Delhi District Court
State vs (1) Ranjeet Soni on 30 November, 2017
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJAY BANSAL:
SPECIAL JUDGE (NDPS) / ASJ / NORTH EAST:
KARKARDOOMA COURTS: SHAHDARA: DELHI.
Sessions Case No. 44269/2015
CNR No. DLNE01-000018-2011
STATE Versus (1) RANJEET SONI
S/o Sh. Rajneesh Soni
R/o B-Block, Defence Colony, Bhopura,
District Ghaziabad, U.P
(2) ANUP SONI
S/o Sh. Satyaprakash
R/o H.No. 3, C-Block,
Gali No. 1, Haryana Wali Gali,
Som Bazar, (Manoj Ka Makan),
Bhopura, Up.
(3) ANSHU SONI
S/o Sh. Radhe Shyam
R/o H.No. 274, B-2, Gali No. 15,
Harsh Vihar, Delhi.
FIR No. : 40/2011
PS. : Harsh Vihar
U/s. : 302/394/397/201/411/34 IPC
Chargesheet Filed On : 04.06.2011
Date Of Allocation : 10.06.2011
Judgment Reserved On : 30.11.2017
Judgment Announced On : 30.11.2017
JUDGMENT:
1. The above mentioned accused persons have been sent up for trial on the allegations that on 06.03.2011, they had entered house of complainant Shiv Charan Soni in the evening and killed his wife Smt. Kiran Soni and looted some jewellery and cash.
SC No. 44269/15 State Vs. Ranjeet Soni & Ors. Page 1 of 34
2. FIR was registered on the statement of Sh. Shiv Charan Soni. He stated that on 06.03.2011 at about 6:30 in the evening, he had gone to Ghaziabad for his personal work. His wife Kiran was in the house. He came back at around 9:00 pm and found that the light of the staircase was off. He called his wife but she did not answer and when he went inside the house, he found that head of the wife had been crushed and there was lot of blood on the bed. He raised alarm and called the police at 100 number. Police arrived and took his wife to hospital. She was declared brought dead.
3. After registration of the FIR u/s 302 IPC, investigation was taken up. Postmortem was got conducted. Crime Team was also called. Exhibits were lifted from the crime scene.
4. One supplementary statement of complainant was also recorded wherein he informed that he had suspicion on his earlier employee Ranjit. He informed that Ranjit alongwith his two relatives Anup and Anshu had been visiting his house for the last three days. He also informed that he had sent one Arjun to his house who used to do polishing work to collect some articles from his wife.
5. On receipt of secret information, accused Ranjeet was apprehended. He confessed to the crime. He informed that he had committed the crime alongwith Anup and Anshu. Some jewellery articles and currency notes were recovered from him. Two mobile phones were also recovered from him. Police team was sent to arrest the co-accused. He also got recovered his clothes which he was allegedly wearing at the time of the offence. SC No. 44269/15 State Vs. Ranjeet Soni & Ors. Page 2 of 34
6. Co-accused Anup and Anshu were arrested from Farukhabad, UP. They also confessed to their involvement. One blade of scissors and one shutter opening handle were recovered at their instance. They also got recovered clothes which they were wearing at the time of offence. Anup also got recovered one mobile phone from Shahjahan Pur.
7. Postmortem result was obtained. Subsequent opinion regarding weapons of offence was also obtained. Some of the injuries were opined as possible by these weapons. Exhibits were also sent to FSL and results were obtained. CDRs were also obtained. After completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed u/s 302/394/397/201/411/34 IPC against all the three accused. One supplementary chargesheet was also filed to which FSL result was placed on record.
8. After compliance of section 207 CrPC, learned MM committed the case to Court of Sessions as offences u/s 302/397 IPC were exclusively triable by it.
9. Vide order dated 24.09.2011, my learned Predecessor framed charges for offences u/s 394/34 IPC, 397/34 IPC, 302/34 IPC and 201/34 IPC against all the accused. Additional charge u/s 411 IPC was framed against accused Ranjeet Soni. All the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
10. In order to prove the charges, the prosecution examined around 31 witnesses.
SC No. 44269/15 State Vs. Ranjeet Soni & Ors. Page 3 of 34
11. Statements of accused persons u/s 313 CrPC were recorded. Accused persons did not examine any witness in defence.
12. Evidence led by the prosecution may now be noted.
MATERIAL / INJURED / EYE WITNESS(ES)
13. PW-2 is Shiv Charan Soni. He is the complainant as well as husband of the deceased. He deposed on the lines of his allegations as made in the FIR. He deposed about going to a jewellery shop near Chopla Mandir, Ghaziabad on 06.03.2011 at about 6:30 pm. He also deposed about returning back to his house i.e. H.No. C-1/423, 25 Foota Road, First Floor, Harsh Vihar, Delhi at about 9:00 pm and finding his wife lying in pool of blood in the bedroom. He deposed that he shouted and called the police at 100 number. Police arrived within 15 minutes and took his wife to hospital. He proved his statement given to the police as Ex.PW2/A which formed the basis of the FIR. He deposed about identifying dead body of his wife on 07.02.2011 vide Ex.PW2/B. He returned back to his house and checked the almirah. He found Rs. 1,200/- cash, two golden rings, three silver pajeb (new) and one old silver pajeb (studded with red pearls), one pair of bangles of child and four pairs of bichuas were missing from almirah. He deposed that he suspected accused Ranjeet to have committed the crime. PW-2 revealed that Ranjeet was his part time employee and two relatives of Ranjeet namely Anshu and Anup also used to visit his shop. He stated that all the three were visiting his house for the last three days to meet his wife whom they used to call Dadi. He deposed about prepration of site plan. He deposed SC No. 44269/15 State Vs. Ranjeet Soni & Ors. Page 4 of 34 that on 07.03.2011 at about 8:30 pm, police official came to his house alongwith accused Ranjeet. The other two accused were brought to his house on 10.03.2011. PW-2 also witnessed preparation of pointing out memos of accused persons vide Ex.PW2/C, D and E. He stated that he had also visited the court for TIP of jewellery articles on 27.04.2011. TIP proceedings are Ex.PW2/F. He deposed about visit of draftsman to his house on 18.04.2011. He identified the case property i.e. ornaments, such as, four pairs of silver anklets Ex.P1 to P4; two gold rings Ex.P5 and P6; eight toe rings Ex.P7 to P14 and pair of silver kada Ex.P15. PW-2 identified all the three accused persons.
14. In cross-examination, PW-2 stated that he told the police officials about the missing articles in the day time before postmortem. He left the hospital at about 2:00 - 3:00 pm after postmortem. He denied the suggestion that he had not gone to Ghaziabad in the evening of 06.03.2011. He was having mobile no. 9274951668 at that time. It has come that PW-2 had checked his almirah at about 9:00 am of 07.03.2011 and found his jewellery articles missing. Some of the articles were having marking of PRKM but this fact was not disclosed to the police in his statement. He stated that those articles were generally available in the market and he had no cash memo or invoice to show purchase of these articles. PW-2 also stated that Ranjeet had worked in his shop about 2 -3 years prior to the incident. He denied the suggestion that Ranjeet never worked with him or that he alongwith other accused never visited his house. He denied the suggestion that articles were planted upon accused Ranjeet at his instance. He denied the suggestion that all the accused persons were falsely implicated due to SC No. 44269/15 State Vs. Ranjeet Soni & Ors. Page 5 of 34 professional rivalry.
15. PW-5 is Hitender Soni. He is son of the deceased. He had only identified dead body of the deceased vide Ex.PW5/A.
16. PW-1 is Arjun Singh. He deposed that on 06.03.2011, he received telephone call from Shiv Charan Soni at about 6:00 pm and he told him to take polishing articles from his house from his wife as he himself going out for some work. PW-1 stated that at about 7:00 pm, he went to the house of Shiv Charan Soni. The door of the staircase was lying opened. He called 2-3 times but no reply was received. He deposed that after that one person replied that Shiv Charan Soni was not in house and asked him to come next day. Thereafter, PW- 1 came back to his house. He deposed that on the next day he came to know that wife of Shiv Charan Soni had been killed.
17. This witness was cross-examined by learned Prosecutor. He admitted that he had called aunty from the staircase but no one replied. He admitted that later one person replied, "koi samaan nahi hai, Shiv Charan Soni abhi ghar par nahin hain kal aana". He also noted that there was no light in the staircase.
18. In cross-examination on behalf of accused persons, it has come that statement of PW-1 was recorded on 14.03.2011.
19. PW-15 is B.D. Sharma. He is neighbour of PW-2. He deposed that on 06.03.2011, he heard voice of his neighbour Shiv Charan Soni that SC No. 44269/15 State Vs. Ranjeet Soni & Ors. Page 6 of 34 someone had killed his wife. He deposed that he went to the first floor of his house and found that his wife was bleeding from his head. PW-15 informed the police at 100 number. He deposed that on 20.05.2011, he told IO that accused Ranjeet Soni was working in the shop of Shiv Charan Soni three years prior to the incident.
20. In cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that he was giving evidence at instance of Shiv Charan Soni. He denied that Ranjeet Soni was never employee of Shiv Charan Soni.
WITNESSES REGARDING TWO SIM CARDS
21. PW-3 is Virender Kumar. He is the seller of SIM cards. He deposed about selling two SIM cards of mobile numbers 8802862570 and 8802862579. No bill was issued in respect of these two SIMs. He deposed that accused Anup Soni had come to purchase these SIMs from him. Photocopy of CAFs are Mark A and B. He deposed that accused Anup had given his ID proof and photograph. Copy of the ID proof i.e. of Voter I-card is Mark B1. He stated that he had forwarded the CAFs to the distributor. As per Mark A and B, these two mobile numbers were subscribed to by one Satish.
22. In cross-examination, he stated that he does not know name and address of the distributor from whom he had obtained the two SIM cards. He replied to court question about keeping record of sale of SIM cards and told that he had no such record.
SC No. 44269/15 State Vs. Ranjeet Soni & Ors. Page 7 of 34
23. PW-4 is Satish Kumar. He deposed that on 19.05.2011, police officials came to him and enquired about mobile numbers 8802862570 and 8802862579. The police officials showed him the application form and voter I- cards attached with the same regarding SIM cards in respect of which he told police officials that the photo on the application was not his but someone had attached his voter I-card. He deposed that he never got issued these two mobile numbers in his name. Copies of the applications are Mark A and B. He stated that address was his but photographs and signatures were not his. Photocopy of the voter I-card was of his voter I-card. Ex.PW4/A is the copy of the said voter I- card (earlier it was Mark B1). Signature on the same were also not of PW-4.
24. In cross-examination, it has come that he did not lodge any complaint for misuse of his documents.
INVESTIGATION WITNESS(ES)
25. PW-8 Ct. Jile Singh was posted as photographer in the Crime Team. He deposed about visiting the crime scene on 06.03.2011. He took 28 photographs. Photographs are Mark A (colly.)
26. PW-9 is E.S. Yadav. He was Incharge, Crime Team. He also visited the crime scene on 06.03.2011. His report is Ex.PW9/A.
27. PW-14 Ct. Sandeep had gone to the spot alongwith ASI Dharampal in the intervening night of 06/07.03.2011. He deposed about going to H.No. C- 1/423, 25 Foota Road, Harsh Vihar, Delhi. They had gone to first floor and found SC No. 44269/15 State Vs. Ranjeet Soni & Ors. Page 8 of 34 dead body of a lady. She was bleeding from her head. He deposed that SHO and other officials also arrived there. Dead body was sent to the hospital. He took rukka at about 11:00 pm and got registered the FIR. He came back to the spot and handed over copy of the FIR and original rukka to the SHO/IO.
28. PW-21 ASI Chander Bhan deposed that he was posted in PCR. He had also gone to the spot of incident i.e. house of complainant on receiving call. He had also found deceased lying there and bleeding from her head.
29. PW-22 SI Mukesh Kumar had prepared the scaled site plan. Same is Ex.PW22/A.
30. It has come in cross-examination that marginal notes in red ink in site plan Ex.PW22/A were not written in his presence. He deposed that he has no knowledge who authored these marginal notes.
31. PW-25 is Insp. Krishan Kumar. He is official of UP Police. He deposed that on 07.03.2011, he was posted at Village Kotwali, Farukhabad, UP. He stated that Insp. Virender Singh had told him that some accused persons were to be arrested and they made search for them on 09.03.2011. Anshu and Anup were arrested. PW-25 could not identify these accused persons because of lapse of time. He stated that after 09.03.2011, he never met any Delhi Police officials in connection with these case.
32. PW-25 was declared hostile and cross-examined by learned Prosecutor.
SC No. 44269/15 State Vs. Ranjeet Soni & Ors. Page 9 of 34
33. In the said cross-examination, he could not identify his statement u/s 161 CrPC which is Mark 25/A. Even after showing accused Anup and Anshu to him, PW-25 could not identify them. He denied that he was deliberately not identifying the accused persons. He denied suggestions of the learned Prosecutor.
34. In cross-examination on behalf of accused persons, it has come that names of Anshu Soni and Anup Soni were written on the back of his summons. He denied that he had taken names Anshu and Anup mechanically.
35. PW-27 Insp. Virender Singh Punia alongwith HC Sudhir (PW-16), HC Dhan Raj, Ct. Kavinder and Ct. Rahul had gone to Farukhabad, UP on instructions of IO Insp. K.K. Upadhyay on 07.03.2011. He deposed that they left the police station at about 1:50 pm on 07.03.2011, in private Tavera vehicle. They reached Farukhabad in the intervening night of 07/08.03.2011. He deposed that on 09.03.2011 at about 1:00 pm, when they were present at Railway Station Bareilly in search of the accused persons, they received one secret information through phone that Anup and Anshu had reached house of their relatives at Farukhabad. He deposed that he informed the local police officials. They left from Bareilly for Farukhabad and reached there at about 5:00 pm. He stated that Insp. Krishan Kumar had met at Kotwali, Farukhabad and he was having custody of both Anup and Anshu who had been apprehended by them. PW-27 interrogated both the accused persons and arrested them vide memo Ex.PW16/A and C. He conducted their personal search memo Ex.PW16/B SC No. 44269/15 State Vs. Ranjeet Soni & Ors. Page 10 of 34 and D. He recorded statements of Insp. Krishan Kumar and HC Sudhir. They reached Delhi on 10.03.2011 and produced both the accused before Insp. K.K. Upadhyaya, IO.
36. In cross-examination, it has come that Insp. Krishan Kumar (of UP Police) was not made witness of arrest memo. Statements of HC Dhanraj, Ct. Kavinder and Ct. Rahul were not recorded u/s 161 CrPC. He denied that both these accused were not arrested from Farukhabad.
37. PW-18 Ct. Baljinder Singh had accompanied accused Anup and Anshu for their medical examination at GTB Hospital. He stated that doctor handed over him two sealed pullandas and two sample seals which PW-2 handed over to the IO vide Ex.PW18/A.
38. PW-30 Insp. K.K. Upadhyay was the main IO. He deposed that he was patrolling in the area on 06.03.2011 alongwith Ct. Zakir Hussain and Ct. Satish. He deposed about receiving information regarding DD No. 24A at about 9:20 pm regarding murder at C-1/423, Harsh Vihar. Copy of the said DD is Ex.PW28/A. He deposed that he alongwith his staff reached the said place and met HC Dharampal (PW-20) alongwith Ct. Sandeep (PW-14). He went to the first floor and saw the dead body of the lady lying on bed in pool of blood and head of the dead body was in crushed condition. He stated that Ct. Subhash (PW-17) who was beat constable also reached there. PW-30 sent the said lady to GTB Hospital in custody of Ct. Subhash in private tempo. He deposed that husband of the deceased Shiv Charan Soni also met him there and he recorded SC No. 44269/15 State Vs. Ranjeet Soni & Ors. Page 11 of 34 his statement Ex.PW2/A. He left ASI Dharam Pal at the spot and himself went to GTB Hospital. He obtained the MLC of the deceased. The deceased was declared brought dead. He prepared rukka Ex.PW30/A and got registered the case through Ct. Sandeep. He returned to the spot. Crime Team was already present there. He inspected the spot and prepared site plan Ex.PW30/B. He lifted exhibits from the spot i.e. blood stained bedsheet, blood stained pillow, blood stained khes and razai cover, pieces of flash, hairs, pieces of surgical gloves, two wooden pieces, one iron screw and two brass strips. He prepared pullandas of these articles with seal of KKU and seized them vide memo Ex.PW 20/A. He deposed about getting conducted postmortem of the dead body. He prepared inquest papers which are Ex.PW30/C. He filled form 25.35(i)(b) which is Ex.PW30/D. After the postmortem, he handed over the dead body to the relatives. He deposed that Ct. Subhash gave him three sealed parcels which he seized vide memo Ex.PW17/A.
39. He deposed that complainant gave him another statement on 07.03.2011 about the accused persons and details of robbed articles which he recorded u/s 161 CrPC. He deposed that he formed team consisting of Insp. Virender Singh (PW-27), HC Dhan Raj, Ct. Kavinder and Ct. Rahul and sent them to Farukhabad, Shahjahan Pur and Bareilly in search of accused persons.
40. He further deposed that on 07.03.2011, in the evening, ASI Dharam Pal (PW-20), Ct. Devender (PW-13), Ct. Subhash (PW-17), Ct. Hoshiyar and Ct. Vikas and he himself left the PS. At about 5:30 pm, they SC No. 44269/15 State Vs. Ranjeet Soni & Ors. Page 12 of 34 reached Kansal Marg. There he received secret information that one of the accused wanted in the case could be apprehended from Delhi-Bhopura Border near Theka Sharab, Delhi. He alongwith other officials and secret informer reached the place at about 6:30 pm and on identification of the secret informer, they apprehended accused Ranjeet. He arrested him vide memo Ex.PW13/A and conducted personal search vide memo Ex.PW13/B. He recorded his statement Ex.PW13/C. PW-30 deposed that on search of accused Ranjeet, two mobile phones from right pocket of his pant were recovered. Both the mobile phones were having SIM cards of Idea Company. From the left pocket of his pant robbed articles i.e. two golden rings (one was new and one was old), four pairs of silver pajeb, four pairs of toe rings (bichuas) of silver and one pair of silver kada of child were recovered. He deposed that from the pocket of the shirt of the accused Rs. 130/- in denomination of Rs.100/- and Rs. 10/- were recovered. There was one note of Rs. 100/- and three notes of Rs.10/-. He deposed that 100 Rupees notes was having brown stains like blood. He prepared pullanda of seized articles vide memo Ex.PW13/D, E and F. PW-30 also deposed that accused Ranjeet disclosed that he could get recovered his clothes which he was wearing at the time of offence. He deposed that accused Ranjeet in pursuance of his disclosure statement led the police tem to the bushes situated at 100 meters from Theka Sharab, Delhi-Bhopura Border and got recovered a polythene bag containing his blood stained clothes i.e. a jacket, a pant and a shirt. Pullanda of these clothes was prepared with seal of KKU and seized the same vide memo Ex.PW13/G. He deposed that accused Ranjeet led SC No. 44269/15 State Vs. Ranjeet Soni & Ors. Page 13 of 34 them to the spot of incident and pointed out the same vide memo Ex.PW2/C. He made search for other accused but they were not found. PW-30 on the next day obtained PC Remand of accused Ranjeet.
41. He deposed that Insp. Virender Singh informed him about arrest of accused Anup and Anshu on 09.03.2011 from Farukhabad, Kotwali, UP. Both the said accused persons were brought to Delhi. He interrogated them and recorded disclosure statements Ex.PW17/B and C. He deposed that both accused also admitted their guilt and pointed out the place of incident.
42. He deposed that on 11.03.2011, accused Anup and Anshu were taken out from lock-up. Accused Anup led the police team to Tulsi Niketan at a Park between Mother Dairy and DDA Flats and got recovered blood stained jacket, baniyan and some pieces of surgical gloves. These were converted into parcel with seal of KKU and seized vide memo Ex.PW17/D.
43. Accused Anshu led the police team of Gali No. 2, Bank Colony, Plot No. 565, Harsh Vihar and got recovered a polythene from a vacant plot. The said polythene was containing one blood stained T-shirt, blood stained pant and a high neck sweater. These articles were also converted into parcel with seal of KKU and seized vide memo Ex.PW17/E.
44. PW-30 further deposed about both the accused taking the police team to Wazirabad T-point opposite Gagan Cinema near Jail Boundary. Accused Anshu pointed out one place from where he got recovered one blade of a scissor. SC No. 44269/15 State Vs. Ranjeet Soni & Ors. Page 14 of 34 The blade was measured and its sketch was prepared which is Ex.PW17/F. It was converted into cloth parcel with seal of KKU. Accused Anup took the police team to a spot 50 steps away from the said place and got recovered one handle used for opening shutters. Sketch of the handle was prepared which is Ex.PW17/G. Parcel of the handle was also prepared with seal of KKU. Both the parcels were seized vide memo Ex.PW17/H. Site plans of the spots of recoveries were prepared which are Ex.PW30/E, F, G and H.
45. PW-30 further deposed about going to Shahjahan Pur alongwith accused persons for recovery of mobile phone in pursuance of disclosure statement of accused Anup. They reached Khuda Ganj at about 11:30 pm on 11.03.2011. He deposed that on 12.03.2011 at about 5:30 am, they went to a temple opposite Khuda Ganj Bus Stand. There was a tree near the pond near the temple and from under the leaves of the tree, accused Anup took out one polythene. In the polythene, there was one Nokia mobile phone having SIM card of Idea. There was one plastic pouch and it was containing one SIM of Idea and another SIM of Vodafone. He converted these articles in a parcel with seal of KKU and seized the same vide memo Ex.PW17/J. Thereafter they came back to Delhi.
46. Blood sample of both the accused were taken at GTB Hospital which was seized vide memo Ex.PW18/A. PW-30 also deposed about other steps taken during investigation such as collection of PCR form, collection of postmortem report, sending exhibits to FSL, making application for subsequent SC No. 44269/15 State Vs. Ranjeet Soni & Ors. Page 15 of 34 opinion which is Ex.PW30/I, collection of subsequent opinion, getting prepared scaled site plan and its collection, getting conducted TIP of jewellery articles, obtaining CDR of accused Ranjeet and Anup, making request vide Ex.PW30/J for DNA profiling of the exhibits at FSL, etc. He also exhibited certificate u/s 65-B of Indian Evidence Act as Ex.PW30/K. He also collected photographs Ex.PW30/L (colly.). He also filed FSL reports which are Ex.PW30/M and N.
47. PW-30 identified case properties also. Blood stained bedsheet is Ex.PW30/P1, blood stained pillow is Ex.PW30/P-2, one quilt is Ex.PW30/P-3 and white bedsheet is Ex.PW30/P-4. Container containing bunch of pair with flashy material is Ex.PW30/P-5, container containing one piece of gloves having brown stains is Ex.PW30/P-6, wooden and metallic pieces alongwith screw having brown stains is Ex.PW30/P-7. He identified jewellery articles also. He identified clothes of accused persons. Clothes of accused Ranjeet are Ex.PW13/P-1, P-2 and P-3, clothes of accused Anshu are Ex.PW13/P-8, P-9 and P-10 and clothes of accused Anup are Ex.PW13/P-11, P-12 and P-13. Iron handle is Ex.PW13/P-
14. Blade of scissor is Ex.PW13/P-15. Mobile phone Nokia and two SIMs recovered at instance of accused Anup from Khuda Ganj are Ex.PW13/P-16. He also tendered Ballistics Expert's report as Ex.PW30/X. He identified the accused persons.
48. In cross-examination, PW-30 stated that he had not made any enquiry from complainant about the person whom he had met at Ghaziabad between 6:30 pm to 9:00 pm of 06.03.2011. It has also come that PW-30 did not SC No. 44269/15 State Vs. Ranjeet Soni & Ors. Page 16 of 34 collect CDR of complainant to ascertain his location. He stated that complainant informed him about missing articles at about 1:00 pm of 07.03.2011. Postmortem was conducted around 1:45 pm on 07.03.2011. It has come that PW-30 did not ask supporting documents from complainant about possession of missing articles. He denied that recovery of jewellery articles was planted. It has come that PW-30 did not get accused Anup identified in judicial TIP from PW-3 Virender Kumar. It has come that PW-3 was not having any record of sale of SIM cards of mobile no. 8802862570 and 8802862579. IO also did not collect any document from PW-3 showing that he was owner of M/s Arise Communication. It has come that PW-30 did not collect any document from Aircel showing the subscribers of mobile numbers 8802862570 and 8802862579. He also did not collect any handwriting specimen either of accused Anup or of PW-3.
49. He stated that seal was handed over to ASI Dharampal. He was cross-examined regarding recoveries made at the instance of accused persons. It has come that numbers of the currency notes shown to have been recovered from accused Ranjeet were not mentioned in the seizure memo Ex.PW13/E.
50. Regarding notes made by him on the scaled site plan Ex.PW22/A, PW-30 stated that the draftsman Mukesh Kumar Jain/PW-22 was not aware of the same. It has come that PW-30 did not take any permission from PW-22 to write the said notes on the site plan. He denied the suggestion that he had not conducted the investigation fairly or that he had falsely implicated the accused persons.
SC No. 44269/15 State Vs. Ranjeet Soni & Ors. Page 17 of 34 MEDICAL/EXPERT WITNESSES
51. PW-7 Dr. Thejaswi had conducted postmortem on the dead body of Kiran Soni on 07.03.2011. The postmortem report is Ex.PW7/A. He noted various injuries. He gave the cause of death as "'Shock as a result of head injury and incised stab wound to the back. Both of them individually and singly were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. Injury no. 1 to 7 and 13 were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature".
52. PW-11 is Dr. Manoj Kumar. He had examined the deceased upon her arrival in the hospital. He prepared MLC Ex.PW11/A. He declared her brought dead.
53. PW-29 Ms. Shashi Bala Pahuja had conducted the test of DNA. She had prepared the report Ex.PW28/A. FORMAL WITNESS(ES)
54. PW-6 is Shishir Malhotra, Nodal Officer from Aircel Limited. He deposed about providing Call Detail Record (CDR) of mobile no. 8802862579. Copy of the same is Ex.PW6/A. Certified copy of CAF form is Ex.PW6/B. As per this document, mobile no. 8802862579 was subscribed to by one Vinod Singh. The certificate u/s 65-B of Indian Evidence Act is Ex.PW6/E.
55. He deposed about providing Call Detail Record (CDR) of mobile no. 8802862570. Copy of the same is Ex.PW6/F. Certified copy of CAF form is SC No. 44269/15 State Vs. Ranjeet Soni & Ors. Page 18 of 34 Ex.PW6/G (which was earlier Mark B). This mobile number was in the name of Satish. The certificate u/s 65-B of Indian Evidence Act is Ex.PW6/K.
56. PW-6 was recalled. He produced another certificate u/s 65-B of Indian Evidence Act in respect of CDR of mobile no. 8802862570 which is Ex.PW6/L and in respect of CDR of mobile no. 8802862579 which is Ex.PW6/M.
57. PW-10 is Pawan Singh, Nodal Officer from Idea Cellular Limited. He deposed about providing Call Detail Record (CDR) of mobile no. 9606106153 for the period 20.02.2011 to 09.03.2011. Same is Ex.PW10/A. Certified copy of CAF form is Ex.PW10/B. As per CAF, this number was subscribed to by one Manoj. The certificate u/s 65-B of Indian Evidence Act is Mark PW10/A.
58. He also deposed about providing Call Detail Record (CDR) of mobile no. 9540637009 for the period 20.02.2011 to 09.03.2011. Same is Ex.PW10/C. Certified copy of CAF form is Ex.PW10/D. This number was in the name of Kayyum.
59. He further deposed about providing Call Detail Record (CDR) of mobile no. 95403991145 for the period 20.02.2011 to 09.03.2011. Same is Ex.PW10/E. Certified copy of CAF form is Ex.PW10/F. This number was subscribed to by one Aminur S.K.
60. The certificate u/s 65-B of Indian Evidence Act in respect of mobile numbers 9540637009 and 95403991145 is Ex.PW10/G. SC No. 44269/15 State Vs. Ranjeet Soni & Ors. Page 19 of 34
61. In cross-examination, PW-10 denied that he was not competent to give evidence or that the certificate was false.
62. PW-10 was recalled and he produced fresh certificates u/s 65-B of Indian Evidence Act for both the abovesaid numbers i.e. 95403991145 and 9540637009 which are Ex.PW10/H and I respectively.
63. He was once again recalled and produced location chart which is Ex.PW10/J.
64. PW-31 is Sanjeev Kumar Srivastava, Nodal Officer from Idea Cellular Limited. He deposed about providing Call Detail Record (CDR) of mobile no. 9506106153. He produced another certificate u/s 65-B of Indian Evidence Act which is Ex.PW31/A.
65. PW-12 HC Abdesh Kumar had delivered copies of FIR to various officers.
66. PW-19 is Ct. Surender Singh. He deposed that on 04.04.2011 had gone to GTB Hospital mortuary. He deposed that doctor handed over to him two sealed pullandas with seal of HTT. He came back to PS Harsh Vihar and handed over pullanda to MHC(M).
67. PW-23 HC Satish Kumar produced record of PCR calls. The concerned record pertaining to this case is Ex.PW23/A.
68. PW-24 SI Mahesh Kumar was Duty Officer. He deposed abut SC No. 44269/15 State Vs. Ranjeet Soni & Ors. Page 20 of 34 receiving rukka at about 11:20 pm, on the basis of which he registered FIR of the present case. Copy of the FIR is Ex.PW24/A. He made endorsement Ex.PW24/B. He sent copies of the FIR to various Senior Officers and learned MM. He also deposed about recording information received prior to rulkka which was recorded vide DD No. 24A, copy of which is Ex.PW20/A.
69. PW-26 is Sh. Gaurav Gupta, learned MM. He deposed about conducting of TIP proceedings of jewellery articles. Application for TIP is Ex.PW26/A. TIP was already Ex.PW2/F. Application of IO for obtaining copies is Ex.PW26/B.
70. PW-28 ASI Bhola Ram had collected DNA Report from FSL, Rohini on 05.09.2012. Same is Ex.PW28/A. STATEMENTS OF ACCUSED PERSONS
71. Incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against accused persons were put to them as required u/s 313 CrPC. Accused persons stated that they were innocent and were falsely implicated due to professional rivalry. Accused Ranjeet Soni stated that he had stopped doing job work of complainant of making jewellery and, therefore, he was falsely implicated by him. Accused Anup stated that he had never worked with complainant and he was implicated because he was uncle of accused Ranjeet. Accused Anshu stated that he was also falsely implicated. He had never worked with complainant.
SC No. 44269/15 State Vs. Ranjeet Soni & Ors. Page 21 of 34
72. None of the accused led any defence evidence.
SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES
73. I have heard Sh. R.K. Tanwar, learned Addl. PP for the State and Sh. Sanjay Gupta, learned Amicus Curiae for the accused persons.
74. Learned Addl. PP argued that prosecution has proved the charges. He referred to testimony of complainant / PW-2 as well as evidence of recovery witnesses. He pointed out that the weapon of offence has been recovered at instance of accused persons. He referred to the subsequent opinion of the concerned doctor by which he has opined that the weapons recovered were possible weapons of offence. He also submitted that prosecution has proved the motive also which was to commit robbery. He prayed for conviction.
75. On the other hand, learned Defence Counsel has strongly contended that charges have remained not proved. He submitted that case is based on circumstantial evidence and the circumstances have not been established nor the chain of circumstances is complete. He submitted that recovery of the weapons is to be doubted. He argued that motive has not been established. He has referred to various citations such as AIR 1976 SC 69 titled Mahmood vs. State of Uttar Pradesh; 2012 [2] JCC 1092 titled Riaz Ali vs. State (Govt. of NCT) Delhi; 2012 (1) LRC 81 (SC) titled Kailash Gour & Ors. vs. State of Assam; 2016 (4) LRC 362 (Del) titled Rajeev Ohlan vs. State (NCT of Delhi); AIR 1997 SC 610 titled D.K. Basu vs. State of West Bengal; SC No. 44269/15 State Vs. Ranjeet Soni & Ors. Page 22 of 34 2011 [3] JCC 1687 titled Savita @ Babbal vs. State of Delhi; Crl. Appeal No. 1410 of 2010. D/d. 09.05.2014 titled Dhan Raj @ Dhand vs. State of Haryana. and few others which will be discussed at relevant places. He prayed for acquittal.
76. I have considered the submissions. I have also perused the written submissions filed on behalf of the accused persons.
FINDINGS
77. The prosecution was required to prove the ingredients of the offences. On the basis of the submissions of the parties, the following points for determination arise in the present case:
a). Whether accused Ranjeet Soni was employee of
complainant/PW-2?
b). Whether identity of the accused persons as offenders has been established or not?
c). Whether the weapons shown to have been recovered are connected with the crime?
d). Whether clothes shown to have been recovered can be connected with the crime?
78. All the points for determination are taken up together. SC No. 44269/15 State Vs. Ranjeet Soni & Ors. Page 23 of 34
79. As can be seen, there is no direct evidence of the offences. The case is based on circumstantial evidence.
80. The law regarding cases based on circumstantial evidence is well settled. The famous case of Sharad Birdhi Chand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1984 SC 1622 is the guiding judgment. The five golden principles reiterated in the said judgment may be noted as below:
a) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established;
b) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty;
c) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency;
d) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and
e) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.
81. It is now well settled that the prosecution, in cases based on circumstantial evidence, is required to establish the circumstances clearly. The circumstances so established should form a chain which only points out to guilt of the accused. Neither any circumstance should remain unestablished nor the chain of circumstances should reflect innocence of the accused. If even a single missing link is there, the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt. SC No. 44269/15 State Vs. Ranjeet Soni & Ors. Page 24 of 34
82. Prosecution has established that death of Smt. Kiran Soni was homicidal. Postmortem report conclusively proved the same. Deceased had received the following injuries:
External injuries:
a). Incised stab wound measuring 2.3 x 0.2 cm x 6 cm is present on the left side of the back and is located 12.5 cm above the left iliac crest and 20 cm in the midline and also 103 cm above the left heel. This wound was vertically oriented and the direction of the wound track was forward, upwards and medically. The upper end is more angulated.
b). Incised stab wound measuring 2.5 cm x 0.2 cm x 7 cm wedged shaped horizontally oriented was present on the left lower back.
It was situated 14 cm from midline and 14 cm above the ileac crest.
c). Incised stab wound measuring 4.3 cm x 0.2 cm x 4.1 cm obliqually oriented was present on the left side of the back 8.5 cm from the midline and 15.2 cm above the ileac crest. The direction of the wound track was downwards and forwards. It was wedged shaped and the medial end was more angulated than the outer end.
d). Incised stab wound measuring 2.2 cm x 0.2 cm x 3.5 cm horizontally oriented was present on the right side of the lower back 11 cm from the right posterior superior iliac spine and its medial end was just touching the midline. On further exploration of the wound track the underlying interspinous ligaments were involved. The wound ws wedge shaped and the medial end was more angulated than the other.
e). Incised stab wound obliqually oriented was present on the right side of the back. The depth of the wound track was 4 cm and directed upwards, forwards, medially. The lamina of second lumbar vertibra including spinal cord was injured. The upper end of this wedge shaped wound was more angulated than the lower.
f). Incised stab wound measuring 2.3 cm x 0.4 cm x 5.9 cm obliqually oriented was present on the right side of the lower SC No. 44269/15 State Vs. Ranjeet Soni & Ors. Page 25 of 34 back, 2.2 cm from the midline and 30 cm above the right anterior superior iliac spine. The wedge shaped wound was directed downwards, forwards and medially. The upper end was more acute than the lower.
g). Wedge shaped incised stab wound measuring 2 cm x 0.2 cm x 10 cm was present on the right side of the lower back 7 cm from the midline and 12.9 cm above the right posterior, superior iliac spine. It was directed forwards, downwards and medially.
h). Red colour pressure abrasion measuring 0.4 cm x 0.3 cm was present on the left side of the back, 14 cm from midline and 10 cm above the iliac crest.
i). Redish colour pressure abrasion measuring 0.4 cm x 0.3 cm was present on the left side of the lower back. 4 cm from the midline and 10 cm above the left posterior, superior iliac spine.
j). Reddish colour pressure abrasion measuring 0.4 cm x 0.3 cm was present on the right side of the lower back, 3.5 cm from the midline and 10 cm above the right posterior, superior iliac spine.
k). Red colour pressure abrasion measuring 0.4 cm x 0.3 cm was present on the right side of the lower back, 7 cm from the midline and 11 cm above the right side of the posterior, superior iliac spine.
l). Reddish colour pressure abrasion is present on the right side of the lower back 11 cm from midline and 15 cm below the right lower angle of the scapula measuirng 0.7 cm x 0.3 cm.
m).Laceration with irregular margin was present on the scalp, 3 cm behind the frontal hairline measuring 45 cm x 38 cm. Multiple small boney specules were seen embedded within the ragged margin of the wound.
n). Abrased contusion (abrasion measuring 0.4 cm x 0.3 cm and contusion 4.5 cm x 3 cm) was present on the right side of the cheek, 3 cm from the midline and 2.5 cm below the right eye.
o). Reddish colour abrasion measuring 0.4 cm x 0.3 cm was present on the left eyebrow 4 cm from the midline.
p). Reddish colour abrasion measuring 0.5 cm x 0.2 cm was present on the left lower lip, 2 cm from the midline.
SC No. 44269/15 State Vs. Ranjeet Soni & Ors. Page 26 of 34 Internal injuries:
Head and neck:
q). Scalp as mentioned in the external injuries.
r). Skull fractures were present
s). brain was congested, weighing 1.3 kg. Sub arachnoid hemorrhage was present on the left fronto-tempro-pariental region and right temporal region.
83. These injuries were possible only when other human being(s) had attacked the deceased. Therefore, death was homicidal.
84. As already mentioned above, the prosecution was required to establish circumstances beyond reasonable doubt and the circumstances so established should form a complete chain which only points out to the guilt of the accused persons.
85. PW-2 is complainant. He is husband of the deceased. He had not seen the persons who assaulted upon his wife. He had reached the house after the attack. He did not see any of the accused at the spot of incident. PW-2 developed suspicion on accused Ranjeet Soni and other accused on the ground that he had earlier employed Ranjeet Soni who was coming to his house for the last three days prior to the death of the deceased alongwith his two relatives. Accused Ranjeet has denied being employee of PW-2. It has come in the cross- examination of PW-2 that he could not show any document of appointment of accused Ranjeet Soni as his employee. Prosecution also has not brought any other material on record to show this fact. Therefore, it cannot be said that SC No. 44269/15 State Vs. Ranjeet Soni & Ors. Page 27 of 34 accused Ranjeet was employee of PW-2. However, accused Ranjeet has stated in his statement u/s 313 CrPC that he used to do job work of complainant. Doing job work cannot be equated to being an employee. This circumstance has remained unestablished.
86. Prosecution has heavily relied upon recovery of currency notes as an incriminating circumstance. Rs. 130/- have been shown to have been recovered from accused Ranjeet. The currency note of Rs.100/- was allegedly containing some blood stains. The currency note of Rs.100/- is Ex.PW13/P6 and the other currency notes are Ex.PW13/P7 (colly.). The currency notes were sent to FSL. FSL report Ex.30/M says that blood was detected on the currency notes which is of B group.
87. Learned Counsel for the accused argued that Rs. 130/- have been planted upon the accused. He argued that no person would keep Rs. 130/- in his clothes which were having blood stains. He contended that it was not a big amount of money which accused would keep with him particularly when it is stained with blood. He submitted that the same has been planted by the investigating agency.
88. I find some force in these submissions. Why would a person keep Rs. 130/- with him which are stained with blood? He would definitely throw them or destroy them. It is also particular to note that accused Ranjeet had also allegedly got recovered his clothes which he was wearing at the time of the offence. This means that after committing the offence, accused Ranjeet changed SC No. 44269/15 State Vs. Ranjeet Soni & Ors. Page 28 of 34 his clothes but still kept Rs. 130/- with him which were stained with blood. This story is indigestible. There is great amount of doubt about this version of the prosecution. Even if it is assumed that these notes were recovered from accused Ranjeet, still it does not help prosecution case. There is DNA report which is Ex.PW28/A, according to which no DNA could be isolated from currency note of Rs. 100/-. Blood of B group can be of any person.
89. Prosecution has also heavily relied upon recovery of blade of scissors and the iron handle. Great emphasis was laid upon the opinion of the doctor who opined that the weapons were possibly used in the commission of the crime. The FSL report found blood of B group on the iron handle. It also found blood on the blade of scissor but blood group could not be ascertained. Blood was of human origin. However, again, as per DNA report Ex.PW28/A, no DNA could be isolated from these two weapons. This is a missing link. As such, these weapons cannot be connected with the crime. Merely, opinion of the doctor will not be sufficient. Learned Counsel has relied upon 2008 IV AD (Cr.)(DHC) 577 titled Yamin (Mohd.) Vs. State. It was held in this case that the weapon of offence regarding which the doctor had given opinion was not shown to the doctor when he appeared in the witness box, therefore, the opinion could not be accepted. In the present case also, the weapons of offence were not shown to the doctor (PW-7) when he appeared in the witness box. Thus, his opinion is of little value.
90. Prosecution has also relied upon recovery of clothes of accused SC No. 44269/15 State Vs. Ranjeet Soni & Ors. Page 29 of 34 persons as well as recovery of mobile phones.
91. The mobile phones were being used on two members i.e. 8802862570 and 8802862579. However, none of these numbers were purchased in the name of accused persons. Prosecution produced the seller of the SIMs as a witness. However, his evidence is also not of much use. PW-3 i.e. SIM seller says that accused Anup Soni had come to him to purchase two SIMs of numbers 8802862570 and 8802862579. He states that he had taken his ID proof and photograph for each of the SIMs. Photocopy of CAF of SIM no. 8802862579 is Mark A and that of SIM no. 8802862570 is Mark B. Photocopy of the Voter I-card is Mark B-1 (later on Ex. PW4/A). However, on none of these CAFs, there is photograph of accused Anup or any other ID document connecting him with these SIMs. PW-3 says accused Anup gave his copy of his Voter I-card but PW-4 says that copy belongs to him. Thus copy of the said Voter I-card did not belong to accused Anup. PW-3 cannot be believed when he says that accused Anup purchased the said two SIM cards. On the contrary, regarding mobile no. 8802862579, according to CAF Mark A, subscriber is Satish; whereas according to Ex.PW6/B which is another CAF of the same number, subscriber is Vinod Singh. How can there be two CAFs of the same number? Prosecution has not explained the same. No enquiries were made from the said Vinod Singh. This is also a missing link. Mark B was later on Ex.PW6/G. Prosecution produced the purported subscriber Satish as PW-4 who denied subscribing these numbers. He also stated that photograph on the CAFs did not belong to him. The CAFs were not sent for any handwriting comparison. So there is nothing on SC No. 44269/15 State Vs. Ranjeet Soni & Ors. Page 30 of 34 record to prove that accused Anup had purchased these two SIMs. Both the SIMs were purchased in the name of Satish Kumar or Vinod Singh.
92. Further, recovery of mobile phones from accused Ranjeet as well as at instance of accused Anup is also doubtful as no public witness was joined in those proceedings. There is no explanation of the same. It seems beyond logic as to why these accused would keep the mobile phones with them if the same were used in the commission of the offence.
93. Prosecution has also heavily relied upon CDRs of mobile numbers 8802862570, 8802862579, 9540637009, 95403991145 and 9506106153. The certificates u/s 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act in respect of these CDRs are Ex.PW6/E (also 6/M), Ex.PW6/K (also 6/L), Ex.PW10G (also 10/H and I) and Ex.PW31/A. Learned Counsel submits that these certificates are defective. He has relied upon 2014 (8) LRC 236 (Del) titled Achchey Lal Yadav vs. State. It was held in this case that the language of the certificate must conform to the requirements of Sec. 65-B and without which the electronic evidence cannot be considered. The certificates Ex.PW6/E, 6/K and 10/G furnished in the present case are not fully conforming to the said requirements. However, the other certificates appear to be perfectly valid. But, merely from CDRs, prosecution does not derive any major benefit. No witness has spoken about relevance of these CDRs in the witness box. At the most, it can be assumed that the prosecution wanted to show that these mobile numbers were used by the accused persons. However, none of the mobile numbers has been connected SC No. 44269/15 State Vs. Ranjeet Soni & Ors. Page 31 of 34 with any of the accused. It cannot be said that any of the accused used any of these numbers. This is another flaw in the case of the prosecution.
94. As far as clothes allegedly recovered at the instance of accused persons are concerned, only partial DNA profile was generated from four clothes i.e. one full sleeves shirt, one pants and two T-shirts. No DNA was isolated from other clothes. The partial DNA profile could not be matched as it was partial. Thus, it cannot be said conclusively that the blood on the clothes was of the deceased. This is another missing link.
95. There is no explanation as to why no enquiries were made from either Vinod Singh, Manoj, Kayyum or Aminur who were subscribers of mobile numbers allegedly used at the time of the offence. Enquiries were made from Satish, however, his evidence is not of any use for the prosecution.
96. IO had made certain notings in the scaled site plan Ex.PW22/A. He did so without any authorization. Notings should have been made by the draftsman and not by the IO. This is another flaw in the case of the prosecution.
97. It is also pertinent to note that the IO did not make any investigation about claim of the complainant of his visit to Ghaziabad in the evening of 06.03.2011. He did not obtain CDR of the mobile number of the complainant to ascertain his location. This was crucial. This would have either corroborated his claim or would have exposed his lies. This omission on the part of the IO is fatal to the case of the prosecution.
SC No. 44269/15 State Vs. Ranjeet Soni & Ors. Page 32 of 34
98. As the case is based on circumstantial evidence, motive also assumes significance. The motive alleged in the present case is of robbery. PW- 2/complainant reported about missing articles later on 07.03.2011. The articles reported to be missing were cash amount of Rs.1200/-, two golden rings, three silver pajebs (new), one silver pajeb (old and studded with red pearls), one pair of bangles of child and four pairs of bichuas. The money and these jewellery articles were not of huge value. It is difficult to digest that accused persons would commit murder for a meagre amount of Rs. 1200/- and some small jewellery articles most of which were of silver. This bounty was not of such a value that any person would go to the extent of killing the deceased. The complainant was having jewellery shop on the ground floor of his house. However, no article is missing from the shop. Therefore, there is great amount of doubt about the alleged motive.
99. It has come in the cross-examination of PW-2 that these articles were easily available in the market. PW-2 himself was also a jeweller. Thus, possibility of these articles being planted cannot be ruled out.
100. There is no person who had seen the accused persons at the spot at the time of the offence. Case was based on indirect evidence i.e. circumstantial evidence. Prosecution has failed to prove the circumstances which would establish the guilt. Chain of the circumstances is not complete. Accused persons deserve benefit of doubt.
101. In view of the above, all the accused persons are hereby acquitted SC No. 44269/15 State Vs. Ranjeet Soni & Ors. Page 33 of 34 of all the charges. Accused persons are required to furnish bail bonds as per Sec. 437-A CrPC. At request of the accused persons, bonds already furnished by them are accepted further for a period of six months for the purposes of Sec. 437-A CrPC.
102. This court acknowledges assistance rendered by Sh. Sanjay Gupta, learned Amicus Curiae.
103. Case property is confiscated. It be destroyed as per rules.
104. File be consigned to Record Room.
Digitally signed by SANJAY Announced in open court on 30th day of November, 2017. SANJAY BANSAL Location: Karkardooma Court BANSAL Date: 2017.11.30 13:30:22 +0530 (Sanjay Bansal) Special Judge (NDPS) / ASJ / NE / KKD Courts / Delhi. SC No. 44269/15 State Vs. Ranjeet Soni & Ors. Page 34 of 34