Delhi District Court
St. vs . Pramod 408/08 1 Of 37 on 28 September, 2013
IN THE COURT OF MR. UMED SINGH GREWAL
ASJ/SPECIAL JUDGE (NDPS)
NORTH DISTRICT:ROHINI COURTS:DELHI
SC No.125/2011
FIR No.408/2008
PS Ashok Vihar
State
Vs.
1. Pramod s/o Dayanand
R/o VPO Datoli, PS Ganaur,
Distt. Sonepat, Haryana.
2. Satbir @ Sastta son of Baljeet Singh,
R/o VPO Datoli, PS Ganaur,
Distt. Sonepat, Haryana.
3. Shailender @ Monu s/o Krishan Kumar
R/o VPO Khewra, PS Rai, Distt. Sonepat,
Haryana.
Date of institution :07032009
Date of institution in this court :13092011
Date when arguments concluded:05082013
Date when Judgment pronounced:17092013
St. vs. Pramod 408/08 1 of 37
Appearances: Ms. Purnima Gupta, APP for the State.
Mr. Dharambir Khatri, counsel for accused Shailender
Mr. Sachin Dev Sharma, counsel for accused Satbir
Mr.Ajay Chopra, counsel for accused Parmod.
JUDGMENT:
1. All the three accused persons have been forwarded by police to face trial u/s 364/365/302/34 IPC.
2. The factual matrix of the prosecution case is that on 03102008, Sh. G.K. Puri Goswami lodged missing report regarding his son Anil Puri Goswami vide DD No.37 B stating that his son has been missing since 02 102008. He had left the house at 10.00 AM in the morning for repairing the computer on his motorcycle bearing No.DL4SAW 8943. Another DD was lodged by his uncle at PS Ashok Vihar on 03102008 vide DD No.37 B, in which his physical description was also mentioned. Thereafter, on the statement of father FIR under section 365 IPC was registered and investigation was entrusted to SI Sahab Singh. Messages were flashed via wireless. Notices were also issued and form NCRB filled for missing persons. Calls of mobile No.9810525768 belonging to Anil Puri Goswami were St. vs. Pramod 408/08 2 of 37 traced from call detail report. According to call detail record, the last two calls were received from mobile No.9718490182. As per further details, this mobile was activated on 06092008 having IMEI No.353632017354930, later on mobile No.9718490182 was used on phone having IMEI No.355736021100990. Both IMEI numbers were scanned. It was observed that phone No.9996793484 was working on IMEI No.353632017354930. Thereafter, the CDR and the address were obtained from Airtel Communication. It was found to be of Pramod s/o Dayanand, r/o H. No.307, Village Datoli, Tehsil Ganaur, District Sonipat, Haryana. A notice under Section 160 Cr. PC was sent to Pramod. On 12102008 Pramod responded to the notice. Thereafter, investigation was entrusted to Inspt. Anand Lakra who recorded disclosure statement of accused Pramod and subsequently, arrested him. The accused Pramod led the police party at Gandanala, Mukhmelpur and got recovered dead body of Anil Puri Goswami. Blood was also lifted from the patri adjacent to the road. The dead body was sent to BJRM Hospital Mortuary. On 13102008, postmortem of dead body was carried out. After postmortem, dead body was handed over to relatives. Police custody of accused Pramod was St. vs. Pramod 408/08 3 of 37 sought. On 14102008, accused Pramod pointed out coaccused Satbir @ Satte, then he was arrested. Accused Satbir @ Satte also made disclosure statement and pointed out the place of recovery of his clothes having blood stains, which were worn by him on the day of crime. Accused Pramod also got recovered his clothes. The motorcycle bearing No.HR424506 also got recovered, which was used in the commission of the offence. The seized exhibits after postmortem were got deposited in the FSL. Scaled site plan was also got prepared. Another accused Shailender @ Monu was absconding. Therefore, proceedings for declaring him Proclaimed Offender were initiated. Mobile of suspect Pooja, wife of Anil Puri Goswami having mobile No.9971756717 was also examined and two calls were traced dated 02102008 from the mobile of deceased on this mobile. On 03102008, from this mobile of Pooja, last call was detected on the mobile of accused Pramod. Thereafter, Pooja switched off her mobile. Pooja was not arrested. After completion of investigation charge sheet filed for trial offence under Section 364/365/302/34 IPC. Accused Shailender was arrested on 0608 2009 and supplementary chargesheet was filed.
St. vs. Pramod 408/08 4 of 37
3. Charges u/s 364/302/34 IPC were framed against all accused on 17042010 to which they claimed trial.
4. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined 25 witnesses. Accused did not examine a single witness in defence.
5. PW1 Ct. Dalbir and PW8 SI Matadeen were the members of Mobile Crime Team which reached to the spot in the leadership of PW8. Spot was drain (gandanala), Village Mukhmailpur, Delhi. They found blood scattered on the patri as well as road. A dead body was lying in the drain. PW1 clicked 12 photographs from Ex. PW1/A1 to Ex. PW1/A12 and negatives are collectively Ex. PW1/N1 to Ex. PW1/N12. PW8 deposed that body was in decomposed condition. He prepared crime report Ex. PW8/A. PW7 Ct. Surender deposed that on 061006, duty officer handed him over copy of FIR and original rukka which he gave to SI Sahab Singh at the spot i.e. H. No.65, Swaran Park Extension, PhaseIII, Ashok Vihar. PW7 collected five sealed pullandas having seal of AL, two more pullandas and one sample seal on 201108. Two parcels were having the seals of KG BJRM hospital mortuary. He deposited those pullandas in the FSL and after St. vs. Pramod 408/08 5 of 37 deposit handed over copy of RC and receipt acknowledgment to the MHC (M). He did not tamper with the case property until it was in his custody.
PW10 HC Satpal was MHC(M) of PS Ashok Vihar on 121008 when inspt. Anand Lakra deposited two parcels one having seal of AL and other was containing jamatalashi articles of the dead body and he made entry Ex.PW10/A in register no.19. SI Sahab Singh deposited two pullandas with him on 131008 having seal of KG BJRM hospital and sample seal and he made entry Ex.PW10/B in register no.19. Inspt. Anand Lakra deposited with PW10 on 141008, a motorcycle No.HR424506 and he made entry Ex.PW10/ C. On 151108 inspt. Anand Lakra deposited one more pullanda having seal of AL and PW10 made entry Ex.PW10/D in register no.19. On 111208, SI Sahab Singh deposited with him a mobile phone having IMEI No.358961016713811 and he made entry Ex.PW10/E in register No.19. PW10 further deposed that on 201106, he handed over to Ct. Surender 7 pullandas and a sample seal vide RC Ex.PW10/F for deposit in FSL and after deposit, PW7 handed over him receipt acknowledgment Ex.PW10/G. St. vs. Pramod 408/08 6 of 37 PW11 SI Manohar Lal prepared scaled site plan Ex.PW11/A on 1312
08. PW13 HC Asha registered FIR Ex.PW13/A on 061008 at 9.45 PM on receipt of rukka brought by SI Sahab Singh and thereafter made endorsement Ex.PW13/B on the rukka.
6. PW14 Dr. K. Goel of BJRM hospital conducted autopsy on the body of Anil Puri on 131008 and prepared postmortem report Ex.PW14 /A bearing his signatures at pointss A& B. He deposed that signs of decomposition were quite visible on the body. There were blackish discoloration of spot all over the body and maggots were also present all over the body. He found following injuries:
I. Incised penetrating wound 5x2 cm over left side chest at anterior axillary line about 21 cm below axilla. On exploration the injury entered into the chest cavity through left 9th inter coastal space alongwith cutting of upper margin of 10th rib, pierced left dome of diaphragm and cut the loops of intestines. There was brownish black fluid present in abdominal cavity.
St. vs. Pramod 408/08 7 of 37 II. Incised penetrating wound 5.5 x 1.5 cm transversely placed over left
side chest from 8 cm below left clavicle and 5 cm left to the middle line. On exploration it entered into left chest cavity through left third inter coastal space and punctured the left lung. As lungs were decomposed and shrink, definite depth of the injury cannot be opined. Blackish brown fluid was present in the chest cavity.
III. Incised penetrating wound 6x2 cm over lateral aspect of right side abdomen just above the iliac crest. Injury entered into abdominal cavity and cut the intestinal loops at multiple places.
IV. Incised wound 7x2 cm muscle deep over right side back of abdomen.
All chest and abdominal viscera were highly decomposed. Stomach contained little amount of food material. Putrid smell was present.
7. He opined that all four injuries were antemortem in nature and were caused by sharp cutting and penetrating weapon. Cause of death was the combined effect of shock hemorrhage and respiratory distress consequent to injury upon intestine and lungs. Injury nos.1 to 3 were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature individually or St. vs. Pramod 408/08 8 of 37 collectively. Death was opined as homicidal and 1011 days had passed between death and postmortem. He preserved the clothes and two teeth of the deceased and handed over to the police.
8. PW15 HC Jitender is witness to recovery of two bikes from accused Pramod and Satish @ Satte and their clothes. He deposed that he alongwith Ct. Randeep, inspt. Anand Lakra and accused Pramod reached to the village Datoli of accused Pramod. Second accused Satbir @ Satte was arrested vide arrest and personal search memo Ex.PW15/A and Ex.PW15/B on the pointing out of accused Pramod from that village. Thereafter accused Satbir @ Satte led the police party to his house and produced his pant and shirt from the almirah claiming that he was wearing those clothes at the time of murder of Anil Puri but he had washed them lateron. Pullanda of clothes was prepared and seal of AL was affixed and it was seized vide memo Ex.PW15/D. Thereafter accused Pramod led them towards Begapur road and from paddy fields, he took out black torn pant and shirt claiming that he was wearing the same at the time of murder of Anil Puri. Parcel of the clothes was prepared, seal of AL was affixed and it was seized vide St. vs. Pramod 408/08 9 of 37 memo Ex. PW15/E. Thereafter accused Pramod led the police party to his house in village Datoili and got recovered Bajaj Kawasaki Caliber No.HR42 4506 which was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW15/F. After these recoveries, police was returning to Delhi and on the way accused Satish pointed out a place at Lucknow Road in front of Delhi University as the place where he had parked Bajaj motorcycle No.DL4SAW8943 of deceased and he got it recovered, it was seized vide memo Ex.PW15/G. He identified the clothes of accused Satbir as Ex.P2, clothes of accused Pramod as Ex.P3, motorcycle No.HR424506 as Ex.P4 and motorcycle No.DL4S AW8943 a Ex. P5.
PW16 Retd. SI Sahab Singh was posted in PS Ashok Vihar on 031008 when complainant Mr. G.K. Puri lodged DD entry No.37B Ex.PW16/A about missing his son Anil Puri. He further deposed that Mr. G.K. Puri again came to PS on 060608 and he (PW16) recorded statement Ex. PW12/A, made rukka Ex.PW16/B and produced the same before DO for registration of FIR consequent to which case FIR Ex. PW13/A was registered. He came to know that last call on the mobile phones of deceased was made by accused St. vs. Pramod 408/08 10 of 37 Pramod, so he collected the CAF and CDRs of the mobile phone of deceased and accused Pramod and from CAF he came to know that accused Pramod was resident of village Datoli, District Sonepat, Haryana. Notice u/s 160 Cr. PC was sent to accused Pramod on 10102008 and he joined the investigation on 12102008. He was interrogated by inspt. Lakra and was arrested vide arrest and personal search memos Ex. PW16/C and Ex. PW16/D respectively and his disclosure statement Ex.PW18/E was recorded. He further deposed that accused led the police party on 121008 to a drain in village Mukhmaipur and pointed out the dead body lying in the drain. The dead body was seized vide memo Ex. PW16/F. A bag was found hanging on the waist of the dead body. Crime Team was informed which reached the spot at 5.00 PM and it took photographs of the crime scene. The bag hanging on the waist of the body was checked and was found containing one ore blue bag in which CDs of the computer, three diaries and instrument for repairing of computer were lying. These articles were taken into possession. A mobile phone Nokia 6600 was also recovered from the personal search of the deceased and was seized. Seizure memo of these articles is Ex. PW16/G. IO collected blood stains from the patri and road St. vs. Pramod 408/08 11 of 37 and two cloth pullandas were prepared to whom Mark A and Mark B were given and were taken into possession vide memo Ex. PW16/H. He moved application Ex. PW16/I to the CMO of BJRM hospital for conducting autopsy and also recorded identification statements Ex. PW12/B and PW9/A of the father and brother of the deceased. He further deposed that postmortem doctor handed over a sealed bottle containing two teeth of the deceased to Ct. Jagdish and these were seized vide memo Ex. PW16/J. Clothes in a sealed parcel were also handed over to the police by the postmortem doctor and same were seized vide memo Ex. PW16/K. He further deposed that inspt. Anand Lakra inspected the bike of the deceased in PS on 151108 and found blood stains on it. That portion was cut from the bike and taken into possession vide memo Ex. PW16/L. He further deposed that Raj Kumar, brother of Pooja came to PS on 111208 and produced a mobile phone of Pooja without sim and same was taken into possession by Anand Lakra vide memo Ex.PW16/M. He identified the articles recovered from the bag hanging over the waist of dead body as Ex.P6, mobile phone Nokia 6600 of deceased as Ex. P7. He identified the blood stained road piece and patri piece as Ex. P8 and Ex.P9 respectively.
St. vs. Pramod 408/08 12 of 37 Teeth are Ex.P10 and blood stain portion of bike is Ex.P11.
9. PW17 SI Joginder, PW18 HC Vikram, PW10 K. V. Jha and PW21 inspt. Suraj Bhan are related to the arrest and other proceedings in respect of accused Shailender. PW17 deposed that he was posted in Proclaimed Offender Cell on 310709 and so he received information that accused Shailender @ Monu was in Jail in FIR No.176/07 u/s 395/397/34 IPC PS Sadar Sonepat, Haryana. He moved an application for production of the accused and such warrants were issued on 060809. The accused was produced from Sonepat Jail and arrested u/s 41.1(C) Cr. PC vide arrest memo Ex.PW17/A. Personal search was conducted vide memo Ex. PW17/B and information of arrest was sent to PS Ashok Vihar, Crime Branch. Evidence of PW18, PW20 and PW21 is to the same effect. PW21 deposed that he received information from PS Ashok Vihar about arrest of accused Shailender. So he alongwith SI K. V. Jha and HC Vikram reached court room no.102, Rohini Courts on 13082009 and moved an application for interrogation of the accused and after due permission he was interrogated and disclosure statement Ex.PW20/B was recorded. He was arrested vide St. vs. Pramod 408/08 13 of 37 memo Ex. PW20/A. He was taken on one day police custody. He pointed out a drain near Village Mukhmailpur as the place where Anil Puri was murdered by him and coaccused and pointing out memo Ex. PW12/C was prepared. Despite sincere efforts, knives could not be recovered. At the time of pointing out of the place, Mr. G. K. Puri, father of deceased was also present.
PW19 Mr. R. K. Singh is Nodal Officer of Airtel. He deposed that as per CAF Ex.PW19/B, mobile phone No.9971756717 was alloted to Madan Lal son of Rameshwar Dayal, r/o H. No.88, Kidwai Nagar, East Delhi23. Call detail records from 010908 to 151008 have been proved as Ex. PW19/A. Photocopy of Voter I Card of Madan Lal annexed with CAF is Ex. PW19/C. Cell ID Chart is Ex. PW19/B. He further deposed that as per CAF Ex.PW19/G, phone No.9810525768 was in the name of Anil Puri Goswami son of Krishan, H. No.65, Swaran Park Ext., Ashok Vihar, PhaseIII, Delhi52. Its CDRs from 010908 to 151008 are Ex. PW19/F. The deceased i.e. Anil Puri had annexed his DL Ex. PW19/H with the CAF. This witness was again examined on 11092012 and deposed that as per the record i.e. CAF Ex.
St. vs. Pramod 408/08 14 of 37 PW19/J, phone No.9996793484 was in the name of accused Pramod s/o Dayanand, r/o307, Village Datoli, Tehsil Gannaur, District Sonepat, Haryana . Its CDRs from 01082008 to 06102008 are Ex. PW19/I. In support of CAF accused Pramod had annexed his voter Icard Ex. PW19/K1 and Ex. PW19/K2. As per PW19, phone No.9996493726 was alotted to one Bharat Bhushan son Raj Tilak Saini r/o H.No.48 VPO Choura District Karnal, Haryana. CAF is Ex.PW19/M. In support of the CAF, the subscriber had annexed copy of his DL Ex. PW19/N1 and Ex.PW19/N2. CDRs from 0109 08 to 140908 are Ex. PW19/L and it runs into four pages. He further deposed that as per CAF Ex. PW19/A and Ex. PW19/B, mobile phone No.9729313944 was in the name of accused Pramod on the strength of voter Icard Ex. PW19/Q1 and Ex. PW19/Q2. He further deposed that during the period from 010908 to 101008, no system was installed by the company for capturing roaming in the area of Punjab & Haryana and for that reason CDRs of the said phone for desired period had not been received from Punjab & Haryana Circles.
St. vs. Pramod 408/08 15 of 37 PW22 Mr.Amar Nath is Nodal Officer in Idea Cellular. He deposed that phone No.9718490182 was registered in the name of Shamshad r/o H. No.60 Model TownIII, Delhi9. Its CAF is Ex. PW22/B and photocopy of election I card of Shamshad is Ex. PW22/C and CDRs of that phone of 06 0908 to 031008 are Ex. PW22/A. PW23 Mr. Pawan Kumar is LDC in Janak Puri, Transport Authority and he proved the ownership of Bajaj Discover motorcycle No.DL4S8W8943 in the name of Mr. Anil Puri Goswami i.e. deceased. It was registered in his name on 21112005. The relevant record is Ex. PW23/A. PW24 Shamshad is the person in whose name most important telephone No.9718490182 was found registered. For obtaining that number, voter Icard of PW24 was used. He deposed that in the winters of 2008 he used to work at Nizamuddin, Railway Station, platform No.1. He had got prepared voter Icard in 2003 from Katihar, but it was lost in 2008. He deposed that police had made inquiries from him regarding his voter I card by showing him copy of the same. That copy Ex. PW24/A was shown to him and he identified it to be the copy of his voter Icard which was lost. In St. vs. Pramod 408/08 16 of 37 crossexamination, he could not recollect the date and month of 2008 when his voter I card was lost or stolen for which he did not lodge any police report.
PW25 Inspt. Anand Prakash Lakra is the IO to whom investigation was assigned on 12102008 when accused Pramod joined investigation in pursuance to notice u/s 160 Cr. P.C.
10. There is no dispute that case is based upon circumstantial evidence. APP argued that accused Pramod had illicit affair and had married Pooja. Without obtaining divorce from accused Pramod, Pooja married with Anil Puri and so accused Pramod had every reason to kill Anil Puri so that Pooja may return to him. She further submitted that the last call received on the phone of the deceased was of accused Pramod. His dead body was recovered on the lead given by Pramod. He got recovered his own bike used in the commission of crime. Last circumstance stated is that Pramod got recovered his own clothes which he was wearing at the time of murder.
St. vs. Pramod 408/08 17 of 37 Against accused Satbir, APP submitted that he got recovered bike of the deceased and his own clothes. Also he is the covillager of accused Pramod and was very well interested in his affairs.
Only one circumstance has been stated against third accused Shailender and that is the pointing out memo of place of murder.
Let us take the case of all accused separately.
11. ACCUSED SHAILENDER It is the case of the prosecution that murder was committed on 02102008 . Shailender was arrested on 13082009 vide arrest memo Ex. PW20/A. So he was arrested after 10 months of the incident. He made disclosure statement Ex. PW20/B that he can point out the place of murder and can get recovered knife from there. It is the case of the prosecution itself that the said knife could not be got recovered from there in pursuance to disclosure statement. He pointed out only the place of incident vide memo Ex. PW12/C. So only circumstance against accused Shailender is the pointing out memo which was made on 13082009 i.e. after nearly 10 months of the incident. By that time the police and family members of the St. vs. Pramod 408/08 18 of 37 deceased were well aware about the place of crime. So there is no evidentiary value of pointing out memo. Hence prosecution has failed to prove any circumstance against accused Shailender.
12. ACCUSED STABIR @ Satte I. The first circumstance relied upon by prosecution against him is that he is the covillager of accused Pramod. Simply being a covillager is no incriminating circumstance. Police was further required to prove his intimacy with Pramod which it has failed. There may be more than 1000 covillagers of accused Pramod and as per the logic of APP all would become accused.
II. Next circumstance is that vide memo Ex. PW15/D dated 1410 08, Satbir got recovered his pant and shirt collectively Ex.P2 from his house and there were found stained with the blood of the deceased because blood sticked to his clothes when Satbir was stabbing the deceased. As per FSL report Ex. PX, clothes of Satbir were not found stained with any kind of blood. So recovery of his own clothes is of no consequence.
St. vs. Pramod 408/08 19 of 37 III. Last circumstance is that he got recovered the bike of the deceased vide memo Ex.PW15/G dated 141008. The bike No. DL4SAW8943 Ex. P5 was recovered from the parking, Lucknow Road, Metro Station, Delhi. The recovery was effected in pursuance to disclosure statement Ex.PW15/C dated141008. In disclosure statement Satbir had stated that after murder he had taken the bike of the deceased and had parked it in the parking. It is quite strange that place of parking has not been mentioned in the disclosure statement. As per PW15 HC Satender, when they were on their way to PS Ashok Vihar from village Datoli on 14 1008 and when they reached at Lucknow Road in front of Delhi University, accused Satbir pointed out the place and got recovered the motorcycle. The shortest way from Sonepat to PS Ashok Vihar is via Azadpur Vegetable Market. In order to go to PS Ashok Vihar from Sonepat, one is not, at all, required to go to the university area. It is beyond comprehension why and what police was doing at Lucknow Road despite the fact that no place was disclosed by accused Satbir in disclosure statement as to where he had parked the bike. Case of the prosecution is that the said bike was recovered from the parking slot of Metro Station Vishwa Vidhalaya. As per PW15, the St. vs. Pramod 408/08 20 of 37 bike was found lying near the boundary wall of metro parking in open space. He is not aware if IO had inquired from Satbir about the keys of the motorcycle. He is not aware how that bike was brought to PS. He is not aware if IO prepared site plan of the place of recovery or not. He is not aware if IO called any metro guard to join the proceedings of recovery. He is not even aware if he signed the seizure memo of said bike. The situation has further been complicated by PW25 Inspt. Anand Lakra in cross examination by deposing that fact of recovery of motorcycle at the instance of Satbir has not been mentioned in the chargesheet. As per this witness, the bike was found parked outside the parking of metro station Vishwa Vidhalaya whereas as per PW15 it was found parked inside the parking slot. PW25 further deposed in crossexamination that he did not ask about the keys of the bike from accused Satbir and reason stated by him is quite strange. That strange reason is that keys were in the bike itself. The murder was committed on 021008 and bike was recovered on 141008. These 12 days were sufficient enough for any thief to steal the bike because keys were already in the ignition slot. PW25 admitted that he did not record any statement or prepare any document with regard to interrogation St. vs. Pramod 408/08 21 of 37 of Satbir about parking slip. PW25 is not aware in whose territorial jurisdiction the parking slot falls. He admitted that he did not join any parking attendant in the recovery proceedings. Even the officials from metro station were not joined. He did not inform the local police. He did not prepare any site plan of the recovery place. Existence of these facts are quite enough to disbelieve the recovery of bike of the deceased at the instance of accused Satbir.
So prosecution has failed to prove even a single circumstance against accused Satbir @ Satte.
13. ACCUSED PRAMOD I MOTIVE Counsel for accused argued that prosecution has utterly failed to prove that accused Pramod had illicit relations with Pooja who was the wife of deceased. It is pertinent to mention that case of the prosecution is that accused Pramod wanted to get Pooja back and that is why he murdered Anil Puri. On this issue, two witnesses namely PW9 Sushil Puri, elder brother of deceased and PW12 Goswami Krishan Puri, father of the deceased deposed that deceased Anil Puri married with Pooja on 16042008. PW9 further St. vs. Pramod 408/08 22 of 37 deposed that when Anil Puri went missing on 02102008, behaviour of Pooja was such that she was looking totally unconcerned and rather she was insisting to go to her parents. When Pramod was apprehended by the police, Pooja cried a lot and attempted to commit suicide by consuming phenyl. Before that attempt, her brother Raj Kumar had come to the house of PW9 and he heard him (Raj Kumar) saying "tumne ghar barbad kar diya". In the deposition of PW9, only the conduct of Pooja has been reflected. First she seemed unconcerned at the time of missing of her husband and second time she wept when accused Pramod was apprehended. These facts are not sufficient to come to the conclusion that she was in illicit affair with Pramod.
On motive PW12 deposed that Pooja disclosed before her brother Raj Kumar that she was having illicit relations with a boy namely Pramod of her village. Those relations were before her marriage. He further deposed that Pooja disclosed before Raj Kumar that Pramod had given her a mobile phone on which she used to have conversation with him.
Pooja further revealed that Pramod had threatened her that either she St. vs. Pramod 408/08 23 of 37 should return to him by 02102008 or he would shoot Anil. She also
disclosed that Anil must have been killed by Pramod. In crossexamination PW12 deposed that Raj Kumar did not make any inquiry from Pooja in his presence. This line has completely destroyed his examination in chief on motive. Moreover the incriminating facts deposed against Pramod are totally in contradiction with his statement Ex. PW12/DA, wherein he had not stated those facts before the police. Rather he admitted that he did not stated to the police that Raj Kumar came to his house on 11102008 and made inquiries from Pooja.
Star witnesses on motive are PW2 Rohit, who is friend of accused Pramod, PW3 Deepak, PW4 Pt. Rajesh Kumar Mishra, PW5 Amit @ Sonu, PW6 Amit, who is uncle of PW5.
PW2 Rohit Giri is basically covillager of accused Pramod and Satbir, Pramod was his classmate in 10th class. He retracted his previous statement by deposing that Pramod never talked to him about his love affair with Pooja. He did not visit any court or chamber of any advocate alongwith accused Pramod. It is pertinent to mention that case of the prosecution is St. vs. Pramod 408/08 24 of 37 that it was PW2 who asked PW5 to be witness to the marriage between accused Pramod and Pooja in a temple at Jamuna Bazar, Delhi and PW5 was known to PW2 and so he and his uncle PW6 Amit became witness to the marriage. Marriage photograph Ex.PW2/P1 was shown to PW2 in which he identified accused Pramod. He also identified the photograph of Pramod in marriage document Mark PW2/P2 to Mark PW2/P4.
PW5 Amit @ Sonu deposed that accused Pramod called him one day in a temple near Nigam Bodh Ghat and there Pramod took his ID proof outside the temple. After giving the identity document he returned home. He claimed that he and Pramod used to play cricket at Burari and that is why both were known to each other. He further deposed that his uncle PW6 Amit had also accompanied him to the temple. He did not inquire from Pramod why he was taking his election identity card. In the same way he stated that at that time, Pramod produced a paper before him on which he signed. In crossexamination he admitted that he is appearing in marriage photograph Ex. PW3/K. In the same photograph accused Pramod and PW5 are also appearing. He admitted his signature on marriage certificate Ex.
St. vs. Pramod 408/08 25 of 37 PW3/B and Ex. PW3/C. His signatures are also appearing on his Voter I card Ex. PW3/I. So PW5 and PW6 are trying to shift the buck on accused Pramod by deposing that accused Pramod obtained their ID proofs outside the temple and that they signed some documents outside the temple. They admitted that their photographs are appearing on the marriage photographs. Their signatures are appearing on the marriage certificate. They have deposed falsely that they had given identity documents to Pramod and signed documents outside temple. Had this been the situation, their photographs would not have been available with the accused Pramod. Marriage photograph Ex.PW3/K has undoubtedly been clicked in a temple. It shows that PW5, PW6 and accused Pramod were present in that very temple at the time when accused Pramod married with Pooja.
Motive has further been fortified by the evidence of PW3 Deepak Chaudhary. PW4 Pt. Rajesh Kumar Mishra. PW3 is the President of Arya Samaj Vedic Marriage Mandal, Jamuna Bazar, Delhi. He is advocate by profession operating from chamber No.C64, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. He deposed that some police officials visited him in 2009 alongwith two boys St. vs. Pramod 408/08 26 of 37 whose names could not be remembered on the day of deposition. He stated in clear terms that Pramod and Pooja married each other in the temple as per Vedic Arya Samaj Rites on 21112007. He handed over the marriage photograph, marriage certificates and other documents of the parties to the police which were seized vide memo Ex.PW3/A having his signatures at point A. He proved marriage related documents as Ex.PW3/B, Ex.PW3/C, Ex.PW3/D, Ex.PW3/E, Ex.PW3/F, Ex.PW3/G, Ex.PW3/H, Ex.PW3/I, Ex.PW3/J and Ex.PW3/K. In crossexamination he admitted that he was not present at the time of marriage and that he was deposing on the basis of the record.
PW4 Pt. Rajesh Kumar Mishra is the most crucial witness. He is priest by profession in Arya Samaj Vedic Mandir, Jamuna Bazar, Delhi and he used to perform marriages in that temple, whose President is PW3. He deposed that marriage between Pramod and Pooja was solemnized through him in that temple. So prosecution has successfully proved through the mouth of PW3, PW4, PW5, PW6 and marriage documents that accused Pramod and Pooja had married on 21112007. The murder took place on St. vs. Pramod 408/08 27 of 37 02102008. So there is very reason to believe that accused Pramod had a strong motive to kill Anil Puri because Pooja had married Anil without obtaining divorce from him.
II. RECOVERY OF DEAD BODY AT THE INSTANCE OF ACCUSED PRAMOD Notice u/s 160 Cr. PC was given on 10102008 to accused Pramod to join the investigation on 12102008. He joined the investigation and was interrogated by PW25 inspt. Anand Lakra. He made confessional statement Ex.PW16/E that he can get recovered the dead body of Anil Puri from a drain near Mukhmailpur. PW16 SI Sahab Singh and PW25 inspt. Anand Lakra deposed that when accused Pramod came in PS Ashok Vihar to join the investigation, he and PW25 interrogated him. He was arrested vide arrest and personal search memos Ex.PW16/C and Ex.PW16/D respectively. Thereafter disclosure statement Ex. PW16/E was recorded. On the lead given by Pramod, PW25 and other police officials, reached drain near village Mukhmailpur in a government vehicle. Accused Pramod pointed out the body which was lying in the drain. It was recovered and seized vide St. vs. Pramod 408/08 28 of 37 seizure memo Ex.PW16/F. A bag was found hanging on the waist of the body. Crime Team was informed which reached the spot at 5.00 PM. Crime Team inspected and got the crime scene photographed. A mobile phone Nokia 6600 was recovered from the personal search of the body and it was taken into police custody vide memo Ex. PW16/G. Crime Team left the spot at 5.45 PM. To the same effect is the testimony of PW25.
Counsel for accused argued that it is the version of the recovery witnesses that proceedings qua dead body were conducted at the drain till 7.00 PM. He submitted that body might have reached the mortuary at 7.45 PM. He contended that testimony of recovery witnesses is unbelievable because PW16 SI Sahab had moved an application before CMO for postmortem and in that application it has been reported by the mortuary that body was received there on 12102008 at 4.20 PM. He submitted that if the body had reached the mortuary at 4.20 PM, how the police officials can claim that the body was recovered at the instance of Pramod, because as per them they had reached the spot with accused at or about 4.45 PM. He submitted that police had already recovered the body, then arrested St. vs. Pramod 408/08 29 of 37 accused and fabricated papers showing that it was recovered at the instance of accused Pramod.
PW25 inspt. Anand Lakra stated in crossexamination that police and accused Pramod left PS at 4.004.30 PM for drain,village Mukhmailpur. Distance between police station and gandanala is about 30 minutes and so they reached the drain at 5.005.15 PM. Crime Team was informed at 5.30 PM, which reached there at 6.00 PM and completed its proceedings till 6.30 PM. Police officials completed all proceedings at the spot regarding dead body till 7.007.15 PM and thereafter body was sent to BRJM hospital Mortuary, which is about 15 minutes away from the spot. He admitted that the body might have been dispatched at 7.15 PM. So as per PW25 the body might have reached the mortuary at maximum till 7.30 PM. PW16 moved application Ex.PW16/I before the incharge of mortuary to conduct autopsy on the body. That application was moved on 131008. Three stamps have been affixed on Ex. PW16/I and undisputedly all three stamps have been affixed by the mortuary authority. It is the first seal which is bone of contention because in it, it has been written that body was received there on St. vs. Pramod 408/08 30 of 37 121008 at 4.15 PM. So time has been mentioned in ink by the mortuary Authority and not by PW16. No one from the hospital or from mortuary appeared or was summoned by the accused to prove by whom that entry was made. So all three seals on Ex.PW16/I went unproved.
Crime team officials as well as crime team report say that proceedings in respect of the body were done by the crime team officials from 5.00 PM to 5.45 PM. These depositions and crime team report are in contradiction to entry in Ex. PW16/I and that entry has gone unproved. So best course for this court is to go by the version of recovery witnesses, crime team officials and crime team report because they corroborate each other whereas the seal appearing on Ex. PW16/I could not be proved. So it is held that dead body was recovered at the instance of accused Pramod and this is a huge circumstance which shall go a long way.
III. LAST CALL It has been proved from the CAF Ex. PW19/G that phone No.9810525768 was in the name of deceased Anil Puri. As per CAF Ex. PW19/J mobile phone No.9996793484 was allotted to accused Pramod.
St. vs. Pramod 408/08 31 of 37 When Pramod was arrested, Nokia phone having IMEI No. 353632017354930 was recovered from his personal search on 121008 and it was also having Sim No.9996793484. Initially phone No.9718490182 was activated on phone having IMEI No. 353632017354930d and it ran till 07092008. CDRs from 12082008 to 15092008 and dated 021008 show that mobile phone No.9996793484 was running on phone having IMEI No. 353632017354930. CDRs from 01092008 to 29092008 show that phone No. 9996493726 was running on phone having IMEI No. 353632017354930. So phone bearing IMEI No. 353632017354930 had three Sims having Nos. 9718490182, 9996793484 and 9996493726. Phone No. 9718490182 was allotted in the name of PW24 Shamshad on the strength of voter I card. About his identity proof, PW24 deposed that in 2008, he used to work at Nizamuddin Railway Station and at that time he was having voter I card of 2003 which he got prepared from Katihar, Bihar. But it was lost in 2008. That phone number was initially activated on phone IMEI No. 353632017354930. Phone having that IMEI number was recovered from the personal search of the accused. So it can be said easily that it was accused Pramod who was using phone No. 9718490182. As per St. vs. Pramod 408/08 32 of 37 CDR Ex. PW19/F, last two calls i.e. at 11:28:38 and 12:08:08 were made on the mobile phone No. 9810525768 of deceased from mobile No. 9718490182 i.e. of accused. Thereafter mobile phone of the deceased went switched off. As per postmortem report Ex. PW14/A time between death and postmortem was 10 or 11 days. Postmortem was conducted on 1310 2008. It means that Anil Puri died either on 021008 or on 031008. Last call received by him was made by accused Pramod. So it is accused Pramod who is to explain as what happened to the deceased after making his call. He is silent on this issue u/s 313 Cr. PC whereas it was his bounden duty to disclose so u/s 106 of Indian Evidence Act.
IV. RECOVERY OF HIS OWN BIKE As per prosecution version, accused Pramod got recovered his own bike No. HR42456 Ex. P4 from his house. Police has failed to establish connection of this bike with the crime. No witness appeared from the prosecution side to say that the accused Pramod was seen on that bike at or near the spot on the day of incident. So police has failed to prove this circumstance.
St. vs. Pramod 408/08 33 of 37
V. RECOVERY OF HIS OWN CLOTHES
It is the prosecution case that on 14102008 accused Pramod got recovered his own pant (half portion) and a shirt ( half portion) from paddy fields of his village. Those clothes were seized vide memo Ex. PW15/E. It is pertinent to mention that accused had not made any disclosure statement for those clothes. MHC(M) did not depose that clothes of accused Pramod and Satbir were deposited in the malkhana by the IO. So prosecution has failed to prove their proper custody after their recovery. As per FSL report Ex. PX blood was found on the pant of accused Pramod but as per another FSL report Ex.PY, no blood group was detected. Even if it is presumed that prosecution has proved the recovery of the clothes of accused himself, it is in no way going against him because no blood stain of the deceased was found on that pant. So this circumstance is also not going against accused Pramod.
14. CONCLUSION Police has failed to prove any circumstance against accused Satbir @ Satte and Shailender but it has successfully proved motive St. vs. Pramod 408/08 34 of 37 against accused Pramod. Dead body of Anil Puri was recovered on the lead given by accused Pramod, it was he who talked to deceased lastly and thereafter the mobile phone of the deceased went switched off. Recovery of dead body at the instance of Pramod is a big circumstance. He had married with Pooja in 2007 and it is no secret that Pooja lateron became wife of Anil Puri. Pooja and accused Pramod are residents of the same village. He had very strong motive to kill Anil in order to get Pooja again. So accused Satbir @ Satte and Shailender are acquitted. Accused Pramod is held guilty u/s 364/302 IPC. Let he be heard on the point of sentence separately. Announced in the Open Court on 17 th day of September, 2013.
(UMED SINGH GREWAL)
ASJ/Special Judge (NDPS)
North Distt: Rohini Courts: Delhi
St. vs. Pramod 408/08 35 of 37
IN THE COURT OF MR. UMED SINGH GREWAL
ASJ/SPECIAL JUDGE (NDPS)
NORTH DISTRICT:ROHINI COURTS:DELHI
SC No.125/2011
FIR No.408/2008
PS Ashok Vihar
u/s 364/302/34 IPC
State
Vs.
Pramod s/o Dayanand
R/o VPO Datoli, PS Ganaur,
Distt. Sonepat, Haryana.
ORDER ON SENTENCE
Appearances: Mr. Girish Giri, APP for the State.
Counsel for convict Parmod.
1. The accused has already been held guilty u/s 364 & 302 of IPC.
2. Counsel for convict argued that accused is a first offender and is of 30 years. He has to maintain old and ailing parents. He has one married brother and two married sisters. He is the only bread earner of the family.
3.
St. vs. Pramod 408/08 36 of 37 :2:
3. There is no allegation against the convict that he acted with cruelty. Minimum punishment provided for murder is life imprisonment.
4. Taking into account all these facts and circumstances, the convict is sentenced to undergo six years RI and a fine of Rs.6,000/ (Rupees six thousand only) is imposed, in default of payment of fine he shall further undergo SI for six months for the offence punishable u/s 364 of IPC. He is further directed to undergo life imprisonment and a fine of Rs.10,000/ (Rupees ten thousand only) is imposed, in default of payment of fine he shall further undergo SI for one year for the offence punishable u/s 302 of IPC. Benefit of section 428 Cr. PC be given to the convict.
5. Fine not deposited.
6. Let a copy of Judgment and Order on Sentence be given to convict.
7. File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the Open Court on 28 th day of September, 2013.
(UMED SINGH GREWAL)
ASJ/Special Judge (NDPS)
North Distt: Rohini Courts: Delhi
St. vs. Pramod 408/08 37 of 37