Delhi District Court
State vs . 1) Shahrukh @ Anirul on 23 December, 2021
IN THE COURT OF SH. SHIVAJI ANAND, ADDITIONAL SESSIONS
JUDGE04 (NORTH), ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
Session Case No. 57392/2016
CNR No. DLNT010000862014
State Vs. 1) Shahrukh @ Anirul
S/o Sh. Jamal Seikh
R/o A1929, Metro Vihar,
PhaseII, Holambi Kalan,
Delhi.
2) Udit Narayan @ Piddi
S/o Sh. Deep Narayan
R/o B2325, Metro Vihar,
PhaseII, Holambi Kalan,
Delhi.
3) Dilip Kumar
S/o Sh. Kallu
R/o B2393, Metro Vihar,
PhaseII, Holambi Kalan,
Delhi.
FIR No. :453/2014
Police Station :Shahbad Dairy
Under Sections :302/201/120B IPC
Date of committal to Sessions Court :19/07/2014
Date of institution :23/07/2014
Date of Argument :23/12/2021
Date on which Judgment pronounced :23/12/2021
JUDGMENT
1. In brief, the case of prosecution is that on 12/04/2014 at 6.35 a.m., DD no 4 PP was recorded at PP Metro Vihar of PS Shahbad Dairy to the effect SC No. 57392/2016 FIR no. 453/14 PS Shahbad Dairy State Vs Shahrukh @ Anirul & Ors. Page 1 of 65 that one dead body was lying near railway line signal situated over Naala in between Holambi Kalan Railway Station and Narela. The said DD was marked to ASI Bijender for taking necessary action. Accordingly ASI Bijender Singh along with Ct Pradeep reached at the spot i.e. near C Block Metro Vihar PhaseII, Railway track, where one dead body cut with train was lying which was identified as of one Raja s/o Ram Bharose, R/o A1941, Metro Vihar PhaseII. Similar DD no 5 PP was also recorded at PP Subzi Mandi Railway Station of PS Old Delhi Railway Station on 12/04/2014 at 6.40 a.m., which was marked to ASI Rameshwar Dass who also reached at the spot. On the same day, at 10:11 a.m. , DD no. 11PP was also recorded at PP Metro Vihar of PS Shahbad Dairy to the effect that caller had stated that at H.No. 1941, Block PII, his brother has been killed by 34 boys who had thrown his dead body in the Nahar (canal). The said DD was marked to SI Ram Kumar who along with Ct Jai Kumar and Ct Parveen left for the spot. SI Ram Kumar along with Ct Praveen reached at the spot i.e. H.No. C729, Metro Vihar PhII, Holambi Kalan, where there were blood stains at the back room of the house and in the gali. Crime team was called at the spot and spot was got inspected. Exhibits were seized from the spot. On 13/04/20214, Manish Kumar s/o Ram Bharose Lal, R/o A1941, Metr Vihar PhaseII, Holambi Kalan, came at the PS and got recorded his statement to SI Ram Kumar.
1.1. In his statement, Manish Kumar has stated that he along with his family is living at A1941, Metro Vihar PhaseII, Holambi Kalan, Delhi and is doing private work. He further stated that on 11/04/2014, at about 7.00 p.m., Dilip and Udit Narayan @ Piddi (A3 & A2 respectively herein) and started talking with his younger brother Raja, aged 19 years and at that time, he was also standing near them. He further state that Dilip (A3 herein) told "Raja tumhe Shahrukh paise ka SC No. 57392/2016 FIR no. 453/14 PS Shahbad Dairy State Vs Shahrukh @ Anirul & Ors. Page 2 of 65 hissab karne ke liye bula raha hai. Manish further stated that Shahrukh (A1 herein) and Raja (since deceased) used to work together in Bhorgarh for manufacturing slippers and Shahrukh, Dilip and Udit Narayan used to visit his brother, who are residents of their colony and he knew them very well. He further stated that after some talks, his brother Raja had gone along with Dilip and Piddi (A3 & A2 herein) and did not return till night and he (Manish) thought that since it was late, Raja must have remained with Shahrukh (A1 herein). Manish further stated in his statement that on 12/04/2014, he came to know that one dead body is lying at railway line near CBlock Metro Vihar PhaseII and at about 8.00 am he along with many persons had reached railway line and saw that the dead body which was lying cut on railway track, was of his brother Raja. He further stated that at that time, he thought that his brother Raja must have died due to cutting from rail. Manish further stated that his brother used to tell him that he had settled the amout of Shahrukh but he was unnecessarily troubling him. He further stated that Raja and Shahrukh used to sit on & off at the house of Dilip bearing H.No. C 729, PhaseII Metro Vihar. He further stated that as per his knowledge and he has utmost suspicion that Shahrukh, Dilip and Udit Narayan @ Piddi had killed his brother Raja in H.No. C729 Phase II Metro Vihar, Holami Kalan, Delhi on the intervening night of 11/12042014 and had thrown his dead body on the railway track and that strict action may be taken against them.
2. On the basis of aforesaid statement of Manish, local inquiry and inspection of the spot, offences u/s 302/201/34 IPC were found to be committed. Accordingly, SI Ram Kumar got registered the present FIR. After registration of FIR, the investigation was handed over to Inspector Sanjeev Chahar, who prepared the site plan of the spot. The site plan of the spot from where the dead SC No. 57392/2016 FIR no. 453/14 PS Shahbad Dairy State Vs Shahrukh @ Anirul & Ors. Page 3 of 65 body was recovered, was also prepared at the instance of ASI Bijender and blood stained stones were also seized from the railway track. On 14/04/2014, postmortem on the body of deceased Raja was got conducted through SI Surender. After postmortem, the dead body was handed over to the relatives of deceased.
3. On 14/04/2014, accused Shahrukh (A1) was apprehended, who was JCL earlier but was later on declared major by JJB. apprehension memos, personal search memos and other documents were prepared. His version was recorded. At the instance of accused Shahrukh (A1), bloodstained earth and earth control were lifted from the place from where the dead body was taking into police possession. The bloodstained clothes and key of the house in which the crime was committed, were also taken into possession at the instance of accused Shahrukh (A1). Accused Shahrukh(A1) was sent to observation home. On 19/04/2014, accused Dilip and Udit Narayan @ Piddi (A2 & A3) were also apprehended. They both were JCL at that time. Their apprehension memos, personal search memos and other documents were prepared and their versions were recorded and they were sent to observation home. Scale site plan was got prepared.
4. During investigation, crime team report and postmortem report were collected. PCR forms were also collected. Age proof of JCL Shahrukh and Udit Narayan were obtained and they both were found major and they were transferred to concerned court. Ossification test of accused Dilip was got conducted and he was also declared major by the concerned JJB. He was also transferred to the concerned Court. Crime team report and photographs of the place from where the SC No. 57392/2016 FIR no. 453/14 PS Shahbad Dairy State Vs Shahrukh @ Anirul & Ors. Page 4 of 65 dead body was recovered were obtained. Statements of witnesses were recorded. Subsequent opinion was also obtained. Exhibits were deposited in FSL. Section 120B IPC was also added. On completion of investigation, the chargesheet was filed before the concerned Magisterial Court on 11/07/2014. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions vide order dated 19/07/2014 and it was received by the Sessions Court on 23/07/2014. It is pertinent to mention here that by the time the chargesheet was filed before the concerned Court, the FSL result was awaited.
5. Vide order dated 11/08/2014, charge u/s 120B IPC & u/s 302/201 read with Section 120B IPC was framed against all the three accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
6. During trial on 12/02/2015, FSL report dated 30/10/2014 and 24/11/2014 was filed before the Court.
7. In order to prove its case, prosecution has examined 26 witnesses in all. The details of said witnesses are as under: S. Name of prosecution witness Purpose of examination No .
1 PW1 Dr. Mukesh Kumar, S.R. Who came to prove postmortem report Forensic Medicine, Dr. BSA Hospital, Ex. PW1/A & subsequent opinion Ex.
Rohini, Delhi. PW1/B.
2 PW2 Inspector Anil Kumar, Crime Who came to prove crime team report
team official Ex. PW2/A.
3 PW3 Tinku, brotherinlaw of Who came to prove the dead body
deceased identification statement Ex. PW3/A
SC No. 57392/2016 FIR no. 453/14 PS Shahbad Dairy State Vs Shahrukh @ Anirul & Ors. Page 5 of 65
and receipt qua handing over of body
of deceased. Ex. PW3/B.
4 PW4 Amit Who came to prove the factum of
tenancy of accused Dilip at the alleged
place of crime and seizure of key of
the said IO by the IO vide memo Ex.
PW4/A.
5 PW5 W/HC Sunita, duty officer Who came to prove the computerized
copy of FIR Ex. PW5/A, her
endorsement on rukka Ex. PW5/B and
certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence
Act Ex. PW5/C.
6 PW6 Ct. Suresh, crime team official Who came to prove the photographs Ex. PW6/A1 to A4 and negatives thereof Ex. PW6/B1 to B4 of the dead body.
7 PW7 Ct Manish, crime team official Who came to prove photographs of the place of occurrence Ex. PW7/A1 to A11 & negatives thereof Ex. PW7/B1 to B11.
8 PW8 HC Yogesh Kumar For proving PCR form Ex. PW8/A. 9 PW9 Ct Ashwani Who came to prove the factum of depositing f 12 sealed pullandas along with two sample seals of BSA hospital and forwarding letter & one sealed pullanda along with sample seal of BSA Hospital vide RC no. 187/21/14 & 186/21/14 respectively with FSL.
10 PW10 HC Sanjay Shinde, the then Who came to prove the relevant MHC(M) entries qua deposit of case property with him vide Ex. PW10/A to Ex.
PW10/E and sending thereof to FSL
vide RC nos. 185/21/14, 186/21/14,
187/21/14 Ex PW10/F, Ex. PW10/G &
Ex. PW10/J respectively and
acknowledgement of FSL Ex. PW10/H
& Ex PW10/K and qua deposit of 11
sealed pullandas sealed with the seal
SC No. 57392/2016 FIR no. 453/14 PS Shahbad Dairy State Vs Shahrukh @ Anirul & Ors. Page 6 of 65
of FSL along with FSL result in
malkhana by Ct Sandeep vide entry
Ex. PW10/D.
11 PW11 SI Ram Kumar, first IO Qua the investigation conducted by
him.
12 PW12 Ct Jaswinder For proving DD no. 11PP Ex. PW12/A.
13 PW13 ASI Bijender Singh Who came to prove the factum of his
visit to the place where the dead body
was found lying on receipt of DD no.
4PP & seizure of blood stained stones
from railway track vide Ex. PW13/A.
14 PW14 Ct. Jai Ram, DD Writer of PP Who came to prove DD no. 5PP Ex.
Subzi Mandi of PS ODRS PW14/A.
15 PW15 HC Kiran Pal Who came to prove the factum of
collecting the sealed pullandas
containing viscera along with blood
sample and containing blood gauze
piece, one cardboard containing
clothes of deceased all sealed with
the seal of DEPT OF FM GOVT OF
DELHI DR BSAH and two sealed
envelopes containing sample seals
from the concerned doctor and
handing over the same to IO Inspector
Sanjeev Chahar, who seized the same
vide seizure memo Ex. PW15/A.
16 PW16 Constable Jai Kumar, DD Who came to prove DD no. 4PP Ex.
writer PW16/A.
17 PW17 Manish, Complainant/Brother Who came to prove his statement Ex.
of deceased PW17/A, his another statement qua
dead body identification Ex PW17/B &
receipt Ex. PW3/B.
18 PW18 Ramwati, mother of deceased Who came to prove the factum that
accused persons were known to her
son Raja, dispute between her son
Raja and accused Shahrukh over the
contract work & money, leaving of her
SC No. 57392/2016 FIR no. 453/14 PS Shahbad Dairy State Vs Shahrukh @ Anirul & Ors. Page 7 of 65
son Raja with accused Dilip and Udit
Narayan to have a talk with accused
Shahrukh, nonreturning of her son
Raja to house thereafter & receiving of
information qua dead body of her son
at railway track.
19 PW19 SI Surender Who came to prove application Ex.
PW19/A for conducting of autopsy on
the body of deceased, brief facts Ex.
PW19/B, form no. 25.35(1) B Ex.
PW19/C, recording of statement of
Tinku Ex. PW3/A and of Manish Ex.
PW17/B qua identification of dead
body and handing over of dead body
to relatives vide receipt Ex. PW3/B.
20 PW20 SI Rameshwar Dass Who on receipt of DD no. 5PP
reached the place where the dead
body of deceased was recovered. He
has proved the factum of filling up
form no, 25.35(1) B Ex PW20/A,
recording of statements of
Pappu,Tinku & Ram Sharan Ex
P/W20/B, Ex PW20/C & Ex. PW20/D
respectively, sending of dead body to
mortuary Subzi Mandi, moving of
application Ex. PW20/E for
preservation of dead body, lodging of
DD no 16PP in roznamcha Ex.
PW20/F and handing over of dead
body of deceased to HC Sunil vide
receipt Ex. PW20/G.
21 PW21 HC Praveen Who came to prove the investigation
part conducted in his presence by SI
Ram Kumar, first IO.
22 PW22 Inspector Mahesh Kumar, For proving scaled site plan Ex
Draftsman PW22/A.
23 PW23 W/Ct Soni Devi For proving factum of typing the FIR of
present case in the computer and
SC No. 57392/2016 FIR no. 453/14 PS Shahbad Dairy State Vs Shahrukh @ Anirul & Ors. Page 8 of 65
taking out printout thereof and handing
over the same to DO.
24 PW24 ASI Anil Kumar For proving investigation conducted in
his presence by IO Inspector Sanjeev
Chahar & proving exhibits Ex. PW24/A
to Ex. PW24/K.
25 PW25 Ct. Yogender For proving the factum of delivering
the copies of FIR to ld. MM as well as
to ACP, DCP and Joint CP concerned.
26 PW26 Inspector Sanjeev Chahar, IO Qua proving the investigation
conducted by him.
27 PW26 Ct Sandeep (The nomenclature To prove PCR form Ex. PW26/A
of this witness should have been
PW27)
8. It is pertinent to mention herein that vide their joint statement, all the accused persons have submitted that they do not dispute the contents of FSL result dated 24/11/2014 prepared by Ms. Imrana, Sr. Scientific Officer (Biology), FSL Rohini, Delhi and FSL result dated 30/10/2014 prepared by Dr. Shubra Kumar Paul, Sr. Scientific Officer (Chemistry), FSL Rohini, Delhi and further submitted that they have no objection if the said witnesses are not summoned in order to formally prove the said FSL results/reports.
9. After completion of prosecution evidence, statements of all the three accused persons have been recorded u/s 313 CrPC, wherein they have denied the case of prosecution and claimed that they have been falsely implicated in the present case. However, they chose to lead evidence in defence.
10. In defence, DW1 Amar Singh and DW2 Rajan have been examined on behalf of the accused persons.
SC No. 57392/2016 FIR no. 453/14 PS Shahbad Dairy State Vs Shahrukh @ Anirul & Ors. Page 9 of 6511. I have heard ld. Addl. PP for the State and ld. Counsels for the accused persons and have carefully gone through the record.
12. PW17 Manish is the complainant/brother of deceased Raja. He has deposed that he is a driver by profession. He further deposed that on 11.04.2014 at about 7 pm, while he was present at his house bearing no. A1941, Metro Vihar, PhaseII, Holambi Kalan, Delhi, accused persons namely Dalip and Udit Narayan @ Piddi (A3 & A2 herein), present in the Court today (correctly identified by witness by pointing out individually towards both the accused persons), came to their house and they started talking to his younger brother Raja (since deceased), who was aged about 19 years at that time. He further deposed that at that time, he was also present alongwith his brother Raja and in his presence, accused Dalip (A3) had stated to his brother Raja that he has been called by accused Shahrukh (A1), present in the Court today (correctly identified) for settling the accounts. PW17 further deposed that his brother Raja used to work in partnership with accused Shahrukh (A1) on contract basis in manufacturing chappals (slippers). He further deposed that after talking to his brother Raja, his brother Raja (since deceased) had accompanied accused Dalip and Udit Narain (A3 & A2 herein) and Raja did not return back to their house for the entire night and he (PW17) thought that his brother Raja must have got late and must have remained with accused Shahrukh (A1). PW17 further deposed that on the next day i.e. 12.04.2014 at about 8 am, he came to know that the dead body of his brother Raja has been lying at CBlock, Metro Vihar, PhaseII, near Railway Line and on receipt of said information, he rushed to the said place and found the body of his brother Raja lying over the railway track. He further deposed that upper half SC No. 57392/2016 FIR no. 453/14 PS Shahbad Dairy State Vs Shahrukh @ Anirul & Ors. Page 10 of 65 portion of body of his brother Raja was lying over the railway tracks and lower half portion was lying near the railway line & he had identified the body of my brother Raja.
12.1. PW17 Manish further deposed that his brother Raja used to state to him that he (Raja) had to take certain money from accused Shahrukh (A1), but accused Shahrukh (A1) had not been returning the said money. He further deposed that his brother used to say to him that "Shahrukh baimani ke karan, mujhe bina wajah paresaan kar raha hai". He further deposed that his brother Raja and accused Shahrukh (A1) had taken a room on rent basis at house no. C 729, PhaseII, Metro Vihar, where they had opened a gym and his brother used to sit with accused Shahrukh (A1) in the said premises, where they had opened the gym. He further deposed that his brother has been murdered by the aforesaid accused persons at H. No. C729 and after committing his murder, the aforesaid accused persons had thrown the body of his brother at aforesaid railway tracks. PW17 further deposed that police officials had also visited the railway track, where the body of his brother was found lying and had made enquiries from him and recorded his statement Ex.PW17/A and police had got registered the FIR. He further deposed that police officials had also obtained the photographs of the body of his brother at railway tracks.
12.2. PW17 Manish further deposed that during investigation on 14.04.2014, he went to Subzi Mandi Mortuary and identified the dead body of his brother Raja and IO recorded his statement Ex.PW17/B and police official had got conducted postmortem on the body of his brother Raja from the said Mortuary. He further deposed that after postmortem, the body was handed over to him vide SC No. 57392/2016 FIR no. 453/14 PS Shahbad Dairy State Vs Shahrukh @ Anirul & Ors. Page 11 of 65 receipt Ex.PW3/B. He further deposed that on 14.04.2014, he also visited PS Shahbad Dairy and had identified accused Shahrukh @ Anirul (A1), present in the Court today, who was in the custody of police. PW17 further deposed that he also stated to IO that his brother Raja had been killed by accused persons as accused Shahrukh @ Anirul (A1) had to pay certain money to his brother, which said accused was avoiding to pay.
12.3 PW17 further deposed that on 19.04.2014, he again visited PS Shahbad Dairy and identified accused Dalip Kumar and Udit Narayan @ Piddi (A3 & A2 herein), present in the Court today, who were in the custody of police and also stated to IO that his brother Raja (since deceased) had been killed by accused persons as accused Shahrukh @ Anirul (A1) had to pay certain money to his brother, which said accused was avoiding to pay. He further deposed that he also stated to IO that after committing the murder of his brother Raja, his body had been thrown by the aforesaid three accused persons at railway track.
12.4. In the crossexamination conducted on behalf of accused Shahrukh @ Anirul (A1), PW17 has stated that he is illiterate and his brother Raja had studied upto 6th standard. He further stated that his brother Raja (deceased) was manufacturing chappals on contract basis. He further deposed that he had not brought any documentary proof to show that his brother Raja was engaged in the manufacturing of chappals on contract basis. He further stated that there were no fixed duty hours of his brother Raja & has voluntarily stated that his brother Raja and accused Shahrukh @ Anirul (A1) had taken contracts in three factories regarding manufacturing of chappals, but he cannot tell the names of the said factories and has voluntarily stated that he can show the said factories. PW17 SC No. 57392/2016 FIR no. 453/14 PS Shahbad Dairy State Vs Shahrukh @ Anirul & Ors. Page 12 of 65 further stated that he used to drive Champion vehicle belonging to one Sanjay and the said vehicle had been attached with few factories and he used to take the said vehicle to the said factories on receipt of phone calls, in order to supply their goods. He further deposed that after sometimes, he also used to receive order/ call even during night hours for supplying the goods. PW17 further deposed in the crossexamination on behalf of A1 that he first met the police officials in connection with present case at the place where the body of his brother Raja was lying i.e. at CBlock, Metro Vihar, PhaseII, near Railway Line. He further stated that his statement Ex.PW17/A was recorded by the IO at PS Shahbad Dairy on 12/13.04.2014 and at that time, his brotherinlaw (Jija), mother, his elder brother namely Pappu and many other persons were present there and that in his presence, IO had not recorded the statement of any other person. He further stated that he cannot tell the exact time when his statement Ex.PW17/A was recorded by the IO. He further deposed that he had signed on his said statement and the same was also read over to him by the police.
12.5. PW17 Manish has further stated in the crossexamination that he stated to IO in his statement Ex.PW17/A that his brother Raja stated to him that he had to take certain money from accused Shahrukh@Anirul (A1). PW17 was Confronted with statement Ex.PW17/A, where this fact was not so recorded, but it has been recorded that Raja used to state to the witness that he had settled the accounts with accused Shahrukh @ Anirul. He further deposed that he also stated to IO in his statement Ex.PW17/A that his brother Raja and accused Shahrukh @ Anirul (A1) had taken a room on rent basis at H. no. C729, Phase II, Metro Vihar, where they had opened a gym. He was Confronted with statement Ex.PW17/A, where this fact was not so recorded, but it has been recorded that his SC No. 57392/2016 FIR no. 453/14 PS Shahbad Dairy State Vs Shahrukh @ Anirul & Ors. Page 13 of 65 brother and accused Shahrukh (A1) used to sit together at the said premises.
12.6. PW17 further stated in the crossexamination that he did not lodge any complaint before the police regarding the dispute of money between my brother Raja (since deceased) and accused Shahrukh @ Anirul (A1). He further stated that when his brother Raja was leaving the house on 11.04.2014 at about 7 pm as stated during chief examination, he (PW17) insisted his brother Raja for not accompanying any such persons. He has voluntarily stated that his said brother still left with them by saying to him that he would be coming back after sometime i.e. 5 minutes. PW17 further deposed that at that time, his mother and elder brother Pappu were also present at their house and when his brother Raja was leaving the house,his mother had called him by name and his brother replied to his mother that he would be coming back soon. He further stated that his elder brother Pappu had not stated anything to his brother Raja at that time.
12.7. In further crossexamination, PW17 Manish has stated that he had never enquired from any of the factory owners about the money dispute between his brother Raja and accused Shahrukh(A1). PW17 further stated that he never met with any of the owners of said factories and it was only his brother Raja who had told him about the said dispute of money with accused Shahrukh (A1). He further deposed that he did not remember as to when his brother Raja had stated to him about the aforesaid money dispute with accused Shahrukh (A1) nor he requested any person for settling the said dispute.
12.8. During further crossexamination, PW17 has further deposed that when his brother Raja did not return back, initially his mother went for his search SC No. 57392/2016 FIR no. 453/14 PS Shahbad Dairy State Vs Shahrukh @ Anirul & Ors. Page 14 of 65 and thereafter, he also searched him. He further deposed that they searched his brother Raja at CBlock, ABlock as well as other side of BBlock, but in vain. He further deposed that he did not lodge any missing report before the police of his brother Raja nor informed any of his neighbour that his brother Raja had not returned back to the house on that night.
12.9. PW17 Manish has admitted in the crossexamination that he had not seen accused Shahrukh (A1) in front of his house when brother Raja left their house on 11.04.2014 at about 7 pm. He has denied the suggestion that his brother Raja did not leave their house on the said date and time or in the manner as stated by him during his examination in chief or that he has concocted a false story in this regard at the instance or on the tutoring of IO of this case.
12.10. In the crossexamination conducted on behalf of accused Dalip Kumar and Udit Narayan @ Piddi (A3 & A2), on the day of incident, he was not driving any vehicle. He further deposed that he started driving Champion vehicle about six months back from today. He further deposed that he did not state to IO that he was not working at that time. PW17 further deposed that on the day of occurrence, he remained at his house and was watching TV and had also left his house for few hours. He further stated that he returned back to the house in the evening hours, but he does not remember the exact time when he returned back to his house. He further stated that he also does not remember the exact or approximate time, when he left the house for few hours. He further stated that on the day of occurrence, his brother Raja had left for his work in morning hours, but he does not remember the exact time. He further deposed that he returned back to the house at about 7.30 pm. SC No. 57392/2016 FIR no. 453/14 PS Shahbad Dairy State Vs Shahrukh @ Anirul & Ors. Page 15 of 65 12.11. PW17 Manish has denied the suggestion that his brother Raja was not residing with them or that his brother Raja was residing in some other tenanted premises. He has voluntarily stated that he had taken one premises on rent, where a gym was installed by him. He further stated that during investigation, police had not recorded the statement of his elder brother Pappu. He further stated that he had also stated to IO that he stopped his brother Raja when he was leaving their house. PW17 further deposed that his brother Raja was having two mobile phones with him and they made efforts for making calls on said mobile phones of his brother Raja, but both the said mobile phones were found switched off. He further deposed that his brother Raja remained at house for about 1015 minutes after coming from his work and then left the house. PW17 further deposed that he had simply searched his brother Raja in various blocks, but had not enquired from the residents of the said block. He further deposed that he himsellf had not visited the house of accused Shahrukh to enquire about the whereabouts of his brother Raju. He further stated that his brother Raja was not in the habit of consuming liquor and has voluntarily stated that he (Raja) used to consume beer occasionally. He has denied the suggestion that he used to love with his brother Raja very much or that he was having previous enmity with accused Dalip Kumar and Udit Narayan or that due to said reason, he was deposing falsely against the said accused persons. PW17 has admitted that prior to the recovery of body of his brother Raja, neither he nor his brother had lodged any complaint to the police. He further admitted that he made statement before the police on 13.04.2014 & did not make any statement before the police on 12.04.2014. He further admitted that accused Dalip and Udit Narayan were never remained in partnership business of his brother Raja but has voluntarily stated that they worked as helpers in the business of his brother Raja and Shahrukh. He further statedthat he is not having any SC No. 57392/2016 FIR no. 453/14 PS Shahbad Dairy State Vs Shahrukh @ Anirul & Ors. Page 16 of 65 documentary proof/evidence to establish that the aforesaid accused persons had ever worked as helpers in the business of his brother Raja and accused Shahrukh nor is having any documentary proof/evidence regarding the partnership business of his brother Raja with accused Shahrukh. PW17 has denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely or that accused Dalip and Udit Narayan had never come to his house or had not called his brother Raja or had not accompanied his brother or that he had previous enmity with both the said accused persons or due to the said reason, he had falsely implicated them in this case.
13. PW18 Smt. Ramwati is the mother of deceased Raja. She has deposed that his son Raja (since deceased) was working in a factory of manufacturing slippers, etc. on contract basis. She further deposed that accused Shahrukh(A1), present in the Court today (correctly identified) was residing in his neighbourhood and was also working on contract basis in the factory of manufacturing slippers, etc. She further deposed that her son Raja as well as accused Shahrukh took contracts in as many as three factories for the aforesaid work of manufacturing slippers, etc. PW18 further deposed that accused Dilip and Udit Narain present in the Court today (correctly identified) were also residing in their neighbourhood i.e. in their back lane & were working as labourers under his son Raja and accused Shahrukh.
13.1. PW18 further deposed that during the course of said business, her son Raja had some dispute over the said contract work with accused Shahrukh(A
1) and that on one day, her son Raja had stated to her that accused Shahrukh (A
1) had taken some money from him and had not been returning the same. PW18 further deposed that on 11.04.2014, at about 7 pm, she was present at her house SC No. 57392/2016 FIR no. 453/14 PS Shahbad Dairy State Vs Shahrukh @ Anirul & Ors. Page 17 of 65 and her sons Raja (since deceased) and Manish(PW18) were also present in the said house and at that time, accused Dilip and Udit Narain (A3 & A2 herein) came to their house and stated to his son Raja for accompanying them on the pretext that accused Shahrukh(A1) had been calling him in order to have a talk regarding returning of said money. She further deposed that while leaving their house, his son Raja stated to her that he had been going to meet Shahrukh (A1) and would return back after sometime and her son Raja had not returned back for the said whole night. PW18 further deposed that they also made efforts for the search of Raja, but in vain. She further deposed that on the next day i.e. 12.04.2014, they came to know through their colony residents that dead body of one boy had been lying at railway track & upon this information, her son Manish(PW17) rushed to the said railway track and found the dead body to be of her son Raja & Manish gave an information to her in this regard. She further deposed that her son Raja had been killed by accused Shahrukh(A1) and by his aforesaid accomplices namely Dilip and Udit Narain (A3 & A2).
13.2 PW18 further deposed that she can identify the clothes which her son Raja was wearing when he left their house on 11.04.2014. She has identified one jeans pant with belt having brown stains, one Tshirt, one baniyan, one underwear and one pair of slippers as Ex.P18/1 (colly.) before the Court being worn by her son Raja when he had left her house and on seeing the same, the witness had started weeping.
13.3. In crossexamination conducted on behalf of accused Shahrukh @ Anirul,PW18 has stated that so far as she remembered, police official met her on 12.04.2014 and made enquiries from her. She does not remember the exact date SC No. 57392/2016 FIR no. 453/14 PS Shahbad Dairy State Vs Shahrukh @ Anirul & Ors. Page 18 of 65 on which her statement was recorded by the police. She further stated that one of the factory in which her son Raja (since deceased) had taken contract, was situated at Bhorgarh, but she does not know the details as well as owners of said factory and other factories. She has further stated that it is not within her knowledge if her son Raja had taken any licence for working on contract basis. PW19 further stated that her son(deceased) used to keep accounts of his work with him and her son Manish (PW17) has been working as driver & he had no fixed timings for his said job. She further stated that she had not lodged any complaint with the police regarding the money dispute of her son Raja with accused Shahrukh (A1) and it is not within his knowledge if her son Raja had lodged any complaint before the police in this regard. PW18 has denied the suggestion that accused Shahrukh(A1) had never sent coaccused persons namely Dilip and Udit Narain(A3 & A2) to her house for calling her son Raja or that he deposing falsely in this regard. Or that accused Shahrukh @ Anirul was not working with her son Raja or that due to this reason, she is not aware about the factories in which her son Raja had taken contracts or that she is deposing falsely in this regard.
13.4. In the crossexamination conducted on behalf of accused Dilip and Udit Narain (A3 & A2) that she is illiterate. She further deposed that she had stated to the IO that on that day at about 7 pm, accused Dilip and Udit Narain came to their house and stated to her son Raja (since deceased) for accompanying them on the pretext that accused Shahrukh(A1) had been calling him in order to have a talk regarding returning of said money and while leaving their house, her son Raja had stated to her that he had been going to meet Shahrukh and would return back after sometime. In this regard, PW18 was SC No. 57392/2016 FIR no. 453/14 PS Shahbad Dairy State Vs Shahrukh @ Anirul & Ors. Page 19 of 65 confronted with statement Ex.PW18/DA, where it is found mentioned that the said talks were heard by Manish(PW17). She has further stated that she does not remember the exact time when her son Manish(PW17) had returned back to their house from his work on 11.04.2014. PW18 further stated that PW17 Manish had returned back to house earlier, then her son Raja on 11.04.2014 & further deposed that now she remembered that her son Manish(PW17) had returned back to house at about 5 pm on that day and her son Raja (since deceased) had returned back to house at about 6.30 pm on that day. PW18 has further stated that on that day after returning to house, Manish(PW17) had left the house for supplying some water bottles as he used to supply water in their neighbourhood. PW18 further stated in the crossexamination that Raja (since deceased) had left the house in between 6.30 - 7.00 pm for a brief period for purchasing fan (snacks) and returned back to house before 7 pm. She furthe stated that though she does not remember the exact time, but Manish (PW17) had returned back to their house before 6.30 pm on that day.
13.5. PW18 further deposed that she had mentioned in her statement U/s 161 Cr.P.C. the time as 7 pm when her son Raja (since deceased) had left the house with aforesaid accused persons. In this regard, PW18 was confronted with statement Ex.PW18/DA, where no time of 7 pm has been found mentioned.
13.6. PW18 has denied the suggestion that accused Dilip and Udit Narain never came to her house for calling her son Raja or that she is deposing falsely in this regard or that her son Raja (since deceased) had not accompanied the aforesaid aforesaid accused persons or that she was deposing falsely at the instance of her son Manish (PW17).
SC No. 57392/2016 FIR no. 453/14 PS Shahbad Dairy State Vs Shahrukh @ Anirul & Ors. Page 20 of 6514. PW4 Amit has deposed that he has been residing at the aforesaid address i.e. H. No. 603, Pocket7, Budh Bazar, Narela, Delhi alongwith his family & House No. C729, Metro Vihar, PhaseII, Delhi is owned by his brotherinlaw Rajbir, but he used to take care of the aforesaid house. He further deposed that the key of the aforesaid house of his brotherinlaw Rajbir used to remain with him. PW4 further deposed that accused Dilip Kumar present in the Court (correctly identified) took the aforesaid house on rent from him on the pretext that he wanted to open a gym and also put the gym machines in the aforesaid premises. He further deposed that when accused Dilip Kumar took the aforesaid premises on a monthly rent of Rs. 1000/, he handed over him one of the key of the lock of the said house and kept the other key of the same lock with him. He further deposed that accused persons namely Shahrukh @ Anirul and Udit Narain who are present in the Court (correctly identified) used to visit the aforesaid premises which was taken on rent by accused Shahrukh @ Anirul. He further deposed that deceased Raja also used to visit the aforesaid premises.
14.1. PW4 Amit further deposed that on 12.04.2014, it was informed to him that the dead body of Raja has been found lying at the railway track. He further deposed that on the same day, police official visited the aforesaid house no. C729 and he was called by the police and he opened the lock of the premises with the key which used to remain with him and handed over the said key to IO, who seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW4/A. PW4 has identified the said key before the Court as Ex.P1. Another key was also shown to PW4 and after seeing the same, he stated that said key was not the same which he handed over to accused Shahrukh @ Anirul (A1) at the time when accused Shahrukh @ Anirul took the premises on rent. He further stated that said key might have been got SC No. 57392/2016 FIR no. 453/14 PS Shahbad Dairy State Vs Shahrukh @ Anirul & Ors. Page 21 of 65 made by accused Shahrukh @ Anirul (A1).
14.2. During crossexamination conducted on behalf of the accused persons, PW4 has stated that he himself had not handed over the key Ex. P1 to the police and the same was handed over to the police by his father and has voluntarily stated that police made a call at his house and at that time, he was away at his duty and accordingly he instructed his father to hand over the key to the police.
15. PW3 Tinku has deposed that deceased Raja S/o Ram Bharose Lal was his brotherinlaw whose dead body of my brotherinlaw Raja was recovered from a railway line near Village Holambi Kalan in the morning hours of 12.04.2014. He further deposed that the body of Raja was taken to Subzi Mandi Mortuary and was got preserved, postmortem on the body of his brotherinlaw was conducted at Dr. BSA Hospital, Rohini, Delhi. He further deposed that he identified the body of Raja being his brotherinlaw (wife's brother) & IO recorded his statement Ex.PW3/A in this regard. PW3 further deposed that his another brotherinlaw Manish (PW17) informed him that two boys had visited their house on 11.04.2014 at about 7 pm and took Raja with them & when Raja left the house alongwith them, Raja stated to Manish (PW17) that he would be coming back within 510 minutes. He further deposed that after postmortem, the dead body of Raja was handed over to them vide receipt Ex.PW3/B.
16. PW26 Ct. Sandeep (the nomenclature of this witness should have been PW27 but inadvertently the same has been mentioned as PW26). He has deposed that on 12.04.2014, he was posted at PCR Control Room and was on SC No. 57392/2016 FIR no. 453/14 PS Shahbad Dairy State Vs Shahrukh @ Anirul & Ors. Page 22 of 65 duty from 8.00 am to 2.00 pm in Channel No. 154. He further deposed that at about 9:58:30 hrs., a call was received by him from phone number 8285256374 in Control Room of PCR & the caller had informed that "Holambi BlockC, PhaseII Nahar par, H. no. 1941. Mere bhai ko 34 ladkon ne jaan se maar kar nahar ke upar faink diya hai". He further deposed that he recorded the said call in the PCR Form and transmitted the same to wireless operator for necessary action. The said witness has proved the attested copy of PCR Form as Ex.PW26/A.
17. PW8 HC Yogesh Kumar has deposed that on 12.04.2014, he was posted in PCR Control Room and was on duty from 8.00 pm to 8.00 am & at about 6.14 am, a call regarding dead body was received by him from Mr. Vipul Kumar through telephone number 9650832775 in Control Room of PCR. He further deposed that in the said call, the caller had informed him that 'Holambi Kalan aur Narela Station ke beech, naale ke upar, railway line par signal ke pass, railway line par ek dead body padi hui hai" & he recorded the said call in the PCR Form and transmitted the same to wireless operator for necessary action. He has proved the attested copy of PCR Form as Ex.PW8/A.
18. PW14 Ct. Jai Ram has deposed that during the intervening night of 11/12042014, he was posted in PP Subzi Mandi of PS ODRS and was working as DD Writer from 8.30 pm of 11.04.14 till 9.25 am of 12.04.14. He further deposed that at about 6.40 am on 12.04.14, an information was received through wireless operator that one dead body was lying on drain near Railway Line Signal in between Holambi Kalan Railway Station and Narela & he recorded the said information in Roznamcha vide DD no. 5PP and handed over the copy thereof to ASI Rameshwar Dass for necessary action. PW14 has proved the attested copy SC No. 57392/2016 FIR no. 453/14 PS Shahbad Dairy State Vs Shahrukh @ Anirul & Ors. Page 23 of 65 of said DD entry as Ex.PW14/A.
19. PW20 Rameshwar Dass has deposed that on 12.04.2014, he was posted at PP Subzi Mandi Railway Station, PS Old Delhi Railway Station as ASI & on that day, DD No. 5PP Ex.PW20/1 was marked to him. He further deposed that he alongwith other staff went to in between Holambi Kalan Railway Station and Narela Railway Station & upon reaching at the spot i.e. Poll No. 22/13, UpLine, he found the dead body of one male young boy lying in two pieces. He further deposed that the lower portion of the body of said deceased was found lying outside the railway track, whereas the upper portion of the body was found inside the railway track. He further deposed that the said deceased was noticed by him to be around 18 years having wheatish colour, medium height and was wearing yellow colour full sleeve Tshirt, white baniyan, blue jeans pant, chocolate colour underwear and plastic sandels in his foot. He further deposed that the photographer accompanying him took photographs of the said body and place of occurrence. He further deposed that he conducted the proceedings U/s 174 Cr.P.C. He further deposed that he filled up form no. 25.35(1) B Ex.PW20/A & recorded the statements Ex.PW20/B and Ex.PW20/C of Sh. Pappu and Sh. Tinku respectively at the spot. PW20 further deposed that at the spot, he also met Key Man Sh. Ram Sharan and recorded his statement Ex.PW20/D. He further deposed that thereafter, the body of deceased Raja was taken to Subzi Mandi Mortuary and he moved an application Ex.PW20/E for preservation of dead body. He further deposed that he also lodged DD No. 16PP in the Roznamcha of PP Subzi Mandi Ex.PW20/F. PW20 further deposed that during the course of inquest, it was revealed to him that said Raja was murdered in the area of PS Shahbad Dairy and FIR No. 453/14 has been registered in this regard. He further SC No. 57392/2016 FIR no. 453/14 PS Shahbad Dairy State Vs Shahrukh @ Anirul & Ors. Page 24 of 65 deposed that during investigation, IO of the present case, met him and collected the copies of relevant documents prepared by him also recorded his statement. He further deposed that on 14.04.2014, he went to the Subzi Mandi Mortuary, where the body of Raja was handed over to HC Sunil vide receipt Ex.PW20/G.
20. PW12 Ct Jaswinder has deposed that on 12.04.2014, he was posted at PP Metro Vihar, PS Shahbad Dairy and was working as DD Writer from 8.00 am till 8.00 pm. He further deposed that at about 10.11 am, Duty Officer PS Shahbad Dairy gave an information over telephone to him that he had received a PCR call and the PCR had informed him that a caller at CBlock, PhaseII, H. No. 1941, had made a call to the effect that his brother has been killed by 34 persons and they had thrown the body of deceased over the nala. PW12 further deposed that duty Officer also informed him the phone number of the caller to be 8285256374 & as such he recorded the said information in Rojnamcha vide DD no. 11PP dated 12.04.2014 and handed over the copy of said DD to SI Ram Kumar who alongwith Ct. Jai Kumar and Ct. Praveen left for the place of information. The said witness has proved the attested copy of said DD entry as Ex.PW12/A.
21. PW11 SI Ram Kumar has deposed that on 12.04.2014, he was posted at PP Metro Vihar, PS Shahbad Dairy as Chowki Incharge & on that day, on receipt of DD no. 4 PP, PW13 ASI Bijender Singh alongwith Ct. Pradeep went to the place of information i.e. near C Block, Metro Vihar, PhaseII, railway track, where they had found one dead body lying on the railway track, which was identified to be of Raja S/o Sh. Ram Bharose. He further deposed that he received DD no. 11PP. On receipt of said DD, I alongwith Ct. (now HC) Praveen (PW21) SC No. 57392/2016 FIR no. 453/14 PS Shahbad Dairy State Vs Shahrukh @ Anirul & Ors. Page 25 of 65 went to H. No. C729, Metro Vihar, PhaseII, Holambi Kalan i.e. the place of occurrence. PW11 has further deposed that upon reaching the said house, they found the said house locked & on enquiry, it was revealed to him that the key of the said house was with Amit (PW4), who was called at the spot and he provided the key of said house to him and accordingly, he opened the said house. He further deposed that on entering inside the said house, he found blood stains in the back side room of said house & blood stains in the gali as well. He further deposed that no eyewitness met him at the place of occurrence. PW12 further deposed that he called for the crime team & crime team officials reached at the spot and inspected the place of occurrence & Crime Team Incharge namely SI (now Inspector) Anil (PW2) prepared his report after inspecting the place of occurrence & the Crime Team Photographer also took photographs of the place of occurrence.
22. PW2 Inspector Anil Kumar has deposed that on 12.04.2014, he was posted with Mobile Crime Team, Outer District & on that day on the call of IO, he alongwith Crime Team i.e. Photographer Ct. Manish (PW7), Finger Print Proficient & Ct. Deepak went to the place of occurrence i.e. C729, Metro Vihar, Holambi Kalan, Delhi. He further deposed that at the spot, they met SI Ram Kumar (PW26) alongwith staff and he inspected the place of commission of offence i.e. a gym. He further deposed that upon inspection, he found blood on gym machines, clothes, floor and back of the room. He further deposed that injured/deceased was not found at the scene of crime. PW2 further deposed that it was informed to him by the investigating officer that the body of the deceased was found lying at railway tracks being thrown by the offenders. He further deposed that the photographer Ct. Manish took photographs of the place of occurrence. PW2 further deposed that SC No. 57392/2016 FIR no. 453/14 PS Shahbad Dairy State Vs Shahrukh @ Anirul & Ors. Page 26 of 65 he prepared his report Ex.PW2/A and handed over the same to IO, who recorded his statement.
22.1. In the crossexamination, PW2 has admitted that no chance prints were lifted. He has voluntarily stated that they made efforts to lift the chance print, but no chance prints were found.
23. PW7 Ct Manish has deposed that he took 11 photographs of the said premises i.e. C729, Metro Vihar, Holambi Kalan, Delhi from different angles & after developing, he handed over the photographs to the IO Inspector Sanjeev Chahar(PW26). He has proved the said 11 photographs on judicial record as Ex.PW7/A1 to A11 and the negatives thereof as Ex.PW7/B1 to B11.
24. PW11 SI Ram Kumar further deposed that he seized the aforesaid key, which was provided to him by Amit vide seizure memo Ex.PW4/A. He further deposed that inside the said room, two blood stained round iron weights of green colour were found lying & out of the said two weight, one was bigger in shape and another was smaller, both having one hole. He further deposed that on the small weight, 'BRIGHT 3' was carved and on the bigger weight, 'BRIGHT 20' was carved & he kept both the weights in two separate cloth pullandas and both the pullandas were sealed with the seal of SKC and were seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW11/A. PW11 further deposed that one blood stained blanket and one blood stained bed sheet were also found lying in the said room, which were kept in a plastic sack, which was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW11/B after sealing it with the seal of SKC. He further deposed that he also lifted the blood stained earth control after breaking the said earth with the help of hammer and chainey, which was kept in a SC No. 57392/2016 FIR no. 453/14 PS Shahbad Dairy State Vs Shahrukh @ Anirul & Ors. Page 27 of 65 plastic container, which was sealed with the seal of SKC and was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW11/C. He further deposed that he also lifted the earth control after breaking the said earth with the help of hammer and chainey, which was kept in a plastic container, which was sealed with the seal of SKC and was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW11/D & thereafter, he deposited the aforesaid exhibits in Malkhana.
24.1. PW11 further deposed that on 13.04.2014, complainant Manish Kumar (PW17) came to PS and made statement to him and on the basis of his statement and facts and circumstances of the case, he prepared rukka Ex.PW11/E, which was produced by him to Duty Officer for registration of FIR, who registered FIR no. 453/14 and after registration of FIR, the investigation was marked to Inspector Sanjeev Chahar, who recorded my statement and also prepared site plan at his pointing out.
24.2. PW11 SI Ram Kumar has identified the two dirty iron weights on which 'BRIGHT 20' & 'BRIGHT 3' respectively were carved,as Ex. P1 & Ex.P2 & one blanket and one cloth piece described as bed sheet as Ex.P3 (colly.), blood stained pieces of concrete cloth as Ex.P4 (colly.), pieces of earth material described as earth control as Ex.P5 (colly.),which were seized from the room, where the occurrence took place & one unsealed key as Ex.P6, which was provided to him by Amit and he opened the lock of aforesaid house with said key Ex.P6.
24.3. During crossexamination conducted on behalf of the accused persons, PW11 SI Ram Kumar has stated that he reached at the place of SC No. 57392/2016 FIR no. 453/14 PS Shahbad Dairy State Vs Shahrukh @ Anirul & Ors. Page 28 of 65 occurrence i.e. H. No. C 729, Metro Vihar, PhaseII, Holambi Kalan, Delhi, at about 10.20 am. He further deposed that some public person informed him that one of the key of the said house used to remain with Amit (PW4), who on enquiry, stated to him that the said house was owned by his brotherinlaw (Jija) namely Sh. Rajbir. He further deposed that he did not call Rajbir at the spot to verify the ownership documents of said house. He further deposed that when he went to aforesaid house, he was carrying investigation kit with him. He further deposed that he did not seal the key Ex.P6, which was provided to him by Amit & he obtained the signature of Amit on seizure memo of said key Ex.PW4/A. He has further deposed that Amit met him at the aforesaid house at about 10.45 am. He has denied the suggestion that Amit had not met him on that day or that Amit had not provided the key to him. He further deposed that the seal of SKC, which he used, does not belong to him and it belonged to Inspector Sanjeev Kumar Chahar. He has voluntarily stated that the said seal was with him 23 days prior to 12.04.2014.
24.4. In further crossexamination, PW11 has deposed that the investigation of the present case was marked to Inspector Sanjeev Kumar Chahar after registration of FIR. He further deposed that on 13.04.2014, he returned the seal of SKC to IO Inspector Sanjeev Kumar Chahar after registration of FIR. He further deposed that he did not make any entry in Roznamcha to the effect that the seal of SKC was with him for the last 23 days. PW11 further deposed that they remained at the spot upto 1.00 pm. and he handed over the rukka to Duty Officer for registration of FIR on 13.04.2014, at about 12.50 pm. He further deposed that complainant met him at the PS on 13.04.2014 at about 11.30 am.
SC No. 57392/2016 FIR no. 453/14 PS Shahbad Dairy State Vs Shahrukh @ Anirul & Ors. Page 29 of 6525. PW13 ASI Bijender Singh has deposed that on 12.04.2014, he posted at PP Metro Vihar, PS Shahbad Dairy & on that day, on receipt of DD No. 4PP to the effect that one dead body is lying over the railway line between Holambi Kalan and Narela, he alongwith Ct. Pradeep went to the place of information where they found one dead body of a male person lying on the railway line, being cut by train. He further deposed that the said dead body was identified to be of Raja S/o Sh. Ram Bharose, R/o A1941, Metro Vihar, PhaseII, Delhi. He further deposed that in the meantime, ASI Rameshwar of PP Subzi Mandi had also reached at the spot. He further deposed that initially, the occurrence seems to be of within the jurisdiction of Railway Police PP Subzi Mandi, PS Old Delhi Railway Station, but it was revealed to them that the murder of Raja was committed at H. No. C729, Metro Vihar. He further deposed that after registration of FIR, the investigation of the present case was marked to Inspector Sanjeev Kumar Chahar. He further deposed that on 13.04.2014, IO Inspector Sanjeev Kumar Chahar lifted the blood stained stones from the railway track from where the body was recovered, in his presence. He further deposed that IO kept the said stones in a white plastic container, which was sealed with the seal of SKC and was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW13/A. PW13 has identified the aforesaid 9 stone pieces as Ex.P7 (colly.).
26. PW26 Inspector Sanjeev Chahar is the investigating officer of the case. He deposed that on 13.04.2014, he was posted at PS Shahbad Dairy as Inspector Investigation and on that day, after the registration of FIR in the present case, the investigation of the present case was marked to him and he collected copy of FIR and original rukka from Duty Officer. He further deposed that thereafter, he alongwith HC (now ASI) Anil (PW24) went to the place of SC No. 57392/2016 FIR no. 453/14 PS Shahbad Dairy State Vs Shahrukh @ Anirul & Ors. Page 30 of 65 occurrence i.e. H. No. C729, Metro Vihar, Holambi Kalan, Delhi, where they met SI Ram Kumar (PW11) on whose instance he prepared rough site plan Ex.PW26/A. PW26 further deposed that PW26 SI Ram Kumar had also produced to him the seizure memo Ex.PW4/A of key, seizure memo Ex.PW11/A of two blood stained iron weights, seizure memo Ex.PW11/B of blood stained quilt and bedsheet, seizure memo Ex.PW11/C of blood stained earth control, seizure memo Ex.PW11/D of earth control & he also recorded statement of SI Ram Kumar in this regard. PW26 has further deposed that thereafter, he alongwith HC Anil went to the place of recovery of dead body i.e. railway track, which was near H. No. C729. He further deposed that he called ASI Vijender (PW13) on whose instance, he lifted certain blood stained stones from Railway Line, near Metro Vihar. He further deposed that he kept the said stone pieces in a plastic container, which was sealed with the seal of SKC and was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW13/A & recorded the statement of ASI Vijender in this regard.
26.1. PW26 further deposed that thereafter, on 14.04.2014, on his instruction, HC Anil went to the Mortuary of BSA Hospital, where he met SI Surender Kumar (PW19) and on that day, the body of deceased Raja was identified by his relatives & on his instructions, SI Surender (PW19) got conducted postmortem on the body of deceased and after postmortem handed over the said body to his relatives vide receipt & handed over the inquest papers to him. He further deposed that he perused the same and placed the same on file. PW26 further deposed that thereafter, on the same day i.e. 14.04.2014, HC Anil had again joined the investigation of the present case with him & on that day, while they were present at Metro Vihar, PhaseII, there one secret informer gave an information to him that one of the offenders of this case namely Shahrukh @ SC No. 57392/2016 FIR no. 453/14 PS Shahbad Dairy State Vs Shahrukh @ Anirul & Ors. Page 31 of 65 Anirul (A1) could meet them at his house bearing no. A1929, PhaseII, Metro Vihar & if raided, he could be apprehended. He further deposed that on this information, they went to the aforesaid premises and managed to apprehend accused Shahrukh @ Anirul (A1), present in the Court (correctly identified). H furher deposed that at the said house, they met Smt. Rubiya Khatoon i.e. mother of accused Shahrukh @ Anirul, who stated to them that Shahrukh @ Anirul was a juvenile. PW26 further deposed that accordingly, he himself being a JWO, had interrogated accused Shahrukh @ Anirul (A1) & recorded his version Ex.PW24/1, wherein he had disclosed the manner in which the offence was committed as well as his role in the commission of offence. He further deposed that thereafter, he prepared the apprehension memo of accused Shahrukh @ Anirul Ex.PW24/A. He further deposed that pursuant to said version, accused Shahrukh @ Anirul(A1) got recovered one jeans type pant of light black colour, which was tying on the backside of the door of his house and also removed his wearing Tshirt of black colour, which was torn from collar side and stated to that that at the time of commission of offence, he was wearing the said clothes. PW26 further deposed that he kept the said clothes in a pullanda, which was sealed with the seal of SKC and was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW24/B. He further deposed that thereafter, accused Shahrukh @ Anirul (A1) got recovered one key from the backside of TV kept in the said room and stated to them that the said key belong to H. No. C729, Metro Vihar. PW26 further deposed that he kept the said key in a pullanda, which was sealed with the seal of SKC and was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW24/C. 26.2. PW26 further deposed that thereafter, accused Shahrukh @ Anirul (A1) led them to H. No. C729, Metro Vihar and pointed out towards the room of SC No. 57392/2016 FIR no. 453/14 PS Shahbad Dairy State Vs Shahrukh @ Anirul & Ors. Page 32 of 65 said house, where they had committed the murder of Raja. He further deposed that he prepared rough site plan Ex.PW24/D of said place. He further deposed that thereafter, accused Shahrukh @ Anirul (A1) had pointed out the place, where they had kept the body of Raja while taking the same towards Railway Line. PW26 further deposed that he inspected the said place and found certain blood stains lying there. He further deposed that he lifted the blood stained earth control & earth control of the said place, which were kept in separate plastic containers and both the said plastic containers were sealed with the seal of SKC & were seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW24/E and Ex.PW1/F respectively. PW26 further deposed that thereafter, accused Shahrukh @ Anirul was produced before Juvenile Justice Board and was remanded to Observation Home till 15.04.2014. He further deposed that he recorded the statement of HC Anil as well as other witnesses and deposited the case property in Malkhana.
26.3. PW26 further deposed that during investigation on 19.04.2014, HC Anil had joined investigation of this case with him and on that day while they were present at Metro Vihar, PhaseII, there one informer met him and gave an information to the effect that coaccused persons namely Udit Narain (A2) and Dilip Kumar (A3) could meet them at their respective houses. He further deposed that thereafter, they went to H. No. B2325, PhaseII, Metro Vihar and secret informer had pointed out towards the said house and left from there. He further deposed that then, they went to the said house, where they met Sh. Deep Narain i.e. father of accused Udit Narain (A2), who produced accused Udit Narain, present in the court today (correctly identified) before them and stated to them that Udit Narain was a JCL. PW26 further deposed that accordingly, he himself being a JWO, had interrogated accused Udit Narain @ Piddi & recorded his version SC No. 57392/2016 FIR no. 453/14 PS Shahbad Dairy State Vs Shahrukh @ Anirul & Ors. Page 33 of 65 Ex.PW24/G, wherein the said accused had disclosed the manner in which the offence was committed as well as his role in the commission of offence. He further deposed that thereafter, he prepared the apprehension memo of accused Udit Narain @ Piddi Ex.PW24/H & pursuant to said version, accused Udit Narain @ Piddi led them to H. No. B2393 and pointed out towards accused Dilip Kumar (A
3). He further deposed that in the said house, they met the elder sister namely Ms. Sunita Devi of accused Dilip Kumar (A3), who stated to them that Dilip Kumar was a JCL and accordingly, he (PW26) himself being a JWO, interrogated accused Dilip Kumar (A3) & recorded his version Ex.PW24/J, wherein he had disclosed the manner in which the offence was committed as well as his role in the commission of offence. PW26 further deposed that thereafter, he prepared the apprehension memo Ex.PW24/K of accused Dilip Kumar (A1) & thereafter, accused persons namely Udit Narain @ Piddi and Dilip Kumar (A2 & A3) were taken to PS, where complainant Manish (PW17) had identified both the said accused persons as the ones, who took his brother Raja from their house on 11.04.2014. PW26 further deposed that both the said accused persons were produced before JJB and were sent to Observation Home & he recorded the statement of HC Anil in this regard & also recorded the statement of complainant Manish.
26.4. PW26 further deposed that during investigation on 17.04.2014, upon his instructions, HC Kiran Pal (PW15) went to BSA hospital Mortuary for collecting exhibits in the present case. He further deposed that in the said hospital, HC Kiran Pal (PW15) met the concerned doctor who handed over to him relevant exhibits i.e. one plastic container having viscera alongwith blood sample, one sealed white envelope containing blood on gauze piece, one cardboard box containing clothes SC No. 57392/2016 FIR no. 453/14 PS Shahbad Dairy State Vs Shahrukh @ Anirul & Ors. Page 34 of 65 of deceased Raja,all sealed with the seal of DEPT OF FM GOVT OF DELHI DR BSAH and two sealed white envelopes containing sample seals with regard to seal affixed on the pullanda of viscera of clothes and blood on gauze piece, of the same specimen. He further deposed that HC Kiran Pal (PW15) returned back to PS, met him and handed over all the said exhibits to him, which he seized vide memo Ex.PW15/A. He further deposed that the aforesaid exhibits were deposited in the Malkhana & he recorded the statement of HC Kiran Pal (PW15) in this regard.
26.5. PW26 further deposed that during investigation on 07.07.2014, he accompanied Draftsman Inspector Mahesh Kumar (PW22) to the spot/place of occurrence i.e. H. No. 729, CBlock, Metro Vihar, PhaseII, Delhi, where PW22 Inspector Mahesh Kumar prepared rough notes and also took measurements at his instance & thereafter prepared scaled site plan Ex.PW22/A and handed over the same to him & PW26 recorded the statement of Inspector Mahesh Kumar in this regard.
26.6. PW26 further deposed that during investigation on 10.07.2014, on his instruction, Ct. Ashwani (PW9) had collected 12 sealed pullandas alongwith two sample seals and forwarding letter from MHC(M), vide R.C. No. 187/21/14 and one sealed pullanda alongwith sample seal, vide R.C. No. 186/21/14 from MHC(M) and deposited the aforesaid exhibits at FSL, Rohini. He further deposed that after deposit, Ct. Ashwani (PW9) had handed over the acknowledgement to the MHC(M) & he (PW26) recorded the statement of Ct. Ashwani and MHC(M) in this regard.
SC No. 57392/2016 FIR no. 453/14 PS Shahbad Dairy State Vs Shahrukh @ Anirul & Ors. Page 35 of 6526.7. PW26 further deposed that during investigation on 10.07.2014, he had obtained subsequent opinion Ex.PW1/B from Autopsy Surgeon and also collected postmortem report, Crime Team Report and Photographs and also collected PCR Forms as well as relevant DD entries. PW26 identified the case property 9 stone pieces Ex.P7 (colly.),which were lifted from the Railway Track at the instance of ASI Vijender (PW13), from where the body of deceased Raja was recovered, one Tshirt of black colour and one jeans pant of black colour Ex.P24/1 (colly.), which were recovered at the instance of accused Shahrukh @ Anirul (A
1), blood stained earth & earth control Ex.P24/2 and Ex.PW24/3 respectively, which were seized at the instance of accused Shahrukh @ Anirul (A1) & key Ex.PW24/4, which was seized at the instance of accused Shahrukh @ Anirul (A1).
26.8. During his examinationinchief PW26 had exhibited the FSL results dated 24.11.2014 prepared by Ms. Imrana, Sr. Scientific Officer (Biology), FSL, Rohini, Delhi as Ex.PX and Ex.PY and FSL result dated 30.10.2014 prepared by Dr. Shubra Kumar Paul, Sr. Scientific Officer (Chemistry), FSL, Rohini, Delhi.
26.9. In the crossexamination conducted on behalf of the accused persons, PW26 has deposed that he had requested the nearby public persons to join the investigation while conducting investigation at the spot on 13.04.2014, but no public person agreed to join the investigation. He further stated that he did not serve any notice to any of the said public persons nor took any legal action against them. He further deposed that while lifting the exhibits from the spot, he did not call any of the family member of the deceased. He further deposed that the railway track from where the body of deceased was recovered, was 300 mtrs. away from H. No. C729, Metro Vihar, Holambi Kalan, Delhi. He further deposed SC No. 57392/2016 FIR no. 453/14 PS Shahbad Dairy State Vs Shahrukh @ Anirul & Ors. Page 36 of 65 that he remained at H. no. C729 for about 45 minutes and lifted the exhibits before proceeding to railway track. He further deposed that the house of deceased was 1½ - 2 km from H. No. C729. PW26 further deposed that he did not call any family members of the deceased at Railway track, from where the body of deceased was recovered, while lifting the exhibits from the said railway track. he further deposed that the Crime Team had already inspected the place of occurrences before the investigation was marked to him. He further deposed that he placed on record the Crime Team reports and has voluntarily stated that he had only placed on record the Crime Team report prepared by Crime Team Incharge at H. No. C729, the body was recovered on 12.04.2014 and in this regard, the relevant proceedings were conducted by Crime and Railway police officials. He further stated that he did not remember if during investigation, he made enquiry from the police officials of Crime & Railway as to whether they had got inspected the place of recovery of dead body, from any Crime Team.
26.10. During further crossexamination, PW26 further deposed that he remained at railway track from where the dead body of deceased was recovered, for about 45 minutes or so. He further stated that he himself had not obtained any photographs or videography of H. No. C729 as well as of railway track as well as of the way towards railway track. He further stated that he had lodged departure entry on 19.04.2014, but he did not remember the said DD number. He has denied all the suggestion put to him in the crossexamination.
27. PW10 HC Sanjay Shinde has deposed that on 12.04.14, he was posted at PS Shahbad Dairy and was working as MHC(M) & on that day,PW11 SI Ram Kumar had deposited one key, two sealed pullandas sealed with the seal of SC No. 57392/2016 FIR no. 453/14 PS Shahbad Dairy State Vs Shahrukh @ Anirul & Ors. Page 37 of 65 SKC and containing two iron weights, one plastic bag in sealed condition duly sealed with the seal of SKC containing blood stained bed sheet and blanket, one plastic jar containing blood stained pieces of floor, whose lid was sealed with the seal of SKC and another plastic jar containing earth control in the form of pieces of cloth, whose seal was also sealed with the seal of SKC, in the Malkhana. He further deposed that he made entry at serial no. 1781 in register no. 19 in this regard and has proved the photocopy of the relevant page containing the aforesaid entry as Ex.PW10/A. He further deposed that on 13.04.14, Inspector Sanjeev Chahar (PW26) had deposited plastic jar containing several blood stained stones, whose lid was sealed with the seal of SKC in the Malkhana & he made entry at serial no. 1783 in register no. 19 in this regard & has proved the photocopy of the relevant page containing the aforesaid entry as Ex.PW10/B (OSR). PW10 has further deposed that on 14.04.14, Inspector Sanjeev Chahar PW26) had deposited personal search articles of accused Shahrukh @ Anirul (A
1), sealed pullanda containing blood stained clothes of accused Shahrukh @ Anirul, which was sealed with the seal of SKC, one sealed pullanda containing key, which was sealed with the seal of SKC, one plastic jar containing blood stained soil, which was sealed with the seal of SKC, another plastic jar containing earth control of soil and which was sealed with the seal of SKC in the Malkhana & PW10 made entry at serial no. 1785 in register no. 19 in this regard & he has proved the photocopy of the relevant page containing the aforesaid entry as Ex.PW10/C. 27.1. PW10 further deposed that on 17.04.14, PW26 Inspector Sanjeev Chahar had deposited exhibits of deceased i.e one plastic container containing viscera alongwith blood sample duly sealed with the seal of BSA hospital, one SC No. 57392/2016 FIR no. 453/14 PS Shahbad Dairy State Vs Shahrukh @ Anirul & Ors. Page 38 of 65 white colour envelope containing blood on gauze piece duly sealed with the seal of BSA hospital, one card board box containing clothes of deceased sealed with the seal of BSA hospital and two white envelopes containing sample seal of viscera and sample seal of clothes and blood on gauze piece, of the same specimen i.e of BSA hospital in the Malkhana. He further deposed that he made entry at serial no. 1798 in register no. 19 in this regard & has proved the photocopy of the relevant page containing the aforesaid entry as Ex.PW10/D. He further deposed that on 19.04.14, PW26 Inspector Sanjeev Chahar had deposited personal search articles of accused Dalip Kumar (A3) in the Malkhana & he had made entry at serial no. 1806 in register no. 19 in this regard & has proved Photocopy of the relevant page containing the aforesaid entry as Ex.PW10/E. 27.2. PW10 further deposed that on 09.07.14, he handed over sealed pullanda containing two iron weights of different size, sealed with the seal of SKC to Ct. Sandeep (PW26) for obtaining opinion from concerned doctor of BSA hospital, vide RC no. 185/21/14. He has proved the copy of said RC as Ex. PW10/F. He further deposed that n 10.07.14, PW26 Ct. Sandeep had deposited the aforesaid pullanda containing two iron weights now resealed with the seal of BSA hospital in Malkhana & PW10 made endorsement in this regard against entry Ex. PW10/A. He further deposed that on 10.07.14, he handed over sealed pullanda containing viscera and blood sample of deceased duly sealed with the seal of BSA hospital and sealed envelope containing sample seal of same specimen to Ct. Ashwani (PW9), vide RC no. 186/21/14 for being deposited in FSL Rohini, who after depositing the same, handed over copy of acknowledgment issued by the office of FSL, Rohini to him. PW10 has proved the copy of RC no. 186/21/14 as Ex. PW10/G & the copy of acknowledgment of FSL Rohini as Ex.
SC No. 57392/2016 FIR no. 453/14 PS Shahbad Dairy State Vs Shahrukh @ Anirul & Ors. Page 39 of 65PW10/H. 27.3. PW10 has further deposed that on 10.07.14, he handed over ten sealed pullandas containing various exhibits besides two sample seals of BSA hospital to Ct. Ashwani (PW9), vide RC no. 187/21/14 for being deposited in FSL Rohini, who after depositing the same, handed over copy of acknowledgment issued by the office of FSL, Rohini. PW10 has proved the copy of RC no. 187/21/14 as Ex. PW10/J & the copy of acknowledgment of FSL Rohini as Ex. PW10/K. 27.4. PW10 has further deposed that on 02.12.14, Ct. Sandeep had deposited eleven sealed pullandas sealed with the seal of FSL alongwith FSL result in Malkhana & he made endorsement in this regard against entry Ex. PW10/D & so long as the case property remained with him, same were not tampered by him or by anyone.
28. PW1 Dr. Mukesh Kumar has deposed that on 14.04.2014, he was posted as S.R. Forensic Medicine, Dr. BSA Hospital, Delhi & on that day, he conducted the postmortem examination on the body of deceased Raja S/o Sh. Ram Bharose. He further deposed that the body was brought with alleged history to the effect that body of deceased was found lying on railway track on 12.04.14 at night time and the body was preserved in BSA Hospital Mortuary. He further deposed that the dead body was identified by Tinku S/o Sh. Chiranji Lal and Manish S/o Ram Bharose. PW1 further deposed that he carried out the postmortem examination on the dead body of said deceased on the request of SI Surender (PW19) of PS Shahbad Dairy and prepared his detailed report dated 14.04.14 Ex.PW1/A (colly).
SC No. 57392/2016 FIR no. 453/14 PS Shahbad Dairy State Vs Shahrukh @ Anirul & Ors. Page 40 of 6528.1. PW1 further deposed that after carrying out postmortem examination, he gave his opinion that the death was due to head injury caused via injury no. 3 to 8 mentioned in his report. He further deposed that all the injuries were antemortem in nature except injury no.1 & 2 & the injuries were fresh before death and caused by blunt force. He further deposed that injury no. 3 to 5 individually as well as collectively with other injuries mentioned in his report, were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. He further deposed that injury no. 1 & 2 were postmortem and that he preserved to ascertain any intoxication at the time of death.
28.2. PW1 further deposed that after postmortem, the body of deceased was handed over to the IO. He further deposed that he also took blood on gauze and clothes of deceased and the same were sealed with the seal of department & also sealed the viscera of deceased alongwith blood sample with the seal of department. He further deposed that the aforesaid pullandas including the postmortem report and sample seal of the department were handed over to the police personnel.
28.3. PW1 further deposed that on 10.07.14, he received a request from Inspector Sanjeev Kumar (PW26) of PS Shahbad Dairy vide Diary / Dispatch no. 2632 / SHO dated 09.07.2014 alongwith copy of postmortem report and two sealed parcels for subsequent opinion on PM report no. 250/14 dated 14.04.14. He further deposed that he inspected both the parcel and parcel no. 1 was found sealed with 10 seals of SKC and upon opening, it found containing a gym iron weight (BRIGHT 20) of green colour & the gym iron weight was rusted and stained with red colour and weight 8056 gm. He further deposed that Parcel No. 2 was SC No. 57392/2016 FIR no. 453/14 PS Shahbad Dairy State Vs Shahrukh @ Anirul & Ors. Page 41 of 65 found sealed with 8 seals of SKC and upon opening the same, the same found containing a gym iron weight (BRIGHT 3) of green colour, which was rusted and stained with red colour and weight 2907 gm. PW1 further deposed that he also prepared the diagram of both the iron weights and examined both the aforesaid weights and opined that injuries as mentioned in postmortem report except injury no.1 & 2 can be caused by the weapon i.e. gym iron weights examined by him. He further deposed that he gave his subsequent opinion Ex.PW1/B in this regard.
28.4. As per postmortem report, Ex. PW1/A, the alleged history of the dead body of deceased was found, lying on railway track on 12/04/2014 at night time & the dead body was preserved in Dr. BSA hospital mortuary.
The following external injuries were found on the body of deceased:
i) Crush injury, involving abdomen around umbilicus encircling whole body surrounded by abrasion, stained with grease with exposting underlying abdominal viscera
ii) Crush injury, involving just above the pelvic region encircling the whole body surrounded by abrasion stained with grease with exposing underlying abdominal viscera.
iii) lacerated wound 3.6 cm x 0.5 cm x muscle deep present over the middle of the occidental area, 9.5 cm above left pinna, surrounded by contusion.
iv) lacerated wound 3 cm x 0.5 cm x muscle deep present over the left parieto occipital area, 1.2 cm lateral to midline, 10cm away from the left pinna.
v) lacerated wound, 2 cm x 1 cm x muscle deep present over the left temporo parietal area, 8.4 cm away from the left pinna.
vi) contused abrasion 4 cm x 3 cm present over the lateral angle of left eyebrow.
SC No. 57392/2016 FIR no. 453/14 PS Shahbad Dairy State Vs Shahrukh @ Anirul & Ors. Page 42 of 65vii) lacerated wound 2 cm x 0.2 cm x muscle deep present over the left side of forehead, 2 cm above lateral angle of left eyebrow surrounded by contusion of size 5 cm x 4 cm.
viii) lacerated wound 1.9 cm x 0.2 cm x muscle deep present over the lateral angle of left eyebrow.
ix) contusion 2.5 cm x 2 cm present over the right upper pinna.
x) contused abrasion 4.5 cm x 4 cm present behind the right pinna in the right temporal area.
xi) abrasion 1.5 cm x 0.2 cm present over the left side of neck, 1 cm lateral to midline, 5 cm above the sternal notch.
xii)Multiple abrasion, varying from size 0.5 cm x 0.2 cm to 0.8 cm x 0.3 cm present over the posterior aspect of left hand over an area of 7 cm x 4 cm including fingers on posterior aspect.
xiii) abrasion 3 cm x 1 cm present over the anterior aspect of left knee joint.
xv) Lacerated wound 1.2 x 0.2 cm present over the left lower limp, just below the knee joint.
29. As per case of prosecution, the exhibits were sent to FSL. AS per FSL report dated 24/11/2014 Ex. PX prepared by Dr. Imrana, SSO (Biology), FSL cum Ex Officio Chemical Examiner to the Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Ex. 1 i.e. iron weight, Ex. 1A i.e. one dirty iron weight, Ex. 2a i.e. one foul smelling blanket & Ex. 2b i.e. one cloth piece described as bedsheet, Ex. 3 i.e. concrete material described as blood stained piece of concrete floor, Ex. 4 i.e. earth control, Ex. 5 i.e. dirty stone pieces, Ex. 6a one Tshirt (of accused Shahrukh @ Anirul), Ex. 6b i.e. one jeans pants (of accused Shahrukh @ Anirul), Ex. 7 i.e. blood stained SC No. 57392/2016 FIR no. 453/14 PS Shahbad Dairy State Vs Shahrukh @ Anirul & Ors. Page 43 of 65 earth, Ex. 8 i.e. earth control, Ex. 9 gauze cloth piece having brown stains, Ex. 10a i.e. one jeans pants with belt having brown stains (of deceased), Ex. 10b i.e. one Tshirt (of deceased), Ex. 10c i.e. one banyan (of deceased), Ex. 10d i.e. one underwear (of deceased) and Ex. 10e i.e. slippers (of deceased) were examined and on examination, blood was detected on exhibits Ex 1, Ex. 1A, Ex. 2a, Ex. 2b, 3, 4,5,6b, 7,9,10a, 10b, 10c, 10d and 10e, whereas blood could not be detected on exhibits 6a & 8. As per serological report Ex. PY, blood of human origin was found on Ex. 1 iron weight, Ex1A iron weight, 2a blanket, 2b cloth piece, 3 concrete material, 4 earth material, 5 stone pieces, 6b jeans pants, 7 earth material, Ex. 9 gauze cloth piece, 10a jeans pants, 10b Tshirt, 10c banyan, 10d underwear and 10e pair of slippers and "O" group blood was found on Ex. 2a blanket, Ex. 9 gauze cloth piece, 10a jeans pants, 10c banyan and 10d underwear, whereas exhibits 1, 1A, 2b, 3, 4,5,6b, 7,10b and 10e gave no reaction. On Ex. 8 i.e. earth material (control) gave no reaction qua origin and grouping.
29.1. According to FSL report dated 30/10/2014 Ex. PZ prepared by Dr. Subhra Kumar Paul, SSO(Chemistry), FSL cum Ex. Officiao Chemical Examiner to the Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Ex. 1A i.e. stomach, pieces of small intestine with contents kept in a jar, Ex 1B i.e. pieces of liver, spleen and kidney kept in a jar, Ex. 1C blood sample kept in a vial & Ex. 1D i.e. preservative sample, saturated solution of common salt kept in a vial were examined and on chemical & TLC examination, metallic poisons, ethyl and methyl alcohol, cyanide, phosphide, alkaloids, barbiturates, tranquilizers and pesticides could not be detected on Ex. 1A, 1B, 1C & 1D.
DEFENCE WITNESSES
30. DW1 Amar Singh has deposed that accused Udit Narain (A2) is SC No. 57392/2016 FIR no. 453/14 PS Shahbad Dairy State Vs Shahrukh @ Anirul & Ors. Page 44 of 65 son of his friend namely Sh. Deep Narain, who is his friend since 1982. He further deposed that earlier his family and the family of Deep Narain were living in the jhuggis in the area of Shalimar Bagh and lateron, they were allotted jhuggis in the area of Metro Vihar in the year 2002. He further deposed that on 19.12.2008, Sh. Deep Narain met with an accident and his right leg got amputated in the said accident and he made a request to him that DW1 should take his son Udit Narain with him as helper as he (DW1) was doing the work of fitter in the machine making utensils. He further deposed that accused Udit Narain was doing work with him since October 2013 & used to come at work place at 8 am and went to his house at about 10 pm. DW1 further deposed that on 11.04.2014, accused Udit Narain came with his at his work place at 8 am and he left him at 8 pm at Hanuman Chowk near his house and thereafter, said accused left from there. He further deposed that on next day, said accused did not come for work. & later on, he came to know that accused Udit Narain has been arrested in a case.
30.1. In the crossexamination conducted on behalf of ld. Addl. PP for the State, DW1 has deposed that he is not a summoned witness. and had come to the court on the request of father of accused Udit Narain. He has denied that he had not produced any attendance register or any document to show that he is working as fitter as he is not doing any such work or that said accused was not working with him. He has admitted that he had not made any complaint to any Higher Authority regarding the aforesaid facts. Her has further denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely to save accused Udit Narain from conviction being the friend of his father.
31. DW2 Rajan has deposed that accused Shahrukh (A1) was doing SC No. 57392/2016 FIR no. 453/14 PS Shahbad Dairy State Vs Shahrukh @ Anirul & Ors. Page 45 of 65 the work of chicken at Budh Bazaar Road, Metro Vihar, PhaseII, Holambi Kalan, Delhi. He further deposed that his shop is also situated at Budh Bazaar Road and the distance between his shop and the shop of accused Shahrukh (A1) was of about 10 steps. He further deposed that he used to remain at his shop from 9.30 am till 11 pm. & he works daily and does not take any off.
31.1. DW2 further deposed that on 11.04.2014, he was working at his shop from 9.30 am till 11 pm and accused Shahrukh(A1) was also working at his shop from 9.30 am till 11 pm. He further deposed that on the next day, he came to know that accused Shahrukh has been arrested by the police in the present case.
31.2. In the crossexamination conducted on behalf of State, DW2 has deposed that he is not a summoned witness and had come to the court on the request of mother of accused Shahrukh. He has denied the suggestion that he is not running any chicken shop at the aforesaid place or that due to same reason, he had not produced any document to show that he is running the chicken shop from the aforesaid place or that that is why, he is not giving any complete address of the chicken shop. He has further denied the suggestion that accused Shahrukh (A1) was not running any chicken shop at the aforesaid place or that he has deposed falsely that said accused was present at the shop from 9.30 am to 11 pm on 11.04.2014 in order to save him from conviction. DW2 has admitted that he had not made any complaint to any Higher Authority regarding the aforesaid facts or that he was deposing falsely to save accused Shahrukh from conviction at the instance of his mother.
SC No. 57392/2016 FIR no. 453/14 PS Shahbad Dairy State Vs Shahrukh @ Anirul & Ors. Page 46 of 65APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE
32. Admittedly, there is noeye witness to the murder of the deceased. The whole case of prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence. As to what is the law related to circumstantial evidence, reliance can be placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Majendran Langesaran Vs State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr., Criminal Appeal No. 1300 of 2009, date of decision: 01/07/2013, wherein it has been held as under:
13. In the case of Padala Veera Reddy Vs State of A.P., 1989 Supp (2) SCC 706, this Court opined as under:
10. Before adverting to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel, we shall at the threshold point out that in the present case there is no direct evidence to connect the accused with the offence in question and the prosecution rests its case solely on circumstantial evidence. This Court in a series of decisions has consistently held that when a case rests upon circumstantial evidence such evidence must satisfy the following tests:
1) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn,must be cogently and firmly established ;
2) those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused;
3) the circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else; and
4) the circumstantial evidence in SC No. 57392/2016 FIR no. 453/14 PS Shahbad Dairy State Vs Shahrukh @ Anirul & Ors. Page 47 of 65 order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence. (See Gambhir vs. State of Maharashtra,(1982) 2 SCC 351)".
14. In the case of C. Chenga Reddy & Ors.
Vs. State of A.P. (1996) 10 SCC 193, this Court while considering a case of conviction based on the circumstantial evidence, held as under:
21. In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the settled law is that the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is drawn should be fully proved and such circumstances must be conclusive in nature. Moreover, all the circumstances should be complete and there should be no gap left in the chain of evidence. Further, the proved circumstances must be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and totally inconsistent with his innocence. In the present case the Courts below have overlooked these settled principles and allowed suspicion to take the place of proof besides relying upon some inadmissible evidence."
15. In the case of Ramreddy Rajesh Khanna Reddy Vs State of A.P., (2006)10 SCC 172, this Court again considered the case of conviction based on circumstantial evidence and held as under: SC No. 57392/2016 FIR no. 453/14 PS Shahbad Dairy State Vs Shahrukh @ Anirul & Ors. Page 48 of 65 "26. It is now well settled with with a view to base a conviction on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish all the pieces of incriminating circumstances by reliable and clinching evidence and the circumstances so proved must form such a chain of events as would permit no conclusion other than one of guilt of the accused. The circumstances cannot be on any other hypothesis. It is also well settled that suspicion, however grave it may be, cannot be a substitute for a proof and the courts shall take utmost precaution in finding an accused guilty only on the basis of the circumstantial evidence. (See Anil Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar, (2003) 9 SCC 67 and Reddy Sampath Kumar Vs. State of A.P., (2005) 7 SCC 603)"
In the case of G. Parshwanath Vs State of Karnataka, (2010) 8 SCC 593, this Court elaborately dealt with the subject and held as under:
"23. In cases where evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should, in the first instance, be fully established. Each fact sought to be relied upon must be proved individually. However, in applying this principle a distinction must be made between facts called primary or basic on the one hand and inference of facts to be drawn from them on the other. In regard to proof of primary facts, the Court has to judge the evidence and decide whether that evidence proves a particular fact and if that fact is proved, the question SC No. 57392/2016 FIR no. 453/14 PS Shahbad Dairy State Vs Shahrukh @ Anirul & Ors. Page 49 of 65 whether that fact leads to an inference of guilt of the accused persons should be considered. In dealing with this aspect of the problem, the doctrine of benefit of doubt applies. Although there should not be any missing links in the case, yet it is not essential that each of the links must appear on the surface of the evidence adduced and some of these links may have to be inferred from the proved facts. In drawing these inferences, the Court must have regard to the common course of natural events and to human conduct and their relations to the facts of the particulars case. The Court thereafter has to consider the effect of proved facts.
24. In deciding the sufficiency of the circumstantial evidence for the purpose of conviction, the court has to consider the total cumulative effect of all the proved facts, each one of which reinforces the conclusion of guilt and if the combined effect of all these facts taken together is conclusive in establishing the guilt of the accused, the conviction would be justified even though it may be that one or more of these facts by itself or themselves is/are not decisive. The facts established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and should exclude every hypothesis except the one sought to be proved. But this does not mean that before the prosecution can succeed in a case resting upon circumstantial evidence, it must exclude each and every hypothesis suggested by the accused, howsoever, extravagant and fanciful it might be. There SC No. 57392/2016 FIR no. 453/14 PS Shahbad Dairy State Vs Shahrukh @ Anirul & Ors. Page 50 of 65 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 sjhow that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused, where various links in chain are in themselves complete, then the false plea or false defence may be called into aid only to lend assurance to the court."
19. In the case of Rajendra Pralhadrao Wasnik Vs State of Maharashtra, (2012) 4 SCC 37, while dealing with the case based on circumstantial evidence, this Court observed as under:
"12. There is no doubt that it is not a case of direct evidence but the conviction of the accused is founded on circumstantial evidence. It is a settled principle of law that the prosecution has to satisfy certain conditions before a conviction based on circumstantial evidence can be sustained.
The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established and should also be consistent with only one hypothesis i.e. the guilt of the accused. The circumstances should be conclusive and proved by the prosecution. There must be a chain of events so complete as not to leave any substantial doubt in the mind of the court.
Irresistibly, the evidence should lead to the conclusion which is inconsistent with the innocence of the accused and the only possibility is that the accused haas committed the crime.
SC No. 57392/2016 FIR no. 453/14 PS Shahbad Dairy State Vs Shahrukh @ Anirul & Ors. Page 51 of 6513. To put it simply, the circumstances forming the chain of events should be proved and they should cumulatively point towards the guilt of the accused alone. in such circumstances, the inference of guilt can be justified only when all the incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or the guilt of any other person."
20. Last but not least, in the case of Brajendrasingh vs. State of M.P., (2012) 4 SCC 289, this Court while reiterating the above principles further added that:
"28. Furthermore, the rule which needs to be observed by the court while dealing with the cases of circumstantial evidence is that the best evidence must be adduced which the nature of the case admits. The circumstances have to be examined cumulatively. The court has to examine the complete chain of events and then see whether all the material facts sought to be established by the prosecution to bring home the guilt of the accused, have been proved beyond reasonable doubt. It has to be kept in mind that all these principles are based upon one basic cannon of our criminal jurisprudence that the accused is innocent till proven guilty and that the accused is entitled to a just and fair trial (Ref. Dhananjoy Chatterjee V. State of W.B., (1994) 2 SCC 220; Shivu Vs. High Court of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 713 and Shivaji Vs State of Maharashtra (2008) 15 SCC 269)."
SC No. 57392/2016 FIR no. 453/14 PS Shahbad Dairy State Vs Shahrukh @ Anirul & Ors. Page 52 of 65MOTIVE & LAST SEEN EVIDENCE
33. As per case of prosecution, there was some dispute between the deceased Raja and accused Shahrukh @ Anirul over the money and accused Udit Narayan & Dilip (A2 & A3 herein) had come to the house of the deceased and told him that accused Shahrukh (A1) was calling him for settling the accounts. In this regard, the prosecution has relied upon the testimonies of PW17 Manish (brother of deceased) & PW18 Ramwati (mother of deceased). PW17 Manish claimed in his testimony that both accused Udit Narayan @ Dilip (A2 & A3) came to their house and accused Dilip (A3) had stated to his brother Raja that he has been called by accused Shahrukh (A1) and as such his brother accompanied both the said accused and thereafter he did not return. He also claimed that his brother Raja was working in partnership with accused Shahrukh (A1). He also claimed that his brother Raja (since deceased) used to state to him that he (Raja) had to take certain money from accused Shahrukh (A1), but accused Shahrukh (A1) had not been returning the said money. However, in his initial statement recorded on 13/04/2014, he has claimed that his brother used to tell him that "maine Shahrukh ka hisab poora kar diya hai lekin wah bemani ke kaaran mujhe bina wajah pareshan kar raha hai". He has nowhere claimed that his brother Raja had told him that he had to take certain money from accused Shahrukh @ Anirul (A1) and in this regard, this witness was duly confronted by ld. defence counsel during crossexamination from his statement Ex. PW17/A, where the said fact is not found mentioned. PW17 has also stated in the crossexamination that he does not remember as to when his brother Raja had stated to him about the aforesaid money dispute with accused Shahrukh. PW18 Rawati also claimed in her testimony that her son Raja (since deceased) was also working in the factory of manufacturing of slippers on contract basis with accused Shahrukh and her son SC No. 57392/2016 FIR no. 453/14 PS Shahbad Dairy State Vs Shahrukh @ Anirul & Ors. Page 53 of 65 had some dispute over the said contract work with accused Shahrukh & she further claimed that her son Raja (since deceased) had stated to her that accused Shahrukh had taken some money from him and had not been returning the said money. She had also claimed that accused Udit Narayan and Dalip came to their house and told her son that accused Shahrukh had been calling him in order to have a talk regarding returning of money and thereafter Raja left with both these accused. However, in her statement recorded u/s 161 CrPC, she has claimed that there was some money disputes between her son Raja (since deceased) and accused Shahrukh(A1) and she nowhere claimed that her son Raja had told her that accused Shahrukh had taken some money from him and had not been returning to her. Thus, from the testimonies of both these witnesses, it is not clear as to whether the deceased had to take any money from accused Shahrukh @ Anirul (A1) or whether accused Shahrukh had given any money to deceased for which purpose he had called him to settle the accounts. Admittedly, no complaint was lodged by either deceased or by his brother or mother qua the said dispute of money with the police or any other authority. Nothing has been placed on record that deceased and the accused Shahrukh @ Anirul (A1) were doing any work of slippers on contract basis in partnership nor any witness has been produced on record to show that deceased and Shahrukh @ Anirul were manufacturing slippers and were having contracts with other factories to whom they were supplying slippers. The dead body of the deceased was recovered on 12/04/2014. There is no statement of any witness which was recorded on the said date. The initial statement of PW17 Manish was recorded on 13/04/2014 and the statement of his mother Ramwati (PW18) was recorded on 15/04/2014. The FIR was also registered on 13/04/2014. In the crossexamination conducted on behalf of accused Shahrukh @ Anirul PW17 Manish has stated that he had first met the SC No. 57392/2016 FIR no. 453/14 PS Shahbad Dairy State Vs Shahrukh @ Anirul & Ors. Page 54 of 65 police officials in connection with the present case at the place where the body of his brother Raja was lying i.e. at CBlock, Metro Vihar, PhaseII, near Railway Line and that his statement Ex PW17/A was recorded by the IO at PS Shahbad Dairy on 12/13.04.2014 and at that time, his brotherinlaw (Jija), mother, his elder brother Pappu and many other persons were also present and in his presence, IO had not recorded the statement of any other person. He also deposed that he cannot tell the exact time when his said statement was recorded by the IO. PW18 Ramwati has also deposed in the crossexamination that so far as she remembered, police officials had met her on 12/04/2014 and made enquiries from her & has also stated that she does not remember the exact date on which her statement was recorded by the police. It is very surprising if PW17 had met with the police officials on 12/04/2014, then why he did not come forward to get his statement recorded to the police on the said date, if he was having suspicion that the accused persons had killed his brother or as to why the police did not record the statement of PW17 Manish on the said date only. In her statement Ex. PW18/DA recorded u/s 161 CrPC, PW18 Ramwati has claimed that her son Manish had heard the talks between her deceased son Raja and accused Udit Narayan and Dilip, whereas in her testimony before the Court, she stated that accused Dalip and Udit Narayan came to their house and stated to her son Raja for accompanying them on the pretext that accused Shahrukh had been calling him in order to have a talk regarding returning of money. Thus there is contradiction in both her testimonies. The version of PW18 can be said to be a hearsay one.
33.1. PW17 Manish has claimed in his testimony before the Court that on 11/04/2017 at 7.00, accused Udit Narayan and Dilip came to their house and SC No. 57392/2016 FIR no. 453/14 PS Shahbad Dairy State Vs Shahrukh @ Anirul & Ors. Page 55 of 65 started talking with his brother Raja (since deceased), whereas in his cross examination, PW17 Manish has stated that on the day of occurrence, his brother Raja had left for his work in morning hours, but he does not remember the exact time and he returned back to the house at around 7.30 p.m. In his supplementary statement u/s 161 CrPC, Manish claimed that on the asking of accused Shahrukh, his associates accused Dilip and Udit Narayan came to their house on 11/04/2014. PW18 Ramwati in her testimony before the court that both the aforesaid accused visited their house at 7.00 p.m., whereas in her statement u/s 161 CrPC she claimed that they both came in the evening time and no timing is mentioned therein. In this regard, she was confronted with her statement u/s 161 CrPC Ex. PW18/A. There is clear cut contradiction qua the timing of visit of both the aforesaid accused at the house of the complainant.
33.2. PW18 Ramwati has claimed that she made search for her son Raja (since deceased) when he did not return in night time on the day of occurrence. PW17 has stated in his crossexamination that he also searched for his brother and also stated that he did not lodge any missing report before the police nor he informed any of his neighbour qua nonreturn of Raja (since deceased). He also stated in his crossexamination that he himself had not visited the house of accused Shahrukh to enquire about the whereabouts of his brother Raja (since deceased). There is nothing on record to show that they made any complaint to the police or any higher authority qua missing of Raja. There is no 100 number call in this regard. Moreover, if both these witnesses were having knowledge that Raja had gone to meet accused Shahrukh, then why they did not visit the house of Shahrukh or Dilip or Udit Narayan as to where Raja was or made any call to them inquiring about Raja, which is not the case herein.
SC No. 57392/2016 FIR no. 453/14 PS Shahbad Dairy State Vs Shahrukh @ Anirul & Ors. Page 56 of 6533.3. Had accused Udit Narayan and Dilip come to the house of these PWs to call the deceased Raja on the asking of accused Shahrukh @ Anirul, the first and prudent step on the part of both these PWs would have been to immediately contact the accused persons inquiring about the deceased, which is not the case herein. Neither they made any complaint to police qua nonreturn of deceased during night time or accompanying of deceased with these accused persons.
33.4. Keeping in view the fact that there are contradictions in the testimonies of PW17 and PW18 and also in view of the delay in giving the statements to the police and also in view of the fact that the testimony of PW18 Ramwati is of hearsay nature and also in view of the unnatural conduct of the witnesses as no 100 number call was made when the deceased had not returned to his home the whole night. Thus, it can be safely inferred that prosecution witnesses with regard to motive and last seen are not of clinching evidence and thus failed to prove motive as well as the last seen evidence.
34. As per case of prosecution, H.No. C729, PhaseII, Metro Vihar, was taken by accused Dilip (A3) on rent as he wanted to open a gym and had also put the gym machines in the said premises and accused Shahrukh took Raja (since deceased) to the said gym/house and there he murdered Raja with the help of iron weights. PW4 Amit has claimed in his testimony that H.No. C729, Metro Vihar, PhaseII, Delhi, is owned by his brotherinlaw Rajbir and he used to take care of the said house and the key of said house used to remain with him. He further claimed that accused Dilip Kumar took the aforesaid house on monthly rent of Rs. 1000/ from him on the pretext of opening a gym and had also put some gym SC No. 57392/2016 FIR no. 453/14 PS Shahbad Dairy State Vs Shahrukh @ Anirul & Ors. Page 57 of 65 machines and he handed over one key to accused Dilip and kept another one with him. On the other hand, he also claimed that the said premises was taken on rent by accused Shahrukh @ Anirul, where all the accused and deceased Raja used to visit. Even during his testimony, when one key was shown to him before the Court, he stated that it was not the same key which he handed over to accused Shahrukh @ Anirul at the time the premises was taken on rent and further stated that it might have been got made by accused Shahrukh @ Anirul. During cross examination conducted on behalf of the accused, PW4 has denied the suggestion that he did not let out the premises to accused Shahrukh @ Anirul. PW17 Manish has claimed in his testimony that his brother Raja and accused Shahrukh had taken a room on rent basis at H.No. C729, PhaseII, Metro Vihar, where they had opened a gym and his brother used to sit with accused Shahrukh in the said premises, where they had opened the gym. In the crossexamination, PW17 has claimed that he had stated the said fact to the police in his statement Ex. PW17/A and in this regard he was confronted with his said statement, where this fact is not found mentioned and it was found recorded that his brother and accused Shahrukh used to sit together at the said premises. Thus, keeping in view the said discrepancies and contradictions in the testimonies of the witness, it is not clear whether the aforesaid house was rented out to accused Shahrukh @ Anirul or accused Dilip or that it was taken on rent by accused Shahrukh @ Anirul and deceased Raja on rent. Thus, keeping in view the aforesaid contradictions, it can be safely inferred that the alleged place of murder was under the possession of the accused persons, is also doubtful.
35. Further, as per case of prosecution, PP no. 11PP dated 12/04/2014 was recorded at 10.11 a.m. at PP Metro Vihar of PS Shahbad Dairy by PW12 Ct SC No. 57392/2016 FIR no. 453/14 PS Shahbad Dairy State Vs Shahrukh @ Anirul & Ors. Page 58 of 65 Jaswinder on receipt of information from duty officer of PS Shahbad Dairy that he had received a PCR call and the PCR had informed him that a caller at CBlock, PhaseII, H.No. 1941, on 12/04/2014, had made a call to the effect that his brother has been killed by 34 persons and they had thrown the dead body of deceased over the nala and DD officer had informed the phone number of the caller to be 8285256374. However, there is no reference in the testimony of PW17 Manish (brother of deceased) that he made any call to the police nor any CDR or CAF has been placed on record in this regard, though the address mentioned in the said DD pertains to PW17 Manish. The investigating agency has not thrown any light on the said aspect i.e. qua the identity of the caller nor there is any such witness on record.
36. The case of prosecution is that on 12/04/2014 at 6.40 a.m., DD no. 5PP was recorded at PP Subzi Mandi Railway Station of PS Old Delhi Railway Station qua lying of one dead body on drain near Railway Line Signal in between Holambi Kalan Railway Station and Narela and it was marked to PW20 SI Rameshwar Dass who along with other staff reached at the spot and found the dead body of one male young boy lying in two pieces. The photographs of the dead body were taken and PW20 conducted the proceedings. At the spot, PW20 also recorded identification statements of Pappu and Tinku Ex. PW20/B & Ex. PW20/C respectively. Though, Tinku has been made a prosecution witness and examined as PW3, but Pappu (elder brother of deceased Raja) has not been made a witness. In his statement, Ex. PW20/B dated 12/04/2014, the said Pappu had stated that yesterday at 7.00 pm, two friends of his brother Raja had come to the house, whom he did not know, had taken his brother Raja with them and his brother Raja had told he will be coming in 510 minutes, who did not come back in SC No. 57392/2016 FIR no. 453/14 PS Shahbad Dairy State Vs Shahrukh @ Anirul & Ors. Page 59 of 65 the night. Mobile number 8285256374 has been mentioned in the said statement of Pappu. If for argument sake, it is presumed that Pappu had made a call to the police from his said number, but neither Pappu has been made a witness to this case nor any CDR and CAF of said mobile have been placed on record for the reasons best known to the prosecution. PW20 has also recorded the statement of one Key Man Ram Sharan Ex. PW20/D, who had firstly seen the dead body at the railway track, but he is also not a witness to the case of prosecution. PW20 also sent the dead body to Subzi Mandi Mortuary for preservation and also lodged DD no. 16PP 20/F and it was revealed to him that said Raja was murdered in the area of PS Shahbad Dairy and FIR no. 453/14 has been registered in this regard & IO of this case collected relevant documents from him.
37. As per case of prosecution, on 12/04/20214 at 10.11 a.m.,DD no. 11PP was also recorded at PP Metro Vihar of PS Shahbad Dairy to the effect that a caller from CBlock, PhaseII, H.No. 1941, had made a call that his brother has been killed by 34 boys who had thrown his dead body in the Nahar (canal). The said DD was marked to PW11 SI Ram Kumar who along with Ct Praveen (PW21). PW11 SI Ram Kumar has claimed in his testimony that on reaching the said house, they found the house locked and on inquiry, it was revealed that the key of said house was with Amit i.e. PW4, who reached at the spot and provided the key to him and they opened the said house. PW4 Amit has claimed in his testimony that he handed over the key to the IO who seized the same vide seizure memo Ex. PW4/A, but in the crossexamination, it was claimed by him that it was handed over by his father and has voluntarily stated that police made a call at his house and at that time, he was away at his duty and accordingly he instructed his father to hand over the key to the police. PW11 SI Ram Kumar has stated in the cross SC No. 57392/2016 FIR no. 453/14 PS Shahbad Dairy State Vs Shahrukh @ Anirul & Ors. Page 60 of 65 examination that he had not sealed the key Ex. P6 which was provided to him by PW4 Amit but he obtained the signature of Amit on seizure memo Ex. PW4/A. PW21 HC Parveen has claimed similarly in his crossexamination. PW11 SI Ram Kumar claimed that no eye witness was met him at the place of occurrence. The said witness also seized two bloodstained iron weights, one blanket, one bloodstained bedsheet, blood stained earth control & earth control. The testimony of PW11 SI Ram Kumar is silent whether he made any inquiry as to who was living in the said house or made any inquiry from the locality people. There is no public witness to the seizure of the exhibits from the alleged place of murder. As per version of PW11 SI Ram Kumar in the crossexamination, he was having the seal of SKC of PW26 23 days prior to 12/04/2014. If prosecution case is to be believed, the investigation of the case was marked to PW26 Inspector Chahar after registration of the case, then how the seal of SKC of PW26 came with PW11 SI Ram Kumar, which was used for sealing the exhibits. It clearly points out that recovery is doubtful. PW11 SI Ram Kumar had sealed other exhibits, then why he did not seal the key handed over to him by PW4, which also raises doubt on the case of prosecution. The family of the deceased is also silent as to why they did not make any statement to the police on 12/04/2014 itself if the factum of recovery of dead body was already in their knowledge or that police contacted them on 12/04/2014 itself. There is no explanation in this regard. Moreover, if any inquiry was not made from the family members of the deceased on 12/04/2014, then how address of H.NO. C729, Metro Vihar, Delhi came to the knowledge of the police and PW11 reached there and seized the exhibits from there. Admittedly, the FIR is also dated 13/04/2014. It also creates doubt on the case of the prosecution.
38. Further, as per prosecution, on 13/04/2014, complainant Manish SC No. 57392/2016 FIR no. 453/14 PS Shahbad Dairy State Vs Shahrukh @ Anirul & Ors. Page 61 of 65 (PW17) reached at PS Shahbad Dairy and got recorded his statement to PW11SI Ram Kumar, upon which, FIR of the present case was registered and the investigation was marked to PW26 Inspector Sanjeev Chahar, who along with HC Anil went to the place of occurrence and prepared site plan Ex. PW26/A at the instance of PW11 SI Ram Kumar, who also produced seizure memo of articles seized from the said place. Thereafter, PW26 went to the place of recovery of dead body and at the instance of ASI Vijender, he lifted blood stained stones from railway line near Metro Vihar, which were seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW13/A. Postmortem on the body of deceased was got conducted and on 14/04/2014, accused Shahrukh was apprehended on the basis of secret informer, who got recovered one jeans type pant of black colour and his wearing Tshirt of black colour stating that he was wearing the said clothes at the time of commission of offence & also one key & also pointed out the place of occurrence, where they had committed the murder. It is very surprising as to why an accused would keep on wearing the same Tshirt stained with blood even after the incident. Accused Shahrukh also pointed out the place where they had kept the body of Raja while taking the same towards railway line and certain blood stains were found lying there and the blood stained earth & earth control was lifted from there, which were seized vide memos Ex. PW24/E and Ex. PW1/F respectively. On 19/04/2014, accused Udit Narain and Dilip and they were apprehended from their respective houses on the basis of secret information. It is not the case of the prosecution that the accused persons were absconding. The investigating agency was having the identity of the accused persons since they were known to the family of the deceased and there is no explanation on the part of investigating agency as to why they were arrested after so much delay. The alleged place pointed out by accused Shahrukh @ Anil (A1) claiming that they kept the dead body there while SC No. 57392/2016 FIR no. 453/14 PS Shahbad Dairy State Vs Shahrukh @ Anirul & Ors. Page 62 of 65 taking it to railway track, was a public place accessible to public at large and cannot be said to be a place which was only in the knowledge of the accused. If prosecution is to be believed, the accused persons had committed the murder of Shahrukh and thereafter had thrown his dead body at the railway track. Surprisingly, in his testimony, PW26 IO Inspector Sanjeev Chahar has nowhere stated that accused Udit Narayan and Dilip had also pointed out the place of murder or the place where they kept the dead body while taking it to railway track or the railway track, where they had thrown the dead body of deceased after committing the murder.
39. All the aforesaid exhibits seized by the police and the clothes along with viscera of deceased were sent to FSL. As per FSL report (Biology division), on examination, blood was detected on exhibits Ex 1(iron weight), Ex. 1A (dirty iron weight), Ex. 2A (blanket), Ex. 2b(bedsheet), Ex. 3 (blood stained piece of concrete floor), Ex. 4 (earth control), Ex. 5 (dirty stone pieces), Ex. 6B (jeans pants of accused Shahrukh @ Anirul), Ex. 7 (blood stained earth), Ex. 9 (gauze cloth piece), Ex. 10a (jeans pants with belt having brown stains of deceased), Ex. 10b (Tshirt of deceased), Ex. 10c (banyan of deceased), Ex. 10d (underwear of deceased) and Ex. 10e i.e. slippers (of deceased), whereas blood could not be detected on exhibits 6a (Tshirt of accused Shahrukh @ Anirul) & Ex. 8 (earth control).
40. As per serological report Ex. PY, blood of human origin was found on Ex. 1 iron weight, Ex1A iron weight, 2a blanket, 2b cloth piece, 3 concrete material, 4 earth material, 5 stone pieces, 6b jeans pants, 7 earth material, Ex. 9 gauze cloth piece, 10a jeans pants, 10b Tshirt, 10c banyan, 10d underwear and SC No. 57392/2016 FIR no. 453/14 PS Shahbad Dairy State Vs Shahrukh @ Anirul & Ors. Page 63 of 65 10e pair of slippers and "O" group blood was found on Ex. 2a blanket, Ex. 9 gauze cloth piece, 10a jeans pants, 10c banyan and 10d underwear, whereas exhibits 1, 1A, 2b, 3, 4,5,6b, 7,10b and 10e gave no reaction. On Ex. 8 i.e. earth material (control) gave no reaction qua origin and grouping.
41. From the aforesaid reports, it can be safely inferred that blood of deceased did not match with the exhibits which were lifted by the investigating agency from the alleged place of murder, from the place which was allegedly pointed out by the accused Shahrukh @ Anirul (A1) or the place from where the dead body was recovered. Even the blood detected on the jeans pant of accused Shahrukh @ Anirul did not match with the blood of the deceased. Moreover, some of the exhibits lifted from the alleged place of murder & railway track were already seized by the IO prior to arrest of the accused persons in the present case and it is not the case of prosecution that those exhibits were recovered at the instance of accused persons after their arrest. Hence the FSL report does not connect the accused persons with the commission of the offence. The weapon of offence i.e. iron weights are also not connected with the commission of the murder as the blood found on them did not give any reaction. So the accused persons could not be related with the objects sent for FSL.
CONCLUSION
42. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the prosecution has not been able to prove on record that the accused persons had hatched a criminal conspiracy to commit the murder of the deceased as no incriminating evidence has been brought on record qua the same. The prosecution has also failed to substantially prove the motive behind the murder of the deceased Raja in view of the contradictory statements of PW17 & PW18. The prosecution has also failed to SC No. 57392/2016 FIR no. 453/14 PS Shahbad Dairy State Vs Shahrukh @ Anirul & Ors. Page 64 of 65 prove the factum of tenancy of the alleged place of occurrence against accused Shahrukh @ Anirul & Dilip or the presence of accused persons at the said place as there is no public witness to the recoveries effected from the alleged place of murder. The prosecution has also failed to connect the blood of the deceased with the exhibits lifted from the alleged place of murder as well as of alleged place of recovery of dead body and the place allegedly pointed by accused Shahrukh @ Anirul (A1) where they had kept the dead body while taking it to railway track or on the clothes of accused Shahrukh @ Anirul, which allegedly he was wearing on the day of occurrence. There is no DNA report and as such the prosecution has failed to connect the accused persons with the commission of crime. The prosecution has also failed to prove the factum of disposing of dead body of deceased by the accused persons in absence of testimony of any public eye witness. The chain of evidence is not complete which may connect the accused persons with the commission of murder of the deceased in view of the aforesaid judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Majendran Langesaran (supra). The prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against the accused persons beyond all reasonable doubts. Accordingly, all the accused persons are acquitted for the offence u/s 120B/302/201 IPC.
Announced in the open Court
today i.e. on 23/12/2021 (Shivaji Anand)
Additional Sessions Judge04
North District/Rohini Courts/Delhi
SC No. 57392/2016 FIR no. 453/14 PS Shahbad Dairy State Vs Shahrukh @ Anirul & Ors. Page 65 of 65