State Of Uttaranchal & Anr vs Sunil Kumar Vaish & Ors on 16 August, 2011
29. PW6 stated that in the room of accused S.K Singh a
small briefcase of fibre was on the floor in standing position near side
the bed, which bed was perhaps a folding bed. As per PW6, there
were two such beds, a table in said room. PW6 could not recollect
whether there was any TV or fridge but there were clothes on hanger.
No site plan of said place was prepared by PW6. PW6 even was
unable to say whether briefcase was opened with the help of any
button or was having any numbers for opening it. Such briefcase or
other stated articles viz., documents were not seized in the course of
investigation. PW6 elicited that accused S.K Singh was tenant in
said room but he had not obtained any document of proof of tenancy
of accused in respect of said room during course of investigation nor
SC No. 04/2009 23/43
State Vs. Sunil Kumar etc.
did he enquire as to who was the landlord or owner of the said room
nor recorded the statement of such landlord of said room. No
photographs were taken of said room or even outside of it. PW6
specified that they had not taken the personal search of the other
person who was present with accused S.K Singh in the dead hours of
the night. The members of the raiding party with accused Pankaj left
the said room of accused S.K Singh at about 3.30 am or 3.40 am, as
per PW6. As per PW5 they had reached the house of accused S.K
Singh at 12 mid night of the intervening night of 22 and 23 February,
2000 and it took about one and half hours or two hours for
investigation work thereafter which they had left that place.