Delhi District Court
Cbi vs Shashank Jadon on 20 September, 2025
DLCT110017762019
IN THE COURT OF MS. JYOTI KLER
SPL. JUDGE (PC ACT) CBI-18
ROUSE AVENUE DISTRICT COURTS : DELHI
CNR No. DLCT11-001776-2019
Case No. SC/23/2019
FIR No. : RC-03(S)/2016/CBI/SC-III/New Delhi
u/Sec. 120-B r/w 302, 307, 398 & 201 IPC and 25 & 27 Arms Act, 1959.
Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI)
Vs.
1. Shashank Jadon
S/o Shivpal Singh
R/o R-132, Sector-12, Advocate Colony,
Pratap Vihar, Vijay Nagar,
Ghaziabad, U.P.
2. Manoj Kumar @ Thekedar @ Mistri
S/o Daulat Ram
R/o H.No. 84, Gali No.2, Sarvodaya Nagar,
Vijay Nagar, Ghaziabad, U.P.
.....Accused Persons
Date of Institution : 29.08.2017
[Before Special Judicial
Magistrate (CBI) Ghaziabad]
CBI v. Shashank Jadon & Anr. Page 1/184
Date of Institution : 09.09.2019
[Before this Court]
Date on which Judgment Reserved : 11.08.2025
Date of Judgment : 20.09.2025
Decision : Conviction
Free legal aid facilities for pursuing higher remedies are available to the
convicts as per "The Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987". They may
approach any of the following offices for seeking appropriate guidance:
1. Delhi State Legal Services Authority, 3rd Floor, Rouse Avenue District
Court Complex, Pandit Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Marg, New Delhi -110002.
Help Line: 15100 & 1516; Phone No. 9870101337; E-mail: lae-
[email protected]
2. Office of the Secretary - II, Central District Legal Services Authority,
Front Office, Ground Floor, Rouse Avenue Courts Complex, Delhi. Mobile
No. 9810420894; E-mail: [email protected]
3. Office of the Secretary, Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee, 34-
38, Lawyers Chamber, Delhi High Court, New Delhi. Phone No. 011-
23383418; E-mail: [email protected] & [email protected]
JUDGMENT
Background:
1. Ankit Chauhan, a young Engineer employed with TCS, was shot dead in the broad daylight on 13.04.2015. This incident occurred at Barola Byepass, Sector 50, Noida, U.P. (hereinafter 'place of incident'). Ankit Chauhan was returning to his home at that time in his new car make Fortuner bearing temporary number UDB 0044239. He was accompanied by Gagan CBI v. Shashank Jadon & Anr. Page 2/184 Dudhoriya, his friend, who survived the attack and is the sole eye witness of the prosecution.
2. Dharamvir Chauhan (hereinafter referred as 'the complainant'), father of Ankit Chauhan, lodged a complaint of the incident which was registered as FIR No. 207/2015 at PS Sector 49, Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P.
3. Complainant alleged that Ankit Chauhan was returning home from Sector 135, Noida, U.P. alongwith Gagan Dudhoriya, when his Fortuner car was overtaken and stopped by a Honda Accord car bearing No. UP-14BA-2300 at the place of incident. Two boys came out of the said Honda Accord car. They fired gun shots at Ankit Chauhan who suffered fatal injuries. The boys ran away after firing the gun shots. Ankit Chauhan was taken to Kailash Hospital, Sector 27, Noida, U.P., where he was declared brought dead.
4. The Noida Police could not trace the culprits for a long time. The complainant therefore approached the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad and sought CBI investigation into the matter. His request was allowed by the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad vide Order dated 26.04.2016 and investigation of this case was transferred to the CBI.
5. The CBI registered a fresh FIR and the matter was investigated.
Investigation resulted into arrest of the two accused persons, namely, Shashank Jadon & Manoj Kumar, who are accused no. 1 & 2 respectively, before this Court.
CBI v. Shashank Jadon & Anr. Page 3/1846. Shashank Jadon is also a young engineer from the prestigious Delhi College of Engineering. Manoj Kumar is working as a driver currently. Shashank Jadon is in custody since the time of his arrest while Manoj Kumar was admitted to bail by the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad.
7. "As you sow, so shall you reap". Your deeds return to reward or haunt you. Shashank Jadon chose the path of crime to earn quick money instead of relying upon his impressive qualification. He was able to evade the investigation agencies for more than two years. However, as they say, the fates always find their way. A detailed analysis of registration numbers of white colour cars make Honda Accord by DSP Deepak, a brilliant officer of CBI, led him to the culprits finally.
Investigation by the CBI:
8. CBI had registered the FIR in this case on 14.06.2016. They came across a registration No. UP-14AB-2200 during investigation. This number had been assigned to a white colour car make Honda Accord. Since this number was very similar to the number UP-14BA-2300, investigation was conducted to ascertain the identity of its owner. This led the CBI to Shashank Jadon, who was arrested on 01.06.2017. He disclosed about the involvement of co-accused Manoj Kumar @ Thekedar @ Mistri. On the basis of his disclosure, accused Manoj Kumar was arrested on 02.06.2017.
9. Both Shashank Jadon & Manoj Kumar also disclosed about the involvement of a third person, namely, Pankaj Kumar @ Pankaj Raghav. CBI found out that Pankaj Kumar @ Pankaj Raghav had expired already on 25.10.2016.
CBI v. Shashank Jadon & Anr. Page 4/18410. Investigation revealed that the accused Shashank Jadon had opened a real estate office in the name of M/s Infraguru Developers in partnership with one Mohit Joon in August, 2014. He suffered heavy losses in this business and was under debt.
11. Co-accused Pankaj Kumar (since expired) was a friend of Shashank Jadon. Their fathers used to work together for Railways. He suggested to Shashank Jadon that they may rob a new Fortuner car and sell it to one Satpal Bhati, who used to deal in stolen vehicles, to earn easy money.
12. Shashank Jadon liked the proposal of Pankaj Kumar, who suggested that for carrying out the robbery of Fortuner car they may use his licensed .32 bore revolver and the robbery shall be committed on national highway. They involved the accused Manoj Kumar also in their plan.
13. All the three above-named accused persons met on 12.04.2015 at Bypass Police Post, Vijay Nagar, Ghaziabad and conspired the robbery of a new Fortuner car. It was planned that the white colour Honda Accord car of accused Shashank Jadon shall be used in committing the robbery. Pankaj Kumar shall arrange for two fire arms, i.e. his own licensed .32 bore revolver and one more weapon, which will be used for committing the robbery.
14. Pursuant to this conspiracy, accused Shashank Jadon visited a car accessory vendor near his house at Vijay Nagar, Ghaziabad, U.P. and ordered for preparation of one pair each of two fake number plates. The first number was UP-14BA-2300 for Honda Accord car and another number was UP-16CJ-0032 for the Fortuner car that was to be robbed. The fake number CBI v. Shashank Jadon & Anr. Page 5/184 plate of Honda Accord car was got made so it becomes easy to conceal identity of the car.
15. It was also decided amongst the accused persons that after robbing the vehicle at gun point, Shashank Jadon will go back to his home in his Honda Accord car while Pankaj Kumar and Manoj Kumar will go to Sikandrabad, Bulandshaher with the robbed car for delivering it to Satpal Bhati.
16. On 13.04.2015, accused Shashank Jadon picked up Manoj Kumar and Pankaj Kumar in his Honda Accord car. Pankaj was carrying one licensed .32 bore revolver and one countrymade pistol. They moved towards Noida & contacted Satpal Bhati, who refused to join them. Pankaj handed over the .32 bore revolver (hereinafter also referred as 'weapon of offence') to Shashank Jadon and countrymade pistol to Manoj Kumar. At about 11:00AM, they reached near Yamuna Banks, behind Amity University, Noida, where accused Manoj Kumar changed the number plate of Honda Accord car from UP-14AB-2200 to UP-14BA-2300.
17. The accused persons located a new Fortuner car of Ankit Chauhan at about 3:00 PM. This Car was located by them in front of the office of Accenture at Sector 135, Noida. Ankit Chauhan had gone to that office along with his friend Gagan Dudhoriya to meet Amisha Chauhan, his newly wedded wife. Amisha Chauhan used to work in the Accenture Office.
18. The three accused persons waited for Ankit Chauhan to come out of Accenture Office. Ankit Chauhan and Gagan Dudhoriya came out at about CBI v. Shashank Jadon & Anr. Page 6/184 4:00PM and left in the Fortuner car for the house of Ankit Chauhan, which was located at Pratiek Visteria, Sector 76, Noida, U.P.
19. The Honda Accord car was being driven by Pankaj Kumar. Shashank Jadon was sitting on left front side and Manoj Kumar was sitting on the left side of the rear seat. They followed the Fortuner car of Ankit Chauhan. When the Fortuner car reached near Barola Byepass, Sector-50, Noida, at about 4:15PM, it was overtaken by the Honda Accord car. Accused Shashank Jadon and Manoj Kumar came out of the said Car. They brandished the fire arms that they were carrying. They shouted at Ankit Chauhan signalling him to stop the vehicle and hand over the keys to them. Accused Shashank Jadon also fired four bullets from .32 bore revolver aiming towards the Fortuner car. Ankit Chauhan turned the car left and attempted to escape but the car hit a tree and stopped. At this point, accused Shashank Jadon went near the Fortuner car, opened the driver's gate and tried to open the seat belt of Ankit Chauhan, who by then was bleeding profusely after suffering gun shot injuries. Shashank Jadon could not open the seat belt, panicked on realising that he may be caught and fled away alongwith the other co-accused persons.
20. One of the four bullets fired by Shashank Jadon was aimed at Gagan Dudhoriya also, who was sitting on the left front seat of the Fortuner car. Gagan Dudhoriya ducked immediately and the bullet had hit the upper part of the left front seat.
21. Gagan Dudhoria immediately took Ankit Chauhan to hospital but Ankit Chauhan did not survive unfortunately.
CBI v. Shashank Jadon & Anr. Page 7/18422. CBI examined all the relevant witnesses during investigation. The exhibits collected from the place of incident, the hospital and during recovery proceedings carried out on the basis of disclosure statements of the accused persons, were sent to CFSL. These exhibits included the bullets recovered from the Fortuner car & body of Ankit Chauhan, empty cartridges, pieces of broken glasses collected from the Fortuner car and the ground, the blood soaked & normal soil, the revolver used in committing the crime and the clothes worn by the accused Shashank on the day of incident.
23. CFSL report confirmed that the bullets recovered from the spot & from body of Ankit Chauhan, had been fired from a single .32 bore revolver bearing no. FG-11567, belonging to the accused Pankaj Kumar (since expired). The handwriting on the sale letter of Honda Accord car and in the register recovered from Shan Malik, the car accessories vendor, was also sent to CFSL which opined that the questioned handwriting was of accused Shashank Jadon.
Chargesheet and Pre-trial Proceedings:
24. CBI filed the chargesheet on completion of investigation for the offences punishable u/Sec. 302, 307, 398 & 201 IPC r/w Sec. 120-B IPC and Sec. 25 & 27 of the Arms Act, 1959. The chargesheet was filed before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Noida, U.P. who took cognizance of the offence. Section 207 Cr.P.C. was complied and the matter was committed to the Court of Ld. Special Judge (CBI), Ghaziabad, for trial.
25. The trial was transferred to Delhi by the directions of Hon'ble Supreme Court vide Order dated 02.08.2019 and was assigned to this Court.
CBI v. Shashank Jadon & Anr. Page 8/18426. When the file was received in this Court, charge had already been framed and some of the witnesses had already been examined. The charge was framed by the Court of Ld. Special Judge (PC Act) (CBI), Ghaziabad vide Order dated 31.01.2019. The Ld. Special Judge held vide the said Order that a prima facie case for the offences punishable u/Sec. 120B r/w 302/307/398/201 IPC with substantive offences thereof and the offences punishable u/Sec. 25 & 27 of the Arms Act was made out against the accused Shashank Jadon, while offences punishable u/Sec. 120B r/w 302/34, 307/34, 398 & 201 IPC with substantive offences thereof were made out against accused Manoj Kumar.
27. Charge was framed against the accused persons accordingly to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
28. When the chargesheet against accused Shashank Jadon & Manoj Kumar was filed by the CBI, one more co-accused, namely, Satpal Bhati, was in their custody. CBI suspected that he was the kingpin of entire conspiracy. Permission was sought by the CBI to continue investigation against him u/Sec. 173(8) Cr.P.C. and later, a supplementary report was filed in the form of closure qua him. Satpal Bhati was included in the array of witnesses vide this report on the premise that he was approached by the accused persons alongwith Pankaj Kumar (deceased) with request to arrange a robbed vehicle to steal another one, but he had refused. This report was accepted by my Ld. Predecessor Court vide Order dated 03.10.2020.
CBI v. Shashank Jadon & Anr. Page 9/184Prosecution's Evidence:
29. The prosecution examined total 57 witnesses in support of its case. The details of these witnesses are as below:-
S.No. Examined Particulars Relevancy Whether as Cross-
examined
29.1. PW-1 Dharamvir Chauhan Complainant and Yes. By both
father of Ankit the accused
Chauhan. persons.
29.2. PW-2 Arvind Kushwaha Medical Officer, Yes. By both
who conducted the the accused
postmortem of persons.
deceased Ankit
Chauhan.
29.3. PW-3 Anil Kumar Singh Seller of white Yes. By the
Honda Accord car accused
having registration Shashank
No. Jadon.
UP-14AB-2200 to
the car dealer
Sachin & Gaurav.
29.4. PW-4 Gaurav Gandhi Buyer of Honda Yes. By the
Accord car bearing accused
registration No. Shashank
UP-14AB-2200 Jadon.
from PW-3 and
seller of the same to
accused Shashank
Jadon. He is a car
dealer.
29.5. PW-5 Gagan Dudhoriya He is the eye Yes. By both
witness. the accused
persons.
CBI v. Shashank Jadon & Anr. Page 10/184
29.6. PW-6 Rohit Surana Cousin brother of No.
Gagan Dudhoriya,
who proved that the
mobile number that
Gagan Dudhoriya
was carrying at the
time of incident had
the SIM Card
issued in his name.
29.7. PW-7 Shashank Garg @ He is friend of the Yes. By CBI
Mitu accused Shashank on being
Jadon who declared
allegedly met him hostile, and
on the date of also by both
incident. This the accused
witness did not persons.
support the case of
prosecution.
29.8. PW-8 Dr. Sarika Chandra She had handed No.
over the relevant
documents
pertaining to
admission and
postmortem of
Ankit Chauhan in
Kailash Hospital.
29.9. PW-9 Rambhool Chauhan He is the buyer of Yes. By both
Honda Accord car the accused
bearing registration persons.
No.
UP-14AB-2200
from the accused
Shashank Jadon.
The car was sold a
few months after
commission of the
CBI v. Shashank Jadon & Anr. Page 11/184
offence.
29.10. PW-10 SI Gurubachan The Duty Officer No.
Singh who registered the
FIR No. 207/2015
at PS Sector 49,
Noida.
29.11. PW-11 Naresh Kumar He is cousin of Yes. By both
Chauhan Ankit Chauhan, to the accused
whom he had given persons.
a call when he was
being followed by
the Honda Accord
car.
29.12. PW-12 Sachin Kumar He is owner of No.
Mahindra Scorpio
(Grey colour)
having registration
No.
UP-14BA-2300.
The Honda Accord
car used in
commission of
crime was bearing
the fake number
plate with this
number.
29.13. PW-13 Prateek Gupta Friend of Ankit Yes. By both
Chuahan, to whom the accused
he had given a call persons.
when he was being
followed by the
Honda Accord car.
29.14. PW-14 Rahul Chaudhary Friend of accused Yes. By both
Shashank Jadon, the accused
who had persons.
accompanied him
CBI v. Shashank Jadon & Anr. Page 12/184
to a trip to Goa and
thereafter to
Rajasthan (Jaipur &
Jodhpur in the year
2017/2018).
Accused Shashank
Jadon had disclosed
to him that he
apprehended being
caught in a murder
case because of the
tatoo on his left
hand.
29.15. PW-15 N. B. Bardhan Scientific Officer Yes. By both
(Ballistics) from the accused
CFSL, New Delhi, persons.
who had examined
the seized weapon,
recovered bullets &
empty cartridges.
29.16. PW-16 Vijay Verma Senior Scientific Yes. By both
Assistant the accused
(Documents), FSL, persons.
Delhi, who had
examined the
questioned
handwriting of
accused Shashank
Jadon.
29.17. PW-17 Dr. B. K. Mohapatra Principal Scientific Yes. By both
Officer (Biology), the accused
CFSL, CBI, New persons.
Delhi, who had
examined the blood
soaked exhibits
collected from the
CBI v. Shashank Jadon & Anr. Page 13/184
spot of crime & the
hospital. He opined
that a single DNA
profile was
generated from all
the blood soaked
exhibits.
29.18. PW-18 HC Bresh Pal Singh The specimen No.
handwriting of
accused Shashank
Jadon was taken in
his presence. He
was posted as Jail
Wardon in Dasna
Jail during that
time.
29.19. PW-19 Virendra Pal Sharma He had handed over No.
the death certificate
of accused Pankaj
(since expired) to
CBI.
29.20. PW-20 Dr. Ashok Malik He had issued some No.
medical documents
and death
certificate of
accused Pankaj
(since expired).
29.21. PW-21 Dr. Anil Verma He had given No.
medical treatment
to accused Pankaj
(since expired)
when he was
unwell.
29.22. PW-22 HC Dharmendra He was on PCR Yes. By both
Singh duty on 13.04.2015 the accused
and had visited persons.
CBI v. Shashank Jadon & Anr. Page 14/184
Kailash Hospital
for getting
postmortem of
Ankit Chauhan
done on the
instructions of
SHO, PS Sector 49,
Noida.
29.23. PW-23 Pradeep Kumar City Magistrate Yes. By both
Dubey Ghaziabad, who the accused
had conducted the persons.
TIP of Shashank
Jadon and Manoj
Kumar
29.24. PW-24 Yogesh Tripathi He had handed over No.
CAF and CDR of
mobile no.
8882922154 issued
to Rohit Surana.
29.25. PW-25 Sandeep Kumar He is the Deputy No.
Branch Manager of
IndusInd Bank, and
had supplied the
Account Opening
Form and KYC
documents of
accused Shashank
Jadon to the CBI.
29.26. PW-26 Saurabh Aggarwal He is the Nodal No.
Officer of Vodafone
Mobile Service Ltd.
and had handed
over the CAF and
CDR of mobile No.
9999720103 to the
CBI. This number
CBI v. Shashank Jadon & Anr. Page 15/184
was issued to Ankit
Chauhan.
29.27. PW-27 Nakul Gheek He is the Manager Yes. By both
of Punjab National the accused
Bank, Chandni persons.
Chowk, in whose
presence one
register was seized
from Shan Malik.
29.28. PW-28 Veer Singh He is the Arms No.
Clerk from the
office of District
Magistrate,
Ghaziabad, who
proved the
documents
pertaining to
issuance of Arms
License to the
accused Pankaj
(since expired).
29.29. PW-29 Vishwajeet Pratap He is the official No.
Singh from Assistant
Registrar
(Transport),
Ghaziabad, who
had proved the
documents
pertaining to
registration of
Honda Accord car
bearing No.
UP-14AB-2200
that was used in
commission of
offence. The
CBI v. Shashank Jadon & Anr. Page 16/184
vehicle was last
registered in the
name of Anil
Kumar as per these
documents.
29.30. PW-30 Harpreet Singh The used Honda Yes. By both
Accord car the accused
UP-14AB-2200 persons.
was first purchased
by him from
Hyundai showroom
in the year 2011 or
2012 and then sold
to Gaurav Gandhi,
who further sold it
to Anil.
29.31. PW-31 Arvinder Singh He is engaged into No.
the business of
automobiles. The
mechanical
inspection of
Honda Accord car
bearing No.
UP-14AB-2200
was done by him.
29.32. PW-32 Nirmal Arvind He is the Manager Yes. By both
Kerketta (Vigilance) from the accused
United India persons.
Insurance
Company. He had
handed over the file
related to insurance
claim made in
respect of the
Fortuner car of
Ankit Chauhan, to
CBI v. Shashank Jadon & Anr. Page 17/184
the CBI. The
number of this car
is UK-07BJ-3152
(permanent) &
UDB-0044239
(temporary).
29.33. PW-33 Deepak Aggarwal He purchased the Yes. By both
weapon of offence the accused
from the accused persons.
Pankaj Kumar
(since deceased).
29.34. PW-34 Neeraj Kamboj He had joined the Yes. By both
search proceedings the accused
dated 04.07.2017 persons.
carried out by the
CBI in the house of
accused Shashank
Jadon.
29.35. PW-35 Kamal Songara He is from NHPC. Yes. By both
He had joined the the accused
recovery persons.
proceedings on
05.06.2017 carried
out by the CBI in
the house of
accused Shashank
Jadon and also the
recovery
proceedings dated
06.06.2017 when
the weapon of
offence was seized
from Deepak
Aggarwal. He also
identified the
disclosure
CBI v. Shashank Jadon & Anr. Page 18/184
statements of both
the accused
persons.
29.36. PW-36 Anshul Bohra He is friend of the Yes. By CBI
accused Shashank on having
Jadon who did not been declared
support the case of hostile & also
prosecution. He by both the
deposed that he had accused
met Shashank 2-3 persons.
times and for the
last time out of
these he had met
him at Jaipur after
the year 2016.
29.37. PW-37 Dr. Anu Bhushan He is a plastic Yes. By both
surgeon. Accused the accused
Shashank Jadon persons.
had allegedly
visited him for
removal of the tatoo
on his left hand.
29.38. PW-38 Dr. Vishal Chugh He is a plastic Yes. By both
surgeon. Accused the accused
Shashank Jadon persons.
had allegedly
visited him for
removal of the tatoo
on his left hand.
29.39. PW-39 Darshan Lal He is the public No.
prosecutor who had
joined the TIP
proceedings of
accused Shashank
Jadon & Manoj
Kumar in Dasna
CBI v. Shashank Jadon & Anr. Page 19/184
Jail on behalf of the
State.
29.40. PW-40 Sachin Kumar He is the sub- Yes. By both
inspector from the accused
Special Task Force, persons.
Noida, U.P. who
had handed over
certain documents
related to the
investigation of this
case to the CBI. He
had also joined the
recovery
proceedings on
02.06.2017 in the
house of accused
Manoj Kumar.
29.41. PW-41 Shan Malik He is owner of the Yes. By both
car accessories the accused
shop where the fake persons.
number plates used
in the commission
of crime were
made.
29.42. PW-42 Gurvinder Singh He is the Yes. By both
acquaintance of the accused
accused Pankaj persons.
(since deceased)
and accused
Shashank Jadon
had visited his
house along with
co-accused Pankaj
& Manoj soon after
committing the
offence.
CBI v. Shashank Jadon & Anr. Page 20/184
29.43. PW-43 Piyush Nigam He had joined the Yes. By both
recovery team of the accused
CBI on 08.06.2017 persons.
for the search
proceedings carried
out in the house of
accused Shashank
Jadon.
29.44. PW-44 Baljit Kaur She is the wife of Yes, by CBI
PW-42 Gurvinder on having
Singh. been declared
hostile.
29.45. PW-45 Sripal Singh He is father of the Yes, by CBI
accused Pankaj on having
Kumar (since been declared
expired) hostile and
also by both
the accused
persons.
29.46. PW-46 Mohit Joon He is business Yes. By both
partner of accused the accused
Shashank Jadon, persons.
who was examined
by CBI to prove
that the accused
Shashank Jadon
was facing
financial
constraints.
29.47. PW-47 DSP Sunil Kumar He is first IO of this Yes. By both
case. the accused
persons.
29.48. PW-48 Insp. Ramphal He is Sub-Inspector Yes. By both
Singh from PS Sector-49, the accused
Gautam Budh persons.
Nagar, Noida, U.P.,
CBI v. Shashank Jadon & Anr. Page 21/184
who had handed
over certain
documents to the
CBI.
29.49. PW-49 Major Rohit Sharma He had handed over No.
CCTV footage of
the area outside
Accenture office to
the CBI.
29.50. PW-50 Amisha Chauhan She is the widow of Yes. By both
Ankit Chauhan, the accused
who was working persons.
in Accenture on the
date of incident.
29.51. PW-51 Satpal Bhati The accused Yes. By both
persons had the accused
planned to sell off persons.
the stolen car to
him.
29.52. PW-52 Sumit Garg He is owner of Yes, by CBI
Baba Gun House on having
from whom the been declared
weapon of offence hostile & also
(.32 bore revolver) by both the
was first purchased accused
by the accused persons.
Pankaj Kumar
(since expired) &
later sold back.
29.53. PW-53 Inspector Manoj He is the SHO of Yes. By both
Kumar PS Sector-49, the accused
Gautam Budh persons.
Nagar, Noida, U.P.
who had
investigated the
case before the
CBI v. Shashank Jadon & Anr. Page 22/184
investigation was
taken over by the
CBI.
29.54. PW-54 Brajesh Narain He is the District Yes, by the
Singh Magistrate, Gautam accused no.1.
Budh Nagar, U.P.
who had granted
sanction u/Sec. 39
of the Arms Act,
1959.
29.55. PW-55 R.K. Srivastava Principal Scientific No.
Officer, CFSL, who
had examined the
CCTV footage
seized during the
investigation.
29.56. PW-56 Gautam Roy He is the Scientific Yes, by the
Assistant, CFSL, accused no.1.
who had examined
the iPhone seized
from the accused
Shashank Jadon
29.57. PW-57 DSP Deepak He is the IO of this Yes, by both
case who had the accused
conducted most of persons.
the investigation
and had filed the
chargesheet. The
case was cracked
by him.
30. The prosecution has placed reliance on the following documents in support of its case:CBI v. Shashank Jadon & Anr. Page 23/184
S.No. Document Particulars Exhibit No. Relevancy No.
30.1. D-1 FIR bearing No. Ex.PW47/1 This document RC-03(S)/2016/SC reflects contents
-III/ND dated of the first 14.06.2016, information that registered by the was given to the CBI Police.
30.2. D-2 FIR bearing No. Ex.PW10/A This document
207/2015 dated reflects contents
13.04.2015 of the first
registered at PS information that
Noida, Sector 49, was given to the
Gautam Budh Police.
Nagar, U.P.
30.3. D-2 Copy of report Ex.PW10/B The proceeding
bearing No. 41 related to
dated 13.04.2015 registration of
recorded at PS FIR are recorded
Noida, Sector 49, in this report.
Gautam Budh
Nagar, U.P.
30.4. D-4 Seizure Memo Ex.PW11/B One bullet, some
dated 14.04.2015 broken pieces of
prepared at about a bullet, blood
7:00 AM. soaked & plain
broken pieces of
window pane as
well as blood
soaked footmat
of the car, were
seized vide this
memo from the
Fortuner car
bearing
temporary
CBI v. Shashank Jadon & Anr. Page 24/184
number
UDB-0044239
belonging to
Ankit Chauhan.
30.5. D-5 Seizure Memo Ex.PW11/A Loose and blood
dated 14.04.2015 soaked lump soil
prepared at about as well as pieces
6:00PM. of broken light of
Fortuner car
bearing
temporary No.
UDB-0044239
belonging to
Ankit Chauhan,
were seized from
the place of
incident vide this
memo in the
presence of
Naresh and
Suresh, his
cousins.
30.6. D-6 Written request Ex.PW1/K-1 This document
made to the CMO, reflects that the
District Gautam dead body of
Budh Nagar by the Ankit Chauhan
SHO PS Sector 49, was sent for
Noida, for postmortem by
conducting the Police.
postmortem of
Ankit Chauhan.
30.7. D-6 Postmortem Ex.PW2/K-1 This report lists
Report along with & the injuries which
a brown colour Ex.PW2/1 were found on the envelope. respectively person of Ankit Chauhan. It also CBI v. Shashank Jadon & Anr. Page 25/184 mentions about the cause of death.
30.8. D-7(i) Scene of Crime Ex.PW57/6 This document
& and movement (Colly) describes the
D-7(ii) chart of Ankit scene of crime
Chauhan on the and the route
day of incident. taken by Ankit
Chauhan from
Accenture Office
for going to his
house.
30.9. D-8 Letter dated Ex.PW8/A & This document is
20.07.2017 Ex.PW8/C in the sequence of
addressed to the respectively other documents
Inspector CBI, reflecting about
who is IO of this the cause of death
case, by Dr. Sarika of Ankit
Chandra, Chief Chauhan.
CMO, Kailash
Hospital,
forwarding thereby
a photocopy of the
information sheet
given to the police
after Ankit was
brought to the
hospital; and the
medical certificate
of cause of death.
30.10. D-9 The documents Ex.PW32/A & This document
related to claim of Ex.PW32/B reflects the
insurance with (Colly) damages which
respect to the [The were found on the
Fortuner Car of photographs Fortuner car of Ankit Chauhan, which are part Ankit Chauhan.
CBI v. Shashank Jadon & Anr. Page 26/184which consist of a of Ex.PW32/B The photographs letter dated (Colly) were reflect bullet 30.03.2017 sent to earlier marks on the the CBI by the separately front wind shield, Manager of marked as steering wheel Insurance Mark PW5/1 and front Company, and the (Colly)] passenger sheet.
insurance claim as
well as survey
report prepared by
the Insurance
Company on
receipt of
insurance claim.
The survey report
reflects at page no.
52 (000604) that
the damages on
Fortuner car were
fresh in nature and
were correlating to
the cause of
accident. The
damages were
found on the front
wind screen glass,
steering wheel, LH
headlamp, LH
fender, LH fog
lamp etc. (Page 51;
000605). The
photograph of the
damaged car are
also annexed with
the report showing
bullet marks on
windscreen and
steering wheel.
CBI v. Shashank Jadon & Anr. Page 27/184
30.11. D-10 The letter dated Ex.PW29/A The documents
04.05.2017 sent to (letter) reflect that the
the CBI by the & registration No.
Registering Ex.PW29/B UP-14AB-2200
Authority (Motor (documents) was assigned to Vehicles), white Honda Ghaziabad along (Photocopy of Accord car. This with the Election ID vehicle was documents Card of registered in the pertaining to Harpreet name of Radhika registration of Singh, Enterprises on UP-14AB-2200. annexed with 15.12.2005 and documents, is was transferred to also separately Sh. Anil Singh on exhibited as 21.07.2012.
Ex.PW30/A)
(Exhibit no.
PW29/B is not
put on the
documents &
is
inadvertently
put on D-29).
30.12. D-11 Production-cum- Ex.PW3/2 It reflects seizure
Seizure Memo of documents
dated 06.05.2017. related to the
purchase of
Honda Accord
car bearing No.
UP-14BA-2200
by Anil Kumar
Singh from
Sachin Gandhi.
30.13. D-11 Delivery Receipt Ex.PW3/1 This document
dated 01.05.2012 reflects that the
in favour of Anil car bearing no.
CBI v. Shashank Jadon & Anr. Page 28/184
Singh. UP-14AB-2200
was delivered to
Anil Singh by
Coxsens
Autosavers,
Kaushambi,
Ghaziabad, U.P.
30.14. D-11 Copy of RC Mark PW3/1 This document
pertaining to reflects that the
vehicle no. Honda Accord
UP-14AB-2200. car was registered
in the name of
M/s Radhika
Enterprises on
15.12.2005.
30.15. D-12 Production-cum- Ex.PW4/3 It reflects seizure
Seizure Memo of documents
dated 06.05.2017. related to
delivery by sale
of the car no.
UP-14AB-2200
to Shashank
Jadon, by Gaurav
Gandhi.
30.16. D-12 Cash Receipt in Ex.PW4/1 It reflects that
favour of Shashank Shashank Jadon
Jadon. had purchased the
car bearing No.
UP-14AB-2200
for a
consideration of
Rs. 3,10,000/-.
30.17. D-12 Delivery Receipt Ex.PW4/2 It reflects that car
dated 11.06.2013. bearing No.
UP-14AB-2200
was delivered to
CBI v. Shashank Jadon & Anr. Page 29/184
Shashank Jadon
on 11.06.2013 by
Gaurav Gandhi.
30.18. D-12 Photocopy of the Mark PW4/1 Shiv Pal Singh is
Election ID Card (Colly) the father of
and PAN Card of Shashank Jadon.
Shiv Pal Singh. Documents in
question were
seized from
Gaurav Gandhi
who had sold the
car bearing No.
UP-14AB-2200
to Shashank
Jadon. Shiv Pal
Singh was a
witness to this
transaction.
30.19. D-13 Handing Ex.PW40/A It shows handing
Over/Taking Over over of certain
memo dated documents to the
06.06.2017. CBI by the STF
(West), Gautam
Budh Nagar, U.P.
30.20. D-13 Seizure Memo of Ex.PW40/B It reflects that the
Honda Accord car Honda Accord
bearing No. car was seized on
UP-14AB-2200. 02.06.2017 by
the STF (West),
Gautam Budh
Nagar, U.P. from
the house of
Rambhul
Chauhan in the
presence of his
father and two
CBI v. Shashank Jadon & Anr. Page 30/184
other
independent
witnesses.
30.21. D-13 Registration Ex.PW3/3 & This reflects that
Certificate of Ex.PW40/C the Honda
UP-14AB-2200. Accord car was
transferred to
Anil Kumar. This
transfer was
registered on
28.07.2012.
30.22. D-13 Sale Letter dated Ex.PW9/A It reflects that the
27.11.2015. Honda Accord
car bearing No.
UP-14AB-2200
was sold to
Rambhul
Chauhan by
accused
Shashank Jadon
on 27.11.2015 for
sale
consideration of
Rs.3,00,000/-.
This document
was sent to FSL
for comparison of
handwriting and
signature at Q-2
and Q-3.
30.23. D-13 A letter dated Ex.PW9/B Ballabh Singh
02.06.2017 written Chauhan
by Ballabh Singh acknowledged
Chauhan, father of vide this letter
Rambhul Chauhan, that he had
to the Investigating handed over the
CBI v. Shashank Jadon & Anr. Page 31/184
Officer. Honda Accord
car to Police and
was ready to
cooperate in the
investigation.
30.24. D-14 Mechanical Ex.PW31/A The car was
Inspection Report found fit for road
dated 20.07.2017, test during
of UP-14AB-2200. mechanical
inspection, as per
report.
30.25. D-15 Arrest Memo Ex.PW40/D It reflects that
accused
Shashank Jadon
was arrested on
01.06.2017 at
8:00PM in the
CBI
Headquarters.
30.26. D-16 Arrest Memo Ex.PW40/E It reflects that
accused Manoj
Kumar was
arrested on
02.06.2017 at
2:30PM at the
CBI
Headquarters.
30.27. D-17 Disclosure Ex.PW57/1 Accused Manoj
Statement of Kumar disclosed
accused Manoj that he had
Kumar dated hidden the fake
02.06.2017. number plates
used in
committing the
crime at his house
and could get
CBI v. Shashank Jadon & Anr. Page 32/184
those recovered
from his house.
30.28. D-18 Pointing Out Ex.PW40/F This document
Memo & Recovery (Colly) suggests that the
Memo, dated accused Manoj
02.06.2017, with Kumar had got
respect to the recovered two
forged number fake number
plate along with plates bearing
map of the passage No.
to the house of UP-14BA-2300,
accused Manoj which were used
Kumar from on the Honda
NH-24 and Accord car at the
impression of time of
specimen seal commission of
which was used in crime, from the
sealing the cloth upper portion of
pullinda in which the toilet located
the recovered in the gallery of
material was the first floor of
wrapped. his house.
30.29. D-19 Confessional Ex.PW35/2 Vide this
Statement of statement
accused Shashank accused
Jadon dated Shashank Jadon
05.06.2017. disclosed that he
had concealed the
clothes and shoes
worn by him on
the date of
commission of
the offence and
keys of the
Honda Accord
car bearing
registration No.
CBI v. Shashank Jadon & Anr. Page 33/184
UP-14AB-2200,
in his bed room
and that he could
show the route
taken and places
visited by him on
the day of
incident.
30.30. D-20 Confessional Ex.PW35/3 Vide this
Statement of statement
accused Manoj accused Manoj
Kumar dated Kumar disclosed
05.06.2017. that he could
show the route
taken and places
visited by him on
the day of
incident.
30.31. D-21 Disclosure cum Ex.PW35/4 It reflects that the
Recovery Memo accused
dated 05.06.2017 Shashank Jadon
pertaining to had got recovered
accused Shashank the shoes worn by
Jadon. him on the day of
commission of
offence from the
shoe rack lying in
his bed room and
Honda Accord
car's key from his
cupboard
between
11:30AM to
12:30PM in the
presence of
independent
witnesses.
CBI v. Shashank Jadon & Anr. Page 34/184
30.32. D-22 Disclosure Memo Ex.PW35/5 It reflects that
dated 05.06.2017 accused
pertaining to Shashank Jadon
accused Shashank had shown the
Jadon. route taken by
him and the
places visited on
the day of
commission of
crime. This route
was shown by
him on
05.06.2017 after
12:30PM, once
the CBI had left
his residential
premises after
seizing the shoes
and keys of
Honda Accord
car.
30.33. D-23 Disclosure Memo Ex.PW35/6 It reflects that
dated 05.06.2017 accused Manoj
pertaining to Kumar had
accused Manoj shown the route
Kumar. taken by him and
the places visited
on the day of
commission of
crime. This route
was shown by
him on
05.06.2017 after
12:30PM, once
the CBI had left
the residential
premises of
CBI v. Shashank Jadon & Anr. Page 35/184
accused
Shashank Jadon
after seizing the
shoes and keys of
Honda Accord
car.
30.34. D-25 Disclosure Ex.PW57/2 Vide this
Statement dated (Earlier Mark statement, the
08.06.2017 PW43/D1) accused
pertaining to Shashank Jadon
accused Shashank had disclosed
Jadon. about the place at
which the blue
colour pant worn
by him during the
incident and four
empty bullet
cartridges were
hidden.
30.35. D-26 Recovery Memo of Ex.PW43/5 It shows that the
blue coloured (Colly) accused
Jeans and four Shashank Jadon
empty cartridges had got the blue
along with map of coloured jeans
first floor and roof recovered from
top of the house of an iron drum that
accused Shashank was lying under
Jadon. the shed on the
roof top of his
house. The jeans
was lying
wrapped in this
drum in a yellow
coloured
polybag. One
black colour
polybag was also
CBI v. Shashank Jadon & Anr. Page 36/184
lying inside this
yellow coloured
polybag,
containing four
empty cartridges.
This seizure
memo was made
between 3:00PM
to 3:30PM on
08.06.2017.
30.36. D-27 Search list dated Ex.PW43/6 It reflects that
08.06.2017 along (Colly) from accused
with documents Shashank Jadon,
recovered from the copies of certain
house of accused complaints made
Shashank Jadon. by him against
Mohit Joon, copy
of complaint
u/sec. 138 NI Act
made against him
and documents
showing his
financial position
were recovered.
30.37. D-27 Copy of loan Mark PW46/1 This document
agreement dated was recovered
25.04.2015 from the house of
between Mohit accused
Joon and Shashank Shashank Jadon
Jadon. vide the search
list Ex.PW46/6
(Colly) and
reflects his
financial position
around the time
when the offence
in question was
CBI v. Shashank Jadon & Anr. Page 37/184
allegedly
committed by
him.
30.38. D-27 Copy of five Mark PW46/2 These copies
cheques, two dated to were recovered
12.05.2015 and Mark PW46/6 from the house of
three dated accused
08.06.2015, each Shashank Jadon
in the sum of vide search list
Rs.10,00,000/- Ex.PW46/3
except one which (Colly). These
is in the sum of cheques seems to
Rs.20,00,000/-. have been issued
by the accused
Shashank Jadon
in favour of one
Jasbir Singh, who
had filed a
complaint u/Sec.
138 NI Act
against him.
These documents
again reflect the
financial position
of accused
Shashank Jadon
around the time
when the offence
was allegedly
committed by
him.
30.39. D-28 Disclosure Ex.PW57/4 The accused
Statement dated Shashank Jadon
10.06.2017, disclosed vide
pertaining to this document
accused Shashank that the fake
Jadon. number plates
CBI v. Shashank Jadon & Anr. Page 38/184
allegedly used in
commission of
crime were got
prepared by him
from the shop of a
car accessories
located opposite
his house for
numbers UP14-
BA-2300 and
UP-16CJ-0032.
30.40. D-29 Production-cum- Ex.PW27/A This document
Seizure Memo shows seizure of
dated 10.06.2017 the register in
vide which a which two
register was seized numbers for
from Shaan Malik, making the
owner of car number plates
accessories shop were allegedly
from where the written by the
accused Shashank accused
Jadon had got the Shashank Jadon.
fake number plates
made.
30.41. D-29 Page no. 72 of the Ex. PW16/B. This register
register seized (Inadverently reflects two
from Shaan Malik. Ex.PW29/B numbers used for
put on the making fake
register but number plates
those written at page
documents are No. 72 which are
of Motor marked as Q-1.
Vehicles
Authority &
are part of
D-10).
CBI v. Shashank Jadon & Anr. Page 39/184
30.42. D-30 Carbon copy of the Ex.PW34/1 The search list
search list dated (Colly) shows recovery
04.07.2017 of photocopy of
prepared during the Arms License
the search issued in favour
conducted in the of Pankaj Kumar,
house of Shripal an application
Singh, father of dated 19.06.2017
accused Pankaj written by Sripal
Kumar (since to the Deputy
deceased), along Magistrate,
with documents Ghaziabad for
recovered from his seeking death
house. certificate of his
son Pankaj
Raghav @ Pankaj
Kumar, offer
letter issued to
one Yogesh Giri
on the letter head
of InfraGuru and
signed by the
accused
Shashank Jadon,
photocopy of
election ID card
of Pankaj
Raghav, death
certificate of
Pankaj Raghav
reflecting that he
died on
25.10.2016, letter
dated 30.05.2017
received from DC
(Arms)
Ghaziabad
accepting the
CBI v. Shashank Jadon & Anr. Page 40/184
request of Sripal
to sell the
licensed revolver
and two
photographs
showing the
father of accused
Shashank Jadon
and Sripal Singh
together.
30.43. D-31 TIP proceedings of Ex.PW5/A The accused was
accused Shashank identified during
Jadon. TIP proceedings
by the eye
witness Gagan
Dudhoriya. The
TIP was
conducted by the
City Magistrate,
Ghaziabad.
30.44. D-32 TIP proceedings of Ex.PW5/B The accused was
accused Manoj identified by the
Kumar. eye witness
Gagan
Dudhoriya. TIP
was conducted by
the City
Magistrate,
Ghaziabad.
30.45. D-35 The statement of Ex.PW7/P-2 This witness
Shashank Garg disclosed in his
recorded u/Sec. statement u/Sec.
164 Cr.P.C. 164 Cr.P.C. that
on a night of
April, 2015 at
about 11:00 PM
CBI v. Shashank Jadon & Anr. Page 41/184
he had met the
accused
Shashank Jadon
and lent a sum of
Rs.500/- to him
for refuelling his
vehicle. He also
disclosed that at
that time
Shashank's
vehicle was
bearing the
number 2300
instead of 2200 &
he had asked
Shashank Jadon
about the same.
The accused
Shashank Jadon
had disclosed on
his asking that the
number on the
plate was
mistakenly
changed by the
maker of number
plate and that "मेरे
हाथ से कांड हो
गया है".
Shashank Jadon
had also pointed
out towards his
shoes and witness
noticed that there
were red spots on
his shoes. The
CBI v. Shashank Jadon & Anr. Page 42/184
witness also
disclosed that in
December,
2015/January,
2016 Shashank
Jadon had
informed him that
Police was after
him in connection
to a murder case.
30.46. D-38 Fire Arm Ex.PW15/A This report
Examination opined that the
Report dated bullets recovered
24.07.2017 bearing from the place of
no. incident and body
CFSL-2017/F-206 of deceased Ankit
Chauhan had
been fired from a
single .32 bore
standard
revolver.
30.47. D-39 Fire Arm Ex.PW15/C It is opined in the
Examination report that .32
Report dated bore revolver
24.07.2017 bearing bearing serial No.
no. FG 11567 seized
CFSL-2017/F-786. in this case was a fire arm. The report also opined that two bullets recovered from the place of incident and body of the deceased Ankit Chauhan had been fired from this CBI v. Shashank Jadon & Anr. Page 43/184 revolver. Report also opined that the four empty cartridges, recovered at the instance of accused Shashank Jadon, too were fired from this revolver.
30.48. D-40 Handwriting Ex.PW16/A It is opined in this
Examination (Colly) report that the
Report bearing no. handwriting and
TC-5846 dated signature at Q-1,
18.08.2017 along Q-2 and Q-3 were
with reasons for of the same
opinion. person who had
written the
specimen S-1 to
S-25 i.e. the
accused
Shashank Jadon.
30.49. D-41 Biological Ex.PW17/A It is opined in this
Examination and report that blood
DNA Profiling was detected on
Report bearing no. certain exhibits
CFSL-2017/F-201 lifted from the
6 dated place of incident.
08.08.2017. These exhibits
consist of red and
yellow colour
cotton threads,
loose earth and
lumps of earth,
glass pieces,
plastic sheet
CBI v. Shashank Jadon & Anr. Page 44/184
having cut marks,
one cut/torn blue
coloured Jeans
Pant with blood,
one cut/torn foul
smelling T-shirt,
one cut/torn foul
smelling vest and
one cut/torn pair
of socks. The
report also opined
that blood in
traces were
detected on the
metallic pieces
and glass &
plastic pieces.
The DNA profile
generated from
some of the
exhibits was
found to be of
human male in
origin and
consistent with
each other. (Note:
Clothes
examined vide
this report belong
to the deceased
Ankit Chauhan).
30.50. D-41 Serological Ex.PW17/B The exhibits on
Examination report which blood
bearing no. stains were
CFSL-2017/F-020 detected as per
6 dated report
28.07.2017. Ex.PW17/A,
CBI v. Shashank Jadon & Anr. Page 45/184
were sent to the
Serology
Division of
CFSL, CBI,
Delhi and this
report opined that
the blood group
could not be
determined from
the blood samples
extracted from
the exhibits
however the
blood was of
human origin.
30.51. D-42 Biological Ex.PW17/C One blue
Examination coloured jeans
Report bearing No. pant was
CFSL-2017/B-085 examined vide
4 dated this report and it
08.08.2017. was opined that
no blood could be
detected over it.
(Note: This jeans
was recovered
from the house of
accused
Shashank Jadon
at his instance).
30.52. D-43 The letter dated Ex.PW25/A Vide this letter,
21.07.2017 sent by IndusInd Bank
IndusInd Bank to had forwarded
the CBI. the original
account opening
form and KYC
documents
pertaining to the
CBI v. Shashank Jadon & Anr. Page 46/184
accused
Shashank Jadon.
30.53. D-43 Account Opening Ex.PW16/D The document
Form of accused (Colly) reflects that the
Shashank Jadon, accused Shashan
dated 02.11.2015 Jadon had
along with KYC requested for
documents. opening of bank
account in
IndusInd Bank on
02.11.2015 and
had deposited a
sum of
Rs.25,000/- by
way of a cheque
bearing no.
035669 dated
29.10.2015.
(Note: This
document bears
the same
photograph of
accused
Shashank Jadon
as is there on the
sale letter of his
car make Honda
Accord bearing
registrtion
number
UP-14AB-2200.
The admitted
signature of
accused
Shashank Jadon
at A-1, A-2, A-3,
A-4 & A-5 have
CBI v. Shashank Jadon & Anr. Page 47/184
also been taken
from this
document).
30.54. D-44 Production - cum - Ex.PW33/A Vide this memo,
Seizure Memo (Colly) the revolver
dated 06.06.2017 bearing serial no.
along with rough FG11567 was
sketch of the seized from
weapon of offence. Deepak
Aggarwal who
allegedly
purchased it from
accused Pankaj
Kumar (since
deceased) for a
sum of
Rs.65,000/-
through Sumit
Garg of Baba
Gun House,
Ghaziabad.
30.55. D-45 Production - cum - Ex.PW33/B Sale letter of the
Seizure Memo weapon of
dated 06.06.2017. offence,
executed between
the accused
Pankaj Kumar
(since deceased)
and Deepak
Aggarwal was
seized vide this
memo.
30.56. D-45 Sale Letter dated Ex.PW33/C The weapon of
12.10.2015. offence was sold
to Deepak
Aggarwal by
CBI v. Shashank Jadon & Anr. Page 48/184
accused Pankaj
Kumar (since
deceased)
through this
letter.
30.57. D-46 Invoice dated Ex.PW52/1 It reflects that the
09.06.2014. (OSR) weapon of
offence was sold
to Pankaj Kumar
by Baba Gun
House for a sum
of Rs.18,500/-.
30.58. D-46 Entry dated Ex.PW52/2 It reflects that on
09.06.2014 in the (OSR) 09.06.2014 the
Daily Sales Book weapon of
maintained by offence along
Baba Gun House. with 10 cartridges
was sold to the
accused Pankaj
Kumar (since
deceased).
30.59. D-46 Entry dated Ex.PW52/3 It reflects that on
03.01.2015 in the (OSR) 03.01.2015 ten
Daily Sales Book cartridges for .32
maintained by bore revolver
Baba Gun House. were sold to the
accused Pankaj
Kumar (since
deceased) by
Baba Gun House.
30.60. D-46 Entry dated Ex.PW52/4 It reflects that 10
16.12.2015 in the (OSR) cartridges for a
Daily Sales Book .32 bore revolver
maintained by were sold to the
Baba Gun House. accused Pankaj
Kumar (since
CBI v. Shashank Jadon & Anr. Page 49/184
deceased) on
16.12.2015.
30.61. D-47 Letter No. Ex.PW28/A CBI was
3081/Shastra (Colly) informed vide
Lipik-Satyapan/20 this letter that a
17 dated license for fire
14.07.2017 arm was issued in
received by the favour of accused
CBI from the Pankaj Kumar
office of District (since deceased)
Magistrate, on 12.02.2007. A
Ghaziabad, along .32 bore pistol
with letter no. was registered
5956/Sh. Li.- against this
kle.Ga.bad/2023 license on
dated 20.07.2023 18.06.2007. This addressed to this pistol was sold Court. and again .22 bore revolver bearing serial no.
045100685 was registered against this license on 22.04.2010. The said revolver was also sold as per information provided to the office of District Magistrate and another .32 bore revolver bearing serial No. FG11567 (weapon of offence) was registered against CBI v. Shashank Jadon & Anr. Page 50/184 this license on 17.06.2014 which was sold out to Deepak Aggarwal on 12.10.2015 and was accordingly registered against his license. A .32 bore revolver bearing no. 1621 was registered against the license of accused Pankaj Kumar (since deceased) on 29.02.2016.
30.62. D-48 Prescription dated Ex.PW38/A This prescription
19.05.2017. suggests that one
Shashank Singh,
a male aged 26
years, had
approached Dr.
Vishal Chug at
Jaipur, on
19.05.2017, for
removal of a
mature tattoo.
30.63. D-49 Production - cum - Ex.PW38/B Certain
Seizure Memo documents,
dated 14.06.2017. pertaining to the patient who visited the clinic of Dr. Vishal Chug on 19.05.2017, were CBI v. Shashank Jadon & Anr. Page 51/184 seized vide this memo.
30.64. D-49 Photocopy of Ex.PW38/C This suggest that
Visitor's Register one Shashank
dated 19.05.2017. Singh, having
mobile
No.9649344999,
had visited the
Clinic of Dr.
Vishal Chug on
19.05.2017.
30.65. D-49 Entry pertaining to Ex.PW38/D This document
visit of Shashank (Colly) reflects that one
Singh at the Clinic Shashank Singh
of Dr. Vishal had visited Dr.
Chugh, made in the Vishal Chugh on
Computer, along 19.05.2017 and
with a certificate he was in the
u/Sec. 65B of the Clinic from
Indian Evidence 5:25PM till
Act. 6:10PM.
30.66. D-50 Memo of Ex.PW38/E Vide the memo
Proceedings dated (Colly) dated 14.06.2017
14.06.2017 along Dr. Vishal Chugh
with photograph had handed over
and certificate U/s a photograph of
65-B of the Indian the tattoo that
Evidence Act was shown by
Shashank Singh
to him during his
visit on
19.05.2017. This
photograph was
printed by the
doctor using his
iPhone. The
CBI v. Shashank Jadon & Anr. Page 52/184
photograph
shows tattoo
reading
"Kshatriya" on
the upper side of
the left forearm.
30.67. D-51 Production - cum - Ex.PW37/A This document
Seizure Memo (Colly) reflects that one
dated 01.08.2017 person in the
along with copy of name of Vikas
payment slip and had visited the
visitors' register Clinic of Dr. Anu
dated 08.05.2017. Bhushan at
Muzzafar Nagar,
U.P. on
08.05.2017. The
said person had
informed his
name as Vikas.
He had a tattoo
reading
'Kshatriya' on his
left arm and he
wanted to get it
removed.
30.68. D-52 Death Certificate Ex.PW19/A It shows that
of accused Pankaj accused Pankaj
Kumar @ Pankaj Raghav @ Pankaj
Raghav (since Kumar expired
deceased). on 25.10.2016 at
Sarvodaya
Hospital &
Research Centre,
Ghaziabad.
30.69. D-53 The Admission Ex.PW20/A The document
Summary Record (Colly) reflects that the
CBI v. Shashank Jadon & Anr. Page 53/184
pertaining to accused Pankaj
accused Pankaj Kumar had died
Kumar. due to chronic
alcoholic liver
disease. His
phone number as
per this record is
shown as
9650167933.
30.70. D-54 Memo of Ex.PW45/1 The photograph
Proceedings of accused Pankaj
related to Thakur @ Pankaj
Photograph Kumar @ Pankaj
identification dated Raghav (since
21.07.2017. deceased) was
identified by his
father in the
presence of two
independent
witnesses vide
this memo.
30.71. D-55 Letter dated Ex.PW26/A The CDR and
07.02.2017 sent to CAF of mobile
the CBI by Nodal No. 9999720103
Officer of belonging to
Vodafone Mobile victim Ankit
Services Ltd. Chauhan were
forwarded to the
CBI vide this
letter.
30.72. D-55 Certificate u/Sec. Ex.PW26/E This certificate
65B of the Indian was furnished by
Evidence Act. the Nodal Officer
of Vodafone
Mobile Services
Ltd. along with
CBI v. Shashank Jadon & Anr. Page 54/184
CAF and CDR of
mobile no.
9999720103.
30.73. D-55 CAF of mobile no. Ex.PW26/C This document
9999720103 along (Colly) reflects that the
with photocopy of mobile no.
ID proof of the 9999720103 had
applicant. been issued to the
deceased victim
Ankit Chauhan.
30.74. D-55 Call Detail Record. Ex.PW26/D This document
(Colly) reflects details of
the calls made
from the mobile
of victim Ankit
Chauhan from
01.01.2015 to
13.04.2015.
30.75. D-56 The letter dated Ex.PW24/A CAF and CDR of
10.08.2017 sent to mobile No.
the CBI by the 8882922154
Nodal Officer of were forwarded
Reliance to the CBI vide
Communications this letter.
Ltd.
30.76. D-56 CAF alongwith Ex.PW24/B It reflects that the
copy of photo ID (also Mark mobile No.
proof of mobile no. PW6/1) 8882922154 was
8882922154. allotted to Rohit
Surana.
30.77. D-56 Certificate u/Sec. Ex.PW24/C This certificate
65-B of the Indian was issued by the
Evidence Act dated Nodal Officer of
10.08.2017. Reliance
Communications
Ltd. in support of
CBI v. Shashank Jadon & Anr. Page 55/184
CDR provided to
mobile No.
8882922154.
30.78. D-56 CDR of Mobile Ex.PW24/D This document
No. 8882922154. (Colly) reflects the calls made from mobile no.
8882922154 from 01.04.2015 to 13.04.2015.
30.79. D-57 The specimen Ex.PW16/C The specimen
handwriting / (Colly) signature and
signature of handwriting from
accused Shashank S-1 to S-25 were
Jadon. taken on
04.07.2017 by
the CBI inside the
District Jail,
Ghaziabad, U.P.
after obtaining
Orders of Ld.
Special Judicial
Magistrate (CBI)
Ghaziabad, U.P.
30.80. D-58 Production - cum - Ex.PW47/2 The two Hard
Receipt Memo. Discs containing
CCTV footage of
the main gate
outside
Accenture Office
was seized by the
CBI vide this
memo.
30.81. D-59 Certificate u/Sec. Ex.PW48/2 This certificate
65-B of Indian was given by
Evidence Act. Rohit Sharma,
CBI v. Shashank Jadon & Anr. Page 56/184
the official of
Seaview
Developers Pvt.
Ltd. in respect of
the CCTV
footage handed
over to the police
by them.
30.82. D-60 Scrutiny Report of Ex.PW57/5 The CCTV
CCTV footage footage from
from the outside of 2.29PM to 4.01
Accenture, Sector PM was analyzed
135, Noida, U.P. by the CBI vide
this report.
30.83. D-61 Statement of Ex.PW51/1 In this statement
Satpal Bhati Satpal Bhati had
recorded u/Sec. disclosed that he
164 Cr.P.C. had met Pankaj,
Shashank and
Manoj in April
2015 and they
had requested
him to arrange a
vehicle for them
which they may
use for robbing
another vehicle.
30.84. D-62 Investigation Ex.PW57/3 This document
Report pertaining records the
to the accused answers given by
Shashank Jadon. Shashank Jadon
to the questions
put to him by the
CBI during his
interrogation in
Police custody on
CBI v. Shashank Jadon & Anr. Page 57/184
02.06.2017.
30.85. D-63 Investigation Ex.PW57/7 This document
Report pertaining records the
to the accused answers given by
Manoj Kumar. Manoj Kumar to
the questions put
to him by the CBI
during his
interrogation in
Police custody on
02.06.2017.
30.86. -- Statement of Mark PW51/A Portion A to A1 of
Satpal Bhati u/Sec. this statement
161 Cr.P.C. was used to
recorded on confront Satpal
21.06.2017 Bhati when he
appeared in the
witness box. He
had stated in the
said portion that
he had borrowed
a sum of
Rs.25,000/- to
Rs.30,000/- from
the accused
Shashank Jadon
30.87. -- Statement of Shan Ex.PW41/A Shan Malik had
Malik u/Sec. 164 informed vide
Cr.P.C. this statement
that Shashank
had got made
number plates for
the registration
No.
UP-14BA-2300
(Honda City) and
CBI v. Shashank Jadon & Anr. Page 58/184
UP-16CJ-0032
(Fortuner) from
his shop.
30.88. -- Statement of Sumit Ex.PW52/5 It was informed
Garg u/Sec. 164 by Sumit Garg
Cr.P.C. vide this
statement that
Pankaj had sold
his .32 bore
revolver through
him to Deepak
Aggarwal in
October, 2015
and Rs.35,000/-
towards the sale
consideration
was handed over
by him to
Shashank Jadon
on the request of
Pankaj.
30.89. -- Statement of Rahul Ex.PW14/A Rahul Chaudhary
Chaudhary u/Sec. is the friend of
164 Cr.P.C. accused
Shashank Jadon
who had
disclosed that 6/7
days before
having been
arrested by the
Police, Shashank
Jadon had
informed him that
he apprehended
being caught in a
murder case.
CBI v. Shashank Jadon & Anr. Page 59/184
30.90. -- Statement of Ex.PW44/1 She had informed
Baljeet Kaur u/Sec. vide this
164 Cr.P.C. statement that
Pankaj had
visited her house
on 13.04.2015
along with
Shashank and one
more person.
There were blood
stains on the pant
of Shashank and
Pankaj had
informed her
husband that
Shashank had
fired a gunshot at
someone by
mistake.
30.91. -- Statement of Ex.PW42/A Gurvinder Singh
Gurvinder Singh disclosed that on
u/Sec. 164 Cr.P.C. 13.04.2015,
Pankaj, Shashank
and one more
person had
visited his
residence and had
informed that
Shashank had
fired a gunshot at
someone. He had
also informed
that there were
blood stains on
the pant of
Shashank and he
was having two
CBI v. Shashank Jadon & Anr. Page 60/184
tattoos on his left
arm.
30.92. -- Statement of Ex.PX This statement
Gagan Dudhoriya was used to
recorded by the confront the
U.P. Police u/Sec. witness with the
161 Cr.P.C. on portions marked
14.04.2015. as Point X and
Point B to B1,
wherein it is
recorded that
when gun shots
were fired at
Ankit, he tried to
escape by turning
his car left, but
the car collided
with a nearby
tree, he opened
the window of his
side & jumped
outside.
30.93. -- Statement of Ex.PY In this statement
Gagan Dudhoriya eye witness
u/S 161 Cr.P.C. Gagan Dudhoriya
recorded on had revealed that
02.05.2015. the person who
had fired gun
shots had a tattoo
on his left hand.
He had also got a
sketch of the
suspect prepared
on that day.
30.94. -- Institutional Death Ex.PW8/B This report
Report furnished in reflects at serial
CBI v. Shashank Jadon & Anr. Page 61/184
the Court by no. 324 that Ankit
Kailash Hospital & Chauhan was
Heart Institute, 'brought in dead'
Noida for the to the Kailash
period from Hospital on
11.04.2015 to 13.04.2015 at
20.04.2015. about 4:55PM.
30.95. -- A Certificate Ex.PW26/B This certificate
regarding original was furnished by
CAF of mobile No. the Vodafone
9999720103. Idea Ltd. stating
that as per record
the said mobile
number was
allotted to Ankit
Chauhan on
23.09.2013 and it
was deactivated
on 17.08.2015.
30.96. -- Statement of Ex.PW13/DA Vide this
Prateek Gupta statement the
recorded u/Sec. witness had
161 Cr.P.C. disclosed that on
13.04.2015, at
about 04:12PM,
Gagan Dudhoriya
had called him up
from his mobile
phone and had
informed that a
white colour
Honda Accord
car bearing no.
UP-14BA-2300
was following
them. Witness
also disclosed
CBI v. Shashank Jadon & Anr. Page 62/184
that after
sometime when
he again called up
at the mobile
number of Ankit
Chauhan, Gagan
Dudhoriya
picked it up and
informed him that
the white colour
Honda Accord
car overtook their
car and occupants
of the said car had
fired gun shots at
Ankit.
30.97. -- Statement of Rahul Ex.PW14/B This witness was
Chaudhary confronted with
recorded u/Sec. portion X to X of
161 Cr.P.C. his statement
where it is
recorded that at
about 3:00AM,
on a night in the
last week of May,
2017, accused
Shashank Jadon
had informed him
in a hotel at
Jodhpur that
because of the
tattoo on his left
hand he
apprehended
being caught in a
murder case.
30.98. -- Statement of Ex.PW7/P-1 This witness was
CBI v. Shashank Jadon & Anr. Page 63/184
Shashank Garg confronted with
recorded u/Sec. his entire
161 Cr.P.C. statement u/Sec.
161 Cr.P.C.
because he had
turned
completely
hostile. He had
informed in his
statement u/Sec.
161 Cr.P.C. that
in April 2015 he
had met
Shashank once at
about 11:00PM
and had lent him
a sum of Rs.500/-
on his request. At
that time
Shashank had
informed him that
there were blood
stains on his
shoes and he had
got involved in a
scandal. This
witness had also
informed that the
Honda Accord
car of Shashank
was bearing
number 2300 on
that day, though
its actual number
was 2200.
30.99. -- Statement of Sumit Mark PW52/A This witness was
Garg recorded confronted with
CBI v. Shashank Jadon & Anr. Page 64/184
u/Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. his statement
u/Sec. 161
Cr.P.C. wherein
he had stated that
the .32 bore
revolver of
Pankaj was sold
to Deepak
Aggarwal
through him for a
sale
consideration of
Rs.35,000/- and
this amount was
collected from his
shop by accused
Shashank Jadon.
30.100. -- Statement of Ex.PW24/E In his statement
Yogesh Tripathi the witness states
recorded u/Sec. that the location
161 Cr.P.C. of mobile no.
8882922154 was
near the place of
incident as per
map printed on
the statement at
the time when
SMS was
received from
mobile no.
9650843600.
30.101. -- Statement of Mark PW53/A This witness had
Manoj Kumar (Portion A to informed vide
u/Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. A1 is portion A to A1
recorded on Ex.PW53/D-1) that on
04.07.2016. 13.04.2015 he
had received a
CBI v. Shashank Jadon & Anr. Page 65/184
message at about
4:25PM on his
wireless that a
boy had been shot
by some
unknown persons
at Barola
byepass,
Sector-50, Noida,
U.P.
30.102. -- Chargesheet Ex.PW57/9 --
30.103. -- Sanction for Ex.PW54/1 Sanction was
prosecution as per granted vide this
Section 39 of the document to
Arms Act, 1959 prosecute
accused
Shashank Jadon
for the offences
punishable u/Sec.
25/27 of the Arms
Act, 1959.
30.104. -- Complaint given to Ex.PW1K/2 This complaint
the SHO, PS was given by Sh.
Sector 49, Noida, Dharamvir
Gautam Budh Chauhan, father
Nagar. of Ankit Chauhan
on the day of
incident for
registration of
FIR.
30.105. -- Mobile Ex.PW56/2 The mobile
Examination phone of accused
Report bearing no. Shashank Jadon
RFSL was examined
(CHP)-2017/CFU- and it is reported
748 dated that no relevant
CBI v. Shashank Jadon & Anr. Page 66/184
25.09.2017 data could be
extracted due to
encryption of
password.
30.106. -- Letter no. RFSL Ex.PW56/1 The report
(CHP)-2017/CFU- Ex.PW56/2 was
748/6163 dated forwarded to the
07.11.2017 CBI vide this
addressed to the letter.
SP, CBI, sent by
the Director,
Regional FSL,
Chankyapuri,
Delhi.
30.107. -- Extraction Report. Ex.PW56/3 This report is a
part of
Ex.PW56/2 and it
reflects the data
that was extracted
from the mobile
phone of accused
Shashank Jadon.
30.108. -- FSL Report Ex.PW55/1 This report was
bearing no. sent by the CFSL
CFSL-2017/G-015 to the CBI. The
9 dated report is with
11.05.2017. respect to the
examination of
hard disk drive.
According to the
report, the hard
disk drive Q-1
was non
functional and
hence data could
not be retrieved
CBI v. Shashank Jadon & Anr. Page 67/184
from it but the
data from hard
disk Q-2 was
forwarded for
investigation.
30.109. -- Sketch of the Mark PW53/B This sketch was
suspect. released by the
police soon after
the incident.
31. Following documents were put to the witnesses of prosecution by the accused persons during their cross-examination:
S.No. Document Particulars of Exhibit No. Relevancy No. document 31.1 D-67 to Photocopies of the Ex.PW57/D1 These documents D-70 CAF of mobile (Colly) suggest that the two No. 9013141414 mobile numbers along with photo belonged to the identity card of accused Shashank accused Shashank Jadon and one Jadon, CDR of the Bhushan S/o Sripal said number, CAF Singh respectively.
of mobile No. These documents
9910614458, also reflect the
photo ID proof of incoming &
the holder of this outgoing phone calls
number and CDR of the two mobile
of this number. numbers.
31.2 -- Application dated Ex.PW57/D-2 This document
02.06.2017 reflects that CBI had
moved by the CBI requested the Court
requesting to keep the accused
judicial custody of Shashank Jadon in
accused Shashank muffled face.
Jadon and Manoj
CBI v. Shashank Jadon & Anr. Page 68/184
Kumar for 14
days.
31.3 -- Order dated Ex.PW57/D-3 The five day Police
03.06.2017 custody remand of
passed by the accused Shashank
Special Judicial Jadon and Manoj
Magistrate (CBI), Kumar was allowed
Ghaziabad. vide this Order.
31.4 -- Statement of Mark This statement was
Gagan Dudhoriya PW57/D-4 used from portion A
u/Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. to A1, B to B1 and C
recorded on to C1 for confronting
21.04.2017. the IO, who is PW57.
It is recorded in
portion A to A1 that
the first bullet had
crossed through the
front windshield of
the Fortuner car and
had hit Ankit
Chauhan on his left
elbow.
In portion B to B1 it
is recorded that the
eye witness Gagan
Dudhoriya had
ducked under the
dash board when the
bullet was fired upon
him due to which the
bullet got stuck in the
left side passenger
seat of the Fortuner
car. The person who
had fired the bullet
CBI v. Shashank Jadon & Anr. Page 69/184
came towards
Ankit's side and tried
to open the seat belt
during which he had
seen him from very
nearby. The assailant
however fled away
because his associate
asked him to, fearing
that they may get
caught.
In portion C to C1 it
is recorded that the
assailants could not
remove the seat belt
of Ankit Chauhan
due to which they
could not take the
Fortuner car along.
31.5 -- Details regarding Mark This document
exchange of calls PW57/D-5 shows that calls were between accused exchanged between Shashank Jadon & the accused Manoj Kumar and Shashank Jadon & Shashank Jadon & Manoj Kumar Pankaj Kumar. (9311619782) on 13.04.2015, 15.04.2015 & 30.04.2015 and several calls were exchanged between Shashank and Pankaj (mobile no.
9891566055 &
9910614458) on
12.04.15, 13.04.15,
CBI v. Shashank Jadon & Anr. Page 70/184
14.04.2015 & even
thereafter.
31.6 D-71 & CAF along with Ex.PW57/D-6 These documents
D-72 identity proof of (Colly) reflect that the said
mobile No. mobile number was
9997609750 and allotted to Satpal
the CDR of this Singh. These also
number. reflect that the phone
calls made to and
from this number.
31.7 -- Sketch of the Ex.PW57/D-7 This sketch was got
suspect prepared by Noida
Police with an aim to
find clues about the
assailants.
31.8 -- Sketch of the Ex.PW53/D-2 This sketch was
suspect released released by the
by the Noida police hoping for
Police in some clue about the
Newspaper Amar assailants of Ankit
Ujala dated Chauhan and a prize
17.04.2015. money of
Rs.50,000/- was also
fixed.
32. Production of following documents of the prosecution was sought by the defence and the documents were exhibited in evidence, being admitted:
S.No. Document Particulars Exhibit No. Relevancy No.
32.1. -- Site plan of the Ex.D-1 This site plan place of offence describes the place prepared by the where the victim was Police at PS shot dead.
Sector 49, Noida,
CBI v. Shashank Jadon & Anr. Page 71/184
Gautam Budh
Nagar
32.2. -- Report of FSL Ex.D-2 This report states that
Agra dated blood stains found on
06.02.2017 the bullet recovered
from the body of the
deceased victim were
in small patches.
Statement of Accused:
33. On completion of prosecution evidence all the incriminating circumstances were put to the accused persons u/Sec. 313 Cr.P.C.
33.1. Accused Shashank Jadon denied all the incriminating circumstances against him and stated that he had been falsely implicated by the CBI at the instance of Mohit Joon and his cousin Jasbir Singh, with whom he was having a financial dispute. He stated that Jasbir Singh used to threaten to implicate him in false criminal cases. Jasbir Singh even made him speak to a CBI officer in the year 2016 stating that if he did not pay the dues of Mohit Joon, a false case shall be registered against him. It was also stated by accused Shashank Jadon that he was not present at the place of incident and the IO Inspector Deepak was well aware about it, still he conducted a biased investigation and implicated him falsely in this case. Accused denied having acquaintance with Pankaj.
33.2. Accused Manoj Kumar also denied all the incriminating circumstances against him. He denied that he was not familiar with co- accused Shashank Jadon or Pankaj (since expired) and stated that he was falsely implicated in this case.
CBI v. Shashank Jadon & Anr. Page 72/18433.3. Both the accused persons expressed their willingness to lead evidence in their defence, however defence evidence was led only by accused Shashank Jadon. Accused Manoj Kumar did not lead any evidence in his defence despite opportunity.
Defence Evidence:
34. Accused Shashank Jadon examined following ten witnesses in support of his defence:
S.No. Examined Particulars Relevancy as 34.1. DW-1 Bharat He is the tattoo artist who deposed that the tattoo on the left forearm of the accused Shashank Jadon was made by him in November, 2016.
34.2. DW-2 Sakshi Jadon She is the sister of accused Shashank Jadon. She deposed that CBI officials had visited their house in June, 2017 along with her brother. They came again after 2/3 days and asked her to allow them entry in the first floor of the house which she refused because she was alone. Hence, the CBI officials went to the terrace of the house and remained there for about 15 to 20 minutes.
34.3. DW-3 Amita She is the tenant from the house of Chaudhary @ accused Shashank Jadon. She Uma deposed that CBI officials did not ever ask for the keys of the house of Shashank Jadon in the month of June, 2017 from her.
34.4. DW-4 Surender Kumar He deposed that he had handed over the CAF of phone numbers allotted CBI v. Shashank Jadon & Anr. Page 73/184 by Bharti Airtel Ltd., which are 9910614458 and 9013141414.
34.5. DW-5 Sandeep Bhatia He deposed that the programme titled 'PCR' was telecasted by Delhi Aaj Tak on 02.06.2017. This telecast is also available on YouTube.
34.6. DW-6 Virendra Singh He proved the RTI application filed by the accused Shashank Jadon and reply to the same given by the PIO, Ghaziabad regarding production of accused in the Court in a muffled face.
34.7. DW-7 Pankaj Tyagi He deposed that he had known the accused Shashank Jadon since 13/14 years. The accused used to have a Honda Amaze car for his personal use and in November / December, 2016 he had got a tattoo of his caste i.e. Kshatriya, made on his hand.
34.8. DW-8 Yuvraj Anand He deposed that the accused had filed ITR for the assessment year 2015-
2016 i.e. financial year 2014-15. The said ITR was also produced by him.
34.9. DW-9 D.R. Handa He is the handwriting expert who stepped in the witness box at the instance of accused Shashank Jadon.
34.10. DW-10 Adarsh Mishra He is the ballistic expert who stepped in the witness box at the instance of accused Shashank Jadon.
35. The accused Shashank Jadon also sought permission to appear as a witness u/Sec. 315 Cr.P.C. which was allowed. He was examined as DW-11. He only proved certified copy of the writ petition filed by the father of Ankit Chauhan before the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad, however, his cross-
CBI v. Shashank Jadon & Anr. Page 74/184examination was carried out by prosecution in detail which will be referred in the latter part of the judgment while giving reasons for the decision.
36. The following documents were relied upon by the accused no.1 in his defence:
S.No. Document Particulars Exhibit No. Relevancy No. 36.1. -- Tattoo drawn on a Ex.DW1/1 Witness deposed that plain paper by the tattoo drawn by DW1. him on the left arm of accused Shashank Jadon was the same as drawn by him in Ex.DW1/1.
36.2. -- Notification dated Ex.DW5/1 This document was
17.06.2021 with relied upon by DW5
respect to the rules in order to show that
framed u/Sec. 22 of the regulatory
the Cable authority from whom
Television the record was
Networks summoned was not
(Regulation) Act, bound to maintain it
1995. after a period of 90
days.
36.3. -- Letter no. Ex.DW6/1 This letter was
897/UTP/Ghaziaba received by the Court
d dated 23.01.2025. from the Jail
Superintendent,
Ghaziabad in respect
to a RTI filed by the
accused.
36.4. -- RTI application Ex.DW6/2 This application
dated 19.04.2015. under RTI was filed by the accused CBI v. Shashank Jadon & Anr. Page 75/184 Shashank Jadon before the PIO, District Jail, Ghaziabad.
36.5. -- Letter bearing No. Ex.DW6/3 Reply to the 3075/Jansuchna/20 application of 17 dated accused Shashank 26.04.2018. Jadon under RTI, given by the District Jail, Ghaziabad.
36.6. -- Letter dated Nil Ex.DW6/4 The Incharge, District
addressed to the Jail, Ghaziabad had
PIO, District Jail, sent information
Ghaziabad, sent by regarding the
the Incharge, questions put by
District Jail, accused Shashank
Ghaziabad. Jadon in his RTI
application, vide this
reply.
36.7. -- Entry No. 3075 in Ex.DW6/5 It reflects that
the register of information
District Jail. regarding the RTI
application of
Shashank Jadon was
provided to him.
36.8. -- Information Ex.DW4/1 It shows that CBI had
regarding period of bought CDR of the
CDR for mobile no. two numbers for
9910614458 & 01.01.15 to 13.04.15
9013141414 from Bharti Airtel
Limited.
36.9. -- ITR of accused Ex.DW8/1 This document was
Shashank Jadon for summoned by the
the assessment year accused to prove his
2015-16. income during the
financial year 2014-
CBI v. Shashank Jadon & Anr. Page 76/184
15. It shows that
accused had claimed
gross income of
Rs.6,35,255/- for the
financial year 2014-
15.
36.10. -- The letter dated Ex.DW8/2 This is the covering
18.02.2015 letter vide which
addressed to the Ex.DW8/1 was
Court by the forwarded.
Income Tax
Officer, Ghaziabad.
36.11. -- Print out of Ex.DW8/3 This document shows
information that the ITR was filed
regarding filing of by the accused
returns from Shashank till the
assessment year assessment year
2011-2012 to 2015- 2015-2016.
2016 by the
accused Shashank
Jadon.
36.12. -- Expert Opinion Ex.DW10/1 This report was
dated 17.03.2025. prepared by a ballistic expert with respect to the weapon of offence and the bullets recovered during the investigation.
36.13. -- Forensic Signatures Ex.DW9/4 This report was
Examination prepared with respect
Report dated to the questioned
15.03.2025. handwriting and
signatures already
marked by the CBI in
the register (D-29) on
CBI v. Shashank Jadon & Anr. Page 77/184
the request of accused
Shashank Jadon. The
report opines that the
handwriting is of
Shashank himself.
36.14. -- Specimen writing Ex.DW9/3 This specimen
of accused handwriting was
Shashank Jadon. given by the accused
voluntarily to the
handwriting expert
who had appeared as
a defence witness.
36.15. -- Photocopy of Page Ex.DW9/1 The questioned
no. 72, 19 & 17 of (Colly) handwriting in this the Register D-29. register marked as Q-1, Q-2, Q-3, Q-4, Q-5 and Q-6 were examined by the handwriting expert, who opined that all these writings were of Shashank Jadon.
36.16. -- Photocopy of the Ex.DW9/2 These photocopies specimen signature (Colly) were furnished by S-8 to S-18. accused Shashank Jadon to the handwriting expert engaged by him.
36.17. -- Photocopy of the Ex.DW11/1 This petition was
certified copy of filed by father of
Criminal (Misc) Ankit Chauhan
writ petition. before the Hon'ble
High Court of
Allahabad for
seeking transfer of
investigation.
CBI v. Shashank Jadon & Anr. Page 78/184
37. The following documents were put by the prosecution to the defence witnesses during their cross-examination:
S.No. Document Particulars Exhibit No. Relevancy No.
37.1. -- Bail application Ex.DW11/P-1 The contents of dated 07.11.2017 this bail moved by accused application Shashank Jadon reflect that no before the Special plea regarding Judge CBI, forging of Ghaziabad documents in the office of CBI when the accued was in their custody, was taken before the Court.
37.2. -- Copy of the bail Ex. DW11/P2 The accused
application moved Shashank Jadon
by the accused has pleaded in
Shashank Jadon this application
before the Hon'ble that he had got
High Court of off the Honda
Delhi. Accord car in
front of
Accenture
office, which is
part of CCTV
footage.
37.3. -- Entry No. 3046 Ex.DW6/P-1 This entry
dated 02.06.2017 in reflects the
the daily register details of Court
with respect to the cases pending
accused Shashank against accused
Jadon. Shashank Jadon
CBI v. Shashank Jadon & Anr. Page 79/184
and next date of
hearing in those
cases.
38. The following articles were relied upon by the prosecution:-
S.No. Description Exhibit number Relevancy 38.1. Honda Accord car Ex.P-1 Accused persons had followed the victim Ankit Chauhan in this car.
38.2. Fortuner car Ex.P-2 Ankit Chauhan was travelling in this car at the time of incident.
38.3. .32 bore revolver Ex.P-3 Weapon of offence.
38.4. Match box Ex.P-4 One of the recovered bullet (BC/1) was sent to CFSL in this.
38.5. Plastic container Ex.P-5 The second recovered bullet (BC/2) was sent to CFSL in this 38.6. Bullets BC/1 & BC/2 Ex.P-6 & Ex.P-7 These bullets are from the gun shots fired at Ankit Chauhan.
38.7. Four empty cartridges Ex.P-8 These were
(C/1 to C/4) recovered at the
instance of
accued Shashank
Jadon from his
CBI v. Shashank Jadon & Anr. Page 80/184
house.
38.8. Articles recovered from the Ex.P-9 Some of these
place of incident articles were
blood soaked and
the blood
corresponded to a
human male.
38.9. Pen drive Ex.PW50/1 This contains
CCTV footage of
the area outside
Accenture Office.
39. The envelopes in which various exhibits were sent to CFSL have also been separately exhibited but have not been referred because those were not found relevant for deciding the case.
Final Arguments:
40. Ld. Sr. PP for the CBI contended that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. He heavily relied upon the testimony of sole eye witness i.e. PW-5 and contended that this witness had not only narrated the entire sequence of events but had also identified both the accused persons. Ld. Sr. PP contended that the testimony of PW-5 was duly corroborated from the circumstances proved on record by the prosecution.
These circumstances, it was contended, included preparation of crime, ownership, possession & use of Honda Accord car, recovery & use of fake number plates, recovery & ownership of the weapon of offence, recovery of the empty cartridges connected to the weapon of offence, motive & conduct of accused persons post incident, minute details disclosed by PW-5 soon after CBI v. Shashank Jadon & Anr. Page 81/184 the incident, like, the shooter having a tattoo on his hand, the TIP conducted by the City Magistrate, Ghaziabad and the expert's reports.
40.1. Ld. Sr. PP contended that all the aforementioned circumstances proved by the prosecution were corroborative to the testimony of sole eye witness i.e. PW-5. Hence, the case was proved beyond reasonable doubts and the accused persons were liable to be convicted of the offences charged, in view of overwhelming evidence available against them.
41. Ld. Defence Counsel for accused Shashank Jadon contended that there were several contradictions and inconsistencies in the testimony of sole eye witness. The investigation done by the CBI was completely different from the investigation done by the Noida Police. The statement of PW-5, which was recorded by the Noida Police u/Sec. 161 Cr.P.C., was the 'golden period' statement which was fundamentally different from the statement recorded by the CBI. The theory of robbery was introduced by the CBI at a later stage and they also brought another theory of financial constraint in order to establish motive against the accused Shashank Jadon. Ld. Counsel for accused Shashank Jadon further contended that the various witnesses produced by the CBI had turned hostile which was sufficient to suggest that accused was made a scapegoat. Ld. Counsel also challenged the expert's opinion relied upon by the CBI on various grounds and contended that neither the testimony of eye witness nor the circumstantial evidence produced by the CBI were reliable.
CBI v. Shashank Jadon & Anr. Page 82/18442. Ld. Counsel for the accused Manoj Kumar contended that none of the witness of prosecution had stated anything against him. The TIP of Manoj Kumar was also doubtful and he was therefore entitled to acquittal.
43. Ld. Sr. PP for the CBI vehemently opposed the contentions of Ld. Defence Counsels during rebuttal arguments and stated that experts examined by the CBI were independent witnesses who had no interest in the fate of the case and therefore their testimony could not be brushed aside lightly.
44. The detailed arguments of each of the party shall be referred while discussing reasons for the judgment. The above paragraphs give just a brief overview of the arguments advanced before the Court.
45. Ld. Sr. PP of CBI relied upon the following judgments in support of his contentions:
(i) Pappu Tiwary v. State of Jharkhand 1
(ii) Harendra Rai v. The State of Bihar & Ors.2
(iii) Perumal Raja @ Perumal v. State, Rep. By Inspector of Police 3
(iv) Somjeet Mallick v. State of Jharkhand & Ors.4
(v) Subhash Aggarwal v. The State of NCT of Delhi 5
(vi) Vijaya Singh & Anr. v. State of Uttarakhand 6
(vii) Birbal Nath v. The State of Rajasthan & Ors.7
(viii) Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi)8
(ix) Gulzar Ali v. State of Himachal Pradesh9 1 2022 LiveLaw SC 107.2
2023 INSC 738.
32024 INSC 13.
42024 INSC 772.
52025 INSC 499.
62024 INSC 905.
72023 INSC 957.
8AIR 2010 SC 2352.
91998(2) SCC 192.
CBI v. Shashank Jadon & Anr. Page 83/184(x) Bhima Razu Prasad v. State Rep. by Deputy Superintendent of Police, CBI/SPE/ACU-II 10
(xi) Shamu Balu Chaugule v. State of Maharashtra11
46. Ld. Counsel for the accused no. 1 relied upon the following judgments in support of his contentions:
(i) Madhu v. State of Kerala12
(ii) Savita @ Babbal v. State of Delhi 13
(iii) Pappu @ Gulshan v. State of Haryana14
(v) Kalyan and others v. State of U.P.16
(vi) Riaz Ali v. State (Govt. of NCT) Delhi 17
(vii) Mathura Yadav alias Mathura Mahato and others v. State of Bihar 18
(viii) Vijayan alias Rajan v. State of Kerala19
(ix) Shaikh Umar Ahmed Shaikh and another v. State of Maharashtra20
(x) Mahavir Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh21
(xi) Shaukat v. State22
(xii) Dashrath v. State23
(xiii) Raj Kumar @ Raju v. State (NCT of Delhi)24
(xiv) Naresh Kumar @ Raju & Ors. v. State of Delhi25
(xv) State of Maharashtra v. Syed Umar Abbas & Ors.26 10 AIR OnLine 2021 SC 155.
11AIR 1976 SC 557.
12AIR 2012 SC 664.
132011 [3] JCC 1687.
142016 [1] JCC 213.
152015 [2] JCC 859.
162001 CRI. L. J. 4677.
172012 [2] JCC 1092.
18AIR 2002 SC 2707.
19AIR 1999 SC 1086.
20AIR 1998 SC 1922.
21(2016) 10 SCC 220.
222016 [1] JCC 169.
232016 AD (Delhi) 775.
242017 [2] JCC 929.
252017 [1] JCC 461.
262016 [2] JCC 1423.
CBI v. Shashank Jadon & Anr. Page 84/184(xvi) Kalimullah v. State27 (xvii) Pankaj v. State of Rajasthan28 (xviii)Ravi @ Ravichandran v. State Rep. By Inspector of Police29 (xix) State of Haryana v. Ram Singh30 (xx) Kattavellai @ Devakar v. State of Tamilnadu31 (xxi) Kalpnath Rai v. State (through CBI)32 (xxii) Suresh Kalmadi v. CBI33
47. Ld. Counsel for the accused no. 1 also relied upon the Modi's Textbook of Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology, 66 th ed., by referring to the literature on DNA Profiling published therein.
48. Written arguments were also filed on behalf of accused no.1 twice. Accused no. 2 filed the written arguments too. The same are perused.
49. I have considered the rival contentions and perused the entire record.
Analysis of Evidence and Reasons for Decision:
50. Accused persons have been charged in this case for murder, attempt to murder, attempt to robbery, possession & use of fire arms, destruction of evidence and conspiracy. The question before this Court is if the prosecution has been able to bring home the guilt of both the accused persons by leading cogent and reliable evidence.
272017 X AD (Delhi) 524.
28(2016) 16 SCC 192.
29Appeal (Crl.) 636 of 2007 decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India on 27.04.2007.
30AIR 2002 SC 620.
312025 INSC 845.
32(1997) 8 SCC 732.
332015 : DHC : 4624.
CBI v. Shashank Jadon & Anr. Page 85/18451. PW-5 (Gagan Dudhoriya) is the star witness of the prosecution. He is the sole eye witness of the incident of murder, attempt to murder and attempt to robbery that had occurred allegedly on 13.04.2015 at Sector 50, Barola Byepass, Noida, U.P.
52. PW-5 deposed in the Court about the incident and supported the case of the prosecution in entirety. He gave graphic details of the entire incident step by step. His testimony is the most important part of the entire evidence on record and therefore is being reiterated verbatim in the forthcoming paragraphs.
53. PW-5 deposed about the events that preceded the incident of murder and attempt to robbery, in the following words: -
"On 13.04.2015, when I was with Prateek, Ankit Chauhan made a call on the mobile phone of Prateek and conversed with me. He told me that he was having a day off on 13.04.2015 and asked me to meet him at his residence situated at Sector-76, Noida. I reached to the house of Ankit Chauhan between 1.30 p.m. to 2 p.m. After 10 to 15 minutes we left to meet the wife of Ankit Chauhan, who was working with a software company namely Accenture at Sector 135, Noida. She was a Software Engineer. We went to her office in white colour Fortuner Car of Ankit Chauhan. We reached to the said office at about 2.45 p.m. We stayed there for about one hour and we took coffee at Cafe Coffee Day with Amisha. Thereafter, we went to the place where our car was parked. Upon reaching there, we found that a white colour car make Honda Accord was parked behind the Fortuner car. I saw that a man was sitting on the front seat of the said car next to the driver with his arm resting on the open window. I noticed two tattoos on the left arm of the said person, one on the outer part of upper arm and the other on the outer part of the forearm. I told Ankit Chauhan to sit in the car and that I would ask the CBI v. Shashank Jadon & Anr. Page 86/184 people sitting in the said car to move their car a little bit so that we could leave. Ankit Chauhan asked me to smoke a cigarette. After smoking the cigarette, we found that the said car had already moved away."
54. The chilling details of murder and attempt to robbery were described by him in the following words:-
"At about 4 p.m., we left for Ankit's home at Sector
-76, Noida. Ankit Chauhan was driving the car. After some time while driving, Ankit Chauhan told me that a car was following our car. I noticed that a white colour Honda Accord car bearing registration No. UP 14 BA 2300 was either overtaking our car at times or following us. Ankit Chauhan asked me to contact Prateek Gupta and inform him that a white colour Honda Accord Car was following us. I made a call to Prateek Gupta and informed him about the same. I also sent a text message to Prateek Gupta informing the registration number of the said car. In response to this message, he replied back with one message 'OK' and he also asked about our whereabouts and thereafter my phone went off because the battery of my phone got discharged. Then Prateek Gupta made a call on the mobile phone of Ankit Chauhan. Ankit Chauhan asked Prateek Gupta not to panic and that we would call him after reaching the home at Sector-76, Noida. Thereafter, Ankit Chauhan gave his phone to me and asked me to search out the name of Naresh Bhaiya who was Ankit Chauhan's cousin brother. I made a call to Naresh and gave the phone to Ankit Chauhan. Ankit Chauhan told Naresh that a car was following our car. When Ankit Chauhan was talking to Naresh, the said car stopped our car by overtaking from the left side. Ankit Chauhan was on call with Naresh. Two men came out of the said car, one from the front left side and other from the left back side. Both the men were carrying arms in their hands. Both of them asked us to stop our car through hand gesture. Ankit Chauhan took the car backside and tried to drive it away from the left side of the said car. When Ankit Chauhan tried to reverse the car, the person who had alighted from the front CBI v. Shashank Jadon & Anr. Page 87/184 passenger seat of the said car, shouted to stop the car and hand over the keys of the car and he also fired a bullet towards our car. The said bullet smashed the front screen of our car and hit on the left arm elbow of Ankit Chauhan. Ankit Chauhan screamed in pain. At that time, Ankit Chauhan was on call with Naresh and told him that "Bhaiya Inhone to Goli Challa Di" and his phone fell down. After reversing our car a bit, Ankit Chauhan tried to drive our car away. the man who had earlier fired on our car, fired again on the driver side window pane of our car. The said bullet smashed the said window pane. The said person again fired a bullet which hit on the right side neck of Ankit Chauhan. He fired one more bullet pointing towards me. I ducked down towards the dash board of the car and the bullet struck on the seat on which I was sitting. The man, who had fired, opened the Ankit's side gate of the car from inside and tried to untie the seat belt of Ankit Chauhan. At that time, I had seen the said man up close and I got terrified. I told him that we had nothing. The other man who had accompanied him shouted that "Jaldi bhaag warna pakde jayenge" and they left in the said car. Once again I noticed the number of the car i.e. UP-14-BA-2300."
55. The events post incident were also disclosed by PW-5. He deposed regarding those events as follows:-
"After that I got down from the car and came towards the Ankit Chauhan's side and I noticed that he was bleeding profusely. While I was asking for help from the passersby, there was a call from Naresh Bhiaya on Ankit Chauhan's mobile phone. I picked up the phone, which had fallen down. I told him that Ankit Chauhan had sustained a gun shot injury and I was trying for help to take him to the hospital. One person came forward for our help and said that he can drive the car. With the help of the people, we shifted Ankit Chauhan from the driver seat to the middle seat of the car and we left for Shivalik hospital. I was sitting on the left front passenger seat of the car. The doctors at Shivalik hospital told us that Ankit Chauhan was serious and asked us to take him to Kailash Hospital and CBI v. Shashank Jadon & Anr. Page 88/184 offered us the Ambulance of the hospital. With the help of the people, Ankit Chauhan was shifted to the Ambulance. I was also with him. The person who had taken us to Shivalik Hospital followed us upto Kailash Hospital in the Fortuner car of Ankit Chauhan which he was driving. When we reached Kailash Hospital, Ankit Chauhan was declared brought dead by the Doctors. While taking Ankit Chauhan to Shivalik Hospital, I spoke to Naresh, Prateek and dialed 100 number for police help. The police told me that they had received the information and police was about to reach for help......"
56. PW-5 also identified both the accused persons in the Court. He deposed that accused Shashank Jadon was the person who had fired the gun shots and accused Manoj Kumar was his associate. He also identified the vehicle i.e. Honda Accord car in which the accused persons had followed the vehicle of the victim. The said Honda Accord car is Ex.P-1. The weapon of offence (Ex.P-3) too was identified by PW-5.
57. PW-5 was cross-examined in detail by the accused persons. Ld. Counsels for the accused persons contended that PW-5 was not a reliable witness. His testimony was full of contradictions, improvements and omissions. It was contended that the testimony of PW-5 was contrary to the medical evidence, forensic evidence, CCTV footage, site plan, statements u/Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. recorded during the golden period of investigation, insurance report of the surveyor of the Fortuner car that belonged to the victim and the statements of PW-53, PW-57, PW-11, DW-1 and DW-7. Ld. Counsel relied upon the decision in Madhu v. State of Kerala (supra) and contented that in view of the inconsistencies, testimony of PW-5 cannot be relied upon. He further placed reliance upon Pappu @ Gulshan v. State of Haryana (supra) and contended that in case of a highly doubtful version of the CBI v. Shashank Jadon & Anr. Page 89/184 events given by an eye witness, his testimony cannot be relied upon for convicting the accused. Ld. Counsel also relied upon the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Kanhaiya v. State (supra) to contend that the testimony of sole eye witness should be accepted with caution and after testing on the touch stone of evidence tendered by the other witnesses. Reliance was further placed upon the decisions in Kalyan and others v. State of U.P. (supra), Mahavir Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh (supra), Riaz Ali v. State (Govt. of NCT) Delhi (supra) & Pankaj v. State of Rajasthan (supra) in support of the aforementioned arguments.
58. Ld. Sr. PP for the CBI, in rebuttal, contended that the ocular evidence of an eye witness cannot be tested in a straight jacket formula and minor contradictions & improvements are not sufficient to discredit an otherwise trustworthy witness. Ld. Sr. PP for the CBI relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Harendra Rai v. The State of Bihar & Ors. (supra) in support of his contentions.
59. Before dealing with the respective contentions of the parties, it is necessary to discuss the law related to appreciation of the ocular evidence.
60. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Balu Sudam Khalde and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra34 held as below in para no. 25:-
"The appreciation of ocular evidence is a hard task. There is no fixed or straightjacket formula for appreciation of the ocular evidence. The judicially evolved principles for appreciation of ocular evidence in a criminal case can be enumerated as under:34
2023 SCC OnLine SC 355 CBI v. Shashank Jadon & Anr. Page 90/184 I. While appreciating the evidence of a witness, the approach must be whether the evidence of the witness read as a whole appears to have a ring of truth. Once that impression is formed, it is undoubtedly necessary for the Court to scrutinize the evidence more particularly keeping in view the deficiencies, drawbacks and infirmities pointed out in the evidence as a whole and evaluate them to find out whether it is against the general tenor of the evidence given by the witness and whether the earlier evaluation of the evidence is shaken as to render it unworthy of belief.
II. If the Court before whom the witness gives evidence had the opportunity to form the opinion about the general tenor of evidence given by the witness, the appellate court which had not this benefit will have to attach due weight to the appreciation of evidence by the Trial Court and unless there are reasons weighty and formidable it would not be proper to reject the evidence on the ground of minor variations or infirmities in the matter of trivial details.
III. When eye-witness is examined at length it is quite possible for him to make some discrepancies. But Courts should bear in mind that it is only when discrepancies in the evidence of a witness are so incompatible with the credibility of his version that the Court is justified in jettisoning his evidence.
IV. Minor discrepancies on trivial matters not touching the core of the case, hyper technical approach by taking sentences torn out of context here or there from the evidence, attaching importance to some technical error committed by the investigating officer not going to the root of the matter would not ordinarily permit rejection of the evidence as a whole.
V. Too serious a view to be adopted on mere variations falling in the narration of an incident (either as between the evidence of two witnesses or as between two statements of the same witness) is an unrealistic approach for judicial scrutiny.CBI v. Shashank Jadon & Anr. Page 91/184
VI. By and large a witness cannot be expected to possess a photographic memory and to recall the details of an incident. It is not as if a video tape is replayed on the mental screen.
VII. Ordinarily it so happens that a witness is overtaken by events. The witness could not have anticipated the occurrence which so often has an element of surprise. The mental faculties therefore cannot be expected to be attuned to absorb the details.
VIII. The powers of observation differ from person to person. What one may notice, another may not. An object or movement might emboss its image on one person's mind whereas it might go unnoticed on the part of another.
IX. By and large people cannot accurately recall a conversation and reproduce the very words used by them or heard by them. They can only recall the main purport of the conversation. It is unrealistic to expect a witness to be a human tape recorder.
X. In regard to exact time of an incident, or the time duration of an occurrence, usually, people make their estimates by guess work on the spur of the moment at the time of interrogation. And one cannot expect people to make very precise or reliable estimates in such matters. Again, it depends on the timesense of individuals which varies from person to person.
XI. Ordinarily a witness cannot be expected to recall accurately the sequence of events which take place in rapid succession or in a short time span. A witness is liable to get confused, or mixed up when interrogated later on.
XII. A witness, though wholly truthful, is liable to be overawed by the court atmosphere and the piercing cross examination by counsel and out of nervousness mix up facts, get confused regarding sequence of events, or fill up details from imagination on the spur of the moment. The sub-CBI v. Shashank Jadon & Anr. Page 92/184
conscious mind of the witness sometimes so operates on account of the fear of looking foolish or being disbelieved though the witness is giving a truthful and honest account of the occurrence witnessed by him.
XIII. A former statement though seemingly inconsistent with the evidence need not necessarily be sufficient to amount to contradiction. Unless the former statement has the potency to discredit the later statement, even if the later statement is at variance with the former to some extent it would not be helpful to contradict that witness."
61. In Somjeet Mallick v. State of Jharkhand & Ors. (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court held as below with respect to the FIR:-
"18. It is trite law that FIR is not an encyclopedia of all imputations. Therefore, to test whether an FIR discloses commission of a cognizable offence what is to be looked at is not any omission in the accusations but the gravamen of the accusations contained therein to find out whether, prima facie, some cognizable offence has been committed or not. At this stage, the Court is not required to ascertain as to which specific offence has been committed. It is only after investigation, at the time of framing charge, when materials collected during investigation are before the Court, the Court has to draw an opinion as to for commission of which offence the accused should be tried. Prior to that, if satisfied, the Court may even discharge the accused. Thus, when the FIR alleges a dishonest conduct on the part of the accused which, if supported by materials, would disclose commission of a cognizable offence, investigation should not be thwarted by quashing the FIR."
62. In Birbal Nath v. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. (supra) while discussing the value of a statement u/Sec. 161 Cr.P.C., the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:-
CBI v. Shashank Jadon & Anr. Page 93/184"18. Statement given to police during investigation under Section 161 cannot be read as "evidence". It has a limited applicability in a Court of Law as prescribed under Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.).
19. No doubt statement given before police during investigation under Section 161 are "previous statements"
under Section 145 of the Evidence Act and therefore can be used to cross examine a witness. But this is only for a limited purpose, to "contradict" such a witness. Even if the defence is successful in contradicting a witness, it would not always mean that the contradiction in her two statements would result in totally discrediting this witness. It is here that we feel that the learned judges of the High Court have gone wrong.....
21. In Tahsildar Singh v. State of U.P., AIR 1959 SC 1012, it was held that to contradict a witness would mean to "discredit" a witness. Therefore, unless and until the former statement of this witness is capable of "discrediting" a witness, it would have little relevance. A mere variation in the two statements would not be enough to discredit a witness. This has been followed consistently by this Court in its later judgment, including Rammi (supra). Moreover, in this case the High Court lost sight of other more relevant factors such as the witness being an injured eye witness."
63. The law related to appreciation of ocular testimony of an eye witness, relevancy of FIR and the statements recorded during the investigation u/Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. is thus well settled. Minor inconsistencies and improvements in the testimony are to be neglected and cannot be made the ground to discredit the testimony of an otherwise reliable witness. In case the testimony of a sole eye witness is trustworthy and his presence on the spot is natural, Court may rely even upon the sole testimony of such a witness to convict the accused. Looking for corroboration to the ocular testimony of a sole eye witness is a rule of prudence and not the rule of law. Hence, in case CBI v. Shashank Jadon & Anr. Page 94/184 prudence so requires, corroboration shall be looked for but if the witness is creditworthy, his sole testimony can be the basis of conviction.
64. It is already observed that PW-5 described the incident before this Court in great details, explaining it step by step with graphic description. He also identified both the accused persons in the Court.
65. It is now to be seen if inconsistencies and contradictions in the testimony of PW-5, as pointed out by Ld. Defence Counsels, are so significant as to discredit his version.
66. The first portion from the testimony of PW-5, highlighted by the Ld. Defence Counsels for showing contradictions, is as below:-
"Thereafter, we went to the place where our car was parked, upon reaching there, we found that a white colour car make Honda Accord was parked behind the fortuner car. I saw that a man was sitting on the front seat of the said car next to the driver with his arm resting on the open window. I noticed two tattoos on the left arm of the said person, one on the outer part of upper arm and the other on the outer part of forearm......"
"Q. I put it to you that after coming out of the office Accenture Company, you saw the car parked behind the fortuner car from its bonnet side?
Ans. After coming out of the office of accenture Company, I noticed the Honda Accord car from its front passenger side. Q. I put it to you that while you and Ankit Chauhan had gone to the cigarette vendor, you had crossed the car parked behind the Fortuner Car?
Ans. When I came out of the office of Accenture Company, I walked towards the fortuner car and had cigarette there meaning thereby I did not cross the Accord Car."CBI v. Shashank Jadon & Anr. Page 95/184
66.1. It was firstly contended that PW-5, without looking at the tail of the Car parked behind the Fortuner car, had assumed that it was a Honda Accord car. Such assumption of PW-5 cannot be given any credit because PW-5 was not familiar with the cars and did not even know how to drive. It was also contended that the version of PW-5 was completely an after thought because he did not state anything regarding the aforesaid facts to the police in his statement recorded u/Sec.161 Cr.P.C. on 14.04.2015 and 02.05.2015. These statements are already Ex.PX and Ex.PY.
66.2. It is not sufficient to say that PW-5 did not understand about the make and model of cars just because he did not know how to drive. PW-5 categorically deposed in his testimony that the car following them was a Honda Accord car. Make of the car was described by him in the FIR itself. The FIR Ex.PW47/1 had been registered on the basis of a complaint of the father of Ankit Chauhan however it was based upon the information given by PW-5. PW-5 had described the car in his statement Ex.PX also. No suggestion in his cross-examination was given to PW-5 by any of the accused persons regarding his understanding about the make & model of the cars. The Court therefore cannot assume that PW-5 was not capable of guessing the make of a car by merely looking at its front side just because he did not know driving. This argument raised on behalf of accused persons is devoid of merits in my considered opinion.
66.3. No questions were put to PW-5 in his cross-examination regarding the person allegedly seen by him sitting in the Honda Accord car with a tatoo on his left arm except a suggestion that the said person had stepped down from the car at the office of Accenture at about 3.57.05 PM. PW-5 was not CBI v. Shashank Jadon & Anr. Page 96/184 confronted with his statement Ex.PX or Ex.PY regarding this improvement. The statements Ex.PX and Ex.PY were recorded by PW-53, who is Inspector Manoj Kumar, the first IO of this case from the U.P. Police. No questions were put to him also in his cross-examination, regarding the contended improvements in respect of events preceding the incident of murder and attempt of robbery. It is the settled law that the statement recorded u/Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. can be used only to confront a witness and not otherwise. A contradiction or improvement in the testimony of the witness and his earlier statement u/Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. could only be proved by bringing the contradiction or improvement into the notice of witness and the Police officer who recorded the statement. In this case, the alleged contradictions or improvements with respect to the events preceding the incident were not put either to PW-5 or to PW-53. Hence, such contradictions or improvements were not proved on behalf of the accused persons as per law. Therefore, the contention regarding contradiction or improvement is baseless and cannot be considered to discredit the testimony of PW-5.
66.4. The second contention was that as per PW-5 he had seen a person sitting on the front passenger seat of the Honda Accord car with his arm resting on the open window and that person had two tattoos on his left arm. In case this statement of PW-5 is taken as correct, the case of the prosecution would fall flat because the accused no. 1, on whose arm two tattoos were found inscribed when he was made to uncover his left arm by the Court on 12.02.2021 during the recording of the testimony of PW-5, had got those tattoos in the year 2016, as was proved by DW-1 and DW-7. This showed that Shashank Jadon did not have tattoos on his left hand in the year 2015 and CBI v. Shashank Jadon & Anr. Page 97/184 therefore he could not be the person who was allegedly sitting on the left front seat of the Honda Accord car. Ld. Defence Counsel also contended that though PW-7 had deposed that the accused Shashank Jadon had two tattoos on his left hand however his testimony was silent about the date on which Shashank Jadon had got those tattoos made and therefore prosecution was unable to prove that he had got the tattoos before 13.04.2015, i.e. the date of incident.
66.5. It is necessary to look at the testimony of DW-1, DW-7 and PW-7 in order to appreciate this contention raised by Ld. Defence Counsel.
66.6. DW-1 deposed that he had inscribed the tattoo on the hand of the accused Shashank Jadon in the year 2016. The said tattoo consisted of the word 'Kshatriya' and it was written in the mix font of Hindi and English transcripts. DW-1 deposed that since very few people used to get this kind of tattoo made, he had remembered about the accused Shashank Jadon specifically and thus was able to depose in the Court.
66.7. DW-7 deposed that he and accused Shashank Jadon were friends. They had some common friends and they used to meet at Snookers' Club at Pratap Vihar, Ghaziabad. He also deposed that he and accused Shashank Jadon had got the tattoos inscribed on their body probably in November/December, 2016. He also deposed that along with them their friend Meetu had also got the tattoo of a star inscribed on his hand. During cross-examination, DW-7 deposed that the actual name of Meetu was probably Shashank Garg.
CBI v. Shashank Jadon & Anr. Page 98/18466.8. Shashank Garg, a friend of accused Shashank Jadon, was examined by the CBI as PW-7. He deposed in the Court that he had met the accused Shashank Jadon at Santosh Medical Chowk, Vijay Nagar, Ghaziabad on one day in the year 2015 and had lent him a sum of Rs.500/-. He also deposed that one Pankaj was a friend of accused Shashank Jadon. This witness was declared hostile by the CBI and was cross-examined at length. During his cross-examination by the prosecution, he admitted that he had a tattoo on his left hand. This witness was also cross-examined by the accused Shashank Jadon and Manoj Kumar during which he deposed that he was aware about the tattoo on the hand of Shashank Jadon because he himself, accused Shashank Jadon and one Pankaj (since deceased) had got the same made on their hands from a professional tattoo maker, who had been called by the accused Shashank Jadon at the Snooker's Club. He deposed that Pankaj also had a tattoo on his left arm and he had met Pankaj for the first time when Pankaj had come to get the tattoo made. He thereafter met Pankaj a couple of more times but not after that night of the year 2015, when he had come at Santosh Medical College with accused Shashank Jadon, where PW-7 had lent a sum of Rs.500/-. PW-7 was not confronted or further questioned by the accused persons with regard to his aforesaid testimony on the point of inscription of tattoo as well on the point of death of Pankaj and their last meeting in the year 2015 when PW-7 had lent a sum of Rs.500/- to the accused Shashank Jadon.
66.9. It is clear from the testimony of PW-7 that accused Shashank Jadon, PW-7 himself and one Pankaj (who had already expired), had got the tattoos inscribed on their left arms before that day in the year 2015 when PW-7 had CBI v. Shashank Jadon & Anr. Page 99/184 lent a sum of Rs.500/- to the accused Shashank Jadon. This statement of PW-7, which has gone unrebutted and unchallenged, is contrary to the testimony of DW-1 and DW-7 on two points, firstly, on the point of year in or before which the accused no. 1 had got the tattoo inscribed on his left arm and secondly, on the point of identity of Pankaj.
66.10. DW-7 claimed that the third person who had got the tattoo inscribed on his left arm along with PW-7 and accused no. 1 was him. However, that Pankaj whom PW-7 had described in his cross-examination, had already expired as per his testimony and he was not confronted on this aspect by the accused persons. There were further no questions with respect to the claim of PW-7 that he had not met Pankaj after that night of the year 2015 on which he had lent a sum of Rs.500/- to Shashank Jadon, meaning thereby, that the tattoo had been got inscribed before that night. This belies the testimony of DW-1 & DW-7 and shows that their testimony was an after- thought and was procured by the accused Shashank Jadon in order to built his defence. DW-1 and DW-7 are not creditworthy witnesses for the reasons aforesaid and their testimony to the effect that the accused Shashank Jadon did not have a tattoo on his left arm before the year 2016, cannot be relied upon. The contention of Ld. Defence Counsel with respect to the date of making of the tattoo is also therefore baseless.
66.11. The third contention that was raised with respect to aforesaid testimony of PW-5 is that it was contrary to the scrutiny report of CCTV footage of the Accenture Office relied upon by the prosecution, which is Ex.PW57/5. It was contended that as per testimony of PW-5, the person sitting on the front left seat of the Honda Accord car was seen by him and as CBI v. Shashank Jadon & Anr. Page 100/184 per case of the prosecution this person was Shashank Jadon. Ld. Counsel contended that such a story put forth by the prosecution was not trustworthy and believable. It was rather self-contradictory. It was contended that as per scrutiny report Ex.PW57/5, the suspect had come out from the left side passenger seat of the Honda Accord car at 15:57:05 and the Car moved ahead. The prosecution however did not bring any evidence on record to show that the said Honda Accord car, after moving ahead, again followed the Fortuner car belonging to the victim and the suspect had got into the said car once again. It is contended by the Ld. Defence Counsel that the self-contradictory story put forth by the prosecution was harmful to its case. The prosecution had not been able to discharge the burden of proof laid upon it and the accused is therefore entitled to be acquitted. Ld. Counsel relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in Riaz Ali v. State (Govt. of NCT) Delhi (Supra) to contend that the burden of proof laid upon the prosecution could not be shifted upon the accused under any circumstances.
66.12. It is necessary to reiterate the contents of the scrutiny report Ex.PW57/5 in order to appreciate this contention raised by the Ld. Defence Counsel. The scrutiny report Ex.PW57/5 is D-60 and it reads as below:-
SECRTINY REPORT OF CCTV INSTALLED AT ACCENTURE SECTOR 135 NOIDA UP IN ANKIT MURDER CASE IN GATE CAMERA S.N. CAMERA REMARKS TIME TIME TIME TIME IN OUT IN OUT
1. 14:29:19 14:29:30 - - Accord visible on opposite side of the road. Slow Moving speed CBI v. Shashank Jadon & Anr. Page 101/184
2. - - 14:29:44 14:29:56 Accord visible on opposite side of the road. Slow Moving speed
3. - - 14:33:29 14:33:35 Accord visible slow moving. Stopped at 14:33:35 for 18 seconds.
Accenture side.
4. - - 14:33:48 14:33:58 Accord started and moved towards IN Gate of Accenture.
5. 14:51:06 14:51:10 - - Accord visible going from there in OUT Camera.
6. 14:59:43 14:59:47 - - Fortuner visible on opposite side. Normal speed.
7. - - 15:01:29 15:01:52 Ankit and Gagan visible coming inside from the Accenture Office.
8. - - 15:50:01 15:50:23 Ankit and Gagan visible coming outside from the Accenture Office.
9. - - 15:56:29 15:56:37 Accord visible and stopped at 15:56:37 for 16 seconds.
10. - - 15:57:05 15:57:14 At 15:57:05 suspect came out from left side gate of the Accord and car moved ahead.
11. 15:57:17 15:57:22 - - Accord visible going ahead for taking a U-turn.
12. 15:57:30 15:57:38 - - Accord visible taking a U-
turn and stopped on the opposite side.
13. - - 15:59:13 15:59:23 Fortuner visible leaving from there.
CBI v. Shashank Jadon & Anr. Page 102/18414. 15:59:29 15:59:35 - - Fortuner visible leaving from there.
15. - - 15:59:56 16:00:24 Suspect visible looking for his Honda Accord which is visible parked on the opposite side in OUT camera.
16. 16:00:44 - - - Suspect visible running.
17. 16:00:50 16:01:01 - - Accord which is parked on opposite side, started.
66.13. Scrutiny report was exhibited in the Court after playing the CCTV footage. The CCTV footage was also exhibited as Ex.PW50/1. I have seen the CCTV footage again while examining the scrutiny report for the purpose of writing this judgment. The scrutiny report was not only identified by the IO of this case, who is PW-57, but part of it was also proved through PW-50 Ms. Amisha, wife of the Victim, who was working in the office of Accenture and to whom the Victim had gone to meet along with PW-5 on the fateful day.
66.14. PW-50 had identified the Victim and PW-5 Gagan Dudhoriya from the CCTV footage. She deposed that the location seen in the CCTV footage was of the area outside the office of Accenture, Noida. She also deposed that the two persons who were seen walking in the CCTV footage from 15:01:40 to 15:01:47 were the Victim Ankit Chauhan (her husband) and his friend Gagan Dudhoriya (PW-5). She also identified Victim Ankit Chauhan and PW-5 from the video footage between 15:50:05 and 15:50:19. During this interval, the Victim and PW-5 were seen walking out of the Accenture Noida Office Campus. PW-50 had further identified the Fortuner car belonging to CBI v. Shashank Jadon & Anr. Page 103/184 the Victim, that was seen going from the Accenture Noida Office Campus between 15:59:15 to 15:59:20.
66.15. The testimony of PW-50 and its corresponding corroboration from the CCTV footage Ex.PW50/1 establishes presence of the Victim and PW-5 outside the Accenture Noida Office Campus. It also establishes that they had moved from the said office in the white colour Fortuner car which was identified by PW-5 as Ex.P-2. The scrutiny report shows that this Car had come to the Accenture Noida Office Campus between the time interval of 14:59:43 to 14:59:47. It also establishes that Victim and Gagan Dudhoriya had spent about 50 minutes in the office of Accenture Noida and they took about 10 minutes to leave the site after coming out from the office of Accenture. While they are seen coming out during the time interval of 15:50:01 to 15:50:23, the Fortuner car was seen leaving the office in the Out Gate Camera between 15:59:13 and 15:59:23 and from the In Gate Camera between 15:59:29 and 15:59:35.
66.16. The Honda Accord car is also visible around the Accenture Office from 14:29:19 to 14:51:10 at different time intervals, moving around slowly. The Honda Accord car is again seen between the time interval of 15:56:29 to 15:56:37 and one person from the left front side of the Car is seen coming out at 15:57:05 to 15:57:14. This person leaves the Car and the Car moves ahead. This person is again seen coming from the direction from which the Fortuner car had moved to the main road, between 15:59:56 to 16:00:24. It is seen in the Out Gate camera. This person is seen looking for something and he is again visible at 16:00:44 in the In Gate Camera. This time he is seen running, and noticing him running, the Honda Accord car starts from the opposite side CBI v. Shashank Jadon & Anr. Page 104/184 of the road. It is further seen in the CCTV footage that after the Honda Accord car had left at 15:56:37, it was seen in the In Gate Camera on the opposite road at 15:57:17 and it had stopped on the opposite road at 15:57:38. After the Honda Accord car moves from the opposite road, it is seen in the Out Camera, going in the direction in which Fortuner car had left, at about 04:02:49. This movement of the Car is not shown in the Scrutiny report however it is visible in the CCTV footage Ex.PW50/1. The same Honda Accord car is again seen in the In Gate Camera at about 04:02:55 going at a very fast speed.
66.17. This sequence of events visible in the CCTV footage suggest that after taking the U-turn, the Honda Accord car moved in the direction in which the Fortuner car belonging to the Victim had gone. The person who had come out of the Honda Accord car from the left side front seat, had gone out of the frame of In Camera while he was running, and seeing whom the Honda Accord car had started. Hence, it is possible that the said person again got inside the Honda Accord car when the Car was out of the frame of In Gate Camera due to which he has not been seen getting into the Car. The sequence of events seen from the CCTV footage are in corroboration to the testimony of PW-50 (wife of the victim) and PW-5 (the sole eye witness).
66.18. PW-5 had deposed that when he and Ankit came out of Accenture Office and went to their Car, they saw that their passage had been blocked by a Honda Accord car which was parked behind their Car. Hence, they decided to smoke a cigarette and moved thereafter. This portion of the testimony of PW-5 is in complete corroboration to the sequence of events seen in the CCTV footage which suggest that the Fortuner car had left from the Accenture Office after about 10 minutes of the time when the victim & PW-5 CBI v. Shashank Jadon & Anr. Page 105/184 were seen going out of the Accenture Office and towards their car. The lapse of 10 minutes is explained by the witness in his testimony properly. The witness had also deposed that after smoking the cigarette, when they again reached at their car, the Honda Accord car had already left. This fact is also corroborated from the sequence of events seen in the CCTV footage which shows the Honda Accord car leaving at the time interval of 15:56:29 to 15:56:37 i.e. after about six minutes of the time interval when the Victim and PW-5 were seen approaching their Fortuner car. The testimony of PW-5 is thus not contradictory to the CCTV footage but rather is in corroboration. This increases the trustworthiness of PW-5 because now it is not only his ocular testimony but also the CCTV footage which corroborates his testimony.
66.19. No questions regarding the genuinity of CCTV footage were raised during the trial. The CCTV footage was handed over to the U.P. Police by PW-49 who also appeared in the witness box and had proved the hard disk and the certificate u/Sec. 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, which are Ex.PW48/1 (Colly) and Ex. PW48/2 respectively. There were handed over by PW-49 to the CBI as per his testimony. PW-49 was not cross-examined by either of the accused persons. The CCTV footage and the hard disk handed over by PW-49 was examined by PW-55, expert from CFSL, who proved his report as Ex.PW55/1. He states that he had made a clone of the hard disk Q-2 and the clone was forwarded to the CBI for the purpose of investigation. The report also suggests that the seals on the hard disk were found intact and the hard disk Q-2, of which clone was made, was not found damaged.
CBI v. Shashank Jadon & Anr. Page 106/18466.20. In view of above, it is clear that the first portion regarding which contentions of improvement and contradictions have been raised on behalf of the defence is not at all contradictory. It is rather corroborated from the other material on record. It does not impeach but establish the creditworthiness of PW-5 and suggest that he is a reliable witness.
67. The second portion of the testimony of PW-5 stated to be full of contradictions and improvements, reads as below:-
"I made a call to Naresh and gave the phone to Ankit Chauhan. Ankit Chauhan told Naresh that a car was following our car. When Ankit Chauhan was talking to Naresh, the said car stopped our car by overtaking from the left side. Ankit Chauhan was on call with Naresh. Two men came out of the said car, one from the front left side and other from the left back side. Both the men were carrying arms in their hands. Both of them asked us to stop our car through hand gesture. Ankit Chauhan took the car backside and tried to drive it away from the left side of the said car. When Ankit Chauhan tried to reverse the car, the person who had alighted from the front passenger seat of the said car, shouted to stop the car and hand over the keys of the car and he also fired a bullet towards our car."
67.1. Ld. Defence counsel firstly contended that the aforesaid portion of the testimony of PW-5 was contrary to the testimony of PW-11. The following portion of the testimony of PW-11 was picked up by the Ld. Defence Counsel to demonstrate contradictions:-
"He told me that he is Ankit Chauhan and told me that he had come from Meerut by Fortuner. He further told me that presently he is coming from Sector-135, Noida after taking lunch with Amisha and also that some persons were following him in a vehicle. Then I asked him whether he could identify them. He told me that I cannot identify them. In the meantime, CBI v. Shashank Jadon & Anr. Page 107/184 he told me that he was being accompanied with one of his friend in the said vehicle. The name of said friend was told as Gagan. While my conversation on mobile was going on with him, all of a sudden he apprised me that the persons who were chasing him had fired upon him. All of a sudden there was no response from his side though his mobile phone was switch on and some noise vibrations were being heard."
67.2. It was contended by Ld. Defence Counsel that PW-11, who is cousin of Victim Ankit Chauhan, had not deposed anything about the stopping of the Car by the assailants through hand gesture or asking of the Car keys.
67.3. This contention of Ld. Defence Counsel does not deserve attention, firstly, because it is a hyper-technical contention and secondly, because it attempts to confront the testimony of an eye witness with the testimony of a person to whom the incident was being simultaneously described on the phone. Whatever has been deposed by PW-5 is something that was happening in front of his eyes. Hence, he was able to see every gesture and every movement that had occurred in front of him. PW-11, on the other hand, was informed about the incident by the Victim himself. The Victim had called up PW-11 when he noticed that a Honda Accord car was following him. In the meanwhile, this Honda Accord car overtook the Car of the Victim. As per testimony of PW-5, the assailants came out of their Car and fired the gun shot. The first gun shot had hit the Victim on his left elbow. Hence, while talking to PW-11 the Victim could only say "भैया इन्होने तो गोली चला दी". Phone of the Victim fell down at this moment and thereafter there was no response from him. It is unexpected that at a moment when the Victim was being shot CBI v. Shashank Jadon & Anr. Page 108/184 at, he will describe the entire incident in detail on a mobile phone call to his cousin. Each of the event that forms part of the incident of course did not happen in intervals with sufficient time gap in between that would have given a chance to the Victim to explain everything in greater details. It happened very swiftly and the Victim faced repeated gun shots one after the other, including the fatal shot. To expect that he should have described everything to his brother at such a moment is bizarre. Just because the entire incident was not described to PW-11 on the phone call, is not the sufficient reason to doubt the testimony of PW-5,who otherwise is a creditworthy witness.
67.4. The second contention is that the site plan of the place of incident was prepared by the IO of Noida Police i.e. PW-53 on the day immediately after the day of incident i.e. on 14.04.2015 as per information given by PW-5. This document was deliberately concealed by the CBI and it was brought on record on the application moved by the accused Shashank Jadon. This site plan is Ex.D-1. The purpose of IO to conceal the site plan was to avoid contradictions in the testimony of PW-5, who had said in his testimony that the Fortuner car was overtaken by the Honda Accord car from the left side, but in the site plan it was shown that the Fortuner car was overtaken from the right side. It was contended that site plan was prepared by the Noida Police during the golden period of investigation and it is contradictory to the statement of PW-5 thereby suggesting that PW-5 had improved upon his testimony.
67.5. The chargesheet in this case was filed in the year 2017. PW-5 was examined in the Court for the first time on 12.02.2021 i.e. after a period of almost four years. The incident had occurred on 13.04.2015 i.e. almost two CBI v. Shashank Jadon & Anr. Page 109/184 years before the chargesheet was filed. The site plan Ex.D-1, which was brought on record on the application of the accused no.1, was not filed along with the charge-sheet in the year 2017. The evidence of PW-5 was not on record by that date and therefore the contention of Ld. Defence Counsel that the site plan was not filed in order to avoid contradictions in the testimony of PW-5 is too far fetched. IO obviously cannot be said to be aware of what the witness was going to speak in the dock at the stage of recording of his testimony. Hence, it cannot be said that the site plan prepared by U.P. Police was not filed by the IO in order to avoid contradictions in the testimony of PW-5. The contention is baseless and without merits.
67.6. It is the settled law that minor contradictions in the testimony of a witness are bound to occur due to lapse of time and perceptions created in the mind of the witness at the time of incident. The fact that the site plan Ex.D-1 reflects that the Fortuner car was overtaken from the right side, while PW-5 deposed that it was overtaken from the left side, is of no consequence. Such contradictions in the statement of PW-5 are minor and do not go to the root of the matter. The contradiction is of such a nature that was bound to occur due to a long lapse of time. No weightage can be attached to such a contradiction and it is not sufficient to doubt the testimony of an otherwise creditworthy witness.
67.7. Ld. Defence Counsel thirdly contended that PW-5 had improved upon his testimony, also with regard to the attempt to snatch away the Fortuner car. It is contended that the theory of an attempt to snatch away the Fortuner car was an after thought as this fact was neither mentioned in the CBI v. Shashank Jadon & Anr. Page 110/184 FIR nor in the statement of PW-5 recorded by the UP Police u/Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. which are Ex.PX and Ex.PY respectively.
67.8. Ld. Defence Counsel also referred to para no. 17 of Ex.DW11/1, which is the writ petition that was filed by the complainant (father of the Victim) before the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad, for getting the investigation transferred to CBI. The relevant portion of this petition reads as below:-
"17. That present case was preplanned murder committed by fired (sic hired) shooter only for the purpose of murder. No article such as golden chain, watch or other article which Ankit was having were looted and after committing the murder shooters fled away and till today police could not trace the accused persons."
67.9. Ld. Counsel also referred to the evidence of PW-53 in this regard. It was recorded on 09.05.2024. The relevant portion of the evidence reads as below:-
"It is correct that from 13.04.2015 to 22.05.2015, I had not received any complaint from any of the witnesses regarding attempt to robbery, robbery and theft from the Fortuner Car."
67.10. Ld. Defence counsel further referred to the following portion of the Order of this Court, that was passed on 23.05.2025:-
"During arguments, the case diary from 14.06.2016 to 17.04.2017, produced by the CBI, is perused. It is noted for record, at the request of Ld. Counsel for the accused no.1, that as per the case diary, PW5 was examined by the CBI on 28.06.2016 and no new fact was disclosed by him apart from those recorded in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C written by the Noida Police. It is also noted that the case diary dated 21.03.2017, 23.03.2017 & 25.03.2017 also refer to the examination of PW5 by the CBI as per which too no new fact was disclosed by PW5 to the CBI"CBI v. Shashank Jadon & Anr. Page 111/184
67.11. It was contended by Ld. Defence Counsel that all the aforesaid material showed that there were no allegations with respect to robbery in the beginning and these allegations were made up by the CBI in order to impute motive upon the accused persons to commit the crime.
67.12. The aforesaid contentions of Ld. Defence Counsel cannot be appreciated by giving a plain meaning to whatever is written on the record. This Court cannot lose sight of the fact that the incident had occurred on 13.04.2015 and investigation of this case was assigned to the CBI by the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad after almost an year because the U.P. Police was unable to trace the culprits. The directions to transfer the case to CBI came after the complainant, who is father of the Victim, had filed a writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad. The said writ petition is Ex.DW11/1. It is clear on a reading of this writ petition that initially it was believed that the murder of the Victim was a pre-planned one, because no articles including the Fortuner car were looted and the assailants had fled away from the spot after firing the gun shots. PW-5 himself had been put under the cloud of doubts which is apparent from a reading of the writ petition Ex.DW11/1. Father of the Victim had stated as below in para no. 13, 16 & 20 of the writ petition:-
"13. That on the date of incident Ankit Chauhan (deceased) has (sic had) taken leave and this fact was only known to Ankit Chauhan (Deceased) his life (sic wife) and Gagan who remained with Ankit Chauhan till his death which also create suspicion on respondent no. 9 and Gagan. ......CBI v. Shashank Jadon & Anr. Page 112/184
16. That though Gagan was also in the car with Ankit Chauhan but shooter did not fired (sic fire) upon him nor said (sic say) anything to Gagan.
.....
20. That petitioner also prayed I.O. to provide or show the call detail of respondent no. 8, 9, Gagan and other suspected accused person but police has refused to provide call detail of suspected accused person. A correct copy of letter given by present Investigating Officer refusing to give call detail is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure No.6 to this writ petition.
It is respectfully submitted that petitioner is informant of present case and has lost his able son but even though (sic still) I.O. is not cooperating with petitioner."
67.13. Respondent No. 9 referred in the aforesaid petition is the wife of victim Ankit Chauhan, who was examined by the CBI as PW-50.
67.14. The contents of the writ petition suggest that the incident was being investigated by the UP Police from the angle of it being a pre-planned murder and not from the angle of robbery. PW-5 was also being put in the dock and angle of robbery was being brushed aside.
67.15. When PW-5 was confronted by the Ld. Defense Counsels on this aspect. He deposed that he had informed the Noida Police about the assailants signaling the Car to stop. PW-53, the first IO from the UP Police, however denied that such an information was given to him by PW-5. The circumstances described in the paragraph above however suggest that the version of PW-5 is true. The theory of robbery was being brushed aside because the assailants did not take away any valuable article including the Fortuner car. PW-5 therefore may not have been believed even if he had disclosed about the signals having been given by the assailants to stop the car CBI v. Shashank Jadon & Anr. Page 113/184 and therefore this fact may not have been recorded in his statement also. It appears that for this reason only PW-5 may not have informed the CBI about the angle of robbery till solving of the case and arrest of the accused persons. The omissions in the previous statements of PW-5 on the aspect of robbery are therefore explicable when these are considered in light of the circumstances under which investigation was being carried out. The angle of robbery came to the fore after the arrest of accused persons. The stand of PW-5 stood vindicated at that stage. Before that, not only was he undergoing the trauma of incident but also the trauma of being one of the suspects himself.
67.16. CBI had examined PW-51 to prove that the accused persons actually wanted to rob the Fortuner car and that is why the alleged offences were committed by them. PW-51 was first arrested by the CBI in this case as a co-accused, however, later a closure report was filed qua him which was accepted by the Court and PW-51 was included into the array of witnesses instead.
67.17. PW-51 categorically deposed in his examination-in-chief that in the first week of April, 2015, Shashank Jadon and Manoj Kumar had approached him along with Pankaj Thakur. They were seeking help from PW-51 for arranging a stolen car. PW-51, initially during his examination-in- chief, deposed that the aforesaid three persons did not inform him the reason why they needed an old car. However, when he was confronted with his statement u/Sec. 164 Cr.P.C., which is Ex.PW51/1, he deposed that co- accused Pankaj Kumar @ Pankaj Thakur (since deceased) had requested him to arrange a car because he wanted to use the same for committing theft / CBI v. Shashank Jadon & Anr. Page 114/184 robbery of another car. This witness identified the accused Shashank Jadon and Manoj Kumar in the Court and deposed that these two accused persons had approached him along with Pankaj Thakur @ Pankaj Kumar.
67.18. PW-51 was cross-examined at length on behalf of both the accused persons. Not a single question was however put to him with respect to his statement u/Sec. 164 Cr.P.C. The said statement was not even used by the defence to confront the witness. The defence instead used the statement u/Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. which is Mark PW51/A. The witness denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely at the instance of CBI in exchange of the promise made by the CBI to file a closure report against him. Despite a lengthy cross-examination, nothing fruitful could be brought out by the defence in its favour. The testimony of PW-51 proves that the alleged offences were committed by the accused persons with an aim to commit robbery of the Fortuner car. Since the angle of robbery was accepted by the investigating agency only after arrest of the accused persons, it was being brushed aside earlier and PW-5 was rather being put under the cloud of suspicion, it becomes clear why there is an omission in this regard in the previous statements of PW-5. It is to be kept in mind here that PW-5 was not the writer of the statement Ex.PX and Ex.PY and he categorically stated before the Court that he had informed the UP Police that the assailants had signaled the Fortuner car being driven by the Victim, to stop. The prime reason why investigation was transferred to the CBI, was that the various angles through which the case was being investigated by the U.P. Police, were not leading the investigation anywhere. This obviously was because the angle of robbery, which was the actual reason for committing the crime, was being CBI v. Shashank Jadon & Anr. Page 115/184 brushed aside and statements of witnesses were being tailormade accordingly. One of the glaring example of tailormade statements is with respect to the Fortuner car, which shall be discussed in detail in the latter part of this judgment, while appreciating the testimony of PW-53.
67.19. For reasons aforesaid, I am of the considered view that there are no contradictions or improvements in the testimony of PW-5 on the aforesaid account as well. His testimony is trustworthy. His presence at the spot is natural because he was accompanying Ankit Chauhan at the time of incident. His presence has been proved by the prosecution sufficiently through the CCTV footage and the testimony of PW-50 Smt. Amisha Chauhan. PW-5 is a natural witness and himself a Victim before whom his friend was shot dead. PW-5 himself faced death threat from very close and his testimony before the Court cannot be brushed aside lightly.
68. The third and fourth contradictions that were highlighted by the defence in the testimony of PW-5, are with respect to the following portions:-
" The said bullet smashed the front screen of our car and hit on the left arm elbow of Ankit Chauhan. Ankit Chauhan screamed in pain. At that time, Ankit Chauhan was on call with Naresh and told him that "Bhaiya Inhone to Goli Challa Di" and his phone fell down."
"He fired one more bullet pointing towards me. I ducked down towards the dash board of the car and the bullet struck on the seat on which I was sitting."
68.1. It was contended by Ld. Defence Counsels that the aforesaid statement of PW-5 was completely contradictory to the medical evidence because as per the postmortem report Ex.PW2K/1, there was a blackening CBI v. Shashank Jadon & Anr. Page 116/184 around the gun shot entry wound on the left elbow of the deceased Victim. It was contended that a bullet that had hit the victim after piercing through the front windscreen of Fortuner car and was fired from a little distance (at least from the distance equivalent to the bonnet of Fortuner car), will not cause any blackening. It was because once the bullet would hit the screen of the Car, entire soot would get deposited on the windscreen itself and shall not reach the body, hence, question of blackening of wound shall not arise. Ld. Defence Counsel contended that in this case, PW-2, the Doctor who had conducted the postmortem, had categorically opined that the injury found on the elbow of the deceased victim was caused by a gunshot and had blackening on its corners. Such an opinion of the medical expert suggested that the narration of events by PW-5 was not truthful because had the bullet been fired from a distance equivalent to the length of bonnet of Fortuner car and had reached the body of the Victim after piercing through the windscreen of the Car, it would not have caused blackening of the wound. Ld. Defence Counsel relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pankaj v. State of Rajasthan (Supra) in support of this contention. The following paragraphs from the said decision were referred by the Ld. Counsel:-
"20. Dr Vanay Singh (PW 6) is the person who examined Raj Kumar at General Hospital, Bharatpur. It is imperative to mention here some of the portion of his statement which is as under:
"......when killer and object i.e. injured person both remain on the right angle i.e. just in front of each other, then it is possible, as there was no burning, plunging and tattooing as such. As per rule of thumb of firearms the distance was more than 3 feet. The exact distance can be decided only by the opinion of the plastic (sic ballistic) expert."CBI v. Shashank Jadon & Anr. Page 117/184
"It is correct that if the injured is in front of the killer and who caused an injury by a firearm in the neck of injured from a distance of 2 feet then the wound would not come in the shape of as shown in Ext. P-5. As per rule of thumb, the fire made from maximum, nearest place, the entrance wound will be big then the exit wound and as distance will be increased the entrance wound become smaller than the exit wound, it means part of foreign body came out from a firearm, as the distance will increase, the passage of foreign body will be spread and will cause more loss in the nearby area...."
.....
22. Admittedly, there is variance in the statements of PW8 and PW6 with regard to the distance between the deceased and the appellant-accused as stated above. In this fact situation, it is imperative to quote the "Phenomena observed in Firearm Injuries or Short Holes on Clothing", from Modi's Jurisprudence C (24th Edn.) which is as under:
Phenomena Range and Remarks
1. Flame/burning Revolver/pistols - within about
scorching/singeing 5-8 cm generally.
Rifles - within about 15-20 cm generally.
Shotguns - may show evidence of scorching up to 30-10 cm.
2. Smoke/powder Rifles generally up to about 30 marks cm (blackening) and about 100 cm (powder residues).
Handguns up to about 60 cm.
3. Tattooing Handguns up to about 60 cmanojm.
Rifles up to 75 cm generally.
Shotguns up to 100-300 m CBI v. Shashank Jadon & Anr. Page 118/184 (may be found after careful search at higher range).
In a case where death is due to injuries or wounds caused by a lethal weapon, it is always the duty of the prosecution to prove by expert evidence that it was likely or at least possible for the injuries to have been caused with the weapon with which and in the manner in which they are alleged to have been caused. In the case on hand, the contradiction i.e. the distance of fire is material and in our considered opinion, it would not be appropriate to convict the appellant-accused by ignoring such an important aspect."
68.2. Ld. Defence Counsels further contended that the testimony of PW-5 was also contradictory to the photographs of the Fortuner car taken by the insurance surveyor, which were Mark PW5/1 (colly). These photographs showed that the steering wheel was damaged from the left side. Hence, the bullet could not have travelled from the front windshield of the car. It was also contended that as per report of insurance surveyor, which is Ex.PW32/B (colly), it was mentioned that no repair was done in the front left seat of the Fortuner car. It means that there was no damage in the front left seat which was impossible had the bullet really struck on that seat.
68.3. Ld. Defence Counsels moreover contended that the testimony of PW-5 regarding firing of the bullet at him was contradictory to the testimony of PW-53. The said portion of the statement of PW-53 which is stated to be contradictory to the testimony of PW-5 reads as below:-
"I had not prepared any map pertaining to the Fortuner Car in which the exact place from where the bullet was recovered would be mentioned. (Vol. Bullet was recovered from the front passenger seat of the Fortuner Car). The bullet was found lying on the front passenger seat"CBI v. Shashank Jadon & Anr. Page 119/184
68.4. Ld. Defence Counsels referred to the seizure memo Ex.PW-11/B (D-4) which mentions as below:-
"मृतक की गाडी फारचूनर UDB 0044239 सम्बन्धित मु.अ.सं. 276/15 धारा 302 IPC बनाम अज्ञात थाना सै. 49 नौएडा के अन्दर से बॉयी सीट के पास से एक बुलट व बुलट के टूटे कण"
It was contended that the seizure memo nowhere mentioned that the bullet was recovered from the seat.
68.5. Ld. Defence Counsels also contended that the testimony of PW-5 was contradictory to his own earlier statement u/Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. recorded by the Noida Police because he did not state anything about firing of the bullet upon him as per the said statement. Ld. Counsel moreover pointed out to the following portion of Ex.DW11/1 and contended that this portion was contrary to the statement of PW-5:
"That though Gagan was also in the car with Ankit Chauhan but shooter did not fired (sic fire) upon him nor said (sic say) anything to Gagan."
68.6. In order to appreciate the argument regarding medical evidence, it is necessary to first note down the injuries reflected in the postmortem report Ex.PW2K/1. The injuries are noted as below:-
"1. Abrasion blackened 5x1 cm elongated oval groove like along the right mandible 2.5 cm below right ear.
2. Abrasion blackened 2x1 cm on 10 cm above left nipple along 11º clock.
3. Gun shot entry wound 1.5x1cm margin inverted blackened on left fore arm anteriorly at 9 cm below elbow joint.CBI v. Shashank Jadon & Anr. Page 120/184
4. Gun shot exit wound 1.8x1 cm margin inverted at 3 cm below elbow joint postero-laterally on probing of injury no.3 corresponds to injury no. 4 in upward direction
5. Entry wound gun shot 1.5x.0.5 cm blackening & margin inverted at 10 cm below right ear at 7º clock position on right side of neck."
68.7. The postmortem report opined that cause of death of Victim Ankit Chauhan was coma due to lower brain and spinal cord injury as a result of antemortem injuries. The antemortem injuries have already been noted in the above paragraph.
68.8. PW-2, who is maker of the postmortem report, was examined in the Court. He reiterated contents of the postmortem report during his examination-in-chief and deposed that the injury No. 5 was connected to the injury no. 1. He also deposed that injury no. 2, 3 & 4 were connected and blackening was possible at injury no.1 because of injury no.5 and at injury no. 2 because of injury no. 3. He deposed that injury no. 1 & 2 were not due to the entry of gun shots. He also deposed that the five injuries found on the person of Victim were caused due to two bullets that had hit him on the different body parts and one of the bullets, related to injury no. 5, was recovered from the body of the Victim during the postmortem.
68.9. It is therefore clear from the testimony of PW-2 that two bullets had hit the Victim. One of the bullet had hit him on his neck and another bullet had hit him below his elbow, as is clear from injury no. 3 & 5.
68.10. This statement of PW-2 corroborates that testimony of PW-5 who had categorically deposed in his statement that two bullets had hit the Victim Ankit Chauhan. PW-5 deposed that total four bullets were fired. The first CBI v. Shashank Jadon & Anr. Page 121/184 bullet was fired by the assailants at the front windscreen of the Fortuner car. This bullet had smashed the front screen of the car and had hit the Victim on the left arm elbow. The second bullet was fired at the driver side window pane of the Fortuner car. This bullet had smashed the window pane but did not hit anyone. This second bullet that had smashed the driver side window pane of the car seems to be the one that had also hit the steering wheel of the Fortuner car at the left side and thereafter had broken into pieces. The testimony of PW-53 sufficiently proves that broken pieces of bullet were found lying in the Fortuner car. The third bullet was also fired, as per the testimony of PW-5, from the driver side window pane of the Fortuner car. This third bullet, according to PW-5, had hit the Victim on his neck. It is to be kept in mind that this third bullet was fired after the driver side window pane of the Fortuner car had already got smashed. Further, this bullet was fired from a more closer range then the first bullet that had hit the Victim on his left elbow. It is this third bullet which was recovered from the body of the deceased Ankit Chauhan. The fourth bullet, according to PW-5, was fired at him from the window pane of driver's side. He ducked down due to which the bullet did not hit him and struck the front passanger seat of the car. The assailants had panicked by then and could not untie the seat belt of the Victim due to which they had to leave the spot without taking the Fortuner car along. This fourth bullet was indeed found from the front passenger seat of the Fortuner car. The bullet found from the front seat of Fortuner car cannot be the first bullet that was fired, because the first bullet had entered into the body of the Victim and thus was likely to have blood traces. No blood traces however were found on the bullet recovered from the left front seat.
CBI v. Shashank Jadon & Anr. Page 122/18468.11. The aforesaid account of the gun shots fired by the assailants completely matches the postmortem report as well as recoveries made from the spot. There is lack of clarity only with respect to the first bullet that had hit the deceased Ankit Chauhan in his elbow. PW-57 (IO of CBI) had deposed that broken pieces found in the Fortuner car were of two bullets but this fact is not confirmed in any of the FSL reports. Since broken pieces could be of two bullets, Court cannot doubt the case of prosecution only because of lack of clarity regarding the first bullet. The postmortem report has confirmed that two gun shots had hit Ankit Chauhan and one bullet was recovered from his body, which corroborates the testimony of PW-5 and lends credibility to it.
68.12. The question regarding blackening of the wounds was also put by the defence to PW-2 during his cross-examination. PW-2 had deposed at that time that he did not have the expertise to speak about the distance upto which blackening of the wound was likely to be caused by a gun shot. He had also deposed that such an opinion could have been given only by a ballistic expert. CBI had examined a ballistic expert also, who is PW-15, however no question regarding blackening of the wounds and the likely distance between the assailants and the Victim was put to PW-15 by either of the accused persons during his cross-examination. The defence rather produced its own ballistic expert who was examined in the Court as DW-10. He had proved his report Ex.DW10/1 and stated during his cross-examination that the opinion given by him in his report was based upon the general questions which were referred to him by the accused Shashank Jadon. He deposed that the issues like distance from which the bullet was fired, bore of the weapon, nature of the bullet, body part at which bullet had hit, distance between the weapon and CBI v. Shashank Jadon & Anr. Page 123/184 the person and number of persons who had fired the bullet etc. cannot be answered without examining the weapon, the victim's body and the scene of crime. He admitted that he had not visited the scene of crime and his report was of a general nature.
68.13. It is clear from the testimony of PW-2, PW-15 and DW-10 that no definitive opinion was brought forth before this Court that would suggest that blackening of the wound was not at all possible if the gun shot was fired from a distance equivalent to the length of bonnet of the Fortuner car and the bullet had first passed through the window pane of the Car. The observations of Hon'ble apex Court in para no. 20 & 22 of the judgment in Pankaj v. State of Rajasthan (Supra) cannot be relied upon as a precedent in this case because those observations pertain to the facts and circumstances of the said case. The statement of ballistic expert suggested that it was not completely impossible to have blackening of wound in a case situation faced by this Court. PW-2 categorically deposed about the blackening of wounds. A perusal of the postmortem report Ex.PW2K/1 shows that while the gun shot injury on the left elbow of the victim had blackening only on its corners, the gun shot injury on his neck had blackening all over. This difference is also apparent in the description of injuries by PW-2 in his statement recorded before the Court. Such a description of the injury again corroborates the testimony of PW-5 only, because it shows that the bullet which had hit the Victim at his neck was fired from a distance nearer than the distance from which the bullet hitting the elbow was fired. PW-5 had categorically deposed that bullet hitting the elbow was fired from front side of the Car while the bullet hitting the neck was fired from the window pane of the driver's side.
CBI v. Shashank Jadon & Anr. Page 124/18468.14. The testimony of PW-5 is also in complete consonance with the photographs of the Fortuner car. These photographs were initially marked as Mark PW5/1 (Colly), but later, when the insurance surveyor was called in the witness box as PW-32, the photographs were exhibited along with the report of the surveyor as Ex.PW32/B (Colly). These photographs suggest a bullet mark on the front window pane of the Fortner car towards the driver's side. The steering wheel of the Fortuner car also bears bullet marks on the left side. The driver side window pane of the Fortuner car seems smashed too. The front passenger seat of the Car is found torn, which suggests that bullet had struck it.
68.15. PW-53 had deposed that the bullet was found lying on the front passenger seat of the Fortuner car while PW-5 deposed that it had struck the front passenger seat. The photographs on record corroborate the testimony of PW-5 and not PW-53. This suggests that PW-53 had carried out a shoddy investigation. In such circumstances, contradictions in the testimony of PW-5 and PW-53 cannot be used to disbelieve PW-5, who is the eye witness of the incident. The material proved on record shows that the testimony of PW-5 is trustworthy. The material also points out how non-seriously the investigation of this case was handled by PW-53, who was the first IO of this case from the U.P. Police.
68.16. Page no. 22 of the report of insurance surveyor which is Ex.PW32/B (colly) was referred by the Ld. Defence Counsel in order to support his contention regarding the contradictions. The said page reflects that Fortuner car was handed over by the insurance surveyor to the customer CBI v. Shashank Jadon & Anr. Page 125/184 without repairing due to pending documents, on 11.05.2015. This report nowhere states that no repair was done on the front passenger seat of the Fortuner car. Even otherwise, there is no requirement of referring to this report because from the photographs which are part of the report, it is clear that the front passenger seat of the Fortuner car was cut open and hence the question of assuming that there was no damage in the front passenger seat of the Car does not arise, merely because there is no mention of repair of the said seat at page no. 22 of the report.
68.17. So far the contents of Ex.DW11/1 are concerned, the same cannot be used to discredit the testimony of PW-5. It is reiterated that the said petition was filed by father of the Victim before the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad when the UP Police was not able to trace the assailants. In that petition, suspicion was raised even upon PW-5. Considering the background in which the petition was filed, it can be safely assumed that it was likely that father of the Victim was not believing PW-5 initially and what was written by him in his petition was based upon his perception of the events and the CCTV Footage that has been referred in para no. 15 of the writ petition.
68.18. In my considered opinion, for the reasons aforesaid, the testimony of PW-5 is more reliable than the testimony of PW-53. Hence, no weightage can be attached to the contradictions highlighted by the defence in the testimony of these two witnesses. There is further no contradiction in the testimony of PW-5 and it is corroborated by the medical evidence & photographs of the Fortuner car.
CBI v. Shashank Jadon & Anr. Page 126/18469. The fifth contradiction pointed out in the testimony of PW-5 is from the portion that reads as below:-
"One person came forward for our help and said that he can drive the car. With the help of the people, we shifted Ankit Chauhan from the driver seat to the middle seat of the car and we left for Shivalik hospital. I was sitting in the left front passenger seat of the car. The doctors at Shivalik hospital told us that Ankit Chauhan was serious and asked us to take him to Kailash Hospital and offered us the Ambulance of the hospital. With the help of the people, Ankit Chauhan was shifted to the Ambulance. I was also with him. The person who had taken us to Shivalik Hospital followed us upto Kailash Hospital in the Fortuner car of Ankit Chauhan which he was driving."
69.1. Ld. Defence counsel contended that above said portion of the testimony of PW-5 was contradictory to the testimony of PW-53 & PW-57. PW-53 is the first IO of this case from the U.P. Police. PW-57 is the IO of CBI who had filed the chargesheet.
69.2. The following portion of the testimony of PW-53 was referred in order to demonstrate contradiction:-
"The Fortuner Car was lifted from the spot of incident and brought to the police station on the next day of the incident. The Fortuner Car was drove to the police station as its engine was found in working condition."
69.3. The portion referred from the testimony of PW-57 for highlighting the contradiction, is as below:-
"I did not, during investigation started from 18.04.2017, examine any police official regarding preserving of the Fortuner car on the spot of the incident from 13.04.2015 to 14.04.2015. This fact, that the Fortuner car was preserved and CBI v. Shashank Jadon & Anr. Page 127/184 guarded on the spot from 13.04.2015 to 14.04.2015, is however mentioned in their case diary by the local police. I did not cite the said police official who had guarded the Fortuner car on the spot from 13.04.2015 to 14.04.2015 as a witness in my charge sheet, because the first IO of the local police, namely, Inspector Manoj was cited as a witness and he is the one who had issued directions for guarding of the Fortuner car on the spot from 13.04.2015 to 14.04.2015."
69.4. This Court has already observed that the approach of PW-53 in investigating this case was lackadaisical. PW-57, on the other hand, was able to explain why he did not cite the police official who had guarded the Fortuner car, as a witness. His explanation was that because PW-53 was the first IO of the case and he had been cited as a witness, there was no requirement of citing any other police official as witness.
69.5. The testimony of PW-53, that Fortuner car was lifted from the spot of incident and brought to the Police Station on the next day of incident, does not seem probable from the material that has been proved on record by the prosecution. The testimony of PW-5 that the Fortuner car was used by him to take the Victim to the hospital with the help of a passerby is more natural and probable. The Victim was shot dead at Barola bye-pass during the broad day light and there is no contradictory theory on record how he was taken to the hospital from the scene of crime. The hospital of course was at quite a distance from the scene of crime as can be verified from the site plan Ex.D-1. In such a situation, it is certain that the witness was taken to the hospital in some vehicle. There is nothing on record to suggest that an ambulance had picked up the Victim from the spot and had taken him to the hospital. There is further nothing on record to suggest that a different vehicle was used to take CBI v. Shashank Jadon & Anr. Page 128/184 the Victim to the hospital. The Victim was driving the Fortuner car when the incident happened and hence it was the first and very natural choice for the first responder to take the Victim to the hospital using that vehicle. The testimony of PW-5 on this aspect appears natural as well as probable. The presence of PW-5 on the place of incident has already been sufficiently established from the material proved on record by the prosecution including the testimony of PW-50 and the CCTV Footage. In such a case, it is natural that PW-5 himself was the first responder to the incident and had taken the Victim to the hospital. The testimony of PW-5 that he had taken the Victim to the hospital in the Fortuner car that was driven by a passerby is credible and cannot be brushed aside lightly merely on the basis of a statement of PW-53 whose role in the investigation has not been upto the mark. In my considered opinion, the contradiction highlighted by Ld. Defence Counsel cannot be attached such a significance as to disbelieve an otherwise creditworthy witness i.e. PW-5.
69.6. The testimony of PW-5 is also believable for a second reason, which is, corrobation. His testimony is being corroborated from the report of surveyor which is Ex.PW32/B (colly). In the letter dated 28.04.2016 which is at page no. 64 of Ex.PW32/B (colly), it is reflected that after the incident the Fortuner car (Ex.P-2) remained parked in the hospital. This letter is of a date prior to the arrest of accused persons and therefore could not have been tailor made to suit the line of investigation that was undertaken by the CBI. Hence, this document is believable. It shows that PW-53 indeed had recorded the circumstances in a way that he thought will suit his line of investigation, and not what had actually happened.
CBI v. Shashank Jadon & Anr. Page 129/18469.7. Ld. Defence Counsel contended that PW-5 had disclosed to the Noida Police on 14.04.2015 as per Ex.PX that when the assailants had started firing the gun shot, he opened window of the Car and had fallen out. PW-53 confirmed during his evidence in the Court that PW-5 had informed him about the same. Ld. Counsel further contended that the aforesaid statement of PW-5 given to the police is probable because in the site plan Ex.D-1, which was prepared by the Noida Police, the places from where the gun shots were fired by the assailants are not indicated. It is because PW-5 had not seen the incident as he had fallen out of the car. Ld. Counsel contended that when PW-5 was confronted with his statement Ex.PX he stated that he did not tell the Noida Police that he had fallen out of the Car. However, the contradiction was sufficiently proved by defence by examining PW-53 on the aforesaid aspect and bringing on record the site plan Ex.D-1 highlighting the discrepancies.
69.8. In my considered view, the abovesaid argument of Ld. Defence Counsel is again baseless and without merits. PW-5 categorically deposed in his examination-in-chief that the assailants had fired a gun shot at him but he had ducked down due to which the bullet had struck the front passenger seat of the Car. A bullet indeed was recovered from the front passenger seat of the Fortuner car. This bullet actually struck the front seat, as is clear from the photographs Ex.PW32/B (Colly), already discussed hereinabove. The statement of PW-5 in such a scenario seems more probable. Further, if PW-5 had really fallen out and had not seen the place from where gun shots were fired, he would not have noticed the physical & facial features of the assailants as well. This assumption however is contrary to the record because CBI v. Shashank Jadon & Anr. Page 130/184 in his statement Ex.PY, PW-5 has categorically stated that the person who had fired the gun shots was having a tattoo on his hand. This statement was given during the golden period of investigation at a time when police was having no clue about the assailants. PW-5 had also helped the U.P. Police to make a sketch of the assailant, who had fired the gun shots, as is the admitted case of the prosecution and the defence. PW-1 has also deposed that PW-5 had told them that one of the assailants was fair and having a tatoo. All this suggest that PW-5 had noted the features of the assailants and had given various clues to the Police. Since the material proved on record reflects that the version of PW-5 is more probable then the version of PW-53, the statement of PW-53 cannot be used to disbelieve PW-5 who is an eye witness of the incident. Further, glaring examples of laxity of PW-53 in bringing the correct facts on record have already been highlighted hereinabove and give additional reasons to this Court to not discredit PW-5 on the basis of the testimony of PW-53.
69.9. Ld. Defence Counsel further raised issues, like, PW-5 had not stated that the person who had fired the shot had a tattoo or that he was the same person who was sitting in the left seat of the Car parked behind the Fortuner car or that the Honda Accord car parked behind the Fortuner car was the same car that had followed the Fortuner car. These contentions of Ld. Defence Counsel are again without merits because PW-5 has identified both the accused persons in the Court. He also identified the Honda Accord car that had followed the Fortuner car on the date of the incident. His testimony to this effect could not be impeached by the defence during his cross-examination and hence, is believable.
CBI v. Shashank Jadon & Anr. Page 131/18470. The last contradiction that was pointed out by the Ld. Defence Counsel is with respect to the identification of both the accused persons by PW-5 in the Court. It was contended that the PW-5 had identified the accused persons in the Court because he was tutored to do so by the CBI. It was contended that sketch of the suspect made on the basis of inputs given by PW-5 was quite different from the features of the accused persons before the Court. PW-5 had described the features of only one assailant to the police and TIP of the accused persons conducted by the CBI was defective for various reasons. It was contended that, firstly, the consent of accused persons was not taken before conducting the TIP. Secondly, it was contended, that the TIP was conducted after keeping the accused persons in police custody for a fairly long period of about 8 days. The accused persons were shown to the PW-5 inside the Court Room because accused Shashank Jadon was not produced before the Court in a muffled face while muffle of accused Manoj Kumar was removed in the Court. Ld. Counsel for accused Shashank Jadon also contended that photograph and personal details of this accused were telecasted on National News Channel Aaj Tak on 02.06.2017 at about 8:00PM, more than a month before conducting his TIP on 06.07.2017.
70.1. I have perused the cross-examination of PW-5 to appreciate the aforementioned contentions. It was suggested to PW-5 that he had seen the accused Shashank Jadon on the News Channel Aaj Tak in the programme titled as 'PCR' relayed on 02.06.2017. The said suggestion was however denied by PW-5 categorically. On denial of suggestion, no further questions were put to PW-5 on the aforesaid aspect. Moreoever, PW-5 was not questioned if he had seen the accused persons in the Court during their police CBI v. Shashank Jadon & Anr. Page 132/184 custody remand. PW-5 had categorically denied that the accused persons were shown to him by the Police in the office of CBI during their PC remand.
70.2. It is now to be seen if the contentions regarding TIP raised by the accused persons are borne out from the record. The accused Shashank Jadon was arrested by the CBI on 01.06.2017 while the accused Manoj Kumar was arrested on 02.06.2017. The record received from the Ld. Magistrate Court at Ghaziabad reflects that the IO Insp. Deepak, in his application Ex.PW57/D-2 for sending the accused Shashank Jadon to judicial custody, moved on 02.06.2017, had prayed to the Court that the said accused be kept in muffled face. Similar prayer is found mentioned with respect to both the accused persons in the second application moved on 02.06.2017 itself for seeking police custody remand. This second appliction was taken up on 03.06.2017. The accused persons were taken in police custody from 03.06.2017 to 08.06.2017 and again from 08.06.2017 to 11.06.2017. The Orders dated 03.06.2017 and 08.06.2017 vide which police custody was granted, are part of the Court record. In none of these Orders there is a mention of the fact that PW-5 was present in the Court. The accused persons were being represented by a lawyer before the Ld. Trial Court at Ghaziabad. No objections were raised by the lawyers of accused persons regarding their production in non- muffled face or regarding showing them to PW-5 in the Court. Remand sheet dated 02.06.2017, which is Ex.PW57/D-3, shows that the accused persons were produced in muffled face because it mentions the word 'Baparda' on the top.
70.3. The contention of the accused persons that they were shown to the PW-5 while they were in Police Custody is also without merits. While CBI v. Shashank Jadon & Anr. Page 133/184 granting PC remand, the Ld. Special Judicial Magistrate (CBI), Ghaziabad had allowed the Advocates of the accused persons to remain present at a distance of about 100 meter in the office of CBI during their interrogation. It is not clear if such a liberty was availed by the Advocates of the accused persons. However, the Orders granting the PC remand do not mention if any objection regarding the conduct of the IO in showing the accused persons to PW-5 in the office of CBI was raised by the Advocate of either of the accused persons on 03.06.2017 or 08.06.2017. The application dated 15.06.2017 moved by the IO Inspector Deepak from CBI, for extension of Judicial Custody remand of the accused Shashank Jadon, also shows that the IO had requested the Court to keep the accused in muffled face.
70.4. The accused persons contended that their consent was not taken before conducting the TIP however there is no mention in the TIP proceedings that when the TIP began they objected to the same on the ground that they had already been shown to the witness by the CBI.
70.5. It is therefore clear from the above material on record that the ground of having been produced in non-muffled face taken by the accused persons is an afterthought and without merits.
70.6. The accused Shashank Jadon, in order to prove his defence regarding his production in non-muffled face, had also examined DW-6, an official of Dasna Jail. His testimony however could not prove that the accused was not directed to be kept in muffled face at all. DW-6, during his cross-examination, categorically deposed that the custody warrants of accused Shashank Jadon for June, 2017 were not available in their record and CBI v. Shashank Jadon & Anr. Page 134/184 the same were filed before the Court on issuance of production warrants. In such a scenario, the testimony of DW-6 that their record did not indicate if accused Shashank Jadon was to be kept in a muffled face, became immaterial. His testimony further lost significance in view of the record available in the file received from the Ld. Committal Court, Ghaziabad, indicating that the accused Shashank Jadon was indeed kept in muffled face.
70.7. For the reasons aforesaid, I am of the considered view that the testimony of PW-5 regarding identity of the accused persons is also not doubtful. It is rather creditworthy and reliable. The accused persons were identified by PW-5 in the witness box and his testimony on this aspect could not be impeached by way of cross-examination.
71. PW-5 being an eye witness, his testimony is sufficient to decide the present case. He is a reliable witness and his creditworthiness could not be impeached. However, in this case there is even other material available on record which corroborates the ocular testimony of PW-5. This material is in the form of circumstantial evidence which connects the accused persons to the incident.
72. Ld. Sr. PP for the CBI referred to the various relevant circumstances during his arguments, like, preparation of crime by the accused persons, ownership of the Honda Accord car & its re-sale, motive to commit the crime, recoveries made at the instance of the accused persons and the post incident conduct of accused persons, to contend that the testimony of PW-5 stood perfectly corroborated.
CBI v. Shashank Jadon & Anr. Page 135/18473. Ld. Defence Counsel however contended that none of the aforementioned circumstances were proved on record by the prosecution because there were material contradictions in the testimonies of the witnesses who were brought in the witness box to prove the said circumstances.
74. In order to appreciate the contentions raised by Ld. Sr. PP and the Ld. Defence Counsel, I shall now discuss the various circumstances that were sought to be proved by the prosecution for connecting the accused persons to the alleged crime.
75. The first of these circumstances is preparation of crime by the accused persons.
76. It is the case of prosecution that the accused persons had approached PW-51 (Satpal Bhati) to seek his help in arranging a stolen vehicle which they may be able to use to rob another vehicle. It is further the case of prosecution that on being unsuccessful to arrange a robbed vehicle through PW-51, the accused Shashank Jadon and his associates i.e. Pankaj and Manoj had decided to use the Honda Accord car of accused Shashank Jadon by putting a fake number plate over it to conceal its identity. The prosecution has alleged that the accused Shashank Jadon went to the car accessories shop being run by PW-41 (Shaan Malik) and got prepared two fake number plates from the said shop, one for Honda Accord car and another for a Fortuner car that was to be robbed. He had made entries of these two numbers in his own handwriting in a register maintained by PW-41.
77. The prosecution had examined the aforesaid two persons as witnesses. They supported the case of prosecution after initially attempting to CBI v. Shashank Jadon & Anr. Page 136/184 wriggle out of their statements recorded by the Ld. Magistrate u/Sec. 164 Cr.P.C. On being confronted with their respective statements, they admitted the contents of the same and deposed in favour of prosecution.
78. PW-51 deposed that the accused Shashank Jadon had met him in the first week of April, 2015 along with co- accused Pankaj Thakur and Manoj Kumar. The accused Shashank Jadon and Manoj Kumar were identified by PW-51 in the Court also. PW-51 deposed that Pankaj Thakur had given him a call expressing his willingness to meet and thereafter had come along with the accused Shashank Jadon and Manoj Kumar at his work place. PW-51 categorically deposed that Pankaj had requested him to arrange a robbed/stolen vehicle because he wanted to use that vehicle for robbing another car. He was cross-examined in detail by the accused persons during which it was suggested to him that the accused Shashank Jadon and Manoj Kumar had never met him. He denied the said suggestion however. No questions were put to him with respect to his statement recorded u/Sec. 164 Cr.P.C. He was confronted with his statement u/Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. however. On denial of suggestion that he had never met the accused Shashank Jadon or Manoj Kumar, no further cross-examination of PW-51 was done by the accused persons on that aspect.
79. Both the accused persons, in their respective statements recorded u/Sec. 313 Cr.P.C., had stated that they had no acquaintance with PW-51 and had never gone to meet him.
80. Ld. Defence Counsels assailed the testimony of PW-51 on various grounds. Ld. Counsels contended that the testimony of PW-51 was self-
CBI v. Shashank Jadon & Anr. Page 137/184contradictory because he had deposed that accused Pankaj Thakur @ Pankaj Kumar (since deceased) had given him a call in the first week of April, 2015 before meeting him, however, the call detail records of the mobile number of the deceased accused Pankaj Kumar, placed on record by the prosecution, do not suggest that any call was ever made to PW-51 by Pankaj Thakur. The call detail records of mobile no. 9910614458, imputed to Pankaj Thakur, are Ex.PW57/D1 (Colly). Ld. Counsels contended that PW-51 is a tutored witness of the CBI. He was first arrested as an accused in the present case but, later on, a closure repot was filed against him in exchange of his statement u/Sec. 164 Cr.P.C. supporting the case of the prosecution. It was further contended by the Ld. Defence Counsels that PW-51 did not identify the accused Pankaj Thakur from the photo identification memo Ex.PW45/1. Ld. Counsel also contended that PW-51 had denied many portions of his statement recorded u/Sec. 161 Cr.P.C., which is Mark PW51/A. These portions relate to the knowledge of PW-51 regarding the business affairs and loan liability of accused Shashank Jadon.
81. The contentions raised by Ld. Defence Counsels have been analyzed by me from the record and the same are found to be baseless, for the following reasons:-
81.1. It is a matter of record that PW-51 was first arrested as an accused in this case. He was arrested on 15.06.2017 as per the supplementary final report. He was admitted to bail on 16.09.2017. Later, a closure report was filed qua him which was accepted by my Ld. Predecessor. His statement u/Sec. 164 Cr.P.C was recorded on 04.07.2019. The closure report qua him was filed on 19.07.2019. His statement was recorded by CBI on 21.06.2017 CBI v. Shashank Jadon & Anr. Page 138/184 which was later filed in the Court along with the supplementary chargesheet and is Mark PW51/A. Ld. Defence Counsel contended that this statement of PW-51 was available with CBI even on the day of filing of the first chargesheet but nothing regarding that statement was uttered in the chargesheet. In my considered opinion, this argument does not hold ground because when chargesheet was filed against the accused Shashank Jadon and Manoj Kumar in the year 2017, PW-51 was under investigation as an accused. Para no. 24 of the chargesheet Ex.PW57/9 mentions about the same and seeks permission to conduct further investigation qua the role of PW-51 as per Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. Since PW-51 was under investigation qua his role as an accused on the day of filing of the chargesheet against accused Shashank Jadon and Manoj Kumar, his statement recorded on 21.06.2017 could not have been used as a statement u/Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. This justifies the non-inclusion of it in the first chargesheet.
81.2. The call detail records of the mobile number of Satpal Bhati, Shashank Jadon and Bhushan (brother of Pankaj) were not made a part of the chargesheet by the prosecution. PW-57 (IO) deposed during his testimony that by the time the accused persons were arrested, the period of two years had already expired due to which call detail records of the mobile phone of accused persons were not available in the protected software of the service provider. He had obtained the call detail records unofficially and had analyzed the same as per scrutiny report Mark PW57/D-5. This report shows the mobile number of accused Shashank Jadon as 9013141414, mobile number of accused Manoj Kumar as 9311619782 and mobile number of accused Pankaj Kumar (since deceased) as 9891566055. The prosecution did CBI v. Shashank Jadon & Anr. Page 139/184 not place on record the CAF or call detail records of either of these mobile numbers. The CAF and call detail records of the mobile number of accused Shashank Jadon, that had been obtained unofficially by the IO, were produced in the Court by the prosecution on the request of the accused Shashank Jadon and were got exhibited by the accused himself during the cross-examination of the IO. These documents are Ex.PW57/D1 (Colly).
CAF and call detail records of mobile number 9910614458 are also a part of Ex.PW57/D1 (Colly), as per which the mobile no. 9910614458 was allotted to one Bhushan S/o Sripal, who is also the father of Late Pankaj Thakur. Similarly, CAF & call detail records of PW-51 (Satpal Bhati) were filed in the Court by the prosecution on the request of accued Shashank Jadon & he himself had got those exhibtied as Ex.PW57/D6 (Colly). An analysis of the call detail records Ex.PW57/D1 (Colly) & Ex.PW57/D6 (Colly) shows that multiple calls were exchanged between the accused Shashank Jadon and PW-51 Satpal on 16.04.2015, 20.04.2015, 23.04.2015 and 29.04.2015. A call has also been exchanged between Satpal Bhati and the mobile number allotted to Bhushan on 19.04.2015. Furthermore, there are calls exchanged between the mobile number of accused Shashank Jadon and Bhushan S/o Sripal on 14.04.2015, 17.04.2015, 27.04.2015 and 28.04.2015. Ld. Prosecutor for CBI had also drawn my attention towards the medical documents of accused Pankaj Kumar (since deceased) which are Ex.PW20/A (Colly). The phone number of Pankaj Kumar is reflected in these documents as 9650167933. The call detail record Ex.PW57/D1 (Colly) reflects that calls were exchanged between the accused Shashank Jadon and the aforesaid number on 05.04.2015, 06.04.2015 and 13.04.2015. It is established from CBI v. Shashank Jadon & Anr. Page 140/184 these call detail records that the accused Shashank Jadon, PW-51 Satpal Bhati and deceased Pankaj Thakur knew each other. This belies the claim of the accused Shashank Jadon that he did not know PW-51 at all and he was not well familiar with Pankaj Thakur also. The call detail records of PW-51 do not establish any call between the phone numbers connected to Pankaj Thakur and PW-51 before 13.04.2015, however, it does not lead to clear assumption that there was no exchange of calls between the two of them. I say so because it is possible that accused Pankaj Thakur had some other phone number also which was used to contact PW-51. This witness had appeared in the witness box and was cross-examined by the accused persons in detail. Nothing fruitful could be extracted by the accused persons in their favour during the cross-examination of PW-51. This witness had identified both the accused persons in the Court. The accused persons claimed that he was deposing in favour of CBI in exchange of a closure report and that they had no acquaintance with him, but their claim regarding acquaintance stood belied from the phone calls.
81.3. Lack of identification of Pankaj Thakur from Ex.PW45/1 is immaterial because Pankaj Thakur is not on trial in this case and other two accused persons were categorically identified by PW-51 in the Court.
81.4. The contention that PW-51 had improved upon his statement recorded u/Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. is also of no use because these improvements pertain to the knowledge of PW-51 regarding the business and loan of accused Shashank Jadon and not to the portion related to the visit of accused persons in the first week of April, 2015. Acquaintance between PW-51 and CBI v. Shashank Jadon & Anr. Page 141/184 Shashank Jadon stood sufficiently established from the call detail records Ex.PW57/D-1 (Colly) & PW57/D-6 (Colly).
82. The testimony of PW-51 is reliable and there is no reason before this Court to doubt his creditworthiness merely for the reason that he was earlier implicated as a co-accused. Of course, the Court is required to approach his testimony with circumspection, which has been done and it is found that PW-51 indeed was in touch with at least the accused Shashank Jadon, as can be seen from call detail record which was brought on record by the accused Shashank Jadon himself.
83. The aforesaid material proved by the prosecution establishes that the accused persons had approached PW-51 for seeking his help in arranging a stolen vehicle that would be used by them for robbing a new vehicle. Hence, before committing the crime, the accused persons had done the preparation, which circumstance certainly goes against them and strengthens the case of the prosecution.
84. The second witness pertaining to preparation of crime is PW-41, who categorically deposed before the Court that he was approached by the accused Shashank Jadon for making two number plates and the numbers of these two number plates were written by accused Shashank Jadon in his own handwriting in the register maintained by PW-41 at his shop. The said page of the register is Ex.PW16/B. The accused Shashank Jadon admitted his handwriting at Q-1 on Ex.PW16/B. The contents of Q-1 read as follows:
"UP-14BA-2300 (Honda City)" and "UP-16CJ-0032 (Fortuner)."CBI v. Shashank Jadon & Anr. Page 142/184
85. It is the defence of the accused Shashank Jadon that he was made to write these two vehicle numbers at Q-1 by the CBI when he was in Police custody. The accused stated in his statement recorded u/Sec. 313 Cr.P.C. that he was tortured by the CBI while in Police custody and he was forced to create the document Ex.PW16/B which was later falsely imputed upon him.
86. Ld. Sr. PP for the CBI heavily relied upon the testimony of PW-41 and contended that the contents of Q-1 on Ex.PW16/B not only clearly point towards the intent of the accused persons to rob a Fortuner car, but also connect them to the fake number plate that was used in commission of crime.
87. Ld. Defence Counsel however contended that PW-41 was not a reliable witness. He is rather an interested and a planted witness because if fake number plates were actually prepared by him, he should have been made an accused by the CBI which was not done. Ld. Counsel also pointed out that as per the investigation report dated 02.06.2017, pertaining to accused Shashank Jadon, which is Ex.PW57/3, the accused had disclosed about the number plates on 02.06.2017 itself but the register was seized on 10.06.2017 and not till 08.06.2017 when the accused was in the first Police custody of the CBI. Ld. Counsel contended that delay in seizing the register on the part of CBI suggests that this piece of evidence was manufactured by the CBI and imputed upon the accused. Ld. Counsel also pointed out to the cross- examination of PW-41 and deposed that when the entry at point no. 3 of Ex.PW16/B was shown to him, he stated that he did not know in whose handwriting the point no. 3 was written. Ld. Counsel contended that point no. 3 was also written by the accused Shashank Jadon himself as was proved by DW-10 too. If PW-41 had really remembered about the handwriting of CBI v. Shashank Jadon & Anr. Page 143/184 accused Shashank Jadon, he would have identified the handwriting at point no. 3 also. It was also contended that the alleged fake number plate of the Honda Accord car was never shown to PW-41 by the CBI during the trial.
88. Question regarding delay in seizing the register Ex.PW16/B was put to PW-57 during his cross-examination and he had deposed that the delay might have happened because PW-41 may have sought time to search the register. This explanation of PW-57 is plausible. Merely because PW-41 was not booked by the Police for preparing a number plate without checking the RC, it cannot be said that his testimony is not truthful especially when the accused himself admitted his handwriting at Q-1 of Ex.PW16/B.
89. The only defence of the accused Shashank Jadon is that he was made to write these two numbers when he was in Police custody. The accused has pleaded that he was tortured when he was in Police custody and his medical examination was not conducted as per rules. The accused has also pleaded that he had informed his Lawyer about all the aforesaid facts and the Lawyer had mentioned about these in the bail application.
90. The record reflects that the aforesaid defence of accused Shashank Jadon is baseless. This accused had himself appeared in the witness box as DW-11 and he was cross-examined by the prosecution in detail. He was made to go through the bail applications filed on his behalf, which are Ex.DW11/P-1 and Ex.DW11/P-2. He admitted that none of the two applications mentioned anything about his alleged torture in the police custody. He admitted that the bail applications were filed after he had received copy of the chargesheet. It is clear from this portion of the testimony CBI v. Shashank Jadon & Anr. Page 144/184 of accused Shashank Jadon that copy of the chargesheet had been received by him before filing of the bail applications and thus he certainly was aware of the documents that were proposed to be used against him by the CBI during the trial. He did not disclose to the Court at the earliest possible stage that the CBI had manufactured the documents against him.
91. The submission of accused Shashank Jadon that his medical examination was not conducted as per rules is also belied from the documents available on record which show that he was produced for medical examination on 02.06.2017 at the beginning of Police custody and on 08.06.2017 at the end of the first Police custody. No injuries were found on the person of accused Shashank Jadon during either of these medical examinations. There is further nothing on record which suggest that when the accused was sent to judicial custody on 11.06.2017, after expiry of his second Police custody remand, any fresh injuries of torture were found on his person. It is also worthwhile to note that whenever the accused Shashank Jadon was produced before the Court for extension of Police custody remand, a Lawyer was present before the Court on his behalf and Lawyer was even permitted to remain present in the Police Station during the Police Custody Remand. None of the bail applications moved by the accused Shashank Jadon soon after receiving the copy of chargesheet mention about his torture and forgery of documents. All of these suggest that the defence of the accused is an after thought.
92. No reason has been imputed as to why PW-41 will depose falsely against the accused Shashank Jadon. The testimony of PW-41 is reliable especially when considered in light of the admission of accused Shashank CBI v. Shashank Jadon & Anr. Page 145/184 Jadon that the handwriting at Q-1 is his handwriting. There is no reason for this Court to not accept the testimony of PW-41 against the accused persons. The testimony of PW-41 again establishes beyond reasonable doubt that the accused persons had done preparation to conceal their identity before committing the crime and this circumstance certainly strengthens the case of the prosecution further.
93. The second circumstance that has been relied upon by the prosecution to prove its case against the accused persons is ownership of the Honda Accord car. It is the case of prosecution that the Honda Accord car was registered in the name of PW-3 Anil Kumar in the year 2012 and he had sold it to PW-4 Gaurav Gandhi. PW-4 then sold this vehicle to the accused Shashank Jadon in June, 2013. The accused Shashank Jadon sold this vehicle further to PW-9 (Rambhool Chauhan) on 27.11.2015, after commission of the offence.
94. The Defence attacked upon the testimony of PW-3, PW-4 and PW-9 on the ground that the chain through which vehicle is alleged to have reached to accused Shashank Jadon was not proved by the prosecution. Ld. Defence Counsel contended that the vehicle was first registered in the name of Radhika Enterprises in the year 2005 through one Nidhi Garg. It was thereafter sold to PW-30 (Harpreet Singh) as per the case of prosecution. PW-30 had purchased this car from Hyundai showroom but no document in this regard was produced by the prosecution. Ld. Defence Counsel also contended that the sale documents Ex.PW4/1 and Ex.PW4/2, in favour of accused Shashank Jadon, were incomplete and no Form 29 and Form 30 was proved on record suggesting thereby that the car was actually never sold to CBI v. Shashank Jadon & Anr. Page 146/184 the accused Shashank Jadon. Ld. Counsel also contended that there were major differences in the documents of sale executed by PW-4 in favour of PW-3 and the accused Shashank Jadon because the documents of PW-3 did not bear his photograph while the photograph was pasted on the documents pertaining to the accused Shashank Jadon. Ld. Defence Counsel contended that this suggested that the documents were carefully prepared in the office of CBI to implicate the accused Shashank Jadon in this case. The sale of vehicle to PW-9 was also denied on behalf of accused Shashank Jadon and it was contended that the documents of sale in favour of PW-9 were also prepared by the CBI during his Police custody remand. Ld. Defence Counsel further referred to the cross-examination of PW-9 and contended that the person through whom PW-9 had allegedly purchased the vehicle from Shashank Jadon, was working with PW-9 at Sector-63 as per his own testimony. Ld. Counsel pointed out that PW-9 had also stated that the said person, namely, Sanjay was also familiar with the accused Shashank Jadon because he was running his business from the same premises where the accused Shashank Jadon also had his business office located. Ld. Counsel contended that the accused Shashank Jadon did not have his office at Sector-63 and hence the testimony of PW-9 regarding familiarity between Sanjay and Shashank Jadon was unbelievable and unreliable.
95. The contentions of Ld. Defence Counsel does not hold ground for various reasons. The first and foremost is that the accused Shashank Jadon himself admitted his signature on the delivery receipt Ex.PW4/2 at point B. He also admitted his handwriting and signature on the sale letter Ex.PW9/A thereby suggesting his involvement in purchasing and re-selling of the Honda CBI v. Shashank Jadon & Anr. Page 147/184 Accord car bearing No. UP-14AB-2200. The only defence that has been taken by accused Shashank Jadon is that he was made to sign on Ex.PW4/2 and write Ex.PW9/A when he was in the police custody. A similar plea of the accused with respect to Ex.PW16/B has already been rejected. This plea also deserves rejection for the reasons already discussed qua Ex.PW16/B.
96. The prosecution has proved chain of custody by producing PW-30 and PW-4. Otherwise also, PW-3 (Anil) was the registered owner of Honda Accord car as per RC Ex.PW3/3 (also Ex.PW40/C). He appeared in the witness box and deposed that he had resold the car to PW-4, who also deposed to the same effect. Nothing fruitful could be extracted by the defence during their cross-examination except a few technical objections related to format of delivery receipt and the maintaining of record. Even if PW-4 was unable to produce the entire record that he maintained in his office, he categorically proved the sale documents in favour of accused Shashank Jadon as Ex.PW4/1 and Ex.PW4/2. Accused admitted his handwriting and his signature on these documents. He also admitted his photograph. All this establish that he had purchased a white colour Honda Accord car bearing no. UP-14AB-2200 in June, 2013.
97. The sale of aforesaid car to PW-9 Rambhool Chauhan also stood proved beyond reasonable doubt because the accused Shashank Jadon admitted his handwriting and signature on Ex.PW9/A and could not establish his defence regarding his handwriting on the aforesaid document on the preponderance of probability. The car was recovered from PW-9 as is established vide Ex.PW9/B. The car was handed over to the Special Task Force, Noida by the father of PW-9. Ex.PW9/B suggests that the Honda CBI v. Shashank Jadon & Anr. Page 148/184 Accord car bearing no. UP-14AB-2200 was in the custody of PW-9 at the time of its production before Special Task Force on 02.06.2017, after arrest of accused Shashank Jadon.
98. The contention of defence regarding Sanjay, the third person who allegedly had got the deal done between the accused Shashank Jadon & PW-9, is also baseless because PW-9 deposed about Sector - 63 only with respect to the office of himself & Sanjay where they were employed. He categorically stated that Sanjay used to run a business from the premises where business office of accused Shashank Jadon was also located.
99. The testimony of PW-3, PW-4 and PW-9 establish beyond reasonable doubt that the car make Honda Accord bearing No. UP-14AB-2200 was in custody of accused Shashank Jadon on the date of commission of offence because he had purchased it in June, 2013 and had sold it after the incident. Hence, it was for the accused Shashank Jadon to explain how his car was used in commission of the alleged offence on 13.04.2015. In order to prove his innocence, the burden to prove that he had no control over his car on 13.04.2015, lay upon the accused Shashank Jadon which he has failed to discharge. The prosecution has been able to establish the circumstance regarding ownership of the Honda Accord car in its favour and against the accused persons.
100. The third circumstance that connects the accused persons with the offence in question is the weapon of offence.
101. It is the case of prosecution that the weapon of offence Ex.P-3 belonged to the accused Pankaj Kumar @ Pankaj Thakur @ Pankaj Raghav CBI v. Shashank Jadon & Anr. Page 149/184 and he had given the said weapon i.e. a .32 bore revolver to the accused Shashank Jadon. The prosecution had examined PW-28, PW-33, PW-45 and PW-52 to prove its case in respect of the above facts.
102. PW-28 (Vir Singh), is the clerk from the office of District Magistrate, Ghaziabad. He proved that an Arms license had been issued in favour of Pankaj Kumar by the office of District Magistrate, Ghaziabad on 12.02.2007. He further deposed that the weapon of offence was registered against the above said Arms license on 17.06.2014 and it was later sold to one Deepak Aggarwal on 12.10.2015. This witness was not cross-examined by either of the accused person.
103. PW-33 (Deepak Aggarwal), to whom the weapon of offence was sold in October, 2015, deposed that it was purchased by him through Baba Gun House in the year 2015. He identified the sale letter, which is Ex.PW33/C. The rough sketch of the weapon of offence (.32 bore revolver) was also identified by him. PW-33 deposed that he had purchased the said .32 bore revolver bearing No. FG-11567 for a consideration of Rs.65,000/-.
104. PW-45 is the father of deceased Pankaj Kumar who was the owner of the weapon of offence. He admitted in his examination that his son was having an Arms license but deposed that he was not aware about the nature of weapon that his son used to carry against the said license.
105. PW-52 is Sumit Garg, the owner of Baba Gun House. He also deposed that he had sold a .32 bore revolver bearing no. FG-11567 and cartridges for the same to the accused Pankaj Kumar. He further deposed that the said revolver, which is Ex.P-3, was sold by Pankaj Kumar to PW-33 CBI v. Shashank Jadon & Anr. Page 150/184 Deepak Aggarwal through him. This witness had also appeared before the Ld. Magistrate at the stage of investigation and his statement u/Sec. 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded at that time. He had deposed vide that statement that the sale consideration in the sum of Rs.35,000/- was paid by him to the accused Shashank Jadon on the asking of Pankaj Kumar. He had also deposed that Shashank Jadon used to visit his shop often with Pankaj. The said statement of PW-52 is Ex.PW52/5. PW-52 however resiled from the aforesaid portion of his statement Ex.PW52/5 while deposing before the Court and stated that he was pressurized by the IO to take the name of accused Shashank Jadon.
106. PW-52 was cross-examined by the Ld. Prosecutor in detail during which he admitted that he did not inform either the Magistrate or any senior officer of CBI regarding the alleged threat given to him by the IO. He also deposed that he was not contacted by the CBI at all after the recording of his statement u/Sec. 164 Cr.P.C. was over and he was contacted only when he was to appear before this Court to depose. He further deposed that when he had come to the Court to testify, the IO had asked him to depose only in the fashion he had told him to. During his cross-examination by Ld. Counsel for the accused no. 1, he stated that when IO asked him to depose before the Court in the similar fashion as he had been asked to, he denied and told the IO that he will speak the truth only.
107. Ld. Defence Counsel assailed the testimony of all the aforementioned witnesses and contended that statement of none of the aforesaid witnesses was sufficient to connect the accused Shashank Jadon to the weapon of offence.
CBI v. Shashank Jadon & Anr. Page 151/184108. It shall be relevant to first refer to the case laws laying down the jurisprudence related to significance of a statement u/Sec. 164 Cr.P.C. It is necessary to reiterate the law related to this because the testimony of PW-52 is required to be appreciated in light of the legal principles related to importance of a statement recorded u/Sec. 164 Cr.P.C.
109. The question regarding to the weight to be attached to a statement u/Sec. 164 Cr.P.C. during appreciation of evidence had arisen before the Hon'ble Higher Courts in a plethora of cases. One of the latest amongst those is the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in Vijaya Singh and Anr. v. State of Uttarakhand (Supra), wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court had observed as below:-
"27. The jurisprudence concerning a statement under Section 164 CrPC is fairly clear. Such a statement is not considered as a substantive piece of evidence, as substantive oral evidence is one which is deposed before the Court and is subjected to cross-examination. However, Section 157 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 makes it clear that a statement under Section 164 CrPC could be used for both corroboration and contradiction. It could be used to corroborate the testimonies of other witnesses. In R. Shaji v. State of Kerala, this Court discussed the two-fold objective of a statement under Section 164 CrPC as:
"15. So far as the statement of witnesses recorded under Section 164 is concerned, the object is two fold; in the first place, to deter the witness from changing his stand by denying the contents of his previously recorded statement, and secondly, to tide over immunity from prosecution by the witness under Section 164. A proposition to the effect that if a statement of a witness is recorded under Section 164, his CBI v. Shashank Jadon & Anr. Page 152/184 evidence in Court should be discarded, is not at all warranted...."
The Court also recognized that the need for recording the statement of a witness under Section 164 CrPC arises when the witness appears to be connected to the accused and is prone to changing his version at a later stage due to influence. The relevant para reads thus:
"16. ......During the investigation, the Police Officer may sometimes feel that it is expedient to record the statement of a witness under Section 164 Code of Criminal Procedure. This usually happens when the witnesses to a crime are clearly connected to the accused, or where the accused is very influential, owing to which the witnesses may be influenced..."
28. Considering the conceptual requirement of recording a statement before a Judicial Magistrate during the course of investigation and the utility thereof, as prescribed in Section 157 of Evidence Act, it could be observed that a statement under Section 164, although not a substantive piece of evidence, not only meets the test of relevancy but could also be used for the purposes of contradiction and corroboration. A statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC serves a special purpose in a criminal investigation as a greater amount of credibility is attached to it for being recorded by a Judicial Magistrate and not by the Investigating Officer. A statement under Section 164 CrPC is not subjected to the constraints attached with a statement under Section 161 CrPC and the vigour of Section 162 CrPC does not apply to a statement under Section 164 CrPC. Therefore, it must be considered on a better footing. However, relevancy, admissibility and reliability are distinct concepts in the realm of the law of evidence. Thus, the weight to be attached to such a statement (reliability thereof) is to be determined by the Court on a case- to-case basis and the same would depend to some extent upon CBI v. Shashank Jadon & Anr. Page 153/184 whether the witness has remained true to the statement or has resiled from it, but it would not be a conclusive factor. For, even if a witness has retracted from a statement, such retraction could be a result of manipulation and the Court has to examine the circumstances in which the statement was recorded, the reasons stated by the witness for retracting from the statement etc. Ultimately, what counts is whether the Court believes a statement to be true, and the ultimate test of reliability happens during the trial upon a calculated balancing of conflicting versions in light of the other evidence on record. ......
31. Having said so, we deem it fit to observe that a statement under Section 164 CrPC cannot be discarded at the drop of a hat and on a mere statement of the witness that it was not recorded correctly. For, a judicial satisfaction of the Magistrate, to the effect that the statement being recorded is the correct version of the facts stated by the witness, forms part of every such statement and a higher burden must be placed upon the witness to retract from the same. To permit retraction by a witness from a signed statement recorded before the Magistrate on flimsy grounds or on mere assertions would effectively negate the difference between a statement recorded by the police officer and that recorded by the Judicial Magistrate. In the present matter, there is no reasonable ground to reject the statements recorded under Section 164 CrPC and reliance has correctly been placed upon the said statements by the courts below."
110. The law related to appreciation of the statement u/Sec. 164 Cr.P.C. is thus well settled. The statement having been recorded before a Magistrate has to be given due weightage and the accused will be required to show that it indeed was obtained by force.
111. In this case, PW-52 attempted to resile from his statement Ex.PW52/5 on the ground that he was threatened by the IO. He admitted CBI v. Shashank Jadon & Anr. Page 154/184 during his cross-examination by the CBI that he did not inform the Ld. Magistrate or any other Senior Officer of CBI or any Court till date about the same, despite having no pressure from the CBI after recording of his statement. He also admitted that when his statement was recorded by the Ld. Magistrate, he was alone with the Ld. Magistrate in his Chamber. This shows that the witness had sufficient opportunity to inform the Ld. Magistrate if he was really threatened. The witness did not inform any other senior officer of CBI also at any point of time later. Such a conduct of the witness clearly suggests that he may have been tutored due to which he resiled from his previous statement recorded by the Magistrate. When the witness was asked to identify the person who had taken Rs.35,000/- from his shop according to his examination-in-chief, he pointed out towards a constable of CBI and also towards accused Shashank Jadon saying that it could be either of them. The witness also stated in his cross-examination by the defence that when he was asked by the IO to speak lie in the Court he refused. Such a conduct of the witness clearly shows that he had no fear of CBI or even the law. The plea of pressure taken by him for resiling from his statement Ex.PW52/5 is therefore baseless and has no value in the eyes of law. The statement Ex.PW52/5 was given by the witness to the Magistrate. It is an admissible piece of evidence against the accused and in favour of the prosecution.
112. The statement Ex.PW52/5 clearly suggests that the accused Shashank Jadon, though was not the owner of the weapon of offence, but was connected to it. The sale consideration of this revolver was collected by him from the shop of PW-52. The eye witness i.e. PW-5 also deposed in the Court that the accused Shashank Jadon had fired at the Victim Ankit Chauhan on CBI v. Shashank Jadon & Anr. Page 155/184 13.04.2015 using the revolver Ex.P-3. This proved use & possession of the weapon of offence by the accused Shashank Jadon. Sanction to prosecute Shashank Jadon for the use & possession of Ex.P-3 was given by PW-54.
113. In such a scenario, there is no reason for this Court to not connect the accused Shashank Jadon to the weapon of offence. The connection of accused Shashank Jadon to the weapon of offence further strengthens the case of the prosecution.
114. The next circumstance relied upon by the prosecution to prove its case against the accused persons is the motive to commit the crime.
115. It is the case of prosecution that the accused Shashank Jadon wanted to rob a Fortuner car because he had suffered losses in his business and he needed money to recover from those losses. The prosecution examined PW-46 Mohit Joon to prove the same.
116. PW-46 deposed that he was the business partner of accused Shashank Jadon and they had invested in a project named 'Palm Olympia.' He deposed that he had invested Rs.35,00,000/- in the said project and identical amount was invested by the accused Shashank Jadon. They earned profit out of the said project and he had received a total sum of Rs.52,00,000/- including his investment of Rs.35,00,000/- towards his share of the profit. He admitted that the accused Shashank Jadon also had received an identical amount from the aforesaid investment. PW-46 further deposed that in February, 2015 the accused Shashank Jadon decided to enter into a construction business and they were trying to arrange investors. However, in March/April 2015, he was informed that the investors were not interested in CBI v. Shashank Jadon & Anr. Page 156/184 their upcoming projects. Hence, the accused Shashank Jadon had taken a loan of Rs.1.5 crores from him & his cousin in April, 2015. He referred to the documents related to the said loan which are Mark PW46/1 to Mark PW46/6. PW-46 also deposed that the said loan was not repaid by the accused due to which he and his cousin Jasbir Singh, had filed cases u/Sec. 138 NI Act which were decided in their favour.
117. The accused Shashank Jadon did not cross-examine PW-46 on the point of Court decisions against him in cases u/Sec. 138 NI Act. The testimony of PW-46 proves that soon after the alleged incident dated 13.04.2015, the accused Shashank Jadon had taken a heavy loan in the sum of Rs.1.5 crores on 25.04.2015. This requirement arose because the investors had refused to invest in the project of construction that the accused wanted to start. PW-46 was not cross-examined by the accused on this aspect either. The testimony of PW-46 clearly suggests that the accused Shashank Jadon was in need of money to run his business in the month of March/April, 2015.
118. The accused sought to prove that he had sufficient money to run the business and was not required to rob a vehicle for the same. For this purpose, he had summoned his income tax return for the financial year 2014- 2015 from the income tax department. The return was produced before the Court by DW-8 Yuvraj Anand who proved the same as Ex.DW8/1.
119. I have perused the said return which shows that the accused had claimed to have had a gross income of Rs.6,35,255/- in the financial year 2014-2015. The own defence of accused no.1 therefore belies his claim that he had sufficient income from the business and was not in need of money.
CBI v. Shashank Jadon & Anr. Page 157/184120. In my considered opinion, prosecution has proved the financial need of accused Shashank Jadon also in its favour and this circumstance again certainly strengthens the case of the prosecution.
121. The prosecution has further relied upon the post incident conduct of the accused persons in visiting the house of PW-42 & PW-44 for changing the clothes soon after the incident and attempting to get the tattoo removed in the year 2017 when Shashank got a whiff that he was being followed by the CBI, in order to avoid detection.
122. The prosecution examined PW-42 and PW-44 to prove the conduct of the accused Shashank Jadon and Manoj Kumar post incident. It is the case of prosecution that these two accused persons along with the deceased accused Pankaj Kumar had gone to the house of PW-42 and PW-44, who are husband and wife, soon after the incident. The accused Shashank Jadon was having blood stains on his hands and clothes. He had changed his Jeans in the house of PW-42 and had taken it away.
123. PW-42 deposed in the Court that on 13.04.2015 Pankaj and accused Manoj (identified in the Court) had visited his house. Pankaj had told him that he had got injury in his leg and asked for his pant so that he could change his lower. PW-42 gave his Pyjama to Pankaj and when Pankaj was changing he noticed that there was no injury on his leg. PW-42 thereafter questioned Pankaj, who then informed him that he had fired a gunshot at someone by mistake. PW-42 further deposed that Manoj was also accompanying Pankaj and was looking confused.
CBI v. Shashank Jadon & Anr. Page 158/184124. PW-44 deposed on the similar lines as her husband but did not identify accused Manoj also.
125. Both these witnesses were declared hostile by the prosecution and were confronted with their statements recorded u/Sec. 164 Cr.P.C. which are Ex.PW42/A and Ex.PW44/1 respectively. They had deposed before the Ld. Magistrate that on 13.04.2015 at about 5:00 PM to 5:30 PM, Pankaj, accused Shashank and one more person who was being referred as Thekedar had come to their house. There were blood stains on the hands and jeans of Shashank. PW-42 had given his Pyjama to Shashank for changing into it. Shashank had also washed his hands in the washbasin and had informed that he had fired a gunshot by mistake. These two witnesses had further disclosed to the Magistrate that Pankaj had taken out four empty cartridges from his gun and handed those over to the accused Shashank Jadon for throwing away.
126. Both these witnesses resiled from their aforesaid statements on the ground that they were threatened by the IO but when they were cross- examined by the Ld. Sr. PP for the CBI, they deposed that they did not make any complaint in this regard either to the Ld. Magistrate or to the Court or to any senior officer of CBI ever.
127. The plea taken by PW-42 and PW-44 is similar to the plea taken by PW-52 that has already been rejected for the reasons stated hereinabove. The plea of PW-42 and PW-44 also deserves rejection for the same reasons. There is nothing on record to suggest that PW-57 (IO) had any personal enmity with the accused persons due to which they were falsely implicated by him. No questions regarding pressurizing of the witnesses were put to PW-57 CBI v. Shashank Jadon & Anr. Page 159/184 during his cross-examination. PW-42 identified accused Manoj Kumar in the Court but PW-44, who was examined on a different day, refused to identify even the said accused. This shows how clearly and cleverly the witnesses were manipulated to make them resile from their earlier statements.
128. It is established from the testimony of PW-42 and PW-44 that the accused persons had visited them on 13.04.2015 soon after the incident. Accused Shashank Jadon was having blood stains on his hands and clothes. He had changed his jeans and had washed his hands. The accused persons had also planned to dispose off the four empty cartridges. These proved facts reflecting the post incident conduct of the accused persons clearly connect both the accused persons to the alleged incident and establish the case of the prosecution against them.
129. The attempt of accused Shashank Jadon in getting his tattoo removed in May 2017, by when apparently CBI had got a clue about his involvement in the incident, also goes against him and in favour of prosecution. This is an additional circumstance which strengthens the case of the prosecution and corroborates the testimony of PW-5, who is the sole eye witness.
130. The prosecution had examined two witnesses i.e. PW-37 and PW-38, in order to prove that the accused Shashank Jadon had attempted to get his tattoo removed. PW-37 did not depose anything material that goes in favour of the prosecution. The prescription proved by PW-37 shows that one Vikas Singh had visited the clinic of PW-37 in May, 2017 for getting the CBI v. Shashank Jadon & Anr. Page 160/184 tattoo removed. Prosecution could not connect this prescription slip with the accused Shashank Jadon however.
131. PW-38 also did not identify the accused Shashank Jadon in the Court. However, he proved the prescription slip that shows that one Shashank Singh had visited his clinic on 19.05.2017. The said person had revealed his mobile number as 9649344999. The prosecution could not connect the prescription slip with the accused Shashank Jadon directly because PW-38 did not identify him in the witness box, however the tattoo on the left forearm of accused Shashank Jadon was identified by PW-38 from the photograph that he had taken using his mobile phone and had handed over to the CBI. PW-38 admitted that the photograph handed over by him exactly matched the tattoo on the left forearm of accused Shashank Jadon and it indeed was the same tattoo that was shown to him for removal.
132. Ld. Defence Counsel contended that the testimony of PW-38 did not prove anything, firstly, because the person approaching PW-38 was Shashank Singh and not Shashank Jadon and, secondly, because the person who had handed over the prescription Ex.PW38/A to the IO was not examined by the prosecution.
133. In my considered view, the contentions of Ld. Defence Counsel are baseless because the Doctor who had prepared the prescription Ex.PW38/A had himself appeared in the witness box and identified the said slip. The mere fact that name on the slip was recorded as Shashank Singh and not Shashank Jadon, rather goes in favour of the prosecution because it reflects that the accused Shashank Jadon was trying to get the tattoo removed stealthily CBI v. Shashank Jadon & Anr. Page 161/184 thereby suggesting his complacency in the alleged incident. The tattoo on the left forearm of accused Shashank Jadon exactly matched the tattoo reflected in the photograph Ex.PW38/E (Colly). DW-1, own witness of Shashank Jadon, had deposed that very few people used to get that kind of tatoo. PW-14 & PW-36, who are friends of accused Shashank Jadon, did not support the case of prosecution but their testimony is sufficient to establish the presence of Shashank Jadon in Jaipur in the year 2017 as they deposed that they had met him there. All of this, including the similar name, cannot be a mere co- incidence especially when seen in light of the other clinching evidence available on record against the accused Shashank Jadon reflecting his connection with the alleged incident.
134. In my considered opinion, even the post incident conduct of both the accused persons is a circumstance that strengthens the case of the prosecution and corroborates the testimony of eye witness (PW-5) reflecting involvement of both the accused persons in committing the murder of Victim Ankit Chauhan while attempting to commit robbery of the Fortuner car.
135. Ld. Defence Counsel, apart from rebutting the testimony of eye witness and the circumstances that were relied upon by the prosecution, also alleged that the investigation conducted by the CBI was faulty. He contended that the arrest memo Ex.PW40/D was a fabricated document because the accused Shashank Jadon was actually arrested from Jaipur and not in the office of CBI. This argument of defence helps the prosecution only because it again increases the probability of presence of accused Shashank Jadon in Jaipur in May, 2017 before he was arrested on 01.06.2017.
CBI v. Shashank Jadon & Anr. Page 162/184136. Be that as it may, Ld. Counsel also contended that the car key allegedly recovered from the house of the accused Shashank Jadon was not connected with the Honda Accord car Ex.P-1 because it was never shown to PW-31 (Arvind Singh) who had carried out mechanical inspection of the said car and had proved his report Ex.PW31/A. Ld. Counsel also contended that conduct of the IO (PW-57) in picking and choosing evidence as per his own whims and fancies without bringing on record all the collected material shows that the investigation done by him was biased.
137. Such arguments advanced by the defence are without merits in my considered opinion. It is the settled law that lapses in the investigation cannot be used to discredit the testimony of an otherwise reliable witness and are not fatal to the case of the prosecution until those go to the root of the matter. In this case the sole eye witness of the prosecution has stood the test of cross- examination and was found to be reliable. His testimony is corroborated from the other evidence led by the prosecution and gets strengthened further. There is no reason for this Court to disbelieve the testimony of PW-5 and the other evidence led by the prosecution on the ground that there were lapses in the investigation.
138. The testimony of PW-5 is also corroborated from the Call Detail Records of his mobile and the mobile of Victim Ankit Chauhan relied upon by the prosecution. The said call detail records are Ex.PW24/D (Colly) and Ex.PW26/D (Colly). These records suggest frequent exchange of phone calls between Gagan and Prateek Gupta, who is PW-13, from 04:12:13 PM to 04:14:56 PM i.e. around the time of incident. Similarly, multiple frequent calls were exchanged between the phone number of Victim Ankit Chauhan, CBI v. Shashank Jadon & Anr. Page 163/184 Prateek and Naresh Chauhan, who is PW-11, from 4:12 PM till about 4:30 PM and finally a PCR call at 100 number was made from the mobile phone of Victim Ankit Chauhan at 4:31 PM. This time corresponds to the time of incident and supports the testimony of PW-5 that when he and Ankit Chauhan realized that they were being followed by a Honda Accord car, they had immediately informed their friends and relatives and had noted down the number of the car. It also corroborates the presence of PW-5 on the scene of crime.
139. The last instance that is relied upon by the prosecution is regarding the recoveries made at the instance of the accused persons.
140. It is the case of the prosecution that the following recoveries were made:
140.1. On 02.06.2017, on the disclosure statement (Ex.PW57/1, D-17) of accused Manoj Kumar, two fake number plates used on the Honda Accord car with No. UP-14BA-2300 were recovered. The recovery memo in this regard is Ex.PW40/F (Colly) (D-18). It is the case of prosecution that this recovery was made at the instance of accused Manoj Kumar from the vacant portion above the toilet located in the gallery of first floor of his house. The recovery was witnessed by one Javed Ali (public person) and Sachin Kumar (member of STF, U.P.). Sachin was examined as PW-40.
140.2. On 05.06.2017, on the basis of disclosure statement (Ex.PW35/2, D-19) of accused Shashank Jadon, one pair of shoe and car key were recovered from his shoe rack and almirah of the bed room respectively vide recovery memo Ex.PW35/4 (D-21). This recovery was witnessed by two CBI v. Shashank Jadon & Anr. Page 164/184 independent persons, namely, Rajesh Kumar and Kamal Songara. The latter was examined by the CBI as PW-35.
140.3. On 08.06.2017, on the basis of disclosure statement (Ex.PW57/2, D-25) a blue colour jeans worn by the accused Shashank Jadon on the date of alleged incident and four empty cartridges were recovered from an iron drum lying on the roof top of his house. This iron drum was found lying under a shed. The recovery memo is Ex.PW43/5 (Colly) (D-26). The recovery was witnessed by two independent persons, namely, Sandeep Anuragi and Piyush Nigam. The latter was examined by the CBI as PW-43.
140.4. On 05.06.2017, both the accused persons had shown the places that they had visited on the day of commission of alleged offence vide memo Ex.PW35/5 (D-22) and Ex. PW35/6 (D-23). These memos were made pursuant to the disclosure statements of accused persons which are Ex.PW35/2 (D-19) and Ex.PW35/3 (D-20).
141. It was contended by the Ld. Prosecutor that all the aforesaid recoveries establish connection of the accused persons with the alleged incident and prove the case of the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.
142. The recoveries however have been disputed by the accused persons on various grounds:-
142.1. It was contended by Ld. Defence Counsels that the shoes allegedly recovered at the instance of accused Shashank Jadon could not be connected to the crime because IO himself admitted that the said shoes were never sent to the FSL. Ld. Counsel referred to the testimony of PW-57 and CBI v. Shashank Jadon & Anr. Page 165/184 contended that the shoes were not sent because as per PW-57 the accused Shashank Jadon had informed him during the investigation that those probably were not the same shoes which he had worn on the date of incident.
142.2. Ld. Counsel also contended that the car key also was not connected with the Honda Accord car Ex.P-1 allegedly used in commission of the offence because it was not shown to the witness who had conducted mechanical inspection of the said car i.e. PW-30.
142.3. Ld. Counsel further contended that the fact regarding disclosure of places visited by the accused persons on the date of incident was not exclusively in the knowledge of accused persons as these places are public places.
142.4. He also contended that the places visited by the accused persons as per Ex.PW35/5 and Ex.PW35/6 do not match with the places mentioned in the Cell ID chart of mobile number of accused Shashank Jadon. Ld. Counsel moreover argued that on 13.04.2015 the location of accused Shashank Jadon came out to be of Faridabad where he had gone to meet a friend but prosecution has not explained this at all.
142.5. It was further contended that the blue jeans recovered allegedly at the instance of accused Shashank Jadon was sent to the FSL but no blood was detected over that jeans hence, the jeans also could not be connected to the crime.
142.6. Ld. Counsel alleged that the four cartridges were implanted upon the accused Shashank Jadon and in support of this, he contended that the date CBI v. Shashank Jadon & Anr. Page 166/184 of recovery of cartridges was shown to be 08.06.2017 with no explanation coming from the CBI as to why this recovery was not made on 05.06.2017 itself when they had first visited the house of Shashank Jadon, and why it was done only after 06.06.2017 when the alleged weapon of offence was seized from Deepak Aggarwal. Ld. Counsel contended that it was so because after seizing the alleged weapon of offence, the IO had fired four bullets from the said weapon and those cartridges were shown as recovered at the instance of accused Shashank Jadon on 08.06.2017. It is also the contention of Ld. Defence counsel that the accused had moved an application for Carbon Dating Test of the cartridges in order to ascertain the date on which those were fired but the said application was opposed by the CBI because they were aware that the cartridges were fired in the year 2017 and not in the year 2015.
142.7. The recovery of two fake number plates at the instance of accused Manoj Kumar was disputed on the ground that the alleged fake number plates were not shown to PW-41 Shaan Malik in order to ascertain if those actually were the same plates which were made by him at the instance of accused Shashank Jadon.
142.8. Ld. Defence Counsel further contended that the IO deliberately did not file the complete Cell ID chart pertaining to the mobile of the accused Shashank Jadon because he was aware that the same was not in favour of prosecution.
143. It is necessary to first discuss the evidence on record in order to appreciate the arguments raised by the Ld. Defence Counsels.CBI v. Shashank Jadon & Anr. Page 167/184
144. The recovery dated 02.06.2017 at the instance of accused Manoj Kumar was proved by the IO PW-57 and Sachin Kumar, Inspector STF, who is PW-40. The independent public witness, namely, Javed Ali could not be traced by the CBI and hence was not produced in the witness box. PW-40 and PW-57 categorically deposed that the accused Manoj Kumar had shown them the place at which the fake number plates had been kept by him in his house.
They were cross-examined in detail on behalf of the accused persons and no such fact could be brought out in their cross-examination which makes the recovery doubtful. In fact, so far PW-40 is concerned, only a suggestion was given to him on behalf of accused Manoj stating that no recovery was effected, which he denied. Apart from that, no cross-examination of PW-40 was done on behalf of the accused Manoj by his counsel. The disclosure statement Ex.PW57/1 clearly reflects that the accused Manoj Kumar had disclosed that the number plates used in commission of crime were available at his house. He had also disclosed that he could point out the place and get the number plates recovered. When the police team reached at his house, the accused Manoj Kumar on his own took out the number plates from the vacant upper portion of a toilet located on the first floor of his house. It was so reflected in Ex.PW40/F (Colly) regarding which no questions were put to Inspector Sachin Kumar.
145. The defence had sought to dispute the recovery of fake number plates on the ground that the independent witness Javed Ali was not traceable which shows that no such person had joined the recovery. This person Javed was picked up by PW-57 from the local Police station of the area where house of accused Manoj Kumar was located, as deposed by PW-57 himself during CBI v. Shashank Jadon & Anr. Page 168/184 his examination-in-chief. He joined the proceedings after which CBI team had prepared the recovery memo and Javed Ali had signed on the recovery memo. The police team at that time was having accused Manoj Kumar in their custody and in such a scenario it obviously was not expected from them that they would first go and verify the address of Javed Ali. Witness was summoned in the year 2024 i.e. almost six to seven years after recovery. He had gone missing by then, but fault for the same cannot be put upon the prosecution. PW-40 deposed about recovery in detail and nothing significant could be extracted in his cross-examination by the defence. Hence, Court has no reason to doubt the recovery made at the instance of accused Manoj Kumar.
146. The number plates recovered at the instance of accused Manoj Kumar are an important piece of evidence. The number reflected on these plates is the same which was used on the Honda Accord car Ex.P-1 on the date of commission of crime. It is not the case of the accused Manoj Kumar that the number plates were in his possession because he had a car registered with that number. The burden therefore lay upon him to prove why he was having number plates of a number that had not been allotted to any of the car belonging to him. Prosecution has proved by examining PW-12 Sh. Sachin Kumar that the registration number UP-14BA-2300 had been allotted to a car make Mahindra Scorpio Grey colour belonging to him. It is not the case of either of the accused person that they had any connection with PW-12 or the car make Mahindra Scorpio. The recovery of number plate with UP-14BA-2300 inscribed upon it, from the possession of accused Manoj Kumar, therefore does not make any sense and it leads to only one CBI v. Shashank Jadon & Anr. Page 169/184 inescapable conclusion i.e. the said number plate was the one which was used on the Honda Accord car on the date of alleged incident, when seen in the light of the testimony of PW-5 (the eye witness who has identified accused Manoj Kumar in the Court), PW-42 & PW-44 (the husband and wife) who have deposed that accused Manoj Kumar had come to their house on 13.04.2015 along with accused Shashank Jadon soon after the incident and PW-51 who deposed that in the first week of April, 2015 accused Manoj Kumar had visited him along with accused Shashank Jadon and a request for arranging a robbed vehicle was made to him because the accused persons wanted to rob another vehicle.
147. In such a scenario mere non-identification of number plate by PW-41 is not a sufficient reason to say that the number plates recovered from the house of accused Manoj Kumar cannot be connected with the alleged incident.
148. The disclosure of places which were visited by the accused persons and recovery of jeans, shoes and key of the Honda Accord car are inconsequential. It is because none of this material could be directly connected with the commission of offence and hence does not aid the prosecution. The shoes were never sent to the FSL. No blood was found on the jeans. The key was not connected to the Honda Accord car Ex.P-1 and mere showing of places that the accused persons had visited on the date of incident is of no value in the eyes of law without corroboration. Hence, I am not going into the question if recovery of these materials / information at the instance of accused Shashank Jadon or Manoj Kumar were as per law or not. Non-matching of location of Cell ID chart & routes taken by the accused CBI v. Shashank Jadon & Anr. Page 170/184 persons is also immaterial because Cell ID chart was never produced & proved as per law and routes allegedly disclosed by the accused persons cannot be considered.
149. The recovery of cartridges at the instance of accused Shashank Jadon however is an important fact and it is to be seen if the prosecution has been able to establish it beyond reasonable doubt. This recovery was made on 08.06.2017 in the presence of independent witness PW-43 (Piyush Nigam). PW-43 categorically deposed about the recovery in his examination-in-chief. He also identified the four cartridges which were recovered and are Ex.P-8. PW-43 was cross-examined at length by the accused Shashank Jadon but nothing material could come out in his cross-examination.
150. The aforesaid recovery has been challenged by the defence on the ground that on 08.06.2017, the accused was produced before the Court for extension of Police custody remand and hence recovery could not have been made on that day. It was contended that as per the testimony of PW-43, the recovery was made till about 5:00 PM after which the CBI team had left him at his office at about 5:30 PM. It was contended that if this statement of PW-43 was to be taken as correct, it would not have been possible to produce the accused Shashank Jadon in the Court for extension of his custody remand on time.
151. The defence further examined DW-2 (Sakshi Jadon) & DW-3 (Amita Chaudhary @ Uma) in favour of their contention that no recovery was made on 08.06.2017.
CBI v. Shashank Jadon & Anr. Page 171/184152. DW-2 deposed that in June, 2017 Police had visited their house in the first week twice. They were in Police uniform. First time they had visited with her brother i.e. accused Shashank Jadon and second time they came on their own and went to the roof of their house. The testimony of DW-2 establishes that there were visits of the investigating agency in her house in June, 2017. She however faultered crucially in her statement when she stated that police officials were in uniform. It is a known fact that CBI officials do not have a prescribed uniform. Her testimony that police went on to the roof top of their house on 08.06.2017 is clinching and establishes that in fact some recoveries were made from the terrace of the house. The testimony of DW-2 to the effect that the police had visited their house without the company of her brother seems to be an afterthought especially when seen in the light of her statement that the police was in uniform. It suggests that DW-2 actually had not witnessed the visit of the police to her house and was deposing in the Court, may be, only to save her brother.
153. Similarly, DW-3 deposed that she was living on rent in the house of the accused Shashank Jadon for about 12 years and in the month of June, 2017 keys of the house were not sought from her by the CBI. However, during her cross-examination by the Ld. Prosecutor, she deposed that she was not aware of the rent amount that used to be paid to the father of accused Shashank Jadon and stated that rent used to be paid by her husband. This appears unbelievable specially if seen in light of her statement that she stayed in the house as tenant for about 12 years. DW-3 also seems to be an implanted witness for the reasons aforesaid and her testimony cannot be believed.
CBI v. Shashank Jadon & Anr. Page 172/184154. PW-57 specifically deposed in his examination that when they went for recovery in the house of accused Shashank Jadon, his house was lying locked and keys were taken from the tenant who was a female. Since the recovery team did not have a lady officer, the said female was not made a witness to the recovery proceedings. Such an explanation given by PW-57 is plausible and believable.
155. The memo Ex.PW57/2 reflects that the accused had disclosed that the empty cartridges were lying hidden in his house and as per Ex.PW43/5 (Colly) these cartridges were recovered at the instance of accused Shashank Jadon, who himself took these out from the drum lying on the terrace of his house. This recovery was made in the presence of two independent witnesses one of whom was examined as PW-43, as already discussed hereinabove. PW-43 is a Government official who joined the recovery proceedings on the request of CBI and had no reason to depose falsely in the Court.
156. The defence also sought to dispute the recovery made on 08.06.2017 on the ground that the accused Shashank Jadon was produced in the Court for extension of his police custody remand on that day and hence, recovery after the lunch time was not possible. This contention falls flat if read in light of the Order extending Police custody remand, which is dated 08.06.2017. It is clear from a reading of the Order that the accused was in Police custody till 6:00 PM on 08.06.2017 and his Police custody was extended from 08.06.2017 (6:00 PM) to 11.06.2017 (6:00 PM). It means that the accused was produced in the Court around 6:00 PM. This fact is completely in corroboration to the testimony of PW-43, who had deposed that CBI team had left from the house of accused Shashank Jadon at about 5:00 CBI v. Shashank Jadon & Anr. Page 173/184 PM after making the recovery and he was dropped by the team in his office at about 5:30 PM. The accused Shashank Jadon was produced in the Local Court in Ghaziabad where his house is also located and hence it was possible for the CBI to reach the Court by 6:00 PM for extension of Police custody remand after dropping PW-43 to his office. There is no reason therefore to doubt the recovery made at the instance of accused Shashank Jadon on 08.06.2017 on this ground also.
157. Accused Shashank Jadon had suggested to PW-57 during his cross- examination that bullets recovered from the Fortuner car and body of the deceased Victim were replaced by PW-57 with the bullets fired from the alleged weapon of offence after its recovery on 06.06.2017. This suggestion was denied by PW-57 categorically. The suggestion is per se bizarre especially when considered in light of the FSL reports which are Ex.PW17/A and Ex.PW15/A. These two reports clearly suggest that two bullets which were examined in the CFSL were forwarded to them on 21.02.2017. This is much prior to the arrest of accused Shashank Jadon and recovery of the weapon of offence.
158. Ld. Defence Counsel also attempted to show doubtful conduct of the prosecution qua his application for carbon dating test of the cartridges. The said application of accused Shashank Jadon was dismissed by the Ld. Court at Ghaziabad vide Order dated 18.09.2018 on the ground that it was pre-mature. The accused Shashank Jadon however did not move that application again at the appropriate stage of DE. Hence, this contention of defence also does not hold ground.
CBI v. Shashank Jadon & Anr. Page 174/184159. The defence has not been able to prove implanting of the empty cartridges for the reasons aforesaid. On the other hand, the prosecution has been able to prove that recovery of empty cartridges was effected at the instance of accused Shashank Jadon, beyond reasonable doubt.
160. The law relating to admissibility of recovery and application of Section 27 Indian Evidence Act is already well settled. The Hon'ble Privy Council in Pulukuri Kottayya and Ors. v. King Emperor 35 had held as below regarding application of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act:
"......The second question, which involves the construction of S. 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, will now be considered. That section and the two preceding sections, with which it must be read are in these terms:-
"25. No confession made to Police officer shall be proved as against a person accused of any offence.
26. No confession made by any person whilst he is in the custody of a Police officer, unless it be made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate, shall be proved as against such person."
The explanation to the section is not relevant.
"27. 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."
S. 27, which is not artistically worded, provides an exception to the prohibition imposed by the preceding section and enables certain statements made by a person in police custody to be proved. The condition necessary to bring the section into 35 1946 SCC OnLine PC 47 CBI v. Shashank Jadon & Anr. Page 175/184 operation is that the discovery of a fact in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence in the custody of a Police officer must be deposed to, and thereupon so much of the information as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered may be proved. The section 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; but clearly the extent of the information admissible must depend on the exact nature of the fact discovered to which such information is required to relate. Normally the section is brought into operation when a person in police custody produces from some place of concealment some object, such as a dead body, a weapon, or ornaments, said to be connected with the crime of which the informant is accused. Mr. Megaw, for the Crown, has argued that in such a case the "fact discovered" is the physical object produced, and that any information which relates distinctly to that object can be proved. Upon this view information given by a person that the body produced is that of a person murdered by him, that the weapon produced is the one used by him in the commission of a murder, or that the ornaments produced were stolen in a dacoity would all be admissible. If this be the effect of S. 27, little substance would remain in the ban imposed by the two preceding sections on confessions made to the police, or by persons in police custody. That ban was presumably inspired by the fear of the legislature that a person under police influence might be induced to confess by the exercise of undue pressure. But if all that is required to lift the ban be the inclusion in the confession of information, relating to an object subsequently produced, it seems reasonable to suppose that the pursuasive powers of the police will prove equal to the occasion, and that in practice the ban will lose its effect. On normal principles of construction their Lordships think that the proviso to S. 26, added by S. 27, should not be held to nullify the substance of the section. In their Lordships' view it is fallacious to treat the "fact discovered" within the section as equivalent to the object produced; the fact discovered embraces CBI v. Shashank Jadon & Anr. Page 176/184 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 informant to his knowledge, and if the knife is proved to have been used in the commission of the offence, the fact discovered is very relevant. But if to the statement the words be added "with which I stabbed A" these words are inadmissible since they do not relate to the discovery of the knife in the house of the informant."
(Emphasis supplied)
161. The law laid down by Hon'ble Privy Council in Palakudi (supra) has been followed time and again by the Hon'ble Higher Courts in various judgments. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Raja Khan v. State of Chattisgarh 36 had observed as below:-
"18. Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act stipulate that confession made to a police officer is not admissible. However, Section 27 is an exception to Sections 25 and 26 and serves as a proviso to both these sections [Delhi Administration vs. Bal Krishan & Ors., (1972) 4 SCC 659].
19. This Court is of the view that Section 27 lifts the ban, though partially, to the admissibility of confessions. The removal of the ban is not of such an extent so as to absolutely undo the object of Section 26. As such the statement whether confessional or not is allowed to be given in evidence but that portion only which distinctly relates to discovery of the fact is admissible. A discovery of a fact includes the object found, the 36 2025 INSC 167.CBI v. Shashank Jadon & Anr. Page 177/184
place from which it is produced and the knowledge of the Appellant-accused as to its existence (Udai Bhan Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1962 SC 1116).
20. The essential ingredients of Section 27 of the Evidence Act are threefold:
i. The information given by the accused must led to the discovery of the fact which is the direct outcome of such information.
ii. Only such portion of the information given as is distinctly connected with the said recovery is admissible against the accused.
iii. The discovery of the facts must relate to the commission of such offence.
21. The question as to whether evidence relating to recovery is sufficient to fasten guilt on the accused was considered by this Court in Bodhraj Alias Bodha & Ors. v. State of Jammu & Kashmir, (2002) 8 SCC 45, wherein it has been held as under:-
"18... Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (in short "Evidence Act") is by way of proviso to Sections 25 to 26 and a statement even by way of confession made in police custody which distinctly relates to the fact discovered is admissible in evidence against the accused. This position was succinctly dealt with by this Court in Delhi Admn v. Balakrishan [(1972) 4 SCC 659] and Mohd.
Inayatullah v. State of Maharashtra [(1976) 1 SCC 828]. The words "so much of such information" as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, are very important and the whole force of the section concentrates on them. Clearly the extent of the information admissible must depend on the exact nature of the fact discovered to which such information is required to relate. The ban as imposed by the preceding sections was CBI v. Shashank Jadon & Anr. Page 178/184 presumably inspired by the fear of the Legislature that a person under police influence might be induced to confess by the exercise of undue pressure. If all that is required to lift the ban be the inclusion in the confession of information relating to an object subsequently produced, it seems reasonable to suppose that the persuasive powers of the police will prove equal to the occasion, and that in practice the ban will lose its effect. The object of the provision i.e. Section 27 was to provide for the admission of evidence which but for the existence of the section could not in consequence of the preceding sections, be admitted in evidence. It would appear that under Section 27 as it stands in order to render the evidence leading to discovery of any fact admissible, the information must come from any accused in custody of the police. The requirement of police custody is productive of extremely anomalous results and may lead to the exclusion of much valuable evidence in cases where a person, who is subsequently taken in to custody and becomes an accused, after committing a crime meets a police officer or voluntarily goes to him or to the police station and states the circumstances of the crime which lead to the discovery of the dead body, weapon or any other material fact, in consequence of the information thus received from him. This information which is otherwise admissible becomes inadmissible under Section 27 if the information did not come from a person in the custody of a police officer or did come from a person not in the custody of a police officer. The statement which is admissible under Section 27 is the one which is the information leading to discovery. Thus, what is admissible being the information, the same has to be proved and not the opinion formed on it by the police officer. In other CBI v. Shashank Jadon & Anr. Page 179/184 words, the exact information given by the accused while in custody which led to recovery of the articles has to be proved. It is, therefore, necessary for the benefit of both the accused and prosecution that information given should be recorded and proved and if not so recorded, the exact information must be adduced through evidence.
The basic idea embedded in Section 27 of the Evidence Act is the doctrine of confirmation by subsequent events. The doctrine is founded on the principle that if any fact is discovered as a search made on the strength of any information obtained from a prisoner, such a discovery is a guarantee that the information supplied by the prisoner is true. The information might be confessional or non-inculpatory in nature but if it results in discovery of a fact, it becomes a reliable information. It is now well settled that recovery of an object is not discovery of fact envisaged in the section. Decision of Privy Council in Palukuri Kotayya v. Emperor [AIR (1947) PC 67], is the most quoted authority of supporting the interpretation that the "fact discovered" envisaged in the section embraces the place from which the object was produced, the knowledge of the accused as to it, but the information given must relate distinctly to that effect. [See State of Maharashtra v. Dam Gopinath Shirde and Ors, (2000) 6 SCC 269]. No doubt, the information permitted to be admitted in evidence is confined to that portion of the information which "distinctly relates to the fact thereby discovered". But the information to get admissibility need not be so truncated as to make it insensible or incomprehensible. The extent of information admitted should be consistent with understandability. Mere statement that the accused led the police and the witnesses to the place where CBI v. Shashank Jadon & Anr. Page 180/184 he had concealed the articles is not indicative of the information given."
(Emphasis supplied)
162. In the present case recovery has been made as per law laid down by the Hon'ble Privy Council and the Hon'ble Apex Court. The recoveries were made in the presence of independent witnesses who have been examined in the Court. The recoveries were further made pursuant to the disclosure statements of the accused persons which too have been proved on record. The independent witnesses have deposed in the Court that the accused persons had made disclosure even in their presence also and had taken out the incriminating material from the places at which those were hidden by them, on their own. Such a recovery is admissible against the accused persons and is an incriminating circumstance which establishes the case of prosecution.
163. The cartridges (Ex.P-8) recovered at the instance of accused Shashank Jadon were connected to the weapon of offence which is Ex.P-3. It is clear from the report of FSL (Ex.PW15/C). This report also refers to the weapon of offence and opines that it was a Fire Arm defined in the Arms Act, 1959. The result of examination as per report reads as below:-
"On the basis of examination carried out in the laboratory, with scientific aids, the results of the examination are as under:-
(i) On the basis of Physical examination, Chemical analysis of the barrel wash and test firings conducted in the laboratory, it is opined that the .32" Revolver (Marked W/1) contained in Parcel No. A-1, is "Fire-Arm" as defined in the Arms-Act 1959, is in working order in its present condition and had been fired through.CBI v. Shashank Jadon & Anr. Page 181/184
(ii) On the basis of the Microscopic examination conducted in the laboratory, it is opined that the four .32" cartridge cases (marked C/1 to C/4) contained in Parcel No. A-2, had been fired from the .32" Revolver (marked W/1) contained in Parcel No. A-1 in question.
(iii) On the basis of the Microscopic examination conducted in the laboratory, it is opined that the two .32" bullets (marked BC/L & BC/2) contained in Parcel No. 1, received earlier in case CFSL-2017/F-206, had been fired from the .32"
Revolver (marked W/1) contained in Parcel No. A-1 in question.
(iv) No opinion could be possible on the very small pieces of fired bullet's contained in Parcel No. 1, received earlier in case CFSL-2017/F-206, due to lack of sufficient identifiable marks on them."
164. In my considered opinion the recovery having been proved by the prosecution and connected to the weapon of offence, it further strengthens the case of the prosecution and corroborates the testimony of sole eye witness.
165. The prosecution has also established that an Arm was in possession of accused Manoj Kumar too, at the time of commission of offence but he did not fire it. The testimony of PW-5 establishes this beyond reasonable doubt. This Arm was never recovered which leads to inference that the accused persons had altered the evidence. The fact that the accused persons were laced with Arms & had fired, itself reflects that they intended to use the Arms if there was a resistance. Their conduct thus reflects common intention also.
166. From the material on record, the prosecution has been able to establish as below, beyond reasonable doubt:
CBI v. Shashank Jadon & Anr. Page 182/184166.1. The accused Shashank Jadon and Manoj Kumar along with accused Pankaj Kumar (since deceased) had conspired to rob a Forturner car.
166.2. They had attempted to rob the Fortuner car belonging to the Victim Ankit Chauhan pursuant to that conspiracy.
166.3. The accused Shashank Jadon fired gun shots at the Victim Ankit Chauhan and eye witness Gagan Dudhoriya, while attempting to rob the Fortuner Car. These gun shots were fired in pursuance to conspiracy & common intention. Victim Ankit Chauhan suffered fatal gun shot and PW-51 Gagan Dudhoriya escaped injury.
166.4. The revolver used by accused Shashank Jadon was a Fire Arm and he did not have a license to carry or use the Fire Arm.
166.5. The Arm that accused Manoj Kumar carried, was destroyed.
Decision:
167. In view of the aforesaid facts established on record, the accused persons are convicted as below:-
167.1. Both the accused persons are convicted of the offences punishable u/Sec. 120-B r/w Sec. 302/307/398 IPC.
167.2. Accused Shashank Jadon is convicted of the offences punishable u/Sec. 302/307/398/201 IPC & Sec. 25 & 27 Arms Act.
167.3. Accused Manoj Kumar is convicted of the offences punishable u/Sec. 302/34, 307/34, 398 & 201 IPC.CBI v. Shashank Jadon & Anr. Page 183/184
168. Ordered accordingly. Digitally signed by JYOTI JYOTI Date:
KLER KLER 17:56:27 Announced in the Open Court 2025.09.23 +0530 on 20.09.2025 (Jyoti Kler) Special Judge (PC Act) (CBI)-18, Rouse Avenue District Courts, New Delhi Certified that this judgment runs into 184 pages and all the pages Digitally have been signed by me. JYOTI signed by JYOTI KLER Date:
KLER 2025.09.23
17:56:39
+0530
(Jyoti Kler)
Special Judge (PC Act) (CBI)-18,
Rouse Avenue District Courts,
New Delhi
CBI v. Shashank Jadon & Anr. Page 184/184