Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

8. PW3 Sh. Sunil is the landlord of accused Aka and he has merely deposed that the ground floor of premises WZ­15E, Krishna Puri, Gali No. 10, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi had been given on rent by him to accused Aka for a period of 11 months at a monthly rent of Rs.5000/­ per month.

9. PW4 ASI Mathias Baxla has deposed that he was posted as MHC(M) at PS Special Cell on 22/9/2009 and that on this date, SHO of the said PS had deposited with him one sealed pullanda alongwith sample pullanda, both sealed with the seal of DSN and RSS and the said property was deposited by him in malkhana vide entry 1455, Ex.PW4/A. He has also deposed that on the same day SI Anand Swaroop had also deposited the articles of personal search of accused Baba Tunde Banji with him and he has proved the said entry at Sl. no. 1456 as Ex.PW4/B. According to his deposition, on 24/9/2009 SHO had deposited one bag having one pullanda and sample pullanda sealed with the seal of AS and RSS and the said property was deposited by him in malkhana vide entry 1457, Ex.PW4/C. He has also deposed that on the same day SI Anand Swaroop had also deposited the articles of personal search of accused Aka Felician with him and he has proved the said entry at Sl. no. 1458 as Ex.PW4/D. According to his deposition, on 21/10/2009 he had also sent the samples to FSL Rohini through Ct. Rajesh Kumar vide RC no. 131/21/09, Ex.PW4/E.

12.PW9 Ct. Rajesh Kumar has interalia deposed that on 21/10/2009 on the directions of IO, he had gone to PS Special Cell, Lodhi Colony and had taken pullandas mark S1 and S2 from MHC(M) vide RC no. 131/21/09 got the same deposited with FSL, Rohini, obtained receipt and handed over the same to MHC(M). He has also specifically deposed that so long as the case property remained with him, it was not tampered with.

13.PW10 Inspector R.S. Sehrawat has inter­alia deposed that on 22/9/2009, he was posted as SHO, PS Special Cell and on that day, HC Balraj produced before him, two pullandas, one FSL Form and carbon copy of seizure memo. As per the deposition of this witness, he put the FIR number, his initials and his seal 'RSS' on all the pullandas and the FSL form and then got the said property deposited in the Malkhana by ASI M. Baxla MHC(M). He has further deposed that on the intervening night of 23/24 September, 2009 SI Anand Swaroop produced before him, two pullandas, one FSL Form and carbon copy of seizure memo. As per the deposition of this witness, he put the FIR number, his initials and his seal 'RSS' on all the pullandas and the FSL form and then got the said property deposited in the Malkhana by ASI M. Baxla MHC(M) and lodged DD no. 11A in this regard.

29.Though Ld. APP Sh. Gurjar has then contended that the delay in sending the samples cannot be stated to have caused any prejudice to the accused persons as the seals on the sample tested by the FSL laboratory were found tallying with the seals found on the FSL form, the said fact loses much of its significance in view of the discussion hereinbelow which shows that the prosecution has failed to prove that the said seals were put on the pullandas on the date of their deposit in the malkhana. In this context, it becomes relevant to note the depositions made by PW8 HC Balraj Singh, PW10 Inspector R.S. Sehrawat and PW4 ASI M. Baxla. As per the deposition of PW8 HC Balraj Singh, he had been handed over at the spot by Inspector Devender Singh, sealed pullandas, FSL form, carbon copy of seizure memo and the rukka of this case and that he had handed over the case property along with documents to the SHO R.S. Sehrawat. Though this witness has not stated that on the deposit of the case property and documents with the SHO, the SHO R.S.Sehrawat had put his seals on the same in his presence, PW10 Inspector R.S. Sehrawat, the SHO has deposed that after HC Balraj had handed him two parcels mark A and S1 sealed with the seal of DSN, one FSL form and a carbon copy of seizure memo, he had put his seal of RSS on both the pullandas and the FSL form and had put his signature on the copy of the seizure memo and thereafter had handed over the same to the malkhana incharge ASI M. Baxla. However the documentary evidence namely the register no.19 produced by the prosecution witness PW4 ASI M. Baxla shows that in the relevant entry no. 1455, Ex.PW4/A there is no mention whatsoever that the pullandas deposited with the MHCM were bearing the seal of RSS. Though Ld. APP Sh. Gurjar has tried to contend that as a general practice, the MHCM merely copies the seizure memo in register no.19 and therefore there is no mention of the seal of SHO on the pullandas neither PW10 Inspector R.S. Sehrawat nor PW4 ASI Baxla have deposed with respect to the said practice. Both the witnesses were categorically confronted with Ex.PW4/A, the relevant entry of register no.19 and it was pointed out to them that there is no mention of the seal of RSS on the same. Yet despite this specific confrontation, both the witnesses did not furnish any such explanation for the same. On the other hand, ASI Baxla in his cross­examination has specifically deposed that he had made the entry no. 1455 truly and correctly after checking the seals affixed on the property handed over to him. Similarly, PW10 R.S. Sehrawat has stated in his cross­examination that he had checked the register 19 to verify the fact whether it has been mentioned that the pullandas deposited bear his seal of RSS or not and though he admits that the relevant entry does not reflect that his seal of RSS was mentioned therein and that the entry made by the MHCM was only as per the contents of the seizure memo, he does not give any reasons why he had not made the MHCM correct the entry after the asserted verification was done by him of the register. On the other hand, he has gone on to state in his cross examination that he had handed over the pullandas to the malkhana incharge but that the case property was not deposited in the malkhana in his presence. Thus, the documentary evidence produced by the prosecution and the statements made by MHCM and SHO concerned, in their cross­examination, show that there was no seal of RSS on the samples when the same were deposited in the malkhana on 22.09.2009. The said seal is however shown to be affixed on the samples on 21.10.2009 when the samples were sent to FSL. In such view of the matter, the tampering of the case property cannot be ruled out at all.