Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5 Investigation was carried out. FSL expert opined that the suicide note was in the handwriting of deceased Tejpal. As per postmortem report, death was due to shock associated with cranio-cereberal damage under injury no. 1 (firearm- entry wound) and injury no. 2 (firearm-exit wound). Injuries were opined to be ante- mortem in nature.

6 Statements of accounts of the bank of deceased as well as A-1 Om Devi were collected during investigation. Statement of account of one SI Sandeep was also collected. CCTV footage of ATM of Axis Bank, Rohtak was also taken into possession. Call details records of relevant mobile numbers were also obtained from the concerned service providers. As per investigating agency, A-1 Om Devi and deceased Tejpal used to converse with each other regularly.

36 As per suicide note, at best, there was constant demand of money from the side of accused Om Devi. However, such demand, in itself, cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be construed as an act of abetment.

37 As per the bank statement of HC Tejpal, a sum of Rs. 4 lacs was deposited in his account on 22.11.2012 and total sum of Rs. 2 lacs had been withdrawn from such bank account through different ATMs. As per bank statement, following amounts were withdrawn:-

          S. No.         Date             Amount Withdrawn             Place of ATM

         1         25.11.2012        Rs. 20,000.00           ATM Axis Bank, Rohtak Br-II

         2         25.11.2012        Rs. 20,000.00           ATM Axis Bank, Rohtak Br-II

         3         25.11.2012        Rs. 10,000.00           ATM Axis Bank, Rohtak Br-II

         4         26.11.2012        Rs. 20,000.00           ATM Axis Bank, PTC Jaroda Kal

         5         26.11.2012        Rs. 20,000.00           ATM Axis Bank, PTC Jaroda Kal

         6         26.11.2012        Rs. 1,000.00            ATM Axis Bank, PTC Jaroda Kal

         7         26.11.2012        Rs. 2,000.00            ATM Axis Bank, PTC Jaroda Kal

         8         26.11.2012        Rs. 2,000.00            ATM Axis Bank, PTC Jaroda Kal

         9         26.11.2012        Rs. 2,000.00            ATM Axis Bank, PTC Jaroda Kal

         10        26.11.2012        Rs. 2,000.00            ATM Axis Bank, PTC Jaroda Kal

         11        26.11.2012        Rs. 1,000.00            ATM Axis Bank, PTC Jaroda Kal

         12        27.11.2012        Rs. 20,000.00           ATM Axis Bank, PTC Jaroda Kal

         13        27.11.2012        Rs. 20,000.00           ATM Axis Bank, PTC Jaroda Kal

         14        27.11.2012        Rs. 10,000.00           ATM Axis Bank, PTC Jaroda Kal

         15        28.11.2012        Rs. 20,000.00           ATM Axis Bank, Rohtak Br-II

         16        28.11.2012        Rs. 20,000.00           ATM Axis Bank, Rohtak Br-II



          17        28.11.2012        Rs. 20,000.00             ATM Axis Bank, Rohtak Br-II

                   Total             Rs. 2,00,000.00



38            There is nothing before the Court which may suggest that these were

39 I do feel that the concerned official of the Axis Bank should have been called by the prosecution in order to at least show that any request for blockage of ATM card was made by HC Tejpal. Normally, when ATM card is stolen, instant reaction on the part of any card-holder is to make request to block the card immediately. No such thing has been presented before the Court. It seems that police had tried hard to collect the CCTV footage of the concerned ATM kiosks for said dates of withdrawal. PW12 Sh. Prince Tyagi has graced the witness box. He is from Khan Market Branch, Axis Bank. Such branch is maintaining salary accounts of the officials of Delhi Police. He has proved statement of account of HC Tejpal Singh, Om Devi as well as of SI Sandeep. As regards video footage regarding withdrawal of money from ATM, HDFC Branch, Bahadur Garh, Haryana from the account of SI Sandeep and also from the account of Om Devi from ATM Rohtak Branch, according to him, as per the report of concerned Deputy Manager, CCTV footage could not be provided as the footage was preserved only for three months.

40 Fact, however, remains that Axis Bank did provide CCTV footage containing video clips of its ATM Branch situated near Ashoka Cinema, Rohtak much prior to that and, therefore, the idea behind seeking fresh footage seems quite awkward. Footage provided by Axis Bank is of 25.11.2012 from 11.00 AM to 5.00 PM. Unfortunately, such footage was not proved in any manner whatsoever and even certificate under Section 65B Indian Evidence Act does not serve the real purpose as the footage was generated by ATM Vendor of Axis Bank but the certificate had been issued by Branch Manager. Despite that, when I went through such CCTV footage by playing the CD, nothing substantial could be deciphered as the faces were totally unclear and blurred making it hard to perceive anything worth from such CCTV footage.