expert is sought only to facilitate the court to form an opinion on this point. Therefore, to say that conviction can be or cannot be based solely upon the report of hand writing expert would be misleading. The appropriate interpretation of Section 45 of Indian Evidence Act is that court is competent to form its own opinion on the point of identity of hand writing and for that purpose the court may call for the report of a hand writing expert. Therefore, the relevant fact before this court is the matching or non matching of the hand writing of the accused with the questioned hand writing. If the hand writings match, there cannot be any hitch in convicting the accused even if further corroborative evidence is not available. I quote from the judgment dated 5.7.2011 passed by the division Bench of Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Ravindra Bhatt and Hon'ble Mr. Justice G. P. Mittal in the case of Jaipal Vs State Criminal appeal No. 137/98 and Rajendra Vs. State Criminal Appeal No. 181/98 as under :
"......It is true that except the handwriting Expert's report Ext.PW4/A there is no corroboration that the ransom letter Ext.PW12/A was in the handwriting of Appellant Jaipal. The question was dealt in detail by the Supreme Court in Murari Lal v. State of M. P., AIR 1980 SC 531. The Court observed that handwriting expert is not an accomplice and there is no justification for condemning his opinion evidence. It was held that if the Court is convinced from the report of an expert that the questioned handwriting was of the accused, there is no difficulty in relying upon the expert's opinion without any corroboration."
(196) It is pertinent to note that High Court of Delhi had relied upon Murari Lal Vs. State of M.P. Reported in AIR 1980 SC 531 wherein St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 194 Hon'ble Supreme Court held that there was no rule of law nor any rule of prudence that the evidence of handwriting expert must not be acted upon, unless substantially corroborated. I would like to quote from this judgment extensively as under:
"....... An expert is no accomplice. There is no justification for condemning his opinion-evidence to the same class of evidence as that of an accomplice and insist upon corroboration. True, it has occasionally been said on very high authority that it would be hazardous to base a conviction solely on the opinion on a handwriting expert. But, the hazard in accepting the opinion of any expert, handwriting expert or any other kind of expert, is not because experts, in general, are unreliable witness-the quality of credibility or incredibility being one which an expert shares with all other witness-, but because all human judgment is fallible and an expert may go wrong because of some defect of observation, some error of premises or honest mistake of conclusion. The more developed and the more perfect a science, the less the chance of an incorrect opinion and the converse if the science is less developed and imperfect. The science of identification of finger-prints has attained near perfection and the risk of an incorrect opinion is practically non-existent. On the other hand, the science of identification of handwriting is not nearly so perfect and the risk is, therefore, higher. An expert deposes and not decides. His duty is to furnish the judge with the necessary scientific criteria for testing the accuracy of his conclusion, so as to enable the judge to form his own independent judgment by the application of these criteria to the facts proved in evidence.
(para4) Expert testimony is made relevant by S.45 of the Evidence Act and where the Court has to form an opinion upon a point as to identity of handwriting, the opinion of a person 'specially skilled' in questions as to identity of handwriting is expressly made a relevant fact. There is nothing in the Evidence Act, as for St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 195 example like illustration (b) to S. 114 which entitles the Court to presume that an accomplice is unworthy of credit, unless he is corroborated in material particulars, which justifies the Court in assuming that a handwriting expert's opinion is unworthy of credit unless corroborated. The Evidence Act itself (S.3) tells that 'A fact is said to be provided when, after considering the matters before it, the Court either believes it to exist or considers its existence so probable that prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it exists.' Further, under S. 144 of the Evidence Act, the Court may presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened, regard being had to the common course of natural events, human conduct, and public and private business, in their relation to facts of the particular case. It is also to be noticed that S. 46 of the Evidence Act makes facts, not otherwise relevant, relevant if they support or are inconsistent with the opinions of experts, when such opinions are relevant.
(Para 6) There is no rule of law, nor any rule of prudence which has crystalised into a rule of law, that opinion evidence of a handwriting expert must never be acted upon, unless substantially corroborated. But, having due regard to the imperfect nature of the science of identification of handwriting, the approach should be one of caution. Reasons for the opinion must be carefully probed and examined. All other relevant evidence must be considered. In appropriate cases, corroboration may be sought. In cases where the reasons for the opinion are convincing and there is no reliable evidence through a doubt, the uncorroborated testimony of a handwriting expert may be accepted. There cannot be any inflexible rule on a matter which, in the ultimate analysis, is no more than a question of testimonial weight. (Cases law discussed).
(Para 11) Evidence Act expressly enables the Court to compare disputed writings with admitted or proved writings to ascertain whether a writing is that of the person by St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 196 whom it purports to have been written. Where there are expert opinions, they will aid the Court. Where there is none, the Court will have to seek guidance from some authoritative text book and the Court's own experience and knowledge. But discharge it must, its plain duty, with or without expert, with or without other evidence.
(Para 12) (197) It is borne out from the above that when a case is being pressed by the prosecution solely on the basis of handwriting expert, the court should be very cautious and the reasons for the expert opinion must be carefully examined. In case where reasons for opinion are convincing and there is no reliable evidence throwing a doubt upon it, the testimony of handwriting expert may be accepted.
(198) Now applying these principles to the facts of the present case it is writ large that the expert Sanjeev Kumar has proved having carefully and thoroughly examined all the documents with the scientific instruments such as stereo microscope, video spectral comparitor- IV, docucenter and VSC - 2000/HR etc. under different lighting conditions and has also correctly identified the two letters which have been examined by him. I may observe that the expert Sh. Sanjeev Kumar has prepared his reports in a very scientific manner. He has given detail reasons and I appreciate the manner in which the entire work has been done in a thoroughly professional and scientific manner. A specific suggestion was put to the expert as to why he did not take the photographs of the sample and questioned handwriting for comparison on which he has satisfactorily explained that it was not necessary since the material i.e. both sample and questioned handwriting was sufficient and it is only in cases where the material is insufficient that such a technique is necessitated.
St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 197(199) Further, I have also personally examined the question document i.e. the above letters recovered along with the decapitated bodies (in FIR No.609/2006 & FIR No.279/2007) in original under a high power magnifying glass in sufficient light and compared them with the sample handwriting's of the accused which were sent to the expert for examination and also with the admitted handwriting of the accused present on his arrest memo, personal search memo, disclosure statement, various pointing out memos, recovery memos and the certified copies of the charge sheet in case FIR No. 452/03, under Section 452/380/411/34 IPC which is Ex.DW1/J (which is admitted and relied upon by the accused Chanderkant Jha himself) and the signatures put by the accused Chanderkant Jha on his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in the present cases and I may observe that on comparison by me the said handwriting present on the questioned document has been found to be matching with these handwriting / signatures of the accused Chanderkant Jha, though written at a different point of time, in broad features like spacing, size & proportion of characters and nature of commencing and termination of strokes. In this background there is no reason to disbelieve the reports by the expert in both the FIR No. 609/2006 and FIR No. 279/2007.
(200) Further, I may observe that the contents of the letters as discussed herein above are in the nature of confession not only to the serial killings in all the three cases i.e. FIR No.609/2006, 243/2007 and 279/2007. In this regard the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sita Ram vs. State of UP reported in AIR 1966 SC 1096 under similar circumstances held the letter recovered along with the dead body to be in the nature of a confession. In the above case the accused Sita Ram had after killing his wife Smt. Sindura Rani placed a letter addressed to the St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 198 Sub Inspector Jagbir Singh on the table near the dead body under his signatures in Urdu reading as:
"...I have myself committed the murder of my wife Smt. Sindura Rani. Nobody else perpetrated this crime. I would appear myself after 20 or 25 days and then will state everything. One day the law will extend its hands and will get me arrested. I would surrender myself. (Sd. in Urdu).Sita Ram Naroola, 14th September, 1962."
(201) On the back of this letter the following was written:
"..It is the first and the last offence of my life. I have not done any illegal act nor I had the courage to do that, but this woman compelled me to do so and I bad to break the law..".
(202) The majority view of Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mudholkar and Hon'ble Chief Justice A.K. Sarkar was that this letter contained a confession addressed to a police officer but it does not come within the bar created under Section 25 of Evidence Act as the police officer was not near by when the latter was written or knew that it was being written and hence the letter could not be a confession made to a police officer. (203) Now applying the ratio to the facts of the present case, it is writ large that the above letters so addressed to the police officer contains the inculpatory portions wherein the author of the crime has confessed to the killings by decapitation of bodies of the victims which he had thrown in front of Central Jail Tihar in the month of November 2003, on 20.10.2006, then on 25.4.2007 and finally on 18.5.2007. (204) The relevant portion of the letter recovered along with the decapitated body on 20.10.2006, is as under:
"...Agar is murder mein tum mujhe pakar sako to pakar kar dikhao....."St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 199
".... kyonki iska saboot ye hai ki 2003 ke november mahine mein jo ek number par main-ne murder karke dala usko bhi tum log nahin khol sake aur na hi is case ko khol paoge..."
(205) Further, the relevant portion of the letter recovered along with the decapitated body on 18.5.2007, is as under:
".....main ek baat (SHO Hoshiyar Singh ji) se jarur kehna chahoonga ki abhi jo pichle hi saal 20.10.2006 ko laash mili thi usme us laash ka app logoon ne thik dhang se muaayena nahin kiya tha kyonki us laash par uske haath par (Amit) naam likha tha lekin aap loogoon ne akhbaar mein uska naam bhi nahin dalwaya tha. Vaise main ye letter likhta to nahin lekin abhi jo shayad 24 ya uske ek aadh din aage- piche April mein main-ne murder karke Tihar Jail par delhi police ke liye tohfa bheja tha uske andar jo letter nahin mila to bechare akhbar vale bhi pareshaan ho gaye ki aakhir delhi police valoon ke damaad aur jijajine abki baar letter kyon nahin bheja...."
(206) It is writ large from the above that in the said letters he has not only confessed to an earlier killing of November 2003 in a similar manner after which he threw the decapitated body in front of Gate No.1, Central Jail Tihar. In so far as the incidents of 20.10.2006 (FIR No. 609/2006), 25.4.2007 (FIR No. 243/3007) and 18.5.2007 (FIR No. 279/2007) apart from the above confessions there is sufficient independent corroboration forthcoming pointing towards the involvement of the accused in the said killings. I hereby hold that these letters which are in the nature of confession are strong pointers to the guilt of the accused in FIR No. 609/2006, FIR No.243/2007 and 279/2007.
St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 200Electronic record confirms that accused had made a call from the STD/ PCO Booth to Inspector Hoshiyar Singh on 20.10.2006:
(207) Case of the prosecution is that on 20.10.2006 after the decapitated dead body was discovered outside Gate No.3, Central Jail Tihar the alleged killer / author of the crime made a telephonic call first to the Police Station claiming himself to be Mukesh Tiwari from where he took the number of Inspector Hoshiyar Singh and then made a call to Inspector Hoshiyar Singh on his mobile phone and challenged him. The caller who had made this call from telephone No. 25993011 (STD Booth). The prosecution in order to prove the said call have examined one Tarun Khurana (PW33) the competent officer of the service provider who has proved the call details record of Inspector Hoshiyar Singh of the relevant period.
(208) The Nodal Officer from Bharti Airtel Ltd. Sh. Tarun Khurana (PW33) has proved that at the time of recovery of the dead body at Central Jail, Tihar the SHO Police Station Inspector Hoshiyar Singh was allotted the mobile No. 9871284644. The Customer Application Form in this regard is Ex.PW33/A establishing that the mobile No. 9871284644 was allotted to Inspector Hoshiyar Singh. The Call Details Record for the period 10.10.2066 to 21.10.2006 has been proved as Ex.PW22/Z-15 along with the certificate under Section 65 of Evidence Act which is Ex.PW33/D. He has also placed on record the Cell ID chart which is Ex.PW33/E. (209) I have carefully analyzed the Call Detail Record and the Cell ID Chart which confirms that on 20.10.2006 at 8:39:13 hours a call had been received by Inspector Hoshiyar Singh on his mobile phone bearing No. 9871284644 from telephone No. 01125993011 which call lasted for 276 seconds (2 minutes 36 seconds). The analysis of the Call Details St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 201 Record also confirms that the location of Inspector Hoshiyar Singh was at Nangal Raya Tower (Asmara). The accused has not been able to controvert the above electronic record.
(210) Further, in order to prove its case that the said caller who claimed himself to be Mukesh Tiwari is none else but the accused before this Court Chanderkant Jha, the prosecution has placed its reliance on the testimonies of Ram Babu Chaurasiya, Ct. Babu Lal, ASI Bal Kishan and Inspector Hoshiyar Singh which finds independent corroboration from the electronic record of the mobile No. 971284644 used by Inspector Hoshiyar Singh at the relevant time.
(211) I have gone through the testimonies of the various witnesses. Ram Babu Chaurasiya (PW12) in this testimony has proved that he was working on the STD/PCO Booth having No.01125993011 which was in the name of Mahesh Bhatia. According to him, on 20.10.2006 at about 8:30 / 8:45 AM while he was present on his STD / PCO Booth one person aged about 40 years came to his booth and after making the call he gave hims Rs.12/- and went away. The witness has proved that after sometime he received a phone on his STD / PCO Booth from Inspector Hashiyar Singh who asked him to catch hold of the person who had made the call but since the said person had already left hence he could not traced. Ram Babu Chaurasiya (PW12) has further proved that thereafter he was called at Police Station Hari Nagar where he informed the police that the caller was tall in height, having brownish complexion and was using Eastern Hindi language and he could identify him. This Ram Babu Chaurasiya then got a sketch / portrait of the said person who had made the call prepared. Ram Babu Chaurasiya has identified the accused Chanderkant Jha as the said person who had come to his booth to make a call between 8:30 / 8:45 AM after which Inspector Hoshiyar St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 202 Singh had called back asking him to apprehend the person who had made a call. He has also proved that earlier, on 4.6.2007 he had gone to Central Jail Tihar to identify the accused but the Test Identification Parade could not be conducted. Here, I may observe that the Test Identification Parade of the accused could not be conducted on account of the refusal of the accused to participate in the same since he had claimed that his photographs had been flashed in the Newspapers and News Channels and had also been shown to the witness. In this background, this Ram Babu Chaurasiya was called to the Court on 26.6.2007 and when the accused was being taken for production he immediately pointed him out to Inspector Sunder Singh as the person who had come to his STD Booth and made a call.
(212) The testimony of Ram Babu Chaurasiya in this regard is truthful and credible as it find independent corroboration from the electronic record Ex.PW22/Z-15 (Call Detail Record of Inspector Hoshiyar Singh) confirming that the call had been made from the STD Booth to the mobile phone of Inspector Hoshiyar Singh at 8:39 AM. (213) Further, even before the Investigating Agency could get the remotest idea as to who the author of the crime was, the witness Ram Babu Chaurasiya had got prepared a portrait/ sketch of the accused on 10.11.2006. Ct. Babu Lal (PW8) has duly proved the computer sketch got prepared on 10.11.2006 on the description told to him by Ram Babu Chaurasiya which sketch is Ex.PW8/A. This computer sketch of the accused present on the judicial file tallies with the accused and also with his photographs of the relevant time taken in the year 2007 at the time of his arrest in broad particulars.
(214) Also, the Duty Officer ASI Bal Kishan (PW7) has independently confirmed the aspect of receiving of the call by him from St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 203 the alleged author of the crime and the fact that he had passed on the number of Inspector Hoshiyar Singh to the caller. He has proved that on 20.10.2006 when he was working as Duty Officer at Police Station Hari Nagar at about 7:05 AM he received a telephone call from one person claiming himself to be Mukesh Tiwari who informed him that he had thrown a headless body at Gate No.3 of Tihar Jail. According to ASI Bal Kishan he thereafter received another call from this Mukesh Tiwari at about 8:20 AM who asked him the telephone number of SHO on which he (ASI Bal Kishan) passed on the number to this caller. ASI Bal Kishan has proved that since he could not contact the SHO Police Station Hari Nagar (Inspector Hoshiyar Singh), therefore he passed on the information to Inspector Sunder Singh who was also present at the scene of crime at Gate No.3 Tihar Jail with Inspector Hoshiyar Singh and in this regard Inspector Sunder Singh in his testimony corroborated ASI Bal Kishan on the above aspect. I may observe that the Call Detail records of Inspector Hoshiyar Singh Ex.PW22/Z-15 also confirm the calls made by Inspector Sunder Singh from his own mobile bearing No. 9911115185 to Inspector Hoshiyar Singh.
(215) From the analysis of the above evidence which has come on record as aforesaid the following facts emerge and stand established:
➢ That Inspector Hoshiyar Singh was allotted mobile phone No. 9871284644 (as per Customer Application From Ex.PW33/A). ➢ That on 20.10.2006 from 7:37 AM till 9:57 AM Inspector Hoshiyar Singh was in the area of Central Jail Tihar (as per the cell ID Chart).
➢ At 7:05 AM one Mukesh Tiwari (this particular accused) makes a call to the police station Hari Nagar which is received by ASI Bal Kishan and informed that he had thrown a headless body in front St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 204 of Tihar Jail after which he stared abusing police officials (DD No. 7A - Ex.PW7/A) ➢ At 7:20 AM a message was received from PCR that one Mukesh Tiwari had called up and informed that he had thrown a headless body outside Gate No.3, Tihar Jail. (DD No.8A - Ex.PW7/B). ➢ At 7:37 AM ASI Bal Kishan made a call to Inspector Hoshiyar Singh as reflected in Call Details Record Ex.PW22/Z-15 confirming that ASI Bal Kishan had informed Inspector Hoshiyar Singh regarding the headless body being thrown outside Gate No.3, Tihar Jail.
➢ At 7:46 AM Inspector Hoshiyar Singh made a call to Inspector Sunder Singh on his mobile No. 9911115185 (Inspector Sunder Singh has proved that since Inspector Hoshiyar Singh was handling BJP Demonstration outside Central Jail Tihar he directed him i.e. Inspector Sunder Singh to take over the investigations in the present case).
➢ At 7:52 AM after making a call to Inspector Sunder Singh, Inspector Hoshiyar Singh made a call at Police Station Hari Nagar. ➢ At 8:45 AM according to ASI Bal Kishan he received a call from the same Mukesh Tiwari asking for the mobile number of Inspector Hoshiyar Singh which number he gave to the caller. Here, I may observe that the time given by witness ASI Bal Kishan as 8:45 AM appears to be inaccurate by a few minutes and this call was around 8:38 - 8:39 AM because soon after the caller disconnected the phone, ASI Bal Kishan has proved that he made a call to Inspector Hoshiyar Singh which phone was coming busy and hence he instead informed Inspector Sunder Singh about the St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 205 said call and asked him to pass on the message to Inspector Hoshiyar Singh. Call Detail Records Ex.PW22/Z-15 shows that there was no call between 7:59 AM to 8:39 AM and hence it is writ large that immediately after calling ASI Bal Kishan the caller had made the call to Inspector Hoshiyar Singh and it was on this count that the phone of Inspector Hoshiyar Singh was coming busy.
➢ At 8:39 AM Inspector Hoshiyar Singh received a call from the STD/ PCO No. 01125993011 (when the caller claimed himself to be the author of the crime and thereafter challenged the system, abused and threatened the police officers). Here I may observe that since ASI Bal Kishan could not convey this fact to Inspector Hoshiyar Singh, he informed Inspector Sunder Singh of the same and Inspector Sunder Singh has proved that by the time he reached to Inspector Hoshiyar Singh the alleged author of the crime had already made a call to Inspector Hoshiyar Singh by that time. ➢ That sketch of the accused was prepared by Ram Babu Chaurasiya which sketch is Ex.PW8/A which portrait / sketch tallies and matches with the broad features of the accused (seen from the photograph of the accused at the time of his arrest) and also with his physic and feature as they now exist (after almost 7 years of the crime).
(216) Hence in view of the above, I hereby hold that the prosecution has successfully established and confirmed that the accused Chanderkant Jha had made a call to Inspector Hoshiyar Singh from the STD Booth of Ram Babu Chaurasiya.St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 206
Forensic Evidence:
(217) The entire case of the prosecution is based upon circumstantial, electronic and forensic evidence which have come to the aid of the prosecution there being no direct evidence.
Identity of the deceased established by DNA Fingerprinting Report:
(218) The case of the prosecution is that after the decapitated body was found outside the Gate No.3, Central Jail Tihar the identity of the deceased could not be established as there was nothing on the body or around it on the basis of which it could be confirmed as to who the deceased was. It was for the first time when another decapitated body was found outside Gate No.3, Central Jail Tihar on 18.5.2007 where the killer had placed another letter (running into three pages on two papers) was found along with the body, that it was disclosed that the said decapitated body discovered on 20.10.2006 was of one Amit but this again was not sufficient and it could not be ascertained as to who this Amit was. More clues were obtained by the Investigating Agency when the accused Chanderkant Jha was arrested who disclosed that the dead body thrown by him on 20.10.2006 was that of Anil Mandal. The Investigating Agency in order to confirm the identity of the said deceased, at the time of the postmortem of the decapitated body the sternum was preserved and later on the basis of the disclosure of the accused that the same belonging to one Anil Mandal, the blood samples of Hari Singh and Smt. Saroj Devi R/o Village Lakhnoor Mill Chowk, Police Station Lakhnoor, District Madhubani, Bihar were collected and sent for DNA Fingerprinting examination. Surprisingly the DNA Fingerprinting Report Ex.PW35/A showed that the samples of Hari Singh and Smt. Saroj Devi did not match with the DNA of the sternum of St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 207 decapitated body discovered on 20.10.2006 establishing that the body was not of their son Amit Mandal. In this background further investigations to confirm the identity of the deceased were continued and it was then revealed that one accused Anil Mandal @ Amit S/o Sh.
Tiwari Mandal R/o Village Ogari, Post Officer Majsa Munda, Police Station Khal Goan, District Bhagal Pur, Bihar who was arrested in case FIR No. 26/03, under Section 25/54/59 of Arms Act, Police Station Shalimar Bagh was missing since 19.5.2006 after he had gone to Rohini Court to attend to his date. Thereafter the wife of deceased Anil Mandal @ Amit namely Smt. Bharti Devi was traced (after obtaining details from the CRO - Dossier Cell Kamla Market) and the blood samples of her children namely Master Vijay and Baby Manda fathered by Anil Mandal (who was incidentally missing since 19.10.2006) were collected at FSL Rohini and the DNA examination report Ex.PW35/D then confirmed that the dead body was that of the father of children Master Vijay & Baby Manda i.e. Anil Mandal @ Amit husband of Smt. Bharti Devi and son of Tiwari Mandal.
(219) The wife of the deceased namely Smt. Bharti Devi (PW39) and her children i.e. Baby Manda (PW40) and Master Vijay (PW41) have proved that their blood samples were taken at FSL Rohini on 30.11.2011. They had been accompanied by Smt. Paro (PW42) who has corroborated the testimonies of Smt. Bharti Devi (PW39), Baby Manda (PW40) and Master Vijay (PW41) in this regard and proved that on 30.11.2011 she had accompanied them to FSL Rohini where the blood samples of the children of Smt. Bharti Devi were taken. The DNA Fingerprinting Report dated 30.11.2011 Ex.PW35/D confirms that the decapitated body was of Anil Mandal @ Amit S/o Sh. Tiwari Mandal R/o Village Ogari, Post Officer Majsa Munda, Police Station Khal Goan, District Bhagal St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 208 Pur, Bihar.
(220) Here, I may observe that after the arrest of the accused Chanderkant Jha and after he had disclosed regarding the decapitated body thrown outside the Gate No.3, Tihar Jail on 20.10.2006 was of Anil @ Amit Mandal, he thereafter led the police investigating team to the banks of river Yamuna on 23.5.2007 where he had allegedly thrown the decapitated heads of two of his victim namely Dalip and Anil Mandal. Pursuant to the said disclosure he got recovered one skull and jaw from the eastern bank of Yamuna river but the other skull which he had thrown at a different place on the banks of river Yamuna could not be recovered. Initially the accused had identified the said skull and jaw so got recovered by him as that of Dalip since he used to chew tobacco and guthkha but when the DNA Fingerprinting was conducted the DNA isolated from the DNA isolated from the teeth preserved from the skull and jaw so recovered at the instance of the accused it was found to be matching with the sternum of the decapitated body discovered on 19.10.2006 i.e. of deceased Anil Mandal and not with the decapitated body recovered on 18.5.2007 of alleged Dalip (as claimed by the accused). The accused being involved in a number of killings and having thrown the skulls at various places the possibility of his getting confused on the aspect of identity of the recovered skull cannot be ruled out.
(221) Sh. A.K. Shrivastava (PW35) the DNA Fingerprinting Expert has proved that on 30.11.2011 two blood samples were received pertaining to master Vijay which was marked as Ex.P2 and pertaining to Ms. Manda which was marked as Ex.P3 which exhibits were subjected to DNA Isolation and DNA was isolated from the exhibit 2 and 3 after which the DNA finger printing profile was prepared on the Ex3.
St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 209However a partial DNA profile was prepared for the Ex2 and STR analysis was used for sample. He has proved that Data was analyzed by using Genescan and Gene Mapper ID-X software. The witness has proved that one set of alleles of the source of the exhibit 3 were accounted in source of exhibit 1 i.e. bone piece (sternum vide PM No. 982/06 received in DNA unit vide case FSL No. 2007/DNA-2849). He has also proved that the DNA profiling (STR analysis) performed on the exhibits provided was sufficient to conclude that the source of exhibit 1 (bone piece) i.e. sternum vide PM No. 982/06 received in the DNA unit vide FSL No. 2007/DNA-2849 reported on 03.12.2008 was biological father of source of the exhibit 3 i.e. blood sample of Ms. Manda. He has proved his detailed report in this regard which is Ex.PW35/D and the Geno type data which is Ex.PW35/E. (222) Sh. A.K. Shrivastava has further proved that the teeth of skull (so got recovered on the pointing out of the accused Chanderkant Jha) was matched with the bone piece i.e. sternum of deceased. He has proved that the alleles as from the source of Ex.3 i.e. teeth vide FSL No. 2007/DNA-2804 were accounted in alleles as from the source of Ex.1 (sternum of victim) vide FSL No. 2007/DNA-2849. He has also proved that the DNA profiling (STR analysis) performed on the exhibits 3 and 1 were sufficient to conclude that the DNA profile of source of Ex.3 i.e. teeth vide FSL No. 2007/DNA-2804 was matching with the DNA profile of the Ex.1 (sternum of victim) vide FSL No. 2007/DNA/2849 and his detailed report in this regard is Ex.PW35/F. (223) The above DNA Fingerprinting Reports conclusively establish that the decapitated body recovered at Gate No.3, Central Jail Tihar on 20.10.2006 and the skull and jaw got recovered by the accused Chanderkant Jha from the banks of river Yamuna on 23.5.2007 St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 210 belonged to Anil Mandal @ Amit Mandal S/o Sh. Tiwari Mandal R/o Village Ugri, Police Station Kahalgaon, District Bhagalpur, Bihar who was the father of Baby Manda (PW40) and Master Vijay (PW41) and not the son of Sh. Hari Singh and Smt. Saroj Devi. In view of the above, I hereby hold that the prosecution has been able to establishes the identity of the decapitated body recovered at Gate No.3, Central Jail, Tihar on 20.10.2006 at that of Anil Mandal @ Amit Mandal.
Spot Inspection carried out by the Court on 25.2.2012:
(224) During the course of trial this Court had on 25.2.2012 carried out the inspection of various spots (under Section 310 Cr.P.C.) which included the places where the decapitated bodies and the various body parts had been found from time to time in respect of which case FIR No. 609/2006, 243/3007 and 279/2007 were registered. The sketches showing the location of the area and the position of the spot where the said body parts were allegedly recovered was confirmed by me i.e. at Central Jail Tihar Gate No.1, Gate No.3 and the spot near the UTI ATM.
The area at the banks of river Yamuna from where the skull and jaw were recovered was also inspected and I found that the same was approachable from the side of ISBT flyover on foot. The area in front of SBI Tis Hazari Courts, Baba Ramdev Temple Haiderpur from where the body parts of the various victims had been recovered was also inspected. Further the house at Alipur where the accused was residing with his family at the time of his arrest and the spot from where he was apprehended and arrested was inspected. I also inspected the room at Haiderpur from where the accused had allegedly got recovered the choppers, nunchaku and the mobile phone of make Tata Samsung St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 211 bearing ESN No. 8562A099. The notes of the spot inspection were prepared by me which are present on the judicial file copies of which were supplied to the accused [in terms of provisions of Section 310 (2) Cr.P.C.].
(225) Since it had come on record that the accused possessed a motorable rickshaw (rickshaw rehri fitted with an engine of a scooter which had been seized by the police and produced in the Court and exhibited) and it was alleged that he used that motroable rickshaw to ferry the body parts and the decapitated bodies at various places where he disposed them off, I carefully during the spot inspection observed and analyzed the entire route which according to the prosecution the accused allegedly took while disposing off the decapitated bodies and their parts at various places in and around Delhi in the above cases (FIR No.609/2006, FIR No.243/2007 & FIR No.279/2007) so as to examine and evaluate the estimated time which could have been consumed in the said process.
(226) I further observed that much of the route undertaken by the author of the crime was a part of a Highway and the places where the different body parts had been discovered were either connected or adjoining to the Highway / route undertaken by him. I also noticed that the area around Alipur (leading to the house of the accused) from the National Highway (GT Road) has large isolated and vacant spots of land and also large green area, fields and jungles (thick natural vegetative growth) at many places (around both Alipur and Haiderpur).
Discrepancies & Contradictions:
(227) The Ld. Defence Counsel for the accused has vehemently argued that the witnesses examined by the prosecution are untrustworthy St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 212 and cannot be relied upon. He has in support of his claim highlighted the various contradictions in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses including Pankaj the brother of the victim in case FIR No. 243/2007. He has vehemently argued that the discrepancies and contradictions occurring in the testimonies of the various prosecution witnesses are material on account of which they cannot be relied upon. He has submitted that the close scrutiny of the testimonies of the official witnesses particularly the members of the Special Staff who were involved in the arrest and subsequent proceedings connected with the accused thereafter would show that there are material contradictions in their statements on the aspect as to the details of the members of the police party and the persons who had joined the same at the time of the arrest of the accused; the time when the crime team had reached the spot and the number of photographs taken; the place where the forensic expert Dr. Naresh Kumar had been picked up and the manner in which he was brought to the room at Haiderpur; availability and source of light inside the room at Haiderpur; the status of the room at Haiderpur as to whether it was locked or unlocked and who first opened the same and how; the place where the knives and nunchaku were kept; the person who first lifted the knives / choppers and the manner of their seizure. He has further pointed out that in so far as the alleged proceedings of recovery of the skull and jaw at the banks of river Yamuna are concerned, again there are material contradictions in the testimonies of these witnesses on the aspects of the person who called the divers at river Yamuna; the time of recovery of skull and jaw; availability of light and its source at the banks of river Yamuna where the proceedings took place and regarding the availability of the private photographer and taking of photographs. It is also argued that there are contradictions on the aspects of date when St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 213 Ram Babu Chaurasiya had got the portrait prepared and also when he had come to the Court. It is further pointed out by the Ld. Defence Counsel that the owner of the STD Booth owner (i.e. Mahesh Bhatia) has not been brought to the Court and only his employee has been made a witness.
(228) He has also placed his reliance to the various replies from the Police Department obtained by the accused under the RTI and has vehemently argued that the formal record of the Daily Diaries have been manipulated only to corroborate the main investigations. (229) The Ld. Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State on the other hand has vehemently argued that there are no contradictions and discrepancies as alleged. He submits that the contradictions so pointed out by the Ld. Defence Counsel are not material and would not affect the merits of the case at all. He has further submitted that in so far as the RTI replies are concerned they are neither primary nor secondary evidence and otherwise cannot taken the place of substantive evidence. He has argued that the attempt of the accused is only to create a confusion and doubt in the mind of the Court and it is only because of the same that he has been mischievously putting misleading questions to the Department and thereafter using the replies by twisting them to suit his convenience. (230) I have considered the rival contentions but before dealing with the same on merits it is necessary to briefly discuss the law on the subject. In the case of State of H.P. Vs. Lekhraj and another reported in JT 1999 (9) SC 43 it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that:-
"In the depositions of witnesses there are always normal discrepancy, however, honest and truthful they may be. Such discrepancies are due to normal errors of observation, normal errors of memory due to lapse St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 214 of time, due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of occurrence, and the like......... .......The traditional dogmatic hyper technical approach has to be replaced by rational, realistic and genuine approach for administering justice in a criminal trial."
(231) Further, in the case of Surender Singh Vs. State of Haryana reported in JT 2006 (1) SC 645, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has observed as under :-
"It is well-established principle of law that every discrepancy in the witness statement cannot be treated as a fatal to the prosecution case. The discrepancy, which does not affect the prosecution case materially, does not create infirmity."
(232) As far as minor inconsistencies are concerned in the statement of the witnesses it is held in the case of Ousu Varghese Vs. State of Kerala, reported in (1974) 3 SCC 767 that minor variations in the accounts of the witnesses are often the hallmark of the truth of their testimony. In the case of Jagdish Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in AIR 1981 SC 1167, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that when the discrepancies are comparatively of minor character and did not go to the root of the prosecution story, they need not be given undue importance. Mere congruity or consistency is not the sole test of truth in the depositions. Also in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Kalki, reported in (1981) 2 SCC 752 it has been held that in the depositions of witnesses there are always normal discrepancy, however, honest and truthful they may be. Such discrepancies are due to normal errors of observation, normal errors of memory due to lapse of time, due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of occurrence, and the like. Material discrepancies are those which are not normal, and St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 215 not expected of a normal person.
(233) Even otherwise, when an eye witness is examined at length it is quite possible for him to make some discrepancies. No true witness can possibly escape from making some discrepant details. Perhaps an untrue witness who is well tutored can successfully made his testimony totally non-discrepant. Courts have to bear in mind that it is only when discrepancies in evidence of witness are so incompatible with the credibility of his version that the Court is justified in jettisoning his evidence. Too serious a view to be adopted on mere variations falling in the narration of incident (either as between the evidence of two witnesses or as between two statements of the same witness) is an unrealistic approach for judicial scrutiny.
(234) It may be observed that it is a general handicap attached to all eye witnesses, if they fail to speak with precision their evidence would be assailed as vague and evasive, on the contrary if the speak to all events very well and correctly their evidence becomes vulnerable to be attacked as tutored. Both approaches are dogmatic and fraught with lack of pragmatism. The testimony of a witness should be viewed with broad angles. It should not be weighed in golden scales, but with cogent standards. In a particular case an eyewitness may be able to narrate the incident with all details without mistake if the occurrence had made an imprint on the canvas of his mind in the sequence in which it occurred. He may be a person whose capacity for absorption and retention of events is stronger than another person. It should be remembered that what he witness was not something that happens usually but a very exceptional one so far as he is concerned. If he reproduces it in the same sequence as it registered in his mind, the testimony cannot be dubbed as artificial on that score alone. (Ref.: Bhag Singh and Others Vs. State of St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 216 Punjab, reported in 1997 VII AD SC 507).
(235) The Supreme Court had an opportunity to discuss as to why discrepancies arise in the statements of witnesses. In the judgment of Bharwada Boginbhai Hijri Bhai Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in 1983 (CRI) GJX 0252 SC: AIR 1983 SC 7453 (1), the Supreme Court pointed out the following reasons as to why the discrepancies, contradictions and improvements occur in the testimonies of the witnesses.
(a) By and large a witness cannot be expected to possess a photographic memory and to recall the details of an incident. It is not as if a video tape is replayed on the mental screen.
(b) Ordinarily it so happens that a witness is overtaken by events. The witness could not have anticipated the occurrence which so often has an element of surprise. The mental faculties therefore cannot be expected to be attuned to absorb the details.
(c) The powers of observation differ from person to person. What one may notice, another may not. An object or movement might emboss its image on one person's mind, whereas it might go unnoticed on the part of another.
(d) By and large people cannot accurately recall a conversation and reproduce the very words used by them or heard by them. They can only recall the main purport of the conversation. It is unrealistic to expect a witness to be a human tape recorder.
(e) In regard to exact time of an incident, or the time duration of an occurrence, usually people make their estimates by guess work on the spur of the moment at the time of interrogation. And one cannot expect people to make very precise or reliable estimates in such matters. Again, it depends on the time sense of individuals which varies from person to person.
(f) Ordinarily a witness cannot be expected to recall accurately the sequence of events which take place in rapid succession or in a short time span. A witness is liable to get confused, or mixed up when interrogated later on.
St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 217(g) A witness, though wholly truthful, is liable to be overawed by the court atmosphere and the piercing cross-examination made by counsel and out of nervousness mix up facts, get confused regarding sequence of events, of fill up details from imagination on the spur of the moment. The subconscious mind of the witness sometimes so operates on account of the fear of looking foolish or being disbelieved through the witness is giving a truthful and honest account of the occurrence witnessed by him perhaps it is a sort of psychological defence mechanism activated on the moment.
(236) Applying the settled principles of law to the facts of the present case and I may at the very outset observe that in so far as the replies to the RTI are concerned the same cannot take the place of substantive evidence led in the Court. In case if any of the parties seek to rely upon such replies in their support the same should have been brought on record as a part of evidence and subjected to a similar examination and cross-examination as any other evidence which has not been done. Rather, on the contrary despite sufficient opportunity and time being given to him by the Court at the stage of final arguments, the accused has not done so.
(237) In so far as the non-examination of the original owner of STD Booth namely Mahesh Bhatia is concerned, I may observe that it is a matter of common knowledge that the owners of these STD Booths normally sublet the same or employed other people. Though this may be illegal but that in itself would be no reason to disbelieve the testimony of Ram Babu Chaurasiya who was running this booth and at whose instance the portrait got prepared by the police which portrait I may observe matches with the accused in broad particulars.
St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 218(238) Further, I may observe that certain discrepancies have been pointed out by the Ld. Defence Counsel in the statement of Pankaj (PW1) the cousin brother of the victim Upender with regard to the date, time and phone numbers are concerned. I may note that the examination of Pankaj is relevant in all the three cases (FIR No. 609/2006, 243/2007 & 279/2007) to the extent of proving the use of mobile numbers 9211463742 and 9211463743 by the accused. Also, in FIR No. 243/3007 he is relevant because he is the person who had last spoken to the deceased victim on 24.4.2007 after which the mobile phone No. 9211463743 on which he was regularly speaking to the deceased was switched off. He is also relevant in the said case because when Pankaj spoke to the accused Chanderkant Jha on 17.5.2007 to find out the whereabouts of his brother Upender (victim) certain remarks were made by the accused Chanderkant Jha (which this court has observed were in the nature of Extra Judicial Confession). Pankaj is a rustic illiterate villager. It is only natural for him to have been overawed by the court atmosphere and the piercing cross-examination made by accused and his counsel at the time of his repeated appearances (in all the three cases) and of having got mixed up with facts and getting confused out of nervousness or having filled up details from imagination on the spur of the moment. Also with regard to the witness Pankaj not recollecting the telephone number during his examination, I may observe that it is common for a person to forget the mobile numbers not in use for many years. Pankaj was produced in the Court as a witness after many years of the incident and he has conceded that he had forgotten the numbers on account of passage of time but soon he was permitted to refresh his memory he was able to admit and tell the said numbers. [Ref.:Bharwada Boginbhai Hijri Bhai Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in 1983 (CRI) GJX St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 219 0252 SC: AIR 1983 SC 7453 (1)].
(239) Further, as regards the contradictions with regard to the dates given by public witnesses, timings, presence of a particular police official at a particular time, description of the house at Haiderpur where the accused had allegedly committed the offence and the other contradictions as highlighted above by the Ld. Defence Counsel, I may observe that by and large witnesses are not expected to possess a photographic memory so as to recall all the details and to reply them as a video tape on the mental screen. Further, the power of observation may differ from person to person and what one member of the investigating team may notice while standing at a particular place, the other may not notice. In respect of the discrepancies as regards time or duration it is a matter of common knowledge that usually people make their estimates by guess work at the spur of the moment and one cannot expect them to make precise and reliable estimates in such matters as it depend upon sense of time of an individual witness. Also, in case where a large number of events take place in a rapid succession it is natural for the witness to get confused with regard to the sequence of events and hence in this background the discrepancies and contradictions so pointed out by the Ld. Defence Counsel in the testimonies of the various police officials / members of the police party who had carried out the investigations are not material and would not be fatal to the prosecution case. Hence, in view of the above background I am of the considered view that the contradictions and discrepancies so pointed out by the Ld. Defence Counsel are too immaterial and irrelevant as it is the evidence of the prosecution witness regarding the commission of the offence by the accused which is more important than the investigation conducted in the present case.
St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 220(240) I may further observe that the contradictions and discrepancies as pointed out herein above which relate to the investigation and procedural lapses. I may observe that merely because there are contradictions in the evidence regarding investigation or even if there is faulty investigation, the same would not absolve the accused of his liability as it is the evidence of the material and star witnesses which is more important than the evidence of the witnesses of the investigation and in this regard I am supported by the Hon'ble Supreme Court who in the case of State of U. P. Vs. Jagdeo & Others., reported in (2003) 1 Supreme Court Cases 456 and also in the case of Rabinder Kumar Pal @ Dara Singh Vs. Republic of India reported in AIR 2011 SC 1436 observed that:
"...... Mere faulty investigations cannot be a ground for acquittal of the accused. For the fault of the prosecution the perpetrators of a ghastly crime cannot be allowed to go scot-free........"
(241) In view of the above I do not find any force in the submission of the counsel for throwing out the case of the prosecution merely on the ground of certain discrepancies / contradictions in the deposition of various prosecution witnesses. I am of the considered view that such discrepancies are bound to occur in the deposition of various witnesses being usual and natural and even otherwise as they are found to be formal in nature without striking at the root of the matter and the same cannot be treated as fatal for the prosecution.
Place where the killings took place not conclusively established - Will not be fatal to the prosecution case:
(242) The case of the prosecution is that the accused Chanderkant Jha used to commit the murders in his rented room at Haiderpur. On the St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 221 other hand the Ld. Defence Counsel has argued that in case the accused was committing murders at Haiderpur then where were his wife and children at that time, which question the police has not been able to answer.
(243) I have considered the submissions made before me and I may observe that it is correct that till date the Investigating Agency has not been able to conclusively establish and confirm the place where the alleged crimes (of decapitation and homicide) had been committed.
Merely because the accused in his disclosure has stated that he had committed the killings at the room at Haiderpur does not establish the same as correct.
(244) I may observe that the Call Detail Record/ Cell ID Chart confirms the presence of the accused in the area of Alipur in the intervening night (i.e. 24-25.4.2007) when the crime had been committed in the present case and hence the possibility of the crime of killing not having been committed at Haiderpur (as claimed by the accused in his disclosure) or being committed at any other place which was conveniently available to the accused (which includes the fields and vacant places as observed in the spot inspection by the Court) cannot be ruled out. Merely because the prosecution has not been able to conclusively establish the spot where the killings had actually taken place would not be fatal to the case of the prosecution, the other evidence connecting the accused with the accused being unequivocal and conclusive.
Defence of the accused:
(245) The accused Chanderkant Jha has tried to raise a desperate defence. He had produced the record of his previous antecedents and has St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 222 examined witnesses from the jail to prove that he was in Judicial Custody w.e.f. 29.11.2005 to 18.03.2006 and also during the period 18.03.2006 to 17.07.2006. He has stated that Inspector Hoshiyar Singh in his testimony has specifically admitted that the alleged caller / serial killer who had telephoned to him in FIR No. 609/2006, have told him that he was killing various people only out of vengeance because he had been falsely implicated by the police and that he (alleged caller) had remained in custody from 30.09.2006 to 03.10.2006. He has also pointed out that in the cross-examination of Inspector Hoshiyar Singh has admitted that the said person had told him that he had remained in custody about five -
six months prior to this as well. According to the accused, if this is correct then during the month of October 2006 and April-May 2007 the accused was in Judicial custody.
(246) Ld. Addl. Public Prosecutor has on the other hand submitted that the accused cannot be permitted to take advantage of his own ground. He has pointed out that right from the day go the accused has been misleading the Investigating Agency. His conduct shows that not only has he challenged the Law Enforcement Agencies by killing various persons and thereafter throwing their body parts but as a matter of follow-up he tracked his crime to find out if the police was able to get any leads and then tried to mislead them.
(247) I have considered the submissions made before me. It is an established fact that the crime in all the cases followed a definite pattern. It is also established that the author of the crime had been following up his crime with precision and took pleasure when the Investigating Agency had failed to establish the identity of the victim / killer on which he started giving the clues to them. In this background, it does not matter as to what was conveyed to Inspector Hoshiyar Singh by the alleged St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 223 killer who made the telephone call to him. They were simple claims by a person who was on the wrong side of law. Merely because it was conveyed to Inspector Hoshiyar Singh by the killer that he was in judicial custody for a particular period and the accused has been able to establish that in fact he was not the one who was in judicial custody during that period, will make no difference to the final outcome of the case. These are claims made by the accused himself and apparently to mislead the investigations. I may also note that it is not Inspector Hoshiyar Singh who in his examination in chief in FIR No. 609/2006 had deposed regarding the aforesaid claims made by the serial killer but the accused himself who had specifically put this aspect to Inspector Hoshiyar Singh. How can the accused be permitted to take advantage of the same? The defence of the accused is devoid of merits.
Sequence of events established:
(248) On the basis of the evidence on record the sequence of events which has now emerged and stand established are as under:
Dated 20.10.2006 ➢ That at 7:05 AM one Mukesh Tiwari (the accused) made a call to Police Station Hari Nagar which was received by ASI Bal Kishan and informed that he had thrown a headless body in front of Tihar Jail after which he stared abusing police officials (DD No. 7A - Ex.PW7/A).
➢ That at 7:20 AM a message was received from PCR that one Mukesh Tiwari had called up and informed that he had thrown a headless body in a gunny bag outside Gate No.3, Tihar Jail (DD No.8A - Ex.PW7/B).St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 224
➢ That pursuant to the said DD, ASI Sukhdev Singh along with Ct. Surender Singh reached the spot.
➢ That at 7:37 AM ASI Bal Kishan made a call to Inspector Hoshiyar Singh and informed him regarding the headless body being thrown outside Gate No.3, Tihar Jail.
➢ That at 7:46 AM Inspector Hoshiyar Singh made a call to Inspector Sunder Singh on his mobile No. 9911115185 since he (Inspector Hoshiyar Singh) was handling BJP Demonstration outside Central Jail Tihar and directed him i.e. Inspector Sunder Singh to take over the investigations in the present case pursuant to which Inspector Sunder Singh reached the spot and called the Crime team.
➢ That at 7:52 AM after making a call to Inspector Sunder Singh, Inspector Hoshiyar Singh made a call at Police Station Hari Nagar. ➢ That at 8:39 AM Inspector Hoshiyar Singh received a call from the STD/ PCO No. 01125993011 when the caller claimed himself to be the author of the crime and thereafter challenged the system, abused and threatened the police officers.
➢ That at about 9-9:15 AM the Crime Team reached the spot and the said bori / gunny bag was opened which was found to contain one headless dead body of a male aged about 25-30 years normal built, shallow complexion, wearing a 85 CM grey colored underwear of AMUL brand was found tied with a nylon grey colored rope. ➢ The headless dead body was found wrapped in old newspapers, white plastic gunny bag material and the tied bundle was kept inside of the packing seems to be the tokri used by the vegetable / fruits sellers.St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 225
➢ That the dead body had Bichchhoo (Scorpion) tattoo mark on its left shoulder, the words AMIT written in Hindi and a tattoo mark of Scorpion on right arm.
➢ That on careful checking of the gunny bag a polythene of blue colour was found in the same which on checking revealed a handwritten letter allegedly by the author of crime which letter contained challenge to the system and reflected that even previously the author of the letter had been throwing the dead bodies out side the gate of Central Jail, Tihar which letter was seized vide memo Ex.PW1/B. ➢ That a tehrir was prepared by Inspector Sunder Singh in which the contents and details of the letter were incorporated which is Ex.PW22/A pursuant to which the present case was got registered and the decapitated body was got preserved.
➢ That on the basis of the details of the call received by Inspector Hoshiyar Singh as reflected on his phone, Inspector Sunder Singh reached the telephone booth of Mahesh Bhatia where his servant Ram Babu met them and informed that Inspector Hoshiyar Singh had directed him to stop the person who had spoken to Inspector Hoshiyar Singh but the said person left immediately from the booth after making the call.
Dated 30.10.2006 ➢ That the postmortem examination on the decapitated body found at Gate No.3, Central Jail Tihar on 20.10.2006 was conducted by Autopsy Surgeon Dr. Anil Shandil and the exhibits of the deceased i.e. finger phalanges and blood samples were handed over by the Autopsy Surgeon which exhibits were thereafter seized.St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 226
Dated 10.11.2006:
➢ That on the basis of the description given by Ram Babu Chaurasiya the sketch of the person who had made a call from his STD Booth on 20.10.2006 was prepared (Ex.PW8/A).
Dated 20.5.2007:
➢ That at about 2:00 PM pursuant to a secret information the accused Chanderkant Jha was apprehended near Shivmandir Mianwali Nagar by the Special Staff West District (i.e. Inspector Sunder Singh, Inspector Dalip Kaushik, SI Narender and ASI Virender).
➢ That the accused was interrogated during which he disclosed having killed many persons by decapitating their heads and having thrown their various body parts in and around Delhi. ➢ That the accused also disclosed the name of the deceased in this case as Anil Mandal @ Amit and also disclosed that he used to throw the various decapitated bodies and their parts at various places by using a rickshaw fitted with a scooter engine. ➢ That from the personal search of the accused a mobile phone make TATA SAMSUNG was recovered having ESN No.8562-A099 and having SIM of TATA INDICOM No. 9211463742 was recovered (Ex.P27).
➢ That the said rickshaw fitting with the engine of a scooter was found parked outside the room of the accused at Alipur (house of Sanjay Mann) which rickshaw was thereafter taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW22/L. ➢ That the accused Chanderkant Jha thereafter led the police party to his rented room situated at ground floor of house bearing no.229/2, St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 227 Haiderpur which was belonging to one Mangal Sain Pandit. ➢ That the room was got photographed by the photographer of the crime team and the members of crime team inspected the room, the crime team expert took four chance prints/finger prints. ➢ That the FSL expert Dr. Naresh Kumar was called who also inspected the room of the accused and lifted the blood from the floor; blood stained earth control and three blood stained big size knives which the accused Chanderkant had disclosed were the weapons of offence and broken floor piece, which were taken into possession and seized vide memo Ex.PW22/O. ➢ That the police team inspected the room and searched the "taand"
(partition in the room) and recovered one "nunchaku" (an instrument/ weapon used by Karate fighter) which nunchaku was having double chain and on both the sides there were wooden handles, which was also seized vide memo Ex.PW22/P. ➢ That one jeans pant from the "khoonti" of the said room and one mobile phone make Indicom (Ex.P-22 bearing ESN No.8781FA97) from the Almirah kept in the room were also recovered, which the accused Chanderkant Jha disclosed were belonging to one of the deceased Dalip, which pant and mobile phone were also taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW22/P. ➢ That certain mobile phones were also written on the wall of the room which phone numbers were noted down by the members of the raiding party.
➢ That the accused informed the police party about the various places where he had thrown the various dismembered body parts.St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 228
Dated 21.5.2007:
➢ That the accused led the police party to Kishanganj across the railway line near ganda nalla where he had thrown legs of the body of deceased on 18.5.2007 where he had left two hands of the body of the deceased and his private parts after packing the same in the straw board box (pointing out memo Ex.PW22/S). ➢ That the accused led the police party to Tis Hazari Courts in front of State Bank of India and pointed out the place where he left two hands of the body of the deceased and his private parts after packing the same in the straw board box (pointing out memo Ex.PW22/T).
➢ That the accused was produced before the Ld. MM at Rohini Courts took the specimen handwriting and signatures of accused Chanderkant Jha with the permission of the Ld. MM (Ex.PW22/U-1 to Ex.PW22/U-7).
Dated 22.5.2007:
➢ That the accused led the police party towards Loni from Karawal Nagar, near Lal Bagh and took them towards the kacha rasta about 400 steps ahead and pointed out a pit in which he had thrown the skull of victim Anil Mandal @ Amit (Ex.PW22/V).
➢ That the accused led the police party near Railway Phatak Shalimar Bagh and got down from the vehicle and pointed out near Baba Ramdev Mandir Pitampura, where he had hung the left leg after keeping the same in a cloth bag on 25.4.2007 (Ex.PW22/W). ➢ That the accused led the police party in front of State Bank, Tis Hazari Court complex and disclosed that he had dropped the right hand of deceased Upender @ Pintoo after wrapping the same in St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 229 the newspaper on 25.04.2007 (Ex.PW22/X).
➢ That the accused led the police party near railway phatak Shalimar Bagh near Baba Ramdev Mandir where he had thrown left leg of deceased Upender @ Pintoo on 25.04.2007 after wrapping the same in the cloth bag (Ex.PW22/Z1).
➢ That the accused led the police party near railway phatak Shalimar Bagh at house No. 51 belonging to Dalbir Singh where he had killed one boy namely Guddu in the month of October, 2005 in the said room and had thrown his dead body in ganda nala Mangolpuri (Ex.PW22/Z2).
Dated 23.5.2007:
➢ That on 23.5.2007 pursuant to his disclosure statement the accused Chanderkant Jha got recovered one skull and jaw (which according to the accused was of deceased Dalip) from the banks of river Yamuna (Ex.PW19/A).
Dated 4.6.2007:
➢ That the witness Ram Babu Chaurasiya was taken for Test Identification Parade of the accused but the accused refused to participate in the same (Ex.PW22/Z-11).
Dated 21.6.2007:
➢ That one Hari Singh and his wife Smt. Saroj R/o village and police station Lakhnor, District Darbhanga, Bihar had come to the office of Special Staff claiming that they came to know through the newspaper that their son Amit had been killed in Delhi and a case FIR No. 195/06 Police Station Lucknor under Section 365 IPC St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 230 was registered at Police Station Lucknor on which their statements were recorded.
Dated 26.6.2007:
➢ That the witness Ram Babu Chaurasiya had come to court room No. 108, Rohini Court complex where the accused had been produced from judicial custody and the witness Ram Babu identified the accused as the same person who had made a call to Inspector Hoshiyar Singh on 20.10.2006.
Dated 31.7.2007:
➢ That the DNA examination of the blood samples of Hari Singh & Smt. Saroj Devi with the sternum of the decapitated body and blood samples, was got conducted but the DNA profile of the blood samples of Hari Singh & Smt. Saroj Devi did not match with the DNA of sternum and blood sample of the decapitated body, due to which reason the investigations qua the identity of the deceased further continued.
Dated 20.8.2008:
➢ That the dossier of one Anil Mandal @ Amit Anil Mandal @ Amit S/o Tiwari Mandal a resident of Bihar was collected from CRO, Kamla Market and it was he found that the identification mark of Anil Mandal as mentioned in the record was tattoo of "bichoo" on the left arm and also found that this Anil Mandal had been held guilty in the offence under Section 25/54/59 Arms Act in FIR No. 26/03, Police Station Shalimar Bagh.St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 231
Dated 29.10.2011:
➢ That Inspector Harpal Singh went to village Ugri Police Station Kahal Gaon, District Bhagalpur Bihar and made inquiries about deceased Anil Mandal on which it was revealed that their son Anil Mandal used to reside in the jhuggies at Kela Godown Azadpur Delhi and was missing from last many years.
➢ That it was revealed that the wife of Anil Mandal @ Amit namely Bharti Devi used to reside in the jhuggies Kela Godown Railway line, Azadpur near fly over, Shalimar Bagh along with her children and bhua of Anil Mandal namely Paro Devi.
➢ That the blood samples of Sh. Tiwari Mandal and his wife Smt. Madho Devi for the purpose of DNA examination in order to match the headless body of Anil Mandal, were taken to government hospital, Kahalgaon, Bhagalpur, Bihar but the DNA could not be amplified.
Dated 19.11.2011:
➢ That thereafter Inspector Harpal Singh reached at jhuggi No. 45, Patli Gali, Railway Line, Kela Godown, AA Block, Shalimar Bagh near Fortis Hospital, New Delhi where wife Anil Mandal namely Smt. Bharti Devi met him and informed that his husband Anil Mandal was missing since 19.10.2006 and in his regard she had even made a complaint to the police (Ex.PW36/B).
Dated 30.11.2011:
➢ That the blood samples of Master Vijay and Baby Manda who are the children of Anil Mandal for the purpose of DNA test were collected at FSL Rohini.St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 232
➢ That on examination the DNA profile of Baby Manda was matched with the DNA profile of the sternum and blood sample of the decapitated body discovered outside Central Jail Tihar on
20.10.2006.
FINAL CONCLUSIONS:
(249) In the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharastra, AIR 1984 SC 1622 , the Apex Court has laid down the tests which are pre-requisites before conviction should be recorded, which are as under:
1. The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established.
The circumstances concerned 'must or should' and not 'may be' established;
2. The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty;
3. The circumstances should be of conclusive nature and tendency;
4. They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and
5. There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.
(250) Applying the above principles of law to the present case it stands established that on 20.10.2006 at 7:05 AM one Mukesh Tiwari (accused) made a call to Police Station Hari Nagar which was received by ASI Bal Kishan and he informed ASI Bal Kishan that he had thrown a St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 233 headless body in front of Tihar Jail after which he stared abusing police officials; that at 7:20 AM a message was received from PCR that one Mukesh Tiwari (accused) had called up and informed that he had thrown a headless body in a gunny bag outside Gate No.3, Tihar Jail; that pursuant to the said DD, ASI Sukhdev Singh along with Ct. Surender Singh reached the spot; that at 7:37 AM ASI Bal Kishan made a call to Inspector Hoshiyar Singh and informed him regarding the headless body being thrown outside Gate No.3, Tihar Jail; that at 7:46 AM Inspector Hoshiyar Singh made a call to Inspector Sunder Singh on his mobile No. 9911115185 since he (Inspector Hoshiyar Singh) was handling BJP Demonstration outside Central Jail Tihar and directed him i.e. Inspector Sunder Singh to take over the investigations in the present case pursuant to which Inspector Sunder Singh reached the spot and called the Crime Team; that at 7:52 AM after making a call to Inspector Sunder Singh, Inspector Hoshiyar Singh made a call at Police Station Hari Nagar; that at 8:39 AM Inspector Hoshiyar Singh received a call from the STD/ PCO No. 01125993011 when the caller claimed himself to be the author of the crime and thereafter challenged the system, abused and threatened the police officers; that at about 9-9:15 AM the Crime Team reached the spot and the said bori / gunny bag was opened which was found to contain one headless dead body of a male aged about 25-30 years normal built, shallow complexion, wearing a 85 CM grey colored underwear of AMUL brand was found tied with a nylon grey colored rope; that the he headless dead body was found wrapped in old newspapers, white plastic gunny bag material and the tied bundle was kept inside of the packing seems to be the tokri used by the vegetable / fruits sellers; that the dead body had Bichchhoo (Scorpion) tattoo mark on its left shoulder, the words AMIT written in Hindi and a tattoo mark of Scorpion on right St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 234 arm; that on careful checking of the gunny bag a polythene of blue colour was found in the same which on checking revealed a handwritten letter allegedly by the author of crime which letter contained a challenge to the system and reflected that even previously the author of the letter had been throwing the dead bodies out side the gate of Central Jail, Tihar which letter was seized; that a tehrir was prepared by Inspector Sunder Singh in which the contents and details of the letter were incorporated pursuant to which the present case was got registered and the decapitated body was got preserved; that on the basis of the details of the call received by Inspector Hoshiyar Singh as reflected on his phone, Inspector Sunder Singh reached the telephone booth of Mahesh Bhatia where his servant Ram Babu Chaurasiya met them and informed him that Inspector Hoshiyar Singh had already directed him to stop the person who had spoken to Inspector Hoshiyar Singh but the said person had immediately left from the booth after making the call. (251) It has also been established that on 30.10.2006 the postmortem examination on the decapitated body found at Gate No.3, Central Jail Tihar on 20.10.2006 was conducted by Autopsy Surgeon Dr. Anil Shandil and the exhibits of the deceased i.e. finger phalanges and blood samples were handed over by the Autopsy Surgeon which exhibits were thereafter seized; that on 10.11.2006 on the basis of the description given by Ram Babu Chaurasiya the sketch of the person who had made a call from his STD Booth on 20.10.2006 was prepared.
(252) It further stands established that on 20.5.2007 at about 2:00 PM pursuant to a secret information the accused Chanderkant Jha was apprehended near Shivmandir Mianwali Nagar by the Special Staff West District (i.e. Inspector Sunder Singh, Inspector Dalip Kaushik, SI Narender and ASI Virender); that the accused was interrogated during St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 235 which he disclosed having killed many persons by decapitating their heads and having thrown their various body parts in and around Delhi; that the accused also disclosed the name of the deceased in this case as Anil Mandal @ Amit and also disclosed that he used to throw the various decapitated bodies and their parts at various places by using a rickshaw fitted with a scooter engine; that from the personal search of the accused a mobile phone make TATA SAMSUNG was recovered having ESN No.8562-A099 and having SIM of TATA INDICOM No. 9211463742 was recovered; that the said rickshaw fitting with the engine of a scooter was found parked outside the room of the accused at Alipur (house of Sanjay Mann) which rickshaw was thereafter taken into possession; that the accused Chanderkant Jha thereafter led the police party to his rented room situated at ground floor of house bearing no.229/2, Haiderpur which was belonging to one Mangal Sain Pandit; that the room was got photographed by the photographer of the crime team and the members of crime team inspected the room, the crime team expert took four chance prints / finger prints; that the FSL expert Dr. Naresh Kumar was called who also inspected the room of the accused and lifted the blood from the floor; blood stained earth control and three blood stained big size knives which the accused Chanderkant had disclosed were the weapons of offence and broken floor piece, which were taken into possession; that the police team inspected the room and searched the "taand" (partition in the room) and recovered one "nunchaku" (an instrument/ weapon used by Karate fighter) which nunchaku was having double chain and on both the sides there were wooden handles; that one jeans pant from the "khoonti" of the said room and one mobile phone make Indicom (bearing ESN No.8781FA97) from the Almirah kept in the room were also recovered, which the accused Chanderkant Jha disclosed were belonging St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 236 to one of the deceased Dalip, which pant and mobile phone were also taken into possession; that certain mobile phones were also written on the wall of the room which phone numbers were noted down by the members of the raiding party; that the accused informed the police party about the various places where he had thrown the various dismembered body parts.
(253) It has also been established that on 21.5.2007 the accused led the police party to Kishanganj across the railway line near ganda nalla where he had thrown legs of the body of deceased on 18.5.2007 where he had left two hands of the body of the deceased and his private parts after packing the same in the straw board box; that the accused led the police party to Tis Hazari Courts in front of State Bank of India and pointed out the place where he left two hands of the body of the deceased and his private parts after packing the same in the straw board box and that the accused was produced before the Ld. MM at Rohini Courts took the specimen handwriting and signatures of accused Chanderkant Jha with the permission of the Ld. MM.
(254) Further, it stands established that on 22.5.2007 the accused led the police party towards Loni from Karawal Nagar, near Lal Bagh and took them towards the kacha rasta about 400 steps ahead and pointed out a pit in which he had thrown the skull of victim Anil Mandal @ Amit; that the accused led the police party near Railway Phatak Shalimar Bagh and got down from the vehicle and pointed out near Baba Ramdev Mandir Pitampura, where he had hung the left leg after keeping the same in a cloth bag on 25.4.2007; that the accused led the police party in front of State Bank, Tis Hazari Court complex and disclosed that he had dropped the right hand of deceased Upender @ Pintoo after wrapping the same in the newspaper on 25.04.2007; that the accused led the police St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 237 party near railway phatak Shalimar Bagh near Baba Ramdev Mandir where he had thrown left leg of deceased Upender @ Pintoo on 25.04.2007 after wrapping the same in the cloth bag; that the accused led the police party near railway phatak Shalimar Bagh at house No. 51 belonging to Dalbir Singh where he had killed one boy namely Guddu in the month of October, 2005 in the said room and had thrown his dead body in ganda nala Mangolpuri; that on 23.5.2007 pursuant to his disclosure statement the accused Chanderkant Jha got recovered one skull and jaw from the banks of river Yamuna which according to the accused was of deceased Dalip but the DNA Fingerprinting establish that it belong to Anil Mandal @ Amit Mandal the victim in the present case. (255) It also stands established that on 4.6.2007 the witness Ram Babu Chaurasiya was taken for Test Identification Parade of the accused but the accused refused to participate in the same; that on 21.6.2007 one Hari Singh and his wife Smt. Saroj R/o village and police station Lakhnor, District Darbhanga, Bihar had come to the office of Special Staff claiming that they came to know through the newspaper that their son Amit had been killed in Delhi and a case FIR No. 195/06 Police Station Lucknor under Section 365 IPC was registered at Police Station Lucknor on which their statements were recorded; that on 26.6.2007 the witness Ram Babu Chaurasiya had come to court room No. 108, Rohini Court complex where the accused had been produced from judicial custody and the witness Ram Babu identified the accused as the same person who had made a call to Inspector Hoshiyar Singh on 20.10.2006; that on 31.7.2007 the DNA examination of the blood samples of Hari Singh & Smt. Saroj Devi with the sternum of the decapitated body and blood samples, was got conducted but the DNA profile of the blood samples of Hari Singh & Smt. Saroj Devi did not match with the DNA of St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 238 sternum and blood sample of the decapitated body, due to which reason the investigations qua the identity of the deceased further continued; that on 20.8.2008 the dossier of one Anil Mandal @ Amit Anil Mandal @ Amit S/o Tiwari Mandal a resident of Bihar was collected from CRO, Kamla Market and it was he found that the identification mark of Anil Mandal as mentioned in the record was tattoo of "bichchoo" on the left arm and also found that this Anil Mandal had been held guilty in the offence under Section 25/54/59 Arms Act in FIR No. 26/03, Police Station Shalimar Bagh; that on 29.10.2011 Inspector Harpal Singh went to village Ugri Police Station Kahal Gaon, District Bhagalpur Bihar and made inquiries about deceased Anil Mandal on which it was revealed that their son Anil Mandal used to reside in the jhuggies at Kela Godown Azadpur Delhi and was missing from last many years; that it was revealed that the wife of Anil Mandal @ Amit namely Bharti Devi used to reside in the jhuggies Kela Godown Railway line, Azadpur near fly over, Shalimar Bagh along with her children and bhua of Anil Mandal namely Paro Devi; that the blood samples of Sh. Tiwari Mandal and his wife Smt. Madho Devi for the purpose of DNA examination in order to match the headless body of Anil Mandal, were taken to government hospital, Kahalgaon, Bhagalpur, Bihar but the DNA could not be amplified; that on 19.11.2011 Inspector Harpal Singh reached at jhuggi No. 45, Patli Gali, Railway Line, Kela Godown, AA Block, Shalimar Bagh near Fortis Hospital, New Delhi where wife Anil Mandal namely Smt. Bharti Devi met him and informed that his husband Anil Mandal was missing since 19.10.2006 and in his regard she had even made a complaint to the police; that on 30.11.2011 the blood samples of Master Vijay and Baby Manda who are the children of Anil Mandal for the purpose of DNA test were collected at FSL Rohini and on examination St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 239 the DNA profile of Baby Manda was matched with the DNA profile of the sternum and blood sample of the decapitated body discovered outside Central Jail Tihar on 20.10.2006.
(256) The medical evidence on record establishes that the death of the deceased occurred on the intervening night of 19-20.10.2006 (time of death being ten and a half days prior to the postmortem examination) which was on account of decapitation of the head. It has also been established that the deceased Anil Mandal @ Amit was alive on 19.10.2006 and his death was caused only thereafter. The forensic evidence in the form of DNA Fingerprinting Reports conclusively establishes that the decapitated body recovered at Gate No.3, Central Jail Tihar on 20.10.2006 and the skull and jaw got recovered by the accused Chanderkant Jha from the banks of river Yamuna on 23.5.2007 belonged to Anil Mandal @ Amit Mandal S/o Sh. Tiwari Mandal R/o Village Ugri, Police Station Kahalgaon, District Bhagalpur, Bihar who was the father of Baby Manda (PW40) and Master Vijay (PW41) and not the son of Sh. Hari Singh and Smt. Saroj Devi (parents of another person by the same name i.e. Amit Mandal).
(257) It has also been established that the letter recovered along with the decapitated dead body is in the handwriting of the accused Chanderkant Jha which is in the nature of confession; that on 20.10.2006 at 8:39:13 hours the accused Chanderkant Jha had made a call to Inspector Hoshiyar Singh from the STD Booth of Ram Babu Chaurasiya; that Ram Babu Chaurasiya has identified the accused Chanderkant Jha as the person who had made a call to Inspector Hoshiyar Singh on 20.10.2006 from his STD booth. Further, it is established that the accused is a Mission Oriented and Task Oriented Serial Killer whose only motive / mission is to expose, mock and challenge the police who as St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 240 per his allegations had falsely implicated him in many criminal cases. It is all this which conclusively connects the accused Chanderkant Jha with the offence and also establishes that the offence has been committed in a premeditated and preplanned manner.
(258) The circumstantial evidence pointing out towards the guilt of the accused Chanderkant Jha as the author of the crime is over-whelming and the coincidences are far too many and convincing. (259) There are two stages in the criminal prosecution. The first obviously is the commission of the crime and the second is the investigation conducted regarding the same. In case the investigation is faulty or has not been proved in evidence at trial, the question which arises is whether it would absolve the liability of the culprit who has committed the offence? The answer is obviously in negative, since any lapse on the part of the investigation does not negate the offence. (260) The prosecution has proved the identity of the accused, the manner in which the offence has been committed, the investigation including the documents prepared, postmortem report, etc. There is nothing which could shatter the veracity of the prosecution witnesses or falsify the claim of the prosecution. All the prosecution witnesses have materially supported the prosecution case and the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses do not suffer from any infirmity, inconsistency or contradiction and are consistent and corroborative. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses is natural and trustworthy and corroborated by medical & forensic evidence and the witnesses of the prosecution have been able to built up a continuous link.
(261) In view of the above, I hereby hold that the prosecution has been able to prove and substantiate the intention and knowledge of the accused Chanderkant Jha to cause death of Anil Mandal @ Amit Mandal St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 241 S/o Sh. Tiwari Mandal R/o Village Ugri, Police Station Kahalgaon, District Bhagalpur, Bihar (by decapitating his head which was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature) as contemplated under Section 299 and 300 Indian Penal Code for which the accused Chanderkant Jha is held guilty for the offence under Section 302 Indian Penal Code. Further, the accused Chanderkant Jha is also held guilty under Section 201 Indian Penal Code for having caused disappearance of evidence of murder in order to screen himself from legal punishment, by throwing the head / body parts of the decapitated body at various places in Delhi. The accused is accordingly convicted for the same. (262) Be listed for arguments on sentence on 2.2.2013.
Announced in the open court (Dr. KAMINI LAU)
Dated: 24.1.2013 ASJ-II(NW)/ ROHINI
St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 242
IN THE COURT OF Dr. KAMINI LAU: ADDL. SESSIONS
JUDGE-II (NORTH-WEST): ROHINI COURTS: DELHI
Session Case No. 90/2011
Unique Case ID No. 02404R0429472007
State Vs. Chandrakant Jha
S/o Radhey Kant Jha
R/o Village and Post Office Ghasi,
Police Station Chausa,
Distt. Madhepura, Bihar
(Convicted)
FIR No.: 609/2006
Police Station: Hari Nagar
Under Section: 302/201 Indian Penal Code
Date of Conviction: 24.1.2013
Arguments heard on: 2.2.2013
Date of Sentence: 6.2.2013
APPEARANCE:
Present: Sh. P.K. Verma, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State.
Convict Chanderkant Jha in Judicial Custody with Sh. Deepak Sharma Advocate / Amicus Curiae.
ORDER ON SENTENCE:
The three cases (FIR No. 609/2006, FIR No. 243/2007 & FIR No. 279/2007) relating to grotesque serial killings committing in the year 2006 and 2007 which shook the Capital of the Country and also the faith of the people in the Law Enforcement Agencies, are an eye opener to the deep rooted malaise which pervades the Policing System in India.St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 243
These cases raise a large number of questions on the manner in which our police functions and exposes the flip side of the Traditional Policing where there is extortion, there are false implications of the innocent, there is stereotyping of persons belonging to vulnerable and weaker section of the society and there is exploitation.
The FIRs No. 609/2006, 243/3007 and 279/2007 are classic examples of creation of Criminal by State Actors reflecting Systemic Abuse by State Actors and how they create criminal. It is in fact the revolt of the convict against misuse and abuse of the System and false implication by the Existing Police System and this case should be an eye opener. Sympathy of all would be with the convict but for the fact that the victims of the convicts were young innocent boys from extreme poor families who had been brutally killed by the convict only to teach State Actors a lesson for the excesses which they had committed on him.
In the above killings the author of the crime, Chanderkant Jha followed a definite pattern where he killed the victims by decapitating their heads and thereafter chopped their various body parts and threw the decapitated bodies of these young men outside the Central Jail Tihar and scattered their dismembered body parts at various places around Delhi. He did not stop at that and followed his crime precisely. After throwing the decapitated bodies he used to inform the police about the crime (in two cases) and the place where he had thrown the decapitated body. Further, along with these bodies he also left a note / letter (two cases) wherein he boasted of his criminal acts and challenged the Law Enforcement Agencies to catch him. In the last crime which came to light on 18.5.2007, he had also threatened to send similar gifts (decapitated bodies) to the Delhi Police after every 15 days. Three such cases were registered in respect of the decapitated bodies thrown outside St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 244 Central Jail Tihar on 20.10.2006, 25.4.2007 and 18.5.2007 in respect of FIR Nos. 609/2006, 243/2007 and 279/2007 were registered at Police Station Hari Nagar in which the accused Chanderkant Jha is the accused. All these cases though not consolidated, were taken up together the pattern of crime / modus operandi being similar; major investigations being common; the evidence in the form of electronic records; forensics etc. being common.
In the present case as per the allegations the accused Chandrakant Jha had on the intervening night of 19-20.10.2006 committed the murder of Anil Mandal @ Amit by beheading his head and thereafter wrapped the headless / decapitated body of Amit Mandal in a gunny bag which he threw outside Gate No.3, Central Jail, Tihar. Along with the decapitated body, he left a letter written by him mocking and challenging constitutionally and legally established system of the country (Police Authorities, Jail Authorities and the Courts). In order to conceal the identity of the deceased and to cause disappearance of evidence of murder in order to screen himself from legal punishment, he also threw the head / body parts of the decapitated body at various places in Delhi.
On the basis of the testimonies of the various prosecution witness and also on the basis of medical, forensic, electronic and other circumstantial evidence on record, this Court vide judgment dated 24.1.2013 held that it stood established that on 20.10.2006 at 7:05 AM one Mukesh Tiwari (accused) made a call to Police Station Hari Nagar which was received by ASI Bal Kishan and he informed ASI Bal Kishan that he had thrown a headless body in front of Tihar Jail after which he stared abusing police officials; that at 7:20 AM a message was received from PCR that one Mukesh Tiwari (accused) had called up and informed St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 245 that he had thrown a headless body in a gunny bag outside Gate No.3, Tihar Jail; that pursuant to the said DD, ASI Sukhdev Singh along with Ct. Surender Singh reached the spot; that at 7:37 AM ASI Bal Kishan made a call to Inspector Hoshiyar Singh and informed him regarding the headless body being thrown outside Gate No.3, Tihar Jail; that at 7:46 AM Inspector Hoshiyar Singh made a call to Inspector Sunder Singh on his mobile No. 9911115185 since he (Inspector Hoshiyar Singh) was handling a BJP Demonstration outside Central Jail Tihar and directed him i.e. Inspector Sunder Singh to take over the investigations in the present case pursuant to which Inspector Sunder Singh reached the spot and called the Crime Team; that at 7:52 AM after making a call to Inspector Sunder Singh, Inspector Hoshiyar Singh made a call at Police Station Hari Nagar; that at 8:39 AM Inspector Hoshiyar Singh received a call from the STD/ PCO No. 01125993011 when the caller claimed himself to be the author of the crime and thereafter challenged the system, abused and threatened the police officers; that at about 9-9:15 AM the Crime Team reached the spot and the said bori / gunny bag was opened which was found to contain one headless dead body of a male aged about 25-30 years normal built, shallow complexion, wearing a 85 CM grey colored underwear of AMUL brand was found tied with a nylon grey colored rope; that the he headless dead body was found wrapped in old newspapers, white plastic gunny bag material and the tied bundle was kept inside of the packing seems to be the tokri used by the vegetable / fruits sellers; that the dead body had Bichchhoo (Scorpion) tattoo mark on its left shoulder, the words AMIT written in Hindi and a tattoo mark of Scorpion on right arm; that on careful checking of the gunny bag a polythene of blue colour was found in the same which on checking revealed a handwritten letter allegedly by the author of crime which letter St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 246 contained a challenge to the system and reflected that even previously the author of the letter had been throwing the dead bodies out side the gate of Central Jail, Tihar which letter was seized; that a tehrir was prepared by Inspector Sunder Singh in which the contents and details of the letter were incorporated pursuant to which the present case was got registered and the decapitated body was got preserved; that on the basis of the details of the call received by Inspector Hoshiyar Singh as reflected on his phone, Inspector Sunder Singh reached the telephone booth of Mahesh Bhatia where his servant Ram Babu Chaurasiya met them and informed him that Inspector Hoshiyar Singh had already directed him to stop the person who had spoken to Inspector Hoshiyar Singh but the said person had immediately left from the booth after making the call.
It has also been established that on 30.10.2006 the postmortem examination on the decapitated body found at Gate No.3, Central Jail Tihar on 20.10.2006 was conducted by Autopsy Surgeon Dr. Anil Shandil and the exhibits of the deceased i.e. finger phalanges and blood samples were handed over by the Autopsy Surgeon which exhibits were thereafter seized; that on 10.11.2006 on the basis of the description given by Ram Babu Chaurasiya the sketch of the person who had made a call from his STD Booth on 20.10.2006 was prepared.
It has further been established that on 20.5.2007 at about 2:00 PM pursuant to a secret information the accused Chanderkant Jha was apprehended near Shivmandir Mianwali Nagar by the Special Staff West District (i.e. Inspector Sunder Singh, Inspector Dalip Kaushik, SI Narender and ASI Virender); that the accused was interrogated during which he disclosed having killed many persons by decapitating their heads and having thrown their various body parts in and around Delhi; that the accused also disclosed the name of the deceased in this case as St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 247 Anil Mandal @ Amit and also disclosed that he used to throw the various decapitated bodies and their parts at various places by using a rickshaw fitted with a scooter engine; that from the personal search of the accused a mobile phone make TATA SAMSUNG was recovered having ESN No.8562-A099 and having SIM of TATA INDICOM No. 9211463742 was recovered; that the said rickshaw fitting with the engine of a scooter was found parked outside the room of the accused at Alipur (house of Sanjay Mann) which rickshaw was thereafter taken into possession; that the accused Chanderkant Jha thereafter led the police party to his rented room situated at ground floor of house bearing no.229/2, Haiderpur which was belonging to one Mangal Sain Pandit; that the room was got photographed by the photographer of the crime team and the members of crime team inspected the room, the crime team expert took four chance prints / finger prints; that the FSL expert Dr. Naresh Kumar was called who also inspected the room of the accused and lifted the blood from the floor; blood stained earth control and three blood stained big size knives which the accused Chanderkant had disclosed were the weapons of offence and broken floor piece, which were taken into possession; that the police team inspected the room and searched the "taand" (partition in the room) and recovered one "nunchaku" (an instrument/ weapon used by Karate fighter) which nunchaku was having double chain and on both the sides there were wooden handles; that one jeans pant from the "khoonti" of the said room and one mobile phone make Indicom (bearing ESN No.8781FA97) from the Almirah kept in the room were also recovered, which the accused Chanderkant Jha disclosed were belonging to one of the deceased Dalip, which pant and mobile phone were also taken into possession; that certain mobile phones were also written on the wall of the room which phone numbers were noted down by the St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 248 members of the raiding party; that the accused informed the police party about the various places where he had thrown the various dismembered body parts.
It has also been established that on 21.5.2007 the accused led the police party to Kishanganj across the railway line near ganda nalla where he had thrown legs of the body of deceased on 18.5.2007 where he had left two hands of the body of the deceased and his private parts after packing the same in the straw board box; that the accused led the police party to Tis Hazari Courts in front of State Bank of India and pointed out the place where he left two hands of the body of the deceased and his private parts after packing the same in the straw board box and that the accused was produced before the Ld. MM at Rohini Courts took the specimen handwriting and signatures of accused Chanderkant Jha with the permission of the Ld. MM.
Further, it stood established that on 22.5.2007 the accused led the police party towards Loni from Karawal Nagar, near Lal Bagh and took them towards the kacha rasta about 400 steps ahead and pointed out a pit in which he had thrown the skull of victim Anil Mandal @ Amit; that the accused led the police party near Railway Phatak Shalimar Bagh and got down from the vehicle and pointed out near Baba Ramdev Mandir Pitampura, where he had hung the left leg after keeping the same in a cloth bag on 25.4.2007; that the accused led the police party in front of State Bank, Tis Hazari Court complex and disclosed that he had dropped the right hand of deceased Upender @ Pintoo after wrapping the same in the newspaper on 25.04.2007; that the accused led the police party near railway phatak Shalimar Bagh near Baba Ramdev Mandir where he had thrown left leg of deceased Upender @ Pintoo on 25.04.2007 after wrapping the same in the cloth bag; that the accused led St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 249 the police party near railway phatak Shalimar Bagh at house No. 51 belonging to Dalbir Singh where he had killed one boy namely Guddu in the month of October, 2005 in the said room and had thrown his dead body in ganda nala Mangolpuri; that on 23.5.2007 pursuant to his disclosure statement the accused Chanderkant Jha got recovered one skull and jaw from the banks of river Yamuna which according to the accused was of deceased Dalip but the DNA Fingerprinting establish that it belong to Anil Mandal @ Amit Mandal the victim in the present case.
It has also been established that on 4.6.2007 the witness Ram Babu Chaurasiya was taken for Test Identification Parade of the accused but the accused refused to participate in the same; that on 21.6.2007 one Hari Singh and his wife Smt. Saroj R/o village and police station Lakhnor, District Darbhanga, Bihar had come to the office of Special Staff claiming that they came to know through the newspaper that their son Amit had been killed in Delhi and a case FIR No. 195/06 Police Station Lucknor under Section 365 IPC was registered at Police Station Lucknor on which their statements were recorded; that on 26.6.2007 the witness Ram Babu Chaurasiya had come to court room No. 108, Rohini Court complex where the accused had been produced from judicial custody and the witness Ram Babu identified the accused as the same person who had made a call to Inspector Hoshiyar Singh on 20.10.2006; that on 31.7.2007 the DNA examination of the blood samples of Hari Singh & Smt. Saroj Devi with the sternum of the decapitated body and blood samples, was got conducted but the DNA profile of the blood samples of Hari Singh & Smt. Saroj Devi did not match with the DNA of sternum and blood sample of the decapitated body, due to which reason the further investigations qua the identity of the deceased continued; that on 20.8.2008 the dossier of another Anil Mandal @ Amit Anil Mandal @ St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 250 Amit S/o Tiwari Mandal a resident of Bihar was collected from CRO, Kamla Market and it was he found that the identification mark of Anil Mandal as mentioned in the record was tattoo of "bichchoo" on the left arm and also found that this Anil Mandal had been held guilty in the offence under Section 25/54/59 Arms Act in FIR No. 26/03, Police Station Shalimar Bagh; that on 29.10.2011 Inspector Harpal Singh went to village Ugri Police Station Kahal Gaon, District Bhagalpur Bihar and made inquiries about deceased Anil Mandal on which it was revealed that their son Anil Mandal used to reside in the jhuggies at Kela Godown Azadpur Delhi and was missing from last many years; that it was revealed that the wife of Anil Mandal @ Amit namely Bharti Devi used to reside in the jhuggies Kela Godown Railway line, Azadpur near fly over, Shalimar Bagh along with her children and bhua of Anil Mandal namely Paro Devi; that the blood samples of Sh. Tiwari Mandal and his wife Smt. Madho Devi for the purpose of DNA examination in order to match the headless body of Anil Mandal, were taken to government hospital, Kahalgaon, Bhagalpur, Bihar but the DNA could not be amplified; that on 19.11.2011 Inspector Harpal Singh reached at jhuggi No. 45, Patli Gali, Railway Line, Kela Godown, AA Block, Shalimar Bagh near Fortis Hospital, New Delhi where wife Anil Mandal namely Smt. Bharti Devi met him and informed that his husband Anil Mandal was missing since 19.10.2006 and in his regard she had even made a complaint to the police; that on 30.11.2011 the blood samples of Master Vijay and Baby Manda who are the children of Anil Mandal for the purpose of DNA test were collected at FSL Rohini and on examination the DNA profile of Baby Manda was matched with the DNA profile of the sternum and blood sample of the decapitated body discovered outside Central Jail Tihar on 20.10.2006.
St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 251The medical evidence on record established that the death of the deceased occurred on the intervening night of 19-20.10.2006 (time of death being ten and a half days prior to the postmortem examination) which was on account of decapitation of the head. It has also been established that the deceased Anil Mandal @ Amit was alive on 19.10.2006 and his death was caused only thereafter. The forensic evidence in the form of DNA Fingerprinting Reports conclusively established that the decapitated body recovered at Gate No.3, Central Jail Tihar on 20.10.2006 and the skull and jaw got recovered by the accused Chanderkant Jha from the banks of river Yamuna on 23.5.2007 belonged to Anil Mandal @ Amit Mandal S/o Sh. Tiwari Mandal R/o Village Ugri, Police Station Kahalgaon, District Bhagalpur, Bihar who was the father of Baby Manda and Master Vijay and not the son of Sh. Hari Singh and Smt. Saroj Devi (parents of another person by the same name i.e. Amit Mandal).
It has also been established that the letter recovered along with the decapitated dead body is in the handwriting of the accused Chanderkant Jha which is in the nature of confession; that on 20.10.2006 at 8:39:13 hours the accused Chanderkant Jha had made a call to Inspector Hoshiyar Singh from the STD Booth of Ram Babu Chaurasiya; that Ram Babu Chaurasiya has identified the accused Chanderkant Jha as the person who had made a call to Inspector Hoshiyar Singh on 20.10.2006 from his STD booth. It is all this which conclusively connected the accused Chanderkant Jha with the offence and also established that the offence has been committed in a premeditated and preplanned manner. The circumstantial evidence pointing out towards the guilt of the accused Chanderkant Jha as the author of the crime was over-whelming and the coincidences were far too many and convincing.
St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 252The accused Chanderkant Jha was therefore held guilty of having committed the murder of Anil Mandal @ Amit Mandal S/o Sh. Tiwari Mandal R/o Village Ugri, Police Station Kahalgaon, District Bhagalpur, Bihar by decapitating his head and having caused disappearance of evidence of murder in order to screen himself from legal punishment, by throwing the head of the decapitated body at various places in Delhi, for which he has been convicted for the offence under Sections 302 and 201 Indian Penal Code.
Heard arguments on the point of sentence. The convict is stated to be aged about 46 years having a family comprising of his wife and five minor daughters. He has studied till 7 th and was doing the job of selling plastic goods. Ld. Amicus Curiae has prayed for mercy as any stern view would cause mental, financial and social trauma to his wife and five minor children of the convict who are totally dependent upon him. It is submitted that the convict is a patient of Asthma and is in Judicial Custody for the last almost five years. Ld. Amicus Curiae has pointed out that there is no direct evidence against the accused and the conviction has been based only on the basis of circumstantial evidence and hence a lenient view be taken against the convict. He has placed his reliance on the judgment in the case of Prem Sagar Vs. Dharambir & Ors. reported in AIR 2004 SC 21.
Ld. Additional Public Prosecutor for the State has vehemently argued for death penalty in the present case. It is argued that the deceased Anil Mandal who was having a family comprising of aged parents, wife and three children, had been killed by the convict in a most gruesome and grotesque manner by beheading him and thereafter with the intent of throwing a challenge to the Law Enforcement Agencies and to conceal his crime his dismembered head was thrown at the banks of river St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 253 Yamuna and therefore under the given circumstances except death, no other sentence would be appropriate. He has also pointed out that the convict has a track record of violence and has been involved in many serious offences whose details are as under:
Sr. FIR No. Under Sections Police Station No. 1. 61/1997 457/380 IPC Adarsh Nagar 2. 202/1997 457/380 IPC Adarsh Nagar 3. 282/1997 457/380 IPC Adarsh Nagar 4. 277/1998 302/201 IPC Adarsh Nagar 5. 538/1998 307/34 IPC & 27/54/59 Arms Adarsh Nagar Act 6. 541/1998 25,35/54/59 Arms Act Adarsh Nagar 7. 251/2002 25/54/59 Arms Act Adarsh Nagar 8. 123/2003 25/54/59 Arms Act Adarsh Nagar 9. 210/2003 302/201 IPC Alipur 10. 620/2003 302/201 IPC Hari Nagar 11. 749/2005 302/201 IPC Mangol Puri 12. 609/2006 302/201 IPC Hari Nagar 13. 243/2007 302/201 IPC Hari Nagar 14. 279/2007 302/201 IPC Hari Nagar
The Ld. Public Prosecutor has also pointed out that the convict has already been held guilty of serial killings in FIR No. 279/2007 and FIR No. 243/2007 both Police Station Hari Nagar under Sections 302/201 IPC by this Court and submits that keeping in view his antecedents the convict should not be entitled to any leniency. In this regard he has placed his reliance on the authorities of Bachan Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in 1980 SCC (Crl.) 580; Machhi Singh & Ors.
St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 254Vs. State of Punjab reported in 1983 SCC (Crl.) 681 and Mohd. Mannan @ Abdul Mannan Vs. State of Bihar reported in 2011 Crl.L.J. 3380 and has argued that keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, there is no alternative before this court but to impose death sentence upon the convict Chanderkant Jha. The Ld. Addl. Public Prosecutor has also placed his reliance on the judgment of Shivaji Vs. State of Maharastra reported in 2008 (4) AD (CR.) SC 665 and has argued that death penalty could be awarded in cases even where the conviction is based on circumstantial evidence.
I have considered the submissions made before me and on the basis of the rival contentions, I take a stock of rulings relied upon by the parties. In the case of Bachan Singh Vs. State of Punjab [AIR 1980 SC 898], it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the death penalty can be inflicted only in the gravest of the grave cases. It was also held that such death penalty can be imposed only when the life imprisonment appears to be inadequate punishment. The Hon'ble Court further cautioned that while imposing the death sentence, there must be balance between circumstances regarding the accused and the mitigating circumstances and that there has to be overall consideration of the circumstances regarding the accused as also the offence. Some aggravating circumstances were also culled out, they being:-
(a) where the murder has been committed after previous planning and involves extreme brutality; or
(b) where the murder involves exceptional depravity.
The mitigating circumstances which were mentioned were:-
(a) That the offence was committed under the influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance;St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 255
(b) The age of the accused. If the accused is young or old, he shall not be sentenced to death;
(c) The probability that the accused would not commit criminal acts of violence as would constitute a continuing threat to society;
d) The probability that the accused can be reformed and rehabilitated. The State shall by evidence prove that the accused does not satisfy the conditions (c) and (d) above;
(e) That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the accused believed that he was morally justified in committing the offence;
(f) That the accused acted under the duress or domination of another person; and
(g) That the condition of the accused showed that he was mentally defective and that the said defect impaired his capacity to appreciate the criminality of his conduct.
The law was further settled in the decision in Machhi Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab [AIR 1983 SC 957], where Hon'ble Supreme Court insisted upon the mitigating circumstances being balanced against the aggravating circumstances. The aggravating circumstances were described as under:-
(a) When the murder is in extremely brutal manner so as to arouse intense and extreme indignation of the community.
(b) When the murder of a large number of persons of a particular caste, community, or locality is committed.
(c)When the murder of an innocent child, a helpless woman is committed.
The matter was further considered in Devender Pal Singh Vs. State of NCT of Delhi [AIR 2002 SC 1661], wherein, after examining both the aforementioned cases, it was held that when a murder is committed in an extremely brutal manner, or for a motive which suggests total depravity and meanness or where the murder is by hired assassin for money or reward, or a cold blooded murder for gains, the death sentence St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 256 is justified. Similar such observation was made even in the decision in Atbir Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi [JT 2010 (8) SC 372]. Relying on all these cases, Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Criminal Appeal Nos. 127-130 of 2008 (C. Muniappan & Ors. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu) decided on 30.8.2010, confirmed the death sentence. The unprovoked attack on the bus and the burning of the bus by sprinkling petrol on the bus, and the death of three students as a result of such burning was viewed by Hon'ble Supreme Court as a barbaric and inhuman act of the highest degree. The offence was viewed as brutal, diabolical, grotesque and cruel, shocking the collective conscience of society. It was on that account that the death sentence was confirmed.
In the case of Atbir Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi (supra), which was a case dependent upon a dying declaration, the allegation was that the accused had stabbed all the three persons of a family so that he and his brother could enjoy the entire property and money. The repeated stabbing of the deceased was viewed as the act for which the accused could be legitimately awarded death sentence. The incident therein had occurred on 22.1.1996 while the Sessions Judge had awarded the death sentence on 27.9.2004. The High Court had confirmed the death sentence on 13.1.2006 while Hon'ble Apex Court affirmed this sentence vide its judgment dated 9.8.2010, after taking the stock of the aggravating circumstances and mitigating circumstances, as pointed out in Bachan Singh Vs. State of Punjab (cited supra) and Machhi Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab (cited supra), came to the conclusion that though Atbir was a young person of 25 years of age and had already spent 10 years in jail, that was not a mitigating circumstance in his favour. The three murders were held to be extremely brutal and diabolical, committed with deliberate design in order to inherit the entire property of Jaswant Singh St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 257 without waiting for his death. In Sushil Murmu Vs. State of Jharkhand [AIR 2004 SC 394], which was a case of human sacrifice of a 9 years old child, Hon'ble Supreme Court found the accused guilty on the basis of circumstantial evidence. While culling out the aggravating circumstances, hon'ble Supreme Court once again named five circumstances on the basis of the earlier case law in Machhi Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab (supra), Bachan Singh Vs. State of Punjab (supra) and Ediga Anamma Vs. State of A.P. [AIR 1974 SC 799]. In the said case, the Hon'ble Court recorded that the murder was a dastardly murder by sacrificing a hapless and helpless child of another for personal gain and to promote his fortunes by pretending to appease the deity or was a brutal act which is amplified by the grotesque and revolting manner in which it was committed. This case was even relied upon by the High Court while confirming the death sentence.
In another decision in Gurdev Singh & Anr. Vs. State of Punjab with Piara Singh & Anr. Vs. State of Punjab [AIR 2003 SC 4187], the Hon'ble Supreme Court specifically held in Para 19 that there could be no fixed or rigid formula or standard for invoking extreme penalty of death sentence.
I have also given my careful consideration to the judgment relied upon by the Ld. Amicus Curiae in the case of Prem Sagar Vs. Dharambir & Ors. reported in AIR 2004 SC 21. I may mention that this authority would not apply to the facts of the present case as the above judgments deal with cases where convictions were based on evidence which was either too weak or circumstantial with no direct credible evidence. In the present case the evidence is convincing and credible. Even otherwise, I may observe that in the case of Shivaji Vs. State of St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 258 Maharashtra (Supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court considered as to whether or not circumstantial based conviction should be taken to be the mitigating factor and had observed that the plea that in case of a circumstantial evidence, death should not be awarded, is without any logic. It was also observed that if the circumstantial evidence is found to be of unimpeachable character in establishing the guilt of the accused, which forms the foundation for conviction, that have nothing to do with the question of sentence as has been observed in various cases while awarding death sentence. The Hon'ble Court was of the view that to treat circumstantial evidence as mitigating circumstances would amount to consideration of an irrelevant aspect and in a case which falls in the Rarest of Rare category death sentence should be awarded.
Coming now to the facts of the present case, before arriving at a decision whether the case falls in the category of rarest of the rare cases, this Court is required to list aggravating or mitigating circumstances and prepare balance sheet of the same before arriving at a decision. The division bench of our own High Court in case of State v. Raj Kumar Khandelwal reported in 164 (2009) DLT 713 (DB) observed that for the said purpose circumstances can be listed under six heads:
1. Circumstances personal to the offender.
2. Pre-offence conduct of the offender and in particular the motive.
3. Contemporaneous conduct of the offender while committing the offence
4. Post offence conduct of the offender
5. Role of the victim in commission of the crime.
6. Nature of evidence.St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 259
In the said case the Hon'ble High Court has also listed illustrations by way of judicial decision as to what amount to mitigating factors and aggravating factors.
Now, applying the same to the circumstances of the present case, the various mitigating and aggravating factors can be listed as under:
Sr. Mitigating Factors Aggravating factors
No
Circumstances personal to the offender
1. Sole bread earner of his family Anti social/ Socially Abhorrent comprising of wife and five nature of crime minor daughters who are totally dependent upon him.
2. Convict is a patient of Asthma The offence has been committed in the circumstance which arouses social wrath.
3. Nil Offence is of such a diabolic nature so as to shake the conscience and confidence of people.
Pre-offence Conduct of the offender and in particular the motive.
4. Nil There is significant degree of planning/ premeditation on the part of the convict while committing the murder.
Contemporaneous Conduct of the offender while committing the offence
5. Nil Manner of killing is extremely brutal, grotesque, diabolical, revolting, or dastardly manner so as to arose intense and extreme indignation of the community.
6. Nil Mental/ physical suffering inflicted on the victim before his death is immense St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 260 Post Offence Conduct of the offender.
7. Nil Concealment, destruction/ dismemberment of the body parts and scattered the same at various places in and around Delhi
8. Nil Resolve to repeat the act (to leave decapitated bodies for the police) after every 15 days
9. Nil. Lack of remorse.
Role of the victim in commission of the crime
10. Nil. Betrayed the trust and confidence the victim reposed in him Nature of the evidence
11. Nil Convincing and credible circumstantial evidence in the form of oral testimonies of the employee of STD Booth namely Ram Babu Chaurasiya
12. Nil Electronic Evidence in the form of CDRs of Inspector Hoshiyar Singh to connect the convict with the call made from the STD Booth of Ram Babu Chaurasiya
13. Nil Recovery of skull and jaws of the deceased Anil Mandal at the instance of the convict
14. Nil Forensic Evidence in the form of DNA fingerprinting report establishing that the skull and jaw belong to the decapitated body of Anil Mandal and also establishing that the decapitated body found outside Central Jail Tihar on 20.10.2006 was of Anil Mandal the father of Baby Manda and Master Vijay and husband of Smt. Bharti.
St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 26115. Nil FSL (Handwriting Expert) report proving that the letters recovered along with the dead body on 20.10.2006 and 18.5.2007 were in the handwriting of the convict wherein he had also confessed to the earlier killings by decapitation of head and living the body outside Central Jail Tihar in November 2003 and further threatened to again repeat this criminal act after every 15 days.
The only mitigating factor in the present case is that the convict has a family comprising of wife and five small daughters who are totally dependent upon him.
The aggravating factors on the other hand are:
➢ Manner of killing is extremely brutal, grotesque, diabolical, revolting, or dastardly manner so as to arose intense and extreme indignation of the community.
➢ The offence has been committed in exceptional depravity and extreme brutality. The postmortem report confirms that the death in this case was a result of decapitation (not a case where decapitation followed death).
➢ Mental/ physical suffering inflicted on the victim before his death is immense (on account of the brutal nature of the killing). ➢ There is significant degree of planning/ premeditation on the part of the convict while committing the murder. ➢ That the convict betrayed the trust and confidence which the victims who were known to him previously, had reposed in him.St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 262
He had chosen his victim carefully who were young men from poor families whose confidence he could easily win. The victim in the present case namely Anil Mandal @ Amit was a young boy of 25 years from an extremely poor family with wife and three minor children and aged parents of which he was the sole bread earner.
➢ The serial killings were senseless and committed in a planned manner. Earlier too the convict is involved in throwing the decapitated bodies on 20.10.2006 and 25.4.2007 outside Central Jail Tihar (large number of persons had been murdered). ➢ That the intent of the convict was to cause a public outrage only because he wanted to avenge the wrong done to him by the Police System in falsely implicating him in cases and to some extent he succeeded in the same. The said killings did cause a public outrage and shook the faith of the people in the Law Enforcement Agency.
➢ That he even threatened vide his letter recovered along with the decapitated body on 18.5.2007 to send similar gifts (decapitated bodies) to police after every 15 days reflecting the lack of remorse and his resolve to repeat his criminal act.
➢ That he had been held guilty and convicted in case FIR No. 279/2007, Police Station Hari Nagar, under Section 302/201 IPC wherein vide order of this Court dated 4.2.2013 he has been sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment to the Rest of his Life. ➢ That he had been held guilty and convicted in case FIR No. 243/2007, Police Station Hari Nagar, under Section 302/201 IPC wherein vide order of this Court dated 5.2.2013 he has been sentenced to Death (subject to the confirmation by the Delhi High Court) .
St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 263These cases against the convict Chanderkant Jha are demonstrative of the police functioning and the Systemic Abuse so rampant in our Country and I feel saddened while observing that the convict too in a way may be a victim of this policing. Assuming the claims made by the convict in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. to be correct, he has demonstrated as to how the Police System operates in our country when as a poor man who had come to Delhi to make his living, he was made to pay up to the Beat Constable of the area and on his refusal, falsely implicated in the various cases. The convict in his statement has also cited various instances when according to him he had been unfairly treated, repeatedly harassed and falsely implicated and perhaps it is in on account of this that in his attempt to revolt against this System he feels that what he did was justified.
I have no sympathy with the convict notwithstanding the fact that he claims himself to be a victim of police excesses, atrocities and brutalities over the years. I do not want to fall into the trap that he had tried to lay to justify his diabolic acts. Any leniency on my part would be nothing but showing misplaced sympathy and indulgence to a man who by his own admission has killed not one but many an innocent. Assuming that the convict turned a villain because of the police excesses on him by way of extortion and false implications in earlier cases yet it does not give him the right to kill only to push home a point.
The aggravating circumstances far outweigh the mitigating circumstances. From the facts as recapitulated above, it would be seen that the present case falls in the category of rarest of rare cases, it meets three circumstances as set out in Machi Singh's case for determining rarest of rare cases. The First circumstance being that the offence is such which may be taken as shocking the collective conscience of the St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 264 community justifying infliction of death penalty. The murder had been committed in an extremely brutal, diabolical, revolting and dastardly manner. The Second circumstance being the motive for crime which evinces total depravity, vengeance, perversity and meanness. The murder of Anil Mandal was in cold blood without any immediate provocation by the deceased. The Third circumstance being the probability that the convict would again commit a similar act of violence and constitute a continuing threat to the society (this in view of the threats and challenge issued by the convict to the System to catch him stating that after every 15 days he will send a similar gift i.e. decapitated bodies to the police).
While I feel that the convict deserves no leniency whatsoever and having regards to the manner in which he has executed his criminal deeds, the severest punishment needs to be imposed upon him for the brutality so inflicted on the body of the deceased / victim in the present case as well as in the other serial killings, which demonstrates that the convict does not possess basic humanness and lacks the psyche or mind set which may be amenable for any reform.
Certain category of perpetrators of crime who if not removed from the circulation of the society would destroy it. This act no doubt has invited extreme indignation of the community and shocked the collective conscience of the society and their expectation from the authority conferred with the power to adjudicate, is to inflict the death sentence which is natural and logical. This Court cannot ignore the loud cry for justice by the society in this case involving heinous crime of murder of a young man from a poor family and his grotesque killing and will respond by imposition of proper sentence least people loose faith in the Judicial System and take law into their hands. In view of the above I hereby award the following sentences to the convict Chanderkant Jha:
St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 2651. The convict is Sentenced to Death for offence punishable under Section 302 Indian Penal Code and fine of Rs.10,000/-.
Accordingly he be hanged by the neck till he is dead. In default of payment of fine the convict shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of One month.
2. The convict is further sentence to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment (RI) for a period of Seven (7) years and fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 201 Indian Penal Code. In default of payment of fine, the convict is further sentence to undergo simple imprisonment (SI) for a period of one month.
The death penalty reference is being sent to Hon'ble High Court of Delhi for confirmation of the same.
The convict is also informed that he can file the appeal against the judgment within a period of 30 days as per Article 115 of The Limitation Act, 1963.
Certified copy of the judgment and order on sentence alongwith duly attested copy of charge, evidence, statement of accused, exhibited documents be given to the convict, free of cost. Since the convict has demanded that he be supplied the copies of the Judgment and Sentence in Hindi as well, the Office shall take all necessary steps to ensure that the translated copy of the Judgment and Sentence is provided to the convict in Hindi at the earliest. In this regard the Office shall be at liberty to get the translation done from the Official Translator available in Delhi High Court by making a request through proper channel as per rules.
St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 266The exhibits be preserved till the confirmation of death penalty by the Hon'ble High Court. The file be prepared as per Rule 34 of Chapter 24 Part B Vol. III of Delhi High Court Rules and be sent to Hon'ble High Court as per rules.
Before ending I may observe that it is felt that these serial killings bring to fore in a very naked form the flip side of our policing. It is time to think and ponder that if this kind of policing has created one Chanderkant Jha and that if our policing continues the way it does, many more are in the making. It is in fact a wake up call for the Government of the day to bring about the long awaited police reforms which not only makes our police an effective investigating agency but also more friendly and professional. The moto of the police "With You For You Always"
should not only be a mere publicity stunt but an effective reality.
Announced in the open court (Dr. KAMINI LAU)
Dated: 6.2.2013 ASJ-II(NW)/ ROHINI
St. Vs. Chandrakant Jha, FIR No. 609/06,PS Hari Nagar Page No. 267