Delhi District Court
State vs 1.Tannu Chawla on 25 January, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIRENDER KUMAR KHARTA,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE (FTC)-02, CENTRAL
DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
In the matter of:-
(Sessions case no. 27757/2016)
FIR No. 02/2014
Police Station Kamla Market
Charge-sheet filed under Sections Sec. 302/34 IPC.
Charges framed against accused Sec. 302 read with Sec. 34
Tannu Chawla @ Tarun. IPC & 25/27 Arms Act.
Charges framed against accused Sec. 302 read with Sec. 34
Yogesh Kashyap. IPC.
State Versus 1. Tannu Chawla @ Tarun
S/o Late Sh. Uttam Chand Chawla,
R/o H. No. 602/E/17,
Teacher Colony, Ward No. 3,
Mehrauli, Delhi.
2. Yogesh Kashyap,
S/o Sh. Nand Ram Kashyap,
R/o H. No. 450B, Ward No. 3,
Chhatte Wali Gali, Mehrauli,
Delhi.
...Accused Persons.
Date of Institution of case 25.04.2014
Date of Arguments 18.01.2025 & previous dates
Judgment reserved on 18.01.2025
Judgment pronounced on 25.01.2025
Decision Acquitted
FIR No. 02/2014, PS: Kamla Market, Page No. 1 of 82
State Vs. Tannu Chawla @ Tarun & Anr.
JUDGMENT
1. Accused persons namely Tannu Chawla @ Tarun and
Yogesh Kashyap are facing trial for the offences punishable
under Sec. 302 read with Sec. 34 IPC. Additionally accused
Tannu Chawla @ Tarun is also facing trial for the offences
punishable under Sec. 25/27 Arms Act. The story of the
prosecution is that in the intervening night of 01/02.01.2014
between 11:00 pm to 09:00 am, at Kotha No. 57, first floor, GB
Road, Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS Kamla Market, both the
aforesaid accused persons in furtherance of their common
intention committed murder of one Neha. Further on 07.01.2014
accused Tannu Chawla @ Tarun got recovered one knife which
he possessed without any permit or license and the same was
used in commission of offence of murder of Neha.
2. The brief facts which are borne out from the record of the
case are that on 02.01.2014 at about 10:30 am, complainant
Sarfarz came to PS Kamla Market and got DD No. 20A, Ex.
PW-29/A recorded regarding death of one lady namely Neha at
first floor, Kotha No. 57, GB Road Delhi. Thereafter IO
PW-29/Inspector Pramod Joshi along with complainant and other
police officials went to the spot of incident i.e. first floor, Kotha
No. 57 where one lady namely Neha, aged about 30 years was
found dead and her body was lying in the pool of blood on the
mattress and there were several stab wounds on her body
particularly on her neck and hand. Thereafter IO
PW-29/Inspector Pramod Joshi recorded statement of
FIR No. 02/2014, PS: Kamla Market, Page No. 2 of 82
State Vs. Tannu Chawla @ Tarun & Anr.
complainant Sh. Sarfaraz, Ex. PW-17/A, who was the care taker
of Kotha No. 57 and on the basis of the same, he prepared rukka
and got recorded the present FIR through HC Anil. Thereafter,
IO/Inspector Pramod Joshi got inspected the spot of incident
through Crime Team who took photographs, lifted the blood from
floor of the spot and wall of the room. IO also lifted the blood
stained earth control of the floor, earth control pieces of wall,
blood stained piece of mattress and blood stained piece of mat
from the spot of incident. Thereafter IO seized one mobile phone
make Nokia along with SIM having mobile no. 8860908501 of
deceased Neha which was found from beneath of the mattress on
which her dead body was found. Thereafter one Vasudev Pandey
@ Nepali met the IO at the spot and on inquiry he informed that
in the intervening night of 01-02.01.2014 at about 03:00 am, he
was called by deceased Neha in her room to clean the same and
he went inside the room and found that one regular customer of
deceased Neha namely Tannu along with one of his associate was
present inside the room and they were enjoying with deceased
Neha.
3. Thereafter IO/PW-29 Inspector Pramod Joshi shifted the
dead body to Mortuary under supervision of ASI Pramod and Ct.
Dhara and obtained CDR of mobile phone of deceased and found
that there were two mobile numbers on which there were number
of calls made between them to deceased Neha. On 05.01.2014,
both the accused persons were apprehended by the IO at the
instance of secret informer and both were duly identified by
FIR No. 02/2014, PS: Kamla Market, Page No. 3 of 82
State Vs. Tannu Chawla @ Tarun & Anr.
Vashudev Pandey @ Nepali who stated that both the accused
persons were present at fateful night with deceased Neha in her
room till early morning. Thereafter IO interrogated both of them
and during interrogation, they confessed their involvement in
commission of offence. Thereafter IO arrested both the accused
persons, conducted their personal search and recorded their
disclosure statements. During investigation, IO got recovered
blood stained knife, which was used in commission of offence at
instance of accused Tannu Chawla @ Tarun from his situated
house at Mehrauli. IO also seized the clothes, which were worn
by accused persons at the time of commission of offence. He also
got preserved the dead body of deceased at Mortuary, got
conducted the postmortem and after postmortem dead body was
handed over to brother of deceased. After postmortem IO also
seized exhibits i.e. blood in gauze piece, vaginal swab, nail
clippings of both hands of deceased along with sample seal from
hospital. During investigation, IO obtained subsequent opinion
with respect to weapon of offence, sent the exhibits to FSL for
expert opinion, got prepared scaled site plan, collected CDRs of
mobile numbers and recorded statement of witnesses. On
completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed by the IO
before the Court through the SHO.
4. Vide order dated 0 3 . 0 4 . 2 0 1 4 , copy of the charge-
sheet under Section 207 Cr.P.C was supplied to b o t h the
accused p e r s o n s and v i d e o r d e r d a t e d 1 7 . 0 4 . 2 0 1 4
the case was committed to the Court of Sessions under Sec. 209
FIR No. 02/2014, PS: Kamla Market, Page No. 4 of 82
State Vs. Tannu Chawla @ Tarun & Anr.
5. Vide order dated 09.05.2014, the Ld. Predecessor Court
was pleased to frame charges under Sec 302 read with 34 IPC
against both the accused persons. Additional Charge under Sec.
25/27 Arms Act was also framed against accused Tannu Chawla
@ Tarun, vide order dated 10.03.2017. Accused persons pleaded
not guilty and claimed trial.
6. To prove its case, prosecution has examined 35 witnesses.
The testimonies of presecution witnesses along with its nature
has been discussed briefly in the following paragraphs.
7. PW-1 HC Naresh Kumar is the duty officer who proved
copy of present FIR Ex. PW1/A alongwith endorsement of rukka
Ex. PW1/B and certificate under Section 65B Evidence Act Ex.
PW1/C with respect to the the above-said FIR. In his cross-
examination, he denied the suggestion that no FIR was lodged in
his presence.
8. PW-2 Sh. Rehaan, deposed that he was dealing in dry
cleaning of clothes and accused Yogesh Kashyap was residing at
the first floor of the house where he was working. He further
deposed accused Yogesh Kashyap had given him blood stained
jeans pant and jacket for washing in the shop and he had washed
his clothes. He further deposed that at that time when he had
given him the clothes, he told him that he had received injury
from Jack. He further deposed that he narrated this fact to the
police and police officials had taken those clothes from him
which were lying on the rope for drying. In his cross-
FIR No. 02/2014, PS: Kamla Market, Page No. 5 of 82
State Vs. Tannu Chawla @ Tarun & Anr.
examination, he admitted that he had no receipt or document to
show that Yogesh Kashyap had given his clothes to him for
washing and he also did not put any tag on the clothes given by
Yogesh. He admitted that when he met Yogesh, his hand was
bandaged.
9. PW-3 Smt. Mumtaz, was the owner of Kotha No. 57. She
deposed that she was living at Kotha No. 57 since last ten years
and deceased Neha also living in the said Kotha. She further
deposed that on 30.12.2013 she had gone to Ajmer Sharif for
offering prayer and when she returned on 06.01.2014 to her
abovesaid Kotha, she came to know that Neha was murdered.
She further deposed that in her absence Vasu Dev Pandey and
Sarfaraz were looking after the Kotha. She proved seizure memo
of her Aadhar Card and copy of her Aadhar card as Ex. PW-3/A
& Ex. PW-3/B. In her cross-examination, she deposed that
Caretaker Sarfaraz had been appointed for looking after the
affairs of the Kotha. She further deposed that Sarfaraz was not
being paid any salary but was being given some money which
was earned from Kotha. She also deposed that she was not
telephoned by Sarfaraz about murder of Neha and she came to
know when she returned to her Kotha. She also deposed that she
was not told by Sarfaraz as to who had committed murder of
Neha.
10. PW-4 Sh. K. Balasubramanyam is the brother of deceased
who identified the dead body of his sister Neha vide
identification memo Ex. PW-4/A. In his cross-examination, he
FIR No. 02/2014, PS: Kamla Market, Page No. 6 of 82
State Vs. Tannu Chawla @ Tarun & Anr.
deposed that he was having regular communication with Neha
and had last talked with her on 31.12.2013. He also deposed that
he was told about accused Tannu by Neha and he had also visited
Tirupati. He also deposed that he was conveyed that both Neha
and Tannu were willing to marry each other and there was no
objection from any family member in this regard. He also
deposed that Neha and her husband were living separately for
last seven years and she was also having two children. He also
deposed that they had no doubt on Tannu as he had lived at
Tirupati for 25 days. He also deposed that he had objection to
marriage of Neha with Tanu after he had seen his financial
condition but he did not disapproved his meeting with Neha. He
also deposed that Tannu seems to be innocent and therefore he
was willing to marry Neha with Tannu.
11. PW-5 Sh. Vasudev Panday @ Vasu Nepali, was the
Chowkidar of Kotha No. 57. He deposed that on the intervening
night of 01-02.01.2014, he was on his duty at Kotha No. 57 and
at about 03:00-03:30 am, accused Tannu had called him and
asked him to clean the room. He further deposed that with Tannu,
there was one more fair boy was present and Neha was also
present in the said room. He also deposed that after cleaning the
room he went to the gate and he remained on his duty till 08:00
am in the morning. He further deposed that Tannu and other
person left between 06:00-06:30 am from the Kotha and he had
seen both persons leaving the Kotha and he did not see any other
person entering or leaving the room of deceased Neha. He proved
FIR No. 02/2014, PS: Kamla Market, Page No. 7 of 82
State Vs. Tannu Chawla @ Tarun & Anr.
the arrest memos and personal search memos of accused persons
namely Tannu Chawla @ Tarun and Yogesh Kashyap as Ex.
PW-5/A to PW-5/D. This witness was cross-examined at length.
In his cross-examination, he deposed that Mumtaz was caretaker
of the Kotha. He also deposed that he was wearing watch and he
always wore a watch and take it out at the time of bathing and at
the time of sleeping. He further deposed that his work included
looking after the persons coming and going and sitting at the
gate. He also deposed that he was not doing any other work
except the work of chowkidari. He also deposed that he had not
declined to clean the room when he was called at 03:00 am on
the day in question as he was working at night and therefore
usually would help in cleaning if required in night and he was
also required to look after cleanliness at night time. He also
deposed that he came to know about the name of Neha after her
murder and he also came to know the name of accused Tannu
Chawla after the incident in question. He also deposed that there
was no quarrel at the said time when he had left the room. He
also deposed that he did not know if accused and Neha had good
relations and were willing to marry to each other. He also
deposed that they were occasionally coming to Kotha, 2-3 time a
week. He also deposed that he was not told by anybody that Neha
had been murdered and her murder had been committed by
accused Tannu and when he returned from Sadar Bazar, Neha did
not wake up as such and he was asked by Aunty to see whey she
had not woken up and when he went to the room he found Neha
dead. He also deposed that he was not harassed by Police and he
FIR No. 02/2014, PS: Kamla Market, Page No. 8 of 82
State Vs. Tannu Chawla @ Tarun & Anr.
had been interrogated by police at the spot. He also deposed that
there were no CCTV cameras installed in the Kotha and he did
not hear any sound of quarrel on the said night. He also deposed
that he did not observe any abnormality when the accused had
left the Kotha at the said time and he did not remember if
accused persons were carrying any bag etc. while leaving the
Kotha. He further deposed that he returned from Sadar Bazar at
about 10:00 am though he had deposed in his examination-in-
chief that he returned at 12:00 noon. He further deposed that he
returned from Sadar Bazar at 10:30 am.
12. PW-6 Smt. Anita Sharma, was the landlord of accused
Tannu Chawla @ Tarun. She deposed that H. No. 602/E/17, Ward
No. 3, Teacher Colony was registered in her name and her
husband was dealing regarding the house. She further deposed
that she cannot tell whether Smt. Shakuntala was residing at the
ground floor of the house and she did not know Tarun @ Tannu
Chawla. This witness was cross-examined by Ld. Addl. PP for
the State in which she admitted that Smt. Shakuntala mother of
Tarun @ Tannu Chawla was residing at her house as tenant and
now she had vacated the house. In her cross-examination she
deposed that police did not record her statement nor met her.
13. PW-7 Smt. Shakunta, is the mother of accused Tannu
Chawla @ Tarun. She deposed that she was living at H. No.
602/E/17, Teacher Colony, Ward No. 3, Mehrauli, Delhi as tenant
and Tarun @ Tannu Chawla was her son and his mobile phone
number was 7838230507 and this number was on her ID. In her
FIR No. 02/2014, PS: Kamla Market, Page No. 9 of 82
State Vs. Tannu Chawla @ Tarun & Anr.
cross-examination, she deposed that police had inquired the
matter from her.
14. PW-8 Sh. Ashok Kumar Popli, deposed that on 31.03.2014
police had inquired regarding telephone connection no.
9811973561 and the said mobile number was purchased by him
on his identification documents about 4-5 years back but he had
given the said SIM to one his driver namely Yogesh. He further
deposed that accused was using said number since he gave it to
him. He also deposed that accused was not working with him
since last one year. He proved copy of CAF and copy of his
driving license as Mark-A & Mark-B. In his cross-examination,
he deposed that Yogesh was working with him 3-4 years ago and
he had asked Yogesh to return his phone but he had gone for his
own marriage and when he returned the present case had already
taken place. He also deposed that Yogesh was residing in his
neighbourhood and therefore he had no reason to suspect any
foul play on his part.
15. PW-9 Ms. Shikha Chawla, is the sister of accused Tannu
Chawla @ Tarun. She deposed that she had not joined the
investigation of this case at any point of time and she had not
visited the police station and on inquiry was made by police
regarding any telephone number. This witness was cross-
examined by Ld. Addl. PP for the State in which she deposed that
she did not know anything about phone no. 9654313965,
however, she had given her ID document to her brother namely
Tannu Chawla about five years before. She admitted her
FIR No. 02/2014, PS: Kamla Market, Page No. 10 of 82
State Vs. Tannu Chawla @ Tarun & Anr.
photograph and signature on the CAF, Ex. PW-9/A of aforesaid
mobile number. She also admitted that her brother Tannu Chawla
was using this number since the day it was purchased. This
witness was not cross-examined on behalf of accused persons
despite opportunity given to them.
16. PW-10 Dr. Jyoti Barwa, Senior Resident, had conducted
the postmortem on the body of deceased Neha @ Gori. She
proved detailed postmortem report running into 21 pages, Ex.
PW-10/A, diagram sheet showing the injuries on the body of
deceased, Ex. PW-10/A1. She also deposed that she handed over
sealed clothings, sealed vaginal swab, sealed finger nail clippings
and sealed blood on gauze with sample seal to IO and
documents in this regard are collectively exhibited as Ex.
PW-10/B. She also proved opinion regarding weapon of offence
as Ex. PW-10/C. In her cross-examination, she admitted that time
of death had been shown from the inquest documents as 11:00
pm. She also deposed that the finger nails of the hands of
deceased had turned blue due to lack of oxygen in the said part of
body. She also deposed that the probable time since death was
about four and half days approx time and it can vary 6-8 hours.
She also deposed that the injuries found on the body of deceased
could be by two objects. She also deposed that that injury no. 1
and 2 were possible by blunt force which could be any blunt
object/weapon/surface and rest were from sharp object.
17. PW-11 Sh. Israr Babu, Alternate Nodal Officer, Vodafone
FIR No. 02/2014, PS: Kamla Market, Page No. 11 of 82
State Vs. Tannu Chawla @ Tarun & Anr.
Mobile Services Ltd. has proved CAF and CDR from period of
01.10.2013 to 02.01.2014 of mobile phone no. 8860908501
issued in the name of Neha as Ex. PW-11/A & Ex. PW-11/B. He
also proved certificate under Sec. 65B of Evidence Act regarding
the said CDR as Ex. PW-11/C. He also proved CAF and CDR
from period of 01.10.2013 to 07.01.2014 of mobile phone no.
9654313965 issued in the name of Shikha Chawla as Ex.
PW-11/D & Ex. PW-11/E. He also proved certificate under Sec.
65B of Evidence Act regarding the said CDR as Ex. PW-11/F. He
also proved CAF and CDR from period of 01.10.2013 to
07.01.2014 of mobile phone no. 7838230507 issued in the name
of Tannu Chawla as Ex. PW-11/G & Ex. PW-11/H. He also
proved certificate under Sec. 65B of Evidence Act regarding the
said CDR as Ex. PW-11/I. He has also proved CAF and CDR
from period of 01.10.2013 to 02.01.2014 of mobile phone no.
9811973561 issued in the name of Ashok Kumar Popli as Ex.
PW-11/J & Ex. PW-11/K. He also proved certificate under Sec.
65B of Evidence Act regarding the said CDR as Ex. PW-11/L. He
also proved CAF and CDR from period of 01.10.2013 to
02.01.2014 of mobile phone no. 9654534688 issued in the name
of Shakuntala Chawla as Ex. PW-11/M & Ex. PW-11/N. He also
proved certificate under Sec. 65B of Evidence Act regarding the
said CDR as Ex. PW-11/O. This witness was not cross-examined
on behalf of accused persons despite opportunity given to them.
18. PW-12 Dr. Sapatnanjay Sahoo, deposed that on 02.01.2014
injured Yogesh Kumar came to hospital having cut injury on his
FIR No. 02/2014, PS: Kamla Market, Page No. 12 of 82
State Vs. Tannu Chawla @ Tarun & Anr.
hand. He further deposed that he was stitched with required
antiseptic dressing with initial management. He proved copy of
dressing register containing entry of Yogesh Kumar at serial no. 8
and copy of emergency aid and details as Ex. PW-12/A & Ex.
PW-12/B. In his cross-examination he deposed that it was not
possible to identify Yogesh Kumar who came before him for his
treatment as they used to give treatment more than 100 per day.
19. PW-13 HC Anil Kumar, deposed that on 02.01.2014 on
receiving DD No. 20A, he along with Inspector Pramod Joshi,
ASI Pramod, HC Pradeep and Ct. Dhara went to the spot of
incident i.e. Kotha No. 57, First Floor, left side GB Road, Delhi
where there was a room adjacent to the kitchen on the first floor
of the aforesaid premises and a dead body of a female, aged
about 30-31 was lying in the room. He further deposed that there
were deep wound on the neck and hand of female body and
blood was lying and there were blood stains on the wall of the
room. He further deposed that Inspector Pramod Joshi recorded
statement of Sarfaraz, prepared rukka and handed over to him for
getting the FIR registered and after registration of FIR, he handed
over the copy FIR and original rukka to him. He narrated about
seizure of blood lying on the floor, seizure of blood stained
mattress, blood stained pieces of floor, earth control, blood
stained pieces from the wall, earth control and seizure of mobile
phone of deceased and proved their seizure memos as Ex.
PW-13/A to Ex. PW-13/D. In his cross-examination, he deposed
that he took rukka at 12:15 pm by his bike and it took about two
FIR No. 02/2014, PS: Kamla Market, Page No. 13 of 82
State Vs. Tannu Chawla @ Tarun & Anr.
hours in recording of the FIR. He also deposed that he left the PS
at about 02:15 pm after the FIR registered and reached at about
02:25 pm. He also deposed that he did not remember whether
any other statement was recorded by the IO. He also deposed that
in total there were 15-20 ladies and no male persons in the hall.
He also deposed that mobile was found beneath the pillow in the
room and there were no liquor bottles in the room.
20. PW-14 ASI Pramod, deposed that on 02.01.2014 on
receiving DD No. 20A, he along with Inspector Pramod Joshi.
HC Anil, HC Pradeep and Ct. Dhara went to the spot of incident
i.e. Kotha No. 57, first floor, left side, GB Road, Delhi. Further
he deposed on the lines of PW-13 HC Anil and proved the
seizure memos of blood lying on the floor, seizure of blood
stained mattress, blood stained pieces of floor, earth control,
blood stained pieces from the wall, earth control and seizure of
mobile phone of deceased. He also deposed that on 05.01.2014,
he again joined the investigation of the present case and on the
instruction of IO, he along with Ct. Yogesh, Ct. Sandeep, HC
Naresh, complainant Sarfaraz and Chowkidar Vasu Nepali went
to Mehrauli in search of accused persons. He also deposed that
both the accused persons were apprehended at instance of
Chowkidar Vasu Nepali from in front of Metro Station. He
proved arrest memos, Ex. PW-5/A & Ex. PW-5/C, personal
search memos, Ex. PW-5/B & Ex. PW-5/D and disclosure
statements, Ex. PW14/A & Ex. PW-14/B of accused Tannu
Chawla and Yogesh Kashyap. In his cross-examination, he
FIR No. 02/2014, PS: Kamla Market, Page No. 14 of 82
State Vs. Tannu Chawla @ Tarun & Anr.
deposed that the mobile phone was lying underneath the pillow
which was under the head of dead body. He also deposed that IO
had recorded the statement of Sarfaraz at the spot and he did not
know whether there was liquor bottles or not. He also deposed
that the accused persons were arrested from outside the metro.
He denied the suggestion that accused persons were picked up
from their houses and falsely booked in this case.
21. PW-15 Ct. Anand, deposed that on 02.01.2014, he
delivered the copy of FIR to Ld. MM, ACP, Kamla Market, DCP
and Joint CP. This witness was not cross-examined on behalf of
accused persons despite opportunity given to them.
22. PW-16 Ct. Yogesh Kumar, deposed that on 05.01.2014 he
joined the investigation of the case and he alongwith ASI
Pramod, Ct. Sandeep and HC Naresh, complainant Sarfaraz and
Vasu Nepali went to Mehrauli in search of accused persons. He
further deposed on receiving secret information by IO/Inspector
Pramod Joshi and pointing out by Vasu Nepali, accused persons
were apprehended from in front of Metro Station. He proved
arrest memos and personal search memos accused Tannu Chawla
and Yogesh Kashyap as Ex. PW-5/A to Ex. PW-5/E. He also
proved their disclosure statements as Ex. PW-14/A & Ex.
PW-14/B. In his cross-examination, he deposed that IO had not
served any notice to the persons who refused to join the
investigation. He also deposed that he did not remember the
number on which/through which the relatives of the accused
persons were informed about their arrest. He denied the
FIR No. 02/2014, PS: Kamla Market, Page No. 15 of 82
State Vs. Tannu Chawla @ Tarun & Anr.
suggestion that he had not joined the investigation or that he had
signed the documents later on, on the instruction of SHO.
23. PW-17 Sh. Sarfaraz is the complainant in the present case.
He deposed that he was caretaker of Kotha No. 57, GB Road. He
further deposed that on 02.01.2014 at about 09:45 am, he reached
Kotha No. 57 and found that the girls present there but he did not
see Neha there. He further deposed that abovesaid girls informed
him that Neha was in upper room and he reached at the said
room in Kotha and found main door of the room was closed. He
further deposed that he opened the door by pushing and he
noticed that the dead body of Neha was lying in the pool of blood
there inside the room. He further deposed that he immediately
left Kotha No. 57 and reached PS Kamla Market. He further
deposed that he along with IO and other staff members reached
Kotha No. 57 and by that time the dead body of Neha was lying
in the abovesaid room of Kotha. He further deposed that SHO as
well other staff inspected the spot and IO recorded his statement,
Ex. PW-17/A, prepared rukka and sent the same for registration
of FIR, through Ct. Anil. He narrated about proceedings
conducted by the IO at the spot viz. seizure of blood stained earth
control, photography of the spot as well as dead body, seizure of
mobile phone of deceased Neha and seizure of blood stained mat.
He further deposed that on the same day at noon time Chowkidar
Vasu told him that in the night of 01.02.2014 at about 03:00 am,
he went inside of the room of Kotha No. 57 and he saw that
accused Tannu along with co-accused was present there and
FIR No. 02/2014, PS: Kamla Market, Page No. 16 of 82
State Vs. Tannu Chawla @ Tarun & Anr.
consuming beer and Neha was also present with them. He further
deposed that Chowkidar also told him that both the accused
persons used to come to Neha at Kotha No. 57 twice or thrice in
a week. He further deposed that on 05.01.2014 he accompanied
police team and went to Mehrauli where on pointing out of
Chowkidar Vashu, IO arrested accused Tannu Chawla and
Yogesh Kashyap. He proved their arrest memos, personal search
memos and disclosure statements. He also proved his statement
regarding identification of dead body of deceased Neha as Ex.
PW-17/B and site plan, Ex. PW-17/C. In his cross-examination,
he deposed that he had been working as Caretaker for the last 10-
12 years and Manager/Owner of Kotha used to pay him salary @
Rs. 10,000/- per month. He also deposed that nobody made a call
to Police and he himself went to PS by cycle rickshaw. He also
deposed that no complaint was written by the Police officials
when he visited the PS for the first time. He also deposed that
accused persons were apprehended at about 04:50 pm.
24. PW-18 Ct. Milan Kumar, had deposited the 19 sealed
pullandas to FSL Rohini vide RC No. 15/21 dated Ex. 18/A along
with list of pullanda, Ex. PW-18/B. He also proved the receipt/
acknowledgment of FSL Rohini, Ex. PW-18/C. In his cross-
examination, he denied the suggestion that pullandas were
tempered while these were in his possession.
25. PW-19 Ct. Mukesh, deposed that on 05.03.2014, IO/SHO
handed over authority letter, Ex. PW-19/A to him and directed
him to go to MS Office, Pandit Madan Mohan Malviya Hospital,
FIR No. 02/2014, PS: Kamla Market, Page No. 17 of 82
State Vs. Tannu Chawla @ Tarun & Anr.
Malviya Nagar, Delhi to collect the CCTV footage. He further
deposed that he collected the said CCTV footage and handed
over the same to IO/SHO, who seized the same vide seizure
memo Ex. PW-19/B. In his cross-examination, he deposed that
he had only brought the CD and had not identified the contents of
the same.
26. PW-20 Ct. Mahesh, was Duty Constable at Lok Nayak
Hospital. He deposed that on 28.01.2014 SI Rakesh along with
both accused persons namely Tarun Chawla @ Tarun and Yogesh
Kashyap came to the abovesaid hospital and the blood sample of
both the accused persons were taken in the hospital by the
concerned doctor and same were sealed and handed over the
same in two separate pullanda. He proved seizure memo of blood
samples as Ex. PW-20/A. In his cross-examination, he denied the
suggestion that no blood sample of accused were taken in his
presence.
27. PW-21 Ct. Dhara Singh, deposed that on 02.01.2014 he
joined the investigation of the present case along with IO and
other police officials. He deposed on the lines of PW-13 HC Anil
and proved seizure memo of belongings of deceased as Ex.
PW-21/A. He also narrated about identification of dead body by
brother of deceased K. Balasubramaniyam and complainant
Sarfaraz and handing over the dead body of deceased after
postmortem. In his cross-examination, he deposed that he did not
enter the particular room where dead body was lying. He also
deposed that he did not pay any attention as to whether the IO
FIR No. 02/2014, PS: Kamla Market, Page No. 18 of 82
State Vs. Tannu Chawla @ Tarun & Anr.
recorded statement of any person or not who were present there.
He deposed that he was posted in the concerned beat of the area
at that time and he know one Sarfaraz @ Billy who was doing
business of supplying the water. He denied the suggestion that no
public persons accompanied them from the police station to the
spot. He also deposed that prior to getting close the door of
Kotha at 12 night, he did not go daily to check every Kotha as to
whether any customer was still there or not.
28. PW-22 Ct. Arun, was the Photographer at Mobile Crime
Team. He proved the photographs (31 nos.), Ex. PW-22/1 (colly)
and their negatives, Ex. PW-22/X25 to Ex. PW-22/X55 of the the
spot of incident. In his cross-examination, he deposed that public
witness did not accompany him when he was taking photographs
in question. He denied the suggestion that the photographs were
not the actual photographs of the site or that same had been
manipulated at the instance of IO.
29. PW-23 SI Pankaj Kumar, was the In-Charge of Crime
Team. He deposed about the proceedings conducted by him
alongwith his staff ASI Pawan Kumar, finger print proficient and
Ct. Arun, photographer. He proved his report Ex. PW-23/A. This
witness was not cross-examined on behalf of accused persons
despite opportunity given to them.
30. PW-24 HC Rati Ram, was the MHC(M). He proved the
entries in register no. 19 & 21 made by him exhibited as Ex.
PW-24/A to Ex. PW-24/E. He also proved RC No. 15/21/14, Ex.
PW-24/F and acknowledgment of FSL, Ex. PW-24/G. This
FIR No. 02/2014, PS: Kamla Market, Page No. 19 of 82
State Vs. Tannu Chawla @ Tarun & Anr.
witness was not cross-examined on behalf of accused persons
despite opportunity given to them.
31. PW-25 SI Rakesh Kumar who had been inadvertently
mentioned as PW-24 at the time of his examination-in-chief
dated 22.07.2016 deposed that on 06.01.2016, on direction of
IO/SHO Inspector Pramod Joshi, he along with Inspector
Joginder Prasad got conducted the postmortem on the dead body
of deceased at MAMC mortuary. He further deposed that after
postmortem, the concerned doctor handed over sealed white
envelope containing blood on gauze, vaginal swab of deceased,
nail clipping of deceased and three sealed pullandas containing
the clothes of deceased, which were seized by the IO vide seizure
memo Ex. PW-24/A & PW-24/B. He further deposed that on
07.01.2014 he again joined the investigation of the present case
along with IO and reached at the house of accused Tannu Chawla
at Mehrauli from where accused got recovered a blood stained
knife which was used in the commission of offence. He proved
sketch of knife and its seizure memo as Ex. PW-24/C & Ex.
PW-24/D. He narrated about seizure of clothes of accused
persons which were worn by them at the time of commission of
offence and he proved their seizure memos and pointing out
memo as Ex. PW-24/E to Ex. PW-24/H. He also narrated about
identification of accused Yogesh Kashyap by Dr. S. Sapanjay of
Madan Mohan Malviya Hospital where he got treatment after the
incident at noon time and collection of blood samples of accused
persons at JPN Hospital. He also deposed that on 13.02.2014 on
FIR No. 02/2014, PS: Kamla Market, Page No. 20 of 82
State Vs. Tannu Chawla @ Tarun & Anr.
direction of IO, he received pullanda of knife along with sample
seal vide RC No. 11/21, Ex. PW-24/J and took the same in
MAMC Forensic Department along with request, Ex. PW-24/K
for subsequent opinion regarding weapon of offence. He also
collected postmortem report of deceased and subsequent opinion
regarding weapon of offence. In his cross-examination, he
deposed that he did not receive any other call except the call of
SHO regarding incident while he was in West Bengal. He also
deposed that he knew Sarfarz who was Caretaker of Kotha of the
spot in question. He also deposed that the activities in the area in
question continued for almost 24 hours. He also deposed that
SHO informed him to go Mehrauli for recovery. He also deposed
that in about 15 minutes time of their reaching Tanu’s house, the
knife in question was recovered and accused had himself taken
out the knife from Deewan and produced the same to the IO and
IO had not asked accused for the location of the same before
recovery. He denied the suggestion that there was no recovery as
alleged by him or due to this reason he had not associated any
public persons during the process of said recovery. He also
deposed that the spots of blood stains were not mentioned in the
sketch. He also deposed that IO had not taken any photograph of
the place of recovery. He also deposed that there were dried
blood stains on the clothes produced by accused Tannu Chawla
but jeans pant was not having stains as it had been washed and
dried. He also deposed that he did not see blood stains on the
clothes of accused Yogesh. He also deposed that both the accused
were clearly visible in the CCTV footage of the hospital.
FIR No. 02/2014, PS: Kamla Market, Page No. 21 of 82
State Vs. Tannu Chawla @ Tarun & Anr.
32. PW-26 Inspector Mahesh Kumar was the Draftsman. He
proved the scaled site plan Ex. PW-26/A. In his cross-
examination, he denied the suggestion that he had not visited the
spot or that the abovesaid site plan was not prepared at the
instance of Sarfaraz or that due to that reason, the abovesaid site
plan did not bear the signature of Sarfaraz.
33. PW-27 SI Padam Singh, deposed that on 31.03.2014, on
direction of IO/SHO, he recorded statement under Sec. 161
Cr.PC of Ashok Kumar Popli, Ex. PW-27/A which SIM was
being used by accused Yogesh Kashyap. In his cross-
examination, he deposed that Ashok Kumar Popli had not told
him specific date, month and year on which he had provided the
said SIM to accused Yogesh.
34. PW-28 HC Pradeep Kumar, deposed that on 07.01.2014 he
joined the investigation of present case along with IO. He
narrated about recovery of weapon of offence i.e. knife and blood
stained clothes at instance of accused Tannu Chawla @ Tarun
from his house. He proved sketch of knife, its seizure memo and
seizure memo of clothes as Ex. PW-24/C to Ex. PW-24/E. He
also deposed about recovery of clothes of accused Yogesh
Kashyap which he was wearing on the day of incident. He
proved seizure memo of clothes and pointing out memo of
recovery as Ex. PW-24/G & Ex. PW-24/H. He also narrated
about identification of accused Yogesh Kashyap by Dr. Sahu at
Madan Mohan Malviya Hospital. In his cross-examination he
deposed that in his presence IO did not ask from the accused as
FIR No. 02/2014, PS: Kamla Market, Page No. 22 of 82
State Vs. Tannu Chawla @ Tarun & Anr.
to where the knife was kept, however, accused himself took out
the knife from the place i.e. under the bed. He admitted that
house of accused Tannu Chawla was situated in a thickly
populated area and no public witness had joined the investigation
as no one come forward to become the witness though IO had
requested the public persons. He admitted that the recovered
clothes were not having any blood stains as they were washed
and no photographs of any recovery was taken. He also deposed
that there was an entry in the record kept in the hospital in
respect of treatment of accused Yogesh at serial no. 8. He denied
the suggestion that accused did not take them to any hospital or
that whole story of stitching in the hand of accused Yogesh is
false of that accused Yogesh is not the same person in whose
respect entry no. 8 was found in the hospital record.
35. PW-29 Inspector Pramod Joshi, was the first IO of this
case. He deposed that after recording of DD No. 20A, Ex.
PW-29/A, he along with police staff reached at the spot of
incident i.e. first floor of Kotha No. 57 and found one lady
namely Neha, aged about 30 years dead and there were several
stab wounds over the body of the deceased Neha, particularly on
neck and hand. He further deposed that he recorded statement of
complainant Sarfaraz, Ex. PW-17/A, made endorsement on
rukka, Ex. PW-29/B and got recorded the present FIR through
HC Anil. He narrated about proceedings conducted by him at the
spot i.e. inspection of spot through Crime Team, seizure of blood,
blood stained earth control, exhibits and mobile phone of
FIR No. 02/2014, PS: Kamla Market, Page No. 23 of 82
State Vs. Tannu Chawla @ Tarun & Anr.
deceased. He also deposed that one Vasudev Pandey @ Nepali
met him at the spot and on inquiry he informed that in the
intervening night of 01-02.01.2014 at about 03:00 am, he was
called by deceased Neha in her room to clean the same and he
went inside the room and found that one regular customer of
deceased Neha namely Tannu along with one of his associate was
present inside the room and they were enjoying with deceased
Neha. He also deposed that he obtained CDR of mobile phone of
deceased and on analyzing the same he found that there were two
mobile numbers on which there were number of calls between
those number and deceased Neha. He also narrated about
apprehension of accused persons on secret information from
Qutub Minar, Metro Station and duly identified by Vashudev
Pandey @ Nepali who stated that both the accused persons were
present at fateful night with deceased Neha in her room till early
morning. He proved arrest memos, personal search memos and
disclosure statements of both the accused. He also got recovered
blood stained knife, which was used in commission of offence at
instance of accused Tannu Chawla @ Tarun from his house
situated at Mehrauli and he also seized the clothes, which were
worn by accused at the time of commission of offence. He also
narrated about conducting of postmortem on the body of
deceased, seizure of exhibits and clothes of deceased after
postmortem and recording of statement of doctor of Pandit
Madan Mohan Malviya Hosptial where accused Yogesh Kashyap
got treatment of his hand injury. This witness was cross-
examined at length. In his cross-examination, he deposed that no
FIR No. 02/2014, PS: Kamla Market, Page No. 24 of 82
State Vs. Tannu Chawla @ Tarun & Anr.
CCTV camera was found to be installed at Kotha No. 57 and no
chance print was found at the spot. He also deposed that no
judicial TIP of accused persons were conducted because at the
time of their apprehension, complainant and Vasudev were with
them. He also deposed that no public persons other than Sarfaraz
and Vasudev had joined them at the time of arrest of accused
Yogesh. He also deposed that there was no register in which Mr.
Vasudev Pandey @ Nepali used to mark his presence as guard.
He also deposed that he had interrogated the said Vasudev
Pandey immediately after reaching the place of incident and till
the registration of FIR, the identity and the name of assailants did
not surface. He also deposed that no request for the forensic
examination of vaginal swab was taken from the deceased to
compare the same with the accused or Vasudev Pandey was done
during the time of investigation remained with him. He also
deposed that no public person was joined in the investigation on
07.01.2014 qua the seizure of knife and blood stained clothes. He
also deposed that they made their efforts to preserve the possible
chance prints/finger prints on the said knife by lifting the same
with the help of cloth and Crime Team was not called at the spot
to lift the chance prints/finger prints from the said knife.
36. PW-30 Dr. Ruchi Sharma, Junior Forensic Chemical
Examiner, Biology Division has proved her detailed biological
and serological report as Ex. PW-30/A & Ex. PW-30/B. She also
proved detailed allelic data as Ex. PW-30/C. In her cross-
examination, she deposed that the fact mentioned qua parcel Ex.
FIR No. 02/2014, PS: Kamla Market, Page No. 25 of 82
State Vs. Tannu Chawla @ Tarun & Anr.
15 & 17 as ‘No Reaction’ means that though there was human
blood but blood group could not be detected. She denied the
suggestion that she had not examined the exhibits as mentioned
in her report.
37. PW-31 Inspector Yashveer Singh, was the second IO of the
case. He deposed that on 11.01.2014 after transfer of previous
IO, further investigation of this case was entrusted to him. He
narrated about the proceedings conducted by him during
investigation. He deposed about seizure of blood sample of
accused persons, seizure of six attested photocopies of casualty
register of Madan Mohan Malviya Hospital, obtaining of
postmortem report and subsequent opinion regarding weapon of
offence, preparation of scaled site plan at instance of
complainant, seizure of CCTV footage of Madan Mohan Malviya
Hospital and depositing of exhibits of the case to FSL, Rohini.
He also proved letter of Madan Mohan Malviya Hospital
addressed to SHO PS Kamla Market, CDRs of accused Yogesh,
complainant Neha and accused Tannu Chawla as Ex. PW-31/A to
Ex. PW-31/D. He also deposed that from the analysis of the
CDRs of accused persons and deceased, the location of mobile
phone of both the accused persons and deceased was found at the
place of incident on the fateful night of incident. He also deposed
that it was further revealed that both the accused persons were in
continuous touch with each other and accused Tannu Chawla was
in continuous touch with deceased Neha. He further deposed that
he again obtained blood sample of accused persons with
FIR No. 02/2014, PS: Kamla Market, Page No. 26 of 82
State Vs. Tannu Chawla @ Tarun & Anr.
permission of court as earlier were found to degraded at FSL. He
proved seizure memo of blood samples, entry in register no. 19
regarding depositing of blood samples and RC No. 30/21/15
through which samples were sent to FSL as Ex. PW-31/E to Ex.
PW-31/G. He also proved the forwarding letter of FSL as Ex.
PW-31/H. This witness was cross-examined at length. In his
cross-examination after seeing the postmortem report, Ex.
PW-10/A, he deposed that time since death had been mentioned
as about 4 ½ days. He also deposed that it was not felt necessary
to inquire from the postmortem doctor that the time since death
corresponding to the time from the postmortem or time from the
arrival of the dead body in the mortuary. He denied the
suggestion that the forensic examination of nail clippings has
nothing to do with cyanosed finger nails. He denied the
suggestion that noise may be heard in the Kotha No. 57 itself, if
it comes from the room where the incident took place. He also
deposed that CCTV cameras were found installed at many places
on G.B. Road but they could not find any relevant material. He
also deposed that he did not mention about those CCTV cameras
in his case diary or about non-recovery of any material in those
cameras as those CCTV cameras were not covering the entire G.
B. Road. He admitted that he was not provided the CCTV
footage from Madan Mohan Malviya Hospital till 05.02.2014,
therefore he moved an application to provide CCTV footage on
05.02.2014. He also deposed that he had not examined the DVR
from which the CCTV footage were copied in the CD Ex.
PW-19/1. He admitted that Ct. Mukesh had not handed over
FIR No. 02/2014, PS: Kamla Market, Page No. 27 of 82
State Vs. Tannu Chawla @ Tarun & Anr.
certificate under Sec. 65B of The Evidence Act pertaining to CD
Ex. PW-19/1. He denied the suggestion that whole area of GB
Road was under CCTV surveillance. He denied the suggestion
that the person identified by him was not the accused Tannu
Chawla or that he was just concocting a story with respect to
identification of accused Tannu Chawla in CCTV footage just to
solve the case. He also denied the suggestion that accused Tannu
Chawla was wrongly apprehended and arrested in the present
case or that the unsolved case was pending with the SHO PS
Kamla Market. He also denied the suggestion that he being SHO
of PS Kamla Market took over the investigation from previous
IO to falsely implicate the accused persons. He also denied the
suggestion that the statement of other girl of Kotha No. 57 was
withheld to conceal the true facts.
38. PW-32 Ct. Pramod Kumar, deposed that on 18.02.2015 he
deposited two sealed parcel bearing seal of ‘HRH’ along with
sample seal of hospital at FSL Rohini vide RC No. 30/21, Ex.
PW-31/G. In his cross-examination he denied the suggestion that
neither he had received any parcel from Malkhana nor deposited
the same with FSL, Rohini.
39. PW-33 Dr. Rajendra Singh, Medical Officer, Deep Chand
Bandhu Hospital has proved the MLC No. 278637 of accused
Yogesh Kashyap as Ex. PW-29/D and MLC No. 278640 of
accused Tannu Chawla as Ex. PW-29/E. In his cross-
examination, he denied the suggestion that accused Yogesh
Kashyap was not having any injury as recorded by him on MLC
FIR No. 02/2014, PS: Kamla Market, Page No. 28 of 82
State Vs. Tannu Chawla @ Tarun & Anr.
Ex. PW-29/D. He also denied the suggestion that accused Yogesh
Kashyap had not told the cause of injuries sustained by him. He
also deposed that since there were stitches on the injuries of
Yogesh Kashyap at the time of his medical examination,
therefore, it can be opined that he had sustained injuries about
3-4 days prior to his medical examination on 05.01.2014. He
admitted that no subsequent opinion qua nature of injuries on the
body of patient/accused persons was obtained from him. He also
admitted that the injuries on both hands of the accused
persons/patient shows that they might be possible in self defence.
He also deposed that no treatment was given to any of the two
said patient. He denied the suggestion that MLCs Ex. PW-29/D
& Ex. PW-29/E were prepared in most mechanical manner as per
the direction/request of IO of this case.
40. PW-34 Dr. Yogesh Sharma, had taken the blood samples of
accused persons namely Yogesh Kashyap and Tannu Chawla and
handed over the same to IO/Inspector Yashveer Singh in sealed
parcels, which were seized by IO vide seizure memo Ex.
PW-31/E. This witness was examined only on behalf of accused
Yogesh Kashyap in which he deposed that he had not checked the
blood group of aforementioned UTPs namely Yogesh and Tannu
Chawla. He denied the suggestion that he had not taken the blood
sample as deposed by him above.
41. PW-35 HC Rati Ram, was the MHC(M). He has been
examined twice i.e. as PW-24 as well as PW-35. He proved the
entries in register no. 19 & 21 made by him exhibited as Ex.
FIR No. 02/2014, PS: Kamla Market, Page No. 29 of 82
State Vs. Tannu Chawla @ Tarun & Anr.
PW-35/A to Ex. PW-35/F. He also deposed that 21 sealed
pullandas were sent to FSL Rohini, through Ct. Milan vide RC
No. 15/21/14, Ex. PW-18A and Ct. Milan handed over its
acknowledgment, Ex. PW-18/C to him. In his cross-examination,
he admitted that entry no. 2291 of 06.01.2024 was prior to DD
No. 45B dated 06.01.2014 and the entries were made in the
register no. 19 solely on the basis of seizure memo and he had
not verified the contents thereof by his own. He also admitted
that he had not got the seal used for the purpose of the seal of the
parcel deposited in the Malkhana, at the time of their deposition.
He also admitted that he did not get the seal tallied with the seals
impression found on the parcels.
42. After closing of prosecution evidence, separate statements
of both the accused persons were recorded under Sec. 313 Cr.PC,
wherein they denied all the charges against them. Accused
Yogesh Kashyap stated that he did not know Neha and he had
never visited Kotha of deceased Neha and he was falsely
implicated in the present case. He further stated that the police
picket was situated just near the 100 steps of the place of incident
and it was called as Red light area, therefore, police personnel
were always present there and on patrolling of the area. He
further stated that SHO of the area used to visit the said Kothas to
collect the money/hafta. Accused Tannu Chawla stated that he
used to visit Neha and they were in relationship. He also stated
that their relationship were not liked by the Kotha workers and
they had threatened him. He also stated that he left the place on
FIR No. 02/2014, PS: Kamla Market, Page No. 30 of 82
State Vs. Tannu Chawla @ Tarun & Anr.
that day at about 04:00-04:30 pm and the Kotha workers must
have killed Neha and roped him in the present case. He also
stated that IO had not fairly investigated the present case and
actual offenders were not arrested by him. He also stated that the
complete area was under the CCTV and IO had deliberately not
filed the complete CCTV footage of the area before this Hon’ble
Court to find out the actual offender. He further stated that the
police picket was situated just near 100 steps from the place of
incident and this area was called as Red light area, therefore,
police personnel were always present there and on patrolling of
the area. He further stated that SHO of the area used to visit the
said Kothas to collect the money/hafta.
43. Final arguments were advanced by Sh. Pankaj Kumar
Ranga, Ld. Addl. PP for the State, Sh. Kanhiya Singhal, Ld.
Counsel for accused Tannu Chawla and Sh. Satrughan Singh, Ld.
Legal Aid Counsel for accused Yogesh Kashyap.
44. Ld. Addl. PP for the State argued that the prosecution has
proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and all the prosecution
witnesses have supported the prosecution story and have
corroborated each other’s version. To substantiate his
submissions, he argued that PW-5 Vasudev Pandey @ Vasu
Nepali had lastly seen the deceased in company of accused
persons. He also argued that the prosecution has proved the CDR
and location of mobile phones of accused persons and deceased
and at the time of incident, the accused persons and the victim
were present at the same spot. He also argued that blood stained
FIR No. 02/2014, PS: Kamla Market, Page No. 31 of 82
State Vs. Tannu Chawla @ Tarun & Anr.
clothes have been recovered at the instance of accused persons
and accused persons have failed to give any explanation in this
regard. He also argued that the weapon of offence i.e. knife had
been recovered at the instance of accused Tannu Chawla @ Tarun
and as per medical opinion, the said knife was used in the
commission of offfence. He also argued that accused Tannu
Chawla @ Tarun wanted that Neha should leave the Kotha and
should start living with him but Neha was not agreeing for the
same and hence the prosecution has proved the motive for
murder of deceased. He also argued that the medical and
scientific evidence is also against the accused persons. He also
argued that the CCTV footage in which the accused persons can
be seen visiting Madan Mohan Malviya Hospital has been duly
proved by the prosecution. He further argued that the IO as well
as the other police officials have duly proved the proceedings
conducted by them. He also argued that the chain of
circumstantial evidence in this case is complete. He also argued
that since the prosecution has proved its case against all the
accused persons beyond reasonable doubt, both the accused
persons should be convicted for the offences under which charges
have been framed against them.
45. Per Contra Ld. Defence Counsel as well as Legal Aid
Counsel argued that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove
its case against accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. To
substantiate their points, they argued that the investigation in the
present case has been conducted in an arbitrary manner. They
FIR No. 02/2014, PS: Kamla Market, Page No. 32 of 82
State Vs. Tannu Chawla @ Tarun & Anr.
argued that the present case is based on circumstantial evidence
and prosecution has failed to prove the complete chain of
circumstantial evidence against the accused persons. They also
argued that as per the CDRs on record, accused Tannu Chawla @
Tarun and deceased Neha were in contact with each other but
their locations were constantly changing and the IO has withheld
the location chart just to falsely implicate the accused persons in
the present case. They argued that if the deceased and the
accused persons were present at the spot of incident i.e. in the
same room, why they will talk to each other on phone. They also
argued that the accused persons have been falsely implicated in
the present case only on the basis of CDR and only after PW-5
Vasudev Pandey @ Vasu Nepali was planted as a witness in the
present case whose testimony is suffering from material
contradictions. They also argued that other persons i.e. aunties
who were managing the Kotha have not been examined as PWs.
They also argued that as per the testimony of PW-5 Vasudev
Pandey @ Vasu Nepali, the entries of the persons visiting the
kotha were being made by aunties but no such register has been
produced by the prosecution to show that the accused persons
had visited the spot of incident on the date of incident. They also
argued that no CCTV footage of the kotha or the gali or road
connecting the kotha showing the visit of accused persons at the
spot has been placed by the IO. They also argued that the vaginal
swaps of the victim were collected by the Doctor but the same
were not sent to FSL for DNA examination for comparing the
same with the DNA of accused persons. They also argued that in
FIR No. 02/2014, PS: Kamla Market, Page No. 33 of 82
State Vs. Tannu Chawla @ Tarun & Anr.
the CCTV footage of Madan Mohan Malviya, the faces of
alleged persons are not visible and no certificate under Section
65 B Evidence Act has been placed on record by IO. They further
argued that the arrest memos of accused persons bear signature of
their family members but as per the case of prosecution, the
accused persons were not arrested in the presence of their family
members which shows that the accused persons were not arrested
in the manner in which it has been projected by the prosecution
and the accused persons had not made any disclosure statement
and their signatures were obtained by the IO through
duress/coercion. They also argued that PW-29 IO Insp. Pramod
Joshi has deposed that he does not know as to who wrote the
disclosure statement of accused persons which shows that
concocted disclosure statements were recorded by some police
officials whose identity has not been established by the
prosecution. They also argued that PW-30 Dr. Ruchi Sharma has
deposed that 19 sealed parcels were received at FSL while
PW-35 HC Rati Ram has deposed that 21 sealed parcels were
sent to FSL, Rohini vide RC no. 15/21/14 and hence the parcels
were manipulated before depositing at FSL. They also argued
that there is difference between the size of knives seized by the
IO and the size of knife examined by the Doctor. They also
argued that no fingerprints/chance prints and blood stains of the
accused persons were found at the spot of incident. They also
argued that no independent public witness was joined in the
investigation at the time of recovery of case property and hence
the recovery of case property at instance of accused persons is
FIR No. 02/2014, PS: Kamla Market, Page No. 34 of 82
State Vs. Tannu Chawla @ Tarun & Anr.
doubtful. They also argued that since the prosecution has failed to
prove its case against the accused persons beyond the reasonable
doubt, both the accused persons should be acquitted under all the
sections of law under which charges have been framed against
them.
46. In the present case, charges under Sec. 302/34 IPC have
been framed against both the accused persons and additional
charge under Sec. 25/27 Arms Act has been framed against
accused Tannu Chawla. These Sections have been defined as
follows:-
Section 302 IPC provides punishment for the commission of
offence of murder which has been defined under Sec. 300 IPC.
300 Murder:-
Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable
homicide is murder, if the act by which the death is
caused is done with the intention of causing death, or
Secondly- If it is done with the intention of causing
such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to
cause the death of the person to whom the harm is
caused, or
Thirdly- If it is done with the intention of causing
bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury
intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary
course of nature to cause death, or
Fourthly-If the person committing the act knows that it
is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all
probability, cause death, or such bodily injury as is
likely to cause death, and commits such act withoutFIR No. 02/2014, PS: Kamla Market, Page No. 35 of 82
State Vs. Tannu Chawla @ Tarun & Anr.
any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or
such injury as aforesaid.
Exception 1 When culpable homicide is not murder.
Culpable homicide is not murder if the offendor,
whilst deprived of the power of self control by grave
and sudden provocation, causes the death of the
person who gave the provocation or causes the death
of any other person my mistake or accident.
The above exception is subject to the following
provisos:-
First-That the provocation is not sought or
voluntarily provoked by the offendor as an excuse for
killing or doing harm to any person.
Secondly- That the provocation is not given by
anything done in obedience to the law, or by a public
servant in the lawful exercise of the powers of the
public servant.
Thirdly-That the provocation is not given by
anything done in the lawful exercise of the right of
private defence.
Explanations: Whether the provocation was grave and
sudden enough to prevent the offence amounting to
murder is a question of fact.
Exception 2: Culpable homicide is not murder if the
offendor, in the exercise in good faith of the right of
private defence of person or property, exceeds the
power given to him by law and causes the death of the
person against whom he is exercising such right of
defence without premeditation, and without any
intention of doing more harm then is necessary for the
purpose of such defence.
FIR No. 02/2014, PS: Kamla Market, Page No. 36 of 82
State Vs. Tannu Chawla @ Tarun & Anr.
Exception 3: Culpable homicide is not murder if the
offendor, being a public servant or adding a public
servant acting for the advancement of public justice,
exceeds the power given to him by law and causes
death by doing an act which he, in good faith, believes
to be lawful and necessary for the due discharge of
his duty as such public servant and without ill-will
towards the person whose death is caused.
Exception 4: Culpable homicide is not murder if it is
committed without pre meditation in a sudden fight in
the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without
the offendor’s having taken undue advantage or acted
in a cruel or unusual manner.
Explanation : It is immaterial in such cases which
party offers the provocation or commits the first
assault.
Exception 5: Culpable homicide is not murder when
the person whose death is caused, being above the age
of eighteen years suffers death or takes the risk of
death with his own consent.
34. Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common
intention:-
When a criminal act is done by several persons, in
furtherance of the common intention of all, each of
such persons is liable for that act in the same manner
as if it were done by him alone.
Section 25 Arms Act provides punishment for the possession of
arms without any license which has been defined as under:-
(1) Whoever–
(a) [manufactures, obtains, procures], sells,
FIR No. 02/2014, PS: Kamla Market, Page No. 37 of 82
State Vs. Tannu Chawla @ Tarun & Anr.
transfers, converts, repairs, tests or proves, or
exposes or offers for sale or transfer, or has in his
possession for sale, transfer, conversion, repair,
test or proof, any arms or ammunition in
contravention of section 5; or
(b) shortens the barrel of a firearm or converts an
imitation firearm into a firearm [or convert from
any category of firearms mentioned in the Arms
Rules, 2016 into any other category of firearms] in
contravention of section 6; or
(d) brings into, or takes out of, India, any arms or
ammunition of any class or description in
contravention of section 11,
shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term
which shall not be less than [seven years but which
may extend to imprisonment for life] and shall also
be liable to fine.
[(1A) Whoever acquires, has in his possession or
carries any prohibited arms or prohibited
ammunition in contravention of section 7 shall be
punishable with imprisonment for a term which
shall not be less than [seven years but which may
extend to fourteen years] and shall also be liable to
fine.
[Provided that the Court may, for any adequate
and special reasons to be recorded in the judgment,
impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of
less than seven years.]
[(1AB) Whoever, by using force, takes the firearm
from the police or armed forces shall be punishable
with imprisonment for a term which shall not be
less than ten years but which may extend to
imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to
FIR No. 02/2014, PS: Kamla Market, Page No. 38 of 82
State Vs. Tannu Chawla @ Tarun & Anr.
fine.]
(1AA) whoever manufactures, sells, transfers,
converts, repairs, tests or proves, or exposes or
offers for sale or transfer or has in his possession
for sale, transfer, conversion, repair, test or proof,
any prohibited arms or prohibited ammunition in
contravention of section 7 shall be punishable with
imprisonment for a term which shall not be less
than [ten years] but which may extend to
imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to
fine.]
[(1AAA)] Whoever has in contravention of a
notification issued under section 24A in his
possession or in contravention of a notification
issued under section 24B carries or otherwise has
in his possession, any arms or ammunition shall be
punishable with imprisonment for a term which
shall not be less than [seven years but which may
extend to imprisonment for life] and shall also be
liable to fine.
(1B) Whoever–
(a) acquires, has in his possession or carries any
firearm or ammunition in contravention of section
3; or
(b) acquires, has in his possession or carries in any
place specified by notification under section 4 any
arms of such class or description as has been
specified in that notification in contravention of
that section; or
(c) sells or transfers any firearm which does not
bear the name of the maker, manufacturers number
or other identification mark stamped or otherwise
FIR No. 02/2014, PS: Kamla Market, Page No. 39 of 82
State Vs. Tannu Chawla @ Tarun & Anr.
shown thereon as required by sub-section (2) of
section 8 or does any act in contravention of sub-
section (1) of that section; or
(d) being a person to whom sub-clause (ii) or sub-
clause (iii) of clause (a) of sub-section (1) of
section 9 applies, acquires, has in his possession or
carries any firearm or ammunition in contravention
of that section; or
(e) sells or transfers, or converts, repairs, tests or
proves any firearm or ammunition in contravention
of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 9; or
(f) brings into, or takes out of, India, any arms or
ammunition in contravention of section 10; or
(g) transports any arms or ammunition in
contravention of section 12; or
(h) fails to deposit arms or ammunition as required
by sub-section (2) of section 3, or
sub-section (1) of section 21; or
(i) being a manufacturer of, or dealer in, arms or
ammunition, fails, on being required to do so by
rules made under section 44, to maintain a record
or account or to make therein all such entries as
are required by such rules or intentionally makes a
false entry therein or prevents or obstructs the
inspection of such record or account or the making
of copies of entries therefrom or prevents or
obstructs the entry into any premises or other place
where arms or ammunition are or is manufactured
or kept or intentionally fails to exhibit or conceals
such arms or ammunition or refuses to point out
where the same are or is manufactured or kept,
FIR No. 02/2014, PS: Kamla Market, Page No. 40 of 82
State Vs. Tannu Chawla @ Tarun & Anr.
shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term
which shall not be less than [two years but which
may extend to five years and shall also be liable to
fine] and shall also be liable to fine:
Provided that the Court may for any adequate and
special reasons to be recorded in the judgment
impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of
less than [two years].]
[(1C) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-
section (1B), whoever commits an offence
punishable under that sub-section in any disturbed
area shall be punishable with imprisonment for a
term which shall not be less than three years but
which may extend to seven years and shall also be
liable to fine.
Explanation.–For the purposes of this sub-section, disturbed
area means any area declared to be a disturbed area under any
enactment, for the time being in force, making provision for the
suppression of disorder and restoration and maintenance of
public order, and includes any areas specified by notification
under section 24A or section 24B.](2) Whoever being a person to whom sub-clause (i) of clause
(a) of sub-section (1) of section 9 applies, acquires, has in his
possession or carries any firearm or ammunition in
contravention of that section shall be punishable with
imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with
fine, or with both.
[(3) Whoever sells or transfers any firearm, ammunition or
other arms–
FIR No. 02/2014, PS: Kamla Market, Page No. 41 of 82
State Vs. Tannu Chawla @ Tarun & Anr.
(i) without informing the district magistrate having jurisdiction
or the officer in charge of the nearest police station, of the
intended sale or transfer of that firearm, ammunition or other
arms; or
(ii) before the expiration of the period of forty-five days from
the date of giving such information to such district magistrate
or the officer in charge of the police station,
in contravention of the provisions of clause (a) or clause (b) of
the proviso to sub-section (2) of section 5, shall be punishable
with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months,
or with fine of an amount which may extend to five hundred
rupees, or with both.]
(4) Whoever fails to deliver-up a licence when so required by
the licensing authority under sub-section (1) of section 17 for
the purpose of varying the conditions specified in the licence or
fails to surrender a licence to the appropriate authority under
sub-section (10) of that section on its suspension or revocation
shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may
extend to six months, or with fine of an amount which may
extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.
(5) Whoever, when required under section 19 to give his name
and address, refuses to give such name and address or gives a
name or address which subsequently transpires to be false shall
be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend
to six months, or with fine of an amount which may extend to
two hundred rupees, or with both.
[(6) If any member of an organised crime syndicate or any
person on its behalf has at any time has in his possession or
carries any arms or ammunition in contravention of any
provision of Chapter II shall be punishable with imprisonment
for a term which shall not be less than ten years but which may
FIR No. 02/2014, PS: Kamla Market, Page No. 42 of 82
State Vs. Tannu Chawla @ Tarun & Anr.
extend to imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine.
(7) Whoever on behalf of a member of an organised crime
syndicate or a person on its behalf, –
(i) manufactures, obtains, procures, sells, transfers, converts,
repairs, tests or proves, or exposes or offers for sale or transfer,
conversion, repair, test or proof, any arms or ammunition in
contravention of section 5; or
(ii) shortens the barrel of a firearm or converts an imitation
firearm into a fire arm or converts from any category of
firearms mentioned in the Arms Rules, 2016 into any other
category of firearms in contravention of section 6; or
(iii) brings into, or takes out of India, any arms or ammunition
of any class or description in contravention of section 11,
shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall
not be less than ten years but which may extend to
imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation.–For the purposes of sub-sections (6) and (7),–
(a) organised crime means any continuing unlawful activity by
any person, singly or collectively, either as a member of an
organised crime syndicate or on behalf of such syndicate, by
use of violence or threat of violence or intimidation or
coercion, or other unlawful means, with the objective of
gaining pecuniary benefits, or gaining undue economic or other
advantage for himself or any person;
(b) organised crime syndicate means a group of two or more
persons who, acting either singly or collectively, as a syndicate
or gang indulge in activities of organised crime.
(8) Whoever involves in or aids in the illicit trafficking of
firearms and ammunition in contravention of sections 3, 5, 6, 7
FIR No. 02/2014, PS: Kamla Market, Page No. 43 of 82
State Vs. Tannu Chawla @ Tarun & Anr.
and 11 shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which
shall not be less than ten years but which may extend to
imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation.–For the purposes of this sub-section, illicit
trafficking means the import, export, acquisition, sale, delivery,
movement or transfer of firearms and ammunition into, from or
within the territory of India, if the firearms and ammunition are
not marked in accordance with the provisions of this Act or are
being trafficked in contravention of the provisions of this Act
including smuggled firearms of foreign make or prohibited
arms and prohibited ammunition.
(9) Whoever uses firearm in a rash or negligent manner or in
celebratory gunfire so as to endanger human life or personal
safety of others shall be punishable with an imprisonment for a
term which may extend to two years, or with fine which may
extend to rupees one lakh, or with both.
27. [ Punishment for using arms, etc.:-
Whoever uses any arms or ammunition in contravention of
section 5 shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term
which shall not be less than three years but which may extend
to seven years and shall also be liable to fine.
47. I have thoughtfully considered the arguments advanced,
perused the material available on record, scrutinized the evidence
led by the prosecution and gone through the relevant provisions
of law. I have also considered the judgments relied upon by the
Ld. Addl. PP for the State as well as Ld. Defence Counsels for
accused persons.
48. The present case is based on circumstantial evidence. It is
established principle of law that a witness may lie but not the
circumstances. In the present case, there is no eye witness of theFIR No. 02/2014, PS: Kamla Market, Page No. 44 of 82
State Vs. Tannu Chawla @ Tarun & Anr.
alleged incident of commission of offence of murder of deceased
Neha.
49. The guilt of the accused persons in the present case has to
be proved by the prosecution through the circumstantial
evidence. The circumstantial evidence has to be appreciated as
per the established principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble
High Court of Delhi and Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. The
standard of proof required for conviction in case of
circumstantial evidence is that the circumstances relied upon in
support of conviction must be fully established and the chain of
evidence proved by the prosecution must be so complete as not to
leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with
the innocence of the accused
50. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Judgment titled as
‘Sharad Bridhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra cited as
(1984) 4 SCC 116′ has laid down the five golden priciples for
appreciation of circumstantial evidence and has termed the same
as Panchsheel of the Proof of Case based on circumstantial
evidence. The said five golden principles are as follows:-
(i) The circumstances from which the conclusion
of the guilt is to be drawn should be and not
merely ‘may be’ fully established.
(ii) The facts so established should be consistent
only with the hypotheses of the guilt of
accused, that is to say, they should not beFIR No. 02/2014, PS: Kamla Market, Page No. 45 of 82
State Vs. Tannu Chawla @ Tarun & Anr.
explainable on any other hypotheses except
that the accused is guilty.
(iii) The circumstances should be of conclusive
nature and tendency.
(iv) They should exclude every possible hypotheses
except the one to be proved.
(v) There must be a chain of evidence so complete
as not to leave any reasonable ground for the
conclusion consistent with the innocence of the
accused and must show that in all probability
the act must have been done by the accused.
51. Thus, before recording the conviction of any of the
accused persons, the abovesaid five condition must be satisfied.
The prosecution has to establish its case on the basis of
abovesaid five golden principles and to secure conviction of
any accused, the prosecution must fulfill the following
requirements:-
(i) The circumstances from which the inference
of the guilt of the accused is to be drawn
must be firmly established.
(ii) The established circumstances must be of
such definite tendency that points out
towards the guilt of accused.
FIR No. 02/2014, PS: Kamla Market, Page No. 46 of 82
State Vs. Tannu Chawla @ Tarun & Anr.
(iii) The chain of the circumstances must be so
complete and there should not be any snap
in the chain of circumstances.
(iv) The chain of circumstances must be so
complete and incapable of any other
hypotheses then that the guilt of the accused
and same should also be inconsistent with
the innocence of the accused and must
exclude every other possible hypotheses
except with the hypotheses pointing out
towards the guilt of the accused.
52. Prosecution has relied upon the following circumstances
which have been brought on record through the evidence:-
(i) Deceased Neha was lastly seen alive in company of
accused persons.
(ii) Analysis of CDR of mobile phone of deceased Neha,
accused Tannu Chawla @ Tarun and accused Yogesh
kashyap.
(iii) Motive for commission of offence.
(iv) Injuries sustained by accused persons & CCTV footage of
Madan Mohan Malviya Hospital. .
(v) Recovery of blood stained clothes and knife at instance of
accused persons.
(vi) Medical and scientific evidence.
FIR No. 02/2014, PS: Kamla Market, Page No. 47 of 82
State Vs. Tannu Chawla @ Tarun & Anr.
53. The evidence led by the prosecution through the above-
said circumstances relied upon by the prosecution has been
analysed as follows:-
(i) Deceased Neha was lastly seen alive in company of accused
persons.
54. As per the prosecution story, deceased Neha was lastly
seen alive on the intervening night of 01/02.01.2014 at about
03:00-03:30 am at room situated at 1st Floor of Kotha no. 57,
G.B. Road, Delhi by PW-5 Vasudev Pandey @ Vasu Nepali.
Thus, the case of the prosecution is mainly based on the last seen
theory.
55. The last seen theory shift the burden of proof on accused
requiring him to explain as to how the incident had occured. If
the accused is not in a position to explain as and when he parted
with the deceased before his death, an inference may be drawn
against him. Failure on the part of accused to furnish an
explanation in this regard will give rise to a presumption of
commission of offence. However, before considering any
presumption against the accused, the prosecution has to prove
beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased was lastly seen in the
company of accused.
56. PW-5 Vasudev Pandey @ Vasu Nepali is the star witness
of prosecution while PW-17 Sarfraz is the complainant in the
FIR No. 02/2014, PS: Kamla Market, Page No. 48 of 82
State Vs. Tannu Chawla @ Tarun & Anr.
present case. The analysis of the testimony of PW-5 Vasudev
Pandey @ Vasu Nepali and PW-17 Sarfraz w.r.t the sequence of
events is of vital importance for the final decision of this case.
57. PW-5 Vasudev Pandey @ Vasu Nepali deposed that he was
working as chowkidar at kotha no. 57 and the incident had taken
place on the intervening night of 01.02.2014. As per the case of
prosecution, the alleged incident took place on the intervening
night of 01/02.01.2014 and not on the intervening night of
01.02.2014. Thus, PW-5 Vasudev Pandey @ Vasu Nepali is not
clear about the date and month of alleged incident.
58. PW-5 Vasudev Pandey @ Vasu Nepali deposed that on the
intervening night of 01.02.2014, he was on duty as chowkidar at
Kotha no. 57 and at about 03:00-03:30 AM, accused Tannu
called him and asked for cleaning the room. The said room was
situated at the first floor of Kotha while PW-5 Vasudev Pandey
@ Vasu Nepali was performing his duty at the entry of kotha no.
57 at ground floor. However, in his cross examination, PW-5
Vasudev Pandey @ Vasu Nepali deposed that the girl had come
down from the room to call him on that day. He also specifically
deposed that Neha had come down to call him. Thus, PW-5
Vasudev Pandey @ Vasu Nepali has given contradictory version
with respect to same set of facts and it is not clear as to who
called him for cleaning the room. The two contradictory versions
which cannot co-exist have raised serious doubts on the veracity
of PW-5 Vasudev Pandey @ Vasu Nepali as well as the
prosecution story.
FIR No. 02/2014, PS: Kamla Market, Page No. 49 of 82
State Vs. Tannu Chawla @ Tarun & Anr.
59. PW-5 Vasudev Pandey @ Vasu Nepali deposed that he was
called for cleaning the room. In his cross examination, he
deposed that three safai karamchari used to come to kotha for
cleaning work at about 08:00 AM. He also deposed that he did
not clean the bedsheet of the room and same was cleaned by the
concerned lady (deceased Neha). He also deposed that Ramu was
involved in the work of cleaning of Kotha and he was living at
the Kotha itself and was sleeping on the roof. He also deposed
that he was not doing any other work except the work of
chowkidari. PW-5 Vasudev Pandey @ Vasu Nepali has not
explained that if the bedding was cleaned by deceased Neha, for
which type of cleaning he was called at the room and why Ramu
whose specific work was cleaning and who was present at the
Kotha was not called. This raises serious doubts on the
prosecution story.
60. PW-5 Vasudev Pandey @ Vasu Nepali deposed that he left
for Sadar Bazar at about 08:00 AM and returned to Kotha at
12:00 Noon. However, in his cross examination, he deposed that
he returned at about 10:00 AM from Sadar Bazar and again said
that the correct position was that he had returned at about 10:30
AM from Sadar Bazar. He also deposed that police arrived
between 10:30 to 11:00 AM. PW-29 IO Insp. Pramod Joshi
deposed that Sarfraz came to PS at about 10:30 AM and
thereafter he alongwith his staff went to Kotha no. 57. PW-17
complainant Sarfraz deposed that police staff reached at kotha
no. 57 at 10:50 AM. Thus, as per version of PW-5 Vasudev
FIR No. 02/2014, PS: Kamla Market, Page No. 50 of 82
State Vs. Tannu Chawla @ Tarun & Anr.
Pandey @ Vasu Nepali, he was present at Kotha no. 57 when the
police arrived between 10:30 AM to 11:00 AM. Thus, the
prosecution story that PW-5 Vasudev Pandey @ Vasu Nepali
came to the spot from Sadar Bazar later on has become doubtful
which raises serious doubts on the veracity of PW-5 Vasudev
Pandey @ Vasu Nepali.
61. From the version of PW-5 Vasudev Pandey @ Vasu
Nepali, it has come on record that he had returned to Kotha no.
57 at about 10:30 AM and police reached at the spot at about
10:50 AM in his presence. The rukka Ex. PW29/B was prepared
at about 12:15 PM on the statement of PW-17 Sarfraz and FIR in
the present case was registered at about 01:55 PM. Thus, if
PW-5 Vasudev Pandey @ Vasu Nepali who had allegedly seen
the accused persons in company of deceased Neha as well as
leaving the kotha and who was present at the spot before the
preparation of rukka, why the FIR was not registered against the
accused persons on the statement of PW-5 Vasudev Pandey @
Vasu Nepali and why the same was registered on the statement of
PW-17 Sarfraz against unknown persons. This raises serious
doubts on the veracity of PW-5 Vasudev Pandey @ Vasu Nepali
and PW-17 Sarfraz as well as the prosecution story.
62. PW-5 Vasudev Pandey @ Vasu Nepali deposed that when
he returned from Sadar Bazar, Neha did not wake up as such and
he was asked by aunty to see why she had not waken up and
when he went to the room, he found Neha dead and thereafter
PW-17 Sarfraz was called. PW-17 Sarfraz also deposed that
FIR No. 02/2014, PS: Kamla Market, Page No. 51 of 82
State Vs. Tannu Chawla @ Tarun & Anr.
when he reached at Kotha on 02.012014, chowkidar namely Vasu
was present there. Thus, as per version of PW-5 Vasudev Pandey
@ Vasu Nepali as well as PW-17 Sarfraz, PW-5 Vasudev Pandey
@ Vasu Nepali was present at kotha no. 57 before Sarfraz
reached there. However, PW-17 Sarfraz also deposed that on
02.01.2014, at about 09:45 AM, he reached Kotha no. 57, G.B.
Road and found the girls present there but did not see Neha there.
He further deposed that he reached the room of Neha and when
he opened the door, he noticed that the dead body of Neha was
lying in pool of blood inside the room. Thus, as per the version of
PW-5 Vasudev Pandey @ Vasu Nepali, he saw the dead body of
deceased Neha at first while PW-17 Sarfraz deposed that he saw
the dead body of deceased Neha first. Both the versions cannot
co-exist because as per prosecution story, PW-5 Vasudev Pandey
@ Vasu Nepali had gone to Sadar Bazar when the dead body of
deceased Neha was found. The contradictory versions of PW-5
Vasudev Pandey @ Vasu Nepali and PW-17 Sarfraz have put a
strong dent on the prosecution story that PW-5 Vasudev Pandey
@ Vasu Nepali had gone to Sadar Bazar when the dead body of
deceased Neha was found.
63. PW-5 Vasudev Pandey @ Vasu Nepali deposed that
accused Tannu and other person (accused Yogesh Kashyap) left
the kotha between 06:00 – 06:30 AM. As per the prosecution
story, the clothes of accused persons were blood stained and they
had sustained injuries and accused Tannu Chawla @ Tarun had
the blood stained knife in his possession when he left the Kotha.
FIR No. 02/2014, PS: Kamla Market, Page No. 52 of 82
State Vs. Tannu Chawla @ Tarun & Anr.
PW-5 Vasudev Pandey @ Vasu Nepali in his cross examination
deposed that he did not observe any abnormality when accused
left the kotha and he did not remember if the accused was
carrying any bag etc while leaving the kotha. Since, as per
version of PW-5 Vasudev Pandey @ Vasu Nepali, accused
persons left the Kotha in the morning and he had not observed
any kind of abnormality (conduct, blood on the clothes of
accused persons, injuries on the person of accused persons and
carrying of weapon of offence by accused Tannu Chawla @
Tarun), the version of PW-5 Vasudev Pandey @ Vasu Nepali has
become doubtful.
64. PW-5 Sh. Vasudev Pandey @ Vasu Nepali deposed that
there were nine rooms at the Kotha and the Auties at the Kotha
were entering the names of persons visiting the Kotha till 12
o’clock at night. The IO has not seized any such register showing
the visit of accused persons at the abovesaid Kotha nor any
Aunty or any other girl who were present at the Kotha have been
examined to prove that accused persons had visited the Kotha on
the intervening night of 01-02.01.2014.
65. Thus, from the above-said discussions, the accused persons
have raised a serious doubt that PW-5 Vasudev Pandey @ Vasu
Nepali may not have gone to Sadar Bazar and he may not have
seen the accused persons in the room of deceased Neha at about
03:00-03:30 AM and due to the contradictons in testimonies of
PW-5 Vasudev Pandey @ Vasu Nepali and PW-17 Sarfraz,
serious doubts have been created on the prosecution story.
FIR No. 02/2014, PS: Kamla Market, Page No. 53 of 82
State Vs. Tannu Chawla @ Tarun & Anr.
(ii) Analysis of CDR of mobile phone of deceased Neha,
accused Tannu Chawla @ Tarun and accused Yogesh
kashyap.
66. The prosecution has relied upon the CDR and tower
location number of the mobile phone of deceased Neha, accused
Tannu Chawla @ Tarun and accused Yogesh Kashyap. As per
prosecution story, mobile phone number 8860908501 was issued
in name of deceased Neha and same was being used by her.
Mobile phone number 9654313965 was issued in the name of
PW-9 Sikha Chawla (sister of accused Tannu Chawla @ Tarun),
mobile phone number 7838230507 was issued in the name of
accused Tannu Chawla and mobile phone number 9654534688
was issued in the name of PW-7 Smt. Shakuntala Chawla
(mother of accused Tannu Chawla @ Tarun) and all the three
mobile phone numbers were being used by accused Tannu
Chawla. Mobile phone number 9811973561was issued in name
of PW-8 Sh. Ashok Kumar Popli and was being used by accused
Yogesh Kashyap. Through the testimony of PW-7 Smt.
Shakuntala, PW-8 Sh. Ashok Kumar Popli, PW-9 Smt. Sikha
Chawla and PW-11 Sh. Ishrar Babu, prosecution has successfully
proved that the above-said mobile phone numbers were issued in
the name of above said persons and same were being used by the
above said persons.
67. On the analysis of documents pertaining to the above-said
mobile phone numbers, it has been revealed that the IO has not
collected the location chart of any of the mobile phone number
FIR No. 02/2014, PS: Kamla Market, Page No. 54 of 82
State Vs. Tannu Chawla @ Tarun & Anr.
for establishing the exact place/spot of location of accused
persons and deceased Neha at Kotha no. 57, G.B. Road and other
respective places.
68. On the analysis of CDR Ex. PW11/B of mobile phone
number 8860908501 of deceased Neha, it is revealed that her cell
ID was 404110012951661 at 23:04:54 on 01.01.2014 but her cell
ID changed to 404110012903591 at 00:44:56 on 02.01.2014
which was again changed to 404110012907322 at 01:06:50 on
02.01.2014 and was again changed to 404110012951661 at
01:13:38 on 02.01.2014 which shows that the position of decesed
Neha was not only at one place and she was moving. Moreover,
the CDR record Ex. PW11/B of mobile phone number of
8860908501 of deceased Neha has been collected upto 01:13:38
of 02.01.2014. As per prosecution story, deceased Neha was alive
till 03:00-03:30 AM and IO has not collected the CDR of said
time nor he has placed the location chart to see as to what was
her exact location. This raises serious doubts on the manner in
which investigation has been conducted by the IO.
69. On the analysis of CDR Ex. PW11/E of mobile phone
number 9654313965 of Ms. Sikha Chawla which was being
allegedly used by accused Tannu Chawla @ Tarun, it is revealed
that his cell ID was 404110012951661 at 22:38:56 on 01.01.2014
but his cell ID changed to 404110012907322 at 01:13:38 on
02.01.2014 which shows that accused Tannu Chawla @ Tarun
had left the place of cell ID 404110012951661 which was the
common ID of deceased Neha and Tannu Chawla @ Tarun till
FIR No. 02/2014, PS: Kamla Market, Page No. 55 of 82
State Vs. Tannu Chawla @ Tarun & Anr.
that time. Moreover, the CDR record Ex. PW11/E of mobile
phone number of 9654313965 of accused Tannu Chawla @ Tarun
has been collected upto 01:13:38 of 02.01.2014. As per
prosecution story, deceased Neha was alive till 03:00-03:30 AM
and IO has not collected the CDR of said time nor he has placed
the location chart to see as to what was his exact location.
70. On the analysis of CDR Ex. PW11/H of mobile phone
number 7838230507 of accused Tannu Chawla @ Tarun, it is
revealed that his cell ID was 404110017243973 at 19:11:38 on
01.01.2014 and his cell ID remained the same till 16:01:32 on
02.01.2014 which was different from the cell ID of deceased
Neha. IO has not conducted any investigation as to whether this
mobile phone was in possession of accused at the time of
commission or not.
71. On the analysis of CDR Ex. PW11/K of mobile phone
number 9811973561 of accused Yogesh Kashyap (issued in name
of Sh. Ashok Kumar Popli), it is revealed that his cell ID was
404110012951661 at 22:27:09 on 01.01.2014 and his cell ID
changed to 404110012907322 at 22:38:56 which was again
changed to 404110012948092 at 00:29:03 and his cell ID
404110012951661 which matched with the cell ID of deceased
Neha and co-accused Tannu Chawla was at 00:09:26 and thus
thereafter he did not visit the said place. Thus, from the above
CDR of accused Yogesh Kashyap, it is clear that he left the given
spot at 00:09:26 on 02.01.2014. As per prosecution story,
deceased was alive till 03:00-03:30 AM.
FIR No. 02/2014, PS: Kamla Market, Page No. 56 of 82
State Vs. Tannu Chawla @ Tarun & Anr.
72. On the analysis of all the CDRs Ex. PW11/B of mobile
phone number 8860908501 of deceased Neha and CDR of
mobile phone number 9654313965 Ex. PW11/E of accused
Tannu Chawla (issued in the name of Ms. Sikha Chawla), it is
revealed that there were several telephonic conversation between
these numbers on the intervening night of 01/02.01.2014 and
their cell ID was same at 00:10:16 on 02.01.2014 till 00:22:05 on
02.01.2014. If accused Tannu Chawla and deceased Neha were
present in the same room i.e. at the spot of incident, why they
will talk to each other through mobile phone being at the same
place.
73. Thus, from the analysis of CDRs of deceased and accused
persons, it has come on record that the IO has collected the CDR
of mobile phone of deceased Neha and accused Tannu Chawla
(issued in the name of Ms. Sikha Chawla only upto 01:13:38)
and he has withheld the further CDR of the period during which
deceased Neha was murdered for the reasons best known to him.
Moreover, IO has not placed the location chart on record through
which it could have been ascertained as to what were the exact
places of location of the above said Cell IDs of mobile phone
number of deceased Neha and both the accused persons.
Conversation between the mobile phone number of deceased
Neha and accused Tannu Chawla (issued in the name of Ms.
Sikha Chawla), both being at the same location has raised serious
doubts on the prosecution story. Thus the circumstantial evidence
led in the form of CDRs is not sufficient to prove the guilt of
FIR No. 02/2014, PS: Kamla Market, Page No. 57 of 82
State Vs. Tannu Chawla @ Tarun & Anr.
accused persons beyond reasonable doubt.
(iii) Motive for commission of offence.
74. As per the prosecution story, accused Tannu Chawla
wanted that deceased Neha should leave the Kotha and reside
with him and she used to demand money from accused Tannu
Chawla. As per disclosure statement of accused Tannu Chawla
Ex. PW14/A, deceased Neha used to demand money from him
and he had sold his house and shop for Rs. 15,00,000/- and he
had received Rs. 7.5 lakhs as his share and he had given the said
amount to deceased Neha and she used to keep on demanding the
money from him. PW-4 Sh. K. Balsubramanyam (brother of
deceased Neha) deposed that both Neha and Tannu Chawla were
willing to marry each other and there was no objection of any
family members with respect to said marriage. However, the
prosecution has not led any evidence to prove that deceased Neha
kept on demanding money from accused Tannu Chawla and he
had given any money to deceased Neha from time to time. The
disclosure statement Ex. PW14/A was made to the police and as
per mandate of Section 25 of Indian Evidence Act 1872, the same
cannot be read in evidence against accused Tannu Chawla. Thus,
prosecution has failed to prove the motive of commission of
offence.
(iv) Injuries sustained by accused persons & CCTV footage of
Madan Mohan Malviya Hospital.
75. Prosecution has relied upon the injuries sustained by both
FIR No. 02/2014, PS: Kamla Market, Page No. 58 of 82
State Vs. Tannu Chawla @ Tarun & Anr.
the accused persons mentioned in their MLCs, Ex. PW-29/D and
Ex. PW-29/E. PW-29/IO Inspector Pramod Joshi deposed that he
has seen injuries on the right hand of accused Yogesh and Yogesh
told him that he had put his hand on the mouth of Neha while
accused Tannu Chawla was sliting the neck of Neha and during
that process he had sustained injuries on his right hand by the
said knife which was used in the commission of crime. As per
MLC of accused Yogesh Kashyap, Ex. PW-29/D, there was an
old injury which was stitched on the lateral part of right hand and
there was old partly healed injury on the thumb of left hand.
Similarly, as per MLC of accused Tannu Chawla, Ex. PW-29/E,
there were multiple partially healed abrasion mark on the left
hand, there were partial healed abrasion mark on the left thumb.
PW-33 Dr. Rajender Singh has proved the MLCs, Ex. PW-29/D
and Ex. PW-29/E of accused persons namely Yogesh Kashyap
and Tannu Chawla in which the abovesaid injuries have been
mentioned.
76. PW-33 Dr. Rajender Singh deposed that accused persons
namely Yogesh Kashyap and Tannu Chawla told him that they
had sustained the said injuries by knife on 02.01.2014 during
morning hours at Kotha No. 57, G. B. Road, Delhi. PW-33 Dr.
Rajender Singh deposed that no subsequent opinion qua the
nature of injuries and the weapon of offence which could have
caused the injuries on the body of patients/accused persons was
obtained from him. He also deposed that such injuries might be
possible in self defence. He also deposed that he was not sure if
FIR No. 02/2014, PS: Kamla Market, Page No. 59 of 82
State Vs. Tannu Chawla @ Tarun & Anr.
the injuries on the persons of accused Tannu Chawla may be 3-4
days old or less or more than that. Since no subsequent opinion
regarding the injuries with respect to the use of recovered
weapon of offence i.e. knife has been obatained, it cannot be said
that the said injuries were caused by the weapon of offence.
Moreover, blood of accused persons was not found on the
weapon of offence i.e. knife, Ex. P-24/1.
77. PW-33 Dr. Rajender Singh has deposed that accused
persons were brought to the emergency by Ct. Yogesh and Ct.
Sandeep. He also deposed that accused persons told him that they
had sustained the said injuries by knife on 02.01.2014 during
morning hours at Kotha No. 57, G. B. Road, Delhi. Thus, at the
time of making disclosure statement to PW-33 Dr. Rajender
Singh, both the accused persons were in custody of police. As per
mandate of Sec. 26 of The Indian Evidence Act, 1872, a
confession made by accused while in custody of police, cannot
be proved against him. Thus, the disclosure made by the accused
persons to PW-33 Dr. Rajender Singh cannot be read in evidence
against them.
78. As per the case of the prosecution, both the accused
persons had sustained injuries in their hands at the time of
commission of offence and they had visited Madan Mohan
Malviya Hospital where medical treatment was given to accused
Yogesh Kashyap. PW-12 Dr. Sapatenanjay Sahoo has proved the
medical documents of one Yogesh in this regard on which the
prosecution has relied. PW-12 Dr. Sapatenanjay Sahoo deposed
FIR No. 02/2014, PS: Kamla Market, Page No. 60 of 82
State Vs. Tannu Chawla @ Tarun & Anr.
that on 02.01.2014, one injured Yogesh Kumar came to the
hospital and he was having cut injuries on his hand. He has
proved the copy of dressing register containing entry of Yogesh
Kumar at serial No. 8, exhibited as Ex. PW-12/A. He also proved
emergency aid document, Ex. PW-12/B in which name of patient
Yogesh Kumar has not been mentioned. He also deposed that he
asked Yogesh Kumar to get prepared prescription slip but he did
not come back. He also deposed that he cannot identify the said
patient namely Yogesh Kumar. As per MLC of accused Yogesh
Kashyap, exhibited as Ex. PW-29/D, prepared at LNJP Hospital,
there were stitches on the injuries of his hand but PW-12 Dr.
Sapatenanjay Sahu had not put stitches on the hands of accused
Yogesh Kashyap nor he has deposed that there was requirement
of any stitches on the injuries of said Yogesh Kumar and
prosecution had not examined the concerned doctor who put
stitches on the injury on the hand of accused Yogesh Kashyap
and hence the link evidence is missing. Moreover, PW-12 Dr.
Sapatenanjay Sahoo had examined Yogesh Kumar whose
parentage and address is not known while the correct name of
accused in the present case is Yogesh Kashyap and not Yogesh
Kumar. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that accused
Yogesh Kashyap had visited Madan Mohan Malviya Hospital
who medically treated by PW-12 Dr. Sapatenanjay Sahoo.
79. The prosecution has also relied upon the CCTV footage of
Madan Mohan Malviya Hospital and as per the case of
prosecution, accused persons namely Tannu Chawala and Yogesh
FIR No. 02/2014, PS: Kamla Market, Page No. 61 of 82
State Vs. Tannu Chawla @ Tarun & Anr.
Kashyap are visible in the said CCTV footate which additional
circumstancial evidence against them. The said CCTV footage
was played in the court at the time of recording of testimony of
second IO/Inspector Yashvir. PW-31/Inspector Yashvir deposed
that the person seen in the Video footate was accused Tannu
Chawla and his wearing jacket was seized by previous
IO/Inspector Pramod Joshi. He also deposed that the strips on the
jacket as shown in the first CCTV footage were horizontal.
However, the jacket which is shown in the CCTV footage is
having the strips on the arms in vertical. The said person who
seems to be security guard is also wearing golf cap. However, the
accused in first CCTV footate was wearing a monkey cap. This
court had also made observation regarding the CCTV footage
which was as follows:-
“the person in CCTV footage is seen from back side and
only a portion of his face is visible which is also not much clear
and hence it cannnot be concluded by this court whether the
person seen in the CCTV footage is accused Tannu Chawla or
some other person.”
80. The said CCTV footage was never sent to FSL for
comparing the faces of accused persons to prove that the person
seen in the CCTV footages are accused Yogesh Kashyap and
Tannu Chawla. No medical document with respect to any
treatment taken by accused Tannu Chawla from Madan Mohan
Malviya Hospital has been placed on record. Moreover,
certificate under Sec. 65B of The Evidence Act, 1872 with
FIR No. 02/2014, PS: Kamla Market, Page No. 62 of 82
State Vs. Tannu Chawla @ Tarun & Anr.
respect to the said CCTV footage has been placed on record and
PW-29 IO/Inspector Pramod Joshi specifically deposed that he
did not obtain certificate under Sec. 65B of The Indian Evidence
Act, 1872 with respect to the CCTV footage of hospital. Thus, in
absence of certificate under Sec. 65B of The Evidence Act, 1872,
the CCTV footage does not have any evidentary value. In these
circumstances, the injuries sustained by the accused persons and
the CCTV footage of Madan Mohan Malviya Hospital is not a
sufficient circumstance to connect the accused persons with the
commission of offence.
(v) Recovery of blood stained clothes and knife at instance of
accused persons.
81. As per prosecution story, the weapon of offence i.e. Ex.
P-24/1 and blood stained clothes of accused Tannu Chawla, Ex.
P-24/4 were recovered at instance of accused Tannu Chawla @
Tarun. Similarly, blood stained clothes, Ex. P-24/5 to Ex. P-25/7
were recovered at instance of accused Yogesh Kashyap. The
recovery of the case property has to be proved by the prosecution
beyond reasonable doubt in compliance with the law laid down
in this regard by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. Section 27 of
Indian Evidence Act is an exception to Section 25 and Section 26
of the said Act. Section 27 is based on the doctrine of
confirmation by subsequent events. The principle under Sec. 27
of Indian Evidence Act is based on the principle that if any fact is
discovered on the basis of disclosure statement of accused, the
discovery of said fact is a guarantee that the information given by
FIR No. 02/2014, PS: Kamla Market, Page No. 63 of 82
State Vs. Tannu Chawla @ Tarun & Anr.
the accused in his disclosure statement is true. Such information
may be confessional or non-inculpating in nature but if any new
fact is discovered from such information it will be considered as
a reliable information.
82. The fact discovered on the basis of disclosure of statement
of accused must be relevant facts. Such information must be
given by the person who is accused of an offence and the
recovery of article or discovery of fact must be based upon the
information given by such accused.
83. Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Judgment titled as
Mohammad Burhan Vs. Directorate of Revenue Intelligence,
cited as ‘MANU/DE/3131/2017’ has held that:-
” joining of independent public witness is not
mere a formality; it is a vital safeguard to avoid
false implication of individual. In number of cases
either no independent public witnesses are
associated on the pretext that none of them is
available; in some cases only passerbyes are
requested to join the investigation. Non-
examination of independent public witness in the
instant case is serious flaw and adverse inference
is to be drawn against the prosecution for
withholding them.
84. Similarly Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Judgment
FIR No. 02/2014, PS: Kamla Market, Page No. 64 of 82
State Vs. Tannu Chawla @ Tarun & Anr.
titled as Ramanand@Nand Lal Bharti Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
cited as 2022 SCC online SC 1396 has observed as under:-“52.
Section 27 of the Evidence Act, 1872 reads thus:-
’27 How much of information received from the
accused may be proved-Provided that, when any fact
is deposed to as discovered in consequence of
information, received from a person accused of any
offence, in the custody of a police officer, so much of
such information, whether it amounts to a confession
or not as relates distinctly to the fact thereby
discovered may be proved.
If, it is say of the investigating officer that the
accused appellant while in custody on his own free
will and volition made a statement that he would
lead to the place where he had hidden the weapon of
offence along with his blood stained clothes then the
first thing that the investigating officer should have
done was to call for two independent witnesses at the
police station itself. Once the two independent
witnesses arrive at the police station thereafter in
their presence the accused should be asked to make
an appropriate statement as he may desire, in regard
to pointing out the place where he is said to have
hidden the weapon of offence. When the accused
while in custody makes such statement before theFIR No. 02/2014, PS: Kamla Market, Page No. 65 of 82
State Vs. Tannu Chawla @ Tarun & Anr.
two independent witnesses (panch witnesses) the
exact statement or rather the exact words uttered by
the accused should be incorporated in the first part
of the panchnama that the investigating officer may
draw in accordance with law. This first part of the
panchnama that the investigating officer may draw in
accordance with law. This first part of the
panchnama for the purpose of Section 27 of the
Evidence Act is always drawn at the police station in
the presence of that independent witnesses so as to
lend credence that a particular statement was made
by the accused expressing his willingness on his own
free will and volition to point out the place where the
weapon of offence or any other article used in the
commission of the offence had been hidden. Once the
first part of the panchnama is completed thereafter
the police party along with the accused and the two
particular place anything like the weapon of offence
of blood stained clothes or any other article is
discovered then the part of the entire process expects
the investigating officer then it is clear that the same
is deficient in all the aforesaid relevant aspects of the
matter.”
85. As per the case of prosecution, both the accused persons
were arrested on 05.01.2014 vide arrest memos Ex. PW-5/A and
Ex. PW-5/B and their disclosure statements, Ex. PW-14/A and
FIR No. 02/2014, PS: Kamla Market, Page No. 66 of 82
State Vs. Tannu Chawla @ Tarun & Anr.
Ex. PW-14/B were recorded on the same day. However, the
accused persons had not disclosed the spot from where they can
get the case property recovered. The case properties i.e. knife and
blood stained clothes were recovered by the IO on 07.01.2014
i.e. after two days of the arrest of accused persons. The said case
properties were the vital piece of evidence and the delay caused
in recovery of said case properties has not been explained by
PW-29 IO/Inspector Pramod Joshi which raises serious doubts on
the alleged recoveries.
86. PW-29 IO/Inspector Pramod Joshi seized the weapon of
offence i.e. knife, Ex. P-24/1 vide seizure memo Ex. PW-24/D.
The clothes of accused Tannu Chawla @ Tarun had been seized
by IO vide seizure memo Ex. PW-24/E while the clothes of
accused Yogesh Kashyap have been seized by the IO vide seizure
memo Ex. PW-24/G. On the perusal of seizure memos Ex.
PW-24/D, Ex. PW-24/E & Ex. PW-24/G, it is revealed that no
independent public person was joined in the investigation at the
time of recovery of said case properties. The recovery in the
present case is not a chance recovery but the same has been made
by the IO after two days of recording of disclosure statements of
accused persons. The IO had more than sufficient time to serve
notice upon the public person to join the investigation and non-
joining of any independent public person at the time of recovery
of case properties is fatal to the case of prosecution. Moreover,
the clothes of accused Tannu Chawla @ Tarun, Ex. P-24/4 and
clothes of accused Yogesh Kashyap, Ex. P-24/5 to Ex. P-25/7
FIR No. 02/2014, PS: Kamla Market, Page No. 67 of 82
State Vs. Tannu Chawla @ Tarun & Anr.
which they were allegedly wearing at the time of commission of
offence have not been got identified through PW-5 Sh. Vasudev
Pandey @ Vasu Nepali who allegedly had seen the accused
persons leaving the Kotha after the commission of offence.
87. Accused persons have taken the defence that there was no
blood on their clothes and same has been planted by the IO after
taking clothes from them. PW-2 Sh. Rehan deposed that accused
Yogesh Kashyap had given him one jeans pant and jacket for
washing at his shop and there was blood stains on his jeans pant
and shirt. He further deposed that police reached to him along
with accused Yogesh Kashyap and taken those clothes from him.
Surprisingly, the seizure memo of clothes of accused Yogesh
Kashyap, Ex. PW-24/G has not been signed by PW-2 Sh. Rehan
which raises serious doubts on the prosecution story. Moreover,
the said clothes were not shown to PW-2 Sh. Rehan at the time of
recording of his testimony and hence the identity of clothes given
by PW-2 Rehan to the Police has not been established. PW-2 Sh.
Rehan also deposed that he used to put tag with receipt number
on the clothes and admitted that he had no receipt or document to
show that accused Yogesh Kashyap had given his clothes to him
for washing. In these circumstances, it has become doubtful
whether accused Yogesh Kashyap had given his clothes for
washing or not.
88. PW-29 IO/Inspector Pramod Joshi in his cross-
examination deposed that he had not scribed the personal search,
FIR No. 02/2014, PS: Kamla Market, Page No. 68 of 82
State Vs. Tannu Chawla @ Tarun & Anr.
arrest memo and disclosure statement of both accused persons
and he did not remember who scribed the same. Thus, the IO is
not even aware as to who wrote the disclosure statement of
accused persons which shows casual approach on his part which
is fatal to the case of prosecution.
89. PW-29 IO/Inspector Pramod Joshi deposed that disclosure
statement of both the accused persons were recorded at the Police
Station. PW-17 Sh. Sarfarz deposed that on 05.01.2014, he along
with police staff and chowkidar Vasu went to Vikas Hospital
situated at Mehrauli where accused persons were arrested and
their disclosure statements were recorded. PW-17 Sh. Sarfarz has
not deposed that the disclosure statements of accused persons
was recorded at the PS or that he went to the PS after arrest of
accused persons. This is a material contradictions between the
testimonies of PW-29 IO/Inspector Pramod Joshi and PW-17 Sh.
Sarfarz which raises serious doubts on the prosecution story.
90. PW-29 IO/Inspector Pramod Joshi deposed that on
05.01.2014, he along with, ASI Pramod, Ct. Dhara, HC Pradeep,
HC Anil, Ct. Sandeep, Ct. Yogesh, Sarfarz and Vasudev went to
Qutub Minar Metro Station and arrested accused persons namely
Tannu Chawla @ Tarun and Yogesh Kashyap vide arrest memos
Ex. PW-5/A and Ex. PW-5/B. Neither PW-29 IO/Inspector
Pramod Joshi nor any other prosecution witness has deposed that
PW-7 Smt. Shakuntala (mother of accused Tannu Chawla @
Tarun) and wife of accused Yogesh Kashyap were also present
FIR No. 02/2014, PS: Kamla Market, Page No. 69 of 82
State Vs. Tannu Chawla @ Tarun & Anr.
with them at the spot of arrest of accused persons. However,
surprisingly arrest memo of accused Tannu Chawla @ Tarun, Ex.
PW-5/A bears the signatures of PW-7 Smt. Shankuntala in
column no. 9 and arrest memo of accused Yogesh Kashyap bears
the signature of his wife namely Smt. Simran in column no. 7.
This raises serious doubts with respect to arrest of accused
persons from the alleged spot. This also raises serious doubts on
the disclosure statements made by the accused persons. IO has
not given any explanation in this regard.
91. PW-29 IO/Inspector Pramod Joshi seized the weapon of
offence i.e. knife Ex. P-24/1 vide seizure memo Ex. PW-24/D
and he also prepared the sketch of knife Ex. PW-24/C. He
deposed that total length of knife was 27.8 cm and total length of
blade was 15.09 cm while width of the blade was 3.6 cm. The
said knife was sent to PW-10 Dr. Jyoti Barwa for its examination.
PW-10 Dr. Jyoti Barwa proved her report, Ex. PW-10/C in this
regard. As per the report, total length of knife was 28 cm and the
length of its blade was 14.5 cm while width of the blade was 3.4
cm. Thus, the dimensions of knife Ex. P-24/1 seized by the IO
and the dimensions of the knife examined by PW-10 Dr. Jyoti
Barwa are entirely different. This raises serious doubts on the
safe custody chain of the weapon of offence from the point of
seizure to the point of examination by PW-10 Dr. Jyoti Barwa. It
has raised serious doubts on the prosecution case as to whether
the weapon seized by the IO was examined by PW-10 Dr. Jyoti
Barwa or some other weapon was examined by her. In these
FIR No. 02/2014, PS: Kamla Market, Page No. 70 of 82
State Vs. Tannu Chawla @ Tarun & Anr.
circumstances, the opinion of PW-10 Dr. Jyoti Barwa vide her
report, Ex. PW-10/C has become doubtful.
92. Applying the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
of India in Mohammad Burhan (Supra) and Ramanand@Nand
Lal Bharti (Supra), this Court is of considered opinion that due to
non-joining of independent public person at the time of recovery
of case properties, recovery of case properties after delay of two
days without any explanation, signatures of family members of
accused persons on the arrest memos, non-explanation by PW-29
IO/Inspector Pramod Joshi as who recorded disclosure statement
of accused persons, doubts regarding the place of recording of
disclosure statements and difference in the dimensions of
recovered weapon of offence, Ex. P-24/1, the recoveries of case
properties in the present case have become doubtful and the
prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the
said case properties were recovered at instance of accused
persons.
(vi) Medical and scientific evidence.
93. The prosecution has also relied upon the Medical &
Scientific evidence adduced through prosecution witnesses.
PW-10 Dr. Jyoti Barwa proved the postmortem report of
deceased Neha, Ex. PW-10/A. As per the postmortem report, Ex.
PW-10/A, there were 46 external injuries on the body of
deceased Neha and the cause of death was shock and haemorrage
consequent upon sharp forced injury to the neck caused via
FIR No. 02/2014, PS: Kamla Market, Page No. 71 of 82
State Vs. Tannu Chawla @ Tarun & Anr.
injury no. 10 & 19 which are individually as well as collectively
sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Thus,
the prosecution has proved the cause of death. At the time of
postmortem, PW-10 Dr. Jyoti Barwa had sealed the clothes of
deceased, vaginal swabs along with control, finger nail clippings
and sealed blood on the gauze. PW-34 Dr. Yogesh Sharma had
collected the blood samples of accused persons namely Tannu
Chawla @ Tarun and Yogesh Kashyap and same were seized by
the IO vide seizure memo, Ex. PW-31/E. PW-29 IO/Inspector
Pramod Joshi in his cross-examination has specifically deposed
that no request for forensice examination of vaginal swab as
taken from deceased to compare the same with accused or
Vasudev Pandey was done during the investigation remained
with him. However, the vaginal swabs were not got compared
with the DNA of accused persons to prove that the accused
persons had sexual intercourse with the deceased with the
commission of offence of murder. PW-30 Dr. Ruchi Sharma has
proved FSL Report, Ex. PW-30/A. As per the report, no seaman
could be detected on Ex. 9a & Ex. 9b i.e. vaginal swabs of
deceased. Thus, it has not been proved by the prosecution that the
accused persons had sexual intercourse with deceased Neha
though PW-5 Vasudev Pandey @ Vasu Nepali has deposed that
accused persons were doing masti with Neha when he reached
their room. If the accused persons had used the condoms, same
have also not been recovered by the IO during the investigation.
In these circumstances, it is not possible to reach a conclusion
that the accused persons had sexual intercourse with deceased.
FIR No. 02/2014, PS: Kamla Market, Page No. 72 of 82
State Vs. Tannu Chawla @ Tarun & Anr.
94. PW-5 Sh. Vasudev Pandey @ Vasu Nepali has deposed
that the accused persons were consuming beer when he went to
the room of deceased. No bottle of beer/the glasses used by the
accused persons have been seized by the IO and the investigation
on this point is silent. The scientific evidence in form of
fingerprints on the bottle of beer/glasses used by the accused
persons or any other articles lying in the room could have been a
vital piece of evidence. Non-recovery of these articles and not
finding of any chance print of accused persons from the spot of
incident has weakened the case of prosecution.
95. PW-35 HC Rati Ram (also examined as PW-24) has
proved the the entries in register no. 19 with respect to deposit of
exhibits with him by the IO. He has also proved the entry in
register no. 21 with respect to the road certificate through which
the exhibits were sent to FSL. PW-35 HC Rati Ram deposed that
on 24.02.2014, 21 sealed pullanda along with sample seal were
sent to FSL Rohini through Ct. Milan vide RC No. 15/21/14.
PW-18 Ct. Milan deposed that on 24.02.2014, he received 19
sealed pullandas which were deposited by him at FSL Rohini. He
also proved the acknowledgment received from FSL Rohini in
this regard, exhibited as Ex. PW-18/C. Thus, there is difference
in number of exhibits sent to the FSL through PW-18 Ct. Milan
on a specific date i.e. 24.02.2014 which raises serious doubts on
the safe custody of the exhibits sent to the FSL on that day. In
these circumstances, tempering with the exhibits cannot be ruled
out.
FIR No. 02/2014, PS: Kamla Market, Page No. 73 of 82
State Vs. Tannu Chawla @ Tarun & Anr.
96. PW-30 Dr. Ruchi Sharma has proved FSL Report, Ex.
PW-30/A. As per the report the alleles from source of Ex. A
(gauze cloth of piece of accused Tannu Chawla @ Tarun) were
accounted in mixed DNA profile obtained from source of Ex. 15
i.e. knife and Ex. 16c i.e. jacket of accused Tannu Chawla @
Tarun. Similarly, the alleles from the source of Ex. B (gauze cloth
piece of accused Yogesh Kashyap) are accounted in mixed DNA
profile obtained from source of Ex. 15 i.e. knife and Ex. 17b i.e.
shirt of accused Yogesh Kashyap. No blood of deceased Neha
was found either on the weapon of offence i.e. knife or the
clothes of accused persons. Finding of bloods of accused persons
on their clothes or knife and not finding of blood of deceased
Neha on said articles coupled with the fact that the recovery of
clothes and knife is doubtful as discussed in preceeding
paragraphs, does not connect the accused persons with the
commission of offence of murder of deceased Neha. Thus, the
prosecution has failed to connect the accused persons with the
commission of offence even through the Medical and Scientific
evidence.
97. To prove the prosecution case, the testimony of the
prosecution witnesses must be reliable. It is not the quantity but
the quality of the testimony of the witness that helps a court in
arriving at a conclusion in any case. The test in this regard is that
the evidence adduced by the parties must have a ring of truth. In
a criminal trial, the prosecution has to prove the case beyond
reasonable doubt and it is possible only when the testimony of
FIR No. 02/2014, PS: Kamla Market, Page No. 74 of 82
State Vs. Tannu Chawla @ Tarun & Anr.
prosecution witnesses is cogent, trustworthy and credible. To
secure a conviction of accused, the testimony of the prosecution
witness must be of sterling quality.
98. In case titled as ‘Rai Sandeep @ Deepu Vs. State (NCT
of Delhi), (2012) 8 SCC 21′, it is held that :
“22. In our considered opinion, the “sterling
witness” should be of a very high quality and
caliber whose version should, therefore, be
unassailable. The court considering the
version of such witness should be in a
position to accept it for its face value without
any hesitation. To test the quality of such a
witness, the status of the witness would be
immaterial and what would be relevant is the
truthfulness of the statement made by such a
witness. What would be more relevant would
be the consistency of the statement right from
the starting point till the end, namely, at the
time when the witness makes the initial
statement and ultimately before the court. It
should be natural and consistent with the
case of the prosecution qua the accused.
There should not be any prevarication in the
version of such a witness. The witness should
be in a position to withstand the cross-
FIR No. 02/2014, PS: Kamla Market, Page No. 75 of 82
State Vs. Tannu Chawla @ Tarun & Anr.
examination of any length and howsoever
strenuous it may be and under no
circumstances should given room for any
doubt as to the factum of the occurrence, the
persons involved, as well as the sequence of
it. Such a version should have corelation with
each and every one of other supporting
material such as the recoveries made, the
weapons used, the manner of offence
committed, the scientific evidence and the
expert opinion. The said version should
consistently match with the version of very
other witness. It can even be stated that it
should be akin to the test applied in the case
of circumstantial evidence where there should
not be any missing link in the chain of
circumstances to hold the accused guilty of
the offence alleged against him. Only, if the
version of such a witness qualifies the above
test as well as all other such similar tests to
be applied, can it be held that such a witness
can be called as a “sterling witness’ whose
version can be accepted by the court without
any corroboration and based on which the
guilty can be punished. To be more precise,
the version of the said witness on the coreFIR No. 02/2014, PS: Kamla Market, Page No. 76 of 82
State Vs. Tannu Chawla @ Tarun & Anr.
spectrum of the crime should remain intact
while all other attendant materials, namely,
oral, documentary and material objects
should match the said version in material
particulars in order to enable the court trying
the offence to rely on the core version to sieve
the other supporting materials for holding the
offender guilty of the charge alleged.”
99. Similarly, in case of Ramdas Vs. State of Maharashtra,
(2007) SCC 170, it is held that :
“23. It is no doubt true that the conviction in a
case of rape can be based solely on the testimony
of the prosecutrix, but that can be done in a case
where the court is convinced about the truthfulness
of the prosecutrix and there exist no circumstances
with cast of shadow of doubt over her veracity. It
the evidence of the prosecutrix is of such quality
that may be sufficient to sustain an order of
conviction solely on the basis of her testimony. In
the instant case we do not fine her evidence to be
of such quality.”
100. Thus, from the above said judgments, it is clear that the
version of the witness should be natural one and it must
corroborate the prosecution case. Such version must match with
FIR No. 02/2014, PS: Kamla Market, Page No. 77 of 82
State Vs. Tannu Chawla @ Tarun & Anr.
the testimony of other prosecution witnesses. It should be of such
a quality that there should not be any shadow of doubt upon it.
101. Due to inconsitency and contradictions in testimonies of
PW-5 Sh. Vasudev Pandey @ Vasu Nepali and PW-17 Sh.
Sarfarz, serious doubts have been created upon the prosecution
story. The versions of PW-5 Sh. Vasudev Pandey @ Vasu Nepali
and PW-17 Sh. Sarfarz are not natural one. The things appears to
have not happened in the manner these have been projected. In
the light of aforesaid discussion, this court is of the considered
opinion that the testimonies of PW-5 Sh. Vasudev Pandey @
Vasu Nepali and PW-17 Sh. Sarfarz are not clear, cogent,
credible and trustworthy and same are not corroborated by other
material evidence. The testimonies of PW-5 Sh. Vasudev Pandey
@ Vasu Nepali and PW-17 Sh. Sarfarz in the present case cannot
be said to be of sterling quality to secure the conviction of the
accused persons.
102. It is established principle of law that if two views are
possible, the view favourable to the accused must be accepted.
The benefit of doubt must always go to the accused as the
prosecution has to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.
103. The Hon’ble Apex court in Rang Bahadur Singh Vs. State
of U.P. reported in AIR 2000 SC 1209 has held as follows:
“The timetested rule in that acquittal of a
guilty person should be preferred to conviction of
an innocent person. Unless the prosecutionFIR No. 02/2014, PS: Kamla Market, Page No. 78 of 82
State Vs. Tannu Chawla @ Tarun & Anr.
establishes the guilt of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt a conviction cannot be passed
on the accused. A criminal court cannot afford to
deprive liberty of the appellants, lifelong liberty,
without having at least a reasonable level of
certainty that the appellants were the real
culprits.”
104. In yet another decision in State of U.P. Vs. Ram Veer
Singh and Another reported in 2007(6) Supreme 164 the Hon’ble
Apex Court has held as follows:
“The golden thread which runs through the web
of administration of justice in criminal cases is
that if two view are possible on the evidence
adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of
the accused and the other to his innocence, the
view which is favourable to the accused should
be adopted. The paramount consideration of the
Court is to ensure that miscarriage of justice is
prevented. A miscarriage of justice which may
arise from acquittal of the guilty is no less than
from the conviction of an innocent. In a case
where admissible evidence is ignored, a duty is
cast upon the appellate Court to reappreciate
the evidence where the accused has been
acquitted, for the purpose of ascertaining as toFIR No. 02/2014, PS: Kamla Market, Page No. 79 of 82
State Vs. Tannu Chawla @ Tarun & Anr.
whether any of the accused really committed any
offence or not.”
105. In the present case, due to inconsistency and contradictions
in testimonies of PW-5 Sh. Vasudev Pandey @ Vasu Nepali and
PW-17 Sh. Sarfarz coupled with doubtful recovery of case prop-
erties, non-matching of DNA of deceased with the DNA found on
the weapon of offence and clothes of accused persons, difference
in dimension of knife seized and knife examined, non-
examination of any independent witness and non-collection of
any corroborative evidence, serious doubts have been created on
the prosecution story and two views are possible in this case and
applying the law laid down by Hon’ble Superme Court of India
in ‘Rang Bahadur Singh (Supra) and Ram Veer Singh (Supra),
the benefit of the same must go to the accused persons.
106. On appreciation of entire evidence led by the prosecution
and applying the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India in ‘Sharad Birdichand Sharda (Supra)’, this court has
reached on the following conclusions:-
(i) This court is of considered opinion that the evidence
led by the prosecution against accused persons is not
clear, cogent, crediable and trustworthy and from the
evidence led by the prosecution the guilt of accused
persons has not been fully established.
(ii) The facts established by the prosecution are not
completely consistent with the hypotheses of theFIR No. 02/2014, PS: Kamla Market, Page No. 80 of 82
State Vs. Tannu Chawla @ Tarun & Anr.
guilt of accused persons and other hypotheses that
the offence may have been committed by some other
person is possibile in the present case.
(iii) The circumstances established by the prosecution
are not conclusive in nature and tendency.
(iv) The circumstances brought on record by the
prosecution have not excluded every possible
hypotheses except the hypotheses which the
prosecution intended to prove.
(v) The chain of evidence led by the prosecution is not
so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground
for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of
accused persons and prosecution has failed to prove
that in all probabilities, the offences have been
committed by the accused persons only.
107. For the reasons stated above, this court is of the considered
opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the ingredients of
offences punishable under Section 302/34 IPC, against both the
accused persons and ingredients of offences punishable under
Sec. 25/27 Arms Act against accused Tannu Chawla @ Tarun,
beyond reasonable doubt.
108. Accordingly in view of the aforesaid discussion, accused
persons namely Tannu Chawla @ Tarun and Yogesh Kashyap
are hereby acquitted for offence punishable under Section 302/34
FIR No. 02/2014, PS: Kamla Market, Page No. 81 of 82
State Vs. Tannu Chawla @ Tarun & Anr.
IPC. Accused Tannu Chawla @ Tarun is also acquitted for the
offences punishable under Sec. 25/27 Arms Act.
109. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Digitally signed
VIRENDER by VIRENDER
Announced in the open court KUMAR
KUMAR
KHARTA
KHARTA
on 25th day of January, 2025 Date: 2025.01.25
16:32:02 +0530
(Virender Kumar Kharta)
ASJ/FTC-02(CENTRAL)
TIS HAZARI COURTS:DELHI:25.01.2025
FIR No. 02/2014, PS: Kamla Market, Page No. 82 of 82
State Vs. Tannu Chawla @ Tarun & Anr.
[ad_1]
Source link