Delhi District Court
State vs 1.Tannu Chawla on 25 January, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIRENDER KUMAR KHARTA,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE (FTC)-02, CENTRAL
DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
In the matter of:-
(Sessions case no. 27757/2016)
FIR No. 02/2014
Police Station Kamla Market
Charge-sheet filed under Sections Sec. 302/34 IPC.
Charges framed against accused Sec. 302 read with Sec. 34
Tannu Chawla @ Tarun. IPC & 25/27 Arms Act.
Charges framed against accused Sec. 302 read with Sec. 34
Yogesh Kashyap. IPC.
State Versus 1. Tannu Chawla @ Tarun
S/o Late Sh. Uttam Chand Chawla,
R/o H. No. 602/E/17,
Teacher Colony, Ward No. 3,
Mehrauli, Delhi.
2. Yogesh Kashyap,
S/o Sh. Nand Ram Kashyap,
R/o H. No. 450B, Ward No. 3,
Chhatte Wali Gali, Mehrauli,
Delhi.
...Accused Persons.
Date of Institution of case 25.04.2014
Date of Arguments 18.01.2025 & previous dates
Judgment reserved on 18.01.2025
Judgment pronounced on 25.01.2025
Decision Acquitted
FIR No. 02/2014, PS: Kamla Market, Page No. 1 of 82
State Vs. Tannu Chawla @ Tarun & Anr.
JUDGMENT
1. Accused persons namely Tannu Chawla @ Tarun and Yogesh Kashyap are facing trial for the offences punishable under Sec. 302 read with Sec. 34 IPC. Additionally accused Tannu Chawla @ Tarun is also facing trial for the offences punishable under Sec. 25/27 Arms Act. The story of the prosecution is that in the intervening night of 01/02.01.2014 between 11:00 pm to 09:00 am, at Kotha No. 57, first floor, GB Road, Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS Kamla Market, both the aforesaid accused persons in furtherance of their common intention committed murder of one Neha. Further on 07.01.2014 accused Tannu Chawla @ Tarun got recovered one knife which he possessed without any permit or license and the same was used in commission of offence of murder of Neha.
2. The brief facts which are borne out from the record of the case are that on 02.01.2014 at about 10:30 am, complainant Sarfarz came to PS Kamla Market and got DD No. 20A, Ex. PW-29/A recorded regarding death of one lady namely Neha at first floor, Kotha No. 57, GB Road Delhi. Thereafter IO PW-29/Inspector Pramod Joshi along with complainant and other police officials went to the spot of incident i.e. first floor, Kotha No. 57 where one lady namely Neha, aged about 30 years was found dead and her body was lying in the pool of blood on the mattress and there were several stab wounds on her body particularly on her neck and hand. Thereafter IO PW-29/Inspector Pramod Joshi recorded statement of FIR No. 02/2014, PS: Kamla Market, Page No. 2 of 82 State Vs. Tannu Chawla @ Tarun & Anr.
complainant Sh. Sarfaraz, Ex. PW-17/A, who was the care taker of Kotha No. 57 and on the basis of the same, he prepared rukka and got recorded the present FIR through HC Anil. Thereafter, IO/Inspector Pramod Joshi got inspected the spot of incident through Crime Team who took photographs, lifted the blood from floor of the spot and wall of the room. IO also lifted the blood stained earth control of the floor, earth control pieces of wall, blood stained piece of mattress and blood stained piece of mat from the spot of incident. Thereafter IO seized one mobile phone make Nokia along with SIM having mobile no. 8860908501 of deceased Neha which was found from beneath of the mattress on which her dead body was found. Thereafter one Vasudev Pandey @ Nepali met the IO at the spot and on inquiry he informed that in the intervening night of 01-02.01.2014 at about 03:00 am, he was called by deceased Neha in her room to clean the same and he went inside the room and found that one regular customer of deceased Neha namely Tannu along with one of his associate was present inside the room and they were enjoying with deceased Neha.
3. Thereafter IO/PW-29 Inspector Pramod Joshi shifted the dead body to Mortuary under supervision of ASI Pramod and Ct. Dhara and obtained CDR of mobile phone of deceased and found that there were two mobile numbers on which there were number of calls made between them to deceased Neha. On 05.01.2014, both the accused persons were apprehended by the IO at the instance of secret informer and both were duly identified by FIR No. 02/2014, PS: Kamla Market, Page No. 3 of 82 State Vs. Tannu Chawla @ Tarun & Anr.
Vashudev Pandey @ Nepali who stated that both the accused persons were present at fateful night with deceased Neha in her room till early morning. Thereafter IO interrogated both of them and during interrogation, they confessed their involvement in commission of offence. Thereafter IO arrested both the accused persons, conducted their personal search and recorded their disclosure statements. During investigation, IO got recovered blood stained knife, which was used in commission of offence at instance of accused Tannu Chawla @ Tarun from his situated house at Mehrauli. IO also seized the clothes, which were worn by accused persons at the time of commission of offence. He also got preserved the dead body of deceased at Mortuary, got conducted the postmortem and after postmortem dead body was handed over to brother of deceased. After postmortem IO also seized exhibits i.e. blood in gauze piece, vaginal swab, nail clippings of both hands of deceased along with sample seal from hospital. During investigation, IO obtained subsequent opinion with respect to weapon of offence, sent the exhibits to FSL for expert opinion, got prepared scaled site plan, collected CDRs of mobile numbers and recorded statement of witnesses. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed by the IO before the Court through the SHO.
4. Vide order dated 0 3 . 0 4 . 2 0 1 4 , copy of the charge- sheet under Section 207 Cr.P.C was supplied to b o t h the accused p e r s o n s and v i d e o r d e r d a t e d 1 7 . 0 4 . 2 0 1 4 the case was committed to the Court of Sessions under Sec. 209 FIR No. 02/2014, PS: Kamla Market, Page No. 4 of 82 State Vs. Tannu Chawla @ Tarun & Anr.
5. Vide order dated 09.05.2014, the Ld. Predecessor Court was pleased to frame charges under Sec 302 read with 34 IPC against both the accused persons. Additional Charge under Sec. 25/27 Arms Act was also framed against accused Tannu Chawla @ Tarun, vide order dated 10.03.2017. Accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
6. To prove its case, prosecution has examined 35 witnesses. The testimonies of presecution witnesses along with its nature has been discussed briefly in the following paragraphs.
7. PW-1 HC Naresh Kumar is the duty officer who proved copy of present FIR Ex. PW1/A alongwith endorsement of rukka Ex. PW1/B and certificate under Section 65B Evidence Act Ex. PW1/C with respect to the the above-said FIR. In his cross- examination, he denied the suggestion that no FIR was lodged in his presence.
8. PW-2 Sh. Rehaan, deposed that he was dealing in dry cleaning of clothes and accused Yogesh Kashyap was residing at the first floor of the house where he was working. He further deposed accused Yogesh Kashyap had given him blood stained jeans pant and jacket for washing in the shop and he had washed his clothes. He further deposed that at that time when he had given him the clothes, he told him that he had received injury from Jack. He further deposed that he narrated this fact to the police and police officials had taken those clothes from him which were lying on the rope for drying. In his cross-
FIR No. 02/2014, PS: Kamla Market, Page No. 5 of 82 State Vs. Tannu Chawla @ Tarun & Anr.
examination, he admitted that he had no receipt or document to show that Yogesh Kashyap had given his clothes to him for washing and he also did not put any tag on the clothes given by Yogesh. He admitted that when he met Yogesh, his hand was bandaged.
9. PW-3 Smt. Mumtaz, was the owner of Kotha No. 57. She deposed that she was living at Kotha No. 57 since last ten years and deceased Neha also living in the said Kotha. She further deposed that on 30.12.2013 she had gone to Ajmer Sharif for offering prayer and when she returned on 06.01.2014 to her abovesaid Kotha, she came to know that Neha was murdered. She further deposed that in her absence Vasu Dev Pandey and Sarfaraz were looking after the Kotha. She proved seizure memo of her Aadhar Card and copy of her Aadhar card as Ex. PW-3/A & Ex. PW-3/B. In her cross-examination, she deposed that Caretaker Sarfaraz had been appointed for looking after the affairs of the Kotha. She further deposed that Sarfaraz was not being paid any salary but was being given some money which was earned from Kotha. She also deposed that she was not telephoned by Sarfaraz about murder of Neha and she came to know when she returned to her Kotha. She also deposed that she was not told by Sarfaraz as to who had committed murder of Neha.
10. PW-4 Sh. K. Balasubramanyam is the brother of deceased who identified the dead body of his sister Neha vide identification memo Ex. PW-4/A. In his cross-examination, he FIR No. 02/2014, PS: Kamla Market, Page No. 6 of 82 State Vs. Tannu Chawla @ Tarun & Anr.
deposed that he was having regular communication with Neha and had last talked with her on 31.12.2013. He also deposed that he was told about accused Tannu by Neha and he had also visited Tirupati. He also deposed that he was conveyed that both Neha and Tannu were willing to marry each other and there was no objection from any family member in this regard. He also deposed that Neha and her husband were living separately for last seven years and she was also having two children. He also deposed that they had no doubt on Tannu as he had lived at Tirupati for 25 days. He also deposed that he had objection to marriage of Neha with Tanu after he had seen his financial condition but he did not disapproved his meeting with Neha. He also deposed that Tannu seems to be innocent and therefore he was willing to marry Neha with Tannu.
11. PW-5 Sh. Vasudev Panday @ Vasu Nepali, was the Chowkidar of Kotha No. 57. He deposed that on the intervening night of 01-02.01.2014, he was on his duty at Kotha No. 57 and at about 03:00-03:30 am, accused Tannu had called him and asked him to clean the room. He further deposed that with Tannu, there was one more fair boy was present and Neha was also present in the said room. He also deposed that after cleaning the room he went to the gate and he remained on his duty till 08:00 am in the morning. He further deposed that Tannu and other person left between 06:00-06:30 am from the Kotha and he had seen both persons leaving the Kotha and he did not see any other person entering or leaving the room of deceased Neha. He proved FIR No. 02/2014, PS: Kamla Market, Page No. 7 of 82 State Vs. Tannu Chawla @ Tarun & Anr.
the arrest memos and personal search memos of accused persons namely Tannu Chawla @ Tarun and Yogesh Kashyap as Ex. PW-5/A to PW-5/D. This witness was cross-examined at length. In his cross-examination, he deposed that Mumtaz was caretaker of the Kotha. He also deposed that he was wearing watch and he always wore a watch and take it out at the time of bathing and at the time of sleeping. He further deposed that his work included looking after the persons coming and going and sitting at the gate. He also deposed that he was not doing any other work except the work of chowkidari. He also deposed that he had not declined to clean the room when he was called at 03:00 am on the day in question as he was working at night and therefore usually would help in cleaning if required in night and he was also required to look after cleanliness at night time. He also deposed that he came to know about the name of Neha after her murder and he also came to know the name of accused Tannu Chawla after the incident in question. He also deposed that there was no quarrel at the said time when he had left the room. He also deposed that he did not know if accused and Neha had good relations and were willing to marry to each other. He also deposed that they were occasionally coming to Kotha, 2-3 time a week. He also deposed that he was not told by anybody that Neha had been murdered and her murder had been committed by accused Tannu and when he returned from Sadar Bazar, Neha did not wake up as such and he was asked by Aunty to see whey she had not woken up and when he went to the room he found Neha dead. He also deposed that he was not harassed by Police and he FIR No. 02/2014, PS: Kamla Market, Page No. 8 of 82 State Vs. Tannu Chawla @ Tarun & Anr.
had been interrogated by police at the spot. He also deposed that there were no CCTV cameras installed in the Kotha and he did not hear any sound of quarrel on the said night. He also deposed that he did not observe any abnormality when the accused had left the Kotha at the said time and he did not remember if accused persons were carrying any bag etc. while leaving the Kotha. He further deposed that he returned from Sadar Bazar at about 10:00 am though he had deposed in his examination-in- chief that he returned at 12:00 noon. He further deposed that he returned from Sadar Bazar at 10:30 am.
12. PW-6 Smt. Anita Sharma, was the landlord of accused Tannu Chawla @ Tarun. She deposed that H. No. 602/E/17, Ward No. 3, Teacher Colony was registered in her name and her husband was dealing regarding the house. She further deposed that she cannot tell whether Smt. Shakuntala was residing at the ground floor of the house and she did not know Tarun @ Tannu Chawla. This witness was cross-examined by Ld. Addl. PP for the State in which she admitted that Smt. Shakuntala mother of Tarun @ Tannu Chawla was residing at her house as tenant and now she had vacated the house. In her cross-examination she deposed that police did not record her statement nor met her.
13. PW-7 Smt. Shakunta, is the mother of accused Tannu Chawla @ Tarun. She deposed that she was living at H. No. 602/E/17, Teacher Colony, Ward No. 3, Mehrauli, Delhi as tenant and Tarun @ Tannu Chawla was her son and his mobile phone number was 7838230507 and this number was on her ID. In her FIR No. 02/2014, PS: Kamla Market, Page No. 9 of 82 State Vs. Tannu Chawla @ Tarun & Anr.
cross-examination, she deposed that police had inquired the matter from her.
14. PW-8 Sh. Ashok Kumar Popli, deposed that on 31.03.2014 police had inquired regarding telephone connection no. 9811973561 and the said mobile number was purchased by him on his identification documents about 4-5 years back but he had given the said SIM to one his driver namely Yogesh. He further deposed that accused was using said number since he gave it to him. He also deposed that accused was not working with him since last one year. He proved copy of CAF and copy of his driving license as Mark-A & Mark-B. In his cross-examination, he deposed that Yogesh was working with him 3-4 years ago and he had asked Yogesh to return his phone but he had gone for his own marriage and when he returned the present case had already taken place. He also deposed that Yogesh was residing in his neighbourhood and therefore he had no reason to suspect any foul play on his part.
15. PW-9 Ms. Shikha Chawla, is the sister of accused Tannu Chawla @ Tarun. She deposed that she had not joined the investigation of this case at any point of time and she had not visited the police station and on inquiry was made by police regarding any telephone number. This witness was cross- examined by Ld. Addl. PP for the State in which she deposed that she did not know anything about phone no. 9654313965, however, she had given her ID document to her brother namely Tannu Chawla about five years before. She admitted her FIR No. 02/2014, PS: Kamla Market, Page No. 10 of 82 State Vs. Tannu Chawla @ Tarun & Anr.
photograph and signature on the CAF, Ex. PW-9/A of aforesaid mobile number. She also admitted that her brother Tannu Chawla was using this number since the day it was purchased. This witness was not cross-examined on behalf of accused persons despite opportunity given to them.
16. PW-10 Dr. Jyoti Barwa, Senior Resident, had conducted the postmortem on the body of deceased Neha @ Gori. She proved detailed postmortem report running into 21 pages, Ex. PW-10/A, diagram sheet showing the injuries on the body of deceased, Ex. PW-10/A1. She also deposed that she handed over sealed clothings, sealed vaginal swab, sealed finger nail clippings and sealed blood on gauze with sample seal to IO and documents in this regard are collectively exhibited as Ex. PW-10/B. She also proved opinion regarding weapon of offence as Ex. PW-10/C. In her cross-examination, she admitted that time of death had been shown from the inquest documents as 11:00 pm. She also deposed that the finger nails of the hands of deceased had turned blue due to lack of oxygen in the said part of body. She also deposed that the probable time since death was about four and half days approx time and it can vary 6-8 hours. She also deposed that the injuries found on the body of deceased could be by two objects. She also deposed that that injury no. 1 and 2 were possible by blunt force which could be any blunt object/weapon/surface and rest were from sharp object.
17. PW-11 Sh. Israr Babu, Alternate Nodal Officer, Vodafone FIR No. 02/2014, PS: Kamla Market, Page No. 11 of 82 State Vs. Tannu Chawla @ Tarun & Anr.
Mobile Services Ltd. has proved CAF and CDR from period of 01.10.2013 to 02.01.2014 of mobile phone no. 8860908501 issued in the name of Neha as Ex. PW-11/A & Ex. PW-11/B. He also proved certificate under Sec. 65B of Evidence Act regarding the said CDR as Ex. PW-11/C. He also proved CAF and CDR from period of 01.10.2013 to 07.01.2014 of mobile phone no. 9654313965 issued in the name of Shikha Chawla as Ex. PW-11/D & Ex. PW-11/E. He also proved certificate under Sec. 65B of Evidence Act regarding the said CDR as Ex. PW-11/F. He also proved CAF and CDR from period of 01.10.2013 to 07.01.2014 of mobile phone no. 7838230507 issued in the name of Tannu Chawla as Ex. PW-11/G & Ex. PW-11/H. He also proved certificate under Sec. 65B of Evidence Act regarding the said CDR as Ex. PW-11/I. He has also proved CAF and CDR from period of 01.10.2013 to 02.01.2014 of mobile phone no. 9811973561 issued in the name of Ashok Kumar Popli as Ex. PW-11/J & Ex. PW-11/K. He also proved certificate under Sec. 65B of Evidence Act regarding the said CDR as Ex. PW-11/L. He also proved CAF and CDR from period of 01.10.2013 to 02.01.2014 of mobile phone no. 9654534688 issued in the name of Shakuntala Chawla as Ex. PW-11/M & Ex. PW-11/N. He also proved certificate under Sec. 65B of Evidence Act regarding the said CDR as Ex. PW-11/O. This witness was not cross-examined on behalf of accused persons despite opportunity given to them.
18. PW-12 Dr. Sapatnanjay Sahoo, deposed that on 02.01.2014 injured Yogesh Kumar came to hospital having cut injury on his FIR No. 02/2014, PS: Kamla Market, Page No. 12 of 82 State Vs. Tannu Chawla @ Tarun & Anr.
hand. He further deposed that he was stitched with required antiseptic dressing with initial management. He proved copy of dressing register containing entry of Yogesh Kumar at serial no. 8 and copy of emergency aid and details as Ex. PW-12/A & Ex. PW-12/B. In his cross-examination he deposed that it was not possible to identify Yogesh Kumar who came before him for his treatment as they used to give treatment more than 100 per day.
19. PW-13 HC Anil Kumar, deposed that on 02.01.2014 on receiving DD No. 20A, he along with Inspector Pramod Joshi, ASI Pramod, HC Pradeep and Ct. Dhara went to the spot of incident i.e. Kotha No. 57, First Floor, left side GB Road, Delhi where there was a room adjacent to the kitchen on the first floor of the aforesaid premises and a dead body of a female, aged about 30-31 was lying in the room. He further deposed that there were deep wound on the neck and hand of female body and blood was lying and there were blood stains on the wall of the room. He further deposed that Inspector Pramod Joshi recorded statement of Sarfaraz, prepared rukka and handed over to him for getting the FIR registered and after registration of FIR, he handed over the copy FIR and original rukka to him. He narrated about seizure of blood lying on the floor, seizure of blood stained mattress, blood stained pieces of floor, earth control, blood stained pieces from the wall, earth control and seizure of mobile phone of deceased and proved their seizure memos as Ex. PW-13/A to Ex. PW-13/D. In his cross-examination, he deposed that he took rukka at 12:15 pm by his bike and it took about two FIR No. 02/2014, PS: Kamla Market, Page No. 13 of 82 State Vs. Tannu Chawla @ Tarun & Anr.
hours in recording of the FIR. He also deposed that he left the PS at about 02:15 pm after the FIR registered and reached at about 02:25 pm. He also deposed that he did not remember whether any other statement was recorded by the IO. He also deposed that in total there were 15-20 ladies and no male persons in the hall. He also deposed that mobile was found beneath the pillow in the room and there were no liquor bottles in the room.
20. PW-14 ASI Pramod, deposed that on 02.01.2014 on receiving DD No. 20A, he along with Inspector Pramod Joshi. HC Anil, HC Pradeep and Ct. Dhara went to the spot of incident i.e. Kotha No. 57, first floor, left side, GB Road, Delhi. Further he deposed on the lines of PW-13 HC Anil and proved the seizure memos of blood lying on the floor, seizure of blood stained mattress, blood stained pieces of floor, earth control, blood stained pieces from the wall, earth control and seizure of mobile phone of deceased. He also deposed that on 05.01.2014, he again joined the investigation of the present case and on the instruction of IO, he along with Ct. Yogesh, Ct. Sandeep, HC Naresh, complainant Sarfaraz and Chowkidar Vasu Nepali went to Mehrauli in search of accused persons. He also deposed that both the accused persons were apprehended at instance of Chowkidar Vasu Nepali from in front of Metro Station. He proved arrest memos, Ex. PW-5/A & Ex. PW-5/C, personal search memos, Ex. PW-5/B & Ex. PW-5/D and disclosure statements, Ex. PW14/A & Ex. PW-14/B of accused Tannu Chawla and Yogesh Kashyap. In his cross-examination, he FIR No. 02/2014, PS: Kamla Market, Page No. 14 of 82 State Vs. Tannu Chawla @ Tarun & Anr.
deposed that the mobile phone was lying underneath the pillow which was under the head of dead body. He also deposed that IO had recorded the statement of Sarfaraz at the spot and he did not know whether there was liquor bottles or not. He also deposed that the accused persons were arrested from outside the metro. He denied the suggestion that accused persons were picked up from their houses and falsely booked in this case.
21. PW-15 Ct. Anand, deposed that on 02.01.2014, he delivered the copy of FIR to Ld. MM, ACP, Kamla Market, DCP and Joint CP. This witness was not cross-examined on behalf of accused persons despite opportunity given to them.
22. PW-16 Ct. Yogesh Kumar, deposed that on 05.01.2014 he joined the investigation of the case and he alongwith ASI Pramod, Ct. Sandeep and HC Naresh, complainant Sarfaraz and Vasu Nepali went to Mehrauli in search of accused persons. He further deposed on receiving secret information by IO/Inspector Pramod Joshi and pointing out by Vasu Nepali, accused persons were apprehended from in front of Metro Station. He proved arrest memos and personal search memos accused Tannu Chawla and Yogesh Kashyap as Ex. PW-5/A to Ex. PW-5/E. He also proved their disclosure statements as Ex. PW-14/A & Ex. PW-14/B. In his cross-examination, he deposed that IO had not served any notice to the persons who refused to join the investigation. He also deposed that he did not remember the number on which/through which the relatives of the accused persons were informed about their arrest. He denied the FIR No. 02/2014, PS: Kamla Market, Page No. 15 of 82 State Vs. Tannu Chawla @ Tarun & Anr.
suggestion that he had not joined the investigation or that he had signed the documents later on, on the instruction of SHO.
23. PW-17 Sh. Sarfaraz is the complainant in the present case. He deposed that he was caretaker of Kotha No. 57, GB Road. He further deposed that on 02.01.2014 at about 09:45 am, he reached Kotha No. 57 and found that the girls present there but he did not see Neha there. He further deposed that abovesaid girls informed him that Neha was in upper room and he reached at the said room in Kotha and found main door of the room was closed. He further deposed that he opened the door by pushing and he noticed that the dead body of Neha was lying in the pool of blood there inside the room. He further deposed that he immediately left Kotha No. 57 and reached PS Kamla Market. He further deposed that he along with IO and other staff members reached Kotha No. 57 and by that time the dead body of Neha was lying in the abovesaid room of Kotha. He further deposed that SHO as well other staff inspected the spot and IO recorded his statement, Ex. PW-17/A, prepared rukka and sent the same for registration of FIR, through Ct. Anil. He narrated about proceedings conducted by the IO at the spot viz. seizure of blood stained earth control, photography of the spot as well as dead body, seizure of mobile phone of deceased Neha and seizure of blood stained mat. He further deposed that on the same day at noon time Chowkidar Vasu told him that in the night of 01.02.2014 at about 03:00 am, he went inside of the room of Kotha No. 57 and he saw that accused Tannu along with co-accused was present there and FIR No. 02/2014, PS: Kamla Market, Page No. 16 of 82 State Vs. Tannu Chawla @ Tarun & Anr.
consuming beer and Neha was also present with them. He further deposed that Chowkidar also told him that both the accused persons used to come to Neha at Kotha No. 57 twice or thrice in a week. He further deposed that on 05.01.2014 he accompanied police team and went to Mehrauli where on pointing out of Chowkidar Vashu, IO arrested accused Tannu Chawla and Yogesh Kashyap. He proved their arrest memos, personal search memos and disclosure statements. He also proved his statement regarding identification of dead body of deceased Neha as Ex. PW-17/B and site plan, Ex. PW-17/C. In his cross-examination, he deposed that he had been working as Caretaker for the last 10- 12 years and Manager/Owner of Kotha used to pay him salary @ Rs. 10,000/- per month. He also deposed that nobody made a call to Police and he himself went to PS by cycle rickshaw. He also deposed that no complaint was written by the Police officials when he visited the PS for the first time. He also deposed that accused persons were apprehended at about 04:50 pm.
24. PW-18 Ct. Milan Kumar, had deposited the 19 sealed pullandas to FSL Rohini vide RC No. 15/21 dated Ex. 18/A along with list of pullanda, Ex. PW-18/B. He also proved the receipt/ acknowledgment of FSL Rohini, Ex. PW-18/C. In his cross- examination, he denied the suggestion that pullandas were tempered while these were in his possession.
25. PW-19 Ct. Mukesh, deposed that on 05.03.2014, IO/SHO handed over authority letter, Ex. PW-19/A to him and directed him to go to MS Office, Pandit Madan Mohan Malviya Hospital, FIR No. 02/2014, PS: Kamla Market, Page No. 17 of 82 State Vs. Tannu Chawla @ Tarun & Anr.
Malviya Nagar, Delhi to collect the CCTV footage. He further deposed that he collected the said CCTV footage and handed over the same to IO/SHO, who seized the same vide seizure memo Ex. PW-19/B. In his cross-examination, he deposed that he had only brought the CD and had not identified the contents of the same.
26. PW-20 Ct. Mahesh, was Duty Constable at Lok Nayak Hospital. He deposed that on 28.01.2014 SI Rakesh along with both accused persons namely Tarun Chawla @ Tarun and Yogesh Kashyap came to the abovesaid hospital and the blood sample of both the accused persons were taken in the hospital by the concerned doctor and same were sealed and handed over the same in two separate pullanda. He proved seizure memo of blood samples as Ex. PW-20/A. In his cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that no blood sample of accused were taken in his presence.
27. PW-21 Ct. Dhara Singh, deposed that on 02.01.2014 he joined the investigation of the present case along with IO and other police officials. He deposed on the lines of PW-13 HC Anil and proved seizure memo of belongings of deceased as Ex. PW-21/A. He also narrated about identification of dead body by brother of deceased K. Balasubramaniyam and complainant Sarfaraz and handing over the dead body of deceased after postmortem. In his cross-examination, he deposed that he did not enter the particular room where dead body was lying. He also deposed that he did not pay any attention as to whether the IO FIR No. 02/2014, PS: Kamla Market, Page No. 18 of 82 State Vs. Tannu Chawla @ Tarun & Anr.
recorded statement of any person or not who were present there. He deposed that he was posted in the concerned beat of the area at that time and he know one Sarfaraz @ Billy who was doing business of supplying the water. He denied the suggestion that no public persons accompanied them from the police station to the spot. He also deposed that prior to getting close the door of Kotha at 12 night, he did not go daily to check every Kotha as to whether any customer was still there or not.
28. PW-22 Ct. Arun, was the Photographer at Mobile Crime Team. He proved the photographs (31 nos.), Ex. PW-22/1 (colly) and their negatives, Ex. PW-22/X25 to Ex. PW-22/X55 of the the spot of incident. In his cross-examination, he deposed that public witness did not accompany him when he was taking photographs in question. He denied the suggestion that the photographs were not the actual photographs of the site or that same had been manipulated at the instance of IO.
29. PW-23 SI Pankaj Kumar, was the In-Charge of Crime Team. He deposed about the proceedings conducted by him alongwith his staff ASI Pawan Kumar, finger print proficient and Ct. Arun, photographer. He proved his report Ex. PW-23/A. This witness was not cross-examined on behalf of accused persons despite opportunity given to them.
30. PW-24 HC Rati Ram, was the MHC(M). He proved the entries in register no. 19 & 21 made by him exhibited as Ex. PW-24/A to Ex. PW-24/E. He also proved RC No. 15/21/14, Ex. PW-24/F and acknowledgment of FSL, Ex. PW-24/G. This FIR No. 02/2014, PS: Kamla Market, Page No. 19 of 82 State Vs. Tannu Chawla @ Tarun & Anr.
witness was not cross-examined on behalf of accused persons despite opportunity given to them.
31. PW-25 SI Rakesh Kumar who had been inadvertently mentioned as PW-24 at the time of his examination-in-chief dated 22.07.2016 deposed that on 06.01.2016, on direction of IO/SHO Inspector Pramod Joshi, he along with Inspector Joginder Prasad got conducted the postmortem on the dead body of deceased at MAMC mortuary. He further deposed that after postmortem, the concerned doctor handed over sealed white envelope containing blood on gauze, vaginal swab of deceased, nail clipping of deceased and three sealed pullandas containing the clothes of deceased, which were seized by the IO vide seizure memo Ex. PW-24/A & PW-24/B. He further deposed that on 07.01.2014 he again joined the investigation of the present case along with IO and reached at the house of accused Tannu Chawla at Mehrauli from where accused got recovered a blood stained knife which was used in the commission of offence. He proved sketch of knife and its seizure memo as Ex. PW-24/C & Ex. PW-24/D. He narrated about seizure of clothes of accused persons which were worn by them at the time of commission of offence and he proved their seizure memos and pointing out memo as Ex. PW-24/E to Ex. PW-24/H. He also narrated about identification of accused Yogesh Kashyap by Dr. S. Sapanjay of Madan Mohan Malviya Hospital where he got treatment after the incident at noon time and collection of blood samples of accused persons at JPN Hospital. He also deposed that on 13.02.2014 on FIR No. 02/2014, PS: Kamla Market, Page No. 20 of 82 State Vs. Tannu Chawla @ Tarun & Anr.
direction of IO, he received pullanda of knife along with sample seal vide RC No. 11/21, Ex. PW-24/J and took the same in MAMC Forensic Department along with request, Ex. PW-24/K for subsequent opinion regarding weapon of offence. He also collected postmortem report of deceased and subsequent opinion regarding weapon of offence. In his cross-examination, he deposed that he did not receive any other call except the call of SHO regarding incident while he was in West Bengal. He also deposed that he knew Sarfarz who was Caretaker of Kotha of the spot in question. He also deposed that the activities in the area in question continued for almost 24 hours. He also deposed that SHO informed him to go Mehrauli for recovery. He also deposed that in about 15 minutes time of their reaching Tanu's house, the knife in question was recovered and accused had himself taken out the knife from Deewan and produced the same to the IO and IO had not asked accused for the location of the same before recovery. He denied the suggestion that there was no recovery as alleged by him or due to this reason he had not associated any public persons during the process of said recovery. He also deposed that the spots of blood stains were not mentioned in the sketch. He also deposed that IO had not taken any photograph of the place of recovery. He also deposed that there were dried blood stains on the clothes produced by accused Tannu Chawla but jeans pant was not having stains as it had been washed and dried. He also deposed that he did not see blood stains on the clothes of accused Yogesh. He also deposed that both the accused were clearly visible in the CCTV footage of the hospital.
FIR No. 02/2014, PS: Kamla Market, Page No. 21 of 82 State Vs. Tannu Chawla @ Tarun & Anr.
32. PW-26 Inspector Mahesh Kumar was the Draftsman. He proved the scaled site plan Ex. PW-26/A. In his cross- examination, he denied the suggestion that he had not visited the spot or that the abovesaid site plan was not prepared at the instance of Sarfaraz or that due to that reason, the abovesaid site plan did not bear the signature of Sarfaraz.
33. PW-27 SI Padam Singh, deposed that on 31.03.2014, on direction of IO/SHO, he recorded statement under Sec. 161 Cr.PC of Ashok Kumar Popli, Ex. PW-27/A which SIM was being used by accused Yogesh Kashyap. In his cross- examination, he deposed that Ashok Kumar Popli had not told him specific date, month and year on which he had provided the said SIM to accused Yogesh.
34. PW-28 HC Pradeep Kumar, deposed that on 07.01.2014 he joined the investigation of present case along with IO. He narrated about recovery of weapon of offence i.e. knife and blood stained clothes at instance of accused Tannu Chawla @ Tarun from his house. He proved sketch of knife, its seizure memo and seizure memo of clothes as Ex. PW-24/C to Ex. PW-24/E. He also deposed about recovery of clothes of accused Yogesh Kashyap which he was wearing on the day of incident. He proved seizure memo of clothes and pointing out memo of recovery as Ex. PW-24/G & Ex. PW-24/H. He also narrated about identification of accused Yogesh Kashyap by Dr. Sahu at Madan Mohan Malviya Hospital. In his cross-examination he deposed that in his presence IO did not ask from the accused as FIR No. 02/2014, PS: Kamla Market, Page No. 22 of 82 State Vs. Tannu Chawla @ Tarun & Anr.
to where the knife was kept, however, accused himself took out the knife from the place i.e. under the bed. He admitted that house of accused Tannu Chawla was situated in a thickly populated area and no public witness had joined the investigation as no one come forward to become the witness though IO had requested the public persons. He admitted that the recovered clothes were not having any blood stains as they were washed and no photographs of any recovery was taken. He also deposed that there was an entry in the record kept in the hospital in respect of treatment of accused Yogesh at serial no. 8. He denied the suggestion that accused did not take them to any hospital or that whole story of stitching in the hand of accused Yogesh is false of that accused Yogesh is not the same person in whose respect entry no. 8 was found in the hospital record.
35. PW-29 Inspector Pramod Joshi, was the first IO of this case. He deposed that after recording of DD No. 20A, Ex. PW-29/A, he along with police staff reached at the spot of incident i.e. first floor of Kotha No. 57 and found one lady namely Neha, aged about 30 years dead and there were several stab wounds over the body of the deceased Neha, particularly on neck and hand. He further deposed that he recorded statement of complainant Sarfaraz, Ex. PW-17/A, made endorsement on rukka, Ex. PW-29/B and got recorded the present FIR through HC Anil. He narrated about proceedings conducted by him at the spot i.e. inspection of spot through Crime Team, seizure of blood, blood stained earth control, exhibits and mobile phone of FIR No. 02/2014, PS: Kamla Market, Page No. 23 of 82 State Vs. Tannu Chawla @ Tarun & Anr.
deceased. He also deposed that one Vasudev Pandey @ Nepali met him at the spot and on inquiry he informed that in the intervening night of 01-02.01.2014 at about 03:00 am, he was called by deceased Neha in her room to clean the same and he went inside the room and found that one regular customer of deceased Neha namely Tannu along with one of his associate was present inside the room and they were enjoying with deceased Neha. He also deposed that he obtained CDR of mobile phone of deceased and on analyzing the same he found that there were two mobile numbers on which there were number of calls between those number and deceased Neha. He also narrated about apprehension of accused persons on secret information from Qutub Minar, Metro Station and duly identified by Vashudev Pandey @ Nepali who stated that both the accused persons were present at fateful night with deceased Neha in her room till early morning. He proved arrest memos, personal search memos and disclosure statements of both the accused. He also got recovered blood stained knife, which was used in commission of offence at instance of accused Tannu Chawla @ Tarun from his house situated at Mehrauli and he also seized the clothes, which were worn by accused at the time of commission of offence. He also narrated about conducting of postmortem on the body of deceased, seizure of exhibits and clothes of deceased after postmortem and recording of statement of doctor of Pandit Madan Mohan Malviya Hosptial where accused Yogesh Kashyap got treatment of his hand injury. This witness was cross- examined at length. In his cross-examination, he deposed that no FIR No. 02/2014, PS: Kamla Market, Page No. 24 of 82 State Vs. Tannu Chawla @ Tarun & Anr.
CCTV camera was found to be installed at Kotha No. 57 and no chance print was found at the spot. He also deposed that no judicial TIP of accused persons were conducted because at the time of their apprehension, complainant and Vasudev were with them. He also deposed that no public persons other than Sarfaraz and Vasudev had joined them at the time of arrest of accused Yogesh. He also deposed that there was no register in which Mr. Vasudev Pandey @ Nepali used to mark his presence as guard. He also deposed that he had interrogated the said Vasudev Pandey immediately after reaching the place of incident and till the registration of FIR, the identity and the name of assailants did not surface. He also deposed that no request for the forensic examination of vaginal swab was taken from the deceased to compare the same with the accused or Vasudev Pandey was done during the time of investigation remained with him. He also deposed that no public person was joined in the investigation on 07.01.2014 qua the seizure of knife and blood stained clothes. He also deposed that they made their efforts to preserve the possible chance prints/finger prints on the said knife by lifting the same with the help of cloth and Crime Team was not called at the spot to lift the chance prints/finger prints from the said knife.
36. PW-30 Dr. Ruchi Sharma, Junior Forensic Chemical Examiner, Biology Division has proved her detailed biological and serological report as Ex. PW-30/A & Ex. PW-30/B. She also proved detailed allelic data as Ex. PW-30/C. In her cross- examination, she deposed that the fact mentioned qua parcel Ex.
FIR No. 02/2014, PS: Kamla Market, Page No. 25 of 82 State Vs. Tannu Chawla @ Tarun & Anr.
15 & 17 as 'No Reaction' means that though there was human blood but blood group could not be detected. She denied the suggestion that she had not examined the exhibits as mentioned in her report.
37. PW-31 Inspector Yashveer Singh, was the second IO of the case. He deposed that on 11.01.2014 after transfer of previous IO, further investigation of this case was entrusted to him. He narrated about the proceedings conducted by him during investigation. He deposed about seizure of blood sample of accused persons, seizure of six attested photocopies of casualty register of Madan Mohan Malviya Hospital, obtaining of postmortem report and subsequent opinion regarding weapon of offence, preparation of scaled site plan at instance of complainant, seizure of CCTV footage of Madan Mohan Malviya Hospital and depositing of exhibits of the case to FSL, Rohini. He also proved letter of Madan Mohan Malviya Hospital addressed to SHO PS Kamla Market, CDRs of accused Yogesh, complainant Neha and accused Tannu Chawla as Ex. PW-31/A to Ex. PW-31/D. He also deposed that from the analysis of the CDRs of accused persons and deceased, the location of mobile phone of both the accused persons and deceased was found at the place of incident on the fateful night of incident. He also deposed that it was further revealed that both the accused persons were in continuous touch with each other and accused Tannu Chawla was in continuous touch with deceased Neha. He further deposed that he again obtained blood sample of accused persons with FIR No. 02/2014, PS: Kamla Market, Page No. 26 of 82 State Vs. Tannu Chawla @ Tarun & Anr.
permission of court as earlier were found to degraded at FSL. He proved seizure memo of blood samples, entry in register no. 19 regarding depositing of blood samples and RC No. 30/21/15 through which samples were sent to FSL as Ex. PW-31/E to Ex. PW-31/G. He also proved the forwarding letter of FSL as Ex. PW-31/H. This witness was cross-examined at length. In his cross-examination after seeing the postmortem report, Ex. PW-10/A, he deposed that time since death had been mentioned as about 4 ½ days. He also deposed that it was not felt necessary to inquire from the postmortem doctor that the time since death corresponding to the time from the postmortem or time from the arrival of the dead body in the mortuary. He denied the suggestion that the forensic examination of nail clippings has nothing to do with cyanosed finger nails. He denied the suggestion that noise may be heard in the Kotha No. 57 itself, if it comes from the room where the incident took place. He also deposed that CCTV cameras were found installed at many places on G.B. Road but they could not find any relevant material. He also deposed that he did not mention about those CCTV cameras in his case diary or about non-recovery of any material in those cameras as those CCTV cameras were not covering the entire G. B. Road. He admitted that he was not provided the CCTV footage from Madan Mohan Malviya Hospital till 05.02.2014, therefore he moved an application to provide CCTV footage on 05.02.2014. He also deposed that he had not examined the DVR from which the CCTV footage were copied in the CD Ex. PW-19/1. He admitted that Ct. Mukesh had not handed over FIR No. 02/2014, PS: Kamla Market, Page No. 27 of 82 State Vs. Tannu Chawla @ Tarun & Anr.
certificate under Sec. 65B of The Evidence Act pertaining to CD Ex. PW-19/1. He denied the suggestion that whole area of GB Road was under CCTV surveillance. He denied the suggestion that the person identified by him was not the accused Tannu Chawla or that he was just concocting a story with respect to identification of accused Tannu Chawla in CCTV footage just to solve the case. He also denied the suggestion that accused Tannu Chawla was wrongly apprehended and arrested in the present case or that the unsolved case was pending with the SHO PS Kamla Market. He also denied the suggestion that he being SHO of PS Kamla Market took over the investigation from previous IO to falsely implicate the accused persons. He also denied the suggestion that the statement of other girl of Kotha No. 57 was withheld to conceal the true facts.
38. PW-32 Ct. Pramod Kumar, deposed that on 18.02.2015 he deposited two sealed parcel bearing seal of 'HRH' along with sample seal of hospital at FSL Rohini vide RC No. 30/21, Ex. PW-31/G. In his cross-examination he denied the suggestion that neither he had received any parcel from Malkhana nor deposited the same with FSL, Rohini.
39. PW-33 Dr. Rajendra Singh, Medical Officer, Deep Chand Bandhu Hospital has proved the MLC No. 278637 of accused Yogesh Kashyap as Ex. PW-29/D and MLC No. 278640 of accused Tannu Chawla as Ex. PW-29/E. In his cross- examination, he denied the suggestion that accused Yogesh Kashyap was not having any injury as recorded by him on MLC FIR No. 02/2014, PS: Kamla Market, Page No. 28 of 82 State Vs. Tannu Chawla @ Tarun & Anr.
Ex. PW-29/D. He also denied the suggestion that accused Yogesh Kashyap had not told the cause of injuries sustained by him. He also deposed that since there were stitches on the injuries of Yogesh Kashyap at the time of his medical examination, therefore, it can be opined that he had sustained injuries about 3-4 days prior to his medical examination on 05.01.2014. He admitted that no subsequent opinion qua nature of injuries on the body of patient/accused persons was obtained from him. He also admitted that the injuries on both hands of the accused persons/patient shows that they might be possible in self defence. He also deposed that no treatment was given to any of the two said patient. He denied the suggestion that MLCs Ex. PW-29/D & Ex. PW-29/E were prepared in most mechanical manner as per the direction/request of IO of this case.
40. PW-34 Dr. Yogesh Sharma, had taken the blood samples of accused persons namely Yogesh Kashyap and Tannu Chawla and handed over the same to IO/Inspector Yashveer Singh in sealed parcels, which were seized by IO vide seizure memo Ex. PW-31/E. This witness was examined only on behalf of accused Yogesh Kashyap in which he deposed that he had not checked the blood group of aforementioned UTPs namely Yogesh and Tannu Chawla. He denied the suggestion that he had not taken the blood sample as deposed by him above.
41. PW-35 HC Rati Ram, was the MHC(M). He has been examined twice i.e. as PW-24 as well as PW-35. He proved the entries in register no. 19 & 21 made by him exhibited as Ex.
FIR No. 02/2014, PS: Kamla Market, Page No. 29 of 82 State Vs. Tannu Chawla @ Tarun & Anr.
PW-35/A to Ex. PW-35/F. He also deposed that 21 sealed pullandas were sent to FSL Rohini, through Ct. Milan vide RC No. 15/21/14, Ex. PW-18A and Ct. Milan handed over its acknowledgment, Ex. PW-18/C to him. In his cross-examination, he admitted that entry no. 2291 of 06.01.2024 was prior to DD No. 45B dated 06.01.2014 and the entries were made in the register no. 19 solely on the basis of seizure memo and he had not verified the contents thereof by his own. He also admitted that he had not got the seal used for the purpose of the seal of the parcel deposited in the Malkhana, at the time of their deposition. He also admitted that he did not get the seal tallied with the seals impression found on the parcels.
42. After closing of prosecution evidence, separate statements of both the accused persons were recorded under Sec. 313 Cr.PC, wherein they denied all the charges against them. Accused Yogesh Kashyap stated that he did not know Neha and he had never visited Kotha of deceased Neha and he was falsely implicated in the present case. He further stated that the police picket was situated just near the 100 steps of the place of incident and it was called as Red light area, therefore, police personnel were always present there and on patrolling of the area. He further stated that SHO of the area used to visit the said Kothas to collect the money/hafta. Accused Tannu Chawla stated that he used to visit Neha and they were in relationship. He also stated that their relationship were not liked by the Kotha workers and they had threatened him. He also stated that he left the place on FIR No. 02/2014, PS: Kamla Market, Page No. 30 of 82 State Vs. Tannu Chawla @ Tarun & Anr.
that day at about 04:00-04:30 pm and the Kotha workers must have killed Neha and roped him in the present case. He also stated that IO had not fairly investigated the present case and actual offenders were not arrested by him. He also stated that the complete area was under the CCTV and IO had deliberately not filed the complete CCTV footage of the area before this Hon'ble Court to find out the actual offender. He further stated that the police picket was situated just near 100 steps from the place of incident and this area was called as Red light area, therefore, police personnel were always present there and on patrolling of the area. He further stated that SHO of the area used to visit the said Kothas to collect the money/hafta.
43. Final arguments were advanced by Sh. Pankaj Kumar Ranga, Ld. Addl. PP for the State, Sh. Kanhiya Singhal, Ld. Counsel for accused Tannu Chawla and Sh. Satrughan Singh, Ld. Legal Aid Counsel for accused Yogesh Kashyap.
44. Ld. Addl. PP for the State argued that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and all the prosecution witnesses have supported the prosecution story and have corroborated each other's version. To substantiate his submissions, he argued that PW-5 Vasudev Pandey @ Vasu Nepali had lastly seen the deceased in company of accused persons. He also argued that the prosecution has proved the CDR and location of mobile phones of accused persons and deceased and at the time of incident, the accused persons and the victim were present at the same spot. He also argued that blood stained FIR No. 02/2014, PS: Kamla Market, Page No. 31 of 82 State Vs. Tannu Chawla @ Tarun & Anr.
clothes have been recovered at the instance of accused persons and accused persons have failed to give any explanation in this regard. He also argued that the weapon of offence i.e. knife had been recovered at the instance of accused Tannu Chawla @ Tarun and as per medical opinion, the said knife was used in the commission of offfence. He also argued that accused Tannu Chawla @ Tarun wanted that Neha should leave the Kotha and should start living with him but Neha was not agreeing for the same and hence the prosecution has proved the motive for murder of deceased. He also argued that the medical and scientific evidence is also against the accused persons. He also argued that the CCTV footage in which the accused persons can be seen visiting Madan Mohan Malviya Hospital has been duly proved by the prosecution. He further argued that the IO as well as the other police officials have duly proved the proceedings conducted by them. He also argued that the chain of circumstantial evidence in this case is complete. He also argued that since the prosecution has proved its case against all the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt, both the accused persons should be convicted for the offences under which charges have been framed against them.
45. Per Contra Ld. Defence Counsel as well as Legal Aid Counsel argued that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. To substantiate their points, they argued that the investigation in the present case has been conducted in an arbitrary manner. They FIR No. 02/2014, PS: Kamla Market, Page No. 32 of 82 State Vs. Tannu Chawla @ Tarun & Anr.
argued that the present case is based on circumstantial evidence and prosecution has failed to prove the complete chain of circumstantial evidence against the accused persons. They also argued that as per the CDRs on record, accused Tannu Chawla @ Tarun and deceased Neha were in contact with each other but their locations were constantly changing and the IO has withheld the location chart just to falsely implicate the accused persons in the present case. They argued that if the deceased and the accused persons were present at the spot of incident i.e. in the same room, why they will talk to each other on phone. They also argued that the accused persons have been falsely implicated in the present case only on the basis of CDR and only after PW-5 Vasudev Pandey @ Vasu Nepali was planted as a witness in the present case whose testimony is suffering from material contradictions. They also argued that other persons i.e. aunties who were managing the Kotha have not been examined as PWs. They also argued that as per the testimony of PW-5 Vasudev Pandey @ Vasu Nepali, the entries of the persons visiting the kotha were being made by aunties but no such register has been produced by the prosecution to show that the accused persons had visited the spot of incident on the date of incident. They also argued that no CCTV footage of the kotha or the gali or road connecting the kotha showing the visit of accused persons at the spot has been placed by the IO. They also argued that the vaginal swaps of the victim were collected by the Doctor but the same were not sent to FSL for DNA examination for comparing the same with the DNA of accused persons. They also argued that in FIR No. 02/2014, PS: Kamla Market, Page No. 33 of 82 State Vs. Tannu Chawla @ Tarun & Anr.
the CCTV footage of Madan Mohan Malviya, the faces of alleged persons are not visible and no certificate under Section 65 B Evidence Act has been placed on record by IO. They further argued that the arrest memos of accused persons bear signature of their family members but as per the case of prosecution, the accused persons were not arrested in the presence of their family members which shows that the accused persons were not arrested in the manner in which it has been projected by the prosecution and the accused persons had not made any disclosure statement and their signatures were obtained by the IO through duress/coercion. They also argued that PW-29 IO Insp. Pramod Joshi has deposed that he does not know as to who wrote the disclosure statement of accused persons which shows that concocted disclosure statements were recorded by some police officials whose identity has not been established by the prosecution. They also argued that PW-30 Dr. Ruchi Sharma has deposed that 19 sealed parcels were received at FSL while PW-35 HC Rati Ram has deposed that 21 sealed parcels were sent to FSL, Rohini vide RC no. 15/21/14 and hence the parcels were manipulated before depositing at FSL. They also argued that there is difference between the size of knives seized by the IO and the size of knife examined by the Doctor. They also argued that no fingerprints/chance prints and blood stains of the accused persons were found at the spot of incident. They also argued that no independent public witness was joined in the investigation at the time of recovery of case property and hence the recovery of case property at instance of accused persons is FIR No. 02/2014, PS: Kamla Market, Page No. 34 of 82 State Vs. Tannu Chawla @ Tarun & Anr.
doubtful. They also argued that since the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused persons beyond the reasonable doubt, both the accused persons should be acquitted under all the sections of law under which charges have been framed against them.
46. In the present case, charges under Sec. 302/34 IPC have been framed against both the accused persons and additional charge under Sec. 25/27 Arms Act has been framed against accused Tannu Chawla. These Sections have been defined as follows:-
Section 302 IPC provides punishment for the commission of offence of murder which has been defined under Sec. 300 IPC.
300 Murder:-
Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or Secondly- If it is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused, or Thirdly- If it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or Fourthly-If the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause death, or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and commits such act without FIR No. 02/2014, PS: Kamla Market, Page No. 35 of 82 State Vs. Tannu Chawla @ Tarun & Anr.
any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid.
Exception 1 When culpable homicide is not murder. Culpable homicide is not murder if the offendor, whilst deprived of the power of self control by grave and sudden provocation, causes the death of the person who gave the provocation or causes the death of any other person my mistake or accident. The above exception is subject to the following provisos:-
First-That the provocation is not sought or voluntarily provoked by the offendor as an excuse for killing or doing harm to any person.
Secondly- That the provocation is not given by anything done in obedience to the law, or by a public servant in the lawful exercise of the powers of the public servant.
Thirdly-That the provocation is not given by anything done in the lawful exercise of the right of private defence.
Explanations: Whether the provocation was grave and sudden enough to prevent the offence amounting to murder is a question of fact.
Exception 2: Culpable homicide is not murder if the offendor, in the exercise in good faith of the right of private defence of person or property, exceeds the power given to him by law and causes the death of the person against whom he is exercising such right of defence without premeditation, and without any intention of doing more harm then is necessary for the purpose of such defence.
FIR No. 02/2014, PS: Kamla Market, Page No. 36 of 82 State Vs. Tannu Chawla @ Tarun & Anr.
Exception 3: Culpable homicide is not murder if the offendor, being a public servant or adding a public servant acting for the advancement of public justice, exceeds the power given to him by law and causes death by doing an act which he, in good faith, believes to be lawful and necessary for the due discharge of his duty as such public servant and without ill-will towards the person whose death is caused. Exception 4: Culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed without pre meditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the offendor's having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner.
Explanation : It is immaterial in such cases which party offers the provocation or commits the first assault.
Exception 5: Culpable homicide is not murder when the person whose death is caused, being above the age of eighteen years suffers death or takes the risk of death with his own consent.
34. Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention:-
When a criminal act is done by several persons, in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.
Section 25 Arms Act provides punishment for the possession of arms without any license which has been defined as under:-
(1) Whoever--
(a) [manufactures, obtains, procures], sells, FIR No. 02/2014, PS: Kamla Market, Page No. 37 of 82 State Vs. Tannu Chawla @ Tarun & Anr.
transfers, converts, repairs, tests or proves, or exposes or offers for sale or transfer, or has in his possession for sale, transfer, conversion, repair, test or proof, any arms or ammunition in contravention of section 5; or
(b) shortens the barrel of a firearm or converts an imitation firearm into a firearm [or convert from any category of firearms mentioned in the Arms Rules, 2016 into any other category of firearms] in contravention of section 6; or
(d) brings into, or takes out of, India, any arms or ammunition of any class or description in contravention of section 11, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than [seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life] and shall also be liable to fine.
[(1A) Whoever acquires, has in his possession or carries any prohibited arms or prohibited ammunition in contravention of section 7 shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than [seven years but which may extend to fourteen years] and shall also be liable to fine.
[Provided that the Court may, for any adequate and special reasons to be recorded in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than seven years.] [(1AB) Whoever, by using force, takes the firearm from the police or armed forces shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years but which may extend to imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to FIR No. 02/2014, PS: Kamla Market, Page No. 38 of 82 State Vs. Tannu Chawla @ Tarun & Anr.
fine.] (1AA) whoever manufactures, sells, transfers, converts, repairs, tests or proves, or exposes or offers for sale or transfer or has in his possession for sale, transfer, conversion, repair, test or proof, any prohibited arms or prohibited ammunition in contravention of section 7 shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than [ten years] but which may extend to imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine.] [(1AAA)] Whoever has in contravention of a notification issued under section 24A in his possession or in contravention of a notification issued under section 24B carries or otherwise has in his possession, any arms or ammunition shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than [seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life] and shall also be liable to fine.
(1B) Whoever--
(a) acquires, has in his possession or carries any firearm or ammunition in contravention of section 3; or
(b) acquires, has in his possession or carries in any place specified by notification under section 4 any arms of such class or description as has been specified in that notification in contravention of that section; or
(c) sells or transfers any firearm which does not bear the name of the maker, manufacturers number or other identification mark stamped or otherwise FIR No. 02/2014, PS: Kamla Market, Page No. 39 of 82 State Vs. Tannu Chawla @ Tarun & Anr.
shown thereon as required by sub-section (2) of section 8 or does any act in contravention of sub- section (1) of that section; or
(d) being a person to whom sub-clause (ii) or sub- clause (iii) of clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 9 applies, acquires, has in his possession or carries any firearm or ammunition in contravention of that section; or
(e) sells or transfers, or converts, repairs, tests or proves any firearm or ammunition in contravention of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 9; or
(f) brings into, or takes out of, India, any arms or ammunition in contravention of section 10; or
(g) transports any arms or ammunition in contravention of section 12; or
(h) fails to deposit arms or ammunition as required by sub-section (2) of section 3, or sub-section (1) of section 21; or
(i) being a manufacturer of, or dealer in, arms or ammunition, fails, on being required to do so by rules made under section 44, to maintain a record or account or to make therein all such entries as are required by such rules or intentionally makes a false entry therein or prevents or obstructs the inspection of such record or account or the making of copies of entries therefrom or prevents or obstructs the entry into any premises or other place where arms or ammunition are or is manufactured or kept or intentionally fails to exhibit or conceals such arms or ammunition or refuses to point out where the same are or is manufactured or kept, FIR No. 02/2014, PS: Kamla Market, Page No. 40 of 82 State Vs. Tannu Chawla @ Tarun & Anr.
shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than [two years but which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine] and shall also be liable to fine:
Provided that the Court may for any adequate and special reasons to be recorded in the judgment impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than [two years].] [(1C) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub- section (1B), whoever commits an offence punishable under that sub-section in any disturbed area shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three years but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation.--For the purposes of this sub-section, disturbed area means any area declared to be a disturbed area under any enactment, for the time being in force, making provision for the suppression of disorder and restoration and maintenance of public order, and includes any areas specified by notification under section 24A or section 24B.] (2) Whoever being a person to whom sub-clause (i) of clause
(a) of sub-section (1) of section 9 applies, acquires, has in his possession or carries any firearm or ammunition in contravention of that section shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.
[(3) Whoever sells or transfers any firearm, ammunition or other arms--
FIR No. 02/2014, PS: Kamla Market, Page No. 41 of 82 State Vs. Tannu Chawla @ Tarun & Anr.
(i) without informing the district magistrate having jurisdiction or the officer in charge of the nearest police station, of the intended sale or transfer of that firearm, ammunition or other arms; or
(ii) before the expiration of the period of forty-five days from the date of giving such information to such district magistrate or the officer in charge of the police station, in contravention of the provisions of clause (a) or clause (b) of the proviso to sub-section (2) of section 5, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine of an amount which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.] (4) Whoever fails to deliver-up a licence when so required by the licensing authority under sub-section (1) of section 17 for the purpose of varying the conditions specified in the licence or fails to surrender a licence to the appropriate authority under sub-section (10) of that section on its suspension or revocation shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine of an amount which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.
(5) Whoever, when required under section 19 to give his name and address, refuses to give such name and address or gives a name or address which subsequently transpires to be false shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine of an amount which may extend to two hundred rupees, or with both.
[(6) If any member of an organised crime syndicate or any person on its behalf has at any time has in his possession or carries any arms or ammunition in contravention of any provision of Chapter II shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years but which may FIR No. 02/2014, PS: Kamla Market, Page No. 42 of 82 State Vs. Tannu Chawla @ Tarun & Anr.
extend to imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine.
(7) Whoever on behalf of a member of an organised crime syndicate or a person on its behalf, -
(i) manufactures, obtains, procures, sells, transfers, converts, repairs, tests or proves, or exposes or offers for sale or transfer, conversion, repair, test or proof, any arms or ammunition in contravention of section 5; or
(ii) shortens the barrel of a firearm or converts an imitation firearm into a fire arm or converts from any category of firearms mentioned in the Arms Rules, 2016 into any other category of firearms in contravention of section 6; or
(iii) brings into, or takes out of India, any arms or ammunition of any class or description in contravention of section 11, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years but which may extend to imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation.--For the purposes of sub-sections (6) and (7),--
(a) organised crime means any continuing unlawful activity by any person, singly or collectively, either as a member of an organised crime syndicate or on behalf of such syndicate, by use of violence or threat of violence or intimidation or coercion, or other unlawful means, with the objective of gaining pecuniary benefits, or gaining undue economic or other advantage for himself or any person;
(b) organised crime syndicate means a group of two or more persons who, acting either singly or collectively, as a syndicate or gang indulge in activities of organised crime. (8) Whoever involves in or aids in the illicit trafficking of firearms and ammunition in contravention of sections 3, 5, 6, 7 FIR No. 02/2014, PS: Kamla Market, Page No. 43 of 82 State Vs. Tannu Chawla @ Tarun & Anr.
and 11 shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years but which may extend to imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation.--For the purposes of this sub-section, illicit trafficking means the import, export, acquisition, sale, delivery, movement or transfer of firearms and ammunition into, from or within the territory of India, if the firearms and ammunition are not marked in accordance with the provisions of this Act or are being trafficked in contravention of the provisions of this Act including smuggled firearms of foreign make or prohibited arms and prohibited ammunition.
(9) Whoever uses firearm in a rash or negligent manner or in celebratory gunfire so as to endanger human life or personal safety of others shall be punishable with an imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine which may extend to rupees one lakh, or with both.
27. [ Punishment for using arms, etc.:-
Whoever uses any arms or ammunition in contravention of section 5 shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three years but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine.
47. I have thoughtfully considered the arguments advanced, perused the material available on record, scrutinized the evidence led by the prosecution and gone through the relevant provisions of law. I have also considered the judgments relied upon by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State as well as Ld. Defence Counsels for accused persons.
48. The present case is based on circumstantial evidence. It is established principle of law that a witness may lie but not the circumstances. In the present case, there is no eye witness of the FIR No. 02/2014, PS: Kamla Market, Page No. 44 of 82 State Vs. Tannu Chawla @ Tarun & Anr.
alleged incident of commission of offence of murder of deceased Neha.
49. The guilt of the accused persons in the present case has to be proved by the prosecution through the circumstantial evidence. The circumstantial evidence has to be appreciated as per the established principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. The standard of proof required for conviction in case of circumstantial evidence is that the circumstances relied upon in support of conviction must be fully established and the chain of evidence proved by the prosecution must be so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused
50. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Judgment titled as 'Sharad Bridhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra cited as (1984) 4 SCC 116' has laid down the five golden priciples for appreciation of circumstantial evidence and has termed the same as Panchsheel of the Proof of Case based on circumstantial evidence. The said five golden principles are as follows:-
(i) The circumstances from which the conclusion of the guilt is to be drawn should be and not merely 'may be' fully established.
(ii) The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypotheses of the guilt of accused, that is to say, they should not be FIR No. 02/2014, PS: Kamla Market, Page No. 45 of 82 State Vs. Tannu Chawla @ Tarun & Anr.
explainable on any other hypotheses except that the accused is guilty.
(iii) The circumstances should be of conclusive nature and tendency.
(iv) They should exclude every possible hypotheses except the one to be proved.
(v) There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all probability the act must have been done by the accused.
51. Thus, before recording the conviction of any of the accused persons, the abovesaid five condition must be satisfied. The prosecution has to establish its case on the basis of abovesaid five golden principles and to secure conviction of any accused, the prosecution must fulfill the following requirements:-
(i) The circumstances from which the inference of the guilt of the accused is to be drawn must be firmly established.
(ii) The established circumstances must be of such definite tendency that points out towards the guilt of accused.
FIR No. 02/2014, PS: Kamla Market, Page No. 46 of 82 State Vs. Tannu Chawla @ Tarun & Anr.
(iii) The chain of the circumstances must be so complete and there should not be any snap in the chain of circumstances.
(iv) The chain of circumstances must be so complete and incapable of any other hypotheses then that the guilt of the accused and same should also be inconsistent with the innocence of the accused and must exclude every other possible hypotheses except with the hypotheses pointing out towards the guilt of the accused.
52. Prosecution has relied upon the following circumstances which have been brought on record through the evidence:-
(i) Deceased Neha was lastly seen alive in company of accused persons.
(ii) Analysis of CDR of mobile phone of deceased Neha, accused Tannu Chawla @ Tarun and accused Yogesh kashyap.
(iii) Motive for commission of offence.
(iv) Injuries sustained by accused persons & CCTV footage of
Madan Mohan Malviya Hospital. .
(v) Recovery of blood stained clothes and knife at instance of
accused persons.
(vi) Medical and scientific evidence.
FIR No. 02/2014, PS: Kamla Market, Page No. 47 of 82
State Vs. Tannu Chawla @ Tarun & Anr.
53. The evidence led by the prosecution through the above-
said circumstances relied upon by the prosecution has been analysed as follows:-
(i) Deceased Neha was lastly seen alive in company of accused persons.
54. As per the prosecution story, deceased Neha was lastly seen alive on the intervening night of 01/02.01.2014 at about 03:00-03:30 am at room situated at 1st Floor of Kotha no. 57, G.B. Road, Delhi by PW-5 Vasudev Pandey @ Vasu Nepali. Thus, the case of the prosecution is mainly based on the last seen theory.
55. The last seen theory shift the burden of proof on accused requiring him to explain as to how the incident had occured. If the accused is not in a position to explain as and when he parted with the deceased before his death, an inference may be drawn against him. Failure on the part of accused to furnish an explanation in this regard will give rise to a presumption of commission of offence. However, before considering any presumption against the accused, the prosecution has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased was lastly seen in the company of accused.
56. PW-5 Vasudev Pandey @ Vasu Nepali is the star witness of prosecution while PW-17 Sarfraz is the complainant in the FIR No. 02/2014, PS: Kamla Market, Page No. 48 of 82 State Vs. Tannu Chawla @ Tarun & Anr.
present case. The analysis of the testimony of PW-5 Vasudev Pandey @ Vasu Nepali and PW-17 Sarfraz w.r.t the sequence of events is of vital importance for the final decision of this case.
57. PW-5 Vasudev Pandey @ Vasu Nepali deposed that he was working as chowkidar at kotha no. 57 and the incident had taken place on the intervening night of 01.02.2014. As per the case of prosecution, the alleged incident took place on the intervening night of 01/02.01.2014 and not on the intervening night of 01.02.2014. Thus, PW-5 Vasudev Pandey @ Vasu Nepali is not clear about the date and month of alleged incident.
58. PW-5 Vasudev Pandey @ Vasu Nepali deposed that on the intervening night of 01.02.2014, he was on duty as chowkidar at Kotha no. 57 and at about 03:00-03:30 AM, accused Tannu called him and asked for cleaning the room. The said room was situated at the first floor of Kotha while PW-5 Vasudev Pandey @ Vasu Nepali was performing his duty at the entry of kotha no. 57 at ground floor. However, in his cross examination, PW-5 Vasudev Pandey @ Vasu Nepali deposed that the girl had come down from the room to call him on that day. He also specifically deposed that Neha had come down to call him. Thus, PW-5 Vasudev Pandey @ Vasu Nepali has given contradictory version with respect to same set of facts and it is not clear as to who called him for cleaning the room. The two contradictory versions which cannot co-exist have raised serious doubts on the veracity of PW-5 Vasudev Pandey @ Vasu Nepali as well as the prosecution story.
FIR No. 02/2014, PS: Kamla Market, Page No. 49 of 82 State Vs. Tannu Chawla @ Tarun & Anr.
59. PW-5 Vasudev Pandey @ Vasu Nepali deposed that he was called for cleaning the room. In his cross examination, he deposed that three safai karamchari used to come to kotha for cleaning work at about 08:00 AM. He also deposed that he did not clean the bedsheet of the room and same was cleaned by the concerned lady (deceased Neha). He also deposed that Ramu was involved in the work of cleaning of Kotha and he was living at the Kotha itself and was sleeping on the roof. He also deposed that he was not doing any other work except the work of chowkidari. PW-5 Vasudev Pandey @ Vasu Nepali has not explained that if the bedding was cleaned by deceased Neha, for which type of cleaning he was called at the room and why Ramu whose specific work was cleaning and who was present at the Kotha was not called. This raises serious doubts on the prosecution story.
60. PW-5 Vasudev Pandey @ Vasu Nepali deposed that he left for Sadar Bazar at about 08:00 AM and returned to Kotha at 12:00 Noon. However, in his cross examination, he deposed that he returned at about 10:00 AM from Sadar Bazar and again said that the correct position was that he had returned at about 10:30 AM from Sadar Bazar. He also deposed that police arrived between 10:30 to 11:00 AM. PW-29 IO Insp. Pramod Joshi deposed that Sarfraz came to PS at about 10:30 AM and thereafter he alongwith his staff went to Kotha no. 57. PW-17 complainant Sarfraz deposed that police staff reached at kotha no. 57 at 10:50 AM. Thus, as per version of PW-5 Vasudev FIR No. 02/2014, PS: Kamla Market, Page No. 50 of 82 State Vs. Tannu Chawla @ Tarun & Anr.
Pandey @ Vasu Nepali, he was present at Kotha no. 57 when the police arrived between 10:30 AM to 11:00 AM. Thus, the prosecution story that PW-5 Vasudev Pandey @ Vasu Nepali came to the spot from Sadar Bazar later on has become doubtful which raises serious doubts on the veracity of PW-5 Vasudev Pandey @ Vasu Nepali.
61. From the version of PW-5 Vasudev Pandey @ Vasu Nepali, it has come on record that he had returned to Kotha no. 57 at about 10:30 AM and police reached at the spot at about 10:50 AM in his presence. The rukka Ex. PW29/B was prepared at about 12:15 PM on the statement of PW-17 Sarfraz and FIR in the present case was registered at about 01:55 PM. Thus, if PW-5 Vasudev Pandey @ Vasu Nepali who had allegedly seen the accused persons in company of deceased Neha as well as leaving the kotha and who was present at the spot before the preparation of rukka, why the FIR was not registered against the accused persons on the statement of PW-5 Vasudev Pandey @ Vasu Nepali and why the same was registered on the statement of PW-17 Sarfraz against unknown persons. This raises serious doubts on the veracity of PW-5 Vasudev Pandey @ Vasu Nepali and PW-17 Sarfraz as well as the prosecution story.
62. PW-5 Vasudev Pandey @ Vasu Nepali deposed that when he returned from Sadar Bazar, Neha did not wake up as such and he was asked by aunty to see why she had not waken up and when he went to the room, he found Neha dead and thereafter PW-17 Sarfraz was called. PW-17 Sarfraz also deposed that FIR No. 02/2014, PS: Kamla Market, Page No. 51 of 82 State Vs. Tannu Chawla @ Tarun & Anr.
when he reached at Kotha on 02.012014, chowkidar namely Vasu was present there. Thus, as per version of PW-5 Vasudev Pandey @ Vasu Nepali as well as PW-17 Sarfraz, PW-5 Vasudev Pandey @ Vasu Nepali was present at kotha no. 57 before Sarfraz reached there. However, PW-17 Sarfraz also deposed that on 02.01.2014, at about 09:45 AM, he reached Kotha no. 57, G.B. Road and found the girls present there but did not see Neha there. He further deposed that he reached the room of Neha and when he opened the door, he noticed that the dead body of Neha was lying in pool of blood inside the room. Thus, as per the version of PW-5 Vasudev Pandey @ Vasu Nepali, he saw the dead body of deceased Neha at first while PW-17 Sarfraz deposed that he saw the dead body of deceased Neha first. Both the versions cannot co-exist because as per prosecution story, PW-5 Vasudev Pandey @ Vasu Nepali had gone to Sadar Bazar when the dead body of deceased Neha was found. The contradictory versions of PW-5 Vasudev Pandey @ Vasu Nepali and PW-17 Sarfraz have put a strong dent on the prosecution story that PW-5 Vasudev Pandey @ Vasu Nepali had gone to Sadar Bazar when the dead body of deceased Neha was found.
63. PW-5 Vasudev Pandey @ Vasu Nepali deposed that accused Tannu and other person (accused Yogesh Kashyap) left the kotha between 06:00 - 06:30 AM. As per the prosecution story, the clothes of accused persons were blood stained and they had sustained injuries and accused Tannu Chawla @ Tarun had the blood stained knife in his possession when he left the Kotha.
FIR No. 02/2014, PS: Kamla Market, Page No. 52 of 82 State Vs. Tannu Chawla @ Tarun & Anr.
PW-5 Vasudev Pandey @ Vasu Nepali in his cross examination deposed that he did not observe any abnormality when accused left the kotha and he did not remember if the accused was carrying any bag etc while leaving the kotha. Since, as per version of PW-5 Vasudev Pandey @ Vasu Nepali, accused persons left the Kotha in the morning and he had not observed any kind of abnormality (conduct, blood on the clothes of accused persons, injuries on the person of accused persons and carrying of weapon of offence by accused Tannu Chawla @ Tarun), the version of PW-5 Vasudev Pandey @ Vasu Nepali has become doubtful.
64. PW-5 Sh. Vasudev Pandey @ Vasu Nepali deposed that there were nine rooms at the Kotha and the Auties at the Kotha were entering the names of persons visiting the Kotha till 12 o'clock at night. The IO has not seized any such register showing the visit of accused persons at the abovesaid Kotha nor any Aunty or any other girl who were present at the Kotha have been examined to prove that accused persons had visited the Kotha on the intervening night of 01-02.01.2014.
65. Thus, from the above-said discussions, the accused persons have raised a serious doubt that PW-5 Vasudev Pandey @ Vasu Nepali may not have gone to Sadar Bazar and he may not have seen the accused persons in the room of deceased Neha at about 03:00-03:30 AM and due to the contradictons in testimonies of PW-5 Vasudev Pandey @ Vasu Nepali and PW-17 Sarfraz, serious doubts have been created on the prosecution story.
FIR No. 02/2014, PS: Kamla Market, Page No. 53 of 82 State Vs. Tannu Chawla @ Tarun & Anr.
(ii) Analysis of CDR of mobile phone of deceased Neha, accused Tannu Chawla @ Tarun and accused Yogesh kashyap.
66. The prosecution has relied upon the CDR and tower location number of the mobile phone of deceased Neha, accused Tannu Chawla @ Tarun and accused Yogesh Kashyap. As per prosecution story, mobile phone number 8860908501 was issued in name of deceased Neha and same was being used by her. Mobile phone number 9654313965 was issued in the name of PW-9 Sikha Chawla (sister of accused Tannu Chawla @ Tarun), mobile phone number 7838230507 was issued in the name of accused Tannu Chawla and mobile phone number 9654534688 was issued in the name of PW-7 Smt. Shakuntala Chawla (mother of accused Tannu Chawla @ Tarun) and all the three mobile phone numbers were being used by accused Tannu Chawla. Mobile phone number 9811973561was issued in name of PW-8 Sh. Ashok Kumar Popli and was being used by accused Yogesh Kashyap. Through the testimony of PW-7 Smt. Shakuntala, PW-8 Sh. Ashok Kumar Popli, PW-9 Smt. Sikha Chawla and PW-11 Sh. Ishrar Babu, prosecution has successfully proved that the above-said mobile phone numbers were issued in the name of above said persons and same were being used by the above said persons.
67. On the analysis of documents pertaining to the above-said mobile phone numbers, it has been revealed that the IO has not collected the location chart of any of the mobile phone number FIR No. 02/2014, PS: Kamla Market, Page No. 54 of 82 State Vs. Tannu Chawla @ Tarun & Anr.
for establishing the exact place/spot of location of accused persons and deceased Neha at Kotha no. 57, G.B. Road and other respective places.
68. On the analysis of CDR Ex. PW11/B of mobile phone number 8860908501 of deceased Neha, it is revealed that her cell ID was 404110012951661 at 23:04:54 on 01.01.2014 but her cell ID changed to 404110012903591 at 00:44:56 on 02.01.2014 which was again changed to 404110012907322 at 01:06:50 on 02.01.2014 and was again changed to 404110012951661 at 01:13:38 on 02.01.2014 which shows that the position of decesed Neha was not only at one place and she was moving. Moreover, the CDR record Ex. PW11/B of mobile phone number of 8860908501 of deceased Neha has been collected upto 01:13:38 of 02.01.2014. As per prosecution story, deceased Neha was alive till 03:00-03:30 AM and IO has not collected the CDR of said time nor he has placed the location chart to see as to what was her exact location. This raises serious doubts on the manner in which investigation has been conducted by the IO.
69. On the analysis of CDR Ex. PW11/E of mobile phone number 9654313965 of Ms. Sikha Chawla which was being allegedly used by accused Tannu Chawla @ Tarun, it is revealed that his cell ID was 404110012951661 at 22:38:56 on 01.01.2014 but his cell ID changed to 404110012907322 at 01:13:38 on 02.01.2014 which shows that accused Tannu Chawla @ Tarun had left the place of cell ID 404110012951661 which was the common ID of deceased Neha and Tannu Chawla @ Tarun till FIR No. 02/2014, PS: Kamla Market, Page No. 55 of 82 State Vs. Tannu Chawla @ Tarun & Anr.
that time. Moreover, the CDR record Ex. PW11/E of mobile phone number of 9654313965 of accused Tannu Chawla @ Tarun has been collected upto 01:13:38 of 02.01.2014. As per prosecution story, deceased Neha was alive till 03:00-03:30 AM and IO has not collected the CDR of said time nor he has placed the location chart to see as to what was his exact location.
70. On the analysis of CDR Ex. PW11/H of mobile phone number 7838230507 of accused Tannu Chawla @ Tarun, it is revealed that his cell ID was 404110017243973 at 19:11:38 on 01.01.2014 and his cell ID remained the same till 16:01:32 on 02.01.2014 which was different from the cell ID of deceased Neha. IO has not conducted any investigation as to whether this mobile phone was in possession of accused at the time of commission or not.
71. On the analysis of CDR Ex. PW11/K of mobile phone number 9811973561 of accused Yogesh Kashyap (issued in name of Sh. Ashok Kumar Popli), it is revealed that his cell ID was 404110012951661 at 22:27:09 on 01.01.2014 and his cell ID changed to 404110012907322 at 22:38:56 which was again changed to 404110012948092 at 00:29:03 and his cell ID 404110012951661 which matched with the cell ID of deceased Neha and co-accused Tannu Chawla was at 00:09:26 and thus thereafter he did not visit the said place. Thus, from the above CDR of accused Yogesh Kashyap, it is clear that he left the given spot at 00:09:26 on 02.01.2014. As per prosecution story, deceased was alive till 03:00-03:30 AM.
FIR No. 02/2014, PS: Kamla Market, Page No. 56 of 82 State Vs. Tannu Chawla @ Tarun & Anr.
72. On the analysis of all the CDRs Ex. PW11/B of mobile phone number 8860908501 of deceased Neha and CDR of mobile phone number 9654313965 Ex. PW11/E of accused Tannu Chawla (issued in the name of Ms. Sikha Chawla), it is revealed that there were several telephonic conversation between these numbers on the intervening night of 01/02.01.2014 and their cell ID was same at 00:10:16 on 02.01.2014 till 00:22:05 on 02.01.2014. If accused Tannu Chawla and deceased Neha were present in the same room i.e. at the spot of incident, why they will talk to each other through mobile phone being at the same place.
73. Thus, from the analysis of CDRs of deceased and accused persons, it has come on record that the IO has collected the CDR of mobile phone of deceased Neha and accused Tannu Chawla (issued in the name of Ms. Sikha Chawla only upto 01:13:38) and he has withheld the further CDR of the period during which deceased Neha was murdered for the reasons best known to him. Moreover, IO has not placed the location chart on record through which it could have been ascertained as to what were the exact places of location of the above said Cell IDs of mobile phone number of deceased Neha and both the accused persons. Conversation between the mobile phone number of deceased Neha and accused Tannu Chawla (issued in the name of Ms. Sikha Chawla), both being at the same location has raised serious doubts on the prosecution story. Thus the circumstantial evidence led in the form of CDRs is not sufficient to prove the guilt of FIR No. 02/2014, PS: Kamla Market, Page No. 57 of 82 State Vs. Tannu Chawla @ Tarun & Anr.
accused persons beyond reasonable doubt.
(iii) Motive for commission of offence.
74. As per the prosecution story, accused Tannu Chawla wanted that deceased Neha should leave the Kotha and reside with him and she used to demand money from accused Tannu Chawla. As per disclosure statement of accused Tannu Chawla Ex. PW14/A, deceased Neha used to demand money from him and he had sold his house and shop for Rs. 15,00,000/- and he had received Rs. 7.5 lakhs as his share and he had given the said amount to deceased Neha and she used to keep on demanding the money from him. PW-4 Sh. K. Balsubramanyam (brother of deceased Neha) deposed that both Neha and Tannu Chawla were willing to marry each other and there was no objection of any family members with respect to said marriage. However, the prosecution has not led any evidence to prove that deceased Neha kept on demanding money from accused Tannu Chawla and he had given any money to deceased Neha from time to time. The disclosure statement Ex. PW14/A was made to the police and as per mandate of Section 25 of Indian Evidence Act 1872, the same cannot be read in evidence against accused Tannu Chawla. Thus, prosecution has failed to prove the motive of commission of offence.
(iv) Injuries sustained by accused persons & CCTV footage of Madan Mohan Malviya Hospital.
75. Prosecution has relied upon the injuries sustained by both FIR No. 02/2014, PS: Kamla Market, Page No. 58 of 82 State Vs. Tannu Chawla @ Tarun & Anr.
the accused persons mentioned in their MLCs, Ex. PW-29/D and Ex. PW-29/E. PW-29/IO Inspector Pramod Joshi deposed that he has seen injuries on the right hand of accused Yogesh and Yogesh told him that he had put his hand on the mouth of Neha while accused Tannu Chawla was sliting the neck of Neha and during that process he had sustained injuries on his right hand by the said knife which was used in the commission of crime. As per MLC of accused Yogesh Kashyap, Ex. PW-29/D, there was an old injury which was stitched on the lateral part of right hand and there was old partly healed injury on the thumb of left hand. Similarly, as per MLC of accused Tannu Chawla, Ex. PW-29/E, there were multiple partially healed abrasion mark on the left hand, there were partial healed abrasion mark on the left thumb. PW-33 Dr. Rajender Singh has proved the MLCs, Ex. PW-29/D and Ex. PW-29/E of accused persons namely Yogesh Kashyap and Tannu Chawla in which the abovesaid injuries have been mentioned.
76. PW-33 Dr. Rajender Singh deposed that accused persons namely Yogesh Kashyap and Tannu Chawla told him that they had sustained the said injuries by knife on 02.01.2014 during morning hours at Kotha No. 57, G. B. Road, Delhi. PW-33 Dr. Rajender Singh deposed that no subsequent opinion qua the nature of injuries and the weapon of offence which could have caused the injuries on the body of patients/accused persons was obtained from him. He also deposed that such injuries might be possible in self defence. He also deposed that he was not sure if FIR No. 02/2014, PS: Kamla Market, Page No. 59 of 82 State Vs. Tannu Chawla @ Tarun & Anr.
the injuries on the persons of accused Tannu Chawla may be 3-4 days old or less or more than that. Since no subsequent opinion regarding the injuries with respect to the use of recovered weapon of offence i.e. knife has been obatained, it cannot be said that the said injuries were caused by the weapon of offence. Moreover, blood of accused persons was not found on the weapon of offence i.e. knife, Ex. P-24/1.
77. PW-33 Dr. Rajender Singh has deposed that accused persons were brought to the emergency by Ct. Yogesh and Ct. Sandeep. He also deposed that accused persons told him that they had sustained the said injuries by knife on 02.01.2014 during morning hours at Kotha No. 57, G. B. Road, Delhi. Thus, at the time of making disclosure statement to PW-33 Dr. Rajender Singh, both the accused persons were in custody of police. As per mandate of Sec. 26 of The Indian Evidence Act, 1872, a confession made by accused while in custody of police, cannot be proved against him. Thus, the disclosure made by the accused persons to PW-33 Dr. Rajender Singh cannot be read in evidence against them.
78. As per the case of the prosecution, both the accused persons had sustained injuries in their hands at the time of commission of offence and they had visited Madan Mohan Malviya Hospital where medical treatment was given to accused Yogesh Kashyap. PW-12 Dr. Sapatenanjay Sahoo has proved the medical documents of one Yogesh in this regard on which the prosecution has relied. PW-12 Dr. Sapatenanjay Sahoo deposed FIR No. 02/2014, PS: Kamla Market, Page No. 60 of 82 State Vs. Tannu Chawla @ Tarun & Anr.
that on 02.01.2014, one injured Yogesh Kumar came to the hospital and he was having cut injuries on his hand. He has proved the copy of dressing register containing entry of Yogesh Kumar at serial No. 8, exhibited as Ex. PW-12/A. He also proved emergency aid document, Ex. PW-12/B in which name of patient Yogesh Kumar has not been mentioned. He also deposed that he asked Yogesh Kumar to get prepared prescription slip but he did not come back. He also deposed that he cannot identify the said patient namely Yogesh Kumar. As per MLC of accused Yogesh Kashyap, exhibited as Ex. PW-29/D, prepared at LNJP Hospital, there were stitches on the injuries of his hand but PW-12 Dr. Sapatenanjay Sahu had not put stitches on the hands of accused Yogesh Kashyap nor he has deposed that there was requirement of any stitches on the injuries of said Yogesh Kumar and prosecution had not examined the concerned doctor who put stitches on the injury on the hand of accused Yogesh Kashyap and hence the link evidence is missing. Moreover, PW-12 Dr. Sapatenanjay Sahoo had examined Yogesh Kumar whose parentage and address is not known while the correct name of accused in the present case is Yogesh Kashyap and not Yogesh Kumar. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that accused Yogesh Kashyap had visited Madan Mohan Malviya Hospital who medically treated by PW-12 Dr. Sapatenanjay Sahoo.
79. The prosecution has also relied upon the CCTV footage of Madan Mohan Malviya Hospital and as per the case of prosecution, accused persons namely Tannu Chawala and Yogesh FIR No. 02/2014, PS: Kamla Market, Page No. 61 of 82 State Vs. Tannu Chawla @ Tarun & Anr.
Kashyap are visible in the said CCTV footate which additional circumstancial evidence against them. The said CCTV footage was played in the court at the time of recording of testimony of second IO/Inspector Yashvir. PW-31/Inspector Yashvir deposed that the person seen in the Video footate was accused Tannu Chawla and his wearing jacket was seized by previous IO/Inspector Pramod Joshi. He also deposed that the strips on the jacket as shown in the first CCTV footage were horizontal. However, the jacket which is shown in the CCTV footage is having the strips on the arms in vertical. The said person who seems to be security guard is also wearing golf cap. However, the accused in first CCTV footate was wearing a monkey cap. This court had also made observation regarding the CCTV footage which was as follows:-
"the person in CCTV footage is seen from back side and only a portion of his face is visible which is also not much clear and hence it cannnot be concluded by this court whether the person seen in the CCTV footage is accused Tannu Chawla or some other person."
80. The said CCTV footage was never sent to FSL for comparing the faces of accused persons to prove that the person seen in the CCTV footages are accused Yogesh Kashyap and Tannu Chawla. No medical document with respect to any treatment taken by accused Tannu Chawla from Madan Mohan Malviya Hospital has been placed on record. Moreover, certificate under Sec. 65B of The Evidence Act, 1872 with FIR No. 02/2014, PS: Kamla Market, Page No. 62 of 82 State Vs. Tannu Chawla @ Tarun & Anr.
respect to the said CCTV footage has been placed on record and PW-29 IO/Inspector Pramod Joshi specifically deposed that he did not obtain certificate under Sec. 65B of The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 with respect to the CCTV footage of hospital. Thus, in absence of certificate under Sec. 65B of The Evidence Act, 1872, the CCTV footage does not have any evidentary value. In these circumstances, the injuries sustained by the accused persons and the CCTV footage of Madan Mohan Malviya Hospital is not a sufficient circumstance to connect the accused persons with the commission of offence.
(v) Recovery of blood stained clothes and knife at instance of accused persons.
81. As per prosecution story, the weapon of offence i.e. Ex. P-24/1 and blood stained clothes of accused Tannu Chawla, Ex. P-24/4 were recovered at instance of accused Tannu Chawla @ Tarun. Similarly, blood stained clothes, Ex. P-24/5 to Ex. P-25/7 were recovered at instance of accused Yogesh Kashyap. The recovery of the case property has to be proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt in compliance with the law laid down in this regard by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act is an exception to Section 25 and Section 26 of the said Act. Section 27 is based on the doctrine of confirmation by subsequent events. The principle under Sec. 27 of Indian Evidence Act is based on the principle that if any fact is discovered on the basis of disclosure statement of accused, the discovery of said fact is a guarantee that the information given by FIR No. 02/2014, PS: Kamla Market, Page No. 63 of 82 State Vs. Tannu Chawla @ Tarun & Anr.
the accused in his disclosure statement is true. Such information may be confessional or non-inculpating in nature but if any new fact is discovered from such information it will be considered as a reliable information.
82. The fact discovered on the basis of disclosure of statement of accused must be relevant facts. Such information must be given by the person who is accused of an offence and the recovery of article or discovery of fact must be based upon the information given by such accused.
83. Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Judgment titled as Mohammad Burhan Vs. Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, cited as 'MANU/DE/3131/2017' has held that:-
" joining of independent public witness is not mere a formality; it is a vital safeguard to avoid false implication of individual. In number of cases either no independent public witnesses are associated on the pretext that none of them is available; in some cases only passerbyes are requested to join the investigation. Non- examination of independent public witness in the instant case is serious flaw and adverse inference is to be drawn against the prosecution for withholding them.
84. Similarly Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Judgment FIR No. 02/2014, PS: Kamla Market, Page No. 64 of 82 State Vs. Tannu Chawla @ Tarun & Anr.
titled as Ramanand@Nand Lal Bharti Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh cited as 2022 SCC online SC 1396 has observed as under:-"52. Section 27 of the Evidence Act, 1872 reads thus:-
'27 How much of information received from the accused may be proved-Provided that, when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information, received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered may be proved.
If, it is say of the investigating officer that the accused appellant while in custody on his own free will and volition made a statement that he would lead to the place where he had hidden the weapon of offence along with his blood stained clothes then the first thing that the investigating officer should have done was to call for two independent witnesses at the police station itself. Once the two independent witnesses arrive at the police station thereafter in their presence the accused should be asked to make an appropriate statement as he may desire, in regard to pointing out the place where he is said to have hidden the weapon of offence. When the accused while in custody makes such statement before the FIR No. 02/2014, PS: Kamla Market, Page No. 65 of 82 State Vs. Tannu Chawla @ Tarun & Anr.
two independent witnesses (panch witnesses) the exact statement or rather the exact words uttered by the accused should be incorporated in the first part of the panchnama that the investigating officer may draw in accordance with law. This first part of the panchnama that the investigating officer may draw in accordance with law. This first part of the panchnama for the purpose of Section 27 of the Evidence Act is always drawn at the police station in the presence of that independent witnesses so as to lend credence that a particular statement was made by the accused expressing his willingness on his own free will and volition to point out the place where the weapon of offence or any other article used in the commission of the offence had been hidden. Once the first part of the panchnama is completed thereafter the police party along with the accused and the two particular place anything like the weapon of offence of blood stained clothes or any other article is discovered then the part of the entire process expects the investigating officer then it is clear that the same is deficient in all the aforesaid relevant aspects of the matter."
85. As per the case of prosecution, both the accused persons were arrested on 05.01.2014 vide arrest memos Ex. PW-5/A and Ex. PW-5/B and their disclosure statements, Ex. PW-14/A and FIR No. 02/2014, PS: Kamla Market, Page No. 66 of 82 State Vs. Tannu Chawla @ Tarun & Anr.
Ex. PW-14/B were recorded on the same day. However, the accused persons had not disclosed the spot from where they can get the case property recovered. The case properties i.e. knife and blood stained clothes were recovered by the IO on 07.01.2014 i.e. after two days of the arrest of accused persons. The said case properties were the vital piece of evidence and the delay caused in recovery of said case properties has not been explained by PW-29 IO/Inspector Pramod Joshi which raises serious doubts on the alleged recoveries.
86. PW-29 IO/Inspector Pramod Joshi seized the weapon of offence i.e. knife, Ex. P-24/1 vide seizure memo Ex. PW-24/D. The clothes of accused Tannu Chawla @ Tarun had been seized by IO vide seizure memo Ex. PW-24/E while the clothes of accused Yogesh Kashyap have been seized by the IO vide seizure memo Ex. PW-24/G. On the perusal of seizure memos Ex. PW-24/D, Ex. PW-24/E & Ex. PW-24/G, it is revealed that no independent public person was joined in the investigation at the time of recovery of said case properties. The recovery in the present case is not a chance recovery but the same has been made by the IO after two days of recording of disclosure statements of accused persons. The IO had more than sufficient time to serve notice upon the public person to join the investigation and non- joining of any independent public person at the time of recovery of case properties is fatal to the case of prosecution. Moreover, the clothes of accused Tannu Chawla @ Tarun, Ex. P-24/4 and clothes of accused Yogesh Kashyap, Ex. P-24/5 to Ex. P-25/7 FIR No. 02/2014, PS: Kamla Market, Page No. 67 of 82 State Vs. Tannu Chawla @ Tarun & Anr.
which they were allegedly wearing at the time of commission of offence have not been got identified through PW-5 Sh. Vasudev Pandey @ Vasu Nepali who allegedly had seen the accused persons leaving the Kotha after the commission of offence.
87. Accused persons have taken the defence that there was no blood on their clothes and same has been planted by the IO after taking clothes from them. PW-2 Sh. Rehan deposed that accused Yogesh Kashyap had given him one jeans pant and jacket for washing at his shop and there was blood stains on his jeans pant and shirt. He further deposed that police reached to him along with accused Yogesh Kashyap and taken those clothes from him. Surprisingly, the seizure memo of clothes of accused Yogesh Kashyap, Ex. PW-24/G has not been signed by PW-2 Sh. Rehan which raises serious doubts on the prosecution story. Moreover, the said clothes were not shown to PW-2 Sh. Rehan at the time of recording of his testimony and hence the identity of clothes given by PW-2 Rehan to the Police has not been established. PW-2 Sh. Rehan also deposed that he used to put tag with receipt number on the clothes and admitted that he had no receipt or document to show that accused Yogesh Kashyap had given his clothes to him for washing. In these circumstances, it has become doubtful whether accused Yogesh Kashyap had given his clothes for washing or not.
88. PW-29 IO/Inspector Pramod Joshi in his cross- examination deposed that he had not scribed the personal search, FIR No. 02/2014, PS: Kamla Market, Page No. 68 of 82 State Vs. Tannu Chawla @ Tarun & Anr.
arrest memo and disclosure statement of both accused persons and he did not remember who scribed the same. Thus, the IO is not even aware as to who wrote the disclosure statement of accused persons which shows casual approach on his part which is fatal to the case of prosecution.
89. PW-29 IO/Inspector Pramod Joshi deposed that disclosure statement of both the accused persons were recorded at the Police Station. PW-17 Sh. Sarfarz deposed that on 05.01.2014, he along with police staff and chowkidar Vasu went to Vikas Hospital situated at Mehrauli where accused persons were arrested and their disclosure statements were recorded. PW-17 Sh. Sarfarz has not deposed that the disclosure statements of accused persons was recorded at the PS or that he went to the PS after arrest of accused persons. This is a material contradictions between the testimonies of PW-29 IO/Inspector Pramod Joshi and PW-17 Sh. Sarfarz which raises serious doubts on the prosecution story.
90. PW-29 IO/Inspector Pramod Joshi deposed that on 05.01.2014, he along with, ASI Pramod, Ct. Dhara, HC Pradeep, HC Anil, Ct. Sandeep, Ct. Yogesh, Sarfarz and Vasudev went to Qutub Minar Metro Station and arrested accused persons namely Tannu Chawla @ Tarun and Yogesh Kashyap vide arrest memos Ex. PW-5/A and Ex. PW-5/B. Neither PW-29 IO/Inspector Pramod Joshi nor any other prosecution witness has deposed that PW-7 Smt. Shakuntala (mother of accused Tannu Chawla @ Tarun) and wife of accused Yogesh Kashyap were also present FIR No. 02/2014, PS: Kamla Market, Page No. 69 of 82 State Vs. Tannu Chawla @ Tarun & Anr.
with them at the spot of arrest of accused persons. However, surprisingly arrest memo of accused Tannu Chawla @ Tarun, Ex. PW-5/A bears the signatures of PW-7 Smt. Shankuntala in column no. 9 and arrest memo of accused Yogesh Kashyap bears the signature of his wife namely Smt. Simran in column no. 7. This raises serious doubts with respect to arrest of accused persons from the alleged spot. This also raises serious doubts on the disclosure statements made by the accused persons. IO has not given any explanation in this regard.
91. PW-29 IO/Inspector Pramod Joshi seized the weapon of offence i.e. knife Ex. P-24/1 vide seizure memo Ex. PW-24/D and he also prepared the sketch of knife Ex. PW-24/C. He deposed that total length of knife was 27.8 cm and total length of blade was 15.09 cm while width of the blade was 3.6 cm. The said knife was sent to PW-10 Dr. Jyoti Barwa for its examination. PW-10 Dr. Jyoti Barwa proved her report, Ex. PW-10/C in this regard. As per the report, total length of knife was 28 cm and the length of its blade was 14.5 cm while width of the blade was 3.4 cm. Thus, the dimensions of knife Ex. P-24/1 seized by the IO and the dimensions of the knife examined by PW-10 Dr. Jyoti Barwa are entirely different. This raises serious doubts on the safe custody chain of the weapon of offence from the point of seizure to the point of examination by PW-10 Dr. Jyoti Barwa. It has raised serious doubts on the prosecution case as to whether the weapon seized by the IO was examined by PW-10 Dr. Jyoti Barwa or some other weapon was examined by her. In these FIR No. 02/2014, PS: Kamla Market, Page No. 70 of 82 State Vs. Tannu Chawla @ Tarun & Anr.
circumstances, the opinion of PW-10 Dr. Jyoti Barwa vide her report, Ex. PW-10/C has become doubtful.
92. Applying the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Mohammad Burhan (Supra) and Ramanand@Nand Lal Bharti (Supra), this Court is of considered opinion that due to non-joining of independent public person at the time of recovery of case properties, recovery of case properties after delay of two days without any explanation, signatures of family members of accused persons on the arrest memos, non-explanation by PW-29 IO/Inspector Pramod Joshi as who recorded disclosure statement of accused persons, doubts regarding the place of recording of disclosure statements and difference in the dimensions of recovered weapon of offence, Ex. P-24/1, the recoveries of case properties in the present case have become doubtful and the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the said case properties were recovered at instance of accused persons.
(vi) Medical and scientific evidence.
93. The prosecution has also relied upon the Medical & Scientific evidence adduced through prosecution witnesses. PW-10 Dr. Jyoti Barwa proved the postmortem report of deceased Neha, Ex. PW-10/A. As per the postmortem report, Ex. PW-10/A, there were 46 external injuries on the body of deceased Neha and the cause of death was shock and haemorrage consequent upon sharp forced injury to the neck caused via FIR No. 02/2014, PS: Kamla Market, Page No. 71 of 82 State Vs. Tannu Chawla @ Tarun & Anr.
injury no. 10 & 19 which are individually as well as collectively sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Thus, the prosecution has proved the cause of death. At the time of postmortem, PW-10 Dr. Jyoti Barwa had sealed the clothes of deceased, vaginal swabs along with control, finger nail clippings and sealed blood on the gauze. PW-34 Dr. Yogesh Sharma had collected the blood samples of accused persons namely Tannu Chawla @ Tarun and Yogesh Kashyap and same were seized by the IO vide seizure memo, Ex. PW-31/E. PW-29 IO/Inspector Pramod Joshi in his cross-examination has specifically deposed that no request for forensice examination of vaginal swab as taken from deceased to compare the same with accused or Vasudev Pandey was done during the investigation remained with him. However, the vaginal swabs were not got compared with the DNA of accused persons to prove that the accused persons had sexual intercourse with the deceased with the commission of offence of murder. PW-30 Dr. Ruchi Sharma has proved FSL Report, Ex. PW-30/A. As per the report, no seaman could be detected on Ex. 9a & Ex. 9b i.e. vaginal swabs of deceased. Thus, it has not been proved by the prosecution that the accused persons had sexual intercourse with deceased Neha though PW-5 Vasudev Pandey @ Vasu Nepali has deposed that accused persons were doing masti with Neha when he reached their room. If the accused persons had used the condoms, same have also not been recovered by the IO during the investigation. In these circumstances, it is not possible to reach a conclusion that the accused persons had sexual intercourse with deceased.
FIR No. 02/2014, PS: Kamla Market, Page No. 72 of 82 State Vs. Tannu Chawla @ Tarun & Anr.
94. PW-5 Sh. Vasudev Pandey @ Vasu Nepali has deposed that the accused persons were consuming beer when he went to the room of deceased. No bottle of beer/the glasses used by the accused persons have been seized by the IO and the investigation on this point is silent. The scientific evidence in form of fingerprints on the bottle of beer/glasses used by the accused persons or any other articles lying in the room could have been a vital piece of evidence. Non-recovery of these articles and not finding of any chance print of accused persons from the spot of incident has weakened the case of prosecution.
95. PW-35 HC Rati Ram (also examined as PW-24) has proved the the entries in register no. 19 with respect to deposit of exhibits with him by the IO. He has also proved the entry in register no. 21 with respect to the road certificate through which the exhibits were sent to FSL. PW-35 HC Rati Ram deposed that on 24.02.2014, 21 sealed pullanda along with sample seal were sent to FSL Rohini through Ct. Milan vide RC No. 15/21/14. PW-18 Ct. Milan deposed that on 24.02.2014, he received 19 sealed pullandas which were deposited by him at FSL Rohini. He also proved the acknowledgment received from FSL Rohini in this regard, exhibited as Ex. PW-18/C. Thus, there is difference in number of exhibits sent to the FSL through PW-18 Ct. Milan on a specific date i.e. 24.02.2014 which raises serious doubts on the safe custody of the exhibits sent to the FSL on that day. In these circumstances, tempering with the exhibits cannot be ruled out.
FIR No. 02/2014, PS: Kamla Market, Page No. 73 of 82 State Vs. Tannu Chawla @ Tarun & Anr.
96. PW-30 Dr. Ruchi Sharma has proved FSL Report, Ex. PW-30/A. As per the report the alleles from source of Ex. A (gauze cloth of piece of accused Tannu Chawla @ Tarun) were accounted in mixed DNA profile obtained from source of Ex. 15 i.e. knife and Ex. 16c i.e. jacket of accused Tannu Chawla @ Tarun. Similarly, the alleles from the source of Ex. B (gauze cloth piece of accused Yogesh Kashyap) are accounted in mixed DNA profile obtained from source of Ex. 15 i.e. knife and Ex. 17b i.e. shirt of accused Yogesh Kashyap. No blood of deceased Neha was found either on the weapon of offence i.e. knife or the clothes of accused persons. Finding of bloods of accused persons on their clothes or knife and not finding of blood of deceased Neha on said articles coupled with the fact that the recovery of clothes and knife is doubtful as discussed in preceeding paragraphs, does not connect the accused persons with the commission of offence of murder of deceased Neha. Thus, the prosecution has failed to connect the accused persons with the commission of offence even through the Medical and Scientific evidence.
97. To prove the prosecution case, the testimony of the prosecution witnesses must be reliable. It is not the quantity but the quality of the testimony of the witness that helps a court in arriving at a conclusion in any case. The test in this regard is that the evidence adduced by the parties must have a ring of truth. In a criminal trial, the prosecution has to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and it is possible only when the testimony of FIR No. 02/2014, PS: Kamla Market, Page No. 74 of 82 State Vs. Tannu Chawla @ Tarun & Anr.
prosecution witnesses is cogent, trustworthy and credible. To secure a conviction of accused, the testimony of the prosecution witness must be of sterling quality.
98. In case titled as 'Rai Sandeep @ Deepu Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2012) 8 SCC 21', it is held that :
"22. In our considered opinion, the "sterling witness" should be of a very high quality and caliber whose version should, therefore, be unassailable. The court considering the version of such witness should be in a position to accept it for its face value without any hesitation. To test the quality of such a witness, the status of the witness would be immaterial and what would be relevant is the truthfulness of the statement made by such a witness. What would be more relevant would be the consistency of the statement right from the starting point till the end, namely, at the time when the witness makes the initial statement and ultimately before the court. It should be natural and consistent with the case of the prosecution qua the accused. There should not be any prevarication in the version of such a witness. The witness should be in a position to withstand the cross-
FIR No. 02/2014, PS: Kamla Market, Page No. 75 of 82 State Vs. Tannu Chawla @ Tarun & Anr.
examination of any length and howsoever strenuous it may be and under no circumstances should given room for any doubt as to the factum of the occurrence, the persons involved, as well as the sequence of it. Such a version should have corelation with each and every one of other supporting material such as the recoveries made, the weapons used, the manner of offence committed, the scientific evidence and the expert opinion. The said version should consistently match with the version of very other witness. It can even be stated that it should be akin to the test applied in the case of circumstantial evidence where there should not be any missing link in the chain of circumstances to hold the accused guilty of the offence alleged against him. Only, if the version of such a witness qualifies the above test as well as all other such similar tests to be applied, can it be held that such a witness can be called as a "sterling witness' whose version can be accepted by the court without any corroboration and based on which the guilty can be punished. To be more precise, the version of the said witness on the core FIR No. 02/2014, PS: Kamla Market, Page No. 76 of 82 State Vs. Tannu Chawla @ Tarun & Anr.
spectrum of the crime should remain intact while all other attendant materials, namely, oral, documentary and material objects should match the said version in material particulars in order to enable the court trying the offence to rely on the core version to sieve the other supporting materials for holding the offender guilty of the charge alleged."
99. Similarly, in case of Ramdas Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2007) SCC 170, it is held that :
"23. It is no doubt true that the conviction in a case of rape can be based solely on the testimony of the prosecutrix, but that can be done in a case where the court is convinced about the truthfulness of the prosecutrix and there exist no circumstances with cast of shadow of doubt over her veracity. It the evidence of the prosecutrix is of such quality that may be sufficient to sustain an order of conviction solely on the basis of her testimony. In the instant case we do not fine her evidence to be of such quality."
100. Thus, from the above said judgments, it is clear that the version of the witness should be natural one and it must corroborate the prosecution case. Such version must match with FIR No. 02/2014, PS: Kamla Market, Page No. 77 of 82 State Vs. Tannu Chawla @ Tarun & Anr.
the testimony of other prosecution witnesses. It should be of such a quality that there should not be any shadow of doubt upon it.
101. Due to inconsitency and contradictions in testimonies of PW-5 Sh. Vasudev Pandey @ Vasu Nepali and PW-17 Sh. Sarfarz, serious doubts have been created upon the prosecution story. The versions of PW-5 Sh. Vasudev Pandey @ Vasu Nepali and PW-17 Sh. Sarfarz are not natural one. The things appears to have not happened in the manner these have been projected. In the light of aforesaid discussion, this court is of the considered opinion that the testimonies of PW-5 Sh. Vasudev Pandey @ Vasu Nepali and PW-17 Sh. Sarfarz are not clear, cogent, credible and trustworthy and same are not corroborated by other material evidence. The testimonies of PW-5 Sh. Vasudev Pandey @ Vasu Nepali and PW-17 Sh. Sarfarz in the present case cannot be said to be of sterling quality to secure the conviction of the accused persons.
102. It is established principle of law that if two views are possible, the view favourable to the accused must be accepted. The benefit of doubt must always go to the accused as the prosecution has to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.
103. The Hon'ble Apex court in Rang Bahadur Singh Vs. State of U.P. reported in AIR 2000 SC 1209 has held as follows:
"The timetested rule in that acquittal of a guilty person should be preferred to conviction of an innocent person. Unless the prosecution FIR No. 02/2014, PS: Kamla Market, Page No. 78 of 82 State Vs. Tannu Chawla @ Tarun & Anr.
establishes the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt a conviction cannot be passed on the accused. A criminal court cannot afford to deprive liberty of the appellants, lifelong liberty, without having at least a reasonable level of certainty that the appellants were the real culprits."
104. In yet another decision in State of U.P. Vs. Ram Veer Singh and Another reported in 2007(6) Supreme 164 the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as follows:
"The golden thread which runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two view are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. The paramount consideration of the Court is to ensure that miscarriage of justice is prevented. A miscarriage of justice which may arise from acquittal of the guilty is no less than from the conviction of an innocent. In a case where admissible evidence is ignored, a duty is cast upon the appellate Court to reappreciate the evidence where the accused has been acquitted, for the purpose of ascertaining as to FIR No. 02/2014, PS: Kamla Market, Page No. 79 of 82 State Vs. Tannu Chawla @ Tarun & Anr.
whether any of the accused really committed any offence or not."
105. In the present case, due to inconsistency and contradictions in testimonies of PW-5 Sh. Vasudev Pandey @ Vasu Nepali and PW-17 Sh. Sarfarz coupled with doubtful recovery of case prop- erties, non-matching of DNA of deceased with the DNA found on the weapon of offence and clothes of accused persons, difference in dimension of knife seized and knife examined, non- examination of any independent witness and non-collection of any corroborative evidence, serious doubts have been created on the prosecution story and two views are possible in this case and applying the law laid down by Hon'ble Superme Court of India in 'Rang Bahadur Singh (Supra) and Ram Veer Singh (Supra), the benefit of the same must go to the accused persons.
106. On appreciation of entire evidence led by the prosecution and applying the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in 'Sharad Birdichand Sharda (Supra)', this court has reached on the following conclusions:-
(i) This court is of considered opinion that the evidence led by the prosecution against accused persons is not clear, cogent, crediable and trustworthy and from the evidence led by the prosecution the guilt of accused persons has not been fully established.
(ii) The facts established by the prosecution are not completely consistent with the hypotheses of the FIR No. 02/2014, PS: Kamla Market, Page No. 80 of 82 State Vs. Tannu Chawla @ Tarun & Anr.
guilt of accused persons and other hypotheses that the offence may have been committed by some other person is possibile in the present case.
(iii) The circumstances established by the prosecution are not conclusive in nature and tendency.
(iv) The circumstances brought on record by the prosecution have not excluded every possible hypotheses except the hypotheses which the prosecution intended to prove.
(v) The chain of evidence led by the prosecution is not so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of accused persons and prosecution has failed to prove that in all probabilities, the offences have been committed by the accused persons only.
107. For the reasons stated above, this court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the ingredients of offences punishable under Section 302/34 IPC, against both the accused persons and ingredients of offences punishable under Sec. 25/27 Arms Act against accused Tannu Chawla @ Tarun, beyond reasonable doubt.
108. Accordingly in view of the aforesaid discussion, accused persons namely Tannu Chawla @ Tarun and Yogesh Kashyap are hereby acquitted for offence punishable under Section 302/34 FIR No. 02/2014, PS: Kamla Market, Page No. 81 of 82 State Vs. Tannu Chawla @ Tarun & Anr.
IPC. Accused Tannu Chawla @ Tarun is also acquitted for the offences punishable under Sec. 25/27 Arms Act.
109. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Digitally signed
VIRENDER by VIRENDER
Announced in the open court KUMAR
KUMAR
KHARTA
KHARTA
on 25th day of January, 2025 Date: 2025.01.25
16:32:02 +0530
(Virender Kumar Kharta)
ASJ/FTC-02(CENTRAL)
TIS HAZARI COURTS:DELHI:25.01.2025
FIR No. 02/2014, PS: Kamla Market, Page No. 82 of 82
State Vs. Tannu Chawla @ Tarun & Anr.