Delhi District Court
State vs . Manoj Kumar Bhatt & Ors. - Sc No. 102 Of ... on 29 April, 2015
IN THE COURT OF SH LOKESH KUMAR SHARMA
ADDITIONALSSIONSJUDGE-04 & SPECIAL JUDGE (NDPS)
SOUTH EAST: SAKET COURTS: NEW DELHI
Sessions Case No. 102/2010
Unique ID No. 02406R0212842010 &
02406R0265852010 (Supplementary Challan ID)
FIR No. 89/2010
U/s 302/120-B/34 IPC
PS : Lajpat Nagar
State
Versus
Manoj Kumar Bhatt,
S/o Sh. Dharma Nand Bhatt,
R/o I-59, 1st Floor, Lajpat Nagar-I,
New Delhi
Fakkruddin @ Fakru
s/o Sh. Kaluddin @ Kallu
r/o Village Chokha (Mubhata),
PS Punhaba, District Mewat,
Nooh, Haryana
Mobin
s/o Sh. Dhaulla
r/o village Saidam Pur,
PS Govind Garh, District Alwar,
Rajasthan (Proclaimed Officer vide order dated 11.12.2014)
Zakir s/o Noor Mohd.
R/o Vill. Saidampur,
PS: Govind Garh,
Distt. Alwar, Rajasthan
(Proclaimed Officer vide order dated 8.7.2010)
Instituted on : 05th October, 2010
Argued on : 21st April, 2015
Decided on : 29th April, 2015
JUDGMENT
Facts 1 Accused persons in this case have been sent up for trial for commission of murder of deceased Neelam wife of accused Manoj Kumar Bhatt. 2 Case of the prosecution, as set out in the charge sheet is that, at about 09:06 pm on 20.03.2010 an information vide DD No. 29-A was received State Vs. Manoj Kumar Bhatt & Ors. - SC No. 102 of 2010 1/76 from the Wireless Operator to the effect that "at Mool chand hospital MLC No. 469/10, Neelam w/o Manoj aged 31 years r/o I-59, Lajpat Nagar-I was "brought dead". Pursuant to the said DD No. 29-A, SI Girish Jain alongwith HC Vinesh. HC Ombir Singh and Constable Sudhir had reached at Moolchand Hospital. There he had inspected the dead body and found that dead body of Neelam w/o Manoj was having ligature marks on her neck and some nail marks on her face near right eye and below her lips.
3 Inspector Sandeep Ghai had recorded statement of Manoj Kumar Bhatt, wherein he had stated that he was a permanent resident of village Lachcher, District Pithoragarh, Uttrakhand and he was residing at his local address, i.e. I-59, Lajpat Nagar-II, New Delhi for last ten days as a tenant and was working with M/s NIHO construction Limited, X-22, First Floor, Hauz Khas, New Delhi as Business Head, UP. He was married to Neelam d/o Sh. Rajbeer Singh on 22.01.2004, who was earlier working with RBC Traders, NOIDA, UP as Fashion Designer, but for the last two years, she was at home and they had no child. He had further stated that usually, he used to leave for his office everyday around 09:30 am and used to come back around 06:30/07:00 pm. Today (when his statement was recorded by police), he had come back from his office around 06:00pm, because he had to go to market for purchasing/shopping alongwith his wife. His wife met him near Orchid Parlour from where they had gone to Central Market, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi for shopping. Around 06:25pm, when they returned back to their house in a rickshaw, he had dropped his wife near the house and he himself had gone to Attraction Saloon for his hair cut. From the said Saloon, he had called his wife thrice on her mobile phone no. 8802133292, but she did not pick up the mobile phone.
State Vs. Manoj Kumar Bhatt & Ors. - SC No. 102 of 2010 2/76 4 It was stated further that when at around 07:30 pm, he had returned to his house, he found that the main door of the house was lying opened. When he entered inside the Pooja Room, he found that his wife was lying on the sofa in an unconscious condition with her body below waist lying on the floor. He then immediately rushed his wife to a private hospital and later on to Moolchand Hospital, where doctors had declared her "brought dead" and white coloured rope (like nada) was also found tied around the neck of his wife. The jewellery worn by his wife i.e. mangalsutra, chain with locket, four gold bangles, gold kada and 8-9 rings were found missing from her body. He had suspected that someone had murdered his wife with the motive of robbery. 5 Further case of prosecution is that accused Moanoj Kumar Bhatt had led the police party, consisting of Inspector Sandeep Ghai alongwith SI Girish Jain, HC Vinesh and Ct. Sudhir, to the place of occurrence, i.e. I-59, First Floor, Lajpat Nagar-II, New Delhi. The flat was lying locked and hence the police party had obtained the keys of house from landlady Smt. Adarsh Wadhera and then opened the flat. Inspection of house was conducted in which the locks of main entrance and next door were found intact. Two-three stains of blood were found in the balcony, a pair of new chappal and cash memo of chappal were found lying on the bed kept in the drawing room. One pillow and bed sheet was also found in a scattered position on the sofa in the drawing room and one Megazine 'Femina' was lying on floor near center table of Drawing Room. Inside the Pooja room, one broken ear ring was lying on the dining table alongwith one red coloured ladies purse. One kitchen knife was found beneath the dining table. Some hair and one multi stained handkerchief were also found on the ground of Pooja room.
State Vs. Manoj Kumar Bhatt & Ors. - SC No. 102 of 2010 3/76 6 It was stated further that inside the Pooja room, accused Manoj Kumar Bhatt had also pointed out towards the sofa and informed that his wife Neelam was found lying unconscious on that sofa, when he came back. Outside the Pooja room near door, one mobile phone make Nokia E-71 of silver white colour, belonging to the deceased was found on the dressing table and some hairs, broken nails and hair clips were also found on the floor near the said dressing table. Near to the dressing table placed outside bathroom in the lobby, broken white hair cap was also found. Almirah, lying in the room, was found ransacked and one cushion with blood stains and torned cover of that cushion were also recovered. Inspector Sandeep Ghai made endorsement on the statement of accused Manoj Kumar Bhatt and got the FIR of this case registered.
7 In the meantime, dog squad and crime team was also requisitioned at the spot. The Crime Team had lifted chance prints from the spot and had taken photographs of the spot. Leaving behind Ct. Vinesh and accused Manoj Kumar Bhatt at the spot, Inspector Sandeep Ghai alongwith members of the crime team had reached at Moolchand hospital, where Crime team had taken photographs of dead body. Exhibits were seized. Site plan was prepared. Thereafter, postmortem on the dead body of Neelam was got conducted and thereafter, the dead body was handed over to its legal heirs. 8 During investigation, Inspector Sandeep Ghai came to know that despite so many years of their marriage, there was no child from the wedlock of deceased and accused Manoj Kumar Bhatt and Neelam also used to harass Manoj Kumar Bhatt financially and she also used to keep his ATM card in her possession, which was also recovered from her possession during investigation. On suspicion, CDR of Manoj Kumar Bhatt's mobile phone was obtained. On State Vs. Manoj Kumar Bhatt & Ors. - SC No. 102 of 2010 4/76 scrutiny, it was found that Manoj Kumar Bhatt had made regular calls to one Fakru on the day of incident, before the incident as well as during the time when the murder was committed. Name of Fakru was also found fed in the mobile phone of Manoj Kumar Bhatt. On interrogation, accused Manoj Kumar Bhatt had also admitted his involvement in the crime.
9 Further case of prosecution is that accused Manoj Kumar Bhatt had a good position in the society but there was no child from this wedlock and his wife Neelam used to harass him financially as well as mentally. She used to keep his entire salary and ATM card and upon asking, she used to give him only the pocket money, due to which, he was in a disturbed state of mind and used to quarrel with his wife. Fakru was also working with them, but the deceased had also thrown him out as well.
10 Accused persons were thereafter arrested and after conclusion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed against them in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate on 15th June, 2010. However, accused Mobin s/o Sh. Dhaulla and Zakir s/o Noor Mohd. were declared Proclaimed Offenders vide order dated 8.7.2010). Accused Mobin was thereafter re-arrested and supplementary challan was also filed against him. However, he had again absented himself from the Court proceedings and was again declared PO vide order dated 11.12.2014. Hence, both these accused persons are now the proclaimed offenders in this case.
11 Case was committed to the Court of Sessions by Learned Metropolitan Magistrate on 06th July 2010.
12 On 05th July,2011, charges u/s 302/120-B IPC were framed against accused Manoj Kumar Bhatt & Fakruddin to which they had pleaded not guilty and had claimed trial. Hence, the prosecution was directed to lead its evidence. State Vs. Manoj Kumar Bhatt & Ors. - SC No. 102 of 2010 5/76 13 Subsequently, accused Mobin, who was earlier absconding was also arrested on 19.06.2015 and supplementary challan against him was also filed on 25th September 2012 and separate charge for the aforesaid offence u/s 302/120-B IPC was also framed against him on 07th November 2012 to which he had also pleaded and not guilty and had claimed trial.
14 In order to prove its case against the accused persons beyond the shadow of reasonable doubts, the prosecution had examined 41 witnesses in all. 15 Sh. Deepak Kapil (PW-1) had deposed that he was running a construction company in the name of Niho Construction Limited at X-22, First Floor, Hauz Khas and was the Director of the said company. He had further deposed that accused Manoj Kumar Bhatt was working in his company as Business Head, in the year 2010 and the last drawn gross salary of Manoj Kumar Bhatt was about Rs.60,000/- per month and the same was paid to him through AXIS Bank. He had joined his company in the year 2002/2003 and had worked with them till the time he was arrested by the police.
PW-1 had further deposed that at that time, the company had supplied four mobile phones to the accused Manoj Kumar Bhatt, but he could recollect only one mobile phone SIM number as 9810649999, which was the oldest number and was given to Manoj Kumar Bhatt by the company M/s. Niho Constructions Limited. This witness had further produced and proved on record the list of above mobile SIM numbers provided to the accused with relevant record(running into seven pages collectively) maintained by the company as Ex.PW1/A. All the abovesaid SIM numbers were found to be in possession of the accused Manoj Kumar Bhatt on the day of his arrest. As per the list Ex. PW1/A, the mobile SIM number 9760149999 was issued from Muradabad (UP) and the rest of the four numbers belonged to Delhi circle. One mobile SIM State Vs. Manoj Kumar Bhatt & Ors. - SC No. 102 of 2010 6/76 number 9810649999 was issued to the accused by the company in his own name and rest of the three numbers were given to the subordinate staff and when ever they used to leave the service or had gone on long leave, then the subordinate staff had to hand over those mobile numbers to the accused Manoj Kumar Bhatt, being their Senior Officer. The mobile no. 9871294498 and no. 9250073666 were issued by the company in the name of Vinit Kumar Srivastav, who had left the services in November, 2009 and mobile SIM No. 9250073668 was issued by the company in the name of Sanjeev Ghai, who had also left the services of the Company in February, 2010.
In his cross examination PW-1 Deepak deposed that police had taken the details of the mobile numbers stated by him in his examination-in-chief, but he was not asked to submit the document Ex.PW1/A and he had brought the same on being directed by the Court, which was not prepared by him, but the same was prepared by the staff as it was a computer generated document.
In his further cross-examination, PW1 had deposed that he had told the IO during investigation about the details of the SIM number and he had also told the IO that "All the above SIM numbers were in possession of the accused Manoj Kumar Bhatt on the day of his arrest". This witness was confronted with his statement recorded u/s 161 Cr. PC, Mark 'D1' on this aspect, wherein it was not so recorded. This witness had, however, admitted the suggestion of the Ld. Defence Counsel that marriage of accused Manoj Bhatt was solemnized and he had attended the reception in a "Baraat Ghar" at Gurgaon, but he could not remember the date, month or the year and was not even able to tell as to whether the marriage had taken place on 22.01.2004 and the reception on 23.01.2004 or not.
State Vs. Manoj Kumar Bhatt & Ors. - SC No. 102 of 2010 7/76 PW-1 had further deposed during his cross-examination conducted on behalf of the accused that this reception was also attended by his wife, Mr. Hemant Khandelwal, who was his partner and other office staff members and his entire staff was aware about the marriage of Manoj Bhatt with Neelam and in the reception, he had given one gift from the company side to Manoj Bhatt and it was chosen by the office staff.
PW-1 had, in his further cross-examination, deposed that Ms. Mayenka Jain, one of their office staff (Marketing) had hosted one reception in a restaurant at Sri Fort where she (Ms. Mayenka Jain) had introduced him with her husband Mr. Manish Bhatt. He had further deposed that Ms. Mayenka Jain had left their company as she had committed certain fraud and after she had left the job, they had filed a complaint against her in PS Hauz Khas. 16 PW-2 Smt. Amarjeet Kaur was running a beauty parlour in the name of M/s White Orchid at E-97, B, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi and she had deposed that she knew Neelam (since deceased), who was her client and used to visit her beauty parlour and on 20.03.2010 at about 5:30pm/6:00pm she had visited her beauty parlour and she had told her that her husband was going to pick her up from the parlour. She also knew her husband, namely Manoj Kumar Bhatt. Neelam (since deceased) had also told her that she had got married with Manoj Kumar Bhatt and she was not having any child and she was having coordial relations with her husband.
This witness had further stated that Neelam used to lavishly spent money and she had never told her about any verbal altercation (Kaha-sunni) between her and her husband and she had also never told her about any quarrel between them on the ground of her spending money lavishly. State Vs. Manoj Kumar Bhatt & Ors. - SC No. 102 of 2010 8/76 This witness was declared hostile and was cross-examined by the Ld. Addl. PP for the state wherein she had denied the suggestions put to her as incorrect and had further expressed/shown her ignorance about recording of her statement by police under section 161 Cr.PC and had also denied to have deliberately suppressed this fact, however, she had admitted the suggestion of Ld. Addl. PP as correct that on 20.03.2010, deceased Neelam had got her head massage and head wash. The witness had voluntarily stated that on that day, Neelam appeared to be in a disturbed state of mind and had told her that she was feeling hot, therefore, she had suggested her to get her head wash done.
In her cross examination PW-2 Ms. Amarjeet Kaur had deposed that her saloon was existing since about last 5 years and she was having a requisite license for running the said parlor. Police had not asked her about the license. Six girls were working in her beauty saloon. She knew few customers well, but not all. PW2 in her further cross-examination had deposed that she had told the police that Neelam had told her that her husband would come and pick her up from the parlor. PW1 was confronted with this part of her cross- examination with her statement recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C mark A, where it this fact was not so recorded.
PW2 had further deposed during her further cross-examination that Neelam (since deceased) had stayed at her saloon till about 06:15 or 06:30 pm and she had not made any payment to her for the head massage/wash as she had become her friend, therefore, she had not even asked for the charges.
To a court question as to whether her (Neelam's) husband had come to pick her up from her parlor, PW1 had replied in affirmative saying "yes" and had stated that at about 06:15 pm her husband had come and both of them had left her parlor together.
State Vs. Manoj Kumar Bhatt & Ors. - SC No. 102 of 2010 9/76 During further cross-examination on behalf of the accused persons, PW2 had stated that she had not seen the mode of transport used by her husband when he had come there to take her from her parlour. 17 PW-3 Ms. Mayanka Jain had deposed that since 2009 till June- July, 2010, she had worked in Pearls Broadcasting Pvt. Ltd. having its office at C-55, Sector-57, Noida, Uttar Pradesh as a Coordinator. Before that, since November 2003 to December, 2008 she had worked with M/s. Niho Constructions at Hauz Khas as an Assistant Manager.
PW-3 had further stated that she had met accused Manoj Bhatt at M/s. Niho Constructions Company, where he was working as Manager and they became friends and started knowing each other and both of them married in a temple at Kashmire Gate. No certificate of marriage was obtained got issued by either of them from the temple. Thereafter, they started living together at C-91, First Floor, East of Kailash, New Delhi for about one and half years as husband and wife, but she did not know at that time that Manoj Bhatt was already married nor he had ever disclosed the said fact to her. After cohabiting for about one and half years, she came to know that Manoj Bhatt was probably already married then, in or around 2008, she had left him and came back to her parents home at Rohini. Accused Manoj Bhatt, however, used to make telephonic calls to her, and he also used to insist her to talk to him and harass her by stating that he would create a scene at her office and at her home as well. Manoj Bhatt had also told her that he was not happy with his previous wife namely Neelam i.e. the deceased and also told her that they were not having any child out of their wedlock and she also used to disturb him.
In her cross examination PW-3 Mayanka Jain had deposed that she did not know when Manoj Bhatt got married for the first time and she was State Vs. Manoj Kumar Bhatt & Ors. - SC No. 102 of 2010 10/76 also not aware if Manoj Bhatt had got married on 22.01.2004 with the deceased Neelam or that he had also distributed his marriage cards between the staff.
PW-3 had further deposed in her cross-examination that she knew Manoj Bhatt, who was working in the same office prior to her joining the Niho Constructions Company. She had admitted the suggestion of the Ld. Defence Counsel that she had joined the said company on 22.01.2004, but she did not know if there was any reception party at Community Centre, Maruti Vihar, Gurgaon on 23.01.2004. She had also deposed that she was not aware if Sh. Deepak Kapil alongwith his wife and Sh. Hemant Khandelwal had also attended the reception party of accused Manoj Bhatt or not.
She had denied the suggestion given to her by the Ld. Defence Counsel that she alongwith one Ms. Seema Sharma had selected, a necklace set, which was gifted to Manoj Bhatt and his wife at Reception Party on behalf of Company by Sh. Deepak Kapil. However, she had admitted a further suggestion of Ld. Defence that she had gone for a vacation at Nainital alongwith Mr. Deewan Singh Chauhan, Ms. Seema Sharma, Mr. Kapil, Manoj Bhatt and one or two more persons. She had though denied the further suggestion put to her by Ld. Defence Counsel that she was aware that the name of one lady was Neelam, who had also accompanied them to Nainital or that she also knew that the said Neelam was the wife of Manoj Bhatt.
PW-3 had further deposed that they had stayed at Nainital for about 2-3 days and they had taken a big hall in which all of them had lived at Nainital. But she was not able to recollect, if there was any room attached with the said hall or if Manoj and his wife Neelam had stayed in that particular room.
PW-3 in her cross-examination had also admitted the suggestion put to her by Ld. Defence Counsel that she had attempted a suicide in her office State Vs. Manoj Kumar Bhatt & Ors. - SC No. 102 of 2010 11/76 of M/s. Niho Constructions Pvt. Ltd. in the year 2004 and she had remained hospitalized for 2-3 days in a Hospital at Green Park and Mr. Deepak Kapil had come to see her at the Hospital. She had, further admitted the suggestion put to her that she had hosted a reception party at Sri Fort Auditorium, however, she was not able to remember if it was in the year 2005, but had denied the further suggestion put to her that she had hosted the party at Sri Fort Auditorium on the occasion of getting herself married with one Sh. Manish Bhatt in the year 2005.
She had voluntarily stated that she got married with Manoj Bhatt in September, 2005 and in the office she had disclosed the name of her husband as Manish Bhatt in place of Manoj Bhatt, as such nobody knew in the office that she had married with Manoj Bhatt and Manish Bhatt was a fictitious name. She had further deposed that Mr. Deepak Kapil, Ms. Seema Sharma, Mr. Neeraj Karol, Mr. Vikas Kokcha, Mr. Vinod Khandelwal and other staff members had attended the party at Sri Fort Auditorium and she had hosted the said party as she had declared in the office that she had married Manish Bhatt. She had introduced one other person whose name, she did not remember and who was the friend of Manoj Bhatt as 'Manish Bhatt' as her husband to her colleagues, who were present at Sri Fort Auditorium. That person, who was referred as Manish Bhatt neither came with her nor even went with her after the party. She had introduced Manish Bhatt as her husband to Sh. Deepak Kapil. But, she was not aware that so called 'Manish Bhatt' was residing in Vasant Kunj and that he was working in some export company. She had denied the suggestion put to her by Ld. Defence Counsel on behalf of accused Manoj Bhatt that she had never married with Manoj Bhatt and that she was aware about the marriage of accused Manoj Bhatt and Neelam and that she had deposed falsely and had deliberately concealed the real facts about her knowledge of the marriage between accused State Vs. Manoj Kumar Bhatt & Ors. - SC No. 102 of 2010 12/76 Manoj Bhatt and Neelam since the year 2004.
To a specific Court Question that after she had come to know that Manoj Bhatt was already married or had concealed this fact from her at the time of marrying with her and also when he was harassing her, had she filed any complaint against him, she had given her answer in negative by saying "No". Be that as it may be, PW-3 had miserably failed to prove the factum of her marriage with accused Manoj Bhatt.
18 PW-4 Smt. Rashmi Madan had deposed that in March, 2005, she had let out the third floor of her house bearing No. D-18, 19, Lajpat Nagar-I, New Delhi on rent to accused Manoj Bhatt vide a Lease Agreement, copy of which has been proved as Ex.PW4/A. Accused had occupied the rented premises till about March, 2010 and was residing with his wife Neelam and a servant. The witness had stated further that she could have identified the servant by face and thereafter the witness had pointed out towards the accused Fakru @ Fakrudden as the said Servant.
PW4 had stated further that accused Manoj Bhatt and Neelam had no children, but she did not know about their interse relations but she herself was having good relations with Neelam, the deceased wife of the accused, who was a very nice girl.
In her cross examination PW-4 Rashmi Madan had deposed that accused/servant Fakrudeen might have joined the couple after about 6-7 months of letting out the accommodation to Manoj Bhatt and had remained with them till they had vacated the tenanted premises in March, 2010 but she did not know much about the relations between Fakrudeen and the accused Manoj Bhatt and his deceased wife.
State Vs. Manoj Kumar Bhatt & Ors. - SC No. 102 of 2010 13/76 19 PW-5 Sh. Ajit Singh, had deposed that he had let out his flat No. 1/16A, 2nd Floor, Jung Pura, New Delhi to the accused Manoj Bhatt in the month of July 2009 and the accused had remained his tenant for about 6 or 7 months. He had also proved the copy of the rent agreement executed between him and accused Manoj Kumar in this regard as Ex.PW5/A which bear his signature at point A and the signature of the accused. He had stated further that the verification of the identity of the accused Manoj Bhatt was also got done by the police and verification report was proved as Ex.PW5/B and the copy of the DL of the accused was also retained by the police for the purpose of verification and the same was proved on record as mark A1.
In his cross examination PW-5 had deposed that the said property was let out through the property dealer and the police, during investigation, had not asked him to provide original lease deed to them. The lease deed was also got drafted by Sh. Charan Jeet Singh, the property dealer. 20 PW-6 Sh. Rajbir Singh is the father of deceased Neelam, who had deposed that on 22.01.2004 his daughter Neelam got married with accused Manoj Bhatt according to Hindu rites and ritual as his daughter had chosen the accused on her own. After the marriage, his daughter alongwith accused had stayed at the native place of accused Manoj at Maruti Vihar, Gurgaon alongwith her in laws for about 5 or 6 months and thereafter, they had shifted to D-Block, Lajpat Nagar. In March 2010, they had shifted to I-59, Lajpat Nagar-II.
He had further deposed that on 20.3.2010, at about 7.30pm accused Manoj had called him up on his mobile phone and he was weeping. Then, some other lady had taken his phone and told him that his daughter Neelam was unable to speak and he thought that due to "Navratra Vrat" she could have developed some local problem and hence, he had asked the State Vs. Manoj Kumar Bhatt & Ors. - SC No. 102 of 2010 14/76 accused to take his daughter to hospital. He also told the accused that he himself was also reaching at the hospital. After about half an hour, he had received another telephonic call from the accused but the accused was again unable to speak and then the doctor had taken his mobile phone and told him that his daughter was admitted in Moolchand Hospital and she had died.
On reaching the Moolchand hospital, he found that his daughter was lying dead. He had noticed the ligature marks on her neck and had asked the accused as to what had happened with the deceased and the accused told him that someone had committed the murder of deceased Neelam while committing dacoity in their house. Till then, he had no suspicion on his son-in- law, i.e. accused Manoj whatsoever.
This witness had further stated that his daughter had never made any complaint to him against Manoj Bhatt and his family members as well regarding any harassment or any dowry demand etc., till the time of her death. In the hospital, he had noticed that the jewelery articles of hands, ears etc. which the deceased used to wear, were already removed from her body. It was further stated by him that he had given his statement Ex. PW6/A in this regard to the SDM.
This witness had further deposed that during the investigation, he came to know that the accused Manoj Bhatt had committed the murder of his daughter pursuant to some conspiracy and he did not want to say anything more.
After the postmortem, the dead body of the deceased was handed over to him vide receipt in this regard which was Ex.PW6/B. He had also identified the photograph of deceased Neelam as Ex.PA.
In his cross examination PW-6 Sh. Rajbir Singh, who is father of deceased Neelam had deposed that he was posted as a Sub Inspector in the State Vs. Manoj Kumar Bhatt & Ors. - SC No. 102 of 2010 15/76 Wireless department in Delhi Police and he had joined Delhi Police in 1973 and he was posted in the wireless department since 1980. He had not told the SDM about seeing the ligature mark on the neck of Neelam (his deceased daughter).
In his further cross-examination, PW6 had further deposed that though in his examination in chief, he had made the following statement:-
"I asked the accused as to what happened with the deceased who told me that someone had committed the murder of deceased Neelam in order to commit the dacoity in their house. Till then, I had no suspicion on my son in law accused Manoj whatsoever" and "During the investigation I came to know that the accused Manoj Bhatt had committed the murder of my daughter in pursuant to some conspiracy".
But actually he had not given such statement before the SDM which was Ex.PW6/A. 21 Ms. Neeru Sandil (PW-7) & Sh. Vijay Sandil (PW-8) had deposed that in the year 2006-07, they had let out their first floor accommodation (C-91, East of Kailash) on rent to Manoj Bhatt and his wife Mayanka and they had stayed there for about 1 1/2 years and police had brought Mayanka at their house and both of them had identified her before the police as wife of accused Manoj Kr. Bhatt.
However, she had deposed in her cross examination that she had not signed any rent agreement with accused Manoj Bhatt. She had voluntarily stated that her husband might have signed the same. The agreement was made in the name of Manoj Bhatt and his wife Mayanka. However, since she had not read the agreement, therefore, she was not very sure if it was in the name of Mayanka also.
This witness, had, in her further cross-examination denied the suggestion put to her that the police had neither brought Mayanka before her nor she had identified her. She had also denied the further suggestion put to her that she knew that Mayanka was not the wife of Manoj Bhatt or that she had deposed State Vs. Manoj Kumar Bhatt & Ors. - SC No. 102 of 2010 16/76 falsely.
In his cross examination PW-8 Vijay Sandil had deposed that a rent agreement was executed between him and Manoj Bhatt and at his instance, property dealer/broker had drafted the aforesaid rent agreement and thereafter, both of them had executed the same. The same was also attested by the Notary Public.
This witness had further deposed during his cross-examination that he was represented by Manoj Bhatt that Mayanka was his wife, therefore, he could not say if she was actually the wife of Manoj Bhatt or not. He had, however, denied the suggestion that he knew that Mayanka was not the wife of Manoj Bhatt or that he had deposed falsely. He had further denied the suggestion put to him that the police had neither brought Mayanka before him nor he had identified her.
22 HC Laxmi Narayan (PW-9) is the MHC(M). On 25.05.2010, he had sent the exhibits of this case consisting of two sealed parcels and one sample seal of department of Forensic Medicine through Ct. Udai Chand to FSL through the road certificate no. 14/21, dated 25.05.2010 and had proved the copy thereof as Ex.PW9/A. He had also proved the acknowledgment in this regard as Ex.PW9/B. On that day itself, he had also sent other exhibits of this case consisting of twenty four sealed pullandas and five sample seals through Ct. Sarwan Kumar to FSL through the road certificate no. 23/21, dated 31.05.2010 as Ex.PW9/C and the acknowledgment has been proved as Ex.PW9/D. He had further deposed that so long as the exhibits had remained in the Malkhana in his custody, not any kind of tampering was caused with them.
In his cross examination PW-9 HC Laxmi Narayan had deposed that the parcels were deposited in the Malkhana by Inspector Sandeep Ghai State Vs. Manoj Kumar Bhatt & Ors. - SC No. 102 of 2010 17/76 and also by Inspector Ajay Sharma, however, they had not put their signatures on the register no. 19 while depositing the same with him in the malkhana. The sample seals were also deposited alongwith the pullandas. He had further deposed that the sample seals affixed on the FSL Form were not deposited in the Malkhana. He had denied the suggestion that those pullandas were never deposited in the Malkhana on 31.05.2010 or that the same were deposited subsequently and that he had made the ante dated entries in the Malkhana register on that date, upon the instruction of the SHO.
23 Dr. D. N. Bhardawaj (PW-10), Addl. Professor, Forensic Medicine, AIIMS Hospital, who alongwith Dr. Sushil Sharma (PW-35), Senior Resident and Dr. Manish Goyal Jr. Resident had conducted postmortem on the dead body of Neelam d/o Sh. Rajbir Singh on 22nd March 2010 had proved the postmortem report as Ex.PW10/A. He had further deposed that on examination, the body was showing bluish nails, congestion of face and bleeding from the mouth. She was wearing four clothes i.e. black jeans, light orange undergarment, black kurta and white brassier, which were intact and following antemortem were noted:
(i) Ligature mark horizontally placed was present in the neck in middle one third part. It was completely encircling the neck, size being 45cm X 2 cm.
It was situated 6cm below chin and 7cm above sternocostal notch. 4Cm below right mastoid and 6cm below left mastoid. Total neck circumference was 45 cm. On dissection, there was gross infiltration of blood in the neck. Neck mussels were lacerated. Thyroid complex was intact. There was haemotoma in the neck.
(ii) Tear of frenulum was present in the upper lip along with multiple lacerations. Lower lip was also showing haemotoma.
(iii) Internal organs in the chest, cranial cavity and abdomen were normal.
Uterus was empty. There was no injury on the geniatalia organs. State Vs. Manoj Kumar Bhatt & Ors. - SC No. 102 of 2010 18/76 Cause of death was stated to be asphyxia consequent to ligature strangulation coupled with smothering. Both injuries i.e. injury no. 1 and 2 individually and collectively were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. Viscera were preserved to rule out any poisoning. The clothes as mentioned earlier were also preserved. Blood in gauze piece was preserved. Vaginal swabs were taken. Scalp hair were also preserved and the articles, a golden colour ear ring at black thread which the deceased was wearing was also preserved.
Subsequently, opinion (Ex.PW10/B) was given by Dr. Shushil Sharma in reference to the ligature material which was deposited for subsequent opinion. It was stated further that on opening the exhibits, it contained a white colour rope (nada) having four turns and knot and the same had also been shown in the diagram.
After examination, opinion was given that the injury no.1 i.e the ligature mark and other injuries on the neck, could be possible by the exhibit (white colour nada).
In his cross examination PW-10 Dr. D. N. Bhardawaj had deposed that the body was not brought in the mortuary in his presence and the lacerations could have been caused by several force of blunt object.
PW-I0 in his further cross-examination had deposed that he had not specified the length of lacerations in the report and he had only given a combined laceration report and no formal request was made for conducting postmortem on the dead body by a Board of Doctors. He had further deposed that normally, the postmortem was done by two doctors in the cases of SDM request, though one doctor was sufficient to conduct the postmortem. This witness, however, could not assign the reason as to why the Board was State Vs. Manoj Kumar Bhatt & Ors. - SC No. 102 of 2010 19/76 constituted in the present case to conduct the postmortem of deceased. This witness had stated further that since, he was the Senior Consultant on duty,on that day, and hence he had gone there and the postmortem was done by Dr. Suhsil Sharma and Dr. Manish Goyal was also associated to Dr. Sushil to assist him in conducting postmortem.
PW-10 had, however, admitted that there was no date mentioned on the subsequent opinion and it was signed by Dr. Sushil Sharma and he had not seen the rope (nada) on which there was a knot as was apparent in the subsequent opinion, but the same was seen by Dr. Sushil Sharma, who had given the said opinion. The circumference of the neck was 45 cm and Dr. Sushil Sharma had measured it. The nada was in two pieces, but he was unable to tell as to how the said "nada" was made into two pieces.
This witness (PW-10) had further deposed and admitted the suggestion of the Ld. Defence Counsel that if any other similar kind of rope was shown, it would have also given similar marks and that individually as well as collectively injury no. 1 and 2 were sufficient to cause death. However, this witness had shown his ignorance on the aspect of his presence, when Dr. Sushil Sharma had given his subsequent opinion Ex.PW10/A. He had, however, denied the further suggestion of Ld. Defence Counsel that he was not present in the Board and he had signed the same on the asking of police.
24 SH. M. N. Vijayan (PW-11) Nodal Officer, TATA Tele Services Ltd. had proved the relevant documents and the Call Detail Record (CDR) related to the phone no. 9250073666 and 9250073668 for the period from 01.02.2010 to 22.03.2010. As per record, the call details of mobile phone no. 9250073666 (Ex.PW11/A) were running into 12 pages and call details of mobile phone no. 9250073668 (Ex.PW11/B) were running into 7 pages. Both these State Vs. Manoj Kumar Bhatt & Ors. - SC No. 102 of 2010 20/76 telephone connections were subscribed in the name of a company M/s Niho Construction Ltd. at X-22, First Floor, Hauz Khas, New Delhi and the authorised signatory of company was Suhsma Dewan and the copy of customer application form along with supporting documents were being proved as Ex.PW11/C (collectively). The witness had also proved the certificate u/s 65 B of Indian Evidence Act as Ex.PW11/D, in this regard and had also proved the cell ID Chart showing the location of various towers in Delhi as Ex.PW11/E which was also a computer generated document. The tower number was not shown in the call detail record Ex. PW11/B against the call made on 20.03.2010 because the calls on mobile number 9250073668 were forwarded upon some other number.
As per the record Ex. PW11/E, the tower number 19728 and 19730 were stated to be situated in the area of Hauz Khas and the tower number 19648 was situated in the area of Mool Chand and the tower number 19666 was situated in the area of Lajpat Nagar - I, New Delhi.
In his cross examination PW-11 Sh. M. N. Vijayan had deposed that he had joined Tata Teleservices Limited in July, 2004 and he had worked as a Nodal Officer for Delhi NCR Zone. He had not given the Certificate u/s 65-B to the Police. He had unloaded the record filed in the Court and the data was unloaded on 14.12.2011. He was unable to tell if there was any breakup in the operation of collecting data due to some fault in the computer or during the period, when it was inoperative. He had retrieved the data through computer. He did not know, if police had recorded his statement in this regard. He had further deposed that when the data was given to the police, no certificate u/s 65-B was given. He had denied the suggestion that he had downloaded the record without verifying the contents of Ex.PW11/A and Ex.PW11/B with the original record on the server. He had denied the suggestion that he had not downloaded State Vs. Manoj Kumar Bhatt & Ors. - SC No. 102 of 2010 21/76 the call details from the server and had given the same under the pressure of police and had deposed falsely.
He had admitted the suggestion that the towers such as Lajpat Nagar, Hauz Khas etc. will have other mobile numbers as well and they had the contract to install the tower on a particular building or place for minimum period of 20 years and in case new tower was to be installed, there might be change in the tower number, which was assigned to the towers earlier before establishing such new tower.
25 PW-12 Sh. Tarun Khurana, Nodal Officer, Bhatia Airtel Limited had deposed that telephone numbers 9871294498 & 9810649999 belonged to Niho Constructions Private Limited, X-22, First Floor, Hauz Khas, New Delhi and telephone number 9810595195 pertained to Manoj Bhatt s/o Sh. Dharmanand Bhatt and he had also proved subscriber details of mobile number 9871294498 as Ex.PW12/A. He had also proved subscriber enrollment form of 9810649999 as Ex.PW12/B and had also placed on record Airtel prepaid enrollment form in respect of phone number 9810595195 as Ex.PW12/C. The witness had also proved the call detail records of the above phone numbers from the period 15.03.2010 to 22.03.2010 as Ex.PW12/A1, Ex.PW12/B1 & Ex.PW12/C1 respectively and the cell ID Chart showing the location of the towers in Delhi as Ex.PW12/D and the certificate u/s 65-B of Indian Evidence Act related to the above call records as Ex.PW12/E. PW-12 had further deposed that as per the Cell ID Chart, the location of tower no. 03643 is D-111/17, Terrace of second Floor, Lajpat Nagar-II, New Delhi-24. As per the Cell ID Chart, the location of tower no. 06931 is D-65, Hauz Khas, New Delhi. As per the Cell ID Chart, the location of tower no. 55523 State Vs. Manoj Kumar Bhatt & Ors. - SC No. 102 of 2010 22/76 is Y-39, Second Floor, Hauz Khas, New Delhi. As per the Cell ID Chart, the location of Tower No. 03753 is G-50, Krishna Market, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi. As per the Cell ID Chart, the location of tower no. 20371 is C-15, Second Floor, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi-24. As per the Cell ID Chart, the location of tower no. 47892 is H-2, Lajpat Nagar-I, New Delhi.
In his cross examination PW-12 Sh. Tarun Khurana had deposed that he had joined Bharti Airtel on 07.03.2011 and was working as Nodal Officer for Delhi NCR Zone. Police had not recorded his statement. He was a witness to produce record, but he was not aware as to why certificate u/s 65-B of the Evidence Act was not provided earlier. He had brought the same only on the day of his deposition before the Court. He had also brought the call detail record on that day. He had further deposed that he had no personal control over the server where the call details were recorded. The call detail records (Ex.PW12/A1, Ex.PW12/B1 and Ex.PW12/C1) were downloaded by him only the day before the date of his deposition in the court, using his User ID and Password given to him by the company. He could not say that there was no fault (technical snag) in the server during the period in question or could not have commented on the fact, if the server had remained out of operation at anytime during that period. He had also failed to tell if the same record was also downloaded earlier or not.
In his further cross-examination this witness had deposed that he was authorized by the company to depose in the Court. He had denied the suggestion that he was not competent to give a certificate u/s 65-B of Indian Evidence Act or that Ex.PW12/E had been given by him under the pressure of police. He had however admitted the suggestion to be correct that Ex.PW12/E was not dated, but had voluntarily stated that the same was signed by him on that day of his deposition before the Court and had denied the suggestion to State Vs. Manoj Kumar Bhatt & Ors. - SC No. 102 of 2010 23/76 have not signed the same on that day when his statement was being recorded in the court in this case.
26 PW-13 Sh. Shishir Malhotra, Nodal Officer, Aircel Limited had deposed that telephone number 8802133292 belonged to Manoj Kumar Bhatt S/o Sh. Dharmanand Bhatt and he had also proved the subscriber engagement form in this regard as Ex.PW13/A and the ID Proof of Manoj Bhatt as Ex.PW13/A1. He had also proved the call detail records of this phone number from the period 12.02.2010 to 20.3.2010 as Ex.PW13/B and the cell ID Chart showing the location of the towers in Delhi as Ex.PW13/C and a certificate u/s 65-B of Indian Evidence Act issued by this witness to this effect as Ex.PW13/D. In his cross examination PW-13 Sh. Shishir Malhotra had deposed that he had joined Aircel Limited on 18.08.2009 as Senior Executive and since then he was posted as Nodal Officer. He was never examined by the police and his statement was also not recored by the Police in this case. One of the members of his team had provided the required data to the Police. The Regulatory Head (National Nodal Head) had appointed him as Nodal Officer to represent the Company. He had admitted that Ex.PW13/D was dated 22.01.2012, which was signed by him as a Nodal Officer. He had denied the suggestion as incorrect that he was not working as Nodal Officer and/or that he was not competent to give a certificate u/s 65-B of Evidence Act. He had further deposed that he had not provided the certificate u/s 65-B to the police in this case and had filed the same directly in the Court.
27 PW-14 SI Mahesh Kumar, had deposed that on 04.05.2010, he was posted as SI/Draftsman at Crime Branch, Police HQ and on that day, he alongwith Inspector Sandeep Ghai had visited place of occurrence i.e. I-59, First Floor, Lajpat Nagar-II and had taken rough notes and measurement on the State Vs. Manoj Kumar Bhatt & Ors. - SC No. 102 of 2010 24/76 pointing out of Inspector Sandeep Ghai and thereafter he had prepared scaled site plan Ex.PW14/A bearing his signatures at point-'A'.
In his cross examination PW-14 SI Mahesh Kumar had deposed that IO had given him the instructions to prepare the scaled site plan and the accused persons were not present the spot at the time of preparation of rough notes. He had denied the suggestion to be incorrect that the site plan was not prepared at the instance of Inspector Sandeep Ghai.
This witness had further deposed during his further cross- examination that he had visited the spot on 04.05.2010. He had also denied the suggestion put to him that he had never visited the spot and/or he had prepared the site plant at Police Station and all the articles which had been shown in scaled site plan, were so shown, as per the instructions of the IO and/or that he had deposed falsely.
28 PW-15 Dr. Tulesh Bansal, had deposed that on 20.03.2010, he had examined the patient, namely, Neelam, 31 years, female, who was brought in emergency at Moolchand Hospital in unresponsive state at 08:00 pm. The patient was discovered unconscious/unresponsive by Manoj (husband) at home at 07:30pm and there was no past history of any kind of medication/illness. On examination, patient was found to be unresponsive and not breathing, White rope tied around the neck of the patient was noticed, Knot of rope below occipital region behind the neck, Ligature marks were found present on the neck, Neck was relieved by cutting the rope for further examination. He had further stated that the pallor was present, lips and extremities were cyanosed and cold. The glassgow comma scale was minimum i.e. E1, V1, M1. Pupils were fixed and dilated and not reacting to light. Carotid pulse was not palpable. HR-0. Blood Pressure was not recordable.
State Vs. Manoj Kumar Bhatt & Ors. - SC No. 102 of 2010 25/76 He had further deposed that cardiac monitor showed no cardiac activity. ECG showed flat lines, hence, the patient was declared to be brought dead at 08:10 pm and the MLC Ex. PW15/A was prepared by him.
In his cross examination PW-15 Dr.Tulesh Bansal had deposed that father of Neelam (deceased) had also reached at the hospital but he did not know as to who had called him in the hospital. The girth of rope was about equivalent to index finger of an adult male person, but he could not remember as to whom the rope was handed over. The rope was closed to the occipital region. He had not mentioned the girth of the rope in the MLC. He could not tell the exact depth of the ligature mark and had stated voluntarily that it could have been measured at the time of postmortem. No complaint was made by the father of deceased in this regard to the police. Further, he had voluntarily stated that he was concerned with medical examination of the injured. He had denied the suggestion to be incorrect that he had not recorded the true facts of examination and/or that he had made the report at the behest of the police. 29 PW-16 Sh. Robin Sharma had deposed that he was working as driver in Niho Construction Pvt. Ltd. at X-22, First Floor, Hauz Khas and used to drive the car of the company which was given to Manoj Bhatt, who used to come to the office at about 10:00am by that car and he also used to drop him in the evening at about 05:00/05:30pm at his residence at Lajpat Nagar, but he did not remember the exact address of his residence.
He had stated further that on 20.03.2010 also, he had taken Manoj Bhatt to the office in the morning and had left him at his residence at Lajpat Nagar at about 05:30pm. He always used to drop him near or around his residence.
State Vs. Manoj Kumar Bhatt & Ors. - SC No. 102 of 2010 26/76 In his cross examination PW-16 Sh. Robin Sharma had deposed that he was working in Niho Construction Co. during the period 2009 to 2010 and had left the services of said Company perhaps in the month of March or April, 2010. He knew Neelam, wife of accused. They had very good relations between them. They had never quarreled with each other during the period, he had worked as driver on duty with the accused. Deceased Neelam, wife of accused, sometimes, had traveled in his car, together with accused Manoj Bhatt and sometime she used to go alone in the car. He was never served with any notice to appear before the police. He was called verbally at the PS Lajpat Nagar, where his statement was recorded. He had not seen Manoj Kumar at the Police Station. He was informed by the Police that some persons had looted the property from Manoj Kumar's house and had also killed the wife of the accused and thereafter, he had left. He was called at the Police Station Lajpat Nagar around 08:30/09:00 pm on the next day of the alleged incident in the house of accused. He had further deposed that he had left the job, as he was asked to join at Muradabad office of the Company. He did not want to go to Muradabad permanently, so he had left the job.
30 PW17 Sh. Deepak, Nodal Officer, Vodafone had deposed that telephone no. 8094089968 belonged to one Prahlad s/o Sh. Nathu. He had proved the Vodafone Prepaid customer form in this regard as Ex.PW17/A and the copy of ID Proof as Ex.PW17/A1. He had also proved the call detail records of the above phone number from the period 10.03.2010 to 26.03.2010 as Ex.PW17/A2 and the certificate u/s 65-B of Indian Evidence Act issued to this effect, which was Ex.PW17/A3 as well, bearing his signatures and stamp at point-'A'.
State Vs. Manoj Kumar Bhatt & Ors. - SC No. 102 of 2010 27/76 He had further deposed that telephone no. 9811902239 was issued to one Pankaj s/o Sh. Ram, vide prepaid customer form Ex.PW17/B supported by ID Proof Ex.PW17/B1. He had also proved the call detail records related to the above mobile number from the period 01.02.2010 to 21.03.2010 as Ex.PW17/B2 (99 pages)and the certificate u/s 65-B of Indian Evidence Act issued in this regard was Ex.PW17/B-3, bearing his signatures and stamp at point-'A'.
This witness had stated further that mobile connection no. 9654678456 was issued to one Dhuruv Khanna s/o Sh. Satish Khanna, on his application form Ex.PW17/C which was supported with his ID Proof Ex.PW17/C1. The call detail records of the above phone number from the period 01.02.2010 to 21.03.2010 were also proved by him as Ex.PW17/C2 (36 pages) alongwith certificate u/s 65-B of Indian Evidence Act issued in this regard as Ex.PW17/C3. He had also proved the Cell ID Chart showing the locations of towers of Delhi NCR consisting of 88 pages and the same was placed on record as Ex.PW17/D collectively.
In his cross examination PW-17 Sh. Deepak had deposed that the Customer Agreement Form (CAF) of Pankaj had been issued from Vodafone Store and there was no mention of Niho Construction Pvt. Ltd. in all the three forms showing that they had been issued to the said company.
This witness had stated further that he had joined Vodafone Company in the year 2007 as Nodal Office but, he could not tell if the exhibited forms Ex.PW17/A, Ex.PW17/B and Ex.PW17/C were given to the police or not. He had brought a certificate u/s 65-B in respect of all the three mobile numbers and had signed the same in the Court only. He had however voluntarily stated that all the certificates were complete in all respects and bore the seal of the State Vs. Manoj Kumar Bhatt & Ors. - SC No. 102 of 2010 28/76 company, but he had put his signature on the same before the Court. He had taken the records of all those telephone numbers and downloaded them only two or three days after he had received the summons of the present case. He had admitted it to be correct that he had not put any date on the certificates u/s 65-B of Evidence Act in relation to downloading of the data from the server. He had further deposed there was no snag in the server during the period to which the call record in question belonged. Whenever there was any snag in the server, the technical staff in the office used to correct it and a record of the same was/is still being maintained in that regard and in the present case if there was any technical snag, it would have been corrected and the information was given to the Sr. Officers of the Vodafone Company and the Nodal Officer would have also been informed in that regard.
This witness had stated further that subscriber of Mobile No. 8094089968 as per their record was one Mr. Prahlad r/o 95, Gurjar Ki Pati, Dhigariya Tappa Kolevar, Tehsil Basawa, District Dausa, Rajasthan. 31 PW18 Ct Anand (PW-18), who was posted as Photographer at Mobile Crime Team (South District), had deposed that he had taken 39 photographs of the spot as well as of the dead body at Moolchand Hospital, which were proved by him as Ex.PW18/A1 to Ex.PW18/A39 alongwith negatives Ex.PW18/B1 to Ex.PW18/B39.
PW18 had stated further that he had also taken photographs of the chance print of magazine lying in the hall as well as of a knife and these photographs were sent to the Finger Print Bureau.
In his cross examination PW-18 Ct. Anand had deposed that the negatives were kept in an open envelop which were neither signed by him nor by the Incharge of the Team or the IO of the case, to whom the same were State Vs. Manoj Kumar Bhatt & Ors. - SC No. 102 of 2010 29/76 presented by him. Even the case particulars were also not mentioned thereon. He had voluntarily stated that in case particulars were mentioned on the negatives, then they might have got spoiled. He had not handed over the photographs to the IO. He had deposed further that the knife and the magazine were not seen by him during recording of his statement in the court and he did not know if the same were seized by the IO or not.
32 PW-19 Ct. Harender Singh had deposed that on 20.03.2010, he was posted at PS Lajpat Nagar and was on emergency duty alongwith HC Ombir. At about 09:00 pm, on the instructions of the duty officer both of them had reached at the Casualty of Moolchand Hospital, where one Neelam wife of Manoj Kumar was found to be dead. SI Girish Jain was also found present there alongwith staff. Inspector Sandeep Ghai had also reached at the hospital who had inspected the dead body of Neelam. Thereafter, Inspector Sandeep Ghai alongwith staff had gone to the spot leaving him alongwith HC Ombir with the dead body in the hospital.
He had further deposed that Inspector Sandeep Ghai, IO of the case, had again reached the hospital in the morning at about 04:00 am on 21.03.2010 and had given him an application and sent him to AIIMS Mortuary alongwith the dead body of Neelam and accordingly, he had deposited the dead body in the mortuary. The postmortem was got conducted on the body of deceased and later on same was handed over to her legal heirs. After postmortem, doctor had given him seven sealed pullandas alongwith two sample seals and he had handed over the same to the IO on the next day, which were seized through the seizure memo Ex.PW19/A. In his further examination in chief recorded on 10.02.2014, PW-19 had also stated that on 21.06.2012, on the directions of the IO, he had taken State Vs. Manoj Kumar Bhatt & Ors. - SC No. 102 of 2010 30/76 accused Mubeen to AIIMS hospital and the doctor had taken scalp hair of accused and his blood in gauze and the same were kept in separate parcels and were sealed with the seal of AIIMS hospital. Thereafter, the doctor had given him the said sealed parcels alongwith two sample seals, which he had handed over to Inspector Satender Sangwan, who had seized the same through seizure memo Ex.PW19/A-1 In his cross examination PW-19 Ct. Harender Singh had deposed that when he had reached at the hospital, Manoj Kumar Bhatt, the husband of the deceased was already present there. Inspector Sandeep Ghai had recorded statement of Manoj Kumar Bhatt in the hospital. Mother, father, brother and uncle of the deceased were also present in the Hospital. The statement of Manoj Kumar Bhatt was recorded in the presence of above mentioned relatives of the deceased and after recording the statement of Manoj Kumar Bhatt, he had also accompanied Inspector Sandeep Ghai to the spot.
He had further stated that the doctor had obtained his signatures at the time of handing over the "pullandas", but no formal memo was prepared to that effect. Exhibits were handed over to him by the doctor on 21.03.2010 around 03:00 pm, after conducting the postmortem. The seizure memo Ex.PW19/A was also prepared and the same was signed by him at about 01:00 pm on 22.03.2010.
33 PW19 Ct. Harender Singh was, again, examined on 10.2.2014 by the State and during his cross-examination on behalf of the accused, this witness had deposed that on 21.6.2012, he had left the police station just after 9.00 AM and had gone in the private vehicle of the IO alongwith him. Doctor might have taken about one hour in taking the samples and sealing them. The doctor had not obtained his signatures on the pullandas.
State Vs. Manoj Kumar Bhatt & Ors. - SC No. 102 of 2010 31/76 This witness had stated further that he himself had handed over the pullandas to the IO in the hospital, who had prepared the formal seizure memo Ex.PW19/A-1 thereof and thereafter, both of them came back to the police station at about 12.30AM.
34 PW-20 Ct. Ajeet Sharma, had deposed that on 29.03.2010, he was posted at PS Lajpat Nagar and on that day, he had taken three sealed pullandas from AIIMS Hospital (Department of Forensic Medicines and Toxicology) alongwith one sample seal and had handed over the same to the IO/Inspector Sandeep Gahi, who had seized the same through the seizure memo Ex.PW20/A. PW-20 Ct. Ajeet Sharma had deposed in this cross-examination that no handing over memo was prepared by the doctor in the Hospital and he had signed in the register regarding receiving the pullandas at about 12:00 or 12:30 pm. After about 30/45 minutes, he had handed over the pullandas to the IO.
35 PW-21 Ct. Sudhir Kumar had joined investigation with SI Girish Jain on 20.3.2010 and thereafter with IO/Insp. Sandeep Ghai and Insp. Ajay Sharma during different stages of investigation. He had proved the seizure memo of the keys, mobile phone and SIM seized from the house of accused Fakru at his instance by IO/Inspector Ajay Sharma as Ex. PW21/A. He had also joined investigation with IO/Insp. Ajay Sharma on 14.04.2010 when accused Fakru had lead the police party to I-59, first floor, Lajpat Nagar-II and IO had opened the main entrance and the door of the said flat from the said keys, which were got recovered by accused Fakru from his house. IO had got cut/detached both the locks from the door and locks were sealed in cloth pullanda with the seal of AS. Seal after its use was handed over Ct. Lokender. The pullanda of State Vs. Manoj Kumar Bhatt & Ors. - SC No. 102 of 2010 32/76 locks was seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW21/B. He had identified one pair of chappal as Ex.MO-1 which according to the witness was recovered from I-59, first floor, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi. He had also identified one of the four mobile phones produced by MHC(M), by picking up one mobile phone (i-phone, make Apple, touch screen, colour black) as Ex. MO-2 stating that the same was recovered from chokha Mundheta, Nuh, Mewat, Haryana and the two locks fixed in the wood around it as Ex. MO-3 and MO-4. He had also identified the mobile phone bearing IMEI NO. 358953030435968, make Forme, (made in China), recovered from Chowka Mudeta, Nuh, Mewat, Haryana. Ex.MO-6 and the SIM therein as Ex MO-5 respectively.
In his cross examination PW-21 Ct. Sudhir Kumar had deposed that he could not tell the number of the SIM card or the IMEI number of the mobile phones which were recovered from Mewat, but the said mobile phones and SIM card were not sealed in his presence. Similarly, keys which were recovered from Mewat, were also not sealed at the spot. When they had reached at the residence of Fakrudin at Chokha Mundheta, Nuh, Mewat, Haryana , the house was found opened and it was not locked. No one was found present in the house at that time. They had not called any neighbours or joined any public witness at the time of alleged recovery, both at the time of proceeding from the police station and also at the time of reaching there.
This witness had stated further that when they had started from the police station, they were five persons including the private driver, whose name he did not know. They had gone to the village of Fakruddin in a private vehicle i.e. Qualis, whose registration number or the colour he could not remember. Three-four local police officials had also accompanied them when they had gone State Vs. Manoj Kumar Bhatt & Ors. - SC No. 102 of 2010 33/76 at the house of the accused Fakruddin, but he could not tell their names, but those police officials were certainly not made witnesses at the time of said recovery. He could not tell about the details of their arrival and departure entries. He had deposed that the seizure memo of the keys and mobiles were written and prepared by the IO, while sitting in the police station. However, again, he had changed his statement and had stated that the details of the articles which were recovered from Chokha Mundheta, Nuh, Mewat, Haryana were noted down on a paper and he had signed the same there only.
He had further deposed during his further cross-examination that they had left for the village of Fakruddin in the morning at about 09:00am and had reached at the local police station at about 11:30/12:00pm (noon). They had remained in the police station for about 10-15 minutes. Local police of PS Punhana had accompanied them in their own vehicle. They had waited at the house of accused for around 15-20 minutes but nobody was found present there. He did not know as to whether the IO had deposited the aforesaid articles i.e. keys, mobile phone and SIM etc. in the malkhana or not. IO had not inquired from any person in his presence as to whether the house from which case property was recovered actually belonged to the accused Fakruddin or not or as to whether he was a occupant of the said house or not.
He had further deposed that no neighbour or any public witness had been joined on 14.04.2010, at the time of their visit to I-59 Lajpat Nagar. Only one lady , namely, Ms. Adarsh Wadhera was found present at the ground floor, who was the owner of the house no. I-59, Lajpat Nagar. IO had taken keys of the first floor from from her on 20.03.2010. This witness had stated further that accused Manoj Bhatt had taken keys from Ms. Adarash Wadhera on 20.03.2010 and thereafter, he had given back the keys to her on 20.03.2010 itself. State Vs. Manoj Kumar Bhatt & Ors. - SC No. 102 of 2010 34/76 On 14.04.2010, they had left the police station at about 10:30am in a private vehicle i.e. Santro car of the IO. Firstly, they had visited at I-59, Lajpat Nagar and then they came back to the police station after about 1-1? hours. They had remained at I-59, Lajpat Nagar for about 1-1? hours. During the aforesaid visit, IO had not asked any public person to join the investigation.
IO had called a private carpenter to cut the locks from the door, but he did not know as to which carpenter was called, but the carpenter had cut the locks from the door with a 'saw' (aari), who was also carrying small hammer at that time. He had further stated that neither the carpenter nor the person who had gone to call the carpenter, were cited or made witnesses in this case.
PW-21 had stated further that he did not know, at what time and from where, the IO had taken or deposited the keys from malkhana. He also did not know as to whether IO had taken the keys again from Ms.Adarash Wadhera, owner of the house, between 20.03.2010 to 14.04.2010. He had further deposed that IO had neither recorded statement of Ms. Adarash Wadhera, nor he had obtained her signatures on any document on 20.03.2010, including the document regarding taking over or handing over the keys to Ms. Adarash Wadhera. Remaining formal suggestions as were put to him were also denied by him as wrong and incorrect.
36 PW-22 HC Vijay Singh had also joined the investigation with IO/Inspector Ajay Sharma on 6.4.2010 alongwith Ct. Lokender when he alongwith IO and Ct. Lokender and accused Fakru had reached at I-59, First floor, Lajpat Nagar-II, New Delhi, where accused Fakru had pointed out towards a place i.e. backside of a sofa in the bedroom and had also pointed out another room where allegedly his other associates namely, Mobin and Jakir had hidden themselves. (This part of his statement was objected to by Ld. Counsel for State Vs. Manoj Kumar Bhatt & Ors. - SC No. 102 of 2010 35/76 accused as being inadmissible in evidence). He had also identified his signatures at point-A on the identification memo Ex.PW22/A, prepared by the IO.
It was further stated by him that thereafter, on the very same day, he had accompanied IO to 16/1-A, Jungpura a premises which was allegedly taken on rent by accused Manoj, where accused Fakhru alongwith his other associates had resided before the incident and the pointing out memo Ex.PW22/B in this regard was also proved by him. He had also proved disclosure statement made by accused Fakhru on 07.04.2010 as Ex.PW22/C, and also the subsequent disclosure statement of accused Fakhru as Ex.PW22/D, both of which were recorded by the IO on the vary same day i.e. 07.04.2010 within a gap of two hours only.
In his cross examination PW-22 HC Vijay Singh had deposed that no disclosure statement of Faqroo was recorded by the IO on 06.04.2010 before his pointing out. He also did not know, if the IO had recorded his disclosure statement prior to 06.04.2010. He had further stated that the door of the house no. I-59 was closed and he had not gone inside the room. Similarly, the door of the house no. 16/1-A, Jungpura was also found locked and in his presence, neither the IO nor any other person had entered inside the house.
This witness had further deposed that he did not remember the time when he had joined the investigation with IO on 06.04.2010 and 07.04.2010 and also the time when he had accompanied the IO at I-59 Lajpat Nagar and at 16/1-A, Jungpura, but again he had stated that it was evening time when they had come back and had gone in the late morning. He could not even tell the time for how much period, they had stayed at I-59 Lajpat Nagar and at 16/1-A, Jungpura, whether for one hour, two hours or four hours. He also could not tell the registration number of the private car, its make and the colour, which was State Vs. Manoj Kumar Bhatt & Ors. - SC No. 102 of 2010 36/76 allegedly used by them in this case. He had further deposed that three-four public persons were available near both the places and the IO was talking to them in English again said, talking to them in mixed Hindi and English but those persons had avoided to join the investigation. IO had not recorded their names and particulars and the IO had not even given any notice to them for not joining the investigation. IO had not made any efforts, to his knowledge, to join any public witness before proceeding at the spot or enroute. He had further stated that before proceeding, the IO knew the address of both the houses and they were briefed about the same.
PW-22 had further deposed that accused Faqroo had disclosed, on 06.04.2010, that premises no. 16/1-A, Jungpura, was stated to be taken on rent by accused Manoj and that accused Mobin and Jakir had hidden themselves there only, but IO had not recorded any such disclosure statement of the aforesaid accused Fakhru on 06.04.2010 in his presence. 37 PW-23 Ct. Parvinder Dutta had deposed that on 30.03.2010, he was posted at PS Lajpat Nagar. And on that day at the instance of IO/Inspector Ajay Sharma, he along with Ct. Lokender and SI Ishwar had taken accused Manoj Kumar Bhatt to the department of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology, AIIMS hospital for collecting his blood sample and scalp hairs. Doctor concerned had collected his blood in a gauze and scalp hairs and converted the same into parcels and sealed the same with the seal of AIIMS Hospital and had handed over the same to him along with the sample seal and the aforesaid exhibits were handed over by him to the IO/Inspector Ajay Sharma, who in turn had seized the same vide seizure memo Ex. PW23/A. In his cross examination PW-23 Ct. Parvinder Dutta had deposed that he had reached at AIIMS hospital at about 03:30pm. Doctor had not State Vs. Manoj Kumar Bhatt & Ors. - SC No. 102 of 2010 37/76 obtained his signature on any document for handing over the samples to him and thereafter he came back at the PS at about 04:30pm. IO/Inspector Ajay Sharma was present inside his room. He had not made any arrival and departure entry in the DD register at the time of his arrival and departure from the police station. He had not even made any entry in the roznamcha register on his return from the hospital mentioning the fact that he had brought sample of hair and blood gauze of accused Manoj Kumar.
38 PW-24 HC Bhagwan Singh had deposed that on 20.03.2010, he was posted as Finger Print Proficient in the mobile crime team, South District and on receipt of a call from South District, control room, he along with SI Jitender incharge, crime team and Ct. Anand, photographer reached at the first floor of I-59, First floor Lajpat Nagar-II from where he had lifted four chance finger prints from a magazine 'Femina' which was lying under the table and he had also lifted finger prints from the blade of vegetable cutting knife, which was lying in the "Pooja" room. He had also prepared a report in triplicate on the same day in this regard and on the next day, copy of the report along with the chance prints were sent to the Finger Print Bureau, Malviya Nagar and one copy was given to the IO and he had retained one copy thereof with himself. He had brought the said copy and proved the same as Ex. PW24/A. In his cross examination PW-24 HC Bhagwan Singh had deposed that he did not know as to whether the IO had shown the location of finger print on the sketch of the knife prepared by him. He did not even know if IO had prepared any sketch of knife or not. He had stated further that when he had reached at the spot, many police officials including SHO and senior officials were found present inside the rooms at the spot, but he did not know as to whether any police official or any other person present in the premises had touched the State Vs. Manoj Kumar Bhatt & Ors. - SC No. 102 of 2010 38/76 'Femina' magazine or knife or not.
39 PW-25 Ct. Udai Chand had deposed that on 25.05.2010, he was posted at PS Lajpat Nagar and on that day, he had taken the exhibits of this case from malkhana and had deposited the same with the FSL, Rohini vide Road Certificate, number of which could not remember, but the exhibits were deposited in sealed and intact condition. He had further stated that he had obtained a receipt from the Chemistry Devision, FSL and had also handed over the same to MHC (M) PS Lajpat Nagar.
In his cross examination PW-25 Ct. Uday Chand had deposed that at that particular point of time on the day of his deposition before the court, he was residing at Arjun Nagar. On 25.05.2010, he was already present in the police station and at that time, he was residing in the police station itself. A sample seal was also handed over to him by the MHC (M). In his examination-in- chief, this witness had stated that in his statement u/s 161 Cr. P. C recorded by the IO, he had stated about the handing over of the sample seal to him by the MHC (M). However, when he was confronted with the said statement recorded u/s 161 Cr. P. C. mark D-1, it was found that no such fact was recorded therein.
He had further deposed that he had left PS at around 11:00am on 25.05.2010, after making departure entry in the daily diary regarding taking parcels to FSL Rohini. He had reached at the FSL Rohini at about 12:30pm and had deposited the parcel in the Chemistry department, but he could not tell the name of the said official with whom the parcel was so deposited by him. He had further stated that he had deposited acknowledgment receipt related to the deposition of the parcel with MHC (M). He did not know as to when and where his statement was recorded by the IO.
State Vs. Manoj Kumar Bhatt & Ors. - SC No. 102 of 2010 39/76 40 PW-26 Ct. Sharwan Kumar deposed that on 31.05.2010, he was posted at PS Lajpat Nagar and on that day, he had taken the exhibits of this case from malkhana and had deposited the same with the FSL, Rohini vide Road Certificate, whose number he could not remember, but the exhibits were deposited in sealed and intact condition and after depositing the same, receipt thereof was also handed over by him to the MHC (M) PS Lajpat Nagar.
PW-26 Ct. Sharwan Kumar had deposed in his cross-examination that he had left the PS at about 09:30am on 31.05.2010 and DD Writer had also made an entry in the daily diary register regarding his departure for the FSL. He was not handed over any sample seal for delivery to the office of FSL Rohini . He had reached at the FSL Rohini at about 11:00/11:30am and had handed over the parcels to one of the staff member in the FSL. He had also deposed that he had also deposited the acknowledgment receipt of the said parcel with MHC (M). 41 PW-27 HC Lokender had deposed that on 06.04.2010, he was posted at PS Lajpat Nagar and was present in the investigation of this case with IO/Inspector Ajay Sharma, when accused Faqrooddin @ Faqroo had surrendered in the police station. IO/Inspector Ajay sharma had arrested him vide arrest memo (Ex. PW27/A) and had also conducted his personal search vide personal search memo (Ex. PW27/B). Both documents bear his signatures at point-'A'.
He had further stated that he along with IO/Inspector Ajay and HC Vijay had accompanied accused Faqrooddin @ Faqroo to I-59, Lajpat Nagar-II , where the accused had pointed out the first floor to be the place of occurrence and pointing out memo (Ex. PW22/A) was prepared by the IO. Thereafter, he along with the IO/Inspector Ajay Sharma had taken accused Faqrooddin at house no. 16/1, Jungpura-A which was pointed out by the accused and the State Vs. Manoj Kumar Bhatt & Ors. - SC No. 102 of 2010 40/76 pointing out memo (Ex.PW22/B) was also prepared by IO/Inspector Ajay Sharma. It was stated further by him that no recovery was effected at the instance of accused Fakhru from both the aforesaid places. He had further stated that two disclosure statements already exhibited on record (Ex. PW22/C and PW22/D) were made by the accused Fakhru.
He had further stated in his examination in chief that on 12.04.2010, he had taken accused Fakhru to Forensic Department AIIMS Hospital for collecting his blood in gauze and hair samples. Doctor had handed over two small sealed jars along with the sample seal, but he could not remember about the seal affixed on the jars, but he had handed over the same to IO/Inspector Ajay Sharma, who had also prepared a seizure memo (Ex. PW27/C) in this regard.
He had stated further that on 14.04.2010, he had accompanied IO, Ct. Sudhir and accused Fakhru to H. No. I-59, Lajpat Nagar-II, New Delhi and from the first floor of the property, keys were got recovered by the accused and with the help of those keys, the gates (outside and inside) were opened by the IO/Inspector Ajay Sharma. Thereafter, at the instance of IO, he had taken photographs of the locks through his personal mobile phone. The witness had further deposed that none of them had entered inside the rooms. Locks were cut open from the wooden door with the help of an iron saw (aari) and after cutting the gate, again photographs were taken by him through his personal mobile phone. IO had prepared a collective pullanda of both the locks which were sealed with the seal of "AS". Seal after its use was handed over to him by the IO. IO had also prepared seizure memo of locks which was Ex. PW21/B. Lateron he, had got photographs of the gate/lock developed from a private photographer and had handed over the same to IO on the next day which were exhibited by State Vs. Manoj Kumar Bhatt & Ors. - SC No. 102 of 2010 41/76 him as Ex. PW27/D to 27/G. In his cross examination PW-27 HC Lokender had deposed that he could not remember the time when Fakhruddin @ Fakhru had surrendered in the police station and also the time when he himself had reached at I-59, but it was after 06:00pm. Firstly they had gone to I-59 in an official gypsy. 10-15 minutes were taken in conducting the proceedings at I-59 Lajpat Nagar and thereafter, within 20 minutes, they had reached at 16/1, Jungpura-A. At Jungpura also, about 10 -15 minutes were taken in conducting the proceedings. At both the places, in his presence, IO had not requested any public persons to join the proceedings either before proceeding for the spot or even after reaching at the spot though the public persons were available at both the places i.e. at I-59, Lajpat Nagar and at 16/1 Jungpura-A. He had further deposed that there was a driver of the official vehicle, whose name he could not remember.
He had further deposed that he had handed over the seal to the IO on the next day, but no memo of its taking and handing over was prepared by the IO at that time, but it was prepared subsequently on the next date. Accused Fakhru was arrested by the IO then and there when he had surrendered in the police station and he himself had signed the said arrest memos between 05:00 - 06:00 pm on 06.04.2010.
PW-27 had further deposed that he could not remember as to when they had returned from House No. I-59, Lajpat Nagar and from House No. 16/1 Jungpura-A. Accused was put up in the lock up in the evening and he was taken out from the lock up after 09:30 am in his presence, but he had not accompanied Faqrooddin when he was taken to the Court. IO/Inspector Ajay sharma had taken the accused Faqrooddin to the Court but he did not know the names of State Vs. Manoj Kumar Bhatt & Ors. - SC No. 102 of 2010 42/76 constables, who had accompanied the IO. He could not even remember as to when accused Fakhruddin was taken on police remand on 07.04.2010 and the time, when IO had returned from the Court after taking his remand and the place, where accused Farukhddin had taken the police after the police remand. The disclosure statement of accused was recorded in the police station before he was produced in the Court and before his police remand was obtained, but he could not tell the time, when first disclosure statement of accused Fakhruddin was recorded and when his second disclosure statement was recorded. Both the statements were stated to be recorded simultaneously, but he had no knowledge as to for how many days, police remand was taken/obtained of accused Fakhruddin. He even did not know about any proceeding conducted by the IO between 07.04.2010 to 12.04.2010 and as to when the accused Fakhruddin was taken to AIIMS Hospital for collecting his blood in gauze and hair samples. He had deposed further that the samples were taken by the doctor in his room which was on the ground floor at AIIMS Hospital. The photographs of the lock were also taken for both times i.e. before cutting the lock from the door and after cutting the lock, but no memo was prepared, when he had handed over the photographs taken through his mobile phone to the IO and photographs Ex.PW27/D to G did not bear his signatures and photographs did not depict the house number or the place from where they were taken. He had got developed the photographs from M/s Paul Studio and the IO had given him Rs. 50/- for getting those photographs developed, but he had not obtained any receipt from the studio, in that regard.
PW27 had further deposed that one carpenter had come to cut the gate, but he could not tell his name or from where he was brought, however, the said carpenter was called through the builder, who had constructed the building State Vs. Manoj Kumar Bhatt & Ors. - SC No. 102 of 2010 43/76 at I-59, Lajpat Nagar, whose name again he could not remember. 42 PW-28 SI Jitender Kumar had deposed that on 21.03.2010, he was posted in crime team South District. On receipt of a call, he along with HC Bhagwan Singh and Ct. Anand went to I-59, First floor, Lajpat Nagar and in his presence HC Bhagwan Singh had lifted chance prints and Ct. Anand had taken the photographs of the spot. He himself had inspected the spot and prepared the inspection report and handed over the same to Inspector Sandeep Ghai. Thereafter, they had gone to Moolchand hospital where the photographs of dead body were taken and his statement was recorded by the IO. He had proved the carbon copy of his inspection report as Ex. PW28/A. PW-28 SI Jitender Kumar was not cross examined by Ld. Defence Counsels despite opportunity granted to them. 43 PW-29 Dr. Shashank, Junior Resident, Deptt of Forensic Medicines, AIIMS had deposed that on 30.03.2010, accused Manoj Kumar Bhatt was brought by police at the Department of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology for preservation of his blood in gauze and scalp hairs and he had conducted medical examination of Manoj Kumar Bhatt and found that no fresh external injury was present over the body. Blood in gauze and scalp hairs of Manoj Kumar were preserved, sealed and handed over to the IO. MLC of accused Manoj Kumar Bhatt was proved by him as Ex. PW29/A. PW-29 Dr. Shashank was not cross examined by Ld. Defence Counsels despite opportunity granted to them.
44 PW-30 SI Satish Kumar had deposed that on 22nd March 2010, he was posted at PS Lajpat Nagar and on the intervening night of 22-23.3.2010, IO/Inspector Ajay Sharma had interrogated accused Manoj Kumar Bhatt in the police station in his presence and he was arrested vide arrest memo State Vs. Manoj Kumar Bhatt & Ors. - SC No. 102 of 2010 44/76 (Ex.PW30/A)and his personal search was conducted vide personal search memo (Ex.PW30/B) and thereafter his disclosure statement (Ex.PW30/C) was recorded. All documents bear his signatures at point-'A'.
PW-30 SI Satish Kumar was also not cross examined by Ld. Defence Counsels despite opportunity granted to them. 45 PW-31 Doctor Aproorve Goel, Sr. Resident in Surgery, Army Hospital (Research and Referral) had deposed that on 12.04.2010, he was posted at AIIMS hospital and on that day one Fakhruddin @ Fakru 35 years male was brought to the hospital by Ct. Lokender for obtaining sample of scalp hair and blood in gauze and accordingly he had conducted general examination of Fakhruddin, who was fully conscious and oriented and no fresh external injuries were seen on the body of Fakhruddin by him. He took the sample of blood in gauze and sample of scalp hair of accused Fakhruddin and preserved and sealed them. Thereafter, the same were handed over to the IO. He had also prepared the MLC Ex. PW31/A of Fakhruddin in this regard bearing his signatures at point-'A'.
PW-31 Dr. Apoorv Goel had deposed in his cross examination by the Ld. Defence Counsel that he had put the seal of Department of Forensic Medicine, AIIMS, but he had not mentioned the seal impression and had also not mentioned the name of IO in the MLC. Personally he had not received the acknowledgment of the samples from the IO. He had further deposed that some official of Department of Forensic Medicine might have handed over the samples to the police, whosoever had received the samples would have put his signatures on the MLC Register kept with the Department. 46 PW-32 HC Om Prakash had deposed that on 20.03.2010, he was posted as Duty Officer at PS Lajpat Nagar from 04:00 pm to 12:00 am State Vs. Manoj Kumar Bhatt & Ors. - SC No. 102 of 2010 45/76 (midnight). He had further deposed that during his duty hours at about 09:06 pm, he got the information from the Wireless Operator regarding "Neelam wife of Manoj aged 30 years was brought dead in the Moolchan Hospital". Accordingly, he had reduced the said information into writing vide DD No. 29-A (Ex.PW32/A). Subsequently, he had also got recorded the FIR (Ex.PW32/B) of this case. He had also proved his endorsement Ex.PW32/C on the rukka in this regard.
PW-32 HC Om Prakash had deposed in his cross examination by the Ld. Defence Counsel that he had not recorded the second DD entry in relation to registration of the FIR and Inspector Sandeep Ghai was already present at the spot, to whom he had sent the copy of the FIR and the original rukka. He had also deposed about dispatching the copies of the FIR to various officers through Ct. Samay Singh, who at that time was living in the Barrack of the the Police Station. He had further deposed that on 20.03.2010, his Duty hours were from 04:00 pm to 12:00 am (midnight).
47 PW-33 Ct. Samay Singh had deposed that on 21.03.2010, he was posted at PS Lajpat Nagar and on the intervening night of 20/21.03.2010 at about 02:00am, duty officer had handed over three envelopes containing FIR number 89/10 to him for delivering the same to senior officers and the concerned illaka Magistrate. He took the said copy of FIR by service motorcycle no. DL 1SN 2978 and had delivered one copy of the same at the residence of Illaka Magistrate at Gulabi Bagh at about 04:00am. He had also delivered a copy of FIR each to the Joint CP and Addl. CP at their respective residences.
PW-33 Ct. Samay Singh was not cross examined by Ld. Defence Counsels despite opportunity granted to them. 48 PW-34 SI Girish Jain had deposed that on 20.03.2010, he was posted at Police Station Lajpat Nagar. On that day, at about 09:00 pm, Duty State Vs. Manoj Kumar Bhatt & Ors. - SC No. 102 of 2010 46/76 Officer of Police Station Lajpat Nagar had informed him regarding admission of one lady Neelam w/o Manoj Kumar Bhatt aged about 31 years r/o I-59, Lajpat Nagar-II, who was 'brought dead' vide MLC No. 469/2010 at Moolchand Hospital. On this information, he alongwith HC Vinesh and Constable Sudhir had reached at Moolchand Hospital. HC Ombir and Constable Harinder, who were on emergency duty, were also directed to reach at Moolchand Hospital. After sometime, he had inspected the dead body and in the meanwhile, Inspector Sandeep Ghai had also reached at the Hospital. He had inspected the dead body in detail. On the neck of the dead body, ligature mark, nails injury mark were found present, nails marks were also found present below the lips and also right side of the eye and tongue was stuck between upper jaw and the lower jaw. In the hospital, Manoj Kumar had introduced himself as the husband of the deceased to IO/Inspector Sandeep Ghai, who had recorded statement of Manoj Kumar.
After leaving HC Ombir and Constable Harinder in the Hospital, he alongwith Inspector Sandeep Ghai, Manoj Kumar, HC Vinesh and Constable Sudhir reached at I-59, Lajpat Nagar-II, where Manoj Kumar took the keys from the landlady Smt. Adarsh Wadhera. Lock was opened. IO/ Inspector Sandeep Gahi had inspected the spot, in his presence. In the balcony two drops of blood were found. In the drawing room one new pair of chappals, one brown colour carry bag containing receipt of buying chappals were lying on the bed, one Femina magazine, one blanket and one pillow were scattered on the sofa. Then IO inspected the pooja room, where one broken gold earring and red colour purse were found on the table, beneath the table one knife was lying, whose handle was black colour plastic and blade was of steel. The sketch of the knife was Ex.PW34/A, which was also prepared by the IO, which bears his signature State Vs. Manoj Kumar Bhatt & Ors. - SC No. 102 of 2010 47/76 at point-A. On the floor some hair, broken nails, broken hair clips and one handkerchief containing different stains were lying.
Manoj (accused) had pointed out one place, where sofa was lying in the pooja room. He had further disclosed that his deceased wife was found in an unconscious condition on the said sofa. In the pooja room steel almirah was found intact. On the dressing table, one E-71 Nokia Mobile was found. In the pooja room, one pair of sandal, bed sheet and carpet were found scattered on the floor. In the lobby, they found one white colour hair clip. In the bedroom, wooden almirah's clothes were found scattered and one pillow having blood stain was lying on the bed and its cover was torn.
Thereafter, IO Inspector Sandeep Ghai made endorsement on the statement of Manoj Kumar. Rukka was sent to the Police Station through Constable Sudhir for registration of FIR at 11:40 pm. IO had also made a request to send crime team, dog squad, photographer at the place of occurrence. Meanwhile, Dog squad visited the spot. Crime Team headed by SI Jitender Singh reached at the spot and inspected the scene of crime and the photographer Ct. Anand took the photographs. Fingerprint proficient HC Bhagwan Singh lifted six chance prints from the Femina magazine and knife. Meanwhile, Ct. Sudhir came back at the place of occurrence alongwith the copy of FIR and asal tehrir and handed over the same to the IO.
After leaving Manoj (accused) and Ct. Sudhir at the spot to guard the place of occurrence, all of them (i.e. PW-34, IO Inspector Sandeep Ghai, HC Vinesh and Crime team) reached at the Moolchand Hospital. Ct. Anand took the photographs of deceased Neelam in the Hospital. IO Inspector Sandeep Ghai had also recorded the statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C of crime team officials. Then, IO Inspector Sandeep Ghai collected the MLC of the deceased from Dr. Talesh State Vs. Manoj Kumar Bhatt & Ors. - SC No. 102 of 2010 48/76 Bansal. IO Inspector Sandeep Ghai had also prepared seizure memo of those articles (i.e. ligature entangled with hair, some hairs, which were stuck with the neck and the sample seal of the Hospital) which were handed over to him by Dr. Talesh Bansal, who had seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW34/B, bearing his signature at point-A and signature of HC Vinesh. Dr. Talesh had also handed over one N-95 Nokia Mobile phone of silver chocolate colour to IO, who had seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW34/C, bearing his signature at point-A and signature of HC Vinesh.
Thereafter, they had returned back to the place of occurrence, where IO/Inspector Sandeep Ghai prepared site map Ex.PW34/D showing the location of articles seized by the IO. Thereafter, IO/Inspector Sandeep Ghai had picked several items from the spot as the piece of evidence and he had also prepared several pullandas and sealed them with the seal of SG and thereafter seized them vide seizure memo Ex.PW34/E, bearing his signature at point-A. IO/Inspector Sandeep Ghai had also prepared a separate seizure memo Ex.PW34/F, bearing his signatures at point-A vide which red colour purse, license of the deceased and some other documents were seized. Thereafter, all of them again reached at Moolchand Hospital, where IO/Inspector Sandeep Ghai had prepared one request letter in the name of Incharge Mortuary, AIIMS and had handed over the same to Ct. Harinder for getting the dead body preserved in the Mortuary, AIIMS. IO/Inspector Sandeep Ghai had thereafter recorded supplementary statement of Manoj u/s 161 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, all the police officials came back to the Police Station, where IO had deposited all the seized articles with the Mlakhana of Police Station Lajpat Nagar. IO/Inspector Sandeep Ghai had also recorded statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C of this PW as well. He could have identified the case property, if shown to him.
State Vs. Manoj Kumar Bhatt & Ors. - SC No. 102 of 2010 49/76 In his cross examination PW-34 SI Girish Jain had deposed that Inspector Sandeep Ghai had reached at the hospital within 5-6 minutes of his arrival there in the hospital and he had seen the dead body before arrival of Inspector Sandeep Ghai, who had also inspected the dead body in his presence in the hospital itself and Inspector Sandeep Ghai had also recorded the statement of Manoj Bhatt, but he could not recollect the time taken by Inspector Sandeep Ghai in recording the same.
He had further deposed that the parents of the deceased had also reached at the hospital. However, he could not remember as to whether statement of Manoj Bhatt was recorded in the presence of the parents of the deceased or not. However, they had remained present in the hospital for about 30-40 minutes. He had further deposed that from Mool Chand Hospital, they had gone to the scene of crime i.e. I-59, Lajpat Nagar-II, where Mrs. Adarsh Wadhera was found present on the ground floor of the said house from whom the key was taken by Manoj Bhatt and thereafter, the lock of the first floor was opened and then, Inspector Sandeep Ghai had inspected the spot and had taken into possession the articles vide memo (Ex.PW34/A). Statement of Manoj Bhatt which was already recorded by Inspector Sandeep Kumar was sent from the spot to the PS for registration of the case. His (PW-34) statement was recorded at the PS at around 04:00 am/05:00am by Insp. Sandeep Ghai on his laptop and thereafter, his statement was never recorded. One mobile phone was given by the doctor and the other one was seized by Insp. Ghai from the house of Manoj Bhatt.
PW-34 had deposed further that as per his knowledge, no memo was prepared about taking of the key from the landlady and even the statement of landlady was also not recorded U/s 161 Cr.P.C till the morning of 21.03.2010 State Vs. Manoj Kumar Bhatt & Ors. - SC No. 102 of 2010 50/76 in his presence by IO/Insp. Ghai. However, he was not able to recollect and state if any other public person was also present at I-59, Lajpat Nagar-II, apart from the said landlady. They were busy in investigating the case inside the house, so he did not know as to whether any public person was present outside the house or not. During late night hours, when they had come out, there was no public person outside the house. He had further deposed that thereafter, he had not joined the investigation.
49 PW-35 Dr. Susheel Sharma, had deposed that on 22 nd March 2010, the body of Neelam d/o Sh. Rajbir, was brought for postmortem examination through the Executive Magistrate, Defence Colony. Postmortem was conducted by him along with Dr. Manish Goyal Jr. Resident and Dr. D.N.Bharadwaj. He had corroborated the statement of PW-10 Dr. D N Bhardwaj, (another member of the Board) on all material facts regarding conducting postmortem on the dead body of deceased Neelam and the cause of death as well, and had also proved his signature on the PMR Ex. PW10/A. In his cross examination PW-35 Dr. Susheel Sharma had deposed that the Executive Magistrate had given a written request (Ex.PW35/A) for conducting the postmortem alongwith the death report. The subsequent opinion did not bear the date of its issue but he had voluntarily stated that the pullanda of the ligature material was received on 22.03.2010 alongwith the request for subsequent opinion and on the same day, he had given the subsequent opinion and he had also admitted suggestion that the subsequent opinion was given on the date of postmortem itself. He had denied the suggestion that he had not given the subsequent opinion on 22.03.2010.
PW-35 had further deposed that he had not personally maintained the record pertaining the postmortems conducted by him on particular dates and State Vs. Manoj Kumar Bhatt & Ors. - SC No. 102 of 2010 51/76 the opinions given by him thereon and the same were maintained by the office. He was present in the mortuary when the death body was received for postmortem alongwith the inquest paper.
He had admitted it to be correct that generally only one doctor used to conduct the postmortem. However, in the present case, a board was constituted consisting of himself, Dr. D. N. Bharadwaj and Dr .Manish Goyal and had again voluntarily stated that the postmortem was conducted on the request of Executive Magistrate so he had consulted with his Consultant doctor on duty namely Dr. D.N.Bharadwaj and as per his guidance, and also since in case of alleged dowry death cases, they used to constitute the board as per the guidelines, therefore, after the consultation, the board was constituted for conducting the postmortem in this case and as per Ex.PW35/A, there was no specific direction to constitute a board of doctors for conducting the postmortem.
PW-35 had further deposed that bluish colour of nails was usually a sign of asphyxia. He had not preserved the bluish nails by removing them and handed them over to the police. The exact number of lacerations on the neck were also not mentioned in the postmortem report. Haematoma in the neck caused by rupturing of minute blood vessels of the neck tissue due to friction and compression by the movement of ligature material were observed during postmortem of deceased and it was also admitted by him that such a situation arises usually when the rope or the like object was used in a violent manner. Use of violent force/heavy force over the thyroid complex would have broken it, but use of violent force/heavy force used below the thyroid complex could not break it.
PW-35 was specifically questioned as to how did the tear up frenulum was present in the upper lip, when there was strangulation on the neck State Vs. Manoj Kumar Bhatt & Ors. - SC No. 102 of 2010 52/76 of the deceased in this case and the witness had replied that tearing of frenulum was usually found present in case of smothering and in this case there was strangulation associated with smothering as was mentioned in injury no. 1 and 2 in the postmortem report.
To a further specific question as to how the lacerations had appeared and were found present on the upper lip and lower lip, when there was strangulation on the neck of the deceased in this case, the witness had categorically replied that the lacerations were usually present in case of smothering caused by pressure and movement in violent manner over the mouth region by any external object and in this case there was strangulation associated with smothering that was mentioned as injury no. 1 and 2 in the postmortem report due to which the lacerations were present on both the lips.
PW-35 had further deposed that multiple lacerations meant more than one lacerations present over the lips but he could not elaborate the exact numbers of lacerations on both lips, as to whether there were 10 or 20. The smothering could have been caused by putting hands, pillow, piece of cloth and/or any other like object on the mouth region. He was not shown any cloth or pillow or any similar object to show with which the smothering could have been caused and had voluntarily stated that the pieces of ligature material which were shown to him could have been be used as an object to cause smothering also apart from the hands. The rope which was shown to him, was not tied around the neck. Again he had stated that the rope which was shown to him or submitted by the IO was in a sealed pullanda containing the alleged ligature material for subsequent opinion. He could not tell as to whether he had prepared the subsequent opinion Ex. PW10/B in the presence of other two doctors namely Dr. D.N.Bharadwaj and Dr. Manish Goyal, who were also the member of the board State Vs. Manoj Kumar Bhatt & Ors. - SC No. 102 of 2010 53/76 or not. Voluntarily, it was stated by the PW that he had given subsequent opinion individually after perusal of the postmortem report and had submitted the pullanda containing ligature material.
This witness had further deposed that there was no instruction in writing to constitute the board for conducting the postmortem. No written proceedings were required for constitution of a board. The rope (nada) was in multiple pieces. He had not mentioned the exact number of pieces of the nada. He had further admitted that if any other similar rope was shown, it would have also caused similar marks around the neck. He had obtained the signature of Dr. D.N.Bharadwaj and Dr. Manish Goyal on the postmortem report, later on. 50 PW-36 Inspector Ajay Sharma had deposed that on 22.03.2010, he was posted at PS Lajpat Nagar as Inspector Investigation and on that day, he had taken over the investigation of present case from previous IO/Inspector Sandeep Ghai. He had, seized the mobile phone of the complainant Manoj Kumar Bhatt (accused) vide memo Ex.PW36/A. He had also arrested Manoj Kumar Bhatt on 23.03.2010 vide arrest memo already exhibited as Ex.PW30/A and conducted his personal search memo already exhibited as Ex.PW30/B. On 22.03.2010, he had seized three mobile phones produced by accused Manoj Kumar Bhatt which were seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW36/A. He had also recorded the disclosure statement of Manoj Kumar Bhatt Ex.PW36/A-1 and another disclosure statement on 23.03.2010 Ex.PW30/C. It was further stated by him that on 30.03.2010, accused Manoj was got medically examined at AIIMS Hospital and the Doctor had taken scalp hair and blood in gauze of accused Manoj, which were sealed in two sealed pullandas by the Doctor and the same were seized by him in this case vide seizure memo Ex.PW23/A alongwith sample seal.
State Vs. Manoj Kumar Bhatt & Ors. - SC No. 102 of 2010 54/76 He had further deposed that on 06.04.2010, accused Fakhru had also surrendered in Police Station Lajpat Nagar. He was interrogated by him and was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW27/A and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW27/B. He had also recorded his disclosure statement Ex.PW22/C and Ex.PW22/D. Accused Fakhru had led the police party to the place of incident at I-59, First Floor, Lajpat Nagar-I and pointing out memo Ex.PW22/A was also prepared by him in this regard. Accused Fakhru had also pointed out his place of residence with his co-accused persons vide pointing out memo Ex.PW22/B.Accused Fakru was got medically examined on 12.04.2010, at AIIMS Hospital and doctor had taken his scalp hair and blood in gauze, which were sealed by the Doctor in two pullandas (parcels) and PW-26 seized the same vide seizure Ex.PW24/C. On 13.04.2010, accused Fakru had got recovered one key ring with two keys from his house at Village Chokha, Mundeta and alongwith keys, one SIM Card of Vodaphone Company and one old mobile phone made in China were also got recovered from his house and all these articles were seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW21/A. On 14.04.2010, accused Fakhru had taken the police party to the place of incident at Flat No. I-59, Lajpat Nagar-I, where the door locks of the flat were checked with the recovered keys and the locks were opened and closed by the said keys. The locks of the door were removed from the door and photographs were taken. Then the removed locks were sealed in a pullanda (parcel) with the seal of 'AS' and seizure memo Ex.PW21/B in this regard was also prepared.
During investigation, Inps. Ajay Sharma had collected call detail records of the mobile phones, which were used by accused Manoj Kumar Bhatt and also the mobile phones pertaining to accused Fakru as well as the State Vs. Manoj Kumar Bhatt & Ors. - SC No. 102 of 2010 55/76 deceased. The exhibits of this case were sent to FSL and after completing investigation, on 19.06.2010, he had filed charge sheet in Court of Metropolitan Magistrate against accused Manoj and Fakru. On 04.08.2010, he had also filed a supplementary charge sheet as regards accused Zakir and Mobin after they were declared PO by the Learned MM on 08.07.2010, which is Ex.PW36/B. In his cross examination PW-36 Inspector Ajay Sharma had deposed that on the verbal directions of SHO/Isnps. Brijender Singh, he had taken over the investigation from Insp. Sandeep Gai on 22.03.2010 in the evening hours, as Inspector Sandeep Ghai had to proceed on leave in the evening hours on 22.03.2010 and Inspector Sandeep Ghai had made entries in the case diary related to investigation conducted by him. To a specific question as to whether he had found any fault in the investigation conducted by Inspector Ghai, the witness had replied that apparently, he had not found any fault, but he had investigated the case independently.
This witness had further deposed during his cross-examination that since, he was not associated with investigation till the evening of 22.03.2010, therefore, he could not say as to whether accused Manoj Kumar Bhatt had remained present through out in the Police Station during the period between 20.03.2010 to the evening of 22.03.2010. He had however called him to the Police Station in the evening of 22.03.2010 after he had performed the cremation of his wife and had not sent any written notice to him in this regard. He had arrested Manoj Kumar Bhatt in the intervening night of 22/23.03.2010 at 12:30 am (midnight) after analysis of the call detail records, which were provided to him by ACP Lajpat Nagar. No seizure memo regarding providing of CDR by the ACP was prepared by him. He had also not recorded statement of the ACP in that regard.
State Vs. Manoj Kumar Bhatt & Ors. - SC No. 102 of 2010 56/76 PW-36 had further deposed that he had not recorded statement of Nodal Officer and had also not collected any data from the Nodal Officer with regard to the Call details nor he had examined any nodal officer or had recorded their statements u/s 161 Cr.P.C.
PW-36 had admitted the suggestion of Ld. Defence Counsel to be correct that accused Fakru was earlier working as servant of Manoj Kumar Bhatt, when Manoj Kumar Bhatt was residing at D-18-19, Lajpat Nagar-I. The incident had occurred on 20.03.2010 at I-59, First Floor, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi and he had correctly recorded the statement of Smt. Rashmi Madan, w/o Sh. Ashok Madan, r/o D-18-19, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi in this case. He had further deposed that he had verified the record to show that mobile phone numbers 9810649999, 9250073666 were registered in the name of M/s. Niho Constructions, the company, wherein accused Manoj Kumar Bhatt was working. As regards, phones bearing numbers 9871294498 and 9250073668, without referring to the records, he could not tell if phone 9871294498 was registered, in the name of one Sh. Vinit Kumar Sriwastava and phone number 9250073668 was registered in the name of Sh. Sanjeev Ghai. He had further stated that the mobile number 9250073666 was provided by M/s. Niho Construction Company to the accused and the same was being used by the accused since November, 2009. IO/PW36 had further deposed that he had recorded statement of Sh. Deepak Kapil, Director M/s. Niho Construction Company regarding issuance of report and user of mobile numbers including mobile number 9250073666 and that it was being used by accused Manoj Kumar Bhatt, but he had not obtained any receipt from Deepak Kapil regarding handing over of the aforesaid mobile to accused Manoj Kumar Bhatt by him.
State Vs. Manoj Kumar Bhatt & Ors. - SC No. 102 of 2010 57/76 It was further stated by him during his further cross-examination that Ms. Mayanka Jain was called and examined on the basis of the CDR of accused Manoj Kumar Bhatt, wherein the mobile number of Ms. Mayanka Jain was also reflected and during the inquiry, it was revealed from the owner of house i.e. at C-91, East of Kailash namely Sh. Vijay Shandilya and his wife Smt. Neeru Shandilya, wherein the accused had resided alongwith Ms. Maynaka Jain, that both of them had resided there as husband and wife for the period of one and a half years i.e. in the year 2006 to 2007. He had also recorded the statement of Ms. Mayanka Jain about her employment in the Niho Construction Company.
IO/PW36 had also admitted the suggestion of the Ld. Defence Counsel to be correct that SDM had recorded the statement of Smt. Nirmla (Ex.PW36/D-2), mother of deceased. He had further deposed that Smt. Nirmla and the SDM Sh. L. S. Yadav were not cited as witness in this case, being unnecessary.
It was further deposed by the IO that he had not seized the SIM number 9250073666. Three mobile phones belonging to accused Manoj Bhatt were seized on 22.03.2010 and those had also remained in his possession for the purpose of investigation and were deposited in the malkhana after investigation on 30.03.2010, in an unsealed condition and a DD entry was also made to that effect. The IO had further deposed that he had obtained a letter regarding handing over the mobile No. 9871294498, 9250073666 and 9250074668 by M/s.Niho Construction Company to the accused Manoj Kr. Bhatt.
PW-36 had further deposed that during the investigation it was revealed from the CDR of Manoj Kumar Bhatt that he had constantly remained in touch with Mayanka Jain and in order to find out the relation between them, State Vs. Manoj Kumar Bhatt & Ors. - SC No. 102 of 2010 58/76 firstly, he had examined Mayanka Jain and thereafter he had examined Ms. Neeru Shandilya to find out their inter-se status and the capacity in which Manoj Kumar Bhatt and Mayanka Jain were cohabiting together at the time when they had resided in at C-91, East of Kailash, (the premises taken on rent by Manoj Kumar Bhatt, which was owned by Ms. Neeru Shandilya), in order to establish the motive of accused to commit the offence, but he had not prepared any identification memo regarding identification of Mayanka Jain by Ms.Neeru Shandilya. He had only recorded statement U/s 161 Cr.PC of Ms. Neeru Shandilya.
It was further stated by the IO/PW-36 that he could not remember, if he had examined any person from M/s Amar Enterprises, from whom a pair of lady chappal was purchased by the deceased and accused Manoj Kumar Bhatt on 20.3.2010, so as to ascertain at what time the chappals were purchased and had further admitted the suggestion of the Ld. Defence Counsel to be correct that a receipt No. 480, Book No. 05, (Ex.PW36/D-1) pertaining to said Amar Enterprises was already on record, which was stated to have been seized from the spot by the first IO, Inspector Sandeep Ghai. He had neither examined any of the employee of M/s White Orchid, owned by PW-2 Amarjeet Kaur nor PW-2 Amarjeet Kaur, who had performed massage upon the deceased Neelam, on 20.03.2010.
PW-36/IO of the case had deposed in his further cross-examination that he had not taken Mayanka Jain to the house of Rashmi Madan at D/18-19, Lajpat Nagar where Manoj Kumar Bhatt had stayed for 5 years and accused Manoj Kumar Bhatt had not given any details regarding the alleged missing jewellery articles of the deceased. He had recorded the first disclosure statement (Ex.PW 36/A) of accused Manoj Kumar Bhatt on 23.03.2010 and had State Vs. Manoj Kumar Bhatt & Ors. - SC No. 102 of 2010 59/76 also recorded his second disclosure statement as well on 23.03.2010 itself.
It was further stated by him that he had visited the house of accused Fakru only once between 23.3.2010 and 30.3.2010 and admitted it to be correct that in the application dated 23.3.2010 for seeking remand of accused Manoj Kumar Bhatt, there was no mention that recovery of keys was to be effected from accused Fakru. He had further deposed that Mrs. Adarsh Wadhera, owner of H. No. I-59, Lajpat Nagar, where the incident had taken place was not examined by him in this case and he had also not prepared any memo with regard to the taking of the keys of premises No. I-59, Lajpat Nagar from Mrs. Adarsh Wadhera.
It was further stated by PW-36 that no public person had accompanied them when they had apprehended Fakru and recovery was affected from his house, which was not locked, but it was lying open. PW-36 had further deposed that he had neither taken the photographs of the place of recovery, nor had prepared its site map. He had further deposed that he had not recorded the statement of carpenter who had cut the door to remove the locks. It was stated further that he had not prepared the handing over or taking over memo of his seal used by him in this case, nor he had deposited the specimen sample of his seal in the Malkhana.
51 PW-37 Inspector Sandeep Ghai was the first IO of the case and PW-34 SI Girish Jain had remained in the investigation with him. Both of them had deposed that on 20.03.2010, they were posted as Addl. SHO and SI at PS Lajpat Nagar respectively and on that day, a PCR call was received from Moolchand hospital that a lady namely, Neelam w/o Manoj had been admitted, brought dead vide MLC no. 469/10. This PCR call was assigned to SI Girish Jain, who alongwith staff had reached at Moolchand Hospital and after marking State Vs. Manoj Kumar Bhatt & Ors. - SC No. 102 of 2010 60/76 his departure vide DD No. 30-A (Ex.PW37/A), PW-37 himself had also reached at Moolchand Hospital. In the hospital, they found dead body of Neelam w/o Manoj with ligature marks on neck and some nail marks on face. In the hospital, accused Manoj was found present. PW-37 had recorded his statement vide (Ex.PW37/B). Thereafter, PW-37 alongwith accused Manoj, SI Girish Jain, HC Vinesh and Ct. Sudhir reached at the house of deceased i.e. I-59, First Floor, Lajpat Nagar-II, New Delhi and there they had obtained the key of the house from the landlady-Smt. Adarsh Wadhera and opened the flat. Inspection of house was conducted. Two three stains of blood were found in the balcony, a pair of new chappal and cash memo of chappal were found lying on the bed in the drawing room. One pillow and bed sheet was also found on the sofa in the drawing room. Inside the pooja room, one broken golden ear ring was lying on the dining table. One kitchen knife was found beneath the dining table. Some hairs, broken, nails and broken hair clips were also found on the ground of pooja room. Inside the pooja room, Manoj had pointed out towards a sofa and informed that his wife was lying unconscious on that sofa when he came back. Outside the pooja room, one mobile phone make Nokia E-71 belonging to deceased was found on the dressing table. Near to the dressing table, broken white hair clip was found. Inside the room, almirah was found ransacked and one cushion with blood stains and torned cover of that cushion was also recovered.
PW-37 had made an endorsement on the statement of accused Manoj (Ex. PW37/C) and got registered FIR through Ct. Sudhir. Crime team was summoned at the spot. Crime team lifted six chance prints from the spot and took photographs of the spot. Leaving behind Ct. Vinesh and accused Manoj at the spot, PW37 alongwith crime team reached at Moolchand hospital and obtained photographs of dead body. Doctor had handed over two sealed State Vs. Manoj Kumar Bhatt & Ors. - SC No. 102 of 2010 61/76 pullandas sealed with the seal of MKH containing ligature material with hairs and hair (which were found entangled around the neck) alongwith sample seal. PW37 had seized the same vide seizure memo (Ex.PW34/B). Doctor had also handed over one mobile phone Nokia N-95, which was found inside the jeans of deceased and the same was also seized vide seizure memo (Ex.PW34/C).
Thereafter, PW-37 came back at the spot, where he had prepared two maps (Ex.PW-37/D and Ex.PW-34/D) showing the spot from outside and the inner portion of the flat respectively. He had also lifted all the aforesaid exhibits including the blood in the balcony and seized the same vide seizure memo (Ex.PW34/E). He had also prepared sketch of knife (Ex.PW34/A). One red colour purse was also separately seized from the spot vide memo (Ex.PW34/F). Purse was containing the D/L of deceased and her other belongings mentioned in the seizure memo. Thereafter, he (PW37) had locked the flat and handed over the key to the landlady-Smt. Adarsh Wadhera and all of them had come back to the Mool Chand hospital. Dead body was sent to AIIMS Mortuary with request of preservation of dead body vide Ex.PW37/E. Accused Manoj was also allowed to go.
PW-37 had further deposed that on 21.03.2010, a request letter was sent to ACP office for obtaining CDRs of three mobile phones of accused Manoj and two mobile phones of deceased Neelam. He had also examined Robin Sharma, driver of accused Manoj, Smt. Amarjit Kaur- parlour owner, where the deceased had gone before the incident. Sh. L. S. Yadav, Tehsildar- cum-Executive Magistrate was informed, who directed the IO to bring parents of deceased to the mortuary on 22.03.2010 and on 22.03.2010, Sh. L. S. Yadav had recorded statements of parents of deceased and also recorded dead body identification statements and directed him (PW-37) to carry out further State Vs. Manoj Kumar Bhatt & Ors. - SC No. 102 of 2010 62/76 postmortem proceedings. Accordingly, he moved an application (Ex.PW37/F) for conducting postmortem on the dead body. He had also moved an application for examination of ligature material vide (Ex.PW37/G). The inquest report Ex.PW37/H was prepared by the Tehsildar Sh. L. S. Yadav. After postmortem, Autopsy Surgeon had handed over exhibits which were sealed with the seal of Department of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology, AIIMS to Ct. Harinder, who in turn had handed over the same to PW-37 and PW-37 had seized the same vide seizure memo (Ex.PW19/A). He had further deposed that thereafter, further investigation was handed over to Inspector Ajay Sharma.
In his cross examination PW-37 Inspector Sandeep Ghai had deposed that he had remained associated with the investigation of this case as IO, only for four days i.e. from 20.03.2010 to 22.03.2010 and 29.03.2010 and he had not taken the call details till he had handed over the case file of this case to subsequent IO/Inspector Sharma on the night of 22.03.2010, nor he had prepared any seizure memo regarding taking over and handing over the keys of the flat of I-59, Lajpat Nagar-II from Smt. Adarsh Wadhera. He had recorded statement of Robin Sharma, the driver and Amarjit Kaur, the owner of parlour only and he had not examined any employee from the said beauty parlour. It was further stated that mother, father and brother of deceased had not suspected any foul play qua accused Manoj Kumar Bhatt in this case. 52 PW-40 Insp. Satender Sangwan had arrested accused Mobin on 19.06.2012 in this case and PW-39 Ct. Amar Singh and PW-38 SI Megha Ram had remained present in the investigation with him.
PW40 had deposed that on 19.06.2012, he was posted as Inspector Investigation at PS Lajpat Nagar. On that day, he had received an information through SHO PS Lajpat Nagar vide DD No. 21-A (Ex.PW40/A) State Vs. Manoj Kumar Bhatt & Ors. - SC No. 102 of 2010 63/76 regarding surrender of one proclaimed offender accused Mobin in Saket Court in the present case. Thereafter, he alongwith Sub-Inspector Megha Ram, Ct.Amar Singh and Ct. Harender had reached at the Court of Ld. MM, Saket Court and filed an application for permission to interrogate the said accused. After obtaining the due permission, he had interrogated the accused and recorded his disclosure statement vide Ex.PW38/C and he had also formally arrested accused Mobin vide arrest memo Ex.PW38/A and carried out his personal search vide memo Ex.PW38/. He had thereafter, further interrogated accused Mobin and recorded his other disclosure statement Ex.PW39/D. He had also obtained two days police custody remand of the accused Mobin.
He had further stated that during his police custody, accused Mobin had taken him, Ct. Amar Singh and Ct. Harender to 16/1, Jung Pura, New Delhi and pointed out towards a flat, where accused Mobin had stayed alongwith his associate Zakir and one more person, and he had prepared a pointing out memo in this regard which was Ex.PW39/A. Thereafter, accused Mobin took the police team to I-59, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi, where he had pointed out the place of occurrence i.e. First Floor, I-59, Lajpat Nagar-I, New Delhi and pointing out memo Ex.PW39/B was prepared by him. However, during investigation, no recovery was effected of any looted article, cash or mobile phone and no clue was found regarding mobile phone used by him. The accused was got medically examined. The Doctor had taken the scalp hairs and blood sample of the accused Mobin and the same were seized alongwith sample seal vide memo Ex.PW40/A-1. The scalp hair and the blood sample were sent to FSL on 02.07.2012 vide RC No. 49/21/12 through SI Megha Ram.
PW-40 Inspector Satender Sangwan was not cross examined on behalf of accused Manoj Kr. Bhatt & Fakhruddin. However, he had been cross State Vs. Manoj Kumar Bhatt & Ors. - SC No. 102 of 2010 64/76 examined on behalf of accused Mobin, who had subsequently absented and was thus declared a PO, hence, there is no need to discuss the cross examination of PW-40 in detail, but in nut shell, nothing material was extracted by the accused from that cross examination as well.
53 PW-38 SI Megha Ram & PW-39 Amar Singh were the witnesses related to the arrest of the accused Mobin and the subsequent disclosure allegedly made by him, who is already a proclaimed offender in the present case, hence, there is no need to discuss their cross examination. 54 PW-41 MS. Anita Chhari, Sr. Scientific Officer,(Biology), FSL, Rohini, Delhi had deposed that she had brought FSL Report No. 2012/B-4896 Bio. No. 786/2012 dated 15.05.2014 which was prepared by her and she had proved the same Ex. CW1/A. She had further deposed that Serological Report Ex.CW1/B was also prepared by her.
After seeing the FSL Report No. 2010/B-2348 Bio. No. 623/2010 dated 02.05.2011 on the judicial record, she had deposed that it was prepared by her and same was Ex.CW1/C and the Serological Report dated 02.05.2011 was also prepared by her was Ex.CW1/D. On seeing FSL Report No. FSL-2010/C-2208, Chemistry Division dated 19.04.2011, this witness had further deposed that it was prepared by Doctor Adesh Kumar, Sernior Scientific Assistant Chemistry, and had identified the signature of the said doctor on Ex.CW1/E at point-A, stating that she had seen Doctor Adesh Kumar working, signing and writing in the due course of her duty at FSL, Rohini.
PW-41 Ms. Anita Chhari was not cross examined by Ld. Defence Counsel despite opportunity granted to him.
State Vs. Manoj Kumar Bhatt & Ors. - SC No. 102 of 2010 65/76 55 As no other witness remained to be examined, prosecution evidence, therefore was firstly closed vide order dated 20.01.2014 and later on, on 17.05.2014.
56 Thereafter, the statement of the accused persons were recorded under section 313 Cr.PC.
57 Accused Manoj Kumar Bhatt had denied all the incriminating evidence as put to him, in toto and had stated further in his examination under section 313 CrPC that he was innocent, falsely implicated in this case. He was on duty on 20.03.2010 and came back from the place of his duty and picked up his wife from White Orchid Beauty Parlour, dropped her at the door step of the house and went to the market. He returned after about half an hour and went upstairs and saw that his wife was lying unconscious in the flat. He immediately rang up his father-in-law, who had told him that because of 'Navrata Fast' she might have fainted. He also told him that he (accused) should take his wife to Moolchand Hospital and his father-in-law was also reaching there. The jwellery of his wife, which she was wearing was missing and the entire house was ransacked and it appeared that someone had committed the murder of his wife with the view to commit robbery at his house. His father-in-law and mother-in-law were also examined by the SDM on the same day, who had told the SDM that the relations between the accused and his wife were very cordial and they did not suspect any foul play qua the accused.
Accused Manoj had further stated that he was a Sr. Executive in M/s. Niho Construction Ltd. Company and took different houses on rent for the stay of his staff and guests. He had vacated 18-19, Lajpat Nagar and had shifted to I-59, Lajpat Nagar, where the murder had taken place. In the agreement for lease deed, it was mentioned that the houses were taken on lease/rent and there State Vs. Manoj Kumar Bhatt & Ors. - SC No. 102 of 2010 66/76 was no mention that Mayanka Jain was to stay in that house. The landlady had also ascribed that her relations with his deceased wife were very cordial and a similar statement was given by his driver and owner of the beauty parlour Amarjeet Kaur. The police had fabricated a false evidence of Mayanka Jain. She was never taken to the houses mentioned by the Police. The mobile numbers were of M/s. Niho Construction Ltd. Accused Fakruddin was never an employee of the company nor he was given any mobile number of the Company for use. Mobile number said to be 8094089968 was in the name of Prahlad and for the best reasons known to the Police, they had purposely, not examined Prahlad, whose complete address was also on the record. He had not received or made 25 calls to Fakruddin on the said phone number. The number alleged to be fed in the mobile phone book of Manoj had been inserted later on by the police with whom the mobile phones were lying in an unsealed condition and were not deposited on the day of their seizure. The entire case was stated to be false and fabricated to get credit of solving a blind murder case. 58 Accused Fakhruddin had also pleaded his innocence in his statement recorded under section 313 CrPC and had deposed that he was innocent and had been falsely implicated in this case. On coming to know about the present case, he himself had approached the concerned police officials but instead of conducting a fair investigation, he was falsely implicated in the present case. He had also examined DW1 in his defence.
59 Accused Mobin had also pleaded his innocence and claimed to have been falsely implicated in this case by the police to solve a blind murder case and to get credit, and had denied all the incriminating evidence put to him in toto.
State Vs. Manoj Kumar Bhatt & Ors. - SC No. 102 of 2010 67/76 Defence Evidence 60 DW-1 Sh. Khalil Ahmad had been examined by accused Fakru in his defence, who had deposed that he had appeared as a witness at the instance of Fakru. He had further deposed that he was not related to Fakru but both of them belonged to the same village. Police had come to his village and had gone to the house of Fakru due to which many villagers had gathered. Fakru was not found present at that time in the village. His family members were present at that time. He could not tell the exact date, but as far as he could recollect, it was harvesting season in the year 2010 and it might be the first week of April. On inquiry from the police, they were informed that Fakru was wanted in a murder committed on 20.03.2010.
DW1 had further deposed that he had informed the police that on 20.03.2010, a "panchayat" was held in their village in the afternoon regarding demarcation of passage in connection with NREGA and all the affected farmers were called to participate in the "panchayat" and Fakru being a farmer had also attended that "panchayat". The "panchayat" had continued for 2-3 hours. The "panchayat" had continued upto 02:00/02:30 pm. Police had told us that matter would be investigated and Fakru could have joined the investigation. Police had assured villagers that Fakru would be released if he was found innocent. Villagers had sent Fakru to the police station after 2-4 days. Thereafter, Fakru did not return back. Thereafter, police had not visited their village to make further investigation. Police had never accompanied Fakru again to their village . The house of Fakru was occupied by many villagers after Fakru had gone to the police station and was confined there by the police.
DW-1 Sh. Khalil Ahmad was also cross examined by Learned Addl. PP for the State and during his cross examination, he had given the names of State Vs. Manoj Kumar Bhatt & Ors. - SC No. 102 of 2010 68/76 panchs who had held panchayat as Mamrez, Hussain Khan, Haneef, Fajru, Ruzdar and others. However, he could not produce any record of holding of the aforesaid panchayat on 20.03.2010. He had denied the suggestion of Ld. Addl. PP that police had accompanied the accused Fakru at his house in the village on 13.04.2010 or that Fakru had got recovered keys with rings, one old mobile phone and one SIM from his aforesaid house. He had further denied the suggestion that he being the co-villager had deposed a concocted story before the Court in order to save the accused Fakruddin.
61 The prosecution had also examined CW-1 HC Taiyab Hussain, No. 170/SE, PS Lajpat Nagar. He had deposed that on 28th October 2014, he was given the process U/s 82 Cr.P.C, for execution in respect of accused Mobin S/o Sh. Dholla, R/o Gram Saidampur, PS Govindgarh, Tehsil Laxman Garh, District Alwar, Rajasthan. Accordingly, he had gone there. Smt. Miskina w/o accused Mobin met him at the said address, who had informed him that Mobin was not residing there and his whereabouts were not known to her. Thereafter he had tried to trace out the accused but despite best efforts he could not find him. On local inquiry, it was revealed that the accused was not residing at the above said address. He had thereafter affixed the copy of process U/s 82 Cr.P.C. outside the main gate of the house of Mobin at the aforesaid address of the premises for appearance of the accused in the court. He had also announced about the proclamation in the Saidampur Gram Panchayat Headquarter and had also affixed the copy of process U/s 82 Cr.P.C. for appearance of the accused on the notice board of Laxman Garh, Sessions Court. He had proved his report on process itself as exhibited as Ex.PX-1.
He had further stated that on 09th December 2014, he was handed over process u/s 83 Cr.P.C. for execution by the V-B Incharge, after the same State Vs. Manoj Kumar Bhatt & Ors. - SC No. 102 of 2010 69/76 was marked to him by the SHO. He had gone to Gram Saidampur, PS Govindgarh, Tehsil Laxman Garh, District Alwar, Rajasthan, again, where no movable or immovable property of the accused in his name was found, which could have been attached. He had proved his report in this regard as Ex.PX-2. He had also proved the statements of Sh. Shamshu & Sh. Fakru Khan (neighbours) and Smt. Maskina (wife of accused Mobin) recorded by him in this regard, as Ex. PX-3 to Ex.PX-5.
62 I have heard Sh. Inder Kumar, Ld. Addl. PP for the State and the Ld. Defence Counsels Sh. I. L. Kapoor for the accused persons. 63 Sh. Inder Kumar, Learned Addl. PP for the State has argued that this is an open and shut case, where the accused persons not only had a clear motive, but they also had the intention to murder the deceased Neelam as accused Manoj Kumar Bhatt was not happy with her because of her quarrelsum and dominating nature and also because of the fact that she could not give birth to a child and her spendthrift nature had also annoyed the accused Manoj Kumar Bhatt and has inspired him to get rid of her, whereas co-accused Fakruddin wanted to take revenge of his throwing out of the job (house servant of the parties) by the deceased Neelam, hence, both these accused persons had clear motive and intention and they had hatched criminal conspiracy to commit murder of Neelam and the prosecution had successfully proved its case on this aspect beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt.
64 Recoveries effected at the instance of Fakruddin have also been cited as fatal for him and therefore, Learned Addl. PP had submitted that both the accused persons are liable to be held guilty and convicted for the offences u/s 302/120-B IPC committed by them.
State Vs. Manoj Kumar Bhatt & Ors. - SC No. 102 of 2010 70/76 65 Sh. I. L. Kapoor, Learned Counsel appearing for accused persons had vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by Learned Addl. PP for the State and had stated that in the absence of any eye-witness to this incident, the whole case of prosecution was purely and solely based upon circumstantial evidence and the chain of circumstances has not been completely proved by the prosecution, hence, there is not even an iota of evidence to connect the accused with commission of aforesaid offence.
66 It has also been pointed out by Learned Defence Counsel Sh. I. L. Kapoor that the prosecution case solely rested upon the Call Detail Records (CDRs) of the accused persons linking them with the commission of offence in conspiracy with each other. However, as per the deposition of PW-11 & PW-12 namely Sh. M. N. Vijayan and Sh. Tarun Khurana, who were respective Nodal Officers for their respective Telecom Companies. They had categorically stated that they were unable to say, if there was any fault in server during the period of which call data record had been collected and produced by them before the Court.
67 PW-13 Sh. Shishir Malhotra had stated that data was provided to him by some other member of his team and was not examined or collected personally by him. However, the said member of the team had neither been cited as witness nor even examined in the Court to prove the veracity of his claim. 68 Reliance has also been placed on latest pronouncement of Hon'ble Apex Court in case tittled as "Anwar P. V. Vs. P. K. Basheer & Ors. reported in (2014) 10 SCC 473, wherein Hon'ble Apex Court had categorically held that a certificate u/s 65-B of Indian Evidence Act in order to be admissible in evidence has to be procured and produced at the time of obtaining of the electronic record itself, otherwise it shall loose its evidenciary value. State Vs. Manoj Kumar Bhatt & Ors. - SC No. 102 of 2010 71/76 69 In the light of aforesaid ratio of the citation relied upon by Learned Defence Counsel, it has been further pointed out by him that all the Nodal Officers, who had appeared in this case had categorically stated that they had signed the respective certificate(s) u/s 65-B of Indian Evidence Act only on the day of their deposition in the Court and hence, the entire evidence adduced on record in the from of deposition of witnesses as well as documents exhibited in support thereof proving the CDR became inadmissible in evidence and therefore, the same were liable to be discarded in their totality and once there is no other corroborative peace of evidence to connect the accused with commission of offence, they are entitled to all benefits of doubt arising out of the prosecution story. Even if for the sake of arguments, the ratio of the said judgment is not taken in to consideration, then also, from the testimonies of Nodal Officers, no inferences could have been drawn because they were not the competent witnesses to prove such certificates under section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act as the relevant data and record so produced by them before the Court alongwith such certificates had never remained within their control or possession. Hence, same could not be even proved on record by way secondary evidence as well.
70 It has also been submitted by Learned Defence Counsel that mobile phone number 8094089968 allegedly used by accused Fakruddin was found registered in the name of one Prahlad and not in the name of Fakruddin. However, despite having all his particulars available with Investigation Agency, the said Prahlad was never examined or cited as a witness in this case. 71 It has been further pointed out and submitted by Learned Defence Counsel that as per the version of IO/Inspector Ajay Sharma, he had found the number of Fakruddin fed in mobile number 9250073666, which was allegedly State Vs. Manoj Kumar Bhatt & Ors. - SC No. 102 of 2010 72/76 being used by accused Manoj Kumar Bhatt. However, the perusal of the judicial record reveals that this mobile phone was not even recovered in this case. Hence, the version of IO gets falsified by Judicial Record. 72 Further it has been submitted and pointed out by Learned Defence Counsel that as per the version of fist IO/Inspector Sandeep Ghai, no CDRs were procured by him till he was investigating the present case till 23.03.2010 and all the mobile phones, which were recovered, were never sealed by IO/Inspector Ajay Sharma and aforesaid mobile phones had remained with him in unsealed condition till 30.03.2010, when the same were deposited in the Malkhana in an unsealed condition. Hence, possibility of tampering with the data and record of said mobile phones for the purpose of false implication of the accused persons could not be ruled out.
73 Non-citing or examining of Smt. Adarsh Wadhera, the owner of the house, where murder had taken place had also been cited as a serious lapse on the part of the Prosecuting Agency creating shadow of doubts and suspicion in the story set-forth by it before the Court.
74 Non-joinder of any public witness or even local police officials of Mewat, Haryana, who had allegedly accompanied the police team headed by the IO of the case, to the house of accused Fakruddin to effect the alleged recovery, had also been cited to be fatal to the prosecution story. It is also interesting to observe here that PW-27 Ct. Lokender himself had destroyed the prosecution's case by saying that accused Fakhru had got the keys recovered from the spot itself.
75 Even the two months gap in deposition of exhibits at Malkhana and there despatch to FSL for examination has also been cited as fatal for the prosecution case because the exhibits were stated to be deposited in the State Vs. Manoj Kumar Bhatt & Ors. - SC No. 102 of 2010 73/76 Malkhana on 23.03.2010, but the same were sent to FSL only on 25.5.2010. Hence, the possibility of tampering could not be ruled out in those samples as well.
76 It has also been observed that father as well as mother of the deceased, namely Sh. Rajbir Singh and Smt. Nirmala in their respective statements made before the SDM had not alleged any marital discord or torture of deceased at the hands of accused Manoj Bhatt and as per version of PW2 Amarjeet Kaur, PW14 Rashmi Madan and PW16 Robin Sharma, the deceased was having good relations with the accused soon before her death and there was no allegation of any kind of discord in marital ties between the parties, as disclosed by deceased to any of the PWs who were closed to her. 77 It has also been submitted by Learned Defence Counsel that although the blood and hair samples of the accused persons were taken at AIIMS and were also sent to FSL for matching the same with those recovered from the dead body of the deceased as well as the blood stains found on the floor of the house. However, none of those samples had matched either with the hair or blood samples found present at the spot.
78 So far as the probative value of the evidence appearing on record is concerned, the reliance has been placed on the following citations by the Ld. Defence Counsel:-
MOTIVE:
1 "Gunjit Singh v. State" 1996(2) CC cases 115 (DHC); 2 "Rai Singh v. State of Delhi" 1996(3) CC Cases 141 HC (DB), wherein it has been held that suspicion howsoever grave cannot be clothed with the garments of proof;
3 "Dorjan Singh v. State" 2014(1) JCC 628 (Delhi), wherein it has been held that single circumstance of motive will not be sufficient to find the conviction against the accused;
State Vs. Manoj Kumar Bhatt & Ors. - SC No. 102 of 2010 74/76 4 "Sampat Kumar v. Insp. of Police" 2012(2) JCC 1185 SC, wherein it has been held that motive cannot take place of the conclusive proof that the person concerned was the author of crime;
5 "Mahadev Prasad Pant v. State of Delhi" 2007 (2) JCC 1617 (Delhi), where recoveries were effected 5-6 days after the arrest of accused, doubt about such recoveries has been effected; 6 "Daulat Ram v. State" 1997(2) CCC 25 (SC), wherein it has been held that burden to prove the case rests upon the prosecution. The prosecution has to stand on its own leg and can derive no advantage from the weakness of the defence;
7 "Kanhaiya Lal v. State of Rajasthyan" 2014 (2) JCC 1235; and 8 "Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer & Ors," (2014) 10 SCC 473.
79 In view of the aforesaid pleas taken by the defence and the submissions highlighting the lacunae appearing in the prosecution story creating a shadow of doubt and suspicion as to its genuineness, authenticity and correctness, I have no hesitation in holding that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove complete chain of circumstances in the present case to link either of the accused persons with the commission of the offence alleged to have been committed by them.
80 Due to the reasons already discussed above in the form of submissions of Ld. Defence Counsels, I have no hesitation in holding that all the benefits of doubts arising out of the prosecution story are essentially to be given to the accused persons, hence, the prosecution story does not stand proved against any of the accused persons beyond the shadow of any reasonable doubt. Therefore, the accused persons are acquitted in this case. 81 Since no incriminating evidence had appeared on record against accused Mobin and Zakir as well, who are Proclaimed Offender, hence their PO proceedings are recalled and they are also acquitted of the allegations. SHO State Vs. Manoj Kumar Bhatt & Ors. - SC No. 102 of 2010 75/76 concerned be notified about this fact accordingly.
82 Since Manoj Kumar Bhatt is in custody, the Superintendent Jail is directed to release him forthwith from custody in this case, if he is not required in any other case.
83 Manoj Kuamr Bhatt and Fakruddin are directed to furnish their personal bonds and surety bonds in the sum of Rs.20,000/- each under section 437-A Cr.PC within a week, from today.
84 The case property, if any, be destroyed after expiry of the period of appeal, if any.
85 File be consigned to record room after completion of all other necessary formalities.
announced in the
open Court
on 29th April 2015 (Lokesh Kumar Sharma)
Additional Sessions Judge-04 & Special Judge
(NDPS) South East, Saket Court/New Delhi
State Vs. Manoj Kumar Bhatt & Ors. - SC No. 102 of 2010 76/76