Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

42 A.M. (On 20.09.2014) And After One ... vs . on 4 June, 2019

  IN THE COURT OF SURINDER KUMAR SHARMA
       ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE - 05
 EAST DISTRICT, KARKARDOOMA COURTS:DELHI


                                                      FIR No.: 652/2014
                                                       U/s: 302/201 IPC
                                                      PS : Geeta Colony
                                                    S.C. No. : 1450/2016
       State
       Vs.
       Honey Rajpal
       S/o Sh. Surender Rajpal
       R/o H.No. 2/71, 2nd Floor
       Geeta Colony
       Delhi.

                     Date of Assignment            : 09.01.2015
                     Date on Arguments             : 21.05.2019
                     Date of Judgment              : 04.06.2019

JUDGMENT

1. The accused Honey Rajpal has been sent up for trial for the offences punishable under Section 302/201 IPC. CASE OF THE PROSECUTION

2. As per the case of the prosecution, on 21.09.2014 at about 12.05 p.m., SI Gaurav Panwar received DD No. 14A from the Duty Officer that a foul smell was coming from Shop SC No. 1450/2016 State Vs. Honey Rajpal Page 1 /122 No. 7/187, Geeta Colony, Delhi. Then, he along with Ct. Sant Kumar went to the spot. Sub Inspector Gaurav Panwar gave information at about 12.30 p.m. to Inspector Arun Chauhan that a foul smell was coming out of the Shop No. 7/187, Geeta Colony, Delhi. The said shop was in the name of 'Branding Wheels'. The shutter of the shop was closed. Flies were buzzing outside the shutter. SHO was informed, who also came at the spot. Crime Team was called at the spot. On inquiry, it was revealed that the said shop belongs to accused Honey Rajpal. Information was given at the house of accused. His father namely Sh. Surender Rajpal came at the spot. He gave keys of the said shop. The shutter of the said shop was opened. On entering the shop, blood was found on the glass door and walls of the shop. The articles were found scattered. Dead body of a person aged 30/35 years, which was wrapped in a curtain, was found there. The body was found to be decomposed. There were injury marks on the head of the dead body and a cloth was SC No. 1450/2016 State Vs. Honey Rajpal Page 2 /122 found wrapped around the neck of the dead body. There were blood stains on the staircase. The father of the accused informed that the name of the deceased was Mohit Kaushal, who was the partner of his son i.e. accused Honey Rajpal. SI Gaurav Panwar got registered the case and investigation was handed over to Inspector Arun Chauhan. Site plan was prepared. The wife of the deceased Mohit was called at the spot. She identified the dead body of her husband namely Mohit. The wife of the deceased Smt. Tripti Kaushal told that on 19.09.2014 in the morning her husband i.e. deceased Mohit went on his 'Honda Activa' Scooty. At about 10.30 a.m. accused Honey Rajpal came to her house and informed that Mohit had gone somewhere with a boy namely Jai for collecting payments. The partner of the accused Honey Rajpal i.e. Jatin Rajpal also came at the spot and told that he along with Honey Rajpal, Mohit Kaushal and Sahil were partners of the shop namely 'Branding Wheels'. The keys of the shop were seized. On 22.09.2014 the dead body was SC No. 1450/2016 State Vs. Honey Rajpal Page 3 /122 identified by his wife Smt. Tripti Kaushal and his father in Mortuary. Postmortem was got conducted on the dead body. After postmortem the dead body was handed over to his father. Blood Sample, Skull Hair, Sternum Bone of the dead body were seized. Thereafter, accused Honey Rajpal was searched, but of no avail. On 24.09.2014 Sh. Jatin Rajpal, the partner of the accused, went to the Police Station and informed that on 19.09.2014 the accused had withdrawn money on 22.09.2014 from his SBI ATM Card at Haridwar. CCTV footage of said SBI ATM Booth was obtained from where accused Honey Rajpal had withdrawn money. On 26.09.2014, NBW against the accused were got issued. Postmortem Report was obtained. On 28.09.2014, Ms. Rajni Thakur, a friend of accused, informed that accused Honey Rajpal had made a call to her from a PCO at Chandigarh and he was present there. Accused Honey Rajpal was arrested from Chandigarh and he confessed that he had murdered Mohit Kaushal. Information of the arrest of accused was SC No. 1450/2016 State Vs. Honey Rajpal Page 4 /122 given to his mother. On 01.11.2014 Section 201 IPC was added in this case. On the same day, photographs of the spot clicked on 21.09.2014 were received from the Crime Team. Inspection Report was received. Exhibits were sent to FSL, Rohini for DNA Analysis. Chance prints which were lifted from the spot were sent for comparison. Call detail records of the mobile phones were obtained during investigation.

3. After completion of investigation, charge­sheet was filed against the accused for the offences punishable under sections 302/201 IPC.

4. After supply of copies in compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C., Ld. M.M. committed the case to the Court of Sessions, as the case was exclusively Sessions triable. CHARGE

5. On 04.03.2015, charge was framed against the accused for SC No. 1450/2016 State Vs. Honey Rajpal Page 5 /122 the offences punishable under section 302 IPC and Section 201 IPC. Accused pleaded not guilty to the charge against him and claimed trial.

PROSECUTION EVIDENCE

6. In support of its case, the prosecution has examined forty four witnesses.

7. PW­1 is Dr. L.C.Gupta. He is the Specialist Forensic Medicines, Aruna Asif Ali Government Hospital, Delhi. On 22.09.2014, he conducted postmortem on the dead body of deceased Mohit. He proved the inquest papers as Ex.PW1/A­1 to Ex.PW1/A­12. On examination of the dead body of Mohit, he found several internal as well as external injuries. He gave his detailed report vide Postmortem Report which is Ex.PW1/B. He opined the cause of death as shock resulting from head injury caused by blunt object or heavy impact caused by other party where involvement of more SC No. 1450/2016 State Vs. Honey Rajpal Page 6 /122 than one person cannot be ruled out. All injuries were ante mortem and fresh. He stated that 'Time since death' could be between 60 hours to 5 days at the time of postmortem examination and definite opinion cannot be given in the form of mathematical calculation as in this case body was removed from the place/shop of which shutter was closed and there was no access of the flies and air. Further, the body was directly shifted into the cold storage of the mortuary and natural process of putrification/ rarification was disturbed which depends on various factors. He gave his subsequent opinion which is Ex.PW1/C. On 17.12.2014, I.O. had given application to seek clarification about time of death of the deceased Mohit Kaushal as he had given opinion in his original postmortem report about the time since death was about 60 hours prior to postmortem. He stated that his opinion was purely based on the putrification changes that he had actually observed in the dead body and he gave his subsequent opinion after considering the facts SC No. 1450/2016 State Vs. Honey Rajpal Page 7 /122 made available to him after investigation and other factors that can hamper process of putrification. He stated that his both opinions were based on scientific facts. He identified the wearing clothes of the deceased Mohit i.e. T­shirt (Ex.P6), underwear (Ex.P7), Lower of the track suit (Ex.P­

8), Vest (Ex.P9) and handkerchief (Ex.P10) which were removed from the dead body of deceased at the time of his postmortem.

8. PW­2 is Ms. Naina Gulati. At the relevant time, she was working as 'Receptionist' at the shop in the name and style of 'Branding Wheels' of the accused. She stated that the said shop belonged to four partners namely Honey Rajpal, Mohit Kaushal, Jatin Rajpal and Sahil Chawla. One Rahul was also employed in the said shop for cleaning work. She stated that the shop used to be opened by the father of the accused Honey Rajpal namely Surender Rajpal with the help of Rahul. From 19.09.2014 to 21.09.2014, she did not to the SC No. 1450/2016 State Vs. Honey Rajpal Page 8 /122 said shop as she was not feeling well.

9. PW­2 Ms. Naina Gulati was cross­examined by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State as she was resiling from her previous statement. In her cross­examination by the Ld. Addl. PP, she admitted that she received phone call from accused Honey Rajpal on 19.09.2014 at about 10.30 a.m. wherein he told her that he was going to Gurgaon and that she should take leave. She also admitted that she told the I.O. in her statement that on 20.09.2014 the accused Honey Rajpal told her that Mohit had not gone to his house since Friday and his wife Smt. Tripti had told him about the said fact. She admitted that during the period from 18.09.2014 to 22.09.2014 she was using her personal mobile phone (number) 7838221861. She admitted that she had talked to accused Honey Rajpal about 13 times from around 1049 hours of 18.09.2014 to around 1407 hours of 22.09.2014. She identified one black colour mobile Phone of Make SC No. 1450/2016 State Vs. Honey Rajpal Page 9 /122 'Snowtel' which is Ex.P1 to be the same which was given to her by the deceased Mohit. She admitted that the number of said 'Snowtel' mobile was 9211222004. She identified the accused during her deposition in the Court.

10. PW­3 is Sh. Jatin Rajpal. He is the cousin of the accused and one of the partner of M/s Branding Wheel Advertising Company. He used to look after the field work in the franchisee of M/s Branding Wheel Advertising Company. He stated that accused Honey Rajpal and Mohit were doing the business of shares at their first floor office. On 19.09.2014, accused called him on his mobile phone and asked him to give him his Wagon R car as he i.e. accused was planning to go to Agra. Accused parked his Polo car in his parking space and took his Wagon R car. Accused Honey Rajpal told him that the office i.e. M/s Branding Wheels Advertising Company would not be opened as Mohit and Naina were not coming to office. On 20.09.2014, SC No. 1450/2016 State Vs. Honey Rajpal Page 10 /122 he received a phone call from the accused. The accused asked him for duplicate keys of the car. On 21.09.2014 at about 6.00 a.m. father and brother of accused came to his house to handover his Wagon R car. They told him that accused Honey had gone to his office in the night and there he had seen dead body of Mohit. On hearing this, they proceeded to Police Station and father of the accused lodged a report. Accused Honey Rajpal asked him (PW­3) to give his debit card for making payment of the committee of deceased Mohit as he (accused) was not having money. Later on, he came to know that the accused had withdrawn about Rs. 20,000/­ by using his ATM card. He identified his Wagon­R car bearing Registration Number DL­2CAS­1557 (Ex.P3).

11. PW­3 was cross­examined by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State as he was suppressing some material facts In his cross­ examination by the Ld. Addl. PP, he admitted that Sahil had SC No. 1450/2016 State Vs. Honey Rajpal Page 11 /122 told him that accused Honey Rajpal had told him about the rent which was due and Honey Rajpal was not having money to pay the same. He admitted that father of the accused i.e. Surender Rajpal had told him at his house that accused Honey Rajpal was nervous and he took his clothes and left the house without disclosing anything.

12. PW­4 is Ms. Shalu Rajpal. She is the owner of the vehicle i.e. Volkswagon Polo Car bearing Registration Number DL­10CC­3823. She got released the above said car on 29.01.2015 on Superdari. The Superdarinama is Ex.PW4/A. The said car is Ex.P4. Photographs of the said car are Ex.PW4/B­1 to Ex.PW4/B­4.

13. PW­5 is Smt. Meenu. She is the wife of Rahul who used to work as cleaner in the office of accused Honey Rajpal at the relevant time. Rahul had expired on 03.02.2015. She stated that on 19th September and 20th September of the year 2013 or 2014 her husband had gone to his office as usual but SC No. 1450/2016 State Vs. Honey Rajpal Page 12 /122 came back soon and told her that accused Honey Rajpal had told him that it was off on the said dates. She stated that on the night of 20th September accused Honey Rajpal made a call to her husband i.e. Rahul and instructed him to come to the shop to take keys. Accused further told her husband to open the shop as and when he would tell him. She went along with her husband to the shop of accused twice in the night. At the first time she had stayed at some distance and saw that he husband had opened the shutter of the shop and accused went inside the shop. Thereafter, Rahul closed the shutter and they came back to their house. When she along with her husband went to the shop of the accused second time, she saw that the accused Honey Rajpal came out of the said shop. When Honey Rajpal saw her, he asked her husband as to why he had brought her along with him. At the same time, one old person also came there and asked Honey Rajpal if he was the owner of the said shop. She saw Honey Rajpal sat in his Wagon R car and went towards Sai SC No. 1450/2016 State Vs. Honey Rajpal Page 13 /122 Mandir. When her husband opened the shop, foul smell was coming out of the shop. Her husband inquired from Honey Rajpal about the same on which the accused told that some mouse had decomposed and foul smell was due to that. Thereafter, her husband closed the shop and they went back to their house. She stated that on the next day morning, the father of the accused made a call to her husband and instructed him to come to the shop, take keys and open the shop. The father of the accused also told her husband that Mohit had died and his dead body was lying in the said shop. He also instructed her husband to make noise of "laash padi hai, laash padi hai". Her husband refused to do so.

14. The Ld. Addl. PP put some leading questions to this witness to which she admitted that first call of the accused had come to the mobile phone of her husband at about 10.30 p.m. on 20.09.2014. She also admitted that the second call SC No. 1450/2016 State Vs. Honey Rajpal Page 14 /122 had come on the mobile phone of her husband at about 11.00 p.m. She admitted that thereafter call of accused Honey Rajpal had come on the mobile phone of her husband after 1 or 1 ½ hours.

15. PW­6 is Smt. Tripti Kaushal. She is the wife of the deceased Mohit Kaushal. She stated that on 19.09.2014 at about 5.45 a.m. her husband i.e. the deceased Mohit left the house on Scooty bearing Registration Number DL­3SFB­ 0005. He was having his mobile phone with him at that time having three SIM cards bearing numbers 9210505850, 9643431719 and 9210891021. She called her husband at about 7.15 a.m. and again at about 7.45 a.m. on his mobile phone, but the same was responding as 'switched off/ not reachable'. She made a call to the accused Honey Rajpal. Accused told her that the deceased Mohit had left his Scooty with him and had gone to Karnal to collect payment, in a car. She again made a call to the accused upon which he told SC No. 1450/2016 State Vs. Honey Rajpal Page 15 /122 her that Mohit had gone along with one Mr. Jai and he (accused) would come to her house to leave the Scooty. After some time accused came to her house and left the Scooty. She made a call to the accused to know the whereabouts of Mohit to which he replied that he had talked to Mohit and the battery of the mobile phone of Mohit had been discharged. At around 12.00 noon / 12.30 p.m. she received a phone call from some unknown person and the caller told that Mohit was still driving the car and would ring her after reaching the destination. Thereafter, she made several phone calls to her husband Mohit, but the same was responding as 'Switched Off/ Not Reachable'. She also made phone calls to the accused who told her not to worry. When she did not receive call from Mohit till the morning of 20.09.2014 she talked to some friends of Mohit. They advised her to lodge a complaint with police. On 20.09.2014 at about 11.00/11.30 a.m. she went to Police Station along with accused Honey Rajpal and lodged a missing report of SC No. 1450/2016 State Vs. Honey Rajpal Page 16 /122 her husband Mohit. At about 3.00/ 3.30 p.m. she received a phone call on her mobile phone. Someone talked to her in the voice of her husband and told her to take care of mother and father and he would return by the evening (tu mummy daddy ka dhyan rakhiyo, main shaam tak aa jaunga). Thereafter, phone was disconnected. She phoned to the accused and told the said fact to him. Accused told her that he had also received a call from unknown number and that Mohit had told him that he would return by the evening. On 21.09.2014, she came to know that her husband had died in the shop itself. She reached at the said shop. She noticed traces of blood lying on the stairs of the shop. She stated that accused Honey Rajpal had borrowed Rs. 24,00,000/­ from the deceased Mohit. Accused did not make the payment and even stopped paying the interest. She placed on record an agreement Ex.PW6/C and Cheque bearing number 000001 dated 25.10.2014 of HDFC Bank which is Ex.PW6/D­1. She also placed on record Deposit Slip which SC No. 1450/2016 State Vs. Honey Rajpal Page 17 /122 is Ex.PW6/D­2. She stated that the accused was using mobile phone number 9811709870 on which she made calls to him. She identified the clothes of her husband i.e. T­shirt, Underwear, lowers and Vest (Ex.P6 to Ex.P9) which he was wearing when he left the house on 19.09.2014.

16. PW­7 is Ms. Rajni Thakur @ Golu. She is the friend of accused. She had attended coaching classes of Chartered Accountants with the accused. She stated that in September 2014 she received two mobile phones in unpacked condition through courier which was sent by accused Honey Rajpal. She informed about the same to the police. Police officials seized those mobile phones, vide seizure memo which is Ex.PW7/A. She identified her signatures on Ex.PW7/A. She identified the accused during her deposition in the Court.

17. PW­7 Ms. Rajni Thakur was cross examined by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State as she was resiling from her previous SC No. 1450/2016 State Vs. Honey Rajpal Page 18 /122 statement. In her cross examination by the Ld. Addl. PP , she admitted the date 24.09.2014 and time 8.00 a.m. to be written by her on seizure memo Ex.PW7/A. She did not support the case of the prosecution even in her cross examination by the Ld. Addl. PP.

18. PW­8 is Sh. Vinod Kumar. He is the father of PW­7 Ms. Rajni Thakur. He stated that in the month of September 2014 his daughter i.e. PW­7 Ms. Rajni Thakur told him that she had received two mobile phones through courier which were sent by accused Honey Rajpal. He asked her to inform about the same to the Police. Her daughter informed the police. Police officials came at their house and took away those mobile phones. He identified the accused during his deposition in the Court.

19. PW­8 was cross­examined by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State as he was resiling from his previous statement. He did SC No. 1450/2016 State Vs. Honey Rajpal Page 19 /122 not support the case of the prosecution even in his cross examination by the Ld. Addl. PP.

20. PW­9 is Sh. Rajesh Sethi. At the relevant time, he was running a mobile phone shop in the name and style of 'Manoj Cell Page' at Netaji Subhash Marg, Daryaganj, Delhi. On 20.09.2014, he sold one mobile phone of Make 'Micromax' Model X­097 to one person. He also issued a bill in this regard which is Ex.PW9/A. Seizure memo of the said bill is Ex.PW9/B. He handed over CD of CCTV footage of the relevant period to the IO which was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW9/C. He stated that the accused Honey Rajpal seemed to be the same person who purchased the mobile phone from his shop.

21. PW­10 is Sh. Rakesh Arora. He was doing Courier Service Business in the name and style of 'Flyking Courier Service' at Haridwar, U.P. He stated that on 21.09.2014 one SC No. 1450/2016 State Vs. Honey Rajpal Page 20 /122 person came to his shop at Haridwar and asked him to deliver two mobile phones at Delhi. The articles were delivered to one Ms. Rajni Thakur on 23.09.2014 by 'Hand Delivery' vide receipt No.1280 through one Sh. K.P.Singh. After about 4­5 days Delhi Police officials came to him and made inquiries regarding the said consignment. He gave copy of said courier consignment note (Ex.PW10/A). The name of the consignor was Mr. Honey and the name of Receiver was Ms. Rajni Thakur and the destination was Delhi. He identified the Run Sheet of his company (Mark PW10/D).

22. PW­10 was cross­examined by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State as he was resiling from his previous statement. In his cross­ examination by the Ld. Addl. PP, he admitted that his statement was read over to him and it was correct. He admitted that at the time of booking the consignment the person namely Honey had given his mobile number as SC No. 1450/2016 State Vs. Honey Rajpal Page 21 /122 9810194663. He admitted that he made a statement (Ex.PW10/E) under Section 161 Cr.P.C. on 26.09.2014. He stated that he was not sure and he cannot admit or deny whether the accused was the same person who had booked the consignment at his shop.

23. PW­11 is Sanjay. He was running a shop in the name and style of 'Sai Luggage' at 9/1521, Mukherjee Gali, Opp. Main Road Gandhi Nagar, Delhi for selling bags, suitcases and trolleys. He did not support the case of the prosecution.

24. PW­11 was cross­examined by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State as he was resiling from his previous statement. Even in his cross­ examination by the Ld. Addl. PP, he did not support the case of the prosecution. He stated that he did not remember whether the accused is the same person who had purchased the suitcase from his shop.

SC No. 1450/2016 State Vs. Honey Rajpal Page 22 /122

25. PW­12 is Sh. Raghubir Singh. He was running shop No. 123, Veer Sawarkar Marg, Geeta Colony, Delhi for selling polythene etc. He did not support the case of the prosecution.

26. PW­12 was cross­examined by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State as he was resiling from his previous statement. Even in his cross­ examination by the Ld. Addl. PP, he did not support the case of the prosecution in any manner.

27. PW­13 is Sh. Sahil Chawla. He is one of the partner of the shop in the name and style of 'Branding Wheels Advertising Company' of which the accused Honey Rajpal was also a partner. He stated that on 19.09.2014 at about 10.00/11.00 a.m. accused Honey Rajpal made a call to him and told that rent of the shop was due and shop would remain close on that day. On 21.09.2014 (i.e. Sunday) the father of the accused Honey Rajpal came to his house and SC No. 1450/2016 State Vs. Honey Rajpal Page 23 /122 told him that accused had gone for study in the night in his shop but one dead body was found inside the shop. Therefore, Honey Rajpal had run away. They went to Police Station Geeta Colony to lodge a complaint. Thereafter, they reached at the shop. The shop was opened. Foul smell was coming out the shop. He gave one set of keys to the Investigating Officer which was seized vide seizure memo which is Ex.PW13/A. After few days of 21.09.2014, he went to Haridwar along with the police officers in search of accused. The police officials made inquiries about accused Honey Rajpal by showing his photographs at nearby hotels. There they met owner of the shop of one courier service in the name and style of 'Flying Courier Service'. The police officials showed the photographs of accused Honey Rajpal to the owner of that shop and asked him about accused Honey Rajpal. The owner of the shop after seeing the photograph told the police officials that Honey Rajpal had come to his shop. The owner also produced one courier SC No. 1450/2016 State Vs. Honey Rajpal Page 24 /122 receipt which was seized by the Investigating officer which is Ex.PW10/A. Thereafter, he along with police officials went to ATM of State Bank of India near Chitra Cinema. They also met Manager of State Bank of India. CCTV footage of the said ATM of the relevant time i.e. 22.09.2014 was seen in which the accused Honey Rajpal was seen withdrawing money. The footage was taken in a pen drive which was seized by the Investigating Officer vide seizure memo which is Ex.PW13/B. He identified the said pen drive (Ex.P12). His supplementary statement was recorded. He identified the accused during his deposition in the Court. He also identified the accused in the said CCTV footage. He identified two keys i.e. one to be of shutter and the other was of the glass door of the shop in question. The same are Ex.P15 and Ex.P16.

28. PW­13 was cross­examined by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State as he was resiling from his previous statement on some SC No. 1450/2016 State Vs. Honey Rajpal Page 25 /122 material aspects. In his cross­examination by the Ld. Addl. PP, he admitted that he made statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C which is Ex.PW13/C.

29. PW­14 is Sh. Neeraj Sharma. He was running a shop in the name and style of 'Neeraj Electronics' at 7/180, Geeta Colony, Delhi. He stated that on 20.09.2014 one police official came to his shop and had taken CCTV footage from his shop regarding the investigation of this case in two DVDs. He proved the Certificate under Section 65­B of Indian Evidence Act which is Ex.PW14/B.

30. PW­14 was cross­examined by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State as he was resiling from his previous statement on some aspects. In his cross­examination, he admitted that recording was taken on 30.09.2014 and it was of intervening night of 19/20.09.2014. He admitted that Investigating Officer had recorded his statement to this effect on 30.09.2014. SC No. 1450/2016 State Vs. Honey Rajpal Page 26 /122

31. PW­15 is Sh. Mantosh. He was running a shop in the name and style of 'Janta Store' at Shop No. 135­A, Jheel Khuranja, Patparganj Road, Delhi­110051. He stated that someone had purchased one wiper from his shop but he did not remember the date. He identified the wiper (Ex.P2) to be the same which was sold from his shop. He could not identify the accused during his deposition in the Court.

32. PW­15 was cross­examined by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State as he was resiling from his previous statement. In his cross­ examination, he admitted that the police had recorded his statement. Even in his cross­examination, he could not identify the accused to be the same person who had purchased wiper from his shop.

33. PW­16 is Smt. Neeru Devi. She is the owner of the shop No. 7/187, Geeta Colony, Delhi which was given on rent to SC No. 1450/2016 State Vs. Honey Rajpal Page 27 /122 the accused Honey Rajpal. The copy of Rent agreement is Mark PW16/1 and the ownership proof is Ex.PW16/A.

34. PW­17 is Sh. Rajesh Sharma @ Rajesh Pahari. He is the friend of the deceased Mohit Kaushal. He stated that on 20.09.2014 the wife of the deceased i.e. Smt. Tripti Kaushal informed him that the deceased Mohit had not returned to the house since 19.09.2014. He made a call to accused Honey Rajpal and asked him about Mohit. Accused told him that Mohit would come by the evening. He asked accused Honey Rajpal to accompany Smt. Tripti to the Police Station to lodge missing report of Mohit. On this, accused became nervous. Report was lodged in the Police Station. Next day, he came to know about murder of Mohit and his dead body was found in his shop.

35. PW­18 is Sh. Sudhir Bhalla. He is the Finger Print Expert, Finger Print Bureau, Police Station Kamla Nagar. SC No. 1450/2016 State Vs. Honey Rajpal Page 28 /122 On 22.11.2014, he received the prints for comparison. He gave his report which is Ex.PW18/A. Description of the same is Ex.PW18/B. Marked enlarged photographs of identical prints are Ex.PW18/C. The specimen slip is Mark PW18/X.

36. PW­19 is Sh. Sarthak Gupta. He knew the accused through his friend Jatin Rajpal. He lent Rs. 8 Lakhs to the accused Honey Rajpal on different occasions. On the allurement of the accused, he had also given his credit card of HDFC Bank to him. When he demanded back the same, the accused did not return it on one pretext or the other. Accused Honey Rajpal used to purchase items with his credit card. He stated that till date he is paying the amount of credit card.

37. PW­20 is Sh. Saurabh Aggarwal. He is the Nodal Officer, Vodafone. He produced the certified copy of CAF SC No. 1450/2016 State Vs. Honey Rajpal Page 29 /122 (Customer Application Form) of mobile No. 9811709870 which was in the name of the accused Honey Rajpal and the same is Ex.PW20/A. He also produced CDR (Call Detail Record) of this mobile phone from 18.09.2014 to 22.09.2014 which is Ex.PW20/B, Certificate under Section 65­B of Indian Evidence Act is Ex.PW20/C. He produced the Certified copy of CAF of mobile No. 9268044657 which was in the name of Smt. Tripti Kaushal which is Ex.PW20/D, CDR of mobile No. 9268044657 from 18.09.2014 to 22.09.2014 is Ex.PW20/E and Certificate under Section 65­B of Indian Evidence Act is Ex.PW20/F. He produced the Certified copy of CAF of mobile No.9212001201 which was in the name of Mohit Kaushal which is Ex.PW20/G, CDR of mobile No. 9212001201 from 18.09.2014 to 22.09.2014 is Ex.PW20/H and Certificate under Section 65­B of Indian Evidence Act is Ex.PW20/J. He produced certified copy of CAF of mobile Number 7838221861 which was in the name of Mohd. Firasat Ali SC No. 1450/2016 State Vs. Honey Rajpal Page 30 /122 and the same is Ex.PW20/K, CDR of mobile Number 7838221861 from 18.09.2014 to 22.09.2014 is Ex.PW20/L and Certificate under Section 65­B of Indian Evidence Act is Ex.PW20/M. He produced certified copy of CAF of mobile number 9953812084 which was in the name of Paramjeet and the same is Ex.PW20/N, CDR of mobile phone number 9953812084 from 18.09.2014 till 22.09.2014 is Ex.PW20/O and Certificate under Section 65­B of Indian Evidence Act is Ex.PW20/P. He produced certified copy of CAF of mobile number 9711029298 which was in the name of Shikha Rajpal which is Ex.PW20/Q, CDR of mobile number 9711029298 from 18.09.2014 to 22.09.2014 is Ex.PW20/R and Certificate under Section 65­B of Indian Evidence Act is Ex.PW20/S. He produced certified copy of CAF of mobile phone number 8860834227 which was in the name of Sahil Chawla and the same is Ex.PW20/T, CDR of mobile phone number 8860834227 from 18.09.2014 to 22.09.2014 is Ex.PW20/U and Certificate under Section 65­ SC No. 1450/2016 State Vs. Honey Rajpal Page 31 /122 B of Indian Evidence Act is Ex.PW20/V. He produced certified copy of CAF of mobile phone number 9643431719 which was in the name of Mohit Kaushal which is Ex.PW20/W, CDR of mobile phone number 9643431719 from 18.09.2014 to 22.09.2014 is Ex.PW20/X and Certificate under Section 65­B of Indian Evidence Act is Ex.PW20/Y. He also produced the Location Chart of Vodafone Delhi Network which is Ex.PW20/Z.

38. PW­21 is Sh. Hari Krishan Gandhi. At the relevant time, he was running a Fair Price Shop at 7/188, Geeta Colony, Delhi. He stated that accused Honey Rajpal was running his shop in the name and style of 'Branding Wheels' near his shop. In the intervening night of 20/21.09.2014 at about 12.00 midnight, he came to check the main gate of his house whether it was open or close. When he came out he saw one person standing near the electricity pole. He asked the said person his name who told his name as Honey and he also SC No. 1450/2016 State Vs. Honey Rajpal Page 32 /122 told that he was the owner of the shop 'Branding Wheels'. He saw one lady and one other person were also standing at some distance. On 01.10.2014, he was called by the police in the Police Station where he found accused Honey already sitting there. He identified the accused Honey Rajpal as the same person whom he met near the electricity pole at 12.00 midnight in the intervening night of 20/21.09.2014 and also in the Police Station.

39. PW­22 is Dr. Sarabjeet Singh. He is working as SSO, FSL, Rohini, Delhi. On 22.09.2014, he along with his team reached at 7/187, Geeta Colony, Delhi. He examined the spot. He found blood at various places i.e. on the outside of main gate, on the right side of wall, ground floor, towel, stairs etc. He prepared blood stained gauze. He found blood on the sofa near main gate and took cutting and handed it over to the Investigation Officer. He found blood on the washbasin, bucket, on the floor of second floor, etc. He SC No. 1450/2016 State Vs. Honey Rajpal Page 33 /122 prepared blood stained gauze. Two blood stained gloves were also found in the room from different spots and the same were handed over to the IO. A blood stained pair of Slippers was also found on the terrace bathroom. He handed over the same to the Investigation Officer. He gave his detailed report which is Ex.PW22/A.

40. PW­23 is Sh. Yogesh Tripathi. He is the Alternate Nodal Officer, Reliance Communications Ltd. Delhi. He produced the original Customer Application Form of mobile number 8376950557 which was in the name of Virender Kumar Roy. The same is Ex.PW23/A. He also produced the CDR (Ex.PW23/B) of the said mobile number for the period from 18.09.2014 to 22.09.2014. Certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act is Ex.PW23/C. He has also produced the original Customer Application Form of mobile number 9015634228 which was in the name of Sahil Chawla. The same is Ex.PW23/D. He also produced the CDR SC No. 1450/2016 State Vs. Honey Rajpal Page 34 /122 (Ex.PW23/E) of the said mobile number for the period from 18.09.2014 to 22.09.2014. Certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act is Ex.PW23/F.

41. PW­24 is Ct. Ravinder Kumar. On 21.09.2014, on receipt of information regarding a murder, from Control Room he along with SI Ravi Kant and Ct. Vikas (Photographer) reached at the spot i.e. shop in the name and style of 'Branding Wheels'. He lifted 11 chance prints from the spot. He developed the said chance prints and took photographs of the same. SI Ravi Kant prepared Scene of Crime Report. His statement was recorded by SI Gaurav Panwar. The prints of the chance prints lifted by him from the spot are Ex.PW24/A.

42. PW­25 is Sh. Pawan Singh. He is Nodal Officer, Idea Cellular Ltd., Delhi. He had produced the CAF of mobile phone number 7835993892 which is Ex.PW25/A which was SC No. 1450/2016 State Vs. Honey Rajpal Page 35 /122 in the name of Ram Pal Singh. The e­mail record of CDR of this mobile phone from 18.09.2014 to 17.11.2014 is Ex.PW25/B.

43. PW­26 is Sh. Rajiv Ranjan. He is the Nodal Officer, TATA Tele Services, Mathura Road, Delhi. He produced the CAF of mobile phone number 9210505850 which is Ex.PW26/A which was in the name of Jitender Parcha. The CDR of this mobile phone from 18.09.2014 to 22.09.2014 is Ex.PW26/C. He produced the Location Chart of the same which is Ex.PW26/D. He also produced the CAF of mobile phone number 9210891021 which is Ex.PW26/B which was in the name of Manpreet Kaur and CDR of mobile number 9210891021 is Ex.PW26/E for the period from 18.09.2014 to 22.09.2014. The Certificate under Section 65­B of Indian Evidence Act is Ex.PW26/F.

44. PW­27 is Dr. Manoj Kumar. He is Chief Medical Officer SC No. 1450/2016 State Vs. Honey Rajpal Page 36 /122 at Swami Dayanand Hospital, Shahdara, Delhi. He deposed on behalf of Dr. Samrat as he had left the services of the hospital. He proved the MLC of the accused Honey Rajpal which is Ex.PW27/A prepared by Dr. Samrat.

45. PW­28 is SI Ravi Kant. He was posted in Mobile Crime Team East District, Delhi at the relevant time. On receipt of call from Control Room, he along with his team including Ct. Vikas and Ct. Ravinder reached at the spot. He inspected the Scene of Crime. Spot was photographed. Chance prints were lifted from the spot by Ct. Ravinder. He (PW­28) prepared report which is Ex.PW28/A.

46. PW­29 is Ct. Vikas. He was working in Mobile Crime Team East District, Delhi at the relevant time. On that day, he along with SI Ravi Kant and Ct. Ravinder reached at the spot. He photographed the spot. SI Ravi Kant inspected the spot and prepared Scene of Crime Report. Chance prints SC No. 1450/2016 State Vs. Honey Rajpal Page 37 /122 were lifted from the spot by Ct. Ravinder. He handed over the Photographs of Scene of Crime (Ex.PW29/A1 to Ex.PW29/A41) to Investigation Officer. He also proved the negatives of the said photographs as Ex.PW29/B1 to Ex.PW29/B43.

47. PW­30 is HC Krishan Kumar. At the relevant date, he was on patrolling duty. At about 12.00­12.30 p.m. when he reached near the spot, he found Insp. Arun Chauhan, SI Gaurav Panwar and Ct. Sant Kumar along with other police officials. A foul smell was coming out from the said shop. The Crime Team officials also reached there. SI Gaurav Panwar opened the shutter of the said shop. Blood stains were found on the glass door. The dead body of a person aged 30/35 years was lying there wrapped in a cloth. The dead body was uncovered and it was found to be in a decomposed condition and was also having injury marks. SI Gaurav Panwar prepared tehrir and handed over to him. He SC No. 1450/2016 State Vs. Honey Rajpal Page 38 /122 got the FIR of this case registered. After registration of the FIR, he reached at the spot and handed over the copy of FIR and tehrir to Insp. Arun Chauhan. The dead body was sent to the mortuary through Ct. Sant Kumar. One Ms. Naina Gulati was also present there and she produced two mobile phones before the Investigating Officer. The Investigation Officer recorded the statement of the Crime Team officials. His statement was also recorded by the Investigation Officer.

48. PW­31 is ASI Naushad Haider. On 21.09.2014 at about 4.00p.m. the Duty Officer handed over copies of the FIR of this case to him. He delivered the copy of FIR at the residence of DCP (East), Joint CP (Eastern range), ACP Gandhi Nagar and at the residence of concerned Metropolitan Magistrate.

49. PW­32 is Ct. Guddu. On 29.09.2014, he was posted at SC No. 1450/2016 State Vs. Honey Rajpal Page 39 /122 Police Station Geeta Colony. On that day, he along with Ct. Devendra took the accused Honey Rajpal and reached at Karkardooma Courts. He took the accused to Dossier Cell. He took the accused to SDN Hospital for his medical examination. He obtained the blood sample of the accused from the CMO and handed it over to the Investigation Officer. Thereafter, accused was sent to Lock Up. Investigation Officer prepared the seizure memo of the blood sample which is Ex.PW32/A.

50. PW­33 is Ct. Sanjeev. On 21.11.2014, he was posted at Police Station Geeta Colony Delhi. He collected the viscera from Malkhana Incharge HC Kiran Pal. He took the same to the FSL. He obtained the same from FSL and handed it over to the IO.

51. PW­33 was cross­examined by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State as he was resiling from his previous statement. In his SC No. 1450/2016 State Vs. Honey Rajpal Page 40 /122 cross­ examination by the Ld. Addl. PP he admitted that he obtained exhibits only and handed over to the FSL. He admitted that due to confusion he mentioned the word 'Viscera' in his examination­in­chief. He admitted that he collected the exhibits in a sealed condition and it remained intact till the time it remained in his custody.

52. PW­34 is HC Sant Kumar. On 21.09.2014, he was posted at Police Station Geeta Colony as Constable. He stated that on that day, on receiving DD No.14­A, he along with SI Gaurav Panwar reached at Shop No. 7/187, Geeta Colony, Delhi. He did not remember the correct name of that shop but he stated that it might be 'Bringil Wheel'. The shutter of the shop was locked and foul smell was coming out of it. SI Gaurav Panwar informed concerned SHO through telephone in this regard. SHO and Inspector Arun Chauhan came at the spot. Thereafter, SHO intimated Crime Team. Upon local inquiry, it was revealed that the above mentioned shop SC No. 1450/2016 State Vs. Honey Rajpal Page 41 /122 belonged to one Honey Rajpal, who was running the same in partnership with some other persons. The address of Honey Rajpal was also revealed as 2/71, 2nd Floor, Geeta Colony, Delhi. Upon the direction of SI Gaurav Panwar, he went to the house of Honey Rajpal. He met Mr. Surender Rajpal, who is the father of Honey Rajpal. Then, he came back to the spot along with the father of accused Honey Rajpal. Thereafter, Crime Team also reached at the spot and the lock of the shop was opened with the help of the key. There was one gate of glass inside. Sofa, table and chairs were found in scattered position. There were blood stains upon the wall. One dead body was lying on the floor near the sofa which was wrapped in a cloth. It was looking like two/three days old dead body and the age of the dead person might be in between 30­35 years. Sh. Surender Rajpal revealed that the body was of Mr. Mohit, who was the friend of his son Honey Rajpal. The dead body was sent to the mortuary in a Government vehicle. He accompanied the SC No. 1450/2016 State Vs. Honey Rajpal Page 42 /122 dead body. It was deposited in the Sabzi Mandi Mortuary. On the next day i.e. 22.09.2014, the post mortem on the dead body was got conducted. The dead body was got identified by the wife of Mohit and father of Mohit. The dead body was handed over to them. He signed upon the identification statement, which is Ex. PW6/A­11 and Ex.PW1/A­12. He also signed upon the handing over memo of the dead body which is Ex.PW6/A. Doctor handed over some exhibits including hair of the deceased and clothes of the deceased duly sealed with the seal of Mortuary. He handed it over to the Investigating Officer, who seized the same vide seizure memo which is Ex.PW34/A. The Investigating Officer seized all the articles which he handed over to him vide seizure memos which are Ex.PW34/B, Ex.PW34/C and Ex.PW34/D. Thereafter, he along with SI Gaurav Panwar and Inspector Arun Chauhan returned back to the spot i.e. the shop, where the FSL Team was already present. They obtained photographs of the spot. They also SC No. 1450/2016 State Vs. Honey Rajpal Page 43 /122 seized one towel having blood stains and surgical gloves. They also seized two slippers, which were lying at the first floor in front of the bathroom. FSL Team lifted samples and other items from the spot. The seizure memo in this regard is Ex.PW34/E. Inspector Arun Chauhan used a seal having particular 'GC­03, PS Geeta Colony, East District, Delhi' while seizing the articles vide seizure memo which is Ex.PW34/E. The seized articles were deposited in the Malkhana. His statement was recorded. He identified the photographs of the spot, which are Ex. PW29/A­1 to Ex. PW29/A­41.

53. PW­35 is HC Dinesh Kumar. On 28.09.2014, he was posted at Police Station Geeta Colony as Constable. On that day, on the direction of Inspector Arun Chauhan he reached at the Police Station in the early morning. He joined investigation of this case along with Inspector Arun Chauhan, Ms. Rajni, Ms. Shalu and Sh. Vinod. They all SC No. 1450/2016 State Vs. Honey Rajpal Page 44 /122 went to Chandigarh. He with the help of Inspector Arun Chauhan apprehended the accused Honey Rajpal in Chandigarh. Accused was interrogated by Inspector Arun Chauhan. Disclosure statement of accused (Ex.PW35/A) was recorded. Thereafter, they all reached Delhi. All of them reached at the spot. Pointing out memo which is Ex.PW35/B was prepared. Accused was arrested vide arrest memo which is Ex.PW35/C. The personal search of the accused was conducted vide personal search memo which is Ex.PW35/D. On 30.09.2014 he again joined the investigation with Inspector Arun Chauhan and HC Rajpal. All of them along with the accused Honey Rajpal reached at the spot i.e. at Geeta Colony. The shop was opened and they along with the accused entered the shop. In the shop some polythene bags along with one wiper of yellow colour were lying on the ground floor. Investigating Officer prepared the Pullanda of the said polythene bags and wiper and seized the same, vide seizure memo Ex.PW35/E and SC No. 1450/2016 State Vs. Honey Rajpal Page 45 /122 Ex.PW35/F. Thereafter, accused Honey Rajpal took them to his house at 2nd Block, Geeta Colony, Delhi. He took out blue colour Capri and blue colour T­shirt from his almirah and disclosed that he was wearing the same at the time of commission of the offence. Investigating Officer seized the same vide seizure memo which is Ex.PW35/G. Thereafter, accused Honey Rajpal took them to Daryaganj at one mobile shop and disclosed that he had purchased one mobile phone of make Micromax from this shop. Accused Honey Rajpal disclosed that he made calls from this Micromax mobile phone to the wife of deceased. Investigating Officer made inquiries from the shopkeeper of that mobile shop. The shopkeeper identified the accused in his shop and told that the accused purchased Micromax mobile phone from his shop. The shopkeeper also produced the copy of the bill with regard to the purchase of mobile phone. Investigating Officer seized the copy of the Bill vide seizure memo which is Ex.PW9/B. The copy of the bill is Ex.PW9/A. The SC No. 1450/2016 State Vs. Honey Rajpal Page 46 /122 shopkeeper also handed over one CCTV footage of the mobile shop of the day on which the accused came to purchase the above mentioned mobile. Investigating Officer seized the same vide seizure memo which is Ex.PW9/C. Thereafter, accused Honey Rajpal took them to Gandhi Nagar, where he pointed out towards a shop and disclosed that he purchased a suitcase from that shop. Investigating Officer inquired this fact from the concerned shopkeeper and shopkeeper also verified this fact. Investigating Officer recorded the statement of the said shopkeeper. Thereafter, accused Honey Rajpal took them to a shop at Budh Bazar Geeta Colony and disclosed that from there he purchased the blue color polythene, which was already seized from the spot. Investigating Officer inquired from the shopkeeper of that shop. The shopkeeper disclosed that accused Honey Rajpal had purchased the same. Investigating Officer recorded his statement. Investigating Officer recorded statements of all the other relevant witnesses, who met them SC No. 1450/2016 State Vs. Honey Rajpal Page 47 /122 on 30.09.2014. Thereafter, medical examination of accused Honey Rajpal was got conducted at SDN Hospital. After sometime on the same day, he along with IO/ Inspector Arun Chauhan reached at the spot again for the purpose of checking the CCTV cameras. Investigating Officer found that there was one shop in the name and style of 'Neeraj Electronics' where the CCTV Cameras had already been installed. Investigating Officer met the shopkeeper and checked the footage of that CCTV. Investigating Officer obtained two CDs of the footage from the shopkeeper. On 01.10.2014, he again joined investigation with the Investigating Officer. On that day, he along with the Investigating Officer and accused Honey Rajpal reached at shop at Patparganj Road, Jheel, Kurenja, Delhi. Accused Honey Rajpal pointed out a shop from where he purchased wiper. Investigating Officer inquired the shopkeeper of that shop and also recorded his statement. Investigating Officer prepared the pointing out memo in this regard which is SC No. 1450/2016 State Vs. Honey Rajpal Page 48 /122 Ex.PW35/H. Thereafter, accused Honey Rajpal took them to the Cannaught Place, Delhi at three shops i.e. Spa Center in search of one Chhotu, who was a bookie as per accused. However, they could not find Chhotu. Accused Honey Rajpal also disclosed there that he obtained one pre­ activated SIM which he used in his Micromax phone. Accused disclosed that he obtained that SIM from Gandhi Nagar. Thereafter, they reached at Gandhi Nagar and tried to find out that person, who had provided above mentioned SIM, but of no avail. Thereafter, they returned back to the police station. Some persons were already present in the police station to meet the Investigating Officer in this case. One of them was neighbour of accused Honey Rajpal and he disclosed that he had seen accused Honey Rajpal while coming out from his shop at about 12.00 to 12.30 am on 20.09.2014. On 04.10.2014, he again joined the investigation in this case with the Investigating Officer. On that day, accused took them to his house at Block No. 2, SC No. 1450/2016 State Vs. Honey Rajpal Page 49 /122 Geeta Colony, Delhi. Ct. Shambhu was also with them. They met the father of accused Honey Rajpal, who was inquired by the Investigating Officer. Accused Honey Rajpal was the owner of one car make Polo which was seized by the IO vide seizure memo which is Ex.PW35/J. The father of the accused handed over one bunch of keys and disclosed that these were the duplicate keys of the shop where the incident had taken place. Investigating Officer seized those keys, vide seizure memo which is Ex.PW35/K. Thereafter, accused took them to Janakpuri, Delhi at the house of one of his partner, where Investigating Officer seized one Wagon R Car at the instance of accused. Accused disclosed that he also used the said Wagon R Car during that incident. The seizure memo of the Wagon R Car is Ex.PW3/B. Thereafter, they reached at the hospital where the medical examination of the accused was got conducted. Later on, his statement was recorded by the I.O. He signed upon the seizure memo of clothes of accused Honey Rajpal SC No. 1450/2016 State Vs. Honey Rajpal Page 50 /122 which is Ex.PW35/L. He signed upon the pointing out memo of the shop from where the Micromax mobile was purchased and same is Ex.PW35/M. He signed upon the pointing out memo from where the suitcase was purchased and same is Ex.PW35/N. He signed upon the pointing out memo in respect of the shop from where the polythene bag was purchased by the accused Honey Rajpal and same is Ex. PW35/O. He identified the case property i.e. wiper (Ex.P2), Five polythene (Ex.P17) which were recovered from the spot. He identified one blue colour capri and one T­shirt (Ex.P18) which were worn by accused Honey Rajpal at the time of commission of offence. He identified five keys (Ex.P19) which were handed over by Surender Rajpal. He identified four photographs (Ex.P­20) of Wagon­R car bearing Registration Number DL­2CAS­1557 which was seized at the instance of accused Honey Rajpal. He identified four photographs of POLO Volkswagan Car bearing Registration Number DL­10CC­3823 which is SC No. 1450/2016 State Vs. Honey Rajpal Page 51 /122 Ex.P21 which were seized at the instance of accused Honey Rajpal.

54. PW­36 is W/HC Savita. At the relevant date, she was working as DD Writer in Police Station Geeta Colony. On that day, at about 1.00 p.m. one lady namely Tripti Kaushal came to lodge missing report of her husband namely Mohit Kaushal. She recorded DD No. 32 and the same was marked to SI Jagdip Malik. She proved the copy of DD No. 32­B which is Ex.PW36/A.

55. PW­37 is SI Jagdeep Malik. On 20.09.2014 he was posted as SI at Police Station Geeta Colony. DD No. 32 B was marked to him. He inquired Smt. Tripti Kaushal about missing of Mohit Kaushal. He asked her to provide photograph of Mohit Kaushal. He circulated the WT Message and uploaded the information on Zip Net. Next day he came to know that Mohit Kaushal had been murdered. SC No. 1450/2016 State Vs. Honey Rajpal Page 52 /122

56. PW­38 is SI Sunil Kumar. On 26.09.2014 he was posted at Police Station Geeta Colony as Sub Inspector. He along with Ct. Vijender and witness Sahil Chawla went to Haridwar in search of accused Honey Rajpal. They reached at Shop No. 3 Chitra Residency Hotel Near Chitra Talkies, Haridwar. He met the owner of 'Sky King Courier' Company. He showed him the photographs of accused Honey Rajpal. The shopkeeper told that Honey Rajpal sent a courier on 22.09.2014 to a lady Ms. Rajni at Delhi. He seized the courier consignment order and delivery run sheet. Thereafter, they reached at Rani Ganj Branch of State Bank of India. He asked the Manager for providing CCTV footage of ATM booth which was situated near Chitra Talkies. He seized the footage which was taken in a pen drive, vide seizure memo which is Ex.PW13/B. He tried to find out the accused Honey Rajpal. He recorded the statements of all the relevant witnesses.

57. PW­39 is Sh. Naresh Kumar Parmar. On 26.09.2014 he SC No. 1450/2016 State Vs. Honey Rajpal Page 53 /122 was working as Technician in 'Bhagwati Electronics' Agra. He was looking after the Annual Maintenance of ATM of State Bank of India. He was called by the Manager of Rani Pur Branch of State Bank of India. The Manager asked him to provide the CCTV footage of 22.09.2014 of the ATM booth of Chitra Talkies. He made a copy of the footage dated 22.09.2014 in 8 GB Pen drive and handed it over to the Investigating Officer of the case. Investigating Officer recorded his statement. He identified the pen drive which is Ex.P12.

58. PW­40 is ASI Sonu Kaushik. On 25.09.2014, he was posted as Head Constable in Draftsman Section of Crime Branch, PHQ. On that day he reached at Police Station Geeta Colony. He along with Inspector Arun Chauhan reached at the spot. He prepared scaled site plan which is Ex.PW40/A.

59. PW­41 is Ms. Monika Chakravarty. She was working as SC No. 1450/2016 State Vs. Honey Rajpal Page 54 /122 SSA Biology, FSL, Rohini Delhi. She is an expert in DNA Finger Printing. On 21.11.2014, she received 27 parcels pertaining to present case for examination. She gave her detailed report which is Ex.PW41/A.

60. PW­42 is HC Kiran Pal. On 21.09.2014, he was posted at Police Station Geeta Colony. He was working as MHC(M). On that day Inspector Arun Chauhan deposited five sealed parcels in the malkhana. He made entry in this regard in register Number 19 which is Ex.PW42/A. On 22.09.2014, Inspector Arun Chauhan deposited sealed parcels in the Malkahana. He made relevant entries in this regard in register Number 19 which is Ex.PW42/B. On 22.09.2014, Inspector Arun Chauhan deposited two sealed parcels in the Malkhana. He made relevant entries in this regard in register Number 19 which is Ex.PW42/C. On 28.09.2014, Inspector Arun Chauhan deposited personal search articles of accused Honey Rajpal in the Malkahana. He made relevant entries in this regard in register Number 19 which is Ex.PW42/D. On SC No. 1450/2016 State Vs. Honey Rajpal Page 55 /122 29.09.2014, Inspector Arun Chauhan deposited one sealed parcel in the Malkahana. He made relevant entries in this regard in register Number 19 which is Ex.PW42/E. On 30.09.2014, Inspector Arun Chauhan deposited three sealed parcels in the Malkahana. He made relevant entries in this regard in register Number 19 which is Ex.PW42/F. On 04.10.2014, Inspector Arun Chauhan deposited one sealed parcel in the Malkahana. He made relevant entries in this regard in register Number 19 which is Ex.PW42/G. On 21.11.2014, he handed over the sealed exhibits and sample seals to Ct. Sanjeev. Ct. Sanjeev deposited the exhibits at FSL Rohini. He produced register No. 21 with copy of Acknowledgement and Road Certificate. The same are Ex.PW42/H and Ex.PW42/J.

61. PW­43 is SI Gaurav Panwar. On 21.09.2014, he was posted at Police Station Geeta Colony as Sub Inspector. On that day, after receiving DD No.14A (Ex.PW43/A), he reached at Shop No. 7/187, Geeta Colony, Delhi. He noticed SC No. 1450/2016 State Vs. Honey Rajpal Page 56 /122 the shutter of the said shop was closed and flies were buzzing there. A foul smell was also coming from inside the shop. He informed the SHO and Inspector (Investigation) about the same who had also come at the spot. On local inquiry, it was found that the said shop was in the name of Honey Rajpal and his two­three partners. Sh. Surender Rajpal, father of accused Honey Rajpal was called at the spot. Crime Team reached at the spot. Sh. Surender Rajpal handed over the keys of the shop to him. The lock of the said shop was opened and shutter was lifted. After lifting the shutter, it was found that there was a glass door behind the shutter. The glass door was having blood stains. One male dead body was found lying inside the shop in a decomposed condition. The deceased was wearing T­shirt and lower. He noticed that one traveler suitcase (of dark red colour) having blood stains was also lying near the dead body. One wiper, some big polythene bags, surgical hand gloves were found scattered on the floor. On asking about the dead body, Sh. SC No. 1450/2016 State Vs. Honey Rajpal Page 57 /122 Surender Rajpal told that the dead body was of Mohit, one of the partner of his son, Honey Rajpal. He prepared ruqqa (Ex.PW 43/B) and handed it over to Ct. Krishan Kumar for registration of FIR. He stated that the further investigation was conducted by Inspector Arun Chauhan. I.O./Inspector Arun Chauhan prepared the site plan at his instance. The site plan is Ex.PW43/C. The information about the dead body of Mohit was sent to his house through Constable Sant Kumar. The wife of the deceased namely Tripti Kaushal with her father Sh. Laxman Dutt Sharma, father­in­law Sh. Pritam Singh and some other persons came at the spot. At about 4.15 p.m., Ct. Krishan Kumar reached at the spot and handed over the copy of FIR with original ruqqa and other papers to I.O. Crime team inspected the spot and got the spot photographed. The Photographs are Ex.PW29/A1 to Ex.PW29/A41. I.O. lifted the blood stains from the blood stained lock with the help of cotton which was found at the main gate of the shop and same were seized by the I.O. vide SC No. 1450/2016 State Vs. Honey Rajpal Page 58 /122 seizure memo which is Ex.PW43/D. I.O. seized the burnt cigarette buds from the roof top of the second floor vide seizure memo which is Ex. PW43/E. I.O. seized the set of keys produced by Surender Rajpal vide seizure memo which is Ex.PW43/F. I.O. seized the set of keys produced by another partner Sahil Chawla vide seizure memo which is Ex. PW 13/A. I.O. made inquiries from the Receptionist namely Naina Gulati. She produced one black colour mobile phone make 'SnowTel'. The mobile phone was seized vide seizure memo which is Ex.PW2/A. The dead body was sent to mortuary Sabzi Mandi through Ct. Sant Kumar. On the next day i.e. on 22.09.2014, he along with the I.O. reached at Mortuary Sabzi Mandi, where Ct. Sant Kumar met them. The dead body of the deceased was identified by his wife and father and thereafter, the dead body was handed over to his father. After the postmortem doctor had handed over 4­5 samples in respect of the deceased i.e. his hair, blood, wearing clothes and sternum bone in a sealed condition to SC No. 1450/2016 State Vs. Honey Rajpal Page 59 /122 Ct. Sant Kumar. Ct. Sant Kumar produced the sealed samples to I.O. and I.O. took the same in his possession vide seizure memos which are Ex.PW34/B, Ex.PW34/C, Ex.PW 34/D and Ex.PW34/A. Thereafter, he along with I.O. and Ct. Sant Kumar reached at the spot where team of FSL Rohini of Bio/DNA Division was already present. As per their direction I.O. collected about 18 samples from the spot. I.O. took the same into his possession vide seizure memo which is Ex. PW34/E. The case property / sealed exhibits were deposited in the Malkhana. The IO recorded his statement on 22.09.2014 in the police station. He stated that he noticed injury on the head of the dead body. He identified the case property in the Court.

62. PW­44 is Inspector Arun Chauhan. He is the Investigating Officer of the case. On 21.09.2014, at about 12.30 p.m. he received a telephonic call from SI Gaurav Panwar who intimated him that he was present at the spot i.e. 7/187, Geeta Colony, Delhi. He also informed that foul SC No. 1450/2016 State Vs. Honey Rajpal Page 60 /122 smell was coming out of the said shop. He along with SHO and other staff reached at the spot. SI Gaurav Panwar, Ct. Sant Ram, HC Ravinder and Ct. Krishan Kumar were found already present there. Crime Team was called at the spot. Sh. Surender Rajpal, father of the accused, was informed. He came at the spot and handed over the keys of the said shop. The shutter of the said shop was opened. There were blood stains on the glass door. The sofa set, chairs, table etc. were lying scattered. One dead body of a male was found lying near the staircase which was wrapped in a curtain. One purple colour suitcase was lying near the dead body. Sh. Surender Rajpal disclosed that it was the dead body of Mohit Kaushal, who was the partner of his son i.e. accused Honey Rajpal. Ruqqa (Ex.PW43/B) was prepared. The FIR (Ex.A1) was got registered through Ct. Krishan Kumar. He prepared Site Plan which is Ex.PW43/C. The wife of the deceased namely Smt. Tripti Kaushal along with father of the deceased reached at the spot. They identified the dead SC No. 1450/2016 State Vs. Honey Rajpal Page 61 /122 body. Smt. Tripti Kaushal disclosed that the deceased had left the house on 19.09.2014. She further disclosed that the accused Honey Rajpal came at her house to leave the Scooty of her husband and told her that Mohit had left for Haryana along with one Mr. Jai for collecting payment. She further disclosed that she tried to contact her husband on his mobile phone but some unknown person picked up the call and told her that Mohit was driving, so he would talk to her later. She disclosed that she lodged a missing report in Police Station Geeta Colony. One Ms. Naina Gulati who was working as Receptionist was called at the spot. Ms. Naina Gulati told that the accused Honey Rajpal had intimated her on her mobile phone that she should not come for duty on 19.09.2014 and 20.09.2014 at the shop as it would remain close. She produced one mobile phone of Make 'Snowtel' and disclosed that it was given to her by accused for official work. He seized the same vide seizure memo which is Ex.PW2/A. One Rahul, who was the servant of that shop SC No. 1450/2016 State Vs. Honey Rajpal Page 62 /122 was called at the spot. Rahul disclosed that accused Honey Rajpal called him and asked him not to come at the shop for duty on 19.09.2014 and 20.09.2014. Rahul disclosed that on 20.09.2014 at about 10.00 p.m. he was called by the accused at the said shop and the accused asked him to lock the shutter from outside. Accused also told him to open the shutter as and when he would tell him to do so. Crime Team reached at the spot. Photographs of the spot were taken which are Ex.PW29/A1 to Ex.PW29/A41. Chance prints were lifted from the spot. The Scene of Crime Report was prepared which is Ex.PW20/A. He lifted blood stains, cigarette buds etc. from the spot and seized the same. He seized the keys of the said shop, vide seizure memo which is Ex.PW43/F. The partners of the shop were called at the spot. He recorded their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. On 22.09.2014 he along with SI Gaurav Panwar and other staff reached at Subzi Mandi mortuary. There, the dead body of Mohit was identified by his wife and his father. He recorded SC No. 1450/2016 State Vs. Honey Rajpal Page 63 /122 their statements regarding the identification which is Ex.PW1/A11 and Ex.PW1/A12. After postmortem dead body was handed over to his wife and his father vide handing over memo which is Ex.PW6/A. FSL Forensic team was called at the spot which inspected the spot. He lifted exhibits from the spot. On 24.09.2014 he met Ms. Rajni Thakur who is a friend of accused Honey Rajpal. She disclosed that two mobile phones were sent to her by the accused through Courier. He met Sahil Chawla and Jatin Rajpal in the Police Station. Jatin Rajpal disclosed about his ATM card being used at Haridwar on 21.09.2014. On 28.09.2014 Ms. Rajni Thakur informed him about a call received by her from the accused from Chandigarh bus stop. He along with Ms. Rajni Thakur, her father Vinod Kumar, sister of accused namely Shalu reached at Chandigarh. He apprehended the accused Honey Rajpal from the gate of ISBT Chandigarh upon the pointing out of Ms. Rajni Thakur. He interrogated the accused and recorded his SC No. 1450/2016 State Vs. Honey Rajpal Page 64 /122 disclosure statement which is Ex.PW35/A. He arrested accused vide arrest memo which is Ex.PW35/C. He conducted personal search of the accused vide personal search memo which is Ex.PW35/D. He prepared pointing out memo which is Ex.PW35/B. On 29.09.2014, he produced accused Honey Rajpal in the Court and obtained his police custody remand. He took the accused to the SDN Hospital where the blood sample of the accused was taken. He seized the same vide seizure memo which is Ex.PW32/A. The medical examination of accused Honey Rajpal was conducted vide MLC which is Ex.PW27/A. On 30.09.2014, accused took them at his Shop at 7/187, Geeta Colony, Delhi. The spot was again inspected in the presence of accused. Five polythene bags of blue colour were seized vide seizure memo which is Ex.PW35/E. Accused disclosed that these polythene bags were obtained for wrapping the dead body and for disposing off the same. Upon the instance of accused, one yellow colour wiper was also seized vide SC No. 1450/2016 State Vs. Honey Rajpal Page 65 /122 seizure memo which is Ex.PW35/F. Accused disclosed that he purchased the same for wiping the blood from the floor. Thereafter, they reached at the house of accused Honey Rajpal from where accused Honey Rajpal took out his clothes i.e. one blue Capri and one blue colour half sleeves T­shirt, about which accused disclosed that he was wearing these clothes on the intervening night of 20/21.09.2014. He seized the said clothes vide seizure memo which is Ex.PW35/G. He prepared pointing out memo in this regard which is Ex.PW35/L. Thereafter, accused took them at a mobile shop situated at Darya Ganj, Delhi. Accused disclosed that he purchased one mobile phone make Micromax Model X097 from that shop and he also disclosed that he used this mobile phone for calling the wife of deceased Mohit representing himself as Mohit and he (accused) sent this mobile phone to one Ms. Rajni Thakur through courier from Haridwar. I.O. met Mr. Rajesh who was the Proprietor of the said mobile phone shop and SC No. 1450/2016 State Vs. Honey Rajpal Page 66 /122 collected photocopy of the bill book with regard to the said mobile. Photocopy of the same is Ex.PW9/A. He seized the same vide seizure memo which is Ex.PW9/B. He obtained video footage of the CCTV installed in that shop in a CD and seized the same vide seizure memo which is Ex.PW9/C. When he checked the footage, it was reflecting the presence of accused in the shop. He obtained Certificate under Section 65B Indian Evidence Act which is Ex.PW9/D. He prepared Pointing out memo in this regard which is Ex.PW35/M. Thereafter, accused took them at one shop in the name and style of M/s Sai Luggage at Gandhi Nagar, Delhi. Accused disclosed that he had purchased the big suitcase from that shop for disposing off the dead body. He prepared pointing out memo in this regard which is Ex.PW39/N. Thereafter, accused took them at one shop in the name and style of M/s. Guru Kripa Traders at Budh Bazar, Geeta Colony, Delhi and accused disclosed that he had purchased blue colour polythene bags from that shop for SC No. 1450/2016 State Vs. Honey Rajpal Page 67 /122 the purpose of disposing off the dead body. He prepared the pointing out memo in this regard which is Ex.PW35/O. Thereafter, they tried to find out CCTV cameras in the nearby area of place of occurrence. They reached at the shop of one Mr. Neeraj Sharma. They found CCTV there and checked CCTV footage of intervening night of 19/20.09.2014. The said footage was taken in two DVDs and seized vide seizure memo which is Ex. PW14/A. He obtained the certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act from Neeraj Sharma which is Ex.PW14/B. On 01.10.2014, he along with Ct. Dinesh Kumar took the accused from lock­up. Thereafter, accused took them at the shop in the name and style of 'Janta Store' situated at Jheel Khuranja, Old Patparganj Road, Geeta Colony. Accused disclosed that it was the shop from where he purchased wiper for the purpose of cleaning the blood. He recorded the statement of the Proprietor of that shop. He prepared pointing out memo in this regard which is Ex.PW35/H. SC No. 1450/2016 State Vs. Honey Rajpal Page 68 /122 Thereafter, one Mr. Gandhi who was ration dealer and his shop i.e. 7/188, Geeta Colony, Delhi was situated adjacent to the shop of the accused, was called. He recorded the statement of Mr. Gandhi who had identified the accused and disclosed that he was the same person who was present in front of shop no. 7/187, Geeta Colony on the midnight of 20/21.09.2014. The disclosure statement of the accused was recorded on 28.09.2014 which is Ex.PW35/A. On 04.10.2014, he recorded supplementary disclosure statement of accused which is Ex.PW44/A. Thereafter, he along with accused reached at his house and accused pointed out towards a blue colour Polo car which was parked in front of his house. This car was also having a sticker of 'Branding Wheels', upon its door. He seized the said Polo car vide seizure memo which is Ex.PW35/J. Upon inquiry, Mr. Surender Rajpal produced one set of five keys of the shop of Honey Rajpal which he seized vide seizure memo which is Ex.PW35/K. One key was of shutter of the shop, one key SC No. 1450/2016 State Vs. Honey Rajpal Page 69 /122 was of glass door of the shop and other three keys were of drawers of the table kept in the shop. Thereafter, he along with Ct. Dinesh and accused reached at the house of Jatin Rajpal situated at Janak Puri. Upon the pointing out of the accused, Wagon­R car of Jatin Rajpal was seized in the presence of Jatin Rajpal. Thereafter, accused was produced before the concerned Court and sent to judicial custody. He seized Scooty make Honda Activa which was produced by Smt. Tripti Kaushal, vide seizure memo which is Ex.PW6/B. Later on, he obtained the scaled plan of the spot which was prepared by HC Sonu Kaushik which is Ex.PW40/A. He collected photographs of the spot from the Crime Team which are Ex. PW29/A1 to Ex.PW29/A41. He collected Crime Scene report dated 13.11.2014 which was prepared by FSL team and the same is Ex.PW22/A. He collected finger print report from State Crime Record Bureau (SCRB). The report is Ex.PW18/A. During investigation, he collected postmortem report which is SC No. 1450/2016 State Vs. Honey Rajpal Page 70 /122 Ex.PW1/B. He obtained subsequent opinion regarding the time of death which is Ex.PW1/C. He collected rent agreement regarding the shop of accused from Neeru Devi. Neeru Devi was the owner of the shop. He collected ownership documents from Neeru Devi regarding said shop. The photocopy of rent agreement is Mark PW16/1 and ownership document are Ex. PW16/A. He sent total 27 articles to FSL Rohini Delhi for matching the DNA. The copy of acknowledgment of case acceptance is Mark PW44/A. The copy of RC, vide which these exhibits were sent to FSL, is Mark PW 44/B and the copy of forwarding letter in this regard is Mark PW44/C. He collected bank accounts statement of Jatin Rajpal whose ATM card was used by accused in Haridwar. Print out of its statement is Mark PW44/D. He collected Bank Account statement of Sarthak Gupta whose credit card was used by the accused while purchasing 'Sony Experia Phone' which was later on sent to Ms. Rajni Thakur through courier from Haridwar. SC No. 1450/2016 State Vs. Honey Rajpal Page 71 /122 Print out of its account statement is Mark PW44/E. He collected the original bill of said 'Sony Experia' phone which is Mark PW44/F. He collected the CDR and CAF of concerned mobile phones. He recorded the statement of Sarthak Gupta under Section 161 Cr.P.C. in this case. The photographs of blue colour Polo car which was seized by him are Ex. PW4/B1 to Ex.PW4/B4. He collected all the relevant DD entries in this case. DD No. 16A dated 21.09.2014 is Mark PW44/G. DD No. 17A dated 21.09.2014 is Mark PW 44/H. DD No. 44B dated 21.09.2014 is Ex. PW 44/B. DD No. 32B dated 22.09.2014 is Ex. PW 44/C. DD No. 32A dated 22.09.2014 is Ex. PW 44/D. DD No. 19A dated 28.09.2014 is Ex. PW 44/E. After completion of the investigation, he prepared the charge­ sheet. He identified the case property i.e. pen drive which is Ex.P­12. Upon playing the same, there is one footage dated 22.09.2014 and the time is about 01.00 p.m. In this footage, accused Honey Rajpal is using the ATM. There is another SC No. 1450/2016 State Vs. Honey Rajpal Page 72 /122 footage in the same pen drive, upon playing the same, it has shown the remaining part of first footage and in the same accused used the ATM and went out from the ATM booth. He identified one CD which is Ex.P­22 containing footage dated 20.09.2014. On playing the same, the date of footage is 20.09.2014 and the time is 12.21p.m. He identified accused Honey Rajpal in this footage, present in the mobile phone shop. He stated that he had obtained this CD from Mr. Rajesh Sethi, Proprietor of the mobile phone shop. He identified DVD Ex. P­14 which was played. He stated that as per the footage of this DVD, one car came and was parked at a distance from the shop of the accused at about 1.42 a.m. (on 20.09.2014) and after one minute i.e. at 1.43 a.m., one person came near to that car and thereafter, one car came from the other side with head lights on and went away. He stated that it seemed that one person came out from the car which was already parked there and moved towards the opposite side of the car and after one minute one person SC No. 1450/2016 State Vs. Honey Rajpal Page 73 /122 returns back, reached near the car, opens the door of the car and then closes the door of the car and again moved towards the opposite side of that car. He stated that it was not clear whether that person took out something from that car or not. At about 3.32 a.m., one person again came near that car and opened the door of the car and again closed the door and moved towards the opposite direction of the car. At about 3.33 a.m., one person again comes from the same direction i.e. from the opposite direction of the car, reached near the car, opens the front door of the car and sits inside and then at 3.36 a.m. he drove away that car. He stated that the face of that person, make and registration of the car was not clear due the distance of camera in the footage. He identified the case property i.e. one suitcase of purple colour which is Ex.P5. He stated that it was the same suitcase which was purchased by the accused from Gandhi Nagar for disposing off the dead body, one yellow colour wiper which is Ex.P­2 which was used by the accused for cleaning the floor, one SC No. 1450/2016 State Vs. Honey Rajpal Page 74 /122 mobile phone of make 'Mircomax' and he identified the same and deposed that it was the mobile phone which was sent to Ms. Rajni Thakur through courier. The mobile phone is Ex.P22. He identified one mobile phone of make 'Sony Experia' and deposed that it was the other mobile phone which was sent by accused to Ms. Rajni Thakur through courier. The mobile phone is Ex.P23. He identified one mobile phone of 'Snowtel' and deposed that it was the mobile phone which was given by the accused to Ms. Naina Gulati and the same is Ex.P­1. He identified two keys Ex.P­ 15 and Ex.P­16 and stated that these keys were taken and seized from the possession of Sahil Chawla. He identified five keys (Ex.P­19) and stated that these keys were taken and seized from the possession of Sh. Surender Rajpal. He identified two keys along with 'S­shape' keyring and stated that these keys were also taken and seized from the possession of Surender Rajpal. The said keys are Ex.P24. He identified five polythene bags of blue colour and SC No. 1450/2016 State Vs. Honey Rajpal Page 75 /122 deposed that these were purchased by the accused for disposing off the dead body. The said polythene bags are Ex.P­17.

63. Sh. Nitin Sehgal, Ld. Counsel for the accused admitted the genuineness and authenticity under Section 294 Cr.P.C. of FIR which is Ex.A1. Therefore, the examination of the concerned witness ASI Suraj Bhan was dispensed with. STATEMENT OF THE ACCUSED UNDER SECTION 313 Cr.P.C.

64. Statement of the accused was recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C, wherein he denied all the allegations against him and stated that he is innocent. He stated that he has been falsely implicated in this case and that he has been made a scapegoat in the present case. He stated that this is a false case. He stated that all the witnesses are interested witnesses and they have deposed falsely against him. He stated that the police officials have manipulated the finger prints. He SC No. 1450/2016 State Vs. Honey Rajpal Page 76 /122 stated that he has not committed any crime, as alleged against him. He did not lead any evidence in his defence. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

65. It was argued by the Ld. Addl. PP that the mobile phones which were used by various persons and are relevant in the present case are the mobile phone of Honey Rajpal having number 9811709870, mobile phone of Smt. Tripti Kaushal having number 9268044657, mobile phone of Smt. Tripti Kaushal/ Mohit Kaushal having number 9212001201, mobile phone of Mohit Kaushal having numbers 9643431719, 9210505850, 9210891021, mobile phone of Ms. Naina Gulati having number 7838221861, mobile phone of Rahul having number 9953812084, mobile phone of Jatin Rajpal having number 9711029298, mobile phone of Sahil Chawla having numbers 8860834227 and 9015634228, unknown number 8376950557, the number from which call was made to Smt. Tripti Kaushal by accused.

SC No. 1450/2016 State Vs. Honey Rajpal Page 77 /122

66. It was submitted by the Ld. Addl. P.P. for the State that the prosecution case stands proved from the statements of witnesses. It was submitted by the Ld. Addl. P.P. that all the witnesses are consistent and corroborative and hence, there is no reason to disbelieve their version. It was submitted that the chain of the circumstantial evidence is complete.

67. It was argued that it has been proved on record that on 19.09.2014 the accused made a phone call to deceased at 5.40 a.m. Deceased Mohit Kaushal left his house on his Scooty at 5.45 a.m. It was argued that accused Honey Rajpal made a call from his mobile phone to mobile phone of the deceased Mohit Kaushal on 19.09.2014 at 5.40 a.m. which is reflected in the Call Detail Record which is Ex.PW20/B. This proves that the accused had asked the deceased Mohit to come to his shop. It is proved that after leaving his house deceased Mohit Kaushal went to the Shop of accused Honey Rajpal. PW­6 Smt. Tripti, the wife of the deceased made a SC No. 1450/2016 State Vs. Honey Rajpal Page 78 /122 call to Mohit Kaushal at about 7.15 a.m. and again at about 7.45 a.m. on his mobile phone, but the same was responding 'Switched Off/ Not Reachable'. She made a call to the accused Honey Rajpal. Accused told her that the deceased Mohit had left his Scooty with him and had gone to Karnal to collect payment, in a car. She (PW­6) again made a call to the accused upon which the accused told her that Mohit had gone along with one Mr. Jai and he (accused) would come to her house to leave the Scooty of Mohit. She made a call to the accused to know the whereabouts of Mohit to which accused replied that he had talked to Mohit and the battery of the mobile phone of Mohit had been discharged. At around 12.00 noon / 12.30 p.m. she (PW­6) received a phone call from some unknown person and the caller told that Mohit was still driving the car and would ring her after reaching the destination. Thereafter, she made several phone calls to her husband Mohit but the same was responding as 'Switched off/ Not Reachable'. She also made phone calls to SC No. 1450/2016 State Vs. Honey Rajpal Page 79 /122 the accused who told her not to worry. The said phone call was made by accused to PW­6 Smt. Tripti from the mobile phone which he had purchased from Daryaganj.

68. It was argued that PW­5 Smt. Meenu, has stated in her statement that accused Honey Rajpal had made a call to her husband namely Rahul, who was working as a servant in the shop of the accused. In the intervening night of 20/21.09.2014, the accused instructed her husband to come to his shop and close it from outside. Accused also told her husband to open the shop as and when he (accused) would tell him to do so. She stated in her statement that she along with her husband Rahul went to the shop of accused twice on that night. On their first visit, accused Honey Rajpal told her husband to lock the shop from outside and on their second visit to the shop accused Honey Rajpal told her husband to open the shop from outside, then accused came out and the shop was locked by Rahul then the accused went away in his Wagon R car. She stated that when she along SC No. 1450/2016 State Vs. Honey Rajpal Page 80 /122 with her husband namely Rahul went to the Shop of the accused Honey Rajpal, they noticed that foul smell was coming out from the shop. When Rahul inquired from the accused Honey Rajpal about the same, the accused replied that some mouse has decomposed and that foul smell was coming due to that. PW­5 Smt. Meenu also stated in her statement that on the next day, the father of the accused instructed her husband to come to the shop and open the shop. He also told her husband that the dead body of Mohit was lying in the shop. He also instructed her husband to make noise of 'Laash Padi hai, Lassh Padi hai', but her husband had refused to do so. She also stated that accused had made a call to her husband not to come for duty on 19.09.2014.

69. It was argued that from the testimony of PW­21 Sh. Hari Krishan Gandhi, it is proved that the accused was present near his shop in the intervening night of 20/21.09.2014. He stated in his statement that in the intervening night of SC No. 1450/2016 State Vs. Honey Rajpal Page 81 /122 20/21.09.2014 at about 12.00 midnight, he came to check the main gate of his house. He stated that when he came out, he saw the accused Honey Rajpal standing near the electricity pole. He asked the name of the accused to which he replied as Honey. That person also told that he was the owner of the shop 'Branding Wheels'. He identified the accused Honey Rajpal as the same person whom he met near the electricity pole in the intervening night of 20/21.09.2014. His testimony is corroborated with the testimony of PW­5 Smt. Meenu.

70. It was argued that PW­3 Sh. Jatin Rajpal has stated in his statement that on 19.09.2014 accused asked him to give his Wagon R to him as he had to go to Agra, but he did not go to Agra. Accused Honey Rajpal asked him that the shop would remain close on 19.09.2014. Accused Honey Rajpal asked him to give his Credit Card for making payment of the committee of deceased Mohit as he was not having money with him. Later on, he came to know Rs. 20,000/­ SC No. 1450/2016 State Vs. Honey Rajpal Page 82 /122 were withdrawn from ATM at Haridwar from his ICICI Bank Account by the accused by using his ATM card.

71. It was argued that the accused Honey Rajpal asked PW­2 Ms. Naina Gulati (Receptionist), PW­3 Sh. Jatin Rajpal (Partner), PW­13 Sahil Chawla (Partner) and Rahul not to come to office on 19.09.2014 as the shop 'Branding Wheels' would remain closed on that day.

72. It was argued that from the statement of PW­6 Smt. Tripti Kaushal and also from the perusal of the Call Detail Records i.e. Ex.PW20/B and Ex.PW20/E, it is proved that PW­6 Smt. Tripti Kaushal had made a call to the accused and asked him about her husband Mohit, to which he replied that Mohit had left his Scooty with him and had left for Karnal for collecting money.

73. It was argued that from the perusal of the Call Detail Records i.e. Ex.PW20/B and Ex.PW26/E it is proved that SC No. 1450/2016 State Vs. Honey Rajpal Page 83 /122 the deceased Mohit was lastly present with the accused before his death. It was argued that the Call Detail Record Ex.PW23/B proves that PW­6 Smt. Tripti Kaushal received a call on her mobile phone from an unknown number 8376950557 on 20.09.2014 at 4.22 p.m. and the caller pretended himself to be her husband Mohit. It was argued that this was the same mobile phone which was purchased by the accused from Daryaganj and the said phone was later on sent by accused to Ms. Rajni Thakur through courier from Haridwar.

74. It was argued that from the perusal of Call Detail Records Ex.PW20/B and Ex.PW20/O, it is proved that the accused Honey Rajpal made a call to Rahul on his mobile phone number 9953812084 and told him not to open the shop on 19.09.2014.

75. It was argued that from the perusal of the Call Detail Record Ex.PW20/B and Ex.PW20/C, it is proved that on SC No. 1450/2016 State Vs. Honey Rajpal Page 84 /122 19.09.2014 at 10.37 a.m. accused Honey made a call to Ms. Naina Gulati for not coming to the shop on that day.

76. It was argued that from the statement of PW­9 Rajesh Sethi it is proved that the 'Micromax' mobile phone was purchased from Daryaganj by the accused. This fact is also proved from the CCTV footage Ex.P22 showing the presence of accused in the shop. It was argued that the accused this is the same mobile phone which was sent by the accused Honey Rajpal to PW­7 Ms. Rajni Thakur through courier.

77. It was argued that the accused Honey Rajpal himself went to the house of the deceased to leave his Scooty which shows that the deceased was lastly present with accused before his death.

78. It was argued that accused Honey made several calls to the wife of the deceased and told her that Mohit had gone to Karnal for collecting payments and that he would return SC No. 1450/2016 State Vs. Honey Rajpal Page 85 /122 safely.

79. It was argued that the entire case is based on circumstantial evidence. It was contended that the witness PW­6 Smt. Tripti Kaushal, who is the wife of the deceased, has stated regarding the motive of the accused to kill her husband as the accused had borrowed an amount of Rs. 24,00,000/­ from the deceased Mohit and her father­in­law. She placed on record an Agreement which is Ex.PW6/C, cheque bearing Number 000001 dated 25.10.2014 of HDFC Bank which is Ex.PW6/D­1 and deposit slip Ex.PW6/D­2 to support her version.

80. It was argued that the CCTV footage of ATM Booth at Haridwar shows the presence of the accused at Haridwar from where he sent two mobile phones to Ms. Rajni Thakur through courier.

81. It was argued that that PW­3 Jatin has stated in his SC No. 1450/2016 State Vs. Honey Rajpal Page 86 /122 statement that the father of the accused namely Surender Rajpal had told him at his house that accused Honey Rajpal was nervous and he took his clothes and left the house without disclosing anything. PW­3 Jatin Rajpal also stated in his statement that Surender Rajpal told him that the accused Honey Rajpal told him about the dead body of Mohit lying in the office and thereafter accused left his house.

82. It was argued that PW­13 Sahil Chawla has stated in his statement that the Sh. Surender Rajpal, the father of the accused, had told him that accused Honey Rajpal had gone in the shop for studying and there he noticed one dead body lying in the shop and thereafter, the accused ran away. PW­ 13 Sahil Chawla also accompanied the the police officials to Haridwar and he also stated that in the CCTV footage of the ATM Booth of State Bank of India of dated 22.09.2014 accused Honey Rajpal could be seen withdrawing money. SC No. 1450/2016 State Vs. Honey Rajpal Page 87 /122

83. It was argued that the accused fled away after the incident which shows his conduct that he had committed the murder of deceased Mohit Kaushal.

84. It was argued that the Postmortem Report also supports the prosecution case. It was argued that the 'Time since death' also matches with the prosecution story.

85. It was argued that recovery of suitcase, wiper and big polythene from the shop of accused shows that he had arranged the same for disposal of the dead body in order to cause the evidence of the offence to disappear and to save himself from the punishment.

86. It was also argued that there is no motive alleged on the part of the prosecution for false implication of the accused. Nor any motive has been alleged on the part of the witnesses for giving false evidence against the accused. It was argued that the statements of the prosecution witnesses have to be SC No. 1450/2016 State Vs. Honey Rajpal Page 88 /122 believed and relied upon. It was argued that from the statements of the prosecution witnesses, it is proved on record that on 19.09.2014 between 6 a.m to 4.00 p.m. at Shop No. 7/187, Geeta Colony, Delhi, the accused Honey Rajpal murdered Sh. Mohit by causing injuries to him. It was argued that it is proved on record that on 21.09.2014, in order to save himself from legal punishment, the accused caused the evidence of the offence to disappear. It was argued that the prosecution case has been proved beyond doubt.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE ACCUSED

87. On the other hand, it was submitted by Ld. Counsel for the accused that the accused is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. It was contended that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused. There are material contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses and therefore, their testimonies are not reliable. SC No. 1450/2016 State Vs. Honey Rajpal Page 89 /122

88. It was contended that in this case there is no direct evidence and the case is based upon circumstantial evidence, chain of which is not complete. It was argued that the prosecution has failed to prove the chain of circumstantial evidence. The 'last seen' evidence is missing. The prosecution has failed to prove that deceased was lastly seen in the company of the accused before his death. It was argued that the 'last seen' evidence is absolutely missing.

89. It was argued that the motive on the part of the accused to commit murder of Mohit Kaushal has also not been proved. Hence, the chain of circumstantial evidence is not complete. It was argued that the motive as per case of the prosecution is that the accused had to take some money from the deceased which the deceased was not paying. It was argued that the accused was asking deceased Mohit Kaushal time and again to pay back his money, but deceased did not pay back the same. Accused has been falsely implicated by the SC No. 1450/2016 State Vs. Honey Rajpal Page 90 /122 wife of the deceased in order to settle scores with the accused. It was argued the motive as alleged by PW­6 Smt. Tripti Kaushal, the wife of the deceased, is contradictory to the story of the prosecution. It was argued that the prosecution has not led any evidence to prove the motive of the accused to commit murder of deceased Mohit. On the other hand, the wife of the deceased during her deposition in the Court had taken altogether a contradictory stand regarding the motive by stating that the accused owned Rs. 24,00,000/­ to her husband and in order to avoid the payment of the said amount her husband was murdered by the accused.

90. It was argued that PW­5 Smt. Meenu and PW­21 Sh. Hari Krishan Gandhi are not reliable witnesses and hence, their testimonies cannot be believed. It was argued that PW­21 is a planted witness. His presence at odd hours, as alleged by the prosecution on the intervening night of 20/21.09.2014 is unnatural. His cross­examination has demolished the case of SC No. 1450/2016 State Vs. Honey Rajpal Page 91 /122 the prosecution. It was argued that PW­5 Meenu is also a planted and interested witness and hence, no reliance can be placed on her statement. Therefore, the testimony of PW­5 Meenu and PW­21 Sh. Hari Krishan Gandhi cannot be believed.

91. It was argued that medical evidence also does not support the prosecution case, rather it is contradictory to the prosecution case. It was argued that the time of death does not match with the story of prosecution. It was argued that in the first opinion given by the doctor he has opined the 'Time since death' was 60 hours prior to postmortem examination' and in the second opinion given by the doctor the 'Time since death' has been opined as 4 to 5 days at the time of postmortem examination'.

92. It was argued that as per the opinion of the doctor the involvement of more than one person cannot be ruled out. It was argued that the police did not investigate the matter as SC No. 1450/2016 State Vs. Honey Rajpal Page 92 /122 to who were the other persons allegedly involved in the murder of Mohit Kaushal. It was argued that the medical evidence is contradictory to the prosecution story, which creates doubt in the prosecution story.

93. It was argued that the accused has been falsely implicated in this case by the wife of the deceased Mohit Kaushal. It was argued that the deceased was involved in betting of cricket matches and he lost money in betting. It was argued that several bouncer type persons used to come to the deceased and they used to demand their money from the deceased. It was argued that the financial condition of the deceased was not sound and he could not pay back the money which he had lost in betting of cricket matches. People who had to take money from the deceased, might have committed the murder of the deceased.

94. It was argued that the accused was not arrested from Chandigarh. Rather the accused was lifted 4­5 days prior to SC No. 1450/2016 State Vs. Honey Rajpal Page 93 /122 his arrest on 28.09.2014. No public persons was joined at the time of the alleged arrest of accused at Chandigarh which also creates a doubt that accused was arrested from Chandigarh.

95. It was argued that Surender Rajpal, the father of the accused, was the material witness but he has not been cited as a witness in this case. Surender Rajpal had come to the shop and the shop was allegedly opened in his presence. Thus, he was a material witness, but he has not been cited as a witness, which creates a doubt in the prosecution story.

96. It was argued that the Call Detail Records are not proper. It was argued that the mobile phone of the deceased was not recovered. Investigation Officer has not tried to trace out the mobile phone of the deceased Mohit. No explanation has come on record as to why the mobile phone of the deceased was not recovered.

SC No. 1450/2016 State Vs. Honey Rajpal Page 94 /122

97. It was argued that PW­13 Sahil Chawla has stated that all the partners were having one set of keys of the said shop with them and therefore, the shop was not in the exclusive possession of the accused.

98. It was argued that in the missing report lodged by PW­36 W/HC Savita it is not mentioned that the deceased left on his Scooty. This fact have been, later on, introduced in order to create false evidence.

99. It was argued that the PW­2 Ms. Naina Gulati has stated that the relations between the accused Honey Rajpal and deceased Mohit Kaushal were good and cordial and no quarrel had ever taken place between accused Honey Rajpal and deceased Mohit regarding any money dispute. This also falsifies the case of prosecution.

100. It was argued that the investigation is faulty. It was argued that the CCTV footage of the intervening night of SC No. 1450/2016 State Vs. Honey Rajpal Page 95 /122 19/20.09.2014 was not collected by the Investigating Officer. It was argued that PW­14 Sh. Neeraj Sharma was not shown the contents of CD of footage of his CCTV camera. It was argued that CCTV footage were not taken properly during the investigation. No public witness was joined while obtaining the footage of CCTV cameras. It was argued that the weapon of offence i.e. Paperweight was not recovered during the investigation. This also a creates doubt in the prosecution story.

101. It was argued that PW­43 SI Gaurav Panwar has stated in his cross examination that seal of the Investigating officer was deposited by him in Malkhana on the same day. PW­44 Inspector Arun Chauhan also stated the same fact in his cross­examination. It was argued that when the seal was deposited in the malkhana, then how the same was used every time. This also creates a doubt in the prosecution story.

SC No. 1450/2016 State Vs. Honey Rajpal Page 96 /122

102. It was argued that recovery of Suitcase, Wiper and Polythene bags is also doubtful. The witnesses i.e. the shopkeepers from whom the accused had allegedly purchased the said articles have not supported the case of the prosecution in any manner. It was argued that the recovery of the suitcase, wiper and polythene bags are planted upon the accused. It was also argued that alleged recovery was not effected when the police first time opened the shop.

103. It was argued that there are material contradictions in the statements of the witnesses. PW­11 Sanjay who was running a shop from which the accused is alleged to have purchased the suitcase from his shop has not supported the case of the prosecution in any manner. The other witnesses i.e. PW­2 Ms. Naina Gulati in her cross­examination had identified the suitcase of dark purple colour whereas PW­43 SI Gaurav Panwar has stated in his examination­in­chief that a suitcase SC No. 1450/2016 State Vs. Honey Rajpal Page 97 /122 of dark red colour was lying near the dead body. PW­2 Ms. Naina Gulati has stated in her cross­examination that there was a suitcase on the first floor at the back side for some days prior to 18.09.2014. It was argued that there are material contradictions in the statements of Police witnesses on all the material points.

104. It was argued that prosecution has failed to prove the 'last seen' theory, motive on the part of the accused to commit murder of Mohit Kaushal and the chain of circumstantial evidence is not complete. Therefore, the accused deserves acquittal.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

105. From the evidence led by the prosecution, it is proved that accused Honey Rajpal was using the mobile phone having number 9811709870. Smt. Tripti Kaushal was using the mobile phone numbers 9268044657 and 9212001201. Deceased Mohit Kaushal was using mobile phone having SC No. 1450/2016 State Vs. Honey Rajpal Page 98 /122 numbers 9643431719, 9210505850 and 9210891021. Rahul was using mobile phone having number 9953812084. Jatin Rajpal was using mobile phone having number 9711029298. Sahil Chawla was using mobile phone having numbers 8860834227 and 9015634228.

106. In this case, the main contention of the Ld. Defence counsel is that the case entirely rests upon the circumstantial evidence and there is no direct evidence against the accused. It was argued that the chain of circumstantial evidence is not complete.

107. The case of the accused is that there is no evidence on record that deceased Mohit Kaushal was lastly seen in the company of the accused before his death and thus, the theory of 'last seen' fails. Now, the question is that whether there is any witness of 'last seen' or not. The accused had made a call to the mobile phone of the deceased on SC No. 1450/2016 State Vs. Honey Rajpal Page 99 /122 19.09.2014 at 5.40a.m. and had asked him to come to his shop. This fact is proved from the Call Detail Records which are Ex.PW20/B and Ex.PW26/C. PW­6 Smt. Tripti Kaushal, the wife of the deceased, has also stated in her statement that on 19.09.2014 at about 5.45a.m., her husband i.e. deceased Mohit Kaushal left the house on his Scooty. She also stated that at that time Mohit was having his mobile phone with him which was having three SIM cards having numbers 9210505850, 9643431719 and 9210891021. She deposed that she made a call on the mobile phone of the deceased Mohit Kaushal at about 7.15 a.m. and again at about 7.45 a.m., but, the mobile phone of Mohit was responding as 'Switched Off/Not Reachable'. Smt. Tripti Kaushal also made a call to the accused and asked him about her husband. One call was made by her at 9.43 a.m on 19.09.2014 and other call was made at 9.56 a.m. on 19.09.2014. This fact is proved from Call Detail Records Ex.PW20/B and Ex.PW20/E. The accused told her that SC No. 1450/2016 State Vs. Honey Rajpal Page 100 /122 Mohit along with one Mr. Jai had gone to Karnal for collecting payment, in a car. Accused also told her that he (accused) would come to leave the Scooty of Mohit at her (PW­6) house. Then, accused left the said Scooty at the house of Smt. Tripti Kaushal. Thus, it is proved that deceased Mohit Kaushal met accused Honey Rajpal after he left his house and the Scooty of Mohit Kaushal came in the possession of accused. This shows that the deceased Mohit lastly met the accused Honey Rajpal on 19.09.2014. The deceased Mohit was not seen by anyone after he left his house on 19.09.2014 at 5.45 a.m. Accused had also come to the house of deceased to leave his Scooty. No explanation has come on record as to why the accused had come to leave the Scooty at the house of the deceased. Thus, it can be safely concluded that deceased was lastly present with the accused before his death.

108. It was the contention of the Ld. Defence counsel that the prosecution has failed to prove any motive on the part of the SC No. 1450/2016 State Vs. Honey Rajpal Page 101 /122 accused to kill the deceased Mohit Kaushal. PW­6 Smt. Tripti Kaushal, the wife of the deceased, during her deposition in the Court had stated that accused Honey Rajpal had borrowed Rs. 24,00,000/­ from her husband. She placed on record an Agreement which is Ex.PW6/C, a cheque bearing number 000001 dated 25.10.2014 of HDFC Bank which is Ex.PW6/D­1 and Deposit Slip which is Ex.PW6/D­2. During the examination­in ­chief of PW­6 Smt. Tripti Kaushal, the Ld. Defence counsel objected to the production of these documents. The objection was overruled by the Ld. Predecessor Court. The relevant part of the said evidence is reproduced which is as under:­ "Ld. Defence counsel objects to the same and its production on the ground that this document cannot be taken on record at this stage nor same has been relied upon by prosecution nor same has been supplied to him. Ld. Addl. PP submits that these documents are necessary to show motive for the crime i.e. accused wanted to avoid repaying the loan. Heard. Admittedly, these documents were not collected during investigation. However, as they are relevant for the purpose of showing motive, same are SC No. 1450/2016 State Vs. Honey Rajpal Page 102 /122 taken on record. Accused will have ample opportunity to cross­examine the witness on these documents. Copies of the same be supplied to accused. Objection overruled."

109. Thus, it is proved that agreement Ex.PW6/C, Cheque Ex.PW6/D­1 and deposit slip Ex.PW6/D­2 were taken on record. The objection raised by the Ld. Defence counsel was overruled and this was not challenged by the accused before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court and therefore, the said documents have to be read in evidence. The perusal of the said documents coupled with the statement of PW­6 Smt. Tripti Kaushal, it is proved that the accused had borrowed a huge amount from the deceased Mohit Kaushal and his father Sh.Pritam Singh Kaushal. No motive of false implication has been alleged or brought forward or proved against PW­6 Smt. Tripti Kaushal by the accused. Therefore, this contention of the Ld. Defence Counsel is without any force. Hence, it is proved that the accused had motive to kill Mohit Kaushal in order to avoid the payment of money which he had borrowed from Mohit Kaushal and SC No. 1450/2016 State Vs. Honey Rajpal Page 103 /122 his father.

110. PW­5 Meenu, who is the wife of Rahul (who was working as cleaner in the shop of the accused and he had expired), has stated in her statement that accused Honey Rajpal had made a call to her husband in the intervening night of 20/21.09.2014. Accused instructed her husband (Rahul) to come to his shop and close it from outside. Accused also told her husband (Rahul) to open the shop as and when he (accused) would tell him to do so. She stated that she along with her husband went to the shop of the accused twice on that night. They noticed that foul smell was coming out from the shop of the accused. When Rahul inquired about the same from the accused, the accused replied that some mouse had decomposed and that foul smell was coming due to that. The testimony of PW­5 Meenu regarding her presence outside the shop of the accused in the night is also corroborated by PW­21 Hari SC No. 1450/2016 State Vs. Honey Rajpal Page 104 /122 Krishan Gandhi.

111. From the statements of the witnesses, it is also proved that the accused had told his servant Rahul, Ms. Naina Gulati (Receptionist) and other partners not to come to the office on 19.09.2014 and 20.09.2014 as the office was closed on the said dates. It is also proved on record that accused has exchanged his 'Polo Car' with that of 'Wagon R' car of Jatin Rajpal. It is also proved that accused had taken ATM card of his partner Jatin Rajpal and has withdrawn money by this ATM card from an ATM Booth at Haridwar. His partner Sahil Chawla has accompanied the police party to Haridwar and he has corroborated the version of other witnesses in this regard. It is also proved that accused made a call from the mobile phone which he had purchased from Daryaganj to the wife of deceased Mohit Kaushal. He has sent two mobile phones from Haridwar to her friend Ms. Rajni Thakur by courier.

SC No. 1450/2016 State Vs. Honey Rajpal Page 105 /122

112. The presence of accused in the shop in the night intervening 20/21.09.2014 is also proved with the statements of PW­5 Meenu and PW­21 Hari Krishan Gandhi. It is also proved that on that night a foul smell was coming out from the shop.

113. All the above mentioned facts were within the special knowledge of the accused. The accused has not explained the said facts and circumstances. The said facts being in the special knowledge of the accused, the accused was required under Section 106 of Indian Evidence Act to explain the said facts. The accused in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. has simply denied the allegations against him. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in a case reported as Tulsi Ram Vs. State 2017 III AD (DELHI) 465 has held that it becomes incumbent upon the accused to offer a plausible explanation for the above said facts.

SC No. 1450/2016 State Vs. Honey Rajpal Page 106 /122

114. In State of West Bengal Vs. Mir Mohammad Omar, reported in 2000 VII AC (S.C.) 37, the Hon'ble Supreme Court with respect to Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act has held as under:

"31. The pristine rule that the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused should not be taken as a fossilised doctrine as though it admits no process of intelligent reasoning. The doctrine of presumption is not alien to the above rule, nor would it impair the temper of the rule. On the other hand, if the traditional rule relating to burden of proof of the prosecution is allowed to be wrapped in pedantic coverage, the offenders in serious offences would be the major beneficiaries and the society would be the casualty.

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

33. Presumption of fact is an inference as to the existence of one fact from the existence of some other facts, unless the truth of such inference is disproved. Presumption of fact is a rule in law of evidence that a fact otherwise doubtful may be inferred from certain other SC No. 1450/2016 State Vs. Honey Rajpal Page 107 /122 proved facts. When inferring the existence of a fact from other set of proved facts, the court exercises a process of reasoning and reaches a logical conclusion as the most probable position. The above principle has gained legislative recognition in India when Section 114 is incorporated in the Evidence Act. It empowers the court to presume the existence of any fact which is thinks likely to have happened. In that process the court shall have regard to the common course of natural events, human conduct etc. in relation to the facts of the case.

34. When it is proved to the satisfaction of the court that Mahesh was abducted by the accused and they took him out of that area, the accused alone knew what happened to him until he was with them. If he was found murdered within a short time after the abduction the permitted reasoning process would enable the court to draw the presumption that the accused have murdered him. Such inference can be disrupted if the accused would tell the court what else happened to Mahesh at least until he was in their custody.

xxxx xxxx xxxx

37. The Section is not intended to relieve the prosecution of its burden to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. But the Section would apply to cases where the prosecution has succeeded in proving facts from which a reasonable inference can be SC No. 1450/2016 State Vs. Honey Rajpal Page 108 /122 drawn regarding the existence of certain other facts, unless the accused by virtue of his special knowledge regarding such facts, failed to offer any explanation which might drive the court to draw a different inference."

115. In the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Thakur Singh reported as 2014 VII AD (S.C.) 445, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:

17.... "Where an accused is alleged to have committed the murder of his wife and the prosecution succeeds in leading evidence to show that shortly before the commission of crime they were seen together or the offence takes place in the dwelling home where the husband also normally resided, it has been consistently held that if the accused does not offer any explanation how the wife received injuries or offers an explanation which is found to be false, it is a strong circumstance which indicates that he is responsible for commission of the crime.

18.Reliance was placed by this Court on Ganeshlal Vs. State of Maharastra [JT 1992 (2) SC 592] in which case the appellant was prosecuted for the murder of his wife inside his house. Since the death had occurred in his custody, it was held that the appellant was under an obligation to give an explanation for the cause of death in his statement under Section 313 of the Code of SC No. 1450/2016 State Vs. Honey Rajpal Page 109 /122 Criminal Procedure. A denial of the prosecution case coupled with absence of any explanation was held to be inconsistent with the innocence of the accused, but consistent with the hypothesis that the appellant was a prime accused in the commission of murder of his wife.

116. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in a case reported as Tulsi Ram Vs. State 2017 III AD (DELHI) 465 (supra) has held as under:

"47.From above, it is clear that the Section is not intended to relieve the prosecution of its burden to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, but the Section would apply to cases where the prosecution has succeeded in proving facts from which a reasonable inference can be drawn regarding the existence of certain other facts, unless the accused by virtue of his special knowledge regarding such facts, failed to offer any explanation which might drive the court to draw a different inference".

117. In State of Rajasthan Vs. Thakur Singh (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:

"22. The law, therefore, is quite well settled that the burden of proving the guilt of an accused is on the prosecution, but there may be certain facts pertaining to a crime that can be known only to the accused, or are virtually impossible for the SC No. 1450/2016 State Vs. Honey Rajpal Page 110 /122 prosecution to prove. These facts need to be explained by the accused and if he does not do so, then it is a strong circumstance pointing to his guilt based on those facts."

118. In the present case, the accused has not explained the facts mentioned above which are only in his knowledge. Therefore, in view of the law laid down in State of Rajasthan Vs. Thakur Singh (supra) and other judgments referred above, there is strong circumstances against the accused pointing to his guilt based on those facts.

119. In the present case, the accused has not given any explanation in respect of above mentioned facts which were in his knowledge. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in a case reported as Anthony D'souza & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka, 2002 (10) A.D. 37 (SC) has held that in a case of circumstantial evidence when the accused does not offer an explanation regarding certain facts, the same offers an additional link in the chain of circumstances to complete the SC No. 1450/2016 State Vs. Honey Rajpal Page 111 /122 chain.

120. In the present case, after committing the crime the accused disappeared and he did not give any explanation in this regard. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Kuldeep Sharma Vs. State 1996 Crl. LJ 244 (Delhi) (DB) has held that the disappearance of the accused after the commission of the alleged crime is a circumstance, which in the absence of any plausible explanation, may be taken against him.

121. The other contention of the Ld. Counsel for the accused is that the PW­5 Smt. Meenu and PW­21 Sh. Hari Krishan Gandhi are planted and interested witnesses. Hence, their testimonies are not reliable. This plea raised by the Ld. Defence Counsel has to be ignored in the light of Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case reported as Om Prakash Vs. State of Punjab AIR 1993 SC­138 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that when interested SC No. 1450/2016 State Vs. Honey Rajpal Page 112 /122 witness is found to be natural witness, his version has to be accepted. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case reported as Kailash Vs. State of U.P. AIR 1997 SC­2835 has held that in the absence of any material to show that the eye witness had enmity with any of the accused, the evidence of that witness could not be brushed aside on the ground of relationship with the victim. In another case reported as Tarjinder Singh Vs. State of Haryana AIR 1993 SC­503 the Hon'ble Supreme has held that where the presence of a witness at the scene of occurrence is proved and his evidence is corroborated with medical and circumstantial evidence, the evidence of such witness cannot be discarded on the ground that he is an interested witness. There is no motive alleged on the part of the prosecution for false implication of the accused. Nor any motive has been alleged on the part of the witnesses for giving false evidence against the accused.

122. The other contention of the Ld. Defence counsel is that SC No. 1450/2016 State Vs. Honey Rajpal Page 113 /122 the Investigating Officer has not conducted the investigation fairly, properly and the investigation is faulty. However, the Ld. Defence Counsel could not point out any prejudice caused on this account due to the conduct of Investigating Officer. Moreover, this is not a ground to discard the statements of the prosecution witnesses, if they are otherwise reliable and trustworthy. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case reported as State of Rajasthan Vs. Kishore 1996 Cr.LJ 2003 (SC) wherein it was observed that the mere fact that the investigating officer committed irregularity or illegality during the course of investigation, would not and does not cast doubt on the prosecution case nor trustworthy and reliable evidence can be cast aside to record acquittal on that account. Same view was endorsed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kalu @ Amit Vs. State of Haryana, 2000(7) SCALE 40. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case, reported as State of Punjab Vs. SC No. 1450/2016 State Vs. Honey Rajpal Page 114 /122 Gurmit Singh AIR 1996 SC 1393. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case reported as Kalu @ Amit Vs. State of Haryana, 2012(7) SCALE 40 has observed that :

"The court must not get influence by the remissness or inefficiency of the Investigating Agency and acquit the accused if the core of the prosecution case is undented and established. That will be putting a premium on inefficiency at the cost of cause of justice. We find that in the instant case, the core of the prosecution case or the substratum of the prosecution case has remained intact."

123. Therefore, in view of the above discussed case laws, accused cannot derive any benefit on account of any negligence on the part of the Investigating Officer.

124. It is also the case of the accused that the Investigating Officer has not recovered the weapon of offence i.e. Paperweight. This is also not a ground to discard the statements of the witnesses, if they are otherwise reliable and trustworthy. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court which is SC No. 1450/2016 State Vs. Honey Rajpal Page 115 /122 reported as Lakhan Sao Vs. State of Bihar & Another 2000 Crl.L.J. 2959 (SC) wherein it was held that non­ recovery of a pistol or a cartridge does not detract from the case of the prosecution, where the direct evidence is acceptable. In another case reported as Krishna Mochi & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar (2002) 6, Supreme Court Cases­ 81 the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that recovery of no incriminating material from the accused cannot alone be taken as ground to exonerate the accused from the charges, more so, when their participation in the crime is unfolded in ocular account of the occurrence given by the witnesses whose evidence has been found to be unimpeachable.

125. The other contention of the Ld. Defence counsel is that there are material contradictions in the statements of the Prosecution Witnesses. No such material contradiction could be pointed out which could shake the credibility of the SC No. 1450/2016 State Vs. Honey Rajpal Page 116 /122 prosecution witnesses. The contradictions which have been pointed out by the Ld. Counsel for the accused are not material contradictions as the same do not go to the root of the matter. Such type of contradictions are natural and are bound to occur when the statements of witnesses are recorded in the Court after gap. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India which is reported as Krishna Pillai Sree Kumar Vs. State of Kerala AIR 1981­1237 wherein it was held that the prosecution evidence may suffer from inconsistencies here and discrepancies there, but that is a shortcoming from which no criminal case is free. It was further held that the main thing to be seen is whether those inconsistencies etc. go to the root of the matter or pertain to insignificant aspects thereof. It was further held that in the former case, the defence may be justified in seeking advantage of the incongruities obtaining in the evidence. In the latter, however, no such benefit may be available to it. That is a SC No. 1450/2016 State Vs. Honey Rajpal Page 117 /122 salutary method of appreciation of evidence in criminal cases. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in a case reported as AIR 2018 Supreme Court 1153 has also endorsed the same view.

126. The time of death also matches with the prosecution story. The postmortem was conducted on 22.09.2014 at 2.00 p.m. In the first opinion the doctor opined that the death occurred 60 hours prior to the postmortem. This time of death is not in contradiction to the prosecution story. In the second opinion given by the doctor he has opined that death occurred 4­5 days prior to the postmortem. PW­1 Dr. L.C.Gupta has conducted postmortem on the dead body of Mohit Kaushal. He has stated in the Court that definite opinion cannot be given in form of mathematical calculation as in this case the dead body was removed from the place/ shop of which shutter was closed and there was no access of the flies and air was also restricted and further after removing the dead body it was directly shifted to the cold SC No. 1450/2016 State Vs. Honey Rajpal Page 118 /122 storage of the mortuary and natural process of putrification/ rarification was disturbed. This time also does not contradict the prosecution story. Evidence has come on record that Mohit had left his house at 5.40 a.m. on 19.09.2014 and his dead body was recovered on 21.09.2014.

127. It is also the case of the accused that he was not arrested from Chandigarh and he had been lifted by the police 4­5 days prior to his alleged arrest from Chandigarh. The case of the prosecution is that accused was arrested from Chandigarh and at that time Ms. Shalu was also present. In this case, prosecution has examined Ms. Shalu as PW­4, but she was not confronted in her cross­examination that she had not accompanied the police to Chandigarh when the accused was arrested from Chandigarh.

128. It was also the contention of the accused that Sh. Surender Rajpal, the father of the accused, had come to the shop when SC No. 1450/2016 State Vs. Honey Rajpal Page 119 /122 shop was opened by the police and dead body of Mohit Kaushal was recovered from the shop. It was argued that Surender Rajpal was material witness but the prosecution has not examined him as a witness. In my opinion, if the testimony of Surender Rajpal was material in this case, then the accused should have examined him as a Defence witness.

129. Therefore, in view of the above discussion, it is proved that the deceased Mohit Kaushal was lastly present with the accused before his death. Motive on the part of accused to commit murder has been proved. Other circumstances discussed above also provide additional link in the chain of circumstantial evidence. Hence, in my considered opinion, the chain of circumstantial evidence is complete against the accused. Accordingly, it is held that accused Honey Rajpal has committed the murder of Mohit Kaushal.

130. The accused has also been charged for the offence SC No. 1450/2016 State Vs. Honey Rajpal Page 120 /122 punishable under Section 201 IPC. The case of the prosecution is that accused has arranged a big suitcase, wiper and big polythene to dispose of the dead body of Mohit Kaushal. However, the witnesses from whom the accused has allegedly purchased suitcase, wiper and big polythene have not supported the prosecution case coupled with the fact that recovery of said articles was not effected when the shop was opened by the police first time. Hence the charge under Section 201 IPC cannot be sustained accused Honey Rajpal.

131. Hence, in view of the discussion above, it is held that accused Honey Rajpal has committed murder of Mohit Kaushal on 19.09.2014. Accordingly, he is held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and is convicted, thereunder. It has been discussed above that charge for the offence punishable under Section 201 IPC cannot be sustained against the accused, so he is acquitted of the said charge.

SC No. 1450/2016 State Vs. Honey Rajpal Page 121 /122

132. Copy of this judgment be supplied to the convict free of cost, today itself. Accused shall be heard separately on the point of Sentence.

(This judgment has been typed directly on my dictation by P.A.).

                                                                             Digitally signed by
Announced in the open Court on         SURINDER          SURINDER KUMAR
                                       KUMAR             SHARMA
4th June 2019                          SHARMA
                                                         Date: 2019.06.04
                                                         16:48:02 +0530
                             (SURINDER KUMAR SHARMA)
                                   Additional Sessions Judge­05

East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi SC No. 1450/2016 State Vs. Honey Rajpal Page 122 /122