Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

State vs . Jeevak Nagpal @ Veevek Nagpal @ Shanky on 30 September, 2020

IN THE COURT OF SH. SHIVAJI ANAND, ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE­04
                    (NORTH), ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
Session Case No. 58298/2016
CNR No. DLNT01­000079­2009

State               Vs.                            Jeevak Nagpal @ Veevek Nagpal @ Shanky
                                                   S/o Sh. Mahender Nagpal
                                                   R/o C­4/3, G.F., Sector­11,
                                                   Rohini, Delhi.

                    FIR No.        : 161/2009
                    Police Station : Prashant Vihar
                    Under Sections: 364A/302/201/506 IPC

Date of committal to Sessions Court:                                    16/12/2009
Date of institution             :                                       24/12/2009
Date of Argument                :                                       30/09/2020
Date on which Judgment pronounced:                                      30/09/2020

                                        JUDGMENT

1. In brief, the case of prosecution is that on 18/03/2009, at about 9.26 p.m., DD no. 44 was recorded at PP Sector­16 Rohini of PS Prashant Vihar on receipt of PCR call that at C5/53, Sector­11, Rohini, Manan Mahajan had gone to the shop but did not return. The contents of said DD were telephonically conveyed to ASI Bal Kishan for taking necessary action. Accordingly, ASI Bal Kishan along with Constable Jalraj reached at the spot and made enquiries from Brijesh Mahajan and his family members and called Inspector Pratap Singh at the spot. On reaching there, Inspector Pratap Singh recorded the statement of Brijesh Mahajan.

1.1. Brijesh Mahajan in his statement to the police has stated that he SC No. 58298/2016 FIR no. 161/2009 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Jeevak Nagpal @ Veevek Nagpal Page 1 of 132 along with his family is residing at C­5/53, Sector­11, Rohini, Delhi, and is working with his brother Rajesh Mahajan as property dealer at C­7/195, Sector­8, Rohini, Delhi. He further stated that his brother Rajesh Mahajan has two sons namely Manan, aged 12 years and Vaibhav, aged 16 years. On 15/03/2009, his brother Rajesh Mahjan along with his son Vaibhav had gone to Chandigarh and on 18/03/2009, at about 6.30­7.00 p.m., other son of his brother Rajesh Mahajan namely Manan had gone to the nearby stationery shop of their house for purchasing some articles but he did not return. Brijesh Mahajan further stated that they tried to search Manan in the neighbourhood and since no clue could be found, they made a phone call at number 100 qua the missing of Manan. When he talked to his brother Rajesh in this regard, his brother told him that he had received SMS on his mobile phone no. 9811092230 from mobile phone no. 9990401054 qua kidnapping of Manan and demand of ransom. He further claimed that some unknown persons had kidnapped his nephew Manan in order to extort ransom.

1.2. On the basis of copy of DD entry, statement of Brijesh Mahajan and circumstances, offence u/s 364A IPC was found to be committed. Inspector Pratap Singh made endorsement on the statement of Brijesh Mahajan and got registered the FIR of the present case through Ct Jalraj.

1.3. After registration of FIR, investigation was marked to Inspector Pratap Singh. Keeping in view the gravity of the offence, senior officers also visited the spot and various teams were formed.

1.4. During investigation, Mobile number 9811092230 of Rajesh Mahajan SC No. 58298/2016 FIR no. 161/2009 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Jeevak Nagpal @ Veevek Nagpal Page 2 of 132 (father of missing child) and mobile no. 9990401054 (suspected accused) were kept in surveillance by the special team of Inspector Amardeep Sehgal and Inspector Special Staff, Outer District, in order to keep watch on the location of suspected accused.

1.5. On the basis of technical surveillance and secret information, on 19/03/2009, at about 12 noon, accused was arrested in the present case. At the time of arrest of accused, two mobile phones bearing nos. 9990401054 & 9873883039 were recovered. On checking mobile phone set no. 9990401054, SMS qua kidnapping and demand of ransom were found to be sent on the mobile phone number 9811092230 of Rajesh Mahajan after the kidnapping of child Manan. Accused Jeevak Nagpal also confessed his guilt. Both the aforesaid mobile phones were seized by preparing a memo. Confessional statement of accused was recorded, wherein he admitted that Manan Mahajan's family lives in his neighbourhood and on 18/03/2009, at about 6.30 or 7.00 p.m., he had kidnapped Manan Mahajan from stationery shop in his Wagon R car and he after alluring Manan kept roaming here and there in his car and also made threatening messages on the mobile phone of Rajesh Mahajan from his mobile phone qua extorting ransom. He further confessed that before coming to his house in the night, he committed murder of Manan in the car after putting his hand on his mouth and inflicting several blows on his body with the help of car jack and that he had thrown the dead body of Manan in the 'naali' (drain). The accused also got recovered the dead body of deceased child Manan from a dry 'nali (drain) situated at road of sector­24, Pkt. 27, Rohini and flows in between the Deep Vihar colony. Crime team was called at the spot and site was got inspected. Spot was got photographed. Exhibits were taken into police possession. Rough site plan was SC No. 58298/2016 FIR no. 161/2009 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Jeevak Nagpal @ Veevek Nagpal Page 3 of 132 prepared. On 19/03/2009, postmortem on the body of deceased was got conducted from BJRM Hospital and was handed over to its claimants. Accused also got recovered Wagon­R car bearing registration no. DL­2CAF­7578 used in the abduction and murder of deceased Manan Mahajan from in front of his house after pointing out the same. The said car was taken into police possession. Accused also got recovered the weapon of offence i.e. handle of car jack from the car itself regarding which opinion was sought from the autopsy surgeon. The said car was also got inspected through the crime team. The weapon of offence and other exhibits were taken into police possession. PC remand of accused was taken, during which, he also got recovered the new register purchased by him from the stationary shop prior to kidnapping of Manan Mahajan. Site plan of the place of said recovery was prepared.

1.6. During investigation, accused also pointed out the shops of the shopkeepers from where he had purchased the SIM card and mobile phone set (TIA­Made in Singapore) of mobile phone no. 9990401054. Statements of witnesses were recorded. Mobile phone, having phone no. 9990401054 of the accused was also taken into police possession and list of SMS with contents found saved in the memory of said mobile phone was prepared. The written copy of the SMSs received on the mobile phone no. 9811092230 of Rajesh Mahajan (father of deceased) from the aforesaid mobile phone of accused and similarly sent by him on the mobile phone of accused, was prepared and its CD was also prepared. The same were seized. The CAF, call detailed record and Cell ID charts were obtained from the concerned service providers. As per CDR of mobile phone nos. 9990401054 & 9873883039 recovered from the accused, the location of the accused after kidnapping of Manan till committing of his murder on SC No. 58298/2016 FIR no. 161/2009 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Jeevak Nagpal @ Veevek Nagpal Page 4 of 132 18/03/2009 in between 6.30 p.m. to 11.30 p.m. was in the area of Sector­11,16, 23, 24, Rohini , Sunehari Bagh, Unitech and Prahladpur Bangar, where after kidnapping Manan Mahajan after alluring him, he kept roaming in the car in the said area and then he after committing the murder of Manan Mahajan had thrown his dead body on the road passing through Sector 24 and Deep Vihar.

1.7. During investigation, statement of one of the witness was recorded who had seen the accused with kidnapped boy Manan Mahajan in his car near the place of murder, prior to murder of Manan. During investigation, it was also revealed that the place, which was pointed out by the accused and from where the dead body was got recovered, at that place, the car of the accused had got damaged after it strucked from the pavement and was towed by the crane driver and helper to the house of accused on his calling in the night of incident. The recording was also found regarding the conversation which took place between mobile no. 9873363860 of Devender Sharma and mobile no. 9873883039 of accused Jeevak Nagpal in which deceased Manan Mahajan was requesting accused Jeevak Nagpal prior to his murder. The voice of Manan Mahajan in the said recording was identified by his father Rajesh Mahajan. During investigation, mobile phone set no. 9873363860 was also taken into police possession. The CD of said conversation was also got prepared. Voice sample of witness Devender Sharma and of accused were taken. The mobile phone set containing the recorded conversation between accused and Devender Sharma, its CD and voice samples were sent to FSL Rohini for comparison. The other exhibits were also sent to FSL, Rohini.

1.8. During investigation, scaled site plan of the place of recovery of dead SC No. 58298/2016 FIR no. 161/2009 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Jeevak Nagpal @ Veevek Nagpal Page 5 of 132 body was also got prepared. Call detailed record were also collected from the concerned service providers.

2. On completion of investigation, charge­sheet u/s 364A/302/201/506 IPC was filed against the accused before the concerned Court of ld. ACMM, Outer, Rohini Courts, Delhi, on 10/06/2009. FSL result of physical division was filed before the concerned ACMM on 17/09/2009. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions on 16/12/2009 and was received on assignment by the Sessions Court on 24/12/2009. It is pertinent to mention here that FSL result of biology division was awaited when the case file was received on assignment by the Sessions Court.

3. Remaining FSL results were also filed.

4. Vide order dated 21/04/2010, charge u/s 364A/302/201/506 IPC was framed against the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. On 10/01/2011, charge was amended since in the earlier charge framed on 21/04/2010, date of offence was inadvertently mentioned as 18/03/2002 instead of 18/03/2009, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

5. In order to prove its case, prosecution has examined 42 witnesses in all. The details of said witnesses are as under:­ S.No. Name of prosecution witness Purpose of examination 1 PW1 Brijesh Mahajan, complainant & Who came to prove qua lodging of missing uncle of deceased Manan Mahajan report of Manan Mahajan, son of his brother Rajesh Mahajan on 100 number, informing of him by his brother Rajesh Mahajan qua SC No. 58298/2016 FIR no. 161/2009 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Jeevak Nagpal @ Veevek Nagpal Page 6 of 132 receiving of message on his mobile no.

9811092230 from mobile no. 9990401054 of some unknown person about the kidnapping and demand of ransom for his son Manan, proving of his statement Ex. PW1/A, recovering of dead body of his nephew by the accused and identification of the dead body of his nephew in BJRM hospital vide identification statement Ex. PW1/B. 2 PW2 Shiv Kumar Who came to prove qua purchasing of one mobile phone of chinese make of TIA company from the shop being run by his wife for a sum of Rs. 1200/­ in the month of February, 2009 and qua identification of accused as the person who had purchase the aforesaid mobile phone from the shop being run by his wife in the month of March, 2009.

3 PW3 Constable Hansraj, member of Who came to prove the factum of visiting the mobile crime team, outer district. place of recovery of dead body on 19/03/2009, taking of photographs of the spot as well as of dead body of deceased, positives of which are Ex. PW3/A1 to A24 and negatives thereof Ex. PW3/A25 to A48, visiting at H.No. CD­4/3, Sector­11, Rohini, with SI Joginder Singh for inspection of Wagon R baring registration no. DL­2CAF­ 7578 of silver colour, taking of photographs of the car by him Ex. PW3/B9 to B16 & negatives thereof Ex. PW3/B1 toB8.

4 PW4 HC Om Parkash For proving that after postmortem of deceased, exhibits were handed over by the concerned doctor,which were seized by the IO vide memo Ex. PW4/A. 5 PW5 Devender Sharma @ Dev Who came to prove qua making a call to accused qua demand of his money from the mobile phone no. 9873363860 of his friend Ajit Singh Mahendru @ Bobby when he heard the voice of a child who was begging to the accused as to why he wants to kill him, kidnapping & murdered a child from his neighbourhood, handing over the entire SC No. 58298/2016 FIR no. 161/2009 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Jeevak Nagpal @ Veevek Nagpal Page 7 of 132 conversation between him and accused to the police which was written into four pages Ex. PW5/A1 to A4,which were seized vide memo Ex. PW5/B and preparation of CD of recorded conversation which was seized vide memo Ex. PW5/C, production of aforesaid mobile phone instrument by his friend which was seized vide memo Ex.

PW5/D and obtaining of his voice sample and that of accused in separate audio cassette, parcel of wich was seized vide memo Ex.

PW5/E. 6 PW6 Israr Babu, Nodal Officer, Who came to prove the following record:­ Vodafone Essar Mobile Service Ltd. i) photocopy of CAF Ex. PW6/B of vodafone connection no. 9873363860, which was in the name of Ved Prakash, its call detail record for the period w.e.f. 18/03/2009 to 19/03/2009 Ex. PW6/C and certificate u/s 65B(4) (C) Ex. PW6/D

ii) photocopy of application form of Hutch prepared connection no. 9873883039, which was in the name of accused Vivek Nagpal Ex. PW6/E, its call detail record for the period from 18.03.2009 to 19.03.2009 Ex. PW6/F and certificate u/s 65B(4) (C) Ex. PW6/G and cell ID chart Ex. PW6/T.

iii) call detail record of mobile connection no.

9811092230, which was in the name of Rajesh Mahajan (father of deceased child) for the period from 18.03.2009 to 19.03.2009 Ex. PW6/H & Ex. PW6/L, certificate u/s 65B(4) (C) of the Evidence Act Ex. PW6/J & certified copy of application form along with ID proof & subscribers details Ex. PW6/K.

iv) certified copy of customer agreement form of Devender Sharma pertaining to mobile connection no. 9899902999 Ex. PW6/M, certified copy of migration form in connection with said mobile connection Ex. PW6/N, certified copy of ID proof of Devender Sharma Ex. PW6/O, certified copy of tariff plan Ex. PW6/P, its call detail record of SC No. 58298/2016 FIR no. 161/2009 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Jeevak Nagpal @ Veevek Nagpal Page 8 of 132 18/03/2009 Ex. PW6/Q, certified cell ID chart of vodafone Ex. PW6/R (colly) and certificate u/s 65B(4) (C) of the Evidence Act 1872 Ex.

PW6/S 7 PW7 Ct. Attar Singh Who came to prove the fact that he delivered the copies of FIR to senior officers and ACMM on motorcycle no. DL­1SN­4489 vide DD no. 3A dated 19/03/2009 and returned to PS at 9.05 a.m. vide DD no. 10A.

8 PW8 ASI Dev Karan, duty officer Who came to prove copy of FIR Ex. PW8/A, his endorsement on rukka Ex. PW8/B & getting delivered the copies of FIR to senior officers & ld. MM through Ct Attar Singh, special messenger.

9 PW9 Constable Ratnesh Who came to prove the factum of obtaining one sealed parcel from MHC(M) HC Prabhu Lal along with RC no. 22/21/09 dt.

07/04/2009 for taking it to mortuary of BJRM hospital for opinion, handing over the same to concerned doctor, obtaining of receipt qua the same, handing over of opinion by the concerned doctor to Inspector Pratap Singh, handing over of one sealed parcel to him by the concerned doctor along with sample seal and one copy of RC bearing endorsement of concerned doctor of mortuary which was further handed over by him.

10 PW10 HC Prabhu Lal, the then Who came to prove the various entries qua MHC(M). deposit of case property, sending of case property to concerned hospital & FSL through different RCs and acknowledgement of FSL.

11 PW11 Dr. Deepti Bhalla Who came to prove the MLC of accused Jeevak Nagpal Ex. PW11/A & further that on 21/03/2009, Dr. Satender Singh, Junior Resident, casualty, examined accused Jeevak Nagpal under her supervision and identified the signature of Dr. Satender Singh on MLC Ex. PW11/B. 12 PW12 SI Mahesh Kumar, Draftsman Who came to prove the scaled site plan Ex.

SC No. 58298/2016 FIR no. 161/2009 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Jeevak Nagpal @ Veevek Nagpal Page 9 of 132

PW12/A 13 PW13 Amit Kumar Ganguli, the then Who came to prove qua providing certain Chief Manager of Bank of India, details pertaining to account of M/s Leather Hamdard Dava Khana Branch. Creations bearing no. 601230110000023 to the police of PS Prashant Vihar & issuing of letter Ex. PW13/A. 14 PW14 Mukesh Yadav, employee of Who came to prove qua receiving of Saini Crane Service telephone call from mobile phone no.

9873883039 on 18/03/2009 at about 9­9.15 p.m. by Ganga Yadav regarding vehicle Wagaon R no. DL­2CAF­7578 (of accused) having broken down ahead of Rithala Metro Station and towing & taking of the same at Sector­11, Rohini, Delhi & deputing of Nirmal Yadav and crane operator Daya Nand Yadav of crane No. DL­1E­1578, providing of mobile no. 9211565810 of driver Daya Nand to the customer.

15 PW15 Daya Nand Who came to prove the factum that on 18/03/2009, he along with his helper towed the Wagon R car no. 7578 (of accused) and dropped the same at the house of accused, whom he identified in the PS after 3­4 days.

16 PW16 Nirmal Kumar Yadav Who came to prove the factum that on 18/03/2009, he along with crane driver Daya Nand towed the Wagon R car no. 7578 (of accused) and dropped the same at the house of accused at Sector­11, Rohini, whom he identified in the PS. 17 PW17 Dr. K. Goyal Who came to prove the postmortem report Ex. PW17/A, inquest papers Ex. PW17/B (colly) & opinion regarding weapon of offence Ex. PW17/C 18 PW18 Sonu Kohli, photographer & Who came to prove the factum of recording videographer, Asha Movies. the voice of accused Jeevak Nagpal @ Shanky and Devender Sharma at PS Prashant Vihar on 25/03/2009 at the instructions of police in cassette DVO 90 Mark A & panasonic cassette Mark B respectively in the video camera, further SC No. 58298/2016 FIR no. 161/2009 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Jeevak Nagpal @ Veevek Nagpal Page 10 of 132 taking of their voice samples by putting panasonic cassette in the video camera & seizing of said cassettes vide memo Ex.

PW5/E. 19 PW19 Sahil, friend of accused. Who came to prove the factum that he and accused were friends, used to talk and exchange greetings, receiving of call from accused on 18/03/2009 at about 9.00/9.15 p.m. regarding accident of his Wagon R car and needed service of crane for towing his car, making a call to Race company for crane, providing of the number of Race company to accused, receiving of continuous calls from accused about the status of Race company employees, request of accused for bringing Rs. 1,000/­, towing and dropping of vehicle of accused at his house, giving of Rs. 1,000/­ to accused, enquiry made by accused from him qua missing of Manan, receiving of information from neighbourers/locality residents qua kidnapping and killing of Manan Mahajan by the accused, nervous condition of accused at the time of towing of his car, financial loss by father of accused in the business & in debt of loan from bank, borrowing of money by the accused on interest from some of his friends and making of request by accused for giving Rs. 20,000/­, which was refused by him.

20 PW20 Shiv Singh, owner of stationery Who came to prove the recovery of one shop. register of "Shiv Long Exercise Book" by the accused from his house in his presence which was produced by the accused to the police as the one which was with the deceased at the time he kidnapped him & which he found in his car and was taken by him to his house & identifying the said register as the one which was purchased from his stationery shop by child Manan Mahajan on 18/03/2009 at about 6.30­6.45 p.m. along with two pens, seizure of said register vide memo Ex. PW20/A and SC No. 58298/2016 FIR no. 161/2009 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Jeevak Nagpal @ Veevek Nagpal Page 11 of 132 preparation of site plan of the place of recovery of register Ex. PW20/B by the police.

21 PW21 SI Bal Kishan Who came to prove qua receiving of DD no.

44 Ex. PW21/A which was lodged qua missing of child Manan Mahajan, visiting the spot with Ct Jalraj, meeting of Brijesh Mahajan/complainant, making of enquiries from the family members of deceased, informing of Inspector Pratap Singh, reaching of Inspector Pratap Singh at the spot, recording of statement of complainant by Inspector Pratap Singh, making of endorsement by Inspector Pratap Singh on the statement, handing over of said statement to Ct Jalraj for getting registered the FIR and searching of Manan Mahajan in the nearby locality.

22 PW22 M.N. Vijayan, Nodal officer, Who came to prove the call detail record of TATA Teleservices Ltd. mobile phone no. 9211565810, which was issued in the name of Master Sahni,photocopy of form is Ex. PW22/A, photocopy of election identity card of Master Sahni Ex. PW22/B, CDR for 18.03.2009 Ex.

PW22/C, Cell ID chart Ex. PW22/D (colly), furnishing of documents required by the police qua the said number vide letter Ex.

PW22/E & certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act Ex. PW22/F. 23 PW23 Retired ASI Devender/Tech. Who came to prove the mechanical inspection report of vehicle no. DL­2C­AF­ 7578 of Maruti Wagon­R of silver colour of accused Ex. PW23/A. 24 PW24 SI Samarpal Who came to prove the disclosure statement of accused Ex. PW24/A, pointing out of shop by accused from where he purchased mobile phone and which was used by him in the commission of offence, pointing out of stationery shop by the accused from where deceased child had purchased two ball pens and register, interrogation of shopkeeper by SC No. 58298/2016 FIR no. 161/2009 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Jeevak Nagpal @ Veevek Nagpal Page 12 of 132 IO, recovery of register by accused & its identification by shopkeeper Shiv Singh and its seizure vide memo Ex. PW20/A, preparation of site plan of place of recovery of register Ex. PW20/B, pointing out of one shop at Pandav Nagar from where he had purchased one SIM card of Idea of the ID proof of his friend Sanjay, making of further disclosure statement by accused on 22/03/2009, making of call by Devender Sharma on the mobile of accused, calling of Devender Sharma in the PS who along with Ajit Singh Mahendru (whose mobile was used by Devender in making call to accused), producing of NOKIA N­73 by said Ajit Mahendrum, playing of conversation recorded in the mobile phone, which was reduced into writing,visiting of Rajesh Mahajan (father of deceased) to PS, hearing of said conversation by Rajesh Mahajan, identifying the voice of his son Manan Mahajan in the said conversation by Rajesh Mahajan, preparation of CD of said conversation, seizing of CD vide memo Ex.

PW5/C, seizing of mobile phone make Nokia N­73 vide memo Ex. PW5/D, written conversation Ex. PW5/A1 to A4, handwriting dialogues written on paper Ex. PW5/A1 to A4, which were seized vide memo Ex.

PW5/B, joining of investigation on 25.03.2009, taking of voice samples of accused and Devender Sharma by the private photographer/videographer Sonu, seizing of CDs containing voice vide Ex.

PW5/E, joining of investigation on 26/03/2009, handing over of his mobile phone handset of Nokia N70 having SIM connection 9811092230 by Rajesh Mahajan on which SMSs were sent by the accused, which were reproduced into writing Ex.

PW24/C1 to C5, seizing of same vide memo Ex. PW24/D, retrieving of data from the said mobile phone and preparing of its CD,its SC No. 58298/2016 FIR no. 161/2009 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Jeevak Nagpal @ Veevek Nagpal Page 13 of 132 seizure vide memo Ex. PW24/E & seizing of mobile phone vide memo Ex. PW24/F. 25 PW25 Ajeet Singh Mahendru @ Who came to prove that his friend Devender Bobby, public witness Sharma made a call to accused demanding his money from his (PW25's) mobile no.

9873363860 (which is in the name of his uncle Ved Prakash & being used by him), having loaded software in which conversation is automatically got recorded and saved, qua demanding his money,hearing of the conversation took place between Devender Sharma and accused, receiving of telephone call from PS Prashant Vihar, playing of recorded conversation of call in the PS, reducing in writing the dialogues of conversation Ex. PW5/A1 to A4 which were seized vide memo Ex. PW5/B, preparation of CD of conversation and its seizure vide memo Ex. PW5/C & seizing of his mobile phone N­73 Nokia by police vide memo Ex.

PW5/D 26 PW26 Naveen Hooda, public witness Who came to prove the factum of giving loan of Rs. 25,000/­ to accused in the first week of February, 2009 & further loan of Rs. 38,000/­ in cash on 2% interest after about a week or ten days, making of several calls demanding his money back from the accused and coming to know through newspaper on 20/03/2009 about the apprehension of accused by the police.

27 PW27 Constable Jalraj Who came to prove about accompanying ASI Bal Kishan to the spot on receipt of DD no.

44, recording of statement of Brijesh Mahajan (complainant) by Inspector Pratap Singh, getting recorded the FIR of this case through DO, handing over of copy of FIR and rukka by DO to him which were further handed over by him to Inspector Pratap, searching for the victim child, recovery of dead body of deceased child on 19.03.2009, sending the dead body to BJRM hospital for preservation SC No. 58298/2016 FIR no. 161/2009 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Jeevak Nagpal @ Veevek Nagpal Page 14 of 132 and postmortem, identification of dead body by Rajesh Mahajan and Brijesh Mahajan and handing over of dead body of deceased vide memo Ex. PW27/A. 28 PW28 Sunil Rastogi Who came to prove the factum of purchasing of one SIM card of Idea bearing no.

9990401054 by the accused from his shop Rastogi Telecom vide application form mark PW­28/B, while giving voter identity card of his friend Sanjay as identity proof mark PW28/A­1 to A­2.

29 PW29 Pawan Singh, Nodal Officer, Who came to prove the CDR record of Idea Cellular Ltd. mobile no. 9990401054, which was issued in the name of Sanjay, photocopy of its CAF Ex.

PW29/A, election voter ID card mark PW28/A1 and PW28/A2, CDRs of said mobile phone for the period from 26/02/2009 to 19/03/2009 Ex. PW29/B, Cell ID chart Ex.

PW29/C (colly), supplying of said documents vide letter Ex. PW29/D & certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act Ex. PW29/E. 30 PW30 Naeem Akhtar, Manager Who came to prove record of mobile no.

(customer application form) (Wireless 9868155253 issued in the name of Sahil services), MTNL. Pahwa, agreement form Ex. PW30/A, Form 60 Ex. PW30/B & true copy of driving licence Mark PW30/C. 31 PW31 Constable Sunil Dutt Who came to prove the investigation conducted by the IO in his presence.

32 PW32 Rakesh Soni, the then Junior Who came to prove CDR of mobile no.

Telecom Officer, MTNL, Tis Hazari 9868155253 for the period from 18/03/2009 to 19/03/2009 Ex. PW32/A­1 & Ex. PW32/A­ 2, Cell ID chart Ex. PW32/B (colly), Cell ID chart of the location Ex. PW32/C & certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act Ex. PW32/D. 33 PW34 (whereas it should have been Who came to prove that he saw one child PW33) Jai Pal Singh Mann aged 10­12 years sitting inside the Wagon R of the accused on 18/03/2009, at about 9­ 9.30 p.m., when accused stopped his car and demanded water from him and has identified the said child visible in the photographs Ex.

SC No. 58298/2016 FIR no. 161/2009 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Jeevak Nagpal @ Veevek Nagpal Page 15 of 132

PW3/A1, Ex. PW3/A­5, Ex. PW3/A­6, Ex.

PW3/A­19 and Ex. PW3/A­21.

34 PW35 (whereas it should have been Who came to prove that mobile no.

PW34) Inspector Amardeep Sehgal 9990401054 (of accused) was put on surveillance after it was revealed that ransom calls were received by father of kidnapped child from this number and on analysis of this phone number, he sent the location of the accused to police.

35 PW36 (whereas it should have been Qua receiving the several SMSs on his PW35) Rajesh Mahajan, father of mobile no. 9811092230 from mobile no. deceased 9990401054 with regard to kidnapping of his son Manan Mahajan and demand of ransom money.

36 PW37 (whereas it should have been For proving the report Ex. PW5/A­6 regarding PW36) Dr. C.P. Singh, Assistant recorded conversation contained in mobile Director (Physics), FSL, Rohini, Delhi. set of Nokia N73 & voice samples of accused Jeevak, witness Devender.

37 PW38 (whereas it should have been For proving biological and serological reports PW37) Sh. A.K. Srivastava, Deputy Ex. PW38/A and Ex. PW38/B respectively. Director, FSL, Rohini, Delhi.

38 PW38 (whereas it should have been For proving annexures Ex. PW38/A to Ex.

PW39) Dr. Narayan Waghmare, PW38/C (colly) qua examination of TIA Assistant Director, FSL, Rohini, Delhi. mobile phone & one Nokia mobile phone Model N­70, annexures Ex. PW38/C1 to Ex.

PW38/C­35 & report Ex. PW38/D. 39 PW39 ((whereas it should have been For proving inspection reports Ex. PW39/A PW40) Joginder Singh, Mobile Crime and Ex. PW39/B. Team, Outer District.

40 PW40 Inspector Mahabir Singh Qua the investigation conducted in his (whereas it should have been PW41) presence.

41. PW41 Master Rijul Mahajan Qua the conduct of accused.

(whereas it should have been PW42)

42. PW42 Inspector Pratap Singh, Qua the investigation conducted by him.

investigating Officer

6. After completion of prosecution evidence, statement of accused was SC No. 58298/2016 FIR no. 161/2009 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Jeevak Nagpal @ Veevek Nagpal Page 16 of 132 recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C., wherein he has denied the case of prosecution and claimed that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. However, he chose to lead evidence in defence.

7. In defence, the accused has examined DW1 Pawan Kumar, DW2 SI Purshottam, DW3 HC Yogender Singh, DW4 Israr Babu, DW5 Chandan Kumar, DW6 R.S. Bharti, DW7 Tania Chandra, DW8 Ashish Singh, DW9 Ct. Vikram Singh, DW10 Ct. Amit, DW11 Bala Krishan Chetry, DW12 Sunita Nagpal and himself as DW­13 (u/s 315 Cr.P.C.).

8. I have heard Sh. Harvinder Naar, ld. Special PP for the State, Sh. Bharat Dubey, ld. Counsel for the accused and Sh. Prashant Diwan, ld. Counsel for the complainant.

9. PW1 Brijesh Mahajan is the complainant of this case. He is uncle of deceased child Manan Mahajan. He has deposed that he is a property dealer and is working with his brother Rajesh Mahajan at C­7/195, Sector­8, Rohini. He further deposed that his brother Rajesh Mahajan (PW36) had two sons namely Vaibhav, aged about 16 years and Manan (since deceased) aged about 12 years. He has further deposed that on 15/03/2009, his elder brother Rajesh had gone to Chandigarh with his elder son Vaibhav and his younger son Manan (since deceased) was with them as they all were living in a joint family.

9.1. PW1 has further deposed that on 18/03/2009, at about 6.30/7.00 p.m., Manan (deceased child) had gone to purchase some articles from a nearby stationery shop but he did not return back and they searched for him in the SC No. 58298/2016 FIR no. 161/2009 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Jeevak Nagpal @ Veevek Nagpal Page 17 of 132 neighbourhood and when they did not find any clue, he informed the police on 100 number about missing of Manan. He further deposed that he had a talk with his brother Rajesh Mahajan (PW36) on telephone, who told him that some unknown person had sent a message on his mobile no. 9811092230 from mobile no. 9990401054 about the kidnapping of his son Manan and demand of ransom. PW1 has further deposed that he informed the police and his statement Ex. PW1/A was recorded by the police. He further deposed that police along with him went to different places in search of his nephew Manan and raided many places and inquired from different persons of the locality.

9.2. PW1 further deposed that on 19/03/2009, his brother (PW36) also reached. He further deposed that during investigation, police had apprehended accused Shanky @ Jeevak Nagpal @ Veevek Nagpal, who was interrogated and who disclosed about the kidnapping and murder of his nephew Manan for money. He further deposed that accused led them to the dividing road of 60 feet between Sector­24, Rohini and Deep Vihar Colony in the dry drain (sukhi nali) towards Deep Vihar Colony and pointed out the said place and got recovered the ded body of his nephew Manan from the dry drain. PW1 further deposed that his nephew was taken to BJRM hospital by the police, where he identified the dead body vide identification statement Ex. PW1/B and after postmortem, the dead body was handed over to his brother Rajesh Mahajan (PW36).

10. PW36 Rajesh Mahajan is father of deceased child Manan Mahajan. He has deposed that he had two sons namely Vaibhav Mahajan and Manan Mahajan and Manan Mahajan was murdered in this case. PW36 has corroborated his brother Rajesh Mahajan (PW1) qua visiting Chandigarh on 15/03/2009 along SC No. 58298/2016 FIR no. 161/2009 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Jeevak Nagpal @ Veevek Nagpal Page 18 of 132 with his elder son Vaibhav Mahajan for some business work and has further deposed that on 18/03.2009, at about 9.30 p.m., he along with his elder son Vaibhav Mahajan were about to leave Chandigarh for Delhi, he came to know from his family members about the missing of his son Manan Mahajan. He further deposed that after sometime, he checked his mobile phone no. 9811092230, in which, he had found several SMSs received from mobile no. 9990401054 with regard to kidnapping of his son Manan Mahajan and demand of ransom money. PW36 further deposed that he read the first message, wherein it was written that 'humne aapke bete Manan ko kidnap kar liya hai, ab hum jaise kehte jayen vaise karte jao, police ko batane ki hoshiyari mat karna" and in the second message, it was written that "hamein 25 lakh rupiya 30 minute ke andar­andar chahiye, phir hum aage batayenge ke kya karna hai". He further deposed that in one of the said messages, demand for paying ransom amount of Rs. 55 lakhs was made and the said amount was asked to be paid till next day morning and ransom of Rs. 7 crores was asked to be paid till 7.00 p.m. evening of the next day. PW36 further deposed that in those SMSs, it was also written that "gharwalon ko keh do ke who shor na machayein". He further deposed that one of the message was also reading like "jitni aasani se tere bete ko uthaya hai, utni aasani hum tumhare ­­­­­­ ko bhi uda sakte hai" and the other messages were also written in the aforesaid tone and tenor.

10.1. PW36 further deposed that on next day morning i.e. 19/03/2009, at about 4.00 a.m., he along with his son Vaibhav Mahajan reached at Delhi at his house, where police officials were present and he joined the investigation of this case with them. He further deposed that in the same morning, messages were coming on his mobile phone from the aforesaid mobile number and the contents of SC No. 58298/2016 FIR no. 161/2009 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Jeevak Nagpal @ Veevek Nagpal Page 19 of 132 one of the message read like "15 minute mein ek ek ungli katenge, ungliya khatam to who bhi khatam, itna hi time hai tere pass". He further deposed that he along with police officials started searching his son Manan and during the said search, at about 11.30­11.45 a.m., one boy namely Jeevak Nagpal @ Shanky (accused herein) was seen in suspicion condition, who was moving near his house. PW36 further deposed that police officials called the accused who despite being called, tried to run away but he was overpowered by the police officials. He further deposed that accused was known to him being previously residing in H.No. C­ 5/57, Sector­11, Rohini, Delhi,which was situated two houses away from his (PW36's) house i.e. C­5/53, Sector­11, Rohini, Delhi and the accused along with his family members had sold the said house and shifted to some other place in Sector­11, Rohini, Delhi, who again shifted to C­4/3, Sector­11, Rohini, Delhi i.e. near the next land to his (PW36's) house. PW1 further deposed that after apprehension, the accused initially tried to mislead the police about his suspicious movement but on his sustained interrogation by the police, he confessed that he had kidnapped his son namely Manan Mahajan and had also sent SMSs on his aforesaid mobile phone number and had demanded ransom amount. He further deposed that accused also confessed that he had committed murder of Manan Mahajan. PW36 further deposed that on the cursory search of the accused by police, two mobile phones of make TIA of black colour and Nokia 7670 of black colour were recovered from the trouser worn by the accused at that time. He further deposed that both the said mobiles were checked by the police and on checking, it was found that mobile phone make TIA was found containing SIM number 9990401054 and the other mobile phone make Nokia 7670 was found containing SIM no. 9873883039. He further deposed that on further checking, it was revealed that the aforesaid SMSs were sent to his mobile phone from the SIM SC No. 58298/2016 FIR no. 161/2009 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Jeevak Nagpal @ Veevek Nagpal Page 20 of 132 no. 9990401054. the contents of those SMSs were reduced into writing by the police in his presence and he also signed the same.

11. As per case of prosecution, on 18/03/2009, at about 9.26 p.m., DD no. 44 Ex. PW21/A was recorded at PP Sector­16 Rohini of PS Prashant Vihar on receipt of PCR call that at C5/53, Sector­11, Rohini, Manan Mahajan had gone to the shop but did not return. The said DD was marked to PW21 SI Bal Kishan, who was posted at PP­Sector­16, Rohini of PS Prashant Vihar and was on emergency duty and he along with PW27 Constable Jalraj went to the spot and met PW1/complainant Brijesh Mahajan, who told him that his nephew Manan Mahajan aged about 12 years had gone to stationery shop for purchasing stationary at about 6.00/6.30 p.m. but he did not return back. PW21 further deposed that he made enquiries from other family members of the victim and also informed to PW42 Inspector Pratap Singh of PS Prashant Vihar, who reached at the spot.

12. PW42 Inspector Pratap Singh is the investigating officer of this case. He has deposed that during the year 2009, he was posted as Inspector Investigation at PS Prashant Vihar and on 18.03.2009, at about 9.30 pm, an information was received vide DD No. 37PP at PP Sector­16, Rohini regarding missing of a boy from C­5/53, Sector­11, Rohini, Delhi. He further deposed that the said call was marked to PW21 ASI Bal Kishan for enquiry, who alongwith PW27 Ct. Jal Raj had gone to the place of information and thereafter on telephonic information received from PW21 ASI Bal Kishan, he also went there. He further deposed that at the spot, he met PW21 ASI Bal Kishan and PW27 Ct. Jal Raj & PW1 Brijesh Mahajan, uncle of missing boy namely Manan Mahajan was also found present over there. He further deposed that few of the family members SC No. 58298/2016 FIR no. 161/2009 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Jeevak Nagpal @ Veevek Nagpal Page 21 of 132 of said missing boy as well as few neighbourers were also found present over there. PW42 further deposed that he made enquiries from PW1 Brijesh Mahajan as well as from the family members of missing boy and Brijesh Mahajan had told him that his nephew Manan Mahajan (since deceased) had gone to the nearby stationery shop for purchasing some stationery items at about 6 / 6.30 pm on that day, but he had not returned back so far. He further deposed that other family members who were also present over there, had also disclosed the same facts to him during enquiry. He further deposed that he also made enquiries from PW21 ASI Bal Kishan and PW27 Ct. Jal Raj, who told him that they had made search for the said missing boy after they had reached the said place on receipt of DD no. 37PP, but the boy could not be traced out so far.

12.1. PW42 further deposed that thereafter, he alongwith both the said police officials (PW21 & PW27), family members of said missing boy and the neighbourers further made efforts to look for the said boy in parks, streets, market/shopping area, etc., but no clue could be found about him. He further deposed that Brijesh Mahajan had informed him that his elder brother namely Rajesh Mahajan (PW36), who was father of missing boy Manan Mahajan, had gone to Chandigarh and also informed that during telephonic conversation held between him (PW1) and his brother Rajesh Mahajan (PW36), his brother Rajesh Mahajan had informed him that someone had sent SMS over his mobile phone by claiming therein that his son Manan Mahajan had been kidnapped by said person and Rajesh Mahajan had been receiving SMSs claiming ransom amount for release of his son. He further deposed that in said SMSs, the kidnapper had also been extending threat not to report the matter to the police. PW42 further deposed that PW1 Brijesh Mahajan had disclosed to him that the said text messages were SC No. 58298/2016 FIR no. 161/2009 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Jeevak Nagpal @ Veevek Nagpal Page 22 of 132 sent to the SIM connection no. 9811092230 of Rajesh Mahajan (PW36) from SIM connection no. 9990401054. He further deposed that accordingly he informed about the same to senior police officers as well as to SHO of PS Prashant Vihar and thereafter teams consisting of local staff of PS Prashant Vihar and the police officials of Special Staff, Outer District had also reached at the place of information.

12.2. PW42 Inspector Pratap Singh further deposed that then he recorded the statement Ex.PW1/A made by Sh. Brijesh Mahajan and on the basis of said statement and facts & circumstances of the case, he prepared rukka Ex.PW42/A and handed over the same to PW27 Ct. Jal Raj for registration of FIR. He further deposed that after PW27 Ct. Jal Raj left for getting the FIR registered, the police officials of local PS and of Special Staff, Outer District started their work concerning the information disclosed by Brijesh Mahajan & shared by him (PW42) with them. He further deposed that after about two hours of handing over of rukka to PW27 Ct. Jal Raj, he returned back to the spot alongwith copy of FIR and original rukka and handed over the same to him 12.3. PW42 further deposed that even after registration of FIR, he alongwith local staff of PS Prashant Vihar, made enquiries from Sh. Brijesh Mahajan (PW1) and they remained busy in searching for the missing boy at various places including the places where there could be possibility of finding out of the said boy as told by Brijesh Mahajan.

12.4. PW42 further deposed that PW35 Inspector Amardeep Sehgal, who was In­charge of Special Staff, Outer District at that time, was instructed to put the SC No. 58298/2016 FIR no. 161/2009 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Jeevak Nagpal @ Veevek Nagpal Page 23 of 132 above mentioned SIM connection numbers on technical surveillance and to monitor the same constantly. He further deposed that throughout the intervening night of 18/19.03.2009, the search operation as well as investigation was carried out by the police agencies concerning this case.

12.5. PW35 Inspector Amardeep Sehgal has deposed that on 18.03.2009, he was posted as Inspector Special Staff, Outer District and on that day, at about 11 pm, he received information from senior police officers with regard to kidnapping and ransom for a child Manan Mahajan aged about 12 years, from the area of Sector­11, Rohini, Delhi. He further deposed that he came to know that ransom call was received on mobile no. 9811092230 of the father of kidnapped child from a caller who was making the ransom call from mobile no. 9990401054. PW35 further deposed that he along with his team started technical surveillance of the mobile no. 9990401054 and collected the CDR of said mobile no. 9990401054 and analysed the same. He further deposed that on analysis, he found that the said SIM having phone number as 9990401054 was activated on 18.09.2008 and it was used in three mobile sets having different IMEI numbers. He further deposed that the IMEI numbers of those three sets of mobile are having last four digits as .....1270, .....8990 and .....3940 and during analysis, he also found that from the mobile phone no. 9990401054, contacts were made with four mobile phone numbers i.e. 97188......, 99903......, 97185...... & 989100..... PW35 further deposed that on inquiry, it was revealed that phone number 97188..... was issued in the name of one Sh. Ankesh Gupta, R/o Lok Vihar, Delhi, phone number 99903...... was issued in the name of one Dinesh Arya R/o Kailash Colony, Delhi and two other aforesaid numbers i.e. 97185..... and 989100..... were auto dial numbers of IDEA Cellular Co. He further deposed that on analysis, it was further SC No. 58298/2016 FIR no. 161/2009 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Jeevak Nagpal @ Veevek Nagpal Page 24 of 132 revealed that from SIM having phone no. 9990401054, five SMSs had been sent on mobile phone no. 9811092230 in between 7.17 pm to 7.18 pm on 18.03.2009. He further deposed that the location of mobile phone no. 9990401054 was in the area of Sector­9, Sector­11 & Sector­13, Rohini, Delhi, during the said period. He further deposed that he collected the CDRs of four mobile phone numbers i.e. 97188......, 99903......, 97185...... & 989100..... and analyzed the same. PW35 further deposed that all the three aforesaid IMEI numbers were sent to different mobile companies for searching the SIM numbers which have been used in the said mobile handsets. He further deposed that from the concern company i.e. Hutch, he came to know that IMEI number .....3940 was found to be working on mobile phone no. 9873883039 which was issued in the name of Veevek Nagpal (accused herein), R/o C­3/155­156, Sector­11, Rohini, Delhi. PW35 further deposed that on the analysis of this phone number, he came to know that the culprit was moving somewhere in the area of Sector­11, Rohini, Delhi and he accordingly conveyed this information to senior police officials of Outer District as well as to IO of the present case. He furthere deposed that PW42 IO Inspector Pratap Singh of PS Prashant Vihar met him on 19.03.2009 and recorded his statement.

12.6. PW42 Inspector Pratap Singh has further deposed that on 19.03.2009, at about 4 am, PW36 Rajesh Mahajan had returned back to his house in Delhi from Chandigarh and he was also joined during investigation and he made enquiries from him. He further deposed that on that day at about 11.30 am, PW35 Inspector Amardeep Sehgal told that as per his technical surveillance, the location of SIM connection no. 9990401054 was coming at or near Sector­11, Rohini, Delhi. He further deposed that accordingly, secret informers in plain clothes were SC No. 58298/2016 FIR no. 161/2009 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Jeevak Nagpal @ Veevek Nagpal Page 25 of 132 deployed by police agencies at different places at or near Sector­11, Rohini in order to keep watch over suspects and at about 11.30 am, one secret informer gave information to him that one person in suspicious condition was roaming around the house of the victim situated in Sector­11, Rohini. PW42 further deposed that accordingly he alongwith local staff including PW40 SI (now inspector) Mahabir went to the area of Sector 11, Rohini and on the pointing out of secret informer, they apprehended the said suspicious person who had also tried to flee away on seeing the police officials as they were in official uniform. He further deposed that the said suspect was interrogated after his apprehension and initially he tried to mislead them but during his sustained interrogation, the said suspect disclosed his identity as Jeevak Nagpal i.e. the accused present in the Court. PW42 further deposed that the accused had disclosed that he was residing in nearby place, was already knowing the family of PW36 Rajesh Mahajan and also confessed that he had kidnapped boy Manan Mahajan from near the stationery shop situated near the house of said boy and had sent text messages of threats and ransom demand to the mobile phone of Rajesh Mahajan during the previous evening hours and when he did not receive ransom amount, he had committed murder of said boy namely Manan Mahajan during the previous night and had thrown his dead body in one drain situated in Sector 24, Rohini Delhi. PW42 further deposed that the accused had also produced two mobile handsets of make TIA made in Singapore and other make Nokia of black colour. He further deposed that on checking the mobile handset make TIA, he found that the text messages relating to threats and ransom demands made on the mobile phone of Rajesh Mahajan (PW36), were available in its "outbox" and the text messages sent by Rajesh Mahajan on the said TIA mobile phone, were also available in its "inbox". He further deposed that the accused had also confessed that those text SC No. 58298/2016 FIR no. 161/2009 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Jeevak Nagpal @ Veevek Nagpal Page 26 of 132 messages were sent by him on the mobile phone of PW36 Rajesh Mahajan.

12.7. PW42 Inspector Pratap Singh has further deposed that he effected arrest of accused vide arrest memo Ex. PW36/B & also conducted his personal search vide personal search memo Ex. PW36/C. He further deposed that then, the transcripts of the text messages available in "inbox" as well as "outbox" of TIA mobile phone, were got prepared under his supervision, the transcripts of which are Ex. PW36/A1 to Ex. PW36/A3, bearing the signatures of PW36 Rajesh Mahajan at points A and of accused at points Z. He further clarified that during the said process, he had also telephonically informed PW36 Rajesh Mahajan, who also reached at the said place and joined the investigation with them even before apprehension of the accused. He further deposed that transcripts Ex. PW36/A1 to Ex. PW36/A3. PW46 further deposed that he seized the said transcripts vide seizure memo Ex. PW36/D. He further deposed that before preparing transcripts Ex. PW36/A1 to Ex. PW36/A3 and seizing them vide memo Ex. PW36/D, he had also recorded the disclosure statement Ex. PW36/E made by accused before him. PW42 Inspector Pratap Singh further deposed that during his interrogation, accused had disclosed that the clothes which were worn by him at the time of his apprehension, were the same clothes which were worn by him at the time of committing murder of Manan Mahajan.

12.8. PW42 further deposed that on checking, mobile phone make TIA was found containing SIM connection no. 9990401054 and mobile phone make Nokia was found containing SIM connection no. 9873883039. He further deposed that the mobile phone make TIA was was not found containing memory card and both the aforesaid mobile phones containing their respective SIM connection numbers, SC No. 58298/2016 FIR no. 161/2009 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Jeevak Nagpal @ Veevek Nagpal Page 27 of 132 were seized vide seizure memos Ex. PW36/F and Ex. PW36/G, in which he also mentioned IMEI numbers and other details of mobile handsets. He furthe deposed that the the said mobile phones were wrapped in white cloth pieces and their separate pullandas were prepared, which were sealed with the seal of "PS".

12.9. PW42 further deposed that after formal arrest of accused, his family member i.e. father namely Sh. Mahender Nagpal was informed about his arrest through Constable and the clothes were also arranged from his house and after making the accused to change his clothes, the clothes which were worn by accused at the time of his apprehension, were seized after preparing their sealed pullanda duly sealed with the seal of "PS", vide seizure memo Ex. PW40/A. He further deposed that thereafter, the accused led them to the place where he had thrown the dead body of deceased Manan Mahajan.

12.10. PW42 Inspector Pratap Singh further deposed that he alongwith police staff, PW36 Rajesh Mahajan, PW40 SI (now Inspector) Mahavir and the accused left for the place of scene of crime. He further deposed that the accused led them to the place where he had disposed off dead body of Manan Mahajan at dividing road between Sector­24, Rohini and Deep Vihar in a dry drain (sukhi nali). He further deposed that the accused had pointed out the said place where they found the dead body of Manan Mahajan. He further deposed that the dead body of Manan Mahajan was identified by his father PW36 Rajesh Mahajan. PW42 further deposed that Mobile Crime Team was called at the spot and crime Team constituting of In­charge SI Joginder (PW39), photographer PW3 Ct. Hans Raj and other staff, reached at the spot and conducted the inspection of scene of crime. PW39 SI Joginder inspected the site and photographer PW3 Ct. Hans Raj took SC No. 58298/2016 FIR no. 161/2009 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Jeevak Nagpal @ Veevek Nagpal Page 28 of 132 the photographs of the said place from different angles at his instance as well as at the instance of Mobile Crime Team Incharge PW39 SI Joginder.

12.11. PW42 Inspector Pratap Singh further deposed that he prepared the pointing out memo Ex.PW36/Q of recovery of dead body & site plan Ex.PW42/B. He further deposed that Crime team In­charge prepared his report Ex.PW39/A. 12.12. PW42 further deposed that he had also inspected the scene of crime and also lifted 8 exhibits. He further deposed that blood stained towel of blue and white colour was found lying on the footpath near the dead body, which was put in a plastic polythene, which was converted into pullanda by wrapping the same in a white piece of cloth and sealed with the seal of "PS". He further deposed that the said pullanda was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW36/H. He further deposed that the wrapper containing two gel pen of Linc Company was found lying near the bushes on the footpath near the dead body and the said wrapper was converted into pullanda by wrapping the same in a white piece of cloth, which was sealed with the seal of "PS" and was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW36/J. PW42 further deposed that the blood stained dry bushes (sukhi jharis), leaves, twigs and soil which were found under the dead body, were put in a polythene, converted into pullanda by wrapping the same in a white piece of cloth, which was sealed with the seal of "PS" and was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW36/K. He further deposed that some dry bushes, plain soil, leaves and twigs, which were found near the dead body, were put in a polythene, converted into pullanda by wrapping the same in a white piece of cloth, which was sealed with the seal of "PS" and was seized vide memo Ex.PW36/L. PW42 further deposed that from the said dry drain, blood stained cemented plaster near the SC No. 58298/2016 FIR no. 161/2009 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Jeevak Nagpal @ Veevek Nagpal Page 29 of 132 dead body was removed with the help of hammer and chainey and the said blood stained cemented pieces were put in a polythene, converted into pullanda by wrapping the same in a white piece of cloth, which was sealed with the seal of "PS" and was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW36/M. He further deposed that the plain cemented pieces from the said dry drain from where the dead body was recovered, were removed with the help of hammer and chainey, which were put in a polythene, converted into pullanda by wrapping the same in a white piece of cloth, which was sealed with the seal of "PS" and was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW36/N. PW42 further deposed that the blood stained pieces of road (charcoal rohri) near the dry drain, were also removed with the help of hammer and chainey and the said pieces were put in a polythene, converted into pullanda by wrapping the same in a white piece of cloth, which was sealed with the seal of "PS" and was seized vide seizure memo already Ex.PW36/O. He further deposed that the plain pieces of road (charcoal rohri) near the dry drain, were also removed with the help of hammer and chainey and the said pieces were put in a polythene, converted into pullanda by wrapping the same in a white piece of cloth, which was sealed with the seal of "PS" and was seized vide seizure memo.

12.13. PW42 Inspector Pratap Singh further deposed that the accused in police custody was sent to PS Prashant Vihar from the said place. He further deposed that he alongwith PW 4 Ct. (now HC) Om Prakash and relatives of deceased went to BJRM Hospital Mortuary for getting the postmortem on the dead body conducted. He further deposed that the dead body of deceased was also removed to the Mortuary of BJRM Hospital. He further deposed that he prepared inquest papers i.e. application to CMO Ex.PW17/B, brief facts Ex.PW42/C and form 25.35 (1)(B) Ex.PW42/D, for conducting the postmortem on the body of SC No. 58298/2016 FIR no. 161/2009 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Jeevak Nagpal @ Veevek Nagpal Page 30 of 132 deceased. PW42 further deposed that the dead body of deceased was identified by PW36 Rajesh Mahajan & PW1 Brijesh Mahajan vide statements Ex.PW36/R & Ex.PW1/B respectively. He further deposed that postmortem was conducted on the body of deceased vide report Ex.PW17/A and the dead boy of deceased was handed over to relatives of deceased vide memo Ex.PW27/A. The Autopsy Surgeon handed over a sealed parcel containing clothes of deceased as well as scalp hair of deceased contained in a bottle of glass, sealed packet containing hairs found clinched in the left hand of deceased, blood gauze in piece of deceased in a paper packet, which were duly sealed with the seal of KG BJRM HOSPITAL MORTUARY and four sample seals to PW4 Ct. (now HC) Om Prakash, who handed over the same to him (PW42), which PW42 seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW4/A.

13. PW17 Dr. K. Goyal, who had conducted postmortem on the body of deceased Manan Mahajan on 19/03/2009, sent by PW42 Inspector Pratap Singh of PS Prashant Vihar with alleged history of found dead by the police after being kidnapped on the evening of 18/03/2009 in the narrow lane opposite Deep Vihar at JMD Developers in Sector­24, Pocket­27, Rohini, Delhi. He further deposed that the dead body was found wearing yellow T­shirt having few small irregularly torn area over front, baniyan having few torn small area on front and back, jeans pant having few small L shape torn/cut over upper front, underwear having few torn/cut area and a pair of shoes and socks. PW17 further deposed that the body built was weak, rigor mortis was present all over, postmortem straining was present on back of body except pressure points, eyes and mouth were partially open,conjunctivae were suffused with subconjunctival hemorrhage, cornea was hazy, tongue was intact and nails were bluish. He further deposed that there were SC No. 58298/2016 FIR no. 161/2009 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Jeevak Nagpal @ Veevek Nagpal Page 31 of 132 few hair found clinched in the left fist of the deceased which were preserved, sealed and handed over to police. He further deposed that face was congested and on external examination, following injuries were found on body of the deceased:­

i) both lips extensively bruised orally as well as externally, more lower lip with bruising over ala nasii both sies and tip of nose along with diffuse bruising around the mouth, reddish in colour.

ii) 11 lacerations scattered irregularly, superficial to full skin deep over lower side of occipital region and back of neck at and around mid line with multiple scratches. Sizes of lacerations raised between 0.75 c.m. x 0.2 c.m. to 1.8 c.m. to 0.4. c.m.

iii) Diffused bruising with swelling over right malar region 5 x 4 c.m. area, reddish in colour.

iv) Abraded area right side neck running horizontally at the level of apple of adam from mid line front up to 11.5 c.m. distance at lateral aspect of right side neck, about 1 c.m. wide, reddish brown, interrupted at places and about 7 c.m. below right ears.

5) Pattern contused abrasion more or less rectangular shape present over:­

(a) right back of chest at the level of inferior border of right scapula and about 2 c.m. right to mid line of size 1 x 0.2 c.m.

(b) Mid line back of abdomen over vertebral column 1 x 0.2 c.m.

(c) At mid line, epigastrium upper side 1.2 x 0.4 c.m. having grazing.

(d) 1 c.m. x 0.4 c.m. with slight grazing over epigastrium SC No. 58298/2016 FIR no. 161/2009 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Jeevak Nagpal @ Veevek Nagpal Page 32 of 132 about 1.5 c.m. left to mid line.

(e) 1.2 x 0.4 c.m. with grazing over epigastrium about 4 c.m. left to mid line.

According to PW17 Dr.K. Goyal, all these five injuries (a to e) were reddish brown in colour and their ends were very dark, cuticle deep while intervening area was little lighter and also, same type of injury 1 x 0.3 c.m. over left thigh front about 5 inches below left inguinal ligament area.

6) 8 c.m. long scratch placed obliquely over right side chest above nipple.

7) abrasion 1 x 0.7 c.m. just below left inguinal region.

8) Superficial lacerations avulsion 1.6 x 1 c.m. over left thigh front about 17 c.m. below mid inguinal point.

9) pattern contused abrasion same as to injury no. 5 , 1 x 0.3 c.m. over antero medial aspect of right thigh about 6 c.m. below medial part of inguinal ligament area.

13.1. PW17 has further deposed that on internal examination, there was sub scalp bruising over occipital region and that skull bones, meninges and brain matter were intact and congested. He has further deposed that all the neck structures were intact and NAD, tracheal mucosa was congested, little froth was present in trachea, bony cage was intact, both lungs were profusely oedematous, congested and frothy. He has further deposed that all abdominal organs were intact, there was about 20­30cc of churned food material with small partly churned Rajma like pieces were present in the stomach and rest was NAD. He further deposed that the bowels were intact, urinary bladder and rectum were full and SC No. 58298/2016 FIR no. 161/2009 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Jeevak Nagpal @ Veevek Nagpal Page 33 of 132 spinal column was intact and genital organs were NAD.

13.2. PW17 has further deposed that in his opinion, the cause of death of asphyxia consequent upon smothering i.e. closure of airways (nostrils and mouth). He further deposed that all injuries were antemortem in nature & injury no. 1 was caused by manual pressure over mouth and nose and was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. He further deposed that all other injuries were caused (except no. 5 and 9) by blunt force impacts. He further deposed that pattern of injuries no. 5 and 9 was consistent with being caused by some relatively blunt penetrating object wide and blunt penetrating surface and pattern of injuries was consistent with intense torture just prior to death. He further deposed that the time since death was about 17­18 hours.

13.3. PW17 has further deposed that he preserved, sealed and handed over the clothes of the deceased, blood sample of the deceased in gauze piece & hair found clinched in the left fist of the deceased. He has proved his postmortem report Ex. PW17/A. He has further proved the inquest papers no. 1 to 6 as Ex. PW17/B (colly).

14. PW42 Inspector Pratap Singh has further deposed that on 19.03.2009 at about 6.30 pm, he alongwith PW40 SI Mahavir, other staff and accused Jeevek Nagpal @ Vivek Nagpal @ Shanky left the PS for investigation of the present case and reached at Sector­11, Rohini, where PW36 Rajesh Mahajan also joined investigation with them. He further deposed that during investigation, said accused led them outside his house i.e. C­4/3, Sector­11, Rohini, Delhi, where the accused pointed out towards one Wagon­R car bearing registration no.

SC No. 58298/2016 FIR no. 161/2009 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Jeevak Nagpal @ Veevek Nagpal Page 34 of 132

DL­2CAF­7578 of silver colour, which was stationed on the road outside his house and the accused disclosed that he had used the said car for kidnapping and to kill Master Manan Mahajan in the said car.

14.1. PW42 Inspector Pratap Singh further deposed that he called the Mobile Crime Team. The Mobile Crime Team officials i.e. PW39 In­charge SI Joginder, Photographer Ct. Hans Raj (PW3) and one Finger Print Proficient reached at the spot and inspected the said car. He further deposed that during inspection, Mobile Crime Team officials found blood stains on the seat cover adjoining to the driver seat i.e. over three places of the said seat cover, one jack handle of the car was found in between the door and the front seat adjacent to the driver seat of the said car, which was having blood on its pointed/sharp side from one end. He further deposed that accused disclosed that he murdered Manan Mahajan (since deceased) by hitting this jack handle on his head and other parts of the body. PW42 further deposed that the said seat cover which was having blood stains, was removed from the seat and was taken into possession by wrapping the same in a white cloth piece and converted the same into pullanda, which was sealed with the seal of "PS" and was taken into possession by him vide seizure memo Ex.PW36/S. He further deposed that the weapon of offence i.e. jack handle having blood, was also taken into possession by him by putting the same in a polythene and wrapped with a white cloth piece and same was converted into pullanda, which was sealed with the seal of "PS" and the said pullanda was taken into police possession by him vide seizure memo Ex.PW36/T. 14.2. PW39 Inspector Joginder Singh & PW3 Ct. Hans Raj have corroborated PW42 Inspector Pratap Singh qua visiting the place of occurrence SC No. 58298/2016 FIR no. 161/2009 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Jeevak Nagpal @ Veevek Nagpal Page 35 of 132 i.e. 60 foota Road, Deep Vihar Kacchi Colony, near Pocket­27, Sector­24, Rohini, on 19/03/2009, at about 1.00, pm along with HC Ram Kumar (Finger Print Proficient), from where dead body of deceased child was recovered, inspecting the said spot, getting the said spot photographed from different angles, lifting of certain exhibits by the IO, non­founding of any chance prints. PW39 has proved his inspection report dt. 19.03.09 Ex PW39/A, which was handed over to PW42 IO Inspector Partap Singh then and there. PW3 Ct. Hansraj has proved the photographs of the spot as well as of dead body Ex. PW3/A1 to A­24 and negative thereof Ex. PW3/A25 to A48. Both PW39 and PW3 have also corroborated PW42 Inspector Pratap Singh qua reaching near House No. C­5/3, Sector­11, Rohini at about 7.00 pm on 19/03/2009 where they met PW42 IO Inspector Partap Singh and other local staff & inspecting of Wagon­R Car No. DL2CAF­ 7578. PW39 has proved his inspection report dt. 19.03.09 Ex PW39/B, which was handed over by him to IO, whereas PW3 has proved the photographs of the car taken by him as Ex. PW3/B9 to B16 and negatives thereof as Ex. PW3/B1 to B8.

14.3. PW42 Inspector Pratap Singh has further deposed that during the course of checking and inspection of the aforesaid car, one R.C. of the said car and one Driving Licence, both in the name of Mahender Nagpal, who was father of accused, were recovered, which were lying inside the dash board of the aforesaid car and he seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW36/U. He further deposed that the Wagon­R car bearing no. DL­2CAF­7578 was also taken into police possession by him vide seizure memo Ex.PW36/V. He further deposed that PW39 Mobile Crime Team Incharge namely PW39 SI Joginder Singh had prepared his report and handed over the same to him at the said place itself and he recorded the statements of Mobile Crime Team Officials and thereafter, they were SC No. 58298/2016 FIR no. 161/2009 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Jeevak Nagpal @ Veevek Nagpal Page 36 of 132 discharged. He further deposed that seal after use was handed over by him to one of the members of police team. PW42 further deposed that he also directed one of the members of police team to take away the aforesaid Wagon­R Car to Malkhana of PS Prashant Vihar by towing away the same and thereafter he also recorded the statement of PW36 Rajesh Mahajan. He further deposed that thereafter, he alongwith remaining members of police team alongwith accused returned back to PS Prashant Vihar. He further deposed that he deposited the case property in Malkhana, kept the aforesaid documents on file & recorded the statement of witnesses i.e. SI Mahavir in this regard.

14.4. PW42 Inspector Pratap Singh further deposed that during investigation on 20.03.2009, accused Jeevak Nagpal @ Shanky was again interrogated by him in PS Prashant Vihar in the presence of PW24 SI Samar Pal and PW31 Ct. Sunil. He further deposed the accused made supplementary disclosure statement Ex.PW24/A before him and disclosed that he had purchased the mobile instrument make TIA from a shop situated at Sector­11, Rohini in the name of Raj Hans Telecom and he can point out the said shop. He further deposed that during investigation, accused led him, PW24 SI Samar Pal and PW31 Ct. Sunil to shop bearing No. D­1/66, Sector­11, Rohini, Delhi in the name of Raj Hans Telecom and pointed out the said shop to be the same shop from where he had purchased the mobile instrument make TIA. PW42 further deposed that accused had also pointed out towards the shopkeeper, who was found sitting in the said shop at that time, by claiming that he had purchased the said mobile instrument make TIA from the said shopkeeper on 24.02.2009. PW42 further deposed that he made enquiries from the said shopkeeper, who disclosed his name as Shiv Kumar i.e. PW2. He further deposed that said shopkeeper namely SC No. 58298/2016 FIR no. 161/2009 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Jeevak Nagpal @ Veevek Nagpal Page 37 of 132 Shiv Kumar (PW2) also identified accused to be the same boy who had purchased mobile phone make TIA from his shop for Rs. 1200/­ on 24.02.2009 and PW42 recorded his statement U/s 161 Cr.P.C. in this regard.

14.5. PW2 Shiv Kumar has also corroborated PW42 Inspector Pratap Singh in this regard, though he claimed that said shop was being run by his wife.

14.6. PW42 Inspector Pratap Singh has further deposed that thereafter, accused led them (PW42, PW24 & PW31) to M/s Shiv Stationery Shop situated at B­5/55, Sector­11, Rohini, Delhi, where the accused pointed out the said shop to be the same shop, wherefrom deceased Manan Mahajan (deceased child) had purchased register and two gel pens. He further deposed that the accused also disclosed that when Manan Mahajan had come outside the said shop after purchasing said stationery articles, he (accused) had kidnapped him from the said place. PW42 further deposed that accordingly, he made enquiries from the shopkeeper namely Sh. Shiv Singh i.e. PW20, who disclosed that Manan Mahajan (deceased child) had purchased register and two gel pens from his shop on 18.03.2009 at around 6.30 pm or so and had left his shop thereafter & PW42 recorded his statement U/s 161 Cr.P.C. in this regard. PW42 further deposed that thereafter, they returned back to PS and in the PS he recorded statements U/s 161 Cr.P.C. of SI Samar Pal and of Ct. Sunil and accused was kept in Lock­up.

14.7. PW42 Inspector Pratap Singh further deposed that during investigation on 21.03.2009, he alongwith PW24 SI Samar Pal and PW31 Ct. Sunil left for investigation of this case alongwith accused, who was in police custody at that time. He further deposed that on the way, PW20 Shiv Singh, SC No. 58298/2016 FIR no. 161/2009 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Jeevak Nagpal @ Veevek Nagpal Page 38 of 132 shopkeeper of M/s Shiv Stationery Shop was also got joined in the investigation with them. He further deposed that the accused led them to his house no. C­4/3, Sector­11, Rohini, Delhi and they all had gone inside the ground floor of the said house. He further deposed that accused got recovered one register, which was lying on the dinning table situated in dinning­cum­drawing room on ground floor of said house and disclosed that it was the same register which was purchased by Manan Mahajan (deceased child) and had been kept on the dash board of his aforesaid Wagon R Car, which was subsequently kept by him on the said dinning table during the intervening night of 18/19.03.2009 after committing the murder of Manan Mahajan. PW42 further deposed that on the binding cover of the register, the words "Shiv Long Exercise Book" were printed and on the first page of the said register, the stamp of M/s Shiv Stationery was found affixed and PW20 Shiv Singh, who was present with them at that time, had identified the said register to be the same register, which was purchased by Manan Mahajan(deceased child) from his shop on 18.03.2009. He further deposed that he (PW42) kept the said register in a polythene, which was wrapped in white piece cloth and its pullanda was prepared, which was sealed with the seal of "PS" and it was seized vide memo Ex.PW20/A. He furthere deposed that he also prepared rough site plan of the place of recovery of said register Ex.PW20/B & also recorded statement U/s 161 Cr.PC. of PW20 Sh. Shiv Singh in this regard, who thereafter left from the said place.

14.8. PW20 Shiv Singh has given separate statement regarding "Shiv Long Register" having been sold to deceased Manan Mahajan.

14.9. PW42 Inspector Pratap Singh further deposed that on the same day, SC No. 58298/2016 FIR no. 161/2009 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Jeevak Nagpal @ Veevek Nagpal Page 39 of 132 pursuant to his disclosure statement, accused led him( PW42) , PW24 SI Samar Pal and PW31 Ct. Sunil to the shop of Rastogi Telecom situated at Nehru Gali, Pandav Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi, where accused pointed out the said shop to be the same shop wherefrom he had purchased SIM connection no. 9990401054 and also identified the shopkeeper who was found sitting over there at that time, to be the same person from whom he had purchased the said SIM connection number. He further deposed that accordingly, he made enquries from the said shopkeeper, who disclosed his name as Sunil Rastogi i.e. PW28, who identified the accused to be the same person who had purchased aforesaid SIM connection no. 9990401054 of IDEA Cellular Co. from his shop on 13.02.2009 on the ID of one Sanjay S/o Sh. Hari Ram, who was resident of East Kidwai Nagar & PW42 also recorded statement U/s 161 Cr.P.C. made by Sunil Rastogi (PW28). PW42 further deposed that thereafter he alongwith PW24 SI Samar Pal and PW31 Ct. Sunil and the accused reached at PS and deposited the case property with the MHC(M) & recorded the statement of witnesses including SI Samar Pal and Ct. Sunil.

14.10. PW42 further deposed that on 22.03.2009, PW24 SI Samar Pal and PW31 Ct. Sunil joined the investigation with him and accused was taken out from the Lock­up and was interrogated further. He further deposed that he recorded supplementary disclosure statement Ex.PW24/B of the accused, who disclosed that he received number of calls on his mobile phone from borrowers on the date of incident and Devender Sharma @ Dev (PW5) made a call to him demanding his money. PW42 further deposed that accused also disclosed that he talked with Dev (PW5) twice at 10.15 pm and 10.35 pm, who might have recorded the said conversation and that Dev (PW5) had again made a call to him asking who was pleading for his life. PW42 further deposed that in pursuance to disclosure SC No. 58298/2016 FIR no. 161/2009 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Jeevak Nagpal @ Veevek Nagpal Page 40 of 132 statement, Devender @ Dev (PW5) was called in the PS, who came with Ajit Singh Mahendru (PW25) whose mobile phone bearing SIM No. 9873363860 was used by Devender (PW5) having software for recording the conversation. He further deposed that PW25 Ajit Mahendru @ Bobby produced his Nokia mobile set make N73 black colour by which Devender made calls to the accused on 18.03.2009 at about 10.15 pm. PW42 further deposed that PW25 Ajit Mahendru informed that he had loaded a software for recording the conversation and by virtue of the said software, the conversation between accused and Devender (PW5) was recorded on the said night. He further deposed that PW25 Ajit Mahendru played the said recorded conversations and he (PW42) heard the conversation recorded in the said mobile phone. He further deposed that at the same time, PW36 Rajesh Mahajan also reached in his room and he also heard the said conversation recorded in the mobile phone of Ajit Mahendru (PW25). PW42 further deposed that after hearing the said conversation, PW36 Rajesh Mahajan had identified the voice of his son Manan Mahajan (deceased) who was pleading for his life 'Bhaiya maine tumhara kya bigada hai, jo tum mujhe kyu maar rahe ho'. He further deposed that the said conversation was reduced in writing by him in the presence of PW36 Rajesh Mahajan, Devender @ Dev (PW5) and Ajit Mahendru @ Bobby (PW25). PW42 further deposed that has proved the handwritten dialogues of conversation recorded on mobile phone no. 9873363860 used by Devender @ Dev (PW5) in conversation with the accused on his mobile bearing SIM No. 9873883039 Ex.PW5/A­1 to A­4, which were taken in possession vide memo Ex.PW5/B. He further deposed that the mobile phone N73 of Ajit Mahendru (PW25) was connected with a computer for preparing the CD of the conversation dated 18.03.2009 between accused and Devender @ Dev (PW5) and the CD of the said conversation was prepared, which was put in a polythene, wrapped in a SC No. 58298/2016 FIR no. 161/2009 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Jeevak Nagpal @ Veevek Nagpal Page 41 of 132 piece of cloth and converted into pullanda, which was sealed with the seal of "PS" and the said pullanda was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW5/C. PW42 further deposed that the mobile phone N73 was put in a polythene, wrapped in a piece of cloth and converted into pullanda and was sealed with the seal of PS, which was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW5/D. He further deposed that he recorded the statement of Devender @ Dev (PW5), Ajit Mahendru (PW25), PW24 SI Samar Pal, PW31 Ct. Sunil and supplementary statement of PW36 Rajesh Mahajan.

14.11. PW42 Inspector Pratap Singh has further deposed that in pursuance to disclosure statement of accused, the crane staff i.e. driver Dayanand (PW15) and helper Nirmal (PW16) of Race Company were called in the PS, who pointed out the place where they met with witness Sahil (PW19), who led them to the place, where the Wagon R Car of accused broke down. He further deposed that the witness Sahil (PW19) also met them at the place where he (PW42) met with said driver and helper and both driver and helper also pointed out the house of the accused, where the Wagon R Car was dropped by towing the same with the crane at outside the house of accused on the night of incident. PW42 further deposed that he found the version of driver Dayanand (PW15) and helper Nirmal (PW16) corroborating with the statement of Sahil (PW19) who had made a call to the Race Company for arranging the crane at the request of accused.

14.12. PW14 Mukesh Yadav, employee of Saini Crane Service, has deposed about qua receiving of telephone call from mobile phone no. 9873883039 on 18/03/2009 at about 9­9.15 p.m. by Ganga Yadav regarding vehicle Wagaon R no. DL­2CAF­7578 (of accused) having broken down ahead of Rithala Metro Station and towing & taking of the same at Sector­11, Rohini, Delhi & deputing of SC No. 58298/2016 FIR no. 161/2009 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Jeevak Nagpal @ Veevek Nagpal Page 42 of 132 Nirmal Yadav and crane operator Daya Nand Yadav of crane No. DL­1E­1578, providing of mobile no. 9211565810 of driver Daya Nand to the customer. PW15 Daya Nand had deposed about the factum that on 18/03/2009, he along with his helper towed the Wagon R car no. 7578 (of accused) and dropped the same at the house of accused, whom he identified in the PS after 3­4 days. PW16 Nirmal Kumar Yadav Who came to prove the factum that on 18/03/2009, he along with crane driver Daya Nand towed the Wagon R car no. 7578 (of accused) and dropped the same at the house of accused at Sector­11, Rohini, whom he identified in the PS. 14.13. PW42 further deposed that thereafter accused led them to M/s Shiv Stationery Shop situated at B­5/57, Sector­11, Rohini, Delhi instead of B­5/55 and PW42 has clarified that he inadvertently wrongly mentioned the wrong number/address of said shop in his further examination in chief recorded before lunch on 23/12/2016.

14.14. PW42 further deposed that during investigation on 23.03.2009, accused Jeevak Nagpal during P/C remand had made supplementary disclosure statement Ex.PW42/1, wherein he disclosed in detail about the motive and also disclosed that since he was under debt, hence he was in urgent need of money. He further deposed that accused further disclosed that he had given undertaking to the persons from whom he had borrowed money that he would return their money upto 18.03.2009. PW42 further deposed that in the said disclosure statement, accused had also disclosed that while he was looking for a safer place to commit the murder of minor child, in the meantime, he felt thirsty and the minor child also felt need for water, on the way he demanded water from one person SC No. 58298/2016 FIR no. 161/2009 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Jeevak Nagpal @ Veevek Nagpal Page 43 of 132 riding on a car. He further disclosed that said person had replied that though he was not carrying water and asked him that he could have water at his office i.e. at Maan Properties, which was situated just 100 mtrs. away from the said place. He further deposed that during investigation, they went to the said property office situated at Sector­24, Rohini, near Power House, where they met the owner/proprietor of said property office namely Sh. Jai Pal Maan (PW34). PW42 further deposed that he made enquries from said Jai Pal Maan (PW34) and recorded his statement. PW42 further deposed that Jai Pal Maan (PW34) had also identified accused Jeevak Nagpal to be the same person to whom he had seen in a car alongwith one minor child and had demanded water from him on 18.03.2009. He further deposed that he (PW42) had also shown the photograph of the minor child namely Manan to said Jai Pal Maan (PW34), who also identified the said photograph to be of the same boy whom he had seen in the company of accused on 18/03/2009.

14.15. PW42 further deposed that during investigation on 24.03.2009, accused Jeevak Nagpal was produced before Ld. MM and he (PW42) had moved an application for obtaining voice sample of said accused as well as of witness Devender @ Dev (PW5) and ld. MM had obtained the consent of accused Jeevak Nagpal as well as of witness Devender @ Dev. He further deposed that thereafter, he took accused Jeevak Nagpal as well as to witness Devender @ Dev (PW5) to PS Prashant Vihar. He further deposed that he called one videographer namely Sonu (PW18) at the PS, who had brought video camera as well as audio cassettes with him and he (PW42) had briefed the said Sonu about the facts of the case and purpose of his calling. He further deposed that at PS Prashant Vihar, in his (PW42's) presence as well as in the presence of SI Samar Pal (PW24), SC No. 58298/2016 FIR no. 161/2009 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Jeevak Nagpal @ Veevek Nagpal Page 44 of 132 Videographer Sonu (PW18) had recorded the voice of accused Jeevak Nagpal. He further deposed that they had already prepared the transcript of the conversation over phone between accused Jeevak Nagpal and Devender @ Dev (PW5) and handed over the copy of said transcript to accused, who read over his part of conversation and videographer Sonu (PW18) had recorded his (accused's) voice. PW42 further deposed that thereafter, they handed over the copy of same transcription to witness Devender @ Dev (PW5) and said witness had read over his part of conversation and videographer Sonu (PW18) had recorded his voice. He further deposed that thereafter, a copy of transcript was given to accused Jeevak Nagpal as well as to witness Devender @ Dev (PW5) and both were asked to read their part of conversation from the said transcript. He further deposed that the videographer Sonu (PW18) had recorded their voices in this regard in three separate audio cassettes. PW42 further deposed that the audio cassette containing voice of accused Jeevak Nagpal was given serial no. A, the audio cassette containing voice of witness Devender @ Dev (PW5) was given serial no. B and the audio cassette containing the voices of accused Jeevak Nagpal and witness Devender @ Dev (PW5), was given serial no. A + B. He further deposed that the said three audio cassettes were kept in one polythene, which was kept in one cloth pullanda and said pullanda was sealed with the seal of "PS" and was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW5/E. He further deposed that in the said seizure memo, he had also mentioned the duration/ approximate time of said recordings and that he deposited the sealed pullanda containing aforesaid audio cassettes in Malkhana.

14.16. PW42 Inspector Pratap Singh has further deposed that during investigation on 24.03.2009, he recorded the statement U/s 161 Cr.P.C. of three SC No. 58298/2016 FIR no. 161/2009 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Jeevak Nagpal @ Veevek Nagpal Page 45 of 132 minor children namely Vaibhav, Anshika and Rijul at their house in the presence of WCt. Munita.

14.17. PW42 Inspector Pratap Singh further deposed that during investigation on 25.03.2009, upon his instructions, one Constable whose name he did not remember, took accused Jeevak Nagpal to BSA Hospital for obtaining his scalp hair sample and blood sample and thereafter, the said Constable returned back to PS alongwith accused and produced before him (PW42) the sealed pullandas stated to be containing scalp hair sample, blood sample of accused alongwith sample seal of the hospital. He further deposed that he seized the said exhibits vide seizure memo Ex.PW31/A and deposited the same in Malkhana. He further deposed that after the completion of P/c remand of accused Jeevak Nagpal, he was sent to judicial custody.

14.18. PW42 Ispector Pratap Singh further deposed that during investigation on 26.03.2009, he called Mechanical Inspector SI Devender (since retired) i.e. PW23 at PS Prashant Vihar, who had inspected car bearing registration no. DL­ 2CAF­7578, which was used by the accused during the commission of offence and after inspection, PW23 SI Devender prepared his report (Ex. PW23/A) and handed over the same to him.

14.19. PW42 Inspector Pratap Singh further deposed that on the same day i.e. 26.03.2009, PW36 Rajesh Mahajan had joined the investigation and had produced his mobile phone make Nokia N70. He further deposed that he checked the said mobile which was having SIM connection no. 9811092230 and also checked the SMS column of the said mobile, which was containing many SC No. 58298/2016 FIR no. 161/2009 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Jeevak Nagpal @ Veevek Nagpal Page 46 of 132 messages. He further deposed that he prepared the transcript of ransom messages and reply sent to the said messages. He has proved the said transcripts as Ex.PW24/C1, Ex.PW24/C2, Ex.PW24/C3, Ex.PW24/C4 and Ex.PW24/C5. He further deposed that he prepared the said transcript in the presence of PW Sh. Rajesh Mahajan (PW36) as well as in the presence of SI Samar Pal (PW24). He further deposed that thereafter, the aforesaid mobile phone was connected with one computer and the CD of the relevant messages was prepared with the help of said computer installed at the PS. PW42 further deposed that he seized the aforesaid transcript vide seizure memo Ex.PW24/D & the CD containing SMS communication after sealing the same in a cloth pullanda with the seal of PS, vide seizure memo Ex.PW24/E. He further deposed that he he kept the mobile phone make Nokia N70 in a cloth pullanda, which was sealed with the seal of "PS" and was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW24/F. 14.20. PW42 further deposed that during investigation on 26.03.2009, he recorded the supplementary statement of Rajesh Mahajan, SI Samar Pal and statement of Mechanical Inspector SI Devender U/s 161 Cr.P.C. He further deposed that on 27.03.2009, he verified the version of witness Sahil Pahwa (PW19).

14.21. PW42 Inspector Pratap Singh further deposed that on 31.03.2009, he received CDR and CAF of mobile no. 9990401054 of accused Jeevek Nagpal from IDEA Company and placed the same on record. He further deposed that as per said CDR, he found the location of this mobile phone in the area of Sector­11, Rohini and nearby adjoining areas.

SC No. 58298/2016 FIR no. 161/2009 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Jeevak Nagpal @ Veevek Nagpal Page 47 of 132

14.22. PW42 further deposed that on 01.04.2009, he received CDR and CAF of mobile no. 9873883039 and 9811092230 of accused Jeevek Nagpal and Rajesh Mahajan (PW36) respectively from concerned Company and placed the same on record. He further deposed that he also recorded the statement of Naveen Hooda (PW26) who had given money to the accused as loan and he stated that accused did not return his money.

14.23. PW42 further deposed that on 06.04.2009, he collected the postmortem report from BJRM Hospital and placed the same on record. He further deposed that on 07.04.2009, he prepared application Ex.PW42/E for subsequent opinion on weapon of offence and on his direction, PW9 Ct. Ratnesh took one sealed pullanda from the MHC(M) HC Prabhu Lal (PW10) to BJRM Hospital, vide R.C. No. 22/21/09 alongwith said application. He further deposed that the Autopsy Surgeon gave subsequent opinion Ex.PW17/C and handed over the sealed pullanda to PW9 Ct. Ratnesh, who deposited the same with MHC(M). PW42 further deposed that PW9 Ct. Ratnesh gave the aforesaid application alongwith opinion which he had placed on the record.

14.24. PW17 has supported the version of PW42 and has proved his subsequent opinion Ex. PW17/C qua the weapon of offence i.e. metallic rod having loop at one end and another end was in the form of screw driver, which was showing reddish blood like stains. He has further deposed that in his opinion, injuries no. 2, 5,6,8 and 9 mentioned in Ex. PW17/A were possible by this weapon or similar such other weapon.

14.25. PW42 Inspector Pratap Singh further deposed that on 15.04.2009, on SC No. 58298/2016 FIR no. 161/2009 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Jeevak Nagpal @ Veevek Nagpal Page 48 of 132 his direction and on the direction of SHO, PW31 Ct. (now SI) Sunil Dutt took 18 sealed pullandas including sample seals from MHC(M) HC Prabhu Lal (PW10) for depositing the same with FSL, Rohini, vide R.C. No. 23/21/09 and after depositing the said pullandas with FSL, Rohini, PW31 obtained the acknowledgment of FSL and copy of R.C. and handed over the same to MHC(M).

14.26. PW42 further deposed that on 18.04.2009, he called the Draftsman SI Mahesh Kumar (PW12) from Crime Branch, who came to PS Prashant Vihar and accompanied him to the scene of crime. He further deposed that PW12 SI Mahesh Kumar took measurements and prepared rough notes at his instance for preparing scaled site plan and later on, he (PW42) collected the scaled site plan Ex.PW12/A. He further deposed that he made corresponding notes with red ink on the scaled site plan.

14.27. PW42 further deposed that he moved an application to Chief Manager, New Bank of India, Humdard Dawakhana Branch for outstanding loan in the account of Mahender Nagpal, who is father of accused Jeevak Nagpal and the said bank gave reply already Ex.PW13/A, which showed outstanding amount of Rs. 28.37 lacs.

14.28. PW13 Amit Kumar Ganguli, the then Chief Manager of Bank of India, Hamdard Davakhana Branch has corroborated PW42 Inspector Pratap Singh and has proved that he provided the certain details pertaining to account of M/s Leather Creations to the police of PS Prashant Vihar vide letter Ex. PW13/A. 14.29. PW42 Inspector Pratap Singh further deposed that on 22.04.2009, he SC No. 58298/2016 FIR no. 161/2009 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Jeevak Nagpal @ Veevek Nagpal Page 49 of 132 collected photographs of the scene of crime from Photographer Ct. Hans Raj of Crime Team (PW3) and placed the same on record. He further deposed that on 24.04.2009, on his direction and on the direction of SHO, PW31 Ct. (now SI) Sunil Dutt took sealed pullandas from MHC(M) HC Prabhu Lal (PW10) for depositing the same with FSL, Rohini, vide R.C. No. 25/21/09. He further deposed that PW31 Ct. Sunil Dutt deposited the said pullandas with FSL (Physics Division), Rohini and obtained the acknowledgment of FSL and copy of R.C. and handed over the same to MHC(M).

14.30. PW42 further deposed that on 28.05.2009, he recorded statement of supervisor of Saini Crane Service namely Mukesh Yadav (PW14), statement of Nodal Officer of Idea Cellular Ltd. namely Sh. Pawan Singh , statement of MTNL official namely Sh. Rakesh Soni, statement of Manager of MTNL namely Sh. Sarfaraj Alam and statement of Nodal Officer Tata Tele Services namely Sh. M.N. Vijayan. He further deposed that he collected the PCR form and placed on record.

14.31. PW42 further deposed that during investigation, he collected FSL result in respect of Biological and Serological examination and placed the same on record and also collected the FSL result prepared by Dr. C.P. Singh of Physics Division and placed the same on record. He further deposed that he placed on record all the relevant documents connected with the present case and after completion of investigation, he prepared the chargesheet which was forwarded by the concerned SHO and sent to Court by concerned ACP.

14.32. PW42 further deposed that two pullandas duly sealed were sent to FSL Rohini for taking SMS details and Dr. Narayan Waghmare prepared report SC No. 58298/2016 FIR no. 161/2009 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Jeevak Nagpal @ Veevek Nagpal Page 50 of 132 and gave the report with supporting documents.

14.33. PW42 Inspector Pratap Singh has correctly identified the accused before the Court. He has further correctly identified the case property i.e. one mobile phone make TIA having IMEI..........35410 Ex. P1 containing one IDEA SIM Card bearing serial no. 89910404120736473903 Ex.P3 as the one which was recovered from the possession of accused, one mobile phone make Nokia 7610 of black colour bearing IMEI No. 352273/01/117824/8 Ex.P­36/1 having SIM Card of Hutch bearing serial no. 0002, 5964, 926 Ex.P­36/2 and one Memory Card of 1GB make Nokia Ex.P­36/3 as the one which was recovered from the possession of accused, in his presence, one Nokia mobile phone Model No. N­70­1 bearing IMEI No. 351863011883481, having one Hutch SIM Card bearing serial no. 00054500773 Ex.P­2/1 (colly.) and also one 1GB Nokia made memory card bearing no. 0632192 Ex. P­4 belonging to Rajesh Mahajan (PW36), jeans pant having sticker of "BARE DANIM" and also having cuts, one half sleeves shirt of chocolate colour sticker of "BRITISH URBAN HARDWEAR" Ex.P­36/4 (colly.) as the one which were worn by the accused at the time of his arrest, one towel having cuts Ex.C­1 which was lying near the dead body on the footpath at the spot wrapper of Link Executive Gel Pen containing two gel pens Ex.C­2 (colly.) which were lying under the bushes near the footpath at the spot, some twigs pieces (sukhi jhadies, leaves and soil) Ex.P­36/5 (colly.) which were lying under the dead body at the spot having blood stains, some twigs pieces (sukhi jhadies, leaves and soil) Ex.P­36/6 (colly.), emented pieces of plaster Ex.P­36/7 (colly.) which were removed from the wall of drain situated near the dead body at the spot having blood stains, cemented pieces of plaster Ex.P36/8 (colly.) which were removed from the wall of drain situated near the dead body at the spot as control sample, SC No. 58298/2016 FIR no. 161/2009 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Jeevak Nagpal @ Veevek Nagpal Page 51 of 132 some rohri pieces Ex.P­36/9 (colly.) which were having blood stains on them and which were removed from the road situated near drain and near the dead body at the spot, some rohri pieces Ex.P­36/10(colly.), which were removed as control sample from the road situated near drain and near the dead body at the spot, one headrest cover, one lower seat cover and one back seat cover of car bearing no. DL 2CAF 7578 Wagon R Ex.C­4 (colly.), which were having blood stain, black colour body of mobile phone make N­73 having IMEI No. 356408/01/853577/2 having SIM no. 002­2806732 of Hutch Ex.A­1 belonging to Ajit Singh Mahendru @ Bobby (PW25) which was used by Devender @ Dev (PW5) in making call to accused and was containing the conversation between Devender Sharma @ Dev (PW5) and accused and also the voice of victim, one CD Sony CD­R 700 MB having a slip affixed on the "CD of text of SMS received and sent from mobile phone no. 9811092230 of Rajesh Mahajan" (PW36) & printout of received messages in the 'Inbox' Ex.PW24/G1 to Ex.PW24/G21, RC of Wagon R car no. DL 2CAF 7578 Ex. P­36/11, Driving License of Mahender Singh S/o Sh. Gurmukh Singh Ex.P­36/12, one sando baniyan (vest) of white colour having cuts and also having brown stains, one underwear having stains on it, one yellow colour half sleeves T­shirt having cuts and also having brown stains on it and one jeans pant of blue colour having cuts on it, one pair of shoes make Reebok and one pair of small size socks Ex.P­36/13 (colly.) which were worn by victim Manan at the time when his dead body was found at the place of occurrence at the pointing out of the accused, jack handle Ex. C­3 which was seized in the present case and was having blood stain on it in dry condition and was lying below the front seat adjacent to the driver seat of the Wagon R car & Wagan R car Ex.C­5 (identity of which is not disputed by the accused or his counsel).

SC No. 58298/2016 FIR no. 161/2009 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Jeevak Nagpal @ Veevek Nagpal Page 52 of 132

14.34. PW42 has further gone through the Annexure­B & C Ex.PW38/B (colly.) and Ex.PW38/C (colly.) of FSL report dated 19.12.2014 Ex.PW38/D, which were compared with transcripts already Ex.PW24/C­2 to Ex.PW24/C­5 (SMS received and sent on mobile no. 9811092230) and of Ex.PW36/A­1 to Ex.PW36/A3 (SMS received and sent on mobile no. 9990401054) and has proved the said SMSs Ex.PW38/B (colly.) and Ex.PW38/C (colly.). PW42 has also identified the 24 photographs Ex.PW3/A1 to Ex. PW3/A24 showing the place of occurrence, dead body of victim child and exhibits which were taken into possession. He has further identified 8 photographs Ex.PW3/B9 to Ex. PW3/B16 showing the Wagon­R car and exhibits which were taken into possession, one register on which "Shiv Exercise Long Book" was printed and there was stamp of "Shiv Stationery Store B­5/57, Sector­XI, Rohini, Delhi­110085, Tel. 91­11­ 27570105 Ex.P20/1 and its first page Ex.P20/2 which was recovered from the house of accused and produced by the accused, three cassettes marked A, B & A + B /Ex. A­3, A­4 & A­5 containing the voice of accused, voice of witness Devender @ Dev and voice in dialogue of accused and of witness Devender @ Dev.

14.35. PW42 has further identified one pen drive make Kingston Ex.AX and the voices contained in the conversations in pen drive Ex.AX to be of PW5 Sh. Devender Sharma @ Dev as well as of accused Jeevek Nagpal and has further submitted that in one of the conversation, there is a voice of victim/minor child namely Manan Mahajan, which was already identified by his father i.e. PW36 Sh. Rajesh Mahajan during his testimony. He has also identified the register Ex.P20/1 on which Shiv Exercise Long Book was written & which was recovered at the instance of accused Jeevek Nagpal from his house and which was purchased by SC No. 58298/2016 FIR no. 161/2009 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Jeevak Nagpal @ Veevek Nagpal Page 53 of 132 victim/minor child just before his kidnapping.

15. To prove the last seen theory that the kidnapped child Manan (since deceased) was in the company of accused, the testimony of PW5 Devender @ Dev, PW25 Ajit Mahendru and PW34 Jai Pal Singh Mann.

15.1. PW5 Devender @ Dev has claimed in his testimony that Accused Jeevak @ Shanky had borrowed Rs. 15,000/­ from him in the end of year 2008 and he (PW5) used to demand his money from accused on phone several times but accused was not returning his money and used to promise that he would return the same to him. He further deposed that on 18/03/2009, at about 8.30 p.m., he along with his two friends namely Harpreet @ Sonu and Ajit Singh Mahendru @ Bobby (PW25) were roaming in his Swift car in Rohini and at about 9.30 p.m., they reached in Sector­11 and since he was to take back an amount of Rs. 15,000/­ from accused, he thought to demand the same from the accused by visiting his house. He further deposed that he went to the house of accused but none was present there and they they went to sector­15 from where Monty met them and they all left for Chhatarpur Mandir and on way to said Mandir, he took mobile phone of his friend Bobby (PW25) having connection no. 9873363860 for making a call to accused to demand money from him. PW5 further deposed that at about 10.15 p.m., he made a call from the abovestated mobile phone, which was attended by the accused and he (PW5) asked the accused to return his money. He further deposed that when he was talking with the accused, then he heard the voice of a child coming from mobile of accused and he heard th at the boy was praying (gidgada raha tha) and was praying to accused by stating "Bhaiya tum mujhe kyon maarna chahte ho, maine tumhara kya bigada hai". PW5 SC No. 58298/2016 FIR no. 161/2009 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Jeevak Nagpal @ Veevek Nagpal Page 54 of 132 further deposed that thereafter accused cut the mobile call from his side. He further deposed that he apprised about the same to his friend Bobby (PW25) who told that he was having software of call recording in his mobile instrument and the said call might have been automatically recorded in mobile instrument. He further deposed that then Bobby made him to hear the said call. PW5 further deposed that in order to ascertain as to whether there was something wrong, he again made a mobil call to the accused at about 10.35 p.m. from the aforesaid mobile phone of his friend Bobby. He further deposed that accused attended the said call and he (Pw5) enquired from the accused as to whose voice was coming from his mobile phone when he made previous call at 10.15 p.m., which was voice of a child or a girl. He further deposed that he further enquired from the accused as to who was with him and then accued replied that nobody was with him and then accused asked him to hold the call as there was another call on his mobile on second line and after 5/10 seconds accused cut his call. He further deposed that he again made a call to accused from the mobile phone of his friend Bobby but the mobile of accused was found switched off. PW5 further deposed that on next day i.e. 19/03/2009 at about 2.00 p.m., he was going to the accused in Sector­11 to get his money back from him, then he came to know that accused had kidnapped and murdered a child from his neighbourhood and was arrested by the police. He further deposed that thereafter he returned back to his home.

15.2. PW25 Ajit Singh Mahendru has corroborated PW5 Devender and has further claimed that he was carrying mobile phone make N­73 of black colour having SIM no. 9873363860, which was registered in the name of his uncle Ved Parkash s/o Asha Nand Khanna R/o Sector­24, Delhi, who was working under his father at their sop at Karol Bagh, Delhi. He further claimed that there was a SC No. 58298/2016 FIR no. 161/2009 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Jeevak Nagpal @ Veevek Nagpal Page 55 of 132 loaded software in the said mobile by which the conversation is automatically got recorded and saved.

15.3. Both PW5 and PW25 have corroborated PW42 Inspector Pratap Singh qua visiting the PS on 22/03/2009, handing over the entire conversation between him and accused to the police which was written into four pages Ex. PW5/A1 to A4,which were seized vide memo Ex. PW5/B and preparation of CD of recorded conversation which was seized vide memo Ex. PW5/C, production of aforesaid mobile phone instrument by PW25 which was seized vide memo Ex. PW5/D. PW5 further corroborated PW42 qua obtaining of his voice sample and that of accused in separate audio cassettes, parcel of which was seized vide memo Ex. PW5/E. 15.4. PW34 Jai Pal Singh Mann has deposed that on 24.03.2009, Inspector Pratap Singh (PW42), police official alongwith one boy who was in their custody, came to his office and police made inquiries from me with regard to the accused. He further deposed that on 19.03.2009, again said on 18.03.2009, he was going to his house from his office in his Alto Car and on the way to his house at about 9- 9.30 pm, the accused gave indication to him for stopping the car. He further deposed that he stopped his car at 60 foota road, Sector­24, Rohini, Delhi after crossing the office of Dada Dev Property and at that place, the Wagon R car bearing no. 7578 of the accused was also present. He further deposed that he could not notice the complete registration number of said Wagon R car at that time and the accused was standing near the said Wagon R car. PW34 further deposed that the accused asked for water from him on which he told the accused that he was not having the water and in case he (accused) needs water, then he SC No. 58298/2016 FIR no. 161/2009 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Jeevak Nagpal @ Veevek Nagpal Page 56 of 132 may go at his office situated at Khasra No. 32/22, Block C­1, Deep Vihar, Delhi, which was situated at a distance of about ½ km from there. He further deposed that he saw one child aged 10­12 years old sitting inside the said Wagon R car and thereafter he left for his house. PW34 further claimed that he could identify the said child who was sitting in Wagon R car, from the photographs if shown to him. The said witness has correctly identified the accused present in the Court and on seeing the photographs Ex.PW3/A­1 to Ex.PW3/A­24, he has stated that the said child was visible in the photographs Ex.PW3/A­1, Ex.PW3/A­5, Ex.PW3/A­6, Ex.PW3/A­19, Ex.PW3/A­21 and was the same child who was sitting in Wagon R car, as seen by him on that day.

16. In order to prove the factum that the father of accused was under

debt and they were in need of money, the prosecution has examined PW13 Amit Kumar Ganguli, PW19 Sahil (friend of accused) and PW26 Naveen Hooda.

16.1. PW13 Amit Kumar Ganguly, the then Chief Manager of Bank of India, Hamdard Dava Khana branch has proved that he supplied the desired information in respect of cash credit account no. 601230110000023, which was in the name of Leather Creation, whose proprietor was Mahender Singh s/o Gurmukh Singh, R/o C­4/3, ground Floor, Rohini Sector­1, New Delhi­85 (father of accused). As per PW13, as on 18/03/2009, Rs. 28.37 lacs was outstanding, no deposit was made in the account after 18/08/2008 and the account was overdrawn. He has proved letter Ex. PW13/A vide which the said information was sent.

16.2. PW19 Sahil has deposed that accused Jeevak Nagpal @ Shanky, SC No. 58298/2016 FIR no. 161/2009 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Jeevak Nagpal @ Veevek Nagpal Page 57 of 132 who was earlier residing at C­5/57, Sector­11, Rohini, who was his friend from many years and they used to make calls to each other regularly. He further claimed that he was having phone no. 9868155253 and the accused was having mobile no. 9873883039. He has further proved the factum of receiving of call from accused on 18/03/2009 at about 9.00/9.15 p.m. regarding accident of his (accused's) Wagon R car and was in need of service of crane for towing his car, making a call to Race company for crane, providing the number of Race company to accused, receiving of continuous calls from accused about the status of Race company employees. He further deposed that accused also told him that he was present somewhere inside sector­22 and 24 and also told him the number of Wagon R car. He further deposed that at about 10.00 p.m., he again received the elephone call of accused who requested him to come on his motorcycle so that he could lift/take his car on the next day. He further deposed that accused made repeated requests that he was standing alone in a jungle and pleaded for helping him with money. PW19 further deposed that he left his motorcycle to the side of sector 24/25, dividing road near Sirifort College, where he reached at about 10.30 p.m. and made a call to accused but his phone was switched off. He further deposed that he saw one crane standing there and he went to the driver and inquired them who told him that they were from the Race company i.e. PW15 Daya Nand & PW16 Nirmal Kumar Yadav. He further deposed that they waited for about half an hour at the red light signal near the said college and accused made telephone call to him 3­4 times and all the times he requested him that he would be reaching to them within 5­10 minutes and also told him that they could not locate him because he was at a place which was not approachable. PW19 further deposed that they waited there and he sent a SMS to accused and at about 11.10 p.m., the accused made phone call to him that he was standing ahead of SC No. 58298/2016 FIR no. 161/2009 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Jeevak Nagpal @ Veevek Nagpal Page 58 of 132 Sirifort College on the same Bawana Road and accordingly he, PW15 & PW16 reached at T point, main road, dividing road of Sector­24, pocket 27 and Deep Vihar, where accused met them and he pointed out towards his Wagon R car which met with an accident. He further deposed that thereafter the said car of the accused was towed and dropped at his house at 11.40 p.m. and that PW19 gave Rs. 1000/­ to accused. PW19 further deposed about enquiry made by accused from him qua missing of Manan, receiving of information from neighbourers/locality residents qua kidnapping and killing of Manan Mahajan by the accused, nervous condition of accused at the time of towing of his car, financial loss by father of accused in the business & in debt of loan from bank, borrowing of money by the accused on interest from some of his friends and making of request by accused for giving Rs. 20,000/­, which was refused by him.

16.3. PW26 Naveen Hooda has claimed that accused Jeevak Nagpal was known to him since the accused was residing near the house of his friend Mukul.

He has proved the factum of giving loan of Rs. 25,000/­ to accused in the first week of February, 2009 & further loan of Rs. 38,000/­ in cash on 2% interest after about a week or ten days, making of several calls demanding his money back from the accused and coming to know through newspaper on 20/03/2009 about the apprehension of accused by the police.

17. PW6 Israr Babu, Alternate Nodal Officer, Vodafone Essar Mobile Services Ltd. has proved call detail records of following numbers:­ s. Mobile no. In whose name Name of the person who Factum to be proved no the number was was allegedly using the registered number SC No. 58298/2016 FIR no. 161/2009 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Jeevak Nagpal @ Veevek Nagpal Page 59 of 132

1. 9873363860 Ved Prakash PW25 Ajeet Singh From which PW5 Devender Sharma for the period Mahendru @ Bobby @ Dev made call to accused from 18/03/2009 demanding money and in which the to 19/03/2009 conversation between PW5 and the Ex. PW6/C accused recorded and in which the voice of one child was heard.

2. 9873883039 Accused Accused himself For proving the factum of calls made for the period Jeevak Nagpal by PW5 Devender Sharma @ Dev to from 18/03/2009 accused from his mobile phone and to 19/03/2009 also from mobile phone of PW25 and Ex. PW6/F qua making call to PW5 by accused in which the voice of Manan Mahajan was heard prior to his murder 3 9811092230 PW36 Rajesh PW36 Rajesh Mahajan For proving the factum of receiving for the period Mahajan the SMSs sent by accused qua from 18/03/2009 (father of kidnapping of Manan (deceased) and to 19/03/2009 deceased child) demand of ransom.

     Ex. PW6/H &Ex
     PW6/L
4    9899902999     PW5 Devender PW5 himself                                   For proving the factum that he made
     for the date Sharma @ Dev                                                 call to accused demanding his
     18/03/2009 Ex.                                                            money back.
     PW6/Q

17.1. As per PW6, the location of the tower remains the same but direction of the user may be changed within the area of same tower and every tower has 5 digits in its particular number and last digit of the tower number shows the direction of the mobile phone instrument.

17.2. PW6 further deposed that as per Ex. PW6/F, the location of mobile number 9873883039 in the name of accused Vivek Nagpal, on 18/03/2009 at 19:04 hours (7.04 p.m.) was within the area of tower no. 21821 and as per cell ID chart Ex. PW6/T, the tower no. 2182 was situated at B­6/122, Sector­11, Rohini, Delhi underlined at point A in Ex. PW6/T, at 19:23 hours (7.23 p.m.) was within the area of tower no. 10692 and as per cell ID chart Ex. PW6/T, the tower no.

SC No. 58298/2016 FIR no. 161/2009 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Jeevak Nagpal @ Veevek Nagpal Page 60 of 132

10692 was situated at plot no. 4, Sector­16, Rohini, Delhi underlined at point B in Ex. PW6/T, at 19:29 hours (7.29 p.m.) was within the area of tower no. 59402 underlined at point C and as per cell ID chart Ex. PW6/T, the tower no. 59402 was situated at H­4/1, sector­11, Rohini, Delhi, underlined at point C in Ex. PW6/T, at 19:34 hours (7.34 p.m.) within the area of tower no. 18653, underlined at point D and as per cell ID chart Ex. PW6/T, the tower no. 18653 was situated at Sunehri Bagh Apartments, Plot no. 15, Block­2, Sector­13, Rohini, underlined at point D in Ex. PW6/T, at 19:40 hours (7.40 P.M.) within the area of tower no. 55651 underlined at point E and as per cell ID chart Ex. PW6/R, the tower no. 55651 was situated at ND IBC Unitech MI NI 5565 (near Rithala, DMRC, Rohini, Sector­10, Delhi), underlined at point E in Ex. PW6/R, at 19:46 hours (7.46 p.m.) within the area of tower no. 59403 underlined at point F and as per cell ID chart Ex. PW6/T, the tower no. 59403 was situated at H­4/1, Sector­11, Rohini, Delhi, underlined at point F in Ex. PW6/T, at 19:57 hours (7.57 p.m.) within the area of tower no. 14692 underlined at point C and as per Cell ID chart Ex. PW6/T, the tower no. 14692 was situated at H.No. 44, Prahladpur Bangar, N.D., underlined at point G in Ex. PW6/T, at 20:05 hours (8.05 p.m.) to 20:38 hours (8.38 p.m.) within the area of tower no. 27271 bracketed at point H and as per cell ID chart Ex. PW6/T, the said tower was situated at plot no. 193­194, pocket­8, sector­23, Rohini, Delhi, underlined at point H in Ex. PW6/T, at 20:47 hours (8.47 p.m.) upto 22:44 hours (10.44 p.m.) within the area of tower no. 12353 bracketed at point J and as per cell ID chart Ex.PW6/T, the said tower was situated at Vikas Bharti Public School, Sector­24, Rohini, Delhi, underlined at point J in Ex. PW6/T, at 22:49 hours (10.49 p.m.) within the area of tower no. 14692 underlined at point K and as per cell ID chart Ex. PW6/T, the said tower was situated at H.No. 44, Pahladpur Bangar, N.D. underlined at point K in Ex. PW6/T, at 22:50 hours (10.50 p.m.) to 23:12:23 hours SC No. 58298/2016 FIR no. 161/2009 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Jeevak Nagpal @ Veevek Nagpal Page 61 of 132 (11.12.23 p.m.) within the area of tower no. 12353 bracketed at point L and as per cell ID chart Ex. PW6/T, the said tower was situated at Vikas Bharti Public School, Sector­24, Rohini, Delhi, underlined at point L in Ex. PW6/T, at 23:12:45 hours (11:12:45 pm) within the area of tower no. 14692 underlined at point M and as per cell ID chart Ex. PW6/T, the said tower was situated at H.No. 44, Pahladpur Bangar, N.D., underlined at point M in Ex. PW6/T. 17.3. PW6 further deposed that as per Ex. PW6/F, the location of mobile no. 9873883039 in the name of Vivek Nagpal (accused herein) on 19/03/2009 at 00:37 hurs (12.37 a.m.) uto 01:01 hours (1.01 a.m.) was within the area of tower no. 21821 bracketed at point O and as per Cell ID chart Ex. PW6/T, the said tower was situated at D­6/122, Sector­11, Rohini, Delhi and the said location is underlined at point O in Ex. PW6/T, at 01:03 h ours (01.03 a.m.) upto 01:04 hours (01.04 a.m.) within the area of tower no. 10692 underlined at point P and as per cell ID chart Ex. PW6/T, the tower no. 10692 was situated at plot no. 4, Sector­16, Rohini, Delhi underlined at point P in Ex. PW6/T, at 03.15 hours (3.15 a.m) upto 7:55 hours (7.55 am) within the area of tower no. 21821 bracketed at point Q and as per cell ID chart Ex. PW6/T, the said tower was situated at B­6/122, sector­11, Rohini, Delhi, underlined at point Q in Ex. PW6/T, at 08:01:02 hours (8:01.02 a.m.) upto 08:01:37 (08:01:37 a.m.) within the area of towerno. 10692 bracketed at point R and as per cell ID chart Ex. PW6/T, the said tower was situated at Plot no.4, sector­16, Rohini, New Delhi, underlined at point R in Ex. PW6/T, at 08:57 hours (8.57 a.m.) to 09.45 hours (9.45 a.m.) within the area of tower no. 21821 bracketed at point S and as per cell ID chart Ex. PW6/T, the said tower was situated at B­6/122, sector­11, Rohini, Delhi, underlined at point S in Ex. PW6/T. SC No. 58298/2016 FIR no. 161/2009 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Jeevak Nagpal @ Veevek Nagpal Page 62 of 132 17.4. PW6 further deposed that as per CDR Ex. PW6/F, there were frequent incoming and outgoing calls and SMS communication in between mobile no. 9873883039 (of accused) and no. 9868155253 of Sahil Pahwa (PW­19­friend of accused from whom the accused had requested for towing of his Wagon R car and also for Rs. 1000/­ and who in turn made call to Race company for towing the said vehicle of accused) on 18/03/2009 and also on 19/03/2009 at 07.19 hours (7.19 a.m.) i.e.outgoing call.

17.5. PW6 further deposed that on 18/03/2009, there were three incoming calls from 9873363860 (used by PW25 Ajeet Singh Mahendru @ Bobby, which was further used by PW5 Devender Sharma @ Dev in making call to accused demanding his money back and in which the conversation between accused and PW5 got recorded) to mobile no. 9873883039 (of accused) at 22:19 hours (10.19 p.m.) shown at point B, at 22:20 hours (10.20 p.m.) shown at point B and at 22:35 hours (10.35 pm.) shown at point B3 in Ex. PW6/F. He further deposed that as per call detail record Ex. PW6/C pertaining to mobile no. 9873363860, the position of possessor of this mobile connection remained at 21 hours i.e. 9.00 p.m. on 18/03/2009 within the area of Tower no. 13122 underlined at point D1 and as per cell ID chart Ex. PW6/T, the said tower was at Vidya Bharti Public School, Sector­ 15, Rohini, underlined at point D1 in Ex. PW6/T, at 21:33 hours i.e. 9.33 p.m. within the area of tower no. 51022 underlined at point D2 and as per cell ID chart Ex. PW6/T, the said tower was at Plot no. 10, Sahibabad Extn., Sector­16, Rohini underlined at point D2 in Ex.PW6/T, at 22:09 hours i.e. 10.09 p.m. within the area of tower no. 51023 underlined at point D3 and as per Cell ID chart, the said tower was at Sahibabad Extn. Sector­16, Rohini, underlined at point D3 in Ex. PW6/T, at 22:13 hours i.e. 10.13 pm. Within the area of tower no. 10691 underlined at point SC No. 58298/2016 FIR no. 161/2009 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Jeevak Nagpal @ Veevek Nagpal Page 63 of 132 D4 and as per cell ID chart Ex. PW6/T, the said tower was situated at plot no.4, sector­16, Rohini, underlined at point D4 in Ex. PW6/T, at 22:19 hours i.e. 10.19 p.m. within the area of Tower no. 13122 underlined a point D5 and as per cell ID chart Ex. PW6/T, the said tower was situated at Vidya Bharti Public School, sector­15, Rohini, underlined at point D5 in Ex. PW6/T, at 22:20 hours i.e. 10.20 p.m. within the area of tower no. 44113 underlined at point D6 and as per cell ID chart Ex. PW6/t, the said tower was at C­2/24, Sector­15, Rohini, underlined at point D6 in Ex. PW6/T, at 22:35 hours i.e. 10.35 p.m. within the are of tower no. 18691 underlined at point D7, which was situated at 28, Twin Tower, Netaji Subhash Place, Pitam Pura, Delhi, underlined at point D7 in Ex. PW6/T, at 23:46 hours i.e. 11.46 p.m. within the area of Tower no. 54252 underlined at point D8 and as per Cell ID chart Ex. PW6/T, the said tower was at Village Aitmadpur, Faridabad( S.D. Chattarpur, Airtel), underlined at point D8 in Ex. PW6/T. 17.6. PW6 further deposed that as per call detail record of mobile no. 9873883039 of accused Ex. PW6/F, there were incoming and outgoing calls between mobile no. 9211565810 (of Race company used by PW15 Daya Nand, driver of crane) on 18/03/2009 at 22:08 hours (10.08 p.m.), at 22:29 hours (10.29 p.m.), 22:36 hours (10.36 p.m.), 22:44 hours (10.44 p.m.) and at 22:52 hours (10.52 p.m.) depicting at points C1 to C5 respectively on Ex. PW6/F. 17.7. PW6 further deposed that as per call detail record Ex. PW6/Q pertaining to mobile no. 9899902999 in the name of Devender Sharma (PW5), the position of possessor of this mobile connection remained at 21:13 hours i.e. 9.13 p.m. on 18/03/2009 within the area of tower no. 42033 underlined at point E1 and as per cell ID chart, the said tower was at G­18/48, ND Rohini, Sector­15, Rohini, SC No. 58298/2016 FIR no. 161/2009 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Jeevak Nagpal @ Veevek Nagpal Page 64 of 132 underlined at point E1 in Ex. PW6/T, at 22:16 hours i.e. 10.16 p.m. within the area of tower no. 13123 underlined at point E2 and as per cell ID chart Ex. PW 6/T, the said tower was at Vidya Bharti Public School, Sector­15, Rohini, underlined at point E2 in Ex. PW6/T, at 22:33 hours i.e. 10.33 p.m. within the area of Tower no. 11502 underlined at point E3 and as per Ex. PW6/T, the said tower was at Local Shopping Complex, DP6 Block, Pitam Pura,underlined at point E3 in Ex. PW6/T, at 21:38, 21:39 & 21:44 hours i.e. 9.38, 9.39 and 9.44 p.m. within the area of tower no. 13123, 13123 and 10691 underlined at E4, 5 & 6 and as per Ex.PW6/T, the said towers were at Vidya Bharti Public School, sector­15 Rohini & Plot no. 4, Sector­16, Rohini respectively, underlined at E4, 5 & 6 in Ex. PW6/T, at 22:11 hours i.e. 10.11 p.m. within the area of tower no. 51023 underlined at point E7 and as per cell ID chart Ex. PW6/T, the said tower was at Plot no. 10, Sahibabad Extn. , sector­16, Rohini, Delhi, underlined at point E7 in Ex. PW6/T, at 23:47, 23:48, 23:49, 23:51, 23:54, 23:55, 23:56, 23:57 and 23:58 hours i.e. 11.47, 11.48, 11.49, 11.51.11.54, 11.55,11.56, 11.57 and 11"58 p.m. within the area of tower no. 54252 & 16033 underlined at ppont E8 and as per cell ID Chart Ex. PW6/T, the said towers were at SD Chattarpur and SD Tivoli Gdn Chattarpur, 619/19 Village Chhatarpur, underlined at point E8 in Ex. PW6/T. He further deposed that the locations of mobile connection no. 9873363860 & 9899902999 showed that from 9.00 p.m. till 11.46 p.m. on 18/03/2009, the possessors of these two connections were together with each other.

17.8. PW6 further deposed that the above locations are depending upon the mobile phone's nearness to a located particular tower, particularly the mobile phone's location within the frequency territorial jurisdiction of a tower is noticeable at the location where a particular call is received or a call is mad eon he same SC No. 58298/2016 FIR no. 161/2009 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Jeevak Nagpal @ Veevek Nagpal Page 65 of 132 mobile number. He further deposed that whenever a mobile phone call is made from any other network such as in the present case i.e. a mobile call made from TATA company's network to the vodafone network, the signals from TATA network will go first to TATA's own network and from there the same shall be transmitted on the nearest tower of the network of Vodafone and the phone call shall be connectged to the user of Vodafone mobile phone and vice versa is also true. He further clarified that he deposed about the locations of the said mobile numbers based on said principles of network functioning.

18. PW30 Naeem Akhtar, Manager (customer application form) (Wireless services), MTNL, has proved the record of mobile no. 9868155253 issued in the name of Sahil Pahwa (PW19) i.e. agreement form Ex. PW30/A, Form 60 Ex. PW30/B & true copy of driving licence Mark PW30/C.

19. PW32 Rakesh Soni, the then Junior Telecom Officer, MTNL, Tis Hazari, has proved the CDR of mobile no. 9868155253 (of PW19 Sahil Pahwa) for the period from 18/03/2009 to 19/03/2009 Ex. PW32/A­1 & Ex. PW32/A­2, Cell ID chart Ex. PW32/B (colly), Cell ID chart of the location Ex. PW32/C & certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act Ex. PW32/D.

20. PW22 Sh. M.N. Vijayan, Nodal Officer, TATA teleservices Ltd. has proved the the call detail record of mobile phone no. 9211565810, which was issued in the name of Master Sahni,photocopy of form is Ex. PW22/A, photocopy of election identity card of Master Sahni Ex. PW22/B, CDR for 18.03.2009 Ex. PW22/C, Cell ID chart Ex. PW22/D (colly), furnishing of documents required by the police qua the said number vide letter Ex. PW22/E & certificate u/s 65B of Indian SC No. 58298/2016 FIR no. 161/2009 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Jeevak Nagpal @ Veevek Nagpal Page 66 of 132 Evidence Act Ex. PW22/F.

21. As per prosecution, the mobile phone number 9990401054 was used by the accused for sending SMSs qua kidnapping of child Manan and demand of ransom on the mobile phone of Rajesh Mahajan (father of deceased child). PW29 Sh. Pawan Singh, Nodal Officer, Idea Cellular Limited has proved the CDR record of mobile no. 9990401054, which was issued in the name of Sanjay, photocopy of its CAF Ex. PW29/A, election voter ID card mark PW28/A1 and PW28/A2, CDRs of said mobile phone for the period from 26/02/2009 to 19/03/2009 Ex. PW29/B, Cell ID chart Ex. PW29/C (colly), supplying of said documents vide letter Ex. PW29/D & certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act Ex. PW29/E.

22. PW­37 Dr. C.P. Singh, Assistant Director (Physics), FSL, Rohini, Delhi, has deposed that on 24.04.2009, three sealed parcels were received in their, which were marked to him for examination and he found that the seals on the parcels were intact and tallied with their specimen seals provided with the forwarding memo. He further deposed that on opening the first parcel, which was found sealed with the seal of 'PS' at three places, one mobile set of Nokia­N73 (black colour body) (of PW25 Ajit Mahendru @ Bobby) was found in it, which was marked as Exhibit­1. He further deposed that the memory of the aforesaid mobile phone was found containing two relevant audio files namely "9873883039(2).amr"

& "9873883039.amr". The speaker started with "han ji bhaiya...." in file, namely, "9873883039(2).amr" and the speaker started with "han ji aap kaun...." in file, namely, "9873883039.amr", were marked as 'Exhibit­Q1' in the laboratory. PW37 further deposed that the speaker started with "jeevek meri baat sun...." in file, namely, "9873883039(2).amr" and the speaker started with "jeevek ji namaste...."

SC No. 58298/2016 FIR no. 161/2009 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Jeevak Nagpal @ Veevek Nagpal Page 67 of 132

in file, namely, "9873883039.amr", were marked as 'Exhibit­Q2' in the laboratory.

22.1. PW37 further deposed that on opening the second parcel, which was found sealed with the seal of 'PS' at one place, one CD of Writex was found in it, which was marked as Exhibit­2.

22.2. PW37 further deposed that on opening the third parcel, which was found sealed with the seal of 'PS' at three places, three mini DV cassettes were found in it, which were marked as Exhibit­3A, Exhibit­3B and Exhibit­3C. He further deposed that exhibit­3A i.e. avmini DV cassette of Panasonic "DVM60" was containing voice sample of accused Jeevek @ Shanky & the speaker of the specimen voice sample was marked as "Exhibit­S1" in the laboratory. He further deposed that exhibit­3B i.e. a mini DV cassette of Panasonic "DVM60" was containing voice sample of witness Devender (PW5) & the speaker of the specimen voice sample was marked as "Exhibit­S2" in the laboratory. He further deposed that exhibit­3C i.e. a mini DV cassette of Panasonic "DVM60" was containing voice sample of accused Jeevek @ Shanky and witness Devender (PW5) & the speaker of the specimen voice samples were marked as "Exhibit­S1"

& "Exhibit­S2" in the laboratory.

22.3. PW37 further deposed that in auditory analysis, the contents of conversation in CD Mark Exhibit­2 was found similar with the content of conversation in Nokia mobile set N73­1 in Exhibit­1. He further deposed that the auditory analysis of recorded speech samples of speakers marked "Exhibit­Q1" & "Exhibit­S1" and subsequent acoustic analysis of speech samples by using CSL (Computerized Speech Lab) revealed that the voice exhibits of speaker marked SC No. 58298/2016 FIR no. 161/2009 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Jeevak Nagpal @ Veevek Nagpal Page 68 of 132 "Exhibit­Q1" was similar to the voice exhibits of speaker marked "Exhibit­S1" in respect of their acoustic cues and other linguistic and phonetic features and hence the voice exhibits of speakers marked "Exhibit­Q1" and "Exhibit­S1" were the voice of same persons (i.e. accused Jeevek @ Shanky).

22.4. PW37 further deposed that the auditory analysis of recorded speech samples of speakers marked "Exhibit­Q2" & "Exhibit­S2" and subsequent acoustic analysis of speech samples by using CSL (Computerized Speech Lab) revealed that the voice exhibits of speaker marked "Exhibit­Q2" was similar to the voice exhibits of speaker marked "Exhibit­S2" in respect of their acoustic cues and other linguistic and phonetic features and hence the voice exhibits of speakers marked "Exhibit­Q2" and "Exhibit­S2" are the voice of same persons {i.e. witness Sh. Devender @ Dev (PW5)}.

22.5. PW37 further deposed that one working copy of recording of conversation in mobile phone set marked "Exhibit­1" was prepared on CD marked "Exhibit­copy of exhibit­1" and enclosed alongwith his report, which is already Ex.PW5/A­6. He further deposed that after examination, the exhibits sent to the laboratory were resealed with his seal of "Dr. C.P. SINGH­FSL­DELHI".

22.6. PW37 has further identified one black colour body mobile instrument of make Nokia­N73 Ex.A1 as the one which was given Exhibit­1 by him in the laboratory bearing his initials as well as the FSL report number on back side of it, one CD Ex.A2 on which the word "WRITEX" were printed bearing the FSL report number as well as his initials & plastic cover/CD case bearing the FSL report number and Ex.2, as the CD which was given Exhibit­2 by him in the laboratory & SC No. 58298/2016 FIR no. 161/2009 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Jeevak Nagpal @ Veevek Nagpal Page 69 of 132 three mini DV cassettes of Panasonic Ex.A3, Ex.A4 & Ex.A5, on which the words "DVM60" were printed on each DV cassette bearing the FSL report number Ex.3A, Ex.3B & Ex.3C as well as the initials of the witness, as the one which were given Ex.3A, Ex.3B & Ex.3C by him in the laboratory 22.7. During examination of PW37, one CD Ex.P­3, on which the words 'copy of Exhibit­1', were written was played in a laptop arranged by the IO and after hearing the conversation of the aforesaid CD, he stated that it was the same CD which was prepared by him after copying the same from the mobile set make Nokia N­73 of black colour and said mobile set was marked by him as Exhibit­1 at the time of examination in laboratory.

23. As per case of prosecution, the exhibits lifted from the spot, place of recovery of dead body and exhibits given by doctor after postmortem and clothes of deceased and accused, were sent to FSL, Rohini. PW38 (whereas it should have been PW37) A.K. Srivastava, Deputy Director, FSL, Rohini, Delhi, has proved his biological and serological reports Ex. PW38/A and Ex. PW38/B respectively.

23.1. As per report Ex. PW38/A, blood was detected on EX. 1A (sandow banian having brownish stains), 1b (half yellow T­shirt), 1c (one jeans full pant), 1d (underwear), 1e(one pair sports shoes (Reebok), 4 (gauze piece), 6 (some cemented material having brown stains), 8 (some 'rori' pieces), 10 (small towel), 13 (two car seat cover and one back rest cover), 14 (screw driver said to be handle of car jack), 15a (jeans pants) and 16 (some reddish brown liquid kept in two tubes). However, blood could not be detected on Ex. 1F (one pair sock), 2 SC No. 58298/2016 FIR no. 161/2009 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Jeevak Nagpal @ Veevek Nagpal Page 70 of 132 (some black filamentous material), 7 (some cemented pieces said to be control), 9 (some 'rori' pieces said to be control), 11 (some twigs piece with soil), 12 (pieces of twigs with soil said to be control) & 15b (one half shirt (brown)). Exhibit 3 (two filamentous material) was insufficient for comparison with Ex. 17 (some black filamentous material said to be scalp hair of accused).

23.2. As per serological report Ex. PW38/B, blood of "A" group was found on Ex. 1A sandow banian, Ex. 1B half T­shirt, 1c jeans, gauze piece, Ex. 10 towel, Ex. 14 screw driver, 15a jeans. Ex. 1D underwear, 1e sport shoe, 6 cemented material, 8 rori, 13 seat cover and 16 blood sample gave no reaction.

24. PW­38 Dr. Narayan Waghmare (whereas he should have been PW39), Assistant Director, FSL, Rohini Delhi, in the present case, on 17.10.2014, two sealed parcels with the seal of "VK" were received in the office of FSL, Rohini, which were assigned to him for forensic examination. He further deposed that on opening the first parcel, it was found containing one TIA made mobile phone (of accused Jeevak Nagpal), which was marked as Ext. " MP1", having one Idea SIM Card bearing serial No. 89910404120736473903, which was marked as Ext.

"SC1" in the laboratory by him. He further deposed that on opening the second parcel, it was found containing one Nokia mobile phone Model No. N70­1 bearing IMEI No. 351863011883481 (of PW36 Rajesh Mahajan) which was marked as Ext. " MP2" and having one Hutch SIM Card bearing serial No. 00054500773 marked as Ext. "SC2" and one 1 GB Nokia made Memory Card bearing no. 0632192 which was marked as Ext. "MC1" in the laboratory by him.

24.1. PW38 has further deposed that on analysis, the exhibit mobile phone SC No. 58298/2016 FIR no. 161/2009 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Jeevak Nagpal @ Veevek Nagpal Page 71 of 132 marked Ext. "MP2" and exhibit SIM Cards marked Ext. "SC1" and "SC2" were analyzed on Universal Forensic Extraction Device(UFED) of Cell Brite's Israel and the reports of SMS retrieved from Ext. "MP2", Ext. " SC1" and Ext. "SC2" were given in hard copies vide Annexure­ "A" to " C" respectively, bearing his signatures as well as his official seal on each and every page. He further deposed that the said Annexures are Ex. PW38/A(colly.) to Ex. PW38/C(colly.)(page no. 4 to 39).

24.2. PW38 further deposed that the exhibit memory card marked Ext. "MC1" was forensically imaged using validated Encase software and on analysis of imaged storage data by authorized software and hardware tools, the requisite SMS's retrieved from exhibit memory card marked as Ext. "MC1" were given in hard copies vide Annexure " 1 to 35" respectively, bearing his signatures as well as his official seal on every page, which are Ex. PW38/C­1 to Ex. PW38/C­ 35(page no. 35 to 104). He further deposed that since facility to examine the exhibit mobile phone marked Ext. "MP1" was not available in the laboratory, hence, data could not be retrieved.

24.3. PW38 has proved examination report dated 19.12.2014 prepared by him as Ex.PW38/D. He has also identified mobile phone make TIA Ex.P­1 containing one IDEA SIM card bearing serial no. 89910404120736473903 Ex. P­

3. as the ones which were marked as Ex. 'MP1' and Ex. 'SC1' respectively by him in the laboratory & Nokia mobile phone Model No. N­70­1 marked Ex. 'MP2' having IMEI No. 351863011883481 having one Hutch SIM Card bearing serial no. 00054500773 marked Ex. 'SC2' & battery of Nokia Ex. P­2/1 (colly) and 1 GB Nokia made memory card bearing no. 0632192 marked "MC1" Ex. P­4.

SC No. 58298/2016 FIR no. 161/2009 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Jeevak Nagpal @ Veevek Nagpal Page 72 of 132

25. Qua conduct of accused, child witness Master Rijul Mahajan S/o Sh. Brijesh Mahajan, aged about 15 years, was examined as PW41 (whereas it should have been PW42). He has deposed that on 18.03.2009 at around 12 noon, when he came outside school gate in order to board his school van, he had seen one boy namely Shanky (accused herein) standing outside the school. He further deposed that he (PW39) was already knowing said Shanky as he used to visit in the gali / street in which his house was situated. He further deposed that said boy namely Shanky called him towards him through signal (ishara karke bulaya). PW41 further deposed that he was having one magazine in his hand at that time and Shanky tried to take said magazine from his hand on the pretext of reading the same, but he (PW41) told him that since he (PW41) was getting late as he had to board his school van and CAB driver was waiting for him, PW41 left the said place and boarded his school van and went away to his house. PW41 has identified accused Jeevak Nagpal @ Vivek Nagpal @ Shanky, present in the Court room and has stated that he was the said boy namely Shanky who had called him on the aforesaid date, time and place.

25.1. PW41 further deposed that on the same day i.e. 18.03.2009, at about 5.30 pm, after attending Taekwando Class, he was returning alongwith his two friends namely Sumit and Mannu towards his house, when said Shanky again met him on the way and at that time, he was sitting in one Wagon R Car and he offered to give him (PW41) lift for dropping him at his house. PW41 further deposed that he alongwith his friend Sumit refused the offer made by Shaky and he told Shanky that he had to go somewhere else, whereas his friend Sumit declined on the ground that his father had advised him not to accept the lift from any unknown person. He further deposed that however, his friend namely Mannu SC No. 58298/2016 FIR no. 161/2009 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Jeevak Nagpal @ Veevek Nagpal Page 73 of 132 accepted the lift and sat in the Wagon R Car of Shanky and left away. He further deposed that thereafter, he came back to his house & told the said facts to his mother.

25.2. PW41 further deposed that on the same day i.e. 18.03.2009, at about 6 pm, he saw his cousin brother namely Manan Mahajan (since deceased) getting down from cycle rickshaw near their house and at about 8 - 8.15 pm, when he returned back to the house, he was told by his paternal aunt (Taiji) that Manan Mahajan was missing.

DEFENCE EVIDENCE.

26. DW1 Pawan Kumar Singh has produced & proved one CD Ex. DW1/A from the record of Zee media.

26.1. DW2 SI Purshottam was examined to produce and prove the complaint filed by accused Jeevak Nagpal through his mother at vigilance office in the year 2009. However as per said witness, vide order no. 7988­ 8077/HAR/Rohini Distt., Delhi dated 27/09/2017 of DCP, Rohini District, the records of the year wef 2007 to 2013 were destroyed. He has proved the copy of said order as Ex. DW2/X. 26.2. DW3 HC Yogender Singh has produced the register bearing entry qua the complaint of Sunita Nagpal, R/o C­4, H.No.3, Sector­11, Rohini, Delhi, which was received vide speed post no. ED­709495360 dated 30/03/2009 as per entry at serial no. 5754 of register of his office. He has proved the copy of said register as Ex. DW3/X. As per said DW, the said complaint was sent to office of Joint Commissioner of Police (Northern Range) vide entry no. 3082 Ex. DW3/Y on SC No. 58298/2016 FIR no. 161/2009 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Jeevak Nagpal @ Veevek Nagpal Page 74 of 132 01/04/2009.

26.3. DW4 Israr Babu, Alternate Nodal Officer, Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd. Has produced and proved the customer application form pertaining to mobile no. 9953455745 (of accused), which was issued in the name of Vivek Nagpal s/o M. Nagpal. He has proved the copy of CAF Ex. DW4/A and copy of DL Mark DW4/X. As per said PW, the CDR of said mobile for the period from 01/03/2009 to 22/03/2009 was not available being more than one year old.

26.4. DW5 Chandan Kumar was summoned to produce the telecast to case FIR no. 161/09, but he failed to produce the same as the same was not available being 9 years old.

26.5. DW6 R.S. Bhati has produced the summoned record i.e. newspaper Punjab Kesri dated 20.03.2009 wherein matter pertaining to the murder of Manan Mahajan was report at page no. 6 (top lead). The said witness has identified the two photographs clicked by him on 19/03/2009 at the office of DCP, Outer district, Pushpanjali, shown in the newspaper Ex. DW6/X. As per DW6, the said press release was given by DCP, Outer District.

26.6. DW7 Tania Chandra has deposed that summoned record pertaining to telecast of case FIR no. 161/09 was not available in their record being 9 years old.

26.7. DW8 Ashish Singh has deposed that the summoned record i.e. photograph of accused Jeevak Nagpal when he was received in jail for the first SC No. 58298/2016 FIR no. 161/2009 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Jeevak Nagpal @ Veevek Nagpal Page 75 of 132 time on 25.03.2009, was not available in their system/Prison Management System. He has produced the forwarding letter of Director General (Prisons) issued by Senior System Analyst alongwith details of prisoner having three photographs running in three pages Ex.DW8/X­1 to Ex.DW8/X­5. In reply to question that in the Prison Management System the photographs of accused/prisoner Jeevak Nagpal when he come first time in prison, is always kept in record, but he did not bring that photograph deliberately, the said witness has deposed that as per Ex.DW8/X­4, there was no provision in Old Prison Management System for retaining photograph of inmates.

26.8. DW­9 Ct. Vikram Singh, Assistant to Record Keeper in the Complaint Branch in the office of DCP, Rohini District, Delhi, was summoned to produce the complaint filed in this case by accused Jeevak Nagpal through his mother in the year 2009 but as per said witness vide order no. 4417­4506/HAR/Rohini Distt., Delhi Dated 02.05.2018 of DCP, Rohini District, the records upto year 2014 were destroyed and has proved the copy of the said order Ex.DW9/X. 26.9. DW­10 Ct. Amit, posted as Constable in the Parliament Question Cell at the office of DCP, Rohini District, Delhi, has produced one letter of Sh. Rajneesh Gupta, DCP, Rohini District, as per which, no signed copy of Press Release in case FIR No. 161/09, PS Prashant Vihar was available in their office. He further deposed that the copy of said press release dated 19.03.2009 Ex.DW10/X­1 to X­3 was downloaded from the website of Delhi Police and has proved the covering letter signed by Sh. Rajneesh Gupta, DCP Ex.DW10/Y. 26.10. DW­11 Sh. Bala Krishan Chetry has produced the Library Attested SC No. 58298/2016 FIR no. 161/2009 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Jeevak Nagpal @ Veevek Nagpal Page 76 of 132 copy of the original newspaper 'Hindustan Times' (Hindi Edition) dated 20.03.2009, wherein matter pertaining to this case was reported at points­A & B and has proved the attested copy of said newspaper Ex.DW11/A­1 (colly.). He has also produced the Library Attested copy of newspaper 'Hindustan Times' (English Edition) dated 20.03.2009, where at point­A and at point­B, news related to this case was published and has proved the attested copy of said newspaper as Ex.DW11/B­1 (colly.) and his authorization letter is Ex.DW11/C. 26.11. DW­12 Smt. Sunita Nagpal (mother of accused) has deposed that on 19.03.2009, it was Thursday and she and her husband were present in their house and their son Jeevak had gone to get his father's mobile phone recharge. She further deposed that after sometime, Jeevak returned back after getting the phone recharge and she saw him talking to Smt. Meena Mahajan (Chachi of deceased Manan Mahajan). She further deposed that she just wanted to inform her husband that perhaps Manan Mahajan (deceased child) was yet not traced as Meena Mahajan was talking to Jeevak. DW12 further deposed that the moment she turned towards her husband and thereafter when she saw towards Jeevak, she found him missing. She further deposed that she rushed out of her house and found a car parked about 10 paces away from his house and found as if Jeevak was made to sit in the car and somebody is assaulting him. DW12 further deposwed that she ran towards the said car and opened the rear door of the car and found that on the rear seat Jeevak (accused) was sitting and on his right side, Brijesh Mahajan was sitting (behind the driving seat), who was talking and abusing someone on the mobile phone. She further deposed that two persons were sitting on the front seat and two persons were standing outside the car and the persons sitting on the front seat were hitting Jeevak and the person who was present SC No. 58298/2016 FIR no. 161/2009 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Jeevak Nagpal @ Veevek Nagpal Page 77 of 132 outside the car, had twisted and kept his arm at his back and was hitting him. She further deposed that she did not know the name of any other person except Brijesh Mahajan and Jeevak was asking them as to why he was being hit or beaten.

26.12. DW12 further deposed that after her intervention, the person standing outside the car also sat inside the car and thereafter, the said car sped away from there. She further deposed that she raised hue and cry that Jeevak has been taken away and perhaps Manan Mahajan is yet not found. She further deposed that she came back to her house, informed her husband, who put on his shirt and they both again reached to the police officials who were present hardly 30 steps away from their house. She further deposed that the police officials were Sudhir Saxena, SHO Prashant Vihar, IO Inspector Pratap Singh and Mr. Rajesh Mahajan was also with them. DW12 further deposed that besides them, 3 to 4 police officials were also present there and she asked them as to where her son was taken. She further deposed that her husband also asked Mr. Rajesh Mahajan about the whereabouts of their son, who told her that their son and his brother Brijesh Mahajan have been taken by the police for some enquiries. She further deposed that SHO asked him about her house and she pointed out towards her house, whereupon SHO, IO Inspector Pratap Singh and other police officials accompanied her to her house. DW12 further deposed that those police officials mainly SHO and IO Inspector Pratap Singh, opened her kitchen shelfs, almirah, bed­box and also searched entire house including bathroom. She further deposed that those police officials saw the photographs of her all three children hung on a wall of bed­room and started talking to each other saying and pointing towards the photograph of her younger son "yahi wo ladka hain" and the other police official SC No. 58298/2016 FIR no. 161/2009 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Jeevak Nagpal @ Veevek Nagpal Page 78 of 132 said that "ki yeh ladka nahi hain" and took the photograph of Jeevak and asked her husband to change the dress. She further deposed that when her husband took his mobile phone, the SHO took the mobile phone of her husband from him and asked her and her husband to sit in Police Gypsy. She further deposed that she was also carrying a mobile phone and called her partner/friend in boutique informing that Jeevak had already been taken away by the police and police is also taking them with them. DW12 further deposed that the moment she and her husband sat in the Gypsy, IO Inspector Pratap Singh took mobile phone from her hand and thereafter, they were taken to office of Special Cell, situated at Sector­1, Awantika, Rohini, where she heard cries of her son Jeevak. She further deposed that she peeped from the window and found that Jeevak was being brutally beaten by the police officials after removing his clothes & his feet were also swollen. She further deposed that Sahil Pahwa was also made to sit at one corner of the room, where Jeevak was given beatings, whereas she and her husband were made to sit in another room and were warned not to peep again. She further deposed that they requested the police officials that by such beatings, her son Jeevak might die. She further deposed that in the other room, 2­3 boys were also detained as being suspects in this case and a gunman who was posted there, informed them that within 2­3 hours, they would be informed entire story. She further deposed that she came out of the room for going for wash­room after taking permission from the guard, then she found that Jeevak was taken out from the room and was being taken somewhere in Gypsy & it was about 1 pm. DW12 further deposed that she enquired from one of the police official who was taking his son Jeevak as to where he was being taken, the police official informed him that her son was being taken to the office of DCP for the Press Conference. She further deposed that at about 3 pm, she again came out for going to wash­room and when was SC No. 58298/2016 FIR no. 161/2009 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Jeevak Nagpal @ Veevek Nagpal Page 79 of 132 returning back, she found the same police official who had taken her son to DCP office and she asked the said police official about the whereabouts of her son Jeevak, who informed that her son was in DCP office and attending the Press Conference. DW12 further deposed that at about 6 pm, they were taken to PS Prashant Vihar and Jeevak was found present there, who was given beatings and his cries were coming out.

26.13. DW12 further deposed that on 19.03.2009, she and her husband were detained in the PS Prashant Vihar till 1.30 am and Sahil Pahwa had also accompanied her to the PS in the Police Gypsy and Jeevak was also present in the PS till 1.30 am. She further deposed that after 1.30 am, in the intervening night of 19/20.03.2009, she and her husband were shifted from PS Prashant Vihar to PP Sector­16, Rohini, where they were illegally kept entire day of 20.03.2009 and after much persuasion and request, they were left in the night at about 8.30 pm of 20.03.2009.

26.14. DW12 further deposed that one Mahender Maurya, friend of her husband had also reached at PP Sector­16 and had taken them to the house of his friend/partner in Sai Apartments, Sector­13, Rohini. She further deposed that Mr. Maurya also provided his mobile phone to her husband and that keys of her house remained with her by that time. She further deposed that her husband requested Mr. Ajay Anand to visit the PS Prashant Vihar and to take their mobile phones from there but the IO did not return the mobile phones and rather abused and threatened Mr. Anand and asked Mr. Anand that she and her husband shall be present in the PS by 9 am tomorrow morning, otherwise he will spoil the case.

SC No. 58298/2016 FIR no. 161/2009 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Jeevak Nagpal @ Veevek Nagpal Page 80 of 132

26.15. DW12 further deposed that on the next day i.e. 21.03.2009, she and her husband reached at PS Prashant Vihar at about 9 am and the keys of her house were taken by the IO from her and they were made to sit in the PS. She further deposed that when they were present in the PS on 21.03.2009, Jeevak was also there and at about 11 am, Devender Sharma @ Dev had also come to the PS, who was carrying a newspaper and was telling the police officer that Jeevak is his friend and he cannot commit any offence. DW12 further deposed that they were detained there at the PS for about 11 pm and at about 8 pm, she had requested the IO to return back the keys of her house, but the IO refused and did not return the keys. She further deposed that IO said that he had to take clothes of Jeevak from their house. She further deposed that they were let off and were asked to come again on the next day i.e. 22.03.2009 at 9 am and this process of their calling in the PS and detaining them till late night, continued till 25.03.2009 when finally Jeevak was sent to jail as told by the IO.

26.16. DW12 further deposed that on 18.03.2009, when Jeevak had come back to their house in the night, he was wearing blue jeans and brown shirt and he changed his blue jeans and worn Capri. She further deposed that on 21.03.2009, the police official had gone to their house and had fetched two black shirts of different size, one for Jeevak and one for his father and that one black shirt was given to Jeevak to wear the same and the larger shirt was given to her husband.

26.17. DW12 further deposed that on 22.03.2009 at about 9 am, when they reached at PS Prashant Vihar, her husband had requested the IO to return the keys, upon which the IO refused to return the keys and had threatened her husband that the case would be spoiled and either her husband shall pay Rs. 5 SC No. 58298/2016 FIR no. 161/2009 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Jeevak Nagpal @ Veevek Nagpal Page 81 of 132 lacs or else they both can be booked in this case for offence punishable upto 2 years. She further deposed that on 23.03.2009 at about 6 pm, when they were present in the PS, Devender Dev, his friend Bobby (Mahendru) and Reader to SHO perhaps whose name was Satish Pal, were present and recording of their voice took place there and at about 8.30 pm, she heard IO talking to someone on his mobile phone that in this case, he is being offered Rs. One Crore and one house to implicate Jeevak in this case.

26.18. DW12 further deposed that when they did not get back the keys of their house, they approached and made complaint to the Vigilance Department complaining about the conduct of SHO and IO not returning the keys and thereafter, on 16.04.2009, the keys of her house were returned by the IO at PS Prashant Vihar by throwing the same before them. She further deposed that on 25.03.2009 at about 3 pm, she and her husband were allowed to go from the PS. She further deposed that her son Jeevak was innocent and was framed in the present case at the behest of interested witnesses.

26.19. Accused Jeevak Nagpal has examined himself u/s 315 Cr.P.C. as DW13. He deposed that on 18.03.2009, he was at his home till about 6 p.m and at about 6 p.m, he received a phone call on his mobile phone from one of his friends namely Ankur, who had made call from his mobile phone. He further deposed that Ankur was calling him to play Snooker at Sector­7 Market, Rohini, Delhi and he told him (Ankur) that he was reaching within half an hour. He further deposed that then after half an hour, he left his home in his Wagon R car bearing registration No. DL­2CAF­7578 for going to Sector­7 Market through Rithala. DW13 further deposed that after crossing Japainees Park near the Metro Walk SC No. 58298/2016 FIR no. 161/2009 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Jeevak Nagpal @ Veevek Nagpal Page 82 of 132 Mall, one Innova car coming from behind his car in a speed, tried to overtake his car and he in order to avoid collusion tried to turn his car right side, whereupon his car got imbalanced and collided with the divider, due to which, the Axel of his car got damaged and car started bumbling. He further deposed that he tried to chase Innova car but due to damage caused in his car, his car stopped and this happened immediately after crossing Rithala Metro Station. He further deposed that tyres of his Wagon R car were also scratched and since his car was in the name of his father, due to fear being scolded by his father, he called his friend Sahil Pahwa to help to call Crane at the spot to lift the Wagon R. DW13 further deposed that Sahil Pahwa alongwith Crane came at the spot at about 11.30 p.m., the Wagon R was toed and dropped with the help of Crane in front of his house. He further deposed that thereafter he took meals and then slept.

26.20. DW13 further deposed that next day morning i.e on 19.03.2009 at about 9 a.m, his father asked him to get his mobile phone recharged and he reached the mobile recharged shop and after getting the said mobile recharged, returned to his residence. He further deposed that when he entered his residence and turned back to bolt the main door, he saw Mrs. Meena, w/o Brijesh Mahajan standing near the aforesaid Wagon R car and he thought she had come to meet them. DW13 further deposed that accordingly he went outside and wished her. He further deposed that immediately thereafter, a vehicle came and 5­6 persons got down from the same and forcibly pushed him inside the said vehicle. He further deposed that Brijesh Mahajan was already sitting in that car and he asked them (5­6 persons) as to why they had caught him and where they were taking him. He further deposed that they did not reply and kept on beating him and took him to the office of Special Cell, Delhi Police, Sector­I, Rohini. He further deposed that he SC No. 58298/2016 FIR no. 161/2009 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Jeevak Nagpal @ Veevek Nagpal Page 83 of 132 was taken to the room on the left hand side after the stairs at first floor and there were 10­12 people inside the said room, who started beating him with hands and dandas(wooden sticks). DW13 further deposed that he kept on asking them as to why they were beating him but they did not reply and kept on beating him and thereafter they took him to the adjacent room. He further deposed that there one police official Sehgal (whose name he came to know later on) was present in civil clothes and there his college friend Dev alongwith one more boy (whose name he later on came to know as Ajit @ Bobby) were already sitting with Sehgal. He further deposed that Sehgal had shown him 3 mobile phones, one was N­95(make Nokia), second was 6670(make Nokia) and third one was TIAand he asked him to identify his (Jeevak's) mobile phones, out of the said phones. He further deposed that he identified N­95(make Nokia) and 6670(make Nokia) as his phones, however he told him that the mobile phone N­95(make Nokia) was given to his friend Dev since last about one or one and half months. He further deposed that he was again taken to the previous room where he was asked to confess that he had kidnapped Manan Mahajan (since deceased) and he told them repeatedly that he had not kidnapped him. He further deposed that they kept on beating him and told him that his family members were made to sit at ground floor and they will be beaten up unless he confesses. DW13 further deposed that even then, he did not admit. He further deposed that while the last amongst the said persons was leaving the room after the threat of beating his family members, he (Jeevak) told them not to do any harm to his family members and he will do whatever they will say. He further deposed that they handcuffed him and made him sit there while all of them left the room. DW13 further deposed that after about half or one hour, two of those persons returned and took him down stairs, where he saw his mother, his father, his friend Sahil Pahwa and his parents were made to sit in the said SC No. 58298/2016 FIR no. 161/2009 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Jeevak Nagpal @ Veevek Nagpal Page 84 of 132 police station. He further deposed that then they took him in a vehicle to the office of DCP in Pushpanjali, Delhi, where he was made to sit in the vehicle in the parking for some time and after some time Sehgal came alongwith one or two police officials, who (Sehgal) told him that after some time there will be a Press Conference in DCP office. He further deposed that he asked him to admit in the Press Conference that he had kidnapped Manan Mahajan due to financial constraints and he (Jeevak) agreed for the same. He further deposed that thereafter in the Press Conference, he stated as was asked by Sehgal. DW13 further deposed that then, he was taken to Sector­3, Rohini Police Station, where they kept him sitting for some time and when he asked for water, they provided him one glass and one bottle. He further deposed that after he drank water from the said bottle with the help of glass, then they seized the said bottle and glass by lifting them with the help of handkerchief. He further deposed that some of his hair strands were also pulled and taken out by them. DW13 further deposed that then they brought him to P.S Prashant Vihar and by then it was evening time. He further deposed that there for the first time, he met IO Pratap Singh of this case, who made him to sit in one of the room in the said P.S for some time. He further deposed that in the night, IO locked him in the lockup of P.S S.P Badli. He further deposed that during day time, he used to be taken out of lockup and made to sit at P.S Prashant Vihar, whereas during night he was locked up in the lockup of P.S S.P Badli and it continued for 2­3 days. DW13 further deposed that on 21/22.03.2009, he was made to change the shirt which he was wearing and IO took the shirt which he was earlier wearing and packed the same in a bag and on the same day in the evening he was taken to the room of IO, where his friend Dev and his acquaintance Ajit were already sitting with the IO. He further deposed that IO made him to listen a recording there and in the said recording there was SC No. 58298/2016 FIR no. 161/2009 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Jeevak Nagpal @ Veevek Nagpal Page 85 of 132 conversation between him and Dev and in the last of the said conversation there was a voice of a boy who was saying "muje kyon maar rahe ho maine kaya bigara hai"(why are you beating me, what have I done). DW13 further deposed that thereafter he was made to hear another recording by I.O on mobile phone which was N­73 in which he and Dev were found talking and he was sent in another room. He further deposed that on 24 or 25 March, 2009, he was again called by I.O in his room, where Devender Sharma @ Dev was found sitting and one videographer was also present and I.O had given him (Jeevak) a transcript of conversation dated 22.03.2009 and was asked to reiterate the conversation so that the videographer may record the same. He further deposed that a copy of the same transcript was also given to Dev and similarly he was also asked to do so. DW13 further deposed that the lens of camera of videographer was closed by lid and it could therefore record only audio recording. He further deposed that as his voice was in a different pitch(uchi­nichi), therefore he was asked by I.O to give his voice in a particular manner so that it may resemble close to the recording which was played before him. He further deposed that he was made to repeat the transcript many times till it closely resembled with the conversation recorded in the mobile phone and after this I.O obtained his signatures on many blank papers and he was sent to another room. He further deposed that on 25.03.2009, he was produced before Ld M.M and sent to J.C. and was not provided any counsel during the police remand or judicial remand.

FULLY ESTABLISHED CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCES

27. In the present case, there is no eye­witness and whole of the case of prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence. Generally, when there are eye­ SC No. 58298/2016 FIR no. 161/2009 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Jeevak Nagpal @ Veevek Nagpal Page 86 of 132 witnesses to the incident, the Court has to rely upon the veracity of the witnesses to establish the incident, but while dealing with the case based on circumstantial evidence, not only the veracity of the witness but also other points become relevant. Before we proceed further it is necessary to state the requirements in a case based on circumstantial evidence. In this regard, we can rely upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Padala Veera Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. (AIR 1990 SC 79), which have laid down the requirements with regard to circumstantial evidence as under:­ "10. ........ This Court in a series of decisions has consistently held that when a case rests upon circumstantial evidence such evidence must satisfy the following tests :

(1) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established;

(2) those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused;

(3) the circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else; and (4) the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence. (See Gambhir v. State of Maharashtra )."

(6 of 22) (CRLDR-7/2020) It has also been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Brajendrasingh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 2012 Supreme Court 1552, as under:-

"There is no doubt that it is not a case of direct evidence but the conviction of the accused is founded on circumstantial evidence. It is a settled principle of law that the prosecution has to satisfy certain conditions SC No. 58298/2016 FIR no. 161/2009 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Jeevak Nagpal @ Veevek Nagpal Page 87 of 132 before a conviction based on circumstantial evidence can be sustained. The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established and should also be consistent with only one hypothesis, i.e. the guilt of the accused. The circumstances should be conclusive and proved by the prosecution. There must be a chain of events so complete so as not to leave any substantial doubt in the mind of the Court. Irresistibly, the evidence should lead to the conclusion inconsistent with the innocence of the accused and the only possibility that the accused has committed the crime. To put it simply, the circumstances forming the chain of events should be proved and they should cumulatively point towards the guilt of the accused alone. In such circumstances, the inference of guilt can be justified only when all the incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or the guilt of any other person. Furthermore, the rule which needs to be observed by the Court while dealing with the cases of circumstantial evidence is that the best evidence must be adduced which the nature of the case admits. The circumstances have to be examined cumulatively. The Court has to examine the complete chain of events and then see whether all the material facts sought to be established by the prosecution to bring home the guilt of the accused, have been proved beyond reasonable doubt. It has to be kept in mind that all these principles are based upon one basic cannon of our criminal jurisprudence that the accused is innocent till proven guilty and that the accused is entitled to a just and fair trial."

27.1. In Sharad Birdhi Chand Sarda vs State Of Maharashtra on 17 July, 1984: 1984 AIR 1622, 1985 SCR (1) 88, the honorable supreme Court upheld as under:­ "Before discussing the cases relied upon by the High Court we would like to cite a few decisions on the nature, character and essential proof required in a criminal case which rests on circumstantial evidence alone. The most SC No. 58298/2016 FIR no. 161/2009 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Jeevak Nagpal @ Veevek Nagpal Page 88 of 132 fundamental and basic decision of this Court is Hanumant v. The State of Madhya Pradesh.(1) This case has been uniformly followed and applied by this Court in a large number of later decisions uptodate, for instance, the cases of Tufail (Alias) Simmi v. State of Uttar Pradesh(2) and Ramgopal v. Stat of Maharashtra(3). It may be useful to extract what Mahajan, J. has laid down in Hanumant's case (supra):

"It is well to remember that in cases where the evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should in the first instance be fully established and all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. Again, the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. In other words, there must be a chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground far a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show that within all human probability the act must have been done by the accused."

A close analysis of this decision would show that the following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an accused can be said to be fully established:

(1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established.

It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the circumstances concerned 'must or should' and not 'may be' established. There is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between 'may be proved' and 'must be or should be proved' as was held by this Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra(') where the following observations were made:"Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict and the mental distance between 'may be' and 'must be' is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions."

(2) The facts so established should be SC No. 58298/2016 FIR no. 161/2009 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Jeevak Nagpal @ Veevek Nagpal Page 89 of 132 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 a 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.

These five golden principles, if we may say so, constitute the panchsheel of the proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence."

27.2. Therefore, in a case, which is based on circumstantial evidence, the above­stated requirements need to be established.

27.3. As discussed above that in a case based on circumstantial evidence, the above­stated requirements are to be fulfilled and the facts on which the case is based, has to be cogently and firmly established. After reading the testimonies of the witnesses as well as the other evidence placed on record, this Court has considered that the following facts have been fully established:­

(a) Acquaintance of accused with the family of victim (deceased child) 27.4. PW36 Rajesh Mahajan, father of deceased child, has deposed that accused was known to him being previously residing in H.No. C­5/57, Sector­11, Rohini, Delhi,which was situated two houses away from his house i.e. C­5/53, Sector­11, Rohini, Delhi and the accused along with his family members had sold the said house and shifted to some other place in Sector­11, Rohini, Delhi, who SC No. 58298/2016 FIR no. 161/2009 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Jeevak Nagpal @ Veevek Nagpal Page 90 of 132 again shifted to C­4/3, Sector­11, Rohini, Delhi i.e. near the next land to his (PW36's) house. Thus, this fact itself proves that the accused was living in the vicinity of the victim child and this fact is not denied by the accused that he does not know the family of the deceased child.

(b) Accused and his family were in debt 27.5. From the testimony of PW13 Amit Kumar Ganguli, the prosecution has established that the father of accused was having cash credit account no. 601230110000023 in the name of Leather Creation in Bank of India and as on 18/03/2009, Rs. 28.37 lacs was outstanding, no deposit was made in the account after 18/08/2008 and the account was overdrawn. From the testimony of PW19 Sahil (friend of accused), prosecution has further established that father of accused was in financial loss & in debt of loan from bank and the accused had borrowed money from some of the friends of PW19 Sahil and also requested him for giving a sum of Rs. 20,000/­, which was refused by the said witness. From the testimony of PW26 Naveen Hooda, it has also been proved that the said witness gave a loan of Rs. 25,000/­ to accused in the first week of February, 2009 & further loan of Rs. 38,000/­ in cash on 2% interest after about a week or ten days, which were not returned by the accused despite making of several calls. Even PW5 Devender @ Dev has claimed in his testimony that Accused Jeevak @ Shanky had borrowed Rs. 15,000/­ from him in the end of year 2008 and he (PW5) used to demand his money from accused on phone several times but accused was not returning his money and used to promise that he would return the same to him. PW5, PW19 and PW26 were friends of accused and PW13 Amit Kumar Ganguly is a bank official. All these witnesses have no reason to falsely depose against the accused as they were not having any enmity with him.

SC No. 58298/2016 FIR no. 161/2009 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Jeevak Nagpal @ Veevek Nagpal Page 91 of 132

27.6. Ld. Counsel for the accused has argued that actual lendors, who had lended money to the father of the accused, were not brought on record. The said argument of ld. Counsel is not tenable as no such witnesses have been produced by the accused in his defence evidence. Had there been any such witnesses, he would have certainly examined them in his defence. Moreover, this argument of ld. Counsel does not have any force and it does not affect the case of the prosecution in any manner. Even otherwise, proving of a fact is not a endless procedure. In the present case, the testimony of bank official along with the documents produced by him, is reliable. It is also pertinent to mention here that nothing in contravention of this fact has been brought by the accused in his defence. The aforesaid witnesses cannot be said to be tutored ones as they were the friends of the accused and merely for a meager amount, they would not have falsely implicated or deposed against the accused.

(c) Presence of the accused at the relevant location at the relevant time.

27.7. At the time of arrest of accused, two mobile phones bearing nos. 9990401054 & 9873883039 were recovered. The mobile no. 9873883039 is admittedly that of accused. PW6 Israr Babu has proved the call detail record of mobile phone bearing no. 9873883039, which was issued in the name of Vivek Nagpal i.e. accused, for the period from 18/03/2009 to 19/03/2009 Ex. PW6/F and its cell ID chart Ex. PW6/T, whereas PW29 Pawan Singh has proved the CDR of mobile no. 9990401054, which was in the name of Sanjay but was used by the accused. From the testimony of PW6, it has been proved that the location of accused on 18/03/2009 from 7.04 p.m. to till 11:12: 45 was at Sector­11, Sector­ 16, Sector­13, Unitech Sector­10, sector­23, Rohini, Delhi, Sector­24, Rohini & SC No. 58298/2016 FIR no. 161/2009 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Jeevak Nagpal @ Veevek Nagpal Page 92 of 132 Prahladpur Bangar, N.D., whereas on 19/03/2009, from 12:37 a.m. till 9.45 a.m., his location was within the area of Sector­11 & Sector­16, Rohini. From the testimony of PW6, it has also been proved that as per CDR Ex. PW6/F, there were frequent incoming and outgoing calls and SMS communication in between mobile no. 9873883039 (of accused) and no. 9868155253 of Sahil Pahwa (PW­19­friend of accused from whom the accused had requested for towing of his Wagon R car and also for Rs. 1000/­ and who in turn made call to Race company for towing the said vehicle of accused) on 18/03/2009 and also on 19/03/2009 at 07.19 hours (7.19 a.m.) i.e. outgoing call. It has also been proved that on 18/03/2009, there were three incoming calls from mobile phone no. 9873363860 (used by PW25 Ajeet Singh Mahendru @ Bobby, which was further used by PW5 Devender Sharma @ Dev in making call to accused demanding his money back and in which the conversation between accused and PW5 got recorded) to mobile no. 9873883039 (of accused).

27.8. As per CDR Ex. PW29/B & Cell ID Chart Ex. PW29/C (colly), the location of accused on 18/03/2009 at 06:01:26 p.m., 07:17:19 p.m., 07:18:16 p.m., 07:18:44 pm., 07:18:46, 08:30:19 and on 19/03/2009 at 12:30:02 a.m., 12:30:20 a.m., 01:20:27 a.m., 01:20:30 a.m., 01:34:16 a.m., 01:34:26 a.m., 01:35:45 a.m., 01:35:49 a.m., 1:35:52 a.m., 01:36:02 a.m., 01:44:38 a.m., 01:44:41 a.m., 06:34:38 a.m., 06:44:32 a.m., 06:44:46 a.m., 06:50:52 a.m., 06:50:55 a.m., 06:55:52 a.m., 06:55:54 a.m., 06:57:00 a.m., 7.00:00 a.m., 07:08:41 a.m., 07:12:25 a.m., 07:14:52 a.m., 07:19:35 a.m., 07:37:21 a.m., 07:44:02 a.m., 07:59:39 a.m., 08:13:55 a.m., 08:14:24 a.m., 08:16:30 a.m., at 08:27:45 a.m., 08:32:36 a.m., 08:32:43 a.m., 08:51:10 a.m., 08:51:13 a.m., 09:09:41 a.m., 09:09:48 a.m. and 09:34:01 a.m. was at sector­11, Rohini (Titiksha SC No. 58298/2016 FIR no. 161/2009 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Jeevak Nagpal @ Veevek Nagpal Page 93 of 132 Public School), Rohini sector­9, Rohini sector­11, Sunehari Bagh, sector­13, Rohini, Budh Vihar (Pooth Kalan), Rohini sector­16, Rohini Sector­17, Rohini sector­16, Rohini sector­11, Rohini sector­16, Rohini sector­11, Rohini sector­16, Rohini Sector­11, Rohini Sector­16.

27.9. Thus, from the aforesaid call detail records, it is clear that accused was present at the places from where the deceased child was kidnapped and where the dead body of deceased was disposed of and that there was communication between accused and PW5 Devender Sharma @ Dev and that accused was also in constant touch of PW19 Sahil.

(d) Accused was not traceable when the crane reached the place where allegedly the Wagon R car of accused got damaged 27.10. From the testimony of PW15 Daya Nand, PW16 Nirmal Kumar Yadav and PW19 Sahil, it has been proved on record that accused was not found at the spot i.e. red light signal of chowk/crossing of sector­24 and 25, Rohini. where he had claimed that his vehicle had got damaged & where he called his friend PW19 Sahil along with crane operator and helper and they have to wait for him for about 30­40 minutes and only after making calls to him, he disclosed to PW19 Sahild that he was standing ahead of Sirifort College on the Bawana Road, whereafter PW19 along with PW15 & PW16 reached at T point, main road, diving road of sector­24, pocket 27 and Deep Vihar. It is also important to mention here that accused did not disclose as to where he was at that time. It is also pertinent to mention here that Sector­24, Rohini, was not fully developed at that time and was having less habitat and it was like a jungle at that time.

SC No. 58298/2016 FIR no. 161/2009 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Jeevak Nagpal @ Veevek Nagpal Page 94 of 132

27.11. It is also pertinent to mention here this time corresponds to the time which has been stated by PW17 Dr. K. Goyal, who had conducted postmortem on the body of the deceased, stated to be time when the death would have been caused of the victim.

e) IDEA SIM prepaid connection no. 9873883039 in Nokia phone was used by accused Jeevak Nagpal.

27.12. From the testimony of PW6 Israr Babu, Nodal officer , Vodafone Essar Mobile Service Ltd., it has been proved on record that Idea prepaid connection no. 9873883039, having IMEI no. 352273011178240, was in the name of accused Jeevak Nagpal @ Vivek Nagpal, application form of which is Ex. PW6/E and call detail record is Ex. PW6/F and he used the same in making call to PW5 Devender Sharma @ Dev, PW19 Sahil & Crane Operator and vice versa. Even the accused did not deny that the said phone was not used by him.

(f) SIM no. 9990401054 installed in TIA mobile phone was used by the accused for sending SMSs qua kidnapping of child Manan and demand of ransom 27.13. SIM bearing connection no. 9990401054 was installed in the mobile phone make TIA of accused, having IMEI no. 35410 and said SIM was in the name of his friend Sanjay. As per prosecution, mobile no. 9990401054 was used by the accused in sending the SMSs qua kidnapping and ransom to Rajesh Mahajan, father of accused. The accused did not dispute that said Sanjay is not his friend. Even PW2 Shiv Kumar has proved that accused had purchased mobile phone chinese make of TIA company from the shop being run by his wife for a SC No. 58298/2016 FIR no. 161/2009 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Jeevak Nagpal @ Veevek Nagpal Page 95 of 132 sum of Rs. 1200/­ in the month of February, 2009 and has also identified the accused as the person who had purchase the aforesaid mobile phone from the shop being run by his wife in the month of March, 2009. Thus, it can be very well that that the aforesaid mobile phone was used by the accused only and he had used the same in sending SMSs qua kidnapping and ransom to Rajesh Mahajan. Moreover, call detail record has also been proved by PW29.

(g) Transfer of SIM No. 9873883039 in TIA mobile phone having SIM no. 9990401054 27.14 As per call detail record of mobile no. 9873883039 Ex. PW6/F (proved by PW6) running page no. 835 of the judicial file, on 18/03/2009, the accused had made a call from the said mobile number 9313426677 at 20:38:17 hours, having IMEI no. 352273011178240. Thereafter other calls were made on mobile no. 9899675811 at 20:47:58, reflecting no IMEI, two calls on mobile no. 9873656536 at 20:48:33 & 20:49:41, reflecting IMEI no. 354101000203940, another 9711040029 at 20:51:02 hours, reflecting IMEI no. 354101000203940, another call at 011­27572059 at 21:0:113 hours, reflecting IMEI 354101000203940, another call at 9711040029 at 21:06:08 hours, reflecting IMEI 354101000203940, another call at 9868155253 at 21:08:43 hours, reflecting IMEI 354101000203940, another call at 9313426677 at 21:08:48 hours, reflecting no IMEI, another call at 9868155253 at 21:09:05 hours, reflecting IMEI 354101000203940, two calls at 9313426677 at 21:11:04 hours & 21:11:42 hours, reflecting IMEI 354101000203940, another call at 9811387805 at 21:15:56 hours, reflecting IMEI 354101000203940, another call at 9711040029 at 21:27:31 hours, reflecting no IMEI number, another call at 9313426677 at 21:27:41 hours, reflecting no IMEI number, another call at 9711040029 at 21:28:39 hours, SC No. 58298/2016 FIR no. 161/2009 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Jeevak Nagpal @ Veevek Nagpal Page 96 of 132 reflecting IMEI 354101000203940, another call at 9868155253 at 21:32:05 hours, reflecting IMEI 354101000203940, another call at 9313426677 at 21:36:49 hours, reflecting no IMEI number, another call at 9868155253 at 21:37:38 hours, reflecting IMEI 354101000203940, another call at 98313426677 at 21:38:50 hours, reflecting no IMEI number, another call at 98313426677 at 21:39:33 hours, reflecting IMEI 354101000203940, another call at 9868155253 at 21:43:08 hours, reflecting IMEI 354101000203940, another call at 9958155471 at 21:44:08 hours, reflecting IMEI 354101000203940, another call at 9958155471 at 21:45:24 hours, reflecting IMEI 354101000203940, another call at 9868155253 at 21:47:19 hours, reflecting IMEI 354101000203940, another call at 9313426677 at 21:47:53 hours, reflecting IMEI 354101000203940, another call at 9868155253 at 21:51:01 hours, reflecting IMEI 354101000203940, another call at 9871432826 at 21:54:26 hours, reflecting IMEI 354101000203940, another call at 9868155253 at 21:58:05 hours, reflecting IMEI 354101000203940, another call at 9313426677 at 22:01:10,reflecting no IMEI number, another call at 9953455745 at 22:03:45 hours, reflecting IMEI 354101000203940, another call at 9953455745 at 22:05:04 hours, reflecting IMEI 354101000203940, another call at 9953455745 at 22:07:38 hours, reflecting IMEI 354101000203940, another call at 9211565810 at 22:08:50 hours, reflecting IMEI 354101000203940, another call at 9868155253 at 22:10:11 hours, reflecting IMEI 354101000203940, another call at 9313426677 at 22:14:51 hours, relecting no IMEI number, another call at 9873363860 at 22:19:22 hours, reflecting IMEI 354101000203940, another call at 9873363860 at 22:20:46 hours, reflecting IMEI 354101000203940, another call at 9313426677 at 22:22:31 hours, reflecting IMEI 354101000203940, another call at 9313426677 at 22:24:02 hours, no IMEI number, another call at 9868155253 at 22:25:59 hours, reflecting IMEI 354101000203940, another call at 9313426677 at 22:27:22 hours, no IMEI SC No. 58298/2016 FIR no. 161/2009 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Jeevak Nagpal @ Veevek Nagpal Page 97 of 132 number, another call at 9313426677 at 22:28:15 hours, reflecting IMEI 354101000203940, another call at 9211565810 at 22:29:37 hours, reflecting IMEI 354101000203940 and other calls till 23:12:45, reflecting same IMEI number 354101000203940. However, on 19/03/2009, at 00:14:30 hours, accused made another call at mobile no. 9999184238, reflecting IMEI no. 352273011178240, at 03:15:47 at mobile no. 9899068404, reflecting IMEI no. 352273011178240 & 07:19:17 at 9868155253, reflecting IMEI no. 352273011178240. The accused also made other calls on 18/03/2009 including at number 9868155253 at 22:42:43 hours, 9868155253 at 23:08:23 hours, 9990266941 at 23:08:28 hours & on 19.03.2009 at number 9311339393 at 00:37:48 hours, 9811658526 at 01:01:17 hours, 9811658526 at 01:01:20 hours, 9811041120 at 01:01:27 hours, 9811041120 at 01:01:30 hours, reflecting no IMEI numbers.

27.15. The aforesaid call detail record shows that on 18/03/2009, the accused had made a call from the mobile no. 9873883039 to mobile number 9313426677 at 20:38:17 hours, reflecting IMEI no. 352273011178240, but it seems that battery of his said mobile phone got low and as such he transferred his SIM no. 9873883039 in his TIA mobile phone as the subsequent calls made by the accused on 18/03/2009 from 08:47:59 till 11.12 p.m. on aforesaid phone numbers are reflecting IMEI no. 354101000203940, which shows that he had used the SIM no. 9873883039 in TIA mobile phone. The aforesaid call details also show that thereafter on 19/03/2009, the accused had taken out the SIM no. 9873883039 as the other calls made at 00:14:30 hours, at mobile no. 9999184238, at 03:15:47 at mobile no. 9899068404, & 07:19:17 at 9868155253 reflect IMEI no. 352273011178240.

SC No. 58298/2016 FIR no. 161/2009 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Jeevak Nagpal @ Veevek Nagpal Page 98 of 132

27.16. Ld. counsel for the accused has stated that even this fact is not proved by the prosecution as in the Ex. PW36/A­1, which is transcription of SMSs received and sent on mobile no. 9990401054 of accused, no IMEI number is reflecting as is reflecting in Ex. PW6/F. He has further stated that in the seizure memo of mobile phone of TIA company with SIM Card, the IMEI number is mentioned as 35410. As regards the said contention of ld. defence counsel, the digits 35410 are the initial five digits and except this argument, there is nothing on record to show that the mobile phone no. 9873883039 was not placed into TIA mobile handset. The testimony of PW35 Inspector Amardeep Sehgal also supports the case of the prosecution. There is no valid explanation given by the accused as to how the SIM which was regularly used by the accused got transferred into the mobile phone handset make TIA bearing IMEI no. 354101000203940. The testimonies of PW6 and PW35 are reliable. PW35 has categorically deposed that from the concern company i.e. Hutch, he came to know that IMEI number 354101000203940 was found to be working on mobile phone no. 9873883039 which was issued in the name of Veevek Nagpal (accused herein), R/o C­3/155­156, Sector­11, Rohini, Delhi. Both PW6 and PW35 are independent witnesses and there is no chance that they would falsely implicate the accused. This fact itself fully establishes that the accused used 9873883039 in TIA mobile handset.

(h) Location of mobile no. 9873883039 and 9990401054 used by the accused is parallel 27.17. From Ex. PW6/F &Ex. PW6/T, it has been proved on record that the location of accused on 18/03/2009 from 7.04 p.m. to till 11:12: 45 was at Sector­ 11, Sector­16, Sector­13, Unitech Sector­10, sector­23, Rohini, Delhi, Sector­24, SC No. 58298/2016 FIR no. 161/2009 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Jeevak Nagpal @ Veevek Nagpal Page 99 of 132 Rohini & Prahladpur Bangar, N.D., whereas on 19/03/2009, from 12:37 a.m. till 9.45 a.m., his location was within the area of Sector­11 & Sector­16, Rohini. Further, as per Ex. PW29/B & Cell ID Chart Ex. PW29/C, on 18/03/2009 and 19/03/2009, the location of accused was at was at sector­11, Rohini (Titiksha Public School), Rohini sector­9, Rohini sector­11, Sunehari Bagh, sector­13, Rohini, Budh Vihar (Pooth Kalan), Rohini sector­16, Rohini Sector­17, Rohini sector­16, Rohini sector­11, Rohini sector­16, Rohini sector­11, Rohini sector­16, Rohini Sector­11, Rohini Sector­16. Thus, it has been proved on record that the location of both these mobile phones was parallel on the day of incident i.e. 18/03/2009 & 19/03/2020.

(i) Time of death 27.18. As per case of prosecution, deceased child Manan was kidnapped in the evening of 18/03/2009 and his dead body was recovered on 19/03/2009. As per postmortem report Ex. PW17/A, the postmortem on the body of deceased was conducted on 19/03/2009 at 4.15 p.m. As per PW17 Dr. K. Goyal, who had conducted postmortem on the body of deceased, time since death was about 17­ 18 hours. This time corresponds to the time when the accused was at Sector 24 Rohini and it would have been at around 10 p.m. to 11 p.m. when he was not available to the witnesses PW 15, PW 16 and PW19 who had been waiting the accused to tow away his damaged Wagon R car.The accused has not given any explanation where was he at that time when the PW 15, PW 16 and PW 19 had been making called about the whereabouts of the accused. This is a mystery where he had been all the time which corresponds to the time of death of the deceased victim.

SC No. 58298/2016 FIR no. 161/2009 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Jeevak Nagpal @ Veevek Nagpal Page 100 of 132

(j)Death of deceased had injuries and the cause of death was due to smothering 27.19. As per PW17 Dr. K. Goyal, who had conducted postmortem on the body of deceased, on external examination, following injuries were found on body of the deceased:­

1) both lips extensively bruised orally as well as externally, more lower lip with bruising over ala nasii both sides and tip of nose along with diffuse bruising around the mouth, reddish in colour.

2) 11 lacerations scattered irregularly, superficial to full skin deep over lower side of occipital region and back of neck at and around mid line with multiple scratches. Sizes of lacerations raised between 0.75 c.m. x 0.2 c.m. to 1.8 c.m. to 0.4. c.m.

3) Diffused bruising with swelling over right malar region 5 x 4 c.m. area, reddish in colour.

4) Abraded area right side neck running horizontally at the level of apple of adam from mid line front up to 11.5 c.m. distance at lateral aspect of right side neck, about 1 c.m. wide, reddish brown, interrupted at places and about 7 c.m. below right ears.

5) Pattern contused abrasion more or less rectangular shape present over:­

(a) right back of chest at the level of inferior border of right scapula and about 2 c.m. right to mid line of size 1 x 0.2 c.m.

(b) Mid line back of abdomen over vertebral column 1 x 0.2 c.m.

(c) At mid line, epigastrium upper side 1.2 x 0.4 c.m. having grazing.

(d) 1 c.m. x 0.4 c.m. with slight grazing over epigastrium about 1.5 c.m. left to mid line.

(e) 1.2 x 0.4 c.m. with grazing over epigastrium about 4 c.m. left to mid line.

SC No. 58298/2016 FIR no. 161/2009 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Jeevak Nagpal @ Veevek Nagpal Page 101 of 132

According to PW17 Dr.K. Goyal, all these five injuries (a to e) were reddish brown in colour and their ends were very dark, cuticle deep while intervening area was little lighter and also, same type of injury 1 x 0.3 c.m. over left thigh front about 5 inches below left inguinal ligament area.

6) 8 c.m. long scratch placed obliquely over right side chest above nipple.

7) abrasion 1 x 0.7 c.m. just below left inguinal region.

8) Superficial lacerations avulsion 1.6 x 1 c.m. over left thigh front about 17 c.m. below mid inguinal point.

9) pattern contused abrasion same as to injury no. 5 , 1 x 0.3 c.m. over antero medial aspect of right thigh about 6 c.m. below medial part of inguinal ligament area.

27.20. As per PW17, in his opinion, the cause of death of asphyxia consequent upon smothering i.e. closure of airways (nostrils and mouth). He further deposed that all injuries were antemortem in nature & injury no. 1 was caused by manual pressure over mouth and nose and was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. He further deposed that all other injuries were caused (except no. 5 and 9) by blunt force impacts. He further deposed that pattern of injuries no. 5 and 9 was consistent with being caused by some relatively blunt penetrating object wide and blunt penetrating surface and pattern of injuries was consistent with intense torture just prior to death.

27.21. Thus, it is proved that the death of deceased was due to smothering. There is no denial from the side of accused that was not due to smothering.

(k) Recovery of weapon of offence (jack handle) 27.22. As per case of prosecution, while PW42 Inspector Pratap Singh along with Mobile Crime Team officials i.e. PW39 In­charge SI SC No. 58298/2016 FIR no. 161/2009 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Jeevak Nagpal @ Veevek Nagpal Page 102 of 132 Joginder,Photographer Ct. Hans Raj (PW3) and one Finger Print Proficient reached at the spot and inspected the Wagon R car of the accused and during inspection, one jack handle of the car was found in between the door and the front seat adjacent to the driver seat of the said car, which was having blood on its pointed/sharp side from one end. At that time, the accused had disclosed that he murdered Manan Mahajan (since deceased) by hitting this jack handle on his head and other parts of the body. The said jack handle was taken into police possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW36/T. 27.23. Ld. defence counsel has disputed the factum of recovery of jack handle from the place as claimed by the prosecution. He has argued that police had not checked the dicky of the Wagon R car of the accused. Had they checked the same, the said jack handle would have been found placed in the dickey between the space of tyre and the dicky. The said argument of ld. defence counsel is not tenable as the recovery was effected from in front of the house of the accused in broad daylight in presence of police. Merely because the police did not check the dickey, it cannot be said that the said jack handle has been planted upon the accused. Moreover, the said jack handle was also sent to FSL and as per FSL report Ex. PW38/A & Ex. PW38/B, the screw driver said to be handle of car jack was examined by PW38 Sh. A.K. Srivastava and human blood of "A" group was found on the same, which blood group "A" was found on the clothes of deceased. So, the weapon of offence is also connected with the accused.

(m) Voice Samples match with the audio clipping containing conversation between accused and PW5 27.24. In the present case, there is voice clippings having the communication between the accused and the prosecution witness PW 5. The ld. defence counsel SC No. 58298/2016 FIR no. 161/2009 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Jeevak Nagpal @ Veevek Nagpal Page 103 of 132 argued that voice samples which were taken for matching, were taken by the IO Inspector Pratap Singh of his own and no prior permission of the Court was taken to take the samples by the IO himself. In this regard, it is necessary to mention that I had moved an application to the learner ACM for taking samples. Though as a rule of caution the IO should have approached the appropriate authorities to take voice samples but in the present case even this minor defect is not of much value as the IO had taken videography of the voice sample collecting. The prosecution witness PW5 Devender Sharma @ Dev & videographer Sonu (PW18) have also proved this fact. And after taking the voice samples, the same were properly sealed and were sent to FSL for comparison and opinion. The voice samples matched with the voice of accused and that aspect has been proved by the prosecution witness PW 37 Dr. C.P. Singh.

27.25. Ld. counsel has further argued that PW37 was introduced as witness during course of prosecution evidence. There is no force in the said contention of ld. defence counsel as the said witness was permitted to be examined as prosecution witnesse by the Court being the expert witness. Therefore, this objection of ld. defence counsel has no substance.

(n)VICTIM'S VOICE IN THE AUDIO CLIPPING 27.26. It has also been proved on record that the conversation between PW5 Devender Sharma @ Dev and accused, which was got recorded in the mobile phone of PW Ajeet Singh Mahendru @ Bobby, was found containing the voice of child Manan, CD of which conversation was prepared and the voice of child Manan as well as of accused was identified by PW36 Rajesh Mahajan (father of deceased) in the said conversation.

SC No. 58298/2016 FIR no. 161/2009 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Jeevak Nagpal @ Veevek Nagpal Page 104 of 132

27.27. Another contention of ld. defence counsel is that in the audio recording, the voice of the accused is found to be on side of PW 26. In the audio recording, the accused can be heard saying "chup­chup" and it proves the fact that the victim child was with the accused at that time, otherwise there was no occasion for him to say "chup­chup".

(o)DISCLOSURE REGARDING PLACE WHERE BODY OF DECEASED WAS LYING\ 27.28. The another important aspect of this case is the disclosure made by the accused regarding the place where the dead body of the deceased was lying. The prosecution has stated that the accused maid disclosure regarding the dead body on 19/03/2009 (though inadvertently the date is mentioned as 19/03/2003) Subsequently, the police team along with the accused visited the place mentioned by the accused and at the pointing out of the accused the body of the deceased was recovered from dividing road between Sector 24 Rohini and Deep Vihar in a dry drain adjacent to the road. The father of the deceased that is PW36 has also given testimony that he accompanied the police team to the place of recovery. He has stated that the accused accompanied the police team and him in a police vehicle to the place of recovery.

27.29. The ld. counsel for the accused has fiercely argued that the whole story of disclosure made by the police is not acceptable in view of the existence of Aaj Tak video which head covered the recovery of body of deceased from Sector 24 Rohini. The ld.t counsel has stated that in the telecast of Aaj Tak, accused in not seen at the time of recovery of dead body of the deceased. The contention of ld. counsel that accused is not visible in the video it is also not tenable as there is SC No. 58298/2016 FIR no. 161/2009 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Jeevak Nagpal @ Veevek Nagpal Page 105 of 132 only side view of the place of recovery and it does not appear to be taken from 360 degree angle. Even the cameraman is also not visible. Therefore just because accused is not visible in the Aaj Tak video does not rule out the possibility that he was not at that place. He has stressed that for the purpose of recovery of dead body of deceased, the presence of accused is necessary. He has further argued that accused was in the office of DCP, where the press conference was to be held and accused was not taken to the place of recovery.

28. Let us consider whether it is necessary that the accused shall be present at the time of discovery. The relevant section 27 of the evidence act is as under:

"27. How much of information received from accused may be proved.--Provided that, when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved."

29. Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 represents loosely what is known as the 'Doctrine of Confirmation by subsequent fact'. It seems to be based on the view that if a fact is actually discovered in consequence of information given, some guarantee is afforded thereby that the information was true and accordingly can be safely allowed to be given in evidence.

30. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State, Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi vs Sunil And Another on 29, November, 2000, has held as under:­ SC No. 58298/2016 FIR no. 161/2009 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Jeevak Nagpal @ Veevek Nagpal Page 106 of 132 "In this context we may point out that there is no requirement either under Section 27 of the Evidence Act or under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to obtain signature of independent witnesses on the record in which statement of an accused is written. The legal obligation to call independent and respectable inhabitants of the locality to attend and witness the exercise made by the police is cast on the police officer when searches are made under Chapter VII of the Code. Section 100(5) of the Code requires that such search shall be made in their presence and a list of all things seized in the course of such search and of the places in which they are respectively found, shall be prepared by such officer or other person and signed by such witnesses. It must be remembered that search is made to find out a thing or document which the searching officer has no prior idea where the thing or document is kept.

He prowls for it either on reasonable suspicion or on some guess work that it could possibly be ferreted out in such prowling. It is a stark reality that during searches the team which conducts search would have to meddle with lots of other articles and documents also and in such process many such articles or documents are likely to be displaced or even strewn helter-skelter. The legislative idea in insisting on such searches to be made in the presence of two independent inhabitants of the locality is to ensure the safety of all such articles meddled with and to protect the rights of the persons entitled thereto. But recovery of an object pursuant to the information supplied by an accused in custody is different from the searching endeavour envisaged in Chapter VII of the Code. This Court has indicated the difference between the two processes in the Transport Commissioner, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad & anr. vs. S. Sardar Ali & ors. (1983 SC 1225). Following SC No. 58298/2016 FIR no. 161/2009 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Jeevak Nagpal @ Veevek Nagpal Page 107 of 132 observations of Chinnappa Reddy, J. can be used to support the said legal proposition: Section 100 of the Criminal Procedure Code to which reference was made by the counsel deals with searches and not seizures. In the very nature of things when property is seized and not recovered during a search, it is not possible to comply with the provisions of sub-section (4) and (5) of section 100 of the Criminal Procedure Code. In the case of a seizure [under the Motor Vehicles Act], there is no provision for preparing a list of the things seized in the course of the seizure for the obvious reason that all those things are seized not separately but as part of the vehicle itself."

Hence it is a fallacious impression that when recovery is effected pursuant to any statement made by the accused the document prepared by the Investigating Officer contemporaneous with such recovery must necessarily be attested by independent witnesses. Of course, if any such statement leads to recovery of any article it is open to the Investigating Officer to take the signature of any person present at that time, on the document prepared for such recovery. But if no witness was present or if no person had agreed to affix his signature on the document, it is difficult to lay down, as a proposition of law, that the document so prepared by the police officer must be treated as tainted and the recovery evidence unreliable. The court has to consider the evidence of the Investigating Officer who deposed to the fact of recovery based on the statement elicited from the accused on its own worth.

We feel that it is an archaic notion that actions of the police officer should be approached with initial distrust. We are aware that such a notion was lavishly entertained during British period SC No. 58298/2016 FIR no. 161/2009 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Jeevak Nagpal @ Veevek Nagpal Page 108 of 132 and policemen also knew about it. Its hang over persisted during post-independent years but it is time now to start placing at least initial trust on the actions and the documents made by the police. At any rate, the court cannot start with the presumption that the police records are untrustworthy. As a proposition of law the presumption should be the other way around.

That official acts of the police have been regularly performed is a wise principle of presumption and recognised even by the legislature. Hence when a police officer gives evidence in court that a certain article was recovered by him on the strength of the statement made by the accused it is open to the court to believe the version to be correct if it is not otherwise shown to be unreliable. It is for the accused, through cross-examination of witnesses or through any other materials, to show that the evidence of the police officer is either unreliable or at least unsafe to be acted upon in a particular case. If the court has any good reason to suspect the truthfulness of such records of the police the court could certainly take into account the fact that no other independent person was present at the time of recovery. But it is not a legally approvable procedure to presume the police action as unreliable to start with, nor to jettison such action merely for the reason that police did not collect signatures of independent persons in the documents made contemporaneous with such actions."

31. The judgment passed in Anter Singh V/s State of Rajasthan, (2004) 10 SCC 657 by the Hon'ble supreme Court is also relevant:

"The scope and ambit of Section 27 of the Evidence Act were illuminatingly stated in Pulukuri Kotayya v. Emperor (AIR 1947 PC 67) in the following words, which have become locus classicus:

SC No. 58298/2016 FIR no. 161/2009 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Jeevak Nagpal @ Veevek Nagpal Page 109 of 132

It is fallacious to treat the 'fact discovered' within the section as equivalent to the object produced; the fact discovered embraces the place from which the object is produced and the knowledge of the accused as to this and the information given must relate distinctly to this fact. Information as to past user or the past history, of the object produced is not related to its discovery in the setting in which it is discovered. Information supplied by a person in custody that 'I will produce a knife concealed in the roof of my house' does not lead to the discovery of a knife; knives were discovered many years ago. It leads to the discovery of the fact that a knife is concealed in the house of the information 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. But if to the statement the words be added 'with which stabbed A.', these words are inadmissible since they do not related to the discovery of the knife in the house of the informant." (p. 77) The aforesaid position was again highlighted in Prabhoo v. State of Uttar Pradesh (AIR 1963 SC 1113). Although the interpretation and scope of Section 27 has been the subject of several authoritative pronouncements, its application to concrete cases in the background events proved therein is not always free from difficulty. It will, therefore, be worthwhile at the outset, to have a short and swift glance at Section 27 and be reminded of its requirements. The Section says :

"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."

The expression "provided that" together with the SC No. 58298/2016 FIR no. 161/2009 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Jeevak Nagpal @ Veevek Nagpal Page 110 of 132 phrase "whether it amounts to a confession or not" show that the section is in the nature of an exception to the preceding provisions particularly Section 25 and 26. It is not necessary in this case to consider if this Section qualifies, to any extent, Section 24, also. It will be seen that the first condition necessary for bringing this Section into operation is the discovery of a fact, albeit a relevant fact, in consequence of the information received from a person accused of an offence. The second is that the discovery of such fact must be deposed to.

The third is that at the time of the receipt of the information the accused must be in police custody. The last but the most important condition is that only "so much of the information" as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered is admissible. The rest of the information has to be excluded. The word "distinctly" means "directly", "indubitably", "strictly", "unmistakably". The word has been advisedly used to limit and define the scope of the provable information. The phrase "distinctly" relates "to the fact thereby discovered" and is the linchpin of the provision. This phrase refers to that part of the information supplied by the accused which is the direct and immediate cause of the discovery. The reason behind this partial lifting of the ban against confessions and statements made to the police, is that if a fact is actually discovered in consequence of information given by the accused, it affords some guarantee of truth of that part, and that part only, of the information which was the clear, immediate and proximate cause of the discovery.

No such guarantee or assurance attaches to the rest of the statement which may be indirectly or remotely related to the fact discovered. (See Mohammed Inayuttillah v. The State of Maharashtra (AIR 1976 SC 483).

SC No. 58298/2016 FIR no. 161/2009 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Jeevak Nagpal @ Veevek Nagpal Page 111 of 132

At one time it was held that the expression "fact discovered" in the section is restricted to a physical or material fact which can be perceived by the senses, and that it does not include a mental fact, now it is fairly settled that the expression "fact discovered" includes not only the physical object produced, but also the place from which it is produced and the knowledge of the accused as to this, as noted in Palukuri Kotayya's case (supra) and in Udai Bhan v. State of Uttar Pradesh (AIR 1962 SC 1116). The various requirements of the Section can be summed up as follows:

(1) The fact of which evidence is sought to be given must be relevant to the issue.

It must be borne in mind that the provision has nothing to do with question of relevancy. The relevancy of the fact discovered must be established according to the prescriptions relating to relevancy of other evidence connecting it with the crime in order to make the fact discovered admissible.

(2) The fact must have been discovered.

(3) The discovery must have been in consequence of some information received from the accused and not by accused's own act.

(4) The persons giving the information must be accused of any offence.

(5) He must be in the custody of a police officer.

(6) The discovery of a fact in consequence of information received from an accused in custody must be deposed to.

(7) Thereupon only that portion of the information which relates distinctly or strictly to the fact discovered can be proved. The rest is inadmissible. As observed in Palukuri Kotayya's case (supra) it can seldom happen that information leading to the discovery of a fact SC No. 58298/2016 FIR no. 161/2009 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Jeevak Nagpal @ Veevek Nagpal Page 112 of 132 forms the foundation of the prosecution case. It is one link in the chain of proof and the other links must be forged in manner allowed by law.

To similar effect was the view expressed in K. Chinnaswamy Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Another (1962 SC 1788)."

32. The Patna High Court in his judgment Md. Kamrul @ Karu @ Md. Kamrul Ali ... vs The State Of Bihar on 12 October, 2017,Criminal Appeal (SJ) no. 289 of 2015, held as under:­ "142. There is one more point which we would like to discuss i.e. whether pointing out a material object by the accused furnishing the information is a necessary concomitant of Section 27. We think that the answer should be in the negative. Though in most of the cases the person who makes the disclosure himself leads the police officer to the place where an object is concealed and points out the same to him, however, it is not essential that there should be such pointing out in order to make the information admissible under Section 27. It could very well be that on the basis of information furnished by the accused, the investigating officer may go to the spot in the company of other witnesses and recover the material object. By doing so, the investigating officer will be discovering a fact viz. the concealment of an incriminating article and the knowledge of the accused furnishing the information about it. In other words, where the information furnished by the person in custody is verified by the police officer by going to the spot mentioned by the informant and finds it to be correct, that amounts to discovery of fact within the meaning of Section 27. Of course, it is subject to the rider SC No. 58298/2016 FIR no. 161/2009 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Jeevak Nagpal @ Veevek Nagpal Page 113 of 132 that the information so furnished was the immediate and proximate cause of discovery.

If the police officer chooses not to take the informant accused to the spot, it will have no bearing on the point of admissibility under Section 27, though it may be one of the aspects that goes into evaluation of that particular piece of evidence."

"143. How the clause "as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered" has to be understood is the next point that deserves consideration. The interpretation of this clause is not in doubt. Apart from Kottaya case various decisions of this Court have elucidated and clarified the scope and meaning of the said portion of Section 27. The law has been succinctly stated in Inayatullah case. Sarkaria, J. analysed the ingredients of the section and explained the ambit and nuances of this particular clause in the following words: (SCC p. 832, para 12) "The last but the most important condition is that only „so much of the information‟ as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered is admissible. The rest of the information has to be excluded. The word „distinctly‟ means „directly‟, „indubitably‟, „strictly‟, „unmistakably‟. The word has been advisedly used to limit and define the scope of the provable information. The phrase „distinctly relates to the fact thereby discovered‟ is the linchpin of the provision. This phrase refers to that part of the information supplied by the accused which is the direct and immediate cause of the discovery. The reason behind this partial lifting of the ban against confessions and statements made to the police, is that if a fact is actually discovered in consequence of information given by the accused, it affords some guarantee of truth of that part, and that part only, of the information which was the SC No. 58298/2016 FIR no. 161/2009 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Jeevak Nagpal @ Veevek Nagpal Page 114 of 132 clear, immediate and proximate cause of the discovery. No such guarantee or assurance attaches to the rest of the statement which may be indirectly or remotely related to the fact discovered." In the light of the legal position thus clarified, this Court excluded a part of the disclosure statement to which we have already adverted.

33. From the above discussion it becomes quite evident that at the time of disclosure the accused shall be in the custody of the police and the recovery shall be in consequence of the information received from the accused and not otherwise. What is important is that information must have been given by the accused himself thereafter he may accompany the police team to point out the place but the same is not mandatory to do. As a rule of caution the police team invariably accompanies accused to the place of recovery. It is not controverted by the learned counsel for the accused that at the relevant time the accused was in the custody of police. The Ld. Counsel had only tried to make a distinction regarding the custody being with the police team of DCP rather than the team of IO. But the accused was in the custody of the police is not denied. In the present case the testimony of the father of the deceased victim is also relevant to establish the fact weather the accused was taken to the place of recovery of dead body or not. In the testimony PW36 Rajesh Mahajan stated that he along with police and accused had gone to the place from where the dead body of his deceased child. Further this video does not refute the place of recovery of body of deceased from Sector 24 Rohini which is the place of recovery of body as per the prosecution .Therefore the evidence of 'Aaj Tak' video also establishes the fact regarding the place of recovery instead of rebutting the same .Hence, the place of recovery was within the knowledge of the accused only is proved beyond reasonable doubt.

SC No. 58298/2016 FIR no. 161/2009 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Jeevak Nagpal @ Veevek Nagpal Page 115 of 132

There is no mention anywhere that dead body of the deceased was recovered on the basis of any information. The same was recovered on the basis of disclosure statement made by the accused and this fact is proved beyond reasonable doubt.

(p)Last seen testimony

34. During course of arguments, ld. counsel for the accused has stated that there are variations in the testimony of PW34 Jai Pal Singh Mann recorded before the Court and recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. However, this argument of ld. defence counsel is not tenable as in the cross­examination conducted on behalf of the accused, the said witness has categorically stated that the minor child was seen sitting on the front seat adjacent to the driver seat in Wagon­R car. This fact itself proves that the kidnapped child Manan was sitting in the Wagon R car of the accused. With regard to the questions put to him in cross­examination that were not mentioned in his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C., the said PW has given explanation that the same were not asked from him by the police.

34.1. The above stated circumstances have been fully established as stated above.

34.2. There are certain other facts involved in the case which were basically raised in the arguments of the ld. Counsel for the accused and the major points are discussed hereinafter:­ Blood on car seat covers

35. Ld. defence counsel has argued that the blood found on the seat cover of the car of accused did not match with the blood of the deceased. This SC No. 58298/2016 FIR no. 161/2009 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Jeevak Nagpal @ Veevek Nagpal Page 116 of 132 argument of ld. defence counsel has no force since as per FSL report Ex. PW38/A, blood was detected on Ex. 13 i.e. two car seat covers and one back rest cover, however, it gave no reaction as the said exhibit has degenerated due to the lapse of time. Therefore, neither this fact is proved or disproved.

No Match of DNA

36. Another argument of ld. defence counsel is that the hair sample of the accused did not match with the hair which were found to be in the hand of deceased child Manan at the time of recovery of dead body. This argument of ld. defence counsel does not hold any water since as per FSL Expert PW38 A.K. Srivastava the hair recovered from the hand of deceased child were insufficient in quantity for comparison with the sample hair of the accused. Therefore, this fact is neither proved nor disproved.

ROLE OF IO

37. Ld. Counsel for the accused has stated that role of IO Inspector Pratap Singh is under scanner as all the proceedings done by him are false. He has further argued that IO has stated in his testimony that after arrest of accused, the clothes of accused were immediately got changed but the visuals of 'Aaj Tak' clearly reveal that he (accused) was wearing the same clothes and it shows that the IO had done all the proceedings, while sitting in the office. He has further argued that after obtaining permission of ld. ACMM, the IO himself taken the sample voice & specimen voice of accused as well as of PW5 Devender Sharma @ Dev and he did not take them to any expert for the purpose of obtaining their voice sample and specimen sample. Ld. Counsel has further argued that even recovery of dead body was not effected at the instance of accused because at that time the accused was in DCP office where conference had held. He has further SC No. 58298/2016 FIR no. 161/2009 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Jeevak Nagpal @ Veevek Nagpal Page 117 of 132 submitted that during cross­examination, when the question was put to IO whether the accused was in continuous custody of his team, he replied in affirmative, but he has not been able to explain as to how the accused was present at DCP office at that time. All these contentions of ld. Defence counsel are not of much credence. It is admitted case of prosecution that various teams were made and statement of IO PW42 Inspector Pratap Singh was recorded after many years and as such he would not have been able to specifically mention the each and every detail. Minor discrepancies are bound to appear due to lapse of time. There is no denial that various teams were made at that time. Though it is true that IO should have taken the accused as well as PW5 Devender Sharma @ Dev before an expert for obtaining the sample voice of accused as well of PW5, but the IO had taken all the precautionary measure while obtaining the voice samples & specimen voice of both accused and PW5 Devender Sharma @ Dev and got videographed the said proceedings through PW18 Sonu (videographer).

37.1. Another contention of ld. Defence counsel is that keys of the house of accused were taken by the IO from the mother of the accused in the PS. He has further submitted that when the family of the accused did not get the key back from the IO, they made complaint to Vigilance Department in this regard and only after that the keys were returned to them. He has further submitted that all the recoveries which have been shown to be effected from the accused, have been planted upon him as the key of the house was with the IO. Since the argument of ld. Defence counsel qua recovery of register from the house of accused has been accepted, this argument is not of much help to the accused.

SC No. 58298/2016 FIR no. 161/2009 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Jeevak Nagpal @ Veevek Nagpal Page 118 of 132

DELAY IN SENDING INQUEST

38. Ld. defence counsel has further raised objection that the dead body was sent firstly to the hospital and inquest proceedings were sent later on. The said objection of ld. defence counsel is not tenable as multiple acts were being done by the police at the same time on 18/03/2009 and 19/03/2009, the time during which maximum investigation was carried out.

39. Now, we have to consider whether all the aforesaid established circumstances make a complete chain which clearly reflect towards commission of offences having been committed by the accused and no one else. In this regard, further discussion as follows:­ Recovery of register 39.1. Ld. defence counsel for the accused has further argued that the register which has been allegedly shown to be recovered by the accused, are easily available in the market and there is possibility that the same has been planted upon the accused. The contention of ld. defence counsel in this regard is acceptable.

Whether the Chain of evidence is completes and the same exclusively points towards the accused 39.2. The fact that the victim was known to the accused is established from the testimony of PW36 Rajesh Mahajan. This fact is not controverted by the accused that he was not known to the family of the deceased. The both side of families live in the near vicinity. Therefore the accused had opportunity to commit the offence. In this regard the relevant Section 7 of the Indian Evidence Act is reproduced below:­ SC No. 58298/2016 FIR no. 161/2009 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Jeevak Nagpal @ Veevek Nagpal Page 119 of 132 "7. Facts which are the occasion, cause or effect of facts in issue.­ Facts which are the occasion, cause, or effect, immediate or otherwise, of relevant facts, or facts in issue, or which constitute the state of things under which they happened, or which afforded an opportunity for their occurrence or transaction, are relevant."

Motive 39.3. In cases based on circumstantial evidence the testimony regarding the motive is also important. The law relating to the motive in circumstantial cases is dealt in the following judgements:­ 39.4. In Ujjagar Singh v. State of Punjab [(2007) 13 SCC 90], the Supreme Court observed:

"It is true that in a case relating to circumstantial evidence motive does assume great importance but to say that the absence of motive would dislodge the entire prosecution story is perhaps giving this one factor an importance which is not due and (to use the cliché) the motive is in the mind of the accused and can seldom be fathomed with any degree of accuracy."

39.5. In State of Uttar Pradesh v. Kishan Pal & Ors., (2008) 16 SCC 73, this Court examined the importance of motive in cases of circumstantial evidence and observed:

".......the motive is a thing which is primarily known to the accused themselves and it is not SC No. 58298/2016 FIR no. 161/2009 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Jeevak Nagpal @ Veevek Nagpal Page 120 of 132 possible for the prosecution to explain what actually promoted or excited them to commit the particular crime. The motive may be considered as a circumstance which is relevant for assessing the evidence but if the evidence is clear and unambiguous and the circumstances prove the guilt of the accused, the same is not weakened even if the motive is not a very strong one. It is also settled law that the motive loses all its importance in a case where direct evidence of eyewitnesses is available, because even if there may be a very strong motive for the accused persons to commit a particular crime, they cannot be convicted if the evidence of eyewitnesses is not convincing. In the same way, even if there may not be an apparent motive but if the evidence of the eyewitnesses is clear and reliable, the absence or inadequacy of motive cannot stand in the way of convictionvery recent judgment titled as Sukhpal Singh v. State of Punjab reported in 2019 SCC OnLine SC 178, has held that the inability of the prosecution to establish motive in a case of circumstantial evidence is not always fatal to the prosecution case. Relevant part from the aforesaid judgment is extracted below:

"15. The last submission which we are called upon to deal with is that there is no motive established against the Appellant for committing murder. It is undoubtedly true that the question of motive may assume significance in a prosecution case based on circumstantial evidence. But the question is whether in a case of circumstantial evidence inability on the part of the prosecution to establish a motive is fatal to the prosecution case. We would think that while it is true that if the prosecution establishes a motive for the accused to commit a crime it will undoubtedly strengthen the prosecution version based on circumstantial evidence, but that is far cry from saying that the absence of a motive for the commission of the crime by the accused will irrespective of other SC No. 58298/2016 FIR no. 161/2009 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Jeevak Nagpal @ Veevek Nagpal Page 121 of 132 material available before the Court by way of circumstantial evidence be fatal to the prosecution. In such circumstances, on account of the circumstances which stand established by evidence as discussed above, we find no merit in the appeal and same shall stand dismissed."

39.6. As upheld in the above said judgments, the presence of motive is important in a case based on circumstances but the absence of motive is not fatal if the case is otherwise proved. In the present case there is ample evidence which have been independently proved by the witnesses in their testimonies and also through the exhibits regarding the possible motive. As we have already discussed that the family of the accused was in heavy debt at the relevant time, same forms the foundation of motive to commit the offence which is under consideration. The witnesses are mainly from the side of the accused himself being known to him and are reliable. The testimony of the bank manager is also creditworthy. Therefore it can be safely upheld that the prosecution has proved the presence of motive in the present case.

40. In cases based on circumstantial evidence section 106 of the evidence act also becomes highly relevant. As the offences are done in privacy and efforts are made to wipe out the evidences the provisions of section 106 of the evidence act become a helping tool to find out the truth. This section 106 of the evidence act lays down as under:

"106. When any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him."

It is important to consider in what type of cases the provisions of section 106 can be SC No. 58298/2016 FIR no. 161/2009 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Jeevak Nagpal @ Veevek Nagpal Page 122 of 132 of help to the court. In the case of Trimukh Maroti Kirkan Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2006)10 SCC 681, the Hon'ble Supreme Court interpreted the provisions of Section 106 Evidence Act and observed that "here it is necessary to keep in mind Section 106 of the Evidence Act which says that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him. Illustration (b) appended to this section throws some light on the content and scope of this provision and it reads:

"(b) A is charged with traveling on a railway without ticket. The burden of proving that he had a ticket is on him."

(Para 14) It was further observed that "in view of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, there will be a corresponding burden on the inmates of the house to give a cogent explanation as to how the crime was committed. The inmates of the house cannot get away by simply keeping quiet and offering no explanation on the supposed premise that the burden to establish its case lies entirely upon the prosecution and there is no duty at all on an accused to offer any explanation."

40.1. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Gorakh Ramkrushna Mourya vs Palghar Police Station on 25 July, 2011, has held as under:

22. Considering the principles culled out in the aforesaid decisions, we may observe that when an offence like murder is committed in secrecy inside a house, the amount of evidence to be led by the prosecution to establish the charge certainly cannot be the same degree as is required in other cases of circumstantial evidence.

SC No. 58298/2016 FIR no. 161/2009 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Jeevak Nagpal @ Veevek Nagpal Page 123 of 132

Section 106 of the Evidence Act is designed to meet certain exceptional cases in which it would be impossible, or at any rate disproportionately difficult, for the prosecution to establish facts which are "especially" within the knowledge of the accused and which he could prove without difficulty or inconvenience. Thus, in view of Section 106 of the Evidence Act there was a corresponding burden on the accused no. 1 to give a cogent explanation as to how the offence was committed and what caused the death of the deceased. The accused no. 1 cannot get away by simply keeping quiet and offering no explanation on the supposed premise that the burden to establish its case lies entirely upon the prosecution and there is no duty at all on an accused to offer any explanation.

40.2. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in CRL.A. 453/1999 titled as Mukesh vs State dated 28 March, 2014 held as under:

"16. The question of burden of proof where some facts are within the personal knowledge of the accused was examined in State of W.B. vs. Mir Mohd. Omar, (2000) 8 SCC 382 where the Hon‟ble Apex Court took note of the provisions of Section 106 of the Evidence Act and laid down the following principle in paras 31 to 34 of the reports:

"31. The pristine rule that the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused should not be taken as a fossilised doctrine as though it admits no process of intelligent reasoning. The doctrine of presumption is not alien to the above rule, nor would it impair the temper of the rule. On the other hand, if the traditional rule relating to burden of proof of the SC No. 58298/2016 FIR no. 161/2009 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Jeevak Nagpal @ Veevek Nagpal Page 124 of 132 prosecution is allowed to be wrapped in pedantic coverage, the offenders in serious offences would be the major beneficiaries and the society would be the casualty.

32. In this case, when the prosecution succeeded in establishing the afore-narrated circumstances, the court has to presume the existence of certain facts. Presumption is a course recognised by the law for the court to rely on in conditions such as this.

33. Presumption of fact is an inference as to the existence of one fact from the existence of some other facts, unless the truth of such inference is disproved. Presumption of fact is a rule in law of evidence that a fact otherwise doubtful may be inferred from certain other proved facts. When inferring the existence of a fact from other set of proved facts, the court exercises a process of reasoning and reaches a logical conclusion as the most probable position. The above principle has gained legislative recognition in India when Section 114 is incorporated in the Evidence Act. It empowers the court to presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened. In that process the court shall have regard to the common course of natural events, human conduct etc. in relation to the facts of the case.

34. When it is proved to the satisfaction of the court that Mahesh was abducted by the accused and they took him out of that area, the accused alone knew what happened to him until he was with them. If he was found murdered within a short time after the abduction the permitted reasoning process would enable the court to draw the presumption that the accused have murdered him. Such inference can be disrupted if the accused would tell the SC No. 58298/2016 FIR no. 161/2009 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Jeevak Nagpal @ Veevek Nagpal Page 125 of 132 court what else happened to Mahesh at least until he was in their custody."

40.3. In the case of Sunil Mahadeo Jadhav Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2013) 15 SCC 177, Section 106 of Evidence Act was further discussed and Hon'ble Court observed as hereunder:­ "36. Section 106 of the Evidence Act states that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him. Since it was Accused 1 who had arrested the deceased at 00.45 a.m on 17-12-1985 and kept the deceased in police lock-up after his arrest was complete, it was for Accused 1 to explain the injuries on the body of the deceased other than those which were noticed in Ext. 76.

Accused 1 has not stated anything in this regard in his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "CrPC") nor adduced any evidence in defence to explain these injuries. In the absence of any explanation by Accused 1 or any evidence adduced on behalf of Accused 1 to explain these injuries on the body of the deceased, there can be no escape from the conclusion that these injuries have been caused on the body of the deceased by Accused 1 and no one else." (emphasis supplied) 40.4. In State of Rajasthan Vs. Thakur Singh, (2014) 12 SCC 211, the Court while interpreting the provisions of Section 106 of Evidence Act referred to some earlier cases and held as hereunder:­ "16. Way back in Shambhu Nath Mehra v.

State of Ajmer 1 this Court dealt with the interpretation of Section 106 of the SC No. 58298/2016 FIR no. 161/2009 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Jeevak Nagpal @ Veevek Nagpal Page 126 of 132 Evidence Act and held that the section is not intended to shift the burden of proof (in respect of a crime) on the accused but to take care of a situation where a fact is known only to the accused and it AIR 1956 SC 404 is well nigh impossible or extremely difficult for the prosecution to prove that fact. It was said: (AIR p. 406, para 11) "11.

This [Section 101] lays down the general rule that in a criminal case the burden of proof is on the prosecution and Section 106 is certainly not intended to relieve it of that duty. On the contrary, it is designed to meet certain exceptional cases in which it would be impossible, or at any rate disproportionately difficult, for the prosecution to establish facts which are "especially" within the knowledge of the accused and which he could prove without difficulty or inconvenience.

The word "especially" stresses that. It means facts that are pre-eminently or exceptionally within his knowledge. If the section were to be interpreted otherwise, it would lead to the very startling conclusion that in a murder case the burden lies on the accused to prove that he did not commit the murder because who could know better than he whether he did or did not."

40.5. In the case of Rajender @ Rajesh @ Raju vs State (NCT of Delhi), (2019) 10 SCC 623, the Hon'ble Court observed as hereunder:­ "12.2.4 Having observed so, it is crucial to note that the reasonableness of the explanation offered by the accused as to how and when he/she parted company with the deceased has a bearing on the effect of the last seen in a case. Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 provides SC No. 58298/2016 FIR no. 161/2009 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Jeevak Nagpal @ Veevek Nagpal Page 127 of 132 that the burden of proof for any fact that is especially within the knowledge of a person lies upon such person. Thus, if a person is last seen with the deceased, he must offer an explanation as to how and when he parted company with the deceased. In other words, he must furnish an explanation that appears to the Court to be probable and satisfactory, and if he fails to offer such an explanation on the basis of facts within his special knowledge, the burden cast upon him under Section 106 is not discharged. Particularly in cases resting on circumstantial evidence, if the accused fails to offer a reasonable explanation in discharge of the burden placed on him, such failure by itself can provide an additional link in the chain of circumstances proved against him. This, however, does not mean that Section 106 shifts the burden of proof of a criminal trial on the accused. Such burden always rests on the prosecution. Section 106 only lays down the rule that when the accused does not throw any light upon facts which are especially within his/her knowledge and which cannot support any theory or hypothesis compatible with his innocence, the Court can consider his failure to adduce an explanation as an additional link which completes the chain of incriminating circumstances.

40.6. In the present case, there are certain facts which are exclusively within the knowledge of the accused and those facts are very much material. On the date of incident the accused was at Sector 24 Rohini during the time the death of the SC No. 58298/2016 FIR no. 161/2009 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Jeevak Nagpal @ Veevek Nagpal Page 128 of 132 victim as per medical evidence had occurred. The car of the accused had broken down and he was waiting for the prosecution witness PW 15, PW 16 and PW 19. These witnesses were made to wait for more than half an hour. Sector 24 Rohini what is secluded place in the year 2009. This fact was exclusively within the knowledge of the accused but no explanation was given by the accused in this regard . Hence an adverse inference can be deduced. The accused has also not furnished any explanation as to how the SIM bearing number 9873883039 got transferred into the TIA phone bearing IMEI number 354101000203940 wherefrom ransom SMSs were sent to the father of the deceased on his mobile bearing number 9811092230. There were various calls made by the accused during the relevant time with his mobile number 9873883039 while the SIM remained in TIA phone. No explanation has been given with regard to these evidences. These evidences were proved by the independent witnesses through the digital data that is CDR off the phones. This fact was exclusively within the knowledge of the accused. The ld. counsel for the accused has denied the recovery of the TIA phone stating it to be a planted one but no explanation has been given as to how the mobile number 9873883039 of the accused got transferred into the TIA phone as proved by PW6 Israr Babu through exhibits Ex. PW6/F & Ex.PW6/T. Therefore the burden had shifted on the accused with regard to these specific points which were exclusively within the knowledge of the accused. In the absence of any valid explanation the accused comes out as the main culprit.

40.7. From the CDRs, it has been further proved that the location of accused was within the area from where the deceased child was kidnapped, murdered and after murder, his dead body was disposed of by the accused. The voice samples taken of the accused further proves that in the call made by PW5 Devender @ SC No. 58298/2016 FIR no. 161/2009 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Jeevak Nagpal @ Veevek Nagpal Page 129 of 132 Dev from the mobile phone of his friend PW25 Ajit Singh Mahendru, in which the conversation between the accused and PW5 got recorded, the voice of accused has matched. Even the voice contained in the said conversation of deceased child, has been identified by his father Rajesh Mahajan (PW36). Even the recovery of dead body was made on the basis of disclosure statement of accused, which was exclusively within the knowledge of the accused. Even the subsequent recoveries of register & ball pens, which the deceased child had purchased on the day of the incident, were recovered at the instance of accused. The weapon of offence with which the injuries were caused on the body of deceased by the accused prior to committing his murder, was also recovered from the car of the accused. So, all these facts prove that chain of evidence is complete and it points out accusing finger towards the accused that the offences in question were committed by the accused .

Intention on the part of accused to kidnap & murder the child Manan Mahajan

41. After having gone through the whole discussion, not only the chain of circumstances point out towards the commission of offences committed by the accused, but also the intention to cause murder of child Manan Mahajan (since deceased) as per the definition of Section 300 IPC is also made out. There are messages, which were sent by the accused to father of deceased child namely Rajesh Mahajan (PW36) from his TIA mobile phone bearing SIM no. 9990401054, which was recovered from him after his arrest. The said messages clearly reflect the intention of the accused, whereby he has threatened that child will be put to death if the ransom amount is not given. One of the message sent by the accused is that if the ransom amount is not given, one finger will be cut after every 15 SC No. 58298/2016 FIR no. 161/2009 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Jeevak Nagpal @ Veevek Nagpal Page 130 of 132 minutes and after cutting of fingers the child will be no more. Another message sent by the accused to father of accused reads like "jitni aasani se tere bete ko uthaya hai, utni aasani hum tumhare ghar ko bhi uda sakte hain". There tone and tenor of these messages points out that the accused was having intention to murder the innocent child. So, the requirement as per section 300 IPC is made out from the chain of circumstances itself. The accused had taken defence that he had not committed the offences in question and the some other person had committed the same. However in view of the aforesaid discussion, it is clear that it was the accused only who had kidnapped the child Manan on 18/03/2009, thereafter committed his murder and then disposed of his body by throwing it in a "naali".

42. From the aforesaid discussion, it has been proved on record that the accused had kidnapped the minor child Manan (deceased) out of the lawful guardianship of his father­complainant Brijesh Mahajan as well as of his parents, detained him and threatened to cause death of said minor conveyed to his guardian i.e. father Rajesh Mahajan to pay ransom to the tune of crores of rupees. It has also been proved on record that after kidnapping the minor child Manan Mahajan (since deceased), he committed his murder by intentionally killing him. It has further been proved on record that he caused the evidence of the case to disappear i.e. by disposing the dead body of deceased child in a dry drain with an intention to screen himself from legal punishment. It has also been proved on record that the accused had criminally intimidated the father of the deceased and threatened to kill the deceased child. The chain of evidence has established that all the incriminating circumstances clearly point out towards the accused. The circumstances also proved that the offences must have been committed by the SC No. 58298/2016 FIR no. 161/2009 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Jeevak Nagpal @ Veevek Nagpal Page 131 of 132 accused and no one else. Ld. Counsel for the accused had taken the plea that it were PW5, PW25 and PW26 who had actually committed the offences and the child was in their custody, but this argument does not hold good in view of the aforesaid reasons whereby we have already established that the child was to the side of the accused and the PW5, PW25 and PW26 as shown by the CDR, were at the relevant time at Chattarpur. So, the argument of ld. Defence counsel in this regard is not acceptable and the chain clearly establishes that the offences were committed by no other person than the accused.

43. Accordingly the accused is held guilty for the offences u/s 364A/302/201/506 IPC and is convicted thereunder.

                                                                                            Digitally signed

Announced in the open Court
                                                                            SHIVAJI         by SHIVAJI
                                                                                            ANAND
today i.e. on 30th of September, 2020                                       ANAND
                                                                            (Shivaji Anand) Date: 2020.09.30
                                                                                            17:15:13 +0530
                                                               Additional Sessions Judge­04
                                                           North District/Rohini Courts/Delhi




SC No. 58298/2016   FIR no. 161/2009 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Jeevak Nagpal @ Veevek Nagpal   Page 132 of 132