Delhi District Court
State vs Anil Kumar Mann @ Lambu Etc on 29 May, 2024
-1-
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHEFALI SHARMA:
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE-02( NORTH ):
ROHINI DISTRICT COURTS : DELHI
In the matter of:-
(Sessions Case No. 57388/2016)
FIR No. 321/2015
Police Station Shahbad Dairy
Charge sheet filed 302/365/411/201/34 IPC
Under Section
Charge framed Under 302/365/411/201/34 IPC
Section
State Vs. (1) Anil Maan @ Lambu
S/o Sh. Ajit Singh
R/o H.No. 733, Village Khera
Khurd, Delhi (Expired)
(2) Ratin Maan
S/o Sh.Om Prakash
R/o H.No. 147, Villege Khera
Khurd, Delhi.
...Accused persons
Date of institution 29.06.2015
Arguments concluded on 20.05.2024
Judgment Pronounced on 29.05.2024
Decision Acquitted
JUDGMENT
BRIEF FACTS SC No. 57388/16, FIR No. 321/15, PS Shahbad Dairy State Vs. Anil Maan & Anr.
Page 1 of 64 -2-1. Events which set the prosecution machinery into motion is that on 04.03.2015 after 7.30 p.m., the accused Anil Kumar Maan (since deceased and proceedings qua him stand abated) along co-accused Ratin Maan in furtherance of their common intention kidnapped one Subhash and wrongfully confined him and thereafter, both of them murdered said Subhash by strangulation and dumped his body in the canal at Khera Khurd and also threw the motorcycle used in the commission of the offence bearing no. DL-8SAW-7368 in the said canal.
It is the case of the prosecution that on 08.03.2015 a complaint vide DD No.51PP was received by Retd. SI Devender at police post Metro Vihar regarding the missing of one Subhash. On 09.03.2015 during the course of investigation, SI Devender reached at the canal near Khera Khurd Nehar Pul, where Ct.Rupesh, HC Rajbir, Ct. Nagraj and Ct.Bijender were already present and they searched the canal from where one dead body was recovered with both hands and legs tied with shoe laces and the neck was tied with red colour jersey having a one big stone. The body was identified by Manoj as that of his elder brother Subhash S/o Kuwar Singh. The motorcycle bearing no. DL8S-AW-7368 was also found there.
That on 10.03.2015 postmortem of the dead body was conducted and as per the postmortem report No. 127/2015 dated 10.03.2015 the cause of death was due to ligature strangulation.
It is the case of the prosecution that the deceased was last seen by one Ravi on 04.03.2015 with Naveen Maan and Satyawan Sharma and accused Anil Maan and Ratin Maan at about 7.15 p.m. at DSIIDC DD Mall, Sector 5 Industrial Area, Bawana, Delhi. Eventually SC No. 57388/16, FIR No. 321/15, PS Shahbad Dairy State Vs. Anil Maan & Anr.
Page 2 of 64 -3-during investigation, the IO recorded statement of the witnesses and after completion of investigation, charge sheet for the offence u/S. 302/365/411/201/34 IPC was filed in the court against the accused persons Anil Kumar Maan and Ratin Maan. One Naveen Maan, Satyawan and Sanjay Kumar were kept in Column no.12 as suspects, however, no incriminating material was found against them and they had neither been summoned by the Ld. Magistrate.
CHARGE
2. On committal of the case to the Court of Sessions, vide order dated 15.09.2015 charge under Section 302/365/201/34 IPC was framed against both accused persons. In addition, charge under Section 411 IPC was framed separately against both the accused persons. Accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
3. Thereafter, prosecution in support of its case have examined 35 witnesses in all.
PW1 is Sh. Manoj, brother of the deceased. PW1 Manoj had deposed that he was informed by his bhabhi PW2 Sudha that Naveen and Satyawan had taken his brother Subhash at about 5.15 p.m. on 04.03.2015 and deceased had gone on his motorcycle bearing no. DL8S- AW-7368 but did not return. A missing complaint was lodged and eventually the dead body of his brother Subhash was recovered from a canal near Khera nahar, whose both hand and legs were found tied with shoe laces and one red colour jersey was found tied in the neck of the SC No. 57388/16, FIR No. 321/15, PS Shahbad Dairy State Vs. Anil Maan & Anr.
Page 3 of 64 -4-dead body from which one heavy stone was hanging. He identified the dead body of his brother at BSA Hospital mortuary. He also identified the photographs of motorcycle Ex.P5 to P7.
PW2 is Smt. Sudha, wife of the deceased, who deposed that her husband Subhash was having office of documentation near the office of SDM, Naya Bans, Alipur and one Naveen Maan and Satyawan Sharma also used to do some kind of work of documentation near the SDM office. She deposed that the said two persons had come to their house on 04.03.2015 at about 5.15 p.m. and took her husband,who went on a black motorcycle bearing no. DL8S-AW-7368 in her presence. She further deposed that her husband did not return thereafter. She further deposed that she tried to contact Satyawan, who gave evasive replies and she sent her mother in law Bati Devi and Rishi to the house of Naveen. Thereafter, she contacted one Ravi who worked in the shop of her husband who told that he had also seen Subhash and Satyawan with Naveen, Anil Maan and one other person on 04.03.2015 at about 7.15 p.m. at DSIIDC, DD Mall, Sector 5, Industrial Area Bawana, consuming liquor.
Being suspicious of the conduct of Naveen Maan and Satyawan Sharma, she made said Ravi telephonically call up Satyawan who misled that he was at Samalkha in his house but when they reached at his house at Samalkha, he was not found there. A missing report was filed by his brother in law Rishi vide DD No.16 on 05.03.2015 and despite all efforts when the husband could not be traced, she filed a complaint on 08.03.2015 Ex.PW2/A at police post Metro Vihar. She identified the purse Ex.P1 containing documents of her husband and the SC No. 57388/16, FIR No. 321/15, PS Shahbad Dairy State Vs. Anil Maan & Anr.
Page 4 of 64 -5-photographs of the motorcycle Ex.P5 to Ex.P7. She also identified the clothes of her husband.
PW3 is Sh. Ravi. He deposed that on 04.03.2015, he saw deceased Subhash had gone with one Satyawan and Naveen Maan saying that he was going to DSIIDC, DD Mall. PW3 deposed that he closed his shop at 7.30 p.m. and went to deceased Subhash for taking money and saw deceased Subhash having liquor with Satyawan and Naveen. He categorically deposed that when he asked for money from deceased Subhash, he told him that he had forgotten his purse at his home and after taking Rs.100/- from Satyawan, he had handed over the same to me and asked me to return to the shop and wait for him there. At about 9:30- 10:00 p.m., he again visited the DD Mall and found deceased Subhash alongwith Satyawan and Naveen there. Satyawan had asked me to go home and told him that, deceased Subhash had consumed much liquor and Satyawan told him that he would leave Subhash to his home on his motorcycle and Satyawan also asked him not to inform the wife of Subhash that, deceased Subhash was taking liquor with them.
On 05.03.2015, he came to know that Subhash had not returned home and he along with his wife Sudha went for his search and lodged the missing report 05.03.2015 at PP Metro Vihar. He further deposed that he had gone to meet Satyawan but he denied meeting Subhash on 04.03.2015.
PW4 is HC Satender. He has deposed that on 09.03.2015, he was posted as Photographer in Crime Team (Outer) and on that day, on receipt of information, he along with ASI Karamveer reached at Nahar Khera Khurd and found the dead body of one Subhash on the patri, one SC No. 57388/16, FIR No. 321/15, PS Shahbad Dairy State Vs. Anil Maan & Anr.
Page 5 of 64 -6-motorcycle bearinig no. DL8SAW-7368 was also found there. He further deposed that on the instructions of SI Devender, he took 12 photographs of the spot and that of the dead body. He has proved the negatives of the photographs as Ex.PW4/1 to 12 and the photographs as Ex.PW4/1A to 12A.
PW5 is ASI Karambir. He has deposed that on 09.03.2015 he was posted as Incharge, Crime Team, Outer District and on that day, on receipt of information, he along with HC Satender Photographer, reached at Nahar Khera Khurd and found the dead body of one Subhash lying on the Patri and one motorcycle No. DL-8SAW-7368 was also found there. That the dead body was already taken out from the Nahar and one red coluor Jarsi was found tied on the neck of the deceased filled with stones and both hands of the deceased were tied with shoe laces. He further deposed that injury mark was there on the left eye of the deceased who was wearing black shirt and jeans. He further deposed that he inspected the spot, prepared detailed scene of crime report Ex. PW5/A. PW6 is Ct. Anil Kumar. He has deposed that on 09.03.2015, he was posted as DD writer and recorded DD No.81B and proved the attested copy of the same as Ex.PW6/A. PW7 is HC Ved Prakash. He has deposed that ob 15.03.2015 on the instruction of Inspector Mukesh Kumar , he visited BSA Hospital Mortuary and collected the exhibits of PM No. 127/15 along with sample seals containing one plastic Jar bearing No. 1, one another plastic Jar bearing No. 2 and two glass vial bearing No. 3 and one glass vial Jar bearing No. 4 containing the viscera of the deceased Subhash along with one sample seal viscera in an envelope along with one Gatta Peti SC No. 57388/16, FIR No. 321/15, PS Shahbad Dairy State Vs. Anil Maan & Anr.
Page 6 of 64 -7-containing clothes of deceased Subhash and stone along with one envelope containing and blood and gauze of deceased Subhash along with one envelope containing sample seal of blood on gauze and clothes and stone along with one Gatta Peti containing sternum of deceased Subhash along with one envelope containing one sample seal sternum. He further deposed that all the aforesaid exhibits were sealed with the seal of DEPT of FM GOVT OF DELHI DR. BSAH and he handed over the aforesaid exhibits to inspector Mukesh Kumar vide seizure memo Ex.PWPW7/A. PW8 is HC Pradeep. He has deposed that on 09.03.2015 I was posted at PP Metro Vihar of Police Station Sahabad Dairy and working as DD Writer. That on that day, at about 8.05 am, he received a message from DO of PS Sahabad Dairy regarding the recovery of one Motorcycle and the said message was reduced in writing vide DD No. 7PP and copy of DD No. 7 PP Ex.PW8/A was handed over to HC Rajbir.
He further deposed that on the same day, at about 10.40 am, he received a message from DO of PS Sahabad Dairy regarding the recovery of dead body and the said message was reduced in writing vide DD No. 11PP Ex.PW8/B and copy of DD No. 11 PP was handed over to SI Devender Dahiya.
PW9 is Rishi Kumar. His deposition is as under:
"I am residing at the aforesaid address along with my family and doing private job.
On 04-03-2015, at around 11 PM, I reached my house. My sister-in-law Smt. Sudha and my mother Smt. Batti Devi told me that my elder brother Sh. Subhash had not returned to the house as at about 5 PM, he was called by Naveen and Satyawan and SC No. 57388/16, FIR No. 321/15, PS Shahbad Dairy State Vs. Anil Maan & Anr.Page 7 of 64 -8-
thereafter my elder brother Sh. Subhash left the house with Naveen and Satyawan.
In between 12 Night to 1 AM, my sister-in-law Sudha made a call to Naveen and Satyawan but they did not attend the call of my sister-in-law. In the next morning, my sister-in-law made call to one Ravi who was working in the shop of my elder brother Sh. Subhash and he informed to my sister- in-law that at around 8:00-8:30PM my brother along with Anil Mann, Ratin, Naveen & Satyawan were consuming liquor near one shop Bawana Industrial Area.
On 05-03-2015 at around 6:30AM, Anil Mann met me at Phirni Road and I asked from him the whereabouts of my brother Subhash but he flatly refused.
Thereafter, I met Naveen Mann in his house and asked from him the whereabouts of my brother Sh. Subhash and he told me that my brother Sh. Subhash was with him till 11 AM of 04-03-2015. Thereafter, I visited the Police Post Holambi and lodged missing report of my brother there on 05-03- 2015.
By brother Subhash had purchased Motorcycle No. DL-8SAW-7368 from one Devender but the ownership of said motorcycle was not changed and my brother usually went on the aforesaid motorcycle.
My brother also used to wear one silver ring in his finger of right hand and on 04-03-2015 he was wearing the said silver ring in his finger and police recorded my statement in this regard. Accused Anil Maan and Ratin are present in the court today, correctly identify the accused persons. Court observations:
Witness has indicated at accused Anil Maan and accused Ratin through his fingers, correctly identified each of them.
I joined the TIP proceedings where I identified the silver finger ring of my deceased brother before Ld. MM.
At this stage, one envelope sealed with the seal of HSJ is taken out from judicial file. Same is opened and TIP proceedings therein are taken out. TIP SC No. 57388/16, FIR No. 321/15, PS Shahbad Dairy State Vs. Anil Maan & Anr.Page 8 of 64 -9-
proceedings are shown to the witness, who correctly identify his signature at point A on Ex. PW9/A. I can identify the silver ring belonging to my deceased brother Subhash, if shown to me. At this stage, MHCM has produced one sealed pulanda sealed with the seal of HSJ, same is opened and found to containing one silver finger ring. Same is shown to the witness, who correctly identify it to be the same, which belongs to his deceased brother Sh. Subhash. The said finger ring is Ex. P8.
PW10 is W/HC Sunita. She has deposed that on 09.03.2015, he was working as a duty officer and on that day, at about 1.00PM, he received a rukka through HC Rajbir sent by SI Devender Dahiya for the registration of FIR. That on the basis of said rukka, he got registered the present FIR No. 321/15 U/S 302/365/201/34 IPC through computer operator Ct. Dinesh and also made endorsement Ex.PW10/B on the rukka vide DD No. 22A. He further deposed that after registration of the FIR, computerized copy of FIR Ex.PW10/A and original rukka were sent to Inspector Mukesh Kumar, SHO through HC Rajbir for investigation.
She further deposed that after registration of the FIR, copies of FIR in separate envelope were handed over to the special messenger Ct. Vishal to deliver the same to Ld. Area MM and Senior Police Officials and Ct. Vishal left the police station on a Govt. Motorcycle No. DL-1SN- 5591 vide DD No. 23A.
PW11 is Dr. Vijay Dhankar. He has deposed that on 10.03.2015 from 12:15 hours to 13:30 hours, he conducted postmortem on the body of deceased Subhash S/o Kanwar Singh, aged-45 years male.
That the body was sent by SI Devender Dahiya of PS Shahbad Dairy in case FIR No. 321/15. He further deposed that on examination, he found SC No. 57388/16, FIR No. 321/15, PS Shahbad Dairy State Vs. Anil Maan & Anr.
Page 9 of 64 -10-external & internal injuries which were mentioned in detailed PM report No. 127/2015 Ex. PW11/A running into 5 pages. He has given his opinion that death was likely to be due to ligature strangulation. He further deposed that further opinion regarding cause of death was kept pending till the receipt of analysis report of specimen preserved. Viscera, blood sample and sternum were taken and sealed with the seal of department and handed over to IO.
He further deposed that on 08.07.2016, he received the request letter for seeking the opinion regarding the cause of death in the aforesaid postmortem report no. 127/15. That alongwith request letter, FSL result no. FSL 2015/C-1984 dated 29.02.2016 and FSL No. 215/B-1976 were received. He further deposed that after analyzing the PM report as well as aforesaid FSL reports, he came to the conclusion and opined that the death was due to ligature strangulation and his subsequent opinion is Ex. PW11/B. PW 12 is Dr. Mukesh Kumar. He has deposed that on 30.03.2015, he was posted at Dr. BSA Hospital and on that day, an application from SHO, PS S. B. Dairy alongwith copy of PM report and one sealed pulanda sealed with the seal of AK was received by which a subsequent opinion was sought. That on opening the pulanda, one multi colour (blue, red, off white) sweater was found and taken out. He prepared the sketch of said jersy.
He further deposed that after examination of the jersy and PM report no. 127/15 dated 10.03.2015, he came to conclusion that strangulation could be possible with the jersy examined by him and his report is Ex. PW12/A. That thereafter, jersy was resealed with the seal of SC No. 57388/16, FIR No. 321/15, PS Shahbad Dairy State Vs. Anil Maan & Anr.
Page 10 of 64 -11-department.
PW13 is ASI Jagdip. He has deposed that on 15-04-2015, on that day, on the instruction of IO, he received the sealed exhibits in a sealed condition from MHCM along with FSL form, vide RC No. 90/21/15 to deposit the same in the office of FSL, Rohini. That he went to FSL Rohini, Delhi and deposited the said exhibits over there in the office of FSL, Rohini and obtained the acknowledgment. That thereafter, he came back to PS and the acknowledgment was handed over to the MHCM.
PW14 is Ct. Vikram. He has deposed that on 09-05-2015, he was posted at CPCR at channel no. 143. That on that day, at about, 10:37 AM, he received a message from mobile phone number 9582094060 by one Ashok regarding the recovery of dead body in a canal at Khera Village, S. P. Badli. That the said message was flashed in PCR as well as information was sent to concerned control room. The computerized copy of PCR Form No. 1 is Ex. PW14/A. PW15 is Sh. Yogesh Tripathi from Reliance Communication. He has brought the summoned record i.e. CDR along with certificate, CAF in respect of prepaid Mobile No. 9313068693, in the name of Sushil Kumar from the period of 03-03-2015 to 09-03-2015. That the CAF is Ex. PW15/A, ID Proof of Sushil Kumar is Ex. PW15/B, certified copies of CDR running into two pages are Ex. PW15/C and certificate u/s 65 B of Indian Evidence Act to authenticate the correctness of computerized copies of CDR is Ex. PW15/D. PW16 is Mr.Israr Babu, Nodal Officer, Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd. He had brought the summoned record i.e. Certified copies SC No. 57388/16, FIR No. 321/15, PS Shahbad Dairy State Vs. Anil Maan & Anr.
Page 11 of 64 -12-of CDR along with certificate, CAF and Cell ID Chart, in respect of Mobile No. 9999772006, in the name of Anil kumar Maan S/o Ajit Singh Maan from the period of 03-03-2015 to 09-03-2015. The CAF is Ex. PW16/A, ID Proof is Ex. PW16/B, Certified copies of CDR running into 2 pages is Ex.PW16/C and certificate u/s 65 B of Indian Evidence Act to authenticate the correctness of computerized copies of CDR is Ex. PW16/D which bears my signatures at point A. He had also brought the summoned record i.e. Certified copies of CDR along with certificate, CAF and Cell ID Chart, in respect of Mobile No. 9953927554, in the name of Anjali W/o Rajbir from the period of 03-03-2015 to 09-03-2015. The CAF is Ex. PW16/E, ID Proof is Ex. PW16/F, certified copies of CDR running into 2 pages is Ex. PW16/G and certificate u/s 65 B of Indian Evidence Act to authenticate the correctness of computerized copies of CDR is Ex. PW16/H. He had also brought the summoned record i.e. certified copies of CDR along with certificate, CAF and Cell ID Chart, in respect of Mobile No. 9350570207, in the name of Satyawan from the period of 03- 03-2015 to 09-03-2015. The CAF is Ex. PW16/J, ID Proof is Ex. PW16/K, certified copies of CDR running into 2 pages is Ex. PW16/L and certificate u/s 65 B of Indian Evidence Act to authenticate the correctness of computerized copies of CDR is Ex. PW16/M. He had also brought the summoned record i.e. certified copies of CDR in respect of Mobile No. 9268106429, in the name of Subhash S/o Kanwar Singh from the period of 03-03-2015 to 09-03-2015. The CAF is Ex. PW16/N ID Proof is Ex. PW16/O, Certified copies of CDR running into 2 pages is Ex. PW16/P and certificate u/s 65 B of Indian SC No. 57388/16, FIR No. 321/15, PS Shahbad Dairy State Vs. Anil Maan & Anr.
Page 12 of 64 -13-Evidence Act to authenticate the correctness of computerized copies of CDR is Ex. PW16/Q. The cell ID chart of Vodafone of Delhi and NCR running into three pages is Ex. PW16/R. PW17 is Ct. Samay Singh. He has deposed that on 27.03.2015, on the instruction of IO, he received the sealed exhibits and sample seal in a sealed condition from MHCM along with FSL form, vide RC No. 62/21/15 to deposit the same in the office of FSL, Rohini. He further deposed that he went to FSL Rohini, Delhi and deposited the said exhibits over there in the office of FSL, Rohini and obtained the acknowledgment. That thereafter, he came back to PS and the acknowledgment was handed over to the MHCM.
PW18 is HC Raj Kumar. He has deposed that on 30-03-2015, on the instruction of IO, he received the sealed exhibits in a sealed condition from MHCM along with FSL form, vide RC No. 66/21/15 to deposit the same in BSA Hospital, Rohini. That he went to BSA Hospital and deposited the said exhibits over there and obtained the acknowledgment. That thereafter, he came back to PS and the acknowledgment was handed over to the MHCM.
PW19 is Retd. SI Devender. He has deposed that on 08.03.2015, a complaint already Ex. PW2/A regarding the missing of Subhash vide DD No. 51 PP was received. That on 09.03.2015, on receipt of DD No. 11 PP which is already Ex. PW2/B, he reached at the spot i.e. Khera Nehar. That at that time, HC Rajbir was also found present, as DD No. 7 PP which is already Ex. PW8/A was handed over to him. That near the canal, one motorcycle bearing no. DL-8SAW-7368 was also recovered. The dead body was already taken out by HC Rajbir.
SC No. 57388/16, FIR No. 321/15, PS Shahbad Dairy State Vs. Anil Maan & Anr.
Page 13 of 64 -14-At the spot, real brother of the deceased Subhash reached, who identified dead body to be of his brother Subhash. That the dead body was sent to mortuary BSA Hospital through constable. The Crime team was also reached at the spot before sending the dead body to the mortuary and they inspected the spot, photographs were taken.
He further deposed that one plastic water bottle was also taken out from the canal. The said bottle was converted into a pulanda and sealed with the seal of VD and taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex. PW19/A. That the motorcycle no. DL-8SAW-7368 was also taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex. PW19/B. He further deposed that the case property was deposited with MHC (M). Thereafter, he prepared the rukka Ex. PW19/C and handed over the same to HC Rajbir for registration of FIR with the request that after registration of the FIR, investigation be handed over to Inspector Mukesh Kumar, SHO PS Shahbad Dairy.
He further deposed that on 10.03.2015, he visited the mortuary and conducted the inquest proceedings. Request letter for conducting the postmortem on the body of the deceased is Ex. PW19/D. He further deposed that the brief facts of the case are Ex. PW19/E. That the dead body of the deceased was identified by Vijay Kumar vide identification statement Ex. PW19/G. The dead body was also identified by Manoj Kumar vide identification statement Ex. PW19/H. He further deposed that thereafter, he got conducted the postmortem on the body of deceased Subhash. That after the postmortem, the dead of deceased was handed over Manoj Kumar, brother of deceased vide receipt Ex.PW19/J. He has identified the case property i.e. photographs of the SC No. 57388/16, FIR No. 321/15, PS Shahbad Dairy State Vs. Anil Maan & Anr.
Page 14 of 64 -15-motorcycle bearing No. DL-8SAW-7368 lying on the judicial file as Ex. P5 to Ex. P7.
PW20 is Inspector Mahesh Kumar. He has deposed that on 29.03.2015, he visited the PS S. B. Dairy and thereafter, he alongwith Inspector Mukesh Kumar, the then SHO, PS Shahbad Dairy visited the spot i.e. Western Yamuna Canal, near damaged bridge (tuti pulia), Khera Kalan, Delhi, where on the pointing out of Inspector Mukesh Kumar, he took the measurements and prepared rough notes. He further deposed that on the basis of measurements and rough notes, he prepared scaled site plan on 20.04.2015 Ex. PW20/A. That thereafter, he destroyed the rough notes and measurements.
PW21 is ASI Anil Kumar. He has deposed that on 10.03.2015, he had joined the investigation of the present case, with IO Inspector Mukesh Kumar and on that day, he had accompanied the IO to the office of Special Staff, where they met ASI Anil Kumar of Special Staff, Outer District. That IO had collected the relevant documents from ASI Anil Kumar and recorded his statement. Thereafter, he had accompanied the IO to Rohini Court, where the officials of Special Staff, Outer District had produced the accused Anil Kumar Mann @ Lambu and Ratin Mann before the concerned court. That IO had moved an application before Ld. MM and obtained permission to interrogate both the accused persons. He further deposed that IO had effected the arrest of accused Anil Kumar Mann vide arrest memo Ex.PW 21/A and arrest of accused Ratin Mann vide memo Ex.PW 21/B. That IO had also recorded the disclosure made by accused Anil Kumar Mann Ex.PW 21/C as well as of accused Ratin Mann as Ex.PW21/D. That IO had obtained the one day PC remand of SC No. 57388/16, FIR No. 321/15, PS Shahbad Dairy State Vs. Anil Maan & Anr.
Page 15 of 64 -16-both the accused persons.
PW22 is HC Parminder. He has deposed that on 09.03.2015 at about 12.10 PM, he alongwith ASI Anil Kumar, HC Narender, Ct. Rajbir and Ct. Sandeep were on patrolling duty in private car and were present in the area of PS Shahbad Dairy. That on or about 1 PM, while they were present at Prahladpur Village, Near NDPL office, there, one informer met ASI Anil Kumar and gave an information that two persons, who had committed the murder of one person and thrown his body in the river would come from Khera side and would go towards Prahladpur village, if raided, they could be apprehended. That ASI Anil Kumar had disclosed the contents of the said information to them and made a call to Inspector Special Staff, who instructed him to conduct a raid as per law. That ASI Anil Kumar had prepared a raiding party and they all in a private vehicle, on or about 2 PM, reached at Khera Road, near Govt. School. There, ASI Anil Kumar had requested 4-5 passersby to join them, but none agreed and left the said place, without disclosing their names and addresses. He further deposed that as they all the members of the raiding party were in civil clothes, they made a Nakabandi at Khera Road. That on or about 2.30 PM, one scooty bearing registration No. DL-11CD-5271, white colour came from the side of Khera village and informer pointed out towards the said scooty, which was being ridden by two persons. He further deposed that they managed to stop the said scooty and managed to apprehend both the occupants of the said scooty i.e. accused Anil Kumar Mann as well as accused Ratin Mann. He further deposed that accused Anil Kumar Mann was found driving the said scooty, while accused Ratin Mann was sitting as pillion rider. That ASI Anil Kumar had SC No. 57388/16, FIR No. 321/15, PS Shahbad Dairy State Vs. Anil Maan & Anr.
Page 16 of 64 -17-interrogated both the accused persons. Thereafter, they brought both the accused persons to their office at Avantika Sector 1. That ASI Anil Kumar had again interrogated both the accused persons in their office and during interrogation, they confessed of having committed the murder of Subhash. He further deposed that upon the said confession, ASI Anil Kumar made a call at PS Shahbad Dairy and found case FIR No. 321/15 registered at the said PS for offences u/s 365/302/34 IPC. That ASI Anil Kumar had effected the arrest of accused persons in a Kalandra u/s 41.1
(a) CrPC i.e. Anil Kumar Mann vide arrest memo Ex. PW 22/A and also effected the arrest of accused Ratin Mann vide arrest memo Ex. PW 22/B. That ASI Anil Kumar had also conducted their personal search vide memos Ex. PW22/C and Ex.PW22/D respectively. The said scooty was also seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW 22/E. That both accused persons also made disclosure statements Ex.PW22/D-1 and Ex.PW22/D- 2 respectively. That thereafter, accused Anil Kumar Mann led them to his house, bearing no. 733, village Khera Khurd, Delhi and from inside one of the room built on the right side of the said house, he picked up one blue red and white colour sweater from a hanger and produced the same before them. That ASI Anil Kumar had seized the said sweater after keeping it in a cloth pullanda and after sealing the said pullanda with the seal of AK, vide seizure memo Ex. PW 22/F. That thereafter, both the accused persons led them to Kachchi Patri i.e. 25-30 paces ahead of Khera Kalan Nahar Pulia and pointed out towards the bushes where they had thrown the purse. The said bushes were checked and one brown colour purse was found. The said purse was checked, which was found containing one Delhi Police I Card, bearing no. 67654 in the name of SC No. 57388/16, FIR No. 321/15, PS Shahbad Dairy State Vs. Anil Maan & Anr.
Page 17 of 64 -18-Subhash and RC of Motorcycle No. DL-8SAW-7368 as well as one election commission I Card in the name of Subhash. That ASI Anil Kumar had kept the said articles in the said purse and the said purse was kept in a Pullanda and the same was sealed with the seal of AK, and was seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW 22/G. He further deposed that accused Ratin Mann was also found wearing one silver colour ring in the ring finger of his left hand, he disclosed that the said ring to be of deceased Subhash. That ASI Anil Kumar had taken out the said ring from the finger of accused Ratin Mann and kept the same in a match box, which was converted into a pullanda and the same was sealed with the seal of AK and was seized vide seizur memo Ex. PW 22/H. He further deposed that both accused persons had also pointed out the place of commission of offence vide pointing out memos Ex.PW22/J and Ex.22/K respectively. That ASI Anil Kumar had prepared the kalandra u/s 41(1)
(a) CrPC and filed the same in the court.
He has identified the case property i.e. scooty bearing registration no. DL-11CD-5271, which is on superdari with Sh. Mukesh, who is cousin of accused Anil Mann. He has also identified one silver colour ring as Ex.P-22/1 which accused Ratin was found wearing on the index ringer of his right hand and seized in this case. He has also identified one brown colour purse containing one Delhi Police I Card, bearing no. 67654 in the name of Subhash and RC of Motorcycle No. DL-8SAW-7368 as well as one election commission I Card in the name of Subhash . The Purse is Ex. P-1, election I card is Ex. P-2, RC of motorcycle Ex. P-3 and identity card in the name of Subhash is Ex. P-4. He has also identified one multicolour sweater of blue, red and off white SC No. 57388/16, FIR No. 321/15, PS Shahbad Dairy State Vs. Anil Maan & Anr.
Page 18 of 64 -19-colour as Ex.P-22/2, which was recovered at the instance of accused Anil Kumar Mann and was seized in this case.
PW23 is Ct. Vishal. He has deposed that on 09.03.2015 after the registration of FIR, duty W/HC Sunita handed over him copies of FIR with instructions to deliver the same to Ld. Area MM and senior police officials. That he delivered the copy of FIR firstly to Ld. MM at court room no. 114, Rohini and thereafter at DCP office, Pitampura and thereafter to Joint Commissioner of Police at PHQ. He further deposed that thereafter, he returned back to PS. PW24 is Ct. Vijender. He has deposed that on 09.03.2015, he was on patrolling duty. While patrolling, when he was present at Khera Khurd River Pul, on or about 8:30 am, HC Rajbir came to him and informed me that he had received a call regarding abandoned motorcycle lying in the said river. That in his presence, HC Rajbir took out one motorcycle bearing no. DL-8SAW-7368 from inside the said river. He further deposed that after some time, SI Devender Dahiya also reached there and the said river was searched. That during search from near broken pulia Khera Kalan i.e. from inside the river, one dead body was recovered. That both the legs and hands of the said body were tied with shoe laces and there was a red colour sweater (jersy) tied over the neck of the said body and one big stone was tied with the said sweater.
He further deposed that on the spot, the said body was identified by Manoj to be of his brother Subhash S/o Kanwar Singh R/o H. No. 58, Naya Bans, Delhi.
PW25 is Ct.Rupesh. He has deposed that on 09.03.2015, on receipt of a call no. 7PP, he alonwith HC Rajbir went to Khera Khurd, SC No. 57388/16, FIR No. 321/15, PS Shahbad Dairy State Vs. Anil Maan & Anr.
Page 19 of 64 -20-Nehar Pul, where Ct. Nagaraj and Ct. Bijender were already present. That there was water of 2 and 2 ½ feet in the canal as the water has been stopped. That ahead of bridge, there was one bike make Hero Honda no. DL-8SAW-7368 lying in the canal.
He further deposed that after some time, SI Devender also reached there. They searched the canal and near the broken pulia, one dead body was found and its both hands and legs were tied with shoe laces and neck was tied with red colour jersy having big stone. The dead body was identified by Manoj, who stated that the said dead body is of his elder brother namely Subhash S/o Kanwar Singh. The dead body was shifted to the mortuary of BSA Hospital through me.
He further deposed that on 10.03.2015, SI Devender reached at BSA Hospital, where he got the postmortem conducted of the dead body. The autopsy surgeon conducted the postmortem on the dead body. The dead body was identified by the relatives of the deceased and after postmortem, the dead body was handed over to its relatives.
PW26 is ASI Anil Kumar. He has deposed that on 09.03.2015, he alongwith HC Parminder, Ct. Rajbir, HC Devender and Ct. Sandeep were on patrolling duty in private car and were present in the area of PS Shahbad Dairy. That at about 1 PM, while they were present at Prahladpur Village, Near NDPL office, there, one secret informer met him and gave an information that two persons, who had committed the murder of one person and thrown his body in the river would come from Khera side and would go towards Prahladpur village, if raided, they could be apprehended. That he conveyed this information to senior police officials, who directed him to take necessary action. He informed this SC No. 57388/16, FIR No. 321/15, PS Shahbad Dairy State Vs. Anil Maan & Anr.
Page 20 of 64 -21-information to the other staff. That he formed a raiding party and they all in a private vehicle, at about 2 PM, reached at Khera Road, near Govt. School. There, he had requested 4-5 passersby to join them, but none agreed and left the said place, without disclosing their names and addresses. He further deposed that they all were in civil clothes and they made a Nakabandi at Khera Road.
He further deposed that at about 2.30 PM, one scooty bearing registration No. DL-11CD-5271, white colour came from the side of Khera village and informer pointed out towards the said scooty, which was being driven by two persons. They managed to stop the said scooty and managed to apprehend both the occupants of the said scooty i.e. accused Anil Kumar Mann as well as accused Ratin Mann. That accused Anil Kumar Mann was found driving the said scooty, while accused Ratin Mann was sitting as pillion rider. That he had interrogated both the accused persons and thereafter, they brought both the accused persons to our office at Avantika, Sector 1, Rohini. He had again interrogated both the accused persons in their office and during interrogation, they confessed of having committed the murder of Subhash. That upon the said confession, he made a call at PS Shahbad Dairy and found case FIR No. 321/15 registered at the said PS for offences u/s 365/302/34 IPC.
He further deposed that he had effected the arrest of accused persons in a Kalandra u/s 41.1 (a) CrPC i.e. That accused Anil Kumar Mann was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW22/A and also effected the arrest of accused Ratin Mann vide arrest memo Ex.PW22/B. That he had also conducted their personal search vide memos Ex.PW22/C and Ex.PW22/D. The said scooty was also seized vide seizure memo SC No. 57388/16, FIR No. 321/15, PS Shahbad Dairy State Vs. Anil Maan & Anr.
Page 21 of 64 -22-Ex.PW22/E. He further deposed that both accused persons also made disclosure statements Ex.PW22/D-1 and D-2 respectively.
He further deposed that accused Anil Kumar Mann led them to his house, bearing no. 733, village Khera Khurd, Delhi and from inside one of the room built on the right side of the said house, he picked up one blue red and white colour sweater from a hanger and produced the same before them. That he had seized the said sweater after keeping it in a cloth pullanda and after sealing the said pullanda with the seal of AK, vide seizure memo Ex.PW22/F. He further deposed that thereafter, both the accused persons led them to Kachchi Patri i.e. 25-30 paces ahead of Khera Kalan Nahar Pulia and pointed out towards the bushes, where they had thrown the purse. The said bushes were checked and one brown colour purse was found. The said purse was checked, which was found containing one Delhi Police I Card, bearing no. 67654 in the name of Subhash and RC of Motorcycle No. DL-8SAW-7368 as well as one election commission I Card in the name of Subhash. He had kept the said articles in the said purse and the said purse was kept in a Pullanda and the same was sealed with the seal of AK, and was seized vide seizure memo already Ex. PW 22/G. He further deposed that accused Ratin Mann was also found wearing one silver colour ring in the ring finger of his left hand, he disclosed that the said ring to be of deceased Subhash which he had taken out the said ring from the finger of accused Ratin Mann and kept the same in a match box, which was converted into a pullanda and the same was sealed with the seal of AK and was seized vide seizur memo already SC No. 57388/16, FIR No. 321/15, PS Shahbad Dairy State Vs. Anil Maan & Anr.
Page 22 of 64 -23-Ex. PW 22/H. He further deposed that both accused persons had also pointed out the place of commission of offence vide pointing out memos already Ex. PW 22/J and 22/K. He had prepared the kalandra u/s 41(1) (a) CrPC. Ex. PW26/A. He recorded DD no. 10 of his arrival to the office of Special Staff which is Ex.PW26/B. Both the accused persons submit that they are not disputing the identity of the said scooty.
He has identified the case property i.e. one silver colour ring Ex.P-22/1, which accused Ratin was found wearing on the index ringer of his right hand. He has also identified one brown colour purse containing one Delhi Police I Card, bearing no. 67654 in the name of Subhash and RC of Motorcycle No. DL-8SAW-7368 as well as one election commission I Card in the name of Subhash. The purse as Ex. P-1, election I card as Ex. P-2, RC of motorcycle as Ex. P-3 and identity card in the name of Subhash as Ex. P-4. He has also identified one multicolour sweater of blue, red and off white colour as Ex.P-22/2, which was recovered at the instance of accused Anil Kumar Mann and was seized in this case.
PW27 is Mukesh Maan. He has deposed that his brother accused Anil Maan @ Lamboo is the registered owner of scooty regn. no. DL-11-SD-5271. That he moved an application in the present case for release of the scooty. The scooty was released to him by the order of Ld. MM. He further deposed that at the time of the release of the vehicles four photographs were taken. The photos are Ex. PW27/A1 to Ex. PW278/A4. The Photograph of RC is Ex.PW27/A5. He further deposed SC No. 57388/16, FIR No. 321/15, PS Shahbad Dairy State Vs. Anil Maan & Anr.
Page 23 of 64 -24-that he executed panchnama Ex. PW27/B. The superdginama is Ex.PW27/C, bears my signature at point A. The scooty is Ex. PX1.
PW28 is Retd. ASI Rajbir. He has deposed that on 09.03.2015, he received DD No. 7PP Ex. PW8/A regarding one motorcycle was lying in abandoned condition in canal. He along with Ct. Rupesh reached on the bridge on canal at Khera Khurd, where they saw the water of the canal was not flowing and was stand still ( ruka hua tha). That Ct. Neeraj and Ct. Bijender were already present. The water level was 2 - 2.5 feet in the canal where one motorcycle no. DL-8SAW-7368 Hero Honda Splender black colour was lying. The said motorcycle was taken out from the water of canal. He accordingly informed to incharge IC/PP Metro Vihar SI Davinder Dahiya, who also reached at the spot.
He further deposed that search in the canal was made and they found a dead body of a male near broken puliya, Khera Kalan. Both hands and legs of the dead body were found tied with shoe laces. One heavy stone was found in red colour jersey which was tied with the neck of the dead body. That at the same time Manoj S/o. Kanwar Singh reached at the spot and identified the dead body as of his elder brother Subhash. The motorcycle taken out of the canal was handed over to SI Davinder Dahiya, who seized the same vide seizure memo Ex. PW19/B. He further deposed that water was also taken from the place in a plastic bottle, from where the dead body was found. The said plastic bottle was wrapped with a piece of cloth converted into a pulinda and sealed with the seal DD. The said water of canal plastic bottle was seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW19/A. He has identified the case property i.e. photographs of SC No. 57388/16, FIR No. 321/15, PS Shahbad Dairy State Vs. Anil Maan & Anr.
Page 24 of 64 -25-motorcycle having regn. no. DL-8SAW-7368 Ex. P5 to Ex. P7. He has also identified one plastic bottle of Aquafina containing water and open cut piece of cloth having broken seal of DD and bearing the particulars of the present case as Ex. P28/A. PW29 is Sh. Harjeet Singh Jaspal, the then Ld. Secretary, DLSA Karkardooma Courts. He has deposed that on 01.06.2015, Inspector Mukesh Kumar of PS S.B. Dairy moved an application for TIP of the case property, which was fixed for 03.06.2015. That on 03.06.2015, IO produced witness Rishi Kumar S/o Kanwar Singh and identified the same. He further deposed that IO produced one sealed pullanda sealed with the seal of AK and seven sample properties of silver rings for conducting TIP. He further deposed that the witness has correctly identified the silver ring. The TIP proceedings are Ex.PW29/A and the certificate of correctness of the proceedings is Ex.PW29/B. PW30 is HC Nagraj. He has deposed that on 09.03.2015 at about 8:30 am, HC Rajbir came to him and informed that he had a call regarding one motorcycle no. DL-8SAW-7368 found lying near the canal. That after some time, SI Devender Dahiya also came there and with their help, they searched in the canal and found a dead body tied with hands and foot with shoe laces at tuti pulia, Khera Kalan canal. That the dead body was found having a red colour jersey tied with neck and the said jersey tied with heavy stone. He further deposed that at the spot Manoj Kumar identified the dead body as of his brother Subhash S/o Kanwar Singh. He has also identified 12 photographs on the record which are already Ex. A1 to A12 showing the dead body taken out from the canal. He has also identified two photographs of motorcycle no. DL-
SC No. 57388/16, FIR No. 321/15, PS Shahbad Dairy State Vs. Anil Maan & Anr.
Page 25 of 64 -26-8SAW-7368 visible on the photographs. The photographs are Ex. PW30/1 and Ex. PW30/2. Motorcycle is Ex. PX.
PW31 is ASI Umesh Kumar. He has deposed that On 09.03.2015, SI Devender Dahiya had deposited one sealed plastic bottle in malkhana and he had made entry in this regard in register no. 19 at serial no. 2056. The relevant entry is Ex.PW31/A. He further deposed that thereafter, on the same day, ASI Anil Kumar of Special Staff (Outer District) had deposited three sealed pulandas and personal search articles and Activa Scooty in malkhana. He had made entry in this regard in register no. 19 at serial no. 2057. The relevant entry is Ex. PW31/B. That thereafter, on the same day, SI Devender Dahiya had deposited one motorcycle bearing DL8S-AW-7378 in malkhana. He had made entry in this regard in register no. 19 at serial no. 2059. The relevant entry is Ex. PW31/C. He further deposed that thereafter, on 15.03.2015, Inspector Mukesh Kumar had deposited 09 exhibits along with one sample seal in malkhana. He had made entry in this regard in register no. 19 at serial no. 2080. The relevant entry is Ex. PW31/D. He further deposed that on 27.03.2015, on the directions of IO and SHO, he handed over 07 exhibits duly sealed and one sample seal to Ct. Samay vide RC No. 62/21/15 & 63/21/15 for depositing the same at FSL Rohini. That after depositing the same, Ct. Samay had handed over the acknowledgment and copy of RC. The copy of RC No. 62/21/15 & 63/21/15 are Ex. PW31/E & Ex.PW31/F respectively and acknowledgment is Ex. PW31/G. He further deposed that on 15.04.2015, on the directions of IO SC No. 57388/16, FIR No. 321/15, PS Shahbad Dairy State Vs. Anil Maan & Anr.
Page 26 of 64 -27-and SHO, he handed over 04 exhibits duly sealed and one sample seal to Ct. Jagdeep vide RC No. 90/21/15 for depositing the same at FSL Rohini. That after depositing the same, Ct. Jagdeep had handed over the acknowledgment and copy of RC. The copy RC No. 90/21/15 is Ex.PW31/H and acknowledgment is Ex. PW31/I. PW32 is ASI Rajbir. He has deposed that on 09.03.2015 he alongwith ASI Anil Kumar, HC Parvinder reached near NDPL Office, Pehladpur. That ASI Anil Kumar was with secret informer and at about 02:30 PM one scooty No. DL 11CD 5271 came from the side of village Kherakhurd, Delhi and two boys were sitting on the said scooty which was stopped by ASI Anil Kumar. That those boys revealed their name Anil Kumar Mann @ Lambu and Ratin Mann and ASI Anil Kumar interrogated them and they disclosed that they had killed Subhash about 3-4 days ago. That accused Ratin Mann was interrogated and arrested vide arrest memo Ex. PW22/B. That personal search of the accused Ratin Mann was conducted vide memo Ex. PW22/D. Accused Ratin Mann made disclosure statement Ex.PW22/D2. That accused Anil Kumar Mann @ Lambu was interrogated and arrested vide arrest memo Ex. PW22/B and his personal search was also conducted vide memo Ex.PW22/D. That accused Anil Kumar Mann @ Lambu made disclosure statement Ex.PW22/D1. He further deposed that the scooty Activa No. DL 11CD 5271 was taken in possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW22/E. He further deposed that thereafter accused Anil Kumar Mann led them to his house H. No. 733, Village-Khedakur, Delhi, where there is a room on the right side on the said house where one hanger was hanging. That on the said hanger, one white and blue colour jersey was SC No. 57388/16, FIR No. 321/15, PS Shahbad Dairy State Vs. Anil Maan & Anr.
Page 27 of 64 -28-hanging. The said jersey/sweater was taken in possession and wrapped in a piece of clothe which was converted into pullanda and sealed with the seal of AK. That the said pullanda was taken in possession vide seizure memo Ex. PW22/F. He further deposed that both the accused led them to pulia on Khedapur canal, there is kacchi patri and about 25-30 steps inside the field in the bushes, accused persons produced brown colour wallet stained with earth. That the said wallet was opened and found containing one identity card in the name of Subhash of Delhi police, one RC of motorcycle DL 8SAW 7368, RC and election card in the name of Subhash. That all these articles were again put in the wallet which was wrapped in a piece of clothe which was converted into pullanda and sealed with the seal of AK. That the said pullanda was taken in possession vide seizure memo Ex. PW22/G. He further deposed that the accused Ratin Mann was found wearing silver colour ring in his ring finger and he revealed that this ring belongs to deceased Subhash. That the said ring was taken out of finger of the accused and put in a match box which was converted into pullanda and sealed with the seal of AK. That said pullanda was taken in possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW22/H. He further deposed that both the accused pointed out the scene of crime vide pointing out memo Ex.PW22/J and Ex.PW22/K respectively.
He further deposed that ASI Anil Kumar prepared kalandra U/s 41.1(a) Cr.P.C. He has also identified the case property i.e. jersey/sweater Ex.P22/2 which was recovered at the instance of accused Anil Kumar Mann, one brown colour wallet containing one I card of Delhi Police bearing No. 67654 in the name of Subhash, RC of SC No. 57388/16, FIR No. 321/15, PS Shahbad Dairy State Vs. Anil Maan & Anr.
Page 28 of 64 -29-motorcycle No. DL 8SAW 7368 and election card in the name of Subhash as Ex. P1 to P4 respectively.
He has also identified silver colour ring Ex. P22/1 which was found in the finger of accused Ratin Mann.
PW33 is Inspector Mukesh Kumar. He has deposed that on 08.03.2015 complaint Ex. PW2/A regarding the missing of Subhash vide DD No. 51B PP was received in Chowki Metro Vihar and the said complaint was marked to SI Devender.
He further deposed that on 09.03.2015, on receipt of DD No. 7 PP Ex.PW8/A was handed over to HC Rajbir regarding one motorcycle found abandon inside the canal of village Khera Khurd. The motorcycle No. DL-8SAW-7368 belongs to deceased Subhash. That on the same day at about 10:40 AM, DD No. 11 PP Ex.PW8/B, regarding one dead body found in the Bawana Nehar near the broken bridge of Khera Village which was marked to SI Devender. He further deposed that he reached at the spot i.e. Khera Nehar. At that time, HC Rajbir and SI Devender were also found present, Near the canal, one motorcycle bearing no. DL- 8SAW-7368 was also recovered. That the dead body was already taken out by SI Devender. The hands and legs of the dead body were tied with laces of shoes and one red colour Jersey was found tied around the neck of the dead body with having stone. That at the spot, real brother of the deceased namely Manoj reached at the spot, who identified dead body to be of his brother Subhash. That Crime team was also reached at the spot. The crime team inspected the spot, photographs were taken and crime team prepared detailed report which he place the same on record.
He further deposed that one plastic water bottle was also taken SC No. 57388/16, FIR No. 321/15, PS Shahbad Dairy State Vs. Anil Maan & Anr.
Page 29 of 64 -30-out from the canal. That the said bottle was converted into a pulanda and sealed with the seal of VD and taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW19/A. That the motorcycle no. DL-8SAW-7368 was also taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW19/B. That thereafter, SI Devender prepared the rukka Ex.PW19/C and handed over the same to HC Rajbir for registration of FIR with the request that after registration of the FIR, investigation be handed over to him. That HC Rabjir came back with the copy of FIR and original rukka and handed over the same to him for further investigation. That the dead body was sent to mortuary BSA Hospital through constable. He further deposed that he prepared site plan at the instance of the SI Devender Ex. PW33/A. That he recorded statement of Manoj Kumar, ASI Karamvir, HC Satender, HC Rajbir, Ct. Vijender, Ct. Nagraj, Rishi Kumar, Smt. Banti Devi and Ct. Vishal.
He further deposed that on 10.03.2015, SI Devender visited the mortuary and conducted the inquest proceedings. That request letter for conducting the postmortem on the body of the deceased is Ex. PW19/D. That the brief facts of the case are Ex. PW19/E and form no. 25.35 is Ex.PW19/F. That the dead body of the deceased was identified by Vijay Kumar vide identification statement Ex.PW19/G. That the dead body was also identified by Manoj Kumar vide identification statement Ex. PW19/H. That thereafter, SI Devender got conducted the postmortem on the body of deceased Subhash. He further deposed that after the postmortem, the dead of deceased was handed over Manoj Kumar, brother of deceased vide receipt a Ex.PW19/J. He further deposed that on 10.03.2015 he alongwith HC Anil Kumar went to the office of Special Staff where they met ASI Anil SC No. 57388/16, FIR No. 321/15, PS Shahbad Dairy State Vs. Anil Maan & Anr.
Page 30 of 64 -31-Kumar of Special Staff, Outer District. That he collected the documents of arrest of accused persons namely Anil Kumar Mann @ Lambu and Ratin Mann. That he recorded the statement of police official of special staff. He further deposed that he alongwith HC Anil Kumar reached in the court of concerned Ld. MM where he moved an application for interrogation and arrest of accused persons which was allowed by Ld. MM. That both the above-named accused persons were appeared in the court. That accused Anil Kumar Mann was interrogated and arrested vide arrest memo a Ex. PW21/A. That accused Ratin Mann was interrogated and arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW21/B. He further deposed that he recorded disclosure statement of both the accused which are Ex.PW21/C and Ex. PW21/D respectively. He further deposed that he moved an application one day PC remand of both the accused before the Ld. MM which was allowed. That he recorded statement of witnesses and documents were placed on record. He further deposed that after PC remand both the accused persons produced in the court and sent to JC.
He further deposed that on 15.03.2015 HC Ved Prakash handed over him the sealed case properties/exhibits with sample seals which he received from mortuary of Dr. BSA Hospital and he prepared seizure memo of the same Ex.PW7/A and he deposited the same with MHC(M). That on 17.03.2015 the postmortem report was received which he placed on record. That on 27.03.2015 on his direction Ct. Samay Singh received the exhibits and sample seals from MHC(M) for depositing the same to FSL vide RC No. 62/63/21/15. That he deposited the same in FSL and obtained the acknowledgment which he handed over to MHC(M) on his return to PS. SC No. 57388/16, FIR No. 321/15, PS Shahbad Dairy State Vs. Anil Maan & Anr.
Page 31 of 64 -32-He further deposed that he filed an application for obtaining the CDR and CAF of mobile No. 9268106429 of deceased Subhash, 9999772006 of accused Anil Kumar Mann, 9350570207 of suspect Satyawan, 9313068693 of suspect Naveen and 9953927554 of suspect Sanjay. That he collected the details of CDR and CAF and placed the same on the record. That as per CDR the location of mobile phone accused Anil Kumar Mann and deceased Subhash were found at the place of incident i.e. near the canal of vilage Khera Khurd. That on 29.03.2015 he alongwith Inspector Mahesh Kumar went to the scene of crime where he took measurement and prepared rough notes for scaled site plan.
He further deposed that on 30.03.2015 on his direction Ct. Raj Kumar took the exhibits to BSA Hospital vide RC No. 66/21/15 and he deposited the same and obtained the opinion and handed over the same to him. That on 15.04.2015 on his direction Ct. Jagdip took the exhibits from MHC(M) vide RC No. 90/21/15 and deposited the same in FSL. That he obtained the acknowledgment of FSL and handed over the same to MHC(M) on his return to PS. That on 17.04.2015 he recorded statement of Ravi @ Bhagirath U/s 161 Cr.P.C. That on 02.06.2015 he recorded supplementary statement of Rishi Kumar U/s 161 Cr.P.C, statement of HC Naresh and Ct. Vikram Singh U/s 161 Cr.P.C. That on 03.06.2015 TIP of the case property of deceased was got conducted from witness Rishi Kumar before Ld. MM and he placed all the relevant documents on record.
He further deposed that he prepared charge-sheet which was forwarded by ACP, Sub Divsion Bawana and filed in the court against both the accused persons. He has also identified the case property i.e. SC No. 57388/16, FIR No. 321/15, PS Shahbad Dairy State Vs. Anil Maan & Anr.
Page 32 of 64 -33-photographs of the motorcycle bearing No. DL-8SAW-7368 Ex. P5 to Ex. P7.
PW34 is Sh. Jitender Kumar, Sr. Scientific Officer, Chemistry, FSL Rohini. He has deposed that on 27.03.2015 two sealed plastic jar and two sealed envelopes were received in Chemistry Devision of FSL. He found the seals were intact and tallied as per forwarding authority specimen seal. He chemically examined the exhibits and found containing ethyl alcohol 70.8 mg and 23.7 mg/100 ml of blood in exhibit 3A and 3B. That after examining the exhibits the reminent of exhibits were sealed with his seal of FSL. That the detailed chemical examination report dated 29.02.2016 is Ex. PW34/A PW35 is Ms. Imrana, Sr. Scientific Officer, Chemistry, FSL Rohini. She has deposed that on 15.04.20215 two sealed cardboard box and one sealed envelope were received in FSL. She found the seals were intact and tallied as per forwarding authority specimen seal. She examined biologically the exhibits and since DNA profile could not be generated with Exhibit 4. That after examining the exhibits the reminent of exhibits were sealed with he seal of FSL. The detailed biological examination report dated 31.01.2017 is Ex. PW35/A. STATEMENT OF ACCUSED U/S 294 CR.P.C.
4. Vide their joint statement under Section 294 Cr.P.C. recorded on 04.05.2023, both the accused persons have admitted the following document, although without admitting their guilt:
1. FSL result bearing no. FSL-2015/B-1976 BIO No. 421/15 Ex.P-X SC No. 57388/16, FIR No. 321/15, PS Shahbad Dairy State Vs. Anil Maan & Anr.Page 33 of 64 -34-
dated 30.05.2016 STATEMENT OF ACCUSED UNDER SECTION 313 Cr.P.C
5. After closure of PE, the statement of the accused Ratin Maan was recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. on 30.04.2024, wherein he denied all the evidence put to him and stated that he is innocent and has been implicated by the police officials. All the proceedings were conducted by the IO while sitting at PS. He never gave any disclosure statement, rather his signatures were obtained by the police forcibly on several blank papers which were later converted into indiscriminate documents against him to falsely implicate him in the present case. He further submitted that he was never arrested at the place and manner as shown by the prosecution. That no such incident ever took place and he is not involved in any manner in the present case.
Accused chose not to lead defence evidence .
6. Thereafter, matter was fixed for final arguments.
ARGUMENTS
7. I have heard Sh. Nishant Kumar, Ld. Addl. PP for the State assisted by Mr. Rakhee Gupta, ld. Counsel for the complainant and Sh. N.S. Malik, Ld. counsel for the accused Ratin Maan.
8. It was argued by Ld. Addl. PP for the State assisted by ld. Counsel for the complaint Ms. Rakhee Gupta that the allegations levelled against the accused are of serious nature and through the testimonies of SC No. 57388/16, FIR No. 321/15, PS Shahbad Dairy State Vs. Anil Maan & Anr.
Page 34 of 64 -35-material witnesses PW1, PW2 and PW3 the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. It was argued that through the testimony of last seen witness PW3 Ravi and the forensic evidence, the prosecution has been able to prove the complete chain of events beyond reasonable doubt and accused deserves conviction. It was further argued that the ring of the deceased was found in possession of accused Ratin Maan which clearly indicates his active participation in the crime.
It was further argued that all the police officials have clearly proved the chain and the manner of investigation and merely because the witnesses are police officials their testimony cannot be disbelived and for this reliance is placed on the case of Girija Prasad Vs. State of M.P. (2007) 7 SCC 625.
9. On the contrary, Sh. N.S. Malik, Ld. counsel for the accused Ratin Maan has argued that accused has been falsely implicated. It was argued that there is no eye witness to the crime and the testimony of last seen witness PW3 is highly doubtful. There was no mention of the name of the accused or the family members suspected him in the missing complaint and only when the next day the dead body had been recovered, the accused was wrongfully arrested. That the forensic evidence also does not support the case of the prosecution and benefit of doubt has to be granted to the accused. That there is no public witness examined by the prosecution. There is no motive which has been attributed and accordingly, accused deserves acquittal.
10. I have heard the arguments at length and perused the entire SC No. 57388/16, FIR No. 321/15, PS Shahbad Dairy State Vs. Anil Maan & Anr.
Page 35 of 64 -36-record.
FINDINGS
11. The accused Anil Kumar Maan and Ratin Maan had been charged under Section 302/365/201/34 IPC was framed against both accused persons. In addition, charge under Section 411 IPC was framed separately against both the accused persons.
12. Briefly stated, the prosecution story is that 04.03.2015 after 7.30 p.m., the accused Anil Kumar Maan (since deceased and proceedings qua him stand abated) along co-accused Ratin Maan in furtherance of their common intention kidnapped one Subhash and wrongfully confined him and thereafter, both of them murdered said Subhash by strangulation and dumped his body in the canal at Khera Khurd and also threw the motorcycle used in the commission of the offence bearing no. DL-8SAW-7368 in the said canal.
It is the case of the prosecution that on 08.03.2015 a complaint vide DD No.51PP was received by Retd. SI Devender at police post Metro Vihar regarding the missing of one Subhash. On 09.03.2015 during the course of investigation, SI Devender reached at the canal near Khera Khurd Nehar Pul, where Ct.Rupesh, HC Rajbir, Ct. Nagraj and Ct.Bijender were already present and they searched the canal from where one dead body was recovered with both hands and legs tied with shoe laces and the neck was tied with red colour jersey having a one big stone. The body was identified by Manoj as that of his elder brother Subhash S/o Kuwar Singh. The motorcycle bearing no. DL8S-AW-7368 was also found there.
SC No. 57388/16, FIR No. 321/15, PS Shahbad Dairy State Vs. Anil Maan & Anr.
Page 36 of 64 -37-That on 10.03.2015 postmortem of the dead body was conducted and as per the postmortem report No. 127/2015 dated 10.03.2015 the cause of death was due to ligature strangulation.
It is the case of the prosecution that the deceased was last seen by one Ravi on 04.03.2015 with Naveen Maan and Satyawan Sharma and accused Anil Maan and Ratin Maan at about 7.15 p.m. at DSIIDC DD Mall, Sector 5 Industrial Area, Bawana, Delhi.
13. The relevant Sections are reproduced as under:
SECTION 302 IPC "Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or [imprisonment for life], and shall also be liable to fine".
SECTION 365 IPC "Whoever kidnaps or abducts any person with intent to cause that person to be secretly and wrongfully confined, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine".
SECTION 201 IPC Whoever, knowing or having reason to believe that an offence has been committed, causes any evidence of the commission of that offence to disappear, with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment, or with that intention gives any information respecting the offence which he knows or believes to be false;
If a capital offence -- shall, if the offence SC No. 57388/16, FIR No. 321/15, PS Shahbad Dairy State Vs. Anil Maan & Anr.Page 37 of 64 -38-
which he knows or believes to have been committed is punishable with death, be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine;
SECTION 411 IPC "Whoever dishonestly receives or retains any stolen property, knowing or having reason to believe the same to be stolen property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both".
14. It is a settled law of criminal jurisprudence that a person is believed to be innocent till the guilt is proved against him. This principle is called The Presumption of Innocence. In another words, the accused is entitled to take advantage of reasonable doubt in respect of his crime. The principle finds its genesis in the Declaration of Human Rights under Article 11 Section 1 incorporated by the United Nations in 1948. It is also mentioned in the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights in Article 6 Section 2 and United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights under Article 14, Section 2.
Presumption of Innocence is a re-statement of the rule that in criminal matters the prosecution has the burden of proving guilt of the accused in order to be convicted of the crime of which he is charged.
In Chandrashekhar Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh decided on 06.07.2018 relying on judgment of Data Ram Singh Vs. State of UP passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 06.02.2018, it was held that:
"the freedom of an individual is utmost important and cannot be curtailed specially when guilt if any, is yet to be proved. It is settled law that till such time guilt of SC No. 57388/16, FIR No. 321/15, PS Shahbad Dairy State Vs. Anil Maan & Anr.Page 38 of 64 -39-
a person is proved, he is deemed to be innocent........ A fundamental postulate of criminal juris prudence is a presumption of innocence meaning thereby that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty..........
Thus, it is a settled law that it is for the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
15. At the very outset, it is pertinent to mention that there is no eye witness and the whole case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence.
In this backdrop, I proceed to delve upon the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution.
At the very outset, it is pertinent to mention that the proceedings qua accused Anil Kumar Maan stands abated vide order dated 12.12.2023 and the findings henceforth are only qua the other accused Ratin Maan.
MATERIAL WITNESS
16. The prosecution has heavily relied upon the testimony of PW1 Manoj (brother of deceased), PW2 Sudha (wife of deceased) and PW3 Ravi.
PW1 Manoj deposed as under:
"On 04.03.2015, my bhabhi Sudha had told me that Naveen and Satyawan had taken Subhash at about 5:15 p.m. and Subhash had gone on motorcycle no. DL- 8S-AW-7368, but he did not return upto late night and from then I was searching my brother Subhash and his motorcycle.
SC No. 57388/16, FIR No. 321/15, PS Shahbad Dairy State Vs. Anil Maan & Anr.Page 39 of 64 -40-
On 09.03.2015, I was going towards Kheda Nehar and found public gathered on the Nahar and I also reached there and found that aforesaid motorcycle of my brother Subhash was taken out from the Nehar by the police and one dead body was also taken out from the Nehar, whose both hands and both legs were found tied with the shoe laces and one red colour jersey was found tying in the neck of the dead body and in the jersey one heavy stone was also found hanging. I identified the dead body being of my elder brother Subhash. I also identified the dead body of my brother at BSA Hospital Mortuary on 10.03.2015 vide identification statement Ex.PW1/A, which bears my signature at point A. I can identify the case property, if shown to me.
At this stage, three photographs of motorcycle bearing registration No. DL- 8SAW-7368, which was taken on record, during the examination of PW2 shown to the witness, , who correctly identify it to be of the same motorcycle photographs, the said motorcycle was used by deceased. The said photographs are already Ex.P5 to P7.
PW1 Manoj, as detailed earlier had deposed that he was informed by his bhabhi PW2 Sudha that Naveen and Satyawan had taken his brother Subhash at about 5.15 p.m. on 04.03.2015 and deceased had gone on his motorcycle bearing no. DL8S-AW-7368 but did not return. A missing complaint was lodged and eventually the dead body of his brother Subhash was recovered from a canal near Khera nahar, whose both hand and legs were found tied with shoe laces and one red colour jersey was found tied in the neck of the dead body from which one heavy stone was hanging. He identified the dead body of his brother at BSA SC No. 57388/16, FIR No. 321/15, PS Shahbad Dairy State Vs. Anil Maan & Anr.Page 40 of 64 -41-
Hospital mortuary. He also identified the photographs of motorcycle Ex.P5 to P7.
From the testimony of the said witness not even the names of the accused Anil Kumar Maan (since deceased) of Ratin Maan could be brought out. As such, he merely was a hearsay witness who deposed that it was his bhabhi PW2, who had informed him that his brother was last seen with one Naveen and Satyawan.
PW2 Smt. Sudha deposed as under:
"My husband (now deceased) was having office of documentation near the SDM Office, Naya Baans (Alipur), Delhi. One Naveen Maan s/o. Om Singh R/o. Village Naya Baans, Delhi and one Satyawan Sharma S/o. Shri Hari Singh Sharma, R/o. Village Samalkha, Haryana, who also used to work the job of documentation near the SDM Office, Naya Baans had taken my husband by calling him from our house on 04.03.2015 at about 5:15 p.m. and my husband had gone on black colour motorcycle, make Hero Honda Splendor with Registration No. DL-8S-AW-7368 and my husband Subhash had gone with them in my presence. My husband did not return thereafter upto the late night. I called on the mobile phone of Satyawan, whose number I had mentioned in my complaint made to PP Metro Vihar, PS Shahbad Dairy, Delhi. I tried to contact Satyawan on his mobile phone several times at about 11:00 p.m. and thereafter I also called on his Delhi number, which I had mentioned in my complaint on the next morning, but he only picked the phone once and told, "mai shaam 6 baje apne ghar chala gaya tha". I sent Bati Devi ( my mother in law) and my brother SC No. 57388/16, FIR No. 321/15, PS Shahbad Dairy State Vs. Anil Maan & Anr.Page 41 of 64 -42-
in law Rishi to the house of Naveen, but Naveen told that he had met my husband Subhash on 04.03.2015 at 11:00 a.m. I thereafter talked with Ravi who worked in the shop of my husband and he told me that Satyawan asked her making phone call to him, asking him not to disclose anyone that he (Ravi) had seen him (Satyawan) with Subhash on 04.03.2015. We became suspicious on their lying (false version) and called Ravi in our house and inquired from him.
Ravi had told that he had seen my husband Subhash with Naveen, Satyawan, Anil Maan resident of Kheda Khurd alongwith one another person on 04.03.2015 at about 7:15 p.m. at DSIIDC, DD Mall, Sector-5, Industrial Area, Bawana, Delhi while consuming liquor and at about 7:30 p.m., by taking Rs.100/- from Subhash, he left. We alongwith Ravi went for Samalkha, Haryana and on the way through Ravi telephonic call was made to Satyawan whereby Satyawan had told that, he was in Samalkha and when we reached at his house at Samalkha, we did not find him there and when we asked from the wife of Satyawan, she told us that Satyawan is in his office at Delhi and when we told to his wife that Satyawan had told us that he is in Samalkha and in front of his wife on speaker talked to Satyawan on phone, he told us that, he is in Samalkha and on that wife of Satyawan asked him to come immediately to his house and when Satyawan came to know that we were sitting at his house, he turned his version and told that, he is in Narela, Delhi and the wife of Satyawan asked him to meet us to solve our problem and thereafter Satyawan met us at Singhu Border but claimed that he had left to his house at about 6:00p.m. on 04.03.2015, whereas as per version of Ravi my husband SC No. 57388/16, FIR No. 321/15, PS Shahbad Dairy State Vs. Anil Maan & Anr.Page 42 of 64 -43-
deceased Subhash was last seen at about 7:30 p.m. alongwith Naveen, Satyawan, Anil Maan and one another person.
My brother in law (devar) Rishi Kumar lodged missing report report in respect of my husband Subhash at PP-Metro Vihar (PS Shahbad Dairy) on 05.03.2015 vide DD No.16. We had tried our best for search of my husband Subhash and ultimately on 08.03.2015, I made complaint at PP - Metro Vihar, Delhi. My complaint is Ex.PW2/A, which bears my signature at point A. I can identify the case property, if shown to me.
At this stage, MHCM has produced one sealed pulanda sealed with the seal of AK, same is opened and found to containing one brown colour purse containing one I-Card in the name of Subhash issued by Election Commission of India and RC of vehicle No. DL-
8SAW-7368 and one another I-Card in the name of Subhash issued by Delhi Police are shown to the witness, who correctly identify the same. The purse is Ex. P1. Election I card is Ex. P2, RC is Ex. P3 and Identity Card issued by Delhi Police is Ex. P4.
At this stage, MHCM has produced three photographs of motorcycle bearing registration No. DL-8SAW-7368. Same are shown to the witness, who correctly identify it to be of the same motorcycle photographs, the said motorcycle was used by deceased. The said photographs are Ex. P5 to P7.
At this stage, MHCM has produced one plastic bag sealed with the seal of IM FSL DELHI, same is opened and found to containing foul smelling clothes which are completely unidentifiable, hence witness is unable to identify the clothes of deceased.
(Court observation :
SC No. 57388/16, FIR No. 321/15, PS Shahbad Dairy State Vs. Anil Maan & Anr.Page 43 of 64 -44-
It is observed that on seeing such clothes, the witness started crying and was not able to resist.) PW2 Sudha is wife of the deceased, who deposed that her husband Subhash was having office of documentation near the office of SDM, Naya Bans, Alipur and one Naveen Maan and Satyawan Sharma also used to do some kind of work of documentation near the SDM office. She deposed that the said two persons had come to their house on 04.03.2015 at about 5.15 p.m. and took her husband,who went on a black motorcycle bearing no. DL8S-AW-7368 in her presence. She further deposed that her husband did not return thereafter. She further deposed that she tried to contact Satyawan, who gave evasive replies and she sent her mother in law Bati Devi and Rishi to the house of Naveen. Thereafter, she contacted one Ravi who worked in the shop of her husband who told that he had also seen Subhash and Satyawan with Naveen, Anil Maan and one other person on 04.03.2015 at about 7.15 p.m. at DSIIDC, DD Mall, Sector 5, Industrial Area Bawana, consuming liquor.
Being suspicious of the conduct of Naveen Maan and Satyawan Sharma, she made said Ravi telephonically call up Satyawan who misled that he was at Samalkha in his house but when they reached at his house at Samalkha, he was not found there. A missing report was filed by his brother in law Rishi vide DD No.16 on 05.03.2015 and despite all efforts when the husband could not be traced, she filed a complaint on 08.03.2015 Ex.PW2/A at police post Metro Vihar. She identified the purse Ex.P1 containing documents of her husband and the SC No. 57388/16, FIR No. 321/15, PS Shahbad Dairy State Vs. Anil Maan & Anr.Page 44 of 64 -45-
photographs of the motorcycle Ex.P5 to Ex.P7. She also identified the clothes of her husband.
From her testimony again, it transpires that she is a hearsay witness and has not even named the accused Ratin Maan. She only deposed that one Ravi had informed that he had seen her husband with Naveen, Satyawan, Anil Maan and one another person. Whether the said another person was accused Ratin Maan or not remains under cloud and prosecution has failed to fill up this lacuna in the testimony of material witness PW2.
The next and most important material witness relied upon by the prosecution and the last seen witness is PW3 Ravi.
17. Before moving forward, it is imperative to analyse the law related to Circumstantial Evidence based as the last seen alive principle.
18. At this stage, reliance is placed upon Sharad Birdhi Chand Sarda vs State Of Maharashtra AIR 1984 SC 1622, wherein it is held that:
"3:3. Before a case against an accused vesting on circumstantial evidence can be said to be fully established the following conditions must be fulfilled as laid down in Hanumat's v. State of M.P. [1953] SCR 1091. [163C] and reiterated in Tufail (Alias) Simmi v. State of Uttar Pradesh [1969] 3 SCC 198; Ramgopal v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1972 SC 656; Shivaji Sahabrao Babode & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra [1973] 2 SCC 793.
1. The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established;
2. The facts so established should be consistent with SC No. 57388/16, FIR No. 321/15, PS Shahbad Dairy State Vs. Anil Maan & Anr.Page 45 of 64 -46-
the hypothesis of guilt and the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty;
3. The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency;
4. They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and
5. 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 human probability the act must have been done by th accused.
These five golden principles constitute the panchsheel of the proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence.
In Madho Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan 2003 (2) crime 111 (SC) Hon'ble Supreme Court held that:
"the last seen together has to be applied cautiously and in such a prudent manner that unless the court get some circumstantial or corroborating evidence the accused should not be convicted on the basis of last seen theory done if the accused provides such a chain of evidence that benefit of doubt arises.
Nizam Vs. State of Rajasthan decided on 04.09.2015 Hon'ble Supreme Court relying on State of Rajasthan Vs. Kashiram (2006) 12 SCC 254 held as under:
"Elaborating the principle of "last seen alive" in State of Rajasthan vs. Kashi Ram, (2006) 12 SCC 254, this Court held as under:- "23. It is not necessary to multiply with authorities. The principle is well settled. The provisions of Section 106 of the Evidence Act itself are unambiguous and categoric in laying down that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of a SC No. 57388/16, FIR No. 321/15, PS Shahbad Dairy State Vs. Anil Maan & Anr.Page 46 of 64 -47-
person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him. Thus, if a person is last seen with the deceased, he must offer an explanation as to how and when he parted company. He must furnish an explanation which appears to the court to be probable and satisfactory. If he does so he must be held to have discharged his burden. If he fails to offer an explanation on the basis of facts within his special knowledge, he fails to discharge the burden cast upon him by Section 106 of the Evidence Act. In a case resting on circumstantial evidence if the accused fails to offer a reasonable explanation in discharge of the burden placed on him, that itself provides an additional link in the chain of circumstances proved against him. Section 106 does not shift the burden of proof in a criminal trial, which is always upon the prosecution. It lays down the rule that when the accused does not throw any light upon facts which are specially within his knowledge and which could not support any theory or hypothesis compatible with his innocence, the court can consider his failure to adduce any explanation, as an additional link which completes the chain. The principle has been succinctly stated in Naina Mohd., Re. (AIR 1960 Mad
218)" The above judgment was relied upon and reiterated in Kiriti Pal vs. State of West Bengal, (2015) 5 Scale
319."
19. In the present case, the last seen witness PW3 Ravi deposed as under:
"I was working the work of documentation alongwith the deceased Subhash at Naya Baans, near SDM SC No. 57388/16, FIR No. 321/15, PS Shahbad Dairy State Vs. Anil Maan & Anr.Page 47 of 64 -48-
Office. On 04.03.2015, at about 5:00 pm Satyawan and Naveen Mann came to our shop and deceased Subhash had gone with them by saying that he was going to DSIIDC, DD Mall and also asked me that, to inform him in case of any urgent work.
I closed the shop at about 7:30 p.m. and went to deceased Subhash for taking money where deceased Subhash alongwith Satyawan and Naveen were taking liquor and when I asked money from deceased Subhash, he told me that, he had forgotten his purse at his home and after taking Rs.100/- from Satyawan, he had handed over the same to me and asked me to return to the shop and wait for him there. At about 9:30-10:00 p.m., I again visited the DD Mall and found deceased Subhash alongwith Satyawan and Naveen there. Satyawan had asked me to go home and told me that, deceased Subhash had consumed much liquor and Satyawan told me that he would left Subhash to his home on his motorcycle and Satyawan also asked me not to inform the wife of Subhash that, deceased Subhash was taking liquor with them. On 05.03.2015, I came to know that Subhash had not returned to his house and when the wife of deceased Subhash asked me I had narrated all aforesaid facts to her and I alongwith Sudha went to meet Satyawan and on meeting with Satyawan, he completely refused that he had met Subhash on 04.03.2015 and thereafter I alongwith Sudha left and started searching Subhash on our own. Thereafter, at PP- Metro Vihar Sudha lodged the report on 05.03.2015. The Police persons asked Sudha to produce photograph and ID proof of Subhash, so Sudha on the same day i.e. 05.03.2015 gave the brown colour purse of Subhash to the police official containing his police I Card, Election I Card and RC of the motorcycle etc which SC No. 57388/16, FIR No. 321/15, PS Shahbad Dairy State Vs. Anil Maan & Anr.Page 48 of 64 -49-
was kept by the police officials with them. Police personnel met me and I also narrated them the aforesaid facts. My statement was not recorded by the police."
He was thoroughly cross examined by Ld. Addl. PP for the State as he was resiling from his earlier statement, made to the police, which is as under:
It is wrong to suggest that my statement was recorded by the police on 17.04.2015 or that the same was read over to me or that I found the same correct.
At this stage, statement Mark PW3/A is read over to the witness, who denied having made such statement to the police. It is wrong to suggest that I had not stated to the police that I closed the shop at about 7:30 p.m. and went to deceased Subhash for taking money where deceased Subhash alongwith Satyawan and Naveen were taking liquor or that when I asked money from deceased Subhash, he told me that, he had forgotten his purse at his home or that after taking Rs.100/- from Satyawan, he had handed over the same to me or that asked me to return to the shop and wait for him there. Confronted with statement Mark PW3/A, where it is not so recorded. It is further wrong to suggest that I had not stated to the police in my statement that at about 9:30-10:00 p.m., I again visited the DD Mall and found deceased Subhash alongwith Satyawan and Naveen there or that Satyawan had asked me to go home and told me that, deceased Subhash had consumed much liquor or that Satyawan told me that he would left Subhash to his home on his motorcycle or that Satyawan also asked me not to inform the wife of Subhash that, deceased Subhash was taking liquor with them. Confronted with statement Mark PW3/A, where it is not so recorded.
SC No. 57388/16, FIR No. 321/15, PS Shahbad Dairy State Vs. Anil Maan & Anr.Page 49 of 64 -50-
It is further wrong to suggest that I had stated not stated in my statement Mark PW3/A that on 05.03.2015, I came to know that Subhash had not returned to his house or that when the wife of deceased Subhash asked me I had narrated all aforesaid facts to her or that I alongwith Sudha went to meet Satyawan and on meeting with Satyawan, he completely refused that he had met Subhash on 04.03.2015 or that thereafter I alongwith Sudha left and started searching Subhash on our own or that thereafter, at PP-Metro Vihar Sudha lodged the report on 05.03.2015.
It is further wrong to suggest that I had not stated to the police that the Police persons asked Sudha to produce photograph or that ID proof of Subhash, so Sudha on the same day i.e. 05.03.2015 gave the brown colour purse of Subhash to the police official containing his police I Card, Election I Card and RC of the motorcycle etc which was kept by the police officials with them. Confronted with statement Mark PW3/A, where it is not so recorded.
It is wrong to suggest that Sudha had not given any photograph or ID Proof of Subhash or brown colour purse of Subhash or any RC of the motorcycle or I Card/Election I Card of the deceased Subhash to the police.
It is further wrong to suggest that at about 6:00 p.m. on 04.03.2015, I had closed the shop and went to DSIIDC, DD Mall to take money from Subhash or that near the liquor theka I found deceased Subhash with Naveen, Satte, Sanjeev alongwith accused Anil Mann (present in the court today). Confronted with portion A to A1 of statement Mark PW3/A, where it is so recorded.
It is further wrong to suggest that accused Ratin Mann present in the court today was also present with the deceased Subhash SC No. 57388/16, FIR No. 321/15, PS Shahbad Dairy State Vs. Anil Maan & Anr.
Page 50 of 64 -51-alongwith Naveen, Satte, Sanjeev and accused Anil Mann at that time or that all of them were consuming liquor.
Confronted with portion B to B1 of statement Mark PW3/A, where it is so recorded.
It is further wrong to suggest that at about 7:30 p.m., when I again visited the aforesaid place, I had found none of them or that I called telephonically Satte, who informed me that he had already left at about 6:30/7:00 p.m. or that on 08.03.2015 I came to know that Subhash was murdered. Confronted with portion C to C1 of statement Mark PW3/A, where it is so recorded.
It is further wrong to suggest that I knew accused Anil Mann, (present in the court today) previously also, to whom I had seen sitting with Subhash (Confronted with portion D to D of statement Mark PW3/A, where it is so recorded). It is wrong to suggest that I had seen accused Anil Mann and Ratin Mann (both present in the court today) on 04.03.2015 at DSIDC, DD Mall alongwith deceased Subhash, Naveen, Satte and Sanjeev, where they were consuming liquor or that on the same day at about 7.30 PM I again visited the said spot, both the accused persons Anil Kr.
Mann & Ratin Mann with deceased Subhash and Naveen, Satte and Sanjeev were not found present there. It is wrong to suggest that I had disclosed to the police about the presence of both the accused persons or that of last seen both the accused persons alongwith deceased Subhash. It is further wrong to suggest that today I am not disclosing the true and actual facts being won over by the accused persons. It is also wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely in order to save both the accused Anil Kr. Mann and Ratin Mann. It is wrong to suggest that I had seen deceased Subhash lastly in the SC No. 57388/16, FIR No. 321/15, PS Shahbad Dairy State Vs. Anil Maan & Anr.
Page 51 of 64 -52-company of the accused persons present in the court today but deliberately I am concealing the same being won over by the accused persons. It is further wrong to suggest that I gave my statement to the police truly but now not supporting the case of the prosecution dishonestly. It is further wrong to suggest that I am intentionally not identifying the accused persons in order to save them. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely."
He deposed that on 04.03.2015, he saw deceased Subhash had gone with one Satyawan and Naveen Maan saying that he was going to DSIIDC, DD Mall. PW3 deposed that he closed his shop at 7.30 p.m. and went to deceased Subhash for taking money and saw deceased Subhash having liquor with Satyawan and Naveen. He categorically deposed that when he asked for money from deceased Subhash, he told him that he had forgotten his purse at his home and after taking Rs.100/- from Satyawan, he had handed over the same to me and asked me to return to the shop and wait for him there. At about 9:30-10:00 p.m., he again visited the DD Mall and found deceased Subhash alongwith Satyawan and Naveen there. Satyawan had asked me to go home and told him that, deceased Subhash had consumed much liquor and Satyawan told him that he would leave Subhash to his home on his motorcycle and Satyawan also asked him not to inform the wife of Subhash that, deceased Subhash was taking liquor with them.
On 05.03.2015, he came to know that Subhash had not returned home and he along with his wife Sudha went for his search and lodged the missing report 05.03.2015 at PP Metro Vihar. He further deposed that he had gone to meet Satyawan but he denied meeting SC No. 57388/16, FIR No. 321/15, PS Shahbad Dairy State Vs. Anil Maan & Anr.
Page 52 of 64 -53-Subhash on 04.03.2015.
20. It is pertinent to mention that none of the material witness is eye witness and prosecution had heavily relied upon the theory of last seen with the accused, as deposed by PW3, who was a material prosecution witness. However, PW3 has not supported the case of the prosecution.
21. The credibility of the 'last seen' witness PW3 in the present case is doubtful. He reslied from his earlier statement and despite lengthy cross examination by ld. Counsel for the accused, nothing incriminating could be culled out against the accused. Infact, he did not even name accused Ratin Maan and had merely stated that he had last seen the deceased with Naveen and Satywan having liquor but in his cross- examination he even resiled from his earlier statement and he denied having made any statement Mark PW3/A to the police. He categorically denied that at about 9.30 to 10.00 p.m., he had visited DD Mall or that he saw deceased Subhash along with one Satyawan and Naveen having liquor. He further denied that the wife of the deceased had asked him to trace out her husband and he along with wife of deceased namely Sudha had gone to meet Satyawan in search of Subhash. He further denied that accused Ratin Maan was present with the deceased Subhash along with Satyawan and Naveen and they all were consuming liquor. He was confronted with his earlier statement but despite a lengthy cross- examination by ld. Addl. PP for the State, the witness has not supported the case of the prosecution and completely resiled from his earlier SC No. 57388/16, FIR No. 321/15, PS Shahbad Dairy State Vs. Anil Maan & Anr.
Page 53 of 64 -54-statement and thus, his testimony does not inspire confidence and is not creditworthy.
22. Also as alleged, the place where the deceased was last seen with Naveen and Satyawan is a busy Mall and there must have been several other persons who must have been present including security guards at the Mall but no such public person has been produced by the prosecution. There must have been a CCTV Footage of the place which the IO has not seized leave aside send the same for FSL for further investigation.
In the absence of any cogent evidence and the highly doubtful testimony of last seen witness, it cannot be said that the necessary links in the chain of circumstantial evidence has been proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt or that all the circumstances point to the guilt of the accused with reasonable definiteness.
As laid down in the case of Madho Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan (Supra) by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the last seen together principle has to be applied cautiously and in such a prudent manner that unless the court get some circumstantial or corroborating evidence the accused should not be convicted on the basis of last seen theory alone if the accused provides such a chain of evidence that benefit of doubt arises. In the light of aforesaid discussion, the testimony of the said last seen witness PW3 is not sufficient enough to hold the guilt of the accused.
23. Moving forward to trace out the links if any, of circumstantial evidence, I shall now delve upon the vital piece of SC No. 57388/16, FIR No. 321/15, PS Shahbad Dairy State Vs. Anil Maan & Anr.
Page 54 of 64 -55-evidence i.e. forensic evidence.
MEDICAL/FORENSIC/SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE
24. From the testimony of PW11 Dr. Vijay Dhankar, the prosecution has proved that the death of deceased was due to asphyxia consequent to ligature strangulation. The PM Report no. 127/2015 dated 10.03.2015 running into 05 pages is proved as Ex.PW11/A and his subsequent opinion as Ex.PW11/B. As per the opinion, the death had been caused due to ligature strangulation after analysing the PM Report and the FSL reports and it was further opined that the deceased may have been under the influence of alcohol at the time of death.
However, in his cross-examination, PW11 admitted that he cannot say if the red colur sweater/jersey was also sent to the department for seeking subsequent opinion about the nature of injuries.
However, the concerned doctor PW12 Dr. Mukesh Kumar further proved that after examination of the jersey and the PM report, he came to the conclusion that the strangulation could be possible with the jersey examined by him but he admitted in his cross-examination that he never examined the dead body or prepared the PM report.
As per the FSL result dated 31.01.2017 Ex.PW35/A relied by the prosecution itself, on the DNA analysis, DNA profile could NOT be generated from the seized exhibits that the jersey of the deceased and no blood could be detected on seized exhibits i.e. pant, shirt, underwear, socks, sweater and even the stone piece. Thus, from the FSL result Ex.PW35/A, no incriminating evidence could be culled out against the accused.
SC No. 57388/16, FIR No. 321/15, PS Shahbad Dairy State Vs. Anil Maan & Anr.
Page 55 of 64 -56-25. The body was recovered from Khera Nehar/canal. Also, the stone did not detect any blood of the deceased on Biological examination as per the report Ex.PW35/A. There are no finger prints or any chance prints taken from the bank of the Nala which could show the presence of the accused persons while disposing the body, as was the case of the prosecution.
As per the opinion in the FSL report dated 30.05.2015 Ex.PX death was due to ligature strangulation and the deceased was found under the influence of alcohol (70.8 mg and 23.7 mg per 100 ml of blood) at the time of death. The said ligature material i.e. the jersey was examined but nothing incriminating could be found against the accused persons.
As such, there is no independent witness to the alleged recovery of jersey which can be easily available in the market and the body was also recovered from a place which is easily accessible to the public. Further, the brown purse were got recovered from open bushes which is again accessible to the public. Vide the testimony of PW22, the prosecution story which can be culled out was that accused Ratin Mann was also found wearing one silver colour ring in the ring finger of his left hand, he disclosed that the said ring to be of deceased Subhash which was identified by PW9 Rishi Kumar. ASI Anil Kumar had taken out the said ring allegedly from the finger of accused Ratin Mann and kept the same in a match box, which was converted into a pullanda and the same was sealed with the seal of AK and was seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW 22/H. However, the silver ring is again not bearing any specific mark SC No. 57388/16, FIR No. 321/15, PS Shahbad Dairy State Vs. Anil Maan & Anr.
Page 56 of 64 -57-or make which could be proved by the prosecution to establish that the same belongs to the deceased. It was argued by ld. Counsel for accused that the said articles have been falsely planted to implicate the accused.
At this stage reliance is placed on the following landmark judgments by the Hon'ble Superior Courts on this point.
In the landmark judgment of State (NCT of Delhi) Vs. Sunil 2001 SCC, (Cri) 248, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that:
"when discovery is made pursuant to any facts deposed by the accused, the discovery memo prepared by the IO is necessarily attested by the independent witnesses but if no witness is present, it is difficult to lay down as a proposition that the recovery must be tainted or that or unreliable. But in such a situation, the court has to consider the report of the IO on its own merits".
In Mani Vs. State of Tamilnadu decided on 08.01.2008, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it has been held that:
"Discovery is a weak kind of evidence and cannot be wholly relied upon and conviction in such a serious matter cannot be based upon discovery".
In the case of Naveen kumar Verma Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) decided by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi on 03.07.2013 relying on the landmark judgment of Mohd. Jabbar Vs. State decision 21.05.2010 Crl. A. 1022/18, it has been reiterated that:
"The courts have to be cautioned and to vigilant against the non practice of the police to plaint ordinary objects on the accused persons to prove access by the accused to the place where the crime was allegedly committed".
In Prabhu Vs. State AIR 1963, Supreme Court 1113, recovery of a blood stained shirt and a dhoti as also on an axe on which SC No. 57388/16, FIR No. 321/15, PS Shahbad Dairy State Vs. Anil Maan & Anr.
Page 57 of 64 -58-human blood was detected was held to be a weak evidence as was also held in the case of Narsinghbhai Prajapati Etc. Vs. Chatrasingh & Ors. AIR 1977 Supreme Court 1753, where recovery of a blood stained shirt and a dhoti and also a dharia (weapon of offence) were held to be a weak evidence.
In the case of Surjit Singh Vs. State of Punjab AIR 1994 Supreme Court 110, the watch of the deceased and a dagger stained with the blood of the same group as that of the deceased was held to be weak evidence.
In the present case, as already stated earlier, there is no independent witness to the alleged recovery of jersey and same is as such easily available in the market. The brown purse of the deceased was got recovered from open bushes which is again an easily accessible area to the public. As regards the silver ring, identified by PW9 Rishi Kumar, any specific mark or make upon the same could not be established by the prosecution and in the light of aforesaid case laws, the recovery of aforesaid articles is a weak piece of evidence which cannot be sole basis of conviction of accused Ratin Maan.
CDR LOCATION
26. As per CDR the location of mobile phone accused Anil Kumar Mann and deceased Subhash were found at the place of incident i.e. near the canal of vilage Khera Khurd, as was deposed by IO/PW33 Inspector Mukesh Kumar and for this PW15/Nodal Officer had brought the CDR along with CAF of mobile number 9313068693 in the name of Sushil Kumar from the period 03.03.2015 to 09.03.2015. PW16/Nodal Officer SC No. 57388/16, FIR No. 321/15, PS Shahbad Dairy State Vs. Anil Maan & Anr.
Page 58 of 64 -59-had brought the CDR records of accused Anil Kumar Maan, of mobile number in the name of Anjali and Satyawan and Subhash. However, there is nothing to suggest that accused Ratin Maan was found at the said location and as such, in the case titled as Azad @ Gaurav vs State of GNCT of Delhi & Another CRL.A. 593/2022 passed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court, has held that CDR data cannot be the sole basis of conviction and can be merely used as corroborative piece of evidence.
27. Thus, neither the recovery of jersey which is alleged weapon of offence used for strangulating matched with the accused nor any other forensic evidence could buttress the case of the prosecution. Thus, even from the forensic evidence, no incriminating evidence could be brought forth which could prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
MOTIVE
28. It is the case of the prosecution that the alleged person Satyawan and Naveen were already known to the deceased Subhash and they were having liquor together. Infact, as already held above the name of the accused Ratin Maan does not even find mention in the evidence of material prosecution witnesses and the most material witness PW3 has as such not supported the case of the prosecution and resiled from his statement. There is no specific motive which has been culled out in the prosecution story for the accused Ratin Maan to commit the offence.
The prosecution story is based on hypothesis and surmises without cogent evidence or established motive. There is no clear motive SC No. 57388/16, FIR No. 321/15, PS Shahbad Dairy State Vs. Anil Maan & Anr.
Page 59 of 64 -60-which has been proved by the prosecution which becomes an essential element in a case based on circumstantial evidence.
Reliance has been placed on in the case titled as NANDU SINGH VERSUS STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH (NOW CHHATTISGARH), Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No(s). 7998 of 2021), wherein it is held that by the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India that:
".....11.In Anwar Ali vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, this Court made the 1(2020) 10 SCC 1665 legal position clear in following words:-
24.Now so far as the submission on behalf of the accused that in the present case the prosecution has failed to establish and prove the motive and therefore the accused deserves acquittal is concerned, it is true that the absence of proving the motive cannot be a ground tor eject the prosecution case. It is also true and as held by this Court in Suresh Chandra Bahri vs. State of Bihar that if motive is proved that would supply a link in the chain of circumstantial evidence but the absence thereof cannot be a ground to reject the prosecution case. However, at the same time, as observed by this Court in Babu Vs. State of Kerala (2010) 9 SCC 189, absence of motive in a case depending on circumstantial evidence is a factor that weighs in favour of the accused...........
"38. ... the motive is a thing which is primarily known to the accused themselves and it is not possible for the prosecution to explain what actually promoted or ex-cited them to commit the particular crime.
39. The motive may be considered as a circumstance which is relevant for assessing the evidence but if the evidence is clear and unambiguous and the circumstances prove the guilt of the accused, the same is not weakened even if the motive is not a very strong one. It is also settled law that the motive loses all its importance in a case where direct evidence of eyewitnesses is available, because even if there may be a very strong motive for the accused persons to commit a particular crime, they cannot be convicted if the evidence of eye-witnesses is not convincing. In the same way, even if there may not be an apparent motive but if the evidence of the eyewitnesses is clear and reliable, the absence or inadequacy of motive cannot stand in the way of conviction.
'26. This Court has also held that the absence of motive in a case depending on circumstantial evidence is a factor that SC No. 57388/16, FIR No. 321/15, PS Shahbad Dairy State Vs. Anil Maan & Anr.
Page 60 of 64 -61-weighs in favour of the accused.
In the subsequent decision in Shivaji Chintappa Patil vs. State of Maharashtra, Hon'ble Supreme Court relied upon the decision in Anwar Ali vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, this Court made the 1 (2020) 10 SCC 1665 and observed as under:-
"27.Though in a case of direct evidence, motive would not be relevant, in a case of circumstantial evidence, motive plays an important link to complete the chain of circumstances."
NO INDEPENDENT PUBLIC WITNESS
29. There appears to be no sincere efforts were made by police officials concerned to join independent public witnesses in the concerned police proceedings at any of the available stages especially at the time of recovery of alleged weapon of offence or dead body or ring or at the time of arrest of accused. In this regard reliance is being placed on the following judgments:-
In case law reported as "Anoop Joshi Vs. State" 1992(2) C.C. Cases 314(HC), High Court of Delhi had observed as under:-
"18. It is repeatedly laid down by this Court in such cases it should be shown by the police that sincere efforts have been made to join independent witnesses. In the present case, it is evidence that no such sincere efforts have been made, particularly when we find that shops were open and one or two shop-keepers could have been persuaded to join the raiding party to witness the recovery being made from the appellant. In case any of the shopkeepers had declined to join the raiding party, the police could have later on taken legal action against such shopkeepers because they could not have escaped the rigours of law while declining to perform their legal duty to assist the SC No. 57388/16, FIR No. 321/15, PS Shahbad Dairy State Vs. Anil Maan & Anr.Page 61 of 64 -62-
police in investigation as a citizen, which is an offence under the IPC".
In a case law reported as "Roop Chand Vs. The State of Haryana" 1999 (1) C.L.R. 69, the Punjab & Haryana High Court held as under:-
"3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the evidence with their help. The recovery of illicit liquor was effected from the possession of the petitioner during noon time and it is in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses that some witnesses form the public were available and they were asked to join the investigation. The explanation furnished by the prosecution is that the independent witnesses were asked to join the investigation but they refused to do so on the ground that their joining will result into enmity between them and the petitioner". "4. It is well settled principle of the law that the Investigating Agency should join independent witnesses at the time of recovery of contraband articles, if they are available and their failure to do so in such a situation casts a shadow of doubt on the prosecution case. In the present case also admittedly the independent witnesses were available at the time of recovery but they refused to associate themselves in the investigation. This explanation does not inspire confidence because the police officials who are the only witnesses examined in the case have not given the names and addresses of the persons contacted to join it is a very common excuse that the witnesses from the public refused to join the investigation. A police officer conducting investigation of a crime is entitled to ask anybody to join the investigation and on refusal by a person from the public the Investigating Officer can take action against such a person under the law. Had it been a fact that the witnesses from the public had refused to join the investigation, the Investigating Officer must have proceeded against them under the relevant provisions of law. The failure to do so by the police officer is suggestive of the fact that the SC No. 57388/16, FIR No. 321/15, PS Shahbad Dairy State Vs. Anil Maan & Anr.Page 62 of 64 -63-
explanation for non-joining the witnesses from the public is an after thought and is not worthy of credence. All these facts taken together make the prosecution case highly doubtful".
30. The remaining prosecution witnesses were formal police witnesses who merely deposed regarding the manner of investigation.
CONCLUSION
31. It is a settled law that in case of circumstantial evidence, the paramount requirement is that every possible link in the chain should be complete along with other incriminating circumstances including motive and the recovery of weapon of offence and should unequivocally point towards the guilt of the accused and cannot be solely based on the last seen testimony. The prime prosecution witness PW3 had completely resiled from his statement and nothing could be culled out from his testimony against accused Ratin Maan.
Further, the material witnesses could not bring home the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Even vide the forensic evidence, no incriminating evidence could be proved against the accused Ratin Maan, as discussed above. The recovery of articles as discussed above, was a weak piece of evidence and no conclusive evidence exclusively pointing out towards the guilt of accused Ratin Maan could be proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.
Thus, in view of the aforesaid detailed findings, there is no hesitation in holding that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly the accused Ratin Maan SC No. 57388/16, FIR No. 321/15, PS Shahbad Dairy State Vs. Anil Maan & Anr.
Page 63 of 64 -64-deserves a benefit of doubt and hence stands acquitted of the charges levelled against him.
32. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Needless to say, that in view of Section 357A Cr.P.C. the victim/LRs of deceased would be entitled to compensation even though the accused has been acquitted, if not awarded so far by the Delhi State Legal Authority, as may be permissible, as per subsisting rules and in accordance with law.
Dictated and announced in the open (Shefali Sharma) Court on 29.05.2024 Addl. Session Judge-02 (running in 64 pages) (North), Rohini Courts/Delhi SC No. 57388/16, FIR No. 321/15, PS Shahbad Dairy State Vs. Anil Maan & Anr.
Page 64 of 64