Delhi Serial Killings Case Judgement

IN THE COURT OF Dr. KAMINI LAU: ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE-II (NORTH-WEST): ROHINI COURTS: DELHI Session Case No.
91/2011 Unique Case ID No. 02404$0477652007 State Vs. Chandrakant Jha S/o Radhey Kant Jha R/o Village and Post Office Ghasi, Police Station Chausa, Distt. Madhepura, Bihar (Convicted) 279/2007 Hari Nagar 302/201 Indian Penal Code 25.9.2007 19.1.2013 24.1.2013
FIR No.: Police Station: Under Section:
Date of committal to the Sessions Court: Date on which judgment was reserved: Date on which judgment was announced: JUDGMENT:
(1)
In the year 2006 and 2007 Delhi was rocked and shaken by
serial killings. In these killings the author of the crime followed a definite pattern where he killed the victims by decapitating their heads and he thereafter chopped their various body parts and threw the decapitated bodies of these young men outside the Central Jail Tihar and scattered their body parts at various places around Delhi. He did not stop at that and followed his crime precisely. After throwing the decapitated bodies he used to inform the police about the crime (in two cases) and the place where he had thrown the decapitated body. Along with these bodies he also left a note / letter (two cases) wherein he challenged the Law Enforcement Agencies to catch him. In the last
St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 279/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 1
case which came to light on 18.5.2007, he had also threatened to send similar gifts (decapitated bodies) to the Delhi Police after every 15 days. Three such cases were registered in respect of the decapitated bodies thrown outside Central Jail Tihar on 20.10.2006, 25.4.2007 and 18.5.2007 in respect of FIR Nos. 609/2006, 243/2007 and 279/2007 were registered at Police Station Hari Nagar in which the accused Chanderkant Jha is the accused. All these cases though not consolidated, have been taken up together the pattern of crime / modus operandi being similar; major investigations being common; the evidence in the form of electronic records; forensics etc. being common.
(2)
In the present case as per the allegations, the accused
Chandrakant Jha had some time prior to 18.5.2007 committed the murder of an unknown person by beheading his body and thereafter wrapped the headless / decapitated body in a gunny bag which he threw outside Gate No.1, Central Jail, Tihar. In order to conceal the identity of the deceased and to cause disappearance of evidence of murder in order to screen himself from legal punishment, he also threw the head / body parts of the decapitated body at various places in Delhi. BRIEF FACTS/ CASE OF THE PROSECUTION: (3) The case of the prosecution is that on 18.05.07 at 06.50 AM an information regarding one dead body in a gunny bag lying in front of Gate No.1, Tihar jail, was received and DD No.10-A was recorded at Police Station Hari Nagar. The said DD entry was entrusted to ASI Krishan Chand for necessary action and the information was also passed to the SHO. ASI Krishan Chand along with Ct. Ram Singh rushed to the spot and found, one plastic bag tied with the plastic strips on the footpath in the North side of Gate No.1, Central Jail, Tihar. The place of
occurrence was got inspected by Mobile Crime Team West District and the photographs were got done. The scene of crime was inspected and one male human head less dead body aged 20-25 years, medium built, shallow complexion, without arms & legs and private parts was found. One letter written by the culprit in Hindi in the name of Delhi Police was also found near the dead body. All the exhibits were lifted and seized at the Scene of Crime. The exhibits were seized and case was got registered and investigation of the case was entrusted to Inspector Ombir Singh, the then Addl. SHO Hari Nagar, Delhi. The dead body was got preserved at DDU mortuary and all efforts were taken to identify the dead body but it could not be identified. (4) On 19.05.2007 another PCR call regarding recovery of human parts opposite S.B.I. was received at Police Post Tis Hazari vide DD No. 4 PP which was entrusted to ASI Arjun Singh, who rushed the spot and one carton containing human cut arms and private parts were found. The said parts were kept in the mortuary at Subzi Mandi and on 27.05.07, the above recovered human parts were taken to DDU Hospital mortuary for comparison of the recovered above headless and part less dead body in front of Gate No.1, Tihar jail. (5) On 20.5.2007 pursuant to a secret information accused Chander Kant Jha was arrested in FIR No. 609/06, under Section 302/201 IPC, Police Station Hari Nagar by Inspector Sunder Singh, Spl. Staff/ West Distt. During sustained interrogation, the accused admitted having committed the crime and a skull was recovered at his instance from the banks of river Yamuna. The accused also disclosed about removing the parts & legs of the dead body and also disclosed the name of the deceased as Dalip. Postmortem examination was got conducted vide PM No 581/06 at DDU hospital on 14.06.07 and the Autopsy
Surgeon had handed over the blood gauze, sternum, clothes, Viscera etc of the deceased and the same were seized. The DNA of head less human dead body and the DNA body parts so recovered at Tis Hazari was got conducted and found to have been matched in all respects. The blood group of the dead body has also been matched with the recovered human parts and blood found on the weapon of offence in the rented room of accused. After completion of investigations, charge sheet was filed against the accused Chanderkant Jha. CHARGE:
(6)
Charges under Sections 302/201 Indian Penal Code were
settled against the accused Chanderkant Jha to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. EVIDENCE:
(7)
In order to prove its case the prosecution has examined as
many as Forty Four witnesses. However, before coming to the testimonies of individual witnesses, the details of the witnesses examined by the prosecution; the documents proved by them and details of the case property are hereby put in a tabulated form as under: List of witnesses:
Sr. Witness No. No. 1. 2. 3. PW 1 PW 2 PW 3 Name ASI Sangeeta Dr. Anil Shandilya Sh. Rajiv Kumar Details of witness Police witness/ Duty Officer Autopsy Surgeon Public witness/ owner of property bearing No.229/2, Ambedkar Nagar, Haiderpur where the accused was residing on rent Police witness/ Crime Team Incharge
4.
PW4
SI Anil Kumar
St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 279/07, PS Hari Nagar
Page No. 4
5. 6.
PW 5 PW 6
Dr. Naresh Kumar Dev Raj
Forensic Expert Public witness/ STD Booth owner who has identified the accused as the person who had made a call from his STD Booth on 18.5.2007 at 6:50 AM Police witness/ Finger print expert Public witness/ Owner of the house at Alipur where the accused was residing at the time of his arrest Police witness/ PCR Official Police witness/ photographer Mobile Crime Team
7. 8.
PW 7 PW 8
ASI Ajender Singh Sanjay Mann
9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25.
PW 9 PW 10 PW 11 PW 12 PW 13 PW 14 PW 15 PW 16 PW 17 PW 18 PW 19 PW 20 PW 21 PW 22 PW 23 PW 24 PW 25
HC Suresh Kumar Suresh Kumar
HC Krishan Kumar Police witness who had collected the PCR Form Ct. Baljeet Singh HC Jaiveer Singh SI Satender Singh HC Hari Ram SI Mahesh Kumar HC Vijender Singh ASI Ranpal ASI Chhat Ram Insp. Malkiyat Singh ASI Rajbir Singh HC Raj Pal SI Sharad Kohli ASI Yudhister SI Arun Tyagi Police witness/ special messenger who had delivered the copies of FIR to senior officers Police witness/ photographer Mobile Crime Team Police witness who is a witness to the recovery of skull and jaw Police witness/ MHCM Police witness/ Draftsman Police witness/ member of Special Staff West District Police witness/ Control Room official Police witness/ Duty Officer Police witness/ Incharge Crime Team Police witness who had joined investigations Police witness/ Photographer District Crime Team Police witness who had collected the postmortem report Police witness/ PCR Van Incharge Police witness who had reached the spot i.e. State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Courts where body parts were recovered on 19.5.2007 Police witness who had reached the spot i.e. Gate No.1, Central Jail Tihar on 18.5.2007.
26.
PW 26
ASI Kishan Chand
Page No. 5
27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43.
PW 27 PW 28 PW 29 PW 30 PW 31 PW 32 PW 33 PW 34 PW 35 PW 36 PW 37 PW 38 PW 39 PW 40 PW41 PW42 PW43
ASI Arjun Singh Sh. Puran Chand HC Ram Singh SI Narender Sh. Raj Kumar Sh. Rajesh Kumar @ Sanjay Kumar HC Yashvir Ct. Rambir Dr. A K Srivastava Inspector Dalip Kaushik Inspector Hoshiyar Singh
Police witness who had accompanied SI Arun Tyagi Official witness/ Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate Police witness who had accompanied ASI Kishan Chand Police witness/ member of Special Staff Nodal Officer from Reliance Communications Public witness/ private photographer Police witness/ MHCM of PS Subzi Mandi Police witness/ DD writer of PS Subzi Mandi Forensic Expert / DNA Fingerprinting Expert Police witness/ member of Special Staff West District Police witness/ Investigating Officer
Sh. Jitender Kumar Forensic Expert Sh. Ganganjit Singh Nodal Officer from Tata Teleservices
Dr. Sanjeev Kumar Forensic Expert / Handwriting Expert
ASI Virender Singh Police witness/ member of Special Staff West District Inspector Sunder Singh Sh. Pankaj Police witness/ member of Special Staff West District Public witness who is the brother of one of the victim namely Upender (FIR No. 243/2007) and has proved the use of mobile phone no. 9211463742 by the accused Chanderkant Jha Nodal Officer from Tata Teleservices
44.
PW44
Sh. M N Vijayan
List of documents/ exhibits:

Sr. No. 1. 2. 3. 4. Exhibit No. Ex.PW1/A Ex.PW1/B-1 Ex.PW1/B-2 Ex.PW2/A Details of documents Copy of FIR DD No.13A DD No.14A Postmortem Report in respect of decapitated body Dr. Anil Shandil Proved By ASI Sangeeta
Page No. 6
5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33.
Ex.PW2/B Ex.PW2/C Ex.PW3/A Ex.PW3/B Ex.PW3/C Ex.PW4/A Ex.PW5/A Ex.PW5/B Ex.PW5/C Ex.PW5/D Ex.PW7/A Ex.PW9/A
Postmortem Report in respect of the Skull & Jaw Postmortem Report in respect of arms and private parts Seizure memo of Driving License BDO Certificate Copy of Driving License Crime Team Report Biological Report Serological Report Seizure memo of blood stains and earth control Seizure memo of knives Finger print Bureau expert report Photocopy of PCR ASI Ajender Singh HC Suresh Kumar Ct. Suresh Kumar HC Krishan Kumar Ct. Baljeet Singh HC Jai Veer Singh SI Anil Kumar Naresh Kumar Rajiv Kumar
Ex.PW10/A-1 to Photographs Ex.PW10/A-18 Ex.PW11/A Ex.PW11/B Ex.PW12/A Ex.PW12/B PCR Form Seizure memo of PCR Form DD No. 14A DD No. 26A
Ex.PW13/A1 to Photographs PW13/A10 Ex.PW13/N1 to Negatives PW13/N10 Ex.PW14/A Ex.PW15/A Ex.PW15/B Ex.PW15/C Ex.PW15/D Ex.PW15/E Ex.PW15/F Ex.PW15/G Ex.PW16/A Ex.PW17/DX1 Seizure memo of Skull, jaw and clothes Photocopy of entry No 2849 Photocopy of entry No 2890 RC No. 56/21 Receipt of FSL Copy of RC No. 57/21 Receipt of FSL RC No. 58/21 Site plan Statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C.
SI Satender Mohan HC Hari Ram
SI Mahesh Kumar HC Bijender

Page No. 7
34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65.
Ex.PW18/1 Ex.PW19/1 Ex.PW19/A Ex.PW19/B Ex.PW20/1 Ex.PW20/A Ex.PW21/1 Ex.PW21/A Ex.PW21/B Ex.PW21/C Ex.PW21/X1 Ex.PW22/1 Ex.PW22/A1to Ex.PW22/A8 Ex.PW22/B Ex.PW23/1 Ex.PW25/A Ex.PW25/B Ex.PW25/C Ex.PW25/D Ex.PW25/E Ex.PW25/F Ex.PW26/A Ex.PW26/B Ex.PW26/C Ex.PW26/D Ex.PW28/A Ex.PW28/B Ex.PW28/C Ex.PW28/E Ex.PW28/D
Affidavit of ASI Ranpal Affidavit DD NO. 10/A DD No. 11/A Affidavit of Inspector Malkiat Singh Crime team Report Affidavit of ASI Rajbir Singh Photographs RC No. 68/21/07 Copy of FSL Receipt DD No. 25B Affidavit of HC Rajpal Singh Photographs Negatives Affidavit of SI Sharad Kohli DD No. 25/A Form 25:35 Seizure memo DD No. 10 Receipt Site plan Seizure memo of letter Seizure memo of dead body Tehrir Site plan TIP Proceeding Statement of accused to refuse in participating the TIP Application for copy of TIP Proceeding Sheet Dated 5/6/07 Application for obtaining the specimen handwriting
ASI Ranpal ASI Chhat Ram
Insp Malkiat Singh ASI Rajbir Singh
HC Raj Pal Singh
SI Sharad Kohil SI Arun Tyagi
ASI Krishan Chand
Sh. Pooran Chand
Ex.PW28/G1 & Application of the Investigating Ex.PW28/G2 Officers Ex.PW28/H 64 Sheets

Page No. 8
66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72.
Ex.PW28/DX1 Ex.PW30/A Ex.PW30/B Ex.PW30/D Ex.PW30/E Ex.PW30/F Ex.PW30/G
Newspaper cutting Arrest memo of accused Personal search memo of accused Seizure memo of Rickshaw Sketch of knife Seizure memo of nunchaku Pointing out memo of railway line near ganda nalla Kishanganj where the accused had thrown legs of the deceased on 18.5.2007 Viscera Report Forwarding Letter Customer Application Form in respect Raj Kumar of mobile No. 9312616022 Copy of Election Card Call Detail Records of mobile No. 9312616022 Certificate under Section 65 Evidence Act Handing over to CDR to Inspector Ombir Singh Copy of Customer Application Form in Sh. Gaganjit Singh respect of mobile No. 9211463742 Copy of Driving License Copy of Customer Application Form in respect of mobile No. 9211541254 Copy of Ration Card CDR of mobile No. 9211463742 CDR of mobile No. 9211541254 Certificate under Section 65 Evidence Act Rajesh Kumar Sh. Jitender Kumar SI Narender Kumar
73. 74. 75. 76. 77. 78. 79. 80. 81. 82. 83. 84. 85. 86. 87. 88. 89. 90. 91. 92.
Ex.PW31/A Ex.PW31/B Ex.PW32/A Ex.PW32/B Ex.PW32/C Ex.PW32/D Ex.PW32/E Ex.PW33/A Ex.PW33/B Ex.PW33/C Ex.PW33/D Ex.PW33/E Ex.PW33/F Ex.PW33/G
Ex.PW34/A1 to Photographs A11 Ex.PW34/B Ex.PW34/C Ex.PW34/DX1 Ex.PW35/A Ex.PW35/B Negatives Seizure memo of negatives Statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Copy of entry no. 2040 Copy of RC 62/21/07
HC Yasbir Singh
Page No. 9
93. 94. 95. 96. 97. 98. 99.
Ex.PW36/A Ex.PW37/A Ex.PW37/B Ex.PW38/A Ex.PW39/A Ex.PW39/DX2 Ex.PW40/A
DD No. 4 DNA Fingerprinting Report DNA fingerprinting Report FSL (Handwriting) Report Pointing out memo of State Bank, Tis Hazari compound Statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Disclosure statement of the accused Dead body identification statement of Deepak Dead body identification statement of Sushil Application for Filing the FSL Result Application for filling of opinion of Chemical expert regarding Exhibit Request for Postmortem Brief Fact Request for examination of Viscera, blood samples, clothes etc. Request for postmortem of parts part Receipt of handing over of the dead body of unknown person Arrest memo Copy of Newspapers Site plan of the room at Haiderpur Site plan of the place from where the skull and jaw were recovered CDR of mobile No. 9211463742 CDR of mobile No. 9211463743 Location Chart Slip recovered from the possession of the accused Certificate U/s 65 Evidence Act Authorization Letter
Ct Rambir Dr. A.K. Srivastava Dr. Sanjeev kumar Insp Dalip Kaushik
100. Ex.PW40/B 101. Ex.PW40/C 102. Ex.PW4/D 103. Ex.PW40/E 104. Ex.PW40/F 105. Ex.PW40/G 106. Ex.PW40/H 107. Ex.PW40/I 108. Ex.PW40/J 109. Ex.PW40/K 110. Ex.PW41/DX1 111. Ex.PW42/A 112. Ex.PW42/B 113. Ex.PW42/C 114. Ex.PW42/D 115. Ex.PW42/E 116. Ex.PW43/A 117. Ex.PW44/A 118. Ex.PW44DX1
Insp Hoshiyar Singh
ASI Virender Insp Sunder Singh
Pankaj Sh. M. N. Vijayan
Page No. 10
List of case property:

Sr. No. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. Exhibit No. Ex.PW5/4 Ex.PW5/5 Ex.PW5/6 Ex.PW5/7 Ex.P1 Ex.P2 Ex.P3 Ex.P4 Ex.P5 Ex.P6 Ex.P7 Ex.P8 Ex.P9 Ex.P10 Ex.P11 Ex.P12 Ex.P13 Ex.P14 Ex.P15 Ex.P16 Details of the Case Property Blood Stains lifted from the room Blood stained pieces of the floor and wall Envelop containing Blood stained from clothes below the knife Stone pieces of floor Skull Jaw Plastic Rope Letter (written on Yellow) Letter (printed page 'Geography') Katta Clothes of Children (Seven in Number) Katta ( first Katta containing the second Katta) Katta containing the headless body Red cloth Ghagri Knife Knife Knife Non-Chuck Denim jeans along with black belt
Ex.P17 (previously Indicom Mobile Phone marked as PW42/1) Ex.P18 (previously Samsung Mobile Phone marked as PW42/2)
Note: To avoid any confusion and inconvenience the exhibits PW42/1 & PW42/2 have been renumbered as herein above at the stage of judgment.
(8)
Coming now to the testimonies of the various witnesses
examined by the prosecution:
Page No. 11
Public witnesses:
(9)
Rajiv Kumar (PW3) has deposed that he reside at H. No. 155,
Haiderpur, Delhi and the property bearing No.229/2, Ambedkar Nagar, Haiderpur is in the name of his grandmother Late Smt. Ramkali. According to him in October 2004 one room in the said property was rented out by him to one Vikas R/o Bihar, who remained in that room till December, 2005 after which the said room was lying vacant. He has testified that in April 2006, Vikas came to him along with accused Chanderkant and introduced him as his maternal uncle and requested him to rent out the said room to the accused and his family members for residential purpose. The witness has further deposed that he rented out the said room to the accused at a monthly rent of Rs.700/- after which the accused started living in the said room along with his wife and children and the accused told him that he was having vegetable work in Azadpur Mandi. According to him, in April 2007 the accused shifted his wife and children to some other place while he used to visit the said room alone. In May 2007, he came to know that the accused had been arrested in a murder case by the police. He has testified that on 07.07.2007 police called him at Police Station Hari Nagar and handed over photocopy of certificate issued by BDO Gram Sabha, Haiderpur regarding the property No. 229/2, Ambedkar Nagar, Haiderpur, the photocopy of the electricity bill of the said property and the photocopy of his driving licence which were taken into police possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW3/A. The witness has proved the original certificate issued by BDO copy of which is Ex.PW3/B and photocopy of his original driving licence which is Ex.PW3/C. According to him, the Investigation Officer recorded his statement on the day of incident.
Page No. 12
(10)
In his cross-examination, the witness has deposed that police
recorded his statement only once at Police Station and it was one Mr. Kohli, who recorded his statement partly but he is unable to tell the FIR number of the case, in which his statement was recorded. He has further deposed that Police visited tenanted premises for two times in his presence but he is unable to tell the exact date or month and states that in the year 2007 when police visited, on that day accused was arrested. He is also unable to tell the date or month of 2007 when police officials visited second time but states that the second visit was after two-three days of the first visit. According to him, on both the occasions there were seven-eight police officers and some were in uniform while some were in civil clothes but in both the visits, the accused was not with the police officials. He has further deposed that at the time of first visit, the police officials broke open the lock of the room of the accused and put their own lock and on the second visit as well, they went to the room of the accused. According to him, the police officials were not carrying any bag or any articles and the police officials had not allowed any public persons to enter into the room of the accused. He has testified that after a second visit, the police officials did not lock the room of the accused and on both the visits, police checked the room and no articles were taken by the police from the room of the accused in his presence. The witness has also deposed that the accused left the tenanted premises after putting his lock in the month of May 2007 but he is not aware what happened to broken lock. According to the witness, for the first time he had seen the accused in the year 2006 when room was rented out to him and it was one Vikas who had brought the accused to his house at 155, Haiderpur but he does not know any relative or friend of Vikas. He has further deposed that Vikas was employed in some factory and the room,
in which, Vikas was a tenant was given to accused in the year 2006 on rent. The witness has testified that the accused was living in the tenanted room along with his wife and five children. He has admitted that one child of the accused was born at the tenanted room but he is unable to tell the month. He has also admitted that the tenanted room was situated at ground floor and that on all three sides, left, right and front, there are other tenanted rooms situated. He has further deposed that family members of other tenants were residing in those rooms. He has denied the suggestion that the tenanted room of the accused was situated near the main gate. He has admitted that one has to cross four tenanted rooms to reach the room of the accused and that one window (roshandan) is situated in the tenanted room of the accused, which is not covered. The witness has also deposed that the police officials visited tenanted room during evening hours but he (witness) was not present at that time and he was called from his house. According to him, when police had broken open the lock on their first visit, there was only one lock at the tenanted room of the accused, which was broken with the help of hammer and no public person joined the proceedings on the first visit of police officials. The witness has testified that in his presence, no photographer was called by the police at the time of both visits and he remained with the police officials after calling from his house at the time of both visits till they remained at the premises and the accused was having one rickshaw fitted with scooter engine. He has also deposed that he had not executed any rent agreement with the accused and no rent receipt was issued to the accused. He has denied the suggestion that neither any rent agreement nor rent receipt issued to the accused as he never remained tenant. He has also deposed that no toilet provided in the tenanted room but a joint toilet was situated at the main
gate. The witness has testified that he had taken the accused to Police Station for verification when he was inducted as tenant. He has also deposed that police officials asked accused to produce identity proof and he maintained temporary account of rent receipt from tenants but he could produce the same showing that accused paid rent in the month of April-May, 2007. The witness has further deposed that the tenants do not sign on the temporary account. He has denied the suggestion that the accused had never been his tenant in the property No. 229/2, Haiderpur not is he unable to show any documentary proof to prove the tenancy of the accused. He has denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely at the instance of police officials as they had obliged him by getting his premises vacated.
(11)
Dev Raj (PW6) has deposed that he is running a general store
situated at WZ-17, Titarpur, Delhi and in his shop, he is also running the STD Booth and one coin inserting telephone instrument was affixed outside his shop. According to him, on 18.05.2007 at about 6.20 AM he was present at the shop when one person came there and inserted a coin in the said telephone instrument and made a telephone and after sometime, he again inserted the coin but the coin came out of the instrument. He has testified that he asked that person as to whom he wanted to make a telephone call and that person handed over the coin to him and left the shop. The witness has also deposed that when a person usually dialed 100 number from that phone, then the coin comes out from the instrument and he thought that the person dialed 100 number at that time. He has further deposed that when he asked that person as to whom he was making call, he became perplexed. According to him, the said person was having slight mustaches and beard, having wheatish complexion, having a height of 5 feet aged 35-36 years. Witness has
identified that person as accused Chanderkant Jha. He has deposed that on the same day, police of the local police Station came to him and recorded his statement and on one occasion, he had identified that person in the Rohini Court. He has further deposed that his telephone number was 42133579 and also produced a copy of the bill to the Investigation Officer. He has further testified that the telephone installed in the name of his wife and proved the copy of the original bill which is Ex.PW6/A and Investigation Officer recorded his statement.
(12)
In his cross-examination, the witness has admitted that on the
previous date of hearing he was not able to identify the accused and has explained that this was so because on that day he did not pay attention or focus on the accused whom he had seen after about three years. According to the witness, he had studied upto Class 12 th and police recorded his statement twice and his first statement was recorded on 18.05.2007. He is not aware the name of the police officers, who recorded his statement at Police Station Hari Nagar and states that the accused at the time of making call never asked him or informed him because it was a coin phone. The witness has further testified that his second statement was recorded on 26.06.2007 and after three years, he identified that the person, who made call at his shop where the STD telephone was installed is present in the Court. He has also deposed that he had seen the face of the accused when accused made payment to him and he had also seen his side face at the time of making of telephone call. He has also deposed that he had little conversation with the accused on 18.05.2007 after he made the telephone call and has stated that at that time he had not noticed any mark on both the cheeks of the accused since he was having beard. The witness has further deposed that he had not heard the conversation because of the distance between him and the
accused. He has further deposed that first of all, accused came to his shop and made a call and went away at a distance of three paces and returned back and went to bus stop. According to the witness, after about two to three minutes, he returned to the shop and again made a call and at that time, the coin came out from the instrument and he asked him as to whom he had made the call. The witness has testified that he further asked the accused whether he had made a STD/ local call, then the accused came to him and gave him the coin and said that he had made a local call and went away. He has also deposed that the first call was made by the accused on a mobile phone, which he later on came to know through the police as they collected the call details. The witness has also deposed that on 18.05.2007, police came to him at about 9.00/9.30 AM and one of them was Inspector Hoshiyar Singh. He has further deposed that the accused came to his shop on foot but he noticed that a cycle rickshaw was parked near the bus stand and accused went there, stood near the rickshaw and again came back at the shop. He has admitted that near bus stand, many rickshaw were parked. The witness has admitted that the police officials had read over to him his statement recorded on 18.05.2007. He has stated that he had also helped in making the sketch of the accused but is unable to tell the date and has explained that it was in the same month after two-three days at some police office. He is also unable to tell the place where the office was situated and states that the police official came to his shop and took him in their vehicle to that office on a government motorcycle. He has further deposed that he described the beard and mustaches of the accused at the time of preparation of sketch but he does not remember whether he had signed on any paper on that day including the sketch. The witness has testified that on 26.06.2007, he identified the accused in the Rohini
Court Complex in front of Court Room No.108 and he identified him as the person who made the telephone call from his shop on 18.05.2007 and the accused was with the police officials, who were in the uniform. He does not remember whether the accused was handcuffed or not. According to the witness, he had not noticed any mark on both cheeks of the accused. He has deposed that he had reached in the Court Room No.109 at about 9.30 AM and the accused came to the Court premises at about 2.00/2.30 PM. The witness has further deposed that Inspector Hoshiyar Singh disclosed the name of the accused prior to 26.06.2007. He has further stated that it was Inspector Hoshiyar Singh who called him to Rohini Court. He has also deposed that he was instructed to appear in the Court two days prior to 26.06.2007 to identify the accused. He has further stated that on that day, his statement was recorded at Court premises but he is unable to tell the exact place nor is he able to tell at what time the statement was recorded. He has denied that he was deposing on the instructions of the Investigation Officer or that he never visited the court premises on 26.06.2007.
(13)
Sanjay Mann (PW8) has deposed that he has a plot in Village
Alipur, Delhi where he had already constructed eight rooms, which were given on rent to various tenants and on 10.05.2007, wife of the accused came to him with her children and he had given her two rooms on the monthly rent in the sum of Rs. 600/- p.m. He has deposed that he had seen accused there on one or two occasion but he never talked with the accused. According to him, three months prior to his deposition, the wife and five children of the accused shifted to another place and his statement was recorded by the police. He has correctly identified the accused in the Court.
(14)
In his cross-examination, the witness has deposed that he had
studied till 12th class. He has admitted that his parents are residing separately at House No. 139 whereas he is residing on the back side of the said plot where the accused was residing. According to him, at the time of arrest of the accused, he was residing in the same premises, however, he was not present at the time of his arrest. He has testified that his house is situated in the Chhota Shiv Mandir Gali, Near Dhulia Colony Chowk at a distance of five minutes walk from his parents home. He has further deposed that on 01.08.2007, police officials of Crime Branch called at their office and recorded his statement only once but he does not remember the names of the police official, who recorded his statement. According to the witness, on one occasion police had also visited the premises where the accused was residing and Police told him that the accused was arrested in the cases of murder and used to throw the dead body in front of Tihar Jail. He has denied the suggestion that police twice recorded his statement i.e. on 01.08.2007 and 02.08.2007.
(15)
Sh. Rajesh Kumar @ Sanjay Kumar (PW34) has deposed
that he was running a photo studio in the name of Sanjay Studio opposite BSES Office, Tagore Garden and on 23.5.07 on the request of Inspector Sunder Singh, Incharge Special Staff, West District he reached near Yamuna Pull along with him and other staff. He has further deposed that the accused Chanderkant was also present and pointed out towards the place where he left the skull. According to the witness on request of Inspector Sunder Singh, he took eleven photographs of the skull from different angles and after developing the same, he handed over the said photographs to the Investigating Officer which are ExPW34/A1 to ExPW34/A11. He has further deposed that he also
handed over eleven negatives to the Investigating Officer which are collectively Ex.PW34/B and Investigating Officer Inspector Sunder Singh took the photographs and negatives into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW34/C. Court.
(16)
He has correctly identified the accused in the
In his cross examination, the witness has deposed that he was
12th class passed. He is unable to tell whether the accused at the time when he was taking photographs was hand cuffed or not and has voluntarily explained that he was only taking photographs. According to him, he is normally being called by the local police for taking photographs and he frequently come to the court for deposition. He has further deposed that he was a private photographer and had no official business with the Delhi Police though he was called by them frequently. He has testified that on that day, he was called by Inspector Sunder Singh, Special Staff at Yamuna Bridge, ISBT. He has denied the suggestion that when he reached the spot the skull and other body parts were already present and has voluntarily explained that they were pointed out and got recovered by the accused. The witness has further stated that his shop is at Tagore Garden and it took him about one hour to reach at spot i.e Yamuna Bridge. According to the witness, he reached there at about 8:00 PM on his own conveyance and no police officer was with him. He has admitted that there were no electricity polls at the spot and has voluntarily deposed that there was a search light available with the police officials. He does not recollect whether the skull was covered/ wrapped in some cloth or opened when it was recovered and his statement had been recorded by the Investigating Officer and has voluntarily explained that it was recorded by Inspector Ombir Singh. The witness was confronted with his statement
Page No. 20
ExPW34/DX1 where it is mentioned that the skull was wrapped in a cloth when it was recovered. The witness admits having made the above statement to the Investigating Officer and states that at the time when he reached the spot the police were still searching and the recovery was made thereafter. He has denied the suggestion that he was a stock witness of the police and was making a false deposition at their instance or that no recovery was effected in his presence at the instance of the accused and he was making a false statement at the instance of the police.
(17)
Sh. Pankaj (PW43) is the son of Sh. Mahender Rathore, a
resident of Village Hari Ram Pur, Post Gauri Bazar, district Devariya, UP is the brother of one Upender Rathore another victim whose decapitated body was found outside Central Jail Tihar on 24.04.2007 pursuant to which FIR No. 243/07 Police Station Hari Nagar was registered. Pankaj has been examined by the prosecution in the present case to prove that the accused Chander Kant Jha was using a mobile Number 9211463742 at the time when the various killings were taking place. This Pankaj had met the accused Chander Kant Jha prior to the death of Upender and had even spoken to him to inquire about his brother Upender who according to him used to work with Chander Kant Jha, and was not traceable.
(18)
Pankaj has deposed that in the year 2006 his brother Upender
was residing at village Sanaut, near Narela, Delhi. According to the witness, he was residing at Bhiwari, Rajasthan and he used to speak to his brother Upender on mobile numbers 9211463742 and 9211463743 from STD Booth. The witness has deposed that usually the call was received by the accused Chander Kant Jha, whom the witness has correctly identified, and it was thereafter he used to speak to his brother
Upender. According to Pankaj he had last spoken to his brother on 20.04.2007. He has explained that he had met Chander Kant Jha along with his brother when he came to Delhi to meet his brother at village Sanaut. Witness has further deposed that he met accused Chander Kant first time at Jahangirpuri as two children from his native place came Delhi and they were kept at Prayas Children Home and the relatives of the children came to Delhi and they met him and then he asked his brother Upender to get those children released when Upender told him that accused Chander Kant Jha could help to get them released and therefore his brother introduced him to accused Chander Kant Jha.
(19)
Witness has further testified that after 20 th April, 2007 when he
could not contact his brother on the mobile number given to him i.e. 9211463742, he tried to contact him on the other number given to him by his brother i.e. 9211463743 and called him up on this number 9211463743 in May, 2007 which was picked up by a girl and when he asked her to connect him to Chander Kant Jha, she told him her father was not available and he should call back after ten minutes. The witness has further deposed that again after about 10-15 minutes he called up on the same number i.e 9211463743 which call was attended to by Chander Kant Jha whose voice he could identify as he had been previously speaking to him on the other mobile number 9211463742 i.e. when he used to call Upender. According to the witness, Chander Kant and his brother Upender used to work together in a mandi in partnership where they used to put a rehri of subzi in the mandi. According to the witness, this was the last time when he met Upender along with Chander Kant i.e. two-three months prior to 20.04.2007 when he last spoke to Upender. He has further testified that when he asked Chander Kant Jha about the whereabouts of Upender he told him that Upender had taken
Rs.20,000/- and had also taken his rehri/ thela and gone away somewhere. The witness was shown the Ex.PW43/A where the witness has identified his name and address mentioned at point X.
(20)
In his cross examination the witness has deposed that
whenever he used to came Delhi he used to meet the accused Chander Kant Jha. He has deposed that he did not meet his brother Upender in February, 2007 at Haiderpur. According to him, his statement was recorded by Inspector Hoshiyar Singh. He has testified that he is 10 th class pass and he had gone through his statement which was recorded by the police. According to the witness, it may be possible at the time of recording of his statement he told to the police that he met Upender at Haiderpur in February, 2007 and has voluntarily explained that he has forgotten these facts due to lapse of time of about seven years. Witness has further deposed that he told to the police meaning of CC i.e. Chander Chander. The witness has also testified that the children who came to Delhi, one of them was his real brother namely Pawan, whereas the other was his friend namely Kundan and he told to the police about his brother but the police recorded that brother of Upender came to Delhi from native place. Witness has explained that meaning of both the facts are same. According to the witness at that time father of Upender did not came to Delhi from native place for rescue of children and when both the children were got released from the Prayas Sanstha at that time he stayed at village Sannaut at the house of his brother Upender where accused Chander Kant Jha was also present. Witness has further deposed that some other persons from the native place were also residing there. He is not aware of the place at Azadpur Mandi where his brother used to work and he never visited the place where he used to work. According to the witness, it was the deceased Upender who
informed him about his working at Azadpur Mandi.
He has also
deposed that the father of Upender came to Delhi in Nirankari Samagam and he took him to village Sannaut where they came to know that accused Chander Kant Jha was involved in another murder case in the year November, 2006. Witness has also deposed that some persons residing in neighbourhood at Sannaut who were also working in the Mandi, told them about the involvement of accused Chander Kant Jha in a murder case and at that time father of Upender asked him to leave the company of accused Chander Kant Jha. He does not recollect if he had spoken to Upender on phone in November 2006. According to him when he met first time with the accused Chander Kant Jha for getting released the children from Prayas, it was prior to the Deepawali in the year of 2006. He also does not remember if he had spoken to his brother upto 24.04.2007. Witness has further deposed that he never met accused Chander Kant Jha at Azadpur Subzi Mandi or at Haiderpur and has voluntarily explained that he met accused Chander Kant Jha in a room prior to Azadpur Mandi but he does not remember the locality. According to him father of Upender never accompanied him to Azadpur Subzi Mandi and in the year 2005-2006 one of his known person was residing at Haiderpur and he left Delhi in the year 2006 and went to Bhiwari Rajasthan. Witness has further deposed that he is not aware of when and how his brother Upender came in contact with accused Chander Kant Jha and initially one Wali and he himself were working at village Barwala in a factory and prior to this Upender was also working there. According to the witness when he came to know that Upender was missing he also contacted to Wali about the missing of Upender who told him that Upender had not come to meet him. Witness has also deposed that he did not tell the police that Wali told him that Upender
did not come to the factory for his work since two-four days. However, when confronted with statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. it has been found to be so recorded. Witness has also deposed that Upender did not tell him that he again joined the factory at Barwala. However, when confronted with his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. it has been found to be so recorded that Upender again joined the factory. He does not remember the dates but states that it was in the year 2005 that Upender joined the factory at Barwala and he left the said factory and started work at Mandi and police came to Bhiwari and told him that they knew about his number from a document recovered from the possession of Chandra Kant Jha and they asked him as to whether he knew Chander Kant Jha on which he replied Yes and thereafter he came to Delhi at Police Station Hari Nagar. Witness has further deposed that when he contacted last time in the month of May 2007 to Chander Kant Jha on mobile number 9211463743 he told him that Upender ka jaisa karam tha, maine usko wahan pahucha diya hai. The witness has further testified that he tried for search Upender in the house of relatives, friends etc. but he was not traceable. He does not remember the name of the place where he met Upender lastly and has voluntarily explained that he can identify the place by going there. Witness has admitted that immediately after last call with the accused Chander Kant Jha he did not make any complaint to the police and has voluntarily explained that he tried to search for Upender at his own. Witness has further deposed that he is not aware as to how many persons were in contact of Upender and has voluntarily explained that Upender was residing with the accused Chander Kant only. He has denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely at the instance of the police officials or that he never met Upender or that the accused Chander Kant Jha. Witness has also denied
the suggestion that he never had a talk with accused Chander Kant Jha on telephone numbers as stated by him in his examination in chief.
Medical Witness:
(21)
Anil Shandil (PW2) is the Autopsy Surgeon who on
14.06.2007 had conducted the postmortem of the decapitated body of the unknown person recovered from outside gate no. 1 Central Jail Tihar on 18.5.2007. He has deposed that on 14.06.2007 he had conducted postmortem of body of unknown brought by Inspector Omvir Singh, Police Station Hari Nagar with alleged history that on 18.05.2007 at 6.50 AM, a call was received on PCR that the dead body was lying at Gate No.1 and ASI Krishan Chand reached at the spot, opened the plastic bag and recovered the dead body of a male aged 22-23 years. He has further deposed that both the hands and legs (below ankle, head and private parts) of the body were missing. According to the witness only one underwear was there and decapitated (headless, neck-less) body lower border face of neck at the level of sternal notch with both upper lips, shoulder with scapula dismembered and missing along with the anterio-lateral posterior aspect of chest wall with parts of clavicle and ribcac visible. He has further deposed that the corresponding wound over the body corresponding to the dismembered missing parts did not show blood clots and the residual tissue showed changes with fungus, foul smells. According to the witness, decapitation the front at the level of anterior clavicular joint, sternal notch and in the back is cut over the seven cervical vertabrae, the intervertebral disc between C6-7 is clean cut; the traces is attached with cut part of the face of neck and not drawn in chest gravity with above five tracheal lings absent an absence of any vital reaction over the wound. He has further deposed that on internal
examination of abdomen Stomach was empty, Mucosa was congested with redening and abnormal smell not appreciable. He has proved having opined that the wounds over the body were postmortem in nature are caused by sharp edged weapon and no definite opinion regarding cause of death could be given. According to the witness, sternum with rib for DNA finger printing, clothes of the deceased, blood and viscera for chemical analysis and blood samples were preserved, sealed and handed over to the concerned police Investigation Officer. He has proved the detailed report in this regard which is Ex.PW2/A.
(22)
The witness has also deposed that on 14.06.2007, he had
conducted the postmortem of skull plus teeth (unidentified) sent by Omvir Singh, Addl. SHO Police Station Hari Nagar and as per inquest papers, the skull was stated to be recovered from the bank of Yamuna river in the area of Police Station Seelampur, Delhi. According to him, the skull was along with one skirt and red colour piece of cloth, whole skull bones divide of scalp with facial underlying muscular tissues with fully exposed with typical characteristics of male with prominent glabella, supra orbital ridges, mastoid process, occipital protuberance more prominent with partial fusion of saggital and coronal and lamboid sutures with orbital opening big and rectangular, lower jaw absent and missing both incisors from upper jaw socket and no brain matter present. He has proved having opined that it was a dismembered skull of human body. The witness has further proved that tooth for DNA finger printing, whole skull for super imposition, two x-ray of skull preserved, sealed and handed over to Investigation Officer. He has also proved the postmortem report in this regard which is Ex.PW2/B. According to him, on the same day i.e. on 14.06.2007, he conducted postmortem of unknown mutilated parts of body i.e. limbs, both hands
and private part. According to the witness, both side right and left upper limb (arms from shoulder to fingers) and specular part with decomposition with fungus, foul smelling and human genitalia (penis with scortum with both testis adjacent perineal tissues with public hair with peeling of skin, decomposition without blood clots). He has proved having opined that these were the dismembered parts of human body. He has testified that the right and left upper limb humerus bone for DNA finger printing along with pubic hair and hand with phalanges preserved, sealed and handed over to concerned Investigation Officer. He has also proved the postmortem report to this effect which is Ex.PW2/C. This witness was not cross-examined by the counsel for the accused and hence his testimony has gone uncontroverted.
Forensic Evidence:
(23)
Naresh Kumar (PW5) is the Senior Scientific Assistant
(Biology) FSL, Delhi. He has deposed that on 20.05.2007, on the request of Inspector Sunder Singh he visited the spot i.e. House No. 229, Gali No.2, Haiderpur Village and inspected the scene of crime i.e. the room situated at ground floor where crime team members were already present there. According to him, he inspected the scene of crime and found that the blood was present in the room and he lifted some of the blood stains/ floor pieces that were marked as Mark A to Mark D and separate parcels of these articles were prepared and sealed with the seal of NK FSL. According to the witness, the parcel Mark A was containing blood stains lifted on a gauze cloth, near the gate of the room; Parcel Mark B containing blood stained pieces of floor taken near the gate of the room; Parcel C contained stains prepared from below the knives and Parcel D containing portion of concrete floor
pieces taken from the room along with three weapons of offence i.e. knives. The witness has further deposed that he inspected the knives and found that the knives were blood stained which blood was dried on the knives after which the Investigation Officer prepared the sketch of the knives and measured the same. He has testified that one of the knife was having a handle wrapped with rubber and tied with the thread and total length of that knife was 41.5 cm, blade was 28 cm, handle was 13.5 cm and the width of the blade was 4.5 cm. He has further deposed that Investigation Officer prepared the parcel, sealed and also given serial number E to this knife. According to him, the second knife was also measured and total length of that knife was 39.8 cm, blade was 27 cm, handle was 12.8 cm, width of the blade was 7 cm and the handle of the knife was fitted with wood. He has proved that Investigation Officer prepared the cloth parcel, sealed and also given serial number F to this knife. The witness has testified that the third knife was also measured and total length of that knife was 59 cm, width of the blade was 4.5 cm and the handle of the knife was having a hole. He has further deposed that Investigation Officer prepared the cloth parcel, sealed and also given serial number G to this knife and sketch of the knives were prepared by the Investigation Officer prior to their seizure and all the parcels were sealed with the seal of NK FSL Delhi and he signed the seizure memos.
(24)
The witness has also proved that on 30.07.2007, he received
ten sealed parcels which seals were intact as per FA letter and all the parcels were opened by breaking the seal. He has further deposed that he had given serial No. 1, 2 and 6 and parcel A to G and the contents of the parcels were given Ex.1A, 1b, 1c, 1d, 1e, 1f, 1g, 1h and 1i and 2, 6a, 6b, A, B, C, D, E, F and G. The witness has also deposed that he
examined all the exhibits biologically and prepared his detailed report which is Ex.PW5/A and also examined the exhibits serologically and prepared his detailed report which is Ex.PW5/B. He has further deposed that after examination of the parcels, they were sealed with the seal of NK, FSL.
(25)
According to the witness, parcel containing Ex.A, B, C and D
were sent to DNA Division as per inquiry No.4 of the Investigation Officer and photocopy of seizure memo of the blood stains and earth control is Ex.PW5/B and the original produced by the MHC(M) is Ex.PW5/C and seizure memo of the weapons, which were recovered from the room of the accused, seized by the Investigation Officer in a separate parcel and sealed with the seal of NK FSL, which seizure memo is Ex.PW5/D.
(26)
He has identified the case property i.e. one dagger like weapon
which is Ex.PW5/1; one chopper knife which is Ex.PW5/2 and one long sword type knife which is Ex.PW5/3 which were recovered from the house of accused. He has also identified the envelope which was contained the blood stains lifted from the floor near the gate of the room which blood stains were consumed/ used by the FSL Authority during examination, which envelope is Ex.PW5/4; another envelope containing the blood stained pieces of the floor and wall which is Ex.PW5/5; another envelope which contained blood stains from the clothes below the knife which blood stains were consumed/ used by the FSL Authority during examination which envelope is Ex.PW5/6 and one stone piece of floor removed from the middle of the room of the accused having blood stains along with a white cloth which blood stained concrete floor pieces are Ex.PW5/7. According to him, all the above-said exhibits were lifted in case FIR No. 609/06 of Police Station Hari Nagar during
investigation in his presence and Investigation Officer recorded his statement.

(27)
In his cross-examination, he has deposed that he had seen the He has admitted that he had
accused for the first time on 20.05.2007 at about 6.00 PM at H. No. 229, Gali No.2, Haiderpur Village, Delhi. inspected the scene of crime where he had seen the accused. He has further deposed that he had been authorized by the Director, FSL to visit the said house as Investigation Officer must have made the request to the Director for the inspection of scene of crime and he was disclosed FIR number as 609/06 Police Station Hari Nagar. He has further deposed that he started from his office at about 5.30 PM in the evening and reached at about 5.50 PM near red light of Haiderpur Village where he met Inspector Sunder Singh and he had the complete kit bag with him for inspection of the scene of crime. The witness has testified that he had gone to the scene of crime by a three wheeler and was not known to Inspector Sunder Singh prior to 20.05.2007. According to him, he had not noticed when Mobile Crime Team arrived at the spot nor he had noticed the presence of accused at red light with Inspector Sunder Singh. He does not remember how the accused was present with the police officials nor does he remember whether accused was having big mustaches and beard. He has also deposed that he along with Inspector Sunder Singh went to the scene of crime from red light in the TATA 407 but he does not recollect whether Inspector Sunder Singh was accompanied with other staff persons or not. The witness has testified that TATA 407 had not reached in front of the house of the accused. He does not recollect the spot till which TATA 407 reached and states that he got down at the road and walked to the scene of crime. According to him, the said house was pointed out by the Investigation Officer. He is
unable to tell the exact number of documents signed by him regarding the proceedings conducted by him or in his presence on 20.05.2007 at the spot of crime and states that all the documents were signed at the spot of crime. He has admitted that the room was opened after breaking the lock and thereafter, the recovery of weapons and other articles were got effected. According to the witness, he had signed all the documents/ memos after going through its contents but he does not remember as to how the lock of the room was broken. The witness has testified that when he had reached at the room, it was locked but he does not remember what make and how many numbers of locks were there. He also does not remember all the contents of the documents Ex.PW5/D. According to the witness, he signed the documents at his own, without any pressure or coercion from police. He does not remember whether the light of the room was switched on or was off when they entered in the room and has explained that in so far as he remember, bulb was there and it was on. He has stated that the accused pointed out the weapon lying in the room and also told that it was used for committing the murder of various persons and at that time, Inspector Sunder Singh along with other officials were also present. The witness has further deposed that the accused informed about the murder while entering the room but he does not remember about the sequence of investigation conducted by police officials. According to him, he has deposed on the basis of his memory after three years. He does not remember as to what investigation was conducted after his inspection of the scene of occurrence nor does he remember the width and length of the room. He has further deposed that after pointing out of the accused towards weapon of offence, he lifted the blood stains from the scene of crime and the weapon of offence was sealed in his presence. He has further
deposed that when he conducted his job at the room, the weapon was sealed by him and in so far as he recollects, one Photographer was also present but he is unable to tell his name. The witness is unable to tell if he was also present at the time of seizure of case property and does not remember if any polythene or hanky or a glove was lying on the knife or not. According to him, the weapons were lying in the room in open condition but he does not remember if the knife and other weapon of offence were lying vertically or horizontally and states that they were lying on the left side when one enter in the room from the entrance. He has further deposed that he pointed out that the weapon of offence was having blood stains being the expert and he detected blood stains after test in the room itself when the available light was there and at that time he was wearing gloves in his hands. He does not remember whether photographs were taken prior to his test or after test. According to the witness, he with the help of chalk encircled the place where weapons of offence were recovered and also wrote Blood there but he does not remember who had written word 'Chaku / Hathiyar'. He has admitted that first of all, he had picked up the recovered knives in the room. He has further deposed that the Investigation Officer prepared sketch of the weapons of offence but he is not aware whether the Investigation Officer was wearing gloves or not and states that the Investigation Officer took the measurement of weapons in his presence. He does not remember what kind of scale was used by the Investigation Officer for measurement of weapons and states that the knife was turned into a white cloth for preparing it as parcel. He has also deposed that some Constable made stitches on the white cloth for preparing parcel but he does not remember his name. The witness has also deposed that he affixed his seal on the cloth parcels and he was having sealing material
with him but he does not remember as to how seals were affixed on each parcels by him. He does not remember if the photographs were taken while preparing the sealed parcels nor does he aware the members of the mobile crime team. The witness has testified that sealed pullandas were handed over to Inspector Sunder Singh but he does not remember if any blood stained cloth was also lying in the room or whether any nunchaku or mobile was obtained from the room. According to him, the blood stains on the floor were collected by him and blood stains were lifted twice from two places whereas blood stained floor was taken from two places and the blood stains were collected as they were seemed to be first washed on the floor. He has testified that the floor pieces were broken by him with the help of hammer and chhenni, which were arranged by police but he does not remember the name of police official, who had brought the same. According to the witness, he left the floor in the same condition after lifting the samples but he does not remember if he had told the photographer to take his photographs while lifting the blood stains. He has deposed that he had completed his proceedings at about 7.00 PM in the room and has no knowledge whether Investigation Officer had given instruction to owner and public persons not to enter the room during his proceedings. He is unable to recollect whether he signed the sketches of recovered weapons or as to who prepared Ex.PW5/C and Ex.PW5/D and as to who else signed the same. According to the witness, he had not seen broken lock or door or open lock because he had no concern with that proceeding. He has further deposed that when he saw the accused for the first time, he was unmuffled and he had left the spot after completing his proceedings. He has no knowledge as to whether he joined the investigation of a serial killer case of Tihar Jail and states that he was concerned only with his
investigations. of spot.
According to the witness, he was not having any
knowledge regarding the name of the accused at the time of inspection He does not remember on which day his statement was recorded in FIR No.243/07 or 279/07 and how many times his statement was recorded pertaining to all three FIRs i.e. No. 279/07, 609/07 or 243/07. The witness has proved the letter Ex.PW5/DE of the Director instructing him to visit the spot of crime on 20.05.2007. He has denied the suggestion that on 20.05.2007, he met Inspector Sunder Singh at Police Station Hari Nagar in day hours and at that time, accused was also present there. He has also denied that he had deposed falsely at the instance of the Investigation Officer or that the accused was not present at the spot of recovery of weapons on 20.05.2007 or that no pointing out regarding weapons of offence was ever done by the accused or that no weapon was recovered at the instance of accused and that the accused had not disclosed anything incriminating against him.
(28)
Jitender Kumar (PW31) is the Senior Scientific Assistant
(Chemistry), FSL Rohini. He has deposed that on 30.07.2007, he had received one parcel containing a polythene bag duly sealed with the seal of DDU Hospital bearing the details of PMR No. 581/07, FIR No. 279/07, PS Hari Nagar and he opened this parcel and found two exhibits 1a and 1b. He has further deposed that Ex.1a was the stomach and small intestine with contents and Ex.1b was the piece of liver, spleen and kidney and on chemical and instrumentation examination no common poison could not be detected in Ex 1a and Ex 1b. He has proved his detailed report in this regard which is Ex.PW31/A which report was forwarded to SHO Police Station Hari Nagar vide forwarding letter Ex.PW31/B. According to the witness, as per the report Ex.PW31/A on chemical and TLC examination, metallic poison, ethyl
and methyl alcohol, cyanide, phosphide, alkaloids, barbiturates, tranquilizers and insecticides could not be detected in exhibits 1a and 1b. He has testified that the exhibits/ remnants of exhibits were resealed with the seal of JK FSL Delhi and sent to the laboratory for examination. This witness has not been cross-examined by the Ld. Defence Counsel and his testimony has gone uncontroverted.
(29)
Dr. A.K. Srivastava (PW37) is the Assistant Director
(Biology), DNA Finger Printing Unit, FSL, Rohini. He has deposed that on 30.07.2007 six forensic samples in the present case were received in their office regarding DNA, finger printing test and the samples were duly sealed with the seal of DFMT, DDU hospital after which the parcels were opened and parcel No.1 was found to contain Ex1 i.e. one bone piece having foul smell described as sternum vide PM No. 581/07; Parcel No. 2 was found to contain Ex2 i.e. dark brown liquid sample described as blood sample vide PM No. 581/07; parcel No. 3 was found to contain Ex3 i.e. five teeth described as teeth taken out of the skull vide PM No. 582/07; parcel No. 4 was found to contain Ex4 i.e. one bone piece having foul smell described as left upper limb bone vide PM No. 583/07; Parcel No. 5 was found to contain Ex5 i.e. one bone piece having foul smell described as right upper limb bone vide PM No. 583/07 and Parcel No. 6 was found to contain Ex6 i.e. two small pieces of hair vide PM No. 583/07. He has further deposed that the exhibit 1 to 6 were subjected to DNA isolation and DNA was isolated from the exhibits 1 to 5 however DNA could not be isolated from Ex.6 and DNA finger printing profiles were prepared for the exhibits 1 to 5. He has proved that STR (sort tandam repeat) analysis was used for each of the sample and data was analyzed by using Genescan and Genotype software. He has further deposed that the DNA profile (STR analysis)
performed on the exhibits provided was sufficient to conclude that Ex.1 (bone piece sternum), Ex.2(blood sample), Ex.4 (bone piece-left upper limb born) and Ex.5 (bone piece-right upper limb bone) were similar in origin. He has further proved that the alleles as from the sources of Ex.1 (bone piece sternum) the postmortem No. 581/07, Ex.2 (blood sample) vide PM No. 581/07, Ex.4 (bone piece left upper limb bone) vide PM No. 583/07 and Ex.5 (bone piece- right upper limb bone) vide PM No. 583/07 were matching with each other. However the alleles as from the source of Ex.3 (teeth taken out from the skull) vide PM No. 582/07 was not matching with alleles from the source from Ex.1 (bone piece sternum) vide PM No. 581/07, Ex.2 (blood sample) vide PM No. 581/07, Ex.4 (bone piece-left upper limb bone) vide PM No. 583/07 and Ex.5 (bone piece-right upper limb bone) vide PM No. 583/07. He has testified that the remnants of all the exhibits had been sealed with the seal of AKS FSL Delhi and his detailed report in this regard is Ex.PW37/A.
(30)
According to him, on 13.03.2008 four forensic samples
pertaining to this case were received in DNA Unit and all the parcels were duly sealed with the seal of NK, FSL Delhi. He has further deposed that all the parcels were opened and examined and DNA from the Ex.A i.e. piece of cloth having dark stains, Ex B i.e. some broken cemented floor piece, Ex.C i.e. a piece of cloth having dark brown stains and Ex.D i.e. some broken cemented floor pieces described as concrete material were subjected to DNA isolation. The witness has also deposed that DNA was isolated from the exhibits A and C, however DNA could not be isolated from the Ex.B and Ex.D. However, a partial male DNA finger printing profiles was prepared for the Ex. A and C and due to partial male DNA profile of Ex.A and C no conclusion of result could be
made therefore no opinion was offered by laboratory. He has testified that the remnants of Ex.A to D had been sealed with the seal of AKS FSL, Delhi and his detailed report to this effect is Ex.PW37/B.
(31)
In his cross examination, the witness has deposed that STR
analysis had been used for matching of the DNA. He has admitted that the DNA report was based upon probabilities and there can never be a 100% matching in case of forensic samples. He has voluntarily explained that where there were more than ten bands matching out of fifteen bands the probability that the DNA was of the same origin is very high. He has further deposed that in the present case there was a matching of 13 out of the 15 bands and it is for this reason that he concluded that the DNA was of the same origin. He has denied the suggestion that the report has been given on the asking of the Investigating Officer.
(32)
Dr. A.K. Srivastava (PW37) has been recalled for additional
examination wherein a specific Court Question was put to the witness that in his earlier cross examination he has deposed that there was a matching 13 out of 15 bands, but could he specify the source of DNA material to which the witness has relied in affirmative. He has clarified that there was a matching of 13 out of 15 bands with Ex.1 i.e. Bone piece sternum, Ex.2 i.e. Blood sample, Ex.4 i.e. Left upper limb and Ex.5 i.e. Right upper limb bone, which was opined to be the same.
(33)
Dr. Sanjeev Kumar (PW38) is the Senior Scientific Assistant,
(Documents), FSL Rohini. He has deposed that the documents in connection with this case dated 18.05.2007 were received on the laboratory on 08.08.2007 and the questioned documents that enclosed writings marked Q1 to Q3 purported to be of threatening letters on two sheets and Standard-blue enclosed specimen writings marked S1 to S64
of Chander Kant Jha. He has further deposed that all the documents were carefully and thoroughly examined with scientific instruments such as Stereo Microscope, Video Spectral Comparitor- IV, Docucenter and VSC 2000/HR etc. under different lighting conditions and he was of the opinion that the person who wrote the blue enclosed writings stamped and marked S1 to S64 also wrote the red enclosed writings similarly stand and marked Q1 to Q3 for the reasons mentioned in his detailed report which is Ex.PW38/A. He has testified that the documents sent to the laboratory for examination and case report has been sealed with the seal of DOC and FSL at the time of handing over the crime exhibits/documents along with the case report. He has correctly identified the case property i.e. two letters which are Ex.P4 and Ex.P5 as the same which were examined by him in the aforesaid examination.
(34)
In his cross examination, the witness has deposed that when
the documents were produced before him by his subordinate they were in open condition. He has further deposed that during the examination in the aforesaid method the margin of error is zero percent. He has denied the suggestion that he gave his report at the behest of Investigating Officer and according to his desire or that there was always margin of error in handwriting opinion. (35) Dr. Sanjeev Kumar (PW38) was recalled for further cross examination wherein he has deposed that it is not possible for a person to entirely copy the handwriting of another and it will not make no difference in the opinion whether the writing medium is a ball point, ink pen, pencil or a sketch pen and has voluntarily explained that the natural variations and characteristics would remain the same. According to the witness, they maintain a record in their office with regard to the opinion
sent to the Court and the time taken in each case for giving opinion would be different depending upon the number of documents and nature of opinion sought. The witness has deposed that he has been into service in the field of document examination for the last 11 years and he had sent a number of reports to the Courts but he is unable to tell the exact number and voluntarily states that it may be more than 80 cases and 1000 exhibits. He has testified that the report format for submitting the reports in the Court is standard but the opinion is based on the nature of query. According to the witness, he has not knowing the history/ background of the case when the papers of the present case reached him and has voluntarily explained that he has have no concern with the history of writer. He has denied the suggestion that the handwriting examination opinion cannot be 100% perfect or that he had given his report on the asking of the Investigating Officer.
Official Witnesses:
(36)
Sh. Pooran Chand (PW28) Ld. MM has stated that on
8.6.2007 an application moved by the Investigating Officer for conducting the Judicial Test Identification Parade of the accused Chander Kant Jha had been marked to him by his link MM and pursuant to the same the accused was produced before him in muffled face but the accused refused to participate in the TIP proceedings on the pretext that his photographs had been taken and flashed in the news papers and TV channels. He has proved the said proceedings which are Ex.PW28/A and the statement of the accused refusing to participate in the TIP proceedings which is Ex.PW28/B, which is followed by his certificate. According to the witness the Ahlmad was thereafter directed to send the proceedings to the concerned court in a sealed cover. He has
Page No. 40
further stated that the Investigating Officer moved an application for supply of the copy of said proceedings which was duly permitted by him which application is Ex.PW28/C.
(37)
The witness has further deposed that another application
moved by the Investigating Officer for obtaining the specimen signatures and handwriting of the accused Chander Kant Jha had also been marked to him by his 2 nd Link MM Sh. Manoj Kumar. According to him, the said application was fixed for disposal for 5.6.2007 but since the accused was not produced by the jail authorities, it was again fixed for disposal for 7.6.2007 but due to shortage of time the specimen signatures and handwriting of the accused could not be taken since time had been consumed in conducting the TIP proceeding of the accused which he has refused. He has also stated that the application was taken up on 8.6.2007 when the accused was produced before him pursuant to production warrants by the jail authorities and in his presence the handwriting and signatures of the accused Chander Kant Jha were obtained on 64 sheets and all the sheets were duly endorsed by him in the presence of Ld. Defence Counsel and the Investigating Officer. According to him, thereafter all the 64 sheets were handed over to the Investigating Officer on his request as the same were to be sent to FSL for opinion and the proceedings with regard to the same are Ex.PW8/F. He has further proved the proceeding sheet dated 5.6.2007 which is Ex.PW28/E and the application for obtaining the specimen handwriting and signatures of the accused filed by the Investigating Officer in the court of Sh.Manoj Kumar and duly marked to him is Ex.PW28/D. The witness has also proved the applications filed by the Investigating Officer on 7.6.2007 which are Ex.PWG1 and Ex.PW28/G2 and the said 64 sheets which are collectively Ex.PW28/H.
(38)
In his cross examination, the witness has admitted that the
accused had stated that he does not wish to participate in the proceedings because the police officials had taken his photographs and had given the same in the news papers and TV channels and the accused had not produced before him any copies of the news paper cuttings containing his photographs copies of which news paper cuttings are Ex.PW28/DX1. He has denied the suggestion that the specimen handwriting and signatures on the 64 sheets was taken after the accused was taken inside the Ahlmad room and has voluntarily stated that it was taken in the open court in his presence and he had duly made an endorsement on each and every sheet. He has also denied the suggestion that his endorsement was taken on the 64 sheets by the Investigating Officer later on and the said sheets did not bear the handwriting of the accused and has has voluntarily deposed that the said handwriting and signatures were taken in his presence on which he had made the endorsement. The witness has further stated that the specimen handwriting and signatures taken from the accused was put up before him for endorsement in the open court by the court staff and has voluntarily stated that in so far as he recollects it was put up by the Naib Court. He has denied the suggestion that the specimen handwriting and signatures of the accused as available on the present judicial record do not tally with the specimen signatures taken in his presence since the said handwriting and signatures were not taken by the Investigating Officer in his presence and were changed.
Witnesses of Electronic Records:

(39)
Raj Kumar (PW32) is the Additional Nodal Officer, Reliance
Communication Ltd. who produced the record of mobile phone
Page No. 42
no.9312616022 according to which the aforesaid mobile number was allotted to Dalip S/o Babu Lal R/o N-116/336/1, Shiv Mandir, JJ Camp, Badli Village, Delhi. He has placed on record the application form of the subscriber which is ExPW32/A; copy of the election identity card in support of the address of the subscriber which is ExPW32/B and the call details of the aforesaid mobile phone from 1.5.07 to 22.5.07 which is Ex.PW32/C running into three pages. The witness has further proved the certificate under Section 65B of Evidence Act in respect of the said mobile phone which is Ex.PW32/D. He has testified that as per record the original application form along with the identity proof submitted by the individual pertaining to the subscriber Dalip was handed over to Inspector Ombir Singh, Additional SHO Police Station Hari Nagar on 11.7.07 vide receipt which is Ex.PW32/E.
(40)
In his cross examination, the witness has deposed that the
above call details record has been got retrieved from the zonal office and not from the main server. According to the witness, the said record had been saved by their office on the request of Addl. SHO Inspector Ombir Singh. He has denied the suggestion that they do not have power back up and due to frequent shutting down of the system the data is not accurate and has voluntarily explained that they have a power back up system for 24 hours. He has denied the suggestion that record as aforesaid has been fabricated and manipulated at the instance of the police. He has further deposed that the certification regarding the authenticity has been given by him in his capacity as a competent officer and he have been duly authorized by the senior officers to issue the certificate under Section 65 of the Evidence Act being the Additional Nodal Officer but he had not brought the said authorization. He has denied the suggestion that he had issued the certificate in routine on the
asking of the Investigating Officer.

(41)
Gaganjit has
Singh brought
Sidhu the
(PW33) original
Nodal of
Officer, the
Tata
Teleservices
record
mobile
no.9211463742 which is in the name of Rahul Jain S/o Shri Hari Om Jain. He has placed on record the copy of the application form which is Ex.PW33/A and copy of the driving licence in support of address of Rahul Jain which is Ex.PW33/B. The witness has also brought the original record of the mobile no.9211541254 which is in the name of Deepak Kumar S/o Shri Surender Kumar. He has placed on record the copy of the application form which is Ex.PW33/C; copy of the ration card in support of address of Deepak Kumar which is Ex.PW33/D and the Call Details Record of the mobile phone no. 9211463742 (running into four pages) for the period from 7.5.07 to 19.5.07 which are ExPW33/E. He has further proved the call details record of the mobile phone no. 9211541254 (running into four pages) for the period from 11.5.07 to 18.5.07 which are ExPW33/F. The witness has placed on record the certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act in respect of both the aforesaid mobile numbers which certificate is ExPW33/G. (42) In his cross examination, the witness has deposed that the above call details record had been got retrieved from the main server at Hyderabad. He has admitted that he personally did not retrieve the above CDRs and it was sent to them by the Hyderabad Branch. He has further deposed that the said record had been saved by their office on the request of ACP Shri Jagdev Singh, West District. He has denied the suggestion that they do not have a power back up and frequent shutting down of the system as a result of which the data was not accurate and has voluntarily explained that they had a power back up system for 24
hours. He has denied the suggestion that record as aforesaid had been fabricated and manipulated at the instance of the police. The witness has further deposed that the certification regarding the authenticity had been given by him in his capacity as a competent authorized officer being the Nodal Officer and he had been duly authorized by the senior officers to issue the certificate under Section 65 of the Evidence Act being the Nodal Officer but he had not brought the said authorization. He has denied the suggestion that he had issued the certificate in routine on the asking of the senior police officers.
(43)
Sh. M N Vijayan, (PW44) Alternative Nodal Officer, Tata
Teleservices has proved the call details of mobile number 9211463742 for the period 1.4.2007 to 20.05.2007 which are Ex.PW42/C (collectively running into 18 single pages) and the mobile number 9211463743 which Ex.PW42/D (running into 20 single pages) which had been issued by him to the Investigating Officer pursuant to his request during the investigation of FIR No.243/07. He has also proved the certificate under Section 65B of Evidence Act which is Ex.PW44/A. He has certified that the above call detail/ electronic record is the same as the same was retrieved by him from the computer maintained in his office and is correct and authentic to the best of his knowledge and belief.
(44)
In his cross-examination by the Ld. Defence Counsel the
witness has deposed that the above call details record has been got retrieved from the main server at Hyderabad. He has admitted that he personally did not retrieve the above CDRs and it was sent to them by the Hyderabad branch. According to the witness, the said record had been saved by their office on the request of the senior police officers of West District but he is not aware of their names. He has denied the
suggestion that they do not have power back up and frequent shutting down of the system as a result of which the data is not accurate and has voluntarily explained that they have a power back up system for 24 hours. He has also denied the suggestion that record as aforesaid has been fabricated and manipulated at the instance of the police. According to the witness, the certification regarding the authenticity has been given by him in his capacity as a competent authorized officer being the Nodal Officer. He has proved that he has been duly authorized by the senior officers to issue the certificate under Section 65 of the Evidence Act being the Nodal Officer, vide authorization letter from the company copy of which is Ex.PW44/DX-1. He has also denied the suggestion that the record available on the server can be modified at any time and has voluntarily explained that necessary security measures have been undertaken and it is not possible to tamper / changer the same without detection. He has denied the suggestion that the authorization has been given and he had issued the certificate in routine on the asking of the senior police officers.
Police Witnesses:
Police Witnesses of Special Staff of West District:
(45)
Inspector Sunder Singh (PW42) is the Investigating Officer
of the case bearing FIR No. 609/06 under Section 302/201 PS Hari Nagar. He has deposed that on 20.10.2006 he had reached the scene of crime in his capacity as Inspector Investigations, Police Station Hari Nagar. He has further deposed that while he was conducting investigations in the above FIR, by the end of year 2006 he was transferred to Special Staff, West District, Tagore Garden and investigations were continued by him. He has testified that on
Page No. 46
25.04.2007, he got the information that one of the dead body was dropped at Tihar Jail on which he reached there and met Inspector Hoshiyar Singh Investigating Officer of the case FIR No.243/07 Police Station Hari Nagar and discussed with him in detail. He has further deposed that on 18.05.2007, Inspector Omvir Singh intimated to him through telephone that one more dead body has been dropped in respect of which present FIR No.279/07, Police Station Hari Nagar had been registered. He has testified that on the same date, he had received a secret information that the criminal, who is dropping the dead body, would be coming at Tihar Jail and he along with staff had departed for Tihar Jail but they could not succeed in catching him and on 19.05.2007, informer had informed them that the criminal was residing near Chhota Shiv Mandir, Alipur. According to the witness, on 20.05.2007 informer came to their office at Tagore Garden and with the directions of the Senior Officers, a team was constituted from special staff comprising of himself, SI Dalip Kaushik, SI Narender, Ct. Rohtash, SI Jai Parkash of Police Station Nangloi, SI Jarnail Singh ICPP Mianwali Nagar, ASI Virender Tyagi and other staff left in a government vehicle Tata 407 bearing registration no. DL1LD-5031 along with driver ASI Prem Singh and the secret informer after which they reached at Alipur, Delhi. He has testified that at about 12 noon they reached near Shivmandir wali gali where they kept a watch in the area and at about 2:00 pm the accused Chanderkant Jha was apprehended at the instance of secret informer from the street near Shivmandir Mianwali Nagar. He has proved that the accused was thereafter interrogated but he initially did not cooperate with the police but later when thoroughly interrogated, he disclosed that he was residing as a tenant at Haiderpur colony where he used to bring the poor boys and keep them with him. According to the
witness, the accused further disclosed that he used to take the services of these boys in good faith and thereafter used to commit their murder and in order to harass the police officials, he then left the various parts of the bodies of the deceased at different places including Gate of Tihar Jail by using his rickshaw operated with engine. The witness has also deposed that on being satisfied, the accused was arrested in this case i.e. FIR No.609/06, under Section 302/201 IPC Police Station Hari Nagar, by him vide memo Ex.PW30/B; his personal search was also conducted vide memo Ex.PW30/A and his disclosure statement was recorded regarding killing, weapon of offence and lying the same in his rented room which disclosure statement was recorded vide Ex.PW30/C running into four pages written on both sides. According to him, the accused was kept in muffled face for the purpose of TIP and the rickshaw which was operated by engine was also found parked near his house in the street was pointed out by the accused as belonging to him after which the said rickshaw was also taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW30/D. He has also deposed that thereafter they all reached at Haiderpur where he called the crime team and FSL experts at main road Haiderpur after which they reached at the corner of Gali No. 2 Haiderpur colony where the accused Chanderkant Jha pointed out towards his rented room situated at ground floor of house bearing no.229 which was belonging to one Mangal Sain Pandit and got the lock broken open. The witness has further testified that the room was got photographed by the photographer of the crime team and the members of crime team inspected the room, the crime team expert took the four chance prints/finger prints. He has further deposed that the FSL expert Dr. Naresh Kumar, inspected the spot and lifted the blood from the floor from near the gate of the room and kept the same in a yellow coloured
envelope, which envelope was marked with A; blood stained earth control and kept the same in the yellow envelope, which envelope was marked with B; three big size knives which the accused Chanderkant had disclosed were the weapons of offence with which he executed the killings from which knifes the blood stains were lifted along with the blood from the place from where the knives were lifted which blood was kept in another envelope of yellow colour which envelope was marked with C and broken floor piece which he (Dr. Naresh) converted into pulunda and sealed the same with the seal of NK FSL, Delhi which parcel was marked with D. According to Inspector Sunder Singh, all the above exhibits were taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW5/C after which he prepared the sketch of knife which was recovered from the room of accused vide Ex.PW30/E. According to the witness, the knife was measured and found to be 41.5 cm long, length of the blade was 28 cm, length of the handle was of 13.5 cm and the width of the blade was 4.5 cm which knife was given mark E; other knife was also measured and found to be 39.8 cm long, its blade was of 27 cm, handle was of 12.5 cm and the width of the blade was 7 cm which knife was given mark F; the third knife was also measured and found to be 59 cm long, width of the blade was 5 cm which knife was given mark G. He has proved having converted all the knives into separate parcels and sealed the same with the seal of NK FSL, Delhi and thereafter he seized all the knives vide memo ExPW5/C and having recorded the statements of crime team staff and Dr. Naresh Kumar of FSL and they were relieved. The witness has further testified that he inspected the room and searched the taand (partition in the room) and recovered one non chuck (an instrument/ weapon used by Karate fighter) which nunchaku was having double chain and on both the sides there were wooden
handles and thereafter he converted the same into parcel and sealed the same with the seal of SSY and took the same into possession vide seizure memo ExPW30/F. According to him, he took one jeans pant from the khoonti from the said room and also got recovered one mobile phone make Indicom from the Almirah kept in his room and informed that the said mobile phone was belonging to one of the deceased. The witness has proved having taken into possession the said pant and mobile after converting them into parcels vide common seizure memo Ex.PW30/F. He has also deposed that he noted down the telephone numbers which were found mentioned on the wall of the room and photography was also got done by him after which he prepared the site plan vide Ex.PW42/A. He has further deposed that he recorded the statement of Dr. Naresh, SI Anil and Ct. Rakesh (Photographer) under Section 161 Cr. P.C.
(46)
According to him on 21.5.2007 in the morning hours, they
went to police station and deposited the case property in the malkhana and recorded the statement of SI Dalip after which they reached Kishanganj where the accused got down from the vehicle and took them across the railway line near ganda nalla and pointed out the place where he threw legs of the body of deceased on 18.5.2007 pursuant to which he prepared the pointing out memo Ex.PW30/G. Thereafter they all came back to Tis Hazari Courts where the accused Chanderkant Jha led them in front of State Bank, Tis Hazari compound and pointed out the place where he left two hands of the body of the deceased and his private parts after packing the same in the straw board box on which he prepared the pointing out memo which is Ex.PW39/A. According to the witness, they had taken the accused for preparation of the dossier and taking his finger prints at Dossier Cell, West District after which the
accused was sent to DDU Hospital for his medical examination and was produced before Ld. MM at Rohini Courts and with the permission of the court, they took the specimen handwriting and signatures of accused Chanderkant Jha in this case i.e. FIR No. 609/06 of Police Station Hari Nagar, which specimen handwriting of accused after which he took the police remand of accused till 28.5.07.
(47)
The witness has further deposed that on 23.5.07, he along with
SI Dalip Kumar Kaushik, ASI Virender Tyagi, Ct. Vijender Singh along with staff and the accused Chanderkant Jha left in government vehicle Tata 407 no.DL1LD5031 and reached at ISBT Flyover, ISBT where accused took them on the bank of Yamuna river and pointed out the place where he had thrown the head of deceased Upender @ Pintoo on 25.4.2007 and at the same time, the accused pointed out towards the east side of the Yamuna river where he had thrown the head of deceased Dalip on 18.5.07 after wrapping the same in the ghagri and red colour cloth of his daughter and after wrapping the same in a polythene. According to the witness, they then called the nao-wala (owner of the boat) and a swimmer and tried to search for the head of the deceased which could not be recovered at that time and since it was late night, he therefore relieved the swimmer and nao-wala. According to the witness, he thereafter sent ASI Virender Tyagi to bring the search light pursuant to which ASI Virender Tyagi brought the search light along with the staff and with the help of search light they again tried to search the head of both the deceased. The witness has also deposed that while they were going towards east side of Yamuna river towards Seelampur and when they reached about three-four steps ahead from the metro pillar, they found one red cloth and one ghaghri which were identified by the accused as the same in which he had wrapped the head of the deceased
Dilip and thrown the same in the river. According to the witness, on reaching near the said cloth they found skull and the lower jaw which the accused had identified the jaw as belonging to Dalip as he was into habit of taking gutkha and paan and also identified the skull of Dalip. The witness has testified that he called the photographer Rajesh @ Sanjay who took 11 photographs of the jaw and skull. He has deposed that thereafter he called SI Satender from Police Station Seelampur and converted the said skull and jaw into parcel in the presence of SI Satender and also converted the red cloth and ghaghri into parcel and sealed the same with the seal of DK. He has proved having seized the said parcels vide memo Ex.PW14/A which seal after use was handed over to SI Narender. He has also proved having prepared the site plan at the place from where the skull and jaws were recovered which is Ex.PW42/B. He has further deposed that he recorded the statement of SI Satender and relieved him. According to the witness he sent both the parcels to DDU hospital mortuary through Ct. Vijender. He has further deposed that on 24.5.2007 he along with ASI Virender Tyagi and other staff along with accused left in Tata 407 along with SI Prem Singh for pointing out the spot by the accused.
(48)
The witness has also deposed that they all reached at many
placed in Delhi so pointed out by the accused and when they reached near Jail No. 1 Tihar, the accused pointed out towards Postal Letter Box where he had thrown the trunk of the body i.e. the thoracic and the abdominal portion of the body on 18.5.2007 in a plastic bag on which the (the witness) prepared the memo of pointing out at Gate No. 3, Tihar Jail. According to him, the accused had also disclosed that he had left the letters along with the body. He has deposed that 26.05.2007 Inspector Omvir Singh Investigating Officer of the present case had
come to their Special Staff Office at Tagore Garden and the photocopies of relevant documents were handed over to him. He has testified that on 11.06.2007 Inspector Omvir Singh came to the Special Staff and he had handed over him the original copies of recovery memo Ex.PW14/A and seizure memo of knives, broken floor, cotton gauze, etc. lifted by Sh. Naresh Kumar, SSA FSL, Rohini, sketch of knives, Site plan prepared at Yamuna River and pointing out memo prepared at Kishan Ganj railway line and Tis Hazari. The witness has proved that on 21.07.2007 he had gone to Police Station Hari Nagar and discussed with the SHO Inspector Sukesh Singh and Inspector Omvir Singh and it was decided that all the exhibits recovered in the case of FIR No. 609/06 Police Station Hari Nagar would be deposited at FSL for biological and DNA analysis by Inspector Omvir Singh. According to him, on 31.07.2007 he had got deposited the exhibits through HC Baney Singh at FSL Rohini vide RC No. 62/21/07 and 63/21/07. He has also deposed that his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C was recorded by Inspector Omvir Singh.
(49)
He has correctly identified the accused Chanderkant Jha in the
Court and has also identified the case property i.e. the skull which is Ex.P-1 and the jaw which is Ex.P-2; one red cloth recovered along with the skull which is Ex.P-10; the Ghaghri which is Ex.P-11; one knife/ chopper recovered from the room of the accused which is Ex.P-12; another knife / chopper recovered from the room of the accused which is Ex.P-13; third knife / chopper recovered from the room of the accused which is Ex.P-14; one nunchaku as recovered from machan / taand of the room of the accused which is Ex.P-15; one denim jeans along with black belt which as recovered from khoonti from the room of the accused which is Ex.P16; one Indicom mobile phone as recovered from
Almirah kept in the room of the accused which is Ex.P-17.

(50)
Inspector Sunder Singh has been exhaustively cross examined
by the accused wherein he has admitted that he is a witness in all the three cases pending against the accused i.e. the present FIR and also FIR No.297/07 and 243/07 from Police Station Hari Nagar and he has deposed on the basis of his memory. According to the witness, the accused was in police custody for seven days. He has admitted that during this period of police custody remand the accused did not misbehave with them nor he became violent but is not aware if the accused made any objections or demands regarding food or other articles including tobacoo or narcotics during the period of police custody remand. He has stated that the accused did not try to escape during the period of his custody remand and the behaviour of the accused was normal during the period of police remand and he did not observe any deviation or psychiatric problem during this period of remand. He has denied the suggestion that the newspaper used to come to the office of the Special Staff and is not aware about availability of the television facility in the office but has voluntarily explained that the newspaper and television facility was available in Recreation Room. The witness has also deposed that on 20.05.2007 the raiding party was constituted at about 9AM which raiding party was constituted at Special staff and thereafter other members had joined at Hari Nagar. According to him, he was in civil dress, SI Dalip was in uniform, SI Jarnail Singh, SI Jai Parkash and their staff were in uniform and other persons of the special staff were in civil dress. He has testified that he was carrying his official pistol and the entire staff had gone to apprehend the accused had gone in one vehicle i.e. TATA 407. The witness has further deposed that they started from Police Station Hari Nagar at about 9:30 AM and took
the route via Peeragarhi, Rohini and then reached Alipur and reached at Alipur at about 12 PM and had taken SI Jai Parkash from Nangloi area and straight away reached Alipur. He has testified that the secret informer remained with them till the end i.e. till Alipur and the staff along with SI Jarnail Singh and SI Jai Parkash had left the investigations after the arrest of accused. According to him, they did not inform the local police at Police Station Alipur when they reached there along with raiding party. He has stated that he was having his personal mobile phone bearing No. 9911115185 at that time and has also deposed that the vehicle in which they had gone to Alipur had been stopped at Chota Shiv Mandir gali where the accused was apprehended at about 2 PM from the gali in front of his residence i.e. about 100 steps from his house where his wife and five children used to reside. He has admitted that when they apprehended the accused he did not try to resist or escape. He has explained that the name of the accused and his address came to be known to him after his apprehension. He has denied the suggestion that the accused had been apprehended inside the house and has explained that the accused was first caught by SI Narender. He has further deposed that they remained at the spot till about 5PM and admits that the area is residential and thickly populated and lot of people had collected. According to the witness, while he was on his way, he had requested the neighbours and the public persons to join the police party, but nobody was prepared and left without giving their names and addresses on the pretext that they were to go for urgent work. He has denied the suggestion that they were all in civil clothes and the accused was swiftly lifted and put in the vehicle and none of the public persons came to know about the same. He has denied the suggestion that they had first questioned one Ram Sagar who was running a parchun shop in
the area and asked him to call the accused from his house but when he did not agree, he (witness) and other police officers went inside the house of accused and lifted him from there. He has further deposed that the secret informer had pointed out the accused to him and SI Narender and that first time the secret informer had given the information to SI Dalip and to him. He has also deposed that the informer had informed that the person who was involved in dropping of dead bodies could be apprehended near Chota Shiv Mandir, Alipur. The witness has further explained that the accused was standing in the gali at the time of apprehension. He has deposed that when he left the Special Staff Office he had recorded the small detail of secret information in the departure entry. He has further explained that the raiding party was constituted in the morning of 20.05.2007 and not earlier to that and at that time he was not aware about the previous involvements of the suspect. He has conceded that the secret informer had not given any photograph of the suspect to him and that no police staff who were present in the raiding party were in a position to identify the accused having known him previously prior to his arrest at Alipur and has voluntarily explained that only the secret informer was aware of the same. According to the witness, the secret informer had not informed them that the said person / criminal used to kill the victims at his residence at Alipur nor did he tell them regarding the employment/ avocation or mobile number of the accused nor anything about the room at Haiderpur. He has also deposed that immediately when the accused was apprehended he was searched by him and has voluntarily explained that the accused was interrogated later. He has testified that at the time when the accused was searched there were no public persons and the search of accused was taken at the place of apprehension only. According to him, the residence of accused
was on the ground floor but he does not remember the exact number of rooms in the said premises. The witness has further deposed that he is not aware if the owner of the house also reside in the same premises. He has also deposed that at the time of arrest and reaching to the residence of accused no one was present except his wife and according to him, the accused was wearing pant - shirt at the time of his arrest though he did not notice if the accused was wearing his slippers or shoes at that time but admits that the accused did not have anything in his hand like bag etc. He does not remember if the handcuffs were put on the accused after apprehension or after the proceedings at Haiderpur. According to him, during the personal search Rs.220/-, one watch, folded papers which were having different phone numbers on it and one mobile phone was recovered from the accused. He is unable to give the detail number of the mobile phone recovered from the possession of the accused. The witness has deposed that no photographs or any pocket dairy were recovered from the personal search of the accused. He is unable to tell if any inland letter was also recovered from the search of the accused. Witness has explained that all documentation was done while sitting at the spot and at the time when the personal search of the accused was taken his wife was also present there and the information regarding arrest of accused was given to his wife. According to the witness, when the accused had got recovered two photographs from his room his wife and children were not present there and has voluntarily explained that his wife came there only later. He has testified that no site plan of recovery of rickshaw was prepared. He has denied the suggestion that no documentation was done at the spot and all the documentation was done while sitting in the police station when he signed in the police station or that no photographs had been recovered from the premises of
the accused and the same has been planted upon him by the police party. He has also denied the suggestion that the accused had not made any disclosure statement and the same has been recorded by him which he has only signed in the mechanical manner. He has further denied the suggestion that the accused did not have any motor rickshaw which he got recovered or that the said rickshaw has been planted upon the accused only to work out the present case. He has denied the suggestion that there was no occasion for the accused to possess a motorable rickshaw.
(51)
Further, in his cross examination Inspector Sunder Singh has
stated that from Alipur they straight away went to Haiderpur and has denied the suggestion that Ram Sagar who had refused to co-operate during the investigations was also lifted by them. He has explained that they reached Haiderpur at about 5:50 PM and remained there till about 10-11 PM. He has further deposed that he had asked public persons to join the investigations in the house of Mangal Sain Pandit at Haidepur but none agreed. According to him the room in question was situated on ground floor of the premises which were double storied which had about 4-5 rooms. Witness has deposed that they did not give any intimation to the local police nor to the landlord nor he had inquired about the ownership/ occupancy of the said premises as accused himself had led them to the said room. Witness has denied the suggestion that no proceedings took place at the said house and it is for this reason that no public person had been joined in the proceedings. According to him, the rooms adjoining the room which was got opened by the accused were all joined to each other in a row. He has denied the suggestion that all the rooms had one door opening with each other. He has explained that there was no window in the said room and has denied the suggestion
that there was no source of light in the room after which he has voluntarily explained that there was an electric bulb which was switched on by the accused. According to the witness, the room appeared to be in a shabby condition and foul smelling and they had opened the gate of the said room. Witness has further deposed that all the knives were lying on the floor in the south west corner of the room and there was only one lock on the door of the room. According to the witness the photographs were clicked in the room of Haiderpur by the photographer of the crime team and the indications in the room with the white chalk showing the place of recovery were made by Naresh Kumar from the FSL team and it was the FSL official who told them that the choppers / knives were blood stained. He has testified that this opinion regarding the choppers being blood stained was given after Naresh Kumar had examined the knives personally by naked eye. The witness has explained that he had seen the expert Sh. Naresh Kumar using some instrument using while examining the knives/ choppers and while lifting the knives Naresh Kumar was wearing gloves and has further explained that the knives / choppers were lying open in the room and were not covered by any cloth or paper and both photographer and the FSL team were doing their jobs simultaneously. He has denied the suggestion that the proceedings regarding recovery and seizure of the knives/ choppers were not conducted in his presence and all the knives were planted upon the accused. He has also deposed that the floor of the room was broken by Naresh Kumar with some instrument which appear to be a chheni which was already present with Naresh Kumar but he does not recollect if the photographer had taken any photograph of Naresh Kumar breaking the floor. Witness has admitted that the photographer had taken the photographs on his directions. According to him, the crime
team and the FSL team had left after completing their job while they were still there and at the time when the pullandas were prepared the crime team and the FSL team were still at the spot. Witness has further deposed that the photographs regarding preparation of pullands were not taken and the stitching material was already present with him. Witness has denied the suggestion that the photographs had been taken after setting of the room and planting the incriminating material to implicate the accused. He has admitted that the accused himself had given the name of the deceased at the time of recovery of the blue jeans. The witness has denied the suggestion that no such pant was got recovered by the accused or that the accused had never told to him that the pant belong to one of the deceased. He has testified that after starting from Alipur they had straightaway come to Haiderpur. Witness has admitted that without seeing the position of room at Haiderpur he had called the mobile crime team and FSL expert. According to him, the mobile crime team had reached the spot in their own vehicle and Sh. Naresh Kumar had accompanied them in their vehicle upto Haiderpur room. Witness has further deposed that at the time of leaving of the Haiderpur Room the two other neighbours in rooms namely Ram Singh and Mahesh had come but they were also in a hurry as they were to go to meet some known person who had met with some accident. Witness has further deposed that he was not aware if on 20.5.2007 the news with regard to arrest and apprehension of the accused was flashed in the electronic as well as print media. He has denied the suggestion that the accused was already in custody of the special staff and it is in this regard that the news with regard to his apprehension and arrest had been published in the Dainik Jagran Newspaper dated 20.5.2007 copy of which is Ex.PW42/DX1 collectively and has voluntarily explained that this news
does not have any name of arresting official, accused name or any photograph related to the arrest. The witness has further deposed that he cannot tell if the photographs of the rickshaw so got recovered by the accused were taken on not. Witness has denied the suggestion that no photographs of the rickshaw were taken because there was no recovery of the said rickshaw from the accused. According to him, the said rickshaw which was allegedly recovered at the instance of the accused was also put in the Tata 407 and was taken to the Police Station and the said rickshaw remained in the vehicle till evening i.e. even they went to Haiderpur and thereafter when they reached Police Station Hari Nagar. He has testified that the said rickshaw was still in the Malkhana of the Police Station Hari Nagar. Witness has denied the suggestion that prior to the production of the accused before the court he had been shown to the electronic and print media in unmuffled face and has voluntarily explained that the accused himself was keeping his face unmuffled despite being asked to keep himself muffled and these facts had been mentioned in DD entry and in the case dairy. He has denied the suggestion that the accused was produced in the court in unmuffled face or that before producing the accused in the court and in the media, no proceedings were conducted. He has also deposed that on 21.5.07 after getting the police remand the accused was taken to special staff office and after taking the police remand they had started from the court at about 4-5 PM. According to him the police remand had taken from the Link MM and the seizure prepared there is in his handwriting. He has testified that the accused had told him the date i.e. 18.05.2007 on which he had thrown the limbs in the ganda nala where they remained (i.e. at ganda nala) for about 1-1 hours till about 2 PM. According to the witness, the total staff who was present at Sarai Rohilla ganda nala had
gone to Tis Hazari and there is no discrepancy with regard to the date on the seizure memo and all proceedings were conducted on 21.5.2007. Witness has further deposed that they had departed from the Special Staff Tagore Garden at about 9:00 AM for recovery of legs and hands of victim Dalip for Sarai Rohilla and Tis Hazari Courts and again returned to West District dossier cell for taking finger prints and thereafter they had gone to Tis Hazari Courts for production of the accused before the Hon'ble Court. He has also deposed that the help of gota khor (diver) was taken for searching of the legs at ganda nala, Kishanganj and the gota khor was called from the Yamuna since he had personal knowledge of the same as he remained Incharge of Police Post of the area during the period 1997-2000. According to him they were called by him by telephonic message but he does not recollect the name of the said gota khor. Witness has further deposed that there is no record of taking of the help of gota khor and he had not taken the photography of process of searching of legs in ganda nala. Witness has admitted that the memo of pointing out of Tis Hazari bears the signatures of SI Narender, SI Dalip Kaushik and ASI Virender. He has further deposed that the specimen handwriting of the accused was taken in the court of Sh. Bhupesh Kumar on 21.5.07 which handwriting was taken pursuant to the written permission from the Ld. MM which had been taken by him and had shown the paper containing the specimen handwriting of the accused to Ld. MM after taking the same in the court and seized the same through seizure memo. According to the witness, the accused was produced before the hon'ble court along with case file and the Ld. MM did not sign on the disclosure statement of the accused and has voluntarily explained that the disclosure was not made in the open court in the presence of the Ld. MM.
(52)
Further in his cross examination the witness has testified that
on 23.5.07 they started from the Tagore Garden office of Special Staff and had reached the Yamuna Bank at about 11-12 PM (afternoon) and he had called the divers at the spot itself but no public persons were associated in the investigations as he had made efforts to join them but they expressed their inability. According to him, the photographs were taken at the spot by a private photographer who had been taken to the spot by them and stayed at the spot with them till evening and the entire police team which had gone to the spot remained there till late evening and they all left the spot together. Witness has denied the suggestion that the accused did not accompany them to ISBT Yamuna banks and was brought there much later after the skull had been planted only to implicate him. The witness has deposed that no senior officers of the rank of ACP and DCP were present during the proceedings and at the time of their departure for Tihar Jail from Police Station Hari Nagar on 20.10.2006 the Duty Officer was ASI Bal Kishan. Witness has further deposed that he left the police station at about 7:45 AM and it was around 8:15 AM when ASI Balkishan informed him on telephone that he had received a call from the criminal who had asked mobile number of SHO Police Station Hari Nagar on which he immediately intimated this fact to Inspector Hoshiyar Singh but does not recollect at what time criminal had telephoned to Inspector Hoshiyar Singh and states that he had recorded the statement of ASI Balkishan on 20.10.2006 at evening time. According to him he did not suggest to Inspector Hoshiyar Singh to record the conversation of the criminal nor he told Inspector Hoshiyar Singh to keep free his telephone number since the offender was supposed to call on his mobile phone. Witness has also deposed that he recorded the statement of Inspector Hoshiyar Singh in the evening of
20.10.2006 in the police station itself and the statement of the STD servant Ram Babu Chaurasiya was recorded at about 7:00 PM to 8:00 PM on 20.10.2006. According to him, the statement of Ram Babu Chaurasiya was again recorded on 26.6.2007 in the Court premises itself when he identified the accused Chandra Kant Jha and the contents of the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of Ram Babu Chaurasiya was read over to him. Witness has also deposed that Ram Babu Chaurasiya was called to the Court over telephone and the accused was probably produced before the Court in FIR No.243/07, Police Station Hari Nagar and the witness Ram Babu identified the accused on 26.6.2007 in the Court at about 3:00 PM. He does not recollect the name of the Ld. MM in whose court the accused was to be produced on 26.6.2007. Witness has admitted that there is an overwriting in the date mentioned in the statement of SI Narender under Section 161 Cr.P.C. regarding the dropping of the skull of Anil Mandal and has voluntarily explained that the date has been wrongly mentioned as 25.4.2007 which was corrected as 20.6.2006. Witness has explained that the distance between the Railway Phatak Shalimar Bagh and the Baba Ramdev Mandir is about 30-35 steps. According to the witness the statements of SI Narender and ASI Virender Tyagi under section 161 Cr.P.C. were recorded at Special Staff Office, Tagore Garden at about 6:00 PM. He has admitted that there is a cutting of date in the statement of SI Dalip Kaushik wherein the date 20.5.2007 was over written as 21.5.2007. Witness has also deposed that he does not recollect whether SI Dalip Kaushik had mentioned in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. with regard to the proceedings conduced at Ganda Nala Kishanganj/ Sarai Rohilla and SBI Tis Hazari. He has admitted that in the statement of SI Narender and ASI Virender Tyagi the date of dropping of the dead body of the
deceased is mentioned as 19.5.2007 and has voluntarily explained that it has been wrongly mentioned but it was 18.5.2007. According to the witness he had recorded the statement of SI Narender Singh regarding the proceedings conducted at Ganda Nala Kishanganj/ Sarai Rohilla and SBI Tis Hazari. (53) The witness has denied the suggestion that the accused was never produced in the court of Ld. MM and had only been taken to Tagore Garden Office of Spl. Staff after producing him in the media and no remand had been taken or that no sample specimen handwriting of the accused had been taken in the court. He has also denied the suggestion that there was no recovery of any motor-rickshaw, chopper / knives or body parts and clothes effected at the instance of the accused or that the same have been planted upon the accused only to workout the present as the police was under immense public pressure.
(54)
Inspector Sunder Singh (PW42) was again recalled for
additional examination pursuant to the application of Ld. Addl. PP for the State, under Section 311 Cr. P.C. wherein the witness has deposed that on 20.05.2007 he had arrested the accused Chander Kant Jha and from his personal search Ex.PW30/B one mobile make TATA SAMSUNG was recovered having ESSN No. 8562-A099 and having SIM of TATA INDICOM No. 9211463742 in respect of which the CDRs which are Ex.PW42/C collectively (running into 18 pages single pages) and mobile number 9211463743 CDR of which is Ex.PW42/D collectively (running into 20 single pages). The witness has testified that the CDR of mobile number 9211541254 which reported to be in the name of one person namely Dalip who is still missing is Ex.PW33/F collectively (running into six single pages); location chart of the mobile make TATA is Ex.PW42/E (running into 18 single pages) and
Certificate U/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act in respect of mobile No. 9211463742 and number 9211463743 is Ex.PW33/G with the relevant locations. Witness has also deposed that the mobile number 9211463742 was used in mobile having ESN No. 8562A09A, and the SIM No. 9211463742 was also used in ESN No. 8781 FA97 which mobile was recovered from the house of the accused. He has identified the SIM of blue colour having number 8562A 099 which was recovered from the personal search of the accused which is Ex.PW42/1 (in order to avoid any confusion, henceforth to be read as Ex.P17). He has testified that during investigations, it was revealed that both the SIMs i.e. 9211463742 and 9211463743 were used in the same mobile set bearing No. ESN No. 8562A099 so recovered from the personal search of accused Chander Kant Jha. The witness has further testified that the accused also got recovered another mobile make Tata Indicom having ESN No. 8781 FA 97 which was seized vide memo Ex.PW30/F which mobile set was used while operating SIM No. 9211463742 as indicated in the CDRs. He has identified the mobile phone Tata Samsung which is Ex.PW42/2 (in order to avoid any confusion, henceforth to be read as Ex.P18) having No. A3LSCHS109; another mobile make Tata Indicom bearing ESN No. 07981C4f and PCC Number 2682840208 bearing SIM No. 8781FA97 which phone is Ex.PW42/1 (henceforth to be read as Ex.P17 as herein above). According to him, the CDR already exhibited showing No. 8781FA97 established that the SIM was being used in the above mobile set. The witness has further testified that during interrogation the accused disclosed that he killed Dalip who was having number 9211541254 and threw his headless body on the gate of Tihar Jail and threw his hands at Tis Hazari Courts and threw legs in Kishan Ganj Nala and he threw his skull at Yamuna Bank. According to him, as
per version of the accused the call detail chart shows that accused was in contact with mobile number 9211541254 in the night of 17-18.05.2007 near Haiderpur and in the morning of 18.05.2007 the headless dead body was recovered from the gate of Tihar Jail and the relevant call details is at point X on Ex.PW42/C whereas the call details of mobile number 9211541254 which are Ex.PW33/F also reflect the location at point X, at Haiderpur and they were in contact for about 14 seconds. He has also deposed that as per Cell ID Location Chart the user of the mobile number 9211463742 i.e. the accused and call detail chart dated 24 and 25 April 2007 which is marked as Z-1 to Z-6 at page 11 on Ex.PW42/C, the user started from Alipur and reach sector 13 Rohini subsequently Kashmere Gate, then Tukmirpur (Shahdara), Model Town and return to Alipur on the same night. According to the witness, as per disclosure statement of the accused Chandra Kant, he killed the victim Upender at Haiderpur, dropped his headless dead body at Tihar Jail subsequently he moved towards Tis Hazari Courts and threw the hand of Upender and then he moved towards Yamuna and dropped the head of Upender and subsequently he reached Lalbagh (Loni) area and dropped the hand of Upender and then returned to Alipur and the parts of the body recovered on the same day.
(55)
In his cross examination the witness has deposed that no finger
prints were lifted from the mobile recovered from the personal search of the accused and has voluntarily explained that attempt was made to lift the chance prints from the mobile phone got recovered by the accused at his house at Haiderpur. He has denied the suggestion that chance prints from the mobile which was recovered from the personal search of the accused was deliberately not lifted as it was not recovered from the possession of the accused. According to him, as per the call details
record, the location of the mobile number 9211463742 was in the area of Alipur on 19.05.2007 through out the day and the details of 20.05.2007 onwards are not available in the CDR and therefore he is unable to tell the location on 20.05.2007. Witness has further deposed that on 24.04.2007 the location of the mobile No. 9211463742 is shown to be at Alipur from 5:50 to 8:40 PM and thereafter at sector 13 Rohini on 25.04.2007 at 6:18 AM and at 8:26 AM at Kashmere Gate and at 10:26 to 13:40 at Shadara and thereafter at Model Town at 18:21 and at Alipur at 18:46. He has testified that they had not examined Rahul Jain and has voluntarily explained that his address was found to be fake. He has denied the suggestion that the mobile phone belongs to Rahul Jain and in order to save him he has been wrongly shown as the user and Rahul Jain has been withheld from the court. According to the witness, they have checked the address given in the customer application form supported by address proof and has voluntarily explained that the investigations with regard to the address was made by Inspector Ombir Singh and the address was found to be non existing. He has also deposed that he came to know about the aforesaid from Inspector Ombir Singh as they were regularly discussing about the investigations in the connected cases and used to share information. He has admitted that he has no personal knowledge if the address of Rahul Jain in existing or not existing and has voluntarily explained that he was deposing on the basis of what was told by Inspector Ombir Singh. According to the witness, he personally did not carry out investigations in respect of two mobile numbers 9891271886 and 9312804827 of Upender which was mentioned on the wall of the room i.e. scene of crime at Haiderpur. He has denied the suggestion that accused was not produced before the court of Ld. MM on 26.06.2007.
(56)
SI Narender (PW30), Inspector Dalip Kaushik (PW39) and
ASI Virender Singh (PW41), who were all members of the Special Staff, West District headed by Inspector Sunder Singh (PW42) and had joined the investigations on various dated from 20.05.2007 to 25.5.2007 and have in their respective testimonies corroborated what has been earlier deposed by Inspector Sunder Singh. HC Vijender Singh (PW17) was also a member of the Special Staff, West District, and had joined the investigations on 23.5.2007 along with Inspector Sunder Singh and has in his testimony corroborated what has been stated by other members of the police party as herein above.
(57)
ASI Virender Singh (PW41) have all proved having joined the investigations on 20.5.2007. They have proved that on 20.5.2007 they along with Inspector Sunder Singh, SI Jarnail Singh, I/C PP Mianwali Nagar, SI Jai Parkash of Police Station Nangloi and other staff, left in a government vehicle Tata 407 bearing registration no.DL1LD-5031 along with driver ASI Prem Singh and on a secret informer they reached at Alipur, Delhi. They have proved the apprehension and arrest of the accused at Shivmandir Mianwali Nagar, Alipur. They have further proved the investigations conducted and the various documents prepared at Shivmandir Mianwali Nagar, Alipur, Haiderpur in the house of Mangal Sain Pandit.
(58)
ASI Virender Singh (PW41) have all proved have further proved the investigations conducted on 21.5.2007 at Kishanganj, Tis Hazari Courts and preparation of dossier of the accused, his medical examination and the Investigating officer having taken the specimen handwriting and signatures of the accused Chandrakant Jha in the court after due
permission from the Ld. MM.

(59)
SI Narender (PW30) and ASI Virender Singh (PW41)have also
proved and corroborated the testimony of Inspector Sunder Singh and the various documents prepared by him on 22.5.2007 at Lal Bagh, Loni, Gaziabad, House No. 206 belonging to Ashok Mehta at Chowk Pipalthala, Delhi and at the house of Rajpal bearing no. 46/3, Sarai Pipalthala, Delhi, Baba Ram Dev Mandir, Railway Phatak, Shalimar Bagh at house No. 51 belonging to one Dalbir, Railway Phatak, Shalimar Bagh.
(60)
Further, HC Vijender Singh (PW17), SI Narender (PW30),
Inspector Dalip Kaushik (PW39) and ASI Virender Singh (PW41) have all proved the investigations and documents proved by Inspector Sunder Singh on 23.5.2007 when the accused took them to ISBT Flyover and banks of river Yamuna from where he got recovered one skull and jaw wrapped in a ghaghri of red colour. ASI Virender Tyagi has also proved that on the instructions of Inspector Sunder Singh, he had arranged and brought the search light to the spot.
(61)
ASI Virender Singh (PW41) have also proved the investigations and proceedings conducted on 24.5.2007 near MCD Primary School, Swaroop Nagar, Gate No. 1 Tihar near Nari Niketan, Gate No. 3 and Central Jail, Tihar.
(62)
Inspector Dalip Kaushik (PW39) has further proved the
investigations and proceedings conducted on 26.05.2007 and on 27.5.2007. All these witnesses i.e. HC Vijender (PW17), SI Narender (PW30), Inspector Dalip Kaushik (PW39) and ASI Virender Singh (PW41) have correctly identified the accused Chanderkant Jha in the court.
(63)
ASI Virender Singh (PW41) have also identified the one white box having a skull and lower jaw as the same as recovered from the bank of Yamuna river at the instance of accused, the skull is Ex.P1 and the jaw is Ex.P2; one red cloth and one ghaghri as the same as recovered along with the skull which Red cloth is Ex.P10 and the Ghaghri is Ex.P11; one knife / chopper as the same as recovered from the room of the accused at his instance which is Ex.P12; one knife / chopper as the same as recovered from the room of the accused at his instance which is Ex.P13; one knife / chopper as the same as recovered from the room of the accused at his instance which is Ex.P14; one nunchaku as the same as recovered from machan / taand of the room of the accused at his instance which is Ex.P15; denim jeans along with black belt as the same as recovered from khoonti from the room of the accused at his instance which is Ex.P16 and one Tata Indicom mobile phone as the same as recovered from Almirah kept in the room of the accused at his instance which is Ex.P17. In so far as HC Vijender Singh (PW17) is concerned, he has correctly identified the one white box having a skull and lower jaw as the same as recovered from the bank of Yamuna river at the instance of accused, the skull is Ex.P1 and the jaw is Ex.P2; one red cloth and one ghaghri as the same as recovered along with the skull which Red cloth is Ex.P10 and the Ghaghri is Ex.P11, having participated only in the proceedings conducted on 23.5.2006.
(64)
In their cross examination all these four witnesses i.e. HC
Vijender Singh (PW17), SI Narender (PW30), Inspector Dalip Kaushik (PW39) and ASI Virender Singh (PW41) have corroborated each other and also Inspector Sunder Singh on material particulars and there are no major contradictions. In so far ASI Virender Tyagi is concerned, he has
in his cross examination proved that at the time of the investigations he used to carry and maintain a mobile bearing number 9873077071. The accused has also specifically put to him the news item published in newspaper Dainik Jagran dated 20.5.2007 but he has denied the contents of the same and the suggestion put to him by the accused that he was already in custody of the Special Staff on 20.5.2007. Further, in so far as Inspector Dalip Kaushik is concerned, he was involved in a case under the Prevention of Corruption Act and in his cross examination by the accused the said proceedings were put to him which he has admitted. He has also admitted that he was transferred from West District to Special Cell / SB in the year 2008 but he does not recollect if it was vide order 16.9.08. He has further admitted that FIR No. 396/98 under Section 468/471/201/120B IPC was also registered against him and has voluntarily explained that this case was registered on the basis of a complaint before the Magistrate u/s 156(3) Cr.PC and has been quashed by the Delhi High Court. According to the witness, he was under suspension in the year 2010 pursuant to a case registered against him by the CBI under Section 7 of the PC Act and has voluntarily explained that it was a counter blast to an earlier case registered by him against one of the SHOs where he was a complainant and was motivated against him, which is still pending. He has denied the suggestion put by the accused that he had never participated in the investigations or that the accused has been falsely implicated only to workout the present case. Members of the Crime Team:
(65)
SI Anil Kumar (PW4) was Incharge of Mobile Crime Team.
He has deposed that on 20.05.2007, he was posted as Incharge, Mobile Crime Team, West District and on that day, on receipt of information
from Inspector Sunder Singh, he along with his team comprising Photographer and Finger Print Expert reached at H.No.329, Gali No.2, Haiderpur Colony, Delhi where Inspector Sunder Singh along with accused and Dr. Naresh of FSL, Rohini and other police officials were already present. He has proved having inspected the scene of crime and their Photographer took the photographs of the spot. He has further deposed that three blood stained knives were lying in the corner of the room and various phone numbers were written on the wall of the room. He has further deposed that four chance prints were lifted from the spot and he prepared his report, copy of which is Ex.PW4/A.
(66)
In his cross-examination, he has deposed that in his crime team
there was one photographer who was having his camera and the finger print experts had their own kit for taking chance print. According to the witness, he started from his office at Janakpuri for Haiderpur at about 4.30 PM in the evening and they were in their TSR. He does not remember the registration number of the TSR and states that they met the team of Inspector Sunder Singh at the corner of gali where house of accused was situated and Dr. Naresh Kumar was with Inspector Sunder Singh, four-five police officials and the accused. He is unable to tell their names and states that Inspector Sunder Singh was in civil clothes and not in uniform and the other police staff were also in civil clothes. The witness has further deposed that the accused was caught hold with hand by the police and was not handcuffed. He not remember what clothes were worn by the accused at that time nor does he remember whether accused was wearing shoes or chappals. According to the witness, the accused was unmuffled and he along with Inspector Sunder Singh and accused went to House No.329 and Dr. Naresh Kumar also accompanied them. He has further deposed that they had reached at the
room of the accused at 5.50 PM. The witness has admitted that he was the Incharge of Crime Team and states that prior to visiting the room of the accused, Photographer had taken the photographs of the entrance of the premises. He has also admitted that prior to entering into the premises, a photograph of the accused was taken while standing outside the house and photographer had not taken photograph on his instructions. The witness has further deposed that when they reached the room of the accused, it was found locked. He does not remember whether there was a curtain at the door of the house of the accused. He has further deposed that there was only one lock at the door of the house of the accused and Inspector Sunder Singh broke open the lock of the wooden door which door used to open inside towards the room and the lock was put on a Kundi. He does not remember whether the lock was of iron or steel or brass and he neither remember the shape of the lock nor the lock was of medium size. He also does not not remember whether the lock was old or new and whether the photograph of locked door was taken by the photographer or not. The witness has further admitted that the lock was broken by Inspector Sunder Singh. He has further deposed that the lock was broken with the help of iron rod but he does not remember whether the owner of the premises was called at the time or prior to breaking of lock and has clarified that the accused was present. He has also deposed that Dr. Naresh Kumar was also present and the staff along with Inspector Sunder Singh was also present. He has admitted that Photographer was having a camera and was also standing there. The witness has testified that only one lock was broken at the door but he is not aware whether the broken lock was thrown or seized by the Investigation Officer. He has further deposed that when police party entered into the room after breaking the lock, the room was
dark without any light and Inspector Sunder Singh was the first person who entered into the room, who put on the light in the said room. He does not remember what articles were with Inspector Sunder Singh when he entered into the room and states that first the Photographer went into the room after the light was put on and thereafter, other members of the police staff. He has further deposed that he was present when photographs were taken by the Photographer and the articles were scattered in the room. He has also deposed that the photographs were taken as per the situation of the room and no police official disturbed any articles of the room at the time of taking the photographs. The witness has also deposed that they had seen three blood stained knives in the room and he had not picked up those three knives and saw them while standing. He has further deposed that there was an electric bulb in the room. He has testified that all the three knives were opened and were not covered with cloth or polythene. According to him, Inspector Sunder Singh had written Chaku Hathiyar prior to taking photograph and all the three knives were not seized and sealed in his presence. He has further deposed that he was not present when the Investigation Officer lifted the earth control at the room and he had not saw Investigation Officer taking out piece of cloth with blood stain. He does not remember whether any Nanchak was recovered from the room and states that the Photographer took the photographs on the directions of the Investigation Officer. He has also deposed that he left the room at about 7.15 PM and first crime team left the room of the accused. He has admitted that photographer and fingerprint expert also left the room. The witness has further deposed that Investigation Officer recorded his statement on 20.05.2007 and also recorded the statement of Photographer and Fingerprint Expert. He does not remember whether
the Investigation Officer had not allowed any other co-tenant or public persons or owner to go inside the room during proceedings. According to the witness, he had filled up Crime Report Form Ex.PW9/B at the room of the accused and handed over this to Investigation Officer and came to know that he was joining the proceeding in a case when he had reached at the room that it was a case of serial killer Chanderkant Jha. The witness has also deposed that this fact was told to him by the Investigating Officer. He has admitted that when he had reached at the spot then, he came to know about the arrest of the accused. According to the witness, he had no knowledge on 20.05.2007 in the morning through newspaper or TV that accused Chanderkant Jha was arrested in this case.
(67)
ASI Ajender Singh (PW7) is the Finger Print Bureau Expert He has deposed that on
in Mobile Crime Team, West District.
20.05.2007 he along with SI Anil Kumar, Incharge Crime Team and other staff went to 229/2, Ground Floor for inspection of scene of crime which spot was pointed out by the accused himself to the police. According to the witness, the room was locked from outside and it was broken after which they entered into the room and examined the scene of crime. The witness has proved that he tried to lift four chance print from the spot and after developing the same, the report was handed over to the Investigation Officer which report is Ex.PW7/A. The witness has correctly identified the accused Chanderkant Jha in the court.
(68)
In his cross-examination, the witness has deposed that on
20.05.2007, they left the office of Crime Team situated at Police Station Janak Puri and he accompanied with Incharge SI Anil Kumar, Photographer Constable Suresh and driver. According to the witness, they left the office at around 4.00 PM and they received the message
from the Control Room to reach Police Station Hari Nagar after which , they were asked to report at Police Station Kirti Nagar where they reached at around 5.30 PM at Haiderpur. He is unable to tell the registration number of the vehicle of Mobile Crime Team and has explained that Inspector Sunder Singh already met them at Kirti Nagar who was with the accused and directed them to reach at the scene of crime and since the vehicle was not able to reach at the room/house of the accused, they walked down and reached after 15 minutes. According to the witness, the police mobile crime team vehicle was a TATA 407 and he had seen the accused for the first time at Police Station Kirti Nagar at about 4.30 PM and then at the room of the accused. He is not aware with the help of which instrument police staff broke the lock and states that he had heard the noise of breaking of lock. He has also testified that he had not noticed whether any public person was present at the time of breaking of lock and has explained that the accused at that time was caught hold by hands of the police staff. He is not aware whether police staff had seized the lock or thrown away and at the first instance, SI Anil Kumar entered into the room with the accused. According to him, there was no light in the room but he does not remember who had switched on the light. He has testified that when he had entered in the room, he had seen the weapons i.e. three knives and they were lying in a corner of the room. The witness does not remember whether the above said knives were covered with any polythene or any handkerchief etc. He has further deposed that the knives were photographed and Constable Suresh Kumar, Photographer had written with chalk after encircling the spot of recovery of three knives and he himself told to other members of Crime Team that there were blood stains on the knives. The witness has testified that he
examined the knives on lifting the chance print and apart from a bulb, photographer also light up his search light under which, he examined the three knives for lifting the chance print. According to him, there was no tube light in the room and he had not seen how and when the three knives were sealed by the police staff. He has further deposed that he was present when police staff lifted the blood stains under the knife but he does not remember what other staff and crime team members were present in the room. He has further deposed that he was concentrating on his job of lifting the chance print and he is not aware who lifted the blood stains from the floor of the room as he was doing his job. He is not aware as to who lifted the piece of floor containing blood stains and he had no knowledge whether any non chuk was recovered from the room. He has admitted that till the Crime Team was conducting the proceedings, no one was allowed to enter the room. He has also deposed that he examined the room till 7.15 PM and Chance Print lifted from one Sony FM Radio and from a mirror but both were very blur. The witness has is unable to tell whether the articles were lying properly or they were scattered because prior to this he never seen the room. He has testified that his statement was recorded on 20.05.2007 after 7.15 PM by one associate of Inspector Sunder Singh. He is unable to tell the name of the police officials, who recorded his statement. The witness has further deposed that the form Ex.PW10/A was handed over to an official from Special Staff. He is unable to tell the name of said official and the details regarding the house number was told to him by Special Staff and thereafter, he inscribed the same in the Form Ex.PW10/A. He has admitted that the actual house number is 229 and has voluntarily deposed that due to clerical error the said house number was mentioned as 329. According to the witness, he left the
spot on 20.05.2007 with Mobile Crime Team.
He has denied the
suggestion that he has deposed falsely at the instance of the Investigation Officer and that he fabricated the record at his instance and that nothing incriminating were found at the said scene of crime. The witness has also deposed that he tried to lift the finger prints from the weapons lying in the room but there was blood and the finger prints were not present.
(69)
Constable Suresh Kumar (PW10) is the Photographer in
Mobile Crime Team (West District). He has deposed that on 20.05.2007 he along with SI Anil Kumar, ASI Ajinder (Finger Print Expert) reached the house of accused i.e. House No.339, Gali No.2, Haiderpur where Inspector Sunder Singh met them with team at the gate of the house of the accused along with the accused whom the witness has correctly identified in the Court. The witness has further deposed that accused pointed out towards his room of House No. 339, in which he used to reside and on the instruction of Inspector Sunder Singh, lock of the room was broken after which he along with SI Anil Kumar and ASI Ajinder inspected the room. According to him, on the instructions of the Investigating Officer, he took 19 photographs from different angles. He has testified that he had already deposited the negatives in case FIR No. 243/07 during his examination as PW14 and the photographs are Ex.PW10/A-1 to PW10/A18 and the negative No. 7 was washedout.
(70)
In his cross-examination, the witness has deposed that his
statement was recorded by Inspector Ombir Singh on 04.06.2007 in his office. According to him, on 20.05.2007, he started from his office at Police Station Janakpuri for Haiderpur and they had taken a TSR and started around 4.30 PM. According to the witness, he met Inspector Sunder Singh at Outer Ring Road, which led towards Haiderpur. He
does not remember whether Dr. Naresh Kumar was at the room of the accused. According to him, he was following Inspector Sunder Singh's vehicle in a TSR and the accused was with the team of Inspector Sunder Singh. He has testified that the accused was present with the police staff and was caught hold by them with hands. He does not remember what clothes were worn by the accused at that time or whether the accused was wearing shoe or chappal. He has also deposed that the face of the accused was not covered and states that he had taken the photograph of the main gate of the house where the room of the accused was situated. He has further deposed that the Incharge of his team was SI Anil Kumar and he had taken the photographs on the instruction of Inspector Sunder Singh. According to the witness, they reached the room of the accused at about 5.50 PM. He has further deposed that on that day, he had taken total 19 photographs and can identify the photographs taken on that day and the lock of the room of the accused was broken with the help of stone. He is not aware whether the Investigating Officer called owner of the house or any other tenant of the room when the lock was broken. The witness has further deposed that he had not seen Dr. Naresh Kumar at the time of breaking of lock. He does not remember whether he was given instruction by the Investigating Officer or Incharge of his team to take the photograph of locked room of the accused. According to him, the door of the room was of wood but he does not remember the position of the lock of the room and had not noticed how many locks were there at the door. He also does not remember whether it was with the iron chain or with the kundi. The witness does not recollect whether the lock was of steel, iron or brass. He also does not remember whether the Investigating Officer seized the broken lock or not. He has further deposed that he had not taken photograph of broken lock nor does he
remember whether his Team Incharge or the Investigating Officer instructed him to take the photograph of broken lock. According to him, it was dark in the room when they first entered and the Investigating Officer and his team Incharge made the arrangement of light in the room. He has further deposed that it might be possible at the first instance for making arrangement of light 4-5 persons entered the room. He has testified that he had taken photographs of weapon of offence, which was lying in a corner of the room. According to the witness there were three weapon of offence recovered from the room, which were lying without cover or cloth or polythene. He is not aware who had first touched the weapon of offence because he had taken the photographs and left the room but in his presence the weapon of offence were not seized and sealed. He has further deposed that he had written the description before taking photographs as shown in Ex.PW10/A-16. The witness has also deposed that the floor of the room was broken by FSL Expert Dr. Naresh Kumar with the help of chheni/ hatora and during this period, the weapons remained at the place where he had taken the photographs. He does not know who brought the chheni/ hatora and whether the broken portion of the floor was seized or not. He does not remember exactly the portion of the room was photographed at the last and states that during their proceedings, neither any tenant nor owner of the room was allowed to enter inside the room. He is not aware if any instrument of karate non chuk was recovered from the room or not. The witness has also deposed that the team of Investigating Officer and his team did not shift any of the articles in the room prior to taking the photographs. According to him, the accused was present at the door of the room and he left the room after taking photographs at 7.15 PM. He is not aware when Dr. Naresh Kumar left the room as he never visited
the room thereafter or prior to taking the photographs. He also does not remember the time when his statement was recorded by Investigating Officer. According to him, he was given information that the accused is the person, who had kept the dead body at Tihar Jail gate. He has testified that he had seen the accused at about 5.15 PM and had no information through newspaper, TV news or radio news that a serial killer was apprehended.
(71)
HC Jai Veer Singh (PW13) is the Photographer of the Mobile
Crime Team, West District. He has deposed that on 18.05.2007 he along with Incharge Crime Team, SI Malkiyat Singh and Constable Kishan went to Gate No.1, Tihar Jail. According to the witness he took the photographs of the scene of crime from different angles as per direction of the Investigating Officer and after developing ten photographs, same were handed over to the Investigating Officer. He has proved the negatives which are Ex.PW13/N1 to PW13/N10 and the photographs are Ex.PW13/A1 to PW13/A10. (72) In his cross-examination, the witness has deposed that he along with members of the mobile crime team reached the spot from their office at Police Station Janakpuri and left the office at about 7.00 AM and reached gate No.1, Tihar at about 7.15 AM. According to him, they reached at the spot by a government vehicle No. DL-1LE-3698. He has further deposed that two-three public persons were also present at the spot apart from police officials. According to the witness, he handed over the photographs to the Investigating Officer on 06.08.2007 and his statement was recorded on the same day i.e. 18.05.2007. He has further deposed that when he handed over the photographs to the Investigating Officer, he did not prepare any seizure memo of the photographs.
(73)
Inspector Malkiat Singh (PW20) is the Incharge, Crime
Team, West District, Delhi who has been examined by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW20/1 (as per the provisions of Section 296 Cr.P.C.). He has deposed that on 18.05.2007 he received a call from District Control Room, West that a dead body was lying in a gunny bag in front of Gate No.1, Tihar Jail on which he along with Constable Jaibir (Photographer), Constable Krishan Kumar (Finger Prints Expert) and Constable Amit Kumar rushed to the spot at Gate No.1, Tihar Jail, New Delhi. He has also deposed that a plastic bag (katta) tied with plastic rope found there, which was opened and found containing headless, handless, footless and without private parts dead body. The witness has testified that on inspection of dead body and spot, the photographs have been taken in his supervision. He has proved that after completion of inspection, he prepared inspection report which is Ex.PW20/A and the same was handed over to the Investigating Officer/ASI Krishan Chander Police Station Hari Nagar. He has further deposed that during interrogation, his statement was recorded by Inspector Ombir Singh on 18.05.2007. (74) In his cross-examination, the witness has deposed that he reached the spot around 7.15 AM where public persons were present but they were away from the spot and not near the spot. According to the witness, none of the photographs taken showed the presence of public persons. He has further deposed that in his presence, the Investigating Officer had not asked any public persons to join the investigations. He has testified that the report was prepared by him at the spot. He has denied the suggestion that the report has been prepared at the instance of the Investigating Officer. The witness has admitted that on the right hand side of the Gate No.3 of Tihar Jail, ATM is there where there is a
guard for 24 hours. He has also deposed that in his presence, the Investigating Officer had not asked the guard of the ATM of Gate No.3, Tihar to become witness in the investigations and has voluntarily explained that he was present at the spot only for the assistance of the Investigating Officer.
(75)
HC Raj Pal Singh (PW22) is the Photographer, District
Crime Team who has been examined by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW22/1 (as per the provisions of Section 296 Cr.P.C.) wherein he has deposed that on 19.05.2007 he was posted at District Crime Team/North District as Photographer and had gone to the spot where he had taken the photographs of the human hands and private parts found in carton box. He has explained that on 14.08.07 he was examined by the Investigating Officer/ Inspector Ombir Singh of Police Station Hari Nagar about the DD No.4, Police Post Tis Hazari Court dated 19.05.2007 in which the human hands and private parts were found in a carton . He has further deposed that on the directions he had taken the photographs of the spot and human body parts found in a carton there and after developing the photograph prints from negatives he handed over eight prints to Ct. Kaptan Singh of Police Post Tis Hazari Courts which are Ex.PW22/A-1 to Ex.PW22/A-8 and the negatives of the same are collectively Ex.PW22/B. He has testified that after interrogation his statement was recorded by Inspector Ombir Singh on 14.08.2007. (76) In his cross examination the witness has deposed that he had reached the spot at about 6:40 AM and stayed there for about one hour. According to him, public persons were present at the spot when he reached there but he had not clicked the photographs of the public persons who were present at the spot and has voluntarily explained that
they were separated and he only took the photographs of the carton containing the body parts. He has further deposed that there were four persons in the entire crime team including himself. Formal Witnesses:
(77)
ASI Sangeeta (PW1) is a formal witness being the Duty
officer. She has deposed that on 18.05.2007 she was posted as Duty Officer at Police Station Hari Nagar from 8.00 AM to 4.00 PM and on that day, at around 10.10 AM, she received a rukka from Constable Ram Singh sent by SI Krishan Chander and on its basis, she registered FIR by handing over the rukka to Computer Operator, who fed the contents of rukka in the computer and took a print of FIR. She has proved that she signed the computer print out of FIR which is Ex.PW1/A at point 'A' and DD No.13A was registered by her at 10.10 AM to the effect of started writing the FIR, copy of which entry is Ex.PW1/B1. She has further deposed that DD No.14A which is Ex.PW1/B2 was also registered by her at 10.45 AM on 18.05.2007 to the effect that FIR has been registered. According to her, copy of the FIR and original rukka were sent to SHO, who left for the spot through Constable Ram Singh. She has further deposed that the copies of FIR in sealed envelope were given to Constable Baljit, Special Messenger for delivery of the same to Area Magistrate, Joint Commissioner of Police (Range) and Deputy Commissioner of Police.
(78)
She has not been cross-examined by the He has
accused and hence her testimony has gone uncontroverted. HC Suresh Kumar (PW9) is a formal witness. deposed that on 19.05.2007, he was posted at PCR Control Room and his duty hours were from 8.00 PM to 8.00 AM and on that day at about 5.25 AM, he received information by Sugar 27 PCR, Incharge HC
Page No. 85
Yudhishter, 479 PCR that in front of SBI Bank, Tis Hazari, one carton was lying and it appeared that body parts of a child was kept in it on which he immediately filled PCR form and sent it for circulation to the local police. He has proved the PCR form, photocopy of which is Ex.PW9/A. The witness has further deposed that at about 5.48 AM, Sugar 27 PCR informed that a carton having two hands cut from the shoulder approx. aged 14-15 years and the blood in the carton and body parts dried and it appeared that the body parts were not cut fresh. According to the witness, ASI Arjun Singh had already reached the spot and he made entry in this regard in PCR Form at point 'X' in Ex.PW9/A and informed to the Control Room for sending the message to the senior officers. He has also deposed that at about 6.00 AM, he again received message that one polythene also found in the carton containing the cut piece of the penis and he again made entry in this regard at point 'Y' in Ex.PW9/A and he informed the Control Room for sending the message to senior officers. He has proved that Ex.PW9/A bear his signature at point 'Z' and the same is in his handwriting. In his cross-examination, the witness has deposed that the Investigating Officer never recorded his statement.
(79)
HC Krishan Kumar (PW11) is a formal witness. He has
deposed that on 09.08.2007, he was posted at Police Station Hari Nagar and on that day, Addl. SHO Inspector Om Veer Singh handed over a request for collecting the copy of PCR Form from the Police Control Room Head Quarter on which he reached PHQ and the application was got forwarded from there. According to the witness, thereafter he reached PCR Record Room, Model Town and collected photocopy of the PCR Form and handed over to the Investigating Officer. He has proved the photocopy of the PCR Form which is marked PW11/A,
which was seized vide Ex.PW11/B. In his cross-examination, the witness has deposed that he was not present on 18.05.2007 in the investigation at Tihar Jail.
(80)
Constable Baljeet Singh (PW12) is a formal witness being
Motorcycle Rider who had delivered the copies of the FIR to the senior officers. He has deposed that on 18.05.2007, he was posted at Police Station Hari Nagar and on that day the Duty Officer handed over three envelopes containing copy of FIR for delivering the same to DCP West, concerned Area Magistrate and Joint CP, Southern Range. According to the witness, he left the Police Station at about 10.45 AM on government motorcycle bearing No. DL-1SN-4098 and delivered the envelopes after which he returned back to Police Station and Investigation Officer recorded his statement. He has proved his departure entry DD No. 14A and arrival entry DD No. 26A, copies of the same are Ex.PW12/A and Ex.PW12/B. In his cross-examination, the witness has deposed that his statement was recorded by the Investigating Officer on the same day i.e. 18.05.2007 and the Duty Officer had told him that the sealed envelope contains copy of FIR.
(81)
HC Hari Ram (PW15) is the formal witness being MHC (M)
at Police Station Hari Nagar. He has deposed that on 18.05.2007, ASI Krishan Chand deposited one sealed parcel containing ten exhibits and two letters on which he made entries in register no.19 at serial No. 2849 photocopy of which is Ex.PW15/A. He has further deposed that on 14.06.2007, Inspector Om Veer Singh deposited eleven sealed parcels and eight sample seals along with three seizure memos on which he made entries in this regard at Sr.No. 2890 in register no.19 photocopy of which is Ex.PW15/B. The witness has also deposed that on 30.07.2007, the case property was sent to FSL Rohini through Inspector Om Veer
Singh vide RC No.58/21 and he made entry in this regard at point X on Ex.PW15/A. According to him, on 08.08.2007 the hand written letter, one white and yellow paper were sent to FSL Rohini by HC Rajbeer vide RC No.68/21 and he made entry in this regard at point X-1 on Ex.PW15/A. He has further deposed that on 30.07.2007, exhibits at Sr.No. 1-4 were sent to FSL through Inspector Om Veer vide RC No.56/21 and he made entry in this regard at point X-2 on Ex.PW15/B. According to the witness, on the same day, sealed parcel of viscera was also sent to FSL Rohini through Inspector Om Veer Singh vide RC No.57/21 and entry in this regard at point X-3 on Ex.PW15/B. He has testified that the case property deposited on 14.06.07 was also sent to FSL vide RC No.58/21 and entry in this regard is at point X-4 on Ex.PW15/B. The witness has also deposed that the exhibits were sent to FSL vide RC No.56/57/58 and he mentioned all the details in the RC itself. He has further deposed that on 27.03.08, sealed parcel of the viscera and result was deposited by HC Ram Sahai with him on which he made entry at point X-5 on Ex.PW15/B and the result was handed over to the Investigating Officer. According to him, on 03.06.09 Ct. Vinod deposited six parcels along with report of FSL and entry in this regard at point X-6 on Ex.PW15/A. He has proved the photocopy of the RC No.56/21 which is Ex.PW15/C; receipt issued by FSL which is Ex.PW15/D; photocopy of RC No.57/21 which is Ex.PW15/E; receipt issued by the FSL which is Ex.PW15/F; photocopy of the RC No.58/21 which is Ex.PW15/G and the receipt issued by FSL which is Ex.PW15/H. According to the witness, the case property of case FIR No.609/06, FIR No.279/07 were sent vide RC No.56/21, 57/21 and 58/21 and the case property was not tampered by anybody till the same remained in his custody.
(82)
The witness was again recalled for further examination to
prove the entiries made by his successor HC Satibir (expired) on the basis of the official record. He has deposed that in the year 2007, he was posted at Police Station Hari Nagar as MHC (M) and he had worked with Head Constable Satbir (expired) who was also posted in the same Police Station and he could identify his signatures and handwriting having seen him writing and signing in official capacity. The witness has gone through the seizure memos Ex.PW15/H (henceforth to be read and corrected as Ex.PW15/H-1 in order to avoid confusion since the FSL receipt dated 30.7.2007 is already Ex.PW15/H.), Ex.PW15/I and Ex.PW15/J which bear the signatures of HC Satbir at point A respectively. He has further deposed that they also bear the signatures of Inspector Omvir Singh at point B which he identify having seen him writing and signing in official capacity as he was the Additional SHO Police Station Hari Nagar at the time when he was posted there as MHC (M). (83) In his cross examination, the witness has denied the suggestion that he had not personally counted the sealed parcels at the time of deposit or that he had not checked the seals on each parcel personally. He has admitted the suggestion that he had written contents of seizure memo in register No.19 at above said serial number. According to the witness he kept both the keys of malkhana with him and in the absence of Malkhana Moharrar, one Munshi kept the key. He has further deposed that Ct. Ram Gopal was working as Munshi at the relevant time. He has denied the suggestion that case property was not deposited by him in his presence but it was deposited in the presence of Ct. Ram Gopal, Munshi, Malkhana. He has also denied the suggestion that case property was tampered with in malkhana or that Register No.19 was
fabricated by him at later stage at the instance of the Investigating Officer. (84) Further in his cross examination, the witness is unable to tell the details with regard to the preparation of the above seizure memos and states that he had only identified the signatures of HC Satbir and Inspector Omvir Singh in official capacity and admits that he was not aware of the circumstances under which the seizure memos were prepared. He has denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely at the instance of the senior officers and he had never seen HC Satbir or Inspector Omvir Singh signing in official capacity in his presence. (85) The witness was recalled for further cross-examination wherein he has deposed that the Investigating Officer had deposited a piece of paper containing phone numbers in the malkhana but he does not recollect the time. He has further deposed that after 20.05.07, the exhibits were sent to FSL on 30.07.07 and were taken out from the malkhana. According to him, the personal search articles are still lying in the malkhana and had not been released so far and has voluntarily explained that only the paper containing the telephone numbers were taken by Inspector Sunder Singh for investigation. He has also deposed that as per record, the papers were never taken by anybody and has deposed that only photocopy was got done on 28.05.07 and the original was kept in the malkhana as the said paper contains a large number of telephone number and could have been helpful in the investigation. The witness has also deposed that he had made his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. to the Investigating Officer in FIR No.279/07, Police Station Hari Nagar.
(86)
ASI Ranpal (PW18) is a formal witness who has been
examined by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW18/1 (as per the

provisions of Section 296 Cr.P.C.) wherein he has deposed that in the intervening night of 18.05.2007, he was posted as Head Constable at Police Control Room, PHQ, New Delhi and was performing his duty as Channel Operator on Channel 110 and on that day at about 6.38 AM, a telephone call was received that a dead body was lying in a gunny bag in front of gate No.1, Tihar Jail. He has further deposed that the said information has been recorded vide CR DD No. 3419 which is Ex.PW11/A and the same was passed to Command Room. He has not been cross-examined on behalf of the accused and hence his testimony has gone uncontroverted.
(87)
ASI Chhat Ram (PW19) is a formal witness being the Duty
Officer. He has been examined by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW19/1 (as per the provisions of Section 296 Cr.P.C.) wherein he has deposed that in the intervening night of 17/18.08.2007, he was detained as HC/ Duty Officer at Police Station Hari Nagar from 12.00 night to 8.00 AM and on that day at about 6.50 AM, a PCR call that a dead body was lying in a gunny bag in front of Gate No.1, Tihar Jail was handed over by Wireless Operator. He has further deposed that the said information was lodged/registered at DD No. 10A dated 18.05.2007 which is Ex.PW19/A and the same was entrusted to ASI Krishan Chander for necessary action and the SHO Police Station Hari Nagar was also informed. He has further deposed that Inspector Ombir Singh, the then, Addl. SHO / Police Station Hari Nagar was also informed and DD No. 11A Ex.PW19/B was recorded in this regard. According to the witness, after finishing his duty at 8.00 AM, he was called by the Investigating Officer and he rushed to the spot and he had not received any telephonic call from the accused person. He has further deposed that during interrogation, his statement was recorded by Inspector Ombir Singh, the
then Addl. SHO Police Station Hari Nagar on 18.05.2007. (88) In his cross-examination, the witness has deposed that his statement was recorded at the Police Station but he cannot tell the time and has voluntarily deposed that it was after his duty hours since he was called back from his residence. He has denied the suggestion that he never recorded any DFD as aforesaid and he has deposed falsely at the instance of the Investigating Officer.
(89)
ASI Rajbir Singh (PW21) is a formal witness who has been
examined by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW21/1 (as per the provisions of Section 296 Cr.P.C.) wherein he has deposed that on 06.08.2007 he was posted as Head Constable at Police Station Hari Nagar, West District and on 06.08.2007 on the direction of Inspector Ombir Singh he went District Crime Team, Police Station Janak Puri and collected ten photographs of the above cited case which were handed over to the Investigating Officer and the same were taken into police possession through a seizure memo which is Ex.PW21/A. According to the witness, on 08.08.11 on the direction of Inspector Ombir Singh he went to FSL, Rohini, Delhi for depositing the documents (Question Documents & Specimen documents) in Document Division, FSL vide No. FSL 2007/D-2905 dated 08.08.07 through Road Certificate No. 68/21/07 dated 08.08.07 which is Ex.PW21/B and the receipt was handed over to MHC (M) Police Station Hari Nagar on the same day which FSL Receipt is Ex.PW21/C.
(90)
In his cross examination the witness has deposed that the
directions given to him by Inspector Omvir Singh for going to FSL Rohini oral and not in writing. According to the witness, the photographs were collected during the afternoon but he does not remember the exact time. He has further deposed that on 08.08.2011, he
had left the police station at about 9AM and made DD No.25B in this regard copy of which is Ex.PW21/X1. He has denied the suggestion that the daily dairy has been made ante datedly only to create a record in the present case at the instance of the Investigating Officer.
(91)
SI Sharad Kohli (PW23) is a formal witness who has been
examined by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW23/1 (as per the provisions of Section 296 Cr.P.C.) wherein he has deposed that on 13.07.2007 he was posted as Sub Inspector at Police Station Hari Nagar, Delhi and on that day on the directions of Inspector Ombir Singh he collected the PM report No. 581/07, 582/07 & 583/07 from Dr. Anil, Mortuary, DDU Hospital, New Delhi which were handed over to the Investigating Officer. He has further deposed that after interrogation his statement was recorded by Inspector Ombir Singh on 13.07.2007. In his cross examination the witness has deposed that he appeared before SEM West on 28.11.2011 for attestation of affidavit of evidence but he does not recollect the time but states that it was during the day time.
(92)
HC Yasbir Singh (PW35) is the formal witness being the He has deposed that on 19.05.07, six
MHC(M) PS Subzi Mandi.
pullandas were deposited by the SI Arun Kumar in the Malkhana Police Station Subzi Mandi which pullandas were entered in the Register no.19 by the then MHC (M) HC Medha Lal vide no. 2040 copy of which is Ex.PW35/A. He has further deposed that on 05.09.07, he was posted as MHC(M) at Police Station Subzi Mandi and on that day, he had sent the aforesaid six pullandas to Police Station Hari Nagar through HC Suraj Bhan vide RC No.63/21/07 copy of which is Ex.PW35/B.
(93)
In his cross examination, the witness has admitted that entries
made in the register no.19 vide Ex.PW35/A were not in his handwriting. He has denied the suggestion that the entries had been fabricated at the
instance of the senior officers.

(94)
Ct. Rambir (PW36) is also a formal witness being the DD
Writer. He has deposed that on 19.05.07, he was posted at Police Station Subzi Mandi as DD writer and on that day, PCR call was received by him regarding an abandoned carton in front of SBI, Tis Hazari and he reduced this information into writing vide DD No.4 copy of which is Ex.PW36/A. In his cross examination, he has deposed that the information was received on wireless message. He has admitted that he had not participated in any investigation. He has denied the suggestion that the entry had been fabricated on the directions of the senior officers. Other Police Witnesses:
(95)
SI Satender Mohan (PW14) has deposed that on 23.05.2007,
he was posted at Police Station Seelampur and on that day, he received information from the Control Room that one human skull and some clothes were lying on the bank of the Yamuna. He has further deposed that he reached the spot where he found Inspector Sunder Singh along with other staff and the accused present there. According to the witness, he also noticed that one human skull and its lower jaw and some clothes were lying in a polythene bag. He does not remember the colour of the polythene bag but states that one of the cloth was of red colour and one ghagri (ghagra worn by the girl child). According to the witness, the Investigating Officer prepared parcel of human skull and jaw and sealed with the seal of DK and one another parcel of the cloth was also prepared and it was sealed with the seal of DK and the skull, jaw and clothes were recovered at the instance of accused, after which the Investigating Officer prepared seizure memo which is Ex.PW14/A and recorded his statement on 14.07.2007. He has further deposed that the Investigating Officer also prepared site plan of the spot.
(96)
He has correctly identified the accused Chanderkant Jha in the
Court and also identified the case property i.e. one human skull which is Ex.P1 and the jaw which is Ex.P2. (97) In his cross examination, the witness has deposed that he reached the spot at about 8:30-8:45 PM and found four-five police persons and accused present at the spot. According to him, the Police personnel were not in uniform. He has testified that he remained at the spot for about 1 hours. He has admitted that there was no electricity poles or other source of light at the spot and the only light was from the search light which Investigating Officer was carrying. The witness has also admitted that the human skull and other body parts were already lying at the spot when he reached there and has voluntarily added that they had received a wireless message from Police Station Seelampur sent by Inspector Sunder Singh of special staff Hari Nagar that some body parts and clothes had been recovered and some official from the local police should be sent pursuant to which, he was sent by the SHO. He has further admitted that the place from where the skull, jaws and the clothes were recovered, is an isolated place with not many people passing through that area. According to him, there is a motorable road about 500-600 meters away from the spot of recovery which is the nearest area visited by people. He has testified that the spot of the recovery was at the banks of a river. He has denied the suggestion that other human bones are also normally lying at the spot being an area where the last rites are performed by people and has voluntarily explained that the spot is not near the cremation ground and no last rites are performed. The witness has also deposed that he had left the spot at about 10:15 PM. According to the witness in FIR No. 609/06 his statement was recorded at the spot but in the present case i.e. FIR No.
279/07, it was recorded at the Police Station Seelampur. He has denied the suggestion that he has deposed falsely at the instance of the Investigating Officer or that he was a tutored witness or that he never joined the proceedings in the present case or in case FIR No. 279/07. He has further denied that he signed all the documents, while sitting at police station Seelampur.
(98)
SI Mahesh Kumar (PW16) is the Draftsman who has
prepared the scaled site plan. He has deposed that on 20.06.07, he was called by Inspector Ombir Singh, Addl. SHO Police Station Hari Nagar for preparation of scaled site plan of scene of crime and he along with Inspector Ombir Singh and ASI Krishan Chander reached at footpath, in front of boundary wall of Tihar Jail and near Tihar Haat Gate as well as gate no.1 Tihar Jail. The witness has also deposed that he took rough notes and measurements at the instance of ASI Krishan Chander and on the basis of those measurements, he prepared scaled site plan and handed over the same to the Investigating Officer. He has proved that the scaled site plan which is Ex.PW16/A was signed by him at point A and that after preparation of scaled site plan rough notes and measurements were destroyed. In his cross examination, the witness has deposed that his statement was recorded by the Investigating Officer on 20.06.07 at the spot between 4:00 PM to 5:00 PM.
(99)
ASI Yudhister (PW24) has deposed that on 19.05.2007 he
was working in PCR as Incharge Sugar 27 and on that day they were standing on their base at gate No.1, Tis Hazari Courts when one public person informed him that one carton box was lying in front of State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Court complex. According to the witness, he along with his staff reached in front of State Bank of India and found one carton and on checking the same two hands severed from human
body and a polythene bag containing penis of human being. He has further deposed that he conveyed the information to control room regarding the aforesaid facts and investigating officer ASI Arjun Singh came there which information was filled in PCR form vide Ex.PW9/A.
(100)
In his cross examination the witness has deposed that the PCR
No. Sugar 27 was positioned at the front gate of Tis Hazari Courts on the criminal side and they reached near SBI Tis Hazari at about 5:075:08 AM. He has denied the suggestion that all the gates of the Tis Hazari Courts Complex are closed during the night hours and has voluntarily deposed that the gate on the criminal side/ lock up and on the back remain open. He has also deposed that on that day also they were having their position at Tis Hazari lock up only and the distance between the lock up and the spot where the box was lying is about 300400 meters. He has also deposed that general public started roaming in said area at about 4:30 PM or around. He has denied the suggestion that he had not joined the proceedings in the present case.
(101)
SI Arun Tyagi (PW25) has deposed that on 19.5.2007, he was
posted at Police Station Subzi Mandi and on that day on receipt of DD no.4A ExPW25/A, ASI Arjun Singh reached in front of State Bank of India, Tis Hazari and he also reached there where ASI Arjun Singh along with Ct. Ramesh Kumar met him. He has further deposed that ASI Arjun Singh informed him that a carton was found lying in front of State Bank of India which was found containing the human parts and he conveyed this information to Senior Officials and called the crime team including the photographer. The witness has further deposed that at the same time, SHO Police Station Subzi Mandi and Shri Ramesh Kumar, ACP Subzi Mandi reached there and after some time the crime team also reached there. According to him, the carton box was thoroughly
Page No. 97
checked and it was found containing two upper limbs from finger to shoulder wrapped in an old newspaper and there was a transparent polythene bag which was found containing sexual parts containing penis, testicles and pubic hairs. He has also deposed that the photographer took the photographs of the said organs and the crime team inspected the spot and organs and prepared its report. He has further deposed that ASI Arjun Singh was sent to Subzi Mandi Mortuary to deposit the found organs to preserve the same. He has proved having filled up the Form 25.35 which is Ex.PW25/B. According to the witness, he converted the aforesaid carton box and the pieces of Hindustan Times newspapers dated 6.5.2007 some of them were blood stained, the transparent polythene having the firm name as T.N. Luthra mfd. by Triloki Hosiery Ltd. and its telephone number, one blue colour cloth blouse, one red and white colour old top of child, some pieces of plastic rope and some polythene pieces in parcels and sealed the same with the seal of AK. He has further deposed that he took the aforesaid parcels into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW25/C. He has testified that they came to know that one plastic bag was found containing body of a human being was without limbs and sexual parts were found lying in front of gate no.1 Tihar Jail in the area of Police Station Hari Nagar and a case FIR No.279/07 was already registered under Section 302/201 IPC at PS Hari Nagar after which he talked with the Investigating Officer of that case Inspector Ombir Singh and he informed him about the human parts of the body. According to the witness, he suspected that these parts may be the parts of the same body which were found at Tihar Jail. He has testified that he got DD No.10 dated 19.5.07 lodged at Police Post Tis Hazari which is ExPW25/D. The witness has testified that on 27.5.2007 after receiving permission from the doctor he received
the aforesaid human parts from Mortuary Subzi Mandi and handed them over to the Investigating Officer Inspector Ombir Singh at DDU Hospital Mortuary, who took the same into possession vide receipt ExPW25/E. He has also proved that Inspector Ombir prepared the site plan at his instance vide ExPW25/F on 1.6.2007 and his statement was recorded by the Investigating Officer.
(102)
He has correctly identified the case property i.e. one carton
box having the mark fresh fruits, one blue coloured blouse, one red and white child's top, one polythene having the mark T.N.Luthra, some pieces of Hindustan Times newspaper dated May 6 th 2007, some pieces of plastic rope and some polythene pieces which are collectively ExP-3.
(103)
In his cross examination the witness has deposed that he
reached in front of State Bank at about 5.50 AM and PCR van was already present at that time and hardly one or two public person was present at that time and has voluntarily explained that it was early morning at that time. According to him, they all were police officials and they remained there for about 1 or 1 hour. He does not remember the exact time when crime team reached there and has voluntarily explained that the crime team reached after about 30 minutes. He has further deposed that it was in his personal knowledge that a headless body without limbs was found at gate no.1 of Tihar Jail and he had a talk with SHO Hari Nagar Inspector Ombir Singh between 8 AM to 9 AM. He has admitted that public persons were moving in the court complex at the time when Investigating Officer prepared the site plan but no public person was cited as witness on the site plan. He has denied the suggestion that he had not joined the investigation or that his signatures on ExPW25/F and ExPW25/C were taken by Inspector Ombir later on.
(104)
ASI Kishan Chand (PW26) deposed that on 18.05.2007 he
was posted at police station Hari Nagar as ASI and on that day at about 6:50AM he received a call vide DD No.10A which is Ex.PW19/A regarding dead body lying at main gate, Jail No. 1. He has further deposed that on receipt of this information he along with Ct. Ram Singh went to the spot at main gate Jail No. 1 where they found a plastic katta duly stitched and closed lying on the footpath on the road side with the words Ricken Reliance Product, PVC Made in India, Reliance Industries Ltd. Hazira Gujarat written on it. The witness has also deposed that without opening the katta he called the crime team because even previously a dead body had been found in the same area and therefore he got suspicious and he called the crime team and the photographer from the west district. He has further deposed that in the meanwhile the Addl. SHO Police Station Hari Nagar came to the spot and the photographer of the crime team also came to the spot and took photographs. He has further deposed that the crime team lifted exhibits and thereafter opened the plastic katta which was containing another plastic katta with a lotus design on it duly stitched which was also opened in his presence. According to him, between the first plastic katta and the second plastic katta there were two letters one was written on a yellow paper with a green pen and the other was a printed paper containing a writing on the back side in green ink after which a seizure memo of both the letters was prepared vide memo which is Ex.PW26/A. He has testified deposed that the second katta on opening was found to contain a head less body with both the arms missing and the legs below the knees were also missing. He has further deposed that the photographer of the crime team also took the photographs of the same and on examination of the body it was found to be of a male who
appeared to be around 25-26 years of age and medium built and dusky complexion (saanwla). According to the witness, seizure memo of the dead body and all the articles recovered at the spot was prepared vide Ex.PW26/B. The witness has further deposed that he prepared a tehrir which is Ex.PW26/C which he sent to the police station Hari Nagar through Ct. Ram Singh for registration of the FIR and after Ct. Ram Singh returned with the original rukka and the copy of the FIR which he handed over to Addl. SHO Police Station Hari Nagar he prepared the site plan on his pointing out which site plan is Ex.PW26/D. According to the witness, he thereafter directed Ct. Ram Singh to take the headless body to DDU Hospital Mortuary and his statement was recorded by the Addl. SHO and was relieved from the spot.
(105)
He has identified the two letters placed on the judicial record
as the same which were recovered from the first katta and the letter written on the yellow page with green ink which is Ex.P-4 and the letter written with a green ink on a printed page containing the words geography paper which is Ex.P-5; a blue colored rope with which the second katta containing the body was tied which is Ex.P6; the clothes of the children (seven in number) which were put on the parts of the body which are Ex.P7 collectively; the first katta containing the second katta which is Ex.P8 and the second katta containing the headless body which is Ex.P9.
(106)
reached the spot within ten minutes after receiving the call. He has admitted that katta lying at the spot was stitched from its both sides. He has further stated that he had not seen any blood stains outside the katta or leaking from inside and there were no blood spots. According to the witness, crime team reached at the spot after about 45 minutes of his
reaching at the spot. The witness has testified that the recovered letter was not under any cover or polythene bag, it was in the space between the two kattas. According to him, the second katta was also properly stitched from its both side. He does not remember whether blood was oozing out from second katta (containing headless body) or not. He has denied the suggestion that he was unable to tell the details with regard to the status of the body and the blood stains because he was a planted witness. The witness has further deposed that when he left the police station, he had made a departure entry and has voluntarily explained that it is a part of DD No. 10A. According to him, Ct. Ram Singh left the spot with rukka at about 9:55 AM and returned back along with original rukka and copy of FIR at about 11 AM. He has admitted that the seizure memo contains the details contents of the letters Ex.P-4 and Ex.P-5. He has denied the suggestion that he cannot tell the contents of the seizure memo or that no letters were recovered and the seizure memo was prepared ante-datedly on the directions of the senior officers. He has testified that the original letters were handed over to the Addl. SHO and the letters had been removed from the sack/katta by a member of the crime team who was wearing gloves. The witness has further stated that in his presence the crime team had not lifted any finger prints from the said letters. He has admitted that he was not aware of what the Addl. SHO did with these letters later on. He has denied the suggestion that he had not joined the proceedings as stated by him or that all the documents were fabricated at police station.
(107)
ASI Arjun Singh (PW27) has deposed that on 19.5.07 he was
posted at Polie Station Subzi Mandi and on that day on receipt of DD no.4-A Ex.PW25/A, he reached in front of State Bank of India, Tis Hazari and after some time SI Arun Tyagi also reached there. He has
further deposed that they found a carton box lying in front of State Bank of India which was found containing the human parts after which SI Arun Tyagi conveyed this information to Senior Officials and called the crime team including the photographer and at the same time, SHO Police Station Subzi Mandi Shri Ramesh Kumar, ACP Subzi Mandi reached there. According to the witness, after some time the crime team reached there and the carton box was thoroughly checked. He has testified that it was found containing two upper limbs from finger to shoulder wrapped in an old newspaper and there was a transparent polythene bag which was found containing sexual parts containing penis, testicles and pubic hairs and the photographer took the photographs of the said organs. He has further deposed that the crime team inspected the spot and he and Ct. Ramesh were sent to Subzi Mandi Mortuary to deposit the found organs to preserve the same vide token no.355. The witness has testified that he left Ct. Ramesh for guarding the said parts at Mortuary and SI Arun Tyagi converted the aforesaid carton box and the pieces of Hindustan Times newspapers dated 6.5.2007 some of them were blood stained, the transparent polythene having the firm name as T.N.Luthra mfd. by Triloki Hosiery Ltd. and its telephone number, one blue colour cloth blouse, one red and white colour old top of child, some pieces of plastic rope and some polythene pieces in parcels and sealed the same with the seal of AK. He has proved that he took the aforesaid parcels into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW25/C. The witness has deposed that during the investigation, they came to know that one plastic bag was found containing body of a human being was without limbs and sexual parts were found lying in front of gate no.1 Tihar Jail in the area of Police Station Hari Nagar and a case FIR no.279/07 was already registered
under Section 302/201 IPC at Police Station Hari Nagar.
He has
testified that SI Arun Tyagi talked the Investigating Officer of that case Inspector Ombir Singh and informed him about the human parts of the body and suspected that these parts may be the parts of the same body which were found at Tihar Jail. He has also deposed that SI Arun Tyagi got the DD no.10 dated 19.5.07 lodged at Police Post Tis Hazari which is Ex.PW25/D. According to him, on 27.5.2007 after receiving permission from the doctor SI Arun Tyagi received the aforesaid human parts from Mortuary Subzi Mandi and handed them over to the Investigating Officer Inspector Ombir Singh at DDU Hospital Mortuary, who took the same into possession vide receipt Ex.PW25/E.
(108)
He has identified the case property i.e. one carton box having
the mark fresh fruits, one blue coloured blouse, one red and white child's top, one polythene having the mark T.N.Luthra, some pieces of Hindustan Times newspaper dated May 6th 2007, some pieces of plastic rope and some polythene pieces which is Ex.P3.
(109)
reached in front of State Bank at about 5.30 AM where PCR van was already present and no public person was present at that time and has voluntarily explained that it was early morning at that time. He does not remember as to who were on patrolling duty on the previous night in the court complex from the police post Tis Hazari. He also does not remember the period during which he stayed in front of State Bank in the investigation of this case or the time when he left the spot for mortuary. He has further deposed that crime team reached the spot after about 30 minutes and no public person was present at that time and there was no chowkidar present there at that time. He has denied the suggestion that he had not joined the investigation or that his signature
on ExPW25/C was taken by Inspector Ombir later on.

(110)
HC Ram Singh (PW29) has deposed that on 18.05.2007 he
was posted at police station Hari Nagar as Constable and on that day he was on emergency duty and ASI Kishan Chand had received a call regarding a dead body lying opposite central Jail near the wall. He has further deposed that on receipt of this information he along with ASI Kishan Chand went to the spot at main road, Central Jail where they found a plastic katta duly stitched with a rope and closed lying on the footpath opposite the jail. He has also deposed that ASI Kishan Chand immediately informed the Addl. SHO Police Station Hari Nagar who also came to the spot and the crime was also called to the spot along with a private photographer. He has testified that the katta was opened and it was found to contain a headless body with missing body parts and the portions which were cut were stuffed with clothes of children. He has also deposed that two letters were also recovered from the first katta which has been stitched which letters were removed by the Addl. SHO and thereafter the second katta was opened which contained this headless body stuffed with the clothes of children. According to him, a seizure memo of both the letters was prepared vide memo Ex.PW26/A. He has further deposed that the photographer took the photographs of the spot and of the body and seizure memo of the dead body and all the articles recovered at the spot were prepared vide memo Ex.PW26/B. He has testified that ASI Kishan Chand prepared a tehrir Ex.PW26/C which he handed over to him for taking the same to the police station for registration of the FIR. According to the witness, he went to the police station Hari Nagar on a two wheeler scooter and after getting the FIR registered he returned to the spot along with the original rukka and the copy of the FIR which he handed over to Inspector Ombir and thereafter
on the directions of Inspector Ombir he took the said body to DDU Hospital Mortuary and got the same preserved there. He has testified that he remained in the mortuary till the time it was taken away for last rites and till such time the same remained in the mortuary it was not tampered.
(111)
He has identified the case property i.e. two letters placed on
the judicial record as the same which were recovered from the first katta and the letter written on the yellow page with green ink which is Ex.P4; letter written with a green ink on a printed page containing the words geography paper which is Ex.P5; a blue colored rope with which the second katta containing the body was tied, which rope is Ex.P6; the clothes of the children (seven in number) which have been identified by the witness as those which were put on the parts of the body which had been cut which are Ex.P7 collectively; the first katta containing the second katta which is Ex.P8 and the second katta containing the headless body which is Ex.P9.
(112)
In his cross examination, the witness has deposed that he
reached the spot at about 7:00 AM. He has admitted that the katta lying at the spot was stitched from its both sides. He has further deposed that he had seen some stains outside the katta which appeared to be blood stains and has voluntarily explained that he had not touched them to see. According to him, the said stains were semi dry and crime team reached at the spot after about 30 minutes of his reaching at the spot. He has further deposed that the recovered letter was not under any cover and has voluntarily explained that they were in the polythene bag. He has also stated that the second katta was also properly stitched from its mouth and was closed and the blood was oozing out from the body and was sticking to the second katta containing headless body. He has
denied the suggestion that he was unable to tell the details with regard to the age and other position of the body because he was a planted witness and he had not participated in the investigations as deposed by him. The witness has also deposed that he had not made a separate departure entry and has voluntarily explained that ASI Kishan Chand had made a entry. He has also deposed that he left the spot with rukka at about 10 AM and returned back along with original rukka and copy of FIR at about 11AM. According to the witness, the seizure memo Ex.PW26/A is in the handwriting of ASI Kishan Chand and he had read the same before signing and has voluntarily explained that it contains the contents of the letter. He has clarified that he knew that it contains the contents of the letters but he had not read the said contents. He is also unable to tell the number of pages of the seizure memos. He has denied the suggestion that he was unable to tell the details because all the documentations were done later on and he had signed the same later on on the directions of the senior officers and ASI Kishan Chand had taken out the said letters from the katta. He is not aware whether ASI Kishan Chand kept the recovered letter with himself or handed over the same to any other senior officer and he also not aware if ASI Kishan Chand was wearing any gloves at the time of taking out of said letters. He does not recollect if there were blood on the said letters. He has denied the suggestion that he had not joined the proceedings as stated by him or that all the documents were fabricated at police station.
(113)
Inspector Hoshiyar Singh (PW40) was the SHO Police
Station Hari Nagar and has identified the handwriting and signatures of Inspector Omvir Singh the then Additional SHO who had been associated with him in official capacity and is presently not available in India having permanently settled abroad whose address was not known.
He has deposed that in the year 2007 he was posted as SHO Police Station Hari Nagar and Inspector Omvir Singh was his Additional SHO. According to the witness as on date, Inspector Omvir Singh had left the job and has reportedly, permanently settled in Austria and his whereabouts are unknown. However, he could identify his handwriting and signatures having worked with him for almost one year and also having investigated other cases of the present accused of the same police station of the same period along with Inspector Omvir Singh. The witness has also deposed that he is the Investigating Officer in FIR No. 243/07 and as per the records of the present case, on 28.05.2007, Inspector Omvir Singh had participated in the investigations of the present case and prepared the disclosure statement and pointing out memo of accused Chander Kant Jha which is in his handwriting, which is Ex.PW40/A bearing the signatures of Inspector Omvir Singh at point A. He has also proved the seizure memos of photographs dated 06.08.2007 which is Ex.PW21/A bearing the signatures of Inspector Omvir Singh at point B; seizure memo of PCR form which is Ex.PW11/B bearing the signatures of Inspector Omvir Singh at point B; seizure memo of documents relating to H.No. 229/2 Haiderpur which is Ex.PW3/A bearing the signatures of Inspector Omvir Singh at point B; Identification statement of dead body by Deepak Kumar dated 12 th June 2007 which is Ex.PW40/B bearing the signatures of Inspector Omvir Singh at point A; Identification statement of dead body by Sushil Kumar dated 12th June 2007 which is Ex.PW40/C bearing the signatures of Inspector Omvir Singh at point A; seizure memo of photograph obtained photographer Sanjay Kumar dated 11th August 2007 which is Ex.PW34/C bearing the signatures of Inspector Omvir Singh at point B; seizure memo in connection with Postmortem No. 581/07 dated 14 th
June 2007 which is Ex.PW15/H bearing the signatures of Inspector Omvir Singh at point B; seizure memo in connection with PM NO. 582/07 dated 14th June 2007 which is Ex.PW15/I bearing the signatures of Inspector Omvir Singh at point B; seizure memo in connection with PM NO. 583/07 dated 14th June 2007 which is Ex.PW15/J bearing the signatures of Inspector Omvir Singh at point B; Site plan dated 1 st June 2007 which is Ex.PW25/F bearing the signatures of Inspector Omvir Singh at point B; Site plan dated 18 th May 2007 which is Ex.PW26/D bearing the signatures of Inspector Omvir Singh at point A; Scaled site plan dated 26th July 2007 prepared by SI Mahesh Kumar Draftsman which is Ex.PW16/A bearing the signatures of Inspector Omvir Singh at point B; application for filing the FSL result dated 20 th August 2008 which is Ex.PW40/D bearing the signatures of Inspector Omvir Singh at point A; application for filing of opinion of chemical expert regarding exhibit (viscera) dated 3rd April 2008 which is Ex.PW40/E bearing the signatures of Inspector Omvir Singh at point A; request for postmortem of skull and teeth of an unidentified person which is Ex.PW40/F bearing the signatures of Inspector Omvir Singh at point A; Brief facts of the case for postmortem dated 26th May 2007 which is Ex.PW40/G (containing two pages) bearing the signatures of Inspector Omvir Singh at point A; request for examination of viscera, blood samples, clothes etc. dated 26th May 2007 which is Ex.PW40/H (containing two pages) bearing the signatures of Inspector Omvir Singh at point A; one of the receipt memo of human body parts dated 27 th May 2007 which is Ex.PW25/E bearing the signatures of Inspector Omvir Singh at point B; Request for postmortem of mutilated parts of unknown dead body i.e limbs, both hands and private parts dated 13.06.2007 which is Ex.PW40/I bearing the signatures of Inspector Omvir Singh at point A;
Carbon copy of receipt of handing over of the dead body of unknown person dated 14.06.2007 which is Ex.PW40/J bearing the signatures of Inspector Omvir Singh at point A; Arrest memo of accused Chanderkant Jha dated 28.05.2007 which is Ex.PW40/K bearing the signatures of Inspector Omvir Singh at point A and Specimen handwriting of accused Chanderkant Jha dated 8th June 2007 containing pages S1 to S64 which are Ex.PW28/H collectively bearing the signatures of Inspector Omvir Singh on all pages at point B respectively. (114) In his cross-examination by the Ld. Defence Counsel the witness has deposed that he cannot tell the details with regard to the preparation of the above documents and he has only identified the signatures of Inspector Omvir Singh in official capacity. He has denied the suggestion that he has deposed falsely at the instance of the senior officers or that he had never seen Inspector Omvir Singh signing in official capacity in his presence. According to the witness, Inspector Omvir Singh is not getting the pension and has voluntarily explained that it is for this reason that his present address is not in their knowledge. He has admitted that the High Commission of India and Austria must be having the list of all the Indians residing there. (115) It has been observed by this Court that under the given circumstances, it would be difficult to secure the presence of the witness before this court without undue delay and expenses.
(116)
He has denied the suggestion that the absence of Inspector
Omvir Singh is deliberate and he has been deliberately prevented from appearing before the court only to deprive the defence from putting the investigations lapses and lacunas to him, the case being based on circumstantial evidence. The witness has also denied the suggestion that he has no personal knowledge about the day to day investigations in the
present case and has voluntarily explained that being the SHO and also the investigating officer in FIR No. 243/07 against the same accused, he was aware of the investigations though he is unable to give the details. STATEMENT OF THE ACCUSED/ DEFENCE EVIDENCE: (117) After completion of prosecution evidence the statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein all the incriminating evidence was put to him which he has denied.
(118)
According to the accused he was working at Subzimandi
Azadpur where there is a police chowki near the place where his adda was being put and the police officers from the chowki used to often come to him for taking vegetables without making payment for the same to which he objected but his vegetables were forcibly taken. He has further stated that they also used to take money from various vegetables vendors including himself as a monthly / protection money and initially they used to take Rs.200/- to Rs.300/- in the year 1990 but later on they increased the rate to almost Rs.2,000/- in the year 1995-96. According to him, after he got married in the year 1997 he could not pay them because of his increased expenses and therefore he was falsely implicated by them in criminal cases. He has further stated that in the year 1998, there was a murder in the Azadpur Mandi where the body which was recovered had been beheaded and the head was missing wherein he was also taken for inquires by the police along with other persons from the Mandi. According to the accused, in the same year he was told by the junior officers to procure a bike for the senior officer and he was also told that he may not make the payment of monthly till Holi, on which he told them that he could not pay as he had to go home on Diwali. The accused has further deposed that on this he was lifted
from his house at Sarai Pipalthala before Diwali and was detained in the police station for five days after which he was falsely implicated in the said murder case which had taken place at Azadpur Mandi. According to him, the other boys from the Mandi who had come to secure his release namely Chhuttan, Jawar and his brother Sadanand were also falsely implicated. He has also stated that he remained in jail for three years after which he was acquitted by the court and after he was released, he worked for some days in the Mandi but the police again started harassing him and therefore in the year 2003 he left the job of sale of vegetables and started the work of sale of plastic items of domestic use which he used to sell in the weekly bazars and at homes as well. According to him, in year 2003 he shifted from Sarai Pipalthala to village Sahipur in the house of Dilawar Singh where he stayed till the year 2005 and in November 2005 he was falsely implicated in a case of scooter theft under Section 411 IPC by the police of Police Station Samaipur Badli and had to remain in jail till 17 July 2006. The accused has stated that he had secured a bail in that case when he was released in July 2006 and in the meanwhile his wife and children continued to reside at village Sahipur. He has also stated that he had to vacate the said house thereafter as his landlord refused to permit him to stay in the house on account of his involvements after which he shifted to the house of Sanjay in Gali No.6, Haiderpur where his youngest daughter was born in August, 2006. He has further stated that he could not afford the rent of the said room and therefore after two months during the Diwali of 2006 he started residing at Alipur in a house at Dayal market which was behind the house from where he was lifted by the police. According to the accused in the initial months of 2007, he had gone to the court to attend a date and was appearing in the court of Sh. Prashant
Kumar, MM, when he was picked up from there and taken to Police Station Hari Nagar. The accused has further stated that after his interrogation, he was left after a few hours and they also saw the room where he was staying with his family which he had shown to them. He has also stated that on three or four occasions he was called by the police from the room for purposes of inquiries in some murder cases and that they also took copies of the charge sheets of his other cases. According to the accused they also inquired from him about the details of the other persons who had been facing criminal trial along with him in other cases and he told them that his brother had gone back home. He has further stated that he told them that Mohd. Chhuttan had gone back home because of the Rojas and he had no links with Jawar Singh. According to him, since police used to frequently visit his house, his children were scared that he may again be implicated by the police and he told them that they would change the house and not inform the police and they need not be scared and therefore he changed the room and shifted to House No. 592, Alipur in the house of Dayal Singh Maan. He has stated that from the said house he continued the work of sale of articles of domestic use by putting a thaiya on his cart and also used to sell these articles in the weekly bazars. According to him, on 19.5.2007 in the evening while he and his family were about to take dinner suddenly some police official i.e. SI Narender entered the room and inquired about his name and after he disclosed his name to him (SI Narender) he called him outside and when he tried to speak to him, he was not prepared to listen. The accused has further stated that his wife Mamta also objected but in the meanwhile a large number of police officials came and lifted him and took him to Haiderpur. He has further stated that later on, when his wife had come to visit him after seven
days, she told him that even she and children and their neighbour Ram Sagar were also lifted and taken away. ACP Anil Lal and SI Dalip Kaushik were already present in the said vehicle in which his was lifted. According to him, in Haiderpur he was kept for hardly five minutes in the house of Rajiv Kumar who had come to the court to depose where they spoke to some person and said something to them and again brought him back to the Rajouri Garden police station where he was kept in handcuffs. He has also stated that throughout the night he was shifted to various police stations and large number of papers were prepared. The accused has further stated that he insisted that his family should be informed about his arrest where he was being kept but he was asked to keep quite and told that they would permit him to meet his family in the police station. According to him, in the morning he was shifted to the office of special staff where he was kept for ten days during the period of remand. He has further stated that he was not permitted to speak anything during this period and paraded before the media after they caught hold of him from all sides. He has denied having made any disclosure to the police or having pointed out any place. According to him, all documents have been prepared by the police of their own and he was compelled to sign various witnesses by torturing him and he had no option but to comply. He has stated that nothing was recovered at his instance and the Jamatalasi as shown by the police has been planted. According to the accused the police officers have all made false statements. He has further stated that he is a poor man and a victim of the police system and of the atrocities committed by them. He has further stated that he has been falsely implicated in this case because the police was under immense pressure to workout the various cases and it was only because of his earlier murder case of police Station Azadpur
where a beheaded body had been found in the Mandi in which case he had been acquitted by the Hon'ble court, that the police in order to workout the later cases have now implicated him in the present case, with which he has no concern. He has further stated that deceased Anil Mandal was not known to him and he has no concern with him or his family and the question of his having any reason to cause any harm to him does not arise. He has alleged that all the documents so produced by the investigating agency have been created by the police to implicate him and when he was arrested, the police officials had given kharcha (expenses) for two three months to his wife and told the landlord not to harass his wife for rent of the house. According to him, the police also told his wife that she would not worry and he would be released after one to one and a half year. He has also stated that the police promised him that if he admit his involvement in these cases, they would leave him after about one to one and a half year. He has further stated that he has been targeted by the police being poor person.
(119)
The accused Chanderkant Jha has examined himself as his
own witness as DW1 wherein he has deposed that he has falsely implicated in the present case earlier in the year 2002 in which case he was acquitted by the Hon'ble Court and copy of the said judgment is Mark X1 (collectively). According to him, he was in jail in the year 2006 from 29th November 2005 to 17th July 2006 and in this regard the RTI Informations received from Information Officer, Central Jail Tihar and Rohini are Ex.DW1/A and Ex.DW1/B. He has relied upon the news reports Ex.DW1/C collectively and has deposed that he was never produced in the Court from jail on 26.6.2007 and in this regard the RTI reply from Information Officer, District Jail Rohini is Ex.DW1/D collectively running into four pages and the RTI reply received from
Third Battalion is Ex.DW1/E collectively running into three pages. The accused/ witness has also placed his reliance upon the RTI reply received from Information Officer, Sh. Rishi Pal, Addl. DCP First, regarding his release in FIR No. 620/2003 PS Hair Nagar from the court, copy of which reply is Ex.DW1/F; the RTI reply received from Sh. B. K. Singh, Public Information Officer, Outer District, Delhi Police regarding his release from the court of Sh. Sanatan Prasad, MM, Rohini in case FIR No. 749/05 PS Mongolpuri, copy of which reply is Ex.DW1/G; RTI reply pertaining to the fact that SI Jai Prakash was not a part of raiding party on 20.5.2007, copy of which reply is Ex.DW1/H; RTI reply received from the office of Commissioner of Police, Delhi showing that he (accused) had never remained in jail with the Anil Mandal @ Amit S/o Tiwari Mandal, Village Oghari, PO Maijsa Munda, PS Khalgaon, Distt. Bhagalpur, Bihar, which reply is Ex.DW1/I collectively running into 21 pages.
(120)
The accused has further placed on record the certified copy of
judgment dated 30.10.2009 passed by Sh. Sudhanshu Kaushik, Ld. M.M. Rohini Court in case State Vs. Mohd. Vaseem etc. FIR No. 452/03, U/s 457/380/411/34 IPC of P.S. S.P. Badli wherein he has been acquitted, which judgment is Ex.DW1/J; certified copy of judgment dated 20.08.2009 passed by Sh. Sudhanshu Kaushik, Ld. M.M. Rohini Court in case State Vs. Chander Kant Jha, FIR No. 531/03, U/s 380/451/411/34 IPC of P.S. S.P. Badli wherein he has been acquitted, which is Ex.DW1/K; RTI information dated 24.08.2009 received from Superintendent Jail Tihar, Jail No. 8/9 which is Ex.DW1/L alongwith the photograph which is Ex.DW1/M; RTI dated 27.04.2009 received from General Manager (OP & CPIO) K.L. Bhawan, Janpath, Delhi which is running into four pages which is Ex.DW1/N; RTI dated
26.11.2010 received from
Central Public Information Officer-cum-
Addl. Deputy Commissioner of Police-I, West District, New Delhi is running into two pages which is Ex.DW1/O.
(121)
DW2 Narender Rana Warden from Rohini Jail has brought
the summoned record pertaining to accused Chander Kant Jha S/o Sh. Radhey Kant. According to him, as per the jail record, Chander Kant Jha was lodged in Rohini jail from 18.03.2006 to 17.07.2006 in the following cases: 1. FIR No. 1003/05, U/s 379 IPC, P.S. Shalimar Bagh. 2. FIR No. 1004/05, U/s 379/411 IPC, P.S. Shalimar Bagh. 3. FIR No. 452/03, U/s 457/380/411/34 IPC, P.S. S.P. Badli. 4. FIR No. 531/03 U/s 457/380/411/34 IPC,P.S. S.P. Badli. 5. FIR No. 531/04 U/s 457/380/411/34 IPC, P.S. Narela. 6. FIR No. 912/05 U/s 411 IPC, P.S. S.P. Badli.
(122)
Witness has proved the detailed report of the Deputy
Superintendent, District Jail Rohini which is Ex.DW2/A and the copy of register is Ex.DW2/B.
(123)
In his his cross examination by Ld. Addl. PP for the State, the
witness has deposed that as per the record the accused remained in custody throughout this period i.e. 18.03.2006 to 17.07.2006 and was never enlarged on bail/ interim bail/ parole. According to him in case if an under trial prisoner is released on interim bail or parole an indication to this effect is made in the said register itself and has voluntarily explained that in the present case the accused had never been released on any interim bail or parole and only released on 17.7.2006. He has further deposed that the said endorsement is not made in the register which he has produced in the Court and in case if a person was on interim bail it is mentioned on the warrant. According to the witness he
has brought the warrants of Chander Kant Jha in respect of the above periods and there is no endorsement on the same to the effect that he had been ever released on interim bail/ parole.
(124)
DW3 Mrs. Mamta is the wife of the accused who has
deposed that she was married to him in the year 1997 in Delhi and she has five daughters. According to the witness, her eldest daughter is about 14 years of age who was born at Azadpur, Delhi and her youngest daughter is about 5 years of age. Witness has further deposed that earlier they used to reside at Azadpur after which they resided at Sahipur, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi, thereafter in gali No. 6, Haiderpur, Delhi and thereafter they finally went to Alipur. She has also deposed that her husband Chander Kant was arrested at the house at Alipur where they previously resided. She has testified that her husband was involved in the sale of plastic articles in the weekly market and used to leave for purchases at 10AM and returned by 3 PM and again used to go in the evening for sale of articles. The witness has further deposed that they used to reside along with their children i.e. five daughters in one room tenement. According to the witness, her in-laws did not stay with them. She has alleged that her husband Chander Kant was lifted by the police on 19.05.2007 from their house at Alipur where they were staying i.e. house of Sanjay and in the evening hours 10-15 plain clothes persons claiming to be police officials had come to their house and picked up Chander Kant Jha and took him somewhere in a car. She has further alleged that she along with her children and one Ram Sewak were also lifted and put in a jeep like vehicle and taken to some place which appeared to be police station / office. According to the witness, they were detained there for about four days and not permitted to meet Chander Kant and they were told by these persons that Chander Kant
would be released within one or two years. She has testified that they were told that they should continue to reside in the said house without even paying the rent after which she was left at her house from where she was lifted and was also given two-three thousand rupees. According to the witness, her room had been locked and hence they broke the lock and told him that she need not fear and should continue to reside there. Witness has further deposed that the behaviour of Chander Kant with her and with children had been good and they has no complaints and he has been falsely implicated.
(125)
In her cross examination by Ld. Addl. PP for the State, witness
has deposed that her eldest daughter was born on 14.02.1998; her youngest daughter was born on 02 nd of August, 2006; her second daughter was born in the year 2003 and her third daughter was born in the year 2004. According to the witness, her daughter elder to the youngest was born on 19.03.2005 and her four daughters were born at home, only one i.e. the second daughter was born in the hospital. She has further deposed that all her children used to go to school and the date of births which she has given in the Court are the same which she had given in the school record of the children. She does not remember the year, but they resided in the house at gali No. 6, Haiderpur where her youngest daughter was born at home. She does not recollect the name of the landlord and states that there were only two rooms outside and has voluntarily explained that the landlord used to reside inside so she is unable to tell how many rooms were there inside. She has denied the suggestion that her mother-in-law had also come to Delhi and stayed in the house at Haiderpur and has voluntarily explained that she had come to Delhi when her husband was first implicated in a murder case, when she stayed at Azadpur where she was residing at that time. Witness has
further deposed that she does not recollect the year and states that thereafter her mother-in-law never came to Delhi nor her mother has ever come to Delhi. She has testified that she is totally illiterate and only put her thumb impressions. According to the witness, her husband used to earn about five-six thousand rupees per month. She does not remember the time period for which they resided at Sahipur, Shalimar Bagh and has voluntarily explained that the houses were started demolishing and thereafter on the asking of landlord they left. The witness has further deposed that at present her husband is languishing in jail in three murder cases and prior to that he was acquitted in another murder case. She is not aware if any other cases are or were pending against her husband nor she is able to tell the size of the tenanted room in which they used to reside along with her five daughters. The witness has admitted that there was one door to the said room opening to the gallery outside and has voluntarily explained that the room also had a window. She has denied the suggestion that there was no window in the said room or that she was residing in the room which was inside the building and has voluntarily explained that the room was outside and opened towards outside. She does not remember therefore she cannot tell any other date on which police took her husband in custody in any other case. The witness has denied the suggestion that the date 19.05.2007 has been tutored to her or that she has taken legal assistance prior to her deposition in the court. She has also deposed that she did not make any complaint on 100 number regarding lifting of his husband by 10-15 persons claiming themselves as police officials and has voluntarily explained that she was also lifted along with children and hence there was no occasion. She has denied the suggestion that she, her children and Ram Sewak were never lifted by any of the police
officials at any time or that she in this regard she deposed falsely since accused is her husband. Witness has further deposed that her husband used to go to sell the plastic articles in a paddle rickshaw. She has denied the suggestion that motor had been affixed on the said rickshaw. According to the witness, they used to pay Rs.600/- as rent in the house at Alipur and Rs.550/- in the house at Haiderpur. The witness has denied the suggestion that she has deposed falsely to save her husband from penal consequences.
(126)
DW4 Sh. Man Mohan Assistant Superintendent, Central Jail
No.1, Tihar has brought the summoned record pertaining to Chander Kant Jha S/o Sh. Radhey Kant. According to him, as per the jail record, Chander Kant Jha was lodged in Tihar jail from 29.11.2005 to 18.03.2006 in the following cases: 1. FIR No. 1003/05, U/s 379 IPC, P.S. Shalimar Bagh. 2. FIR No. 1004/05, U/s 379/411 IPC, P.S. Shalimar Bagh. 3. FIR No. 452/03, U/s 457/380/411/34 IPC, P.S. S.P. Badli. 4. FIR No. 531/03 U/s 457/380/411/34 IPC,P.S. S.P. Badli. 5. FIR No. 531/04 U/s 457/380/411/34 IPC, P.S. Narela. 6. FIR No. 912/05 U/s 411 IPC, P.S. S.P. Badli.
(127)
Witness has proved the details of the prisoner Chander Kant
Jha which are Ex.DW4/A (running into two pages containing his old as well as new photographs and record which photographs are admitted by the accused) and the copy of the register no. 1 showing the case details which is Ex.DW4/B (running into two pages).
(128)
In his cross examination by Ld. Addl. PP for the State, the
witness has deposed that as per the record the accused remained in custody through out this period i.e. 29.11.2005 to 18.03.2006 and was not on any interim bail / parole at any point of time and has voluntarily
explained that thereafter, the accused was shifted to Rohini Jail i.e. after 18.03.2006 and his records are maintained there. He has admitted that on Ex.DW4/A name of accused is mentioned as Chander Kumar S/o Radhey Kant. FINDINGS: (129) I have heard the arguments advanced by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State and the Ld. Defence Counsel. I have also gone through the written synopsis/ memorandum of arguments filed on behalf of the parties and the evidence on record. I first propose to deal with all the averments made by the various witnesses so examined by the prosecution individually in a tabulated form as under and later on comprehensively.
Sr. No. 1.
Name of the witness Rajiv Kumar (PW3)
Details of deposition
PUBLIC WITNESSES: He is the landlord of the accused and has deposed on the following aspects: 1. That he resides at H. No. 155, Haiderpur, Delhi and the property bearing No.229/2, Ambedkar Nagar, Haiderpur is in the name of his grandmother Late Smt. Ramkali. 2. That in October 2004 one room in the said property was rented out by him to one Vikas R/o Bihar, who remained in that room till December, 2005 after which the said room was lying vacant. 3. That in April 2006, Vikas came to him along with accused Chanderkant and introduced him as his maternal uncle and requested him to rent out the said room to the accused and his family members for residential purpose. 4. The witness has further deposed that he rented out the said room to the accused at a monthly rent of Rs.700/- after which the accused started living in the said room along with his wife and children and the accused told him that he was doing work in Azadpur Mandi of sale of vegetables.
Page No. 122
5. That in April 2007 the accused shifted his wife and children to some other place while he used to visit the said room alone. 6. That since the rent for the entire month had been paid hence he (Rajiv Kumar) did not object to the lock of the accused on the room where the accused still had some articles kept. 7. That in May 2007, he came to know that the accused had been arrested in a murder case by the police. 8. That on 07.07.2007 police called him at Police Station Hari Nagar and handed over photocopy of certificate issued by BDO Gram Sabha, Haiderpur regarding the property No. 229/2, Ambedkar Nagar, Haiderpur, the photocopy of the electricity bill of the said property and the photocopy of his driving licence which were taken into police possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW3/A, the original certificate issued by BDO is Ex.PW3/B and photocopy of his original driving licence is Ex.PW3/C. 2. Dev Raj (PW6) He is the STD Booth owner from where the accused had made a call at PCR. He has deposed on the following aspects: 1. That he is running a general store situated at WZ17, Titarpur, Delhi (near Tagore Garden) and in his shop, he is also running the STD Booth with telephone number 42133579 and one coin inserting telephone instrument was affixed outside his shop. 2. That on 18.05.2007 at about 6.20 AM he was present at the shop when one person came there and inserted a coin in the said telephone instrument and made a telephone and after sometime, he again inserted the coin but the coin came out of the instrument. 3. That he asked that person as to whom he wanted to make a telephone call and that person handed over the coin to him and left the shop. 4. That when a person usually dials 100 number from that phone, then the coin comes out from the instrument and he thought that the person dialed 100 number at that time. 5. That when he asked that person as to whom he was making call, he became perplexed. 6. That the said person was having slight mustaches and beard, having wheatish complexion, having a height of 5 feet aged 35-36 years.
Page No. 123
7. That on the same day, police of the local police Station came to him and recorded his statement. 8. That on one occasion, he had identified that person (accused Chanderkant Jha) in the Rohini Court. He has identified that person as accused Chanderkant Jha in the Court as the person who had made a call at 100 number from his STD Booth and has proved the copy of the original bill which is Ex.PW6/A. 3. Sanjay Mann (PW8) He is the landlord of the house where the accused Chander Kant Jha used to reside with his family at the time of his arrest. He has deposed on the following aspects: 1. That he has a plot in the village Alipur, Delhi where he had constructed eight rooms which rooms were given on rent to various tenants. 2. That on 10.05.2007 wife of the accused Chander Kant Jha (whom the witness has correctly identified) came to him with her children and he had given her two rooms in the monthly rent in the sum of Rs.600/- per month. 3. That he had seen accused Chander Kant Jha there one or two occasion but he never talked with the accused. 4. That three months prior from the day of his deposition the wife and five children of the accused shifted to another place. The witness has also correctly identified the accused Chander Kant Jha in the court as the person who was his tenant. This witness is the private photographer and has deposed on the following aspects: 1. That he is running a photo studio in the name of Sanjay Studio opposite BSES Office, Tagore Garden, Delhi. 2. That on 23.5.07 on the request of Inspector Sunder Singh, Incharge Special Staff, West District he reached near Yamuna Pull (Flyover) along with him and other staff. 3. That the accused Chanderkant was also present there and pointed out towards the place where he left the skull. 4. That on request of Inspector Sunder Singh, he took eleven photographs of the skull from different angles and after developing the same, he handed over the said photographs to the Investigating Officer which are ExPW34/A1 to ExPW34/A11.
4.
Rajesh Kumar @ Sanjay Kumar (PW34)
Page No. 124
5. That he also handed over eleven negatives to the Investigating Officer which are collectively Ex.PW34/B and Investigating Officer Inspector Sunder Singh took the photographs and negatives into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW34/C. 5. Sh. Pankaj (PW43) He is the son of Sh. Mahender Rathore, a resident of Village Hari Ram Pur, Post Gauri Bazar, district Devariya, UP and is the brother of one Upender Rathore, R/o Maharajganj, Uttar Pradesh another victim whose decapitated body was found outside Central Jail Tihar on 24.04.2007 pursuant to which FIR No. 243/07 Police Station Hari Nagar was registered. Pankaj has been examined by the prosecution in the present case to prove that the accused Chander Kant Jha was using a mobile Number 9211463742 at the time when the various killings were taking place. This Pankaj had met the accused Chander Kant Jha prior to the death of Upender and had even spoken to him to inquire about his brother Upender who according to him used to work with Chander Kant Jha, and was not traceable. He has deposed on the following aspects: 1. That in the year 2006 his brother Upender was residing at village Sanaut, near Narela, Delhi. According to the witness, he was residing at Bhiwari, Rajasthan and he used to speak to his brother Upender on mobile numbers 9211463742 and 9211463743 from STD Booth. 2. That usually the call was received by the accused Chander Kant Jha, whom the witness has correctly identified, and it was thereafter he used to speak to his brother Upender. 3. That he had last spoken to his brother on 20.04.2007. 4. That he had met Chander Kant Jha along with his brother when he came to Delhi to meet his brother at village Sanaut. 5. That he met accused Chander Kant first time at Jahangirpuri as two children from his native place came Delhi and they were kept at Prayas Children Home and the relatives of the children came to Delhi and they met him and then he asked his brother Upender to get those children released when Upender told him that accused Chander Kant Jha could help to get them released and therefore his brother introduced him to accused Chander Kant Jha. 6. That after 20th April, 2007 when he could not contact his brother on the mobile number given to
Page No. 125
him i.e. 9211463742, he tried to contact him on the other number given to him by his brother i.e. 9211463743 and called him up on this number 9211463743 in May, 2007 which was picked up by a girl and when he asked her to connect him to Chander Kant Jha, she told him her father was not available and he should call back after ten minutes. 7. That again after about 10-15 minutes he called up on the same number i.e 9211463743 which call was attended to by Chander Kant Jha whose voice he could identify as he had been previously speaking to him on the other mobile number 9211463742 i.e. when he used to call Upender. 8. That he knew Chander Kant because he and his brother Upender used to work together in a mandi in partnership where they used to put a rehri of subzi in the mandi. 9. That this was the last time when he met Upender along with Chander Kant i.e. two-three months prior to 20.04.2007 when he last spoke to Upender. 10. That when he asked Chander Kant Jha about the whereabouts of Upender he told him that Upender had taken Rs.20,000/- and had also taken his rehri/ thela and gone away somewhere. The witness was shown the document Ex.PW43/A (paper slip recovered from possession of the accused at the time of his arrest) where he has identified his name and address mentioned at point X. MEDICAL EVIDENCE 6. Dr. Anil Shandil (PW2) He is the Autopsy Surgeon who on 14.06.2007 had conducted the postmortem of the decapitated body of the unknown person recovered from outside gate no. 1 Central Jail Tihar on 18.5.2007. He has proved the following aspects: 1. That both the hands and legs (below ankle, head and private parts) of the body were missing. According to the witness only one underwear was there and decapitated (headless, neck-less) body lower border face of neck at the level of sternal notch with both upper lips, shoulder with scapula dismembered and missing along with the anteriolateral posterior aspect of chest wall with parts of clavicle and ribcac visible. 2. That the corresponding wound over the body corresponding to the dismembered missing parts did not show blood clots and the residual tissue showed changes with fungus, foul smells.
Page No. 126
3. That decapitation the front at the level of anterior clavicular joint, sternal notch and in the back is cut over the seven cervical vertabrae, the intervertebral disc between C6-7 is clean cut; the traces is attached with cut part of the face of neck and not drawn in chest gravity with above five tracheal lings absent an absence of any vital reaction over the wound. 4. That on internal examination of abdomen Stomach was empty, Mucosa was congested with redening and abnormal smell not appreciable. 5. That the wounds over the body were postmortem in nature are caused by sharp edged weapon and no definite opinion regarding cause of death could be given. 6. That sternum with rib for DNA finger printing, clothes of the deceased, blood and viscera for chemical analysis and blood samples were preserved, sealed and handed over to the concerned police Investigation Officer. He has proved the detailed report in this regard which is Ex.PW2/A. 7. That on 14.06.2007, he had conducted the postmortem of skull plus teeth (unidentified) recovered from the bank of Yamuna river in the area of Police Station Seelampur, Delhi. 8. That the skull was along with one skirt and red colour piece of cloth, whole skull bones divide of scalp with facial underlying muscular tissues with fully exposed with typical characteristics of male with prominent glabella, supra orbital ridges, mastoid process, occipital protuberance more prominent with partial fusion of saggital and coronal and lamboid sutures with orbital opening big and rectangular, lower jaw absent and missing both incisors from upper jaw socket and no brain matter present. 9. That it was a dismembered skull of human body. 10. That tooth for DNA finger printing, whole skull for super imposition, two x-ray of skull preserved, sealed and handed over to Investigation Officer. He has also proved the postmortem report in this regard which is Ex.PW2/B. 11. That on the same day i.e. on 14.06.2007, he conducted postmortem of unknown mutilated parts of body i.e. limbs, both hands and private part. 12. That both side right and left upper limb (arms from shoulder to fingers) and specular part with decomposition with fungus, foul smelling and
human genitalia (penis with scortum with both testis adjacent perineal tissues with public hair with peeling of skin, decomposition without blood clots). 13. That these were the dismembered parts of human body. 14. That the right and left upper limb humerus bone for DNA finger printing along with pubic hair and hand with phalanges preserved, sealed and handed over to concerned Investigation Officer and his report to this effect is Ex.PW2/C. FORENSIC EVIDENCE: 7. Naresh Kumar He is the forensic expert who has deposed on the following (PW5|) Senior aspects: Scientific Assistant 1. That on 20.05.2007 on the request of Inspector (Biology) FSL, Sunder Singh he visited the spot i.e. House No. 229, Delhi Gali No.2, Haiderpur Village and inspected the scene of crime i.e. the room situated at ground floor where crime team members were already present there. 2. That he inspected the scene of crime and found that the blood was present in the room and he lifted some of the blood stains/ floor pieces that were marked as Mark A to Mark D and separate parcels of these articles were prepared and sealed with the seal of NK FSL. 3. That the parcel Mark A was containing blood stains lifted on a gauze cloth, near the gate of the room; Parcel Mark B containing blood stained pieces of floor taken near the gate of the room; Parcel C contained stains prepared from below the knives and Parcel D containing portion of concrete floor pieces taken from the room along with three weapons of offence i.e. knives. 4. That he inspected the knives and found that the knives were blood stained which blood was dried on the knives after which the Investigation Officer prepared the sketch of the knives and measured the same. 5. That one of the knife was having a handle wrapped with the rubber and tied with the thread and total length of that knife was 41.5 cm, blade was 28 cm, handle was 13.5 cm and the width of the blade was 4.5 cm. 6. That Investigation Officer prepared the parcel, sealed and also given serial number E to this knife. 7. That the second knife was also measured and total length of that knife was 39.8 cm, blade was 27 cm,
Page No. 128
handle was 12.8 cm, width of the blade was 7 cm and the handle of the knife was fitted with wood. 8. That Investigation Officer prepared the cloth parcel, sealed and also given serial number F to this knife. 9. That the third knife was also measured and total length of that knife was 59 cm, width of the blade was 4.5 cm and the handle of the knife was having a hole. 10. That Investigation Officer prepared the cloth parcel, sealed and also given serial number G to this knife and sketch of the knives were prepared by the Investigation Officer prior to their seizure and all the parcels were sealed with the seal of NK FSL Delhi and he signed the seizure memos. 11. That on 30.07.2007, he received ten sealed parcels which seals were intact as per FA letter and all the parcels were opened by breaking the seal. 12. That he had given serial No. 1, 2 and 6 and parcel A to G and the contents of the parcels were given Ex.1A, 1b, 1c, 1d, 1e, 1f, 1g, 1h and 1i and 2, 6a, 6b, A, B, C, D, E, F and G. 13. That he examined all the exhibits biologically and prepared his detailed report which is Ex.PW5/A and also examined the exhibits serologically and prepared his detailed report which is Ex.PW5/B. 14. That parcel containing exhibit A, B, C and D were sent to DNA Division as per inquiry No.4 of the Investigation Officer. 15. That photocopy of seizure memo of the blood stains and earth control is Ex.PW5/B and the original produced by the MHC(M) is Ex.PW5/C and seizure memo of the weapons, which were recovered from the room of the accused, seized by the Investigation Officer in a separate parcel and sealed with the seal of NK FSL, which seizure memo is Ex.PW5/D. 8. Jitender Kumar He is the forensic expert and has proved the following (PW31) Senior aspects: Scientific Assistant 1. That on 30.07.2007, he had received one parcel (Chemistry), FSL containing a polythene bag duly sealed with the Rohini seal of DDU Hospital bearing the details of PMR No. 581/07, FIR No. 279/07, PS Hari Nagar and he opened this parcel and found two exhibits 1a and 1b. 2. That Ex.1a was the stomach and small intestine with contents and Ex.1b was the piece of liver, spleen and kidney.
Page No. 129
3. That on chemical and instrumentation examination no common poison could not be detected in Ex 1a and Ex 1b. 4. That his detailed report in this regard is Ex.PW31/A according to which on chemical and TLC examination, metallic poison, ethyl and methyl alcohol, cyanide, phosphide, alkaloids, barbiturates, tranquilizers and insecticides could not be detected in exhibits 1a and 1b. 5. That the said report was forwarded to SHO Police Station Hari Nagar vide forwarding letter Ex.PW31/B. 9. Dr. A.K. This witness has proved the DNA Fingerprinting Report Srivastava (PW37) which is Ex.PW37/A and has also proved the following is the Assistant aspects: Director (Biology), 1. That on 30.07.2007 six forensic samples in the DNA Finger present case were received in their office regarding Printing Unit, DNA, finger printing test and the samples were duly FSL, Rohini sealed with the seal of DFMT, DDU hospital. 2. That parcel No.1 was found to contain Ex1 i.e. one bone piece having foul smell described as sternum vide PM No. 581/07. 3. That Parcel No. 2 was found to contain Ex2 i.e. dark brown liquid sample described as blood sample vide PM No. 581/07. 4. That parcel No. 3 was found to contain Ex3 i.e. five teeth described as teeth taken out of the skull vide PM No. 582/07. 5. That parcel No. 4 was found to contain Ex4 i.e. one bone piece having foul smell described as left upper limb bone vide PM No. 583/07. 6. That Parcel No. 5 was found to contain Ex5 i.e. one bone piece having foul smell described as right upper limb bone vide PM No. 583/07. 7. That Parcel No. 6 was found to contain Ex6 i.e. two small pieces of hair vide PM No. 583/07. 8. That the exhibit 1 to 6 were subjected to DNA isolation and DNA was isolated from the exhibits 1 to 5 however DNA could not be isolated from Ex.6 and DNA finger printing profiles were prepared for the exhibits 1 to 5. 9. That STR (Sort Tandam Repeat) analysis was used for each of the sample and data was analyzed by using Genescan and Genotype software. 10. That the DNA profile (STR analysis) performed on the exhibits provided was sufficient to conclude that Ex.1 (bone piece sternum), Ex.2 (blood sample), Ex.4 (bone piece-left upper limb born) and Ex.5
Page No. 130
(bone piece-right upper limb bone) were similar in origin. 11. That the alleles as from the sources of Ex.1 (bone piece sternum) the postmortem No. 581/07, Ex.2 (blood sample) vide PM No. 581/07, Ex.4 (bone piece left upper limb bone) vide PM No. 583/07 and Ex.5 (bone piece- right upper limb bone) vide PM No. 583/07 were matching with each other. 12. That the alleles as from the source of Ex.3 (teeth taken out from the skull) vide PM No. 582/07 was not matching with alleles from the source from Ex.1 (bone piece sternum) vide PM No. 581/07, Ex.2 (blood sample) vide PM No. 581/07, Ex.4 (bone piece-left upper limb bone) vide PM No. 583/07 and Ex.5 (bone piece-right upper limb bone) vide PM No. 583/07. 13. That on 13.03.2008 four forensic samples pertaining to this case were received in DNA Unit and all the parcels were duly sealed with the seal of NK, FSL Delhi. 14. That all the parcels were opened and examined and DNA from the Ex.A i.e. piece of cloth having dark stains, Ex B i.e. some broken cemented floor piece, Ex.C i.e. a piece of cloth having dark brown stains and Ex.D i.e. some broken cemented floor pieces described as concrete material were subjected to DNA isolation. 15. That DNA was isolated from the exhibits A and C, however DNA could not be isolated from the Ex.B and Ex.D. 16. That a partial male DNA finger printing profiles was prepared for the Ex. A and C and due to partial male DNA profile of Ex.A and C no conclusion of result could be made therefore no opinion was offered by laboratory. 17. That his detailed report to this effect is Ex.PW37/B. 10. Dr. Sanjeev Kumar He is the handwriting expert who has proved the (PW38) Senior handwriting report which is Ex.PW38/A and has proved Scientific Assistant the following aspects: (Documents), FSL 1. That the documents in connection with this case Rohini dated 18.05.2007 were received on the laboratory on 08.08.2007 and the questioned documents that enclosed writings marked Q1 to Q3 purported to be of threatening letters on two sheets and Standardblue enclosed specimen writings marked S1 to S64 of Chander Kant Jha. 2. That all the documents were carefully and thoroughly examined with scientific instruments
Page No. 131
such as Stereo Microscope, Video Spectral Comparitor- IV, Docucenter and VSC 2000/HR etc. under different lighting conditions. 3. That he was of the opinion that the person who wrote the blue enclosed writings stamped and marked S1 to S64 also wrote the red enclosed writings similarly stand and marked Q1 to Q3 for the reasons mentioned in his detailed report. 4. That the documents sent to the laboratory for examination and case report has been sealed with the seal of DOC and FSL at the time of handing over the crime exhibits/documents along with the case report. He has correctly identified the case property i.e. two letters which are Ex.P4 and Ex.P5 as the same which were examined by him in the aforesaid examination. OFFICIAL WITNESS 11. Sh. Pooran Chand He is the Ld. MM who has proved the following aspects: (PW28) 1. That on 8.6.2007 an application moved by the Investigating Officer for conducting the Judicial Test Identification Parade of the accused Chander Kant Jha had been marked to him by his link MM. 2. That pursuant to the same the accused was produced before him in muffled face but the accused refused to participate in the TIP proceedings on the pretext that his photographs had been taken and flashed in the news papers and TV channels, which proceedings are Ex.PW28/A. 3. That the statement of the accused refusing to participate in the TIP proceedings is Ex.PW28/B, which is followed by his certificate. 4. That the Ahlmad was thereafter directed to send the proceedings to the concerned court in a sealed cover. 5. That the Investigating Officer moved an application for supply of the copy of said proceedings which was duly permitted by him which application is Ex.PW28/C. 6. That another application moved by the Investigating Officer for obtaining the specimen signatures and handwriting of the accused Chander Kant Jha had also been marked to him by his 2 nd Link MM Sh. Manoj Kumar. 7. That the said application was fixed for disposal for 5.6.2007 but since the accused was not produced by the jail authorities, it was again fixed for disposal for 7.6.2007 but due to shortage of the time the
Page No. 132
specimen signatures and handwriting of the accused could not be taken since much time had been consumed in conducting the TIP proceeding of the accused which he has refused. 8. That the application was taken up on 8.6.2007 when the accused was produced before him pursuant to production warrants by the jail authorities and in his presence the handwriting and signatures of the accused Chander Kant Jha were obtained on 64 sheets and all the sheets were duly endorsed by him in the presence of Ld. Defence Counsel and the Investigating Officer. 9. That thereafter all the 64 sheets were handed over to the Investigating Officer on his request as the same were to be sent to FSL for opinion and the proceedings with regard to the same are Ex.PW8/F. 10. That the proceeding sheet dated 5.6.2007 is Ex.PW28/E and the application for obtaining the specimen handwriting and signatures of the accused filed by the Investigating Officer in the court of Sh. Manoj Kumar and duly marked to him is Ex.PW28/D. 11. That the applications filed by the Investigating Officer on 7.6.2007 are Ex.PWG1 and Ex.PW28/G2 and the said 64 sheets are collectively Ex.PW28/H. Witnesses of Electronic Record 12. Raj Kumar (PW32) He is the Additional Nodal Officer, Reliance Communication Ltd. who has proved the electronic record of mobile phone No. 9312616022 which was allotted to Dalip S/o Babu Lal R/o N-116/336/1, Shiv Mandir, JJ Camp, Badli Village, Delhi as under: Ex.PW32/A Ex.PW32/B Ex.PW32/C Ex.PW32/D Ex.PW32/E 13. Gaganjit Singh Sidhu (PW33) Customer Application Form Copy of election I card Call details Record from 1.5.2007 to 22.5.2007 Certificate under Section 65B of Evidence Act Handing over to the record to Inspector Ombir Singh
He is the Nodal Officer, Tata Teleservices and has proved the original record of the mobile no.9211463742 which is in the name of Rahul Jain S/o Shri Hari Om Jain and the mobile No.9211541254 which is in the name of Deepak Kumar S/o Shri Surender Kumar. He has proved the
Page No. 133
following documents: Ex.PW33/A Ex.PW33/B Ex.PW33/C Ex.PW33/D Ex.PW33/E Ex.PW33/F Ex.PW33/G Copy of customer application form in respect of telephone no. 9211463742 Copy of driving license in support of address Copy of customer application form in respect of telephone no. 9211541254 Copy of ration card Call Details Records of mobile 9211463742 from 7.5.07 to 19.5.07 no.
Call details record of the mobile phone no. 9211541254 from 11.5.07 to 18.5.07 Certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act in respect of both the aforesaid mobile numbers
14.
Sh. M N Vijayan (PW44)
He is the Alternative Nodal Officer, Tata Teleservices and has proved the call details of mobile number 9211463742 for the period 1.4.2007 to 20.05.2007 which are Ex.PW42/C and the mobile number 9211463743 which are Ex.PW42/D which had been issued by him to the Investigating Officer pursuant to his request during the investigation of FIR No.243/07. He has also proved the certificate under Section 65B of Evidence Act which is Ex.PW44/A. He is the Investigating Officer of the case bearing FIR No. 609/06 under Section 302/201 PS Hari Nagar and has proved the apprehension and arrest of the accused and the various recoveries. He has proved the various investigations conducted by him and the following documents: Ex.PW30/A Ex.PW30/B Ex.PW30/C Ex.PW30/D Ex.PW5/C Personal search of the accused Arrest memo of the accused Disclosure statement of the accused Seizure memo of motor-rickshaw Seizure of the exhibits lifted and knives recovered from the room of accused at Haiderpur Sketch of the knives Seizure of nunchaku, jeans pant and mobile phone
Page No. 134
Police Witnesses of Special Staff of District 15. Inspector Sunder Singh (PW42)
Ex.PW30/E Ex.PW30/F
Ex.PW42/A Ex.PW30/G
Site plan of the room Pointing out memo of railway line near ganda nalla Kishanganj where the accused had thrown legs of the deceased on 18.5.2007 Pointing out memo of State Bank, Tis Hazari compound where the accused had left two hands of the deceased Seizure memo of skull and jaw along with ghaghri and red cloth recovered from the banks of river Yamuna Site plan of the place from where the skull and jaw were recovered Call Details Record in respect of mobile phone 9211463742 Call Details Record in respect of mobile phone 9211463743 Location chart of the mobile make TATA Call Details records of mobile number 9211541254 Certificate U/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act in respect of mobile No. 9211463742 and number 9211463743
Ex.PW39/A
Ex.PW14/A
Ex.PW42/B Ex.PW42/C Ex.PW42/D Ex.PW42/E Ex.PW42/F Ex.PW42/G
16.
SI Narender (PW30), Inspector Dalip Kaushik (PW39), ASI Virender Singh (PW41) and HC Vijender Singh (PW17)
SI Narender (PW30), Inspector Dalip Kaushik (PW39) and ASI Virender Singh (PW41), were all members of the Special Staff, West District headed by Inspector Sunder Singh (PW42) and had joined the investigations on various dated from 20.05.2007 to 25.5.2007 and have in their respective testimonies corroborated what has been earlier deposed by Inspector Sunder Singh. HC Vijender Singh (PW17) was also a member of the Special Staff, West District, and had joined the investigations on 23.5.2007 along with Inspector Sunder Singh and has in his testimony corroborated what has been stated by other members of the police party as herein above. He was Incharge of Mobile Crime Team. He has deposed that on 20.05.2007, he was posted as Incharge, Mobile Crime Team, West District and on that day, on receipt of information from Inspector Sunder Singh, he along with his team comprising Photographer and Finger Print Expert reached at H.No.329, Gali No.2, Haiderpur Colony, Delhi where Inspector Sunder Singh along with accused and Dr.
Members of the Crime Team 17. SI Anil Kumar (PW4)
Page No. 135
Naresh of FSL, Rohini and other police officials were already present. He has proved having inspected the scene of crime and the fact that their Photographer took the photographs of the spot. He has further deposed that three blood stained knives were lying in the corner of the room and various phone numbers were written on the wall of the room. He has further deposed that four chance prints were lifted from the spot and he prepared his report, copy of which is Ex.PW4/A. 18. ASI Ajender Singh He is the Finger Print Expert in Mobile Crime Team, West (PW7) District. He has proved that on 20.05.2007 he along with SI Anil Kumar, Incharge Crime Team and other staff went to 229/2, Ground Floor for inspection of scene of crime which spot was pointed out by the accused himself to the police, where he tried to lift four chance print from the spot and after developing the same, the report was handed over to the Investigation Officer which report is Ex.PW7/A. Constable Suresh Kumar (PW10) He is the Photographer in Mobile Crime Team (West District) and has proved that on 20.05.2007 he along with SI Anil Kumar, ASI Ajinder (Finger Print Expert) reached the house of accused i.e. House No.229, Gali No.2, Haiderpur where Inspector Sunder Singh met them with team at the gate of the house of the accused along with the accused (whom the witness has correctly identified in the Court) and on the instruction of Inspector Sunder Singh he took 19 photographs from different angles which photographs are Ex.PW10/A-1 to PW10/A18 and the negative No. 7 was washedout.
19.
20.
HC Jai Veer Singh He is the Photographer of Mobile Crime Team, West (PW13) District and has proved that on 18.05.2007 he along with Incharge Crime Team, SI Malkiyat Singh and Constable Kishan went to Gate No.1, Tihar Jail where he took the photographs of the scene of crime from different angles as per direction of the Investigating Officer and after developing ten photographs, same were handed over to the Investigating Officer, which negatives are Ex.PW13/N1 to PW13/N10 and the photographs are Ex.PW13/A1 to PW13/A10. Inspector Malkiat Singh (PW20) He is the Incharge, Crime Team, West District, Delhi who has proved that on 18.05.2007 he received a call from District Control Room, West that a dead body was lying in a gunny bag in front of Gate No.1, Tihar Jail on which he along with Constable Jaibir (Photographer), Constable Krishan Kumar (Finger Prints Expert) and Constable Amit Kumar rushed to the spot at Gate No.1, Tihar Jail, New Delhi. He has proved that a plastic bag (katta) tied with
Page No. 136
21.
plastic rope found there, which was opened and found containing headless, handless, footless and without private parts dead body. He has proved that after completion of inspection, he prepared inspection report which is Ex.PW20/A and the same was handed over to the Investigating Officer. 22. HC Raj Pal Singh (PW22) He is the Photographer, District Crime Team who has proved that on 19.05.2007 he had gone to the spot (Tis Hazari Courts) where he had taken the photographs of the human hands and private parts found in carton box and after developing the photograph prints from negatives he handed over eight prints to Ct. Kaptan Singh of Police Post Tis Hazari Courts which are Ex.PW22/A-1 to Ex.PW22/A8 and the negatives of the same are collectively Ex.PW22/B. She is a formal witness being the Duty Officer who has proved that on 18.05.2007 at around 10.10 AM, she received a rukka from Constable Ram Singh sent by SI Krishan Chander on the basis of which, she registered FIR by handing over the rukka to Computer Operator, vide FIR which is Ex.PW1/A. She has proved that DD No.13A was registered by her at 10.10 AM to the effect of starting writing the FIR, copy of which entry is Ex.PW1/B1 and DD No.14A which is Ex.PW1/B2 was also registered by her at 10.45 AM on 18.05.2007 to the effect that FIR has been registered. She has also proved that copy of the FIR and original rukka were sent to SHO, who left for the spot through Constable Ram Singh and the copies of FIR in sealed envelope were given to Constable Baljit, Special Messenger for delivery of the same to Area Magistrate, Joint Commissioner of Police (Range) and Deputy Commissioner of Police.
Formal Police witnesses 23. ASI Sangeeta (PW1)
24.
HC Suresh Kumar He is a formal witness being the official of PCR Control (PW9) Room and has proved the following aspects: 1. That on 19.05.2007 at about 5.25 AM, he received information by Sugar 27 PCR, Incharge HC Yudhishter that in front of SBI Bank, Tis Hazari, one carton was lying and body parts which appeared to be of a child was kept in it on which he immediately filled PCR form and sent it for circulation to the local police, photocopy of which PCR form is Ex.PW9/A. 2. That at about 5.48 AM, Sugar 27 PCR informed that the carton was having two hands cut from the shoulder approx. aged 14-15 years and the blood in the carton and body parts dried and it appeared
Page No. 137
that the body parts were not cut fresh. 3. That ASI Arjun Singh had already reached the spot and he made entry in this regard in PCR Form at point 'X' in Ex.PW9/A and informed to the Control Room for sending the message to the senior officers. 4. That at about 6.00 AM, he again received message that one polythene also found in the carton containing the cut piece of the penis and he again made entry in this regard at point 'Y' in Ex.PW9/A and informed the Control Room for sending the message to senior officers. 25. HC Krishan Kumar (PW11) This witness has proved that on 09.08.2007 Addl. SHO Inspector Om Veer Singh handed over to him a request for collecting the copy of PCR Form from the Police Control Room Head Quarter on which he reached PHQ and the application was got forwarded from there. He has also proved that thereafter he reached PCR Record Room, Model Town and collected photocopy of the PCR Form and handed over to the Investigating Officer. He has proved the photocopy of the PCR Form which is marked PW11/A, which was seized vide Ex.PW11/B. He is a formal witness being Motorcycle Rider who had delivered the copies of the FIR to the senior officers. He has proved that on 18.05.2007 Duty Officer handed over three envelopes containing copy of FIR for delivering the same to DCP West, concerned Area Magistrate and Joint CP, Southern Range on which he left the Police Station at about 10.45 AM on government motorcycle bearing No. DL-1SN-4098 and delivered the envelopes after which he returned back to Police Station and Investigation Officer recorded his statement. He has proved his departure entry DD No. 14A and arrival entry DD No. 26A, copies of which are Ex.PW12/A and Ex.PW12/B. He is a formal witness being the MHCM who has proved the various entries made by him in Register No. 19 and 21 which are as under: Ex.PW15/A Ex.PW15/B Ex.PW15/C Ex.PW15/D Ex.PW15/E Ex.PW15/F Ex.PW15/G Entry No. 2849 in register no. 19 Entry No. 2890 in register no. 19 RC No.56/21 Receipt issued by FSL RC No.57/21 Receipt issued by FSL RC No.58/21
Page No. 138
26.
Constable Baljeet Singh (PW12)
27.
HC Hari Ram (PW15)
Ex.PW15/H Ex.PW15/I Ex.PW15/J 28. ASI Ranpal (PW18)
Receipt issued by FSL Seizure memo Seizure memo
Ex.PW15/H1 Seizure memo
This witness has proved that in the intervening night of 18.05.2007, he was posted as Head Constable at Police Control Room, PHQ, New Delhi and on that day at about 6.38 AM, a telephone call was received that a dead body was lying in a gunny bag in front of gate No.1, Tihar Jail and the said information was recorded vide CR DD No. 3419 which is Ex.PW11/A and the same was passed to Command Room. He is a formal witness being the Duty Officer who has proved that on 18.05.2007 at about 6.50 AM, a PCR call that a dead body was lying in a gunny bag in front of Gate No.1, Tihar Jail was handed over by Wireless Operator, which information was lodged/ registered vide DD No. 10A dated 18.05.2007 which is Ex.PW19/A and the same was entrusted to ASI Krishan Chander for necessary action and the SHO Police Station Hari Nagar was also informed. He has further proved that Inspector Ombir Singh, the then, Addl. SHO / Police Station Hari Nagar was also informed and DD No. 11A Ex.PW19/B was recorded in this regard. This witness has proved that on 06.08.2007 on the direction of Inspector Ombir Singh he went District Crime Team, Police Station Janak Puri and collected ten photographs which were handed over to the Investigating Officer and the same were taken into police possession through a seizure memo which is Ex.PW21/A. He has also proved that on 08.08.11 on the directions of Inspector Ombir Singh he went to FSL, Rohini, Delhi for depositing the documents (Question Documents & Specimen documents) in Document Division, FSL vide No. FSL 2007/D-2905 dated 08.08.07 through Road Certificate No. 68/21/07 dated 08.08.07 which is Ex.PW21/B and the receipt was handed over to MHC (M) Police Station Hari Nagar on the same day which FSL Receipt is Ex.PW21/C. This witness has proved that on 13.07.2007 on the directions of Inspector Ombir Singh he collected the PM report No. 581/07, 582/07 & 583/07 from Dr. Anil, Mortuary, DDU Hospital, New Delhi which were handed over to the Investigating Officer. He is the formal witness being the MHC(M) PS Subzi Mandi. He has proved that on 19.05.07, six pullandas were deposited by the SI Arun Kumar in the Malkhana Police
Page No. 139
29.
ASI Chhat Ram (PW19)
30.
ASI Rajbir Singh (PW21)
31.
SI Sharad Kohli (PW23)
32.
HC Yasbir Singh (PW35)
Station Subzi Mandi which pullandas were entered in the Register no.19 by the then MHC (M) HC Medha Lal vide no. 2040 copy of which is Ex.PW35/A. He has also proved that on 05.09.07, he had sent the aforesaid six pullandas to Police Station Hari Nagar through HC Suraj Bhan vide RC No.63/21/07 copy of which is Ex.PW35/B. 33. Ct. Rambir (PW36) He is also a formal witness being the DD Writer Police Station Subzi Mandi and has proved that on 19.05.07 PCR call was received by him regarding an abandoned carton in front of SBI, Tis Hazari which information he reduced into writing vide DD No.4 copy of which is Ex.PW36/A.
Other Police Witnesses 34. SI Satender Mohan This witness has proved the following aspects: (PW14) 1. That 23.05.2007 he was posted at Police Station Seelampur and on that day, he received information from the Control Room that one human skull and some clothes were lying on the bank of the Yamuna 2. That he reached the spot where he found Inspector Sunder Singh along with other staff and the accused present there. 3. That he also noticed that one human skull and its lower jaw and some clothes were lying in a polythene bag and one of the cloth was of red colour and one ghagri (ghagra worn by the girl child). 4. That the Investigating Officer prepared parcel of human skull and jaw and sealed with the seal of DK and one another parcel of the cloth was also prepared and it was sealed with the seal of DK and the skull, jaw and clothes were recovered at the instance of accused, after which the Investigating Officer prepared seizure memo which is Ex.PW14/A. 5. That the Investigating Officer also prepared site plan of the spot. SI Mahesh Kumar (PW16) He is the Draftsman who had prepared the scaled site plan and has proved that on 20.06.07, he along with Inspector Ombir Singh and ASI Krishan Chander reached at footpath, in front of boundary wall of Tihar Jail and near Tihar Haat Gate as well as gate no.1 Tihar Jail where he took rough notes and measurements at the instance of ASI Krishan Chander and on the basis of those measurements, he prepared scaled site plan which is Ex.PW16/A and handed over the same to the Investigating Officer.
35.
Page No. 140
36.
ASI Yudhister (PW24)
He has proved that on 19.05.2007 he was working in PCR as Incharge Sugar 27 and on that day they were standing on their base at gate No.1, Tis Hazari Courts when one public person informed him that one carton box was lying in front of State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Court complex. He has proved that he along with his staff reached in front of State Bank of India and found one carton and on checking the same two hands severed from human body and a polythene bag containing penis of human being. He has also proved that he conveyed the information to control room regarding the aforesaid facts and investigating officer ASI Arjun Singh came there which information was filled in PCR form vide Ex.PW9/A. This witness has proved the following aspects: 1. That on 19.5.2007, he was posted at Police Station Subzi Mandi and on that day on receipt of DD no.4A ExPW25/A, ASI Arjun Singh reached in front of State Bank of India, Tis Hazari and he also reached there where ASI Arjun Singh along with Ct. Ramesh Kumar met him. 2. That ASI Arjun Singh informed him that a carton was found lying in front of State Bank of India which was found containing the human parts and he conveyed this information to Senior Officials and called the crime team including the photographer. 3. That at the same time, SHO Police Station Subzi Mandi and Shri Ramesh Kumar, ACP Subzi Mandi reached there and after some time the crime team also reached there. 4. That the carton box was thoroughly checked and it was found containing two upper limbs from finger to shoulder wrapped in an old newspaper and there was a transparent polythene bag which was found containing sexual parts containing penis, testicles and pubic hairs. 5. That the photographer took the photographs of the said organs and the crime team inspected the spot and organs and prepared its report. 6. That ASI Arjun Singh was sent to Subzi Mandi Mortuary to deposit the found organs to preserve the same. 7. That he filled up the Form 25.35 which is Ex.PW25/B. 8. That he converted the aforesaid carton box and the pieces of Hindustan Times newspapers dated 6.5.2007 some of them were blood stained, the transparent polythene having the firm name as
Page No. 141
37.
SI Arun Tyagi (PW25)
T.N. Luthra mfd. by Triloki Hosiery Ltd. and its telephone number, one blue colour cloth blouse, one red and white colour old top of child, some pieces of plastic rope and some polythene pieces in parcels and sealed the same with the seal of AK. 9. That he took the aforesaid parcels into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW25/C. 10. That they came to know that one plastic bag was found containing body of a human being was without limbs and sexual parts were found lying in front of gate no.1 Tihar Jail in the area of Police Station Hari Nagar and a case FIR No.279/07 was already registered under Section 302/201 IPC at PS Hari Nagar after which he talked with the Investigating Officer of that case Inspector Ombir Singh and he informed him about the human parts of the body. 11. That he suspected that these parts may be the parts of the same body which were found at Tihar Jail. 12. That he got DD No.10 dated 19.5.07 lodged at Police Post Tis Hazari which is ExPW25/D. 13. That on 27.5.2007 after receiving permission from the doctor he received the aforesaid human parts from Mortuary Subzi Mandi and handed them over to the Investigating Officer Inspector Ombir Singh at DDU Hospital Mortuary, who took the same into possession vide receipt ExPW25/E. 14. That Inspector Ombir prepared the site plan at his instance vide ExPW25/F on 1.6.2007. 38. ASI Arjun Singh (PW27) This witness has corroborated the testimony of SI Arun Tyagi (PW25) in toto and has proved the documents earlier proved by SI Arun Tyagi i.e. DD no.4-A Ex.PW25/A; seizure memo Ex.PW25/C; DD No.10 dated 19.5.07 Ex.PW25/D and receipt Ex.PW25/E.
39.
ASI Kishan Chand This witness has proved the following aspects: (PW26) 1. That on 18.05.2007 when he was posted at police station Hari Nagar as ASI, at about 6:50AM he received a call vide DD No.10A which is Ex.PW19/A regarding dead body lying at main gate, Jail No. 1. 2. That he along with Ct. Ram Singh went to the spot at main gate Jail No. 1 where they found a plastic katta duly stitched and closed lying on the footpath on the road side with the words Ricken Reliance Product, PVC Made in India, Reliance Industries Ltd. Hazira Gujarat written on it.
Page No. 142
3. That without opening the katta he called the crime team because even previously a dead body had been found in the same area and therefore he got suspicious and he called the crime team and the photographer from the west district. 4. That in the meanwhile the Addl. SHO Police Station Hari Nagar came to the spot and the photographer of the crime team also came to the spot and took photographs. 5. That the crime team lifted exhibits and thereafter opened the plastic katta which was containing another plastic katta with a lotus design on it duly stitched which was also opened in his presence. 6. That between the first plastic katta and the second plastic katta there were two letters one was written on a yellow paper with a green pen and the other was a printed paper containing a writing on the back side in green ink after which a seizure memo of both the letters was prepared vide memo which is Ex.PW26/A. 7. That the second katta on opening was found to contain a head less body with both the arms missing and the legs below the knees were also missing. 8. That the photographer of the crime team also took the photographs of the same and on examination of the body it was found to be of a male who appeared to be around 25-26 years of age and medium built and dusky complexion (saanwla). 9. That the seizure memo of the dead body and all the articles recovered at the spot was prepared vide Ex.PW26/B. 10. That he prepared a tehrir which is Ex.PW26/C which he sent to the police station Hari Nagar through Ct. Ram Singh for registration of the FIR and after Ct. Ram Singh returned with the original rukka and the copy of the FIR which he handed over to Addl. SHO Police Station Hari Nagar he prepared the site plan on his pointing out which site plan is Ex.PW26/D. 40. HC Ram Singh (PW29) This witness has corroborated the testimony of ASI Kishan Chand (PW26) in toto and has proved the documents already proved by ASI Kishan Chand i.e. seizure memo of the letters which is Ex.PW26/A; seizure memo of the dead body and all the articles recovered at the spot was prepared vide Ex.PW26/B and the Tehrir which is Ex.PW26/C.
Page No. 143
41.
Inspector Hoshiyar He was the SHO Police Station Hari Nagar and has Singh (PW40) identified the handwriting and signatures of Inspector Omvir Singh the then Additional SHO who had been associated with him in official capacity and is presently not available in India having permanently settled abroad whose address was not known. He has proved the following documents: Ex.PW40/A Ex.PW40/B Ex.PW40/C Ex.PW40/D Ex.PW40/E Ex.PW40/F Ex.PW40/G Ex.PW40/H Ex.PW40/I Disclosure statement of the accused Dead body identification statement by Deepak Identification statement of dead body by Sushil Kumar Application for filing the FSL result Application for filing of opinion of chemical expert Request for postmortem of skull and teeth Brief facts of the case for postmortem Request for examination of viscera, blood samples, clothes etc. Request for postmortem of mutilated parts of unknown dead body i.e limbs, both hands and private parts Carbon copy of receipt of handing over of the dead body Arrest memo of accused Chanderkant Jha
Ex.PW40/J Ex.PW40/K (130)
Coming now to the microscopic evaluation of the evidence
against the accused. No Ocular / Direct Evidence: (131) Ocular evidence/ eye witness count is the best evidence in any case but unfortunately in the present case there is no direct ocular evidence and the entire case of the prosecution rests upon circumstantial, electronic, forensic and other evidence.
Identity of the dead body is unknown / according to accused he was Dalip: (132) The case of the prosecution is that the deceased was one Dalip During his who was a rickshaw puller and also an electrician who came into contact with him (accused) through one Surender in Jail. interrogation the accused disclosed to the police that the said deceased whom he refers to as Dalip was an original resident of Bihar. During the course of investigations when the accused Chanderkant Jha led the police to his room at Haiderpur he got recovered one mobile phone make Samsung (ESN No.8781FA97) from the pocket of the pants and informed the police that the said phone belong to the accused Dalip whom he had killed.
(133)
The Ld. Addl. Public Prosecutor has argued that the
Investigating Agency having recovered the mobile phone of the victim (bearing ESN No.8781FA97), the Call Details Records of the same were obtained which revealed that the victim and the accused Chanderkant Jha were in regular contact with each other and the location chart also established that on the date of the incident they were both in the same area (i.e. Haiderpur). The ld. Public Prosecutor has also argued that on the basis of the Call Details Record the frequently used numbers were identified which led the investigating team to Naresh, Kailash, Sushil and Sunita @ Geeta (whose numbers were reflected in CDR) who were then contacted and it is these people who informed the police that the mobile No. 9211541254 was being used by one Dalip a rickshaw puller and an electrician who was a resident of Bihar and was not seen after 17.5.2007. It was also revealed that Dalip had taken the rickshaw of Naresh on rent and was previously working with Sushil at Pitampura when he was using mobile No. 9211541254 (the Investigating Agency could reach to these persons on the basis of the mobile numbers of
Naresh, Kailsh, Sushil and Sunita as reflected in the Call Details Records of the number used by Dalip).
(134)
Ld. Defence Counsel has vehemently argued that whatever has
been argued by the Ld. Addl. Public Prosecutor is not backed by any evidence nor it stands established as the prosecution has not examined any of the above witnesses in the Court and therefore under the given circumstances mere statements of the police officers in this regard would not be sufficient to prove the use of mobile phone bearing ESN No. 8781FA97 with SIM No. 9211541254 by the victim who according to the accused was Dalip.
(135)
I have considered the rival contentions and I may observe that
there is merit in what the Ld. Defence Counsel has stated. The initial investigations were conducted by Inspector Ombir Singh and till such time the investigations were with him he on the basis of Call Detail Records was able to track down the victim as one Dalip a resident of Bihar who was a rickshaw puller and also knew the work of an electrician and was missing since 17-18.5.2007 (as claimed by Deepak Kumar, Sushil and Geeta). Incidentally all these witnesses i.e. Deepak Kumar, Sushil and Sunita @ Geeta have neither been cited as witnesses by the subsequent Investigating Officer nor examined in the Court. Their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. present on the judicial file (being a part of the charge sheet) and the case diaries indicate that they had identified the user of the phone No. 9211541254 as Dalip and in fact Sushil Kumar S/o Sh. Shanker Jha, R/o Q4/113A, North Pitam Pura Delhi and Deepak Kumar S/o Shri Shiv Shankar, R/o House No. 339, Village Haiderpur, Delhi had also gone to the mortuary and on the basis of the holy thread tied on the hands (Kalawa) identified the decapitated body of this person as that of Dalip. In fact it is Inspector Hoshiyar
Singh (PW40) who has proved the statements of Deepak Kumar and also Sushil Kumar as Ex.PW40/B and Ex.PW40/C respectively. It surprises me that the prosecution has not bothered to even track down or call these witnesses to the Court for they were the ones who could have conclusively establish the fact that the deceased was Dalip. Further, despite having come to know that the decapitated body was of one Dalip a rickshaw puller, unfortunately no further efforts have been made by the subsequent Investigating Officers to trace the family of the victim or track his parentage. Merely because Inspector Hoshiyar Singh has proved the recording of the statements of Deepak Kumar and Sushil Kumar by his predecessor Investigating Officer, does not tantamount to proving of the fact so stated in their statements. It was necessary to have called Deepak Kumar and Sushil Kumar in the Court to prove the same and to prove that they had gone to the Mortuary and identified the decapitated body of the victim as that of Dalip which has not been done. Hence in this background I hereby hold that though the identity of the decapitated body as that of Dalip does not stand established nor the parentage or the other details relating to deceased stand established, yet it does stand established that the accused Chanderkant Jha was in contact with the victim whom he refers to as Dalip (henceforth also shall be referred to as Dalip by the Court for the sake of convenience) and he was found in possession of the mobile of this victim and the last call made as per the Call Detail Records was by the accused on the intervening night of 17-18.5.2007 at 12:35 AM (to be discussed separately).
(136)
It pains me to observe that till date no serious efforts have
been made to establish the identity of the victim which aspect and as already observed herein above this would not be fatal to the case of the
prosecution because the fact remains that some person had been killed. Now whether the name of that person was Dalip or something else (though this Court would refer to him as Dalip for sake of convenience) it would not in any manner mitigate the criminal act done by the accused. Medical Evidence/ Cause of Death: (137) The case of the prosecution is that the death of the deceased was a homicidal death caused on account of decapitation of head. In this regard they have placed their reliance on the postmortem report and the opinion given by the Autopsy Surgeon Dr. Anil Shandil (PW2) whose testimony has gone uncontroverted as the accused has chosen not to cross-examine him. (138) Dr. Anil Shandil has duly proved having carried out the postmortem examination on 14.6.2007 at 1:30 PM on the decapitated body which was found lying near Gate No.1, Tihar Jail on 18.05.2007 at 6:50 AM. The said postmortem report is Ex.PW2/A according to which the wounds over the body are postmortem in nature and caused by sharp edged weapon but no definite opinion regarding cause of death could be given. He has proved that the Sternum with rib for DNA fingerprinting, blood and viscera for chemical analysis, clothes of the deceased and blood samples were preserved and handed over to the Investigating Officer. (139) He has further proved that on the same day he also conducted the postmortem examination on the skull plus teeth recovered from the bank of Yamuna River vide postmortem report Ex.PW2/B according to which report whole skull bones divide of scalp with divide of scalp with facial unlying muscular tissues with fully exposed with typical
characteristics of male with prominent glabella, supra orbital ridges, mastoid process, occipital protuberance more prominent with partial fusion of saggital and coronal and lamboid sutures with orbital opening big and rectangular, lower jaw absent and missing both incisors from upper jaw socket and no brain matter present. He has proved having opined that it was a dismembered skull of human body. He has further proved having preserved the tooth for DNA finger printing, whole skull for super imposition and two X-ray of skull. (140) Dr. Anil Shandil (PW2) has also proved that on 14.06.2007 he conducted postmortem of unknown mutilated parts of body i.e. limbs, both hands and private part vide his report Ex.PW2/C according to which both side right and left upper limb (arms from shoulder to fingers) and specular part with decomposition with fungus, foul smelling and human genitalia (penis with scortum with both testis adjacent perineal tissues with public hair with peeling of skin, decomposition without blood clots). He has proved having opined that the said body parts were dismembered parts of human body. He has also proved that the right and left upper limb humerus bone for DNA finger printing alongwith pubic hair and hand with phalanges preserved, sealed and handed over to concerned Investigation Officer. The said witness has not been cross-examined by the counsel for the accused and hence his testimony has gone uncontroverted. (141) From the above medical evidence on record, it is writ large that the postmortem findings are consistent with homicidal death. Decapitation of head is a fatal injury which causes death in ordinary course of nature and no person can survive the same. In view of the above, I hereby hold that the medical evidence is compatible to the prosecution case.
Motive of Crime / Accused a Serial Killer: (142) The case of the prosecution is that the accused Chanderkant Jha is a Serial Killer who is a serious problem for the Law Enforcement Agencies whose motives may not become very obvious initially but the manner in which he had executed the serial killings of young boys belonging to extremely poor families by taking advantage of their weak socio-economic status and vulnerability and after having won their confidence indicates the planned manner in which the accused had been throwing a challenge to the Law Enforcement Agencies. It is argued by the Ld. Addl. Public Prosecutor that the only task of the accused which can be gathered from the various letters that he had been leaving along with the decapitated bodies allegedly thrown by him in front of the Central Jail Tihar, shows that he takes pleasure in throwing a challenge to the legally constituted Systems of this Country i.e. Police, Jail Authorities etc. and his only motive is to target and harass the Law Enforcement Agencies. The Ld. Addl. PP has also argued that the victims were chosen very carefully by the accused and he used to kill them to seek revenge on account of his disagreement with them and their ways and then in order to challenge the system he scattered their body parts at various places. (143) The Ld. Defence Counsel on the other hand has vehemently argued the prosecution case that the motive behind the murder was because the accused was not happy with the habits of the deceased of eating non vegetarian food, eating paan-guthkha, of not washing their utensils etc. as alleged in the disclosure statement of the accused is contrary to the claims now being made by the prosecution. He has further submitted that the prosecution has not been able to establish any of the motives so attributed to the accused and the allegations have been
made only on mere conjectures and surmises which do not find support from any material brought on record by them. (144) I have considered the rival contentions and given my careful consideration to the same. Motive is only an attitude of mind and an emotion prompting the act i.e. love, compassion, fear, jealousy, perverseness, lust, hatred, wish to frighten, gesture, desire for money etc. (Ref.: Criminal Law, 7th Edition P.S. Acthuthen Pillai). It is relevant to a limited extent since it may lead to creation of intention for commission of offence. It has to be gathered from the surrounding circumstances and such evident should form one of the links to the chain of circumstantial evidence. The proof of motive would only strengthen the prosecution case and fortify the court in its ultimate conclusion but in the absence of any connecting evidence or link which would be sufficient in itself from the face of it, the accused cannot be convicted. Motive is best known to the perpetrator of the crime and not to others. Motives of men are often subjective, submerged and unamenable to easy proof that courts have to go without clear evidence thereon if other clinching evidence exists. A motive is indicated to heighten the probability that the offence was committed by the person who was impelled by the motive but if the crime is alleged to have been committed for a particular motive, it is relevant to inquire whether the pattern of the crime fits in which the alleged motive. (145) Regarding the motive of crime, it may be observed that in a case based on circumstantial evidence, the existence of motive assumed significance though the absence of motive does not necessarily discredit the prosecution case, if the case stands otherwise established by other conclusive circumstances and the chain of circumstantial evidence is so complete and is consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the
accused and inconsistent with the hypothesis of his innocence. (146) Existence of motive for committing a crime is not an absolute requirement of law but it is always relevant fact, which will be taken into consideration by Courts as it will render assistance to Courts while analysing prosecution evidence and determining guilt of accused. [Ref.: IV (2012) SLT 257]. (147) Applying the settled principles of law to the facts of the present case, I may observe that the prosecution seeks to prove the Motive so attributed to the accused by placing their reliance on the letters recovered from the gunny bag along with the decapitated bodies recovered outside Central Jail Tihar on 20.10.2006 (FIR No. 609/2006 Police Station Hari Nagar) and 18.5.2007 (present FIR). (148) In so far as the disclosure statement of the accused made to the Police which is Ex.PW22/K is concerned the same is inadmissible in evidence except to the disclosure of the relevant fact. The documentary evidence which has come on record in the form of letter written by the alleged killer who had committed the offence i.e. the accused is self explanatory. The said letter shows the gross defiance of the accused / assailant to the lawful constituted establishments and the challenge which he had thrown to the System when he says ... iska saboot ye hai ki 2003 ke november mahine mein jo ek number par main-ne murder karke dala usko bhi tum log nahin khol sake aur na hi is case ko khol paoge kyonki ye hamara vada hai varna nahin to najayaj case lagana band karo ya phir case khol sako to case khol kar dikha do..... The handwriting of the letter has tallied with the handwriting of the accused Chanderkant Jha and the contents of the said letter (as above) reflect his state of mind at the relevant time when the crime had been committed and how he had thrown a challenge to the System. This motive further
gets strengthened when the accused left another letter with a decapitated body on 18.5.2007 (in FIR No. 279/07, Police Station Hari Nagar which has been proved to be in his handwriting) wherein he has again mocked the System and challenged the police to apprehend him and to put a reward on him as per his acts when he wrote ....delhi Police ke jaanbaz D.H.G. se lekar I.P.S. Tum sabhi ko tumhare jijaji aur tumhare daamad ke taraf se khullam-khulla challenge hai ki agar vakai mein tumlogon ki maa ko tumlogon ke hi baap ne chodkar paida kiya hai to mujhe pakarkar dikhao varna tum saare upar se niche tak ke delhi Police ka staff najayaz maa + baap ka paidaish kahlaoge.... and further that .....Aur shale delhi Police ke chote se bare ohdedaaroon tumhe zara si bhi akal nahin hai ki kam se kam itna murder karne vale ke upar abhi tak nahin kuch to 50 hazar inaam to rakh hi doon ya upar valoon se is CC ke baare mein jyada se jyada khunkhar aur khatarnaak ka upadhi de kar inaam rakhvaane ka koshih karo taki is khel mein kuch maja aaye kyonki tum to shale sharif ke baare mein akhbar aur challan mein aise darshaate ho jaise ki vo janamjaat peshevar criminal ho lekin madarchod delhi Police vale main teri maa behan chod raha hoon khullam-khulla to mere upar inaam kyon nahin rakh rahe ho. Main apne upar inaam ki raashi jaanne ke liye ati utsuk hoon. Dhyan rakhna ki mere kaam ke laayak inaam jarur hona chahiye varna meri beijjati hogi to main tum sabki beijjati karva doonga...... It is this which confirms that the motive of the serial killings carried out by the accused was to throw a challenge to the Law Enforcement Agencies. (149) Dr. Mike Aamodt of Radford University Department of Psychology in his work "Serial Killer IQ" while studying the behaviour of Organized nonsocial offenders usually have above average intelligence, with a mean IQ of 113, observed that these persons often
planned their crimes quite methodically, usually abducting victims, killing them in one place and disposing of them in another. They often lured the victims with ploys appealing to their sense of sympathy. They maintain a high degree of control over the crime scene and usually have a solid knowledge of forensic science that enables them to cover their tracks, such as burying the body or weighing it down and sinking it in a river. They follow their crimes in the news media carefully and often take pride in their actions, as if it were all a grand project. The organized killer is usually socially adequate, has friends and lovers and sometimes even a spouse and children. They are the type who, when/if captured, are most likely to be described by acquaintances as kind and unlikely to hurt anyone. (150) It is writ large that the profile of the accused Chanderkant Jha / alleged author of the crime / the serial killings which took place in the year 2006 2007 in respect of the which FIR No.609/2006, FIR No. 243/2007 and FIR No. 279/2007 of Police Station Hari Nagar all under Sections 302/201 IPC absolutely fits into the description of an Organized Serial Killer as put forth by Dr. Mike Aamodt. It is evident that after leaving the decapitated bodies outside Central Jail Tihar the accused used to inform the police telephonically regardng the keeping of the body and was abused to the person who attended the call. He also left the letters along with two of the decapitated bodies to boast about his actions i.e. past as well as present. It is evident from the above letters that he not only confessed to the killings of the victims whose decapitated bodies were found along with the letters but also disclosed his involvement in other previous killings in clear terms. In the letter left with the body on 18.5.2007 he had boasted of previously thrown a decapitated body outside Gate No.1 Central Jail Tihar in November
2003 which case the police had not been able to workout till date. The manner of the killings of the victims with extreme brutality by decapitating and severing of their heads and body parts establish the excessive violence and perversity involved in the crime and the manner in which the decapitated parts of the bodies of the victims have been thrown at various places establish the planned manner in which the crime has been executed and the thrills that the accused was deriving by throwing a challenge to the System (police). It is also evident that the accused had been following his crimes in the news and media and taking pride in his actions, as is reflected in the letter left by him along with the decapitated body found outside Tihar Jail on 18.5.2007 wherein the accused has taunted and mocked at the Delhi Police not only for their failure to catch him but also for their failure to establish the identity of the deceased in the present case which he then disclosed was Amit and asked the Delhi Police to inform the media about the letter .......delhi Police ke liye tohfa bheja tha uske andar jo letter nahin mila to bechare akhbar vale bhi pareshaan ho gaye ki aakhir delhi Police valoon ke damaad aur jijajine abki baar letter kyon nahin bheja. Isliye main aap logoon ke shikayat par gaur pharmaya hai... and then added that ...Ye letter akhbar valoon ko bhi padhwa dena.. (151) Further, the manner in which the killings have been executed in all the cases i.e. present FIRs bearing No. 609/2006, FIR No.243/2007 and FIR No. 279/2007 all of Police Station Hari Nagar reflect a definite pattern / design. This definitely establishes that the accused is Mission Oriented and Task Oriented Serial Killer whose only motive / mission is to expose, mock and challenge the police who as per his allegations had falsely implicated him in many criminal cases.
Page No. 155
Discovery of facts pursuant to the disclosure of the accused: (152) The case of the prosecution is that pursuant to his arrest on
20.5.2007 the accused Chanderkant Jha had allegedly made a disclosure statement to the police wherein not only did he disclosed the police his involvement in the various serial killings dated (20.10.2006, 2425.4.2007 and 18.5.2007) after which he had thrown the bodies of the victims at various places around Delhi but also the details of the victims, the reason why he killed them, the manner of their killings, how he disposed off their bodies, the letters which he had left along with the bodies, the telephone calls which he made to the police after committing the offences and the place where he had kept the weapons of offence and the conveyance i.e. rickshaw fitted with engine of a scooter in which he used to carry the mutilated bodies and dismembered parts which he disposed off in and around Delhi. (153) In support of their case the prosecution seeks to rely upon the disclosure statement of the accused and the various recoveries which were got effected pursuant to the same whereas on the other hand the Ld. Defence Counsel has vehemently denied that any such disclosure was made by the accused to the police. He has argued that even otherwise the disclosure if any made by the accused while in Police Custody is hit by Section 27 of the Evidence Act. (154) I have considered the rival contentions but before coming to the merits of the argument, it is necessary to first briefly discuss the relevant provisions of law. As per the provisions of Section 27 of Evidence Act, which is in the nature of a proviso to Section 26 of the Act, to the extent it is relevant, 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. Thus the requirement of law is that before the fact discovered in consequence of an information received from an accused is allowed to be proved, he (accused) needs to be in the custody of a police officer. (155) Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act explains the meaning of 1. Anything, state of things, or relation of things, or capable of being perceived by the senses, 2. Any mental condition of which any person is conscious. (156) It further provides five illustrations as to what would
(a) That there are certain objects arranged in a certain order
the word Fact. It provides that a fact means and includes:
constitute a fact which are as under: in a certain place, is a fact

(b) That a man heard or saw something, is a fact.
(c) That a man said certain words, is a fact.

(d) That a man holds a certain opinion, has a certain
intention, acts in good faith, or fraudulently, or uses a particular word in a particular sense, or is or was at a specified time conscious of a particular sensation, is a fact. (e)That a man has a certain reputation, is a fact.
(157)
A co-joint reading of Section 3 and Section 27 of Evidence
Act would apply that as much of the statement as would relate to the discovery of fact connected with the accused would be admissible in evidence. The discovery of the fact is not only the discovery of the articles but also the discovery of the fact that the articles were kept by a particular accused at a particular place because in principle there is no
difference between the statement made by the accused to the effect that I will show you the person to whom I have given the articles and the statement that I will show you the place where I have kept the articles.
(158)
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K. Chinnaswamy
Reddy Vs. State of A.P. reported in AIR 1962 SC 1788 had exhaustively discussed the scope and ambit of Section 27 of the Evidence Act had considered the question as to whether the statement of the accused to the effect that "he had hidden them (the ornaments)" and "would point out the place", where they were, is wholly admissible in evidence under S. 27 or only that part of it is admissible where he stated that he would point out the place but not that part where he stated that he had hidden the ornaments. In the above case the Ld. Sessions Judge had relied upon the judgment of Pulukuri Kotayya Vs. King-Emperor reported in 74 Ind App 65: AIR 1947 PC 67 where a part of the statement leading to the recovery of a knife in a murder case was held inadmissible by the Judicial Committee. It was observed by My Lords of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that in the above case (Pulukuri Kotayya) the Judicial Committee considered S. 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, as under:"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...... . this section is an exception to Ss. 25 and 26 which prohibit the proof of a confession made to a police officer or a confession made while a person is in police custody unless it is made in immediate presence of a Magistrate. Section 27 allows that part of the statement made by the accused to the police "whether it amounts to a confession or not" which relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered to be
proved. Thus even a confessional statement before the police which distinctly relates to the discovery of a fact may be proved under S. 27. The Judicial Committee had in that case to consider how much of the information given by the accused to the police would be admissible under S. 27 and laid stress on the words "so much of such information........... as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered" in that connection. It held that the extent of the information admissible must depend on the exact nature of the fact discovered to which such information is required to relate. It was further pointed out that "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. This was exemplified further by the Judicial Committee by observing that the information supplied by a person in custody that 'I will produce a knife concealed in the roof of my house' 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. If, however, to the statement the words be added 'with which I stabbed A', these words are inadmissible since they do not relate to the discovery of the knife in the house of the informant...... (159) After considering the settled principles the Hon'ble Apex ......If we may respectfully say so, this case clearly brings out what part of the statement is admissible under S. 27. It is only that part which distinctly relates to the discovery which is admissible; but if any part of the statement distinctly relates to the discovery it will be admissible wholly and the court
Court observed as under:
cannot say that it will excise one part of the statement because it is of a confessional nature. Section 27 makes that part of the statement which is distinctly related to the discovery admissible as a whole, whether it be in the nature of confession or not. Now the statement in this case is said to be that the appellant stated that he would show the place where he had hidden the ornaments. The Sessions Judge has held that part of this statement which is to the effect "where he had hidden them" is not admissible. It is clear that if that part of the statement is excised the remaining statement (namely, that he would show the place) would be completely meaningless. The whole of this statement in our opinion relates distinctly to the discovery of ornaments and is admissible under S. 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. The words "where he had hidden them" are not on a par with the words "with which I stabbed the deceased" in the example given in the judgment of the Judicial Committee. These words (namely, where he had hidden them) have nothing to do with the past history of the crime and are distinctly related to the actual discovery that took place by virtue of that statement. It is however urged that in a case where the offence consists of possession even the words "where he had hidden them" would be inadmissible as they would amount to an admission by the accused that he was in possession. There are in our opinion two answers to this argument. In the first place S. 27 itself says that where the statement distinctly relates to the discovery it will be admissible whether it amounts to a confession or not. In the second place, these words by themselves though they may show possession of the appellant would not prove the offence, for after the articles have been recovered the prosecution has still to show that the articles recovered are connected with the crime, i.e., in this case, the prosecution will have to show that they are stolen property. We are, therefore, of opinion that the entire statement of the appellant (as well as of the other accused who stated that he had given the
ornament to Bada Sab and would have it recovered from him) would be admissible in evidence and the Sessions Judge was wrong in ruling out part of it. Therefore, as relevant and admissible evidence was ruled out by the Sessions Judge, this is a fit case where the High Court would be entitled to set aside the finding of acquittal in revision though it is unfortunate that the High Court did not confine itself only to this point and went on to make rather strong remarks about other parts of the evidence.....
(160)
Later in the year 1969 the Three Judges Bench of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has in the case of Zaffar Hussain Dastagir Vs. State of Maharastra reported in 1969 (2) SCC 872 while dealing with the applicability of the provisions of Section 27 of the Indian Evident Act relied upon the case of K. Chinnaswamy Reddy Vs. State of A.P. observed as under: ....in order that the Section may apply the prosecution must establish the information given by the accused led to the discovery of some fact deposed to by him and the discovery must be of some fact which the police had not previously learnt from other sources and that the knowledge of the fact was first derived from information given by the accused. The essential ingredient of the Section is that the information given by the accused must led to the discovery of the fact which is the direct outcome of such information; secondly only such portion of the information given as is distinctly connected with the said discovery is admissible against the accused and thirdly the discovery of the fact must relate to the commission of some offence... (161) In the said case the Hon'ble Supreme Court further went to ..... In a case where the accused is charged with theft of articles or receiving stolen articles states to the
explain that:
police I will show you the articles at the place where I have kept them and the articles were actually found there, there can be no doubt that the information given by the accused led to the discovery of a fact that is keeping of the articles by the accused at the place mentioned. However, the discovery of the fact deposed to in such a case is not the discovery of the articles but the discovery of the fact that the articles were kept by the accused at a particular place. It was observed that in principle, there is no difference between the above statement and that made by the accused in the case which in effect is that I will show you the person whom I have given the diamonds exceeding 200 in number. The only difference between the two statements is that a named person is substituted for the place where the articles are kept. In neither case are the articles of the diamonds, in fact discovered. There can be no doubt that the portion of the alleged statement of the accused would be admissible in evidence......
(162)
In the recent past the Hon'ble Supreme Court has in the case of
State (NCT of Delhi) Vs. Navjot Sandhu with Shaukat Hussain Guru Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in AIR 2005 SC 3820 reinforced the above view when it observed that discovery of fact should be read with the definition of fact as contained in Section 3 of the Evidence Act which defines the fact as meaning and including anything, state of things or relation of things, capable of being perceived by the senses and also includes any mental condition of which any person is conscious (emphasis supplied). It was held that the provisions of Section 27 would apply whenever there is discovery which discovery amounts to be confirmatory in character guaranteeing the truth of the information given to which facts the police officer had no access earlier which also includes recovery of material object. The Hon'ble Court further observed that so much of the information as relates distinctly to the fact
thereby discovered is admissible. (163) Applying these principles to the facts of the present case I may observe that as per the case of the prosecution the accused after his arrest on 20.5.2007 the accused made a detail disclosure statement to the police wherein he gave information regarding the identity of the various victims, the object and motive of his killing them, the manner of their killings, the manner he disposed off their bodies, the letters which he had left along with the bodies, the telephone calls which he made to the police after committing the offences and the place where he had kept the weapons of offence and the conveyance i.e. rickshaw fitted with engine of a scooter in which he used to carry the mutilated bodies and dismembered parts which he disposed off in and around Delhi. I have gone through this disclosure statement and the perusal of the said statement shows that in his disclosure the accused Chanderkant Jha had given the following information: That in the year 2002 after he released from the Jail he started residing at Azadpur in Char Khambe Wali Gali and during those days he got acquainted with one Anil Mandal @ Amit a resident of Bhagalpur, Bihar who was introduced to him by one Arvind. That he become fed up with the acts of Anil Mandal @ Amit since Anil Mandal used to frequently borrow money from him which he failed to return despite his asking. That when Anil @ Amit Mandal had gone to Rohini Court for attending a date, he took Anil @ Amit Mandal along with him and took him to his room at the house of Mangal Sen Pandit. That he had killed Anil @ Amit Mandal after beheading him. That he put the decapitated body of Anil @ Amit Mandal in a tokri and also put a letter in the said tokri.
That he threw the decapitated body of Anil @ Amit Mandal on the parti / footpath between the Gate No.3 and ATM of Central Jail Tihar. That thereafter he threw the head of Amit @ Anil Mandal in a pit of water near Loni. That thereafter he went to Tilak Nagar from where he made a call at Police Station Hari Nagar from a STD Booth and took the mobile number of Inspector Hoshiyar Singh. That he had spoken to Inspector Hoshiyar Singh on his telephone bearing No. 9871284644 and while he was still talking to Inspector Hoshiyar Singh the STD Booth owner had suspicion on him due to which reason he immediately went away from there. That he can point out the place where he had committed the offence and can got recover the motor-rickshaw on which he had thrown the body parts at various places. That in the month of March-April 2007 he got acquainted with one boy Upender who was a resident of Maharajganj, Uttar Pradesh. That Upender used to reside with him and he was having the mobile phone numbers of Upender and his friends / relatives which phone numbers were recovered during his personal search (jamatalashi). That he was having the photograph of Upender and his relative Pankaj at his room at Alipur which photograph he can get recovered. That there was a disputed between him and Upender in respect of a mobile phone.
Page No. 164
That he took Upender to his room at Haiderpur where he committed the murder of Upender by decapitating his head, hands, legs and private pats. That he had put one leg of Upender in a thaila and left the same at Shalimar Bagh Mandir; left another leg at Samay Nagar; one hand at Tis Hazari Courts, Central Gate; another arm and private part at Lal Bagh Loni (Uttar Pradesh) near a sugarcane juice shop and had thrown the head in Yamuna River from the ISBT Flyover. That he had kept the weapon of offence in his room at Haiderpur and the rickshaw fitted with engine on which he had taken the various body parts and had thrown the decapitated body of Upender at Gate No.3, Central Jail Tihar was lying at his house at Alipur which he can recover. That when he was lodged in Jail he met with one Surender who was also lodged in Jail No.3 in a case under Section 379/411 IPC. That through Surender he got acquainted to one Dalip a resident of Bihar. That Dalip was residing with him for the last 15-16 days and told him that he wanted to work as electrician for which reason he (accused) helped him by giving clothes, food, mobile etc. but thereafter Dalip started telling lies. That he was in search of persons who could not be identified easily and by killing him he wanted to take revenge from Jail and Police Authorities. That Dalip used to consume alcohol and non vegetarian food and was involved in womanizing.
Page No. 165
That one day Dalip had eaten fish but did not clean the utensils. That on 17.5.2007 at about 4:00 PM when he met Dalip, he took him to his room at Haiderpur where he committed his murder by decapitating his head, hands, legs and private parts. That he put the decapitated body in a plastic katta, tied it with a rope and left the same in front of Gate No.1, Central Jail Tihar by using his motor-rickshaw. That he had put a two pages letter along with the decapitated dead body in which letter he had mentioned the details of the killings done by him. That thereafter he went to Titarpur from where he made calls to Police Station Hari Nagar and also at 100 number from a STD Booth. That on 18.5.2007 he packed the legs of Dalip in a cardboard box and threw the same in Ganda Nala of Sarai Rohilla and threw the head of Dalip in Yamuna river by wrapping the same in a ghaghri and a red cloth whereas both the hands and private parts of Dalip were packed in a cardboard box and threw the same in front of State Bank of India at Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. That he can point out the various places where he had thrown the dead body and various parts of the dead body. (164) It is writ large from the above that the identity of the
decapitated bodies recovered outside Central Jail Tihar could only be discovered on the basis of the information given by the accused Chandrakant Jha in his disclosure statement. The Investigating Agency
was not in the knowledge of the identity of the decapitated bodies discovered outside Tihar Jail on 20.10.2006 (FIR No. 609/2006), 25.4.2007 (FIR No. 243/2007) and 18.5.2007 (FIR No. 279/2007). For the first time it was only after the above disclosure made by the accused and on the information given by him that it came to be known that the decapitated body found outside Central Jail Tihar on 20.10.2006 belonged to one Anil @ Amil Mandal original resident of Bhagalpur, Bihar. Similarly it was only after the above disclosure made by the accused that it came to be known that the decapitated body found outside Central Jail Tihar on 25.4.2007 belonged to one Upender original resident of Maharajganj, Uttar Pradesh who used to reside with him. The accused was in the know of the mobile phone numbers of friends and relatives of Upender which phone numbers were recovered during his personal search (jamatalashi). Again it was only after the above disclosure made by the accused that it came to be known that the decapitated body found outside Central Jail Tihar on 18.5.2007 (present case) belonged to one Dalip original resident of Bihar whose parentage and other particulars the Investigating Agency has not been able to confirm till date. (165) Further, it was only on account of the disclosure made by the accused that it came to be known to the Investigating Agency that Anil @ Amit Mandal was involved in a criminal case and had come to attend a hearing at Rohini Court on 19.10.2006 which fact was not earlier in the knowledge of Investigating Agency and now stands confirmed on the basis of the Judicial Record of the case against Anil Mandal (FIR No.628/2003, Police Station Shalimar Bagh under Sections 25/54/59 of Arms Act. Here, I may observe that it was much later in the year 2010 in the further investigations that the identity of the decapitated body
could be finally confirmed after tracing the family of Anil @ Amit Mandal R/o Bhagalpur Bihar on the basis of the DNA Report and had it not been for the disclosure of the accused that the deceased was involved in a criminal case and had come to attend a date in the Rohini Courts on 19.10.2006 that the identity of the deceased would not have been established. In fact in the slip recovered from the possession of the accused at the time of his arrest bearing various mobile numbers, this Court has observed that there is one name mentioned i.e. Rajesh Goel. It is now at final stage when this Court suo-moto called for judicial record of case FIR No. 628/03 that it was revealed that on 19.10.2006 the deceased Anil Mandal appeared before Sh. Rajesh Goel, Ld. MM, Rohini. This fact was not within the knowledge of anyone that the Court where the deceased Anil Mandal had the hearing of his case listed was of Sh. Rajesh Goel MM and it is now at this final stage that it has been revealed (from judicial record suo-moto called by the Court) that it was in the Court of Sh. Rajesh Goel MM (whose name finds reflected in the slip found in possession of the accused at the time of his arrest). It is this fact which lends credibility to the disclosure statement of the accused and also to the paper slip (containing many telephone numbers and names) recovered from the possession of the accused. (166) Pursuant to his disclosure the accused had also led the police party to Yamuna Banks where he had allegedly thrown the skulls of two of the victims whom he had killed i.e. Dalip and Anil Mandal. This fact that the skull had been wrapped in a ghaghri and red cloth and thrown on the banks of river Yamuna was not in the knowledge of the Investigating Agency. It was the accused Chanderkant Jha who pointed out the place where he had thrown both the skulls out of which one skull and jaw could be recovered on his pointing out. According to the
accused the said skull and jaw appeared to be of Dalip who used to consume gutkha but the DNA Fingerprinting report conclusively established that the same was of Anil Mandal @ Amit the victim in FIR No. 609/2006 whose decapitated was discovered outside Tihar Jail on 20.10.2006 (not of Dalip in fact skull of Dalip could not be found). (167) The accused also disclosed that after killing his victims he used to cut off their body parts and threw their parts at various places in and around Delhi with the help of his motorable rickshaw (which rickshaw he got recovered from his house at Alipur immediately after his arrest). Though many of these body parts were recovered at various places in Delhi even before the arrest of the accused yet I may observe that they could not be connected to the victims so killed by the accused. It was only pursuant to the arrest of the accused that the body parts i.e. one leg put recovered at Ramdev Mandir, Shalimar Bagh, arm and private part at Lal Bagh Loni (Uttar Pradesh) which had been found near a sugarcane juice shop were dismembered parts of body of Upender (FIR No. 243/2007) and the lower limbs and the private parts which had been recovered near State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Courts belonged to Dalip (confirmed by the DNA Fingerprinting Report). This is discovery of fact as contemplated under Section 27 of Evidence Act and is admissible in evidence. (168) Further, pursuant to his disclosure the accused led the police party to his room at Haiderpur from where he got recovered three choppers and a nunchaku which he used for killing his victims. The FSL Report confirms the presence of blood stains of AB Group on one of the choppers / knives and also on the concrete floor of the room which is the blood group belonging to the last victim of the accused i.e. Dalip (FIR No. 279/2007 i.e. present case) whom he had killed about
five to six days prior to his arrest. (169) It is evident that the place where the decapitated body was recovered was already within the knowledge of the police but the Investigating Agency was not able to connect these body parts being recovered from various places to the victims until it was the accused who disclosed to them at what place he had thrown the dismembered body part of which victim. Further, it was also not within the knowledge of the Investigating Agency as to how the decapitation of the victims had been done unless it is the accused who disclosed to them that he had done it with the help of choppers / knives which he got recovered from his house at Haiderpur. It was also not within the knowledge of the Investigating Agency that the slip recovered from the pocket of the accused contained the telephone numbers of the relatives of Upender one of the victim in FIR No. 243/2007. Pursuant to the above disclosure it was the accused who not only led the police to his room at Haiderpur but also got recovered from there, the choppers / knives and also one mobile phone which he disclosed was belonging to one of his victims (last victim Dalip in FIR No. 279/2007) and it is this which is discovery of relevant fact. The portion of the disclosure statement of the accused which is discovery of facts as aforesaid is admissible in evidence and is a strong pointer towards the guilt of the accused. Recovery of the letter along with the decapitated body/ Report of the Handwriting Expert/ Letters are in the nature of Confession: (170) The case of the prosecution is that in all the serial killings which had taken place in respect of which three FIRs i.e. FIR No.609/2006, FIR No. 243/2007 and FIR No.279/2007 were registered, a definite pattern was observed by the Investigating Agency. Along with
the decapitated bodies in two cases i.e. FIR No. 609/2006 & FIR No.279/2007 the killer had also placed a handwritten letter in which he not only confessed his having killed the victims but also mocked the Law Enforcement Agency and challenged them to lay their hands on him. The Ld. Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State has placed his reliance on the said letters recovered along with the decapitated bodies (in FIR No.609/2006 & FIR No.279/2007) which according to the prosecution reflects that the killings were the handiwork of only one person and it is in this regard that in the letter recovered on 18.5.2007 (in FIR No.279/2007) not only does the killer disclose the identity of the decapitated body recovered on 20.10.2006 (in FIR No.609/2006) but also confesses to having thrown the decapitated body outside Gate No.3, Tihar Jail in FIR No. 243/2007 after killing his victim around 24 th of April. (171) On the other hand it is argued by the Ld. Defence Counsel that the said letters recovered along with the decapitated body on 20.10.2006 (in FIR No. 609/2006) and on 18.5.2007 (in FIR No. 279/2007) have been planted upon the accused by the police later on to create evidence against the accused. It is submitted that in both the cases i.e. FIR No. 609/2006 and 279/2007 the said letters do not find a mention either in the Crime Team Reports nor are reflected in the photographs taken by the Crime Team which clearly show that they have been planted only to work out the case. Ld. Defence Counsel has also pointed out that despite the fact that the said letters have been allegedly seized by the Investigating Officer on the same day yet in both the cases they have not been sealed or deposited in the Malkhana at the earliest showing that they have been planted much later.
Page No. 171
(172)
The Ld. Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State has sought to
counter the arguments advanced by the Ld. Defence Counsel by submitting that the fact that the letters were recovered along with the decapitated bodies find a mention in the Tehrir/ Rukka prepared by the Investigating Officer at the spot itself on the basis of which the respective FIRs containing the said contents have been registered. He has further submitted that the inquest papers prepared at the spot after which the decapitated body was sent to the Autopsy Surgeon for purposes of postmortem, also contain the original tehrir / rukka which bear the signatures of the Autopsy Surgeon thereby establishing that the said letters could not have been planted later. Ld. Addl. Public Prosecutor has further submitted that even otherwise there is no legal requirement of sealing the said letters and the Investigating Officer by choice had deliberately not sealed the same since the said letters were the only source / clue which could have possibly lead the Investigating Agency to the alleged serial killer. (173) I have heard the rival contentions and duly considered the same. Before proceeding further at the very outset I may observe that the argument advanced by the Ld. Defence Counsel that the fact of the letter being recovered along with the decapitated bodies does not find reflected either in the crime team report or in the photographs taken by the Photographer of the Crime Team in both the cases i.e. FIR No. 609/2006 and FIR No. 279/2007. At the same time it is also correct that the aspect of the letters having being found along with the decapitated body cannot be doubted because the said fact finds a mention in the rukka / Tehrir prepared in both the cases (i.e. FIR No.609/2006 and 279/2007) and the resultant FIR copies of which have been proved to be dispatched to the senior officers including the Illaka Magistrates and
there is no question of the same having been planted later. Further, the Tehrir forms a part of the Inquest papers in both the cases and the signatures of the Autopsy Surgeon find reflected on the same (now encircled by the Court as Z1 for the sake of convenience). The Autopsy Surgeon Dr. Anil Shandil is an independent person and there is no reason for him to colluded with the Investigating Agency in this regard. The question which now arises is whether the letters produced before the Court are the same which were found along with the decapitated bodies or have been swapped / changed. Here, I may observe that the handwriting expert has in both the cases i.e. FIR No. 609/2006 and FIR No. 279/2007 proved that the handwriting in the said letters match with the sample handwriting of the accused Chanderkant Jha (which sample handwriting's in both the cases were taken with the permission of the Ld. Illaka Magistrate in his presence and hence cannot be doubted). It is not the case of the accused that while in police custody he was compelled to write these letters. Hence in this background the accused having failed to explain as to how then the said letters allegedly recovered along with the decapitated bodies contained handwriting which according to the expert matched with his handwriting there is no reason to doubt the version of the prosecution. (174) Coming first to the letter recovered along with the decapitated body found outside Central Jail Tihar on 20.10.2006 (FIR No.609/2006) which has been duly exhibited, the contents of the same are as under: ... delhi police teri maa ki bhosra, teri maa ki chut. Ab kaan khol kar saare delhi police sun lo ki ab tak main najayaj case jhelta raha lekin main ab hakikat mein murder kiya hoon. Agar is murder mein tum mujhe pakar sako to pakar kar dikhao tab main samjhunga ki tum saare ke saare delhi police uper se niche tak ke staff apne asal maa-baap ke paidaish ho. Nahin to najayaj case lagana band karo varna ye
shilshila hamesha hamesha ke liye jari rahega aur tum log mujhe kabhi bhi nahin pakar paoge kyonki main koi gangvar nahin hoon ki mujhe case khulne ka dar laga rahega kyonki iska saboot ye hai ki 2003 ke november mahine mein jo ek number par main-ne murder karke dala usko bhi tum log nahin khol sake aur na hi is case ko khol paoge kyonki ye hamara vada hai varna nahin to najayaj case lagana band karo ya phir case khol sako to case khol kar dikha do. Tumhare intzar mein tum logon ka baap + jijaji. CC.... (175) It is writ large from the above that the author of the said letter
has in clear terms voluntarily and without any fear not only confessed to the killing of the victim of the decapitated body but also to another killing which took place in November 2003 decapitated body of which victim was also thrown outside Gate No.1 which could not be worked out by the Delhi Police. It is evident that this was a fact which was only in the special knowledge of the alleged killer and none else. (176) Coming next to the letter recovered along with the decapitated body found outside Central Jail Tihar on 18.5.2007 (FIR No.279/2007) which has been duly exhibited, the contents of the same are as under: ...... Mere priyajano. delhi police ke jaanbaz D.H.G. se lekar I.P.S. Tum sabhi ko tumhare jijaji aur tumhare daamad ke taraf se khullam-khulla challenge hai ki agar vakai mein tumlogon ki maa ko tumlogon ke hi baap ne chodkar paida kiya hai to mujhe pakarkar dikhao varna tum saare upar se niche tak ke delhi police ka staff najayaz maa + baap ka paidaish kahlaoge aur tum log yahi sochna ki vakai mein tum logon ki maa aur behan kisi aur adhikar wallon se chudne wali hai kyonki (maadarchodon) maadarchodon ke aulaad tum delhi police vale bahut hi behanchod aur maa chod ho kyonki tum log najayaz case lagakar ek sharif aadmi ko bahut hi galat tarike se pareshaan aur mazbur tatha badnaam kar dete ho ki vo kamane khane ke laayak bhi nahin
reh pata hai. Lekin saale tum log ye bhul jaate ho ki jab ek sharif aadmi sharafat chor kar crime karta hai to phir tum logon ki aise hi maa behan chudi hai jaisa ki Tihar Jail par hota aaya hai aur hota hi rahega jab tak ki tum log mujhe (DCP) Manish Kumar Aggarwal se nahin baat karva doge aur main ek baat (SHO Hoshiyar Singh ji) se jarur kehna chahoonga ki abhi jo pichle hi saal 20.10.2006 ko laash mili thi usme us laash ka app logoon ne thik dhang se muaayena nahin kiya tha kyonki us laash par uske haath par (Amit) naam likha tha lekin aap loogoon ne akhbaar mein uska naam bhi nahin dalwaya tha. Vaise main ye letter likhta to nahin lekin abhi jo shayad 24 ya uske ek aadh din aage-piche April mein main-ne murder karke Tihar Jail par delhi police ke liye tohfa bheja tha uske andar jo letter nahin mila to bechare akhbar vale bhi pareshaan ho gaye ki aakhir delhi police valoon ke damaad aur jijajine abki baar letter kyon nahin bheja. Isliye main aap logoon ke shikayat par gaur pharmaya hai. Mujhe ummid hai ki ye shilshila aise hi chalta rahega aur delhi police valoon ki maa + behan chudti rahegi varna mujhe (DCP Manish Kumar Aggarwal) se baath karva do nahin to shale har 15 din mein aisa tohfa bhejna shuru kar doonga aur tum log mera jhaant bhi nahin bigar paaoge. Kramshah Pr CC Main CC ye baat sina taan kar kabul kar raha hoon ki karib karib saal mein kam se kam 7-8 murder har haal mein karta hoon varna mera dimaag pagal hone lagta hai kyonki ye madarchod delhi police vaaloon ne mujhe najayaz case laga-lagakar itna majboor kar diya ki mujhe majburan ye kadam uthana pada taki unko bhi pata chale ki jab koi sharif aadmi apne haath mein hathiyar uthata hai to uska irada kitna jyada khatarnaak hota hai. Aur shale delhi police ke chote se bare ohdedaaroon tumhe zara si bhi akal nahin hai ki kam se kam itna murder karne vale ke upar abhi tak nahin kuch to 50 hazar inaam to rakh hi doon ya upar valoon se is CC ke baare mein jyada se jyada khunkhar aur khatarnaak ka upadhi de kar inaam rakhvaane ka koshih karo taki is khel mein kuch maja aaye kyonki tum to shale sharif ke baare
mein akhbar aur challan mein aise darshaate ho jaise ki vo janamjaat peshevar criminal ho lekin madarchod delhi police vale main teri maa behan chod raha hoon khullam-khulla to mere upar inaam kyon nahin rakh rahe ho. Main apne upar inaam ki raashi jaanne ke liye ati utsuk hoon. Dhyan rakhna ki mere kaam ke laayak inaam jarur hona chahiye varna meri beijjati hogi to main tum sabki beijjati karva doonga. Ye letter akhbar valoon ko bhi padhwa dena. Aage phir Tohfa ko samay par bhej doonga tum loogoon ka jijaji + daamaad = C.C..... (177) It is writ large from the above that the author of the above
letter was already aware of the fact that the Delhi Police was unable to establish the identity of the victim of the decapitated body found outside Tihar Jail 20.10.2006 and disclosed to them that the said body was of one Amit whose name has also been tattooed on his arm. He has also confessed to the murder of the victim whose decapitated body was found outside Tihar Jail around 24 th of April of the same year. He has further confessed to having killed at-least 7-8 persons in a year and has threatened that he would continue to leave the gifts for the Delhi Police (i.e. decapitated bodies) in a similar manner after every fifteen days. \ (178) I may observe that the seizure memos of the above letters not only mentions the details of the contents of the same but also gives the detail description of the papers on which they were written. In FIR No. 609/2006 the letter was written on a ruled paper a fact which finds a specific mention in seizure memo Ex.PW1/B and further in FIR No. 279/2007 the fact that the letter was written on a yellow page with green ink on both the sides continues on the white sheet which was the backside of a Geography paper of some school, also finds a specific mention in the seizure memo Ex.PW26/A and hence there is no reason to doubt that the same (questioned document) could have been changed.
(179)
Sh. Puran Chand, Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate in whose Court
the sample handwriting of the accused Chanderkant Jha had been taken, has been examined and exhaustively cross-examined. The Ld. MM has proved that he had granted the permission to take the sample handwriting of the accused Chanderkant Jha which sample handwriting was taken by the Investigating Officer in the Court in his presence which samples also bear his counter signatures and authentication. Numerous suggestions have been put to the Ld. MM by the accused but the Ld. MM has stood by his version that the handwriting was taken in his presence all of which papers (containing the sample handwriting) bear his signatures. The only argument of the accused is that the samples allegedly taken in the Court were swapped and changed and hence the report given does not pertain to his handwriting. The Ld. Magistrate has very categorically denied this charge of the accused and has confirmed after seeing all the papers containing the sample handwriting that the said sample handwriting was the one which was given by the accused in his presence in the open Court which bear his counter signatures. There is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of the Ld. Magistrate on this aspect. The accused has also alleged that there are 64 papers on which the sample handwriting was taken and it is just not feasible that the same could have been taken on one date. In this regard I may observe that the proceedings conducted by Sh. Pooran Chand Ld. MM which are Ex.PW28/F (proceeding sheet dated 8.6.2007) are succinctly clear and reflect that on 7.6.2007 the specimen handwriting and signatures could not be taken as sufficient time was consumed in conducting TIP proceedings of refusal of the accused on which the application had to be adjourned for 8.6.2007 on which day in his presence handwriting of the accused in Hindi and specimen
signatures were obtained on 64 sheets all of which were duly endorsed by him as signatures and handwriting taken in his presence and also in the presence of the counsel for the accused (Sh. Vivek Gupta Advocate). There is a presumption of correctness of the Judicial Proceedings and there is no reason to doubt the same. In so far as FIR No.609/2006 is concerned the record of the said proceedings are a part of the Judicial Record of the said case. The Investigating Officer Inspector Sunder Singh and other witnesses who were present at the time of production of the accused before the Ld. Illaka Magistrate having proved that a request had been made to the Ld MM vide an application for taking the sample handwriting of the accused in the said case which request was allowed by Sh. Bhupesh Kumar, Ld. MM after which the sample handwriting of the accused was taken in the presence of the Ld. MM. The original application along with the proceeding sheets and order are a part of the Judicial Record and is presumed to be correct. The accused Chanderkant Jha has not raised any objection to the proceedings conducted before Sh. Bhupesh Kumar, Ld. MM in this regard (no suggestion has been made by the accused to the official witnesses including Inspector Sunder Singh who have deposed about the said proceedings). (180) Coming now to the aspect of the report of the handwriting expert in both FIR No. 609/2006 and FIR No. 279/2007. I may observe that Sh. Sanjeev Kumar Senior Scientific Officer (Documents), FSL, Delhi has proved his report in both the cases. In FIR No. 609/2006 he has proved his report Ex.PW47/A to the extent that the person who wrote the blue writings stamped and marked as S1 to S7 had also written the red writings similarly stamped and marked Q1 & Q2. He has identified the questioned documents which is Ex.PW22/B and the
sample handwriting which are Ex.PW22/U-1 to Ex.PW22/U-7. Further, in FIR No. 279/2007 he has again proved his report which is Ex.PW38/A according to which the person who wrote the blue enclosed writings stamped and marked S1 to S64 also wrote the red enclosed writings similarly stamped and marked Q1 to Q3. (181) The accused has challenged the correctness of the said report and has argued that the same is no authentic and has been given on the asking of the Investigating Officer and hence cannot be relied upon. Before coming to the argument advanced before me, I may observe that it would depend upon the appreciation of report / opinion of handwriting expert and other attending circumstances as to whether the said report can be relied upon or not and to what extent. (182) Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act lay down that when the court has to form an opinion as to the identity of hand writing or finger impressions, the opinions upon that point of the persons expert in that science are relevant facts. If the two hand writings match with each other, this itself is an evidence as per the Indian Evidence act. To say it differently, the matching of two hand writings is itself a substantial evidence under Section 45 of Indian Evidence Act and the opinion of the hand writing expert is sought only to facilitate the court to form an opinion on this point. Therefore, to say that conviction can be or cannot be based solely upon the report of hand writing expert would be misleading. The appropriate interpretation of Section 45 of Indian Evidence Act is that court is competent to form its own opinion on the point of identity of hand writing and for that purpose the court may call for the report of a hand writing expert. Therefore, the relevant fact before this court is the matching or non matching of the hand writing of the accused with the questioned hand writing. If the hand
writings match, there cannot be any hitch in convicting the accused even if further corroborative evidence is not available. I quote from the judgment dated 5.7.2011 passed by the division Bench of Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Ravindra Bhatt and Hon'ble Mr. Justice G. P. Mittal in the case of Jaipal Vs State Criminal appeal No. 137/98 and Rajendra Vs. State Criminal Appeal No. 181/98 as under : ......It is true that except the handwriting Expert's report Ext.PW4/A there is no corroboration that the ransom letter Ext.PW12/A was in the handwriting of Appellant Jaipal. The question was dealt in detail by the Supreme Court in Murari Lal v. State of M. P., AIR 1980 SC 531. The Court observed that handwriting expert is not an accomplice and there is no justification for condemning his opinion evidence. It was held that if the Court is convinced from the report of an expert that the questioned handwriting was of the accused, there is no difficulty in relying upon the expert's opinion without any corroboration. (183) It is pertinent to note that High Court of Delhi had relied upon
Murari Lal Vs. State of M.P. Reported in AIR 1980 SC 531 wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court held that there was no rule of law nor any rule of prudence that the evidence of handwriting expert must not be acted upon, unless substantially corroborated. I would like to quote from this judgment extensively as under: ....... An expert is no accomplice. There is no justification for condemning his opinion-evidence to the same class of evidence as that of an accomplice and insist upon corroboration. True, it has occasionally been said on very high authority that it would be hazardous to base a conviction solely on the opinion on a handwriting expert. But, the hazard in accepting the opinion of any expert, handwriting expert or any other kind of expert, is not because
experts, in general, are unreliable witness-the quality of credibility or incredibility being one which an expert shares with all other witness-, but because all human judgment is fallible and an expert may go wrong because of some defect of observation, some error of premises or honest mistake of conclusion. The more developed and the more perfect a science, the less the chance of an incorrect opinion and the converse if the science is less developed and imperfect. The science of identification of fingerprints has attained near perfection and the risk of an incorrect opinion is practically non-existent. On the other hand, the science of identification of handwriting is not nearly so perfect and the risk is, therefore, higher. An expert deposes and not decides. His duty is to furnish the judge with the necessary scientific criteria for testing the accuracy of his conclusion, so as to enable the judge to form his own independent judgment by the application of these criteria to the facts proved in evidence. (para4) Expert testimony is made relevant by S.45 of the Evidence Act and where the Court has to form an opinion upon a point as to identity of handwriting, the opinion of a person 'specially skilled' in questions as to identity of handwriting is expressly made a relevant fact. There is nothing in the Evidence Act, as for example like illustration (b) to S. 114 which entitles the Court to presume that an accomplice is unworthy of credit, unless he is corroborated in material particulars, which justifies the Court in assuming that a handwriting expert's opinion is unworthy of credit unless corroborated. The Evidence Act itself (S.3) tells that 'A fact is said to be provided when, after considering the matters before it, the Court either believes it to exist or considers its existence so probable that prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it exists.' Further, under S. 144 of the Evidence Act, the Court may presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened, regard being had to the common course of natural
events, human conduct, and public and private business, in their relation to facts of the particular case. It is also to be noticed that S. 46 of the Evidence Act makes facts, not otherwise relevant, relevant if they support or are inconsistent with the opinions of experts, when such opinions are relevant. (Para 6) There is no rule of law, nor any rule of prudence which has crystalised into a rule of law, that opinion evidence of a handwriting expert must never be acted upon, unless substantially corroborated. But, having due regard to the imperfect nature of the science of identification of handwriting, the approach should be one of caution. Reasons for the opinion must be carefully probed and examined. All other relevant evidence must be considered. In appropriate cases, corroboration may be sought. In cases where the reasons for the opinion are convincing and there is no reliable evidence through a doubt, the uncorroborated testimony of a handwriting expert may be accepted. There cannot be any inflexible rule on a matter which, in the ultimate analysis, is no more than a question of testimonial weight. (Cases law discussed). (Para 11) Evidence Act expressly enables the Court to compare disputed writings with admitted or proved writings to ascertain whether a writing is that of the person by whom it purports to have been written. Where there are expert opinions, they will aid the Court. Where there is none, the Court will have to seek guidance from some authoritative text book and the Court's own experience and knowledge. But discharge it must, its plain duty, with or without expert, with or without other evidence. (Para 12) (184) It is borne out from the above that when a case is being
pressed by the prosecution solely on the basis of handwriting expert, the court should be very cautious and the reasons for the expert opinion must be carefully examined. In case where reasons for opinion are
convincing and there is no reliable evidence throwing a doubt upon it, the testimony of handwriting expert may be accepted. (185) Now applying these principles to the facts of the present case it is writ large that the expert Sanjeev Kumar has proved having carefully and thoroughly examined all the documents with the scientific instruments such as stereo microscope, video spectral comparitor- IV, docucenter and VSC 2000/HR etc. under different lighting conditions and has also correctly identified the two letters which have been examined by him. I may observe that the expert Sh. Sanjeev Kumar has prepared his reports in a very scientific manner. He has given detail reasons and I appreciate the manner in which the entire work has been done in a thoroughly professional and scientific manner. A specific suggestion was put to the expert as to why he did not take the photographs of the sample and questioned handwriting for comparison on which he has satisfactorily explained that it was not necessary since the material i.e. both sample and questioned handwriting was sufficient and it is only in cases where the material is insufficient that such a technique is necessitated. (186) Further, I have also personally examined the question document i.e. the above letters recovered along with the decapitated bodies (in FIR No.609/2006 & FIR No.279/2007) in original under a high power magnifying glass in sufficient light and compared them with the sample handwriting's of the accused which were sent to the expert for examination and also with the admitted handwriting of the accused present on his arrest memo, personal search memo, disclosure statement, various pointing out memos, recovery memos and the certified copies of the charge sheet in case FIR No. 452/03, under Section 452/380/411/34 IPC which is Ex.DW1/J (which is admitted and relied upon by the
accused Chanderkant Jha himself) and the signatures put by the accused Chanderkant Jha on his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in the present cases and I may observe that on comparison by me the said handwriting present on the questioned document has been found to be matching with these handwriting / signatures of the accused Chanderkant Jha, though written at a different point of time, in broad features like spacing, size & proportion of characters and nature of commencing and termination of strokes. In this background there is no reason to disbelieve the reports by the expert in both the FIR No. 609/2006 and FIR No. 279/2007. (187) Further, I may observe that the contents of the letters as discussed herein above are in the nature of confession not only to the serial killings in all the three cases i.e. FIR No.609/2006, 243/2007 and 279/2007. In this regard the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sita Ram vs. State of UP reported in AIR 1966 SC 1096 under similar circumstances held the letter recovered along with the dead body to be in the nature of a confession. In the above case the accused Sita Ram had after killing his wife Smt. Sindura Rani placed a letter addressed to the Sub Inspector Jagbir Singh on the table near the dead body under his signatures in Urdu reading as ...I have myself committed the murder of my wife Smt. Sindura Rani. Nobody else perpetrated this crime. I would appear myself after 20 or 25 days and then will state everything. One day the law will extend its hands and will get me arrested. I would surrender myself. (Sd. in Urdu).Sita Ram Naroola, 14th September, 1962." (188) On the back of this letter the following was written: "..It is the first and the last offence of my life. I have not done any illegal act nor I had the courage to do
that, but this woman compelled me to do so and I bad to break the law... (189) The majority view of Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mudholkar and
Hon'ble Chief Justice A.K. Sarkar was that this letter contained a confession addressed to a police officer but it does not come within the bar created under Section 25 of Evidence Act as the police officer was not near by when the latter was written or knew that it was being written and hence the letter could not be a confession made to a police officer. (190) Now applying the ratio to the facts of the present case, it is writ large that the above letters so addressed to the police officer contains the inculpatory portions wherein the author of the crime has confessed to the killings by decapitation of bodies of the victims which he had thrown in front of Central Jail Tihar in the month of November 2003, on 20.10.2006, then on 25.4.2007 and finally on 18.5.2007. (191) The relevant portion of the letter recovered along with the ...Agar is murder mein tum mujhe pakar sako to pakar kar dikhao..... .... kyonki iska saboot ye hai ki 2003 ke november mahine mein jo ek number par main-ne murder karke dala usko bhi tum log nahin khol sake aur na hi is case ko khol paoge... (192) Further, the relevant portion of the letter recovered along with .....main ek baat (SHO Hoshiyar Singh ji) se jarur kehna chahoonga ki abhi jo pichle hi saal 20.10.2006 ko laash mili thi usme us laash ka app logoon ne thik dhang se muaayena nahin kiya tha kyonki us laash par uske haath par (Amit) naam likha tha lekin aap loogoon ne akhbaar mein uska naam bhi nahin dalwaya tha. Vaise main ye letter likhta to nahin lekin abhi jo shayad 24 ya uske ek
decapitated body on 20.10.2006, is as under:
the decapitated body on 18.5.2007, is as under:
aadh din aage-piche April mein main-ne murder karke Tihar Jail par delhi police ke liye tohfa bheja tha uske andar jo letter nahin mila to bechare akhbar vale bhi pareshaan ho gaye ki aakhir delhi police valoon ke damaad aur jijajine abki baar letter kyon nahin bheja.... (193) It is writ large from the above that in the said letters he has not
only confessed to an earlier killing of November 2003 in a similar manner after which he threw the decapitated body in front of Gate No.1, Central Jail Tihar. In so far as the incidents of 20.10.2006 (FIR No. 609/2006), 25.4.2007 (FIR No. 243/3007) and 18.5.2007 (FIR No. 279/2007) apart from the above confessions there is sufficient independent corroboration forthcoming pointing towards the involvement of the accused in the said killings. I hereby hold that these letters which are in the nature of confession are strong pointers to the guilt of the accused in FIR No. 609/2006, FIR No.243/2007 and 279/2007. Identity of the accused Chanderkant Jha as the caller from the STD / PCO Booth of Dev Raj stands established: (194) The case of the prosecution is that on 18.5.2007 at about 6:20 AM the author of the crime had made a call to the PCR from the STD/ PCO Booth of Dev Raj situated at Titarpur and informed the police of having thrown a decapitated body in a bori in front of Gate No.1, Tihar Jail, Delhi. According to the prosecution on receipt of this call the information was immediately transmitted to the local police and verified to be correct. The police then traced the call to the STD Booth run by Dev Raj who confirmed that a person had made a call from his STD Booth to 100 number because the coin which the said person had inserted in the instrument came out which fact was noticed by him (in
case of emergency numbers the instrument does not accept the coin as they are free numbers). (195) In support of their case the prosecution has placed their reliance on the testimony of STD Booth owner namely Dev Raj who has been examined as PW6. Dev Raj (PW6) has proved that he was running a STD Booth from his shop situated at WZ-17, Titarpur, Delhi with phone No. 42133579 which was a coin inserted telephone instrument and was installed in the name of his wife. He has proved that on 18.5.2007 at about 6:20 AM one person came at his shop and inserted a coin and made the telephone call. According to him, after sometime the said person again inserted the coin in the telephone instrument but the coin came out of the instrument. Dev Raj has clarified that when a person usually dials 100 number from that instrument, the coin comes out from the instrument and hence he thought that the said person dialed 100 number at that time. The witness Dev Raj has further deposed that when he inquired from that person to whom he was making the call on which he (said person) became perplexed. He has proved having given the detail description of the accused and has identified the accused Chanderkant Jha in the Court as the person who had made a 100 number call from his telephone instrument. He has also placed on record the copy of the original telephone bill to prove the telephone number of the phone installed in his booth which is Ex.PW6/A. (196) The witness Dev Raj (PW6) has been exhaustively crossexamined by the Ld. Defence Counsel wherein he has explained that he had seen the side face of the accused at the time of making of telephone call and also conversed with the accused on that day (explaining how he could identify the accused). He has explained that first of all the accused came to his shop and made a call after which he went away at a
distance of two-three paces and went to bus stop but after two-three minutes returned to the spot and again made a call. According to witness Dev Raj after two-three days he had also helped the police in making the sketch of the accused and on 26.6.2007 he had identified the accused Chanderkant Jha in front of Court Room No.108 as the person who had made the telephone call from his shop on 18.5.2007. Here, I may observe that the said sketch has not been placed on the judicial record and the accused has during the arguments highlighted this aspect and has argued that no sketch / portrait as claimed was prepared. The argument of the accused that the portrait / sketch has not been prepared is factually incorrect because copy of the same is present on the police file and perhaps deliberately not placed on the judicial record not broadly matching. The benefit of this however cannot be given to the accused because after five to six days of the incident in the present case the accused was arrested and soon thereafter put for TIP which he refused. Dev Raj has proved that after the refusal of the TIP he had come to the Court on 26.6.2007 where he could independently point out towards the accused as the same person who had made a call from his shop. Dev Raj is neither known to the accused previously nor has any animosity with him. There is no reason why he would falsely implicate him. (197) Further, The testimony of Dev Raj (PW6) finds due corroboration from the testimony of ASI Ranpal (PW18) the PCR Official who has proved that on 18.05.2007 at about 6.38 AM a telephone call was received that a dead body was lying in a gunny bag in front of gate No.1, Tihar Jail. He has proved the PCR Form which is Ex.PW11/A.
Page No. 188
(198)
The said PCR Form Ex.PW11/A shows that on 18.5.2007 at
06:38:40 hours a call was received from phone No. 42133579 (belonging to Dev Raj-PW6) by way of which the PCR was informed that a dead body in a gunny bag was lying in front of Gate No.1, Tihar Jail. The owner of the STD Booth namely Dev Raj (PW6) identified the accused Chanderkant Jha as the person who had made a call at 100 number from his STD Booth on 18.5.2007. A Judicial Note of this fact is also taken that this conduct of the accused is compatible to his earlier behaviour in FIR No.609/2006, under Section 302/201 IPC, PS Hari Nagar (wherein the dead body was discovered in front of Central Jail Tihar) when he made calls to the police and challenged them. The pattern of crime is grossly similar in both FIR No. 609/2006 and FIR No. 279/2007. (199) In view of the above, I hereby hold that it stands established that on 18.5.2007 at 06:38:40 hours the accused Chanderkant Jha himself had made a call from the STD/ PCO Booth of Dev Raj (having No.42133579) to the PCR which is a strong pointer towards his guilt. Pankaj has proved the use of telephone numbers 9211463742 and 9211463743 by the accused Chanderkant Jha: (200) The case of the prosecution is that at the time of the incident the accused Chanderkant Jha was using mobile phone with numbers 9211463742 and 9211463743. At the time of his arrest his personal search revealed a mobile phone make TATA Samsung having ESN No. 8562-A099 and having SIM of TATA INDICOM No. 9211463742. Also, at the time of his arrest a slip of paper was recovered from the possession of the accused containing some telephone numbers (which slip is Ex.PW22/Z-9 in FIR No. 609/2006). In this piece of paper the
address of one Pankaj Rathor R/o F-140, RICCO Industrial Area Bhiwadi, Alwar, Rajasthan Phone No. 01493-220679 was also found written and the words in Hindi Pintoo Upender Ka Dost with some telephone numbers written on it. During interrogation the accused Chanderkant Jha explained in his disclosure that the above telephone numbers pertained to some relatives of some of his victims/ deceased including Upender (whose decapitated body was found outside Tihar Jail on 25.4.2007). Being unaware of the identity of the deceased it was then that the Investigating Agency contacted the persons whose name and details were mentioned on this slip of paper which led them to Pankaj Rathor and it came to be known to them that this Pankaj Rathor was the brother of Upender and was known to Chanderkant Jha through his brother Upender who according to him was residing in Delhi with Chanderkant Jha. (201) During interrogations Pankaj revealed that his cousin brother Upender @ Pintoo had been staying with one Chanderkant Jha with whom he had been communicating on telephone No. 9211463742. It is this Pankaj (PW1) who independently corroborates the disclosure made by the accused. Pankaj has proved that his deceased brother Upender was using mobile phone No. 9211463743 and the accused Chanderkant Jha was using mobile No.9211463742. According to Pankaj, he was regularly communicating to his brother Upender till 24.4.207 but thereafter when he made a call it was switched off and thereafter he made call to the phone of Chanderkant Jha who informed him that Upender had cheated him (accused) and caused him a loss of Rs.20,000/- and that Upender had run away with the rehri after which he cut the phone call saying that he was not aware of whereabouts of Upender. Thereafter Pankaj again made a call to the accused
Chanderkant Jha and this time his daughter picked up the phone and told him that it was a wrong number but on his insistence she told him to call after ten minutes. According to Pankaj (PW1) after ten minutes he again made a call to the accused and talked to the accused who repeated what he had told him earlier by saying Jaisa usska karaam tha voh wahan paunnch gaya and thereafter disconnected the phone. (202) Pankaj (PW1) is an independent witness who is the cousin brother of the deceased / victim Upender whose decapitated body was found outside Tihar Jail on 25.4.2007. This Pankaj (PW1) has been exhaustively cross-examined by the accused in all the three FIRs i.e. FIR No. 609/2006, 243/2007 and 279/2007. He is an illiterate rustic villager and at some places in his cross-examination has got confused on the aspect of the telephone numbers and has explained that he could not recollect the exact number but that will not fatal to the prosecution case since after being reminded he confirmed the telephone numbers on which he used to speak to his brother Upender. Pankaj has also explained that he was known to Chanderkant Jha even prior to this incident through his brother Upender and has further explained that first time he met Chanderkant Jha was with Upender when he had come to Delhi for getting one boy by the name of Pawan released from Prayas. His testimony to the extent that he was regularly in touch with Upender on mobile numbers 9211463742 and 9211463743 which fact find independent corroboration from the Call Detail Records of the above numbers which have been placed by the prosecution and duly proved in accordance with law by the service providers. (203) Further, I may note that at the time of the arrest of the accused he was found in possession of a mobile phone make Tata Samsung bearing ESN No. 8562A099 along with SIM No. 9211463742 (also
reflected from the Jamatalashi / personal search memo which has been duly proved) and the Call Detail Records prove the use of SIM No. 9211463742 and 9211463743 on the mobile phone bearing ESN No. 8562A099. Further, the Call Detail Records prove that the call had been received by the accused Chanderkant Jha on his mobile phone No. 9211463742 from Bhiwari, Rajasthan. It is this which independently lends credence to the testimony of Pankaj (PW1) as being truthful (oral testimony of Pankaj finds corroboration from the electronic record). (204) There is no history of any kind of animosity between Pankaj and Chanderkant Jha and there is no reason why Pankaj would have falsely implicate him in the present case. It therefore stands established that the accused Chanderkant Jha was using the mobile numbers 9211463742 and 9211463743 of which one mobile set make TATA Samsung having ESN No. 8562-A099 which was recovered from the possession of the accused Chanderkant Jha at the time of arrest containing the above SIM bearing No. 9211463742. Electronic Record: (205) The next question which arises is relating to the authenticity and correctness of the electronic record sought to be relied upon by the prosecution. In this regard I may observe that the witness from the service provider i.e. Nodal Officer Sh. M. N. Vijayan (PW48) from Tata Services Ltd. has in case FIR No.243/2007 proved that mobile No. 9211463742 was allotted to one Rahul Jain S/o Shri Hari Om Jain. He has proved the copy of the application form; copy of the driving licence in support of address of Rahul Jain and has also proved the call details record of Mobile No. 9211463742 for the period 1.4.2000 to 20.5.2007. In the said case (FIR No. 243/2007) he has further proved that the
mobile no.9211463743 was also allotted to Rahul Jain S/o Shri Hari Om Jain vide application form supported by the address proof of Rahul Jain i.e. driving licence and the call detail record of the same for the period 11.3.2007 to 20.5.2007. (206) In the present case Sh. Gaganjit Singh Sidhu (PW33) Nodal Officer, Tata Teleservices has proved the same original record of the mobile no.9211463742 which is in the name of Rahul Jain S/o Shri Hari Om Jain. He has placed on record the copy of the application form which is Ex.PW33/A and copy of the driving licence in support of address of Rahul Jain which is Ex.PW33/B. Further, he has also proved the record of the mobile no.9211541254 which is in the name of Deepak Kumar S/o Shri Surender Kumar, the copy of the application form which is Ex.PW33/C; copy of the ration card in support of address of Deepak Kumar which is Ex.PW33/D and the Call Details Record of the mobile phone no. 9211463742 (running into four pages) for the period from 7.5.07 to 19.5.07 are ExPW33/E. He has also proved the call details record of the mobile phone no. 9211541254 (running into four pages) for the period from 11.5.07 to 18.5.07 which are Ex.PW33/F. (207) I have gone through the above record and it is writ large that both the SIMs bearing numbers 9211463742 and 9211463743 have been allotted to only one person i.e. Rahul Jain who as per the evidence on record has been found to be a non existing person. The prosecution has placed its reliance on the testimony of Pankaj the brother of the deceased Upender who was in regular contact with his brother Upender on the above numbers of Chanderkant Jha who was using the said numbers. As discussed herein above there is no reason to doubt the testimony of Pankaj in this regard more so because the location chart of the above numbers confirm that the user of the said numbers was
operating in the area of Alipur and Haiderpur where incidentally the accused Chanderkant Jha used to reside. (208) The Call Details Records also indicate and prove the incoming and outgoing calls along with the location showing the movement of the user of the said phone at various point of time and not only does it confirm that the accused Chanderkant Jha was using the mobile No. 9211463742 the SIM of which was recovered from the Tata Samsung mobile bearing ESN No. 8562A099 which mobile phone was recovered from his possession in his personal search at the time of his arrest on 20.5.2007 but also confirms that calls had been received on the said number from Bhiwari (Rajasthan) i.e. from Pankaj. The relevant entries of the calls so made on the number 9211463742 from Bhiwari (as reflected from the Call Detail Records) are reproduced as under:
Sr. No. 1 2 3 4 5 Date Time Dura Calling No. tion Called No. Cell ID ESN No. Nature of call
20070430 210444 572 20070517 210545 51 20070517 210555 61 20070517 211941 622 20070517 211952 622
1493513863 9211463742 28834 8562A099 In 1493512553 9211463742 1493512553 9211463742 8562A099 In 8562A099 In 1493512553 9211463742 29026 8562A099 In 1493512593 9211463742 29635 8562A099 In
(209)
The above calls conclusively establishes that the witness
Pankaj (PW1) used to talk to his cousin Upender (deceased) through the mobile phone of accused Chanderkant Jha who was using mobile No. 9211463742 thereby lending credibility to the testimony of Pankaj (PW43). (210) It is further the case of the prosecution that the accused Chanderkant Jha got recovered another mobile phone having ESN No. 8781FA97 with No. 9211541254 from his room at House No.229, Gali No.2, Haiderpur Village, Delhi and disclosed that the said phone was
belonged to deceased Dalip (which fact was not in the knowledge of the Investigating Agency and came to be known only when the accused informed them about the same). The Call Detail Records of this mobile no. 9211541254 were obtained and the frequently used number (9312616022) was contacted and the user of the same was found to be one Sunita @ Geeta (not examined by the prosecution) and it was she who then revealed that the phone No. 9211541254 was being used by Dalip (who according to the accused was his third victim).
(211)
Sh. Raj Kumar (PW32) Additional Nodal Officer, Reliance
Communication Ltd. has brought the record of mobile phone no.9312616022 according to which the said mobile number was allotted to one Dalip S/o Babu Lal R/o N-116/336/1, Shiv Mandir, JJ Camp, Badli Village, Delhi; the Customer Application Form in this regard is ExPW32/A; copy of the election identity card in support of the address of the subscriber which is ExPW32/B and the call details of the aforesaid mobile phone from 1.5.07 to 22.5.07 which are Ex.PW32/C. It is this number which was being used by Sunita @ Geeta (not examined) though it was allotted in the name of Dalip and it is her call which finds reflected in the Call Detail Records of mobile bearing ESN No. 8781FA97.
(212)
I may further observe that after having gone through the Call
Detail Records as aforesaid of mobile No. 9211541254 which reflected the frequently used number 9312616022, I found it strange that neither this Sunita @ Geeta nor anybody else whose numbers were found reflected in the Call Detail records were cited as witnesses by the prosecution. This is despite the fact that the police file and the case diaries reflect that initial investigations conducted by Inspector Omvir Singh revealed that the mobile phone No. 9312616022 was being used
by one Sunita @ Geeta who informed the police that the mobile phone No. 9211541254 was used by Dalip (deceased) who was a rickshaw puller and she also informed the police that Kailash and Deepak were the room mates of Dalip pursuant to which the said Kailash and Deepak were also contacted who both also confirmed that the mobile phone No. 9211541254 was used by Dalip who was missing since 17-18.5.2007. Here, I may note that despite the fact that the statements of the said persons i.e. Sunita @ Geeta, Kailash Shah, Naresh Singh, Sushil Kumar and Deepak were recorded by the initial Investigating Officer Inspector Omvir Singh under Section 161 Cr.P.C. yet they were not cited as prosecution witnesses nor examined in the Court. This clearly reflects the non professional, casual approach of the subsequent Investigating Officers since it is only these witnesses who could have led to the user of the mobile phone number 9211541254 who according to the accused was the victim whose decapitated body was found outside Tihar Jail on 18.5.2007. (213) Be that as the case may be, coming now to the Call Detail Records of mobile no. 9211463742 being used by the accused Chanderkant Jha on 17.5.2007 (the date of the crime) which shows the location of the user. The relevant entries are reproduced as under:
Sr. No. Date Time Dur Calling No. ation Called No. Cell ID ESN No. Nat Location ure of call Out Samaipur Badli Jahangir Puri Jahangir Puri Jahangir Puri
1 2 3 4 5
20070517 160437 20070517 160437 20070517 170751 20070517 173653 20070517 203009
79 9211463742 9211541254
8781fa97
79 9211463742 9211541254 29026 8562a099 Out 175 9211541254 9211463742 29043 8562a099 In 66 9211463742 9211541254 29043 8562a099 Out 77 9211463742 9210661810 29043 8562a099 Out
Page No. 196
6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
20070517 210102 20070517 210545 20070517 210555 20070517 211941 20070517 211952 20070518 3559
28 9211463742 9210661810 29187 8562a099 Out 51 1493512553 9211463742 8562a099 In
RBI Colony Bihwari Samaipur Badli Bhalsava dairy
51 1493512553 9211463742 29026 8562a099 In 622 1493512553 9211463742 8562a099 In
622 1493512553 9211463742 29635 8562a099 In
15 9211463742 9211541254 29026 8562a099 Out Samaipur Badli 1 9211463742 9968391192 28883 8562a099 Out 2 9211463742 9968391192 28883 8562a099 Out 634 9211463742 9213603961 28867 8562a099 Out Nanglipuna Nanglipuna Alipur
20070518 104005 20070518 104347 20070518 142458
(214)
I may note that the tower installed at Samaypur Badli, Bhalswa
Dairy, Jahangir Puri and RBI Colony, Shalimar Bagh cover the area of Haiderpur which are adjoining areas. It confirms that on the intervening night of 17-18.5.2007 the accused was throughout present in the area of Haiderpur and he had made a call to the deceased at 12:35 AM (midnight) as highlighted above which was the last call received on the phone of Dalip after which the number of Dalip i.e. 9211541254 was switched off which he was operating on his mobile set bearing ESN No. 8781FA97 (which mobile set was recovered from the room of the accused at Haiderpur when he led the police party to the said room). This confirms the case of the prosecution that the deceased / victim was alive till the midnight of 17-18.5.2007 and was called by the accused to Haiderpur at 12:35 AM (location of the victim from his mobile set bearing ESN No. 8781FA97 is established at RBI Colony at 12:35 AM and that of the accused from his mobile set bearing ESN No. 8562A099 is established at Samaypur Badli i.e. adjoining areas). (215) Coming now to the Call Detail Records of the mobile No. 9211541254 being used by Dalip (in the name of Deepak) which is
Ex.PW33/F. A careful analysis of the said Call Detail Records would show that the accused Chanderkant Jha and the deceased were in regular contact with each other on the mobile phone. The ESN No. 8562A099 of the mobile phone used by the accused Chanderkant Jha on which he was using his SIM No. 9211463742 (which mobile phone was recovered from the possession of the accused at the time of his arrest) finds reflected in the Call Detail Records of the mobile No. 9211541254 allegedly used by the deceased Dalip (which mobile phone was recovered from the room of the accused at Haiderpur) who was using the mobile set bearing ESN No. 8781FA97 (both the ESN No. 8562A099 & 8781FA97 find reflected in the Call Detail Records of Dalip Ex.PW33/F which normally occurs when the call is waiting) confirms this fact. (216) It is writ large that the aforesaid electronic evidence independently corroborates the disclosure statement made by the accused that he had killed a victim who according to him was Dalip (unknown till date) on the intervening night of 17-18.5.2007 and thrown his decapitated body at Central Jail Tihar (which was discovered at the Gate No.1) at 6:45 AM after a 100 number call was received from the alleged killer from a PCO Booth at Titarpur (whose owner Dev Raj has identified the accused as the person who had made the call at 100 number). When the entire material as aforesaid was put to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the accused Chanderkant Jha simply denied the same but has not lead any evidence in his defence on this aspect. How the mobile phone bearing ESN No.8562A099 and SIM No. 9211463742 came into his possession and also how the mobile set bearing ESN No.8781FA97 which was allegedly being used by one Dalip was found in his room at Haiderpur (got recovered by him during
investigations), were aspects which were in special knowledge of the accused on which he has not been able to offer any valid explanation for the same which is a strong pointer towards the guilt of the accused. Forensic Evidence: (217) The entire case of the prosecution is based upon circumstantial, electronic and forensic evidence which have come to the aid of the prosecution there being no direct evidence. DNA Fingerprinting Report: (218) The case of the prosecution is that despite the fact that
pursuant to the disclosure of the accused they were able to connect the decapitated body recovered on 18.5.2007 to be of one Dalip a resident of Bihar who was known to the accused Chanderkant Jha but till date they have not been able to establish the complete identity of the said victim i.e. his parentage and background. It is submitted that the fact that it is the accused who had committed the murder of the victim whose body was found outside Central Jail Tihar on 18.5.2007 whom he refers to as Dalip, stands established from the fact that pursuant to his disclosure that he had thrown the dismembered body parts of Dalip at various places including SBI Tis Hazari Courts, the DNA Fingerprinting was got conducted which established that the dismembered body parts i.e. left upper limb and right upper limb (recovered from SBI Tis Hazari on 19.5.2007) were matching with the sternum of the decapitated body recovered outside Central Jail Tihar on 18.5.2007. (219) Sh. A.K. Srivastava (PW37) Assistant Director (Biology), DNA Finger Printing Unit, FSL, Rohini has proved that on 30.07.2007 six forensic samples in the present case were received in their office
regarding DNA, finger printing test and the samples were duly sealed with the seal of DFMT, DDU hospital. He has also proved that parcel No.1 was containing Ex.1 i.e. one bone piece described as sternum vide PM No. 581/07; Parcel No.2 was containing Ex2 i.e. blood sample vide PM No. 581/07; parcel No.3 was containing Ex3 i.e. five teeth taken out of the skull vide PM No. 582/07; parcel No.4 was containing Ex4 i.e. one bone piece described as left upper limb bone vide PM No. 583/07; Parcel No.5 was containing Ex5 i.e. one bone piece described as right upper limb bone vide PM No. 583/07 and Parcel No. 6 was found to contain Ex6 i.e. two small pieces of hair vide PM No. 583/07. According to him, exhibit No. 1 to 6 were subjected to DNA isolation and DNA was isolated from the exhibits 1 to 5 however the DNA could not be isolated from Ex.6 and DNA finger printing profiles were prepared for the exhibits 1 to 5. He has proved that STR (Sort Tandam Repeat) analysis was used for each of the sample and data was analyzed by using Genescan and Genotype Software. The witness has proved that DNA profile (STR analysis) performed on the exhibits provided was sufficient to conclude that Ex.1 (bone piece sternum), Ex.2(blood sample), Ex.4 (bone piece-left upper limb bone) and Ex.5 (bone piece right upper limb bone) were similar in origin. He has further proved that the alleles as from the sources of Ex.1 (bone piece sternum) the postmortem No. 581/07, Ex.2 (blood sample) vide PM No. 581/07, Ex.4 (bone piece left upper limb bone) vide PM No. 583/07 and Ex.5 (bone piece- right upper limb bone) vide PM No. 583/07 were matching with each other. However the alleles as from the source of Ex.3 (teeth taken out from the skull) vide PM No. 582/07 was not matching with alleles from the source from Ex.1 (bone piece sternum) vide PM No. 581/07, Ex.2 (blood sample) vide PM No.
581/07, Ex.4 (bone piece left upper limb bone) vide PM No. 583/07 and Ex.5 (bone piece-right upper limb bone) vide PM No. 583/07. He has proves his detailed report in this regard which is Ex.PW37/A.
(220)
Sh. A.K. Shrivastava (PW37) has proved that on 13.03.2008
four forensic samples pertaining to this case was received in DNA Unit and he examined the said exhibits. According to him, Ex.A i.e. piece of cloth having dark stains; Ex.B i.e. some broken cemented floor piece; Ex.C i.e. a piece of cloth having dark brown stains and Ex.D i.e. some broken cemented floor pieces described as concrete material were subjected to DNA isolation and DNA was isolated from the exhibits A and C, however DNA could not be isolated from Ex.B and Ex.D. However, a partial male DNA finger printing profiles was prepared for the Ex.A and Ex.C and due to partial male DNA profile of Ex.A and C no conclusion of result could be made therefore no opinion was offered by laboratory. He has proved his report in this regard which is Ex.PW37/B. (221) The above forensic evidence on record conclusively establishes that the two upper limbs and the private parts recovered near State Bank of India, Tis Hazari on 19.5.2007 and the decapitated body recovered at Gate No.1, Central Jail Tihar was of the same person and also that the blood lifted from the room of the accused at Haiderpur (AB Group belonging to the deceased) was of a male. Viscera Report:
(222)
The case of the prosecution is that the viscera of the dead body
preserved by the Autopsy Surgeon Dr. Anil Shandil (PW2) was sent for chemical examination. Sh. Jitender Kumar (PW31) Senior Scientific Assistant (Chemistry), FSL Rohini has proved that on 30.07.2007, he
had chemically examined Ex.1a i.e. stomach and small intestine with contents and Ex.1b i.e. piece of liver, spleen and kidney and no common poison could not be detected in Ex 1a and Ex 1b. He has proved his detailed report in this regard which is Ex.PW31/A according to which on chemical and TLC examination, metallic poison, ethyl and methyl alcohol, cyanide, phosphide, alkaloids, barbiturates, tranquilizers and insecticides could not be detected in exhibits 1a and 1b. This proves that the deceased had not consumed any alcohol prior to his death. Serological / Biological Report:
(223)
The case of the prosecution is that on 20.5.2007 when the
accused Chanderkant Jha was arrested, he led the police party to his room at House No.229, Gali No.2, Haiderpur Village, Delhi where he had committed the offence pursuant to which the FSL Expert was called who had lifted the various exhibits. Sh. Naresh Kumar (PW5) Senior Scientific Assistant (Biology) FSL, Delhi has proved that on 20.05.2007, on request of Inspector Sunder Singh he had visited House No. 229, Gali No.2, Haiderpur Village and inspected the scene of crime i.e. the room situated at ground floor where crime team members were already present there. He has proved having lifted the blood stains from various places including the knives. According to him, 30.07.2007 he examined the various exhibits of this case biologically vide his detailed report Ex.PW5/A and also examined the exhibits serologically vide his detailed report which is Ex.PW5/B.
(224)
I have gone through the Biological Report which is Ex.PW5/A
according to which blood was detected on exhibits 1a (baby's frock
Page No. 202
having brown stains); 1b (baby's pyjami having few dark stains); 1c (baby's baniyan having a few stains); 1d (baby's top); 1e (baby's pyjami); 1f (cut / torn baniyan having a few dark stains); 1g (yellow and red colour baby's frock); 1h (rope); 1i (plastic bag); 2 (cut / torn underwear); A (small cloth piece having faint brown stains); B (cemented floor piece); C (small cloth piece having faint brown stains); D (concrete pieces); E (weapon of offence knife); F (weapon of offence-knife) and G (weapon of offence knife). The Serological Report Ex.PW5/B establishes that the blood group of the deceased was of 'AB Group' which blood group was found on exhibits 1a (baby's frock having brown stains); 1b (baby's pyjami having few dark stains); 1d (baby's top); 1e (baby's pyjami); 1f (cut / torn baniyan having a few dark stains); 1g (yellow and red colour baby's frock); 1h (rope) and exhibit E (weapon of offence knife) recovered from the house of the accused. Here, I may observe that the decapitated body was discovered on 18.5.2007 and the weapon of offence were recovered from the house of the accused Chanderkant Jha on 20.5.2007 due to which reason it could be possible by the Forensic Expert to lift the blood stains from the knives. (225) Therefore, I hereby hold that the forensic evidence is compatible to the prosecution case and confirms that the victim whose decapitated body was found outside Central Jail Tihar was killed in the room at Haiderpur (as disclosed by the accused) as the blood on the floor, the clothes kept in the room, chopper / knife was of AB Group belonging to the deceased / victim and the partial DNA profile which could be prepared also confirms the same to be of a male. This conclusively connects the accused Chanderkant Jha with the offence.
Page No. 203
Spot Inspection carried out by the Court on 25.2.2012: (226) During the course of trial this Court had on 25.2.2012 carried out the inspection of various spots (under Section 310 Cr.P.C.) which included the places where the decapitated bodies and the various body parts had been found from time to time in respect of which case FIR No. 609/2006, 243/3007 and 279/2007 were registered. The sketches showing the location of the area and the position of the spot where the said body parts were allegedly recovered was confirmed by me i.e. at Central Jail Tihar Gate No.1, Gate No.3 and the spot near the UTI ATM. The area at the banks of river Yamuna from where the skull and jaw were recovered was also inspected and I found that the same was approachable from the side of ISBT flyover on foot. The area in front of SBI Tis Hazari Courts, Baba Ramdev Temple Haiderpur from where the body parts of the various victims had been recovered was also inspected. Further the house at Alipur where the accused was residing with his family at the time of his arrest and the spot from where he was apprehended and arrested was inspected. I also inspected the room at Haiderpur from where the accused had allegedly got recovered the choppers, nunchaku and the mobile phone of make Tata Samsung bearing ESN No. 8562A099. The notes of the spot inspection were prepared by me which are present on the judicial file copies of which were supplied to the accused [in terms of provisions of Section 310 (2) Cr.P.C.]. (227) Since it had come on record that the accused possessed a motorable rickshaw (rickshaw rehri fitted with an engine of a scooter which had been seized by the police and produced in the Court and exhibited) and it was alleged that he used that motroable rickshaw to ferry the body parts and the decapitated bodies at various places where
he disposed them off, I carefully during the spot inspection observed and analyzed the entire route which according to the prosecution the accused allegedly took while disposing off the decapitated bodies and their parts at various places in and around Delhi in the above cases (FIR No.609/2006, FIR No.243/2007 & FIR No.279/2007) so as to examine and evaluate the estimated time which could have been consumed in the said process. (228) I further observed that much of the route undertaken by the author of the crime was a part of a Highway and the places where the different body parts had been discovered were either connected or adjoining to the Highway / route undertaken by him. I also noticed that the area around Alipur (leading to the house of the accused) from the National Highway (GT Road) has large isolated and vacant spots of land and also large green area, fields and jungles (thick natural vegetative growth) at many places (around both Alipur and Haiderpur). Discrepancies & Contradictions:
(229)
The Ld. Defence Counsel for the accused has vehemently
argued that the witnesses examined by the prosecution are untrustworthy and cannot be relied upon. He has in support of his claim highlighted the various contradictions in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses including Pankaj the brother of the victim in case FIR No. 243/2007. He has vehemently argued that the discrepancies and contradictions occurring in the testimonies of the various prosecution witnesses are material on account of which they cannot be relied upon. He has submitted that the close scrutiny of the testimonies of the official witnesses particularly the members of the Special Staff who were involved in the arrest and subsequent proceedings connected with the
accused thereafter would show that there are material contradictions in their statements on the aspect as to the details of the members of the police party and the persons who had joined the same at the time of the arrest of the accused; the time when the crime team had reached the spot and the number of photographs taken; the place where the forensic expert Dr. Naresh Kumar had been picked up and the manner in which he was brought to the room at Haiderpur; availability and source of light inside the room at Haiderpur; the status of the room at Haiderpur as to whether it was locked or unlocked and who first opened the same and how; the place where the knives and nunchaku were kept; the person who first lifted the knives / choppers and the manner of their seizure. He has further pointed out that in so far as the alleged proceedings of recovery of the skull and jaw at the banks of river Yamuna are concerned, again there are material contradictions in the testimonies of these witnesses on the aspects of the person who called the divers at river Yamuna; the time of recovery of skull and jaw; availability of light and its source at the banks of river Yamuna where the proceedings took place and regarding the availability of the private photographer and taking of photographs. (230) He has also placed his reliance to the various replies from the Police Department obtained by the accused under the RTI and has vehemently argued that the formal record of the Daily Diaries have been manipulated only to corroborate the main investigations. (231) The Ld. Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State on the other hand has vehemently argued that there are no contradictions and discrepancies as alleged. He submits that the contradictions so pointed out by the Ld. Defence Counsel are not material and would not affect the merits of the case at all. He has further submitted that in so far as
the RTI replies are concerned they are neither primary nor secondary evidence and otherwise cannot taken the place of substantive evidence. He has argued that the attempt of the accused is only to create a confusion and doubt in the mind of the Court and it is only because of the same that he has been mischievously putting misleading questions to the Department and thereafter using the replies by twisting them to suit his convenience. (232) I have considered the rival contentions but before dealing with the same on merits it is necessary to briefly discuss the law on the subject. In the case of State of H.P. Vs. Lekhraj and another reported in JT 1999 (9) SC 43 it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that:In the depositions of witnesses there are always normal discrepancy, however, honest and truthful they may be. Such discrepancies are due to normal errors of observation, normal errors of memory due to lapse of time, due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of occurrence, and the like .The traditional dogmatic hyper technical approach has to be replaced by rational, realistic and genuine approach for administering justice in a criminal trial. (233) Further, in the case of Surender Singh Vs. State of Haryana
reported in JT 2006 (1) SC 645, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has observed as under :It is well-established principle of law that every discrepancy in the witness statement cannot be treated as a fatal to the prosecution case. The discrepancy, which does not affect the prosecution case materially, does not create infirmity.
Page No. 207
(234)
As far as minor inconsistencies are concerned in the statement
of the witnesses it is held in the case of Ousu Varghese Vs. State of Kerala, reported in (1974) 3 SCC 767 that minor variations in the accounts of the witnesses are often the hallmark of the truth of their testimony. In the case of Jagdish Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in AIR 1981 SC 1167, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that when the discrepancies are comparatively of minor character and did not go to the root of the prosecution story, they need not be given undue importance. Mere congruity or consistency is not the sole test of truth in the depositions. Also in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Kalki, reported in (1981) 2 SCC 752 it has been held that in the depositions of witnesses there are always normal discrepancy, however, honest and truthful they may be. Such discrepancies are due to normal errors of observation, normal errors of memory due to lapse of time, due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of occurrence, and the like. Material discrepancies are those which are not normal, and not expected of a normal person. (235) Even otherwise, when an eye witness is examined at length it is quite possible for him to make some discrepancies. No true witness can possibly escape from making some discrepant details. Perhaps an untrue witness who is well tutored can successfully made his testimony totally non-discrepant. Courts have to bear in mind that it is only when discrepancies in evidence of witness are so incompatible with the credibility of his version that the Court is justified in jettisoning his evidence. Too serious a view to be adopted on mere variations falling in the narration of incident (either as between the evidence of two witnesses or as between two statements of the same witness) is an unrealistic approach for judicial scrutiny.
(236)
It may be observed that it is a general handicap attached to all
eye witnesses, if they fail to speak with precision their evidence would be assailed as vague and evasive, on the contrary if the speak to all events very well and correctly their evidence becomes vulnerable to be attacked as tutored. Both approaches are dogmatic and fraught with lack of pragmatism. The testimony of a witness should be viewed with broad angles. It should not be weighed in golden scales, but with cogent standards. In a particular case an eyewitness may be able to narrate the incident with all details without mistake if the occurrence had made an imprint on the canvas of his mind in the sequence in which it occurred. He may be a person whose capacity for absorption and retention of events is stronger than another person. It should be remembered that what he witness was not something that happens usually but a very exceptional one so far as he is concerned. If he reproduces it in the same sequence as it registered in his mind, the testimony cannot be dubbed as artificial on that score alone. (Ref.: Bhag Singh and Others Vs. State of Punjab, reported in 1997 VII AD SC 507). (237) The Supreme Court had an opportunity to discuss as to why discrepancies arise in the statements of witnesses. In the judgment of Bharwada Boginbhai Hijri Bhai Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in 1983 (CRI) GJX 0252 SC: AIR 1983 SC 7453 (1), the Supreme Court pointed out the following reasons as to why the discrepancies, contradictions and improvements occur in the testimonies of the witnesses. (a) By and large a witness cannot be expected to possess a photographic memory and to recall the details of an incident. It is not as if a video tape is replayed on the mental screen.
(b) Ordinarily it so happens that a witness is overtaken by events. The witness could not have anticipated the occurrence which so often has an element of surprise. The mental faculties therefore cannot be expected to be attuned to absorb the details. (c) The powers of observation differ from person to person. What one may notice, another may not. An object or movement might emboss its image on one person's mind, whereas it might go unnoticed on the part of another. (d) By and large people cannot accurately recall a conversation and reproduce the very words used by them or heard by them. They can only recall the main purport of the conversation. It is unrealistic to expect a witness to be a human tape recorder. (e) In regard to exact time of an incident, or the time duration of an occurrence, usually people make their estimates by guess work on the spur of the moment at the time of interrogation. And one cannot expect people to make very precise or reliable estimates in such matters. Again, it depends on the time sense of individuals which varies from person to person. (f) Ordinarily a witness cannot be expected to recall accurately the sequence of events which take place in rapid succession or in a short time span. A witness is liable to get confused, or mixed up when interrogated later on. (g) A witness, though wholly truthful, is liable to be overawed by the court atmosphere and the piercing cross-examination made by counsel and out of nervousness mix up facts, get confused regarding sequence of events, of fill up details from imagination on the spur of the moment. The subconscious mind of the witness sometimes so operates on account of the fear of looking foolish or being disbelieved through the witness is giving a truthful and honest account of the occurrence witnessed by him perhaps it is a sort of psychological defence mechanism activated on the moment.
Page No. 210
(238)
Applying the settled principles of law to the facts of the
present case and I may at the very outset observe that in so far as the replies to the RTI are concerned the same cannot take the place of substantive evidence led in the Court. In case if any of the parties seek to rely upon such replies in their support the same should have been brought on record as a part of evidence and subjected to a similar examination and cross-examination as any other evidence which has not been done. Rather, on the contrary despite sufficient opportunity and time being given to him by the Court at the stage of final arguments, the accused has not done so. (239) Further, I may observe that certain discrepancies have been pointed out by the Ld. Defence Counsel in the statement of Pankaj (PW1) the cousin brother of the victim Upender with regard to the date, time and phone numbers are concerned. I may note that the examination of Pankaj is relevant in all the three cases (FIR No. 609/2006, 243/2007 & 279/2007) to the extent of proving the use of mobile numbers 9211463742 and 9211463743 by the accused. Also, in FIR No. 243/3007 he is relevant because he is the person who had last spoken to the deceased victim on 24.4.2007 after which the mobile phone No. 9211463743 on which he was regularly speaking to the deceased was switched off. He is also relevant in the said case because when Pankaj spoke to the accused Chanderkant Jha on 17.5.2007 to find out the whereabouts of his brother Upender (victim) certain remarks were made by the accused Chanderkant Jha (which this court has observed were in the nature of Extra Judicial Confession). Pankaj is a rustic illiterate villager. It is only natural for him to have been overawed by the court atmosphere and the piercing cross-examination made by accused and his counsel at the time of his repeated appearances (in all the three cases)
and of having got mixed up with facts and getting confused out of nervousness or having filled up details from imagination on the spur of the moment. Also with regard to the witness Pankaj not recollecting the telephone number during his examination, I may observe that it is common for a person to forget the mobile numbers not in use for many years. Pankaj was produced in the Court as a witness after many years of the incident and he has conceded that he had forgotten the numbers on account of passage of time but soon he was permitted to refresh his memory he was able to admit and tell the said numbers. [Ref.:Bharwada Boginbhai Hijri Bhai Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in 1983 (CRI) GJX 0252 SC: AIR 1983 SC 7453 (1)]. (240) Further, as regards the contradictions in the timings, presence of a particular police official at a particular time, description of the house at Haiderpur where the accused had allegedly committed the offence and the other contradictions as highlighted above by the Ld. Defence Counsel, I may observe that by and large witnesses are not expected to possess a photographic memory so as to recall all the details and to reply them as a video tape on the mental screen. Further, the power of observation may differ from person to person and what one member of the investigating team may notice while standing at a particular place, the other may not notice. In respect of the discrepancies as regards time or duration it is a matter of common knowledge that usually people make their estimates by guess work at the spur of the moment and one cannot expect them to make precise and reliable estimates in such matters as it depend upon sense of time of an individual witness. Also, in case where a large number of events take place in a rapid succession it is natural for the witness to get confused with regard to the sequence of events and hence in this background the
discrepancies and contradictions so pointed out by the Ld. Defence Counsel in the testimonies of the various police officials / members of the police party who had carried out the investigations are not material and would not be fatal to the prosecution case. Hence, in view of the above background I am of the considered view that the contradictions and discrepancies so pointed out by the Ld. Defence Counsel are too immaterial and irrelevant as it is the evidence of the prosecution witness regarding the commission of the offence by the accused which is more important than the investigation conducted in the present case. (241) I may further observe that the contradictions and discrepancies as pointed out herein above which relate to the investigation and procedural lapses. I may observe that merely because there are contradictions in the evidence regarding investigation or even if there is faulty investigation, the same would not absolve the accused of his liability as it is the evidence of the material and star witnesses which is more important than the evidence of the witnesses of the investigation and in this regard I am supported by the Hon'ble Supreme Court who in the case of State of U. P. Vs. Jagdeo & Others., reported in (2003) 1 Supreme Court Cases 456 and also in the case of Rabinder Kumar Pal @ Dara Singh Vs. Republic of India reported in AIR 2011 SC 1436 observed that: ...... Mere faulty investigations cannot be a ground for acquittal of the accused. For the fault of the prosecution the perpetrators of a ghastly crime cannot be allowed to go scot-free........ (242) In view of the above I do not find any force in the submission
of the counsel for throwing out the case of the prosecution merely on the ground of certain discrepancies / contradictions in the deposition of various prosecution witnesses. I am of the considered view that such
discrepancies are bound to occur in the deposition of various witnesses being usual and natural and even otherwise as they are found to be formal in nature without striking at the root of the matter and the same cannot be treated as fatal for the prosecution. Sequence of events established: (243) On the basis of the evidence on record the following sequence of events which now emerge and stand established is as under: Dated 18.5.2007: That on 18.5.2007 at 06:38:40 hours a call was received at Police Control Room from phone No. 42133579 by way of which the PCR was informed that a dead body in a gunny bag was lying in front of Gate No.1, Tihar Jail (PCR Form Ex.PW11/A). That on 18.05.2007 at 06.50 AM information was received at Police Station Hari Nagar that one dead body in a gunny bag was lying in front of Gate No.1, Tihar Jail pursuant to which DD No.10-A (Ex.PW19/A) was recorded. That the said DD entry was entrusted to ASI Krishan Chand for necessary action on which ASI Krishan Chand along with Ct. Ram Singh rushed to the spot and found one plastic bag tied with the plastic strips on the footpath on the North side of Gate No.1, Central Jail, Tihar. That the Crime Team was called to the spot and on reaching there The Crime Team inspected the spot and photographs were taken. That the crime team lifted the exhibits and thereafter opened the plastic katta which was containing another plastic katta with a lotus design on it duly stitched which was also opened.
Page No. 214
That on opening the second katta it found to contain a head less body with both the arms missing and the legs below the knees were also missing. That the photographer of the crime team also took the photographs of the same and on examination of the body it was found to be of a male who appeared to be around 25-26 years of age and medium built and dusky complexion (saanwla). That that after the Crime Team left the spot the first and second katta in which the body was kept was thoroughly checked and it was observed that between the first plastic katta and the second plastic katta there were two letters one was written on a yellow paper with a green pen and the other was a printed paper containing a writing on the back side in green ink, which letter was seized vide memo Ex.PW26/A. That a tehrir was prepared by ASI Krishan Chand in which the contents of the letter were incorporated which is Ex.PW26/C pursuant to which the present case was got registered and the decapitated body was got preserved. That the PCR From was obtained showing the call made from No. 42133579. That inquiries revealed that the said number was of STD Booth of Dev Raj and during inquiries Dev Raj gave description of the caller. Dated 19.5.2007: That on 19.05.2007 at 5:25 AM while the PCR Van Sugar 27 was standing at gate No.1, Tis Hazari Courts one public person informed the PCR officials (ASI Yudhisther) that one carton box was lying in front of State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Court
Complex. That on checking the same two hands severed from human body and a polythene bag containing penis of human being were recovered which information was sent to PCR at 5:25 AM. That immediately information was sent to local police (vide DD No. 4A - Ex.PW25/A) pursuant to which ASI Arjun Singh from Police Station Subzi Mandi reached the spot i.e. State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi and conducted the proceedings. Dated 20.5.2007: That on 20.5.2007 at about 2:00 PM pursuant to a secret information the accused Chanderkant Jha was apprehended near Shivmandir Mianwali Nagar by the Special Staff West District (i.e. Inspector Sunder Singh, Inspector Dalip Kaushik, SI Narender and ASI Virender). That the accused was interrogated during which he disclosed having killed many persons by decapitating their heads and having thrown their various body parts in and around Delhi. That the accused also disclosed the name of the deceased in this case as Dalip and also disclosed that he used to throw the various decapitated bodies and their parts at various places by using a rickshaw fitted with scooter engine. That from the personal search of the accused a mobile phone make TATA SAMSUNG was recovered having ESN No.8562A099 and having SIM of TATA INDICOM No. 9211463742 was recovered (Ex.P-17). That the said rickshaw fitting with the engine of a scooter was found parked outside the room of the accused at Alipur (house of
Sanjay Mann)
which rickshaw was thereafter taken into
possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW30/D. That the accused Chanderkant Jha thereafter led the police party to his rented room situated at ground floor of house bearing no.229/2, Haiderpur which was belonging to one Mangal Sain Pandit. That the room was got photographed by the photographer of the crime team and the members of crime team inspected the room, the crime team expert took four chance prints/finger prints. That the FSL expert Dr. Naresh Kumar was called who also inspected the room of the accused and lifted the blood from the floor; blood stained earth control and three blood stained big size knives which the accused Chanderkant had disclosed were the weapons of offence and broken floor piece, which were taken into possession and seized vide memo Ex.PW30/E. That the police team inspected the room and searched the taand (partition in the room) and recovered one nunchaku (an instrument/ weapon used by Karate fighter) which nunchaku was having double chain and on both the sides there were wooden handles, which was also seized vide memo Ex.PW30/F. That one jeans pant from the khoonti of the said room and one mobile phone make Indicom (Ex.P-18 bearing ESN No.8781FA97 and SIM No. 9211541254) from the Almirah kept in the room were also recovered, which the accused Chanderkant Jha disclosed to be belonging to the deceased Dalip, which pant and mobile phone were also taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW30/F.
Page No. 217
That certain mobile phones were also written on the wall of the room which phone numbers were noted down by the members of the raiding party. Dated 21.5.2007: That on 21.5.2007 the accused led the police party to various places including Kishanganj across the railway line near ganda nalla where he had thrown legs of the body of deceased on 18.5.2007 and State Bank, Tis Hazari compound where he had left two hands of the body of the deceased and his private parts after packing the same in the straw board box. Dated 23.5.2007: That on 23.5.2007 pursuant to his disclosure statement the accused Chanderkant Jha got recovered one skull and jaw (which according to the accused was of deceased Dalip) from the banks of river Yamuna. Dated 8.6.2007: That on 8.6.2007 the TIP proceedings were conducted but the accused Chanderkant Jha refused to participate in the same. That on the same day i.e. 8.6.2007 the specimen handwriting of the accused Chanderkant Jha was taken in the Court of Sh. Pooran Chand, Ld. MM in his presence on 64 sheets. Dated 14.6.2007: That on 14.6.2007 postmortem examination on the decapitated body found at Gate No.1, Central Jail Tihar on 18.5.2007; the body parts i.e. severed hands and private parts found at State
Bank of India, Tis Hazari Courts on 19.5.2007 and the skull & jaw got recovered by the accused from the banks of river Yamuna, was conducted by Autopsy Surgeon Dr. Anil Shandil. Dated 26.6.2007: That on 26.6.2007 the STD Booth owner identified the accused Chanderkant Jha in the Rohini Court Complex in front of Court Room No.108 as the person who had made a call at 100 number on 18.5.2007 from his STD Booth. FINAL CONCLUSIONS: (244) In the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharastra, AIR 1984 SC 1622, the Apex Court has laid down the tests which are pre-requisites before conviction should be recorded, which are as under: 1. The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. may be established; 2. The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the 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 conclusive nature and tendency; 4. They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and The circumstances concerned must or should and not
Page No. 219
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.
(245)
Applying the above principles of law to the present case it is
evident that it stands established t hat on 18.5.2007 at 06:38:40 hours a call was received at Police Control Room from phone No. 42133579 by way of which the PCR was informed that a dead body in a gunny bag was lying in front of Gate No.1, Tihar Jail; that on the same day at 06.50 AM information was received at Police Station Hari Nagar that one dead body in a gunny bag was lying in front of Gate No.1, Tihar Jail pursuant to which DD No.10-A was recorded; that the said DD entry was entrusted to ASI Krishan Chand for necessary action on which ASI Krishan Chand along with Ct. Ram Singh rushed to the spot and found one plastic bag tied with the plastic strips on the footpath on the North side of Gate No.1, Central Jail, Tihar; that the Crime Team was called to the spot and on reaching there The Crime Team inspected the spot and photographs were taken; that the crime team lifted the exhibits and thereafter opened the plastic katta which was containing another plastic katta with a lotus design on it duly stitched which was also opened; that on opening the second katta it found to contain a head less body with both the arms missing and the legs below the knees were also missing; that the photographer of the crime team also took the photographs of the same and on examination of the body it was found to be of a male who appeared to be around 25-26 years of age and medium built and dusky complexion (saanwla); that that after the Crime Team left the spot the
Page No. 220
first and second katta in which the body was kept was thoroughly checked and it was observed that between the first plastic katta and the second plastic katta there were two letters one was written on a yellow paper with a green pen and the other was a printed paper containing a writing on the back side in green ink, which letter was seized; that a tehrir was prepared by ASI Krishan Chand in which the contents of the letter were incorporated which is Ex.PW26/C pursuant to which the present case was got registered and the decapitated body was got preserved; that the PCR From was obtained showing the call made from No. 42133579; that inquiries revealed that the said number was of STD Booth of Dev Raj and during inquiries Dev Raj gave description of the caller; that on 19.05.2007 at 5:25 AM while the PCR Van Sugar 27 was standing at gate No.1, Tis Hazari Courts one public person informed the PCR officials (ASI Yudhisther) that one carton box was lying in front of State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Court Complex; that on checking the same two hands severed from human body and a polythene bag containing penis of human being were recovered which information was sent to PCR at 5:25 AM; that immediately information was sent to local police (vide DD No. 4A) pursuant to which ASI Arjun Singh from Police Station Subzi Mandi reached the spot i.e. State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi and conducted the proceedings; that on 20.5.2007 at about 2:00 PM pursuant to a secret information the accused Chanderkant Jha was apprehended near Shivmandir Mianwali Nagar by the Special Staff West District (i.e. Inspector Sunder Singh, Inspector Dalip Kaushik, SI Narender and ASI Virender); that the accused was interrogated during which he disclosed having killed many persons by decapitating their heads and having thrown their various body parts in and around Delhi; that the accused also disclosed the name of the
deceased in this case as Dalip and also disclosed that he used to throw the various decapitated bodies and their parts at various places by using a rickshaw fitted with scooter engine; that from the personal search of the accused a mobile phone make TATA SAMSUNG was recovered having ESN No.8562-A099 and having SIM of TATA INDICOM No. 9211463742 was recovered; that the said rickshaw fitting with the engine of a scooter was found parked outside the room of the accused at Alipur (house of Sanjay Mann) which rickshaw was thereafter taken into possession; that the accused Chanderkant Jha thereafter led the police party to his rented room situated at ground floor of house bearing no.229/2, Haiderpur which was belonging to one Mangal Sain Pandit; that the room was got photographed by the photographer of the crime team and the members of crime team inspected the room, the crime team expert took four chance prints/finger prints; that the FSL expert Dr. Naresh Kumar was called who also inspected the room of the accused and lifted the blood from the floor; blood stained earth control and three blood stained big size knives which the accused Chanderkant had disclosed were the weapons of offence and broken floor piece, which were taken into possession; that the police team inspected the room and searched the taand (partition in the room) and recovered one nunchaku (an instrument/ weapon used by Karate fighter) which nunchaku was having double chain and on both the sides there were wooden handles which was also seized; that one jeans pant from the khoonti of the said room and one mobile phone make Indicom (bearing ESN No.8781FA97 and SIM No. 9211541254) from the Almirah kept in the room were also recovered, which the accused Chanderkant Jha disclosed to be belonging to the deceased Dalip, which pant and mobile phone were also taken into possession; that certain
mobile phones were also written on the wall of the room which phone numbers were noted down by the members of the raiding party; that on 21.5.2007 the accused led the police party to various places including Kishanganj across the railway line near ganda nalla where he had thrown the legs of the body of deceased on 18.5.2007 and State Bank, Tis Hazari compound where he had left two hands of the body of the deceased and his private parts after packing the same in the straw board box; that on 23.5.2007 pursuant to his disclosure statement the accused Chanderkant Jha got recovered one skull and jaw (which according to the accused was of deceased Dalip) from the banks of river Yamuna; that on 8.6.2007 the TIP proceedings were conducted but the accused Chanderkant Jha refused to participate in the same; that on the same day i.e. 8.6.2007 the specimen handwriting of the accused Chanderkant Jha was taken in the Court of Sh. Pooran Chand, Ld. MM in his presence on 64 sheets; that on 14.6.2007 postmortem examination on the decapitated body found at Gate No.1, Central Jail Tihar on 18.5.2007; the body parts i.e. severed hands and private parts found at State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Courts on 19.5.2007 and the skull & jaw got recovered by the accused from the banks of river Yamuna, was conducted by Autopsy Surgeon Dr. Anil Shandil; that on 26.6.2007 the STD Booth owner identified the accused Chanderkant Jha in the Rohini Court Complex in front of Court Room No.108 as the person who had made a call at 100 number on 18.5.2007 from his STD Booth.
(246)
It has also been established that the accused is Mission
Oriented and Task Oriented Serial Killer whose only motive / mission is to expose, mock and challenge the police who as per his allegations had falsely implicated him in many criminal cases; that the letter recovered along with the decapitated dead body is in the
handwriting of the accused Chanderkant Jha which is in the nature of confession is a strong pointer to the guilt of the accused; That on 18.5.2007 at 06:38:40 hours the accused Chanderkant Jha himself had made a call from the STD/ PCO Booth of Dev Raj (having No.42133579) to the PCR which is a strong pointer towards his guilt; that the accused Chanderkant Jha was using the mobile numbers 9211463742 and 9211463743 of which one mobile set make TATA Samsung having ESN No. 8562-A099 was recovered from the possession of the accused at the time of arrest containing the above SIM bearing No. 9211463742; that the electronic evidence on record independently corroborates the disclosure statement made by the accused Chanderkant Jha that he had killed the victim Dalip on the intervening night of 17-18.5.2007 and thrown his decapitated body at Central Jail Tihar (which was discovered at the Gate No.1) at 6:45 AM after a 100 number call was received from the alleged killer from a PCO Booth at Titarpur (whose owner Dev Raj has identified the accused as the person who had made the call at 100 number).
(247)
Further, the postmortem findings are consistent with homicidal
death and the medical evidence on record is compatible to the prosecution case. The forensic evidence (DNA Fingerprinting Report) on record conclusively establishes that the two upper limbs and the private parts recovered near State Bank of India, Tis Hazari on 19.5.2007 and the decapitated body recovered at Gate No.1, Central Jail Tihar on 18.5.2007 was of the same person and also that the blood lifted from the room of the accused at Haiderpur (AB Group belonging to the deceased) was of a male (as per partial DNA which could be extracted from the blood of AB Group found in the room at Haiderpur). Also, the forensic evidence in the form of Biological and Serological Reports is
compatible to the prosecution case and confirms that the victim whose decapitated body was found outside Central Jail Tihar was killed in the room at Haiderpur (as disclosed by the accused) as the blood on the floor, the clothes kept in the room, chopper / knife was of AB Group belonging to the deceased / victim and the partial DNA profile which could be prepared also confirms the same to be of a male, which conclusively connects the accused Chanderkant Jha with the offence. (248) The case no doubt is based upon circumstantial evidence, the coincidences pointing out towards the accused Chanderkant Jha as the sole author of the crime are too many and convincing. (249) There are two stages in the criminal prosecution. The first obviously is the commission of the crime and the second is the investigation conducted regarding the same. In case the investigation is faulty or has not been proved in evidence at trial, the question which arises is whether it would absolve the liability of the culprit who has committed the offence? The answer is obviously in negative, since any lapse on the part of the investigation does not negate the offence. (250) The prosecution has proved the identity of the accused, the manner in which the offence has been committed, place of commission of the offence, the investigation including the documents prepared, postmortem report, etc. There is nothing which could shatter the veracity of the prosecution witnesses or falsify the claim of the prosecution. All the prosecution witnesses have materially supported the prosecution case and the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses do not suffer from any infirmity, inconsistency or contradiction and are consistent and corroborative. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses is natural and trustworthy and corroborated by medical & forensic evidence and the witness of the prosecution have been able to built up a
continuous link.
(251)
In view of the above, I hereby hold that the prosecution has
been able to prove and substantiate the intention and knowledge of the accused Chanderkant Jha to cause death of Dalip (by decapitating his head which was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature) as contemplated under Section 299 and 300 Indian Penal Code for which the accused Chanderkant Jha is held guilty for the offence under Section 302 Indian Penal Code. Further, the accused Chanderkant Jha is also held guilty under Section 201 Indian Penal Code for having caused disappearance of evidence of murder in order to screen himself from legal punishment, by throwing the head / body parts of the decapitated body at various places in Delhi. The accused is accordingly convicted. (252) Be listed for arguments on sentence on 2.2.2013.
Announced in the open court Dated: 24.1.2013
(Dr. KAMINI LAU) ASJ-II(NW)/ ROHINI
Page No. 226
IN THE COURT OF Dr. KAMINI LAU: ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE-II (NORTH-WEST): ROHINI COURTS: DELHI Session Case No. 91/2011 Unique Case ID No. 02404$0477652007 State Vs. Chandrakant Jha S/o Radhey Kant Jha R/o Village and Post Office Ghasi, Police Station Chausa, Distt. Madhepura, Bihar (Convicted) 279/2007 Hari Nagar 302/201 Indian Penal Code 24.1.2013 2.2.2013 4.2.2013
FIR No.: Police Station: Under Section: Date of Conviction: Arguments heard on: Date of Sentence: APPEARANCE: Present:
Sh. P.K. Verma, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State. Convict Chanderkant Jha in Judicial Custody with Sh. Deepak Sharma Advocate / Amicus Curiae.
ORDER ON SENTENCE: In the year 2006 and 2007 Delhi was rocked and shaken by serial killings. In these killings the author of the crime followed a definite pattern where he killed the victims by decapitating their heads and thereafter chopped their various body parts and threw the decapitated bodies of these young men outside the Central Jail Tihar and scattered their dismembered body parts at various places around Delhi.
He did not stop at that and followed his crime precisely. After throwing the decapitated bodies he used to inform the police about the crime (in two cases) and the place where he had thrown the decapitated body. Further, along with these bodies he also left a note / letter (two cases) wherein he boasted of his criminal acts and challenged the Law Enforcement Agencies to catch him. In the last crime which came to light on 18.5.2007 (present case), he had also threatened to send similar gifts (decapitated bodies) to the Delhi Police after every 15 days. Three such cases were registered in respect of the decapitated bodies thrown outside Central Jail Tihar on 20.10.2006, 25.4.2007 and 18.5.2007 in respect of FIR Nos. 609/2006, 243/2007 and 279/2007 were registered at Police Station Hari Nagar in which the accused Chanderkant Jha is the accused. All these cases though not consolidated, were taken up together the pattern of crime / modus operandi being similar; major investigations being common; the evidence in the form of electronic records; forensics etc. being common. In the present case as per the allegations, the accused Chandrakant Jha had some time prior to 18.5.2007 committed the murder of an unknown person (whom he refers to as Dalip) by beheading his body and thereafter wrapped the headless / decapitated body in a gunny bag which he threw outside Gate No.1, Central Jail, Tihar. In order to conceal the identity of the deceased and to cause disappearance of evidence of murder in order to screen himself from legal punishment, he also threw the head / body parts of the decapitated body at various places in Delhi. On the basis of the testimonies of the various prosecution witness and also on the basis of medical, forensic, electronic and other circumstantial evidence on record, this Court vide judgment dated
24.1.2013 held that it stood established t hat on 18.5.2007 at 06:38:40 hours a call was received at Police Control Room from phone No. 42133579 by way of which the PCR was informed that a dead body in a gunny bag was lying in front of Gate No.1, Tihar Jail; that on the same day at 06.50 AM information was received at Police Station Hari Nagar that one dead body in a gunny bag was lying in front of Gate No.1, Tihar Jail pursuant to which DD No.10-A was recorded; that the said DD entry was entrusted to ASI Krishan Chand for necessary action on which ASI Krishan Chand along with Ct. Ram Singh rushed to the spot and found one plastic bag tied with the plastic strips on the footpath on the North side of Gate No.1, Central Jail, Tihar; that the Crime Team was called to the spot and on reaching there The Crime Team inspected the spot and photographs were taken; that the crime team lifted the exhibits and thereafter opened the plastic katta which was containing another plastic katta with a lotus design on it duly stitched which was also opened; that on opening the second katta it found to contain a head less body with both the arms missing and the legs below the knees were also missing; that the photographer of the crime team also took the photographs of the same and on examination of the body it was found to be of a male who appeared to be around 25-26 years of age and medium built and dusky complexion (saanwla); that that after the Crime Team left the spot the first and second katta in which the body was kept was thoroughly checked and it was observed that between the first plastic katta and the second plastic katta there were two letters one was written on a yellow paper with a green pen and the other was a printed paper containing a writing on the back side in green ink, which letter was seized; that a tehrir was prepared by ASI Krishan Chand in which the contents of the letter were incorporated pursuant to which the present case was got
registered and the decapitated body was got preserved; that the PCR From was obtained showing the call made from No. 42133579; that inquiries revealed that the said number was of STD Booth of Dev Raj and during inquiries Dev Raj gave description of the caller; that on 19.05.2007 at 5:25 AM while the PCR Van Sugar 27 was standing at gate No.1, Tis Hazari Courts one public person informed the PCR officials (ASI Yudhisther) that one carton box was lying in front of State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Court Complex; that on checking the same two hands severed from human body and a polythene bag containing penis of human being were recovered which information was sent to PCR at 5:25 AM; that immediately information was sent to local police (vide DD No. 4A) pursuant to which ASI Arjun Singh from Police Station Subzi Mandi reached the spot i.e. State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi and conducted the proceedings; that on 20.5.2007 at about 2:00 PM pursuant to a secret information the accused Chanderkant Jha was apprehended near Shivmandir Mianwali Nagar by the Special Staff West District (i.e. Inspector Sunder Singh, Inspector Dalip Kaushik, SI Narender and ASI Virender); that the accused was interrogated during which he disclosed having killed many persons by decapitating their heads and having thrown their various body parts in and around Delhi; that the accused also disclosed the name of the deceased in this case as Dalip and also disclosed that he used to throw the various decapitated bodies and their parts at various places by using a rickshaw fitted with scooter engine; that from the personal search of the accused a mobile phone make TATA SAMSUNG was recovered having ESN No.8562A099 and having SIM of TATA INDICOM No. 9211463742 was recovered; that the said rickshaw fitting with the engine of a scooter was found parked outside the room of the accused at Alipur (house of Sanjay
Mann) which rickshaw was thereafter taken into possession; that the accused Chanderkant Jha thereafter led the police party to his rented room situated at ground floor of house bearing no.229/2, Haiderpur which was belonging to one Mangal Sain Pandit; that the room was got photographed by the photographer of the crime team and the members of crime team inspected the room, the crime team expert took four chance prints/finger prints; that the FSL expert Dr. Naresh Kumar was called who also inspected the room of the accused and lifted the blood from the floor; blood stained earth control and three blood stained big size knives which the accused Chanderkant had disclosed were the weapons of offence and broken floor piece, which were taken into possession; that the police team inspected the room and searched the taand (partition in the room) and recovered one nunchaku (an instrument/ weapon used by Karate fighter) which nunchaku was having double chain and on both the sides there were wooden handles which was also seized; that one jeans pant from the khoonti of the said room and one mobile phone make Indicom (bearing ESN No.8781FA97 and SIM No. 9211541254) from the Almirah kept in the room were also recovered, which the accused Chanderkant Jha disclosed to be belonging to the deceased Dalip, which pant and mobile phone were also taken into possession; that certain mobile phones were also written on the wall of the room which phone numbers were noted down by the members of the raiding party; that on 21.5.2007 the accused led the police party to various places including Kishanganj across the railway line near ganda nalla where he had thrown the legs of the body of deceased on 18.5.2007 and State Bank, Tis Hazari compound where he had left two hands of the body of the deceased and his private parts after packing the same in the straw board box; that on 23.5.2007 pursuant to
his disclosure statement the accused Chanderkant Jha got recovered one skull and jaw (which according to the accused was of deceased Dalip) from the banks of river Yamuna; that on 8.6.2007 the TIP proceedings were conducted but the accused Chanderkant Jha refused to participate in the same; that on the same day i.e. 8.6.2007 the specimen handwriting of the accused Chanderkant Jha was taken in the Court of Sh. Pooran Chand, Ld. MM in his presence on 64 sheets; that on 14.6.2007 postmortem examination on the decapitated body found at Gate No.1, Central Jail Tihar on 18.5.2007; the body parts i.e. severed hands and private parts found at State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Courts on 19.5.2007 and the skull & jaw got recovered by the accused from the banks of river Yamuna, was conducted by Autopsy Surgeon Dr. Anil Shandil; that on 26.6.2007 the STD Booth owner identified the accused Chanderkant Jha in the Rohini Court Complex in front of Court Room No.108 as the person who had made a call at 100 number on 18.5.2007 from his STD Booth. It has also been established that the letter recovered along with the decapitated dead body is in the handwriting of the accused Chanderkant Jha which is in the nature of confession is a strong pointer to the guilt of the accused; that on 18.5.2007 at 06:38:40 hours the accused Chanderkant Jha himself had made a call from the STD/ PCO Booth of Dev Raj (having No.42133579) to the PCR which is a strong pointer towards his guilt; that the accused Chanderkant Jha was using the mobile numbers 9211463742 and 9211463743 of which one mobile set make TATA Samsung having ESN No. 8562-A099 was recovered from the possession of the accused at the time of arrest containing the above SIM bearing No. 9211463742; that the electronic evidence on record independently corroborates the disclosure statement made by the
accused Chanderkant Jha that he had killed the victim Dalip on the intervening night of 17-18.5.2007 and thrown his decapitated body at Central Jail Tihar (which was discovered at the Gate No.1) at 6:45 AM after a 100 number call was received from the alleged killer from a PCO Booth at Titarpur (whose owner Dev Raj has identified the accused as the person who had made the call at 100 number). This Court further observed that the postmortem findings are consistent with homicidal death and the medical evidence on record is compatible to the prosecution case. The forensic evidence (DNA Fingerprinting Report) on record conclusively establishes that the two upper limbs and the private parts recovered near State Bank of India, Tis Hazari on 19.5.2007 and the decapitated body recovered at Gate No.1, Central Jail Tihar on 18.5.2007 was of the same person and also that the blood lifted from the room of the accused at Haiderpur (AB Group belonging to the deceased) was of a male (as per partial DNA which could be extracted from the blood of AB Group found in the room at Haiderpur). Also, that the forensic evidence in the form of Biological and Serological Reports is compatible to the prosecution case and confirms that the victim whose decapitated body was found outside Central Jail Tihar was killed in the room at Haiderpur (as disclosed by the accused) as the blood on the floor, the clothes kept in the room, chopper / knife was of AB Group belonging to the deceased / victim and the partial DNA profile which could be prepared also confirms the same to be of a male, which conclusively connects the accused Chanderkant Jha with the offence. The accused Chanderkant Jha was therefore held guilty of having committed the murder of Dalip by decapitating his head and having caused disappearance of evidence of murder in order to screen himself from legal punishment, by throwing the head / body parts
of the decapitated body at various places in Delhi, for which he has been convicted for the offence under Sections 302 and 201 Indian Penal Code. Heard arguments on the point of sentence. The convict is stated to be aged about 46 years having a family comprising of his wife and five minor daughters. He has studied till 7 th and was doing the job of selling plastic goods. Ld. Amicus Curiae has prayed for mercy since any stern view would cause mental, financial and social trauma to his wife and five minor children of the convict who are totally dependent upon him. It is submitted that the convict is a patient of Asthma and is in Judicial Custody for the last almost five years. Ld. Amicus Curiae has pointed out that there is no direct evidence against the accused and the conviction has been based only on the basis of circumstantial evidence and hence a lenient view be taken against the convict. He has placed his reliance on the judgment in the case of Prem Sagar Vs. Dharambir & Ors. reported in AIR 2004 SC 21. The Ld. Public Prosecutor has on the other hand, placed his reliance on the judgments of Bachan Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in 1980 SCC (Crl.) 580 and Machhi Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab reported in 1983 SCC (Crl.) 681 and has argued that keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, there is no alternative before this court but to impose death sentence upon the convict. Ld. Addl. Public Prosecutor has also placed his reliance on the judgment of Shivaji Vs. State of Maharastra reported in 2008 (4) AD (CR.) SC 665 and has argued that death penalty could be awarded in cases even where the conviction is based on circumstantial evidence. I have considered the submissions made before me. At the very outset, I may state that there can be no dispute as to the
applicability of the various principles as laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the aforesaid two cases viz Machhi Singh (Supra) and Bachan Singh (Supra) which are required to be keep in mind before awarding a death sentence in any given case. The law is well settled in the decision in Bachan Singh Vs. State of Punjab [AIR 1980 SC 898], wherein it was held that the death penalty can be inflicted only in the gravest of the grave cases. It was also held that such death penalty can be imposed only when the life imprisonment appears to be inadequate punishment. Again it was cautioned that while imposing the death sentence, there must be balance between circumstances regarding the accused and the mitigating circumstances and that there has to be overall consideration of the circumstances regarding the accused as also the offence. Some aggravating circumstances were also culled out, they being:(a) (b) Where the murder has been committed after previous planning and involves extreme brutality; or Where the murder involves exceptional depravity.
The mitigating circumstances which were mentioned in that judgment were:(a) (b) (c) That the offence was committed under the influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance; The age of the accused. If the accused is young or old, he shall not be sentenced to death; The probability that the accused would not commit criminal acts of violence as would constitute a continuing threat to society;
Page No. 235
(d)
(e) (f) (g)
The probability that the accused can be reformed and rehabilitated. The State shall by evidence prove that the accused does not satisfy the conditions (c) and (d) above; That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the accused believed that he was morally justified in committing the offence; That the accused acted under the duress or domination of another person; and That the condition of the accused showed that he was mentally defective and that the said defect impaired his capacity to appreciate the criminality of his conduct.
The law was further settled in the decision in Machhi Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab [AIR 1983 SC 957], wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court insisted upon the mitigating circumstances being balanced against the aggravating circumstances. The aggravating circumstances were described as under:(a) (b) (c) When the murder is in extremely brutal manner so as to arouse intense and extreme indignation of the community. When the murder of a large number of persons of a particular caste, community, or locality is committed. When the murder of an innocent child, a helpless woman is committed.
It was also observed by the Hon'ble Court that at the same time it must be kept in mind that the principle of there being a proportion between punishment and offences ought not to be so mathematically followed so as to render the laws subtle, complicated and obscured. Brevity and simplicity are a superior good. Something of exact proportion may also be sacrificed to render the punishment more striking, more fit to inspire people with a sentiment of aversion for those
vices which prepare the way for crimes. In the case of Shivaji Vs. State of Maharashtra (Supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court considered as to whether or not circumstantial based conviction should be taken to be the mitigating factor and had observed that the plea that in case of a circumstantial evidence, death should not be awarded, is without any logic. It was also observed that if the circumstantial evidence is found to be of unimpeachable character in establishing the guilt of the accused, which forms the foundation for conviction, that have nothing to do with the question of sentence as has been observed in various cases while awarding death sentence. The Hon'ble Court was of the view that to treat circumstantial evidence as mitigating circumstances would amount to consideration of an irrelevant aspect and in a case which falls in the Rarest of Rare category death sentence should be awarded. However, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Swami Shradhanand Vs. State of Karnataka reported in 2008 (13) SCC 767 considered an alternative option and substituted the death penalty with life imprisonment with the directions that the convict must not be released for the rest of his life. The question now before this court is whether a punishment lesser than death would be wholly inadequate or whether the alternative option as proposed in the case of Swami Shradhanand Vs. State of Karnatka reported in 2008 (13) SCC 767 and Shree Gopal @ Mani Gopal Vs. State Crl. Appeal No. 528/09 decided on 31.8.2009 would be adequate. The decision in the case of the Hon'ble Apex Court pertaining to the imposition of death sentence in the case Santosh Kumar Satish Bhushan Bariyar Vs. State of Maharastra decided on
13.5.2009 reported in JT 2009 (7) SC 249 the Hon'ble Court has highlighted the important facet pertaining to the sentencing procedure being the consideration of alternative options. Discussing the nature and the content of the Rarest of Rare dictum, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that a real and abiding concerned for the dignity of human life postulates resistance to taking a life through instrumentality of law. That ought not to be done, save in the rarest of rare cases, where the alternative option is unquestionably foreclosed. It was observed that imprisonment for life as penalty entails, is that the accused must remain in prison till his life i.e would never be set free from jail. The executive, however, has the power of remission under Section 433 Cr.P.C which is subject to the restriction imposed by section 433-A Cr.P.C as per which a person sentenced to imprisonment for life or one whose sentence of death has been commuted to imprisonment for life cannot be released from prison unless he/she has served at least 14 years of imprisonment. The alternative option considered by the Court was to pass a direction that the accused who has been held guilty would not be released from prison till a sentence more than 14 year imprisonment has been suffered by the accused who has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pradeep Nandrajog in his decision as rendered in Shree Gopal @ Mani Gopal (Supra) in a case pertaining to the killing of an eye witness and injuring of his security officer in a shoot out by the accused in full public view, examined this facet pertaining to the sentencing procedure i.e of consideration of alternative options while referring to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as rendered in the case Santosh Kumar Satishbhushan Bariyar Vs. State of Maharashtra, JT 2009 (7) SC 249. Hon'ble Mr.
Justice Pradeep Nandrajog also considered the various alternatives available to him in the light of Section 433 Cr.P.C. and Section 433A Cr.P.C. regarding the meaning of the sentence for imprisonment for life and the power of the executive to grant remission but, not before a period of 14 years of imprisonment. He also referred to various other decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India while classifying the sentence of imprisonment in two categories i.e the ordinary category whereby the court leaves the exercise of executive power at the discretion of the executive, to be so exercised after 14 years of imprisonment and grant remission; and a higher category, where the Court, in a Rare Case, but not the Rarest of the Rare, would clip the said benefit being extended to the convict by directing that the convict shall undergo an actual sentence for a higher period or even for the remainder of his life. Such kind of cases can be put in the category of Rare Cases with appropriate direction of not being entitled to the benefit of remission till a fixed term of imprisonment is undergone. Some of the decisions, noted in this regard by the Hon'ble Judge were Swami Shraddhanand Vs. State of Karnataka reported in AIR 2007 (SC) 2531 in paras 60 to 63 of the said decision i.e the decisions reported as Shri Bhagwan Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 2001 (6) SCC 296, Parkash Dhawal Khairnar (Patil) Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 2002 (2) SCC 35, Ram Anoop Singh Vs. State of Bihar reported in 2002 (6) SCC 686 and Mohd. Munna Vs. Union of India reported in 2005 (7) SCC 417. The convict in the said case was thus sentenced to imprisonment for life with a direction that he will not be considered for being grant of remission till he undergoes an actual sentence of 20 years.
Page No. 239
In the case of Shree Gopal @ Mani Gopal Vs. State (Supra) under similar circumstances, the Delhi High Court has Ruled against Capital Punishment but at the same time has held it to be a Rare Case thereby sentencing the convict to life with the condition that he shall not be entitled to any remission till he has undergone an actual imprisonment for 20 years. In criminal appeal no.528/2009 and death reference number 1/2009 Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in its judgment dated 31/8/2009 observed that the Court has to see as to whether the case falls in the category of the Rarest of Rare i.e an extreme form of being extremely rare within the larger category of rare or not. Thus, it has to be established that the case falls in the category of the rarest of the rare. Making a reference to their earlier decision as rendered in death reference number 1/2008, titled State Vs. Raj Kumar Khandelwal Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pradeep Nandrajog and Hon'ble Ms. Justice Indermeet Kaur of the Delhi High Court further referred to the summary of various judicial pronouncements as made by them while considering the mitigating factors and the aggravating factors. The various judicial pronouncements in this regard are summarized as under:...... A bird's eye view of various judicial decisions reveal that Courts have considered the under noted circumstances, as mitigating: lack of any prior criminal record as held in the decision reported as 2006 EWHC 1555 (OQ) In Re. Butters'; the age of the offender being too young or too old as held in the decision reported as AIR 1974 SC 799 Ediga Anamma Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh; the character of the offender i.e how the offender is perceived in the society by men of social standing; the probability of the offenders' rehabilitation, reformation and readaptation in the society; whether the offence was
committed under a belief by the assailant that he was morally justified in doing so; or that the accused acted under the duress or domination of another person as held in the decision reported as 1982 (3) SCC 24 Bachan Singh Vs. State of Punjab; commission of the offence at the spur of the moment without any premeditation; or the offender being provoked (for instance by prolonged stress) in a way not amounting to the defence of provocation, as held in the decisions reported as 2008 EWHC 36 (QB) Re. Rahman and AIR 1998 SC 2821 A. Devendran Vs. State of Tamil Nadu; a belief by the offender that the murder was an act of mercy as held in the decision reported as 1994 (Supply) 3 SCC 143 Janki Dass Vs. State (Delhi Administration); a guilty plea by the offender or his voluntarily surrendering before the authorities and his being genuinely remorseful as held in the decisions reported as (2008) EWHC 92 (QB) In Re. Rock and (2006) EWHC 1555 (QB) In Re. Butters'; that the offender acted to any extent in self defence; that his intention was merely to cause serious bodily harm rather than to kill; that the victim provoked or in any way contributed to the crime, as held in the decision reported as AIR 1999 SC 1699 Kumudi Lal Vs. State of U.P. Lastly, in the decisions reported as AIR 2007 SC 2531 Swami Shradhanand @ Murali Manohar Mishra Vs. State of Karnataka and 2007 Cri. L.J. 1806 Shivu & Anr. Vs. High Court of Karnataka & Anr., it was held that in cases of conviction being based on circumstantial evidence a lenient view should be taken on the issue of sentence. Aggravating factors/circumstances have been opined to be; the accused having undergone previous convictions and his proving to be a future danger/threat or menace to the society considering aspects like criminal tendencies, vagabond lifestyle, drug abuse etc. as per the decision reported as (2008) EWHC 719 (QB) In Re. Miller; offender being in a dominating position to the victim or in a position of trust and has abused the trust; anti social or socially abhorrent nature of the crime i.e where the offence arouses social wrath and shakes the confidence of the
people in any social institution; a crime committed for a motive which evinces total depravity and meanness for instance, a financial gain; where the magnitude of the crime is large i.e there are more than one victim; where the crime is committed in an extremely brutal, grotesque, diabolical revolting or dastardly manner so as to arouse extreme indignation of the community as held in the decision reported as 1983 (3) SCC 470 Machhi Singh Vs. State of Punjab; significant degree of planning or premeditation and lack of remorse as held in the decision reported as AIR 2005 SC 2059 Holiram Bordoli Vs. State of Assam; the victim being vulnerable due to age or physical infirmity as held in the decision reported as 2008 (110) Bom. LR. 373 State of Maharashtra Vs. Haresh Mohandass Rajput; mental or physical suffering inflicted on the victim before the death; victim being a public service provider or performing a public duty at the time when the crime was committed, as held in the decision reported as (1977) 431 US 633 Roberts Vs. Louisiana. Lastly, the offender attacking sovereign democratic institutions as held in the decision reported as 2003 (6) SCC 641 Navjyot Sandhu @ Afsan Guru Vs. State...... The Hon'ble Apex Court has time and again stressed upon the need for awarding the punishment for a crime which should not be irrelevant but should conform to and be consistent with the atrocity and the brutality with which the crime has been perpetrated, the enormity of the crime warranting public abhorrence of crime and responding to the society's cry for justice against the criminal. (Ref. Ravji Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 1996 (II) SCC 175). Punishment ought to fit the crime and sometime it is desirability to keep the offender out of circulation. Now I would like to draw a balance sheet of aggravating and mitigating factors.
Page No. 242
The only mitigating factor in the present case is that the convict has a family comprising of aged mother, wife and five small daughters who are totally dependent upon him. The aggravating factors on the other hand are: That the offence has been committed in exceptional depravity and extreme brutality. The postmortem report confirms that the death in this case was a result of decapitation (not a case where decapitation followed death). How much pain the victim must have suffered at the time of his death? That the intent of the convict was to cause a public outrage and to some extent he succeeded in the same. The said killings did cause a public outrage and shook the faith of the people in the Law Enforcement Agency. That the convict betrayed the trust and confidence which the victims who were known to him previously, had reposed in him. He used to choose his victim carefully who were young men from poor families whose confidence he could easily win. That the serial killings were senseless and committed in a planned manner. Earlier too the convict is involved in throwing the decapitated bodies on 20.10.2006 and 25.4.2007 outside Central Jail Tihar (large number of persons had been murdered). That he even threatened vide his letter recovered along with the decapitated body on 18.5.2007 to send similar gifts (decapitated bodies) to police after every 15 days. The convict is Mission Oriented and Task Oriented Serial Killer whose only motive / mission is to expose, mock and challenge the police. This he was doing because according to him the police had implicated him falsely in many criminal cases and he wanted to get at
the System. Does he in the given circumstances deserve any mercy? The answer obviously is No because any mercy would be misplaced and Travesty of Justice and hence the desirability of keeping him out of circulation. The present case cannot be put on the same pedestal as other ordinary murder case but at the same time it also does not fall within the category of Rarest of Rare Case. The case in my view falls within the category of a Rare Case calling for consideration of alternative options. I therefore, award the convict Chanderkant Jha the following sentences: 1. For the offence under Section 302 Indian Penal Code the convict is sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for life Till the Rest of his Life and fine for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rs. Ten Thousand). In default of payment of fine the convict shall further undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of One Month.
2.
For the offence under Section 201 Indian Penal Code the convict is sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of Seven (7) years and fine of Rs.10,000/-. In default of payment of fine the convict shall further undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of one month. Both the sentences shall run concurrently. The convict is informed that he has a right to prefer an
appeal against this judgment. He has been apprised that in case he cannot afford to engage an advocate, he can approach the Legal Aid Cell, functioning in Tihar Jail or write to the Secretary, Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee, 34-37, Lawyers Chamber Block, High Court of Delhi, New Delhi.
Page No. 244
Before ending, I may observe that the identity of the deceased in the present case whom the convict referred as Dalip and also being referred to as Dalip by the Court, has not been established till date. The charge sheet being filed in a most casual and routine manner. No efforts whatsoever made to trace out the family of the victim. This being the background, I hereby direct that the DNA material of the deceased (exhibits and results) be preserved. Further, the Commissioner of Police, Delhi shall ensure that coordinate steps are taken along with counterparts in Bihar so that efforts are made to establish the identity of the deceased. Copy of the judgment and order of sentence be given to the convict free of costs and another be attached with their jail warrants. Since the convict has demanded that he be supplied the copies of the Judgment and Sentence in Hindi as well, the Office shall take all necessary steps to ensure that the translated copy of the Judgment and Sentence is provided to the convict in Hindi at the earliest. In this regard the Office shall be at liberty to get the translation done from the Official Translator available in Delhi High Court by making a request through proper channel as per rules. compliance as aforesaid. File be consigned to Record Room. One copy be also sent to Commissioner of Police and Addl. Commissioner of Police (West) for
Announced in the open court Dated: 4.2.2013
(Dr. KAMINI LAU) ASJ-II(NW)/ ROHINI
Page No. 245

Delhi Serial Killings Case Judgement

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Delhi Serial Killings Case Judgement

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

IN THE COURT OF Dr. KAMINI LAU: ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE-II (NORTH-WEST): ROHINI COURTS: DELHI Session Case No.

FIR No.: Police Station: Under Section:

In the present case as per the allegations, the accused

Charges under Sections 302/201 Indian Penal Code were

In order to prove its case the prosecution has examined as

St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 279/07, PS Hari Nagar

Dr. Naresh Kumar Dev Raj

ASI Ajender Singh Sanjay Mann

HC Suresh Kumar Suresh Kumar

ASI Kishan Chand

St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 279/07, PS Hari Nagar

PW 27 PW 28 PW 29 PW 30 PW 31 PW 32 PW 33 PW 34 PW 35 PW 36 PW 37 PW 38 PW 39 PW 40 PW41 PW42 PW43

Dr. Sanjeev Kumar Forensic Expert / Handwriting Expert

List of documents/ exhibits:

St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 279/07, PS Hari Nagar

SI Satender Mohan HC Hari Ram

SI Mahesh Kumar HC Bijender

St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 279/07, PS Hari Nagar

ASI Ranpal ASI Chhat Ram

Insp Malkiat Singh ASI Rajbir Singh

HC Raj Pal Singh

SI Sharad Kohil SI Arun Tyagi

ASI Krishan Chand

Sh. Pooran Chand

Ex.PW28/G1 & Application of the Investigating Ex.PW28/G2 Officers Ex.PW28/H 64 Sheets

St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 279/07, PS Hari Nagar

66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72.

Ex.PW28/DX1 Ex.PW30/A Ex.PW30/B Ex.PW30/D Ex.PW30/E Ex.PW30/F Ex.PW30/G

St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 279/07, PS Hari Nagar

93. 94. 95. 96. 97. 98. 99.

Ex.PW36/A Ex.PW37/A Ex.PW37/B Ex.PW38/A Ex.PW39/A Ex.PW39/DX2 Ex.PW40/A

Insp Hoshiyar Singh

ASI Virender Insp Sunder Singh

Pankaj Sh. M. N. Vijayan

St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 279/07, PS Hari Nagar

List of case property:

Coming now to the testimonies of the various witnesses

examined by the prosecution:

St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 279/07, PS Hari Nagar

Rajiv Kumar (PW3) has deposed that he reside at H. No. 155,

St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 279/07, PS Hari Nagar

In his cross-examination, the witness has deposed that police

Dev Raj (PW6) has deposed that he is running a general store

In his cross-examination, the witness has admitted that on the

Sanjay Mann (PW8) has deposed that he has a plot in Village

In his cross-examination, the witness has deposed that he had

Sh. Rajesh Kumar @ Sanjay Kumar (PW34) has deposed

He has correctly identified the accused in the

In his cross examination, the witness has deposed that he was

St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 279/07, PS Hari Nagar

Sh. Pankaj (PW43) is the son of Sh. Mahender Rathore, a

Witness has further testified that after 20 th April, 2007 when he

In his cross examination the witness has deposed that

informed him about his working at Azadpur Mandi.

Anil Shandil (PW2) is the Autopsy Surgeon who on

The witness has also deposed that on 14.06.2007, he had

Naresh Kumar (PW5) is the Senior Scientific Assistant

The witness has also proved that on 30.07.2007, he received

According to the witness, parcel containing Ex.A, B, C and D

investigation in his presence and Investigation Officer recorded his statement.

According to the witness, he was not having any

Jitender Kumar (PW31) is the Senior Scientific Assistant

Dr. A.K. Srivastava (PW37) is the Assistant Director

According to him, on 13.03.2008 four forensic samples