Delhi District Court
State vs 1. Manoj S/O. Late Sh. Nawab Singh on 18 September, 2017
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJEEV KUMAR MALHOTRA:
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE; FTC : E COURT: SHAHDARA:
KARKARDOOMA COURT: DELHI.
SESSIONS CASE No.82/2012
Unique Case ID No.88/2016
FIR No.256/2012
U/S: 302 IPC
P.S: Farsh Bazar
State Versus 1. Manoj S/o. Late Sh. Nawab Singh
R/o. H.No.206, Gali No.07, Gagan Vihar,
Sahibabad, Ghaziabad, U.P.
Date of Institution : 25.10.2012
Date of Arguments : 18.08.2017
Date of Judgment : 18.09.2017
J U D G M E N T
Case of Prosecution
1.An information was received at PS Farsh Bazar on 17.07.2012 which was recorded in DD register vide DD no.9A. The information was FIR No.256/2012, PS. Farsh Bazar Page 1 of 23 St. Vs.Manoj that a person has fallen from the roof in KKD Courts, Mediation Complex. The said DD was assigned to SI Inderveer Singh. On receiving copy of DD No.9A SI Inderveer Singh alongwith Ct. Sanjeev went to Ground Floor Mediation Centre, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, where a wall fan was found lying in broken condition and the roof of the Mediation Centre made up of plastic at First Floor was also found damaged. On enquiry, they came to know that injured had already been taken to GTB Hospital by CATS Ambulance. No eye witness was found at the spot. Blood was also not found at the spot. Thereafter, leaving Ct. Sanjeev to guard the spot, SI Inderveer Singh reached GTB Hospital, collected the MLC of injured, wherein injured was declared brought dead. No eye witness was found at the hospital also. SI Inderveer came back to the spot and CCTV footage of 2nd floor, BBlock was checked. On checking the Camera No.82, Installed outside Court No.56, IInd Floor, deceased was seen siting on the railing. Some boys were also found standing with deceased and talking with each other. As per CCTV Footage at about 10.13 am one of those boys, who were standing around deceased, kept his one hand on the chest of deceased and pushed him down while pulling up his leg with the other hand. Crime team was called. Rukka was prepared and present FIR was got registered. After registration of FIR Inspector Raj Kumar, SHO PS. Fash Bazar also reached at the spot and further investigation was carried out by him. Crime team inspected and photographed the scene of crime. Site plan was FIR No.256/2012, PS. Farsh Bazar Page 2 of 23 St. Vs.Manoj prepared. Wall fan make Bajaj Grace white colour was taken into possession and seized. Thereafter, Inspector Raj Kumar alongwith Ct. Sanjeev went to GTB Hospital, where mother of deceased met him, who identified the body to be of her son Nazim. Her statement was recorded. Dead body was sent to mortuary GTB Hospital and after postmortem same was handed over to relatives of deceased. After postmortem, doctor handed over sealed pullanda containing clothes of deceased, blood sample of deceased in gauze piece and one sample seal of hospital, which were seized. Brother of deceased namely Shaukat was joined in the investigation and brought to KKD Court, where after seeing CCTV footage, he identified his brother Nazim as the person, who was seen falling from roof and the person who is pushing his brother Nazim as accused Manoj. Experts from Paramid Cyber Security were called to preserve the CCTV Footage from the control room CCTV of Karkardooma Courts. Permission was also obtained from Ld. Senior Civil Judge to obtaining the hard disc of the CCTV Footage from Control Room CCTV, Karkardooma Courts. Mr. Dinesh from Paramid Cyber Security Service came to KKD Courts and took out the hard disc from CCTV Control Room, KKD Courts and he prepared mirror image from the original hard disc and same was saved in other hard disc. Hard discs were sealed and seized. Details of hash value was taken from expert. Statements of witnesses were recorded. Case property was deposited in the malkhana.
FIR No.256/2012, PS. Farsh Bazar Page 3 of 23 St. Vs.Manoj During investigation, brother of deceased namely Shaukat informed that accused used to come to Sunder Nagri as he was a pickpocket and used to meet deceased in the area of Sunder Nagri. On 18.07.2012 Inspector Raj Kumar alongwith other staff and Shaukat went in search of accused and on the identification of Shaukat accused Manoj was arrested, who on interrogation, confessed his guilt. Two days PC remand of accused was obtained. Accused disclosed that he was wearing same clothes, which he wore on the day of incident, therefore, his wearing blue colour jeans and red colour shirt having lines of white and black colour were seized. Accused pointed out the place of occurrence and on his pointing out, pointing out memo was prepared. Exhibits were sent to CFSL. Certificate u/s. 65B of Indian Evidence Act regarding CCTV footage was got issued. CFSL report was obtained and filed in the court. After completion of investigation chargesheet was filed before the Court.
2. On appearance, in compliance of section 207 IPC, copies were supplied to accused, and as offence punishable u/s. 302 IPC is triable by the Court of Sessions, present case was committed to Sessions Court.
Charge framed against the accused
3. Charge against accused was framed u/s. 302 IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
FIR No.256/2012, PS. Farsh Bazar Page 4 of 23 St. Vs.Manoj Witnesses examined
4. Prosecution examined 19 witnesses to prove its case. The brief summary of the deposition of Prosecution Witnesses is as under:
5. PW1 Smt. Nawaban is the mother of deceased, who deposed that on 17.07.2012, she had gone to GTB hospital for her treatment, where she saw her son Nazim lying on stretcher. She identified him and was told by doctor that her son had fallen from 2 nd or 4th floor in Karkardooma Courts. She deposed that after examining his son Nazim, doctor declared him dead. She informed her elder son Shaukat on telephone and her family members came to hospital.
6. PW2 Shaukat is the elder brother of deceased. He deposed that deceased used to reside with his family at Mustafabaad near Noor Masjid. He deposed that on 17.07.2012 at about 11 am, his mother informed him from GTB hospital on his mobile phone no. 8750206075 about the death of Nazim, whereupon, he alongwith 23 family members went to the hospital and in the presence of police, identified the body of deceased. He deposed that earlier they all used to reside at Sunder Nagri, where his deceased brother joined the company of pickpockets and also started pickpocketing. He deposed that prior to incident, he had started doing the work of stitching FIR No.256/2012, PS. Farsh Bazar Page 5 of 23 St. Vs.Manoj ladies bra and was earning his livelihood from said work. He deposed that on 18.07.2012, he identified the dead body of his brother Nazim and after postmortem dead body was handed over to him. He deposed that on 17.07.2012 police had taken him to Karkardooma Court and was shown CCTV Footage by the police, wherein he identified his brother Nazim alongwith accused Manoj and two other persons namely Sarfaraz & Mussan, who also used to reside at Sunder Nagri and were pickpockets. He deposed that prior to death of deceased, he had seen deceased Nazim in the company of accused Manoj, Sarfaraz and Mussan once or twice. He further deposed that he saw in the CCTV Footage that accused Manoj was wearing red colour shirt and blue or black colour pant. He saw in the CCTV Footage that accused Manoj was pushing his brother Nazim from 3 rd or 4th floor of Karkardooma Courts Building. He also deposed that on 18.07.2012 accused Manoj alongwith Sarfaraz and Mussan were arrested at his instance. He deposed that at about 12/1215 am, he was again taken to PS, where he was shown the cassette. He deposed that police left other persons, who were apprehended alongwith accused Manoj saying that as per CCTV Footage, they had no role in the commission of offence and only accused Manoj had thrown his brother. He deposed that accused Manoj was wearing the same clothes at the time of his arrest, which he was seen wearing in the CCTV Footage.
FIR No.256/2012, PS. Farsh Bazar Page 6 of 23 St. Vs.Manoj
7. PW3 Dr. Bharat Sagar appeared in witness box to depose on behalf of Dr. Basu, who had left the hospital. He proved the MLC of deceased prepared by Dr. Basu as Ex.PW3/A.
8. PW4 Sh. Kamal Bandhu deposed that on 17.07.2012, he was posted as reader to Sh. Vinod Goel, Ld. AD&SJ, KKD Courts & Ld. Judge Incharge Mediation Centre and on that day at about 10 am, a person fell down on the floor tearing the plastic sheet of mediation centre. He made call at 100 number from his mobile. Injured was taken to dispensary, from where he was referred to hospital.
9. PW5 W/HC Uma Sharma is the duty officer, who deposed about receiving of information regarding falling of a person at KKD Mediation Center Complex and recording of DD No. 9A (Ex.PW5/A). She also proved the registration of FIR as Ex.5/B and endorsement on rukka as Ex.PW5/C.
10. PW6 HC Sonu Kaushik deposed that on 01.10.2012, on the directions of Inspector Raj Kumar, he came to KKD Courts near court room no. 56, 2nd floor, BBlock and on the pointing out of Inspector Raj Kumar, he took rough notes and measurement, on the basis of which, he prepared site plan Ex.PW6/A. FIR No.256/2012, PS. Farsh Bazar Page 7 of 23 St. Vs.Manoj
11. PW7 SI Kaushal Ganguly deposed that on 17.07.2012 he was posted at Mobile Crime team and on receiving of DD No.9A reached the spot. He inspected the spot and got the same photographed. No chance print was found at the spot, therefore, no scene of crime report was prepared.
12. PW8 Ct. Vikas was posted as photographer in mobile crime team. He had taken 12 photographs of the spot from different angles, which he proved as Ex.PW8/A1 to Ex.PW8/A12. Negatives of the same were proved as Ex.PW8/A13 to Ex.PW8/A24.
13. PW9 Ct. Sanjeev Kumar deposed that on 17.07.2012, he alongwith SI Inderveer Singh came to KKD Courts at ground floor, B Block. A white colour wall fan was lying on the floor. He deposed that on enquiry, they came to know that a person had fallen down from the second floor of BBlock and has been taken to GTB hospital. He also deposed about registration of FIR and seizure of broken fan vide memo Ex.PW9/A. He deposed that on 18.07.2012, Shaukat brother of deceased was brought to Karkardooma Courts and was shown the CCTV Footage. After seeing the CCTV Footage, Shaukat identified a person wearing redcolour Tshirt and blue jeans, who was seen pushing his brother Nazim from the second floor, as accused Manoj. He deposed that Shaukat informed that Manoj FIR No.256/2012, PS. Farsh Bazar Page 8 of 23 St. Vs.Manoj used to roam around with his brother. He also deposed that hard disc of CCTV footage was seized. He deposed that Shaukat was taken to Sunder Nagri, where enquiry was made about accused Manoj. An auto driver was also asked about Manoj giving his description, who told that Manoj often comes in the night at about 910 pm and snatches money from the passersby and auto drivers. He deposed that at about 10 pm, on the identification of Shaukat, accused Manoj was apprehended. He was interrogated and he confessed his guilt. He was arrested vide memo Ex.PW9/B and personally searched vide memo Ex.PW9/C. He also deposed that on 19.10.2012, he again joined the investigation. He deposed that wearing clothes of accused Manoj were seized vide memo Ex.PW9/D. He identified the case property correctly.
14. PW10 Ct. Yatender deposed that on 17.07.2012, his duty was in CCTV Control Room at Karkardooma Courts for surveillance. He deposed that at about 10 am, he saw from CCTV Camera no. 82 that a person was sitting on the wall at the 2 nd floor outside Court No. 56, B Block and he was pushed by another person. He deposed that Ashwini, official of CCTV Company, saved the recording of Camera No.82. Ashwini took out the hard disc containing the CCTV Footage and handed over the same to the IO, which was seized by him. He deposed that during this process, no one interfered or tempered with the hard disc.
FIR No.256/2012, PS. Farsh Bazar Page 9 of 23 St. Vs.Manoj
15. PW11 HC Nadir Khan is the MHC(M). He deposed about depositing of fan and three sealed pullandas containing image hard disc, hard disc and blood gauze alongwith sample seal in the malkhana by Inspector Raj Kumar on 17.07.2012. He deposed that on 19.07.2012 one sealed pullanda containing clothes of accused was also deposited in the malkhana. He further deposed that on 28.08.2012, pullanda containing hard disc was handed over to SI Vipin Kumar for depositing the same with CFSL, CBI Lodhi Road.
16. PW12 Sh. Dinesh Gaur deposed that in the year 2012, he was working in Pyramid Cyber Security and Forensic Pvt. Ltd as Forensic Investigator and that his company was helping in forensic investigation in the corporate sector and in the Government agencies like police etc. He deposed that he does not remember the date or month but one day in the year 2012, at the request of Inspector Raj Kumar, SHO, he came to CCTV Control Room in Karkardooma Court Complex, where other police staff alongwith Ashwini, who used to take care of CCTV Footage in the CCTV Control Room was also present. He deposed that he took out the Hard Disc from the CPU of the control room and prepared two mirror copies of the hard disc with the help of a device called logicube Dossier. The two hard discs for preparing the mirror image were given by the police. He generated the hash value of original hard disc, which was taken out from FIR No.256/2012, PS. Farsh Bazar Page 10 of 23 St. Vs.Manoj the CPU with the help of Logicube Dossier. A summary was taken out and the original hard disc alongwith the said summary was handed over to the IO. He proved the summary as Ex.PW12/A and deposed that this summary contains the make of the Hard Disc and its capacity as also the hash value. He deposed that original hard disc was seized by the IO vide memo Ex.PW12/B and the mirror images were also seized vide memo Ex.PW12/C. The hash value of mirror image was also generated. He deposed that there was no tempering in the process of taking out the Hard Discs from the CPU and doing the preparation of its mirror image.
17. PW13 Sh. Ashwani is the person, who was deputed for the maintenance of CCTV Camera System by the company in CCTV Control Room. He deposed that he came to know that a person had pushed another person in the BBlock of the Court Complex. The CCTV footage was checked, same was retrieved and shown to the IO. He deposed that later on Dinesh Gaur came there with police officials and with the requisite permission took out the hard disc from the CPU and prepared two mirror images of the hard disc with a device. The same were packed and sealed in his presence and seized by the police. He deposed that no one interfered or tempered with the hard disc in his presence.
FIR No.256/2012, PS. Farsh Bazar Page 11 of 23 St. Vs.Manoj
18. PW14 SI Inderveer Singh deposed that on receiving of DD No.9A he alongwith Ct. Sanjeev reached at ground floor, Mediation Centre, KKD Courts, Delhi. He deposed that ceiling fan was lying at the spot in broken condition and the roof of the mediation center was also found damaged. On enquiry they learnt that injured had already been removed to GTB hospital by CATS Ambulance. Search for eye witness was made but no one was available. Leaving Ct. Sanjeev at the spot to guard the same, he went to GTB Hospital and collected the MLC of injured Nazim, who had been declared brought dead. No eye witness was found in the hospital also. He came back to KKD Courts and checked the CCTV footage of 2nd floor B Block. He deposed that on checking camera no. 82, installed outside court no. 56, they saw one person pushing the deceased from second floor. Crime team was called. He prepared the rukka and got the FIR registered. He deposed that dead body was identified by mother of the deceased in the mortuary GTB Hospital.
19. PW15 Dr. Vishwajeet Singh deposed on behalf of Dr. Rahul Ambulkar, who had conducted the postmortem on the body of deceased and proved the postmortem report of deceased prepared by Dr. Rahul Ambulkar as Ex.PW15/A. He deposed that time since death was about a day and cause of death was shock as a result of antemortem injury to the FIR No.256/2012, PS. Farsh Bazar Page 12 of 23 St. Vs.Manoj head produced by blunt force impact. He deposed that clothes of deceased and blood was preserved.
20. PW16 is Sh. Kapil, who at the relevant time was working as Caretaker, East District, KKD Courts. He deposed that on the direction of Ld. Administrative Civil Judge, Sh. Ravinder Singh, he had assisted the police officials in the seizure of hard disc of CCTV Footage from CCTV Control room. He also deposed about seizure of hard disc and preparation of two images of the hard disc from the CCTV room as deposed by PW13 and deposed that no one interfered or tempered with the original hard disc after it was taken out from the CPU.
21. PW17 SI Vipin Yadav deposed that on 18.07.12 he joined the investigation with IO/Inspector Raj Kumar. He deposed about identification of dead body and handing over the dead body to relatives after postmortem. He deposed on the lines of PW9 Ct. Sanjeev Kumar about joining of investigation by Shaukat, brother of deceased, who after seeing the CCTV footage identified that his brother was pushed by accused Manoj. He also deposed about seizure of hard disc and preparation of two mirror images as deposed by PW12 & PW13. He also deposed about arrest of accused.
FIR No.256/2012, PS. Farsh Bazar Page 13 of 23 St. Vs.Manoj
22. PW18 is Sh. Gautam Roy, who had examined the sealed parcel received at CFSL CBI on 28.08.2012. He deposed that the parcel contained one hard disc and the hard disc was cloned with the help of Forensic Duplicator. The cloned Hard Disc was played in the DVR and it was connected in the Monitor to examine the video clip time from 9.30 to 10.30 hours. At the same time, he prepared a DVD with the help of DVD duplicator through the DVR simultaneously. He deposed that snap shots were also taken for the above time and that the hard disc was not tempered. He deposed that CCTV footage seized during investigation shows no tempering. He proved his detailed report as Ex.PW18/A. In answer to court question, witness stated that if there is at all any tempering in the same hard disc, then the video clipping could not be there from 9.30 am to 10.30 am and hard disc could not be cloned, therefore, he can say that there was no tempering in the hard disc when he examined the same.
23. PW19 is IO/Inspector Raj Kumar. He deposed that on 17.07.2012 DD no. 9A regarding falling of a person from the roof of Karkardooma Court Mediation Complex was received at PS, which was assigned to SI Inderveer. He deposed that after registration of FIR, further investigation was carried out by him. He called the crime team, who inspected the spot and photographed the same. He seized the white colour FIR No.256/2012, PS. Farsh Bazar Page 14 of 23 St. Vs.Manoj wall fan lying in broken condition and prepared the site plan. He checked the CCTV Footage from the CCTV Control Room at Karkardooma Court Complex and in the said CCTV Footage, it was depicting that one person was pushing other from the second floor near court No.56 as the camera was installed there. He made search for accused but in vain. Thereafter, he went to GTB hospital, where mother of deceased Nazim met him and he recorded her statement. He got the postmortem on the dead body conducted and seized the pullandas containing clothes and blood sample in gauze of deceased handed over by doctor. He deposed that he joined Shaukat, brother of deceased in the investigation and took him to KKD Courts, where he was shown the CCTV Footage, after seeing which Shaukat told that the person who is depicting falling in the CCTV footage is his brother Nazim and the person, who is pushing Nazim from the second floor is Manoj. He had also called the expert from Pyramid Cyber Security to preserve the CCTV footage from the CCTV Control Room of KKD Courts. He also deposed about arrest of accused at the instance of Shaukat vide memo Ex.PW9/B, seizure of his wearing clothes vide memo Ex.PW9/D and preparation of pointing out memo Ex.PW9/G. He sent the exhibits to CFSL CBI Lodhi Colony and recorded the statements of witnesses.
Statement and defence of accused FIR No.256/2012, PS. Farsh Bazar Page 15 of 23 St. Vs.Manoj
24. Statements of accused was recorded u/s. 313 Cr.P.C. wherein he stated that three years prior to the day of recording his statement u/s. 313 Cr.P.C, he admitted his guilt before the Court and also gave an application in this regard, which was returned to him and everybody including his lawyer advised him not to admit his guilt. He further stated that today he is claiming himself innocent. He did not lead any defence evidence.
Arguments and conclusion
25. Arguments have been advanced by Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Ld. Addl. PP for the State as also from Sh. A.K.Bali, Ld. Amicus Curiae for accused.
26. Ld. Addl. PP has argued that prosecution has successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and that the CCTV footage was played in the court in the presence of accused as well as his counsel, wherein accused was clearly seen pushing the deceased from second floor. He further argued that the accused had both the opportunity and occasion to commit the offence. He had the motive also.
27. On the other hand, Ld. Defence Counsel argued that the case has not been proved beyond reasonable doubts. He argued that there is no eye witness of the incident and that there is every possibility that deceased FIR No.256/2012, PS. Farsh Bazar Page 16 of 23 St. Vs.Manoj might have fallen accidentally. He further argued that the only evidence against accused is the CCTV Footage and that hash value of DVD has been found changed, which shows that the same was tempered and therefore, no conviction can be based on the basis of same.
28. The case of the prosecution is largely based on electronic evidence. There are no eye witnesses and medical evidence is limited to citing the cause of death as shock as a result of antemortem injury to the head produced by blunt force impact. An important circumstance relied upon by the prosecution is that the offence had taken place in the court complex, where CCTV Cameras were installed and accused is clearly visible committing crime in the CCTV footage.
29. In the instance case incident took place in the Temple of Justice i.e court complex in the morning hours, where usually number of public persons including litigants, their relatives & lawyer etc. remain present, however, no eye witness was found either at the spot or thereafter, during entire investigation. In this case, fortunately for the State the entire occurrence was captured by the CCTV cameras installed in the court complex and the facts of the case got unveiled when Camera No.82, Installed outside Court No.56, IInd Floor was checked. In the CCTV Footage, deceased was seen siting on the railing at second floor. Some boys FIR No.256/2012, PS. Farsh Bazar Page 17 of 23 St. Vs.Manoj were also found standing with deceased and talking with each other. As per CCTV Footage at about 10.13 am one of those boys, who were standing around deceased suddenly kept his one hand on the chest of deceased and pushed him down while pulling up his leg with the other hand. The incident completed within such a short span of time that nobody could take notice of that and that is why there was no eye witness of the incident. Later, Shaukat, brother of deceased was joined in the investigation, who was also shown the CCTV footage and he identified the person, who pushed his brother from railing as accused Manoj. On the direction of Ld. Administrative Civil Judge, Sh. Ravinder Singh, hard disc of CCTV Footage from CCTV Control room was seized. Thus, the core of the prosecution case is the CCTV footage, which became the basis to identify the accused.
30. Courts generally see an incident from the eyes of eye witnesses, who depose before the court about the scene of crime and about how the incident happened and thereafter, draw an inference on the basis of oral evidence but in the present case, DVD Ex.P5 was played in the court in the presence of accused and his counsel through which court has been able to go back to the time when the incident occurred and witnessed the incident as if the same actually took place in its presence. PW2 Shaukat, brother of deceased after seeing the CCTV Footage, wherein the date was FIR No.256/2012, PS. Farsh Bazar Page 18 of 23 St. Vs.Manoj being depicted as 17.07.2012, identified his deceased brother Nazim, as the person who was sitting on railing and accused Manoj as the one, who while talking to deceased, all of a sudden pushed him from second floor of Karkardooma Court building. He was also shown photographs Ex.PW18/B1 to Ex.PW18/B20, which are the printouts taken out from Ex.P5, in which also he identified accused Manoj. In photograph Ex.PW 18/B5, accused Manoj is seen standing near deceased wearing a pink/red and white stripped half sleeves shirt while in photographs Ex. PW18/B6 accused Manoj is depicting lifting the deceased in order to fall him down. The fact that deceased died due to the overt act of accused as is being depicted in CCTV footage has also been proved by testimony of PW15 Dr. Vishwajeet Singh, who proved the postmortem report of deceased as Ex.PW15/A and deposed that cause of death was shock as a result of antemortem injury to the head produced by blunt force impact. From the evidence of PW2 it has been proved on record that there was prior acquaintance between accused and deceased as they both used to pickpocket. Accused also in his statement u/s. 313 Cr.P.C admitted his acquaintance with deceased and his family Apart from PW2, there are other prosecution witnesses also, who had seen the CCTV footage, wherein the entire incident was captured. As held in various pronouncements of Hon'ble Superior Courts, CCTV footage is a strong piece of evidence, which was directly and immediately stored in the hard drive of the FIR No.256/2012, PS. Farsh Bazar Page 19 of 23 St. Vs.Manoj computer is the original media, that was self generated and created without any human intervention and therefore, can safely be relied upon.
31. As such, the most powerful evidence against the accused is the CCTV recordings. Ld. Defence Counsel, however, challenged the credibility of CCTV Footage. The main thrust of the argument of Ld. Counsel is that there is difference in the hash value of the original hard disc and the DVD, which was played in the court, therefore, no conviction can be based relying upon the same.
32. To prove the genuineness or authenticity of CCTV Footage, Prosecution has examined several witnesses. PW12 Sh. Dinesh Gaur deposed that in the year 2012, he was working in Pyramid Cyber Security and Forensic Pvt. Ltd as Forensic Investigator and at the request of Inspector Raj Kumar, SHO, he came to CCTV Control Room in Karkardooma Court Complex, where other police staff alongwith PW13 Ashwini, who used to take care of CCTV Footage in the CCTV Control Room was also present. He deposed that he took out the Hard Disc from the CPU of the control room and prepared two mirror copies of the hard disc with the help of a device called logicube Dossier. The two hard discs for preparing the mirror image were given by the police. He generated the hash value of original hard disc, which was taken out from the CPU with FIR No.256/2012, PS. Farsh Bazar Page 20 of 23 St. Vs.Manoj the help of Logicube Dossier. He deposed that there was no tempering in the process of taking out the Hard Discs from the CPU and doing the preparation of its mirror image. Version of PW12 is supported by PW10 Ct. Yatender, PW13 Ashwini & PW16 Kapil, who all stated that no one interfered or tempered with the hard disc.
Regarding difference coming out in the hash value of hard disc, PW12 Sh. Dinesh Gaur has deposed that he had taken out the hash value of the hard disc at the time of seizure by using a portable devise logicube dossier and it is possible that due to use of different software, the discrepancy in the hash value may have come. He further stated that it is probable that if the disc is not provided the right protection while attaching it to some system or Network, the hash value may change because of the viruses or any other executable programme.
PW18 Sh. Gautam Roy, who had examined the sealed parcel received at CFSL CBI also deposed that CCTV footage seized during investigation shows no tempering. In answer to a court question regarding tempering, he stated that if there is at all any tempering in the same hard disc, then the video clipping could not be there from 9.30 am to 10.30 am and hard disc could not be cloned, therefore, he can say that there was no tempering in the hard disc when he examined the same. With such evidences having come on record, It can safely be held that there was no tempering in the hard disc and CCTV footage can FIR No.256/2012, PS. Farsh Bazar Page 21 of 23 St. Vs.Manoj safely be relied upon. The defence taken by the accused that deceased might have sustained injuries due to accidental fall is also diluted by CCTV Footage, wherein accused is clearly visible pushing the deceased from second floor at Karkardooma Court Complex.
33. Apart from the CCTV recordings, there are two other powerful incriminating circumstances that stares at the face of the accused.
34. The first incriminating circumstance is that from the CCTV Footage, it was clearly seen that a person wearing blue colour jeans and red colour shirt having lines of white and black colour pushed the accused from the railing. At the time of arrest, accused was found wearing same cloths as is depicted in CCTV Footage and therefore, his clothes were seized vide memo Ex.PW9/D. This fact has been proved by PW2 as well as witnesses of arrest i.e PW9 Ct. Sanjeev Kumar & PW19 Inspector Raj Kumar, who all says that when accused was arrested he was wearing same blue colour jeans and red colour shirt having lines of white and black colour, which he is seen wearing in the CCTV Footage. PW9 Ct. Sanjeev Kumar & PW19 Inspector Raj Kumar also identified the clothes Ex.P3 & Ex.P4 as the same, which were seized from the person of accused, when produced in the court.
FIR No.256/2012, PS. Farsh Bazar Page 22 of 23 St. Vs.Manoj
35. In addition to aforesaid evidence, the other clinching evidence against accused is his own plea of guilt. In his statement u/s. 313 Cr.P.C, accused has stated that three years prior to the day of recording his statement u/s. 313 Cr.P.C, he admitted his guilt before the Court and also gave an application in this regard, which was returned to him and everybody including his lawyer advised him not to admit his guilt.
36. In view of above, the evidence on record is sufficient to conclude that it was accused Manoj, who committed the murder of deceased by pushing him from the railing of second floor, BBlock, Karkardooma Court. Thus, the Prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The accused is held guilty and convicted for the offence punishable u/s. 302 IPC. Let he be heard on the point of sentence.
SANJEEV
KUMAR
MALHOTRA
Digitally signed by
SANJEEV KUMAR
MALHOTRA
Announced in the open court Location: Karkardooma
Courts, Delhi
Date: 2017.09.19
15:15:47 +0530
on 18.09.2017 (Sanjeev Kumar Malhotra)
ASJ/FTC/ECOURT
Shahdara/KKD/Delhi
FIR No.256/2012, PS. Farsh Bazar Page 23 of 23 St. Vs.Manoj