Delhi District Court
State vs Neeraj on 25 November, 2023
IN THE COURT OF MS. GURMOHINA KAUR: ADDL.
SESSIONS JUDGE (SOUTH-WEST)-05, DWARKA
COURTS: DELHI
Sessions Case No. 441078-2016
CNR No: DLSW01-000587-2013
FIR No. 115/2013
Police Station: Chhawla
Under Section: 302/201/120B/34 IPC
In the matter of:
State
VERSUS
1. Neeraj
S/o Sh. Dharam Singh
R/o Village Paprawat, New Delhi.
2. Manisha
W/o Sh. Neeraj
R/o Village Paprawat, New Delhi.
Date of filing of the case : 06.08.2013
Date of Reserving judgment : 19.09.2023
Date of Pronouncement : 25.11.2023
JUDGMENT
1. The present chargesheet under Section 302/201/120B/34 IPC was committed to this court pursuant to the order dated 02.08.2013 of the Ld. MM/Dwarka and was received by the Ld. Predecessor of this Court on 06.08.2013.
State Vs. Neeraj and Ors. Page No. 1/342. The case of the prosecution in brief as follows:
That on 21.04.2013, a telephonic information was received at the Police Station Chhawla that dead bodies of a man and woman were found at house No. 276, near Piliya Johad, which was recorded vide DD No. 8A. On reaching the spot, Inspector Harender Singh, Inspector Balbir Singh along with Constable Dinesh and SI Prakash Chand found the dead body of a male and female person, which were recovered from the fodder (tuda) room on the plot of Sh. Harkesh. On enquiry, it was found that the dead body of the male was of Dharam Singh and the dead body of female was that of his wife Kamlesh. Accused Neeraj was the son of the deceased couple. On the basis of the complaint of Harkesh, a tehrir for the offence under Section 302/201 IPC, FIR was registered. The crime team recorded the statements of family members and Inspector Harender Singh prepared site plan Ex.PW-26/A and the Complainant recorded his supplementary statement. The FSL team arrived at the spots lifted the blood stains from the place where the dead bodies were found and also from the house of deceased Dharam Singh. After lifting the exhibits by the FSL, the same were handed over to Inspector Harender Singh, who sealed the same with the seal of VK. On the instruction of FSL team, Inspector Harender Singh also lifted one blood stained cloth (Pocha) which were found on the first floor of the house of Dharam Singh and he also lifted one pair of blood stained slippers from the aangan and a piece of blood stained chaddar (sheet) from the ground floor bedroom of Dharam Singh. Inspector Harender Singh also lifted one blood stained red colour printed chunni/odni found in the plot of Harkesh and all the State Vs. Neeraj and Ors. Page No. 2/34 aforesaid articles were kept in a pullanda and sealed with seal of VK and seized vide a seizure memo. Inspector Harender Singh also lifted earth control from 11 places from the plot of Harkesh and house of deceased Dharam Singh, which were kept in separate envelopes with seal of VK and seized vide seizure memo. On inspection of roof of the house of the Dharam Singh, one blood stained broken handle of a knife and one blood stained plastic lighter of cream colour were recovered, which were lifted from the ground floor in aangan, also one blood stained hukka from the room of deceased Dharam Singh were lifted by Inspector Harender Singh and sealed with the seal of VK and seized vide seizure memo. Pursuant to arrest of accused Neeraj, his disclosure statement was recorded and accused Neeraj thereafter led the police officials to the place of occurrence and also got recovered a plastic katta with label "Shakti Bhog" from 'Taand of a room' in his house. There were two ropes in the said plastic katta and one of the ropes measuring 2ft in length was having blood stains and the measurement of other rope was 40 feet. Both the ropes and the Katta were sealed with the seal of VK and seized vide seizure memos. Post mortem of both the dead bodies were conducted and the dead bodies of both the deceased person were identified by the relatives of deceased. On completion of investigation, it was concluded by the Investigating Officer (IO) that both the accused persons Manisha and Neeraj had committed the offence under Section 302/201/120 B/34 IPC. A police report under Section 173 Cr.P.C was put before Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate with a view to put both the Accused persons on trial.State Vs. Neeraj and Ors. Page No. 3/34
3. In the light off the police report and the documents filed along with the same, the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate having taken cognizance of the offence, complied with the provision of Section 207 Cr.P.C and the committed the case to the court of session.
4. On 15.03.2014, after hearing the Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and the counsel for the Accused persons, charge were framed against the Accused persons under Section 120B, Section 302 r/w Section 120 B IPC, Section 201 r/w Section 120 B IPC. The charges were read over to both the accused persons, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. In support of the case, the prosecution got examined the following witnesses namely, PW-1 Harkesh Yadav, PW-2 Ramesh, PW-3 Matadin, PW-4 Narpal, PW-5 Sarita, PW-6 Naresh Kumar, Senior Scientific Officer, Biology, FSL Rohini, PW-7 Dr. Anil Yadav, Medical Officer, posted at RTRM Hospital, PW-8 Dr. Mahesh Kumar, Medical Officer, RTRM Hospital, PW- 9 Dr. Sitanta Das, Medical Officer, RTRM Hospital, PW-10 Retd. ASI Attar Singh, PW-11 Khazan Singh, Incharge Mobile Crime Team Dwarka, PW-12 Constable Manish, PW-13 Constable Naveen, PW-14 HC Gurvinder Gujral, PW-15 Constable Prempal Singh, PW-16 Duty Officer HC Anita, PW-17 Constable Pawan, PW-18 Constable Rakesh, PW-19 HC Ramesh Chand, PW-20 ASI Surjeet Singh, PW-21 ASI Ram Avtar, PW-22 HC Sanjay, PW-23 SI Sandeep, PW-24 SI Prakash Chand, PW-25 Inspector Balbir Singh, PW-26 Inspector Harender Singh, PW-27 ASI State Vs. Neeraj and Ors. Page No. 4/34 Jagdish Raj, PW-28 WHC/ Shashi Sharma, PW-29 Mr. M.L Meena, Senior Scientific Officer (Chemistry), FSL Rohini, PW- 30 Parshuram Singh, Assistant Director (Physics), FSL Rohini and PW-31 Indresh Kumar Mishra, Assistant Director (Biology) FSL Rohini.
6. On completion of Prosecution Evidence, both the accused persons Neeraj and Manisha were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C and their statements were recorded on 06.03.2020. During their examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C, both the accused persons denied the correctness of the incrimination circumstances appearing in the evidence against them and stated that they had been falsely implicated in the present case. Supplementary statements were also recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C for both the accused persons on 27.07.2022, wherein they denied having knowledge of the incriminating evidence sent to FSL and the FSL results.
7. At the stage of Defence evidence, accused Manisha did not wish to lead Defence Evidence. Accused Neeraj sought to lead Defence Evidence, however, vide order dated 11.03.2020, it was reflected that Accused Neeraj stated before the Ld. Predecessor of this court that he did not wish to lead DE.
8. At the stage of final arguments, Sh. Dushyant Siwatch, Ld. Additional PP for the State drew attention to the deposition of prosecution witnesses. He submitted that the deceased Dharam Singh and Kamlesh were the parents of accused Neeraj, whose State Vs. Neeraj and Ors. Page No. 5/34 dead bodies were found from the room in the plot of Harkesh Yadav. He submitted that accused Neeraj pursuant to criminal conspiracy with co-accused Manisha, who was his wife, committed the murder of Dharam Singh and Smt. Kamlesh and thereafter, shifted the dead bodies to nearby plot of Harkesh by pulling them through stairs. He further submitted that the traces of ropes found near the dead bodies matched with the ropes recovered at the instance of Accused Neeraj and the same were used to dispose off the dead bodies. It was further urged that the handle of knife which is the alleged weapon of offence was also recovered at the instance of accused Neeraj. It is further submitted that circumstances appearing in the present case have proved that both the accused persons were involved in the commission of the crime under Section 302/307/120 B IPC and therefore, they should be convicted and punished.
9. Per contra, Ld. counsel for accused Neeraj urged during final arguments that none of the prosecution witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution and even the scientific evidence was not properly collected and sealed by the police officials. It is further submitted that there is no eye witness to the present incident and there is no evidence on record to even prima facie suggest that both the accused persons had conspired to murder both the deceased persons as is alleged by the prosecution, both the accused persons or that dispose off the bodies off deceased persons. It is submitted that the Accused Neeraj should be acquitted of all the charges.
State Vs. Neeraj and Ors. Page No. 6/3410. Ld. counsel for accused Manisha has submitted during final arguments that there is no piece of incriminating evidence on record produced during trial qua Accused Manisha and that since the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts, therefore, both the Accused persons be acquitted for the alleged offences.
11. Arguments heard as advanced by all the parties. Record perused. Considered.
12. In the present case, to bring home the guilt of accused persons, prosecution examined the following witnesses:-
13. PW-1 Sh. Harkesh Yadav, deposed that on 21.04.2013 at about 05.22 AM, he reached his plot adjacent to the house of deceased Dharam Singh and Kamlesh and the said plot was used by him for keeping cattle and he had gone there to feed them. He further stated that there was one room built on the said plot, which was used for storing fodder and as soon as opened the main gate and entered the room for taking out the fodder, he saw bodies of one male and female lying inside the room. He deposed that he got frightened on seeing the bodies and told the villagers regarding what he had seen. He stated that he along with 5-6 villagers went inside the room and identified the bodies as that of Dharam Singh and Kamlesh. He stated that he called the police at about 05.25 AM and police reached the spot within 5-10 minutes and also recorded his statement, Ex.PW-1/A bearing his signature at point A. He further stated that he had nothing else to State Vs. Neeraj and Ors. Page No. 7/34 say in the present case and he was thereafter cross-examined by Ld. Addl. PP for the State as he resiled from his previous statements recorded on 21.04.2013 and 24.04.2013.
During his cross-examination by Ld. Addl. PP for the State, he admitted that his statement Ex.PW-1/A was read over to him before obtaining his signature. He further admitted that wall of the house of deceased Dharam Singh was adjacent to his plot and was having blood stains on the ground near the place where cattle was tied. He, however, denied the suggestion that he was not disclosing the true facts in order to save the accused.
During his cross-examination by Ld. counsel for accused persons, he stated that he had not read over the statement Ex.PW- 1/A before signing the same. He further stated that the wall of the house of deceased which were adjacent to his plot was painted in red color and he did not observe any blood stains on the wall.
14. PW-2 Sh. Ramesh, deposed that he was having two built up rooms, a latrine and a bathroom situated opposite to the house of accused Neeraj. He stated that he went outside and inquired and Harkesh told him that dead bodies of two persons were lying on his plot and thereafter, he went along with Harkesh at his plot and after seeing the dead bodies, he came to know that they were of Dharam Singh and Kamlesh. He stated that the police officers also reached the spot in his presence. He stated that the police never met him nor his statement was recorded. He further disposed that police officers asked him to sign some papers saying that they had recovered from the house of Accused and first he refused to sign but on being insisted by the police State Vs. Neeraj and Ors. Page No. 8/34 officers, he put his signatures on some blank papers. He was cross-examined by Ld. Addl. PP for the State as he resiled from his statement dated 21.04.2013. He denied the suggestion that Accused Neeraj had got recorded a gunni bag containing two ropes from a slab (taand) in a room situated on the ground floor in my presence stating that he had used the said rope in dragging the dead bodies or that in his presence, the said gunni bag was checked or two ropes having blood stains were taken out from the gunni bag. He further denied the suggestion that on the intervening night of 20-21.04.2013 at about 10.30 PM-01.00 PM, he had heard some screaming coming from the house of deceased Dharam Singh or that he had stated that Accused and his family members used to quarrel occasionally
15. PW-3 Sh. Matadin deposed that he had identified the dead of his brother, Dharam Singh after postmortem, Ex.PW-3/A. The said witness was cross-examined by Ld. Addl. PP for the State as he resiled from his statement. During his cross-examination by Ld Addl. PP for the State, he denied that he had stated in his statement that Accused used to quarrel with his parents or that before his marriage, he was living separately from his parents.
16. PW- 4 Sh. Narpal deposed that on 22.04.2013, he had identified the dead bodies of his Chachi Kamlesh and Chacha Dharam Singh after post mortem Ex.PW-4/A. He stated that he knew nothing about this case.
The said witness was cross-examined by Ld. Addl. PP for the State as he resiled from his statement. During his cross-
State Vs. Neeraj and Ors. Page No. 9/34examination by Ld Addl. PP for the State, he denied that he had stated in his statement that Accused used to quarrel with his parents or that before his marriage, he was living separately from his parents.
17. PW-5 Savita deposed that she did not know about the case. The witness was cross-examined by Ld. Addl. PP for the State and during her cross-examination she denied the suggestion that she had stated in her statement that there used to be quarrel between Accused and his parents.
18. PW-6 Sh. Naresh Kumar, Senior Scientific Officer, Biology, FSL Rohini deposed that on 21.04.2023 on the direction of Director, FSL Rohini, he visited the crime scene .i.e. house of Dharam Singha and plot of Harkesh at Village Paprawat, Najafgarh, PS Chhawla, New Delhi and inspected the same. He further stated that blood was present on both the places, details of which are mentioned in his report dated 23.04.2013 and all the exhibits were marked A to N. He deposed that some other items which were present in the house like pant, t-shirt found near the bathroom at 1st floor, cloth pieces, lighter and handle of knife lying on the terrace and were also having blood stains and that some fibers were also found on boundary wall. He added that all the exhibits were lifted and kept in separate envelopes and handed over to IO for further examination. His detailed report was Ex.PW-6/A. He was not cross-examined by Ld. counsel for accused persons.
State Vs. Neeraj and Ors. Page No. 10/3419. PW-7 Dr. Anil Yadav, stated during his deposition that on 21.04.2013, he was posted as Casualty Medical Officer at RTRM Hospital and on that day one person namely Neeraj was brought to the casualty for medical examination and on examination he found swelling on his right thumbs and index finger. He stated further that he prepared the MLC, Ex.PW-7/A bearing his signatures at point A. During his cross-examination by Ld. counsel for Accused persons he deposed that he could not tell whether the injuries mentioned in MLC Ex.PW-7/A were fresh or not.
20. PW-9 Dr. S. Das, Medical Officer, RTRM Hospital deposed that on 22.04.2013, he was posted as Forensic Medical Officer at RTRM Hospital and on that day, the dead body of one Dharam Singh was brought to mortuary of RTRM hospital by IO Harender Singh for post mortem. He stated that he conducted the post mortem at about 12.15 PM on the dead body of deceased Dharam Singh and found injuries of incision wound on forehead, cheeks, arms, abdomen on the left side, along with abrasion and that there were two fatal injury no. 11 which pierces skin, subcutaneous tissue, underlying thoracic muscle between fifth and sixth ribs from posterior axillary line then enters into pleural cavity and pierces upper part of lower lobe of left lung through and through and enters into heart in middle of posterior surface, involving whole thickness of heart muscle.
He stated that death of Dharam Singh was due to hemorrhagic shock consequent to multiple injuries and all the injuries were ante mortem and recent. He stated that injury no. 11 State Vs. Neeraj and Ors. Page No. 11/34 causing internal wounds is sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature and time since death at the time of post mortem is 34-36 hours. He stated that he prepared the detailed postmortem which was Ex.PW-9/A. He further deposed that on that day, dead body of Kamlesh Devi was brought to mortuary of RTRM hospital by IO Inspector Harender Singh, for postmortem. He conducted postmortem at about 02.00 PM on the body of deceased Kamlesh Devi and found incision wounds present on right side below right eye, abraded contusion on the base of nose. He further deposed that nasal bone was fractured and there was abraded contusion on the base of nasal tip, left side face below left, right cheek and forehead, right side breast, front of lower abdomen apart from incision wounds on scalp right side phalanx etc. He stated the cause of death of Kamlesh Devi was due to carnio cerebral damage consequent to the injuries and all the injuries are ante-mortem and recent and injury no. 20,21 and 22 are sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature and time since death was about 34-36 hours at the time of post-mortem. He stated that he prepared the detailed post mortem report, Ex.PW-9/B. The said witness was not cross-examined by counsel for accused persons.
21. PW-10 Retd. ASI Attar Singh deposed that on 21.04.2013, he was posted with the mobile crime team/South West District, New Delhi and on receipt of information through control room, he along with photograph Constable Manish Kumar and Finger Print Proficient Constable Pravesh Kumar reached the spot i.e. house of Dharam Singh, Village Paprawat, Najafgarh, New Delhi State Vs. Neeraj and Ors. Page No. 12/34 by Government vehicle, where SHO/Inspector Harender Singh and SI Prakash Chand along with staff met them. He further stated that he inspected the house of the deceased Dharam Singh, wherein he noticed blood stains on the ground floor, staircase and on the parapet wall on the terrace facing towards the plot of land of Harkesh. He added that on the terrace, they also found broken handle of a knife and one cigarette lighter and also noticed that on the terrace of clothes were there for drying purpose and in the bathroom on the first floor they noticed red color bucket. They stated that they also observed that blood stains had been wiped off the floor of the ground. He further deposed that he had gone to the plot of Harkesh, where he had noticed blood stains in the feeding place of the buffaloes below the parapet wall of the house of Dharm Singh, where they had noticed blood stains. He deposed that they noticed that from the feeding place till the room used for storing of fodder there were dragging marks/blood stairs on the ground. He added that in the room used for storing fodder which was open, they found two dead bodies i.e. of one lady and one male having injury mark. He stated that he prepared the Crime Inspector Report Ex.PW-10/A and handed over the same to Inspector Harender Singh at the spot. He stated that the lighter and the broken plastic handle of knife were recovered from terrace of the house of Accused. During his cross- examination by counsel for both the accused persons, he stated that he had not told in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C to the IO that during inspection of house of Dharam Singh, he had noticed blood stains on the staircase and on parapet wall of the terrace facing towards the plot of Harkesh and on terrace. He was State Vs. Neeraj and Ors. Page No. 13/34 also confronted with his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C as there were many contradictions in his examination in chief and statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. He also admitted that whatever articles were allegedly seized in his presence, were never sealed in his presence and further admitted that he was a witness only to the effect that Constable Manish took the photographs in the case and the inspection were carried out by him. He further admitted that from the seized articles mentioned in the Ex.PW-10/A, he did not find anything incriminating in the inspection, which was thoroughly carried out by him and his team and no footprints or chance prints were found at the spot. He further admitted that his signature were not present in the seizure memo.
22. PW-11 Sh. Khazan Singh deposed that on 21.04.2013 at about 04.10 PM, he received information from District Control Room and he along with photographer Constable Pawan Kumar, Driver HC Naresh, Finger Print Proficient HC Ashok along with SHO Inspector Harender and his staff reached the house of Dharam Singh, village Paprawat, Najafgarh, New Delhi. He identified accused Neeraj present in the court and added that accused Neeraj got recovered one gunny bag from slab (taand) in the room on the ground floor of the house of Dharam Singh. He added that the said gunny bag was opened and it was found containing two ropes, one rope was found to 72 feet long and second rope was found to be 40 feet long. He stated that there was blood stains on the rope which was 72 feet long. He stated that the said gunny bag was taken into possession and he handed State Vs. Neeraj and Ors. Page No. 14/34 his report Ex.PW-11/A. During his examination in chief conducted on 10.03.2015, he identified the gunny bag having mark Shakti Bhog Atta, Ex.P2 and ropes recovered at the instance of Accused Neeraj from the shelf (taand) on the ground floor of his house were Ex.P1. During his cross-examination conducted by counsel for both the accused persons he admitted that his signatures were not present on the seizure memo. He stated that there were four people in the team and nobody's signature was present on the seizure memo. He admitted that it was no where mentioned that the rope was sealed and even the impression of the seal was not mentioned inn Ex.PW-11/A.
23. PW-12 Sh. Constable Manish deposed that on 21.04.2013, he reached the spot along with incharge Crime Team ASI Attar Singh and other staff at Village Paprawat. He stated that he took 54 photographs of the scene of crime from different angles and after developing the same, the said photographs Ex.PW-12/A1 to A54 and the said negatives Ex.PW-12/B1 to B54 handed over to the IO.
The witness was not cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for accused persons.
24. PW-13 Constable Naveen deposed that on 05.07.2013, he was posted in Mapping Section, South West District as Assistant Draftsman and visited the spot. He added that he took the measurement of the spot at the instance of Inspector Harender Singh and on the basis of the same, prepared the site plan Ex.PW-13/A. He was not cross-examined by counsel for accused State Vs. Neeraj and Ors. Page No. 15/34 persons.
25. PW-14 HC Gurvinder Gujral deposed that on the intervening night of 20-21.04.2013, he was on duty as PCR Van Zebra 23 as Incharge PCR Van along with Constable Prempal, Gunman and driver Mahesh from 08.00 PM to 08.00 AM. He added that he along with staff reached the spot near pilia jhod at plot of Harkesh where two dead bodies were found lying in tuda room. He stated that some public persons gathered at the spot and informed that the dead bodies were of Dharam Singh and Kamlesh. He deposed that Accused Neeraj (whom he correctly identified) was found on the roof of the house of Dharam Singh. He further stated that Constable Prempal got opened the door of the house of accused which was adjoining to the plot of Harkesh. He stated that he also went inside the house of Accused and found blood spots at various places in the house.
During his cross-examination, by counsel for accused persons, PW-14 admitted that he was told by Constable Prempal that accused Neeraj was found at the first floor of the house and that when Constable Prempal had opened the door of the house, he found blood spots at various places in the house and the said fact was not in his knowledge. He further admitted that he remained standing on the ground floor of the adjoining house near the bodies and further admitted that neither had he gone to the house of Neeraj nor had noticed any blood stains in his house. The said witness was cross-examined by Ld. Addl. PP for the State wherein he stated that he had not gone inside the house of Accused Neeraj. The witness was not cross-examined by counsel State Vs. Neeraj and Ors. Page No. 16/34 for Accused persons.
26. PW-15 Constable Prem Pal deposed that on 21.04.2013, he along with HC Gurvinder reached Pilia Jhod at plot of caller Harkesh in PCR Van and in the plot of Harkesh two dead bodies were found gathered at the spot and the dead bodies were that of Dharam Singh and Kamlesh, parents of Accused Neeraj. He identified accused Neeraj and stated that he was found at the spot and that he had noticed the presence of Accused at the spot after the arrival of local police and he did not know who had opened the door of the house of Accused Neeraj. The witness was cross- examined by Ld. Addl. PP for the State as he resiled from his statement on material aspects when he denied the suggestion that he had opened the door of the house of accused. He further denied that he had gone inside the house of Accused Neeraj and had seen blood stains.
The witness was not cross-examined by counsel for Accused persons.
27. PW-16 HC Anita deposed that on 21.04.2013, she was the duty officer and had recorded FIR No. 115/2013 at above 09.30 AM, on the basis of rukka given by SI Prakash Chand. The copy of FIR was Ex.PW-16/A and after recording FIR, she made her endorsement on the rukka Ex.PW-16/B and handed over the same to Constable Ramesh to hand it over Inspector Harinder. The said witness was not cross-examined by counsel for accused persons.
State Vs. Neeraj and Ors. Page No. 17/3428. PW-17 Constable Pawan deposed that on 21.04.2013, he was posted as photographer in Mobile Crime Team, South West, District, Sector-9, Dwarka and on that day on the requisition of local police, he along with ASI Khazan Singh, Incharge Mobile Crime Team reached the house of Dharam Singh at 05.15 PM. He added that Accused Neeraj had pointed out towards a shelf(taand) and got recovered Katta/Bag and two ropes were recovered from the said katta/bag. He stated that he had taken the photographs of the proceedings of the recovery of the said ropes from the bag at the instance of Accused Neeraj and that one of the recovered ropes was of 72 feet and the other rope was 42 feet in length and one of the ropes was having blood stains. He added that the recovered articles were seized and sealed by IO and he had clicked 13 photographs but prints of only 11 could develop, the same were Ex.PW-17/A1 to PW-17/A11 and negatives of which were Ex.PW-17/B1 to Ex.PW-17/B11. During his cross- examination by counsel for both the accused persons, he stated that he did not make any DD Entry regarding his departure and arrival and added that only witnesses message was received through Control Room. He stated that when he reached the spot, the house was open. He stated that he did not know the name of the public witnesses who were asked to join the investigation by IO. He stated that IO did not collect photographs from him personally. He stated that he could not tell on which date and by whom the photographs were given to IO and denied the suggestion that he was not present at the spot and for this reason, none of the documents prepared bears his signature.
State Vs. Neeraj and Ors. Page No. 18/34During his further cross-examination conducted on 16.05.2018 by Counsel for both the accused persons, he admitted that it was correct that no independent witness was present at the spot during the inspection of house. He further stated that he did not know whether signature of any independent witness were taken on the service memo or not and further admitted that the said ropes were not seized in his presence and he does not know whether the ropes were sealed by IO or not. He stated that he did not have personal knowledge regarding the Accused and the case he has deposed as per the file.
29. PW-18 Statement of Constable Rakesh, deposed that on the instruction of SHO Inspector Harender Singh, he had taken two dead bodies (one male and one female) to RTRM Hospital, Jafarpur, New Delhi in TATA 407 which and he was accompanied by Constable Umesh. He stated that after preparing the MLC's of the deceased persons, the dead bodies were shifted to mortuary and Constable Umresh was deputed in the mortuary for the safety of the bodies. He was not cross-examined by Counsel for both the Accused persons.
30. PW-19 HC Ramesh Chand deposed that on 21.04.2023 on receipt of DD No. 8A, he along with SI Prakash Chand, reached the spot at village Paparawat, New Delhi at about 06.00 AM and in the meantime, SHO Inspector Harender Singh had also reached the spot along with staff and many public persons were present at the spot. He stated that complainant Harkesh Yadav was also present there and he told them that two dead bodies State Vs. Neeraj and Ors. Page No. 19/34 were lying in the room in his plot and inside the room, dead body of a male and female were found lying and their identities were revealed as Dharam Singh and Kamlesh and on the requisition of SI Prakash Chand, Crime Team had reached the spot and SI Prakash Chand had recorded the statement of Harkesh Yadav and prepared rukka, which he took to PS Chhawla at about 09.30 AM. He stated that he presented the rukka before duty officer HC Anita and she recorded the FIR in the present case. During his cross-examination by counsel for Accused persons, he stated that he did not have personal knowledge regarding the Accused and the case.
31. PW-20 ASI Sujeet deposed that during investigation, Accused Neeraj (whom he correctly identified) was interrogated by him on the instruction of IO and the Accused confessed that he had committed the murder of his parents. He stated that the Accused Neeraj was again interrogated by IO/Inspector Harender Singh in his presence and Accused also confessed the aforesaid facts before IO. He added that Accused Neeraj was arrested by IO vide arrest memo Ex.PW-20/A and his personal search was conducted vide personal search memo Ex.PW-20/B and accused Neeraj lead the police party including him, Inspector Harender Singh and Inspector Balbir Singh, ATO to his house at Village Paprawat and he produced plastic katta after lifting the same from 'taand' of a room in his house. He stated that there was a label of Shakti Bhog Atta on the said plastic Katta and there were two ropes inside the plastic katta which were taken out by Accused and produced before IO Inspector Harender Singh. He State Vs. Neeraj and Ors. Page No. 20/34 deposed on similar lines as other police officials and also identified the gunny bag, Ex.P2 and the two ropes Ex.P1(colly) before the court. During his cross-examination by counsel for accused persons, he stated that he had not made any DD entry in respect of the arrival or departure entry and had also prepared any document by his hand. On 19.09.219, during his cross- examination by counsel for accused persons Neeraj and Manish he stated that he had stated in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C to IO that there was a label of Shakti Bhog Atta on said plastic Katta and when attention was drawn to his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C, it was not so recorded. He further stated that he had not seen the accused Neeraj lifting or producing the katta from the taand of a room in the house. He also stated that he had not stated to the IO in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C that accused produced plastic katta after lifting the same from taand of room in house. He stated that he was also not aware if he had his departure entry in the police station on that house. He added that the accused was arrested at 04.30 PM by SHO and the SHO corrected the time mentioned in the arrest memo by overwriting upon it. He added that he did not know what was the time mentioned in arrest memo prior to correction by overwriting on the same. He stated that he also cannot say at what time the correction was made and added that the correction was made at 04.30 PM. He denied the suggestion that he was not a part and parcel of the investigation or that he had deposed falsely at the instance of IO.
State Vs. Neeraj and Ors. Page No. 21/3432. PW-21 ASI Ram Avtar deposed that on 21.04.2023, he was posted at PS Chhawla as Duty Officer and he had recorded DD No. 8A at 05.45 AM on receipt of an information through Police Station Control Room regarding the lying of the dead body of a male and female at H. No. 276, Paprawat near Pilia Johar, in a room and DD No. 8A was Ex.PW-21/A (OSR). During his cross- examination by counsel for accused persons he stated that the true copy of DD entry was prepared on the same day immediately after recording the DD entry in Roznamacha and added that he was not aware when the true copy of DD entry was handed over by said Duty Officer to IO and the duty Officer were from 12.00 AM to 08.00 AM of 21.04.2013.
33. PW-22 HC Sanjay deposed that on 14.05.2013 that on the instruction of IO/SHO Inspector Harender Singh, he had taken the exhibits which were two sealed pullandas of viscera along with the forwarding letter to FSL Rohini, after receiving the same from MHC(M). He further stated that he had deposited the Pullandas and forwarding letter in FSL and obtained the receipt of FSL. He stated that till the pullandas and forwarding letter remained in his custody, the same were not tampered with. During his cross-examination by counsel for both the accused persons, he stated that statement of MHC(M) was recorded by IO in his presence in the evening when he returned from FSL.
34. PW-23 SI Sandeep deposed that on 22.04.2013, on instruction of SHO he had produced accused Neeraj in the court (whom he correctly identified) and had moved an application for State Vs. Neeraj and Ors. Page No. 22/34 Judicial Custody. He stated during his cross-examination conducted by counsel for both the accused persons that except on 22.04.2013, he had never participated in the investigation in the above said matter.
35. PW-24 SI Prakash Chand deposed on similar lines as PW- 19 ASI Ramesh Chand. He added that on 21.04.2013, DD No. 8A, was received attested copy of which was Ex.PW-24/A. He further stated that he prepared the rukka, Ex.PW-24/B and sent Constable Ramesh to Police Station for registration of FIR. He identified both the accused persons and added that after FIR, the investigation was taken by SHO, Inspector Harender Singh. He stated that the dead bodies were sent to RTRM Hospital Jafarpur. He stated that on 22.04.2013, he along with Inspector Harender Singh went to RTRM Hospital and post mortem of the dead bodies were conducted. He stated further that after post mortem, the doctors handed over the clothes, blood gauze, viscera of deceased persons in sealed pullandas of RTRM Hospital to Inspector Harender Singh, who seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW-24/C and Ex.PW-24/D. During his cross-examination by counsel for Accused persons, he stated that DD No. 8A, was recorded on the basis of information given by Harkesh Yadav and the information was received in the morning at about 05.15 PM. He stated that DD entry was not recorded in his presence. He also stated that he did not make arrangement for videography of the place of incident on his behalf and he also did not request them to arrange video camera for recording of the place of incident and scene of crime.
State Vs. Neeraj and Ors. Page No. 23/34He was confronted with statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C regarding that in the adjoining house of deceased Dharam Singh, blood was found lying on the ground floor stairs, on the roof and the wall towards the plot of Harkesh where it was not so recorded. He also admitted it is not mentioned anywhere in the records as till when he remained at the spot, therefore, he was not able to tell the time when he left the spot.
36. PW-25 Inspector Balbir Singh deposed on similar lines as PW- 24 SI Prakash Chand and added that Accused Neeraj was present in his house on 21.04.2013 and could not give any satisfactory reply and Inspector Harender Singh after leaving him and other staff, went to PS with Accused Neeraj. He also stated that Inspector Harender Singh returned to the spot after some time with the copy of FIR and Tehrir for investigation and recorded the statements of members of crime team and prepared the site plan at the instance of the Complainant and recorded his supplementary statement. He stated that the dead bodies were sent to RTRM hospital through staff and FSL Team reached the spot and the scene of crime was inspected by FSL Team and the exhibits (blood stains) were lifted by the team of FSL from the place where the dead bodies were found and also from the house of deceased Dharam Singh. He added that after lifting the exhibits by FSL team, the same were handed over to Inspector Harender Singh by FSL Team and the exhibits were sealed by Inspector Harender Singh with the seal of VK and were seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW-25/A. He stated that on instruction of FSL team, SHO Harender had lifted one blood stained T-shirt State Vs. Neeraj and Ors. Page No. 24/34 Ex.P6, one blood stained pant of matmela color Ex.P7 and one blood stained cloth (pocha) Ex.P11 from a wire on the first floor of the house of Dharam Singh. He added that Inspector Harender Singh also lifted one pair of blood stained slippers Ex.P10 from the aangan and one piece of stained chaddar Ex.P9 from the ground floor from the bed room of Dharam Singh and that one blood stained red color printed chunni/odani Ex.P8 was found in the plot of Harkesh, which was also lifted by Inspector Harender and all these seized articles were in the pullanda and sealed with the seal of VK and seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW-25/A. He stated that Inspector Harender Singh also lifted earth control from 11 places from the house of Harkesh and from the house of deceased Dharam Singh, which was kept in separate envelope and sealed with the seal of VK and seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW-25/C. He stated that on the inspection of the roof of the house of Dharam Singh, one blood stained broken knife handle and one blood stained plastic lighter of cream color were recovered and on the ground floor in the aangan one blood stained chimta and one blood hukka Ex.P12 from the room of deceased Dharam Singh were also recovered by Inspector Harender Singh. He added that the broken handle Ex.P5, lighter Ex.P4 and chimta Ex.P3 (all correctly identified during his deposition) were sealed with the seal of VK and the hukka was sealed in separate pullanda with the seal of VK and both the pullandas were sealed vide seizure memo Ex.PW25/D. He further stated that after the arrest of Neeraj his disclosure statement was recorded by IO Inspector Harender in his presence, which was Ex.PW-25/E and accused Neeraj pointed State Vs. Neeraj and Ors. Page No. 25/34 out to the place of occurrence .i.e. house and plot of Harkesh vide pointing out memo Ex.PW-25/F. During his cross-examination by counsel for accused Manisha, he stated that he received information regarding DD No. 8A between 06.30 -7.00 AM. He further stated that the spot was having two rooms and he could not tell how many room were there on the ground floor but there one room on the first floor. He admitted that Inspector Harender had carried out most of the investigation and he was only assisting. During his cross-examination by counsel for Neeraj, he stated that he did not know to whom the seal of VK belonged and in his presence, no handing over memo regarding the said seal was prepared. He stated that he could not tell the color of wall near the plot of Harkesh facing towards the house of Harkesh and also did not know if any time stamped photography was done in this case or not. He added that he had not stated in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C that Inspector Harender had lifted one blood stained t-shirt, one blood stained pant of matmela color and one blood stained poucha from a wire on the first floor of the house of Dharam Singh. He stated that the statements which have been made by him during his examination in chief were not mentioned in the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C because they were proceedings and farad was prepared.
37. PW-26 Inspector Harender Singh was the IO in the present case. He deposed on lines similar to PW-25 Inspector Balbir Singh and added that he had prepared the site plan Ex.PW-25/A. He identified the accused Manisha and Neeraj present before the State Vs. Neeraj and Ors. Page No. 26/34 court and added that one public witness Ramesh had also joined proceedings at the spot. He stated that accused Neeraj produced the plastic katta after lifting the same from the taand of his house which had label of Shakti Bhog Atta. He further stated that there were two ropes. He added that one rope was having blood stains and measuring 72 feet in length and the length of the other rope was 40 feet. He stated that he sealed both the ropes and both the ropes were kept in the plastic katta and the katta was sealed with the seal of VK and seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW-26/A. He added that he prepared the site plan of the place of spot Ex.PW- 26/B. He added that on 22.04.2013 the post mortem of the dead bodies of deceased were conducted at RTRM hospital Jafarpur, he filled the form 25/35 Ex.PW-26/C and Ex.PW-26/D and prepared the brief facts of the case vide memo Ex.PW-26/D1 and also recorded the statements of the deceased regarding the identification of the dead bodies. He further added that during the investigation he had visited the spot with draftsman Naveen on 05.07.2013, who had taken measurement of the spot at his instance. He added that he had recorded the statements of witnesses and sent the exhibits to FSL and on completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed. He added that on receipt of FSL report dated 27.11.2013 Ex.PW-26/E, report dated 07.01.2014 Ex.PW-26/F and report dated 27.06.2014 Ex.PW- 26/G, the same were filed in the court.
During his cross-examination by counsel for accused persons, he stated that the chunni recovered from the plot Harkesh was soaked with blood and he did not prepare separate pullanda. He denied the suggestion that there was possibility of State Vs. Neeraj and Ors. Page No. 27/34 impact of blood stains from the chunni to the other articles. He further stated that he had not obtain certificate under Section 65 B of Indian Evidence Act regarding the PCR form. He further stated that the wife of Harkesh went to the said plot at 05.00 AM and whatever was told to him by the Harkesh he brought the same on record. He further stated that Harkesh was did not tell in his statement that his wife was the first person who had seen the dead bodies at about 05.00 AM. He further stated that plot of Harkesh was not being used for residential purpose and at that time the plot was meant for animals. He further stated that Ramesh and his wife were the last seen witnesses, that they had seen the accused with deceased persons alive and denied the suggestion that he had not recorded such statement which shows that the Ramesh and his wife were the last seen witnesses. He added that the seal of VK belongs to him and but there was no documentary proof regarding the same. He further stated that he did not carry videography of the spot at any point of time and further stated that the cigarette lighter was neither subjected to TIP and nor his ownership was established during the course of the investigation. He also stated that no fingerprints were found from the spot from any of the articles. He further stated that there was no documentary proof showing the presence of the accused Neeraj in the night of the house and he further stated that the knife was never recovered in the present case but added that handle of knife was recovered. He also stated that the there was no fingerprint found from the handle of the said knife and there was no witness found against accused Manisha wiping out the evidence to save accused Neeraj except her disclosure statement.
State Vs. Neeraj and Ors. Page No. 28/34He admitted that accused Neeraj never absconded from the spot at any point of time and never offered resistance or non co- operation during the investigation.
38. In the light of the charges as framed qua the accused persons i.e. under Section 120 B, 302 r/w 120 B and Section 201 IPC r/w Section 120 B IPC; and in view of the aforesaid prosecution evidence as was lead during trial it is relevant to mention the relevant provision of Criminal Conspiracy.
39. Section 120 A IPC defines the offence of criminal conspiracy:-
Definition of criminal conspiracy.--When two or more persons agree to do, or cause to be done,-- (1) an illegal act, or (2) an act which is not illegal by illegal means, such an agreement is designated a criminal conspiracy: Provided that no agreement except an agreement to commit an offence shall amount to a criminal conspiracy unless some act besides the agreement is done by one or more parties to such agreement in pursuance thereof. Explanation.--It is immaterial whether the illegal act is the ultimate object of such agreement, or is merely incidental to that object.
40. It is clear from the wording of the said provision of law that in order to attract this provision against the accused persons, the prosecution must prove that there is an agreement between the accused persons to do a particular act. Mere association or relationship in between the accused persons is not sufficient to establish conspiracy in between them with the intention to kill the deceased persons.
State Vs. Neeraj and Ors. Page No. 29/3441. In the present case, apart from the disclosure statement of the accused Manisha, there is no iota of evidence that has been lead by the prosecution to even prima facie establish any act done by the accused persons together for the purpose of criminal conspiracy. None of the prosecution witnesses have deposed anything which could establish an agreement between the parties for doing the murder of deceased persons or to cause disappearance of the evidences as alleged.
42. During trial, none of the prosecution witnesses have been able to prove any motive for the accused persons to have caused the death of the deceased persons. Furthermore, all the public witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution and in fact PW-3 Matadin and PW-5 Savita have categorically denied that accused Neeraj used to quarrel with his parents who are the deceased persons in the present case. There are no eye witnesses in the present case and none of the public witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution. All public witnesses have denied the suggestion put forth by the Ld. Addl. Public Prosecutor for the state that incriminate accused Neeraj.
43. It is also significant to mention that even the police persons who have been examined during the deposition of the present case namely PW-10 Retd. ASI Attar Singh, who was posted in mobile crime team, has during his cross-examination on been confronted with his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C, to show improvement/contradictions made during his State Vs. Neeraj and Ors. Page No. 30/34 examination in chief. PW-10 admitted that he was only witness to the effect that Constable Manish took photograph in this case and inspection was carried out by him. Furthermore, he stated that he did not find anything incriminating in the inspection throughly by him. He further stated that no footprints and chance prints were found at the spot, though, they tried to lift the same. PW-14 ASI Gurvinder Gujral, admitted during his cross-examination that he remained standing on the ground floor of the adjoining house near the bodies and further admitted that he neither went to the house of Neeraj nor noticed any blood stains in the house. PW-15 Constable Prem Pal was cross-examined by Ld. Addl. PP for the State as he was resiled from his statement recorded previously under Section 161 Cr.P.C. PW-19 HC Ramesh Chand stated that he had no personal knowledge in the present case. PW-20 ASI Sujit Singh stated during his cross-examination that he had not seen accused Neeraj lifting or producing the katta from the taand of the roof of the house and also stated that the SHO had corrected the time mentioned in the arrest memo by overwriting on it. PW-24 SI Prakash Chand has stated during his cross- examination that the statements made by him during his examination in chief regarding Inspector Harender inspecting the house of Dharam Singh and lifting the chaddar and broken handle etc., have not been mentioned in the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C as they were proceedings and farad were prepared.
44. It is also significant to mention that Inspector Harender Singh, who is the IO in the present case has categorically stated State Vs. Neeraj and Ors. Page No. 31/34 in his deposition as PW-23 that one public person Ramesh had joined the proceedings at the spot and during his cross- examination has stated that Ramesh and his wife were the last seen witnesses. However, perusal of the deposition of PW-2 Ramesh and PW-5 Savita reflects that both have resiled from their statements made under Section 161 Cr.P.C and have not supported the case of the prosecution. PW-2 Ramesh had infact denied that in his presence accused Neeraj got recovered a gunny bag with two ropes from the taand in his room situated at ground floor or that he heard quarreling noise amongst the deceased persons Dharam Singh and Kamlesh and accused Neeraj on the intervening night of 20/21.04.2013.
45. With respect to the weapon of offence, it is seen that only the handle of the knife was recovered and the knife allegedly used by the accused Neeraj to cause the stab injuries to the deceased persons could not be recovered. In this context, it is significant to mention that PW-26, who is the IO in the present case has stated during his cross-examination that no fingerprint was found on the handle of the knife.
It is also significant to mention that perusal of the Ex. PW- 6/A which is the FSL result of the crime scene state that item like pant, t-shirt found near the bathroom at the first floor, cloth piece shown by IO, lighter were lying on the terrace were also having the stains of blood. Ex.PW-26/F is the detailed analysis wherein Ex.17/B was one handle of knife and the blood could not be detected on the same. Similarly, blood was also not detected from the t-shirt, chappal, chimta, lighter, rope which were seized and State Vs. Neeraj and Ors. Page No. 32/34 sealed during investigation from the spot. Ex.PW-31/A is the FSL result of the Biology Division wherein again on the pants, chunni, piece of bedsheet, piece of cloth, rope the result was found to be inconclusive or no reaction was found after been examined by the concerned FSL officials. With respect to the fibre pieces and one plastic katta and ropes sent for examination in FSL, the report Ex.PW-26/F states that the fiber pieces seized and the rope of 22 meters were found to be similar in color, texture and thickness. Therefore, careful and meaningful reading of the FSL analysis can in no where lead to an inference that the accused Neeraj had committed the alleged offence of murder of his parents. Moreso, neither his fingerprints nor the alleged weapon of offence could be found or traced in any of the articles seized from the place/spot i.e. the house of Dharam Singh and plot of Harkesh.
46. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, in the considered opinion of this court, the prosecution has failed to prove that both accused persons Neeraj and Manisha had killed the deceased persons namely Dharam Singh and Kamlesh pursuant to a criminal conspiracy and had caused disappearance of the knife which is the weapon of offence as well as dead bodies in order to save themselves. Accordingly, both the accused persons are acquitted from the charges punishable under Section 302/201/120 B IPC.
State Vs. Neeraj and Ors. Page No. 33/3447. Ordered accordingly.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 25.11.2023 (Gurmohina Kaur) ASJ-05 (South- West), Dwarka Courts, Delhi State Vs. Neeraj and Ors. Page No. 34/34