babloo srivastava-lalit suneja murder case judgement
TRANSCRIPT
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAJENDER KUMAR : ADDITIONAL
SESSIONS JUDGE : KARKARDOOMA COURTS : DELHI.
State Vs. Om Prakash Srivastava etc.
FIR No. 258/92
U/S 302 IPC
PS Shakarpur
Pr:-Sh. Zenul Abedeen APP for State.
Accused Om Prakash Srivastava in J/C with Sh. S.P. Singh
Choudhary advocate.
Accused Nitin Shah on bail with Sh. H.H. Ponda advocate.
Accused Manjeet Singh in J/C with Sh. J.P. Bansal advocate.
JUDGMENT :
1. Perhaps God seldom disturbs the destinies of men even for the
sake of his devotees. In the morning of 02.08.1992, one Lalit Suneja was
returning to his house after offering prayers to God, obviously for his well
being, but was shot dead by two unknown persons while nearing to his
house. A neighbourer namely Narender Pal Naresh, who happened to
pass through that street set the law into motion, by informing the police.
FIR 258/1992 was registered in PS Shakarpur about the incident.
During investigation, IO came across a complaint Ex. Pw15/A1 lodged in
the name of Lalit Suneja in PS Nizamuddin, New Delhi. Police picked
up a thread to undrape the mystery of death. After investigation, police
came up with following story :-
2. Accused Nitin Shah, was carrying on his business through a
proprietary concern M/s Simnit Enterprises. Same had employed Lalit
Kumar Suneja (deceased) as its distributor for the Northen Region. Both
the employer and employee (accused Nitin Shah and Lalit Suneja) were at
logger-head for sometime on account of some payment. When matter
could not be settled, accused Nitin Shah requested his friend, accused
2
Om Prakash Srivastava @ Babloo Srivastava to eliminate Lalit Suneja
and assured to provide cash likely to be spent in doing the act. Accused
Om Prakash Srivastava intrigued with co – accused persons to bring his
design to fruition. Accused Manish Dixit was hired to execute the task for
Rs.1,00,000/-. On 02.08.1992, accused Virender Pant @ Chotu (since
deceased) took accused Manish Dixit to the spot on a motor - bike
Yamaha bearing no. DL-1SD-4680. Accused Manjit Singh @ Mangu
waited for them in a car bearing no. DL – 1 CB – 7874 at Yamuna Pusta
near Bank Enclave. Lalit Suneja was shot dead by accused Manish Dixit.
The latter fled away from spot on motor - bike described above being
driven by accused Virender Pant and reached to co-accused Manjeet Singh
who was waiting for the formers. They exchanged their vehicles and
rushed to accused Om Prakash Srivastava and returned to the latter the
motor bike and pistol used in the crime. The latter accused paid
Rs.50,000/- to each of accused Virender Pant and Manjeet Singh for
driving aforesaid motor bike and car, in order to facilitate accused
Manish Dixit in killing the deceased and to escape unhinderred.
3. Police filed challan against accused Manish Dixit and Manjeet
Singh on 27.10.1992. Accused persons namely Virender Pant, Om
Prakash Srivastava and Nitin Shah found place in column no, 2. Separate
charge sheet was filed against accused Nitin Shah on 23.01.1993, against
accused Om Prakash Srivastava on 03.01.1996 and against Accused
Virender Pant on 15.03.1995.
4. After considering the material on record and hearing their
counsels accused Om Prakash Srivastava, Nitin Shah & Manjeet Singh
were charged for offence punishable U/S 302/34 and 120 B IPC by order
of this court dated 06.1.2003. All of accused persons pleaded not guilty
and claimed trial, when the charge was read over and explained to them.
Accused Virender Pant and Manish Dixit were reported to have died till
then.
3
5. In order to bring home its case, prosecution examined 32
witnesses in total. The accused persons in their statements U/s 313
Cr.PC, alleged all the evidence against them as false and wrong. Accused
Om Prakash Srivastava examined Sh. V.C Mishra a hand writing expert in
his defence.
6. I have heard Ld APP for the State & Ld counsels representing
accused persons at length and gone through the record on file.
7. It did not remain contentious during arguments that Lalit Suneja
died a homicidal death. Even otherwise, same is well proved from the
statement of PW1, PW2, PW3, PW5 and PW 20. Smt. Veena (PW1) ,
W/o Lalit Suneja stated to have found the latter, lying on the ground
unconscious, imbued with blood. Said witness also noticed injury on the
head of deceased, who was taken to the GTB Hospital by their
neighbours, where the same was declared as dead. Dr. S. K. Verma
(PW2) deposed to have conducted autopsy on the dead body of the
deceased Lalit Suneja. This witness observed following injuries during
post – mortem :-
(i) A circular firearm entry wound of size 0.7 cm in diameter surrounded by an abrasion collar of 0.2
cm thickness. The wound was placed 5 cm above the left mastoid process at 8.5 cm above the occiputin left tamporal region and entering into cranial cavity after producing a circular hole in the skullunder the wound, after passing through the left and right cerebral hamispheres, it produced an eliptrical exit wound of size 3.5 x 1cm.
(ii) Circular entry wound of a firearm of size 0.7 cm diameter surrounded by abrasion collar of 0.2 cm
placed on right tamporal region. It produced an exit wound in the right frontal region of size 1.5 x 0.5 cm.
(iii) A circular firearm entry wound with enverted regular margins of size 0.7 cm surrounded by an abrasion collar of 0.2 cm placed on left side back below and lateral to
4
posterior exillary fold and 2 cm outer to inferior angle of scapula going into chest cavity through inter costal space and fracturing the rib and then entry into left lung, right lung, right axilla and upper region of shaft of humerous on right side with an impacted bullet was recovered from the madulla of right humerous in which it had produced fracture of the bone with effusion of side.
(iv) A lacerated wound of size 1.5 x 0.5 cm on left occipital region placed 3 cm above the occiput.
8. Sh. Chander Bhan Suneja (PW3) and Ashok Ahuja (PW5) were
father and brother – in – law (wife's brother) respectively of the deceased.
The former (PW3) deposed to have identified the dead body of
deceased. The corpus was received by this witness vide receipt Ex.
PW3/B. SHO Inspector Hem Chand (Pw20) stated to have reached GTB
Hospital from spot and received MLC of Lalit Suneja, who had expired
already.
9. Apart from said witnesses, the complainant gave a statement to
the police stating that at about 8.00 a.m. when he was going to temple on
his Moped, he heard the sound of shooting. As he proceeded in gali
before Kothi no. 210 and 211, he found a person lying on the ground and
two persons were on a motor cycle, one of them was having a revolver -
like weapon in his hand. The person who was lying dead was known as
Lalit Suneja.
10. The complainant, when was summoned for deposition in court,
was reported to have expired. Same was resident of Bank Enclave where
deceased used to reside. The complainant has disclosed in his statement
given to the police immediately after the incident that assailants were two
in numbers having come on a motor cycle of Mehroon colour. The
murderer was a non Sikh having slim body and wearing blue colour T-
shirt. Both of them fled away from the spot towards Yamuna Pusta.
5
11. Ld. defence counsel questioned the admissibility of statement
given by the complainant. True, the complainant could not be subjected
to cross – examination, having died before the same was summoned to
depose in the court. He was not withheld by the prosecution deliberately.
Being neighbour residing near the spot, the complainant appears to be a
natural witness. Neither names of the assailants nor the number of the
motor - bike used in the crime found mentioned in his statement. There
is nothing in that statement like hyperbole or improbity which could
make the same incredible. PW 20 also stated on oath that after obtaining
the MLC of Lalit Suneja, he (Pw20) came back at spot. One Narender
Pal Naresh met him there and claimed himself to be an eye witness. He
(Pw20) recorded his statement Ex.Pw20/A correctly which was attested by
him at point 'A'. It bears signature of complainant Narender Pal Naresh at
point 'X'. Pw16 also verified recording of statement of complainant by
SHO i.e Pw20, Pw16 had gone to spot accompanied with SHO Inspector
Hem Chand i.e Pw20.
12. Impending all this, in my opinion complaint Ex. Pw20/A cannot
be thrown away as a waif, even if complainant was not cross – examined
by accused. It was held by the Apex Court in a case titled as Inder
Singh and another Vs State (Delhi Administration) AIR 1978 SC
1091 that court is not precluded from assessing veracity of a witness
even in the absence of his cross – examination.
13. Sh. S. P. Singh Chaudhary advocate reminded me at the outset
that in a case based on circumstantial evidence, prosecution has to
establish a chain of circumstances which lead to the only conclusion that
it would have been the accused, who had committed crime alleged in the
case and none else. Sh. H. H. Ponda advocate also harped on the same
string. Ld counsel referred a score of authorities on this point, I have
gone through all of these cases. Shorn of unnecessary details, may I
reproduce ratio rendered by the Apex Court in one of such landmark
6
judgments. It was mandated in case Shard Birdhi Chand Sarda Vs.
State of Maharashtra AIR 1984 SC 1622 :-
The following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an accused based on circumstantial evidence can be said to fullly established :-
(i) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The circumstances concrned 'must or should' and not 'may be' established. (ii) the facts to be 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.
(iii) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency.
(iv) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved and
(v) there must be a chain of evidence so completeas not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusionconsistent with the innocence of the accused and mustshow that in all human probability the act must have beendone by the accused.
14. May I assess the evidence on record to ascertain whether
prosecution has succeeded in establishing its case or not.
15. Accused Nitin Shah rejected unequivocally the assertion that
same had employed deceased Lalit Suneja or had any money dispute with
any such person.
16. The record of case reveals that two applications were filed by
accused Nitin Shah mense proceedings. One is an application U/S 340
r/w Section 195 of Cr. P. C. dated 10.07.1995 with a request to initiate
7
proceedings under aforesaid provision of law against the Investigating
Officer of this case and the other application was filed by the same
accused U/S 317 (2) of Cr. P. C. with a prayer for separation of his trial.
There are almost similar averments in both of these applications like
that :-
the applicant (accused Nitin Shah) wascarrying on business through proprietaryconcern called M/s. Simnit Enterprises. Saidconcern had appointed late Lalit Suneja as itsdistributor for the Northern Region. In the monthof June, 1992, the applicant being the Proprietor/ Director of the aforesaid concernterminated the appointment of late Sh. Sunejaas distributor .
That after termination of the services, late Sh. Suneja from time to time contacted the applicant particularly on phone & daily demanding exhorbitant sums of money, the figure of which varied on every occasion. He had claimed that the sums were not due to the said concern, M/s. Simnit Enterprises from him. That initially applicant entertained his telephone calls to convince him that the amount was not due to him but said Sh. Suneja persisted with his demand and thereafter the applicant refused to talk him as his claims were totally unwarranted and ridiculous in the extreme.
17. This application is supported by an affidavit of applicant, the
latter having sworn on oath that it was drafted by his counsel on the
instructions of himself (applicant). The latter has also verified the facts
mentioned in said application as true and correct to the best of his
knowledge.
18. From these applications, it is clear that deceased Lalit Suneja
was employed with M/s Simnit Enterprises being run by accused Nitin
Shah and there was a dispute about payment of some money between
deceased Lalit Suneja and accused Nitin Shah. Being an admission on the
8
part of accused Nitin Shah, prosecution was not required to prove said
facts. As per Section 58 of the Indian Evidence Act, admitted facts need
not to be proved,
19. Application Ex. Pw15/A1 is like a puncheon which holds entire
case of the prosecution. It is contended that during investigation of this
case, wife of deceased Lalit Suneja had disclosed about this complaint to
the IO of this case.
20. Ld. defence counsel struck at the very base of this application.
In the opinion of ld. counsel, it was a forged document put on file later
on by the prosecution to buttress its case against the accused. Ld. defence
counsel pointed out as how cleverly an entry about filing of this
complaint is made at Srl. No.605/2 in the register no.12. Otherwise
complaint of some Khusmida was recorded against serial no. 605/2 but
the register is tempered in such a way that complaint of said Khusmida
appears to have been entered against a number 604A which was given
later on by manipulating the register and actually there was no such entry
as 604A. Ld counsel pointed out that in the entire register no. 12, there
was no entry with serial no. A, except the one under dispute.
21. Ld. defence counsel also challenged the veracity of PW15
(Hanuman Dan). It is contended that there was no post of Reader to
SHO in any Police Station in Delhi and that Sh. Vijay Sule never
remained SHO of PS Nizamuddin.
22. Apart from recounting, tempering in register no. 12, Sh. H. H.
Ponda advocate pointed out that as per his own admission, PW 15 made
two entries in register Roznamcha on 23.7.92 one at 1.30 p.m. (noon) and
other of his return at 10.00 p.m. Said witness has claimed himself to
have gone Jucasso Inn on that date at 8.00 pm. But there is no entry in
said register in this regard. Similarly, it is also disclosed by the said
9
witness i.e. PW15 that he had sent Ct. Bir Singh and Ct. Joginder to
Jucasso Inn to watch the proceedings of meeting between accused persons
and deceased Lalit Suneja. There is no entry about said constables in
aforesaid register. Moreover, none of said two constables was examined
in this case to verify said fact.
23. It is urged by ld. defence counsel that all this was enough to
raise doubt about having filed complaint like Ex. PW15/A and also about
the meeting stated to have been held in Jucasso Inn.
24. Ld. APP did not confront the assertion about tempering of
register no. 12 by the police, rather conceeded that the police very often
desists to register an FIR or even avoid making entry in relevant register
of complaints being received in police station. But when events take
unexpected turn, they try to fill up lacunae by inserting post-hoc entries
here and there. Even if all this exercise results in tempering of records
maintained in the police station. In the opinion of ld. APP, same does
not falsify filing of complaint. In the same way, in view of ld. APP in
not making entries in the rojnamcha by PW15 or by the constables who
went to Jucasso Inn about their visit there, sheer negligence of said
witnesses was the only reason. I find weight in the submission of ld.
APP. The court cannot put kibosh on the matter by rejecting a complaint
merely because the same was not entered in a register, maintained in the
police station properly or by making some false entries, record of
police station was tempered with, if the filing of such complaint is well
proved on the record otherwise.
25. It is manifest that entry about complaint Ex.Pw15/A1 in register
no. 12 was made later on by tempering said register. The asseveration as
expressed by Ld APP, if it is true, such inexplicable conduct on the part
of a law enforcement agency like police is highly depricative which can
never be pardoned. Despite all this, police is not dystopia where
10
everything is bad. It is reminded by Goa High Court in case Golappa
Avana Niak Vs State 1968 Criminal law Journal 929 that the police
officers like other state functionaries are expected to exhibit impartiality in
discharge of their function and detached view in the situations they are
called upon to tackle day in and day out and be fair both to prosecution
and the accused. Their lordships of the Supreme Court of India also
observed in case State of Assam Vs Muhim Barataki 1987 Criminal
Law Journal 152 that evidence of police officer cannot be undermined
merely because he is a police officer.
26. May, the deposition of Pw 15 be not free from condemnation but
same cannot be discarded as a rotten whole. The court is duty bound to
segregate uninfected portions from the rest. Admissible pieces so
discerned and concatenated may give an identifiable shape to the case.
Like any other witness, law presumes a police officer a reliable witness.
27. The higher courts in India have rejected time and again the
maxim 'falsus in uno falsus in omnibus' which means false in one
particular, false in all or false in one thing false in all. It was mandated by
the apex court in Sohrab Vs State of MP AIR 1972 SC 2020 that
falsus in uno falsus in omnibus is not a sound rule for the reason that
hardly one comes across a witness whose evidence does not contain a
grain of untruth or at any rate, exaggeration embroideries or
embellishments. In most cases, the witnesses when asked about details,
venture to give some answer, not necessarily true or relevant for fear that
their evidence may not be accepted in respect of the main incident which
they have witnessed but that is not to say that their evidence as to the
salient features of the case after cautious scrutiny cannot be considered
through where the substratum of the prosecution case or material part of
the evidence is disbelievable it will not be permissible for the court to
reconstruct a story of its own out of the rest.
11
28. The Supreme Court of India in case State of UP Vs Anil Singh
1989 Cr.L.J 88 has held in clear terms that:-
If there is a ring of truth in the main, the case should not be
rejected. It is the duty of the court to cull out the nuggets of
truth from the evidence unless there is reason to believe that the
inconsistencies of falsehood are so glaring as utterly to destroy
confidence in the witnesses.
29. There can be no denial that a person was murdered. If a police
officer connected to case is found having tempered the record, same can
never be treated as a defeasance to undo an abominable felony.
30. Ld. defence counsel had called PW15 as an interested witness
being police officer. Will it be proper to label such witness as a witness
interested for conviction of the accused?
31. Self-interest is the main force which impells a person to do
some act. The other factor being an external force, which is not imputed
here. What PW15 could earn from this case even if it results in
conviction of accused. Trite it to say that PW15 is not the IO of this
case, who could have got some credit on success of the case. Is result of
this case more important for a police witness (Pw15) than running the
risk of accusation, having tempered with the official record. If non –
feasance of PW15 is weighed on this golden scale, I find tilt towards the
prosecution. No diligent person can be supposed to have invited trouble
of prosecution for a peltary. On the basis of this reason, I do not think
that complaint Ex. PW15/A was a fictitious document or was introduced
later on. The testimony of PW15 can not be marginalizd in this respect.
32. It is deposed on oath by PW15 that on 23.7.92 he received a
12
complaint of Lalit Suneja, infact the complaint was given to him by SHO
PS Nizamuddin. At that time Lalit Suneja was also present who told him
that there was money dispute between him and Mr. Nitin Shah and the
latter had threatened him to settle the dispute and that he had received
telephone calls from one Mr. Babloo. He (Lalit Suneja) further told that
on that date at about 8.00 pm he was called at Jucasso Inn at Sunder Nagar
by Nitin Shah and his associates for settling dispute. It is further disclosed
by PW15 that at Jucasso Inn, Lalit Suneja had introduced him (PW 15) to
Nitin Shah and O.P Srivastava. Nitin Shah had disclosed that he was a
business-man and was staying at Oberoi Hotel, while Om Prakash
Srivastava had disclosed that he was an advocate and residing at G-128,
Moti Bagh. Manish, Vimal Bhai, Satnam @ Fauzi and Virender pant
were also with Nitin Shah on that day. Again that Lalit Suneja and Nitin
Shah had told him (PW15) that further date for their settlement had been
fixed as 30.7.92. PW15 when was called for re-examination on an
application filed by APP, again disclosed that he had verified the facts of
complaint from the complainant and also the signatures of latter on it.
33. Complaint Ex. PW15/A1 is stated as having been marked to
PW15 for investigation by the SHO. Complaint is prima facie endorsed
in the name of SHO. The latter, when summoned as a witness by court
was reported to have expired. Signatures of same i.e SHO PS
Nizamuddin namely Inspector Vijay Sule are also identified by PW15,
stating that he had worked with him (SHO) and had seen the same writing
and signing before him.
34. I find no reason to doubt the integrity of PW15 in this regard also.
Similarly, there is no evidence to establish that Inspector Vijay Sule had
not worked as SHO PS Nizamuddin on 23.7.92 as stated by PW15 though
disputed by Ld defence counsel. Ex. PW15/A1 is a statement relating to
cause of death of deceased Lalit Suneja and the same is admissible in
view of Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act.
13
35. Inspector Ram Mehar Singh (Pw31) deposed that in year 1995 he
received information about accused Babloo Srivastava who was detained
in Singapore and he prepared a proposal for extradition of said accused.
He got production warrants of said accused from a TADA court at
Kanpur, U.P. After extradition, accused Om Prakash Srivastava was
produced in this case. On being interrogated by permission of the court,
accused Om Prakash Srivastava gave a disclosure statement Ex. Pw26/A.
It is also disclosed by this witness that he collected original guest register
of Kanishka Hotel through SI Manoj Dixit. Again this witness stated that
he took sample hand writing of accused Om Prakash Srivastava
Ex.Pw26/B, Pw26/B1- Pw26/B15, Ex.Pw26/C, Ex.Pw26/C1 –
Ex.Pw26/C3 and guest registration certificate Ex.PW29/A. It is disclosed
by Pw31 that accused Om Prakash Srivastava gave his sample hand
writing voluntarily and it was made clear to the accused that he was free to
give or deny. Further that sample hand writing of accused and the
documents seized from Kanishka Hotel were sent to FSL, Malviya Nagar
and he collected report after expert opinion on the same, which is
Ex.Pw29/C. All these facts are tautologized by inspector Manoj Dixit
(Pw32) in his statement.
36. Inspector Ram Mehar (PW31) further told that in view of
disclosure statement of Om Prakash Srivastava, he collected record of
motor bike and car No. DL -1CB – 7874 from the Registration Authority
14
Underhill Road, Delhi. It is disclosed by this witness, in his cross –
examination that aforesaid car was purchased in the name of Om Prakash
Srivastava while the motor bike was registered in the name of Arun
Kumar Aggarwal. Inspector Badal Singh, deposed to have verified from
Registration Authority, Rajpur Road about registration of car no. DL
-1CB – 7874 in the name of Om Prakash Srivastava and also the motor
cycle no. DL – 1SD – 4680 in the name of Arun Kumar AggarwalSh.
Vipin Talwar PW27) who was working in Transport Authority Underhill
Road as head clerk stated that he handed over original file of car no. DL
-1CB – 7874 to the police which was seized vide memo Ex. PW27/A.
Similarly Mrs. Swatantra Pahwa (PW 28) who was working in Transport
Authority, Rajpur Road admitted to have handed over the original file of
vehicle no. DL – 1SD -4680 to the police which was seized vide seizure
memo Ex. PW28/B and that said motor cycle was registered in the name
of Arun Kumar Aggarwal.
37. Inspector Hem Chand (Pw20) who was posted as SHO in PS
Shakarpur stated about disclosure statements given by accused Manish
Dixit (since dead) i.e Ex.Pw20/F and accused Manjit Singh Ex.Pw20/G.
Retired SI Jai Prakash (Pw22) who is stated to have accompanied SHO
Inspector Hem Chand verified about disclosure statement given by
accused Manish and Manjit Singh on being interrogated. This fact is
verified by retired SI Jai Prakash (Pw22) and Ct. Salim Ahmad (Pw24)
15
who stated to have accompanied SHO (Pw20) at the time when aforesaid
accused persons gave disclosure statements.
38. Inspector Badal Singh (Pw25) deposed that in view of disclosure
statement given by accused Manish Dixit and contents of letter dated
23.7.92 he went to hotel Oberoi on 11.8.92 and collected record of stay
of accused Nitin Shah in said hotel on 23.7.92. This witness claimed to
have collected guest card of Hotel Oberoi in the name of Nitin Shah
about room no. 820 which is Ex.Pw25/A and photocopy of telephone call
bill marked Pw25/B which was seized vide seizure memo Ex.Pw17/D. All
this is also corroborated by SI Bakhtawar Singh (Pw17). Inspector Badal
Singh (Pw25) also stated to have seized record of hotel Kanishka in view
of disclosure statement given by accused Manjit Singh.
39. Needless to say that it was accused Om Prakash Srivastava who is
alleged to have stayed in hotel Kanishka and not accused Manjit Singh on
whose disclosure statement the record of said hotel was seized. Similarly,
record of hotel Oberoi was seized after disclosure statement of accused
Manish Dixit while not the latter accused but accused Nitin Shah was
stated to have stayed in said hotel on 23.7.92. It is urged by Ld defence
counsel that even if any fact was discovered on the basis of admission of
an accused, same cannot be admissible against other accused who had not
given the disclosure statement. Ld. counsel Sh. Ponda placed reliance
upon a case titled as Nabi Mohd. Vs. State of Maharashtra 1979
16
Bom. C.R. 680 on this point.
40. Retired ACP Gurmakh Singh (Pw26) deposed to have joined
investigation of this case on 29.10.95 and verified disclosure statement of
accused Babloo Srivastava Ex.Pw26/A. It is also stated by this witness
that on 30.10.95, Investigating Officer (IO) of the case obtained
specimen hand writings of accused Babloo Srivastava in his presence
which are Ex.Pw26/B running into 15 pages. Again specimen hand
writing of same accused was also taken on 03.11.95 which is Ex.Pw26/C
and Ex. Pw26/C1 – Ex.Pw26/C3, all bearing his signatures at point A.
41. As per Inspector Manoj Dixit (Pw32) the same, on the direction
of Inspector Ram Mehar, the IO of case (Pw31) received a certificate
issued by Kanishka Hotel. Pw32 further stated that on 14.11.95 Inspector
Ram Mehar (pw31) handed over to him the case file exhibits i.e specimen
hand writing of accused Om Prakash Srivastava and the admitting hand
writing of latter accused in the register of Kanishka Hotel and original
registration file Ex.Pw27/B of vehicle i.e Car no. DL1CB 7874 containing
nine documents marked Pw32/X1 to Pw32/X8, to him and he deposited
the same in FSL office, Malviya Nagar, Delhi.
42. The specimen hand writings of accused Om Prakash Srivastava
were compared with the hand writing written in the name of same accused
in the record of Kanishka Hotel as well as in registration authority Under
17
Hill Road, Delhi where a car DL1CB 7874 is stated to have been
registered. Sh. A.K. Gupta (Pw29) deposed that he was working as Asst.
Director (documents), FSL, Delhi. He received documents in this case for
opinion on 14.11.95. The questioned hand writings were enclosed with red
pencil and were marked by him as Q1 to Q4 in Ex.Pw29/A and Q5, Q6,
Q61, Q62 and Q7 in Ex.Pw29/B which is in two sheets. The specimen
hand - writing of Sh. Om Prakash Srivastava was also sent to him for
comparison with above mentioned hand writing and were enclosed by him
by red pencil as marked S1 to S16 in Ex.Pw26/B and Ex.Pw26/B1 to
Ex.Pw26/B15 respectively and specimen hand writing marked S17 to S20
in Ex.Pw26/C and Ex.pw26/C1 – Ex.Pw26/C3 respectively. This witness
after examination of aforesaid hand writings submitted a report
Ex.Pw29/C signed by the same at point A. It is deposed on oath by this
witness that according him, the person who wrote the writing marked S1
to S20 was responsible to write and sign documents marked Q1 to Q6,
Q61, Q62 and Q7.
43. Not satisfied with the report given by Sh. A.K. Gupta (Pw29)
accused Om Prakash Srivastava opted to take a second opinion of a hand
writing expert, of his choice. The accused got his specimen hand writing
taken by the IO of the case compared with the hand writing on questioned
documents seized by IO in this case. Sh. V.C Misra (Dw1) deposed to
have submitted his report Ex. Dw1/A after thorough examination of said
documents/hand writings/signatures. In the opinion of Sh. V.C. Misra
18
(Dw1) Q1 to Q4 were written by one person, Q5 to Q7 were written by
another person and S1 to S20 had been written by a 3rd person. In the
opinion of DW1, all these documents were not written by one and same
person.
44. It is contended by Ld APP that Sh. V.C Misra was a person of
accused and same had given an opinion favorable to his client i.e accused
while A.K.Gupta (Pw29) was a responsible Govt. officer serving as
Assistant Director of a prestigious institute like Forensic Laboratory,
Delhi. Same cannot be expected to have given wrong opinion.
45. I do not find much substance in this submission of Ld APP.
Testimony of the witnesses examined by accused carry same weight as
the testimony of witnesses examined by prosecution. May I refer here few
precedents as under:-
The Apex Court has held in case Dudh Nath Pandey Vs. State
of U.P. AIR 1981 SC 911 that the defence witnesses are entitled to
equal treatment with those of the prosecution. And courts ought to
overcome their Traditional instinctive disbelief in defence witnesses, quite
often they tell lie but so do the prosecution witnesses. The following
was observation in case Satya Narain Vs. State 1985 Cr. L. J. 1966 :-
The evidence of witneses in trial whether they depose for the prosecution or defence is to be judged by the courts with the same standard of the reliability. The defence evidence should not be bypassed or overlooked by the courts simply because the
19
witnesses had deposed in favour of accused.
46. There are two contradictory reports about the handwritings of
accused Om Prakash Srivastava on questioned documents. Even if both
i.e. Dr. A.K. Gupta (PW29) as well as Sh. V. C. Mishra (DW1) claimed
themselves to be handwriting experts having examined a bevy of
documents, ultimately it is for this court to decide as the report of whom
from aforesaid experts was reliable. It is well settled that the court can take
a prima facie opinion after perusing the documents. Even otherwise, in
case of two contradictory reports of experts on same subject, this court
has no option but to rely upon one and eventually ignore the other.
47 After careful consideration of both of reports i.e Ex.Pw29/C and
Ex.Dw1/A mejudice Ex.Pw29/C is more reliable due to following
reasons:-
A minutia of report Ex. DW1/A reveals that the examiner of
handwriting has reached at finding mainly on the basis of size and
proportion of letters and also the process of writing of letters i.e. use of
ink, line quality, pen pressure etc. In his (DW1) observation, disputed
hand writing mark Q1 to Q4 shows line quality defects i.e. concealed
retouching and joining, unnatural pen lifts and pauses, halty and slower
execution etc. A detailed comparison of Q1 – Q4, Q5 to Q7 and S1 to
S20 by DW1 as described by him under titles 1 to 14 shows the
inclination of examiner towardes a particular mode.
20
48. On the other hand, Dr. A. K. Gupta (PW29) appears to have had
reached at a conclusion mainly on the basis of “manner of writing” letters.
This witness seems to have compared almost each of letters written in
questioned documents with the admitted handwriting of accused Om
Prakash Srivastava. It appears to be more accurate and reliable method.
Most of letters present apparent resemblance. For example:-
49. Minute but detailed similarities of letters in both handwriting
questioned i.e. Q1 to Q4 and Q5, Q6, Q62, A6/2 and Q7, on the one hand.
S1 to S20, on the other hand are well shown in the report Ex. Pw29/C. I
see no need to reproduce the same here.
50. Hand is not a printing machine containing blocs of letters where
by simply putting it on a paper, one can find figures printed exactly same
in size, formation and distances. It is natural to have minor variations in
size and formation of letters. Paucity of space on paper or of the time for
the writer may sometimes be responsible for variations in the size of
letters. Moreover, natural and unconscious writing bring more
similarities than the writings when the writer is cautious like in this case
where the writer (accused) was asked to write specific letters / words for
21
some specific purpose i.e. comparison of handwriting. It would have been
in the mind of the writer in this case that if his handwriting is found
resembling with the questioned handwriting, the same may lead to his
conviction in an offence like murder.
51. So far as the opinion of DW1 about formation of letters 'G' in
Q1, of 'L' in Q2, 'M' and 'B' in Q3 are concerned, these are sparing
examples of minor deviation which are natural. There are so many
variations in formation of same letters even in the admitted handwritings
of accused Om Prakash Srivastava.
52. So far as contention of Ld defence counsel that a fact disclosed
by one accused cannot be used against co-accused is concerned, I do not
agree with ld. counsel on this point. In case Nabi Mohd. Vs. State of
Maharashtra (SUPRA) one of accused disclosed “I was given two
knives by accused Nabi Mohd. .......” and knives were recovered at his
instance. Disclosure statement of this accused was held inadmissible
against co – accused by the Bombay High Court stating that
“.............the informant being known and information being admissible because of the resultant discovery, these may be raised and used appropriately against the informant. But these illustrative inferences that can be drawn as a result of the facts discovered cannot further be stretched so as draw similar inculpatory inferences against the persons who are in the position of co-accused (p. 23) for reason -
(a) ...............on the principles evident herein, such incriminating information could effectively be
22
used only against the maker as admissible having assurance of its truth coming from the facts discovered pursuant thereto. With regard to co-accused, nothing of the kind is available, and it would not be safe to use such information involving the co-accused. (p.25)
(b) In fact, such an information even if proved would not strictly be evidence against the non- maker for the maker is not a witness nor can be subjected to
cross – examination.
53. It is also clear from the bare language of Section 25 & 26 of
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 that both of these provisions make
confession by an accused before the police officer inadmissible, against
the maker of statement i.e. accused. There is no controversy that
Section 27 of the same Act is under the nature of provisio to said
sections but unlike former sections, Section 27 of the Act does not
mention 'against such person' i.e. person who makes admission before the
police. Moreover, like Sector 25 or Section 26, Section 27 of the Act
provides not only about the confession or admission. It allows every
such information, which relates distinctly to the fact that discovered, in
consequence of information received from an accused, to be proved. It
is immaterial that such information amounts to confession or not.
54. All this shows that any such information which qualifies the test
of Section 27 of The Indian Evidence Act, can be proved even if same
relates to an accused other than accused of its maker.
23
55. Turning to the case in hand, police is alleged to have known
about stay of accused Om Prakash Srivastava in Kanishaka Hotel from
disclosure statement of co accused Manish Dixit and Manjit Singh.
Similarly, the stay of accused Nitin Shah in Hotel Oberoi came to the
knowledge of police from the disclosure statement of co-accused namely
Manish Dixit. Portions of statements disclosing about the stay of co-
accused in some hotel, in their strict sense, were neither admission nor
confession on the part of the said accused. Same were not incriminating in
themselves either for the maker of statement or for any of co-accused.
The same simply provided a path to the police to proceed with the
investigation . Suppose, some birdie had given this information through
an ananimous call to the Investigating Officer, was the latter forbidden
to act upon the same? No. Varily it was an evidence collected by the
IO after getting clue from disclosure of an accused which if proved
makes it incriminating, but not the information in itself was not
incriminating.
56. So far another reason cited by Hon'ble Judges is concerned,
even if the maker of statement was not a witness and hence could not be
subjected to cross – examination. It is not the disclosure of co-accused
which is used as evidence against accused Om Prakash Srivastava or Nitin
Shah about their stay in Kanishka Hotel or hotel Oberoi respectively,
rather the record of said hotels, precured by the IO though after getting
information from that accused, which is used as evidence. The IO as well
as officials of said hotels deposing about said record, were subjected to
24
cross examination by accused persons.
57. Even otherwise, being a fact necessary to explain or introduce a
fact in issue, i.e. stay of an accused near the place of occurrence on the
night of incident / meeting and also a fact which supports an inference
suggested by said fact in issue, becomes admissible in view of Section 9 of
the Indian Evidence Act. Further, from the evidence on record, there are
reasons to believe that accused persons in this case had conspired each
other to commit an offence and hence anything said, done or written by
one of such persons is admissible for the purpose of proving conspiracy
between them, as per section 10 of The Indian Evidence Act.
58. As per Guest Registration Card, mark PW25/A, someone in the
name of Arun Kumar Aggarwal had stayed there in room no. 919.
STD card Ex. PW17/C also shows that telephone calls were made in the
name of Arun Kumar Aggwral. As discussed above, entries in the Guest
Registration Card of Kanishka Hotel in the name of Arun Kumar
Aggarwal were made by accused Om Prakash Srivastava. Said record
was maintained by the hotel in its ordinary course of business. When it
is proved that entries in Guest Registration Card etc. were made by
accused Om Prakash Srivastava, it can be presumed that it was the latter
i.e. accused Om Prakash Srivastava who had stayed in that hotel on
2.8.1992 / 3.8.1992 Similarly Guest Registration Card of Hotel Oberoi
Ex. PW25/A and copy of telephone bill mark PW25/B show that accused
Nitin shah stayed in said hotel on 23.07.1992.
25
59. As discussed earlier, it is well proved on the file from the
statement of PW29 that Form 20 (Application for Registration of a motor
vehicle no. DL -1CB – 7874 ) was signed by accused Om Prakash
Srivastava. Said record is being maintained by the Registration
Authority in its ordinary course of business, it can well be presumed that
accused Om Prakash Srivastava was owner of said vehicle.
60. There is no gainsaying that the prosecution has failed to prove
that any of said two vehicles was used in the crime in question. Om
Prakash Srivastava denied in his statement recorded U/S 313 Cr. P. C. to
have owned any of said two vehicles. The assertion of accused Om
Prakash Srivastava has been proved as false. In such a case, an adverse
inference can be drawn against accused Om Prakash Srivastava. May I
refer a case on this subject titled as Peresadi Vs. State of U.P AIR
1957 SC 211. The accused was facing a murder charge and the same
had denied several relevant facts, which had been conclusively
established. In such a circumstance, it was held by the Apex Court of
India that the court shall be justified in drawing an adverse inference
against the accused.
61. During proceedings of this case, it came on record that accused
Om Prakash Srivastava is facing trial in many cases.
(i) Ex. Pw32/mark X i.e a copy of letter / order of the Minister
for Law, Republic of Singapore dated 30.8.95, mentions accused Om
26
Prakash Srivastava @ Arun Kumar Aggarwal @ Bablu as accused of
following offences:-
(a) Conspiracy to commit murder of one I D Arora an offence punishable U/s 120B IPC r/w section 302 IPC.
(b) Murder of one Ram Partap Singh Chauhan punishable U/s 302 IPC 1860.
(c ) Conspiracy to commit murder of one Lalit Kumar Suneja an offence punishable U/s 120B r/w section 302/34 IPC (case in hand).
(d)Conspiracy to Kidnap one Vishwanath Mittal an offence punishable U/s 120B r/w section 341/365/324/307 IPC of 1860.
(ii) A case before a TADA court at Lucknow (U.P.) as told by Ld
counsel for accused Om Prakash Srivastava on 21.01.06.
(iii) It is also to be noted that accused Om Prakash Srivastava is being
produced before this court from Central Jail Baraily, U.P. and as per the
warrants of this accused same is facing trials while in judicial custody at least
in following case:-
FIR no. 33/03 U/s 364A/387/120 B IPC P.S. Special Cell, Delhi.
This warrant is signed by the trial judge.
62. Now, it is proved on record that Lalit Suneja (deceased) was an
employee of Simnit Enterprises being run by accused Nitin Shah, both of
them had a dispute over some payment. Complaint Ex. Pw15/A1 was
lodged by the deceased, apprehending risk of life from accused Om
Prakash Srivastava and Nitin Shah. The complainant had disclosed about
a meeting with said accused at Jucasso Inn, Sunder Nagar on 23.7.92
which actually took place and is verified from the statement of Pw15. It
27
was attended by accused Om Prakash Srivastava and Nitin Shah, apart
from deceased and some others. Matter could not be settled and a further
meeting was fixed for 30.7.92. Said Lalit Suneja was murdered by two
unidentified persons on 02.8.92 i.e two days after the date of further
meeting to resolve the dispute. Accused Om Prakash Srivastava was in
Delhi on 02.8.92 i.e day of murder. It is pertinent to point out that accused
Om Prakash Srivastava does not claim to be a resident of Delhi. Accused
Nitin Shah who is residing in Mumbai, stayed in Hotel Oberoi, New Delhi
on 23.7.92 i.e day on which above mentioned meeting was held in Jucasso
Inn. Accused Om Prakash Srivastava told a lie before this court in his
statement recorded U/s 313 Cr PC about having purchased a car no.
DL1CB 7874 and motor bike no. DL1SD 4680 and also having stayed in
Hotel Kanishka on 02.8.92. Said accused is involved in several cases of
heinous offences as disclosed above.
63. Accused Nitin Shah also denied wrongly the fact about
employment of deceased Lalit Kumar Suneja with Simnit Enterprises being
run by him i.e accused.
64. Can in these circumstances, it be presumed that accused Om
Prakash Srivastava and Nitin Shah were involved in the murder of deceased
Lalit Suneja ?
65. The Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 lays down procedure for
trial of all criminal cases except any special form of procedure prescribed by
any other law for the time being in force. The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
28
applies to all judicial proceedings here in India. Our lawmakers did not
implant any principle in criminal law like 'Res Ipsa Loquter' which means
'the thing speaks for itself' when the evidence explains only one thing and i.e
that the accident could not ordinarily occur unless the defendant had been
negligent. The law raises a presumption of negligence on the part of the
defendant. Though certain circumstances are enumerated by The Indian
Evidence Act where court can or has to presume existence of certain facts.
66. Section 114 of The Indian Evidence Act is one of such examples.
Before pondering over the presumptions which can be drawn in this case, I
think it will be apt in the circumstances to peek in the question as how a
fact is taken as proved.
67. Section 3 of The Indian Evidence Act defines as '' a fact is said to
be proved when, after considering the matter before it, the court either
believes it to exist , or considers its existence so probable that a prudent man
ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the
supposition that it exists''.
There can be anyone of two propositions that-
(i)The court either believes it to exist or
(ii)Considers its existence so probable that a prudent man, underthe circumstances of the particular case act upon the supposition
that it exists.
68. All this makes it clear that for a fact to be proved, it is not
necessary that court should believe its existence at all costs, rather it will
suffice to establish a circumstance, when a person possessing simply a
29
motherwit can act upon it thinking that it exists.
69. The law adopts yardstick of a ''prudent'' and that '' an ordinary
prudent'' person and not of a ''reprehending critic'', perhaps because law is
not cloned in vacuums of laboratories. It develops in public, aired by
customs, traditions and general behaviour of masses exposed while
interacting with others. In this way, subject matter of law is laity and not the
experts only.
70. There is no denial that cardinal principle of criminal law is that,
prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts. The reasonable
doubt means that there is some reason, to doubt existence of fact in issue.
Even if there is any scope of doubt, but if it is a doubt not supported by any
reason, the court is not obliged to conclude that fact remained doubtful. If
prosecution has established a fact prima facie, now it shifts to the other side,
to give some fact supported by a reason pointing towards doubt upon the
probity of fact. Commenting upon presumptions, which court can draw U/s
114 of The Indian Evidence Act, it was held by the apex court in Sajjan
Singh Vs State of Punjab AIR 1964 SC 464 (467-468).
This is a deliberate departure from the ordinary principleof criminal jurisprudence, under which the burden of provingthe guilt of the accused in criminal proceedings liesall the way on the prosecution. Under the provisionof this sub section the burden on the prosecution toprove the guilt of the accused must be held to bedischarged if certain facts as mentioned there in areproved and then burden shifts to the accused and theaccused has to prove that in spite of the assets beingdisproportionate to his known source of income, heis guilty of the offence.
30
71. Though there appears some conflict between the presumption
which court can draw in view of Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act
with the presumption of innocence of accused but same is not true in fact. It
is clarified by the apex court in case Hitel P Dalal Vs Bratinder Nath
Banerjee (2001) 6 SCC 16.
Presumes are rules of evidence and do not conflict with presumption of innocence, because by the latter, all that is meant as that the prosecution is obliged to prove the case against the accused beyondreasonable doubt. The obligation on thepresumption may be discharged with thehelp of presumptions of law or fact unlessaccused adduces evidence showing thereasonable possibility of the non existenceof the presumed fact.
72. It has been well settled that '' beyond reasonable doubts'' never
means that “beyond probability of any doubt''. All this makes it clear that
law tolerates scope of a slight doubt. Writing a judgment for the apex court
in case Inder Singh and Another Vs State (Delhi Administration)
(SUPRA) Hon'ble Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer while stressing upon the
principle of proof beyond reasonable doubt held that-
While it is necessary that proof beyond reasonabledoubt should be adduced in all criminal cases, it is notnecessary that it should be perfect. If a case is provedtoo perfectly, it is argued that it is artificial; if a casehas some flaws, inevitable because human beings areprone to err, it is argued that it is too imperfect. Onewonders whether in the many guilty men must becallously allowed to escape. Proof beyond reasonabledoubt is a guideline, not a fetish and guilty mancannot get away with it because truth suffers someinfirmity when projected through human processes.Judicial quest for perfect proof often accounts forpolice presentation of fool-proof concoction. Why
31
fake up? Because the court asks for manufacture tomake truth look true? No, we must be realistic.
73. Sure enough, if an offender is allowed to beat the rap, it is a
mistrust to the society and if an innocent person is punished, it means an
attack on the fundamental right of life and liberty of a person. The court has
to watch both of these ends simultaneously. An even balanced scale of
justice should not be tilted towards accused by using personal liberty of an
accused as makeweight, at the risk of lives and properties of millions of
unrepresented masses.
74. In a case State of U.P Vs Anil Singh 1988 (3) Crimes 367 (370-
371), their Lordships of Supreme Court of India cautioned that it is
necessary to prove that a judge does not presides over court not to see that no
innocent is punished. A judge also presides to see that guilty man is not
escaped. One is as important as the other.
75. The use of words ''may presume'' in section 114 of The Indian
Evidence Act leaves it to the discretion of courts to draw an inference.
Guiding lines for the courts are enumerated as that they may presume
existence of any fact which was likely to have happened in regard to-
(a)the common course of natural events
(b)human conduct
(c)public and private business.
76. If it is established on record that an event took place in India in
the month of December or January of a year, the court can presume that it
32
was season of winter and there is no need to adduce evidence in this regard,
even if 'season of incident' was in issue. Similarly the court can infer about
the human conduct as how a person behaves in any particular circumstance.
77. In the opinion of Huesmann 1994, the aggression is an
intentional inflictions of some form of harm on others and is an all too
common form of social behaviour.
78. Karnard Lorenj, a noble prize winning scientist proposed that
aggression springs mainly from an inherited fighting instinct that human
beings share with many other species.
79. It was observed by Barnard Bersoln and Garry A. Steiner in
their book ''Human Behaviour, An Inventory of Scientific Findings'' that
human behaviour is far more variable and therefore less predictable, then
that of any other species. The repertoire and range of behaviour available to
any given man, as well the range that exists across men is far broader than
anywhere else in the animal kingdom. This is because Human behaviour is
more dependent upon learning and less regulated by instinct or other innate
behavioral predispositions than the behaviour of lower animals. Man has
few if any specific, innate behavioral responses of that kind.
80. Jammes, (1844/1890) talked about 32 different instinctive
behaviour tendencies while Mc Dougal (1908) spoke about dozen such
instincts. Barnard (1924, 1926) detected 5684 behaviour patterns that were
designated as instinctive. Not surprisingly, than hostile and aggressive
33
behaviours were subsumed under this heading.
81. Adler (1927) for example proposed that all human behaviour, in
final analysis derives from one single instinct- “the will to power” which he
later referred to as the ''striving for superiority''.
82. Ardrey (1966) posited that human behaviour is spurred by one
major force i.e. possession or property instinct so called territorial
imperative.
83. Schultz-Hencke (1940,1951) acknowledged these two instincts
and added sexuality as a third, thus arriving at a three instinct proposal of
sex, power and possession to accommodate all human behaviour.
84. May I reiterate here, even as per admission of accused Nitin Shah
same had a dispute with deceased Lalit Suneja on some payments, it can be
taken to be a motive to to obviate such an employee. Without accepting any
such intention on the part of said accused, it is argued by Sh. Ponda advocate
that motive, even if established, was not sufficient for conviction of an
accused. Ld counsel referred here a case titled as Nasir Yusuf Shaikh Vs.
State of Maharastra 2005 All. MR (Cri.) 318 where it was held that-
Motive by itself would not be sufficient to secure a conviction,court must consider if there are other supporting circumstanceswhich form further links in order to complete the chain of circumstantial evidence.
85. There is no dispute over this finding of Bombay High Court but
motive is not the only fact established in this case, hence cited authority is of
no help to accused Nitin Shah.
86. As per complaint Ex.Pw15/A1, the deceased had apprehended
34
danger to his life. Accused Om Prakash Srivastava and Nitin Shah were
alleged to have threatened him. As discussed earlier, it is proved that both of
said accused had participated in that meeting, held in Jucasso Inn, Sunder
Nagar, New Delhi. All this is enough to show the eagerness of both of said
accused in settling the dispute. It is observed here that when a man intends to
do some task, mind proposes certain ways and methods to fulfill the design
and the intender strives to achieve the desired result. May I repeat here that
accused Om Prakash Srivastava is facing trials in many cases of murder,
conspiracy to commit murder etc as it is disclosed earlier.
87. Considering the basic instincts and behaviour of a human being
in particular circumstances, as discussed above, in my opinion an ordinary
prudent person could have presumed only the assertion that both of said
accused i.e Om Prakash Srivastava and Nitin Shah were responsible in the
killing of deceased Lalit Suneja.
88. It was directed by the Supreme Court of India in case M.
Narsinga Rao Vs. State of A.P 2001 (Criminal Law Journal) 515 (220)
SC that unless presumption is disproved or dispelled, the court can treat the
presumption as tentamount to proof.
89. Both of accused persons namely Om Prakash Srivastava and
Nitin Shah are hence convicted for offence of entering into a conspiracy to
commit murder of Lalit Suneja (deceased) punishable U/s 120 B IPC r/w
section 302 IPC.
90. There is nothing on record to implicate accused Manjit Singh for
any offence as is alleged against him, same is therefore acquitted for all the
35
offences charged with.
91. Pw15 Inspector Hanuman Dan claimed to have received a
complaint Ex.Pw15/A1 for investigation. It is admitted by this witness that
said complaint prima facie disclosed a cognizable offence punishable U/s
506 IPC. No FIR was got registered. Although Pw15 stated to have kept
watch on the circumstances pursuant to said complaint. I am unable to
restrain myself from commenting that it was a clear case of dereliction from
duty by a senior police officer like Pw15. A precious life could have been
saved if this witness had prompted to initiate legal proceedings after getting
FIR registered on said complaint.
92. If the police does not register FIR on the basis of a complaint
disclosing cognizable offence, the complainant has a remedy provided U/s
154 (3) Cr. PC by sending the substance of such information, in writing by
post to the Superintendent of police concerned. It does not absolve the
police officer concerned from his responsibility and this is not the sweet-
will of police officer to record the information about a cognizable offence or
not. The use of word ''shall be reduced to writing by him'' casts a duty
upon the incharge of police station to register the information in the relevant
register. If such officer denies or neglects in the recording such information,
in my opinion, the same amounts non performance of his duty, prescribed
by the law.
93. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to Commissioner of Police,
Delhi who may take legal action against erring police officer concerned, if
the same thinks it proper to do so.
36
94. May I express my disappointment over the callous
attitude of IO in investigation of the case, as per record, accused
Om Prakash Srivastava disclosed in the police custody through a
disclosure statement Ex.Pw26/A that he purchased the pistol used
in the crime in this case from one Satnam Fauzi r/o Vishnu Garden
and the same was concealed by him in the house of one
Member of Parliament, who in turn took said pistol along with
car used in crime to Ghonda, UP, from where the weapon
was sent to Nepal. The IO appears not to have investigated this
case from that angle and did not try properly to recover the weapon of
offence.
95. As discussed above, register no. 12 maintained in police station
Nizamuddin, New Delhi was tempered with and the same was
produced before this court in evidence. Section 193 of The Indian
Panel Code provides punishment for giving false evidence in
judicial proceedings. Moreover, section 194 and section 195 of IPC
also prescribe for punishment for giving or fabricating false evidence
though with intention to procure conviction of an accused. Apart
from that, section 196 IPC makes it an offence to use evidence known
to be false. Considering all this, I think a prima facie offence is made
out under aforesaid provisions for giving and fabricating false evidence
and also using the same as true though known to be false. A proper
complaint is being sent separately to the court of Ld ACMM, KKD, Delhi
37
with a request to take cognizance of offence and to try the accused of such
offence as per law.
Announced in the open court. (RAJENDER KUMAR)On this 3rd day of July, 2006. Additional Sessions Judge
Karkardoodma Courts, Delhi.