Delhi District Court
Through Public Prosecutor Delhi vs Jeetu Saini on 28 May, 2014
SC No. 22/1/14 FIR No. 222/08
P.S Vikas Puri
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJAY JINDAL, ADDL. SESSIONS
JUDGE WEST - 04, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Unique Case ID No. : 02401R1374082008
SC NO. 22/1/14
FIR NO. 222/08
P.S. : Vikas Puri
U/S : 302/120B IPC
IN THE MATTER OF
State
(Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
Through Public Prosecutor Delhi
versus
1. Jeetu Saini
S/o Sh. Maha Singh
State vs. Jeetu Saini & Anr. Page No. 1/53
SC No. 22/1/14 FIR No. 222/08
P.S Vikas Puri
R/o B106, Raghubir Nagar,
Delhi.
2. Shivani Wasan
D/o Sh. Ashok Wasan
R/o B1/19, Hastal Road,
Uttam Nagar, Delhi. ............. Accused Persons
Date when committed to the : 10.02.2009
court of Sessions
Date of conclusion of : 23.05.2014
final arguments
Date of Order. : 28.05.2014
Final Order : Convicted.
J U D G M E N T
1. Brief facts, as per case of the prosecution, are that on State vs. Jeetu Saini & Anr. Page No. 2/53 SC No. 22/1/14 FIR No. 222/08 P.S Vikas Puri 26.08.2008 information vide DD No. 42 A was received at P.S Vikas Puri from DDU hospital regarding hospitalization of one unknown person aged about 35 years injured due to stabbing, by HC Satpal, and the injured was declared brought dead. SI Umed Singh alongwith Ct. Suresh Kumar reached at DDU hospital and recorded the statement of brother of deceased namely Bhanu @ Jaswant S/o Bishambher. It was disclosed that elder brother of complainant namely Sonu Rana @ Surjeet Singh used to run a Jagran party under the name and style of 'Vaishnavi and Party' and accused Shivani Wasan worked as a singer therein and was known to the complainant also. Further that Shivani Wasan had obtained a sum of Rs. 25,000/ from Sonu Rana as advance but Shivani Wasan was neither attending the functions of Jagran party nor returning the said amount. Further that accused Jeetu Saini was harrasing Sonu Rana since several days on telephone and asking him to stop calling Shivani Wasan on work and also to stop demanding money from her. He (Jeetu Saini) further disclosed that he was in love with Shivani and was about to marry her. Further that said Jeetu Saini called Sonu Rana at PVR Vikas Puri for discussion and Sonu Rana, complainant and Bunty @ Vinay Sharma State vs. Jeetu Saini & Anr. Page No. 3/53 SC No. 22/1/14 FIR No. 222/08 P.S Vikas Puri reached PVR Vikas puri at about 09.00 pm, where Shivani Wasan, Jeetu Saini and 34 boys were present. Shivani Wasan pointed towards Sonu Rana and thereafter Jeetu Saini took out a long knife (dagger) from his pant and uttered that he will finish Sonu Rana and started stabbing Sonu Rana. Sonu Rana moved backward to save himself but fell on the road after striking one pot (gamla) and Jeetu Saini stabbed him even when he was lying on ground. Accused Jeetu Saini was arrested from the spot while Shivani was arrested subsequently on 17092008. After completion of investigation, chargesheet u/s 302/120B IPC was filed and the matter was committed to the court of session and received by the predecessor on 10.02.2009.
2. After consideration, charge for the offences U/s 120B IPC and 302/34 IPC was served upon the accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
State vs. Jeetu Saini & Anr. Page No. 4/53 SC No. 22/1/14 FIR No. 222/08
P.S Vikas Puri
3. At the time of trial, prosecution has examined following witnesses; PW1 ASI Vikram Singh PW14 Dr. Vimal Sharma PW2 Sunil Kumar PW14A Mr. Bhanu @ Jaswant PW4 Ct. Subhash PW15 Ct. Pawan PW5 Ct. Amit PW16 HC Rajbir PW6 Ct. Suresh PW17 Sh. Pawan Singh PW7 HC Satpal PW18 Mr. Vinay Shamra PW8 SI Umed PW19 Inspr. Raj Kumar PW9 Ct. Raj Kumar PW20 Inspr. Ghanshyam PW10 Dr. Komal Singh PW21 Ct. Anuradha PW11 Sh. R.K. Singh PW22 Sh. Parshuram Singh PW12 HC Sita Ram PW23 Sh. V. Shankar Narayanan PW13 ASI Ravi Dutt PW24 Sh. P.N. Rama Krishnan PW13A ASI Renu PW25 Dr. A.K. Srivastava
4. It is important to note that some of the witness have been examined in absence of accused Jeetu Saini due to alleged threat to his life. In this regard, statement of counsel for accused was recorded on 01.07.2009. It was stated on his behalf that his identity will not be State vs. Jeetu Saini & Anr. Page No. 5/53 SC No. 22/1/14 FIR No. 222/08 P.S Vikas Puri disputed.
5. After completion of prosecution evidence, the statements of accused Shivani Wasan and Jeetu Saini were recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C on 01.03.2014 and 19.03.2014 respectively. Additional statements of accused persons were recorded on 15.05.2014. The accused persons denied the case of prosecution in general and opted to lead defense evidence. Accused Shivani Wasan explained that the deceased was interested to be friendly with her and a number of times she was ignoring him and refused to attend the Jagran party of the deceased, due to which the relatives of the deceased have falsely implicated her in the present matter and that she did not know what happened with Jeetu Saini and deceased Sonu Rana. On the other hand, accused Jeetu Saini explained that he had gone to PVR Vikas Puri for watching a movie as one of his friend had his office there and when he was about to meet his friend a quarrel started nearby. He went to police officials who were present in the nearby police booth to inform about the quarrel and they made him to sit there and subsequently he was taken to police station and falsely implicated in this case.
6. Accused Shivani Wasan did not lead any defense evidence State vs. Jeetu Saini & Anr. Page No. 6/53 SC No. 22/1/14 FIR No. 222/08 P.S Vikas Puri while accused Jeetu Saini examined Mr. Rahul Kapoor as DW1 as sole defense witness.
7. I have heard Ld. APP for the State assisted by ld. counsel for complainant and ld. counsel for the accused persons. I have also carefully perused the record including the written submissions filed on behalf of parties. It is argued on behalf of State as well as the complainant that case against both the accused persons has been duly proved on record beyond any reasonable doubts. Further that discrepancies/contradictions if any in the case of prosecution are minor and natural. Further that such contradictions are bound to occur in lengthy crossexamination of prosecution witnesses conducted by the ld. defense counsel over a period of time on different dates. A reference is made to Lakhwinder vs. State of Punjab 1992 Crl. J SC 3958, Dalip Singh vs. State of Punjab AIR 1953 SC 364, Appa Bhai vs. State of Gujrat AIR 1989 SC 696, Mohan Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (1999) 2 SCC 428, State of Gujrat vs. Gandabhai Govindbhai 2000 Crl. J 92, 2004 (3) JCC 1226, 2001 IVAD (Delhi) 89 and AIR 1974 SC 1193.
8. On the other hand, it is submitted on behalf of the accused State vs. Jeetu Saini & Anr. Page No. 7/53 SC No. 22/1/14 FIR No. 222/08 P.S Vikas Puri persons that the case of prosecution is full of discrepancies and contradictions and same is based on false evidence. It is argued that alleged eyewitnesses are not the actual eyewitnesses and that PW14 (PW14A) Mr. Bhanu and PW18 Mr. Vinay Sharma were never present at the spot. The credibility of other witnesses including the medical witnesses has also been challenged. It is argued that prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubts and therefore the accused persons are entitled to be acquitted. A reference is made to Madhav Hayawadanrao Hoskot vs. State of Maharastra (1978) 3 SCC 544, Kaur Sain vs. State of Punjab AIR 1974 SC 329, Keshav vs. State of Maharastra 1971 Crl. J 798, Ajay Kumar vs. State 1986 Crl. J
932.
9. Before proceeding further, it will not be out of place to have a reference to the statements of the witnesses examined by prosecution and documentary evidence brought on record.
PW1 ASI Vikram Singh is the duty officer who recorded FIR Ex.PW1/A on 27.08.2008 at about 12.15 am. PW2 Sunil Kumar deposed that he was doing the work of computer designing and police had State vs. Jeetu Saini & Anr. Page No. 8/53 SC No. 22/1/14 FIR No. 222/08 P.S Vikas Puri shown him two visiting cards Ex.PW2/A and Ex.PW2/B. He further deposed that he had designed visiting card of one Mr. Ashok Hasti and Shivani Wasan. He has been duly crossexamined on behalf of accused. There is no witness examined as PW3.
PW4 Ct. Subhash deposed that on 26.08.2008 he was on patrolling duty at PVR Vikas Puri. HC Satpal (PW7) was also with him. At about 09.00 pm, they reached near PVR south side and he saw that there was a crowd when they entered into the crowd, they saw one boy stabbing another boy. They had apprehended accused Jeetu Saini. Further that a knife/dagger was recovered from him. When after apprehending Jeetu Saini, they were going towards police booth, in the meantime SHO reached at police booth. Injured was taken to hospital by HC Satpal and he (PW4) remained at the spot alongwith accused. He further deposed that crime team reached at the spot, inspected the site and took photographs. Inspr. G.S. Meena reached at the spot and accused was handed over to him with knife/dagger. IO prepared sketch (Ex.PW4/A) of dagger and the dagger was sealed and seized vide Ex.Pw4/B. It is further deposed that complainant Bhanu was also present at the spot. State vs. Jeetu Saini & Anr. Page No. 9/53 SC No. 22/1/14 FIR No. 222/08
P.S Vikas Puri Further that blood lying at the spot and earth control were lifted and seized vide memo Ex.PW4/C. Accused was arrested. His personal search was made, blood stained TShirt of accused was seized and the motorcycle used by accused was also recovered. He has also deposed about seizure of WagonR car and mobile phone. He identified the accused Jeetu Saini, dagger Ex.P1, TShirt Ex.P2, WagonR car bearing no. DL3CAA3482 Ex.P3. Identity of motorcycle No. DL6SAA6464 was not disputed. He has been duly crossexamined on behalf of accused persons.
PW5 Ct. Anil Kumar deposed that he was posted as draftsman and prepared scaled site plan Ex.PW5/A. PW6 Ct. Suresh Kumar, went to DDU hospital on 26.08.2008 at about 09.30 pm on receipt of DD No. 42 A, where the deceased was declared brought dead. In hospital, Bhanu i.e the complainant disclosed himself to be the eye witness. SI Umed Singh recorded his statement and thereafter SI Umed Singh handed over the Tehrir to PW6 at about 11.30 pm, who in torn got the FIR registered. The investigation was marked to Inspr. Ghanshyam Meena and PW6 alongwith IO reached at PVR Vikas Puri, where blood was lying spread on the spot. He further deposed that there a police staff State vs. Jeetu Saini & Anr. Page No. 10/53 SC No. 22/1/14 FIR No. 222/08 P.S Vikas Puri had already caught the person who had committed the murder of deceased. He identified the accused Jeetu Saini. He has been duly crossexamined on behalf of accused persons.
PW7 HC Satpal deposed that on 26.08.2008 he was performing his beat patrolling duty at PVR Cinema alongwith Ct. Subhash (PW4). At about 09.00 pm, there was a crowd toward South side of police booth. He alongwith Ct. Subhash went there and saw that one person was stabbing another person. The person who was stabbing the other person was apprehended by him and Ct. Subhash. He (assailant) was having knife in his hand, which was snatched by Ct. Subhash from his hand. He further deposed that they took the accused to police post, in the meantime, SHO reached at the spot in gypsy. He (PW7) again went to the spot, injured was lifted with the help of public persons and put in the gypsy of SHO. He also went to hospital in gypsy, injured was taken to emergency, where doctor declared him (injured) brought dead. Then ASI Umed reached at the hospital and started the proceedings, he (PW7) remained with the body of deceased. This witness has also identify the accused Jeetu Saini and he has been duly crossexamined on behalf of accused State vs. Jeetu Saini & Anr. Page No. 11/53 SC No. 22/1/14 FIR No. 222/08 P.S Vikas Puri persons.
PW8 SI Umed Singh deposed that on 26.08.2008 he was present at P.S Vikas Puri where he received DD No. 42 A (Ex.Pw8/A) on the basis of which he reached at DDU hospital alongwith Ct. Suresh. He collected MLC and he came to know about name of deceased as Sonu Rana. In the hospital, Bhanu @ Jaswant, brother of deceased met him and informed that he is the eyewitness of this case. Then, he recorded the statement of complainant, made endorsement Ex.PW8/B and got the FIR registered through Ct. Suresh (PW6). Then he alongwith complainant reached at the spot where Inspr. G.S. Meena and Ct. Suresh met him. Ct. Subhash (PW4) was also there. Further investigation was transfered to Inspr. G.S. Meena. This witness has also deposed about the steps taken by the IO at the spot. He has been crossexamined.
PW9 Ct. Raj Kumar has deposed that on 26.08.2008 he was posted at PS Janak Puri as photograph in the mobile crime team. He has proved the photographs Ex.PW9/1 (colly. total 27) and negatives Ex.Pw9/2 (colly. Total 9). PW10, Komal Singh is HOD, Forensic Medicine DDU hospital and he deposed about the postmortem of deceased State vs. Jeetu Saini & Anr. Page No. 12/53 SC No. 22/1/14 FIR No. 222/08 P.S Vikas Puri Sonu Rana and proved his report Ex.PW10/A. PW11 R.K. Singh is the Nodel Officer of Bharti Airtel Ltd. Who produced call details record of phone no. 9818961436 (in the name of Jeetu Saini) and 9818735795 . He also deposed that phone no. 9958708010 was in the name of Shyam Sunder. PW12 HC Sita Ram deposed that on 27.08.2008 he was posted as MHC(M) at P.S.Vikas Puri and that he make entries in respect of articles/case property deposited in Malkhana and sent to FSL on 27.08.2008, 17.09.2008, 18.09.2008, 29.09.2008, 29.10.2008, 19.09.2009 vide Ex.PW12/A to Ex.PW12/G. PW13 ASI Ravi Dutt deposed that on 17.09.2008 he joined investigation with Inspr. Raj Kumar and ASI Renu and had gone to the house of accused Shivani where she was arrested, her personal search was made and disclosure statement was recorded vide Ex.PW13/A, B & C respectively. Further that pursuance to disclosure statement made by Shivani Wasan, one mobile phone with SIM was recovered vide Ex.PW13/D, cloths of Shivani were seized vide Ex.Pw13/E. He further deposed that on 18.09.2008 accused Shivani was again interrogated and her supplementary disclosure statement was recorded vide Ex.PW13/F. State vs. Jeetu Saini & Anr. Page No. 13/53 SC No. 22/1/14 FIR No. 222/08 P.S Vikas Puri During P/C remand, accused Shivani got recovered another mobile from her house, it was seized vide memo Ex.PW13/G, SIM card was recovered and seized vide memo Ex.PW13/H. The witness has identified SIM Ex.PW13/P1, mobile Ex.PW/13/P2, another mobile with SIM card Ex.PW13/P3 and cloths Ex.PW13/P4. This witness has also been duly crossexamined.
PW13 ASI Renu (she is second witness named as PW13 and renamed as PW13A for convenience) deposed that on 17.09.2008 she was called by the IO and she had reached at Spl. Staff office and thereafter they left the office in search of lady accused in this case. Arrested accused Shivani Wasan. She has deposed on line of another PW named as PW13 ASI Ravi Dutt. In addition, she has deposed about FSL reports in Ex.PW13/J, K & L. PW14 Dr. Vimal Sharma, Medical Officer DDU deposed that on 26.08.2008 one unknown person was brought by HC Satpal and after examination, he was declared brought dead. He prepared MLC Ex.PW6/DA.
PW14A Bhanu @ Jaswant (he is second witness named as State vs. Jeetu Saini & Anr. Page No. 14/53 SC No. 22/1/14 FIR No. 222/08 P.S Vikas Puri PW14, hence, for the sake of convenience he is given number as 14A) deposed that Sonu Rana was his elder brother who was dealing in Jagran Party. Accused Shivani Wasan was working in his jagran party. She had (was) given Rs. 25,000/ as advance and she told the brother of witness that she would adjust the said amount in her share received in Jagran party. Further that brother of witness had fixed some jagran dates and informed Shivani Wasan about the same but she refused to attend the programme. Deceased Sonu Rana had asked her if she did not wish to attend the programme then she should return the amount of Rs. 25,000/. He further deposed that thereafter she started threatening his brother through accused Jeetu Saini. Jeetu Saini had telephoned the deceased on land line phone at about 08.45 pm and called him to PVR Vikas Puri on 26.08.2008. PW14 alongwith his brother Sonu and one Vinay (PW18) reached at PVR in WagonR at about 09.05 pm. Jeetu Saini and Shivani Wasan alongwith 34 other boys were present at PVR when they reached there. When they reached there, after seeing them Shivani Wasan uttered that, "wo aa gaya Sonu Rana, aaj iska kam khatam kar do". The witness further deposed that, " itna kehte hi Jeetu Saini ne apni pant se chaku State vs. Jeetu Saini & Anr. Page No. 15/53 SC No. 22/1/14 FIR No. 222/08 P.S Vikas Puri nikala aur kaha, aaj Sonu ko khatam kar deta hu, ye kehte hue usne mere bhai sonu rana ko chaku marne shuru kar diye". He further deposed that thereafter they raised alarm. In the meantime, police had reached there and thereafter public persons started running here and there. Further that accused Jeetu Saini with dagger/knife and Shivani Wasan were apprehended at the spot. Further that his brother was removed to hospital in police vehicle and he helped his brother to put him in the vehicle. His hands were held by the police officials and he (PW14A) held his feet when he was put in the police vehicle to remove him to the hospital. He (PW14A) asked the police persons where they were taking his brother, they replied that they were taking Sonu Rana to DDU hospital. He had also gone to DDU hospital and in hospital his brother was declared dead. His statement Ex.PW14/A was recorded by the police. The witness has been duly crossexamined on behalf of accused persons.
PW15 Ct. Pawan deposed that on 29.10.2008 he was posted at Spl. Staff and as per instructions of IO, he collected exhibits from Malkhana vide RC 76/21/08 and deposited the same with CFSL Hydrabad. PW16, HC Rajbir has deposed that on 29.10.2008, he State vs. Jeetu Saini & Anr. Page No. 16/53 SC No. 22/1/14 FIR No. 222/08 P.S Vikas Puri collected exhibits from Malkhana vide RC No. 53/21/08 and deposited the same in FSL Rohini. PW17 Pawan Singh is Nodel Officer of Idea Cellular Ltd., he has deposed about details of phone number 9891009732 in the name of Surjeet Singh, 9911602271 in the name of Ram Lakhan Dass and 9911602219 in the name of Dinesh Dass. He also deposed about call details of above mentioned phone numbers.
PW18, Vinay Sharma has deposed that deceased Surjeet Singh Rana (Sonu) was his friend and was a singer and running a Jagran party. Further that Shivani was also member of that Jagran party for last 23 years. Further that 34 months prior to murder of Sonu, she took Rs. 25,000/ from Sonu as advance and thereafter she started refusing to attend the Jagran Party on one pretext or another. Further that on 25.08.2008 there was one programme of Sonu's party in Bulandsher and Shivani was also called as a singer. At about 09.30 pm, Shivani refused to attend the programme, on such issue there was hot exchange between accused Shivani and the deceased. Further that a hot exchange had also taken place between Jeetu Saini and deceased at 09.30 pm on telephone. Further that another lady singer was arranged in place of Shivani and the State vs. Jeetu Saini & Anr. Page No. 17/53 SC No. 22/1/14 FIR No. 222/08 P.S Vikas Puri programe was held. Thereafter Sonu had returned from the programme and woke up next morning at about 10.00 am. He further deposed that on 26.08.2008 at about 08.30 am, he was sitting in the office of Sonu Rana alongwith Bhanu (PW14A) he had attended a telephone call in his office. There was a lot of conversation, Shivani called him at PVR Vikas Puri. He further deposed that he alongwith Sonu Rana and Bhanu reached at PVR in a WagonR, parked the vehicle in the road near stairs. He (PW18) saw that Shivani was already present there alongwith Jeetu Saini and 34 other boys. As soon as Sonu Rana came out from the vehicle and reached there, Shivani pointed out Sonu Rana and Jeetu picked up a knife from his right side pocket and started stabbing on the person of Sonu Rana. He (Sonu) titled and fell down on the road, there was a strong article installed at the road, his head struck against the said article. Further that when Sonu Rana was lying on the road, the accused Jeetu Saini indiscriminately stabbed him. Further that they started raising alarm, there was a picket near the spot, three police official including may be the SHO came to the spot from police picket. The accused Jeetu Saini and Shivani were apprehended by the police at the spot. The police removed the injured Sonu Rana to State vs. Jeetu Saini & Anr. Page No. 18/53 SC No. 22/1/14 FIR No. 222/08 P.S Vikas Puri hospital in its vehicle. He has duly crossexamined on behalf of accused persons.
PW19 Inspr. Raj Kumar deposed that on 29.08.2008, investigation of the present case was assigned to him. He deposed about steps taken by him on 17.09.2008, 18.09.2008, 19.09.2008, 07.10.2008 and 14.11.2008. PW20 Inspr. Ghanshyam Meena is the investigation officer, who deposed about the steps taken by him on the intervening night of 26/27.08.2008, 27.08.2008 and 28.08.2008. PW21 Ct. Anuradha has deposed that on 18.09.2008 she joined the investigation in respect of accused Shivani.
PW22 Sh. Parshuram Singh, Asst. Director (Physics) FSL Rohini has deposed about his expert report Ex.PW22/A regarding examination of the exhibits i.e dagger Ex.P1 and cloths Ex.PX. PW23 Sh. V. Sankar Narayanan, SSO FSL Rohini deposed about his biological report Ex.PW13/K and serological report Ex.PW13/L. PW24 Sh. P.N. Rama Krishnan, SSO Physics CFSL Hydrabad has deposed about his report Ex.Pw24/A in respect of examination of mobile phone and SIM, State vs. Jeetu Saini & Anr. Page No. 19/53 SC No. 22/1/14 FIR No. 222/08 P.S Vikas Puri CD Ex.PX and another report Ex.PW24/B in respect of examination of mobile/SIM. PW25 Dr. A.K. Srivastava, Asst. Director CFSL Hydrabad has also deposed about report Ex.PW24/A, Ex.PW24/B and CD Ex.PX.
10. To controvert the case of prosecution, the accused Jeetu Saini also examined one witness i.e DW1 Mr. Rahul Kapoor, who deposed that he knew accused Jeetu Saini as he used to take coaching from him for Lawn Tennis. Further that on 26.08.2008, it was his birthday and he alongwith Jeetu Saini made a programme for watching movie at PVR Vikas Puri from 09.00 pm onwards. Further that when he reached at PVR Vikas Puri at about 09.00 pm, there was a crowd and on inquiry, it was told that there was some quarrel and one sportsman type boy had gone to police post for giving information and that he had also been made to sit there by the police. He further deposed that he was also told by the public person that the said boy was explaining to the police that he was a Tennis Coach and there was no reason for apprehending him. Further that then he went to the nearby police post and saw Jeetu Saini Sitting there, 34 constables were present there and when he asked as to why Jeetu Saini State vs. Jeetu Saini & Anr. Page No. 20/53 SC No. 22/1/14 FIR No. 222/08 P.S Vikas Puri was made to sit there, he was asked to go away otherwise he would also be implicated and the Sansies (the complainant party) will take care of him (nipat lenge). Thereafter, he left the spot. The witness has been duly cross examined by the Ld. Addl. PP.
11. This is a case based on direct ocular evidence as well as circumstantial evidence regarding murder of deceased Sonu Rana by accused Jeetu Saini under criminal conspiracy and common intention with accused Shivani Wasan. The case of prosecution in short is that there was some dispute between deceased and accused Shivani Wasan which annoyed the accused Jeetu Saini who had plans to marry accused Shivani Wasan, accused persons made a plan to eliminate Sonu Rana, called him at PVR and Jeetu Saini killed Sonu by giving multiple stab injuries.
12. This story of prosecution has two parts. First part relates to motive and criminal conspiracy between the accused persons while the second part relates to actual commission of crime. Though the prosecution has examined 25 witnesses but the case of prosecution is based upon testimony of four star witness who are stated to be eye witnesses of the alleged crime. PW14A Bhanu @ Jaswant and PW18 State vs. Jeetu Saini & Anr. Page No. 21/53 SC No. 22/1/14 FIR No. 222/08 P.S Vikas Puri Vinay Sharma are witnesses qua both parts of the prosecution story while PW4 Ct. Subhash and PW7 HC Satpal have deposed about the second part. Similarly, so far as roles of accused persons are concerned, PW14 A and PW18 have deposed about roles of both the accused persons while PW4 & PW7 have deposed about accused Jeetu Saini only.
13. PW14A Bhanu @ Jaswant is the complainant and brother of deceased Sonu Rana. This witness has claimed to be eyewitness and has deposed about whole transactions/incident starting from dealing between the deceased and accused Shivani Wasan and upto the alleged act of killing by accused Jeetu Saini. He has deposed that Sonu Rana was his elder brother who was dealing in Jagran Party. Accused Shivani Wasan was working in his jagran party. She had (was) given Rs. 25,000/ as advance and she told the brother of witness that she would adjust the said amount in her share received in Jagran party. Further that brother of witness had fixed some jagran dates and informed Shivani Wasan about the same but she refused to attend the program. Deceased Sonu Rana had State vs. Jeetu Saini & Anr. Page No. 22/53 SC No. 22/1/14 FIR No. 222/08 P.S Vikas Puri asked her if she did not wish to attend the program then she should return the amount of Rs. 25,000/. He further deposed that thereafter she started threatening his brother through accused Jeetu Saini. Jeetu Saini had telephoned the deceased on land line phone at about 08.45 pm and called him to PVR Vikas Puri on 26.08.2008. PW14 alongwith his brother Sonu and one Vinay (PW18) reached at PVR in WagonR at about 09.05 pm. Jeetu Saini and Shivani Wasan alongwith 34 other boys were present at PVR when they reached there. When they reached there, after seeing them Shivani Wasan uttered that, "wo aa gaya Sonu Rana, aaj iska kam khatam kar do". The witness further deposed that, " itna kehte hi Jeetu Saini ne apni pant se chaku nikala aur kaha, aaj Sonu ko khatam kar deta hu, ye kehte hue usne mere bhai sonu rana ko chaku marne shuru kar diye". He further deposed that thereafter they raised alarm. In the meantime, police had reached there and thereafter public persons started running here and there. Further that accused Jeetu Saini with dagger/knife and Shivani Wasan were apprehended at the spot. Further that his brother was removed to hospital in police vehicle and he helped his brother to put him in the vehicle. His hands were held by the police officials and he State vs. Jeetu Saini & Anr. Page No. 23/53 SC No. 22/1/14 FIR No. 222/08 P.S Vikas Puri (PW14A) held his feet when he was put in the police vehicle to remove him to the hospital. He (PW14A) asked the police persons where they were taking his brother, they replied that they were taking Sonu Rana to DDU hospital. He had also gone to DDU hospital and in hospital his brother was declared dead. His statement Ex.PW14/A was recorded by the police.
Similarly, PW18, Vinay Sharma has also claimed to be an eyewitness of the incident and he has also deposed about the whole transaction on the same line as deposed by PW14A. He has deposed that deceased Surjeet Singh Rana (Sonu) was his friend and was a singer and running a Jagran party. Further that Shivani was also member of that Jagran party for last 23 years. Further that 34 months prior to murder of Sonu, she took Rs. 25,000/ from Sonu as advance and thereafter she started refusing to attend the Jagran Party on one pretext or another. Further that on 25.08.2008 there was one program of Sonu's party in Bulandsher and Shivani was also called as a singer. At about 09.30 pm, Shivani refused to attend the program, on such issue there was hot exchange between accused Shivani and the deceased. Further that a hot State vs. Jeetu Saini & Anr. Page No. 24/53 SC No. 22/1/14 FIR No. 222/08 P.S Vikas Puri exchange had also taken place between Jeetu Saini and deceased at 09.30 pm on telephone. Further that another lady singer was arranged in place of Shivani and the program was held. Thereafter Sonu had returned from the program and woke up next morning at about 10.00 am. He further deposed that on 26.08.2008 at about 08.30 am, he was sitting in the office of Sonu Rana alongwith Bhanu (PW14A) he had attended a telephone call in his office. There was a lot of conversation, Shivani called him at PVR Vikas Puri. He further deposed that he alongwith Sonu Rana and Bhanu reached at PVR in a WagonR, parked the vehicle in the road near stairs. He (PW18) saw that Shivani was already present there alongwith Jeetu Saini and 34 other boys. As soon as Sonu Rana came out from the vehicle and reached there, Shivani pointed out Sonu Rana and Jeetu picked up a knife from his right side pocket and started stabbing on the person of Sonu Rana. He (Sonu) titled and fell down on the road, there was a strong article installed at the road, his head struck against the said article. Further that when Sonu Rana was lying on the road, the accused Jeetu Saini indiscriminately stabbed him. Further that they started raising alarm, there was a picket near the spot, three police official including may State vs. Jeetu Saini & Anr. Page No. 25/53 SC No. 22/1/14 FIR No. 222/08 P.S Vikas Puri be the SHO came to the spot from police picket. The accused Jeetu Saini and Shivani were apprehended by the police at the spot. The police removed the injured Sonu Rana to hospital in its vehicle.
14. Regarding the testimonies of PW14A and 18, it is argued on behalf of accused persons that they are false witnesses and they are not the eyewitnesses as claimed by them. A reference is made to certain facts deposed by these witnesses which are contradictory to each other and it is submitted that these witnesses are not trustworthy, particularly because they are real brother and close friend respectively of the deceased. It is specifically argued that there is gap of around three hours in registration of FIR, which has been registered at 00.15 hours during the intervening night of 26/27.08.2008 on the complaint of PW14A. Further that, DD No. 42A dt. 26.08.2008 was recorded at around 10.35 pm and said DD talks about an unknown person brought dead by stabbing, which means the complainant was not present in hospital till 10.25 pm. It is argued that there is no just explanation in this regard. Further that the complainant had not gone to hospital alongwith police officials which is quite abnormal and if he was present at the time of incident, he would have accompanied State vs. Jeetu Saini & Anr. Page No. 26/53 SC No. 22/1/14 FIR No. 222/08 P.S Vikas Puri the police. Further that PW14A and PW18 have deposed that Shivani Wasan was apprehended from the spot, which is not the case of prosecution. It is further argued that these witnesses are not witnesses to some of the vital documents prepared at the spot and there are some improvements in their statements, which have rendered them unworthy of credit. It is also argued that PW14A is involved in several criminal cases while PW18 is also involved in one criminal case and this fact raises serious doubt about trustworthiness of these witnesses.
On the other hand, it is argued on behalf of State as well as on behalf of complainant that PW14A Bhanu @ Jaswant and PW18 Vinay Sharma are consistent in their testimonies and it can not be said that they are not trustworthy. Further that simply because these witnesses are related to the deceased, their testimonies cannot be looked with doubt. It is further argued that a close relative would never implicate a wrong person and spare the actual culprit. Further that testimonies of PW14A & PW18, though corroborated by PW4 & PW7, do not require any corroboration. It is also argued that discrepancies/contradictions if any in the statements of PW14A and 18 are due to lengthy crossexamination State vs. Jeetu Saini & Anr. Page No. 27/53 SC No. 22/1/14 FIR No. 222/08 P.S Vikas Puri conducted on several dates. In support of his above arguments, counsel for complainant has referred to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lakhwinder vs. State of Punjab 1992 Crl. J SC 3958, Dalip Singh vs. State of Punjab AIR 1953 SC 364, Jai Shri Yadav vs. State of U.P 2004 (3) JCC 1226 and Appabhai vs. State of Gujrat AIR 1989 SC 696.
15. After careful perusal of testimonies of PW14A and PW18 in light of material available on record, case of prosecution and the submissions made on behalf of parties, certain doubts are raised about genuineness of these two witnesses, which are going to root of the cause. Such instances raising doubt about genuineness of these two witnesses are being discussed herein after;
Firstly, the MLC of the deceased described the patient as unknown when produced for medical examination. The alleged incident has occurred at about 09.00 pm and as per the DD No. 42A dt. 26.08.2008, recorded at about 10.25 pm, the description of deceased is given as unknown. If the complainant PW14A and PW18 Vinay Sharma were with the deceased and followed the police van as stated, there was no reason to describe the deceased as unknown, even after 1 ½ hours after the State vs. Jeetu Saini & Anr. Page No. 28/53 SC No. 22/1/14 FIR No. 222/08 P.S Vikas Puri incident.
Secondly, it has come in evidence i.e. in statement of PW7 that they were only three persons in the vehicle in which the deceased was taken to DDU hospital i.e PW7, deceased Sonu Rana and the driver. If the complainant being real brother and PW18 being close friend of the deceased were present at the spot, they would have accompanied the injured/deceased to DDU hospital in normal circumstances.
Thirdly, there is delay of about three hours in registration of FIR, which is registered on the complaint of PW14A. If the complainant was with the injured/deceased from the very inception, there was no reason for such delay in registration of FIR.
Fourthly, it has come in the statements of PW4 and PW7 that the injured was removed/put in the van at the spot with the help of public persons who had come out of PVR cinema on completion of movie show and there is no whisper about PW14A and PW18. If PW14A & PW18 were present at the spot, there would have been no occasion for taking help of public persons in removal of the injured in normal circumstances and they would have helped the police and accompany State vs. Jeetu Saini & Anr. Page No. 29/53 SC No. 22/1/14 FIR No. 222/08 P.S Vikas Puri them to hospital. PW14A in his statement has claimed to have helped the police in removal of his brother but his statement is not corroborated by any other evidence. Neither there is any recovery of blood stained cloths of PW14A nor there is any record of his mobile, which was admittedly with him, to show his presence at the spot.
Fifthly, Both PW14A and PW18 have deposed that accused Shivani Wasan was also apprehended/arrested at the spot after the incident, while it is not the case of prosecution at all. Accused Shivani Wasan has been arrested after several days i.e on 17.09.2008.So facts deposed by PW14A and PW18 are contrary to case of police.
Sixthly, Several vital documents have been prepared at the spot by the IO as per case of prosecution but these witnesses have not signed some of such vital documents. PW 18 has not signed any such document.
Seventhly, PW18 has stated during his crossexamination that police did not meet him in the hospital, which is against the case of prosecution and has raised doubts.
Eightly, There are inherent contradictions in the statements State vs. Jeetu Saini & Anr. Page No. 30/53 SC No. 22/1/14 FIR No. 222/08 P.S Vikas Puri of these two witnesses regarding the alleged communication between the deceased and the accused persons before the actual commission of crime. There is contradiction even on the point as to by whom the call was made to the deceased to come at PVR.
Ninethly, There are vital improvements in their statements on the aspect of alleged role of Shivani Wasan at the spot. Both these witnesses have added the words, ' aaj iska kaam khatam kardo' while referring to the alleged instigating statement made by accused Shivani Wasan. In the complaint and statements recorded by police, there is only reference to pointing out of Jeetu Saini by Shivani Wasan and above mentioned words are not there. Addition of such words have aggravated the role assigned to Shivani Wasan and possibility of a deliberate attempt to do so, to strengthen the case agaisnt Shivani Wasan, can not be ruled out.
16. There are certain other deviations noticed in the statements of above mentioned two witnesses and in view of above discrepancies and contradictions in the statements of PW14A and PW18, it can be said that testimonies of these witnesses are not beyond the shadow of doubts. The State vs. Jeetu Saini & Anr. Page No. 31/53 SC No. 22/1/14 FIR No. 222/08 P.S Vikas Puri judgments referred by ld. Counsel for complainant do not come to his help qua trustworthiness of PW14A & PW18. It is not that testimonies of these two witnesses are being discarded only because they are close relative/friend of deceased, rather they are being seen with doubt because their statements are not consistent. The court is not in a position to totally accept or discard the testimony of PW14A & PW18. They are simply doubtful and where truth and falsehood are such intricately mixed that they can not be separated and it is not possible to separate the grain from the chef, it is safe to discard such evidence. The doubts on the trustworthiness of PW14A & PW18 has more effect on the case of prosecution qua accused Shivani Wasan than qua Jeetu Saini because there are two other witnesses who claimed to be eyewitness in respect of role of accused Jeetu Saini while case against Shivani Wasan is based on the facts deposed by these two witnesses.
17. So far as testimonies of PW4 and PW7 are concerned, there are police witnesses and they also claimed to be eyewitnesses. They have deposed about the second part of the story relating to actual commission of crime i.e murder of Sonu Rana by Jeetu Saini by giving stab injuries to State vs. Jeetu Saini & Anr. Page No. 32/53 SC No. 22/1/14 FIR No. 222/08 P.S Vikas Puri him. PW4 Ct. Subhash has deposed that on 26.08.2008 he was on patrolling duty at PVR Vikas Puri. HC Satpal (PW7) was also with him. At about 09.00 pm, they reached near PVR south side and he saw that there was a crowd when they entered into the crowd, they saw one boy stabbing another boy. They had apprehended accused Jeetu Saini. Further that a knife/dagger was recovered from him. When after apprehending Jeetu Saini, they were going towards police booth, in the meantime SHO reached at police booth. Injured was taken to hospital by HC Satpal and he (PW4) remained at the spot alongwith accused. He further deposed that crime team reached at the spot, inspected the site and took photographs. Inspr. G.S. Meena reached at the spot and accused was handed over to him with knife/dagger. IO prepared sketch (Ex.PW4/A) of dagger and the dagger was sealed and seized vide Ex.Pw4/B. It is further deposed that complainant Bhanu was also present at the spot. Further that blood lying at the spot and earth control were lifted and seized vide memo Ex.PW4/C. Accused was arrested. His personal search was made, blood stained TShirt of accused was seized and the motorcycle used by accused was also recovered. He has also deposed about seizure of State vs. Jeetu Saini & Anr. Page No. 33/53 SC No. 22/1/14 FIR No. 222/08 P.S Vikas Puri WagonR car and mobile phone. He identified the accused Jeetu Saini, dagger Ex.P1, TShirt Ex.P2, WagonR car bearing no. DL3CAA3482 Ex.P3. Identity of motorcycle No. DL6SAA6464 was not disputed.
Similarly, PW7 HC Satpal deposed that on 26.08.2008 he was performing his beat patrolling duty at PVR Cinema alongwith Ct. Subhash (PW4). At about 09.00 pm, there was a crowd toward South side of police booth. He alongwith Ct. Subhash went there and saw that one person was stabbing another person. The person who was stabbing the other person was apprehended by him and Ct. Subhash. He (assailant) was having knife in his hand, which was snatched by Ct. Subhash from his hand. He further deposed that they took the accused to police post, in the meantime, SHO reached at the spot in gypsy. He (PW7) again went to the spot, injured was lifted with the help of public persons and put in the gypsy of SHO. He also went to hospital in gypsy, injured was taken to emergency, where doctor declared him (injured) brought dead. Then ASI Umed reached at the hospital and started the proceedings, he (PW7) remained with the body of deceased.
18. Both PW4 and PW7 have deposed categorically about the State vs. Jeetu Saini & Anr. Page No. 34/53 SC No. 22/1/14 FIR No. 222/08 P.S Vikas Puri alleged act of murder of deceased Sonu Rana by accused Jeetu Saini by giving multiple stab injuries. Both these witnesses were present at the spot and both of them have categorically claimed that they have seen accused Jeetu stabbing deceased Sonu. These are the witnesses, who apprehended accused Jeetu Saini from the spot alongwith weapon of offence i.e knife/dagger. Both these witnesses have duly identified the accused Jeetu Saini in court. Both these witnesses have been duly crossexamined at real length by ld. defense counsels but no material contradiction/discrepancies is reflected from their statements.
19. Now, the testimonies of PW4, PW7, PW14A and PW18 are to be appreciated separately qua both the accused persons namely Shivani Wasan and Jeetu Saini.
Evidence against Shivani Wasan;
20. As soon as the testimonies of PW14A Bhanu @ Jaswant and PW18 Vinay Sharma have come under doubt as discussed above, the State vs. Jeetu Saini & Anr. Page No. 35/53 SC No. 22/1/14 FIR No. 222/08 P.S Vikas Puri whole case against accused Shivani Wasan comes under serious doubt. Apart from above mentioned two witnesses there are only police/official/formal witnesses who have deposed qua her arrest and recovery of some articles from her possession. The testimonies of these other witnesses are to be appreciated only in light of testimonies of PW14A and PW18. The contradictions and discrepancies in the statements of PW14A and PW18 have already been discussed in previous paragraphs. In view of such discrepancies and contradiction in testimonies of PW14 A & PW18 qua accused Shivani Wasan, some important facts are being discussed herein after.
It is admitted fact that Shivani Wasan used to work with Sonu Rana in Jagran Party as a singer. The case of the prosecution against her is that she had taken Rs. 25,000/ as advance from deceased Sonu Rana and she did not return the same nor attended the programmes fixed by Sonu Rana. On the other hand, explanation given by Shivani Wasan is that deceased Sonu Rana wanted to be friendly with her and she ignored her and refused to attend his Jagran party. There is no reliable proof of payment of Rs. 25,000/ by Sonu Rana to Shivani Wasan as advance as State vs. Jeetu Saini & Anr. Page No. 36/53 SC No. 22/1/14 FIR No. 222/08 P.S Vikas Puri claimed. The testimonies of PW14A and PW18 are not only ambiguous, there are inherent contradictions and improvements therein in this regard. It can not be ignored that both these witnesses are close relative/close friend of the deceased and their statements are to be scrutinized with utmost care. PW14 has admitted that he has deposed about the alleged payment of Rs. 25,000/ on the basis of information received by him from his deceased brother that too about 34 months prior to the incident. This witness is not aware about the date etc. when such payment was made. The version of PW14 is totally based on hear say evidence so far as payment of Rs. 25,000/ is concerned. So far as PW18 Vinay Sharma is concerned, he is shaky from the very starting of his statement. He has described the Jagran party as 'our' at two places and has clarified the same on both occasions as 'Sonu's party'. He has deposed about several additional facts during his examinationinchief which are not there even in the case of prosecution and he has been duly confronted with the same during crossexamination. He has also stated that 34 months prior to murder of Sonu, Shivani Wasan took Rs. 25,000/ from Sonu as advance and thereafter started refusing to attend the Jagran party. The witness has State vs. Jeetu Saini & Anr. Page No. 37/53 SC No. 22/1/14 FIR No. 222/08 P.S Vikas Puri not given the date of such payment and dates of such refusal by Shivani Wasan to attend the jagran party except one occasion dt. 25.08.2008 which is the day before the date of murder. During his crossexamination, he has stated that Shivani did not have any share in the jagran party and was being paid Rs. 1100/, Rs. 1500/, Rs. 1800/ & Rs. 2100/ etc. This fact is in contradiction to the facts stated by PW14A who has deposed that at the time of taking of Rs. 25,000/ Shivani had told his brother that she will adjust the amount in her share received in jagran party. It is clear from the testimonies of PW14A and PW18 that the exact nature of earning/form of earning of Shivani Wasan in Jagran party is not clear. Admittedly, no receipt of such payment of Rs. 25,000/ was made. Apart from testimonies of PW14A and PW18, there is no corroborative evidence qua such payment. In that eventuality, the reason for refusal given by Shivani Wasan may be accepted.
Further, there is no proof of the alleged intimacy between Jeetu Saini and Shivani Wasan or their plans to marry each others. May be Jeetu Saini had some soft corner for Shivani Wasan or plans to marry her but there is nothing to suggest a common agreement in this regard State vs. Jeetu Saini & Anr. Page No. 38/53 SC No. 22/1/14 FIR No. 222/08 P.S Vikas Puri between them. In absence of any proof of mutual intimacy between them, no criminal element can be attached to Shivani Wasan for criminal conspiracy, particularly, in absence of any other corroborative evidence. Moreover, there is no reliable and conclusive evidence to show that Jeetu Saini ever threatened the deceased Sonu Rana at the behest of Shivani Wasan after he allegedly came to know about demand of money and dispute between Shivani Wasan and deceased Sonu Rana.
Further there is material improvement in the statements of PW14A and PW18 regarding the alleged role of Shivani Wasan at the spot where Sonu Rana was killed. As per complaint, FIR and charge sheet, the case of the prosecution is that Shivani Wasan simply pointed out towards Sonu Rana, while in the statements of PW14 and PW18, it is mentioned that Shivani Wasan uttered, " wo aa gaya sonu rana, aaj iska kam khatam kar do". It is clear that words 'aaj iska kam khatam kar do' have been added as an improvement with a view to attach instigation or common intention on part of Shivani Wasan.
Further the facts deposed by PW14A & PW18 regarding arrest/apprehension of Shivani Wasan are also contrary to the case of State vs. Jeetu Saini & Anr. Page No. 39/53 SC No. 22/1/14 FIR No. 222/08 P.S Vikas Puri prosecution. Both these witnesses have deposed that she was apprehended at the spot while case of prosecution is not the same because as per case of prosecution, Shivani Wasan was arrested on 17.09.2008. This material contradiction has raised serious doubts about genuineness of case of prosecution against Shivani Wasan.
Further there are material contradictions in the statements of PW14A & PW18 regarding the alleged call made to Sonu Rana on 26.08.2008 asking him to come at PVR Vikas Puri. PW14A states that Jeetu Saini had telephoned his brother on land line phone at about 08.45 pm on 26.08.2008 while as per version of PW18, the deceased Sonu Rana had attended a call at his office at about 08.30 am (must be pm) on 26.08.2008 and there was a lot of conversation, Shivani called him at PVR Vikas Puri. There is no conclusive proof of call record to corroborate these facts.
Further the alleged recoveries of mobile phones and SIM cards from Shivani Wasan are not beyond the shadow of doubt particularly in absence of any independent witness joined by the Investigation Officer. Otherwise also, the case of prosecution regarding State vs. Jeetu Saini & Anr. Page No. 40/53 SC No. 22/1/14 FIR No. 222/08 P.S Vikas Puri recovery of mobile phone of Jeetu Saini from Shivani Wasan is not convincing enough as the alleged recovery is not in consonance with the alleged disclosure statement of Shivani Wasan and the recoveries seem to be hit by provisions of section 27 Evidence Act. Moreover, it is also beyond understanding for a prudent man as to why the accused Shivani Wasan would keep the mobile phone of Jeetu Saini in her house even after 20 days of the alleged incident and if she was under suspicion.
Regarding recovery of mobile phone and SIM card from Shivani Wasan, it is the case of the prosecution that Shivani Wasan was using a phone having phone number 9818961436 (seized vide memo Ex.PW13/D) while Jeetu Saini was using phone number 9818735795 (seized vide memo Ex.PW13/H) and that both the phones and SIM cards were recovered from the possession/at the instance of accused Shivani Wasan after her arrest on 17/18.09.2008. So far as phone number 9818961436 is concerned, the same is in the name of Jeetu Saini as per facts deposed by PW11 while there is no proof to show that phone no. 9818735795 was pertaining to Jeetu Saini. It is not the case of the prosecution that phone number 9818961436 was owned by Jeetu Saini or State vs. Jeetu Saini & Anr. Page No. 41/53 SC No. 22/1/14 FIR No. 222/08 P.S Vikas Puri that the same was given to Shivani Wasan by him. The said phone is stated to be that of Shivani Wasan which is not true as per record of service provider. Further there is no evidence to the effect that the said phone number 9818961436 was with Shivani Wasan before the alleged incident or immediately after the incident or during next few days. This fact could have been proved by bringing on record the record pertaining to location of said mobile phone which has not been so done. Similarly, there is no material to show that mobile number 9818735795 was with Shivani Wasan just after the incident or during next few days. The alleged recovery after about 20 days of incident can not be given much importance, particularly in view of doubts regarding the search and seizure as discussed above.
So far as call details are concerned, the last call from 9818735795 (no proof of ownership, though stated to be that of Jeetu Saini) to 9891009732 (stated to be owned by deceased Sonu Rana, as per PW17 the same is in name of Surjeet Singh) on 26.08.2008 was at 19.07 pm and last call from 9818961436 (stated to be that of Shivani Wasan, though as per record, it pertained to Jeetu Saini) to 9891009732 on State vs. Jeetu Saini & Anr. Page No. 42/53 SC No. 22/1/14 FIR No. 222/08 P.S Vikas Puri 26.08.2008 was at about 19.41 pm. The timing of calls is not as per case of prosecution and there is no proof of any call on land line number 64601991 (on which call was received as per PW14A and which is stated to be installed in the office of deceased. See crossexamination of PW14A Mr. Bhanu).
The above discussed facts regarding mobile phones, SIM cards and phone call record do not connect accused Shivani Wasan with the alleged crime. Since, both the above mentioned numbers i.e 9818961436 & 9818735795 are of Jeetu Saini, it can be assumed that he was talking with Sonu Rana but the above details are not conclusive to show participation of Shivani Wasan in commission of the murder of Sonu Rana.
The prosecution has examined PW2 Sunil Kumar to prove the visiting cards Ex.PW2/A and Ex.PW2/B, purported to be those of Shivani Wasan and which were handed over to IO by the complainant. On Ex.PW2/A, one of the mobile number is 9818961436. The accused Shivani Wasan has not admitted these documents to be correct. PW2 claims to have designed the said cards. During crossexamination, he has State vs. Jeetu Saini & Anr. Page No. 43/53 SC No. 22/1/14 FIR No. 222/08 P.S Vikas Puri explained that he did not have any press and he was not a printer and he got the cards for designing from one Lovely printers which was in the vicinity of his shop. Further that he had not told the name of printer (Lovely printer) to the police as the IO had not inquired about the same. In absence of examination of witness from the said Lovely printers, it can not be said that PW2 designed the said cards for accused Shivani Wasan. An important link is missing which has raised a doubt qua genuineness of the cards Ex.PW2/A & Ex.Pw2/B.
21. The facts discussed herein above qua role of accused Shivani Wasan have raised a serious doubt regarding genuineness of case of prosecution qua said accused and benefit of such doubts has to go to accused in all probabilities. The prosecution has the obligation to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts which the prosecution has failed to do so, so far as case against Shivani Wasan is concerned. The story of prosecution qua accused Shivani Wasan is lying at the door of 'may be true' but not at 'must be true' which is required by law from the prosecution. There is a great distance between 'may be true' and 'must be State vs. Jeetu Saini & Anr. Page No. 44/53 SC No. 22/1/14 FIR No. 222/08 P.S Vikas Puri true' which the prosecution seems to have failed to cover. Appreciation of evidence against accused Jeetu Saini;
22. There are four eyewitnesses who have deposed against Jeetu Saini as discussed above. Out of these four witnesses the testimonies of PW14A & PW18 have not been found to be beyond the shadow of doubts as mentioned in previous paragraphs. Apart from PW14A & PW18, there are two other eyewitnesses i.e Ct. Subhash PW4 and HC Satpal PW7. The facts deposed by these witnesses have already been discussed. The Ld. defense counsel has referred to certain facts deposed by these witnesses which are termed as contradictory but no major deviation is noticed in their statements. There are minor and natural contradictions in the statements of these witnesses, which do not go to root of the cause. The defense has not been able to show any reason for PW4 & PW7 to depose falsely against accused Jeetu Saini. Their testimonies can not be discarded simply because they are police witnesses. The various superior courts including Hon'ble Supreme Court have held from time to time that testimony of a police witness can not be discarded simply because he is a police witness, if his testimony is otherwise found State vs. Jeetu Saini & Anr. Page No. 45/53 SC No. 22/1/14 FIR No. 222/08 P.S Vikas Puri to be reliable. In the recent judgment in case of Kashmiri Lal vs. State of Haryana in Crl. Appeal No. 1576/2009 has observed that, "if the testimony of a police official is found to be reliable and trustworthy the court can definitely act upon the same and if in the course of scrutiny the court finds the evidence of such officer as unreliable and untrustworthy, the court may disbelieve him but it should not do so solely on the presumption that the witness from department of police should be viewed with distrust. This is also based on the proposition of quality of evidence and not quantity of evidence".
Both PW4 & PW7 have been crossexamined in detail on behalf of accused and no major deviations are noticed. If there is any deviation or omission in their statements, the same are natural and minor which are bound to occur when a witness is examined at length on different dates over a period of time. In this regard a reference can be State vs. Jeetu Saini & Anr. Page No. 46/53 SC No. 22/1/14 FIR No. 222/08 P.S Vikas Puri made to judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jai Shree Yadav vs. State of U.P 2004 (3) JCC 1226, where in it has been observed that; "When PWs are subjected to lengthy cross examination over a period of time, there is always a possibility of the witnesses committing mistakes which can be termed as omission, improvements and contradictions and such infirmities will have to be appreciated in the background of ground realties which makes the witnesses confused because of such tactics of the crossexamining counsel".
Other police witnesses
23. The facts deposed by PW4 & PW7 have been duly corroborated by the testimonies of other police witnesses who have deposed about different steps taken by IO during investigation. PW1 ASI Vikram has deposed about registration of FIR, PW5 Ct. Anil has deposed State vs. Jeetu Saini & Anr. Page No. 47/53 SC No. 22/1/14 FIR No. 222/08 P.S Vikas Puri about scaled site plan, PW6 Ct. Suresh has participated in investigation with initial IO ASI Umed, PW8 ASI Umed is the initial IO, who reached at hospital and recorded the statement of complainant and got the FIR registered, PW9 Ct. Raj Kumar has proved the photographs with negatives, PW12 HC Sita Ram is the MHC(M) who deposited relevant articles in Malkhana and dispatched the same to FSL etc., PW15 Ct. Pawan deposited certain pullandas in CFSL Hydrabad, PW16 HC Rajbir deposited certain pullandas at FSL Rohini, PW19, Inspr. Raj Kumar & PW20 Inspr. Ghanshyam are the subsequent IO's who completed the investigation. The facts deposed by these police witnesses are in harmony with the facts deposed by eyewitnesses namely PW4 and PW7. The testimonies of all the above mentioned witnesses are duly corroborated by the medical and forensic evidence which is being discussed herein after. Medical evidence
24. PW14 Dr. Vinal Sharma has proved MLC Ex.PW6/DA and deposed that one unknown person was brought by HC Satpal and he was State vs. Jeetu Saini & Anr. Page No. 48/53 SC No. 22/1/14 FIR No. 222/08 P.S Vikas Puri declared brought dead and body was sent to mortuary for postmortem. PW10 Dr. Komal Singh conducted postmortem of deceased Sonu Rana vide PMR Ex.PW10/A. The witness has explained that cause of death in this case was Hypovolemic and Haemorrhagic shock subsequent to the injuries to the vital organs of the body and that injury no. 5, 6 & 7 were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. Further that all injuries no. 1 to 10 were possible by sharp edged weapon and all injuries were antimortem and of same duration.
Forensic Evidence
25. PW22 Sh. Parshuram Singh, Assistant Director (Physics) FSL Rohini has deposed about his report Ex. PW22/A regarding examination of cut marks Q1 to Q8 on the cloths of the deceased i.e T Shirt (Ex.2a), capri pant (Ex.2b) and underwear (Ex.2c) after comparison of the same with specimen cut marks T1 and T2 made on capri pant Ex. 2b with the help of dagger Ex.4 and as per his report the above mentioned cut marks could have been caused by dagger Ex.4.
State vs. Jeetu Saini & Anr. Page No. 49/53 SC No. 22/1/14 FIR No. 222/08
P.S Vikas Puri PW23, Sh. V. Shankar Narayanan, SSO, FSL Rohini proved his biological report Ex.PW13/K and serological report Ex.PW13/L which also corroborated the case of prosecution.
26. The testimonies of PW4 & PW7 are clear and specific that when they entered into the crowd accused was stabbing the deceased Sonu Rana. Multiple stab injuries given by long knife/dagger are sufficient to show the existence of intention to kill and knowledge that the injuries were likely to cause death. These witnesses have also deposed about recovery of weapon of offence from the accused Jeetu Saini at the time of incident and in this regard also no major contradictions are noticed in the case of prosecution. Minor contradictions and discrepancies are bound to occur with passage of time and the same are not fatal to the case of prosecution if material things are proved as in the case in hand. In this regard, reliance can be placed on Judgments in case titled as 'Mahmood Vs. State 1991 RLR 287 wherein following observations have been made : "Minor contradictions are bound to occur as human memory is likely to fade due to lapse of time.
State vs. Jeetu Saini & Anr. Page No. 50/53 SC No. 22/1/14 FIR No. 222/08
P.S Vikas Puri Description of occurrence depends on power of observation, power of retention and power of reproduction. Ancillary matters, unconnected with the case have no effect. Discrepancies, which do not go to the root of the case, cannot be given weight or undue importance. These are bound to occur even in the statement of truthful and honest witness.
Discrepancies occur due to memory, due to lapse of time, due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of occurrence. If they do not touch the core of the case, they be ignored."
The act of accused Jeetu Saini as seen and described by PW4 and PW7 is sufficient to full fill the requirement of section 300 IPC, which defines the offence of murder. There is no requirement of motive for fixing the liability of accused Jeetu Saini particularly, in view of corroboration by medical and forensic evidence as discussed above. The arguments of the Ld. Defense counsel that case against Jeetu Saini is also State vs. Jeetu Saini & Anr. Page No. 51/53 SC No. 22/1/14 FIR No. 222/08 P.S Vikas Puri at the door of 'may be true' and not 'must be true' is not acceptable as the evidence led by prosecution qua accused Jeetu Saini is free from all reasonable doubts. The DW1 has tried to save the accused Jeetu Saini but his testimony is not convincing and in view of direct evidence of PW4 and PW7 corroborated by other material, much importance can not be given to the testimony of DW1. There is inherent contradictions between the case put forward by DW1 and the explanation given by accused Jeetu Saini in his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. The defense put forward by accused Jeetu Saini is not plausible and his admission regarding presence at or near the spot has rather strengthened the case of the prosecution itself. The Ld. defense counsel has referred to AIR 1974 SC 329 in Kaur Sain vs. State of Punjab and argued that defense witnesses cannot always be taken as untrustworthy. The said judgment is distinguishable on facts and does not come to help of ld. defense counsel. The case against Jeetu Saini for the offence u/s 302 IPC is duly proved on record beyond shadow of any doubt.
27. In view of above discussion, it is clear that the prosecution has failed to prove a case against accused Shivani Wasan as per charges State vs. Jeetu Saini & Anr. Page No. 52/53 SC No. 22/1/14 FIR No. 222/08 P.S Vikas Puri beyond reasonable doubts and accordingly, accused Shivani Wasan is acquitted. In view of above discussion, it is also clear that prosecution has successfully proved a case u/s 302 IPC against accused Jeetu Saini. Hence, accused Jeetu Saini is convicted u/s 302 IPC.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT (SANJAY JINDAL)
TODAY i.e.ON 28 MAY, 2014 ASJ:04:WEST:THC:DELHI
th
28.05.2014
State vs. Jeetu Saini & Anr. Page No. 53/53