Delhi District Court
State vs Deepak @ Deepu on 21 December, 2024
IN THE COURT OF MS. AMBIKA SINGH
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE:02,WEST DISTRICT:
TIS HAZARI COURTS: DELHI.
State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu & Ors.
SC No. 57663/2016
FIR No. 81/2016
PS MOTI NAGAR
Name Of Complainant Mukul Bobal
Name Of Accused Persons 1.Deepak @ Deepu
2.Anup Kumar Gupta
3. Haider Ali
U/S 302/394/397/212 IPC
Charged U/S 302/394/397/212 IPC
Plea Of Accused PLEADED NOT
GUILTY
Arguments Heard/Order 21.12.24
Reserved
Final Order Accused Deepak @
Deepu convicted u/s
302/394/397 IPC and
accused Anup Kumar
Gupta and Haider Ali
acquitted.
Date Of Such Order 21.12.2024
AMBIKA Digitally signed by
AMBIKA SINGH
SINGH Date: 2024.12.31
14:19:21 +0530
SC No. 57663/2013
FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 1 of 184
JUDGMENT:
BRIEF FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE :
1. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on date
27.03.2010, accused Deepak @ Deepu, at the back side room of
premises B-1/34, New Moti Nagar, committed murder of his uncle
namely Surender Singh by stabbing him with knives and stole gold
weighing 3.5 Kg and amount of Rs.10 Lakh gold chain locket and
the golden Kada and the rings & other ordered jewellery of the
customer weighing 250-300 gm. On completion of investigation,
chargesheet under 302/349/397 IPC was filed against the accused
Deepak @ Deepu and offence u/s 212/34 IPC were alleged to have
been committed by the accused Anoop Gupta and Haider Ali in the
court. After compliance of section 207, CrPc, chargesheet was
committed to this court by court of Ld. MM.
2. On 06.12.2010 charge u/s 302/394/397 IPC was framed
against the accused Deepak @ Deepu and offence u/s 212/34 IPC
was framed against the accused Anoop Kumar Gupta and Haider
Ali to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. Thereafter, the prosecution has examined 54 witnesses and
the brief of the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses examined
during trial are as under:
4. PW-1 Vipin Anand S/o Sh. S.R. Anand deposed that he was
running the business of sale and purchase of vehicles from 16/11
Arya Samaj Road, R/D Chamber, Karol Bagh. On 20.4.2010 one
person namely Deepak @ Deepu came at his shop to purchase of
four wheeler and he choose one Sentro car DL3CAA-8904 and he
paid an amount of Rs. 1,95,000/- to him in lieu of purchase of
aforesaid vehicle. He had taken the said vehicle from him. He got
SC No. 57663/2013
FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 2 of 184
the R/C transferred in his name from the authority. He produced
the original R/C of the aforesaid vehicle in the name of Deepak
Bobal, copy of Delivery receipt, photocopy of D/L of Deepak
Bobal and one LIC premium receipt. Police officials had taken
these documents into their possession through seizure memo
Ex.PWI/A which bears his signatures at point A.
5. PW-2 Sh. Mangat Ram deposed that he identified the dead
body of his brother Surender at mortuary of DDU Hospital vide his
identification statement Ex.PW2/A which bears his signatures at
point A.
6. PW-3 Harinder Vig s/o Sh. Amarnath Vig deposed that he
was doing the work of property from his office situated at B-1/97,
New Moti Nagar. On 27.03.2010 at about 10:45 AM, he was
present at his office, Surender Singh who ran one jewelery shop
with the name and title Kartar Jewelers. The shop of Kartar
Jewelers was closed at that time. Lovely also runs another jewelery
shop. He asked Lovely as to why shop of Surender Singh has not
yet been opened. In the meanwhile, one lady maid servant of
Surender Singh came there and she stated that the door of the
residence of Surender Singh is opened from the backside and when
she called Bhabhi wife of Surender Singh, she did not give any
reply. At that time, Lovely was siting at his shop. They made a call
at the mobile of Raju Sardar to know the welfare of Surender and
Raju Sardar stated that he is also not having any response from
Surender. Thereafter, they all three i.e. himself, that maid servant
and Lovely went at the residence of Surender which is at a
distance of 20-25 paces from his shop. He noticed that the main
gate of the house was found opened and inner gate was also
SC No. 57663/2013
FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 3 of 184
opened and Surender Singh was lying in a pool of blood on a
single bed. He noticed that blood has come out from the neck, near
chest and on the other side of the abdomen and something was also
coming out of the abdomen. he had also seen the blood on the wall
of that room. They became perplexed. Lovely raised alarm
“Chacha Ko Mar Diya”. He informed the police at 100 number
from his mobile and within 10 minutes came at the spot. Other
people also collected at the spot. SHO and other senior officials
also reached at the spot. Police officials asked everybody to go out
from that room and then they conducted their proceedings.
7. PW-4 Sh. Om Parkash S/o Sh. Jai Lal deposed that he was
running one shop by the name and title Malik Emporium at 6/1,
Jawala Heri Market, Paschim Vihar. He does not remember the
date and month but it was in the year 2010, some police officials
came at his shop and they inquired from him, if someone had
purchased knives from his shop. He stated that many customers
came at his shop, purchases item. No one was with the police
officials. In the present case, his statement was not recorded. He
purchase items through proper bill and receipts and he maintain his
record. He has nothing more to say. He did not join any other
proceedings however, police officials inquired from him, his name
and address and they obtained his signatures on some documents.
At that stage, attention of the witness was drawn towards pointing
out memo document and after seeing this document which is now
Ex.PW4/A, witness stated that it bears his signatures at point A.
The witness voluntarily stated that these signatures were obtained
by the police officials on blank papers.
8. PW-5 Sh. Rajkumar Arora @ Raju deposed that he was
SC No. 57663/2013
FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 4 of 184
running the shop at 15, Sanatan Dharam Mandir, New Moti Nagar,
Delhi and his shop is just in front of Kartar Jewelers, New Moti
Nagar. Surender Bobal is the owner of Kartar Jewelers. On
26.03.2010 at about 09-09:30 PM, Surender Bobal came at his
shop and he had taken one dairy milk chocolate of an amount of
Rs.5/- and he stated that he would pay the amount on the next day
and thereafter, he went away from his shop. On the next day, he
came to know that Surender Bobal had been murdered. He also
went towards the house of Surender but they were not allowed to
go inside. A huge gathering was there outside the house of
Surender Bobal.
9. PW-6 Sh. Raghubir Singh Bobal s/o Sh. Late Sh. Kartar
Singh deposed that he identified the dead body of his real brother
Surender, at the place of occurrence and also at the mortuary.
10. PW-7 Sh. Suresh Kumar S/o Late Sh. Lokman Ram deposed
that he was running a shoe shop by the name and title Shoe
Corner, situated at 34/1, DLF, Main Moti Nagar, opposite Fun
Cinema, Moti Nagar. He deposed that at that stage, witness has
pointed towards one accused standing in the dock as the person
(accused Deepak @ Deepu), who on 26.03.2010 at about 7 PM
came at his aforesaid shop and purchased one pair of canvas shoe
for an amount of Rs.450/-. On 27.05.2010, police officials along
with this accused came at his shop and then he identified this
person as the same who purchased one pair of canvas shoe from
his shop on 26.03.2010. He identified accused, present before the
court. He has seen the document Ex.PW7/A, prepared by police
official at his shop, which bears his signatures at point A. From the
conversation of the police officials, he came to know the name of
SC No. 57663/2013
FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 5 of 184
the person as Deepu, who was brought at his shop by the police
officials and he identified that person as the same person who
purchased one pair of shoe from his shop. At that stage, MHC(M)
produced the case property i.e. one envelope, duly sealed, bearing
parcel no.18. The same was opened and it was found containing
one pair of canvas shoe on which metal tag ‘Sport’ is written. The
envelope also contains other articles. He had seen particularly one
pair of shoe. He identified the shoes, as the same canvas shoes
which he sold to accused Deepu.
PW Suresh was cross-examined and he deposed that his
statement was recorded around 25.03.2010, at his shop between
4PM-5 PM. At that time, accused Deepu was in the custody of
police. There were four police officials along with Deepu who
visited his shop on that day. Out of said four police officials, two
were in uniform and two were in civil clothes. He does not
remember the names of said police officials. He did not note their
names from their name plates. No neighbourers of nearby
shopkeepers collected there, as the police officials and accused
Deepu entered his shop and sat there. He did not provide any
documentary proof to the police regarding the ownership of his
shoe shop as the same was not demanded by the police. As he did
not issue any bill of the pair of shoe which was purchased by the
accused Deepu from his shop, hence He did not show the same to
the police. 10-15 customers used to visit his shop daily. Routine
customers as well as general customers visit his shop daily.
Accused Deepu was not his routine customer. Just after seeing the
face of accused Deepu on 27.05.2010, when he was accompanied
the police officials, he recollected that he is the same person who
SC No. 57663/2013
FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 6 of 184
had purchased the pair of shoe from his shop on 26.03.2010. He
was running the said shoe shop since 1990. he used to issue bills to
his customers on their demand. Again said, he issue the bills to all
his customers. Besides him there is one salesman and one more
employee who used to clean the shop and supply drinking water to
the customers. There is a counter at his shop. The witness
voluntarily stated that but he also work as a salesman at his shop
besides his salesman and after selling the shoe collect the payment
then and there. The witness admitted the suggestion that his
salesman also deals with the customers. On 26.03.2005. He dealt
with about 6-7 customers. Out of them , 2/3 were of dark
complexion and 2/3 were of fair complexion. They were between
the age group of 25-30 years. The witness voluntarily stated that
accused came at about 07:30 PM, at that time no other customer
was there in the shop, the pair of shoe purchased by him from his
shop was in the display, he had chosen the same from the display
and were sold by him to him. As such, he was able to remember
his face. He has not stated above said fact in his statement to the
police. He had issued bills to almost all the customers on that day.
He does not write the description of the shoe sold by him to the
customers, except mentioning the number of pair of shoe and cash
received by him. He had not told to the police on that day of which
company the pair of shoe was purchased by the accused. He was
again called for cross-examination and that day he deposed that he
had not stated in his statement to the police that from the
conversation of the police officials, the name of person as Deepu.
The police officials told him that Deepu had purchased shoes from
his shop he had not stated in his statement to the police that he
SC No. 57663/2013
FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 7 of 184
identified the person as the same person who purchased one pair of
shoe from his shop. The witness voluntarily stated that Police
officials had told him that the said person had purchased shoe from
his shop. The witness admitted the suggestion that police officials
brought accused Deepak @ Deepu before him and police officials
told him that accused had purchased shoes from his shop. The
witness admitted the suggestion that he had not identified the
accused who have purchased any shoe from his shop. The witness
denied the suggestion that the accused was never brought by the
police at his shop nor any proceedings were conducted in his
presence. The witness denied the suggestion that he appended his
signatures on the documents ie. seizure memo vide Ex.PW7/A, at
the asking of the police.
11. PW-8 Sh. Mukul s/o Late Sh. Surender Singh Bobbal
deposed that he has been running a jewellery shop from the ground
floor of the aforesaid address after the murder of his father. In the
night of 26.03.2010, he along with his mother, his Mama namely
Anil, Mami, their son namely Akshay, his Mausi and her daughter
went to Shimla Dharamsala in a Tavera vehicle.The witness
deposed that on 27.03.2010 itself, they received phone of Inder
Lovely regarding murder of his father and due to this reason they
had to return to Delhi on 27.03.2010 at about 11-11:30 PM. On the
next day, he had seen the dead body of his father Sh. Surender
Singh Bobbal at Mortuary, DDU Hospital and his statement. was
recorded to this effect vide memo Ex.PW8/A, which bears his
signatures at point A. On 28.03.2010 itself dead body of his father
was given to them for funeral rights after the post mortem, vide
SC No. 57663/2013
FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 8 of 184
receipt of handing over of dead body Ex.PW6/B, which bears his
signatures at point B. PW-8 Mukul further deposed that accused
Deepak @ Deepu be punished as per law. Accused Deepak @
Deepu used to visit at their residence and on the day i.e.
26.03.2010 even accused Deepak @ Deepu came to them at their
residence and continuously asked as to when they were leaving
Delhi and even he insisted that he would arrange the vehicle for
going to Shimla. It was Friday on 26.03.2010 and their jewelery
shop used to remain closed on account of Market Holiday. On
26.03.2010, accused Deepak @ Deepu got opened their shop
through them on the point of melting gold/silver. He identified
accused Deepak @ Deepu present before the court. He further
deposed that they started from Delhi on 26.03.2010 at about 8-8:30
PM for going to Shimla, Dharamsala after hiring Tavera vehicle
from Amit Travel, leaving behind his father Surender Singh
Bobbal at residence. On 27.03.2010 at about 11:45 PM, when they
were on the way to Hamirpur, they were informed by Inder Lovly,
son of his Tauji, regarding the murder of his father and on hearing
this they started from Hamirpur for coming back to Delhi. After
reaching at the residence. He noticed that no door or door latch
(Kunda/Lock) was found broken and it appears that it was a
friendly entry. He checked the jewellery shop and it was
approximately 3.5 Kg of gold as his father used to give money on
interest after keeping ornaments at mortgage. The gold weighing
3.5 Kg and amount of Rs.10 Lakh were found missing. He also
noticed that the gold chain locket and the golden Kada and the
rings of his father were also missing. The locket was having the
impression of Guru Nanak and on one of the ring of his father
SC No. 57663/2013
FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 9 of 184
word ‘S’ was written. Other ordered jewellery of the customer was
also found missing. The weight of the gold articles of his father
and the ordered customer jewellery was weighing 250-300 gm his
Taiji namely Asha and her son Deepak @ Deepu and other son
Inder Lovly used to visit at their residence and all these persons
were well known about the articles inside their house. At that time,
they were having a pet dog. He further deposed that after the
murder police officials searched for the key bunch of their shop
but it could not be traced. He has raised that the key bunch of the
shop is not traceable and some known person can only be known
the same. On 29.03.2010, the key bunch was recovered from
beneath the double bed mattress. Deepak @ Deepu and Inder used
to torture his father. On one occasion his father asked to take care
of their father and on this quarrel took place and both these
persons gave beatings to his father. A case was registered at PS
Moti Nagar and his Tauji namely Late Mohan Singh, Deepak @
Deepu and Inder and his father were sent to jail. He handed over
the key bunch to the police officials who had taken the same into
their possession. he had also given one photograph of his father in
which his father was wearing that chain and locket in that
photograph. He further deposed that after two months, accused
Deepak @ Deepu Deepu was arrested by the police. Police
officials brought accused Deepak @ Deepu at their residence and
accused pointed the place of occurrence as to how he came inside
their house through stairs and then came inside their house and
how he committed the offence. Certain jewellery articles were
recovered from the accused and he was asked to identify the
recovered gold articles and he appeared at Tis Hazari Court and he
SC No. 57663/2013
FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 10 of 184
identified the gold ring and gold locket of his father and the other
jewellery, in the presence of Ld. Magistrate. He can identify the
case property, if shown to him.
At that stage, MHC(M) produced the case property ie. one
small sealed cloth parcel, parcel is got opened and it is found
containing two lockets i.e. one Om locket and one locket of having
image of Lord Hanuman. He identified that jewellery as the
jewellery of customer which was kept at their jewellery shop. The
case property is Ex. PA and PB. Also, MHC(M), further produced
another case property ie. one small sealed cloth parcel, parcel is
got opened and it is found containing one gold chain. He identified
the gold chain as the gold chain of customer which was kept at
their jewellery shop. The case property is Ex.PC. MHC(M), further
produced the case property i.e. one small sealed cloth parcel,
parcel is got opened and it is found containing one bigger gold ring
having diamonds and one small gold ring having diamonds. He
identified the case property as the same as that of customers which
was kept at their jewellery shop. The case property is Ex.PD and
PE. MHC(M), also, produced the case property i.e. one small
sealed cloth parcel, parcel is got opened and it is found containing
two ear gold tops having diamonds and ruby. He identified the
case property as the same as that of customers which was kept at
their jewellery shop as mortgaged jewellery. The case property is
Ex.PF. MHC(M) also produced the case property i.e. one small
sealed cloth parcel, parcel is got opened and it is found containing
one gold chain. He identified the case property as the same as that
of customers which was kept at their jewellery shop as mortgaged
jewellery. The case property is Ex.PG. MHC(M) further produced
SC No. 57663/2013
FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 11 of 184
the case property ie. one small sealed cloth parcel, parcel is got
opened and it is found containing one gold ring having diamonds.
He identified the case property as the same as that of customers
which was kept at their jewellery shop as mortgaged jewellery.
The case property is Ex.PH. MHC(M), also, produced one another
sealed envelope with the seal of FSL. Envelope is got opened and
it is found containing one small jewellery pouch having chain, on
which Kartar Jewellers is written. Chain is got opened and it is
found containing one gold locket on which picture of Guru Nanak
Dev is inscribed. It also contains one gold ring on which word ‘S’
is written by diamond, having black background. He has seen the
locket and the ring. That is the locket and the ring of his father. He
identified the case property. The same is Ex.PI.
12. PW-08 Mukul was cross examined and he deposed that he
was under graduate and left his study after first year. He does not
know which year he left the studies. He was running the jewellery
shop alongwith his father since that time. His father used to pay
the income tax and used to keep the accounts thereof. There was
no licence with his father for giving loan on keeping the articles
mortgaged with him. But the account was being kept of those
persons who used to pawn their articles. he had given the account
of the articles to the police. He does not know if any document
was prepared for taking into possession the account. He has also
given the same to court also. He also used to keep the articles of
different persons but the accounts being prepared by his father. He
found the accounts books and other articles lying in the shop at the
same place where they were kept. There was no blood found on
that. He further deposed during cross-examination that they had
SC No. 57663/2013
FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 12 of 184
entered their house from the back side on their returned on
27.03.2010. The house was bolted by the persons of the family but
he does not know who had bolted the house. It was opened by his
relative but he does not know who had opened it. All the lights
were on when entered the room. Their pet dog was present inside
the house and may be possible it was sitting in the room where
deadbody was found. He does not know if there were blood spot of
dog also or not. There were three doors in between his entrance
and the place where the occurrence had taken place. One door was
already opened through which the culprits had come inside. The
door of entrance to the room remains open and there was no
bolting of it. He does not know whether it was opened on that time
or not when they entered. They used to sleep in the same room
where his father used to sleep on a single bed. his father used to
sleep in a small room and they also used to sleep in the same room.
The blood was splited on the walls, floor, the Sofa, setty and also
on the tube light and also on the roof of the room and also on the
doors of the room. The police had not reached the spot on
27.03.2010 and had come for the first time on 28.03.2010. No
finger print was lifted by the police when they came. Since 100 of
people had entered the room where the occurrence had taken place
prior to their coming, therefore, many footsteps were present there
and therefore, he could not footstep of any particular who might
have committed the offence.
13. He further deposed during cross-examination that on
26.03.2010 only the accused was present in their house throughout
the day and therefore, they suspected him as a culprit of the
offence. His father had gone to the market on that day his father
SC No. 57663/2013
FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 13 of 184
had returned at about 5:00 or 5:30 PM. On 26.03.2010 and they
had by that time got ready for going out. They are not on visiting
terms with their uncles. his father was having close relationship
with one Raju who used to come on the shop and many other
persons were also customers who used to come on the shop and
their dog used to walk in the entire house. However, he never used
to bark at the newcomer when he used to come on the shop but if
any person entered the house he would bark on the person except
the members of the family. Deepak @ Deepu used to do the
goldsmith job but was not doing during the days the incident had
taken place. His brother’s shop was near to their shop and the name
of the shop was ‘New Kartar Jewellers. The gold used to be melted
for him due to the instructions of his brother. He had come for
getting melted gold and silver on 26.03.2010 and had come twice.
14. He further deposed that during the cross-examination that
the gold used to be kept in the room where there was a double bed
in a small almirah and he was knowing it. The almirah where the
gold used to be kept was found closed, however, it was not locked.
The same was opened. The blood was found on that almirah on the
sides. It was in the shape of a line. However, it was dried when
they reached there. Police did not pick it up in their presence.
When so ever they used to go out the house used to be locked from
outside but if somebody was inside it was not locked from outside.
Since his father was at home none of the room was locked. When
they reached the house he opened the almirah and found that no
gold was found there. The footsteps of the persons who would go
from the room when the occurrence had taken place to another
room would be bearing on the floor but since so many persons had
SC No. 57663/2013
FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 14 of 184
entered the room, therefore the footsteps were not visible. The
whole of the gold lying in that almirah was in the shape of
ornaments but it was not in the shape of biscuit. PW-08 Mukul
further deposed that the chain in which the pendent fixed was not
shown to him and only the pendent was shown alongwith a ring.
However, the depicting of alphabet ‘S’ can be written upon the ring
of the person whose name starts with S and therefore, there was no
other special mark of identification on it but since he had seen that
ring, therefore, he identified the same. Further he deposed that on
27.03.2010 the mattresses were lying on the double-bed when they
returned but there was no blood on that. There was no mattress on
the single bed where the occurrence had taken place. The
mattresses, bed sheet etc. had been taken by the police before their
reaching the home. Police had told him that they had taken the
articles but He does not know when it was revealed to him. The
almirah and the TV was not taken into possession by the police
though blood was lying on them the witness voluntarily stated that
there was cloth cover on the almirah and blood was splited on the
same and same was taken into the possession by the police. He
does not remember whether the cloth was taken by the police in
his presence. PW-08 further admitted during cross-examination
that the amount of Rs. 10 Lakhs was never mentioned in any
account. His father used to pay income tax on his entire income He
does not know if the income tax was paid on this amount or not.
The ITR used to be filed by the CA but he does not know his
name. He does not know anything about the CA and his first
statement was recorded on 28th March, 2010. He does not know if
he mentioned about Rs. 10 Lakhs in the above mentioned dates
SC No. 57663/2013
FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 15 of 184
(confronted with statement dated 28th March. 2010 where this fact
is not mentioned in Ex. DA but about the Rs. 10 lakh is mentioned
in the detailed statement recorded on 29.03.2010). His statement
was recorded at his house and many persons were present at that
time and his mother was present or not at that time, he does not
remember. The house had already been searched by the police
before their reaching back to Delhi. The above said amount of Rs.
10 lakh is used to be kept in the locker of small almirah and blood
was also found on the cloth which was on the almirah. This cloth
was taken by the police after one or two days but he does not
remember the exact date. The blood was not found on the locker or
handle of the locker of the almirah. The witness denied the
suggestion that no amount of Rs. 10 lakh was kept in the house
and he had made a false story to implicate the accused. At the
time, when he was brought in the Court for TIP of the articles he
had identified one locket and one ring. There were four and five
lockets of different ideals lying on the table of the Judge at the
time of TIP. The rings on the table were also of different shades.
The ring which contained alphabates S can be worn by any person
whose names start with S. But since he used to see the ring of his
father daily therefore he identified. It was made at their shop.
There was no other special/specific mark over that ring. The
witness denied the suggestion that the ring/locket which he
identified belong to his father or that the same was identify at the
instance of police officials. He was summoned by the police
through the summons the purpose of getting the TIP done. The
keys were not available when himself and his mother searched.
This was on 28th March, 2010 itself. The accused Deepak @
SC No. 57663/2013
FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 16 of 184
Deepu used to come their house till 30 March, 2010 and also come
on 27th, 28th and 29th, March, 2010 also. The mattress under
which the keys were found was not used by anyone. He did not see
whether there was blood under the mattress or not. The witness
denied the suggestion that he was making a false story for finding
out the keys underneath the mattress in order to falsely implicate
the accused. Further deposed that they used to get their labour for
melting the gold or silver but no money was charged from accused
Deepak @ Deepu. He does not have any proof to show that
accused Deepak @ Deepu had come for getting the gold and silver
melted through him at his shop. The witness voluntarily stated that
except his statement and statement of his mother in this regard.
The witness denied the suggestion to suggest that he did not come
for getting the gold and silver melted and under the legal expert
and for creating the circumstances He has got that introduced
falsely. There was the shop of the brother of the accused Deepak
@ Deepu. His brother used to deal in gold and silver ornaments at
that shop, however, there was no melting at that shop. The witness
denied the suggestion to suggest that the story regarding absence
of melting facility has been made by him under legal guidance and
at the instance of IO. He denied the suggestion that any person can
come down to his courtyard if such stair case would have been in
existence.
15. PW-08 Mukul denied the suggestion that his finger prints
were taken along with the finger prints of the accused Deepak @
Deepu. He does not know whether the finger prints of any other
persons from his house were taken. The witness admitted the
suggestion that finger prints of other members of the family and
SC No. 57663/2013
FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 17 of 184
the accused were taken, however, they have not matched since
prior to the same be taken a number of people have visited the
house. Since a large number of persons have entered the spot they
might have touched the furniture including the almirah. He can not
say that the police has given the permission to accused Deepak @
Deepu to visit outside the town since his finger prints did not
match with chance print taken from the spot. The witness denied
the suggestion that he has undergone a DNA test with accused
Deepak @ Deepu. He does not know even that the DNA test of
accused Deepak @ Deepu was conducted. The witness denied the
suggestion that finger prints of Harminder Badal, Ramesh Kakkar,
Gulshan Kumar, Puneet, Deepak @ Deepu S/o Sh. Suresh Bagga,
Deepak @ Deepu S/o Chander Prakash, Bhupender Singh, Asha
Rani, Deepak @ Deepu @ Deppu (accused), Navdesh Mogna,
Indira Bobal and Yogesh Bobal were taken along with the chance
print from the spot and were compared. The witness denied the
suggestion that he was deposing falsely since the finger prints
were taken in his presence. The witness denied the suggestion that
he has named Deepak @ Deepu @ Depu as an accused due to
rivalry by opening the shop in their neighbourhood and also due to
previous litigation and getting his father arrested U/s 107 Cr.PC.
The witness denied the suggestion that he suspected him in order
to falsely implicate him without any proof. The witness denied the
suggestion that he was deposing falsely. The witness denied the
suggestion that no offence was committed by accused Deepak @
Deepu and he was deposing against him because of business
rivalry with the accused Deepak @ Deepu.
16. PW-9 Sh. Dharam Dev Bhat S/o Sh. Arjun Bhat deposed
SC No. 57663/2013
FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 18 of 184
that Sh. Nirmaljeet Shekhu is the owner of hotel. On 28.05.2010,
Delhi Police officials came at their hotel, enquired from them and
they had taken the register of the hotel into their possession
through seizure memo Ex.PW9/A, which bears his signatures at
point A. He also identify the signatures of hotel owner Sh.
Nirmaljeet Shekhu at point B being familiar with his signatures,
being his employee. He identified the accused, present before the
court. He further deposed that he can identify the hotel register
which was produced by owner of the hotel, if shown to him. He
has seen the register of the hotel. This is the same register which
was taken into possession by the police officials. He identified the
register. The register is Ex.PA.
17. PW-10 Ms. Meena Bobal w/o Late Sh. Surender Singh
Bobal deposed that she along with her husband and her son Mukul
used to reside at the aforesaid address. They were also having one
pet dog of German Safford breed. One boy Nirmal who also used
to work at the shop of her husband, also used to work as a servant
at their house and in the night he used to go back to her residence.
On 26.03.2010, she along with her son Mukul and family members
of her brother Anil went to Shimla Dharamsala in a Tavera
vehicle, leaving behind her husband and their pet dog at their
residence. They left Delhi at about 08:30 PM. She deposed that on
27.03.2010 at about 11:45 PM, a telephone call was received on
the mobile of her brother Anil and at that time they were present in
the area of Meer Pur. This telephone call was made by Inder @
Lovely (Bhatija of her husband and son of her Jeth). Inder @
Lovely informed on telephone that Surender Bobal has been
murdered. After hearing, such sad news they all became perplexed
SC No. 57663/2013
FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 19 of 184
and they decided to go back to Delhi from the area of Meer Pur
itself and they reached at late night on 27.03.2010. She can not tell
the exact time as they were quite perplexed. She found that many
persons have collected in front of their house. She went inside and
found that blood was lying on the floor and blood was sprinkled on
the walls of the innermost room where her husband used to sleep
on Diwan (single bed). She noticed that no door/its Kunda was
found broken and hence it transpires that it was a family entry and
accused was known and he got opened the door and then only
occurrence has taken place. She being wife of Surender Bobal, was
aware as to where the gold articles and the money used to be kept.
her husband used to give money after pledging gold jewellery. she
found that the gold jewellery weighing 3/5 Kg and amount of
Rs.10 Lacs which was kept inside one almirah and this almirah
was kept in the other room which was adjacent to the innermost
room. From all these situation she could conclude that her husband
had been murdered for the purpose of robbing gold articles and
amount. She deposed that her husband used to wear one gold chain
having locket of Guru Nanak Dev, one Gold Kada, 3-4 gold rings
and out of these rings. one ring was having the black stone on
which word “S” with gold was written. She further deposed that on
26.03.2010, it was Friday and her husband used to bring gold
articles from the market after getting the gold jewellery articles as
per the order of the customers. These articles were also missing.
Total weight of these gold articles was 250-300 gm. Another iron
almirah was also kept in the room and this almirah contains their
personal used jewellery. This almirah was not opened by the
accused and the same was found intact, meaning thereby that it
SC No. 57663/2013
FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 20 of 184
was some known person who committed the offence and it was
well within the knowledge of the accused that the cash and the
gold articles are kept in other almirah. Her husband used to keep
the keys of the main almirah with him always and it was in the
knowledge of accused Deepak @ Deepu Bobal @ Deepu. She
deposed that on 26.03.2010, when they had to go to Shimla,
Dharamsala, accused Deepak @ Deepu Bobal remained inside
their house and even he went outside many times and again visited
their house. Deepak @ Deepu Bobal was enquiring, again and
again regarding their going to Shimla Dharamsala and she was
also getting it confirmed whether they were going to Dharamsala
or not. He was insisting upon that if the vehicle is not arranged,
she will get the vehicle arranged and it seems that he was assuring
that they depart for going to Shimla. It was Friday on that day and
their shop was closed. It was even in the knowledge of Deepak @
Deepu that shop is closed and 2/3 times he came along with small
pieces of gold and silver and he asked her son Mukul to get the
same melted. Her son Mukul stated that the shop is closed and he
does not have keys with him and on this Deepak @ Deepu stated
that keys are inside the suitcase. Accused Deepak @ Deepu was
aware regarding the place of keeping the keys and all other things.
Accused Deepak @ Deepu got opened the shop through her son
Mukul and got melted the pieces of Gold and Silver. Accused
Deepak @ Deepu remained roaming around their house and he
used to visit their house every after some time on that particular
date. She further deposed that she wants to say that her Jethani
Asha Bobal and her both sons namely Inder and Deepak @ Deepu
only used to visit at their residence. No other person used to visit
SC No. 57663/2013
FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 21 of 184
at their residency. Their pet dog never used to allow entry of any
unknown person and her Jethani and her two sons can have their
entry as they usually used to visit at their residence. It was a
friendly entry and the entry of a known person as it appears that
even their pet dog did not bark upon the intruder. She further
deposed that on 29.03.2010, the key bunch was traced from
beneath the mattress. On 27.03.2010, police officials have
searched the key bunch at all over places inside the house even
after lifting the mattresses but the key bunch was not traced on
27.03.2010. They had raised alarm even in the presence of Jethani
and her two sons regarding misplace of the two bunch and it
appears that the key bunch later on kept beneath the mattress. To
her mind, these key bunch might have been kept by accused
Deepak @ Deepu Bobal as no other person except Jethani and her
two sons heard their objection regarding known availability of key
bunch. She also want to say that her husband had given some
amount on loan to Deepak @ Deepu and Inder on interest basis
and her husband used to help them financially. Inder was aware
regarding the availability of gold articles and amount inside the
almirah. But she did not narrate any such thing in her statement on
the basis of which the FIR was registered. She deposed that her
Jethani and her two sons used to quarrel with her Jeth when he was
alive and her husband being brother of her Jeth used to object for
the same and once upon a time, Inder and Deepak @ Deepu
quarrelled with her husband and also gave beatings to her husband
and due this reason all the four persons i.e. her husband, her Jeth,
Deepak @ Deepu and Inder were arrested and were sent to jail. she
identified accused Deepak @ Deepu, present before the court.
SC No. 57663/2013
FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 22 of 184
Accused Deepak @ Deepu was in the habit of stealing articles as
and when he used to have opportunity. She has nothing more to
say. She further deposed that she can identify the gold articles
which belong to her husband, if shown to him. At that stage,
MHC(M) produced the case property i.e. one envelope having seal
of the court. Envelope is got opened and it is found containing one
small jewellery pouch having chain, on which Kartar Jewellers is
written. Chain is got opened and it is found containing one gold
locket on which picture of Guru Nanak Dev is inscribed. It also
Contains one gold ring on which word “S” is written by diamond
on black stone. She has seen the locket and the ring. Both these
articles belong to her husband. Identified the case property, the
same is already collectively Ex.PI. The witness deposed that she
can identified the articles (clothes etc.) which were taken into
possession by the police officials, if shown to him. At that stage,
MHC(M) produced one envelope duly sealed with the seal of FSL.
This envelope bears serial no.6. Envelope is got opened and it is
found containing one blood stained bedsheet, one blood stained
small pillow, one blood stained small towel, one blood stained
raxine cover and one white clothe having Jaali. He has seen all
these things. All these belong to him which were kept in their
rooms. She identified the case property. The case property is
collectively Ex.PAI. At that stage, MHC(M) produced one
envelope duly sealed with the seal of FSL. This envelope bears
serial no.7. Envelope is got opened and it is found containing one
TV remote, another remote of Tata Sky, one salt pot having
Masala type material inside it, one mobile cover, one spects, one
visiting card on which JMD Tourist and Motors, I-143,
SC No. 57663/2013
FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 23 of 184
Karampura, Delhi, is written. she has seen all these things. All
these belong to them . The spects is of her husband. She can not
say about the visiting card. she identified the case property. The
case property is collectively Ex.PA2. At that stage, MHC(M)
produced one envelope duly sealed with the seal of FSL that
envelope was having serial no.8. Envelope is got opened and it is
found containing a currency note of Rs.50/-, This envelope has
been opened inadvertently. At that stage, MHC(M) produced one
envelope duly sealed with the seal of FSL. That envelope was
having serial no.9. Envelope is got opened and it is found
containing one single bed mattress. she has seen the mattress. she
identified the mattress as the same mattress which used to be kept
on single bed inside the innermost room of her husband. The
mattress is Ex.PA3. At that stage, MHC(M) produced one
envelope duly sealed with the seal of FSL. This parcel bears serial
no.10. The parcel is got opened and it is found containing one
small mattress having blood stains. she has seen the mattress and
this mattress used to lie near the single bed. She identified the case
property. The case property is Ex.PA4. At that stage, MHC(M)
produced one envelope duly sealed with the seal of FSL. That
parcel bears serial no.11. The parcel is got opened and it is found
containing one pillow. she has seen the pillow. That was the
pillow which used to be in the room of her husband. Identify the
case property. The case property is Ex.PAS. At that stage,
MHC(M) produced one envelope duly sealed with the seal of FSL.
This parcel bears serial no.16. The parcel is got opened and it is
found containing one key bunch having two bigger keys and one
small key. She has seen this key bunch. It is their key bunch and
SC No. 57663/2013
FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 24 of 184
these keys belong to the almirah, the inner locker. she identified
the key bunch. The case property is Ex.PA6. At that stage,
MHC(M) produced one transparent polythene without seal.
Polythene is got opened and it is found containing one mobile
phone of Motorola company having batter and SIM. She has seen
the mobile. This mobile belongs to her late husband. she identified
the mobile. The Mobile is Ex.PA7.
18. During cross-examination, she deposed that Police recorded
her statement perhaps on 27 or 29.03.2010 her statement, was
read over to him by the police officials at that time her statement,
was recorded only once she noticed that there was blood stains on
the side of almirah. She does not remember if police had lifted any
blood from the side of almirah. She does not remember if there
was any blood stains on the front door or handle of almirah. There
were three partition she lives in the said almirah from where
articles and money was found missing. She had not seen any blood
stains inside the almirah. The witness voluntarily stated that she
was perplexed due to murder of her husband. There was a locker
inside the almirah in one of the shelf. She does not remember if
she had noticed any blood on the handle as well as on the door of
the locker. The witness voluntarily stated that she was perplexed
due to murder of her husband. Mukul was present when police was
investigating the case and looking at the almirah. The witness
voluntarily stated that as they were crying in the inside room
therefore, he can not say where Mukul was at that time. On
27.03.2010, the police had not made any enquiry from her as she
had reached late at night The witness voluntarily stated that she
was not in her senses at that time, therefore, she does not
SC No. 57663/2013
FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 25 of 184
remember. She became normal on the night of 27.03.10 itself. She
had given her statement, to the police either on 27 or 28.03.10 and
she had
shown suspicion in that statement. Despite her suspicion shown on
Deepak @ Deepu, she was not arrested by the police but she was
interrogated by the police. Deepak @ Deepu had not visited their
house after 29.03.10 when she had given in writing to the police
showing her suspicion on Deepak @ Deepu, Asha, mother of
Deepak @ Deepu and Inder, brother of Deepak @ Deepu were
visiting their house regularly after the incident. She does not
remember to whom she has given the complaint in writing but it
was recorded at her house itself. She does not remember if she had
written in said complaint that Deepak @ Deepu had stopped
coming to their house after 29.03.10. Perhaps the police has
recorded only one statement of her which is dated 29.03.10. She
had got recorded in her statement on 29.03.10 that as far as she
knows that there may be gold of 3.5 kg was found missing. Since
she was not dealing with any business activity of her husband,
therefore, she can not tell what was the appx. value of 3.5 kg gold.
The witness denied the suggestion that value of 10gm gold was
20,000/- The witness voluntarily stated that it was 15,000/- at that
time. The witness denied the suggestion that as such the value of
missing gold of 3.5kg was appx. 60 lacs. She had not stated in her
statement to the police that so far she knows that there was Rs.10
lacs in the said almirah, which was found missing. The witness has
been shown her statement which is now Ex-PW10/DA where it is
mentioned that besides this was as per her estimation there was
about 10 lacs in cash which was also found missing. She was not
SC No. 57663/2013
FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 26 of 184
aware if her husband was maintaining any record pertaining to the
cash amount which was kept by him in the almirah. she does not
know if her husband was also keeping some record pertaining to
mortgaging of gold to her customers. She does not know if her
husband was giving any receipt or any other document to the
customers who were mortgaging the gold with her husband. She
was further cross-examined by the Ld.Defence Counsel that she
deposed that she left the house at about 08:00 P.M. on 26.03.2010,
leaving behind her husband. It was Friday on that day and the shop
was closed. she was not living in a joint family. One lady maid
servant also used to come at her residence to clean the utensils.
Her son Mukul booked Tavera vehicle from the area of Moti
Nagar. She can not tell the distance between Meerpur near
Himachal Pradesh and Delhi. But Meer pur is quite far away from
Delhi. She does not know if Inder was having her mobile number
or mobile no. of her son Mukul. It was mentioned in their
statement which was given to the police official that aforesaid
vehicle was booked from Amit Travels, Moti Nagar. It was on
27.03.2010 at about 11:45 A.M. and not 11:45 P.M. when they
received the information. On 19.12.2012, she stated that it was
11:45 A.M. when call was received and even the night on
27.03.2010, they came back to Delhi. She stated 11:45 A.M, but it
might have written as 11:45 P.M. When they reached Hamir Pur
where they received call by that time they have crossed Shimla and
were proceeding further. she has stated the word Hamir Pur but it
might have reduced Meer Pur due to pronunciation. The witness
denied the suggestion that she has stated the word Meer Pur.
Nirmal. She further deposed that when they reached home, police
SC No. 57663/2013
FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 27 of 184
officials were present at their she can not tell the total number of
police officials and their names. Some police officials were also on
civil dress.
19. PW-09 Meena Bodal further deposed during cross-
examination that there was an iron door on the back side of her
house and the height of the backside wall may be just above the
said iron door. However, she can not tell what was the height of
that backside wall. There was no grill on the backside wall of their
house. There is no call bell on the backside door of her house. PW-
Meena admitted that the suggestion that Harviner was good friend
of her husband and she also used to meet her husband outside her
shop. She does not know if her husband alongwith said Harvinder
used to eat and drink together almost everyday. The witness
admitted the suggestion that Harvinder was a property dealer. The
witness admitted the suggestion that that Mangat Ram was a cab
driver. The son of Mangat Ram namely Raju is having a jewellery
shop. her Jeth Raghubir Singh was also a cab driver. The son of
Raghubir Singh namely Yogesh Kumar was also having a
jewellery shop in their area. She knew one Raju Sardar also and
she was their neighbour. The witness admitted the suggestion that
Raju Sardar was having intimate relationship with her husband and
she was also visiting terms and used to meet him outside the shop.
She does not know if her husband used to eat and drink together
with said Raju Sardar also. The witness admitted the suggestion
that their pet dog was well familiar with Mangat Ram, Raghubir
and her family members. The witness voluntarily stated that
whenever any person used to enter inside their house, out pet dog
used to bark upon that person. There was an open space after
SC No. 57663/2013
FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 28 of 184
backwall of her house till the front room of the house and the
space was about 10 feet. The witness admitted the suggestion that
there was a wooden door with an iron mat wooden door (Jali wala
Darwaja). The witness admitted the suggestion that both these
doors were used to be locked by her husband at the time, she went
to sleep. Her house comprising of two rooms. She has one son
namely Mukul. When they enter into the house, the first room is
her bedroom having a double bed and adjacent to that is another
room which is having one Deewan. In her bedroom, there are two
iron almirahs and there is no almirah in the adjacent room. There
were blood stains on the side door of mall almirah. she has not
seen any blood stains on the handle of any of the almirah or in
their inside locker or shelf of the said almirah. She does not
remember the time when the police had met him but they met him
in the night.
20. PW Meena Bodal further deposed during his cross-
examination that on the day of incident, after getting the
information after the incident when they reached in the house they
entered from the back door. At the time when they reached the
house, they found the back doors were locked. Again said there
was no lock but it was closed and family members opened it which
included Mangat Ram, Raghubir Singh, Dharmender, Yogesh
Kumar and lot of many persons. when she entered in the back
courtyard her dog was sitting in one corner. There was no blood
spot on the body of their dog. Again said, she did not notice it.
When she entered in her room from back side, she was mentally
too much disturbed and she did not notice whether articles were
disturbed or scattered. However, she could only see the scene of
SC No. 57663/2013
FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 29 of 184
occurrence. Shutter of the shop was locked from the front side.
There was no lock inside on the shutter. she did not go to the shop
but she had gone upto the passage on the other side where there is
a channel door which was also locked. The blood was found near
to the channel but there was no blood in the shop. There is a
wooden door. inbetween both bedrooms. A transparent glass is
also fitted in that door. It was also blood stained. The blood was on
the side where the murder took place. The distance between the
intervening door of two rooms and the place where the murder had
happened, is about 6 feet. She does not remember whether police
was present at the time she reached home The witness voluntarily
stated that she was mentally too much disturbed. There are four
doors between the shop and the room where the murder has taken
place. There were blood stains on the door of the room which leads
to the shop. The dead body had already been removed from the
room when she reached. The other goods were also taken by the
police. In the room where the murder had taken place, there was
no almirah. Besides the Deewan, there was one wooden sofa, one
TV (with TV stand where she has created her temple) and a glass
table. There was blood all about in all the goods, except the TV.
Again said, she does not remember whether the blood was there on
the TV also. The blood has been on the floor and even gone uptill
ceiling.
21. PW Meena Bobal has further cross-examined by Ld.
Defence counsel and she deposed that she had told the police
official in her statement that one boy Nirmal used to work at their
house. her actual age is 43 or 44 years. However, she does not
know how this age 48 years is written in her statement dated
SC No. 57663/2013
FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 30 of 184
19.12.2012. She had stated in her statement before the police
Ex.PW10/D-A that one boy Nirmal who used to work at the shop
of her husband also used to work as servant at their house and in
the night she used to go back to her residence. (Confronted from
her statement Ex.PW10/D-A where in it is not so recorded).
Nirmal had not come to their shop or their house on 26.03.2010 as
it was a holiday. She does not know if Nirmal had come to their
house on 27.03.2010. The incident had been seen by their maid
servant who had come for the work in their house in the morning
on 27.03.2010. She does not know if the police had enquired from
her about the case or not. Her Jyasth (brother in law) Mangat Ram
and Raghubir Singh reside on the upper floor of their house.
Mangat Ram has two sons namely Raju and Pappu and Raghubir
Singh has one son namely Kalu and they are also reside on the
upper floor. She does not know if Raju was alleged for commiting
theft previously. Kallu is also known with the name Yogesh. The
witness admitted the suggestion that previously a theft had taken
place in their shop and they had named Yogesh @ Kallu in that
case and she was arrested. It was theft of gold and silver articles of
the shop. She used to come to their house off and on. Inder
complainant is also son of her Jayeth (brother-in-law) and is the
real brother of accused Deepak @ Deepu. They had no dispute
with the mother of Deepak @ Deepu. The witness admitted the
suggestion that her husband, father of Deepak @ Deepu, Deepak
@ Deepu and her brother Lovely were arrested in a case u/s
107/151 Cr.P.C. The disputes used to take place between her
husband and the family of Deepak @ Deepu and Lovely but even
then they used to talks between them. She had told the police.
SC No. 57663/2013
FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 31 of 184
Again said she does not remember if she had told the police that
when she reached the house, she found many persons had collected
in front of their house. (Confronted from her statement
Ex.PW10/D-A where in it is not so recorded). She had stated to the
police that when she went inside she found that blood was lying on
the floor and blood was also sprinkled on the walls of the inner
most room where her husband used to sleep on Diwan (single
bed). (Confronted from her statement Ex. PW10/D-A where in it is
not so recorded). They used to sleep in the night in the same room
on the floor where her husband used to sleep in the inner most
room as TV and AC were fitted in that room. The room where the
double bed was fitted used to be used by them as well as by any in
comer to the house during the day time. Sometime her Nand
Anjana used to come to stay in their house and sometime her
children Rishab and Suman also used to stay in their house. She
had told the police that from there it transpired that it was family
entry and accused was known and she got opened the door and
then on the occurrence had taken place. (Confronted from her
statement Ex.PW10/D-A where in it is not so recorded). She
further deposed during cross-examination that she had suspicion
upon the Deepak @ Deepu on the first day itself. But she did not
name him out as she was pressurised by her family not to name her
out as an accused. She had told this thing in her statement to the
police.(Confronted from her statement Ex.PW10/D-A where in it
is not so recorded). Her statement was recorded by the police in
the noon time. Deepak @ Deepu used to visit their house after this
incident as well never used to sit at the shop of her husband at the
time of her business or other. She has no knowledge what her
SC No. 57663/2013
FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 32 of 184
husband used to keep articles of the customer or used to give
money to them or used to maintain any account or not. She further
deposed that there is a safe kept in the shop and all the articles
used to be kept in that. She does not remember if she had told the
police that she being the wife of Surinder Bobal was aware as to
where the gold articles or the money used to be kept. (Confronted
from her statement Ex. PW10/D-A where in it is not so recorded).
The witness admitted the suggestion that she had no knowledge as
to who had come and what transaction had taken place on
25.03.2010 at the shop and similarly she had no knowledge if gold
articles were given or taken on that day. The witness deposed that
she had two almirahs during those days in her house in the room
where double bed was situated. The head of the double bed was
towards the partition wall of the room. Both the almirahs were
lying by the side of bed. One can reach to the almirah without
touching/crossing the bed. There is almirah on the right side when
one comes from the room of her husband to the room where
double bed was situated. But no part of these almirahs is in the
room of her husband. She had stated to the police that the cash and
the gold which was kept inside one almirah which was kept in the
other room which was adjacent to the inner most room.
(Confronted from her statement Ex.PW10/D-A where in it is not
so recorded). The witness admitted the suggestion that gold
pendent having the picture of Guru Nanak can be prepared and
worn by any person and similarly the person whose name starts
from “S” can also wear the ring having inscription over it with “S”.
The witness admitted the suggestion that she does not know as to
what articles of gold, silver or cash were brought by her husband
SC No. 57663/2013
FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 33 of 184
from the market on 26.03.2010, however, she had brought
something from the market. she had told the police. Again said she
does not remember if she had said the police that another iron
almirah was also kept in the room and this almirah contains their
personal used jewellery.(Confronted from her statement Ex.
PW10/D-A where in it is not so recorded). She does not remember
if she had stated to the police that this almirah was not opened by
the accused and the same was found intact meaning thereby that it
was some known person who committed the offence and it was
well within the knowledge of the accused that the cash and gold
articles are kept in the other almirah. (Confronted from her
statement Ex.PW10/D-A where in it is not so recorded). This
almirah was opened by him prior to giving the statement to the
police. She himself had not shown this almirah to the police. She
does not remember if the police had come on 28.03.2010 as well
but she has called the police on 29.03.2010 to show the blood stain
on the almirah but she does not know if the police had taken the
finger prints from there or not. At the time when she reached to her
house on 27.03.2010 her condition was abnormal because of
sudden death of her husband, therefore, she did not notice any foot
print on the floor in the room where the double bed was situated.
Since she had not seen the foot print, she can not say to what
extent foot prints were. When they reached their house on
27.03.2010 the double bed mattresses were lying on the bed. There
was no blood stain on the double bed. They did not check the
double bed by picking the mattresses from the double bed. She
further deposed that she had stated in her statement to the police
that her husband used to keep the keys of main almirah with him
SC No. 57663/2013
FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 34 of 184
always and it was in the knowledge of accused Deepak @ Deepu
Bobal @ Deepak @ Deepu. (Confronted from her statement
Ex.PW10/D-A where in it is not so recorded). She had stated to the
police that on 26.03.2010, Deepak @ Deepu Bobbal remained
inside their house and even she went outside many times and again
visited their house except Deepak @ Deepu remained their house
for a long time from 26.03.2010. (Confronted from her statement
Ex. PW10/D-A where in it is not so recorded). She had stated to
the police that her son Mukul stated that the shop is closed and she
does not have keys with him and on this Deepak @ Deepu stated
that keys are inside the suitcase. (Confronted from her statement
Ex. PW10/D-A where in it is not so recorded). She had also stated
to the police that accused Deepak @ Deepu was aware regarding
the place of keeping of the keys and all other things. (Confronted
from her statement Ex.PW10/D-A where in it is not so recorded).
She had also stated to the police that accused Deepak @ Deepu not
opened the shop through her son Mukul and got melted pieces of
gold and silver. (Confronted from her statement Ex.PW10/D-A
where in it is not so recorded). She further deposed that she had
stated before the police that on 29.03.2010, they had raised alarm
in the presence of her Jethani and her two sons regarding misplace
of two keys ring bunch and it appears that the key bunch later on
was kept beneath the mattresses.(Confronted from her statement
Ex.PW10/D-A where in it is not so recorded). She had also stated
to the police that to her mind these keys bunch might have been
kept by accused Deepak @ Deepu Bobbal as no other person
except Jethani and her two sons heard their objections regarding
non availability of the keys bunch. (Confronted from her statement
SC No. 57663/2013
FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 35 of 184
Ex.PW10/D-A where in it is not so recorded). The keys later on
were found by the police under the mattresses of the double bed
and they had called the police for the same. The witness denied the
suggestion that her son Mukul had produced the keys to the police
which were taken into the possession by the police through the
memo. She had seen Deepak @ Deepu in the street till the time
DNA test had taken place. However, she does not remember the
date. Deepak @ Deepu used to screen himself by seeing them in
the street, however, Depak @ deepu was be called by the police
for the investigation purpose. The witness admitted the suggestion
that she was not arrested. She does not remember when her
husband had given loan to Deepak @ Deepu and Inder on interest
basis, however, they used to get loan from her husband off and on.
She does not know how much loan had become debited towards
Inder and Deepak @ Deepu. She also do not know if the loan used
to be returned by the Deepak @ Deepu and Inder to her husband.
She had stated to the police that her husband had given some
amount of loan to Deepak @ Deepu and Inder on interest basis and
her husband used to help them financially (Confronted from her
statement Ex.PW10/D-A where in it is not so recorded). She had
also stated to the police that Inder was aware regarding the
availability of the gold articles and amount inside the almirah.
(confronted from her statement Ex. PW10/DA where in it is not so
recorded). She did not show her suspicion on Inder as Deepak @
Deepu had come to her house on that day and therefore, she had
suspected him. She does not know if at any time when Yogesh was
arrested for theft committed in their shop. She had named out
Deepak @ Deepu or not. The witness denied the suggestion that
SC No. 57663/2013
FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 36 of 184
she was intentionally naming Deepak @ Deepu to falsely
implicate him in this case and Deepak @ Deepu has no concerned
in that case as well. She denied the suggestion that the mattresses
shown in the court are not the same. She does not know if the
finger prints from the two keys ring was taken by the police or not.
she does not remember the colour of the pillow. The witness
denied the suggestion that she had identified the pillow in court
because she was told that this pillow was recovered by the police
in this case. However, the pillow which was shown to him was
torned one. However, she has left the pillow on 26.03.2010 that
was not torn. She does not know the identification of the mobile
phone but it was probably Matrola which started probably with
number 9. The witness denied the suggestion that the mobile
shown to him in the court was also not belonging to her husband.
she had not shown any receipt in regard to the ownership of the
Matrola phone to the police. Mangat Ram was present in the house
when she returned home on 27.03.2010. She further deposed that
the street in front of her house from the back side is about 10 feet.
The people walked in the road but it not was thickly populated.
The distance between the shop from where her husband had taken
chocklate in the night on 26.03.2010 is at the distance of five
minutes walk on foot but she can not tell the distance in
measurement. The witness admitted the suggestion that she was
told by the police that the chance finger prints did not tally with
the finger prints taken of many persons including the accused. The
witness voluntarily stated that as the place was distrubed as
number of persons had entered in the house and distrubed the
placed by touching the articles before the chance finger prints. The
SC No. 57663/2013
FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 37 of 184
witness admitted the suggestion that at the time when she had
returned on 27.03.2010 she did not find any person inside the
house. Therefore, she does not know who had gone inside and how
many persons had gone inside or had gone inside prior to their
reached to home. PW Meena denied the suggestion that she had
falsely suspected upon Deepak @ Deepu due to her enmity with
that family. The witness denied the suggestion that she had been
blaming her Jethani Smt. Asha about her relations with her
husband due to which she always had quarrel with the family of
his Jethani and her children namely Deepak @ Deepu and lovely.
She further denied the suggestion that she suspected Deepak @
Deepu and falsely implicated him because of this reason. The
witness denied the suggestion that she had jeasously also because
of the shop opened in their neighborhood in the name of New
Kartar Jewellers and because of that reason, she was feeling
jealousy and therefore falsely named him out. The witness denied
the suggestion that Deepak @ Deepu had gone out of station after
taking the permission from the police after she was cleared
because of non matching of her finger prints with the chance prints
and after that she had gone for her business trip but in the
meantime due to the political reason and also due to her jealousy
with Deepak @ Deepu, she named Deepak @ Deepu and falsely
implicated him in this case. The witness denied the suggestion that
Deepak @ Deepu is innocent and nothing has been recovered at
her instance. The witness denied the suggestion that she is
deposing falsely.
After allowing of applicaion u/s 311 Cr.P.C, PW Meena
deposed that during the pendency of the trial in the present case, he
SC No. 57663/2013
FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 38 of 184
has got released cash amount of Rs.14.5 Lakhs in total on
Superdari as per the Order of the Hon’ble Court and she had signed
two indemnity bonds i.e. one for Rs.4.5 Lakhs and one for Rs.10
Lakhs at the time of release of the cash amount. Photocopies of the
currency notes were kept in the Malkhana at that time. She can
identify the said indemnity bonds if shown to him. At that stage,
witness is shown original indemnity bond from the judicial file
pertaining to release of cash amount of Rs.4.5 Lakhs and the same
is shown to the witness and witness has identify her signatures on
the same. Indemnity bond is Ex.PW-10/X bearing her signatures at
point A. At that time of releasing the amount, she had also filed No
Objection Certificate on behalf of her son as per the direction of
the Hon’ble Court. At that stage No Objection Certificate from the
judicial file is shown to the witness and witness identify the
signatures of Mukul at point A and B on No Objection Certificate
Ex.PW-10/Y (Objected to by Ld Defence Counsel on the mode of
proof on the point of signatures of Mukul). At that stage, MHC(M)
PS Moti Nagar has produced photocopy of indemnity bond
pertaining to release of Rs.10 Lakhs is shown to the witness.
(Original of the same is not stated to be traceable by the MHC(M)
till then and statement of IO and the then MHC(M) and the present
MHC(M) had already been recorded in this regard). Witness
identify the signatures on the same. Photocopy of Indemnity bond
is now Mark X bearing signatures of witness at point A and the
photocopy of Voter ID Card of witness is Mark X1 bearing
signatures of witness at point A as attesting witness. Photocopy of
No Objection Certificate of Mukul in favour of witness is Mark X2
bearing signatures of Mukul at point A. (Objected to by Ld
SC No. 57663/2013
FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 39 of 184
Defence Counsel on the mode of proof on the point of signatures
of Mukul).
22. In the cross examination Ld Counsel for accused Deepak @
Deepu. She deposed that she had got released the said amount as
the same was proceeds of the gold. No proof in regard to the gold
for which the money had been recovered is with her. The witness
voluntarily stated that the copy through which the gold ornaments
were pledged by the different customers is with him and she can
produce the same. There was no license with her husband about
the pledging of gold ornaments by the customers. There was no
license with her husband in regard to advancing of loan to the
different customers as per Money Laundering Act. She deposed
that she does not remember at that point of time as to how much
gold was lying with her husband. She denied the suggestion that
the gold never belonged to her husband or their family. She denied
the suggestion that no such gold was ever pledged with her
husband by different customers. The witness denied the suggestion
that she has claimed this amount falsely without proof. The
witness denied the suggestion that the amount so claimed by her
never belonged to him and she had made a false representation to
the Court for getting this amount. She denied the suggestion that
endorsement Ex.PW-10/2 is not in her handwriting and it bears
only her signatures. PW Meena admitted the suggestion that
accused Deepak @ Deepu was also running the gold shop. The
witness admitted the suggestion that the money of Rs.14.5 Lakhs
was recovered from the house of Deepak @ Deepu at the time of
her arrest alongwith certain gold ornaments. The witness denied
the suggestion that since Deepak @ Deepu was also running the
SC No. 57663/2013
FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 40 of 184
gold shop, the whole of the amount was kept by him at her
house/shop for purchase of property. The witness denied the
suggestion that out of the amount received from the house of
accused Deepak @ Deepu, some gold ornaments which were
recovered belonged to mother of accused and some of the money
was also belonging to her as she had also sold her ornaments to
help accused Deepak @ Deepu to purchase the property. The
witness denied the suggestion that accused Deepak @ Deepu has
the proof of all the money recovered as well as gold. The witness
denied the suggestion that she had wrongly claimed the whole
amount without any proof/claim. The witness denied the
suggestion that her application for releasing the amount was also
misrepresentation to the Court. The witness denied the suggestion
that at the time of her first statement she had never mentioned
about the loss of gold ornaments but later on at the suggestion of
her counsel she moved the false application for claiming the
amount.
23. PW-11, ASI Bircha Singh, No.2523//W, PS Moti Nagar
deposed that on 02.06.2010, he was posted at PS Moti Nagar.
Accused Deepak @ Deepu was on police remand and he joined the
investigation of the present case along with Insp. Jagvinder Singh
and Ct. Suman. On 02.06.10, he along with above named police
official and accused Deepak @ Deepu proceeded from Delhi in a
private taxi for going to Ludhiana. They reached at village Kuhar,
Palm City, Flat No. 262. First and foremost they met with one
Vishal, Incharge of Palm City Apartment. Accused Deepak @
Deepu had purchased Flat No. 262. The aforesaid flat was under
construction. He had taken photographs of the same from his
SC No. 57663/2013
FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 41 of 184
mobile. Later on, he gave photographs to the IO after getting the
same developed. Thereafter, accused Deepak @ Deepu had taken
them to Deepa General Store which was just in front of Palm City,
where Deepak @ Deepu was residing as tenant. Mr. Deepa, owner
of Deepa general store was called and he opened the room. Bundle
of newspaper were lying and beneath those newspaper bandal, one
polythene was lying. It was checked and it was found containing
one expired passport and another passport in the name of Surender,
Voter ID of Surender, one cheque book in the name of Surender,
one application addressed to Manager, Bank Of India. All these
articles were kept in a parcel and it was sealed by the IO and was
taken into possession by the IO through seizure memo. Ex-
PW11/A which bears his signatures at point A. He identified
accused Deepak @ Deepu who is present before the court that day.
He deposed that he has seen same photographs placed on judicial
file. These are the same photographs which were taken by him
from his mobile at Palm City. Photographs are collectively Ex-PA.
He identified the case property i.e. one envelope in unsealed
condition is taken out from the judicial file. Envelope is got
opened and it is found containing two passports, both the passports
are in the name of Surender Singh, one Election I-Card bearing no.
SZN 0837492 in the name of Surender Singh, two licenses having
same license no. CO4052001250434 in the name of Surender
Singh, one passbook of A/C No. 20304 in the name of Surender
Singh. He has seen the case property. He identified the case
property as the same which was taken into possession in his
presence. The case property is Ex.PX.
24. PW-12 W/ASI Veena deposed that on 27.03.2010, he was
SC No. 57663/2013
FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 42 of 184
posted at PS Moti Nagar as duty officer. On that day, at about
02:20 PM, he recorded aforesaid FIR on the basis of tehrir sent by
ASI Preetpal Singh through Ct. Bablu. He has brought original
FIR register containing the computerized FIR. Photocopy of the
same is Ex.PW12/A. Original seen and returned. After recording
the FIR, he gave copy of FIR and original tehrir after making his
endorsement on the same vide Ex.PW12/B which bears his
signatures at point A to same constable for giving the same to Insp.
Jagvinder as investigation was marked to him. He has also brought
original DD register containing DD NO. 14A dated 27.03.2010.
True copy of the same is Ex.PW12/C, which bears his signatures at
point A.
25. PW13 Dr. Manoj Jain deposed that he was having another
house situated at A-5/294, Third Floor, Paschim Vihar. He has
given the said flat on rent to one person namely Deepak @ Deepu.
On 31.05.2010, he received a call from police official and at about
5.00 PM. he reached at this flat. He found one inspector alongwith
3-4 other constables, accused Deepak @ Deepu, Sanjay Sharma,
an employee of property dealer through whom he had given the
said flat to Deepak @ Deepu, two other persons who were known
to Sanjay Sharma and they were also property dealer. Police
officials in his presence broken the lock of the flat with the help of
chisel and hammer. One polythene was taken out which was lying
in the cabinet beneath the washbasin. It was found containing
blood stained jeans pant, one shirt, one underwear one baniyan,
one pair of socks and one pair of Canvas Shoes. That polythene
was also containing two blood stained knifes. Police officials have
taken all these articles into their possession and kept the same in
SC No. 57663/2013
FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 43 of 184
parcels. Police officials have also seized the broken lock from the
aforesaid flat. He also produced the police verification form of
Deepak @ Deepu, their rent agreement with him which police
officials have taken into their possession through seizure memo
vide Ex.PW13/A which bears his signatures at point A. He has
seen documents i.e. seizure memo, blood stained cloths, sketch of
the knives, seizure memo of knives, seizure memo of broken lock
and site plan of the flat, documents are Ex.PW13/B, Ex.PW13/C,
Ex.PW13/D, Ex.PW13/E and Ex.PW13/F which bears his
signatures at point A. He has also seen the verification form of
tenant and the original rent agreement which is Ex.PW13/G and
Ex. PW13/H which bear his signatures at point A. He identified
accused Deepak @ Deepu present in the court, as the same person
who was residing in his aforesaid flat and the aforesaid articles
were recovered from this flat in his presence. The witness deposed
that he will try to identify the case property if shown to him as
long time has elapsed. At that stage MHC(M) produced Parcel no.
18 sealed with the seal of Court and the same is opened and found
to contain one shirt, one jeans pant, one baniyan, one underwear,
one pair of socks, one pair of shoes blood stained, same are taken
out from the pullanda and shown to the witness. After seeing the
said clothes and shoes, witness stated that he is not sure if these
were the same clothes or shoes which were got recovered by
accused in his presence and seized by the IO due to long gap of
time. At that stage, MHC(M) produced Parcel no. 19 sealed with
the seal of Court and the same is opened and found to contain one
knife, same is taken out from the pullanda and shown to the
witness. After seeing the said knife, witness states that he is not
SC No. 57663/2013
FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 44 of 184
sure if this was the same knife which was got recovered by
accused in his presence and seized by the IO due to long gap of
time. At that stage MHC(M) produced Parcel no. 20 sealed with
the seal of Court and the same is opened and found to contain one
knife, same is taken out from the pullanda and shown to the
witness. After seeing the said knife, witness states that he is not
sure if this was the same knife which was got recovered by
accused in his presence and seized by the 10 due to long gap of
time. At that stage MHC(M) produced one parcel sealed with the
court seal and the same is opened and found to contain one lock,
same is taken out from a piece of cloth and shown to the witness.
After seeing the said lock, witness states that he is not sure if this
was the same lock, which was got recovered by accused in his
presence and seized by the IO due to long gap of time. At that
stage, Ld. State Counsel sought permission to put leading
questions to the witness as he has not disclosed the complete facts
with regard to case property.The witness admitted the suggestion
that he had deposed in the court on 24.07.13 in this case
voluntarily and without any pressure. The witness admitted the
suggestion that he was not able to identify the above mentioned
articles properly as more than nine years have passed since the
date of recovery.
26. PW-14 Dheeraj s/o Late Sh. Shiv Narayan Kalra deposed
that he was running D.K. Jewellery Shop from the aforesaid
address. He has got work with Deepak @ Deepu for the period of
8 years. Later on he came to know the murder of the owner of
Kartar Jeweller. He does not know anything else. He has given one
affidavit in the present case at the instance of police official and he
SC No. 57663/2013
FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 45 of 184
was asked forcibly by the police official to sign on that affidavit.
He does not know the contents of the same. He deposed that
Police had recorded his statement in this case. He can identify
accused Deepak @ Deepu as present in the court that day (witness
correctly identified accused Deepak @ Deepu) as he had worked at
his jewelery shop as helping hand for serving water to the
customers. Accused had never mortgaged any jewelery articles
with him in lieu of loan of any amount from him. Accused had
never obtained loan of Rs.30,000/- from him. He tunred hostile
and despite cross-examination by Ld. Addl. PP for the State
27. PW-15 Sudhir, s/o Sh. Shiv Narayan deposed that he was
running Krishna Fancy Jeweller Shop from the aforesaid address.
He knew Deepak @ Deepu as he was also in the same business as
he used to meet him in the area of Karol Bagh. He does not know
regarding the present case. Police Official have obtained his
signatures forcibly on stamp paper. He turned hostile.
28. PW-16 HC Lokender Singh deposed that on 31.05.2010, he
was posted at PS Moti Nagar. On that day, he joined the
investigation of the present case with Insp. Jagminder Singh.
Accused Deepak @ Deepu was taken out from the lockup.
Thereafter, they alongwith accused. SI Raghubir Singh, ASI P.P.
Singh went at Rohini Sports Complex, Sector-9, Rohini, Delhi.
One shopkeeper namely Himanshu Kapoor produced some
documents regarding mobile connection and IO had taken those
documents into his possession through seizure memo. Thereafter,
they went to hotel Decent, Paharganj, Delhi and IO collected the
documents regarding the stay of accused in that hotel. Thereafter,
they went to New Khusdil hotel near Fatehpuri Masjid, Chandni
SC No. 57663/2013
FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 46 of 184
Chowk and IO also collected the documents regarding stay of
accused in this hotel. Thereafter, they all went to Paschim Vihar at
the residence of accused Deepak @ Deepu. He did not remember
the complete address of accused Deepak @ Deepu at that moment.
Owner of the house Dr. Manoj was called and another person
through whom Deepak @ Deepu got the rented accommodation in
that house was also called. In the presence of Dr. Manoj and
another person, the lock of door of the rented flat of accused
Deepak @ Deepu was got broken and thereafter, they all entered
inside time flat. He deposed that Accused Deepak @ Deepu
produced one polythene which was kept beneath the wash basin. It
was found containing one shirt of Saleti colour having blue lines,
one pant of blue colour, one Baniyan of white colour, one pair of
shocks and one pair of canvas shoes, two Churies. IO checked all
these articles. On Chaku/Churies word ‘Globe’ was written and
these were made of steel and the Chaku/Chries were having double
edges both side sharp. IO prepared sketch of Chaku/Churies. 10
also measured the Chaku/Churies. One Chaku/Churies was having
total length 21Cm. The length of the blade was 10.5 Cm and
handle was also 10.5 Cm. Another Chaku/Churies was having total
length 19.7Cm. The length of the blade was 9Cm and handle was
also 10.7 Cm. Both the knives were kept in two separate parcels
and both the parcels were sealed with the seal of JSM and parcels
were given serial no.1 and no.2. All the other articles were kept in
separate parcels and it was also sealed with the seal of JSM. They
searched for 3 knives as disclosed by the accused, behind the park
of the said flat but it could not be traced. IO prepared pointing out
memo of the place of recovery of the case property. IO recorded
SC No. 57663/2013
FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 47 of 184
statement of DR. Manoj and another person. He has seen
document already Ex.PW13/B,C,D,E which bears his signatures at
point A. At the time when jeans pant was recovered from the
polythene, six slips/bills from the pocket of that pant. IO had also
taken the relevant rent documents from the owner of the premises
namely Dr. Manoj. After taking all the aforesaid articles they came
back to PS. He identified accused Deepak @ Deepu, present
before the court. He deposed that accused Deepak @ Deepu was
also got medically examined. He has nothing more to say. He can
identifed the case property. At that stage MHC (M) produced the
case property in a sealed parcel bearing No.18, sealed with the seal
of Court. The seals are broken and case property are taken out
from the envelope. One blue jeans pant, one Shirt having lines of
blue and light brown, one pair of socks of light brown colour, one
pair of blue, one undergarment of blue colour and one Banyan of
white colour are found present in the envelope. All the cloths were
having blood stains. Witness identified the same and the same are
collectively exhibited as Ex P. 16A.
At that stage MHC (M) produced the case property in a
sealed parcel bearing No.19, sealed with the seal of FSL. The seals
are broken and case property i.e. one knife found present in the
envelope. The said knife is shown to the witness, who identified
the same. The knife is Ex P-16B. The handle of the knife is of
green colour. MHC (M) further produced the case property in a
sealed parcel bearing No.20, sealed with the seal of FSL. The seals
are broken and case property i.e. knife found present in the
envelope. The said knife is shown to the witness, who identified
the same. The knife is Ex P-16C. MHC (M) also produced the case
SC No. 57663/2013
FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 48 of 184
property in a sealed pulanda sealed with the seal of JSM. The seals
are broken and case property ie one lock found present in the
Pulanda The said lock is shown to the witness, who identified the
same. The lock is Ex P-16D.
29. PW-17 Jagdeep Kumar Deepa deposed that in May 2010,
the official of Delhi Police came to him at Kohara alongwith the
accused Deepak @ Deepu present in the Court that day. Accused
Deepak @ Deepu was in police custody at that time. He had rented
out one room of his premises to accused Deepak @ Deepu and he
stayed there for 4-5 days, as he told him that his house at Palam
Vihar is under construction and he is busy in purchasing and other
task of household. Police made inquiries from him and also search
the room but nothing was recovered and he turned hostile.
30. PW-18 Sh Naveen Srivastava deposed that he was a
summoned witness. He has brought photocopy of summoned
record in respect of the saving account held by Deepak @ Deepu
Kumar bearing No.083101500745 in their Laxmi Nagar Branch.
The account as per records is in existence since 23.07.2009 and is
still in existence but at a dormant stage now. He deposed that that
day he has brought the summoned record i.e. Bank Statement of
Account no. 083101500745 INR 0831of Deepak @ Deepu Kumar
which was opened in the ICICI Bank, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi. The
bank statement is duly attested by him on each page and also bears
the stamp of the present Bank branch where he was posted. The
bank statement is Ex. PW18/A (colly) (containing 04 sheets)
which was already marked as mark Z1, which bears his signatures
at point A on each sheet. He has also seen original account
opening form (containing 03 sheets) which was received/collected
SC No. 57663/2013
FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 49 of 184
by the IO from the staff of ICICI Bank branch Laxmi Nagar, Delhi
where he was posted at that time. The same are collectively Ex.
PW18/B (colly).
31. PW-19 Sh Kapil Mehra deposed that he has brought the
account statement of the A/C of one Deepak @ Deepu Kumar vide
account No. 083101500745 in Laxmi Nagar Branch. The said
account is in existence since 23.7.2009 and is still in existence but
in dormant stage. The said account statement is certified bears the
seal of the bank and his signatures and it is the computer generated
record. He was also annexing with it certificate U/S 65-B of the
Indian Evidence Act. The said account statement runs into three
pages and the same are collectively Ex19/A (Objected to on the
mode of proof) The certificate U/S 65-B of the Indian Evidence
Act is Ex PW19/B (Objected to on the mode of proof).
32. PW-20 Sh Pradeep Kumar deposed that in the year 2010, he
was working with Palm City Real Estate Group. Ashok Malhotra
was the Director of the said group. He was one of the employees
of said group and he was authorised to conduct registry on behalf
of the company at the time of sale. A registry was done of one plot
No. 269 again said 262 of Palm City and as an authorised person
of the company for the sale of plot to Deepak @ Deepu and he
signed on the same. Deepak @ Deepu was the buyer and he stood
in the name of seller on behalf of the company. One Ravi was the
witness to the said registry. He had not handed over any
documents to the police. He does not know who had handed over
the said documents to the police. The said registry was got done at
Transport Nagar, Ludhiana. It was a structure on the plot No.262
of 90 yards. Deepak @ Deepu was present in the court and he was
SC No. 57663/2013
FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 50 of 184
correctly identified. The said registered document is Ex PW20/A,
which runs into five pages. Each of page of the said registry bears
his signatures at point A on all pages. The 5th page bears his
photograph as well. The said sale deed was done on 30.04.2010.
33. PW-21 Sh.Vishal deposed that in the year 2010, he was
working with Palm City Real Estate Group as Project Manager.
Ashok Malhotra was the Director of the said group. He was one of
the employees of said group. He further deposed that On
28.05.2010, IO alongwith 2/3 police officials came to his office,
again said, Deepak @ Deepu also accompanied with the police
officials. They enquired about the purchase of any plot by Deepak
@ Deepu. he furnished registered document of Plot No.262, Palm
City Kohara to the IO. IO seized the same vide seizure memo Ex
PW21/A, bearing his signatures at point A. The sale of the said
semi structured single floor house was between Ashok Malhotra
Group of Companies and Sh Deepak @ Deepu. Pardeep Kumar
has signed on behalf of seller. He does not remember as to who
has pointed out the semi structured single floor house No. 262. 10
prepared a pointing out memo of Plot No. 262 in his presence. The
same is Ex PW21/B,bearing his signatures at point A. Deepak @
Deepu is present in the Court, correctly identified. Police recorded
his statement.
34. PW-22 Retired SI Jai Singh deposed that On 27.03.2010, he
was posted as Incharge, Crime Team. He received a message from
West District Control Room to reach at B-1/43, Ground Floor,
New Moti Nagar. he reached the place of occurrence with his team
members i.e. HC Devender, Constable Suresh Kumar and one staff
member from Dog Squad. he inspected the spot. He deposed that
SC No. 57663/2013
FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 51 of 184
one chance print was lifted by constable Suresh Kumar and HC
Devender photographed the spot at his instance. His detailed
report, running in two pages, is Ex. PW22/A, bears his signatures
at point-A & B.
35. PW-23 Inspector Jagminder Singh deposed that on
27.03.2010, he was posted as ATO PS Moti Nagar. On that day,
investigation of case FIR No. 81/2010 was entrusted to him after
registration of case, on the statement of Inder @ Lovely through
ASI P.P Singh. Afterwards, he had got inspected the scene of
crime from Crime Team and statements of crime team staff were
recorded after obtaining crime team report already Ex PW22/A.
Crime scene was also got photographed. Thereafter, he prepared
rough site plan Ex PW23/A of the spot. He conducted the inquest
proceedings of deceased after filling up form 25.35-B in the
presence of witnesses vide Ex PW23/B and he made the request to
the Doctor for PM vide request letter Ex PW23/C, having his
signatures at point A. He further deposed that he had lifted the
exhibits i.e. blood stained mattresses tone big and one small),
dressing table cover (blood stained) and blood stained pillow
which were seized vide seizure memos Ex PW 23/D and PW23/E
after converting them into a separate pullanda and sealing with the
seal of JSM having his signatures at point A both the memos. he
seized the blood stained earth and earth control vide seizure memo
Ex PW 23/F having his signatures at point A after converting
them into pullanda and sealing them with the seal of JSM. He
also deposed that On 27.03.2010 he was posted at PS Moti Nagar
as Inspector ATO. DD no. 14A PS Moti Nagar had already been
marked to ASI P.P. Singh for necessary action on that day.
SC No. 57663/2013
FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 52 of 184
Thereafter, he alongwith the then SHO Inspector Hoshiyar Singh
Yadav and other staff also reached at the spot i.e. H.No. B-1/43,
Ground Floor, New Moti Nagar, Delhi where they found ASI P.P.
Singh already present there. After reaching at the spot they found
dead body of a male person lying on single bed inside the room of
the said house. The dead body was identified to be of one Surinder
Singh s/o. Late Kartar Singh. Dead body was lying in a pool of
blood. There were injury marks on the neck, chest, abdomen and
leg of the deceased. Blood was found scattered on the chaddar of
the single bed, mattress, pillow, small dressing table, small towel,
rexine cover which was lying on the table at the spot. Blood was
also found scattered on the wall of the room. They also found one
pet dog stated to be of deceased sitting in the courtyard of the spot
towards jewellery shop. On inquiry, they came to know that the
family members i.e. wife and son of the deceased have gone on a
trip to Shimla and Dharamshala in H.P. with their relatives. They
also came to know at the spot that on the upper floor of the said
house and one brother of the deceased is residing and at the
adjacent house the family of one of the deceased brother of present
deceased Surinder was residing. It was also found that third
brother of the deceased was also residing in the same block. One
Inder Bobal met them at the spot who told that he is nephew of the
deceased Surinder and they made inquiry from him about the
incident. Thereafter, the statement was recorded by ASI P.P. Singh
which is already Ex. PW37/A and ASI P.P. Singh prepared rukka
on the same and was sent to Moti Nagar for the registration of the
case through Const. Babloo. On the basis of the said rukka the
present case was registered. After registration the present case
SC No. 57663/2013
FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 53 of 184
constable Babloo reached at the spot and he handed over original
rukka and copy of FIR to him. Crime Team officers alongwith dog
squad had reached at the spot who inspected the spot and
photographer took photograph of the spot as well as of the dead
body from different angles. Finger print expert also lifted chance
print from the spot. Crime team In- charge handed over his report
to him at the spot. He also lifted blood stain, single bed sheet, one
small pillow, small blood stained towel, blood stained rexine
cover, blood stained cloth piece cover which was laid down in
Almirah and the same were sealed in the pulanda with the seal of
JSM. He also took into possession two blood stained TV remote,
one blood stained spectacles, one blood stained mobile cover of
mobile phone of the deceased, one namakdani, some visiting cards
and the same were sealed in the pulanda with the seal of JSM and
were taken into possession vide seizure memo already Ex.
PW37/B which bears his signatures at point X. He also took into
possession one blood stained currency note in the denomination of
Rs. 50/- from the spot which was taken out from the pocket of the
wearing pajama of the deceased. The note was sealed in a pulanda
with the seal of JSM and was taken into possession vide seizure
memo already Ex. PW37/C which bears his signatures at point X.
He also took into possession the mobile phone of the deceased
from the spot after removing its blood stained cover vide seizure
memo already Ex. PW37/A which bears his signatures at point X.
Thereafter, on the written request of ASI P.P. Singh addressed to
In-charge mortuary to preserve the dead body of the deceased.
Thereafter, the dead body of the deceased was shifted to DDU
hospital mortuary through Constable Kishan in the vehicle.
SC No. 57663/2013
FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 54 of 184
Thereafter, he reached at PS Moti Nagar. Case property was
deposed by him in the mallkahan intact he recorded the statement
of the witnesses on that day. He searched for the suspect/accused
of the present incident but he did not find any clue on that day in
this regard. On 27.03.2010 he came to know that family member
of the deceased has returned from their trip but due to late hours
they could not be contacted. He deposed that on 28.03.2010, he
went to mortuary in DDU hospital. In the meantime, the family
member of the deceased including Sh. Mukul, son of deceased and
brothers of deceased, namely, Raghubir and Mangat Ram also
reached in the mortuary. Dead body of deceased duly identified by
Mukul, Raghubir Singh and Mangat Ram. He recorded their
statements which are already Ex. PW8/A, Ex. PW6/A and Ex.
PW2/A respectively and bears his signatures at point X.
Thereafter, he prepared inquest proceedings. Thereafter, the
postmortem of the body of deceased was conducted and after the
postmortem dead body of the deceased was handed over to the
family member of the deceased vide receipt already Ex. PW6/B
which bears his signatures at point X. After the postmortem doctor
handed over three pulandas and three sample seals sealed with the
seal of DFMT DDU hospital, to him and the same were taken into
possession by him vide seizure memo already Ex. PW42/B which
bears his signatures at point X. At the time of moving application
for postmortem he prepared brief facts. The same is Ex. PW23/G
which bears his signatures at point X. Thereafter, he came back to
PS. Case property was deposited by him in the mallkhana intact.
As the family members of the deceased were in a shock due to the
incident and they have to cremate the dead body, hence, he could
SC No. 57663/2013
FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 55 of 184
not record their statement on that day. He deposed that on
29.03.2010 he had visited the spot i.e. house of the deceased where
wife of deceased Smt. Meena and Mukul, son of deceased and
some other family members met him there. Mukul has handed over
blood stained bunch of keys stating that he had found the same
underneath the mattress lying on the double bed inside the other
room. The bunch of keys was sealed by him in the pulanda with
the seal of JSM and was taken into possession vide seizure memo
already Ex. PW42/X which bears his signatures at point X. Mukul
also handed over one photograph of deceased Surinder and the
same was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex. PW23/H
which bears his signatures at Point X. Mukul signed the same at
point Y. ASI P.P. Singh signed the same at point Z. Thereafter, he
recorded the statement of Smt. Meena and Mukul u/s. 161 Cr.PC
and they had strongly suspect the role of accused Deepak @
Deepu for the murder of Surinder Singh. Thereafter, he was
deputed for arrangement duty from 30.03.2010 to 12.04.2010 in
New Delhi District by the senior officers hence, the case file was
marked to Inspector Raj Kumar, the then Inspector Investigation,
PS Moti Nagar.
He further deposed that on 13.04.2010 the investigation in
the present case was again marked to him. He received the case
file. Thereafter, he sought consent from Deepak @ Deepu, Inder
@ Lovely, Navkesh @Sonu and Smt. Asha for conducting their
polygraph test by way of serving notice upon them . Accordingly
all the four person have given their consent for conducting said test
and the notice given to Deepak @ Deepu is Ex. PW23/1 which
bears his signatures at point X. Accused Deepak @ Deepu had
SC No. 57663/2013
FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 56 of 184
given in writing which is his own hand with undertaking that he
will be available for the said test on 19.04.2010 to 21.04.2010. The
reply of the accused is Ex. PW23/J which bears signature of the
accused at point X and was duly attested by him at point Y.
However, accused Deepak @ Deepu disappeared from his house
on 19.04.2010 and despite his sincere efforts. He did not find any
clue about his whereabouts. Thereafter, he obtained NBW of
accused from the court of Ld. MM. He got opened the LOC of
accused and also made other efforts to trace him but of no avail.
Process u/s. 82 Cr.PC was got initiated against the accused from
the court concerned. he alongwith his staff left Delhi for Ludhiana
in search of the accused. When he was present at Ludhiana on
24.05.2010 he received information from PS that accused Deepak
@ Deepu was arrested in the present case by the joint team of
special staff West District and police team led by Inspector Raj
Kumar of PS Moti Nagar, in Delhi. Thereafter, he came back to
Delhi. Inspector Raj Kumar handed over the relevant documents
pertaining to the arrest and recovery effected at the instance of
accused during the investigation remained with him. On
25.05.2010 accused was taken out from the lock-up by him and
was produced in the court of Ld. MM and he obtained PC remand
of the accused from the court.
He also deposed that after obtaining PC remand of accused
Deepak @ Deepu for seven days on 25.05.2010 accused was
interrogated by him on that day. Thereafter, accused led them to
the place of occurrence i.e. H.No. B-1/43, Ground floor, New Moti
Nagar and pointed out the place of occurrence. he prepared pointed
out memo in this regard and the same is already Ex. PW2/B bears
SC No. 57663/2013
FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 57 of 184
his signatures at point X. Thereafter, he alongwith accused came
back to police station. In the presence of accused Deepak @ Deepu
@Deepu two person namely Sudhir s/o. Sh. Shiv Narayan and
Dheeraj Kalra s/o. Sh. Shiv Narayan reached in the police station.
He made inquiry from them in the presence of accused Deepak @
Deepu. Sudhir Kumar s/o. Shiv Narayan handed over cash amount
of Rs. 70,000/- denomination of Rs. 1000/- and Rs. 500/- to him
stating that the said amount was handed over to him by accused
Deepu on 09.4.2010 at the time of releasing the mortgaged
jewellery articles of his wife mortgaged by accused with Sudhir.
The said cash amount was sealed by him in pulanda with the seal
of JSM and was taken into possession vide seizure memo already
Ex. PW42/H bears his signatures at point X. Accused Deepak @
Deepu signed the same at point Y and witness Sudhir signed the
same at point Z. He deposed that Dheeraj Kalra handed over cash
amount Rs. 30,000/- containing currency notes in denomination of
Rs. 500/-, Rs. 100/- and Rs. 50/- to him in the presence of the
accused Deepak @ Deepu by stating that accused has handed over
the said cash amount to him on 18.4.2010 in lieu of release of his
mortgaged jewellery from him. The said currency notes were
sealed by him in a pulanda with the seal of JSM and were taken
into possession vide seizure memo already Ex. PW42/1 which
bears his signatures at point X. Accused signed the same at point Y
and Dheeraj Kalra signed the same at point Z. Thereafter, he
recorded the statement of both the witnesses mentioned above u/s.
161 Cr.PC. The case property was deposited by him in the
malkhana. Accused was kept in the lock-up.
He also deposed that on 26.05.2010 accused was taken out
SC No. 57663/2013
FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 58 of 184
from the lock-up and he led them to Kamla Nagar, Delhi and he
pointed out towards a scooter make NV-LML bearing registration
no. DL6SF-9511 which was parked near McDonald which was
used by the accused while leaving the spot after the incident. The
said scooter was seized by him vide seizure memo already Ex.
PW42/J which bears his signatures at point X. Accused signed the
same at point Y. Thereafter, they came back to police station. The
scooter was deposited by him in the mallkhana. He recorded the
statement of witnesses including ASI PP Singh who was with him
at that time and accused was kept in the lock-up. He also deposed
that on 27.5.2010 accused was taken out from the lock-up.
Accused led them to shop no. 6/1 M/s. Malik Emporium, Jawala
Heri Market from where he had purchased three knives on
26.3.2010 and he prepared pointing out memo in this regard and
same is already Ex. PW4/A bears his signatures at point X.
Accused signed the same at point Y. He recorded the statement of
Om Prakash Malik occupier/owner of the said shop. Thereafter,
accused led them at shop no. 34/5 shoe corner, Kirti Nagar, main
road from where he had purchased one pair of shoes make Canvas
on 26.3.2010. He prepared the pointing out memo which is already
Ex. PW7/A bears his signatures at point X and accused signed the
same at point Y. He recorded the statement of owner of the said
shop namely Suresh Kumar u/s 161 Cr.PC. Thereafter, they
alongwith accused came back at PS Moti Nagar. In the presence of
accused one public person namely Vipin Anand from whom
accused had purchased the Santro Car bearing registration
no.DL3CAA-8904. Sh.Vipin Anand handed over the original RC
of the said car alongwith other relevant documents including the
SC No. 57663/2013
FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 59 of 184
photocopy of the delivery receipt, licence of accused Deepak @
Deepu and copy of LIC of accused Deepak @ Deepu to him. He
took the same into possession vide seizure memo already Ex.
PW1/A which bears his signatures at point X and accused signed
the same at point Y. He recorded the statement of Sh. Vipin Anand
u/s. 161 Cr.PC. He had seen the original RC from the file that day
and the same is Ex. PW23/Y. The photocopy of delivery receipt is
marked as mark A. Photocopy of the driving licence of accused is
marked as mark B. Photocopy of LIC is marked as mark C.
Thereafter, accused was kept in the lock-up. He deposed that on
28.5.2010 accused was taken out from the lock-up and Thereafter,
he alongwith SI Raghuvir Singh and other staff left the PS for
outstation i.e. for Ludhiana with accused in the investigation in the
case. Accused led them to house no. 262, Palam City, Kohara
Village, Ludhiana, Punjab stating that the said house was
purchased by him from the robbed money and from the sale
consideration of the robbed jewellery from the house of the
deceased after committing his murder. (objected to by Ld. Defence
Counsel). He prepared pointing out memo in that regard which is
already Ex.PW21/B which bears his signature at point X and
accused signed the same at point Y. The care taker of the society
namely, Vishal Hasteer who joined the investigation at that time
also signed the same. He recorded the statement of Vishal Hasteer.
Vishal Hasteer also handed over the documents pertaining to the
said house to him including original sale deed of the said house to
him and the same were taken into possession by him vide seizure
memo already Ex. PW21/A which bears his signature at point X.
The sale deed is already Ex. PW20/A and He has placed the said
SC No. 57663/2013
FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 60 of 184
documents on record. Thereafter, accused led us to Hotel Paradise
situated near Bus Stand opposite Dhyan Singh Complex, Ludhiana
and the owner of the said Hotel namely, Nirman Ji handed over the
original visitor register pertaining the relevant entries of the
relevant date w.e.f. 04.12.09, 15.05.10 and the said register was
taken into possession by him vide seizure memo already Ex.
PW9/A which bears his signature at point X. SI Raghubir Singh
signed the same at point B1. He had seen the register from judicial
record that day and the same is already Ex. PA. He recorded the
statement of the witnesses there. Again said on the same day
accused has pointed out one room situated on the backside of the
Deepa General Store stating that he stayed there for about 20 days
prior to his arrest. He prepared pointing out memo in that regard.
The same is Ex. PW23/Y1 which bears his signature point X and
accused signed the same at point Y. He recorded the statement of
Deepa owner of the said room. On the same night i.e. 29.05.2010,
they left for Delhi and reached Delhi. Accused was kept in the
lock-up at PS Moti Nagar. He further deposed that On 30.5.2010
accused was taken out from the lock-up and they were present in
the PS with accused. In the meantime, one Sunil Kumar Rajput
s/o. Sh. Satpal came to him and he handed over cash amount Rs.
3,00,000/- currency notes denomination of Rs 500/- in 6 bundles
of 100 currency note each. The said currency notes were sealed by
him in the pulanda with seal of JSM and were taken into
possession vide seizure memo already Ex. PW34/A which bears
his signature at point X and accused signed the same at point Y.
He recorded the statement of Sunil Kumar and other police
officials u/s. 161 Cr.PC. Case property was deposited by him in
SC No. 57663/2013
FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 61 of 184
malkhana. Accused was kept in the lock-up. He also deposed that
Next day i.e. on 31.5.2010 accused was taken out from lock- up
and one witnes Ajay Kumar who was summoned by him regarding
the investigation in the case reached at the PS. He made inquiry
from him in presence of accused. Sh. Ajay Kumar handed over the
photocopy of the visitor register of Hotel Decent, 4711, main
bazar, Pahar ganj, New Delhi containing the relevant entries
alongwith the copy of the ID proof of one Rajesh Kumar bearing
photograph to him. He took the same into possession vide seizure
memo already Ex. PW25/A which bears his signature at point X
and accused signed the same at point Y. The photocopy of the
register is already Ex. PW25/B. The photocopy of PAN Card is
already marked PW25/A. Photocopy of CCTV footage of the said
Hotel is already marked PW25/B (colly). On the same day he had
collected the bank statement pertaining the bank account of the
accused from ICICI Bank, Shakarpur, Delhi, the same is placed on
record. The same is collectively marked as Mark Z1 (containing 05
sheets). On the same day on Himanshu Kapoor show was
summoned by him in the investigation in the case appeared before
him in PS and handed over the receipt/tax invoice of the mobile
phone to him, the same was taken into possession by him vide
seizure memo Ex. PW23/Y2 which bears his signature at point X.
Himanshu signed the same at point Y and accused signed the same
at point Z. The invoice is marked as mark AB.
He deposed that on the same day one Ramesh Mandal,
Manager of New Khushdil Hotel, 6484, Fateh Puri Corner, Delhi
appeared before him in PS and handed over the relevant record to
him and the same were taken into possession by him vide seizure
SC No. 57663/2013
FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 62 of 184
memo Ex. PW23/Y3 which bears his signature at point X.
Accused signed the same at point Y and Ramesh signed the same
at point Z. The photocopy of the record of the said hotel is marked
as mark AC (colly) (containing into 07 sheets). Also, he deposed
that, thereafter, on the same day accused Deepak @ Deepu led
them to the H.No. A-5/291, 3rd Floor, Paschim Vihar, Delhi where
accused had pointed out towards the room which he had taken on
rent from one Dr. Manoj Kumar Jain. The said room was found
locked from outside. Dr. Manoj Kumar Jain was also present in the
said house at that time. He asked him to join the investigation. He
also asked other public persons namely Pankaj Aneja, Ravinder
Kumar and Sanjay Sharma, who were present with Dr. Manoj
Kumar Jain at that time, to join the investigation. In the presence
of the above mentioned witnesses on his direction HC Lokender
had broken the lock of the said room and thereafter, accused led
them inside the said room and got recovered one polythene bag
from the wooden cupboard of the kitchen of his rented room. The
said polythene was checked by him and it was found to contain
blood stained clothes i.e. one shirt, one pant, one baniyan, one
underwear, pair of socks, some papers were also found inside the
pocket of the recovered pant, pair of Canvas shoes of blue and
yellow coloured and two knives. He prepared the sketch of both
the knives which is already Ex. PW13/C and bears his signature at
point X and accused signed the same at point Y. Both the knives
were sealed in separate pulandas with the seal of JSM and were
taken into possession vide seizure memo already Ex. PW13/B
bears his signature at point X. Accused signed the same at point Y.
Blood stained clothes mentioned above alongwith the pair of shoes
SC No. 57663/2013
FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 63 of 184
were sealed in pulanda with seal of JSM and were taken into
possession by him vide seizure memo already Ex. PW13/B which
bears his signature at point XI and accused signed the same at
point Y. The relevant papers mentioned above recovered from the
pant were also seized by him with the same seizure memo. He also
sealed one broken lock in pulanda with the seal of JSM and was
taken into possession vide seizure memo already Ex. PW30/E
which bears his signature at point X. Accused signed the same at
point Y and other witnesses also signed the seizure memo. He also
deposed that he also prepared the site plan of the place of recovery
mentioned above and the same is already Ex. PW13/F which bears
his signature at point X. Dr. Manoj Kumar Jain handed over one
rent agreement of the accused, lease deed and tenant verification
dorm to him and the same were taken into possession by him vide
seizure memo already Ex. PW13/A which bears his signature at
point X. Accused signed the same at point Z and other witness also
signed the same. Verification form is already Ex. PW13/G, rent
agreement is already Ex. PW13/H. Thereafter, he recorded the
statement of witness u/s. 161 Cr.PC at the place of recovery.
Thereafter, he alongwith accused and case property reached at PS
Moti Nagar. Accused was kept in lock-up. Case property was
deposited by him in malkhana. The next day i.e. 01.06.2010
accused Deepak @ Deepu was taken out from the lock-up.
Thereafter, he was taken to DDU Hospital where he was medical
examined and his blood sample was taken by the doctor. After his
medical examination doctor handed over one sealed parcel sealed
with the seal of CMO DDU Hospital and one sample seal of the
same specimen to him and he took the same into possession vide
SC No. 57663/2013
FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 64 of 184
seizure memo already Ex. PW45/A which bears his signature at
point X. Thereafter, accused was produced in the court of Ld. MM
at Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi where he moved an application before
Ld. MM for the extension of PC remand. The PC remand was
extended for four days by Ld. MM. Thereafter, accused was taken
to PS Moti Nagar. Pulandas mentioned above was deposited by
him in malkhana. Accused was put in the lock-up.
On 02.06.2010 accused was taken out of the lock-up and
was taken to Ludhiana, Punjab and thereafter, accused got
recovered photocopy of driving licence and original driving
licence of deceased Surinder Singh alongwith original passport as
well as expired passport of deceased, original cheque book of
deceased issued by Bank of India to deceased and application form
addressed to Manager, Bank of India and all these documents were
seized vide seizure memo already Ex. PW11/A bearing his
signature at point X1. After collecting the documents i.e. passports
etc. mentioned above left Ludhiana for Delhi on 02.06.2010 and
reached Delhi on that day. Accused was kept in the lock-up. After
the expiry of PC remand period accused was produced from Ld.
MM on 04.06.2010 and he moved application for the extension of
PC remand period, the same was extended by Ld. MM upto
07.06.2010. Accused was taken to PS Moti Nagar where he was
interrogated by him. Thereafter, he recorded disclosure statement
of accused Deepak @ Deepu. On 04.06.2010 the same is already
Ex. PW43/G which bears his signature at point X. In the said
disclosure statement accused has disclosed about the role of co-
accused person namely, Haider Ali and Anup Gupta. On the same
day accused Anup Gupta and Haider Ali who are present in the
SC No. 57663/2013
FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 65 of 184
court that day (corrected identified by the witness) were called to
PS Moti Nagar where they were interrogated by him and they were
allowed to go their home as they had not fully co-operated to him
on that day. They were again called on the next day. He
interrogated accused Haider Ali on that day i.e. on 05.06.2010 and
thereafter, he was arrested by him in the case vide arrest memo
already Ex. PW43/C which bears his signature at point X. Personal
search was also taken by him vide personal search memo already
Ex. PW43/D which bears his signature at point X. Disclosure
statement was also recorded by him which is already Ex. PW43/E
which bears his signature at point X. As per disclosure statement
of accused Haider Ali, accused had handed over the cash amount
of Rs. 20,000/- which were in denomination of Rs. 500/- each, to
him and the same were sealed by him in pulanda with the seal of
JSM which were taken into possession by him vide seizure memo
already Ex. PW43/B and bears his signature at point X and
accused signed the same at point Y.
Accused Anup Gupta who was in custody in case FIR no.
31/09 PS Crime Branch with IO/SI Kamal Kohli was formally
arrested by him in the case at PS Moti Nagar on 05.06.2010 vide
arrest memo already Ex. PW43/A which bears his signature at
point X. Both the accused mentioned above were arrested u/s. 212
IPC. As both the accused persons failed to produced any surety
before him hence, they were arrested and produced before Ld. MM
and was sent to JC. He collected the copy of kalandra from SI
Kaml Kohli which is already marked as mark A and placed on
record. After the completion of PC remand period of accused
Deepak @ Deepu he was produced in the court of Ld. MM on
SC No. 57663/2013
FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 66 of 184
07.06.2010 and was sent to JC. During the course of investigation
he collected the bank statement of the account of Deepak @ Deepu
which is already Ex. PW18/A (earlier marked as mark Z1) and
original account opening form already Ex. PW18/B from ICICI
Bank branch, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi. He also called draftsman SI
Mahesh Kumar to the spot who took measurement and prepare
rough notes at his instance on the basis of which he prepared
scaled site plan of the spot in his office which was collected be
him during the course of investigation. During the course of
investigation. He also collected PM report of the deceased. During
the course of investigation. He collected two sealed parcels sealed
with the seal of JSM containing weapons of offence from the
MHC(M) PS Moti Nagar and produced before Dr. Sushil Kumar
Chaurasiya at DDU Hospital, Hari Nagar alongwith his written
request for subsequent opinion. His said request addressed to
HOD, forensic medicine DDU Hospital is Ex. PW23/Y4 which
bears his signature at point X. After examining the weapons of
offence i.e. both the knives in his presence doctor had prepared the
sketches of both the knives and given subsequent opinion and
signed the same in his presence. Thereafter, both the parcels were
sealed with the seal of DFMT DDU hospital. Thereafter, he
alongwith both the parcels and subsequent opinion reached at PS
Moti Nagar on the same day and case property was deposited by
him in the malkhana intact condition. Subsequent opinion was
placed on file. During the course of investigation exhibits
pertaining to the present case were sent to FSL through police
officials whose name he did not remember that day. He also
recorded the statement of witnesses in the case during
SC No. 57663/2013
FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 67 of 184
investigation time to time. During the course of investigation he
collected the documents regarding list of jewellery articles and
placed the same on record. The same are collectively marked as
mark ZA (containing 161 sheets). During the course of
investigation he also obtained admitted handwriting of accused
Deepak @ Deepu and the same was sent to FSL for opinion.
Thereafter, he completed the investigation and prepared charge-
sheet, the same was filed in the court. He can identify the case
property if shown to him.
MHC(M) produced parcel no. 6 having some intact seals of
Court, however, some portion of the parcel appears to be torn and
the cloth pullanda is removable from the parcel, however, said
pullanda is having intact seals. Same is then opened and found to
contain one bed sheet, pillow cover, one towel, one plastic sheet,
one cloth piece and one strand of hair are taken out from the
pullanda and shown to the witness and witness has correctly
identified the same as same were seized from the spot by him.
These articles are already collectively Ex. PAI.
MHC(M) also produced Parcel no. 7 sealed with the seal of
Court and the same is opened and found to contain one TV remote,
another remote of Tata sky, One salt pot having masala type
material inside it, one mobile cover, one specs, one visiting card
on which JMD Tourist and Motors 1-143 Karampura Delhi is
written taken out from the pullanda and shown to the witness.
Witness has correctly identified the same which was seized by
him. These articles are already collectively Ex. PA2.
Also, MHC(M) produced Parcel no. 8 sealed with the seal of
Court and the same is opened and found to contain one currency
SC No. 57663/2013
FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 68 of 184
note of Rs. 50/- which was recovered from the pockets of the
wearing clothes of the deceased same is taken out from the
pullanda and shown to the witness. Witness has correctly
identified the same which was seized by him. Same is already Ex.
PAX.
Further, MHC(M) has produced Parcel no. 9 sealed with the
seal of Court and it appears to be torn the same is opened and
found to contain one big single bed mattress having blood stains
same taken out from the pullanda and shown to the witness.
Witness has correctly identified the same which was recovered
from the spot and seized by him. These articles are already Ex.
PA3. MHC(M) produced Parcel no. 10 sealed with the seal of
Court and the same is opened and found to contain one small
mattress having blood stains same taken out from the pullanda and
shown to the witness. Witness has correctly identified the same
which was seized by him. These articles were already Ex. PA4.
MHC(M) produced Parcel no. 11 sealed with the seal of Court and
the same is opened and found to contain one pillow taken out from
the pullanda and shown to the witness. Witness has correctly
identified the same which was seized by him. Same is already Ex.
PA5. Also, MHC(M) produced Parcel no. 16 sealed with the seal
of Court and the same is opened and found to contain one key
bunch having two bigger keys and one small key taken out from
the pullanda and shown to the witness. Witness has correctly
identified the same which was seized by him. Same is already Ex.
PA6. MHC(M) produced transparent polythene without seal and
same is found to contain one mobile phone of make Motorola
taken out from the pullanda and shown to the witness. Witness has
SC No. 57663/2013
FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 69 of 184
correctly identified the same which was seized by him from the
spot. Same is already Ex. PA7. MHC(M) produced Parcel no. 18
sealed with the seal of Court and the same is opened and found to
contain one shirt, one jeans pant, one baniyan, one underwear, one
pair of socks, one pair of shoes blood stained, same are taken out
from the pullanda and shown to the witness. Witness has correctly
identified the same which was got recovered by accused, in his
presence and seized by him. Same is already Ex. P16/A (colly).
MHC(M) produced Parcel no. 19 sealed with the seal of
Court and the same is opened and found to contain one knife, same
is taken out from the pullanda and shown to the witness. Witness
has correctly identified the same which is one of the two knives
got recovered by accused, in his presence and seized by him. Same
is already Ex. P-16B (colly).
Also, MHC(M) produced Parcel no. 20 sealed with the seal
of Court and the same is opened and found to contain one knife,
same is taken out from the pullanda and shown to the witness.
Witness has correctly identified the same which is one of the two
knives got recovered by accused, in his presence and seized by
him. Same is already Ex. P-16C (colly). MHC(M) produced one
unsealed parcel and the same is opened and found to contain one
lock, same is taken out from a transparent polythene and shown to
the witness. Witness has correctly identified the same which was
found on the door of the house from where the accused had got
affected the recovery of articles, in his presence and seized by him.
Same is already Ex. P-16/D (colly).
MHC(M) produced one sealed parcel sealed with the seal of
JSM and the same is opened and found to contain six packets of
SC No. 57663/2013
FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 70 of 184
currency note of denomination of Rs.500/- (containing 100 notes
in each bundle) (the notes are of old currency and demonetized
now). These notes were given by Sunil Kumar Rajput in the police
station to him in his presence and were sealed with the seal of
JSM. The same are already exhibited as Ex. PXI (colly.). MHC(M)
produced parcel no. 1 sealed with the seal of FSL, Delhi, same and
opened and found to contain blood stained earth control i.e. floor
pieces. The same is taken out from the pulanda and shown to the
witness. Witness identified the same which was lifted, sealed and
seized at the spot by him. Same is Ex. PS.
MHC(M) also produced parcel no. 2 sealed with the seal of
FSL, Delhi, same and opened and found to contain earth control
i.e. floor pieces. The same is taken out from the pulanda and
shown to the witness. Witness identified the same which was
lifted, sealed and seized at the spot by him. Same is Ex. PS-1.
MHC(M) also produced parcel no. 3 sealed with the seal of
FSL, Delhi, same and opened and found to contain some blood
stained earth control material. The same is taken out from the
pulanda and shown to the witness. Witness identified the same
which was lifted after breaking the blood stained cemented pieces
from the wall at the spot, sealed and seized at the spot by him.
Same is Ex. PS-2.
MHC(M) also produced parcel no. 4 sealed with the seal of
FSL, Delhi, same and opened and found to contain some earth
control material. The same is taken out from the pulanda and
shown to the witness. Witness identified the same which was lifted
after breaking the cemented pieces from the wall at the spot, sealed
and seized at the spot by him. Same is Ex. PS-3. MHC(M) also
SC No. 57663/2013
FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 71 of 184
produced parcel no. 5 sealed with the seal of FSL, Delhi, same and
opened and found to contain one blood stained gauge (cloth) piece
kept in transparent plastic dibbi. The same is taken out from the
pulanda and shown to the witness. Witness identified the same
cloth from which blood was lifted by him by soaking the same
with the said cloth piece, sealed and seized at the spot by him.
Same is Ex. PS- 4. He can identify the accused persons if shown to
him. At that stage, witness identified all the three accused persons
present in the court correctly.
36. PW-24 Sh. Sunil Kumar deposed that in the year, 2010, he
was working as Manager in RC Tounch. At Shop No. 3206,
Bidanpura, Gali no. 31, Karol Bagh, Delhi. The owner of the said
shop was Sh. Gyan Chand. He had met with an accident due to
which he has lost his memory and therefore, not in position to
remember. He does not remember if the police had called him ever
to join the investigation or any document was produced. The
witness turned hostile.
However, the witness admitted the suggestion that the full
name of the shop where he was working as manager was “RC
Instant Gold Check”. Further he was shown three receipts Mark X,
Mark Y and Mark Z put to the witness and it is specifically asked
whether he knows about the slips having being issued by RC
Instant Gold Check, to which the witness says that he does not
know about the Mark X, Mark Y and Mark Z. He does not
remember whether He had told the police that the Deepak @
Deepu had visited their shop thrice and got melted the gold
ornaments against the sum of Rs. 8 lakhs, Rs. 11 lakhs and Rs. 10
lakhs, totaling Rs. 29 lakhs, the said amount he had received from
SC No. 57663/2013
FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 72 of 184
their shop.
37. PW25 Sh. Ajay Kumar deposed that he had worked as
Manager at Hotel Decent, Main Bazar, Phar Ganj, Delhi from the
year 2009 to 2011. On 31.05.2010, he joined the investigation in
the case. He visited PS Moti Nagar and handed over the photocopy
record of the check in register dated 19.04.2010 wherein as per
S.no. 4824 dated 19.04.2010 Rajesh Kumar, s/o Manoj Kumar,
R/o H. No. A/124, Sector 34, Chandigarh checked in their hotel on
19.04.2010 at 10:30 PM and also handed over the photocopy of the
PAN Card black and white no. BIWPK4134Q given by the said
Rajesh s/o Manoj Kumar on which photograph of accused Deepak
@ Deepu was there. He further deposed that he identified the
accused Deepak @ Deepu in the lock up on 31.05.2010 being the
person who checked in the hotel Decent on 19.04.2010 by the
name of Rajesh Kumar S/o Manoj Kumar and given ID I.e. PAN
card. At that stage, witness pointed out towards accused Deepak @
Deepu present in the court that day and he was correctly identified
by him. He had also handed over the photocopy of three video
footage of the hotel decent in which the photograph of accused
Deepak @ Deepu is there. The aforesaid documents were taken
into possession vide seizure memo Ex. PW25/A (colly.) bearing
his signatures at point A. The copy of the PAN card is marked as
PW25/Mark A. Photo Copy of the three video footage are
collectively marked as PW25/Mark B consisting of two pages. He
further that he has not brought the register as the same is not
traceable. As he had visited the Decent Hotel, Pahar Ganj, New
Delhi on 11.07.2017 and on asking by him to hand over the Check
SC No. 57663/2013
FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 73 of 184
In register pertaining to 19.04.2010 and the Manager namely Sanju
had told him that the said register is not traceable. Also, that day
he has brought the relevant register of Hotel Decent. The
photocopy of relevant entry, already placed on file is Ex. PW25/B
(OSR).
In the cross-examination denied the suggestion that in the
court he had wrongly identified Deepak @ Deepu as Rajesh due to
pressure caused upon him by the IO. The witness denied the
suggestion that Deepak @ Deepu never came to the hotel. The
witness denied the suggestion that due to the reason no identity of
Deepak @ Deepu was entered in the register. The witness denied
the suggestion that that day he is also deposing due to the pressure
caused upon him by the IO.
38. PW26 Sh. Ravinder Kumar deposed that he does not
remember the date and year but in the month of March about 5-6
years back he received a phone from the police of PS Moti Nagar.
House no. A-5/291, was rented through me, to Deepak @ Deepu
from landlord whose name was Dr. something, whose name he
does not remember, as he was doing the business of property
dealer. He turned hostile on the identity of the accused. The
witness admitted during cross-examination by the Ld. Addl. PP for
the State and admitted the suggestion that police had taken into
possession the rent agreement, lease deed and tenant verification
form on which photograph of tenant whose name has been written
as Deepak @ Deepu Bobbal @Deepu in the agreement. The
witness admitted the suggestion that the tenant verification form
find pasted a photograph and name of the person whose
photograph has been written as Deepak @ Deepu Bobbal @
SC No. 57663/2013
FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 74 of 184
Deepu, S/o Sh. Rajesh Bobbal, R/o A-1/205, Paschim Vihar, New
Delhi vide seizure memo already Ex.PW13/A which bears his
signatures at point B. Tenant verification from is already Ex.
PW13/G. Rent agreement and lease deed are already Ex. PW13/H
(colly.). The witness voluntarily stated that The aforesaid
documents must have been handed over by Dr. Manoj Kumar to
the police and the verified documents he had handed over to Dr.
Manoj and polce had obtained his signatures on Ex. PW13/A at the
spot itself when police was coming down.
39. PW27 Sh. Pankaj Aneja deposed that he is running the
business of property dealing from the shop situated at Jawala Heri
Market. Paschim vihar since 2006. House no. A-5/291. 3rd Floor,
Paschim Vihar was owned by one Mr. Jain, however, he does not
remember his complete name. He had worked as a link broker
between Mr. Gujral and Mr. Sanjay Sharma of Amit Estates who
was also working as property dealers and Mr. Jain was a client of
Amit Estates and therefore, he was contacted by them for giving
it to some another person.
The witness further deposed that the said portion was given
to one Mr. Deepak @ Deepu on rent which was probably in the
year 2009-2010. He can identify said Deepak @ Deepu (witness
has correctly identified the accused Deepak @ Deepu present in
the Court). The witness further deposed that he was contacted by
the above brokers in the year 2010. And thereafter, he had to gone
PS Moti Nagar. He does not remember the date and month. There
Mr. Gujral and Mr. Sanjay Sharma were present who asked him
since they had signed on certain papers and asked him also to sign
on those papers and due to that he also signed on those papers
SC No. 57663/2013
FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 75 of 184
which may be 1-2 in number.
The witness further deposed that he does not remember
whether police had recorded his statement or not. He can identify
his signatures. He has seen Ex. PW13/A Ex. PW13/B, Ex.
PW13/D & Ex. PW13/E bearing his signatures at point Y on all
the papers. On that day when his signatures were obtained in the
PS on the documents. He had not gone to the house bearing no.
A-5/291, 3rd Floor, Paschim Vihar. Nothing was recovered in his
presence. He turned hostile regarding the recovery made.
40. PW-28 Moihd. Rajakul Islam Mullick @ Raj deposed that
he is doing the work of manufacturing of jewellery. New Kartar
Jewellers belongs to one Deepak @ Deepu. He used to deal with
him regarding the making of jewellery. He used to give him gold
for preparing of jewellery. He used to prepare the jewellery and
give it to him. He had dealt with him about 7 years back and he
can try to identify him. After seeing in the Court room the witness
had correctly identiofied the accused Deepak @ Deepu present in
the court that day. In the month of April, 2010 police came to him
for recording his statement. Police inquired from him whether
there was any thing due in between him and Deepak @ Deepu to
which he told him that He had no dues from him nor to given him.
Perhaps his statement was recorded by the police and thereafter, he
signed the same.
41. PW 29 Dr Ajay Sharma, Senior Medical Officer, DDU
Hospital, Delhi deposed that he joined his service since 2000 in
DDU Hospital. that day He has been deputed to prove the hand
writing and signatures of Doctor Sushil Kr Chaurasia, S.R. On
28.03.2010, Dr Sushil Kr Chaurasia who passed away, he
SC No. 57663/2013
FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 76 of 184
conducted post mortem Vide PM No.320/10 on the body of
deceased Surender Bobal, aged about 55 year male. The witness
deposed that after conducting the post mortem prepared the report
which is carried in five pages in his hand writing and bearing his
signatures at point A. The PM report is Ex PW29/A. As per his
report the time since death was approximately 36 hours and cause
of death due to haemorrhagic shock subsequent to multiple stab
injuries present all over the body. External injury No.4,5 and 18
were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature,
individually as well as in combination all injuries are ante mortem
in nature and in same duration. He can identify the hand writing
and signatures of Dr Sushil Kr Chaurasia as he has seen him
writing and signing during course of official duty. When he was
recalled for the examination-in-chief and he further deposed in the
case that on 20.07.17 and at that time, he was posted at DDU
Hospital, Hari Nagar, New Delhi. He has gone through the
subsequent opinion containing two sheets given by Dr. Sushil
Kumar Chaurasia. As per the subsequent opinion, Dr. Sushil
Kumar has opined that the injury no. 1 to 41 except injury no. 2
could be possible by either of these weapons mentioned at serial
no. 1 and 2 i.e both the knives. Since Dr. Sushil Kumar Chaurasia
stated to be expired, hence he is identifying his handwriting and
signatures on the subsequent opinion Ex.PW29/B which bears the
signatures of Dr. Sushil Kumar at point X on each page as He had
worked with him and He had seen him writing and signing during
the course of official duties.
42. PW30 Sh. Jatin Kumar @ Kala Thakur deposed that he
knew about New Kartar Jewelers, New Moti Nagar. He knew
SC No. 57663/2013
FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 77 of 184
accused Deepak @ Deepu who is connected with the above said
jewelery shop. He can identify accused Deepak @ Deepu who is
present in the Court that day (correctly identified). Accused
Deepak @ Deepu was residing in his neighbourhood and he knew
him as he had been dealing with accused in respect of jewelery.
Sometimes he had given the order to accused Deepak @ Deepu for
preparing jewelery for his wife. He does not know about the
brother of Deepak @ Deepu. He also does not know about the
uncle (chacha) of accused Deepak @ Deepu. He had not given any
statement to the police regarding the case. He does not know any
Surrender Singh. He turned hostile after that.
43. PW31 Smt Harjeet Kaur deposed that she does not know
about the facts of the case. She had taken a Diamond ring from the
Court. She was called by the Court to identify his ring. She had
taken his ring and the same was taken by him from the Court. She
had mortgaged the aforesaid ring with Kartar Jewellers. She does
not remember for what purpose she had mortgage the ring. She
was not able to recall the name of the owner of aforesaid jeweller
shop. She had received summons from the Court for the purpose of
identifying his ring. The witness deposed that he had lost the
aforesaid ring long ago, but he does not remember the exact date.
She had not made any complaint regarding loss of aforesaid ring.
At that stage the witness is shown the TIP proceedings of Diamond
Ring dated 7.8.2010, witness identified her signatures on the TIP
proceedings at Point A. The TIP proceeding is marked X.
44. PW 32 ASI Suresh deposed that on 27.03.2010, he was
posted at Mobile Crime team West Distt as Constable. On that day,
on receipt of call from the control room he alongwith ASI Jai
SC No. 57663/2013
FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 78 of 184
Singh I/C, photographer, HC Devender and Dog handler Ct Vidya
Sagar went to scene of crime B-1/43, New Moti Nagar, Delhi. At
the spot he saw that in a room on a ground floor, the dead body of
the deceased namely Surender Singh was lying on a single bed in a
pool of blood. There was a mark of injuries on chest and neck
caused by sharp edged weapon on the dead body of deceased. He
had developed a chance print with the help of black and white
powder from the west wall of the room in which the dead body
was lying. The photographs of chance print was taken. Thereafter,
the chance print was sent to Finger Print Bureau. His report is Ex
PW32/A, which bears his signatures at point A. Later on his
statement was recorded by the police.
45. PW33 Sh Palwinder Singh, Patwari Halqa Kohara, Tehsil
Ludhinana, East Distt Ludhiana, Punjab deposed that that day he
has brought the original Intkal (Mutation) Register pertaining to
Entry No. 5611. The property bearing Rectangle NO.17, Killa
No.20/1, and Rectangle No.18, Killa No.14/2 and 15/1, and
Rectangle No.18, Killa No.20/2 measuring total area 90 sq yards.
As per the record the said property was sold by M/S Ashok
Malhotra to Deepak @ Deepu Bobal S/o Sh M.S Bobal R/O B-1
House No.51, New Moti Nagar, New Delhi, on 05.05.2010. The
said entry is Exhibited as Ex PW33/A. (OSR)
46. PW 34 Vanita w/o Ugar Nath Jha deposed that she had
pledged his gold chain with Sh.Surender (deceased) owner of
Kartar Jewellers, New Moti Nagar. He had borrowed 3500/- by
pledging his gold chain. She came to know that he had been
murdered. Police told him that his gold chain which has been
stolen from Kartar Jeweller had been recovered. Thereafter, she
SC No. 57663/2013
FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 79 of 184
was asked to come to the Court to identify his gold chain by the
police. Thereafter, she came to Tis Hazari, Court to identified her
gold chain. She identified his gold chain before the Court. She
signed the document before the Court. The copy of TIP proceeding
is Mark A, it bears her signatures at point A. The witness deposed
that thereafter, she received his gold chain from PS Moti Nagar.
She deposed that day she has brought his gold chain, the same is
Ex P- 34. The witness deposed that he had got released his gold
chain vide a superdarinama marked B, bearing his signatures at
point A. The order of the Hon’ble Court is mark C.
47. PW35 Ms. Aarti, aged deposed that about 8 years ago, she
had pledged her ear rings to the owner of Kartar Jewellers namely
Surender (deceased) and had borrowed money. After sometime she
came to know that the owner of the Kartar Jewellers namely
Surender was murdered. Thereafter, police told him that her
earrings had been recovered from accused Deepak @ Deepu
@Deepu. Then she came to the Court and identified her ear rings.
The TIP proceeding is marked as Mark PW35/A which bears her
signatures at point A. She got released his ear rings vide a
superdarinama mark PW35/B which bears her signatures at point
A. Order of release of the Court is already marked as mark C. She
deposed that day that she has brought the ear rings released on
superdari to him. A pair of ear rings is produced by the witness
and same is exhibited as P35.
48. PW36 ASI Devender Kumar deposed that on 27.03.2010, he
was posted as Head Constable in crime Team West Distt. On that
day he alongwith Incharge ASI Jai Singh, Ct Suresh, Ct Vidya
Sagar (Dog Handler) and himself as a photographer went to the
SC No. 57663/2013
FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 80 of 184
spot ie B-1/43, New Moti Nagar, Delhi. The witness deposed that
there was a dead body lying on a bed in a room on ground floor.
There was blood on the bed. Blood was also present on the table
and on the wall. There was blood on the ground in the room. ASI
P.P. Singh, Inspector Jagminder and alongwith other staff were
already present at the spot. He took 18 photographs of the spot
from different angles on the instruction of Incharge Crime Team.
All the 18 photographs are on judicial file. He has brought the
negatives of the aforesaid photographs. The said 18 photographs
collectively Ex as PW36/A. The negatives are collectively Ex as
PW36/B.
49. PW37 Sh. Inder @ Lovely deposed that on 27.03.2010, in
the morning, at about 10.30 AM he was sitting in his shop situated
in the front side of B-1/41, New Moti Nagar New Delhi. At that
time, Harvinder Singh who is the friend of deceased Surinder
Singh Bobal came at his shop and told him that his uncle
(deceased) had not opened his shop his uncle was having shop at
B-1/43, Ground Floor, New Moti Nagar by the name of Kartar
Jewellers. Thereafter, the maid Laxmi he came there and told him
that she was calling to open the shop but nobody was responding
from inside. She further deposed that then he and Harvinder Singh
went to the shop of his uncle to see what happened. He and maid
Laxmi entered into the house of his uncle from back side and saw
that his dead body was lying on the bed. They became scared and
came outside the house crying. They raised alarm. The neighbours
gathered at the house. Then he called the police on 100 number.
The witness further deposed that after sometime police reached at
the scene of crime. Police entered into the house and inspected the
SC No. 57663/2013
FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 81 of 184
spot. Police called the photographer and got photographed the
spot. They also called Dog Squad. They inspected the scene of
Crime and blood was spread on the bed, on the ground, bed sheet,
on the wall of the room. Finger prints were also lifted by the police
officials. They also took earth control. Police asked them to see the
articles worn by his uncle and told them that they will return to his
family members. Dead body of deceased was removed by the
police from the scene of crime. The family of his uncle had gone
for trip outside Delhi i.e. Shimla. He had informed them
regarding the incident, who returned in the evening. Police seized
the blood stained bed, bed sheets, pillow. Mobile phone and towel.
Police also seized the articles lying on settie. Police also seized
other articles such as remote, chapple, pieces of wall where the
blood was spread. Police recorded his statement which is Ex
PW37/A, bearing his signatures at point A. Police prepared site
plan at his instance which is already Ex PW23/A,bearing his
signatures at point B. He further deposed that the seizure memo of
floor, wall and control already Exhibited by Ex PW23/F, bearing
his signatures at point B. All the articles mentioned in memo Ex
PW37/B were taken into police possession in his presence and
same bears his signatures at point A. Seizure memo of currency
note of Rs.50/- was seized vide a seizure memo Ex PW37/C,
bearing his signatures at point A. Seizure memo of mobile phone
was seized vide a seizure memo Ex PW37/D, bearing his
signatures at point A. Seizure memo of Gadda (single bed) was
seized vide a seizure memo already Ex PW23/D, bearing his
signatures at point B. Seizure memo of small Gadda, dressing table
and pillow were seized vide a seizure memo already Ex PW23/E,
SC No. 57663/2013
FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 82 of 184
bearing his signatures at point B.
50. PW38 Ct. Bablu Yadav deposed that On 27.03.2010, he was
posted at PS Moti Nagar as constables. On that day on receipt of
DD no. 14A, at about 11:55 AM regarding dead body at B-43,
New Moti Nagar. He along with ASI Preet Pal Singh went to the
spot i.e. B1/43, Ground Floor, New Moti Nagar, New Delhi.
Public persons were present at the spot. There was a dead body
lying on a single bed in the back room of the house. Later on the
name of deceased was revealed as Surender Singh. The dead body
was lying straight in a pool of blood. The head of the dead body
was in north east direction and the legs were in south west
direction. One of the legs of the dead body was hanging from the
bed and touching the floor. The sheet, pillow and mattress of the
single bed were blood stained. The witness further deposed that
there was a small table on the side of the single bed on which
blood stained small pillow, towel and rexin cover were kept. The
currency note of Rs. 50/- was found on the pocket of the payjama
of the deceased. IO prepared the seizure memo of said currency
note and took the same in police possession. He further deposed
that ASI Preet Pal recorded the statement of complainant Inder
Singh and prepared the rukka. He sent him to police station with
rukka for registration of FIR. He went to the PS and got the FIR
registered and returned to the spot and handed over the copy of
FIR and original rukka to Inspector Jagminder Singh. The dead
body of the deceased was removed to DDU Hospital. The crime
team alled at the scene of crime and photographer also reached at
the spot. The IO Inspector Jagminder Singh seized the blood
stained mattress, pillow, towel and other articles and prepared the
SC No. 57663/2013
FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 83 of 184
seizure memos. He also deposed that on 28.03.2010, in the
morning he along with ASI, he Preet Pal Singh and IO Inspector
Jagminder Singh went to mortuary DDU Hospital. The dead body
of the deceased was got identified by the son of the deceased and
thereafter, the postmortem of the dead body of deceased was got
conducted. After post mortem dead body was handed over to the
son of the deceased. Doctor had given the sealed pullanda and
sample seal to IO and he seized the same.
51. PW-39 HC Vidya Sagar, No. 915/Crime, Chanakya Puri,
Crime Banch, Delhi. He deposed that on 27.03.2010 he was
posted at PS Janak Puri as Constable as a Dog Handler at Janak
Puri, West District, Delhi. On that day at about 12.30 PM he
accompanied the crime team with his Dog Anuradha to the scene
of crime i.e. B-1/43, New Moti Nagar, Delhi. At the scene of crime
a dead body was lying on the bed. Both the feet of the dead body
were hanging near to the ground. There was a pillow on the bed
near the head of the dead body. There were blood all around the
dead body. The dog was made to move all around the scene of
crime. He got smelled the pillow to the dog and let the dog to
move. The dog moved around but it did not give any indication.
There were lots of people present at the spot. Thereafter, he
removed the dog from the spot.
52. PW 40 Ct Krishan deposed that On 27.03.2010 he was
posted at PS Moti Nagar as Constable. On that day he went to the
spot ie B-1/43, New Moti Nagar, Delhi. IO had given him a
request letter for depositing the dead body of deceased namely
Surender in mortuary. Thereafter, he took the dead body of
deceased to Mortuary DDU Hospital and deposited the same for
SC No. 57663/2013
FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 84 of 184
preservation. He obtained the receipt and returned to the PS and
handed over the receipt to the IO.
53. PW 41 Ct Anil No. 2328/ DAP IIIrd Batallion, Delhi
deposed that on 27.03.2010 he was posted at PS Moti Nagar as
constable. On that day, he was on Motorcycle rider duty with
Inspector Jagminder Singh. On receipt of a call regarding the dead
body he had accompanied him to New Moti Nagar, at B- 1/43
ground Floor Moti Nagar. When they reached the rear room of the
said house on the ground floor where a dead body was lying on the
bed. There was a blood spread over the bed, pillow, on the floor
and wall of the room. At that time the Sr officer namely ACP,
Rajouri Garden, SHO Moti Nagar, Crime team and the IO ASI
P.P. Singh were present there. Crime team had taken finger prints
and photographs of the scene of crime. The IO had prepared the
pulandas of blood stained articles and took them into possession.
Thereafter, ASI P.P. prepared the ruqqa and handed over the same
to Ct Bablu for registration of the case, who returned after getting
the FIR registered. Thereafter, the investigation was being carried
out by the Sr officer and he returned from there to the P.S in the
evening. The witness further deposed that he again joined the
investigation on 07.08.2010. On that day he took seven sealed
pulandas from MHC (M) sealed with the seal of JSM and RK and
came to Tis Hazari Court No.361 with Inspector Raj Kumar. Three
ladies and one boy had come to participate in the TIP of case
property. After completion of the proceedings the pulandas were
again handed over to him for depositing the same in Malkahana,
which he deposited later on in the Malkhana. During the time the
pulandas remained in his possession no person had tempered the
SC No. 57663/2013
FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 85 of 184
pulanda.
54. PW42 Retired SI Preet Pal Singh deposed that on
27.03.2010 he was posted at PS Moti Nagar as ASI. On that day,
he was on emergency duty from 8.00 AM to 8.00 PM. At about
11:55 AM he received DD No.14-A through Ct Bablu. The
witness further deposed that thereafter, he alongwith Ct Bablu
reached at the spot ie B-1/43, New Moti Nagar, Delhi. There were
many public persons had already assembled. He entered the said
house on the ground floor. He saw that one dead body was lying
on a Diwan in the room situated on the back side of the house. He
saw that there were marks of injuries all over the body of the dead
person and the bloods were spread all around the room as well as
on the walls. The head of the dead person was towards the east and
the legs were in the directions of south west on the bed. One
person, who was in the room. told him that he was the nephew of
the deceased namely Inder @ Lovely. He told him that the person
lying dead was his uncle namely Surender, aged about 55 years.
He further told him that family member of deceased Surender had
gone to Shimla on a trip. He made inquiry from Inder Kumar @
Lovely and recorded his statement already Ex PW37/A, attested by
him at point B. On the basis of the said statement he prepared a
ruqqa, Ex PW42/A, bearing his signature is at point B and sent Ct
Bablu to PS with rukka for registration of FIR. The witness further
deposed that Thereafter, he called the crime team to visit the spot.
Then ASI Jai Singh, Incharge Crime team alongwith his staff
reached at the spot. The member of the crime team started
inspecting the scene of crime and in the meantime Ct Bablu
reached at the spot with copy of FIR and original rukka. Inspector
SC No. 57663/2013
FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 86 of 184
Jagminder Singh and Ct Kishan Kumar also reached at the spot
alongwith Ct Bablu. Copy of FIR and original rukka were handed
over to Inspector Jagminder Singh, as the investigation was
already marked to him. After inspection of the scene of crime, ASI
Jai Singh prepared his report and handed over the same to IO,
Inspector Jagminder Singh. Then IO prepared the site plan at the
instance of Inder Kumar @ Lovely. Thereafter, IO thoroughly saw
the dead body of the deceased. Rs.50/- was found in the left side
pocket of strip Payjama worn by the deceased. IO put the said
currency note in a plastic pouch and prepared the pulanda with
cloth and sealed with the seal of JSM. The said currency note was
seized vide seizure memo already Ex PW 37/C, bearing his
signature at point B. He further deposed that IO filled up the form
No.25-35 and sent the dead body to DDU hospital through Ct
Krishan. IO prepared the pulanda of the mattress which was lying
on the bed and sealed with the seal of JSM and the same was
seized vide seizure memo Ex PW23/D, bearing his signatures at
point C. Blood stained bed sheet which was on the single bed,
pillow cover, table cover of rexin, one cloth being used for
covering the almirah was lying on the floor and one towel and all
the said articles were put in a plastic sheet and a pulanda with the
help of cloth was prepared and sealed with the seal of JSM. One
blood stained TV remote, one spectacle, mobile cover, a mobile
phone of the deceased, Namak dani and visiting card and all the
said articles were put in a plastic sheet and a pulanda with the help
of cloth was prepared and sealed with the seal of JSM. IO prepared
the seizure memo of the said articles already exhibited Ex
PW37/B, bearing his signatures at point B. IO also prepared the
SC No. 57663/2013
FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 87 of 184
seizure memo of the mobile of deceased separately, which already
exhibited Ex PW37/C, bearing his signatures at point B. IO
prepared the seizure memo of small mattress of dressing table and
pillow which already exhibited Ex PW23/E, bearing his signatures
at point C. IO broke the blood stained floor of the room and also
blood stained walls and taken the earth control. IO prepared the
seizure memo already exhibited Ex PW23/F, bearing his signatures
at point C. IO recorded the statement of the witnesses. Thereafter,
they returned to the PS alongwith case property and the case
property was deposited in the Malkhana of P.S. IO recorded his
statement and he was relieved from the investigation on that day.
He further deposed that on 28.03.2010, he again joined the
investigation by the IO in the present case. He alongwith Ct Bablu
and IO Jagminder Singh reached at DDU hospital. Two brothers of
the deceased namely Mangat Ram and Raghubir Singh and Mukul
the son of the deceased met them in mortuary DDU hospital. Dead
body of the deceased was got identified by the said relatives of the
deceased and IO recorded their statements. Thereafter, Post
mortem of deceased was got conducted. After post mortem the
Doctor had handed over three sealed pulanda sealed with seal of
DFMT, DDU hospital to the IO alongwith three sample seals. The
same were seized by the IO vide seizure memo Ex PW42/B,
bearing his signatures at point A. Thereafter, the dead body of the
deceased was handed over to his relatives. Then they returned to
the P.S and case property was deposited in PS Malkhana. IO
recorded his statement and he was relieved from the investigation
on that day. He further deposed that on 24.05.2010, he again
joined the investigation by the IO in the present case. On that day,
SC No. 57663/2013
FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 88 of 184
at about 10.00 PM an information was received by the SHO from
Special Staff West District Delhi regarding the accused.
Thereafter, he alongwith SHO Hoshiar Singh, Inspector Raj
Kumar and SI Raghubir Singh left for office of Special Staff and
they reached there at about 10.30 PM. Thereafter, the members of
Special Staff as well as all of them left for Parshant Vihar, Delhi
Members of Special Staff were in TATA 407 and they were in a
Govt Gypsy. They reached Parshant Vihar, near PVR Cinema,
Outer ring road. They have cordoned the area. He and Inspector
Raj Kumar put the position on service road which leads to Rohini
Courts. Inspector Raj Kumar asked a few public persons to join the
proceedings, but none joined. Thereafter, at about 12.30 AM in the
night one Santro car came from the side of PVR cinema, that car
was headed towards Ring road. ASI Birpal of Special staff tried to
stop the said Santro car but the car instead of going ahead turned
right towards him and Inspector Raj Kumar. They stopped the said
car. The car stopped at some distance from them . Then he,
Inspector Raj Kumar and ASI Birpal of Special staff immediately
rushed to the car. Inspector Raj Kumar opened the gate of the car
of driver side. One person was sitting on a driver seat, he had
shaved head. Inspector Raj Kumar made inquiry from said person
who disclosed his name as Deepak @ Deepu. He was arrested vide
a memo Ex PW42/C, bearing his signature at point A. IO
conducted the personal search of accused. On his personal search,
Rs.4150/- from the right pocket of his pant, one Pan card, three
receipts and one ring were found. IO had taken pan card and the
said three receipts on case file. The registration No of Santro car
was DL3C- 8904 of silver colour. (The letter after 3C is not
SC No. 57663/2013
FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 89 of 184
remember to him at present) Inspector Raj Kumar searched the
said santro car. One black colour bag of Reebok was found
underneath of driver seat. The Bag was checked by Inspector Raj
Kumar. The bag was having many currency notes of Rs.500/- and
Rs.1000/- in denomination. The said currency notes were counted
and it was found to be of Rs.13,30,000/- ( Thirteen Lacs and Thirty
Thousand). All the said currency notes were put into three separate
plastic jars. The said jars were wrapped in white cloth and sealed
with the seal of RK. One pouch of Kartar Jeweller was also found
inside the bag. There were lots of jewellery articles inside the said
pouch. The pulanda of said pouch was prepared and sealed with
the seal of RK. There was another dark colour pouch in which
some documents were found. The documents were put in the said
pouch and then it was put in the recovered black bag and a pulanda
of the black bag was prepared and sealed with the seal of RK. IO
prepared the seizure memo of currency notes, worth
Rs.13,30,000/-, jewellery and documents which is Ex PW42/D,
bearing his signature at point A. IO prepared the seizure memo of
Santro car which is Ex PW42/E, bearing his signature at point A.
Thereafter, IO had interrogated accused Deepak @ Deepu and
recorded his disclosure statement and the disclosure statement is
Ex PW42/F, bearing his signature at point A. Thereafter, the IO
has prepared the site plan of the place where the accused Deepak
@ Deepu was arrested. The site plan is Ex PW42/G. The accused
was got medically examined by the IO from DDU hospital.
Thereafter, they left for the PS and reached at the PS at about sun
rising time. The IO has deposited the case property in the
Malkhana. The accused was put up in lock up. Thereater his
SC No. 57663/2013
FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 90 of 184
statement was recorded by the IO. He further deposed that after 2-
3 hours Inspector Jagminder Singh reached at the P.S. The accused
was brought out from the lock up through HC Lokender.
Thereafter, accused was again taken to DDU hospital for getting
medically examined by HC Lokender, Inspector Jagminder Singh
and himself. Thereafter, they left for Tis Hazari Court and after
reaching at Tis Hazari Court they produce the accused in the MM
Court (As he does not recall the name of the Court) and obtained
the police remand of accused Deepak @ Deepu for seven days.
Thereafter, they alongwith the accused reached at the scene of
crime ie D- 1/43, New Moti Nagar, Delhi as accused has taken
them to the scene of crime. The accused has disclosed the fact that
the offence was committed by him and the IO has prepared the
pointing memo of the scene of crime. Thereafter, they alongwith
accused reached at the P.S. The accused was put up in lock up.
The witness further deposed that two persons namely Sudhir
and Dheeraj have visited the PS of their own on that day. Sudhir
had given Rs.70,000/- to IO and Dheeraj had given 30,000/- to the
IO. IO has prepared the seizure memo of sum of Rs.70,000/- and
30,000/- separately vide seizure memo ExPW42/H and PW 42/1
respectively which bears his signature at point A respectively. IO
has recorded statement of both the person namely Sudhir and
Dheeraj. Both of them disclosed that accused Deepak @ Deepu
has returned the money to them as he has borrowed from them.
Thereafter, IO recorded his statement.
The witness further deposed that on 26.05.2010, accused
was taken out of the lock up by IO Inspector Jagminder Singh and
handed over the accused in his custody. Thereafter, accused
SC No. 57663/2013
FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 91 of 184
Deepak @ Deepu has taken him, SI Raghbir Singh and Inspector
Jagminder to Kamla Nagar Market. The accused has taken them
near to Mc Donald restaurant and pointed out towards scooter
No.9511 make LML Vespa (The complete of the scooter he does
not remember as on that day). The accused has pointed out the said
vespa scooter was used at the time of commission of offence of
present. The IO has seized the scooter vide seizure memo Ex
PW42/J, bearing his signatures at point A.
Further he deposed that on 25.05.2010, IO prepared the
seizure memo of two mobile phones recovered from accused
Deepak @ Deepu. The description of mobile phone, he did not
remember that day. The seizure memo of mobile phones is Ex.
42/K which bears his signatures at point A. He further deposed
that on 27.05.2010, he again joined the investigation with IO
Jagminder Singh, Inspector Raj Kumar and HC Lokender. On that
day, the owner of the Santro car recovered in the case came to the
police station. He handed over the RC and delivery receipts of the
car to the IO which was seized vide seizure memo already Ex.
PW1/A which bears his signatures at point B. Thereafter, the
accused Deepak @ Deepu led them to Jwalaheri Market, Paschim
vihar, New Delhi. He took them to Malik emporium and pointed
out by saying that he had purchased three knifes from the said
shop. IO prepared the pointing out memo already Ex. PW4/A
which bears his signatures at point B. Further deposed that From
there accused led them to Kirti Nagar, Main Road, near Moti
Nagar Metro Station. And he took them to Shoe corner shop from
where he had purchased one pair of canvas shoes. IO prepared the
pointing out memo already Ex. PW7/A which bears his signatures
SC No. 57663/2013
FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 92 of 184
at point B. From there they returned to the police station and the
accused was put behind lock up.
He further deposed that then on 30.05.2010, he again joined
the investigation with IO Inspector Jagminder and HC Lokender.
On that day accused led them to hotel in Paharganj i.e.Decent
Hotel, where as per his disclosure statement, he had stayed after
committing murder of his uncle (deceased). The Manager of the
hotel was given notice to join in the investigation. The witness
further deposed that then accused took them to Fatehpuri, New
Khushdil hotel. The Manager of the hotel was given notice to join
in the investigation by the IO. He further deposed that then he
took them to Narula Electronics Karol Bagh, New Delhi from
where the accused had purchased the mobile phone after
committing the offence. He further deposed that then he took them
to S. L. Complex, Sector 9, Rohini, New Delhi from where the
owner of the shop was given notice to join the investigation. Then
they returned to the police station. The witness further deposed
that on the same day, the Sunil Kr. Rajput the Manager and the
owner Onkar of the shop Gyan Pakaiwala came to the police
station. They had already come to the police station before their
arrival. They had given Rs. 3 Lacs in cash to the IO by saying that
the said amount was given by accused Deepak @ Deepu against
the purchase by him of 150 gm pure gold. IO took the said amount
in police possession and prepared the pullanda and sealed with the
seal of “JSM”. The seizure memo of the said amount is already Ex
PW24/A which bears his signatures at point B. On 31.05.2010, he
along with SI Raghubir Singh, HC Lokender joined the
investigation with IO Inspector Jagminder Singh. Accused Deepak
SC No. 57663/2013
FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 93 of 184
@ Deepu was interrogated by the IO. And then he took them to the
house where he stayed as a tenant at H. No. A-5/291, 3rd floor,
Paschim Vihar, New Delhi. The lock of the house was got broken
and they entered into the house. There was a washbasin on the East
side of the room and Accused got recovered a big polybag and
handed over the same to IO. IO Checked the said polythene bag.
There were blood stained pant, kameez, baniyan, underwear,
socks, and a pair of shoes found in the said polythene. There were
also two blood stained knives in the said polythene. IO prepared
the sketch of both the recovered knives. Both the said knives were
put into separate pullanda and sealed with the seal of JSM and
given S. No. 1 & 2. IO took the same into police possession vide a
seizure memo. IO also checked the clothes which were blood
stained. On being checked six pink receipts were found in the back
pocket of the pant which were taken by the IO on his file. All the
blood stained clothes and shoes were put in the same polythene
and pullanda was prepared by the IO and sealed with the seal of
JSM and taken into police possession vide a seizure memo. IO
prepared the site plan of the place of recovery and seizure memo
of broken locks and rent agreement. Thereafter, they returned to
the police station and case property was deposited in PS Malkhana.
He deposed that on 29.03.2010, Mukul Kumar s/o deceased
had handed over one bunch of keys blood stained, however, he
does not remember the number of the keys in the said bunch. IO
sealed the same in a pullanda with the seal of JSM and same was
taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex. PW42/X which bears
his signatures at point A. Accused Deepak @ Deepu is present in
the court that day. Correctly identified. He can identify the case
SC No. 57663/2013
FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 94 of 184
property if shown to him. MHC(M) produced parcel no. 6 having
some intact seals of court, however, some portion of the parcel
appears to be torn and the cloth pullanda is removable from the
parcel, however, said pullanda is having intact seals. Same was
then opened and found to contain one bed sheet, pillow cover, one
towel, one plastic sheet, one cloth piece and one strand of hair are
taken out from the pullanda and shown to the witness and witness
has correctly identified the same as same were seized from the spot
by the IO. These articles are collectively Ex.PA1. At that stage,
MHC(M) produced Parcel no. 7 sealed with the seal of Court and
the same is opened and found to contain one TV remote, another
remote of Tata sky. One salt pot having masala type material
inside it, one mobile cover, one specs, one visiting card on which
JMD Tourist and Motors 1- 143 Karampura Delhi is written taken
out from the pullanda and shown to the witness. Witness has
correctly identified the same which was seized by the IO. These
articles are collectively Ex. PA2. At that stage MHC(M) produced
Parcel no. 8 sealed with the seal of Court and the same is opened
and found to contain one currency note of Rs. 50/- which was
recovered from the pockets of the wearing clothes of the deceased
same is taken out from the pullanda and shown to the witness.
Witness has correctly identified the same which was seized by the
IO. Same is Ex. PAX. At that stage MHC(M) has produced Parcel
no. 9 sealed with the seal of Court and it appears to be torn the
same is opened and found to contain one big single bed mattress
having blood stains same taken out from the pullanda and shown
to the witness. Witness has correctly identified the same which
was recovered from the spot and seized by the IO. These articles
SC No. 57663/2013
FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 95 of 184
are already Ex. РАЗ. At that stage MHC(M) produced Parcel no.
IO sealed with the seal of Court and the same is opened and found
to contain one small mattress having blood stains same taken out
from the pullanda and shown to the witness. Witness has correctly
identified the same which was seized by the IO. These articles are
already Ex. PA4. At that stage MHC(M) produced Parcel no. 11
sealed with the seal of Court and the same is opened and found to
contain one pillow taken out from the ullanda and shown to the
witness. Witness has correctly identified the same which was
seized by the IO. Same is already Ex. PA5.
MHC(M) produced Parcel no. 16 sealed with the seal of
Court and the same is opened and found to contain one key bunch
having two bigger keys and one small key taken out from the
pullanda and shown to the witness. Witness has correctly
identified the same which was seized by the IO. Same is already
Ex. PA6.
MHC(M) produced transparent polythene without seal and
same is found to contain one mobile phone of make Motorola
taken out from the pullanda and shown to the witness. Witness has
correctly identified the same which was seized by the IO from the
spot. Same is already Ex. PA7.
Further, MHC(M) produced Parcel no. 18 sealed with the
seal of Court and the same is opened and found to contain one
shirt, one jeans pant, one baniyan, one underwear, one pair of
socks, one pair of shoes blood stained, same are taken out from the
pullanda and shown to the witness. Witness has correctly
identified the same which was got recovered by accused, in his
presence and seized by the IO. Same is already Ex. P16/A (colly).
SC No. 57663/2013
FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 96 of 184
Also, MHC(M) produced Parcel no. 19 sealed with the seal
of Court and the same is opened and found to contain one knife,
same is taken out from the pullanda and shown to the witness.
Witness has correctly identified the same which is one of the two
knives got recovered by accused, in his presence and seized by the
IO. Same is already Ex. P-168 (colly.) MHC(M) produced Parcel
no. 20 sealed with the seal of Court and the same is opened and
found to contain one knife, same is taken out from the pullanda
and shown to the witness. Witness has correctly identified the
same which is one of the two knives got recovered by accused, in
his presence and seized by the IO. Same is already Ex. P-16C
(colly.). MHC(M) produced one unsealed parcel and the same is
opened and found to contain one lock, same is taken out from a
transparent polythene and shown to the witness. Witness has
correctly identified the same which was found on the door of the
house from where the accused had got affected the recovery of
articles, in his presence and seized by the IO. Same is already Ex.
P-16/D (colly.)
MHC(M) produced one sealed parcel sealed with the seal of
JSM and the same is opened and found to contain six packets of
currency note of denomination of Rs.500/- (containing 100 notes
in each bundle) (the notes are of old currency and demonetized
now). These notes were given by Sunil Kumar Rajput in the police
station to IO in his presence and were sealed with the seal of JSM.
The same are exhibited as Ex. PX1 (colly.)
The witness deposed that he can identify the remaining case
property if shown to him. At that stage, MHC(M) P.S Moti Nagar
produced photocopy of currency notes of Rs. 14.50 lakhs in
SC No. 57663/2013
FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 97 of 184
denomination of 100, 50, 500 and 1000 (of denominatized
currency notes) shown to the witness and witness identified that
these are the same copies of currency notes which were covered
and seized by 1.0 in his presence. Original currency notes are
stated to be released on superdari. The photocopy of currency
notes are Ex.PX2 (colly).
MHC(M) produced another sealed parcel sealed with the
seal of court. Same is opened and found to contain one small
jewellery pouch containing one locket on which the picture of
Guru Nanak Dev Ji is engraved. Said pulinda is also found to
contain one gold ring affixed with black color stone on which ‘S’ is
written with gold taken out and shown to the witness. Witness has
correctly identified the same which was sealed and seized by the
I.O in his presence. Same is already Ex. P1 (colly). The witness
further deposed that he can also identify the scooter bearing
registration no. DL 6S F 9511, make LML Vespa and Santro Car
bearing registration no. DL 3C AA 8904 if shown to him.
MHC(M), PS Moti Nagar submits that the above mentioned
two vehicles are mingled with other vehicles lying in the malkhana
compound and it is very difficult to remove them without the help
of heavy machinery/crane. However, MHC(M) produced the
photographs of two vehicles. The photograph of the Santro car is
Ex. PW-42/X and photograph of scooter is Ex.PW-42/Y. (objected
to by Ld. defence counsel regarding mode of proving the said
photographs as the negatives are not produced). At that stage,
MHC(M) produced parcel no.18 sealed with the seal of court.
Same is opened and found to contain one pair of canvas shoes with
metal tag Sport. The same is shown to the witness. Witness
SC No. 57663/2013
FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 98 of 184
identified the same shoes which were seized by IO in his presence.
Pair of shoes is Ex. PS. It is found that one of the Superdarinama
executed by the Superdar in the case for the Superdari amount of
Rs.10 Lakhs is still not traceable as per report of MHC(M). Since
the factum of executing the Superdarinama is not relevant with the
witness, hence the witness was tendered for cross-examination.
55. PW-43 SI Kamal Kohli deposed that On 05.06.2010, he
was posted at PS Moti Nagar. On that day, he served the notice
upon accused Anoop Gupta to join the investigation. Accused
Anoop Gupta had already been declared as Proclaimed Offender in
an another case of PS Crime Branch. Accused Anoop Gupta who
was present in the court that day (witness correctly identified the
accused Anoop Gupta), was apprehended and in the regard,
intimation was given at the office of Crime Branch through
telephone. Accused Anoop Gupta was produced at Rohini Court.
There Insp. Jitender came from office of Crime Branch. He further
deposed that Insp. Jitender examined the accused Anoop Kumar
Gupta. He submitted the original Kalandara U/S 41.1 (a and c)
Cr.P.C. alongwith relevant documents at Rohini Court while
photocopy of the same is Mark A which bears impression of his
signatures at point A. Prior to taking the accused to Rohini Court,
the accused Anoop was arrested and personally searched at PS
vide copies of memos Mark B and Mark C respectively which
bears impression of his signatures at point A. Accused Anoop was
also interrogated at PS Moti Nagar and in that regard his disclosure
statement was recorded. Copy of the same is Mark D which bears
impression of his signatures at point A. The witness further
deposed that Insp. Jagminder Singh also arrested the accused in the
SC No. 57663/2013
FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 99 of 184
present case vide arrest memo Ex.PW-43/A which bears his
signatures at point A. Disclosure statement of accused Anoop
Gupta was also recorded by Insp. Jagminder during interrogation.
During investigation, accused Haider Ali who is present in the
Court that day (Witness correctly identified accused Haider Ali),
was also arrested by Insp. Jagminder Singh in the present case.
From the possession of accused Haider Ali, Rs.20,000/- was
recovered. The said recovered amount was seized by Insp.
Jagminder Singh by preparing pulanda which was sealed with the
seal of JSM, vide seizure memo Ex.PW- 43/B which bears his
signatures at point A. Accused Haider Ali was arrested and
personally searched vide memos Ex.PW- 43/C and Ex.PW-43/D
respectively which bear his signatures at point A. Disclosure
statement of accused Haider Ali was also recorded vide
Ex.PW-43/E which bears his signatures at point A.
Accused Haider Ali was produced at Tis Hazari Courts by
Insp. Jagminder Singh. Accused Anoop Gupta was taken to Rohini
Court by him and from there he was produced at Tis Hazari
Courts. Accused persons were sent to JC.
The witness further deposed that he did not join the
investigation of the present case prior to 05.06.2010. Some
investigation qua accused Deepak @ Deepu was also made in his
presence. A receipt of mobile phone was given to Inspector
Jagminder Singh by Sh Avtar Singh and same was taken into
possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW43/F which bears his
signatures at point A. At that stage, attention of the witness was
drawn towards the photocopy of receipt and on seeing the same,
witness stated that it is the same copy of receipt mark E. Accused
SC No. 57663/2013
FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 100 of 184
Deepak @ Deepu was interrogated in his presence vide disclosure
statement of accused Deepak @ Deepu vide disclosure statement
Ex.PW43/G which bears his signatures at point A. He does not
remember the exact date of investigation qua accused Deepak @
Deepu however, same was conducted prior to 05.06.2010. The
witness further deposed that he can identify the above mentioned
cash of Rs. 20,000/- if shown to him. The currency notes were in
the denomination of Rs. 500/- each.
56. PW-44, Sh. Sidharth Mathur, Joint Registrar, Hon’ble High
Court of Delhi. At that stage, an envelope sealed with the seal of
SM taken out from the record. Seal broken and envelope is opened
and found to contain proceedings of TIP. On 07.08.2010, he was
posted as MM, Central-II, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. On that day,
an application for conducting TIP of case property moved by Insp.
Jagminder Singh of PS Moti Nagar moved in the Court of Ms.
Vandana Jain, Ld MM, was marked to him as he was second Link
MM to that Court. The date of TIP was fixed for 07.08.2010. On
that day, IO had produced witness Mukul S/o Sh. Surender Singh
Bubal was produced by Insp. Raj Kumar of PS Moti Nagar and
witness was duly identified by IO Insp. Raj Kumar. Thereafter,
witness was directed by him to wait outside his chamber and come
when called for. Insp. Raj Kumar had produced mixing material
i.e. seven gold Gents ring from a cloth pulanda. Insp. Raj Kumar
had also opened one sealed pulanda sealed with the seal of RK and
other particulars of the case, before him. Case properties including
one gold gents ring had been taken out from a semi circled rexine
pouch of Kartar Jewelers from sealed pulanda. Insp. Raj Kumar
was then asked to wait outside his chamber. There was no one else
SC No. 57663/2013
FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 101 of 184
in the chamber other than himself and his then stenographer. He
then kept the case property i.e. one gold gents ring on the table
alongwith seven gents rings of similar characteristics. The case
property as well as mixing material were kept on the table in a
line. The case property was kept at sixth position from the right
side and third position from the left side. The witness named
Mukul was then called inside the chamber and was asked to
identify the case property. He correctly identified the case property
as per his statement at point X and was signed by him in his
presence at point Y. Witness was then went outside the chamber.
The TIP proceedings Ex.PW-44/A were concluded. The correctly
identified case property was sealed with the seal of the Court i.e.
SM in a cloth pulanda alongwith the semi circled raxine pouch of
Kartar Jewelers and was handed over to Insp. Raj Kumar
alongwith the mixing material. The copy of the TIP was also given
to Insp. Raj Kumar in pursuance of his application Ex.PW-44/B
bearing his signatures at point A. The TIP proceedings were then
certified by him at point Z bearing his signatures at point Y.
57. PW-45, HC Parveen Kumar, No. 982/OND, PS Alipur,
Delhi deposed that on 01.06.2010 he was posted at PS Moti Nagar
as Constable. On that day, on the direction of the IO, he took
accused Deepak @ Deepu present in the Court that day (Correctly
identified by the witness) to DDU Hospital for his medical
examination on the letter of request by the IO for getting his blood
sample. Thereafter, accused was medically examined there and
after his medical examination doctor handed over one sealed
pulanda sealed with the seal of CMO, DDU Hospital and one
sample seal of same specimen to him and he handed over the same
SC No. 57663/2013
FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 102 of 184
to IO alongwith accused at PS on the same day. IO took the same
into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW-45/A which bears his
signatures at point A. IO recorded his statement.
58. PW-46, Ms. L Babyto Devi, Assistant Director, Biology,
FSL Rohini, Delhi deposed that on 17.09.2010, he was posted as
Senior Scientific Officer in FSL Rohini. On that day, 20 sealed
parcels alongwith sample seals pertaining to the present case
alongwith the other relevant documents duly forwarded by SHO,
PS Moti Nagar were received in the office of FSL and the same
was examined by him. The detail of the samples were mentioned
by her in her report. All the parcels were intact when the same
were opened by her during the examination. After examining the
parcels, she prepared by biological report. Same is Ex.PW-46/A
(Colly 2 sheets) which bear her signatures at points A on each
page. After examination, the remnants of the exhibits were sealed
with the seal of BDFSL Delhi. She further deposed that she had
also prepared serology report after examining the above mentioned
parcels. Except exhibits no. 1, 3, 8, 14A, 14B, 16 and 19, the blood
group ‘A’ was detected on the remaining exhibits mentioned by her
in her report. However, in exhibit 1, 8, 14A, 14B and 16, human
blood was detected but group could not be found, her report in the
regard is Ex.PW-46/B which bears her signatures at point A.
59. PW-47, Ms. Shashi Bala Pahuja, Senior Scientific Officer,
Biology, FSL Rohini, Delhi deposed that on 11.05.2011, two
sealed forensic parcels pertaining to the present case alongwith the
relevant documents attached with the said parcels by the police
were received in the office of FSL Rohini and the same were
assigned to her for DNA examination. Both the parcels were
SC No. 57663/2013
FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 103 of 184
sealed and seals were intact. One sealed parcel was sealed with the
seal of BD FSL Delhi and the other parcel was sealed with the seal
of CMO DDU Hospital. She opened the parcels and examined the
exhibits and prepared her detailed report. Same is Ex.PW-47/A
which bears her signatures at point A and B. During examination,
DNA could not be isolated from the source of exhibits 14a and
14b. In conclusion she had mentioned that no opinion is offered
due to non availability of DNA from the source of exhibits 14a and
14b. Remnants of the exhibits had been sealed with the seal of
SBP FSL Delhi.
60. PW-48 Dr. Deepa Verma, Director, FSL Rohini, Delhi
deposed that on 27.08.2010, she was posted as Assistant Director
(Documents) in FSL Rohini. On that day, one questioned
document and IO admitted documents were received in the office
of FSL Rohini pertaining to the present case alongwith the
forwarding letter of the police. The said documents were assigned
to her for examination. She had examined those documents and
found the signatures on the questioned documents as well as on
admitted documents of the same person. Her detailed report is
Ex.PW-48/A which bears her signatures at point A and B. After
examination, the documents and report were sealed with the seal of
DOC FSL Delhi. The questioned document which was marked as
Q1 and admitted documents marked as Al to A10 are seen by her
from the Judicial File which are the same examined by her in FSL
as deposed by her mentioned above.
61. PW-49 Retd. SI Veerpal Singh deposed that on the night
intervening 24/25.05.2010, he was posted as ASI in Spl. Staff,
West District, Tagore Garden, New Delhi. On 24.05.2010, at about
SC No. 57663/2013
FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 104 of 184
09.45 pm, one secret informer who was already deputed by him for
seeking an information about the present case came to him in his
office and he informed him that one Deepak @ Deepu Bobal @
Deepu who is accused in a murder case pertaining to PS Moti
Nagar and is wanted in that case will come to Prashant Vihar
market near outer ring road to meet someone at about 11.30 PM
and if raid is conducted, he can be apprehended. He brought the
facts of the information in the notice of Inspector Raj Kumar, of
Spl. Staff, West District who instructed SI Manoj who was sitting
with him in his office to inform at PS Moti Nagar in the regard.
Inspector Raj Kumar directed to form a raiding party under his
supervision. At about 10.15 pm, SHO Inspector Hoshiar Singh,
Inspector Raj Kumar, ASI Preet Pal Singh and HC Lokender and
one more Sl whose name he does not recollect at that moment,
from PS Moti Nagar came in their office. The witness further
deposed that thereafter, they all discussed about the secret
information and thereafter, a joint raiding party was constituted
under the supervision of SHO PS Moti Nagar consisting of
himself, SI Manoj Kumar, SI Charan, ASI Nirakar, ASI
Balwinder, HC Ved Prakash, Ct. Devender, Ct. Suresh and Ct.
Sunil from Spl. Staff alongwith secret informer and thereafter, they
alongwith police team of PS Moti Nagar comprising of Inspector
Hoshiar Singh, Inspector Raj Kumar, ASI P.P Singh, SI Raghubir
Singh, HC Lokender etc. left their office in two vehicles. they
were in a govt vehicle TATA 407 bearing No. DL 1LD 5031 while
the police officials from PS Moti Nagar were in their official
Gypsy. Secret informer was with them in TATA 407. He further
deposed that they all left their office at about 10.30 PM, and
SC No. 57663/2013
FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 105 of 184
proceeded towards Prashant Vihar market and reached at Prashant
Vihar market on outer ring road and held naka bandi there on
service lane, Prashant Vihar market. Inspector Raj Kumar from PS
Moti Nagar asked 4-5 passersby to join the raiding party by
disclosing them about the facts of the secret information but none
agreed to join and left the place without disclosing their names and
addresses. Thereafter, they took their position there. He took their
position at T point on service road which goes towards cinema
side. ASI P.P Singh and Inspector Raj Kumar took their position
on service road which goes towards the side of Rohini Courts and
they also parked their Gypsy behind them on road and they all
started waiting for the accused.
Further deposed that at about 12.30 AM, on the night
intervening 24/25.05.2010, one Santro car came from Cinema side.
He noted down the regn no of said Santro car as DL 3C AA 8904
when it was in slow speed. He gave signal to the driver of said car
to stop the same but the driver did not stop there and he took turn
towards right side of the service lane towards court complex where
ASI P.P Singh and Inspector Raj Kumar were already present
there. After seeing the police Gypsy parked there, the driver of the
said Santro car stopped the said car near the said Gypsy. He started
chasing the said santro car and reached near it, in the meantime,
ASI P.P. Singh and Inspector Raj Kumar also reached there and
thereafter, ASI P.P Singh and Inspector Raj Kumar over powered
the driver of said car in his presence. The driver of said Santro car
was identified to be as Deepak @ Deepu Bobal @ Deepu by secret
informer as well as by Inspector Raj Kumar as accused in the
present case. After identifying accused Deepak @ Deepu Bobal @
SC No. 57663/2013
FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 106 of 184
Deepu, secret informer left that place. Inspector Raj Kumar made
enquiry from accused who was having his head shaved and
accused told that he had got cut his hair to conceal his identity. On
interrogation, accused also revealed his name as Deepak @ Deepu
Bobal @ Deepu s/o late Sh Mohan Singh. After interrogation,
accused was arrested in that case by the IO vide arrest memo
already Ex.PW42/C which bears his signatures at point B. His
personal search was also taken vide memo already Ex.PW42/D
which bears his signatures at point B. During personal search of
accused, three receipts, cash amount Rs. 4150/-, one ring silver
colour and some documents including one PAN card were
recovered and were seized in the personal search memo. Accused
made disclosure statement which was recorded by the IO Inspector
Raj Kumar. The same is already Ex.PW42/F which bears his
signatures at point B. During the formal search of accused, two
mobile phones were recovered from the left side pocket of wearing
shirt of accused. One mobile phone was of make Nokia N 79 Grey
and dark brown colour and the other mobile phone of make
Samsung of Steel and Cherry colour. Both the mobile phones were
kept in a transparent plastic jar and thereafter, the jar was sealed in
a pullanda with the seal of RK and were taken into possession vide
seizure memo already Ex.PW42/K which bears his signatures at
point B. Accused signed the same at point X. Thereafter, the
search of Santro car was taken by the IO at the instance of the
accused as per his disclosure statement in his presence. Accused
was got recovered one hand cum shoulder bag of black colour
from underneath the driver seat of car. The same was checked by
the IO in his presence and it was found containing cash amount of
SC No. 57663/2013
FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 107 of 184
Rs. 13,30,000/- in denomination of Rs. 1000 and 500/-. From the
same bag, three ladies rings of gold affixed with diamond ring and
two gold chains and one pair of tops affixed with cherry colour
stone (nag), two gold chain lockets, one locket of gold on which
the picture of Sri Guru Nanak Dev ji is engraved, one gold ring on
which the word ‘S’ is engraved. The said jewelery articles were
found kept in a pouch on which kartar jewelers were printed. All
the currency notes mentioned above were sealed by the IO in
separate pullandas after keeping them in transparent plastic jars
and were sealed with the seal of RK. The jewelery articles
mentioned above were kept in the same jewelery pouch of Kartar
Jewelers and thereafter, same were sealed in a pulland with the
seal of RK. Some documents including photos were also found in
the said bag and the said documents were kept in the same bag and
thereafter, the bag was sealed in a pullanda with the seal of RK.
Thereafter, all these pullandas were taken into possession by the
IO vide seizure memo already Ex.PW42/B which bears his
signatures at point B. The Santro car bearing Regn No. DL 3C AA
8904 was also taken into possession by the IO in his presence vide
seizure memo already Ex.PW42/E which bears his signatures at
point B. IO prepared site plan of the place of arrest and recovery
effected from the accused on that day.
PW deposed that he can identify the case properties if
shown to him. Ld. State Counsel submits that case property has
already been exhibited in the statement of other witnesses.
62. PW-50 Inspector Raj Kumar deposed that on 24.05.2010,
he was posted as Inspector Investigation PS Moti Nagar. On that
day, one information was conveyed by Spl. Staff which was
SC No. 57663/2013
FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 108 of 184
reduced to DD NO. 34A. It was informed that accused in the
present case would come in the area of Rohini. The witness
deposed that he has seen the DD No. 34-A from judicial file, the
same is now Mark A. Further deposed that thereafter, on receipt of
information mentioned in DD No. 34-A from Police Station, Moti
Nagar he alongwith SHO Inspector Hoshiar Singh, SI Raghubir
Singh, ASI Preet Pal Singh and HC Lokender and Const. Ravinder
and ASI Driver from PS Moti Nagar in government vehicle at
about 10.05 P.M. and reached office of special staff, West District,
Tagore Garden, New Delhi within 10-15 minutes. Thereafter, they
all discussed about the secret information with the official of
special staff including Inspt. Raj Kumar, Inspt. Special Staff, West
District, SI Charan Singh, ASI Veer Pal, SI Manoj etc. Thereafter,
a joint raiding party was constituted under the supervision of SHO
PS Moti Nagar, Inspt. Hoshiar Singh consisting of himself, SI
Manoj Kumar, SI Charan Singh, ASI Nirakar, ASI Balwinder. HC
Ved Prakash, Ct. Devender, Ct. Suresh and Ct. Sunil from Spl.
Staff alongwith secret informer alongwith police team of PS Moti
Nagar comprising of Inspector Hoshiar Singh, himself, ASI P.P
Singh, SI Raghubir Singh, HC Lokender etc. left from office
special staff in two vehicles. Also deposed that Police officials of
Special Staff were in a govt vehicle i.e. TATA 407 bearing No. DL
1LD 5031 whereas the police officials from PS Moti Nagar were
in their official Gypsy. Secret informer was also in TATA 407. He
deposed that they all left the office of Special Staff at about 10.30
PM, and proceeded towards Prashant Vihar market and reached at
Prashant Vihar market on outer ring road and held naka bandi
there on service lane, Prashant Vihar market. He asked 4-5
SC No. 57663/2013
FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 109 of 184
passersby to join the raiding party by disclosing them about the
facts of the secret information but none agreed to join and left the
place without disclosing their names and addresses. Thereafter, he
and ASI P.P. Singh took their position on service road which goes
towards the side of Rohini Courts and they also parked their Gypsy
behind them on road and ASI Veer Pal took his position at T
point on service road which goes towards cinema side. they all
started waiting for the accused. Further deposed that at about 12.30
am, on the night intervening 24/25.05.2010, one Santro car came
from Cinema side. ASI Veer Pal gave signal to the driver of one
car to stop the same but the driver did not stop there and he took
turn towards right side of the service lane towards court complex
where he and ASI P.P Singh were already present there. After
seeing the police Gypsy parked there, the driver of the said Santro
car stopped the said car near the said Gypsy. ASI Veer Pal started
chasing the said santro car and reached near it, in the meantime, he
and ASI P.P. Singh also over powered the driver of said car
bearing no. DL-3CAA-8904. The driver of said Santro car was
identified to be as Deepak @ Deepu Bobal @ Deepu by him as
well as secret informer. After identifying accused Deepak @
Deepu Bobal @ Deepu, secret informer left that place. He made
enquiry from accused who was having his head shaved and
accused told that he had got cut his hair to conceal his identity. On
interrogation, accused also revealed his name as Deepak @ Deepu
Bobal @ Deepu s/o late Sh Mohan Singh. After interrogation,
accused was arrested in the case by the him vide arrest memo
already Ex.PW42/C which bears his signatures at point C. His
personal search was also taken vide memo already Ex.PW42/D
SC No. 57663/2013
FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 110 of 184
which bears his signatures at point C. During personal search of
accused, three receipts of checking of gold two of dated
20.04.2010 and of dated 24.05.2010, the said receipts are already
marked as Mark X, Y & Z. From the personal search of the
accused cash amount Rs. 4150/-, one ring silver colour and some
documents including one PAN card were also recovered and were
seized in the personal search memo. Accused made disclosure
statement which was recorded by him. The same is already
Ex.PW42/F which bears his signatures at point C. During the
formal search of accused, two mobile phones were recovered from
the left side pocket of wearing shirt of accused. One mobile phone
was of make Nokia N 79 Grey and dark brown colour and the
other mobile phone of make Samsung of Steel and Cherry colour.
Both the mobile phones were kept in a transparent plastic jar and
thereafter, the jar was sealed in a pullanda with the seal of RK and
were taken into possession vide seizure memo already Ex.PW42/K
which bears his signatures at point C. Accused signed the same at
point X. Thereafter, the search of Santro car was taken by him at
the instance of the accused as per his disclosure statement in his
presence. Accused was got recovered one hand cum shoulder bag
of black colour from underneath the driver seat of car. The same
was checked by the him in his presence and it was found
containing cash amount of Rs. 13,30,000/- in denomination of Rs.
1000 and Rs.500/-. From the same bag, three ladies rings of gold
affixed with diamond ring and two gold chains and one pair of
tops affixed with cherry colour stone (nag), two gold chain lockets,
one locket of gold on which the picture of Sri Guru Nanak Dev ji
is engraved, one gold ring on which the word ‘S’ is engraved.
SC No. 57663/2013
FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 111 of 184
There were two lockets of gold out of which one is engrved OM
and on another there was a picture of Hanumanji. The said
jewelery articles were found kept in a pouch on which kartar
jewelers were printed. All the currency notes mentioned above
were sealed by him in separate pullandas after keeping them in
transparent plastic jars and were sealed with the seal of RK. The
jewelery articles mentioned above were kept in the same jewelery
pouch of Kartar Jewelers and thereafter, same were sealed in a
pulland with the seal of RK. Some documents including photos
were also found in the said bag and the said documents were kept
in the same bag and thereafter, the bag was sealed in a pullanda
with the seal of RK. Thereafter, all these three pullandas were
taken into possession by him vide seizure memo already
Ex.PW42/B which bears his signatures at point C. The Santro car
bearing Regn No. DL 3C AA 8904 was also taken into possession
by the IO in his presence vide seizure memo already Ex.PW42/E
which bears his signatures at point C. He prepared site plan of the
place of arrest and recovery effected from the accused on that day
same is already exhibited as Ex. PW-42/G which bears his
signatures at point C. He further deposed that, thereafter, they
alongwith accused persons and case property came back to Police
Station, Moti Nagar. Case property was deposited by him in Mal
Khanna intact. He recorded the statement of ASI Veer Pal and ASI
P.P. Singh under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Also deposed that on
07.08.2010 the case file of the present case was again marked to
him for investigation as IO of the present case Inspt. Joginder
Singh was on leave. On that day he proceeded with one sealed
parcel sealed with the seal of RK containing the jewellery article
SC No. 57663/2013
FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 112 of 184
got recovered by accused from his car and another pulanda
containing artificial jewellery of similar description duly sealed
with the seal of JSM from MHC (M) of P.S. Moti Nagar and
produced the same before Id. M.M. Sh. Sidharth Mathur, for the
purpose of judicial TIP. Public witnesses, namely, Mukul, Harjeet
Kaur, Vinita and Arti also reached in the court of Ld. M.M. As per
direction already given by the M.M. Court, the case property i.e.
jewellery articles mentioned above were duly identified by the
witnesses mentioned above in the judicial TIP. He moved
application before Ld. M.M. for obtaining the copy of TIP
proceedings the same was allowed by the Ld. M.M. and He
obtained a copy of the TIP proceedings. Case property was sealed
with the seal of the court i.e. S.M. Thereafter, he went to Police
Station and case property was deposited in the Police Station in the
Mal Khanna. He recorded the statement of the public witnesses
mentioned above under Section 161 Cr.P.C out side the court room
at Tis Hazari Court. Const. Anil was with him when he reached in
the court as mentioned above. He handed over the relevant
documents to the IO alongwith case file. So long case property
remained in his possession same was not tampered with in any
way.
The witness further deposed that he can identify the case
properties if shown to him. At that stage MHC(M) P.S. Moti
Nagar has produced one sealed parcel sealed with the seal of court.
Parcel is opened and found contain two lockets of gold out of both
the one is in the shape of Om and the other is in the shape of Lord
Hanuman. The same are shown to the witness, who identified the
same correctly, as the which were got recovered by the accused
SC No. 57663/2013
FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 113 of 184
and same are already exhibited as Ex. PA and Ex. PB. Also,
MHC(M) produced another Pullanda sealed with the court seal,
seal broken, said pulanda contains of one gold chain, same is
shown to the witness, who identified the same correctly stating that
that is one of the chain out of two gold chains got recovered by the
accused from his car. Same is already Ex. PC. Further, MHC(M)
produced another Pullanda sealed with the court seal, seal broken,
said pulanda contains of two gold rings i.e one big size ring having
diamonds and one small gold ring having diamonds, same are
shown to the witness, who identified the same correctly stating that
these got recovered by the accused from his car. Same are already
exhibited as Ex. PD & PE. MHC(M) produced another Pullanda
sealed with the court seal, seal broken, said pulanda contains one
small jewellery pouch on which Kartar Jeweller is written, and the
pouch contain one locket on which picture of Shri Guru Nanak
Dev is scribed. The same pouch also contain one gold ring on
which word S is written with diamond stones same are shown to
the witness, who identified the same correctly stating that same got
recovered by the accused from his car. Same are already exhibited
as Ex. P1.
He further deposed that day he has seen the copy of DD no.
34A from the judicial file which is already Ex. PW54/A and
already marked as mark A from the judicial file. He can identify
case property if shown to him. Further, MHC(M) produced one
sealed transparent plastic jar duly sealed with the seal of RK. Same
is opened and found to contain two mobile phone, one is make
Samsung of Silver and Cherry Colour and another of make Nokia
N-79 of Grey and Brown colour shown to the witness and witness
SC No. 57663/2013
FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 114 of 184
identified the same mobile phones which were recovered from the
pocket of the wearing shirt of accused Deepak @ Deepu@ Deepu
at the time of his arrest. Mobiles phone of make Samsung is Ex.
PW50/PL and mobile phone make Nokia is Ex. PW50/PM. Also,
MHC(M) PS Moti Nagar produced 3 photographs of Santro Car
bearing plate of registration no. DL3CAA-8904 on front and back
side, of white color shown to the witness and witness has
identified the photographs to be of the same Santro car which was
in the possession of the accused and was driving the same when he
was apprehended and arrested. The photographs are marked as
Mark A, B and C respectively. MHC(M) submits that the said car
is still lying in the malkhana and cannot be produced in the court
without the help of the crane as the same is intermingled with
other vehicles in the malkhana. He can identify the remaining case
properties i.e. gold chain, gold ring and gold ear tops, if shown to
him. Lastly, MHC(M) states that the said jewellery articles were
released on superdari to the concerned owners. Ld. Addl. PP for
the state submits that the above mentioned three articles have
already been produced in the court and duly exhibited in the court
from the concerned witnesses during trial. Accused Deepak @
Deepu Deepu present in the court that day. (correctly identified by
the witness).
63. PW-51 Statement of Insp. Mahesh Kumar deposed that on
01.07.2010 he was working as SI Draftsman, Crime Branch, PHQ.
On that day on the request of the IO of the present case, Inspt.
Jagminder Singh, he visited the spot i.e. House No. B-1/43, New
Moti Nagar, Delhi. He took measurement and prepared rough
notes of the spot at the instance of Inspt. Jagminder Singh. On the
SC No. 57663/2013
FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 115 of 184
basis of those rough notes he prepared scaled Site Plan on
29.07.2010 in his office and handed over the same to the IO. After
preparing the scaled site plan rough notes were destroyed by him.
his scaled site plan is Ex. PW-151/A which bears his signatures at
point A.
64. PW-52 ASI Sanjay Bhati deposed that on 24.05.2010 he
was posted in Special Staff, West District, Tagore Garden, New
Delhi and was working as Duty Officer from 8:00 PM to 8:00 AM.
On that day he recorded DD no. 10 and 11 as per the dictation
given by SI Manoj Kumar of Special Staff of West District. That
day, he brought the original DD register. True copy of the said DD
no. 10 is Ex. PW52/A and true copy of DD no. 11 is Ex. PW52/B.
(OSR).
65. PW-53 Inspector Rishi Pal Singh deposed that on
21.07.2011 he was posted as Inspector ATO at PS Moti Nagar. On
that day MHC(M) PS Moti Nagar handed over the FSL result
alongwith the relevant documents in sealed condition pertaining to
the present case. He filed the same in the court by way of
supplementary charge-sheet.
66. PW-54 ASI Pawan Kumar deposed that on 24.05.2010, he
was posted at PS Moti Nagar and was working as Duty Officer
from 4:00 pm to 12:00 midnight. On that day at about 10:05 pm SI
Manoj Kumar of Special Staff, West District had informed him on
telephone about the facts of secret information received by him
through informer. The detail of the information given to him on
telephone is recorded by him in the daily diary vide DD no. 34A.
that day He has brought the original DD register. The DD no. 34A
is in his handwriting and true copy of the same which is already
SC No. 57663/2013
FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 116 of 184
marked A is now Ex. PW-54/A (OSR).
STATEMENT U/S 313 CR.P.C
67. After completing the prosecution evidence, statement of
accused persons u/s 313 Cr. PC were recorded. Accused persons
have denied the allegations of the prosecution and they have
deposed that they are innocent and they have been falsely
implicated in the case. All the incriminating evidence were put to
the accused persons to which they have denied as being incorrect
and have stated that a false case has been registered against them
and they have been falsely implicated in the case.
68. Further accused Anoop Kumar Gupta and Haider Ali have
deposed that they are innocent and accused Deepak @ Deepu is
not known to them in any manner and they have never visited him
at their house and they have never helped co-accused Deepak @
Deepu by providing any shelter or harbour at their house or at any
place in any manner and they have been falsely implicated by the
IO in connivance with the complainant only to work out the
present case.
69. Accused Deepak @ Deepu stated that he is innocent.
On 27.3.2010, he was informed by his mother and brother about
the murder of Shri Surinder who was his uncle. He immediately
went to the spot where many people had already gathered. He also
joined them and saw the body of his uncle Surinder drenched in
blood. Since his brother Inder @ Lovely had reported the matter,
therefore, within few time the police also reached there followed
by dog squad and other persons from crime branch. When he was
present there, The dog handler smelled the dog and left it to find
SC No. 57663/2013
FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 117 of 184
the culprit, however, the dog could not be of any help to the police.
At that time his Aunty (Mrs. Surinder) and her son Mukul were
not present and he was told that they had gone out of Delhi. After
the police held the investigation and took some articles from the
spot, they left the place. In the night his aunty and her son Mukul
came and he along with his mother had gone to their house for the
condolence of death of Surinder. On the following day also the
police came to the spot and some articles were taken in their
possession. Thereafter, the IO asked him to join the investigation
and he joined the investigation. The IO took the accused persons to
the office of an expert to give their figure prints. He along with
other persons, who also were asked to join the investigation along
with his mother gave the sample as required in the office of the
expert. Thereafter, the IO told him that his finger prints do not
tally with the chance prints. However IO told him that he must be
available for joining the investigation as and when required to
which he agreed. The IO then took them for their Polygamy test,
but on that day the machine was not in the working condition so he
returned. Thereafter, he had to go to out of Delhi and so sought the
permission of the IO who told him to go and on return join the
investigation for Polygraph test. He had collected about Rs.
14,00,000 cash and gold and gold ornaments and they all were
lying at his house as he had the intention to purchase the shop in
Karol bagh. All the articles with cash was lying in his house in the
custody of his wife. He returned from Ludhiana on 23-5-2010 in
the late night and his wife told him that he was required by IO. He
had the intention to go to Police station in the morning of 24th
May 2010 but due to some work he could not go to police station.
SC No. 57663/2013
FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 118 of 184
The IO got annoyed and he told him he will come on 25 th morning.
However, in the late hours of night between 24/25th, the police
party raided his house and took him into custody. They ransacked
his house and took the money of about Rs. 14,00,000 lying in cash
with gold and gold ornaments. He told them that the money has
been collected by him and showed them the source and account.
The police officer Raj Kumar, IO did not listen to him and took the
money with gold and ornaments and papers with him. On the next
morning he destroyed his papers and shown him arrested in the
case. Thereafter, Jagminder Singh IO started investigating him and
obtained his signatures on many blank papers and fabricated the
evidence. He told him that he had gone out of station with his
permission but he did not hear him. When he told him that he is
still ready to go for Polygraph but test he refused and illegally
arrested him. The blank papers got signed, were misused at many
places. When he enquired him about the house at Paschim Vihar,
he told him that he had never resided there, and all the clothes and
other articles planted upon him do not belong to him and have
been planted to make a false case against him. There is no legal
and scientific evidence against him. The DNA test also do not
tally. He was never taken to Paschim Vihar nor he was arrested
from there, a false story has been made against him to falsely
implicate him in connivance with Mukul and his mother. He had
never purchased any shoes nor they belong to him. Similarly the
knives have also been planted upon him and he has no connection
with the knives. Mukul and his mother had the enmity with him
from the day he had opened the shop near to their shop and so they
were having grudge against him as a rival competitor. He didn’t
SC No. 57663/2013
FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 119 of 184
know any Haider Ali and Anoop Kumar and have no concern with
them ever. He is a victim of the suspicion by Mukul and his
mother and in connivance with the police they falsely got him
arrested and got him implicated in the present case though he had
not done anything.
DEFENCE EVIDENCE
70. In order to prove his innocence, only accused Deepak @
Deepu examined six defence evidence u/s 315 Cr.P.C including
himself and five others.
71. DW-1 Statement of HC Dharam Pal deposed that he was
posted in malkhana of the police station. On receipt of the
summons from the Hon’ble Court, he checked out from the record
and found that the record pertaining to the year 2010 including the
log book pertaining to year 1995-2015 of the case has already been
weeded out vide order no. 64. He had not brought the order no. 64
that day through which the said record was ordered to be weeded
out, however, he had brought one copy of the order undated
bearing no. 3832/HAR accompanied with the copy of the order
regarding destruction of old records of MT unit of District West.
He could produce the original order no. 64 issued from the
department for weeded out the record on next date of hearing. On
the next date he deposed that he had brought the summoned record
in regard to the destruction of the record vide order no. 64. The
same order was passed by D.CP West Distt, New Delhi and has
been attested by ACP (HQ). He had filed the same before the court
as Ex.DW1/A. As per that record, while record in regard to log
book from 1995 to 2015 has been weeded out and therefore, he
was unable to produce the log book called for.
SC No. 57663/2013
FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 120 of 184
72. DW-2 Sh. Shri Kishan, s/o Sh. Late Sh. Ganga Ram, aged
60 years, occupation property dealer, r/o. A-142, 3th Floor,
Sudarshan Park, New Delhi-15 deposed that he knew accused
Deepak @ Deepu, who works as a goldsmith and also sells the
jewellery. He also mortgaged the gold of other customers at
B-1/41, New Moti Nagar, Delhi in the shop at the back side of his
residential house. He is an old customer of them as he had been
getting the gold items get prepared from the time of his father. On
10 or 12th March, 2010, he had given some old gold of about
55gms and also cash of Rs.1,00,000/- for getting manufactured the
one set of gold, one matar mala and 04 gold bangles. Deepak @
Deepu sought the time for about two or two and a half months for
manufacturing the above mentioned ornaments. However, he could
not get the same ornaments from him as he came to know that he
was arrested by the police. His gold and cash of Rs. 1,00,000/- still
remained with him. He was cross-examined by Ld. Addl. PP for
State wherein he deposed that the name of father of accused
Deepak @ Deepu was Sh. Mohan Singh. He had given 55 grams
gold in the form of ornaments not at a melted gold. The said
ornaments includes one gold set (haar) and ear rings (kante) and
the same ornaments were of his wife. Accused Deepak @ Deepu
gave him the receipt of the said ornaments and cash but that day he
had not brought the same as the same was not available with him.
He denied the suggestion that no jewellery mentioned above was
given by him to accused Deepak @ Deepu or that due to that fact
he was unable to produce any proof in lieu of that old jewellery.
He was a property dealer and not an income tax payee. He is not
having proof regarding the source of cash amount of Rs. 1,00,000/-
SC No. 57663/2013
FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 121 of 184
as the same was lying at his home as he used to deal in the
property dealing. Even he cannot tell the details of the property
dealings from whom the said amount received by him as it was a
old matter. The cash of Rs. 1,00,000/- which he gave to accused
Deepak @ Deepu was in different denomination of Rs. 100/-, Rs.
500/- and Rs.1000/-. Even he cannot tell as to how many cash was
in the denomination of Rs. 100/-, Rs. 500/- and Rs. 1000/-. He had
never lodged any complainant to police or any other authority
regarding recover of the alleged gold haar and kante and cash
amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- till that day. He had also not claimed the
same from the family members of accused by filing any case in the
court. He denied the suggestion that he had not lodged any
complainant to any authority or before the court for taking any
action for the recovery of said old jewellery and cash amount
because no such amount of jewellery was given to accused Deepak
@ Deepu by him as mentioned above. He denied the suggestion
that he never gave Rs. 1,00,000/- to the accused Deepak @ Deepu
that is why he could not remember the correct denomination of the
currency notes in breakup. He denied the suggestion that accused
Deepak @ Deepu was not doing any business of mortgaging or
even manufacturing the jewellery or runs any jewellery shop at the
time of incident. He voluntarily deposed that accused was running
a jewellery shop in the name of New Kartar Jewellers at New Moti
Nagar. He denied the suggestion that he had come to the court only
at the instance of accused being his old friend to save him from
legal punishment. He denied the suggestion that he is deposing
falsely.
SC No. 57663/2013
FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 122 of 184
73. DW-3 Smt. Asha Rani, w/o Sh. Satish Kumar Kakkar, aged
60 years, r/o B-1/54, New Moti Nagar, Near Puri Mandir, Delhi-15
deposed that he is a summoned witness. She knew Deepak @
Deepu (accused in that case) since last 30-35 years as he lived in
his neighbourhood. Accused Deepak @ Deepu was running a
jewellery shop in the name and style of New Kartar Jewellers in B-
block and the shop number is perhaps 171 or 117 but he had not
confirmed, which is situated at a 5 minutes walking distance of his
house. Accused Deepak @ Deepu was residing in his house
situated in front of his house.
On 31.05.2010, there was a marriage of her daughter
namely, Vijeta and prior to her marriage function, on 23.05.2010,
they organized a Kirtan in a temple near his house. At about
12/12:30 PM. She heard a noise (shor sharaba) inside from his
house from outside as they were taking sleep. His mother who was
also present in their house, also told them about the said noise and
asked us to go outside and see. Accordingly, she himself went
outside the house. She noticed many persons standing outside the
house of accused Deepak @ Deepu and many persons were also
present inside the house of accused. She herself also went inside
the house of accused Deepak @ Deepu and found the police
officials also present alongwith the public persons and she also
noticed that locker (Tijori) fixed in a room was opened and police
officials were taking out the the jewellery, some papers and cash.
Accused Deeapak was standing there and other persons were also
standing there and were watching the scene but she did not
remember the name of those persons who were present at that
SC No. 57663/2013
FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 123 of 184
time, though they were her neighbours. Family members of
accused Deepak @ Deepu were also present there.
Ms. Meena Bobal and her son Mukul Bobal was also
present there at that time. They asked the police officers as to why
they were taking out the jewellery, papers and cash but they
admonished them on the pretext that they should leave the spot,
otherwise they will take the action against also. Thereafter, she
came out from the house of accused Deepak @ Deepu and
remained standing outside her house. Accused Deepak @ Deepu
was taken by police and police also took the above mentioned
articles.
On cross-examination by the Ld. Addl. PP for State. The
witness admitted that 3-4 days back she was asked to come to the
court to give the evidence in the case by mother of accused Asha
Bobal that is why she come to this court that day. Her house and
the house of accused Deepak @ Deepu was just opposite to each
other’s house in the same lane. He had never gave any complaint to
the higher police authority or any other department that accused
Deepak @ Deepu has been falsely implicated in the prosecution
case or that police officials had taken out cash, jewellery article
and documents from house of accused Deepak @ Deepu, even he
had never given any application to IO or SHO in this regard. He
had no knowledge if accused Deepak @ Deepu remained as tenant
in house no. A-5/291, 3d floor, Paschim Vihar, Delhi belonging to
one Dr. Manoj Jain. They have not paid any charges to organize a
kirtan on 23.05.2010 to the Puri Mandir near his house at New
Moti Nagar. He admitted that there was provision to pay the
charges to the temple for organizing kirtan/other function on
SC No. 57663/2013
FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 124 of 184
payment of nominal charges by the neighbors and some higher
charges to other people. He denied the suggestion that he had not
been able to produce any receipt as no such kirtan was held on
23.05.2010. The said kirtan was held from 3:00 PM to 6:00 PM.
He denied the suggestion that the complainant Meena Bobal and
her son Mukul Bobal were not present at the alleged date, time and
place or that he had not seen them with the police or that he was
not present at the time of recovery of the articles at the instance of
accused. He denied the suggestion that he concocted false story in
the court only at the instance of the mother of accused to save him
from legal punishment. He denied the suggestion that accused had
committed the murder of his uncle or that the jewellery articles,
cash amount, weapon of offence i.e. knife and the clothes of
accused worn by him at the time of incident were recovered by
police at the instance of accused Deepak @ Deepu. He denied the
suggestion that accused was residing on rent at the house of Dr.
Manoj Jain at Paschim Vihar at the time of incident. He denied the
suggestion that he had a false and procured witness and deposing
falsely being the neighbour of the accused. He denied the
suggestion that he is deposing falsely.
74. DW-4 Sh Sachin Vohra, s/o late Sh Mohan Lal Vohra, aged
about 40 years, property dealer r/o B-1/9, New Moti Nagar, New
Delhi deposed that he know accused Deepak @ Deepu who was
the resident of house in front of his house. He worked as goldsmith
as well as sells the ornaments and prepares the ornaments. On
23.05.2010 at about 12/12.15 AM (in the night), he was present in
his house and was taking rest. He heard some noise coming from
the street in front of his house. When he came out from his house,
SC No. 57663/2013
FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 125 of 184
he saw that many people had gathered in the street in front of
house of Deepak @ Deepu at B-1/41, New Moti Nagar. When he
came there, he entered the house and found that some police
officials in dress and some other police officials in civil dress were
present inside the house. He saw that the police officials were
taking out the gold cash and certain papers from the Tijori. They
were taking out the whole jewellery gold and cash alongwith
certain papers and were putting in the clothes with them. When he
asked those police officials if they had any search warrant for
searching the house, he was threatened by the police officials that
he should keep silence or he would also be arrested in the same
case made out against Deepak @ Deepu, many other persons
including Karan, Steel, Pink and Micky and many other persons
were present at that time. In his presence, Smt. Pinki also objected
to that but she was also threatened in the same way and she also
kept silence. Thereafter, those police officials took away all the
articles i.e gold, jewellery, cash and papers out of the Tijori and
took that with them. They also took Deepak @ Deepu with them in
the PS. He could not give any application to the senior officials of
the police about this incident as he was scared and did not want to
involve himself into any case.
75. Witness was cross-examined by the Ld. Addl. PP for the
State and he deposed that his office was situated at the distance of
about 15 minutes travel from P.S. The property dealers knew about
the posting of SHO etc. He did not remember the name of any
police official who were present over there as long time has
passed. He denied the suggestion that he was not able to tell their
names as he was not present there nor he saw anything nor
SC No. 57663/2013
FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 126 of 184
anything happened in his presence. Pinki was the relative of
Deepak @ Deepu. During his business of property dealing as he
did the fair business, he did not feel afraid of police officials. He
denied the suggestion that accused was arrested in this case in his
presence or that he was having knowledge that the recovery has
been effected at the instance of accused on the date mentioned in
the chargesheet. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing
falsely being neighbour and relative of accused Deepak @ Deepu.
He voluntarily deposed that he is not relative of Deepak @ Deepu.
He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely at the
instance of family of accused to save him from legal punishment.
76. DW-5 Smt. Asha Bobal, w/o late Sh Mohan Singh Bobal,
aged about 64 years, housewife, r/o B-1/41, New Moti Nagar,
Delhi deposed that accused Deepak @ Deepu is her son. Deepak
@ Deepu was in custody in the present false case. The deceased
Surender Singh Bobal was related to her as her dewar. He was
found murdered on 27.03.2010. Her house is near to the house of
deceased. After hearing the news of murder of Surender Singh
Bobal, he alongwith his sons Deepak @ Deepu and Lovely
alongwith other persons of the area had gone to the house of
Surender Singh Bobal. Smt. Mena Bobal w/o Sh Surender Singh
Bobal or his son Mukul were not present there in the house. The
police was present there and they were investigating. The dog
squad was also there which was smelling the persons present there
but was not in a position to point out anybody. At the time when
dog was smelling her, Deepak @ Deepu and Lovely all were
present in the house. The police had collected the articles
alongwith phone from the spot and thereafter, they went away.
SC No. 57663/2013
FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 127 of 184
Smt Meena who is related to her as her devrani alongwith her son
and others had reached the house in the night. She and her sons
had gone to the house of Smt Meena for condolence. The police
later on had called for her, Deepak @ Deepu and Lovely with
other persons for taking the finger prints. Later on, the police had
informed them that their finger prints did not tally with the chance
prints taken by the police. Later on, police asked them that their
polygraph test was also required to be done. She with Deepak @
Deepu and Lovely had gone for polygraph test but since the
machine was out of order, therefore, it could not be done on that
day. Police officials asked them that since the machine was not
working, therefore, they called them to come later for their test.
Deepak @ Deepu since had to go outside Delhi, therefore, he
sought the permission of the IO Inspector Sh Jagminder Singh for
going out. He told Deepak @ Deepu that he can go and since his
finger prints have not matched, therefore, they had no objection in
case Deepak @ Deepu goes outside Delhi and they will take his
polygraph test on his return. All these talks had taken place in her
presence. Thereafter, Deepak @ Deepu left Delhi for going on tour
after taking permission of the police.
On 23.05.2010, Deepak @ Deepu had returned to the house
in the night. After he had come, they took their dinner together but
later on, at about 12/12.15 in the night, there was a bell on the door
and Deepak @ Deepu went there to open the door. He found that
Inspector Raj Kumar who was in dress alongwith certain other
officials were in civil dress came inside the house. These police
officials started beating Deepak @ Deepu and started thrashing
him and asked him to open the Tijori. Due to this commotion,
SC No. 57663/2013
FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 128 of 184
many persons from the locality gathered there including Karan,
Vicky, Sachin, Sheel, Smt. Pinky and many other persons gathered
there. In their presence, the police got his Tijori opened. On
objection as to why they were getting the Tijori opened, the police
officials Raj Kumar and others threatened her, Sachin, Pinky and
others to be silent otherwise they all would be also arrested in this
case. The police after getting the Tijori opened, took out cash
worth about Rs. 13-14 lakhs, gold jewellery, papers. Deepak @
Deepu had objected on the pretext that the papers cash gold and
jewellery contain the accounts of all the customers and classify the
presence of these articles. All these things cash, gold jewelery
were collected in a cloth but they did not give any receipt for the
same nor prepared inventory and took away all the articles with
them, they also took Deepak @ Deepu with them. Thereafter, he
contacted his daughter, son in law, other relatives and went to
police station to know about the arrest of Deepak @ Deepu but the
police officials silenced them and assured for leaving Deepak @
Deepu later on but Deepak @ Deepu was never released and he
was arrested in the present false case on suspicion. His polygraphy
test with Lovely and other persons was conducted by the police but
no adverse thing came. Deepak @ Deepu at the time of his arrest
from the house told the police that he was present and was ready
for his polygraphy test but the police intentionally did not get it
done. Deepak @ Deepu has been falsely arrested.
77. On cross-examination by Ld. Addl. PP for the State, he
admitted that police had not recorded their complaint nor she had
any complaint with her at present to show that he had or wanted to
move the application. He denied the suggestion that Deepak @
SC No. 57663/2013
FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 129 of 184
Deepu had committed murder on 23.05.2010 and looted all his
jewellery cash and put all these things in his rented room owned
by Dr. Manoj Jain at Paschim Vihar. He denied the suggestion that
he was arrested from there and he got recovered all these things
from there alongwith blood stained clothes and shoes. He denied
the suggestion that Pinky or Sachin or any other person was not
present at her house or story made by her regarding visit of the
police and recovery by the police from Tijori of her house is false.
Pinky is common relative of her and that of the complainant. She
admitted that her dewar used to run the jewelery shop. Vol. Her
son Deepak @ Deepu was also running the jewelery shop. He
denied the suggestion that her son was not running any jewelery
shop and she is deposing falsely to that effect to save his son from
legal punishment
78. DW-6 is accused Deepak @ Deepu who has examined
himself u/s 315 Cr.P.C deposed that deceased Surender was his
real uncle (chacha), who used to reside in premises no. B-1/43,
New Moti Nagar, Delhi alongwith his family members. On
27.03.2010, he came to know about the murder of his deceased
uncle. Thereafter, he alongwith his other family members visited
the house of deceased and neighbours also reached there. When he
reached at the house of deceased there were many persons present
in the house. In his presence, police also reached in the house of
deceased. He also noticed blood on the earth in the house. He also
noticed the blood on the body of the deceased. His real brother
namely Inder reported the matter to the police. When they visited
the house of deceased, none of the family members of the
deceased were present in the house. After reporting the matter to
SC No. 57663/2013
FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 130 of 184
police by his brother Inder, Police Dog squad and finger print
bureau officials visited to the house of deceased. He was also
present in the house of deceased. Officials of the finger print
bureau lifted the chance prints and dog squad has also conducted
their proceedings as required. Dog smell by taking round in the
house. The family of deceased uncle was out of station on the said
date. The fact that family of deceased uncle was out of station
came to his knowledge after he reached in the house of the persons
present there. After conducting the proceedings in the house, dog
squad left. In his presence, nothing was seized by the police. The
family of deceased came back in the night on the same day but he
did not recollect the time of their reaching in the house. He
alongwith his family members visited the house of deceased to pay
the condolences.
On 28.03.2010, the dead body of deceased was collected
from hospital and was taken for the cremation at Rajghat. Again
said Punjabi Bagh, Cremation. Police officials were also present at
the house of deceased on 28.03.2010, when they visited. Police
made inquiries from him about his presence in the house of
deceased and thereafter left. After about 10 days from 28.03.2010,
police took him to Rajouri Garden, police station, where his finger
prints/specimen were taken and finger prints/specimen of 8-10
persons were also taken at that time. Thereafter, he was relieved by
the police and he came back to his house. After about 2-4 days
after taking his finger prints/specimen, IO Jagminder told him that
finger prints of none of the persons including him were matched.
Thereafter, IO also told him that in case any inquiry, he will call
him regarding the present case. After about 10-15 days from
SC No. 57663/2013
FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 131 of 184
28.03.2010, IO took him for the polygraphy test in South Delhi,
name and address of the department, he did not know. But as IO
told him that the machine was not working and his said test could
not be conducted. Thereafter, he again relieved stating that he will
be called as and when required.
In the middle of April 2010, probable 14-15th April, he with
the permission of IO visited Punjab due to some work for
purchasing the property and for complying with the bulk order of
the gold, which he received as he deal in gold and silver. He came
back from Punjab in the evening of 23.05.2010. When he came
back to Delhi from Punjab on 23.05.2010, he was having gold
jewellery articles and cash about Rs. 14 lakhs. He kept the cash
and jewellery in the locker of his jewellery shop. He was running
the jewellery shop in his house address mentioned above, adjacent
to the house of his deceased uncle. When he came back to his
house, his family members told him that he had been called by IO
in the PS and he told them that he would visit the PS in the
morning.
In the night of 23-24.05.2010 at about 12:00 PM police
visited his house and took away cash, jewellery and some papers
pertaining to his business calculations. Police also took him to the
PS despite his resistance to the same. The police party was headed
by IO Jagminder Singh but he did not know the name of other
police officials. Some police officials were in police uniform and
some of them were in civil uniform. The paper which were taken
by police were pertaining to accounts of his shop. The said papers
were torn off by the IO and cash and jewellery were kept with
them. He was sent to the lock-up of police station. His signatures
SC No. 57663/2013
FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 132 of 184
were also obtained on some papers in the night. He requested the
IO that the papers taken by them were pertaining to his business
and also requested not to torn off but IO did not pay any heed to
his request.
He had further deposed that he had been falsely implicated
in that case. He opened the jewellery shop in the name and style of
New Kartar Jewellers. From the day, he started running the
jewellery shop, deceased and other family members having jealous
attitude towards him and used to taunt him on any non-relevant
issues. When he was taken by the IO in the night of 23-
24.05.2010, the wife of deceased and his son also accompanied the
IO. He is innocent.
79. On cross-examination by Ld. Addl. PP for State, accused
Deepak @ deepu deposed that at the time of incident, he was not
having any sales tax/VAT licence to running the said shop. The
said shop was in the name of New Kartar Jewellers in the name of
his grandfather. He denied the suggestion that his brother was
running the shop. When he received the information about the
death of his uncle, he was present at his shop. It was around 10:00-
11:00AM. He did not know how many wounds/injuries were on
the body of deceased uncle. He admitted that the police did not
seized the articles at the spot in his presence. He denied the
suggestion that when the dog squad reached there, he was not
present there. He visited Punjab for about one month. During his
entire stay in Punjab, one or two days, he himself admitted to have
stayed in hotel, thereafter, he stayed in the houses of his relatives.
The name of relative in whose house, he stayed is Sheela (his
massi), Samrala Chowk, Mandir Wali Gali, District Ludhiana,
SC No. 57663/2013
FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 133 of 184
Punjab. The approximate weight of the gold jewellery which he
was possessing while coming back from Punjab was around 400-
500 gms. He took around 200-250 grams gold and some order of
jewellery from one jeweller Rajesh, who was having shop at main
bazar, near Railway Station, Ludhiana, Punjab. About Rs. 10-12
lakhs cash, he took from Rajesh and about Rs. 2-2.5 lakhs from the
karigars (craftsman of jewellery articles). Prior to his visit
mentioned herein above, he also visited Punjab about 3 months
prior. At the time of incident, he was not paying any sales tax or
income tax. He denied the suggestion that he did not bring
anything from Punjab. He denied the suggestion that there is no
shop of any Rajesh in main bazar near Railway Station, Ludhiana,
Punjab. He denied the suggestion that during the abovesaid period
he was absconding or that he did not stay in the house of his massi
at Ludhiana. He admitted that he was not having any bill of hotel
to prove his stay at Ludhiana, Punjab. He denied the suggestion
that police has seized robbed cash and jewellery at his instance. He
admitted that he was produced before Ld. MM. Question was
asked when he was produced before Ld. MM, did he tell him that
police officer had torn his documents? He answered in negative
and voluntarily stated that as he was threatened as well as beaten
in the PS by police and instructed him not to open his mouth in the
court. He admitted that he did not tell Ld. MM about taking of his
signatures on the blank papers. He was instructed by police
officers not to disclose anything before Ld. MM. He admitted that
as and when he was produced in the court from JC, he did not tell
Ld. MM about tearing of documents and taking signatures on the
documents.
SC No. 57663/2013
FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 134 of 184
He came to know about the fact that family of my deceased
uncle had gone to out of station. He came to know that they had to
Dharamshala, Himachal. He denied the suggestion that he was
well aware prior to death of his uncle that family members of his
uncle were going to Himachal or that he got arranged the vehicle.
He denied the suggestion that on 26.03.2010 for whole of the day,
he denied the suggestion that was present in the house of his uncle
or that he had opened the shop of deceased for melting the gold on
that day. Police did not seize his clothes and shoes. He admitted
that Dr. Manoj Jain was his landlord of the Paschim Vihar house.
He admitted that he had purchased a car no. DL-3CAA-8904 from
Karol Bagh area. He voluntarily stated that he had purchased the
same much prior to 20.04.2010. He cannot comment whether he
had purchased that vehicle for Rs. 1,95,000/-. He voluntarily
stated that it was of about Rs. 2 lakhs. He denied the suggestion
that he was aware that family members of his deceased uncle had
gone out of Delhi. He denied the suggestion that on 26.03.2010 he
was present in the house of deceased. He denied the suggestion
that he had murdered his uncle and robbed Rs. 10 lakhs and 3.5 kg
gold. He denied the suggestion that he absconded for about 2
months after the incident. He denied the suggestion that police
recovered cash of Rs. 14 lakhs and gold articles at his instance. He
denied the suggestion that police had also seized the knife from
him, which was used in the present offence. He denied the
suggestion that his blood stained clothes and shoes were recovered
by police from his rented premise at Paschim Vihar belonging to
Dr. Manoj Jain. He denied the suggestion that police did not tear
any document. He denied the suggestion that police did not take
SC No. 57663/2013
FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 135 of 184
his signatures on blank papers. He denied the suggestion that he
had signed the documents before police after going through the
same. He denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsely.
FINAL ARGUMENTS
80. It is being argued by Ld. defence counsel that there is no eye
witness in the present case and many of the PWs have turned
hostile. The prosecution has not been able to bring on record any
evidence which can prove the case of the prosecution. There is no
DNA match. The witnesses are the relatives and therefore, they
are interested witnesses. Accused Deepak @ Deepu has been
falsely implicated in the present case due to business. There is no
circumstantial evidence against him which the prosecution has
been able to bring on record. Further, the case properties have been
planted upon accused Deepak @ Deepu and no independent
witness has joined when the recoveries were being made. Also,
that accused Anoop and Haider Ali have been falsely implicated in
the present case.
81. On the other hand, Ms. Parul Singh, Ld. Addl. PP duly
opposed the submissions made on behalf of the accused persons
with reference to the evidence on record. Also, it is argued that the
depositions of the prosecution witnesses establish beyond doubt
that the accused Deepak @ Deepu had killed the deceased and
there is complete chain of circumstantial evidence which proves
the case of the prosecution beyond reasonable doubts. Hence, the
Ld. Addl. PP for the state has argued that accused Deepak @
Deepu be convicted of the offence u/s 302/39/397 IPC and accused
Anoop and Haider Ali be convicted for the offence under Section
212/34 IPC.
SC No. 57663/2013
FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 136 of 184
FINDINGS
82. I have heard the arguments and have perused the record
carefully.
83. The present court would be first dealing with the offence
u/s 302/394/397 IPC. Accused Deepak @ Deepu has been charged
with the offences u/s 302/394/397 IPC. At the very outset, it is
relevant herein to reproduce the sections as under for ready
reference:-
SECTION 300 IPC
“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 without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing
death or such injury as aforesaid”.
SECTION 302 IPC
“Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or
[imprisonment for life], and shall also be liable to fine”.
The offence of murder u/s 302 IPC is the most heinous
crimes under the penal law which provides a maximum
punishment uptil death. Section 302 IPC provides for punishment
for murder in a very simple language thereby laying down that
“whoever commits murder shall be punished with death or
imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine”. The
substantive offence of murder is defined u/s 300 IPC which
provides for an inclusive definition of murder, at the same time
distinguishing it with section 299 IPC where the culpable
SC No. 57663/2013
FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 137 of 184
homicide not amounting to murder has been explained. The
offence of murder requires a perfect combination of important
ingredients of crime which are mens rea and actus reus. It also
prescribes that there should be a complete coherence between the
actus and mens rea at the time of death of a person is committed.
The section further provides that in case the degree of actus or
mens rea is lessoned, or the circumstances falls under any of the
exceptions as enumerated, in such an eventuality, the offence
again slips back to Section 299 IPC. Simply stating in every
offence of murder, there shall a culpable homicide as defined
under section 299 IPC but not vice versa. Reliance placed on
case titled Narsingh Challan Vs. State of Orissa (1997) 2 Crimes
78.
SECTION 394 IPC:
Voluntarily causing hurt in committing robbery.- If any person,
in committing or in attempting to commit robbery, voluntarily
causes hurt, such person, and any other person jointly concerned
in committing or attempting to commit such robbery, shall be
punished with imprisonment for life, or with rigorous
imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall
also be liable to fine.
Comment:Ingredients:
Not only the person who actually caused hurt by an associate of
his/her would equally be liable for the mischief contemplated by
this section :Shravan Dashrath Darange V. State of Maharastra
(1997) 2 Crime 47 (Bom).
SECTION 397 IPC :
Robbery, or dacoity, with attempt to cause death or grievous
hurt.– If, at the time of committing robbery or dacoity, the
offender uses any deadly weapon, or causes grievous hurt to any
person, or attempts to cause death or grievous hurt to any person,
the imprisonment with which such offender shall be punished
shall not be less than seven years.
84. The victim/deceased Sh. Surender Singh was found dead
SC No. 57663/2013
FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 138 of 184
on the morning of 27.02.2010. From the testimony of PW-05 Sh.
Raj Kumar Arora, it is proved that deceased was seen alive till the
night of 26.02.2010 as he had purchased a biscuit packet from his
shop. No cross-examination has been done by the accused persons
regarding the same. PW-3 Harvinder has further deposed that on
the next morning, when his shop was not opened, he found it not
usual and went to the house of the deceased along with the maid
Servant and one Lovely/ PW-37. These facts have not been
disputed by the Ld. Defence Counsel as no cross-examination has
been done regarding the same.
It is clear from the above-mentioned unrebutted testimonies
that death occurred in the fateful night of 26.02.2010-27.02.2010.
PW Mukul and PW Meena found gold and cash missing.
It is pertinent to mention here that the prosecution has based
its case on the circumstantial evidence as there in no eye-witness
who has seen anyone committing the offence. The present court
has to now weigh the case of the prosecution on scales of
circumstantial evidence.
CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
85. In case like death/murder generally there is hardly any eye
witness and law postulates in a criminal trial, two kinds of
evidence adduced before the Court, one is the ocular evidence or
the eye witness account which is basically taken to be a direct
evidence and is based on the deposition of eye witness(es) on the
basis of his/her observation made at the time of commission of
crime. The other kind of evidence is circumstantial evidence which
is basically known to be an indirect evidence, deducted from the
existing facts and is an inference drawn from proved facts. Now
SC No. 57663/2013
FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 139 of 184
this kind of evidence is also an admissible evidence in a criminal
trial but this kind of evidence has to be treated with a lot of caution
and circumspection by the criminal Court because of the inherent
subjectivity in drawing the conclusions by the Court concerned.
The law regarding the nature and character of proof of
circumstantial evidence has been settled by several authorities of
Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Hon’ble High Courts in India. The
locus classicus of the decision was rendered by Hon’ble Justice
Mahajan of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Hanumant v. State of
Madhya Pradesh 1953 Crl.L.J 129 who expounded the
concomitants of the proof of a case based on circumstantial
evidence by holding:
“The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and
tendency and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis
but the one proposed to be proved. it must be such as to show
that within all human probability the act must have been done by
the accused.”
86. In the celebrated judgment of Sharad Birdhi Chand Sarda v.
State of Maharashtra, AIR 1984 SC 1622, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court, while examining the nature and character of proof of
circumstantial evidence, reiterated its decision rendered in the
aforesaid case of Hanumant’s wherein the Hon’ble Court had
propounded five golden principles regarding circumstantial
evidence. The same are reproduced herein under:
1. The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be
drawn should be fully established.
2. The facts so established should be consistent with the
hypothesis of guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not
be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is
guilty.
3. The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and
tendency.
SC No. 57663/2013
FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 140 of 184
4. They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one
to be proved.
5. 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 human
probability the act must have been done by the accused.
These five golden principles constitute the panchsheel of the
proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence and in the
absence of a corpus deliciti.
The Hon’ble Sarkaria J., in Ramanand & Ors., v. State of
Himachal Pradesh, 1981 AIR 738 while enunciating the law
relating to circumstantial evidence famously remarked that:
“perfect proof is seldom to be had in this imperfect world and
absolute certainty is a myth”.
87. The aforesaid five cardinal principles have been reiterated
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in numerous judgments.
Therefore, the principle, as laid down in aforesaid judicial dicta, is
that in cases based on circumstantial evidence, circumstances from
which the conclusion of guilt is drawn should be fully proved and
such circumstances must be conclusive in nature. Moreover, all the
circumstances should be complete, forming a chain and there
should be no gap left in the chain of evidence. The various
circumstances in the chain of events must be such so as to rule out
the reasonable likelihood of innocence of accused. The missing of
important link snaps the chain of circumstances and the other
circumstances cannot in any manner establish guilt of accused
beyond all reasonable doubts.
88. Keeping these conditions in mind and in light of the
aforesaid guiding principles of law, this court shall now proceed
SC No. 57663/2013
FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 141 of 184
with the case in hand and shall give findings with respect to each
of the circumstance which can help us in arriving at the just
decision of the case.
MEDICAL EVIDENCE
89. Postmortem report dated 28.03.2010 is Ex. PW-29/A shows
that there were around 41 injuries marks/wounds on the body of
the deceased and when the deceased was taken to the hospital, it
was noted that”Paizama lining, white half shandow baniyan &
blue underwear. Clothes stained in the blood. Multiple cut marks
& torn over the bainyan & paizama. Whole body including face
smeared with the blood, base of nails of both hands (upper limb”
fill up with the cloted blood, Eyes: close, cornea- dry/hazy.
Mouth:close, PMC: present at the back, RM: present in both lower
limbs”.
90. The prosecution has examined PW 29, Dr Ajay Sharma,
Senior Medical Officer, DDU Hospital, Delhi deposed that he
joined his service since 2000 in DDU Hospital. That day, he has
been deputed to prove the hand writing and signatures of Doctor
Sushil Kr Chaurasia. On 28.03.2010, Dr Sushil Kr Chaurasia who
passed away, he had conducted post mortem Vide PM No.320/10
on the body of deceased Surender Bobal, aged about 55 year male.
He deposed that after conducting the postmortem prepared the
report which is carried in five pages in his hand writing and
bearing his signatures at point A. The PM report is Ex PW29/A.
As per his report the time since death was approximately 36 hours
and cause of death due to hemorrhagic shock subsequent to
multiple stab injuries present all over the body. External injury
No.4,5 and 18 were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of
SC No. 57663/2013
FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 142 of 184
nature, individually as well as in combination all injuries are ante
mortem in nature and in same duration. He can identify the hand
writing and signatures of Dr Sushil Kr Chaurasia as he has seen
him writing and signing during course of official duty. When he
was recalled for the examination-in-chief and he further deposed in
this case that on 20.07.17, and at that time, he was posted at DDU
Hospital, Hari Nagar, New Delhi. He has gone through the
subsequent opinion containing two sheets given by Dr. Sushil
Kumar Chaurasia. As per the subsequent opinion, Dr. Sushil
Kumar has opined that the injury no. 1 to 41 except injury no. 2
could be possible by either of these weapons mentioned at serial
no. 1 and 2 i.e both the knives. Since Dr. Sushil Kumar Chaurasia
stated to be expired, hence he is identifying his handwriting and
signatures on the subsequent opinion Ex.PW29/B which bears the
signatures of Dr. Sushil Kumar at point X on each page as He had
worked with him and He had seen him writing and signing during
the course of official duties.
91. In view of the detailed medical report, it is crystal clear that
prosecution has been able to prove that the death of the deceased
was homicidal in nature caused by multiple stab injuries.
92. Now the question remains whether the death has been
caused by the accused Deepak @ Deepu and it is him who has
committed robbery with deadly weapon. As I have discussed in the
preceding paragraphs that the entire case of the prosecution is
based upon the circumstantial evidence as nobody has seen the
accused person committing the crime. The prosecution has based
its case upon multiple incriminating circumstances. The present
court has to see whether they are sufficient enough to complete the
SC No. 57663/2013
FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 143 of 184
chain of the circumstantial evidence as the guidelines laid down by
the hon’ble Supreme Court of India in various cases.
FRIENDLY ENTRY AND SPECIFIC KNOWLEDGE
93. PW-5 Rajkumar Arora, PW-3 Harvinder, PW-37 Lovely,
PW-8 Mukul and PW-10 Meena, did not found the gate broken.
PW Mukul and PW Meena both deposed that the locks of entry
gate were not broken and the have maintained their stand during
their cross-examination. Even no cross examination has been done
on this aspect. It was not even disputed by the Ld. Defence
Counsel during the course of the final argument that the gates were
broken. Further, it is clear from the testimonies that it was a
friendly entry. Therefore, it can be safely gathered that the person
who has committed offence has come to the house of the victim by
entering the house with consent and the door was not broken in
any condition.
94. Another circumstance which is important to note that
knowledge of accused about the almirah in which the gold and
cash was kept. As per deposition of PW Meena and PW Mukul it
can be seen that there were two almirahs in the house of the
victim. However, only one was found broken and PW Meena has
specifically deposed that accused Deepak was having knowledge
that which was the almirah in which cash and gold have been kept
and, therefore it was only broken and not other one.
FORENSIC EVIDENCE
95. The Crime scene was photographed by PW-36 HC
Devender Kumar and the photos are Ex. PW-36/A along with their
negatives i.e. Ex.PW-36/B. The blood stained articles as collected
from the crime scene were sent to FSL. On 02.06.2010, during the
SC No. 57663/2013
FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 144 of 184
PC remand of the accused Deepak @ Deepu, he got recovered on
polythene from wash basin of his rented accommodation from
which one shirt, one underwear, one baniyan, one pair of socks
and one pair of canvas shoes were recovered. It also contained two
blood stained knives and they were also sent to FSL. The report is
Ex. PW-46/A and Ex. PW-46/B. The clothing was found to have
human blood Group “A” and one of the knife also found human
blood Group “A” which matched blood group of the deceased.
96. As I have already discussed that PW-29 Dr. Ajay Sharma
has proves the subsequent opinion as given by Dr. Sushil Kumar
Chauraisya and as per which the injuries no. 1 to 41 is possible by
either of the weapon i.e. two knives recovered from accused
Deepak @ Deepu. Further, the CFSL report Ex. PW46/A and
PW46/B has confirmed that one of the knife contained blood
group A which matched blood group of deceased.
RECOVERY AND DISCLOSURES
RECOVERY MADE ON 24/25.05.2010 (DATE OF ARREST)
Sr. No. Recovered Articles on 24/25.05.2010
1. Cash amounting to Rs. 10,00,000/-
2. Three Ladies rings of gold
3. Two gold chain
4. One pair of Tops
5. Two gold chain lockets
6. One locket of gold
7. One gold ring having “S”
97. The above mentioned recoveries have been made on the
date of the arrest of the accused Deepak @ Deepu. A raiding party
was made consisting of SHO Hoshiar Singh, PW-50 Insp. Raj
Kumar, SI Raghubir Singh, PW-49/SI Veer Pal and PW-42 SI
Preet Pal who was Special Staff, West. They had received the
SC No. 57663/2013
FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 145 of 184
information regarding accused Deepak @ Deepu from a secret
informer. At about 12:30 AM in night, one Satro Car came from
the side of PVR cinema. The recovery has been made after
apprehending the accused Deepak @ Deep who was driving the
said car. PW-42 Retrd. SI Preet Pal has deposed that the
registration No. Of the Santro Car was DL3C-8904 of silver colour
and he searched the car and one black color bag of Reebok was
found underneath the driver seat. The bag was checked by Insp.
Raj Kumar. The bag was having many currency notes of Rs.500
and Rs.1000 in denomination. The said currency notes were
counted and it was found to be of Rs.13,30,000/- . All the said
currency notes were put into three separate plastic jars. The said
jars were wrapped in white cloth and sealed with the seal of RK.
One pouch of Kartar Jewellery was also found inside the bag.
There were lots of jewellery articles inside the said pouch. The
pulanda of the said pouch was prepared and sealed with the seal of
RK. There was another dark color pouch in which some
documents were found. The documents were put in the said pouch
and then it was put in the recovered black bag and a pulanda of the
black bag was prepared and sealed with the seal of RK. IO
prepared the seizure memo of currency notes, worth
Rs.13,30,000/-, jewellery and documents which is Ex. PW-42/B.
98. PW- 49 SI Veer Pal and PW-50 Insp. RajKumar have
deposed on similar lines. PW-49 SI Veer Pal has deposed that he
had given signal to the driver of the said Santro Car to stop,
however, he did not stop and thereafter, he was apprehended and
the recoveries were made. It is deposed by him that accused got
recovered one hand cum shoulder bag of black color from
SC No. 57663/2013
FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 146 of 184
underneath the driver seat of the car. The same was checked by the
IO in his presence and it was found containing cash amount of
Rs.13,30,000/- in denomination of Rs.1,000/- and Rs.500/-. From
the same bag, three ladies rights of gold affixed with diamond ring
and two gold chains and one pair of tops affixed with cherry color
stone (nag), two gold chain lockets, one locket of gold on which
the picture of Sri Guru Nanak Dev ji was engraved, one gold ring
on which the word “S” was engraved. He has also deposed that
other articles along with some documents were recovered from the
accused. Similarly, PW-50 Insp. Raj Kumar has deposed that the
above mentioned articles were recovered from the accused.
99. It is argued by Ld. defence counsel that recovery is planted
one as there is no public witness who has joined the investigation
when the recovery was made and it has been made after long gap.
It is further argued by ld. Defence counsel that testimony of
recovery witnesses should not be believed in as they all are the
police official. Ld. Defence counsel submitted that the testimonies
of PWs can not be relied upon as they are the police witnesses.
However, in my opinion, there are number of judgments in which
it has been held that the testimonies of police witnesses is equal
footing with the testimony of any other witness, if it is clear,
coherent and reliable. To substantiate my view, I would like to
refer to the following judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India in State Government of NCT of Delhi Vs. Sunil and another
(2001) 1 SCC 652, it has been observed:
“In this context we may point out that there is no requirement
either under Section 27 of the Evidence Act or under Section
161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to obtain signature of
independent witnesses on the record in which statement of an
accused is written. The legal obligation to call independent
SC No. 57663/2013
FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 147 of 184
and respectable inhabitants of the locality to attend and
witness the exercise made by the police is cast on the police
officer when searches are made under Chapter VII of the
Code. Section 100(5) of the Code requires that such search
shall be made in their presence and a list of all things seized in
the course of such search and of the places in which they are
respectively found, shall be prepared by such officer or other
person and signed by such witnesses. It must be remembered
that search is made to find outa thing or document which the
searching officer has no prior idea where the thing or
document is kept. He prowls for it either on reasonable
suspicion or on some guess work that it could possibly be
ferreted out in such prowling. It is a stark reality that during
searches the team which conducts search would have to
meddle with lots of other articles and documents also and in
such process many such articles or documents are likely to be
displaced or even strewn helter-skelter. The legislative idea in
insisting on such searches to be made in the presence of two
independent inhabitants of the locality is to ensure the safety
of all such articles meddled with and to protect the rights of
the persons entitled thereto. But, recovery of an object
pursuant to the information supplied by an accused in custody
is different from the searching endeavor envisaged in Chapter
VII of the Code. This Court has indicated the difference
between the two processes in the Transport Commissioner,
Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad & anr. Vs. S. Sardar Ali & Ors.
(1983 SC 1225). Following observations of Chinnappa Reddy
J. can be used to support the said legal proposition: Section
100 of the Criminal Procedure Code to which reference was
made by the counsel deals with searches and not seizures. In
the very nature of things when property is seized and not
recovered during a search, it is not possible to comply with the
provisions of sub-section (4) and (5) of section 100 of the
Criminal Procedure Code. In the case of a seizure [under the
Motor Vehicles Act], there is no provision for preparing a list
of the things seized in the course of the seizure for the obvious
reason that all those things are seized not separately but as part
of vehicle itself. Hence, it is a fallacious impression that when
recovery is effected pursuant to any statement made by the
accused the document prepared by the investigating officer
contemporaneous with such recovery must necessarily be
attested by independent witnesses. Of course, if any such
statement leads to recovery of any articles it is open to the
investigating officer to take the signature of any person present
at that time, on the document prepared for such recovery. But,
SC No. 57663/2013
FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 148 of 184
if no witness was present or if no person had agreed to affix
his signature on the document, if is difficult to lay down, as a
proposition of law, that the document so prepared by the
police officer must be treated as tainted and the recovery
evidence unreliable. The Court has to consider the evidence of
the investigating officer who deposed to the fact of recovery
based on the statement elicited from the accused on its own
worth.
We fell that it is in archaic notion that actions of the police
officer should be approached with initial distrust. We are
aware that such a notion was lavishly entertained during
British period and policemen also knew about it. Its hang over
persisted during post-independent years but it is time now to
start placing at least initial trust on the actions and the
documents made by the police. At any rate, the Court cannot
start with the presumption that the police records are
untrustworthy. As a proposition of law the presumption should
be the other way around. That official acts of the police have
been regularly performed is a wise principle of presumption
and recognized even by the legislature. Hence, when a police
officer gives evidence in Court that a certain article was
recovered by him on the strength of the statement made by the
accused it is open to the Court to believe the version to be
correct if it is not otherwise shown to be unreliable. It is for
the accused, through cross-examination of witnesses or
through any other materials, to show that the evidence of the
police officer is either unreliable or at least unsafe to be acted
upon in a particular case. If the Court has any good reason to
suspect the truthfulness of such records of the police the Court
could certainly take into account the fact that no other
independent person was present at the time of recovery. But, it
is not a legally approvable procedure to presume the police
action as unreliable to start with, nor to jettison such action
merely for the reason that police did not collect signatures of
independent persons in the documents made contemporaneous
with such actions.”
100. It is abundantly clear from the abovesaid judgment that
there is no rule of law which enjoins upon the Court not to rely
upon the testimony of the police officials in the absence of any
independent/public witness. The only concern is to be more
cautious and circumspect before placing any reliance on their
SC No. 57663/2013
FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 149 of 184
testimonies. In other words, their testimony is to be subjected to
careful scrutinization and assessment as compared to the testimony
of any other public person. On the touchstone of these principles,
the present court is of the opinion that in the instant case, there is
no ground not to believe the testimonies of all the police
personnel.
101. Perusal of the testimony of PW-42 Preet Pal, PW-49 SI
Veer Pal and PW-50 Insp. Raj Kumar clearly shows that they had
deposed that they had asked the passerby to join the investigation,
however, none gave them their willingness to join investigation.
They all have been cross-examined by the Ld. Defence counsel,
however, they struck to their stand and nothing could be elicited
from their testimonies which can in any way give, even, a hint that
the recovery is a planted one.
102. In view of the above, the argument of defence counsel that
the testimony of police officials should be discarded merely
because there is no independent public witness of recovery does
not hold ground as their testimonies are clear, coherent and
inspires the confidence of the court. Reference in this regard can
be made to the decision in Ajmer Singh Vs. State of Haryana
2010(2)RCR (Crl.) 132 and Ram Swaroop Vs. State (Govt. of
NCT of Delhi) 2013 VI AD (SC 228).
103. PW-8 Mukul i.e. son of the deceased deposed that no door
or door latch (kunda/lock) was found broken and it appears that it
was a friendly entry. He checked the jewellery shop, he found that
gold approximately 3.5 kg was missing as his father used to give
money on interest after keeping ornaments at mortgage. The gold
weighing 3.5 kg and amount of Rs.10 lakh were found missing. He
SC No. 57663/2013
FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 150 of 184
also noticed that the gold chain locket and the golden kada and the
rings of his father were also missing. The locket was having the
impression of Guru Nanak and one of the rings of his father word
“S” was written. Other ordered jewellery of the customer was also
found missing. The weight of the gold article of his father and the
ordered customer jewellery was weighing 250-300 grams.
104. PW-10 Meena also deposed on similar lines and stated that
no door or door latch (kunda/lock) was found broken and it
appears that it was a friendly entry and approximately 3.5 kg of
gold was present at that time as his husband used to give money on
interest after keeping ornaments at mortgage. The gold weighing
3.5 kg and amount of Rs.10 lakh were found missing. The gold
chain locket and the golden kada and the rings of her husband
were also missing. The locket was having the impression of Guru
Nanak and one of the rings of his father word “S” was written.
Other ordered jewellery of the customer was also found missing.
The weight of the gold article of his husband and the ordered
customer jewellery was weighing 250-300 grams.
105. Both PW-08 Mukul and PW-10 Meena identified the
accused Deepak @ Deepu in the court and they identified the gold
articles which belonged to the deceased when MHC(M) concerned
produced the case properties. One small jewellery pouch having
chain, on which Kartar Jewellers was written, chain was opened
and it was also found containing one gold locket on which picture
of Guru Nanak Dev was iscribed. It also contains one gold ring on
which word “S” was written by diamond on black stone. PW-08
Mukul and PW-10 Meena identified the case properties. These
articles belonged to the deceased. PW Mukul has specifically
SC No. 57663/2013
FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 151 of 184
deposed that he had identified the jewellery as his father used to
wear them daily and further, he used to work with his father and
therefore, he knew what was being mortgaged by the customers in
the shop. They both have struck to their stand during cross-
examination and they both deposed emphatically on oath that the
case property as recovered from accused Deepak @ Deepu
belonged to deceased Surender Singh.
RECOVERY MADE ON 02.06.2010 (DURING PC REMAND)
Sr. No. Recovered Articles on 02.06.2010
(blood stained cloths)
1. One Shirt, One pant, One baniyan, One
underwear, Pair of Socks
2. Pain of Canvas Shoes
3. Two knives
106. After the arrest, during the PC remand on 02.06.2010, PW
ASI Bricha Singh, PW SI Jagminder Singh and Ct. Suman has
taken the accused Deepak @ Deepu on police remand and from his
rented premises i.e. H. No.A-5/291, Third Floor, Paschim Vihar,
he got recovered one polythene bag from wash basin which
contain blood stained jeans/pant, one shirt, one underwear, one
baniyan, one pair of socks and one pair of canvas shoes. He also
got recovered two knives which were blood stained from the same
bag. PW-ASI Bricha Singh has deposed that on 02.06.2010, he got
recovered the above-mentioned case properties which were then
seized by the IO/ Insp. Jagminder Singh. PW-13 Dr. Manoj Jain
was the landlord and the PW-27 Pankaj Arora was also present
when these recoveries were effected and they have identified the
accused to be the same person to whom the premises i.e. A-294,
Paschim Vihar was given on rent. Dr. Manoj Jain has also deposed
SC No. 57663/2013
FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 152 of 184
that the case properties were recovered in his presence. He was not
able to identify them during examination in chief, however, he
admitted to have them recovered during cross-examination by the
Ld. Addl. PP for the State and he also stated that he has not been
able to identity the same as approximately 9 years have elapsed.
PW-27 Pankaj Arora was also present when these recoveries were
made. He has turned hostile on the aspect of recovery, however, he
deposed that the accused has infact given H. No.A-5/291, third
Floor, Paschim Vihar on rent. He also identified the accused
Deepak @ Deepu in the court that day.
107. One pair of canvas shoes were also recovered. PW-07
Suresh has deposed that on 26.03.2010, accused Deepak has
purchased on pair of Canvas Shoes. He had identified the accused
correctly. He has also identifed the Canvas Shoes which have been
recovered to be the same which he has sold to the accused.
However, on 30.07.2012, when he was called for further cross-
examination, he maintained the stand that the shoes have been sold
by him, however, he turned hostile on the identity of the accused
and he denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsely.
108. Testimonies of abovesaid witnesses shows that the PW-
Manoj Jain turned hostile during the cross-examination and PW-27
Pankaj Arora also turned hostile on the aspect of recovery. Also,
PW-07 Suresh has turned hostile at a later stage duly cross
examination though and he struck to his stand in examination in
chief and the cross-examination before 30.07.2012.
109. At this stage, I would like to rely upon the law on hostile
witness as it is well settled law that the testimony of such
witnesses should not be rejected in toto and their testimonies can
SC No. 57663/2013
FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 153 of 184
be read in evidence, even if they have turned hostile on some
aspects. In this regard, I place reliance upon Ramesh Kumar and
Ors. Vs. State 2013 VIII AD (Delhi) 617 Crl.A. Para 4 of the said
judgment is relevant which is reproduced as follows:-
“… It is settled legal preposition that statement of hostile witnesses
can not be rejected in toto. The evidence of such witnesses can not
be treated as effaced or washed of the record altogether. It can be
admitted to the extent that their version is found to be dependable,
upon a careful scrutiny thereof. Statement of PW9 (Neer Singh)
can be taken into consideration to the extent it is in consonance
with the testimony of PW6 (Jagjit Singh)…”
110. In the case of Selvamani Vs. The State, relying on the
judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the cases of
Bhagwan Singh v. State of Haryana, Sri Rabindra Kuamr Dey v.
State of Orissa, Syad Akbar v. State of Karnataka (1991) 3 SCC
627 : 1991 INSC 153 (1976) 1 SCC 389 : 1975 INSC 306 (1976) 4
SCC 233 : 1976 INSC 204 (1980) 1 SCC 30 : 1979 INSC 126, it
was held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that the evidence of a
prosecution witness cannot be rejected in toto merely because the
prosecution chose to treat him as hostile and cross-examined him.
It was further held that the evidence of such witnesses cannot be
treated as effaced or washed off the record altogether but the same
can be accepted to the extent their version is found to be
dependable on a careful scrutiny thereof…
The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held that in the case of
C. Muniappan and Others v. State of Tamil Nadu10, it has been
observed:
” It is settled legal proposition that : (Khujji case, SCC p. 635,
para 6) ‘6. … the evidence of a prosecution witness cannot be
rejected in toto merely because the prosecution chose to treat him
as hostile and cross-examined him. The evidence of such
witnesses cannot be treated as effaced or washed off the recordSC No. 57663/2013
FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 154 of 184
altogether but the same can be accepted to the extent their
version is found to be dependable on a careful scrutiny thereof.”
In State of U.P. v. Ramesh Prasad Misra, (1996) 10 SCC 360]
this Court held that (at SCC p. 363, para 7) evidence of a hostile
witness would not be totally rejected if spoken in favour of the
prosecution or the accused but required to be subjected to close
scrutiny and that portion of the evidence which is consistent with
the case of the prosecution or defence can be relied upon. A
similar view has been reiterated by this Court in Balu Sonba
Shinde v. State of Maharashtra, (2002) 7 SCC 543], Gagan
Kanojia v. State of Punjab, (2006) 13 (2010) 9 SCC 567 : 2010
INSC 553 SCC 516], Radha Mohan Singh v. State of U.P.,
(2006) 2 SCC 450], Sarvesh Narain Shukla v. Daroga Singh,
(2007) 13 SCC 360] and Subbu Singh v. State, (2009) 6 SCC
462.
111. Thus, the law can be summarized to the effect that the
evidence of a hostile witness cannot be discarded as a whole, and
relevant parts thereof which are admissible in law, can be used by
the prosecution or the defence.
112. In the present case, PW Dr. Manoj Jain and PW Suresh
have turned hostile during the cross-examination. The witness
turning hostile during cross examination has been dealt extensively
in Khujji @ Surendra Tiwari Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh passed
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, it has been held that:
“…But counsel for the State is right when he submits that the
evidence of a witness, de-clared hostile, is not wholly effaced
from the record and that part of evidence which is otherwise
acceptable can be acted upon. It seems to be well settled by the
decisions of this Court Bhagwan Singh v. State of Haryana,
[1976] 2 SCR 921; Rabinder Kumar Dey v. State of Orissa,
[1976] 4 SCC 233 and Syed lqbal v. State of Karnataka,
[1980] 1 SCR 95 that the evidence of a prosecution witness
cannot be rejected in toto merely because the prosecution
chose to treat him as hostile and cross examined him. The
evidence of such witness- es cannot be treated as effaced or
washed off the record altogether but the same can be accepted
to the extent their version is found to be dependable on a
careful scrutiny thereof…”
SC No. 57663/2013
FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 155 of 184
The High Court came to the conclusion and, in our opinion
rightly, that during the one month period that elapsed since the
recording of his examination-in-chief something transpired which
made him shift his evidence on the question of identity to help
the appellant. We are satisfied on a reading of his entire evidence
that his statement in cross-examination on the question of identity
of the appellant and his companion is a clear attempt to wriggle
out of what he had stated earlier in his examination-in-chief”.
113. In view of the above case law, the present court is of the
opinion that testimony of PW Suresh and PW Dr. Manoj Jain can
be read in evidence as they have supported the case of the
prosecution in their examination-in-chief. PW Suresh has
supported the case of the prosecution even in the cross
examination done prior to 20.07.2012. PW Suresh has deposed
emphatically that on 24.11.2011 accused had purchased the canvas
shoes from him. He has even identified that pair of shoes during
his evidence. On 21.1.2012 he has deposed specifically that on
25.3.2010 police had come along with Deepu in custody and he
had recollected his face after seeing him on 27.5.2010 that he is
the same person who had purchased the pair of shoes from his
shop on 26.3.2010. Twice the cross examination was deferred. It
is in the common knowledge that a public person, when called
again and again for cross examination, he may turn hostile at later
stage and in such cases, the evidence has to be meticulously
scrutinized and would not effect the testimony recorded earlier can
be relied upon, in view of the judgment of as cited above.
Therefore, the present court have no hesitation to hold that canvas
shoes as recovered from the possession of accused were infact
bought from the shop of PW-7 Suresh. The canvas shoe has the
blood stains as the blood group of deceased as per report Ex.
SC No. 57663/2013
FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 156 of 184
PW46/B.
114. It has been argued by the Ld. Defence Counsel that all the
recoveries that have been made on 31.05.2010 while the accused
was in custody and therefore, it was argued by ld. Counsel for the
accused that any confession made in the presence of the police
officials cannot be considered as it is hit by the provisions of
Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act. In this backdrop, the
present court proceed to delve upon the case laws laid down by the
superior courts on the point of Section 27 of the Evidence Act. In
the case of Ramanand @ Nand Lal Bharti Vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh Crl. Appeal 6465 of 2022 decided by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court on 13.10.2022, held that:
“27. How much of information received from 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.”
115. The conditions necessary for the applicability of Section 27
of the Act are broadly as under: (1) Discovery of fact in
consequence of an information received from accused; (2)
Discovery of such fact to be deposed to; (3) The accused must be
in police custody when he gave information; and (4) So much of
information as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered is
admissible – Mohmed Inayatullah v. The State of Maharashtra:
AIR (1976) SC 483 Two conditions for application-(1)
information must be such as has caused discovery of the fact; and
(2) information must relate distinctly to the fact discovered
Earabhadrappa v. State of Karnataka: AIR (1983) SC 446″.
SC No. 57663/2013
FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 157 of 184
116. In the Constitution Bench decision of Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Deoman Upadhyaya
reported in AIR (1960) SC 1125, in Paragraph71 explains the
position of law as regards the Section 27 of the Evidence Act:
“71. The law has thus made a classification of accused persons
into two: (1) those who have the danger brought home to them by
detention on a charge; and (2) those who are yet free. In the
former category are also those persons who surrender to the
custody by words or action. The protection given to these two
classes is different. In the case of persons belonging to the first
category the law has ruled that their statements are not
admissible, and in the case of the second category, only that
portion, of the statement is admissible as is guaranteed by the
discovery of a relevant fact unknown before the statement to the
investigating authority. That statement may even be confessional
in nature, as when the person in custody says: “I pushed him
down such and such mineshaft”, and the body of the victim is
found as a result, and it can be proved that his death was due to
injuries received by a fall down the mineshaft.” [Emphasis
supplied]”
117. The scope and ambit of Section 27 of the Evidence Act
were illuminatingly stated in Pulukuri Kottaya and Others v.
Emperor, AIR 1947 PC 67, which have become locus classicus, in
the following words:
“10. ….It is fallacious to treat the “fact discovered” within the
section as equivalent to the object produced; the fact discovered
embraces the place from which the object is produced and the
knowledge of the accused as to this, and the information given
must relate distinctly to this fact. Information as to past user, or
the past history, of the object produced is not related to its
discovery in the setting in which it is discovered. Information
supplied by a person in custody that “I will produce a knife
concealed in the roof of my house” does not lead to the discovery
of a knife; knives were discovered many years ago. It leads to the
discovery of the fact that a knife is concealed in the house of the
informant to his knowledge, and if the knife is proved to have
been used in the commission of the offence, the fact discovered
is very relevant. But if to the statement the words be added “with
which I stabbed A” these words are inadmissible since they do
SC No. 57663/2013
FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 158 of 184
not relate to the discovery of the knife in the house of the
informant.”
118. Thus, what is admissible being the information, the same
has to be proved and not the opinion formed on it by the police
officer. In other words, the exact information given by the accused
while in custody which led to recovery of the articles has to be
proved. It is, therefore, necessary for the benefit of both the
accused and the prosecution that information given should be
recorded and proved and if not so recorded, the exact information
must be adduced through evidence. The basic idea embedded in
Section 27 of the Evidence Act is the doctrine of Confirmation by
subsequent events. The doctrine is founded on the principle that if
any fact is discovered as a search made on the strength of any
information obtained from a prisoner, such a discovery is a
guarantee that the information supplied by the prisoner is true. The
information might be confessional or non inculpatory in nature but
if it results in discovery of a fact, it becomes a reliable
information. The “fact discovered” envisaged in the section
embraces the place from which the object was produced, the
knowledge of the accused as to it, but the information given must
relate distinctly to that effect.
119. At that stage, it is also imperative to note Section 8 of the
Evidence Act. In case of Prakash Chand Vs. State AIR 1979 SC
400, it was held that even if we hold disclosure statement made by
the accused is not admissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act
it is still relevant under Section 8 of the Evidence Act.
120. Thus, the argument raised by ld. Counsel for the accused
that the blood stained knives, blood stained clothes and the
SC No. 57663/2013
FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 159 of 184
jewellery articles belonging to the deceased had been planted does
not seem to have much force as this was a fact especially within
the knowledge of the accused and applying the principle of
Confirmation by Subsequent events enshrined in Section 27
Evidence Act as discussed above, were in the special knowledge of
the accused and thus, the recovery of these articles are a relevant
fact and a link in the chain of circumstantial evidence.
121. In the present case, the accused has taken a rental premises
in Paschim Vihar and when he was taken their on PC remand,
blood stained clothes, 3 knives were found which was within the
special knowledge of the accused Deepak. On that day, he got
recovered the clothes from in the washbasin along with the blood
stained canvas shoes & socks which were in his special
knowledge. It is was incumbent upon the accused to explain the
presence of the knives and aforesaid blood stained articles which
are stated to have been recovered at the instance of accused.
Needless to say that these articles had blood of the group matched
with that of the deceased (Ex.46/B) Although, disclosure is a weak
piece of evidence but the recovery of knives and blood stained
articles at the instance of the accused corroborates his version and
as such it was incumbent upon the accused to explain the presence
of abovesaid articles in the said premises in question as it was not
a place of easy access to any third person.
122. It has also been argued by ld.defence counsel that blood
stained clothes and the shoes as recovered from the accused does
not belong to him, infact he has never brought the pair of shoes. As
discussed earlier, PW-7 Suresh kumar has deposed that on
26.3.2010 accused Deepak @ Deepu had purchased one pair of
SC No. 57663/2013
FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 160 of 184
canvas shoes from him. He has identified him correctly present in
the court. He has also identified the canvas shoes and he has
identified shoes as the same canvas shoes which were sold to
accused, which is certainly provided a link in the chain of
circumstantial evidence.
RECOVERY OF JEWELLERY BELONGING TO THE
CUSTOMERS.
123. PW Mukul and PW Meena both have maintained the stand
that mortgaged jewellery of the customers was also found missing.
The deceased used to work as jeweller and at the time of his death,
total jewellery of 3.5 kg was found and some other gold was also
there which contained various jewellery articles belonging to the
customers who were yet to take the delivery.
PW-31 Harjeet Kaur has stated that she had taken diamond
ring on superdari from the court which has been recovered from
the accused Deepak @ Deepu. She has also identified her
signature on the TIP proceedings and she has also deposed in the
cross examination by ld.Addl.PP that it is correct that she had
mortgaged his ring with Kartar Jeweller.
PW-34 Vanita has also deposed that she had pledged her
gold with Surender (deceased) owner of Kartar Jeweller and she
had come to the court for taking the same on superdari. She
identified her signature on the TIP proceedings.
PW-35 Aarti has deposed that she had pledged her ear rings
to the owner of Kartar Jewellers and she had handed over them in
the TIP proceedings Mark PW-35/A.
124. PW Vanita has identified the case property i.e. chain and she
has struck to her stand during cross examination. It is argued by
SC No. 57663/2013
FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 161 of 184
Ld.Defence counsel that the testimony of PW Vanita should not be
believed as TIP proceedings are defective and only one chain was
shown to her. She has even admitted in her cross examination by
Ld. Defence counsel that she was shown only one chain. However,
PW Vanita has identified her chain. PW Harjeet Kaur and PW Arti
have also identified their jewellery which was recovered from
accused, therefore, in the opinion of the present court, though, they
have turned hostile on the other aspect, however, they identified
the case property which can be read in evidence and it very well
connects the link in chain of circumstantial evidence to the
recovery made on 02.06.2010 and on 31.05.2010 which have been
proved by the police witness whose testimonies have been dealt in
detail in preceding paragraphs and the present court has come to
the conclusion that their testimonies have remained unblemished
and it is clean & coherent which can be made basis for the
conviction of the accused Deepak @ Deepu.
RECOVERY OF BLOOD STAINED ARTICLES FROM
ACCUSED DEEPAK @ DEEPU
125. Another important incriminating circumstance which has
come in the evidence is the recovery of blood stained cloths etc. of
the accused. The blood group on these blood stained articles has
matched with the blood group of the victim. PW-46 Ms. L Babyto
Devi, Asst.Director, FSL has deposed that on Ex.PW46/A the
blood stained clothes and Blood Group A was detected which is
the blood group of victim. Ld.Defence counsel has argued that just
because the blood group has matched does not conclusively prove
that the blood group detected from the clothes was that of the
accused only. Even if, it is presumed that they belonged to the
SC No. 57663/2013
FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 162 of 184
accused, however, the blood is that of the victim is not proven as
no DNA match has been done. However, in the opinion of the
court, though, it is correct that DNA has not been matched,
however, blood group has matched and it can be one of the links in
the chain of circumstantial evidence.
RECOVERY OF THE GOODS/ARTICLES BELONGING
TO THE VICTIM FROM ACCUSED DEEPAK @ DEEPU
AND PRESUMPTION U/S 114 INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT.
126. The question for consideration would be whether the
recoveries of the jewelleries belonging to deceased from accused
Deepak @ Deepu at his instance while in custody and the recovery
of knives used in assault from the house of rented premises taken
by the accused Deepak @ Deepu would be sufficient to arrive at a
conclusion that it is the accused Deepak @ Deepu who is the
perpetrator of the crime which took place on the fateful night and
it is the accused Deepak @ Deepu who committed murder as well
as robbery in the house of deceased. This conclusion can be
arrived at only by taking recourse to the provisions of Section 114
of the Evidence Act under which the Court is entitled to presume
existence of certain facts.
127. Under Illustration (a) to Section 114 the Court may
presume that a man who is in possession of stolen goods after the
theft, is either the their or has received the goods knowing them to
be stolen, unless he can account for his possession. From the
prosecution evidence, as already discussed it must be proved that
the prosecution has been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt
that the commission of murder and the robbery formed part of one
transaction which has been fully unfolded through the prosecution
SC No. 57663/2013
FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 163 of 184
witnesses and in such situation the recovery of the stolen
properties from the accused Deepak @ Deepu and at his instance
and no explanation from the accused on being questioned under
Section 313 Cr. P.C. reasonably points to the guilt of accused
establishing the fact that it is he who had committed the murder in
the house and then committed the robbery and left the scene of
occurrence. Whether a presumption under Section 114 Illustration
(a) of the Evidence Act should be drawn in a given situation is a
matter which depends on the evidence and circumstances of its
recovery, the intervening period between the date of occurrence
and the date of recovery, the explanation of the persons concerned
from whom the recovery is made are all factors which are to be
taken into consideration in arriving at a decision.
In the case of Baiju vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1978
Supreme Court 522, the hon’ble Apex Court had held that the
prosecution having succeed in proving beyond any doubt that the
commission of the murders and robbery formed part of one
transaction and the recent and unexplained possession of the stolen
property by the appellant justified the presumption that it was he
and no one else, who had committed the murders and the robbery.
In the said case the offence had been committed on the night of
January 20 and 21, 1975 and the stolen property was recovered
from the house of the appellant on January 28,1975.
128. In the cases of Shivappa and other vs. The State of Mysore-
AIR 1971 SC 196 the same question was considered by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and it was held that:
“If there is other evidence to connect an accused with the crime
itself, however, small, the finding of the stolen property with him
is a piece of evidence which connects him further with the crime.
SC No. 57663/2013
FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 164 of 184
There is then no question of presumption. The evidence
strengthen the other evidence already against him. It is only
when the accused cannot be connected with the crime except by
reason of possession of the fruits of crime that the presumption
may be drawn. In what circumstances the one presumption or the
other may be drawn, it is not necessary to state categorically in
this case. It all depends upon the circumstances under which the
discovery of the fruits of crime are made with a particular
accused. It has been stated one more than one occasion that if the
gap of time is too large. the presumption that the accused was
concerned with the crime itself gets weakened. The presumption
is stronger when the discovery of the fruits of crime is made
immediately after the crime is committed. The reason is obvious.
Disposal of the fruits of crime requires the finding of a person
ready to receive them and the shortness of time, the nature of the
property which is disposed, of, that is to say, its quantity and its
character determine whether the person who had the goods in his
possession received them from another or was himself the thief
or the dacoit. In some cases there may be other elements which
may point to the way as to how the presumption may be drawn.
They differ from case to case ..”
In the aforesaid case the recoveries had been made within 5
days of the date of occurrence and therefore, the Court ultimately
came to the conclusion that the High Court was right drawing the
presumption that the person concerned are dacoit themselves.
129. In Gulab Chand vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (1995) 3SCC
574, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India considered at length the
law relating to Section 114, Illustration (a) of the Evidence Act
and the circumstances under which the presumption can be drawn
and it was held by Court that no hard and fast rule can be laid
down as to what inference should be drawn from certain
circumstance. It was further held that if the ornaments in
possession of the deceased are found in possession of the person
soon after the murder, a presumption of guilt may be permitted.
But if several months had expired in the interval, the presumption
cannot be permitted to be drawn having regard to the
SC No. 57663/2013
FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 165 of 184
circumstances of the case. The Court approved the earlier decision
of the Court in Earabhadrappa vs. State of Karnataka (1983) 2
SCC 330 wherein it was held that the nature of presumption and
illustration (a) under Section 114 of the Evidence Act must depend
upon the nature of the evidence adduced. No fixed time-limited
can be laid down to determine whether possession is recent or
otherwise and each case must be judged on its own facts. The
question as to what amounts to recent possession sufficient to
justify the presumption of guilt varies according as the stolen
article is or is not, calculated to pass readily from hand to hand. If
the stolen article were such as were not likely to pass readily from
hand to hand, the period of one years that elapsed cannot be said to
be too long particularly when the appellant had been absconding
during that period. In the case of Gautam Maroti Umale vs. State
of Maharashtra- 1994 Supp. (3) SCC 326, on the other hand the
Hon’ble Apex Court Court held mere recovery of ornaments
belonging to the deceased at the instance of the accused did not
connect him with the murder and at the most he can be convicted
for possession of stolen property under Section 411 IPC.
130. To the same effect is of the judgment of Hon’ble Apex
Court in Union Territory of Goa vs. Bea Ventura D’Sourza and
another – 1993 Supp (3) SCC 305
“…bearing in mind the principle laid down in the aforesaid cases
and on examining the facts and circumstances of the present
cases which have been established by the prosecution beyond
reasonable doubt there did cannot be any hesitation in coming to
the conclusion that the prosecution case as against Devendran
under Section 302 has been provided beyond reasonable doubt.
The evidence of PW7 indicating that Devendran had brought the
pistol MO 2 to get trigger welded and getting the same welded by
PW-7 Devendran had taken away the pistol, the identification of
the pistol MO 2 by said PW-7, the recovery of pellets MO 75
SC No. 57663/2013
FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 166 of 184
series from the house of accused Devendran two days after the
fateful incident i.e. on 26.11.1992, the seizure of empty
cartridges and ball beareaus (Paulrus pellets), the recovery of
similar pellets from the body of PW-5 as were recovered from
the house of accused Devendran, the evidence of Ballistic expert
PW-24 that the MO-2 must have been fired which is apparent
from the examination of empty cartridges, the jewelleries MOs
16 to 23, MOs 24 to 28 and MOs 30 to 59 belonging to the
informant were recovered on the basis of the statement of
accused Devendran and those jewelleries were identified by
PW-4 to the effect that those ornaments had been taken away by
the culprits from her house are sufficient to raise the presumption
under Section 114 of Illustration (a) of the Evidence Act and the
conclusion becomes irresistible that is accused Devendran who
committed the murders in the house PW- 5 on 24.11.1992 and
thereafter, left the place with the booties and as such the
prosecution case against accused Devendran under Section 302
IPC must be held to be proved beyond reasonable doubt.
131. Applying the aforesaid law on the facts and circumstances
of the case, it is crystal clear that the recoveries as made on
24/25.05.2010 & 02.06.2010 that blood stained jeans pant, one
shirt, one underwear one baniyan, one pair of socks and one pair of
Canvas Shoes, two blood stained knives, Jewellery which has been
identified by the prosecution witness is sufficient to raise the
presumption u/s 114 Illustration (a) of Indian Evidence Act and it
is sufficient to come to the conclusion that it is the accused
Deepak @ Deepu has committed murder in the house of the
deceased on the fateful night of 27.03.2010 and he thereafter, left
the place with the booties and which would prove the case of the
prosecution u/s 302 IPC along with Section 394/397 IPC beyond
reasonable doubt. There is no explanation by accused as to how he
came into mortgaged property belonging to PW 31 harjeet Kaur,
PW-34 Vanita & PW 35 Anita. The case property has been
released to these witnesses on Superdari.
SC No. 57663/2013
FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 167 of 184
PROPERTY BOUGHT BY THE ACCUSED DEEPAK @
DEEPU
132. PW Vipin Anand has proved that accused brought a Santro
Car from him. Ld. Defence counsel argued that it was not sold to
him and the original DL etc. are not on record. However, PW
Vipin Anand denied the suggestion that he did not sell the Santro
Car to the accused Deepak @ Deepu. PW-20 Pradeep Kumar
deposed that in 2010, accused Deepak @ Deepu has brought one
plot no. 262 and he was the authorized person of the company I.e.
palm city. He identified the accused Deepak @ Deepu. PW-21
Vishal employee of Palm City also identified the accused and
deposed that the accused has purchased property from them. PW-
33 Palwinder Singh, Patwari proved that the accused brought the
property i.e. Killa No. 20/1, Killa No. 14/2, 10/1 etc. In the cross-
examination they all struck to their stand. There is no explanation
by the accused Deepak @ Deepu as to how he has come into
possession of the huge amount that he had purchased those
properties. He has stated in the statement u.s 313 Cr.P.C stated that
he has brought the same out of his own money, but he has failed to
bring on record any witness or any documentary evidence to prove
the source of his wealth.
CONDUCT
133. The conduct of the accused Deepak @ Deepu post
occurrence of the crime requires a detail deliberation. One of the
most important incriminating circumstances that has come on
record during the evidence, is the suspicious conduct of the
accused Deepak @ Deepu. PW-8 Mukul is the son of
victim/deceased Surender Singh Bobbal who has deposed in his
SC No. 57663/2013
FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 168 of 184
examination in chief that accused Deepak @ Deepu used to visit at
their residence and on 26.3.2010 accused Deepak @ Deepu had
come to their residence and continuously asked as to when they
were leaving Delhi and he insisted that he would arrange the
vehicle for going to Shimla and then they left Delhi on 26.3.2010
and on 27.3.2010 at about 11.45 PM. They were informed
regarding the murder of his father.
134. Similar is the deposition of PW-10 Meena Bobbal who is
wife of deceased Surender Singh has deposed that on 26.3.2010
when they had to go to Shimla, accused Deepak @ Deepu
remained inside their house and he went outside and again visited
their house. Accused Deepak @ Deepu inquired again and again
regarding their going to Shimla, Dharamshala. She has even
explained that he wanted to confirm whether they were going to
Dharamshala or not. Even he was insisting that if the vehicle is not
arranged he would get the vehicle arranged and he was assuring
that they should depart for Shimla.
135. In the cross examination of PW-10 Meena only a few
questions have been put regarding unnatural behaviour by the Ld.
defence counsel. Further one of the most important unnatural
conduct which speaks volumes pointing towards the guilt of the
accused is his mysteriously fleeing away from his house
specifically when he was called for his Lie Detection Test.
136. PW-23 Inspector Jagminder singh has deposed that on
13.4.2010 investigation of the present case was marked to him.
Thereafter, he sought consent from Deepak @ Deepu Inder@
Lovely, Navkesh@ Sonu and Smt.Asha for conducting their
polygraph test by way of serving notice upon them. Accordingly
SC No. 57663/2013
FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 169 of 184
all four persons had given their consent for conducting said test
and notice given to Deepak @ Deepu is Ex.PW23/1 which bears
his signature at point X. Accused Depeak @Deepu had given in
his own hand undertaking that he will be available for the said test
on 19.4.2010 to 21.4.2010. Reply of the accused is Ex.PW23/J.
However, accused Deepu disappeared on 19.4.2010 and despite his
sincere efforts he did not find any clue about his whereabouts.
Thereafter, he had obtained NBWS from the court of ld.MM. This
is very important unnatural behaviour of the accused and the
adverse inference can be dawn against him as per Indian Evidence
Act.
As per section 114(h)
“that if a man refuses to answer a question which he is not
compelled to answer by law, the answer, if given, would be
unfavourable to him.”
Accused Deepak @ Deepu was to produce himself for the
lie detecting test, however, he had ran away from the spot which
would certainly give rise to the presumption u/s 114(A) which
would then lead to 106 of Indian Evidence which put the burden
of proving fact especially within the knowledge of any person, the
burden of proving that fact is upon the person himself.
Section 106 Indian Evidence Act shows that when a person
does an act with some intention other than that which the character
and circumstances of the act suggest, the burden of proving that
intention is upon him.
137. Therefore, if the act of his fleeing away was with some
other intention that by making himself unavailable for the lie
detecting test could have been explained by the accused himself
SC No. 57663/2013
FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 170 of 184
and in the present case he has failed to do so.
138. In the statement of section 313 Cr.P.C accused has tried to
provide the explanantion that he has gone for some business
purposes and he has not fled away from the spot., however from
the testimony of PW-23 Jagminder Singh, it is crystal clear that the
accused was having knowledge that he has been called for Lia
Detection Test, however, he still failed to appear for the same. In
these circumstances, it is clear that he was unable to provide any
plausible explanation. In his defence evidence, accused was tried
to provide the explanation that he had gone to Ludhiana for
business purpose. However, he was not able to provide his hotel
details/place of stay details in which he has stayed. He even failed
to bring on record any witness i.e. his relative from Ludhiana
where he claimed to have stayed during the said tenure in
Ludhiana.
STAY IN HOTEL DECENT
139. PW-25 Ajay Kumar has deposed emphatically on oath that
the accused Deepak @ Deepu stayed in the Hotel Decent on
19.04.2010 and the CCTV footage is Marked as Mark PW25/B
(Colly). He had stayed there in the name of one Rajesh Kumar,
however, PW Ajay Kumar has identified him as the person who
has stayed on 19.04.2010. Accused has taken the police party to
hotel decent on 21.05.2010. PW Ajay Kumar also identified the
accused Deepak @ Deepu in the court. Also, it is pertinent to
mention here that the accused Deepak @ Deepu was to present
himself for the Lie Detection Test for 19.04.2010, however, he
fled away and stayed in Hotel Desent in Paharganj, Delhi. There is
no explanation on behalf of the accused as to why he stayed in the
SC No. 57663/2013
FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 171 of 184
said hotel in Paharganj when he is having his own home in Delhi,
and in the different name which is quite unnatural behaviour of the
accused and the same has remained unexplained.
MOTIVE AND OPPORTUNITY TO COMMIT THE OFFENCE
140. Coming to the aspect of motive and opportunity with the
accused to commit the crime. It is argued by the Ld. Counsel for
the defence that the accused Deepak @ Deepu has no motive to
kill his uncle and infact it was PW-10 Meena and PW-08 Mukul
who have falsely implicated him in the present case. In the case
titled as Nandu Singh Versus State Of Madhya Pradesh (Now
Chhattisgarh), Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No(s). 7998 of 2021),
it is held that by the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India that:
“..Relying on Anwar Ali vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, this
Court made the 1(2020) 10 SCC 1665 legal position clear in
following words:- …….it is true that the absence of proving the
motive cannot be a ground to reject the prosecution case. It is
also true and as held by this Court in Suresh Chandra Bahri vs.
State of Bihar that if motive is proved that would supply a link in
the chain of circumstantial evidence but the absence thereof
cannot be a ground to reject the prosecution case. However, at
the same time, as observed by this Court in Babu Vs. State of
Kerala (2010) 9 SCC 189, absence of motive in a case depending
on circumstantial evidence is a factor that weighs in favour of the
accused…”
141. No doubt in the cases based on circumstantial evidence,
existence of motive assumes significance and plays crucial link
completing the chain of circumstantial evidence, however, if the
evidence is clear and unambiguous and the circumstances proves
the guilt of the accused, the same is not weakened even if the
motive is not established. In judgment passed by Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India in Suresh Chandra Bahari v. State of
Bihar, 1995 Supp (1) SCC 80 it was held that if motive is proved
SC No. 57663/2013
FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 172 of 184
that would supply a link in the chain of circumstantial evidence
but the absence thereof, cannot be a ground to reject the
prosecution case.
142. The motive is a thing which is primarily known to the
accused themselves and it is not possible for the prosecution to
explain what actually prompted or ex-cited them to commit the
particular crime. The motive may be considered as a circumstance
which is relevant for assessing the evidence but if the evidence is
clear and unambiguous and the circumstances prove the guilt of
the accused, the same is not weakened even if the motive is not a
very strong one.
143. In the present case the accused was certainly having ample
opportunity to murder his uncle as there was no one in the house
and he used that opportunity as he wanted to take the money and
jewelery which proves the motive to kill the deceased and further
the accused Deepak @ Deepu could easily overpower a man of old
age and his entry in the house of his uncle would as such not have
been objected and therefore, there was no breaking down of the
gates of the house.
144. Therefore, motice has been proved by the prosecution
beyond reasonable doubt which provided additional link in the
chain of circumstantial evidence.
PRESUMPTION UNDER SECTION 106 OF THE EVIDENCE
ACT
145. As I have discussed in the preceding paragraphs that
accused has behaved suspiciously when he wanted the PW
Mukul and PW Meena to go to leave the house which is clear in
the testimonies of these two witnesses. It is also clear that the
SC No. 57663/2013
FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 173 of 184
testimonies, the accused has even got shop opened on that day
and he was present in their house. Both PWs Meena and Mukul
have deposed empathically on oath that accused was present on
the day of the incident in their house and he was coming and
going from the house. He mysteriously fled from his house on the
day as fixed for lie detection test i.e. on 19.04.2010 and he stayed
in hotel on the very same day. As I have discussed there is no
explanation by the accused as to why he has stayed in a hotel
when he was having own house in Delhi. The weapon of offence
was recovered at his instance on 02.06.2010. The blood group has
matched on one of the accused to be that the deceased. He also
got recovered the blood stained clothes which also contains the
blood group of that of the accused. These facts were recovered
due to the very specific knowledge of the accused Deepak @
Deepu. Thus, the presumption u/s 106 Evidence Act gets squarely
attracted in this case.
146. At this stage reliance is placed on the case titled as Prem
Singh Vs. State of NCT of Delhi, Criminal Appeal No. 01 of 2023
decided on 02.01.2023 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is held
that:
14……..Moving on to the other applicable provisions and
principles, we may usefully take note of Section 106 of the
Evidence Act, casting burden of proving a fact especially
within knowledge of any person, and a few relevant
decisions in regard to its operation qua an accused.
14.1. Section 106 of the Evidence Act reads as under: –
“106. Burden of proving fact especially within knowledge.
– When any fact is especially within the knowledge of any
person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him.”
In the case of Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of
SC No. 57663/2013
FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 174 of 184
Maharashtra:(2006) 10 SCC 681:
“14. If an offence takes place inside the privacy of a
house and in such circumstances where the assailants have
all the opportunity to plan and commit the offence at the
time and in circumstances of their choice, it will be
extremely difficult for the prosecution to lead evidence to
establish the guilt of the accused if the strict principle of
circumstantial evidence, as noticed above, is insisted upon
by the courts. A judge does not preside over a criminal
trial merely to see that no innocent man is punished. A
judge also presides to see that a guilty man does not
escape. Both are public duties. (See Stirland v. Director of
Public Prosecutions -quoted with approval by Arijit
Pasayat, J. in State of Punjab v. Karnail Singh.) The law
does not enjoin a duty on the prosecution to lead evidence
of such character which is almost impossible to be led or
at any rate extremely difficult to be led. The duty on the
prosecution is to lead such evidence which it is capable of
leading, having regard to the facts and circumstances of
the case. Here it is necessary to keep in mind Section 106
of the Evidence Act which says that when any fact is
especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden
of proving that fact is upon him…….”
147. In the case of Sudru v. State of Chhattisgarh: (2019) 8
SCC 333 had been the one where the appellant was charged of the
murder of his son in his house; and the principal prosecution
witnesses, including wife of the appellant, turned hostile to the
prosecution but, the facts did come out of their testimony that the
deceased was left alone in the company of the appellant and the
next day, the deceased was found dead. It was held:
“8. In this view of the matter, after the prosecution has
established the aforesaid fact, the burden would shift upon the
appellant under Section 106 of the Evidence Act. Once the
prosecution proves, that it is the deceased and the appellant, who
were alone in that room and on the next day morning the dead
body of the deceased was found, the onus shifts on the appellant
to explain, as to what has happened in that night and as to how
the death of the deceased has occurred.”
SC No. 57663/2013
FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 175 of 184
148. Further, it was argued by the ld. Counsel for the accused
that the police officials did not carry the investigation in a fair
manner and falsely implicated the accused. All the police officials
have clearly proved the chain and the manner of investigation and
merely because the witnesses are police officials their testimony
cannot be disbelieved and for this reliance is placed on the case of
Girija Prasad Vs. State of M.P. (2007) 7 SCC 625. Further, all the
material witnesses were the relatives of the accused and there was
no reason to believe that they would falsely implicate him in such
a heinous crime.
DEFENCE EVIDENCE
149. The Deepak @ Deepu has examined six defence witness
including himself. DW-2 Shri Kishan has deposed that on
10/12.03.2010, he has given some old gold of about 55 gms and
also cash of Rs.1,00,000/- for getting manufactured the one set of
gold, one matar mala and 04 gold bangles. Deepak sought the time
for about two or two and a half months for manufacturing the
above mentioned ornaments. However, during the cross
examination by Ld. PP for the State that he has denied the
suggestion that he admitted that he has not brought the receipt. He
never lodged any complaint to the police or any authority
regarding recovery of alleged jewellery and cash of Rs.1 lacs till
this date. It is beyond comprehension of the present court, any
person would give such a huge amount to the accused however, he
would not initiate any proceedings to get back the same. DW-3
Asha Rani has tried to prove that the deceased and his family
members used to have rivalry with accused and she has deposed
that on 31.05.2010, the police official have taken out jewellery,
SC No. 57663/2013
FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 176 of 184
papers and cash from tijori of deceased and however, she admitted
during the cross examination that she did not complain any higher
police authorities and any other department that accused Deepak
@ Deepu has been falsely implicated in that case or that police
officials had taken out cash, jewellery articles and documents from
the house of the accused Deepak @ Deepu, even he had never
given any application to the IO or SHO in this regard. Therefore,
the testimony of this witness is not sustainable.
150. DW-4 Sachin Vohra has also tried to prove a false
implication and has deposed that on 23.05.2010 at about 12/12.15
AM, he heard some noise coming from the street in front of his
house. When he came out from his house, he saw that many people
had gathered in the street in front of house of Deepak @ Deepu at
B-1/41, New Moti Nagar. He saw that the police officials were
taking out the gold cash and certain papers from the Tijori. They
were taking out the whole jewelery gold and cash alongwith
certain papers and were putting in the clothes with them. When he
asked those police officials if they had any search warrant for
searching the house, he was threatened by the police officials that
he should keep silence or he would also be arrested in the same
case made out against Deepak @ Deepu. He also deposed that
some pinki objected to the same. However, he himself admitted
that he did not gave any application to the senior officer of the
police about this incident as he was scared. The witness has
himself admitted that he never filed any complaint to the police, he
never taken recourse of legal authority, therefore, the testimony of
DW Sachin Vohra seems to be motivated.
151. DW-5 Asha Bobal has deposed that that accused was very
SC No. 57663/2013
FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 177 of 184
well available for the polygraph test but police intentionally did
not get it done. She has also deposed that police had collected the
articles alongwith phone from the spot and thereafter, they went
away. However, she also admitted in cross examination done by
Ld. PP for the State, the police had not recorded their complaint
nor she had any complaint with her at that time to show that he had
or wanted to move the application. Both DW Asha Rani, DW
Sachin Vohra, DW Asha Bobal have deposed that when police was
removing the articles from tijori, many other persons were present.
DW Sachin Vohra has named them to Karan, Steel, Pinki and
Mikki, DW-5 have said that they were Pinki and Sachin, however,
no such persons has come in evidence or they made any complaint
to the police or to any other legal authority to such kind of incident
ever taking place. All the witness admitted that some of the
persons present were the relatives, however, it is beyond
comprehension of the present court, even the relatives did not
come forward to lodge any complaint of such kind of incident if it
had occurred. The story seems to to concocted and false. I have
discussed in detail regarding the recovery made by the police on
31.05.2010 and 02.06.2010. The recovery made on 02.06.2010
have been admitted to be made in presence of independent public
witness PW-30 Dr. Manoj Jain whose testimony has been relied
by the present court in view of the law on hostile witnesses and the
witnesses turning hostile at later stage during cross examination.
There is nothing on record to prove any motive as to why these
police witness and Dr. Manoj Jain would depose falsely against
accused Deepak @ Deepu. No enmity has been brought on record
by the accused. PW-26 Ravinder Kumar and PW-27 Pankaj Arora
SC No. 57663/2013
FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 178 of 184
had even admitted that premises no. A-5/294, Paschim Vihar was
infect rented house and these witness even admitted the rent
agreement Ex. PW13/A which provides corroboration to the
testimony of Dr. Manoj Jain which ultimately strengths the
recovery as made on that day.
152. Lastly, accused Deepak @ Deepu has examined himself u/s
315C Cr. PC and he has deposed that he has gone for polygraph
test but machine was not working, however the present court has
come to the conclusion in the preceding paragraphs that the
accused has knowingly fled away from his house. He had also
deposed regarding the incident dated 23.05.2010, however, he also
failed to prove on record as to why he has not filed any police
complaint and why other people has also chosen to remain silent
on the issue. Even when some of the people were his relatives. He
has stated in his cross examination, he went to the Punjab and
stayed in hotel & thereafter, he was stayed in house of his
relatives, however, there is no witness or documents which has
been brought on record by the accused that he has stayed in any
Hotel or stayed in his relatives. He has also deposed during cross
examination that he has stayed in the house of his mosi Sheela in
Ludhiana Punjab. However, he has not brought any evidence to
prove this case. Further, he has deposed that he got 200-250
grams gold and some order of jewellery of one jeweler Rajesh, this
jeweler had not brought in evidence, accused Deepak @ Deepu
admitted that he was not having any bill of hotel to prove its case
to stay in Ludhiana, Punjab. He even admitted he was produced
before Ld. MM and he did not tell the Ld. MM about his signature
being taken on blank papers. Deepak @ Deepu has also deposed
SC No. 57663/2013
FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 179 of 184
that he has purchased the Santro car no. DL3CAA-8940 from
Karol Bagh area much prior to 20.04.2010, however, PW-1 Vipin
Anand has deposed the the same vehicle was purchased on
20.04.2010. Therefore, the testimony of accused Deepak @ Deepu
is not supported by any documentary evidence or any other
defence witness, it seems to be just an after thought.
INCONSISTENCIES AND DISCREPANCIES
153. As far as the contention of the Ld. counsel for accused that
there are certain discrepancies in the testimony of PWs, I would
like to say that minor discrepancies on trivial mater not touching
the core of the matter cannot bring discredit to the story of the
prosecution. Giving undue importance to them would amount to
adopting a hyper-technical approach. It has been held in Thoti
Manoher Vs. State of A.P. (2012) 7 Supreme Court cases in para
38.
‘…the Court, while appreciation the evidence, should not attach much
significance to minor discrepancies, for the discrepancies which do
not shake the basic version of the prosecution case are to be ignored…’
154. It is settled proposition of law that even if there are some
omissions, contradictions and discrepancies, the entire evidence
cannot be disregarded. After exercising care and caution and
sifting through the evidence to separate truth from untruth,
exaggeration and improvements, the court comes to a conclusion
as to whether the residuary evidence is sufficient to convict the
accused. Thus, an undue importance should not be attached to
omissions, contradictions and discrepancies which do not go to the
heart of the matter and shake the basic version of the prosecution’s
witness. As the mental abilities of a human being cannot be
expected to be attuned to absorb all the details of the incident,
SC No. 57663/2013
FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 180 of 184
minor discrepancies are bound to occur in the statements of
witnesses. Vide Sohrab v. State of M.P., (1972) 3 SCC 751, State
of U.P. v. M.K. Anthony, (1985) 1 SCC 505, Bharwada
Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat, (1983) 3 SCC 217, State
of Rajasthan v. Om Prakash, (2007) 12 SCC 381, Prithu v. State of
H.P., (2009) 11 SCC 588, State of U.P. v. Santosh Kumar, (2009)
9 SCC 626 and State v. Saravanan, (2008) 17 SCC 587″
CONCLUSION
155. It is a settled law that in case of circumstantial evidence, the
paramount requirement is that every possible link in the chain
should be complete along with other incriminating circumstances
including motive and the recovery of weapon of offence and
should unequivocally point towards the guilt of the accused and
cannot be solely based on one or two incriminating circumstances
and reliance is placed on the judgment of Sharad Birdhi Chand
Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra AIR 1984 Supreme Court
1622(supra).
In the present case from the detailed findings above and the
relevant case laws the prosecution has been able to prove beyond
reasonable doubt that :
I. The gate of the house were not found to be broken as
proves by prosecution witness and it was friendly entry and
accused was having specific knowledge regarding the
almirah in which the gold and cash was kept.
II. The presence of the accused was at the house of deceased
only and he was coming or going to the house and he even
got the shop opened on the day of holiday. He wanted the
other family member to leave the house. All this is clearSC No. 57663/2013
FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 181 of 184
from the testimony of PW-10 Meena and PW-08 Mukul.
III. The accused had the motive to commit robbery as is
proved by the prosecution witness that the jewellery articles,
cash and gold were found missing.
IV. There was recovery of the jewellery, blood stained
clothes, knives which were the weapon of the offence
subsequent upon the disclosure of accused Deepak @
Deepu.
V. The subsequent opinion (Ex. PW46/B) clearly reveals
that the injury (injury No. 1 to 42) could be possible by the
weapon i.e. knife as recovered at the instance of the
accused.
VI. From the FSL report, the blood group generated from
the cloth exhibit i.e. blood stained gauge, bed sheet,
namakdani etc as lifted from the place of incident at the spot
and the blood stained clothes as well as knife recovered on
02.06.2010 at the instance of accused matched with the
blood group of the deceased.
VII. The conduct of the accused post occurrence that he fled
away from his house on the day of lie detection test and he
stayed in hotel decent on the very same day is highly
improbable and points towards the guilt of the accused.
VIII. There was no reason for false implication of the
accused by the own family members at the time of the
investigation of the case as he was the grandson of the
deceased and it is highly improbable that all the family
members would give their statement to falsely implicate the
accused.
SC No. 57663/2013
FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 182 of 184
156. Thus, all the circumstances as proved by the prosecution
beyond reasonable doubt points only towards the guilt of the
accused and no other hypothesis is possible. The circumstances
proved are conclusive in nature and complete the chain of events.
Thus, the accused Deepak @ Deepu is held guilty and is
convicted for the offences u/s 302 IPC and also u/s 394/397 IPC.
157. Coming now the accused Haider Ali and Anup who have
been charged for the offence u/s 212 IPC, the relevant section
reproduced herein for ready reference :-
Harboring offender- Whenever an offence has been
committed, whoever harbours or conceals a person whom he
knows or has reason to believe to be the offender, with the
intention of screening him from legal punishment;
If a capital offence- Shall, if the offence is punishable with
death, be punished with imprisonment of either description for a
term which may extend to five years, and shall also be liable to
fine;
If punishable with imprisonment for life, or with
imprisonment- and if the offence is punishable with (imprisonment
for life), or with imprisonment which may extend to ten years,
shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a
term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to
fine;
158. There is no evidence on record that accused Anup and
Haider have harboured or conceal the accused Deepak @ Deepu.
There is no evidence on record except the disclosure statement.
Further, not even a single prosecution witness pointed towards the
guilt of the accused persons namely Anop and Haider. Therefore,
SC No. 57663/2013
FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 183 of 184
they are hereby acquitted for the offence u/s 212 IPC. Both of
them are directed to comply with the directions u/s 437 A Cr.P.C.
159. Let accused Deepak @ Deepu be heard on the point of sentence.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN AMBIKA Digitally signed by AMBIKA
SINGH
SINGH Date: 2024.12.31 14:19:32 +0530
COURT ON THIS 21.12.24
(AMBIKA SINGH)
ADDI. SESSIONS JUDGE-02
(WEST):DELHI
21.12.24
SC No. 57663/2013
FIR No. 81/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Ors Page No. 184 of 184