Judgment -S.C.

630-08

-1-

Exh.341

Exh.341 BEFORETHECOURTOFSESSIONSFORGR.MUMBAI. SESSIONSCASENO.630OF2008 StateofMaharashra (attheinstanceofDCBCIDBandra UnitIX,C.R.No.94/08)) v/s. ] ] ] ..Complainant

1. MariaMonicaSusairaj] aged28years, ] OccupationNil,] Residingat:391/A,CLayout,] Bannimantap,HanumantNagar,] Mysore15.] 2.EmileJeromeJoseph,] Aged26years,Occupation:Nil,] Residingat:4527/A,1stCross,] St.MaryRoad,N.R.Mohallah,] Mysore570007.]..Accused. SpecialPPMr.R.V .KinifortheState. AdvocateMr.SharifShaikhwithRajeshS.GuptaforaccusedNo.1. AdvocateMr.WahabKhanforaccusedNo.2. Coram HisHonourTheSpecialJudge& : AdditionalSessionsJudge, ShriM.W.CHANDWANI. (CourtroomNo.32).

Date:27,28,2930June,1July,2011 th th th th st . JUDGMENT th th th th (Dated27,28,29,30June,1July,2011) st 1. Theaccusedarechargesheetedforoffencepunishable

Judgment -S.C.630-08

-2-

Exh.341

u/s.302and201ofI.P .C.r/w120Borinthealternativesec.34ofI.P .C. Theaccusationsagainsttheaccusedareofseriousnature,inthesense thaton652008,accusedNos.1and2hatchedconspiracytoeliminate NeerajAmarnathGroverandpursuanttothe saidconspiracy,accused no.1calledNeerajGroverathishouse,theaccusedNo.2flewtoMumbai from Cochin and had been to house of the accused No.1. Both the accusedcommittedmurderofNeerajGroverandwiththeintentionto screenthemselvesfromthelegalpunishment,theaccusedattemptedto causedisappearanceoftheevidenceofmurder,theaccusedchoppedthe bodyofNeerajGroverwiththehelpofChopperandputthemutilated bodyintobagandburntitattheoutskirtsofcity,atManorWada. 2. ItisthecaseoftheprosecutionthatoneNeerajAmarnath

GroverwasworkinginacreativeteamofBalajiTelefilmLtd.,whichwas engagedinproduction ofT.V .Serials. NeerajGroverwasresidingat JyotiApartment,SevenBungalow,Andheriwithhiscousinbrother.The accused No.1 isKannadaactressand intheend ofApril,2008,she cametoMumbaiforgettingfootholdinT.V .Serial.Shegotacquainted withNeerajGroverandwiththehelpofNeeraj,accusedNo.1gaveCD ofherauditiontoBalajiTelefilmforgettingroleinserial'Mahabharat'. ShewastryingforroleinT.V .SerialthroughNeerajGrover. Accused

Judgment -S.C.630-08

-3-

Exh.341

No.1wasnothavingplacetostayandfor sometimesheresidedwith Neeraj. Their acquaintance turned into intimate relationship. On 652008, the accused No.1 took over flat No.201, Wing 'B' in Dhiraj Solitare Chincholi Bunder Road, Malad (West), Mumbai on rent. It is further case of the prosecution that till 652008, there was no developmentinthematterofgettingroleintheT.V .Serialbyaccused No.1.TheaccusedNo.1wassuspiciousofNeerajthatwhetherhewas sincereinassistingtoaccusedNo.1forgettingtheroleinT.V .Serialor he was bluffing with her. Therefore, she was having grudge against NeerajGrover.AccusedNo.1,outofgrudge,hatchedconspiracywiththe accusedNo.2,toeliminate Neeraj.Therefore,shecalledNeerajtoher flaton652008bymakingcallonhismobile.On652008,atabout 10.30p.m.NeerajGrovercametothehouseoftheaccusedNo.1i.e.flat No.201, Dhiraj Solitare building, Malad (West). The accused no. 1 talkedwithAccusedNo.2,onhismobile,whowasatCochinatthattime, andhatchedconspiracytoeliminateNeerajGrover. Infurtheranceof theirconspiracy,accusedNo.2immediatelyflewtoMumbaiandreached flatNo.201,DhirajSolitareBuildingMalad(West)atabout7.30a.m.on 752008. Both accused committed murder of Neeraj Grover in flat No.201,Wing'B'ofDhirajSolitarebuilding,Malad(West).Itisfurther

Judgment -S.C.630-08

-4-

Exh.341

case of the prosecution that to screen themselves, from legal punishment,theaccusedattemptedtodestroytheevidenceofmurderof NeerajGrover.AndforthatendtheaccusedNo.1purchasedcurtain,big chopper (Art.23),sportsbagsandroomfreshnerfromHypercityMall. Theaccusedchopped thebody ofNeerajGroverintopiecesandput mutilatedbodyinthesportbagsalongwithotherarticleshavingblood stains. The accused No.1 borrowed Santro Car from Kiran Shriyan (P .W.11).TheyputbagscontainingmutilatedbodyofNeerajinthecar andwenttooutskirtsoftheCityi.e.atManorWada.Whiletravelingto ManorWada,ontheway,theaccusedNo.2purchasedpetrolfromVinod Kumar Mishra (P .W.13), as well as lighter from Amarbahadur Yadav (P .W.22). Accusedburntthesportsbagscontainingmutilatedbodyand other articles by pouring petrol over them. It is further case of the prosecutionthattheaccusedNo.1gotthemattresscoversofherhouse changed,throughKamleshJain(P .W.16),andalsogotthepassageofflat painted through Dhirajkumar Shukla (P .W.15), to conceal the blood stainsfromthewallofflatNo.201. 3. It is further case of prosecution that it was daily routine of

motherofNeerajGrovertohavetalkwithNeerajGroverinthemorning, aswellas,inthelateevening, on752008,therewasnoresponseto

Judgment -S.C.630-08

-5-

Exh.341

thecallsofNilamGrover,themotherofNeeraj,whichshemadetothe mobileNo.9967483634ofNeeraj.Thereafter,shemadeseveralattempts tocontactNeerajonmobile,buttherewasnoresponse.Ultimately,she contactedNishantGrover(P .W.33),thecousinbrotherofNeerajGrover and asked him whereabouts of Neeraj. Nishant Grover also tried to contact Neeraj Grover on his mobile but he could not succeed. He enquiredwithNishantLal(P .W.9),afriendofNeerajandotherfriends, but still could not get whereabouts of Neeraj. Nishant Lal (P .W.9) inquired with accused No.1 regarding whereabouts of Neeraj. The accused No.1 stated that Neeraj had left her place at 1.30 a.m. on 752008,leavinghismobileinherflat.Ultimately,itwasdecidedby NishantGrover(P .W.33)andNishantLal(P .W.9)alongwithotherfriends to lodge complaint at Malad Police station. On the say of friends of Neeraj, AccusedNo.1alsoaccompaniedthemto MaladPolicestation for lodging missing complaint. Nishant Grover (P 33) lodged the .W. missingComplaint(Exh.138)withPSIIndap(P .W.34) atMaladPolice stationvideAdultMissingComplaintNo.47/08. 4. The statement of Nishant Lal and accused No.1 was also

recorded by PSI Shyam Ramchandra Indap (P .W.34). In between, AmarnathGrover(P .W.1)flewtoMumbaiforsearchinghissonNeeraj.

Judgment -S.C.630-08

-6-

Exh.341

On 952008,theaccused No.1was calledinpolicestation. Accused No.1handedoverNokiamakemobileModelN95ofNeerajGrover(Art. 45)toPSIShyamIndap(P .W.34.),heinturn,handedoversaidmobile (Art.45) to Nishant Grover (P .W.33) the cousin brother of Neeraj. ThereafterPSIIndap(P .W.34) wentonleave,therefore,the inquiryof missing complaint was transferred to PSI Raghvendra Singh Abbaji Shirsagar (P .W.44). He also called accused No.1 and recorded her statement at (Exh.224 and 225). As there was no development in missing complaint, therefore, Amarnath Grover (P .W.1) approached to thenJt.CommissionerRakeshMariya(D.W.18).RakeshMaria directed crimeBranch,Bandra UnitIXforparallelinvestigation inrespectof missingofNeerajGrover. 5. ParallelinquiryofmissingofNeerajGroverwashandedover

toSatishRajaramRaorane(P .W.47)byBandraCrimeBranchUnitNo.IX. Till 2052008, whereabout of Neeraj Grover could not be found. Therefore,on2052008,AmarnathGrovermadeacomplainttoMalad Police station with regard to kidnapping of Neeraj Grover. The complaintwasrecordedbyPSIShirsagar(P .W.44)andonhiscomplaint, FIR(Exh.48)cametobelodged,videCrimeNo.347/08undersec.363 and368ofI.P .C.againstunknownpersons.

Judgment -S.C.630-08

-7-

Exh.341

6.

Itisthecaseofprosecutionthatinthemorningof2152008,

duringinterrogation bySatishRajaramRaorane(P .W.47), theaccused No.1confessedofherinvolvementinthemurderofNeerajGroverwith herfiance, the accusedNo.2.TheaccusedNo.1wastakentoMalad PolicestationbyPIRaorane.InMaladPolicestationaccusedNo.1was arrestedbyPIDhanajiShivajiNalawdevidearrestpanchnama(Exh.60). At that time, the accused No.1 was carrying two handsets of Nokia mobile (Art.7 and 8) as well as a Bunch of two keys of flat No.201 (Art.9).ImmediatelythereafteraccusedNo.1madevoluntarydisclosure to show the place where the mutilated body of Neeraj Grover was disposedoff,underpanchnama(Exh.63A)beforetwopanchasbyname UshaVenkatRamalu(P .W.5)andSumitHarishBakrani.Accusedno.1 ledpolicepartyandpanchastoManorWadaand thereafter toright turn,andtoaplace nearapathway.Adjacenttopathway,the half burntremainsofhumanskeletonalongwithsomefleshandonbones werenoticed. Thepoliceseizedribcage(Art.10);femurbone(Art.11); and skull (Art.12); of human. Apart from these articles, police also seized halfburntgarlandof beads(Art.1);halfburntchainhaving pendentofGajmukh(art.2);halfburntpieceofbag(Art.13);partly burntpieceofredcloth(Art.14);partlyburntgougeofclothhavingred

Judgment -S.C.630-08

-8-

Exh.341

lines (Art.15); partly burnt deodorant bottle (Exh.16); tin bottle (Art.17)damagedtinbottleanditspieces(Art.18);partlyburntmetal buttonandcoins(Art.19colly.);underthepanchnama(Exh.63B)from theburntspotshown byaccusedNo.1. PINalawdealsotookthesoil mixedwithash(Art.20)fromburntplace,aswellassoil(Art.21)from otherthan burntplace.Thegarlandbeads(Art.1)and chain,having pendent of Gajmukh (Art.2) were identified by Amarnath Grover (P .W.1), Nishant Lal(P .W.9)andNishant Grover(P .W.33) as articles of NeerajGrover. 7. Itisthefurthercaseoftheprosecutionthaton2252008,the

accused No.2 was brought to Mumbai and onthe same day, he was arrestedbyMaladPoliceStation.On22.05.2008,thepolicealongwith accused No.1, visited flat No.201. At the request of Malad Police station, ExpertfromFSLalsoreachedatflatNo.201,DhirajSolitare BuildingMalad(W)andthespotwasexaminedbyexpertofForensic ScienceLaboratory,Kalina.Bloodstainsweredetectedbeneath(under) the painting of outer kitchen wall, curtain of window, knob, and T.V . Speakerofthebedroom.Thesaidbloodstainswerecollected,including thebloodonouterwallofkitchenbytheFSLExpertsandthepolicealso seized 3/4 Jeans, Tshirt, Pair of Shoes and Pillow cover from flat

Judgment -S.C.630-08

-9-

Exh.341

No.201. Accordingly, spot panchnama was prepared in presence of panchasincludingGhanshyamChottelalYadav(P .W.14).On2352008, thebloodsampleofAmarnathGrover(P .W.1)andhiswifeNilamGrover wascollectedforDNA.Likewise,expertfromFSLKalina,visitedMalad Police Station. They separated femur bone (Art.11) and three teeth including tooth (Art. 46) from the remains of skeleton for DNA Test, which were found at Manor Wada. Femur bone( Art. 11) and teeth wereseparatelysealed. 8. On2352008,theinvestigationofthecasewastransferredto

MaladPolicestation.MaladPolicestationregisteredthesameoffenceby separate crimeNo.94/08ofCrimeBranchBandraUnit. Custodyof bothaccusedwerealsotransferredtoCrimeBranchBandraUnitNo.IX. Itisthefurther caseof prosecutionthaton2452008,theaccused No.2,madeavoluntarystatementbeforepanchasincludingRaviRamesh Parab(P .W.7)underpanchnama(Exh.72A)thathewouldshowwhere Chopper(Art.23)wasconcealed.ThereaftertheaccusedNo.2, ledthe police party to Manor Wada, and 10 to 15 ft. away from the place wherefrom remains of human skeleton were recovered, he took out partlyburntchopper(Art.23),inpresenceofpanchas,whichwasseized underthepanchnama(Exh.72B).On2552008,theaccusedNo.1also

Judgment -S.C.630-08

-10-

Exh.341

madevoluntarystatement under the panchnama(Exh.90A)before panchas that she would show the car, which was used in the crime. Thereafter the accused took police party to Four bungalow Andheri (west)andshowedSantroCarbearingRegistrationNo.MHO4BQ9866, which belonged to Kiran Shriyan. Three foot mats of rear seat, seat coversofrearseats,dickeymat,andtwosunprotectionsheets(Art.28) ofthesaidcar(Art.28)wereseizedunderthepanchnama(Exh.90B), inpresenceofpanchas,includingMohad.AyubMehboobKhan(P .W.12). PIRaorane(P .W.46)recordedthestatementsofKiranShriyan(P .W.11) and Kamlesh Jain (P .W.16). During his statement, Kamlesh Jain produced one note book (Art.39), containing address(Exh.98)of flat No.201DhirajSolitare,writtenbyaccusedNo.1.On2652008,femur bone(Art.11),threeteethincludingtooth(Art.46) weresenttoFSL KalinaforDNAtest. 9. ItisfurthercaseofprosecutionthatasaccusedNo.1intended

togiveconfessionalstatementbeforetheChiefMetropolitanMagistrate, therefore,on2652008,shewasproducedbeforeAddl.M.M.9th court Bandra.Shewassenttojudicialcustodyforaday andon2752008, she made a confessional statement before Ld. Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Pankaj Jivanlal Shah (P .W.13), which was recorded at

Judgment -S.C.630-08

-11-

Exh.341

(Exh.132andExh.132A).Thesubstanceofconfessionalstatementof theaccusedNo.1isthatNeerajcame toherflat on6.5.2008. She talked with accused no.2 on the mobile of Neeraj. Suddenly in next morning,the accusedNo.2cametoherflatat7.30a.m.andhesaw NeerajGrover.AccusedNo.2,gaveafistblowtoNeeraj. Scuffletook place between accused No.2andNeeraj andthereafteraccused No.2 tookkitchenknifeandstabbedNeerajGrover. Shetriedtoholdknife, shegotinjuryonherhand,Accusedno.2pushedherandstabbedNeeraj to death and thereafter, accused No.1 bought articles from Hypercity Mall;thentheaccusedNo.2cutthebodyofNeerajGroverintopieces andafterborrowingcarbyaccusedNo.1,theywenttoManorWadaand setfiretothesportsbagscontainingmutilatedbodyofNeerajGrover. 10. On2952008,PIRaoranesenttheArticlesrecoveredfromthe

spotshownbyaccusedNo.1,toFSLKaliknaforclinicalandDNAtest. On3052008,thebloodstainsarticles (Art.29colly.), recoveredbyPI Nalawade (P .W.45) from flat No.201, Dhiraj Solitare Building, Malad (West), were sent to FSL Kalina forclinical and DNA Test. Likewise, chopper(art.23)wasalsosenttoFSLKalinaforclinicalandDNAtest. On3152008,mats,seatcoversandsunprotectionsheets(Art.28colly.) thearticles seizedfromSantrocarNo.MH04BQ9866,weresentto

Judgment -S.C.630-08

-12-

Exh.341

FSLKalinaforclinicalandDNATest.On162008,accusedNo.2made voluntarydisclosuretoshowtheweaponofassault,whichwasrecorded under the panchnama (Exh.81A) in presence of panchas including RanjitSurendraRaje(P .W.8).ThereafteraccusedNo.2ledpolicepartyto flat No.201, Wing B, Dhiraj Solitare Malad (West) and from water drainageofdrybalcony,hetookoutkitchenknife(Art.25),whichwas seizedunderthepanchnama(Exh.81B).On262008,thebloodsample ofaccusedNo.1and2weretakenbyDr.ShivajiNarayanDaund(P .W.39) forDNAtestbyfillingconsentFormofaccusedNos.1and2,(Exh.193 and194),respectively.ThebloodofaccusedNos.1and2wassentfor DNATestbyPIRaoranetoFSLKalina. Afterrecordingstatementsof thewitnesses,andcollectingofreportsofFSLKalina,thechargesheet (Exh.5)cametobefiledbeforeChiefMetropolitanMagistrate. 11. Theld.ChiefMetropolitanMagistratecommittedthecase

totheSessionscourt.Thereafterthiscaseisassignedtothiscourt.My ld.Predecessorframedthechargesforoffencepunishableu/s.302,201 r/w120Bor34ofI.P .C.,againsttheaccusedNos.1and2videCharge (Exh.25).TheaccusedNos.1and2pleadednotguiltyvideExh.26and 27,respectivelyandclaimedtobetried. 12. The prosecution has examined almost 48 witnesses and

Judgment -S.C.630-08

-13-

Exh.341

closeditscasebyfilingprecipe. Afterconclusionofevidenceofthe prosecutionwitnesses,thestatementoftheaccusedNos.1and2were recordedatEx.274and276respectively.Insupportofherstatement u/s.313ofCr.P .C.,accusedNo.1alsofiledwrittenstatement(Exh.274 A).ThedefenceoftheaccusedNo.1and2istotaldenialandofalibi. Theaccusedhaveexamine19witnessesintheirdefence. 13. According to the defence of accused No.1, she was only

knowingNeerajGrover,butsheneveraskedhimtolookroleforherin TV Serial. Accused No.1 took defence of alibi in the sense that on 652008,shewasresidinginthehouseofoneDeepakandnotinflat No.201, 'B' Wing of DhirajSolitare building, Chincholi Bundar Road, Malad(West).TheaccusedNo.1claimsthaton752008,shehadbeen to Inorbit Mall along with her sister Maria Veronica (D.W.3) to meet accusedNo.2.Shepurchasedarticles,fromotherMallandthereafterat about12noon,shemetaccusedNo.2.Afterspendingdaywithaccused No.2,shealongwithhersisterandbrotherleftforthehouseofSharad,a friendofherbrother.InthenightshewascalledbyMaladPolicestation andthereafter,policeusedtodetainherfrequentlyforhours,everyday andfrom1852008,shewasillegallydetainedincrimebranchBandra Unit No.9. According to the accused No.1, her confessional statement

Judgment -S.C.630-08

-14-

Exh.341

wasobtainedunderduressbypoliceandunderthreatofdetainingher familymembersincustody. AccusedNo.2alsotookdefenceoftotal denialanddefenceofalibiinthesensethathenevervisitedflatNo.201 inDhirajSolitarebuilding,Malad(W).Accordingtohim,on652008,in thenightwhenhetalkedtoaccusedNo.1,shewasindepressionandwas askinghimtocomedowntoMumbaitosolveproblemofherstayat Mumbai.ItwasdecidedbetweenthemthattheywouldmeetatInorbit mall.HeflewtoMumbaiandon752008,andatabout12noonhe metaccusedNo.1. Theyspentdaytogetherandintheevening,they separated from each other. Accused No. 2 went to meet his uncle. ThereafteraccusedNo.2stayedinonehotelatlinkroadinthenightof 752008. On852008accusedNo.2wenttomeethisuncle, andhe flewtoCochin.Tofortifytheirdefence,accusedNos.1and2examined followingdefencewitnesses: LISTOFDEFENCEWITNESSESEXAMINEDBYACCUSED D.W. Name of the defence Purpose No. witnesses Examinedby

D.W. PradeepJagannathJagtap To produce the gate AccusedNo.1. 2 entry register Exh.285 ofBycullajail. D.W. Maria Veronica Susairaj Toshowheralibi. 3 (sisterofaccusedNo.1) AccusedNo.1.

Judgment -S.C.630-08

-15-

Exh.341

D.W. Shaikh Latif Gaffar (Sr. To produce & prove AccusedNo.1. 4 Manager of MidDay prove publication of Newspaper news in newspapers Exh.300,301,&302. D.W. Vinod Kumar Memon Toprovepublicationof AccusedNo.1. 5 (Chief Reporter of Mid news column Exh.300 Day) A,301Aand302A. D.W. JitendraKumarDey 6 (Journalist.) D.W. SayyedSoshanRizvi 7 (reporterofMidDay) Toprovepublicationof AccusedNo.1. newscolumnExh.300 B. Toprovepublicationof AccusedNo.1. news column Exh.301 C)

D.W. Ketan Pravin Ranga Toprovepublicationof AccusedNo.1. 8 (reportedofMidDay) news column Exh.300 D,&Exh.301D). D.W. Vinod Kumar Memon Toproducenewspapers AccusedNo.2 9 (Chief Reporter of Mid markedExh.310. Day) D.W. Dharmesh 10 Thakkar Hariram ToproveCD(Exh.330) AccusedNo.1 to prove CD(Exh.330) AccusedNo.1 containingR.K.B.

D.W. NileshBalkrishnaDave 11

D.W. Sunil Krishnaji Damle Toproveofficialrecord AccusedNo.2 12 ( Rtr. Commander in Chief Southern Navel Command) D.W. Sanjay Jagdish Chandra To prove official AccusedNo.2 13 Sharma(Navyofficer) record. D.W. DeepakJaidevsinghMalik To dispute TI parade AccusedNo.2 14 dated 572008 and 762008 D.W. Ashish Shahu Raorane To produce Exh.310A AccusedNo.2 15 (photo journalist Mid photograph of news

Judgment -S.C.630-08

-16-

Exh.341

Day) D.W. ManishNareshThakur 16 D.W. RajivKanwarBajaj 17 (TVJournalist)

column. To dispute TI Parade AccusedNo.2. dated 572008 and 762008. ToproveR.K.B.show AccusedNo.1.

D.W. RakeshHarikrishnaMaria To prove press AccusedNo.1. 18 (thenJt.Commissionerof conferenceheldbyhim police) on2582008. D.W. Naga Bhushan Toproducedocument AccusedNo.2 19 Niranjanachar (Naval of INS Venduruthy ProvostMarshalLt.) Exh.336colly.

14.

Havingheardld.SpecialAPPMr.R.V .KinifortheState,aswell

asAdvocateSheriffShaikhforaccusedNo.1andAdvocateWahabKhan for accused No.2, and after going through the material available on record,thefollowingpointsariseformydetermination,towhich,Ihave answered against each of them for the reasons to be followed hereinafter:

Pointsfordetermination:
Sr. Points No. 1. Findings

Whether the prosecution proves that remains of human skeleton found at ManorWadaisofNeerajGrover? Yes. Whether the prosecution proves that Yes. NeerajGrovermetwithhomicidaldeath?

2.

Judgment -S.C.630-08

-17-

Exh.341

3. Whether the prosecution proves that on 6.5.2008, the accused hatched criminal conspiracy to commit murder of Neeraj No. Grover? Whether the prosecution proves that on 752008,between7.30a.m.to8a.m.in flat No.201, 'B' Wing, Chincholi Bunder Road,Malad(W),Mumbai,infurtherance ofcriminalconspiracy,theaccusedNos.1 and2,committedmurderbyintentionally or knowingly causing death of Neeraj Offenceu/s.304(I) Grover and thereby committed offence isprovedagainst punishableu/s.302r/w120Bor34ofI.P accusedNo.1only. . Code? Whether the prosecution proves that on 752008, in flat No.201, BWing, Chincholi Bunder Road, Malad (W), Mumbai,infurtherance oftheircommon intention, knowing or having reason to Yes.However,the belive that offence of murder has been offenceu/s.304(I)is committed, caused evidence of said proved,hence,accused offencetodisappearbymakingpiecesof areconvictedu/s.201 thecorpusandburningitwithintentionof (II)ofI.P .C. screening themselves from legal punishableu/s.201,r/w34ofI.P .Code? Whatoffence,ifany,areprovedagainst theaccused? Asperfinalorder.

4.

5.

6.

REASONS 15. Attheoutset,letmestatethatthereisnoocularevidenceofeye

witness to the alleged crime, who had seen the accused while

Judgment -S.C.630-08

-18-

Exh.341

committingactualoffenceasalleged.Theentirecaseoftheprosecution rests on circumstantial evidence. To prove the offence, incriminating circumstances against the accused, the prosecution has examined the followingprosecutionwitnesses:

P .W NameofWitness No. 1 AMARNATHRAMDAS GROVAR (fatherof deceased)

Documentbroughtonrecord 48F .I.R.dtd.20/5/08(complaint)

Articlebroughton record. 1Thegarlandsof Beads(likechain) 2Chainofdecease havingpendantof Gajmukhinburnt condition

Mrs.MAURI OccupantofflatNo.203,oppositeto PRAJAPATI(neighbourofFlat flatNo.201. no.203) SANDESHNANDKUMAR SHIRKE(estateagent) 55Originalreportdtd.2/5/09from PoliceStn.explanationto handwritingexpertopinion 56LeaveandLicenseagreementof Mariaflat 58Admittedpanchnamadt.22.5.08 60panchnamadt.21.5.08, 617photographswithreport. 7twohandsetof mobile,Nokia made,Modle No.N808Nokia makemobile phone., 9twokeysofflat ofaccusedno.1. 10pieceofburnt bone, 11ribcage, 12skull 13burntpieceof bag 14burntpieceof redcloth,partly burntgougeofcloth havingredlines.

SANDHYAASHOKNAZARE (Panch)(arrestpanchnama)

Mrs.UshaVenkatRamlu (Panch)

63A,memorandumpanchnama 63Bpanchnama 64panchnamadt.23508 65report@truecopiesofFIR C.R.No.25009

Judgment -S.C.630-08

-19-

Exh.341
15damagedglass perfumedbottle, 16tin bottle(damaged 17tinbottlein damagedcondition 18piecesofbottle, 19collyenvelopes havingsignaturesof panchas. 20packet containingsoil 21packet containingsoil 22colly.7photos

6 7

KundanRavindraZha (securityguard) RaviRameshParab(recovery 72A,memorandumpanchnamadt. 23bigknife chopper) 24508, (chopperwithsaw 72B,latterpanchnamadt24509 teeth) 24plasticwrapper ofarticle23. RanjitSurendraRaje (recoveryknife) NishantNirmalkumarLal (relationbetweenaccusedand deceased) SatishkumarGayaprasad Singh 84report(4sealedenvelp.along withreportoforg.statementof4 witns.sealedenvelopei.e.statement ofP .W.10 81A,panchnama(memorandumdt. 25knife 1608) 26wrapper@label 81Bpanchnama ofart.25.

10

11 12

KiranShriyan 88xeroxcopyofR.C.Bookforthe (choreographer)(Santrocar) sakeofidentification. Mohd.AyubMehboobkhan 90APanchnamadtd.25/5/05 90BRecoverypanchnamadtd. 25/5/05 27colly3wrappers 28collyRubbermat, Rexineseatcovers @sunprotection sheets

13 14

VinodkumarRamashankar Mishra(PetrolPump) GhanshyamChottelal Yadav(Spotpanchnama) 94panchnamadt.22.5.08 29colly,5small packetscontaining samplesofscrapings 30onepacketand

Judgment -S.C.630-08

-20-

Exh.341
label 31onepillowcover 32label 33jeanspant 34wrapper@ label 35collyonepairof shoes 36wrapper@label 37oneTShirt 38wrapper@label

15 16 17

DheerajKumarA. Shukla(painter) KamleshPremchand Jain(mattress) 98entryinwritingbyaccd.no.1(Red 39Orderbook(Red colourbook) colournotebook)

Dr.BabanShripati 100CertificateofMedical Shinde(exmineAccd.No.1on examinationdtd.13/5/08 13/5/08) 101forwardingletterfromMalad P .Stn.dtd.13/5/08inthecross exam.ofbehalfofAccd.No.1 ShridharM.Patil(Doctor) 103OpinionletterofDr.Gaud 104Originalletterdtd.with signaturesofDr.Gaud 10Pieceofburnt bone 23Big knife(chopper)with sawteeth 40copyofthe receiptofHDFC BankonRedcolour notebook 41copyofthe printoutofbilling systemdtd.26/5/08 42Debitcardof HSBC 110collyComputercopyof HypercityMallbillsdtd.7/5/08 111Statementdtd.9/7/08 43collyknife@card board

18

19

VivekJotybhushanTiwari (HypercityMall)

20

VaishaliMore(Hypercity Mall) BharatRajendar Bhagwaniya(HypercityMall) AmarbahadurZingriram Yadav (WadaRoadPanShop) SharadShankarVichare (SEO)

21 22

23

Judgment -S.C.630-08
24 25 26 Mrs.P .A.Umadevi(AirIndia) SumitAnupArora(Script Writer)Friend VasantSureshkumar (LieutenantofNavy Cochin)friendNo.2 AjayShyam Pande(Lieutenantof Navy)frined(creditcard) CommanderR.Rajiv (Cochin)

-21-

Exh.341

27

28

123Letterdtd.9/5/08 124StatementofLt.VishalSingh 125W/st.givenbyAccd.No.2 126QuestioneryofAccd.No.2 127Findingdtd.16/5/08

29 30

DivyaprakashSantoshkumar Shah(AdjoindigBuilding) PankajJivanwanlalShah (CMM)Confessional Statement KedarAshokChoubleLegal AdvisorBalajiTelifilms RoshanHarishchandra Pawar (PowerofAttorneyownerof flatNo.201) NishantSurendraGrover 138Missingcomplaintdtd.8/5/08 45Nokiaphone N95ofdeceased NeerajGrover 132PartNo.1ofConfessional StatementofAccd.No.1u/s164of Cr.p.c. 132A 44CD

31 32

33

34

ShyamRamchandraIngap

141xeroxcopyofentryinstation diaryatpage114atSr.No.4/8 142PageNo.156and157ofstation diaryentryatSr.22dt.9/5/08 146LetterfromMaladP .Stn.of ForensicLab,Santacruz, 146ALetter(Originalofficeletter producedbyP .bearing .P acknowledgmentdtd.23/5/08 147Originalrequisitionletterdtd. 26/5/08 147AForwardingletterdtd. 26/5/08 148Report/letterdtd. 26/4/05(D.N.A.report) 28A,29Acolly,46, 46A,

35

ShriLade(Asst.Chemical Analyser)

Judgment -S.C.630-08

-22148A 149Report(D.N.A)dtd.26/6/08 150Reportdtd. 29/5/08(RequisitionLetter) 150A 151Report(Originalrequisition letter)dtd.30/5/08 151AOfficecopyofrequisition letter 152Reportdtd.26/6/08 153Originalrequisitionletter dt.30/5/08 153AOfficecopyofrequisition letterdtd.30/5/08 154Originalrequisitionletterof DCBCIDdtd.2/6/08 154AOfficecopyofrequisition letterdtd.2/6/08 155Requisitionletterdtd.26/6/08 156Originalrequisitionletterof DCBCIDdtd.31/5/08 156AOfficecopyofrequisition letterdtd.31/5/08 157Reportdtd.26/6/08 158Reportdtd.26/6/08 159OrigrequisitionletterofDCB CIDdtd.2/6/08 159AOfficecopyofrequisition letterdtd.31/5/08 160Reportdtd.26/6/08 163IdentificationformofNeelam andAmarnath 193Identificationformof Accd.No.1 194IdentificationformofAccd. No.2

Exh.341

36

RajendraRamchandra Mavle

165Reportdtd. 21/7/08(O.W.14514/08) 166Reportdtd. 21/7/08(O.W.14509/08) 167Reportdtd. 21/7/08(O.W.14511/08) 168Reportdtd. 21/7/08(O.W,14516/08) 169RequisitionletterofDCBCID dtd.10/7/08 170Reportdtd.21/7/08(O.W. No.14576/08)

Judgment -S.C.630-08
170A 37 Mrs.S.A.Shinde(Asst. ChemicalAnalyser)

-23-

Exh.341

176ReportofforensicLabdtd. 48PlasticCan 21/7/08 177ReportofForensicLab O.W,No.14508 178ReportfromForensicLabdtd. 17/6/08O.W.No.14513/08 178ACoveringletterfromForensic LabwithsignatureofShriTalpe (Officecopy 179ReportfromForensicLabdtd. 30/6/08O.W,No.12766 182A,182BRequisitionletter@ receiptofGrantMedicalcollegedtd. 27.5.08 182COriginalletterfromDCBCID 183Reportdtd.13/8/08 183Ato183C2labelsdtd. 23/5/08&31/5/08&outerlabelof theparcel 185Requisitionletterdtd.23/5/08 fromMaladP .Station 186Requisitionletterfortaking bloodsampleofaccused 189collyLetter O.W.No.3351/08dtd/20/8/08Crime Branch 190Opiniondtd. 29/4/09(B.B.No.315/08 191Colly12Statements 196Officecopyofrequisitionletter dtd.21/7/08 197collyCoveringletter@call detailsreport@Certificatedtd. 1/8/08 198Letterdtd.11/12/08 199collyCalldetails@letterdtd. 12/12/08 200Appln.formofsubscriberfor Identityandaddresswpurpose(scan copy) 202Letterdtd.21/7/08of Dy.Commissionertocall,calldetails report 203Coveringletterdtd.

38

Dr.PrasadGundupanth Kulkarni

39

ShivajiNarayanDaund

40

DilipPralhadAhiwale

41

RajeshSampatraoGaikwad

42

ChangdeoHaribhaoGodse

Judgment -S.C.630-08

-2431/7/08(calldetailreportofmobile) 204Certificatedtd.31/7/08 205Letterdtd.31/7/08 205ACalldetailsofmobile No.9920825923 206Letterdtd.31/7/08 206AMobileNo.9819430611 207Letterdtd.31/7/08 207AMobileNo.9920944083 208Requisitionletterfromcrime branch 209CollyCalldetailswithcovering letter

Exh.341

43

SunilTiwari(Nodalofficer ofBhartiAirtelco.)

215Requestletterdtd. 21/7/08(9967483634byofficeof Dy.Commisioner) 216Coveringletter 217Certificate 218collyCalldetailsofmobile No.9967483634 219CalldetailsofMobile No.9967483634 220Calldetailrecord 221Officecopyofletterdtd. 26/9/08 222OfficecopyofletterofYogesh dtd.1/12/08 Exh.225,226statementsofaccused No.1. 22.colly,58.colly, 63.B,64,94,227, 228,229, 230to233,235 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9, 10to18 7A,8A,9A,20,21,20A ,21A,29.coll 29Acolly, 31to38,47 1Thegarlandof Beads(broken condition)like Chain 2Chainofdecease havingpendantof Gajmukhinburn condition 10Pieceofburnt bone 11Ribcage

44 45

RaghvendraSinghAbaji Kshirsagar DhanajiShivajiNalwade

46 47

ShantanuVijayAgarwal SatishRajaramRaorane 232Officeorderdtd.22/5/08 239LetterfromSr.P .I.dtd. 23/5/08(O.W.608/08) 241LetteraddresstoM.M.Court Bandradtd.26/5/08 242AStatementofMangesh Hedulkardtd.2/6/08 242BStatementpanchnamadtd. 2/6/08 243CalldetailsofMobileNo.

Judgment -S.C.630-08

-259920925439

Exh.341
12Skull 13Burntpieceof bag 14Burntpieceof Redcloth,partly burntgaugeofcloth havingredlines 15Damageglass perfumebottle 16Tin bottle(damaged) 17Tinbottlein damagecondition 18pieceofbottle partofArt.47

48

VikasNarayanPhulkar

16.

Apart from the testimony of prosecution witnesses, the

prosecutionisalsorelyingon variousdocumentsandarticlessuchas missing Complaint (Exh.138), FIR (Exh.48), DNA reports, Chemical Analyser's report, Memorandum and recovery panchnamas, Memorandumsoftestidentification(Exh.34to37),billsofHypercity Mall (Exh.110 colly.), Written statement and questionery to accused No.2 at Naval Base Cochin (Exhs.125, 126) identification form of accused(Exh.193and194)(calldetailsreport)ofmobilesubscriberof accusedaswellasNeerajGrover.Besidesthis,prosecutionisalsorelying onvariousmuddemalarticlessuchas,garlandofbeads(Article1), chain havingGajmukh pendent (Art.2), bunchof keysofflat No.201, (Art.9), skullarticle,femurboneandpiecesofribcagearticle10,11

Judgment -S.C.630-08

-26-

Exh.341

and 12 respectively, burnt piece of bag (Art. 13), partly burnt cloth havingredlines(Art.14),burntgougeofcloth(Article15),deodrunt bottle(Article16),tinbottle(Article17),damagedtinbottlewithits pieces (Art.18), partly burnt metal button (Art.19), soil with ash (Art.20),soilsample(Art.21),7photographs(Art.22colly.),Bigknife (Chopper)withsawteeth(Art.23),Plasticwrapperof(Art.23), knife (Art.25),rubbermat,[email protected] colly, two seat covers part of (Art. 28 colly.) five small packets containingsamplesandscrapings (Art.29colly.)onesamplepacketof scraping wall paint (Art. 29A), one pillow cover (Art.31), jeans pant (Art.33),onepairofshoes(Art.35colly.),oneTshirt(Art.37), Order book(Art.39),copyofreceiptofHDFC(Art.40),copyofreceiptofHyper CityMall(Art.41),DebitcardofHSBC(Art.42),knifealongwithcard board(Art.43colly.)CD(Art.44),NokiaphoneN95(Art.45),Human teeth(Art.46colly.)Duster,partlyburntplasticpieces,chainlock(Art. 47colly.)plasticCan(Art.48),Stationdiaries(Art.49and50). 17. Beforeproceedingtodealwithpointsfordetermination,

letmestatethefacts,whichareundisputedlyprovedbytheprosecution. 18. NeerajAmarnathGroverwasworkingasAsstt.Creative

Head,BalajiTelefilmandthereafter 'Synergy' aCompanyengaged in

Judgment -S.C.630-08

-27-

Exh.341

production ofTVserials. Hewas biologicalsonofAmarnathGrover (P .W.1) and Nilam Grover. Neeraj was residing at four bungalow AndheriwithhiscousinNishantGrover (P .W.33). Inthelastweekof April,2008,AccusedNo.1cametoMumbai,toworkasaactressand togetfootholdinentertainmentindustry.TheaccusedNo.2wasfiance ofaccusedNo.1,bothintendedtomarryeachother.The accusedno.1 wastryingtogetroleinTVserial.ShegaveCD(Art.44)ofheraudition forgettingrolein'Mahabharat'SerialtoBalajiTelefilm.Inthenightof 652008,accusedNo.1and2talkedwitheachotherontheirmobileNo. 9920944083 and 9388920779. AccusedNo.2flewtoMumbaiby flightscheduledtoflyat3.55a.m.On752008, AccusedNo.2wasin Mumbaion752008.Oninterveningnightof752008and852008, Nishant Grover (P .W.33) Lal lodged missing complaint (Exh.138) with Malad police station. The accused No.2 was brought to Mumbai on 2252008, and was arrested by Malad P S. On 2352008, the . investigationofthecasewastransferredtoCrimeBranchBandraUnit No.IX. The confession statement (Exh.132A) of accused No.1 was recordedbyPankajShah(P .W.30).ThebloodsampleoftheaccusedNo.1 and2weretakenon2.6.2008. 19. Beforeproceedtodealwiththepointsfordetermination,let

Judgment -S.C.630-08

-28-

Exh.341

usdecidesomepoints/objection,whichwereraisedduringrecordingof evidenceandwerekepttobedecidedatthetimeoffinaldisposalofthe case.TheprosecutionfiledstatementsofaccusedNo.1at(Exh.225,226 and227). Accordingtotheprosecution,thesestatements ofaccused No.1wererecordedpriortolodgingFIRandpriortodetectionofmurder ofNeerajGrover.Therefore,thesestatementsarenothitbysection162 of Cr.P to which, the defence objected. It appears that the .C. prosecutionisrelyingonthesestatementsofaccusedNo.1toshowthe conduct of the accused No.1. There is no dispute that subsequent conductofaccusedisarelevantfactandisadmissibleu/s.8ofIndian EvidenceAct.LetmereproduceSec.8oftheEvidenceAct. Motive,preparationandpreviousorsubsequent conduct Anyfactisrelevantwhichshowsorconstitutesa motive or preparation for any fact in issue or relevantfact.Theconductofanyparty,orofany agent to any party, to any suit or proceeding in reference to such suit or proceeding, or any reference to any fact in issue therein or relevant thereto, and the conduct of any person an offenceagainstwhomissubjectofanyproceedings, isrelevant,ifsuchconductinfluencesorinfluenced byanyactinissueorrelevantfact,andwhetherit waspreviousorsubsequentthereto. Explanation1Thewordconductinthissection does not include statements unless those statementsaccompanyandexplainanyactsother than statements, but this explanation is not to

Judgment -S.C.630-08

-29-

Exh.341

affecttherelevancyofstatementunderanyother sectionofthisAct. Explanation2Whentheconductofanypersonis relevantanystatementmadetohimorinhis presenceandhearing,whichaffectssuchconduct, isrelevant. Therefore,theexplanation(1)tosection8saysthatconductdoesnot includestatementsunlessthestatements accompanyandexplainacts otherthanstatements.So,whatisadmissible underthissectionisact accompaniedbystatementandnotthestatementitself. Inthepresent case, the prosecution contending that conduct of accused itself is mentioned in the statements Exh.225, 226 and 227 and not accompaniedbyanyactotherthanstatements,therefore,Irulethatthe statementsofaccusedNo.1Exh.225,226and227arenotadmissiblein evidence.However,toavoidtheconfusion,Imaystatethattheevidence of prosecution witnesses in respect of conduct of the accused after 752008,mentionedinthestatementsisadmissible.So,thestatements oftheaccusedNo.1,itself arenot admissiblebuttheevidenceofthe prosecutionwitnessestoshowsameconductwhichismentionedinthe statementof accusedis admissible. Anotherpointwhich was left for decidingatthetimeoffinalhearingwasadmissibilityofaquestionto witness Pankaj Shah (P .W.30). However, in view of answer given by

Judgment -S.C.630-08

-30-

Exh.341

PankajShah(P .W.30),nothingremainstodecide. Nowletusturntothepointsfordetermination.

PointNo.1.
20. It is alleged by the prosecution that Neeraj Amarnath

GroverismurderedbyaccusedaccusedNos.1 and2andthereafter, they disposed of mutilated body of Neeraj Grover by setting fire in outskirtofcityI,e.ManorWada.Admittedlyinthiscase,theremainsof human skeleton produced by the prosecution before the court is not identifiablepersei.e.Inotherwords,mereseeingofremainsofskeleton whichisproducedbytheprosecution,itisnotpossibletohold,towhich person they belong. To prove the corpus of Neeraj Grover, the prosecution is relying on version of Amarnath Grover (P .W.1) and NishantLal(P .W.9). Apartfromthetestimonyofthesewitnesses,the prosecutionisalsorelyingonscientifictesti.e.fingerprintsofDNAand for that purpose prosecution has examined Lade Chemical Analyser (P .W.35).Letusseewhethertheprosecutioncouldprovethecorpusof NeerajGrover. 21. Ithasbeenbroughtonrecordthrough AmarnathRamdas

Grover(P .W.1)that hehadbeencalledtoidentify thearticles which were recovered from Manor Wada. This witness has identified beads

Judgment -S.C.630-08

-31-

Exh.341

garland (Art.1) and burnt chain with Gajmukh pendent (Art.2) . Accordingtothiswitness,thesearticlesbelongedtoNeerajGrover. It hasalsobeendeposedbythiswitnessthathestayedwithhisson,Neeraj, foroneweekatMumbai,atthetimeofHoliFestival,therefore,hecould identifybeadsgarland(Art.1)andchainwithGajmukhPendent(Art.2). 22. Likewise, it has also been brought on record by the

prosecutionthroughNishantLal(P .W.9)thatbeadsgarland(Art.1)and chainwithGajmukhPendent(Art.2)wereofNeerajGrover. 23. It is submitted on behalf of the ld. APP that Amarnath

Grover(P .W.1)isfatheroftheNeerajandNishantLal(P .W.9)isfriend of Neeraj respectively and they are the best persons to identify the articles belongingtoNeeraj. Asagainstthis,theld.advocate Sharif Shaikh on behalf of the accused No.1 submitted that there are contradictions between the version of Amarnath Grover (P .W.1) and NishantLal(P .W.9)regardingtheirpresenceatthetimeofidentification ofarticlesinMaladPoliceon2152008.Ld.advocatefortheaccused No.1 took me to the crossexamination of (P .W.1), wherein he has deposed that when he had been to Police station for identification of articles,apartfromNishantLal,therewasnootherperson presentin Maladpolicestation, andwhereas,(P .W.9)NishantLalclaimsthathe

Judgment -S.C.630-08

-32-

Exh.341

alsoidentifiedthearticlesno.1and2alongwithAmarnathGrover. So accordingtoLd.Adv.foraccusedno.1,thisiscontradiction.Therefore, taking help of this contradiction, ld. advocate for the accused No.1 submittedbeforemethatthiscontradictiongoestoshowthattheynever visitedMaladPoliceStationforidentificationofarticles. 24. ItisnotindisputethatAmarnathGroverisfatherofNeeraj

Grover. When he has specifically deposed that the beads garland (Art.1)and chainwithGajmukhPendent(Art.2), belongedtoNeeraj Grove. I am unable to digest the arguments of ld. advocate for the accusedNo.1thatthesearticleshavenotbeenprovedtobeofNeeraj Groverforthesimplereasonthatifthesearticles werenotofNeeraj Grover,thenforafather,itishappiestmomentintheworld,withhope that his son is alive, though lost. Therefore, there is no reason for AmarnathGrover(P .W.1)todeposefalselythatbeadsgarland(Art.1)and chain with Gajmukh Pendent (Art.2) belongs to Neeraj, which is corroboratedby(P .W.9). 25. Let us turn to scientific test on which the prosecutionsis

heavily relying for identification of corpus. Shrikant Hanmant Lade (P .W.35),Asst.ChemicalAnalyserofFSKalina,whohasdeposedthathe is working as Asst. Chemical Analyser from 1511990. He had

Judgment -S.C.630-08

-33-

Exh.341

conductedandreported600to700DNAtests. Hehasbeentrainedat CentreforDNAfingerPrintsandDiagnosisatHydrabad. Hehadalso attendedworkshopofDNAFingerPrintsorganizedbyFSL,NewDelhi. From further deposition of this witness, it goes to show that he has attended various conferences and he has been awarded by various institutions. Before proceeding to deal with his evidence, let us see whetherDNAtestisadmissibleinevidence.Section45oftheEvidence Actcontemplatesasunder: OpinionsofExpertswhenthecourthastoforman opinion,uponapointofforeignlaw,orofscienceor art,orastoidentityofhandwriting,orfingerimpression, theopinionuponthatpointofpersonsspeciallyskilled insuchforeignlaw,scienceorart,orinquestionsasto identityofhandwriting[orfingerimpressions]arelevant facts. 26. Asperprosecutioncase,the femurbone andthreeteeth

fromtheremainsoftheskeletonweresenttoDNATesttoFSLKalinafor identificationofskeleton.Thoughitisdisputedbythedefencethatthe remainsofskeletonwererecoveredfromManoron2152008,whichI willdealseparately,butfactremainsthatthefemurboneskull&ribcage

Judgment -S.C.630-08

-34-

Exh.341

found by the police during investigation. However, it appears that duringmacerationprocedure,theribcageturnedintopieces. Mr.Lade (P .W.35)hasdeposedaboutDNATest.Accordingtohim,DNAisgenetic materialwhichispresentinnucleusofeachandeverynucleatedcellof everyindividual.InnucleusofDNAofaperson,thereusedtobeone copyof DNAfrommotherandonecopyofDNAfromfather; DNA remains in different types of body cell like bone cell, epithelial cell, spermcell,buccalcell,epithelialcelli.e.cellfromcheeknasal,hairwith orwithoutbone,sweatcell,toothpulpcell.Itisfurtherdeposedbythis witnessthatfromtheprofileofDNA,wegetdiscriminationpowerofa personwhichisdiscriminablein10oftrillion. Thatmeans fromthe DNA profile, we get unique DNA of a person. The exception to uniqueness of DNA is in case of mono zygotic twins which is found rarely. 27. So,accordingtothiswitness,finger printofDNAisunique

tothewordPopulation.Ithasbeenbroughtonrecordthatthiswitness hasdoneDNAprofileof femurbone (Art.11)andteethwhichwere senttoFSLKalinaforDNATest.Ithasbeenfurtherbroughtonrecord thatthiswitnesshasdoneDNAprofileof bloodsampleofAmarnath Grover(P .W.1)andhiswifeNilamGrover.Thiswitnesshasspecifically

Judgment -S.C.630-08

-35-

Exh.341

deposedthatthe resultofDNAprofileoffemurboneaswellasteeth were one and the same, which conclude that the femur bone and tooth( Art. 46) is of one and same person. This witness has also compared the DAN profile of blood of Amarnath Grover and Nilam Grover with DNA profile of femur bone (Art.11) and teeth and he concludedthatall15STRlocusofprofileofDNAofAmarnathGrover andNilamGroverwerematchingwith15STRlocusofDNAoffemur bone(Art.11)andteeth.Thiswitnessopinedvidereport(Exh.148),that AmarnathGroverandNilamGroverareconcludedtobethebiological parentofFemurbone(Art.11)andteeth(Art.46). Ihavealsogone throughreport(Exh.148).Bareperusalofthisreportgoestoshowthat inall15STRlocusoffemurbone,(Art.11)andteeth(Art.46),thereis presenceof onealleleofNilamGroverandotheralleleofAmarnath Grover. 28. Atthisstage,itissubmittedonbehalfofLd.advocateforthe

accused that it has not been proved that the blood sample is of AmarnathGroverandNilamGrover.Bothdefenceadvocatesvehemently submitted that the prosecution has not proved the consent Form Identification Form of Amarnath Grover and Nilam Grover (Exh.163 colly).Itisthesubmissionoftheld.advocateforthedefencethatDr.

Judgment -S.C.630-08

-36-

Exh.341

ShivajiNarayanDaund(P .W.39)hasnotbeenshowntheidentification Form(Exh.163),whichgoestocreatedoubtwhetherthebloodwhich wassenttoFSLKalina,isofAmarnathGroverandNilamGrover.Inthis respect, it is pertinent to note that Amarnath Grover (P .W.1) in his depositionhasdeposed,thathisbloodsamplewastakenforDNATest, which is not disputed by defence in his crossexamination. Likewise, there is deposition of Shivaji Narayan Daund(P .W.39), who has also deposed that he took blood samples of Amarnath Grover and Nilam Grover.Ifthatisso,thenIdonotfindanysubstanceinthearguments oftheld.advocateforthedefencethatthebloodsample ofAmarnath GroverandNeelamgroverisnotestablished.Ratheridentificationform carriessealimpressionofPolice. 29. Taking into consideration version of Amarnath Grover

(P .W.1), Nishant Lal (P .W.9) and Nishant Grover (P .W.33) and Asst. ChemicalAnalyerMr.Lade(P .W.35)coupledwiththefactthattilltoday, nobodyknows thewhereaboutsofNeerajGroverandasstatedabove, why a father will falsely identify the articles of his son to decide whetherheisalive,coupledwithscientifictest alsoprovesthat the remainsofskeletoni.e.femurboneandtoothisofNeerajGroverand prosecution is able to establish that the corpus i.e. the remains of

Judgment -S.C.630-08

-37-

Exh.341

skeletonisofNeerajGrover.Hence,Ianswerthispointinaffirmative.As such,Ihaveheldthattheremainswhichisproducedbytheprosecution isofNeerajGrover.Therefore,nothingremainstosaythatNeerajisstill aliveanditcanbesafelysaidthat NeerajGroverisnomoreinthis world.Hereinafter,Neerajwillbereferredasdeceasedhereinafter. PointNo.2,3,4and5: 30. AspointNos.2,3,4and5areinterconnected,andlooking

totheevidenceadducedbytheprosecution,aswellasthe defenceof the accused, it will be convenient to discuss point Nos. 2,3,4 and 5 together. 31. The prosecution has come with the case that the accused

personinpursuancetocriminalconspiracycommittedmurderofNeeraj Groveron752008,inflatNo.201,'B'Wing,DhirajSolitareChincholi Bunder,Malad(W)andinfurtheranceoftheircriminalconspiracy,the accused disposed of the mutilated body of Neeraj Grover at the outskirts of City and therefore, the accused have committed offence punishableu/s.302,201r/wsec.120Bor34ofI.P .C.Thereisnodirect or ocular evidence of witness, who had seen the accused while committingmurder orwhiledisposingofthebodyofdeceasedNeeraj Grover.Theentirecaseofprosecutionsolelydependsoncircumstantial

Judgment -S.C.630-08

-38-

Exh.341

evidence.Theprosecutionisrelyingonvariouscircumstancessuchas, relation of the deceased with accused No.1; concern of accused No.1 with flat No.201; visit of deceased Neeraj Grover to flat No.201 on 652008;suddenvisitofaccusedNo.2toMumbai,particularlytoflat No.201,andvariousrecoveries,whichaccordingtotheprosecutionwere madeeitherattheinstanceofaccusedNo.1oraccusedNo.2. 32. Beforeanalyzingfactualaspectofthecase,letmestatethat

foracrimetobeproved,itisnotnecessarythatthecrimemustbeen seentohavebeencommittedandmust,inallcircumstancesbeproved bydirectocularevidencebyexaminingbeforethecourt,thosepersons who had seen its commission. The offence can be proved by circumstantialevidencealso.Theprinciplefactoforfactumprobandum maybeprovedindirectlybythemeansofcertaininferencedrawnfrom the factum probans, that is, evidentiary facts. To put it differently, circumstantialevidenceisnotdirecttothepointinissue,butconsistsof evidenceofvariousotherfacts,whicharesocloselyassociatedwiththe factsinissue,whichtakentogetherformachainofcircumstances,from which the existence of principal facts can be legally inferred or presumed. 33. It has been laiddown by the ApexCourt inseries of the

Judgment -S.C.630-08

-39-

Exh.341

judgmentsthatwhereacaserestssquarelyoncircumstantialevidence, the inference of guilt of the accused can be justified, only when all incriminatingfactsandcircumstancesarefoundtobeincompatiblewith the innocence of accused or the guilt of any other person. The circumstancesfromwhichaninferenceastotheguiltoftheaccusedis drawn, have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and have to be shown to be closely connected with the principal fact sought to be inferredfromthosecircumstances. 34. In the case of Padala Vira Reddy v/s. State of Andhra

Pradeshreportedin1991,S.C.C.Cri.407,theapexcourtlaiddown thatwhereacaserestsuponcircumstantialevidence,suchevidencemust satisfythefollowingtest: 1.Thecircumstancesfromwhichaninferenceofaguiltissoughtto bedrawnmustbecogentlyandfirmlyestablished; 2.Thosecircumstancesshouldbedefinitetendencyunerringly pointingtowardsguiltofaccused; 3.Thecircumstances,takencollectively,shouldformachainso completethatthereisnoescapefromtheconclusionthatin all

humanprobabilitythecrimewascommittedbyaccusedandnonelse; 4.Thecircumstantialevidenceinordertosustainconviction,must

Judgment -S.C.630-08

-40-

Exh.341

becompleteandincapableofexplanationofanyotherhypothesisthan that of guilt of the accused and such evidence should not be only consistentwiththeguiltoftheaccusedbutshouldbeinconsistentwith hisinnocence. 35. Keepingtheaforesaidprincipalsinmind,letusseewhether

the prosecution could prove the case as alleged. As prosecution is relying on various circumstances, therefore, for convenience, I will discussthosecircumstancescaptionwise.

RelationbetweenaccusedNo.1anddeceasedNeeraj: Forprovingmotiveaswellasconspiracy, rathermurderof

36.

NeerajGroverbytheaccusedpersons,theprosecutionhascomewiththe case that there was relation between accused No.1 and deceased Neeraj.Accordingtotheprosecution,therelationbetweenaccusedNo.1 andNeerajwereintimate.Itappearsfromcrossexamination;statement ofaccusedNo.1u/s.313ofCr.P .C.;andsubmissionsofld.advocatefor the accused No.1; that accused No.1 met Neeraj only once and the accusedNo.1disputesevenwellacquaintancewithdeceasedNeeraj.For proving the intimate relationship, between the deceased and accused No.1, theprosecutionisrelyingonversionofNishantLal(P .W.9)and ShantanuAgarwal(P .W.45).

Judgment -S.C.630-08

-41-

Exh.341

37.

Itisnot indisputethatNeerajwasengagedinthefirmor

company,whichwasproducingtheTVserials.ByversionofAmarnath Grover (P No.1) father of deceased, Nishant Lal (P 9), Nishant .W. .W. Grover(P .W.No.33)andShantanuAgarwal(P .W.46)ithasbeenbrought onrecordthatNeerajwasworkinginaCreativeteamofBalajiTelefilm Ltd.andthereafterwithSynergyAltab. 38. TheversionofNishantlal(P .W.9)goestoshowthathewas

knowingNeerajGroversinceoneandhalfyear,priortotheincident.It has also been brought on record that this witness, along with other colleagues of their profession, i. e. productionof TV Serials, used to meetfrequentlyatCafeCoffeeDayandNeerajwasalsooneofthem.It isdeposedbythiswitnessthaton152008,hemetNeerajatCafeCoffee Day. Neeraj informed him that he joined Synergy from 152008. NeerajhadstatedtohiminpastthathewastryingforaroleforMariya, theaccusedNo.1,inTVserial. AftersometimeaccusedNo.1Mariya camethere;NeerajintroducedMariyatohim.Neerajalsostatedtohim that accused No.1's audition has taken place for Mahabharat serial while he was working with Balaji Telefilm. Likewise, through this witness,meetingsofNeerajGrover andMariyainCafeCoffeeHouse withhimon252008,452008and552008,andintheUltimatePub

Judgment -S.C.630-08

-42-

Exh.341

on352008,havebeenbroughtonrecord.ThiswitnessalsosawNeeraj andMariawhilekissingeachotherinUltimatePub.Furtherversion ofthiswitnessgoestoshowthatonthe requestofNeeraj,heallowed himtostayinhishousewithaccusedNo.1on552008.(P .W.46)has deposed that deceased Neeraj introduced accused No.1 to him on 2942008andpriortothatherequestedhimtolookforaroleforagirl bynameMariya. 39. Itisvehementlysubmittedbyld.advocateSharifShaikhon

behalf of the accused No.1 that there are various omission in the evidenceofthe(P .W.9)inrespectofUltimatePubandothermeetings.I havegonethroughthecrossexamination,onwhichtheld.advocatefor theaccusedNo.1isheavilyrelying.Ld.advocatepointedtomePara11 12 and 13 of deposition of (P .W.9). It appears that there are some omissionsinrespectof words Phonecall,break,wenttoanother table,avoidingtotalk,sofromtheseomissions,itcannotbesaidthat witnesshasnotstatedtheincidencesbeforepolice.Ratherhisstatements goestoshowthathehasstatedalltheincidencebroadly.Mereaddingof somewordsindepositionwhichelaboratetheincidences, itcantake awayhisdepositiononthepointofrelationbetweenaccusedNo.1and Neeraj. Rather version of this witness goes to show that the relation

Judgment -S.C.630-08

-43-

Exh.341

betweenaccusedNo.1anddeceasedNeerajwerenotonlyknowingeach other but they were well acquainted with each other and even they residedtogetherinhisflaton552008. 40. Apart from the testimony of above said witnesses,

prosecutionisalsorelyingoncalldetailreportofmobile9920944083. Thissubscriberdetail(Exh.207)aswellascalldetailreportofMobile no. 9920944083 (Exh.207A) have been brought on record through (P .W.42) Changdeo Haribhau Godse, Nodal officer of Voda Phone. Initially the accused No.1 disputed her subscription on the mobile No.9920944083.Butsubscriberdetailgoestoshowthat thisnumber belongstoaccusedNo.1,coupledwiththeadmissioninthestatement u/s. 313 of Cr.P the accused admitted that mobile No.9920944083 .C. belongstoher.ThecalldetailreportofmobileNo.9920944083which isprovednow,tobeofaccusedNo.1,goestoshowthaton552008, therearevariouscallsbetweenthemobileNumberofaccusedNo.1and mobileNo.9967483634,whichaccordingtotheprosecutionis number of Neeraj Grover. To prove this number, the prosecution has also examinedSunilTiwari(P .W.43),NodelOfficerofBhartiAirtelCo.The coveringletter(Exh.216)alsogoestoshowthatmobileNo.9967483634 belongedtoNeerajGrover.Theprosecutionhasprovedthattherewere

Judgment -S.C.630-08

-44-

Exh.341

various exchanges of calls between Accused no.1 and Neeraj on 5.5.2008. 41. The defence of the accused No.1 is that she was only

knowingdeceasedNeeraj.ButfromthetestimonyofNishantLal(P .W.9) and Shantanu Agarwal (P .W.46) coupled with various calls between accusedNo.1anddeceasedNeerajon552008,goestoshowthatthere waswellacquaintancebetweenaccusedNo.1andNeerajanddeceased Neeraj was involved in providing foothold to the accused No.1 in entertainmentindustry.So,thisfactisprovedbytheprosecutionthat there was well acquaintance rather some sort of intimacy between accusedNo.1anddeceasedNeeraj.

Concern of accused No.1 with flat No.201 'B' Wing Dhiraj Solitare:

42.

The another circumstance, on which the prosecution is

heavily is relying is the concern of accused No.1 with flat no.201, B Wing, Dhiraj Solitare. According to the prosecution, on 652008, accused No.1, took flat No.201 in B Wing of Dhiraj Solitare building through Sundesh Shirke (P .W.3) and Dhiraj Manishkumar Shukla (P .W.15). This fact is disputed by the accused No.1. From cross examination,itappearsthattheaccusedNo.1claimstohavepossession

Judgment -S.C.630-08

-45-

Exh.341

offlatNo.201,from1852008andpriortothatshehadnoconcernwith flatNo.201.ToprovefactumofpossessionofflatNo.201from652008, withtheaccusedNo.1,theprosecutionisrelyingontestimonyofvarious witnesses.StarwitnessappearstobeMayuriPrajapati(P .W.2),Sandesh Shirke(P .W.3)andDhirajKumarShukla(P .W.15). 43. AccordingtoMayuriPrajapati(P .W.2),sheistheresidentof

flatoppositetoflatNo.201in'B'wing, DhirajSolitarebuilding. This factum is not disputed by the defence anywhere. According to her testimony, sheisresiding inthesaidflatsinceAugust,2007.Sheis acquainted with accused no.1, as accused No.1 resided on the same floorfortwomonthsinSeptember2007.Furtherversionofthiswitness goestoshowthaton552008,theaccusedNo.1toldherthatsheis shiftingtoflatNo.201. ThiswitnessmetaccusedNo.1on652008in Hypercity mall. Accused No.1 purchased household items, then they came to Dhiraj Solitare building and went to their respective flats. Accordingtoher,accusedNo.1wentinflatNo.201,andaftersometime, sheusedbathroomofflatofthiswitness.Furtherversionofthiswitness goestoshowthaton852008,shehadalsovisitedflatNo.201tomeet accusedNo.1. 44. FromthemouthofSundeshShirke(P .W.3)EstateAgentand

Judgment -S.C.630-08

-46-

Exh.341

propertyconsultant,ithasbeenbroughtonrecordthaton552008,he showed the flat No.201, to accused No.1 through Dhiraj Shukla (P .W.15).However,flatwasnotcleanedtherefore,accusedno.1didnot takepossessionon552008. On652008, hevisitedflatNo.201and got the saidflat cleanedwiththehelp oflabourer. The accusedNo.1 cametotheflatatabout1p.m.Sheverifiedtheflatandthiswitness deliveredkeytoherandaccordingly,accusedNo.1tookpossessionofthe flat. 45. DheerajKumarShukla(P .W.15)hascorroboratedtheversion

ofSandeshShirke(P .W.3).Accordingtohim,accusedNo.1hadbeento his office on 552008 in search of flat. He then contracted Sandesh Shirke (P .W.3), Sundesh Shirke showed flat to accused No.1 on 552008.Itisfurtherdeposedbythiswitnessthaton652008atthe requestofaccusedNo.1,he askedSandeshShirketobepresentinthe flatNo.201forgivingpossessiontoher. 46. Theld.advocatefortheaccusedNo.1vehementlysubmitted

that there are some omission in the deposition of Mayuri Prajapati (P .W.2). Ld. advocate for the accused No.1 submitted that material questionofdepositionisnotappearinginherstatementdt.1052008, therefore,thiscannotbebelieved.Theomissionwhichhasbeenbrought

Judgment -S.C.630-08

-47-

Exh.341

onrecordinthedepositionofthiswitness,isinrespectof occurrence dated 752008 and not prior to that, which I will deal with the respectivecircumstance. Rather,thereisnodenialtoherversionthat on652008,shesawthataccusedNo.1wentinsideflatNo.201ofDhiraj Solitarebuilding. 47. Anotherpointwhichtheld.advocatefortheaccusedNo.1

tried to put before me is of Leave and License agreement (Exh.58). Accordingtohim,asperprosecutionstory,MariyaaccusedNo.1,signed theagreement(Exh.58)on1852008andthattimetheaccusedno.1 wasinillegalcustodyofthepolice.Sumandsubstanceoftheargument of the ld. Advocate for accused no.1 is that the agreement of flat is manufacturedbythepoliceandsignatureofaccusedno.1wastakenin custody on 18.5.2008. Bare perusal of challan attached to Agreement(Exh.58),whichispaidforFrankingofstampdutyforLeave andLicenseagreement,goestoshowthatitwaspaidon1252008and bears,thenameoftheaccusedNo.1.So,itisthedate,whichispriorto 1852008, the document speaks itself that the Franking on the agreement was done on 1252008, which rules out the possibility of fabricationormanufactureattheinstanceofpoliceon18.5.2008.Bare perusalofagreement(Exh.58)alsogoestoshowthatthesaidflatwas

Judgment -S.C.630-08

-48-

Exh.341

givenonleaveandlicensefrom652008till532009.Ld.advocatefor theaccusedNo.1furthersubmittedthatthe11cheques,whichaccording totheSandeshShirkeandDhirajShuklaweregivenbyaccusedNo.1as asecurity, havenotbeenproducedbytheprosecution.Idonotthink that mere nonproduction of those cheques will be fatal to the prosecution. So,fromthetestimonyofMayuriPrajapati(P .W.2),who appearstobeneighborfriendofaccusedNo.1,aswellasSandeshShirke (P .W.3)andDhirajShukla(P .W.15).Ithasbeenbroughtonrecordthat the accused No.1 got possession of flat No.201, on 652008. Their versionisconsistentamongsteachotherregardingconcernofaccused No.1withflatno.201from652008. 48. Not only that, there is also version of Nishant Lal (P .W.9),

whohadbeentoflatNo.201on752008,aftertheygotnewsofmissing ofNeeraj.Apartfromit,thesubscriptionFormformobileconnectionof Vodaphone(Exh.212)hasbeenbroughtonrecordthrough(P .W.42), whichalsogoestoshowthatresidenceofaccusedNo.1asflatNo.201, DhirajSolitarebuilding. Itispertinenttonotethatthesubscription Formwasalsoappliedon552008,whenshedeterminedtotakethe flat. Thoughithasbeenbroughtonrecord,incrossexaminationthat theaddressfurnishedonsubscriptionFormExh.212hasnotbeencross

Judgment -S.C.630-08

-49-

Exh.341

checkedbyVodaphonecompany,butthisfactwillnottakeawaythe case of prosecution, particularly when nothing has been brought on record that Subscription From (Exh.212) has been prepared at the instance of police. Pankaj Shah (P .W.30), Ld. M.M. who recorded the confessional statement of the accused No.1, has also mentioned the address on confessional statement of accused No.1 as Flat No.201, DhirajSolitare,asherresidence. 49. Ithasbeenfurthersubmittedbyld.advocatefortheaccused

No.1thattheLeaveandLicenseagreement(Exh.56)hasnotbeensigned bythewitness. Thiswillbeofnoconsequence.Itmayberelevantin Civil proceedings but not in Criminal proceedings, particularly when thereistestimonyofthewitnessesregardingpossessionofaccusedNo.1 overflatNo.201from652008.Theirversionisfurthercorroboratedby the date mentioned in the Agreement (Exh.58) Subscription From of accusedNo.1Exh.212. 50. Apartfromit,thereisversionofKamleshJain(P .W.16)that

in his diary (Art.38), the accused No.1 has written her address of residence on 852008. The handwriting (Exh.98) in Order book (Art.38),hasnotbeendisputedbyaccusedNo.1.So,theentry(Exh.98), isinthehandwritingofaccusedNo.1.Whathasbeendisputedbythe

Judgment -S.C.630-08

-50-

Exh.341

accusedNo.1thatEntry(Exh.98)inrespectofaddressofflatNo.201, Dhiraj Solitare building, written by her at the instance of the police whileshewasincustodyafter1852008. IhavegonethroughOrder book(Art.38)andparticularly,Entry(Exh.98),whichisprovedbyDilip Ahiwale(P .W.40),HandwritingExpert, inthehandwriting ofaccused No.1. It is also admitted by accused No.1, as her handwriting. The various entries in order book (Art.38) are made as per sequence of dates.Therelevantentry(Exh.98)writtenbyaccusedNo.1alsoappears tobeinpropersequenceofdates,forthesimplereasonthatthewriting (Exh.98) appears to be normal writing and does not show any conjunctiontoconcludethatitisincorporatedlatteron,inbetweentwo entriestoshowsequenceofdates.ThereforeIdonotfindanyforcein arguments of the ld. advocate for the accused No.1 that entries were madelatteron,whileaccusedNo.1wasincustodyofpolice.Thoughthe accusedNo.1hasexaminedhersistertoshowthataccusedNo.1was residinginthehouseof Mr.Deepakpriorto 652008 andevenon 652008.Buttheabovesaidmaterialissufficienttodiscardtheversion ofMariaVeronicaSusairaj(D.W.3),particularlywhenthereisversionof NishantLalathaton552008,accusedNo.1stayedwithNeerajather flat.Apartfromit,accusedNo.1didnotexamineDeepaktoshowthat

Judgment -S.C.630-08

-51-

Exh.341

accusedNo.1stayedinhishouseon652008. Theabovesaidmaterial discussedabove,goestoonlyoneconclusionthat,theaccusedNo.1was having concern with flat No.201 on 652008, rather she was in possessionofflatNo.201ofDhirajSolitarebuilding.

VisitofdeceasedNeerajtoflatNo.201on652008: According to the case of prosecution, to eliminate Neeraj,

51.

accusedNo.1calledhiminherflaton652008;onhercall,deceased NeerajvisitedflatNo.201andstayedthereforwholeinterveningnight of652008and752008.Forthispurpose,theprosecutionisrelying onversionofMayuriPrajapati(P .W.2),neighborfriendofaccusedNo.1 aswellasNishantLal(P .W.9). Theprosecutionisalsorelyingoncall detailreportofdeceasedNeeraj(Exh.217)aswellas injurycertificate (Exh.100).Letusseewhethertheprosecutioncouldprovethepresence ofNeerajinflatNo.201,on652008. 52. MayuriPrajapati(P .W.2),onwhoseevidencetheprosecution

isheavilyrelying,appearstobethestarwitnesstoestablishthatNeeraj had been to flat No.201 on 652008. Mayuri Prajapati (P .W.2) has deposedonthisaspectthataftersometime,accusedNo.1rangherbell, sheusedthebathroomofherflatandaftersometimesheleft.Atabout 10.30p.m.sheopenedthedoorofherhome,whichisoppositetoflat

Judgment -S.C.630-08

-52-

Exh.341

No.201,shesawamanwasthereincorridor,20ft.awayfromherdoor. AccusedNo.1introducedherwiththesaidmanasNeerajGrover. 53. It has been brought in crossexamination that she wasnot

shownanyphotographsofNeerajbythepoliceandshewasnotknowing Neerajpriorto652008.Itissubmittedonbehalfofld.advocateforthe accusedNo.1thatitisvirtuallyimpossibleforapersontorememberthe name of person who was introduced to him for first time. It is not alwaysnecessarythatapersonwillforget nameofaperson,whohas beenintroducedtohim,buthowever,assuch,itisdoubtfulwhethershe was able to remember. Therefore, some corroboration is required to believe the version of (P .W.1) and it will be risky to rely on her sole versionwithoutanycorroboration. 54. To corroborate her version, the prosecution relies on call

detail report of deceased Neeraj Grover. As such, the mobile no. 9967483634isprovedasnumberofNeerajGrover.Ithasbeenbrought onrecordthataccusedNo.2wasnotknowingdeceasedNeerajpriorto 652008.TheprosecutionclaimsthatmobileNo.9388920779 is of accusedNo.2.Thoughinitially,theaccusedNo.2denied forhavinghis numberas9388920779.However,throughRajeshSampatraoGaikwad, (P .W.41), NodalofficerofReliancecompany, thesubscriptionFormof

Judgment -S.C.630-08

-53-

Exh.341

accused No.2 (Exh.200) has been brought on record. Likewise, the subscriberdetail(Exh.199colly.)showsthatmobileNo.9388920779is registeredinthenameofaccusedNo.2. Inthestatementu/s.313the accusedNo.2hasalsoadmittedtohavemobileNo.9388920779. The accusedNo.2deniedtohaveanyconcernwithNeerajGroverpriorto 652008.In this background, the calldetail report ofNeerajGrover (Exh.218), goes to show that there were exchange of call between mobileAccusedNo.2anddeceasedNeerajatabout11.39p.m.and11.54 p.m. in the night of 652008. As per prosecution case as well as statements of the accused, rather deposition of Ajay Shyam Pandya (P .W.27),MrsP .A.UmadeviExecutiveofAirIndiaKochi,goestoshow that accusedNo.2 was atKochiduringthe aforesaid two calls. It has beenbroughtonrecord that theaccusedNo.2 isfianceofaccused No.1andtheywereintendingto marry. So,accusedNo.1and 2had concern with each other. The purpose of calling to the mobile of deceasedNeeraj,byaccusedNo.2was,onlytohavetalkwithaccused No.1,whichgoestoshowthatdeceasedNeerajandaccusedNo.1were togetheratthattime. Theprosecutionhasalsobroughtonrecordthe ReceivingTowerID of Vodaphone,oftheabovesaidcallsas15231 whichshowsthelocationofthesaidTowernearflatno.201.

Judgment -S.C.630-08

-54-

Exh.341

55.

Apartfromit,thereisversionofNishantLal(P .W.9)thaton

652008,he and otherfriend, met asusual at Cafe Coffee shop, but Neerajwasnotthere.Namratawhowaswiththiswitness,atthattime shereceivedcallfromdeceasedNeeraj.TheycalledNeerajtojointhem, buthestatedthatthataccusedNo.1hascalledNeerajasshehastakena newhouse.ItisfurtherdeposedbythiswitnessthatNishaalsomade phonecalltoNeerajstatingthattheyhadcookedfoodandinvitedhim fordinnerbutNeerajstatedthathecannotcomeashewasinthehouse of accused No.1. This witness and another friend also talked with accusedNo.1.Notonlythis,hisfurtherversion,goestoshowthaton nextday,Maria accusedNo.1,hascalledthiswitnessatabout11.30 a.m.andtoldhimthatNeerajhadleftherhouseatabout1.30a.m.and hasforgottenhismobileinherhouse.While,onagainreceivingphone callofthiswitness, theaccusedNo.1furtherstatedthat toinform NeerajthathehadleftherhousestatingthatheisgoingtoNisha'shome. 56. Itis submittedonbehalfoftheldadvocatefortheaccused

No.1that(P .W.2)and(P .W.9)cannotbebelievedasthereareomissionsin theirstatements.Hetookmetotheomissionof(P .W.2)wherein,while givingstatementthiswitnesshasnotstated Surnameofdeceasedand onlystatedNeeraj.Idonotthinkthatthisisamaterialcontradictionto

Judgment -S.C.630-08

-55-

Exh.341

disbelievehertestimony. Likewise,omissioninrespectoftakingnew housebyaccusedNo.1and accusedNo.1stated tothiswitnessto inform Neerajthathehad lefthismobileatherhouse ifseparated fromhisevidence,eventhen, hisevidencepointsthat thedeceased NeerajwasatthehouseofaccusedNo.1inthenightof652008.The furtherversionofthiswitnesswhileinthenightof7.5.2008,shecame down from Dhiraj Solitare, the accused No.1 had mobile phone of Neeraj. also goes to show that Neeraj was with accused No.1 on 652008. Thereisnoreasontodisbelievethiswitness. Asamongall friends, deceased Neeraj had good rapport with this witness. Some discrepancyinhisevidence,which is normalinnature,cannotbea groundtodiscardhisevidence,thereforeistobeignored. 57. So,theversionofMayuriPrajapati(P .W.2)iscorroboratedby

callsmadebyaccusedNo.2,onthemobileofdeceasedNeerajaswellas versionof NishantLal(P .W.9). Notonlythat, the missingcomplaint (Exh.138),whichwaspromptlylodgedbyNishantGrover,(P .W.33),in the interveningnightof752008and852008,containsthat Neeraj had been to the house of accused No.1. in Dhiraj Soltare Building, Malad,alsofortifytheclaimofprosecution.Thiscomplaint,whichwas promptly lodged, speaks itself and an entry of which also reflects in

Judgment -S.C.630-08

-56-

Exh.341

stationdiaryofMaladpolicestationdated852008.Thisrulesoutthe possibility of any ambiguity regarding presence of Neeraj Grover in DhirajSolitarebuildingon653008. 58. Not only the version of PSI Indap (P .W.34) and Nishant

Grover (P .W.33) goes to show that the accused no. 1 had mobile of NeerajGrover,whichshegavetoPSIIndap(P .W.34),whointurngaveit to Nishant Grover (P .W.33). Their version is also corroborated by the stationdairyentrydated9.5.2008whichisproducedonrecord. 59. The version of the prosecution witnesses are consistent on

thispointandcorroborateeachother.Theirevidenceisalsocorroborated by documentary evidence such as call detail report of Neeraj Grover, Missing complainant (Exh.138) and Station dairy entry of mobile (Exh.142).HenceIhavenohesitationtoconcludethatNeerajhadbeen toflatno.201inthenightof6.5.2008.

VisitofaccusedNo.2toflatNo.201inDhirajSolitare Next circumstances on which the prosecution is relying is

60.

visitofaccusedNo.2toflatNo.201ofDhirajSolitarebuildinginthe morningof752008. ItisthecaseofprosecutionthataccusedNos.1 and 2 hatched conspiracy by talking on their respective mobiles to eliminate Neeraj Grover and in pursuant to criminal conspiracy, the

Judgment -S.C.630-08

-57-

Exh.341

accusedNo.2immediatelyflewtoMumbaifromCochiandmarkedhis presenceinflatNo.201ofDhirajSolitarebuildingatabout7.30p.m.For this circumstances, the prosecution is relying on version of (P 6) .W. Kundan Jha as well as the version of (P .W.2) Mayuri Prajapati and NishantLal(P .W.9),forpresenceofaccusedNo.2inflatNo.201. 61. Theaccusedno.2hasdeniedthevisitofaccusedNo.2atany

timeinDhirajSolitarebuilding.Fromcrossexamination,statementu/s. 313,andtheversionoftheaccusedNo.2,itappearsthataccusedNo.2 tookdefenceofalibi.Accordingtohim,thoughheflewtoMumbai,in theinterveningnightof 652008and752008, buthenevervisited DhirajSolitarebuilding.ItwasdecidedbetweenhimandaccusedNo.1 that theywillmeet at Inorbit Mall andtherefore, he directlywent to InorbitMallatabout10a.m.and about12noonhemettheaccused No.1andhersister.Theyspententiredaytogetherandintheevening after separating himself from accused No.1 and her sister, he took shelterfornightin onehotelatLinkroadMalad. Onthenextday, aftermeetinghisuncle,hereturnedto Cochinandjoinedhisservice. Let us scrutinize the evidence of prosecution as well as version of accusedNo.1 todecide whetheraccusedNo.2 visitedflat No.201 on 752008.

Judgment -S.C.630-08

-58-

Exh.341

62.

KundanJha(P .W.6),whowaswatchmanofDhirajSolitare

building, has deposed that in the morning of 752008, he was at counter. At about 7.30 p.m. a boy about 2526 years came near the counter,heintendedtogointhebuilding.Witnessaskedhimtowritehis nameintheregister.Thesaidboydidnotwritehisnameintheregister. Itisfurtherdepositedbythiswitnessthatthesaidboystatedthathewas going to flat No.201, and the person residing in the said flat is his relative.Thereafterthesaidboyenteredintheliftandwentupstairs. ThiswitnessidentifiedthesaidboyasaccusedNo.2.Thewitnessalso claimsthatheidentifiedaccusedNo.2inT.I.Paradedated572008. Asthecourttimeisover,hencecaseisadjournedto2862011) (
(Dictationofjudgmentcontinuedon2862008.)

63.

MayuriPrajapati,(P .W.2)occupantofflatNo.203,oppositeto

flat No.201 of 'B' wing, Dhiraj Solitare Building, has also deposed regardingpresenceofaccusedNo.2toflatNo.201. Accordingtothis witness,shesawaccusedNo.1outsideherflaton752008atabout4.30 p.m.AccusedNo.1stoodneardoorofflatNo.203.AccusedNo.2was withaccusedNo.1.AccusedNo.1statedthattheyaregoingoutandleft. Itisfurtherdeposedbythiswitnessthaton852008,shenoticedthat thedoorofflatofaccusedNo.1wasopenandaccusedNo.1wassitting

Judgment -S.C.630-08

-59-

Exh.341

withaccusedNo.2. Mayuri(P .W.2)wenttotalktothem. Apainter arrivedthere.Accusedwere talkingtosaidpainterregardingpainting theirflat,therefore,Mayuri(P .W.2),left. 64. Itissubmittedonbehalfoftheld.advocatefortheaccused

No.2,thatMayuri(P .W.2)cannotidentifyaccusedNo.2as shedidnot takepartinTIParade.Letmestateherethatithasbeenbroughton record in her examination in chief itself, that when accused No.1 visitedMumbaiinDecember2007,accusedNo.1cametoherflatwith amanandintroducedsaidmantoherasEmile, herfiance.Accused no.1requestedthiswitnesstoallowaccusedNo.1tostayinherflatfor oneday.Itisalsobroughtonrecordthatthiswitnesspermittedthemto stayinherflatandshewenttoresideinhouseofhermotherinlaw.So, fromthisversionofMayuriPrajapati(P .W.2),Itismanifestthatshewas knowingaccusedNo.2fromDecember,2007.Anotherpoint,whichld. advocateforaccusedNo.2vehementlysubmittedbeforemethatincident ofDecember2007isomission.Likewise,incidentofhermeetingwith accused Nos. 1 and 2 on 752008, and on 852008 are omissions, therefore, it cannot be read in evidence. I have gone through cross examinationaswellasstatementofthiswitnessrecordedu/s.161of Cr.P It appears that two statements of this witness were recorded; .C.

Judgment -S.C.630-08

-60-

Exh.341

firstly on 1052008 and secondly on 2462008. Though there is no whisperoftheaforesaidthreeincidents,instatementdated1052008, butthesethreefactsarefindingplaceinthesubsequentstatementdated 2462008. Itisworthwhiletomentionherethatthecrimeofmurder wasdetected on2152008andthestatement ofthiswitness dated 1052008wasrecordedinrespectofmissinginquiryofNeerajGrover. So,itisbutnaturalconductofthewitnessthathe/shewillstatethefact relevanttotheinquiryonly. Butwhenthecrimewasdetected, then obviously,thetendencyofthewitnesswouldbestatingofallrelevant factstothecrimeforwhichstatementisgiven.Assuch,thestatement dated 1052008ofthiswitnesswasonlyinrespectofmissinginquiry, therefore,thesefacts deposedbythewitness,arenotfindingplacein thestatementdated1052008,buttheyareverywellfindingplacein thestatementdated2462008,whichisnotindispute.Therefore,these threeincidentsdeposedbythewitness,cannotbetreatedasanomission. Notonlythat,thiswitnesswasnot crossexaminedbyaccusedNo.2. Theaccusedno.2didnotdenytothiswitnessabouthispresenceinflat no.201. 65. Apartfromthis,thereisversionofNishantLal(P .W.9).Ithas

beenbroughtonrecordthroughNishantLalthatwhenon752008,in

Judgment -S.C.630-08

-61-

Exh.341

lateevening,hehadbeentoDhirajSolitarebuildingfortakingaccused No.1 to Malad police station for lodging missing complaint. Accused No.1camedown.Heandhisfriendsrequestedhertocomewiththem for lodging missing complaint, then accused No.1, for changing her clothes, took Nishant Lal and other friends to her flat No.201. She introducedaccusedNo.2tothiswitness.Thiswitnesshasalsoidentified the accused No.2 in the dock. This witness has also identified the accusedno.2inTestIdentificationParadedated5.7.2008. 66. SatishKumarDayaprasadSingh(P .W.10),whowasworking

asSecurityguardwithHonestSecurityServicessince1032008.Hewas deputedasaSecurityguardinMay2008,at'B'WinghDhirajSolitare building. On 752008, at about 8.30 a.m. he joined his duty at 'B' Wing.Atabout4.30p.m.on752008,hewenttoteastallforhaving tea. He returned to the building within 510 minutes. He found a Santrocarofgreycolour,parkedin'B'Wingnearthelobby. Healso deposed that accused No.1 was staying in the flat No.201. After returnedfromteastall,henoticedaccusedNo.1alongwithoneboyaged about2527years,comingtotheSantrocar.HeidentifiedaccusedNo.2 inthedockasthesaidboywhowasaccompanyingtheaccusedNo.1. Bothcamefromthebuilding,accusedNo.1and2,eachhadbigrexin

Judgment -S.C.630-08

-62-

Exh.341

bagwiththem.TheyputbothbagsindickeyofSantrocar.Theywent insidethebuildingandagainreturnedwithin5/10minuteswithonebig bag.AccusedNo.1washoldingthebagfromonesideandaccusedNo.2 fromtheotherside.They keptthebagintherearsideofSantrocar. Accused No.1 then sat on driver's seat and accused No.2 on adjacent seat.So,accordingtothiswitnessalso,henoticedpresenceofaccused No.2inDhirajSolitare.Sofarasevidenceofthiswitnesswithregardto takingbagandputtingtheminsideSantrocarwillbediscussedlatteron, asIamconcernedrightnowinrespectofpresenceofaccusedNo.2at theflatNo.201. Thiswitnesshasalso identifiedtheaccused No.2in TestIdentificationParade(TIP)conductedbySharadVichare(P .W.23). 67. Ithasbeenalsoargued onbehalfofaccusedNo.2thatthe

alleged test identification parade has not been held and the accused No.2 was directly shown to the witnesses. In support of these contentions,accusedNo.2hasexaminedhimselfand (D.W.14)Deepak JaidevsinghMalikand(P .W.16)ManishNareshThakur.Letusfirstsee what the prosecution has brought on record in respect of test identificationparade. 68. The prosecution has examined (P .W.23) Sharad

Vichare(S.E.O.) in respect of TI parade dated 762008 and 572008.

Judgment -S.C.630-08

-63-

Exh.341

ThiswitnesshasdeposedinrespectofTIparadedated762008,that he conducted TI parade of accused No.2. According to him, after selecting panchas, he along with witnesses, Satish Dayaprasad Singh (P .W.10), and Dheeraj Kumar Shukla (P .W.15) panchas with PSI Dilip DeshmukhwenttoAurthurRoadjailandheenteredfirstinsidethejail. ThewitnessesandDilipDeshmukhwereoutsidethejail.Thewitnesses werecalledonebyoneandtheyidentifiedaccusedNo.2.Theevidence inrespectofTIparadedated572008ofthiswitnessisonthesameline andaccordingtothiswitness, Kundan RavindraJha(P .W.6),Kamlesh Jain(P .W.16)and AmarbahadurYadav(P .W.22)identifiedtheaccused No.2. 69. ThetestimonyofthiswitnessisalsocorroboratedbyKundan

Jha (P .W.6) and Satish Singh (P .W.10) in their deposition. The ld. advocate submits that TI Parade dated 572008 is never held. The accusedexaminedDeepakMalik(D.W.14)andManishThakur(D.W.16). TheyareshownasdummyintheTIParadedated572008. Deepak Malik(D.W.14)whowascoprisoneralongwith accusedNo.2inhis barrack.Likewise, ManishThakur(D.W.16)wasalsocoprisoner with accusedNo.2insamebarrack.Bothofthemhavedeposedthattheydid not take participation in TI parade dated 5072008, wherein as per

Judgment -S.C.630-08

-64-

Exh.341

prosecutionKundanJha(D.W.6)identifiedaccusedNo.2.Takinghelpof depositionofthesewitnessesandversionofaccusedNo.2onoath,the ld. advocate for the accused No.2 submits that the TI Parade dated 572008 never conducted. The accused No.2 who has examined himselfonoath,hasdeposedthatduringcustodyinAurthurRoadjail,he wascalledinsidetheofficeofjailorandwasshowntosomepersonswith instructionstothemtoidentifytheaccusedinthecourt. 70. Let me state the fact that Deepak Malik (D.W.14) and

ManishThakur(D.W.16)areundertrialprisonersandtheyarecharged withseriousoffence.Itispertinenttopointoutherethatasperrecord, theaccusedNo.2wastransferredtoTalojajailfromAurthurroadjailon thepointofsecurityagainstwhich,accusedNo.2objectedandgavehis writtenobjectioninwritingat(Exh.136),pursuanttowhichshowcause noticewasissuedtoSuperintendentofAurthurRoadjail,wherein the name of Manish Thakur (D.W. 16) is appearing. According to the explanationof jailor,AccusedNo.2andthis ManishThakur(D.W.16) areclosefriendofAbuSalemandinviewofattackonAbuSalembyhis opponents, thereisapprehensionthattheremaybeattackonaccused No.2andManishThakur(D.W.16).So,thisexplanationgoestoshow thatthereiscloserelationshipbetweenaccusedNo.2and(D.W.16).So

Judgment -S.C.630-08

-65-

Exh.341

farasDeepakMalik(D.W.14) isconcerned, hewasalsocoprisoner withaccusedNo.2. Asagainstthis,thereiscategoricalversionofSEO SharadVichare(P .W.23)thatTIParadeon562008washeldinAurthur Road Jail, coupled with the fact that the document Exhs.227, Entry register of Aurthur Road jail, which is produced by the accused No.2 himself,goestoshowthatSharadVichare(P .W.23),panchasalongwith Kundan Jha (P .W.6) as well as Dhiraj Shukla (P 15), entered in .W. Aurthur Road Jail. I am unable to accept the arguments of the ld. advocatefortheaccusedthatiftherewasnointentiontoconducttheTI ParadeofaccusedNo.2on572008,thenwhythepanchasweretaken toAurthurRoadJail,anditwaseasy forSharadVichare(P .W.23),to prepare memorandum of TI parade without accompanying with the panchas.AfterweighingtheevidenceofDeepakMalik(D.W.14),Manish Thakur(D.W.16)andaccusedNo.2ononepartandonotherhandthe version of (P 23) Sharad Vichare, (P .W. .W.6) Kundan Jha and (P .W.15) DhirajShukla,whohavealsodeposedaboutTIParadedated572008. ThedefencebroughtbytheaccusedNo.2regardingnotholdingofTI Paradeon572008,doesnotseemtobeprobableinviewoftestimony of prosecution witnesses, which was also corroborated by TI Parade panchnama(Exh.37)aswellasJailentryRegistered(Exh.227)produced

Judgment -S.C.630-08

-66-

Exh.341

bythetheaccusedno.2himself. 71. TIparadeisalsochallengedonthegroundthattheSharad

Vichare(P .W.23)resideswithinthejurisdictionofLTMargpolicestation andinsteadofthisheisselectedtoconductedTIP ,onlygivingsupport tofalsecaseoftheprosecution.ButIdonotfindanysubstanceinthis argumentofLd.advocatefortheaccusedNo.2andthereisnohardand fastrulethataSEOofparticularpolicestationshallconductTIParade. LookingtotheversionofSharadVichare(P .W.23),itappearsthathehas conductedvarioustestidentificationsparades. Withtheexperienceof thiswitness, appearstobetheobviousreasonforInvestigationofficer as abundant precaution, to select this witness as SEO to conduct TI Parade. Itisfurtherarguedthatprosecutionhasnottakenprecaution thattheaccusedNo.2thatthewitnesseshadnoopportunitytoseethe accusedNo.2after theirfirstallegedmeetingtill theTIparadewas held.Accordingtohimtheburdenliesontheprosecutiontoprovethis factalso.InthiscontexttheLd.advocatefortheaccusedseekstorely onjudgmentofAllahabadHighcourt,inthecaseof AshrafiVs.State reportedinAIR1961Allahabadpage153,whereinitisheldthat: Itisthedutyoftheprosecutiontoshowthatfromthetime ofthearrestoftheaccusedpersontothetimeofhis admissionintothejail,precautionsweretakento

Judgment -S.C.630-08

-67-

Exh.341

ensurethathewasnotseenbyanyoutsider.Once evidencehasbeenledtoshowthis,theburdenshifts ontheaccusedtoshowotherwise.Itisinvariably assumedattheBarthatinsuchmattersthepolice donotplayfiarbutinsteadshowtheaccusedtothe witnessbeforehisidentification,eitherbydetaining himforanumberofofdaysandthenformallyarresting himorbycallingthewitnesstothepolicestationafter thearrestandshowinghimbeforeheissentoffto thejail. Whiledisagreeingwiththecase,reportedinBaliramTikaramV .Emperor, AIR1945Nag.ithasbeenobservedthat: WiththeutmostrespecttotheirLordships,weventure topointoutthatthisasentiment,notlaw.Thereisno presumptionthatpoliceofficersactdishonestlysee DwarkaV .State,AIR1954ALL106,wherea witnessgivesevidenceonoaththepresumptionis thatheisspeakingatruth.Iftherefore,theprosecution haveledevidencetoshowthatfromthetimeofarrest ofanaccusedtothetimeofhisadmissionintothejail precautionsweretakentoensurethathewasnotseen byanyoutsiderandiftheidentifyingwitnessesdeposit thattheyneversawhimatanytimebetweenthecrime andtheidentificationparade,theburdenlyingonthe prosecutionhasbeendischarged.Itisthenforthe accusedtoestablishthathewasshown.Thelawdoes notrequirehimtodosoaffirmatively;itissufficientifhe cansucceedincreatingareasonabledoubtinthemind ofthecourt. Directevidencemaynotbeavailable,buthemay dischargehisburdenbyshowingforexamplethathe andthewitnesseswerepresentinthepolicestationat thesametimeorthathewasmarchedthroughthe villageofthewitnessesorthatthewitnesseswerepresent attheofficeofProsecutingInspectorwhenhisjailwarrant wasbeingprepared.Butifhefailstoriseareasonable doubt,thelawenjoinsthattheprosecutionevidenceon

Judgment -S.C.630-08

-68-

Exh.341

thematterbeaccepted.Indealingwithsuchquestionsit isoftenignoredthattheaccusedisatotalstrangerto thewitnessesandthatsaveforexceptionalcasesheis astrangertothepolicetoo,hence,neitherthewitnesses northepolicehaveanymotiveforincriminatinghim falsely. 72. Ihavegonethroughthisjudgment,ratheritwasheldthat

whiledealingwiththequestionofTIParade,itisoftenignoredthatthe accusedistotalstrangertothewitnessesandpolicetoo,henceneither the witnesses nor the police have any motive for incriminating him falsely.So,inthiscasealso,thewitnesseswerestrangerandithasnot beenbroughtonrecordthatthepolicehaveanymotivetoimplicatethe accusedNo.2infalsecase,hencejudgmentcitedbytheldadvocatefor the accused rather goes to support the contention of ld. APP for the State.RatherMidDaynewspaperdated1.6.2008(Exh.310A)whichhas beenbroughtbytheaccusedNo.2himself,goestoshowthattheaccused no.2isshowninveil. 73. Ithasbeenfurtherpointedoutthatthe statementsofthe

witnesseswererecordedsolate,andnoexplanationhasbeenbroughton recordbytheprosecutionbynotexaminingthewitnessesattheearliest opportunity.Inthiscontext,theld.advocatefortheaccusedNo.2seeks torelyonjudgmentofApexcourt.InthecaseofStateofU.P .V/sSatish

Judgment -S.C.630-08

-69-

Exh.341

reportedin2005SCCCri.(642)whereinApexcourthasobservedthat IfnoexplanationisaskedtoI.O.thennoadverse inferencecanbedrawn.Ifhowever,opportunity beingoffered,theI.O.failedtoexplainhisversion, hastobediscarded. 74. Accordingtotheld.advocatefortheaccusedNo.2,(P .W.47)

I.O. has been asked about publishing of the name in newspaper (Exh.301,302 and 303), he showed his ignorance about the news. Therefore,accordingtotheld.advocatefortheaccusedNo.2,thedelay inrecordingthestatementofthewitnessesisfataltoprosecution.Ihave gonethroughtheentirecrossexaminationofI.O.Raorane(P .W.47).No explanationhasbeensoughtbyaccusedNo.2astowhythestatements ofthewitnesseswererecordedafterlongtime.So,thisjudgmentwill notbehelpfultotheaccusedNo.2.Evenotherwiseunlessprejudiceis shown to the accused that cannot be the ground for rejecting the testimonyofthesewitnesses. 75. Now,revertingtothefactsofthecase, thereisversionof

Kundan Jha(P .W.6) who saw accused No.1 while entering in Dhiraj Solitarebuilding. Atatthisjunctureld.advocatefortheaccusedNo.2 putmetotheversionofaccusedNo.2.Hesubmitsthataccordingtothe

Judgment -S.C.630-08

-70-

Exh.341

versionofAccusedNo.2,hedidnotvisitDhirajSolitarebuilding,rather asperhisversion,hecametoInorbitMallandspentadaywithaccused No.1andhersisterandthereafter,heseparatedandwentto meethis uncle.Hisfurtherversiongoestoshowthathestayedinonehotelby nameSamadhanorSambhavnaatLinkRoad,Maladandfromthere,he bookedreturnticketforCochinandon852008,intheevening,hemet hisuncleandtookflighttoCochin. 76. It is not in dispute that accused No.2 talked with accused

No.1on652008.AspertheversionofaccusedNo.2himself,thatthe onlyreasonforsuddenleavingfromCochin,innightitselfwastomeet accusedNo.1.TherelationbetweenaccusedNo.1and2wereoffianc andaccordingtoaccusedNo.2,thereasonforaccusedNo.2tosudden visitMumbai, wasonlyaccusedNo.1,coupledwith mannerinwhich, theaccusedNo.2leftCochini.e.withoutobtainingpermissionfromNavy Base,withknowing consequences of leavingBasewithoutpermission, goestoshowthatonlyandonlyobjectofaccusedNo.2wastomeetthe accusedNo.1. Assuch,Ihavealreadyheldthaton652008,accused No.1wasresiding atflatNo.201inDhirajSolitareBuilding,coupled withthefactthataccusedNo.2flewtoMumbaiforaccusedNo.1.Ifthat issoitisbutnaturalthattheaccusedno.2wouldlandonlyatthehouse

Judgment -S.C.630-08

-71-

Exh.341

oftheaccusedno.1i.e.flatno.201.Therefore,thereisnoreasonforhim tovisitInorbitMallformeetingtheaccusedNo.1 particularly when Accusedno.1waspossessingflatNo.201.Thiscircumstancealsogoesto corroboratetheversionofP .W.no.6KundanJhathaton7.5.2008,inthe morning,theaccusedno.2visitedflatno.201.Assuchthereisnoexact timingofdeathofNeerajGrover,thereforethesubmissionofLd.Adv.for theaccusedno.2thatflightlandedhalfanhourlate,isnotsignificant. Evenotherwisenothingisbroughtonrecord,thatflightlandedlate.On thecontraryProsecutionthroughP .W.24Mrs.Umadevihasbroughton recordthattheflighttookoffrighttimefromCochin. 77. Notonlythat, assuch,theaccusedNo.2hascomewith

thepleaofalibi,burdenliesonhimtoprovethathewasnotpresenton thespot.ThoughaccusedNo.2claimsthathestayedinHotelbyname SamadhanorSambhavna,inthenightof752008,butaccuseddidnot examineanybodyfromsaid hotel,norevenhemadeanyattemptto examinetheemployeeofsaidhotel.Itissubmittedonbehalfoftheld. advocatefortheaccusedNo.2 thataccusedisincustodyandhehad limited recourse to call the witnesses. I do not agree with this submissionoftheld.advocatefortheaccusedNo.2.Assuchnumberof defence witnesses have been examined by accused No.2, rather the

Judgment -S.C.630-08

-72-

Exh.341

accused No.2 had examined three witnesses, who came down to Mumbai from Cochin, therefore submission of no recourse does not carriesvalues. 78. Furtherld.Adv.foraccusedno.2triedtoputbeforemethat

theaccusedhadbillofHotelSamadhan,wherehestayedatthenightof 7.5.2008,butitwastakenbyMaheshTawdealongwithhisbag.Forthis submissionheseekstorelyon Photograph(Exh310A)innewspaper (Exh.310). Bare perusal ofthe photograph(Exh310A) goestoshow thatapersoninveilholdingabag.Takinghelpofthisphotograph,Ld. Adv.foraccusedNo.2submittedthatthebagbelongstoaccusedno.2 andinthesaidbagthebillofHotelSamadhanorSambhavanawaskept. Accordingtoaccusedno.2thesaidbagwastakenfromhimbyMahesh Tawde,APIofcrimebranch.Itisworthwhiletomentionherethatithas beenbroughtonrecordindepositionofaccusedno.2himselfthatthe bodyreceiptForm(Exh.291)wasissuedbyNavyOfficeatCochin,while givingcustodyoftheaccusedno.2toMumbaiCrimeBranch,mentioning allthebelongingcarriedbytheaccusedno.2onhisperson.Thevery minutearticlesarenotedinthesaidbodyreceiptlikedetailsofmobile phone,evenidentitycardaswellascashofdefinitefigure,butnowhere itisnotedthattheaccusedwaspossessingbillofhotel.Itiscontended

Judgment -S.C.630-08

-73-

Exh.341

bytheaccusedno.2thatbagbelongstohim,butnowhereinthebody receiptform,thereismentionofbag.Wheneveryminutedetailsofthe documentandamountisgiveninbodyReceiptFormthatIdon'tthink IndianNavywillnotmentionabigbagwhichisshownbytheaccused no.2 in Photograph (Exh. 310A). The accused no.2 did not examine MaheshTawdeinhisdefencetoshowthatthebagbelongstohimand was containing Bill of Hotel. The accused prayed for direction to be giventothe prosecutiontoexamineMaheshTawdeortobeexamined as court witness. Which was rejected by the court for the reasons recorded.Butfactsremainsthatinspiteoftheopportunity,hedidnot chosetoexamineMaheshTawdeashiswitness,toprovethatthebillof the hotel was inside bag and bag was taken by Mahesh Tawde. Even otherwiseaccordingtoaccusedhimselfhewenttoHotelinthenightof 7.5.2008andaccordingtoprosecution,theincidenthappenedsincethe morning till evening of 7.5.2008. So it would not make difference whetherhestayedinthehotelonthenightof7.5.2008.Thedefenceof alibioftheaccusedNo.2thathedidnotvisitFlatNo.201,on652008 isnotprobable.Rather,thefactthataccusedNo.1wasresidinginflat No.201 on 652008 goes to corroborate the version of Kundan Jha(P .W.6).Hissubsequentpresence,whichhasbeenbroughtonrecord

Judgment -S.C.630-08

-74-

Exh.341

through Mayuri Prajapati (P .W.2), Satish Singh (P .W.10) and Dhiraj Shukla(P .W.15),alsoconcretestheversionofthe KundanJha(P .W.6). Therefore,thereisnosubstanceintheargumentsoftheld.advocatefor the accused No.2 that prosecution failed to prove presence of the accusedNo.2inflatNo.201on752008.Thereismaterialavailableon recordwhichgoestoshowthataccusedNo.2visitedflatNo.201,Dhiraj Solitairebuildinginthemorningof752008.

Recoveryof remainsofhumanskeletonfromManorWadaon 2152008.

79.

This is another circumstance, on which the prosecution is

heavilyrelyingonconnecttheaccusedNo.1and2withthemurderof Neeraj Grover. For this recovery, prosecution is heavily relying on version of Usha Ramalu (P .W.5), P Nalawde (P .I. .W.45), PSI Shirsagar (P .W.44) and Investigation Office Raorane (P .W.47). According to the prosecution the remains of human sekelton were recovered at the instanceofaccusedNo.1andisadmissibleu/s.27ofIndianEvidence Act.Asagainstthis,thedefenceisvehementlydisputingtherecovery of remains of human skeleton on 2152008. According to cross examinationofdefenceoftheaccused,itappearsthattheytookdefence thatthebodywasrecoveredpriorto2152008.

Judgment -S.C.630-08

-75-

Exh.341

80.

UshaRamalu(P .W.5)hasdeposed thaton2152008.she

was bypassingMaladPolicestation,oneconstablecalledherandtook hertoPINalavde.Shewasrequestedtoactasapanchtoastatement, whichismadebytheaccusedNo.1. Shewas introducedtoaccused No.1.AccusedNo.1statedthatshewillshowtheplacewherethepieces ofcorpusofNeerajGroverwereburntandsheaskedtocomewithher. Accordingly,thesaidstatementwasrecordedandthiswitness hasput her signature on the said memorandum panchnama dated 2152008(Exh.36A).Itisfurtherversionofthiswitnessthatthereafter theaccused ledthepolicepartyandthepanchastoWesternExpress Highway,vehiclesweretakentosaidHighwayattheinstanceofthe accusedNo.1. Thereafter,theaccusedNo.1tookthemtoWadaroad, thereafter on right side of Wada road; they came near a Hill, the accusedaskedthemtotakethevehicletotheleft;therewasakachha road.TheyproceededalittleaheadtoKachharoad;theaccusedasked tostopthevehicle,allofthemgotdownfromthevehicle,theywalked forsomedistance,therewasfootway, theaccusedtookthemtosaid way;theaccusedshowedthespotnearthefootway.Theysawhuman ribcage,skullandotherburntpieceswerelyingthere.Policetookout photographintheirpresence.Thepoliceputallthebonesinoneplastic

Judgment -S.C.630-08

-76-

Exh.341

bag,whichwaspackedandagainitwaskeptinbagofcloth,anditwas sealed with the labels bearing signatures of this witness and other panch. 81. Itisfurtherversionof UshaRamalu(P .W.5)thatfromthe

saidplace,buntpieceofbagarticle13,burntpieceofredcloth(Art.14), partlyburnt clothhavingredlines(Art.15),damagedglassperfume bottle (Art.16), tin bottle (Art.17) and damaged tin bottle (Art.18), partlyburntmetalbuttonandcoin(Art.19colly)wererecovered from thespot.Apartfromit,soilfromtheburntplace(Art.20)andotherthan burnt place (Art.21) were taken separately and recovery panchnama (Exh.63B)wasprepared. 82. Ld. advocate for accused No.1 took me to cross

examination. Ithasbeenbroughtonrecordincrossexaminationthat shewasSEOofMaladPolicestation.So,accordingtotheld.advocate for the accused, this witnesshas never visited Manor Wada. Some discrepancyintheevidenceofthiswitnesshasbeenbroughtonrecord regardingworkingasSEO.Butinherchiefshehadspecificallydeposed aboutshowingofplaceandrecoveryofremainsofhumanskeleton.Her versioniscorroboratedbyShirsagar(P .W.44),PINalawde(P .W.45)and Raorane(P .W.47),aswellasrecoverypanchnama(Exh.63B)

Judgment -S.C.630-08

-77-

Exh.341

83.

These witnesses have been crossexamined at length by

defence to show that recovery was not made on 2152008. The ld. advocatefordefenceheavilyreliedonPressConferenceheldbythenJt. CommissionerofPoliceRakeshMaria(D.W.18).Tocreatedoubt,defence hasexamined journalistofMidDaypaperandthedefencealso dared toexaminetheJt.PoliceCommissioner intheirdefence.Accordingto ld.advocatefortheaccusedNos.1and2,thePressConferencewasheld by the then Jt. Commissioner Rakesh Maria (D.W.18). The press conferenceisprovedthroughRahulK.Bajaj(D.W.17)aswellasRakesh Maria(D.W.18)andwiththehelpofCD(Exh.330),whichwasmarked tentatively. But in view of admission on behalf of (D.W.18) Rakesh Maria, regarding holding of Press Conference, on 2152008, and admitting hisbriefingtoMedia,containedinCD(Exh.330)itcanbe safelysaidthatthedefencehasprovedthePressConferencecontainedin CD.LetusseewhetherPressConferencegoestoshowthatthebodywas recoveredpriorto2152008.Beforegoingtoevaluateevidenceonthis aspect,itmustbekeptin mindthatthejointCommissioner Rakesh MariahasbeencalledbythedefenceandheiswitnessoftheDefence. 84. WithadmissionofPressConference,RakeshMaria(D.W.18)

has also admitted that he has given briefing in respect of blood on

Judgment -S.C.630-08

-78-

Exh.341

window draps (curtain), use of car, using of knife and witnessed by watchmanofthebuilding.Themainreasonforcallingofthiswitnessby thedefence,wastoshowthatwhenthePressConferencewasheld in theeveningof2152008,thenhowitispossibletogettheknowledge bythiswitnessregardingrecoveryofremainsofskeleton,bloodstain curtain drips, particularly when according to prosecution, the police teamreturnedtoMaladPolicestationatabout6p.m.Theexplanation wassoughtfromthiswitnessastohowhecametoknowaboutdetailsof detectionofcrimeandrecoveryofremainsofhumanskeleton.Inreply, this witness has deposed that one Sunil Ghosalkar was coordinating amongstthiswitness,MaladpolicestationandCrimeBranch.According tothiswitness,SunilGhosalkardidnotvisitManorWadaandhewas getting update from the Investigation team. So, nothing has been broughtonrecordthroughthiswitnessthatcouldshowthatrecovery wasmadepriorto2152008.Soforknowledgeofthiswitnessasto blood on curtain draps, use of knife and car, this witness has categoricallydeposedthatinvestigatingteamgottheknowledgeduring interrogationtoaccusedno.1whilereturningfromManorandinturn SunilGosalkargotknowledgewhilehewasincontactwithinvestigating team and sunil Gosalkar had updated this witness, Rakesh Maria

Judgment -S.C.630-08

-79-

Exh.341

(D.W.18). 85. Anothercircumstanceonwhichthedefenceisharping,isvisit

of team of three persons to Cochin on 2052008, for taking accused No.2incustody.IthasbeenbroughtonrecordthatMaheshTavdealong withotherpoliceofficerswenttoCochinon2052008byflight.Taking thisfact,theld.advocateforaccusedNo.2vehementlysubmittedthat thepoliceteamvisitedCochinon2052008,toarrestaccusedNo.2ina crimeofMurderofNeerajGroverandthatmeanstheallegedcrimewas detectedeitheron2052008orpriortothatbutnotafter2052008as alleged by the prosecution by showing recovery of remains of human skeleton.Tofortifythisfact,theaccusedNo.2examinedSunilKrishnaji Damle(D.W.12). 86. Before dealing with the defence witness, let me state the

explanation,whichtheprosecutionhasbroughtonrecordregardingvisit of Mahesh Tavde to Cochin prior to 2152008. It has come in the evidenceofRaorane(P .W.47) that MaheshTavdealongwithhisteam hadbeentoKochinon2052008,inconnectionwithmissingcomplaint (Exh.138)inrespectofNeerajGrover.So,theprosecutionstandwithits casethatcrimewasdetectedonlyon2152008,withthisexplanationlet us see whether the defence has brought anything contrary to this

Judgment -S.C.630-08

-80-

Exh.341

explanation.VersionofSunilKrishnaDamle(D.W.12)goestoshowthat MaheshTavdemethimtwice.Infirstoccasion,herequestedhimtohave custodyofaccusedNo.2forinquiryinrespectofamissingperson,to which this witness has denied his request with the arrangement that accusedNo.2canbepostedat MumbaiBaseandfromthere,theycan inquirewiththeaccusedNo.2. However,accordingtothiswitness,in secondmeetingheintimatedthataccusedNo.2isinvolvedinmurderof NeerajGrover.TheprosecutionclaimsthatMr.Tavdewasupdatedwith thesituationon2152008atCochinitselfandtherefore,hehandedover letter(Exh.257,257A,257B)toNavy.Theprosecutionisheavilyrelying onthisletter,wherein,therevealofcrimeofmurderofNeerajGroveris shown.Accordingtodefence,whenMaheshTavdeleftMumbai,hewas havingthatletter(Exh.257)preparedwithhim,whichgoestoshowthat on2052008,themurderofNeerajGroverwasrevealedafterrecovery of human skeleton. I have gone through (Exh.257), which is dated 2152008andbearssignatureofMaheshTavdeforandonbehalfofSr. PI of Crime Branch, Bandra Unit. Therefore, I find substance in the argumentsoftheld.APPthattheletterwaspreparedbyMaheshTavde atCochin. 87. So,theaccusedno.1couldnotgetanyhelpfromhiswitness

Judgment -S.C.630-08

-81-

Exh.341

SunitDamle(D.W.12),whowasatthehighestpostinSouthernNaval Command at Cochin as a CommanderinChief. Likewise, Sanjay JagdishchandraSharma(D.W.13)hasbeenexaminedbyaccusedNo.2. He has also not supported the contention of accused No.2. Lt. Nagabhushan, Niranjancharya has submitted the copy of same letter (Exh.257). ThoughthroughthiswitnessthecopyoflettertoNavyhas been brought on record, but the fact remains that the letter was prepared by Mahesh Tawde by himself at Cochi on 2152008, after gettingupdatefromMumbaion2152008.HadMaheshTavdetaken written letter from Crime Branch, Bandra Unit on 20.5.2008 before leavingMumbai,thencertainly,itwouldhavecontainedthesignatureof SeniorP .I.Butthelatter(Exh.257)goestoshowthatitbearssignatureof MaheshTawde, forSeniorPIofCrimeBranch,whichgoestosupport, the contention of the prosecution. So, nothing material has been broughtonrecordbyaccusedNo.2toshowthatMaheshTavdehadbeen toCochininconnectionwithcrimeofmurderofNeerajGroverandnot inmissingcomplaint. MereMaheshTavdevisitedbyflight toCochin andaccountoffarehasnotbeenexplainedbytheprosecution,cannotbe thegroundtobelievethathehasleftMumbaiforarrestingaccusedand hewasknowingthemurderofNeerajGroveron2052008itself.Much

Judgment -S.C.630-08

-82-

Exh.341

hasbeencrossexaminedbytheld.advocatefortheaccusedonthepoint offareofflightbutIdonotthinkthatthiswillberelevanttofactin issue. Even for the sake of arguments, it is admitted that fare was providedbyAmarnathGrover,itwillnotaffectthecaseonmerit.Letus see whether the prosecution independently proved the recovery of remainsofhumanskeletonattheinstanceofaccusedNo.1. 88. Anotherground,whichhasbeenadvancedbeforemebythe

ld.advocatefortheaccusedNo.1,thatwherefromhumanskeletonwas recovered,wasaccessibletogeneralpublic.Tobuttresshissubmission, heseekstorelyon(Exh.301D)publicationofnewsandphotographsis proved by Ketan Ganja (D.W.8), Nimesh Balkrishna Dave (D.W.11) respectively.Itisadvancedbeforemethatpersonsaregatheredatthe spotandthesaidspotwasopentopublicon2352008andtherefore, thenewswaspublishedon2352008.Accordingtothedefence,thisis thesamespot,whichisappearinginphotograph(Art.22)andaccording totheprosecutionistheplacewherefromhumanskeletonisrecovered. Ihaveverifiedthephotograph(Art.22), producedbytheprosecution, withphoto(Exh.301D), whichisitdoesnot appeartobethesame place in photograph, because in photograph (Exh.301D), one tree is appearing,which isnotinthephotographarticle(22colly).,coupled

Judgment -S.C.630-08

-83-

Exh.341

withtheversionof(D.W.11),thewitnessofaccusedNo.1,itselfgoesto show that he has not taken the photograph of the spot, where from remainsof humanskeletonwererecovered.Evenotherwise,afterthe recovery,ifthespotismadeavailabletoaccesstomediabypolice,itwill notmakeanydifferencetotherecovery,whichwasalreadymadefrom thespot. 89. Itisworthwhiletonotehere thatvariousnewspapersand

TVnewscontainedintheCD(Exh.330)havepublishednewsinrespect ofthiscaseatthetimewhenthecrimewasdetected.Themediawent on publishing, ignoringtheconsequencesofsuchpublicationatpre trial stage. In the present case, certain places and news item, immediately after the date of revealing of crime, appearing in newspapers particularly 'MidDay' (dated 2352008, 2452008, 2552008, and162008Exh.300,301,302,310respectively) causes someconfusioninthemindofgeneralpublicastodescriptionofplaces relevanttothecrime. Notonly that,inRKBshow, ofSaharaSamay, containedinCD(Art.330),andotherTVchannelspublished/telecaston 2152008thatthebodywaschoppedin300pieces,whichisfaraway fromthefactsonrecord.Evenitisnotthecaseoftheprosecutionthat the body was chopped in 300 pieces. It is unfortunate that trial by

Judgment -S.C.630-08

-84-

Exh.341

mediaoutragedthegeneralpeoplebypublishingnewsofchoppingthe bodyin300pieces.Iamunabletounderstandwherefromthefigureof 300piecescame.ThoughitisdeposedbyRahulK.Bajaj(D.W.17)that corrigendum news was broadcast for publishing/telecasting wrong newsof300pieces,butitcaused confusionratheroutraged general public.TheApexcourtinR.A.AnandV/s.DelhiHighCourtreported in(2009)8SCC106, clearlystatedthatitwouldbesaddayforthe courttoemploythemediaforsettingitsownhouseinorderandthe mediatoowouldnotrelishtheroleofbeingthesnoopersforthecourt. Mediashouldperformtheactsofjournalismandnotasaspecialagency forthecourt.Theimpactoftelevisionandnewspapercoverageona person's reputation by creating a widespread perception of guilt regardlessofanyverditinacourtoflaw. 90. Without verifying the facts, media outraged the general

publicinthiscaseatpretrialstage. Thefreedomofspeechprotected underArt.19(1)(a)oftheConstitutionhastobecarefullyandcautiously used, so as to avoid inference with the administration of justice and leadingtoundesirableresultsinthematterssubjudicebeforethecourt. Thoughnotinthiscase,butthemediatrialhamperstheinvestigationas wellasaffectsthedefenceoftheaccused.

Judgment -S.C.630-08

-85-

Exh.341

91.

It is also argued that the place where from remains of

humanskeletonwererecovered besidetheKaccharoadanditisopen place. In various judgments particularly, which is cited by the ld. advocatefortheaccusedNo.2,wherefromtherecoverywasmadefrom near the platform, which was accessible to general public. So, the meaningofopenspacedoesnot necessarilymeanthatnooneshould approachthesaidplace.inbroadsense,itshouldnotbeapublicplace, where from inference can be drawn that the articles which were recoveredfromthespot,wereeasilynoticeabletopublic.Itisalsobeen broughtonrecordthatManorwadaisoutskirtsofMumbaiCityandfar awayfromtheHighWay.within2/3k.m.ofthesaidarea,therewere nohumanhabitationanditisisolatedplace. Itmaybepossiblethat somepersonsmaybypassthatarea.Notonlythisitisalsobroughton recordthattherecoverywassurroundedbyshrubsandfarawayfrom wadaroad,rathertowardsKachharoad.So,itcannotbesaid tobea public open place and accessible to public at large, as interpreted by various High court and Apex courts, while discussing the issue of recoveryu/s.27ofIndianEvidenceAct. Accordingtotheld.advocate foraccused,theaccusedNo.1wasincustodysince18thMay,2008,and duringthisperiod,therecoveryofremainsofhumanskeletonwasdone

Judgment -S.C.630-08

-86-

Exh.341

bypolice.Heseekstorelyoncalldetailreportandaccordingtohimcall detailreportdoesnotshowanyincomingoroutgoingcalltothemobile ofaccusedNo.1andtherefore,shewasincustody.Merefactthatthere isnoincomingoroutgoingcallfromthemobileofaccused,aninference cannot be drawn that she was in custody since 1852008. As such, inspiteofexaminationbydefencewitnesses,particularly(P .W.12),Sunil Damle, (P .W.13) Sanjay Jagdish Sharma, it could not be brought on record that Mahesh Tavde had been to Cochin for arrest of accused No.2, aftercrimeof murderdetectedandwhile leaving,heprepared theletter(Exh.257)on2052008,whichcontainsthefactofmurderof Neeraj Grover. Likewise, the explanation given by (D.W.18) Rakesh Maria, the defence witness regarding information received by him, throughSunilGhosalkar,readilyinferencecanbedrawnthatremainsof human skeleton were recovered prior to 2152008 when there is version of (P .W.5) Usha Ramalu, which is corroborated by Shirsagar (P .W.44),PINalavde(P .W.45),aswellasPIRaorane(P .W.47). Thougha attemptwasmadetocreatedoubtontherecoveryofremainsofhuman skeleton,on2152008,butthedefencecouldnotsucceed. 92. Ld. advocate for the accused No. 1 again seeks to rely on

judgment in the case of ShrikantRamchandraGomkarv/s.Stateof

Judgment -S.C.630-08

-87-

Exh.341

Maharashtrareportedin2006,Bom.C.R.Cri,353. Thisjudgmentis alsoonthesamepointregardingexclusiveknowledgeofaccusedwhile givinginformation,whichIhavealreadyheldthatitisnotapplicableto therecoveryofremainsofhumanskeletoninthepresentcase.Putall together,theprosecutionestablishedthatthereisrecoveryofremainsof humanskeletonfromManorWadaon2152008attheinstanceofthe accusedNo.1.

RecoveryofbloodstainfromflatNo.201andSantrocar. Theprosecution hasexaminedGhanshyamChotelalYadav

93.

(P .W.14),MrLadeAsst.ChemicalAnalyser(P .W.35),Shirsagar(P .W.44) andPINalavde(P .W.45).Itisthecaseofprosecutionthaton2252008, PI Nalavde along with the panchas and the accused No.1 visited flat No.201,expertfromFSLKalinawerealsocalled,whodetectedtheblood ontheknobofbedroomdoor,TVSpeakerofbedroom,curtainofbed roomandouterwallofthekitchen. 94. GhanshyamChotelalYadav(P .W.14)hasdeposedthatwhile

hewasbypassingMaladareaon2252008,aconstabletookhimto4 th floor of Dhiraj Solitare building 'B' Wing and introduced him to Mr. Nalavde. Therewere4/5policepersonsandoneladyconstable. Itis also brought on record through this witness that there was another

Judgment -S.C.630-08

-88-

Exh.341

womaninveil. TheyallwentinsideflatNo.201. Hefurtherdeposed thattherewasmattressinthehall.Descriptionofflathasbeenbrought on record through this witness. It has been also brought on record throughwitnessthatinsidethebedroom,thereisabigwindowhaving slidingdoor,thecurtainsofpinkcolourwerefixedtothewindow,and therewastoiletattachedtothebedroom.Itisfurtherdeposedbythis witnessthattwoexpertsstatingthattheyhavecomefromKalina,came insidetheflat.Therewereredspotlikebloodtotheouterwallofthe kitchen, the expert collected scrapping on red paper and sample scrapingofthepaintwasalsotaken.Itisalsodeposedbythiswitness that there were some red lines spot on the lower part of the curtain insidethebedroom,whichwastakenbyexpertbycuttingthecurtain. Therewasoneredspotlikebood ontheinnerknobofbedroom,the expertcollectedthebloodononeclothpieceandkepttheclothinone sealedpacket.Likewise,oneredspotlikebloodonthefrontportionof TV towards the door side was also collected on cloth piece and accordinglythepanchnamawasdrawnaftersealingthebloodsamples. PI Nalavde (P 45)has alsodeposedon the same line in respect of .W. visinting of expert at flat No.201, of Dhiraj Solitare building and collectingofbloodspotfromouterwallofthekitchen,curtains,door

Judgment -S.C.630-08

-89-

Exh.341

knobandTVspeakerfromthebedroomofflatNo.201. Itisfurther deposedbythiswitnessthatjeans,Halfsleevetshirt,pillowcoverand pairofshoeswerealsorecoveredfromBedroomofflatno.201. The spotpanchnamahasbeenbroughtonrecordthroughGhanshyamYadav (P .W.14)whichisat(Exh.94). 95. The first submission on behalf of the ld. advocate for the

accusedno.1onthespotpanchnamathatthepolicehaveplantedthe blood in flat No.201, as the police had sufficient time. It is further arguedonbehalfoftheld.advocatefortheaccusedno.1thatthereare instancesonrecordtoshowthatthepolicevisitedflatNo.201,priorto 2252008. Accordingtohim, possibilityofplantationofbloodinside theflatNo.201cannotberuledout.Tobuttresshissubmission,theld. advocatefortheaccusedNo.1tookmetocrossexaminationof(P .W.6) KundanJha,whereinithasbeenbroughtonrecordthatinthelatenight of 752008, police visited flat No.201, and even thereafter, for 2/3 times, but police did not find blood in flat no.201. According to prosecution till 2152008 and according to defence between till 20th May, 2008, thepolice was tracking on missing complaint(Exh.138) withregardtomissingofNeerajGrover.Thequestionremainswhenthe police visited flat No.201, prior to 2252008, then why the blood,

Judgment -S.C.630-08

-90-

Exh.341

whichwasnoticedon2252008wasnotnoticeablepriortothat.Ihave gonethroughthepanchnamaaswellasdepositionof(P .W.14).Thespot wherefrom, andinwhichquantitythebloodstainwasdetected,Ido notthink,itwaspossibleforapersontogetthebloodstainnoticedin normalcircumstances,unlessitisseenfromthatpointofview.Butas such, prior to 21.05 2008, no one was knowing that Neeraj was murdered. Therefore, thatmightbepossibility,ratherobviousreason forthepolicefornotinspectingtheflatNo.201veryminutelyandwith thehelpofexpert,priorto2252008.Itisfurtherarguedonbehalfof the ld. advocate for the accused No.1 Sharif Shaik that even there is delayinpreparingspotpanchnama.Accordingtohim,PINalavdewas insidethepolicestationtill10p.m.on2152008anditwaspossiblefor him to go onthespot on2152008 itselffor inspecting the scene of alleged crime. One thing should not be forgotten that, all the investigatingteamtravelledtoandfromManorwada andreturnedto Maladpolicestationatabout6p.m.,andafterrecoveryofarticles,there arevariousprocedurestobefollowed.So,thatmightbethereasonfor notvisitingflatNo.201on2152008.Evenforthesakeofargument,if it is presumed that the police had opportunity to visit the spot on 2152008andinspiteofthat,they chosetovisiton2252008. This

Judgment -S.C.630-08

-91-

Exh.341

factitselfisnotfataltoprosecution,unlessprejudicehavingcausedto theaccusedisshown. 96. Another point which Ld. Adv. for accused no.1 tried to

suggest that the flat was not shown by the accused upon voluntary statementanditwasnotreducedintowriting,thereforethisfactcannot beadmittedu/s27oftheevidenceAct.ForthissubmissiontheLd.Adv. seeks to rely on Judgment in case of Tulsiram Jadhav v/s. State of Maharashtrareportedin2011TLMLL56whereBombayHighCourt hasheldthatrecoverymadebyInvestigationOfficerattheinstanceof the accused, without preparing any document, to show that the said information was reduced into writing, and thereafter, the dead body wasrecovered,thesaidrecoveryisnotadmissible.Iamconsciousofthis legal preposition, but point here is, of spot panchnama and not of recoveryu/s27oftheEvidenceAct.Spotpanchnamaisbeingprepared toshowthesituationofthespot ofcrimeandifanyrecoveryismade fromthespot,isadmissibleasrelevanttofactinissue. (Asthecourttimeisovercaseisadjournedto2962011)
(Dictationofjudgmentresumedon2962011)

97.

Now, let us turn to the case of prosecution regarding

recovery of Santro car. It is the case of the prosecution that on

Judgment -S.C.630-08

-92-

Exh.341

2552008, at the instance of the accused No.1, Santro Car bearing No.MHO4BQ9966cametoberecoveredfromKiranShriyan(P .W.11) andtheprosecutionisrelyingonthisrecoveryu/s.27ofIndianEvidence Actandforthatpurpose,theprosecutionisrelyingonversionofMohd. AyubMohd.Khan(P .W.12),KiranShriyan(P .W.11)andPIRaorane(P .W. 47).Letusseewhattheevidencehasbeenbroughtonrecordinrespect ofthisrecovery. 98. Through Mohd. Ayub Mohd. Khan (P .W.12), it has been

broughtonrecordthaton2552008,oneconstablecalledhimandone Ismile.HetookthemtoPIRaorane(P .W.47.Raoranerequestedthemto act as panchas to voluntary disclosure. He introduced (P .W.12) to accusedNo.1.Accordingtothiswitness,accusedno.1statedthatshewill showthecarandthesaidstatementwasrecordedundermemorandum panchnama (Exh.90A). It is further version of this witness that accusedledpolicepartyandpanchastoMHADA,4Bungalowarea,and thereshepointedoutaSantrocar,bearingNo.MHO4BQ9966. On enquiry,itisrevealedthatcarbelongstoKiranShriyan,wholatteron camethere.Fromtheversionofthiswitness,itappearsthatthepolice seizedabigandtwosmallrubbermats,aswellastwoseatcovers,apart fromwindowprotectionsheets,anddickeymatunderthepanchnama

Judgment -S.C.630-08

-93-

Exh.341

(Exh.90B). 99. KiranShriyan(P .W.11),hasdeposedthattheaccusedNo.1

was introduced to him by his friend Deepak. It is testimony of this witnessthaton752008,atabout12p.m.accusedmadeaphonecall andrequestedhimtolendhiscartoher. Accordingly,accusedNo.1, along with accused No.2 came to him at 3.30 p.m. Accused No.1 introducedhimwiththeaccusedNo.2;hethenhandedoverkeyofhis cartoMariaandaccusedNo.1tookawaythecar.Itisfurtherevidence ofthiswitnessthatshedidnotreturnhiscartill9p.m.Hethenmadea call to her and asked about the car, she stated that she has come to Maladpolicestationtolodgeacomplaintof hermissingfriendNeeraj andwouldreturnthecaronthenextday.Accordingtofurtherversion ofthiswitnessthatonthenextdayatabout10.30,accusedno.1along withtheaccusedNo.2cametohishouseandreturnedhiscar.According tohisversion,atthattimetheaccusedno.2wasdrivingthecar.Itis furtherversionofthiswitnessthatpoliceconstablecametohisplaceon 2552008, he came down; there were other persons apart from Mr. RaoraneandShivalkar. Accusedno.1wasalsowiththemalongwith other woman. Policeaskedabouthiscar,hehandedovercartothem policecutseatcovers,matsandpreparedsomewriting.

Judgment -S.C.630-08

-94-

Exh.341

100.

PI Raorane (P 47) has also deposed on the same line .W.

regardingshowingofcarbyaccusedno.1andseizingofrubbermats, seatcoversandsunprotectionsheets.Ld.advocatefortheaccusedno.1 vehementlyarguedthattheingredientofsection27isnotprovedbythe prosecution. According to him, the accused must have exclusive knowledgeandthepoliceshouldnothaveanyknowledgeinrespectof thefact,thenonlythefactdiscoveredisadmissible. Iamconsciousof the legal position that the statement made by the accused before the policeishitbysection24,25and26oftheIndianEvidenceAct,and therefore,isnotadmissible. Section27isexceptiontosection24,25 and25oftheActof1872.Section27providesAnyfactisdeposedtoas discoveryinconsequenceofinformationreceivedfromaperson,accused of an offence, in the custody of police officer, so much information, whetheritamountstoconfessionornot,asrelatesdistinctlytothefact therebydiscovered,maybeproved.Therefore,word'distinctlytothe fact'ismostimportantingredientofsection27.Thatmeans,theaccused hadexclusiveknowledgeofthesaidfactandtillthedisclosureismade, thepoliceauthoritywerenotknowingthesaidfact. 101. Ld. advocate for the accused No.1 took me to Press

ConferencecontainedinCDheldbythethenJt.CommissionerRakesh

Judgment -S.C.630-08

-95-

Exh.341

Maria(D.W.18)aswellasNewArt.(Exh.300D)publishedinnewspaper (Exh.300), which has been proved by (D.W.8). From the interview containedintheCD,aswellasNewscolumn(Exh.300D),goestoshow thatthereisreferenceofSantrocarinnewscolumn(Exh.300D),which alsogoestoshowthenameofoneKiranShriyan,whichmightbetyping mistake,butfactremainsthatthepolicewereknowingtheSantrocarof Kiran Shriyan, prior to 2552008. Though I.O. Raorane (P .W.47) has deniedthesuggestioninrespectofinterviewcontainedinCDaswellas NewspublishedinMidDayNews,appearing in(Exh.300D),whichis dulyprovedby(D.W.18)and(D.W.8)respectively. Therefore, I find substanceintheargumentsoftheld.advocatefortheaccusedNo.1that police were already knowing in respect of car particularly of Kiran Shriyan. It is also not the case that accused No.1 exclusively was knowing theplacewherethecariskept. Inthe case JafforHussain Dastagir v/s. State of Maharashtra reported in 1971, Mh.L.J., 274, relied by Ld. Adv. for accused no.1. It has been held that essential ingredientofrecoveryu/s.27informationmustbegivenbytheaccused, which leads to discovery of facts and should be direct outcome of information.Inthesaidcase, theaccusedsharedtheinformationand tookto police party to the Airport and showed the person in whose

Judgment -S.C.630-08

-96-

Exh.341

custodythediamondwerelying.Inthatcontext,theHon'bleHighCourt hasheldthatasaccusedhasalreadyinformedthepolicethathehadsold thediamondtootheraccused, however,onlytoknowwhereaboutsof other accused, the accused showed the otherperson with whom the diamondswerelying.Therefore,Hon'bleHighcourtdiscardedrecovery onthegroundthat policewashavinginformation sharedbyaccused earlierthathehadgiventhediamondtootheraccused.Thejudgment of the Apex Court is applicable to this case. As in press conference RakeshMariya,thenJt.Commissioner(D.W.18)hadknowledgeofthe car,coupledwithshowingnameofKiranShreyan(P .W.11)asownerof santrocarinnewscolumn(Exh.300D)Hence,therecoveryofSantro car,cannotbesaidtobeadmissibleu/s.27ofIndianEvidenceAct. 102. Thoughtheprosecutionfailedtoprovethattherecoveryof

thecarwasonlyinpursuanttoinformationsharedbytheaccusedno.1 on25.05.2008andhitbysec.25ofTheEvidenceAct.However,Itis interestingtonotethattheprosecutionhasbroughtsufficientmaterial on record through this prosecution witnesses that car was used by accused Nos. 1 and 2 on 752008. The evidence of Kiran Shriyan (P .W.11),isevidenceonrelevantfact,whichisadmissibleu/s.5ofIndian EvidenceAct.So,thereisdirectevidencewhichhasbeenbroughton

Judgment -S.C.630-08

-97-

Exh.341

recordbyprosecutionregardinglendingofcarby(P .W.11)KiranShriyan to accused No.1 at about 3.30 p.m. on 752008 and accused No.1 returnedthecartoKiran onnextdaymorning. Ld.advocateforthe accusedno.1triedtoharponthecontradictionbetweenversionofKiran Shriyan (P .W.11) and panch Mohd. Ayub Mohd. Khan (P .W.12) to recoveryofseatcovers,footmatsandsunprotectionsheetsofSantrocar. Kiran (P 11) as deposed that police cut the seat covers, mats, .W. whereas,Mohd.AyubMohd.Khan(P .W.12) hasdeposedthattheseat coversandmatswereremovedfromthecar.Inmyview,thisisaminor discrepancy,whichisbound tooccur. Rather,thisdiscrepancygoesto showthattheyarenottutoredwitnesses.KiranShriyan(P .W.11),who happenstobeoneofthefriendofaccusedNo.1,whyhewilldepose falselyagainsttheaccusedNo.1regardinglendingofcarandrecoveryof seatcovers,fourmatsfromhisSantrocar.Itisworthwhiletopointout theversionof SatishSingh(P .W.10)whohasalsodeposedbeforethis courtthatSantrocarwaslyinginthelobbyofDhirajSolitarebuildingat about4.15p.m.andthiswitnesssawtheaccusedNos.1and2,while boardingbagsinthecarandtakingawaySantrocar.Theseatcovers, foot mats and sun protection sheets of Santro Car were sent to FSL KalinaforDNATest.Beforegoingtodealwithscientifictest,letmestate

Judgment -S.C.630-08

-98-

Exh.341

thattheevidenceofShriLadeChemicalAnalyser(P .W.35),goestoshow thatbloodwasdetectedonseatcoversandfourfootmats.

Whether the blood stains found in flat No.201 and on seats coversandfootmatsofSantroCar,isofNeerajGrover?

103.

Now,letusturntomostcrucialpartofcaseofprosecution.

TheprosecutionisheavilyrelyingonDNAtest,whichaccordingtothe prosecutionisaccuratescienceforprovingcariousDNAreportsfiledby the prosecution in its case. Prosecution seeks to rely on version of (P .W.35). Beforeproceedingtodealwiththeevidenceof(P .W.35),let

us seewhethertheDNAreportisadmissibleandcanbesafely relied upon. 104. DNA means Deoxyribo nucleic acid, which is found in

chromosomeofthecelloflivingbeingandisblueprintofaindividual and the identification is 100% precise. According to this witness (P .W.35), the DNA is unique in every individual and there is only exceptiontothisinacaseof monozygotic twins,thattooitisfound veryrare. DNAcollectedfromaperson,canbe preservedfor many years in 0.5 molar of edita. So, according to this witness, DNA is accuratescienceandSTRanalysisisahighsensitiveconclusivetest. 105. Now,letusseewhatthereportspeaksaboutDNAprofileof

Judgment -S.C.630-08

-99-

Exh.341

blood,detectedfromflatNo.201andfromseatcoverandfootmatsof Santrocar. Accordingtothiswitness,hereceivedtwopacketsofscrap paintofwall,apieceofcurtain,andtwodrybloodoncuttingofcloths. According to this witness, out of two scrapping of print, in one scrapping, there was blood. Likewise, both cloth pieces were also containingbloodapartwithpiecesofcurtain.HecouldgetDNAfrom thebloodfromscrapingofpaintand10clothpieces.Hecouldnotget DNA from the blood detected on curtain pieces. He prepared DNA profileofDNAofbloodfoundonpiecesofclothandscrapping(Art.29 A colly.) According to the further version of this witness, in a DNA profileofbloodontwopiecesofcuttingcloth(bloodextractedfromthe doorlatchofbedroomandTVspeaker),DNAofmaleandfemalewas found. Hecompared DNAprofileofbloodofmalefoundonthecloth (bloodextractedfromthelatchofbedroomandTVspeaker)andDNA profileofscrapingwiththeDNAprofileoffemurboneandteethandall 58 STR locus of both DNA profile were matching with each other. Therefore,thiswitnessconcludedthatbloodfoundinscrapping,blood sampleextractedfromthelatchofthebedroomandTVspeakerand clothpieceswereofthesameperson. 106. Likewise,hehasalsodoneDNAprofileoffemalebloodon

Judgment -S.C.630-08

-100-

Exh.341

cutting cloth( blood extracted from latch of the bed room and TV speaker).ThiswitnesshasalsoconductedDNAprofileofbloodsampleof accused No.1. While comparing the DNA profile of female blood detectedonstainedclothpiece,(bloodextractedfromthelatchofthe bedroomaswellasTVspeaker)withDNAprofileofaccusedNo.1,DNA profileofbothwerematching.Accordingly,heconcludedthatthefemale blood foundonlatchofbedroomaswellasTVspeakerisofaccused No.1. Thereporthasbeenbroughtonrecord throughthiswitnessat (Exh.155). Furtherversionofthiswitnessgoestoshowthat hecould detectDNAfromonerexineseatcover(Art.28A)andhecouldnotget DNAfromfootmatsandotherseatcoversofSantrocar.Heconducted DNA profile of blood found on seat cover (Art. 28A), and while comparing theDNAprofileofseatcoverofSantrocar(Art.28A)with DNAprofileof FemurBoneandteeth, heconcludedvidehisreport (Exh.157) that DNA profile of blood detected on rexine seat cover (Art.28A)andDNAprofileoffemurboneandteethareidenticaland fromoneandsamesourceofmaleorigin.So,fromthereport(Exh.155 and Exh. 157) the prosecution has brought on record that the blood detectedinflatNo.201andblooddetectedfromseatcover(Art.28A) areofapersonhavingfemurbone(Art.11)andteeth(Art.46). AsI

Judgment -S.C.630-08

-101-

Exh.341

have held, while discussing the identity of femur bone andteethand concludedthatfemurboneareofNeerajGrover.SothereportofDNA profilesuggestthatthebloodinflatNo.201andblooddetected from seatcoverandmatsofSantrocarisofNeerajGrover. 107. Ld.advocateforaccusedNos.1and2 crossexaminedthis

Expert witness at length. Firstly, they vehemently submitted that the Expertisnotcompetenttoconductthetest.Theothersubmissionofthe ld.advocateforthedefencewasofcontaminationanddegradationof samples. Variousattemptshavebeenmadeinthecrossexaminationof thiswitnesstoshowthatthebloodsample,whichwasreceivedbyhim werecontaminatedanddegradedsamples.Butalltheway,thiswitness hasdeniedtheirsuggestionanddeposedthatifthesampleisdegraded one,DNAwillnotbeamplifiedandprofilecannotbedoneandfurther thiswitnessgoestodeposedthatevenifDNAsampleisdegraded,the DNAtestcanbedoneontheintactSTRlocus,providedsixSTRlocus areintact. So,thedefencecouldnotbringanymaterialinthecross examinationofthiswitnessthatDNAprofilewasnotproperlydoneand thereismistakeorhumanerrorwhileconductingDNAtest. 108. Ld. advocate for the accused No.1 vehemently submitted

thatDNAwasdoneinGovernmentlaboratory,whichisundertheHome

Judgment -S.C.630-08

-102-

Exh.341

Department and therefore, there is possibility of influence of Crime branchOffice.StraightlyinferencecannotbedrawnthattheExperts havemanipulatedthereport,asperwhimsofcrimebranchBandraUnit. Itisalsovehementlysubmittedonbehalfoftheld.advocate forthe accused thatotherlaboratorysituatedatHyderabadorChandigadhas wellasprivatelaboratoriesare thestandard laboratoriesforconduct DNAtest.Noneoftheaccusedcameforwardbeforemewithrequestto repeatDNAtestfromotherlaboratories,onwhichtheywererelyingfor havingstandardforperformingDNAtest.Theversionof(P .W.35)goes to show that he has conducted 600 to 700 DNA tests; he has been trainedbyCDFDHyderabad,andDirectorateofFSLNewDelhi.Hehas also written a book on Forensic biology and various research papers. ThiswitnesshasalsobeenawardedbyallIndiaForensicConferencein KolkataandHyderabad.Sofarassubmissionoftheld.advocateforthe accusedNo.1regardingidentificationofFormofAmarnathGroverand NilamGrover. IhavealreadydiscussedthisissueinpointNo.1. Much hasbeenarguedbytheld.advocatefortheaccusedNo.1that police have sprinkled the blood in flat No.201 as well as in Santro Car of (P .W.11)KiranShriyan.Accordingthedefence,policeinordertofalsely implicate the accused persons, planted blood at flat No.201 and in

Judgment -S.C.630-08

-103-

Exh.341

SantroCar.Nomotivehasbeenbroughtonrecordforwhichthepolice willimplicatetheseaccused,particularlywhenaccusedwerenotknown to the Investigation Officer prior to this case. Apart from it, it was virtuallyimpossibleforthepolicetogetthebloodofaperson,whoisno moreinthisworld. 109. Ld. advocate for accused No.2 Mr. Wahab Khan also

submittedbeforemethatitmightbepossiblethatthebloodofparentsof the deceased might have been sprinkled to implicate the accused. As such, the DNA is accurate science, DNA profile of Amarnath Grover speaksitself. Hadtherebeen bloodofAmarnathGrover,sprinkled in flatNo.201,aswellasonseatcoversofSantroCar,allalleloftheblood detectedfromtheflatNo.201andSantroCarshouldhavebeenmatched withtheDNAprofileofbloodofAmarnathGrover,whichwastakenasa sample.Bothalleleinall15STRlocusofDNAprofileofblooddetected fromTVspeaker,doorlatchofbedroomaswellasseatcoversofSantro Car,donotmatchwithallalleleofcontrolsampleofAmarnathGrover. RatheritshowsthatonealleleisinheritedfromAmarnathGoverand oneallelefromNilamGrover.Thisrulesouteverypossibledoubtshown byld.advocateforaccusedthatthebloodofparentsofNeerajmight havebeensprinkled inflatNo.201aswellasSantroCar. Inthecase

Judgment -S.C.630-08

-104-

Exh.341

beforeAllahabadHigh,inthecaseofDharmadeoYadavv/s.SateofU.P . AllahabadHighCourthadanoccasiontodiscusstheDNA fingerprint wherein,itwasheldthat STRanalysisissensitiveandconclusivetest evenondegradedbiologicalsample.Evenotherwiseifthesamplewas degraded or there was contamination, then there would have been mismatchwhilecomparingwithcontrolsample,whichisnotthecase here.Inviewoftheaforesaiddiscussion,Ihavenohesitationtoconclude thatblooddetectedinflatNo.201,andseatcovers(art.28A)ofSantro car,isofdeceasedNeerajGroverandprosecutionsucceeds inproving thiscircumstance.

Recoveryofchopperknifeandpetrolcan,attheinstanceofthe accusedNo.2.

110.

Itisthecaseofprosecutionthatafterarrestoftheaccused

No.2, on 2452008, the accused No.2 made voluntary disclosure and pursuanttowhich,achopperwasfoundatManorWada. Forproving this circumstance, the prosecution is relying heavily on the versionof (P .W.7)RaviRameshParaband(P .W.47)PIRaorane. 111. Ithasbeenbroughtonrecordthrough(P .W.7)RaviParabthat

on2452008,hehadvisitedBMCoffice,theyweretakingteainsidea hotelnearBMCoffice,onepoliceconstabletookhimandhisfriendto

Judgment -S.C.630-08

-105-

Exh.341

BandraCrimeBranchandintroducedthemtoMr.RaoRane.PIRaorane showed them accused No.2. The accused no.2 confessed regarding murderandstatedthathewillshowthechopperandtheplacewhereit ishidden.Thestatementwasreducedintowriting,whichwassignedby accusedwhichisat(Exh.72A).Itisfurtherversionofthiswitnessthat theaccusedledpoliceparty,himandhisotherfriendtoManorWada. Accordingtohisversion,alltheway,theaccusedNo.2wasdirectingfor destination.Thereafter,thevehiclewasstopped;theaccusedtookthem insidefromtheroad;someburntbusheswerelyingthere,accusedput hishandinitandtookoutaknifelikeasaw. Saidknifewasseized under the panchnama (Exh.72B) and it was sealedwith lakhseal by putting onacardboard.Thiswitnesshasidentified (Art.23)asthe same knife, as according to him, it was recovered at the instance of accusedNo.2.Raorane(P .W.47)hasalsodeposedonthesamelineand corroboratedtheversionofthiswitness. 112. So far as recovery of kitchen knife is concerned, the

prosecutionisrelyingontheversionof(P .W.8)RanjitSureshRajeand againonversionof(P .W.47)PIRaorane.Accordingtotheprosecution,a knifewasrecoveredon162008fromthewaterdrainageofdrybalcony of flat No.201, at the instance of accused No.2 on 162008. The

Judgment -S.C.630-08

-106-

Exh.341

prosecutionisalsorelyingonpanchnama(Exh.81Aand81B)aswell (Art.25)knife. 113. (P .W.8)RanjitRajewhoisshownasapanchtorecoveryand

memorandum of disclosure, has deposed that while he was going to LuckyhotelatBandra,hewascalledbyaconstableinCIDofficeand requestedhimforhelp.ThiswitnesswastakentoCIDunitNo.9andwas introduced to Raorane who in turn showed him accused No.2. Accordingtothiswitness,theaccusedno.2statedthathewillshowand point out the knife and asked to accompany him. Accordingly, panchnama was prepared to that effect at (Exh.81A). This witness signedonthepanchnamaandaccusedNo.2alsosignedon(Exh.81A). Furthertestimonyofthiswitnessgoestoshowthataccusedtookpolice party and panchas including this witness towards link road and thereaftertowardsrightturnfromthedistanceof150meterearlierto linkroad,andnearamultistorybuilding.Thenameofsaidbuildingwas DhirajSolitare.AccusedNo.2tookthemto'B'Wingofthesaidbuilding and went to 4th floor by lift, thereafter to flat No.201 on 4th floor; thereafter the key of the flat was called from the police station; PI Raoraneopenedthelatchandlockbykey;theyallenteredinthehall; accused No.2 took them inside bath room and inside the bath room,

Judgment -S.C.630-08

-107-

Exh.341

therewasadoorandbyopeningdoor,accusedtookthemtodrybalcony. Accusedno.2openedthelidofwateroutletbyhisleg,hethenputhis handinsidetheoutletandtookoutaknifehavingplasticgripandsteel blade which was seized under the panchnama (Exh.81B ) and also sealedwithlabelandlakhseal. TheversionofPIRaorane (P .W.47)is also one and the same as of Ranjit Rane (P .W.8), memorandum panchnama(Exh.81Aand81B)alsocorroboratetheversionof(P .W.8). 114. Sofarasrecoveryofplasticcan(Art.48)isconcerned, the

prosecutionisrelyingonsoleversion of(P .W.47)PIRaoraneandalso reliedonpanchnama(Exh.242Aand242B).Accordingtotheversion of (P .W.47) on 262008, accused No.2 wished to make a voluntary disclosure,therefore,twopanchaswerearranged.AccusedNo.2,made voluntary disclosure to show the plastic can wherein he purchased petrol.InpresenceofpanchasMemorandum(Exh.242A)wasprepared. The panchas also put their signatures on it. As per version of this witness,theaccusedtookthemtoWesternExpressHighwayandfrom TellNaka,theytook'U'turnattheinstanceoftheaccusedNo.2,accused No.2askedthemtostopthevehiclebesidestheHighway.Theaccused No.2alightedfromthevehicleandfromthebushes,besidestheWestern Express High way, accused No.2 took out yellow colour plastic Can

Judgment -S.C.630-08

-108-

Exh.341

(Art.48), which was seized under the panchnama (Exh.242B), which bearssignatureofaccusedNo.2andsignaturesofpanchas. 115. It is submitted on behalf of the ld. APP Shri Kini that

prosecution has proved all the three recoveries at the instance of the accused No.2. Per contra, the ld. advocate for accused No.2 Wahab Khanhasvehementlysubmittedbeforemethattheprosecutioncouldnot provetheserecoveriesandaccordingtohim,thereisagapofmorethan 7 daysbetween the recoveryof chopper (Art.23) and knife (Art.25). According to the ld. advocate for the accused No.2, recovery by the prosecution,inpiecemealmanner,createsdoubtontherecoveryitself andgoestoshowthatthereareonlytwopossibilities,eitherthearticles havebeenplantedbythepoliceorrecoverywasnotvoluntaryandwas under duress and by using third degree method. To buttress his submission, he seeks to rely on case of Kashinath V/s. State of Maharashtra, reported in 1995(1) ALL M.R. page 410 wherein the Hon'bleApexcourthasheldthatthetimelagof8daysbetweenthe recoveryofknifeandbloodstainedclothesatthepointingoutbythe appellantclearlysuggestthattherecoverywasnotinfurtheranceofa voluntarydisclosuremadebytheappellanttothepolice. But instead, wastheresultofduressandthirddegreemethodofthepolice.Hadthe

Judgment -S.C.630-08

-109-

Exh.341

recovery of blood stained clothes were in consequence of voluntary disclosure made by the accused, the same would have been in close proximityoftherecoveryofknife. 116. Letmementionherethat eachcasedependson itsown

facts. WithrespecttothefindingoftheApexcourt,letmemention here that in the said case, before Their Lordship, the panch was not believed for voluntariness of the appellant and in the cross examination, he had admitted that appellant did not say anything in theirpresence.Letusturntothefactsofthepresentcase.Itisnotthe casewherethepanchhassupportedtherecoveryofknifeattheinstance oftheaccusedNo.1.Notonlythat,itisamatterofrecord thatthe accusedNo.2waswelleducatedandwasservingwithIndianNavyasa Lieutenant. Recordalsoshowsthat duringthetrial,whenever,there was any irregularity on behalf of the prosecution, the accused No.2 promptly objected. It is worthwhile to mention here that when the accusedNo.2wastransferredfromAurthur RoadJail Talojajail, on account of security, even then he has taken his objection and filed objection before me at (Exh.134). So, I do not think there is any possibility of duress or using of third degree method by the police against him for gettingrecoveryofknife. Not only that, the accused

Judgment -S.C.630-08

-110-

Exh.341

No.2hadalsofiledWritPetitionagainsttheirregularitiesinjailbefore Hon'bleHighcourt. Therecoverypanchnamaofknife(Exh.81)also bearssignatureofaccusedNo.2.Allthesethings,ruleoutthepossibility ofthreatsbythepolice,usingthirddegreeagainsttheaccusedNo.2. Sofarasapprehensionofld.advocatefortheaccusedNo.2regarding planting of knife is concerned, let me mention here that it has been broughtonrecordthrough(P .W.35)ChemicalAnalyserLadethatblood wasdetectedonkine(Art.25).AllarticleswhichweresenttoFSLKalina forDNAtest,15STRLocuswerefoundby(P .W.35)except(Article25) knife.Hisversionaswellasreport(Exh.160)showsthatinDNAofthe blood,found onknife(Art.25),hecouldgetonly7STRlocus. Had therebeenaplantingofknife,bythepolice,theycouldhaveshownby manipulation,15STRLocusinDNAprofileofbloodon(Art.25)kitchen knife. Not only this, how blood of Neeraj was found on it. So, the possibilityofanyplantationbythepolice,inrespectof kitchenknife (Art.25)isruledout. 117. It has been further argued by the ld. advocate for the

accused No.2 that (Art.25) knife is allegedly recorded from the flat No.201,whichwasinpossessionofaccusedNo.1andaccusedNo.1was alsohavingknowledgeofthesaidknife.Letmestatethatasperversion

Judgment -S.C.630-08

-111-

Exh.341

of (P .W.8), Ranjit Raje, (P .W.47) IO Raorane, as well as recovery panchnama(Exh.81B),itappearsthatknifewasrecoveredfromwater outletofdrybalconyofflatNo.201.Theirversionfurthergoestoshow thattheaccusedNo.2tookouttheknifebyremovinglidofwateroutlet. In these circumstances, knowledge of accused No.1 cannot be readily inferred,unlessitisbroughtonrecord.Inthiscontext,ld.advocatefor theaccusedNo.2seekstorelyonJudgmentofBombayHighCourtina case of ShashikantMahadeoBirjev/s.StateofMaharashtra inCri. Appeal No.246/04, wherein Their Lordships held that there is no evidence in respect of ownership of the shop or the shop exclusively belonging to the accused. Consequently, the presumption that the accusedmustbepresent,whomusthaveplacedtheweapon,cannotbe drawn. 118. The facts of the present case are different than the case,

whichwasbeforetheirLordship.Inthepresentcase,itisallegedbythe prosecution that accused No.2 was present inside flat No.201, and according to the prosecution scene of crime is also flat No.201. Therefore, lookingto the factsandcircumstancesofthepresent case, citationrelieduponbytheaccusedNo.2isnotapplicabletothepresent case.Therefore,whenpossibilityofduressandplantationandrecovery

Judgment -S.C.630-08

-112-

Exh.341

of(Art.25)isruledout,thenIdonotthink,timegapof8daysbetween therecoveryofChopper(Art.23)andrecoveryofknife(Art.25)madethe prosecutioncaseweak. 119. The ld. advocate for the accused No.2 Mr. Wahab Khan

seekstorelyonJudgmentoftheBombayHighCourt, inthecaseof State of Maharashtra v/s. Sundeep Sonu Nehagade in confirmation CaseNo.3/2010,TheirLordshipheldthat: Knifewhichwasrecoveredinthecrimewasakitchenknife andtheinvestigationofficer,perhapswasawarethatknife couldnotbetheweaponusedtocausethefatalheadinjury. I.O.perhapswaslookingforsomeotherhardandblund objecttoconnecttheheadinjuryandthatheclaimstohave recoveredon2022008fromflatNo.602atthebehestof accused.Forthisreason,theirLordshipsdiscardedthe recovery. Againthefactsofthepresentcasearedifferentfromthefacts inthe case,whichwasbeforetheirLordship.Anditiscaseoftheprosecution thattwoweaponswereused;onewasaweaponofassaultandotherfor destruction ofevidence.Hencetworecover,oneof knifeandotherof chopper, is in consonance with the case of prosecution. Further, ld.

Judgment -S.C.630-08

-113-

Exh.341

advocate for the accused No.2, submitted that as it was disclosed by JointCommissionerofPolicewhilebriefingtoMediathatknife was used.Henceitwaswithintheknowledgeofpolicetherefore,recovery ofknifeisnotadmissibleu/s.27ofIndianEvidenceAct.Itappearsthat thereisconfusion. Letmestate thatbymakingvoluntarydisclosure, theplaceofhidingandparticularknife(Art.23)wasshownbyaccused No.2 by taking out knife, of which the accused No.2 had exclusive knowledge. Hence,Idonotfindsubstanceintheargumentsoftheld. advocatefortheaccusedNo.2. 120. Itisfurthervehementlysubmittedbytheld.advocate for

accusedthatthechopper (Art.23)isrecoveredneartheplace,which according to the prosecution is the place of recovery of remains of humanskeleton. Itisnotdisputedthat distancebetweentheplace is 15to20ft.Itissubmittedbytheld.advocatefortheaccusedNo.2that when the police party visited to Manor Wada, at the same place on 2152008,thenitishighlyimprobable forthepolicethatthey could not notice the chopper from the nearby place, particularly when the prosecutionallegedtohaverecoveredthechopperfromburntpatches ofbushes.Tobuttresshissubmission,heseekstorelyontheJudgment of Dinesh V/s. State of Maharashtra reported in 2010 ALL MR

Judgment -S.C.630-08

-114-

Exh.341

wherein,itwasheldthatrediscoveryofplaceofincident,doesnotcome within the purview of section 27 of Evidence Act. In the said case, Investigating Officer came to know about recovery of body from concernedpolicestationinGujarat.Skeletonofthebodywasrecovered and post mortem was also performed. Subsequently, thereafter, the memorandumofpanchnamawasprepared,attheinstanceofaccused, discoveryofplacewheredead bodywasshownanddiscoveredfrom flat. 121. In the said case, the place was already known to the

Investigating Officer and again it was shown to be recovery at the instanceofaccused.So,boththerecoverieswereinrespectofthesame fact,whichisnotthefactinthepresentcase. Ld.APP onthispoint seekstorelyonJudgmentofApexCourtreportedin2011(Cri)33SCC whereinitisheldthatmerelybecausetherecoverywasmadefromthe sameplace,whichwasalreadyvisitedbythepolice,thatwoulditselfnot dispeltheevidenceofdiscoveryandrecovery.InviewoftheJudgment of Apex Court, I do not find any force in the arguments of the ld. advocatefortheaccusedNo.2thatotherrecoverycannotbemadefrom theplacewherefromtheearlier recoverywasmade. Therefore,the recoveryofchopperattheinstanceoftheaccusedNo.2,fromtheplace,

Judgment -S.C.630-08

-115-

Exh.341

whichwasvisitedbythepoliceon2252008,cannotbesaidtobefatal tothepresentcase,particularlywhenthechopperwastakenfromthe burntbushes. 122. Itisfurthersubmittedonbehalfofthedefencethatevenif

referenceofchopperandknifeisproved,thatbyitselfdoesnotconnect theaccusedwiththecrime. Iwilldealwiththissubmissionoftheld. advocatefortheaccusedNo.2littlelater.Letusfirstturntorecoveryof plasticcan(Art.38).Admittedly,nopanchashavebeenexaminedbythe prosecutioninrespectofthisrecoveryandthisrecoveryisshownfrom theplaceadjacenttoWesternExpressHighWay,wherefrompublicpass every daytotheirhousesanditisnotisolatedplace. Furthermore, panchnama(Exh.242A)doesnotbearsignatureofaccusedNo.2asin caseoftherecoveryofchopper(Art.23)andknife(Art.25).Forthese reasons,therecoveryofplasticcanfromthebushes,adjacenttoWestern ExpressHighway,donotinspireconfidencetobelivethattheplasticcan (Art. 48) was recovered at the instance of accused No.2. So,inthe absenceofsignatureofaccusedatExh.242A,andnonexaminationof panchascreatedoubtontherecoveryofCane(Art.48). HomicidalDeath: 123. In the present case, the prosecution could recover the

Judgment -S.C.630-08

-116-

Exh.341

remainsofhumanskeleton.NopostmortemreportofdeceasedNeeraj isonrecord. Ld.advocatesfortheaccusedNos.1and2vehemently submittedthatprosecutionfailedtoprovehomicidaldeathofNeeraj. Itisfurthersubmittedonbehalfoftheld.advocatesforaccusedNos.1 and 2 that no case of homicidal death of deceased Neeraj has been broughtonrecord,rathernotprovedbytheprosecution.However,the blood,foundfromtheflatNo.21;onseatcoversandmatsfromSantro Car; on Chopper (Art.23); and knife (Art.25), is proved by the prosecutionasthatofNeerajGrover.IfthebloodofdeceasedNeerajis found on the knife (Art.25) and Chopper (Art.23) coupled with photograph(Art.22) which shows the remains of Neeraj i.e. ribcage, femurbone,skullandotherbones.AllthesearticlessuggestthatNeeraj metwithhomicidaldeath. Apexcourtinthecaseof RamanandV/s. State of Himalchal Pradesh reported in 1981(1) S.C. page 859 observedthat: Thismeansthatbeforeseekingtoprove thattheaccusedistheperpetratorofthemurder,it mustbeestablishedthathomicidaldeathhasbeen caused.Ordinarily,the recoveryofthedeadbody ofthevictimoravitalpartofit,bearingmarksof violence, is sufficient proof of homicidal death of

Judgment -S.C.630-08

-117-

Exh.341

thevictim. TherewasatimewhenundertheoldEnglish Law,thefindingofthebodyofthedeceasedwas heldtobeessentialbeforeapersonwasconvicted of committing his culpable homicide. I would neverconvict,saidSirMathewHale,apersonof murderofmanslaughterunless the fact were provedtobedone,oratleastthebodywasfound dead.Thiswasmerelyaruleofcaution,andnot of law.Butinthosetimeswhenexecutionwas the only punishment for murder, the need for adhering to this cautionary rule was greater. Discoveryofthedeadbody ofthevictimbearing physicalevidenceoftheviolence,hasneverbeen considered as the only mode of proving the corpusdelictiinmurder.Indeed,verymanycases are of such a nature where the discovery of the dead bodyis impossible. Ablindadherence to this old body doctrine would open the door wideopenformanyaheinousmurderertoescape withimpunitysimplybecausetheywerecunning and clear enough to destroy the body of their victim. In the context of our law, Sir Hale's enunciationhas tobeinterpreted nomorethan theemphasising thatwherethedeadbodyofthe victiminamurdercaseisnotfound,othercogent

Judgment -S.C.630-08

-118-

Exh.341

andsatisfactoryproofofthe homicidaldeathof thevictimmust beadducedbythe prosecution. Suchproofmaybebythedirectocularaccountof aneyewitness,orbycircumstantialevidence or byboth. ButwherethefactofcorpusdelictiI.e. homicidal death is sought to be established by circumstantial evidence alone, the circumstances must be of a clinching and definitive character unerringlyleadingtotheinferencethatthevictim concernedhasmetahomicidaldeath.Evenso,this principleofcautioncannotbe pushedtooforas requiringabsoluteproof.Perfectproofisseldom to be had in this imperfect world, and absolute certaintyisamyth.Thatiswhy,underSection3of theEvidenceAct,afactissaidtobeproved,if the Court considering the matters before it, considersitsexistencesoprobablethataprudent manought,undercircumstancesoftheparticular case, to act upon the supposition that it exists. Thecorpusdelictiorthefactofhomicidaldeath, therefore, can be proved by telling and inculpatingcircumstanceswhichdefinitelyleadto theconclusionthatwithinallhumanprobability, the victim has been murdered by the accused concerned. 124. So,fromtheobservationsmadebytheApexCourt,corpus

Judgment -S.C.630-08

-119-

Exh.341

delictiorthefactsofhomicidaldeath,evencanbeprovedbytellingan inculpatingcircumstance,whichdefinitelyleadstotheconclusionthat withinallhumanprobability,thevictimhasmethomicidaldeath.As statedabove,theaforesaidcircumstance onlyleads totheconclusion thatthedeceasedNeerajmetwithhomicidaldeath. ConspiracyandMotive 125. Now,letusturntomotivepartofthecase,onwhich,the

prosecutionisheavily relying.Asmotive andcriminalconspiracyare interconnectedwitheachotherandfindingoneachissuewoulddepend uponthefindingofotherissue,thereforeIwoulddiscussedbothissues together. It is case of the prosecution that accused no.1 was feeling cheatedbydeceasedNeerajanddeceasedNeerajwasbluffingwithher and using her, only on the pretext of providing role in TV serial. Therefore,accusedNo.1washavinggrudgeoverdeceasedNeerajand accordingtotheprosecution,thisisthemotivebehindthemurderof deceasedNeeraj,bytheaccusedpersons.Therefore,accusedNo.1and2 hatched criminal conspiracy to eliminate deceased Neeraj and in pursuanttocriminalconspiracy,on6.5.2008accusedno.1calledNeeraj Groverbymakingphonecalltohimtoherflatat201/BDhirajSolitare. Thereafteraccusedno.1calledaccusedno.2fromCochinandinmorning

Judgment -S.C.630-08

-120-

Exh.341

of7.5.2008bothofthemmurderedNeerajatflatno.201/B. 126. Accordingtotheld.advocatesfortheaccusedNos.1and2,

hadtherebeenanyconspiracybetweentheaccusedpersons,theaccused wouldhavepreparedformurderofdeceasedNeerajbypreplaningwith thepreparation ofweaponsandbytakingdeceasedNeerajtoisolated place.Itisfurthersubmittedonbehalfoftheld.advocatesforaccused thatthecircumstancesoftheprosecutioncase,itselfspeakthatthereis nocriminalconspiracybetweentheaccusedpersonstoeliminateNeeraj. 127. Iamconsciousoftheprepositionthatthedirectevidenceto

criminalconspiracyishardlyavailableandthecriminalconspiracyisto begatheredfromthesurroundedcircumstancesofthecaseandconduct oftheaccusedperson.Fromtheprovedcircumstancethecourtcaninfer theexistenceofconspiracy. 128. Admittedly,itisthecase ofprosecutionitselfthataccused

No.2is adefencepersonandhe, suddenlyflewtoMumbai,without obtainingleavefromNavalBase,Cochin.Itwasveryeasytocomewith preparationofmurderbybringingweaponwithhimself.Butitisnotthe case of prosecution that the accused No.2 had visited Mumbai with preparation or with any weapon of assault to eliminate deceased Neeraj. Furthermore, itisthecaseofprosecutionthataccusedNo.

Judgment -S.C.630-08

-121-

Exh.341

calleddeceasedNeerajatherhomebymakingcalltodeceasedNeeraj,in thenightof652008.ButcalldetailsreportshowsthatitisNeerajwho madecalltoaccusedNo.1onhermobile. So,thecalldetail recordis contrarytothecaseofprosecution.Asperthecaseofprosecution,after murder, the accused no.1 went to Hypercity Mall for purchase of Big Knife(Art.23)andbagforthepurposeofdisposingbodyofNeeraj;She also borrowed car from Kiran Shriyan. These circumstances itself go contrarytothetheoryofconspiracy.Hadtherebeenconspiracy,accused wouldhavepreparedallthinginadvance.Mostimportantcircumstance which goes against the theory of prosecution regarding conspiracy, is weapon of assault, Kitchen Knife (Art.23). According to prosecution kitchenknife,wasusedtokillNeerajGrover.Iamunabletodigestthe theoryofprosecutionofconspiracy.Ifitisapreplannedmurderthen accusedwouldnothaveusedkitchenknife.Theaccusedno.2whowas thenservinginNavy,whocouldhaveeasilyarranged theweaponof assaulttogivedefinitedesigntoconspiracy. 129. Ld.advocateforaccusedNo.1vehementlysubmittedthatthis

cannotbethemotiveforaccusedNo.1,whohad cometoMumbaito footholdintheentertainmentindustry. Accordingto theLd.advocate fortheaccusedNo.1,thisisverytrivialissueandnoperson,inallhuman

Judgment -S.C.630-08

-122-

Exh.341

probability,wouldcommitmurder.Ld.advocateforaccusedNo.2also vehementlysubmittedthattheprosecutionhascomeupwithfalsecase ofmotive.Again,ithasbeenbroughtonrecordthattheaccusedNo.1 hadvisitedMumbaiinthelastweekofApril,2008.Fromtherecord,it appearsthatfriendshipofaccusedNo.1anddeceasedNeerajwereonly of 10 days old and if according to the case of prosecution, deceased NeerajwastryingforroleinTVSerialforaccusedNo.1,thenwhyinthe passageofonlyaweekorfortnight,accusedno.1wouldgetfrustrated, whenusuallyittakesconsiderabletimetogetaroleinTVserial.Very important aspect of the case is that the prosecution has not brought anything on record to show the grudge of accused no.1 over Neeraj, ratherprosecutioncamewithacaseofintimacybetweenaccusedno.1 andNeeraj.Notonlythis,theLd.advocatefortheaccusedNo.1tookme evidence in respect of Press Conference, which is proved by defence through(P .W.18)RakeshMaria.Inhisinterviewdated21.5.2008during investigationprocess,hebriefedmedia,thecaseasoftriangular love story.Apartfromit,thetheoryofconspiracyofprosecutionhasfailed. Thereforelookingtothecircumstanceofthecase,theweaponofassault i.e. kitchen Knife, the theory of motive which is brought by the prosecutiondoesnotseemtobeprobable.Pursuanttowhich,theoryof

Judgment -S.C.630-08

-123-

Exh.341

criminalconspiracy, which isputforwardbytheprosecution,onlyon thecalldetailsbetweentheaccusedNo.1and2on652008fails.Had therebeenplantoeliminatedeceasedNeeraj,inpursuancetocriminal conspiracy between the accused No.1 and 2, then why accused No.2 wouldhavecalledonthemobileofdeceasedNeeraj.Therefore,Ifind substanceintheargumentsofLd.advocatesforaccusedNos.1and2 thattheaccusedNo.1hadnomotiveformurderofdeceasedNeerajand therewasnoconspiracybetweentheaccusedNos.1and2. 130. Now, let us see whether the circumstances, which are

broughtonrecordbytheprosecutionwouldleadtotheconclusionthat deceasedNeerajwasmurderedbyboththeaccusedoranyoneofthem andwhetherfailureonthepartofprosecutiontoprovethemotiveand conspiracy,affectsthecaseofprosecution.

131.

Tocompletethechainorformthechainofcircumstances,the

prosecutionhasexamined VinodKumarMishra(P .W.13) DhirajKukar Shukla (P .W.15) and Kamlesh Premchand Jain (P .W.16). The prosecutionhasalsoexaminedVivekJyotibhushanTiwari(P .W.19)and Vaishali More (P .W.20) to prove the visit of the accused No.1 and

Judgment -S.C.630-08

-124-

Exh.341

purchase of Big Knife (Art.23). According to the prosecution, the accused No.1 with intention to cause disappearance of evidence of murderofNeerajGrover,visitedHypercityMallandpurchasedcurtains, roomfreshener andbreadknifefor choppingthebodyofdeceased Neeraj. 132. IthasbeenbroughtonrecordthroughVivekTiwari(P .W.19)

that he was serving as a cashier on 752008 in Hypercity Mall at Malad.Accordingtothiswitness,aspersystemofMall,acustomerhas toselecttheitemandthereafterhastocometothecashcounter;hehas toshowarticlespurchasedtothecashier;thecashierthenmakesentry inthecomputeronthebasisofbarcode;the amount automatically enters as per barcode. According to this witness, a girl came to his counteratabout12.30p.m.;shetookbedsheetofmarooncolourand cametocashcounterandshowedthosearticlestohim;hethenscanned barcodeofthesaidarticles,however,thegirlreturnedcomb;thereafter, thiswitnesshaspreparedbillfortheamountofRs.599/.Accordingto thiswitness,saidamountwaspaidbythesaidgirlbyusingdebitcardof HSBCbank.Thiswitnesshasidentifiedthesaidgirl,asaccusedNo.1in thedock.Accordingtotheprosecution,thiswitnesshasalsoidentified accused No.1 in TI parade dated 1462008 conducted by (P .W.23)

Judgment -S.C.630-08

-125-

Exh.341

SharadVichare. 133. Fromthemouthof(P .W.20),VaishaliMore,ithasbeenalso

broughtonrecordbytheprosecutionthatonthesameday,theaccused No.1purchasedtravelingbag,roomfreshner,curtainsandbreadknife, havingbarcodeof100000432. It isdeposedby(P .W.20)thatinthe afternoon, one lady came to cash counter to pay the amount of the articles,whichshepurchased. Accordingtodepositionofthiswitness, accusedNo.1purchasedcurtainsofpinkcolor,breadknife,luggagebag and room freshner ; total amount of said articles was Rs.1776. Accordingly,shepreparedbill.shegaveherRs.2000/andthiswitness hadtopayRs.224/afterdeductingbillamount;butastherewasno change,sheaskedfor4rupeeschange;onthispoint,theladycustomer toldher that 'thisisallnonsense'. Thiswitnesshowevertookchange fromadjacentcounterandgaveherRs.224.Thiswitnessalsoidentified thesaidladyasaccusedNo.1inthedock.Accordingtotheprosecution, thiswitnessidentifiedtheaccusedno.1inthetestidentificationparade dated1462008. 134. Thedefencehasinitiallydisputedthe visitofaccusedNo.1

to Hypercity Mall, however, by examining (D.W.3) Maria Vironica Susairaj,Ithasbeenbroughtonrecordthaton752008,shehadbeen

Judgment -S.C.630-08

-126-

Exh.341

toHypercityMallalongwith(D.W.3)hersisterMariaVeronicaSusairaj. HDFCBankswappingslipofHyperCityMall(Art.40)alsogoestoshow that there was purchase for Rs.599/ on Debit Card no.4346765087879915 of HDFC Bank. HDFC Debit card no.4346765087879915 has been brought on record (Art.42), which bearsnameofAccusedno.1.ThiscardAdmittedlybelongstoAccused no.1. Therefore the version of Vivek Tiwari gets corroboration from HDFCswapSlipofHypercityMall(Art.40)thaton7.5.2009atabout 12.30P .M.accusedno.1visitedHypercityMall.Theprosecutionhas also produced the copy of invoice of Hypercity Mall, which is been regularlymaintainedbyHypercityMall.TheInvoicewasalsobrought onrecordas(Art.41),whichhasbeenissuedinthecourseofbusinessby Hypercity Mall, which is admissible u/s. 32 of Indian Evidence Act. Therefore, this bill also goes to corroborate the version of (P .W.20) VaishaliMorethattheaccusedno.1purchasedBags.Itisalsoarguedon behalfoftheld.advocatefortheaccusedNo.1thatitwasnotpossible forVaishaliMoretoidentifytheaccusedbecauseusually,thereusedto bevariouscustomerswhovisitthemalleveryday,but examinationin chief ofthiswitnessgoestoshowthattherewereexchangeofwords between this witness andaccused No.1. This might be reason for the

Judgment -S.C.630-08

-127-

Exh.341

witnesstoidentifytheaccusedno.1.TheTIparadedated1462008of accusedNo.1isalsodisputedand(P .W.23)hasbeencrossexaminedat lengthtoshowthatnoidentificationparadewasconductedinpresence ofthesewitnesses. 135. TheaccusedNo.1hasexamined(D.W.2)and brought on

recordthejailregisterofBycullajail,where,accordingto(P .W.23),test identificationparadewasheld.Bareperusalofthisregistergoestoshow show that there are entries in respect of entrance of Sharad Vichare (P .W.23),witnessestomemorandumpanchnamaaswellasentranceof VivekTiwari(P .W.19)and VaishaliMore(P .W.20)insidejail. So,this document rules out any possibility of not conducting TI parade in presenceofpanchas.Muchhasbeenarguedonthisaspectbythedefence thatTIparadewasnotconductedbeforethepanchas,rather Sharad Vichare(P .W.23)wascrossexaminedatlengthonlyonpanchas, butat theendofday,theentriesinJailRegisters(Exh.285)washedtheentire crossof SharadVichare(P .W.23)byadvocatefortheaccusedNo.1in respectofthepanchastoTIParade. 136. ProsecutionhasalsoexaminedRajendraBagwani,employee

ofHypercityMall.Hehadproducedbeforethepolicechopper(bread knife)havingbarcode100000432(Art.43).Accordingtothiswitness,in

Judgment -S.C.630-08

-128-

Exh.341

HypercityMall,thearticlehavingbarcode No.100000432isabread knife. It will be worthwhile to note here the evidence of Rajendra Ramchandra Malve(P .W.36)Asst.ChemicalAnalyserofFSLKalinato whom (Art. 23) chopper and (Art.43), sample chopper were sent for clinicalexamination. Itisdeposedbythiswitnessthatafteranalysing, he found hue(appearance) physical dimension and composition of metal and both Big knife(Chopper) (Art.23) and sample chopper(big Knife)(Art.43)areoneandsamebyreportdated2162008(Exh.170). Therefore,billofHypercityMall(Exh.110)ofbigknife(Art.23),the versionof(P .W.36)Malvealsocorroborateversionof(P .W.20)Vaishali MorethattheaccusedNo.1madepurchaseofsportbag,breadknife, chopper,roomfreshnerandcurtainsfromHypercityMallon752008. 137. Itisalsothe caseof prosecutionthatafterreturningfrom

Manor,theaccusedNo.1wenttotheshopofKamleshPremchandJain (P .W.16), whodealswithmattresses. Itisbrought bytheprosecution thatonthenextday,theaccusedNos.1and2visitedshopofKamlesh Jain (P .W.16) for selection of cloth of mattress covers. Kmalesh Jain (P .W.16) has testified that when he was at his shop, which is also at ChincholiBunderroad,onegirlcametohisshopforchangeofcoverof mattresses. He told the said girl to give her name and address; she

Judgment -S.C.630-08

-129-

Exh.341

insistedtosendapersonwithherandshewillstateabouttheworkto saidperson.Therefore,onhisdirections,SadikramandMehboobwent there and brought two mattresses, both had no covers. It is further versionofthiswitnessthaton852008,atabout11to11.30a.m.,said lady again came to his shop, a young smart boy was with her; they inquiredabouttheworkoftwomattresses,bothhaddiscussionandthey selectedclothforpreparingthecovers.LadystatedhernameasMaria andaddressas B201,DhirajSalitareandaccordinglyhetoldtowrite herandaddresstohisorderly. Thiswitnesshasidentifiedinthecourt thesaidladyandayoungsmartboyasaccusedNos.1and2respectively. Thiswitnesshasbeencrossexaminedbydefence,muchonthepointof insertion of entry (Exh.98) in order book (Art.39) at the instance of police. I have held that the entry (Exh.98) does not appear to be insertedlatteron.MuchhasbeenarguedonthepointofTIparade,but inviewofearlierreasons,onthesamepoint,Idonotfindsubstancein theargumentsoftheld.advocatefortheaccusedNo.1thatTIparade was notproperlyconducted. Notonlythat,theentryat(Exh.98)in order book (Art.39) also corroborate the version of Kamlesh Jain (P .W.16). 138. In order to show that the accused attempted to cause

Judgment -S.C.630-08

-130-

Exh.341

disappearanceofevidenceandtocompletethechainofcircumstances, Dheeraj Shukla (P .W.15) has been examined. Through this witness, accused No.1 got the passage painted to conceal the blood spots appearingonouterwallofkitchen. Thiswitnesshastestifiedthathe knows the accused No.1. The evidence of this witness is already discussed with the conclusion that accused No.1 got flat through this witnessfromEstateAgentSandeshShirke (P .W.23). Accordingtothis witness, he is paintingContractorand he helped the accusedNo.1 in gettingflatNo.201atDeerajSolitare.Letusseewhatthiswitnesshas deposed ontheincidentof 752008and852008. Accordingtothis witness, at about 9 to 9.30 p.m., on 752008, accused No.1 made phonecalltohimandshowedherwishtopaintflatNo.201. Shealso told him to come with labourers and painters on the next day. Accordingly,heandhispainterMohd.Shaifwenttotheflatonthenext dayatabout10to10.30a.m.;agrilwasthereinsidetheflat;sheleftthe flatandwenttootherflatonthesamefloor.Aboyof2526yearsold wasintheflat.AftertalkingtoaccusedNo.1,theamountofthepainting wasfixed.AccusedNo.1toldhimthatbedroomshouldbepaintedfirst. Thiswitnesshasidentified theboywhowaspresentinthesaidflatas theaccusedNo.2inthedock.Itisfurthertestimonyofthiswitnessthat

Judgment -S.C.630-08

-131-

Exh.341

onenteringinthebedroom,hefoundsomeblackspotonthewalland onouterwallofbathroom.Itisfurthertestimonyofthiswitnessthathe askedMariaastothespots,astheflatwasrecentlygiventoherandthe spotswerenotthere;Mariagaveexplanationtohimthatspotsoccurred whileshiftingthearticles. 139. Itissubmittedonbehalfoftheld.advocatefortheaccused

SharifShaikhthatwitnessisplantedbythepolicetocompletethechain ofcircumstance.LetmestatethatthisflatwastakenbyaccusedNo.1 withthehelpofDheerajShukla(P .W.15).Notonlythat,hisversionis corroboratedby MayuriPrajapati(P .W.2),whohappenstobeneighbor friendofaccusedNo.1,assheinherdeposition,hasdeposedthatwhen on 852008, she visited the flat of accused No.1, the painter arrived there. Though it has been brought on record that there is some omissioninrespectofword'painter'and'painters'Idonotthinkthat saidomissionisofmuchsignificancetodiscardthetestimonyofMayuri Prajapati (PW.2)and DeerajShukla(P .W.25), andthereisnoreason whythiswitnesswilltestifyfalsely. Hence,Idonot findforceinthe arguments of the ld. advocate for the accused No.1 that this witness cannotbebelieved. 140. Let us turn to other witness, which has been examined to

Judgment -S.C.630-08

-132-

Exh.341

connect the accused No.2 for causing disappearance of evidence of killingofdeceasedNeerajandtocompletethechainforestablishingthe chargesofmurderagainsttheaccusedNos.1and2. Itisthecaseof prosecution that while proceedingto ManorWada, the accusedNo.2 purchasedpetrolfromVinodKumarRamMishra(P .W.13);likewise,itis furthercaseoftheprosecutionthataccusedNo.2alsopurchasedlighter from AmarBahadurYadav(P .W.22).Letusseewhathasbeenbrought onrecordthroughdepositionofthiswitness. 141. AccordingtoVinodkumarRamMishra(P .W.13),heworksat

PetrolPumpofPatkarbrothersatLokhandwalaAndheri(East)andhe usedtofillpetrolinthecarandusedtocollectmoneyfromthecustomer. Hewasondutyon752008from8a.m.to8p.m.;apersonagedabout 25 to 26 years of age, came to Petrol pump at about 4 to 4.30 p.m. havingaplasticcanwithhim;hetoldthiswitness thathisvehicleis lying4/5k.m.awayandpetrolisover,andtherefore,herequestedhim togivehimpetrolinhisplasticcan.Initially,herefused,however,said personshowedhisidentitycardandstatedthatheisabigofficerfrom Navy and his wife is sitting in the car; therefore, on his request, he delivered 5 liter petrol to him in a plastic can. This witness has identifiedthesaidboyasanaccusedNo.2sittinginthedockandasper

Judgment -S.C.630-08

-133-

Exh.341

memorandumpanchnama; thiswitnesshasalsoidentifiedtheaccused No.2 in TI parade held in Aurthur Road Jail, before Sharad Vichare (P .W.23). This witness has been crossexamined at length and in the crossexamination,thiswitnessstoodwiththereasonsofidentifyingthe accusedNo.2,asheshowedhisidentitycard.Ithasbeensuggestedto thiswitnessthattheidentitycardcannotbeboardedinwallet.Butapart from the suggestion, nothing has been brought on record. Rather his version gets corroboration from Mrs. S.A. Shinde (P .W.37), Assistant ChemicalAnalyser,whoexaminedthearticleswhichwererecoveredby the police from the place, where from the remains of skeleton were recoveredon2152008,attheinstanceofaccusedNo.1.Hertestimony andreport(Exh.176)goestoshow presenceof petrolresiduesonall articles,whichwererecoveredfromthespot. Thoughanattempthas been madethat after catchingfire, it willnot be possible to get the residues of petrol on the articles but this witness has denied the suggestion. 142. Anothersubmission,whichismadebytheadvocateforthe

accused Nos. 1 and 2 is that, his name was published in MidDay Newspaperdated2752008in(Exh.302B).So,accordingtodefence, theprosecutionwasknowingthenameofwitnesson2752008andhis

Judgment -S.C.630-08

-134-

Exh.341

statementisrecorded,muchafter2752008.Sumandsubstanceofthe argumentsoftheld.advocatefortheaccusedisthatthereisdelayin recordingstatementofthiswitness.Firstofall,thenamesappearingin thenewscolumnaredifferent,andIdoubtthecompleteauthenticityof news.SecondlythestatementsofKiranShriyan(P .W.11),andKamlesh Jain (P .W.16)are recorded on 25.5.2008 i.e. within 4 days. Even otherwisenoprejudiceisshowntohavebeencausedtotheaccusedand thiswitnesseswereavailableforcrossexamination,theirversionsgets corroborationfromthecircumstances.RatherinacaseStateofU.P .V/s. Satish(supra)reliedbytheaccusedno.2,theapexcourtheldthatifno explanationissoughtfromthewitnessregardingdelayinrecordingthe statement of the witnesses, the defence cannot get help of the said situation and defence in specific term has not sought explanation for delayinrecordingthestatementofthiswitnesses,from PIRaorane(P .W.47). 143. Anotherwitness AmarBahadurYadav(P .W.22)hasdeposed

thatherunsaPanshopatMumbaiAhmedabadHighwayonek.m.away fromTelnaka,WadeRoad;heusedtosellPanbidi,cigarette,lighterand otherbeverage. Heusedtoopenhisshopat8a.m.andusedtocloseat 8p.m.Furthertestimonyofthiswitnessshowsthaton752008,hewas

Judgment -S.C.630-08

-135-

Exh.341

sittinginhisshopbetween6.30to7p.m.;onepersonagedabout25/26 yearscameanddemandedlighter.Thiswitnessaskedhimtowaitfor5 minutesashehadtosearchlighter;thereafterthiswitnessgavelighter tothesaidperson.Accordingtothiswitness,hehadtosearchthelighter because,itwasthelastpieceoflighterin hisshop. Thiswitnessalso identifiedaccusedNo.2asthesameperson,whohadpurchasedlighter fromhisshopon752008. Memorandumpanchnamadated572008 alsogoestoshowthatthiswitnessidentifiedaccusedNo.2inTIparade. Thiswitnesshasbeencrossexamined onthepointof memory.This witness remains firm with the explanation that it was a last piece of lighterwith him andtherefore, he made accusedNo.2 to wait for5 minutes.ThisisthereasonshownbyhimtoidentifytheaccusedNo.2. ThiswitnesswasnotknowingaccusedNo.2priorto752008andthere is no reason why this witness will depose against the accused No.2. Anotherpossibility,whichtheadvocateforaccusedNo.2apprehendsthat at the instance of police, this witness has been planted. Inference cannotbedrawnreadily.WhythepolicewillimplicatetheaccusedNo.2, particularly when the accused No.2 was not known to the police. No motiveofthepoliceforfalseimplicationhasbeenbroughtonrecord. Therefore,Idonotfindsubstanceintheargumentsoftheld.advocate

Judgment -S.C.630-08

-136-

Exh.341

for accused No.2, and by crossexamination, the testimony of this witnessisnotshaken.Hence,inspiresconfidenceofthecourt. 144. Now, let us summarize the circumstances, which the

prosecutionwasabletoprove:

therelationshipbetweenthedeceasedandaccusedNo.1; Theconcernofaccusedno.1withflatNo.201inDhiraj Solitarebuilding; VisitofdeceasedNeerajGroveratflatNo.201inthenight of652008; TalkbetweentheaccusedNos.1and2on652008; ExchangeofcallsbetweenaccusedNo.2onmobileof deceasedNeeraj; AccusedNo.2suddenlyflewtoMumbai,withoutobtaining leavefromNavyBase; Visit of accused No.2 to flat No.201 in the morning of 752008; PuttingthebagsinSantrocaratthelobbyofDhirajSolitare building; RecoveryofremainsofdeceasedNeerajatManoratthe instanceofaccusedNo.1; FindingofbloodstainsofdeceasedNeerajinflatNo.201 aswellasinSantrocar; RecoveryofchopperattheinstanceoftheaccusedNo.2and findingofbloodofNeerajonchopper;

Judgment -S.C.630-08

-137-

Exh.341

Recoveryofweaponofassaultkitchenknife(Art.25)atthe instanceofaccusedNo.2havingbloodofdeceasedNeeraj. So,letusseewhetherallthesecircumstances,alongwiththe

145.

deposition of prosecution witnesses, Vindo Mishra (P .W.13), Dhirajkumar Shukla (P .W.15), Kamlesh Jain (P .W.16), Vivek Tiwari (P .W.19),VaishaliMore(P .W.20)andAjaybahadur(P .W.22),completes thechain ofcircumstances,wherebytheonlyinference inrespectof guilt of accused persons can be drawn. From the aforesaid circumstances, if they all put together, one thing is crystal clear that deceased Neeraj died at flat No.201, of Dhiraj Solitare building. Likewise,thecircumstancesthatbloodofNeerajGroverwasfoundin Santro Car; Keeping bags in Satnro car by the accused no. 1 and 2; Santrocarwasusedbytheaccusedno.1and2;andremainsofNeeraj wererecoveredfromManorWadaattheinstanceoftheaccusedNo.1; coupledwithversionof(ProsecutionwitnessesNo.13,15,16,19,20and 22),theonlyinferencewhichcanbedrawnisthattheaccusedNos.1 and2withintentiontocausedisappearanceofbodyofdeceasedNeeraj, tookthebodyofdeceasedNeerajinSantrocarandthebodywasseton fireatManorWada.Sothecircumstancesunerringlypointingtowards theguiltoftheaccusedandruleoutanyotherhypothesisofcausingof

Judgment -S.C.630-08

-138-

Exh.341

disappearanceofevidencebytheaccusedno.1and2. 146. Let us turn to the incident, and visualise as to what must

havetranspiredinflatNo.201. Ihavealreadyheldthatthedeceased NeerajdiedinflatNo.201.Presenceofaccusedno.1and2infaltno. 201isalsoprovedbytheprosecution.Itisalsoprovedthattheaccused no.1and2alsocauseddisappearanceofevidencefromflatno.201and attemptedtodisposeoffthe bodyofNeerajGroveratManor. Atthis juncture,theld.advocateforaccusedNo.2Mr.WahabKhanvehemently submitted that the prosecution has not proved the time of death of deceasedNeerajandaccordingtohim,theremaybeonehypothesisthat NeerajmighthavebeenmurderedpriortoarrivalofaccusedNo.2atflat No.201.Admittedly,inthecaseswhichrestoncircumstantialevidence, alltheotherhypothesisaretoberuledout. 147. LetusseefromthisanglewhetherNeerajhasbeenkilledby

the accused No.1, prior to arrival of accused No.2 in flat No.201, Admittedly,inthecasesofmurder,motiveplaysanimportantrole.AsI havealreadyheldthattheaccusedNo.1hadnomotivetokilldeceased The accused No.1 had no reason to kill deceased Neeraj. Through Nishant Lal (P .W.9), the intimacy between the accused and deceased Neerajhasbeenbroughtonrecordbytheprosecution.Rathercalldetail

Judgment -S.C.630-08

-139-

Exh.341

report of mobileofdeceased Neeraj(Exh216),goestoshowthat accusedNo.1herselfdidnotcallNeeraj,butNeerajonhisownvisited herflat.Coupledwithafactthattheaccusedno.1,whoisalady,was alonewithNeerajwhohad plentyofbrawn(goodphysicalstrength) thanaccusedno.1,itwouldnotbepossibleforAccusedno.1,agirlof25 yearsold,byherfeminineandwithafeeblebody,tokillNeerajGrover. Rather, call detail report (Exh.216), goes to show that accused No.2 madeacallonmobileofdeceasedNeeraj. Furtherversionof Ajay ShyamPande(P .W.27),goestoshowthatwhenhereturnedfromget together,theaccusedno.2wasupsetandnervous. AsIhaveruledout thepossibilityofcriminalconspiracy,butmostimportantcircumstance whichdeposedbyAjayPande(PW27),thatafterphonecallwithhis fiancee, the accused no.2 was upset and suddenly the accused No.2 bookedhisticketat11.30p.m.on652008forMumbai,andinspiteof requestbyAjayShyamPande(P .W.27),togoaftertakingproperleave,as accused no.2 wanted to meet his fiancee, accused no.1, immediately. The accused No.2, suddenly flew to Mumbai in that night itself. A DefencePersonnel,isexpectedtobeobedientandhavediscipline. In spiteofhavingknowledgethatadisciplinaryactioncanbetakenagainst him,heflewtoMumbai,withoutobtainingleave.TheaccusedNo.2,who

Judgment -S.C.630-08

-140-

Exh.341

wentagainstthewishesofhisparents,togetmarrywiththeaccused No.1. ThisisobviousreasonforaccusedNo.2toflytoMumbai. The onlyhypothesis,whichappearsinmymindisthatafter talkonphone withaccusedno.1,accusedno.2cametoknowthatanunknownperson, iswiththeaccusedno.1,inthelatenightinherflatandaccusedNo.2 gotupset. 148. Furthercircumstancethatrecoveryofknifeattheinstanceof

accused No.2 is also very material. The prosecution claims exclusive knowledgeoftheaccusedno.2astoplaceofknife(Art.25),theweapon ofassault.Assuch,theaccusedNo.1hadnomotiveandtherewasno conspiracy between the accused No.1 and 2 to eliminate Neeraj. The circumstancethattheaccusedno.1allowedNeeraj,ayoungboy,tostay atherflatinnightwithher,goestoshowthattheaccusedno.1wasalso unawareaboutleaving ofaccusedNo.2fromCochinforMumbai.The circumstances also does not establish that accused No.1 even shared common intention with accused No.2, in killing of Neeraj Grover. Therefore, the only hypothesis which remains, that after his sudden arrivalatflatNo.201,theaccusedNo.2noticeddeceasedNeerajwiththe accusedNo.1inherflatandcommittedcrime. Thus,theincriminating circumstanceswhichhavebeenbroughtonrecordareoverwhelmingto

Judgment -S.C.630-08

-141-

Exh.341

connecttheaccusedNo.2withkillingofdeceasedNeerajGrover,andthis istheonlyconclusion,whichisconsistentwiththeguiltoftheaccused andisinconsistentwithhisinnocence. 149. ItisworthwhiletomentionherethatPankajShah(P .W.30)

has been examined by the prosecution to prove the confessional statement of accused No.1. It has been brought on record through (P .W.30)thaton2752008,accusedNo.1wasproducedbeforehimand shewaspreparedtomakeconfessionalstatement.Shewasgiventimeof a day to rethink over her decision to make confessional statement. Therefore,shewassenttojudicialcustodyforaday.Itisfurtherversion of this witness that on 2852008, at about 4.45 p.m. she was again producedbeforehimforjudicialcustodyandtwoquestionswereasked, whichwereaskedon2752008andforthatpurpose,heagainputsthe samequestiontoher.Itisfurtherdeposedthathenoticedthataccused no.1wasnotintenseorrestlessand thatafterverifyingthatshewas intendingtomakevoluntaryconfessional statement onherownand freely.(P .W.30)proceededtorecordtheconfessionalstatementofthe accused.ItisfurtherversionofthiswitnessthataccusedNo.1requested himtorecordherstatementinEnglish.Therefore,Englishlanguagewas used while recording confession of accused No.1 and accordingly, her

Judgment -S.C.630-08

-142-

Exh.341

confessionatExh.(132A)wasrecorded. 150. Itissubmittedonbehalfoftheld.advocatefortheaccused

No.2 that this statement of accused No.1, cannot be used against the accused No.2 for various reasons. According to him, this is not confessionalstatement,asitdoesnotdisclosetheguiltofaccusedNo.1, therefore it is exculpatory statement of accused No.1. Nowhere, a confession has been defined. According to the ld. advocate for the accused No.2, a confession is an admission of a guilt, which is not appearingin(Exh.132A).Itisalsosubmittedonbehalfoftheaccused No.2thatconfessionalstatementofaccusedNo.1isnotvoluntaryandis retracted by accused No.1, therefore, retracted confessional statement cannotbeused,particularlyagainstcoaccused. 151. LetusdealwiththefirstsubmissionoftheLd.advocatefor

the accused; whether the statement at (Exh. 132A) is exculpatory statement and whether it amounts to confession or not? Let me re producethestatementofaccusedNo.1,whichisrecordedby(P .W.30)at (Exh.132A): MynameisMiss.MariaJosephSusairaj.Ontheday of incident,IwasstayingatMalad(West). On6th May, 2008,ItookaflatonrentatMalad(W).Iwas

Judgment -S.C.630-08

-143-

Exh.341

knowing

deceased Neeraj Grover since March,

2008.Hewasmy friend.SinceMarch2008,Iwasin contact of him on phone. I had met everyday from 2942008tillthedateofincident. On6thMay,2008, Iwasshoppingforwholethedayforthe household articlesfor myhouse. Onthatdayat about10.30 a.m.Neerajcalledmeonmycellphoneandhehad calledmefromhishouse.Ihadexpressedmyenability tomeethimonthatdaybecauseIwastired.Atabout 11.00p.m. when I came out from house of my neighbuoraftertakingabaththere,IsawthatNeeraj wasatthedoorofmyhouse.Ihad introducedhimto myneighbourfriendMissMayuri.Wethenenteredinto myhouse. Iaskedhim astowhyhe cameto my house. Hesaidthathewanttogivehelptoarrange myhousewiththethingspurchasedbymeonthatday. Atabout11.30p.m.Igotthephonecallfrom Mr.EmilJeromtowhomIintendingtomarry.Itold him that Neeraj is at my home. Mr. Emil gave me phonecallfromCochin.The phonebatteryofmyCell phonebythattimewasdischarged. Then Mr. Emil hadcalledmeonthecellphoneofMr.Neeraj.Hehad talkedwithme.IhadtoldMr.EmilethatMr.Neerajis actingveryfunnyonthatday.Heaskedmewhetherhe should come with me. I told him that after dinner Neerajwillgo.Thiswashappenedatabout12.30p.m.

Judgment -S.C.630-08

-144-

Exh.341

ThenIhadadinnerwithMr.Neerajatmyhome.Mr. Neerajwasbusywithhisphonecall.Bythattime,I wascleaningmyhouse. ThoughMr.Neerajwascalled byhisfriendstoattendtheparty,hedidnotgo.Ihave alsorefusedtojointohimtopartyofhisfriends.Mr. NeerajhadaworkinmorningatMalad.Sohehad requestedmetoallowhimtostayintomyhouseso thathewillattendthework.Isaidthatitiso.k.and hestayedatmyhouse. On7thMay,2008,atabout7.30a.m.doorbell ofmyhouserang.Ihadopenedthedoor.IfoundMr. Emilwas was appeared at my house. He directly house. By that time, Neeraj also enteredintomy

wokeup.IfollowedMr.Emil from his behind. Mr. NeerajhadaskedmewhetherEmileismyboyfriend. Mr.Neerajhadrecognizedhimbecausehe had seen ourphotographs.Mr.Neerajwasalsoknowing willgetmarriedwithMr.Emil. Immediately,thereafter,Mr.Emilstartedgiving fistblowstoMr.Neeraj.Botharestartedfightingwith other.Icouldnotcontrolthem.Bothhadpushedme. So,Ifelldown.Atthattime,whenIgotup,Isawthat EmilstabbedNeerajbymeansofknifeofmykitchen.I triedtoholdtheknifestabbingtoNeerajbyEmil.I had also sustained injury on my right hand palm. Again Mr.Emil pushedme and started stabbing Mr. that I

Judgment -S.C.630-08

-145-

Exh.341

Neerajbysaidknife.IsawMr.Neerajfelldownand Mr.EmilegivingkickstoMr.Neeraj.Iwasscreaming bysaidincident.Mr.Emileclosedmymouthandhe alsothreatenedmetokill.Helet meonthebedand rapedonme.Heneverputtheknife down. This thing washappenedatabout8.00a.m.Hehadalsobeaten meandthreatenedmenottotellthisincidenttoany one.Bythistime,Neerajwasfounddead.ItoldMr. EmiltotakeMr.Neerajtohospital. Hetoldmethat Mr.Neerajwouldnotdiefor4to5hours.Heasked metogoinsidethebathroomandtakebath. Then Mr.Emil came inside the bathroom and again raped me. After11.00A.M.Mr.Emilhadaskedmetocall oneofthefriendofMr.Neerajandaskedmetoinform himthatNeerajhadleftmyhouseat12.30nightand hehasforgottenhiscellphoneinmyhouse.Mr.Emile hadalsotoldmethatIshouldinformthatheshould cometomyhomeandcollectcellphoneofMr.Neeraj frommyhouse. IhadcalledMr.Nishant oncellphoneofMr. Neeraj. He spoke to me and tell him accordingly as directedbyMr.Emil.Mr.Nishantdidnotappear to myhouse. Then Mr. Emil had dragged the body of Mr. Neerajinsidetheportionofbathroomofhouse.

Judgment -S.C.630-08

-146-

Exh.341

Mr.Emilethentoldmetogoandpurchasebags andcurtainsfromHypercityMallatMalad. Hedid nottellmeforwhatpurposeheaskedmetopurchase these things. He also instructed me to buy a knife, roomfreshner.I boughtallthese4thingsandcame backtomyhouse. WhenIwasawayfrommyhouse forbuyingthesethings, Mr.Emilwastalkingwithme oncellphone.WhenIcame at my house, he had inside the emptiedtwoofmybigbags.Ihad handed over the knifetohim.Heaskedmenottocome bathroom.Hehadalsoemptiedallthose polythine bags,whichIwashavinginmyhomewiththethings purchasedearlierbyme.Heaskedmetoclean the hallwhichwasbloodstained.Heaskedmewhether anyofmyfriendhaveanycarbecausehecouldnot tried tocontacthisfriendsforhavingcar. Atabout3.00p.m.,IcalledmyfiendMr. KiranwhoisstayingatFourBungalows,Andheri(W). By that time, Mr. Emil had chopped into pieces the entiredeadbodyofMr.Neeraj.Mr.Kiranhadasked meonmyphonetocollectthecarbycomingathis house.MyselfandMr. Emilbothwenttocollectthe carbyhiringautorickshaw.Kiranhadaskedmeasto whyIwanthiscar.Itellhim thatMr.Emilewantto gotohistown.Sohehandedoverhiscar.Wetookthe car of Mr. Kiran and came to Petrol pump in

Judgment -S.C.630-08

-147-

Exh.341

Lokhandwalaarea.Iwasdrivingthesaidcar.WhenI wasfillingthepetrolinthecar,Mr.Emilgotdownand boughttwoplasticcans.Thenhefilledoneofthecan with5litrepetrolfromthesaidpetrolpump.Wethen came tomyhome.HethenputallthethingsofNeeraj withchoppedpiecesofhisbodyinsidetwobigbagsand alsotorntwocovers,mattressesintothepieces.Hehas covereditwiththebags. Hebroughtallthosebags andputinthecar. Heaskedmetodrivethesaidcar.Thecar wasdrivenbymeWesternExpressHighway.Iwasnot knowingtheareawhereIwasaskedtodrivethecar. Whiledrivingthecar,Ihadcross3Tollpostthenhe askedmetake'U'turn. Then,Itookthecartoleft crossroad.Inbetween the 3rd and 2nd Toll post of Western Express Highway. Then I drew the car on Kachcharoad.Itwasabout7.00to7.30 p.m. I had stoppedthecarnearsmallpieceoflandneartothe roadside.Hetookoutallthebagsfromthecaroneby oneandcarriedto15metersawayfromcar. Onthe ExpressHighwayitself,hegetfilledanothercanwith Petrolandalsoboughtonelighter.Ionlywentnearto himtogivehimthecansofpetrol. Icamebackand sat inthecar. He hadpouredthepetroloverall thesebags andsetonfirebylightingitwithlighter. Hethenreturned tocar. hesatwithmeandIdrove

Judgment -S.C.630-08

-148-

Exh.341

thecartillwereachedtoExpressHighway. Onthe RighwayMr.Emilstarteddrivingcar.Thenwecameto myhouse.As IhadinjurytomypalmIcouldnot work,soMr.Emilhadstartedcleaningmyhousefor removingbloodstains.Ontheway,hehadaskedthe shopkeeper of matresses for stiching of mattresses cover.Twoboysfromtheshopwerejoinedtousand they took away matress for stiching of covers. We returnedtobackouthomeatabout9.30p.m.Mr.Emil askedmetocallthebrokersothathecanarrangefor gettingpaintthewallsofmyhouse.Accordingly,Ihad calledthebrokerforgettingpainttothewallsofmy house. Atabout10.30p.m.friendofNeerajMr. Nishantcalledmeonmycellphone.Heinformedme thatNeerajcouldnotfound,soheisworried.Hecame tomybuilding to collect the cell phone of Mr. also with him. I gave about Neeraj.OneMr.Deepakwas

cellphoneofMr.NeerajtoNishant. They also asked metojointhemforlodgingpolicecomplaint missing of Mr. Neeraj. I went along with them to Malad police station, but Mr. Emil remained at my home. I don't know what complaint was lodged to policestationby Mr.Nishant.Mystatementwasalso recordedatMaladpolicestation.Ihadmadeafalse statement at Malad police station because I was

Judgment -S.C.630-08

-149-

Exh.341

directedtodoitbyMr.Emil. Ireturnedbacktomy homewiththepoliceofficeat3.00A.M.inthenight. PoliceofficeralsometMr.Emilandasked himtocome inthemorningatpolicestationforrecordingofhis statement. On 8th May, 2008, in the morning, Mr. Emilhadtookmylaptopbag,handbagandonebag and put the foot mat in the said bag and went to throwit.Allthesethingswerehavingbloodstains.By 8.30A.M.wewenttohouseof Mr.Kiranandreturned thecartohim.Ialsogiventhekey ofhousetobroker topainttomyhouse.By9.00A.M.wewenttopolice station.Awholeday,wewereatpolice station till 3.00p.m.Wewereagaincalledineveningatpolice station.AfterattendingthepolicestationMr.Emilhad catch the flight for Cochin and left Bombay. I remainedinthepolicestationtillnextdayafternoon.I had informed to my relatives and my family members. My brother and sister came to Bombay fromMysore. Alltheway,Ihadbeenincontactonthe phonewithMr.EmiltillIconfessedbeforethepolice. All the while, he was threatened me not to tell anythingtothepoliceotherwise,hewillkillmeand alsokillhimself.I say that Mr. Emil had killed Mr. Neerajinfrontofme. Ihadalsotakenthepoliceto

Judgment -S.C.630-08

-150-

Exh.341

the places where Mr. Emil burnt the body of Mr. Neeraj. 152. Itissubmittedbytheld.advocatefortheaccusedthatfrom

the statement of the accused No.1, it appearsthatwhatevershe has done,isdoneunderthethreatsofkilling andtherefore,itcannotbe termedasanoffence. Sumandsubstanceoftheargumentsoftheld. advocatefortheaccusedNo.2isthatshe savedherselffromchargeof killingofdeceasedNeerajin(Exh.132A).Therefore,thestatement is exculpatorysofarasaccusedNo.1isconcerned.Letmestateherethat therecordshowsthataccusedNo.1hadvisitedHypercityMallatabout 12p.m.,shepurchasedarticlesfromHypercitymallatabout12.30p.m. Further,shewenttoborrowcarfrom KiranShriyan(P .W.11). Itwas possibleforhertorunawayafterleavingflatNo.201ormakecryand take the help of neighbours. After purchasing chopper (Art.23) and curtains,shereturnedtoflatNo.201,andagainwenttoborrowthecar from Kiran Shriyan (P .W.11), and returned to flat No.201. All these conductofaccusedNo.1donotsuggestthatwhatshehasconfessed,is exculpatory. It is worthwhile to mention here the case of Aghnoo Nagesia Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 1966 S.C. page No.119,whereinApexcourthasheldthat:

Judgment -S.C.630-08

-151-

Exh.341

confessionalstatementincludesnotonlyadditionaloffence,but alsootheradditionofincriminatingfacts,relevanttotheoffence,suchas motive, preparation, absence of provocation, concealment of weapons and subsequent conduct, throw light on the gravity of offence and intentionandknowledgeoftheaccused. Thecourthasalsoobserved thateachandeveryadmissionofincriminatingfactscontainedinthe confessionalstatementisapartofconfessionalstatement. 153. Anothersubmissionoftheld.advocatefortheaccusedNo.2

isthatwhentheaccusedNo.1cannotbeconnectedwiththechargeof murder of NeerajGrover thenhow herconfessional statement can be reliedagainstthecoaccused.LetmestatewhatistheMandateofsection 30oftheIndianEvidenceAct,thatbothaccusedshouldbetriedjointly forthesameoffence,thenonlyconfessionalstatementofcoaccusedis admissible against other accused and then only court may take into considerationsuchconfession.Thereisnodisputethattheaccusedare beingjointlytriedfortheoffencepunishableu/s.302,201r/wsec.120B orinthealternative34ofI.P .C. 154. In the case of Prakash Dhawal Khairnar v/s. State of

Maharashtra reported in2002(2)S.C.C.page35, theapexcourt heldthatinidenticalsituation,whichisinthepresentcase,arosebefore

Judgment -S.C.630-08

-152-

Exh.341

theApexcourtwhereinfatherandsonwerechargedwiththeoffenceof 302r/w34ofI.P .C.andsonmadeconfessionalstatementthathisfather committedmurderofhisbrotherandhisfamily,andhehasonlyassisted hisfatherincausingdisappearance ofevidenceofmurder;theLower Courtconvictedboththeaccusedu/s.302ofIPC,however,BombayHigh Courtacquittedsonfromthechargeof302andconvictedhimu/s.201 byrelyingonhisconfessionalstatementagainsthisfather.Thematter went up to Supreme Court, wherein the Apex Court has held that conviction of father Accused no.1 for the offence for which he was charged was based on circumstantial evidence, conviction against son Accused No.2 for offence punishable u/s. 201 was also based on circumstantial evidence and the circumstantial evidence, which gets corroboration from confessional statement of accused No.2 son for connectingtheaccusedNo.1withthecrime,couldbereliedupon,asthe confessionalstatementwas notreliedassubstantivepieceofevidence anditwasusedonly forlendingassurancetoprovethecircumstance. Theapexcourtfurtherheldthattheconfessionalstatementofaccused thoughexhonoratehimfrom principaloffence,and connectingwith minor offence, still it can be relied against him and coaccused. The ApexCourtupheldtheJudgmentofHon'ble HighCourtandcertified

Judgment -S.C.630-08

-153-

Exh.341

thatconfessionalstatementcanberelied.Inviewoftheratiolaiddown bytheApexcourt,(supra),Idonotfindsubstanceintheargumentsof the ld. advocate for the accused No.2 that (Exh.132A) is not confessional statement, therefore, the confessional statement of the accusedNo.1cannotbediscardedonthisground,ifotherwiseitcanbe relied. 155. Anothersubmission,whichtheld.advocatefortheaccused

Nos. 1 and 2 submitted that the accused No.1 has retracted her confessional statement by giving suggestion to ld. Magistrate Pankaj Shah (P .W.30). I have gone through the record, it appears that suggestion has been put to the witness by accused No.1 that confessional statement was given under duress and on the threat of police.Now,questionarisesbeforemeiswhetheraretractedconfession canbereliedagainstthemakerofitandparticularlyagainstcoaccused. Before going to this aspect, let us see whether the confessional statementwasmadevoluntary? 156. FromtheversionofPankajShah(P .W.30),whichisalready

discussedabove,goestoshowthatthereisfullcomplianceofsection164 ofCr.P .C.Theversionof(P .W.30)alsogoestoshowthathehastakenall precautionstosearch,whethertheconfessionalstatementoftheaccused

Judgment -S.C.630-08

-154-

Exh.341

No.1 is voluntary. The circumstances of the case, which have been brought on record, corroborate with the confession and speaks at fullestandonmaterialaspect.Thefactthattheaccusedno.1keptmum for2andhalf yearsandshedidnotattempttomakeanyapplication either before the Ld. M.M. when she was produced during remand application,orbeforethiscourt,tillPankajShah(P .W.30)wasexamined. But the confessional statement, also gets corroboration from the circumstances, which have been brought on record. The following comparative Table would show that the confession statement is corroboratedbytheotherevidenceandprovedcircumstance. Confessionalstatement Evidence/proved circumstance Calldetailreport(Exh216) VersionofP .W.2Mayuri Prajapati

On6.05.2008Neerajcalledaccusedno.1 Neerajcametoaccusedno.2andaccused no.2introducedhimtoMayuriPrajapati

Calltoaccusedno.1fromaccusedno.2 Calldetailsrepor (Exh.207A). Batteryofhermobiledischarged,hence CallDetailReport callfromaccusedNo.2onmobileof (Exh.216) Neeraj. TalkofNeerajwithhisfriendslatenight EvidenceofPW9Nishant Lal; CalldetailreportExh.216

Judgment -S.C.630-08

-155-

Exh.341

Arrivalofaccusedno.2inflatno.201 Accusedtookknifeofherkitchen Accusedno.2stabbedNeeraj

EvidenceofPW.6Kundan Jha, RecoveryofKnife(Art.25) BloodofNeerajatflatno.201; RecoveryofKnifehavingblood ofNeerajattheinstanceofA.2 Injuryonherrightpalm;injury certificateExh.100Evidenceof PW.17Dr.Shinde P .W.9NishantLal

AccusedNo.1triedtoholdknife whileaccusedNo.2stabbingNeeraj Ondirectionofaccusedno.2calling tofriendofNirajGroverstatingthat Neerajleftherflat,leavinghisMobile

purchaseofBag,curtains,BigKnifePW19VivekTiwari;PW20Vishali roomFreshnerandcurtain More;Debitcard;BillsHyper city LendingCar Puttingbodyinbagsandputtingbags inSantrocar PurchaseofPetrolbyAccusedno.2 PW11KiranShriyan PW.10 Satishsingh and DNA reportofbloodfoundinSantro PW13VinodMishra

VisitofNishantLaltoflatno.201 PW.9,33,34Missing andaccompanyingwithhimtoPolicecomplaintExh.138;Her stationformissingcomplaint. statement Exh.229 ChangeofMatress PW.16KamleshJain:EntryExh. 98inorderbookArt.39 PW15DhirajShukla;PW2 MayuriPrajapati From the above comparative table it is manifest that the

Painttoflat 157.

Judgment -S.C.630-08

-156-

Exh.341

confessionalstatementoftheaccusedno.1incorroboratedbytheproved circumstancestoitsfullest.TheconfessionalStatementwasmadewithin aweekafterthecrimewasdetected.Itwasnotretractedbytheaccused no.2foralmosttwoandhalfyears.Nomaterialhasbeenbroughton recordthatitwastakenunderduress,ratheritwasmadevoluntarily. Shewasgivenadaytorethinkbeforemakingconfessionalstatement. NotonlythisatthetimeofInvestigation,thepressconference,contained inCD(Art.49)whichwasbriefedbythenjointcommissioner,goesto show that the police during investigation revealed the same theory, which is mention in the confessional statement. Therefore, the retractionbyaccusedNo.1isforobviousreasontosaveherselfandco accused from legal punishment. Very surprisingly, though the prosecutionexaminedPankajShah(P .W.30)throughwhomconfessional statementoftheaccusedno.1isproved,butprosecutionwentonback footandsubmittedthattheydonotrelyonconfessionalstatement.This appearstobeadeliberate attemptonthepartofprosecutionto get severepunishmenteasilyforbothoftheaccused. AccusedNo.1also purposefullyretractedfromherstatementtosaveherselfandaccused no.2.Butthecourtisnothelplessandcannotsitasamerespectator. Ultimateobjectofthecourtistogototherouteofthecaseandfindout

Judgment -S.C.630-08

-157-

Exh.341

thetruth.Now,letusseewhethertheretractedconfessioncanbeused againstthecoaccused. InthecaseofRamprakashV/s.StateofPunjabreportedin AIR1959.S.C.Page1,Theapexcourtinpara6hasheldthat: Itwillbeclearfromthetermofthissectionthatwhere morepersonthanonearebingtriedjointlyforthesame offenceaconfessionmadebyanyoneofthemaffecting himselfandanyoneofhiacoaccusedcanbetakeninto consideration by the court. The Evidence Act nowhere provides that if the confession is retracted, it cannot be taken into consideration against the coaccused or the confessing accused. Accordingly the provisions of the Evidence Act do not prevent the court form taking into consideration a retracted confession against the confessing accused and his coaccused. Not a single decisionofanyofthecourtsinIndiawasplacedbeforeus toshowthataretractedconfessionwasnotadmissiblein evidenceorthatitwasirrelevantasagainstacoaccused. Theapexcourtfurtherobservedthat: ordinarily, as a matter of prudence and practice, court wouldnotactuponretractedconfessiontoconvictaco accused,withoutstrongestandfullestcorroborationinthe fullsenseofmaterialparticular. 158. Ultimately,theApexcourtinthesaidcasealsotakenaidof

retracted confessional statement of the accused against him and co accused. 159. AsIhavealreadyheldthatcircumstances,whicharebrought

Judgment -S.C.630-08

-158-

Exh.341

onrecordcorroboratefullestconfessionalstatementoftheaccusedNo.1, therefore,evenaretractedconfessioncanbereliedon. 160. Now, let us discuss when and in which situation, the

confessionofcoaccusedcanbetakenintoconsideration.Section30of Indian Evidence Act empowers the court to take the confessional statementofthecoaccusedintoconsideration.Theratiolaiddownby PrivyCouncilin BhagwanShahuCasereportedinAIR1949P .C.257, whichwaslatterreliedinKashmiraSinghreportedinAIR1952,SC159, andisbeingfollowedtilltodayincatenaoftheJudgmentbytheapex court.InthecaseofBhagwanShahu,theprivycouncillaiddownratio; Theproperapproachordealingwiththeconfessionis first to marshal the evidence against the accused exclude confession altogether from consideration and seewhetherifitisbelieved,convictioncouldsafelybe basedon. Ititis capableofbelieveindependentlyof theconfession, then ofcourseitisnotnecessaryto callconfessioninaid. PrivyCouncilfurtherheldthat ButcasesmayarisewhereaJudgeisnotpreparedto actonotherevidence,hasstandeventhoughbelieved,it

Judgment -S.C.630-08

-159-

Exh.341

wouldbesufficienttosustainaconviction.Insuchan event,theJudgemaycallinaidtheconfessionanduse ittolendassurancetootherevidenceandthusfortify himselfinbelievingwhat,withouttheaidofconfession, hewouldnotbepreparedtoaccept. 161. Thisprincipleisfollowedinseriesofjudgmentsbytheapex

court. In the present case, excluding the confessional statement, the circumstances,whichhavebeenbroughtonrecordbytheprosecution, aresufficienttoconnecttheaccusedNo.2withkillingofNeerajGrover. Taking into consideration the ratio laid down by Privy Council, and which is being followed by Apex court, I think aid of confessional statementcanbetakeninthiscaseforcertificationorforlendingthe assurancetotheguiltoftheaccused.Ihavegonethroughconfessional statementofaccusedNo.1carefully.Theconfessionalstatementgoesto corroboratethecircumstances, whichhavebeenbroughtonrecordto connecttheaccusedNo.1withkillingofNeerajGrover. Therelevant portionisproducedhere: On7thMay,2008,atabout7.30a.m.,doorbellofmyhouse rang.Iopenedthedoor,IfoundEmilhadappearedatmy house;hedirectlyenteredintomyhouse;bythattime

Judgment -S.C.630-08

-160-

Exh.341

Neerajalsowokeup;IfollowedMr.Emilfromhisbehind. Mr.NeerajaskedmewhetherEmilwasmyboyfriend,Mr. Neerajrecognizedhimbecausehehadseenour photographs; Mr.NeerajwasknowingthatIwillgetmarriedtoMr.Emil; immediatelythereafter,Mr.Emilstartedgivingfistblows toNeeraj.Bothstartedfightingwitheachother,Icouldnot controlthem,bothhadpushedme;soIfelldown,atthat timewhenIgotup,IsawthatEmilstabbedNeerajbymeans ofknifeofmykitchen.Itriedtoholdtheknifestabbing NeerajbyEmil;Ihadalsosustainedinjuryonmyrighthand palm.AgainEmilpushedmeandstartedstabbingMr.Neeraj bysaidknife.IsawMr.NeerajfelldownandMr.Emilwas givingkickstoMr.Neeraj;Iscreamingbysaidincident. Mr.Emilclosedmymouth.Healsothreatenedmetokill; heletmeonthebedandrapedme;heneverputthe knifedown;thisthinghappenedatabout8a.m.Healso beatenmeandthreatenedmenottotellthisincidenttoany one;bythattimeNeerajwasfounddead. 162. Aforesaid part of confessional statement corroborates the

circumstances which have been brought on record by the prosecution with only hypothesis that accused No.2 killed Neeraj. So the proved incriminatingfactandcircumstances,takencumulatively,shouldforma chainsocompletethatthereisnoescapefromtheconclusionthatwith

Judgment -S.C.630-08

-161-

Exh.341

inallhumanprobability theaccusedno.2killedNeerajGrover. The incriminating circumstances are incapable of explanation of any other hypothesisthanthatofguiltofaccusedno.2. 163. Further part of confessional statement is about causing

disappearanceofevidenceofkillingNeerajGrover. Thecircumstances, whichhavebeenbroughtonrecordthroughSatishsingh(P .W.10),Vinod Mishra(P .W.13),DhirajShukla(P .W.15),VivekTiwari(PW19),Vaishali More (PW20), Ajay Bahadur Yadav (P .W.22) also go to connect the accusedNos.1and2forcausingdisappearanceofevidenceofkilling Neerajbyscreeningthemselves fromlegalpunishment, whichisalso certifiedbytheconfessionalstatementoftheaccusedno.1.ThereforeI havenohesitationtoholdthataccusedNos.1and2withtheintention to causing disappearance of the evidence of killing Neeraj Grover, attemptedtodestroytheevidenceofkillingofNeerajGrover. 164. It is submitted on behalf of the APP that as such, the

prosecution has proved that it is the accused No.2, who stabbed the deceasedNeerajbymeansofknife(Art.25).Therefore,accordingtohim hehascommittedmurderofNeerajGrover. AsagainstthisLd.Adv.for

accusedsubmittedthatevenifthecaseofprosecutionisaccepted,the actoftheaccusedcomesunderexception1toMurder.Accordingtohim

Judgment -S.C.630-08

-162-

Exh.341

forbringingtheactwithintheambitofsection302,theprosecutionhas toprovethataccusedNo.2 hadleftCochin withtheintentionto kill Neeraj.Letmereproducetheexception1toMurder. Exception1toSec.300ofIPC Whenculpablehomicideisnotmurder: Culpablehomicideisnotmurderiftheoffender, whilstdeprivedofthepowerofselfcontrolbygrave and sudden provocation, causes the death of the person who gave the provocation or causes the deathofpersonwhogaveprovocationorcausesthe death of any other person by the mistake or accident. 165. By careful reading of confessional statement as well as other circumstances,whichhavebeenbroughtonrecord,itdoesnotappearto methattheaccusedNo.2had premediation tokilldeceasedNeeraj Grover.Assuch,circumstances,whichareprovedbytheprosecutiongo toshowthattheaccusedNo.2left Cochinsuddenlyandwithoutany preparation.ItisalsonotbeenbroughtonrecordthattheaccusedNo.2 entered into flat with arms. Rather looking to the weapon of assault, whichiskitchenknife(Art.25),goestoshowthataccusedNo.2hadno premeditation to kill deceased Neeraj. Admittedly, the accused Nos.1

Judgment -S.C.630-08

-163-

Exh.341

and2wereintendingtomarryeachother.TheaccusedNo.2hadgone totheextentofgoingagainstthewishesofhisparentsanddecidedto marryaccusedNo.1.ThecalldetailreportofdeceasedNeeraj,goesto showthatinthenight of652008,accusedNo.2madeacallonthe mobile of Neeraj, which also gets corroboration from confessional statement that as the battery of the mobile of accused no.1 was discharged therefore the accused no.1 and 2 talked on the mobile of NeerajGrover.Itisalso broughtonrecordthattheaccusedNo.2and Neerajwerenotknowingeachother.Obviously,forafiance,whocame toknowthatyoungboyisin flatwithherfiancee,anormalmanwill losecontrol.TheconfessionalstatementoftheaccusedNo.1alsoshows thatincidentofstabbinghappenedinspurofmoment.Tofindayoung manwithhisyoungfiancee,thattooduringoddhours,obviously,fora fiance,isaprovokingsituation,to losehisselfcontrol.Soaprudent manwilllosehisselfcontrolinthesituationmentionedabove,andin thiscaseaccusedno.2isadefencepersonal. Confessionalstatement alsoshows,assoonasAccusedno.2sawNeerajinsidetheflat,hegave fistblowtoNeeraj,thereafterscuffletookplacebetweenthetwoand during that scuffle, accused No.2 took knife from the kitchen of flat No.201andstabbeddeceasedNeeraj.Circumstances,showthataccused

Judgment -S.C.630-08

-164-

Exh.341

No.2wasprovokedbycircumstance,(presenceofNeerajwithhisfiancee inherflatduringoddhour)whichwasgraveandsuddenandtherefore, helosthiscontrol.Itappearsthattheaccusedno.2wasimpelledtolose hiscontroltofindayoungmanwithhisfiancee'shomeduringoddhour. 166. Admittedlyprosecutionhasnot comewithacasethatthe

accusedno.2broughtanyweaponfromCochin,whichhewouldhave gotveryeasily,beingdefencepersonal.Lookingtotheweaponofcrime which is a kitchen knife (Art.23) and the circumstance brought on record,particularlywhenthesisofConspiracyisfailed,Ithinkthough prosecution succeeds in proving culpable homicide, but with lack of premeditationtokill.ThereforeIfindsubstanceintheargumentofLd. Adv.foraccusedno.2thatthecaseofaccusedNo.2fallsundersection exception1toMurder. 167. ItisfurthersubmittedonbehalfoftheaccusedNo.2thatthe

case of the accused No.2 may fall in part of 304(II), which provides lighterpunishmentthanof304(I).Thoughtherewasnopremeditation, butlookingtotheweaponofassault,whichissharpobject;kickshehad given to decease; and knowledge of the accused no.2 being defence person;IdonotfindsubstanceintheargumentofAdvocateforaccused no.2thattherewaslackofintentiontokillandIdonotthinkthatthe

Judgment -S.C.630-08

-165-

Exh.341

caseofaccusedNo.2willfallinlessercategoryunder304(II)ofIPC.But theguiltofaccused no2.iscoveredu/s304(I)ofIPC andholdhim guiltyforoffencepunishableu/s.304(I)andaccusedNo.2undersection 201ofI.P .C.Likewisetheprosecutionalsoprovedcrimeagainstaccused 1totheextentofdestructionofevidencepunishableu/s201ofI.P .C.Itis my bounded duty to hear the accused on the point of sentence. Therefore,Itakepauseheretoheartheaccusedpersonsonthepointof sentence.
(Asthecourttimeisover,caseisAdjournedto172011 forhearingtheaccusedonthepointofsentence.) (Dictationofjudgmentresumedon172011,

168.

HeardtheLd.APPMr.R.V .Kinionthepointofsentence.So

farascaseofaccusedNos.1and2u/s.201ofI.P .C.isconcerned, itis vehementlysubmittedbyld.APPthattakingintoconsiderationtheway thebodyofNeerajwaschoppedbytheaccusedpersonsandeventhe parentsofdeceasedNeerajweredeprivedofbodyofNeeraj.Heprayed formaximumpunishmentofsevenyearu/s.201ofI.P .C.beawardedto theaccusedno.1and2.Itisnecessarytoreproducesection201ofIPC. Section201ofIPCprovidesthat: Causingdisappearanceofevidenceofoffence,or giving false information to screen offender:

Judgment -S.C.630-08

-166-

Exh.341

Whoever,knowingorhavingreasontobelievethatan offencehasbeencommitted,causesanyevidence of thecommissionofthatoffencetodisappear,withthe intention of screening the offender from legal punishment,or with that intention gives any informationrespectingtheoffencewhichheknowsor believestobefalse, Ifacapitaloffenceshall,iftheoffencewhichhe knowsorbelievestohavebeencommittedis punishablewith death, be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term whichmayextendtosevenyears, and shall also beliabletofine; Ifpunishablewithimprisonmentforlifeandif theoffenceispunishablewith{imprisonmentfor life],orwithimprisonmentwhichmayextendto tenyears,shall be punished with imprisonment ofeitherdescriptionforatermwhichmayextend tothreeyearsandshallalsobe liabletofine; ifpunishablewithlessthantenyears' imprisonment; andiftheoffenceispunishablewith imprisonmentforany termnotextendingtotenyears, shallbepunishedwithimprisonmentofthedescription providedfortheoffence,foratermwhichmayextend toonefourthpartofthelongesttermofthe imprisonmentprovidedfortheoffence, orwithfine,or withboth. 169. Ld.APPadvancedbeforemeregardingapplication ofsec.

201ofI.P .C.Accordinghim,thoughtheaccusedNos.1and2arenot convictedforoffenceu/s.302,eventhentheycanbeconvictedunder first part of section 201 of IPC, which prescribed the maximum punishmentof7years. Tobuttresshissubmission,heseekstorelyon

Judgment -S.C.630-08

-167-

Exh.341

judgmentofApexCourtreportedin1974SCC(Cri.)page362,wherein whileacquittingtheaccusedfromtheguiltof302,theApexCourtstill maintainedtheconvictionofimprisonmentfor7yearsunderfirstpartof 201 of IPC. Taking help of this Judgment, Ld. APP vehemently submittedthatthecasebeforethecourtisonthesameline.According tohim,thoughtheaccusedareacquittedfromsection302,butstillthey can be convicted under first part of section 201 of I.P for causing .C. disappearanceofevidenceofculpablehomicideofNeerajGrover,with intention to screen themselves from legal punishment, therefore he praysmaximumpunishmentofsevenyearsu/s.201firstpartforaccused no.1and2. Asagainstthis,theld.advocatesfortheaccusedNos.1 and2vehementlysubmittedthatthecitation,whichisreliedbytheld. APPisnotapplicabletothepresentcaseandaccordingtothem,only choicetothecourtistotakehelpofsecondpartofsection201.Ihave gonethroughtheJudgmentofApexcourtreliedbyAPPverycarefully. IntheJudgment,thoughApexCourthasnotheldguiltyoftheappellant foroffencepunishableu/s.302ofI.P .C.butcourtstillheldthatmurder wascommitted.Letmementionheretherelevantportionofthesaid judgment,whereintheApexcourthasobserveditsopinionofhappening ofmurder.Inpara18oftheJudgmentApexcourthasobservedthat:

Judgment -S.C.630-08

-168-

Exh.341

Therefore,althoughwemayholdaswedothatthis mustbeacaseofmurder,itisnotpossibleforusto findoutconclusivelythatitwasacaseofthrottling andofnothingelseorthatthepersonwhocouldhave throttled or done some other act, which actually killed the deceased was the appellant and not his fatherorstepmother. Theirlordshipsfurtherheldthat: thatappellanthadtakenleadingpartindisposingofthe bodyofthemurderedwoman 170. Withrespectfulsubmissiontotheaforesaid observationof

Apexcourt,letmestatethatintheaforesaidcase,theApexcourthas held that murder of woman was committed and therefore, the appellantswereconvictedunderfirstpartofsection201ofI.P .C.Butin thepresentcase,whenIhavealreadygivenfindingthatthemurderis notproved,Idonotthinkthatcitation,whichisreliedisapplicableto thepresentcase.Theoffenceu/s304(I)punishablewithimprisonment forlifeortheimprisonmentwhichmayextendto10years.Assuchfor provedmainoffenceagainstaccusedno.2,themaximumpunishmentis imprisonment for life, hence the the case in hand, falls in second

Judgment -S.C.630-08

-169-

Exh.341

categoryofsection201ofI.P .C.forbothaccused. 171. Letusturntoquantumofsentenceunderthissection.Ld.

APP submitted that the manner in which the accused caused the disappearance of mutilated body of deceased Neeraj, the accused be convictedwiththefullestconvictionprovided underthatsection. As againstthis,theld.advocatesfortheaccusedNos.1and2submittedas they are young, hence lesser punishment than 3 years be awarded, therefore,theydidnotpressvehementlyandlefttothediscretionofthe court. 172. So,maximumpunishmentinsecondpartisprovidedfor 3

yearswithfine.Havingheardtheld.APPandadvocatesfordefence,and lookingtothemannerinwhichtheaccused causeddisappearanceof mutilated body of Neeraj, in my view, the accused are liable to be convictedtothefullestimprisonmentasprovidedundersecondpartof 201ofI.P .C.i.e.imprisonmentfor3years.Asforfineforthisoffenceis concernedIwilldealit,littlelatter. 173. Let us turn to the submission of ld. APP on the point of

quantumofsentencetoaccusedNo.2u/s.304(I)ofI.P .C.Section304 (1)providesmaximumpunishmentforimprisonmentoflifewithfine.It issubmittedonbehalfoftheld.APPthatthemannerinwhichthebody

Judgment -S.C.630-08

-170-

Exh.341

ofthedeceasedwaschopped,ratherthemannerinwhichthemutilated body of deceased Neeraj was disposed of, the accused No.2 shall be awardedwithconvictionofimprisonmentforlife.Sumandsubstanceof theargumentsoftheLd.APPthatwhileawardingsentence,theconduct ofaccusedistobetakenintoconsideration.Hetookmetoconfessional statementofaccusedNo.1andshowedsomerelevantportion,onwhich heseeks torely. Accordingtohim,whentheaccusedNo.1requested accusedNo.2toprovidemedicaltreatmenttodeceased,accusedNo.2 avoided.Relyingonthispartofconfessionalstatement,ld.APPprayed forfullestpunishmentprovidedu/s.304(I)ofI.P .C. 174. As against this, ld. advocate for accused No.2 Mr. Wahab

Khanhas submittedthattheaccusedwasserving withDefenceForce andwasservingtothenation.He respectfullysubmittedthataccused cooperatedinentireinvestigationofthiscase.Itisfurthersubmittedby ld.advocatefortheaccusedNo.2thataccusedNo.2isrepentingonhis act.Itisfurthersubmittedthatthatthereformativepunishmentshould beawardedtotheaccusedno.2.Sumandsubstanceofhisarguments arethatlighterpunishmenttotheextentofperiod,whichhehasalready undergone,shouldbeawardedtotheaccusedno.2. Insupportofhis argument,fortaking lenientview,ld.advocatefortheaccusedNo.2,

Judgment -S.C.630-08

-171-

Exh.341

reliesonvariousjudgmentsofApexcourt.Accordingtohim,theaccused No.2againwantstoservethenation.Healsotookhelpofconfessional statementandagainhesubmittedthattherewasnopremeditationon thepartofaccusedNo.2. Letmesubmitthattheaccused No.2has alreadybeengivenbenefitofthesituationthathewasnothavingpre mediation. Havingheardthe ld.APPandadvocatesfortheaccused No.2,themannerinwhichthecrimewasdoneandthemannerinwhich thebodywaschoppedandconsideringtheconductoftheaccusedNo.2, inmyopinion,rigorousimprisonment for10yearswouldsuffice the purposeandwouldmeettheendsofjustice. 175. Atthesametime,theparentsofthedeceasedNeerajshould

notbeignored,whosufferedmentaltraumabyloosingtheirsoleson.I amconsciousthatnothingwillreplaceMr.Neerajtotheirparents,butat leastintheiroldage,Ithink,theyshouldbecompensatedoutoffine amountand therefore,substantialfineshouldbeawardedtoaccused Nos.1and2. 176. SofarasflatNo.201,inDhirajSolitarebuildingMalad(W)

isconcerned,theowneroftheflathasmoved Misc.ApplicationExh. 333 for handing over her flat, which according to her was given to accusedNo.1andwhichissealedbyCrimeBranch,BandraUnit. Asit

Judgment -S.C.630-08

-172-

Exh.341

wasgivenonleaveandlicensebasisandaccusedNo.1wasinpossession at the time of sealing of the flat, therefore, say of accused No.1 is sought.TheaccusedNo.1hasnotshownherconcernovertheflatand therefore, she has given no objection. As such, no other person is claimingthepossessionofflatNo.201andispointedouttomethatthe keyoftheflatno.201iswiththecourtasan(articleNo.9).Therefore, thepossessionoftheflat,ratherkeyoftheflat(Art.9)begiventoSmt. ShivaniJagdishchandraAtri. HoweverSheshall executeabondina sumofRs.2,00,000/thatshewillpreservetheflattilltheappealperiod isoverandincase,iftheappealisfiledthen,tillthedisposalofappeal. AccordinglyapplicationExh.333isdisposedoff. 177. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I proceed to pass

followingorder:

ORDER
1. AccusedNo.1MariaMonicaSusairaj andaccused

No.2EmileJeromeJosephareacquittedofthe offencepunishableu/s.302r/w120Bor34ofI.P .C. 2. AccusedNo.2EmileJeromeJoseph isconvictedfor offence punishable u/s. 304 (1) of I.P and to suffer .C. RigorousImprisonment for10years andalsoto pay fine of Rs.50,000/. In default of payment of fine,

Judgment -S.C.630-08

-173-

Exh.341

accusedNo.2shallundergoSimpleImprisonmentforone year. 3. Accused No.2 Emile Jerome Joseph is also convictedforoffencepunishableu/s.201ofI.P .C.andto sufferRigorous Imprisonment for3yearsandtopay fine of Rs.50,000/ In default of payment of fine, accusedNo.2shallundergosimpleimprisonmentforsix months. 4.Bothsentencestorunconcurrently. 5.AccusedNo.1MariaMonicaSusairajisconvictedfor offence punishable u/s.201 of I.P and to suffer .C. Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 years and to pay fine of Rs.50,000/.IndefaultofpaymentoffineaccusedNo.1 shallundergosimpleimprisonmentforsixmonths. 6.IftheamountoffineofRs.1,50,000/isrecovered, itshouldbegiventofatherofdeceasedNeerajas compensation.Thiswillbeinadditiontoany compensation,whichparentsmayclaimagainst theaccusedbyfilingCivilSuit. 7.Bothaccusedshallbegivenbenefitofsetoff alreadyundergonesentence. ORDERREGARDINGDISPOSALOFTHE PROPERTY. 1. Art.1 garland of Beads (broken Condition) likewise u/s.428ofCr.P .C.fortheperiodforwhichtheyhave

Judgment -S.C.630-08

-174-

Exh.341

chain,Art.2ChainofdeceasehavingpendantofGajmukhinburnt condition, if desired by the father of the deceased, may be returnedtohim. Otherwise,bedestroyedafterappealperiodis over. 2. Art.10piecesofribcage, Art.11femurbone,Art.12skull andArt.46tooth maybegiventotheComplainant,Amarnath Groverforlastritesofhisson, ifhedesires,otherwise,theybe destroyedaftertheappealperiodisover. 3. Art.45NokiaMobileN95bereturnedtothecomplainant AmarnathGroverfatherofdeceased. 4. Art.7 NokiaN80mobile,andArt.8NokiaMademobile phone Model No.1200, and Debit card (Art.42) be returned to accusedNo.1afterappealperiodisover. 5. Art.28colly.rubbermats,sunprotectionsheets andseat coversofSantrocarandarticle28AotherseatcoversofSantro carbereturnedto(P .W.11)KiranShiryan,ifhedesires,otherwise theymaybedestroyedafterappealperiodisover. 6.Art.49and50stationdiariesbereturnedtorespectivepolice stations,afterappealperiodisover. 7. Art.3 Rs.6,500/ in leather wallet of black colour Art.5 (colly)mobilephonesofGreycolourandsky blue colour respectively, Art.6Relianceco.SilverblackcolourMobileofLG RD5340,bereturnedtoAccusedNo.2aftertheappealperiodis over. 8 Art.9Twokeysofflatbereturnedtoownerofflatno.201, Smt.ShivaniJagdishchandraAtri,onexecutingpersonalbondof

Judgment -S.C.630-08

-175-

Exh.341

Rs.2,00,000/ thatsheshallpreservetheflat,tilltheperiodof appealandincase,ifappealisfiledthen,tilldisposalofappeal filed,ifany. 9. Art.4IdentitycardofAccusedNo.2(IAFZ2015), Art.7AlabelofArt.7, Art.9AlabelofArt.9, Art.13Burntpieceofbag, Art.14Burntpieceofredcloth,partlyburnt, Art.15partlyburntgougeofclothhavingredlines, Art.16Damageglassperfumebottle, Art.17Tinbottle(damaged), Art.18Tinbottleindamageconditionandpiecesofbottle, Art.19(colly)Metalbuttonsandpartlyburntcoins, Art.20Packetcontainingsoil, Art.21Packetcontainingsoil, Art.22(colly)7photos, Art.23Knife(chopper)withsawteeth, Art.24plasticwrapperofArt.23, Art.25knife, [email protected], Art.27colly.threewrappers. Art.29colly.Fivesmallpacketscontainingsamplesand scrapping, Art.29AOnesamplepacketofscrapingwallpaint, Art.30 Onepacket&label, Art.31Onepillowcover,

Judgment -S.C.630-08

-176-

Exh.341

Art.32labelofart.31 Art.33Jeanspant(one), Art.34Wrapper@label, Art.35(colly)onepairofshoes, Art.36wrapperalongwithlabel Art.37OneTshirt, Art.38wrapperalongwithlabel, Art.39Orderbook(Redcolournotebook)bereturned (P .W.16)KamleshPremchandJain. Art.40CopyofswapreceiptofHDFCcard, Art.41Copyofreceipt(printoutofbillingsystem dtd.26.05.08), Art.43colly.knifealongwithcardboard, Art.44CD, Art.46Awrapperaswellasenvelopesincludingchit, Art.47(colly)duster,partlyburntplasticpieces, Chainlock, Art.48plasticCan, Art.8AlabelofArt.8,Art.20AlabelofArt.20,Art.21A labelofArt.21, All these articles and Articles, if any be destroyed after appealperiodisover. AstheaccusedNo.1isconvictedforimprisonmentfor threeyears and according to record, she has already completedher threeyearsimprisonment,therefore, the accusedno.1isdirectedtoexecuteP .R.bondofRs.10,000/ to

Judgment -S.C.630-08

-177-

Exh.341

withonesolventsuretyinthelikeamount,toappearbefore Hon'ble High Court, in case High court issues notice in appeal,filedbytheState. It is submitted that furnishing the surety will take sometime,therefore,onapplicationmadeby accused No.1, she is allowed to execute P bond of .R. Rs.10,000/andcashsuretyofRs.10,000/inlieuof furnishingsurety. Fourweekstimeis grantedtoaccused No.1tofurnishsurety. (M.W.Chandwani)

SpecialJudge&Addl.Sessions Dated:172011. Judge,Gr.Bombay. DateofDictation DateofTranscription Dateofsignature : DateofdeliverytoC.C.S. :27,28,29,30June 1stJuly,2011. :772011 :