Delhi District Court
State vs Vijay Singh Ect on 30 November, 2024
IN THE COURT OF ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE-03, (CENTRAL): TIS
HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
PRESIDED BY: SH. SANJAY SHARMA-II, DHJS
SC No. : 27416/2016
FIR No. : 647/2014
Under Section : 302/120B/201 IPC
PS : Sarai Rohilla
CNR No. : DLCT01-000397-2014
State Versus (1) Vijay Singh
S/o Sh. Mata Parsad Singh
R/o Village Karura, Post Tilora
Tehsil Machhi Shahr
District Jaunpur, U.P.
(2) Neetu Singh
W/o Late Raghuvender Singh
R/o Vill. Siloni, Post Tandowali
District Faizabad, U.P.
Date of Institution : 03.11.2014
Date of Arguments : 24.08.2024
Date of Judgment : 30.11.2024
JUDGMENT
INTRODUCTION:
1. The case of the prosecution is that on or before 08.06.2014, the accused Vijay Singh and Neetu Singh entered into a criminal conspiracy, within jurisdiction of PS Sarai Rohilla, to commit murder of Mr. Raghuvender Singh (Hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased'). Thus, the State prosecuted the accused persons for committing offence punishable under Section 120B of 'The Indian Penal Code, 1860' (In short 'IPC').
FIR No. 647/2014 State vs. Vijay Singh & Anr. Page No. 1 of 44
2. It is further case of the prosecution that pursuant to criminal conspiracy entered into between the accused persons to commit murder of the deceased, the accused Vijay Singh had taken the deceased from his house at about 08.00 p.m. on 08.06.2014 and made him to consume liquor and committed murder of the deceased, while he was in intoxicated state, by causing injury to his head with a liquor bottle and then stabbing the said broken bottle in his stomach at about 10.00 p.m. - 11.00 p.m. in the intervening night of 08.06.2014 - 09.06.2014 in the area of Zakhira Railway Line, Near Old Rohtak Road, Delhi, within jurisdiction of PS Sarai Rohilla. Thus, the State prosecuted the accused persons for committing offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 120B IPC.
3. It is further case of the prosecution that the accused persons washed blood stained clothes in order to cause evidence of offence to disappear with the intention to screen themselves from the said offence. Thus, the State prosecuted the accused persons for committing offence punishable under Section 201 IPC.
RECEIPT OF INFORMATION REGARDING DEAD BODY:
4. On 09.06.2014 at 09.25 a.m., PW-7 Ct. Tejpal Kajla, DD Writer, PP Inderlok, PS Sarai Rohilla received a message from an unknown person that 'a dead body of an unknown person was lying near Zakhira Railway Crossing '. He reduced the said information into writing, vide DD No. 13PP Ex.PW7/A and handed over a copy thereof to PW-21 SI Nitin Pal Singh for appropriate action.
FIR No. 647/2014 State vs. Vijay Singh & Anr. Page No. 2 of 44 INQUEST PROCEEDINGS:
5. PW-21 SI Nitin Pal Singh alongwith PW-17 Ct. Bhoop Singh Dabar reached at Zakhira Railway Crossing, Sarai Rohilla where he found an unidentified dead body of a person aged about 45 years, in the bushes near Railway Track, having injuries on head and stomach. PW-24 Insp. Anil Dureja, SHO, PS Sarai Rohilla also reached there. He made effort to trace an eye witness. However, he could not find any eye witness. The dead body could not be identified.
INSPECTION OF PLACE OF RECOVERY OF DEAD BODY:
6. PW-22 SI Nagendra Giri, In-Charge, Mobile Crime Team, North District, Delhi inspected the scene of crime (SOC). He prepared SOC report Ex.PW22/A.
7. PW-15 Ct. Irshad Ahmad, Photographer, Mobile Crime Team, North District, Delhi taken 23 photographs of the scene of crime (SOC) Ex.PW15/A-1 to Ex.PW15/A-23 and negatives thereof are Ex.PW15/B-1 to Ex.PW1/B-23. SPOT SEIZURES:
8. PW-21 SI Nitin Pal Singh seized earth control, blood of the deceased, blood stained earth, blood stained stone and blood stained stem from the place of incident and kept them in transparent polythene and sealed them with his seal having impression 'NPS' and marked them as S1 - S5 respectively, vide seizure memo Ex.PW21/A. PRESERVATION OF DEAD BODY IN MORTUARY:
9. PW-21 SI Nitin Pal Singh sent PW-17 Ct. Bhoop Singh Dabar to Subzi Mandi Mortuary alongwith dead body for preservation for 72 hrs. He made efforts for identification of the dead body. However, the dead body could not be identified.
FIR No. 647/2014 State vs. Vijay Singh & Anr. Page No. 3 of 44 EFFORTS MADE FOR IDENTIFICATION OF DEAD BODY:
10. PW-21 SI Nitin Pal Singh uploaded the description of the deceased on ZIP Net and WT Message Form for identification of the deceased.
POST-MORTEM:
11. On 17.06.2014 at 12.10 p.m., PW-6 Dr. S. Lal, Specialist, Forensic Medicine, Aruna Asaf Ali Government Hospital, Rajpur Road, Delhi-110054 conducted post-mortem upon the dead body of the deceased in Mortuary, Subzi Mandi, Delhi. He observed 8 external ante-mortem injuries, as under:
"1. Lacerated wound 2.5 x 0.5 cm x bone deep over left parietal area placed 4.5 cm above the Pinna (ear).
2. Incised wound 1.0 x 0.2 cm x skin deep over left side forehead placed 2.5 cm above the eyebrow and 3 cm from midline of forehead.
3. Incised wound 1.2 x 0.2 cm x skin deep on center of forehead placed 8 cm above apex of nose. In the wound, broken glass piece was recovered.
4. Incised wound 2.0 x 0.2 cm x skin deep on right side forehead placed 3.5 cm above the eyebrow and 3.5 cm from midline.
5. Incised wound 1.0 x 0.2 cm x skin deep over left side forehead placed 2 cm from eyebrow and 7 cm from midline.
6. Incised wound 1.0 x 0.2 cm x skin deep over bridge of nose associated with fracture of major bone.
7. Stabbed incised wound 1.7 x 0.3 cm into abdominal cavity deep over left middle front of abdomen, obliquely placed. The wound is placed 10 cm from midline and 5 cm below the rib cage. The wound is 9 cm deep up to abdominal muscles.
8. Incised wound 5 in numbers vertically placed with gap of 0.5 cm to each other wound. The size of the wound starting from upward to downward i.e. 1.4 x 0.6 cm, 1.8 x 0.4 cm, 1.8 x 0.4 cm, 1.0 x 0.3 cm and 0.6 x 0.4 cm over right lower front of abdomen in area of 8 x 2 cm placed just right to midline and 3.5 cm below the umbilicus.
All wounds were subcutaneous deep."
FIR No. 647/2014 State vs. Vijay Singh & Anr. Page No. 4 of 44
12. On internal examination of the dead body, PW-6 Dr. S. Lal observed, as under:
"Head- Sub scalpal extravasation of blood seen on left parieto - occipital area and right occipital area. Linear fracture seen on left side occipital bone. Underline meninges was intact, brain shows sub- arachnoid hemorrhage with contusion seen on parieto occipital lobe. The brain soft and flappy. All the viscera were soft and flappy and dark discoloration. The stomach contained 100 ml semi digested material and the wall shows sign of decomposition.
OPINION:
CAUSE OF DEATH: The cause of death was cranio- cerebral damage consequent upon blunt force impact and sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. Injury No. 1 was produced by blunt force / object impact. Injury No. 2 to 8 were caused by broken glass. All the injuries were ante-mortem in nature and fresh in duration.
TIME SINCE DEATH: Time since death was around 1½ weeks (body preserved in the cold storage by IO)."
13. PW-6 Dr. S. Lal, Autopsy Surgeon handed over clothes, viscera of the deceased, blood on gauze piece, tooth for DNA and broken glass piece recovered from Injury No. 3 in a sealed parcel having impression 'CMO Incharage AAAGH' alongwith sample seal to PW-21 SI Nitin Pal Singh, vide seizure memo Ex.PW20/A. DEPOSIT OF CASE PROPERTY IN POLICE MALKHANA:
14. PW-21 SI Nitin Pal Singh deposited the spot seizures and the seizures received from Autopsy Surgeon alongwith sample seals with PW-23 HC Veer Sain, MHC (M), PS Sarai Rohilla, vide entry at Sl. No. 3271 and 3307 in Reg. No. 19 Ex.PW23/A and Ex.PW23/B respectively.
FIR No. 647/2014 State vs. Vijay Singh & Anr. Page No. 5 of 44 RECEIPT OF POST-MORTEM REPORT:
15. On 20.06.2014, PW-11 SI Karamvir Singh handed over the post-mortem report Ex.PW6/A and inquest papers Ex.PW21/B to PW-21 SI Nitin Pal Singh.
16. PW-21 SI Nitin Pal Singh briefed to ACP and SHO, PS Sarai Rohilla. Area ACP assigned further inquest to PW-24 Insp. Anil Dureja.
ENDORSEMENT FOR REGISTRATION OF FIR:
17. On the basis of post-mortem report Ex.PW6/A and inspection of scene of crime (SOC), PW-24 Insp. Anil Dureja formed an opinion regarding commission of an offence under Section 302 IPC.
18. On 27.06.2014 at 06.40 p.m., PW-24 Insp. Anil Dureja made endorsement Ex.PW24/A for registration of FIR under Section 302 IPC.
REGISTRATION OF FIR:
19. On 27.06.2014 at 06.45 p.m., PW-16 HC Hari Chander, Duty Officer, PS Sarai Rohilla registered FIR No. 647/2014 under Section 302 IPC Ex.PW16/A. He sent copies of FIR to Area Magistrate and Senior Officers of Police, through PW-9 Ct. Neeraj Kumar, Special Messenger. He handed over a copy of FIR and original tehrir to PW-24 Insp. Anil Dureja for investigation of the case.
INVESTIGATION:
20. During investigation, PW-24 Insp. Anil Dureja inspected the scene of crime (SOC) and prepared unscaled site plan of the scene of crime (SOC) Ex.PW24/B. He recorded statements of the witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C.
FIR No. 647/2014 State vs. Vijay Singh & Anr. Page No. 6 of 44 MISSING REPORT:
21. On 29.06.2014 at 11.30 a.m., PW-14 HC Rajender, Duty Officer, PS Anand Parbat recorded missing report qua the deceased on the statement of the accused Neetu Singh, vide DD No. 26B Ex.PW14/A, as under:
Neetu W/o Sh. RaghvendraReceipt of missing Singh R/o W-72/159, Talainformation regarding Wali Basti, Anand Parbat,a male Delhi Ph.- xxxxxxx655 Ph.- xxxxxxx852 Recorded at 11.30 a.m. that the complainant made the statement in the room of the Duty Officer that her husband Raghvendra Singh @ Kallu S/o Sh. Shyam Nath Singh Old Address: Village Sinauli, Post Tindauli, District Faizabad (U.P.), Age 47 years, Present Address: W-72/159, Tala Wali Basti, Anand Parbat, Delhi, who has left the house at 08.00 p.m. on 08.06.2014 while stating that he was going to purchase a mobile phone and he has not returned to house. On the same day, I informed my brother-in-
law, namely, Brij Bhushan about his disappearance and I went to village of my in-laws i.e. village Sinauli, District Faizabad. We have searched him at our level. However, we have not found him. I do not have doubt on anyone. Missing report of my husband be registered and he be searched. His description is that height 5'6", brown complexion, long face and three fingers of his right hand are cut. He is wearing blue jeans, cream colour striped shirt and black slippers. He has no hairs on his front head. You have recorded my statement. I have heard it. It is correct. From the statement, it is a case of missing person. The missing report is recorded in roznamcha. Information of missing is forwarded to 100. The call was received by Lady Ct. Sulochna, 8282/PCR on Channel No. 122. On the instruction of SHO, a copy of report is handed over to HC Rahul, No. 1737/C for appropriate action. A copy of report is provided to the complainant."
FIR No. 647/2014 State vs. Vijay Singh & Anr. Page No. 7 of 44 IDENTIFICATION OF THE DECEASED:
22. On 04.07.2014, PW-1 Brij Bhushan Singh reached PS Sarai Rohilla and informed that his brother, namely, Raghvender Singh is missing since 08.06.2014 and in that regard, they lodged missing report with PS Anand Parbat on 29.06.2014, vide DD No. 26B. He stated that he came to know from NCRB, R.K. Puram, Delhi that dead body of his brother, namely, Raghvender Singh was found within jurisdiction of PS Sarai Rohilla on 09.06.2014, vide DD No. 13PP. He was shown photographs of the deceased and he identified the deceased as his brother, namely, Raghvender Singh. In that regard, his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded. RECORDING OF STATEMENT OF PW-4 MASTER AYUSH:
23. On 14.07.2014, PW-1 Brij Bhushan Singh brought PW-4 Master Ayush to PS Sarai Rohilla.
24. PW-24 Insp. Anil Dureja recorded statement of PW-4 Master Ayush, under Section 161 Cr.P.C., as under:
"Statement of Master Ayush S/o Late Raghvender Singh R/o Village Sinauli, Post Tindauli, District Faizabad, U.P., Age 14 years.
Stated that I am residing at the aforesaid address. I alongwith my parents and three brothers and sisters was residing in a rented house in Gali No. 10, Tali Wali Basti, Anand Parbat. My father, namely, Raghvender Singh was working in a factory in Anand Parbat. He used to come to home in drunken condition and quarrel with my mother. My mother Neetu also used to bring plastic goods from nearby factory to our home and wash them. The factory from where my mother used to bring the goods was belonging to a person, namely, Vijay who used to reside there. Vijay used to visit our home and usually, he used to visit after my father left the home for work and thereafter, my mother used to close the room and send us to play outside. On the issue of visits of Vijay, my parents had quarreled several times.
FIR No. 647/2014 State vs. Vijay Singh & Anr. Page No. 8 of 44 My mother also used to cook food for him and wash his clothes. Sometimes, Vijay used to have meal in our home and sometimes, my mother used to send meal for him to his factory. On 08.06.2014 at about 08.00 p.m., Vijay came to our house and taken my father with him. At about 10.00 - 11.00 p.m., a call of Vijay came on phone of my mother which I was hearing silently. My mother was stating to Vijay on phone that he should ensure carefully that he should not be alive and he should also check his nose. After sometime, Vijay came to our home and there was blood on his T-shirt. My mother and Vijay washed T- shirt and pant and after taking meal, he slept in our house. In the morning, Vijay went to his house. I was very scared and therefore, I did not ask anything from my mother. Later on, my mother called my uncle, namely, Brij Bhushan on his phone and she alongwith we, all four brothers and sisters, went to my uncle in his village. After 1 or 2 days, my mother left village for the house of my maternal grandmother. However, she had taken us to Jaunpur where Vijay met and we all stayed in several dharamshalas in Jaunpur and Varanasi for several days. Thereafter, Vijay boarded us in a train for Ahmedabad and we reached at the house of our maternal grandmother in Ahmedabad. Where we met my paternal uncle Brij Bhushan and maternal uncle Sonu. In the evening on the same day, my mother brought me and my brother Kunal to Delhi. Thereafter, my mother alongwith Kunal went with my paternal uncle. I could not state anything to anyone due to fear. I stated the entire incident to my paternal uncle in the village and he brought me to you. I have stated the entire incident to you. You have recorded my statement. I have heard it. It is correct."
RECORDING OF STATEMENT OF PW-1 BRIJ BHUSHAN:
25. PW-24 Insp. Anil Dureja recorded statement of PW-1 Brij Bhushan Singh under Section 161 Cr.P.C. on 14.07.2014, which will be translated at the relevant stage. APPREHENSION / ARREST OF THE ACCUSED PERSONS:
26. PW-24 Insp. Anil Dureja searched the accused persons at several places. However, the accused persons could not be traced.
FIR No. 647/2014 State vs. Vijay Singh & Anr. Page No. 9 of 44
27. On 18.07.2014 at about 03.30 p.m., on receipt of secret information, PW-24 Insp. Anil Dureja alongwith PW-11 SI Karamvir Singh and PW-12 Ct. Sant Ram arrested the accused Vijay Singh from Gali No. 10, Tali Basti, Anand Parbat, Delhi, vide arrest memo Ex.PW11/A and personal search memo Ex.PW11/B. He interrogated him and recorded his disclosure statement Ex.PW11/C. He prepared pointing out memo of the place of incident Ex.PW11/D at his instance.
28. On 18.07.2014 at about 05.00 p.m., PW-24 Insp.
Anil Dureja with the assistance of PW-5 Lady Ct. Indu arrested the accused Neetu Singh from Gali No. 10, Tali Basti, Anand Parbat, Delhi, vide arrest memo Ex.PW5/B and personal search memo Ex.PW24/C. He interrogated her and recorded her disclosure statement Ex.PW5/A. He recovered two mobile phones from the accused Neetu Singh i.e. one mobile phone make Samsung, colour Black containing Idea mobile No. xxxxxxx480 Ex.P1 and another mobile phone make Monix without SIM Ex.P2, vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/B. RECORDING OF STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 164 CR.P.C.:
29. On 26.09.2014, PW-18 Insp. Devendra Rathi, PS Sarai Rohilla filed an application before the Jurisdictional Magistrate for recording of statement of Master Ayush under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Ex.PW19/A. The Jurisdictional Magistrate assigned the said application to Link Magistrate for recording of statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. PW-19 Ms. Ambika Singh, Ld. MM, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi recorded statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. of Master Ayush Ex.PW19/B and appended certificate of authentication Ex.PW19/C. FIR No. 647/2014 State vs. Vijay Singh & Anr. Page No. 10 of 44 STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 164 CR.P.C.:
30. Statement of Master Aayush under Section 164 Cr.P.C. is, as under:
"Without oath It was night of 08.06.2014. One boy, namely, Vijay used to visit our home. He used to have meal with us. My mother used to wash his clothes. We used to take food to his factory. He used to come to our house several times. My mother and the said person used to go to a room. They used to close the said room and they used to send us outside. One day i.e. in the night of 08.06.2014, Vijay came and my father was also present. Earlier, whenever Vijay used to come, my father used to be not in the house. On that day, he had taken my father with him. After a long time, neither he nor my father returned. Phone of Vijay came on phone of my mother. However, we could not hear voice of Vijay. But we were hearing our mother. My mother was saying 'kill him properly, press the neck and check his nose' and my father should not remain alive. Dead body of my father was found. In the late night of the said day i.e. 08.06.2014, Vijay came to our house. He had taken meal with my mother. There was blood on his shirt. Both of them washed it and thereafter, they had taken meal. On that day, Vijay slept in our house. In the morning, he was not there."
FSL REPORTS:
31. FSL (Biology) report is, as under:
DESCRIPTION OF ARTICLES CONTAINED IN PARCEL Parcel '1' One sealed plastic container sealed with the seal of 'NPS' containing exhibit '1' Exhibit '1' Gauze cloth piece having fungal growth Parcel '2' One sealed plastic container sealed with the seal of 'NPS' containing exhibit '2' Exhibit '2' Earth material described as 'Blood stained earth' Parcel '3' One sealed plastic container sealed with the seal of 'NPS' containing exhibit '3' Exhibit '3' One dirty stone having brown stains described as 'Blood stained stone' Parcel '4' One sealed plastic container sealed with the seal of 'NPS' containing exhibit '4' Exhibit '4' One wooden stick described as 'Blood stained branch' FIR No. 647/2014 State vs. Vijay Singh & Anr. Page No. 11 of 44 Parcel '5' One sealed glass bottle sealed with the seal of 'CMO I/C AAAGH SUBZI MANDI MORTUARY DELHI' containing exhibit '5' Exhibit '5' Very small glass pieces described as 'Blood stained glass' Parcel '6' One sealed paper envelope sealed with the seal of 'CMO I/C AAAGH SUBZI MANDI MORTUARY DELHI' containing exhibit '6' Exhibit '6' Yellow gauze cloth piece RESULTS OF ANALYSIS
1. Blood was detected on exhibits '1', '2', '3', '4', '5' & '6'
32. FSL (Serology) Report is, as under:
Exhibits Species of Origin ABO Grouping / Remarks '1' Gauze cloth piece Human No Reaction '2' Earth material Human No Reaction '3' Stone Human No Reaction '4' Wooden stick Human 'A' Group '5' Glass pieces Human No Reaction '6' Gauze cloth piece Human No Reaction
33. FSL (Chemical) Report of viscera Ex.PW24/D is, as under:
No. of Parcels / No. of Seals & seal Description of Parcels / Exhibits Impression Exhibits Parcel-1 One sealed wooden box labelled as PMR No. 1028/14, dated-17.06.14 viscera of 'Unknown'. It was found to contain exhibits '1A', '1B' & '1C' Exhibit - '1A' Stomach, pieces of small intestine with contents, kept in sealed jar Exhibit - '1B' Pieces of liver, spleen and kidney, kept in a sealed jar Exhibit - '1C' Blood sample, volume approx. 4.0 ml, kept in a sealed bottle RESULTS OF EXAMINATION REPORT On Chemical, Microscopic, TLC & GC-HS examination: (i) Exhibits 1A, 1B & 1C were found to contain Ethyl Alcohol.
(ii) Exhibit 1C was found to contain Ethyl Alcohol 349.70mg/100ml of blood FIR No. 647/2014 State vs. Vijay Singh & Anr. Page No. 12 of 44 CHARGE-SHEET:
34. On completion of investigation, PW-24 Insp. Anil Dureja charge-sheeted the accused persons under Section 302/120B/201 IPC.
COMMITTAL PROCEEDINGS:
35. Vide order dated 28.10.2014, Jurisdictional Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Session. CHARGE:
36. Vide orders dated 17.11.2014 and 06.05.2024, the accused persons were charged for committing offences punishable under Section 120B IPC, 302 read with Section 120B IPC and 201 IPC to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE:
37. The prosecution examined 24 witnesses, as under:
The witnesses Description of the witnesses PW-1 Brij Bhushan Singh Brother of the deceased PW-2 Smt. Guddo Devi Landlady of the deceased and the accused Neetu Singh PW-3 Varjinder Singh Landlord of the accused Vijay Singh PW-4 Master Aayush Son of the deceased and the accused Neetu Singh PW-5 Ct. Indu Arrest witness qua the accused Neetu Singh PW-6 Dr. S. Lal Conducted post-mortem PW-7 Ct. Tejpal Kajla Recorded DD No. 13PP at PP Inderlok PW-8 Ct. Arvind Parcel Depositor PW-9 Ct. Neeraj Kumar Special Messenger PW-10 Insp Mahesh Kumar Draftsman, Crime Branch, PHQ PW-11 SI Karamvir Singh Arrest witness PW-12 Ct. Sant Ram Arrest witness PW-13 HC Beant Kumar Duty Officer, PS Anand Parbat PW-14 HC Rajender Duty Officer, PS Anand Parbat PW-15 Ct. Irshad Ahmad Photographer, Mobile Crime Team, North FIR No. 647/2014 State vs. Vijay Singh & Anr. Page No. 13 of 44 PW-16 HC Hari Chander Duty Officer, PS Sarai Rohilla PW-17 Ct. Bhoop Singh Taken dead body to Mortuary PW-18 Insp. Davendra Rathi Taken Master Aayush for recording of statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C.
PW-19 Ms. Ambika Singh Recorded statement of Master Aayush under Section 164 Cr.P.C.
PW-20 Ct. Balkar Singh Collected seizures from Autopsy Surgeon PW-21 SI Nitin Pal Singh Inquest Officer PW-22 SI Nagender Giri In-Charge, Mobile Crime Team, North Distt. PW-23 HC Veer Sain MHC (M), PS Sarai Rohilla PW-24 Insp. Anil Dureja Investigating officer LIST OF PROSECUTION DOCUMENTS:
38. The prosecution relied on the documents, as under:
Exhibit Description of the documents Ex.PW1/A Photograph of the deceased Ex.PW5/A Disclosure statement of the accused Neetu Singh Ex.PW5/B Arrest memo of the accused Neetu Singh Ex.PW6/A Post-mortem Report Ex.PW7/A DD No. 13PP, PP Inder Lok, PS Sarai Rohilla
Ex.PW10/A Scaled site plan of the place of incident Ex.PW11/A Arrest memo of the accused Vijay Singh Ex.PW11/B Personal search memo of the accused Vijay Singh Ex.PW11/C Disclosure statement of the accused Vijay Singh Ex.PW11/D Pointing out memo of the place of incident Ex.PW13/A DD No. 34A dated 19.07.2014, PS Anand Parbat Ex.PW14/A Missing report, vide DD No. 26B dated 29.06.2014, PS Anand Parbat Ex.PW15/A1 Photographs of the place of incident to Ex.PW15/A23 Ex.PW15/B1 Negatives of the photographs of the place of incident to Ex.PW15/B23 Ex.PW16/A FIR No. 647/2014 dated 27.06.2014, PS Sarai Rohilla Ex.PW19/A Application for recording of statement of Master Aayush under Section 164 Cr.P.C.
Ex.PW19/B Statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. of Master Aayush FIR No. 647/2014 State vs. Vijay Singh & Anr. Page No. 14 of 44 Ex.PW20/A Seizure memo of seizures received from Autopsy Surgeon Ex.PW21/A Spot seizures Ex.PW21/B Inquest Papers Ex.PW22/A Scene of Crime (SOC) Report Ex.PW23/A Copy of entry at Sl. No. 3271 dated 09.06.2014 in Reg. 19 Ex.PW23/B Copy of entry at Sl. No. 3307 dated 17.06.2014 in Reg. 19 Ex.PW23/C Copy of entry at Sl. No. 3428 dated 18.06.2014 in Reg. 19 Ex.PW23/D Road Certificate No. 111/21/14 dated 22.09.2014 Ex.PW23/E Acknowledgement issued by FSL, Rohini dated 22.09.2014 Ex.PW23/F Road Certificate No. 113/21/14 dated 30.09.2014 Ex.PW23/G Acknowledgement issued by FSL, Rohini dated 30.09.2014 Ex.PW24/A Endorsement for registration of FIR Ex.PW24/B Rough site plan of the place of incident Ex.PW24/C Personal search memo of the accused Neetu Singh Ex.PW24/D FSL (Chemical) Report of viscera of the deceased Ex.P1 Mobile Phone make Samsung containing Idea SIM Ex.P2 Mobile Phone make Monix without SIM EXAMINATION OF THE ACCUSED PERSONS:
39. Incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence were explained to the accused persons, under section 313 Cr.P.C.
They denied each and every circumstance appearing in evidence against them. They stated that they have been falsely implicated in this case. They stated that the prosecution witnesses have falsely deposed against them. They pleaded innocence. PLEA OF DEFENCE:
40. The plea of the accused Vijay Singh is that he was a tenant qua PW-3 Varjinder Singh earlier than the date of incident. He stated that he has no connection with the deceased or the accused Neetu Singh and her family members. He stated that on 11.07.2014, he was arrested from his Village Karora, Post Office Tilora, District Jaunpur, U.P. He denied that he was arrested from Anand Parbat on 18.07.2014.
FIR No. 647/2014 State vs. Vijay Singh & Anr. Page No. 15 of 44
41. His plea of defence is, as under:
"Q. 42: Why PWs deposed against you?
Ans: Being interested witnesses of the prosecution, they have deposed against me. Further, it seems that they could be under any misconception qua me or it seems that they have some axe to grind against my co-accused Nitu and, therefore, in that process, they have falsely implicated me."
42. The plea of the accused Neetu Singh is that her husband was a rickshaw-puller. She stated that she does not know the accused Vijay Singh. She stated that the accused Vijay Singh never came to her house. She stated that she had given the photographs to her brother-in-law as well as police. She stated that she lodged missing report and requested the police to search her husband. She stated that her brother-in-law tutored, threatened and intimidated her son, namely, Aayush. She stated that she was arrested from Ahmedabad on 11.07.2014 and she was not arrested from Delhi on 18.07.2014.
43. Her plea of defence is, as under:
"Q. 12: It is further in evidence against you that you made a call to PW-1 Sh. Brij Bhushan Singh (younger brother of deceased Raghvinder Singh) and informed him that deceased Raghvinder Singh had gone to purchase mobile phone and had not returned home, on which PW-1 Brij Bhushan asked you to make search for deceased and also asked to make complaint to local police. What do you have to say? Ans: It is correct that I informed my brother-in-law but and informed him about my husband not returning home. However, it is incorrect that my brother-in-law asked me to make search for my husband. I went to police station on my own and I also made efforts to search him in the morning. Since my kids were small therefore, I could not go to search for my husband in the night and just waited for him to return.
FIR No. 647/2014 State vs. Vijay Singh & Anr. Page No. 16 of 44 Q. 13: It is further in evidence against you that PW-1 Brij Bhushan Singh told you that he was coming Delhi but despite specific instructions to remain in Delhi you along with your children left for Village Silauni, District Faizabad, U.P. and reached there and stayed there for 2-3 days. What do you have to say? Ans: It is incorrect. My brother-in-law never told me to remain in Delhi nor instructed me to stay in Delhi. Though I went to my in-laws village but today I cannot recollect the date of my visit to my..... Q. 42: Why PWs deposed against you?
Ans: Being interested witnesses, they have deposed against me. My brother-in-law and my in-laws family had malafide intent to misappropriate my share and my children's share in the properties / ancestral house/ assets of my deceased husband. They in fact my husband was married twice before marrying me and the previous wives of my husband were also not allowed to be rehabilitated or settled. Thus my brother-in-law has implicated me in a false case. In order to achieve his nefarious designs he also manipulated / threatened / intimidated my son Aayush to give a false statement."
APPEARANCE:
44. I have heard arguments of Mr. Amit Dabas, Ld. Addl. PP for the State and Ms. Anu Narula, Ld. Counsel for the accused persons and examined the evidence, oral and documentary, and perused written arguments filed by Ld. Counsel for the accused persons.
CONTENTIONS OF THE PROSECUTION:
45. Ld. Addl. PP for the State contended that PW-4 Master Aayush is the last seen witness. He contended that PW-4 Master Aayush is son of the accused Neetu Singh and the deceased. He contended that PW-4 Master Aayush had no reason to falsely implicate the accused Neetu Singh and Vijay Singh. He contended that PW-4 Master Aayush is a competent witness. He contended that PW-4 Master Aayush is a natural witness. He contended that evidence of PW-4 Master Aayush is credible.
FIR No. 647/2014 State vs. Vijay Singh & Anr. Page No. 17 of 44
46. Ld. Addl. PP for the State contended that PW-4 Master Aayush categorically stated about relationship of the accused Vijay Singh and Neetu Singh. He contended that PW-4 Master Aayush categorically stated that on 08.06.2014 at about 08.00 p.m., the accused Vijay Singh had taken the deceased with him. He contended that PW-4 Master Aayush categorically stated that the accused Vijay Singh made a call on mobile phone of the accused Neetu Singh who stated that ' achhi tarah se check kar lena, kahi bach na jaye, gala daba dena, naak ko sungh lena '. He contended that PW-4 Master Aayush categorically stated that in the same night, the accused Vijay Singh came to their house and there was blood on his T-shirt and the accused Vijay Singh and Neetu Singh washed T-shirt and trousers of the accused Vijay Singh. He contended that PW-4 Master Aayush categorically stated that thereafter, the accused Vijay Singh taken dinner in their house and slept there. He contended that there is no infirmity, deficiency or inconsistency in the statement of PW-4 Master Aayush. He contended that PW-4 Master Aayush could not reveal the incident due to fear of the accused Neetu Singh. He contended that PW-1 Brij Bhushan Singh brought PW-4 Master Aayush to Delhi and produced him before Investigating Officer immediately on being informed regarding the incident by PW-4 Master Aayush to him. He contended that evidence of PW-4 Master Aayush is corroborated by the conduct of the accused Neetu Singh. He contended that the accused Neetu Singh did not lodge missing report immediately and finally, she lodged missing report on 29.06.2014. He contended that the accused Neetu Singh had not explained any reason for not lodging missing report immediately.
FIR No. 647/2014 State vs. Vijay Singh & Anr. Page No. 18 of 44
47. Ld. Addl. PP for the State contended that the accused Neetu Singh and Vijay Singh were absconding and they were arrested on the basis of secret information. He contended that the prosecution has been able to prove the entire chain of circumstances leading to the inference that the accused Neetu Singh and Vijay Singh entered into a criminal conspiracy to commit murder of the deceased and pursuant thereto, the accused persons committed murder of the deceased and washed blood stained T-shirt to remove blood of the deceased in order to cause disappearance of the evidence. He contended that the prosecution has been able to produce credible evidence to bring home the charges against the accused persons.
CONTENTIONS OF THE DEFENCE:
48. Ms. Anu Narula, Ld. Counsel for the accused persons contended that the prosecution has not been able to establish a single circumstance conclusively much less than complete chain of circumstances. She contended that the deceased was a habitual drunkard and violent person and such person can have enmity with any person. She contended that Investigating Officer has not conducted a fair investigation. She contended that Investigating Officer made the accused Neetu Singh a scapegoat and maligned her dignity. She contended that the accused Neetu Singh immediately informed PW-1 Brij Bhushan Singh regarding disappearance of the deceased. She contended that the accused Neetu Singh alongwith her children went to the village of her in-laws when her husband did not return. She contended that in any case, the accused Neetu Singh lodged missing report. She contended that the accused Neetu Singh narrated the entire description of her husband therein.
FIR No. 647/2014 State vs. Vijay Singh & Anr. Page No. 19 of 44
49. Ld. Counsel for the accused persons contended that the prosecution has not produced any evidence to show any acquaintance between the accused Vijay Singh and Neetu Singh much less than any intimacy. She contended that the prosecution has not examined any neighbor or labour to prove that the accused Vijay Singh and Neetu Singh were acquainted with each other. She contended that PW-2 Guddo Devi, landlady of the deceased and the accused Neetu Singh and PW-3 Varjinder Singh, landlord of the accused Vijay Singh have not stated anything incriminating against the accused persons. She contended that PW-1 Brij Bhushan Singh manipulated the minor child and forced him to depose against the accused Neetu Singh. She contended that evidence of PW-1 Brij Bhushan Singh is discrepant, inconsistent and not reliable. She contended that evidence of PW-4 Master Aayush is not reliable and credible. She contended that PW-4 Master Aayush made statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. after 35 days from the date of disappearance of the deceased. She contended that PW-4 Master Aayush did not share the incident with any member of his maternal or paternal family except PW-1 Brij Bhushan Singh till 14.07.2014. She contended that it is highly unbelievable that the accused Neetu Singh would leave him alone in the company of PW-1 Brij Bhushan Singh, if PW-4 Master Aayush had any knowledge regarding involvement of the accused Neetu Singh in murder of his father. She contended that the conduct of the accused Neetu Singh cannot be considered as blemish or as that of a person of guilty mind. She contended that there is no independent witness to corroborate evidence of PW-1 Brij Bhushan Singh and PW-4 Master Aayush. She contended that there is no call detail record or recovery of any incriminating material.
FIR No. 647/2014 State vs. Vijay Singh & Anr. Page No. 20 of 44 POINTS FOR DETERMINATION:
(a) Whether the death of the deceased was a culpable homicide amounting to murder?
50. According to post-mortem report Ex.PW6/A, the deceased sustained as many as 8 incised wounds. Injury No. 1 to 6 were caused to head region. Injury No. 6 caused fracture of major bone over bridge of nose. A piece of broken glass was recovered from center of forehead. Injury No. 7 and 8 were caused to abdominal cavity. Internal examination of head revealed linear fracture on left side occipital bone. The cause of death was 'cranio-cerebral damage' consequent upon blunt force impact and sufficient to cause death 'in ordinary course of nature'. All the injuries were 'fresh' and 'ante-mortem' in nature. Therefore, the prosecution established that the death of the deceased was 'a culpable homicide amounting to murder'.
(b) Whether the accused persons entered into a criminal conspiracy to cause murder of the deceased and pursuant thereto, the accused Vijay Singh caused murder of the deceased?
51. There is no direct evidence to prove the conspiracy and murder of the deceased.
52. The prosecution relied upon circumstances to bring home the charges, as under:
(a) The deceased was a drunkard and he used to quarrel with the accused Neetu Singh;
(b) The accused Neetu Singh used to bring plastic goods from factory of the accused Vijay Singh and they developed intimacy;
(c) The accused Vijay Singh used to visit house of the accused Neetu Singh in absence of the deceased and the accused Neetu Singh used to send children to play outside after closing the room;
(d) The accused Neetu Singh used to have quarrel with the deceased on the issue of visits of the accused Vijay Singh;
FIR No. 647/2014 State vs. Vijay Singh & Anr. Page No. 21 of 44
(e) The accused Vijay Singh used to have meal in the room of the accused Neetu Singh and she used to wash his clothes and send meal to his factory;
(f) On 08.06.2014 at 08.00 p.m., the accused Vijay Singh had taken the deceased with him;
(g) On 08.06.2014 at 10.00 p.m. - 11.00 p.m., the accused Neetu Singh received a call from the accused Vijay Singh and she asked him that he must ensure that the deceased must not remain alive and he should check his nose;
(h) The accused Vijay Singh visited house of the accused Neetu Singh having blood on his T-shirt and the accused persons washed T-shirt and trousers;
(i) In the intervening night of 08.06.2014 -
09.06.2014, the accused Vijay Singh slept in the house of the accused Neetu Singh after taking meal and in the morning, he left her house; and
(j) The accused Neetu Singh lodged missing report qua the deceased on 29.06.2014.
LAW ON CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE:
53. In order to sustain the conviction on the basis of circumstantial evidence, the following three conditions must be satisfied:
i.) The circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established.
ii.) Those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused; and iii.) The circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else, and it should also be incapable of explanation on any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused.
FIR No. 647/2014 State vs. Vijay Singh & Anr. Page No. 22 of 44
54. In State of Punjab vs. Kewal Krishan, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 746, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held, as under:
"17. This is a case based on circumstantial evidence.
It is trite law that to convict an accused on the basis of circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt each of the incriminating circumstances on which it proposes to rely; the circumstance(s) relied upon must be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards accused's guilt and must form a chain so far complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability it is the accused and no one else who had committed the crime and they (it) must exclude all other hypothesis inconsistent with his guilt and consistent with his innocence."
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE OF A CHILD WITNESS:
55. In order to prove the incriminating circumstances beyond reasonable doubt, the prosecution relied upon evidence of PW-4 Master Aayush.
56. PW-4 Master Aayush was around 14 years. He is a child witness. A child witness is competent to depose unless he is prevented from understanding the questions put to him, or from giving rational answers by the reason of his tender age.
57. There is no rule of law that testimony of a child witness cannot be accepted unless it is corroborated by independent evidence. In a given case, evidence of a child witness alone can form the basis for conviction. The mere absence of any corroborative evidence is not sufficient to discredit a child witness. However, it requires a higher level of scrutiny to ensure that the evidence given by a child witness is free from tutoring or embellishment or improvement. His evidence is required to be evaluated with greater circumspection.
It is well established principle that corroboration of evidence of a child witness is not a rule but a measure of caution and prudence.
FIR No. 647/2014 State vs. Vijay Singh & Anr. Page No. 23 of 44
58. In Digamber Vaishnav and Ors. vs. State of Chhattisgarh, (2019) 4 SCC 522, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held, as under:
"21. The case of the prosecution is mainly dependent on the testimony of Chandni, the child witness, who was examined as PW-8. Section 118 of the Evidence Act governs competence of the persons to testify which also includes a child witness. Evidence of the child witness and its credibility could depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. There is no Rule of practice that in every case the evidence of a child witness has to be corroborated by other evidence before a conviction can be allowed to stand but as a prudence, the court always finds it desirable to seek corroboration to such evidence from other reliable evidence placed on record. Only precaution which the court has to bear in mind while assessing the evidence of a child witness is that witness must be a reliable one.
22. This Court has consistently held that evidence of a child witness must be evaluated carefully as the child may be swayed by what others tell him and he is an easy prey to tutoring. Therefore, the evidence of a child witness must find adequate corroboration before it can be relied upon. It is more a Rule of practical wisdom than law. [See Panchhi and Ors. v. State of U.P., (1998) 7 SCC 177, State of U.P. v. Ashok Dixit and Anr., (2000) 3 SCC 70, and State of Rajasthan v. Om Prakash, (2002) 5 SCC 745].
23. In Alagupandi alias Alagupandian v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2012) 10 SCC 451, this Court has emphasized the need to accept the testimony of a child with caution after substantial corroboration before acting upon it. It was held that:
36. It is a settled principle of law that a child witness can be a competent witness provided statement of such witness is reliable, truthful and is corroborated by other prosecution evidence. The court in such circumstances can safely rely upon the statement of a child witness and it can form the basis for conviction as well. Further, the evidence of a child witness and credibility thereof would depend upon the circumstances of each case. The only precaution which the court should bear in mind while assessing the evidence of a child witness is that the witness must be a reliable one and his / her demeanour must be like any other competent witness and that there exists no likelihood of being tutored.
FIR No. 647/2014 State vs. Vijay Singh & Anr. Page No. 24 of 44 There is no Rule or practice that in every case the evidence of such a witness be corroborated by other evidence before a conviction can be allowed to stand but as a Rule of prudence the court always finds it desirable to seek corroboration to such evidence from other reliable evidence placed on record. Further, it is not the law that if a witness is a child, his evidence shall be rejected, even if it is found reliable."
59. In Pramila vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2021) 12 SCC 550, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held, as under:
"7. Criminal jurisprudence does not hold that the evidence of a child witness is unreliable and can be discarded. A child who is aged about 11 to 12 year certainly has reasonably developed mental faculty to see, absorb and appreciate. In a given case the evidence of a child witness alone can also form the basis for conviction. The mere absence of any corroborative evidence in addition to that of the child witness by itself cannot alone discredit a child witness. But the Courts have regularly held that where a child witness is to be considered, and more so when he is the sole witness, a heightened level of scrutiny is called for of the evidence so that the Court is satisfied with regard to the reliability and genuineness of the evidence of the child witness. PW-2 was examined nearly one year after the occurrence. The court has, therefore, to satisfy itself that all possibilities of tutoring or otherwise are ruled out and what was deposed was nothing but the truth.
8. The evidence of a child witness and the manner of its consideration has been dealt with in State of M.P. vs. Ramesh Manu (2011) 4 SCC 786, as follows:
14. In view of the above, the law on the issue can be summarized to the effect that the deposition of a child witness may require corroboration, but in case his deposition inspires the confidence of the court and there is no embellishment or improvement therein, the court may rely upon his evidence. The evidence of a child witness must be evaluated more carefully with greater circumspection because he is susceptible to tutoring. Only in case there is evidence on record to show that a child has been tutored, the Court can reject his statement partly or fully. However, an inference as to whether child has been tutored or not, can be drawn from the contents of his deposition."
FIR No. 647/2014 State vs. Vijay Singh & Anr. Page No. 25 of 44
60. In Pradeep vs. The State of Haryana, AIR 2023 SC3245, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held, as under:
"8. It is well-settled principle that corroboration of the testimony of a child witness is not a Rule but a measure of caution and prudence. A child witness of tender age is easily susceptible to tutoring. However, that by itself is no ground to reject the evidence of a child witness. The Court must make careful scrutiny of the evidence of a child witness. The Court must apply its mind to the question whether there is a possibility of the child witness being tutored. Therefore, scrutiny of the evidence of a child witness is required to be made by the Court with care and caution."
61. In Manvir vs. State, 2024:DHC: 2022-DB, Hon;ble High Court of Delhi held, as under:
"33. Indubitably, in cases of sexual assault, testimony of a child witness can form the basis of a conviction. However, a crucial pre-requisite is that it must not be on account of any tutoring. Since child witness is susceptible to tutoring, the court should seek corroborating evidence, especially when signs of tutoring are evident in such testimony. A child has not enough of maturity and if tutored, such child can go to any extent of exaggeration and, therefore, it becomes unsafe to rely upon testimony of a child witness whose statement is found to be based on tutoring....."
62. Bearing the aforesaid principles delineated for appreciation of evidence of a child witness, it would be appropriate to proceed to consider the evidence of PW-4 Master Aayush.
63. PW-4 Master Aayush was 14 years old. The Court conducted preliminary examination of his capacity to understand the questions and furnish rational answers. The Court was satisfied that PW-4 Master Aayush was able to understand the questions and give rational answers. The Court was also satisfied that he was competent to depose before the Court.
FIR No. 647/2014 State vs. Vijay Singh & Anr. Page No. 26 of 44
64. The evidence of PW-4 Master Aayush is, as under:
"On S.A. I alongwith my parents and siblings resided in gali no. 10, Taliwali Basti, Anand Parbat, Delhi prior to this incident. My father was working in the area of Anand Parbat and my mother used to bring goods / materials from the factory of accused Vijay, now present in the court. When my father went to attend his duty, then accused Vijay used to come our house. My mother would close the door and instruct us to go outside for playing and when we refused to go outside then she used to beat us. My mother used to wash the clothes of accused Vijay and send the food for accused Vijay in his factory. Accused Vijay often took his lunch at our house. My father often quarrelled with my mother because accused Vijay used to come to our house.
On 08.06.2014, accused Vijay came to our house in evening hours and took my father outside. In the night, accused Vijay called my mother on her mobile phone. My mother was saying on phone "achi tarah se check kar lena kahin bach na jaye" "gala daba dena, naak ko sungh lena". In the same night, accused Vijay came to our house, at that time there was blood spilled on his T-shirt. My mother and accused Vijay washed the said T-shirt and wearing pant of accused Vijay. After that, accused Vijay had taken dinner at our house and slept there. In the morning hours, accused Vijay left our house. After that my mother made call to my uncle (chacha) and informed him that she was coming. I do not remember the date, however I alongwith my mother and siblings went to our village. After staying some days, my mother told my uncle (chacha) that she was going to her paternal house. But I alongwith my mother and other siblings did not go to the house of my grand maternal mother (Nani). We went Jaunpur from our village where accused Vijay met us. We stayed in the Dharamsala either in city Jaunpur or Varanasi. After some days, I alongwith my mother and other siblings boarded the train for Ahmedabad. We reached our Nani's house where my uncle (chacha) namely Brij Bhushan and my maternal uncle (mama) namely Sonu met us.
From Ahmedabad, I alongwith my mother, Kunal, uncle Brij Bhushan and maternal uncle Sonu came to Delhi. After that my mother went to Ahmedabad and I alongwith my uncle Brij Bhushan went to my village.
FIR No. 647/2014 State vs. Vijay Singh & Anr. Page No. 27 of 44 Due to fear of my mother, I did not disclose anything to any one initially. While I was staying in my village, I disclosed about the incident dated 08.06.2014 took place with my father to my uncle Brij Bhushan."
65. It is relevant to note that statement of PW-4 Master Aayush under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 14.07.2014 wherein he implicated the accused persons. Therefore, there is delay of around 35 days in disclosing the incident by PW-4 Master Aayush.
66. In this regard, PW-4 Master Aayush stated, in his cross-examination, as under:
".....I studied upto 5th standard in Delhi and thereafter, my uncle (chacha) took me to my native place and now, I am studying there. It is correct that my father used to have drinks (alcohol)..... I did not disclose the fact to my father that accused Vijay used to come our house and my mother would close the door and instruct us to go outside for playing. I do not know as to how my father came to know that accused Vijay used to come our house in his absence.
I do not remember the date when I went to our village alongwith my mother and siblings. It is correct that I did not disclose the incident dated 08.06.2014 took place with my father to anyone including my nani and maternal uncle (mama) at my visit to Ahmedabad after 08.06.2014. It is correct that I did not disclose the incident dated 08.06.2014 took place with my father to the police in Delhi after coming from Ahmedabad. I cannot tell the date when I disclosed about the incident dated 08.06.2014 took place with my father to my uncle Brij Bhushan..... .....My father did not use to beat me and my family members, however, he used to consume liquor.....I did not use to tell to my father as to who had come in the house in his absence and where I used to go.....I also did not tell when Vijay used to come my mother used to turned me out from the house to play or used to beat me.
FIR No. 647/2014 State vs. Vijay Singh & Anr. Page No. 28 of 44 My father was not a rickshaw puller and he used to work in some factory in Anand Parbat. He used to go on his work around 9.00 a.m. and used to return till 8.00 p.m. He never pulled rickshaw.
It is correct that there were many rooms adjoining my room and many other persons reside there in their respective rooms. The rooms were constructed in such a manner that one could be seen while entering in our room and leaving by the neighbors.....I do not remember even by approximation as to after how many days from 8.6.2014 of missing of my father, I went to my village with my mother. I did not inform to any of my friends, teachers or neighbourers before leave for my village about missing of my father.....I had come to Delhi twice with my chacha Brij Bhushan after I left with my mother for my village.....For the first time, I came to Delhi alongwith my uncle after about one week of my arriving the Village with my mother..... .....It is correct that my all the expenditures is being borne by my paternal family including my uncle Brij Bhushan. I had stated to the police when I refused to go outside for playing on the asking of my mother, I was beaten. (Confronted with statement Ex.PW4/DX, where it is not so recorded).....I had told to the police about the factum of pressing neck of my father. (Confronted with statement Ex.PW4/DX, where it is not so recorded, however, this fact is mentioned in statement recorded u/S 164 Cr.P.C.)..... "
67. For the present purpose, the facts stated, in the cross- examination of PW-4 Master Aayush, that he did not disclose the incident to any of his relatives or police before 14.07.2014 is relevant. The rest of the cross-examination will be referred at relevant stage. It has come on record that PW-4 Master Aayush was staying with PW-1 Brij Bhushan Singh at the time of making statement and he was incurring his entire expenditure including academic expenses.
68. PW-4 Master Aayush had the opportunity to disclose the incident to PW-1 Brij Bhushan Singh at the earliest immediately after the incident.
FIR No. 647/2014 State vs. Vijay Singh & Anr. Page No. 29 of 44
69. PW-1 Brij Bhushan Singh, in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 04.07.2014, stated as under:
"Stated that I am residing at the aforesaid address and I am engaged in agricultural work. My brother, namely, Raghvender Singh alongwith his wife, namely, Neetu Singh and children was residing in a rented accommodation in Anand Parbat and he was working in a factory. In the night of 08.06.2014, my sister-in-law (bhabhi), namely, Neetu Singh made a call and inform that Raghvender, who had gone to Nehru Nagar to purchase a phone, did not return to the house. I asked her to search him and inform him as and when he returned. In the morning of the next day, I made a call and enquired about Raghvender. My sister-in-law Neetu Singh stated that Raghvender had not returned. I asked her to search at his all places and in case he was not found, then she should lodge a report with the police. After 2-3 days, my sister-in-law Neetu Singh alongwith her four children came to village and stated that there was no information regarding Raghvender and she has lodged a report with police. After 2 days, despite my refusal, she alongwith her four children left while stating that on the pretext that she was going to her maternal house in Ahmedabad. Thereafter, I made call to my sister-in-law Neetu Singh to make enquiry from her. However, her mobile phone was found switched off. Thereafter, I had a conversation with Sonu, brother of Neetu Singh on his mobile phone and it revealed that Neetu Singh had not reached Ahmedabad. I kept on calling brother of Neetu Singh and asked him about Neetu Singh but my sister-in- law Neetu Singh had not reached there. On the next day, my sister-in-law made a call from another number and stated that she was in Pratapgarh and no effort should be made to search her. Thereafter, I called Sonu, brother of Neetu Singh to reach Delhi and I also reached Delhi. We searched Raghvender in the locality and thereafter, we went to PS Anand Parbat and made enquiry regarding missing of Raghvender. We came to know that no missing report qua Raghvender was lodged. So I had a suspicion over my sister-in-law. As we did not have any information regarding Neetu Singh, we alongwith our known persons were searching Raghvender. After 3-4 days, mother of Neetu Singh made a call to Sonu on his mobile phone and stated that she had received phone of Neetu Singh that she was reaching Ahmedabad.
FIR No. 647/2014 State vs. Vijay Singh & Anr. Page No. 30 of 44 Thereafter, I alongwith Sonu reached Ahmedabad where my sister-in-law Neetu Singh alongwith her four children also reached there. I made enquiry from Neetu Singh regarding my brother Raghvender. I alongwith my sister-in-law and elder and younger nephews returned to Delhi to lodge missing report of Raghvender. On 29.06.2014, missing report of my brother Raghvender was lodged in PS Anand Parbat. Thereafter, my sister-in-law left elder son, namely, Aayush with me and she alongwith her younger son, namely, Kunal and brother Sonu left while stating that she was going to her mother's house in Ahmedabad. After sometime, Sonu, brother of Neetu Singh called me and stated that Neetu Singh alongwith her younger son ran away from Railway Station. I alongwith my relatives searched Neetu Singh at several places. However, she was not found and no information regarding my brother could be obtained. Thereafter, I had taken my nephew Aayush to my village. I received a call from NCRB and thereafter, I reached NCRB, R.K. Puram where I came to know that dead body of my brother Raghvender Singh, who was missing since 08.06.2014, and regarding him missing report was lodged in PS Anand Parbat on 29.06.2014, vide DD No. 26B, was found on 09.06.2014 within jurisdiction of PS Sarai Rohilla, vide DD No. 13PP. On receiving the said information, I reached PS Sarai Rohilla. I suspect that my brother Raghvender was murdered. You have written my statement. I have heard it. It is correct."
70. From the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of PW-1 Brij Bhushan Singh, it is evident that the accused Neetu Singh alongwith her four children reached Village Siloni, District Faizabad, U.P. after 2-3 days since 09.06.2014. It is further evident that she alongwith her four children stayed in the said village for 2 days. It is further evident that PW-1 Brij Bhushan Singh alongwith the accused Neetu Singh with PW-4 Master Aayush and her younger son, namely, Kunal came to Delhi on 29.06.2014 and she lodged missing report, vide DD No. 26B Ex.PW14/A. FIR No. 647/2014 State vs. Vijay Singh & Anr. Page No. 31 of 44
71. It is further evident that on 29.06.2014, the accused Neetu Singh left PW-4 Master Aayush with PW-1 Brij Bhushan Singh. It is further evident that PW-1 Brij Bhushan Singh alongwith PW-4 Master Aayush reached to his village. It is further evident that in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 04.07.2014 Ex.PW1/DA, PW-1 Brij Bhushan Singh did not suspect involvement of the accused Neetu Singh in death of the deceased.
72. To sum up, it can be stated that PW-4 Master Aayush had the opportunity to disclose the incident to PW-1 Brij Bhushan Singh after 2-3 days since 09.06.2014 on his first visit to his village. He had the opportunity to disclose the incident to PW-1 Brij Bhushan Singh on 29.06.2014. He had the opportunity to disclose the incident to PW-1 Brij Bhushan Singh on any date between 29.06.2014 to 04.07.2014. However, he disclosed the incident to PW-1 Brij Bhushan Singh on 14.07.2014. In this regard, it would be appropriate to refer statement of PW-1 Brij Bhushan Singh under Section 161 Cr.P.C. recorded on 14.07.2014, as under:
"Stated that while stating the earlier statement to be correct, I further state that I had taken my nephew Aayush to my village where Aayush remained quite frightened and scared for several days. When I counseled him, he stated that his mother Neetu used to bring plastic goods from a nearby factory and clear them. The said factory from where his mother used to bring the goods belonged to a person, namely, Vijay who used to stay there. After acquaintance, he used to come to his house quite often. He usually used to come after his father left the house for work and thereafter, his mother used to close the door and send them to play outside. On the issue of visits of Vijay, Neetu and Raghvender used to quarrel several times. His mother used to prepare meal for Vijay and she used to wash his clothes.
FIR No. 647/2014 State vs. Vijay Singh & Anr. Page No. 32 of 44 Sometimes Vijay used to take meal in his house and sometimes, his mother used to send meal to his factory. In the evening of 08.06.2014 at about 08.00 p.m., Vijay came to their house and taken Raghvender with him. In the night at about 10.00 p.m. - 11.00 p.m., his mother Neetu received a call from Vijay on her phone which he was hearing silently. His mother Neetu was stating to Vijay on phone that he must ensure that he must not remain alive and he must check his breathing. After sometime, Vijay came to their house and there was blood on his T-shirt. His mother and Vijay washed T- shirt and pant and thereafter, Vijay slept in their house after taking meal. In the morning, Vijay left their house. As Aayush was quite scared, he did not ask anything from his mother. Thereafter, Neetu had taken his all four brothers / sisters to village. After 1 or 2 days, his mother left the village on the pretext of taking them to the house of their maternal grandmother. However, she had taken them to Jaunpur where Vijay met and they stayed in different dharamshalas in Jaunpur and Varanasi for several days. Thereafter, Vijay boarded them in a train for Ahmedabad and they reached the house of their maternal grandmother in Ahmedabad where I was also present. In the evening of the same day, I brought Neetu Singh alongwith Aayush and Kunal to Delhi and lodged a report with police. Thereafter, Neetu Singh had taken Kunal alongwith her brother Sonu. I had taken Aayush to my village. Aayush did not state anything on account of fear of his mother and he stated the entire incident to me in the village and I have brought him to you. You have made enquiry from Aayush. You have recorded his statement. You have also recorded my statement. I have heard it. It is correct."
73. The reason for translation of statements of PW-1 Brij Bhushan Singh recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. on 04.07.2014 and 14.07.2014 is to highlight the sequence of events scattered over a span of time from the date of missing of the deceased till recording of statement of PW-4 Master Aayush. From the statement of PW-1 Brij Bhushan Singh recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. on 14.07.2014, it is clear that PW-4 Master Aayush was with him in his village since 29.06.2014.
FIR No. 647/2014 State vs. Vijay Singh & Anr. Page No. 33 of 44
74. At this juncture, it would be appropriate to refer the relevant part of cross-examination of PW-1 Brij Bhushan Singh is, as under:
".....At this moment, I do not remember the mobile number by which my sister in law / accused Neetu Singh made call to me on 08.06.2014..... .....I had given mobile phone number of accused Neetu, his brother Sonu and my mobile phone number to the police. It is correct that said mobile numbers were written in my statement. Confronted with Ex.PW1/DA wherein it is not so recorded..... .....I do not remember the mobile number by which accused Neetu Singh made call on my mobile and informed that she was in Partap Garh. I had not given the said mobile phone number to the police..... .....I do not remember the date when I visited the police station Anand Parbat first time and informed about the missing of my deceased brother to the police.....
On 29.06.2014, I returned to Delhi from Ahmedabad alongwith accused Neetu Singh, his brother Sonu and two nephews namely Ayush and Kunal. On 29.06.2014, we visited the PS Anand Parbat at around 01.00 pm for lodging the complaint.
xxx xxx xxx I do not remember the date when my nephew Ayush disclosed the incident dated 08.06.2014 took place with my deceased brother. It is correct that my nephew Ayush did not disclose the incident dated 08.06.2014 to me when he met me at my village first time after the incident. At the second meeting in Ahmedabad with my nephew Ayush, he did not disclose the incident dated 08.06.2014 to me. Even when he travelled from Ahmedabad to Delhi, he did not disclose about this incident. My nephew Ayush did not disclose the said incident dated 08.06.2014 at the time of visit of police officials of PS Anand Parbat to rented room of my deceased brother after lodging the report of missing.
After coming from Ahmedabad alongwith accused Neetu Singh, her brother Amit and two nephews; I stayed in Delhi for 2-3 days. When my nephew Ayush disclosed about the incident dated 08.06.2014 happened with my deceased brother Raghvender, I was alone with him.....
FIR No. 647/2014 State vs. Vijay Singh & Anr. Page No. 34 of 44 .....I do not remember on which number I had received the call of Neetu. (Vol. I was using two mobile numbers at that time). It is correct that during those days, my cousins and relatives were residing in Delhi. I did not ask any of them to report the matter to police or to go for help of my bhabhi Neetu in order to locate my brother. (Vol. I had told Neetu to locate my brother and then inform me). At that time, my father, my wife, my younger brother Sukhvinder Singh, his wife, my children and the children of Sukhvinder were residing alongwith me.....I did not send any person from my family to Delhi after receiving the information from accused Neetu on 08.06.2014. I remained in constant touch on telephone with Neetu till she reached at my ancestral house alongwith four children. I did not ask any of my family members who were in Delhi to search my brother after coming of Neetu and to report police. (Vol. On the second day of coming of Neetu, I left for Delhi). I cannot say even by approximation as to for how many days Neetu remained in my village whether it was 1, 2 or 10 or more days.....It is correct that when I had come to Delhi, I had given my mobile number to the police officer and took his mobile number.....
.....I cannot tell the difference between the age of Kunal and Ayush. Daughters of Neetu are aged of 11 and 8 years respectively, as on today. On being asked by the Court, witness states that Kunal is aged about 6 years and Ayush is aged about 14 years, as on today.
.....I cannot tell even by approximation the date and month when Ayush told me about the incident dated 08.06.2014.....I did not inform Delhi Police after receiving information from Ayush nor to Local Police or any other local authority like Panchayat. I left my village for Delhi on the second day of receiving information from Ayush. (Vol. By that time, a telephonic call from Police of R.K. Puram regarding recovery of dead body of my brother was also received by me)....."
75. Therefore, it is evident that PW-4 Master Aayush disclosed the incident to PW-1 Brij Bhushan Singh on 13.07.2014. PW-4 Master Aayush disclosed the incident to PW-1 Brij Bhushan Singh after 30 days from the date of incident.
FIR No. 647/2014 State vs. Vijay Singh & Anr. Page No. 35 of 44
76. It is further relevant to note that PW-4 Master Aayush did not disclose the incident to any member of his paternal or maternal family.
77. In the absence of any corroboration from independent evidence, it would not be safe to act upon evidence of a child witness recorded after inordinate delay of more than 30 days.
NO CORROBORATION BY ANY INDEPENDENT EVIDENCE:
78. PW-4 Master Aayush deposed that the accused Neetu Singh used to bring goods from the factory of the accused Vijay Singh. However, PW-3 Varjinder Singh, landlord of the accused Vijay Singh did not state that the accused Neetu Singh used to visit factory of the accused Vijay Singh and bring plastic goods for cleaning them. PW-3 Varjinder Singh deposed, as under:
"I am owner of the plot No. W-72/146, Taliwali Basti, Anand Parbat, Industrial area, Delhi. The said plot was rented to accused Vijay, now present in the court on 17.11.2013 and he vacated the said plot on 17.06.2014 and he paid Rs. 1700/- rent per month. XXXXXX by Sh. Rakesh Rajmurti and Sh. Nagendra Singh, Advocates for both the accused. There was no rent agreement executed between me and accused Vijay regarding tenancy. I did not issue any rent receipt to the accused Vijay. I did not get verification of accused Vijay when I rented the said plot to him as he was known to me since his childhood."
79. PW-24 Insp. Anil Dureja has not examined any labour or neighbor to prove that the accused Neetu Singh used to visit factory of the accused Vijay Singh and bring plastic goods for cleaning them. He stated that he has not recorded statement of Varjinder Singh or any other person that the accused Vijay Singh used to give job work to the accused Neetu Singh.
FIR No. 647/2014 State vs. Vijay Singh & Anr. Page No. 36 of 44
80. Relevant part of cross-examination of PW-24 Insp. Anil Dureja is, as under:
"Accused Vijay used to work in a factory of oil seed work which was owned by Bijender Singh. I had not recorded the statement of Bijender Singh or any other person to the effect that accused Vijay used to give the job work to Neetu Singh or that Neetu used to come to Vijay in factory....."
81. PW-4 Master Aayush deposed that the accused Vijay Singh used to visit his house in absence of the deceased and the accused Neetu Singh used to close the door after instructing them to play outside and the accused Vijay Singh used to have lunch in his house and for that reason, the deceased often quarreled with his mother. However, PW-2 Smt. Guddo Devi, landlady of the accused Neetu Singh and the deceased has not stated anything in this regard, as under:
"I am owner of aforesaid house and resides on the ground floor in the said house alongwith my son. Accused Neetu was tenant in my house for one month and she resided alongwith her husband and four children at the first floor.
XXXXXX by Sh. Nagendra Singh, Advocate for both the accused.
I cannot tell the measurement of my house, however, three rooms are in my house on each floor. Three tenants usually reside in my said house. It is correct that there was no rent agreement executed between me and husband of accused Neetu regarding the tenancy. It is correct that I never issued any rent receipt to the husband of accused Neetu Singh. I cannot tell the date and period of tenancy of accused Neetu as I am illiterate."
82. It is evident that the accused Neetu Singh and the deceased alongwith their four children were residing in a room on first floor of the said house. PW-2 Smt. Guddo Devi has not stated anything regarding visits of the accused Vijay Singh and frequent quarrel amongst the accused Neetu Singh and the deceased for that reason.
FIR No. 647/2014 State vs. Vijay Singh & Anr. Page No. 37 of 44
83. It has come in the evidence of PW-2 Smt. Guddo Devi that there were tenants in the adjoining rooms of first floor of the said house.
84. PW-4 Master Aayush has also deposed, in his cross- examination, to this effect, as under:
"It is correct that there were many rooms adjoining my room and many other persons reside there in their respective rooms. The rooms were constructed in such a manner that one could be seen while entering in our room and leaving by the neighbors....."
85. PW-12 Ct. Sant Ram deposed, in his cross- examination, as under:
".....The house of Neetu consisted of one room, but I cannot say the size of the room by approximation. (Vol. I had not entered in the room of the Neetu).....It is correct that many people were residing there in the small room constructed in the building. It is correct that the public would gather if anybody would come and go from the said premises. Four - five persons had also come there when we reached in the house of Neetu....."
86. PW-24 Insp. Anil Dureja deposed, in his cross- examination, as under:
".....It is correct that in the same building where Neetu resided, many people also resided. It is correct that if anybody comes to the room of one person, then obviously other person would come to know. I had not recorded the statement of any person in the building to the effect that Vijay used to come in the room of Neetu.....I had not recorded the statement of any person in the intervening night of 8/9.06.2014 that Vijay had come to the room of Neetu.....It is correct that deceased Raghvender was residing in one small room alongwith his wife and four children....."
87. Therefore, there is no evidence that the accused Vijay Singh used to visit the house of the accused Neetu Singh frequently and the deceased and the accused Neetu Singh used to frequently quarrel on this issue.
FIR No. 647/2014 State vs. Vijay Singh & Anr. Page No. 38 of 44
88. PW-4 Master Aayush deposed that in the intervening night of 08.06.2014 - 09.06.2014, the accused Vijay Singh called the accused Neetu Singh and the accused Neetu Singh stated that 'acchi tarah se check kar lena, kahi bach na jaye, gala daba dena, naak ko sungh lena'. However, the prosecution has not proved Call Detail Records of mobile phones of the accused Vijay Singh and Neetu Singh to prove that they used to have frequent conversation through mobile phone or that the accused Vijay Singh called the accused Neetu Singh in the intervening night of 08.06.2014 - 09.06.2014. In this regard, it would be relevant to refer cross-examination of PW-24 Insp. Anil Dureja, as under:
".....I do not remember if the call details of mobile phone of Neetu Singh, Vijay and Brij Bhushan have been received but I had sent the requisition. We had not followed our request since the accused persons were arrested. It is correct that the copy of requisition made to service provider is not on judicial file. Vol. It could be on the police file....."
89. PW-4 Master Aayush stated that his father was working in the area of Anand Parbat and the accused Vijay Singh used to come to their house when his father went to attend his duty. In his cross-examination, he categorically stated that his father was working in a factory in Anand Parbat and he used to leave for his work around 09.00 a.m. and used to return around 08.00 p.m. On this aspect, PW-1 Brij Bhushan Singh stated that he did not know the exact address of the factory where his brother was employed. He stated that the deceased was working in the area of Anand Parbat. There is no evidence that the deceased was employed in any factory and he had fixed hours of working which could provide an opportunity to the accused Vijay Singh to visit his house in his absence.
FIR No. 647/2014 State vs. Vijay Singh & Anr. Page No. 39 of 44
90. On this aspect, PW-24 Insp. Anil Dureja deposed, in his cross-examination, as under:
".....I had also enquired from the neighbors, relatives and colleagues of the deceased. I do not remember the name of the relatives, neighbors etc. from whom I had enquired. I had not recorded the statement of those persons.....As per our investigation, we came to know that deceased used to ply the rickshaw occasionally and he used to do some other work as labour....."
91. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove that the deceased was employed in a factory where he had fixed hours of working and for that reason, the accused Vijay Singh had opportunity to visit his house in his absence.
92. The prosecution has not examined Ms. Shivani and Ms. Komal who were residing alongwith the deceased and the accused Neetu Singh.
93. PW-1 Brij Bhushan Singh deposed, in his cross- examination, as under:
".....Daughters of Neetu are aged of 11 and 8 years respectively as on today. On being asked by the Court, witness states that Kunal is aged about 6 years and Ayush is aged about 14 years, as on today."
94. PW-24 Insp. Anil Dureja deposed, in his cross- examination, as under:
".....I had not recorded the statement of three more children of the deceased or any other close relatives of the deceased. The children of the deceased are younger to the Ayush. Ayush is about 13-14 years of age. Shivani is aged about 11 or 12 years. Komal is aged about 9-10 years and the youngest child Kunal was of five years."
95. The prosecution has not furnished any reasonable explanation for non-examination of Ms. Shivani and Ms. Komal as prosecution witnesses to corroborate evidence of PW-4 Master Aayush.
FIR No. 647/2014 State vs. Vijay Singh & Anr. Page No. 40 of 44
96. PW-1 Brij Bhushan Singh has deposed that he was in constant touch with the accused Neetu Singh, her brother, namely, Sonu and mother. However, there is no Call Detail Record pertaining to his conversation with the accused Neetu Singh and her relatives. PW-1 Brij Bhushan Singh categorically stated that he had provided the mobile number of the accused Neetu Singh and his brother, namely, Sonu and his mobile phone to Investigating Officer. However, the said mobile numbers are not mentioned in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Ex.PW1/DA. He stated that he had not provided mobile number through which the accused Neetu Singh made call to him from Pratapgarh. He categorically stated that he did not remember the mobile number on which he received call from the accused Neetu Singh on the pretext that he was using two mobile numbers at that time.
97. There is no investigation regarding visits of the accused Neetu Singh to Pratapgarh, Jaunpur, Varanasi and Ahmedabad. There is no investigation regarding the stay of the accused Neetu Singh and Vijay Singh in dharamshalas in Jaunpur and Varanasi.
98. In this regard, PW-24 Insp. Anil Dureja deposed, in his cross-examination, as under:
".....During investigation, I had sent the team led by Inspector Devender Rathi to village Saluli, District Faizabad to ascertain that Neetu had visited along with her children there. I had verified from Brij Bhushan that his relations with the deceased and other family members were cordial. I had not recorded the statement of any other person in this regard. It is correct that I did not visit Jaunpur, Pratap Garh, Ahmedabad and Faizabad. The teams were sent to the above said places for verification of the claim of Brij Bhushan.
FIR No. 647/2014 State vs. Vijay Singh & Anr. Page No. 41 of 44 I remember, a team led by Inspector Devender Rathi was sent to these places but I do not remember the other team which went subsequently. I do not remember whether the team had collected the travel documents of Neetu of different places. Team led by Inspector Rathi was sent in the month of June itself. I did not record the statement of Amit @ Sonu and the mother of the accused Neetu....."
99. PW-18 Insp. Devendra Rathi did not state anything in this regard. In his deposition, he stated that on 26.09.2014, he filed an application for recording of statement of PW-4 Master Aayush under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and he accompanied Master Aayush to the Court for the purpose of recording of his statement.
100. There is no recovery of blood stained T-shirt of the accused Vijay Singh.
101. As regards reliance of the prosecution on the aspect that the accused Neetu Singh did not lodge missing report immediately and she lodged missing report after 20 days on 29.06.2014, it can be said that the accused Neetu Singh cannot be convicted on the basis of her conduct in not reporting missing of the deceased immediately.
102. One of the fundamental principles of criminal jurisprudence is that the burden of proof squarely rests on the prosecution and that the general burden never shifts. There can be no conviction on the basis of surmises and conjectures or suspicion howsoever grave it may be. Strong suspicion, strong coincidences and grave doubt cannot take the place of legal proof. The onus of the prosecution cannot be discharged by referring to very strong suspicion and existence of highly suspicion factors to inculpate the accused nor falsity of defence could take the place of proof which the prosecution has to establish in order to succeed, though a false plea by the defence at best, be considered as an additional circumstance, if other circumstances unfailingly point to the guilt.
FIR No. 647/2014 State vs. Vijay Singh & Anr. Page No. 42 of 44
103. The prosecution has failed to prove any circumstance much less than chain of circumstances beyond reasonable doubt so complete from which it could be inferred with a degree of certainty that it is the accused persons and no one else who, within all human probability, committed the crime.
104. It is not a case of 'defective investigation'. It is a case of 'no investigation'.
105. Besides recording statement of PW-4 Master Aayush, there is no investigation on any aspect of the case pertaining to involvement of the accused persons in commission of the offences in question.
106. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused persons had entered into any criminal conspiracy to commit murder of the deceased and pursuant thereto, the accused Vijay Singh committed murder of the deceased, and they caused the evidence of the commission of the offence to disappear with a view to screen themselves from the offence.
107. Accordingly, the prosecution failed to bring home the charges under Section 120B IPC, 302 read with Section 120B IPC and 201 IPC against the accused persons. CONCLUSION:
108. Consequently, the accused persons Vijay Singh and Neetu Singh are acquitted from offences under Section 120B IPC, 302 read with Section 120B IPC and 201 IPC.
Digitally signedSANJAY by SANJAY SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2024.12.03 17:28:30 +0530 Announced in the open Court SANJAY SHARMA-II th on this 30 November, 2024 DJ (Commercial Court)-03 (Shahdara) KKD Courts, Delhi FIR No. 647/2014 State vs. Vijay Singh & Anr. Page No. 43 of 44 State vs. Vijay Singh & Anr.
CNR No.: DLCT01-000397-2014 SC No. 27416/2016 FIR No. 647/2014 Under Section 302/201/120B IPC PS Sarai Rohilla 30.11.2024 Present : Mr. Amit Dabas, Ld. Addl. PP for the State (through Video Conferencing).
Ms. Shruthi, Proxy Counsel for Ms. Anu Narula, Ld. Counsel for the accused persons (through Video Conferencing).
The accused persons are present.
Vide separate judgment announced in the open Court, the accused persons Vijay Singh and Neetu Singh are acquitted from offences punishable under Section 120B IPC, 302 read with Section 120B IPC and 201 IPC. The accused persons already furnished bail bonds, as required under Section 437A Cr.P.C. Bail bonds shall remain in operation for a period of six months from the date of judgment. The accused persons are informed to appear before the appellate Court, as and when any notice is received by them.
Digitally signedFile be consigned to record room. by SANJAY SHARMA SANJAY Date:
SHARMA 2024.12.03 17:28:40 +0530 Sanjay Sharma-II DJ (Commercial Court)-03 Shahdara, KKD, Delhi 30.11.2024 FIR No. 647/2014 State vs. Vijay Singh & Anr. Page No. 44 of 44