Delhi District Court
In Support Of Above, I Relied Upon State ... vs . on 14 May, 2011
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIRENDER KUMAR GOYAL
ADDL SESSIONS JUDGE: FAST TRACK COURT
ROHINI:DELHI
SC No. 20/01
Unique Identification No.02404R0010282008
State
Versus
1. Shankar Yadav
S/o Ajab Singh
R/o Village Vaidpatti,
District Ferozabad, UP
FIR No. 205/03
PS - Rohini
U/s. 364/34, 302/34, 201/34 & 404/34 of IPC
Date of Decision: 12/05/2011
Date of Order on Sentence: 14/05/2011
ORDER ON SENTENCE
14/05/2011
Present: Ld APP for State.
Convict Shankar Yadav from JC.
Sh. C.M. Sanan, Amicus curiae for convict Shankar Yadav.
Learned Amicus curiae for convict Shankar Yadav submits that
convict Shankar Yadav is still unmarried and is aged about 32 years. He is
having three sisters and old age parents to support. He is the sole bread earner of
his family and he belongs to very poor family. He has no previous criminal
record. He is also not a habitual offender nor remained involved in any case. He is
in custody since day of his arrest in the present case, in the year 2004.
SC No.20/1 1/61
On the other hand, Ld. APP for the State submits that convict Shankar
Yadav with his other two associates brutally committed murder of Ghanshyam
and disposed off his body and also disposed of his Tata Sumo. Ghanshyam was
driving the Tata Sumo and was earning some money to help his family and he
was the only earning member of the family. Hence, convict be dealt with
accordingly.
I have considered the age, antecedents and other facts and
circumstances as argued by learned Addl. PP for State and learned Amicus curiae.
To my mind, the case is not falling under the category of rarest of the rare case.
Accused Shankar Yadav has been convicted for the offences U/s.
364/34, 302/34, 201/34 and 404/34 of IPC.
Offence u/s 364 of IPC is punishable with imprisonment for life or
rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to 10 years and shall also be
liable to fine.
Accordingly, imprisonment for life is awarded to convict Shankar
Yadav u/s 364 read with section 34 of IPC with fine of Rs. 1000/- . In default of
payment of fine, he shall further undergo SI for six months.
Offence U/s. 302 of IPC is punishable with death or imprisonment for
life and shall also be liable for fine.
Accordingly, imprisonment for life is awarded to convict Shankar
Yadav with fine of Rs. 1000/- for the offence U/s. 302/34 of IPC. In default of
payment of fine, he shall further undergo SI for six months.
Offence 201 IPC is punishable with imprisonment of either description
for a term which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine if same
has been committed in respect of capital offence.
Accordingly, imprisonment of seven years is awarded to convict
Shankar Yadav with fine of RS. 1000/- for the offence U/s. 201/34 of IPC. In
default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo SI for six months.
SC No.20/1 2/61
Offence 404 of IPC is punishable with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable for
fine.
Accordingly, imprisonment of three years is awarded to convict
Shankar Yadav with fine of RS. 1000/- for the offence U/s. 404/34 of IPC. In
default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo SI for six months.
Convict Shankar Yadav remained in custody from 27/05/2004 till
today.
Benefit of Section 428 of Cr.PC be given to convict.
All the substantive sentences of imprisonment shall run concurrently.
Fine not deposited.
Convict be remanded to serve the sentence.
Announced in the open court (VIRENDER KR. GOYAL)
today on 14th of May'2011 ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE
FAST TRACK COURT
ROHINI
SC No.20/1 3/61
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIRENDER KUMAR GOYAL
ADDL SESSIONS JUDGE: FAST TRACK COURT
ROHINI:DELHI
SC No. 20/01
Unique Identification No.02404R0010282008
State
Versus
1 Vinod Kumar
S/o Hari Ram
R/o Rawatpur,
PS Indergarh
District Kannoj UP
FIR No. 205/03
PS - Rohini
U/s. 364/34, 302/34, 201/34 & 404/34 of IPC
Date of Decision: 12/05/2011
Date of Order on Sentence: 14/05/2011
ORDER ON SENTENCE
14/05/2011
Present: Ld APP for State.
Convict Vinod from JC.
Sh. C.M. Sanan, Proxy counsel for counsel Sh. Lalit Sanan for convict
Vinod.
Learned Proxy counsel for convict Vinod submits that convict
Vinod is still unmarried and is aged about 28 years. He is old mother and two
brothers to support. He is the sole bread earner of his family and he belongs to
very poor family. He has no previous criminal record. He is also not a habitual
offender. He is in custody since day of his arrest in the present case, in the year
SC No.20/1 4/61
2004.
On the other hand, Ld. APP for the State submits that convict Vinod
with his other two associates brutally committed murder of Ghanshyam and
disposed off his body and also disposed of his Tata Sumo. Ghanshyam was
driving the Tata Sumo and was earning some money to help his family and he
was the only earning member of the family. Hence, convict be dealt with
accordingly.
I have considered the age, antecedents and other facts and
circumstances as argued by learned Addl. PP for State and learned Amicus curiae.
To my mind, the case is not falling under the category of rarest of the rare case.
Accused Vinod has been convicted for the offences U/s. 364/34,
302/34, 201/34 and 404/34 of IPC.
Offence u/s 364 of IPC is punishable with imprisonment for life or
rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to 10 years and shall also be
liable to fine.
Accordingly, imprisonment for life is awarded to convict Vinod u/s 364
read with section 34 of IPC with fine of Rs. 1000/- . In default of payment of fine,
he shall further undergo SI for six months.
Offence U/s. 302 of IPC is punishable with death or imprisonment for
life and shall also be liable for fine.
Accordingly, imprisonment for life is awarded to convict Vinod with
fine of Rs. 1000/- for the offence U/s. 302/34 of IPC. In default of payment of
fine, he shall further undergo SI for six months.
Offence 201 IPC is punishable with imprisonment of either description
for a term which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine if same
has been committed in respect of capital offence.
Accordingly, imprisonment of seven years is awarded to convict
Vinod with fine of RS. 1000/- for the offence U/s. 201/34 of IPC. In default of
SC No.20/1 5/61
payment of fine, he shall further undergo SI for six months.
Offence 404 of IPC is punishable with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable for
fine.
Accordingly, imprisonment of three years is awarded to convict
Vinod with fine of RS. 1000/- for the offence U/s. 404/34 of IPC. In default of
payment of fine, he shall further undergo SI for six months.
Convict Vinod remained in custody from 24/05/2004 till today.
Benefit of Section 428 of Cr.PC be given to convict.
All the substantive sentences of imprisonment shall run concurrently.
Fine not deposited.
Convict be remanded to serve the sentence.
Announced in the open court (VIRENDER KR. GOYAL)
today on 14th of May'2011 ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE
FAST TRACK COURT
ROHINI
SC No.20/1 6/61
SC No.20/1 7/61
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIRENDER KUMAR GOYAL
ADDL SESSIONS JUDGE: FAST TRACK COURT
ROHINI:DELHI
SC No. 20/01
Unique Identification No.02404R0010282008
State
Versus
2. Inderjeet @ Inder
S/o Prem Chand
R/o C-321, Amit Vihar
Seva Dham, Ghaziabad, UP
FIR No. 205/03
PS - Rohini
U/s. 364/34, 302/34, 201/34 & 404/34 of IPC
Date of Decision: 12/05/2011
Date of Order on Sentence: 14/05/2011
ORDER ON SENTENCE
14/05/2011
Present: Ld APP for State.
Convict Inderjeet from JC.
Sh. Aseem Bhardwaj, Amicus curiae for convicts Inderjeet.
Learned Amicus curiae for convict Inderjeet submits that convict
Inderjeet is married. He is having three children to support and old age ailing
parents to look after. He is the sole bread earner of his family and he belongs to
very poor family. He has no previous criminal record. He is also not a habitual
offender or remained involved in any case. He is in custody since day of his arrest
in the present case, in the year 2004.
SC No.20/1 8/61
On the other hand, Ld. APP for the State submits that convict Inderjeet
with his other two associates brutally committed murder of Ghanshyam and
disposed off his body and also disposed of his Tata Sumo. Ghanshyam was
driving the Tata Sumo and was earning some money to help his family and he
was the only earning member of the family. Hence, convict be dealt with
accordingly.
I have considered the age, antecedents and other facts and
circumstances as argued by learned Addl. PP for State and learned Amicus curiae.
To my mind, the case is not falling under the category of rarest of the rare case.
Accused Inderjeet has been convicted for the offences U/s. 364/34,
302/34, 201/34 and 404/34 of IPC.
Offence u/s 364 of IPC is punishable with imprisonment for life or
rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to 10 years and shall also be
liable to fine.
Accordingly, imprisonment for life is awarded to convict Inderjeet u/s
364 read with section 34 of IPC with fine of Rs. 1000/- . In default of payment of
fine, he shall further undergo SI for six months.
Offence U/s. 302 of IPC is punishable with death or imprisonment for
life and shall also be liable for fine.
Accordingly, imprisonment for life is awarded to convict Inderjeet with
fine of Rs. 1000/- for the offence U/s. 302/34 of IPC. In default of payment of
fine, he shall further undergo SI for six months.
Offence 201 IPC is punishable with imprisonment of either description
for a term which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine if same
has been committed in respect of capital offence.
Accordingly, imprisonment of seven years is awarded to convict
Inderjeet with fine of RS. 1000/- for the offence U/s. 201/34 of IPC. In default of
payment of fine, he shall further undergo SI for six months.
SC No.20/1 9/61
Offence 404 of IPC is punishable with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable for
fine.
Accordingly, imprisonment of three years is awarded to convict
Inderjeet with fine of RS. 1000/- for the offence U/s. 404/34 of IPC. In default of
payment of fine, he shall further undergo SI for six months.
Convict Inderjeet remained in custody from 24/05/2004 till today.
Benefit of Section 428 of Cr.PC be given to convict.
All the substantive sentences of imprisonment shall run concurrently.
Fine not deposited.
Convict be remanded to serve the sentence.
Announced in the open court (VIRENDER KR. GOYAL)
today on 14th of May'2011 ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE
FAST TRACK COURT
ROHINI
SC No.20/1 10/61
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIRENDER KUMAR GOYAL
ADDL SESSIONS JUDGE: FAST TRACK COURT
ROHINI:DELHI
SC No. 20/01
Unique Identification No.02404R0010282008
State
Versus
1. Inderjeet @ Inder
S/o Prem Chand
R/o C-321, Amit Vihar
Seva Dham, Ghaziabad, UP
2. Shankar Yadav
S/o Ajab Singh
R/o Village Vaidpatti,
District Ferozabad, UP
3. Vinod Kumar
S/o Hari Ram
R/o Rawatpur,
PS Indergarh
District Kannoj UP
4. Hori Lal (Since Proclaimed offender)
S/o Mauji Ram
R/o Village Patti PS Jasana
District Ferozabad, UP
5. Sarnam Singh (Since Proclaimed offender)
S/o Late Sardar Singh
R/o Village Todapur Bantheri
PP Aaswan, Sirsa Ganj
Ferozabad, UP
SC No.20/1 11/61
FIR No. 205/03
PS - Rohini
U/s.365/392/394/397/302/411/201/34
Date of institution of the case: 19/08/04
Arguments heard on: 28/04/2011
Date of reservation of order: 28/04/2011
Date of Decision: 12/05/2011
JUDGMENT
This case was registered u/s 365/34 of IPC in PS Rohini, on the statement of one Rameshwar Goswami. In the statement, Rameshwar Goswami has alleged that his elder brother Ghanshyam had gone on 18/04/2003 to Hathras taking three passengers in Tata Spacio Sumo having registration no. HR16C-1104 from Amar Travels and had to come back on 20/04/2003, but till 25/04/2003 neither his brother had returned nor the vehicle. So he suspected that those three persons had kidnapped his brother with the vehicle.
On 20/04/2003, at about 10.15 am in the agricultural field of one Ram Babu in village Ekhu PS Faria district Ferozabad, dead body of one unknown person about 35 years of age was recovered and proceedings u/s 174 of Cr.PC were conducted. Rough site plan of dead body was prepared showing injuries seen on the dead body and it was sent to CMO District Ferozabad for postmortem. Blood stained earth, earth control were also collected from the spot. The articles which were lying with the dead body i.e. angocha, shoes of black colour, leather belt in two pieces, were also seized from the place of recovery of dead body. Postmortem was also conducted on 20/04/04.
On 07/05/04, in case FIR no. 160/04, accused Inderjeet, Vinod and Shankar Yadav were arrested and they made disclosure statement of this case. Accused Inderjeet led the police party in case FIR no. 160/04 PS Farsh Bazar and pointed out the Amar Tourist, Avantika, Rohini and told that one year before they had taken Tata Sumo Spacio on hire with co-accused Vinod and Shankar.
SC No.20/1 12/61Accused Inderjeet also pointed out the agricultural field of Awagarh road, where they had thrown the dead body of the driver and sold the vehicle HR-16C-1104 in district Ferozabad. Later on, accused Inderjeet was arrested in this case on 24/05/04 in the court. Accused Vinod was arrested from the court on 24/05/04 and accused Shankar Yadav was arrested on 27/05/04. On 27/05/04, again accused Vinod Kumar, Shankar Yadav and Inderjeet made disclosure statement and also pointed out Amar Tourist from where they had hired Tata Spacio no. HR-16C- 1104 with driver Ghanshyam.
On 28/05/04, Investigating Officer prepared the rough site plan of the field of Ram Babu, where dead body was recovered. Accused all pointed out the fields of Ram Babu in village Ekhu at Awagarh road, PS Faria District Ferozabad.
During investigation, SI R.S. Singh also pointed out the place of the Investigating Officer of this case on 28/05/04 from where the dead body was recovered by them. Accused all three i.e Inderjeet, Vinod and Shankar Yadav also pointed out the place where they had thrown the dead body collectively. Investigating Officer of this case also seized one sealed pullanda from PS Faria district Ferozabad i.e. articles which were taken into possession by SI R.S. Singh at the time of recovery of dead body. Documents of panchanama and postmortem report along with photo of the dead body were also seized in this case. Wearing clothes of dead body alongwith earth control and blood stained earth were also seized from Head Mohrar of PS Faria.
On 29/05/04, accused Shankar Yadav got recovered one red colour racksin bag from his house which was taken into possession by the police. Accused Vinod got recovered from his house one wrist watch and accused Inderjeet got recovered from his house one chain of yellow colour alongwith locket of 'Om' which were also taken into possession. Interrogation report were also prepared on 24/05/04 of accused Inderjeet, Shankar Yadav and Vinod and on 29/05/04 all the three accused persons led the police party to the house of Lalit SC No.20/1 13/61 Son of Suraj Bhan R/o Awas Vikas, Itawaha road, mainpuri Chowk, Shikhobad and got recovered one Tata sumo spacio no. HR16C-1104 from outside the house of Lalit. The same was also seized in this case. Identification memo regarding identity of deceased Ghanshaym was also got prepared by Investigating Officer on 03/06/04 by showing the photographs of the wife of the deceased.
On 09/06/04, accused Vinod, Inderjeet and Shankar Yadav refused to join the TIP. Copy of TIP proceedings were obtained.
On 16/07/04, TIP of the case property was also got conducted from the court through witness Rameshwar Goswami, who identified the case property as of his brother Ghanshayam.
Separate chargesheet was filed u/s 411 of IPC against accused Lalit Kumar regarding recovery of Tata Sumo Spacio no. HR-16C-1104 outside his home on the pointing of accused persons.
Accused Chottey Laland Sarnam Singh were declared Proclaimed offender and supplementary chargesheet was also filed against them.
The chargesheet of accused Lalit has committed to the court of Sessions on 25/04/05 and chargesheet of accused Inderjeet, Vinod and Shankar Yadav was committed to the court of Sessions on 18/11/04. These were received in the court of sessions respectively and vide order dated 12/12/05, accused Lalit was discharged u/s 411 of IPC and on 31/05/06, charge was framed against the accused Inderjeet, Vinod and Shankar Yadav u/s 364/34, 302/34, 202/34 and 404/34 of IPC to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
To prove its case prosecution have examined PW1 to PW34 in all. Statement of accused persons were recorded u/s 313 Cr.PC. All the accused have denied the case of the prosecution . Accused Inderjeet has stated that he is innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case by the police officials of PS Rohini in connivance with the complainant. He was not arrested in the manner as alleged and was kept in wrongful confinement prior to his alleged SC No.20/1 14/61 arrest in FIR no. 160/04 of PS Frash Bazar. He was forced to sign on various blank papers and forms which were later on converted into various memos and documents. Nothing was recovered from his possession or at his instance as alleged. He was shown to the public persons during PC remand at PS Rohini and also at Farsh Bazar.
Accused Vinod has stated in his statement that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case by the police officials of PS Rohini in connivance with the complainant. He was picked up from his house by the police officials of PS New Ashok Nagar and falsely arrested in 41.1 Cr.PC. He was forced to sign on various blank papers and forms, which were later on converted into various memos and documents. Nothing was recovered from his possession or at his instance as alleged. He was shown to the public persons during PC remand at PS Rohini and also at New Ashok Nagar.
Accused Shankar Yadav has stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case by the police officials of PS Rohini in connivance with the complainant. He was picked from his house by the police officials of PS New Ashok Nagar and falsely arrested in 41.1 Cr.PC. He was forced to sign on various blank papers and forms which were later on converted into various memos and documents. Nothing was recovered from his possession or at his instance as alleged. He was shown to the public persons during PC remand at PS Rohini and also at New Ashok Nagar.
I have heard Ld APP for State and also Ld counsels/Amicus Curiae Sh. C.M. Sanan, Sh. Lalit Sanan and Sh. Aseem Bhardwaj, on behalf of accused persons and have gone through the material placed on record and evidence adduced.
Findings of Last Seen Evidence.
The first witness to the last seen evidence is PW2 Sh. Rameshwar Prasad Rathi. He has deposed that he was working as Manager with Amar Travels.
SC No.20/1 15/61Sh Gajender Shokeen is the owner of Amar Travels. On 18.04.2003, he was siting in the office alongwith Sh. Gajender Shokeen, when at about 2.00 pm, all the three accused persons i.e. Inderjeet, Shankar and Vinod came to his office and asked for Tata Sumo on rental basis for going to Hathras and Agra. He told that due to heavy rush Tata Sumo was not available. Accused asked him to arrange Tata Sumo by 6.00 pm. On this Sh. Gajender Shokeen told that he would contact other agencies if Tata Sumo would be available, he would arrange the same by 6.00 pm. Thereafter, Sh. Gajender Shokeen contacted at Pooja Travels and Tata Spacio of white colour having registration no. 1104 was found available with them. P'W2 has further deposed that all the three accused persons again came at about 6.37 pm at their office. One person namely Ghanshyam was the driver of that Tata Sumo Spacio. The accused Vinod got his address noted down to PW2 as B-26, Mangol Puri and the vehicle was booked @ Rs. 5/- per kilometer for Agra and Hathras and the date of return was stated by them as 20/04/2003, as they wanted to attend the marriage on 19.04.03. Thereafter, Ghanshayam left the office with all three accused persons.
PW2 was cross examined by Ld APP on some aspect and during cross examination, PW2 admitted that registration number of the Tata Sumo Spacio was HR-16C-1104 and further stated that he can identify the Tata Spacio, if shown to him, but the identity of the same was not disputed by Ld defence counsel for the accused persons.
In the cross examination, PW2 has denied that accused persons did not visit his office at Amar Travels on 18/04/2003 and further denied that Tata Spacio of white colour was not provided to the accused persons. He has further admitted that accused Vinod did not sign on any paper and address of accused Vinod was not verified by him or by Sh. Gajender Shokeen. PW2 has also denied the suggestion that he wrongly noted down the address of accused Vinod as deposed by him.
SC No.20/1 16/61On the other hand Ld APP for the State has contended that PW2 has stated in the cross examination that he had seen the accused persons in the court after the occurrence and had not seen the accused persons earlier to the date of occurrence.
Another witness is PW1 Smt Suman wife of deceased Ghanshaym. She has deposed that her husband was a driver and used to drive Tata Sumo which was attached with Pooja Travllers, Sultanpuri. On 18/04/04, at about 7.00/7.30pm, her husband came to the house in Tata Sumo and three passengers were also in the vehicle. Her husband told her that he was going to Hathras with the said three passengers. She had also seen those three passengers sitting in the Tata Sumo. PW1 has also identified all the accused persons before the court. She has further deposed that her husband took one pair of his clothes and some other necessary things in a bag of red colour with him before leaving for Hathras. He told her that he would be back after two days i.e. on 20/04/2003, in the evening. PW1 has further deposed that after that he did not come back and they waited for him for two to three days and on 25/04/03, they got the FIR registered at the PS. Police searched for him and they also searched for him. They had also gone to Tis Hazari Courts and after some time, it was informed to them by the police regarding the recovery of Tata Sumo. Photographs Ex. PW1/A, of dead body of her husband was also shown to her and she had identified the same. She also identified the accused persons at Tis Hazari Court, when they were produced before the Court by the police. PW1 also identified Tata Sumo (Spacio) bearing no. HR16C-1104 as Ex.P1.
In the cross examination, PW1 has stated that after the day of incident, she had also identified the accused at Tis Hazari Court, when they were being produced. Police had not shown her the accused persons. Accused persons were in unmuffled face at that time. Thereafter she had seen the accused persons in the court.
SC No.20/1 17/61PW1 Suman has denied the suggestion that her husband was not working with Pooja Travellers, Sultanpuri as a driver. She has also denied that her husband was not plying the vehicle on the date of incident and had not taken the accused persons to Hathras. She has also denied that her husband had not taken one pair of clothes and other necessary things in his bag or that bag in question did not belong to her husband. She has further denied that as she had identified the accused before the Magistrate in unmuffled face therefore she was identifying them in the court.
Ld. Defence Counsel has contended that PW1 Suman had not given the height of the accused persons and the colour of clothes, which accused persons were wearing at that time, so she cannot be believed about the identity of the accused persons. Ld. Defence Counsel has further contended that as the accused persons were produced before the court in unmuffled face, hence their identification by PW1 has no meaning.
PW3 is Sh. Rameshwar Goswami, brother of the deceased Ghanshyam. He has stated that deceased Ghanshyam was his elder bother. He was living with his wife and daughter at house no. D-4/198, Shiv Mandir, Sultanpuri. PW3 was also living with his brother. His brother Ghanshaym was attached with Pooja Travels in Sultanpuri and he used to ply Tata Spacio no. HR16C-1104, on rental basis. He has further stated that whenever his brother used to go for a long trip, he used to come home and take his necessary articles including clothes and other necessary articles etc and use to tell them about the trip. PW3 has further deposed that on 18/04/2003, during the evening, Ghanshyam came at the house and told them that he was going to Hathras for three days trip and would return by the evening of 20-04-2003. All the three accused persons, were sitting in the Tata Spacio, when his brother came at home to take his necessary articles and he kept his clothes in a red colour bag and left in Tata Spacio with the accused persons. He was wearing a watch (HMT) of black colour dial and a silver chain SC No.20/1 18/61 having Om locket plated with gold in his neck. He was wearing blue colour pant without stripe, shoes without laces and shirt with half sleeves and thereafter he left with the water bottle.
PW3 has further deposed that his brother did not return till 20.04.2003 and they did not receive any information from him also. They searched for him for whole night of 20/04/03. On 21/04/03, he made a telephone call at Amar Travels and he was told that his brother may return by the evening as there could be chances of vehicle getting out of order. He went to the office of Amar Travels in the evening of 21/04/03 and asked about the address for which the vehicle had been booked. They gave him the address as B-826, Mangol Puri, Delhi. He went to the given address and he was told that no vehicle was hired from that address and that none of their relatives were living in UP. He returned back to the Amar Travels and told them that it was a fake and wrong address. Person from Amar Travels accompanied him to verify the address but on the way it was requested to PW3 to wait for one day more. On 22/04/03, PW3 went to the PS and on the same day, PW3 again visited Amar Travels at Rohini. He met there with owner of Amar Travels i.e. Gajender Singh at about 8 or 9.00 am. He accompanied him to House no. 826, B block, Mangol Puri, Delhi. The occupants of the house told that no one from that address had gone with the vehicle. On this Gajender Singh asked PW3 to report the matter to the Police. PW3 alongwith his father Sukhanand, his brother in law Sheoraj Singh, relative of Rama Nand and Gajender Singh reached at PS Rohini in Sector-3. PW3 narrated the facts to the police officials. Police told that it would not be possible to register a case immediately and asked them to verify the facts from the Agra.
PW3 has further deposed that on 23/04/2003, they approached ACP and DCP concerned and they assured that action will be taken. On 24/04/2003, PW3 lodged the complaint of missing of his brother Ghanshyam Singh Ex.PW3/A and a case was registered. PW3 has also identified the Tata Spacio SC No.20/1 19/61 car as Ex.P1.
PW3 has further deposed that he was also called by the police in jail to identify the accused persons in the TIP, but he was not called inside the jail to identify the accused persons. Thereafter, he identified the accused persons outside the court room when they were to be produced before the court as the same persons, who had hired the taxi of his brother and had come to their house in Tata Sumo Spacio.
Ld. Defence Counsel had contended that PW3 cannot be relied upon regarding the last seen evidence as firstly whatever he has deposed before the court was not mentioned by him in his statement Ex.pW3/A. Secondly, he has been confronted with so many facts with his statement Ex.PW3/A i.e. his brother was attached with Pooja Travels and was driving Tata sumo vehicle bearing No. HR-16C-1104, that whenever his brother used to go with Tata sumo, firstly he used to come to the house to collect his belongings for travelling and after telling them, he used to go with the Tata Sumo.
On the other hand Ld APP has contended that these facts were told by the PW3 in his supplementary statement and further also told that his brother was wearing HMT watch of black colour and a silver chain having OM locket gold plated in his neck. Ld APP has further contended that PW3 Rameshwar Goswami has explained that he did not mention in his initial statement that his brother, when left was wearing blue colour pant without stripe, shoes without laces and shirt with half sleeves and after taking water bottle, but he mentioned these facts in his supplementary statements.
Ld. Defence Counsel has further contended that PW3 has also been confronted with the fact that on 22/04/2003, again he visited Amar Travels at Rohini and met there with the owner of Amar Travels at about 8/9 am, for which witness has been confronted with Ex.PW3/D1, D2, D3 and D4, hence he cannot be relied upon.
SC No.20/1 20/61Ld. Defence Counsel has further contended that even in his supplementary statement PW3 did not state to the police that Gajender Singh asked him to report the matter to police. Even PW3 did not tell to the police in his statement that they approached ACP/DCP concerned or that they searched for his brother for the whole year and after that investigation was handed over to DIU.
Ld. Defence Counsel has further contended that PW3 had not told about the description, age, height of those persons in Ex.PW3/A. On the other hand Ld APP has contended that PW3 has stated these facts in his supplementary statements.
In further cross examination PW3 has testified that he had seen the accused persons on the day when they had come to their house with his deceased brother, who came to the house with Tata Spacio and accused persons to collect his belongings and second time he had seen the accused persons when they were being produced before the court of Ld MM. PW3 has denied the suggestion that he has identified the accused persons before the court on the basis as he had seen the accused persons in the court at that time.
Ld. Defence Counsel has further contended that again PW3 has been confronted with certain facts that he had told to the police in his supplementary statement that on 21/04/2003, he made a telephonic call at Amar Travels. He was told that his brother may return by the evening as there could be a chance of vehicle getting out of order. He went to the office of Amar Travels and asked about the address from which the vehicle was booked. They gave address as B- 826, Mangol Puri, Delhi. He went there and made inquires,but he was told that no vehicle was hired from that address and none of their relatives was living in UP. He returned to Amar Travels and one Person from Amar Travels accompanied him to verify the address but on the way, it was requested by that person to wait for one day more. So all these improvements are material, which are not appearing in the supplementary statement of PW3, whereas he had told that he SC No.20/1 21/61 had told these facts to the police, which shows that later on PW3 has tried to justify the delay in lodging the complaint Ex.PW3/A. Ld. Defence Counsel has further contended that according to Ex.PW3/A, deceased Ghanshyam was likely to come back on 20/04/2003, whereas case was registered on 25/05/03, so there was a delay of five days in reporting the matter to the police, which now PW3 has tried to explain by giving new facts, which he did not tell to the police in his supplementary statement, so PW3 cannot be believed in any manner.
Ld. Defence Counsel has further contended that PW2 Manager Rameshwar Prasad Rathi of Amar Travels has not told that PW3 Rameshwar Goswami had contacted them and they provided him the address of B-826, Sultan Puri, Delhi. PW2 has also not deposed that PW3 told them that the said address was fake and no one from that address had hired taxi for going to Hathras and Agra. So PW3 have made improvements in his statement to explain the delay in lodging the FIR. Ld. Defence Counsel has further contended that description of the accused persons was not given by PW3 in his statement Ex.PW3/A, which shows that accused persons were not seen by PW3, as deposed by him, siting in Tata Sumo, when his brother had come to his house for collecting necessary articles.
So in all, the prosecution has examined PW1 Suman, wife of deceased Ghanshaym, PW2 Rameshwar Prasad, Rathi, Manager of Amar Travels and PW3 Rameshwar Goswami, brother of deceased Ghanshayam regarding last seen evidence. Although PW2 Rameshwar Prasad Rathi has not deposed anything about the inquiries made by the PW3 Rameshwar Goswami from them or about the address of Sultan Puri or that it was the fake address and no one had hired Tata Sumo from that address as none of their relatives was residing at the address given or that the owner of Amar Travels told PW3 to lodge the report, but PW2 Rameshwar Prasad has clearly stated that firstly accused all came to Amar SC No.20/1 22/61 Travels at about 2.00 pm and asked for Tata Sumo as they wanted to go to Hathras but Tata Sumo was not available with them, so the accused persons asked to arrange the same till 6.00 pm. So PW2 got arranged the same from Pooja Travels. PW2 has also deposed the registration number of Tata Sumo as 1104 and further that all the three accused came about 6.30-7.00 pm, one Ghanshyam was driver of Tata spacio. Accused Vinod got noted down his address as B-826, Mangol Puri and the vehicle was booked @ Rs.5/- per km for Agra and Hathras and it was told that they will come back on 20/04/03.
As nothing came out in the cross examination of PW2, so testimony of PW2 is reliable and inspires confidence and he is trustworthy. Even in the cross examination, he has stated that he had seen the accused persons in the court after the occurrence and had not seen them prior to the occurrence. So prior to taking vehicle on hire, accused persons were not known to him nor he had seen them later on and after seeing the accused persons on 18/04/03, he again saw the accused persons in the court and identified them.
PW2 has denied the suggestion of Ld. Defence Counsel regarding these facts and he has also denied that he became false witness at the instance of the police. So from the deposition of PW2 Rameshwar Prasad Rathi, prosecution has been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that on 18/04/2003, all the accused persons booked Tata Spacio no.1104 on rent for going to Hathras and Agara and it was arranged from Pooja Travels @ Rs. 5/- per km and deceased Ghanshayam was driver of Tata spacio and they had to come back on 20/04/11. It is also proved that accused Vinod gave his address as B-826, Sultanpuri, Delhi.
PW1 Suman has also deposed about the last seen evidence when deceased Ghanshyam came to his house for collecting his clothes etc in a red colour bag while leaving for Hathras. PW1 has also deposed that she had seen the accused persons in the Tata Sumo Spacio. In the cross examination, PW1 has stated that she had seen the accused persons in Tis Hazari Court, while they were SC No.20/1 23/61 produced in the court and accused were unmuffled at the time of their production. Accused Vinod and Inderjeet were arrested in this case on 24/05/04 and accused Shankar Yadav was arrested on 27/05/04 and thereafter they were produced before the court for their PC/JC remand and were also produced to join the TIP, which was conducted in Tihar Jail on 09/06/04. Accused persons were unmuffled at that time and it was natural because the TIP was conducted inside the Tihar jail and witnesses were present outside the jail i.e. Gajinder Singh, Rameshwar Goswami and Smt Suman, but as accused persons had refused to join the TIP, so the witnesses were not called inside the jail.
PW1 Smt Suman has not deposed the date, when she had seen the accused persons unmuffled, when they were being produced before the court. So it must be after the TIP of the accused persons, on 09/06/04 vide Ex.PW30/B, Ex.PW30/C and Ex.PW30/D. In the absence of any cross examination of PW1 regarding the date when she had seen the accused persons in the court,when they were being produced before the court unmuffled, it cannot be said that she had seen the accused persons before 09/06/04. After refusal to join the TIP, accused persons were not required to muffle their faces in any manner. So the contention of Ld. Defence Counsel that accused persons were shown to PW1 Suman and on the basis of the same, she identified the accused persons before the court is not tenable in any manner. Deposition of PW1 inspires confidence. Her statement was recorded by the police, wherein she had given complexion and age of those persons, who were sitting in the Tata Sumo Spacio, when Ghanshyam came to his house to collect his belongings. PW1 has admitted that she had not stated the height of those persons as 5'6' and also did not state about the colour of the clothes, which accused persons were wearing at that time and it is natural because she could not estimate the height of a person sitting in Tata Sumo and she might has not noticed the colour of wearing clothes of accused persons because it SC No.20/1 24/61 was a routine for her husband to take passengers in his Tata Sumo. In view of the same, there is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of PW1 Suman regarding the identity of the accused persons as the same passengers, whom she had seen sitting in Tata Sumo Spacio when Ghanshyam came to his house to collect his belonging, before going to Agra and Hathras.
Ld. Defence Counsel has contended that PW3 Rameshwar Goswami cannot be relied upon in any manner regarding the last seen evidence and identity of the accused persons as he has not mentioned these facts in Ex.PW3/A, which shows that he had not seen the accused persons sitting in Tata Sumo Spacio, when allegedly Ghanshyam came to his house to collect his belongings before leaving to Agra and Hathras and admittedly this fact is not mentioned by PW3 in Ex.PW3/A, PW3 has also made improvements regarding certain facts that he made inquires from Amar Travels and also verified the address, which was given by accused Vinod to the Manager and owner of Amar Travels and that the said address was found fake. Accused Vinod was not resident of that address nor anyone of the resident of that address was living at Agra and Hathras. These facts have not been deposed by PW1 that such inquiry was conducted nor PW2 Rameshwar Prasad Rathi has deposed that PW3 Rameshwar Goswami has made inquires from him about the address, which was given for the taking thereafter or that PW3 Rameshwar Goswami had told him that the said address was fake and accused Vinod was not residing at the address, which was given by him while taking Tata Sumo Spacio on hire from Amar Travels. PW3 has been confronted with these facts as these are not appearing in his statement Ex.PW3/D1, Ex.PW3/D2, Ex.PW3/D3 and Ex.PW3/D4. So he cannot be relied upon in this respect in any manner.
PW3 has corroborated with PW1 Suman that he was called by the police at jail to identify the accused persons, but he was not called inside the jail.
SC No.20/1 25/61Thereafter, he identified the accused persons in the court, when they were being produced before the court. The contentions of Ld. Defence Counsel are not tenable in any manner as simply missing report was given on 25/04/03 and on 07/05/03, supplementary statement was recorded in detail about the last seen evidence. Till then, none of the accused had been arrested, so it cannot be said that the statement of PW3 was based on some other information. Even otherwise statement about the last seen evidence was already recorded of PW2 Rameshwar Prasad Rathi. Duty of the witness is to state the facts to the Investigating Officer and if these have not been recorded, then the witness is not at fault.
Testimonies of PW1 Suman, PW2 Rameshwar Prasad Rathi and PW3 Rameshwar Goswami inspire confidence, who are trustworthy witnesses. PW2 is an independent witness, hence he cannot be disbelieved in any manner. PW2 Rameshwar Prasad Rathi was the first witness, who had seen the accused persons while they came to his office at Amar Travels to take the vehicle on hire, which was provided by PW2 at about 6.00 pm with the driver Ghanshyam and accused Vinod had given his address as B-826, Sultan Puri , Delhi, which was found fake. So the testimonies of both PW1, PW2 and PW3 inspires confidence and they can be relied upon, hence prosecution has been able to prove beyond reasonable doubts that on 18/04/2003, accused all took Tata Sumo Spacio at about 6.00 pm on hire from Amar Travels from Manager Rameshwar Prasad Rathi and thereafter deceased Ghanshyam took his vehicle to his house to collect his belongings and all the three accused persons were the same persons, who were sitting in the Vehicle, when Ghanshyam went to his house for collecting his articles.
PW13 Mukesh has further corroborated with PW1, PW2 and PW3 and has deposed that he is running a travel Agency in the name of Pooja Travels at 93, Mini Market, Jalebi Chowk, Sultan Puri, Delhi. On 18/04/2003, Gajender Singh owner of Amar Travels asked him to provide Tata Sumo. He sent the Tata SC No.20/1 26/61 sumo no. HR16C-1104 to Amar Travels at about 7.00 pm evening with its driver Ghanshyam Singh. The Tata Sumo was of Ghanshyam Singh, who was driving his vehicle on hire. It was told by Gajender Singh that Tata Sumo was required by the passengers to go to Hathras, UP and to come back on 20/04/2003. The hire charges were fixed at Rs.5 per Km. PW13 has further deposed that Tata Sumo with its driver Ghanshyam did not come back on 20/04/2003. He made inquires from Gajender Singh of Amar Travels. They also reached at the address from where the Tata Sumo was got booked,but the occupants told that they had not booked any Tata Sumo from that address on that day. Thereafter, he waited for few days but neither the vehicle nor driver came back. After about one year, he came to know that some culprits were apprehended and the Tata Sumo was found. Later on, he came to know that Ghanshyam was murdered.
In the cross examination, PW13 has denied that Ghanshyam was not attached with him. He also denied that Ghanshaym had not gone on that day, with his Tata Sumo to Amar Travels. PW13 has stated in the cross examination that he did not tell to the police that he had also visited the address from where the Tata Sumo was got booked to go the Hathras, UP, so there is neither any contradiction nor any improvement. So PW13 has also corroborated with PW2 Rameshwar Prasad Rathi that he provided Tata Sumo Spacio no. HR16C-1104 to Amar Travels with its driver Ghanshyam on 18/04/2003 at about 7.00 pm. PW22 Ashok Kumar has deposed that he was the registered owner of Tata Spacio bearing registration no, HR-16C-1104. He sold the same to Ghanshyam in the consideration of Rs. 3.50 lack and Rs. 1, 50,000/- were paid to him by Ghanshaym. Remaining two lacs were to be paid by Ghanshyam in 24 installments. Agreement between him and Ghanshyam was made in this regard. All installments were paid by Ghanshyam to him. He got released the vehicle on superdari from the court vide Ex.PW22/A, as identity of the vehicle has not been disputed by the Ld. Defence Counsel .
SC No.20/1 27/61PW22 has denied the suggestion that no agreement was executed between him and Ghanshyam or that Ghanshyam did not pay Rs. 1, 50,000/- as part sale consideration of the vehicle or that Ghanshyam did not pay installments of the remaining amount to him. In the cross examination, PW22 has further deposed that he had already applied for transfer of the vehicle in the name of Rameshwar, brother of Ghanshayam at the time of obtaining the vehicle on superdari from the Court. This proves that vehicle was purchased by Ghanshaym and after his death, brother of Ghanshaym i.e. PW2 Rameshwar Goswami got transfer the vehicle in his name from PW22. So there is nothing in the cross examination of PW22 to disbelieve his testimony.
PW19 Krishan Kumar has been examined to prove the ownership of vehicle no. HR16C-1104. He brought the summoned record regarding registration numbers of the vehicles from SDM office, Bhiwani, Haryana. According to the record, Tata Spacio No. HR16C-1104 was registered in the name of Ashok Kumar S/o Bharat Singh on 05/04/2001.
Recovery and Identification of Dead body.
PW5 is Ram Babu. He has deposed that during the beginning of summer season in the year 2003, when he was cutting the crop of wheat in his fields. He saw a dead body of male lying in the fields and blood was lying near the dead body. The age of deceased appeared to be 35 years. He asked the passers by and the near by agriculturist to identify the dead body,but none was able to identify the dead body. He informed Maharaj Singh Chowkidar of the village, who informed at police station Faria. Police came at the spot and photographs of the spot were taken. Panchnama was also prepared. Thereafter the dead body was removed from his fields. His statement in this case was recorded after about one year. PW5 has also identified the photograph of dead body Ex.PW1/A, which was recovered from his field. Only suggestion have been given to PW5 that no dead body was recovered form his field and no photograph of the dead body was SC No.20/1 28/61 taken in his field.
PW7 is Rajesh Kumar. He has corroborated with PW5 Ram Babu and has deposed that he was running a photo studio under the name and style Diamond Photo Studio at Faria. About 4/5 years back, he was called by the SO of Village Faria to Village Eekhu, where he saw one dead body lying in the field on the roadside. At the instance of SO, he took photographs of the dead body from different angles. After developing the photographs, he handed over the negatives and positives to SO. PW7 has also identified the photographs as Ex.PW1/A, which was taken by him and had given to SI R.S. Singh. Nothing came out from his cross examination to disbelieve his testimony in any manner.
PW8 is Maharaj Singh. He has deposed that about 4-5 years back. He was present in his agricultural field and was cutting the crop at about 6.00 am. Son of one Ram Babu came to him and called him because one dead body was lying in the agricultural filed of Ram Babu and Hari Babu, as he was working as Chowkidar of the Village at that time. He reached in the field of Ram Babu with his son. He saw one dead body lying there. He went on foot to PS at village Faria at a distance of about 11 kilometer. He met there with SO and informed him about the dead body. Thereafter, SO came with him at the spot in a car. He got washed the face of the dead body. It was dead body of a male between the age of 35 to 40 years. Panchanama was prepared by the SO and the dead body was removed to PS. PW10 is Shailender Kumar. He has deposed the same facts. He was also cutting the crop of wheat in his field and he came to know about a dead body, which was lying in the field of Ram Babu. He reached there and found that a dead body was lying in the field. The deceased was about 35 to 40 years. The owner of filed informed the police . Police came at the spot. Photographer was also called and he took the photographs from different angles. Sketch of dead body was prepared by the Investigating Officer. Blood stained mud and mud was SC No.20/1 29/61 lifted from the spot and were kept in separate container and were taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW10/A. One blood stained cloth (angocha), shoes and belt were also kept in a pullanda and the same were taken into possession by police vide memo Ex.PW10/B and SI R.S. Singh prepared the panchnama of the dead body vide Ex.PW10/C. PW10 has also identified the angocha as Ex.P2, pair of shoes as Ex.P3 and two pieces of belt as Ex.P4. PW10 has not been cross examined in any manner. So his testimony remained unrebutted and unshaken.
Similar is the deposition of PW11 Ram Pal. He has deposed the same facts and has identified his signatures at point B on Ex.PW10/C. PW11 has also identified the angocha as Ex.P2, pair of shoes as ExP3 and two pieces of belt as Ex.P4.
PW12 is Sh. Inder Pal. He has also deposed the same facts and has further deposed that Ex.PW10/A, Ex. PW10/B and Ex.PW10/C were prepared by the police and he also admitted his signatures at point C on Ex.PW10/C. PW12 has also identified the angocha as Ex.P2, pair of shoes as ExP3 and two pieces of belt as Ex.P4.
PW21 is Ashok Yadav. He has stated that on 20/04/2003, he was going to Awagarh. When he reached near the fields of Ram Babu at village Ekhu, he noticed the dead body of a person aged about 35-26 years lying in the field. Many public person gathered at the spot. Police of PS Faria came there. He observed a cut on the neck of the dead body. He had also seen the clothes of the dead body, shoes and belt. He has also admitted his signatures at point B on Panchnama Ex.PW10/C. Sketch of the position of dead body was also prepared by police, E. PW15/A. Blood stained earth and earth control were also taken into possession by police from the spot and were seized. Thereafter, dead body was taken away by the police for postmortem to Ferozabad.
PW21 has also identified the case property i.e. angocha, one pair of shoes, one shirt, one pant, two pieces of belt, baniyan, and underwear alongwith SC No.20/1 30/61 two containers containing blood stained earth and sample earth as Ex.PW2, Ex.P3, Ex.P4, Ex.P5, Ex.P9 and Ex.P10 respectively.
In the cross examination, PW21 has stated that after about one year, he was called at PS Faria. Some writing work was done, but he does not remember the nature of the same. PW21 has stated that police from PS Faria came to the field of Ram Babu at about 10/10.30 or 11.00 am. Some other persons also collected there. PW21 has denied the suggestion that proceedings were not conducted by the police in his presence. PW21 has also denied the suggestion that panchnama was not prepared in his presence. So the testimony of PW21 is unrebutted and unshaken. He is an independent witness and there is no reason to disbelieve him in any manner. PW21 has been confronted with her statement Ex.PW21/DA, where the fact that he had seen cut on the neck of dead body is not appearing, but merely only on this confrontation, testimony of PW21 cannot be brushed aside and he cannot be disbelieved in all.
PW15 is SI R.S. Singh. He has stated that on 20/04/03, he was posted at PS Faria, District Ferozabad as SI. On that day, Chowkidar Maharaj Singh of Village Ekhu, Thana Faria informed that one dead body was lying in the field of Ram Babu. He alongwith SHO Sh. Prakash Yadav, SI Suren Singh, Constable Munshi Lal and Ramesh Chand reached at the spot. There they saw the dead body of a male. They noticed blood and some clothes having blood stains. He prepared Panch Nama of the dead body, which is Ex.PW10/C. He also prepared sketch of the dead body Ex.PW15/A and also prepared the challan of the dead body which is Ex.PW15/B. He informed the CMO vide letter Ex. PW15/C. He also informed the Reserve Inspector vide letter Ex.PW15/D. He got done photographs of the spot from the photographer. He also collected the blood stained mud from the spot and earth control and sealed the same in the pullanda with the seal of RS and seized vide memo Ex.PW10/A. He also collected Angocha, belt and shoes, which was lying near the dead body and sealed the same SC No.20/1 31/61 in a pullanda with the seal of RS and seized vide memo Ex.PW10/B. Dead body was sealed and was sent for postmortem to government hospital, Firozabad, in the custody of Constable Munshi Lal and Constable Ramesh. His statement was recorded by the Investigating Officer. PW15 has also identified the case property i.e. angocha, one pair of shoes, one shirt, one pant, two pieces of belt, baniyan, and underwear alongwith two containers containing blood stained earth and sample earth as Ex.PW2, Ex.P3, Ex.P4, Ex.P5, Ex.P9 and Ex.P10 respectively.
In the cross examination, PW15 SI R.S. Singh has stated that he had reached at the spot at about 11.00 am and remained there for about three hours. He has corroborated with PW21, who had deposed that police might have reached at about 10.30 or 11.00 am. PW15 SI R.S. Singh has further deposed that five persons from the public had signed the panchama and there is not procedure in UP to record the statement of the witnesses at the time of preparation of Panch Nama. PW15 has denied the suggestion that he had prepared the documents while sitting in the PS. He has also denied the suggestion that photographer was not called at the spot and he did not take the photographs as per his instructions. So from the cross examination of PW15, nothing came out to disbelieve his testimony regarding the proceedings conducted by him in respect of the dead body of male aged about 35 years and regarding preparation of documents at the spot.
PW16 is Retired SI Ram Baran Singh. He had accompanied PW15 to the spot. He has also deposed the same facts as of PW15 R.S. Singh and has further deposed that one piece of cloth was found tied in the neck of the dead body. Some bluish mark was also there in the neck of the dead body. He also saw blood stained injury on the left side neck of the dead body. He was wearing one half sleeve shirt of blue colour stripes alongwith one light blue colour pant. There was black colour thread in the neck of the dead body. PW16 has further deposed that PW15 has prepared some documents at the spot, exhibits were collected from the spot. PW15 has also identified the case property i.e. angocha, one pair SC No.20/1 32/61 of shoes, Clothes of deceased alongwith two containers containing blood stained earth and sample earth as Ex.PW2, Ex.P3, Ex.P4, Ex.P5, Ex.P9 and Ex.P10 respectively.
Ld. Defence Counsel has contended that PW16 SI Ram Baran Singh cannot be relied upon as he has been confronted with Ex.PW16/DA and he has made improvements about certain material facts. Ld. Defence Counsel has further contended that Pw16 has been confronted that they were informed at PS Faria about the dead body lying in the field of Ram Babu. PW16 has also been confronted that he alongwith SO Shri Parkash Yadav, SI R.S. Singh, SI Surender Singh, Constable Mool Chand and Constable Munshi Lal reached in the filed of Ram Babu. PW16 has also been further confronted with the fact that one piece of cloth was found tied in the neck of dead body. Some bluish mark was also there in the neck of the dead body. He also saw blood stained injury on the left side neck of the dead body. Deceased was wearing one half sleeve shirt of blue colour stripes alongwith one light blue colour pant. There was black colour thread in the neck of the dead body, which are not appearing in his statement recorded during investigation.
Ld. Defence Counsel has further contended that Pw16 has been further confronted with the fact that SI R.S. Singh had also prepared the sketch of dead body,. He also prepared challan of dead body and informed the CMO, District Ferozabad and also informed the Reserve Inspector through letter. Ld. Defence Counsel has further contended PW16 has further confronted with the fact that earth control and blood stained earth were taken into possession. Clothes and other articles, i.e. angocha, belt, shoes, black thread etc of the dead body were also taken into possession. Dead body was sent to District Hospital, Ferozabad for postmortem through Constable Mool Chand and one other Constable, which are not appearing in his earlier statement.
PW 18 is SI Surender Singh. He has deposed that on 20/04/2003, he SC No.20/1 33/61 was posted in PS Faria, District Ferozabad, UP. Chowkidar Maharaj singh came to PS and informed that a dead body was lying in the field at Aawa Garh Roa. On this information, SI R.S. Singh and SO Sh. Prakash Chand alognwith staff reached at the spot. There they found a dead body of a person aged 35 years lying in the field of Ram Babu, PW18 has also deposed the same facts as of PW15 about the taking of photographs, lifting of exhibits from the spot and other proceedings. PW18 has also identified the exhibits i,e, i.e. angocha, one pair of shoes, Clothes of deceased alongwith two containers containing blood stained earth and sample earth as Ex.PW2, Ex.P3, Ex.P4, Ex.P5, Ex.P9 and Ex.P10 respectively.
Ld. Defence Counsel has contended that none of the document prepared at the spot had been signed by the PW18, So it cannot be said that he was also present at the spot when alleged proceedings were conducted.
Ld. Defence Counsel has contended that PW8 has been confronted with his statement Ex.PW8/A wherein it is not recorded that he was informed by the son of Ram Babu about the dead body and called by him. PW8 has also been confronted with the statement that he accompanied the son of Ram Babu to their field, where the dead body was lying. Ld. Defence Counsel has further contended that in view of the confrontation, PW8 cannot be believed to the extent that he was informed about the dead body by son of Ram Babu and further he reached in the field of Ram Babu with his son and saw the dead body lying in the field.
Ld. Defence Counsel has further contended that PW15 and PW16 have contradicted each other. PW15 has stated in the cross examination that they reached at the spot at about 11.00 am and stayed there for about three hours. Whereas PW16 has stated in the cross examination that they reached in the filed of Ram Babu in the morning and stayed there for about one hour, which shows that PW16 had not accompanied PW15 in the filed of Ram babu, so he cannot be believed and cannot be relied upon in any manner.
SC No.20/1 34/61In my view, PW18 has corroborated Pw15 and PW21 that they reached at the spot at about 11.00 am and stayed there for about three hours. So even if we disbelieve PW18, even then PW15, PW16 and PW18 have proved the facts that dead body of a male was found lying in the field of PW5 Ram Babu and it was informed to the police by Chowkidar Maharaj Singh. Police came there and prepared certain documents. Panchanama was also prepared, photographs were taken. Sketch of the dead was also prepared. Exhibits were lifted from there and have been identified by PWs before the court.
The contentions of Ld. Defence Counsel are not tenable in any manner. It does not make any difference that son of Ram Babu informed Chowkidar Maharj Singh or not because police witnesses have deposed that they were informed by Chowkidar Maharaj Singh. In respect of another contention regarding time, the same is also not tenable as certain contradictions, distortions are bound to come in the deposition of witnesses due to time gap in the day of occurrence and their examination.
It is also proved that exhibits Ex.PW10/C i.e. Panchanma was prepared at the spot. Public witnesses i.e. Shailender, Ram Pal, Inder Pal, Ashok Yadav have signed the same and PW Ram Pal and Ashok Kumar have identified their signatures on Ex.PW10/C, so the contention of Ld. Defence Counsel regarding testimony of PW16 SI Ram Baran Singh are not acceptable as other witnesses examined in this regard including public witnesses to the Panchnama have supported the case in all manner and they are trustworthy.
According to the postmortem report Ex.PW23/A, dead body was received in hospital on 20/04/2003 at about 4.50 pm. In this respect PW23 Dr. P.K. Jain has been examined. He has stated that he was posted at SNM, district Hospital, Ferozabad as Medical Officer and he conducted the postmortem on the dead body of unknown person, sent by SHO Faria, District Ferozabad. He conducted external and internal examination. According to his opinion cause of SC No.20/1 35/61 death was shock and haemorrhage as a result of antemortem injuries, both external and internal, which were sufficient to cause death. Rigormortis was present in upper and lower extremity. Duration of death was about one day of postmortem. He prepared postmortem report Ex.PW23/A. He sealed the clothes of the deceased i.e. shit, pant and banian, underwear, black thread and angocha with the seal of SNM hospital and handed the same to Constable. He has also identified the exhibits as i.e. angocha, Clothes of deceased and underwear of deceased,which were sealed by him as Ex.PW2, Ex.P5, Ex.P11 respectively.
PW23 has further corroborated with PW15, PW16, PW18 and PW21 and other witnesses that dead body was sent to district hospital, Ferozabad for postmortem. The time since death was about one day, which comes to 19/04/2003 at about 4.50 pm According to the deposition of PW1 Suman and PW3 Rameshwar Goswami, Tata sumo was provided to the accused persons at about 6/7 pm and thereafter deceased Ghanshaym had gone to his house to collect his belongings and we can assume that Ghanshyam had left for Agra and Hathras after about 8.00 pm on 18/04/2203.
In the cross examination, PW23 has admitted that he has not mentioned in the Postmortem report that injuries caused to the deceased were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. To my mind the same is not effecting the testimony of PW23 in any manner as he also deposed cause of death was shock and haemorrhage as a result of antemortem injuries both external and internal, which were sufficient to cause death. So from this we can say that the antemortem injuries which were caused to deceased were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. On the external examination, injury no.1 was incised wound 2 cm Xx 2 c. Cavity deep present over left side of neck 5 cm below from angle of the mandible. Injury no.2 is incised wound 2 cm x 1 cm. Cavity deep present 4 cm above from left clevical. Injury no.3 is incised wound 3 cm x 2 cm cavity deep 5 cm below from injury no.2. Injury no.4 is incised wound 3 cm x SC No.20/1 36/61 2 cm cavity deep front of left side of chest 5 cm lateral to sternum. Injury no.5 is multiple abrasions in the area of 19 cm x 16 cm on the left side of abdomen. Injury No.6 is Multiple abrasions 10 cm x 7 cm present over right upper arm. Injury No.7 is multiple abrasions 10 cm x 6 cm the left forearm and injury no.8 is lacerated wound 2 cm x ½ cm muscle deep on right side of face. On internal examination Head and Neck were found normal and in the Chest., Left side of the pleura was lacerated and left lung lacerated. Pericardium lacerated and Heart lacerated found.
According to PW23, these injuries were sufficient to cause death, so in my opinion there is nothing to disbelieve the testimony of PW23 and merely that he has not mentioned in the postmortem report that injuries were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature is not a ground to disbelieve the witness and to my mind it cannot be said that internal and external injuries, which were sufficient to cause death, were not sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.
Registration of the FIR In this respect, PW27 SI Ram Kanwar has been examined. He has deposed that on 25/04/2003, he was posted at PS Rohini and was on emergency duty from 8.00 pm to 8.00 am. At about 12.30 am (night), he received DD no.2A, Ex.PW27/A regarding missing of Ghanshaym. He got flashed wireless message to all over India. At about 9.30 pm, one Sh. Rameshwar Goswami came to PS and he handed over the written complaint Ex.PW3/A. He made his endorsement Ex.PW27/B and handed over the same to Duty Officer HC Vinod Kumar. After registration of the case HC Vinod Kumar handed over original rukka and copy of FIR to him.
PW6 ASI Vinod Kumar has further corroborated with PW27 and has deposed that on 25/04/2003, he was posted at PS Rohini and was working as Duty Officer from 5.00 pm to 1.00 am. On that day, at about 9.35 pm, SI Ram SC No.20/1 37/61 Kanwar Dahiya handed over to him one rukka for registration of the FIR. He recorded the FIR on the basis of same, copy of which is Ex.PW6/A. He also made his endorsement Ex.PW6/B on the rukka and handed over the original rukka and copy of FIR to SI Ram Kanwar for further investigation. PW6 has not been cross examined in any manner. So his testimony is unrebutted and unshaken.
PW27 has further deposed that he alongwith Constable Sanjay and Rameshwar Goswami went to Amar Travels at sector-1, Avantika Rohini. There he met with owner of Amar Travels Sh. Gajraj Singh and Manager Sh. Rameshwar Rathi. He made inquires from them about the vehicle. He also took into possession the photocopy of booking register and seized the same vide memo Ex.PW27/C. He recorded the statement of owner and Manager of Amar Travels. He came to know that vehicle was booked by one Vinod Kumar from Sultan Puri. On the next day, he alognwith Constable Sanjay went to B-826 Sultan Puri and made inquires about Sh. Vinod Kumar, but the family who was residing there told that no such person in the name of Vinod was residing there. He also made inquires from the neighboures, but no one disclosed any knowledge about the said Vinod. He recorded the statement of Mukesh Kumar and Prem Chand PW 27 has further deposed that an information was received that one dead body was recovered in Agra, so on 01/05/03, he went to Agra alongwith Constable Sanjay and complainant Rameshwar Goswami. In the way, he also made inquires about the vehicle and pasted hue and cry notice at some places. Thereafter, they reached at Agra and he made his arrival entry in the PS. They met with concerned SO. One Constable from PS led them to place i.e. a plot within the jurisdiction of PS and shown them one dead body lying in a jute bag. The dead body was shown to complainant Sh. Rameshwar Goswami, but he did not identify the dead body as of his brother Ghanshayam. Thereafter, photographs of some other dead body were shown to them, which were recovered in the month of April. After seeing one of the photograph of dead body, SC No.20/1 38/61 complainant suspected, that same may be of his brother Ghanshayam. He informed ACP Rohini, Delhi and inspector Ram Chander Sangawan was sent to Agra. He reached at Agra on 03/05/2003. The dead body was already cremated on 30/04/2003, so the remains of the dead body were taken into possession. Thereafter, complainant Rameshwar Goswami told that the photograph which he was suspecting of his brother was not of his brother. Thereafter they came back to Delhi. He tried to trace out the missing person Ghanshayam, but he could not be traced out.
He recorded the statement of the family persons of the missing person and complainant. On 30/05/2003, he handed over the case file to the MHC(R) because the matter was transferred to DIU.
In the cross examination, PW27, SI Ram Knawar has denied the suggestion that they did not go to Agra and did not searched the missing person Ghanshayam. PW27 has also been cross examined regarding his visit to B-826, Sultanpuri. He has stated that he did not go upstairs at B-826, Sultan puri, Delhi and he does not remember the names of the family members from whom he had made inquires about accused Vinod. So the testimony of PW21 inspires confidence regarding the investigation conducted by him and also about his visit at B-826, Sultanpuri, Delhi, the alleged address which was told by accused Vinod, while taking Tata Sumo on hire. PW27 has also been able to prove that photocopy of the booking register, which was seized vide memo ExPW27/C. PW34 ACP Jagram Singh was posted as Inspector DIU (NW), on 13/05/04, investigation of this case was handed over to him vide DD no/12. SI Pawan Kumar of AATS (East District) confirmed that one accused Inderjeet was arrested in FIR no.160/04, of PS Farsh Bazar u/s 25 of Arms Act, who had made disclosure statement of this case. On the basis of this information, he reached at Karkardooma Courts, where he came to know that accused Inderjeet was taken on PC remand by the Investigating Officer till 15/05/04, so he came back.
SC No.20/1 39/61PW34 has further deposed that on 15/05/04, again information was received from SI Rajnish Kumar of AATS (East District) Vide DD no.6 that accused Shankar and Vinod were arrested u/s 41.1 of Cr.PC of PS New Ashok Nagar. It was also informed that both these accused had also made disclosure statement of this case. Again he reached, at Karkardooma court and found all three accused present in the court concerned. He moved an application for permission to interrogate all the three accused persons but the same was not allowed as he was directed to got issued the Production warrants of the accused persons from the court concerned. He obtained the copies of disclosure statements, pointing out memo from the Investigating Officer and came back to his office.
PW17 W/HC Nirmala has corroborated these facts and has deposed that on 13/05/2004, she was posted in DIU North West and on that day, she was on duty from 8.00 am to 2. pm. On that day, Constable Naresh came to the office of DIU at 1.30 pm, and handed over the copy of DD no.35B of PS Rohini. She recorded the DD no.12 regarding arrest of accused Inderjeet in case of Arms Act of PS Farsh Bazar, Delhi and made disclosure statement of this case. Copy of DD no.12A is Ex.PW17/A. She also brought the original register.
PW17 has further deposed that on 15/05/2004, she was posted in DIU, North West. On that day, she working as Duty Officer from 8.00 a.m to 2.00 pm and she received a telephone call to the effect that accused Shankar and Vinod were arrested u/s 41.1 Cr.PC of PS New Ashok Nagar and they made disclosure statement of this case. She made entry in daily diary register at serial no.6. She has produced the same in the court and has proved the copy of same as Ex.PW17/B. In the cross examination, she has stated that both DDs are in her handwriting , so there is no reason to disbelieve her testimony.
PW24 Constable K. Badiya has further corroborated and had deposed that on 13/06/2004, he was posted at PS, Rohini and was performing his SC No.20/1 40/61 duty as Duty Constable. On that day, at about 1.05 pm, SI Pawan Kumar informed him on telephone that accused Inderjeet was arrested in case FIR no. 160/04, PS Farash Bazar and he will be produced in the court of Ld MM. He recorded this information in DD register at serial no. 35/B, copy of the same is Ex.PW24/A. He has also produced the original DD register.
In the cross examination, PW24 has denied the suggestion that DD no.35/B is a fabricated document or it is ante dated and recorded at the instance of the Investigating Officer. Nothing came out from the cross examination of PW24 to disbelieve his testimony.
Accused Inderjeet was arrested by PW33 SI Rajneesh. He has deposed that on 07/05/2004, he was posted at AATS East. On that day, on receipt of secret information, accused Inderjeet was apprehended from Vishwas Nagar 18 quarter, Delhi. From his possession, one loaded country made katta was also recovered, on which FIR no.160/04 was registered under Arms Act in PS Farsh Bazar. Further investigation was handed over to SI Pawan Kumar. He also joined the investigation of this with SI Pawan Kumar. During interrogation, accused Inderjeet made disclosure statement Ex.PW29/A about three other cases. One was of PS Rohini. His PC Remand was obtained.
PW33 SI Rajneesh Kumar has further deposed that accused led the police party to PS Dhanadi district Badayun, UP. There accused Inderjeet led the police part and pointed out a field near the river Mahoba, where he had thrown one driver after killing him. Owner of field, Veerpal was called. Thereafter, they went to PS Dhanadi and confirmed about the pointing out as was made by the accused Inderjeet. It was confirmed by the police officials of PS Dhanadi that a dead body was recovered from the field of Veerpal near Mahoba river in an accident case. PW33 has further deposed that thereafter accused led the police party to the area of PS Faria, Ferozabad. Accused Inderjeet, pointed out one wheat field on Awagadh road and told that the dead body of driver, was thrown there SC No.20/1 41/61 after killing him, of the vehicle which was taken from Amar Travels. Pointing out memo was prepared in this respect Ex.PW29/C. This information as given by accused Inderjeet was confirmed by PS Faria. The police officials of PS Faria told that one dead body was recovered from said place and inquest proceedings were conducted. Thereafter they came back to Delhi and again accused was produced before the concerned court and three days PC was taken.
PW33 has further deposed that on 14/05/2003, he alongwith staff was present in the area of Trilok Puri, ganda nala to develop some information regarding crime and criminals. One secret information was received on that day that some persons will assemble near Dharamshala hospital and they are planning to kidnap the drivers alongwith their vehicles, after hiring the same. On receipt of this information, a raiding party was organized. Some passers by were asked to join the proceedings, but they refused to join. At about 12.00/12.15 pm, he alongwith staff reached near Dharamshila hospital and they took their respective positions. After some time, five persons of middle age and young age started gathering there near nala road. On the pointing out of secret informer, all the five persons were over powered by them. They all were interrogated and they disclosed their involvement in various cases of kidnapping of drivers and robbing their vehicles,after killing the drivers. On interrogation, accused persons disclosed their names as Jamuna, Vinod, Shankar, Jasbir and Lalit. They were arrested u/s 41.1 Cr.PC vide DD no. 13A, PS New Ashok Nagar and their disclosure statement was recorded by PW33.
PW33 SI Rajnish has further deposed that accused Vinod and Shankar Yadav had made disclosure statement about the commission of the offence of the present case. They were produced before Ld MM at Karkardooma Court. Information was given to PS Rohini and police officials of PS Rohini reached at Karkardooma Court in the court of Ld MM and copies of disclosure statement of accused Vinod and Shankar i.e. Ex.PW33/A and Ex.PW33/B, were SC No.20/1 42/61 given to Investigating Officer of this case inspector Jagaram Singh.
PW33 has also identified accused Vinod and Shankar in the Court. PW29 SI Pawan Kumar has also deposed that on 07/05/2004, he was posted as SI in AATS, East district. On that day, accused Inderjeet @ Inder had made disclosure statement pertaining to his involvement of this case in case FIR no.160/04, PS Farsh Bazar u/s 25 of Arms Act. Accused Inderjeet was taken on police remand and during this period, accused Inderjeet pointed out the place i.e. Durga Travls Agency, Avantika, Rohini vide Ex.PW29/B and he also pointed out the place i.e. Aawagarh Road, PS Faria, Ferozabad vide memo Ex.PW29/C. Copy of DD no.35 is Ex.PW24/A. In the cross examination, PW29 has stated that they had gone to Badayun and from Badayun, they had gone district Ferozabad in Agra. PW29 has denied the suggestion that they did not go to Badayun and district Ferozabad and came back to Delhi from Badayun. Firstly they went to Avantika, Rohini and thereafter, reached at PS. Ld. Defence Counsel has contended that PW29 SI Pawan Kumar has admitted in the cross examination that accused Inderjeet was not muffled nor he was instructed to muffle the face. He has further admitted that accused was taken to Badayun unmuffled face and also was brought back to Delhi unmuffled face. Ld. Defence Counsel has further contended that in case FIR no.160/04, u/s 25 of Arms act of PS Farsh Bazar, accused Inderjeet had already been acquitted, hence arrest of accused in that FIR is doubtful.
Neither the complainant nor any other witness joined the investigation with PW29 SI Pawan Kumar or with PW33 SI Rajnish, when accused Inderjeet led the police party to Badayun and district Ferozabad and Agra. So there was no possibility for the complainant or for any other witness to see accused Inderjeet unmuffled face hence the contention of Ld. Defence Counsel are not tenable in any manner.
SC No.20/1 43/61Ld. Defence Counsel has further contended that regarding arrest of accused Shankar Yadav and Vinod, no public witness joined the proceedings, hence the police officials cannot be believed in any manner. Even no sincere efforts were made to join the public persons. Ld. Defence Counsel has further contended that no site plan of place of arrest of accused Shankar and Vinod was prepared, hence it is not proved that accused Shankar and Vinod Yadav were arrested from the place as deposed by PW33 SI Rajnish Kumar and their place of arrest has been fabricated. It is suggested to PW33 SI Rajinish Kumar that accused Shankar had told that he was residing at Khoda Colony and used to drive TSR on rent. It is also suggested to PW33 that accused Vinod had also told that he used to reside at Khoda Colony at RC-119 and was living with his brother in law Ram Sevak. PW33 has denied the suggestion that he intentionally did not verify these facts and address of the accused persons.
In the statement u/s 313 Cr.PC, accused Vinod has stated that he was picked up from his house by the police officials of PS New Ashok Nagar and falsely implicated in 41.1 Cr.PC. He was forced to sign on various memos and documents. Nothing was recovered from his possession or at his instance as alleged. He was shown to public persons during PC Remand at PS Rojini and PS New Ashok Nagar Excepting suggesting the above facts and explaining that he was picked from his house, accused Vinod had not produced any DE to prove that he was picked up from his house,. Even accused has given his address of Village Vaidpati, District Ferozabad, UP and has not brought any document on record to show that he was living in Khoda Colony, as suggested to PW33, at the time of his arrest.
Similarly, accused Shankar Yadav has given his address of village Rawatpur, PS Indergarh, District Kannoj, UP and has explained that he was picked up from his house by police officials of PS New Ashok Nagar and falsely SC No.20/1 44/61 implicated in 41.1 Cr.PC. He was forced to sign on various memos and documents. Nothing was recovered from his possession or at his instance as alleged. He was shown to public persons during PC Remand at PS Rojini and PS New Ashok Nagar. Again accused Shankar Yadav has not examined any witness in support of his explanation, hence in absence of any such evidence, PW33 SI Rajneesh Kumar cannot be disbelieved regarding arrest of accused Shankar Yadav u/s 41.1 Cr.pc So there is no corroboration with the explanation given by accused persons and cross examination of PW33 SI Rajnish Kumar regarding their arrest. If the accused persons were picked up from their houses then certainly their family members must be knowing about the same. But no family members have been examined to prove the fact that accused Vinod and Shankar had been picked up from their houses by the police. No documentary evidence has been brought on record by way of DE that at that time, accused Shankar and Vinod Yadav were residing at Khodapur. So the testimonies of PW33 and PW29 SI Pawan Kumar inspire confidence regarding the arrest of accused Vinod and Shankar as deposed by them.
Similarly, accused Inderjeet has stated in his statement recorded u/s 313 Cr.PC that he was not arrested in the manner as alleged and as deposed by police officials and was kept in wrongful confinement prior to his alleged arrest in FIR no.160/04 of PS Farsh Bazar. He was forced to sign on various blank papers and forms which were later on converted into various memos and documents. Nothing was recovered from his possession or at his instance as alleged. He was shown to the public persons during PC remand at PS Rohini and also at Farsh Bazar.
Again to substantiate this fact, accused Inderjeet has not examined any family members to corroborate the same. Even it is not suggested to PW29 SI Pawan Kumar that accused Inderjeet was lifted form his house and he was kept SC No.20/1 45/61 in wrongful confinement and his arrest and place of arrest was fabricated later on. PW33 SI Rajnish Kumar has also denied the suggestion that accused Inderjeet was lifted prior to 06/05/04. PW33 SI Rajnish Kumar has further denied that fax message was given regarding the same by the family members of the accused Inderjeet, hence he has been falsely implicated in this case. PW33 has further denied that accused Inderjeet was kept in confinement and during that time his signatures were obtained on some blank papers, which was later on fabricated against him. No fax message has been brought on record to prove the above fact in any manner, so testimony of PW33 cannot be disbelieved in any manner.
Accused Inderjeet has stated in his statement recorded u/s 313 Cr,.PC that he was shown to the public persons during PC remand at PS Rohini and also at PS Farash Bazar whereas it is suggested to PW33 that photograph of accused Inderjeet was shown to the witnesses. So both the facts are contrary to each other, hence PW33 cannot be disbelieved in any manner.
During TIP Ex.PW30/B, accused Inderjeet refused to join the same on the ground that he was shown to the witnesses in PS Rohini and he was falsely indicated to them for identification.
PW1 Smt Suman has stated in the cross examination that after the incident, she has seen the accused in Tis Hazari Courts, when they were being produced. Police had not shown her the accused persons. She had seen the accused persons while they were being produced in the court. The accused persons were unmuffled at that time. Thereafter, she had seen the accused in the Court. She has denied the suggestion that she has identified the accused before the Magistrate in unmuffled face, therefore she has identified them before the court today. No date has been told either by PW1, as to when she had seen the accused persons in the Court in unmuffled face nor the same has been asked by Ld. defence Counsels. But from the statement of PW1 Smt Suman, which was recorded by the police in this respect u/s 161 Cr.PC on 12/06/04, an inference can SC No.20/1 46/61 be drawn as to when she had seen the accused persons unmuffled face and prior to that accused persons had also refused to join the TIP proceedings Ex.PW30/B, Ex.PW30/C and Ex.PW30/D on 09/06/2004, by giving the statement that they were shown to number of public witnesses in PS Rohini and were falsely indicated to them for identification. In the statement, accused persons have not given any date as to when they were shown to number of public persons in PS Rohini. Nothing has been suggested to PW1 Smt Suman in the cross examination that she was called at PS Farsh Bazar or at PS Rohini or at PS New Ashok Nagar, to identify the accused persons. So the contention of Ld. Defence Counsels are not tenable in any manner that PW1 Smt Suman has identified the accused persons on the basis of the identification, which was done by her in Tis Hazari Courts while accused persons were unmuffled and after refusal of TIP on 09/06/2004, there was no need to ask the accused persons to keep their faces muffled. So, it was natural that they were unmuffled at that time.
PW2 Rameshwar Prasad Rathi has also stated in the cross examination that he has seen the accused persons, during his deposition before the Court, after the occurrence and had not seen them earlier to the date of occurrence, which proves that accused persons were not known to him and firstly he had seen the accused persons when they came to his office for taking Tata Sumo on hire and subsequently before the Court. It is not suggested to PW2 that he was called in PS Rohini or at PS Farsh Bazar or at PS New Ashok Nagar to identify the accused persons. It is also not suggested that accused were shown to him by the police in the PS and due to this reason, he has identified the accused persons before the Court rather it was suggested that he had identified the accused persons in Court at the instance of the Investigating Officer. So contention of Ld. defence Counsel regarding the identification of accused persons is not tenable in any manner.
PW3 Rameshwar Goswami has stated in his examination that he SC No.20/1 47/61 was called by the police at jail to identify the accused persons, but he was not called inside the jail to identify the accused persons. Thereafter, he identified the accused persons in Court, when they were being produced before the Court. Statement of Rameshwar Goswami was recorded on 12/06/04 u/s 161 Cr.PC regarding the identification of the accused persons in the court and prior to that accused persons had already refused to join the TIP on 09/06/2004. PW3 had gone there to identify the accused persons, but the accused persons refused to join the TIP. In further cross examination, PW3 has denied that he had accompanied the police to PS Farash Bazar near Bholanath Nagar, Shahadara in May 2004. PW3 has denied that he had seen accused Vinod and Shankar siting in PS Rohini at any time. PW3 has further denied the suggestion that he had identified accused Vinod and Shankar on the basis that he had seen them previously in PS Rohini. He has also denied the suggestion that he had identified the accused Inderjeet in PS Farsh Bazar. He has voluntarily stated that he has heard the name of PS Farsh Bazar for the first time.
So nothing came out from the examination of PW3 Rameshwar Goswami to substantiate the contention of Ld. defence Counsels, hence the same are not tenable in any manner. From the deposition of PW1 Smt Suman, PW2 Rameshwar Prasad Rathi and PW3 Rameshwar Goswami, prosecution has been able to prove beyond reasonable doubts that they have identified the accused persons before the court on the basis that they had seen the accused persons on the day of occurrence and not on the basis that accused persons were shown to them, after their arrest.
Recovery of Robbed articles and Vehicle PW34 ACP Jagram Singh has further deposed that on 18/05/04, he moved an application for issuance of production warrants of the accused persons, which were issued on 19/05/2004 for 24/05/04.
On 24/05/04, PW34 went to the court concerned, where accused SC No.20/1 48/61 Inderjeet and Vinod were produced. With the permission of the court, he interrogated both the accused persons and prepared interrogation report of both the accused vide Ex.PW20/C and Ex.pW20/D. He added section 392/394/397 and section 302/411 of IPC.
On 25/04/04, again he moved an application for issuance of production warrants of accused Shankar and same were issued for 27/05/04. On 26/05/04, he moved an application for issuance of production warrant of accused Inderjeet and Vinod, which were issued for 27/05/04.
On 7/05/04, all the three accused persons were produced before the court concerned and with the permission of the court he interrogated accused Shankar Yadav and arrested him in this case and obtaned the PC of all the accused persons, which was allowed till 31/05/04.
PW34 ACP Jagram Singh has further deposed that during PC Remand of the accused persons, he recorded disclosure statement of accused persons vide Ex.PW20/H, Ex.PW20/I and Ex.PW20/G. Thereafter, all the accused led the police party to Amar Travels, shop no.5 DDA Market, Avantika Rohini. Accused all three pointed out the place from where they had hired the vehicle. He prepared separate pointing out memo of all the three accused persons vide Ex.PW20/Ia, Ex.PW20/Ib and Dx.PW20/Ic.
Thereafter, all accused persons were taken to BSA hospital. After their medical examination, they left for Ferozabad and reached at PS Faria. PW34 took one Constable Mool Chand from PS Faria and thereafter, they reached at Awaha garh road in the field of one Ram Babu,. Constable Mool Chand told that one dead body was recovered from the field of Ram Babu of a male aged about 30-35 years. He prepared the rough site plan Ex.PW34/A of that place. He also prepared the pointing out memo in this regard Ex.PW14/A. He also prepared pointing out memo at the instance of all the accused persons separately vide Ex.PW20/J, Ex.PW20/K and Ex.PW20/L. He also prepared the joint pointing out SC No.20/1 49/61 memo Ex.PW20/M. Thereafter, they came back to PS Fariha. He also recorded the statement of witnesses. PW34 has further deposed that thereafter he collected Postmortem report, photograph of deceased, pullandas and panchnama from MHC(R) and Ram Baran Singh. Pullanda was taken into possession by preparing memo Ex.PW25/A from Head Mohrar Tilak Singh. He had also seized photograph of the deceased and 16 papers vide memo Ex.PW16/A. HC Tilak Singh had also handed over to him one pullanda containing some exhibits related to the deceased, which were handed over by the doctor and he seized the same vide memo Ex.PW25/A. He also recorded the statement of witnesses. PW34 has also identified the photograph Ex.PW1/A and inquest papers Ex.PW10/C, Ex.PW15/A, Ex.PW15/B,Ex.PW15/C and Ex.PW15/D, Ex.PW15/A and Ex.PW10/B and postmortem report as Ex.PW23/A. PW5 Ram Babu has stated that his statement in this case was recorded after about one year by the police. PW8 Maharaj Singh has stated in the cross examination that Delhi police came to him after about six months or a year and his statement was recorded by Delhi police in the house of Ram Babu. PW8 Maharaj Singh has denied the suggestion that he was called by Delhi Police in Delhi and his statement was recorded.
PW10 Shailender Kumar has also deposed that police officials came at the spot and his statement was recorded. PW10 Shailender Kumar has not been cross examined in any manner. PW11 Ram Pal has stated that later on, police officials of PS Rohini came at the spot and his statement was recorded. PW11 has not been cross examined in any manner. Similarly PW12 Sh. Inderpal has also deposed the same facts and he has not been cross examined in any manner.
PW14 HC Mool Chand has further corroborated with PW 34 ACP Jagram and has stated that on 28/05/2004, he was posted at PS Faria, District Ferozabad. On that day, he accompanied Inspector Jagram,SI Ram Baran Singh, SC No.20/1 50/61 two Constables and three accused persons, who were identified by him in the court, reached at the spot i.e. field of Ram Babu. All the three accused persons pointed out the place, where they had thrown the dead body of one person after committing his murder. Pointing out memo was prepared by the Investigating Officer marked as X1. PW14 HC Mool Chand has further deposed that he told about the facts of the recovery of dead body on 20/04/2003, from the spot i.e. field of Ram Babu and 28/05/04, Investigating Officer Inspector Jagram Singh had prepared the pointing out memo of the spot Ex.PW14/A. He had also prepared the site plan on 28/05/04 and his statement was recorded.
In the cross examination, PW14 HC Mool Chand has stated that Ram Babu was called to join the proceedings, but he refused to join the proceedings. PW14 has denied the suggestion that proceedings were prepared while sitting in the PS. He has also denied that on 09/06/2004, accused persons did not point out the spot to the police party.
Ld. Defence Counsel has contended that PW5 Ram Babu has deposed that his statement was recorded in this case after about one year whereas PW4 HC Mool Chand has stated that Ram Babu, owner of field has refused to join the proceedings, when asked. So the testimony of witnesses are doubtful regarding the pointing of place of occurrence by the accused persons and the recovery of dead body, as deposed by the witnesses on 28/05/2004.
In my opinion, the contention of Ld. Defence Counsel is not tenable in any manner because even otherwise other witnesses have stated that their statements were recorded by Delhi Police, which has been corroborated with the deposition of PW34 ACP Jagram Singh. So the contradiction is minor and is not material in any manner to disbelieve the testimonies of so many witnesses.
PW15 SI R.S. Singh has also deposed that his statement was recorded by the Investigating Officer of Delhi Police. Similarly PW16 Retired SI Ram Baran Singh has also deposed that after few days of 20/04/2003, police SC No.20/1 51/61 officials from Delhi reached at PS Faria and made inquires from him. His statement was recorded by them. He had also gone to the field of Ram Babu with Delhi police officials. Three accused were accompanied Delhi Police officials, at that time, who are present in the Court and they pointed out the place where the dead body was thrown.
PW16 has further deposed that they reached in the field of Ram Babu in the morning and they stayed there for about one hour.
Ld. Defence Counsel has contended that PW16 has been confronted with so many facts, with Ex.PW16/DA, which he had stated that these were told to Delhi Police, but the same are not appearing in his statement Ex.PW16/DA, so he cannot be believed in any manner.
As per deposition of PW33 SI Rajneesh, firstly accused Inderjeet was apprehended on 07/05/04 and he led the police party to PS Dhanadi and also to PS Faria district Ferozabad and pointed out the place, where he had thrown the dead body of one driver of vehicle, after killing him, which was taken from Amit Travels and pointing out memo Ex.PW29/C was prepared in this respect. So firstly, accused Inderjeet has pointed out the place, where the dead body was thrown of deceased Ghanshyam on 07/05/04 and again PW34 ACP Jagram took all three accused persons on 28/05/04 and they pointed out the place where the dead body was thrown, shows that the date 20/04/2003 has been mentioned inadvertently by PW16 before the court, where it was 28/05/2003.
In my opinion, PW16 SI Ram Baran Singh has stated the facts to the police in his statement recorded u/s 161 Cr.PC, but if the same have not been recorded by Investigating Officer then he cannot be disbelieved to the extent that he had not stated these facts to the Investigating Officer. Investigating Officer ACP Jagram has not been cross examined in this respect that he had not recorded the facts, as stated by PW16 SI Ram Baran Singh truly and correctly as told by him. In absence of any explanation from the side of PW34, PW16 SI Ram Baran SC No.20/1 52/61 Singh cannot be disbelieved in any manner.
PW18 SI Surender Singh Yadav has also corroborated that on 04/07/2004, Inspector Jagram Singh of Delhi police came alongwith staff to Agra gate Chowki, District Ferozabad and recorded his statement.
In cross examination also, PW18 has deposed that police officials of Delhi Police had contacted them after about one year of the same, when dead body was found lying in the field of Ram Babu.
PW9 HC Ramesh Chander and PW20 HC Sarab Daman Singh joined the investigation with PW34 ACP Jagram Singh and have deposed the same facts as of PW34 regarding the pointing out of the place, where dead body was thrown and the recovery of Tata Sumo on the pointing out of accused persons.
Nothing came out from the cross examination of PW9 HC chander. Only suggestions have been given. He has deposed that vehicle was recovered at about 5/6.00 pm and he has denied the suggestion that he had not brought the Tata Sumo to Delhi by driving the same.
PW20 has also deposed the same facts as of PW34 ACP Jagram Singh. He has been cross examined on certain aspects by Ld APP, wherein he has admitted that on 28/05/2004, HC Tilak Singh of PS Faria, district Ferozabad had produced one sealed pullanda sealed with the seal of SSY to Inspector Jagram containing belonging of deceased Ghanshaym, which were seized vide Ex.PW25/A. He had also admitted that on 28/05/04, inquest papers and photographs of deceased Ghanshaym alonwith postmortem report was also seized vide memo Ex.PW16/A and HC Tilak Singh also produced one sealed pullanda containing clothes of deceased Ghanshaym i.e. one pant, one shirt and one baniyan, kala dhaga, underwear alongwith blood stain soil and sample soil, which was seized vide memo Ex.PW25/A. PW20 has been confronted with his statement Ex. PW20/DA on certain facts by Ld. Defence Counsel, but these are not material. PW20 has further SC No.20/1 53/61 deposed in the cross examination that he had told to the Investigating Officer in his statement that on 27/05/04, he took the accused persons to DIU office in muffled face, which is not appearing in Ex.PW20/DA. Assuming that accused persons were unmuffled at that time, but neither PW1 Smt Suman nor PW2 Rameshwar Rathi or PW3 Rameshwar Goswami have been cross examined or suggested that accused persons were shown to them, when they were taken to DIU office. So, it has no relevancy at all and the same is not helpful to the accused persons in any manner.
PW20 HC Sarab Daman Singh has further deposed that they left for Amar Travels from DIU office at about 4.30 pm and reached there at about 5.00 pm. Merely, public persons have not joined the investigation despite being asked, does not mean that no such investigation was carried out as deposed by PW34 and also by PW20. According to the cross of PW20 HC Sarab Daman Singh, he had hired the qualis to go to PS Faria and they reached at PS Faria at about 0.00 am. They reached the field of Ram Babu at about 1.00 pm. PW20 has further denied the suggestion that accused persons did not point out the place , where they had thrown the dead body. He has also denied the suggestion that they had not gone to PS Faria or that Constable Moolchand had not joined them nor pointed out the field of Ram Babu, where the dead body of Ghanshyam was recovered. PW20 has further deposed that on 29/05/2004, they had started from PS Faria at about 9.00 am. PW9 HC Ramesh Chander has not been cross examined on these lines regarding time of arrival or departure. So it cannot be said that PW9 and PW20 have contradicted each other.
PW-25 SI Tilak Singh has also deposed that on 28/05/04, Inspector Jagram Singh of Delhi police came to him alognwith three accused persons. He also joined the investigation with Inspector Jagram Singh. He handed over both the pullandas with the seal of SSY to Inspector Jagram Singh which were seized vide memo Ex.PW25/A and Ex.PW25/B. SC No.20/1 54/61 In the cross examination, PW25 has further stated that Inspector Jagaram Singh alongwith three police officials came to PS Faria on 28/05/04 and has further deposed that Inspector Jagram Singh prepared seizure memo Ex.PW25/A and Ex.PW25/B. According to PW20 SI Sarab Daman Singh, accused persons led the police party to Awagarh road and pointed out the place where they had thrown the dead body. According to the cross examination of PW0, they reached at about 10.00 am to PS Faria and reached at the field of Ram Babu at about 1.00 pm, which shows that pullandas were seized vide Ex.PW25/A and Ex.PW25/B. So PW20 has corroborated these facts with PW25 Tilak Singh.
PW39 ACP Jagram Singh has further deposed that on next day, accused all three lead the police party to Village Jasrana of accused Vinod. In the house of accused Vinod, on his pointing out, one HMT wrist watch was produced by accused from one pitcher which was lying underneath the sacks of garlic. It was sealed in a pullanda with the seal of JS and was seized vide memo Ex.PW20/N. PW34 has further deposed that thereafter accused Shankar Yadav led the police party to his house at Kannoz district. Accused Shankar Yadav got recovered one red colour bag from his house. It was sealed in a pullanda with the seal of JS and was seized vide memo Ex.PW20/P. Thereafter, they came back to Shikohabad. Accused all three pointed out the house of one Lalit, where one Tata Spacio no. HR16C-1104 of white colour was found parked outside the house. The same was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW20/O. It was sent to Delhi through Constable Ramesh Kumar. Lalit was not found in his house and his mother told that Lalit was away for the last 2-3 days.
PW9 HC Ramesh Chander has corroborated these facts and have deposed that he drove the Tata Sumo Spacio to Delhi and deposited the same in malkhana in PS Rohini on 30/04/06. He has also identified the Tata Sumo Spacio SC No.20/1 55/61 before the Court as Ex.P1.
PW20 HC Sarab Daman Singh has also deposed that Tata Sumo Spacio was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW20/O, which was found parked outside the house of one Lalit.
PW34 ACP Jagram Singh has further deposed that thereafter they reached Gaziabad. Accused Inderjeet led the police party to his house, where grandfather of accused Inderjeet was present. Accused Inderjeet got recovered one golden colour chain with locket of 'OM' from a box, which was also sealed in a pullanda with the seal of JS and seized the same vide memo Ex.PW20/Q. Thereafter, they came back to Delhi. He deposited the case property with MHC(M) Rohini and recorded the statement of witnesses. Accused persons were produced before the court on 31/05/2004 and they were remanded to JC.
PW20 HC Sarab Daman Singh has also deposed the same facts that thereafter they came back with the accused persons. Tata Sumo Spacio was deposited in the malkhana and accused persons were produced before the court.
In the cross examination, PW20 has stated that on 29/05/04, they had started from PS Faria at about 9.00 am and reached at the house of accused Vinod at about 12.00 pm. Some villagers were asked to join the investigation, but they refused. Wrist watch was recovered from a mud vase from the heap of garlic. Brother of accused Vinod was present at that time. Even brother of accused Vinod also refused to join the proceedings. They stayed there for about 30 minutes. Thereafter, they reached at the house of accused Lalit at about 1.00 pm. Some public persons were asked to join the investigation, but they refused. PW20 has denied the suggestion that Tata Sumo Spacio Ex.P1 was not recovered outside the house of Lalit on pointing out of the accused persons. PW20 has further deposed that they reached at the house of accused Shankar Yadav at about 3.00 pm. Some villagers were asked to join the proceedings, but none agreed. PW 20 has denied the suggestion that red colour bag was not SC No.20/1 56/61 recovered from the house of Shankar Yadav.
Ld. Defence Counsel has contended that police party had reached at the house of accused Shankar Yadav at about 3.00 pm whereas PW9 HC Ramesh Chander has stated in the cross examination that vehicle was recovered at about 5/6 pm, so the contradiction regarding the time of recovery of Tata Sumo is material, hence witnesses cannot be believed in this regard.
In my view, the witnesses were examined in the year 2009 and 2010, whereas matter is of the year 2003, so there is time gap of 6-7 years and certain discrepancies are bound to come in the depositions of witnesses and merely on the difference of time, it cannot be said that police party had not gone there and had not recovered from there Tata Spacio Ex.P1 no. HR16C-1104, on the pointing out of the accused persons.
The place where Tata Sumo was recovered was particularly not pointed by accused Inderjeet to SI Rajneesh, during his police custody nor it was known to any other police witnesses . So it was a discovery of new fact, which was corroborated with the recovery of Tata Sumo no. HR16C-1104.
The recovery was effected after about one year, so it cannot be said that the same was planted against the accused persons. It is also corroborated with the fact that accused Lalit was made accused in this case for offence u/s 411 of IPC, but he was discharged by the Court.
In the cross examination, PW34 ACP Jagram Singh has denied the suggestion that accused persons were shown to the witnesses in PS Rohini, after their arrest. PW34 has also corroborated with PW20 HC Sarab Daman Singh by stating in the cross examination that he reached at PS Faria on 28/05/04 at about 8/9 am, whereas PW20 has stated that they reached their at about 10.00 am. So certain discrepancies are bound to come due to delayed examination of witnesses i.e. after about 6-7 years. PW34 has denied the suggestion that he did not visit the field of Ram Babu and did not conduct any proceedings there.
SC No.20/1 57/61PW34 has further corroborated with PW20 and has stated in the cross examination that recovery of HMT watch was effected underneath the sacks of garlic. Mother of accused Vinod was present,but she did not reply satisfactorily. Similarly, PW20 and PW34 have further corroborated each other regarding the recovery of red bag from the house of accused Shankar Yadav. PW20 has stated that they reached at the house of accused Shankar Yadav and about 3.00 pm, whereas PW34 has stated that they reached there at about 4.00 pm. Again, after the long time, certain discrepancies are bound to occur in the testimonies of witnesses, so it is not unnatural. Both the witnesses inspires confidence and are trustworthy. Merely no public witnesses had joined the proceedings does no mean that such investigation was not carried out and recovery was not affected.
The contention of Ld. Defence Counsel that recovered articles are easily available in the market does not mean that same have been planted upon the accused persons, in any manner. Similarly, if there is difference of time in the deposition of witnesses, about the reaching at the house of accused Lalit. PW9 has stated in the cross examination that Tata Sumo was recovered at about 5/6 pm, whereas PW20 has stated that they reached at house of Lalit at about 1.00 pm, whereas PW34 has stated that they reached there at about 7/8 pm, then in my view, examination of witnesses after long time bound to bring some contradictions due to lapse of memory, so the contentions of Ld. Defence Counsel are not tenable.
According to the cross examination of PW20, they reached at Ghaziabad at about 8.00 pm and recovery of golden colour chain with locket was effected from the house of accused Inderjeet. PW34 ACP Jagram has stated that they reached at the house of accused Inderjeet in the night at about 12.00 or 1.00 am and recovery was effected of golden colour chain with Om locket.
Ld. Defence Counsel has contended that the recovery of articles, as deposed by witnesses are doubtful as there is no public witness and the articles, which were recovered are easily available in the market and they have been SC No.20/1 58/61 planted upon the accused persons.
The articles which were recovered on the pointing out of accused persons, as per deposition of PW34 ACP Jagram Singh, were sealed by him and proceedings regarding TIP of articles were conducted by PW32, the then Ld MM Sh. Raj Kapoor on 09/07/04. An application to conduct the TIP of recovered articles was marked to him by Link MM. He fixed the same for 13/07/04, as per his endorsement on Ex. PW32/A. Case property was not produced, hence again it was fixed for 16/04/2011 and on that day, he conducted the TIP of the case property. Witness Sh. Rameshwar Goswami was identified by the Investigating Officer. TIP proceedings alonwith certificate is Ex.PW32/B. One copy of TIP was given to Investigating Officer vide application Ex.PW32/C. During the TIP of articles i.e. one red colour bag, one golden colour chain and one wrist watch, witness Rameshwar Goswami had identified the case property correctly.
Ld. Defence Counsel has contended that similar articles were not produced during the TIP of case property and it has been admitted so by PW32 that he had not mentioned the description, size and make of similar case property. Hence the TIP of case property was not conducted as per the law, hence cannot be relied upon.
PW32 Sh. Raj Kapoor, is the official witness. According to his cross examination, case property was produced in sealed condition and he conducted the TIP of the case property. PW3 Rameshwar Goswami has also stated that he had participated in the Judicial TIP and identified the before the then concerned MM i.e. one red colour bag containing belongings of his brother, one silver chain with locket and one HMT watch. PW Rameshwar Goswami has also identified these articles before the court. In the cross examination also, PW3 Rameshwar Goswami has stated that he had gone from his house to participate in the TIP proceedings in the court and reached there at about 10.00 am. He met with Investigating Officer there. He was told by the Investigating Officer to sit outside SC No.20/1 59/61 the court and further that he will be called by the court to join the TIP proceedings, so he sat outside the court and he was called after lunch inside the court to participate in the TIP proceedings. Several similar articles were shown to him by Ld MM, out of which he identified the articles of his deceased brother. PW3 has further denied the suggestion that police had already shown the articles of his brother to him in the PS before the TIP proceedings. PW3 has further deposed that he did not receive any notice to join the TIP, but he came to know about the same from the police because he used to visit the police station to know about the progress of his case. The TIP of the articles was conducted by Ld MM in the chamber. At the time of the proceedings of TIP, only he was present inside the chamber wit the Ld MM. During the proceedings, several other watches of HMT and some other watches were shown to him mixed with the watch of his deceased brother. Similarly, Ld MM had also shown the chain of his deceased brother mixed with other similar size chain. PW3 has denied the suggestion that he did not participate in the TIP proceedings. So PW3 has corroborated with the deposition of PW32 and merely that PW32 had not mentioned the description, size and make of case property does not mean that TIP of case property was not conducted by the then Ld MM. From the deposition of PW3 and PW32, prosecution have been able to prove the identity of the recovered articles at the instance of accused persons, to be of deceased Ghanshyam.
PW34 ACP Jagram has further deposed that he got prepared scaled site plan from draftsman SI Manohar Lal by taking him to Ferozabad in the field of Ram Babu at Awahgarh Road. PW4 SI Manohar Lal has corroborated this fact and have deposed that on 30/04/2007, he along with PW34 ACP Jagram Singh visited the field of Ram Babu and on the pointing of Ram Babu, he took rough notes and prepared scaled site plan Ex. Pw4/a. PW4 SI Manohar Lal and PW34 ACP Jagram Singh have corroborated about the time. PW4 has stated that he reached at the spot at about 2.30 pm, whereas PW34 has stated that they SC No.20/1 60/61 reached at the spot at about 4.00pm . So it is not major difference, when they reached at the spot and PW4 took rough notes on the pointing of Ram Babu.
PW34 ACP Jagram Singh has also denied the suggestion that he had shown the recovered articles to the complainant before TIP of the articles.
Regarding the recovery of Tata Sumo, Ld. Defence Counsel has contended that same was recovered from the road, outside the house of one Lalit, who had already been discharged. So neither the Tata Sumo was in the possession of accused persons nor the place, from where the Tata Sumo was recovered, was under the possession of accused persons, so accused persons cannot be linked up with Tata Sumo in any manner.
A supplementary chargesheet was filed against the accused Lalit wherein according to interrogation report, Lalit had purchased Tata Sumo no. HR16C-1104 for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- from accused Vinod Kumar, who had accompanied with other two accused persons. It is impossible to believe that Tata Sumo with same number i.e. HR16C-1104, was also easily available in the market. Accused Inderjeet made disclosure statement to SI Rajneesh Kumar on 07/08.05.04 and at that time he did not disclosed about the Tata Sumo and later on when ACP Jagram, took PC remand, accused persons led the police party to the house of Lalit and got recovered the Tata Sumo, which was found parked outside the house of Lalit. Testimony of PW34 ACP Jagram Singh is unshaken in this respect.
PW1 Smt Suman has also deposed that her husband took one pair of clothes and other necessary things in a red colour bag with him before leaving for Hathras and Agra. So red colour bag has not been introduced by the police to cooked up the story against the accused persons. PW1 has not been cross examined regarding the red colour bag in any manner. Her testimony found to be trustworthy. PW3 Rameshwer Goswami has also told about the red colour bag, HMT watch and silver Gold plated chain with locket in his supplementary SC No.20/1 61/61 statement on 07/05/2003. Accused Inderjeet was arrested on 07/08/05, by SI Rajneesh, at that time accused Inderjeet did not disclosed these facts to the Investigating Officer in his statement. Hence during police custody taken by SI Rajneesh, he pointed out the place in PS Faria, where they had thrown the dead body and only after the arrest by PW34 ACP Jagram Singh, accused persons during police custody got recovered these articles and Tata Sumo, hence it cannot be said that the supplementary statement of PW3 Rameshwar Goswami is based on the disclosure statement of accused Inderjeet, in case FIR no. 160/04, PS Farash Bazar u/s Arms Act because statement of PW3 Rameshwar Goswami was recorded in the year 2003, whereas accused Inderjeet was arrested in the year 2004. The recovered articles have been identified by PW3 Rameshwar Goswami during judicial TIP also before the Court i.e. red colour bag as Ex.P6, HMT watch as Ex.P7 and chain with locket as Ex.P8. So, in no circumstances, the contention of Ld. Defence Counsel is acceptable that the recovered article were planted upon the accused persons to make out a case against them.
In support of above, I relied upon State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Jeet Singh SC 1991 page 1, Law Finder-Library Edition Supreme Court Law Finder, where it has been held that:
" There is nothing in Section 27 of the Evidence Act which renders the statement of the accused inadmissible if recovery of the articles was made from any place which is " open or accessible to others". It is a fallacious notion that when recovery of any incriminating article was made from a place which is open or accessible to others it would vitiate the evidence under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. Any object can be concealed in places which are open or accessible to others. For example, if the articles is buried on the main roadside or if its concealed beneath dry leaves lying on public places or kept hidden in a public office, the article would remain out of the visibility of others in normal circumstances. Until such article is disintered its hidden state would remain unhampered. The person who hid it alone knows until he discloses that fact to any other person. Hence the crucial question is not whether the place was accessible to others or not but whether it was ordinarily visible to others. If it is not, then it is immaterial that the concealed place is accessible to others.SC No.20/1 62/61
It is now well settled that the discovery of fact referred to in Section 27 of the Evidence Act is not the object recovered but the fact embraces the place from which the object is recovered and the knowledge of the accused as to it. Pulikrai Kottaya, AIR 1947 PC 67. The said ratio has received unreserved approval of this court in successive decisions. (Jaffar Hussain Dastagir vs. State of Maharashtra, 1969(2) SCC 872, K.Chinnaswamy Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, A.I.R. 1962 SC 1788, Earabhadrappa @ Krishnappa v. State of Karnatka, 1983(2) SCC 330, Shamshul Kanwar vs. State of U.P., 1995 (4) SCC 430, State of Rajasthan v. Bhup Singh,1997 (10) SCC 675.
PW9 Head Constable Ramesh Chander and PW20 Head Constable Sarab Daman Singh have also corroborated with PW34 about the recovery of red colour bag, HMT Watch, one silver gold plated chain with Om Locket from the possession of accused persons and also recovery of Tata Sumo outside the house of accused Lalit on the pointing out of accused persons.
PW28 is Inspector Jagjit Singh. Investigation remained with him for some time and during this period, he got flashed the message for the search of vehicle and the missing persons Ghanshaym. He also got issued hue and cry notice. He also made inquiries from owner and Manager of Amar Travels, Mukesh Kumar of Pooja Travels and some suspects and recorded the supplementary statement of complainant Rameshwar Goswami. He has proved the copy of newspaper, in which the hue and cry notice was published as Ex.pw28/C. PW26 is ASI Jagdish. He has further corroborated with the Investigating Officer and has further deposed that on 03/05/03, SI Ram Kumar handed over two pullandas with the seal of RKD to Head Constable Hari Kishan for depositing in the malkhana. Constable Hari Kishan deposited the same in the malkhana and entry was made at serial no. 2180/03 and copy of same is Ex.PW26/A. PW26 has further deposed that on 30/05/2004, he was posted at PS SC No.20/1 63/61 Rohini as MHC(M) and on that day, Inspector Jagram handed over five sealed pullandas, out of which two were sealed with the seal of SSY and three were sealed with the seal of JS and one Tata Sumo bearing no. HR-16C-1104 to him for depositing in the malkhana. PW26 made the entry at serial no.2475/04 in register no.19. He has brought the original register no.19 and photocopy of same is proved as Ex.PW26/A1.
PW26 has further deposed that on 12/07/04, as per the instructions of Investigating Officer, he handed over pullanda, out of which three pullandas were sealed with the seal of SSY and one pullanda with the seal of 'SNM', hospital Ferozabad to HC Sarva Daman for depositng in CFSL, Kolkatta. HC Sarva Daman deposited the same at CFSL, Kolkatta and after depositing the same, he handed over the receipt of RC to PW26. Copy of which is Ex.PW26/B. PW26 has further deposed that on 09/11/04, Inspector Jagram Singh took one cardboard box with the seal of CFSL Kolkatta and CFSL result from PS Bajanpura and deposited the same with PW26. He made entry in front of Serial no.2475/04. He has further deposed that on 04/02/06, Constable Naresh Kumar took one pullanda with the result (Physics) from PS Pandav Nagar and same were deposited by Constable Naresh in the malkhana. He made entry in front of serial no. 2475/04.
So, PW26, has also corroborated with PW34 ACP Jagaram Singh, PW9 HC Ramesh Chander and PW20 HC Sarva Daman Singh with respect to the deposit of recovered articles of deceased Ghanshaym and recovered on the pointing out of accused persons alongwith Tata Sumo, which was recovered on 29/05/2004, while accused persons were on police remand with these police officials.
PW9 has also corroborated with the same and has deposed that he drove the Tata Sumo from Shikhobad and deposited the same in Malkhana on 30/05/04.SC No.20/1 64/61
None of the accused had claimed the ownership of the articles recovered from their possession nor has given any explanation about these in any manner.
In view of the judgment relied upon, the contention of Ld. Defence Counsel, regarding the recovered articles i.e. belongings of deceased Ghanshayam from the possession of accused persons on their pointing out, is not acceptable in any manner and even contention that the Tata Sumo was recovered from open place is also not tenable in any manner, because none of the police official was knowing as to where the Tata Sumo was lying, and it was recovered only after the pointing out of accused persons, when they were in police custody remand. So it cannot be said that accused persons were not knowing about the Tata Sumo, which completed the chain of circumstantial evidence against them.
Ld. Defence Counsel has contended that it has been relied in AIR 1952 Supreme Court 343 titled as Hanumant Govind Nargundkar and another Vs State of Madhya Pradesh that:-
"In dealing with circumstantial evidence the rules specially applicable to such evidence must be borne in mind. In such cases there is always the danger that conjecture or suspicion may take the place of legal proof. In cases, where the evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should in the first instance be fully established, and all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. Again, he circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. In other words, there must be a chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show that within all human probability the act must have been done by the accused."
Ld. Defence Counsel has further relied upon 1983, CRI.L.J.94, titled as G.Gabriel Vs State of Kerala that :-
There is an additional burden on the prosecution to establish, in cases which rest on circumstantial evidence, that the circumstantial evidence is SC No.20/1 65/61 inconsistent with the innocence of the accused besides its being consistent with his guilt. True it is, in a murder case, the evidence that the deceased was last found in the company of the accused is an important link in the chain of circumstances pointing to the guilt of the accused; but it could not be deemed to be conclusive, unless it is further established that during the interval between the time when they were last seen together and the time at which the victim died every circumstance was inconsistent with the innocence of the accused.".
Ld. Defence Counsel has further relied upon 1995 JCC 645 titled as Virender Kumar Yadav & Mukhtiar yadav @ Mukho Yadav vs State and has further contended that prosecution has not been able to prove any motive for committing murder by the accused persons.
The Judgments as relied upon by Ld. Defence Counsel are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case as disposal of Tata Sumo by accused persons itself is strong motive against accused persons, for which they committed murder of Ghanshayam.
Ld. Defence Counsel has further relied upon on 1997(1) C.C. Cases 136 (SC) and has contended that recovery of articles did not bear any identity mark to connect the accused with the crime and the same is weak evidence.
The same is also not tenable in any manner as the accused persons got recovered articles from their respective housed during the police custody remand. The articles were found concealed in the houses of accused persons, from where they got recovered the articles and handed over to the police. Accused persons have not claimed any ownership of these articles. It is not proved that the same was planted upon the accused persons. The articles were identified by PW3 Rameshwar Goswami and he had also made supplementary statement during investigation to the police in this respect that Ghanshyam was having these articles with him, when he had left for Hathras with accused persons, so there was no need of any particular mark on the articles. A person can identify his articles by seeing the same only and who is associated with him can also identify these SC No.20/1 66/61 articles, as he had seen these articles for years together. Thus articles were identified by PW3 in Judicial TIP from the similar type articles.
Ld. Defence Counsel has further relied upon on 2007(3) C.C. Cases (SC) 87 and has contended that TIP of accused persons were got conducted later on and prior to that, they were taken on police remand. So the TIP was of no use. In my opinion, the same is not acceptable in any manner, because accused persons had refused to join the TIP on the ground that they had been shown to many public persons in PS Rohini, but none of the witnesses has admitted so, even in the cross examination conducted in length in this respect, hence the same cannot be doubted in any manner. Complainant and other witnesses did not join the police party, during police custody remand of accused persons, at the time of recovery of articles or when Tata sumo was recovered at the pointing of accused persons.
So judgments as relied upon by Ld. Defence Counsel are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case.
In view of above discussion, prosecution has been able to prove beyond reasonable doubts, from the testimonies of PW1 Smt Suman, PW2 Rameshwar Prasad Rathi and PW3 Rameshwar Goswmai that lastly accused persons were seen by them with Tata Sumo, when deceased Ghanshyam came to his house, to collect the belongings while he was going to Hathras and Agra.
Prosecution has also been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt, from the deposition of PW2 Rameshar Prasad Rathi that accused persons booked Tata Sumo no. HR16C-1104, on hire basis from Amar Travels on 18/04/03, for going to Hathras and accused Vinod gave a fake residential address and further told that they will come back on 20/04/2003, but till 25/04/2003, they did not return, which is evident from Ex.PW31/A and Ex.PW31/B, seized vide memo Ex.PW27/C. Prosecution has also been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt SC No.20/1 67/61 that accused persons also committed kidnapping of driver with Tata Sumo and in furtherance of their common intention they booked the vehicle on hire as they were having intention that thereafter driver of the Tata Sumo will be murdered.
Prosecution has also been able to prove beyond reasonable doubts from the deposition of witnesses that after committing kidnapping of driver Ghanshyam with Tata Sumo bearing registration no. HR16C-1104, they committed murder of driver Ghanshayam. Tata Sumo of driver Ghanshyam was taken by the accused persons on 18/04/2003 at about 6-7.00 pm and they must have left Delhi at about 8.00 pm. According to the postmortem report, time since death comes to 19/04/2003 at about 4.50 pm. Accused persons have not taken any defence that after taking Tata Sumo on hire on 18/04/2003 at about 6-7.00 from Amar Travels, they had left driver Ghanshaym and Tata Sumo somewhere on 18/04/2003 or on 19/04/2003, so absence of such defence shows that driver Ghanshyam with Tata Sumo no. HR-16C-1104 was with the accused persons, till the murder of driver Ghanshyam, which was committed by them at about 4.50 pm, on 19/04/2003 and thereafter, they had thrown the dead body of Ghanshyam in the field of Ram Babu and disposed of Tata Sumo, which was recovered later on during the police custody remand of accused persons on 29/05/04 from Shikhobad.
It has been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in 2007(2)R.C.R(Criminal)458 titled as State of Goa Vs Sanjay Thakran, which is as under:-
"From the principle laid down by this Court, the circumstance of last seen together would normally be taken into consideration for finding the accused guilty of the offence charged with when it is established by the prosecution that the time gap between the point of time when the accused and the deceased were found together alive and when the deceased was found dead is so small that possibility of any other person being with the deceased could completely be ruled out. The time gap between the accused persons seen in the company of the deceased and the detection of the crime would be a material consideration for SC No.20/1 68/61 appreciation of the evidence and placing reliance on it as a circumstance against the accused. But, in all cases, it cannot be said that the evidence of last seen together is to be rejected merely because the time gap between the accused persons and the deceased last seen together and the crime coming to light is after a considerable long duration. There can be no fixed or straight jacket formula for the duration of time gap in this regard and it would depend upon the evidence led by the prosecution to remove the possibility of any other person meeting the deceased in the intervening period, that is to say, if the prosecution is able to lead such an evidence that likelihood of any person other than the accused, being the author the crime, becomes impossible, then the evidence of circumstance of last seen together, although there is long duration of time, can be considered as one of the circumstances in the chain of circumstances to prove the guilt against such accused persons. Hence, if the prosecution proves that in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, there was no possibility of any other person meeting or approaching the deceased at the place of incident or before the commission of the crime, in the intervening period, the proof of last seen together would be relevant evidence. For instance, if it can be demonstrated by showing that the accused persons were in exclusive possession of the place where the incident occurred or where they were last seen together with the deceased, and there was no possibility of any intrusion to that place by any third party, then a relatively wider time gap would not affect the prosecution case."
In view of the above prosecution has been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt from the deposition of PW1 Smt Suman, PW2 Rameshwar Prasad Rathi and PW3 Rameshwar Goswami that Ghanshaym was lastly seen with the accused persons, when he was leaving for Hathras and Agra in Tata Sumo HR16C-1104 on 18/04/2003.
From the deposition of Public witnesses and also police witnesses, prosecution has further been able to prove beyond reasonable doubts that dead body of Ghanshyam was recovered from the field of one Ram Babu on 20/04/03 and necessary proceedings were conducted i.e. panchnama was prepared and other documents were prepared. Some articles lying near the dead body i.e. one angocha, belt, shoes were also taken in possession, which have been later on identified by the witnesses before the Court. Earth control and blood stained earth were also taken into possession. Wearing clothes were also seized by the doctor SC No.20/1 69/61 during postmortem. These were sent to CFSL, Kolkatta for examination.
According to the FSL report Ex.PX, Exhibit No.2 and 3 were found to be similar to each other in respect of colour and density distribution of earth particles. The wearing clothes and blood sample of deceased were examined and report of CFSL is Ex.PY. According to same, Ex.1A, 1B i.e. Gauze Swab (shoes) and Gamcha cuttings, Ex.2 earth, Ex.4A pant cuttings, Ex.4B shirt cuttings, Ex.4C banian cuttings and Ex.4D underwear cuttings, were found having human blood of AB group. So prosecution has been able to connect the blood, which was found lying at the spot as of Ghanshyam and articles were also containing blood of deceased Ghanshaym .
From the deposition of witnesses, prosecution has also been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt the arrest of accused Inderjeet in FIR No. 160/04 in PS Farsh Bazar and arrest of accused Shankar Yadav and Vinod u/s 41.1 Cr.Pc in PS New Ashok Nagar. During PC Remand accused Inderjeet pointed out the place, where dead body was thrown by them after committing murder of Ghanshyam. After recording of disclosure statement and other documents, PW34 ACP Jagram Singh obtained PC remand of all the three accused persons for some days and during police custody remand, accused persons got recovered red colour bag, HMT watch and one silver gold plated chain with locket, from their respective houses and also got recovered one Tata Sumo HR16C-1104, which was brought to Delhi on 30/05/04 and was deposited in Malkhana. The Tata Sumo was taken on hire by accused persons on 18/04/2003, whereas the same was got recovered on 29/04/04 i.e. almost more than one year and the vehicle was pointed out by accused persons, which was found parked outside the house of Lalit. This itself shows that all the accused persons were having intention that after committing the murder of Ghanshyam, they had to dispose off the vehicle and also the accused persons were knowing as to where the Tata Sumo was and accordingly, they pointed out the same.
SC No.20/1 70/61From the deposition of witnesses, prosecution has also been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that recovered articles on the pointing of accused persons, were put to judicial TIP, where these were identified by PW3 Rameshwar Goswami. Accused persons have not claimed the ownership of recovered articles in any manner.
Prosecution has also been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that after committing murder of Ghanshayam, accused all three caused the evidence for commission of murder to disappear, by throwing dead body of Ghanshyam in the field of Ram Babu at Awagarh Road, District Ferozabad.
The prosecution has also been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt the identity of dead body by the witnesses on the basis of photograph Ex.PW1/A, which was taken by UP police at the time of recovery of dead body.
Accordingly, prosecution has been able to prove the last seen evidence against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubts and has also successfully completed the chain of circumstantial evidence against the accused persons.
In view of the above, prosecution has been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt, the offences u/s 364/34, 302/34, 201/34 and 404/34 of IPC against all the accused persons, for which they are held guilty and convicted for the same.
Announced in Open Court on dated 12th of May, 2011 (Virender Kumar Goyal) Additional Sessions Judge Fast Track Court Rohini : Delhi SC No.20/1 71/61 SC No.20/1 72/61