Delhi District Court
State vs . (1) Roop Chand on 14 August, 2014
IN THE COURT OF Dr. KAMINI LAU: ADDL. SESSIONS
JUDGEII (NORTHWEST): ROHINI COURTS: DELHI
Session Case No. 76/2013
Unique Case ID No.: 02404R0294682011
State Vs. (1) Roop Chand
S/o Sh. Devi Chand
R/o J523, JJ Colony Sawda,
Kanjhawla, Delhi
(Convicted)
(2) Shatrughan @ Shatru
S/o Sh. Phoosho Ram
R/o Village Bhanshi,
PS Garhpura, Distt. Begusarai,
Bihar
(Proclaimed Offender)
FIR No.: 106/2011
Police Station: Pahar Ganj
Under Sections: 302/201/34 Indian Penal Code
Date of committal to sessions court: 19.10.2011
Date on which orders were reserved: 13.8.2014
Date on which judgment pronounced:14.8.2014
JUDGMENT:
(1) As per the allegations, on the intervening night of 2425.6.2011 at unknown time at the factory situated at 2250, Agar Nagar Mode, Nithari Village, Aman Vihar the accused Roop Chand St. Vs. Roop Chand, FIR No. 106/11, PS Pahar Ganj Page No. 1 alongwith his coaccused Pawan Mittal @ Bittoo (since expired) and Shatrughan @ Shatru (Proclaimed Offender) in furtherance of their common intention committed the murder of Layak Ram and thereafter the Head of the deceased was thrown under the Pulia near Sir Choturam Technical Institute, Rani Khear Kanjhawla Road whereas the Torso was thrown near urinal in between Central Park and Income Tax Parking, Jhandewalan, New Delhi.
CHARGES:
(2) Charge under Section 302/34 Indian Penal Code was settled against the accused Roop Chand to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
(3) Before coming to the testimonies of individual witnesses, the details of the witnesses examined by the prosecution and the documents proved by them are hereby put in a tabulated form as under:
List of Prosecution Witnesses:
Sr. PW No. Name of the witness Details of the witness No.
1. PW1 Ram Mehar Public Witness - Brother in law (Sala) of the deceased
2. PW2 Naresh Kumar Public Witness - Nephew of the deceased
3. PW3 Narender Kumar Public Witness/ Tailor who had identified the shirt of the deceased
4. PW4 Sanjeev Lakra Nodal Officer from Reliance Communications St. Vs. Roop Chand, FIR No. 106/11, PS Pahar Ganj Page No. 2 Sr. PW No. Name of the witness Details of the witness No.
5. PW4A Rajeev Sarda Nodal Officer from Reliance Communications
6. PW5 Dr. Pardeep Yadav Official Witness/ Member of the Medical Board
7. PW6 Indresh Kr. Mishra FSL Expert
8. PW7 Ct. Manish Police Witness - Crime Team Photographer
9. PW8 Ct. Dinesh Police Witness - Crime Team Photographer
10. PW9 Ct. Om Prakash Police Witness - Duty Constable at Lady Harding Medical College
11. PW10 HC Ami Lal Police Witness MHCM
12. PW11 SI Prem Singh Police Witness - Crime Team Incharge (Outer District)
13. PW12 SI Dhan Singh Police Witness - Crime Team Incharge (Central District)
14. PW13 SI Jagroop Police Witness - Duty Officer of Police Station Paharganj
15. PW14 Ct. Ravinder Police Witness who had deposited the pullandas with FSL
16. PW15 Ct. Amit Police Witness who had deposited the pullandas with FSL
17. PW16A HC Gaikwad Police Witness who had deposited the pullandas with FSL
18. PW16 SI Vinay Kumar Police Witness from Police Station Paharganj who had reached the spot where the Torso of deceased was discovered
19. PW17 Giani Ram Public Witness - Elder brother of the deceased
20. PW18 Sunita Devi Public Witness - Wife of the deceased
21. PW19 Balbir Singh Public Witness - Brother of the deceased St. Vs. Roop Chand, FIR No. 106/11, PS Pahar Ganj Page No. 3 Sr. PW No. Name of the witness Details of the witness No.
22. PW20 Ct. Ravinder Police Witness who had accompanied SI Rakesh to the spot where the Torso of the deceased was recovered
23. PW21 Harbans Lal Official Witness - Senior Manager of PNB Najafgarh
24. PW22 Dr. Arvind Kumar Official Witness/ Member of the Medical Board
25. PW23 Dr. Mukesh Kumar Official Witness/ Member of the Medical Board
26. PW24 SI Manhor Lal Police Witness Draftsman
27. PW25 Ct. Takdir Police Witness who had served the notice u/s. 91 Cr.P.C. upon the wife of the deceased
28. PW26 Ct. Sandeep Police Witness who has proved the Inquest Proceedings of Pawan Mittal
29. PW27 HC Kailash Police Witness - Duty Officer
30. PW28 Ct. Vijay Pal Police Witness who had taken the rukka to the Police Station
31. PW29 HC Sanjay Police Witness who had deposited the Head of the deceased at Mortuary of LHMC
32. PW30 Dr. Akash Jhanji Official Witness who has proved the postmortem report of accused Pawan Mittal
33. PW31 Dr. Harvinder Kaur Official Witness who has proved the MLC of the accused Pawan Mittal
34. PW32 Subhash Chand Official Witness - Deputy Manager SBI Najafgarh Branch
35. PW33 Chhotey Lal Dalal Public Witness - Nephew of the deceased
36. PW34 Sunil Kumar Official Witness - Assistant General Manager from MTNL St. Vs. Roop Chand, FIR No. 106/11, PS Pahar Ganj Page No. 4 Sr. PW No. Name of the witness Details of the witness No.
37. PW35 Daulat Singh Public Witness Dhaba Owner
38. PW36 HC Satyabir Singh Official Witness from Railway Police Force
39. PW37 Ct. Pravesh Police Witness who had reached Old Delhi Railway Station where the dead body of Pawan Mittal was lying
40. PW38 HC Mahipal Police Witness MHCM
41. PW39 ASI Pawan Kumar Police Witness - Fingerprint Expert (Central District)
42. PW40 SI Rajender Dabas Police Witness who had reached Old Delhi Railway Station where the dead body of Pawan Mittal was lying
43. PW41 Ct. Chhotey Khan Police Witness - Fingerprint Expert (Outer District)
44. PW42 SI Anant Kiran Police Witness who had accompanied Inspector Bijender Singh to the spot where the dead body of Layak Ram was recovered
45. PW43 SI Sumit Kumar Police Witness who had executed NBWs in respect of accused Shatrughan
46. PW44 ASI Shiv Nath Police Witness who had executed process under Section 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. in respect of accused Shatrughan
47. PW45 Insp. K P Singh Police Witness who had obtained the statement of accounts in respect of the deceased Layak Ram
48. PW46 Ram Phal Public Witness - Brother of the deceased
49. PW47 SI Rakesh Kumar Police Witness who had reached the spot where the dead body of Layak Ram was recovered
50. PW48 Ct. Yashpal Police Witness who had reached the spot along with SI Rakesh Kumar
51. PW49 Ms. Manisha Upadhyaya FSL Expert St. Vs. Roop Chand, FIR No. 106/11, PS Pahar Ganj Page No. 5 Sr. PW No. Name of the witness Details of the witness No.
52. PW50 Insp Bijender Singh Initial Investigating Officer
53. PW51 Inspector Anil Kumar Subsequent Investigating Officer List of documents exhibited:
Sr. Exhibit No. Details of documents Proved by
No.
1. PW1/A Statement of Ram Mehar Ram Mehar
2. PW1/B Dead body handed over memo
3. PW3/A Seizure memo of logo of tailoring Narender
4. PW4/A Copy of CAF Sanjeev Lakra
5. PW4/B Copy of Voter I Card
6. PW4/C CDR
7. PW4/D Certificate U/s 65B
8. PW4A/A Customer Application Form in respect of Rajeev Sharda
mobile No. 7428879336
9. PW4A/B Copy of Driving License and PAN Card
10. PW4A/C Call Detail Record
11. PW4A/D Certificate under Section 65B of Evidence
Act
12. PW5/A Postmortem report Dr. Pradeep Yadav
13. PW5/B Site plan
14. PW5/C Seizure memo of blood stained shirt
15. PW5/D Seizure memo of sacks
16. PW5/E Seizure memo of slip pad
17. PW5/F Seizure memo of outpatient ticket
18. PW5/G Death report
19. PW5/G1 Form 25:35
20. PW5/G2 Form 25:35
St. Vs. Roop Chand, FIR No. 106/11, PS Pahar Ganj Page No. 6
Sr. Exhibit No. Details of documents Proved by
No.
21. PW5/G3 Copy of the FIR
22. PW5/H MLC
23. PW5/J Statement of Rampal
24. PW5/K Statement of Balbir
25. PW5/L Dead body identification statement
26. PW5/M Statement of Giani Ram
27. PW6/A FSL Report Indresh Kumar
28. PW7/A1 to Photographs Ct. Manish
PW7/A14
29. PW7/B1 to Negatives of the above photographs
PW7/B14
30. PW8/A1 to Photographs Ct. Dinesh
PW8/A18
31. PW8/B1 to Negatives of the above photographs
PW8/B18
32. PW10/A Copy of Reg No. 19 Sr. No. 945 HC Ami Lal
33. PW10/B RC 80/21/11
34. PW10/C Copy of Reg No. 19 Sr. No. 946
35. PW10/D RC 133/21/11
36. PW10/E FSL Receipt
37. PW10/F RC 143/21/11
38. PW10/G FSL Receipt
39. PW11/A Crime Team Report SI Prem Singh
40. PW12/A Crime Team Report SI Dhan Singh
41. PW13/A DD No. 5A SI Jagroop Singh
42. PW16/A Arrest memo of accused Roop Chand SI Vinay Kumar
43. PW16/B Personal search memo of accused Roop
Chand
44. PW16/C Disclosure statement of accused Roop
Chand
St. Vs. Roop Chand, FIR No. 106/11, PS Pahar Ganj Page No. 7
Sr. Exhibit No. Details of documents Proved by
No.
45. PW16/D Pointing out memo
46. PW16/E Pointing out memo
47. PW16/F Pointing out memo
48. PW16/G Seizure memo of Tata Ace vehicle
49. PW16/H Seizure memo of blood stained clothes
50. PW16/J Seizure memo of keym two mobile phones
and railway ticket
51. PW16/K Seizure memo of sample of the deceased
for DNA
52. PW18/1 Slip pad Sunita
53. PW18/2 Slip pad
54. PW19/A Statement of Blabir Balbir
55. PW20/A Seizure memo of CCTV footage Ct. Ravinder
56. PW20/B Seizure memo of Pullanda containing
blood
57. PW21/A Statement of account dated 25/6/11 Harbans Lal Maan
58. PW21/B Certificate U/s 65B
59. PW21/C Current Account statement
60. PW22/A Detail Report on cause of death Dr. Arvind
61. PW24/1 Affidavit of witness SI Manohar Lal SI Manohar Lal
62. PW24/A Site plan
63. PW24/B Site plan
64. PW24/C Site plan
65. PW25/1 Affidavit of witness Ct. Takdir Ct. Takdir
66. PW26/1 Affidavit of witness Ct. Sandeep Ct. Sandeep
67. PW26/A Inquest file of Pawan Mittal
68. PW27/1 Affidavit of witness HC Kailash HC Kailash
69. PW27/A DD No. 10A
70. PW27/B DD No. 11A
St. Vs. Roop Chand, FIR No. 106/11, PS Pahar Ganj Page No. 8
Sr. Exhibit No. Details of documents Proved by
No.
71. PW28/1 Affidavit of witness Ct. Vijay Pal Ct. Vijay Pal
72. PW29/1 Affidavit of witness HC Sanjay HC Sanjay
73. PW32/A Statement of Accused Subash
74. PW34/A CAF9968560096 Sunil Kumar
75. PW34/B Copy of election I Card
76. PW34/C Declaration of the customer
77. PW34/D CDR of mobile No. 9968560096
78. PW34/E Certificate U/s 65B
79. PW34/F Location Chart
80. PW36/A Seizure memo of Bus ticket HC Satyabir
81. PW36/B Seizure memo of tablets and strip Singh
82. PW36/C Suicide note
83. PW36/D Receipt of New Maa Vaishno Palace
84. PW36/F Four railway and 14 bus tickets
85. PW38/1 Affidavit of evidence of HC Mahipal HC Mahipal
86. PW38/A Copy of Reg NO. 19 Sr. No. 3025
87. PW38/B Copy of Reg No. 19 Sr. No. 3036
88. PW38/C Copy of Reg No. 19 Sr. No. 3037
89. PW38/D Copy of Reg No. 19 Sr. N. 3039
90. PW38/E Copy of Reg No. 19 Sr. No. 3041
91. PW38/F Copy of Reg No. 19 Sr. No. 3042
92. PW38/G Copy of Reg No. 19 Sr. No. 3068
93. PW38/H RC 79/21/11
94. PW38/I RXC 82/21/11
95. PW40/A DD No. 7A SI Rajender Dabas
96. PW40/B& C Dead Body Identification Statement
97. PW40/D Dead body handed over memo St. Vs. Roop Chand, FIR No. 106/11, PS Pahar Ganj Page No. 9 Sr. Exhibit No. Details of documents Proved by No.
98. PW40/E Seizure memo of Viscera gauze piece and cloths
99. PW42/A Seizure memo of earth control SI Anant Kiran
100. PW/42/B Seizure memo of clothes of deceased
101. PW42/C Seizure memo of exhibits of deceased
102. PW44/A Statement of Shambhu Singh ASI Shiv Nath
103. PW44/B Statement of Vipin Bihari
104. PW44/C Statement of Praduman Thakur
105. PW44/D Report on Process u/s 82 CrPC
106. PW44/E Statement of Rubi Devi
107. PW44/F Statement of Upender Paswan
108. PW44/G Statement of Shyam Thakur
109. PW44/H Report on Process u/s 83 CrPC
110. PW45/A Bank statement Inspector K.P.
111. PW45/A Seizure memo of account statement Singh
112. PW47/A Tehrir SI Rakesh Kumar
113. PW47/B Endorsement on tehrir
114. PW49/A Biological Report Ms. Manisha
115. PW49/B Serological Report Upadhyaya
116. PW50/A Request for Postmortem Inspector Bijender
117. PW50/B Inquest form Singh
118. PW50/C Application for Preserve the head
119. PW50/D Site plan
120. PW50/E Site plan
121. PW50/F Disclosure statement
122. PW50/G Pointing out memo
123. PW50/H Seizure memo of blood stained mattresses, cover and bed sheet St. Vs. Roop Chand, FIR No. 106/11, PS Pahar Ganj Page No. 10 Sr. Exhibit No. Details of documents Proved by No.
124. PW50/I Site plan
125. PW50/J Request for Postmortem of the head
126. PW50/K Application for examination of TATA ACE
127. PW50/L Certificate U/s 91
128. PW51/A DNA Report Insp Anil Kumar
129. PW51/B Chemical analysis report EVIDENCE:
(4) In order to prove its case the prosecution has examined as many as Fifty Three Witnesses as under:
Public Witnesses:
(5) PW1 Sh. Ram Mehar S/o Sh. Ran Singh has deposed that deceased Layak Ram was his brotherinlaw (jija). According to him, on 28.06.2011, he went to the Lady harding medical college mortuary and identified the dead body of said Layak Ram which dead body was without head and he identified the dead body by marks of operation on his hand and cut marks on the leg and has clarified that injury marks were of the childhood operation on the hand of deceased. He has proved that his statement was recorded in this regard as Ex.PW1/A. He has further deposed that after postmartem, the dead body was handed over to Giyani Ram, who is the brother of the deceased, Layak Ram vide memo Ex.PW1/B. He has not been crossexamined by the Ld. Defence St. Vs. Roop Chand, FIR No. 106/11, PS Pahar Ganj Page No. 11 counsel, despite having being given an opportunity in this regard.
(6) PW2 Naresh Kumar S/o Sh. Ram Phal is the nephew of the deceased and has deposed that deceased Layak Ram was his uncle (chacha) and on 27.06.2011, he received a telephonic call from his cousin brother Kapil that his uncle Layak Ram had not come home since 24.06.2011. He has further deposed that on this information, he alongwith his cousin brother Chhotey Lal, his father, his uncle Giani Ram and Balbir Singh immediately went to Police StationNajafgarh and there they come to know that similar description of person's dead body has been recovered at Police StationPahar Ganj and they accordingly reached Police Station Pahar Ganj. From there, they all alongwith Investigating Officer went to LHMC Mortuary and there, a dead body, without head, was shown to them and on the dead body, the mark of operations were there on the wrist/palm and also under the knee, which were similar to the body description of his uncle Layak Ram and on the basis of the identification marks, they identified the dead body of his uncle Layak Ram.
(7) He has further deposed that on 28.06.2011, they went to LHMC Mortuary and there, after postmortem, the dead body of Layak Ram was handed over to them vide memo Ex.PW1/B. His statement was recorded by IO. He has not been crossexamined by the Ld. Defence counsel, despite having being given an opportunity in this regard. St. Vs. Roop Chand, FIR No. 106/11, PS Pahar Ganj Page No. 12 (8) PW3 Narender Kumar S/o Sh. Jai Narain has deposed that he is tailor by profession and running his shop under the name and style of New Descent Tailor at H5, I Block, Dharampura, NJF, Mob. 9210789406. According to him two years ago, the shop had been running at his above mentioned house and now he is working in the showroom at Najafgarh, Chuna Mandi, as a tailor.
(9) According to him, on 25.06.2011, he was called at Lady Harding Hospital from Najafgarh and he reached there and one dead body without head was shown to him. He has further deposed that he saw the blood stained shirt and identified his logo on the shirt which shirt was seized and sealed by the IO. He has further deposed that as he had closed the shop, that is why, he could not locate the measurement of the shirt given by the customer. He has stated that he also handed over one logo of his tailoring mark as New Descent Tailor at H5, I Block, Dharampura, NJF, Mob. 9210789406 to the Investigating Officer which was seized vide memo Ex.PW3/A and thereafter his statement was recorded by IO.
(10) The witness has identified the shirt of white colour having blood stains on it and having label of Descent Dharampura Mob. 9210874052 as Ex. P3. He has further deposed that the said Descent Tailor Logo pertains to his shop and he has correctly identified the same. He has not been crossexamined by the Ld. Defence counsel, despite having being given an opportunity in this regard.
St. Vs. Roop Chand, FIR No. 106/11, PS Pahar Ganj Page No. 13 (11) PW17 Giani Ram has deposed that he was a farmer having agricultural land at Rajasthan. He has deposed that they were five brothers out of which Sube Singh had already expired and his younger brother Layak Ram ( deceased) was the youngest brother who had retired from the BSF and was residing in Delhi for the last about 5 or 6 years. He has deposed that the deceased and he was residing at H. No. 123, A2 Block, Dharampura, New Delhi and dealt with property and finance business. He has further deposed that on 27.06.2011, his nephew and son of deceased, his brother Layak Ram, namely Kapil came to his house and informed him that his brother Layak Ram had not returned to his house since 24.06.2011. Thereafter in the evening at about 6 PM, Kapil made a telephonic call to his father on his phone and somebody picked up the phone and told him that Layak Ram had gone to take a bath. Kapil again dialed the said number of his father and in the night at about 11 pm, the mobile phone of Layak Ram was switched off. He has further deposed that he alongwith his all his brothers, nephew Naresh and Chhotey Lal went to Police Station Najafgarh for inquiry and came to know that one dead body had been recovered in the area of Police Station Pahar Ganj and thereafter they went to Police Station Pahar Ganj and alongwith the police and reached to the Mortuary of Lady Harding Hospital. He has further deposed that the police showed one headless dead body to them and on the dead body, one operation marks were there on the hands, injury marks on the left leg, which were the marks sustained by Layak St. Vs. Roop Chand, FIR No. 106/11, PS Pahar Ganj Page No. 14 Ram in the childhood from the thorny bushes/ fences and from the description of the dead body and above said identification marks, they identified the dead body to be of Layak Ram. He has deposed that the police recorded his statement on 28.06.2011 and he again visited the Lady Harding Hospital and identified the dead body of his brother Layak Ram after which the police recorded his statement which is Ex.PW5/M. He has further deposed that on 02.07.2011, he went to Lady Harding Medical Hospital at about 12 noon and identified the head of his brother Layak Ram and his statement was recorded in this regard which is as Ex.PW7/K. (12) The witness has identified one shirt, having label on it of 'Decent' of white colour to be of his brother Layak Ram which is Ex.P3 and one Kachha (underwear) of green colour, having string to be of his brother Layak Ram which is Ex.P3/1.
(13) In his crossexamination by the Ld. Defence counsel the witness has deposed that Prior to one month of th death of Layak Ram he came to Delhi and his brother Layak Ram was residing at Dharam Pura, whereas he was residing at Prem Nagar. He has stated that they were on visiting terms and also used to call on telephone as well. He has further deposed that lastly, he met Layak Ram on 20th or 21st whereas he was informed on 24th about his going missing. He has further deposed that on 20th or 21st Layak Ram was not wearing the clothes, which he identified that day and wearing some other clothes and he saw the clothes with the St. Vs. Roop Chand, FIR No. 106/11, PS Pahar Ganj Page No. 15 dead body when his nephew had also told him that Layak Ram left the house in these clothes.
(14) PW18 Smt. Sunita Devi has deposed that she is a housewife and on 24.06.2011 at about 7/8 AM her husband Layak Ram told her that he was going to the house of his brother and also told her that thereafter he will go to Pawan @ Bitto and he then demanded ATM card of SBI and PNB from her. According to the witness, she handed over the same to him and her husband was disappointed since one week prior that day and he told her that "Pawan ke man mein khot aa gaya hai". She has further deposed that her husband left the house and went in the morning and on the same day at about 56 PM Pawan @ Bittoo came to her house by the tempo and inquired about her husband Layak Ram and she told him that her husband had gone to his house and did not return back. Thereafter she made a telephonic call to the mobile number 9968560096 of her husband and then somebody picked the phone and told her that her husband was taking a bath. Thereafter, Pawan @ Bitto left her house and was perplexed. She has further deposed that she made call on the mobile of her husband and somebody picked and told her that her husband was still taking a bath and at about 11 PM she again made a call and at that time mobile phone was switched off. She has further deposed that her husband normally used to go outside and not return for 23 days. According to the witness, when her husband did not return upto 26.06.2011, then on 27.06.2011 she sent her son Kapil to the house of her St. Vs. Roop Chand, FIR No. 106/11, PS Pahar Ganj Page No. 16 Jeth Balbir. She has further deposed that her husband Layak Ram used to give money on interest basis and maintained the account book in this regard. She has further deposed that she handed over two slip pads of Neel Gagan to the police and police seized the same vide memo Ex.PW5/E and two slip pads kept in judicial file which are Ex.PW18/1 and Ex.PW18/2 which were maintained by her husband and were given to the police by her and police recorded her statement. The witness has not been crossexamined by the Ld. Defence counsel, despite having being given an opportunity in this regard.
(15) PW19 Sh. Balbir Singh has deposed that he is retired from BSF and living at his house at H. No. RZ60, PhaseIV, Prem Nagar Extension, Najafgarh, New Delhi and they are five brothers out of which Sube Singh had already expired and his younger brother Layak Ram was the youngest one who was retired from BSF and was residing in Delhi for the last about 5 or 6 years and he was residing at H. No. 123, A2 Block, Dharampura, New Delhi and dealt with the property and finance business. He has further deposed that on 27.06.2011 his nephew and son of deceased his brother Layak Ram namely Kapil came to his house and informed that his brother Layak Ram did not return his house since 24.06.2011. In the evening at about 6 PM, Kapil made a telephonic call to his father on his phone and somebody picked the phone and told him that Layak Ram had gone to take bath and Kapil again dialed the said number of his father and in the night at about 11 PM, the mobile phone St. Vs. Roop Chand, FIR No. 106/11, PS Pahar Ganj Page No. 17 of Layak Ram was got switched off. Thereafter, he alongwith his all brothers, nephew Naresh and Chhotey Lal went to Police Station Najafgarh for inquiry an came to know that one dead body has been recovered in the area of Police Station Pahar Ganj on which they went to Police Station Pahar Ganj and alongwith police they reached to mortuary of Lady Harding Hospital where police showed one headless body to them. According to him, on the dead body, one operation mark was there on the hands, injury marks on the left leg, which were sustained by Layak Ram in the childhood from the thorny bushes/ fences and from the description of the dead body and above said identification marks they identified the dead body to be of Layak Ram and police recorded his statement. Thereafter he again visited the Lady Harding Hospital and identified the dead body of his brother Layak Ram and police recorded his statement. He had further deposed that on 02.07.2011 he went to Lady Harding Hospital and identified the head of his brother Layak Ram and police recorded his statement which is Ex.PW19/A. (16) During the crossexamination by Ld. Defence counsel, the witness has deposed that he visited Police Station in respect of inquiry of his brother Layak Ram and police also made inquiries from them. He has further deposed that he cannot tell as to how many times, police recorded his statement and he also does not remember as to how many papers he signed.
St. Vs. Roop Chand, FIR No. 106/11, PS Pahar Ganj Page No. 18 (17) PW33 Sh. Chhotey Lal Dalal has deposed that Kapil is son of his uncle/ chacha namely Layak Ram and on the 27th day of the month in the year 2011, he does not remember the month but it was summer day, Kapil came to his house and informed him that his father Layak Ram did not return to his house since 23 days and he made calls to Layak Ram but somebody picked the phone and informed him that after taking bath his uncle will talk with him (Kapil) and he also made call to his father on 24.06.2011 at about 10.0011.00PM but the mobile phone was found switched off. He has further deposed that thereafter he alongwith Kapil and other relatives Gyani Ram, Ram Phal and Naresh went to Police Station Najafgarh and they lodged the missing report but the police did not register the same and informed them that the same person appearing like his uncle Layak Ram was found in the area of Police Station Paharganj in dead condition and thereafter they alongwith police went to Paharganj area in a hospital and they saw a dead body without head and they identified the body of his uncle Layak Ram by the identification marks on the body. He has further deposed that the police kept the body in the hospital and they alongwith the police returned back to their house for the investigation and police made inquiries from his aunt Sunita Devi and seized two slip padsNeelgagan containing the business transaction of his uncle Layak Ram as told by his aunt Sunita Devi and police seized both the pads vide memo Ex.PW5/E which pads are Ex.PW18/1 and Ex.PW18/2.
St. Vs. Roop Chand, FIR No. 106/11, PS Pahar Ganj Page No. 19 (18) According to the witness on 28.06.2011 he again went again to the hospital and he identified the dead body of his uncle Layak Ram which was without head and he identified the dead body by the identification marks on his wrist of left hand and there was a mark of injury on his leg. He has further deposed that police recorded his statement regarding the identification of dead body vide Ex.PW5/C. According to him, after postmortem they received the dead body of Layak Ram vide memo Ex.PW1/B. (19) On a leading question by Ld. Addl. PP the witness has admitted that on 27.06.2011 his cousin Kapil came to him and informed him about missing of his father. This witness has not been cross examined by the Ld. Amicus curiae, despite having being given an opportunity in this regard.
(20) PW35 Sh. Daulat Singh has deposed that he used to run a Dhaba by the name of Uttarnchal Dhaba at Agar Nagar Mor, Mubarakpur, Aman Vihar, Delhi and on 24.06.2011 at about 1.00PM Roop Chand alongwith two persons came at his Dhaba to take lunch, they remained at his Dhaba for about one hour and had taken two Curry, one Palak Paneer, 4 or 5 roties and two Lachcha Paranthas and one of the person was looking like a wrestler (pehalwan). He has further deposed that on 30.06.2011 police came to him and recorded his statement. The witness correctly identified the accused Roop Chand. St. Vs. Roop Chand, FIR No. 106/11, PS Pahar Ganj Page No. 20 (21) On a leading question by Ld. Addl. PP, the witness has admitted that on 30.06.2011 accused Roop Chand was also accompanying the police when they came to his Dhaba. He has also admitted that Pawan @ Bittoo who was also running a factory of swing (jhoola)behind his Dhaba, was also accompanying with Roop Chand and the pehalwan. He has admitted that the said "pehalwan" was under the influence of some intoxicant.
(22) During the crossexamination by Ld. Amicus Curaei for accused Roop Chand, the witness has deposed that he was running his dhaba without any permission and usually 50 to 60 public persons visits his dhaba. He has further deposed that police party came to his dhaba at about 4.005.00PM on 30.06.2011 but he cannot tell the mode by which police party came to his dhaba. He has further deposed that there were 34 police persons in the police party and has admitted that he did not issue any bill receipt for the payment of bill of meals. He has denied that police officials normally visit his dhaba and have meals without paying for the same. He has explained that the police officials remained at his dhaba for about 30 minutes. He has further deposed that police did not conduct any writing work at his dhaba. He has denied that accused did not visit his dhaba at any point of time and has also denied that he had identified the accused Roop Chand since the accused was shown to him outside the court room.
St. Vs. Roop Chand, FIR No. 106/11, PS Pahar Ganj Page No. 21 (23) PW46 Sh. Ramphal has deposed that Layak Ram deceased was his younger brother who was working in the BSF and 56 years prior to the incident he retired from BSF and was residing at Dharampura, Najafgarh, Delhi with his family members. According to him, he was doing the business of property dealing and also used to work as a financer. Gyani Ram is also his brother who informed him by phone that Layak Ram was missing from 24.06.2011. He has further deposed that on 27.06.2011 he alongwith Balbir, Gyani, Chhotey Lal and Naresh went to Police Station Pahar Ganj and thereafter they went to the mortuary of LHMC Hospital where they identified the dead body of Layak Ram which was without head and the dead body was wearing only Kachcha (underwear) of green colour. He has deposed that they identified the dead body of Layak Ram by identification mark as of operation on the wrist of his left hand and also on the basis of injury cut marks on the left leg below knee portion and after postmortem his other relatives received the dead body of Layak Ram. The witness has not been crossexamined by the Ld. Amicus Curiae, despite having being given an opportunity in this regard.
Witnesses of Medical Record:
(24) PW5 Dr. Pradeep, Jr. Resident, Lady Harding Medical College, New Delhi has deposed that on 28.06.2011, he conducted postmortem on the body of Layak Ram, aged 45 years, male R/o RZ123, St. Vs. Roop Chand, FIR No. 106/11, PS Pahar Ganj Page No. 22 A2 Block, Dharampura Extension, Delhi whose body was identified by Bijender Singh, Giani Ram, Ram Mehar and Chhotey Lal. He has further deposed that he has perused the inquest papers, which were 17 in number and conducted the postmortem. According to him, the dead body which was brought with alleged history that the body found lying near toilet at Jhandewalan at 7.25 AM on 25.06.2011 and the body was decapitated and was a male, wearing white shirt, which was blood stained and a green coloured underwear (Kachha) with a Naada and the head of the dead body was not there and also not found in the nearby area of the body. The decapitated body was brought to the Lady Harding Medical College for Autopsy on 25.06.2011 at 9.00 AM vide MLC no.
29460 and on External Examination the following observations were found:
1. One curvilinear scarma 7 cm x 0.2 cm, hypopigmented and old present over lateral aspect of left hand on dorsal aspect 4 cm above the left styloid process.
2. Linear scar mark, old hypopigmented, 4 cm x 0.2 cm present over lateral aspect of calf of left leg 5 cm below left knee joint.
3. Body was hairy.
4. Size of feet was 25 cm in length.
5. Penis is not circumcised.
6. The complexion of the body was wheatish. Body built average.
Body height out stretch arm length - 182 cm and lower limb St. Vs. Roop Chand, FIR No. 106/11, PS Pahar Ganj Page No. 23 length 96 cm.
7. Rigor mortis was not present in the body and Postmortem Lividity was present all over the back excluding the pressure area. Cyanosis was absent over finger and toe. The body was putrefied and Greenish discolouration was found over the front of the abdomen and front of chest. There was peeling of skin present over groin and umbilicus, scrotem swollen and shows pilling of skin and Crepitation was found present over calf and thighs of both the lower limbs.
(25) The body received for autopsy was found decapitated from the base of neck and deceased was wearing a green coloured underwear with a white Naada and a white coloured vest, which were blood stained. The details of the clothes were:
1. A vest measuring 51 cm and width of 35 cm was present which was stained with blood (reddish brown colour stains) and on the anterior aspect in the middle was found stained with greenish coloured fluid. It has small holes measuring from 0.9 x 0.3 cm to 1.3 x 0.5 cm was present over left shoulder of vest, left upper half and in the midline in upper half. In left shoulder area, 12 holes were present and in left upper half and upper midline, 30 holes were present. The vest was found cut in the middle from measuring 3 cm x 2 cm around which, greenish coloured stain present and another cut present over the left side of the area of 4 St. Vs. Roop Chand, FIR No. 106/11, PS Pahar Ganj Page No. 24 cm x 2 cm.
2. A green coloured underwear / Kachha was found with a white coloured Naada. The length of Kachha was 40 cm and breadth was 20 cm and no staining was present over kachha.
(26) According to the witness, there were following antemortem injuries:
1. Multiple stab wound, fourteen in number and shape which was about rectangular and of size 0.9 cm x 0.3 and depth varying from 0.5 cm to 1 cm were present over anterior aspect of left shoulder in an area of 15 cm x 14 cm. Margins were inverted and dried.
Extravasation of blood was present in the tract and surrounding soft tissue. Direction of wound was backward and slightly downward and rightwards.
2. Another stab wound of size 0.9 cm x 0.3 cm and shaped about rectangular and 0.4 deep (subcutaneous tissue) was present over left forearm, 8 cm above left wrist joint on its lateral aspect. Margins were reddish brown in colour. Extravasation of blood present in subcutaneous tissue and muscles.
3. Multiple stab wounds forty two (42) in number and size of 0.9 cm x 0.3 cm and shape varying from elliptical to rectangular were present over left upper qudarant of thorax (chest in an area of 17 cm x 15 cm which were mostly directed downwards, backwards and rightwards. Extravasation of blood was present in surrounding St. Vs. Roop Chand, FIR No. 106/11, PS Pahar Ganj Page No. 25 pectoralis and intercostal muscles. All wounds were subcutaneous tissue deep, except eight (given injury no. B3 (1) of them, which were going through third, fourth, fifth and sixth ribs in left pleural cavity and upper lobe of left lung was found punctured 2 mm each and 4 in number going through anterior surface to medical surface. Pleural cavity contained about 150 ml of blood and extravasation of blood was present in the upper lobe of left lung parenchyma. Three stab wounds ventricular wall deep, but not communicated with the ventricular cavity were present over anterior aspect of left ventricular wall. One stab wound 2 mm deep in right auricular wall. All the stab wounds were of size varying from 3 mm to 2 mm to 2 mm to 1 mm. Corresponding cuts were found on pericardium. The Pericardial cavity contained about 150 ml of blood.
4. Multiple stab wounds eleven in number of size 1 cm x 0.3 cm of shape rectangular was present over sternal region (mid chest) in an area of 10 cm x 8 cm. All stab wounds were subcutaneous tissue deep, except one (injury B4(1)) going through sternal and right pleural cavity, piercing through the upper lobe of right lung. Extravasation of blood was present over subcutaneous tissue of sternal and right pleural cavity containing about 150 ml of blood. Margins were inverted. Tracts were directed rightwards, downwards and backwards.
St. Vs. Roop Chand, FIR No. 106/11, PS Pahar Ganj Page No. 26
5. Stab wound of size 0.9 cm x 0.3 cm and rectangular in shape and 2.5 mm deep was present over left lateral aspect of abdomen 11 cm above left iliac crest and 10 cm lateral to mid line posteriorly. Extravasation blood was present in the surrounding soft tissue.
6. Stab wound of size 0.9 cm x 0.3 cm and rectangular in shape and subcutaneous tissue deep was present over lateral aspect of buttock 7 cm below the left iliac crest. Extravasation of blood was present in the surrounding soft tissue.
7. An incised would of size 2.5 cm x 1 cm shaped elliptical with clear cut margin present over lateral aspect of left thigh present 25 cm above the left knee joint. Extravasation of blood was present in surrounding muscles and subcutaneous tissue.
8. Curvilinear abrasion reddish in colour 3 cm x 0.2 cm of size was present over the lateral aspect of left leg 9 cm below left knee joint.
(27) The details of the Postmortem injuries as as under:
1. Decapitated wound of size with anterio posterior diameter of 15 cm and lateral diameter of 12.5 cm present at the base of neck and 1 cm above the lower end of thyroid cartilage. A triangular piece of thyroid cartilage 2 cm x 0.3 cm was found cut in the remaining thyroid cartilage stump. Skin margins and muscular cut ends are regular and cleaned cut vertebra was found clean cut through the St. Vs. Roop Chand, FIR No. 106/11, PS Pahar Ganj Page No. 27 body of sixth cervical vertebra trasnversely. At the cut surface of vertebra, four lines of cuts were palpable. Oesophagus was found cut with margins regular and clean cut. Trachea was found cut with margins regular and clean cut. All major blood vessels were found clean cut. Cut surface involving neck muscles were showing greenish brown discolouration with presence of bad odour and some adherent soil particles. No significant amount of extravasation of blood was present. No vital reactions seen at the margins.
2. Stab wound of size 5 cm x 2 cm and 6 cm deep of shape elliptical present 26 cm below the suprasternal notch in the mid line and horrizontally placed where the right end of the wound lies 2.5 cm away from the mid line. Semidigested food material was found oozing out and spelling around the stomach. Wound was directed leftward, upward and backward and cutting the diaphram and apical region of heart of size 3 cm, which was communicating with the ventricular cavity. No extravasation of blood was present in the peritoneum and surrounding soft tissue. No vital reaction seen at margins.
3. Stab wound of size 3.8 cm x 0.5 cm and abdominal wall deep (2.5 cm deep) and elliptical in shape present with medial end of wound lying in the mid line and 4.5 cm above umbilicus and 3 cm below injury no. 2. No extravasation of blood was present in surround St. Vs. Roop Chand, FIR No. 106/11, PS Pahar Ganj Page No. 28 subcutaneous tissue. No vital reaction seen at margins.
4. Stab wound 6 cm x 2 cm and abdominal wall deep ( 3 cm deep) of shape elliptical and obliquely placed over left lateral aspect of abdomen, where the medical and upper end of wound was 7.5 cm from mid line and 8 cm below umbilicus. A piece of cloth of shape (shape is shown in the report at point X) was present in the wound. No extravasation of blood was present in the surround subcutaneous tissue. No vital reaction seen at margins. (28) The witness has proved his opinion according to which Shock due to multiple stab injuries (injury no. B3 (1)) and injury no. B4 (1) to chest and heart (cardiothoracic injury). Injury no. D3 (1) including eight stab wounds were sufficient to cause death individually in ordinary course of nature. Further according to witness the Antemortem injuries mentioned in Column B and the postmortem injuries are mentioned in Column C and injury no. B1, 2, 3 ,4, 5 and 6 are possible by sharped penetrating weapon; Injury no. B7 is possible by sharp edged weapon; Injury no. B8 is possible by blunt force; Injury no. C1 (decapitation) is a postmortem injury, caused by sharp edged weapon and other postmortem injuries are also possible by sharp edged weapon.
(29) He has proved his detailed report is Ex.PW5/A. According to him, after postmortem, the clothes, piece of bone (half sternum) for DNA analysis, blood in gauze piece in the sealed parcels were handed over to the Investigating Officer with sample seal. He also preserved St. Vs. Roop Chand, FIR No. 106/11, PS Pahar Ganj Page No. 29 viscera in the sealed parcel and handed over the same to the Investigating Officer and he also signed inquest papers, site plan Ex.PW5/B, seizure memo of tailor's logo is Ex.PW3/A, seizure memo blood stained shirt is Ex.PW5/C, seizure memo of sacks Ex.PW5/D, seizure memo of slip pad is Ex.PW5/E, outpatient ticket Ex.PW5/F, death report is Ex.PW5/G, Form 25 (35) is Ex.PW5/H, statement of Ramphal is Ex.PW5/J, statement of Balbir Singh is Ex.PW5/K, dead body identification statement is Ex.PW5/L, statement of Giani Ram is Ex.PW5/M and body identification memo is already Ex.PW1/A. (30) The witness has correctly identified one underwear of green colour alongwith naada and a Tshirt/vest, stained with blood and he further identified that these are same clothes which were found on the body of the deceased. The witness has not been crossexamined by the Ld. Defence counsel, despite having being given an opportunity in this regard.
(31) PW22 Dr. Arvind Kumar, Assistant Professor, Forensic Medicine, Lady Harding Medical college, Delhi has deposed that on 25.06.2011 on the directions of the head of the department forensic medicines namely Dr. Yasodha Rani, he alongwith Dr. Mukesh Kumar and Dr. Pardeep Yadav conducted the postmortem on the body part i.e. Head of Layak Ram S/o Singh Ram aged 45 years, male, R/o RZ123, A2, Block, Karampura Extension, Najafgarh, Delhi. According to him, St. Vs. Roop Chand, FIR No. 106/11, PS Pahar Ganj Page No. 30 the head was identified by Insp. Vijender Singh and his brothers Gyani Ram and Balbir Singh and the history given in the inquest report was on the head being recovered in a drain below a small bridge in front of Chotu Ram Polytechnic Institute Narela road on 30.06.2011. On external examination the following were observed :
1. Cauliflower shaped left year.
2. Scalp hairs black of 1 cm long.
3. Moustache hairs 1 cm long and beard hair 0.2cm long black in color.
4. Maggots were present crawling in the nasal cavity oral cavity and both the orbits.
5. External injuries : Head with part of neck brought by Investigating Officer for postmortem examination which was packed in a white gunny bag containing a green and black plastic bag inside the same. On opening the bags head with part of the neck was taken out. Soft tissue of the scalp, face and neck region were liquefied due to the decomposition and turned into pasty material with decomposed adipocere changes. Part of skull over left pariteo - occipital region, left ear and some soft tissue of neck of left side was partially identifiable. Eye ball, nasal cavity and soft tissue in base of oral cavity had turned into pasty material along with live maggots crawling in all the cavities. Brain matter about 100 ml present in the cranial cavity was turning into St. Vs. Roop Chand, FIR No. 106/11, PS Pahar Ganj Page No. 31 liquifactive pasty material, on opening the skull and Maggots crawling inside cranial cavity of average size of 1.5 cm (live) .
6. Neck was found decapitated at the level of lower margin of C4.
C1 to C4 vertebrae is found intact in loosely place. Soft tissue involving ligaments was found dissolved and turned into a pasty material of off white in color and maggots were found crawling. No sign of extravasation/ collection of blood in the remain soft tissue is evident. Margins of wound were turned into pasty material due to decomposition.
(32) Internal examination showed the skull height as 20 cm, by biparietal diameter 13 cm antero - posterior diameter 18 cm. All skull muscles margins were prominent, supraorbital regions prominent, orbits are square with rounded margins, zygomatic process running behind the external anterior auditory meatus. The meninges were liquified due to decomposition. Oesophagus, larynx and trachea liquified due to decomposition.
(33) Neck muscles i.e. hyoid bone were intact. Thyroid cartridge were partially decomposed and displaced from its original side. Maggots and soft tissue were preserved for toxicological analysis. (34) According to the witness, the Head was that of male about 4045 years and Cause of Death was kept pending till the receipt of viscera analysis report. There was no ante mortem injury over the part of body received i.e. head for autopsy. Decapitation wound is St. Vs. Roop Chand, FIR No. 106/11, PS Pahar Ganj Page No. 32 appoint to be postmortem in nature. Approximate time since death was opined as eight days from the date of examination. His detailed report is EX PW 22/A(running into 14 pages) bearing his signatures and the signatures of Dr. Mukesh and of Dr. Pardeep Yadav which he identify having seen him while writing and signing during course of his official duties. He has further deposed that he has mentioned details of the articles which were handed over to the Investigating Officer separately. (35) He has further deposed that on 28.06.2011 on the directions of the head of the department forensic medicines namely Dr. Yasodha Rani, he alongwith Dr. Mukesh Kumar and Dr. Pardeep Yadav conducted the postmortem on the decapitated body without the head of Layak Ram, S/o Singh Ram aged 45 years, male, R/o RZ123, A2, Block, Karampura Extension, Najafgarh, Delhi and the body was identified by Insp. Bijender Singh, brother Gyani Ram, brother in law Ram Mehar and nephew Chhotey Lal. The witness has also proved the detailed Postmortem Report which is Ex.PW5/A and has proved that after postmortem of the body, the clothes, piece of bone (half sternum) for DNA analysis, blood in gauze piece in the sealed parcels were handed over to the Investigating Officer with sample seal and he also preserved viscera in the sealed parcel and handed over the same to the Investigating Officer and he also signed inquest papers at points B i.e. site plan already Ex.PW5/B, seizure memo of tailor's label already Ex.PW3/A, seizure memo of blood stained shirt already Ex.PW5/C, seizure memo St. Vs. Roop Chand, FIR No. 106/11, PS Pahar Ganj Page No. 33 of sacks (Boriyan Taat) already Ex.PW5/D, seizure memo of slip pad already Ex.PW5/E, outpatient ticket already Ex.PW5/F, death report already Ex.PW5/G, Form 25(35) already Ex.PW5/G1 and already PW5/G2, copy of FIR is already Ex.PW5/G3 which runs into two pages, MLC is already Ex.PW5/H, statement of Ramphal is already Ex.PW5/J, statement of Balbir Singh is already Ex.PW5/K, dead body identification statement is already Ex.PW5/L, statement of Giani Ram is already Ex.PW5/M and already Ex.PW1/A i.e. body identification memo. (Total number of inquest papers are 35 pages). The witness has identified one underwear of green colour alongwith white Naada and a T Shirt/Vest which underwear with white Naada is Ex.P1 and the vest is Ex.P2. He has not been crossexamined by the Ld. Defence counsel, despite having being given an opportunity in this regard. (36) PW23 Dr. Mukesh Kumar, JR, Forensic Medicine, Lady Harding Medical College, Delhi has also proved the Postmortem conducted on the body part i.e. Head of Layak Ram S/o Singh Ram aged 45 years, male, R/o RZ123, A2, Block, Karampura Extension, Najafgarh, Delhi. According to him, the head was identified by Insp. Vijender Singh and his brothers Gyani Ram and Balbir Singh and the history given in the inquest report was on the head being recovered in a drain below a small bridge in front of Chotu Ram Polytechnic Institute Narela road on 30.06.2011. He has proved the detailed Postmortem St. Vs. Roop Chand, FIR No. 106/11, PS Pahar Ganj Page No. 34 Report which is Ex.PW22/A running into 14 pages bearing the signatures of Dr. Pradeep Yadav. He has proved having conducted the Postmortem on the body of Layak Ram without Head and the details Postmortem Report already Ex.PW5/A and has identified the various exhibits. He has not been crossexamined by the Ld. Defence counsel, despite having being given an opportunity in this regard. (37) PW30 Dr. Akash Jhanjee, Specialist Forensic Medicine, Aruna Asaf Ali Govt. Hospital, Delhi has deposed that on 03.07.2011 at 11:35 AM he conducted postmortem examination on the dead body of deceased Pawan Kumar Mittal, S/o Jugal Kishore brought by SI Rajender Dabas Police Station Old Delhi Railway Station and on external examination no injuries were seen on the body and on internal examination the following injuries were observed:
1. Head: Scalp was NAD. No fractures of skull bone were present.
Meninges were congested and brain was also congested.
2. Neck: Structures were intact.
3. Chest: Ribs were intact and both lungs were congested. Heart was NAD.
4. Abdomen and Pelvis : organs were congested, spleen was absent, stomach was containing around 150ml of reddish liquid material with pungent odour and walls were showing patchy hemorrhagic areas at places. Bowels loops were intact and contained gases and faeces at places, no fractures of pelvic bones present. Bladder was St. Vs. Roop Chand, FIR No. 106/11, PS Pahar Ganj Page No. 35 empty. Rectum was half full.
5. Spinal column was intact.
(38) He has proved that the opinion on cause of death was kept pending as viscera was preserved for chemical analysis. However, time since death was around 68 hours prior to receipt of the dead body in the mortuary and his detailed Postmortem Report in this regard is Ex.PW30/A. (39) On a specific question by Ld. APP for the state, the witness has deposed that it is difficult to give the cause of death since there were no external injuries on the body and the internal organs were congested suggestive of poisoning and hence it is on this background that he had withheld the report/ not given any opinion. The witness has not been crossexamined by the Ld. Defence counsel, despite having being given an opportunity in this regard.
(40) PW31 Dr. Harvinder Kaur has deposed that on 25.06.2011 unknown patient, male aged about 50 years was brought by Ct. Ravinder in the casualty department and Dr. Deepika examined the said patient vide MLC Ex.PW5/H bearing signatures of Dr. Deepika who declared the patient 'Brought Dead' which observations are present at encircled portion X to X1. The witness has not been crossexamined by the Ld. Amicus curiae, despite having being given an opportunity in this regard. St. Vs. Roop Chand, FIR No. 106/11, PS Pahar Ganj Page No. 36 FSL Experts:
(41) PW6 Indresh Kumar Mishra is the FSL expert who has deposed that on 04.07.2011, he alongwith Sh. Vikram Meena, Lab Attendant, were called at Police Station Pahar Ganj to inspect the vehicle Tata, Registration no. DL1LK8756, which was kept at Police Station Pahar Ganj and also for inspecting the scene of crime at Factory No. 2250, Agar Nagar Moad, Nithari village, Police Station Aman Vihar, Delhi. He has further deposed that according to the police, one Layak Ram was murdered by accused persons at the said scene of crime and the said vehicle was used by the accused persons for shifting the body from the place of incident to other places. According to him, the said vehicle and the scene of crime were examined thoroughly for the presence of blood and other biological clue material in the presence of SHO and other police officials and blood or any other biological clue material could not be detected in the said vehicle but few blood spots were detected on the floor of the office type room at scene of crime. He has further deposed that blood stains were lifted, prepared and handed over to the police for onward transmission to FSL for further examination. He has further deposed that he prepared his detailed report as Ex.PW6/A. (42) In his crossexamination, the witness has deposed that he received written request letter of SHO Police Station Pahar Ganj for inspection of the vehicle and scene of crime and he has also brought the said letter that day. He has further deposed that he received the said letter St. Vs. Roop Chand, FIR No. 106/11, PS Pahar Ganj Page No. 37 at about 3.30 PM and they left the office at about 4.00 PM. According to him first of all they reached at Police Station Pahar Ganj and inspected the said vehicle and thereafter they went to Aman Vihar i.e. scene of crime, as mentioned in his examination in chief. He did not count the number of police officials, who were present and met him, and also did not count the number of police officials, who were present and met him.
He has stated that the SHO was very much present there and has denied that he never inspected the vehicle or visited or inspected the scene of crime.
(43) PW49 Ms. Manisha Upadhyaya has deposed that on 08.09.2011 eleven parcels were received in their office out of which ten were sealed with the seal BS and FMT LHMC and one was in unseal condition and same were marked to her for examination. He has further deposed that she examined all the above said parcels and gave her Biological report which is Ex.PW49/A. According to her, in the biological report blood was detected on exhibit 1 (gauze cloth piece), 2 (pieces of cemented material), 4 ( mattresses), 5a(Tshirt), 5b (underwear), 6(gauze cloth piece), 7a (two plastic bags), 7b(polythene bag), 9a (bed sheet), 9b (blanket), 9c (angocha), 9d (pyajama), 10 (shirt), 11(jute bags), 12 (gauze cloth piece) and blood could not be detected on exhibit 3 ( pieces of cemented material i.e. control). She has further deposed that she also examined the above said exhibits serologically and gave her serological examination report which is Ex.PW49/B according St. Vs. Roop Chand, FIR No. 106/11, PS Pahar Ganj Page No. 38 to which human blood was detected on all the exhibits and human blood of B group was detected on exhibit 5a,(Tshirt), 5b(underwear), 9a(bed sheet) and 9d(pyajama). The witness has not been crossexamined by the Ld. Amicus Curiae, despite having being given an opportunity in this regard.
Nodal Officers:
(44) PW4 Sanjeev Lakra, is the Alternative Nodal Officer, Reliance Communications Ltd. and had produced the original Customer Application Form (CAF) in respect of mobile number 7428879336 which according to him is registered in the name of Satish Kohli S/o H. S. Kohli R/o 121, GH14, MIG Flats, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi whose photocopy is Ex.PW4/A. He has deposed that as per application form, copy of voter Icard was also provided by the customer and as per the voter Icard, the address of the applicant is mentioned as 1121, GH14, MIG Flats, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi as Ex.PW5/B. He has further deposed that he had also brought the computer generated call detail record/CDR of the said mobile from 01.06.2011 to 26.06.2011 as Ex.PW4/C and the certificate u/s 65 B of Indian Evidence Act regarding the correctness of the computer generated record as Ex.PW4/D. He has further deposed that during the course of the investigations, the record was also provided to the IO. He has not been crossexamined by the Ld. Defence counsel, despite being given an opportunity in this regard. St. Vs. Roop Chand, FIR No. 106/11, PS Pahar Ganj Page No. 39 (45) However, at the stage of arguments it was pointed out by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State that Sh. Sanjeev Lakra (PW4) Alternative Nodal Officer from Reliance Communications Ltd. has placed on record the wrong Customer Application Form in respect of Satish Kohli S/o H. S. Kohli R/o 121, GH14, MIG Flats, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi.
Therefore, pursuant to the application of the Ld. Addl. PP for the State the Nodal Officer from Reliance Communications i.e. Sh. Rajeev Sarda was recalled and was examined as PW4A. He has proved that the mobile No. 7428879336 was issued in the name of Pawan Kumar S/o Sh. Jugal Kishore, R/o House No. 392/2, Shankar Garden, Line Paar, Gali No.7, Bahadurgarh, Jhajjar Haryana having local address as Agar Nagar, Mubarakpur, New Delhi vide Customer Application Form Ex.PW4A/A and copy of Driving License and PAN Card in support of residence proof is Ex.PW4A/B. He has also placed on record the call detail record/ CDR of the said mobile from 01.06.2011 to 26.06.2011 which are Ex.PW4A/C and the certificate u/s 65 B of Indian Evidence Act is Ex.PWA4/D. (46) PW34 Sh. Sunil Kumar, Assistant General Manager from MTNL has proved that Mobile no.9968560096 has been issued in the name Sunita Devi W/o Layak Ram R/o 1458, Dharampura, Najafgarh, New Delhi vide Customer Application Form which is Ex.PW34/A and identification proof i.e. election I Card is Ex.PW34/B. St. Vs. Roop Chand, FIR No. 106/11, PS Pahar Ganj Page No. 40 He has further proved the declaration of the customer which is Ex.PW34/C, call details of the above mobile phone from 05.06.23011 to 25.06.2011 which are Ex.PW34/D (7 pages), the certificate under Section 65 B of Indian Evidence Act regarding the above said call details which are Ex.PW34/E and the Location Chart of the above phone number is Ex.PW34/F. The witness has not been crossexamined by the Ld. Amicus curiae, despite having being given an opportunity in this regard.
Police/ Official Witnesses:
(47) PW7 Ct. Manish has deposed that on 30.06.2011, he was posted as photographer, Mobile Crime Team, Outer District, and on that day, he alongwith Mobile Crime Team went to Kanjhawala Ghevara Road, in front of Chhotu Ram Polytechnic i.e. at the scene of crime and one head was recovered there and he took the photographs from different angles, as per the direction of IO. He has further deposed that he had brought 14 negatives of the photographs which were taken by him and are Ex.PW7/A1 to PW7/A14 the negatives of which are Ex.PW7/B1 to PW7/B14.
(48) In his crossexamination, the witness has deposed that there was hard sand at the scene of crime, and has further deposed that he does not remember if any footprints were present near the place of occurrence.
St. Vs. Roop Chand, FIR No. 106/11, PS Pahar Ganj Page No. 41 (49) PW8 Ct. Dinesh Kumar has deposed that on 25.06.2011, he was posted as a Photographer in the Mobile Crime Team, Central District and on that day, he alongwith Mobile Crime Team went to Footpath, near urinal in between Central Park and Income Tax Parking, Jhandewalan, New Delhi at about 8.10 AM i.e. at the scene of crime. He has further deposed that one headless body was lying there and he took the photographs from different angles, as per the direction of IO. He has further deposed that he had brought 18 negatives of the photographs, which were taken by him are as Ex.PW8/B1 to PW8/B18. The witness has not been crossexamined by the Ld. Defence counsel, despite having being given an opportunity in this regard.
(50) PW9 Ct. Om Prakash has deposed that on 25.06.2011 he was posted as Duty Constable at Lady Harding Medical College Hospital and on that day on headless dead body was brought in the hospital and after preparation of MLC, the shirt was removed from the dead body and it was handed over to SI Rakesh and he kept the said shirt in a transparent plastic jar for investigation. According to him, the shirt was having a label mark of a Tailor on the collar of the shirt, namely Descent Tailor, Dharampura, and the mobile number of Tailor was also mentioned on the label and the shirt was seized vide memo Ex.PW5/C. (51) The witness has correctly identified the shirt of white colour, having blood stains on it and the shirt was having label of Descent St. Vs. Roop Chand, FIR No. 106/11, PS Pahar Ganj Page No. 42 Dharampura Mob. Number 9210874052 which is Ex. P3. The witness has not been crossexamined by the Ld. Defence counsel, despite having being given an opportunity in this regard.
(52) PW10 HC Ami Lal has deposed that on 01.08.2011 he was posted as MHCM at Police Station Aman Vihar and on that day HC Gayakwar deposited nine sealed parcels vide RC no. 79/21 which were brought from Police Station Pahar Ganj and he has made entry in this regard at Sl. No. 945/1 in register no. 19. He has further deposed that he had brought the original register, containing the said entry and photocopy of the same is Ex.PW10/A. (53) He has further deposed that on the same day he also deposited case property vide madd nos. 3039, 3341, 3042, 3068 and three sealed parceled and three sample seals and he has brought the case property vide RC no. 80/21 and he has made entry to this effect at Sl. No. 945 in register no. 10 and photocopy of the said entry is Ex.PW10/B. (54) He has further deposed that on the same day, he has also brought the case property from Police Station old Delhi, railway Station vide RC No. 35/21 and deposited the same with him and there were three sealed parcels and three sample seals and he made entry in this regard at Sl. No. 946 in register no. 19 and photocopy of the said entry is Ex.PW10/C. He has further deposed that on 08.09.2011 some of the case property was sent to FSL Rohini through HC Gayakwar vide RC No. 133/21 and he made entry in this regard at point X on Ex.PW10/A. He St. Vs. Roop Chand, FIR No. 106/11, PS Pahar Ganj Page No. 43 has further deposed that on 12.09.2011 some of the case property was sent to FSL Rohini through Ct. Amit Kumar for DNA Analysis vide RC no. 139/21 and he made an entry in this regard at point Y on Ex.PW10/B. He has also deposed that 15.09.2011 some of the case property was sent to FSL Rohini through Ct. Ravinder vide RC No. 143/21 and he made entry in this regard at point Z on Ex.PW10/B and on the same day he also sent the Madd no. 946 to FSL Rohini through Ct.
Ravinder vide RC No. 143/21 and entry in this regard was made at point Z1 on Ex.PW10/C. He has further deposed that on 25.11.2011 eleven sealed parcels, duly sealed with the seal of FSL were deposited by Ct. Jitender alongwith result and he made entry in this reagrd at point X1 on Ex.PW10/A and he has further deposed that DNA result and viscera result were still awaited. The witness has also produced the RC register, containing RC Nos. 133/21 and 143/21 alongwith the receipt of FSL that day and photocopy of RC No. 133/21 is Ex.PW10/D, photocopy of receipt of FSL is Ex.PW10/E, copy of RC no. 143/21 is Ex.PW10/F and copy of receipt issued by FSL is Ex.PW10/G. (55) In his crossexamination by the Ld. defence counsel, the witness has denied that the entries were manipulated at the instance of IO. He has further denied that no such case property was deposited with him. He has further denied that case property was tampered with at the Malkhana or that he is deposing falsely.
St. Vs. Roop Chand, FIR No. 106/11, PS Pahar Ganj Page No. 44 (56) PW11 SI Prem Singh has deposed that on 30.06.2011 he was posted as Incharge, Mobile Crime Team, Outer District and on 30.06.2011 he received information from the Control Room to reach near Sir Chhotu Ram Technical Institute, KanjhawalaGhevara Road. According to him, he alongwith members of Mobile crime Team i.e. Ct. Chhote Khan, Finger Prints Proficient and Photograph Ct. Manish reached at the spot where police officials alongwith the Investigating Officer were already present. He has further deposed that the place of occurrence was the Naala across the Raod (KanjhawalaGhevara Road) where they inspected the scene of crime and the photographs and took the photographs of the scene of crime. He has further deposed that one human head in decomposed state was found inside a plastic green coloured sack alongwith greenish blanket, white Pyajama and white Angocha, one printed bed sheet, all were smeared with blood were lying there. He has further deposed denied that he prepared his detailed report as Ex.PW11/A and then Investigating Officer recorded his statement. (57) During the crossexamination by Ld. Defence counsel the witness has deposed that they inspected the scene of crime from 3.45 PM to 4.15 PM and they left the office of Crime Team at about 3.20 PM and reached the spot at about 3.45 PM. He has further deposed that no other articles, except the above said articles, as detailed in his report were recovered in his presence and after inspection he handed over his report to the Investigating Officer and thereafter they left the scene of crime. St. Vs. Roop Chand, FIR No. 106/11, PS Pahar Ganj Page No. 45 He has denied that he never visited the scene of crime, or that inspected the spot. He has further denied that he prepared a false report at the instance of IO, while sitting in their office. He has further denied that he was deposing falsely.
(58) PW12 SI Dhan Singh has deposed that on 25.06.2011 he was posted as Incharge, Mobile Crime Team, Central District and on that day he received information from the Control Room to reach at Footpath, near Urinal, in between Central Park and Income Tax Parking, Jhandewalan, New Delhi when he alongwith members of the Mobile Crime Team, i.e. ASI Pawan Kumar, Finger Prints Proficient and Photograph Ct. Dinesh reached at the spot where the police officials alongwith the Investigating Officer were already present. According to him, they inspected the Scene of Crime and the photographer took the photographs of the scene of crime where one headless body of a male was found lying near the scene of crime, which was having multiple injuries on it (stab injuries and pricks injuries on shoulders) and then he prepared his detailed report as Ex.PW12/A after which the Investigating Officer recorded his statement.
(59) In his crossexamination by the Ld. Defence counsel, the witness has deposed that they inspected the scene of crime from 8.10 AM to 8.45 AM and then they left the office of Crime Team at about 7.55 AM and reached the spot at about 8.10 AM. He has further deposed that no other articles, except the above said article, as detailed in his St. Vs. Roop Chand, FIR No. 106/11, PS Pahar Ganj Page No. 46 report were recovered in his presence and after inspection he handed over his report to the Investigating Officer and thereafter they left the Scene of Crime. He has further deposed that his movement was controlled by the Central Control Room and that is why he did not make any departure or arrival entry. He has denied that he never visited the scene of crime or inspected the spot. He has also denied that he prepared a false report at the instance of the Investigating Officer while sitting in their office. He has further denied that he was deposing falsely. (60) PW13 SI Jagroop has deposed that on 25.06.2011 he was posted at Police Station Pahar Ganj and on that day he was working as Duty Officer from 1:00 AM night to 9:00 AM and at about 7.25 AM he received information on telephone by an unknown person that one dead body lying near Urinal, Jhandewalan, New Delhi and he recorded DD No. 5 A and same was handed over to SI Rakesh through Ct. Yashpal for further investigation. The witness had brought original register containing DD No. 5A, and copy of the same is Ex.PW13/A. (61) During the crossexamination by Ld. Defence counsel, the witness has denied that no such information was received or that he prepared DD No. 5A at the instance of Investigating Officer to connect him with the case.
(62) PW14 Ct. Ravinder Singh has deposed that on 15.09.2011 he was posted at Police Station Aman Vihar as Ct. and on that day MHCM Ami Lal had handed over him five pulandas with FSL St. Vs. Roop Chand, FIR No. 106/11, PS Pahar Ganj Page No. 47 forwarding letter, all sealed, to be deposited at FSL Rohini in Chemistry Lab and he took the same to FSL Rohini vide RC No. 143/21/11 and he deposited the same and he took the acknowledgment and handed over the same MHCM. He has further deposited that so far as the pulandas remained in his possession, they were not tempered with. The witness has not been crossexamined by the Ld. Defence counsel, despite having being given an opportunity in this regard.
(63) PW15 Ct. Amit Kumar has deposed that on 12.09.2011, he was posted at Police Station Aman Vihar and on that day MHCM handed over him three pulandas duly sealed with a forwarding letter to be deposited the same at FSL Rohini in DNA Division and handed over the acknowledgment of the same to MHCM and till the said pulandas remained in his possession they were not tampered with. The witness has not been crossexamined by the Ld. Defence counsel, despite having being given an opportunity in this regard.
(64) PW16A HC Gaikwad M.A. had deposed that on 08.09.2011 he was posted at Police Station Aman Vihar and on that day MHCM handed over him eleven pullandas out of which ten were duly sealed and one was unsealed with a forwarding letter to be depositing the same at FSL Rohini vide RC No. 133/21/11 and he deposited the same at FSL Rohini and handed over the acknowledgment of the same to MHCM. He has further deposited that till the said pullandas remained in his possession, they were not tampered with. The witness has not been St. Vs. Roop Chand, FIR No. 106/11, PS Pahar Ganj Page No. 48 crossexamined by the Ld. Defence counsel, despite having being given an opportunity in this regard.
(65) PW16 SI Vinay Kumar has deposed that on 03.06.2011 he was posted at Police Station Pahar Ganj and at around 11 AM and was informed by the Duty Officer that he had been called by SHO Inspector Bijender Singh in regard to investigation of the case. He has further deposited he joined investigation with Inspector Bijender Singh at around 11.30 am, while they were searching for the accused in the area of Nangloi and Najafgarh when they received a secret informer at about 1 PM that the accused Roop Chand had come from the Vaishno Devi and was about to flee and come to Mundka Metro Station and if they could reach there immediately, he could be apprehended. According to him, on his instruction, he alongwith the other staff members, namely HC Ashok, Ct. Aizaz Ali, Ct. Sanjay, Ct. Sanjeev alongwith secret informer and inspector Bijender Singh went to Mundka Metro Station and at around 1.50 pm, the secret informer pointed towards a man around 50 years old, who carried a bag on his shoulder and he was apprehended with the help of staff members. On inquiry, he disclosed his name as Roop Chand. He has deposed that on interrogation by the IO, the accused admitted his involvement in the case after which he was arrested vide memo Ex.PW16/A and his personal search was also conducted vide memo Ex.PW16/B and Investigating Officer recorded the disclosure statement of the accused vide memo Ex.PW16/C. Thereafter the accused led them St. Vs. Roop Chand, FIR No. 106/11, PS Pahar Ganj Page No. 49 to the spot from where he got recovered belonging to the deceased and pointing out memo is Ex.PW16/D. He has further deposed that thereafter, the accused led them to Agar Nagar Mod i.e. the spot and pointing out in this regard is Ex.PW16/E and the accused had got recovered a Tata Ace Vehicle no. DL1LK8756 and seizure memo in this regard is Ex.PW16/G and the blood stained clothes were seized vide memo Ex.PW16/H. According to him, on formal search of the accused, two mobile phones were recovered, one was of make Spice, dual Sim mobile phone and one phone make samsung, one key of Tata Ace Vehicle no. DL1LK8756 and railway tickets were seized vide memo Ex.PW16/J and thereafter the accused led them in between to Central Park and Income Tax Parking, opposite Videocon Tower, Jhandewalan, New Delhi. There he pointed out the place near toilet at pavment, where the torso was allegedly thrown and pointing out memo is Ex.PW16/F. (66) He has further deposed that on 30.07.2011 he again jointed the investigation of this case. Ct. Ravinder produced a sealed pullanda with seal of FMT, LHMC, allegedly carrying DNA sample of the deceased and seized the same vide memo Ex.PW16/K in his handwriting and thereafter Investigating Officer recorded his statement. (67) He has identified the accused Roop Chand in the Court and also identified the case property i.e. mobile phones, one of spice, model no. QT60 and another of Samsung, Reliance which phones are Ex.P4 St. Vs. Roop Chand, FIR No. 106/11, PS Pahar Ganj Page No. 50 and Ex.P5, one key mentioning Mahendra J on it which is Ex. P6, two platform tickets tickets and two journey tickets from Amritsar to Delhi which are collectively Ex. P7; blanket which is Ex.P9, bed sheet which is Ex.P10, Pyajama which is Ex.P11 and the Angochha which is Ex.P12. He has also identified the vehicle i.e. TATA ACE and its four photographs which are EX P15a, EX P15b, EX P15c and EX P15d. It was pointed out by Ld. Defence counsel that the number plate was not visible in the photograph but it was observed by the court that both the number plates were present on the vehicle bearing No. DL1LK8756 which number was also written on both the sides of the body, the vehicle in question being a carrier vehicle.
(68) In his crossexamination by the Ld. Amicus Curiae for accused Roop Chand, the witness has deposed that he came to the Police Station at 9:30 AM on 30.06.2011 and he received information to join investigations at about 11:30 AM thereafter they left Police Station immediately after 57 minutes and departure entry was made by the Investigating Officer but he does not recollect it's number as they were in government gypsy. He has stated that the secret informer met them at Nangloi but he is unable to tell the exact place, road etc. The witness has further deposed that secret information was conveyed to the Investigating Officer in his presence and they reached at Mundka Metro Station at about 1:30 PM. He has admitted that many public persons were present at the Metro station but Investigating Officer did not ask any public St. Vs. Roop Chand, FIR No. 106/11, PS Pahar Ganj Page No. 51 person to join the Investigations in his presence. He has further deposed that the secret informer was with the Investigating Officer near the metro parking but the secret informer did not pointed towards the accused in his presence. He has admitted that he has stated in his statement that secret informer pointed towards the informer in his presence and none of the police official had apprehended the accused but all of them had encircled him but states that he does not remember as to how many police officials were in uniform and how many were in civil. He has further deposed that he did not remember regarding the weapons carried by the police officials. He has further deposed that accused was arrested at about 2:30 PM and the Investigating Officer did not call any public person to join investigations at the time of arrest also. He has further deposed that they remained at the Metro Station for about 1 ½ hours and the disclosure statement of the accused was recorded while sitting on a patri near the Metro Station Parking and it took about 45 minutes in recording the same.
(69) He has further deposed that they reached the place of recovery of blood stained clothes at Ghewra Road, in front of Sir Chotu Ram polytechnic at about 3:30 PM but the Investigating Officer did not inform the local Police Station regarding their arrival in his presence and also did not call any person from Sir Chotu Ram polytechnic to join the investigations and has clarified that no public person was present there. He has admitted that the road near the place of recovery was having a St. Vs. Roop Chand, FIR No. 106/11, PS Pahar Ganj Page No. 52 heavy traffic movement. He has further deposed that the crime team came to the spot after 2030 minutes of their arrival and the writing work was done while standing on the road. He has stated that it took about 1 ½ hours in the writing work and they remained at the spot for about two hours. He has further deposed that the distance between the head of the dead body and the blood stained clothes was about 1012 feet and they left the spot at about 5:30 PM. He has further deposed that he cannot tell the time consumed in the preparation of pullanda and has voluntarily explained said that he had not prepared the same and that is why he cannot tell.
(70) He has further deposed that they reached the factory within 1520 minutes and has admitted that there were other factories and residential houses adjoining the factory where they reached. He has further deposed that no public person had stopped there on seeing the police party and has voluntarily added that the public persons were coming and going whereas the owner of the factory was sitting in front of his house which is situated near the factory and the vehicle was parked at a distance of 2025 steps from the gate of the factory. He has further deposed that he did not know whether the vehicle was locked or in an unlock position. He has further deposed that Investigating Officer did not obtain any finger prints from the vehicle on that day and also did not know by whom this vehicle was brought to the Police Station. He has stated that they reached at Uttranchal Dhaba at about 7:30 PM and St. Vs. Roop Chand, FIR No. 106/11, PS Pahar Ganj Page No. 53 remained at the dhaba for about one hour and thereafter the Investigating Officer recorded the statement of Dhaba owner at the dhaba itself. He has further deposed that they reached Jhandewalan at about 9:30 PM and does not know who accompanied the accused for his medical examination. He has further deposed that he did not recollect the mode by which the accused was taken for his medical examination at Lady Harding Hospital and stated that his statement was recorded by the Investigating Officer at Police Station at about 11:30 PM. (71) He has denied that he did not join the investigations of this case and he has denied that the accused was not arrested in the manner as stated by him or that he was lifted he was lifted from his house situated at JJ colony, Swadha, Khanjhawla and falsely implicated in this case. He has denied that accused did not make any disclosure statement or that the alleged recovery of blood stained clothes were planted upon him. He has denied that the head of the dead body was found unclaimed. He has denied that accused did not pointed out the places as shown by the IO. He has denied that accused was falsely implicated in this case to solve a blind murder case. He has denied that he was deposing falsely at the instance of the IO.
(72) PW20 Ct. Ravinder has deposed that on 25.06.2011 he was posted at Police Station Pahar Ganj and on that day he alongwith SI Rakesh were on emergency duty and they went to Shauchalaya, near Videocon Tower in a Park in between Central Park Income Tax St. Vs. Roop Chand, FIR No. 106/11, PS Pahar Ganj Page No. 54 Department Parking, Jhandewalan, New Delhi where the body of a male was lying in decapitated condition. According to him, the Investigating Officer called the Crime Team. The body was having blood stained shirt, having four button on it having logo of Decent Tailors and then Investigating Officer took the search of body and the body was sent to Mortuary of Lady Harding Hospital, through him and thereafter, the doctor handed over the sealed pulanda of the shirt of the deceased and handed over it to the Duty Constable Om Prakash, who further handed over the same to the IO, which was seized by the Investigating Officer vide memo Ex.PW5/C and thereafter, Investigating Officer got developed the print of CCTC Footage of Indian Bank ATM, which was seized vide memo Ex.PW20/A and the prints of CCTV footage is collectively Mark A. (73) He has further deposed that again on 04.07.2011 he was directed by SHO and he was given a letter, addressed to the Director, FSL, Rohini, Delhi and thereafter he went to the office of FSL, Rohini, Delhi and he handed over the said letter to the Director, FSL. He has further deposed that on receiving the letter, the Director, FSL, Delhi deputed a team of FSL, who accompanied him on which he alongwith the FSL Team, reached the Police Station Pahar Ganj where the Incharge of FSL Team, inspected the Tata Ace Vehicle No. DK1LK8756, being parked in the compound of Police Station Pahar Ganj and Incharge of FSL, examined the said vehicle and thereafter, the FSL team reached at St. Vs. Roop Chand, FIR No. 106/11, PS Pahar Ganj Page No. 55 Factory no. 2250, Nithari Village, Delhi from where the Incharge of FSL Team lifted blood on a white filter paper from the room situated inside the said factory. According to him, Investigating Officer of the case was also present and after lifting the blood from that room, Investigating Officer converted the same into pulanda and sealed with the seal of BS and seized the same vide memo Ex.PW20/B and Investigating Officer recorded his statement.
(74) In his crossexamination by the Ld. Defence Counsel, the witness has deposed that departure entry was made, while leaving the Police Station to FSL, but it's number he does not remember and he is also not aware of the position of body as only it's feet were visible. He has denied that to suggest that he did not join any investigation of this case, or that he never visited FSL, or that no direction was issued to him by the SHO to visit FSL, or that no seizure was prepared in his presence, or that all the proceedings were done while sitting in the PS. He has denied that he was deposing falsely on the instance of IO. (75) PW21 Harbans Lal Mann has deposed that in the year 2011, he was posted as Sr. Manager at Punjab National Bank, Najafgarh, New Delhi. He has further deposed that he was served upon a notice on 06.09.2011 from Police Station Aman Vihar and in compliance of that notice, he produced the required information i.e. statement of account dated 25.06.2011 which is Ex.PW12/A. He has further deposed that he had brought the computerized statement of Account No. St. Vs. Roop Chand, FIR No. 106/11, PS Pahar Ganj Page No. 56 1519000100124376 and had also submitted the certificate under Section 65 B of Indian Evidence Act, regarding electronic record of said statement of account which is Ex.PW21/B. He has also placed on record the Current Statement of said account which is Ex.PW21/C. (76) In his crossexamination by Amicus Curiae for the accused, the witness had deposed that as the withdrawal was made from ATM, as per their record and therefore, it cannot be ascertained, as to by whom the amount, was withdrawn.
(77) PW24 SI Manohar Lal in his affidavit as examination in chief has deposed that on 30.08.2011 on the request of Inspector Anil Kumar, SHO of Police Station Aman Vihar, Delhi he visited the Police Station Aman Vihar, Delhi and on that day he took the rough notes of three places i.e. Pharganj, from where the headless dead body was recovered, Ghewra, Narela Road, near Sir Chootu Ram polytechnic Institute, Kanjhawala, Delhi from where the head of the deceased and other material was recovered, Agar Nagar, Prem Nagar, Nangloi, Delhi factory of Pawan Mittal @ Bittu where the deceased was killed. According to the witness after preparation of scaled site plan of all the three places have been handed over to the investigating officer. Witness has further deposed that all the site plans were prepared on the pointing out of SI Vinay Kumar of Police Station Paharganj, Delhi and on 12.09.2011 his statement was recorded by the investigating officer in Police Station Aman Vihar, Delhi. He has been crossexamined by the St. Vs. Roop Chand, FIR No. 106/11, PS Pahar Ganj Page No. 57 Ld. Amicus Curiae but nothing much has come out of the same. (78) PW25 Ct. Takdir in his affidavit as examination in chief has deposed that on 21.07.2011 he was posted as a constable at Police Station Aman Vihar, Delhi and on that day Inspector Anil Kumar SHO of Police Station Aman Vihar, was handed over a notice U/s 91 Cr. P.C. with the directions to serve the same upon Smt. Sunita W/o Layak Ram (deceased), R/o House No. 123, A2 block, Dharampura, Delhi. Witness has further deposed that on that day he went to the above said given address, where brother of deceased Sh. Balbir Sigh met him who refused to receive the notice and told that they are not having any document written by the deceased Layak Ram and he submitted his report to the investigating officer. According to the witness his statement was recorded by the investigating officer on 20.09.2011. The witness has not been crossexamined by the Ld. Defence counsel, despite having being given an opportunity in this regard.
(79) PW26 Ct. Sandeep in his affidavit as examination in chief has deposed that on 26.07.2011 he was posted at Police Station Aman Vihar as a constable and on that day on the directions of SHO of Police Station Aman Vihar, namely Inspector Anil Kumar, he brought the inquest file of deceased namely Pawan Mittal @ Bittu S/o Sh. Jugal Kishore from old Delhi Railway Station vide RC No. 57/21/2011 dated 26.07.2011 and handed over the same to Inspector Anil Kumar. St. Vs. Roop Chand, FIR No. 106/11, PS Pahar Ganj Page No. 58 (80) During the crossexamination by Ld. Amicus Curiae for the accused the witness has admitted that he did not know the contents of the said file and he has only brought the same from Police Station Old Delhi Railway Station and handed over the same to the IO.
(81) PW27 HC Kailash in his affidavit as examination in chief has deposed that on 25.06.2011 he was posted at Police Station Paharganj, Delhi as a head constable and was working as duty officer from 9 AM to 5PM and on that day at about 10:30 AM he received a tehrir through Ct. Yashpal No. 1806/C from SI Rakesh. Witness has further deposed that on the basis of tehrir he got registered a case vide its FIR No. 106/2011 dated 25.06.2011 U/s 302/201 IPC and he also recorded Kayami of this case vide DD No. 10A and 11 A dated 25.06.2011 and thereafter the original tehrir and computerized FIR were handed over to Ct. Yashpal No. 1806/C and he send the copies of FIR through special messenger Ct. Vijay Pal No. 1351/C to senior officers and the concerned court. He has proved the DD No. 10 A and 11 A dated 25.06.2011 which are Ex.PW27/A and Ex.PW27/B respectively. He has also proved the original tehrir which is Ex.PW13/A and computer copy of FIR which is Ex.PW5/G3.
(82) The witness HC Kailash was recalled for examination for purposes of clarifications on the endorsement made by him on the Tehrir, wherein he has clarified that on 25.06.2011, he was posted at Police Station Aman Vihar and was posted as Duty Officer and he made St. Vs. Roop Chand, FIR No. 106/11, PS Pahar Ganj Page No. 59 his endorsement upon the tehrir Ex.PW4/A and his signatures were present on the same at point A and his endorsement is encircled B. (83) In his crossexamination by Ld. Amicus Curiae for the accused the witness has deposed that it took him half an hour to record DD No. 10A and DD No. 11 A and also the FIR and he did not make the computer entry. He voluntarily said that the computer entry was made by computer operator Ct. Bhupender. He has further deposed that he handed over the copy of the FIR and the original tehrir to Ct. Yashpal at 11:05 AM. He has denied that entires have been made by him is ante dated and ante timed.
(84) PW28 Ct. Vijay Pal in his affidavit as examination in chief, has deposed that on 25.06.2011 he was working as constable in Police Station Paharganj, Delhi and he performed duty as a Special Messenger in this case. According to the witness on 25.06.2011 he received the copies of the FIR from duty officer HC Kailash to hand over the same to concerned court and senior officers on government motorcycle bearing No. DL1SS3385. Witness has further deposed that due to some error her departure was little delayed from Police Station and he handed over the copies of FIR to the ACMM and senior officers and returned back at about 3 PM in Police Station Paharganj. According to the witness due to the clutch problem in his motorcycle, he arrived at about 3 PM. (85) During the crossexamination by Ld. Amicus Curiae for the accused, the witness has deposed that the clutch wire of his motorcycle St. Vs. Roop Chand, FIR No. 106/11, PS Pahar Ganj Page No. 60 had broken on account of which he got delayed in taking the FIRs to the senior officers and the motorcycle in question was official. He has further deposed that he did not make the entry in the log book relating to the motorcycle regarding the clutch wire being broken and he had left the Police Station between 1111:30 AM. He has further deposed that he had made his departure entry in the rojnamcha but the does not recollect the number of the same. He has further deposed that he had mentioned in the departure entry that the clutch wire had been broken. He has denied that the delay had occurred as the recording of the FIR has been delayed and it is only to justify this delay that he was deposing falsely on the tutoring of the senior officers.
(86) PW29 Ct. Sanjay Kumar in his affidavit as examination in chief has deposed that on 30.06.2011 he was working as constable in the Police Station Paharganj, Delhi and he along with investigating officer Inspector Bijender Singh SHO Police Station Paharganj, Delhi with other staff were remained present during the course of investigation at recovery place i.e. under pulia, near Sir Chhotu Ram Polytechnic Institute, Village Ghewra, Narela road near Village Ghewra, Delhi Police Station Kanjhawala, Delhi. According to the witness on the directions of the Investigating Officer, he had taken the recovered head of deceased namely Layak Ram in highly decomposed condition with request letter to preserve the same in mortuary LHMC hospital, Delhi. St. Vs. Roop Chand, FIR No. 106/11, PS Pahar Ganj Page No. 61 (87) During the crossexamination by Ld. Amicus Curiae for the accused the witness has deposed that he had reached the spot along with the Investigating Officer after 12 noon and he remained at the spot for about 23 hours and he did not sign any document at the spot and has voluntarily explained that he was only given a plastic katta containing the decapitated head recovered from the spot i.e. under the pullia Sir Chottu Ram polytechnic Institute, Narela road and directed to take the same to mortuary of the LHMC hospital along with the inquest papers and a request by the Investigating Officer to the CMO mortuary to preserve the head/body part. He has denied that he was not present at the spot i.e. near village Ghewra, Narela road Police Station Kanjhawala. (88) PW32 Sh. Subhash Chand Sakarwal, Deputy Manager, SBI Najafgarh Branch, Delhi has brought the summoned record i.e. statement of account in respect of account number 30032912575 of Mr. Layak Ram from 20.01.2006 till 29.07.2011 which is Ex.PW32/A, the relevant entries are encircled at point X1, X2, X3 and X4 all dated 24.06.2011 showing that a total sum of Rs. Forty Thousand i.e. Rs. Ten Thousand each were withdrawn from ATM of INDUSIND Bank, Pharaganj Branch by using the ATM card of the deceased. The witness has not been crossexamined by the Ld. Amicus curiae, despite having being given an opportunity in this regard.
St. Vs. Roop Chand, FIR No. 106/11, PS Pahar Ganj Page No. 62 (89) PW36 HC Satyabir Singh has deposed that on 30.06.2011 he was posted at Old Delhi Railway Station as constable and on that day at about 8:45 AM he noticed a dead body lying on the platform No. 3/5 at Old Delhi Railway Station and thereafter he send the information regarding the same to SI Rajender Dabas who was on duty at that time. According to him, he came to the spot and inspected the dead body and also the spot. He has further deposed that no injury marks could be observe on the body and body search was conducted in order to establish the identity of the body when a voter card was found in the pocket of the pant of the body on which name of Pawan S/o Jugal Kishore, R/o Line par, gali No. 7, Bahadurgarh, Haryana was mentioned and Rs. Four Thousand was also found in the pocket along with a suicide note and a strips of some tablets, four railway tickets, two of 28/06 and two of 29/06 of Ludhiana to Amritsar were also found. According to him, SI Rajender Dabas seized a suicide note, two torn papers, one receipt of New Maa Vaishno Palace and four railway tickets and 14 bus ticket of Haryana Roadways vide seizure memo Ex.PW36/A and SI Rajender sealed one strip of medicine and one strip of Brufen containing five tablets and one strip of PAN 40 containing two tablets and one more strip containing four tablets with the seal of RD and seized along with cash of Rs four thousand vide seizure memo Ex.PW36/B. He has further deposed that the dead body was then shifted from the railway station by SI Rajender Dabas and on the same day his statement was also recorded. He has St. Vs. Roop Chand, FIR No. 106/11, PS Pahar Ganj Page No. 63 further deposed that the suicide note is Ex.PW36/C and receipt of New Maa Vaishno Palace is Ex.PW36/D, two torn papers are collectively Ex.PW36/E, four railway tickets and 14 bus tickets of Haryana Roadways are collectively Ex.PW36/F; one strip of NICIP MR containing three tablets, one strip of Brufen 400 containing two tablets, one strip of PAN 40 containing one tablet, one strip of Dr. Reddiy's Nise, one strip of Granissiron Hydrochloride, one strip of one pink colored Vizylac, one strip of Ornof and one empty cut strips of Voveran which were recovered from the possession of the deceased which are collectively Ex.P13 and Rs. Four Thousand recovered from the possession of the dead body which are collectively Ex.P14. (90) In his crossexamination by Ld. Amicus Curiae for the accused, the witness had deposed that he had send the information to SI Rajender Dabas through a wireless set and the place where the dead body was lying is an open place with large number of public persons passing through the area and has voluntarily explained that nobody noticed the body. He has further deposed that the entire proceedings at the spot took about half an hour45 minutes.
(91) PW37 Ct. Pravesh has deposed that on 30.06.2011 he was posted as Constable at Police Station Old Delhi Railway Station and on that day on receipt of DD No.7A he alongwith SI Rajender Dabas reached platform No. 35, Old Delhi Railway Station where a dead body St. Vs. Roop Chand, FIR No. 106/11, PS Pahar Ganj Page No. 64 of a male aged about 3035 years was found lying between the two foot over bridges near the lift. He has further deposed that SI Rajender send information to the official photographer who came at the spot and took photographs and he thereafter conducted the body search of the dead body from which one suicide note, two slips bearing some name and address, eight medicine stripes containing some tablets and some of which were empty, Rs.4,000/, four railway ticket two of them were of 28.06.2011 from Chakki Bank to Ludhiana and two were of 29.06.2011from Ludhiana to Amritsar, 14 tickets of Haryana Road Ways Bus and one receipt of Maa Vaishno Palace, Jammu of Rs.500/ were found. He has further deposed that Investigating Officer converted all these articles into pullanda with the help of a cloth and sealed the same with the seal of RD. The witness has also deposed that SI Rajender Dabas seized suicide note, two torn papers, one receipt of New Maa Vaishno Palace and four railway tickets and 14 bus ticket of Haryana Roadways vide seizure memo Ex.PW36/A. He has further deposed that SI Rajender sealed one strip of medicine and one strip of Brufen containing five tablets and one strip of PAN 40 containing two tablets and one more strip containing four tablets with the seal of RD and seized along with cash of Rs. Four Thousand vide seizure memo Ex.PW36/B. He has further deposed that the dead body was then shifted from the railway station by SI Rajender Dabas and on the same day his statement was also recorded.
St. Vs. Roop Chand, FIR No. 106/11, PS Pahar Ganj Page No. 65 (92) The witness has identified the suicide note which is Ex.PW36/C; receipt of New Maa Vaishno Palace which is Ex.PW36/D; two torn papers are collectively Ex.PW36/E; four railway tickets and 14 bus tickets of Haryana Roadways which are collectively Ex.PW36/F; one strip of NICIP MR containing three tablets, one strip of Brufen 400 containing two tablets, one strip of PAN 40 containing one tablet, one strip of Dr. Reddiy's Nise, one strip of Granissiron Hydrochloride, one strip of one pink colored Vizylac, one strip of Ornof and one empty cut strips of Voveran which were recovered from the possession of the deceased which are collectively Ex.P13 and Rs. Four Thousand recovered from the possession of the dead body which are collectively Ex.P14.
(93) According to the witness, the dead body was then got shifted to Subzi Mandi Mortuary through Ct. Subhash whereas he was relieved from the spot. The witness has not been crossexamined by the Ld. Amicus curiae despite having being given an opportunity in this regard. (94) PW38 HC Mahipal is the MHCM from Police Station Paharganj who has been examined by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW38/1 wherein he has proved the various entries i.e. entry in register no. 19 vide Sr. No. 3025 copy of which is Ex.PW38/A, Sr. No. 3036 copy of which is Ex.PW38/B, Sr. No.3037 copy of which is Ex.PW38/C, Sr. No. 3039 copy of which is Ex.PW38/D, Sr. No. 3041 St. Vs. Roop Chand, FIR No. 106/11, PS Pahar Ganj Page No. 66 copy of which is Ex.PW38/E, Sr. No. 3042 copy of which is Ex.PW38/F, Sr. No. 3068 copy of which is Ex.PW38/G, entry in register no.21 vide RC No. 79/21/11 copy of which is Ex.PW38/H and RC No. 80/21/11 copy of which is Ex.PW38/I. (95) In his crossexamination by Ld. Amicus Curiae, the witness has deposed that Investigating Officer never deposit his seal in the malkhana. He has denied that he had antetimed the entries at the instance of the IO.
(96) PW39 ASI Pawan Kumar has deposed that on 25.06.2011 he was posted as Finger Print Expert at Mobile Crime Team, Center District, Delhi and at about 8 AM they received a call from control room Central district, they reached at scene of crime, i.e. footpath near public toilet between central park and income tax parking, where the dead body of a male person aged about 45 years without head was found. According to him, Investigating Officer and police officials of Police Station Paharganj were present there and thereafter he inspected the scene of crime and no articles fit for finger print examinations found on the crime scene so he did not lift any chance prints from the spot. He has further deposed that SI Dhan Singh was their Incharge who prepared the Crime Team Report. The witness has not been crossexamined by the Ld. Amicus Curiae, despite having being given an opportunity in this regard.
St. Vs. Roop Chand, FIR No. 106/11, PS Pahar Ganj Page No. 67 (97) PW40 SI Rajender Dabas has deposed that on 30.06.2011 he was posted as Sub Inspector at Police Station Old Delhi Railway Station and on that day on receipt of DD No.7A which is Ex.PW40/A, he alongwith Ct. Pravesh reached platform No. 35, Old Delhi Railway Station where a dead body of a male aged about 3035 years was lying between the two foot over bridges near the lift and thereafter he sent information to the official photographer who came at the spot and took photographs. He has further deposed that he also conducted the body search of the dead body from which one suicide note, two slips bearing the name of Pawan Kumar S/o Jugal Kishore R/o Bahadur Garh, Line Par, Gali no.7, Bahadur Garh, Haryana, eight medicine stripes containing some tablets and some of which were empty, Rs.4,000/, four railway tickets two of them were of 28.06.2011 from Chakki Bank to Ludhiana and two were of 29.06.2011 from Ludhiana to Amritsar, 14 tickets of Haryana Road Ways Bus and one receipt of Maa Vaishno Palace, Jammu of Rs.500/ were found. He has further deposed that he took all these articles into his possession and converted the same into pullanda with the help of a cloth and sealed the same with the seal of RD and the seal after use was handed over to Ct. Pravesh.
(98) He has further deposed that he seized suicide note, two torn papers, one receipt of New Maa Vaishno Palace and four railway tickets and 14 bus ticket of Haryana Roadways vide seizure memo Ex.PW36/A and he also sealed one strip of medicine and one strip of Brufen St. Vs. Roop Chand, FIR No. 106/11, PS Pahar Ganj Page No. 68 containing five tablets and one strip of PAN 40 containing two tablets and one more strip containing four tablets with the seal of RD and seized along with cash of Rs four thousand vide seizure memo Ex.PW36/B. He has identified the suicide note which is Ex.PW36/C, receipt of New Maa Vaishno Palace which is Ex.PW36/D, two torn papers which are collectively Ex.PW36/E; four railway tickets and 14 bus tickets of Haryana Roadways which are collectively Ex.PW36/F. According to him, he then got the dead body then shifted to the Mortuary of Subzi Mandi and made a request to the CMO Mortuary to preserve the dead body for 72 hours and thereafter he recorded the statement of Ct. Satbir and Ct. Pravesh at the spot and relieved them and went back to the Police Stationand deposited the case property in the Malkhana.
(99) He has further deposed that on 03.07.2011 he went to Subzi Mandi Mortuary alongwith the family members of the deceased i.e. his brother Ram Niwas and uncle Ram Kishore who identified the dead body as that of Pawan S/o Jugal Kishore vide memos Ex.PW40/B and Ex.PW40/C and thereafter he moved an application before the CMO, Mortuary for conducting the postmortem on the dead body of the deceased. He has further deposed that after the postmortem the dead body of Pawan was handed over to Ram Niwas vide memo Ex.PW40/D. After the postmortem the doctor handed over to him three sealed St. Vs. Roop Chand, FIR No. 106/11, PS Pahar Ganj Page No. 69 pullandas sealed with the seal of CMO, I/c AAA GH Subzi Mandi Mortuary, Delhi containing the viscera of the deceased, blood n gauze piece and clothes alongwith three sample seals. He has further deposed that he seized the same vide memo Ex.PW40/E and he then returned to the Police Stationand deposited the case property in the Malkhana. According to him, later he came to know that the deceased was accused in some other case and the case property was shifted to Police Station Aman Vihar.
(100) The witness has correctly identified one strip of NICIP MR containing three tablets, one strip of Brufen 400 containing two tablets, one strip of PAN 40 containing one tablet, one strip of Dr. Reddiy's Nise, one strip of Granissiron Hydrochloride, one strip of one pink colored Vizylac, one strip of Ornof and one empty cut strips of Voveran which were recovered from the possession of the deceased which are collectively Ex.P13 and Rs. Four Thousand recovered from the possession of the dead body which are collectively Ex.P14. The witness has not been crossexamined by the Ld. Amicus Curiae, despite having being given an opportunity in this regard.
(101) PW41 Ct. Chhotey Khan has deposed that on 30.06.2011 he was posted in the Mobile Crime Team, Outer District, Delhi and on that day at around 3:20 PM they received information and they were called at Chotu Ram Technical Institute, Ghewra road then he along with SI Prem Singh and photographer Ct. Manish reached at the spot St. Vs. Roop Chand, FIR No. 106/11, PS Pahar Ganj Page No. 70 where police of Police Station Paharganj were present there. According to him, they found the head of the male person in a highly decomposed position. He has further deposed that photographer took photographs. He has further deposed that there was no article to take the chance prints from the spot so he did not lift any chance prints from any articles at the spot. He has further deposed that SI Prem Singh prepared the crime team report. The witness has not been crossexamined by the Ld. Amicus Curiae, despite having being given an opportunity in this regard. (102) PW42 SI Anant Kiran has deposed that on 25.06.2011 he was posted at Police Station Paharganj and on that day he along with SHO Insp. Bijender Singh reached at the Central Park near the income tax parking Jhandewalan where SI Rakesh, Ct. Ravinder and Ct. Yashpal of Police Station Paharganj were already present. According to him, they found many gunny bags at near public toilet adjoining footpath between Central Park and the Parking of Income Tax Office at Jhandewalan, Paharganj, Delhi. He has further deposed that the legs of the human being were visible under the gunny bags and they checked the bags and found one dead body of a male person, aged about 4045 years without head and thereafter Insp. Bijender Singh called the crime team officers at the spot who reached at the spot and they conducted their proceedings and took photographs. He has further deposed that they tried their best for identification of the dead body but nobody could identify the same and the dead body was shifted to Lady Harding Medical College and St. Vs. Roop Chand, FIR No. 106/11, PS Pahar Ganj Page No. 71 Hospital. He has deposed that there were total 17 gunny bags and all the gunny bags were kept in a cloth pullanda and sealed with the seal of BS by the Investigating Officer who seized the same vide memo Ex.PW5/D. He has further deposed that SI Rakesh prepared the rukka and Ct. Yash Pal went to the Police Station for the registration of the FIR. According to the witness, Inspector Bijender Singh lifted the blood from the spot with the help of cotton and kept the same in a plastic container and sealed the same with the seal of BS and Inspector Bijender Singh also lifted blood stained cement portion of the foot path where the dead body was found, after breaking the same with the help of hammer and kept the same in a plastic container and sealed the same with the seal of BS. He has further deposed that Inspector Bijender also lifted the earth control cemented portion of foot path after breaking the same with the help of hammer and kept the same in a plastic container and sealed the same with the seal of BS and seized all the pullandas of containers vide memo Ex.PW42/A and meanwhile Ct. Yashpal reached at the spot and handed over copy of FIR and original rukka to Inspector Bijender Kumar. He has further deposed that SI Rakesh who had gone to the hospital on the direction of the IO, reached at the spot and handed over one plastic jar in unsealed condition, containing the blood stained shirt of the deceased to the Investigating Officer and there was "DecentDharampura" was written on the shirt with mobile number and MLC of the deceased to the Investigating Officer and thereafter Investigating Officer recorded St. Vs. Roop Chand, FIR No. 106/11, PS Pahar Ganj Page No. 72 statement of witnesses. He has further deposed that thereafter they returned back to the Police Station and Investigating Officer flashed the message regarding the dead body.
(103) He has further testified that on the same day at about 7.008.00PM he again joined the investigations with the Investigating Officer and one person namely Mahender Tailor of Decent came at the Police Station and the shirt of the deceased was shown to Mahender and he identified the shirt as stitched by him and thereafter they alongwith said Mahender reached at the Mortuary of the LHMC Hospital and the dead body of the deceased was shown to him but he could not identify the dead body. He has further deposed that Mahender produced his Tailor's slip mark to the Investigating Officer which was kept by the Investigating Officer in a plastic container and sealed the same with the seal of BS and seized the same vide memo Ex.PW3/A. According to the witness, on 28.06.2011 he again joined the investigations of this case with the Investigating Officer and reached at the Mortuary of LHMC Hospital where the postmortem of the deceased was conducted and after postmortem the dead body of the deceased was handed over to the relatives of the deceased vide Ex.PW1/B. (104) He has further deposed that on 05.07.2011 on the direction of the IO, he went to the mortuary of above said hospital and the doctor handed over the exhibits regarding the deceased of the postmortem conducted on 28.06.2011, one wooden box containing viscera of the St. Vs. Roop Chand, FIR No. 106/11, PS Pahar Ganj Page No. 73 deceased and one pullanda containing the clothes of the deceased and one sealed envelop containing the blood gauze piece of the deceased in sealed condition with the seal of the hospital with a sample seal to him and he handed over the same to the Investigating Officer who seized the same vide memo Ex.PW42/B. According to him, on the same day the Doctor also handed over the exhibits regarding the head of the deceased and he handed over one pullanda, four plastic jars in sealed condition with the seal of the hospital containing the plastic bags, tooth, soft tissues, maggots and soft tissues for DNA and sample seal to him which he handed over to the Investigating Officer who seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW42/C. He has further deposed that on 05.07.2011 Investigating Officer sealed the plastic jar containing the shirt of deceased after identification of the shirt belonging to the deceased, with the seal of BS and DD No.35A was recorded in this regard and also made entry in the register no. 19 in the malkhana. The witness has identified one shirt having blood stains having label of Decent Dharampura, mobile no. 9210874052 which is already Ex.P3. The witness has identified seventeen gunny bag pieces which are taken out same as recovered and seized at the spot in his presence. He has not been crossexamined by the Ld. Amicus Curiae, despite having being given an opportunity in this regard.
(105) PW43 SI Sumit Kumar has deposed that on 19.08.2011 he was posted at Police Station Aman Vihar and on that day on receipt of St. Vs. Roop Chand, FIR No. 106/11, PS Pahar Ganj Page No. 74 NBWs against the accused Shatrughan @ Shatru he alongwith Ct. Sanjeev left for the village of the accused i.e. Village Bhaisi, District Begusari, Bihar and they reached there on 23.08.2011. According to him, with the assistance of the local police a raid was made at the house of accused Shatrughan @ Shatru but he was not found present there and the NBWs could not be executed and thereafter they returned to Delhi on 27.08.2011. The witness has not been crossexamined by the Ld. Amicus Curiae, despite having being given an opportunity in this regard. (106) PW44 ASI Shiv Nath has deposed that on 05.12.2011 he was posted at Police Station Aman Vihar and he had been entrusted the process under section 82 and 83 Cr.PC for purposes of execution in respect of accused Shatrughan @ Shatru. According to him, he had taken the said process to the village of the accused i.e. Village Bhaisi, District Begusari, Bihar but the accused Shatrughan @ Shatru was not found at the house and one copy of the process was pasted outside the house of the accused adn one copy was pasted outside the Panchayat Ghar of the village. He has further deposed that one copy of the process was pasted on the court notice board and he recorded the statement of Shambhu Singh, upMukhiya of the village which is Ex.PW44/A, statement of Vipin Bihari Thakur, ExMukhiya of the village which is Ex.PW44/B and statement of Praduman Thakur, a villager is Ex.PW44/D and his report under section 82 Cr.PC is Ex.PW44/D. St. Vs. Roop Chand, FIR No. 106/11, PS Pahar Ganj Page No. 75 (107) He has further deposed that on 06.03.2012 he took the process under section 83 Cr.PC in respect of the accused Shatrughan @ Shatru and reached the Village Bhaisi, District Begusari, Bihar but he could not find any property worth attachment i.e. both movable and immovable and he recorded the statement of Rubi Devi, Mukhiyar of the village which is Ex.PW44/E, statement of Upender Paswan neighbour is Ex.PW44/F and statement of Shyam Thakur the ExMukhiya of the village, is Ex.PW44/G and his report on process under section 83 Cr.PC is Ex.PW44/H. The witness has not been crossexamined by the Ld. Amicus Curiae, despite having being given an opportunity in this regard. (108) PW45 Inspector K.P. Singh has deposed that on 28.06.2011 he was posted as Incharge of Police Post Sangtarasan, Police Station Paharganj and on that day on the directions of IO/SHO Insp. Bijender Singh he went to SBI Najafgarh Branch, old Roshanpura, Najafgarh, New Delhi and obtained the statement of the account of deceased Layak Ram from his account No. 30032912575 which is Ex.PW45/A. According to him, it is evident from the said statement that on 24.06.2011 four transaction of Rs. Ten Thousand each were made from Indusind Bank, situated at Motia Khan, Paharganj as reflected at point encircled X and thereafter he went to PNB Chhawla Stand,Thana Road, Najafgarh and obtained the statement of account of deceased of account No. 1519000100124376 for the period 25.06.2011 to 27.06.2011 St. Vs. Roop Chand, FIR No. 106/11, PS Pahar Ganj Page No. 76 which is Ex.PW21/C. He has explained that it is evident from the said statement of account that a large number of transactions had been made and the amount withdrawn from the debit card as reflected at point encircled X. He has further deposed that he handed over all the details to the SHO who seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW45/B and recorded his statement thereafter. The witness has not been cross examined by the Ld. Amicus Curiae, despite having being given an opportunity in this regard.
(109) PW47 SI Rakesh Kumar has deposed that on 25.06.2011 he was posted at Police Station Paharganj as SI and on that day on receipt of DD No. 5A which is Ex.PW13/A he along with Ct. Yashpal and Ct. Ravinder reached central park, income tax parking area where they found a dead body lying near a urinal which was covered with the help of gunny bags. According to him, on removal of the gunny bag, he saw that the body was headless/decapitated. He has further deposed that he immediately informed the SHO about the same who also reached the spot and SHO checked the body and informed the crime team who came to the spot and inspected the spot as well as the dead body. He has further deposed that Photographs were also taken and on the directions of the SHO, the dead body was removed to LHMC mortuary through Ct. Ravinder and thereafter he prepared the tehrir vide Ex.PW47/A bearing his endorsement vide Ex.PW47/B. He has further deposed that he then handed over the tehrir to Ct. Yashpal and directed him to take the same St. Vs. Roop Chand, FIR No. 106/11, PS Pahar Ganj Page No. 77 to the duty officer for registration of the case. According to him, the said document also bears the endorsement and signatures of HC Kailash Chand already at point A. He has further deposed that thereafter on the directions of the SHO he went to LHMC hospital and moved an application before CMO Mortuary for preserving the body for 72 hours. He has further deposed that he also obtained the MLC of the deceased and thereafter Ct. Om Parkash who was already present in the hospital handed over to him a shirt in an unseal condition which had been handed over to him by the doctor stating that it was the shirt which was found present on the body of the deceased and since there was a tag on the same hence it would helpful for identification of the body. He has further deposed that he kept the shirt in an open plastic jar and seized the same vide memo Ex.PW5/C and thereafter he returned to the spot along with the seizure memo, MLC and shirt and handed over the same to the SHO. According to the witness, he remained with the SHO during the investigations and the SHO had lifted the blood sample, earth control, blood stained cemented footpath and gunny bags and converted the same into various pullandas and seized the same. He has proved the seizure memo blood, blood stained earth control which is Ex.PW42/A and seizure memo of gunny bags which is Ex.PW5/D and thereafter he returned to the Police Stationwhere his statement was recorded. (110) He has identified one blood stained shirt as the one which was on the decapitated body of the deceased and which was handed over St. Vs. Roop Chand, FIR No. 106/11, PS Pahar Ganj Page No. 78 to him by Ct. Om Parkash as given to him by the doctor being present on the body of the deceased which shirt is Ex.P3.
(111) In his crossexamination by Amicus Curiae for accused Roop Chand, the witness has deposed that a large number of public persons were present when he reached the spot and SHO did not obtain the signatures of any public person while lifting the blood stained earth and other exhibits at the spot. He has further deposed that the words DECENT Dharmpura were written on the tag attached to the shirt along with some mobile number was mentioned. He has voluntarily said that the word DECENT was inverted and could be read only after seeing the same in the mirror.
(112) PW48 Ct. Yash Pal has deposed that on 25.06.2011 he was posted at Police Station Pahar Ganj and on that day Duty officer handed over DD No.5A to him at about 7.18AM and he handed over the same to SI Rakesh after which he alongwith SI Rakesh reached at the place of incident i.e. Central Park near Income Tax Office at footpath where they found one dead body under the gunny bags and the legs of the body were visible. According to him, the same was checked and it was a dead body of a male person aged about 4050 years and was without head. He has further deposed that SI Rakesh called the SHO who came at the spot alongwith his staff and on direction of the SHO they searched for the head of the dead body but it could not be recovered and SI Rakesh prepared the rukka and on his direction he alongwith rukka went to the St. Vs. Roop Chand, FIR No. 106/11, PS Pahar Ganj Page No. 79 Police Station Paharganj for registration of the case and he got registered the FIR No. 106/11 and returned back at the spot and handed over the copy of FIR and original rukka to Inspector Bijender Singh and thereafter Ct. Ravinder took the dead body to the Hospital. (113) In his crossexamination by Amicus Curiae for accused Roop Chand, the witness has deposed that Rukka was handed over to him at about 10.15AM and he went to the Police Station on foot. He has further deposed that Duty officer took about 40 to 45 minutes in registration of FIR. He has denied that he did not join the investigation of this case. He has denied that no tehrir was handed over to him by the IO. He has denied that he did not went to the Police Station for registration of the FIR. He has denied that he was deposing falsely at the instance of the IO.
(114) PW50 Inspector Bijender Singh has deposed that on 25.06.2011 he was posted at Police Station Paharganj as SHO and on that day he got information about the recovery of the dead body from SI Rakesh. He has further deposed that he along with SI Anant Kiran reached at the Central park near the income tax parking Jhandewalan where SI Rakesh, Ct. Ravinder and Ct. Yashpal of Police Station Paharganj were already present and there they found many gunny bags at near public toilet on the footpath between central park and the parking of income tax office at Jhandewalan, Paharganj, Delhi. He has further deposed that legs of the dead body were visible under the gunny bags St. Vs. Roop Chand, FIR No. 106/11, PS Pahar Ganj Page No. 80 and thereafter they checked the bags and found one dead body of a male person, aged about 4045 years without head and he called the Crime Team at the spot who reached at the spot and they conducted their proceedings and photographer took photographs. He has further deposed that they tried their best for identification of the dead body but the same could not be identified. He has further deposed that the dead body was shifted to Lady Harding Medical College and Hospital through Ct. Ravinder. According to him, there were total 17 gunny bags and all the gunny bags were kept in a cloth pullanda and sealed with the seal of BS by her and he seized the same vide memo Ex.PW5/D. He has further deposed that SI Rakesh prepared the rukka and Ct. Yash Pal went to the Police Stationfor the registration of the FIR alongwith rukka and thereafter SI Rakesh went to the hospital.
(115) He has further deposed that he lifted the blood from the spot with the help of cotton and kept the same in a plastic container and sealed the same with the seal of BS. He has further deposed that he also lifted blood stained cement portion of the foot path where the dead body was found, after breaking the same with the help of hammer and kept the same in a plastic container and sealed the same with the seal of BS. He has further deposed that he also lifted the earth control cemented portion of foot path after breaking the same with the help of hammer and kept the same in a plastic container and sealed the same with the seal of BS and he seized all the pullandas of containers vide memo Ex.PW42/A. He St. Vs. Roop Chand, FIR No. 106/11, PS Pahar Ganj Page No. 81 has further deposed that in the meanwhile Ct. Yashpal reached at the spot and handed over copy of FIR and original rukka to her. He has further deposed that SI Rakesh who had gone to the hospital on his direction, reached at the spot and handed over one plastic jar in unsealed condition, containing the blood stained shirt of the deceased to him and there was "DecentDharampura" was written on the shirt with mobile number and MLC of the deceased to him and he recorded statement of witnesses. He has further deposed that he prepared the site plan vide already Ex.PW5/B and thereafter they returned back to the police station. He has further deposed that he flashed the message regarding the recovery of the dead body and he deposited the seized articles in the Malkhana and recorded statement of witnesses. According to him, on the same day at about 8.00PM Tailor Mahender of Decent was called at the Police Station and he was interrogated by him and the shirt of the deceased was shown to Mahender who identified the same as sewed by him and thereafter they alongwith said Mahender reached at the Mortuary of the LHMC Hospital and the dead body of the deceased was shown to him but he could not identify the dead body. He has further deposed that Mahender produced his Tailor's slip mark to the him which was kept by him in a plastic container and seized the same vide memo Ex.PW3/A. He has further deposed that on 27.06.2011 the dead body was identified by the relatives of the deceased at the mortuary as of Layak Ram. St. Vs. Roop Chand, FIR No. 106/11, PS Pahar Ganj Page No. 82 (116) He has further deposed that on 28.06.2011 he reached at the Mortuary of LHMC Hospital and the postmortem of the deceased was got conducted. According to him, SI Rakesh filled the inquest form Ex.PW5/G2. He has further deposed that he recorded statement of Ram Phal vide Ex.PW5/J. He has further deposed that he also recorded statement of Balbir Singh vide Ex.PW5/K and he also recorded statement of Gyani Ram vide Ex.PW5/M. He has further deposed that he recorded statement of Chhotey Lal vide Ex.PW5/L and of Ram Mehar vide Ex.PW1/A. He has further deposed that he made a request for the postmortem and copy of the same is Ex.PW50/A. He has further deposed that after postmortem the dead body of the deceased was handed over to the relatives of the deceased vide Ex.PW1/B. He has further deposed that Ct. Ravinder produced photographs of the the CCTV footage of the ATM of Indus Ind Bank at Motia Khan and he seized the same seizure memo Ex.PW20/A and the said photographs are collectively mark A (four pages). He has further deposed that SI K.P. Singh produced the bank statements of Punjab National Bank and State Bank of India vide Ex.PW45/B. The said documents are Ex.PW21/A, Ex.PW21/B and Ex.PW45/A. He has further deposed that he recorded statements of witnesses and he searched for the accused persons. (117) He has further deposed that on 30.06.2011 he alongwith his staff was present at Nangloi area, one secret informer met and informed St. Vs. Roop Chand, FIR No. 106/11, PS Pahar Ganj Page No. 83 them that accused of this case namely Roop Chand was present near Mundka Metro Station and could be apprehended and thereafter he alongwith his staff reached there and laid the trap there and at about 1.50PM they apprehended accused Roop Chand at the instance of secret informer near metro pillar No. 529B near Mundka Metro Station. He has further deposed that he interrogated him and he confessed about his involvement in this case and thereafter he arrested him vide Ex.PW16/A. His personal search was taken vide Ex.PW16/B . His disclosure statement was recorded in detail vide Ex.PW16/C. According to him, thereafter at the instance accused Roop Chand they reached at Ghevra Road, near Sir Chotu Ram Technical Institute and at his instance they recovered head of the dead body of Layak Ram under the pulia alongwith the blood stained clothes i.e. Payjama, Angochha, bed sheet and blanket. He has further deposed that he called the crime team officials of Outer District, Delhi and they inspected the scene of crime and photographer took the photographs and he filled the inquest form which is Ex.PW50/B. He has further deposed that he also made request to preserve the head of Layak Ram vide application Ex.PW50/C. He has further deposed that the head was shifted to the mortuary of LHMC Hospital through Ct. Sanjay and thereafter he sealed the bed sheet, blanket, angochha and Payjama in a cloth pullanda with the seal of BS and seized the same vide memo Ex.PW16/H. He has further deposed St. Vs. Roop Chand, FIR No. 106/11, PS Pahar Ganj Page No. 84 that he recorded statement of witnesses and deposited seized articles in the Malkhana.
(118) He has further deposed that on 01.07.2011 accused Roop Chand was again interrogated by him and his supplementary disclosure statement was recorded vide Ex.PW50/F and thereafter at the instance of accused Roop Chand they reached at Rani Khera pulia where he kept the blood stained mattresses, cover and bed sheet after committing murder of deceased Layak Ram. He has further deposed that he prepared the pointing out memo vide Ex.PW50/G and the above said articles were put in a plastic bag and sealed with the seal of BS and sized vide memo Ex.PW50/H. He has proved having prepared the site plan of the said place vide Ex.PW50/I and then returned to the Police Station where he deposited the seized articles in the Malkhana and recorded statement of witnesses. The witness has testified that on 02.07.2011 he recorded the statement of Gyani Ram and Balbir vide Ex.PW17/A and Ex.PW19/A. He has further deposed that he made request for postmortem of the head and copy of the same is Ex.PW50/J and after postmortem the head was handed over to the relatives of the deceased. According to the witness, on 04.07.2011 he called the FSL team for inspection of above said recovered vehicle at Police Station and also of the place of incident at Agar Nagar Factory. He has further deposed that the FSL team inspected the above said place and also inspected the above said vehicle and the blood stains were recovered from the floor of the office room at the St. Vs. Roop Chand, FIR No. 106/11, PS Pahar Ganj Page No. 85 scene of crime in a filter paper and the same was sealed with the seal of BS and was seized vide memo Ex.PW20/B. (119) The witness has further deposed that on 05.07.2011 SI Anant handed over the exhibits regarding the deceased of the postmortem conducted on 28.06.2011, one wooden box containing viscera of the deceased and one pullanda containing the clothes of the deceased and one sealed envelop containing the blood gauze piece of the deceased in sealed condition with the seal of the hospital with a sample seal to him and he seized the same vide memo Ex.PW42/B. He has further deposed that on the same day SI Anant also handed over the exhibits regarding the head of the deceased and he handed over one pullanda, four plastic jars in sealed condition with the seal of the hospital containing the plastic bags, tooth, soft tissues, maggots and soft tissues for DNA and sample seal to him and he seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW42/C and he recorded statement of witness and deposited the seized articles in the Malkhana. He has further deposed that on 05.07.2011 he also sealed the plastic jar containing the shirt of deceased with the seal of BS and he deposited the same in the Malkhana and made entry in register no.19 and a DD entry was also made and the case was transferred to Police Station Aman Vihar for further investigations. (120) He has correctly identified the accused Roop Chand in the Court and also identified the case property i.e. one shirt having blood stains having label of Decent Dharampura, mobile no. 9210874052 St. Vs. Roop Chand, FIR No. 106/11, PS Pahar Ganj Page No. 86 which is Ex.P3; seventeen gunny bag pieces, same as recovered and seized at the spot in his presence and the same are collectively Ex.P15; one underwear and one vest with brown stains as belonging to the deceased and found with the dead body without head on 25.6.2011 which underwear is Ex.P1 and the vest is Ex.P2; one bed sheet, blanket, anghocha and payjama which were recovered at the instance of the accused with the head of the deceased which blanket is Ex.P9, bed sheet is Ex.P10, Payjama is Ex.P11, Angocha is Ex.P12; one mattress of jute with dirty brownish stains, one dirty mattress cover and one mattress cover same as recovered at the instance of the accused Roop Chand from Rani Khera Pullia which Mattress of Jute is Ex.P16, the dirty mattress cover is Ex.P17 and mattress cover is Ex.P18. The witness has also correctly identified one TATA ACE DL1LK8756 same as recovered at the instance of accused Roop Chand which is Ex.P19. Witness also identifies the vehicle in the photographs already Ex.PW15/A, Ex.PW15/B, Ex.PW15/C and Ex.PW15/D. (121) On a leading question put by Ld. Addl. PP for the State, the witness has admitted that on 27.06.2011 he went to the house of Layak Ram and made inquiries from Sunita Devi, W/o Layak Ram and she produced two slip pads of Neelgagan to him which contains the business transaction of Layak Ram. He has further deposed that he seized the both slip bads vide seizure memo Ex.PW5/E which slip pads are St. Vs. Roop Chand, FIR No. 106/11, PS Pahar Ganj Page No. 87 Ex.PW18/1 and Ex.PW18/2. He has admitted that during his investigations on 30.06.2011 from the possession of the accused Roop Chand two mobile phones, one key of above said vehicle and two railway tickets from Amritsar to New Delhi and two railway platform tickets of Amritsar were recovered and he sealed these articles in a plastic container with the help of cloth with the seal of BS and seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW16/J. He has further admitted that during the investigations he collected the crime scene report and the photographs from the crime team officials. He has further admitted that his application for examination of TATA ACE is Ex.PW50/K bearing his signatures at point A. He has further admitted that during his investigations he issued a certificate U/s 91 Cr. P.C. to the Manager of SBI, Samaipur New Delhi to provide a CCTV footage of ATM vide Ex.PW50/L. He has further admitted that during his investigations he also took eight photographs of Rani Khera Pullia by his digital camera and photographs of the same are Ex.PW50/M. He has further deposed that he also collected the postmortem report with inquest papers from Autopsy Surgeon during his investigations. He has further admitted that he has mentioned all the descriptions of mobile phone and tickets in the seizure memo prepared by him and has identified the above said articles recovered from the possession of accused Roop Chand on 30.06.2011. (122) He has correctly identified one mobile phone of SPICE Model No. QT60 and another mobile phone of SAMSUNG RELIANCE, St. Vs. Roop Chand, FIR No. 106/11, PS Pahar Ganj Page No. 88 one key, two platform tickets and two journey tickets from Amritsar to Delhi same as recovered from the possession of accused Roop Chand which mobile phone of SPICE is Ex.P4 and SAMSUNG RELIANCE is Ex.P5, Key is Ex.P6 and the railway tickets of platform and journey are collectively Ex.P7 and Plastic Jar is Ex.P8.
(123) In his crossexamination by the Ld. Amicus Curiae, the witness has deposed that he reached at the spot at about 7:50 AM on 25.06.2011 after receiving the information regarding the dead body. He has further admitted that 24 public persons were present at the spot when he reached there. He has further deposed that he did not obtain signatures of any public person on the seizure memo of the exhibits prepared by him at the spot. He has denied that there were residential area near the said place where the dead body of Layak Ram was recovered. He is unable to recollect whether he had noted down the specific identification mark on the body recovered at the said place. According to the witness, on 30.06.2011 he received the secret information at 1:00 PM but is unable to recollect the place where he received the secret information and has voluntarily explained that it was in Nangloi area. He has stated that he did not convey the secret information either to his seniors or to Police Station Paharganj. He has admitted that prior to 30.06.2011 he did not collect any evidence against accused Roop Chand. According to the witness, he reached at Mundka Metro Station at about 1:30 PM in a government vehicle, however he St. Vs. Roop Chand, FIR No. 106/11, PS Pahar Ganj Page No. 89 does not remember its number. He has testified that he had recorded the movement of government vehicle in which they went to Mundka Metro Station but he did not attach the relevant document with the charge sheet. He has admitted that Mundka Metro Station is a public place and public persons were moving there at that time and he tried to join the public persons in investigations but none agreed but no legal notice was served upon them. He has stated that he had asked two young boys to join investigations and has also stated that the secret informer took his position near pillar No. 529B and the secret informer pointed towards the accused from a distance of 510 feet but the accused did not try to escape on seeing the police party. He has stated that all the police officials were in civil uniform but he does not recollect how many officials were carrying arms. He has stated that he was the one to caught hold of the accused first at about 2:30 PM. he has explained that they remained at Metro Station for about 22 ½ hours and the disclosure statement was recorded while sitting on the footpath in between the parking and the Road and it took about half an hour in recording the same. He has stated that he took assistance of SI Vinay in preparing the documents. He has further deposed that they reached at Sir Chotu Polytechnic at about 3:30 PM and it took about 1015 minutes in reaching Sir Chotu Ram Polytechnic from Metro Station but he does not remember the distance between the Metro Station and Sir Chotu Ram polytechnic. He has admitted that the place of recovery of blood stained clothes and head is St. Vs. Roop Chand, FIR No. 106/11, PS Pahar Ganj Page No. 90 not in the area of jurisdiction of Police Station Paharganj and he did not obtain any written permission from the higher official to go out of his District for investigations and he also did not inform his senior officials for his investigations to be conducted out of his District and has voluntarily explained that he had informed the District Control Room for investigations out of his District. He has stated that he did not inform the local police where they reached at the instance of accused Roop Chand for the recovery of the head and has voluntarily explained that he informed the Outer District Control Room. The witness has stated that he does not recollect the name of Police Station under which the area of place of recovery falls and states that he did not call any person from Chotu Ram Polytechnic to join investigations and no public persons had gathered there when they reached the spot and has explained that there was a thin traffic near the said place. He has deposed that the Crime Team reached the spot within 1015 minutes of their arrival. According to him, the writing work was done while sitting in the official gypsy but he does not recollect as to how much time they had taken for the preparation of documents at the spot nor does she recollect as to how many documents were prepared there at that time. He has stated that the distance between the blood stained clothes and the head was about four five feet and states that they left the said spot finally at about 55:30 PM. He does not remember the time taken by him for preparation of the pullanda of the seized articles at the said spot. He has explained that St. Vs. Roop Chand, FIR No. 106/11, PS Pahar Ganj Page No. 91 they reached at the factory at about 6:00 PM. He has admitted that that there were other factories and residential houses adjoining the factory where they reached. He has deposed that no public person had gathered there on seeing the police party and states that the vehicle i.e. TATA ACE was parked at a distance of 57 feet from the gate of factory but he does not remember whether the TATA ACE was locked or in unlock condition. According to him, he had verified the ownership of TATA ACE and he does not recollect about the owner of the said vehicle and also does not remember if he had seized the relevant documents regarding the ownership of TATA ACE but after going through the document Ex.PW16/G he has stated that he had not mentioned anything regarding the ownership of said vehicle. He admits that he did not collect any evidence regarding the employment of Roop Chand at the factory and does not remember whether he had collected any evidence regarding the fact the accused Roop Chand used to drive the above said TATA ACE. He has stated that they reached at Uttranchal Dhaba at about 77:15 PM and remained there for about half an hour and he recorded the statement of dhaba owner at that time, after which they reached Jhandewalan at about 8:308:45 PM. He has stated that he does not collect if any specimen handwriting sample from the family members of the deceased were obtained and he does not recollect if he made inquiries from Kapil son of Layak Ram and admits that he did not record his statement U/s 161 Cr.P.C. He has admitted that the photographs of St. Vs. Roop Chand, FIR No. 106/11, PS Pahar Ganj Page No. 92 CCTV footage were shown to the employees of Pawan Mittal and that he had not shown the CCTV footage to Sunita Devi and her relatives. He has also admitted that some recoveries were made after obtaining the Police Custody remand of the accused but has denied that in order to falsely implicate the accused alleged articles were falsely planted upon him after obtaining the Police Custody remand.
(124) He has denied the suggestion that he did not conduct the investigations of this case in a fair manner or that the accused was not arrested in the manner as stated by him. He has further denied the suggestion that the accused was falsely implicated in this case after being lifted from his house at Savda Kanjhawala or that in order to solve a blind murder case the accused was falsely implicated. He has denied the suggestion that the accused did not make any disclosure statement or that the alleged disclosure statement was prepared by him after obtaining the signatures of accused on blank papers forcibly. He has also denied the suggestion that all the recovered articles were planted on him or that the head was found in a unclaimed position. He has further denied the suggestion that all the writing work was done while sitting in the Police Station after obtaining the signatures of accused on blank papers. (125) PW51 Inspector Anil Kumar has deposed that on 20.07.2011 he was posted as SHO Police Station Aman Vihar and on that day the investigations of the present case were handed over to him after it's transfer from Police Station Paharganj. According to him, on perusal St. Vs. Roop Chand, FIR No. 106/11, PS Pahar Ganj Page No. 93 of the case file he found that one accused Roop Chand had already been arrested, another accused Pawan Mittal had committed suicide and third accused Shatrughan was absconding. He has further deposed that the case property and inquest papers were still lying at Old Delhi Railway Station Police Station and Police Station Paharganj and hence he procured the same through HC Gayakward. According to the witness, on 09.08.2011 he moved an application before the Ld. MM and obtained the NBWs in respect of accused Shatrughan and entrusted the same to SI Sumeet for execution of the same but the same could not be executed. He has further deposed that he then obtained the process U/s 82/83 Cr. P.C. From the court of Ld. MM and handed over the same to ASI Shiv Nath Singh for purpose of execution and after obtaining the report, placed the same before the Ld. MM after which the accused Shatrughan declared PO from the court of Ld. MM. He has further deposed that the exhibits of the case were then sent for examination in biological division, DNA division and Chemistry division at FSL Rohini and he got the scaled site plans prepared of both the places i.e. place where headless dead body was recovered and from where the head was recovered from SI Manohar Lal at the instance of SI Vinay Kumar. He has further deposed that after recording the statements of various police witnesses he prepared the charge sheet in respect of the accused Roop Chand and filed the same in the court and he also prepared the supplementary charge sheet in respect of the PO accused Shatrughan and filed the same in the court. He has St. Vs. Roop Chand, FIR No. 106/11, PS Pahar Ganj Page No. 94 also deposed that he obtained the report in respect of the DNA examination from FSL Rohini and filed the same in the court which is Ex.PW51/A (not disputed by accused being non incriminating and otherwise admissible U/s 293 Cr. P.C.). He has testified that he obtained the Chemical Analysis Report from FSL Rohini and filed the same in the court which report is Ex.PW51/B (not disputed by accused and otherwise admissible U/s 293 Cr. P.C.) (126) In his crossexamination by the Ld. Amicus Curiae, the witness has denied that he has carried out all the subsequent investigations in a routine and mechanical manner. He has further denied that he has prepared the charge sheet without any application of mind on the instructions of senior officers and filed the same in the court as such.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED/ DEFENCE EVIDENCE:
(127) After completion of prosecution evidence the statement of the accused Roop Chand was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
wherein all the incriminating material was put to the accused which he has denied. He has stated that he is innocent and was working with Pawan @ Bittoo as a daily wager/ driver on TATA ACE vehicle and Shatrughan was also his employee. According to the accused, Pawan was close to Layak Ram and they were on good terms. He has also stated that he did not have food with Pawan and Layak Ram at the Dhaba St. Vs. Roop Chand, FIR No. 106/11, PS Pahar Ganj Page No. 95 of Daulat Singh and he was called to the Dhaba of Daulat Singh by Pawan @ Bittoo.
(128) The accused Roop Chand has examined himself as his witness as DW1 wherein he has stated that he was working at the factory of Pawan Mittal on daily wages basis as a driver for about one and half months prior to the incident and used to drive the TATA ACE of the factory owned by Pawan Mittal. He has also explained that for the said work and he used to earn Rs.300/ per day on the day he was called for work and was not on a monthly salary. According to him, on 24.06.2011 in the afternoon while he was sleeping in the TATA ACE Tempo, he was called by Pawan Mittal through a foreman of their factory at Uttaranchal Dhaba which is at a distance of about 200 meters from the factory on which he went there on foot since the Dhaba is hardly one or two minutes distance from the factory. He has further explained that when he reached Uttranchal Dhaba, he found that Pawan Mittal and Layak Ram were having lunch there and Layak Ram (deceased) did not appear to be in a fit state of mind at that time. He has stated that Pawan Mittal asked him to take Layak Ram to the factory and accordingly he brought Layak Ram to the factory on foot by giving him support. The accused Roop Chand has further stated that on reaching the factory, Pawan Mittal asked him to go and take rest and also informed him that they would go to Khyala for taking some goods in the evening. According to Roop Chand thereafter he went away from there and took rest and at about St. Vs. Roop Chand, FIR No. 106/11, PS Pahar Ganj Page No. 96 4.30/5.00PM Pawan Mittal and Shatrughan woke him up and asked him to start the vehicle as they to go to Najafgarh to the house of Layak Ram. He has further explained that at Najafgarh he alongwith Shatrughan remained in the TATA ACE vehicle whereas Pawan Mittal went inside the house of Layak Ram. I may note here that the accused Roop Chand is confirming the version given by Sunita the wife of Layak Ram that Pawan Mittal had come to her in the evening and inquired about Layak Ram. He has deposed that he did not feel anything unusual since he was not aware at that time if Layak Ram was present in the factory or had returned back to his house. Thereafter within twothree minutes Pawan Mittal came to them and they went to Khyala since Pawan Mittal had to make some payment there after which they all returned back to factory at about 7.00PM on the same day. He has further deposed that after that on the asking of Pawan Mittal they went to his house for taking tea and after having tea they returned back to the factory when Pawan Mittal told him that he had to supply two bundles at Maa Kaila Transport, Nabi Karim, Delhi and he was then asked to park the vehicle in the factory. However, thereafter he was not permitted to remain there and Pawan @ Bittoo send him to the market to purchase a packet of Rajnigandha gutka. He has explained that he went to the market on foot and when he returned to the factory after 2025 minutes he found two bundles loaded on the back side of the tempo which were of plastic kattas after which he alongwith Pawan Mittal @ Bittoo and Shatrughan left the factory for going to Nabi St. Vs. Roop Chand, FIR No. 106/11, PS Pahar Ganj Page No. 97 Karim. He has also stated that while Shatrughan was sitting with him on the front seat and he was driving the tempo, Pawan @ Bittoo was on the back side along with two kattas/ bundles and when they reached at Rani Khera - Kanjhawala Road Pawan Mittal told him to stop vehicle as he wanted to ease himself. He has further explained that thereafter Pawan Mittal and Shatrughan went towards the backside of vehicle and from the side glass he could see that Pawan Mittal had thrown some polythene bag at the Rani Khera Kanjhawala Road near the pullia and he could see the same clearly from the side window but he was not aware what he (Pawan Mittal) had thrown there at that time because it was a closed polythene bag not he did not have the courage to ask Pawan Mittal about it as Pawan was his employer. According to the accused, thereafter they took CNG from CNG Station at Ghevra and reached Jhandewalan and when they reached near the Police Station Paharganj Pawan Mittal asked him to stop the vehicle near the red light. Thereafter both Pawan Mittal and Shatrughan got down from the vehicle and entered a building near the red light and after about ten minutes both Pawan Mittal and Shatrughan came back and asked him to go to Maa Kaila Transport company at Nabi Karim. However, before they could reach the Maa Kaila Transport Company he was again asked to stop the vehicle near cycle market Jahandewalan and there he could see that some bundle was thrown by both Shatrughan and Pawan Mittal. He has deposed that they had unloaded this bundle from the backside of the vehicle St. Vs. Roop Chand, FIR No. 106/11, PS Pahar Ganj Page No. 98 which he could see from the side window but he did not know what was inside the said bundle. However, both Pawan Mittal and Shatrughan had carried the same and it hardly took them about twothree minutes to return back without this bundle. He has also explained that thereafter they reached Maa Kaila Transport where remaining bundles was unloaded. He has explained that at that time when this bundle was thrown it was raining. According to him, after returning back to the factory, Pawan Mittal gave his Rs.100/ and asked him to go home. (129) The accused Roop Chand has further stated that next day he remained in the factory for the entire day and on 29.6.2011 Pawan told him that he had to accompany him in going to Mata Vaishno Devi on which they went to Mata Vaishno Devi and stayed at Katra in a hotel. He has testified that on 31.06.2011 they returned back from Jammu to Pathankot in a taxi and from Pathankot to Amritsar in a train and when they were at Jalandhar, Pawan Mittal made a call to his house and he came to know that police is searching for him. According to him, from Old Delhi Railway Station he went to his house and next day police came to his house and brought him to Police Station Paharganj where police interrogated him regarding Layak Ram but he told them that he did not know anything as to what had happened with Layak Ram. He has explained that he was detained in the Police Station and on the next morning police showed him a photograph of Pawan Mittal to identify him which he duly identified and police told him that Pawan Mittal had St. Vs. Roop Chand, FIR No. 106/11, PS Pahar Ganj Page No. 99 consumed some poison and they found a suicide note in his pocket. He has further testified that the last time when he had seen Layak Ram was when he was called to the Dhaba by Pawan Mittal and there he had found Layak Ram in intoxicated condition and was not even able to walk (larkhara raha tha) and he helped him on the asking of Pawan Mittal and brought him to the factory of Pawan Mittal @ Bittoo and then left him in the office of Pawan Mittal where Shatrughan and nineten other employees were present and working and thereafter he was asked to go and take rest on which he went to tempo and slept.
FINDINGS:
(130) I have heard the arguments advanced before me by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State and the Ld. Defence Counsel. I have also gone through the written memorandum of arguments filed by the parties and the evidence on record. My findings are as under:
Medical Evidence:
(131) The case of the prosecution is that there was a money dispute between the deceased Layak Ram and the main accused Pawan Mittal on account of which Pawan Mittal committed the murder of Layak Ram by cause stab/ piercing injuries with the help of screw driver and then decapitated the head of Layak Ram and thereafter committed suicide. It is also the case of the prosecution that the accused Pawan Mittal then committed suicide and in this regard the prosecution has St. Vs. Roop Chand, FIR No. 106/11, PS Pahar Ganj Page No. 100 placed its reliance on the Postmortem Report of both Layak Ram (Torso and Head) and also of Pawan Mittal. First in order to prove the Homicidal Death of Layak Ram the prosecution has placed its reliance on the testimonies of Dr. Pradeep Yadav (PW5), Dr. Arvind Kumar (PW22) and Dr. Mukesh Kumar (PW23) and the reports prepared by them.
(132) I have gone through the testimonies of Dr. Pradeep Yadav (PW5), Dr. Arvind Kumar (PW22) and Dr. Mukesh Kumar (PW23) who have proved that on 25.6.2011 on the directions of the Head of the Department Forensic Medicines, Lady Harding Medical college, Delhi namely Dr. Yasodha Rani, they alongwith Dr. Mukesh Kumar conducted the postmortem on the body part i.e. head of Layak Ram, S/o Singh Ram aged 45 years, male, R/o RZ123, A2, Block, Karampura Extension, Najafgarh, Delhi. They have proved that the head was identified by Insp. Vijender Singh and the brothers of the deceased namely Gyani Ram and Balbir Singh and the history given in the inquest report was on the head being recovered in a drain below a small bridge in front of Chotu Ram Polytechnic Institute Narela road on 30.06.2011.
They have also proved that following injures were observed on external examination:
1. Cauliflower shaped left ear.
2. Scalp hairs black of 1 cm long.
3. Mustache hairs 1 cm long and beard hair 0.2cm long black in St. Vs. Roop Chand, FIR No. 106/11, PS Pahar Ganj Page No. 101 color.
(133) They have also proved that maggots were present crawling in the nasal cavity oral cavity and both the orbits. Soft tissue of the scalp, face and neck region were liquefied due to the composition and turned into pasty material with decomposed adipocere changes. Part of skull over left pariteo-occipital region, left ear and some soft tissue of neck of left side were partially identifiable. Eye boll, nasal cavity and soft tissue in base of oral cavity had been turned into pasty material along with live maggots crawling in all the cavities. Brain matter about 100 ml present in the cranial cavity turning into liquifactive pasty material, on opening the skull. Maggots crawling inside cranial cavity of average size of 1.5 cm (live).
(134) The witnesses have proved that the Neck was found decapitated at the level of lower margin of C4. C1 to C4 vertebrae is found intact in loosely place. Soft tissue involving ligaments found dissolved and turned into a pasty material of off white in color and maggots found crawling. No sign of extravasation/ collection of blood in the remaining soft tissue was evident. Margins of wound turned into pasty material due to decomposition. They have proved that on internal examination skull height as 20 cm, biparietal diameter 13 cm antero - posterior diameter 18 cm; all skull muscles margins were prominent, supraorbital regions prominent, orbits are square with rounded margins, zygomatic process running behind the external anterior auditory meatus; St. Vs. Roop Chand, FIR No. 106/11, PS Pahar Ganj Page No. 102 meninges were liquefied due to decomposition. Oesophagus, larynx and trachea liquefied due to decomposition; Neck muscle hyoid bone was intact; thyroid cartridge were partially decomposed and displaced from its original side; Maggots and soft tissue were preserved for toxicological analysis.
(135) They have also proved having opined that the Head was that of male about 4045 years and cause of death was kept pending till the receipt of viscera analysis report; there was no ante mortem injury over the part of body received i.e. head for autopsy; Decapitation wound was appoint to be postmortem in nature and Approximate time since death was opined as eight days from the date of examination. They have proved the detailed report which is Ex.PW22/A (running into 14 pages).
(136) Further, Dr. Pradeep Yadav (PW5), Dr. Arvind Kumar (PW22) and Dr. Mukesh Kumar (PW23) have proved that on 28.06.2011 on the directions of the Head of the Department Forensic Medicines namely Dr. Yasodha Rani, they alongwith Dr. Mukesh Kumar and Dr. Pardeep Yadav conducted the postmortem on the decapitated body without the head of Layak Ram, S/o Singh Ram aged 45 years, male, R/o RZ123, A2, Block, Karampura Extension, Najafgarh, Delhi which body was identified by Insp. Bijender Singh, brother Gyani Ram, brother in law Ram Mehar and nephew Chhotey Lal. They have proved that on St. Vs. Roop Chand, FIR No. 106/11, PS Pahar Ganj Page No. 103 external examination of the Torso they made the following observations:
1. One curvilinear scar mark 7 cm x 0.2 cm, hypopigmented and old present over lateral aspect of left hand on dorsal aspect 4 cm above the left styloid process.
2. Linear scar mark, old hypopigmented, 4 cm x 0.2 cm present over lateral aspect of calf of left leg 5 cm below left knee joint.
3. Body was hairy.
4. Size of feet was 25 cm in length.
5. Penis is not circumcised.
(137) They have further proved that the Complexion of the body was wheatish, built was average; height out stretch arm length - 182 cm and lower limb length 96 cm; Rigor mortis was not present in the body and Postmortem Lividity was present all over the back excluding the pressure area; Cyanosis was absent over finger and toe; Greenish discolouration was present over front of abdomen, front of chest, pilling of skin present over groin and umbilicus, scrotem swollen and shows pilling of skin. Crepitation present over calf and thighs of both the lower limbs.
(138) According to the witnesses, the body was received for autopsy which was found decapitated from the base of neck and deceased was wearing a green coloured underwear with a white Naada and a white coloured vest, which was blood stained. They have proved that they found following clothes over the body:
St. Vs. Roop Chand, FIR No. 106/11, PS Pahar Ganj Page No. 104
1. A vest measuring 51 cm and width of 35 cm was present. The vest was stained with blood (reddish brown colour stains) and on the anterior aspect in the middle was found stained with greenish coloured fluid. It has small holes measuring from 0.9 cm x 0.3 cm to 1.3 cm x 0.5 cm was present over left shoulder of vest, left upper half and in the midline in upper half. In left shoulder area, 12 holes were present and in left upper half and upper midline, 30 holes were present. The vest was found cut in the middle from measuring 3 cm x 2 cm around which, greenish coloured stain present and another cut present over the left side of the area of 4 cm x 2 cm.
2. A green coloured underwear was found with a white coloured Naada. The length of underwear was 40 cm and breadth was 20 cm. No staining was present over underwear.
(139) Further, there were following antemortem injuries:
1. Multiple stab wound, fourteen in number and shape about rectangular of size 0.9 cm x 0.3 cm and depth varying from 0.5 cm to 1 cm were present over anterior aspect of left shoulder in an area of 15 cm x 14 cm. Margins were inverted and dried.
Extravasation of blood was present in the tract and surrounding soft tissue. Direction of wound was backward and slightly downward and rightwards.
St. Vs. Roop Chand, FIR No. 106/11, PS Pahar Ganj Page No. 105
2. Another stab wound of size 0.9 cm x 0.3 cm and shaped about rectangular and 0.4 deep (subcutaneous tissue) was present over left forearm, 8 cm above left wrist joint on its lateral aspect. Margins were reddish brown in colour. Extravasation of blood present in subcutaneous tissue and muscles.
3. Multiple stab wounds 42 in number and size of 0.9 cm x 0.3 cm and shape varying from elliptical to rectangular were present over left upper quadrant of thorax (chest) in an area of 17 cm x 15 cm. Mostly directed downwards, backwards and rightwards. Extravasation of blood was present in surrounding pectoralis and intercostal muscles. All wounds were subcutaneous tissue deep, except eight (given injury no. B3(1)) of them, which were going through third, fourth, fifth and sixth ribs in left pleural cavity and upper lobe of left lung was found punctured 2 mm each and 4 in number going through anterior surface to medial surface. Pleural cavity contained about 150 ml of blood and extravasation of blood was present in upper lobe of left lung parenchyma. Three stab wounds ventricular wall deep, but not communicated with the ventricular cavity were present over anterior aspect of left ventricular wall. One stab wound 2 mm deep in right auricular wall. All the stab wounds were of size varying from 3 mm to 2 mm to 2 mm to 1 mm. Corresponding cuts were found on pericardium. Pericardial cavity contained about 150 ml of blood. St. Vs. Roop Chand, FIR No. 106/11, PS Pahar Ganj Page No. 106
4. Multiple stab wounds eleven in number of size 1 cm x 0.3 cm of shape rectangular present over sternal region (mid chest) in an area of 10 cm x 8 cm was present. All stab wounds were subcutaneous tissue deep, except one (injury B4(1)) going through sternal and right pleural cavity, piercing through the upper lobe of right lung. Extravasation of blood was present over subcutaneous tissue of sternal and right pleural cavity contained about 150 ml of blood. Margins were inverted. Tracts were directed rightwards, downwards and backwards.
5. Stab wound of size 0.9 cm x 0.3 cm and rectangular in shape and 2.5 mm deep was present over left lateral aspect of abdomen 11 cm above left iliac crest and 10 cm lateral to mid line posteriorly. Extravasation blood was present in surrounding soft tissue.
6. Stab wound of size 0.9 cm x 0.3 cm and shape rectangular and subcutaneous tissue deep was present over lateral aspect of buttock 7 cm below the left iliac crest. Extravasation of blood was present in the surrounding soft tissue.
7. An incised wound of size 2.5 cm x 1 cm shaped elliptical with clear cut margin present over lateral aspect of left thigh present 25 cm above the left knee joint. Extravasation of blood was present in the surrounding muscles and subcutaneous tissue.
8. Curvilinear abrasion reddish in colour 3 cm x 0.2 cm of size was present over lateral aspect of left leg 9 cm below left knee joint. St. Vs. Roop Chand, FIR No. 106/11, PS Pahar Ganj Page No. 107 (140) The witness have further proved that there were following postmortem injuries:
1. Decapitation wound of size with anterio posterior diameter of 15 cm and lateral diameter of 12.5 cm present at the base of neck and 1 cm above the lower end of thyroid cartilage. A triangular piece of thyroid cartilage 2 cm x 0.3 cm was found cut in the remaining thyroid cartilage stump. Skin margins and muscular cut ends were regular and cleaned cut vertebra was found clean cut through the body of sixth cervical vertebra transversely. At the cut surface of the vertebra, four lines of cuts were palpable. Oesophagus was found cut with margins regular and clean cut. Trachea was found cut with margins regular and clean cut. All the major blood vessels were found clean cut. Cut surface involving neck muscles were showing greenish brown discolouration with presence of bad odour and some adherent soil particles. No significant amount of extravasation of blood was present and no vital reactions were seen at the margins.
2. Stab wound of size 5 cm x 2 cm and 6 cm deep of shape elliptical present 26 cm below the supersternal notch in the mid line and horizontally placed where the right end of the wound lies 2.5 cm away from the mid line. Semidigested food material was found oozing out and spelling around the stomach. Wound was directed leftward, upward and backward and cutting the diaphram and St. Vs. Roop Chand, FIR No. 106/11, PS Pahar Ganj Page No. 108 apical region of heart of size 3 cm, which was communicating with the ventricular cavity. No extravasation of blood was present in the peritoneum and surrounding soft tissue. No vital reactions were seen at margins.
3. Stab wound of size 3.8 cm x 0.5 cm and abdominal wall deep (2.5 cm deep) and elliptical in shape present with medial end of wound lies in mid line and 4.5 cm above umbilicus and 3 cm below injury no.2. No extravasation of blood was present in surround subcutaneous tissue. No vital reactions were seen at margins.
4. Stab wound 6 cm x 2 cm and abdominal wall deep ( 3 cm deep) of shape elliptical and obliquely placed over left lateral aspect of abdomen, where the medial and upper end of wound was 7.5 cm from mid line and 8 cm below umbilicus. A piece of cloth of shape (shape is shown in the report at point X) was present in the wound.
No extravasation of blood was present in surround subcutaneous tissue. No vital reactions were seen at margins.
(141) They have proved that the death was caused on account of shock due to multiple stab injuries (injury no. B3(1) and injury no. B4(1)) to chest and heart (cardiothoracic injury), Injury no. D3(1) included eight stab wounds and injury no. B4(1) included one stab wound and each of the stab wounds were sufficient to cause death individually in ordinary course of nature. They have further opined St. Vs. Roop Chand, FIR No. 106/11, PS Pahar Ganj Page No. 109 that Injury no. B1,2,3,4,5 & 6 are possible by sharped penetrating weapon, whereas Injury no. B7 is possible by sharp edged weapon; Injury no. B8 is possible by blunt force and Injury no. C1 (decapitation) is a postmortem injury, caused by sharp edged weapon and other postmortem injuries are also possible by sharp edged weapon. They have proved their detailed report in this regard which is Ex.PW5/A. According to the witness, after postmortem, the clothes, piece of bone (half sternum) for DNA analysis, blood in gauze piece in the sealed parcels were handed over to the Investigating Officer with sample seal and he also preserved viscera in the sealed parcel and handed over the same to the Investigating Officer. They have proved having signed inquest papers i.e. site plan Ex.PW5/B, seizure memo of tailor's label Ex.PW3/A, seizure memo of blood stained shirt Ex.PW5/C, seizure memo of sacks (Boriyan Taat) Ex.PW5/D, seizure memo of slip pad Ex.PW5/E, outpatient ticket Ex.PW5/F, death report Ex.PW5/G, Form 25(35) Ex.PW5/G1 and PW5/G2, copy of FIR Ex.PW5/G3, MLC Ex.PW5/H, statement of Ramphal Ex.PW5/J, statement of Balbir Singh Ex.PW5/K, dead body identification statement Ex.PW5/L, statement of Giani Ram Ex.PW5/M and Ex.PW1/A i.e. body identification memo.
(142) The above Postmortem Reports confirms that the cause of death of the deceased/ victim Layak Ram was on account of shock due to St. Vs. Roop Chand, FIR No. 106/11, PS Pahar Ganj Page No. 110 multiple stab injuries and that the decapitation was done after his death. (143) Coming next to the death of Pawan Mittal the person who was one of the persons who killed Layak Ram, Dr. Harvinder Kaur (PW31) has proved that on 25.06.2011 an unknown patient, male aged about 50 years was brought by Ct. Ravinder in the Casualty of Lady Harding Medical College where Dr. Deepika examined the said patient vide MLC Ex.PW5/H according to which Dr. Deepika declared the patient as 'brought dead'.
(144) Dr. Akash Jhanjee (PW30) has proved that on 03.07.2011 at 11:35 AM he conducted postmortem examination on the dead body of deceased Pawan Kumar Mittal S/o Jugal Kishore brought by SI Rajender Dabas of Police Station Old Delhi Railway Station. He has proved that on on external examination no injuries were present on the body and on internal examination the following injuries were observed:
1. Head: Scalp was NAD. No fractures of skull bone were present.
Meninges were congested and brain was also congested.
2. Neck: Structures were intact.
3. Chest: Ribs were intact and both lungs were congested and Heart was NAD.
4. Abdomen and Pelvis: organs were congested, spleen was absent, stomach was containing around 150ml of reddish liquid material with pungent odour and walls were showing patchy haemorragic areas at places. Bowels loops were intact and contained gases and St. Vs. Roop Chand, FIR No. 106/11, PS Pahar Ganj Page No. 111 faeces at places, no fractures of pelvic bones present. Bladder was empty. Rectum was half full.
5. Spinal column was intact.
(145) He has proved having opined that the cause of death was kept pending as viscera was preserved for chemical analysis and time since death was around 68 hours prior to receipt of the dead body in the mortuary. He has also proved the detailed Postmortem Report in this regard which is Ex.PW30/A. (146) It has been observed by this Court that despite the final opinion with regard to cause of death being pending, the Investigating Officer Inspector Anil Kumar had not taken any steps to obtain the same. On a specific question by Ld. Addl. PP for the State, the witness has deposed that it was difficult to give the cause of death since there were no external injuries on the body and the internal organs were congested suggestive of poisoning and hence it is on this background that he had withheld the report and not given any opinion.
(147) This being the background, I hereby hold that in so far as Layak Ram is concerned, the Medical Evidence on record is compatible to the prosecution case supporting the version of his Homicidal Death. Forensic Evidence:
(148) The case of the prosecution is that on 25.6.2011 at about 7:25 AM an information was received at Police Station Paharganj that a St. Vs. Roop Chand, FIR No. 106/11, PS Pahar Ganj Page No. 112 dead body was lying near Urinal, Jhandewalan, New Delhi, which information was recorded vide DD NO. 5A which is Ex.PW13/A (duly proved by SI JagroopPW31). Further, during the investigations the dead body of the deceased was identified as of Layak Ram and the accused Roop Chand was apprehended on 3.6.2011 and pursuant to his disclosure statement the accused got recovered the TATA ACE vehicle bearing No. DL1LK8756. Thereafter the accused Roop Chand led the police team at Ghevra Road, near Sir Chhoturam Technical Institute and got recovered the head of the dead body of Layak Ram under the pulia alongwith the blood stained clothes i.e. Payjama, Angochha, bed sheet and blanket. In this regard the prosecution is placing its reliance on the testimonies of Indresh Kumar Mishra (PW6) and also the testimonies of Crime Team Photographers i.e. Ct. Manish (PW7) and Ct. Dinesh (PW8). (149) I have gone through the testimony of Sh. Indresh Kumar Mishra (PW6) who has proved that on 04.07.2011, he alongwith Sh.
Vikram Meena, Lab Attendant were called at Police Station Pahar Ganj to inspect the vehicle i.e. TATA ACE bearing Registration no. DL1LK8756, which was parked at Police Station Pahar Ganj and also to inspect the scene of crime at Factory No. 2250, Agar Nagar Moad, Nithari Village, Police Station Aman Vihar, Delhi. He has proved having examined the said vehicle and the scene of crime thoroughly for the presence of blood and other biological clue material in the presence of SHO and other police officials. However, blood or any other St. Vs. Roop Chand, FIR No. 106/11, PS Pahar Ganj Page No. 113 biological clue material could not be deducted in the said vehicle and few blood spots were detected on the floor of the office type room at scene of crime. He has proved that blood stains were lifted, prepared and handed over to the police for onward transmission to FSL for further examination. He has proved having prepared his detailed report which is Ex.PW6/A. It is the case of the prosecution that the various exhibits lifted from the spots from where the decapitated dead body and the head of the deceased was recovered, were also sent for Biological/ Serological and DNA Examination.
(150) Ms. Manisha Upadhyaya (PW49) has proved that on 08.09.2011 eleven parcels were received in their office out of which ten were sealed with the seal BS and FMT LHMC and one was in unseald condition which same were marked to her for examination. She has further deposed that she had examined all the above said parcels and gave the Biological Report which is Ex.PW49/A according to which blood was detected on exhibit 1 (gauze cloth piece), 2 (pieces of cemented material), 4 (mattresses), 5a(Tshirt), 5b (underwear), 6 (gauze cloth piece), 7a (two plastic bags), 7b (polythene bag), 9a (bed sheet), 9b (blanket), 9c (angocha), 9d (pyajama), 10 (shirt), 11 (jute bags), 12 (gauze cloth piece) and blood could not be detected on exhibit 3 (pieces of cemented material). She has further proved that she also examined the abovesaid exhibits serologically and gave her serological examination report which is Ex.PW49/B according to which Human Blood was St. Vs. Roop Chand, FIR No. 106/11, PS Pahar Ganj Page No. 114 detected on all the exhibits and Human Blood of 'B' Group was detected on exhibit 5a (Tshirt), 5b (underwear), 9a (bed sheet) and 9d (pyajama). The above Biological/ Serological Reports prove that the blood group of the deceased Layak Ram was 'B' Group.
(151) Further, after the postmortem examination of the Head and the Dead Body of the deceased Layak Ram, their samples were preserved for DNA Fingerprinting Examination. The Investigating Officer has proved having obtained the DNA Fingerprinting Report which is Ex.PW51/A according to which the source of Ex.1 (tooth), Ex.2 (fleshy material) and Ex.3 (bony piece) were subjected to DNA Isolation but DNA, however, could not be isolated from the source of Ex.3 and DNA profile also could not be generated from the source of Exhibits 1 and 2 due to non amplification and hence no opinion could be offered due to non availability of DNA profile. This being the background, I hereby hold that this Forensic Evidence does not assist the prosecution in any manner.
Electronic Evidence:
(152) The case of the prosecution that the accused Roop Chand who was the employee of Pawan Mittal (now deceased) in furtherance of the common intention committed the murder of Layak Ram and in order to support their version the prosecution has placed their reliance on the Call Detail Records of the mobile phone bearing No. 7248879336 which St. Vs. Roop Chand, FIR No. 106/11, PS Pahar Ganj Page No. 115 was in the name of accused Pawan Mittal and also on the Call Detail Records of phone bearing No. 9968560096 in the name of Sunita Devi which the victim/ deceased Layak Ram was using at the time of incident. (153) Sh. Sanjeev Lakra (PW4) Alternative Nodal Officer from Reliance Communications Ltd. has initially placed on record the wrong Customer Application Form in respect of Satish Kohli S/o H. S. Kohli R/o 121, GH14, MIG Flats, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi. Therefore, at the final stage pursuant to the application of the Ld. Addl. PP for the State the Nodal Officer from Reliance Communications i.e. Sh. Rajeev Sarda was recalled and was examined as PW4A. He has proved that the mobile No. 7428879336 was issued in the name of Pawan Kumar S/o Sh.
Jugal Kishore, R/o House No. 392/2, Shankar Garden, Line Paar, Gali No.7, Bahadurgarh, Jhajjar Haryana having local address as Agar Nagar, Mubarakpur, New Delhi vide Customer Application Form Ex.PW4A/A and copy of Driving License and PAN Card in support of residence proof is Ex.PW4A/B. He has also placed on record the call detail record/ CDR of the said mobile from 01.06.2011 to 26.06.2011 which are Ex.PW4A/C and the certificate u/s 65 B of Indian Evidence Act is Ex.PWA4/D. (154) Further, Sh. Sunil Kumar (PW34) Nodal Officer from MTNL has proved that mobile no. 9968560096 is in the name of Sunita Devi W/o Layak Ram R/o 1458, Dharampura, Najafgarh, New Delhi St. Vs. Roop Chand, FIR No. 106/11, PS Pahar Ganj Page No. 116 vide Customer Application Form which is Ex.PW34/A and identification proof i.e. election I Card is Ex.PW34/B. He has also proved that the declaration of the customer is Ex.PW34/C, call details of the above mobile phone from 05.06.23011 to 25.06.2011 are Ex.PW34/D (7 pages); the certificate U/s 65 B of Indian Evidence Act is Ex.PW34/E and the location chart of the above phone number is Ex.PW34/F. (155) I have gone through the relevant Electronic Record and I may observe that the incident in question had taken place on 24.6.2011 after which it is alleged that the main accused Pawan Mittal had left Delhi along with Roop Chand and had gone to Vaishno Devi and on return had committed suicide. It has been established from the Customer Application Form Ex.PW4A/A that at the time of the incident the accused Pawan Mittal (now deceased) was using the mobile No. 7428879336 whereas the deceased Layak Ram was using the mobile No. 9968560096 which was in the name of his wife Smt. Sunita. (156) From the analysis of the Call Details Record of the above mobile phones, it is evident that the accused Pawan Mittal was regularly in touch with the deceased Layak Ram. The relevant entries of the Call Detail Records in respect of Mobile No. 7428879336 in the name of accused Pawan Mittal in respect of 24.6.2011 i.e. the date of incident showing his movement as per the Location Chart are as under: St. Vs. Roop Chand, FIR No. 106/11, PS Pahar Ganj Page No. 117
Sr. Calling No. Called No. Time Seconds Location No. 1 7428879336 9968560096 10:45:13 152.2 Mukbarakpur Dabas (Layak Ram) 2 7428879336 9968560096 11:27:46 38.8 Prem Nagar (Layak Ram) 3 7428879336 9968560096 11:46:50 39.4 Nangloi (Layak Ram) 4 7428879336 9968560096 11:52:18 27.2 Nangloi (Layak Ram) 5 7428879336 9953500961 13:27:15 49.5 Prem Ngar, Raghubir Nagar 6 9968560096 7428879336 13:28:56 23.9 Prem Ngar, Raghubir Nagar 7 8287951393 7428879336 22:13:49 20.4 Paschim Vihar 8 7428879336 9717228354 22:28:25 101.1 Anand Parbat Industrial Area (157) From the analysis of the above Call Detail Record the following aspects stand established:
➢ That on the date of incident i.e. 24.6.2011 the accused Pawan Mittal had called the deceased Layak Ram while he was in the area of Nangloi.
➢ That till 13:28:26 (i.e. 1:28 PM) the accused Pawan Mittal was in the area of Prem Nagar, Raghubir Nagar i.e. the area where his factory was situated.
➢ That at 22:13:49 (i.e. 10:13 PM) the accused Pawan Mittal was in the area of Paschim Vihar.St. Vs. Roop Chand, FIR No. 106/11, PS Pahar Ganj Page No. 118
➢ That at 22:25:25 (i.e. 10:25 PM) the accused Pawan Mittal was in the area of Anand Parbat Industrial Area.
(158) The above location chart of the mobile phone being used by the accused Pawan Mittal at the time of incident rather lends credence to the statement of accused Roop Chand and to the defence version that they had taken the route via Paschim Vihar and Anand Parbat to reach Jhandewalan and Nabi Karim. Further, the location chart of the mobile phone being used to the accused Pawan Mittal establishes his movement out of Delhi on 26.4.2011, the relevant entries of which are highlighted as under:
Sr. Calling No. Called No. Time Seconds Location No. 1 7428879336 8287957393 15:05:29 16.02 Sonepat 2 7428879336 9560432490 16:40:37 41.5 Karnal 3 7428879336 7876153836 17:42:35 87 Thanesar (159) The above location chart of the mobile phone being used to the accused Pawan Mittal establishes that on 26.4.2011 the accused Pawan Mittal had gone to Vaishno Devi and again lends credence to the statement of accused Roop Chand wherein he claimed that Pawan Mittal had taken him to Vaishno Devi on 26.4.2011 by train.
(160) Further, it is also the case of the prosecution that on the date of incident when Layak Ram did not return home, his wife namely Smt. Sunita had even made a call on the phone of her husband which was St. Vs. Roop Chand, FIR No. 106/11, PS Pahar Ganj Page No. 119 picked up by some person who informed her that Layak Ram was taking a bath. The prosecution has, however, failed to highlight any such call made by the wife of the deceased on his mobile phone. (161) It is evident from the above Electronic Evidence that it supports the version given by the accused Roop Chand. Though it incriminates the accused Pawan Mittal who had committed suicide but in so far as the accused Roop Chand is concerned, it does not help the prosecution in any manner and rather on the contrary assists and help Roop Chand and confirms the statement made by him in the Court on oath under Section 315 Cr.P.C.
Motive of the Crime:
(162) The case of the prosecution is that the deceased Layak Ram was a property dealer and there was a money dealing with the deceased Layak Ram and Pawan Mittal (deceased accused) which amount Pawan Mittal was unable to return. The accused Roop Chand and Shatrughan (Proclaimed Officer) were the employees of Pawan Mittal. Layak Ram used to frequently insult Pawan Mittal and therefore the accused Pawan Mittal (now deceased) along with his employees Roop Chand and Shatrughan in furtherance of their common intention committed the murder of Layak Ram.
(163) However, before coming to the evidence on merits, I may observe that the motive has to be gathered from the surrounding St. Vs. Roop Chand, FIR No. 106/11, PS Pahar Ganj Page No. 120 circumstances and such evidence should form one of the links to the chain of circumstantial evidence. The proof of motive would only strengthen the prosecution case and fortify the court in its ultimate conclusion but in the absence of any connecting evidence or link which would be sufficient in itself from the face of it, the accused cannot be convicted. Motive is best known to the perpetrator of the crime and not to others. Motives of men are often subjective, submerged and unamenable to easy proof that courts have to go without clear evidence thereon if other clinching evidence exists. A motive is indicated to heighten the probability that the offence was committed by the person who was impelled by the motive but if the crime is alleged to have been committed for a particular motive, it is relevant to inquire whether the pattern of the crime fits in which the alleged motive. (164) Regarding the motive of crime, it may be observed that in a case based on circumstantial evidence, the existence of motive assumed significance though the absence of motive does not necessarily discredit the prosecution case, if the case stands otherwise established by other conclusive circumstances and the chain of circumstantial evidence is so complete and is consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and inconsistent with the hypothesis of his innocence. (165) Existence of motive for committing a crime is not an absolute requirement of law but it is always relevant fact, which will be taken into consideration by Courts as it will render assistance to Courts St. Vs. Roop Chand, FIR No. 106/11, PS Pahar Ganj Page No. 121 while analysing prosecution evidence and determining guilt of accused.
[Ref.: IV (2012) SLT 257].
(166) Moreover, in a case where there is clear proof of motive for the commission of a crime, it affords added support to the finding of the court that the accused is guilty of the offence charged with. However, at the same time the absence of proof of motive does not render the evidence bearing on the guilt of the accused nonetheless untrustworthy or unreliable because most often it is only the perpetrator of the crime alone, who knows as to what circumstances prompted him to certain course of action leading to the commission of the crime [Ref.: State of U.P. Vs. Bahu Ram reported in 2000 (4) SCC 515 and Ujjagal Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in 2007 (14) SCALE 428]. (167) Applying the settled principles of law to the facts of the present case, I may observe that in so far as Pawan Mittal is concerned, he had expired having committed suicide which an admitted fact. The accused Shatrughan is absconding and in so far as the accused Roop Chand is concerned, he is the employee of the accused Pawan Mittal. However, it is evident from the material on record that the entire motive is attributed to accused Pawan Mittal who had committed suicide after the incident and was the main accused. The accused Roop Chand was the employee of Pawan Mittal and had joined his services as the daily wager Driver hardly one month from the date of incident. He was neither an old employee of Pawan Mittal nor has any record of criminal St. Vs. Roop Chand, FIR No. 106/11, PS Pahar Ganj Page No. 122 involvement nor it is the case of the prosecution that accused Roop Chand was an hired assailant or had been paid by Pawan Mittal to assist him in the crime. This being the background, I hold that the Motive so attributed to the accused Roop Chand has not been established. Dead Body Identification:
(168) The case of the prosecution is that initially the torso of an unknown made was found and there was no indication with regard to the identification of the person. There was a shirt on the body of the deceased with the words 'New Descent Tailors' written on the same with a logo and details of the tailor. Pursuant to the same the tailor Narender Kumar was called at Lady Harding Medical College and was shown a shirt. It is this which lead to identity of the deceased Layak Ram. In the meanwhile a missing report had also been lodged at Police Station Najafgarh on 24.6.2011 and it is thereafter that the family of the deceased was called to identify the dead body of the deceased. Sh. Ram Mehar (PW1) the brother in law (Sala) of the deceased and Naresh Kumar (PW2) the nephew of the deceased have proved that on the basis of injury marks of operation on hands and cut marks on the legs. Later when the head of the deceased was got recovered by the accused Roop Chand and it was identified by Balbir Singh (PW19) and Giani Ram (PW17) who are the brothers of the deceased Layak Ram. I have gone through the photographs of the head which are Ex.PW7/A1 to St. Vs. Roop Chand, FIR No. 106/11, PS Pahar Ganj Page No. 123 Ex.PW7/A14 showing the recovery of Head and it is evident that the facial features as visible were distinct despite the decomposition having set in on the basis of which it could be easily identified. In this background, I hereby hold that despite the DNA Fingerprinting Report not conclusively establishing the identity of the head the Amplification not being possible; the identification of the both the Torso (recovered from near the Urinal in the area of Police Station Paharganj on 25.6.2011 at 7:25 AM) from the definite injury marks on the same and of the Head (recovered from under the Pulia at Rani KheraKanjhawla Road near Sir Choturam Polytechnic on 30.6.2011) by the family members of the deceased conclusively establishes the identity of the body parts i.e. Head and the Torso being of the same person i.e. Layak Ram.
Ocular Evidence/ Last Seen:
(169) Ocular evidence/eye witness count is the best evidence in any case but it is settled law that the testimonies of the eye witnesses are required to be carefully analyzed to test the reliability, credibility and truthfulness of the witness. The eye witness account requires a careful independent assessment and evaluation for its credibility, it should not be adversely prejudged on the basis of other evidence. The ocular evidence has to be tested for its inherent consistency and inherent probability of the story, consistency of the account given by one witness with that given by the other witness held to be creditworthy, consistency with the St. Vs. Roop Chand, FIR No. 106/11, PS Pahar Ganj Page No. 124 undisputed facts, the 'credit' of the witnesses who performed in the witnessbox, their power of observation and it is only then that the probative value of such evidence becomes eligible to be put into the scales for a cumulative evaluation.
(170) Unfortunately in the present case there is no direct eye witness count and the entire case of the prosecution is based upon circumstantial evidence/ Last Seen Evidence. (171) The case of the prosecution is that the deceased Layak Ram was last seen alive in the company of Pawan Mittal (now deceased), Shatrughan (Proclaimed Offender) and accused Roop Chand while Layak Ram had taken meal with Pawan Mittal at Uttranchal Dhaba belonging to Daulat Singh. In this regard the prosecution has placed its reliance on the testimony of Smt. Sunita (PW18) wife of the deceased and Daulat Singh (PW35) who is the owner of the Dhaba where the deceased and accused Pawan Mittal had taken lunch. (172) However, before coming to the merits of the case, I may observe that the 'Last Seen' theory comes into play where the time gap between the point of time when the accused and the deceased were last seen alive and the deceased is found dead is so small that possibility of any person other than the accused being the author of the crime becomes impossible. It is a settled law that even in such cases the courts should look for such corroboration. (Sanjay Vs. State of U.T. Chandigarh Criminal Appeal No. 1699/2005 decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court St. Vs. Roop Chand, FIR No. 106/11, PS Pahar Ganj Page No. 125 on India on 5.5.2006).
(173) It is settled law that where there is no direct evidence against the accused and the prosecution rests its case on circumstantial evidence, the inference of guilt can be justified only when all the incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be in compatible with the innocence of the accused or the guilt of other person. [Ref: Ved Prakash @ Bhagwan Dia Vs. State of Haryana reported in 2006 (3) RCR (Criminal) 992].
(174) Further, in the case of Mohibur Rahman Vs. State of Assam reported in AIR 2002 SC 3064 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that : "....... The circumstance of last seen together does not by itself and necessarily lead to the inference that it was the accused who committed the crime. There must be something more establishing connectivity between the accused and the crime. There may be cases where on account of close proximity of place and time between the event of the accused having been last seen with the deceased and the factum of death a rational mind may be persuaded to reach an irresistible conclusion that either the accused should explain how and in what circumstances the victim suffered the death or should own he liability for the homicide....."
(175) A similar view was taken by Supreme Court in the decision reported as Amit @ Ammu Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 2003 SC 3131. Further, in the decision reported as State of Rajasthan St. Vs. Roop Chand, FIR No. 106/11, PS Pahar Ganj Page No. 126 Vs. Kashi Ram reported in AIR 2007 SC 144 Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under: "....... It is not necessary to multiply with authorities.
The principle is well settled. The provisions of Section 106 of the Evidence Act itself are unambiguous and categoric in laying down that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of a person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him. Thus, if a person is last seen with the deceased, he must offer an explanation as to how and when he parted company. He must furnish an explanation which appears to the Court to be probable and satisfactory. If he does so he must be held to have discharged his burden. If he fails to offer an explanation on the basis of facts within his special knowledge, he fails to discharge the burden cast upon him by Section 106 of the Evidence Act. In a case resting on circumstantial evidence if the accused fails to offer a reasonable explanation in discharge of the burden placed on him, that itself provides an additional link in the chain of circumstances proved against him. Section 106 does not shift the burden of proof in a criminal trial, which is always upon the prosecution. It lays down the rule that when the accused does not throw any light upon facts which are specially within his knowledge and which could not support any theory or hypothesis compatible with his innocence, the Court can consider his failure to adduce any explanation, as an additional link which completes the chain. The principle has been succinctly stated in Re. Naina Mohd. AIR 1960 Madras, 218. ..." (176) Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pradeep Nandrajog in the case of Sharda Jain Vs. State in Crl. Appeal No. 51/2007 decided on 27.8.2009 St. Vs. Roop Chand, FIR No. 106/11, PS Pahar Ganj Page No. 127 has on the basis of the various judicial pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, succinctly laid down the factors on which the effect of last seen on the guilt of accused depends, which are as under:
(i) Proximity between the time of last seen and time of death of the deceased.
(ii) Proximity between the place where the deceased was last seen with the deceased and place of murder of the deceased.
(iii) Nature of place of murder of the deceased.
(iv) Attending circumstances enwombing the time and place of last seen.
(v) Reasonableness of the explanation offered by the accused.
(177) Now applying the settled principles of law to the facts of the present case it is required to be seen whether the evidence of the prosecution witnesses to establish that the deceased was last seen alive in the company of the accused Roop Chand is trustworthy or not. If yes, the effect thereto.
(178) Applying the settled principles of law to the facts of the present case, coming first to the testimony of Smt. Sunita (PW18) who had last seen the deceased Layak Ram on 24.06.2011 at about 7:008:00 AM when he told her that he was going to the house of his brother and also informed her that thereafter he would go to Pawan @ Bitto and demanded ATM card of SBI and PNB from her. She has specifically stated that her husband was disappointed with Pawan since one week St. Vs. Roop Chand, FIR No. 106/11, PS Pahar Ganj Page No. 128 prior that day he told her that Pawan had become dishonest (Pawan ke man mein khot aa gaya hai). She has further deposed that her husband left the house and on the same day at about 56 PM Pawan @ Bittoo came to her house by the tempo and asked her about Layak Ram on which she told him that her husband went to his (Pawan's) house and did not return back. According to her, she then made a telephonic call to the mobile number 9968560096 of her husband and then somebody picked the phone and told her that her husband was taking a bath. She has testified that thereafter, Pawan @ Bitto left her house and at that time he was perplexed. From the testimony of Sunita it is clear that when Layak Ram left his house, he had informed his wife that he was going to meet Pawan Mittal and in the evening when Pawan came to his house he was disappointed. Whether the deceased Layak Ram met Pawan Mittal or not? Why did Pawan came to the house of Layak Ram in the evening and meet his wife? The answer to this is forthcoming in the testimony of Saulat Singh (PW25) and in the statement of accused Roop Chand made by him in the Court under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and 315 Cr.P.C. (179) Coming first to the testimony of Daulat Singh (PW25) who is running a Dhaba under the name and style of Uttranchal Dhaba at Agar Nagar Mor, Mubarakpur, Aman Vihar, Delhi i.e. near the factory of the accused Pawan Mittal. He has proved that on 24.06.2011 at about 1.00 PM the accused Roop Chand alongwith Pawan Mittal and one Pehelwan came at his Dhaba to take lunch and at that time said St. Vs. Roop Chand, FIR No. 106/11, PS Pahar Ganj Page No. 129 "pehalwan" was under the influence of liquor. I may observe that as per the prosecution case the death of the deceased had taken place on 24.6.2011 and the public witness Daulat Singh (PW35) had seen the deceased Layak Ram in the company of the accused Roop Chand along with Pawan Mittal (proclaimed offender) at about 1:00 PM on 24.6.2011. Daulat Singh, I may observe, is a reliable witness since he has no history of animosity with the accused Roop Chand and there is no reason why he would falsely implicate or name him. He has established the presence of Pawan Mittal (deceased accused) and Roop Chand at his Dhaba along with the deceased Layak Ram who he had identified as a Pehelwan type person who appeared to be under the influence of alcohol. It was now for the accused Roop Chand to explain as to when and how he parted with the company of the deceased.
(180) When the above incriminating material was put to the accused Roop Chand initially the accused Roop Chand pleaded his ignorance about the same but later on he examined himself as his witness as DW1 (under Section 315 Cr.P.C.) and made a detail statement wherein he has explained that he was working at the factory of Pawan Mittal on daily wages basis as a driver for about one and half months prior to the incident and used to drive the TATA ACE of the factory owned by Pawan Mittal. He has also explained that for the said work and he used to earn Rs.300/ per day on the day he was called for work and was not on a monthly salary. According to him, on 24.06.2011 in the afternoon while St. Vs. Roop Chand, FIR No. 106/11, PS Pahar Ganj Page No. 130 he was sleeping in the TATA ACE Tempo, he was called by Pawan Mittal through a foreman of their factory at Uttaranchal Dhaba which is at a distance of about 200 meters from the factory on which he went there on foot since the Dhaba is hardly one or two minutes distance from the factory. He has further explained that when he reached the Uttarnchal Dhaba, he found that Pawan Mittal and Layak Ram were having lunch there and Layak Ram (deceased) did not appear to be in a fit state of mind at that time. He has stated that Pawan Mittal asked him to take Layak Ram to the factory and accordingly he brought Layak Ram to the factory on foot by giving him support. The accused Roop Chand has further stated that on reaching the factory, Pawan Mittal asked him to go and take rest and also informed him that they would go to Khyala for taking some goods in the evening. According to Roop Chand thereafter he went away from there and took rest and at about 4.30/5.00PM Pawan Mittal and Shatrughan woke him up and asked him to start the vehicle as they to go to Najafgarh to the house of Layak Ram. He has further explained that at Najafgarh he alongwith Shatrughan remained in the TATA ACE vehicle whereas Pawan Mittal went inside the house of Layak Ram. I may note here that the accused Roop Chand is confirming the version given by Sunita the wife of Layak Ram that Pawan Mittal had come to her in the evening and inquired about Layak Ram. He has deposed that he did not feel anything unusual since he was not aware at that time if Layak Ram was present in the factory or had returned back to St. Vs. Roop Chand, FIR No. 106/11, PS Pahar Ganj Page No. 131 his house. Thereafter within twothree minutes Pawan Mittal came to them and they went to Khyala since Pawan Mittal had to make some payment there after which they all returned back to factory at about 7.00PM on the same day. He has further deposed that after that on the asking of Pawan Mittal they went to his house for taking tea and after having tea they returned back to the factory when Pawan Mittal told him that he had to supply two bundles at Maa Kaila Transport, Nabi Karim, Delhi and he was then asked to park the vehicle in the factory. However, thereafter he was not permitted to remain there and Pawan @ Bittoo send him to the market to purchase a packet of Rajnigandha gutka. He has explained that he went to the market on foot and when he returned to the factory after 2025 minutes he found two bundles loaded on the back side of the tempo which were of plastic kattas after which he alongwith Pawan Mittal @ Bittoo and Shatrughan left the factory for going to Nabi Karim. He has also stated that while Shatrughan was sitting with him on the front seat and he was driving the tempo, Pawan @ Bittoo was on the back side along with two kattas/ bundles and when they reached at Rani Khera - Kanjhawala Road Pawan Mittal told him to stop vehicle as he wanted to ease himself. He has further explained that thereafter Pawan Mittal and Shatrughan went towards the backside of vehicle and from the side glass he could see that Pawan Mittal had thrown some polythene bag at the Rani Khera Kanjhawala Road near the pullia and he could see the same clearly from the side window but he was not aware what he St. Vs. Roop Chand, FIR No. 106/11, PS Pahar Ganj Page No. 132 (Pawan Mittal) had thrown there at that time because it was a closed polythene bag not he did not have the courage to ask Pawan Mittal about it as Pawan was his employer. According to the accused, thereafter they took CNG from CNG Station at Ghevra and reached Jhandewalan and when they reached near the Police Station Paharganj Pawan Mittal asked him to stop the vehicle near the red light. Thereafter both Pawan Mittal and Shatrughan got down from the vehicle and entered a building near the red light and after about ten minutes both Pawan Mittal and Shatrughan came back and asked him to go to Maa Kaila Transport company at Nabi Karim. However, before they could reach the Maa Kaila Transport Company he was again asked to stop the vehicle near cycle market Jahandewalan and there he could see that some bundle was thrown by both Shatrughan and Pawan Mittal. He has deposed that they had unloaded this bundle from the backside of the vehicle which he could see from the side window but he did not know what was inside the said bundle. However, both Pawan Mittal and Shatrughan had carried the same and it hardly took them about twothree minutes to return back without this bundle. He has also explained that thereafter they reached Maa Kaila Transport where remaining bundles was unloaded. He has explained that at that time when this bundle was thrown it was raining. According to him, after returning back to the factory, Pawan Mittal gave his Rs.100/ and asked him to go home. St. Vs. Roop Chand, FIR No. 106/11, PS Pahar Ganj Page No. 133 (181) The accused Roop Chand has further explained that next day he remained in the factory for the entire day and on 29.6.2011 Pawan told him that he had to accompany him in going to Mata Vaishno Devi on which they went to Mata Vaishno Devi and stayed at Katra in a hotel. He has testified that on 31.06.2011 they returned back from Jammu to Pathankot in a taxi and from Pathankot to Amritsar in a train and when they were at Jalandhar, Pawan Mittal made a call to his house and he came to know that police is searching for him. According to him, from Old Delhi Railway Station he went to his house and next day police came to his house and brought him to Police Station Paharganj where police interrogated him regarding Layak Ram but he told them that he did not know anything as to what had happened with Layak Ram. He has explained that he was detained in the police station and on the next morning police showed him a photograph of Pawan Mittal to identify him which he duly identified and police told him that Pawan Mittal had consumed some poison and they found a suicide note in his pocket. He has further testified that the last time when he had seen Layak Ram was when he was called to the Dhaba by Pawan Mittal and there he had found Layak Ram in intoxicated condition and was not even able to walk (larkhara raha tha) and he helped him on the asking of Pawan Mittal and brought him to the factory of Pawan Mittal @ Bittoo and then left him in the office of Pawan Mittal where Shatrughan and nineten other employees were present and working and thereafter he was asked to go St. Vs. Roop Chand, FIR No. 106/11, PS Pahar Ganj Page No. 134 and take rest on which he went to tempo and slept.
(182) The relevant portion of the testimony of accused Roop Chand is reproduced as under:
"........ I was working at the factory of Pawan Mittal on daily wages basis as a driver for about one and half months prior to the incident and I used to drive the TATA ACE of the factory owned by Pawan Mittal. I was on daily wages for the said work and earning Rs 300/ per day on the day I was called for work but I was not on monthly salary. On 24.06.2011 in the afternoon I was called by Pawan Mittal through a foreman of our factory at Uttaranchal Dhaba. At that time I was sleeping in the TATA ACE tempo at the factory. The said Dhaba is at a distance of about 200 meters from the factory and I went there on foot as the dhaba is hardly one or two minutes distance from the factory. When I reached the Uttarnchal Dhaba, I found that Pawan Mittal and Layak Ram were having lunch there and Layak Ram did not appear to be in a fit state of mind. Pawan Mittal told me to take Layak Ram to the factory and I brought Layak Ram to the factory on foot by giving my support. On reaching the factory, Pawan Mittal asked me to take rest and informed me that we would go to Khyala for taking some goods in the evening after I have taken rest. At about 4.30/5.00PM Pawan Mittal and Shatrughan woke me up and told me to start the vehicle as we have to go to Najafgarh to the house of Layak Ram. At Najafgarh I alongwith Shatrughan remained in the TATA ACE vehicle and Pawan Mittal went inside the house of Layak Ram. I did not feel anything unusual as I was not aware at St. Vs. Roop Chand, FIR No. 106/11, PS Pahar Ganj Page No. 135 that time if Layak Ram was present in the factory or had returned back to his house. Within 23 minutes Pawan Mittal came to us and we went to Khyala as Pawan Mittal had to make some payment there. We all returned back to factory at about 7.00PM on the same day. Thereafter on the asking of Pawan Mittal we went to his house for taking tea. After having tea we returned back to the factory. At that time Pawan Mittal told me to supply two bundles at Maa Kaila Transport, Nabi Karim, Delhi. At that time I was asked to park the vehicle in the factory and Pawan @ Bittoo send me to the market to purchase a packet of Rajnigandha gutka. I went to the market on foot and when I came to the factory after 2025 minutes I found two bundles loaded on the back side of the tempo which were of plastic kattas and they were big bundles. Thereafter I alongwith Pawan Mittal @ Bittoo and Shatrughan left the factory for going to Nabi Karim. While Shatrughan was sitting with me on the front seat and I was driving the tempo, Pawan @ Bittoo was on the back side along with two kattas. On the way at Rani Khera - Kanjhawala Road Pawan Mittal told me to stop vehicle as he wanted to ease himself. Thereafter Pawan Mittal and Shatrughan went towards the backside of vehicle and from the side glass I could see that Pawan Mittal had thrown some polythene bag at the Rani Khera Kanjhawala road near the pullia. At that time I was sitting on the driver seat of the vehicle and I could see the same clearly from the side window but I cannot tell what he had thrown there at that time because it was a closed polythene bag. I also did not have the courage to ask about it from Pawan Mittal who was my employer. Thereafter we took CNG from St. Vs. Roop Chand, FIR No. 106/11, PS Pahar Ganj Page No. 136 CNG Station at Ghevra and reached Jhandewalan. Near the PS Paharganj Pawan Mittal asked me to stop the vehicle near the red light and thereafter both Pawan Mittal and Shatrughan got down from the vehicle and entered a building near the red light. They came back after 10 minutes and then asked me to go to Maa Kaila Transport company at Nabi Karim but before we could reach the Maa Kaila transport company I was again asked to stop the vehicle near cycle market Jahandewalan and there I could see that some bundle was thrown there by both Shatrughan and Pawan Mittal. They had unloaded this bundle from the backside of the vehicle which I could see from the side window but I did not know what was inside the said bundle but both Pawan Mittal and Shatrughan had carried the same and it hardly took them about 23 minutes to return back without this bundle. Thereafter we reached at Maa Kaila transport where remaining bundles was unloaded. At that time when these bundles were thrown it was raining. After returning back to the factory, Pawan Mittal gave me Rs.100/ and told me to go home.
Next day I remained in the factory for the entire day. On 29th day of June 2011 Pawan told me that I had to assist him in going to Mata Vaishno Devi. We went to Mata Vaishno Devi and stayed at Katra in a hotel. On 31.06.2011 we returned back from Jammu to Pathankot in a taxi and from Pathankot to Amritsar in a train. When we were at Jalandhar, Pawan Mittal made a call to his house and he came to know that police is searching for him.
St. Vs. Roop Chand, FIR No. 106/11, PS Pahar Ganj Page No. 137
From old Railway Station, Delhi I went to my
house. Next day police came to my house and
brought me to PS Paharganj. There police
interrogated me regarding Layak Ram but I told them that I do not know anything as to what had happened with Layak Ram. I was detained in the police station and on the next day morning police show me a photograph of Pawan Mittal to identify him. I told them that the person in photograph is Pawan Mittal. Police told me that Pawan Mittal had consumed some poison and they had found a suicide note in his pocket. I do not know anything about Layak Ram. I had been falsely implicated in the present case. I had told the police officials on several occasions that I do not know as to what Pawan Mittal and Shatrughan did with Layak Ram but police officials did not pay any attention. I am innocent and unaware of the acts of Pawan Mittal and Shatrughan. The last time when I had seen Layak Ram was when I was called to the dhaba by Pawan Mittal and thereafter I found Layak Ram in an intoxicated condition and was not able to walk (larkhara raha tha) and I helped him on the asking of Pawan Mittal and brought him to the factory of Pawan Mittal @ Bittoo and then left him in the office of Pawan Mittal where Shatrughan and 910 other employees were present and working. Thereafter I was asked to go and take rest on which I went to tempo and slept......."
(183) I may observe that in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the accused has explained whatever had transpired after Layak Ram was brought back to the factory. It is also the case of the St. Vs. Roop Chand, FIR No. 106/11, PS Pahar Ganj Page No. 138 prosecution that the incident in question had taken place in the office of Pawan Mittal which is situated in the factory and the statement of accused Roop Chand apparently confirms the same. Roop chand was the driver of Pawan Mittal and was asked to leave and take rest after he left Layak Ram in the office of Pawan Mittal. He has explained that he had last seen the deceased Layak Ram in the company of Pawan Mittal (deceased accused) and Shatrughan while Layak Ram intoxicated. At the very Outset I may observe that the accused Roop Chand belongs to a very poor family. Previously he was working as a Safai Karamchari and had joined the duties as Driver on daily wages with Pawan Mittal and his status was such that he was not in a position to question Pawan Mittal being his employee. There is no reason why the main accused i.e. Pawan Mittal would have confided in him or why Roop Chand would have accompanied Pawan Mittal or assisted him in the Crime. (184) Secondly it is also not the case of the prosecution that the accused Roop Chand is a hired assailant or was paid by Pawan Mittal. Rather, the accused Pawan Mittal has clean antecedents and was previously working as Safai Karamchari and was earning his livlihood by hard work. He has no previous history of animosity with Layak Ram or reason to be inimical to him. Under the given circumstances it does not appear probable that he would have assisted Pawan Mittal in committing the murder of Layak Ram.
St. Vs. Roop Chand, FIR No. 106/11, PS Pahar Ganj Page No. 139 (185) Thirdly the photographs Ex.X1 to Ex.X4 which were retrieved from the CCTV Cameras installed at the ATM of Indusind Bank, Paharganj only shows the presence of PO accused Shatrughan and deceased accused Pawan Mittal and confirmed that they were the ones who had withdrawn the money by using the ATM Card of the deceased on 24.6.2011 at 10:58 PM. I may observe that the accused Roop Chand has explained that being a Driver of the vehicle he was not aware of what was happening but on the directions of Pawan Mittal had driven the vehicle at various places which include the house of Layak Ram situated at Najafgarh after which they came back to the factory and certain bundles were loaded in the tempo and thereafter while Shatrughan was sitting besides him and Pawan Mittal was sitting on the backside of the tempo they first gone to Jhandewalan via taking the route of Rani Khera
- Kanjhawala Road, Ghevra, Anad Parbat, Jhandewalan and then to Nabi Karim. He has also explained in his statement under Section 315 Cr.P.C. that when they reached at Rani KheraKanjhawla Road near Puliya the accused Shatrughan and Pawan Mittal had asked him to stop the tempo and from the side window he had seen Pawan Mittal throwing some polythene from behind but he did not find it unusual nor he had the courage to ask to him and kept on driving. I may observe that it was the same place from where the police had later on recovered the head of the deceased after Roop Chand had pointed this place to them as the place where he had stopped the vehicle for sometime. Further, Roop St. Vs. Roop Chand, FIR No. 106/11, PS Pahar Ganj Page No. 140 Chand had also pointed out the place where he had stopped the vehicle i.e. Jhandewalan Red Light. An independent corroboration is forthcoming to his statement since the photographs of the CCTV footage which are Ex.X1 to X4 show that Pawan Mittal and Shatrughan were the persons who had gone to the ATM and withdrawn the money from the ATM Card of deceased Layak Ram. Further, the Statement of Bank Account bearing No. 30032912575 belonging to the deceased Layak Ram from 20.01.2006 till 29.07.2011 which is Ex.PW32/A and the relevant entries encircled at point X1, X2, X3 and X4 all dated 24.06.2011 showing that a total sum of Rs. Forty Thousand i.e. Rs. Ten Thousand each was withdrawn from ATM of INDUSIND Bank, Pharaganj Branch by using the ATM card of the deceased (proved by PW32 Sh. Subhash Chand Sakarwal, Deputy Manager, SBI Najafgarh Branch, Delhi). There is nothing on record to show that Roop Chand new about what was happening and it was the accused Shatrughan (Proclaimed Offender) and Pawan Mittal (now deceased) who have been seen together and Roop Chand has explained his presence by virtue of his being the Driver/ Employee of Pawan Mittal on daily wages.
(186) Fourthly the accused Roop Chand has in his statement under Section 315 Cr.P.C. explained that from the Red Light of Jhandewalan, they went towards Maa Kaila Transport Company at Nabi St. Vs. Roop Chand, FIR No. 106/11, PS Pahar Ganj Page No. 141 Karim but before they could reach there he was again asked to stop the vehicle near cycle market Jahandewalan and he could see that some bundle was thrown by both Shatrughan and Pawan Mittal from the backside of the vehicle which he could see from the side window but he did not know what was inside the said bundle but both Pawan Mittal and Shatrughan had carried the same and it hardly took them about twothree minutes to return back without this bundle. I may observe it was the same place from where the decapitated body of the deceased Layak Ram was recovered from near the Urinal situated at Central Park, Income Tax Parking Area on 25.6.2011. This lends credence to the statement of Roop Chand under Section 315 Cr.P.C. which he has made before this Court on oath.
(187) Lastly the accused Roop Chand has explained that after returning, he parked the vehicle and it was on the next day that he remained in the factory for the entire day and on 29.6.2011 he along with Pawan Mittal had gone to Mata Vaishno Devi where they stayed at Katra in a hotel and on 31.06.2011 they returned back from Jammu to Pathankot in a taxi and from Pathankot to Amritsar in a train and when they were at Jalandhar, Pawan Mittal made a call to his house and came to know that police was searching for him. He has also explained that from Old Delhi Railway Station he went to his house and next day police came to his house and brought him to Police Station Paharganj where police interrogated him regarding Layak Ram but he told them that he St. Vs. Roop Chand, FIR No. 106/11, PS Pahar Ganj Page No. 142 did not know anything as to what had happened with Layak Ram. I may observe that it was on 30.6.2011 that the dead body of Pawan Mittal was found at Old Delhi Railway Station i.e. the place where Roop Chand and Pawan Mittal had got down and a suicide note was found in the pocket of Pawan Mittal. In so far as the accused Roop Chand is concerned, he is totally illiterate and cannot read and write. His subsequent conduct reveals that even after the incident he made no attempts to conceal himself or flee from Delhi, as is the case with the accused Shatrughan (Proclaimed Offender). Rather, he has explained that from Old Delhi Railway Station he was returning home and was apprehended from there. Had he entertained any dishonest intent, I am sure this would not have been done so and he would have similarly concealed himself and absconded as Shatrughan has done. The possibility that the entire crime of killing Layak Ram being planned and executed by Shatrughan (Proclaimed Offender) and Pawan Mittal (deceased) cannot be ruled out. (188) I may observe there is no material on record to show that the accused Roop Chand had been paid any amount by Pawan Mittal and the only evidence in this regard is the disclosure statement of the accused Roop Chand which is inadmissible in evidence being hit by the provisions of Section 25 of Evidence Act. There is nothing on record to show the prior meeting of mind between the accused Roop Chand and his coaccused nor any record of money had been recovered. Even otherwise, it does not appear to be probable that the accused Pawan St. Vs. Roop Chand, FIR No. 106/11, PS Pahar Ganj Page No. 143 Mittal would have confided in Roop Chand who had been employed by him only one month ago. In so far as the accused Roop Chand is concerned, the prosecution has not been able to place on record any material to confirm the dishonest intent so attributed to him. Neither the motive nor any common intention has been proved. The weapon of offence has not been recovered. The main accused Pawan Mittal had committed suicide and the other coaccused Shatrughan is Proclaimed Offender. Under the given circumstances, particularly in view of the fact that the accused Roop Chand was the Driver and has no motive or reason to kill the deceased Layak Ram or assisted the main accused nor any evidence has been brought on record to confirm his presence at the place of occurrence and Roop Chand having offered a valid explanation as regards his presence both at the Dhaba and thereafter in the factory which finds an independent confirmation from the electronic evidence on record and is convincing to this Court and also in view of the fact that only suspicion raised by the wife of the deceased was upon Pawan Mittal, I hold that the Last Seen Evidence which is a very weak piece of evidence does not assist the prosecution in any manner and it does not conclusively confirm the charge against the accused Roop Chand in so far as the allegations of Murder are concerned and at the most he can be booked only for assisting in concealment and destruction of evidence (Section 201 Indian Penal Code).
St. Vs. Roop Chand, FIR No. 106/11, PS Pahar Ganj Page No. 144 Arrest of the accused Roop Chand and Recovery of Head of the deceased:
(189) The case of the prosecution is that after committing the murder of the deceased the accused Roop Chand along with Pawan Mittal (now deceased) and Shatrughan (Proclaimed Offender) had left Delhi. On 3.6.2011 pursuant to a secret information the accused Roop Chand was apprehended from Mundka Railway Station and from his personal search two mobile phones, one of spice, model no. QT60 and another of Samsung, Reliance, one key mentioning Mahendra J on it, two platform tickets and two journey tickets from Amritsar to Delhi were recovered. It is further the case of the prosecution that pursuant to his disclosure statement the accused Roop Chand led the police team to the place of occurrence i.e. factory of Pawan Mittal at Agar Nagar and got recovered a TATA ACE Vehicle no. DL1LK8756 and disclosed that the same was used for shifting the dead body to various places after which it was taken into possession. Thereafter the accused led the police team in between to Central Park and Income Tax Parking, opposite Videocon Tower, Jhandewalan, New Delhi there he pointed out the place near toilet at pavement, where the torso was allegedly thrown. Thereafter on 01.07.2011 accused Roop Chand was again interrogated and his supplementary disclosure statement was recorded vide Ex.PW50/F pursuant to which the accused led the police party at Rani Khera pulia where he had thrown the blood stained mattresses, cover and bed sheet St. Vs. Roop Chand, FIR No. 106/11, PS Pahar Ganj Page No. 145 after committing murder of deceased Layak Ram and got recovered the Head of the deceased. In this regard the prosecution is placing its reliance on the testimonies of SI Vinay Kumar (PW16), Inspector Bijender Singh (PW50) and other members of the police party who had joined them in these investigations.
(190) However, before analyzing the evidence on merits, it is necessary to observe that as per the provisions of Section 27 of Evidence Act, which is in the nature of a proviso to Section 26 of the Act, to the extent it is relevant, when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved. Thus the requirement of law is that before the fact discovered in consequence of an information received from an accused is allowed to be proved, he (accused) needs to be in the custody of a police officer. (191) Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act explains the meaning of the word Fact. It provides that a fact means and includes:
1. Anything, state of things, or relation of things, or capable of being perceived by the senses,
2. Any mental condition of which any person is conscious.
(192) It further provides five illustrations as to what would constitute a fact which are as under:
St. Vs. Roop Chand, FIR No. 106/11, PS Pahar Ganj Page No. 146
1. That there are certain objects arranged in a certain order in a certain place, is a fact
2. That a man heard or saw something, is a fact.
3. That a man said certain words, is a fact.
4. That a man holds a certain opinion, has a certain intention, acts in good faith, or fraudulently, or uses a particular word in a particular sense, or is or was at a specified time conscious of a particular sensation, is a fact.
5. That a man has a certain reputation, is a fact.
(193) A cojoint reading of Section 3 and Section 27 of Evidence Act would apply that as much of the statement as would relate to the discovery of fact connected with the accused would be admissible in evidence. The discovery of the fact is not only the discovery of the articles but also the discovery of the fact that the articles were kept by a particular accused at a particular place because in principle there is no difference between the statement made by the accused to the effect that "I will show you the person to whom I have given the articles" and the statement that "I will show you the place where I have kept the articles".
(194) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K. Chinnaswamy Reddy Vs. State of A.P. reported in AIR 1962 SC 1788 had exhaustively discussed the scope and ambit of Section 27 of the Evidence Act had considered the question as to whether the statement of the accused to the effect that "he had hidden them (the ornaments)" and "would point out the place", where they were, is wholly admissible in evidence under S. 27 or only that part of it is admissible where he stated St. Vs. Roop Chand, FIR No. 106/11, PS Pahar Ganj Page No. 147 that he would point out the place but not that part where he stated that he had hidden the ornaments. In the above case the Ld. Sessions Judge had relied upon the judgment of Pulukuri Kotayya Vs. KingEmperor reported in 74 Ind App 65: AIR 1947 PC 67 where a part of the statement leading to the recovery of a knife in a murder case was held inadmissible by the Judicial Committee. It was observed by My Lords of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that in the above case (Pulukuri Kotayya) the Judicial Committee considered S. 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, as under: "Provided that when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a person, accused of any offence, in the custody of a police officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved......"
".... this section is an exception to Ss. 25 and 26 which prohibit the proof of a confession made to a police officer or a confession made while a person is in police custody unless it is made in immediate presence of a Magistrate. Section 27 allows that part of the statement made by the accused to the police "whether it amounts to a confession or not" which relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered to be proved. Thus even a confessional statement before the police which distinctly relates to the discovery of a fact may be proved under S. 27. The Judicial Committee had in that case to consider how much of the information given by the accused to the police St. Vs. Roop Chand, FIR No. 106/11, PS Pahar Ganj Page No. 148 would be admissible under S. 27 and laid stress on the words "so much of such information. . . .. ...... as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered" in that connection. It held that the extent of the information admissible must depend on the exact nature of the fact discovered to which such information is required to relate. It was further pointed out that "the fact discovered embraces the place from which the object is produced and the knowledge of the accused as to this, and the information given must relate distinctly to this fact...."
"........Information as to past user, or the past history of the object produced is not related to its discovery in the setting in which it is discovered.
This was exemplified further by the Judicial Committee by observing that the information supplied by a person in custody that 'I will produce a knife concealed in the roof of my house' leads to the discovery of the fact that a knife is concealed in the house of the informant to his knowledge and if the knife is proved to have been used in the commission of the offence, the fact discovered is very relevant. If, however, to the statement the words be added 'with which I stabbed A', these words are inadmissible since they do not relate to the discovery of the knife in the house of the informant......"
(195) After considering the settled principles the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under:
"......If we may respectfully say so, this case clearly brings out what part of the statement is admissible under S. 27. It is only that part which distinctly relates St. Vs. Roop Chand, FIR No. 106/11, PS Pahar Ganj Page No. 149 to the discovery which is admissible; but if any part of the statement distinctly relates to the discovery it will be admissible wholly and the court cannot say that it will excise one part of the statement because it is of a confessional nature. Section 27 makes that part of the statement which is distinctly related to the discovery admissible as a whole, whether it be in the nature of confession or not. Now the statement in this case is said to be that the appellant stated that he would show the place where he had hidden the ornaments. The Sessions Judge has held that part of this statement which is to the effect "where he had hidden them" is not admissible. It is clear that if that part of the statement is excised the remaining statement (namely, that he would show the place) would be completely meaningless. The whole of this statement in our opinion relates distinctly to the discovery of ornaments and is admissible under S. 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. The words "where he had hidden them"
are not on a par with the words "with which I stabbed the deceased" in the example given in the judgment of the Judicial Committee. These words (namely, where he had hidden them) have nothing to do with the past history of the crime and are distinctly related to the actual discovery that took place by virtue of that statement. It is however urged that in a case where the offence consists of possession even the words "where he had hidden them" would be inadmissible as they would amount to an admission by the accused that he was in possession. There are in our opinion two answers to this argument. In the first place S. 27 itself says that where the statement distinctly relates to the discovery it will be admissible whether it amounts to a confession or not. In the second place, St. Vs. Roop Chand, FIR No. 106/11, PS Pahar Ganj Page No. 150 these words by themselves though they may show possession of the appellant would not prove the offence, for after the articles have been recovered the prosecution has still to show that the articles recovered are connected with the crime, i.e., in this case, the prosecution will have to show that they are stolen property. We are, therefore, of opinion that the entire statement of the appellant (as well as of the other accused who stated that he had given the ornament to Bada Sab and would have it recovered from him) would be admissible in evidence and the Sessions Judge was wrong in ruling out part of it.
Therefore, as relevant and admissible evidence was ruled out by the Sessions Judge, this is a fit case where the High Court would be entitled to set aside the finding of acquittal in revision though it is unfortunate that the High Court did not confine itself only to this point and went on to make rather strong remarks about other parts of the evidence......"
(196) Later in the year 1969 the Three Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has in the case of Zaffar Hussain Dastagir Vs. State of Maharastra reported in 1969 (2) SCC 872 while dealing with the applicability of the provisions of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act relied upon the case of K. Chinnaswamy Reddy Vs. State of A.P. observed as under:
".......in order that the Section may apply the prosecution must establish the information given by the accused led to the discovery of some fact deposed St. Vs. Roop Chand, FIR No. 106/11, PS Pahar Ganj Page No. 151 to by him and the discovery must be of some fact which the police had not previously learnt from other sources and that the knowledge of the fact was first derived from information given by the accused. The essential ingredient of the Section is that the information given by the accused must led to the discovery of the fact which is the direct outcome of such information; secondly only such portion of the information given as is distinctly connected with the said discovery is admissible against the accused and thirdly the discovery of the fact must relate to the commission of some offence.
(197) In the said case the Hon'ble Supreme Court further went to explain that "..... In a case where the accused is charged with theft of articles or receiving stolen articles states to the police "I will show you the articles at the place where I have kept them" and the articles were actually found there, there can be no doubt that the information given by the accused led to the discovery of a fact that is keeping of the articles by the accused at the place mentioned. However, the discovery of the fact deposed to in such a case is not the discovery of the articles but the discovery of the fact that the articles were kept by the accused at a particular place. It was observed that in principle, there is no difference between the above statement and that made by the accused in the case which in effect is that "I will show you the person whom I have given the diamonds exceeding 200 in number". The only difference between the two statements is that a St. Vs. Roop Chand, FIR No. 106/11, PS Pahar Ganj Page No. 152 "named person" is substituted for "the place" where the articles are kept. In neither case are the articles of the diamonds, in fact discovered. There can be no doubt that the portion of the alleged statement of the accused would be admissible in evidence......"
(198) In the recent past the Hon'ble Supreme Court has in the case of State (NCT of Delhi) Vs. Navjot Sandhu with Shaukat Hussain Guru Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in AIR 2005 SC 3820 reinforced the above view when it observed that "discovery of fact"
should be read with the definition of "fact" as contained in Section 3 of the Evidence Act which defines the "fact" as meaning and including anything, state of things or relation of things, capable of being perceived by the senses and also includes any mental condition of which any person is conscious (emphasis supplied). It was held that the provisions of Section 27 would apply whenever there is discovery which discovery amounts to be confirmatory in character guaranteeing the truth of the information given to which facts the police officer had no access earlier which also includes recovery of material object. The Hon'ble Court further observed that so much of the information as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered is admissible.
(199) Now applying the settled principles of law to the facts of the present case and I may observe that when this incriminating material was put to the accused Roop Chand and he has explained that initially the accused Roop Chand pleaded his ignorance about the same. As St. Vs. Roop Chand, FIR No. 106/11, PS Pahar Ganj Page No. 153 discussed herein above, later on he examined himself as his witness as DW1 (under Section 315 Cr.P.C.) and made a detail statement wherein he has explained the manner in which he had driven the vehicle at various places on the directions of Pawan Mittal. He claims that he had rather assisted the Investigating Agency and has disclosed the places where the vehicle slowed down/ stopped. He has explained that on 24.6.2011 in the evening Pawan Mittal told him to drop/ supply two bundles at Maa Kaila Transport, Nabi Karim, Delhi and he was asked to park the vehicle in the factory after which Pawan @ Bittoo send him to the market to purchase a packet of Rajnigandha Gutka. After about 2025 minutes he came back to the factory and found two bundles loaded on the back side of the tempo which were of plastic kattas after which he alongwith Pawan Mittal @ Bittoo and Shatrughan left the factory for going to Nabi Karim.
While Shatrughan was sitting with him on the front seat and he was driving the tempo, Pawan @ Bittoo was on the back side along with two kattas. Thereafter at Rani Khera Kanjhawala Road Pawan Mittal told him to stop vehicle as he wanted to ease himself. He has further explained that thereafter Pawan Mittal and Shatrughan went towards the backside of vehicle and from the side glass he could see that Pawan Mittal had thrown some polythene bag at the Rani Khera Kanjhawala road near the pullia and he could see the same clearly from the side window but he is not aware what he (Pawan Mittal) had thrown there at that time because it was a closed polythene bag and he had no courage to St. Vs. Roop Chand, FIR No. 106/11, PS Pahar Ganj Page No. 154 ask about it from Pawan Mittal who was his employer. (200) Further, from the disclosure statement of the accused Roop Chand it is also borne out that it was the accused Pawan Mittal who had inflicted injuries on the chest of Layak Ram with a screw driver since Layak Ram who was in a state of intoxication since he was not disclosing the PIN Number of the ATM Cards. As per the prosecution case it was the accused Roop Chand who had decapitated the head of deceased Layak Ram. In this regard, I may observe that none of the weapon of offence i.e. the screw driver and the knife with which the head of the deceased was allegedly decapitated, were recovered and the only evidence in this regard is the disclosure statement of the accused Roop Chand which is inadmissible in evidence being hit by the provisions of Section 25 of Evidence Act.
(201) I may further observe that the Investigating Agency was already aware of the place where the torso of Layak Ram was recovered and hence the pointing out by the accused Roop Chand has no relevance. Further, the accused Roop Chand has not disputed his presence with the accused Pawan Mittal (deceased) and Shatrughan (Proclaimed Offender). He has admitted having drove the vehicle to various places including the pulia near Sir Choturam Polytechnic on the directions of Pawan Mittal. This is only natural since he was employed as the Driver of Pawan Mittal. He has, however, explained that he was not aware of what was happening. As already discussed herein above that the explanation so St. Vs. Roop Chand, FIR No. 106/11, PS Pahar Ganj Page No. 155 offered by the accused Roop Chand in his statement under Section 315 Cr.P.C. is probable and trustworthy. There is nothing on record to show that the accused was conscious of what his coaccused had done. Pawan Mittal was running a factory and frequently delivered goods at various places and for this he used to hire the services of Roop Chand as Driver on daily wages. Even on the date of the incident the goods were loaded in the TATA ACE along with the body of the deceased concealed in the same. While the accused Roop Chand was driving the vehicle and Shatrughan (Proclaimed Offender) was sitting besides him, it was the accused Pawan Mittal who had sitting at the back side of the tempo and had thrown the bag containing head of the deceased near the pulia, near Sir Choturam Polytechnic which place was shown to the police by the accused Roop Chand. The accused Roop Chand should have been rather made a witness not an accused since it was on his statement that the entire case was cracked.
(202) This being the background, I hereby hold that Knowledge which is a necessary ingredient of Section 302 Indian Penal Code is found to be missing but in so far as the ingredients of Section 201 Indian Penal Code is concerned, even if we go by the disclosure statement of the accused Roop Chand and consequent recovery, then at the most it is the offence under Section 201 Indian Penal Code which is made out but certainly not the offence under Section 302 Indian Penal Code as charged by the prosecution.
St. Vs. Roop Chand, FIR No. 106/11, PS Pahar Ganj Page No. 156 FINAL CONCLUSIONS:
(203) In the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs State of Maharastra, reported in AIR 1984 SC 1622, the Apex Court has laid down the tests which are prerequisites before conviction should be recorded, which are as under:
1. The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established.
The circumstances concerned 'must or should' and not 'may be' established;
2. The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty;
3. The circumstances should be of conclusive nature and tendency;
4. They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and
5. There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.
(204) Applying the settled principles of law to the facts of the present case, I may observe that the identity of the accused Roop Chand stands established. He was the employee of Pawan Mittal (deceased) and was working as a daily wager driver. On the basis of the testimonies of the various prosecution witnesses and the medical, forensic, electronic St. Vs. Roop Chand, FIR No. 106/11, PS Pahar Ganj Page No. 157 and other circumstantial evidence on record it has been established that the accused Pawan Mittal (deceased) was running a factory at 2250, Agar Nagar Mode, Nithari Village, Aman Vihar, Delhi and the accused Roop Chand was the employee of Pawan Mittal; that there was a money dispute between Pawan Mittal and victim Layak Ram; that on 24.6.2011 at about 1:00 PM the deceased Layak Ram (who was under the influence of liquor) was last seen alive in the company of accused Pawan Mittal and Roop Chand at Uttranchal Dhaba owned by Daulat Singh where Pawan Mittal and Layak Ram had taken their lunch. It has also been established that on 25.6.2011 at about 7:25 AM the decapitated body of Layak Ram was found lying near urinal in between Central Park and Income Tax Parking, Jhandewalan, New Delhi i.e. within the Jurisdiction of Police Station Paharganj. It also stands established that the dead body of Pawan Mittal was found lying at Old Delhi Railway Station on 30.6.2011 at 8:45 AM. Further, it has been established that on 30.6.2011 the accused Roop Chand was apprehended and he led the police party at Ghevra Road, near Sir Chhoturam Technical Institute near a Pulia from where the head of the deceased Layak Ram was recovered. (205) However, the prosecution has not been able to prove and substantiate the allegations against the accused Roop Chand of having assisted the main accused Pawan Mittal in committing the murder of Layak Ram in any manner. I hereby hold that Knowledge which is a necessary ingredient of Section 302 Indian Penal Code is found to be St. Vs. Roop Chand, FIR No. 106/11, PS Pahar Ganj Page No. 158 missing but in so far as the ingredients of Section 201 Indian Penal Code is concerned, even if we go by the disclosure statement of the accused Roop Chand and consequent recovery of the body part i.e. Head of the deceased, then at the most it is the offence under Section 201 Indian Penal Code which is made out but certainly not the offence under Section 302 Indian Penal Code as charged by the prosecution. (206) This being the background, the accused Roop Chand is acquitted of the charge under Section 302 Indian Penal code and is held guilty of the offence under Section 201 Indian Penal Code.
Announced in the open court (Dr. KAMINI LAU) Dated: 14.8.2014 ASJII(NW)/ ROHINI St. Vs. Roop Chand, FIR No. 106/11, PS Pahar Ganj Page No. 159 IN THE COURT OF Dr. KAMINI LAU: ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGEII (NORTHWEST): ROHINI COURTS: DELHI Session Case No. 76/2013 Unique Case ID No.: 02404R0294682011 State Vs. (1) Roop Chand S/o Sh. Devi Chand R/o J523, JJ Colony Sawda, Kanjhawla, Delhi (Convicted) (2) Shatrughan @ Shatru S/o Sh. Phoosho Ram R/o Village Bhanshi, PS Garhpura, Distt. Begusarai, Bihar (Proclaimed Offender) FIR No.: 106/2011 Police Station: Pahar Ganj Under Sections: 302/201/34 Indian Penal Code Date of conviction: 14.8.2014 Arguments on sentence: 14.8.2014 Order on sentence: 14.8.2014 APPEARANCE: Present: Sh. Tofeeq Ahmed, Ld. Addl. PP for the State.
Convict Roop Chand in Judicial Custody with Sh. Rajneesh Antil, Advocate/ Amicus Curiae.
St. Vs. Roop Chand, FIR No. 106/11, PS Pahar Ganj Page No. 160 ORDER ON SENTENCE:
As per the allegations the accused Roop Chand on the intervening night of 24/25th June 2011 at unknown time at the factory situated at 2250, Agar Nagar Mor, Nithari Village, Aman Vihar, Delhi the accused Roop Chand along with his coaccused Pawan Mittal @ Bittoo (since expired) and Shatrughan @ Shatru (Proclaimed Offender) in furtherance of their common intention killed Layak Ram.
However, on the basis of the testimonies of the various witnesses examined by the prosecution, the medical, forensic, electronic and other circumstantial evidence on record this Court has acquitted the accused Roop Chand of the charge under Section 302 Indian Penal Code but held him guilty of the lesser offence under Section 201 Indian Penal Code.
Heard arguments on the point of sentence. The convict Roop Chand is aged about 50 years having a family comprising of wife and a daughter. He is totally illiterate and is a Driver by profession.
Ld. Amicus Curiae appearing on behalf of the convict has vehemently argued that the convict Roop Chand is a first time offender and has clean antecedents. He has further argued that the convict is in Judicial Custody since 30.6.2011 and his wife and children who are totally dependent upon the convicts, are at the verge of starvation. He requests that a lenient view be taken against the convict. St. Vs. Roop Chand, FIR No. 106/11, PS Pahar Ganj Page No. 161
On the other hand, Ld. Addl. PP for the State has prayed for a stern view keeping in view the allegations against the convict.
I have considered the rival contentions and I may observe that the convict Roop Chand belongs to a very poor family having no criminal background. He has been earning his livelihood by hard work and is a driver by profession. The jail record of the convict Roop Chand has been satisfactory. The offence in question appears to have been committed under compulsions of occupation, the convict being the Driver of the main accused Pawan Mittal @ Bittoo (since expired) and coaccused Shatrughan (Proclaimed Offender) as he was employed to drive the vehicle of main accused/ employer Pawan Mittal. The convict has already remained in Judicial Custody for three years, one month and thirteen days. Under these circumstances, a lenient view is taken against the convict Roop Chand who is sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for the period already undergone i.e. Three years, One Month and Thirteen days and fine to the tune of Rs.2,000/ (Rs. Two Thousand) for the offence under Section 201 Indian Penal Code. In default of payment of fine the convict shall further undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of One Week.
Benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C. shall be given to the convict for the period undergone by him during the trial.
The convict is informed that he has a right to prefer an St. Vs. Roop Chand, FIR No. 106/11, PS Pahar Ganj Page No. 162 appeal against the judgment. He has been apprised that in case he cannot afford to engage an advocate, he can approach the Legal Aid Cell, functioning in Tihar Jail or write to the Secretary, Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee, 3437, Lawyers Chamber Block, High Court of Delhi, New Delhi.
Copy of the judgment and order of sentence be given to the convict free of costs and one copy of sentence be attached with his jail warrants.
File be consigned to Record Room to be taken up on the arrest of accused Shatrughan @ Shatru who is a Proclaimed Offender.
Announced in the open court (Dr. KAMINI LAU)
Dated: 14.8.2014 ASJII(NW)/ ROHINI
St. Vs. Roop Chand, FIR No. 106/11, PS Pahar Ganj Page No. 163