Delhi District Court
State vs Manoj Etc on 5 September, 2008
1
IN THE COURT OF MS. REENA SINGH NAG , ASJ KKD
DELHI
Session Case No.93/03
FIR no. 23/2000
PS Nand Nagri
U/s 364A/302/34 IPC
State Vs Manoj etc
Date of Institution: 12-10-2000
Date of Arguments: 21-08-2008
Date of Judgment: 25-08-2008
State
vs
1. Manoj Kumar Singh S/o Sh. Bindeshwari Singh
2. Mohd Akhtar S/o Sh Ishaq Mian
3. Mohd Javed S/o Mohd Naseem
4. Ikramul Haq @ vishal S/o Azimuddin
5. Manoj Kumar @ Manju S/o Sh Dhanpal
JUDGMENT
1 Prosecution version is that on 11.1.00 Jagbir Singh s/o Attar Singh r/o H NO.5, Ganga Enclave, Johari Pur Road, opposite Satyam Cinema Loni, UP came to the office of Anti Extortion Cell Crime Branch, R K Puram alongwith his son-in- law Basant and nephew Sudhir Kumar and gave an application with regard to kidnapping of his son Shokeen Pal for ransom. The contents of the application interalia are to the effect that complainant is running a Auto Spare Part shop from his residence and his only son Shokeen Pal aged 35 years was running a transport business by the name of P S Transport at Apsara Border. On 03.1.00 cousin brother Varinder Singh of Jagbir Singh and Shokeen Pal left the house at about 11 a.m for transport office at Apsara Border in White Maruti Car No. DL 5C B 2353. On the same day Varinder came back home and slept with complainant Jagbir 2 Singh. On next day i.e 4.1.00 he inquired from Varinder Singh as to whereabouts of Shokeen Pal when he dislosed that on 3.1.00 he alongwith Shokeen Pal and Akhtar proceeded in the evening from Transport office to the house in the car of Shokeen Pal. The car was stopped at Loni Mode Fly over at about 7 p.m and Akhtar had then told him that they would come later on as they were having some work and he should have his meals at home. Shokeen Pal told Virender that he would return home after getting some work done for Akhtar and they both went away in Car. Despite efforts Shokeen Pal could not be traced out. On 6.1.00 at about 12.15 p.m on their telephone No. 2812127 they received an anonymoums call and caller asked Jagbir Singh to give the call to Babli. When Jagbir Singh asked the caller to give him the message the person at the other side stated that he wanted to talk to Babli, upon which Jagbir Singh told that he was father of the children, the phone was thereafter disconnected. On the same day, after some time at about 12.30 p.m their Manager Ranjit Singh telephoned him at his house and told him that he wanted to talk with Babli. He disclosed that he had received an anonymous call at Apsara Border Transport Office that Shokeen Pal had been kidnapped and his vehicle No. DL 5C B 2353 was parked at Pahar Ganj parking. Caller also conveyed that if they wanted Shokeen Pal alive then they should give two petties of Rupees one lac each to some Hundi Wala at Lahori Gate Naya Bazar. He also gave the direction/guidance for reaching that Hundi Wala i.e. from Lahori Gate crossing one should go to way to Khari Bawoli and then to Hundi Wali gali opposite Naulakha Soap and should get the further information there at a Apartment at 3rd 3 floor. Jagbir Singh further complained that on 6.1.00 at 8.15 p.m on the above telephone, another anonymous call was attended by his daughter Santresh and caller gave the ultimatum till 1 p.m on 7.1.00 for depositing the ransom amount lest Shokeen Pal would be killed. On 7.1.00 at 7.30 a.m again threatening was given on phone for depositing the ransom amount with Hundi wala. Demand was repeated at 4.50- p.m that day. In addition, caller also stated that complainants were playing smart and that they were having all the inner information. At 3.55 p.m the threatening was repeated. On 8.1.00 two calls were received at 8.05 a.m repeating the threats. Next call was received at 3.30p.m. On 9.1.00 such calls were received on the above phone on three occasions and all these calls were attended by his daughter Santresh. Complaint was marked to SI Pyare Lal and after having words with his Senior Officers, FIR was got registered U/s. 364A IPC by sending constable Ram Avtar to PS Nand Nagri. During investigation site plan was prepared, Maruti Car of Shokeen Pal was recovered from New Delhi Railway Station Car Parking on 12.1.00. Several teams were deployed at different places for tracing out Shokeen Pal. Telephone of complainant was also kept under observation. 2 During investigation one Munna Khan @ Matloob Ahmad Khan son of Naseer Ahmad of District Motihari Bihar disclosed that he had since learnt that Shokeen Pal and Akhtar of Motihari went missing since 3.1.00 ( Akhtar was a neighbourer transporter of Munna Khan). The inquiry from STD persons revealed that Amjad brother of Akhtar was talking with Akhtar on Mobile No,.9810184352, SI Pyare Lal obtained the prints out of above phone number from Airtel 4 Office and found that few calls of above telephone number were made to Motihari and few calls were made to mobile no. 9810174266. The call details of later number were also obtained and it was revealed therefrom that most of the calls from that telephone number 9810174266 were made to Motihari.
3 On getting this revelation SI Suresh Kumar alongwith staff and relevant documents were sent to Motihari Bihar to enquire about Akhtar and others. SI Suresh Kumar on the basis of the telephone details joined Mukesh Kumar in the enquiry. This Mukesh Kumar son of Ram Chander r/o village Jivali District Motihari Bihar disclosed that he alognwith his own co-villeger Manoj, Akhtar and Javed conspired for abducting transporter Shokeen Pal and in pursuance of conspiracy on 3.1.00 Manoj, Akhtar, Javed and Vishal abducted Shokeen Pal and kept him as a captive in a tenanted accommodation. He further disclosed that while tying up Shokeen Pal, Javed sustained a bullet injury and he had come for his treatment at Motihari.
4 On getting this disclosure, SI Suresh Kumar arrested Mukesh Kumar and Javed from District Motihari on 23.1.00 and produced them before ld CJM Motihari and obtained their transit remand.
5 SI Pyare Lal on coming to know the developments on telephone from SI Suresh Kumar, conducted raid withs his staff and on 27.1.00 from Tukmeer Pur extension Karawal Nagar accused Manoj, Mohd. Akhtar and Ikramul Haq @ Vishal were over powered and interrogated. It came on record from their interrogation that accused Manoj Kumar son of Bindashwari Pershad suffered losses of 17/18 lacks in 5 September/October 1999 as his Ball Bearings were seized at Bihar which were to be smuggled. Mohd. Akhtar got two trucks financed from KGA Finance Company on the personal guarantee of Shokeen Pal but due to non payment of the installments trucks were seized by Finance Company thereby Mohd. Akhtar sustained losses. In October 1999 Javed introduced Mohd. Akhtar with Manoj and in November 1999 about three/four days prior to Diwali Javed, Manoj, Akhtar and Mukesh met at the rented accommodation of Mukesh at Motihari, wherein the conspiracy was hatched. Manoj instructed Mukesh that when Shokeen Pal would be abducted in Delhi they would contact Mukesh on phone and Mukesh was to raise ransom demand of Rs.20,00,000/- on phone which was to be collected through Hawala in Nepal as Manoj had good acquaintance in Nepal due to his smuggling business there.
6 Accused persons further disclosed that in pursuance of the conspiracy Akhtar, Manoj and Javed came to Delhi and took a two room set on rent to keep the abducted person there. Accsued Ikramul @ Vishal who was a tailor at Sagar Pur also joined in the conspiracy and Manoj, Akhtar, Javed and Ikramul started living in that tenanted accommodation. Akhtar, Javed and Ikramul also purchased two gunny bags,one polythene bag and two big knives,whereas Manoj purchased fortvin injections and country made pistol .315 bore and one mobile telephone number 9810184352 to make contact with Mukesh. 7 On 3.1.00 Mohd. Akhtar went to transport office of Shokeen Pal and asked him to join the new year celebration and he told him that he would go at 7/7.30 p.m. This fact was 6 disclosed to Manoj by Akhtar on mobile phone. In the evening Shokeen Pal, Mohd. Akhtar and Varinder uncle of Shokeen Pal left the transport office and at 7 p.m at Loni Border fly over Akhtar and Shokeen Pal dropped Varinder and Shokeen Pal was brought to tenanted accommodation at Tukmeer Pur, where they all had meals. Thereafter, the volume of tape recorder was increased, Akhtar, Javed and Ikramul caught hold of Shokeen Pal and Manoj injected fortwin injection to Shokeen Pal and when he protested, Manoj in order to terrorise him took out his country made revolver and showed it to shokeen Pal whereupon Shokeen Pal pounced upon the same as a result accidental fire caused injury on the right foot of Javed and the bullet pierced his shoes and foot ( Panja). Thereafter, shokeen Pal was tied up on the cot with the help of rope in the inner room and tape was affixed on his mouth and he was injected and made unconscious. 8 Manoj and Akhtar alongwith Javed went to Doctor at Anand Parbat in the car of Shokeen Pal and dressing was got done on the injury sustained by Javed. Thereafter car was taken by the trio to New Delhi Railway Station and was abandoned there and they all returned to the house at Tukmeer Pur in TSR.
9 On 4.1.00 when Shokeen Pal started coming to his senses he was again given an injection by Manoj. He was injected further in the night. On 5.1.00 when Shokeen Pal came to his senses and Manoj was changing his tape on his mouth, Shokeen Pal remarked that after his release he would implicate all the persons so a decision was taken to kill him. As per disclosures of accused persons Akhtar caught hold of head of Shokeen Pal whereas Ikramul caught hold of his both 7 legs and Javed caught hold of his both hands. Manoj closed his mouth and throttled him.
10 As per prosecution version in order to dispose off the dead body Manoj brought Maruti car of his friend Manju @ Manoj son of Dhan Pal r/o H No. 143, village Tukmeer Pur Delhi. In the meanwhile Manoj also telephoned to Mukesh at Motihari to raise ransom demand of Rs.20,00,000/- and in what manner the amount was to be delivered through hawala and Manoj also informed the telephone number of house of Shokeen Pal viz. 2812127 ( Delhi) and office phone No,.4624190 at Ghaziabad of Shokeen Pal. Accordingly Mukesh raised demand of Rs.20,00,000/- telephonically at the house of Shokeen Pal.
11 In order to dispose off the dead body of Shokeen Pal, all the four accused at Delhi removed clothes of Shokeen Pal and severed his head from body. The ring of Shokeen Pal was taken by Manoj whereas his watch was removed by Akhtar. The severed body was kept in a gunny bag which was put in another gunny bag and his mouth was closed whereas head was kept in another bag on the night intervening 5/6.1.00. the above bags were kept in car of Manju. The head less body was thrown in ganda nala under the pulia opposite Suraj Pal Workshop, plot No.4 Tukmeer Pur whereas head was thrown in ganda nala Chand Bagh Pulia. The rope of charpai, mattresses, clothes of Shokeen Pal, his shoes and diary were burnt. Fortwin injections. Two knifes burnt ashes , empty cartridge and part of the fired bullet were all thrown in the nala. Country made pistol and mobile was given by Manoj to his friend Lalit Rana 12 All the four accused persons were arrested. Crime 8 Team was joined in the investigation which lifted the blood stained exhibits from the spot of murder at Tukmeer Pur. The cot and other articles were also seized from that room. At the pointing out of the accused Manoj Kumar, Mohd Akhtar and Ikramul from Bihari Pur pulia ganda nala, near Sher Pur chowk head less body of victim in gunny bag was retrieved on 27.1.00. The body was found wrapped in rope. It was identified as that of Shokeen Pal by his family members. The syringe used for making Shokeen Pal unconscious was got recovered by accused Manoj whereas the knife used for severing the head was got recovered by accused Ikramul. At the instance of accused Manoj from Lalit Rana recovery of country made pistol used in this case was effected for which proceedings were conducted separately under Arms Act. Despite making efforts to recover the severed head the same could not be recovered. After post mortem body was handed over to the family members. Exhibits were sent to CDFD Hyderabad and other exhibits ( Viscera,syring and two audio cassettes) were sent to CFSL Delhi. Finger prints of accused and flanges of deceased were sent to FSL Malviya Nagar. Blood sample of father of deceased was sent to CDFD Hyderabad. The ring recovered from Manoj and watch recovered from Akhtar were identified in judicial TIP by wife of deceased. After completion of investigation Challan was filed against all the five accused namely Manoj son of Bindeshwari, Javed, Akhtar, Ikramul and Mukesh on 22.4.00. 13 In this case accused Manoj @ Manju and Lalit Rana was arrested subsequently and his supplementary challan was filed on 26.7.01.
14 Charge was framed under section 120B / 364A r/w 9 120B , 302 r/w 120 B IPC against all accused persons on 12- 12-02 and u/s 201 IPC against Accused Manoj @ Manju by the then Ld. Predecessor to which they all except accused Mukesh pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Accused Mukesh was convicted under section 384 IPC on 12-12-02 his voluntarily pleading guilty to the charge. However accused Lalit Rana was discharged vide order dated 12-12-02 by Ld. ASJ Ms. Aruna Suresh .
15 In support of its case prosecution has examined the following witnesses.
16 PW1 is Varinder Singh, who is uncle of deceased who had as per prosecution version last seen deceased in the company of accused Akhtar. He has endeavored to support the prosecution version and he also identified Akhtar in the court. He proved his complaint made to PS Sahibabad on 6.1.00 vide exhibit Ex.PW1/A. As per him, his complaint was not entertained there as it was told that occurrence related to Delhi. With the permission of the court ld. APP examined him wherein on being shown from the court record the complaint in his hand, he admitted the same as Ex.PW1/B. He admitted the suggestion that on the same day he had written another complaint ( Ex.PW1/B) at PS Sahibabad regarding the demand of ransom money.
17 PW2 is Sudhir who is cousin brother of Shokeen Pal. He learnt about the kidnapping from Jagbir Singh complainant, on 6.1.00, telephonically. On his request, Munna Khan r/o Motihari Bihar from where Akhtar hailed,made efforts for tracing out Shokeen Pal. It was Munna Khan who came to Delhi and gave to this witness the mobile number of Amjad ( brother of Akhtar) on which Akhtar usually talked. This mobile 10 number ( 9810184352) was handed over to Crime Branch. He also remained associated with the investigation in seizure of car of Shokeen Pal from the New Delhi Railway Station car parking. He also joined the investigation on 27.1.00 and as per him three accused Akhtar, Manoj and Ikramul Haq were apprehended by the police at Tukmeer Pur house. He has endeavored to support the prosecution version. As per him, Manoj was wearing the ring of Shokeen Pal which was seized by the police. The wrist watch of Shokeen Pal was recovered from Akhtar. He proved the documents Ex.PW2/B to F. He also refers to the seizure of various articles from the spot of murder as per prosecution version. He also refers to the disclosure statements made by accused in his presence. He proved the seizure of articles from the spot vide Ex.PW2/G and disclosure statement of Manoj Kumar as Ex.PW2/H and of Akhtar as Ex.PW2/J and of Ikramul Haq as Ex.PW2/K and identified his signatures on memos at point A. He also refers to the recovery of knife from the nala at the instance of accused and proved its seizure vide Ex.PW2/L. He proved the sketch of knife vide Ex.PW2/M and seizure memo of syringe vide Ex.PW2/N. As per him, IO got the spot photographed and video tape was also prepared. He also stated that accused persons had pointed out and showed the bamboo sticks or its pieces having black head with the help of which they had burnt the clothes of Shokeen Pal. He also proved the seizure of pant and shirt of accused Manoj vide memo Ex.PW2/P, Pant and shirt of accused Akhtar vide memo Ex.PW2/Q and shirt and pant of accused Ikramul Haq vide Ex.PW2/R. He also stated that accused persons disclosed that when they tied Shokeen Pal they had put on the 11 stereo at a very high volume. Seizure memo of stereo was proved as Ex.PW2/S. This witness also states that finger prints were lifted from two glasses recovered from the room; blood stained drain cover ( Jalli) and blood stains were lifted from the bath room of that room. He has referred to the procedural aspect of the investigation conducted by CFSL experts and police authorities investigating the case as mentioned in the prosecution version. He refers to the recovery of head less body and other incriminating articles at the instance of accused persons. Seizure memo of dead body was proved as Ex.PW2/T wherein he identified his signature at point A. He also proved the disclosure statement made by accused Javed as Ex.PW2/U, wherein his signature appeared at point A. 18 This witness also interalia testified that he had gone to the CFSL office at R K Puram where SI Pyare Lal took the voice of Mukesh in the tape record regarding the telephone calls given by Mukesh on telephone No.6170796 and seizure memo of cassette was proved as Ex.PW2/V. He also proved his signature on Ex.PW2/W. He had taken the complainant and his wife to Safdarjung Hospital where blood sample was taken for the purpose of DNA test of dead body. He also identified the case property as under:
1) Iron Cot Ex.P1
2) Wooden cot Ex.P2,
3) Mattress Ex.P3
4) Two glasses Ex.P4
5) Pair of shoes Ex.P5 12
6) Pillow cover Ex.P6
7) Two bricks Ex.P7 ( recovered from place of occurrence)
8) Iron Jalli Ex.P8
9) One socks Ex.P9
10)Plastic rope Ex.P10
11)Bamboo sticks Ex.P11
12)Bamboo sticks having brush Ex.P12
13)Two-in-one Ex.P13
14)Seven cassettes Ex.P14
15)Mobile Phone Motorola Ex.P15
16)Charger Ex.P16
17)Broken mirror Ex,.P17 ( as per witness when recovered it was intact)
18)Wiper Ex.P18
19)Syring Ex.P19
20)Driving Licence of Najibullah Khan recovered from abandoned car of Shokeen Pal at New Delhi railway station parking Ex.P20
21)Unsealed rexine bag Ex.P21
22)cream piece of cloth Ex.P22 having some writing in urdu and Pharsi over it.
23)One pair of socks Ex.P23
24)Car No Dl 5C 2353 of deceased Ex.P24 13
25)(Ex.P21 to Ex.P23 are found in Ex.P24)
26)HMY Quartz Watch of Shokeen Pal recovered from accused Akhtar Ex.P26
27)Ring of Shokeen Pal recovered from Manoj Ex.P27
28)Knife which was got recovered at the instance of Ikramul Haq as Ex,.P29
29)Pant of light brown colour and one checkdar full sleev shirt recovered at the instance of Ikramul as Ex.P30
30)One pant of Yellow colour and one yellow colour full sleev shirt recovered at the instance of accused Manoj as Ex.P31
31)One grey colour pant and grey colour shirt recovered at the instance of Mohd Akhtar as Ex.P32
32)Two dirty jute bags in which head less dead body of shokeen Pal was recovered as Ex.P33
33)Pair of shoes of Ikramul Haq Ex.P34
34)The witness was also shown cassettes inwhich sample voice of Mukesh was taken vide memo Ex.PW2/B which he identified in the court.
19 PW3 is Rajesh Yadav who interalia testified that two trucks were financed to accused Akhtar by KGA Finance Company where he had been working since 2000 as Manager. As per him, Shokeen Pal was the guarantor and there being non payment of outstanding dues despite pursuation of Shokeen Pal those two trucks were seized by the company on the information given by Shokeen Pal. As per him on `15.1.00 police official visited his office and photostat 14 papers of files of both the trucks bearing No. DL 1G A 0860 and UHN 2437 and one photograph of Mohd Akhtar were taken into possession vide Ex,.PW3/A on which he identified his signature at point A. He identified the photograph of Mohd. Akhtar as Ex.PW3/B and 51 photostat papers pertaining to files of above trucks as mark X. 20 PW-4 is Ranjit Kumar Singh who was working as Manager in the firm of Shokeen Pal since 1997. As per him accused Akhtar used to visit the firm of Shokeen Pal periodically in connection with his transport business and that his truck bearing No DL 1G A 0860 used to get loaded from the firm of Shokeen Pal. He also stated that Shokeen Pal was the guarantor of the two vehicles of accused Akhtar which he had taken on finance from KGA Leasing Limited Company. He corroborated the prosecution version by testifying that accused Akhtar had come to the firm of Shokeen Pal on 3.1.00 at 4.30 p.m and had a talk with Shokeen Pal. As per him Shokeen Pal, Akhtar and Varinder Chacha left the office on 3.1.00 at 7 p.m in the car of Shokeen Pal. He received an anonymous call on 6.1.00 at `12.30 p.m to the effect that Shokeen Pal was in their custody and ransom amount of Rs.20,00,000/- was directed to be delivered with Hundi Wala, Naya Bazar, Lahori gate for release of Shokeen Pal and he had written the message on Punjab Kesari Paper lying on the table in his own hand vide Ex.PW4/A. Caller also informed that car of Shokeen Pal was lying in the parking at Pahar Ganj. He had passed on information to family members of Shokeen Pal. He handed over the Punjab Kesari Newspaper Ex,.PW4/A to the police which was seized vide memo Ex.PW4/B. This witness identified accused Mohd Akhar in the 15 court unerringly.
21 PW-5 is constable Ravi Kumar who stood witness to seizure of customer call register from Manoj Kumar Tiwari at STD Booth Motihari, Bihar opposite ND College containing phone bearing No., 21308 and 23967 vide memo Ex.PW5/A. As per him, in the said register pages dated 1.1.00 to 24.1.00 were already written and rest of the pages were blank. He proved the register in the court as Ex.PW5/B. 22 PW-6 is Smt. Bala Devi, mother of deceased who had accompanied her husband Jagbir Singh to Safdarjung Hospital on 22.1.00 where doctors had taken their blood sample.
23 PW-7 is Parvez Alam who inter alia testified that he had a STD booth No.87867 in village Khairva Bazar Bihar. As per him on 22/23.1.00 one Sadam Hussain made a call from his booth to Delhi for which he paid Rs.90/-. On 23.1.00 he again made a call from his STD Booth and police came to his shop soon after departure of Sadam Hussain from his booth. He thereafter joined the police party and as per him that Sadam Hussain was apprehended while he was entering in village Samaria. He identified that Sadam Hussain in the court as Javed but he added that Sadam Hussain was not arrested in his presence as he was in Jeep at that time. He has been cross examined by ld APP wherein he stated that he had told the police that number on which Sadam had made the call at Delhi was 9810172466. He however denied that Sadam was arrested at his instance but he admitted that accused present in the court i.e Javed Akhtar had told his name as Sadam while conversing on Phone to Delhi.
24 PW-8 is Kalyan Singh from Motihari Bihar who 16 turned hostile and testified that he was running STD booth since 1999 at/near custom office Motihari, Bihar but he did not maintain any record of out going STD calls or local calls. As per him, neither Mukesh nor any of the accused persons present in the court made any call from his booth. He, however, admitted his signature on seizure memo Ex.PW8/A and confirmed that STD bill pertaining to number 25835 and 23735 were issued from his STD booth which he identified as Ex.P1 to P13 having his signatures at point A. As per him the record reflected the phone No. 9810184352 and 9810174266. Ld. APP cross examined this witness wherein he was confronted with his statement mark PW8/1 to the police but he denied having made any such statement. As per mark PW8/1 Mukesh was friend of brother in law of this witness who used to visit his STD booth and used to make calls on phone No,. 9810184352 and 9810174266 and 0115841445. It also refers that on 22.1.00 at 5 a.m Javed friend of Mukesh made a call from his STD booth on Phone No,. 9810174266 in the name of Sadam.
25 PW9 is Manoj Kumar Tiwari who is an Advocate but at the relevant time in 2000 was a law student. As per him, he used to go to the STD shop of Sunny Photostat being run by Rajinder Pershad Chaudhary where two phones bearing No,.21908 and 23967 were kept. He stated that police had seized the register kept in that STD shop vide memo Ex.PW5/A on which he identified his signature at point X and he proved the register as Ex.PW5/B. He added that he happened to be present at the STD booth when the seizure memo was prepared. He was cross examined by ld APP wherein he denied that he made any statement to the police 17 vide mark PW9/1 to the effect that he was employee of Sunny Photo at that time or that phone calls at No. 9810184352, 0112812127 and 05754624190 were made by one Mukesh from that STD booth. He denied that entry dated 7.1.00 and 9.1.00 in the register were in his hands.
26 PW10 is Head Constable Kishan Pal who had recorded the FIR and proved the same as Ex.PW10/A and endorsement on the ruqqa as Ex.PW10/B. 27 PW11 is Sudhir Kumar Aggarwal who was working with his father at KGA Finance Co. at West Jyoti Nagar. He has supported the prosecution version with regard to financing of two trucks for Akhtar on the guarantee of Shokeen Pal and regarding non payment of installments of trucks by Akhtar and regarding the pressure being put on shokeen Pal to get the installments cleared from Akhtar. As per him, on the information of Shokeen Pal both the trucks were brought by KGA Finance Co. to their office and after about 20 days of the such development Akhtar visited their office but he did not clear the payment so finally trucks were sold. He proved the documents of the trucks vide X1 to X51 which were given to the police. He has supported PW3 mutatis mutandis and identified accused Akhtar in the court. 28 PW12 is ASI Rakesh Kumar in whose presence on 16.1.00 Santresh sister of deceased produced one cassette in which conversation regarding demand was recorded which was seized vide memo Ex.PW12/A. He also remained associated with the investigation of this case on 27.1.00 when raiding party could succeed in apprehending Manoj Kumar Singh, Akhtar and Ikramul Haq @ Vishal from 2/38 Tukmeer Pur Transformer Wali Gali. He identified his signatures on the 18 arrest memos of all the three accused vide Ex.PW12/A to C. He has endeavored to support the prosecution version mutatis mutandis.
29 As per him on 27.1.00 one mobile phone was recovered from possession of Lalit Rana which was seized in other case FIR No.27/00 under Arms Act. As per Lalit Rana this mobile phone was used by Manoj in this offence. 30 He also joined investigation of this case on 28.1.00 and stood witness to disclosure made by Mohd. Javed Akhtar and pointing out by him of place of occurrence. He also identified the country made pistol and one live cartridge and three tested fire cartridges collectively as Ex.PW12/P1 and mobile phone as Ex.PW12/P2 which was got recovered by accused Manoj from Lalit Rana. He also identified the photographs of Shokeen Pal as Ex.PW12/P3 and P4 which were handed over to the IO by sister of deceased Shokeen Pal.
31 PW-13 is Varinder Singh in whose presence blood sample of parents of deceased were taken and seized vide memo Ex.PW13/A having his signature at point A. 32 PW-14 is Hem Singh who has testified on the line of PW13 and identified his signature on Ex,PW13/A at point B. 33 PW15 is Head Constable Ram Avtar who had got the FIR registered at PS Nand Nagri.
34 PW16 is SI Amar Nath Gupta from UP police who was marked the missing report Ex.PW1/A of Shokeen Pal at PS Sahibabad on 6.1.00 and during investigation he learnt that Shokeen Pal was kidnapped for ransom from the jurisdiction of Delhi. He recorded FIR number nil/00 under 19 section 364A IPC and also recorded statement of Varinder Singh vide Ex.pW16/A and sent the entire documents to PS Nand Nagri. He proved the application to SP City Ghaziabad vide Ex. PW16/B wherein he mentioned that the case related to PS Nand Nagri, Delhi.
35 PW17 is Matloob Ahmad Khan @ Munna Khan from District Motihari, Bihar. As per him, he was running P S Roadways in partnership with Shokeen Pal and one office was at Apsara Border and the other was at Motihari, Bihar. On telephonic information received at Motihari by him from Sudhir cousin of Shokeen Pal to trace out Akhtar as Shokeen Pal went missing since 3.1.00 when he had last gone with Akhtar, this witness helped in tracing out Akhtar by giving the telephone number 9810184352 on which brother of Akhtar was contacting so he gave this number to police. He also referred to Shokeen Pal having stood guarantor for financing two trucks to Akhtar from KGA Finance. As per him on 23.1.00 at Motihari, Mukesh was interrogated and he stated that one boy named Javed had run away from Delhi and he used to demand ransom from Motihari to Delhi. At the instance of Mukesh, Javed was apprehended at Khairva Madersa. This witness identified his signatures on arrest memo of Mukesh as Ex.PW17/A and his disclosure statement as Ex.PW17/B, arrest memo of Javed as Ex.PW17/C and his disclosure statement as Ex,.PW17/D and he identified his signatures on all memos at point A. He also stated that Javed used to talk on phone posing himself as Saddam. 36 PW18 is Rajinder Singh Chillar who was from Rajpur Road Transport Authority, Delhi and stated that as per record, truck No. DL 1G A 0860 was registered in the name of 20 Mohd. Akhtar and that Mohd. Akhtar had given a letter on 30.7,.99 to keep the file of the truck in safe custody. He proved the letter as Ex.PW18/A and endorsement of MLO thereon as Ex.PW18/B. He also proved the letter Ex.PW18/C from Finance Co. KGA Leasing Ltd. Dated 9.9.99 that the ownership of said vehicle be transferred in their name, whereupon a letter Ex.PW18/D dated 27.9.99 was sent to residential address of Akhtar at K 22/8 Seelam Pur as mentioned in Ex.PW18/A but same went un responded. Reminders Ex,.PW18/E also did not evoke any response. Even the notice under section 51(5) M V Act did not evoke any response Through this witness, prosecution wanted to project that Mohd Akhtar was not residing at the said address. 37 PW19 is ASI Mohd. Haroon who remained associated with the investigation of this case on 23.1.00 with SI Suresh Kumar when Mukesh Kumar was apprehended and STD Booths were contacted from where calls were made to Delhi and the relevant documents seized. He also testified that the STD booth owner Parvez Alam stated that call was made to Delhi by one Saddam who had left the booth after trying the number 9810174266 and has gone towards village Jaitpura. Accused Saddam @ Javed was apprehended at the instance of Mukesh and brought back to STD booth where Parvez Alam identified him as the caller. He stood witness to the arrest of Mukesh and Javed. He also referred to the investigation conducted on 24.1.00 by SI Suresh during which period 13 bills from the STD booth of Kalyaneshwar Pershad Singh were seized vide Ex.PW8/A ( Ex.P1 to P13) which related to calls made by Mueksh Kumar and Javed. This witness also joined investigation on 1.2.00 with SI Pyare Lal 21 with regard to the post mortem of head less body of victim and handing over of ten sealed parcels by constable Mahesh alongwith two sample seals of GTB Hospital which were seized by SI Pyare Lal vide Ex.PW19/A where he identified his signature at point A. On that day, on returning to the PS where IO deposited the case property, an information was received by SI Pyare Lal from HC Lajja Ram from PS Khajuri on telephone NO,.6170796 regarding recovery of one knife at Tukmeer Pur Gali No.2 in the nala. PW19 alaongwith SI Pyare Lal went there where knife was produced by HC Lajja Ram and the sketch of which was drawn vide Ex.PW19/B and it was sealed with the seal of PLP and seized vide memo Ex.PW19/C on which he identified his signature at point A. 38 ON 2.2.00 this witness went to Safdarjung Hospital with accused Akhtar, Ikramul Haq and Manoj Kumar where the trio were medically examined. Constable Mahesh handed over three sealed pullandas sealed with the seal of SJH alongwith one sample seal of doctor which were seized vide memo Ex.pW19/D with his signature at point A. This witness stated that the churi which was handed over by HC Lajja Ram to SI Pyare Lal was having the writing Om ji. He identified the knife in the court with Om ji written in Hindi as well as in english on wooden handle of knife as Ex.P25. 39 PW20 is Dr. A K Srivastava, Senior Scientific Officer FSL who had gone to the place of occurrence on 27.1.00 and lifted 25 blood samples from different places and different articles in presence of public witnesses Ranvir Singh and Sudhir Kumar. He identified the relevant exhibits as Ex.P26, P27, P28, P29, P30, P31, P32 and P33 ( blood stains swabs) lifted from iron cot near leg portion bearing his hand 22 writing and signature at point A. He also identified other sealed parcels number 5,6,7,8,9,10,11 and 12. He also stated that out of 25 samples lifted by him, 17 were consumed by CDFD as per the report mark Y dated 6.11.03.
40 PW21 is Inspector Surinder Kumar who on 27.1.00 was posted as Inspector Anti Extortion Cell of Crime Branch R K Puram and on receipt of head less dead body of Shokeen Pal he had discussed the matter with the senior officers who directed him to conduct DNA finger printing test of deceased to establish his identify. He had requested Dr. G V Rao in the matter who sent a kit containing empty fial and empty syringe for taking the blood samples of parents of deceased on 2.2.00, on receipt of the above kit this witness handed over the same to SI Pyare Lal.
41 PW22 is SI Manohar Lal, Draftsman who had on the direction of SI Pyare Lal prepared the rough note and measurement of the place of occurrence at the instance of Dr.Rajinder Singh on 15.3.00. He also went alongwith SI Pyare Lal and Dr.Rajinder Singh to ganda nala bridge Bihari Pur and prepared rough note and measurements on the instruction of SI Pyare Lal and from there the trio went to ganda nala bridge Sher Pur and he took rough notes and measurements. On 18.3.00 on the basis of the above measurements and rough notes he prepared scaled site plan of all the three places vide Ex.PW22/A to C with his signature at point A. 42 PW23 is Ms. Santresh sister of deceased who heard on 6.1.00 anonymous call at about 8.15 p.m received on telephone No.2812127 as to whether she had received any message and whether Ranjeet had given any n umber to her 23 on which she replied that Ranjeet was the manager of her brother Shokeen Pal but she has not been given any message by him. On next day i.e 7.1.00 at about 7 a.m on the above telephone a caller told her that he was giving time upto 1 p.m and on her request time was extended till 4 p.m for giving the money.
43 On next day she again received a telephone call at 3.45 p.m to the effect " you are trying to be more smart and it will cost you dear". Next call was after sometime at 3.50 p.m to the effect " AAJ AATH BAJE RESULT MIL JATYA GA" and you will get the dead body in the gali. After five minutes on receipt of call it was stated " TUMHE GUARANTEE DEE TO HAI AND THE VEHICLE BEARING NO DL 5C B 2353 OF MY BROTHER SHOKEEN PAL WAS IN THE PARKING AT PAHAR GANJ".
44 On 8.1.00 PW23 again received a telephone call at 8 a.m inquiring if money has been arranged to which she replied that Hundiwala is not available and some other address should be given. The caller said that he would tell her after discussing with Sahab. After five minute she received the call and caller told her to search for the hundiwala. On the same day at 3.30p.m call was received and she was told "
TUMHARA KAM KHATAM HAI". The next call was received on 9.1.00 in the morning asking " KAM HO GAYA HAI KYA. INTAZAM HO GAYA HAI KYA". Thereafter two calls were received at 1,45 p.m and 2 p.m upon which Santresh asked that she should be allowed to contact Shokeen Pal on which it was stated that he was fine but being out of range could not talk there being no facility of phone there. The next phone call was received on next day at 2 p.m with regard to availability of 24 money on which Santresh said that hundiwala was not available. She further stated that she was attending the phone calls posing herself as wife of Shokeen Pal i.e Babli,. He further stated that the phone calls were in two different tones. She further stated that on 13.1.00 at about 8 a.m phone call was received at the above number which she had taped by using the tape recorder. Caller had asked her " HO GAYA " to which she replied " ABHI HO RAHA HAI. " on which caller said "TUMHARA KAM KHATAM HAI AUR MAIN AAB TUMHEY AAB DUBARA PHONE NAHIN KAROO GA". She could state to the caller that due to financial constraint only three/four lakhs have been arranged whereupon the phone was disconnected. She further stated that the tape recorder was given to the police which was seized in a pullanda with the seal of RK vide memo Ex.PW2/A. She identified the cassette in the court as Ex.P25.
45 PW-24 is constable A.K.Roy, who had taken the photographs of the scene of the crime on 27.1.00 on the pointing out of the IO which he proved in the court as Ex.PW24/1 to 14. He also took the photograph of the place of recovery at ganda nala at the instance of IO which he proved as Ex.PW24/15 to 18. Thereafter he accompanied the IO and took photographs of dead body recovered from ganda nala vide Ex.PW24/19 to 27. The other photographs of the scene of crime taken by him were proved as Ex.PW24/28 to 35. Negatives of the photographs were proved as Ex.PW24/A1 to A35. He also proved the video cassette recorded by him at the time of taking the photographs as Ex.PW24/B. 46 PW-25 is Babli wife of deceased who has supported the prosecution version mutatis mutandis on the 25 aspect of her husband having gone with Akhtar as told to her by her uncle in law Varinder Singh, about receipt of anonymous ransom calls by Ranjeet, Santresh. She also referred to her husband having stood guarantor for two trucks which were got financed by Akhtar and regarding her husband having assisted the finance company in repossessing the vehicles of Akhtar. She further stated that at the time of leaving the house on 3.1.00her husband was wearing white striped shirt, yellow jersy with black lines and white banian, white underwear and brown shoes. He was also wearing a gold ring on the middle finger of his hand and also a wrist watch around his hand. As per her on the right hand of her husband "Om" was written and he was wearing white matmalli shawl. She also identified the gold ring and the wrist watch in judicial TIP vide Ex,PW25/A and identified the watch as Ex.P26 and ring as Ex.P27, belonging to her husband. 47 PW-26 is one Basant Rana from public, who had joined the IO/SI Pyare Lal on 28/01/00 and in presence of this witness and Sudhir Kumar, IO had recorded the voice sample of one boy Mukesh Kumar. IO had also recorded his voice sample on the cassette and thereafter, the voice sample of Mukesh was obtained in which he has repeated " Tumhara Kam Khatam Hai, Dobara Tereko phone nahi karunga, kitne ki vyavastha ki." Sample was seized vide Ex. PW 2/B with signature of this witness at point B. He identified the cassette as Ex.PW28. He has not been cross-examined by any accused.
48 PW27 is Jagvir Singh, father of deceased who has corroborated the other material PWs and supported the prosecution version mutatis mutandis.26
49 PW28 is Kishan Gopal Aggarwal who was running finance company in the name of KGA Leasing Ltd who has supported the prosecution version. As per him it was on the guarantee of Shokeen Pal that he had financed one truck for Akhtar on 10.7.97, bearing No. DL 1G A 0860 for Rs.3,00,000/- with 18 percent interest for the period of 30 months at monthly installment of Rs.14500/- with first installment commencing from 10.8.97. As per him Akhtar deposited the installments upto 19.12.98 an d thereafter did not pay any installment. He further stated that another truck bearing No,. UHN 2437 was financed on the guarantee of Shokeen Pal to Akhtar on 22.7.97 at the interest of 18 percent consisting of 24 installments of Rs.7200/- per month and Rs.5600/- per month and one lakh was financed for this vehicle and Akhtar paid installment of this vehicle from 22.8.97 to 14.4.99. Shokeen Pal was approached by this witness, who helped in repossessing the vehicle as on 2.7.99 Shokeen Pal and one Jaffar informed them on phone that both the trucks of Akhtar were parked out side his transport company from where vehicles were got lifted. Two/three days thereafter, Akhtar with Shokeen Pal approached him and Akhtar told him that they should return him the vehicle No UHN 2437 as less amount was due to him upon which Shokeen Pal told this witness that as he stood guarantor for Akhtar for both the vehicles so he should make payment of installments of both the vehicles and thereafter they both went away. Akhar signed for the sale of vehicle afterwards as he was not having any money. Thereafter, this witness sold the vehicle No. DL 1G A 0860 to Sanjay of M S Park and vehicle No. UHB 2437 to Sanjay's relative. He also testified that after signing the sale 27 letters for the above vehicles, Akhtar moved an application before the concerned authority that these vehicles should not be transferred to any body so the vehicles could not be transferred to Sanjay or his relative and thereafter Shokeen Pal was kidnapped and murdered. This witness also handed over the photo copies of the documents 51 in number of the above vehicles, to the police which were seized vide Ex.PW3/A on which this witness identified his signature at point B. He also handed over the photograph of Akhtar to police and he identified accused Akhtar in the court correctly. He also proved the original agreement of Truck No. UHN 2437 model 1987 as Ex.PW28/A and original registration particulars thereof as Ex.PW28/B, the personal statement of Shokeen Pal as Ex.PW28/C. He also proved the original RC, acknowledgment of agreement, no objection certificate of Regional Transport authority of Meerut, receipt for vehicle, form No.34 of Meerut Authority, letter of waivor dated 22.7.97, form No.35, agreement dated 22.7.97, promissory note of the above truck dated 22.7.97, form No.29, intimation of transfer of ownership of motor vehicle, form No.30, letter dated 22.7.97, declaration form etc vide Ex.PW28/D to S. He also proved the documents pertaining to truck No DL 1G A 0860 viz Insurance Ex.PW28/T, form No.34 ex.PW28/U, proposal of hire of the vehicle dated 10.7,.97 Ex.pW28/V, RC of the truck Ex.PW28/W, personal statement of guarantor Shokeen Pal Ex.PW28/X, intimation of transfer of ownership letter Ex.PW28/Y, acknowledgment of agreement, no objection certificate, receipt for vehicle and other papers collectively as Ex.PW28/Z containing mark X/33 to 51. As per this witness he did not receive the out standing payment from Akhtar.28
50 PW-29 is constable Narinder who alongwith HC Shiv Shakti had taken accused Mohd Javed Akhtar S/o Mohd Naseem to Safdarjung Hospital for medical examination. He handed over the sample parcel and sample seal given to him by the doctor to the IO which were seized vide Ex.PW29/A. 51 PW-30 examined on 24/09/07 in court is Dr. Rajinder Singh owner of the house where the incident took place. He inter alia testified that about six/seven years ago accused Manoj son of Bindeshwari had taken his house situated at gali No. 2 village Tukmeer Pur extension on rent on the pretext of installing sewing machine. As per him, after two months of having taken the house on rent, few police officials came to him and told that Manoj had committed murder in the tenanted premises. He therefore accompanied with the police officials at which time accused Manoj alongwith one/two more persons were in the custody of police. He testified that there were blood stains at several places in the tenanted premises and police had lifted the blood samples from different places and sealed the items lifted from the tenanted premises but he could not recollect about the details of the proceedings conducted by the police. As per him, police visited him again with the accused persons after three/four days and probably accused Manoj got recovered one head less dead body kept in a gunny bag from nala near Sher Pur chowk Tukmeer Pur Delhi. He could not remember about the other recovery effected./ However he identified his signatures on seizure memos Ex.PW2/G,T,N and L. He has been cross examined by ld APP to elicit truth in consonance with prosecution version wherein he initially tried to feign loss of memory but later on when the video cassette of the incident of recovery of dead 29 body and other articles was brought in the court for being displayed in the presence of this witness, with the representation that this witness appears in the videograph, when he was further cross examined by ld APP, he admitted the record as contemporaneously reduced in writing whereupon his signatures were there. He also proved the seizure memo of two in one stereo system with seven audio cassettes, one cellular phone Motorola, one charger from the room situated at north east side of the house where the occurrence took place vide Ex.PW30/A. He identified accused Manoj,. Accused Mohd. Akhtar and accused Ikramul Haq correctly in the court who had taken the police party to near pulia of ganda nala Bihari pur. During cross examination of this witness by ld APP, the video cassette was displayed in the court which depicted that all the three accused Manoj son of Bindeshwari, Mohd. Akhtar and Ikramul Haq were pointing out towards Ganda nala ; that at the second point of the ganda nala gunny bag was visible in the nala which was taken out by the above three accused persons and gunny bag was opened by a gota khor with the help of big blade and a head less dead body was recovered from gunny bag which was badly swollen body tied with rope. In his cross examination by ld APP he identified his signature at point A on recovery memo of dead body and gunny bag vide Ex.PW2/T. He also admitted that accused Manoj took the police party to gali No.2 Tukmeer Pur extension and got recovered a syring from near a wall near 2/101, Tukmeer Pur Extension which was seized after sealing vide memo Ex.PW2/N having his signature at point X. He also admitted that accused Ikramul Haq got recovered a knife used in the offence from the nala and sketch of knife was proved as 30 Ex.PW2/M with his signature at point X and its seizure memo vide Ex.PW2/L with his signature at point X. He also identified all the exhibits correctly which were seized from the place of occurrence besides identifying the gunny bag Ex.PX1 and PX2 from which the dead body was recovered. He identified the syringe as Ex.P19 and the knife recovered at the instance of accused Ikramul Haq as Ex.P29. 52 PW-31 is Captain R K Bakshi Noddle Officer from Bharti Airtel who had on the request of police given on 13.1.00 the print out of call details of mobile No.9810184352 for the period 13.12.99 to 11.1.00 ( incoming calls) and 10.12.99 to 8.1.00 ( out going calls) which he proved as Ex.PW31/A1 to A5. On 18.1.00 on the request of SI Pyare Lal he had given the call details of mobile No. 9810174266 for the period 7.1.00 to 23.1.00 ( incoming calls) and 6.1.00 to 23.1.00 ( outgoing calls) vide Ex.PW31/B1 and B2.
53 PW-31 is also one Ranvir Singh whose number has been wrongly given as PW-31. He should have been numbered as PW 31-A since Captain R.K. Bakshi was also examined as PW-31. Ranbir has interalia testified that he remained associated with the investigation with IO SI Pyare Lal on 27/01/00. He has endeavoured to support the other PWs and referred to the exhibits as mentioned by PW-2. He has also identified the case property and the accused persons. 54 PW-32 is Ram Sukh who had identified the head less dead body of Shokeen Pal at GTB Hospital on 1.2.00 and proved the seizure memo of handing over of dead body to Ranvir Singh vide Ex.PW2/Y on which he identified his signature at point B. 55 PW-33 is HC shiv Shakti who has corroborated 31 PW29 constable Narinder.
56 PW-34 is Mahavir Pershad who has turned hostile as he testified that in the month of February 2000 one person had come to his kiryana shop and purchased two gunny bags for filling the wheat. He has been cross examined by ld APP but he denied that accused Ikramul Haq was brought to his shop by police on 3.2.00 when he disclosed that he was the same boy who had purchased two gunny bags from him on 25.12.99.
57 PW-35 is Deepak Pundir who has also turned hostile and during his cross examination by ld APP he denied that on 3.2.00 when police visited his chemist shop, accused Manoj was brought there by police or that he pointed out that he was the same boy who had purchased from his shop five fortwin injections and one syringe on 26.12.99. 58 PW-36 is Rama Sharma who also turned hostile and pleaded ignorance if one Maruti car No,. DBC 5672 was parked in front of his industry by name of S J Hardware Industries situated at Plot No.4, Tukmeer Pur Road Karawal Nagar. As per him the owner of the property where he had his industry was Chaudhary Dhan Pal Singh and his son Manoj @ Manju and his brothers. He identified accused Manoj @ Manju in the court, albeit correctly. However he testified that he was having two telephone numbers at his factory viz 2172348 and 2179366 and that he was told by workers of his industry that Manoj @ Manju used to come to his factory for making telephone calls but he could not tell if any phone call was made from either of the telephones to Mobile No.9810184352.
59 PW 37 is HC Lajja Ram who has supported the 32 prosecution version with regard to recovery of knife . He testified that on 1.2.00 on receipt of DD no. 23 A , at PS Khajuri Khas he reached at Gali no 2 Tukmeer Pur Village and found the knife in the nala and that he was informed by two / three public persons there that crime team had visited that place and told the public that if any article is found there then they have to inform them. He accoridngly lifted the knife and informed to police official of crime branch at R K Puram, from the PS. IO came there and seized theknife. He identified the knfie in the court as EX P 25.
60 Since PW-37 is HC Lajja Ram and another witness examined by the prosecution namely Ravinder Finger Print Expert has also been given number as PW-37 as such. He is being referred as PW-37A for convenience sake. He received the finger print report of SI Ashok alongwith photographs and negatives of chance print, which were lifted from the place of occurrence, alongwith specimen finger print slip of accused Manoj s/o. Bindeshwari, Akhtar @ Jaffar, Ishaq Khan, Md. Ikramul haq, Javed & Mukesh Kumar. The same were received on 22/05/01 and on examination he found that chance print mark Q1 & Q2 (Ex.PW37/A & B) were identical with right thumb mark of accused Manoj S/o. Bindeshwari. He proved his report as Ex.PW37/C with his signature at point A. His detailed report alongwith three times enlarged photographs of Q2 is Ex.PW37/D. He proved the relevant documents as Ex.PW37/E & F. 61 PW-38 is constable Braham Singh from PS Kotwali Ghaziabad who proved the DD No. 46 on the basis of written complaint from Varinder Singh vide Ex.PW38/A. He handed over the same to SI Amar Nath Gupta for inquiry.
3362 PW-39 is Dr. B K Mahapatra, Senior Scientific Officer who had examined the cotton swab taken from the left knee of deceased Shokeen Pal which was kept in a plastic Jar. He had also examined the other exhibits and proved his detailed report as Ex.PW39/A. The report has not been challenged by accused persons as there has not been any cross examination despite opportunity.
63 PW-40 is SI Raj Kumar who had joined the investigation team from Delhi on 24.1.00 being officer incharge of PS Pipra Kothi. They had gone to Jiw Dhara at the house of accused Javed from where one pocket diary was recovered. 64 PW-41 is Siri Niwas who inter alia testified that he had purchased Maruti Car 800 from one Anees about 8/10 years back in Rs.22,000/-( This witness has been examined on 24.9.07). He further stated that he sold the said car at Tukmeer Pur workshop in the sum of Rs.18,000/- to Rs.20,000/-. He has been cross examined by ld APP and when he was shown the car No. DBC 5672 he identified the same as having been purchased from Anees but he denied the prosecution version that he had sold the said car in November 1999 to Manoj @ Manju son of Dhan Pal Singh. However he admitted that he had handed over the documents of the car i.e RC and sale letter to the purchaser. He also admitted that police has recorded his statement with regard to the vehicle under reference and he had stated the number of Maruti Car to police officials at that time. 65 PW-42 is Ms. Kirpal Parmanand, who testified that Maruti car No. DBC 5672 was donated to the Ashram by Sachdeva family and later on the said car was transferred in her name and in 1998 she had sold the car to one Kapil, who 34 was known to her cousin Chander Prakash and at that time she had signed the sale letter and handed over the same to Kapil. She has been cross-examined by Ld. APP, wherein she interalia stated that she did not know if Chander Prakash and Rakesh Kapila @ Rakesh Kapil sold the car to Anees Mehta for Rs. 30,000/-. She denied having sold the Maruti Car by her to Anees Mehta.
66 PW-42 is Ms Kirpal Premanand. However another PW ASI Dharam Vir Singh has also been given number as PW-42 and for convenience sake he is being given number as PW42-A. He interalia testified that he alongwtih Ct. Mahesh had gone to Motihari, Bihar and handed over the documents to IO. He collected the relevant documents from the concerned department. The telephone no. 23112, 23076 (Motihari Exchange), telephone no. 23966 (pay phone from Motihari), telephone no. 23735 (pay phone from Motihari Exchange), telephone no. 25835 (local PCO from Motihari Exchange), telephone no. 71263 (Pipra Kothi Exchange), telephone no. 71239 (Pipra Kothi Exchange) SDE had handed him over the names of the owners of abovesaid telephone no. and their call details, which were seized vide Ex.PW42/A and ownership documents were proved as Ex.PW42/B and call details running in 52 pages were proved as Ex.PW42/C. He has not been cross-examined by any accused.
67 PW-43 is D.S.Chakotra, retired senior scientific officer, who proved his report with regard to serological analysis of the exhibits 1,2,5,6,7,9,10,11,12,16 & 17 B. He has not been cross-examined despite opportunity. 68 PW-44 is K.S.Chabra from CFSL, who had examined the stomach/intestine/liver/spleen/kidney contents of 35 the deceased besides examining syringe Ex.2, Audio cassette Ex.3 and Audio cassette Ex.P4. He proved his report as Ex.PW44/A. He was not cross-examined by any of the accused despite opportunity.
69 PW-45 is HC Chokhe Lal, MHC(M), who has proved the relevant entries with regard to deposit and taking out the exhibits in the malkhana.
70 PW-46 is SI Ashok Kumar, Finger Print Expert, who had examined the scene of crime on 27/01/00 and lifted two chance print Q1 & Q2 from a glass and from a mirror and prepared the report and handed over the same to IO and one copy was sent to director finger print bureau for further necessary action. He referred to the copy of report as mark PW46/A. 71 PW-47 is Sh. O.P. Saini, who has conducted the TIP of ring and wrist watch belonging to the deceased. He referred the proceeding with regard thereto as EX.PW47/B on the application moved for TIP by the IO as Ex.PW47/A and a certificate appended at the last of the proceedings as Ex.PW47/C. He also referred to the statement of the witness Smt. Babli as Ex.PW25/A. 72 PW-48 is Ct. Jitender Singh, who had on 22/02/00 taken the exhibits from malkhana of PS Nand Nagari to CDFD, Hyderabad. He went to Hyderabad by AP Express and deposited the exhibits with CDFD Hyderabad on 24/02/00 and obtained the receipt and brought back the same and handed over to MHC(M) on 28/02/00. On 03/03/00 he had taken the other exhibits vis syringe type sealed pullanda, two cassette type sealed pullanda and one sealed viscera to CFSL Lodhi Road and deposited the same there. As per him so long as 36 the exhibits remained in his custody the same were not tempered with.
73 PW-49 is IO Inspector Pyare Lal, who has supported the prosecution version and corroborated other PWs mutatis mutandis. He referred to the application moved by complainant Jagbir Singh before the anti extortion cell Ex.PW27/K which was endorsed by Inspector Surender Sharma vide Ex.PW49/A vide which he marked the case to PW-49. He proved his endorsement on complaint Ex.PW27/K as Ex.PW49/B and the site plan on the pointing out of Virender as Ex.PW49/C. He got flashed WT message on all India basis with regard to kidnapping of Shokeen Pal and he proved the carbon copy of WT message dt. 15/01/00 as Ex.PW49/D & E. During investigation he also went to Paharganj side parking of New Delhi Railway Station and he found the car of Shokeen Pal bearing no. DL5C B 2353 parked in the parking . HC Bajrang who met him there inspected the vehicle and handed him over the inspection report Ex.PW49/F. He has referred to the documents already exhibited by the other PWs while testifying in the court. He also prepared the rough site plan of the place of occurrence vide Ex. PW49/H. He also prepared the site plan of the place of recovery of headless dead body and the place of pointing where the accused persons had thrown the dead body vide Ex.PW49/J with his signature at point A. On 01/02/00 he got conducted the postmortem on the headless dead body of Shokeen Pal vide Ex.PW49/K. As per him, during investigation it was learnt that dead body was thrown in the car of Manoj @ Manju bearing car no. BBC 5672; that Manoj @ Manju used to call on the mobile phone of Manoj Kumar Singh from his telephone; that 37 despite efforts head of deceased was not recovered. He interalia stated that on 07/03/00 he took the sealed pullandas containing the knives to autopsy doctor of GTB hospital for subsequent opinion and he collected the subsequent opinion and sealed pullanda of knives vide his endorsement Ex.PW49/L with his signature at point A. He proved the application for TIP Ex.PW49/M and his identification of witness Babli in the proceedings vide Ex.PW49/N. Further investigation was transferred to SI Suresh Kumar. He also identified the case property in the court. He has been cross- examined at length.
74 PW-50 is SI Bankteshwar Ram from Samstipur, Bihar, who testifies that on 23/01/00 he was posted as Incharge of PS Choda Dana district Motihari, Bihar and on that day on the request of Delhi Police officials for force he alongwith ASI Naimuddin Ansari, Chowkidar Varinder Paswan and Ct. Fiyaz went to village Jeetpur Kherva where accused Javed @ Saddam was apprehended by Delhi police. He was interrogated and arrested. He also stated that prior to arrest of accused Javed another accused Mukesh Kumar was also arrested by Delhi Police and that he joined the raiding party with Delhi police. This witness correctly identify accused Javed in the court.
75 PW-51 is SI Suresh Kumar, who had further conducted the investigation of this case. He has also supported the prosecution version mutatis mutandis and interalia testified with regard to tracing out of accused Mukesh from mobile phone details of 9810174266 and 9810184352. Initially there was no doubt on Mukesh as he disclosed that he made the calls to Manoj Kumar s/o. Bindeshwari his uncle by 38 relation of village, in connection with ball bearing business but later on he was arrested on 23/01/00 as he could not give satisfactory reply to the query as to why telephone calls were made to residence telephone of Shokeen Pal at Delhi from STD booth of Shamim photostate at Motihari as on 22/01/00 Inspector Surender Sharma and SI Pyare Lal informed telephonically to SI Suresh Kumar that one Saddam had made a call on mobile no. 10174266 and demanded Rs. 5,000/- for expenses. The senior officers at Delhi also provided the call details to SI Suresh Kumar, through fax at Motihari on 23/01/00 and he proved the Fax as Ex.PW51/A and its photocopy as Ex.PW51/B. He proved the personal search memo of accused Mukesh as Ex.PW51/C with his signature at point A. Disclosure statement of Mukesh was proved as PW17/B and through his disclosure the entire conspiracy was unearthed with regard to kidnapping and ransom demand of Rs. 20,00000/- to be received by Hawala at Nepal. As per conspiracy Mukesh was directed by co-accused that he would make ransom calls from Motihari to the house /office of victim after kidnapping of Shokeen Pal and accordingly he had made the calls at the house of Shokeen Pal. At his instance accused Javed was apprehended. He proved the personal search of Javed as Ex.PW51/D and identified him in the court unerringly. He produced the accused persons on 25/01/00 for the transit remand, vide application Ex.PW51/F before the court of Ld. CJM Motihari and obtained the transit remand vide Ex.PW51/G and brought both the accused to Delhi in the night of 27-28/01/00 and produced them in the court on 29/01/00. He also deposited three sealed pullandas with the office of CDFD Hyderabad on 02/02/00. Investigation of this case was 39 marked to him on 03/04/00. After completion of the investigation he filed the challan in the court showing accused Manoj @ Manju in column no.2 as he was avoiding the arrest and did not produce the vehicle used in disposal of dead body. AS per this witness on 04/07/00 during hearing of bail application of Manoj @ Manju his brother Subhash produced the said car in the parking of KKD Court as per direction of the court and he seized the Maruti car no. DBC 5672 vide seixzure memo ex.PW51/H in presence of Sudhir Kumar and Hem Singh. He identified the signature of Subhash at point A on Ex.Pw51/H. On 18/07/00 accused Manoj @ Manju was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW51/J and personal serach memo Ex.PW51/K. AS per him accused Manoj @ Manju handed over the original RC of the Maruti Car referred above which was seized vide memo Ex.PW51/L and that the original RC is in the name of Sant Kirpal Parmanand which he proved as Ex.PW51/M. Disclosure statement of accused Manju @ Manoj was proved as Ex.PW51/N who disclosed that he purchased the car from one Sriniwas and did not get the same transferred in his name. He recorded statement of Sriniwas and Anees Mehta & Sant Kirpal Parmanand the earlier purchaser of the same car in chain. He also collected CFSL report with regard to voice sample of accused Mukesh vide Ex. PW51/O and proved the finger print bureau report as Ex. PW51/P. As per him CDFD report in respect of DNA Ex. PW51/Q concluded that source of Ex.Z15 and Z15 (Sh.Jagbir Singh and Smt. Bala Devi parents of Shokeen Pal) cannot be excluded from being the biological parents of source of Ex.B ( Thigh tissue of right leg of deceased). He also filed on 25/10/04 the FSL report in the court vide application 40 Ex.PW51/8 which FSL reports were referred as Ex.PW39/A and Ex.PW43/A. He also collected the remnants from CDFD centre for DNA finger printing and diagnostics Hyderabad vide letter EX. PW51/S and deposited the same in the malkhana. He filed supplementary challan in the court against accused Manoj @ Manju and Lalit Rana (Lalit Rana was discharged at charge stage). He has been cross-examined at length. 76 PW-52 is Dr. Sumit Talwar, who has proved the postmortem report on the headless dead body of Shokeen Pal conducted by Dr. A.K.Tyagi at GTB hospital vide Ex.PW52/A. The postmortem was conducted on 01/02/00 at about 2.40 pm. It inter-alia mentions that the dead body was packed in a bora and poly bag tied with rope with legs and chest flex at abdomen level. Body of an average built adult male (without head). The head separated from rest of the body at neck lower part. It is in advance stage of decomposition. Maggots crawling over the body marbling present adepocere formation seen at places. Skin peeling off from most of the body, body hair loose all over. Bluish black discoloration present due to decomposition. A tattoo of Om present on the back of right hand. Following injuries were noted.
a) Neck shows the sharp cut all around at a level below T6 and above T7. All the neck structures are sharply cut except for a tag of skin at the left side of back of neck where the skin is irregular and lacerated.
b) Incised wound of 3.2 cm x 1 cm present obliquely over the front of left palm.
c) Incised wound of 2.5 cm x 8 cm present over the front of left palm 41 parallel to and 2 cm distal to injury no.
2.
d) Incised wound of 2.8 cm x .05 cm is present over middle of front of right palm.
e) Old healed scar of 8.2 x 5 cm present obliquely over lower outer front of right side abdomen.
f) Incised wound of 11 cm x 10.5 cm present over back of left knee horizontally.
77 All the above injuries are caused by sharp edged weapon i.e injury no. 1,2,3,4 & 6 and injury no. 5 is a old scar not related with other injuries.
78 He also testified that as per record on 07/02/00 two sealed parcels labeled P1 and P2 were produced by SI Pyare Lal for subsequent opinion on weapon of offence, whether the injuries present on the neck of the dead body of Shokeen Pal were possible with the said weapon. Parcel P1 contained knife having a rusted blade but very sharp cutting edge, only one side. The report also mentions about its dimension and some brownish and rust like stains all over the blade with Omjee-A printed with white paint on one side. Parcel P2, as per report contained a similar knife and brownish rust like stains present all over the blade. Besides mentioning the dimension of the knife, the report also mentions that some mud is present on P2. As per PW-52 the injury present on the neck of the body could be caused by these weapons. He identified the signature of Dr. Tyagi at point A on Ex.PW52/A. 79 PW-53 is Dr. Raghvendra from GTB Hospital, who has proved the subsequent opinion about the cause of death 42 given by Dr. A.K.Tyagi. AS per him Dr. A.K.Tyagi after considering the CFSL report dt. 30/06/00 and postmortem report no. 76/00 dt. 01/02/00 on the body of Shokeen Pal, given the cause of death as shock as a result of cut throat injury to neck vide injury no.1 mentioned in postmortem report. He proved the subsequent opinion of Dr. A.K.Tyagi as Ex.PW53/A with his signature at point A and about the subsequent opinion being in his handwriting. This witness has not been cross-examined at all by the defence. 80 After closure of Prosecution Evidence all the accused persons were confronted with the incriminating evidence adduced on record U/s. 313 Cr.P.C, to which they pleaded innocence. Accused Md. Akhtar claimed that SI Pyare Lal was demanding money from him which he could not give being poor person that is why he was falsely implicated in this case. Accused Javed also claimed that he has been falsely implicated. However he admitted that he was apprehended by SI Suresh at Motihari and when he enquired from him for the reasons of his apprehension, he was told that it would be disclosed later on. At that time money was also demanded for letting him off and even at Delhi SI Pyare Lal also demanded money from him and on his showing inability to pay, he was falsely implicated. Accused Manoj @ Manju claimed that there was demand of money from SI Pyare Lal and complaint was lodged against the IO, on which he was transferred to District Line and he has been falsely implicated by the IO. Other two accused persons merely stated that they have been falsely implicated. None of the accused opted to lead evidence in their defence despite opportunity. 81 I have heard the arguments from both sides and 43 also gone through the written briefs placed on record with regard to accused Md. Akhtar and Javed by Ld. Defence counsel Sh. Ashish Dass and written briefs placed on record by counsel Sh. Sanjay Gupta for accused Manoj @ Manju. Sh. Sarfaraj Asif for remaining two accused persons did not place any written brief on record but straightway addressed the arguments. Ld. APP has vehemently pleaded for conviction of the accused persons on the ground that prosecution witnesses has supported the core of the prosecution case and at the instance of accused persons, recovery of headless dead body was effected and weapon of offence was also recovered at the instance of the accused, recovery of the personal articles of deceased was also effected from the accused persons and co-accused Mukesh already pleaded guilty at the charge stage and was convicted, which is a corroborative piece of evidence for the accused facing trial. On the other hand Sh. Ashish Dass has stated with regard to accused Md. Akhtar that prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all shadow of reasonable doubt for the reasons that whereas as per PW-1 Virender Singh, Shokeen Pal deceased was last seen by PW-1 with Akhtar on 03/01/00 but there is missing report lodged on 06/01/00, from which it can be inferred that in the intervening period Shokeen Pal might have returned to his home and that is why there is delay in registration of missing report; that PW-1 has identified Akhtar for the first time in the court as accused was not subjected to any judicial TIP as such, his identification is bad in law and he has relied on the authorities reported in AIR 1980 SC 1382, 1993 CrLJ. 2764 (MAD), AIR 1970 SC 1321; that SI Pyare Lal never went to the house of Akhtar in 44 Motihari, Bihar, although the family members of the deceased knew the address of Akhtar since business parter of deceased namely Munna Khan (PW-17) was also from the native village of Akhtar; that telephone no. of brother of accused Akhtar namely Amzad was made available to the IO by PW-2 and PW-17 but IO did not make use of the same for tracing out the deceased; that Pw-2 Sudhir Kumar and PW-31 Ranvir Singh are not believable as they are relations of deceased and are interested witnesses; that it cannot be said that dead body was recovered at the instance of accused Akhtar since cross- examination of PW-31 Ranvir Singh says that it was some public person, who told the police that bad smell was emanating from another pulia; that the recovery of headless body was not effected from the place, where accused persons took the police party first in point of time; that PW-30 Dr. Rajinder Singh landlord of the house where the occurrence took place, who is reportedly a witness of recovery of dead body, was not visible in the video cassette displayed before the court; that he is not a credit worthy witness as on 01/09/06 he did not come in support of the prosecution but on next date i.e 24/09/07 he tended to support the prosecution, which reflects that in the intervening period he was pressurised by the IO to come out in favour of prosecution; that PW-12 ASI Rakesh Kumar & IO PW-49 SI Pyare Lal are police witnesses so, obviously they have supported the prosecution and recovery made from an open space, which is accessible to each and everyone is not to be believed (defence relied on Saleem Akhtar Vs. Mota state of UP 2003 (2) JCC 678); that recovery by accused is not believable in this case ; that TIP of wrist watch allegedly recovered from accused Akhtar on 45 27/01/00 was conducted by joining wife of deceased namely Babli PW-25 on 23/03/00 after the lapse of 1 ½ month without furnishing any explanation for such delay and it has defeated the purpose of TIP as held in 1963 CRLJ 686, so the probability of wrist watch being planted on accused cannot be ruled out; that Finger Print of accused Akhtar was not at all found at the place of incident; that blood sample lifted from the spot did not tally with the blood sample of the accused taken, which belies the presence of the accused at the spot (Reference PW-43); that prosecution has failed to prove the disposal of dead body in Maruti Car bearing no. DBC 5672 belonging to accused Manoj @ Manju in view of the testimony of PW-36 & 41 and disposal in such a manner is planted by the prosecution; that motive of grudge against deceased i.e deceased having not assisted in continuing with the plying of trucks taken on finance by accused Akhtar from KGA Finance Company by obtaining grant of time for repayment of loan as per defence has not been conclusively proved, since no documentary evidence was brought to establish the fact that deceased was the guarantor of a truck and PW-28 K.G.Aggarwal from finance company admitted that there was no signature of guarantor Shokeen Pal on the documents. Contention of Ld. Defence Counsel is that chain of circumstances is broken at each and every stage and last seen evidence is not inspiring confidence and recovery of dead body after 3 weeks from open space and delay in TIP of case property and non-availability of any scientific evidence connecting the accused Akhtar with the crime and failure in proving motive, entitles accused Akhtar to acquittal. 82 As regards accused Javed the contention of 46 defence counsel is that prosecution has failed to prove its case for the reasons that there is no last seen witness qua accused Javed ; there is no recovery effected from him; that the alleged pair of shoes got recovered by co-accused Manoj Kumar is not legally admissible; that there is no medical evidence adduced to establish the fact that Javed sustained foot injury although he was examined at Safdarjang hospital; that his blood group did not match with the blood stained socks, which he was allegedly wearing at the time of incident; that there is no scientific evidence to connect him with the crime by showing his presence at the spot that the witness Nathun @ Raju who has allegedly given first aid to Javed has not been examined by the prosecution although he was cited as a witness so an adverse inference is deducible for his non- examination; that the pocket diary seized from the house of accused Javed by PW-4 is not documented by way of seizure memo and the same is not connected with the accused; that no disclosure statement of Javed was recorded on 23/01/00 and his disclosure dt. 24/01/00 is fabricated and even disclosure of accused Mukesh is undated, so there is no discovery of any new fact; that motive has not been connected with accused Javed; that all the material witnesses qua Javed namely PW-7, 8 & 9 from whose telephone booth accused allegedly made telephone call to the house of deceased, turned hostile; that simply talking on phone with a friend does not connect the accused with the crime.
83 Counsel Sh. Sanjay Gupta for accused Manoj @ Manju also pleaded for acquittal of the accused on the ground that case is based on circumstantial evidence against the accused and chain of circumstance has not been proved as 47 PW-42 Kirpal Premanand the first and original registered owner of the car did not support the prosecution version and in her cross-examination by Ld. APP she denied having sold the car to one Anis Mehta and no Anis Mehta was brought on record as PW; that she did not inform the insurance company and transport department about the sale of car to Rakesh Kapila. (Prosecution version is that the car was initially owned by Kirpal Premanand and then was sold to Anis Mehta and then to Sriniwas and finally to accused); that prosecution has failed to examine Rakesh Kapila, Chander Prakash & Anis Mehta; that PW-41 Sriniwas denied having sold the car to accused Manoj @ Manju and even could not identify the car categorically and his version was that he sold the car to one mechanic; that PW-20 Dr. Rajinder Singh did not said anything about involvement of accused Manoj @ Manju in letting out his house to accused Manoj Kumar ; that PW-36 Rama Sharma did not support the prosecution on the point that accused Manoj @ Manju had ever made any telephone call from his factory to his mobile no. 0910184352 and he even denied of existence of any Suraj Workshop near his factory or knowledge about car no. DBC 5672; that IO has failed to prove existence of workshop by name of Manoj @ Manju, Babloo & Suraj in Tukmeerpur area and he has taken the name of Manoj workshop for the first time in the court and he failed to prove the notice U/s. 160 Cr.P.C; that there is no incriminating evidence to show any complicity between accused Manoj and Manoj @ Manju at any point of time; that PW-51 did not recover form 29/30 MC at the time of the production of the car. He did not take the expression of chasis and engine no. of the car nor gave notice to the accused 48 between 04/07/00 to 18/07/00 to join investigation; that statement of Subhash, brother of accused who as per prosecution produced the car was not recorded; that RC of the vehicle was planted upon the accused; that the identity of the witness to personal search of the accused is doubtful as they were not produced (namely Ashu, Desh Raj & Sudhir Kr.); that no document was produced with regard to existence of RC of vehicle No. DBC 5672 with RTO concerned; that IO did not trace out the place of washing of car.
84 Admittedly this is a case of circumstantial evidence. In a catena of cases basic principles for appreciating circumstantial evidence have been out lined as under:
"That the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should in the first instance be fully established and all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused; that again the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should be such as to exclude the every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. In other words there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground in a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and inconsistent with the guilt of the accused and it must be such as to show that within all human probability the act must have been done by the accused, relied AIR 1972 SC 656 titled Ram Gopal Vs. State of Maharashtra;49
AIR 1971 SC 69 titled Awadhi Vs. State of Bihar; AIR 1971 SC 2016 titled Bakshish Singh Vs. State of Punjab.
85 Accused Akhtar was identified by last seen witness Varinder in the court for the first time so the contention of the ld. Defence counsel is that first time identification in the court is not admissible in law. To my mind, there is no illegality in identification of the accused for the first time in court as it is not the case of the prosecution that Varinder had inter acted with accused Akhtar for fraction of minutes only. Rather Varinder had remained seated with him in the car of deceased for a considerable period covering distance from transport office of deceased to Loni fly over. Akhtar even talked with Varinder. In Sukhdev Singh 1992(3) SCC 700 Hon'ble Apex Court interalia observed that if a witness had any particular reason to remember about the identity of accused, in that event a case can be brought under the exception and upon solitary evidence of identification of an accused in court for the first time , conviction can be based. In the case of Ronny reported in 1998 (3) SCC 625 it was held that where a witness had a chance to interact with the accused of that in a case where a witness had opportunity to noticed distinctive features of the accused, the identification for the first time by such witness cannot be thrown away . Above preposition of law were also reiterated in Lekh Raj (2000) (1) SCC 247 and Dana yadav reported in 2002 (7) SCC 295 . Thus in view of the above the identification of accused Akhtar by PW Virender is believable and legal in view of the judicial pronouncements.
86 As regards delay in FIR , it seems that there was no 50 doubt in the mind of family members of deceased regarding any motive or hostility from any quarter at that juncture particularly attributable to Akhtar . Accused Akhtar was frequently interacting with deceased in professional matter . As per PW Ranjeet, Truck of Akhtar was being loaded from transport office of deceased. It has not been asked from Varinder or family members of deceased examined, if deceased was in the habit of staying away from home in connection with his business or otherwise, too frequently . Since, if this query was answered in affirmative , then absence of deceased from his home for one or two days would not have evoked any reaction by way of his look out to the extent of filing a missing report. Since no such question was asked from the witness , the circumstances of delay in FIR has to be appreciated by presuming that deceased might be absent from his home quite often for a day or two , more over the disclosure statement of accused persons also reflected that deceased was in the habit of enjoying the company of girls (LADKIBAAJ) . In addition to the above, the family members of deceased got alarmed only on receipt of ransom call and then report was lodged.
87 As regards the objection that police did not trace out accused Akhtar at Motihari , the arguments is misplaced , as SI Suresh with police team went to Motihari in search of Akhtar and it was through the telephone number of brother of Akhtar, namely Amjad [which was provided to police by prosecution witness Munna Khan , who also hailed from native place of Akhtar and who had one of office at Motihari in addition to one at Ghaziabad (he was partner of deceased Shokeen Pal)] that police reached the STD Booth concerned 51 by resorting to technical way where co accused Mukesh was joined in enquiry and then apprehended subsequently. This has already been mentioned in para 2 to 4 (Supra) . 88 SI Suresh while being in Motihari, was in touch with SI Pyare Lal at Delhi on telephone. On revelation made by Mukesh who was initially not arrested and was only inquired into but later on when SI Pyare Lal informed that ransom call was made by one Saddam on Mobile number 9810174266 to the residence of deceased on telephone number 2812127 and demand of Rs. 5000/- was raised for expenses, through call details of this number received on fax from Delhi, when SI Suresh enquired Mukesh about the call , he could not give satisfactory reply and when he was taken to Kalyan STD at Motihari , STD Owner told that Mukesh used to make telephone calls to above mobile number 9810174266 and other telephone number (belonging to Shokeen Pal) at Delhi . It was then Mukesh was arrested on 23-1-00 and interrogated and he revealed the entire plot / conspiracy . Albeit disclosure statement of Mukesh is undated but accused Javed was arrested subsequently on 23-1-00 so obvious inference is that disclosure statement of Mukesh was recorded on 23-1-00 as in persuance thereof only accused Javed was apprehended . Disclosure statement of Javed is dated 24-1-00 . SI Suresh has clarified that when disclosure statement was being recorded , it was started on 23-1-00 and was concluded on 24- 1-00.
89 Disclosure statement of Mukesh EX PW 7/B , interalia reflects that conspiracy to abduct Shokeen Pal was hatched between him, Manoj, Javed and Akhtar and it was made to understand that Manoj would contact Mukesh from 52 Mobile number 9810184352 and Mukesh would contact him on above phone number. Mukesh accordingly used to contact him on above phone number. Mukesh also disclosed that Manoj had on 5-1-00 at 7 pm told him on phone that Shokeen pal was kidnapped on 4 / 5 - 1 -00 and was kept in a tenanted room. His disclosure statement revealed that on instruction of accused Manoj , he had made ransom call at phone number 2812127 at house of deceased . He also disclosed to the family members of deceased on phone that Car of deceased was parked at Pahar Ganj Railway Station parking. The circumstances of case suggest that accused at Motihari was being conveyed about developments at Delhi by co accused Manoj contemporaneously , that is how in pursuance of such disclosure car of deceased was recovered from the Parking of Pahar Ganj Railway station, otherwise Delhi being a Metropolis with a population of over 1.50 Crore , Car could not have been recovered in such a short period without any clue , more so when it was stationed at the Parking. Disclosure statement of Mukesh also reveals that Manoj told him on phone about arrival of co accused Javed for treatment at Motihari as Javed sustained foot injury. Javed accordingly came to Motihari and disclosed to Mukesh that he sustained accidental bullet injury on his foot while handling Shookeen Pal with Manoj , Akhtar, Vishal and 2 / 3 others . He also revealed that he used to talk with Manoj on his another telephone number , 9810174266 . It is to be noted that mobile number 9810184352 was recovered from accused Lalit Rana by ASI Rakesh (PW12) in case FIR No. 27/00 PS Welcome, on 27-1-00 as per EX PW 12/B . As per prosecution, Lalit Rana was accomplice and friend of Manoj , 53 however he was discharged by the then predecessar in this case , there being no ground against him to proceed in this case and that order was not assailed by the State. It is also to be noted that Mukesh did not reveal the address at Delhi , of that tenanted house of Manoj , where Shookeen Pal was kept as he had not seen the same, nor was communicated on phone about the same. He was even not told of murder of Shokeen Pal by co accused persons. It is to be noted that Mukesh confessed his guilt u/s 384 IPC when charge was framed against him on 12-12-02 and his confession is a corroborated piece of evidence against co accused persons. 90 Accused Javed was apprehended in pursuance of disclosure statement of Mukesh on 23-1-00 . His disclosure statement revealed that while being at Motihari , he had also talked on 23-1-00 with Manoj from the STD booth at Khairva Village and STD Booth Kalyan Motihari on phone of Manoj on phone number 9810174266 . The point were noticeable is that , he revealed to SI Suresh the name of the place where Shookeen Pal was kept as a captive as Bhajanura Delhi . This information was shared with SI Pyare Lal at Delhi . Bhajanpura is a thickly populated area in North East Delhi . It was within the knowledge of accused Javed as to where exactly Shokeen pal was kept . If he did not wish to reveal , the exact address , and did not accordingly say so , in his disclosure statement, police cannot be blamed for such incomplete revelation.
91 Police had obtained corroborated evidence from STD Booth at Khairva , Kalyan Motihari and STD Shop of Sunny Photostat.
92 This has reference to testimony of PW 5 , PW 7 , 54 PW 8 and PW 9 . None had denied seizure of relevant call details from respective STD Booth. PW 8 also corroborated prosecution by stating that Javed made telephone call from his booth as Saddam. PW 7 has even identified accused Javed in the court as Saddam who made telephone call from his STD Booth at Khairva village. In Madan Singh AIR 1976 SC 202 , it was observed interalia that cross examination of a witness by the party who calls hi, would not efface his testimony altogether and it is open to the court to consider the evidence and there is no bar in using that part of evidence in support of the prosecution or in support of the accused. In subsequent authorities titled Khujji @ Surinder Tiwari 1991 Cr L J 2653 (SC), Sayed Akhtar AIR 1979 SC 1848 Hon'ble Apex Court inter alia observed thast evidence of such a witness can be used by either party if it stands corroborated by some other piece of evidence direct or circumstantial. Although these witnesses are partly hostile but their testimony to bring home the point that police visited those STD Booths in connection with investigation and this could have been possible only at the instance of accused persons is believable. Since accused Mukesh confessed his guilt, so all these technical evidence by way of call details and oral corroborative evidence do allude to the role of accused Mukesh, Javed, Manoj, Akhtar and Ikramul Haq in the whole episode. As regards foot injury sustained by Javed about which he made a reference to co accused Mukesh, it is on record that Javed was medically examined on 28.1.00 at Safdarjung Hospital which he has also admitted to be a correct fact. His such examination report refers to L/E old Lacerated sound ( LT) foot on dorsal side. The socks and shoes with corresponding holes were also 55 recovered at the instance of co accused Manoj. 93 Moreover, from the clue given by accused Javed police zeroed in to the spot of occurrence from where incriminating articles as detailed above were collected. Besides accused Manoj son of Bindeshwari, Akhtar and Ikramul were also arrested while trying to flee from there. The information was conveyed from Mobile regarding the spot of occurence being Bhajan Pura at Delhi to SI Pyare Lal on 24.1.00 and it is well known that Delhi being capital there remains high alert prior to Republic Day (26th January) and particularly from the day of Rehessal (23rd January onwards) and the entire police machinery is geared up accordingly for over seeing the law and order situation in high alert state, so delay in tracing out the exact spot by police from 24th to 26th January can be well understood as has been explained by SI Pyare Lal. The contention of ld. Defence counsel that there was no recovery effected at the instance of accused Javed is misplaced as there was a discovery of fact of the place of occurrence due to which police could reach that spot and apprehended the co accused persons and incriminating articles were also recovered from the spot for which no plausible explanation were furnished by the accused persons as to how come there were blood stain marks present on different articles and about presence of wooden burnt sticks. In their disclosure statements obviously accused persons have made inculpatory statement with regard to such recovered articles which by itself barring the fact leading to recovery, is not admissible in law. In this context I would rely upon the authorities reported in 2006(6) SCC 269 titled State of Maharashtra Vs. Damu.
5694 In view of the entire background of the case, the contention of defence regarding lack of evidence of injury on foot of Javed, non availability of chance prints from spot qua accused other than Manoj relegates to back seat and is of no avail as entire case was unearthed/unfolded on the disclosure statement of Mukesh and Javed leading to apprehension of remaining prime accused from the spot. As regards, chance prints, it is noted that murder took place in first week of January whereas chance prints were lifted as late as on 27.1.00 when spot could be traced out by the police. So due to lapse of time evidence of chance prints were damaged/lost. Other objections of ld defence to entitle Javed for his acquittal do not impinge on the core of the case. Recovery of socks/shoes of Javed got effected by accused Manoj also speaks volume of the complicity of accused Javed and in the contemporaneous period facts came to the knowledge of co accused Mukesh from co accused Manoj S/o Bijender who has confessed his guilt. Deceased was healthy person of well built up structure as can be seen from his photograph on record (Ex.PW12/P3-4) and could not have been managed and murdered by a single person. Disclosure statement of Mukesh implicates co accused persons.
95 Chance prints of accused Manoj son of Bindeshwari were found from the spot. Chance prints/question prints Q1 and Q2 which were lifted from glass and mirror from the spot tallied with specimen finger prints of accused Manoj son of Bindeshwari ( Ex.PW33/C). Accused Manoj in his statement under section 313 CrPC denied that he was tenant of PW30 Dr. Rajinder but PW30 has supported that Manoj had taken his room on rent during that period. How come his 57 finger prints were found at the spot as late as on 27.1.00 has not been explained by accused Manoj who has been identified by PW 30 ,in the court . No ill will enemity or hostility has been attributed to PW 30 by accused Manoj so thereis no reason as to why PW 30 would falsely state such facts. 96 As regards motive aspect, prosecution has succeded in brining home beyond all shadow of reasonaboe doubt that Akhtar had got financed two trucks from KGA Finance on personal guarantee of Shokken for which PW-3 Manager of finance company at that time, PW-4 Ranjeet manager of transoport company of Shookeen pal and PW- 1Sudhir Kumar Aggarwal owner of finance company supported the prosecution and identified accused Akhtar unerringly in the court. Relevant documents with respect to finance of trucks were also adduced in the court and duly proved. Photograph of Akhtar in the file of relevant truck was also seized by the police vide Ex.PW3/A so, the plea of accused Akhtar in his statement U/s. 313 Cr.P.C that he had no concern with the trucks, is of no substance and cannot be believed. Case of the prosecution in this context is also strengthened from the record of relevant trucks produced by Pw-18 Rajender Kumar Chillad from Rajpur Road, Transport Authority, Delhi as referred in para 36 supra. Testimony of these witnesses do lead to inference that Akhtar was inimical to deceased as he did not facilitate him by extending his personal guarantee, to continue keeping the vehicles by helping him out to extend the time of repayment of installments of those trucks. Disclosure statement of accused Mukesh reveals that even accused Manoj had suffered losses in his illegal business of bull bearing smuggling during those 58 days and that he was in need of money. Easy money is such a thing which easily corrupts the mind of person having criminal orientation/ propensity. Circumstances suggests that such a conspiracy could not have been executed by two persons. The motive of abduction of deceased was obviously to extort money from his family members.
97 As regards murder of Shokeen Pal, the evidence of witnesses of recovery of headless body on the pointing out of accused Manoj, Akhatar and Ikramul and presence of blood stains at the spot of murder alludes to guilt of accused persons. The video tape of recovery of headless dead body on the pointing out of accused Manoj S/o. Bindeshwari, Akhtar and Ikramul (herein after referred as trio) was displayed in the court, which clearly showed the trio retrieved the gunny bag containing headless body from ganda nala. The contention of defence that it was on the disclosure of public and not trio to the effect that some foul smell was coming from another pulia that headless body was recovered from the another pulia, is to be viewed in the context and not in isolation as it is not the case of the prosecution that the point of ganda nala where accused persons had initially taken the police party where headless body was thrown there, did not flow up to the point of recovery at another pulia. Obviously with the flow of water current in ganda nala, the gunny bag was carried to next pulia with water current. At the next pulia, it was the trio who had pointed out towards the gunny bag which was fished out and found to contain headless body. Public persons did not tell about gunny bag flating in ganda nala giving foul smell. AS regards testimony of Dr. Rajender PW-30 in view of the authorities on appreciation of hostile witnesses as referred 59 above, his version as to recovery of headless body, is believable. He has also testified regarding recovery of syringe from near a wall near 2/101, Tukmeer pur extension by accused Manoj and recovery of knife used in offence at the instance of accused Ikramul from ganda nala. During the obtaining of subsequent opinion by doctor on the weapon of offence, it was noted that the knife had mud. PW-30 had identified his signatures on seizure memo of above articles/headless body and also idenified the syringe and knife as referred above in his testimony.
98 The gold ring of deceased was recovered from accused Manoj whereas wrist watch was recovered from accused Akhatar. Both the recovered items were identified by wife of deceased in judicial TIP. The late conducting of judicial TIP has been eyed with suspicion for which IO has given the explanation and attributed the same to procedural aspect in getting dates from the court. In my considered view, such delay in holding TIP does not uproute the prosecution case as recovery of such articles was effected on date of arrest itself and same were kept in sealed pullanda. There in nothing on record to suggest that family members of deceased handed over the gold ring and watch to the IO for planting the same on the accused persons.
99 As regards PW- Virender and Sudhir who are witnesses of recovery, the contention of Ld. Defence that they being relations of deceased are interested witnesses and should not be believed, it is not the proposition of law that relations of deceased are always interested witnesses. If their testimony appears natural, they are believable. No ill-will enmity or hostility has been attributed to these Pws by any 60 accused or vise-versa, so there is not reason to disbelievve them. AS regards identify of headless body, the same has been established as that of Shokeen Pal through DNA Finger Printing test. Moreover, as per familuy members of deceased.
" OM" was tattoed on the right hand of deceased. PW52 who has proved the autopsy report also mentioned about the presence of " OM" on the right hand of deceased. Cause of death has been given as shock as a result of cut throat injury to neck vide Ex.PW52/A. PW52 testified that as per postmortem report injury present on neck of dead body was possible by use of knife Ex.P1 & P2. Moreover CDFD report Ex.PW51/Q (11pages) concluded that source of Ex.Z15 and Z16 (blood sample taken from Jagbir Singh and Smt. Bala Devi- parents of deceased) cannot be excluded from being the biological parents of source of Ex.B (thigh tissue of right leg of deceased).
100 Accused Ikramul got recovered knife used in commission of offence. PW-30 has referred to such recovery. Disclosure statement of Mukesh referes to Ikramul being privy to the commission of offence. Since Mukesh has admitted his guilt so all the investigation conducted qua Mukesh, can be invoked against co-accused persons as corroborative piece of evidence in addition to his confession. Accused Ikramul was also apprehended from the spot alongwith prime accused Manoj S/o. Bindeshwari and Akhtar. Ikramul appears in the video tape of recovery with Manoj and Akhtar. He has not pleaded any alibi rather in response to Question 44 he comes forth with following reply.
Q44 It is in evidence against you that thereafter, on 27-1-00 you alongwith your co 61 accused Akhtar and Manoj Kumar Singh in pursuacne of your disclosure statement took the police party and public witness namely Dr. Rajinder Singh & Sudhir to Bihari Pur Pulia, Ganda Nala and pointed out ganda nala where you had thrown the headless dead body of Shokeen Pal. The dead body was found at a distance of 100 meter from the place of pointing near Sher Pur Pulia. You and your co accused persons pointed out towards a gunny bag floating in the ganda nala and fished out the gunny bag. Ct. A K Rai took the six photographs of dead body EX PW 24 / 19-27. He also recorded video film of recovery of headless body in a cassette EX PW 24 / B. Pointing out memo and seizure memo of headless dead body of Shokeen Pal is EX PW 2/ T . Dead body was identified by Ranbeer Singh and Sudhir vide their statement EX PW 31/ B and EX PW 2/ W . What have you to say ?
Ans It is correct. On 23-1-00 police came to my work place at Tilak Nagar alongwith accused Akhtar and I was brought to the place and given a knife and pushed in the water and took my photograph with knife to frame me in this case.
101 The answer given by Ikramul is culpabally wrong in view of the visual display of VCR showing the recovery at the instance of accused persons when the same is appreciated in the entire context.
102 Pw-34 Mahavir Prasad admits the visit of police to his Kiryana Shop and confirmed that one person had purchased two gunny bags from his shop. Although he could not identify that person as accused Ikramul Haq in the court but his testimony do lend credence to the prosecution that in pursuance of disclosure statement of Ikramul, police visited the kiryana shop of PW-34 and that two gunny bags were purchased from his shop. For a person having public dealing, it is very difficult to remember the purchaser or the time when 62 the articles were purchased so, due lattilude needs to be given to the testimony of Pw-34 as corroborative piece of evidence since dead body was recovered at the instance of trio in two gunny bags so it is quite obvious that gunny bags must have been procured by accused persons prior to the murder or subsequent to the murder for the purpose of disposal. 103 PW-35 Chemist from whose shop Manoj had purchased five Fortwin injections on 26/12/99 also admits visit of police to his shop albeit he denies that accused Manoj was accompanying the police at that time. His evidence is also to be appreciated on the line of evidence of Pw-34. 104 Police has also seized the tape recording the ransom call recived from Mukesh by Pw Santerash. Sample voice of Mukesh was also taken by accued. Mukesh has already been convicted on voluntarily admitting his guilt. So this piece of evidence also establishes the fact that ransom calls were recieved at the house of deceased for his release. Convict Mukesh while making the ransom call, was not aware of murder of deceased having already taken place. 105 In view of the foregoing discussion there can be no other conclusion deducible except the one tha taccused Manoj S/o. Bindeshwari, Javed, Ikramul,Akhtar committed murder of Shokeen Pal in pursuance of conspiracy to abduct him for ransom which motive was carried out by abducting Shokeen Pal by Akhtar on false pretext and subsequently on being threatened by Shokeen Pal that he would on release disclose about all the facts regarding his captivity for ransom, he was murdered by all the four accused persons above and to avoid the detection of crime, his body was disposed of by severing his head from the rest of the body for the purpose of 63 destroying the evidence of their crime.
106 As regards accused Manoj @ Manju he has been prosecuted for committing offence U/s. 201 IPC on the grounds interalia was that his car No. DBC 5672 was used by the co-accused persons for carrying away the dead body for disposing of the same and that accused Manju @ Manoj washed the blood smeared car with the intention to cause the disappearance of murder. Ld. Defence counsel Sh. Sanjay Gupta has vehemently pleaded for acquittal of the accused on various grounds as mentioned above. He has relied upon the authorities reported in 1991 SCC (Cri) 905 titled Harender Narain Singh and Ors. Vs. State of Bihar, where in a case of circumstantial evidence Hon'ble Apex court interalia observed that prosecution cannot rely on absence of defence to sustain the guilt of the accused. It must succeed on its own evidence. It also observes that where two reasonbly possible views exist in the circumstances, court should adopt the view in favour of the innocence of the accused. Counsel has also referred to the authority reported in 2001 (3) RCR (Crl.) page 767 titled Ronal Kiprono Ramkat Vs. State of Haryana by our Hon'ble Apex Court, wherein it was observed that court expect the accused to establish his defence by the same stand that the prosecution should establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. It was enough to show that defence was probable in the given circumstances. Much emphasis has been laid by the counsel to bring home the point that the chain showing the ownership of the vehicle by accused is missing as the original owner sold the vehicle to Anees Mehta and then to Srinivas and finally to the accused but Anees has not been examined by the prosecution to complete the chain. To my 64 mind the arguments may carry some weight but it is not always that person having possession of any vehicle would also be simultaneously having its ownership documents. Prosecution version is that RC of the vehicle was produced by the accused Manoj @ Manju and it is also on record that vehicle was produced in the court by his brother. Even if for arguments sake it is believed that car was in possession of accused Manju at the relevant time, the question is whether the accused can be still fastened with the liability as charged. For that matterprosecution was required to establish that it was in the knowledge of the accused that vehicle was used for disposing of the dead body, by the co accused persons and secondly despite knowledge of the above facts accused Manoj @ Manju washed away the blood stains from the car. Prosecution has not brought any evidence to prove the above points for determination. Even the disclosure statement of accused persons did not reveal that accused Manoj @ Manju was aware of any such murder or that his car was required to be used for disposal of the dead body . Nobody has seen co accused persons interacting with accused Manju. There is no evidence on record that the particular car was handed over to co accused persons by accused Manoj @ Manju at any point of time. Similarly , there is no evidence adduced by prosecution to show that blood stains if any on the car were washed away by accused Manoj @ Manju . The conduct of Manju in evading his appearance before the investigating agency may be for many fold factors since it is common knowledge that a suspect wants to avoid police and make all efforts to get relief from court as per law in order to avoid any victimizatioin at the hands of the police persons. There is 65 nothing unusal in such an approach as the matter of common practice. That being so, no adverse inference can be drawn against the accused Manju in fleeing from the process of law during investigatioin stage. Since prosecution has failed to attribute any knowledge to the accused to the effect that he was aware of his vehicle being used for disposal of dead body coupled with the factor that there is no evidence to show that accused had washed his car accused Manoj @ Manju is entitled to the acquittal and he is accordingly acquitted of the charges u/s 201 IPC .
107 As regards accused Manoj S/o Bindeshwari, Ikramul Haq . Akhtar & Javed , prosecution has succeded in bringing home their guilt beyond all shadow of reasonable doubt and they are convicted u/s 120B IPC, u/s 364 A r/w 120 IPC and u/s 302 r/w 120 B IPC Announced in Open Court (Reena Singh Nag) Dtd. 25-08-2008 Addl. Sessions Judge KKD Delhi 66 IN THE COURT OF MS. REENA SINGH NAG , ASJ KKD DELHI Session Case No.93/03 FIR no. 23/2000 PS Nand Nagri U/s 364A/302/34 IPC State Vs Manoj etc State vs
1. Manoj Kumar Singh S/o Sh. Bindeshwari Singh
2. Mohd Akhtar S/o Sh Ishaq Mian
3. Mohd Javed S/o Mohd Naseem
4. Ikramul Haq @ vishal S/o Azimuddin ORDER ON SENTENCE I have heard arguments of ld. APP for the State and all the four convicts individually and counsel Sh.Ashish Dass for convicts Javed and Akhtar on the quantum of sentence. Convict Javed is aged 29 years and is unmarried. He was pursuing his graduation before his arrest in this case. His father is retired. Earlier he was having his business. He has one married sister. There is no previous involvement. Convict has learnt Yoga and had also joined computer course while being in JC.
2 Convict Akhtar is aged 32 years and has roots in society as he has homely wife and two school going children in his family. His son is aged 12 years whereas daughter is aged 9 years. His aged parents are also living with his wife at Bihar and they have agrarian background. Convict was working in the establishment of spare parts business run by his employer. He is offering his services in jail canteen. He states that he is a religious person and reads Kuran Sharif in jail.
673 Convict Manoj son of Bindeshwari Singh is aged 33 years and is unmarried. He has studied upto 9th and was doing the work of spare parts. His father has expired whereas mother is infirm and ill being in old age as she is 82 years of age and is being looked after by his married brother and his family at Bihar. He states that he has attended the Vipasana Shivir five times in jail and has also learnt yoga. 4 Convict Ikramul is aged 25 years and is unmarried. He has studied upto 8th and was doing the work of tailor. His father has expired. He has mother and one unmarried sister. There is no previous involvement. He states that during the period of eight years in custody no family members could contact him due to poor social and financial condition of family. 5 Convicts and their counsel have pleaded for leniency in sentence i.e Life Imprisonment as convicts are in JC since January 2000 and there is no previous involvement reported against them nor there is any bad conduct reported from jail. Whereas ld, APP has argued that taking un due advantage of the trust of the victims reposed in Akhtar, he was fraudulently with the motive of demanding ransom and killing him, abducted by Akhtar in pursuance of a conspiracy by all and circumstances of the case warrant capital punishment. Ld. APP has relied on the authority reported in 2008 III AD (Cr.) 50 titled Prajeet Kumar Singh Vs. State of Bihar, wherein reference was made to judgments of Hon'ble Apex Courts in Bachan Singh Vs. State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 684( a Constitution Bench decision) and in Machhi Singh and Ors. Vs. State of Punjab (1983) 3 SCC 470 (a three Judges Bench decision).
686 I have gone through these judgments. In Machhi Singh's Case it was observed that in rarest of rare cases when collective conscience of the community is so shocked that it will expect the holders of the judicial powers to inflict death penalty irrespective of their personal opinion as regards desirability or otherwise of retaining death penalty, the community may entertain such a sentiment.
7 At the same time following decision in Bachan Singh's case, it was also observed in Machchi Singh's case as under.
(i)The extreme penalty of death need not be inflicted except in gravest cases of extreme culpability.
(ii)Before opting for the death
penalty the circumstances of
the " offender" also require
to be taken into
consideration alongwith the
circumstances of the "
crime".
(iii)Life imprisonment is the
rule and death sentence is
69
an exception. In other
words death sentence must
be imposed only when life
imprisonment appears to be
an altogether inadequate
punishment having regard
to the relevant
circumstances of the crime,
and provided, and only
provided, the option to
impose sentence of
imprisonment for life
cannot be conscientiously
exercised having regard to
the nature and
circumstances of the crime
and all the relevant
circumstances.
(iv)A balance sheet of
aggravating and mitigating
circumstances has to be
drawn up and in doing so
the mitigating
circumstances have to be
accorded full weightage and
a just balance has to be
70
struck between the
aggravating and mitigating
circumstances before the
option is exercised.
8 I have given my thoughtful consideration over the
rival submissions and in my considered view this case does not fall in the category of rarest of rare case. 9 The under mentioned sentences shall meet the ends of justice against all the convicts who are equally placed. Under Section 12O B IPC All the convicts are sentenced to Life Imprisonment with fine of Rs.5000/- each. IN default of payment of fine they shall further undergo SI for three months.
U/S.302 r/w Sec.120B IPC All the convicts are sentenced to Life Imprisonment with fine of Rs.5000/- each. IN default of payment of fine they shall further undergo SI for three months.
U/S 364A r/w Sec.120 B IPC All the convicts are sentenced to Life Imprisonment with fine of Rs.5000/- each. IN default of payment of fine they shall further undergo SI for three months..
All the sentences shall run concurrently and benefit of section 428 Cr P C shall be given to the convicts as per law. Copy of order be given to the convicts free of costs. The file be consigned to record room.
Announced in Open Court (Reena Singh Nag)
Dtd. 05-09-2008 Addl. Sessions Judge
KKD Delhi
71