Document Fragment View
Matching Fragments
3. Further investigation was carried out. Smt. Jyantri told the police that on the night of 05.09.2000 her husband told that today i.e. on 05.09.2000 he appeared in the court in a case of dacoity where Ashok @ Shoki and his counsel Talwar and Mehta manhandled SI Ramphal regarding which SI Ramphal also gives written complaint to the court that man handling was done by accused and his counsel with SI Ramphal. I perused that case. In that case next date of hearing was 07.09.2000 and SI Ramphal did not reach the court on 07.09.2000. During investigation the accused persons were arrested. They confessed about the commission of crime. They pointed out the place of incident. They got recovered pant, I-card and Mobile Phone of the deceased. The call details were traced. Accused persons disclosed that they used esteem car in the commission of offence. The esteem car was also seized Hair sample of both accused were taken. Hair sample of deceased were collected from his office and hair strands were also lifted from the esteem car. These samples were sent to FSL. After completion of investigation charge sheet was filed against accused persons for the offence u/s 302/364/365/201/404 read with section 34 IPC.
This witness has specifically stated that SI Ram Phal at about 8 PM left in Maruti esteem Car. This testimony of PW-10 finds corroboration from PW-11, who was working as Munshi in police station Punjabi Bagh on that day and had seen SI Ram Phal going with accused Rajiv Choudhry in golden colour esteem car. Statement of PW-11 is further strengthened by the testimony of PW-5, who had seen both i.e. SI Ram Phal as well as accused in the same car i.e. golden esteem car, out side the restaurant. No doubt on this aspect public witness PW-7 did not support the prosecution case but there is no such law that testimony of police witness can not be relied, in fact a testimony of witness is to be considered on the basis of quality of the evidence and not to be decided on the basis of rank or the employment of the witness. Witness can not be discarded merely because he is from police force. The High Court of J & K in case cited as Mumtaz Ahmed Vs. State of JK, 2011 (1) Crimes 269 has held that:
4. Recovery of Maruti Esteem Car andhair of deceased from the Maruti Esteem Car of accused Rajiv.
70. Ld.APP for the state submitted that in this case Maruti Esteem Car bearing no. HR-26/G9531 was seized from the possession of accused Rajiv Choudhry which was allegedly used in the commission of offence. The prosecution has examined PW17 SI Subhash Kumar in this regard. He deposed that on 12.09.2000 both the accused were arrested and also made disclosure statements ExPW17/A and Ex PW17/B. Accused Rajiv got recovered Maruti Esteem car HR26 G 9531 which was seized vide memo EX PW17/G. The identity of car is not disputed by the defence. From this car 9 exhibits i.e. hair samples were collected by the expert Sh. A.K. Srivastvaexamined as PW26 in the presence of SI Yashpal PW12 and Inspector Dinesh Kumar PW32. The memo has been proved as Ex.PW-12/A. All the exhibits were got separately sealed. The hair samples of accused persons were also taken and were seized vide memo Ex.PW17/H. The hair sample of the deceased were collected from the room used by him in the police station. The sample of accused were taken by combing. The hair samples were sent for analysis. The report is Ex.PW-26/A. This report shows that these are of human origin. The other report proved on record is Ex.PW41/X1 which shows that the hair sample collected from back seat of Maruti esteem car Ex.6. Ex.7 collected from down portion of back seat of Maruti esteem car. Ex.8 collected from the back seat of maruti esteem car. Ex.9 collected from the dicky of maruti esteem car. Ex.12 numerous black strands of hair collected from back shocker arm of maruti esteem car. Ex.13 hair embeded in mud/earth collected from silencer of Maruti esteem car and Ex.16 hair collected from lower portion of left tyre of maruti esteem car found to be consistent in morphological characteristics with that of Ex.5 i.e. the hair of Ram Phal and their single origin can not be ruled out and the same did not tally with the morphological characterstics of Ex.3 and 4 i.e. the hair of accused persons. Ld.PP submitted that the recovery of human hair from the car i.e. the seats and the other areas clearly shows and further strengthen the factum that deceased was traveling in this car along with accused Rajiv and was murdered in this car, thereafter put in the dicky of the car that is why the hair of deceased were also found in the dicky. The car was run over the deceased that is why the hair of deceased were also found in the shocker, silencer and lower portion of the tyre. Ld. PP submitted that by proving the recovery of Esteem car at the instance of accused Rajiv identity of which is not disputed, collection of hair samples then lifting of exhibits from the esteem car coupled with the report Ex.PW-26/A and PW- 41/X1 clearly establishes this fact beyond doubt and points towards the guilt of the accused.
73. Keeping in view the submissions and the facts I found that so far as the recovery of Esteem Car Ex. PA at the instance of accused Rajiv that is not much disputed by the defence and prosecution has been avle to prove the recovery of the same. So far as the scientific evidence brought on record i.e. the hair found in the esteem car and also in the dicky and lower portion of the esteem car, which tallied with the hair samples of Ram Phal which were lifted from the room of Ram Phal, it is clearly established that Ram Phal was travelling in the car then he was put in the dicky and car was also ran over him, that is why hair were found on the tyre, in the suspension and on the silencer of the car of the accused Rajiv. If deceased was not travelling in the car or was not run over by the car then there was no possibility of finding hair of deceased in the car and under neath the car. So far as non joining of independent evidence is concerned in this case, the samples were not lifted by the police but were lifted by Sh.S.K.Shrivastva PW-26, Expert. In my opinion there is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of PW-12 as well as A.K.Shrivastav, who was examined as PW-26 in this regard and PW32. In view of the above discussion in my opinion the prosecution has successfully proved and established this circumstance.