Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

9. In his cross examination, PW24 deposed that sometimes the deceased no. 1 used to work in MCX at the shop of one neighbour namely Trilok. PW­14 was his elder uncle and they used to talk occasionally on functions, otherwise, they had no concern with each other. In the year 2012, PW­14 and the deceased no. 1 did the work of property dealing partly. Before that, they had strained relationship and there was some quarrel between PW­14 and the deceased no. 2 on some domestic reason which he did not disclose. He and his family had cordial relationship with his maternal uncles. The house no. WZ­584 did not come on the way which led to Mundaka i.e. the place of work of PW­14. The width of the street in front of their house was Judgment State Vs Pawan Jindal Etc PS Subhash Place about 12 feet while in front of house of PW­14 was 20 feet. The road which existed in front of house of PW­14 linked with the road leading to Britania to Mangol Puri. His first statement was recorded on 31.10.2012 and then on 01.11.2012 and rest he did not remember. He admitted that on the date of incident, construction work was going on in the house situated in front of the house no. WZ­584 and labour was working and mixing machine was parked in the street. Once he took his father to Maharaja Agrasen Hospital, PW­14 also came over there. Police officials were also there. To his knowledge, his relatives did not inform to the police about their knowledge relating to the incident and assailants. He along with his relatives came back to the scene of crime i.e. house no. WZ­584 between 11 and 12 midnight. Police officials and crime team officials were already there and investigation continued till 5/6 a.m. on 31.10.2012. Before making the statement Ex.PW24/A, he had checked the missing articles from the house. He admitted that he had not given the number and description of jewellery articles nor mentioned about 10 silver coins, gas connection documents and the documents relating to the vehicles and the property no. D­4. On 15.11.2012, PW­14 was present in the house when the police came and they again checked the documents in the house and did not find any document missing. He did not remember whether on 15.11.2012 statement of PW­14 was recorded. After the death of his parents, all the documents of the property remained in his possession except the document mentioned in his statement. He admitted that there was no specific mark on the jewellery and the same was easily available in the market. He admitted that all the documents were in the possession of his parents Judgment State Vs Pawan Jindal Etc PS Subhash Place in the almirah. He did not admit or deny that PW­14 initially laid suspicion on Trilok and some other person. Accused no. 1 had already vacated the house D­4 on the asking of his father i.e. the deceased no. 1 simply. He had asked his maternal uncle Satish to leave their house and he did so. Except the accused no. 1, he had not seen the other accused except in the court proceedings.

11. In his cross examination, PW­14 deposed that he was dealing in property in Aman Vihar as a property dealer in order to get the same property no. D­4 vacated from the accused no. 1. Initially, he along with the deceased no. 1 purchased the said property jointly. Later on, the same was partitioned. Accused no. 1 and 3 used to make inquiries from him about the sale & purchase of the plot. Accused no. 3 was connected with Sahib Singh Verma and Bhartiya Janta Party as he had seen his posters in the area. Deceased no. 1 did not attend the marriage of his sons Ajay, Vijay and daughter Seema as their relations were not cordial because of brother in laws of the deceased no. 1 as his wife i.e. the deceased no. 2 used to take favour of her brothers out of the way over their family. He admitted that on 28.11.2012, Satish brother of the accused no. 1 on his asking transferred the plot situated at Village Ranikhera, Delhi in the name of PW­24. Accused no. 1 had also vacated 300 sq. yards plot out of 800 sq. yards situated at D­4 and did not object for the same. However, he continued to reside in remaining 500 sq. yards. After the murder, the said plot had also got vacated from the family of accused no. 1. On receipt of the information, he went to the Maharaja Agrasen Hospital and met Judgment State Vs Pawan Jindal Etc PS Subhash Place PW­24 and Satish­brother of the accused no. 1 and remained there for 30 minutes. However, he did not disclose the facts of having seen three boys that afternoon coming out of the house of deceased no. 1. At about 10.00 pm, he reached the house of deceased no. 1 and found media and police officials like DCP, ACP, SHO, SI Umesh Rana, HC Suresh and other persons. Police remained there upto 4.00 am. Even that time, he did not disclose the fact of three boys seen by him in the afternoon. He deposed that Trilok was the neighbour of the deceased no. 1 and he knew Suraj by face. Deceased no. 1 was dealing in MCX Metals. On 30.10.2012 at Maharaja Agrasen Hospital, he in the presence of PW­24 and police officials including DCP, ACP laid suspicion firstly on Trilok and Suraj with whom the deceased no. 1 was dealing in MCX Metals and police officials took note of it. On 31.10.2012 in noon hours, police came to the house of the deceased no. 1 and called him for his statement and that time he told about three boys out of which two were carrying blue coloured bag. He did not disclose the age, description and clothing of three boys in his statement. He did not know the accused no. 2 and 4 prior to the date of incident. Regarding missing documents, he deposed that after coming from the hospital on 30.10.2012, PW­24 checked the house and they came to know about missing of Rs. 2.5 lacs and gold jewellery. He also deposed that on 15.11.2012, the police came to the house of deceased no. 1 and all the documents were intact in the almirah on that day in the possession of PW­24. He admitted that on 30.10.2012, construction was going on in a house in front of house of deceased no. 1 and labour was working. Deceased no. 1 used to bolt the gate from inside and open the same after ringing of the door bell Judgment State Vs Pawan Jindal Etc PS Subhash Place only.

106. PW24 further deposed that on 15.11.2012, once PW14 was present in his house, the police came and they again checked the documents in the house WZ­584 and did not find any document missing. He also deposed that after the death of his parents, all the property documents remained in his possession except the documents mentioned in his statement i.e. the statement Ex.PW24/DX1 wherein he mentioned about documents of the property no. WZ584­A. In his cross examination, PW24 admitted that he had not given the number and description of jewelery articles for the purpose of its identification nor mentioned about 10 silver coins, gas connection documents, documents related to vehicle and the property document D­4 in his statement Ex.PW24/A. He also admitted that there was no specific mark on the jewelery and the same was easily available in the market.

110. Further, PW­33 deposed that he came to know about missing of Rs. 2.5 lacs in cash, jewellery and mobile phones but remained completely silent about missing of any document. PW­30 and PW­31 also stated that they came to know about missing of certain articles but remained completely silent about missing of any document.

111. In view of the foregoing discussions, it can be held that recovery of the property documents Ex. P­1 to Ex. P­3 at the instance of accused no. 1 is doubtful and does not inspire confidence of this court. In fact, it can be held that the documents Ex. P­1 to Ex. P­3 were planted by the IO to show their recovery at the instance of the accused no. 1 and the same could not have been done without the help of PW24.