Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. The above named two accused have been sent up for trial U/s 392/394/304(Part-II)/411 of IPC.

1.1 The facts of the case are that on 05.02.2014 complainant Bhirender came to Police Station Mangol Puri and gave a complaint in which he alleged that his brother Navin Sagar aged 36 years was doing a business of Navin Cable and his dead body was recovered from a drain near C-Block Public Toilet on 14.01.2014 at 7 AM. He came to know about the dead body of his brother Navin from someone. Thereafter, he along with his family members reached the place of recovery of body. Subsequently, on inquiry he learnt that deceased was seen roaming in the gali from which his body was recovered in the night intervening 13 &14.01.2014 and at that time deceased Navin was carrying one mobile phone make MAX with IMEI No. 911318100806698 and IMEI No. 911318100854698. It was a dual SIM mobile, therefore, it had two IMEI numbers. Deceased was also carrying one laptop make HP of golden colour and cash amount of Rs.14,000 - 15,000/- with him. But when his body was recovered in the morning of 14.01.2014, the above mentioned cash amount and articles were found missing. Complainant suspected that someone took away the articles of deceased. On this complaint, initially the case was registered U/s 379 of IPC only.

3.15 PW9 HC Gurmail and PW22 SI Robin Tyagi deposed that on 06.02.2014 they along with complainant went to the house of Rishi Prakash after the mobile of deceased was found to be used by Rishi Prakash on surveillance of the mobile phone. Rishi Prakash met them and handed over the mobile of deceased. The mobile was identified by the complainant. Rishi Prakash then disclosed that he had purchased that mobile from one Neeraj for Rs. 500/-. Mobile was taken into possession after sealing it vide memo Ex.PW9/A. Thereafter, the police team and complainant went to the house of Neeraj located at Mangol Puri. On being enquired Neeraj informed that the mobile was sold by accused Rahul @ Goli. It was also disclosed that Ajit @ Mitu was also with accused Rahul at that time and also that Ajit @ Mitu had told Neeraj that he was in possession of one Laptop also which also he wanted to sell. Thereafter, police reached house of Ajit @ Mitu and from the house of Mitu, laptop of deceased was recovered which was taken into possession after identification by the complainant. Ajit was arrested in the present matter. It is also deposed by SI Robin Tyagi that subsequently accused Rahul was arrested and was taken on police remand. During police custody, accused Rahul got recovered the purse of the deceased on 29.04.2014. At the time of arrest of Rahul and recovery of purse, PW13 Ct. Gaurav was also there. The purse was got recovered by accused Rahul from bushes on the north side of railway station track at Mangol Puri. The wallet was of brown and black colour. During evidence complainant Bhirender PW12 identified all these articles in the court as Ex.P1 to P3 and claimed that those articles belonged to his deceased brother. PW12 also deposed that he came to know about the recovery of dead body of his brother and reached there but by the time the dead body had already been removed to the mortuary of the hospital. He then went to the police station on that very day and gave a complaint Ex.PW12/A which was received in the police station vide DD no. 29B. Subsequently, he again went to the police station on 5.02.2014 and lodged his complaint Ex.PW12/D on which present case was got registered. The witness also deposed that during investigation on 6.2.2014 he accompanied the investigating officer to the house of Rishi Prakash from where mobile of deceased was recovered. Rishi Prakash named Neeraj as the person from whom mobile was purchased. Then they went to the house of Neeraj. Neeraj named accused Rahul as the person who had sold the mobile in question. At that time, accused Ajit @ Mitu was also with Rahul. Thereafter, Ajit was arrested from his house and from his possession, laptop in question was recovered. The witness also deposed that he produced the carton box of the mobile phone which contained the IMEI numbers on 10.02.2014 and which was taken into possession by the investigating officer. The witness also deposed that he identified the purse of deceased during TIP proceedings.

7.2 In the statement Ex.PW8/DA, it is mentioned that deceased was talking to someone on mobile phone. The said fact establishes that the deceased was in possession of mobile phone at the relevant time. Though the call detail records of the mobile phone of deceased does not reveal that deceased talked to anybody at 12.30 PM, but then in the statement of these witnesses Sunny and Amit, they have mentioned the time by approximation and not precisely. Brother of deceased PW12 produced a carton container of the mobile phone in question which is proved is Ex.PW12/G. In the said carton both IMEI numbers of the mobile instrument are categorically mentioned. Though brother of deceased could not produce bill of the mobile of deceased but the said fact alone cannot be a reason to doubt that the deceased was using that mobile. In the mobile connections which were in the name of mother of deceased, the CDR reveals the same IMEI numbers. A lot many people do not keep the bills of mobile phones. The container carton reveals that the mobile in question was imported sometime in May 2013 i.e. more than six months prior to the incident. It may well be a case where even the deceased purchased this mobile in second hand from someone.

7.4 The testimonies of Rishi and Neeraj also gets corroborated from the fact that in the call detail records of the instrument in question were used by Rishi with two numbers i.e. 9210702139 and 7834890277, the CDR would reveal that this mobile instrument was used from 19.1.2014 and 18.1.2014 onwards, respectively, with the said two numbers as is revealed from CDRs Ex. PW15/D and Ex.PW15/G. It has come in the evidence that the last mentioned mobile number was in the name of Rishi Prakash himself whereas the earlier number being used by Rishi was in the name of Jitender. But both these numbers were used from the same instrument as is clear from IMEI number mentioned in the CDR. That fact corroborates the testimonies of Rishi and Neeraj that the instrument in question was delivered on 18.1.2014. Thus, this court has no doubt that accused Rahul was in possession of the mobile instrument of the deceased knowing or at least having reasons to believe that it was a stolen property.