Delhi District Court
State vs . 1) Sanjay Rathore on 30 September, 2014
IN THE COURT OF SH VIRENDER KUMAR BANSAL :
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE: (FTC) (W):DELHI
SESSIONS CASE No. : 63/09
ID No. 02401R0242712001
FIR No. : RC-3(S)/98 CBI/SCB-II/DLI
U/s : 302/307/34 IPC
P.S. : S.P. Badli
STATE Vs. 1) Sanjay Rathore
S/o Sh. Budh Ram Rathore
(Since deceased)
2) Virender @ Dulla
S/o Sh. Beli Ram
R/o 500/20, Bikam Singh
Colony, Delhi.
3) Satish @ Taj Singh @ Dilip
Singh @ Surjeet Singh
S/o Sh. Mathura Parshad
(Since deceased)
4) Raju
S/o Sh. Inder Singh
R/o A-9, Lehari Colony, Delhi.
5) Alka
W/o Sh. Billa Chawla
R/o 7/22, Masjid Gali,
Jangpura, Bhogal, Delhi.
6) Sudesh Kumar Sharma
S/o Sh. Kewal Kishan
(Since deceased)
Date of committal : 12.02.2001
Date of Judgment : 30.09.2014
RC3(S)/98 CBI/SCBII/DLI St. Vs. Sanjay Rathore & ors. Page 1 of 83
J U D G M E N T:
1. On 27.04.1996 Sanjay Rathore lodged complaint with the police that on that day he along with his wife Smt. Veena, mother Kamla and daughter was returning from a marriage party. On the way he made a plan to visit his godown at Shahbad Daulatpur, Samay Pur Badli. They reached there in their Maruti car. On opening the main gate it was noticed that there was no light. Accordingly, he proceeded to buy a candle. When he reached near his car three young boys commanded him to hand over whatever he had. On his refusal one of them stabbed him in his abdomen. Those boys started removing ornaments of his mother and wife besides beating them. He raised alarm and rushed to the godown of Kulwant Rana, number of persons were sitting there. On seeing his injuries they rushed to godown and removed his wife and mother to the hospital. On this complaint FIR No.317/96 was registered at PS: S.P. Badli. However, the investigation was transferred to CBI by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India vide order dt.24.08.1998 passed in writ petition No.282/97 filed by Sh. Kishan Chand Rathore, father of Smt. Veena. The investigation was taken over by CBI on 04.09.1998 vide case No. RC-3(S)/98 CBI/SCB-II/DLI. It is pertinent to mention here that Smt. Veena Succumbed to the injuries sustained in the incident. RC3(S)/98 CBI/SCBII/DLI St. Vs. Sanjay Rathore & ors. Page 2 of 83 Investigation was carried out by CBI which revealed that Sanjay Rathore had affair with Ms. Alka since long. Sanjay was married with Smt. Veena in 1985 but his relation with Ms. Alka continued. On 05.02.1993 Sanjay filed divorce petition seeking divorce from Smt. Veena on the ground that Smt. Veena had deserted since last 2 years where as Smt. Veena was residing with him in the same house all along and gave birth to 2 children one in 1992 and other in May 1994. Efforts were made to obtain Ex-parte divorce which could not succeed and under which compelling circumstances Sanjay withdrew his divorce petition on 27.04.1993. Investigation also revealed that in Marriage party held in 1995 there was hot exchange of words between Sanjay and brother of his wife (Sanjeev) wherein Sanjay threatened of dire consequences. In 1996 Sanjay and Alka entered into a conspiracy with Sudesh Kumar Advocate, Virender, Satish and Raju to commit murder of Smt. Veena who was at advance stage of pregnancy. In pursuance of conspiracy Sanjay Rathore took Veena to his godown at Shahbad on 27.04.1996 after attending marriage party at Bhagwati Garden where dinner was to be served at 9:00 pm and Barat was to reach at 8:00 pm. Sanjay and his mother, wife and daughter Kajal went to the venue of marriage at 7:00 pm without taking dinner and reached the godown at 8:00 pm. There Veena was brutely hit on her head and was shot in her RC3(S)/98 CBI/SCBII/DLI St. Vs. Sanjay Rathore & ors. Page 3 of 83 abdomen. Accused persons also attempted to fire on Veena with another .315 bore katta, cartridge fell down which was recovered from the place of occurrence by SI B.N. Mishra of PS: Samay Pur Badli in case FIR No.317/96. Smt. Veena scummbed to injuries at about 5:10 am on 28.04.1996 in Santom hospital. As per the post mortem report the cause of death was cumulative effect of the gun shot injury and head injury. On 26.07.2000 accused Virender, Satish @ Tej Singh, Raju and Alka were arrested along with Sh. S.K. Sharma (since dead). They made the disclosure statement Virender, Satish and Raju have also disclosed that the country made katta of .38 bore and .315 bore, had already been recovered by police of Noida Sector 20 in case FIR No.777/97 & 778/97. Maruti van No.UP-14A 8634 used in the commission of offence was recovered from possession of Virender with fake registration number and fake registration certificate by Krishan Nagar police station Delhi in FIR No.258/96. A report regarding theft of this Maruti Van No. DL 3CE 1528 was already lodged by Sagar Chand Jain and it was recovered from accused Virender with number plate of UP 14A 8634 by tampering the registration plate of Maruti Van No. UP 14A 8031. Kattas which were recovered by Noida police was also taken into custody by the CBI and were sent to FSL for opinion. One .38 fired bullet was found in the abdomen of Smt. Veena matched with the fire arm .38 bore RC3(S)/98 CBI/SCBII/DLI St. Vs. Sanjay Rathore & ors. Page 4 of 83 and the live cartridge recovered from the spot was also opined to have been fired from the .315 bore katta recovered by the police as per balastic report. The iron rod used in the commission of offence was also recovered by Noida Police & then seized by CBI in this case. This iron rod was examined by the FSL and was found strong enough to cause injuries.
2. Accused also made extra judicial confession before Sh. Kuldeep Kumar. CBI also received one anonymous letter dt.10.12.1999 and it was found to be written by Satish where in one another anonymous letter was found written by accused Virender, After completion of investigation charge sheet u/s 302/316/201 IPC was filed.
3. My Ld. Predecessor framed the charge against these accused persons i.e. Sanjay Rathore, Virender, Satish, Raju, Alka and Sudesh Sharma u/s 302 r/w section 120B IPC, 316 read with section 120B IPC. Accused Sanjay Rathore, Virender, Satish and Raju were also charge sheeted u/s 120B IPC and section 201 r/w 120B IPC. All the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter, the case was fixed for prosecution evidence.
4. Lady Ct. Meena was examined as PW-1, she was posted in Police Control Room. She received the call on 27.04.1996 the same was reduced into writing and is proved as Ex.PW1/A. The message was conveyed to the wireless operator Police Head RC3(S)/98 CBI/SCBII/DLI St. Vs. Sanjay Rathore & ors. Page 5 of 83 Quarter.
5. Sh. Badan Singh was examined as PW-2. He stated that he sent the invitation card of marriage of his daughter to Sh. Budh Ram Rathore. He also stated that the accused along-with his wife and mother but does not know how much time he remained there. He identified Sanjay Rathore that he attended the marriage. He also proved the marriage card Ex.PW2/A.
6. Smt. Sharda Devi was examined as PW-3. She is wife of Badan Singh and the marriage was of her daughter. She also stated that invitation card Ex.PW2/A was sent by Sh. Badan Singh, lateron the marriage was attended by Sh. Sanjay Rathore along with his mother, wife and daughter. They came at about 6 pm, remained there for about ½ an hour and then went to the adjacent house. They returned to the marriage venue again and gave Shagun of Rs.101/- to her. She does not know they they had left.
7. Smt. Mala Devi was examined as PW-4 who also stated that Sanjay Rathore along with his mother, wife and minor daughter attended the marriage and also came to their house for ½ hour from their house they again went to attend the marriage. She also identified Sanjay Rahtore in the court.
8. Sh. Charan Singh was examined as PW-5 he also supported PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4 that Sh. Sanjay Rathore, his RC3(S)/98 CBI/SCBII/DLI St. Vs. Sanjay Rathore & ors. Page 6 of 83 mother, wife and minor daughter attended the marriage party. He also stated that they attended the marriage party at 5:30 pm or 6:00 pm and he had seen them there upto 7:00 pm. He also identified Sanjay Rathore in the court. Sh. Badan Singh, PW-2 is his brother in law.
9. Sh. Rajender Kumar was examined as PW-6 he is carrying on the business of mattresses and Sh. Vijay Rathore is his partner. They are having their godown on rent at Shahbad Daulatpur owned by Sanjay Rathore at the monthly rent of Rs.1,000/- from the 1999. There were 2 employees and they used to remain in the godown i.e. Kapil Mehra and Modh Narain and he himself. He stated that if they were not there then lock was put on the main gate from inner side and small gate lock was put on the outer side. The keys of the locks remained with Kapil and Modh Narain. On 26.04.1996 it being Friday, he went to his village on 27.04.1996 there was election in Delhi and there was holiday. He came back to Shastri Nagar on Monday and came to know about the murder of wife of Sanjay in the godown at Daulatpur and that Sanjay Rathore also sustained injuries.
10. During cross-examination he stated that his statement was recorded after 4 years of the incident. He was confronted with the statement wherein it was not mentioned that godown was rented at the monthly rent of Rs.1,000/- from 1995. However, it was RC3(S)/98 CBI/SCBII/DLI St. Vs. Sanjay Rathore & ors. Page 7 of 83 admitted that godown was taken on rent @ Rs.3,000/- p.m. He was also confronted with his statement wherein it is not mentioned that keys of the godown remained with Kapil Mehto and Modh Narain. He was also confronted with his statement dated 26.09.1996 wherein he stated that he went to the office of Shastri Nagar. He was also confronted with his statement wherein it was not mentioned that when he returned back he found shutter of the office down and he was informed by Laxman about murder of Veena in the godown.
11. Sh. Triloki Nath was examined as PW-7. Deceased Veena was related to her and used to visit her home. He stated that once Veena along with her husband came to the house of Kishan Chand. When he enquired from Veena she told that it is her house hold matter and he should talk about this with her father Kishan Chand. He stated that again on the occasion of Rakhsha Bandhan they came to the house of Kishan Chand on the roof of his house. He stated that while he was talking with Veena she started weeping "Tau ji mujhey Bachao" Veena was very much perturbed and was having signs/marks of slaps on her cheek. When he enquired, she said that he should talk with her father. Kishan Chand told him that Veena was being beaten and there had been quarrel several times. He also told that a petition for divorce was going on between Veena and Sanjay Rathore. A RC3(S)/98 CBI/SCBII/DLI St. Vs. Sanjay Rathore & ors. Page 8 of 83 meeting was called at the house of Kishan Chand. Both Veena and Sanjay came there, there were other family members in that meeting. In that meeting Sanjay admitted his guilt and requested for pardon. Kishan chand pardoned Sanjay. On 28.04.1996 at night while he was sleeping on the roof of his house Kishan chand called him he also heard the cries of wife of Kishan Chand. On inquiriy Kishan Chand told that Veena met with an accident and is in hospital at Rohini. Thereafter, he felt asleep and his wife told him in the morning that Veena had expired. He went to Santom Hospital. Sanjay Rahtore and his mother were present there. Kishan Chand and his other relatives were also there. Deadbody of Veena was sent for post mortem. No person from the family of Sanjay came to the mortuary. After post mortem deadbody was received by the parents of Veena and no person from family of Sanjay was there. Son of Veena was called for performing last rites.
During cross-examination he stated that he does not remember the date, month and year when Veena visited house of Kishan Chand and meet him. He stated that he did not tell the police that on the day Veena came to the house of Kishan Chand and on the roof Veena started weeping and said "Tau Ji Mujhe Bacha Lo". He also did not tell the police about the marks on her cheek and Kishan Chand told him that there used to be quarrel in RC3(S)/98 CBI/SCBII/DLI St. Vs. Sanjay Rathore & ors. Page 9 of 83 the house of Veena several times. He denied the suggestion that no meeting was called at the house of Kishan Chand where Veena and Sanjay came. However, he stated that he did not tell these facts to the police and also that Sanjay admitted the guilt.
12. Sh. Ravi Sharma was examined as PW-8 he was carrying on the business of property dealer. In the name of M/s Francs property in partnership with Sh. Kulwant Rana. He stated that in the evening on 27.04.1996 he along with 10-15 people was sitting outside his shop at Shahbad Daulatpur and were discussing about elections. At about 7:00/7:15 pm accused Sanjay came in his car, he was having injury on his stomach and said that robbery has been committed in his godown. There was darkness at that time. Sanjay Rathore said "Bachao Bachao mere godown par kutch logo ne mere or mere Bibi per hamla kar diya" the persons sitting there went to his godown, this witness sat in the car with Sanjay Rathore and went towards Nala where the said persons have stated to be committing robbery. Sh. Ravi Sharma searched for accused persons in the light of the vehicle but no person was seen. Thereafter he along with Sanjay returned to the godown and found that wife of Sanjay was lying on the cot, and was taken in the tempo to the hospital. He also stated that mother and daughter of Sanjay were also taken to hospital by this witness and got admitted in Santom hospital. He also signed admission form RC3(S)/98 CBI/SCBII/DLI St. Vs. Sanjay Rathore & ors. Page 10 of 83 of Veena which is Ex.PW8/A. Sanjay also told him that firing has taken place in his godown. No question was put to this witness during cross-examination.
13. Sh. Rakesh Kumar was examined as PW-9, he was married with Anpurna sister of Veena. He was on visiting terms with Sanjay and his family. He stated that some times he found some injury marks on the cheek of Veena. On inquiry she disclosed that she was beaten by Sanjay Rathore. He also stated that Sanjay was having affair with some other girl and i.e. the reason of quarrel between her and his husband. Sanjay Rathore disclosed this fact while they were drinking that he was in affair with Alka. He disclosed that Alka was with Sanjay in the college and he is having physical relation with her since then. Sanjay Rathore used to have weekly off on Wednesday and he used to visit Alka at Raj Hans Hotel at Suraj Kunj or at Hotel Goriya Bahadurgarh. In the year 1993-94 his father-in-law told him about divorce petition filed by Sanjay and that Alka used to appear in that petition as Veena. In the year 1994 and 1996 there was marriage of Urvashi @ Pooja cousin of Anpurna, that marriage was also attended by Sanjay Rathore. In that marriage there was a quarrel between Sanjay Rathore and his brother-in-law. Sanjay Rathore left the marriage party saying that he will took revenge. At that time both of them were under the influence of liquor. On 27.04.1996 he was at the RC3(S)/98 CBI/SCBII/DLI St. Vs. Sanjay Rathore & ors. Page 11 of 83 polling booth at Sadar Bazar till 6:00 / 6:30 pm. Thereafter he went to sleep after taking meals. In the night a telephone call was received that her sister Veena met with an accident. On this he told his wife that Sanjay might have taken drink and that he would go in the morning. After about 3 months another telephone call was received that Veena sustained injuries thereafter his wife and he went to Rohini. Vijay younger brother of Sanjay and Subhash Jain met in the hospital. Veena was pregnant at that time. However mother-in-law of Veena had not sustained injuries and was present there. Sanjay Rathore did not met him in the night. In the morning he came to know that Veena had expired. Deadbody was removed to the mortuary. Post mortem was conducted on 29.04.1996. Nobody except Prateek son of Veena was present there from the family of Sanjay including Sanjay who was not present there. He also identified Alka, according to him Sanjay Rathore got introduced him with Alka. He stated that in the year 1990 he and Sanjay were distributing invitation cards and were present near Punjab Kesari office, Ring road. Sanjay told that he has to meet his friend and took the car to the bus stand where Alka was standing. Sanjay met Alka and also introduced him. Sanjay told this witness that he can pay Rs.1,00,000/- or Rs.2,00,000/- in case Veena gives him divorce. He stated that he did not tell the police in his statement that Sanjay introduced him RC3(S)/98 CBI/SCBII/DLI St. Vs. Sanjay Rathore & ors. Page 12 of 83 Alka in the year 1990. He denied the suggestion that Sanjay never told him about his affair with Alka. He also denied the suggestion that Sanjay did not tell him that he can give Rs.1,00,000/- or Rs.2,00,000/- if Veena give him divorce.
14. Sh. Modh Narain was examined as PW-10. In the year 1996 he used to drive 3 wheeler scooter and joined the service with Rajender Kumar as driver. Rajender Kumar was having office at Sashtri Nagar and godown at Shahbad Daulatpur. He was living in Shahbad Daulatpur with one more employee Kapil Mehto. Rajender kumar was also living in the same godown. 3 wheeler was also parked in the same godown. He stated that in the year 1996 there were elections. Rajender Kumar left one day prior to the incident. On the day of election there was holiday and therefore he and Kapil Mehto left the godown, he went to his house at Nangloi inside the godown there was a main gate having a quarter gate. There was an office inside the godown. The quarter gate of the godown was locked and the key was kept by Kapil Mehto. The main gate was closed and locked from inside. Shutter was also locked and keys were with Kapil Mehto. On the next day at 10:30/ 11:00 am he found small quarter gate opened. Big main gate was locked from outside. He entered the godown and started washing his hands in the meantime two police officials came and made inquiries, Kapil Mehto also came there and he RC3(S)/98 CBI/SCBII/DLI St. Vs. Sanjay Rathore & ors. Page 13 of 83 stated that he does not know anything and that keys were with Kapil Mehto. Testimony of this witness has gone unchallenged and uncontroverted.
15. Sh. Kapil Mehto was examined as PW-11, he stated that he was in the service of M/s Golden Company situated at 158, M- Block, Gali No.11, Shastri Nagar, Delhi and his duty was to load and unload card board boxes. In the year 1996 he was under the employment of M/s. Jai Sri Ram and employer was Rajender Kumar. His job was to load and unload boxes and bundles. One driver and one Leela Kant Jha was also in the service. In the year year 1996 he used to sleep in the godown situated at Shahbad Daultpur. Driver and Rajender Kumar also used to stay in the godown and some time even chowkidar. There was one main gate and one small gate of the godown. There was one shutter on the door of godown. On 27.04.1996 at about 10/11 am he had put the locks on the said godown. He came back on 28.04.96 and found main gate open. He entered the godown and saw that driver Modh Narain was taking bath and 2 police officials were roaming in the godown. Those police officials inquired from him as to what happened and he stated that he is not aware as he had just come. He told that Rajender Kumar had gone to his village on earlier date and he put the locks on the gates of the godown and keys were with him. Lock on the inner main gate was put from RC3(S)/98 CBI/SCBII/DLI St. Vs. Sanjay Rathore & ors. Page 14 of 83 inside and on the small gate from the outside and the goods lying were of the Rajender Kumar. His testimony had also gone unchallenged.
16. Sh. Yashpal was examined as PW-12. He is brother of witness Rakesh Kumar examined as PW-6. He stated that on the intervening night of 27/28.04.1996 he received telephone call from mother of Veena Rathore who told that she had received a call from the house of Sanjay Rathore that Smt. Veena had met with an accident and she is admitted in Santom Nursing Home, Prashant Vihar. He went to the house of Kishan Chand father of Veena and from there he went with mother of Veena to Santom Hospital. They reached Santom hospital in 30-45 minutes. No family member of Sanjay Rathore was there in the Nursing Home. They found Veena Rathore on the bed. Mother of Sanjay Rathore was lying on another bed. Father and brother of Veena were also present in the hospital. He was told that Sanjay Rathore was on upper floor and has been operated upon. He stated that Veena and her husband used to visit her house and on one occasion he talked with Veena who appeared to have been slapped and was having contusion marks on her face on which she told that her husband is having affair with a lady namely Alka and Sanjay had filed case for divorce but Alka had been appearing in the said case in her place. Smt. Veena told that she had already informed this RC3(S)/98 CBI/SCBII/DLI St. Vs. Sanjay Rathore & ors. Page 15 of 83 fact to her parents. Thereafter, matter was discussed with relatives and Sanjay Rathore agreed to withdraw the said case. He also deposed that about 3-4 months prior to murder there was marriage in the family of Veena and in that marriage there was exchange of hot words between Sanjeev, brother of Veena, and Sanjay Rathore. Sanjay Rathore took out knife and threatened his brother-in-law to teach him a lesson. After the marriage Veena and Sanjay Rathore came to their house and Veena told him that she has come to his house for the last time. He stated that on 28.04.96 Veena was declared dead. All the relatives of Veena collected there. Son of Veena was called there through some one for performing last rites. During cross-examination he was confronted with his statement that mother of Veena Rathore told him that she had received call from house of Sanjay Rathore. He was also confronted with his statement where it was not mentioned that he talked with Veena Rathore about contusion marks and that she was not happy and that Veena told him that a divorce petition is filed where Alka is appearing in her place or that Sanjay have agreed to withdraw the same. He denied the suggestion that Veena never told him that Sanjay is having affair with Alka.
17. Sh. B.S. Rawat, UDC from record room Sessions was examined as PW-13, he brought the summoned file of HMA RC3(S)/98 CBI/SCBII/DLI St. Vs. Sanjay Rathore & ors. Page 16 of 83 No.128/93 titled as Sanjay Rathore Vs. Veena Rathore decided on 27.04.1993, certified copy of the petition is proved as Ex.PW13/A. Certified copy of order dt.24.03.1993 Ex.PW13/B, certified copy of order dt. 27.04.1993 is Ex.PW13/C, certified copy of affidavit of Sanjay Rathore dt. 05.02.1993 is Ex.PW13/D, certified copy of application u/o XXIII Rule 1 CPC dt.26.04.93 is Ex.PW13/E, certified copy of address form is Ex.PW13/F. Certified copy of vakalatnama of Sanjay Rahtore is Ex.PW13/G. Certified copy of notice sent to Veena Rahtore on 24.03.93 is Ex.PW13/H which is in the handwriting of Harish Chand Ahlmad. The said notice was marked to process server. Certified copy of UPC is Ex.PW13/J. Certified copy of notice for 19.04.93 is Ex.PW13/K. Certified copy of application for inspection of file dated 02.08.2000 is Ex.PW13/L. Testimony of this witness has gone unchallenged and uncontrovered.
18. Sh. Naresh Chauhan was examined as PW-14. He stated that he was reisiding at B-14, sector-19 Noida and was having white colour Maruti Van bearing registration No.UP 14-8031 registered with Ghaziabad Authority. Registration certificate and other papers were misplaced and he lodged a report with police station sector-20 Noida in the year 1993. He obtained duplicate RC. Lateron some police officials came to his house, shown him original registration certificate of Maruti Van wherein the number RC3(S)/98 CBI/SCBII/DLI St. Vs. Sanjay Rathore & ors. Page 17 of 83 was changed and it was made as UP 14A 8634 but it was in his name. The witness was again called. The original certificate was shown to the witness. After summoning the file of case FIR No.24/96 PS: Krishna Nagar titled State Vs. Varinder Kumar and photocopy of the same is Ex.PW14/A. During cross examination he stated that he cannot say who changed the number in the original RC.
19. Sh. Hari Gyan Rathore was examined as PW-15. He stated that on 27.04.1996 there was marriage of daughter of Badan Singh who is brother of his brother-in-law. He attended that marriage at Bhagwati Garden, Uttam Nagar. He reached the venue at about 7:00/ 7:45 pm he did not see any person from the house of Budh Ram Rathore in the said marriage party. He remained in the marriage till 8:30 pm. He stated that thereafter he went to attend another party at Tri Nagar and reached his house. After reaching his house he came to know that Sanjay Rathore had met with an incident. He also came to know that he is admitted in Santom Hospital and therefore he along with Jai Bhagwan and Sohan Lal and other relatives of Sanjay went to Santom hospital. Kamla Rathore and other family members of Sanjay Rathore were also present.
20. Sh. Devender Singh was examined as PW-16. He brought file of case FIR No.24/96 PS:Krishna Nagar tilted State vs. RC3(S)/98 CBI/SCBII/DLI St. Vs. Sanjay Rathore & ors. Page 18 of 83 Virender Kumar u/s 379/411/420 IPC. He proved the certified copies on record from page 1 to 59 as Ex.PW16/1 to 59.
During cross-examination he stated that vide Judgment dt. 30.11.1998 accused Virender was acquitted.
21. Sh. Sagar Chand Jain was examined as PW-17. He purchased one Maruti Van in the name of his wife Mithlesh Jain having registration No. DL 3CE 1528 white colour. He parked the van in front of his house on the night intervening 14-15 January 1996. in the morning on 15.01.1996 he found the Van missing. He lodged the FIR at Krishna Nagar but the van could not be traced. After about 2 months police officials gave the report as untraced and the insurance company gave him claim. The registration certificate was also transferred in the name of insurance company. After about one month of receiving claim, police informed him that Maruti van has been recovered. He identified the application for registration as Ex.PW20/D having signature of his wife and also form No.34 Ex.PW20/G having signatures of his wife Mithlesh Jain.
22. Sh. Kuldeep Kumar was examined as PW-18 he stated that accused Virender was known to him, he used to supply goods in a 3 wheeler. Accused Virender also introduced him with one Satish who was a driver. On asking of Virender he let out one room to Satish at monthly rent of Rs.800/-. This room was situated on the RC3(S)/98 CBI/SCBII/DLI St. Vs. Sanjay Rathore & ors. Page 19 of 83 first floor of his house and Satish started living there. Room was let out in the year 1995 and Virender used to visit Satish. This witness was also having Maruti Van No. DNC 8226. Satish also used to drive that Maruti Van and pay him rent. After about 1 ½ years he take back his Maruti van from Satish. He stated that Satish asked for Maruti van but he did not give his Maruti van to Satish. The day on which Satish asked for Maruti van from this witness he had gone to Shastri Nagar he came back at 4:00/4:30 pm. He did not support the prosecution case. Ld. PP for CBI cross-examined him as he was resiling from his earlier statement. During cross-examination he stated that he became suspicious about activities of Satish and Virender as they used to sleep in day time and during night time they were not available and used to be out for days. He denied the suggestion that in April- May 1996 Virender in the presence of Satish asked for Maruti van as he has to collect payment of some property from Azad Pur. He was confronted on this point saying that he has to go to his in-laws place at Shastri Nagar. He also denied that then Satish asked him to collect the payment and he agreed to do so. He also denied the suggestion that he reached Azad Pur in his van near Nursing Home and one lady whose name was Alka came to asked his name and gave him a bundle wrapped in the newspaper. He was also confronted with statement that on the way the newspaper of RC3(S)/98 CBI/SCBII/DLI St. Vs. Sanjay Rathore & ors. Page 20 of 83 the bundle opened and he saw that in the bundle there was one packet of currency notes of denomination of Rs.50/- and some packets of currency notes of denomination of Rs.100/- and he guess that the amount was between Rs.50,000/- to Rs.60,000/-. He denied the suggestion that he returned home at 4 pm and at that time Satish and Virender were in the room and he handed over the bundle wrapped in the newspaper to the Satish and thereafter he had not seen Virender frequently visiting Satish. He also denied the suggestion that in September 1996 when he reached on foot at bus stand at Daya Nand Marg he saw that Virender was present with his 3 wheeler and Virender told him that the payment which he brought on the asking of Satish and Virender was related to murder of a lady. He on hearing this got perplexed and instead of boarding a bus went to the room of Satish where he was present. He was also confronted with his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C wherein this fact was mentioned. He also denied the suggestion that he told the facts to Satish which was told by Virender. Initially Satish avoided the same but lateron he stated that whatever information was given by Virender is correct. He denied the suggestion that Satish along-with Virender and Raju murdered a lady in Shahbad and deal was for Rs.2,00,000/-. He also denied the suggestion that on hearing this he became perplexed and narrated all the facts to his wife Smt. RC3(S)/98 CBI/SCBII/DLI St. Vs. Sanjay Rathore & ors. Page 21 of 83 Krishna Devi on hearing that she also became perplexed and asked him to get vacated the room from Satish as soon as possible. He denied the suggestion that lateron, on the asking of his wife after about 8-10 days Satish vacated the room and started living in a room on rent at Vishwas Nagar. He was confronted with his statement on this point he volunteered that it was he who asked Satish to vacate the house. He denied the suggestion that thereafter, Satish vacated the house. He used to make telephone call at his house. He stated that he himself visited Satish at his house 3-4 times. He denied the suggestion that the deal was struck through Lawyer Sh. Sudesh Kumar Sharma but lateron lady directly contacted Virender regarding payment or that he did not dare to disclose this incident to the police due to risk of his life. However, he admitted that in November 1999 Satish came to meet him and called him at his room at Mandawli where he had gone to meet him. Satish told him that he had gone to disclose his case however, he denied the suggestion that Satish was talking of this case. He denied the suggestion that Satish asked him to disclose this fact to the police and get reward of Rs.2,00,000/- which will be shared. Satish will get Rs.1,00,000/- after release from Jail. He admitted that after few days Satish was arrested by East Delhi Special Staff and thereafter he also went to the office of special staff, where Satish gave keys of his room and he brought his RC3(S)/98 CBI/SCBII/DLI St. Vs. Sanjay Rathore & ors. Page 22 of 83 clothes but forgot to return the keys. He admitted that Virender had his own phone at his home but his messages used to come from Alka 2-3 times asking to call his tenant Virender and he always replied that his tenant is Satish and not Virender and then Alka asked to call Satish. He stated that as the stair case leading to the room of Satish was separate he could not notice the persons coming and going. He came in contact with Raju who used to meet Virender and Satish frequently in 1996. He stated that letter Ex.PW18/B running in 6 pages is in the handwriting of Satish as he had seen him writing. He further stated that he is not sure that handwriting is of Satish. He stated that writing on the envelope Ex.PW18/B is similar to that of Ex.PW18/B-1. On 01.08.2000 search was conducted by CBI at the room of Satish situated at Mandawali first floor in his presence. He handed over the keys to CBI. 2 registers mentioned in the Ex.PW18/C were recovered from the house of Satish having handwriting of Satish. The register "Heman" contains address and telephone number of Sanjay Rathore, Advocate Sudesh Kumar and on the cover Lion King was found printed is Ex.PW18/C-1 each of written page of the same bears his signatures at point A. 10 loose papers tagged also bears his signatures at point A at only 2 pages. A note book Kathura and having address of Tej Singh and also details of Alka, Sanjay Rathore, Advocate Sudesh Kumar Sharma and 10 RC3(S)/98 CBI/SCBII/DLI St. Vs. Sanjay Rathore & ors. Page 23 of 83 loose pages extra which are placed in Ex.PW18/C. The note book is Ex.PW18/C and these bears his signatures. One driving licence in the name of Tej Singh was also recovered and the ration card having photo of Satish driving licence in the name of Tej Singh having photograph of Satish were also recovered. The driving licence is Ex.PW 18/C-3 and the ration card is Ex.PW18/C- 4.
One country made pistol Ex.P-1 which was sealed in the sealed parcel having seal of CFSL and 3 cartridges which were also in the sealed parcel were also shown to the witness and witness stated that this country made pistol and cartridges were seized in his presence. The country made pistol and cartridges were produced from PS: Mandawali which is a case property of case FIR No.256/2000 u/s 25/54/59 Arms Act.
During cross-examination he stated that he was standing outside room and article was seized from the room and it was locked by CBI. Satish stated that local police was harassed him.
23. Sh. Suresh Bajaj from the Transport Authority was examined as PW19. He had brought the record with respect to vehicle bearing No.DL6C A 2129. He proved various documents with respect to the said vehicle as Ex.PW19/A to Ex.PW19/U. He stated that this vehicle was registered in the name of accused Sanjay Rathore. The testimony of this witness has gone RC3(S)/98 CBI/SCBII/DLI St. Vs. Sanjay Rathore & ors. Page 24 of 83 unchallenged and unrebutted.
24. Sh. Mangu Ram who was also from Transport Authority, was examined as PW20. He brought the record of vehicle bearing No.DL3C E 1528. The documents of ownership of Smt. Mithlesh Jain were proved as Ex.PW20/A to Ex.PW20/H. Thereafter this vehicle was transferred to United Insurance Company on 30.04.1996 vide RC Ex.PW20/I. Then it was transferred to RTR Commercial Centre vide RC Ex.PW20/J and then it was transferred in the name of Shahbuddin vide RC Ex.PW20/K. Thereafter it was transferred in the name of Iqbal Ahmed vide RC Ex.PW21/L.
25. Annapurna Rathore, sister of deceased was examined as PW21. She stated about the marriage of her sister with accused Sanjay Rathore. She further stated that in the year 1996, there was marriage of Vijay Rathore, brother of accused Sanjay Rathore. She attended that marriage and accused Alka along with her sister also attended that marriage. She stated that accused Sanjay Rathore was in love with accused Alka and there used to be quarrel between her sister Veena and accused Sanjay Rathore due to this relation. Accused Sanjay Rathore also filed a divorce petition in the year 1993 but that case was withdrawn by him. Accused admitted his mistake and begged pardon. Accused also obtained the signatures of her sister on account opening form. The RC3(S)/98 CBI/SCBII/DLI St. Vs. Sanjay Rathore & ors. Page 25 of 83 same was proved as Ex.PW13/H but she stated that the signatures are not of her sister. In the year 1995, her cousin Raja was got married. She also attended that marriage. accused Sanjay Rathore and his family members also attended that marriage. In that marriage an altercation took place between her brother Sanjeev and accused Sanjay Rathore. Accused Sanjay Rathore threatened Sanjeev that soon, he would be given befitting reply. She further stated that she was told by her father that Veena had met with an accident. She went to the hospital where she met with maternal aunt of accused Sanjay Rathore and no other family member of accused Sanjay Rathore was present there. Veena expired in that accident and none-else received any injury. Veena was also pregnant at that time. She also stated that one day prior to her death, Veena visited her home and stated that today, she had come to her house and in future, she would not visit her. She identified and proved the complaint sent by her father to SHO PS Samai Pur Badli as Ex.PW21/A. Her father also filed a petition before the Supreme Court regarding this case.
26. During cross-examination, she stated that Ex.PW21/A was not written by her father in her presence. However, her father had shown her that complaint. She stated that she had seen accused Sanjay Rathore and accused Alka together. She had not seen her sister and accused Sanjay RC3(S)/98 CBI/SCBII/DLI St. Vs. Sanjay Rathore & ors. Page 26 of 83 Rathore quarreling with each other. This fact was told to her by Veena on the occasion of marriage of her cousin (son of Mausi). She denied the suggestion that accused Sanjay Rathore was having cordial relations with the deceased and there was no quarrel at any time.
27. Sh. S.P. Sharma from Transport Office was examined as PW22. He brought the record of vehicle bearing No. UP14 A 8634. According to him, this is the registration number of a tractor and the vehicle was registered in the name of four persons namely Brij Pal, Ved Pal, Tej Pal and Vijay Pal. The documents of this vehicle were proved as Ex.PW22/A to Ex.PW22/F.
28. Sh. O.P. Kanva, Assistant Manager, United Insurance Company was examined as PW23. He deposed that vehicle bearing No. DL3C E 1528 was insured with this company. He has stated that as per their record, this was in the name of Mrs. Mithlesh Jain. The vehicle was stolen on 15.01.1996 and FIR NO.24/96 was lodged. The vehicle was later on recovered and subsequently sold to Mr. Shahbuddin. The claim of original owner was settled. The Claim Settlement Form was proved as Ex.PW23/A.
29. Sh. Ramdhari Ram was examined as PW24. He was the Postal Assistant. He stated that the envelop of which registration number is 1472 dated 11.12.1999 at 11.55 AM, was taken by him. RC3(S)/98 CBI/SCBII/DLI St. Vs. Sanjay Rathore & ors. Page 27 of 83 He proved the dispatch list as Ex.PW24/A. He also proved the computer slip pasted on the envelop as Ex.PW18/P-1 and stated that it was issued from Post Office, Laxmi Nagar. He handed over the same to CBI on 09.10.2000 vide memo Ex.PW24/B. During cross-examination, he stated that the entire dispatch register was not seized by the CBI.
30. Sh. Shahbuddin has been examined as PW25. He is the person who purchased the Maruti Van bearing registration No. DL3C E 1528 from United India Insurance Company.
31. Dr. Vibha Rani from Lie Detection Cell was examined as PW26. She conducted the Lie Detection Test on accused Sanjay Rathore and accused Kamla Devi. She proved her report as Ex.PW26/A and the forwarding letter as Ex.PW26/B.
32. Sh. Madan Lal was examined as PW27. He was the Process Server who collected the summons of the case titled as Sanjay Rathore vs. Veena Rathore on 16.03.1993 for effecting service on Smt. Veena Rathore w/o Sanjay Rathore, r/o 388, Teliwara, Gali Matawali, Delhi. Sanjay Rathore, plaintiff was present and he made endorsement about identifying the defendant with his signatures as Sanjay Rathore. The endorsement was proved as Ex.PW13/H and his report for effecting service at point B to B on Ex.PW13/H and Sanjay Rathore signed at point C to C which he put at the time of identifying Veena. He has stated that RC3(S)/98 CBI/SCBII/DLI St. Vs. Sanjay Rathore & ors. Page 28 of 83 he was taken at the given address by Sanjay Rathore. During cross-examination, he stated that on knocking the door, one woman came out who was identified as Veena Rathore by Sanjay Rathore. She put her signatures at point A on Ex.PW13/H and delivered the notice to her.
33. Smt. Sudha Rathore was examined as PW28. She is the mother of deceased Veena. She stated that Veena was married with accused Sanjay Rathore. She stated that when they went to attend the marriage of Vijay Rathore, brother of accused Sanjay Rathore, they came to know that accused Sanjay Rathore had illicit relations with accused Alka due to which relations between accused Sanjay Rathore and Veena got strained. She also came to know that accused Sanjay Rathore filed a divorce petition against Veena but later on accused Sanjay Rathore had withdrawn his petition. Ex.PW13/H was shown to this witness who stated that the signatures at point A are not of Veena Rathore. She stated that at the time of marriage of cousin of Veena, an altercation took place between accused Sanjay Rathore and her son Sanjeev and accused Sanjay Rathore threatened Sanjeev to take revenge of the same. She stated that her daughter was not allowed to talk with her on telephone. They came to know about the accident and her husband went to the hospital. From the hospital, her husband told that Veena had been murdered and no RC3(S)/98 CBI/SCBII/DLI St. Vs. Sanjay Rathore & ors. Page 29 of 83 accident had taken place.
34. During cross-examination, she denied the suggestion that on 16.03.1993, Process Server came to their house at Teliwara to deliver the copy of notice Ex.PW13/H on which Veena signed at point A in acknowledgment of receiving the notice. She also denied the suggestion that accused Sanjay Rathore came to their house along with the Process Server and identified Veena at their house. She volunteered that accused Alka used to impersonate Veena at the instance of accused Sanjay Rathore. She was confronted with her statement recorded by CBI wherein it was not mentioned that relations between accused Sanjay Rathore and Veena were got strained due to his illicit relations with accused Alka.
35. Dr. Ashok Jaiswal was examined as PW29. He conducted the post-mortem on the dead body of Veena. He found the following internal and external injuries on the dead body :-
External Injuries An oval punctured wound on left upper abdomen just below costal margin placed 5" away from midline, 16 cm above umbilicus at 2'O clock position, 12" below junction of middle and lateral third of left clavicle. Its size was 5 cm X 8 cm with collar of abrasion 1 to 2 mm around it. The margins were inverted, no blackening burning or tattooing seen around it. (entry wound).
RC3(S)/98 CBI/SCBII/DLI St. Vs. Sanjay Rathore & ors. Page 30 of 83
1. There was a stitched wound on left temptarietal region 3 ½"
long almost transversely placed scalp hair found to be completely shaved. On removing the stitches and irregular lacerated margins could be seen of the shape of which is drawn in PM report at point A. There was no blackening or tattooing seen around it.
2. Extension irregular defused bruise on left arm and ante- lateral aspect on upper middle portion of left arm of size 6" X 2"-2 ½" inch. Upper and lower limb showed ecchymosis. No other external injury seen on the body.
On Internal Examination
1. Head - There is extra vasation of blood clot under scalp tissues in left temporal parietal region. Scale bones on left temporal parietal region over an area 2" X 1 ½" were found missing (craniotomy - neurosurgical procedure). Dura was also missing from the left temporal parietal region and lacerated brain matter could be seen through it. There was radiating fissured fracture from it involving right and left parietal and frontal bone. Bones adjacent to craniotomy side found to be depressed in. there was subdural extradural and subarachnoid hemorrhage on left parietal region. Lacerated brain matter on left temporal parietal region partly missing (neurosurgical intervention). There was radiating fissured fracture involving anterior fossa both sides and middle fossa on left side. Brain matter at other sides edamotous RC3(S)/98 CBI/SCBII/DLI St. Vs. Sanjay Rathore & ors. Page 31 of 83 with flattening of gyri sulci. No foreign body/ material recovered from the cranial cavity.
2. Neck and chest - Except for pale nothing abnormal detected in that.
3. Abdomen and Pelvis - on exploring injury no.1, it was found to be directive inward and slightly upward entering the abdominal cavity just below the costal margin on left side passing through tissues, muscles and fat. The track further found to have made multiple holes in intestinal roots and mesentary in line almost horizontally extending to right side through transverse colon entering left lob of lever at its lower margins and junction with right lob through and through to the right lob of lever on its interior surface. The track further continued towards right side where a jacketed bullet found lodged with subcutaneous tissues of abdomen on right side. It was removed dimensions noted length was of length of 2 cm and width of 5 cm. A rough sketch of said bullet was prepared by me in post report at point B. Abdominal cavity was filled with free and clotted blood about 1.5 litre. Other viseras were pale. Stomach contained 2 ounce of creamish paste mucosa was pale and no abnormal smell was felt. Bladder was empty. Rectum was half filled.
4. Genital - Nothing abnormal detected. Uterus gravid enlarge and on cut section showed a male fetus, lying in amniotic sac of RC3(S)/98 CBI/SCBII/DLI St. Vs. Sanjay Rathore & ors. Page 32 of 83 length 40 cm weight 2.2 kg and was about eight month of Intra uterine life.
PW29 opined that all injuries were ante mortem in nature.
Injury no.1 was caused by fire arm projectile and is the entry point fired from distant range, direction of firm arm was left to right.
Injury no.2 was surgically intervened wound, caused by blunt object.
Injury no.3 & 4 are caused by blunt object/ force. He opined that death was due to hemorrhagic shock associated with craniocerebral injuries. Injuries no.1 & 2 is/ are, individually/ collectively sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature.
PW29 proved his report as Ex.PW29/A and the inquest papers are proved as Ex.PW29/B to Ex.PW29/F. The fire arm projectile which was taken out from the dead body at the time of autopsy has been proved as Ex.PW29/1. He identified his signatures appearing on the envelope as Ex.PW29/2.
36. Sh. Sanjeev Rathore was examined as PW30. He is the brother of the deceased. He has deposed that his sister was married with accused Sanjay Rathore. She was having two children and was pregnant at the time of her death. He stated that RC3(S)/98 CBI/SCBII/DLI St. Vs. Sanjay Rathore & ors. Page 33 of 83 differences arose between his sister and accused Sanjay Rathore after about two years of marriage and in the meeting held with accused Sanjay Rathore and his family members, it was revealed that accused Sanjay Rathore was having relations with accused Alka which was the reason for differences. Accused Alka was residing in the neighbourhood of the accused. Accused Sanjay Rathore had also filed a divorce petition against the deceased in the year 1993. A Court official reached at the address of this witness to enquire about Veena and the witness informed him that she was residing in her matrimonial home. The petition was filed by accused S.K. Sharma, Advocate. He stated that after coming to know about the filing of divorce petition, he along with his father went to the Court and in the evening a meeting was held with accused Sanjay Rathore and his family members where it was agreed that accused Sanjay Rathore will withdraw that false petition filed by him. The divorce petition was thereafter withdrawn. Despite the withdrawal of the petition, the differences between them persisted. He further stated that in the month of November 1995, there was marriage of his cousin where he talked with accused Sanjay Rathore as to why despite the withdrawal of the petition, he is bothering his sister, on this, accused started abusing and quarreling with him. Accused also threatened him on the point of knife and said that till now he had not done anything RC3(S)/98 CBI/SCBII/DLI St. Vs. Sanjay Rathore & ors. Page 34 of 83 and asked him to wait and see what he can do. On 28.04.1996, in the morning, he came to know that Veena Rathore had met with an accident and was in hospital. When he went to Santom Nursing Home, he came to know that Veena had expired. The last rites were performed by the son of Veena who was called from the house of accused Sanjay Rathore. Neither accused Sanjay Rathore nor any of his family member attended last rites. He stated that Alka was present in the marriage of the brother of accused Sanjay Rathore and he had seen accused Alka in the house of accused Sanjay Rathore whenever he visited his sister Veena.
During cross-examination, he stated that he did not tell the police that a meeting took place between the two families. He did not remember the date of that meeting. No written document was prepared about the compromise arrived at. He was confronted with his earlier statement wherein he had mentioned that accused Alka was appearing as Veena in the divorce petition. He further stated that he did not tell the police that a person from the Court visited their house who told that a divorce case filed by accused Sanjay Rathore is pending or that thereafter meeting was held at their house where it was agreed that accused Sanjay Rathore would withdraw that false petition. He denied the suggestion that he had not seen accused Alka in the house of accused Sanjay RC3(S)/98 CBI/SCBII/DLI St. Vs. Sanjay Rathore & ors. Page 35 of 83 Rathore. However, he stated that he did not tell the CBI Officer that whenever he visited the house of accused Sanjay Rathore, he had seen accused Alka present there.
In the cross-examination conducted on behalf of accused Alka, he denied the suggestion that Alka never impersonated as Veena.
37. Dr. Ariniya Jain, Consultant Surgeon, Santom Hospital was examined as PW31. He deposed that on 27.04.1996, he examined patient Veena with alleged history of assault by some people. He proved the MLC of the injured as Ex.PW31/A. He also examined accused Sanjay Rathore and proved his MLC as Ex.PW31/B. He also examined Kamla Devi and proved her MLC as Ex.PW31/C. Veena Rathore died and he prepared her death summary on 28.04.1996 and proved the same as Ex.PW31/D. CT-Scan report of Veena Rathore is Mark A, her Ultrasound report is Mark B and her admission record is proved as Ex.PW31/E, E1, E2 & E3.
38. Dr. Neeraj Goyal, Surgeon Gynecologist was examined as PW32. He was Consultant Gynecologist at Santom Hospital. She examined Veena Rathore who was admitted in ICU. At that time, she was pregnant of seven months. She had given her examination note and proved the same as Ex.PW32/A. During cross-examination, she was confronted with her RC3(S)/98 CBI/SCBII/DLI St. Vs. Sanjay Rathore & ors. Page 36 of 83 statement recorded by CBI where it was stated that there were all chances of survival of fetus. She denied the suggestion that fetus did not survive on account of non-performance of the operation. She deposed that looking into the condition of the patient and that the fetus of 28 old weeks, the chances of survival of fetus were very bleak.
39. L/Ct. Kamlesh was examined as PW33. She joined the investigation on 26.07.2000. On that day, accused Alka was interrogated in her presence and her disclosure statement Ex.PW33/A was recorded.
40. Prateek Rathore was examined as PW34. He is the son of deceased and accused Sanjay Rathore. He stated that he is residing with his father and grandmother. In the year 1996, he was studying in 3rd or 4th standard. He stated that his father asked him to attend marriage but he refused to attend the marriage. Thereafter, his father, mother, grandmother and his younger sister Kajal had gone to attend the marriage.
He was cross-examined by Ld. APP for the State. He denied the suggestion that he requested his father to accompany them in the marriage party but his father refused by saying that small children will not go and when he asked his father that Kajal is also small and why she was being taken to the marriage, his father scolded him. He stated that he had never seen accused RC3(S)/98 CBI/SCBII/DLI St. Vs. Sanjay Rathore & ors. Page 37 of 83 Alka. He denied the suggest that his parents used to fight and his father used to give beatings to his mother. He also denied the suggestion that accused Alka continued to visit their house and that his mother was not liking her.
41. Sh. P.N. Shukla was examined as PW-35. He, on the directions of Deputy General Manager, Canara Bank went to CBI on 02.08.2000. In his presence specimen signatures and writing of accused Satish Kumar and Virender was taken. Mr. Pai was also present at that time. He proved the specimen writing of Satish encircled in blue marked S1 to S3 and S-9 to S-16 which are Ex.PW35/1 to 11 and he identified his signature on all the 11 sheets at point A and of Mr. Pai at point B. Specimen writing of Virender was also taken encircled in blue pencil as S-26 and S-27 and S-36 to S-45 which are Ex.PW35/12 to 23. He identified his signature on each sheet at point A and that of Mr. Pai at point B on each sheet and thereafter he left CBI office.
42. Dr. Naveen Mukhi was examined as PW-36. He stated that on 27.04.1996 patient Veena was brought to the hospital at 8:40 pm. He examined her. She was serious. He filled the admission record form and proved the same as Ex.PW3/E. He also proved the document Ex.PW8/A and his note below as Ex.PW36/A. The note on page No.2 on the reverse page No.2, 7 and 10 are Ex.PW36/A1 to A-5.
RC3(S)/98 CBI/SCBII/DLI St. Vs. Sanjay Rathore & ors. Page 38 of 83
43. HC Naresh was examined as PW37. He deposed that on 26.07.2000, pursuant to an information received through secret informer by SI Vijay Pal Singh, three teams were formed for conducting raid. First team was headed by SI Vijay Pal, second team was headed by SI Vinay Tyagi and the third team was headed by this witness. HC Sham Pal and HC Pramod accompanied him in the team. They reached Karkardooma Lahori Colony and from there, they apprehended accused Virender and Raju. They made disclosure statements Ex.PW37/A and Ex.PW37/B respectively. He handed over both the accused along with their disclosure statements to the IO.
44. Sh. Subhash Swaran was examined as PW38. He was working as Deputy Manager in Zonal Office of State Bank of Patiala on 04.08.2000. On that day, he reached in the office of CBI as per the orders of officers of the bank. In his presence, specimen handwriting of Satish Kumar was taken which are S-4 to S-8 & S-17 to S-25. The same are proved as Ex.PW38/1 to Ex.PW38/14. He stated that besides him Vijay Kumar was also present there. He identified his signatures at point A on each sheet and of Vijay Kumar at point B.
45. Ct. Balwan was examined as PW39. He visited the spot on 28.04.1996 on the instructions of the IO he took the photographs which he proved as Ex.PW39/1 to Ex.PW39/10 and also proved RC3(S)/98 CBI/SCBII/DLI St. Vs. Sanjay Rathore & ors. Page 39 of 83 the negatives of the same as Ex.PW39/11 to Ex.PW39/21.
46. SI Vinay Tyagi was examined as PW40. He stated that on 25/26.07.2000, an information was received by SI Vijay Pal and three teams were constituted. He was head of one of the team including himself, SI Surender, HC Desh Raj, HC Ravinder, Ct. Sanjay and W/Ct. Suman & Kiran. They reached at the residence of accused Alka at Bhogal. She was present in her house along with her husband. She was brought to the office of Special Staff. In the meantime, W/Ct. Sudha and Kamlesh also reached there. Accused Alka confessed about her involvement in the commission of offence along with others accused persons namely Virender, Satish, Sanjay, Raju and S.K. Sharma. Her disclosure statement Ex.PW33/A was recorded. She was arrested and her personal search was proved as Ex.PW40/A. During cross-examination, he stated that accused Alka was not arrested at her residence. CBI was informed about her arrest. Husband of accused Alka also accompanied her to the office of Special Staff. No enquiry was made from accused Alka at her residence.
47. Dr. Suraj Prakash was examined as PW41. He stated that on 27.04.1996 at about 9.00 PM, he was called to attend an emergency neuro-surgical case. He reached at the hospital and found patient Veena admitted there in critical RC3(S)/98 CBI/SCBII/DLI St. Vs. Sanjay Rathore & ors. Page 40 of 83 condition and the patient was operated upon. He also gave his note in patient's sheet which is proved as Ex.PW41/A having his signatures at point A and other note was proved as Ex.PW41/B having his signatures at point B.
48. Sh. Rajinder Prasad was examined as PW42. He brought the record of Writ Petition No.282/1997 titled Kishan Chand Rathore vs. Union of India & Ors maintained in Section PIL English vide diary no.4062. In the said case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court directed that investigation be carried out by CBI. The entire record has been proved as Ex.PW42/A, Ex.PW42/B & Ex.PW42/C.
49. Sh. P.K. Gautam, Senior Scientific Officer was examined as PW43. He has taken the photographs on 26.10.1998 on the request of CBI. He proved the negatives as Ex.PW43/1 to Ex.PW43/8 and the photographs as Ex.PW43/9 to Ex.PW43/16.
50. Inspector Vijay Pal Singh was examined as PW44. He stated that on 25/26.07.00, he was posted at Anti-Auto Theft Squad, East District in Mayur Vihar. On that day, in early hours, at about 5.00 AM, he received a secret information that accused Raju, Satish, Alka and Sanjay Rathore were involved in the murder case of PS Samay Pur Badli and the case was investigated by CBI. The information was passed on to the Inspector and ACP concerned. DD No.34 was recorded in the RC3(S)/98 CBI/SCBII/DLI St. Vs. Sanjay Rathore & ors. Page 41 of 83 Rojnamcha of Special Staff. Three teams were prepared to conduct the raid simultaneously. His team was to raid the residence of accused Sanjay Rathore and Satish. His team nabbed accused Satish who confessed that he was involved in the murder case of Veena. His confessional statement was proved as Ex.PW44/A. After his arrest, search of accused Sudesh Sharma was conducted who was also arrested and thereafter produced in the Court.
During cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that no secret information was received. He did not try to seek any telephonic verification from PS Samay Pur Badli regarding involvement of accused persons or about the contents of secret information. He denied the suggestion that no such disclosure statement was made by the accused.
51. Dr. Ranjan Sachdeva was examined as PW45. She conducted the Ultrasound of Veena on 27.04.1996 at about 11.30 PM. She proved her report as Ex.PW45/A which earlier marked as Mark PW31/B.
52. Sh. Anjani Kumar Srivastava, Senior Manager Indian Bank was examined as PW46. He stated that on 01.08.2000, on the directions of the senior officers, he went to CBI Office, CGO Complex along with Captain Salil Kumar, Security Officer. There, he met Sh. K.P. Singh, DSP. From their, they went to two-three RC3(S)/98 CBI/SCBII/DLI St. Vs. Sanjay Rathore & ors. Page 42 of 83 places in Trans-Yamuna Area. It was about 4.30 PM and from there, katta and cartridges were recovered. He proved memo regarding seizure of katta and cartridges as Ex.PW18/C. He identified his signatures at point C. He also stated that some documents were also recovered and on the document, he has identified his signatures and also of the other witness. The documents consisted of one note book Ex.PW18/C-2, another note book Ex.PW18/C-1, driving license of Satish as Ex.PW18/C-3 and ration card of Satish having his photo as Ex.PW18/C-4.
53. Prior to that they had gone to the house of accused Alka where the pointing out memo was prepared which was proved as Ex.PW46/A having his signatures at point A and that of Salil Kumar at point B. Accused Virender made another disclosure statement which is Ex.PW46/B having the signatures of this witness at point A and of other witness Salil Kumar at point A. Pointing out memo by accused Virender was proved as Ex.PW46/C on which the witness identified his signatures at point A and of witness Salil Kumar at point B. During cross-examination, he has stated that first of all, they had gone to Krishna Nagar Area near Jheel. He denied the suggestion that he signed Ex.PW46/B later on. He stated that it was prepared at the spot at the same time and he also signed it there. He denied the suggestion that Ex.PW18/C, Ex.PW46/A, RC3(S)/98 CBI/SCBII/DLI St. Vs. Sanjay Rathore & ors. Page 43 of 83 Ex.PW46/B & Ex.PW46/C were manipulated. He denied the suggestion that he signed these documents later on in the office of CBI.
54. SI Bahadur Singh from Special Investigating Cell, Noida was examined as PW47. In the year 1997, he was posted as Constable in PS Sector-20, Noida. On 16.09.1997, on receiving a Fird, he recorded FIR NO.593/97. He proved the photocopy of the same as Ex.PW47/A.
55. SI Rajbir Singh was examined as PW48. He was posted as Sub Inspector on 16.09.1997 at PS Sector-20, Noida. He stated that during that period, Tej Singh, Shishupal and Virender had been apprehended by the police of PS Sector-20, Nodia in case FIR NO.506/97 u/s 397/411 IPC. The accused persons made disclosure statements. In pursuance of those disclosure statements, the accused persons took them to Khora Colony to the room of Jaipal. On seeing the police, Jaipal ran away. One Surender was found sitting there making a Tamancha using Aari for the same. Blower and a furnace were in operation in the room. One green colour Thaila was lying in the room and accused Virender, Shishupal and Tej Singh took out two Tamanchas from the same and produced before them. They were of bore .315 and . 38 respectively. There was a side pocket in the Thaila and the accused persons took out two cartridges for each of the two RC3(S)/98 CBI/SCBII/DLI St. Vs. Sanjay Rathore & ors. Page 44 of 83 Tamanchas. The witness further stated that implements of manufacturing the Tamanchas i.e. naal, butt, screw driver, wrench, steel pipe, Aari blade etc. i.e. 19 items in all including the keys of car theft were also found in the said room. All these items were seized i.e. two Tamanchas, four cartridges and 19 articles recovered from the room and were put in pulandas and were sealed. Certified copy of the FIR is Ex.PW48/A. Certified copy of the site plan is Mark P-48-X. Certified copy of the seizure memo in respect of cartridges and other articles seized has been proved as Ex.PW48/B. Certified copy of the site plan in respect of case FIR NO.778/97 is Mark P-48-Y. The witness has identified one iron rod which was produced in sealed parcel as Ex.PW48/A, one desi katta of .315 bore as Ex.PW48/B, seized by him and another desi revolver of .38 bore as Ex.PW48/C. During cross-examination, he stated that accused were not on police custody remand but were only under arrest. All of them made joint disclosure statement. They had collectively pointed out the room. All the proceedings were in his handwriting. The room was on the third floor. People from the adjoining rooms were requested to join the proceedings but none had agreed. The proceedings continued till 7.00 AM. They reached at the spot at 2.00 AM. He denied the suggestion that accused persons did not make any disclosure statement and no recovery was effected. RC3(S)/98 CBI/SCBII/DLI St. Vs. Sanjay Rathore & ors. Page 45 of 83
56. ASI Ramphal was examined as PW49. On 27.04.1996, he was posted as Head Constable and was posted as Incharge, PCR Van. He proved the entries made in the log book as Ex.PW49/A & Ex.PW49/B on pages 39 & 40. He stated that on that day, a call was received at about 8.28 PM to the effect that an occurrence had taken place in Village Shahbad behind friends Dharam Kanta in which knife and fire arm had been used. This information was recorded in Ex.PW49/B. They reached at the spot at about 8.35 PM and whatever they had seen had been recorded in Ex.PW49/A.
57. Narender Singh Rana was examined as PW50. He was running his business in the name and style of Friends Properties in Village Shahbad along with his brother Kulwant Rana and friend Ravi Sharma. He has stated that accused Sanjay Rathore was very well known to him. He identified him. Witness further stated that accused Sanjay Rathore was having a godown in the village. On 27.04.1996, he was sitting his office along with other persons. It was around 8.00 PM when accused Sanjay Rathore came there in a car with head-lights on, driving the vehicle at a fast speed. He told that he was assaulted and looted. He was bleeding and having injuries. This witness along with other persons rushed to his office. He found the mother, wife and son of Sanjay there. His wife was having injuries who was also pregnant. His son was lying RC3(S)/98 CBI/SCBII/DLI St. Vs. Sanjay Rathore & ors. Page 46 of 83 in semi-conscious condition. Then they removed them to Santom Hospital in a car. He has stated that he had not accompanied them. From there, the police took blood stained earth and cartridge and prepared the memos. He identified his signatures on memos Ex.PW50/A regarding recovery of cartridge, on Ex.PW50/B regarding seizure of blood sample and on Ex.PW50/C regarding seizure of broken bangles, ladies purse, chain, ring, etc. Testimony of this witness has gone unchallenged and unrebutted.
58. Kanwar Lal was examined as PW51. He was posted on PCR on that date. Rajbir was the driver in the PCR Van in which call book was maintained. The entries are Ex.PW51/A and Ex.PW51/B of the relevant date. A call was received asking them to reach Santom Hospital where Sanjay Rathore had been admitted along with four more persons and report. On this, they reached Santom Hospital and the relevant entries are Ex.PW57/C & Ex.PW57/D.
59. Neeraj Rathore was examined as PW52. He is the brother of the deceased. He stated that the relations between his sister Veena and accused Sanjay Rathore were not cordial. Initially, for one or two years, the relations were cordial but later on they turned soar. He stated that whenever they had gone to the house of accused Sanjay Rathore, they found one lady sitting there. He pointed out towards accused Alka and stated that she was the RC3(S)/98 CBI/SCBII/DLI St. Vs. Sanjay Rathore & ors. Page 47 of 83 lady who was found sitting in the house of Veena. On enquiry, Veena told that she was the class fellow of her husband Sanjay Rathore and used to study with him and that she had come to meet her husband. Veena also told that due to Alka, there used to be quarrel between her and her husband and that she was also beaten by her husband. He also deposed about the divorce petition. He also told that whenever Veena visited their house, she was having injuries either on her face or head and on enquiry, she told that she was beaten. He also identified the petition filed by his father and the entries of filing the petition as Ex.PW52/A and Ex.PW52/B and the other copies of the petition are proved as Ex.PW52/C and Ex.PW52/D. During cross-examination, he has stated that he does not remember if he told the police that accused Alka was presented by accused Sanjay Rathore as Veena in the Court or that summons sent to Veena at 388, Gali Matawali, Teliwara, Delhi were taken by accused Sanjay Rathore. He denied the suggestion that he had never seen accused Alka in the house of accused Sanjay Rathore or that there was no quarrel between Veena and accused Sanjay Rathore.
During cross-examination, on behalf of accused Sanjay Rathore, this witness stated that he does not remember the date, month or year when he had seen accused Alka for the first time in RC3(S)/98 CBI/SCBII/DLI St. Vs. Sanjay Rathore & ors. Page 48 of 83 the house of accused Sanjay Rathore and also the date, month or the year when his sister told him that accused Alka was the class fellow of accused Sanjay Rathore. He stated that he does not remember on which date, month or year, Veena told him that she was beaten but he had stated that whenever she had come to the house, she had told this fact to him.
60. Rajeev Pandit was examined as PW53 but he was not able to prove the record and stated that Nodal Officer may be called.
61. Dr. Yashpal Khanna was examined as PW54. He examined the CT-Scan of head of Veena and found that she was having multiple hemorrhagic contusions on the left temporal region with complete effacement of basal cisterns defuse cerebral odema was noticed on either side with effacement of third ventricle. Scattered locules of air were noticed. Bilateral subdural blood collection was also noticed along tempoparietal convexities which led to compression of right frontal horn and body of right lateral ventricle with some mid line shift towards left side. He proved his report as Ex.PW54/A.
62. SI Laxman Singh was examined as PW55. He stated that on 28.06.1996, he was on patrolling duty along with Ct. Rajeev Kumar. While patrolling at about 6.45 PM, they reached at T-Point, Shiv Puri, Chander Nagar. They noticed one Maruti Van with black window panes coming at a fast speed. The Van was stopped and RC3(S)/98 CBI/SCBII/DLI St. Vs. Sanjay Rathore & ors. Page 49 of 83 checked. Accused Virender Kumar was driving that van. RC was checked but Virender could not give any satisfactory reply. The Maruti Van was bearing number plate UP14 8634. In personal search of the accused, knife was recovered from right side pocket of his pant. He identified the accused. FIR NO.258/96 at PS Krishna Nagar in this regard was registered. He proved the copy of the FIR as Ex.PW55/A. During cross-examination, he stated that accused Virender had been acquitted in that case.
63. SI Vijay Narayan Mishra was examined as PW56. He retired as Sub Inspector. He stated that on 27.04.1996, he was posted in PS Samay Pur Badli. He stated that at about 8.30 PM while he was in the police station, he received a call that owner of Gatta Factory behind Friend Dharam Kanta had been shot. On this information, he along with HC Ram Khilari and Ct. Sushil Kumar left for the spot. He found blood, broken pieces of bangles, ladies purse, .315 bore cartridge at the spot. He receiving the information that injured had been removed to Santom Hospital. He along with Ct. Sushil went to the hospital leaving behind HC Ram Khilari on the spot. In the hospital, he found accused Sanjay Rathore, Veena and Kamla admitted there. As per the MLC of Veena and Kamla, they were unfit to give statement. Accused Sanjay Rathore was declared fit for statement. He recorded his statement, prepared the RC3(S)/98 CBI/SCBII/DLI St. Vs. Sanjay Rathore & ors. Page 50 of 83 rukka and sent the same to PS for registration of the FIR. Thereafter, he came to the spot. Ct. Sushil came back to the spot and handedover the rukka and copy of FIR to him. He proved the statement of accused Sanjay Rathore recorded by him as Ex.PW56/A, his endorsement as Ex.PW56/B, seizure memo of cartridge as Ex.PW50/A, seizure memo of blood as Ex.PW50/B, seizure memo of wrist watch, ladies purse, cash, ring and broken bangles as Ex.PW50/C. He also prepared the site plan of the spot and proved as Ex.PW56/C. He stated that on the directions of SHO, Section 302 IPC was added. Thereafter, the investigation was assigned to SHO. He identified the cartridge which was produced in sealed envelop having seal of FSL as Ex.PW56/A. He also identified the contents of the purse and broken pieces of bangles as Ex.PW56/B and Ex.PW56/C respectively.
64. Dinesh Kumar was examined as PW57. He proved the FIR No.258/96 of PS Krishna Nagar.
65. Ct. Desh Pal from PS Sector-20, Noida was examined as PW58. He brought the summoned record in respect of FIR No.560/97, 777/97 & 778/97 registered at PS Sector-20, Noida. The same were marked as Ex.PW58/A.
66. Azharul Hassan was examined as PW59. He sent the report to CBI on receiving letter Mark P-59. He proved his report as Ex.PW59/A. RC3(S)/98 CBI/SCBII/DLI St. Vs. Sanjay Rathore & ors. Page 51 of 83
67. Sh. S.B. Sharma, Senior Assistant from Regional Transport Office, Ghaziabad was examined as PW60. He proved the letter as Ex.PW60/A vide which the original file with respect to vehicle bearing No. UP14 A 8634 has already been sent to the Court.
68. Ajay Rawat, Manager, State Bank of Patiala was examined as PW61. He stated that on 08.08.2000, he was deputed to join the investigation with CBI. He went to CBI, Head Quarter. He stated that accused Vijay was present there. He made a statement Ex.PW61/A and he also signed it at point X. He stated that accused pointed out the place where they planned commission of offence and that was videographed. Thereafter accused also pointed out the place which was situated in a factory / industrial area and pointed out the godown. Some documents had been prepared there. On being asked a leading question, he stated that the date was 04.08.2000 and not 08.08.2000 and also proved the pointing out memos as Ex.PW61/B and Ex.PW61/C.
69. SI Manohar Lal, Draughtsman was examined as PW62. He proved the scaled site plan of the spot as Ex.PW62/A.
70. Mohan Lal, Officer of Oriental Bank of Commerce was examined as PW63. He joined the investigation with CBI Officials and in his presence, the office of accused Sudesh Kumar Sharma, situated in Jheel Kurenja in Trans-Yamuna Area was searched and some document were seized from there and list of the same RC3(S)/98 CBI/SCBII/DLI St. Vs. Sanjay Rathore & ors. Page 52 of 83 was prepared. This is proved as Ex.PW63/A having his signatures at point A.
71. SI Jai Singh was examined as PW64. He stated that on 15.01.1996, he was posted as Assistant Sub Inspector in PS Krishna Nagar. He got registered the FIR NO.24/96 at PS Krishna Nagar, on the statement of Sagar Chand Jain regarding theft of Maruti Van No.DL3C E 1528. He further stated that during investigation, accused Virender was arrested and from his possession, Maruti Van bearing No.UP14 A 8634 which was a wrong number plate was recovered. However, the engine number and chasis number of that vehicle matched with the Maruti Van No. DL3C E 1528 owned by Sagar Chand Jain.
72. ASI Ishwar Singh was examined as PW65. He stated that on 09.12.1998, he was posted as MHC(M). On that date, the case property deposited in malkhana was transferred to CBI and in this regard, a memo was prepared which is proved as Ex.PW65/A. The case property was handed over vide RC NO.132/21 which is proved as Ex.PW65/B.
73. Sh. N.K.Aggarwal, Principal Scientific Officer (document) was examined as PW-66 he proved his report as Ex.PW66/A and Ex.PW66/B.
74. Dr. Rajender Singh, Director FSL was examined as PW-67. He proved his report Ex.PW67/A and also identified the rod with RC3(S)/98 CBI/SCBII/DLI St. Vs. Sanjay Rathore & ors. Page 53 of 83 respect to which he gave the report as Ex.PW48/A.
75. Sh. Roop Singh, retired Principal Scientific Officer was examined as PW-68. He proved the reports of CFSL as Ex.PW68/A, Ex.PW68/B and Ex.PW68/C and he also identified the fire arms. He denied the suggestion that no test fire was done. He denied the suggestion that reports are wrong.
76. Sh.D.C.Sharma, Deputy Superintendent of Police was examined as PW-69. He stated that in August 2000 he conducted raid in the office of Sh. Sudesh Kumar Sharma, Advocate and from there he sized 5-7 files, seizure memo of which is already Ex.PW63/A.
77. Sh. Jai Prakash, Deputy Manager, Punjab National Bank was examined as PW-70. He joined the investigation in August 2000 and he stated that no document was prepared in his presence. However, he identified his signatures at point -X on the documents.
78. Sh. O.P. Yadav, Senior Assistant NTPC, Scope complex was examined as PW-71. He stated that on 2 nd August 2000 he joined the investigation with CBI. They had gone to godown of Sanjay where accused Sanjay was interrogated. During cross examination by Special PP of CBI, he admitted that he signed one document Ex.PW71/A at the godown which bears his signatures at point-X and X1 and he also stated that the name RC3(S)/98 CBI/SCBII/DLI St. Vs. Sanjay Rathore & ors. Page 54 of 83 mentioned in the Ex.PW71/A is Satish and not Sanjay. He also admitted his signatures on Ex.PW71/B.
79. Inspector H.S. Rawat was examined as PW-72. He stated that on 01.08.2000, he joined the investigation. Accused Virender was interrogated who made disclosure statement Ex.PW46/B. Alka was also interrogated who made disclosure statement Ex.PW72/A in pursuance of the disclosure statement they were taken to Jheel Khurenja where Alka pointed out the office of Advocate Sudesh Kumar Sharma, pointing out memo is Ex.PW46/A. Accused Virender also pointed out office of Advocate S.K. Sharma vide Ex.PW46/C, thereafter, they were brought back. Accused Satish led them to Anarkali extension. Kuldip was taken along with him, who was having keys of room of Satish, and reached at the room of Satish on the first floor. During the search one katta and three live cartridges were recovered, besides the same 2 note books, one ration card and photostat copy of D/L was recovered from his house. The katta and cartridges recovered were seized with the seal of KPS and seized vide memo Ex.PW18/C. He identifed all the seized items as Ex.PW18/C1, C2, C3 and C4.
80. Inspector Ramesh Kumar was examined as PW-73. He assisted IO of the case in the investigation. He stated that accused Virender pointed out the General Taxi Stand, F-Block RC3(S)/98 CBI/SCBII/DLI St. Vs. Sanjay Rathore & ors. Page 55 of 83 from where they followed Sanjay. Pointing out memo is Ex.PW61/B site plan was Ex.PW73/A. Virender also pointed out godown at Shahbad Daulatpur, pointing out memo Ex.PW61/C was prepared. He also moved application before the court of CJM Ghaziabd seeking production of fire arm seized in case of Sector- 20 Noida. On the next date SHO produced the fire arms, which were opened in the court and re-sealed. Infact country made pistol .315 bore, country made revolver .38 bore and steel rod were produced by the SHO which were separately sealed in 3 separate cloth parcels after the permission of the court and he deposited the same in the malkhana of CBI.
81. Inspector R.S. Tanwar was examined as PW-74. He joined the investigation of the case in 1989-99. He pointed out the specimen handwriting of Virender, same are Ex.PW74/B and Ex.PW70/A and Ex.PW74/A to H. He denied the suggestion that specimen handwriting of Virender was not taken. Vol. He does not know if permission from the court before taking specimen writing of Virender was taken or not.
82. Sh. K.P. Singh was examined as PW-75 and he conducted the investigation in this case. Two anonymous letters were received. Marriage card of Sanjay Rathore Vs. Seized and he proved the investigation carried out by him. Thereafter the prosecution evidence was closed.
RC3(S)/98 CBI/SCBII/DLI St. Vs. Sanjay Rathore & ors. Page 56 of 83
83. During the pendency of the case accused Sanjay, Sudesh Kumar and Satish died. The case against them abaited. Statement of accused persons u/s 313 Cr.PC recorded wherein they denied the entire evidence. They did not wish to lead evidence in defence. The case was fixed final arguments.
84. I have heard Ld. Special PP for CBI. Ld. Defence counsel for the accused persons and perused the record.
85. Ld. Special PP for CBI submitted that it is a case of conspiracy to commit murder of Smt. Veena Rathore wife of Sanjay Rathore and is proved by proving the chain of circumstantial evidence by examining the witnesses and by proving the documents including the disclosure statements of the accused, other pointing out memos and the scientific evidence. There is no eye witness of the incident. Ld. Counsel submitted that it being the case of conspiracy no direct evidence is available so far as conspiracy is concerned and it is also not necessary that all the conspirator must know each and every details of the conspiracy as well as alone as they are co-participant in the main conspiracy and there may be differential performance. Ld. Counsel submitted that as it is a case of conspiracy therefore it not necessary that all the accused persons be at the same time committing the same act.
86. Ld. Counsel in support of his arguments relied upon RC3(S)/98 CBI/SCBII/DLI St. Vs. Sanjay Rathore & ors. Page 57 of 83 the Judgment cited as Yashpal Mittal v State of Punjab, 1978 Cr.LJ 189 wherein it was held that:
"it is not necessary that all the conspirators must know each and every detail of the conspiracy as long as they are co- participant in the main object of the conspiracy and there may be division of performances in the chain of action with one object to achieve the real end of which every collaborator must be aware and in which one of them must be interested. There must be unity of object or purpose but there may be plurality of means sometimes even unknown to one another amongst the conspirators."
Ld. Counsel has also relied upon the judgment cited as Ajay Aggarwal v Union of India, AIR 1993 SC 1637 wherein it was held that:
"the conspiracy is a continuing offence and continues to subsist and committed whenever one of the conspirators does one act or series of acts so long as its performance continues, it is a continuing offence till it is executed and rescinded or frustrated by choice or necessity."
He further relied upon the judgment cited as Suresh Chand Bahri v State of Bihar, AIR 1994 SC 2420 wherein it was held that:
"Each and every member to conspiracy must not do some overt act towards the fulfillment of object of conspiracy. RC3(S)/98 CBI/SCBII/DLI St. Vs. Sanjay Rathore & ors. Page 58 of 83 From its very nature, the conspiracy must be conceived and hatched in complete secrecy, because otherwise the whole purpose may frustrate ...... In most of the cases it is only the circumstantial evidence which is available from which an inference giving rise to the conclusion of an agreement between two or more persons to commit an offence may be legitimately may be drawn."
Ld. Counsel also relied upon the judgment cited as Firozuddin Bashiruddin v State of kerala, 2001 (4) RCR (Crl) SC 20 wherein it was held that:
"conspiracy can be proved by prosecution placing on record the chain of circumstances."
87. Ld. Counsel submitted that the first circumstance is illicit relations. Ld. Counsel submits that to prove this fact and circumstance prosecution had examined Rakesh Kumar PW-9, he is husband of Anpurna, sister of Veena Rathore (deceased). Veena was wife of accused Sanjay Rathore who had died. This witness stated that Sanjay Rathore had affair with lady namely Alka since the time of his college. He was also told by his father- in-law that a divorce petition was filed by Sanjay Rahtore. Alka used to appear in that petition as Veena and Veena came to know lateron about this fact when the letter was received from the court. Ld. Counsel submitted that Anpurna, sister of Veena was RC3(S)/98 CBI/SCBII/DLI St. Vs. Sanjay Rathore & ors. Page 59 of 83 examined as PW-21, she has supported the case of prosecution. She stated that Veena told that Sanjay Rathore was in love with Alka and there used to be regular quarrels between them due to this.
88. Sudha was examined as PW28. She stated that she came to know that Sanjay Rathore is having illicit relations with Alka and therefore relations between her daughter and Sanjay were strained. She also stated that Sanjay filed a divorce petition which was later on withdrawn by him as he realized his mistake.
89. On the same lines is the testimony of Sh. Sanjeev Rathore PW30. He also deposed about the filing of divorce petition which was lateron withdrawn by him.
90. Sh. Manoj Yadav was examined as PW-50. He stated that relations between his sister and Sanjay were sour and he along-with other family members had gone to the house of Veena. They found one lady sitting i.e. accused Alka who used to come to meet her husband that is why quarrels were going on between them.
91. Ld. Special PP for CBI submitted that from the testimonies of these witnesses it is clearly established that accused Alka and Sanjay Rahtore were having illicit relations with each other and they knew each other from the time they were studying. Ld. Special PP submitted that due to this reason RC3(S)/98 CBI/SCBII/DLI St. Vs. Sanjay Rathore & ors. Page 60 of 83 accused filed a divorce petition against Veena through accused Sudesh Kumar Sharma Advocate. In that case Alka used to appear as Veena and Veena did not even know about the pendency of the divorce petition. The record of the petition has been proved on record. The family members came to know about the pendency of the petition and thereafter a meeting was called wherein accused Sanjay Rathore admitted his guilt and withdrew his petition. Ld. Spl. PP for CBI submitted that all these facts clearly show that there were illicit relations between accused Sanjay Rathore and Alka and that is why Sanjay Rathore wanted to get rid of Veena and filed divorce petition. This circumstance is therefore established and proved.
92. Ld. Defence counsel submitted that there is no such evidence brought on record that there were any illicit relations between accused Alka and Sanjay Rathore. All the witnesses examined on this point have been confronted with their earlier statement recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. wherein they had not stated that there were illicit relations between Alka and Sanjay Rathore. ld. Counsel submitted that the only thing which have come on record is that Sanjay and Alka were knowing each other but that does not prove anything and does not lead anywhere. So far as filing of divorce petition is concerned there is nothing brought on record that accused Alka ever appeared in the court as Veena. RC3(S)/98 CBI/SCBII/DLI St. Vs. Sanjay Rathore & ors. Page 61 of 83 Ld. Counsel submitted that onus was on the prosecution which the prosecution has failed to prove. The only thing established is that accused Sanjay Rathore knew Alka and also used to meet her. But it could not be established that they were having illicit relations.
93. After hearing the arguments and from the evidence I found that though the witnesses have deposed that there were illicit relations between accused Alka and accused Sanjay Rathore (Now deceased) and even stated that both these accused used to meet at Raj Hans Hotel Suraj Kund, Haryan and also at "Gauriya" Bahadurgarh, Haryana but no such record has been produced. It could very well have been proved by examining the registers of both the hotels. No such evidence has been brought on record. It is also stated that accused Alka used to visit the house of accused Sanajy Rathore, but this fact itself does not by itself prove that there were illicit relations between them, particularly when they were neighbors and according to witnesses even studied together. Prosecution also tried to establish that accused Alka used to appear as Veena in divorce petition filed by accused Sanjay Rathore but no such evidence has been brought on record. The record of divorce petition has been proved on record as Ex. PW13/A to PW13/L but there is no presence of Veena noted in the file. Process Server who affected service of summons and RC3(S)/98 CBI/SCBII/DLI St. Vs. Sanjay Rathore & ors. Page 62 of 83 according to the prosecution on accused Alka in place of Veena on identification of accused Sanajy Rathore was the best witness to identify the person on whom he affected service but he did not identify Alka, rather no such question for identification of the lady on whom he affected service was put to him. The person who received the summons also signed on the summons at point 'A' but again it is not established that these signatures were made by accused Alka, though it could have been done by getting it compared after getting the sample signatures of accused Alka. Therefore it cannot be said that summons were received by accused Alka as Veena or that she was appearing in the divorce petition as Veena. In view of above discussion in my opinion prosecution has failed to establish and prove that there were illicit relations between accused Alka and accused Sanjay Rathore. The only evidence brought on record that they were knowing each other and that accused Alka used to visit the house of accused Sanjay Rathore. Therefore, the onus which was on the prosecution has not been discharged.
94. The next circumstance which prosecution intends to establish is hatching conspiracy to murder Veena.
95. Ld. Special PP for CBI submitted that a conspiracy was hatched through Sh. S.K. Sharma, Advocate, accused (now deceased) to eliminate Veena. In this regard Sh. S.K. Sharma RC3(S)/98 CBI/SCBII/DLI St. Vs. Sanjay Rathore & ors. Page 63 of 83 contacted Virender who agreed to do it for Rs.2,00,000/- and in this regard he contacted Satish and Raju. Ld. Counsel submitted that to prove this prosecution has examined Kuldip Kumar PW-18 in whose presence accused also made confessional statement that they had deal to murder Veena for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- and the first payment was made and remining amount of Rs.50,000/- was to be collected from Alka which wascollected by him wrapped in newspaper and this PW-18 handed over this bundle to Satish in the presence of accused Virender at the room of Satish. Ld. Counsel submitted that in this case the most important witness is Kuldip PW-18, owner of the room which was taken on rent by Satish at the behest of Virender who was earlier known to PW-18. PW-18 in his statement u/s 161 Cr.PC unfolded the conspiracy hatched between accused Sanjay Rathore, Sudesh Kumar Sharma, Virender, Satish, Raju and Alka. However, during the trial he resiled from his statement recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. Ld. Counsel submitted that it is settled law that evidence of hostile witness cannot be effaced or washed off the record altogether. Part of his evidence which is otherwise acceptable can be acted upon. Ld. Counsel in support of his arguments relied upon the judgment cited as Khuji @ Surendra Tiwari v State of MP, AIR 1991 SC 1853. Ld. Special PP has also placed reliance on judgment cited as Bhagwan Das v State of NCT of Delhi, (2011) 2 RC3(S)/98 CBI/SCBII/DLI St. Vs. Sanjay Rathore & ors. Page 64 of 83 SCC (Crl) 985, wherein it was held that:
"Statement to police is ordinarily not admissible in evidence in view of sec. 162(1), but as mentioned in proviso to sec. 162(1), it can be used to contradict testimony of witness.... Statement to police can be taken into consideration in view of proviso to sec. 162(1), and her subsequent denial in Court is not believable, because she obviously had after thoughts and wanted to save her son (appellant) from punishment. In fact in her statement to police, she had stated that dead body of deceased was removed from bed and placed on floor. Hence here statement to police can be taken into consideration in view of proviso to sec. 162(1)."
96. Ld. Special PP submitted that in the instant case the evidence of PW-18 Kuldip is subjected to close scrutiny specific details given in the 161 Cr.P.C and denied at the subsequent stage of trial are true and correct which establish the affinity of all the accused persons and their involvement in the commission of crime. Ld. Counsel submitted that statement of PW-18 finds corroboration from the other facts i.e. disclosure statement and pointing out memo of other accused namely accused Virender, accused Satish, accused Raju and accused Alka which have been proved by other witnesses. Ld. Special PP further submitted that the facts of Bhagwan Das's case are similar to this case and RC3(S)/98 CBI/SCBII/DLI St. Vs. Sanjay Rathore & ors. Page 65 of 83 therefore squarely covered by that case. In Bhagwan Das's case the mother was trying to save her son and the Supreme Court held that her statement given to the police can be relied under sec. 162(1) of CrPC. In the present case the landlord PW18 is trying to save his tenant and therefore, here also the testimony of PW18 can be relied upon under sec 162(1) CrPC.
97. The disclosure statements of accused Virender and Raju who are presently facing trial have been proved and established as Ex.PW37/A and Ex.PW37/B as proved by examining HC Naresh Kumar PW-37. Alka was arrested by PW- 40 SI Vinay Tyagi along with other staff. Her statement in verbatim has been proved as Ex.PW33/A wherein she confessed about Commission of crime. Lady Ct. Kamlesh has been examined as PW-3 also deposed on the same lines. Accused Satish also confessed about his involvement in the Commission of Crime vide memo Ex.PW44/A. Alka in pursuance of her another disclosure statement Ex.PW72/A led the police team to Jheel Kurenja and point the office of Sh. Sudesh Kumar Sharma, Advocate. Pointing out memo Ex.PW46/A which was prepared in the presence of independent witness Anjani Kumar. Satish also got recovered a note book and loose papers wherein name of Alka, Sudesh Kumar Aggarwal etc. were mentioned. Ld. Counsel submitted that under the circumstances it is established through RC3(S)/98 CBI/SCBII/DLI St. Vs. Sanjay Rathore & ors. Page 66 of 83 the testimony of PW-18 and the other circumstances that there was conspiracy to kill Veena for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-. Ld. Special PP CBI submitted that keeping in view the testimony of PW18 recorded by police and other evidence the prosecution has successfully proved that a conspiracy was hatched between accused Sanjay Rathore, Sudesh Kumar Sharma, Alka, Virender, Satish and Raju to eliminate Veena as Sanjay Rathore wanted to get rid of Veena and his attempt to take divorce from Veena failed and he had to withdraw the same.
98. Ld. Defence Counsel submitted that so far as PW-18 is concerned he cannot be relied upon at all as he has not supported the prosecution case. He does not say that accused persons made any confession in front of him or that anything was recovered from the accused persons in his presence or that he collected Rs.50,000/- from Alka from Azad Pur. Ld. Counsel submitted that as this witness has not supported the prosecution case therefore no reliance upon his testimony can be placed. Ld. Counsel submitted that so far as disclosure statement of accused persons are concerned with respect to this fact that there is no recovery or discovery of fact pursuance to the disclosure statements and hence the disclosure in the absence of any recovery or disclosure of the fact cannot be relied. Ld. Counsel further submitted that as the payment has not been proved there is RC3(S)/98 CBI/SCBII/DLI St. Vs. Sanjay Rathore & ors. Page 67 of 83 nothing on record to show that there was any conspiracy hatched. Even there is no such evidence that they ever met. So far as mentioning of their names in the note book is concerned that is not admissible in evidence even otherwise that does not establish or prove that they entered into conspiracy. Merely mentioning the name in the diary without any reference also does not lead anywhere. Ld. Counsel submitted that under the circumstances onus which was on the prosecution has not been discharged.
99. The prosecution in order to prove the conspiracy examined PW18 in whose presence the accused confessed about hatching conspiracy, but he has not supported the prosecution case. He denied that the accused persons made confession before him that they agreed to kill Veena and for that they will receive Rs. 2,00,000/- (Two Lac) only. He also denied that he collected Rs. 50,000/- from accused Alka in this regard and handed over to accused Satish. No doubt it is well settled law that the entire testimony of hostile witness is not to be discarded or effaced from the record. That part of testimony which is reliable or finds corroboration may still be relied. There also cannot be any controversy so far as the law laid down in case Bhagwan Das v State of NCT of Delhi (supra) but the facts of the present case are totally different. In this case PW18 is not related to the accused persons. PW18 let out one room to accused Satish on the request RC3(S)/98 CBI/SCBII/DLI St. Vs. Sanjay Rathore & ors. Page 68 of 83 of accused Virender. Satish also vacated the room later on hence he has no such reason as the mother was having to save her son from punishment in case Bhagwan Das v State of NCT of Delhi (supra). Keeping in view this fact in my opinion the statement of PW18 recorded by the police cannot be relied upon under section 162(1) CrPC. There is no other evidence brought on record to prove the conspiracy. So far as the disclosure statements of accused persons are concerned no reliance can be placed upon the same as there is no recovery or discovery of fact pursuance to those disclosure statements. There is no other evidence brought on record to prove the conspiracy. In view of the above discussion in my opinion the prosecution has failed to establish this circumstance.
100. Pointing Out of Place of Occurrence.
Ld. Special PP for CBI submitted that in this case accused Virender, Satish and Raju that in view of conspiracy Sanjay Rathore did not take his son along-with him to the marriage he even did not attend the marriage as deposed by the witnesses. Sanjay Rathore along with his wife, mother and child left the marriage function in between at about 7:30 pm as deposed by the witnesses and their testimonies on this aspect have gone unchallenged and un-controverted. Sanjay Rathore reached the godown knowing very well that there would be darkness on the RC3(S)/98 CBI/SCBII/DLI St. Vs. Sanjay Rathore & ors. Page 69 of 83 godown which was situated in Shahbad Daulatpur. Even otherwise that godown was under the custody and possession of Rajender examined as PW-6, despite that in furtherance of conspiracy he reached there. He did not take his son Prateek along though Prateek wanted to go there and Prateek also told that he wanted to accompany but he was scolded by accused Sanjay Rathore. Prateek was examined as PW-34. This fact clearly shows that he does not want to take his son along-with him to create any evidence. He took them to the godown. The other accused Virender, Raju and Satish followed them and committed murder of Veena pursuance to the conspiracy. During investigation they pointed out the godown where they have committed the murder vide pointing out memo Ex.PW61/C. Ld. Special PP submitted that the public persons were joined at the time of pointing out and they have stood through the test of cross examination. There is even no reason to disbelieve the police witnesses in whose presence the accused pointed out the place of occurrence. This all clearly show and establish that it was done in a pre-planned manner. This fact also shows that accused persons were knowing the place of occurrence that is why they were able to point-out the place of incident. Ld. Special PP submitted that this fact is proved beyond doubt and at the same time it is also inconsistent with any hypothesis of innocence of accused. RC3(S)/98 CBI/SCBII/DLI St. Vs. Sanjay Rathore & ors. Page 70 of 83
101. Ld. Defence Counsel submitted that there is no evidence on record except the disclosure statements of accused persons so far as statement of Prateek is concerned he has not supported on this aspect. He stated that he was not willing to go to attend marriage and he himself refused. He stated that he asked his father not to take him and that he was not scolded by his father. Ld. Counsel submitted that in fact the parents i.e. accused Sanjay Rathore wanted to take him along with but PW-34 Prateek himself stated that he does not want to go. Ld. Counsel submitted that under the circumstances it cannot be said that accused Sanjay Rathore planned this. Ld. Counsel further submitted that so far as visit to the godown is concerned it was already planned. Ld. Counsel submitted that so far as pointing out of the place of occurrence is concerned that was also within the knowledge of the police and therefore it does not amount to the discovery of new fact and hence, the same cannot be said to be established or proved.
102. Ld. Defence Counsel further submitted that no such pointing out was done by the accused and therefore the prosecution cannot taken the benefit of the same. Ld. Counsel submitted that even otherwise it does not point towards the guilt of the accused and prayed that as prosecution has failed to discharge its onus this circumstance be held as not proved. RC3(S)/98 CBI/SCBII/DLI St. Vs. Sanjay Rathore & ors. Page 71 of 83
103. Keeping in view the submissions and the fact that so far as pointing out memo is concerned the record shows that accused persons have pointed out the place of occurrence i.e. godown. Accused Virendr and Raju have pointed out the place of occurrence vide memo Ex.PW61/C. Accused Satish pointed out the place of occurrence vide memo Ex.PW71/A. Public witnesses were also there at the time of pointing out. They have fully supported the prosecution case on this aspect and proved the pointing out memos of the place of occurrence. The police witnesses have also stood through the test of cross examination and proved the fact that accused persons pointed out the place of occurrence. No doubt police was already knowing the place of occurrence but even accused persons were able to identify the place of occurrence itself shows that they were having knowledge of the same i.e. why they were able to lead the police team to the place of occurrence. So far as the question that accused Sanjay Rathore had not taken his son there is concerned PW-34 Prateek Rathore stated that he himself was not willing to go to attend marriage party and therefore this argument looses its importance as PW-34 does not support the prosecution case on this point. So far as visiting the godown at that time is concerned no doubt it has come on record that they went to attend marriage which was infact not attended by Sanjay Rathore but as godown was of Sanjay RC3(S)/98 CBI/SCBII/DLI St. Vs. Sanjay Rathore & ors. Page 72 of 83 Rathore and if he wanted to see the godown and visited there it does not by itself prove anything, though it creates some suspicion particularly when it was rented out. Keeping in view the above discussion I am of the opinion that prosecution has proved and established that the accused persons pointed out the place of occurrence.
104. RECOVERY OF WEAPON OF OFFENCE Ld. Special PP submitted that accused were earlier arrested by the Noida Police and they have already got recovered the country made pistol of .38 bore and another country made pistol .315 bore which were used in murder of Veena Rathore. Ld. Counsel submitted that for proving the recovery of the same the prosecution has examined the witnesses from sector 20 PS:
Noida and they have established this fact that Katta as well as country made revolver were recovered at the instance of these accused persons. Prosecution has examined witness SI Rajbir Singh as PW-48. He deposed that the accused Virender, Tej Singh @ Satish and Shishpal were arrested in case FIR No.560/97 of PS: Noida Sector-20 registered u/s 379/411 IPC and they got recovered iron rod Ex.PW48/A. Desi katta .315 bore Ex.PW48/B, Country made revolver .38 bore Ex.PW48/C. FIR No.777/97 and 778/97 were registered which have been brought on record. Ld. Spl. PP submitted that ballistic expert who had RC3(S)/98 CBI/SCBII/DLI St. Vs. Sanjay Rathore & ors. Page 73 of 83 examined the Desi Katta,country made pistol alongwith cartridges found on the spot and the bullet which was found inside the body at the time of post mortem as deposed by Dr. Jaiswal examined as PW-29. He has specifically stated that on exploring injury no.1 which was entry wound it was found to be directed inward and slightly upward entering the abdomen cavity just below coastal margin on left side passing through tissues, muscles and fat. the track further continued towards right side where ejecta bullet found last with sub qutonious pieces of bottom of right side which was removed. The report is Ex.PW29/A. The projectile recovered also shown to the witness and he identified the same as Ex.PW29/A. Ballistic expert in this regard has been examined as PW68 and proved his reports as PW-68/A, B & C. He opined that .315 bore live cartridges which was found on the spot bears light indentation and was used in the .315 cartridge. The report also shows that the .38 jacketed bullet Ex.PW29/A had been fired from point .38 bore country made revolver. The report also shows that both the country made pistol as well as country made revolver are in working order. Ld. Spl. submitted that these 2 weapons were recovered at the instance of accused Virender and Satish. Satish had died. These two weapons were in working order as per the report. On the spot one live cartridge was found which was seized by the police vide seizure memo Ex.PW50/A. One bullet jacket as RC3(S)/98 CBI/SCBII/DLI St. Vs. Sanjay Rathore & ors. Page 74 of 83 deposed by PW-29 was found inside the dead body. Both as per reports Ex.PW68/A, B & C were used and fired respectively in the firearms recovered at the instance of accused Virender and Satish. As the fire arms were got recovered by Virender and Satish it clearly shows that they are the person who used fire arm on the spot. Ld. Spl. PP submitted that by bringing on record this evidence the prosecution had established the fact that the accused Virender and Satish got recovered the fire arms which were used in the commission of offence, because the bullet jacket fired from one of the arm was found inside the body of the deceased and the live cartridge loaded in other fire arm was also found on the spot. The circumstance stands proved which points towards the guilt of the accused and is also inconsistent with any hypothesis of innocence of accused.
105. Ld. Defence counsel submitted that in the present case the recovery of fire arms was affected the year 1997 with the allegations that the accused were manufacturing the fire arms, then how it can be said these are the same fire arms which were used in the year 1996. Ld. Counsel submitted that according to FIR No.777/97 and 778/97 they were manufacturing the fire arms. Ld. Counsel submitted that the witnesses have been planted by CBI upon accused person in order to frame them. Ld. Counsel submitted that under the circumstances no importance be RC3(S)/98 CBI/SCBII/DLI St. Vs. Sanjay Rathore & ors. Page 75 of 83 attached to that and prayed that the benefit be given to the accused persons and they be acquitted.
106. Keeping in view this argument and the facts I found that in this case the offence was committed in the year 1996 and this recovery was effected in the year 1997 but the investigation to the CBI was handed over in the year 1998 by the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dt. 24.08.1998. It means that all this evidence was already with the police at different places recovered by different police officials. At the time Noida Police recovered these fire arms at the instance of accused persons they were not even knowing that these fire arms were used in murder. The weapons were also sealed. Similarly the bullet jacket was found inside the body of the deceased and sealed with the seal of the mortuary by the doctor. The seals were found intact at the time of examination by the Expert examined as PW68. Under the circumstances this arguments by the Ld. Counsel that it was planted by CBI does not carry any weight. In this case there is no such evidence brought on record that these kattas and pistols were manufactured in the year 1997. The presumption drawn by the Ld. Defence Counsel is without any evidence or basis. The evidence which has come on record is that these two weapons Ex.PW48/B and Ex.PW48/C were recovered from thaila which was found in the room where the Tamancha (country made weapon) RC3(S)/98 CBI/SCBII/DLI St. Vs. Sanjay Rathore & ors. Page 76 of 83 were manufactured. From this it cannot be inferred that Ex.PW48/B and Ex.PW48/C were also manufactured in the year 1997. Ballistic expert report which is on record Ex.PW68/A clearly shows that the weapons Ex.PW48/B and Ex.PW48/C are in working order. The report Ex.PW68/B proves that Jacketed bullet Ex.PW29/A, which was found inside the body, was fired from Desi revolver i.e. .38 bore revolver Ex.PW48/C and the live cartridge found on the spot matches with indentation caused on the fired cartridge fired from Ex.PW48/B. This clearly shows that accused persons used these weapons on the spot, fired on Veena and that is why one live cartridge was found on the spot and the bullet head found inside the body tallied with the fire arms got recovered by the accused. The iron rod was also got recovered at the instance of Virender and Satish. It has been opined by Dr. Rajender Singh PW-67 that it is the same rod which was examined by him. Report is Ex.PW67/A. According to which rod was strong and long enough to cause grievous injuries which again link accused persons with the commission of offence. Keeping in view the evidence brought on record and the above discussion I found that this circumstance has been proved and established.
107. Ld. Spl. PP submitted that in this case investigation was assigned to CBI vide order dt.24.08.1998 by Hon'ble Supreme Court. CBI has received a letter by post which is RC3(S)/98 CBI/SCBII/DLI St. Vs. Sanjay Rathore & ors. Page 77 of 83 Ex.PW18/B. Specimen handwriting of accused Satish was taken in the presence of independent witnesses. The specimen handwriting is Ex.PW35/1 to 11 and Ex.PW38/6 to 14 along with the letter Ex.PW18/B were sent to FSL for examination and the expert has given his report as Ex.PW66/A wherein it has been opined that the question handwriting has been written by accused Satish. Ld. Special PP submitted that in this case lateron accused Satish has confessed about commission of crime. Similarly, there is another document which is mark-J written in the red ink that was also sent for comparison with the handwriting of accused Virender. Specimen handwriting of the accused Virender was also obtained in the presence of independent witnesses. The letter mark - J along with sample handwriting of accused Virender was sent to FSL. The report is Ex.PW66/B and it has come on record that writer of specimen Hindi writing mark S-26 to S-35 being the person responsible for writing the question Hindi writing at the point Q-23 and Q-24. Ld. Spl. PP submitted that specimen handwriting of accused Virender which is Ex.PW35/12 to Ex.PW35/23, Ex.PW70/A, Ex.PW74/A to Ex.PW74/H. Ld. Counsel submitted that though in this letter Virender has mentioned that he was asked by Kishan Chand to murder Veena. But in this letter accused Virender has specifically mentioned that he murdered Veena. Ld. Spl. PP submitted that this document RC3(S)/98 CBI/SCBII/DLI St. Vs. Sanjay Rathore & ors. Page 78 of 83 which is proved and established to be in the handwriting of Virender clearly proves and establish that accused Virender murdered Veena. Ld. Spl. PP submitted that this letter is admissible against him as this letter was written by him when he was not an accused and was also not in custody and hence reliance can be placed on the same.
108. ld. Defence Counsel submits that this letter is of no consequences as it does not lead anywhere. So far as Satish is concerned he is already read. So far as the handwriting opinion is concerned it does not conclusively establish that Virender had written this letter. Ld. Counsel submitted that onus was on the prosecution to prove this fact which prosecution has miserably failed to establish even the envelope in which it was allegedly sent has not been proved. Ld. Counsel submitted that under the circumstances no reliance on this letter shall be placed.
109. Keeping in view the submissions and the facts of the case I found that the letter which has been received by CBI is proved on record to be written by Virender. So far as taking of his specimen handwriting is concerned, no doubt there is no record that permission was obtained from the court or not regarding obtaining his handwriting but there is no such law that the specimen handwriting can only be obtained only after taking permission of the court. In my opinion if the handwriting is taken RC3(S)/98 CBI/SCBII/DLI St. Vs. Sanjay Rathore & ors. Page 79 of 83 without seeking permission of the court, the reliance can still be placed on it. In this case taking of specimen handwriting is proved and established by the prosecution by examining the independent witnesses / public witnesses which is not disputed by the prosecution. The handwriting expert has proved and established that the letter received by CBI is in the handwriting of accused Virender wherein he has confessed about murder of Veena. The circumstance in my opinion stands proved.
110. Ld. Spl. PP submitted that in this case accused Virender was already using a stolen car owned by Ms. Mithlesh Jain having registration No. DL 3CE 1528 regarding which FIR No.24/96 was registered. Accused Virender was apprehended with that stolen car on which he was displaying forged number plate UP14 8634. This fact has been proved and established by PW-55 as well as PW-64 Sh. Sagar Chand Jain who got the FIR registered was also examined Ld. Counsel submitted that the chassis number and engine number of the vehicle which was recovered from the possession of accused Virender tallied with the chassis number and engine number of Maruti Van of Mithlesh Jain. He was using the registration number in fact of a Tractor. Which was lost and the number was UP 14 8031. The registration number UP 14A 8634 which accused displaying was in fact made by making changes in the original Registration Certificate which RC3(S)/98 CBI/SCBII/DLI St. Vs. Sanjay Rathore & ors. Page 80 of 83 was issued for a Tractor and not of a Maruti Van. this itself shows that accused Virender has criminal bent of mind who has been driving in a vehicle having forged number plate. The evidence in this regard has been brought on record by PW-14.
111. Ld. defence counsel submitted that even if it is presumed that it was a stolen Maruti Van, though in that case he has already been acquitted, it has no bearing on the facts and circumstances of the present case and does not lead to any presumption that Virender committed offence. Ld. Counsel submitted that incident of driving a stolen maruti van is totally different from the present incident. There is nothing on record that the van which was allegedly recovered from Virender was used in commission of present crime and prayed that benefit of the same be given to the accused.
112. On this point I fully agree with the Ld. defence Counsel that the fact that accused Virender was driver of stolen van does not have any impact on the present case, hence is of no consequence for deciding the present controversy.
113. In this case it has come on record that Veena was eight months pregnant at the time of incident. Dr. Neeraj Goyal, Surgeon Gynecologist was examined as PW32. He was Consultant Gynecologist at Santom Hospital. She examined Veena Rathore who was admitted in ICU. He deposed that at that RC3(S)/98 CBI/SCBII/DLI St. Vs. Sanjay Rathore & ors. Page 81 of 83 time, she was pregnant of seven months. She had proved her examination as Ex.PW32/A. The unborn child also died and could not be saved. The doctor opined that looking into the condition of the patient and that the fetus was of 28 weeks, the chances of survival of fetus were very bleak. The Doctor denied the suggestion that if patient was operated in time the fetus could have been saved. The circumstances also shows that the injuries on the person of Veena were caused with intent to kill her and not to rob her. If there would have been any such intention than the purse, chain and ring would not have been found on the spot. The injuries caused were also of such nature to cause the death and not only to deter. PW29 Dr Jaiswal who conducted the post - mortem opined that death was due to hemorrhagic shock associated with craniocerebral injuries. Injuries no.1 & 2 is/ are, individually/ collectively sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. From this evidence it is clear that the death is homicidal and the accused not only caused death of Veena but also caused death of fetus as Veena was Seven Month pregnant at the time of incident.
114. In view of above discussion I found that the circumstances which have been proved are that accused Virender Satish and Raju pointed out the place of occurrence, accused Virender got recovered the fire arms which are connected with the RC3(S)/98 CBI/SCBII/DLI St. Vs. Sanjay Rathore & ors. Page 82 of 83 live cartridge found on the spot and the bullet found inside the dead body. The evidence proves that the bullet found inside the body was fired from one of those fire arms and the cartridge found on the spot was also loaded in one of those fire arms. He has also written a confession letter which is proved to be in his handwriting wherein he has mentioned that he has murdered Veena. So far as other co-accused Raju is concerned, there is no evidence to connect them with the commission of offence. In view of above discussion accused Virender is held guilty and convicted for the offence u/s 302/316 IPC. Accused persons Raju and Alka stand acquitted. Their bail bonds are extended for 6 months u/s 437A IPC.
Announced in the open court today on 30.09.2014. (VIRENDER KUMAR BANSAL) ASJ/ FTC (WEST) TIS HAZARI, DELHI RC3(S)/98 CBI/SCBII/DLI St. Vs. Sanjay Rathore & ors. Page 83 of 83