Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

It was on 14.3.2004, the appellant Arvind @ Chuni Lal was arrested. He is said to have made a disclosure statement Exhibit P.22 to Shri Virender Singh ASI, SHO, Police Station, Line Paar, Bahadurgarh on the aforesaid date. In pursuance of such statement, the place where Manjeet was shot dead, was demarcated. On the basis and in pursuance of subsequent disclosure statement Exhibit P.24, the recovery of scooter, on which the said appellant escaped from the place of occurrence was made on 17.3.2004 vide Exhibit PW24/A. The appellant Joginder was arrested on 15.4.2004. He suffered a disclosure statement Exhibit P.25 on 15.4.2004. He has disclosed that about 2-1/2 years ago, his sister Neesha and Manjeet were caught in a compromising position in a room. Some respectables of the village got the matter compromised, but he decided to take revenge from Manjeet. After sometime, he was arrested in a case and then at Tihar Jail, his friend Sonu @ Sombir came to him. He asked his friend that Manjeet is to be murdered. He asked Sonu that Arvind @ Chuni Lal will call Manjeet from his house. After some days, Sonu @ Sombir; Chuni Lal and a friend of Sonu, murdered Manjeet son of Rajender on his asking as Manjeet wanted to outrage the modesty of his sister. Exhibit P.14 is the disclosure statement suffered by Sonu @ Sombir. On the basis of such disclosure statement, a country made pistol, 315 bore was recovered hidden on the passage of Barhi drain wrapped in a polythene vide recovery memo Exhibit P.15/A. The Forensic Science Laboratory has given its report Exhibit P.26 finding that the bullet Marks BC/1 and BC/2 have been fired from a country made pistol. It also found that the holes on shirt and banian have been caused by a single bullet projectile. In a separate report Exhibit P26/A, the FSL found human blood on shirt, pant, knicker, banian, whereas the blood could not be detected on socks. Vide report Exhibit P26/B, the FSL found material disintegrated in blood stained earth and shoes, The prosecution has sought to prove charges against the appellants on the basis of evidence of last seen led by PW4-Rajender. Disclosure statements Exhibits P.22, P.24 and P.25 and the recovery memos of the articles in furtherance of such disclosure statement coupled with the result of the scientific tests finding human blood on the articles mentioned above.

It is also argued that the prosecution has examined only the interested witnesses, but has not associated any independent witness, who can depose about the commission of the crime by the appellants. The motive of commission of crime remained unproved as PW4-Rajender has not said a word about the sister of Joginder having been found in a compromising position with the deceased. The motive cannot be proved on the basis of the disclosure statement.

No recovery has been effected on the basis of the disclosure statements of accused, namely, Arvind @ Chuni Lal and Joginder and that there is no evidence against Virender. In disclosure statement Exhibit P.22, name of Virender alias Chota is not disclosed though he is resident of the same village. It is only mentioned therein that a boy with Sonu met him on the motorcycle. Even the disclosure statement of Joginder (Exhibit P.25) does not disclose the name of Virender. The statement is also to the effect that a friend of Sonu murdered Manjeet. It is contended that such part of the statements are not admissible. The non-disclosure of the identity of Virender, though he is resident of the same village, shows that the prosecution has enlarged its net to rope in Virender as well without any evidence.

In view of the above enunciation of law, it would be advantageous at this stage to reproduce the disclosure statement, Exhibit P.22, of the appellant Arvind @ Chuni Lal, made on 14.3.2004:-

"In the presence of following witnesses accused Arvind alias Chuni Lal, above, without any fear or lure made disclosure statement, "that about 2- 2-½ years ago since today, sister of Joginder son of Raju, caste Jat, resident of Dichau and deceased Manjeet son of Rajender Jat, r/o Dichau were caught in compromising position in a room at the village. Owing to that grudge, Joginder son of Raju Jat, resident of Dichau asked me and Sonu, r/o Kukrola to murder Manjeet. On 21.2.2004, I after having called Manjeet from his house and making him sit on my scooter bearing No. DL-S-4108, Bajaj Chetak took him to Bahadurgarh at Barahi turning. There, Sonu resident of Kukrola and a boy, whom Sonu knows and I do not, met me on a motorcycle. Then, we, four of us, having crossed railway crossing at Barahi road walked at the passage of drain which is 5-6 kills inside the road and reaching there made Manjeet boarded down from the scooter, I and the boy who was along with Sonu, caught hold of Manjeet and Sonu fired a shot from behind at the shoulder and one shot in the head near his ear. Manjeet having suffered the shots, fell down there itself and died. Then, I on my scooter and Sonu along with his arm having made the other boy sit on the motorcycle left in different directions. The scooter on which I took Manjeet has been kept concealed by me in a room at Ghaziabad (UP) about which none else than me has any knowledge, can be got recovered by me after demarcation. Where Manjeet was murdered by fire shot, I can also get that place demarcated and I know the whereabouts of accomplice Sonu and can get him arrested while accompanying you."
Coming to the next argument that since no physical object has been recovered on the basis of disclosure statement of Joginder, therefore, the information disclosed by the said accused cannot be read into evidence. Similarly, evidence of Arvind @ Chuni Lal, as evidence of a co-accused, cannot be read into evidence. Before we consider the aforesaid argument, the disclosure statement of Joginder is extracted herein-below:-
"In the presence of following witnesses, accused Joginder without any fear or lure made disclosure statement, "that today, about 2-2½ years ago, my sister Neesha and Manjeet son of Rajender Jat, r/o Dichau were caught in compromising position in a room. At that time, the respectable persons of the village got the matter compromised, but I decided to take revenge from Manjeet. Some days thereafter, I was arrested in a case. Then, at Tihar Jail, my friend Sonu alias Sombir son of Umed Singh, r/o Kukrola came to me. Then, I asked my friend that Manjeet is to be murdered on which Sonu asked that if you say so then, we will murder him. I asked Sonu that Chuni Lal alias Arvind son of Jagdev Jat, r/o Dichau will call Manjeet from his house. After some days, Sonu @ Sombir son of Umed Singh, r/o Kukrola and Chuni Lal son of Jagdev Jat, r/o Dichau and a friend of Sonu who knows Sonu, murdered Manjeet son of Rajender Jat, r/o Dichau on my asking because Manjeet wanted to outrage the modesty of my sister. To revenge that, I have got murdered Manjeet."