Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

State vs . on 8 May, 2019

      IN THE COURT OF SURINDER KUMAR SHARMA
     ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE­05, EAST DISTRICT
            KARKARDOOMA COURTS : DELHI

                                                    SC No. 687/2016
                                                     FIR No. 72/2011
                                                     PS: Vivek Vihar
                                    U/s 302/392/397/411/120B/34 IPC

   State

   Vs.

1. Imran @ Murgi Chor
   S/o Sh. Mohd. Aslam
   R/o H. No. 27/296,Trilok Puri
   Delhi.

2. Sameer
   S/o Sh. Mohd. Sarif
   R/o Extra Block, 35/6,
   Trilok Puri, Delhi.


Date of assignment                     : 08.07.2011
Date of Arguments                      : 02.04.2019
Date of Judgment                       : 08.05.2019

     JUDGMENT

1. The present case was registered on the complaint of Sh. Vinay Lal @ Goldy.

     SC No. 687/16     State Vs. Imran & Anr.            1/109
   CASE OF THE PROSECUTION

2. As per the case of the prosecution, on 08.03.2011 a PCR call was received vide DD No. 20A regarding murder of a lady at House Number C­12, Vivek Vihar, in front of B­Block Market, Delhi. On receipt of DD No. 20A, one Inspector along with SI Manu Kumar and Ct. Mahender Singh reached at the spot where dead body of a lady whose name was revealed as Smt. Anna Mammen wife of Late Sh. T. Mammen was found in a bedroom of the house. A wire of Juicer Mixer was found wrapped around the neck of the dead body. The almirahs and doors of all the rooms were found open. Jewellery boxes were lying empty. All the articles were lying scattered. Crime Team was called at the spot. Crime Team inspected the spot. Chance prints and photographs of the spot were taken by the Crime Team. Dog squad was called at the spot to inspect the spot. The statement of the complainant Vinay Lal was recorded.

SC No. 687/16 State Vs. Imran & Anr. 2/109

3. The Complainant Vinay Lal @ Goldy has stated in his complaint that he was residing in the house of the deceased Smt. Anna Mammen, who was the mother­in­law of his sister, for the last four years. He stated that Smt. Anna Mammen used to reside at the ground floor of the said house. The complainant used to reside at the first floor of the house of the deceased. Smt. Anna Mammen was a Retired English Teacher. She used to give tuitions to the children at her home. On the previous night of the incident, she went to the house of her daughter at IFS Apartments, Mayur Vihar, Delhi and she stayed there in the night. The next day in the morning the daughter of Smt. Anna Mammen dropped her at her (Smt. Anna Mammen) house. At about 8.15 a.m. the complainant left for his work and returned at about 12.30 p.m. He met Smt. Anna Mammen in the kitchen. Thereafter, he went to the first floor of the house. At about 3.30 p.m., Subhash, the Chowkidar of the colony, rang the door bell and told the complainant that gate of the garage was open which SC No. 687/16 State Vs. Imran & Anr. 3/109 used to remain close. The complainant immediately went inside calling Smt. Anna Mammen. He found that all the doors of the house were open. The complainant opened the door of the bedroom. He saw that the dead body of Smt. Anna Mammen was lying on the bed. A wire was wrapped around her neck. The legs of the dead body were hanging down from the bed. All the household articles were lying scattered. The almirahs were found open. On seeing this, the complainant raised hue and cry. The complainant made a call at 100 number. He also informed Smt. Rebecca John, the daughter of the deceased Smt. Anna Mammen. He also stated that someone had murdered Smt. Anna Mammen with an intention to rob her.

4. On the statement of Sh. Vinay Lal, Inspector Jarnail Singh made endorsement and got the case registered under Sections 302/392/397 IPC. Dead body was sent to Subzi Mandi Mortuary after preparing the inquest papers. Exhibits SC No. 687/16 State Vs. Imran & Anr. 4/109 were taken into possession. Site plan was prepared. Statements of the witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C were recorded. Case property was deposited in the Malkhana. The dead body of the deceased was sent for the postmortem. On 09.03.2011, statement of Smt. Rebecca John, the daughter of the deceased Smt. Anna Mammen, was recorded. Smt. Rebecca John told the description of the robbed articles i.e. jewellery and cash in detail. Accused persons were searched and a raid was conducted. On the basis of information developed by the police between 09.03.2011 to 12.03.2011, accused Imran @ Murgi Chor was apprehended from Wireless Park, 36 Block, Trilok Puri. Accused Imran made a disclosure statement that he along with his associate namely Sameer had committed murder of Smt. Anna Mammen, who was the resident of C­12, Vivek Vihar, by strangulating her with a wire of juicer mixer. He disclosed that they robbed the jewellery articles and cash from the house of deceased. Accused Imran disclosed that he along with his father had SC No. 687/16 State Vs. Imran & Anr. 5/109 white washed the house of the deceased on the occasion of Diwali. His disclosure statement was recorded. On the pointing out of the accused Imran @ Murgi Chor, robbed articles i.e. jewellery were recovered from his possession. Thereafter, accused Sameer was apprehended. His disclosure statement was recorded. On 18.03.2011, Smt. Rebecca John gave a photograph of the deceased Smt. Anna Mammen, taken 5­6 days ago clearly showing the jewellery worn by her which was robbed by the accused persons. On 26.03.2011, TIP of the recovered case property was conducted through Smt. Rebecca John. Scaled Site Plan was prepared. On 09.05.2011, opinion of the doctor was obtained.

5. Investigation was conducted. After completion of the investigation, accused persons were charge­sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 302/392/397/411/120B/ 34 IPC.

SC No. 687/16 State Vs. Imran & Anr. 6/109

6. The Ld. M.M. supplied the copies to the accused persons in compliance of Section 207 Cr.PC. As the case was exclusively Sessions triable, so the case was committed to the Court of Sessions.

CHARGE

7. On 15.09.2011, charge for the offence punishable under Sections 120B IPC, 302 IPC read with Section 120B IPC, 392/397 IPC read with Section 120B IPC was framed against both the accused persons. Separate charges for the offence punishable under Section 411 IPC were also framed against both the accused persons. The accused persons pleaded not guilty to the charges framed against them and claimed trial. PROSECUTION EVIDENCE

8. In support of its case, prosecution has examined thirty three witnesses.

SC No. 687/16 State Vs. Imran & Anr. 7/109

9. PW­1 is Ct. Abdul Rahim. He deposed that on 08.03.2011, he was posted at Police Station Vivek Vihar. At about 9.15 p.m., the Duty Officer handed over copy of FIR No. 72/2011 to him. He delivered the same at the residence of the Area Metropolitan Magistrate. He informed this fact to the Duty Officer.

10.PW­2 is Ct Narender. He stated that on 08.03.2011, at about 4.30 p.m. Incharge of the Crime Team received a message on wireless set regarding murder of a lady. He (PW­2) along with the Incharge Crime Team, Ct. Sanjeev and ASI Jai Singh reached at the spot i.e. C­12, Vivek Vihar, Delhi where he (PW­2) noticed one lady lying in dead condition and a wire of juicer motor was wrapped around the neck of that lady. Both the almirahs were found open. The jewellery boxes were lying open. The Incharge of the Crime Team inspected the spot. He (PW­2) lifted eight finger prints from SC No. 687/16 State Vs. Imran & Anr. 8/109 the wooden bed, iron almirah, wooden almirah and juicer motor. Ct. Sanjeev took the photographs of the spot from different angles upon the directions of the Investigating Officer.

11.PW­3 is Sh. Anees. He deposed that he was having a Baboon (Langoor), who used to chase monkeys at Block­C, Vivek Vihar, Delhi, for the last about 13­14 years. On 08.03.2011, at about 3.30 p.m., when he was returning with his Langoor and reached at House Number C­12, he found the rear door of the said house open which always used to remain close. He called the Chowkidar namely Subhash. Subhash entered the house through said door. He (PW­3) remained outside. After some time, he heard the voice of Subhash saying 'Mataji Mataji'. Vinay Lal came downstairs and went inside the house to verify the fact. Suddenly, Vinay Lal came out and told that Smt. Anna Mammen had been murdered. Thereafter, he (PW­3), Subhash and Vinay Lal SC No. 687/16 State Vs. Imran & Anr. 9/109 entered the house and saw Smt. Anna Mammen lying in dead condition on the bed. A white colour wire of the mixer was wrapped around her neck. The articles of the almirah were lying scattered. They all came out of the house. Thereafter, Vinay Lal called the police.

12.PW­4 is Sh. Subhash. He was working as 'Chowkidar' (Watchman) at C­Block, Vivek Vihar, Delhi for the last 14 years. On 08.03.2011, he was on duty from 9.00 a.m. to 9.00 p.m. in the area of Vivek Vihar, from House Number C­1 to C­160. At about 3.00/3.15 p.m., when he reached at the backside of the house number C­12, he found PW­3 (Anees) who was carrying a Langoor. Anees told him that backside gate of the house number C­12 which generally remained closed was open. He (PW­4) went inside through the rear gate of the house and called Smt. Anna Mammen, but no one responded. He rang the door bell of first floor where Vinay Lal used to reside. Vinay Lal came downstairs. He (PW­4) told all SC No. 687/16 State Vs. Imran & Anr. 10/109 the facts to Vinay Lal. Vinay Lal went inside the house on the ground floor. Vinay Lal immediately returned back and told that Mataji (Smt. Anna Mammen) had been murdered. He (PW­4) went inside the house and found the house was ransacked. The dead body of Smt. Anna Mammen was lying on the double bed. A white colour electric wire of Mixer was wrapped around the neck of Smt. Anna Mammen. Thereafter, Vinay Lal called the police. Police reached the spot. He identified the case property i.e. Mixer along with white colour wire which is Ex.P­1 which was wrapped around the neck of the deceased Smt. Anna Mammen.

13.PW­5 is HC Virender. He deposed that on 08.03.2011, he was working as Duty Officer at Police Station Vivek Vihar from 8.00 a.m. to 4.00 p.m. At about 3.40 p.m., he received a telephonic call regarding murder of a lady at C­12, Vivek Vihar, in front of B­Block Market, Delhi. He made DD number 20A in this regard in Daily Diary Register. He produced the SC No. 687/16 State Vs. Imran & Anr. 11/109 original DD register, the copy of which is Ex.PW5/A.

14.PW­6 is Smt. Laxmi. She was working as maid servant in the house of the deceased Smt. Anna Mammen. She deposed that she used to cook food and did cleaning job in the house of the deceased for the last 20 years. She stated that for the last 4­5 years since the younger son of Smt. Anna Mammen went abroad, she used to stay in the house of the deceased i.e. Smt. Anna Mammen during the night as she (Smt. Anna Mammen) was residing alone in her house. On 08.03.2011, she left the house of Smt. Anna Mammen at 10.00 a.m. and she returned there at 12.00 noon. She washed clothes, cooked food and served the food to Smt. Anna Mammen. A machine for taking out juice was lying in the kitchen. She (PW­6) again left the house of Smt. Anna Mammen at 1.30p.m. after cleaning the kitchen. When Laxmi left the house, Smt. Anna Mammen bolted the wooden door from inside. She deposed that while she was leaving the SC No. 687/16 State Vs. Imran & Anr. 12/109 house of Smt. Anna Mammen, she noticed the accused Imran standing near the gate of the colony on the main road. Another fat boy was accompanying Imran, but she could not see his face. That boy was having long hair. She deposed that Imran is the son of Aslam and he had done white wash and paint job in the house of the deceased. Aslam had done white wash in the house of Smt. Anna Mammen 4­5 years ago before her death. Accused Imran had white washed the house of Smt. Anna Mammen four months prior to her death. Accused Imran had worked for about 1½ months in the house of the deceased for white washing and painting. On 08.03.2011, at about 1.30 p.m., she (PW­6) went to her house. At about 7.30 p.m., she returned back to the house of the deceased. She found several police officials and public persons gathered outside the house. She came to know that Smt. Anna Mammen had been murdered. She returned to her house as she did not feel talking to anyone. On the next day at about 7.00 a.m., she reached the house of the SC No. 687/16 State Vs. Imran & Anr. 13/109 deceased. Police met her there and inquired from her. Her statement was recorded by the police officials. She identified the accused Imran during her deposition in the Court.

15.PW­7 is Sh. Vinay Lal @ Goldy. He is the complainant in this case. He deposed that he was residing at the house of deceased i.e. Smt. Anna Mammen, who was the mother­in­ law of his real sister. Smt. Anna Mammen used to reside at the ground floor of her house. He (PW­7) used to reside at the first floor of the house of the deceased. On 07.03.2011 Smt. Anna Mammen went to the house of her daughter as her son, who had come from USA, had to take flight. She stayed at the house of her daughter at night at IFS Apartments, Mayur Vihar, Phase­I, Delhi. On 08.03.2011, at about 8.00/8.30 a.m., the daughter of Smt. Anna Mammen came to drop Smt. Anna Mammen at her house at Vivek Vihar in the morning. He (PW­7) left for his personal work at about 8.15 a.m. At about 12.30 p.m., he returned back to the SC No. 687/16 State Vs. Imran & Anr. 14/109 house. While he was going upstairs, he saw Smt. Anna standing in her kitchen. At about 3.30 p.m. Subhash (Watchman of the colony) rang his door bell. He (PW­7) came downstairs. Subhash told him that the rear gate of the garage, which generally used to remain close, was open. He (PW­7) along with Subhash went at the backside of the house. He found the door of bedroom of Smt. Anna Mammen open. He entered inside the bedroom and called Smt. Anna Mammen, but there was no response. When he entered the other bedroom adjacent to the bedroom and opened the door, he noticed the dead body of Smt. Anna Mammen lying on the bed. The neck of Smt. Anna was tied with wire of juicer mixer. He raised alarm and made a call at 100 number. He informed the daughter of the deceased Smt. Anna Mammen. He found the household articles were scattered around. All the almirahs were found open. Police arrived at the spot. The Crime Team and Dog Squad came at the spot. Police recorded his statement (Ex.PW7/A). Two bedsheets SC No. 687/16 State Vs. Imran & Anr. 15/109 (Blue and Pink colour), one towel, one silver colour box, two jewellery boxes (Red and Blue colour), two jewellery boxes (Cherry and Pink colour), one juicer mixer motor were taken into possession vide memo which is Ex.PW7/B. On 09.03.2011, he along with Sh. Binoo John identified the dead body of Smt. Anna Mammen in Subzi Mandi Mortuary. His statement (Ex.PW7/C) regarding identification was recorded by the I.O. After postmortem, the dead body was handed over to Sh. Binoo John vide handing over memo which is Ex.PW7/D. He stated that in the last week of April, Draftsman along with I.O. came to C­12, Vivek Vihar, took measurements and prepared rough notes. He identified the case property i.e. one mixer along with white colour wire (Ex.P­1) which was wrapped around the neck of deceased, one bed sheet of blue colour (Ex.P­2) which was lying under the dead body of Smt. Anna Mammen, One bed sheet of white colour with pink flowers and dots of pink and green colour dots (Ex.P­3) which was lying under the dead body, SC No. 687/16 State Vs. Imran & Anr. 16/109 One towel of brown and blue stripes (Ex.P­4) which were taken into possession by the I.O. He also identified one silver colour jewellery box (Ex.P­5) which contained one small blue colour box (Ex.P­8) and two red colour boxes (Ex.P­6 and Ex.P­7) and one pink colour small jewellery box (Ex.P9) which was taken into possession by the I.O.

16.PW­8 is Ms. Rebecca John. She is the daughter of the deceased Smt. Anna Mammen. She deposed that she is a practicing lawyer. Her mother i.e. deceased Smt. Anna Mammen used to reside at C­12, Vivek Vihar, Delhi at the ground floor. Her (PW­8) father had passed away in the year 1994. The first floor of the house was occupied by Vinay Lal, whose sister was married to her younger brother. She deposed that her mother was a Retired Teacher and used to take private tuitions at home. She stated that Smt. Anna Mammen had a maid servant namely Laxmi for the last 20 years. Laxmi used to cook and serve food to her mother.

SC No. 687/16 State Vs. Imran & Anr. 17/109 Laxmi used to stay with Smt. Anna Mammen in the night for the last about two years prior to death of Smt. Anna Mammen. Laxmi used to come to the house of her mother at 7.00 p.m. everyday for sleeping. Laxmi used to leave the house of the deceased at 10.00 a.m. in the morning and used to return back at about 12/12.30 p.m to cook and serve food to her. Thereafter, Laxmi used to leave the house at about 1.30 p.m. and would return at 7.00 p.m. She (PW­8) deposed that in October 2010 Smt. Anna Mammen got her house at Vivek Vihar white washed by one Mohd. Aslam. She (PW­8) knew Mohd. Aslam for several years as he was one of the contractors at the IFS Apartments where she used to reside. Mohd. Aslam employed 7 to 8 men including his son Imran for doing the work. During the period when the house was white washed, she (PW­8) used to visit regularly to the house of Smt. Anna Mammen to supervise the work. On each occasion she found accused Imran present there. When the work was over she noticed some defects in the inside walls of SC No. 687/16 State Vs. Imran & Anr. 18/109 the front and back guest rooms. She immediately brought this fact in the notice of Mohd. Aslam and his son Imran, who promised to get the same repaired after the winter season was over. In February 2011, she reminded Mohd. Aslam about the pending work in Vivek Vihar. Mohd. Aslam assured her that he would get it done through his son Imran in the first week of March. On 16.02.2011 her elder brother namely Mr. Abraham Mammen came to visit her mother i.e. deceased Smt. Anna Mammen and stayed with her at Vivek Vihar till 07.03.2011. As her brother was leaving by an early morning flight on 08.03.2011, her mother i.e. deceased Smt. Anna Mammen and her brother came to her (PW­8) house in the evening of 07.03.2011. Her mother i.e. deceased Smt. Anna Mammen spent night at the house of PW­8. On 08.03.2011 at about 8.30 a.m., she dropped her mother at her house at Vivek Vihar. Thereafter, she left for Delhi High Court. At about 3.30 p.m., she received a call from Vinay Lal who informed her that her mother Smt. Anna Mammen had been SC No. 687/16 State Vs. Imran & Anr. 19/109 strangulated. She immediately reached the house of her mother. On reaching at her mother's house, she (PW­8) found her mother lying on the bed in the back guest bedroom. She noticed one white electrical cord of a juicer tied around the neck of her mother and the bottom half of the juicer was still attached to the white cord and was lying close to the body of the deceased. She (PW­8) noticed that the jewellery worn by her mother i.e. four gold bangles (Two plain and two lined), her wedding ring, a thin patterned gold ring and a gold chain with rectangular gold pendant were missing. The entire house was ransacked. She (PW­8) noticed that the cupboards in the three bedrooms were lying open. The black 'Hidesign' purse was also missing. She (PW­8) noticed two jewellery pouches of red and blue colour lying on the bed of her bedroom and a silver plated cash box was lying open next to the body of the deceased in the back bedroom. She (PW­8) deposed that in the morning, her mother had informed her that she had to deposit approximately SC No. 687/16 State Vs. Imran & Anr. 20/109 Rs.2,80,000/­ in the bank. She noticed that the cash was also missing from the cash box and the safe vault of Godrej Almirah in her room. She (PW­8) found that two gold coins and two gold biscuits which her mother had purchased were missing from the safe vault. A 14 carat gold chain with six figures on it was also missing. She (PW­8) noticed that the wooden door of her bedroom and also the iron grill door adjacent to the wooden door were lying open. The inset door within the black iron gate opening into service lane at the back of the house was also lying open. She deposed that on 18.03.2011, she (PW­8) gave a photograph (Ex.PW8/A) showing jewellery worn by the deceased to the I.O. The seizure memo of the said photograph is Ex.PW8/B. She deposed that on receipt of notice from the I.O. she identified the jewellery, gold coins, gold biscuits, black 'Hidesign' purse of her mother in the TIP proceedings. She identified her signatures on the TIP proceedings (Ex.PW8/C) of gold articles conducted on 26.03.2011. She identified her SC No. 687/16 State Vs. Imran & Anr. 21/109 signatures on the TIP proceedings (Ex.PW8/D) of gold biscuits conducted on 06.04.2011. She identified the signatures of her mother on the invoice (Ex.PW8/E) certified by the Chief Manager, Indian Bank, Trivandrum. She identified the case property i.e. Black colour 'Hidesign' purse (Ex.P10), plain gold bangles (Ex.P11), bangle with lines (Ex.P12), gold chain with six figures (Ex.P13), one gold wedding band (Ex.P14), one gold biscuit of Indian Bank of 20g (Ex.P15) and one gold coin (Ex.P16), one gold biscuit of Indian Bank of 20 grams (Ex.P17), one gold coin (Ex.P18), one gold pendent (Ex.P19), one gold patterned ring (Ex.P20), one plain gold bangle (Ex.P21), Bangle with line pattern (Ex.P22), one juicer­mixer along with white colour wire (Ex.P1) which was wrapped around the neck of the deceased. She (PW­8) identified one silver colour jewellery box (Ex.P5), two jewellery boxes of red colour (Ex.P6 and Ex.P7), jewellery box of blue colour (Ex.P8) and jewellery box of pink colour (Ex.P9) which were taken into possession by SC No. 687/16 State Vs. Imran & Anr. 22/109 the I.O.

17.PW­9 is Sh. Rajender Kumar. He deposed that he was doing the work of photography and videography for the last five years. On 13.03.2011 or 14.03.2011, he was called by the I.O. through his fried Dushyant Dubey for videography at Vivek Vihar, Phase I, Delhi. He reached there. I.O. along with his staff and both the accused persons also reached there. On the instructions of the I.O., he did video recording of the places as pointed out by both the accused persons. He identified both the accused persons during his deposition in the Court. He handed over original video cassette and master DVC and Edit DVD which was taken into possession vide seizure­cum­pointing out memo which is Ex.PW9/A. He identified the case property i.e. DVC/cassette (P­23) and two DVDs (P­24 and P­25) which were prepared by him.

18.The Ld. Addl. PP asked a leading question to this witness SC No. 687/16 State Vs. Imran & Anr. 23/109 wherein PW­9 admitted that he had gone for videography at House Number C­12, Vivek Vihar, Phase­I and it was B­ Block Market where accused had pointed out the place of parking the motorcycle.

19.PW­10 is Sh. Israr Babu. He is the Alternate Nodal Officer, Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd. He produced the Call Details and ownership document of mobile phone number 9711529219 w.e.f. 01.03.2011 to 10.03.2011, copy of which is Ex.PW10/A. He produced original Customer Application Form (Ex.PW10/B) along with ID Proof (Ex.PW10/C) of the said mobile phone which was in the name of Imran Khan. The Certificate under Section 65­B(4)(c) of the Indian Evidence Act is Ex.PW10/D. He stated that the aforesaid documents were given to the I.O. vide forwarding letter Ex.PW10/E.

20.PW­11 is Dr. Akash Jhanjee. He is the Specialist Forensic SC No. 687/16 State Vs. Imran & Anr. 24/109 Medicines, Subzi Mandi Mortuary, Aruna Asif Ali Hospital, Delhi. He conducted the postmortem (Ex.PW11/A) on the dead body of Smt. Anna Mammen. He found various external injuries on the body of the deceased along with various internal injuries which are mentioned in the postmortem report which is Ex.PW11/A. He opined the cause of death was asphyxia as a result of ligature strangulation via injury No. 3 (as mentioned in Ex.PW11/A) and it was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. All injuries were ante mortem in nature and fresh in duration. Injury no.1,2,4 and 5 (as mentioned in Ex.PW11/A) were caused by blunt force impact. The time since death was around 18 to 24 hours. On 09.05.2011, an application (Ex.PW11/B) was moved by Inspector Jarnail Singh for examination and furnishing opinion in respect of weapon of offence i.e. juicer mixer motor wire. On examination of the said weapon of offence, he opined that the injury no. 3 i.e. ligature mark as mentioned in postmortem report (Ex.PW11/A) was possible SC No. 687/16 State Vs. Imran & Anr. 25/109 by the examined wire or similar such wire. His subsequent opinion in respect of the weapon of offence is Ex.PW11/C. He identified the case property i.e. mixer along with white colour wire (Ex.P1) examined by him.

21.PW­12 is HC Brijender. On 08.03.2011, he was working as Duty Officer in Police Station Vivek Vihar from 4.00 p.m. to 12 midnight. On that day, on receipt of Ruqqa which was brought by Ct. Mahender and sent by Inspector Jarnail Singh, FIR No. 72/11 was recorded by him. He produced FIR register, copy of which is Ex.PW12/A. He made endorsement on Ruqqa which is Ex.PW12/B. After registration of the case, Ruqqa and copy of FIR were handed over to Ct. Mahender to deliver the same to Inspector Jarnail Singh.

22.PW­13 is W/HC Sunita. She produced the Daily Diary Register containing DD Number 40­B dated 12.03.2011. The copy of the same is Ex.PW13/A. SC No. 687/16 State Vs. Imran & Anr. 26/109

23.PW­14 is Sh. Rajeev Ranjan. He is the Nodal Officer, Tata Tele Services Ltd., New Delhi. He produced the Customer Application Form (Ex.PW14/A) of mobile phone number 9266657056, which was in the name of Mohd. Zaved Parvez. He produced the copy of I.D. Proof i.e. DL filed with CAF (Ex.PW14/B). He had produced the Call Detail Record (Ex.PW14/C) of mobile number 9266657056 from 01.03.2011 to 10.03.2011. The Cell I.D. Chart from 01.03.2011 to 10.03.2011 is Ex.PW14/D. He filed Certificate under Section 65­B of Indian Evidence Act which is Ex.PW14/E.

24.PW­15 is SI Mukesh Jain. He was working as Draftsman in DCP Office Complex, North East District, Delhi. On 27.04.2011, he along with IO reached at the spot i.e. C­12, Vivek Vihar, Delhi where complainant Vinay Lal was found present. On the pointing out of the complainant Vinay Lal and IO, he (PW­15) took rough notes and measurements of the SC No. 687/16 State Vs. Imran & Anr. 27/109 spot from different angles. IO recorded statement of the complainant Vinay Lal. He (PW­15) along with IO came back at Police Station where IO recorded his statement. He prepared scaled Site Plan (Ex.PW15/A).

25.PW­16 is HC Surender Pal. On 12.03.2011, he joined investigation of this case along with SI Manu Kumar and I.O. He reached LBS Hospital, Khichri Pur, Delhi. They met a secret informer there. The secret informer told the IO that accused Imran, who was wanted in this case, was seen in front of Wireless Park, 36 Block, Trilok Puri and if raided he may be apprehended. All of them reached there. On the pointing out of the secret informer, accused Imran @ Murgi Chor was apprehended. He identified the accused Imran @ Murgi Chor during his deposition in the court. Accused Imran was arrested vide memo which is Ex.PW16/B. Accused Imran made a disclosure statement (Ex.PW16/A). Personal search of accused Imran was conducted vide memo which is SC No. 687/16 State Vs. Imran & Anr. 28/109 Ex.PW16/C. In pursuance of his disclosure statement, accused Imran led them to his House i.e. 27/296, Trilok Puri, Delhi. He (Imran) got recovered the robbed articles i.e. purse containing one gold biscuit, one gold coin, one golden bangle, one golden kara, one golden ring (Chhalla), one gold chain studded with small stone like figure of small children from the almirah and same were taken into possession vide seizure memo which is Ex.PW16/D. Thereafter, all of them came back to Police Station. The case property was deposited in the Malkhana. Thereafter, information was received that accused Sameer was arrested by the Special Staff NDR and he (Sameer) had made a disclosure statement regarding commission of the offence in the present case. Accused Sameer was to be produced in the concerned Court. On this information, PW­16 along with SI Manu Kumar and accused Imran reached at Karkardooma Courts. He (PW­16) identified the accused Sameer during his deposition in the Court. Accused Sameer was arrested vide memo SC No. 687/16 State Vs. Imran & Anr. 29/109 which is Ex.PW16/F. Accused Sameer made a disclosure statement (Ex.PW16/E). Personal search of the accused Sameer was conducted vide memo which is Ex.PW16/G. Medical examination of both the accused persons was got conducted. On 13.03.2011, he (PW­16) along with I.O., SI Manu, Ct. Keshav, Ct. Arvind, accused Sameer and Imran reached at the house of accused Imran i.e. 27/296, Trilok Puri, Delhi, where accused Imran pointed out towards motorcycle bearing Registration Number DL­7S­BF­3881 which was standing outside the house and told that it was the same motorcycle by which he along with accused Sameer had reached at B­Block Market, Vivek Vihar from Trilok Puri. Accused Imran told that the said motorcycle was in the name of his father namely Aslam. The aforesaid motorcycle was seized vide seizure memo which is Ex.PW16/H. Accused Imran made a supplementary disclosure statement (Ex.PW16/I). Thereafter, he (PW­16) along with I.O., SI Manu, Ct. Arvind, Ct. Keshav, accused Sameer and Imran SC No. 687/16 State Vs. Imran & Anr. 30/109 reached at the spot i.e. C­12, Vivek Vihar, Delhi where Rajinder Kumar (Photographer) was called by the I.O. Sh. Sarvan Kumar and Ms. Rebecca John were also found present there. Accused Imran and Sameer pointed out the places i.e. where they had parked their motorcycle in B­Block Market and also the place of incident i.e. H. No. C­12, Vivek Vihar, Delhi, vide Pointing out memo which is Ex.PW16/J. Videography of the places as pointed out by the accused Sameer and Imran was got done by Sh. Rajender Kumar (Cameraman) and Sarvan Kumar. He identified the case property i.e. black colour 'Hidesign' purse (Ex.P10), One plain gold bangle (Ex.P11), One bangle (Ex.P12), One gold chain with six figures (Ex.P13), One gold wedding Chhalla (Ex.P14), One gold biscuit of Indian Bank (Ex.P15) and One gold coin (Ex.P­16) which were got recovered by the accused Imran in his presence. He identified the motorcycle bearing Registration Number DL­7S­BF­3881.

SC No. 687/16 State Vs. Imran & Anr. 31/109

26.PW­17 is HC Devi Dayal. He deposed that on 11.03.2011, he was posted as Head Constable in Special Cell, NDR Lodhi Colony, Delhi. On that day, a raiding party was formed by SI Renu Yadav. SI Renu Yadav told that she had received an information that accused Sameer would come near Chand Cinema, Kalyan Puri on bullet motorcycle bearing number DL­4SL­6531. At about 4.25 p.m., raiding party departed from Special NDR Lodhi Colony on two private motorcycles and two Government vehicles and reached at Chand Cinema, Kalyan Puri at about 5.30 p.m. At about 6.30 p.m., accused Sameer came on bullet motorcycle bearing number DL­4SL­ 6531 from the side of Police Station Kalyan Puri. Secret informer pointed out towards the accused Sameer. On receipt of signal given by SI Renu Yadav, accused Sameer was overpowered. On interrogation, accused Sameer made a disclosure statement Ex.PW17/A. Accused Sameer was arrested vide memo Ex.PW17/C. The personal search of the accused Sameer was conducted vide memo Ex.PW17/D. SC No. 687/16 State Vs. Imran & Anr. 32/109 Body inspection memo of accused Sameer is Ex.PW17/D1. In pursuance of his disclosure statement, accused Sameer led the police party to his house and got recovered robbed articles i.e. Rs. 81,000/­, two gold kara, one gold ring, one gold locket, one gold coin and one gold biscuit from the shelf of the kitchen of his house at Extra Block, 35/6 Trilok Puri, Delhi. The said articles were seized vide pointing out cum seizure memo which is Ex.PW17/E. Motorcycle bearing Registration Number DL­4SL­6531 which was purchased by accused Sameer out of the looted cash was seized vide seizure memo which is Ex.PW17/F. He identified the case property i.e. gold biscuits of Indian Bank of 20 grams (Ex.P17), One gold coin (Ex.P18), One gold pendent (Ex.P19), One gold patterned ring (Ex.P20), One plain gold bangle (Ex.P21) and bangle with line pattern (Ex.P22) which were got recovered by the accused Sameer from his house. He identified the Currency notes of Rs. 81,000/­ (Ex.P23) which accused Sameer got recovered from his house. He SC No. 687/16 State Vs. Imran & Anr. 33/109 identified the motorcycle bearing Registration Number DL­ 4SL­6531 (Ex.P24) which was seized from the accused Sameer vide Seizure memo Ex.PW17/F.

27.PW­18 is Smt. Lata Sarah Daniel. She was Assistant General Manager, Indian Bank, Corporate Office, Chennai, Tamil Nadu. She deposed that in May 2011, she was posted as Chief Manager in the main Branch of Indian Bank, Thiruvanthpuram. She produced the attested copy of invoice (Ex.PW8/E) which was issued by Pattam Branch of Indian Bank on 04.06.2009. By this invoice, two gold bars of 20 grams each were sold by the Branch to Ms. Anna Mammen. She stated that the original invoice was made in her presence. She identified the signatures of the deceased Smt. Anna Mammen who had purchased those bars. She identified the signature of the officer In­charge Ms. Ranjini Sarah Markose on Ex.PW8/E as she had seen her signing in the normal course of business. She identified the signature SC No. 687/16 State Vs. Imran & Anr. 34/109 of Mr. Vijaya Kumar, Chief Manager, Pattam Branch.

28.PW­19 is SI Mohd. Ali. In May 2011, he was posted at Police Station Vivek Vihar, Delhi. He joined the investigation of this case. He had gone to Kerala for verification of gold biscuits. He went to Indian Bank, Pattam Branch, Kerela. He met Mr. Vijaya Kumar, the Manager of the said branch. The Manager gave him a slip regarding the account of Smt. Anna Mammen. He stated that invoice Ex.PW8/E was given to him by Mr. Vijaya Kumar from the bank record. Bank Manager informed him that when the invoice was issued Ms. Lata was the Branch Manager. Thereafter, he went to meet Ms. Lata. She affirmed that the said invoice was issued during her tenure in Pattam Branch in her presence. He recorded statements of Sh. Vijaya Kumar and Ms. Lata. He handed over the invoice to the I.O. of this case.

29.PW­20 is Ct. Sanjeev. On 08.03.2011, he was posted as SC No. 687/16 State Vs. Imran & Anr. 35/109 Photographer with mobile Crime Team of East District, Delhi. On that day, he received information regarding murder of Smt. Anna Mammen. On receipt of this information, he along with other members of the Crime Team reached at the spot and took photographs of Scene of occurrence. He had taken photographs of three rooms on the ground floor of the house. He took photographs of the deceased Ms. Anna Mammen, who was lying on the bed. A white colour wire of mixer grinder was wrapped around her neck. In other room almirah and boxes were lying open and articles were lying scattered. He produced the positives (Ex.PW20/1 to Ex.PW20/25) and negatives (Ex.PW20/26 to Ex.PW20/50. On 22.03.2011, he again visited the spot with Mobile Crime Team. He took photographs of the patches of dampness on the wall. He produced the positive of the photographs (Ex.PW20/51 to Ex.PW20/56) which were taken by him on 22.03.2011. He also brought the negatives of the same which are Ex.PW20/57 to Ex.PW20/62.

SC No. 687/16 State Vs. Imran & Anr. 36/109

30.PW­21 is Sh. P. Vijay Kumar. On 19.05.2011, he was working as Branch Manager of Indian Bank, Pattam Branch at Thiruvnanthapuram. He gave the information that Smt. Anna Mammen was having an account bearing number 754396481 in the said branch. As per record of the bank, Smt. Anna Mammen had purchased two 20 grams gold bullion bars from his branch on 04.06.2009 vide invoice No. June/02 dated 04.06.2009 against payment of Rs. 64,386/­. On 19.05.2011, he handed over the certified copy of the invoice (Ex.PW8/E) to the police officials.

31.PW­22 is Ct. Tarsem Singh. On 18.04.2011, he was posted at Police Station Vivek Vihar, Delhi. He deposed that on that day he was given two forwarding letters by the I.O. He reached the Malkhana. MHC(M) handed over the exhibits along with sample seals. He deposited the same in FSL Rohini. He deposed that exhibits were not tampered with in SC No. 687/16 State Vs. Imran & Anr. 37/109 any manner, till they remained in his custody.

32.PW­23 is Ct. Keshav Kumar. On 13.03.2011, he along with SI Manu Kumar, HC Surender, Ct. Arvind and accused Imran and Sameer went to Trilok Puri in a Government Gypsy. They reached the house of accused Imran at 27/296, Trilok Puri, Delhi. Accused Imran got recovered one motorcycle bearing number DL­7S­BF­3881 from his house. Accused Imran told that the said motorcycle was used in the commission of the offence. The motorcycle was taken into possession vide seizure memo which is Ex.PW16/H. Thereafter, they went at the place of incident i.e. C­12, Vivek Vihar where cameraman video­graphed the place of occurrence at the instance of accused persons. Accused persons pointed out the place where they had parked the motorcycle on the day of incident i.e. at B­Block Market, Vivek Vihar, Delhi. He stated that accused persons were produced before the court concerned and remanded to SC No. 687/16 State Vs. Imran & Anr. 38/109 Judicial Custody. He identified both the accused persons during his deposition in the Court.

33.PW­24 is SI Manu Kumar. On 08.03.2011, he was posted at Police Station Vivek Vihar, Delhi. On that day, on receipt of DD Number 20A (Ex.PW5/A), he along with Inspector Jarnail Singh and Ct. Mahender reached at House Number C­12, Phase I, Vivek Vihar, Delhi. There he met the complainant Vinay Lal, Aneesh and Subhash. The complainant accompanied them to the spot where the dead body was lying. The Crime Team and Dog squad were called at the spot. A white colour wire of juicer mixer was tied around the neck of the dead body. The articles of the almirahs were found scattered. The spot was photographed. Chance prints were taken by the Crime Team. The sniffer dog after smelling had gone from the back side of the door up to House Number C­39. I.O. recorded statement of Vinay Lal. The dead body was sent to Subzi Mandi Mortuary. I.O. prepared a Ruqqa SC No. 687/16 State Vs. Imran & Anr. 39/109 and sent it to Police Station through Ct. Mahender for registration of the case. I.O. prepared the Site Plan. The wire of juicer mixer was untied from the neck of the deceased. One towel which was lying near the dead body, bed sheet of blue colour on which dead body was lying, another pink colour bed sheet which was lying beneath the blue colour bed sheet having some spots/blood, one empty jewellery box of silver colour lying on the bed, two jewellery boxes of red and blue colour lying open, two other jewellery boxes of pink and cherry colour which were lying on the bed were seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW7/B. Ct. Mahender reached the spot with copy of FIR and original Ruqqa. IO recorded the statements of complainant, Aneesh and Subhash under Section 161 CrPC. His statement was also recorded by the IO. On 09.03.2011, he joined the investigation of this case along with IO Inspector Jarnail Singh and reached at the spot i.e. C­12 Vivek Vihar, Delhi where Ms. Rebecca John, daughter of the deceased, met them. Statements of Ms. SC No. 687/16 State Vs. Imran & Anr. 40/109 Rebecca John and Laxmi under Section 161 CrPC were recorded by the IO. He along with IO reached at Sabzi Mandi Mortuary. The inquest papers were prepared by the IO and shown to Dr. Akash Jhanjhee. Statements of Sh. Binoo John and Sh. Vinay Lal regarding identification of dead body were recorded by the I.O. Three sealed parcels along with sample seal which were given by the doctor after postmortem were seized by the I.O. vide seizure memo Ex.PW24/A. After postmortem, the dead body was handed over to Sh. Binoo John. Thereafter statements of Sh. Binoo John and the complainant under Section 161 CrPC were recorded by the I.O. Case property was deposited in the Malkhana. Thereafter, he along with I.O. reached at house number 27/296 Trilok Puri at the house of Aslam but no one was found there. On inquiry, it was revealed that on 08.03.2011 in the noon time, accused Imran was seen along with his friend by a neighbourer. Thereafter, when he was returning to Police Station, one secret informer met the I.O. I.O briefed SC No. 687/16 State Vs. Imran & Anr. 41/109 the secret informer about the facts of the case and directed him to have a vigil on accused Imran. Supplementary statement of PW­24 was recorded under Section 161 CrPC. On 12.03.2011, he along with I.O., HC Surender went in search of the accused. They were informed by a secret informer that accused Imran was seen by him at 36 Block, Trilok Puri in the Wireless park. Thereafter, they reached near the said park. The secret informer pointed out towards a boy stating that he was Imran. Accused Imran was overpowered by the police party. He identified accused Imran during his deposition in the Court. Disclosure statement (Ex.PW16/A) of accused Imran was recorded by the I.O. Accused Imran was arrested vide arrest memo which is Ex.PW16/B. Personal search of accused Imran was conducted vide memo which is Ex.PW16/C. Accused Imran led them to his house at House Number 27/296, Trilok Puri, Delhi from where he got recovered one black colour ladies purse along with looted jewellery in the purse. One gold ring, SC No. 687/16 State Vs. Imran & Anr. 42/109 one gold bangle, one gold kara, one coin of gold, one gold biscuit and one gold chain which were found in the said purse were seized vide seizure memo which is Ex.PW16/D. Thereafter, they came back to Police Station and deposited the case property in the Malkhana. In the meantime, I.O. received an information regarding apprehension of accused Sameer by special staff NDR. He along with I.O. and accused Imran reached at KKD Courts. Accused Sameer was interrogated by the I.O. After interrogation, disclosure statement of accused Sameer (Ex.PW16/E) was recorded by the IO. Accused Sameer was arrested. Personal search of accused Sameer was conducted. He identified the accused Sameer during his deposition in the Court. His (PW­24) supplementary statement was recorded by the I.O. On 13.03.2011, he along with I.O., HC Surender, Ct. Keshav and Ct. Arvind and both the accused persons reached at the house of accused Imran. Accused Imran pointed out towards the motorcycle bearing Registration Number DL­7S­BF­3881 SC No. 687/16 State Vs. Imran & Anr. 43/109 which was used in the commission of offence. The same was seized vide seizure memo which is Ex.PW16/H. Supplementary Disclosure statement of accused Imran (Ex.PW16/I) was recorded by the IO. Thereafter, both the accused persons led them to C­12 Vivek Vihar where Rajender Kumar (Cameraman) and Sarvan Kumar were present. Both the accused persons pointed out the place of occurrence and videography of the proceedings was done by Sh. Rajender Kumar. Statement of Sarvan Kumar was recorded at the spot. On 26.03.2011, he collected three sealed parcels from MHC(M) and along with I.O. reached at Karkardooma Courts for TIP of the case property i.e two gold biscuits. I.O. obtained the copy of TIP proceedings of the case property. I.O. recorded the statement of Ms. Rebecca John with regard to TIP Proceedings. On 06.04.2011, he received two sealed parcels and along with I.O. reached at Karkardooma Courts. TIP of case property i.e. two gold biscuits was conducted. Statement of Ms. Rebecca John was SC No. 687/16 State Vs. Imran & Anr. 44/109 recorded by the I.O. On 09.05.2011, I.O. had handed over the inquest papers along with one application regarding seeking opinion of weapon of offence from the doctor concerned. He reached Subzi Mandi Mortuary and produced the same before Dr. Akash Jhanjhee, who gave opinion. Thereafter, he came back to Police Station and handed over the opinion along with inquest papers to the I.O. He stated that so long as the case property remained in his possession, the same was not tampered with in any manner. His supplementary statement was recorded by the I.O. He identified the case property i.e. juicer mixer motor with white colour wire (Ex.P1), One bed sheet of blue colour (Ex.P­2), one bed sheet of white colour with pink flowers and dots of pink and green colour (Ex.P3), One towel of brown and blue stripes (Ex.P4), Silver colour jewellery box (Ex.P5), two jewellery boxes of red colour (Ex.P6 and Ex.P7), Jewellery box of blue colour (Ex.P8), Jewellery box of pink colour (Ex.P9). One black purse of Hidesign (Ex.P10), Plain gold SC No. 687/16 State Vs. Imran & Anr. 45/109 bangle (Ex.P11), Bangle with lines (Ex.P12), Gold chain with six figures (Ex.P13), One gold wedding band (ring) (Ex.P14), One gold biscuit of Indian Bank of 20g (Ex. P15) and One gold coin (Ex.P16).

34.PW­25 is SI Renu Yadav. On 11.03.2011, she was present in the office of Special Cell, Lodhi Colony, Delhi. At about 4.00 p.m. she received a telephonic information from the secret informer that one person namely Sameer, who was involved in a murder case of Police Station Vivek Vihar, would come to meet a person near Chand Cinema on a bullet motorcycle bearing Registration Number DL­5SL­6531. A DD Number 7 was lodged in this regard. A team was constituted. At about 4.25 p.m., she along with staff went to Chand Cinema in two Government Gypsies and two motorcycles. The secret informer met them at the spot. At about 6.30 p.m. one person came from the side of Police Station Kalyan Puri road on said bullet motorcycle. On the pointing out of the SC No. 687/16 State Vs. Imran & Anr. 46/109 secret informer, accused Sameer was apprehended by the staff. Thereafter, at about 7.50 p.m., she along with staff and accused Sameer reached to the office of Special Cell. Accused Sameer disclosed the name of his associate namely Imran @ Murgi Chor. Accused Sameer disclosed that he along with his associate had murdered an old lady and looted the money and gold jewellery. He disclosed that he had kept his share of looted property i.e. one gold biscuit, two gold bangles, one gold chain, one pendant, ring and cash of Rs. 81,000/­ over a 'tand' in the kitchen. He disclosed that he had purchased a bullet motorcycle and mobile phone Make 'Sony Ericsson' with the looted money. Thereafter, accused Sameer was arrested vide Kalandra under Section 41(b) CrPC (Ex.PW17/B). She prepared arrest memo (Ex.PW17/C), personal search memo (Ex.PW17/D) and body inspection memo (Ex.PW17/D1) of accused Sameer. She prepared recovery memo of motorcycle (Ex.PW17/F). She recorded disclosure statement (Ex.PW17/A) of accused Sameer.A SC No. 687/16 State Vs. Imran & Anr. 47/109 mobile phone Make 'Sony Ericsson' was recovered during the personal search of the accused Sameer. A raid was conducted at the house of accused Sameer. One gold biscuit (marking Indian Bank), two gold bangles, one gold chain, one pendent, a ring and cash of Rs. 81,000/­ was recovered from the 'tand' in the kitchen of the house of accused Sameer. Recovery memo (Ex.PW17/E) of the said articles was prepared. At about 12.05 a.m., she along with staff and accused Sameer returned to the office of Special Cell. Case property was deposited in Malkhana. On 12.03.2011, information of arrest was given to Police Station Vivek Vihar. Accused Sameer was produced in the concerned Court. The custody of accused Sameer was handed over to Inspector Jarnail Singh. On 15.03.2011, her (PW­25) statement under Section 161 CrPC was recorded by Inspector Jarnail Singh. She identified the accused Sameer during her deposition in the Court. She identified the case property i.e. gold biscuit of 20g of Indian Bank (Ex.P17), One gold coin (Ex.P18), One SC No. 687/16 State Vs. Imran & Anr. 48/109 gold pendent (Ex.P19), One gold patterned ring (Ex.P20), one plain gold bangle (Ex.P21) and one bangle with line pattern (Ex.P22) which were got recovered by the accused Sameer from his house. She identified currency notes of Rs. 81,000/­ (Ex.P23) which were got recovered by accused Sameer from his house. She identified the motorcycle bearing Registration Number DL­4SL­6531 (Ex.P24) which were seized from the accused Sameer vide seizure memo which is Ex.PW17/F.

35. PW­26 is Ct. Mahender. On 08.03.2011, he was posted at Police Station Vivek Vihar, Delhi. On that day, on receipt of call which was reduced into DD No. 20A, he along with Inspector Jarnail Singh and SI Manu reached at C­12, Phase I, Vivek Vihar, Delhi. On reaching there they found almirah was lying open. Articles were found scattered. A dead body of a lady was lying on bed in a room. A wire of juicer mixer was tied around the neck of the deceased. Inspector Jarnail SC No. 687/16 State Vs. Imran & Anr. 49/109 Singh called the Crime Team, Dog squad and photographer at the spot. The sniffer dog led them to the back door of the said house and followed the trail till the front of House Number C­39. Statement of the complainant Vinay Lal was recorded by the IO. Tehrir was prepared by the IO and handed over to him (PW­26) for registration of FIR. He got the FIR registered and returned back at the spot with the copy of FIR and original Ruqqa and handed over to the IO. His statement was recorded by the IO.

36.PW­27 is Retired ASI Jai Singh. On 08.03.2011, he was working as In­charge of Mobile Crime Team, East District, Delhi. On receipt of information from Control Room, he along with Ct. Narender (Finger Print Expert) and Ct. Sanjeev (Photographer) reached at house number C­12, Phase I, Vivek Vihar, Delhi. Inspector Jarnail Singh along with staff was already present there at the spot. A dead body of a female was lying on the bed. A white colour wire was found SC No. 687/16 State Vs. Imran & Anr. 50/109 wrapped around the neck of the deceased which was plugged in the juicer mixer. All the almirahs were found lying open. Articles and jewellery boxes were scattered in the rooms. Scene of crime was photographed by Ct. Sanjeev. Chance prints were lifted from the spot by Ct. Narender. He prepared SOC visit report (Ex.PW27/A). Wire and juicer mixer etc. were seized from the spot. On 22.03.2011, he along with Ct. Sanjeev went to the spot as per the instructions of the IO. Inspector Jarnail Singh got photographed the seepage/ patches of white wash on the ground floor of the said house.

37.PW­28 is Ct. Virender Singh. On 08.03.2011, he was posted at Police Station Kalyan Puri, Delhi. On that day, he took dog Gypsy to the spot i.e. C­12, Vivek Vihar, Phase­I, Delhi. One dead body of a female was found there in a room. One white colour wire was found wrapped around the neck of the deceased and the said wire was attached to the mixer SC No. 687/16 State Vs. Imran & Anr. 51/109 juicer which was lying on one side of the bed. Almirahs were found open. Jewellery boxes and other articles were found scattered in the room. The sniffer dog smelled the spot and went out through the back side of the house i.e. the garage side. After coming out of the said house, at a distance of 70­ 80 metres, sniffer dog sat on one side. His statement was recorded by the I.O. in Dog Squad Office.

38.PW­29 is HC Bijender Singh. On 08.03.2011, he was working as MHC(M) at Police Station Vivek Vihar, Delhi. On that day Inspector Jarnail Singh handed over five pullandas to him. He deposited the same in the malkhana. He made relevant entries in this regard in Register Number 19 which is Ex.PW29/A. On 09.03.2011, Inspector Jarnail Singh handed over three sealed parcels along with two sample seals to him. He deposited the same in the malkhana. He made relevant entries in this regard in Register Number 19 which is Ex.PW29/A1. On 12.03.2011, Inspector Jarnail Singh handed SC No. 687/16 State Vs. Imran & Anr. 52/109 over six sealed parcels to him. He deposited the same in the malkhana. He made relevant entries in this regard in Register Number 19. Inspector Jarnail Singh also produced the Jamatalashi articles of accused Imran. He deposited the same in the malkhana. The copy of said entry is Ex.PW29/A2. On 13.03.2011, Inspector Jarnail Singh produced one motorcycle bearing Registration Number DL­ 7SBF­3881 for depositing the same in the malkhana. He made relevant entry in register number 19 in this regard which is Ex.PW29/A3. On 23.03.2011, Inspector Jarnail Singh produced three sealed parcels and one motorcycle bullet 'Royal Enfield' bearing Registration Number DL­4SL­ 6531 and jamatalashi articles of accused Sameer Khan for depositing the same in the malkhana. He made relevant entries in this regard in Register Number 19 which is Ex.PW29/A4. On 30.04.2011, Inspector Jarnail Singh produced one sealed plastic container for depositing the same in the malkhana. He made relevant entries in this SC No. 687/16 State Vs. Imran & Anr. 53/109 regard in Register Number 19 which is Ex.PW29/A5. On 18.04.2011, on the directions of IO, he handed over viscera box to Ct. Tarsem Singh for depositing the same at FSL Rohini vide RC No. 29/21/11. The copy of RC is Ex.PW29/B. After depositing the exhibits in FSL, copy of receipt (Ex.PW29/B1) was handed over to him. He handed over two sealed parcels and one envelope along with sample seals to Ct. Tarsem Singh for depositing the same at FSL, Rohini, Vide RC No. 30/21/2011. The copy of RC is Ex.PW29/C. The copy of receipt is Ex.PW29/C1.

39.PW­30 is Inspector Jarnail Singh. He is the Investigating Officer of this case. On 08.03.2011, he was posted as SHO in Police Station Vivek Vihar, Delhi. On that day at about 3.40 p.m., a PCR call vide DD Number 20­A (Ex.PW5/A) was received regarding murder of a lady at C­12, Vivek Vihar, opposite B­Block Market. He along with SI Manu and Ct. Mahender reached at the spot i.e. C­12, ground floor, Vivek SC No. 687/16 State Vs. Imran & Anr. 54/109 Vihar, Delhi. The complainant Vinay Lal met them at the spot. The dead body of Smt. Anna Mammen was found lying on double bed of the bedroom. The neck of the deceased was tightly wrapped with a white colour wire of juicer mixer. The doors and almirahs of the house were lying open. Articles were lying scattered. He called the Crime Team and Dog Squad at the spot. The Crime Team inspected the spot. Photographs were taken by the Crime Team. Eight Chance prints were lifted from the spot by the Crime Team. The sniffer dog led them to the back door of the house near park. He recorded the statement of Vinay Lal. He prepared Ruqqa (Ex.PW30/A) and sent the same to the Police Station through Ct. Mahender. He prepared the Site Plan (Ex.PW30/B) on the pointing out of Vinay Lal. The wire of juicer mixer was untied from the neck of the deceased. A towel having label of 'Fab India', two double bedsheets (blue and pink colour), empty silver colour square shaped wooden jewellery box, two empty small jewellery boxes (blue and red colour), two empty small SC No. 687/16 State Vs. Imran & Anr. 55/109 jewellery boxes (pink and cherry colour) were lifted from the spot and were seized vide memo which is Ex.PW7/B. Thereafter, Ct. Mahender came at the spot after registration of the FIR and he handed over the copy of FIR and Ruqqa to him. He recorded supplementary statement of complainant Vinay Lal. Statements of SI Manu and Ct. Mahender were also recorded. The exhibits were deposited in the malkhana. On 09.03.2011, he along with SI Manu went to the house of deceased where Ms. Rebecca John (Daughter of the deceased) and Laxmi (Maid servant of the deceased) met them. He recorded their statements under Section 161 CrPC. He met Binoo John (Husband of Ms. Rebecca John) and Vinay Lal, who identified the dead body of the deceased. He recorded their statements (Ex.PW7/C and Ex.PW30/C) regarding identification of the dead body. He gave an application (Ex.PW30/D) to the Medical Superintendent, Subzi Mandi Mortuary for conducting the postmortem of the deceased. After postmortem, dead body was handed over to SC No. 687/16 State Vs. Imran & Anr. 56/109 Sh. Binoo John and Sh. Vijay Lal. After postmortem, the doctor handed over the three sealed pullandas along with two sample seals which were seized vide memo Ex.PW24/A. Thereafter, he came back to Police Station and deposited the exhibits in the Malkhana. On 09.03.2011, he along with SI Manu went to the house of accused Imran @ Murgi Chor i.e. H. No. 27/296, Trilok Puri Delhi. He identified the accused Imran @ Murgi Chor during his deposition in the Court. He recorded supplementary statement of SI Manu. On 10.03.2011, he along with SI Manu again went to the house of accused Imran, where his father namely Aslam met them. Aslam told that he and his son Imran performed the white wash at the house of the deceased. He examined co­ labourers working in the area who revealed that accused Imran along with Sameer was missing after 08.03.2011. On 11.03.2011, he along with SI Manu went to the house of accused Imran and Sameer, where they came to know that both the accused had run away from their houses. He SC No. 687/16 State Vs. Imran & Anr. 57/109 recorded the statements of Crime Team Officials. He recorded the statement of Dog Squad officials. On 12.03.2011, he along with SI Manu and HC Surender Pal went to Trilok Puri. Secret informer told them that accused Imran was present at Wireless Park, Trilok Puri, Delhi. He along with his staff went to Wireless Park, Trilok Puri. He apprehended accused Imran on the pointing out of the secret informer. Accused Imran was arrested vide arrest memo which is Ex.PW16/B. The personal search of accused Imran was conducted vide memo which is Ex.PW16/C. Accused Imran gave disclosure statement (Ex.PW16/A). Accused Imran took them at the first floor of his house and got recovered the robbed articles i.e. black colour ladies purse containing jewellery articles i.e. a gold biscuit, a gold coin, a golden colour bangle, a gold colour kara, a gold chain and a gold ring. The purse containing the said jewellery articles was seized vide seizure memo which is Ex.PW16/D. On 12.03.2011, he received an information vide DD Number 40 SC No. 687/16 State Vs. Imran & Anr. 58/109 B (Ex.PW13/A) regarding arrest of accused Sameer under Section 41.4 CrPC by Special Cell NDR. He along with SI Manu, HC Surender Pal and accused Imran came at Karkardooma Court. He arrested the accused Sameer vide arrest memo Ex.PW16/F. Personal search of the accused Sameer was conducted vide memo which is Ex.PW16/G. Disclosure statement (Ex.PW16/E) of accused Imran was recorded. He obtained one day PC remand of both the accused. Accused persons were got medically examined. On 13.03.2011, he along with SI Manu, HC Surender Pal, Ct. Keshav and one constable, took both the accused to the house of Imran. Accused Imran got recovered a motorcycle bearing Registration Number DL­7SBF­3881 (Honda Stunner) parked outside of his house. The said motorcycle was seized vide seizure memo which is Ex.PW16/H. The motorcycle was used by the accused persons for going to the spot. The motorcycle was in the name of the father of the accused Imran namely Aslam. Both the accused persons SC No. 687/16 State Vs. Imran & Anr. 59/109 were taken to the house of deceased at C­12, Vivek Vihar Delhi. Both the accused persons pointed out the place of occurrence and place of parking of the motorcycle at C­Block Market vide Pointing out memo which is Ex.PW16/J. The pointing out was video­graphed. On 15.03.2011, he went to the office of Special Cell NDR and recorded the statements of SI Renu Yadav and Head Constable, who prepared Kalandra. On 18.03.2011, Ms. Rebecca John (daughter of the deceased) produced a photograph of the victim/deceased (Ex.PW8/A) wearing jewellery which was seized vide memo which is Ex.PW8/B. He recorded statement of Ms. Rebecca John. On 22.03.2011, Crime Team was called at the spot to take the photographs of the patches on the wall. The Crime Team inspected the spot and took the photographs. Statement of In­charge of Crime Team and photographer was recorded. On 23.03.2011, HC VIrender was sent to the office of Special Cell, NDR. He brought motorcycle and two sealed pullandas along with seizure memos from Special SC No. 687/16 State Vs. Imran & Anr. 60/109 Cell, NDR. The motorcycle and pullandas were deposited in the Malkhana. Statements of MHC(M) and HC Virender were recorded. On 24.03.2011, he filed an application for TIP of the case property which is Ex.PW30/E. TIP of the case property was conducted on 26.03.2011 and 06.04.2011. Ms. Rebecca John identified the case property on both the dates. He recorded statement of Ms. Rebecca John. On 29.03.2011, he sent the finger prints of both the accused to Finger Print Bureau, Kamla Market. On 18.04.2011, the exhibits were sent to FSL through Ct. Tarsem. Statements of Ct. Tarsem was recorded. On 27.04.2011, he called SI Mukesh Jain, Draftsman at the spot, who took measurements on the pointing out of the complainant Vinay Lal. On 30.04.2011, Rajender (Videographer) handed over video cassette and two DVDs which were seized vide memo which is Ex.PW9/A. On 09.05.2011, SI Manu was sent to the mortuary of Subzi Mandi with pullanda of juicer­mixer wire for seeking subsequent opinion. SI Manu brought the inquest SC No. 687/16 State Vs. Imran & Anr. 61/109 papers and opinion of doctor. On 17.05.2011, ASI Mohd. Ali came back to Delhi from Trivendrum along with statements of bank witnesses. He prepared the Charge sheet and filed in the Court.

40.The Ld. Addl. PP for the State put leading questions to the witness wherein he admitted that the motorcycle which was brought from the Special Cell, NDR was bullet 'Royal Enfield' bearing Registration Number DL­4SL­6531. He admitted that on 13.03.2011, supplementary disclosure statement (Ex.PW16/I) of accused Imran was recorded. He identified the case property i.e. juicer mixer motor along with white colour wire (Ex.P1) which was wrapped around the neck of the deceased, one bed sheet of blue colour (Ex.P2) which was lying on the bed under the dead body, bed sheet of white colour with pink flowers and dots of pink and green colour (Ex.P3) which was lying on the bed under the dead body, towel of brown and blue stripes (Ex.P4), Silver colour SC No. 687/16 State Vs. Imran & Anr. 62/109 jewellery box (Ex.P5), two jewellery boxes of red colour (Ex.P6 and Ex.P7), jewellery box of blue colour (Ex.P8), jewellery box of pink colour (Ex.P9), one black colour purse of Hidesign (Ex.P10), plain gold bangle (Ex.P11), bangle with lines (Ex.P12), Gold chain with six figures (Ex.P13), one gold wedding ring (Ex.P14), one gold biscuit of Indian Bank of 20g (Ex.P15), one gold coin (Ex.P16), DVC/Cassette (Ex.P23), two DVDs (Ex.P24 and Ex.P25) and Photograph (Ex.PW8/A) of the deceased Smt. Anna Mammen. He identified one motorcycle Make Royal Enfield of black colour bearing Registration Number DL 4SL 6531 (Ex.PW30/Article 1).

41.The Ld. Addl. PP for the State put leading question to this witness to which he admitted that he had prepared a seizure memo in respect of the articles brought by HC Virender and he also mentioned the details of the articles of that memo. He identified his signatures and signatures of HC Virender on the seizure memo (Ex.PW30/F).

SC No. 687/16 State Vs. Imran & Anr. 63/109

42.PW­30 was further examined­in­chief on the application of the State under Section 311 CrPC wherein he stated that on 12.03.2011 accused persons were arrested. Thereafter, both the accused persons were produced before the Court. He obtained Police Custody remand of accused persons. He took both the accused persons to Dossier Cell, East District, where specimen prints of both the accused persons were taken in his presence. The specimen prints (Ex.PW13/D) of the accused Sameer was attested by him. On 29.03.2011, he sent a letter (Ex.PW31/D1) along with specimen print of both the accused persons Imran and Sameer to Finger Print Bureau, Kamla Nagar for comparison of specimen print with chance print.

43.PW­31 is Retired Inspector Ravinder Kumar. On 09.03.2011, he was posted as Inspector, Finger Print Bureau Kamla Market, Delhi. On that day, IO Inspector Jarnail Singh SC No. 687/16 State Vs. Imran & Anr. 64/109 handed over to him specimen finger prints of nine persons, whose names are mentioned in his report, lift chance prints, photographs along with negatives, enlarged photograph of chance print of Sameer marked as Q1 (Ex.PW31/A) and enlarged photograph of specimen of chance print of Sameer marked as S­1 (Ex.PW31/B). He produced original chance print of Sameer Marked Q1 (Ex.PW31/C) and specimen chance print of Sameer marked S­1 (Ex.PW31/D). He received written request for comparison of prints of accused Sameer and accused Imran vide letter dated 29.03.2011 (Ex.PW31/D1). After comparison, he found that chance print marked Q1 was identical with the specimen left palm portion slip of accused Sameer. His report in this regard is Ex.PW31/E. The covering letter dated 21.09.2011 is Ex.PW31/F vide which he sent his report to the IO of this case.

44.PW­32 is Dr. Rajendra Kumar. On 18.04.2011, he was SC No. 687/16 State Vs. Imran & Anr. 65/109 posted as Assistant Director at FSL, Rohini, Delhi. On that day, three sealed parcels pertaining to the present case were received in the laboratory from SHO of Police Station Vivek Vihar. He examined all the parcels. On Biological examination, blood was detected on Exhibits 1,2 and 3. He gave detailed Biological report which is Ex.PW32/A. On Serological examination, human blood of group 'A' was detected on Exhibit 1, 2 and 3. His Serological examination report is Ex.PW32/B.

45.PW­33 is Sh. Amar Pal Singh. On 18.04.2011, he was working as Assistant Director (Chemistry) in FSL, Rohini, Delhi. On that day, one sealed wooden box was received in FSL, Rohini, Delhi. The same was marked to him for examination. He gave his detailed report which is Ex.

  PW33/A.




  SC No. 687/16      State Vs. Imran & Anr.                   66/109
   STATEMENTS        OF       ACCUSED         PERSONS       UNDER

  SECTION 313 Cr.PC

46.Statements of the accused persons were recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein, they denied the allegations against them and stated that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. They have stated that the witnesses have falsely deposed against them as they are interested witnesses.

47.Accused Imran stated in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that police has falsely prepared all the documents and cassettes. Police had obtained his signatures on blank papers and on some written documents under pressure and threat. He stated that he was lifted by the police officials of Police Station Vivek Vihar. On 08.03.2011 at about 11.00 a.m., Inspector Jarnail Singh and other staff detained him in the Police Station for the whole night. He was released on 10.03.2011 in the morning. He stated that on 11.03.2011 in SC No. 687/16 State Vs. Imran & Anr. 67/109 the night hours, he was lifted by the police officials of Police Station Vivek Vihar and he was detained in the intervening night of 11­12.03.2011. He stated that no recovery of any article Ex.P10 to Ex.P16 was effected from his house at his instance. He stated that he had not made any disclosure statement. He stated that he had not pointed out any place nor any motorcycle was recovered at his instance. He stated that articles were planted at the instance of the daughter of the deceased. He stated that all the entries are ante dated and ante time. He stated that the I.O. had manipulated the entire record of the case at the instance of the daughter of the deceased because she is a legal personality.

48.Accused Sameer stated in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that he did not point out the place of incident. The videography has been manipulated at the instance of the IO. He stated that he was lifted by the police from his house on 10.03.2011 in the night hours. Nothing was recovered at his SC No. 687/16 State Vs. Imran & Anr. 68/109 instance. He stated that he had not made any disclosure statement. Articles P­17 to P­23 are falsely planted to save the real culprits Vinay Lal and others. He stated that articles were planted at the instance of the daughter of the deceased. He stated that I.O. had manipulated the entire record of the case at the instance of the daughter of the deceased because she is a legal personality. The chance prints were not connected with him and I.O. has created a false evidence against him. He stated that he has not committed any offence, as alleged against him. The alleged recovered articles have been planted upon him to save the real culprits. The motorcycle, mobile phone, cash and jewellery articles were planted upon him in collusion with the police of Special Cell.

DEFENCE EVIDENCE

49.Accused Sameer has examined three witnesses in his defence.

SC No. 687/16 State Vs. Imran & Anr. 69/109

50.DW­1 is Mohd. Sharif. He deposed that accused Sameer is his son. He used to run a small workshop of stitching at House Number 6, Trilok Puri, Delhi. On 10.03.2011 at about 9.00/9.15 p.m., all his family members were having dinner at the ground floor of his house. Someone knocked at the door. When he opened the door, 4­5 police officials were present there. Police officials asked him about Sameer. His neighbour namely Nizamuddin was also present at that time. Police officials took Sameer with them by saying that they would set him free after making some inquiries. They told him that they were taking Sameer to Police Station Vivek Vihar.

51.DW­2 is Nizamuddin. He is the neighbour of the accused Sameer. He stated that on 10.03.2011, at about 9.00 p.m., he saw some police officials standing near the house of accused Sameer. Police officials took out Sameer from his house. He asked the police officials that where they were taking Sameer SC No. 687/16 State Vs. Imran & Anr. 70/109 and from which Police Station they had come. Police officials replied that they were from Police Station Vivek Vihar. Police officials told that they would release Sameer after making some inquiries.

52.DW­3 is Ct. Birendra Kumar. He is the Record Keeper at Motor Licensing Office, Transport Department, Raja Garden, Delhi. He produced the record of motorcycle bearing Registration Number DL­4SL­6531 Make Bajaj Auto which was in the name of Sh. Ravinder Rai. He stated that as per record, the motorcycle was blacklisted in the Complaint Number 72/11 dated 08.03.2011 of Police Station Vivek Vihar. The documents bearing particulars of the said motorcycle is Ex.DW3/A.

53.Accused Imran has examined one witness in his defence.

54.DW­4 is Smt. Munavar Jahan. She is the mother of the SC No. 687/16 State Vs. Imran & Anr. 71/109 accused Imran. She deposed that on 08.03.2011 at about 11.00 p.m., she along with his son Imran was present at her house. Imran was sleeping. Some police officials along with SHO of Police Station Vivek Vihar came at her house. They entered in her house and Imran was apprehended by them. They told that they would leave Imran after making some inquiries. Imran was released on 10.03.2011 in the morning. On 11.03.2011 Imran was again lifted by the police officials at night. Police officials took away thevehicle which was parked outside her house. On the next day she came to know that Imran was implicated in the present case. Police officials threatened her not to make any complaint in this regard.

55.I have heard Sh. Gaurav Pandey, Ld. Addl.P.P. for the State, Sh. A.K.Singhal, Advocate for accused Sameer and Sh. R.K.Kochar, Advocate for accused Imran. I have perused the case file, written arguments filed on behalf of the complainant and accused Sameer.

SC No. 687/16 State Vs. Imran & Anr. 72/109 ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

56.It was submitted by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State that from the statements of the prosecution witnesses, it is proved that pursuant to well planned criminal conspiracy, the accused persons have committed murder of Smt. Anna Mammen, while committing robbery in her house.

57.It was argued that the accused persons had hatched a criminal conspiracy to murder Smt. Anna Mammen with the motive of committing robbery at her house. It was argued that the accused Imran was known to the deceased and her daughter as he had worked at the house of the deceased. It was argued that the accused Imran was aware that Smt. Anna Mammen used to live alone. It was argued that accused Imran was familiar with the deceased prior to her death and he knew that Smt. Anna Mammen used to remain alone between 1.30 p.m. to 3.30 p.m. in her house. It was SC No. 687/16 State Vs. Imran & Anr. 73/109 argued that the accused persons had easy access to the house of the deceased since accused Imran was very well known to the deceased. It was contended that the accused persons had the opportunity to enter the premises, as deceased was expecting accused Imran to come to her house for repairing work. It was argued that the prosecution has proved the robbery as a motive of committing murder of Smt. Anna Mammen.

58. It was argued that the accused persons were found present near the house of the deceased soon before the incident. It was argued that PW­6 Laxmi, who was working as maid in the house of the deceased, has stated in her statement that on the day of incident she saw accused Imran standing near the gate of the colony on the main road. It was contended that the accused Imran was seen by PW­6 Laxmi with another boy near the house of the Scene of Crime at about 1.30 p.m. It was argued that the presence of accused Imran SC No. 687/16 State Vs. Imran & Anr. 74/109 near the house of deceased Smt. Anna Mammen at the time of incident has not been explained by the accused.

59.It was submitted that the stolen/robbed articles were recovered from the houses of the accused persons at their instance. It was argued that accused Imran was absconding after the incident. It was argued that the testimonies of PW­ 16 HC Surender Pal, PW­24 SI Manu Kumar and PW­30 Inspector Jarnail Singh establishes the recovery of jewellery articles from the house of accused Imran. It was argued that PW­16 HC Surender Pal, PW­24 SI Manu Kumar and PW­30 Inspector Jarnail Singh were consistent during their deposition and could not be shaken from their stand. It was argued that from the testimonies of PW­17 HC Devi Dayal and PW­25 SI Renu Yadav the recovery of jewellery articles from the house of the accused Sameer has been proved. It was argued that accused persons have not given any plausible explanation about the recovery of robbed articles SC No. 687/16 State Vs. Imran & Anr. 75/109 from them. It was argued that in the absence of any plausible explanation, it is proved that the accused persons had committed murder of Smt. Anna Mammen, while committing robbery in her house.

60.It was argued that the recovered case property i.e. jewellery articles etc. were identified by PW­8 Ms. Rebecca John in the TIP proceedings. It was argued that accused persons have not challenged the authenticity of the TIP proceedings. It was argued that prosecution has proved that the jewellery recovered from the accused Imran and Sameer belonged to the deceased Smt. Anna Mammen. It was argued that the prosecution has been able to prove the purchase of two gold coins from Indian Bank which were recovered from the possession of accused persons. It was argued that accused persons have not challenged the testimony of the witnesses in this regard, which conclusively establishes the guilt of the accused persons.

SC No. 687/16 State Vs. Imran & Anr. 76/109

61.It was argued that from the testimonies of PW­18 Smt. Lata Sarah Daniel and PW­21 Sh. P. Vijay Kumar, it is confirmed that two gold biscuits recovered from the accused had been purchased by the deceased Smt. Anna Mammen on 04.06.2009 vide Invoice which is Ex.PW8/E.

62.It was argued that the scientific evidence led by the prosecution establishes the presence of accused Sameer at the Scene of Crime. It was contended that the testimony of PW­31 Inspector Ravinder Kumar proves vide his report Ex.PW31/E that the chance print lifted from the bed where the deceased was found matched with the specimen left palm portion (Ex.PW31/B) of accused Sameer. It was argued that the prosecution has been able to prove that the chance prints lifted from the spot by the Crime Team matched with the specimen left palm print of the accused Sameer. It was argued that accused Sameer has failed to explain his SC No. 687/16 State Vs. Imran & Anr. 77/109 presence inside the house of the deceased.

63.It was submitted by the Ld. Addl. P.P. for the State that the prosecution case stands proved from the statements of witnesses. It was submitted by the Ld. Addl. P.P. that all the witnesses are consistent and corroborative and hence, there is no reason to disbelieve their version. It was submitted that in this case all the witnesses have fully supported the case of the prosecution.

64.It was argued that during cross­examination of all the prosecution witnesses, nothing could come out which could shake the credibility of the said witnesses. Hence, there is no reason to disbelieve their statements.

65.It was argued that the prosecution has been able to prove the death of Smt. Anna Mammen was unnatural, homicidal in nature and caused by strangulation. PW­11 Dr. Akash SC No. 687/16 State Vs. Imran & Anr. 78/109 Jhanjee conducted the postmortem on the dead body of the deceased. He opined the cause of death as asphyxia as a result of ligature strangulation via injury number 3 as mentioned in Postmortem Report Ex.PW11/A and it was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. Injury Number 1, 2, 4 and 5 mentioned in Ex.PW11/A were caused by blunt force impact. PW­11 Dr. Akash Jhanjee also stated that the injury number 3 i.e. ligature mark mentioned in Postmortem Report Ex.PW11/A sustained by the deceased Smt. Anna Mammen was possible with the weapon of offence i.e. wire Ex.P­1, which was wrapped around the neck of the deceased and identified by the witnesses. It was argued that the prosecution has established the circumstances through medical evidence and testimony of witnesses that Smt. Anna Mammen was murdered.

66.It was argued that the Postmortem Report supports the case of the prosecution.

SC No. 687/16 State Vs. Imran & Anr. 79/109

67.It was argued that the accused persons have entered into a criminal conspiracy to commit robbery and murder of Smt. Anna Mammen and in pursuance to that agreement they committed robbery of cash and jewellery articles and committed murder of Smt. Anna Mammen. It was argued that the accused persons in agreement to their criminal conspiracy committed murder of Smt. Anna Mammen. It was argued that the accused persons in agreement to their criminal conspiracy committed robbery in the house of Smt. Anna Mammen and robbed jewellery articles and cash Rs. 2.80 Lakhs. It was argued that from the statements of the witnesses, it is proved that the accused persons committed murder of Smt. Anna Mammen. It was argued that the accused persons got recovered the robbed articles from their respective houses.

68.It was also argued that there is no motive alleged on the part SC No. 687/16 State Vs. Imran & Anr. 80/109 of the prosecution for false implication of the accused persons. Nor any motive has been alleged on the part of the witnesses for giving false evidence against the accused. It was argued that the statements of the prosecution witnesses have to be believed and relied upon. The recovery of robbed articles from the house of the accused persons also supports the prosecution case. It was submitted that the prosecution has been able to prove the chain of circumstances which proves the guilt of the accused persons. It was submitted that from the statements of the prosecution witnesses, the case of the prosecution stands proved.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE ACCUSED PERSONS

69.On the other hand, it was contended by the Ld. Counsels for the accused persons that the accused persons are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in this case. It was contended that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused persons and hence, the accused SC No. 687/16 State Vs. Imran & Anr. 81/109 persons should be acquitted.

70.The Ld. Counsel for the accused Imran submitted that the entire case is based upon the circumstantial evidence. It was contended by the Ld. Defence Counsel that there is no direct evidence against the accused Imran. It was argued that the entire case is based upon the circumstantial evidence, chain of which is not complete.

71.It was argued that the prosecution has failed to prove the theory of 'last seen'. It was argued that no evidence has come on record which could show that the accused Imran was lastly seen in the company of the deceased Smt. Anna Mammen. It was contended that in this case no evidence has been led by the prosecution to show that on the date of the incident Imran was present in the house of deceased. It was argued that there is no eye­witness of the incident. It was contended that PW­6 Laxmi, PW­7 Vinay Lal @ Goldy and SC No. 687/16 State Vs. Imran & Anr. 82/109 PW­8 Ms. Rebecca John are interested witnesses and their statements cannot be relied upon because their statements have not been corroborated by the testimony of any independent public witness.

72.It was argued that the alleged recovery of robbed articles is also doubtful because no independent person of the area was joined in the investigation when the alleged recovery was effected. It was argued that no recovery was effected from the accused or at his instance and the same has been planted by the Investigating Officer in connivance with Ms. Rebecca John daughter of the deceased Smt. Anna Mammen. The witnesses of the alleged recovery are only the police witnesses, who are interested witnesses because they are only interested in proving their case.

73.It was argued that the prosecution has also failed to prove any motive on the part of the accused to kill the deceased SC No. 687/16 State Vs. Imran & Anr. 83/109 Smt. Anna Mammen. It was argued that the police has failed to nab the real culprits and in order to solve this case the accused Imran has been falsely implicated in this case by the police.

74.The Ld. Counsel for the accused Imran has relied upon the judgments which are reported as Sudama Pandey Vs. State of Bihar 2002 (1) JCC 46, Raj Kumar @ Raju Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) 2017 (2) JCC 929 and Gulab Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh 1994 SCC (Cr) 1783.

75.The Ld. Counsel for the accused Sameer has submitted that there is no direct evidence against the accused which could connect the accused with robbery and murder of the deceased Smt. Anna Mammen and the case of the prosecution entirely rests on the circumstantial evidence.

76.It was argued that the evidence of PW­31 Inspector Ravinder SC No. 687/16 State Vs. Imran & Anr. 84/109 Kumar is not reliable, because PW­2 Constable Narender and PW­20 Constable Sanjeev have nowhere stated that the chance print and photograph remained intact.

77.It was argued that testimony of PW­31 Inspector Ravinder Kumar is contradictory. PW­31 Inspector Ravinder Kumar has stated in his deposition that on 09.03.2011, I.O. Inspector Jarnail Singh handed over him specimen chance print of nine persons while the date of arrest of accused Sameer is 11.03.2011 and of accused Imran is 12.03.2011. PW­30 Inspector Jarnail Singh has stated in his cross­examination that he did not remember the name of the police officer by whom the said documents were sent to Finger Print Bureau, Kamla Nagar on 29.03.2011.

78.It was argued that the genuineness of document Ex.PW31/D (Specimen chance print of accused Sameer) is doubtful. It was argued that Ex.PW31/D is a fabricated document and SC No. 687/16 State Vs. Imran & Anr. 85/109 does not belong to the accused Sameer. It was argued that PW­30 Inspector Jarnail Singh has failed to get the signatures of the accused on Ex.PW31/D.

79.It was argued that no evidence has come on record which could show that the accused Sameer was lastly seen in the company of the deceased Smt. Anna Mammen. It was contended that in this case no evidence has been led by the prosecution to show that on the date of the incident Imran was present in the house of deceased.

80.It was argued that the prosecution has failed to comply with the provisions of Section 311A of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. It was argued that no satisfactory explanation has been given by PW­30 Inspector Jarnail Singh during his cross­ examination as to why he did not get the specimen finger print before the Magistrate.

SC No. 687/16 State Vs. Imran & Anr. 86/109

81.It was argued that the alleged recovery of gold articles and cash of Rs. 81,000/­ from accused Sameer is doubtful. It was argued that no local police was called at the time of recovery of articles. It was argued that the house of the accused from where the alleged recovery has been shown to be effected falls within the jurisdiction of Police Station Mayur Vihar. It was argued that no independent public witness had been joined at the time of alleged recovery. No explanation has been given for not joining the public witnesses at the time of alleged recovery.

82.It was argued that the testimony of PW­6 Laxmi cannot be relied upon. PW­6 Laxmi was the witness of 'last seen' and she stated in her deposition that she saw the accused Imran near the gate of the colony at the main road at about 1.30 p.m. on 08.03.2011 along with another fat boy. PW­6 Laxmi has not identified the accused Sameer during her deposition. Thus, the presence of PW­6 Laxmi as a witness of 'last seen' SC No. 687/16 State Vs. Imran & Anr. 87/109 is highly doubtful. The testimony of PW­6 Laxmi is self contradictory as she stated in her deposition that she saw accused Imran on the gate of colony on the main road but in her cross examination she stated she went to her house by using inside road of the colony.

83.It was argued that PW­17 HC Devi Dayal and PW­25 SI Renu Yadav have made material improvements about the recovery of Ex.P17 to Ex.P23 and denomination of currency notes. They have not given specific details of jewellery articles and denomination of currency notes. It was argued that material improvements made by the witnesses discredit the testimony of these witnesses.

84.It was argued that no recovery was effected from the accused or at his instance and the same has been planted by the Investigating Officer.

SC No. 687/16 State Vs. Imran & Anr. 88/109

85.It was argued that the material witness has not been examined by the prosecution to prove the circumstances of recovery of incriminating articles. It was argued that the prosecution has failed to link the circumstantial evidence to link the accused Sameer with the murder, robbery and recovery of incriminating articles.

86.The Ld. Counsel for the accused Sameer relied upon the judgments which are reported as Roshan Lal Vs. State 2013 (3) JCC 1555, Sonvir @ Somvir Vs. The State of Delhi 2018 (4) JCC 2217, Reena Hazarika Vs. State of Assam 2019 (1) JCC 1 (SC), K. Vs. The State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr. 2017 (2) JCC 895, Jasbir Singh Vs. State of Punjab 1999 (1) JCC (SC) 98, Debapriya Pal Vs. State of West Bengal 2017 (2) JCC 986, Drojan Singh Vs. State 2014 (1) JCC 628, Chhatar Pal Vs. State 2018 (1) JCC 383, Parmeshwari Vs. State 2010 (2) JCC 961, Manish Sharma @ Pappan Vs. The State of NCT of Delhi 2018 920 JCC 840, Prahlad Vs. State 2018 (1) SC No. 687/16 State Vs. Imran & Anr. 89/109 JCC 390, Kameshwar Singh Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. 2018 (2) JCC 859, Rohit Dhingra & Anr. Vs. State 2012 (2) JCC 820, Firoz Khan Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) 2014 (4) JCC 3038, Sudhir Kumar Vs. State of NCT of Delhi 2013 (3) JCC 2234, Jaffar @ Raju Vs. State 2013 (2) JCC 1175, Riaz Ali Vs. State (Govt. of NCT) 2012 (2) JCC 1092, Janardan Sada @ Matua Vs. The State (NCT of Delhi) 2012 (2) JCC 1435, Ramesh Vs. State of NCT of Delhi 2013 (1) JCC 50, Vijay Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan 2014 (2) JCC 888, Satnam Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan 2000 (1) C.C.Cases (SC) 70, Harbeer Singh Vs. Sheesh Pal & Ors. 2017 (1) JCC 289, Rajesh Vs. State 2018 (1) JCC 462, Trilochan Singh @ Happy Vs. State 2018 (1) JCC 486, Ahesan Abbas @ Monu Vs. State 2017 (4) JCC 2548, Kalicharan Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) 2015 (2) JCC 1304, State Vs. Salim @ Anwar & Ors. 2013 (4) JCC 2711, Savita @ Babbal Vs. State of Delhi 2011 (3) JCC 1687, Pramod Vs. State 2012 (4) JCC 2598, State of Haryana Vs. Ram Singh (2002) CCR 68 (SC), Des Raj @ SC No. 687/16 State Vs. Imran & Anr. 90/109 Dass Vs. State 2000 (1) C.C.Cases HC 46 and Joginder Singh Vs. State of Haryana 2014 (1) JCC 113.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

87.The main contention of the Ld. Defence counsels is that the case entirely rests upon the circumstantial evidence and there is no direct evidence against the accused persons. The case of the prosecution is that PW­6 Laxmi is the witness of 'last seen'. The case of the accused persons is that PW­6 Laxmi is not the witness of 'last seen'. Their case is that there is no evidence that deceased Smt. Anna Mammen was lastly seen in the company of the accused persons and thus, the theory of 'last seen' fails.

88.Now the question is that whether there is any witness of 'last seen' or not. PW­6 Laxmi has deposed that on 08.03.2011 at 1.30 p.m. while she was leaving the house of Smt. Anna Mammen, she noticed the accused Imran standing near the SC No. 687/16 State Vs. Imran & Anr. 91/109 gate of the colony, on the main road. Another fat boy was accompanying Imran at that time, but she could not see his face. The perusal of the statement of PW­6 Laxmi shows that she was familiar with accused Imran as Imran and his father Aslam had done the work of white washing and painting in the house of deceased Smt. Anna Mammen where she (PW­

6) used to work as a maid servant. The contention of the Ld. Counsel for the accused Imran is that accused Imran was not got identified by PW­6 Laxmi in the judicial TIP. This contention of the Ld. Defence Counsel has to be ignored as accused Imran was known to PW­6 Laxmi prior to the incident. The reliance in this regard can be placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court which is reported as Ashok Debbarma Vs. State of Tripura, (2014) 2 SCC (Cri) 417 wherein it was observed that since the accused persons were known to the witnesses and they were identified by face, the fact that no test identification parade was conducted at the time of investigation, is of no consequence.

SC No. 687/16 State Vs. Imran & Anr. 92/109

89.The accused persons were seen by PW­6 Laxmi near the house of the deceased. There is no improvement in her statement and to that extent her evidence is consistent and believable. In my considered opinion, the presence of PW­6 Laxmi is natural as she was working as maid in the house of deceased Smt. Anna Mammen. She could not be shaken from her stand during her cross examination.

90.The case of the accused persons is that PW­6 Laxmi is a tutored and planted witness. In my considered opinion, she is not a tutored or planted witness. Her presence in house of the deceased Smt. Anna Mammen is natural. Therefore, she cannot be termed as a tutored witness or planted witness. Further, the plea of the Ld. Defence counsel that testimony of PW­6 Laxmi is not reliable, is without any merit and this has to be ignored because no motive for implication of the accused persons by PW­6 Laxmi has been alleged or SC No. 687/16 State Vs. Imran & Anr. 93/109 proved.

91.PW­6 Laxmi has very specifically stated in her statement that she saw accused Imran along with other boy near the house of the deceased Smt. Anna Mammen when she was leaving the house of deceased. As discussed above the testimony of PW­6 Laxmi is reliable and trustworthy, so from her statement, it is proved that she had seen accused Imran on the day of incident at about 1.30 p.m. near the house of deceased Smt. Anna Mammen.

92.From the testimony of PW­6 Laxmi, it is revealed that she has not seen the face of other person who was seen with the accused Imran by her at about 1.30 p.m. on the date of incident. The case of the prosecution is that the said other boy / person who was seen by PW­6 Laxmi was accused Sameer. As per prosecution case, eight chance prints were lifted from the spot by the Crime Team. PW­31 Inspector SC No. 687/16 State Vs. Imran & Anr. 94/109 Ravinder Kumar has examined the said chance prints with the specimen prints. After comparison, he found that chance print marked Q1 was identical with the specimen left palm portion of accused Sameer. His report in this regard is Ex.PW31/E. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court which is reported as Bhagwan Mahalik & Ors. Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) Crl. A. No. 326 of 2011 dated 29.11.2012 wherein it was held that in the absence of infirmity in comparison, the matching of the finger prints of the accused with the finger prints collected from the scene of crime is a vital incriminating circumstance against the accused to prove his presence in the house at the time of occurrence. In a case reported as Munna Kumar Upadhyaya alias Munna Upadhyaya Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 2012 SC 2470 it was held that the finger print evidence is a reliable evidence. In an another case which is reported as B.A. Umesh Vs. Registrar General, High Court of Karnataka, AIR 2011 SC 1000, it was held that matching SC No. 687/16 State Vs. Imran & Anr. 95/109 of finger print on the almirah of the house shows the presence of accused in the house. Therefore, the presence of accused Sameer at the time of incident in the house of the deceased is proved. PW­6 Laxmi has stated in her evidence that she had seen the accused Imran along with another boy within the vicinity of the house of the deceased Smt. Anna Mammen. The accused Sameer has not given any explanation regarding the presence of his finger prints inside the house of deceased Smt. Anna Mammen. Thus, it is proved that the other boy who was present along with the accused Imran on the date of incident near the house of the deceased Smt. Anna Mammen was none other than accused Sameer. Thus, it can be safely concluded that accused persons were seen near the house of the deceased shortly before her death.

93.The plea of the accused persons is that there is no evidence that deceased was lastly seen in the company of accused SC No. 687/16 State Vs. Imran & Anr. 96/109 persons and thus, the theory of 'last seen' fails. Admittedly, the accused persons were not seen by anyone lastly in the company of deceased Smt. Anna Mammen. It has been discussed above that PW­6 Laxmi had seen the accused persons in the vicinity of the house of the deceased Smt. Anna Mammen shortly before her death. In my considered opinion, this is a circumstance which is against the accused persons. As discussed above, the presence of accused Sameer has been proved in the house of deceased Smt. Anna Mammen at the time of incident and it has also been held that PW­6 Laxmi has seen the accused Imran near the house of the deceased Smt. Anna Mammen shortly before the incident. The accused Imran has not given any plausible explanation regarding the reason of his presence near the house of the deceased Smt. Anna Mammen shortly before the incident. Thus, the plea of the Ld. Defence Counsels has to be ignored in the light of the judgment which is reported as Praveen Kumar Vs. State of Karnataka (2003) 12 SCC 199 SC No. 687/16 State Vs. Imran & Anr. 97/109 wherein it was held that the accused being seen within the vicinity of the scene of crime was considered as a vital circumstance against the accused. Similar view was taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in a judgment which is reported as Gilbert Pereira Vs. State of Karnataka, 2004 (4) Crimes 65 (SC). Reliance can also be placed upon the judgment reported as Krishnamoorthy & Anr. Vs. State by Inspector of Police & Ors. 2007(2) Crimes 372 (SC).

94.Therefore, in view of the above discussion, it is held that accused Imran and Sameer were present in the house of deceased Smt. Anna Mammen at the time of incident. It is also proved that the accused Imran and Sameer were also seen near the house of deceased shortly before the incident.

95.It was the contention of the Ld. Defence counsels that the prosecution has failed to prove any motive on the part of the accused persons to kill the deceased Smt. Anna Mammen.

SC No. 687/16 State Vs. Imran & Anr. 98/109 The case of the prosecution is that the accused persons had the motive to commit robbery in the house of deceased Smt. Anna Mammen. PW­8 Ms. Rebecca John, who is the daughter of the deceased, has specifically deposed in her statement that accused Imran and his father namely Mohd. Aslam did the work of white washing and painting in the house of her mother i.e. deceased Smt. Anna Mammen. From the testimony of PW­8 Ms. Rebecca John, it is proved that the accused Imran was very well known to the deceased as he had worked at the house of the deceased. The accused Imran was well aware that Smt. Anna Mammen used to live alone. Accused Imran was familiar with the deceased prior to her death and he knew that Smt. Anna Mammen used to remain alone between 1.30 p.m. to 3.30 p.m. in her house. The accused Imran had easy access to the house of the deceased since accused Imran was well known to the deceased. The accused persons had the opportunity to enter the house of deceased Smt. Anna SC No. 687/16 State Vs. Imran & Anr. 99/109 Mammen, as deceased was expecting accused Imran to come to her house for repairing work. The above mentioned circumstances show the motive of the accused persons was to commit robbery in the house of the deceased Smt. Anna Mammen. Therefore, this contention of the Ld. Defence counsels has no force and has to be ignored.

96.It is the case of the accused persons that the all the recoveries which were allegedly effected from them were planted on them.

97.PW­8 Ms. Rebecca John has stated in her statement that she noticed that the jewellery i.e. four gold bangles, two of which were plain and two had lines on them, wedding ring, a thin patterned gold ring and a gold chain with a rectangular gold pendant which were worn by her mother were missing. PW­8 Ms. Rebecca John also stated that a black 'Hidesign' purse, two jewellery pouches of red and blue colour, a silver SC No. 687/16 State Vs. Imran & Anr. 100/109 plated cash box, Rs. 2,80,000/­, two gold coins, two gold biscuits, 14 carat gold chain with six figures on it were found missing from the house of deceased after the incident.

98.Perusal of the testimony of PW­17 HC Devi Dayal and PW­ 25 SI Renu Yadav reveals that accused Sameer got recovered robbed articles i.e. Rs. 81,000/­ in cash, two gold Kara, one gold ring, one gold locket, one gold coin, one gold biscuit in a packing from the shelf of the kitchen of his house. A motorcycle bearing registration number DL­4SL­6531 which was purchased by accused Sameer out of the robbed cash was also got recovered. The testimonies of PW­17 HC Devi Dayal and PW­25 SI Renu Yadav prove the recovery of robbed articles from the house of the accused Sameer. From the testimonies of PW­16 HC Surender Pal and PW­24 SI Manu Kumar, it is proved that the accused Imran got recovered the robbed articles i.e. purse containing one gold biscuit, one gold coin, one golden bangle, one golden kara, SC No. 687/16 State Vs. Imran & Anr. 101/109 one golden ring (challa), one gold chain studded with small stones from the almirah kept in his house.

99.During investigation, Judicial TIP of the recovered articles were got conducted. During the TIP proceedings, PW­8 Ms. Rebecca John identified the all the articles which were recovered from the accused persons The perusal of the file shows that on 22.01.2013 the accused persons admitted the TIP proceedings under Section 294 Cr.P.C.

100.It was contention of the accused persons that no public person was joined during the recovery of the robbed articles from them. This contention of the accused persons has to be ignored in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court which is reported as Gurjinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab, 2011 (2) Crimes 29 (SC). Therefore, it is proved that robbed articles/ cash were recovered from the possession of the accused persons.

SC No. 687/16 State Vs. Imran & Anr. 102/109

101.Recovery of the gold articles worn by the deceased shortly before her murder and other articles which were found missing from her house after her murder, were recovered from the possession of the accused persons. No plausible explanation has been given by the accused persons as to how they came in possession of the said articles/cash. So presumption under Illustration (a) of S. 114 of Evidence Act will be attracted. Murder and robbery of articles/cash is found to be part of the same transaction. Thus, it can be concluded that the accused persons and none else committed murder of Smt. Anna Mammen and robbery in her house. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon a judgment titled as Ronny Vs. State of Maharastra AIR 1998 SC 1251 wherein it was held that recovery of articles belonging to deceased from possession of accused soon after the incident proves that murder and robbery was the part of the same transaction and it was further held that presumption under Illustration (a) of S. SC No. 687/16 State Vs. Imran & Anr. 103/109 114 of Indian Evidence Act will be attracted. Reliance in this regard can also be placed upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court which is reported as Gilbert Pereira Vs. State of Karnataka, 2004 (4) Crimes 65 (SC) (supra). Thus, it can be concluded that accused persons and none else committed murder of Smt. Anna Mammen and also committed robbery in her house.

102.As per postmortem report Ex.PW11/A, the cause of death of Smt. Anna Mammen was as a result of ligature strangulation which was possible with the wire of the mixer and it was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. As per postmortem report all the injuries were ante mortem in nature.

103.The defence taken by the accused persons is that they were lifted from their respective houses by the police officials. In this regard they have also examined witnesses in their SC No. 687/16 State Vs. Imran & Anr. 104/109 defence. However, the accused persons have not raised the plea of their false implication before any forum at proper stage. The parents / family members of the accused persons have not made any complaint against the police officials nor approached any forum for false implication of the accused persons. Therefore, the defence taken by the accused persons cannot be accepted.

104.From the discussion above, it is held that the prosecution has established beyond all reasonable doubt the following circumstances:

(a) Presence of accused persons within the vicinity of the house of the deceased shortly before the incident and the accused persons have failed to give any plausible explanation regarding their presence near the house of deceased Smt. Anna Mammen shortly before the incident.

(b) Presence of accused Sameeer in the house of the SC No. 687/16 State Vs. Imran & Anr. 105/109 deceased Smt. Anna Mammen at the time of incident.

(c) Motive of the accused persons to commit robbery in the house of deceased Smt. Anna Mammen.

(d) Recovery of robbed articles from the possession of the accused persons.

(e) Homicidal death of the deceased as per Postmortem Report (Ex.PW11/A).

(f) the accused persons have failed to prove their defence.

105.Hence, in my considered opinion, the chain of circumstantial evidence is complete against the accused persons.

106.Therefore, in view of the above discussion, it is proved that SC No. 687/16 State Vs. Imran & Anr. 106/109 on 08.03.2011 between 1.30 p.m. to 3.30 p.m. the accused persons Imran and Sameer committed robbery in the house of the deceased Smt. Anna Mammen and while committing robbery they also committed murder of Smt. Anna Mammen at her house.

107.The first charge against the accused persons is under Section 120B IPC. There is no direct evidence in respect of this charge against the accused persons. The charge of conspiracy can be proved by way of circumstances appearing against the accused persons. It has been held above that the accused persons committed robbery in the house of Smt. Anna Mammen and also committed her murder. The robbed articles/ cash were recovered from the possession of the accused persons. Therefore, the said circumstances prove that the accused persons had entered into a criminal conspiracy to commit robbery in the house of Smt. Anna Mammen and also to commit her murder. It has SC No. 687/16 State Vs. Imran & Anr. 107/109 also been held above that the accused persons have committed robbery and murder of Smt. Anna Mammen. This was so done by them in pursuance of criminal conspiracy hatched by them. One charge under Section 397 IPC has also been framed against the accused persons regarding strangulation of Smt. Anna Mammen with an electricity wire. In my view this charge cannot be sustained as the charge against the accused persons under Section 302 IPC has been proved. Separate charges under Section 411 IPC have been framed against both the accused persons. Recovery of the robbed articles have been proved from the possession of the accused persons. Accordingly, charges against accused persons under Section 411 IPC are also proved.

108.Hence, in view of the above discussion, both the accused persons namely Imran and Sameer are held guilty for the offences punishable under Section 120B IPC, Section 302 IPC read with Section 120B IPC and Section 392 IPC read SC No. 687/16 State Vs. Imran & Anr. 108/109 with Section 120B IPC. The accused persons are also held guilty for the offences punishable under Section 411 IPC. Accordingly, both the accused persons namely Imran and Sameer are convicted, thereunder.

109.The judgments relied upon by the Ld. Counsels for the accused persons are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case.

110.Copy of this judgment be supplied to the convicts free of cost, today itself. Accused persons shall be heard separately on the point of Sentence.

(This judgment has been typed directly by the P.A. on my dictation).

                                               SURINDER          Digitally signed by SURINDER

  Announced in the Open Court
                                                                 KUMAR SHARMA
                                               KUMAR             Date: 2019.05.08 15:54:47
                                               SHARMA            +0530

  on 08.05.2019                        (SURINDER KUMAR SHARMA)
                                       Additional Sessions Judge­05
                                    East District, Karkardooma Courts
                                                    Delhi




  SC No. 687/16            State Vs. Imran & Anr.                        109/109