Delhi District Court
State vs Pawan Khattar on 7 February, 2011
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIRENDER KUMAR GOYAL
ADDL SESSIONS JUDGE: FAST TRACK COURT
ROHINI:DELHI
SC No. 151/1
Unique Idntification No. 02404R0092282006
State
Versus
1. Pawan Khattar
Son of Harish Chand
R/o H.No. A7/201, Sector-17,
Rohini, Delhi.
2. Ashok Sehgal
Son of Ram Reka Mal
R/o 52, Bank Vihar,
Pitam Pura, Delhi.
3. Kishan Sehgal
Son of Ram Reka Mal
R/o 52, Bank Vihar,
Pitam Pura, Delhi.
4. Arvind Sehgal
Son of Desh Raj
R/o Flat No. 26,
Dhruv Apartment,
Sector-13, Rohini, Delhi.
5. Vijay Kumar Maini @ Kala
Son of Gopal Dass
R/o 1/5, Roop Nagar,
Delhi.
SC No.151/01 1/48
6. Dharmender
R/o C-70,
Shivaji Park,
Punjabi Bagh, Delhi.
FIR No. 407/03
PS - Punjabi Bagh
U/s. 341/343/344/304/34 of IPC
Date of institution of the case: 16/09/2003
Arguments heard on: 24/01/2011
Date of reservation of order: 24/01/2011
Date of Decision: 07/02/2011
JUDGMENT
This case was registered on the statement of one Jawahar Lal Manchanda U/s. 341/343/344/328/34 of IPC.
Initially DD No. 8 was recorded on 08/06/2003 on receipt of information at about 1.45 p.m. day that one Anil Manchanda was got admitted by his father Jawahar Lal Manchanda unconscious in Jaipur Golden Hospital. This DD was handed over to ASI Harpal Singh with Constable Jaswant for necessary action. Later on, another DD No. 70B was recorded on 09/06/2003 at about 12.45 a.m. night that Anil Manchanda had expired, but before that gastric leverage of Anil Manchanda was taken into possession. On 10/06/2003, viscera was also taken into possession. Necessary proceedings were conducted regarding the death of Anil Manchanda and his postmortem was got conducted. Statements of identification of dead body were recorded and thereafter dead body was handed over to relatives of the deceased.
During investigation, accused Pawan Khattar made disclosure statement and pointed out Flat No. 26B, Dhruv Apartment, Sector-13, Rohini, and also H.No. 52, Bank Vihar, Delhi. Accused Pawan Khattar was arrested on SC No.151/01 2/48 22/06/2003 and his personal search memo was also prepared. The exhibits were sent to FSL and FSL report was obtained. Postmortem report was obtained. Other accused persons were not traceable, hence they were got declared proclaimed offenders and charge-sheet U/s. 341/343/344/304/34 IPC was filed. Later on, remaining accused persons, who were in column No.2, had surrendered and on 18/11/2003, case was committed to the Court of Session. The same was received on 19/11/2003.
Charge against accused Ashok Sehgal, Kishan Sehgal and Arvind Sehgal was framed U/s. 365/34 of IPC and 343/34 of IPC on 10/03/2004. Charge against accused Pawan Khattar, Ashok Sehgal, Kishan Sehgal, Arvind Sehgal, Vijay Kumar Maini and Dharmender was framed U/s. 120B of IPC, 364/120B/34 of IPC, 344/120B/34 of IPC and 304/120B/34 of IPC on 10/03/2004 to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
To prove its case, prosecution has examined PW1 to PW18 in all. On completion of evidence of prosecution, statements of accused persons were recorded. All the accused have denied the case of the prosecution.
Accused Ashok Sehgal has pleaded that he is innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case under the impression that Pawan Khattar was associated with him in his business and the deceased was having some dispute with Pawan Khattar.
Accused Pawan Khattar came forward with the plea that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case on the ground that he had a dispute regarding Shivam Surf Powder with the deceased, so they falsely implicated him in the present case.
Accused Kishan Sehgal has pleaded that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case on the ground that Pawan Khattar had a dispute regarding Shivam Surf Powder with the deceased, so they falsely implicated him in the present case thing him to be an associate of Pawan Khattar.
SC No.151/01 3/48Accused Arvind has stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case on the ground that he was friend of Pawan Khattar and the deceased was having dispute regarding Shivam Surf Powder with him, so they falsely implicated him in the present case.
Accused Dharmender has pleaded that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case on the ground that Pawan Khattar had a dispute regarding Shivam Surf Powder with the deceased, so they falsely implicated him in the present case. They took him as an associate of Pawan Khattar.
Accused Vijay Kumar has also came forward with the same plea as of accused Dharmender.
I have heard learned Addl. PP for State and learned defence counsel for the accused persons and have gone through the material brought on record with evidence adduced.
Finding qua offence U/s. 120B of IPC and U/s. 364/120B/34 of IPC against accused Pawan Khattar, Ashok Sehgal, Kishan Sehgal, Arvind Sehgal, Vijay Kumar Maini and Dharmender:
To prove these offences, prosecution has examined PW4 Jawahar Lal Manchanda. He has stated that earlier he used to reside with his family at H.No. 15, New Chaukhandi near R.B. Jain Hospital, Khayala, Delhi. He vacated the house one month after this case and shifted to the present house i.e. F-2/16, Sector- 15, Rohini, Delhi. Anil Manchanda was his son. He used to reside with him at his house at New Chaukhandi.
PW4 has further deposed that his son Anil Manchanda was employee in the firm of accused Ashok Sehgal at C-70, Shivaji Park, Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi, under the name and style of Sehgal Petroleum Pvt. Ltd. He was working there for the last six months prior to his death. Ashok Sehgal was the owner of the said firm. Kishan Sehgal, who is brother of Ashok Sehgal, Dharmender, Pawan Khattar, Kala @ Vijay Maini and another borther of Ashok Sehgal were also SC No.151/01 4/48 working in the said firm.
PW4 has further deposed that generally his son Anil Manchanda used to go to his duty at 10 a.m. and used to return in the late hours in the night. On 26/05/2003, Anil Manchanda left the house at about 10 a.m. for his duty, but did not return till 9.30 p.m. On that day, he was present in his house. At that time, he received a phone call from his son Anil Manchanda, who informed that he would not come at the house in that night and at that time, he was perplexed as he felt from his phone. Meanwhile, the phone was disconnected from other side. He tried his best to contact on that phone, but could not contact him. Anil did not return. He waited for him and when he did not return till 12 noon, on the next day, he contacted Ashok Sehgal from his phone. It was attended by Ashok and when he made inquiries about non-returning of Anil at the house, Ashok had told that he had sent Anil to Jaipur in connection with the funds job. Ashok further informed that Anil would return within two days.
PW4 has further deposed that his son did not return even after two days. Again he contacted Ashok Sehgal on his phone and on making inquiries about his son, Ashok again informed him that his son Anil was sent to Ludhiana for business and he would return within two days from there. Again he waited for his son, but he did not return. He again contacted Ashok and inquired about his son. Again Ashok told that his son was sent to Chandigarh and he would return from Chandigarh, but his son did not return at his house.
PW4 has further deposed that he suspected some foul play and on 02/06/2003, he contacted Ashok on phone and made inquiries of whereabouts of his son. This time, Ashok Sehgal threatened him that in case he reported the matter to the police or somebody else, then he should be ready to face dire consequences of the same and threatened him. So, he did not inform the police or to any relation.
PW4 has further deposed that on the same day, he went to the office of SC No.151/01 5/48 Ashok at C-70, Shivaji Park, Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi. In the office, Ashok Sehgal, Kishan Sehgal and Dharmender met him. He made inquiries about his son, but they asked him to sit on a chair. When he insisted to know about his son, they told him that they do not know his whereabouts. It was about 3.00 or 3.30 p.m. He noticed a Santro car parked outside the office. The backside number of the same was 4062 so far as he remember.
Another witness is PW6 Ravi Manchanda. He has stated that he was working in Sehgal Petroleum Company Ltd., Shivaji Park, Punjabi Bagh, in the year 2003. His elder brother Anil Manchanda was also working in the same company, who used to work as salesman as he was working in Purchase department and used to deal in purchase of chemicals and oil. Anil Manchana, in the month of January and February had purchased 14 and 40 drums of RPO i.e. Rubber Processing Oil from Ashok Sehgal and stated that payment will be made after 2-3 months. In this company, Pawan Khattar used to prepare washing powder in the name of Shivam Washing Powder. Anil Manchanda saw the sample of washing powder and placed an order for preparing two tonnes of washing powder. Pawan Khattar delivered two tonnes of washing powder and completed his order, but Anil Manchanda could not sold that washing powder and also could not made the payment of 54 drums of RPO purchased from Ashok Sehgal.
PW6 Ravi Manchanda has further deposed that on 26/05/2003 at about 10.00 p.m., Anil Manchanda came to office at C-70, Shivaji Park, Punjabi Bagh.
Ashok Sehgal, Arvind Sehgal, Vijay Kumar Maini and Dharmender took Anil Manchanda forcibly in their Santro Car No. DL-4C-J-4062. He was present there at that time. Ashok Sehgal asked Pawan Khattar to come on the bike of Arvind Sehgal and to follow their Santro car. They asked him to leave and Ashok Sehgal and Arvind threatened him not to disclose this fact to anybody, otherwise he would be in trouble. Next day, when he came to the office and made inquiries about Anil Manchanda, they told him that he had gone to Jaipur. When he again SC No.151/01 6/48 inquired about him after two days, they told him that Anil had gone to Ludhiana. Again after two days, on inquiry, they told that Anil had gone to Chandigarh.
PW6 has further told that his father asked him about Anil Manchanda and came to office at C-70, Shivaji Park, on 02/06/2003 and at the instance of Ashok, Arvind, Kishan and Dharmender took his father forcibly in Car No. DL- 4CJ-4062.
Another witness from the family of deceased is PW8 Preeti Manchanda, wife of deceased Anil Manchanda. She has deposed that at the time of incident, she alongwith her family was residing at H.No. 115, New Chaukhandi, behind R.B. Jain Hospital, Khyala and they had vacated that house after about one month of the incident. Her husband Anil Manchanda was working in the firm of Ashok Sehgal at C-70, Shivaji Park, Delhi. The name of the firm was Sehgal Petroleum Pvt. Ltd. He was working there 5/6 months prior to the present incident. Her husband used to go to his duty in the firm at about 10 a.m. and used to come back in the late hours i.e. 10 p.m. or 11 p.m. PW8 has further deposed that on 26/05/2003, her husband left the house to go to his duty mentioned above at about 10 a.m., but he did not turn up the whole night. She does not know whether any of her family member tried to contact Anil Manchanda on that night, but she did not personally receive any phone call from Anil Manchanda.
PW8 has further deposed that on 04/06/2003, she, her mother in law Smt. Bimla, Nanad Ms. Himanshu and her children were present at the house and at about 8.30 a.m., Rita Sehgal, wife of Ashok Sehgal, who was known to her prior as she had attended the birthday party of her son one month prior to 04/06/2003, accompanied by accused Arvind Sehgal and Vijay Kumar Maini @ Kala, who were also known to her prior to the incident, entered in their house and Rita Sehgal asked both Arvind Sehgal and Vijay Kumar Maini to take search of the house and she herself sat on a chair. Both accused Arvind Sehgal and Vijay SC No.151/01 7/48 Kumar Maini started searching their household goods. During this period, Rita Sehgal talked with Ashok Sehgal from her mobile phone and said that "Yahan kuch nahi mila". Rita Sehgal also misbehaved with them. Rita Sehgal also told to her that "Anil ka bada photo banao or diwar par lagakar mala pahanado. She was also saying that "Hamare paise khake bach nahi sakta". Threafter, accused persons gave threat to them to kill her children, if they would disclose this fact to anyone. They also misbehaved with her mother in law and abused her. When they left the house at about 12 noon, they also damaged the wire of their telephone and disconnected the same.
Learned defence counsel has contended that deceased Anil Manchanda and PW 6 Ravi Manchanda were not employed in Sehgal Petroleum and the prosecution has not been able to prove that they were employee of Sehgal Petroleum. Learned defence counsel has further contended that according to PW6 Ravi Manchanda, he used to look after the purchase department and his deceased brother was a salesman. So, it is quiet strange that being the salesman only, deceased Anil Manchanda purchased 54 drums of Rubber Processing Oil from accused Ashok Sehgal.
Learned defence counsel has further contended that according to PW6 Ravi Manchanda, they used to receive salary on monthly basis, but nothing has been brought on record. Learned defence counsel has further contended that according to PW6 Ravi Manchanda, his brother had purchased two tonnes of detergent from accused Pawan Khattar, who was associate of accused Ashok Sehgal. Learned defence counsel has further contended that according to PW4 Jawahar Lal Manchanda, his both sons knew how to manufacture Surf detergent and one case has been registered against them at Dera Bassi, Punjab. Learned defence counsel has further contended that it is admitted case of the defence that accused Pawan Khattar was in the business of making Surf and there was dispute between accused Pawan Khattar and Anil Manchanda.
SC No.151/01 8/48Learned defence counsel has further contended that PW6 Ravi Manchanda has made improvement regarding the fact that accused Pawan Khattar used to prepare washing powder in Sehgal Petroleum under the name and style of "Shivam Surf", whereas he has been confronted with his statement U/s. 161 CrPC. Learned defence counsel has further contended that PW6 Ravi Manchanda has admitted that he has a son, whose name is Shivam, so, it is unbelievable that accused Pawan Khattar was manufacturing Surf detergent in the name of Shivam Surf, which is name of son of PW6 Ravi Manchanda.
Learned defence counsel has further contended that according to PW6 Ravi Manchanda, all the documents relating to their employment were in the office at C-70, Shivaji Park, which was locked, but IO has power to search and seize, but no such effort has been made and no such evidence has been collected.
Learned defence counsel has further contended that PW8 Preeti Manchanda has also been confronted with her statement recorded U/s. 161 of CrPC regarding the fact that her husband used to work in Sehgal Petroleum. Learned defence counsel has further contended that according to PW6 Ravi Manchanda, he has been a witness to the last seen, but cannot be believed as his statement has been recorded by the police on 14/06/2003 i.e. after about six days of the registration of the FIR, which creates doubt on the trustworthiness of PW6 Ravi Manchanda. Learned defence counsel has further contended that it is difficult to believe that this fact was not told by PW6 Ravi Manchanda to PW4 Jawahar Lal Manchanda and PW8 Preeti Manchanda that Anil Manchanda was forcibly taken away by the accused persons.
In my view. Sehgal Petroleum is the firm of the accused persons and the evidence as to whether deceased Anil Manchanda and PW6 Ravi Manchanda were their employees or not is in their possession and if they were not the employees, then they could have produced the record before the court in defence. Instead of producing the employment record of the firm, accused persons have SC No.151/01 9/48 withheld the same, which shows that deceased Anil Manchanda and PW6 Ravi Manchanda were employee of Sehgal Petroleum. PW4 Jawahar Lal Manchanda has denied that his children were manufacturing detergent in the name of Shivam Surf , so, contention of learned defence counsel is not forceful in any manner. PW4 Jawahar Lal Manchanda has further stated in the cross examination that they had closed the business of manufacturing detergent in the year 2000, whereas the incident is of 2003, so at no stretch of imagination, it can be said that at that time, complainant party was manufacturing Surf under the name and style "Shivam Surf". PW4 Jawahar Lal Manchanda has stated in the cross examination that he does not have any document to show that deceased Anil Manchanda was working with accused Ashok Sehgal, but has further stated that a motorcycle was purchased by accused Ashok Sehgal for the business of the company and deceased Anil Manchanda had taken delivery of the same on behalf of the company. This fact has not been rebutted by accused persons in any manner in the defence and PW4 Jawahar Lal Manchanda has denied the suggestion in this respect that delivery of motorcycle was not taken by Anil Manchanda or was not purchased by accused Ashok Sehgal. If it was not happened so, then PW4 could not have came to know about the same. PW4 has also denied the suggestion that his son was not employed with accused Ashok Sehgal.
PW6 Ravi Manchanda has deposed in the cross examination that he was working in Sehgal Petroleum Company prior to 6/7 months of the incident on monthly salary basis. He used to purchase material for the company, whereas Anil used to sell the manufactured material. PW6 Ravi Manchanda has stated in the cross examination that no attendance register was being maintained in the firm and salary was being paid in cash and no voucher was used to be issued. No I-card was issued, which shows that the record of the employment of PW6 Ravi Manchanda and deceased Anil Manchanda, if any, was with the accused persons, which they have withheld. Even PW6 Ravi Manchanda has also denied that he used to SC No.151/01 10/48 manufacture washing powder in the name of "Shivam Surf". PW6 has also denied that he used to manufacture this washing powder with accused Pawan Khattar. PW6 has also stated in the cross examination that during investigation, he visited the office C-70, but it was found locked, which fortify that accused persons were fleeing, after the incident.
According to cross examination of PW6 Ravi Manchanda, deceased Anil Manchanda had placed an order for purchasing two tonnes of washing powder from accused Pawan Khattar, but he could not sell the same. Only suggestion has been given that the said order was not belonging to Sehgal Petroleum Company, which shows that in fact, this purchase of two tonnes of washing powder has not been denied by accused Pawan Khattar in any manner. Again PW6 Ravi Manchanda has also denied the suggestion that he and Anil were not working in Sehgal Petroleum Company. From the suggestion given to PW6 Ravi Manchanda in the cross examination, it is amply clear that deal of two tonnes washing powder purchased by deceased Anil Manchanda from accused Pawan Khattar is not in dispute as it has been asked from the witness that main dispute was with accused Pawan Khattar in respect of washing powder and they wrongly entertained the impression that Shivam washing powder was manufactured under Sehgal Petroleum Company and in that impression, they implicated all the accused persons working in Sehgal Petroleum Company.
Learned defence counsel has contended that regarding the employment of deceased Anil Manchanda with Ashok Sehgal in Sehgal Petroleum at C-70, C- 70, Shivaji Park, Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi, and regarding his duty hours from 10 a.m. to 10 or 11 p.m., PW8 Preeti Manchanda has been confronted with her statement Ex. PW8/DA, where these facts are not recorded. So, she has made improvement regarding the employment of Anil Manchanda with Sehgal Petroleum Company.
PW6 Ravi Manchanda has not been cross examined by learned defence SC No.151/01 11/48 counsel on behalf of accused persons that he had purchased 14 and 40 drums of Rubber Processing Oil from accused Ashok Sehgal and stated that payment will be made after 2/3 months and further PW6 Ravi Manchanda has affirmed that two tonnes of washing powder was purchased from accused Pawan Khattar by his brother Anil Manchanda, but he could not sell the same and also could not make the payment of 54 drums of Rubber Processing Oil purchased from Ashok Sehgal shows that deceased Anil Manchanda and PW6 Ravi Manchanda were having business dealing with accused Pawan Khattar and accused Ashok Sehgal and it was a motive for the offence committed by the accused persons. The contention of learned defence counsel is also not tenable in any manner that this motive has not been deposed by PW4 Jawahar Lal Manchanda and PW8 Preeti Manchanda because it depends on the nature of the earning male member of the family as to whether he shares his business problems with his wife and parents or not. So, mere absence of deposition of PW4 and PW8 in this respect does not mean that deceased Anil Manchanda was not dealing with accused Pawan Khattar and Ashok Sehgal and similarly PW6 Ravi Manchanda was also not employed with Sehgal petroleum. Unrebutted deposition of PW8 Preeti Manchanda is sufficient to prove the motive because Rita Sehgal Searched their house with two other accused persons for recovery of the money.
Findings qua offence U/s. 120B of IPC:
To see whether prosecution has been able to prove offence U/s. 120B of IPC, we have to see depositions of all these witnesses PW4, PW6 and PW8 because there is no direct evidence that accused persons entered into a criminal conspiracy, but from the deposition of PW4 Jawahar Lal Manchanda, it is clear that whenever he made inquiries about his son Anil Manchanda from accused Ashok Sehgal, owner of Sehgal Petroleum, he gave reply that Anil had gone to Jaipur and again told that he had gone to Ludhiana and again told that he had gone to Chandigarh and would return. These evasive replies itself show that something SC No.151/01 12/48 was behind these replies, which resulted in death of Anil Manchanda. Not only this, according to the deposition of PW4 Jawahar Lal Manchanda, when again he made inquiries from Ashok Sehgal, Kishan Sehgal and Dharmender about his son by visiting their office at C-70, Shivaji Park, they took him in a house at Dhruv Apartment at Sector-13, Rohini, and confined him there and later on, he was released. Accused Pawan Khattar also assisted them in this act.
PW6 Ravi Manchanda is the witness of last seen and according to his deposition, on 26/05/2003, Ashok Sehgal, Arvind, Vijay Kumar Maini and Dharmender took Anil Manchanda forcibly in their Santro Car No. DL-4C-J-4062. Pawan Khattar followed the Santro Car at the instance of Ashok Sehgal on the bike of Arvind Sehgal. From the deposition of PW6, it is clear that this act of taking away Anil Manchanda in Santrol Car forcibly was not a spur of moment, but they had already entered into a criminal conspiracy to confine Anil Manchanda secretively at a place as Anil Manchanda was taken away at 10 p.m. and when PW4 Jawahar Lal Manchanda made inquiries from Ashok Sehgal regarding whereabouts of his son Anil Manchanda, then evasive replies were given to him and ultimately, he was threatened and was confined at Dhruv Apartment for sometime.
It is also evident from the deposition of PW8 Preeti Manchanda as Anil Manchanda was taken away on 26/05/2003, whereas on 04/06/2003, Rita Sehgal, wife of Ashok Sehgal took search of their house with the help of accused Arvind Sehgal and Vijay Kumar Maini. Not only this, during the period of search, she talked with accused Ashok Sehgal on her mobile phone and told that nothing was recovered from there. She also told that no one could survive after misappropriating their money, which shows that Anil Manchanda was wrongfully confined secretively by the accused persons somewhere for recovery of their money, which they were demanding against the Shivam Surf detergent as was sold by accused Pawan Khattar and 54 drums of rubber processing oil, in all, of Ashok SC No.151/01 13/48 Sehgal. So, the testimonies of these witnesses to this extent are corroborating each other and inspire confidence. PW8 Preeti Manchanda has been confronted only with her statement Ex. PW8/DA, wherein she did not tell to the IO that Rita Sehgal had attended the birthday party of her son one month prior to 04/06/2003. PW8 has also been confronted with the fact, which is not appearing in her statement Ex. PW8/DA that on 04/06/2003, while leaving, Rita Sehgal and her companions gave threat to them to kill her children, if they will disclose this fact to anyone. Except this, PW8 has not been cross examined regarding the visit of Rita Sehgal alongwith accused Arvind Sehgal and Vijay Kumar Maini to their house and regarding the search of house taken by them. PW8 has also not been cross examined on the aspect that Rita Sehgal told accused Ashok Sehgal on her mobile phone that nothing was recovered from there. PW8 has also not been cross examined on the fact that Rita Sehgal told that no one could survive after misappropriating their money. So, the prosecution has been able to prove beyond reasonable doubts that all the accused persons entered into a criminal conspiracy to commit an illegal act by illegal means. Accordingly, all the accused persons except accused Kishan Sehgal are held guilty for the offence U/s. 120B of IPC and convicted for the same.
Findings qua offences U/s. 364/120B/34 of IPC PW4 Jawahar Lal Manchanda has deposed that on 26/05/2003, his son Anil had left the house at about 10 a.m. as usual to his duty, but he did not return till 9.30 p.m. and he received a telephone call from his son, who informed that he would not come to the house on that night. At that time, he was perplexed as he felt from his phone. Meanwhile, phone was disconnected from the other side. PW4 Jawahar Lal Manchanda has further deposed that he tried his best to contact his son on the phone, but he could not contact him and his son did not return. Then again, as he had no other alternative, so he contacted Ashok Sehgal from his SC No.151/01 14/48 phone, which was attended by him and on inquiry, he told that he had sent Anil to Jaipur in connection with the job and will return within two days. When again Anil Manchanda did not return within two days, again PW4 contacted Ashok Sehgal on his phone and the said call was attended by Ashok Sehgal. On making inquiry, he told that Anil was sent to Ludhiana for business and will return within two days. Again he waited for his son, but he did not return. Then he again contacted Ashok Sehgal, who on inquiry, told that Anil was again sent to Chandigarh and he would return. PW4 has further deposed that when his son did not return, he suspected some foul play and on 02/06/2003 contacted Ashok Sehgal on phone and made inquiries about his son. Then, Ashok Sehgal threatened him that in case he will report the matter to the police or to somebody, then he should be ready to face dire consequences of the same and also threatened him that he should not inform the police or to any relation.
Learned defence counsel has contended that even after such incident of non-return of Anil Manchanda from 26/05/2003 to 02/06/2003, PW4 Jawahar Lal Manchanda did not inform even his son Ravi Manchanda. On the other hand, learned Addl. PP has contended that witness has explained in the cross examination that he did not do so as he was threatened by the accused persons. Learned Addl. PP has further contended that PW4 has explained that even he did not disclose this fact to his wife or to the wife of Anil Manchanda or to the police because he was threatened. Learned Addl. PP has further contended that PW4 has denied that he had not reported these facts to the police as no such incident had ever happened.
PW4 Jawahar Lal Manchanda has not been cross examined regarding the above deposition that he made inquiries from accused Ashok Sehgal for non- return of his son Anil and at various times, it was told by accused Ashok Sehgal that Anil had gone to Jaipur, Ludhiana and Chandigarh. Only suggestion has been given that son of PW4 was at his residence from earlier and they had taken SC No.151/01 15/48 him to hospital. So the entire testimony of PW4 Jawahar Lal Manchanda is regarding the facts that his son had left the house on 26/05/2003 at about 10 a.m. as usual to his duty, but did not return and he made inquiries from accused Ashok Sehgal as to where Anil was and it was told again and again that he was sent to Jaipur, Ludhiana and Chandigarh.
If Anil Manchanda was not employee in Sehgal Petroleum Company, then why accused Ashok Sehgal was replying that Anil was sent to Jaipur, Ludhiana and Chandigarh in concern with the job. Accused Ashok Sehgal could have replied that there was no such employee in the name of Anil Manchanda with them. The testimony of PW4 Jawahar Lal Manchanda in this respect is unrebutted and unshaken. Even suggestion has not been given that no such inquiries were made by PW4 Jawahar Lal Manchanda from accused Ashok Sehgal about non- return of Anil Manchanda. PW4 Jawahar Lal Manchanda has time and again repeatedly stated that he did not report to the police or told about the non-return of Anil Manchanda to his wife or to the wife of Anil Manchanda or to his son Ravi Manchanda as he was threatened by the accused persons.
PW6 Ravi Manchanda has deposed that on 26/05/2003 at about 10 p.m., Anil Manchanda came to the office at C-70, Shivaji Park, Punjabi Bagh. Accused Ashok Sehgal, Arvind Sehgal, Vijay Kumar Maini and Dharmender took Anil Manchanda forcibly in their Santro Car No. DL-4CJ-4062. He was present there at that time. Accused Ashok Sehgal asked accused Pawan Khattar to follow them on the bike of accused Arvind Sehgal. They asked him to leave and accused Ashok Sehgal and Arvind Sehgal threatened him not to disclose this fact to anybody, otherwise he would be in trouble. Next day, when he came to office and made inquiries about Anil Manchanda, then they told him that he had gone to Jaipur. When he again made inquiries after about two days, then, it was told that Anil had gone to Ludhiana. Again after two days on making inquiry, he was told that Anil had gone to Chandigarh.SC No.151/01 16/48
PW6 Ravi Manchanda has further deposed that his father asked him about Anil Manchanda and came to office at C-70, Shivaji Park, on 02/06/2003 and at the instance of accused Ashok Sehgal, accused Arvind, Kishan and Dharmender took his father in Car No. DL-4CJ-4062.
Learned defence counsel has contended that PW6 Ravi Manchanda has stated in the cross examination that he informed IO Sheesh Ram Gautam that documents regarding sale and purchase of material and their employment were lying in the office, but even then, IO has not made any effort to search and seize the record of Shivam Petroleum Company. Learned defence counsel has further contended that it has also been admitted by PW6 Ravi Manchanda that no attendance register was maintained and the salary was given in cash and no voucher was used to be issued and PW6 has not been able to show any document that he was working in the said company, which shows that neither Anil Manchanda nor Ravi Manchanda were employed in Shivam Petroleum Company.
PW6 Ravi Manchanda has not been cross examined in any manner on the fact that on 26/05/2003 at about 10 p.m. , Anil Manchanda came to the office at C-70, Shivaji Park, Punjabi Bagh, Delhi, and he was kidnapped by accused Ashok Sehgal, Arvind Sehgal, Vijay Kumar Maini and Dharmender in Santro Car No. DL-4CJ-4062 and was followed by accused Pawan Khattar. So, the testimony of PW6 Ravi Manchanda in this respect is unrebutted and unshaken. Only suggestion has been given that Anil was in the house and was never kidnapped or detained by the accused persons. It is also clear from the suggestion given to PW6 Ravi Manchanda that main dispute was with accused Pawan Khattar in respect of washing powder and they wrongly entertained the impression that Shivam washing powder was manufactured under Sehgal Petroleum Company and in that impression, they implicated all the accused persons working in Sehgal Petroleum Company. PW6 Ravi Manchanda has denied this suggestion, but this suggestion itself shows that there was a dispute between the parties due to which SC No.151/01 17/48 Anil Manchanda was kidnapped.
PW8 Preeti Manchanda has also deposed that on 26/05/2003, her husband left the house to go to his duty at about 10 a.m., but he did not return for whole of the night and thereafter she has deposed that on 04/06/2003, while she was present in the house with her mother in law Smt. Bimla, her nanad Ms. Himanshu and her children, at about 8.30 a.m., Rita Sehgal, wife of accused Ashok Sehgal came there with accused Arvind Sehgal and Vijay Kumar Maini @ Kala and they took search of the house. Rita Sehgal talked with accused Ashok Sehgal on her mobile phone and told that nothing was recovered from there. Rita Sehgal also told PW8 Preeti Manchanda that "Anil ka bada photo banao or diwar par lagakar mala pahanado" and further told that "Hamare paise khake bach nahi sakta".
This part of the testimony of PW8 Preeti Manchanda is also unrebutted and unshaken as deposed above, which shows that they were searching for their money and wanted to recover the same from Anil Manchanda. It is admitted fact that till that time, Anil Manchanda had not returned back to his house. It is also admitted fact that Anil Manchanda was residing with PW4 Jawahar Lal Manchanda at a different address and PW6 Ravi Manchanda was residing at a different address.
PW6 Ravi Manchanda has also deposed that when his father came to him to make inquiries about Anil Manchanda on 02/06/2003, at the instance of accused Ashok Sehgal, accused Arvind sehgal, Kishan and Dharmender took PW4 Jawahar Lal Manchanda forcibly in Car No. DL-4CJ-4062, which shows that both PW4 Jawahar Lal Manchanda and PW6 Ravi Manchanda were under constant threat not to report the matter to the police. Anil Manchanda was already kidnapped on 26/05/2003 and thereafter PW4 Jawahar Lal Manchanda was also kidnapped on 02/06/2003. So, what was left for PW6 Ravi Manchanda is to remain silent and not to report the matter to the police.SC No.151/01 18/48
The testimony of PW6 Ravi Manchanda regarding the last seen fact that in his presence, accused Ashok Sehgal, Arvind Sehgal, Vijay Kumar Maini and Dharmender took Anil forcibly in Santro Car No. DL-4CJ-4062 and accused Pawan Khattar was asked to follow the Santro Car, is unrebutted and unshaken. The conduct of accused Ashok Sehgal, which has been corroborated by PW4 Jawahar Lal Manchanda and PW6 Ravi Manchanda both, is also evident that they were concealing and confining Anil Manchanda somewhere and had kidnapped him and because of that, he replied to PW4 and PW6, whenever they made inquiries, that Anil had gone to Jaipur or to Ludhiana or to Chandigarh, otherwise, it could have been replied that whereabouts of Anil Manchanda were not within their knowledge and as accused Ashok Sehgal had replied in such a manner that Anil Manchanda was sent to Jaipur, Ludhiana and Chandigarh, so, except waiting, what PW4 and PW6 could have done and even otherwise, as Anil Manchanda was a salesman, so it was the nature of his job to visit outstation and believing Ashok Sehgal, they waited for such a long time and did not report to the police.
From the deposition of PW6 Ravi Manchanda, in whose presence Anil Manchanda was taken away by the accused persons, it is also clear that at that time, PW6 Ravi Manchanda was not having any apprehension of such dire consequences, which resulted into death of Anil Manchanda. So, he kept on making inquiries from accused Ashok Sehgal as was done by PW4 Jawahar Lal Manchanda. So, from the depositions of PW4 Jawahar Lal Manchanda, PW6 Ravi Manchanda and PW8 Preeti Manchanda, who have corroborated each other and inspire confidence. Accordingly, accused all i.e. Ashok Sehgal, Arvind Sehgal, Vijay Kumar Maini, Kishan Sehgal, Dharmender and Pawan Khattar are acquitted for offence u/s 364/120B of IPC as they had thrown back Anil Manchanda in front of his house on 08/06/2003, but prosecution has been able to prove offence u/s 365/120B of IPC beyond reasonable doubts against SC No.151/01 19/48 accused Arvind Sehgal, Ashok Sehgal, Vijay Kumar Maini, Dharmender and Pawan Khattar, for which they are held guilty and convicted. Findings qua offences U/s. 365/34 and 343/34 of IPC in respect of PW4 Jawahar Lal Manchanda against accused accused Ashok Sehgal, Kishan Sehgal and Arvind Sehgal:
In this respect, PW4 Jawahar Lal Manchanda has deposed that on 02/06/2003, when he went to the office of accused Ashok Sehgal at C-70, Shivaji Park, he met there with accused Ashok Sehgal, Kishan Sehgal and Dharmender and he made inquiries about his son. On this, they asked him to sit on a chair. Again he insisted to know about whereabout of his son, but the accused persons told him that they do not know whereabouts of Anil Manchanda. It was 3 or 3.30 p.m. He noticed a Santro Car parked outside the office. The backside number of the same was 4062 so far he remembers. The accused persons made him to sit in the same car. At that time, he though that they were taking him to see his son. Accused Kishan Sehgal and Arvind Sehgal also sat in the car. Accused Arvind was driving the car. They took him to a house in Dhruv Apartment in Sector-13, Rohini. They parked the car on the road and took him to fist floor. Later on, he came to know the number of the house as 26. They confined him in a room.
PW4 Jawahar Lal Manchanda has further deposed that in that house, accused Arvind Sehgal, his wife and one child alongwith his parents were residing. They confined him there for four days. They supplied him food etc. During his confinement, he became mentally disturbed as whereabouts of his son were not known. In that period also, his son was not traceable.
PW4 Jawahar Lal Manchanda has further deposed that on 06/01/2003, accused Ashok came in that house and asked his brother Arvind to release him. He came down and saw the same car, in which, he was brought there. Accused Pawan Khattar was also in the said car. Accused Ashok Sehgal and Arvind Sehgal SC No.151/01 20/48 also reached there. Accused Ashok Sehgal and Pawan Khattar sat on the rear seat of the car, while accused Arvind Sehgal took the driver seat and he was made to sit on the left side of the driver seat. Accused Arvind Sehgal started the car. In the way, he questioned about his son Anil. They threatened him not to ask any question about him, otherwise it would not be good for him. He was also terrified because of the accused persons. Accused persons left him at his house at Chaukhandi. Thereafter, accused Pawan Khattar, Ashok Sehgal and Arvind Sehgal went back in the car. He did not make any report to the police on that day nor he disclosed this fact to any of his relation as he was worried for the welfare of his son Anil.
PW6 Ravi Manchanda has also deposed that his father came to office at C-70, Shivaji Park, on 02/06/2003, to make inquiries about Anil and accused persons forcibly took his father in Car No. DL-4CJ-4062. Again PW6 has not been cross examined on this aspect. PW4 Jawahar Lal Manchanda has also not been cross examined on behalf of the accused persons that on 02/06/2003, he was forcibly taken to Rohini in Car No. DL-4CJ-4062 by accused Ashok Sehgal, Arvind Sehgal and Kishan Sehgal at Dhruv Apartment, Sector-13. PW4 has also not been cross examined on the fact that on 06/06/2003, accused Ashok Sehgal came in the house and asked his brother Arvind Sehgal to release him. So, he was brought at his house at Chaukhandi in the same car No. DL-4CJ-4062 and was dropped there by accused Ashok Sehgal, Arvind Sehgal and Pawan Khattar. The testimony of PW4 Jawahar Lal Manchanda having corroboration with the deposition of PW6 Ravi Manchanda inspire confidence.
PW4 Jawahar Lal Manchanda has further deposed that on 13/09/2003, he joined investigation of this case with the police and took the police to Dhruv Apartment, Sector-13, Rohini and had shown Flat No. 26, where he was kept from 02/06/2003 to 06/06/2003. Even PW4 has not been cross examined on this aspect that during investigation, he pointed out Flat No.26 in Dhruv Apartment, Sector-SC No.151/01 21/48
13, Rohini, Delhi.
PW13 SI Sheesh Ram has also deposed that accused Pawan Khattar was arrested near a park in Sector-13, Rohini, on 22/06/2003, vide memo Ex. PW13/C. On interrogation, accused Pawan Khattar made disclosure statement Ex. PW13/D and pointed out Flat No. 26, Dhruv Apartment, Sector-13, Rohini. It has also come in the cross examination of this witness that Flat No. 26, Dhruv Apartment, Sector-13, Rohini was found locked.
Learned defence counsel has contended that PW4 Jawahar Lal Manchanda cannot be believed regarding his confinement from 02/06/2003 to 06/06/2003 as the same is not appearing in the testimony of PW6 Ravi Manchanda or PW8 Preeti Manchanda and it is unbelievable that if PW4 Jawahar Lal Manchanda was absent from the house for about four days, none of the family member made a complaint. Learned defence counsel has further contended that PW4 Jawahar Lal Manchanda has admitted in the cross examination that he had talked with his son Ravi on phone during the period from 26/05/2003 to 08/06/2003. So, it is unbelievable that PW6 Ravi Manchanda was not knowing about the confinement of PW4 Jawahar Lal Manchanda from 02/06/2003 to 06/06/2003.
PW4 has not stated in the cross examination that he had a talk with his son Ravi on phone particularly in between 02/06/2003 to 06/06/2003. So, this fact is not helpful to the accused persons in any manner. PW6 Ravi Manchanda has deposed that at the instance of accused Ashok Sehgal, his father was taken away forcibly by accused Arvind Sehgal, Kishan and Dharmender in Santro Car No. DL-4CJ-4062 on 02/06/2003. So, this fact itself was within the knowledge of PW6 Ravi Manchanda, but as is evident from the depositions of PW4 Jawahar Lal Manchanda, PW6 Ravi Manchanda and PW8 Preeti Manchanda, it is amply clear that whole of the family was under threat, so none reported the matter to the police.SC No.151/01 22/48
It is also evident from the deposition of PW8 Preeti Manchanda that while Anil and PW4 Jawahar Lal Manchanda were in the confinement of accused persons, on 04/06/2003, Rita Sehgal, wife of accused Ashok Sehgal, took search of the house of PW4 Jawahar Lal Manchana with accused Arvind Sehgal and Vijay Kumar Maini @ Kala. From the conduct of Rita Sehgal, it is also evident that they were searching for the money, which was in dispute and she told to Ashok Sehgal that nothing was recovered from there. She also told to PW8 that no one could survive after misappropriating their money and they also threatened them to kill their children, if they will disclose this fact to anyone. So, in such circumstances, it is hardly expected from a family to report the matter to the police, whose two family members were in confinement of the accused persons and their house was being searched by the accused persons forcibly. They were also abused by the accused persons on 04/06/2003. So, the contention of learned defence counsel that the matter was not reported to the police is explained by the witnesses sufficiently and they cannot be disbelieved in any manner.
In view of above discussion, prosecution has been able to prove beyond reasonable doubts offence U/s. 365/34 of IPC and U/s. 343/34 of IPC, for which, accused Arvind Sehgal, Kishan Sehgal and Ashok Sehgal are held guilty and convicted for the same.
Findings qua offfences U/s. 344/304/120B/34 of IPC against accused Arvind Sehgal, Ashok Sehgal, Kishan Sehgal, Vijay Kumar, Dharmender and Pawan Khattar As it has already been discussed that Anil Manchanda was forcibly taken away by the accused persons on 26/05/2003 and he did not return thereafter, regarding the return of Anil Manchanda, PW4 Jawahar Lal Manchanda has deposed that on 08/06/2003 at about 10-12 p.m., again Santro Car No. 4062 arrived in front of their house. From the said vehicle, accused Vijay Kumar Maini SC No.151/01 23/48 @ Kala, Dharmender and Arvind Sehgal came down and brought down his son Anil Manchanda, who was unconscious at that time. His son was abandoned at the entrance gate of their house. At that time, he was standing in the lawn of his house. On seeing this, his wife and other family members raised alarm and started weeping. Soon these accused persons managed to drove away their vehicle and fled away from there. On seeing, he sent message to the police in the near PP and soon local police arrived there. Then, in a car of their neighbour,namely, Mr. Mittal, they removed Anil to Jaipur Golden Hospital.
PW4 has further deposed that in fact police met them on the way, when they started the car from the house. His son was admitted in the casualty. Meanwhile, local police also arrived there. In the hospital, he made statement to the police, which is Ex.PW4/A. Again after about four hours, some police officials belonging to PS Punjabi Bagh arrived there ans recorded his statement to this effect. Ultimately, on 9/10-06-2003, his son Anil expired in the hospital and during inquest proceedings, he identified the dead body of his son and made statement Ex. PW4/B. PW4 has further deposed that on the same day, after postmortem, dead body was handed over to them. In the cross examination, merely a suggestion has been given to the witness that on 08/06/2003 , accused persons had not left his son at his residence. PW4 has not been cross examined on this aspect that on 08/06/2003, Anil Manchanda was dropped at his house by accused Vijay Kumar Maini @ Kala, Dharmender and Arvind Sehgal in Car No. 4062.
PW6 Ravi Manchanda has stated that on 08/06/2003, accused Ashok Sehgal rang him on his mobile No. 9891175112 and asked him to go to the house of his brother Anil at Chaukhandi and told that they had left him there. Accused Ashok Sehgal further asked him to verify whether any complaint was lodged about Anil Manchanda and if the same has already been lodged, then the consequences will be bad. When he reached at Chaukhandi, his father had already taken Anil to SC No.151/01 24/48 Jaipur Golden Hospital. When he reached at the hospital, he again received a call from accused Ashok Sehgal on his mobile that he will be in trouble, if any complaint is made in this respect. PW6 has further deposed that on 10/06/2003, Anil expired in the hospital after remaining unconscious for two days.
Again, PW6 Ravi Manchanda has not been cross examined on this aspect that on 08/06/2003, accused Ashok Sehgal informed him on his mobile phone that they had left Anil Manchanda at his house at Chaukhandi. PW6 has also not been cross examined on the aspect that accused Ashok Sehgal asked him to verify whether any complaint was made about Anil Manchanda or not. So, testimony of PW6 in this respect is unrebutted and unshaken.
PW8 Preeti Manchanda has also deposed that on 08/06/2003 at about 12 noon, she was present at her house alongwith her father in law Jawahar Lal Manchanda, mother in law, sister in law and her children. One car bearing registration No. DL-4CJ-4062, perhaps a Santro car, came to their house. Accused Arvind Sehgal, Vijay Kumar Maini @ Kala and Dharmender came down from the said car in front of their house and immediately dragged her husband Anil from the seat of the car and thrown him in front of their house and fled away. Her husband was unconscious at that time. She did not notice any external injury on the body of her husband. However, face of her husband was appearing to be blue.
Thereafter, they called their neighbour Mr. Mittal, who came there and took Anil to Jaipur Golden Hospital. She alognwith her father in law and mother in law accompanied Anil to hospital in the said car. On the way, her husband Anil started murmuring and she asked him "aapke saath ye kisne kiya hai", but he could not reply properly and wanted to say something and uttered "a-a-a". She again asked him 'yeh Ashok Sehgal ne kiya hai" and whether he wanted action against him. He nodded his head in affirmative. Thereafter, he became unconscious. She suspected that her husband was killed by the accused persons.
PW8 has further deposed that her husband died in the night of SC No.151/01 25/48 09/06/2003 in Jaipur Golden Hospital and after the postmortem, dead body of her husband was handed over to them.
Learned defence counsel has contended that PW8 has been confronted with her statement Ex. P/W8/DA in respect of the fact that she had given the name of accused Arvind, Vijay Kumar Maini @ Kala and Dharmender in her statement, who had thrown her husband in front of their house and they had run away in the Santro Car. On the other hand, learned Addl. PP has contended that assuming that PW8 had made improvement regarding the names of the accused persons, who had thrown her husband on 08/06/2003 at about 12 noon in front of their house , even then, the testimony of PW8 is unrebutted and unshaken that Anil Manchanda was thrown in front of his house on 08/06/2003 at about 12 noon from Santro Car No. DL-4CJ-4062, which is corroborated by PW4 Jawahar Lal Manchanda also.
Learned defence counsel has further contended that PW11 Sh. Raja Ram has not supported the case of the prosecution in this respect, who has stated that no incident took place in his presence. However, he has admitted that he knew Anil Manchanda, who was residing on rent in Kothi No. 115 in front of his plot. Learned defence counsel has contended that PW11 has denied that on 08/06/2003, a car came and stopped at H.No. 115 and dropped a young man Anil Manchanda near the gate of the house. PW11 has also denied that he saw Jawahar Lal Manchanda trying to apprehend them and Anil Manchanda was semi unconscious. He has also denied that Anil Manchanda was removed to the hospital in the car of Mr. Mittal. He has also denied that the persons, who had thrown Anil, were known to Jawahar Lal Manchanda, so PW11 is not helpful to the prosecution in any manner.
On the other hand, learned Addl. PP has contended that although PW11 has not supported the case of the prosecution, but PW12 Mukhtiar has supported the case of the prosecution to some extent, although he has also been declared hostile. PW12 is a fruit vendor. On 15/06/2003, he was residing at 36, New SC No.151/01 26/48 Chaukhandi, Delhi and was doing chowkidari work. In the evening, people gathered there told that a boy was thrown by someone, but he had not seen the incident. So, atleast this independent evidence, for which, PW12 can be relied upon is that Anil Manchanda was thrown in front of his house by some persons on that day from a car.
Accused Arvind Sehgal, Dharmender and Vijay Kumar Maini @ Kala were known to PW4 Jawahar Lal Manchanda as he has deposed in his examination in chief that Ashok Sehgal was owner of Sehgal Petroleum Company. Accused Kishan Sehgal was his brother. Accused Dharmender, Pawan Khattar and Vijay Kumar Maini and one another brother of Ashok Sehgal were also working in the said firm. So, the identity of these three accused persons is not disputed in any manner as the same persons, who had thrown Anil Manchanda in front of his house on 08/06/2003 at 12 noon.
PW8 Preeti Manchanda, even if has made improvements regarding the names of these three accused persons,who had thrown her husband. She cannot be disbelieved about the fact that Anil Manchanda was thrown by some persons in front of house on 08/06/2003 at about 12 noon, as deposed by PW4 Jawahar Lal Manchanda, because she, her father in law and mother in law accompanied Anil Manchanda to Jaipur Golden Hospital thereafter.
The suggestion given by learned defence counsel on behalf of accused persons to the witnesses i.e. PW4 Jawahar Lal Manchanda, PW6 Ravi Manchanda and PW8 Preeti Manchanda that Anil Manchanda was not kidnapped and was at his house and had fallen ill is also not believable in view of the deposition of PW12 Mukhtiar, who has deposed that Anil was thrown by someone. It is highly improbable that such a false incident had been created by the family of Anil Manchanda themselves to implicate the accused persons in this case. If Anil Manchanda was ill and was in his house, then he would have been taken by his family members much prior to 08/06/2003.
SC No.151/01 27/48According to PW17 Dr. V.K. Jha, who has conducted postmortem on the body of Anil Manchanda alongwith Dr. R.K. Punia, observed some injuries i.e. four linear abrasions present over front of left thigh, size varies from 2.5 cm to 5.6 c.m. and was reddish brown in colour, one linear abrasion present over front of left thigh size 6.6 c.m. in length reddish brown in colour, In my opinion, if a person fells ill, he cannot sustain such injuries by illness while present in his house. It is not the finding of doctor that linear abrasion could have been sustained simply falling ill over thighs. This must have occurred during the confinement of Anil Manchanda at the hands of accused persons.
So, from the depositions of PW4, PW6 and PW8 alongwith of PW12, prosecution has been able to prove the fact beyond reasonable doubt that on 08/06/2003, Anil Manchanda was thrown in front of his house at 12 p.m. by accused Arvind Sehgal, Vijay Kumar Maini @ Kala and Dharmender from Santro Car no. DL-4CJ-4062 and thereafter they fled away from there. In view of above discussion, prosecution has also been able to prove beyond reasonable doubts that Anil Manchanda was kept in confinement by accused persons from 26/05/2003 to 08/06/2003. So, prosecution has been able to prove offences U/s. 344 read with section 120B of IPC against accused Ashok Sehgal, Arvind Sehgal, Vijay Kumar Maini, Dharmender and Pawan Khattar, for which they are held guilty and convicted for the same. Accused Kishan Sehgal is acquitted for the offence u/s 344 read with section 120B of IPC.
SC No.151/01 28/48PW8 has also deposed that while she, her father in law and mother in law accompanied Anil Manchanda to the hospital in the car of Mr. Mittal, on the way, Anil started murmuring and she asked him "aapke saath ye kisne kiya hai". He could not reply properly, but wanted to say something and uttered "a-a-a". She again asked him 'yeh Ashok Sehgal ne kiya hai" and whether he wanted action against him. He nodded his head in affirmative. Thereafter, he became unconscious.
Learned defence counsel has contended that this cannot be treated as dying declaration of Anil Manchanda as he was completely unconscious. So, there could not be any possibility of Anil Manchanda nodding his head or uttering any word, as deposed by PW8. Learned defence counsel has further contended that PW4 Jawahar Lal Manchanda has nowhere deposed any such fact in his examination in chief. So, this is not corroborating in any manner. Learned defence counsel has further contended that PW8 Preeti Manchanda herself has admitted in the cross examination that when she attended her husband, her face was bluish in colour and he was completely unconscious. He was admitted in the hospital similarly in that unconscious condition.
The contention of learned defence counsel is material. Certainly this fact has not been corroborated by PW4 Jawahar Lal Manchanda in any manner as PW4 has not deposed that in the way, Anil Manchanda had nodded his head or had uttered any word. PW4 has also not deposed that PW had asked some questions from Anil Manchanda in the way. So, PW8 cannot be relied upon and believed that Anil Manchanda had nodded and had uttered words "a-a-a" in reply to the question "'yeh Ashok Sehgal ne kiya hai" and whether he wanted action against him.
Information regarding admission of Anil Manchanda by his father in Jaipur Golden Hospital was given to the police. Accordingly, DD No. 8A was recorded on 08/06/2003 Ex. PW1/A. PW1 HC raj Bala has stated that on SC No.151/01 29/48 08/06/2003, she was posted as DD Writer at PP Khyala, PS Tilak Nagar. On receipt of wireless message that one Anil Manchanda was hospitalized in Jaipur Golden Hospital, she recorded DD No. 8A in daily diary register Ex. PW1/A, which was handed over to ASI Harpal, who alongwith Constable Jaswant Singh left for the spot.
PW9 is ASI Harpal Singh. On 08/06/2003, he was posted at PP Khayala, PS Tilak Nagar. At about 1.45 p.m., he received DD No. 8 Ex. PW1/A and alongwith Constable Jaswant reached at Jaipur Golden Hospital, where he collected LC of Anil Manchanda. According to the opinion of the doctor, Anil Manchanda was unfit for statement. Doctor had handed over to him one sealed parcel and one sample seal sealed with the seal of "JGH". He met with complainant Jawahar Lal, who gave his statement. After collecting the MLC, recording statement of complainant and sealed parcel, he went to PS Punjabi Bagh and handed over the same to Duty Officer. SI Sheesh Ram made endorsement on the statement of complainant and prepared ruqqa and got registered the FIR. DO also handed over sealed parcel and IO had taken the same into possession vide memo Ex.PW9/A. In the cross examination, PW9 ASI Harpal Singh has stated that he recorded statement of Jawahar Lal Manchanda at about 6.00 p.m. PW13 SI Sheesh Ram has further corroborated and has deposed that on 08/06/2003, he was posted at PS Punjabi Bagh. On that day, Duty officer handed over a tehrir, on which he made endorsement Ex. PW13/A and got registered the FIR. DO also produced one exhibit containing stomach wash, which was sealed with the seal of hospital. The same was seized vide memo Ex. PW9/A. He then went to Jaipur Golden Hospital, where injured Anil Manchanda was declared unfit for statement. Father of injured also met him, who stated that he was not in a position to give statement.
PW13 has further stated that he went to Shivaji Park office and Bank SC No.151/01 30/48 Vihar house, which was found locked. On the night of 09/10.06.2003, information was received that injured had expired. He went to the hospital and conducted proceedings U/s. 174 of CrPC Ex. PW13/B. He got conducted postmortem on the dead body from SGM hospital. The dead body was identified by Jawahar Lal Manchanda and Rajinder Kumar Manchanda. He recorded their statements and after the postmortem, he handed over the dead body to father of the deceased. Jawahar Lal Manchanda had not joined the investigation for 3-4 days as he was not in a fit statement of mind. He tried to search for the accused persons, but they were not traceable.
PW13 has further deposed that on 14/06/2003, he recorded statement of Preeti, wife of deceased and also statement of Ravi, brother of deceased, who disclosed the name and address of accused Pawan Khattar, but accused Pawan Khattar could not be arrested from his residence.
PW5 Rajender Kumar has deposed that on 10/06/2003, he received information that his brother Jawahar Lal Manchanda that his son Anil Manchanda had expired. He went to Jaipur Golden Hospital and identified the dead body. His statement was recorded by the IO Ex. PW5/A. After the postmortem, dead body was handed over to them.
PW7 ASI Narender Singh has further corroborated and has deposed that on 08/06/2006, he was working as Duty Officer at PS Punjabi Bagh from 5.00 p.m. to 1.00 a.m. night. At about 09.30 p.m., ASI Harpal Singh brought statement of Jawahar Lal Manchanda, MLC of Anil Kumar and one sealed bottle sealed with the seal of Jaipur Golden Hospital alongwith one sample seal. He handed over these items to SI Shessh Ram, who made endorsement on the statement and handed over the same to him for registration of the case. He registered FIR of this case and handed over copy of FIR and ruqqa to SI Sheesh Ram. Copy of FIR is Ex. PW7/A and Kaimi entry vide DD No. 24A was also made.
PW4 Jawahar Lal Manchanda has deposed that local police arrived SC No.151/01 31/48 there. He made statement, which is Ex. PW4/A and after about four hours, some police officials of PS Punjabi Bagh arrived there and recorded his statement to this effect. So, he has corroborated with PW9 ASI Harpal Singh and also with PW13 SI Sheesh Ram, who had also reached at Jaipur Golden Hospital after getting registered the case.
Learned defence counsel has contended that there is a delay in registration of the FIR for more than two days. Learned defence counsel has further contended that as per PW4 Jawahar Lal Manchanda, police met him , when they started from their house to hospital on 08/06/2003 and police reached in the hospital. Learned defence counsel has further contended that as per PW6 Ravi Manchanda, police arrived at the hospital around 12 noon. Learned defence counsel has further contended that as per record, ruqqa was sent at about 9.40 p.m. on 06/06/2003 and it is not known what stopped the police for more than nine hours to record the statement of Jawahar Lal Manchanda or Ravi Manchanda and get the case registered.
Learned defence counsel has further contended that time of reaching of PW9 ASI Harpal at the hospital as per PW4 Jawahar Lal Manchanda and PW8 Preeti Manchda is contrary to DD No. 8, which was entrusted to PW9 ASI Harpal at about 1.45 p.m. on 08/06/2003. Learned defence counsel has contended that PW6 Ravi Manchanda has deposed that he has no information about the lodgment of any complaint to the police at the instance of his father PW4 Jawahar Lal Manchanda. Learned defence counsel has further contended that PW6 Ravi Manchanda has admitted that on 10/06/2003 at around 6.00 p.m., he came to know that FIR had been registered.
Ld defence counsel has further contended that it shows that there is a delay in registering the FIR.
PW1 HC Raj Bala has proved the DD No.8 as Ex. PW1/A, which was SC No.151/01 32/48 recorded on receipt of information that one Anil Manchanda was hospitalized in Jai Pur Golden hospital, which was handed over to ASI Harpal Singh for necessary action.
PW9 ASI Harpal reached at the hospital with DD alongwith Constable Jaswant. Anil Manchanda was not fit for statement. Doctor had handed over to him one sealed parcel with the seal of 'JGH". PW9 ASI Harpal Singh met with complainant PW4 Jawahar Lal Manchanda. He recorded his statement after collecting the MLC. With the Statement of complainant and sealed parcels, PW9 reached at the PS Punjabi Bagh and handed over the same to Duty Officer. DD no.8 was recorded at about 1.45 pm day and it was handed over to PW9 ASI Harpal Singh, who reached at the Jaipur Golden hospital. So there is no delay in the police action. PW4 Jawahar Manchanda has also deposed that local police was informed. Local police reached at Jaipur golden hospital and he made statement to the police Ex. PW4/A. The proceedings were delayed due to the jurisdiction of the police station because PW9 ASI Harpal Singh was from PS Tilak Nagar. He received DD no8A Ex.PW1/A and reached at Jaipur Golden hospital and after recording the statement of the complainant, he reached at PS Punjabi Bagh and handed over the same to the Duty Officer because of the jurisdiction of PS Punjabi Bagh. So certainly,police officials of PS Punjabi Bagh also reached at Jaipur Golden hospital.
According to the PW13/SI Sheesh Ram Duty Officer handed over to him a Terir on which he made endorsement and got registered the case. So the police was continuously doing its proceedings and delay, if any, occurred due to the involvement of the police of PS Tilak Nagar and police of Punjabi Bagh as PW4 Jawahar Manchanda was residing at that time within the jurisdiction of PS Tilak Nagar, whereas according to his statement, the offence was committed within the jurisdiction of PS Punjabi Bagh. So the case was registered at about SC No.151/01 33/48 9.45 pm against the accused persons and the delay has been explained by the PW4 Jawahar Manchanda, PW9 ASI Harpal Singh and PW13 SI Sheesh Ram as to how it took place. Moreover, in such circumstances, it cannot be said that there was any foul play on the part of the complainant or the police.
If there are any contradictions about the reaching of the police at the Jaipur Golden hospital in the statement of PW4 Jawahar Manchanda and PW6 Ravi Manchanda then the same is due to police officials, who were present from both PS Tilak Nagar and PS Punjabi Bagh, so they are not material in any manner. In support of same, I rely upon 2008 Supreme Court 1860 titled as Shivappa and Ors V. State of Karnataka wherein it has been held that " minor discrepancies or some improvements would not justify rejection of the testimonies of the witnesses who are otherwise reliable. Some discrepancies are bound to occur because of sociological background of witnesses as also time gap between date of occurrence and date on which they give their deposition in Court."
The contentions of Ld defence counsel that in the cross examination, PW6 Ravi Manchanda has stated that police arrived in hospital at about 12.00 noon and examined his brother is not corroborating with the fact because DD no8 Ex.PW1/A was recorded at about 1.45 pm and was handed over to the PW9 ASI Harpal Singh is not tenable from the deposition of PW4 Jawahar Manchanda, it is clear that when they were taking Anil Manchanda to Jaipur Golden hospital, police met them on the way and in the mean time local police arrived there. PW4 Jawahar Manchanda has also deposed that on 08/06/03, at about 10-12 pm, Anil Manchanda was thrown in front of his house by accused Vijay, Dharmender and Arvind Sehgal and immediately they took Anil Manchanda to Jaipur Golden hospital.
Ld defence counsel has further contended that according to the MLC of Anil Manchanda, he was taken to hospital at about 12.50 am, so even assuming that PW6 Ravi Manchanda has deposed incorrect time about the arrival of the SC No.151/01 34/48 police i.e. 12.00 noon, even then it is not falsify in any manner that police had arrived in the hospital.
The contention of Ld defence counsel, that PW6 Ravi Manchanda was not knowing till 10/06/03 that any complaint was lodged by his father PW4 Jawahar Manchanda shows that PW6 Ravi Manchanda was not present there, is also not tenable, as in such circumstances, when his brother was admitted in the hospital and whole of the family was under threat since 26/05/03 due to kidnapping of Anil Manchanda and later on also due to kidnapping of PW4 Jawahar Lal Manchanda.
PW6 has further admitted that he did not make any statement of his own to the police on 10/06/03 as he was under shock due to death of his brother, which is also self explanatory as to why statement of PW6 Ravi Manchanda was recorded by police later on as he was not in a position to give statement to the police, so in view of above discussion, there is no delay in the registration of the FIR PW6 Ravi Manchanda cannot be treated as a planted witness, because whole of the family was under constant threat as discussed above and they were also disturbed and under shock due to death of Anil Manchanda.
PW7 ASI Narender Singh has proved the copy of FIR as Ex. PW7/A, which was registered by him on the statement of complainant, PW4 Jawahar Manchanda. MLC of Anil Manchanda and one sealed bottle sealed with the seal of Jaipur Golden hospital and one sample seal, were handed over to SI Sheesh Ram and he made his endorsement on the statement. PW7 ASI Narender Singh also proved the Kyami DD entry no.24A. PW7 has not been cross examined by Ld defenc counsel in any manner. So his testimony is unrebutted and unshaken.
He has also corroborated with the deposition of PW9 ASI Harpal Singh. In the cross examination, delay has also been explained by PW9 ASI Harpal Singh. He received the DD at about 1.45 pm and reached at the hospital at about 3.00 pm. He collected the MLC of Anil Manchanda at about 7.30 pm. SC No.151/01 35/48 Jawahar Lal was not available immediately as he was with the Anil Manchanda, so certainly there is delay in recording the statement of Jawahar Lal Manchanda, which was recorded by him at about 6.00 pm and thereafter PW9 collected the MLC at about 7.30 pm, and thereafter according to PW7, at about 9.30 pm, PW9 ASI Harpal Singh handed over all the documents and sealed pullanda to him. The police officials were also requiring time to go to the hospital and to come back at PS Punjabi Bagh. So it is not tenable in any manner that there was delay in registering the FIR of this case because all the material was produced before Duty Officer by PW9 ASI Harpal Singh at about 9.30 pm and at about 9.35 FIR was registered.
Further investigation was conducted by PW13 SI Sheesh Ram. He got conducted postmortem of dead body from SGM hospital. Body was identified by PW4 Jawahar Manchanda and uncle of the deceased Rajinder Kumar Manchanda. After postmortem dead body was handed over to father of deceased Jawahar Manchanda. PW4 Jawahar Manchanda did not join the investigation for 3-4 days as he was not in a fit state of mind. Accused were not traceable. On 14/06/03, PW13 SI Sheesh Ram recorded the statement of PW8 Preeti, wife of deceased and PW6 Ravi Manchanda, brother of deceased. Deposition of PW13 SI Sheesh Ram is self explanatory that Anil Manchanda died on 10/06/03 and whole family was under shock and was disturbed, so there was no occasion for Investigation officer to record their statement till 14/04/03.
PW10 Constable Sukhbir Singh has corroborated with PW13 SI Sheesh Ram to the extent that in SGM hospital mortuary, PW13 has collected sample and sample seal of viscera of deceased, which was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW10/A. This witness has also not been cross examined by Ld defence counsel in any manner.
PW3 HC Ram Niwas has further corroborated and has deposed that on 08/06/2003, while he was working as MHC(M), PW13 SI Sheesh Ram SC No.151/01 36/48 deposited one sealed bottle with the seal of JGH alongwith sample seal with him.
He has further deposed that on 10/06/2003, SI Sheesh Ram further deposited another sealed parcel with the seal of SGM alongwith sample seal of hospital. On 06/10/03, SI Sheesh Ram had deposited two sealed parcels duly sealed with the seal of SGMH mortuary alongwith sample seal.
PW3 has further deposed that on 21/08/03, case property and sample seal was handed over to Constable vide RC no.66/21/03 for depositing the same in Malviya Nagar, He made entry at serial no. 3047, 3410,3430 and 3626, copy of which is Ex. PW3/A, B, C and D. PW3 has further deposed that exhibits of the case were handed over to Anand Parkash vide RC No. 147/21, but the same could not be deposited in the FSL, so the same were again deposited in the malkhana.
PW2 Ct Parmod Kumar has corroborated with PW3 HC Ram Niwas and has stated that on 21/08/03, he collected two sealed parcels and two sample seals from the malkhana of PS Punjabi Bagh and deposited the same to FSL, Malviya Nagar. Both these witnesses have not been cross examined by Ld defence counsel in any manner.
According to the deposition of PW13 SI Sheesh Ram on 22/06/2003, accused Pawan Khattar was arrested near a park in Sector-13, Rohini vide memo Ex.PW13/C. Accused also made h is disclosure statement vide memo Ex.PW13/D and also pointed out the flat no.26-B, Dhruv Apartment and house no.52 Bank Vihar vide pointing out memo Ex.PW13/E and Ex.PW13/F. Co-accused could not be apprehended.
According to the deposition of PW13, remaining accused persons surrendered before the court. He had applied for the police custody of the accused persons, but the same was declined by the court.
PW16 HC Suraj Bhan has joined the investigation with PW13 SI Sheesh Ram regarding the arrest of accused Pawan Khattar. PW16 has not been cross examined by Ld defence counsel in any manner.
SC No.151/01 37/48To prove the cause of death, prosecution has examined PW14 Dr. Sanjay Saxena, who was posted in Jaipur Golden Hospital as Casualty Medical Officer. On 08/06/2003, he medically examined Anil Manchanda, male aged 35 years with the alleged history of being found lying outside his home sometime back. Some people dropped him in front of his house as alleged by his father.
According to PW Dr. Sanjay Saxena, Anil Manchanda was Comatose, cyanosed, face and extemities with gasping respiration, non recordable blood pressure, pupils were bilaterally dilated with the deceased reaction to light. He had decreased air entry in chest, feeble heart sounds were audible. He had a superficial linear cut which was not bleeding on the mucosal aspect upper lift on the left side. There was no external fresh injury visible on the body. He prepared MLC of injured Ex.pW14/A, which bears his signature at point A. PW14 has not been cross examined by Ld defence counsel in any manner.
Ld defence counsel has contended that at the time of giving alleged history PW4 Jawahar Manchanda did not name any of the accused persons, who had allegedely thrown Anil Manchanda in front of his house , which later on appeared in his statement Ex.PW4/A, which shows that names were mentioned later on in the statement by PW4 Jawahar Manchanda with consultation.
PW4 Jawahar Manchanda has not been cross examined on this aspect that he did not tell the names of the accused persons to the doctor at the time of giving alleged history, so the contention of Ld defence counsel is not tenable in any manner. If the PW4 had been cross examined on this aspect then only he would have been in a position to explain the same as to why he did not give the names of the accused persons to the doctor.
Even otherwise, PW4 Jawahar Manchanda must have been under shock because someone had thrown Anil Manchanda in front of his house after keeping him in confinement from 26/05/2003 to 08/06/2003 and the first priority was the treatement of Anil Manchanda.
SC No.151/01 38/48PW15 Dr. A.K. Sood had deposed that Anil Manchanda was admitted in the hospital vide MLC Ex.PW14/A under medicine Unit under his supervision and inspite of best measures Anil Manchanda expired on 10/06/03 at 00.10 am. The death summary report of Anil Manchanda was prepared by Dr. S.K. Chowdhary on 10/06/03, who had left the hospital, so PW15 Dr. A.K. Sood has identified his writing and signature. Death summary is Ex.PW15/A. Typed copy of death summary is Ex.PW15/, which bears the signature of Dr. S.K. Chowdhary at point A. PW15 hs also produced the original treatment record running into 11 pages Ex. PW15/C, collectively.
Ld Defence counsel has also not cross examined PW15 in any manner. So his testimony is unrebutted and unshaken.
PW18 Dr. Radha Gupta, on 09/06/2003, was posted at Jaipur Golden hospital as Consultatant Anaesthetist and Intesivist. Injured Anil Manchanda was admitted in the hospital on 08/06/2003. On 09/06/2003, PW18 declared the injured Anil Manchanda unfit for statement on MLC Ex.PW14/A, by making her endorsement at point X and Y. PW18 has also not been cross examined by Ld defence counsel in any manner.
PW17 Dr. V.K. Jha, was posted as Medical Officer, Department of Forensic Medicine. He has conducted postmortem on the body of Anil Manchanda alongwith Dr. R.K. Punia. Deceased was alleged history of found on unconscious brought to Jaipur Golden hospital on 08/06/2003 at about 1.00 pm and expired on 10/06/2003 at 12.10 am. He had history of jaundice with Hepatic coma, at the age of 18 years treated adequately at AIIMS. He used to take alcohal daily and smoking occasionally, as per death summary of Anil Manchanda.
According to PW17, Dr. V.K. Jha, he observed some external injuries and also conducted internal examination on the dead body. After postmortem, they opined that the definitive opinion regarding cause of death shall be given after receipt of chemical analysis report of viscera and histopathology report.
SC No.151/01 39/48Postmortem findings were consistent with acute renal failure (kidney failure). As a result of hepatorenal disease (liver-kidney disease). Time since death was also consistent with hospital timing of death.
PW17 further observed that blood and viscera were preserved in common salt and were sealed with sample seal. Pieces of kidney and liver were preserved in formalin for histopathalogy. He prepared postmortem report Ex.PW17/A, which bears his signature at point A and identified the signature of Dr. R.K. Punia at point B, as PW17 has seen him writing and signing.
PW17 Dr. V.K. Jha has further deposed that on 03/11/03, IO moved an application for final opinion regarding cause of death producing chemical analysis report, viscera, histopathology report. After perusal of the viscera report, which revealed negative testing for common poisoning and histopathological report Ex. PW17/B. So he opined the cause of death as hepatic coma and renal failure. The postmortem findings were consistent with natural disease process. He gave his final report Ex.PW17/C. PW17 has also not been cross examined by Ld defence counsel in any manner.
Ld APP has contended from the deposition of PW14 Dr. Sanjay Saxena, who observed that pupils were bilaterally dilated with the decreased reaction to light, shows that Anil Manchanda was kept in long confinement in a dark place, which fortifies with the deposition of other witnesses that he was under the confinement of the accused persons from 26/05/2003 to 08/06/2003.
On the other hand, Ld defence counsel has contended that from the deposition of PW17 Dr. V.K. Jha, it is clear that cause of death was hepatic coma and renal failure and PM findings were consistent with natural disease process, so the accused persons cannot be held guilty for offence u/s 304 of IPC.
Ld defence counsel has further contended that history of jaundice was given by PW4 Jawhar Manchanda and he had admitted so in the cross SC No.151/01 40/48 examination that his son was suffering from jaundice when he was child.
On the other hand, Ld APP has contended that PW4 Jawahar Manchanda has denied the suggestion that he had given the alleged history of jaundice at the age of 20 years. Ld defence counsel has further contended that PW4 has further admitted that he has told the doctor that his son takes liquor occasionally in parties.
On the other hand Ld APP, has contended that PW6 Ravi Manchanda has also denied that Anil used to drink liquor and due to his kidney problem, he was admitted in the hospital which resulted into his death later on. Ld APP has contended that PW8 Preei Manchanda has also denied that her husband was a drunkard or that he died natural death because of liver failure or other inresistent disease.
Ld defence counsel has further contended that to bring home the guilt of the accused persons for the offence u/s 304 of IPC, prosecution has to prove that accused persons committed the act with the intention of causing death or causing such bodily injury as is to likely to cause death. Ld defence counsel has further contended that there is no evidence on record that accused persons had caused any bodily injury to Anil Manchanda with intention of causing death or causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.
On the other hand Ld APP has contended that prosecution has been able to prove beyond reasonable doubts that accued persons kept Anil Manchanda secretly in a confinement frojm 26/05/2003 to 08/06/2003 which resulted into death of Anil Manchanda.
From the postmortem report of deceased, it has been proved by PW17 Dr. V.K. Jha that it is clear that cause of death was hepatic coma and renal failure as per Ex. PW17/C. Ld defence counsel has further contended that prosecution has not been able to connect accused persons in any manner with the cause of death of SC No.151/01 41/48 Anil Manchanda.
In view of the above discussion, prosecution has not been able to connect the cause of death with any act committed by the accused persons with the intention of causing death or causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death. So prosecution has not been able to prove the offences u/s 304/120B of IPC against all the accused persons. Accordingly all accused persons i.e Arvind Sehgal, Ashok sehgal, Kishan Sehgal, Vijay Kumar Maini, Dharmender and Pawan Khattar are acquitted for the offence u/s 304/120B of IPC.
Announced in Open Court on dated 07th of February, 2011 (Virender Kumar Goyal) Additional Sessions Judge Fast Track Court Rohini : Delhi SC No.151/01 42/48 IN THE COURT OF SH. VIRENDER KUMAR GOYAL ADDL SESSIONS JUDGE: FAST TRACK COURT ROHINI:DELHI SC No. 151/1 Unique Idntification No. 02404R0092282006 State Versus
1. Pawan Khattar Son of Harish Chand R/o H.No. A7/201, Sector-17, Rohini, Delhi.
2. Ashok Sehgal Son of Ram Reka Mal R/o 52, Bank Vihar, Pitam Pura, Delhi.
3. Kishan Sehgal Son of Ram Reka Mal R/o 52, Bank Vihar, Pitam Pura, Delhi.
4. Arvind Sehgal Son of Desh Raj R/o Flat No. 26, Dhruv Apartment, Sector-13, Rohini, Delhi.
5. Vijay Kumar Maini @ Kala Son of Gopal Dass R/o 1/5, Roop Nagar, Delhi.
SC No.151/01 43/48 -2-6. Dharmender R/o C-70, Shivaji Park, Punjabi Bagh, Delhi.
FIR No. 407/03PS - Punjabi Bagh U/s. 341/343/344/304/34 of IPC Date of Decision: 07/02/2011 Date of Sentence: 07/02/2011 ORDER ON SENTENCE 07/02/2011 Present. Ld. APP for the State.
Sh. Shubham Asri, learned counsel for all the convicts. Learned defence counsel submits that convict Ashok Sehgal is the proprietor of Sehgal Petroleum company Pvt. Ltd and is survived by one girl and one boy, both of marriageable age. He himself is aged about 60 years. Learned defence counsel has further contended that convict Ashok Sehgal is not a previous convict nor habitual offender. He is having clean antecedents. It is further submitted by learned defence counsel that convict Ashok Sehgal had also undergone custody for 79 days.
Learned defence counsel submits that convict Pawan Khattar is survived by his mother and his wife. He has no issues. He is aged about 35 years and running a mobile shop. Learned defence counsel has further contended that convict Pawan Khattar is not a previous convict nor habitual offender. He is having clean antecedents. It is further submitted by learned defence counsel that convict Pawan Khattar had also undergone custody for 7 months and 14 days.
Learned defence counsel submits that convict Vijay Kumar Maini is SC No.151/01 44/48 -3- survived by one girl and one boy, aged about 18 years and 15 years He himself is aged about 50 years. Learned defence counsel has further contended that convict Vijay Kumar Maini is not a previous convict nor habitual offender. He is having clean antecedents. It is further submitted by learned defence counsel that convict Vijay Kumar Maini had also undergone custody for 79 days.
Learned defence counsel submits that convict Arvind Sehgal is survived by one girl and one boy, aged about 12 years and 13 years. He has also to support and maintain his old age parents. He himself is aged about 42 years. He is working in a private factory, Kundli. Learned defence counsel has further contended that convict Arvind Sehgal is not a previous convict nor habitual offender. He is having clean antecedents. It is further submitted by learned defence counsel that convict Arvind Sehgal had also undergone custody for 79 days.
Learned defence counsel submits that convict Dharmender is survived by one girl and one boy, aged about three years and four years. Ld defence counsel further submits that he is the only bread earner in the family. He himself is aged about 28 years. Learned defence counsel has further contended that convict Dharmender is not a previous convict nor habitual offender. He is having clean antecedents. It is further submitted by learned defence counsel that convict Dharmender had also undergone custody for 79 days.
Learned defence counsel submits that convict Kishan Sehgal is survived by one daughter around 25 years of age and his wife He himself is aged about 50 years. He is the sole bread earner of the family. Learned defence counsel has further contended that convict Kishan Sehgal is not a previous convict nor habitual offender. He is having clean antecedents. It is further submitted by learned defence counsel that convict Kishan Sehgal had also undergone custody for 79 days.
SC No.151/01 45/48 -4-Ld defence counsel submits that considering the above facts and circumstances and conduct of the convicts with regard to the imprisonment which can be imposed for the offences as proved against the convicts persons, they be released on the imprisonment already undergone by them in this case.
In alternate Ld defence counsel submits that if the court is of the opinion that the convicts should not be released by imposing period of imprisonment already undergone by them then they be released on probation for good conduct u/s 360 of CrPC Learned defence counsel has further submits that the convicts fulfill the conditions u/s 360 of CrPC as all the convicts are more than 21 years and the offences for which they have been convicted are punishable for a term of maximum seven years, so they be released on probation of good conduct.
On the other hand, Ld APP further has contended that considering the gravity of nature of offence proved against the convicts and the fact that due to the offences committed by the convicts and proved, Anil Manchanda has lost his life. Accordingly his father has lost the support of his son and a wife lost her husband, and he was the sole bread earner for the family. The children of Anil Manchanda also lost their father. So, the convicts be dealt with accordingly and appropriate imprisonment be awarded.
Considering the above facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that neither convicts can be released on Probation nor on the custody already undergone by them in this case.
Convict Pawan Khattar, Ashok Sehgal, Vijay Kumar Manini, Dharmender and Arvind Sehgal have been convicted for offences 365/120B of IPC. Offences u/s 365 of IPC is punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 7 years and shall also be liable to fine. Offence u/s 120B of IPC a person to criminal consipiracy is also punishable in the same manner as if he had SC No.151/01 46/48 -5- abetted such offence and according to section 109 of IPC, punishment is the same as provided for the offence. Accordingly, sentence of three years SI is imposed with fine of Rs.50,000/- on each accused. In default, convicts are liable to undergo one year and six months imprisonment u/s 365 read with 120B of IPC.
Convicts Pawan Khattar, Ashok Sehgal, Vijay Kumar Manini, Dharmender and Arvind Sehgal have been convicted for offences 344/120B of IPC. Offences u/s 344 of IPC is punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 3 years and shall also be liable to fine. Offence u/s 120B of IPC a person to criminal conspiracy is also punishable in the same manner as if he had abetted such offence and according to section 109 of IPC, punishment is the same as provided for the offence. Accordingly, sentence of three years SI is imposed with fine of Rs.50,000/- on each accused. In default, convicts are liable to undergo nine months imprisonment u/s 344 read with 120B of IPC.
Convict Ashok Sehgal, Arvind Sehgal and Kishan Sehgal have also been convicted for offence 365/34 of IPC. Offences u/s 365 of IPC is punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 7 years and shall also be liable to fine. Accordingly, sentence of three years SI is imposed with fine of Rs.50, 000/- on each accused. In default, convicts are liable to undergo one year and six months imprisonment each u/s 365 read with 34 of IPC.
Convict Ashok Sehgal, Arvind Sehgal and Kishan Sehgal have also been convicted for offence 343/34 of IPC. Offences u/s 343 of IPC is punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years or shall also be liable to fine or with both. Accordingly, sentence of two years SI is imposed with fine of Rs.50, 000/- on each accused. In default, convicts are liable to undergo six months imprisonment each u/s 343 read with 34 of IPC.
All the substantive sentences shall run concurrently. Benefit of section 428 CrPC be given to the convicts for their custody SC No.151/01 47/48 -6- period as under.
1. Pawan Khattar remained in custody from 22/06/03 to 06/02/04
2. Ashok Sehgal remained in custody from 18/11/03 to 05/02/04
3. Vijay Kumar remained in custody from 18/11/03 to 05/02/04
4. Dharemnder remained in custody from 18/11/03 to 05/02/04.
5. Arvind remained in custody from 18/11/03 to 05/02/04
6. Kishan remained in custody from 18/11/03 to 05/02/04 Fine deposited by each convicts. Out of fine, Rs. 5 lakhs be given as compensation to the surviving legal heirs of the deceased Anil Manchanda, if no appeal is filed within the time prescribed or if appeal is filed then after the disposal of appeal.
Convicts all are remanded to serve the sentence.
Announced in the Open Court on .
Dated 7th of February, 2011 (Virender Kumar Goyal)
Additional Sessions Judge
Fast Track Court
Rohini : Delhi
SC No.151/01 48/48