Delhi District Court
State vs Ankit Choudhary Etc on 4 September, 2023
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. BABRU BHAN, ADDITIONAL
SESSIONS JUDGE, NORTH WEST DISTRICT, ROHINI
COURTS, DELHI
SC NO.51847/16
& 51703/16
State Vs. Ankit Chaudhary and Ors.
FIR NO.169/10 & 170/10
PS Ashok Vihar
CNR NO.DL NW01-000172-2010
&
DLNW01-000083-2010
MORE THAN 10 YEARS OLD MATTER
a. Session Case No. 51847/16 & 51703/16
b. Date of offence 20.10.2006
c. Accused 1. Ankit Chaudhary
S/o Mukesh
R/o WP-233, Village Wazir
Pur, Delhi
2. Mandeep Nagar
S/o Jai Singh Nagar
R/o WP44, Wazir Pur Village,
Delhi
3. Nakul Khari
S/o Bijender Khari
R/o WP-8, Village Wazir Pur,
Delhi
4. Rakesh Nagar @ Sintu
S/o Sheoraj Singh
R/o VPO Dujana, PS Badal
Pur District, Gautam Budh
Nagar, UP
5. Ajay ( In CASE FIR
NO.169/10 ONLY)
State Vs. Ankit Chaudhary & Ors.
FIR no.169/10 & 170/10 page no. 1 of 128
BABRU Digitally signed
by BABRU BHAN
BHAN Date: 2023.09.12
10:11:52 +0530
2
S/o Ram Phal
R/o VPO Naurangabad,
PS Simbhawali, Tehsil Hapur,
Distt. Ghaziabad, UP.
d. Offence U/s. 302/120B/201/216/34
IPC& 25/27 ARMS ACT
e. Plea of accused Pleaded not guilty
f. Final order CONVICTED
g. Date of Institution 04.10.2010
h. Date when judgment 04.08.2023
was reserved
i. Date of judgment 04.09.2023
JUDGMENT
BRIEF FACTS
1. Starting with the factual background of the case, the unfortunate story of Kuldeep (deceased No. 1) and Monika ( deceased No. 2) began in 2006 when they decided to marry each other despite being from two different communities. Apparently, the family and community of Monika was feeling more humiliated and dishonored. For sake of safety, Kuldeep and Monika had started living in Uttam Nagar, a place slightly away and comparatively safer from the village of Monika. Over the period, things started to return to normality and Kuldeep and Monika re-shifted to a rented accommodation at I-164 Phase 1 Ashok Vihar.
State Vs. Ankit Chaudhary & Ors.
FIR no.169/10 & 170/10 page no. 2 of 128 Digitally signed by BABRU BABRU BHAN BHAN Date: 2023.09.12 10:12:00 +0530 3
2. However, the creature of illusionary honor and hatered was again awaken when Khushboo and Shobha, sisters of accused Mandeep Nagar, again repeated the mistake earlier committed by Monika in the year 2006. Khushbu and Shobha eloped with their respective boyfriends. Though Shobha had returned after some time. The community of Monika was under
an impression that Shobha (deceased No. 3) and Khushboo had followed the foot steps of Kuldeep and Monika. The community thus decided to set an example out of Kuldeep and Monika, so that nobody dare to repeat the same conduct in future.
3. Accused Ankit Chaudhary, brother of Monika, had clarified to Kuldeep that he had to face the consequences for starting the culture of love marriages in their community. Kuldeep had further conveyed the apprehension of threats to his life to his brother Amit Singh(PW-1).
4. On fateful day of 20-6-2010, Puneet (PW-14), who was younger brother of Monika had happily visited her rented accommodation in Ashok Vihar to give some food for Kuldeep and Monika. At about 6:55 PM, when Puneet alongwith Suraj reached the house of Kuldeep and Monika, he was shocked to see the horrible site that Monika was lying in a pool of blood. Puneet immediately informed his father. In no time, Monika was shifted to Sunder Lal Jain Hospital where family members of Kuldeep also arrived. Since Kuldeep was also missing, they tried to State Vs. Ankit Chaudhary & Ors.
Digitally FIR no.169/10 & 170/10 signed by page no. 3 of 128 BABRU BABRU Date:
BHAN BHAN 2023.09.12 10:12:06 +0530 4 contact him telephonically. Bell was ringing on phone of Kuldeep but he was not responding. In anxiety and concern regarding his safety, family of Kuldeep charged into action and desperately started searching for him. Deepak and Ajeet went in search of Kuldeep.
5. Later that evening, Deepak and Ajeet found dead body of Kuldeep lying in an esteem car bearing No. DL2CR0312, parked in front of I-209, Ashok Vihar, Phase-1. Body of Kuldeep was also removed to Sunder Lal Jain Hospital where attending doctors declared him brought dead.
6. Matter was reported to PS Ashok Vihar vide DD No. 25-A EX. PW-20/A recorded by SI Surjit (PW-20). In pursuant to DD, Inspector Satya Parkash (PW-56) reached the hospital where SI Bhagat Singh (PW-67) and Ct. Sandeep (PW-32) were already present. In the meanwhile Inspector Pratap Singh, SHO, PS Ashok Vihar (PW-59) also reached the hospital. In hospital, Inspector Pratap Singh recorded statement Ex.PW-1/M of Amit Singh. On the said statement, Inspector Pratap Singh prepared Rukka Ex.PW-59/A and handed over the same to Ct. Sandeep (PW-32) for registration of FIR. On basis of Rukka, Head constable Banar Singh (PW-7) who was discharging duty of Duty Officer at PS Ashok Vihar registered the present FIR No. 169/2010 Ex.PW-7/D and made a corresponding endorsement Ex.PW-7/E on the rukka.
State Vs. Ankit Chaudhary & Ors.
FIR no.169/10 & 170/10 page no. 4 of 128 Digitally signed by BABRU BABRU BHAN BHAN Date: 2023.09.12 10:12:12 +0530 5
7. Constable Sandeep carried the FIR to Insp. Pratap Singh and the investigation was official set into motion. During investigation, mobile crime team led by SI Matadin (PW-19) and photographer Ct. Dalbir Singh (PW-8) reached the spot and conducted the requisite inspection. Ct. Dalbir Singh took the photographs of the crime scene. Insp. Pratap Singh lifted the exhibits and sealed them as per procedure. Dead bodies of Kuldeep and Monika were got preserved in the mortuary of Babu Jag Jeevan Ram Hospital.
8. On 21-6-2010, Dr. V K Jha, Medical Officer (PW-6) conducted postmortem on the body of Monika and Kuldeep. As per post mortem report Ex.PW-6/B and PW-6/C, cause of death of Kuldeep and Monika was opined to be craniocereberal damage consequent to fire arm injury. PW-6 handed over duly sealed blood samples and other exhibits to police, who seized the same as per procedure.
9. While the aforesaid investigation was under
progress, on 22-6-2010, Laksmi Narayan Bhatia (PW-28) was informed by his car washer that a foul smell was emitting from a car parked behind his car. PW-28 also noticed that blood was coming out from that car. PW-28 made a PCR call. The call was received at CPCR by Ct. Suman (PW-49). The information was further transmitted to concerned PCR van Commander-7.
State Vs. Ankit Chaudhary & Ors.
FIR no.169/10 & 170/10 page no. 5 of 128 Digitally signed by BABRU BABRU BHAN BHAN Date: 2023.09.12 10:12:17 +0530 6
Information was also forwarded to PS, Ashok Vihar where it was reduced into writing by ASI Asha (PW-33) in form of DD No. 9 Ex.PW-33/A. The DD was assigned to SI Bhagat Singh. SI Bhagat Singh (PW-67), Insp. Ajmer Singh(PW-60) and Ct. Kapil (PW-37) reached the spot and found one Santro car bearing Registration No. DL8CL2006 parked by side of wall near NDPL Office, Ashok Vihar. Crime team was called which inspected the spot and took photographs. Finger print expert also lifted chance prints from the outer surface of the car. The car was opened wherein a decomposed body of a girl was found. The body was subsequently identified by one Sandeep (PW-29) being that of his sister Shobha. Insp. Ajmer Singh (PW-60) prepared a Rukka and handed over the same to Const. Kapil(PW-37). On basis of Rukka, the concerned duty officer at PS Ashok Vihar registered 2nd FIR No. 170/2010. The dead body was shifted to BJRM Hospital.
10. On 23-6-2010, Dr. V K Jha, Medical Officer (PW-6) conducted postmortem on the body of Shobha. As per postmortem report Ex.PW-6/A, cause of death of Shobha was opined to be craniocereberal damage consequent to fire arm injury. PW-6 handed over sealed blood samples and other exhibits to the police which were duly seized by them as per procedure.
11. Earlier, on 21-6-2006, one Rahul PW-11 had made a PCR call regarding theft of his Santro car of black colour bearing State Vs. Ankit Chaudhary & Ors.
FIR no.169/10 & 170/10 Digitally page no. 6 of 128 signed by BABRU BABRU Date:
BHAN BHAN 2023.09.12 10:12:22 +0530 7 No. DL8CL2006. After recovery of body of Shobha from the said Santro car, Rahul was interrogated. He revealed that on 20- 6-2010, at about 5:00 PM, he had received a call from accused Ankit Chaudhary wherein he requested to borrow his Santro car. On request of Ankit Chaudhary, he reached Sri Ram Mandir, Ashok Vihar where accused Ankit Chaudhary, Mandeep Nagar and Nakul Khari were found waiting for him. He handed over the car to them. Later that night, Rahul came to know that Kuldeep and Monika had been murdered by Ankit Chaudhary and his associates. To divert the probable suspicion which could have been obviously raised upon him, he made a false PCR call regarding theft of his car.
12. The revelation made by Rahul (PW-11) gave a strong clue to the investigating agency regarding involvement of accused Ankit Chaudhary, Mandeep Nagar and Nakul Khari in the offence in question.
13. On 24-6-2010, investigating officer Insp. Pratap Singh PW-59 received a written information from PS Garhmukteshwar alongwith DD No. 38 Ex.PW-42/A of even date that accused Ankit Chaudhary, Mandeep Nagar and Nakul Khari were arrested there alongwith I-10 car bearing No. DL8CS 3600 of white colour. IO got issued production warrants of accused persons for 26-6-2010. On 26-6-2010, Insp. Pratap Singh alongwith SI Satya Prakash (PW-56), SI Haroon Ahmed (PW-69) and other staff reached Rohini Court where all the aforesaid three State Vs. Ankit Chaudhary & Ors. Digitally FIR no.169/10 & 170/10 signed by page no. 7 of 128 BABRU BABRU Date:
BHAN BHAN 2023.09.12 10:12:30 +0530 8 accused persons were produced from Dasna Jail, Ghaziabad. All were interrogated and arrested. IO obtained five days police custody remand of the accused persons.
14. During police custody remand, IO recorded disclosure statement of all the three accused persons wherein they revealed that on the date of incident, they were wearing same clothes, which they were wearing at the time of their arrest. IO seized their clothes. At instance of the accused persons, separate pointing out memos were prepared and some recoveries were effected.
15. On 28-6-2010, police party consisting of SI Satya Prakash, SI Pawan, SI Haroon Ahmed, HC Mohan, Ct. Sunil and other staff alongwith accused Ankit Chaudhary, Nakul Khari and Mandeep left PS Ashok Vihar in two private vehicles. Accused persons led the Police party to Rishikesh Badrinath road near village Palthari. From there, accused Ankit Chaudhary led Insp. Pratap Singh, SI Satya Prakash, SI Haroon Ahmed, HC Mohan and Ct. Sunil to the way leading towards Alpine camp, Shivpuri. After moving for about half km, accused Ankit Chaudhary pointed out the place where he had thrown the pistol alongwith live cartridges after committing the murder of Kuldeep, Monika and Shobha with aid and assistance of his associates Nakul, Mandeep and Rakesh Nagar @ Shintu. Thereafter, accused Mandeep and Nakul Khari also pointed out the said place to police. At instance of accused persons, pointing out memos were State Vs. Ankit Chaudhary & Ors.
FIR no.169/10 & 170/10 page no. 8 of 128 Digitally signed by BABRU BABRU BHAN BHAN Date: 2023.09.12 10:12:47 +0530 9
prepared and the pistol was recovered at instance of accused Ankit Chaudhary. The sketch of the pistol was prepared and same was seized vide Seizure memo Ex.PW-52/E.
16. On 28-6-2010 accused Ankit made a supplementary disclosure statement Ex.PW56/P. In pursuant to disclosure statement, police party reached Masoori where accused pointed out Hotel Sunrise where all the accused persons alongwith accused Rakesh @ Shintu had stayed after committing the crime. The register of the hotel was seized by the police.
17. On 1-7-2010, accused Rakesh @ Shintu was produced in Rohini Court in pursuant to production warrants. He was also arrested. During Police custody remand, accused Rakesh @ Shintu got recovered one mobile phone Nokia N-97 from his house in village Dujana, Distt Gautambudh Nagar, UP.
18. During further investigation, the TIP of Santro car was got conducted through Rahul on 5-7-2010. On 7-7-2010, ballistic expert K C Varshney, FSL Rohini again inspected House No. 164, 2nd floor Phase-1, Ashok Vihar. During this inspection, one bullet led was detected by FSL team from wooden almirah lying there. The crime team photographer took the photographs of sliding shutter of the almirah. Thereafter, the said team of forensic experts inspected esteem car bearing No. DL2CR0312 and recovered one empty cartridge under the driver seat. Requisite memos and sketches were prepared by the IO and State Vs. Ankit Chaudhary & Ors.
FIR no.169/10 & 170/10 page no. 9 of 128
BABRU Digitally signed
by BABRU BHAN
BHAN Date: 2023.09.12
10:12:52 +0530
10
property was deposited in Malkhana of Police Station Ashok Vihar.
19. On 29-7-2010, accused Ajay was arrested from his village Naurangabad, UP. His disclosure statement Ex.PW-56/t was recorded. In his disclosure statement, accused Ajay revealed that he had procured the pistol and cartridges from one Khilafat r/o Village Radhna, Distt. Ghaziabad. House of Khilafat was raided but nothing incriminating could be found.
20. On 15-7-2010, recovered exhibits were sent to forensic science laboratory.
21. On 4-8-2010, at instance of IO, draftsman SI Manohar Lal and other staff visited I-209 Ashok Vihar and 2 nd floor of I-164 and took measurement and prepared rough notes. On basis of rough notes, SI Manohar Lal (PW-23) prepared the scaled site plan of aforesaid places of incident.
22. On completion of investigation, police filed the charge-sheet accusing the accused persons for offence U/s 302/120B/216/34 IPC and 25/27/54/59 Arms Act.
23. In case FIR no.170/10, formal charges for offence U/s 302 r/w section 120 B IPC and U/s 120B for criminal conspiracy to commit murder were framed against accused Ankit Choudhary, Rakesh Nagar, Nakul Khari and Mandeep Nagar on State Vs. Ankit Chaudhary & Ors.
FIR no.169/10 & 170/10 page no. 10 of 128 Digitally signed by BABRU BABRU BHAN Date:
BHAN 2023.09.12
10:12:57
+0530
11
30.10.2010. In addition, charges for offence U/s 27 Arms Act were framed against accused Mandeep Nagar on 18.11.2021.
24. In case FIR NO. 169/10, formal charges for offence U/s 302 r/w section 120 B IPC and for offence u/s 120B IPC were framed against accused Ankit Choudhary, Rakesh Nagar , Nakul Khari and Mandeep Nagar on 30.10.2010. On 30.10.2010, charge for offence u/s 25/27 Arms Act was framed against accused Ajay. On 19.2.2013, additional charge offence u/s 201 IPC and 216 IPC were framed against accused Rakesh Nagar @ Shintu. Again on 04.08.2018 charge for offence u/s 109 read with Section 302 IPC and 120B were framed against accused Rakesh Nagar @ Shintu. Once again charge for offence u/s 25 Arms Act against accused Ankit, Mandeep and Nakul Khari and 27 Arms Act against accused Ankit were added on 17.11.2021. Charge for offence u/s 27 Arms Act was further framed against accused Mandeep Nagar on 18.11.2021.
25. In order to prove its case against the accused persons, prosecution has examined 70 witnesses in case FIR no.169/10 and 68 in case FIR NO.170/10. Almost all the witnesses examined in both the cases are common. However, number may differ in respect of some witnesses but that ambiguity has been clarified at appropriate stage. The additional witnesses examined in case FIR No. 169/10 have also been clarified at appropriated stage and place.
FIR no.169/10 & 170/10 page no. 11 of 128 Digitally signed by BABRU BABRU BHAN BHAN Date: 2023.09.12 10:13:04 +0530 12
26. PW 1 Amit Singh/ brother of deceased has deposed that Kuldeep was his younger brother and was working with HCL, Noida. Kuldeep was married with Monika d/o Mukesh in 2006. He belongd to Rajput community and Monica was from Gujjar Community. Marriage of Kuldeep and Monica was inter-caste marriage. Initially, the villagers were against the marriage, mainly the Gujjar community. Due to this, Kuldeep and Monica started residing at Jeevan Park, Uttam Nagar. About 4-5 months before the murder, with the consent of family members of Monica, Kuldeep and Monica started residing at 1-164, Phase-1, Ashok Vihar, in rented accommodation. About 20-25 days before the murder, sister of Mandeep, who is present in court (correctly identified) left her house with some boy. Mandeep also belongs to Gujjar community. The name of sister of Mandeep was Khushboo or Shobha. Due to this incident, in the Gujjar community, the people started saying "jin logo ki wajah se ye love marriage ka silsila suru hua tha, unko sabak milega". He also told about this to his brother Kuldeep that members of Gujjar community were saying that jin logo ki wajah se ye love marriage ke silsila suru hua tha, unko sabak milega". On 15-06- 2010 Kuldeep came to their house and he told that he had also heard about the anger among the community of Monika . He also told him that Ankit, and Mandeep told him that "tumhari wajah to silsila suru hua uska parinam bhugatna padega".
State Vs. Ankit Chaudhary & Ors.
FIR no.169/10 & 170/10 Digitally
page no. 12 of 128
signed by
BABRU BABRU BHAN
Date:
BHAN 2023.09.12
10:13:10
+0530
13
(i) He further deposed that on 20-06-2010, it being
Sunday , he was at home. At about 2:30-3 pm , he received a telephone call from Kuldeep and witness asked him to come home. Kuldeep told him that he would not come that day as Ankit etc. woulld come to his residence in the evening. On the same day i.e. 20-06-2010 at about 7 or 7:15 pm, a call was received at home made by Puneet, younger brother of Monica that Monica was lying in a pool of blood and he asked them to reach there. On that day, Anuj, son of his Bua, was also present at their residence. He and Anuj on two different vehicles reached I- 164, Phase-1, Ashok Vihar, Delhi. When he reached there, he saw that body of Monica had already been removed to ground floor from the second floor of flat. Monica was immediately taken to Sundar Lal Jain Hospital, Ashok Vihar. In the hospital, doctors examined Monica and after some time, the doctors told that she was no more. The witness and other relatives were trying to contact Kuldeep. The bell was going on his phone but he was not responding. In the meanwhile, the relatives started to come in at Sundar Lal Jain Hospital. Deepak, son of his maternal aunt (Masi), also reached the hospital. Deepak told him that Kuldeep also told him that some harm could be caused to him by Ankit and Mandeep. Police also arrived in the hospital. He narrated all the facts to police and also told them that his brother Kuldeep was also not traceable. In the meanwhile, his father and Deepak had gone in the search of Kuldeep. He along with police went to 1-164, Phase-l, Ashok Vihar on second floor. They saw that blood was lying in the room. Two empty shells were also State Vs. Ankit Chaudhary & Ors.
FIR no.169/10 & 170/10 Digitally signed by BABRU page no. 13 of 128 BABRU BHAN Date:
BHAN 2023.09.12 10:13:16 +0530 14 lying there in the room. In the meanwhile, he received a call from the mobile phone of Kuldeep made by Deepak. He told him that dead body of Kuldeep was found in the Esteem car no. DL2CR-0312 in front of 1-209, Ashok Vihar, Phase-1 and they were taking him to hospital. From I-164, he along with police went to Sundar Lal Jain hospital after receiving this call. In the hospital, doctor declared Kuldeep as dead. After some time, he along with his father and police officials reached in front of 1- 209, Ashok Vihar, Phase-I where they saw some police officials were taking photographs and were also preparing some sketch of Esteem car. He noticed that one empty shell was lying on the rear seat of the car with a small piece of bullet. Some currency notes were also lying on the rear seat of Esteem car. Blood was there on the driver seat as well as footmat of Esteem car. One empty shell was also lying on the foot mat in front of driver seat. From there, he along with his father and police Went to I-164, Phase-I, Ashok Vihar. In the room, blood and two empty shells were found on the floor and three mobile phones were also there. One blood-stained cloth was also lying near the blood on the floor. The police picked the exhibits i.e. Two empty shells perhaps put them in bottle and then wrapped the same in while cloth. The mobile phones were also wrapped in different parcels with while clothes. The blood stained cloth was also wrapped in white cloth and sealed all the parcels but he did not remember the impression of the seal. The police also lifted sample of the blood lying on the floor and also took the pieces of the floor by breaking the same from two places. The blood 110 AR sample State Vs. Ankit Chaudhary & Ors.
FIR no.169/10 & 170/10 page no. 14 of 128 Digitally signed by BABRU BABRU BHAN Date: BHAN 2023.09.12 10:13:21 +0530 15
and pieces of floor were also put in bottles, wrapped in white cloth and sealed. He deposed that he did not remember if the bottles were of glass or plastic. Police also wrote some documents and obtained his signatures as well as signatures of his father. He proved The seizure memo of blood, blood stained floor piece and the floor piece (without blood) as Ex. PW1/A , the sketch of two empty shells which were lying at 1-164, second floor, as Ex PW1/B and the seizure memo of the same as Ex. PW1/C. He also proved the seizure memo of blood stained cloth as Ex. PW1/D , the seizure memo of three mobile phones as Ex. PW1/E . He along with his father and police personnel reached near Esteem car near 1-209, Ashok Vihar, Ph-l, Delhi. The police lifted the empty shell and piece of bullet from the rear seat and put in a bottle, wrapped it in a white cloth and sealed it. Police also lifted the currency notes from the rear seat i.e. Two currency notes in the denomination of Rs. 500 each and 8 currency notes of denomination of Rs. 100 each, wrapped them in a piece of cloth and sealed the same. Police lifted the empty shell which was lying on the foot mat lying in front of driver seat, put in a bottle, wrapped in a white cloth and sealed it Police also took the piece of cover of driver seat having blood stains, wrapped it in a white cloth and sealed it. Police also lifted the foot mat which was lying in between the rear seat and driver seat and wrapped it in white cloth and sealed it. his father also handed over the mobile phone of Kuldeep. Police wrapped it in white cloth and sealed it. The mobile phone of Kuldeep was N-73, make Nokia, of black colour. The vehicle i.e. Esteem car and the key of the car State Vs. Ankit Chaudhary & Ors.
FIR no.169/10 & 170/10 page no. 15 of 128 Digitally signed by BABRU BABRU BHAN BHAN Date: 2023.09.12 10:13:26 +0530 16
were also taken by the police. He and his father signed the documents prepared there. He proved the seizure memo of the foot mat as Ex. PW1/F , the seizure memo of the blood stained seat cover as Ex. PW1/G . Seizure memo of currency notes is Ex. PW1/H, the sketch of two empty shells and bullet lead as Ex. PW1/J, the seizure memo of two empty shells and bullet lead as Ex. PW1/K . The seizure memo of said Esteem car along with keys is Ex. PW1/L . He also proved the seizure memo of the mobile phone make Nokia N-73 as Ex. PW1/M. He proved his statement/complaint recorded by the police at Sundar Lal Jain Hospital dated 20-06-2010 as Ex PW1/N. His supplementary statement was also recorded after seizure of all the above said articles at the place where the Esteem car was found.
(ii) He further deposed that on 21-06-2010 , he along with his father Sh. Ajit Singh reached at BJRM Hospital, Jahangirpuri where he and his father identified the dead bodies of Kuldeep and Monica and after the postmortem their dead bodies were handed over to his father Sh. Ajit Singh. His statement regarding identification of dead body as Ex. PW1/P. On that day also, his statement was recorded. He further deposed that later on, on 14-09-2010 he handed over the certificate of the marriage of his brother Kuldeep and Monica issued by Arya Samaj Mandir, Jamna Bazar. Same was taken in police possession vide seizure memo Ex. PW1/Q . The said marriage certificate is Ex.
PW1/R. The witness also identified the Esteem car bearing no DL2CR-0312 in which body of his brother Kuldeep was found.
FIR no.169/10 & 170/10 page no. 16 of 128 Digitally signed by BABRU BABRU BHAN BHAN Date: 2023.09.12 10:13:32 +0530 17
PW 2 Tarun Pathak /care taker Sunrise Hotel, Library Road, Mansoori , Delhi had provided the entry register to IO on 28.06.10, and produced the register and showed the entry st Sl no.6706 dt.22.06.2010 vide which accused Rakesh Kumar along- with four persons stayed there. He proved seizure memo Ex.PW2/A and photocopy of register Ex.PW2/B respectively.
27. PW 3 Narender Singh is the registered owner of black colour Santro car bearing no. DL-8CL-2006 which was also used by his son. He deposed that on 20.06.2010, his son Rahul had given his car to accused Ankit.
28. PW 4 Ranbir Singh is the registered owner of I-10 white colour car bearing no. DL-8CS-3600. He deposed that he gifted the said car to his daughter Madhulika w/o Tek Chand @ Dimpi Sharma on her marriage.
29. PW5 Rekha deposed that she knew Ankit Choudhary through her friend. She gifted a cell phone Make NOKIA N-97 to accused Ankit. She further stated that bill of the said phone was also handed over to accused Ankit She proved the bill of the said phone as Ex.PW5/A which is in the name of Tanvi Aggarwal. She further stated that she used to talk to Ankit on his mobile phone 9810911722 from her phone no.9818572914. She also identified the phone in the court as Ex.PX.
State Vs. Ankit Chaudhary & Ors.
FIR no.169/10 & 170/10 page no. 17 of 128 Digitally signed BABRU by BABRU BHAN BHAN Date:
2023.09.12 10:13:37 +0530 18
30. PW6 Dr. V.K.Jha, Medical Officer, BJRM Hospital. He has deposed that on 23.06.10, he conducted postmortem on the dead body of deceased Shobha. The body was sent by Insp. Ajmer Singh of PS Ashok Vihar and identified by HC Vinod. The further details of the postmortem disclosed by PW6 are as under:
Clothes worn by the deceased:- Full pant, underwear, panty, bra and T- shirt.
Built of the body was well built and rigor mortis passed off. Postmortem staining was not appreciable due to decomposition. Eyes were putrefied and shrunken, conjunctiva was putrefied and cornea was putrefied. Mouth was open and tongue was inside the oral cavity. I observed the following external injuries on the dead body of the deceased:
1. There was postmortem peeling of skin all over the body, foul smelling, gaseous distension of abdomen, face swollen, scalp hair thinned out.
2. Lacerated penetrated wound on left lateral angle of eye and left lateral angle of eye-brow of size 1.5 cm x 1 cm. No burning and singeing present. The tatooing pinkish in colour present in an area of 2 cm x 2 cm around the wound. Clotted blood present around the wound and wound was semi-circular (entry wound of the fire arm) State Vs. Ankit Chaudhary & Ors.
FIR no.169/10 & 170/10 page no. 18 of 128 Digitally signed by BABRU BABRU BHAN BHAN Date:
2023.09.12 10:13:43 +0530 19
3. lacerated perforated wound of size 2.5 cm x 1 cm on right parietal region irregular and margins were everted. No abraded or grazed collar present and no burning, singeing or tatooing present. (Exit wound of fire arm) On internal examination of head, there were sub scalp hematoma over the frontal and bitemporal region and there was fracture of left temporal and right parietal bones..
Track of injury no. 2 and 3 is from left to right and below upward.
On dissection of injury no. 2, it has entered through skin entered the skull cavity making the circular hole with chipping of inner plate of left side temporal bone. It further entered the membrane of brain and passing through the substance of the brain lacerated, both temporal frontal and parietal brain substance and ruptured the right parietal bone chipping the external plate and skin over it and bullet has passed through and through.
After postmortem examination, he opined cause of death as 1 "craniocerebral damage consequent to fire-arm injury" Injury no. 2 and 3. are individually sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. The range of the fire-arm is near range beyond flame effect but within the powdering range.
State Vs. Ankit Chaudhary & Ors.
FIR no.169/10 & 170/10 page no. 19 of 128 BABRU Digitally signed by BABRU BHAN BHAN 10:13:48 +0530 Date: 2023.09.12 20 Time since death was approximately 3 days and total number of quest papers was 8 (eight) in numbers, which were returned along with the PM report.
Clothes and blood gauze piece was sealed with the seal of mortuary and were handed over to the 10 along with sample seal. He proved his detailed postmortem report as Ex. PW-6/A.
(ii) On 21.06.2010, PW 6 conducted postmortem on the dead body of Kuldeep Malyan, 25 years male, son of Ajit Singh. The body was sent by Ins. Pratap Singh, SHO of PS Ashok Vihar and body was identified by Ct. Sandeep. The further details of the postmortem disclosed by PW6 are as under:
Clothes worn by the deceased:- Capri, underwear, and T-shirt Built of the body was well built and rigor mortis was present on all the body parts. Postmortem staining was present in mid- axillary line.
Eyes: left and right eye were bruised. Conjunctiva was normal and cornea was hazy. Mouth was closed and tongue was inside the oral cavity. There was bleeding from left ear. I observed the following external injuries on the dead body of the deceased :-
1. Lacerated penetrated wound 1.5 cm x 1 cm on left occipit region 7 cm behind left pinnaeae, margins were inverted a bivelled, cut margin of the upper side of circular wound. burning, State Vs. Ankit Chaudhary & Ors.
FIR no.169/10 & 170/10 page no. 20 of 128 Digitally signed by BABRU BABRU BHAN Date: BHAN 2023.09.12 10:13:54 +0530 21 singeing of hairs found. The pinkish tatooing around 10-01-11 wound present in an area of 2.5 cm x 2 cm. The margins an abraded and blood are oozing out from the wound entry wound of the fire-arm)
2. Lacerated perforated wound with margin brielled ruptured and everted on the bridge of nose of size 1 cm x 1 cm at part (exit wound of fire arm injury) On internal examination, he observed following internal injuries- Track of the wound- The bullet after piercing the skin and subcutaneous tissue, periosteum entered the skull cavity through ten occipital bone making the circular hole with fissured fracture around an entered the cranial cavity with chipping of inner plate in an area of 2 x 2 cm, it further entered the brain substance, passed through the occipital lobe through and through the left hemisphere. through the brain substance of right frontal lobe and penetrates cribiform plate making communition of the bone and rupturing sinuses. It came out through injury no. 2. The track of wound is transverse, slightly left to right and plane was horizontal. Sma pieces were found in the brain substances. It pass After postmortem examination, he opined cause of death as "craniocerebral damage consequent to fire-arm injury Injury no. are individually sufficient to cause death in ordinary course o The range of the fire-arm is near range beyond flame effect the powdering range.
State Vs. Ankit Chaudhary & Ors.
FIR no.169/10 & 170/10 page no. 21 of 128 Digitally signed BABRU by BABRU BHAN BHAN Date: 2023.09.12 10:13:59 +0530 22 Time since death was approximately 18 hours and tota of inquest papers were 17 (seventeen) in numbers, which were signed by me and were returned along with the PM report.
Clothes, blood gauze piece and pieces of lead found in the brain substance were sealed with the seal of mortuary and were hardes over to the IO along with sample seal. his detailed postmortem report is Ex. PW-6/B. Same is in his handwriting and having his signatures a point A.
(iii) On 21.06.2010, PW6 conducted postmortem on the dead body of Monika, 24 years female, wife of Kuldeep Malyan. The body was sent by Ins. Pratap Singh, SHO of PS Ashok Vihar and body was identified by Ct. Sandeep. The further details of the postmortem disclosed by PW6 are as under:
Clothes worn by the deceased: Capri, underwear, T-shirt and bra Built of the body was moderate and rigor mortis was present on all the body parts. Postmortem staining at back was present.
Eyes: left and right eye were bruised. Conjunctiva was normal and cornea was hazy. Mouth was closed and tongue was inside the ora cavity. There was bleeding from left ear. I observed the followin external injuries on the dead body of the deceased:-
State Vs. Ankit Chaudhary & Ors.
FIR no.169/10 & 170/10 page no. 22 of 128 Digitally signed by BABRU BABRU BHAN BHAN Date: 2023.09.12 10:14:06 +0530 23
1. Lacerated penetrated wound 5 cm x 5 cm circular disposition over left occipital region. Hair around the wound w singed. On removal of the hair, margin of the skin is inverted and abraded.
No burning, blackening or tatooing is present. (Entry wound of the fire-arm)
2. Lacerated perforated wound 1 cm x 1 cm on right occipital region irregular, margins were everted and ruptured and blood was oozing from the wound. No abraded grazed collar was present. No burning, singeing and tatooing present. (Exit wound of the fire arm)
3. Lacerated penetrated wound V-shaped over eye each arm being 1.5 cm located at canthus of eye (inner angle of left eye and inner angle of left eye brow). No burning, singeing or tatooing present. Clotted blood deposited around the wound. (entry wound of the fire arm) On internal examination, he observed following internal injuries- Track of the wound 1 and 2: Direction of the track left to right, plane is transverse slightly obliquely upward. The bullet after penetrating the skin through injury no. 1 entered the skull cavity with making the circular hole of size 5 x 5 cm with chipping of inner plate of left side occipital bone. It further entered the membrane of brain and ruptured the tentorium cerebelli, after passing through the substance of the brain lacerated both occipital lobes contused the pons and came out after rupturing State Vs. Ankit Chaudhary & Ors.
FIR no.169/10 & 170/10 page no. 23 of 128 Digitally signed by BABRU BABRU BHAN Date:
BHAN 2023.09.12
10:14:12
+0530
24
the right side occipital bone chipping the external plate and the skin over it. The bullet has passed through and through.
Track of injury no. 3 After penetrating the skin and fasciae entered the skull cavity rupturing the orbital plate of inner left side with communition entered the base of right frontal lobe, further entered the brain substance transfixing both the hemispheres lacerating the brain, further passed through durameter of mid parietal lobe of brain on right side entered the skull penetrating both the bones. Bullet was found lodged in uppar part of parietal bone below the sagittal suture. The track is from left to right below upward.
After postmortem examination, he opined cause of death as "craniocerebral damage consequent to fire-arm injury Injury no. 1, 2 and 3 are individually sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. The range of the fire-arm is near range beyond blast effect.
Time since death was approximately 18 hours and total number of inquest papers were 16 (sixteen) in numbers, which were signed by me and were returned along with the PM report.
Clothes, blood gauze piece and bullet found in the brain substance were sealed with the seal of mortuary and were handed over to the IO along with sample seal. He proved his detailed postmortem report as Ex. PW-6/C. State Vs. Ankit Chaudhary & Ors.
FIR no.169/10 & 170/10 page no. 24 of 128 BABRU Digitally signed by BABRU BHAN BHAN Date: 2023.09.12 10:14:17 +0530 25
31. PW7 HC Banar Singh has deposed that on 07.07.10, car bearing no. DL-8CL-2006 was lying in the malkhana and on that day, IO got inspection of said car through officials of FSL, Rohini. During inspection, Team Incharge K.C.Varsheny recovered one empty cartridge from inside the said car. IO prepared sketch Ex.PW7/A of same and kept in a plastic container and sealed with the seal of AS vide seizure memo Ex.PW7/B. The cover of gear lever which was having mark of bullet strike of said car was also taken into possession and sealing the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW7/C.
(i) He further deposed that on 21.06.2010, he was posted as duty officer as PS Ashok Vihar from 12 midnight till 8 a.m. On that night, at about 12.40 a.m. ,Ct. Sandeep came and handed over him a rukka sent by Inspector Pratap Singh. He got recorded FIR no.169/10. He proved copy of FIR as Ex.PW7/D, endorsement on the rukka as Ex.PW7/E. He also proved DD no.3A as Ex.PW7/F. He further deposed that he sent Ct. Mahender, Special Messenger at about 1.40 a.m. to deliver the copy of FIR to senior officers and Ld. MM vide no.4A and proved copy of same as Ex.PW7/G.
(ii) He further deposed that on the same day at about 1.55 a.m. , he received information from mobile no.9650234787 regarding the theft of vehicle Santro car no.DL-8C-L-2006 from Wazirpur Village, Ashok Vihar. He proved attested copy of DD no.5A in this regard as Ex.PW7/H. The said DD was handed over State Vs. Ankit Chaudhary & Ors.
FIR no.169/10 & 170/10 page no. 25 of 128 Digitally signed by BABRU BABRU BHAN BHAN Date: 2023.09.12 10:14:24 +0530 26
to HC Vinod Kumar. He also proved arrival entry vide DD no.6A of HC Vinod Kumar Ex.PW7/J. This witness was also assigned with duties of MHC(M during investigation of this case. He has also deposed about the property deposited by the IO and other officers in connection with this case and the properties taken out for taking the same to FSL.
32. PW8 Ct. Dalbir was photographer Crime Team, North West District. He deposed that on the intervening night of 20/21.06.2010, he alongwith I/C SI Matadin Meena and Ct. Ram Kishan, Finger Print proficient reached at I block, phase-I, Ashok Vihar, Delhi where Inspector Pratap Singh SHO of PS Ashok Vihar met him. As per instructions of the IO, he took photographs of car bearing No. DL-2CR-0312 sky blue colour which was parked there from different angles. He also took photographs of blood lying on the driver seat, foot mat and also of empty cartridges, bullet lead and currency notes lying inside the car. He proved photographs as Ex.PW8/A1 to Ex.PW8/A30 and negatives as Ex.PW8/B1 to Ex.PW8/B30.
(i) On 22.06.2010, he along-with I/C crime team SI Devender , SI Ravinder -Finger Prints Expert/PW35 and Finger Print proficient HC Vikas reached at H block, behind NDPL office, phase-I, Ashok Vihar and found one black colour Santro bearing no. DL-8CL-2006 parked. He deposed that foul smell was emanating from the said car. Incharge of crime team inspected the car from outside and HC Vikas and SI Ravinder lifted the chance prints. One female decomposed dead body was State Vs. Ankit Chaudhary & Ors.
FIR no.169/10 & 170/10 page no. 26 of 128 BABRU Digitally signed by BABRU BHAN BHAN Date: 2023.09.12 10:14:29 +0530 27 found on the front left side seat. He took photographs of the car, dead body. He proved the photographs as Ex.PW8/A-31 to Ex.PW8/A-41 and negatives as Ex.PW8/B31 to Ex.PW8/B41.
(ii) On 07.07.2010, he along with I/C crime team SI Matadin Meena and other staff reached at I-164, second floor, Phase-I, Ashok Vihar. FSL team was already there which had detected one projectile of bullet (lead) entangled in the right lower sliding shutter of the wooden almirah lying there. He took photographs of the said almirah. Thereafter, they reached to PS Ashok Vihar. FSL Team inspected both the above said cars and from car bearing no. DL2CR-0312, one empty cartridge was detected, which was lying beneath the driver seat. One slipper was lying inside the car beneath the driver seat. He took photographs of the wind shield of the car, said bullet, slipper and other photographs. He proved photographs as Ex.PW8/A42 to Ex.PW8/A58 and negatives as Ex.PW8/B42 to Ex.PW8/58.
33. PW9 is G.S.Arora . He deposed that he was running a shop of car accessories in the name of Car Times. On 20.06.10, accused Ankit had come to his shop in an Esteem car of dark blue colour and he had sold him one front glass shutter for a sum of RS.150/-. He identified the car Ex.P1 and shutter Ex.PW9/1.
34. PW10 Sh. Dimpy Sharma deposed that on 20.06.10, he gave his car make I-10 of white colour bearing no. DL8CL3600 to Ankit at Paramanand Hospital. He proved the car State Vs. Ankit Chaudhary & Ors.
FIR no.169/10 & 170/10 page no. 27 of 128 Digitally signed BABRU by BABRU BHAN BHAN 2023.09.12 Date:
10:14:39 +0530 28 Ex.PW10/P1. After handing over the car to accused Ankit , he returned home. He again made a call to Ankit at about 7.30 to 8 p.m. but the call could not connect. Thereafter, he went to house of Ankit where he came to know that Ankit had committed murder. Due to fear of his father, he made a 100 number call that his car had been stolen. He has proved his statement U/s 164 Cr.P.C. Ex.PW10/A
35. PW11 Rahul Kumar deposed that on 20.06.2010, at about 5 p.m., he received a phone call from accused Ankit on his mobile no.9650234787 from mobile no.9810911722 (Ankit's number). The accused told him that he was in need of his( Rahul's) Santro car. He further deposed that he first reached at his village Wazirpur at about 5.45 p.m. and again on receipt of call from accused Ankti , he reached at Shree Ram Mandir, Ashok Vihar and handed over his Santro car bearing no. DL8CL2006 of black coluor to accused Ankit and thereafter, Ankit along-with Mandeep and Nakul Khari left Shree Ram Mandir in his said Santro car. Ankit told him that he would return his car after about one hour. Rahul tried to contact him on his mobile phone after one hour, but his phone was switched off. Later on, he came to know that Ankit along-with his associates had committed murder of Kuldeep and Monika. He further deposed that he got afraid and gave a false information to the police regarding the theft of his car. He proved his statement U/s 164 Cr.P.C. Ex.PW11/A recorded by Ld.MM. He also proved the TIP proceedings of key along-with keyring of the Santro car as State Vs. Ankit Chaudhary & Ors.
FIR no.169/10 & 170/10 page no. 28 of 128 Digitally signed BABRU by BABRU BHAN BHAN 2023.09.12 Date:
10:14:45 +0530 29 Ex.PW11/B. He identified the Santro car Ex.PW11/1. He also identified the key along-with the key ring Ex.PW11/2.
36. PW12 Arun is maternal uncle of Kuldeep. He deposed that Kuldeep had married with Monika which was an inter cast marriage due to which there was tension in the village.
Accused Ankit who is brother of Monika was not happy with this marriage. He deposed that on 20.06.2020 at about 6 or 6.30 p.m., he received a call from his cousin brother that Monika had sustained serious injury and was admitted in Sunder Lal Jain hospital. He reached there where his sister, his brother in law , Amit and other relatives were present. He came to know in the hospital that Monika was declared dead by doctor. When he enquired from Amit about whereabouts of Kuldeep, he told that the same were not known and Kuldeep was not picking his phone. He made a call from the mobile phone bearing no.9654444772 of his nephew Deepak at the phone of Kuldeep. The bell rang but he did not pick up the phone. He made a call at 100 number from the same mobile. He also told the police that vehicle i.e. Esteem car bearing no. DL2 CR0312 of Kuldeep was not available at home.
37. PW12 (A) is Deepak/ cousin of deceased Kuldeep. He deposed that about 4 years ago from the date of incident, Kuldeep had a love marriage with Monika, a girl of the same village belonging to Gujjar Community. Due to this intercast love marriage, the Gujar community was not happy and there was State Vs. Ankit Chaudhary & Ors.
FIR no.169/10 & 170/10 page no. 29 of 128 Digitally signed BABRU by BABRU BHAN BHAN Date:
2023.09.12 10:14:51 +0530 30 atmosphere of tension in the whole village due to which Kuldeep and Monika started living at Jeevan Park, Uttam Nagar, Delhi. About 4-5 months prior to the incident, they started residing at 1- 164, II floor, Ashok Vihar, Delhi. He further deposed that two girls of Gujjar community namely Shobha and Khushboo eloped and one of them performed marriage but he did not know whose marriage was performed. Due to the elopement of the two girls, Gujjar community was agitated and there was an atmosphere of unrest in the village. On 17.06.10, he had talked with deceased Kuldeep who told him that brother of Monika namely Ankit and his friend might cause harm to him. On 20.06.10, he came to know that Monika had sustained injuries. He reached along-with his mother to Sunder Lal Jain Hospital. He came to know that Monika had expired. He and father of Kuldeep tried to contact on mobile phone of Kuldeep , bell was going on his mobile, but he was not responding. Thereafter, he alongwith Ajit Singh Malyan father of Kuldeep went in search of Kuldeep. During search, they found the car of Kuldeep bearing no. DL-2CR-0312 in front of house no.I-209, he opened the door of the front driver side of the car and found Kuldeep in the driver seat and there was blood all over the body. He picked up the mobile phone of Kuldeep which was on the dash board and called Amit on his mobile phone. He told him that they had traced Kuldeep and bringing him to hospital. He along-with Ajeet Singh took Kuldeep to Sunder Lal Jain hospital in his car make Santro no. DL4C-ND- 4107. In the hospital, doctor declared Kuldeep brought dead. He further deposed that Ankit was not present in the hospital.
State Vs. Ankit Chaudhary & Ors.
FIR no.169/10 & 170/10 page no. 30 of 128 Digitally signed BABRU by BABRU BHAN BHAN 10:14:56 Date: 2023.09.12 +0530 31
38. PW13 Anuj deposed that on 20.06.2010, he was present at the house of his maternal uncle Ajit Singh to meet his maternal uncle and his family members. A telephone call was received perhaps on the mobile phone of Amit that Monika had received injuries which was made by Puneet/younger brother of Monika. On receipt of this information, he reached at I-164, Phase-1, Ashok Vihar, 2nd Floor, Delhi were Puneet @ Shanky , mother of Monika and one more boy namely Suraj were already present. They all brought the body of Monika downstairs. They took Monika to Sunder Lal Jain hospital where doctor declared her as brought dead. He made calls on the mobile phone of Kuldeep. Bell was ringing on his mobile phone but he was not responding. Ajit Singh and Deepak went in search of Kuldeep. After some time, they brought the body of Kuldeep to Sunder Lal Jain Hospital. Doctor declared him as brought dead.
39. PW14 Puneet is brother of deceased Monika. He deposed that on 20.06.10, since it was marriage anniversary of his parents, he along-with Suraj went to house of his sister Monika and brother in law Kuldeep to give her food from his house. When he entered the house of Monika, he saw that Monika was lying in pool of blood on the floor inside the said house. He passed this information to his father. As such, his father namely Bobby also reached there and they shifted Monika to Sunder Lal Jain Hospital. His brother in law Kuldeep was not present at his house when he reached there. He tried to contact State Vs. Ankit Chaudhary & Ors.
FIR no.169/10 & 170/10 page no. 31 of 128 BABRU Digitally signed by BABRU BHAN BHAN 10:15:03 +0530 Date: 2023.09.12 32 Kuldeep telephonically but he did not pick the phone, though, the bell was ringing Doctor at Sunderlal Jain hospital declared Monika dead. In hospital, he came to know that body of Kuldeep was also recovered. Further deposed that accused Ankit Choudhary neither visited the hospital nor house of Kuldeep and Monika.
40. PW15 Naresh Kumar was the registered owner of Esteem Car bearing no. DL2CR0312. He has deposed that the aforesaid car was being used by Kuldeep, son of his maternal uncle. On 20.06.2010, dead body of Kuldeep was recovered from his car.
41. PW16 is HC Naresh Kumar who was posted at control room (PHQ) on 22.06.2010. At about 8.12 a.m. a PCR call was transmitted to him by women Ct. Suman as he was sitting at Commander net of North West Zone. This witness transmitted this information to PCR van, Commander 7 as well as District North West control Room. He also filled form 1 Ex.PW16/A in this regard.
42. PW 17 SI Devender was posted at Mobile Crime team on 22.06.10. On receiving call from Control room, he reached in front of NDPL office where a Santro car bearing no. DL8CL2006 was found parked from which foul smell was emitting. Ct. Dalbir, crime team photographer took photographs. SI Ravinder and HC Vikas lifted chance prints. Local police State Vs. Ankit Chaudhary & Ors.
FIR no.169/10 & 170/10 page no. 32 of 128 BABRU Digitally signed by BABRU BHAN Date: 2023.09.12 BHAN 10:15:26 +0530 33 opened the car and recovered a decomposed dead body of a girl. One empty cartridge of 7.65 mm caliber was recovered from dash board of car. Blood was present inside the car. Quarter bottle of whiskey , bottle of mineral water, bottle of soda , packet of cigarette were also recovered. There was one wound near left eye and another on back side of the head. This witness prepared the detailed report Ex.PW17/A.
43. PW 18 HC Vikas Kumar was also member of the crime team and he has deposed in sync with PW17.
44. PW19 SI Matadin ( only in case FIR no.169/10) was posted as Incharge of Mobile Crime Team, north West. On 20.06.10, at about 11.45 p.m., he along-with Ct. Dalbir Photographer, Ct. Ramkishan , Finger print Profficient reached ner house no.209, Ashok Vihar, Delhi and met with Inspector Pratap Singh/SHO PS Ashok Vihar. There one Maruti esteem car bearing no. DL2CR0312 was parked. The crime team inspected the car. Blood was spilled on the floor of the car , one empty cartridge was lying near clutch , break, some currency notes and a blood stain coin was lying on back seat . Photographer Dalbir took photographs. Thereafter, they inspected house no.164. He prepared report Ex.PW19/A. Remaining details of the testimony of PW19 are similar to the deposition made by Ct. Dalbir../PW...
45. PW19 Ct. Nihal Singh had received DD no.29 A from duty officer. He handed over the DD to ASI Bhagat Singh at State Vs. Ankit Chaudhary & Ors.
FIR no.169/10 & 170/10 page no. 33 of 128 BABRU Digitally signed by BABRU BHAN BHAN Date: 2023.09.12 10:15:32 +0530 34 Sunder Lal Jain hospital. Thereafter, this witness along-with ASI Bhagat Singh reached house no. I-164, 2 nd floor, Ashok Vihar. IO received a phone call from Amit and left leaving this witness at the spot. IO again returned with Amit and his father. Thereafter, crime team reached and inspected the spot.
46. PW20 SI Surjeet ( only in case FIR no.169/10) was duty officer at PS Ashok Vihar. On 20.06.2010 from 4 p.m. to 12 midnight. At about 8.02 p.m. that day, he received information from Dr. Surya Nandan dev from Sunderlal Jain hospital that Monika w/o Kuldeep was admitted in hospital in injured condition and was subsequently declared as dead. He reduced the information in form of DD no.25 Ex.PW20/A and handed over the same to ASI Bhagat Singh. ASI Bhagat Singh left the hospital with Ct. Sandeep. He also informed SI Sat Prakash in this regard. At 8.45 p.m. same day, he received information from control room regarding death of Monika and missing of Kuldeep with vehicle no. DL2CR0312. This information was reduced in form of DD 29 Ex. PW20/B. This information was further conveyed to ASI Bhagat Singh through Ct. Nihal.
47 PW 20 Ct. Samunder Prakash had collected exhibits relating to DNA division Biology and Ballistic Division from MHC(M) on 15.07.2010 vide RC no.5253 and 5421 and deposited the same with FSL Rohini. Thereafter, he handed over the receipt to MHC(M).
State Vs. Ankit Chaudhary & Ors.
FIR no.169/10 & 170/10 page no. 34 of 128 Digitally signed BABRU by BABRU BHAN BHAN Date:
2023.09.12 10:15:37 +0530 35
48. PW21 Ct. Mahender Singh deposed that he collected copy of FIR from the duty officer and delivered the same to the senior officers and the area Magistrate.
49. PW22 HC Jagdish deposed that he collected three forms and sealed exhibits from the MHC(M) for depositing in Biology Division, DNA Division and Ballistic Division. He deposited the same vide RC nos. 49/21,50/21 and 51/21. Due to some objections, property earlier deposited vide RC no.51/21 was re -deposited after removal of objections vide RC no.55/21. This witness has identified his signatures on Ex.PW7/X , Ex.PW7/X1, Ex.PW7/Y, Ex.PW7/Y1, Ex.PW7/Z6, Ex.PW7/Z7.
50. PW 23 SI Manohar Lal . On 04.08.10, this witness along-with Inspector Pratap Singh visited the spot i.e. house no.164, Ashok Vihar and I-209, Ashok Vihar. He inspected both the spots, prepared rough notes and on basis of rough notes, prepared scaled site plans of both the aforesaid spots Ex.PW23/A and Ex.PW23/B. On 04.08.10, he visited NDPL office , H block , Ashok Vihar, prepared rough notes and thereafter, prepared site-plan of that spot Ex.PW23/C.
51. PW24 HC Om Prakash was posted on PCR vehicle commander 11 as Incharge on relevant date and time. On 20.06.2010, at about 8.45 p.m., he received a call regarding State Vs. Ankit Chaudhary & Ors.
FIR no.169/10 & 170/10 page no. 35 of 128 Digitally signed by BABRU BABRU BHAN Date:
BHAN 2023.09.12
10:15:43
+0530
36
murder of Monika and her removal to Sunderlal Jain hospital. On receipt of information, this witness immediately went to Sunder Lal Jain Hospital.
52. PW25 Inspector Atul Sood was posted as ATO at PS Keshav Puram on 24.06.2010. On instructions of IO, he reached Mumbai on 25.06.2010 and recorded statement of Ravi Kumar and Khusboo. He proved the complaints addressed to concerned DCP by Ravi Kumar and Khusbhoo as Ex.PW25/A, Ex.PW25/B and Ex.PW25/C. He deposed that these complaints were recorded by him. During his court statement, he produced original receiving of all the aforesaid complaints as Ex.PW25/A1 , Ex.PW25/B1 and Ex.PW25/C1.
53. PW 26 R.K.Singh, Nodal Officer, Bharti Airtel has proved the CAF and accompanied documents of mobile phone no.9810911722 as Ex.PW26/A to Ex.PW26/A-2. As per documents, this number was issued in the name of Kuldeep. He also produced the CAF form and attested copy of DL in the name of Rahul, registered user of mobile number 9650234787 as Ex.PW26/B and Ex.PW26/B1. He proved the call details of mobile phone number 9810911722 for the period from 03.06.2010 to 04.06.2010 as Ex.PW26/C and for the period from 20.06.2010 to 25.06.2010 as Ex.PW26/D. The call details of mobile number 9650234787 as Ex.PW26/E. The certificate U/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act as Ex.PW26/F. State Vs. Ankit Chaudhary & Ors.
FIR no.169/10 & 170/10 page no. 36 of 128 BABRU Digitally signed by BABRU BHAN BHAN Date: 2023.09.12 10:15:48 +0530 37
54. PW27 HC Vinay has deposed that on 06.07.2010, he had handed over sealed parcel containing key of the Santro car to HC Jagdish for TIP. Jagdish re-deposited the same after TIP proceedings vide RC no.46/21
55. PW28 Laxmi Narain Bhatia deposed in his court statement that on 22-6-2010, his Bahadur was cleaning his car bearing no. DL8CH5891. Bahadur informed him that foul smell was emitting from car parked nearby. He made a PCR call in this regard.
56. PW29 Sandeep is brother of Shobha. He had identified dead body of Shobha on 22.06.2010 vide memo Ex.PW29/A.
57. PW30 HC Vinod was posted at PS Ashok Vihar on 20.06.2010. On receipt of DD no.5A regarding theft of one Santro car DL8CL2006 from WP393, Wazirpur he reached house no. WP393, Wazirpur and recorded statement of Narender Malyan regarding theft of one Santro Car bearing No.DL-8CL- 2006 as Ex.PW30/A. He further deposed that DD no.5A was kept pending. He recorded statement of Rahul. On 21.06.2010, he handed over the statement of Rahul to Inspector Pratap Singh, SHO Ashok Vihar. He further deposed that on 22.06.2010, he joined the investigation of the present case with Inspector Ajmer Singh in connection with DD no.9A. He proved the seizure Digitally State Vs. Ankit Chaudhary & Ors. signed by BABRU BABRU BHAN FIR no.169/10 & 170/10 Date:
BHAN 2023.09.12 page no. 37 of 128
10:15:54
+0530
38
memo vide which one iron key, one ring, pair of ear tops were removed from the dead body of Sobha vide memo Ex.PW30/B in FIR no.170/10. These articles were identified by him as Ex.P17 to Ex.P21. He proved the sealed pullanda alongwith the blood sample and sample seal Ex.PW30/C and Ex.PW30/D. He is also attesting witness to dead body identification Memo Ex.PW29/A and Ex.PW29/B. This witness also participated in the investigation on 01.07.2010 along-with Inspector Ajmer Singh when accused Ankit Choudhary, Mandeep Nagar and Nakul Khari were interrogated and arrested vide documents Ex.PW30/E to Ex.PWPW30/J. He has further deposed that accused persons had pointed the places of incident vide pointing out memo Ex.PW30/A to Ex.PW30/R. Further deposed that on 02.07.2010, Inspector Pratap Singh/IO of case FIR no.169/10 and Ajmer Singh of case FIR no.170/10 arrested accused Rakesh @ Sintu. He was arrested vide memo Ex.PW30/S and his disclosure statement Ex.PW30/T was recorded.
58. PW31 N.P Waghmare, Assistant Director, Ballistic, FSL Rohini had examined the empty cartridge and the country made pistol. On examination, he found that firing pin and breach face mark on the empty cartridges were similar to the sample fired cartridges. He has proved the detailed ballistic report as Ex.PW31/A. He identified the cartridges as Ex.P17 and Ex.P18 and the pistol as Ex.P19.
Digitally signed by BABRUBABRU BHAN BHAN Date: 2023.09.12 10:16:00 +0530 State Vs. Ankit Chaudhary & Ors. FIR no.169/10 & 170/10 page no. 38 of 128 39
59. PW32 Ct. Sandeep had joined the investigation on 20.06.10 along-with ASI Bhagat, Inspector Pratap Singh, SI Satya Prakash when body of Kuldeep and Monika were brought there. After preparation of rukka, Inspector Pratap Singh had handed over the same to him for registration of FIR. He took the rukka to police station and got the present FIR registered. On directions of Inspector Pratap Singh, he along-with ASI Bhagat Singh had taken the bodies of Kuldeep and Monika to mortuary of BJRM hospital. He is also attesting witness of seizure memo of bullet recovered from body of Kuldeep, seizure memo of clothes of Kuldeep, seizure memo of bullet recovered from body of Monika and clothes of Monika Ex.PW32/A to Ex.PW32/D.
60. PW35 Ravinder Kumar/Finger Print Expert had joined the investigation at the time of inspection of Santro Car bearing registration no. DL8CL2006. After inspection, he developed 9 chance prints. His report in this regard is Ex.PW35/A. He also compared the lifted chance prints with the finger prints of accused persons but no conclusive report could be given. His report in this regard is Ex.PW35/B.
61. PW37 Ct. Kapil had joined the investigation along-with ASI Bhagat Singh, Inspector Ajmer and other staff members on 22.06.10 when body of Shobha was recovered from Santro Car bearing no. DL8CL2006. He has identified the Santro Car through photographs as Ex.PW37/X. Digitally signed BABRU by BABRU BHAN BHAN 10:16:06 Date: 2023.09.12 +0530 State Vs. Ankit Chaudhary & Ors.
FIR no.169/10 & 170/10 page no. 39 of 128 40
62. PW38 Israr Babu , Nodal officer has proved the CAF form of mobile no. 9811677778 in the name of Kuldeep as Ex.PW38/A. The call details record as Ex.PW38/B and the certificate U/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act as Ex.PW38/C. He has further proved CAF form of mobile number 9811762609 in the name of Kuldeep as Ex.PW38/D, call details record as Ex.PW38/E and the Certificate as Ex.PW38/F.
63. PW39 SI Kundan Lal, on instructions of IO had brought the I-10 car bearing no. DL 8CS-3600 from Garh Mukteshwar on 28.06.2010. He obtained the possession of the car from MHC(M) PS Garh Mukteshwar vide seizure memo Ex.PW39/A. Thereafter, he deposited the car with MHC(M) PS Ashok Vihar
64. PW40 Jai Singh identified dead body of deceased Shobha at mortuary of BJRM hospital vide statement Ex.PW29/B.
65. PW41 Shri Shivaji A.B. Executive Reliance Communication had provided CDR of mobile no. 9350057764 from 01.06.2010 to 20.06.2010 to IO along-with a Certificate U/s 65 B of Indian Evidence Act. The relevant documents relating to aforesaid CDR filed by this witness are Ex.PW41/A to Ex.PW41/D. BABRU Digitally signed by BABRU BHAN BHAN 10:16:13 +0530 Date: 2023.09.12 State Vs. Ankit Chaudhary & Ors.
FIR no.169/10 & 170/10 page no. 40 of 128 41
66. PW42 L.S. Maurya, Special inquiry Cell Muzafarnagar has deposed that on 24.06.2010, he was posted at PS Garh Mukhteshwar ,Distt. Ghaziabad, UP as SHO. On that day, he came to know regarding the present incident through visual and print media. He received an information that the accused persons wanted in this case shall come from PP Jharina side and would go towards Garh Muketshwar in an I-10 car bearing registration no. DL-8CS3600. He accordingly, constituted a party consisting of SSI Satish Babu, Ct. Ompal Singh, Ct. Sudhir and driver Prem Singh Joon. At about 2 to 2.30 p.m. , the car of the accused Ankit Choudhary, Mandeep Nagar and Nakul Khari was stopped and they were apprehended. He informed IO of this case Inspector Pratap Singh telephonically as well as through a letter Ex.PW42/A. The papers prepared during arrest are Ex.PW42/B.
67. PW43 HC Joginder had recorded missing report of Khushboo on 03.06.2010 vide DD no.15 A Ex.PW43/A on a complaint given by Jai Singh.
68. PW44 Ct. Sumer Singh had delivered the FIR no.170/10 to concerned MM, DCP , Joint CP , SO of the DCP and in the court of Ld.MM Sh. Satish Kumar on 22.06.2010.
69. PW45 SI Parmod had first joined the investigation on 01.07.2010 when accused Ankit Choudhary, Mandeep Nagar and Nakul Khari were arrested by the IO and their disclosure Digitally signed by BABRU BABRU Date:
BHAN BHAN 2023.09.12 10:16:19 State Vs. Ankit Chaudhary & Ors. +0530 FIR no.169/10 & 170/10 page no. 41 of 128 42 statements were recorded and other documents were prepared. Again on 02.07.2010, he joined the investigation when IO had interrogated accused Rakesh Nagar regarding the investigation conducted on aforesaid two dates, testimony of this witness is similar to HC Vinod/PW 30. That portion of his testimony is not required to be reproduced again as the details have already been given at the time of reproduction of testimony of PW30.
(i) He again joined investigation on 07.07.2010 when FSL team had visited PS Ashok Vihar and inspected the seized car bearing no. DL8CL2006. He has deposed that FSL team had recovered empty cartridge from the car which was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW7/B by the IO after preparing its sketch.
Thereafter, FSL team handed over lever cover of the said car which was taken into possession by the IO vide memo Ex.PW7/C.
70. PW46 HC Jetha Ram has deposed in sync with PW60 Inspector Ajmer Singh.
71. PW47 K.C.Varshney, Dy. Director Incharge, Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Chankya Puri has deposed that on 07.07.2010, he was posted as Assistant Director (Ballistic) at FSL Rohini, Delhi. He along with team members Shri R.Suresh, then SSO (Ballistics) and Shri S.K. Gupta, then SSO (Photo) and other officers, visited PS Ashok Vihar and a car bearing registration No. DL 8CL 2006 was inspected and its photographs were taken from different angles. On inspection of Digitally signed by BABRU BABRU BHAN BHAN Date:
2023.09.12 State Vs. Ankit Chaudhary & Ors. 10:16:24 +0530 FIR no.169/10 & 170/10 page no. 42 of 128 43 the said car, one empty cartridge case, on the head of which K.F. 7.65 was found engraved, was recovered from a box which was situated between hand brake and gear liver cover of the said car.
He handed over the same to the IO Inspector Ajmer Singh who kept the same in a plastic container and prepared a pulanda with the help of white cloth and sealed the same with the seal of AS and seized the same. There was a hole on the gear liver cover, suspected to have been created by bullet. Same was also removed from the car and was handed over to IO Inspector Ajmer Singh and same was also seized by him. Inspector Ajmer Singh recorded his statement on 07.07.2010. He identified the empty cartridge case Ex.PW7/4. He also identified gear liver cover Ex.PW7/5.
72. PW48 Dr. Mohit, RMO, Sunder Lal Jain Hospital, Ashok Vihar has deposed that MLC bearing No. 7400 and 7401 of Monika and Kuldeep were prepared at Sunder Lal Jain hospital on 20.06.2010 at 7.40pm and 7.43 pm respectively by Dr. Suryanandan. MLCs of Monika and Kuldeep vide MLCs Ex.PW48/A and Ex.PW48/B. He also identified handwriting and signatures Dr. Suryanandan Khatri at points A and his name at points B in the aforesaid MLCs.
73. PW49 Ct. Suman deposed that on 22.06.2010 she was posted at Central Police Control Room and was sitting on Extension no.116. On that day, at about 8:12:39 hrs, she received a call from mobile no. 9810859912. The caller informed her that Digitally signed by BABRU BABRU Date:
BHAN BHAN 2023.09.12 State Vs. Ankit Chaudhary & Ors. 10:16:30 +0530 FIR no.169/10 & 170/10 page no. 43 of 128 44 H block, NDPL Office ke samne park Ashok Vihar Santro DL- 8CL 2006 black gaadi khari hai, jisme se badbu aa rahi hai. She filled the PCR from in this regard and proved copy of same as Ex.PW49/A.
74. PW 50 SI Rohit has deposed that on 28.06.10, he was posted at PS Ashok Vihar as SI. He along-with SI Kundan Lal went to PS Kotwali Garh Muketshwar, UP and from there, SI Kundan Lal got transferred one I-10 car of white colour bearing registration bearing no. DL8CS3600. Further deposed that this car was involved in the present case of PS Ashok Vihar. In pursuant to the orders of the Ld.CJM, SI Kundan Lal obtained the possession of the said I-10 car from the malkhana Incharge of PS Garh Muketshwar and seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW39/A. After seizure, the car was deposited in the malkhana of PS Ashok Vihar. The witness identified the car through photographs Ex.PW39/X.
75. PW51 Shri Pawan Singh, Nodal Officer, Idea Cellular Ltd., A-26/5, Mohan has deposed that certified CDR of mobile No.8057836769 from 20.06.2010 to 25.06.2010 and from 03.06.2010 to 04.06.2010 Ex.PW51/A and Ex.PW51/B respectively. He also brought and proved the CAF along with copy of ID proof of Dharmender Kumar in whose name the said mobile number was issued as Ex.PW51/C and copy of Voter ID card of Dharmender Kumar as Ex.PW51/D/ Certificate u/s.65B Digitally signed BABRU by BABRU BHAN BHAN Date:
2023.09.12 10:16:36 +0530 State Vs. Ankit Chaudhary & Ors.
FIR no.169/10 & 170/10 page no. 44 of 128 45 of the Indian Evidence Act regarding the said certified CDR as Ex.PW51/E.
76. PW 52 Ct. Sunil had joined the investigation on 28.06.10 when IO had prepared pointing out memo Ex.PW58/A , Ex.PW58B and Ex.PW58/C at instance of accused Ankit , Mandeep and Nakul Khari. His testimony regarding to recovery effected on 28.06.2010 at instance of accused Ankit , Mandeep and Nakul Khari is similar to testimony of PW59 Inspector Pratap Singh.
77. PW 53 Ms. Vandana, was posted as Metropolitan Magistrate in Rohini Courts on 26.06.2010. On that day, on an application moved by Inspector Pratap Singh for the recording of the statement of witness Rahul u/s.164 CrPC, she recorded statement Ex.PW53/A of Inspector Pratap Singh regarding identification of Rahul . She proved statement of witness Rahul as Ex.PW1/A and the certificate regarding correctness of statement as Ex.PW53/B. She further deposed that on 03.07.2010, an application for conducting TIP proceedings of the case property, moved by the IO in this case, was marked to her.
(i) On 05.07.2010, IO Inspector Pratap Singh along with witness Rahul and case property had appeared but the other property was not similar in appearance to the case property.
Therefore, the TIP proceedings were fixed for 06.07.2010 with the directions to IO Inspector Pratap Singh to bring similar property in appearance. Digitally signed BABRU by BABRU BHAN BHAN Date:
2023.09.12 10:16:41 +0530 State Vs. Ankit Chaudhary & Ors.
FIR no.169/10 & 170/10 page no. 45 of 128 46
(ii) On 06.07.2010, IO Inspector along with witness Rahul and the case property had appeared for TIP proceedings.
She had recorded the statement of IO regarding identification of witness as Ex.PW53/C. She proved the TIP proceedings with regard to recovery of one key with ring at the instance of accused Nakul Khari as Ex.PW11/B.
(iii) On 28.06.2010, an application for the recording of statement of Dimpy, moved by inspector Ajmer Singh before Ld. MM Shri Satish Kumar was marked to her. On the same day, after being identified by Inspector Ajmer Singh, she had recorded the statement of Dimpy Ex.PW10/A and the entire proceedings u/s. 164 CrPC, including the statutory certificate, running in four pages, as Ex.PW53/D. 78 PW54 Mr. B. Shankar Jaiswal. He had given the sanction U/s 39 of Arms Act for prosecution of accused persons for offence U/s 25/27 Arms Act . The sanction is Ex.PW54/A.
79. PW55 Brij Kumar Pandey who was working as pujari at Arya Samaj Mandir has proved marriage certificate Ex.PW1/R
80. PW56 Inspector Satya Prakash No.D-881, SHO, PS Sarai Rohilla, Delhi has deposed that on 20.06.2010, he was posted at PS Ashok Vihar as Sub Inspector. On that day, duty officer informed him regarding the contents of DD No.25A that a lady namely Monika w/o Kuldeep Malyan had been admitted in Digitally signed BABRU by BABRU BHAN BHAN 2023.09.12 Date:
10:16:47 +0530 State Vs. Ankit Chaudhary & Ors.
FIR no.169/10 & 170/10 page no. 46 of 128 47 Sunder Lal Jain hospital after sustaining injuries. After receiving this information, he along with driver and operator in a government gypsy reached the said hospital. There, ASI Bhagat Singh along with Ct. Sandeep met me and meanwhile, the then SHO, PS Ashok Vihar Inspector Pratap Singh also reached there. Monika was declared brought dead by the doctors. One Amit s/o Ajit Singh also met them in the hospital and he on being inquired by SHO/IO Inspector Pratap Singh told that deceased Monika was the wife of his younger brother Kuldeep who had performed a love marriage with Monika and he further informed that he was dialing the cell phone of Kuldeep but the same was not being picked. Meanwhile, ASI Bhagat Singh informed the IO regarding the contents of DD No.29A. Thereafter, he along with IO Amit and other staff reached at second floor of I-164, Phase-I, Ashok Vihar, after leaving Ct. Sandeep at the hospital. There, in a room on second floor of the said house, blood and two empty cartridge cases were lying. Crime team was requisitioned to reach at the spot by the IO. Amit received a telephonic call and informed the IO that his father and one Deepak had found the dead body of Kuldeep in his Esteem car in front of I-209, Phase-I, Ashok Vihar. Ct. Nihal was left at the spot and we again reached at S.L.Jain hospital and there, Kuldeep was also declared brought dead. IO received MLC of Kuldeep and thereafter, recorded statement/ complaint of Amit s/o Ajit and prepared a tehrir and handed over the same to Ct. Sandeep for getting the FIR registered. Thereafter, he along with IO, other staff and Amit and Ajit reached in front of I-209, Phase-I, Ashok Vihar. There, crime Digitally signed by BABRU BABRU Date:
BHAN BHAN 2023.09.12 State Vs. Ankit Chaudhary & Ors. 10:16:56 +0530 FIR no.169/10 & 170/10 page no. 47 of 128 48 team Incharge SI M.D. Meena along with other members of his team met us and one Esteem car bearing registration No. DL 2CR 0312 was found parked there. Photographer of crime team took photographs of said car from outside as well as inside. Two empty cartridge cases and one bullet led and currency notes worth Rs.1800/- were found inside the car. IO prepared site plan at the instance of Ajit Singh. After leaving ASI Bhagat Singh at the spot, we all along with crime team, Amit, Ajit and IO again reached at second Floor, I-164, Phase-I, Ashok Vihar. Crime team inspected of the said spot and took photographs from different angles. SI M.D. Meena prepared his report and handed over the same to IO. IO recorded statements of photographer Ct. Dalbir and SI Matadin Meena and also prepared site plan at the instance of Amit and thereafter, crime team was discharged. IO lifted blood with the help of gauze piece from the spot and also lifted blood stained floor material and earth control and the said three articles were kept in three separate plastic containers and were seized vide seizure memo already Ex.PW1/A, after preparing three separate pulandas and sealing the same with the seal of PSD. IO prepared sketch of two empty cartridge cases which were found in the said room, same is already Ex.PW1/B. The said two empty cartridge cases were seized vide seizure memo already Ex.PW1/C, after keeping them in two separate plastic containers and preparing pulandas and sealing the same with the seal of PSD. Mark H-1 and H-2 were given to said two pulandas. Three mobile phones make Samsung, Nokia and Indicom which were found at the spot were seized vide seizure memo already Digitally signed by BABRU BABRU Date:
BHAN
BHAN 2023.09.12
10:17:02
State Vs. Ankit Chaudhary & Ors. +0530
FIR no.169/10 & 170/10 page no. 48 of 128
49
Ex.PW1/E, after noting their details. One blood stained cloth which was found there at the spot was also seized vide seizure memo already Ex.PW1/D, after preparing a pulanda and sealing the same with the seal of PSD. Thereafter, we all again reached in front of I-209 where the said Esteem car was found parked. The foot mat of the rear seat, behind the driver seat, of said esteem car, having blood stains was seized vide seizure memo already Ex.PW1/F, after preparing a pulanda and sealing the same with the seal of PSD. The seat cover of driver seat of said car having blood stains was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/G, after preparing a pulanda and sealing the same with the seal of PSD. Rs.1800/- (two currency notes of Rs.500/- denomination and eight currency notes of Rs.100/- denomination) which were found on the rear seat of said car were also seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/H, after preparing a pulanda and sealing the same with the seal of PSD. IO prepared sketch of two empty cartridge cases and one bullet led, found inside the said car, Ex.PW1/J and mark C-1, C-2 and C-3 was given to said cartridge cases and bullet led which were kept in three separate plastic containers and were seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/K, after preparing pulandas and sealing the same with the seal of PSD. The said esteem car along with its key was also seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/L. One mobile phone make Nokia N-73 was produced by Ajit Singh which he had found in the said car belonging to his son deceased Kuldeep, while shifting the dead body of Kuldeep from the said car to the hospital. The said mobile was also seized, vide seizure memo Digitally signed by BABRU BABRU BHAN State Vs. Ankit Chaudhary & Ors. BHAN Date:
2023.09.12 FIR no.169/10 & 170/10 10:17:07 page no. 49 of 128 +0530 50 Ex.PW1/M, after preparing a pulanda and sealing the same with the seal of PSD. Seal after use was handed over to me. IO directed ASI Bhagat Singh to shift the said car to PS Ashok Vihar. Thereafter, He alongwith IO again reached S.L.Jain hospital. There, IO made inquiries from Puneet, Bobby, Suraj, Deepak, Anuj and Arun and recorded their statements. Thereafter, they came back to PS and case property was deposited in malkhana. Thereafter, hee alongwith IO reached at mortuary BJRM hospital and there, ASI Bhagat Singh and Ct. Sandeep met us. Doctors conducted postmortem on the body of Monika and Kuldeep and after the postmortem, dead bodies were handed over to Ajit Singh. After the postmortem, Ct. Sandeep produced one glass vial in sealed condition along with one sample seal of FMT BJRM Delhi stated to be containing metallic fragments of bullet found inside the body of Kuldeep. Same was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW32/A. Ct. Sandeep also produced one pulanda and one envelope, both sealed with the seal of FMT BJRM DELHI along with one sample seal stated to be containing clothes and blood sample of deceased Kuldeep. Same were also seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW32/B.
(i) Ct. Sandeep also produced one glass vial sealed with the seal of FMT BJRM DELHI along with one sample seal stated to be containing one bullet led found inside the body of deceased Monika, same was also seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW32/C. Ct. Sandeep also produced one pulanda and two envelopes, all sealed with the seal of FMT BJRM DELHI along with one sample seal stated to be containing clothes, scalp hair Digitally signed by BABRU BABRU Date:
BHAN State Vs. Ankit Chaudhary & Ors. BHAN 2023.09.12 10:17:13 FIR no.169/10 & 170/10 +0530 page no. 50 of 128 51 and blood sample of deceased Monika, same were also seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW32/D. Thereafter, they came back to PS and case property was deposited with MHC(M).
(ii) On 26.06.2010, he again joined the investigation of this case along with IO, SI Haroon Ahmad and other staff. On that day,they all in a govt. Vehicle, reached at Rohini Courts.
There, in the court of Shri Satish Kumar, Ld. MM, accused Ankit Chaudhary, Nakul Khari and Mandeep Nagar. IO moved an application and with the order of the court, all the said three accused were interrogated in isolation and they all confessed their guilt regarding their involvement in the present case. Thereafter, accused Ankit, Mandeep and Nakul were arrested vide arrest memos Ex.PW56/A, Ex.PW56/B and Ex.PW56/C, all signed by me at point A. On the request of IO, five days PC remand of said three accused was granted.
(iii) On 27.06.2010, He again joined the investigation of this case along with IO Inspector Pratap Singh. On that night, at about 3.30am, accused Ankit, Mandeep and Nakul were taken out from lockup and kept in the custody of other police staff and they were again interrogated. IO recorded their disclosure statements, same are Ex.PW56/D, Ex.PW56/E and Ex.PW56/F respectively.. In their disclosure statements, all the said three accused inter alia told that the clothes worn by them were the same, which they were wearing on the day of incident i.e 20.06.2010. Clothes for the accused persons were arranged from their houses and were given to them to wear and thereafter, t- shirt and jeans of Ankit were seized vide seizure memo Digitally signed by BABRU BABRU Date:
BHAN State Vs. Ankit Chaudhary & Ors. BHAN 2023.09.12 10:17:18 FIR no.169/10 & 170/10 +0530 page no. 51 of 128 52 Ex.PW56/G after preparing a pulanda and sealing the same with the seal of PSD. Thereafter, t-shirt and jeans of Mandeep Nagar were seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW56/H, signed by me at point A, after preparing a pulanda and sealing the same with the seal of PSD. Thereafter, t-shirt and lower of Nakul were seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW56/J, after preparing a pulanda and sealing the same with the seal of PSD. The said three pulandas were deposited in malkhana. Seal after use was handed over to him and accused were again kept in lockup.
(iv) Thereafter, accused were again taken out from the lockup and in a govt. vehicle and two private vehicles, accused were kept separately and thereafter, accused Ankit pointed out the place near Sindhi Dharamshala, in front of J-Block, Phase-I, Ashok Vihar, where Shobha was shot dead in a moving Santro Car bearing registration No. DL 8CL 2006, vide pointing out memo Ex.PW56/K1. Thereafter, accused Ankit led the police party to pavement near the park, behind NDPL office, H-Block, Phase-I, Ashok Vihar, where the said Santro Car along with dead body of Shobha was left by the accused persons, vide pointing out memo Ex.PW56/K2, signed by me at point A. Thereafter, accused Ankit chaudhary led the police party to the place in front of H.no. I-209, Phase-I, Ashok vihar and pointed out the place where he had killed Kuldeep in said Maruti Esteem car vide pointing out memo Ex.PW56/K3. Thereafter, accused Ankit led the police party to second floor, H.NO.I-164, Phase-I, Ashok Vihar, where Monika was killed, vide pointing out memo Ex.PW56/K4.
Digitally signed by BABRU BABRU Date:
BHAN BHAN 2023.09.12 10:17:24 State Vs. Ankit Chaudhary & Ors. +0530 FIR no.169/10 & 170/10 page no. 52 of 128 53
(v) Accused Mandeep also led the police party first to Sindhi Dharamshala in front of J-Block, Phase-I, Ashok Vihar, where Shobha was killed in Santro Car vide pointing out memo Ex.PW56/L1, signed by me at point A. Thereafter, he led the police party to a place in front of I-209, Phase-I, Ashok Vihar, where Kuldeep was killed and at that time, he was sitting in an I-
10 car bearing No. DL8CS 3600 which was parked at a distance of about 10 steps from Esteem car of Kuldeep, vide pointing out memo Ex.PW56/L2, signed by me at point A. Thereafter, Mandeep led the police party to H.NO.I-164, Phase-I, Ashok Vihar, and pointed out a place on the road by the side of a park which was in front of said house, where he kept sitting in the said I-10 car when Monika was killed by Ankit and Nakul, vide pointing out memo Ex.PW56/L3, signed by me at point A.
(vi) Accused Nakul pointed out the place near Sindhi Dharamshala, in front of J-Block, Phase-I, Ashok Vihar, where Shobha was shot dead in a moving Santro Car bearing registration No. DL 8CL 2006, vide pointing out memo Ex.PW56/M1. Thereafter, accused Nakul led the police party to pavement near the park, behind NDPL office, H-Block, Phase-I, Ashok Vihar, where the said Santro Car along with dead body of Shobha was left by the accused persons, vide pointing out memo Ex.PW56/M2. Thereafter, accused Nakul led the police party to the place in front of H.No.I-209, Phase-I, Ashok vihar and pointed out the place where Ankit had killed Kuldeep in said Maruti Esteem car vide pointing out memo Ex.PW56/M3. Thereafter, accused Nakul led the police party to second floor, Digitally signed by BABRU BABRU Date:
BHAN State Vs. Ankit Chaudhary & Ors. BHAN 2023.09.12 10:17:29 +0530 FIR no.169/10 & 170/10 page no. 53 of 128 54 H.No.I-164, Phase-I, Ashok Vihar, where Monika was killed, vide pointing out memo Ex.PW56/M4. Thereafter, accused Nakul led to the police party and pointed out a place at footpath near red light which was adjacent to the wall of IA Block in front of Major Dhyan Chand Stadium where on 20.06.2010, he had thrown the key of Santro car No. DL8CL 2006 while eloping after the murder of Shobha, Kuldeep and Monika. On being searched, one key along with key ring having bottle opener in the shape of Donald Duck was recovered from the dust which was there. The said key along with key ring was seized vide pointing out cum seizure memo Ex.PW56/M5, after preparing a pulanda and sealing the same with the seal of PSD.
(vii) Thereafter, accused Ankit led the police party to his house ie WP-233, Wazirpur Village and produced one bill of mobile phone Nokia N97, which was kept by him beneath a mattress which was there on a single bed in a room which was on the front side of the first floor of his house. The said bill bearing no.134, dated 11.04.2010 was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW56/N and the said bill is Ex.PW5/A. Thereafter, accused Ankit led the police party to Car Timer, Shop No.2, A-Block Market, Phase-I, Ashok Vihar and there, owner of shop namely Gurvinder Singh Arora met them. He identified accused Ankit who was in custody and stated that Ankit was a regular visitor at his shop and on 20.06.2010, at about 6.50pm, he got fixed one shutter in one Esteem car and paid Rs.150/- for the same and at that time, Ankit was sitting on the rear seat of said car.
Thereafter, they all along with all three accused in custody and Digitally signed by BABRU BABRU Date:
BHAN State Vs. Ankit Chaudhary & Ors. BHAN 2023.09.12 10:17:35 +0530 FIR no.169/10 & 170/10 page no. 54 of 128 55 Gurvinder Singh Arora, reached PS Ashok Vihar and there, Gurvinder Singh Arora identified the said Esteem Car No. DL 2CR 0312. Case property was deposited in malkhana. Accused were got medically examined at BJRM hospital and IO recorded his statement.
(viii) On 28.06.2010, he again joined the investigation of this case with IO/Inspector Pratap Singh, SI Haroon Ahmad, HC Mohan, Ct.Sunil and other staff and they all along with accused Ankit Chaudhary, Nakul and Mandeep left from PS Ashok Vihar, Delhi and accused led them to Rishikesh-
Badrinath Road. From there, accused Ankit led them IO, SI Haroon Ahmad, HC Mohan and Ct. Sunil to the way leading towards Alpine Camp, Shivpuri. Accused Ankit Chaudhary after moving about half kilometer pointed out a place where he had thrown the pistol along with remaining live cartridges on 22.06.2010, after committing the murder of Shobha, Kuldeep and Monika on 20.06.2010, along with his associates Nakul, Mandeep and Sintu. Thereafter, accused Mandeep and Nakul also pointed out the said place one by one who had reached there in the custody of other police staff accompanying us. IO prepared pointing out memos in this regard. Pointing out memos of accused Ankit, Mandeep and Nakul are Ex.PW52/A, Ex.PW52/B and Ex.PW52/C respectively. Thereafter, he along with IO, other staff and accused persons tracked about 150 mts. down the hill via Alpine Camp where Alpine Camp was situated and there, one Dixit Chauhan, Manager of said camp met them and he also joined us in the search of said pistol and thereafter, they moved Digitally signed by BABRU BABRU Date:
BHAN State Vs. Ankit Chaudhary & Ors. BHAN 2023.09.12 10:17:40 FIR no.169/10 & 170/10 +0530 page no. 55 of 128 56 about half km towards Palthari in search of said pistol and cartridges. During the search, Ct. Sunil found one pistol without magazine lying in the stones of hill and he told this fact to the IO and accused persons also identified the same which was used in the commission of this offence. Despite severe search, the magazine and the cartridges could not be recovered. IO prepared sketch of pistol already Ex.PW52/D, after measuring the same. Thereafter, the said pistol was seized, after preparing a pulanda of white cloth and sealing the same with the seal of PSD, vide seizure memo already Ex.PW52/E. Seal after use was handed over to him. Said Dixit Chauhan refused to become a witness.
(ix) On 28.06.2010 itself, accused Ankit had made a supplementary disclosure statement Ex.PW56/P and pursuant to his disclosure statement, we all reached Mussorie and there, all the three accused pointed out Hotel Sunrise at Library Road, where they had stayed along with accused Rakesh @ Sintu. The guest entry register of said hotel was checked and one entry in the name of Rakesh s/o Sheoraj Singh r/o 223, Wazirpur Village, Delhi, dated 22.06.2010 and vehicle No. DL8CS 3600 was found there at serial no. 6706 in the said register. Owner of said hotel, namely Tarun Pathak handed over the photocopy of said relevant entry of said register (2PP), already Ex.PW2/B and same were seized vide seizure memo already Ex.PW2/A. IO recorded his statement on the same day at Mussorie.
(x) On 01.07.2010, He again joined the investigation of this case and he alongwith IO and other staff and all the three accused reached Rohini Courts in a govt. gypsy and TATA 407 Digitally signed BABRU by BABRU BHAN BHAN 2023.09.12 Date:
State Vs. Ankit Chaudhary & Ors. 10:17:46 +0530 FIR no.169/10 & 170/10 page no. 56 of 128 57 and accused were remanded to JC till 14.07.2010 and pursuant to the production warrants issued by the Court, accused Rakesh @ Sintu was produced by UP police. He was interrogated with the permission of the court and his disclosure statement Ex.PW56/Q was recorded. Thereafter, accused Rakesh @ Sintu was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW56/R. IO obtained one day PC remand of accused Sintu, thereafter they came back to PS and his statement was recorded by the IO.
(xi) On 07.07.2010, he again joined gthe investigation of this case along with IO and on that day, ballistic expert Shri K.C. Varshney, FSL, Rohini alongwith his team arrived at PS Ashok Vihar and thereafter, He alongwith IO and the team of FSL expert reached at H.No. I-164, Second Floor, Phase -I, Ashok Vihar and FSL team inspected the said room. The photographer of crime team Ct. Dalbir was also there. One bullet led was detected by FSL team in the sliding shutter of the right side of the lower portion of a wooden almirah which was there in the said room.
Photographer took photographs of said sliding shutter and after removing the beading, the said sliding shutter along with engraved bullet was removed and was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW56/S, after preparing a pulanda and sealing the same with the seal of PSD. From there, they all along with FSL team reached PS Ashok Vihar and there, on being produced by HC Banar Singh, MHC(M), the FSL team inspected the Esteem Car DL 2CR 0312 and during the inspection, one empty cartridge case was recovered from beneath the driver seat on the bottom of which KF 7.65 was found engraved. IO prepared sketch of the Digitally signed BABRU by BABRU BHAN BHAN 2023.09.12 Date:
State Vs. Ankit Chaudhary & Ors. 10:17:51 +0530 FIR no.169/10 & 170/10 page no. 57 of 128 58 same, already Ex.PW7/Z-8 and the same was seized vide seizure memo ExPW7/Z-9, after keeping the same in a plastic container and preparing a pulanda and sealing the same with the seal of PSD. IO got the shutter which was affixed in the car and one pair of slippers, photographed. The front wind shield of said car was also got photographed. The said shutter and the pair of slippers having black and white strips were also seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW7/Z-10. The key of the car was handed over to HC Banar Singh.
(xii) On 29.07.2010, he again joined the investigation of this case along with IO and staff and at 4.05am, we left the PS in a private car to Hapur, Ghaziabad. On reaching PS Simbhavali, Ct. Onkar of said PS also joined the investigation and they reached Naurangabad, UP. One person who was standing outside his house in Village Naurangabad was apprehended as per the instructions of IO whose name on interrogation revealed to be Ajay. IO recorded his disclosure statement Ex.PW56/T and thereafter, he was arrested and his personal search was conducted vide memos Ex.PW56/U and Ex.PW56/U1 respectively.
Thereafter, we came back to Delhi. Accused Ajay was produced before the court and his one day PC was obtained and thereafter, he was kept in the lockup and on sustain interrogation, he disclosed that he can get recovered mobile No.8057836769 along with SIM and can also point out the house and the person at Radhna Village from where and from whom, he had purchased pistol and 14 cartridges, which were used in the commission of offence. Digitally signed by BABRU BABRU BHAN Date:
BHAN 2023.09.12 10:17:56 +0530 State Vs. Ankit Chaudhary & Ors.
FIR no.169/10 & 170/10 page no. 58 of 128 59
(xiii) Pursuant to his disclosure statement already Ex. PW 56/T, accused Ajay led the Police Party consisting of he witness and IO/Insp. Pratap Singh and other staff to his village Naurangabad, PS Simbhabli, Tehsil Hapur, Distt. Ghaziabad, UP, for the recovery of mobile phone containing SIM bearing no.
8057836769 but the same could not be recovered as accused Ajay further disclosed that he had thrown the said phone and SIM after breaking the same on 24.06.2010 at Ghaziabad while traveling in a bus. IO recorded his supplementary disclosure statement and the same is Ex. PW 56/T-1, signed by me at point 'A'. From village Naurangabad, accused Ajay led the Police Party to village Radhna, Distt. Ghaziabad and pointed out the house of one Khilafat. Khilafat was found present there and accused told that he had obtained the weapon i.e. pistol and cartridges from said Khilafat. Two independent public persons Abdul Jabbar Hussain and Virender Bhati also reached there and in their presence the house of Khilafat was searched and nothing was recovered from his house. Fard-khanatalasi was prepared in this regard by the IO and the same is Ex. PW 56/U.
81. PW57 ASI Jugal Kishore from PS Garh Mukteshwar, Distt. Harpur, UP brought register no.5 i.e. Mal Register. He deposed that as per record, on 24.06.2010, one car make "i-10" bearing registration no. DL8CS3600 was deposited in the malkhana of PS Garh Mukteshwar by the then SHO L.S.Maurya, PS Garh Mukteshwar vide entry no.94 Ex.PW57/A in the said mal register. Pursuant to the order dt.28.06.2010 Digitally signed by BABRU BABRU Date:
BHAN State Vs. Ankit Chaudhary & Ors.
BHAN 2023.09.12 10:18:01 +0530 FIR no.169/10 & 170/10 page no. 59 of 128 60 Ex.PW57/B passed by Judicial Magistrate Garh Muketshwarh, the said car was handed over to SI Kundan Lal of PS Ashok Vihar on 28.06.10 itself vide handing over memo Ex.PW57/C.
82. PW 58 ASI Bhim Singh was posted at PS Badalpur, District Gautambudh Nagar, UP. He deposed that accused Shintu @ Ravi Kant @ Ravi Nagar r/o village Dujana, PS Badalpur, Distt. Gautambudh Nagar, UP was a bad character of PS Badalpur bearing history sheet no.90A. He proved previous involvements of accused as Ex.PW58/A and information sheet as Ex.PW58/B.
83. PW-59 Retired ACP Shri Pratap Singh deposed that on 20.06.2010, he was posted as SHO PS Ashok Vihar, Delhi. On that day, an information was received vide DD No.25A regarding admission of Monika w/o Kuldeep Malyan at Sunder Lal Jain Hospital. Same was marked to SI Bhagat Singh who went to S.L. Jain hospital along with Ct.Sandeep. The said information was also given to SI Satya Parkash telephonically and he also went to S.L. Jain hospital along with other staff. He also left the PS to verify said information vide DD No.26A and reached S.L. Jain hospital. There, SI Satya Parkash, ASI Bhagat Singh, HC Rakesh Mann, Ct. Jagdish and Ct. Sandeep met him. He obtained MLC of Monika w/o Kuldeep Malyan who had already been declared brought dead. Brother in law (jeth) of Monika namely Amit s/o Ajit Singh met in the hospital. He made inquiries from him. Meanwhile, Ct. Nihal arrived at the hospital Digitally signed by BABRU BABRU Date:
BHAN State Vs. Ankit Chaudhary & Ors. BHAN 2023.09.12 10:18:07 FIR no.169/10 & 170/10 +0530 page no. 60 of 128 61 and handed over DD No.29A to me which was regarding missing of Kuldeep husband of Monika along with his car No. DL2CR 0312. After leaving Ct. Sandeep in the hospital, He alongwithstaff and Amit reached at the spot ie I-164, Second Floor, Phase-I, Ashok Vihar. Blood was found lying there on the floor of room. He requisitioned crime team at the spot. No eye witness was found there. Meanwhile, Amit informed him that the dead body of his brother Kuldeep has been found in his said car No. DL2CR 0312 and his father is shifting him to S.L. Jain hospital. After leaving Ct. Nihal at the spot ie I-164, Second Floor, Phase-I, Ashok Vihar, He alongwithstaff and Amit again reached at S.L. Jain hospital and obtained MLC of Kuldeep and he was also declared brought dead by the doctor. He recorded statement / complaint of Amit already Ex.PW1/M and prepared a tehrir Ex.PW59/A, and handed over the same to Ct. Sandeep who left the hospital to reach PS for getting the case registered and he alongwith staff, Amit and his father Ajit left the spot and reached in front of H.No.I-209, Phase-I, Ashok Vihar where the said Esteem Car bearing No. DL2CR 0312 was found parked on the road. On my request, crime team first reached in front of H.No.I- 209 and inspected the said Esteem car and took its photographs.
He prepared site plan of this place at the instance of Ajit Singh, same is now Ex.PW59/B,. I left ASI Bhagat Singh near the Esteem car to preserve it and He alongwithstaff, Amit and Ajit and crime team officials reached at I-164, Second Floor, Phase-I, Ashok Vihar. He got this spot inspected and photographed Digitally signed by BABRU BABRU Date:
BHAN BHAN 2023.09.12 10:18:12 +0530 State Vs. Ankit Chaudhary & Ors.
FIR no.169/10 & 170/10 page no. 61 of 128 62 through crime team and he prepared site plan of this place at the instance of Amit, same is now Ex.PW59/C,.
(i) Thereafter, I/C Crime team handed over his inspection reports to him. Thereafter, He recorded his statement as well as the statement of photographer of crime team and thereafter, they were discharged. SI Satya Parkash was also with me. He lifted blood with the help of cotton wool and after properly drying the same, it was kept in a vial. He also lifted blood stained floor material after breaking the same and earth control from the said room of second floor I-164, Phase-I, Ashok Vihar and same was kept in two separate plastic vials and the same were seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/A, after preparing three separate pulandas and sealing the same with the seal of PSD. Two empty cartridge cases of 7.65 KF were also found lying there. He prepared sketch of said two cartridge cases, already Ex.PW1/B,, and thereafter, same were seized vide seizure memo already Ex.PW1/C,, after preparing two separate pulandas and sealing the same with the seal of PSD. Serial no.H1 and H2 were given to these two pulandas. One golden and white color cloth soaked with blood was also found there in the said room and the same was also seized vide seizure memo already Ex.PW1/D, after preparing a pulanda and sealing the same with the seal of PSD. Three mobile phones, one make Samsung of black color, one Nokia 1100 of gray color and one Indicom of Silver color were also found in the said room and same were also seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/E,. Thereafter, they all again reached in front of I-209, where the said Esteem car bearing No. Digitally signed by BABRU BABRU BHAN State Vs. Ankit Chaudhary & Ors. BHAN Date:
2023.09.12 FIR no.169/10 & 170/10 10:18:18 page no. 62 of 128 +0530 63 DL2CR 0312 was found parked. The foot mat of the rear seat, behind the driver seat, of said esteem car, having blood stains was seized vide seizure memo already Ex.PW1/F,, after preparing a pulanda and sealing the same with the seal of PSD. The seat cover of driver seat of said car having blood stains was seized vide seizure memo already Ex.PW1/G,, after preparing a pulanda and sealing the same with the seal of PSD. Rs.1800/- (two currency notes of Rs.500/- denomination and eight currency notes of Rs.100/- denomination) which were found on the rear seat of said car were also seized by me vide seizure memo already Ex.PW1/H,, after preparing a pulanda and sealing the same with the seal of PSD. He had prepared sketch of two empty cartridge cases and one bullet led, found inside the said car, Ex.PW1/J, and mark C-1, C-2 and C-3 was given to said cartridge cases and bullet led which were kept in three separate plastic containers and were seized by me vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/K,, after preparing three separate pulandas and sealing the same with the seal of PSD. The said esteem car along with its key was also seized by me vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/L,. One mobile phone make Nokia N-73 was produced by Ajit Singh which he had found in the said car belonging to his son deceased Kuldeep, while shifting the dead body of Kuldeep from the said car to the hospital. The said mobile was also seized by me, vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/M,, after preparing a pulanda and sealing the same with the seal of PSD. Seal after use was handed over to SI Satya Parkash. He directed ASI Bhagat Singh to shift the said car to PS Ashok Vihar. He recorded statements of Amit and Ajit Digitally signed by BABRU BABRU BHAN Date:
State Vs. Ankit Chaudhary & Ors. BHAN 2023.09.12 10:18:24 +0530 FIR no.169/10 & 170/10 page no. 63 of 128 64 Singh. Thereafter, He alongwithSI Satya Parkash and other staff again reached at S.L.Jain hospital. There, he made inquiries from Puneet, Bobby, Suraj, Deepak, Anuj and Arun and recorded their statements at the hospital. Thereafter, they came back to PS and case property was deposited in malkhana. There, at the PS, he came to know that a call was received at the PS regarding the theft of one i10 car bearing registration No. DL8CL 2006 which was attended by HC Vinod and after meeting the caller Rahul, he came to know from Rahul that said Rahul had made a fake call after coming to know regarding the murder of Kuldeep and Monika, actually, he had given the said car to accused Ankit Chaudhary on the asking of Ankit Chaudhary. He recorded statement of Rahul.
(ii) Thereafter, at about 11.00am on 21.06.2010, He alongwith SI Satya Parkash reached at mortuary BJRM hospital and there, ASI Bhagat Singh and Ct. Sandeep met them. He conducted inquest proceedings. His request for the postmortem of body of Kuldeep is Ex.PW59/D,, form no.25.35(1)(B) regarding Kuldeep is Ex.PW59/E. He recorded statements of Ajit Singh and Amit regarding identification of the dead body of Kuldeep and same are Ex.PW59/F and Ex.PW59/F1. His request for the postmortem of body of Monika is Ex.PW59/G,, form no.25.35(1)(B) regarding Monika is Ex.PW59/H,. He recorded statements of Ajit Singh and Amit regarding identification of the dead body of Monika and same are now Ex.PW59/J and already Ex.PW1/P, both. Doctors conducted postmortem on the body of Monika and Kuldeep and after the Digitally signed by BABRU BABRU Date:
BHAN BHAN 2023.09.12 State Vs. Ankit Chaudhary & Ors. 10:18:30 +0530 FIR no.169/10 & 170/10 page no. 64 of 128 65 postmortem, dead bodies were handed over to Ajit Singh. After the postmortem, Ct. Sandeep produced one glass vial in sealed condition along with one sample seal of FMT BJRM Delhi stated to be containing metallic fragments of bullet found inside the body of Kuldeep. Same was seized by him vide seizure memo already Ex.PW32/A,. Ct. Sandeep also produced one pulanda and one envelope, both sealed with the seal of FMT BJRM DELHI along with one sample seal stated to be containing clothes and blood sample of deceased Kuldeep. Same were also seized vide seizure memo already Ex.PW32/B,.
(iii) Ct. Sandeep also produced one glass vial sealed with the seal of FMT BJRM DELHI along with one sample seal stated to be containing one bullet led found inside the body of deceased Monika, same was also seized vide seizure memo already Ex.PW32/C,. Ct. Sandeep also produced one pulanda and two envelopes, all sealed with the seal of FMT BJRM DELHI along with one sample seal stated to be containing clothes, scalp hair and blood sample of deceased Monika, same were also seized by me vide seizure memo already Ex.PW32/D,. Thereafter, they came back to PS and case property was deposited with MHC(M).
(iv) On 24.06.2010, he received written information from PS Garh Mukteshwar along with DD No. 38 dated 24.06.2010, of PS Garh Mukteshwar already Ex.PW42/A and Ex.PW42/B respectively, informing that accused Ankit Chaudhary, Mandeep Nagar and Nakul Khari were arrested there along with an I-10 car bearing registration No. DL8CS 3600 of white color. On his request, Ld. MM of the court of PS Ashok Vihar, issued Digitally signed by BABRU BABRU BHAN Date:
State Vs. Ankit Chaudhary & Ors.
BHAN 2023.09.12
10:18:35
+0530
FIR no.169/10 & 170/10 page no. 65 of 128
66
production warrants against the said three accused for 26.06.2010. On 26.06.2010, He alongwith SI Satya Parkash, SI Haroon Ahmad and other staff in a govt. Vehicle, reached at Rohini Courts. There, in the court of Shri Satish Kumar, Ld. MM, accused Ankit Chaudhary, Nakul Khari and Mandeep Nagar were produced from Dasna Jail, Ghaziabad. He moved an application and with the order of the court, all the said three accused were interrogated in isolation and they all confessed their guilt regarding their involvement in the present case.
Thereafter, accused Ankit, Mandeep and Nakul were arrested vide arrest memos Ex.PW56/A, Ex.PW56/B and Ex.PW56/C, all. On his request, five days PC remand of said three accused was granted by the court. Thereafter, they all along with said three accused in custody, came back to PS and He recorded statements of accompanying staff. On 26.06.2010 itself, he also got recorded the statement of Rahul u/s.164 Cr.PC. his application in this regard is Ex.PW59/K. He obtained copy of his statement and same was made part of record. his application in this regard is Ex.PW59/K1,.
(v) On 05.07.2010, he got the judicial TIP of the key of Santro car bearing No. DL8CL 2006, conducted through Rahul Malyan and he obtained the copy of TIP proceedings and same was made part of record.
(vi) On 04.08.2010, He alongwith draftsman SI Manohar Lal and other staff visited I-209, Ashok Vihar, Phase-I and second floor of I-164 and on his instance, SI Manohar Lal took measurements and prepared rough notes of both the said places Digitally signed by BABRU BABRU Date:
BHAN State Vs. Ankit Chaudhary & Ors.
BHAN 2023.09.12 10:18:41 +0530 FIR no.169/10 & 170/10 page no. 66 of 128 67 and prepared scaled site plans on 05.08.2010 and handed over the same to me. He had also collected PCR form.
(vii) On 14.09.2010, complainant Amit produced original marriage card of his brother Kuldeep with Monika, already Ex.PW1/R and same was seized by me vide seizure memo already Ex.PW1/Q. Remaining testimony of this witness is sync with Inspector Satya Prakash/PW56.
84. PW60 Inspector Ajmer Singh deposed that on 22.06.10, he was posted at PS Ashok Vihar as Inspector (ATO). On 22.06.2010 was posted PS Ashok Vihar as Inspector (ATO) O that day, on receiving information about DD No. 9 A, which had already been marked ASI Bhagat Singh, he reached at the spot ie. NDPL office. Near park, H-Block Phe-L. Ashok Vihar. There ASI Bhagat Singh and C. Kapil met him. He found one black colour Santro car bearing registration to DL-SCL-2006 parked, by the side of the wall of the park from which foul is smell was imminating. He called the crime team at the spot. Crime team inspected the said car outside and took photographs. Fingerprint expert also lifted chance prints from the outer surface of the car. On opening the said car, dead body of girl was found on the front left side seat of the said car and the dead body was identified by one Sandeep S/o Sh. Jai Singh, being that of her sister Shobha. He inspected the dead body and observed one bullet injury mark on the head of the dead body, from which blood had oozed. No eye witness was found at the spot as suchhe prepared tehrir on Digitally signed by BABRU BABRU Date:
BHAN BHAN 2023.09.12 10:18:46 State Vs. Ankit Chaudhary & Ors. +0530 FIR no.169/10 & 170/10 page no. 67 of 128 68 DD No. 9 A Ex. PW-36/A. The tehrir isEx. PW-60/A. He handed over the tehrir to Ct. Kapil. He went to the PS and after getting the FIR registered, came back at the spot and handed over copy of FIR and original tehrir to him. Incharge Crime team Devender Singh handed over his report Ex. PW-17/A to me. I got the dead body shifted to mortuary of BIRM Hospital in a ambulance which was requisitioned from Sundar Lal Jain Hospital through HC Vinod for persevering the same. Carbon copy of his letter in this regard is Ex. PW-60/B. pullanda and sealing the same with the seal of 'AS. Blood stained seat cover of dark grey colour of left seat of the said car was cut and its piece was vide vide seizure memo Ex. PW-46/B. After preparing a pullanda and the same with the seal of AS. One empty cartridge case which was found on the dash board of the said car. He prepared the sketch of the said empty cartridge. already Ex. PW- 46/C . Thereafter, the said empty cartridge case on the bottom of which KF 7.65 was found engraved, was seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW-46/D after preparing a pullanda and sealing the same with the seal of 'AS. One packet of cigarette make Classic having two cigarettes, one empty quarter bottle of Royal Stag Whisky, one empty water bottle make Kinley were also found in the said car, same were kept in a polythene and a pullanda was prepared with the help of white cloth and was sealed with the seal of AS and was seized vide seizure memo already Ex. PW- 46/E. The said Santro car was also seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW-46/F '. Thereafter, he prepared rough site plan vide memo Ex. PW-60/C. He left Ct. Kapil at the spot and he alongwith HC Digitally signed by BABRU BABRU BHAN State Vs. Ankit Chaudhary & Ors. BHAN Date:
2023.09.12 10:18:52 FIR no.169/10 & 170/10 +0530 page no. 68 of 128 69 Jetharam and ASI Bhagat Singh reached village Wazirpur and there he came to know that the said black Santro car was belonging to one boy namely Rahul. They reached at the residence of Rahul situated at village Wazirpur but he did not meet them. While returning from the house of Rahul to the spot, on the way one person namely Gopal Khari met them and he informed them that on 20.06.2010, in the evening hours, he had seen accused Ankit and Nakul sitting in the said black Santro car bearing registration no. DL-8CL-2006 and Mandeep was about to sit in the said car alongwith his sister Shobha and on being asked by Gopal Khari, accused Mandeep told him that they are going to meet Khushboo with Shobha. He recorded his statement. From there they reached at the spot and from there we all alongwith case property reached at PS Ashok Vihar. He deposited the case property in the malkhana and recorded the statement of witnesses.
(ii) On 23.06.2010, he alongwith HC Vinod Kumar reached at the mortu of BJRM Hospital. He conducted the inquest proceedings and got the dead body of Shobha identified through Sandeep and Jai Singh, brother and father of the deceased Shobha respectively and recorded their statements in this regard Ex. PW20/A and Ex. PW-29/B. His request for postmortem is Ex. PW-60/C. Form No. 25.35 (1) (B) is Ex. PW- 60/D.
(iii) On 02.07.2010, Inspector Pratap Singh gave him the copy of disclosure statement of accused Rakesh Nagar @ Sintu.
He interrogated accused Rakesh Nagar who was already in Digitally signed by BABRU State Vs. Ankit Chaudhary & Ors. BABRU BHAN FIR no.169/10 & 170/10 BHAN Date:
2023.09.12 page no. 69 of 128 10:18:57 +0530 70 custody of Inspector Pratap Singh in case FIR no. 169/10, PS Ashok Vihar and recorded his disclosure statement Ex. PW30/T and formally arrested vide arrest memo already Ex.PW30/S. He recorded statements of SI Pramod Kumar and HC Vinod Kumar who were with him at that time. Thereafter, accused Rakesh Nagar @ Sintu was produced before the court and was remanded to J/C.
(iv) On 07.07.2010, he got the Santro car bearing registration no. DL-8C-L 2006 from the team of FSL at PS Ashok Vihar. One empty cartridge case was recovered from the said car which was handed over to me by FSL expert Sh. K.C. Varshney.
He prepared the sketch of the said empty cartridge already Ex. PW7/A and thereafter the same was seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW7/B after preparing a pullanda and sealing the same with the seal of AS. The gear liver cover on which there was a bullet mark was also handed over to him by FSL expert after taking out from the said car, same was also seized by him vide seizure memo already Ex.PW7/C after preparing a pullanda and sealing the same with the seal of AS. He recorded statements of PW's and deposited the case property in maalkhana.
(v) On 14.07.2010, he sent finger prints of all the four accused to Finger Print Bureau, Malviya Nagar for matching the same with the chance prints which were lifted from the said Santro car. On the same day, He was relieved from PS Ashok Vihar due to his transfer, as such, he handed over the case file to MHCR. Digitally signed by BABRU BABRU BHAN BHAN Date:
2023.09.12 10:19:03 +0530 State Vs. Ankit Chaudhary & Ors.
FIR no.169/10 & 170/10 page no. 70 of 128 71
85. PW61 Shri A.K. Srivastava, Retired Deputy Director, FSL, Rohini, Delhi has deposed that on 15.07.2010, five parcels in connection with FIR No. 169/10 u/s. 302/120B/34 IPC and 25/27/54/59 Arms Act, PS Ashok Vihar were received in office of Director, FSL, Rohini for DNA Analysis. All the parcels were opened and the exhibits as mentioned in his report dated 21.10.2010 were taken out from the said five parcels and were marked as Ex.1a, 1b, 2a, 2b,3a,3b,4 and 5. On biological examination, blood was detected on Ex.1a,1b,3a,4 and 5. DNA from the exhibits 1b,3a,4 and 5 were isolated and DNA finger printing profile were prepared and it was concluded that source of stains of blood present on Ex.1b,(jeans pants of Ankit Chaudhary) and Ex.3a (T-shirt of Nakul Khari) was from the source of Ex.5 (blood sample of deceased Monika). He proved his detailed report in this regard is Ex.PW61/A, the allelic data in tabular form of the said analysis as Ex.PW61/B.
86. PW-62 Smt. Shashi Bala, SSO (Biology), FSL, Rohini, Delhi has deposed that on 15.07.2010, eight parcels in sealed condition, seals tallying with the sample seals sent along with forwarding letter, were received in the office of FSL, Rohini, Delhi. The same were assigned to her for examination.
She had opened the said 8 parcels and the exhibits taken from the said parcels, were examined by her. She proved her biological examination report of said exhibits as Ex.PW62/A. She also examined the exhibits on which blood was detected serologically Digitally signed BABRU by BABRU BHAN BHAN Date:
2023.09.12 10:19:08 +0530 State Vs. Ankit Chaudhary & Ors.
FIR no.169/10 & 170/10 page no. 71 of 128 72 and has proved her detailed serological report in this regard as Ex.PW62/B.
87. PW 62/63: Sh.V.Lakshmi Narsimhan, Assistant Director (Physics), Forensic Science Laboratory, Rohini, Delhi has deposed that on 14.09.2010, two parcels sealed with the seal of 'FSL SB DELHI' were received in Physics Division from the Biology Division of FSL Rohini. On opening parcel 3B was found containing it was found containing Ex. 3B i.e. whitish colour stone pieces having brown colour stains and parcel 3C was found containing Ex. 3C i.e. whitish colour stone pieces.
She examined and compared the said stone pieces and they were found similar with respect to colour, texture, appearance under microscope, appearance under UV light and relative density. She has proved his report in this regard as Ex. PW 62/A.
88. PW 64 Gopal Khari ( in case FIR no.170/10 only) turned hostile and has stated that he did not know anything about the case.
89. PW 64 Smt.Khushboo Thakur deposed that she had three sisters and two brothers namely Rajni Nagar, Komal Nagar and Shobha Nagar (deceased), Mandeep Nagar and Sandeep Nagar. The behaviour of her brother Mandeep was not good. She left her house on 26.05.2010 and married with Ravi Thakur on 27.05.2010 in Arya Samaj Mandir. She knew Monika and Kuldeep as they were her cousins in relations. PW 64 Smt. BABRU Digitally signed by BABRU BHAN BHAN 10:19:14 +0530 Date: 2023.09.12 State Vs. Ankit Chaudhary & Ors.
FIR no.169/10 & 170/10 page no. 72 of 128 73 Khushboo Thakur further deposed that on the night of 24.05.2010, Shobha stayed in the house of her elder sister Kajal. PW further deposed that on 24.05.2010, Shobha went to beauty parlour and she did not return. On the same day, she had taken Mandeep to the beauty parlour. She further deposed that she was afraid when she saw the news on the TV that her sister has been murdered. PW 64 Smt.Khushboo Thakur admitted her signatures on the complaints Ex.PW25/B and Ex.PW25/C, addressed to DCP.
90. PW65 Bhagat Singh (PW67 in FIR no.169/10 only in FIR no.170/10)| has deposed in sync with Inspector Ajmer Singh.
91. PW 65 Ravi Thakur (only in case FIR no.169/10) has deposed that he had solemnized marriage with Khushboo Nagar on 27.05.2010 in Arya Samaj Mandir, Delhi. Parents or any other relative of Khushboo had not attended their marriage because they were not agreed for the marriage. He further deposed that he had told to the police that he had received threatening calls that he would be killed, from phone number 9899274033 and 9350057764 on his mobile phone number 8800669667 and 9971553371. He further deposed that he and his wife Khusboo were having danger to their lives and he had also told to the police that they could also be murdered.
92. PW68 Prashant Kumar Nodal Officer( PW 66 in BABRU Digitally signed by BABRU BHAN State Vs. Ankit Chaudhary & Ors.
BHAN 10:19:19 +0530 Date: 2023.09.12 FIR no.169/10 & 170/10 page no. 73 of 128 74 case FIR NO.170/10), proved the status of no. 7838022542, allotted to Parveen as Ex.PW68/B, that it was deactivated . He deposed that CAF of the said number was destroyed vide circular Ex.PW68/C and the letter of department Ex.PW68/D.
93. PW66 R Suresh (case FIR NO.169/10), Assistant Director (Ballistics) has deposed that on 15.07.2010, he was posted at FSL Rohini. On that day, ten sealed parcels were received in his office for examination. The seals were intact and same were tallied with the specimen as per forwarding letter and thereafter, he had examined the exhibits of said parcel. After examination, he prepared detailed report Ex.PW66/A .
94. PW69 Inspector Haroon Ahmad in case FIR NO.169/10 and 67 in FIR no.170/10 had participated in the investigation of both case FIRs with Inspector Ajmer Singh /PW60, PW Inspector Satya Prakash/PW56 and Inspector Pratap Singh/PW 59. He has deposed the same factual details of the investigation as deposed by aforesaid witnesses. Therefore, his testimony is not to be reproduced herein.
95. PW70 Ajeet Singh, Nodal Officer in case FIR no.169/10 and PW68 in case FIR no.170/10 proved the record of phone number 9718974942 issued in the name of Akhilesh Sharma. He proved the CDR of the said number Ex.PW70/A, the certificate as Ex.PW70/B and the information to the SHO regarding damage to the CAF form due to fire in their warehouse BABRU Digitally signed by BABRU BHAN BHAN 10:19:25 +0530 Date: 2023.09.12 State Vs. Ankit Chaudhary & Ors.
FIR no.169/10 & 170/10 page no. 74 of 128 75 as Ex.PW70/C and the list of documents destroyed in said fire as Ex.PW70/D.
96. The prosecution evidence was followed by statement of accused persons U/s 313 Cr.P.C. During this statement all the incriminating evidence and circumstances were put to the accused persons wherein they denied the case of the prosecution. They pleaded the defence that the recoveries were planted upon them, documents were fabricated in the Police Station and the witnesses were interested. They opted to lead defence evidence.
97. DW1 Kanchan Singh deposed that he was the uncle/maama of accused Nakul Khari. His sister Harbati had demanded Rs. 50,000/- from him on 19.06.2010. He asked her to send Nakul for collecting the said amount from him as his jija was paralyzed at that time. On 19.06.2010 at around 7 pm, Nakul came at my house for taking the money. He could only arrange Rs. 30,000/- by that time, hence, He asked Nakul to stay at his house for over night as one of his friend had promised him for giving the amount of Rs. 20,000/- by the evening of 20.06.2010. His nephew Nakul stayed at his house on 20.06.2010 also.
(i) His friend Ramesh, gave him Rs. 20,000/- in the morning of 21.06.2010. I gave Rs. 50,000/- to Nakul on 21.06.2010 in the morning and he left his house at around 10:30 am after having breakfast.
BABRU Digitally signed by BABRU BHAN BHAN 10:19:32 +0530 Date: 2023.09.12 State Vs. Ankit Chaudhary & Ors.
FIR no.169/10 & 170/10 page no. 75 of 128 76
98. DW2 Sh. Ritesh Khari deposed that he was the elder brother of accused Nakul Khari. On 19.06.2010, in the evening between 5-7 pm his mother sent Nakul for taking money Rs. 50,000/- from his maama who resides at Kotla Mubarakpur. He came to know that Nakul stayed at the house of his maama on 19.06.2010 as well as 20.06.2010 as maama took some time for arranging the money. He returned back on 21.06.2010 at about 12-12:30 noon with Rs. 50,000/-. He further deposed that in the evening of 21.06.2010, police officials came to their house and took him and his brother Nakul to the police station, where they were kept for around 4-5 days. A lot of other boys of the village were also taken by the police. His brother Nakul was constantly taken by the police officials in other room. He was released after 5 days by the police officials but Nakul was kept in police custody alongwith other boys of the village. He was asked to leave from the back door of the police station and the police officials told him not to talk with any person on the way as he was being followed by two police officials.
(i) He went back to his house. On the same day, police officials came to their house and demanded his clothes as well as clothes of Nakul. They also took him alongwith them. He was made to sit in the police station. Police officials beat him and thereafter they asked him to go back to his house. He again went back to his house.
(ii) He further deposed that he came to know from the news about three murders and that the accused persons have been arrested from Garh Mukteshwar.
Digitally signedBABRU by BABRU BHAN BHAN Date: 2023.09.12 10:19:38 +0530 State Vs. Ankit Chaudhary & Ors.
FIR no.169/10 & 170/10 page no. 76 of 128 77
99. Oral arguments from Ld. Addl. PP for the State and ld. Defence counsels have been heard. Written arguments filed by defence counsels have been taken on record. The case file has been perused.
100. As per the facts of the case projected by the prosecution, the community of accused persons was not happy with the marriage of Kuldeep and Monika. Subsequently, things were further aggravated when Khushboo and Shobha, two girls of the same village eloped with boys of some other community. The accused persons decided to set an example out of Kuldeep , Monika and Shobha. Therefore, on 20.06.2010, they firstly killed Shobha and thereafter, killed Kuldeep and Monika. Since body of Shobha was recovered after two days, second FIR No.170/10 were committed within a span of one hour by the same persons and for same objective as a part of single transaction. Although the charges for some offences have been framed separately but the charges for one criminal conspiracy have been framed against accused Ankit Chaudhary, Mandeep Nagar, Rakesh Nagar and Nakul Khari for committing the murder of all the three deceased in both the cases. The manner in which the charges have been framed suggest that all the three murders have been tried as if committed as part of same transaction. The case file would further reveal that almost identical evidence has been recorded in both the case files. The statements of almost all the witnesses, who are common in both BABRU Digitally signed by BABRU BHAN BHAN Date: 2023.09.12 10:19:44 +0530 State Vs. Ankit Chaudhary & Ors.
FIR no.169/10 & 170/10 page no. 77 of 128 78 the cases, are mentioned with particulars of both the cases. Almost all the witnesses have deposed identical facts in both the cases. In other words, practically, for all purposes, the trial has been conducted jointly. Since the same evidence has to be evaluated for both the cases, this court shall dispose off both the cases bearing case FIR no.169/10 and 170/10 via the present common judgment.
101. As the evidence elaborated above reveals that there is no direct eye witness to any of the three murders in question. The entire case of the prosecution is premised upon the chain of circumstances. In case titled as Hanumant vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, the Court has expounded various concommitent of proof of a case purely based upon circumstantial evidence. The Court has pointed out that "the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one propose to be proved". In light of the aforesaid parameters laid down for establishing a case based upon circumstantial evidence, this Court now shall proceed to evaluate the incriminating circumstances and the evidence brought on record to prove the allegations against the accused persons.
102. Beginning with the circumstances sought to be proved against accused Ankit Chaudhary, Mandeep Nagar and Nakul Khari. Prosecution has alleged existence of following circumstances against the aforesaid three accused persons:-
BABRU Digitally signed by BABRU BHAN BHAN Date: 2023.09.12 10:19:50 +0530 State Vs. Ankit Chaudhary & Ors.
FIR no.169/10 & 170/10 page no. 78 of 128
79
I Motive for commission of the offence
II Extra judicial dying declaration made by Kuldeep.
III Res geste i.e. conduct of accused persons after the offence.
IV Accused Ankit Chaudhary had borrowed the car bearing No. DL8CL2006 from Rahul in which body of deceased Shobha was subsequently recovered. V Accused Ankit Chaudhary, Mandeep Nagar and Nakul Khari were last seen together in the evening of 20.6.2010 when they had come to borrow his santro car bearing No. DL8CL2006.
VI Accused Ankit Chaudhary had got installed sun shutter in an esteem car which was identified by G.S. Arora (PW-9) installed in the car recovered from which body of Kuldeep was recovered.
VII Recovery of weapon of offence at the instance of the accused persons.
VIII Ballistic report confirming that live cartridges recovered from the place of incident were fired from the fire arm recovered at the instance of the accused persons.
IX. Recovery of blood stained cloth from accused Ankit Chaudary, Mandeep Nagar and Nakul Khari.
103. Since the prosecution has to prove existence of every circumstance beyond all reasonable doubt like any other fact, therefore this court now proceeds to evaluate the evidence adduced to assess as to whether the aforesaid circumstances have been proved as per the accepted parameters of criminal jurisprudence or not.
Digitally signedBABRU by BABRU BHAN BHAN 2023.09.12 Date:
10:19:57 +0530 State Vs. Ankit Chaudhary & Ors.
FIR no.169/10 & 170/10 page no. 79 of 128 80 MOTIVE
104. First relevant fact sought to be proved against the accused persons is motive. Motive for commission of crime is a relevant fact, especially in a case based on circumstantial evidence. Generally, in cases of direct evidence connecting the accused with the commission of offence, absence or existence of motive comparatively becomes insignificant. But where the entire case of the prosecution rest on the circumstantial evidence, existence of motive plays an important role to prove the culpability or the innocence of the accused.
105. In case titled as Suresh Chandra Bhari vs State of Bihar, it was held by Hon'ble Apex Court that sometimes motive plays an important role and becomes a compelling force to commit a crime and therefore motive behind crime is a relevant factor for which evidence can be adduced.
106. In this case, prosecution has claimed that deceased Kuldeep belonged to Rajput community and deceased Monika was from Gujjar community. They had a love affair which culminated into their marriage in 2006, despite an express disapproval of not only the family members but the entire community of Monika. Although with passage of time, things had started returning to normality and 'the mistake' was almost condoned by the family as well as the community. But in 2010, Khushbu and Shobha, sisters of Mandeep Nagar and cousins of Ankit Chaudhary also eloped with boys of other community.
BABRU Digitally signed by BABRU BHAN State Vs. Ankit Chaudhary & Ors.
BHAN Date: 2023.09.12 10:20:03 +0530 FIR no.169/10 & 170/10 page no. 80 of 128 81 This conduct of Shobha and Khusbhoo revived the dormant anger and revengeful emotions of the family as well as the community. The community and family of Shobha and Monika was under an impression that Shobha had followed the path which was opened by Kuldeep and Monika. Accused Ankit Chaudhary and Mandeep Nagar had already expressed his anguish and warning to deceased Kuldeep.
107. Firstly, The marriage of Kuldeep and Monika is not in dispute. Amit Singh (PW-1) has stated in his court statement that after the marriage of Kuldeep and Monika, the villagers from the Gujjar community were infuriated. Since Kuldeep and Monika were apprehending threats to their lives, therefore they had shifted to Uttam Nagar after their marriage and they had re- shifted to Ashok Vihar only 4 to 5 months before their murder. After Shobha decided to solemnize inter-caste marriage, accused Mandeep Nagar and Ankit had threatened Kuldeep that "tumhari vajah se silsila shuru hua hai uska prinam bhugtna padega ( translated it reads as it all has started because of you and you shall have to face the consequences for the same)". PW1 Amit has deposed in his court statement that this fact was told to him by Kuldeep on 15.06.2010. During his cross examination, Amit Singh (PW-1) again repeated that at the time of marriage also, threats were advanced to Monika and Kuldeep that they will be killed if they stayed in the village. A complaint in this regard was also made by them.
BABRU Digitally signed by BABRU BHAN BHAN 10:20:08 +0530 Date: 2023.09.12 State Vs. Ankit Chaudhary & Ors.
FIR no.169/10 & 170/10 page no. 81 of 128 82
108. During cross examination of Amit Singh (PW-1), Ld. Defense counsels have attempted to suggest that Ankit had accepted marriage between Kuldeep and Monika. After marriage, father of Monika had invited Kuldeep and Monika to his house on occasion of Diwali. Ankit had also gifted a mobile phone to Kuldeep. Now, the invitation as alleged above was given by father of Ankit and not Ankit. As far as the gifting of mobile phone is concerned, same has not been proved by any evidence. A bald suggestion would not be sufficient to establish that Ankit had accepted the marriage and had forgiven Kuldeep and Monika. Moreover, the suggestions without any corroborations cannot be given preference over the evidence brought on record through testimony of Amit Kumar (PW-1) wherein he has clearly stated that the Gujjar community including Ankit and Mandeep were not happy with the marriage of Kuldeep and Monika. Things were further aggravated by subsequent intercast marriage of Khushboo and elopement of Shobha. Now accused Ankit, brother of Monika and Mandeep Nagar, brother of Shobha and Khushboo along-with their associates from the same community were looking for an opportunity to teach a lesson to the deceased persons who according to them had brought dishonor and bad name to the family and community.
109. The testimony of Arun Kumar (PW-12) and Deepak (PW-12/A) has further strengthened the fact that the community of Monika was not happy with the marriage between Kuldeep and Monika. Digitally signed BABRU by BABRU BHAN BHAN Date: 2023.09.12 10:20:14 +0530 State Vs. Ankit Chaudhary & Ors.
FIR no.169/10 & 170/10 page no. 82 of 128 83
110. Ravi Thakur (PW-65) who had married Khushbu, another sister of deceased Shobha has also deposed that their marriage was not attended by parents and Mandeep /brother of Khushbu as they were against the said marriage. Further, Khushbu Thakur (PW-64) although denied the case of prosecution but went to admit that she had married with Ravi Thakur on 27.05.2010. She has also stated that she was not aware as to whether her parents were happy with her marriage or not but it can be easily inferred from her statement that her parents had not attended the her marriage and they were against her marriage. Absence of parents from marriage of a daughter is a strong indication of disapproval of the same. Further, Khushboo/PW64 has also admitting that she had made a complaint Ex. 25/B and 25/C to the concerned DCP wherein she had expressed threats to her life. Similarly, during cross examination, Ravi Thakur (PW-65) has also admitted that though he had not named any one but after death of Kuldeep and Monika, he had told the police about threats to their lives. Although he denied the suggestion that he was being threatened by accused Mandeep Nagar but his statement is sufficient to evidence that community of Shobha including accused persons was not happy with their marriage.
111. So it stands proved that Kuldeep and Monika had solemnized an inter-caste love marriage against the wishes of their family. Following the footsteps of Kuldeep and Monika, BABRU Digitally signed by BABRU BHAN BHAN 10:20:19 +0530 Date: 2023.09.12 State Vs. Ankit Chaudhary & Ors.
FIR no.169/10 & 170/10 page no. 83 of 128 84 Khushbu had also solemnized inter-caste marriage and Shobha had also eloped with her boyfriend from some other community. The culture of love marriage started by Kuldeep and Monika had infuriated the community of Monika and Shobha especially Ankit, brother of Monika, and Mandeep, brother of Shobha. Accused Nakul Khari was also from the same community and was friend of accused Ankit Chaudhary and Mandeep Nagar therefore, he might was also carrying the same anger and motive with accused Ankit Chaudhary and Mandeep Nagar. Deceased Kuldeep, Monika and Shobha were therefore eliminated to compensate the 'harm' caused by them to the reputation of family and the community. Thus, the 'honour' of the family and community was motive for the crime and same stands proved against accused Ankit, Mandeep Nagar and Nakul Khari who belong to same community.
DYING DECLARATION BY KULDEEP
112. Next incriminating circumstance prosecution has sought to prove against accused Ankit and Mandeep is the extra judicial dying declaration made by deceased Kuldeep before Amit Singh (PW-1). In his court statement, PW-1 has deposed that on 15.06.2010, Kuldeep had visited his house and told him that Ankit and Mandeep had threatened him by saying that "tumhari vajah se silsila shuru hua hai uska prinam bhugtna padega (it all has started because of you and you shall have to face the consequences for the same)".
Digitally signedBABRU by BABRU BHAN BHAN Date: 2023.09.12 10:20:25 +0530 State Vs. Ankit Chaudhary & Ors.
FIR no.169/10 & 170/10 page no. 84 of 128 85
113. During cross examination, ld. defense Counsels attempted to assail aforesaid part of testimony of PW-1 wherein he had claimed that on 15.06.2010 Kuldeep had came to his house and told him about the threats advance by Ankit and Mandeep. PW-1 was specifically questioned regarding particular day of the week falling on 15.6.2010 which the witness failed to tell. He was also subjected to questions regarding reporting of the threats either to any authority or to the parents of Monika which the witness again denied. PW-1 also expressed his unawareness about any such reporting made by Kuldeep and Monika. Taking reference of the aforesaid part of the cross examination, Ld defense counsels have strongly argued that had there been any threat advanced by Ankit or Mandeep to Kuldeep and Monika on 15.06.2010, the normal conduct of both the aforesaid deceased persons would have been to bring the same in the notice of the parents of Monika or some other authority. However, as PW-1 conceded during cross examination, no such reporting was made. Contention sought to be raised by Ld defense counsels is that the abstaining from reporting the death threats are suggestive of the fact that no such threats were ever advanced by Mandeep and Ankit to deceased Monika and Kuldeep.
114. Here, relevant it would be to note that Kuldeep and Monika had solemnized marriage in 2006. Since 2006 itself, for four years, they were being threatened repeatedly and the alleged threats were also reported to the police previously. So, by the BABRU Digitally signed by BABRU BHAN Date: 2023.09.12 BHAN 10:20:31 +0530 State Vs. Ankit Chaudhary & Ors.
FIR no.169/10 & 170/10 page no. 85 of 128 86 time when the alleged threats were advanced by Ankit and Mandeep on 15.06.2010, such threats had become a routine affair for Kuldeep and Monika and they would not have expected anything serious to follow. Therefore, the threats were might casually ignored by them. In considered opinion of this court, the non-reporting of the threats by Kuldeep and Monika would not be sufficient to brush aside the testimony of PW-1 on this aspect. This court has no reason to believe that Kuldeep had not told Amit that Ankit and Mandeep were advancing death threats to him.
115. As far as relevancy of the threats advanced to Kuldeep by Ankit and Mandeep is concerned, reliance can be placed on a judgement passed in Ratan Gond vs. State of Bihar wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has relied upon law of evidence by Woodroffe and Ameer Ali wherein the authors have summed up the test of relevancy of a statement under section 32(1), that it is not what the final finding in the case is but whether the cause of the death of the person making the statement comes into question in the case. The expression 'any of the Circumstances of the transaction which resulted in his death; is wider in scope than the expression 'the cause of his death'; in other words, clause (1) of Section 32 refers to two kinds of statements: (1) statement made by a person as to the cause of his death, and (2) the statement made by a person so as to any of the circumstances which resulted into his death.
Digitally signed by BABRUBABRU BHAN BHAN Date: 2023.09.12 10:20:36 +0530 State Vs. Ankit Chaudhary & Ors. FIR no.169/10 & 170/10 page no. 86 of 128 87
116. In this case, Kuldeep had disclosed to Amit that accused Ankit and Mandeep had threatened him with dire consequences on 15.06.2010. Subsequently, on 20.6.2010 Kuldeep and Monika were killed. The threats advanced on 15.06.2010 were relating to same circumstances which ultimately culminated into death of Kuldeep and Monika. Thus, the statement made by Kuldeep before Amit (PW-1) is the one falling in exception to the general rule of exclusion of hearsay evidence and is relevant u/s 32 Indian Evidence Act.
ABSCONDANCE OF ACCUSED PERSONS AFTER OFFENCE
117. Adverting towards the next circumstance. Puneet (PW-14), who is younger brother of Monika, was first to visit house of Kuldeep and Monika and to notice that Monika had been murdered. PW-14 has deposed in his court statement that body of Monika was removed to hospital with help of her mother and one Suraj. Puneet also informed his father about the murder. Soon after the murder of the Monika was revealed, body of Kuldeep was also recovered from a car which was parked near House No. 209, Ashok Vihar. The statement of Puneet (PW-14) leaves no room for doubt that murder of Kuldeep and Monika immediately came to notice the families of both the deceased persons but surprisingly Ankit was suspiciously absent in the hospital as well as the cremation of Kuldeep and Monika. It may be noted that it has not been disputed that Ankit was not present in the hospital when body of Monika and Kuldeep were removed Digitally signed BABRU by BABRU BHAN BHAN Date: 2023.09.12 10:20:42 +0530 State Vs. Ankit Chaudhary & Ors.
FIR no.169/10 & 170/10 page no. 87 of 128 88 there and also at their cremation. Generally, it is expected from a real brother to mourn the death and to attend the last rites of his sister who is brutally murdered but Ankit chose to absent himself from the cremation of Kuldeep and Monika. He had an opportunity to explain his conduct when the incriminating circumstances were put to him in terms of Section 313 Crpc. However, no such plausible explanation was putforth by him for his absence in hospital and cremation. His absence leads to only one inference that he was concealing himself probably to evade the criminal proceedings against him because he had obvious connection with the aforesaid murders. Similarly, nothing has been put forth by accused Mandeep to explain the reasons for not attending the cremation of his sister Shobha and cousin Monkia. This conduct of accused Ankit and Mandeep would be relevant against them u/s 8 of Indian Evidence Act as a strong indication of their culpability in the murder of Kuldeep, Monika and Shobha.
ACCUSED LAST SEEN TOGETHER
118. The case of the prosecution further says that on 22.06.2010 body of Shobha was recovered from Santro car bearing No. DL8CL2006 which was found parked near NDPL office Ashok Vihar. Accused Ankit and other accused persons are sought to be connected with death of Shobha firstly on premise of the fact that this car was borrowed by Ankit Chaudhary and his associates from Rahul PW-11 on 20.6.2010. This court would first take up the issue as to whether the car was borrowed by BABRU Digitally signed by BABRU BHAN Date: 2023.09.12 State Vs. Ankit Chaudhary & Ors. BHAN 10:20:47 +0530 FIR no.169/10 & 170/10 page no. 88 of 128 89 accused Ankit Chaudhary from Rahul or not. The issue of recovery of body shall be taken up later.
119. To prove that car was borrowed by accused Ankit Chaudhary, prosecution has first produced Narender Singh (PW-
3), owner of the car, who has stated that he was registered owner of the santro car bearing No. DL8CL2006. Further that the car was being used by his son Rahul. This witness was not subjected to any substantive cross examination regarding the ownership of the car.
120. Now comes the important testimony of Rahul (PW-
11). He has deposed that on 20.6.2010, at about 5.00 pm, he received a call from Ankit through his mobile no. 9810911722 on his mobile No. 9650234787. Ankit requested to borrow his car. PW-11 left his factory and reached village Wazirpur at about 5.45 PM, where he again received a call from Ankit to reach at Sri Ram Mandir, Ashok Vihar. He reached at the scheduled destination where Ankit, Mandeep and Nakul Khari were found present and he handed over the car to them.
121. The factum of phone calls is proved by the CDR of the aforesaid mobile numbers. R.K. Singh, Nodal Officer, Bharti Airtel (PW-26) has produced CAF and call detail record of mobile bearing No. 9810911722 and 9650234787. As per the CAF (ex. PW-26/B) produced by this witness, mobile no. 9810911722 was issued in name of Kuldeep and mobile no.
BABRU Digitally signed by BABRU BHAN BHAN 10:20:53 +0530 Date: 2023.09.12 State Vs. Ankit Chaudhary & Ors.
FIR no.169/10 & 170/10 page no. 89 of 128 90 9650234787 was issued in name of Rahul (PW-11). As per the call detail record ex. PW-26/C, two calls were made from mobile no. 9810911722 to mobile no. 9650234787 at 17.42 hrs and 18.31 hrs on 20.6.2010. This call detail record although fortifies the version of Rahul (PW-11) that he had received phone calls from mobile number 9810911722 on 20.6.2010 but the relevant question may arise that the phone from which he had received the call allegedly from Ankit was issued in the name of Kuldeep. Rekha (PW-5) has clarified this ambiguity by stating that accused Ankit Chaudhary was known to her. She used to talk to him on his mobile phone no. 9810911722 from her mobile no. 9818572914. This fact deposed by Rekha is also confirmed by the call detail record Ex. PW-26/C which shows that many calls were previously made from mobile No. 9810911722. The call detail record Ex. PW-26/C would reveal that there used to be a frequent and long conversation between the mobile phone of Rekha and the mobile allegedly used by Ankit to call Rahul on the date of incident. Statement of Rekha (PW-5) has clarified that the mobile no. 9810911722 was though issued in name of Kuldeep but same was being used by Ankit. As far as the credibility of Rekha is concerned same was tested on the touch stone of cross examination which she satisfactorily withstood. Moreover, PW-5 Rekha has deposed in her court statement that she had gifted a mobile phone make Nokia N-97 to accused Ankit which she had purchased from South-ex. The bill Ex. PW- 5/A was subsequent recovered from possession of accused Ankit vide seizure memo Ex.PW-56/N. This recovery further Digitally signed BABRU by BABRU BHAN BHAN Date:
2023.09.12 10:20:58 +0530 State Vs. Ankit Chaudhary & Ors.
FIR no.169/10 & 170/10 page no. 90 of 128 91 corroborate the testimony of PW-5 Rekha. So it stands proved that the mobile no.9810911722 was being used by accused Ankit Chaudhary and he had called Rahul from the said number in the evening of 20.06.2010 for borrowing the Santro Car bearing no. DL8CL2006.
122. This PW 11 Rahul had made a PCR call regarding theft of the aforesaid car on 20.06.2010. His credibility and truthfulness was put to test by the defence counsels by subjecting him to the cross examination on aspect of the PCR call of theft of car. In response to the question put to him in this regard, witness explained that Ankit Chaudhary had assured him to return the car within one hour but when the car was not returned, he tried to contact him telephonically but his phone was not reachable.
Later that night, he heard the rumour that Ankit Chaudhary and his associates had committed murder of Kuldeep and Monika. Since, Ankit had borrowed his car therefore he got scared that he might be implicated in the murder case after Ankit being found in possession of his car, therefore he made false PCR call to concoct a defense of theft of his car. It is natural instinct of any person to make all the possible efforts to create a defense to avoid being dragged in a murder case. In considered opinion of this Court, Rahul/PW11 has satisfactorily explained the reasons for making a PCR call of theft of his car. Moreover, the PCR call was made before recovery of body of Shobha in the same. Thus, the PCR call shall not effect the credibility of this witness.
Digitally signed by BABRUBABRU BHAN BHAN Date: 2023.09.12 10:21:03 +0530 State Vs. Ankit Chaudhary & Ors. FIR no.169/10 & 170/10 page no. 91 of 128 92
123. Further , this witness namely Rahul was allegedly friend of the accused Ankit Chaudhary. Nothing was suggested to this witness during his cross examination indicating any previous enmity or motive for which he could have implicated accused Ankit Chaudhary, Mandeep Nagar and Nakul Khari in a heinous case of murder. Since Rahul PW-11 was friend of accused Ankit, therefore this court has no reason to believe that he falsely implicated accused Ankit and his associates Mandeep and Nakul Khari. As far as the PCR call of theft is concerned, the reason for the same has been satisfactorily explained by the witness.
124. During cross examination, Dimpy Sharma PW 10 had stated that when he went to police station, he saw that PW Rahul was also present there and he was also beaten by the police. PW-10 & PW-11 remained in police station for six days. On basis of aforesaid cross-examination of PW-10, Ld. Defense Counsels have attempted to establish that PW-11 was forcibly planted by the police by force. Relevant it would be to note that Rahul was produced before the Magistrate for his statement U/s 164 Cr.P.C. In the statement ex. PW-11/A recorded by the Magistrate, PW-11 Rahul did not whisper even a word about any force applied by the police. The statement Ex PW-11/A would reveal that same was recorded by magistrate after ensuring the voluntariness of the witness. Had there been any pressure, coercion or undue influence upon the witness from any corner, he could have reveal the same before the magistrate who had Digitally signed BABRU by BABRU BHAN BHAN Date: 2023.09.12 10:21:08 +0530 State Vs. Ankit Chaudhary & Ors.
FIR no.169/10 & 170/10 page no. 92 of 128 93 recorded his statement u/s 164 Crpc. However, no such external pressure was alleged by the witness in his statement before the magistrate.
125. Moreover, as per case of prosecution, keys of the santro car were recovered at instance of accused Nakul Khari vide memo Ex.-PW-56/M5. The said key was identified by PW- 11 Rahul to be the key of his santro car during judicial TIP Ex. PW-11/A. Ld. Defense counsel has raised doubt on the recovery of the key stating that the key was recovered on 27.06.2010 but as per seizure memo the date mentioned as 01.07.2010. The pointing out memo of the key Ex. PW-30/P, 30/R & 30/Q prepared by Insp. Ajmer Singh (PW- 60) would show that the pointing out memos were made on 1.7.2010. Same facts have been deposed by SI Parmod (PW-45) and HC. Vinod (PW-30) regarding the date of pointing out of the place where the accused persons had thrown the keys of santro car. However, the recovery memo of the key ex. PW-56/M5 records that the key was recovered on 27.6.2010 i.e. prior to the pointing out memo. Technically, the IO was supposed to prepare the pointing out memo of the keys before the recovery of the key. Whereas in this case the key was recovered on 27.6.2010 and pointing out memos were prepared subsequently on 1.7.2010. In considered opinion of this court, the wrong sequence followed by the IO alone would not be sufficient to discard the entire recovery of the key because Insp. Pratap Singh (PW-59), Insp. Satya Prakash (PW-56) and Haroon Ahmed (PW-69) have deposed consistently Digitally signed BABRU by BABRU BHAN BHAN 10:21:13 Date: 2023.09.12 +0530 State Vs. Ankit Chaudhary & Ors.
FIR no.169/10 & 170/10 page no. 93 of 128 94 regarding the date of recovery of the keys. No in consistency or discrepancy has been noticed in their statements in this regard. Thus, merely because the recovery memos were prepared subsequently would not be sufficient to visit the recovery of the key with suspicion.
126. Thus the evidence discussed above proves that accused Ankit had telephonically called PW-11 on 20.6.2010 and requested to borrow his car. Rahul accordingly handed over the car to accused Ankit when he was present alongwith Nakul Khari and Mandeep Nagar at Sri Ram Mandir, Ashok Vihar.
RECOVERY OF DEAD BODY OF SHOBHA FROM SANTRO CAR
127. Now, the issue of recovery of dead body of Shobha from the car bearing no. DL8CL2006. This issue would take this court to the testimony of Lakshmi Narain Bhatia (PW-28) who first noticed foul smell emitting from the aforesaid car. He has deposed in his court statement that on 22.6.2010, his Bahadur was cleaning his car bearing no. DL8CH5891. Bahadur informed him that a foul smell was emitting from car parked nearby. Without waiting for anything, this witness made a PCR call. The said PCR call was received at CPCR by HC Naresh (PW-16). He transmitted the information to PS Ashok Vihar where it was received and recorded in form of DD No. 9 ex. (PW-33/A)by ASI Asha (PW-33). DD was assigned to SI Bhagat Singh (PW-67) who alongwith Ct. Kapil (PW-37) reached the BABRU Digitally signed by BABRU BHAN BHAN 10:21:19 +0530 Date: 2023.09.12 State Vs. Ankit Chaudhary & Ors.
FIR no.169/10 & 170/10 page no. 94 of 128 95 spot, situated near NDPL office Ashok Vihar. Thereafter, he informed the SHO Pratap Singh (PW-59) who arrived alongwith Insp. Ajmer Singh (PW-60). Crime team was called which inspected the spot and took photographs. Car was opened and decomposed body of female was recovered. After recovery of body, crime team was called. Crime team led by SI Devender (PW-17)and photographer Ct. Dalbir(PW-8) reached the spot. Crime team photographer Ct. Dalbir(PW-8) took photographs Ex. PW-8/A31 to A41 (negatives of the same are exhibits PW-8/B31 to 8/B41. The perusal of photographs would reveal that same are depicting a decomposed body of a girl lying in a Santro car parked near a wall in public place bearing No. DL8CL2006. Fingerprint experts SI Ravinder (PW-35) and HC Vikas Kumar (PW-18) have also deposed that on 22-6-2010 on request of IO Insp. Ajmer Singh they had inspected the black Santro car DL8CL2006 which was parked opposite NDPL office in Ashok Vihar. So the testimony of aforesaid witnesses and the documents prepared evidence that body of Shobha was recovered from a Santro Car bearing No. DL8CL2006 on 22-6-2010. Although, Ld. Defense counsels appearing on behalf of the accused persons have made feeble attempts to assail the credibility of the witnesses regarding the recovery of the dead body by putting some questions regarding the entries made and the public persons joined. However, the testimony of public witness who first noticed the said santro car, the record of PCR call, photographs taken by photographer of crime team, the testimony of FSL officials and recovery witnesses establish the Digitally signed BABRU by BABRU BHAN BHAN Date: 2023.09.12 10:21:23 +0530 State Vs. Ankit Chaudhary & Ors.
FIR no.169/10 & 170/10 page no. 95 of 128 96 recovery of dead body of Shobha from the Santro car so strongly that minor contradictions in the minute details of the recovery can be safely ignored. Thus, it also stands proved that dead body of Shobha was recovered from the Santro Car No. DL8CL2006 on 22.6.2010.
128. Dr. V K Jha (PW-6) had conducted post mortem on body of Shobha on 23.6.2010. He has mentioned in his report ex. (PW-6/A) that death occurred approximately three days prior to the date of post mortem, meaning thereby that death occurred on 20.6.2010. Since the body was found in a Santro car which was borrowed by accused Ankit Chaudhary, Mandeep Nagar and Nakul Khari from Rahul (PW-11) on 20.6.2010 at about 6.30 pm, it can be safely inferred that Shobha was killed on 20.6.2010 after the Santro car was borrowed by the aforesaid accused persons.
129. Further when the accused persons were confronted with the evidence that they had borrowed a car bearing No. DL8CL2006 from Rahul on 20.6.2010. They could have elaborated the reasons for which Rahul (PW-11) deposed against them but they simply denied having borrowed any such car stating that PW-11 was a planted witness. They did not give any convincing explanation. The aforenoted facts would further connect accused Ankit Chaudhary, Mandeep Nagar and Nakul Khari with death of Shobha.
Digitally signedBABRU by BABRU BHAN BHAN 2023.09.12 Date:
10:21:28 +0530 State Vs. Ankit Chaudhary & Ors.
FIR no.169/10 & 170/10 page no. 96 of 128 97 RECOVERY OF DEAD BODY OF KULDEEP FROM CAR BEARING NO. DLCR312
130. After the dead body of Monika was recovered from her house situated at I-164, Ashok Vihar, the family members of Kuldeep become worried about safety of Kuldeep. They immediately charged into action and launched a search for Kuldeep. Anuj (PW-13) had deposed in his court statement that his uncle Ajit alongwith Deepak went in search of Kuldeep. Deepak has stated in his court statement that in the evening of 20.6.2010, after recovery of body of Monika, he alongwith father of Kuldeep namely Ajit went in search of Kuldeep. During search he found the car of Kuldeep bearing No. DL2CR0312 in front of house I-209. Body of Kuldeep was lying in the car on the driver's seat. Kuldeep was smeared with blood.
131. During cross examination of PW-12/A Deepak, Ld. Defense Counsels questioned him about the seizure of car in which the body of Kuldeep was removed to hospital. The witness fairly conceded that the said car was not seized by the Police. He was also questioned regarding place of recording of his statement wherein the witness clarified that his statement was recorded by the Police in the hospital itself and he did not visit the police station that day. He was also suggested that he did not remove body of Kuldeep to hospital, witness denied the suggestion. He was also questioned about the presence of public persons at the time of recovery of body on which the witness replied that no public person was present at that time. The Digitally signed BABRU by BABRU BHAN BHAN 10:21:33 Date: 2023.09.12 +0530 State Vs. Ankit Chaudhary & Ors.
FIR no.169/10 & 170/10 page no. 97 of 128 98 perusal of the cross examination of this witness would reveal that he has satisfactorily stood the test of cross examination. The defense has also not suggested any particular reason for which this witness could have deposed falsely regarding recovery of body of Kuldeep from a car bearing No. DL2CR0312. Although not exhibited but the MLC bearing No.7401 dated 20.6.2010 records that Kuldeep was brought to the hospital on 20.6.2010 at about 9.43 PM. This document would corroborate the fact that Kuldeep was found and was removed to hospital by Deepak (PW-12/A) and Ajit.
132. Inspector Pratap Singh (PW-59) has also corroborated that on 20.6.2010 when he was present in the hospital after receipt of information of admission of Monika. Ct. Nihal Singh (PW-19) handed him over DD No. 29 A regarding missing of Kuldeep alongwith his car bearing No. DL2CR0312. Subsequently when he was conducting investigation at House No. 164, Ashok Vihar, Amit informed him that dead body of Kuldeep had been found in his aforesaid car. Thereafter, Inspector Pratap Singh (PW-59) reached near House No. I-209 where the esteem car bearing No. DL2CR0312 was found parked on the road. Blood was found scattered in the car and some empty cartridges were also recovered from there. The site plan ex. 59/B and recovery memo of the car ex. PW-1/L would also mention the place of recovery of the car near House No. I-209, Ashok Vihar, Delhi. The recovery memo ex. PW-1/L is signed by Amit Singh (PW-1) and SI Satya Prakash (PW-9). They have Digitally signed BABRU by BABRU BHAN State Vs. Ankit Chaudhary & Ors.
BHAN Date:
2023.09.12 10:21:39 +0530 FIR no.169/10 & 170/10 page no. 98 of 128 99 identified the signatures on their recovery memo in their respective court statements. They have also deposed the facts about the recovery of the car from the aforesaid place and the presence of blood and empty cartridges in the car.
133. SI Matadin (PW-19) had deposed that on 20.6.2010 he was posted as Incharge of North west district crime team. On that day he received information at about 11.45 PM and thereafter he alongwith photographer Dalbir (PW-8) reached near House No. 209, Phase I, Ashok Vihar, where they found a Maruti esteem car bearing No. DL2CR0312 parked outside the house. He inspected the car and found blood scattered on the driver seat as well as floor of the car. One empty cartridge was found lying near clutch break. Similar statement has been given by Ct. Dalbir (PW-8) who was accompanying the crime team as photographer.
134. Amit Singh (PW-1) has not been questioned about the recovery of the car from aforesaid place. In cross examination of SI Matadin (PW-19), Inspector Pratap Singh (PW-59), Ct. Dalbir (PW-8) and SI Satya Prakash (PW-56) Ld. Defense Counsels have sought to challenge their testimony by putting questions and asking the availability and efforts made to join the public witnesses. These questions in considered opinion of this Court would not affect the credibility of these witnesses because firstly the seizure memo of the car bears the signature of Amit Singh (PW-1). Moreover, the version given by the Police BABRU Digitally signed by BABRU BHAN BHAN Date: 2023.09.12 10:21:45 +0530 State Vs. Ankit Chaudhary & Ors.
FIR no.169/10 & 170/10 page no. 99 of 128 100 officers has been well corroborated by the aforesaid contemporary documents prepared at the time of the recovery of the car.
135. On the point of non joining of public witnesses, reliance can be placed upon the judgment in case titled as Rajesh Dhiman Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, 2020 Supreme Court.
18. As correctly appreciated by the High Court in detail, non examination of independent witnesses would not ipso facto entitle one to seek acquittal. Though a heighted standard of care is imposed on the court in such instances but there is nothing to suggest that the High Court was not cognizant of this duty. Rather, the consequence of upholding the trial Court's reasoning would amount to compulsory examination of each and every witness attached to the formation of a document. Not only is the imposition of such a standard of proof unsupported by statute but it is also unreasonably onerous in our opinion. The High Court has rightly relied upon the testimonies of the government officials having found them to be impeccable after detailed re appreciation of the entire evidence. We see no reason to disagree with such finding(s).
136. The testimonies of police witnesses, other witnesses and documents have sufficiently proved body that the body of Kuldeep was recovered from car bearing No. DL8CR0312 from a place near House No. I-209, Ashok Vihar, Delhi.
137. The aforesaid discussion shall be followed by relevant question that how the recovery of the dead body of Digitally signed BABRU by BABRU BHAN BHAN Date:
2023.09.12 10:21:50 +0530 State Vs. Ankit Chaudhary & Ors.
FIR no.169/10 & 170/10 page no. 100 of 128 101 Kuldeep from the aforesaid car would be a relevant fact against the accused persons. This question would take to this court to testimony of G.S.Arora ( PW-9). PW-9 has stated that accused Ankit Chaudhary who was known to him had visited his shop at around 6.00 to 7.00 PM with an esteem car. This witness had sold a front glass shutter for Rs. 150/- to Accused Ankit. Further deposed that on 26.6.2010, he was called by the police in PS Ashok Vihar and the esteem car in which the shutter was installed was shown to him and he identified it. Witness also identified the car bearing No. DL2CR0312 in the court also in which he had installed a front glass shutter in the evening of 20.6.2010 when it was brought to him by accused Ankit Chaudhary. During cross examination, Ld. Defense Counsel questioned this witness about the time when he was called in Police station to identify the car and the details of the statement recorded by the police. Witness satisfactorily explained the questions put to him. He also stated that the shutters which was installed in car bearing No. DL8Cr0312 were openly available in the market and same was a local item. The point defense has apparently sought to highlight through the cross examination is that the shutter installed in the esteem car was a local item without any specific identification mark and therefore, the statement of PW-9 cannot be given much importance. This court cannot lose sight of the fact that witness (PW9) has also identified accused Ankit Chaudhary, who had brought the car for the installation of the front glass shutter and subsequently he also identified the car itself. The witness might not have identified BABRU Digitally signed by BABRU BHAN BHAN 10:21:55 +0530 Date: 2023.09.12 State Vs. Ankit Chaudhary & Ors.
FIR no.169/10 & 170/10 page no. 101 of 128 102 the shutter which is allegedly a local item but more importantly, he identified the car and accused Ankit who had brought it for installation of front glass shutter on the relevant date and time. Thus, it stands proved that accused Ankit Chaudhary was in possession of the car of Kuldeep in the evening of 20.10.2010 in which his body was later recovered. This fact is very relevant to connect the accused Ankit Chaudhary with murder of Kuldeep.
RECOVERY OF WEAPON
138. Prosecution has further alleged that weapon of offence was recovered at instance of accused persons. To prove this fact, the prosecution has first relied upon statement of Inspector Pratap Singh (PW-59). Inspector Pratap Singh has deposed in his court statement that on 28.6.2010, he alongwith SI Satrya Prakas (PW-56), SI Pawan, SI Haroon Ahmed (PW-69), Ct. Sunil and other staff alongwith accused Ankit Chaudhary, Nakul Khari and Mandeep Nagar left from PS Ashok Vihar in two private vehicles i.e. Scropio and Tavera went to Rishikesh Badrinath Road near village Palthari. From there, accused Ankit led the Police party to a way leading towards alpine camp, Shiv Puri. Accused Ankit Chaudhary after moving about half kilometer, pointed out the place where he had thrown the pistol alongwith remaining live cartridges on 22.6.2010 after committing murder of Shobha, Kuldeep and Monika with his associates Nakul, Mandeep and Rakesh @ Shintu. Thereafter, accused Mandeep and Nakul also pointed out the place one by one who reached there in custody of other police personnels. The BABRU Digitally signed by BABRU BHAN BHAN 10:22:01 +0530 Date: 2023.09.12 State Vs. Ankit Chaudhary & Ors.
FIR no.169/10 & 170/10 page no. 102 of 128 103 pointing out memo in this regard are ex. PW-52/A, 52/B, 52/C. After preparing the aforesaid pointing out memos, the police party asked to public persons to join the investigation, but they refused for the same. However, One Dikshit Chauhan joined the investigation. The police party further moved about half a kilometre. Thereafter, accused Ankit Chaudhary pointed out towards a pistol which was lying there without magazine. IO prepared the sketch of the pistol Ex. PW-52/D and same was seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW-52/E. The recovery memo of the pistol ex. PW-52/E bears the signature of SI Satyaprakash (PW-56), Haroon Ahmed (PW-69) and Ct. Sunil(PW 52) as attesting witnesses.
139. During cross examination of Inspector Pratap Singh (PW 59), SI Satya Prakash (PW 56), Haroon Ahmed (PW 69), Ct. Sunil (PW 52) they were questioned about the toll tax falling between Delhi to Rishikesh and CCTV cameras installed there. The witnesses were also suggested about the availability of CCTV cameras installed on the toll taxes falling between the route from Delhi to Rishikesh. They were also suggested that the recovery of pistol was planted upon the accused persons. Witnesses expressed their unawareness about the number of toll taxes and CCTV cameras installed here. Witness further denied his suggestion that recovery of the pistol was planted upon the accused. Beside the aforesaid brief questioning and suggestions, no other circumstance or theory was suggested by the defense to demolish the recovery.
Digitally signedBABRU by BABRU BHAN BHAN 2023.09.12 Date:
10:22:06 +0530 State Vs. Ankit Chaudhary & Ors.
FIR no.169/10 & 170/10 page no. 103 of 128 104
140. Ld. Defence Counsel for accused has disputed the recovery by placing reliance upon the judgment passed by Delhi High Court in Manoj Lekhraj vs. State 2018. In this case Hon'ble High Court refused to rely upon the recovery effected by the police in absence of public witnesses.
141. In the aforesaid judgment relied upon by the defence, non-joining of public witnesses was not the sole ground to discard the testimony of witnesses. The Hon'ble High Court, in addition to absence of public witnesses, had also noticed some apparent discrepancies in the statement of the police witnesses. In case in hand, police witnesses have remained consistent and no such discrepancies have been noticed. Even if some discrepancies have been noticed, same are too minor and are not touching the core of the case. In case titled as State of UP vs. M.K. Antony, Hon'ble Apex Court of India has held that while appreciating the evidence of a witness, the approach must be whether the evidence of the witness read as a whole, appears to have a ring of truth. Once that impression is formed, it is undoubtedly necessary for the court to scrutinize the evidence more particularly keeping in view the deficiency, drawbacks and infirmities, pointed out in the evidence as a whole and evaluate them to find out whether it is against the general tenor of evidence given by the witnesses and whether the earlier evaluation of the evidence is shaken as to render it unworthy of belief.
BABRU Digitally signed by BABRU BHAN BHAN Date: 2023.09.12 10:22:12 +0530 State Vs. Ankit Chaudhary & Ors.
FIR no.169/10 & 170/10 page no. 104 of 128 105
142. The testimonies of the recovery witnesses have been perused. No apparent contradiction or variation having strength to demolish the factum of recovery has been noticed. Further, if the police had to plant the recovery upon the accused persons, they could have chosen any convenient place in proximity of Delhi and there was no reason for them to chose a specific place on Rishikesh-Delhi-highway.
143. Moreover, L.S.Maurya, (PW-42) has deposed that accused namely Nakul Khari, Ankit Chaudhary and Mandeep Nagar were arrested by him on 24.06.2010 from jurisdiction of PS Garhmukteshwar. Tarun Pathak (PW-2) had also deposed that accused persons had stayed in Sunrise hotel, Masoori on 22.6.2010. Statement of aforesaid two witnesses are suggestive of the fact that after committing the murders, they had absconded towards Uttrakhand. So probability is further strengthened that they had thrown the pistol from where it was subsequently recovered by the police. Since the police witnesses are satisfactorily worthy of credit, the non-joining of public witnesses and the minor contradictions can be conveniently ignored.
144. Place of recovery is also relevant here. The recovery was effected from a secluded place in mountains where many public persons were not even available. The public persons who were asked to join the investigation refused to join the same.
Digitally signed by BABRUBABRU BHAN Date:
BHAN 2023.09.12 10:22:18 +0530 State Vs. Ankit Chaudhary & Ors.
FIR no.169/10 & 170/10 page no. 105 of 128 106 This court is also conscious of practical difficulty faced by the police in joining public witnesses in the investigation because public persons are often reluctant to join the investigation due to the inconvenience caused. So looking into the secluded place of recovery and other circumstances, non joining of public witnesses shall not have much bearing on the merits of the case.
145. Further, in case titlted as Rizwan Khan vs. State of Chhatisgarh, 2020 SC, the Hon'ble Apex Court of India has held that :
It is settled law that the testimony of the official witnesses cannot be rejected on the ground of noncorroboration by independent witness. As observed and held by this Court in catena of decisions, examination of independent witnesses is not an indispensable requirement and such nonexamination is not necessarily fatal to the prosecution case.
146. In view of the above discussions, it stands proved that pistol was recovered at instance of accused Ankit Chaudhary.
147. Although the recovery of pistol, as discussed above, has been established but question still remains as to whether the recovery of pistol can be read as relevant evidence against all the accused persons in terms of the Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act. The Section provides that when any fact is discovered in consequence of an information received from any person, accused of any offence, in custody of police officer so much an BABRU Digitally signed by BABRU BHAN BHAN Date: 2023.09.12 10:25:01 +0530 State Vs. Ankit Chaudhary & Ors.
FIR no.169/10 & 170/10 page no. 106 of 128 107 information whether it amounts to confession or not as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered may be proved. As the statutory language suggests, the fact in order to be relevant u/s 27 of Indian Evidence Act must be recovered as a consequence of information given by the accused. If the fact is already in the knowledge of the Police authorities and subsequently same fact is disclosed by an accused, it cannot be read u/s 27 Indian Evidence Act because it is not something discovered in pursuant to the information given by the accused.
148. Here, in this case, as per the case of prosecution, the pistol was recovered on the joint statement of accused Mandeep Nagar, Nakul Khari and Ankit Chaudhary. Ld. Counsels appearing on behalf of accused persons have contended that once accused Ankit had made a disclosure statement regarding the place where the pistol was thrown, the subsequent information in this regard given by accused Mandeep and Nakul Khari cannot be held to be admissible as rediscovered.
149. Hon'ble Delhi High Court has held in case titled as Vijay Kumar vs. State of NCT of Delhi 2008 that "joint disclosure to be more accurate simultaneous disclosure, per se, not inadmissible u/s 27 of Indian Evidence Act. It seems to us that the real reason for not acting upon the joint disclosure by taking resort to Section 27 is the inherent difficulty in placing reliance on such information, supposed to have emerged from mouth of two or more accused persons at a Digitally signed BABRU by BABRU BHAN BHAN 2023.09.12 Date:
State Vs. Ankit Chaudhary & Ors. 10:25:08 +0530 FIR no.169/10 & 170/10 page no. 107 of 128 108 time. In fact, joint of simultaneous disclosure is a myth because two or more accused persons would not have uttered informatory words in chorus. At the best one person would have made the statement orally and the other person would have stated so substantially in similar terms a few seconds or minutes later. Or two persons in custody may be interrogated separately and simultaneously and both of them may furnish similar information leading to the discovery of fact or in rare cases both the accused may reduce the information into writing and hand over the notes to the police. We do not think that such information go out of preview of Section 27 altogether. If information is given one after the other without any break, almost simultaneously, and if such information is followed up by pointing out the material thing by both of them we find no good reason to eschew such evidence from regime of Section 37."
150. So the legal position is that if an information is given simultaneously and separately by two accused persons, same is admissible piece of evidence in terms of Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act against multiple accused persons. A joint disclosure statement leading to discovery of fact is not perse inadmissible. However, it has to be proved that it was made simultaneously and separately by the accused persons.
151. Here in this case, it does not appear from the statement of IO, Inspector Pratap Singh (PW 59) that information was given by all the three accused persons simultaneously or Digitally signed BABRU by BABRU BHAN BHAN 2023.09.12 Date:
10:25:13 +0530 State Vs. Ankit Chaudhary & Ors.
FIR no.169/10 & 170/10 page no. 108 of 128 109 separately. Allegedly, all of them were taken to the place of recovery where, as per statement of Inspector Pratap Singh (PW-
59), accused Ankit first pointed out the place of recovery. It is not the case of prosecution that the remaining two accused persons namely Mandeep Nagar and Nakul Khari had made the disclosure statement leading to discovery separately and at the same time. Remaining two accused were also in company of same police party which had taken accused Ankit Chaudhary to the place of recovery. The place of recovery was first pointed out by Ankit and thereafter by Mandeep Nagar and Nakul Khari. So when the remaining two accused persons namely Mandeep Nagar and Nakul Khari disclosed the place from where the recovery was effected, the said place was already in the knowledge of police party. In other words, the place from where recovery was effected had already been discovered on an information given by accused Ankit therefore, same is admissible only against accused Ankit and not admissible against accused Mandeep Nagar and Nakul Khari. Thus the recovery of pistol shall be read U/s 27 Indian Evidence Act against the accused Ankit Chaudhary only.
RECOVERY OF CARTRIDGES, BULLETS AND BALLISTIC REPORT
152. Now, to connect the pistol with offence in question, the prosecution has first relied upon the evidence given by Inspector Pratap Singh (PW-59). He has deposed that during investigation, he visited H.No.164, Phase -1, Ashok Vihar where body of Monika was recovered. From the place of incident, two BABRU Digitally signed by BABRU BHAN BHAN 10:25:19 +0530 Date: 2023.09.12 State Vs. Ankit Chaudhary & Ors.
FIR no.169/10 & 170/10 page no. 109 of 128 110 empty cartridges were recovered and same were seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/C in two separate pulandas Mark H-1 and H-2. Further, the esteem car bearing no. DL1CR0312 where body of Kuldeep was recovered, was also inspected and two empty cartridges were recovered. Same were seized in two separate pulandas Mark C-1 and C-2 vide seizure Ex.PW1/A. Both the seizure memos have been signed by Ajit, Amit singh PW-1 and Insp. Satya Prakash PW-56. They have also deposed same facts regarding recovery of the aforesaid empty cartridges. The cross examination of ACP Satya Pratap Singh PW-59, Amit PW-1 and Insp. Satya Pratap PW-56 would reveal that the recovery of empty cartridges has not been disputed much. Similarly, a bullet was recovered from the body of Monika which was seized by the IO vide seizure memo Ex.PW32/C and bullet recovered from body of Kuldeep was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW32/A.
153. Further, Insp. Ajmer Singh PW-60 has deposed that he inspected the Santro Car in which one empty cartridge was recovered which was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW46/D. The said seizure memo has been signed by HC Jetha Ram PW-46 and SI Bhagat Ram PW-67. They have also deposed the same facts about seizure of empty cartridges.
154. Dr. N.P Waghmare, Assistant Director Ballistic PW- 31 has deposed that on 15.07.2010, he had received two sealed parcels containing two fired cartridges in connection with case FIR No. 170/10. On microscopic comparison with the sample Digitally signed BABRU by BABRU BHAN BHAN Date: 2023.09.12 10:25:25 +0530 State Vs. Ankit Chaudhary & Ors.
FIR no.169/10 & 170/10 page no. 110 of 128 111 fired cartridges, the firing pin and breach face marks present on the exhibit sent for examination were similar with the firing pin and breach face mark present on the test cartridges. He opined via his report Ex.PW31/A that the empty cartridges produce for examination were fired from the same improvised pistol.
155. Sh. R. Suresh, Assistant Director (Ballistics) PW66 has deposed that on 15.07.2010, he had received 10 sealed parcels in connection with FIR No. 169/2010. The parcels were containing 5 empty cartridges and three fired bullets. Two fired bullets which were marked EB-1 and EB-2 were recovered from the body of Monika and Kuldeep. Whereas another bullet was retrieved from the plywood of an Almira in the house of Monika. After thorough examination under microscope, this witness opined via his report Ex.PW66/A that all the five cartridges and the bullet Mark EB-1 and EB-2 were fired with the same improvised pistol which was sent in sealed position in the aforesaid case FIR. The aforesaid ballistic reports have thus proved that the empty cartridges recovered from the three spots from where three bodies were recovered were fired from the pistol which was recovered at instance of accused Ankit Chaudhary. The report ex.- PW-66/A further confirms that the bullet recovered from the body of Monika and the bullet recovered from the esteem car was also fired from the same pistol which was sent for examination. The aforesaid ballistic have thus established that the deceased were killed with the same Digitally signed by BABRU BABRU BHAN Date: BHAN 2023.09.12 10:25:30 +0530 State Vs. Ankit Chaudhary & Ors.
FIR no.169/10 & 170/10 page no. 111 of 128 112 pistol which was subsequently recovered at the instance of accused persons.
RECOVERY OF BLOOD STAINED CLOTHES
156. In addition to the circumstances discussed above, the prosecution has also claimed on basis of statement of Inspector Pratap Singh /PW59 that during interrogation, accused Mandeep Nagar, Ankti Chaudhary and Nakul Khari disclosed to the IO via their separate disclosure statements Ex.PW56/ E to Ex.PW56/F that they were still wearing the same clothes which were worn by them at the time of commission of offence. Accordingly, IO seized the clothes via separate seizure memo Ex.PW56/G, Ex.PW56/H and Ex.PW56/J. Prosecution has further claimed that the said clothes were smeared with stains of blood of victims which was subsequently confirmed by the FSL report.
157. ld. Defence counsels have strongly objected to the aforesaid evidence against the accused persons. ld. Counsels have argued that offence in question was allegedly committed on 20.06.2010. After commission of offence, the accused persons, as claimed by the prosecution had ran away to Uttrakhand and stayed in a hotel. Subsequently, they were arrested by Garh Mukteshwar Police. Neither the witness Tarun Pathak /PW2 , Manager of the Sunrise hotel in Massoori nor L.S. Maurya/PW42 who had arrested the accused persons on 24.06.2010 has stated anywhere that the clothes worn by the Digitally signed BABRU by BABRU BHAN BHAN Date:
2023.09.12 10:25:36 +0530 State Vs. Ankit Chaudhary & Ors.
FIR no.169/10 & 170/10 page no. 112 of 128 113 accused persons had visible blood stains. It is strongly contended by the defence that the blood stained clothes were subsequently planted upon the accused persons.
158. Here on this point, this Court agrees with the contents raised by Ld. Defence Counsels. It is important to note here that the offence in question was committed on 20.06.10.
Mid of June is the peak summer season in northern part of India. Considering the extremely hot weather, it is not expected from any reasonable human being to be so ignorant about his personal hygiene that he would continue to wear same dirty clothes for 7 continuous days. Further , after the murders in question were committed, the news was aired on visual media immediately. Police was desperately searching for the accused persons. Under the circumstances, the accused persons, who were running around to conceal themselves from the police, cannot be expected to wear the same blood stained clothes and to invite the attention of anyone. Moreover, had the accused persons being wearing the same clothes till 27.06.2010, same could have been easily noticed by the hotel staff where they stayed or the officials of PS Garh Muketshwar where they were arrested. However, neither the hotel staff nor the Gar Muketshwar police has stated anything about the blood stained clothes worn by the accused persons. Thus, the story that accused persons were wearing same clothes till 27.06.2010 is itself is not reliable. This court is accordingly not inclined to accept that accused persons were not wearing the same clothes.
BABRU Digitally signed by BABRU BHAN BHAN Date: 2023.09.12 10:25:46 +0530 State Vs. Ankit Chaudhary & Ors.
FIR no.169/10 & 170/10 page no. 113 of 128 114
159. Here, in reference of the aforesaid discussion, reliance can be placed on judgment passed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case titled as Kamal Kishore vs. State of Delhi 2014. The relevant observations are "In that case, one accused Jai Bhagwan was apprehended on 17.03.1998 allegedly wearing blood stained clothes. Hon'ble High Court observed that " it is to be kept in mind that incident had taken place on 16.03.1998. It is highly improbable that after committing the murder of Kimti Lal Kapoor, the accused persons will continue to wear blood stained clothes and will come to a crowded place like Anand Vihar Bus Terminal. Khalil Khan vs. State of MP 2003 SC was also a case where recovery of blood stained clothes of accused was effected after 4 days of murder. It was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court that it is extremely difficult to believe that a person involved in such a serious crime , is still wearing blood stained clothes even after four days which is abnormal to the normal human conduct."
160. In view of the above, this Court is not inclined to accept that accused Ankit Chaudhary, Mandeep Nagar and Nakul Khari were wearing same clothes after seven days of the murder. This evidence of recovery of blood stained clothes is accordingly rejected.
161. Accused Nakul Khari has produced two defence witnesses namely Kanchan DW-1 and Ritesh Khari DW-2 in order to prove his defence of Alibi. Both these witnesses have stated that accused Nakul Khari was at their place on 20.06.2010 and 21.06.2010. Before examination of defence witnesses on BABRU Digitally signed by BABRU BHAN BHAN Date: 2023.09.12 10:25:54 +0530 State Vs. Ankit Chaudhary & Ors.
FIR no.169/10 & 170/10 page no. 114 of 128 115 26.05.2022 and 01.04.2021, this defence was never pleaded during cross-examination of prosecution witnesses. Accused also did not plead this defence in the statement u/s 313 Cr.PC. Further, had accused Nakul Khari been falsely implicated, he could have informed the matter to higher authorities or court. However, instead of taking any such step, he absconded to evade the investigation. Furthermore, both the defence witnesses are maternal uncle and brother of accused Nakul Khari. Considering their close blood relation with the accused, possibility cannot be ruled out that they have given false statement to protect the accused. The aforesaid circumstances are sufficient to indicate that the defence witnesses produced by accused Nakul Khari have told a concocted story which is not supported by the surrounding circumstances. Accordingly, their statement cannot be taken into judicial calculus.
162. After having discussed the circumstances proved against the accused persons, this Court now shall discuss the offence if any, proved against the accused persons on basis of the circumstances proved against them.
163. As proved above, sister of Ankit Chaudhary had married Kuldeep. Thereafter, Shobha and Khushboo/ sisters of Mandeep Nagar had also left the home and Khushboo had married also. Accused Ankit Chaudhary and Mandeep Nagar were agitated due to the intercast marriage by Kuldeep, Monika and Khushboo. Mandeep was also not happy with Shobha Digitally signed BABRU by BABRU BHAN BHAN 2023.09.12 Date:
10:25:59 +0530 State Vs. Ankit Chaudhary & Ors.
FIR no.169/10 & 170/10 page no. 115 of 128 116 because she had also left the house with her boyfriend. They had previously expressed their anguish towards Kuldeep, Monika and Shobha. This intercast marriage of Kuldeep, Monika and Khushboo constituted common motive for murder for accused Ankit Chaudhary and Mandeep Nagar. As far as the motive for accused Nakul Khari is concerned, he was friend of Mandeep Nagar and Ankit Chaudhary and belonged to same community. Being from the same community, he was probably carrying the same anger and motive to commit murder of deceased girls. Accused persons accordingly confided together to commit murder of Kuldeep, Monika and Shobha. In pursuant to the said conspiracy, accused Mandeep Nagar, Nakul Khari and Ankit Chaudhary killed Kuldeep, Monika and Shobha. The evidence against accused Ankit Chaudhary is that he had got installed the sun shutter in the Esteem Car in which body of deceased Kuldeep was subsequently recovered. This fact has been proved through testimony of G.S.Arora/PW9. It has also come on record through CDR Ex.PW26/D that on 20.06.10, accused Ankit Chaudhary had called Kuldeep on his mobile no. 9811762609 at 2.23 p.m. and thereafter, at 4 p.m.. Accused Ankit Chaudhary had also borrowed Santro Car bearing no. DL8CL2006 from Rahul/PW11 in the evening of 20.06.10. When Rahul came to Shri Ram Mandir, Ashok Vihar to hand over the car to the accused persons, accused Mandeep Nagar and Nakul Khari were also present with him. All the accused persons went missing after all the murders were committed. Thereafter, they were arrested together at Garh Muketshwar by PW42. It has also come on Digitally signed BABRU by BABRU BHAN BHAN Date: 2023.09.12 10:26:05 +0530 State Vs. Ankit Chaudhary & Ors.
FIR no.169/10 & 170/10 page no. 116 of 128 117 record that they had stayed together at Hotel Sunrise in Massoori on 22.06.2010. Moreover, the key of Santro car bearing car no. DL8CL2006 in which the body of Shobha was recovered was recovered by the police at instance of accused Nakul Khari vide seizure memo Ex.PW56/M5. This fact evidence that accused Nakul Khari was in company of accused Mandeep Nagar and Ankit Chaudhary from the time when car was borrowed till the murder of Shobha.
164. On basis of the aforesaid circumstances, the real factual picture which comes before the court is that the accused persons namely Ankit Chaudhary , Mandeep Nagar and Nakul Khari had conspired to commit murder of Kuldeep, Monika and Shobha on 20.06.10. In pursuant to conspiracy, accused Ankit Chaudhary called Kuldeep in afternoon of 20.06.10 and fixed the meeting with him in the evening. In evening, he again called Kuldeep and got installed the sun shutter in his car. Thereafter, he borrowed the car from Rahul along-with Mandeep Nagar and Nakul Khari. They committed the murder of Shobha and left her body in the same car. Accused Nakul Khari also participated in the murder because he was with accused Mandeep Nagar and Ankit Chaudhary when car was borrowed till the murder of Shobha as the key of car was recovered at his instance. Thereafter, they committed murder of Kuldeep and left his body in the car. Leaving the body of Kuldeep in the car explains the preplanning and reason for installing sun shutter, it was installed in the car so that nobody may see the body of Kuldeep.
BABRU Digitally signed by BABRU BHAN BHAN 10:26:12 +0530 Date: 2023.09.12 State Vs. Ankit Chaudhary & Ors.
FIR no.169/10 & 170/10 page no. 117 of 128 118 Thereafter, they committed murder of Monika at her house. After committing the aforesaid three murders, they borrowed car bearing no. DL8CL3600 from Dimpy Sharma/ PW10 and ran away to Masoori and stayed at Sunrise Hotel in a room booked by accused Rakesh Nagar @ Shintu. They were subsequently arrested with the same car by L.S.Maurya/PW42 from a place near Garh Muketshwar. The conduct of the accused persons indicates conclusively that accused Ankit Chaudhary, Mandeep Nagar and Nakul Khari committed murder of all three deceased for honour of the family. Since accused Ankit Chaudhary was brother of Monika and brother in law of Kuldeep, he would have taken the so called 'moral' responsibility to kill Kuldeep and Monika. Similarly, accused Mandeep Nagar would have killed Shobha. As far as accused Nakul Khari is concerned, he was giving company to them being their friend and also member of the same community. His conduct shows that he was sharing common intention with accused Ankit Chaudhary and Mandeep Nagar.
165. In a case based upon the circumstantial evidence, culpability of the accused has to be inferred from the circumstances. Every circumstance has to be proved beyond every reasonable doubt like any other fact in a criminal case. The circumstances so proved must indicate towards existence of the hypothesis of guilt of the accused persons. It should be inconsistent with every other hypothesis.
Digitally signed by BABRUBABRU BHAN Date: BHAN 2023.09.12 10:26:18 +0530 State Vs. Ankit Chaudhary & Ors. FIR no.169/10 & 170/10 page no. 118 of 128 119
166. In this case, when all these circumstances noted above, are taken into consideration, they indicate towards only one hypothesis that only these accused persons namely accused Ankit Chaudhary, Nakul Khari and Mandeep Nagar committed the murder of Kuldeep , Monika and Shobha. There is no room for any other hypothesis which may indicate towards their innocence. Their conduct before and after commission of crime, motive, borrowing of car, recovery of keys of car, recovery of weapon and ballistic report are sufficient to conclusively indicate towards their guilt. Accordingly, accused Ankit Chaudhary, Nakul Khari and Mandeep Nagar are convicted for offence U/s 120 B for hatching conspiracy to commit murder of Kuldeep, Monika and Shobha and also for offence u/s 302 IPC for committing murder of Kuldeep, Monika and Shobha in pursuant to their criminal conspiracy. Further, accused Ankit Chaudhary is convicted for the offence U/s 25/27 Arms Act and accused Mandeep Nagar is convicted for the offence U/s 27 Arms Act.
167. Now comes the role of accused Rakesh Nagar @ Shintu. Allegations against accused Rakesh @ Shintu are that he is the master mind of all the murders. He conspired with the remaining accused persons to commit the murders. Thereafter, he had arranged the pistol through Ajay which was subsequently used in commission of the crime. He had also given shelter in a room in hotel Sunrise Massoori. This room was taken on his name and he had told his licence number to the hotel staff as an identity proof. It is also against him that after commission of Digitally signed BABRU by BABRU BHAN BHAN 2023.09.12 Date:
10:26:23 +0530 State Vs. Ankit Chaudhary & Ors.
FIR no.169/10 & 170/10 page no. 119 of 128 120 murder, accused Ankit Choudhary had called him on his mobile no. 9718974942 from his mobile no. 9810911722. One more evidence brought on record against this accused is that Nokia Mobile phone Make N-97 which was being used by accused Ankit Chaudhary was recovered from his possession.
168. Before proceeding to discuss the evidence against accused Rakesh Nagar, this Court would discuss the law relating to criminal conspiracy. In Major E.G. Barsay v. State of Bombay, AIR 1961 SC 1762, Hon'ble SC held thus:
"The gist of the offence is an agreement to break the law. The parties to such an agreement will be guilty of criminal conspiracy, through the illegal act agreed to be done has not been done."
In State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu alias Afsan Guru, (2005) 11 SCC 600, Hon'ble Supreme Court after analyzing the history of the offence of conspiracy held as follows:
88. Earlier to the introduction of Sections 120-A and 120-B, conspiracy per se was not an offence under the Penal Code except in respect of the offence mentioned in Section 121-A. However, abetment by conspiracy was and still remains to be an ingredient of abetment under clause secondly of Section 107 IPC. The punishment therefor is provided under various sections viz.
Sections 108 to 117. Whereas under Section 120-A, the essence of the offence of criminal conspiracy is a bare agreement to commit the offence, the abetment under Digitally signed BABRU by BABRU BHAN BHAN Date: 2023.09.12 10:26:29 +0530 State Vs. Ankit Chaudhary & Ors.
FIR no.169/10 & 170/10 page no. 120 of 128 121 Section 107 requires the commission of some act or illegal omission pursuant to the conspiracy. A charge under Sections 107/109 should therefore be in combination with a substantive offence, whereas the charge under Sections 120-A/120-B could be an independent charge.
89. In the Statement of Objects and Reasons to the Amendment Bill, it was explicitly stated that the new provisions (120-A and 120-B) were "designed to assimilate the provisions of the Penal Code to those of the English Law....". Thus, Sections 120-A and 120-B made conspiracy a substantive offence and rendered the mere agreement to commit an offence punishable. Even if an overt act does not take place pursuant to the illegal agreement, the offence of conspiracy would still be attracted. The passages from Russell on Crimes, the House of Lords decision in Quinn v. Leathem and the address of Willes, J. to the Jury in Mulcahy v. R. are often quoted in the decisions of this Court. The passage in Russell on Crimes referred to by Jagannatha Shetty, J. in Kehar Singh case (SCC at p. 731, para 271) is quite apposite:
"The gist of the offence of conspiracy then lies, not in doing the act, or effecting the purpose for which the conspiracy is formed, nor in attempting to do them, nor in inciting others to do them, but in the forming of the scheme or agreement between the parties. Agreement is essential. Mere knowledge, or even discussion, of the plan is not, per se, enough."
Digitally signed by BABRU BABRU Date:
BHAN BHAN 2023.09.12 10:26:35 +0530 State Vs. Ankit Chaudhary & Ors.
FIR no.169/10 & 170/10 page no. 121 of 128 122 This passage brings out the legal position succinctly."
169. The gist of legal position relating to the criminal conspiracy is that there has to be an agreement or scheme between the parties to commit a particular offence. Mere knowledge or even discussion of plan of the offence would not be sufficient to invoke this offence of criminal conspiracy. As far as the agreement for commission of substantive offence is concerned, same has to be proved like any other fact.
170. To prove the conspiracy of murder against accused Rakesh Nagar, prosecution has claimed that on 20.06.10 after committing the murder, accused Ankit Chaudhary called accused Rakesh Nagar on his mobile number 9718974942 and informed about commission of murder and asked him to arrange shelter.
This fact of telephonic call between the aforesaid two numbers is confirmed by call detail record Ex.PW26/D. However, as per CAF Ex.PW70/A of mobile no.971894942 filed by Ajeet/PW70, this mobile number was issued in the name of one Akhilesh Kumar and not in the name of accused Rakesh Nagar. The said Akhilesh Kumar has not been examined by the prosecution to establish that aforesaid number was being used by accused Rakesh Nagar. There is nothing additional on record to show that the aforesaid number was used by accused Rakesh Nagar as claimed by prosecution. Moreover, an agreement to commit an offence has to be entered into before commission of offence and BABRU Digitally signed by BABRU BHAN BHAN 10:26:42 +0530 Date: 2023.09.12 State Vs. Ankit Chaudhary & Ors.
FIR no.169/10 & 170/10 page no. 122 of 128 123 not thereafter. Once the offence is committed, nothing remains to be agreed upon qua the said offence. So, the subsequent phone call between accused Ankit Chaudhary and Rakesh Nagar, even if, believed to be correct, shall not be sufficient to prove that accused Rakesh Nagar was party to the criminal conspiracy for the murders in question.
171. In addition to phone call between Ankit and Rakesh Nagar, the prosecution has also sought to prove the alleged conspiracy against accused Rakesh Nagar on basis of recovery of Nokia N-97 mobile phone which was being used by accused Ankit Chaudhary. This phone was used by Ankit Chaudhary on the date of incident. It is not the case of the prosecution that accused Rakesh Nagar was with the other accused persons at the time of commission of murder. So it can be safely assumed that the mobile phone was given to accused Rakesh Nagar by accused Ankit Chaudhary subsequently after commission of offence. In considered opinion of this Court, handing over of mobile phone to accused Rakesh Nagar by Ankit Chaudhary subsequent to commission of crime shall also not prove anything towards the alleged criminal conspiracy. So this recovery, even if accepted as truthful shall also not be of any value. So the offence of criminal conspiracy is not made out against accused Rakesh Nagar.
172. One more charge framed against accused Rakesh Nagar is that when accused Ankit Chaudhary , Nakul Khari and Mandeep Nagar were absconding from police, he arranged a Digitally signed BABRU by BABRU BHAN BHAN Date:
2023.09.12 10:26:47 +0530 State Vs. Ankit Chaudhary & Ors.
FIR no.169/10 & 170/10 page no. 123 of 128 124 room for them at Hotel Sunrise, Masoori. To prove these allegations, prosecution has produced Tarun Pathak, caretaker of Hotel Sunrise as PW2. He produced the guest register of the hotel which was seized by the IO vide seizure memo Ex.PW2/A. The relevant entry no.6706 is Ex.PW2/B. This witness further stated that his room was taken in name of Rakesh s/o Sheoraj Singh and total four persons had stayed in the said hotel. As a proof of ID, accused Rakesh had told his licence no.P08072001248667.
173. The evidence given by PW2 is sought to be assailed by the defence counsels with the argument that this witness neither identified accused Rakesh Nagar nor any other accused. The Investigating Officer should have conducted the TIP of accused persons through this witness but same was not conducted. Further, the relevant entry only mentions the number of DL which is claimed to be that of accused Rakesh Nagar. There was on ID proof or copy of DL kept by the hotel. Contention raised by ld. Counsel is that mere mentioning of DL number would not be sufficient to show that the said room was taken by accused Rakesh Nagar to provide shelter to accused Ankit Chaudhary, Nakul Khari and Mandeep Nagar.
174. This court believes that this room in hotel Sunrise was taken by accused Rakesh Nagar where accused Ankit Chaudhary, Nakul Khari and Mandeep Nagar had stayed on 22.06.2020. Reasons for belief are given hereinafter. Firstly, Digitally signed by BABRU BABRU Date:
BHAN BHAN 2023.09.12 10:26:53 +0530 State Vs. Ankit Chaudhary & Ors.
FIR no.169/10 & 170/10 page no. 124 of 128 125 entery in the hotel register bears correct name and father's name of accused Rakesh Nagar who was suspect in this case. This hotel is situated in Masoori, far away from the place of incident. Had accused not booked the said hotel, why and how, his credentials could have been recorded correctly in the hotel register. Secondly, PW-11 Rahul had last seen three accused persons, when they had borrowed Santro Car from him. All the three accused persons absconded after the murders were reported. As per statment of PW10 Dimpy Sharma, accused Ankit Chaudhary had borrowed his car bearing no. DL8C3600 on 20.06.2010. As per hotel register produced by PW-2, four persons had stayed in the hotel and they had come in a car bearing no. DL8C3600. The number of persons and the registration number of the car further suggest that the four persons stayed in the hotel were none but accused Rakesh Nagar, Ankit Chaudhary, Mandeep Nagar and Nakul Khari. Moreover, PW-59 Inps. Pratap Singh has stated that he had verified the DL number mentioned in the hotel register and the DL was found issued to Rakesh Kumar S/o Shu Raj Singh. This fact further fortifies that the hotel room was taken in the name of Rakesh Nagar otherwise, how the correct DL number came to be mentioned in the hotel register. This court has also not observed any reason for which the hotel staff would have manipulated the entries in the register against accused Rakesh Nagar. No such enmity has been alleged between hotel staff and accused Rakesh Nagar. Thus, it stands proved that hotel room was taken by accused Rakesh Nagar to provide shelter to other accused persons.Digitally signed
BABRU by BABRU BHAN BHAN Date:
2023.09.12 10:26:59 +0530 State Vs. Ankit Chaudhary & Ors.
FIR no.169/10 & 170/10 page no. 125 of 128 126
175. It is not even the case of accused Rakesh Nagar that he was not aware that aforesaid accused persons were wanted and absconded in murder case of Kuldeep, Monika and Shobha.
Being from the same village, accused Rakesh Nagar must be knowing that accused Ankit Chaudhary, Nakul Khari and Mandeep Nagar had commtited the murder and were wanted in above murder case. Moreover, the case was extensively covered by media and news was aired on all the major news channel. Despite having knowledge that aforesaid three accused persons were wanted in murder case, accused Rakesh Nagar gave shelter to them. He is accordingly liable to be convicted for the offence U/s 216 IPC.
176. Accused Rakesh Nagar has also been charged for the offence U/s 201 IPC on the allegations that he caused the evidence of the case to disapper by destroying pistol and cartridge used in commission of the offence. Besides the disclosure statement of the accused persons, there is nothing on record to show that accused Rakesh Nagar had disposed off the pistol and the cartridge. Pistol was not even recovered at his instance. In fact, it was recovered at instance of accused Ankit Chaudhary. Thus, the offence U/s 201 IPC is also not proved against him.
177. Case against accused Ajay is that he had provided the pistol which was used in commission of the crime. It is Digitally signed BABRU by BABRU BHAN BHAN 2023.09.12 Date:
10:27:05 +0530 State Vs. Ankit Chaudhary & Ors.
FIR no.169/10 & 170/10 page no. 126 of 128 127 alleged that on 20.06.2010, after commission of crime, this accused had called accused Mandeep Nagar to verify as to whether the pistol provided to him was working properly or not. Further alleged by the prosecution that the location of the mobile phone of accused Mandeep, Ankit and Ajay was found in Radhna Village, Garh Muketshwar, UP on 03.06.2010 and 04.06.2010. Firstly, as per the CAF filed by PW51, the mobile number 8057836769 was issued in name of some Dharmender and not in the name of accused Ajay. Said Dharmender had not been examined to show that he had given his mobile phone number to accused Ajay. Further more, even if it is accepted that mobile number was used by accused Ajay, one phone call by the accused on number of Mandeep Nagar shall not be a conclusive proof of the fact that he had provided the pistol to them and the phone call was made for verification of the quality of the pistol. Similarly, this court cannot assume merely on basis of location of the mobile number of accused Ajay, Mandeep and Ankit that they had met on 03.06.2010 and 04.06.2010 for purpose of obtaining the pistol. In addition to the one phone call by accused Ajay to accused Mandeep on 20.06.10 and the location in UP on 03.06.2010 and 04.06.2010, nothing has been adduced to establish the allegations against accused Ajay. Further, no incriminating recovery or any other evidence has been brought against accused Ajay.
178. Accordingly, accused Ajay is acquited of all the charges against him. Digitally signed BABRU by BABRU BHAN BHAN 2023.09.12 Date:
10:27:12 +0530 State Vs. Ankit Chaudhary & Ors.
FIR no.169/10 & 170/10 page no. 127 of 128 128
179. To sum up, the prosecution has successfully proved offence of criminal conspiracy for murder and also the murder against accused Ankit Chaudhary, Mandeep Nagar and Nakul Khari. Accused Ankit Chaudhary, Mandeep Nagar and Nakul Khari are accordingly convicted for offence U/s 120B IPC for conspiracy for murder and u/s 302 IPC for committing murder of Kuldeep, Monika and Shobha in pursuant to said conspiracy. Further, accused Ankit Chaudhary is convicted for offence U/s 25/27 Arms Act and accused Mandeep Nagar is convicted for the offence U/s 27 Arms Act. Accused Rakesh is convicted for offence U/s 216 IPC. Accused Ajay is acquitted of all the charges against him.
180. Now the matter be listed for order on sentence against convicted accused persons on 07.10.2023.
Digitally signed
Announced in the Open Court BABRU by BABRU
BHAN
On 04.09.2023 BHAN Date:
2023.09.12
10:27:23 +0530
(BABRU BHAN)
ADDL.SESSIONS JUDGE-03,
NORTH WEST DISTT,
ROHINI COURTS
DELHI/04.09.2023
State Vs. Ankit Chaudhary & Ors.
FIR no.169/10 & 170/10 page no. 128 of 128