Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

State vs Lalit Kumar Dass on 28 July, 2023

     IN THE COURT OF SH. LOKESH KUMAR SHARMA
           ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE (FTC ­ 02) :
                SOUTH EAST DISTRICT
             SAKET COURTS : NEW DELHI

CNR No: DLSE­0100­1245­2014
SC: 1918/2016
FIR No: 389/2014
PS: Jaitpur
U/s: 302/394/201/34 IPC

State

                              Versus

Lalit Kumar Dass
S/o Sh. Bhola Dass
R/o: H.No. 279, Gali no. 3,
Ajay Nagar, Ismail Pur,
Distt. Faridabad (Haryana),

Permanent Resident
Vill. Tad Bhanush Patti,
PS Rune Sed Pur,
Distt. Seetamadi, Bihar.
                                       ....ACCUSED PERSON


            Date of Institution          :     19.09.2014
            Judgment reserved on         :     25.07.2023
            Date of Decision             :     28.07.2023


                       JUDGMENT

1. The present case has been forwarded for trial by SHO, PS Jaitpur, on the allegations of accused having murdered one person namely Gulab Chand Choudhary, in collusion and FIR No: 389/2014 Page 1 of 70 connivance with his wife 'K' (name and identity of JCL is withheld to maintain the secrecy and in future, for all purposes, she shall be referred to as 'K').

As per the case of prosecution, on 16.06.2014, at about 6:30am, PCR call was received that a foul smell was coming out of one room of H.No. 589, D­Block, Gali no. 8, Om Nagar, which was lying locked. The said information was reduced into writing vide DD No. 36A, which was marked to SI Suraj Singh for appropriate and necessary action. Even SHO Inspr. Sriniwas Rajora, who along with his operator Const. Jagmal and driver ASI Ram, was on patrolling duty in the area, in his government vehicle, was also informed on his wireless. Thereafter the police team reached at Gali no. 8, where a large crowd had gathered infront of H.No. D­292, and SI Suraj Singh, HC Krishan Pal, Const. Yashvir, Const. Ram Swarup, Const. Makhan and Const. Mohd. Ali, were already present at the spot. The caller who had made the PCR Call namely Shahid Khan S/o Late Shakeel Khan, R/o: D­589, Gali no. 8, Om Nagar, was also found present, who had disclosed to the police team that he had made a call at 100 number.

After entering inside H.No. D­292, on the left hand side, ground floor room, which was locked, a foul smell was coming. Thereafter the said lock was broken open with the help of an iron rod lying in the government gypsy of SHO and when FIR No: 389/2014 Page 2 of 70 the police team had entered inside the room, then they found that blood was spread all over the floor and beddings and quilts were piled up on the floor under which one body was lying whose legs were visible from outside. When the beddings and mattresses were removed, then the dead body of a person was found beneath it and lot of blood had oozed out from his head, which had spread all over the room.

One Sh. Jitender Choudhary, after watching the dead body, had identified it to be that of his father Sh. Gulab Chand Choudhary. Thereafter, they had recorded the statement of said Jitender Choudhary, who had disclosed that he was residing on rent in a separate house and was a permanent resident of Village Veerpur, Police Station Bhavarpur, Distt. Ghazipur, Uttar Pradesh and was working in a private firm in Okhla. They were three brothers and three sisters and his mother along with his sister and sister(s) in law (bhabhi) were residing in their village, as all the three brothers were working. About six years ago, his father had started residing at the said address at D­292, Om Nagar, on rent and was working as a plumber, however, due to some of his activities, the complainant had severed all his relationship with his father as they knew that one lady namely Maya was usurping all the earnings of his father. Her son Chandan also used to work with his father and his younger brother Lalit (accused) used to visit his father quite frequently. Some days before the date of incident, Lalit along with one girl FIR No: 389/2014 Page 3 of 70 was residing with the deceased and girl was later on identified as 'K' (JCL), who was stated to be wife of Lalit.

On 15.06.2014, due to holiday on account of being Sunday, at about 6:00­6:30am, Jitender was going to play cricket and while passing through his father's room, when he had looked inside the room, he found his deceased father, Lalit and his wife were present in the room. It was somewhere around 9:00 am, that he had returned to his room from a different route after playing cricket and had gone to sleep.

On 16.06.2014, at about 6:00­6:30pm, one of his friends had called him on phone and asked him to come to the room of his father as some incident had happened there. When he reached the said room, he found large crowd had gathered there. Police had called him inside the room, from where the foul smell was coming and blood was lying all over the floor and one person was buried under the mattress and beddings and after removal of those articles, he saw the body, which was found to be that of his father but accused Lalit and his wife were absconding.

2. On this written statement made by Jitender, the present FIR was registered.

FIR No: 389/2014 Page 4 of 70

3. On 11.07.2014, both the accused persons were stated to have been nabbed by police from Chander Nagar, Unnao, U.P., and were brought to Delhi. Accused was arrested and sent to judicial custody after preliminary investigation.

It was further the case of police that during his custody, accused Lalit had confessed to his guilt which was reduced into writing vide disclosure statement and he had also got the weapon of offence as well as his blood stained shirt and one cloth (gamcha) recovered from bushes near Kalindi Kunj, which were also taken into possession by IO and were seized vide seizure memos and were sent to FSL for their forensic examination. IO had also recorded the statement of witnesses and after completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed before the Court on 19.09.2014, when the cognizance of offence was taken by ld. MM concerned.

4. Vide order dated 20.09.2014, the matter was committed to the Court of Sessions for 01.10.2014.

5. Charge for offence(s) under Section 392/302/201/34 IPC was framed against the accused on 03.11.2014 by ld. Predecessor of this Court, to which he had pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. On the same day, accused had also admitted the following documents, during admission and denial of documents:­ FIR No: 389/2014 Page 5 of 70

(i) Copy of the FIR no. 389/2014, PS Jaitpur as Ex. C­1;

(ii) Crime team report as Ex. C­2;

(iii) Scaled site plan as Ex. C­3;

(iv) MLC No. 11174/2014 of Gulab Choudhary prepared by Dr. Vijay Kumar on 16.06.2014 as Ex. C­4;

(v) Identification statement of Shiv Prasad has been proved as Ex. C­5;

(vi) Electricity Bill no. 102101071 in the name of Smt. Krishna as Ex. C­6;

On 15.03.2023, vide separate statement, accused had also admitted the FSL result dated 28.11.2014 as Ex. PA­1.

6. In order to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the prosecution had examined 23 witnesses in all.

7. In order to appreciate the evidence available on record, it shall be prudent to divide the witnesses into two categories i.e., formal and material.

(A) First of all, I propose to deal with the testimonies of formal witnesses which are as under :

PW­1 is W/Const. Anju Bala, who was working in PCR Headquarters and had stated that she had received telephonic information from mobile phone no. 91­9716433917 on 16.06.2014, at about 6:16:50 (hrs)(pm) that "makaan ke bahar se lock laga hua hai aur makaan se smell as rahi hai" (a room FIR No: 389/2014 Page 6 of 70 was lying locked from outside and a foul smell was coming from inside) and the address of the place of incident was recorded as H.No. 589 ke pass wale makaan mai, Gali no. 8, D­Block, Om Nagar. The said information was recorded vide PCR no. 3269, copy of which was Ex. PW1/A bearing her signatures at pt. A. In her cross examination conducted by ld. Counsel for accused, she had admitted that certified copy of the form did not bear any rubber stamp, nor, full name of Attesting Officer was mentioned on it and the second page did not even bear the signatures of Attesting Officer.

PW­2 is Sh. Pawan Kumar, Nodal Officer, IDEA.

He had placed on record the details of telephone no. 8802770511 belonging to accused Lalit Kumar S/o Sh. Bhola Dass and his enrollment form which has been proved as Ex. PW2/A, copy of his aadhar card, being his proof of identity has been proved as Ex. PW2/B. The CDRs of above said phone from 14.06.2014 till 11.07.2014, has also been proved as Ex. PW2/C. All the said documents were stated to be bearing his signatures at pt. A with stamp and he had also placed on record the Cell ID Chart Ex.

PW2/D along with certificate issued under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act as Ex. PW2/E. In his cross examination conducted by ld. Counsels for accused, he had deposed that there was only one incoming FIR No: 389/2014 Page 7 of 70 call from 9650908917 as reflected in the CDR, which was made on 14.06.2014, at about 19:58:17pm hours and besides this, no other incoming or outgoing call was reflected in respect of said mobile phone number.

PW­4 is HC Chaman Lal, No. 112/SE, who had deposed that on 14.06.2014, he was posted at Police Station Jaitpur, as Duty Officer and his duty hours were from 4:00pm to 12:00 midnight and on receiving an information at 6:30pm, regarding foul smell coming from the H.No. 589, Om Nagar, E­ Block, Gali no. 8, which was reduced into writing vide DD No. 36A Ex. PW4/A and the said information was passed on to SI Suraj Singh for necessary action.

On the same day, at about 10:25pm, HC Kishan Pal had brought a rukka for registration of the FIR sent by Inspr. S.N.Rajora, and on the basis of the same, he had recorded the present FIR, after getting it typed from Computer Operator. Copy of the same has been proved as Ex.PW4/B and he had also made an endorsement Ex. PW4/C, on the rukka also bear his signatures at pt. A. After registration of the FIR, copy of the same along with original rukka was handed over by him to HC Kishan Pal for handing over the same to Inspr. S.N.Rajora. He had also placed on record the certificate issued under Section 65B of FIR No: 389/2014 Page 8 of 70 Indian Evidence Act, as Ex. PW4/D. This witness was not cross examined by or on behalf of accused, despite availing an opportunity in this regard.

PW­5 is Sh. Shiv Prakash, who is the witness to the identification of dead body vide identification memo already exhibited as Ex. C­5, on 17.07.2006 and body was received by him after post mortem vide handing over memo Ex. PW5/A bearing his signatures at pt. A. It shall be pertinent to mention here itself that the witness had changed the year of death of deceased from 2014 to 2006 and was not even re­examined by ld. Addl. PP for State on this aspect.

PW­6 is SI Suraj Singh Tewatia, No. 3692­D, PS Jaitpur, who had deposed that on 16.06.2014, he was deputed on emergency duty from 8:00am to 8:00pm, when at about 6:45pm, he had received an information from Duty Officer about foul smell coming from a house situated at Gali no. 8 and when he reached the spot, a huge crowd was also present there. The house was found locked from outside and a foul smell was coming from there. One person namely Shahid, who had made a call at 100 number was also present there. In the meantime, SHO of the Police Station along with his staff had also arrived there. The lock of the house was got broken open. Crime Team had FIR No: 389/2014 Page 9 of 70 also arrived and they had found the dead body of a person lying there and blood was also lying there in wet condition. The body was covered with quilt (rajai). Crime Team had examined the spot and had taken the photographs. Blood was also lifted by Crime Team from the spot.

Thereafter, one person whose name he could not remember, had identified the dead body of deceased to be that of his father. Though the said boy had also stated certain facts to the SHO, who was investigating this case, but PW­6 knew nothing about it as he was busy in investigation in another room. The dead body was wrapped in a kit bag and was kept at AIIMS Mortuary for post mortem. Doctor had declared the deceased as brought dead vide MLC Ex. C­4.

On 17.06.2014, he had prepared inquest papers and application Ex. PW6/A for conducting the post mortem of the body and had also recorded the statements of Jitender Choudhary and Shiv Prasad which were Ex. PW6/B and Ex. C­5 respectively. He had also filled up the form 25.35 Ex. PW6/C and all the documents were bearing his signatures at pt. A. On 16.06.2014, he along with Const. Ram Swaroop had brought the dead body to the Department of Forensic Medicine Toxicology and had also moved an application Ex. PW6/D for its preservation.

FIR No: 389/2014 Page 10 of 70

On 17.06.2014, after post mortem, he had handed over the dead body to the relatives of deceased vide handing over memo already exhibited as Ex. PW5/A bearing his signatures pt. B. After post mortem, the IO had seized one viscera peti, one brown envelope containing blood in gauze and sample seal vide seizure memo Ex. PW6/E bearing his signature at pt. A. Ld. Addl. PP for State with the permission of the Court had also put one leading question to the witness, in which, he had admitted that after seeing the dead body by Jitender Choudhary, same was stated to be that of his father Gulab Chand, who was residing there as a tenant and working as plumber.

During his cross examination conducted by ld. Counsels appearing for accused, he had admitted that DD was not received by him in writing. Inquest Papers were stated to have been prepared by him at about 12:00­12:30pm (noon) on 17.06.2014 and dead body was deposited by him at about 9:30pm on 16.06.2014 at Emergency of AIIMS Hospital. He was stated to have reached the spot at about 7:00pm and stayed there for one hour. However, he had not informed the Mobile Crime Team, whose Incharge was SI Krishan Kumar. He had also admitted that his statements Ex. PW6/DA and Ex. PW6/DB were recorded on 17.06.2014.

FIR No: 389/2014 Page 11 of 70

The portion from where the dead body was recovered was stated to be consisting of two rooms. Though IO had recorded the statement of one witness at the spot but he did not know his name and dead body after its post mortem was handed over to the family of deceased at about 3:00­3:30pm. Thereafter, he had not visited the spot again.

PW­7 is Dr. Shashank, Senior Resident, Department of Forensic Medicine, AIIMS, Delhi, who had conducted the post mortem of the dead body of deceased on 17.06.2014 and had prepared his report Ex. PW7/A bearing his signatures at pt. A and in his opinion, the cause of death of deceased was coma due to head injury, caused by blunt external force and after post mortem, viscera, clothes and blood in gauze were handed over to SI Suraj Singh in separate sealed pulandas sealed with the seal of Department of Forensic Medicine & Toxicology, AIIMS.

This witness was also not cross examined by or on behalf of accused despite availing an opportunity in this regard.

PW­9 is Sh. Avadesh S/o Sh. Ram Dutt Mishra, who had deposed that he was doing a private job in a factory at Akrampur, District Unnao. Accused was also known to him being resident of same village. He had purchased one mobile phone make NOKIA for Rs. 450/­ from the accused but later on, FIR No: 389/2014 Page 12 of 70 had returned the said mobile and received back his payment of Rs. 450/­ from him, one day prior to the visit of Delhi Police. The said mobile was stated to have been used by him for two days with SIM no. 9565156957. Accused was stated to be residing in the village along with his wife 'K'(JCL) but he could not recollect the period for which the accused had resided in his neighbourhood in the village. He had pointed out the room of accused to the police.

This witness was further examined by ld. Addl. PP for State with the permission of the Court by way of putting leading questions to him, to which he had stated that he could not recollect as to whether he had told the police, in his statement, that accused had stayed in the village along with his wife from 16­17 June or not.

In his cross examination conducted by ld. Counsel for accused, he had deposed that he had told the police about the address of Village Sardar Khera, PS Kotwali, 12, District Unnao. Police was stated to have visited him in the month of July 2014 but he could not recollect the date, nor, he could tell about the number of police officials who had visited him for the purpose of recording of his statement. No other person was stated to be present at the time when the police had recorded his statement. However, he had admitted that he knew many other persons of the locality, where, he was residing, but he could not tell the FIR No: 389/2014 Page 13 of 70 name of landlord of accused. The police had never apprised him about the incident involved in the present case, nor, it had taken his signatures on any papers. Formal suggestions were denied by him as wrong and incorrect.

PW­11 is HC Krishan Pal, No. 519­T, Circle Vasant Vihar, New Delhi, who had stated that on 16.06.2014, he was posted as HC at Police Station Jaitpur and was working as Beat Incharge of Om Nagar area.

On that day, he along with Const. Yashvir, Const. Makhan Lal, Const. Ram Swarup and Const. Mohd. Ali was present in their beat, when at around 6:30pm, Const. Yashvir had received a call from Police Station that a foul smell was coming from H.No. D­292. Upon receiving this intimation, he along with other team members immediately reached at the address, where a large crowd was already found gathered and a foul smell was coming. Caller Shahid Khan was also present at the spot. The room was situated on the left side of the ground floor and was found locked from outside.

In the meantime, SHO Inspr. Sriniwas Rajora, along with SI Suraj Singh, the driver and wireless operator of SHO had also arrived. IO with the help of iron rod had broken open the said lock and when the police team had entered inside the room, they found a dead body covered in quilt and when the quilt was FIR No: 389/2014 Page 14 of 70 removed, the dead body of a male aged about 45­50 years was found lying on a mattress. One boy Jitender was also present there and had identified the dead body as that of his father Gulab Singh. The blood was also found lying on the floor, after which the Crime Team was called at the spot and they had taken the photographs of the spot and lifted the blood samples. IO had also lifted blood stains from the spot and sealed the same with his seal of SNR. The articles were also seized vide seizure memos Ex. PW11/A, Ex. PW11/B and Ex. PW11/C, all bearing his signatures at pt. A. Senior officers like DCP and ACP had also reached the spot, after which IO had prepared tehrir and had given the same to him for getting the case registered. He went to Police Station and got the FIR registered and came back at the spot along with copy of FIR and rukka and handed over the same to IO. Search for accused was also made but no clue was found. Thereafter all of them had returned to the police station, where IO had recorded their statements.

During his cross examination conducted by ld. Defence Counsel, it was deposed by him that he had no fixed duty hours in respect of his beat duties and they had reached the spot within 10 minutes, after receiving the information. About 50­60 persons were found gathered there and 2­4 persons were present inside, whereas, remaining persons were standing outside the building. The main gate of building was already lying open and it was a medium size gate and the persons who had gathered FIR No: 389/2014 Page 15 of 70 there, were standing at a distance of 5­7 feet from the room. Window was stated to be situated above the door of room, however, he could not tell as to whether he had noticed if there was any other window in the room or not. He could not even remember as to whether the main door of the said room was made of iron or wood. The lock was stated to be of medium size but he could not tell its measurement or shape. The rod through which the lock was broken open, was stated to have been arranged from the gypsy of SHO. He could not remember or recollect the color of quilt, in which the dead body was covered. The deceased was stated to be wearing vest and pyjama, but he could not remember its color. The injury marks were found present on the head of deceased. IO along with SI Suraj, PW himself and his beat staff members were stated to have entered inside the room. He had left the spot with the rukka at about 10:00pm on his bike and had returned back to the spot along with copy of FIR and rukka at 11:30pm. Formal suggestions were denied by him as wrong and incorrect.

PW­12 is Const. Ram Swaroop, No. 5331, Security, who was also the member of beat. He had also deposed on the similar lines as deposed by PW­11 HC Krishan Pal, during his examination in chief. However, it was also deposed by him that he along with SI Suraj had taken the body of deceased to the Mortuary of AIIMS and on the direction of IO, he had remained present there for the safe custody of dead body and on the next FIR No: 389/2014 Page 16 of 70 day, SI Suraj had got the post mortem of the dead body of deceased conducted after which, it was handed over to the relatives of deceased. Doctor had also handed over the sealed viscera, blood in gauze samples along with two sample seals and had stated that since the clothes of deceased were wet, hence, the same were not handed over to IO by them at that time.

On 20.06.2014, he had gone to AIIMS Mortuary and collected the sealed pulanda of clothes of deceased with sample seal and had handed over the same to IO which was seized by IO vide seizure memo Ex. PW12/A. On 31.07.2014, upon instructions of IO, MHC(M) had handed over him the sealed pulanda and sample seal for their deposition at FSL vide RC and he had deposited the same with FSL and brought back the acknowledgment, which he had handed over to MHC(M). Copy of the RC has been proved as Ex. PW12/B along with receipt from FSL as Ex. PW12/C. He had also claimed to have identified the lock seized in this case and had accordingly identified the steel color lock as Ex. P1.

However, during his cross examination conducted by ld. Defence Counsel, quite contrary to the version of PW­11, he had stated that they had reached the spot within 5 minutes, after receiving the information by Const. Yashwir, however, he could not remember as to whether they had reached the spot on FIR No: 389/2014 Page 17 of 70 foot or by some vehicle, nor, he could tell the distance between the spot and place, where they were standing. He could not even tell whether the building was facing towards East or otherwise. The said building was stated to have been surrounded by other buildings on adjacent sides. The main gate of said building had already remained opened but he could not tell the size of the main gate, however, it was stated to be large enough to get a car passed through it. He had stated that all the public persons were standing on the road outside the building. He also could not remember as to whether the door of room was made of iron or wood. He had not noticed, whether there was any window in the said room or not and could not even remember if the dead body was lying directly on the floor or on something in between like the mattresses or bed sheet. As per this witness, the deceased was though wearing the clothes but he could not remember the description thereof. Formal suggestions were denied by him as wrong and incorrect.

PW­13 is W/Const. Krishna, who had arrested the JCL 'K' in this case and her personal search was conducted at Police Station vide memos Ex. PW13/A and Ex.PW13/B respectively. IO had also recorded the disclosure statement of JCL vide Ex. PW13/C. This witness was not cross examined by or on behalf of accused despite availing an opportunity in this regard.

FIR No: 389/2014 Page 18 of 70

PW­15 is Const. Shyam Lal, who had stated that on 16.06.2014, he was posted as Constable at Police Station Jaitpur, when on the direction of Duty Officer, he had taken the copies of FIR of this case and had delivered the same to the office of DCP, South East, Jt. Commissioner, Southern Range and ld. MM concerned.

In his cross examination conducted by ld. Defence Counsel, he was stated to be on night duty in the beat area from 11:00pm to 5:00am, however, he could not remember the time when he had received the copy of FIR from Duty Officer. The said copy of FIR was delivered at the office of DCP, Jt. CP and copy of the same was also handed over to ld. MM in person at his residence.

PW­17 is Sh. Surender Kumar, Nodal Officer, Bharti Airtel Ltd., who had proved the record of telephone no. 9650908917 from 14.06.2014 till 11.07.2014, which was in the name of deceased Gulab Chand S/o Sh. Kashi Ram, R/o; 1, Harijan Basti, Meethapur, Delhi. The CAF placed on record has been proved as Ex. PW17/A. The attested photocopy of election ID Card of deceased has been proved as Ex. PW17/A­1. The CDR of mobile has been proved as Ex. PW17/B and Cell ID Chart has been proved as Ex. PW17/C as well as certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act as Ex. PW17/D. The aforesaid record was stated to have been made available to IO by Sh.

FIR No: 389/2014 Page 19 of 70

Chander Shekhar, the then Nodal Officer and the said certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, was also placed on record by him as Ex. PW17/F, which was bearing signature of Sh. Chandra Shekhar, at point 'A' as he had seen him writing and signing during the official course of duties, as he was his colleague.

This witness was not cross examined by or on behalf of the accused despite availing an opportunity in this regard.

PW­18 is Ms. Pooja Shrotriya, who was stated to be working as JFCE/ SSO Biology, at FSL Rohini, in the year 2014­ 2015. On 31.07.2014, 8 parcels in connection with the present case were duly received in her office, which were sealed and were verified with the specimen seal and the same were examined by her both serologically and biologically. She had placed on record her detailed report as Ex. PW18/A (biological report) (two pages) and Ex. PW18/B serological report (single page) and both the exhibits were bearing her signatures at pt. A. During her cross examination conducted by ld. Defence Counsels for accused, she had stated that date regarding handing over of sealed pulanda/ case property was mentioned in her register, maintained at her office and they had not conducted videography while tallying with the seal at the time of examination and the examination would not have been conducted FIR No: 389/2014 Page 20 of 70 if the seal was found tampered. The report was handed over by her on 30.09.2015 and the examination was done with the help of the team, however, report bear her signatures only. Other formal suggestions were denied by her as wrong and incorrect.

PW­20 is HC Rajinder, No: 317/East, who was stated to be working as MHC(M) at Police Station Jaitpur and he had stated that on 16.06.2014, he was working as MHC(M). IO Inspr. S.N.Rajora, had handed over him five sealed pulandas duly sealed with the seal of SNR and had also handed over the copy of the seizure memo, which he had deposited in the malkhana vide entry Ex. PW20/A. On the same day, IO had also handed over one sealed pulanda which he had deposited in the malkhana vide entry Ex. PW20/B. On 17.06.2014, one exhibit (viscera) sealed with the seal of Deptt. Of Forensic Medicine, AIIMS, New Delhi, with one sample seal was deposited in the malkhana vide entry Ex. PW20/C. On 20.06.2014, another sealed pulanda sealed with the seal of Deptt. Of Forensic Medicine, AIIMS, was deposited by him vide entry Ex. PW20/D. FIR No: 389/2014 Page 21 of 70 On 11.07.2014, the then IO/ Inspr. Ravinder Kumar Tomar, had deposited two exhibits sealed with the seal of RKT vide entry Ex. PW20/E. Thereafter, on the instruction of IO, on 24.07.2014, he had sent the viscera to FSL Rohini, through Const. Sunil, vide RC No. 167/21/14, who after depositing the same had returned to Police Station and handed over its acknowledgment receipt, which was entered by him against the relevant entry. Copy of RC and acknowledgment receipt were placed on record as Ex. PW20/F and Ex. PW20/G respectively.

On 31.07.2014, 9 exhibits were sent by him to FSL Rohini, copy of RC and acknowledgment receipt were Ex. PW12/B and Ex. PW12/C respectively.

In his cross examination conducted by ld. Defence Counsel for accused, he could not remember the exact time when the IO had deposited the case property in malkhana. Other formal suggestions were denied by him as wrong and incorrect.

PW­21 is Smt. Krishna, who is the owner of H.No. 92/8, Om Nagar, Meethapur, New Delhi, and in the year 2014, Gulab Chand Choudhary was stated to be residing there as her tenant on the ground floor for the last two years and the tenancy was oral. Deceased Gulab Chand was paying rent of Rs. 700/­ FIR No: 389/2014 Page 22 of 70 per month and was also looking after her house. She came to know that someone had murdered Gulab Chand in her house.

This witness was not cross examined by or on behalf of the accused despite availing an opportunity in this regard.

PW­22 is SI Rajiv Kumar, No. D­1547, Police Station Kalindi Kunj, who had deposed that on the direction of SHO Police Jaitpur, after receipt of FSL report dated 30.09.2015, he had submitted the supplementary charge sheet in the Court.

During his cross examination conducted by ld. Counsel for accused, he had stated that he had not sent the exhibits to FSL and had only collected the FSL report and submitted it before the Court. He had admitted that he did not remember the exact date, when he had received the aforesaid FSL report and also did not remember the date, when the exhibits were sent to FSL. He had not brought the FSL report and remnants from FSL to the police station and also did not remember the DD number vide which the aforesaid FSL report and remnants were received in their police station. He could not remember the date when he had submitted the supplementary charge sheet in the Court. He had denied the suggestion as wrong that the FSL report was a manipulated document or that he had not deposited any report in the present case. Other formal suggestions were denied by him as wrong and incorrect.

FIR No: 389/2014 Page 23 of 70

 (B)          Now I propose to discuss the testimony of
material witnesses.

The first and foremost testimony which is required to be discussed in the present case, is the testimony of PW­8 Sh. Jitender Chaudhary, S/o Late Gulab Chand Chaudhary, who is the son of deceased. He had deposed that he was doing a private Job at Pune (Maharashtra) and at the time of incident, he was residing in Om Nagar on rent at some distance from the house of his father. His father was living in Delhi since his childhood.

On 15.06.2014, at about 06:30 pm, he had received a call from Santosh, who was residing with him in the rented premises and asked him to immediately reach the house. He had asked him, the reason for the same, but he had not replied. After his duty hours at about 05:30 pm, he immediately rushed towards his house and on reaching the house of his father at around 06:30 pm on his cycle, he saw a gathering of public persons at the house of his father. Police was also present there. Police had told him that foul smell was coming from the room of his father. Senior police officials were also present there and they had peeped into the room through torch light, however, they could not see anything at the first instance. Thereafter, police had broken the locks of room of his father and had also clicked photographs of the room. The body of his father was lying near FIR No: 389/2014 Page 24 of 70 the door and covered with quilt and blood was lying there. He had identified the body of his father and after seeing the same, he became nervous. Police had told him that they were shifting the dead body of his father to AIIMS and had asked him whether Lalit and Kavita were also residing with his father in the same room. He had informed the police that he had seen them in the room of his father. Police had asked him whether he was knowing the address of Lalit and Kavita and he had told them that he could take them to their house as he had seen them in his childhood.

Thereafter he had taken the police to the said locality, however, Lalit was not found residing there and only his brother had met them. The witness had stated with some uncertainty that the said locality might be Yamuna Bazaar.

Thereafter, police had brought him as well as brother of Lalit namely Chandan and his mother to the Police Station and interrogated both of them. He had remained in the police station the whole night and did not know whether Police had released them after interrogation or had detained them. Police had recorded his statement Ex. PW8/A bearing his signature at point­ A. In the morning, police official namely Ravinder Tomar had told him that the body of his father was lying at FIR No: 389/2014 Page 25 of 70 AIIMS Hospital and in the meantime, his brother had also reached at the Police Station and thereafter police had taken him and his brother to AIIMS. Police had shown them the dead body of his father and he had identified the same. Thereafter, the dead body of his father was handed over to them by the police for last rites. He alongwith his relatives had cremated the dead body of his father.

Thereafter, he had gone to his village for performing other ceremonies of deceased father. Accused Lalit was absconding after the murder of his father, but later on police had arrested him. After his arrest, police had called him in the Police Station and he alongwith his mother had gone there. He was informed by the police that accused had been sent to Tihar Jail. He got suspicious about the accused, since he was missing from the room.

Thereafter, Ld. Addl. PP for State had sought permission of the Court to put certain questions to this witness, as he was resiling from his previous statement and with the permission of the Court, he had put certain questions to the witness, to which he had stated that he had told the police in his statement that his father was living in House No. D­292. Om Nagar for the last six years and was doing job of plumber. He had also told the police that they had snapped the relations with their father as they were not liking his conduct and had also told FIR No: 389/2014 Page 26 of 70 them that brother of accused Lalit namely Chandan was working with his father and mother of Chandan namely Maya was taking all the earnings of his father. He had told the police that he had seen accused Lalit and Kavita at the house of his father as he had visited there at around 06:30 am, one day prior to the murder of his father. He had denied the suggestion as wrong that he had told the police that Kavita was residing with Lalit at the house of his father being his wife and further denied the suggestion that he had told the police in his statement u/s 161 CrPC recorded on 16.06.2014, that police had lifted exhibits from the spot and had kept them in a jar and sealed the same. The said witness was confronted with statement Mark PW8/X, where it was so recorded.

He had admitted that police had prepared site plan of the place of incident and had also interrogated several persons and had tried to search the accused.

Thereafter this witness was cross examined by ld. Defence Counsel, wherein, he had denied the suggestion that he had left Delhi in the year 2012. He had further stated that he had studied upto 8" Standard and was aged around 14­15 years, when he had started working in Delhi. He had the knowledge about the game of cricket, however, he did not know what is leg bye. He had volunteered that he knew only batting and fielding.

FIR No: 389/2014 Page 27 of 70

He had informed his bhabi on telephone about the incident, on the same day. He had denied the suggestion that his father was not on visiting terms to their native village for last about 20 years or that his father was giving whole of his earning to mother of Lalit and that is why he had mentioned the name of Lalit in his statement to the police. He had stated that he did not know the names of police officials, who had accompanied him to the house of accused in police gypsy on the day when locks of room of his father were broken open by the police. He did not know the name of his landlord, where he was residing at the time of incident and when he had reached on the call of Santosh to the house of his father, he had found Santosh present at the said place.

There were around 15 police officials at the place of incident and there were five rooms and two kitchens in the house, where his father was living. He was taken by the police to the Police Station on Monday night and was kept in the Police Station for the whole night and was not taken anywhere. He could not remember as to how many statements were made by him to the police. He had gone to Police Station about 3­4 times, after recording of his statement and had not seen Lalit and Kavita in the Police Station. Police had recorded his statement at his instance but the same was not read by him. He had denied the suggestion that he was not on speaking terms with his father or that he was not residing in Delhi at the time of incident. Other FIR No: 389/2014 Page 28 of 70 formal suggestions were also denied by him as wrong and incorrect.

The next material and star witness of the prosecution case is PW­10 Sh. Gaurav, S/o Late Hari Singh, who is also an eye witness as per the prosecution and being minor aged about 16 years, his statement was recorded without administering oath to him.

He had stated that he was a student and studying in 10 standard. At the time of incident, he was residing in house No. D­128, Gali No. 5, Om Nagar, Meethapur Extn., New Delhi and prior to that they were residing in House No. D­252, Om Nagar, Meethapur Extn., New Delhi. He was a permanent resident of Village Sikandar Rao, District Aligarh (UP). In Delhi, he was staying with his mother and sister on rented premises, but did not know the name of landlord of the said premises.

He did not know the accused, who was facing trial in the present case. Police had visited him on 28.06.2014 and he had told them that he had seen two persons while going from the gali. He had told the police the name of person as Lalit, whom he had seen. The name of other person he did not know. He had seen them while going on 15.06.2014, and had not told anything else to the police.

FIR No: 389/2014 Page 29 of 70

Thereafter this witness was declared hostile by ld. Addl. PP for State as he was resiling from his previous statement and he had sought permission to put questions to this witness under Section 154 Indian Evidence Act and with the permission of the Court, he had put certain questions to the said witness, to which the witness had stated that police might have recorded his statement, but he was not sure about the same. He could not recollect whether he had told the police in his statement that prior to 16.06.2014, he was residing in house No. D­252, Om Nagar, Meethapur, Gali No. 8. Thereafter this witness was confronted with the statement Mark­PW10/A from portion A to A, where it was so recorded.

He further stated that he could not recollect whether he had told the police that he was residing in the house of his bua. Thereafter again this witness was confronted with statement Mark­PW10/A from portion B to B, where it was so recorded.

He had further stated that he could not recollect whether he had told the police in his statement that on 15.06.2014, he was residing in the adjoining room of Gulab Chand uncle and on that day at around 09:00/10:00 am, he was standing outside his room and saw that Lalit and his wife 'K' (JCL), who used to reside with Gulab Chand were going while carrying a bag and when he had made an inquiry from Lalit, as to where he was going, he was told that they were leaving the said FIR No: 389/2014 Page 30 of 70 house and were going to reside at some other place. Again this witness was confronted with statement Mark­PW10/A from portion C to C, where it was so recorded.

He had admitted that he had told the police that on 16.06.2014, a foul smell was coming from the room of Gulab Chand and someone had made a call to 100 number and police had come there and got opened the door of room of Gulab Chand and thereafter, he came to know that Gulab Chand had been murdered.

He had denied the suggestion as wrong that statement Mark­PW­10/A was correctly recorded by the police at his instance or that accused present before the Court was the same person, who was going from the room of Gulab Chand alongwith a lady namely 'K' or that he was not identifying the accused deliberately to save him from prosecution of present case as he had been won over by the family of accused.

Thereafter this witness was not cross examined by the ld. Counsel for accused despite availing an opportunity in this regard.

PW­3 is Sh. Shahid Khan, S/o Sh. Shakeel Khan, who had called the police at 100 number and he had deposed that it was about 6­7 months back, probably in the month of FIR No: 389/2014 Page 31 of 70 September­October, 2014, that he had come back from his private job at around 05:00 pm, when his mother told him that very strong foul smell was coming from House No. D­292, which was at a distance of 8 to 10 houses from his house. His mother had asked him to go and inquire the matter and once he had reached there, he saw a mob of people gathered outside the house and in one of the rooms, which was lying locked, the foul smell was coming. All the rooms in the said house were occupied by the tenants, but none of the tenants/occupants had shown the courage to inform the police. Thereafter, he had informed the police at 100 number from his mobile phone bearing No. 9716433917. Thereafter, one police Gypsy had reached there at around 06:15­06:30 pm. In the meantime, local police from PS Jaitpur had also reached at the spot.

The lock of the room was broken and police had entered inside. He had also entered alongwith them in the room and saw one body lying under heap of mattresses and quilts with a pool of blood gathered around the same. The said room belonged to one Gulab Chand, who was a plumber in the local area. In the meantime, his son Jitender Kumar was also called and once the said mattresses etc., were removed, the dead body of Gulab Chand was recovered beneath it, which was duly identified by his son Jitender Kumar. Police had also inquired from him in this case and had recorded his statement. He could FIR No: 389/2014 Page 32 of 70 identify the dead body of said Gulab Chand, if it was shown to him.

Thereafter the witness was shown the photographs Mark A & B and he had identified the body shown therein to be that of Gulab Chand.

Thereafter Ld. Addl. PP for State had sought permission to put leading question to this witness relating to the date of incident, as he had not cited the same correctly and with the permission of the Court, he had put the question to him, to which the witness had admitted that the incident was of 16.06.2014 and due to natural memory decay, he could not recall the exact date.

Thereafter this witness was cross examined by ld. Counsel for accused, wherein, he had stated that he had studied upto class 10" and worked at Noida. He used to commute to his work place in his own Car. His normal working hours were from 10:00 am to 05:00 pm, however, he could not remember the exact name and designation of police official, whom he had met first at the spot, but SHO, PS Jaitpur was also present there. He could not recollect the number of police official, who had called him on his mobile. Probably police officials had obtained his signatures on some documents as well and again in the same breath, he had stated that he had signed certain documents.

FIR No: 389/2014 Page 33 of 70

Police had inquired from him at the spot itself and thereafter, he was never called by them. He could not say about the number of rooms constructed in the house from where the body was recovered, however, the door of the room from which the body was recovered, opened towards the East direction. The said room was not visible from the road. He had admitted that police officials were removing the public, who had gathered near the spot, but he had remained there at the spot till the removal of dead body by the police. The dead body was removed between 09:00 to 10:00 pm in police vehicle. PCR had arrived at the spot within 10 to 15 minutes of his making the call, however, he did not know whether police had recorded statement of any other witness, at the spot or not. He had denied the suggestion as wrong that neither he was present at the spot nor he had informed the police on 100 number from his mobile phone. He had further denied the suggestion as wrong that this phone was being used by his wife and not by him, this witness had also volunteered that he was unmarried. He had further denied the suggestion as wrong that the mobile phone was being used by some lady.

Thereafter Court Observation was made that the witness had taken out his mobile phone and asked Ld. Defence Counsel to dial his number, which was stated to be the same from which the PCR Call was made and ld. Defence Counsel had dialled the number 9716433917 from his mobile phone no.

FIR No: 389/2014 Page 34 of 70

9810884531 and he had confirmed that the said number belonged to him.

He had denied the suggestion as wrong that he was not using this number permanently and had brought the same in the Court only to justify his claim of having informed the police through this number or that police had not recorded his statement in this case. Other formal suggestions were denied by him as wrong and incorrect.

PW­14 Insp. SN Rajora, No. DI­911, was the first Investigating Officer of this case. He had stated that on 16.06.2014, he was posted as SHO at PS Jaitpur and on that day, at around 06.30 pm he was on patrolling in the area in his official Gypsy and had received a wireless message on his set regarding foul smell coming from the house no. D­589. Om Nagar, Gali No. 8. He had reached the spot, where SI Suraj, HC Krishan Pal and other staff were found present. He met one boy namely Shahid, who had told him about his making a call at 100 number to control room.

On investigating the spot, it was revealed that foul smell was coming from House No. D­292, Om Nagar and it was locked from out side. The lock was broken and they had entered inside the house and saw a heap of quilts (rajai) and a pair of human legs was revealing under the said heap. When the quilts FIR No: 389/2014 Page 35 of 70 (rajaai) were removed by him, he saw dead body of a man lying beneath it and a pool of blood near his head. A mob had gathered out side the room and suddenly one boy namely Jitender had come in and identified the body to be of his father namely Gulab Chand. Crime team was called at the spot who had taken the photographs and searched for chance prints. Blood, earth control, broken locks and piece of quilt (rajai) lying at the spot were collected by him and were kept in transparent plastic jars and were sealed with the seal of SNR. The said articles were taken into possession vide seizure memos already Ex. PW11/A, Ex. PW11/B and Ex. PW11/C, all were bearing his signatures at point B. Thereafter, the dead body was sent to AIIMS mortuary through Ct. Ram Swaroop for post mortem. Statement of Jitender, son of deceased was recorded which was already exhibited as Ex. PW 8/A bearing his signature at point B. He had prepared the rukka Ex. PW14/A bearing his signatures at pt. A and had sent the same for registration of FIR through Ct. Krishan Pal.

Thereafter, he had prepared the site plan Ex. PW14/B bearing his signature at point A. In the meantime, Ct. Krishan Pal had reached the spot and had handed over him original rukka and copy of FIR. He had noted down the particulars of the case on the site plan and further investigation FIR No: 389/2014 Page 36 of 70 was made by him at the spot. Statements of witnesses were also recorded by him. Accused was also searched but no clue was found. Thereafter, they had returned back to Police Station where the seized articles were deposited with MHC(M).

On the next day i.e. 17.06.2014, post mortem of dead body was got conducted through SI Suraj and the dead body after its identification was handed over to the relatives of deceased. Blood in gauze alongwith viscera were handed over to SI Suraj by the Doctors conducting post mortem with the seal of Department of Forensic Medicine. AIIMS, New Delhi and the same alongwith sample seal were handed over by SI Suraj to him, which were taken into possession vide seizure memo already exhibited as Ex. PW6/E. Ct. Ram Swaroop had handed over him the sealed pulanda of clothes of deceased alongwith sample seal of AIIMS and the same was seized vide memo already exhibited as Ex. PW12/A and both were bearing his signatures at point B. On 28.06.2014, further investigation of this case was marked to Insp. Ravinder.

He had identified the case property which was produced in a white plastic Katta (Bag) without seal and from it, one yellow colour envelope with the seal of FSL, Delhi, marked as parcel 1, was taken out and on opening of the same, it found FIR No: 389/2014 Page 37 of 70 containing one transparent plastic jar containing few pieces of RCC and on the lid of container a slip of FSL was pasted, which were identified by him as Ex. P2 collectively. The envelope was also containing a piece of cloth having seal of SNR and case particulars written on it.

Thereafter, another plastic jar was produced with the seal, however same was not legible having case particulars written on the cloth used to seal lid of the plastic transparent jar. The jar was found containing one broken lock which had been identified by this witness as already Ex. P1.

Another yellow colour envelope with the seal of FSL, Delhi, marked as parcel 5 was taken out and on opening of the same, it was found containing one transparent plastic jar containing cotton gauze of blood and on the lid of the container, a slip of FSL was pasted. The cotton gauze of blood was shown to the witness, who had correctly identified the same and the same was exhibited as Ex. P3 collectively. The envelope was also containing a piece of cloth having seal of SNR and case particulars were written on it.

Another yellow colour envelope with the seal of FSL, Delhi, marked as parcel 3 was taken out and on opening the same, it was found containing one transparent plastic jar containing earth control and on the lid of container, a slip of FSL FIR No: 389/2014 Page 38 of 70 was pasted. The earth control was shown to the witness, who had correctly identified the same as Ex. P4 collectively. The envelope was also containing a piece of cloth having seal of SNR and case particulars were written on it.

Another yellow colour envelope with the seal of FSL, Delhi, marked as parcel 7 was taken out and on opening of the same, it was found containing one brown envelope having seal of AIIMS Hospital, which was not related to this witness, hence the same was not shown to the witness and resealed with the seal of Court.

Another yellow colour envelope with the seal of FSL, Delhi, marked as parcel 4 was taken out and on opening of the same, it was found containing one yellow envelope with case particulars as well as seal of SNR and the same was in tom condition and was containing one plastic transparent vial having FSL slip. The vial was found with one white plastic attached stick only and neither any cotton nor any blood was seen. The vial was shown to the witness who had correctly identified the same and was exhibited as Ex. P5.

During his further examination on 05.02.2019, MHC(M) had produced one sealed envelop parcel mark 2 bearing seal of FSL and particulars of the case. The sealed pulanda was opened and it was found containing Ex. 2a (piece of FIR No: 389/2014 Page 39 of 70 cloth blood stained) and Ex. 2b (piece of cotton blood stained) which was kept in transparent plastic jar and same was shown to the witness who had identified the same as being seized in the present case from the spot and were collectively exhibited as Ex. P6.

During cross examination of this witness by ld. Defence Counsel(s), he had stated that he could not remember as to whether any DD entry was recorded by him while leaving the PS for patrolling in the evening of 16.6.2014 or not related to this case. He further could not remember the name of driver who was driving the Govt. gypsy by which he was on patrolling on the said date.

He had admitted that the message received by his operator was of house No. 589 Om Nagar, but he had reached the spot i.e. H. No. D­292 Om Nagar. He could not tell the names of persons who had informed him about the place of occurrence and had volunteered that before his reaching at the spot, Beat Constable Yashbir had already reached there and had informed him over phone that real spot was D­292. He had admitted it to be correct that he had not stated these facts in his examination in chief.

He did not know the make of lock, but it was broken with the rod kept in the gypsy by them. No video recording was FIR No: 389/2014 Page 40 of 70 done regarding breaking of lock and he alongwith his staff and some public persons had entered inside the house after breaking the lock and in the same breath he had stated again that no public person was allowed to enter inside. The public persons were standing outside the room and one Shahid was associated in the investigation. Jitender Chaudhary, son of deceased had also reached the spot who was also associated in the investigation.

No DD entry was got recorded at the PS regarding calling of Crime Team at the spot. SI Krishan and Ct. Puneet reached the spot as Crime Team members at about 7.30pm. DCP other than the officials of crime team was called. He had not recorded the statement of owner of the house where the incident had taken place.

On his direction, the beat constable had brought the plastic jars used for sealing the exhibits, however, he did not know from where he had procured the said jars. However, he had not paid for the same, nor, had mentioned this fact in any statement recorded by him.

The accused was searched in the area of PS, however, he did not know the time when he had started searching for the accused and till what time he had searched for him in the area. He could not remember as to how many chance prints were taken by the Crime Team from the spot and also did not FIR No: 389/2014 Page 41 of 70 remember the number of photographs clicked by the crime team at the spot.

There were many tenants in the house at that time and he had inquired from them however their statements were neither recorded u/s 161 CrPC, nor, he remembered their names. He had requested some public persons who had gathered at the spot to join the proceedings but they had refused and no notice in writing was served upon them by him.

He had inquired Jitender about his address when he had come at the spot and had noted down the same in the rukka and the statement but he could not remember the said address. He could not remember the exact time when DCP had reached and left the spot, but he had remained at the spot for 5­10 minutes. The seal used by him was lying in his government vehicle, in his IO kit. He had finally left the spot at about 12:00 midnight. He could not remember the name of Duty Officer deployed in the PS on the day of incident. HC Krishan Pal had taken the rukka to PS on his motorcycle but he did not remember the registration number of his bike. He had come back with copy of FIR at the spot at about 12:00 midnight.

Some paper work was done before and during lodging of FIR and FIR number was filled up on those papers later on. The exhibits were deposited in the Malkhana of Police FIR No: 389/2014 Page 42 of 70 Station, however, he did not remember the DD number of roznamcha and entry no. of register no. 19 regarding deposition of case property. He also did not remember the name of MHC(M) on duty on that day.

He also did not remember the names of relatives to whom deadbody was handed over by him after post mortem and also did not remember the registration number of the vehicle in which dead body was sent for postmortem. Doctor had given the viscera and other sealed articles to Ct. Ram Swarup, who had handed over the same to him, which were taken into possession by him and deposited in the malkhana. He had denied the suggestion as wrong that viscera and other exhibits were handed over to him by SI Suraj.

He had remained the IO of this case till 28.6.2014, however, he could not recollect the exact places searched by him in order to arrest the accused. They had taken the CDR of one suspected mobile number but he could not recollect the number. CDR was though stated to have been placed on court record.

He could not recollect the total number of floors of the building as well as rooms on each floor. There was one handpump on the side of ground floor and it was not shown in the site plan Ex. PW14/B, which was prepared at the instance of PW Jitender.

FIR No: 389/2014 Page 43 of 70

He had recorded the statements of Jitender, Shahid, his staff members and crime team on the spot. He could not recollect the name of each and every officer whose statement was recorded by him at the spot. He had denied the suggestion as wrong that he had not joined the investigation or that he had not visited the spot or that he had prepared the documents in the PS and that is why investigation was handed over to other officer. Other formal suggestions were denied by him as wrong and incorrect.

PW­16 is SI Hemant, No. D­5128, PS Sarojini Nagar, who had deposed that on 09.07.2014, he was posted as SI at PS Jaitpur and on that day, on the directions of senior officials, a raiding party was constituted comprising of himself, HC Ravinder, Ct. Ravinder, Ct. Yashvir, Ct. Vikas and Ct. Mohd. Ali and all of them had left the Police Station in the evening in a private vehicle for Unnao, UP and had reached there next morning. Thereafter they had searched for accused persons in the area of Chander Nagar, near Unnao and had traced out one person namely Avdhesh Kumar, on the basis of call details and with his help, accused Lalit Dass and his wife 'K' (name withheld as she being a CCL) were apprehended and they were interrogated in their rented premises in Akrampur area.

FIR No: 389/2014 Page 44 of 70

Accused persons though had initially refused to be involved in the case, however, had agreed to accompany them to Delhi. He had recorded the statement of Avdhesh Kumar stating that he had purchased a phone from Lalit Dass for Rs. 450/­ and was using the same phone with the SIM in his name and since it was not working properly, he had returned the same to Lalit.

They alongwith Lalit and his wife had returned to Delhi on 11.07.2014, and had reached here in the morning time and both of them were handed over to IO/Inspector Ravinder Kumar Tomar. IO had interrogated both of them separately in his presence and recorded disclosure statement of accused Lalit vide Ex.PW16/A, bearing his signature at point­A and accused was also arrested and his personal search was conducted vide memos exhibited as Ex.PW16/B and Ex.PW16/C and both were bearing his signatures at point­A. He had also correctly identified the accused in the Court.

One key, mobile phone and cash of Rs. 5,500/­ were recovered from the possession of accused and the same were seized by IO, after sealing all of them in a plastic jar with the seal of 'RKT' vide memo Ex PW16/D, bearing his signature at point­ A. Accused had also pointed out the place of incident and pointing out memo was exhibited as Ex.PW16/E bearing his signature at point­A. FIR No: 389/2014 Page 45 of 70 One iron rod with blood stains and blood stained shirt was also seized at his instance from Kalindi Kunj Ghat under the bushes and the same were seized after sealing them in a pullanda with the seal of 'RKT' vide memo exhibited as Ex.PW16/F, bearing his signatures at point­A. The wife of accused (who is also an accused and her name is being withheld being CCL) was also interrogated by IO and her disclosure statement and pointing memo was also prepared at her instance, During the further examination of this witness on 08.01.2018, MHC(M) had produced one sealed pullanda in the form of yellow envelop with case particular and marked as parcel no. I and sealed with the seal of FSL and on opening of the pullanda, it was found containing one iron rod with sharp point on one side (digging instrument), one blood stained white shirt, one gamchha and a torn cloth pullanda having seal impressions of 'RKT' and case particulars alongwith a white polythene. The case property was shown to the witness, who had correctly identified the same and were exhibited as Ex. MO1, Ex. MO2 and Ex. MO3 (iron rod, shirt and gamchha).

During his further examination in chief on 07.03.2018, MHC(M) had produced one sealed transparent plastic cylindrical jar sealed with the seal of 'RKT' with the help of doctor's tape, on which case particulars were written. On opening of the jar, it was found containing 11 currency notes of FIR No: 389/2014 Page 46 of 70 Rs. 500/­ denomination, one key and black colour mobile make Nokia, which were shown to him, who had correctly identified the same and cash has been exhibited as Ex. MO­4 (colly), key as Ex. MO­5 and mobile phone as Ex MO­6. He had correctly identified the accused in the Court.

During his cross examination conducted by ld. Counsel(s) for accused persons on 29.05.2018, he had stated that he had given an application to SHO Jaitpur and thereafter, he was given written permission to constitute a raiding party.

Thereafter the witness had gone through the Court file as well as the police file and had stated that the said permission was not lying in any of the files.

Before going to Unnao (UP) a DD entry was lodged but he did not remember the number of the said DD. He also did not remember the name of Duty Officer posted in Police Station at that time. He also did not remember the number of private vehicle in which they had gone to Unnao and had not made any payment to the driver/owner of said private vehicle, as it was the duty of MHC(M) to pay the hire charges to the said driver/owners. In his presence MHC(M) had not made any payment to said driver/owner.

FIR No: 389/2014 Page 47 of 70

They had informed the local police station at Unnao about their arrival, however, he did not remembered the name of Incharge of Police Station. A DD Entry about their arrival at Unnao was lodged, however, he did not remember its number. Some police officials from local Police Station of Unnao had also accompanied them but he did not remember their names. He had not recorded the statements of the police officials of local PS of Unnao who had accompanied them for investigation. He had brought the copies of relevant DDs lodged by him about their arrival and investigation in local PS of Unnao and handed over the same to IO/Inspector Ravinder Kr. Tomar. He did not know whether he had placed the said DDs on the record of the case file or not.

Thereafter the witness had gone through the Court file as well as the police file and had stated that the said DDs were not lying in any of the files.

The surveillance details of the calls of the mobile phone of accused were taken by IO and not by him. The CDRs of the mobile phone of accused were given to him by IO alongwith the case file and simultaneously he was directing him on phone about the position and location of the suspect's mobile number which he was checking through surveillance. He had not mentioned in the case diaries of the case file, that he and IO were talking to each other about the position and location of the FIR No: 389/2014 Page 48 of 70 suspect's mobile number which they were checking through surveillance.

He had recorded the statement of Sh. Avdhesh Kumar in the presence of other members of the raiding party. He had not joined any independent public witness while recording the statement of Avdhesh Kumar. Accused Lalit Kumar Dass was informed about the averments/allegations against him and he himself had offered to accompany them to Delhi. Thereafter, he alongwith his wife had willingly and voluntarily accompanied them to Delhi. They had not lodged any departure entry in the local PS while leaving Unnao and mentioned that accused Lalit had voluntarily accompanied them to Delhi. He had not obtained anything in writing from the accused about his willingness to accompany the raiding party to Delhi and had also not informed the landlord of the house of accused or to any of his family member that he was accompanying them to Delhi. He had denied the suggestion that accused was forcibly taken to Delhi by them after he had refused to be involved in this case. He had not obtained any service record from the company of accused and had not informed the employer of accused, that they were taking him alongwith them.

On return to Delhi, after handing over the accused to the IO, he had lodged their arrival entry in PS Jaitpur, however, he did not remember the number of said DD or the name of Duty FIR No: 389/2014 Page 49 of 70 Officer. He had signed the disclosure statement of accused and had not given any information to the family members of accused about his arrest, but the same was given by IO in his presence. He did not remember the name of said family member or his mobile number on which this information was given. The accused was arrested at about 11:00 am and after his arrest and recording of his disclosure statement, he was taken out from PS for effecting recovery, however, he did not remember the numbers of DD, vide which they had left and arrived back at the PS. He was not aware whether any DD was lodged by IO regarding the arrest of accused. IO had requested some public persons for joining the investigation but they had not joined the investigation. No written notice was served upon those public persons in his presence who had refused to join the investigation. He did not remember whether any photographer was called by IO for taking the photographs of the place of occurrence. Accused was taken to the spot i.e., D­Block, Om Nagar, in his presence. He had not asked any public person for joining the investigation in a murder case. He had not talked to the landlord. He could not recollect as to after how many days of lodging of FIR, accused was taken to spot but he was taken on 11.07.2014. He had denied the suggestion that he had not joined the investigation or he had not gone to Unnao (UP) or that nothing was recovered at the instance of accused or that accused was not taken to place of occurrence or he was deposing under pressure from his senior officials or that he had signed the documents at the instance of FIR No: 389/2014 Page 50 of 70 senior officials. Other formal suggestions were also denied by him as wrong and incorrect.

PW­19 is ASI Ravinder Singh, No. 155/Crime, STF, who had stated that on 09.07.2014, he was posted as Head Constable at PS, Jaitpur and on that day, on the direction of IO, he had joined investigation alongwith SI Hemant, Ct. Ravinder, Ct. Vikas, Ct. Mohd. Ali and Ct. Yashbir and all of them had gone to Chander Nagar, Distt. Unnao, UP, by road in a private vehicle in search of accused Lalit.

At Chander Nagar, they had met one Avdhesh who was inquired by SI Hemant and he had disclosed about the residence/location of accused Lalit Kumar in Chander Nagar. Thereafter they had raided the house of accused at the instance of Avdhesh, where accused was residing as a tenant. Accused alongwith his wife had met them there and was brought back to Delhi on 11.7.2014 at 6:00am in the police station Jaitpur. His wife had also accompanied them and they had produced accused Lalit and his wife before IO/Inspr. Ravinder Singh Tomar in the PS. The IO had inquired the accused and his wife in the presence of W/Const. Krishna, who had disclosed about the complicity in the present case. IO had arrested accused Lalit vide arrest and personal search memos already exhibited as Ex. PW16/B and Ex.PW16/C bearing his signatures at point B. FIR No: 389/2014 Page 51 of 70 IO had recorded separate disclosure statement of accused which was exhibited as Ex. PW16/A bearing his signature at point A. From the search of accused, at his instance Rs. 5,500/­ (in the denomination of Rs. 500/­ each), one key (Ekta was inscribed) and one black Nokia mobile phone were recovered which were produced by accused, and were seized by IO after sealing them in a plastic jar with seal of RKT vide Fard Ex. PW16/D bearing his signature at point B. Pursuant to his disclosure statement, accused Lalit had led the police party to Kalindi Ghat, Pusta Road near boundary wall, from where he got recovered one iron rod and one white shirt, both blood stained which were tied with gamcha from the bushes on 11.07.2016. The exhibits were sealed in a pullanda with seal of 'RKT' and seized vide fard Ex. PW16/H bearing his signature at point B. The accused thereafter had led the police to the place of occurrence and pointed out the same vide pointing out memo Ex. PW16/E prepared by IO, which also bear his signature at point B. Thereafter, accused was taken to PS. IO had recorded his statement. He had correctly identified accused Lalit in the Court.

Thereafter MHC(M) had produced pullanda sealed with court seal and the same was opened after breaking of the seal and it was found containing one iron rod, one white shirt, one gamchha and a torn cloth pullanda having broken seal FIR No: 389/2014 Page 52 of 70 impression of RKT, and the witness had identified the same to be Ex. MO1, Ex. MO2 & Ex. MO3.

MHC(M) had also produced one sealed plastic jar sealed with court seal and the same was opened and it was found containing 11 currency notes of 500, one key and one black colour phone make NOKIA which was correctly identified by the witness as Ex. MO 4 to 6.

It shall be worth mentioning here that this PW has cited the year of recovery of articles at the instance of accused as 2016 instead of 2014, as is the case of prosecution.

During his cross examination conducted by ld. Counsel(s) for accused, he had stated that DD entry was lodged and they had left the station with permission, however, he did not know the DD no. as SI Hemant had lodged the DD entry. IO was not with them and they had left after 7:00­8:00pm and reached in the morning at around 6:00­7:00am at Unnao. He could not recollect the number of private vehicle used by them and also did not know as to who had made the payment regarding the use of private vehicle. Local police was informed by SI Hemant and he was sitting inside the vehicle. Local police officials had accompanied them but he could not recollect their names and rank and also could not recollect the address where Avdesh had met them but he had met them at Chander Nagar. He could not FIR No: 389/2014 Page 53 of 70 even recollect the address where Avdhesh had taken them at Chander Nagar. SI Hemant had recorded the statement of Avdhesh u/s 161 CrPC.

Lady police official was not with them and no lady police official was taken from local police station as accused persons had voluntarily agreed to accompany them in the absence of lady police official. They had used Innova car. He had not lodged DD entry after coming back to Delhi and did not know who had lodged DD entry after coming back to Delhi.

He did not know whether IO had lodged any DD entry about going to the place of occurrence from the PS or not. IO had asked public persons to join them but none of them had agreed and no notice was served upon them. They had gone in a government gypsy to the place of occurrence, however, he did not know as to who was the Duty Officer on duty on that day. No videography was done by the IO and the rod was less than two feet (21 inches) in length. The rod was measured at the spot with the Kit bag which remained with IO. The jars were sealed in the PS. The accused himself had taken out Rs. 5,500/­ from his bag and thereafter this witness was confronted with statement mark A where it was not so recorded. The key was in the purse of accused and was handed over to IO, in his, as well as SI FIR No: 389/2014 Page 54 of 70 Hemant's presence. IO had signed the memos and accused was arrested at 11:00 am in the PS. Statement of accused was not recorded by SI Hemant before bringing him back to Delhi. The landlord of accused was not informed before coming to Delhi and he did not know whether family members of accused were informed about the accused being brought to Delhi by them or not. Mr. Chandan, brother of accused was informed at the time of his arrest. Photographs of the place of recovery were not taken. The accused had taken them to H. No. D­292. Gali No. 8, Om Nagar, Meethapur, Badarpur, New Delhi but he did not remember the time, nor, could recollect as to whether IO had recorded the statement of any public witness there or not. He did not remember whether IO had contacted the landlord or not. The building had two floors but he could not recollect the total number of rooms on each floor. There were other tenants in the said building, however, they were not inquired by the IO in his presence. He could not remember whether the accused was taken to the place of recovery first or at the place of occurrence or that who had deposited the case property in the malkhana and when. He had denied the suggestion as wrong that he had not joined the investigation or that he had signed the documents in the PS at the instance of senior police officials. Other formal suggestions were also denied by him as wrong and incorrect.

PW23 is Inspector Ravinder Tomar, who is the second IO of the case, had deposed that on 28.06.2014, he was FIR No: 389/2014 Page 55 of 70 posted as Inspector ATO PS Jaitpur and on that day, the present case file was handed over to him for further investigation. He along with other police officials reached at the spot i.e. 292 Gali No. 8, Om Nagar, Jaitpur, where, he recorded the statement of witnesses. Thereafter, he collected post mortem report of the deceased Gulab Chand and the pursuit for nabbing the suspect was continued after getting some clue.

A team was constituted under SI Hemant and along with the other staff and they were sent to Unnao UP, near Kanpur. On 09.07.2014, above mentioned police officials had come back to PS Jaitpur along with accused Lalit and his wife Kavita. He had interrogated both of them in PS and arrested them vide arrest memos which were already exhibited as Ex PW16/B and Ex. PW13/A bearing his signature at Point 'X' and conducted their personal searches which were already exhibited as Ex. PW16/C and Ex. PW13/B both bearing his signature at Point 'X' respectively. Thereafter disclosure statements of both accused persons were recorded by him which were already exhibited as Ex PW16/A and Ex. PW13/C (wrongly typed as Ex. PW13/B) bearing his signature at Point 'X'.

Thereafter, both the accused persons had led them to the spot i.e. bushes near Yamuna river, Kalindi Kunj and at the instance of accused persons, they got recovered gamcha, blood stained shirt and an iron rod, which he had seized and sealed with FIR No: 389/2014 Page 56 of 70 the seal of RKT' vide seizure memo already exhibited as Ex. PW16/F bearing his signature at Point 'X'.

When the accused Lalit was arrested, he had conducted his personal search and key of the lock which was locked at the room of deceased, Rs. 5,500/­ which were brought from the house of deceased and the mobile phone of deceased, were recovered and he had seized the same and sealed it with the seal of RKT' vide seizure memo already Ex. PW16/D bearing his signature at Point 'X'. Thereafter, both the accused persons had led them to the scene of crime i.e. 292, Gali no. 8, Om Nagar and he had prepared the pointing out memo at their instance vide pointing out memo already exhibited as Ex. PW16/E bearing his signature at Point 'X'.

Both the accused persons were produced in the Court and remanded to J/C after their medical examination. During investigation of this case scaled site plan was prepared and exhibits were sent to FSL. He had recorded the statement of witnesses. During the investigation of this case, co­accused 'K' was declared JCL by the Court concerned, hence, her proceedings were initiated separately and he had prepared the charge­sheet qua accused Lalit and filed it in the Court. Witness had correctly identified the accused in the Court.

FIR No: 389/2014 Page 57 of 70

Thereafter the case property i.e. iron rod, one blood stained white shirt, one gamcha and torn cloth gamcha were produced which were identified by the witness and the same were already Ex. MO1, Ex. MO2 and Ex. MO3, the currency note was already Ex. MO­4 (Colly), key Ex. MO­5 and mobile phone Ex. MO­6.

During the cross examination of this witness by ld. Counsel(s) for accused, he had stated that he did not remember the DD entry through which the investigation was handed over to him. On 28.06.2014, when the case file was handed over to him for investigation, he had visited the scene of crime along with beat staff, however, he did not remember their names. He also did not remember the number of beat in which the spot had fallen and the name of the owner of house no. 292 Gali no. 8, Om Nagar, Jaitpur. This witness had volunteered further that the above mentioned house belonged to one lady and she resided at Ashram. He had called the said lady for joining the investigation but did not remember whether he had issued any notice to her for joining the investigation or not. He did not even remember the exact date when she was called for joining the investigation.

When he had reached the spot, one boy namely 'G' aged about 14 years along with other public persons was present, however, he had not asked those persons for joining the investigation as there was no concrete information about the FIR No: 389/2014 Page 58 of 70 incident. He had reached the spot along with other staff members using official gypsy of PS Jaitpur along with case file, writing material etc, however, did not remember its registration no. and the name of police officials who had accompanied him.

He had given the information regarding constitution of raiding team and their departure for outstation to the concerned ACP, however, he did not remember the name of the said ACP Sarita Vihar. He had got the permission for outstation from ACP Sarita Vihar in writing, however, he had not filed the same with the charge­sheet.

On 28.06.2014, he had left the PS at about 04.00 PM and reached the spot at about 04.30 PM, where, in the front area, there was an open lobby and the building structure was in U shape and there was a hand pump in the open lobby and stairs in the right side of the building. He had categorically stated that it was a single storied building, however, he did not remember the exact structure of other adjoining houses and no videography of the spot was done. He had remained at the spot for about 01.30­ 2.00 hours and on that day i.e, 28.06.2014, he had recorded the statement of 'G'. He had not recorded the statement of other public witness as Master 'G', was the only eye witness at that time and he was residing in the adjoining room of the deceased with his bua (aunt). He had made arrival entry in the PS, however, he did not remember its number.

FIR No: 389/2014 Page 59 of 70

He had admitted it to be correct that he had not placed the said arrival DD entry in the charge­sheet. The names of the persons of the raiding team who had gone to Unnao, UP were SI Hemant, HC Ravinder, Ct. Ravinder, Ct. Vikas, Ct. Mohd. Ali and Ct. Yashveer. On 11.07.2014, he had recorded the statement of above mentioned police officials. SI Hemant had not given him any documentary proof that he had visited Unnao, UP and thereafter this witness had also volunteered that accused persons were detained at Unnao and they were produced before him in the PS Jaitpur. SI Hemant had also handed over him the statement of one person namely Avdesh which was recorded at Unnao, UP. He had not asked from the raiding team to produce any kind of proof like toll slip, DD entry of local PS etc., to prove the genuineness of their visit to Unnao, UP.

SI Hemant had handed over the statement of witness Avdesh only and he had made DD entry regarding the arrest of the accused persons and departure entry for taking them to the spot for investigation at PS but he did not remember the number of said DD entry. When they had taken the accused for recovery and investigation, he was accompanied by SI Hemant, HC Ravinder, W/Ct. Krishna and driver of official gypsy, whose name he did not remember. They had started from the PS for the investigation purpose at about 12.00­12.30 noon and returned back to PS around 02.15­2.30 PM. During this time, they had FIR No: 389/2014 Page 60 of 70 taken the accused persons to Kalindi Kunj and Om Nagar Jaitpur. Kalindi Kunj was about one kilometer from the PS, while OM Nagar was roughly about 5­6 kilometers. He had not asked any public person to join the investigation at the time of recovery of weapon of offence and no videography or photography was done by them at the time of recovery of weapon of offence and the proceedings were completed within 10­15 minutes.

He had not asked the landlord to join the proceedings when they had visited Om Nagar after recovery of weapon of offence. The house was locked but he did not remember as to in whose possession the key was. They had entered the room after getting it opened with the help of key on 11.07.2014, at approximately 01.15 PM, however, he had not asked any public person to join at the time of preparing of pointing out memo. He had not offered accused persons to take their personal search before proceeding for recovery of weapon of offence.

Accused Lalit was arrested on 11.07.2014 at 11.00 AM in police station and the arrest memo was signed by SI Hemant and HC Ravinder apart from him. The personal search of the accused Lalit was also conducted and Rs. 200/­, a black purse and mobile phone was recovered from his possession.

FIR No: 389/2014 Page 61 of 70

On 28.06.2014, they had entered the room i.e. spot where some belongings of deceased like gas stove, one single bed (diwan) and some other household articles were found. On that day, he had not called up the crime team. He had handed over the case property to MHC(M) CP on 11.07.2014, however, did not remember the name of said MHC(M). The exhibits were sent to FSL through Constable on 24.07.2014 and 31.07.2014 vide road certificate no. 167/21/14 and 175/21/14 but he did not remember the name of the said constable. He did not even remember as to when the result of FSL was collected.

He had denied the suggestion as wrong that he had not conducted fair investigation in this case or that the recovered case property was planted upon the accused or that he had not visited the spot or the place from where the weapon was recovered or that he had prepared the pointing out memo on his own or that he had prepared the charge­sheet at the instance of senior officials. Other formal suggestions were also denied by him as wrong and incorrect.

8. Thereafter prosecution evidence was closed.

9. After closure of prosecution evidence, statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 CrPC, wherein, entire incriminating circumstances and evidence as appearing against him on record were put to him and except the facts which were FIR No: 389/2014 Page 62 of 70 either specifically admitted to be correct by him or were purely and essentially a matter of record, accused had claimed his ignorance regarding most of them and denied the rest as wrong and incorrect. He had also claimed his innocence and false implication in this case.

10. I have heard the arguments advanced by Dr. Prayag Dutt Pandey, ld. Addl. PP representing the State and Sh. Raju Vijay, ld. Counsel(s) for accused and have meticulously and scrupulously gone through the entire material on record.

11. From the evidence as appearing on record, it is apparently clear that it was not a case of any direct evidence having an eye witness of the incident, rather, it was totally dependent upon the circumstantial evidence.

It is the cardinal rule of law for cases founded on the basis of circumstantial evidence that the chain of circumstances must be complete and remain intact and even one single missing link in the said chain would be sufficient enough to demolish the entire case of prosecution.

In the light of aforesaid legal proposition, two circumstances in this case were very vital and important and were required to be established and proved on record by the prosecution beyond any reasonable doubt.

FIR No: 389/2014 Page 63 of 70

First of them was essentially the last seen evidence of accused with the deceased. If the testimony of PW­8 is to be believed, then, he had lastly seen the accused with the victim at about more than 24 hours before the occurrence and it is not clear as to where deceased had gone or who had visited him during the aforesaid period.

Similarly, one of the most important witness of prosecution namely PW­10 Sh. Gaurav, who as per the prosecution had lastly seen the accused leaving the said room after locking it from outside, had completely turned hostile and had not supported the prosecution case and had specifically stated during his examination in chief that he had told the police about the name of person as Lalit, whom he had seen but he was not aware of the other person who was accompanying him on 15.06.2014, but had flatly refused to recognize the present accused as the same Lalit, whom he had seen on that day while leaving the room of deceased along with JCL 'K' after locking it from outside.

Not only this, but also, it has been stated that arresting party had produced the accused before IO, who had recovered one mobile and key from the possession of accused, which was stated to be belonging to the same lock, which was broken open by the police while entering inside the room of FIR No: 389/2014 Page 64 of 70 deceased. However, there is nothing on record to show that the key allegedly recovered from the possession of accused was the one belonging to the said lock, as it was never put in the socket (key hole) of lock before the Court to show that the levers of the lock could have been operated through the said key. The seizure memo of the lock shows that "SEVEN LVR M.T APPLE" was inscribed on the lock, whereas, the key allegedly recovered from the possession of accused, the word "EKTA" was written. Hence, there appears to be no link between the lock and the key allegedly recovered from accused. Neither make of the lock was mentioned by any of the spot witnesses produced by the prosecution nor these articles were sent to FSL for any expert opinion to prove that lock and key had any inter se connection.

So far as the recovery of alleged mobile phone of deceased from the possession of accused is concerned, I have no hesitation in holding that there is no evidence available on record to link the said mobile phone with the deceased or to have proved its ownership by deceased. No bills etc., were either seized or procured by the IO in this regard. So far as IMEI number as appearing in Ex. PW­17/B is concerned, no evidence has been adduced on record by the IO that the said IMEI number pertained/ belonged to the said mobile handset only which was allegedly recovered from the possession of accused.

FIR No: 389/2014 Page 65 of 70

Furthermore, the second circumstantial evidence, which is of utmost importance is the recovery of weapon of offence alleged to have been made at the instance/ pointing out of the present accused i.e., blood stained iron rod. It's recovery was shown to have been made from a place having bushes near Kalindi Kunj, which was visible publicly and had access to every member of the public and was not a secluded or hidden out place, about which, only the accused could have been attributed any exclusive knowledge. Moreover, no fingerprints of the accused were found present on the said iron rod and it is not even the case of prosecution that accused had used any means to avoid appearance of his finger prints on the said iron rod, while committing the said crime, except his own disclosure statement, which per se is inadmissible in evidence by virtue of being hit by the provision of Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act.

Moreover, the FSL report Ex. PW18/B, also does not support the case of prosecution because though it has been mentioned in the said report that the human blood was found present on the iron rod along with gamcha and one shirt but there was no reaction regarding their grouping and on the gauze of cloth piece, which had only reacted to the blood grouping, the group was detected as 'O' but in none of the other exhibits examined by FSL, the said blood group was found present. Hence, even if the same blood was stated or assumed to be FIR No: 389/2014 Page 66 of 70 present on the said iron rod or gamcha or shirt, then also, it could not be held with precision that blood was that of deceased only.

Not only this, but also, the material contradictions appearing in the testimony of witnesses are also not to be brushed aside lightly, as it was the case of PW­8 himself that he had seen the accused along with his wife 'K' (JCL) sitting and talking with his father on 15.06.2014 at around 6:00­6:30am, when he was going to play cricket as mentioned in Ex. PW8/A and it was stated further that when he looked upon the room of his father, then he had noticed the presence of accused along with his wife there.

However, quite contrary to his version and also reflected from the perspective of the site plan Ex. PW14/B, as well as Ex. C3 and also as admitted by PW­3 in his cross examination, it is apparently clear that room was not physically visible from the road, hence, the fact as mentioned by PW­8 in his statement made to the police, though, not deposed before the Court regarding having lastly seen the accused and his wife with the deceased has not been proved at all.

Furthermore, in his examination before the Court, PW­8 had cited the date of incident as 15.06.2014 and not 16.06.2014, as was stated in Ex. PW8/A. FIR No: 389/2014 Page 67 of 70 There are further contradictions in the statements of police witnesses as well as PW­11 who had stated that IO/ Inspr. S.N.Rajora, had reached the spot with SI Suraj Singh, whereas, PW­6 SI Suraj had stated that he had reached the spot first and SHO had reached there after his arrival. As per PW­11, he had taken 10 minutes to reach the spot and found that the deceased was wearing vest and pyjama and contrary to the said version, PW­12 who was also a member of the said team, had deposed that it had taken just 5 minutes for him to reach the spot but he could not tell as to what clothes were worn by accused.

Even PW­14, IO had stated that he had received a message about the foul smell coming from H.No. D­589, on his wireless set at about 6:30pm, when he had reached at H.No. D­ 292, where PW­6 was already found present there. However, it is not clear as to how he had come to know about the exact address of D­292 from D­589, as was informed to him earlier.

Similarly, PW­23 Inspr. Ravinder Tomar, had stated that accused was produced before him on 09.07.2014, after his arrest from Unnao, whereas, PW­19 who was member of the raiding team, had deposed that he had produced the accused persons before the IO on 11.07.2014, and they had gone to Unnao on 09.07.2014 itself.

FIR No: 389/2014 Page 68 of 70

Further, as per the version of PW­23, currency notes of Rs. 5,500/­ were seized by him during personal search of accused and quite contrary to his version, as per PW­19, the said money was seized at the instance of accused and not during his personal search.

It shall be pertinent to point out here that even the recovery of said currency notes was also suspicious, as there was nothing in evidence on record to link the same with the deceased. As per PW­23, the premise was only a single storied building, however, as per PW­21 the landlady, it was a two storied building.

Even in the post mortem report dated 16.06.2014, Ex.PW7/A, the time since the death of deceased was opined to be about two days prior to the examination of dead body, which suggested that probably the date of death of deceased was 14.06.2014, but as per PW­8, he had lastly seen the deceased alive on 15.06.2014, as per Ex. PW8/A.

12. Therefore, in view of my aforesaid discussion and the contradictions as well as lacunaes cited in the prosecution case, I have no hesitation in holding that prosecution had miserably failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond any reasonable doubt so as to establish his guilt and entail conviction. On the other hand, the accused is entitled for all the FIR No: 389/2014 Page 69 of 70 benefits of such material discrepancies and lacunaes arising in the prosecution case.

13. The accused is, therefore, entitled for an honorable acquittal. Accordingly, accused is acquitted for offence(s) charged against him. His bail bonds and surety bonds are cancelled and surety is discharged. The bonds furnished by him under Section 437A CrPC shall remain in force for a period of six months from the date of his acquittal. Case file be consigned to record room.

ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT DATED: 28.07.2023 (LOKESH KUMAR SHARMA) ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE (FTC - 02) SOUTH EAST DISTRICT SAKET COURTS : NEW DELHI FIR No: 389/2014 Page 70 of 70