delhi serial killings case judgement

7/29/2019 Delhi Serial Killings Case Judgement

1/245

IN THE COURT OF Dr. KAMINI LAU: ADDL. SESSIONS

JUDGE-II (NORTH-WEST): ROHINI COURTS: DELHI

Session Case No. 91/2011

Unique Case ID No. 02404$0477652007

State Vs. Chandrakant JhaS/o Radhey Kant JhaR/o Village and Post Office Ghasi,Police Station Chausa,Distt. Madhepura, Bihar

(Convicted)

FIR No.: 279/2007

Police Station: Hari Nagar

Under Section: 302/201 Indian Penal Code

Date of committal to the Sessions Court: 25.9.2007

Date on which judgment was reserved: 19.1.2013

Date on which judgment was announced: 24.1.2013

JUDGMENT:

(1) In the year 2006 and 2007 Delhi was rocked and shaken by

serial killings. In these killings the author of the crime followed a

definite pattern where he killed the victims by decapitating their heads

and he thereafter chopped their various body parts and threw the

decapitated bodies of these young men outside the Central Jail Tihar and

scattered their body parts at various places around Delhi. He did not

stop at that and followed his crime precisely. After throwing the

decapitated bodies he used to inform the police about the crime (in two

cases) and the place where he had thrown the decapitated body. Along

with these bodies he also left a note / letter (two cases) wherein he

challenged the Law Enforcement Agencies to catch him. In the last

St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 279/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 1


2/245

case which came to light on 18.5.2007, he had also threatened to send

similar gifts (decapitated bodies) to the Delhi Police after every 15 days.

Three such cases were registered in respect of the decapitated bodies

thrown outside Central Jail Tihar on 20.10.2006, 25.4.2007 and

18.5.2007 in respect of FIR Nos. 609/2006, 243/2007 and 279/2007

were registered at Police Station Hari Nagar in which the accused

Chanderkant Jha is the accused. All these cases though not consolidated,

have been taken up together the pattern of crime / modus operandi being

similar; major investigations being common; the evidence in the form of

electronic records; forensics etc. being common.(2) In the present case as per the allegations, the accused

Chandrakant Jha had some time prior to 18.5.2007 committed the

murder of an unknown person by beheading his body and thereafter

wrapped the headless / decapitated body in a gunny bag which he threw

outside Gate No.1, Central Jail, Tihar. In order to conceal the identity of

the deceased and to cause disappearance of evidence of murder in order

to screen himself from legal punishment, he also threw the head / body

parts of the decapitated body at various places in Delhi.

BRIEF FACTS/ CASE OF THE PROSECUTION:

(3) The case of the prosecution is that on 18.05.07 at 06.50 AM an

information regarding one dead body in a gunny bag lying in front of

Gate No.1, Tihar jail, was received and DD No.10-A was recorded at

Police Station Hari Nagar. The said DD entry was entrusted to ASI

Krishan Chand for necessary action and the information was also passed

to the SHO. ASI Krishan Chand along with Ct. Ram Singh rushed to the

spot and found, one plastic bag tied with the plastic strips on the

footpath in the North side of Gate No.1, Central Jail, Tihar. The place of



3/245

occurrence was got inspected by Mobile Crime Team West District and

the photographs were got done. The scene of crime was inspected and

one male human head less dead body aged 20-25 years, medium built,

shallow complexion, without arms & legs and private parts was found.

One letter written by the culprit in Hindi in the name of Delhi Police

was also found near the dead body. All the exhibits were lifted and

seized at the Scene of Crime. The exhibits were seized and case was got

registered and investigation of the case was entrusted to Inspector

Ombir Singh, the then Addl. SHO Hari Nagar, Delhi. The dead body

was got preserved at DDU mortuary and all efforts were taken toidentify the dead body but it could not be identified.

(4) On 19.05.2007 another PCR call regarding recovery of human

parts opposite S.B.I. was received at Police Post Tis Hazari vide DD No.

4 PP which was entrusted to ASI Arjun Singh, who rushed the spot and

one carton containing human cut arms and private parts were found.

The said parts were kept in the mortuary at Subzi Mandi and on

27.05.07, the above recovered human parts were taken to DDU Hospital

mortuary for comparison of the recovered above headless and part less

dead body in front of Gate No.1, Tihar jail.

(5) On 20.5.2007 pursuant to a secret information accused

Chander Kant Jha was arrested in FIR No. 609/06, under Section

302/201 IPC, Police Station Hari Nagar by Inspector Sunder Singh, Spl.

Staff/ West Distt. During sustained interrogation, the accused admitted

having committed the crime and a skull was recovered at his instance

from the banks of river Yamuna. The accused also disclosed about

removing the parts & legs of the dead body and also disclosed the name

of the deceased as Dalip. Postmortem examination was got conducted

vide PM No 581/06 at DDU hospital on 14.06.07 and the Autopsy



4/245

Surgeon had handed over the blood gauze, sternum, clothes, Viscera etc

of the deceased and the same were seized. The DNA of head less human

dead body and the DNA body parts so recovered at Tis Hazari was got

conducted and found to have been matched in all respects. The blood

group of the dead body has also been matched with the recovered

human parts and blood found on the weapon of offence in the rented

room of accused. After completion of investigations, charge sheet was

filed against the accused Chanderkant Jha.

CHARGE:(6) Charges under Sections 302/201 Indian Penal Code were

settled against the accused Chanderkant Jha to which he pleaded not

guilty and claimed trial.

EVIDENCE:

(7) In order to prove its case the prosecution has examined as

many as Forty Four witnesses. However, before coming to the

testimonies of individual witnesses, the details of the witnesses

examined by the prosecution; the documents proved by them and details

of the case property are hereby put in a tabulated form as under:

List of witnesses:

Sr.No.

WitnessNo.

Name Details of witness

1. PW 1 ASI Sangeeta Police witness/ Duty Officer

2. PW 2 Dr. Anil Shandilya Autopsy Surgeon

3. PW 3 Sh. Rajiv Kumar Public witness/ owner of property bearing

No.229/2, Ambedkar Nagar, Haiderpur where

the accused was residing on rent

4. PW4 SI Anil Kumar Police witness/ Crime Team Incharge



5/245

5. PW 5 Dr. Naresh Kumar Forensic Expert

6. PW 6 Dev Raj Public witness/ STD Booth owner who has

identified the accused as the person who had

made a call from his STD Booth on 18.5.2007

at 6:50 AM

7. PW 7 ASI Ajender Singh Police witness/ Finger print expert

8. PW 8 Sanjay Mann Public witness/ Owner of the house at Alipur

where the accused was residing at the time ofhis arrest

9. PW 9 HC Suresh Kumar Police witness/ PCR Official

10. PW 10 Suresh Kumar Police witness/ photographer Mobile Crime

Team

11. PW 11 HC Krishan Kumar Police witness who had collected the PCR

Form12. PW 12 Ct. Baljeet Singh Police witness/ special messenger who had

delivered the copies of FIR to senior officers

13. PW 13 HC Jaiveer Singh Police witness/ photographer Mobile Crime

Team

14. PW 14 SI Satender Singh Police witness who is a witness to the

recovery of skull and jaw

15. PW 15 HC Hari Ram Police witness/ MHCM

16. PW 16 SI Mahesh Kumar Police witness/ Draftsman

17. PW 17 HC Vijender Singh Police witness/ member of Special Staff WestDistrict

18. PW 18 ASI Ranpal Police witness/ Control Room official

19. PW 19 ASI Chhat Ram Police witness/ Duty Officer

20. PW 20 Insp. Malkiyat

Singh

Police witness/ Incharge Crime Team

21. PW 21 ASI Rajbir Singh Police witness who had joined investigations

22. PW 22 HC Raj Pal Police witness/ Photographer District Crime

Team

23. PW 23 SI Sharad Kohli Police witness who had collected thepostmortem report

24. PW 24 ASI Yudhister Police witness/ PCR Van Incharge

25. PW 25 SI Arun Tyagi Police witness who had reached the spot i.e.

State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Courts where

body parts were recovered on 19.5.2007

26. PW 26 ASI Kishan Chand Police witness who had reached the spot i.e.

Gate No.1, Central Jail Tihar on 18.5.2007.



6/245

27. PW 27 ASI Arjun Singh Police witness who had accompanied SI Arun

Tyagi

28. PW 28 Sh. Puran Chand Official witness/ Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate

29. PW 29 HC Ram Singh Police witness who had accompanied ASI

Kishan Chand

30. PW 30 SI Narender Police witness/ member of Special Staff

31. PW 31 Sh. Jitender Kumar Forensic Expert

32. PW 32 Sh. Raj Kumar Nodal Officer from Reliance Communications

33. PW 33 Sh. Ganganjit Singh Nodal Officer from Tata Teleservices

34. PW 34 Sh. Rajesh Kumar @ Sanjay Kumar

Public witness/ private photographer

35. PW 35 HC Yashvir Police witness/ MHCM of PS Subzi Mandi

36. PW 36 Ct. Rambir Police witness/ DD writer of PS Subzi Mandi

37. PW 37 Dr. A K Srivastava Forensic Expert / DNA Fingerprinting Expert

38. PW 38 Dr. Sanjeev Kumar Forensic Expert / Handwriting Expert

39. PW 39 Inspector DalipKaushik

Police witness/ member of Special Staff WestDistrict

40. PW 40 Inspector Hoshiyar

Singh

Police witness/ Investigating Officer

41. PW41 ASI Virender Singh Police witness/ member of Special Staff West

District

42. PW42 Inspector Sunder

Singh

Police witness/ member of Special Staff West

District

43. PW43 Sh. Pankaj Public witness who is the brother of one of the victim namely Upender (FIR No.

243/2007) and has proved the use of mobile

phone no. 9211463742 by the accused

Chanderkant Jha

44. PW44 Sh. M N Vijayan Nodal Officer from Tata Teleservices

List of documents/ exhibits:

Sr.No.

Exhibit No. Details of documents Proved By

1. Ex.PW1/A Copy of FIR ASI Sangeeta

2. Ex.PW1/B-1 DD No.13A

3. Ex.PW1/B-2 DD No.14A

4. Ex.PW2/A Postmortem Report in respect of

decapitated body

Dr. Anil Shandil



7/245

5. Ex.PW2/B Postmortem Report in respect of the

Skull & Jaw

6. Ex.PW2/C Postmortem Report in respect of arms

and private parts

7. Ex.PW3/A Seizure memo of Driving License Rajiv Kumar

8. Ex.PW3/B BDO Certificate

9. Ex.PW3/C Copy of Driving License

10. Ex.PW4/A Crime Team Report SI Anil Kumar

11. Ex.PW5/A Biological Report Naresh Kumar

12. Ex.PW5/B Serological Report

13. Ex.PW5/C Seizure memo of blood stains and earth

control

14. Ex.PW5/D Seizure memo of knives

15. Ex.PW7/A Finger print Bureau expert report ASI Ajender Singh

16. Ex.PW9/A Photocopy of PCR HC Suresh Kumar

17. Ex.PW10/A-1 toEx.PW10/A-18

Photographs Ct. Suresh Kumar

18. Ex.PW11/A PCR Form HC Krishan

Kumar19. Ex.PW11/B Seizure memo of PCR Form

20. Ex.PW12/A DD No. 14A Ct. Baljeet Singh

21. Ex.PW12/B DD No. 26A

22. Ex.PW13/A1 to

PW13/A10

Photographs HC Jai Veer Singh

23. Ex.PW13/N1 to

PW13/N10

Negatives

24. Ex.PW14/A Seizure memo of Skull, jaw and

clothes

SI Satender Mohan

25. Ex.PW15/A Photocopy of entry No 2849 HC Hari Ram

26. Ex.PW15/B Photocopy of entry No 289027. Ex.PW15/C RC No. 56/21

28. Ex.PW15/D Receipt of FSL

29. Ex.PW15/E Copy of RC No. 57/21

30. Ex.PW15/F Receipt of FSL

31. Ex.PW15/G RC No. 58/21

32. Ex.PW16/A Site plan SI Mahesh Kumar

33. Ex.PW17/DX1 Statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. HC Bijender



8/245

34. Ex.PW18/1 Affidavit of ASI Ranpal ASI Ranpal

35. Ex.PW19/1 Affidavit ASI Chhat Ram

36. Ex.PW19/A DD NO. 10/A

37. Ex.PW19/B DD No. 11/A

38. Ex.PW20/1 Affidavit of Inspector Malkiat Singh Insp Malkiat Singh

39. Ex.PW20/A Crime team Report

40. Ex.PW21/1 Affidavit of ASI Rajbir Singh ASI Rajbir Singh

41. Ex.PW21/A Photographs

42. Ex.PW21/B RC No. 68/21/07

43. Ex.PW21/C Copy of FSL Receipt

44. Ex.PW21/X1 DD No. 25B

45. Ex.PW22/1 Affidavit of HC Rajpal Singh HC Raj Pal Singh46. Ex.PW22/A1to

Ex.PW22/A8

Photographs

47. Ex.PW22/B Negatives

48. Ex.PW23/1 Affidavit of SI Sharad Kohli SI Sharad Kohil

49. Ex.PW25/A DD No. 25/A SI Arun Tyagi

50. Ex.PW25/B Form 25:35

51. Ex.PW25/C Seizure memo

52. Ex.PW25/D DD No. 1053. Ex.PW25/E Receipt

54. Ex.PW25/F Site plan

55. Ex.PW26/A Seizure memo of letter ASI KrishanChand

56. Ex.PW26/B Seizure memo of dead body

57. Ex.PW26/C Tehrir

58. Ex.PW26/D Site plan

59. Ex.PW28/A TIP Proceeding Sh. Pooran Chand

60. Ex.PW28/B Statement of accused to refuse inparticipating the TIP

61. Ex.PW28/C Application for copy of TIP

62. Ex.PW28/E Proceeding Sheet Dated 5/6/07

63. Ex.PW28/D Application for obtaining the specimenhandwriting

64. Ex.PW28/G1 &

Ex.PW28/G2

Application of the Investigating

Officers

65. Ex.PW28/H 64 Sheets



9/245

66. Ex.PW28/DX1 Newspaper cutting

67. Ex.PW30/A Arrest memo of accused SI Narender

Kumar68. Ex.PW30/B Personal search memo of accused

69. Ex.PW30/D Seizure memo of Rickshaw

70. Ex.PW30/E Sketch of knife

71. Ex.PW30/F Seizure memo of nunchaku

72. Ex.PW30/G Pointing out memo of railway line nearganda nalla Kishanganj where the

accused had thrown legs of the

deceased on 18.5.2007

73. Ex.PW31/A Viscera Report Sh. Jitender Kumar

74. Ex.PW31/B Forwarding Letter

75. Ex.PW32/A Customer Application Form in respectof mobile No. 9312616022

Raj Kumar

76. Ex.PW32/B Copy of Election Card

77. Ex.PW32/C Call Detail Records of mobile No.

9312616022

78. Ex.PW32/D Certificate under Section 65 Evidence

Act

79. Ex.PW32/E Handing over to CDR to Inspector

Ombir Singh

80. Ex.PW33/A Copy of Customer Application Form inrespect of mobile No. 9211463742

Sh. Gaganjit Singh

81. Ex.PW33/B Copy of Driving License

82. Ex.PW33/C Copy of Customer Application Form in

respect of mobile No. 9211541254

83. Ex.PW33/D Copy of Ration Card

84. Ex.PW33/E CDR of mobile No. 9211463742

85. Ex.PW33/F CDR of mobile No. 9211541254

86. Ex.PW33/G Certificate under Section 65 EvidenceAct

87. Ex.PW34/A1 to

A11

Photographs Rajesh Kumar

88. Ex.PW34/B Negatives

89. Ex.PW34/C Seizure memo of negatives

90. Ex.PW34/DX1 Statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C.

91. Ex.PW35/A Copy of entry no. 2040 HC Yasbir Singh

92. Ex.PW35/B Copy of RC 62/21/07



10/245

93. Ex.PW36/A DD No. 4 Ct Rambir

94. Ex.PW37/A DNA Fingerprinting Report Dr. A.K.

Srivastava95. Ex.PW37/B DNA fingerprinting Report

96. Ex.PW38/A FSL (Handwriting) Report Dr. Sanjeev kumar

97. Ex.PW39/A Pointing out memo of State Bank, Tis

Hazari compound

Insp Dalip Kaushik

98. Ex.PW39/DX2 Statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C.

99. Ex.PW40/A Disclosure statement of the accused Insp HoshiyarSingh

100. Ex.PW40/B Dead body identification statement of

Deepak

101. Ex.PW40/C Dead body identification statement of

Sushil

102. Ex.PW4/D Application for Filing the FSL Result

103. Ex.PW40/E Application for filling of opinion of

Chemical expert regarding Exhibit

104. Ex.PW40/F Request for Postmortem

105. Ex.PW40/G Brief Fact

106. Ex.PW40/H Request for examination of Viscera,

blood samples, clothes etc.

107. Ex.PW40/I Request for postmortem of parts part

108. Ex.PW40/J Receipt of handing over of the deadbody of unknown person

109. Ex.PW40/K Arrest memo

110. Ex.PW41/DX1 Copy of Newspapers ASI Virender

111. Ex.PW42/A Site plan of the room at Haiderpur Insp Sunder Singh

112. Ex.PW42/B Site plan of the place from where the

skull and jaw were recovered

113. Ex.PW42/C CDR of mobile No. 9211463742

114. Ex.PW42/D CDR of mobile No. 9211463743115. Ex.PW42/E Location Chart

116. Ex.PW43/A Slip recovered from the possession of

the accused

Pankaj

117. Ex.PW44/A Certificate U/s 65 Evidence Act Sh. M. N. Vijayan

118. Ex.PW44DX1 Authorization Letter



11/245

List of case property:

Sr.No.

Exhibit No. Details of the Case Property

1. Ex.PW5/4 Blood Stains lifted from the room

2. Ex.PW5/5 Blood stained pieces of the floor and wall

3. Ex.PW5/6 Envelop containing Blood stained from clothes belowthe knife

4. Ex.PW5/7 Stone pieces of floor

5. Ex.P1 Skull

6. Ex.P2 Jaw

7. Ex.P3 Plastic Rope

8. Ex.P4 Letter (written on Yellow)

9. Ex.P5 Letter (printed page 'Geography')

10. Ex.P6 Katta

11. Ex.P7 Clothes of Children (Seven in Number)

12. Ex.P8 Katta ( first Katta containing the second Katta)

13. Ex.P9 Katta containing the headless body

14. Ex.P10 Red cloth

15. Ex.P11 Ghagri

16. Ex.P12 Knife

17. Ex.P13 Knife

18. Ex.P14 Knife

19. Ex.P15 Non-Chuck

20. Ex.P16 Denim jeans along with black belt

21. Ex.P17 (previously

marked as PW42/1)

Indicom Mobile Phone

22. Ex.P18 (previously

marked as PW42/2)

Samsung Mobile Phone

Note: To avoid any confusion and inconvenience the exhibits PW42/1 &

PW42/2 have been renumbered as herein above at the stage of judgment.

(8) Coming now to the testimonies of the various witnesses

examined by the prosecution:



12/245

Public witnesses:

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

Haiderpur, Delhi and the property bearing No.229/2, Ambedkar Nagar,

Haiderpur is in the name of his grandmother Late Smt. Ramkali.

According to him in October 2004 one room in the said property was

rented out by him to one Vikas R/o Bihar, who remained in that room till

December, 2005 after which the said room was lying vacant. He has

testified that in April 2006, Vikas came to him along with accused

Chanderkant and introduced him as his maternal uncle and requested

him to rent out the said room to the accused and his family members for

residential purpose. The witness has further deposed that he rented out

the said room to the accused at a monthly rent of Rs.700/- after which

the accused started living in the said room along with his wife and

children and the accused told him that he was having vegetable work in

Azadpur Mandi. According to him, in April 2007 the accused shifted

his wife and children to some other place while he used to visit the said

room alone. In May 2007, he came to know that the accused had been

arrested in a murder case by the police. He has testified that on

07.07.2007 police called him at Police Station Hari Nagar and handed

over photocopy of certificate issued by BDO Gram Sabha, Haiderpur

regarding the property No. 229/2, Ambedkar Nagar, Haiderpur, the

photocopy of the electricity bill of the said property and the photocopy

of his driving licence which were taken into police possession vide

seizure memo Ex.PW3/A. The witness has proved the original

certificate issued by BDO copy of which is Ex.PW3/B and photocopy

of his original driving licence which is Ex.PW3/C. According to him,

the Investigation Officer recorded his statement on the day of incident.



13/245

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

recorded his statement only once at Police Station and it was one Mr.

Kohli, who recorded his statement partly but he is unable to tell the FIR

number of the case, in which his statement was recorded. He has further

deposed that Police visited tenanted premises for two times in his

presence but he is unable to tell the exact date or month and states that

in the year 2007 when police visited, on that day accused was arrested.

He is also unable to tell the date or month of 2007 when police officials

visited second time but states that the second visit was after two-three

days of the first visit. According to him, on both the occasions therewere seven-eight police officers and some were in uniform while some

were in civil clothes but in both the visits, the accused was not with the

police officials. He has further deposed that at the time of first visit, the

police officials broke open the lock of the room of the accused and put

their own lock and on the second visit as well, they went to the room of

the accused. According to him, the police officials were not carrying

any bag or any articles and the police officials had not allowed any

public persons to enter into the room of the accused. He has testified

that after a second visit, the police officials did not lock the room of the

accused and on both the visits, police checked the room and no articles

were taken by the police from the room of the accused in his presence.

The witness has also deposed that the accused left the tenanted premises

after putting his lock in the month of May 2007 but he is not aware what

happened to broken lock. According to the witness, for the first time he

had seen the accused in the year 2006 when room was rented out to him

and it was one Vikas who had brought the accused to his house at 155,

Haiderpur but he does not know any relative or friend of Vikas. He has

further deposed that Vikas was employed in some factory and the room,



14/245

in which, Vikas was a tenant was given to accused in the year 2006 on

rent. The witness has testified that the accused was living in the tenanted

room along with his wife and five children. He has admitted that one

child of the accused was born at the tenanted room but he is unable to

tell the month. He has also admitted that the tenanted room was situated

at ground floor and that on all three sides, left, right and front, there are

other tenanted rooms situated. He has further deposed that family

members of other tenants were residing in those rooms. He has denied

the suggestion that the tenanted room of the accused was situated near

the main gate. He has admitted that one has to cross four tenantedrooms to reach the room of the accused and that one window

(roshandan) is situated in the tenanted room of the accused, which is not

covered. The witness has also deposed that the police officials visited

tenanted room during evening hours but he (witness) was not present at

that time and he was called from his house. According to him, when

police had broken open the lock on their first visit, there was only one

lock at the tenanted room of the accused, which was broken with the

help of hammer and no public person joined the proceedings on the first

visit of police officials. The witness has testified that in his presence, no

photographer was called by the police at the time of both visits and he

remained with the police officials after calling from his house at the

time of both visits till they remained at the premises and the accused

was having one rickshaw fitted with scooter engine. He has also

deposed that he had not executed any rent agreement with the accused

and no rent receipt was issued to the accused. He has denied the

suggestion that neither any rent agreement nor rent receipt issued to the

accused as he never remained tenant. He has also deposed that no toilet

provided in the tenanted room but a joint toilet was situated at the main



15/245

gate. The witness has testified that he had taken the accused to Police

Station for verification when he was inducted as tenant. He has also

deposed that police officials asked accused to produce identity proof

and he maintained temporary account of rent receipt from tenants but he

could produce the same showing that accused paid rent in the month of

April-May, 2007. The witness has further deposed that the tenants do

not sign on the temporary account. He has denied the suggestion that

the accused had never been his tenant in the property No. 229/2,

Haiderpur not is he unable to show any documentary proof to prove the

tenancy of the accused. He has denied the suggestion that he wasdeposing falsely at the instance of police officials as they had obliged

him by getting his premises vacated.

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

situated at WZ-17, Titarpur, Delhi and in his shop, he is also running the

STD Booth and one coin inserting telephone instrument was affixed

outside his shop. According to him, on 18.05.2007 at about 6.20 AM he

was present at the shop when one person came there and inserted a coin

in the said telephone instrument and made a telephone and after

sometime, he again inserted the coin but the coin came out of the

instrument. He has testified that he asked that person as to whom he

wanted to make a telephone call and that person handed over the coin to

him and left the shop. The witness has also deposed that when a person

usually dialed 100 number from that phone, then the coin comes out

from the instrument and he thought that the person dialed 100 number at

that time. He has further deposed that when he asked that person as to

whom he was making call, he became perplexed. According to him, the

said person was having slight mustaches and beard, having wheatish

complexion, having a height of 5 feet aged 35-36 years. Witness has



16/245

identified that person as accused Chanderkant Jha. He has deposed that

on the same day, police of the local police Station came to him and

recorded his statement and on one occasion, he had identified that

person in the Rohini Court. He has further deposed that his telephone

number was 42133579 and also produced a copy of the bill to the

Investigation Officer. He has further testified that the telephone installed

in the name of his wife and proved the copy of the original bill which is

Ex.PW6/A and Investigation Officer recorded his statement.

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

previous date of hearing he was not able to identify the accused and has

explained that this was so because on that day he did not pay attention

or focus on the accused whom he had seen after about three years.

According to the witness, he had studied upto Class 12 th and police

recorded his statement twice and his first statement was recorded on

18.05.2007. He is not aware the name of the police officers, who

recorded his statement at Police Station Hari Nagar and states that the

accused at the time of making call never asked him or informed him

because it was a coin phone. The witness has further testified that his

second statement was recorded on 26.06.2007 and after three years, he

identified that the person, who made call at his shop where the STD

telephone was installed is present in the Court. He has also deposed that

he had seen the face of the accused when accused made payment to him

and he had also seen his side face at the time of making of telephone

call. He has also deposed that he had little conversation with the accused

on 18.05.2007 after he made the telephone call and has stated that at that

time he had not noticed any mark on both the cheeks of the accused

since he was having beard. The witness has further deposed that he had

not heard the conversation because of the distance between him and the



17/245

accused. He has further deposed that first of all, accused came to his

shop and made a call and went away at a distance of three paces and

returned back and went to bus stop. According to the witness, after

about two to three minutes, he returned to the shop and again made a

call and at that time, the coin came out from the instrument and he asked

him as to whom he had made the call. The witness has testified that he

further asked the accused whether he had made a STD/ local call, then

the accused came to him and gave him the coin and said that he had

made a local call and went away. He has also deposed that the first call

was made by the accused on a mobile phone, which he later on came toknow through the police as they collected the call details. The witness

has also deposed that on 18.05.2007, police came to him at about

9.00/9.30 AM and one of them was Inspector Hoshiyar Singh. He has

further deposed that the accused came to his shop on foot but he noticed

that a cycle rickshaw was parked near the bus stand and accused went

there, stood near the rickshaw and again came back at the shop. He has

admitted that near bus stand, many rickshaw were parked. The witness

has admitted that the police officials had read over to him his statement

recorded on 18.05.2007. He has stated that he had also helped in making

the sketch of the accused but is unable to tell the date and has explained

that it was in the same month after two-three days at some police office.

He is also unable to tell the place where the office was situated and

states that the police official came to his shop and took him in their

vehicle to that office on a government motorcycle. He has further

deposed that he described the beard and mustaches of the accused at the

time of preparation of sketch but he does not remember whether he had

signed on any paper on that day including the sketch. The witness has

testified that on 26.06.2007, he identified the accused in the Rohini



18/245

Court Complex in front of Court Room No.108 and he identified

him as the person who made the telephone call from his shop on

18.05.2007 and the accused was with the police officials, who were in

the uniform. He does not remember whether the accused was

handcuffed or not. According to the witness, he had not noticed any

mark on both cheeks of the accused. He has deposed that he had

reached in the Court Room No.109 at about 9.30 AM and the accused

came to the Court premises at about 2.00/2.30 PM. The witness has

further deposed that Inspector Hoshiyar Singh disclosed the name of the

accused prior to 26.06.2007. He has further stated that it was InspectorHoshiyar Singh who called him to Rohini Court. He has also deposed

that he was instructed to appear in the Court two days prior to

26.06.2007 to identify the accused. He has further stated that on that

day, his statement was recorded at Court premises but he is unable to tell

the exact place nor is he able to tell at what time the statement was

recorded. He has denied that he was deposing on the instructions of the

Investigation Officer or that he never visited the court premises on

26.06.2007.

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

Alipur, Delhi where he had already constructed eight rooms, which were

given on rent to various tenants and on 10.05.2007, wife of the accused

came to him with her children and he had given her two rooms on the

monthly rent in the sum of Rs. 600/- p.m. He has deposed that he had

seen accused there on one or two occasion but he never talked with the

accused. According to him, three months prior to his deposition, the

wife and five children of the accused shifted to another place and his

statement was recorded by the police. He has correctly identified the

accused in the Court.



19/245

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

studied till 12th class. He has admitted that his parents are residing

separately at House No. 139 whereas he is residing on the back side of

the said plot where the accused was residing. According to him, at the

time of arrest of the accused, he was residing in the same premises,

however, he was not present at the time of his arrest. He has testified

that his house is situated in the Chhota Shiv Mandir Gali, Near Dhulia

Colony Chowk at a distance of five minutes walk from his parents

home. He has further deposed that on 01.08.2007, police officials of

Crime Branch called at their office and recorded his statement only oncebut he does not remember the names of the police official, who recorded

his statement. According to the witness, on one occasion police had

also visited the premises where the accused was residing and Police told

him that the accused was arrested in the cases of murder and used to

throw the dead body in front of Tihar Jail. He has denied the suggestion

that police twice recorded his statement i.e. on 01.08.2007 and

02.08.2007.

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

that he was running a photo studio in the name of Sanjay Studio

opposite BSES Office, Tagore Garden and on 23.5.07 on the request of

Inspector Sunder Singh, Incharge Special Staff, West District he reached

near Yamuna Pull along with him and other staff. He has further

deposed that the accused Chanderkant was also present and pointed out

towards the place where he left the skull. According to the witness on

request of Inspector Sunder Singh, he took eleven photographs of the

skull from different angles and after developing the same, he handed

over the said photographs to the Investigating Officer which are

ExPW34/A1 to ExPW34/A11. He has further deposed that he also



20/245

handed over eleven negatives to the Investigating Officer which are

collectively Ex.PW34/B and Investigating Officer Inspector Sunder

Singh took the photographs and negatives into possession vide seizure

memo Ex.PW34/C. He has correctly identified the accused in the

Court.

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

12th class passed. He is unable to tell whether the accused at the time

when he was taking photographs was hand cuffed or not and has

voluntarily explained that he was only taking photographs. According to

him, he is normally being called by the local police for taking

photographs and he frequently come to the court for deposition. He has

further deposed that he was a private photographer and had no official

business with the Delhi Police though he was called by them frequently.

He has testified that on that day, he was called by Inspector Sunder

Singh, Special Staff at Yamuna Bridge, ISBT. He has denied the

suggestion that when he reached the spot the skull and other body parts

were already present and has voluntarily explained that they were

pointed out and got recovered by the accused. The witness has further

stated that his shop is at Tagore Garden and it took him about one hour

to reach at spot i.e Yamuna Bridge. According to the witness, he

reached there at about 8:00 PM on his own conveyance and no police

officer was with him. He has admitted that there were no electricity

polls at the spot and has voluntarily deposed that there was a search

light available with the police officials. He does not recollect whether

the skull was covered/ wrapped in some cloth or opened when it was

recovered and his statement had been recorded by the Investigating

Officer and has voluntarily explained that it was recorded by Inspector

Ombir Singh. The witness was confronted with his statement



21/245

ExPW34/DX1 where it is mentioned that the skull was wrapped in a

cloth when it was recovered. The witness admits having made the

above statement to the Investigating Officer and states that at the time

when he reached the spot the police were still searching and the

recovery was made thereafter. He has denied the suggestion that he was

a stock witness of the police and was making a false deposition at their

instance or that no recovery was effected in his presence at the instance

of the accused and he was making a false statement at the instance of the

police.

(17) Sh. Pankaj (PW43) is the son of Sh. Mahender Rathore, aresident of Village Hari Ram Pur, Post Gauri Bazar, district Devariya,

UP is the brother of one Upender Rathore another victim whose

decapitated body was found outside Central Jail Tihar on 24.04.2007

pursuant to which FIR No. 243/07 Police Station Hari Nagar was

registered. Pankaj has been examined by the prosecution in the

present case to prove that the accused Chander Kant Jha was usinga mobile Number 9211463742 at the time when the various killings

were taking place. This Pankaj had met the accused Chander Kant Jha

prior to the death of Upender and had even spoken to him to inquire

about his brother Upender who according to him used to work with

Chander Kant Jha, and was not traceable.

(18) Pankaj has deposed that in the year 2006 his brother Upender

was residing at village Sanaut, near Narela, Delhi. According to the

witness, he was residing at Bhiwari, Rajasthan and he used to speak to

his brother Upender on mobile numbers 9211463742 and 9211463743

from STD Booth. The witness has deposed that usually the call was

received by the accused Chander Kant Jha, whom the witness has

correctly identified, and it was thereafter he used to speak to his brother



22/245

Upender. According to Pankaj he had last spoken to his brother on

20.04.2007. He has explained that he had met Chander Kant Jha along

with his brother when he came to Delhi to meet his brother at village

Sanaut. Witness has further deposed that he met accused Chander Kant

first time at Jahangirpuri as two children from his native place came

Delhi and they were kept at Prayas Children Home and the relatives of

the children came to Delhi and they met him and then he asked his

brother Upender to get those children released when Upender told him

that accused Chander Kant Jha could help to get them released and

therefore his brother introduced him to accused Chander Kant Jha.(19) Witness has further testified that after 20 th April, 2007 when he

could not contact his brother on the mobile number given to him i.e.

9211463742, he tried to contact him on the other number given to him

by his brother i.e. 9211463743 and called him up on this number

9211463743 in May, 2007 which was picked up by a girl and when he

asked her to connect him to Chander Kant Jha, she told him her father

was not available and he should call back after ten minutes. The witness

has further deposed that again after about 10-15 minutes he called up on

the same number i.e 9211463743 which call was attended to by Chander

Kant Jha whose voice he could identify as he had been previously

speaking to him on the other mobile number 9211463742 i.e.when he

used to call Upender. According to the witness, Chander Kant and his

brother Upender used to work together in a mandi in partnership where

they used to put a rehri of subzi in the mandi. According to the witness,

this was the last time when he met Upender along with Chander Kant

i.e. two-three months prior to 20.04.2007 when he last spoke to

Upender. He has further testified that when he asked Chander Kant Jha

about the whereabouts of Upender he told him that Upender had taken



23/245

Rs.20,000/- and had also taken his rehri/ thela and gone away

somewhere. The witness was shown the Ex.PW43/A where the witness

has identified his name and address mentioned at point X.

(20) In his cross examination the witness has deposed that

whenever he used to came Delhi he used to meet the accused Chander

Kant Jha. He has deposed that he did not meet his brother Upender in

February, 2007 at Haiderpur. According to him, his statement was

recorded by Inspector Hoshiyar Singh. He has testified that he is 10th

class pass and he had gone through his statement which was recorded by

the police. According to the witness, it may be possible at the time of

recording of his statement he told to the police that he met Upender at

Haiderpur in February, 2007 and has voluntarily explained that he has

forgotten these facts due to lapse of time of about seven years. Witness

has further deposed that he told to the police meaning of CC i.e.

Chander Chander. The witness has also testified that the children who

came to Delhi, one of them was his real brother namely Pawan, whereas

the other was his friend namely Kundan and he told to the police about

his brother but the police recorded that brother of Upender came to

Delhi from native place. Witness has explained that meaning of both the

facts are same. According to the witness at that time father of Upender

did not came to Delhi from native place for rescue of children and when

both the children were got released from the Prayas Sanstha at that

time he stayed at village Sannaut at the house of his brother Upender

where accused Chander Kant Jha was also present. Witness has further

deposed that some other persons from the native place were also

residing there. He is not aware of the place at Azadpur Mandi where his

brother used to work and he never visited the place where he used to

work. According to the witness, it was the deceased Upender who



24/245

informed him about his working at Azadpur Mandi. He has also

deposed that the father of Upender came to Delhi in Nirankari Samagam

and he took him to village Sannaut where they came to know that

accused Chander Kant Jha was involved in another murder case in the

year November, 2006. Witness has also deposed that some persons

residing in neighbourhood at Sannaut who were also working in the

Mandi, told them about the involvement of accused Chander Kant Jha in

a murder case and at that time father of Upender asked him to leave the

company of accused Chander Kant Jha. He does not recollect if he had

spoken to Upender on phone in November 2006. According to himwhen he met first time with the accused Chander Kant Jha for getting

released the children from Prayas, it was prior to the Deepawali in the

year of 2006. He also does not remember if he had spoken to his

brother upto 24.04.2007. Witness has further deposed that he never met

accused Chander Kant Jha at Azadpur Subzi Mandi or at Haiderpur and

has voluntarily explained that he met accused Chander Kant Jha in a

room prior to Azadpur Mandi but he does not remember the locality.

According to him father of Upender never accompanied him to Azadpur

Subzi Mandi and in the year 2005-2006 one of his known person was

residing at Haiderpur and he left Delhi in the year 2006 and went to

Bhiwari Rajasthan. Witness has further deposed that he is not aware of

when and how his brother Upender came in contact with accused

Chander Kant Jha and initially one Wali and he himself were working at

village Barwala in a factory and prior to this Upender was also working

there. According to the witness when he came to know that Upender

was missing he also contacted to Wali about the missing of Upender

who told him that Upender had not come to meet him. Witness has also

deposed that he did not tell the police that Wali told him that Upender



25/245

did not come to the factory for his work since two-four days. However,

when confronted with statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. it has been

found to be so recorded. Witness has also deposed that Upender did not

tell him that he again joined the factory at Barwala. However, when

confronted with his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. it has been

found to be so recorded that Upender again joined the factory. He does

not remember the dates but states that it was in the year 2005 that

Upender joined the factory at Barwala and he left the said factory and

started work at Mandi and police came to Bhiwari and told him that they

knew about his number from a document recovered from the possessionof Chandra Kant Jha and they asked him as to whether he knew Chander

Kant Jha on which he replied Yes and thereafter he came to Delhi at

Police Station Hari Nagar. Witness has further deposed that when he

contacted last time in the month of May 2007 to Chander Kant Jha on

mobile number9211463743 he told him that Upender ka jaisa karam

tha, maine usko wahan pahucha diya hai. The witness has further

testified that he tried for search Upender in the house of relatives,

friends etc. but he was not traceable. He does not remember the name of

the place where he met Upender lastly and has voluntarily explained that

he can identify the place by going there. Witness has admitted that

immediately after last call with the accused Chander Kant Jha he did not

make any complaint to the police and has voluntarily explained that he

tried to search for Upender at his own. Witness has further deposed that

he is not aware as to how many persons were in contact of Upender and

has voluntarily explained that Upender was residing with the accused

Chander Kant only. He has denied the suggestion that he was deposing

falsely at the instance of the police officials or that he never met

Upender or that the accused Chander Kant Jha. Witness has also denied



26/245

the suggestion that he never had a talk with accused Chander Kant Jha

on telephone numbers as stated by him in his examination in chief.

Medical Witness:

(21) Anil Shandil (PW2) is the Autopsy Surgeon who on

14.06.2007 had conducted the postmortem of the decapitated body of

the unknown person recovered from outside gate no. 1 Central Jail Tihar

on 18.5.2007. He has deposed that on 14.06.2007 he had conducted

postmortem of body of unknown brought by Inspector Omvir Singh,

Police Station Hari Nagar with alleged history that on 18.05.2007 at

6.50 AM, a call was received on PCR that the dead body was lying at

Gate No.1 and ASI Krishan Chand reached at the spot, opened the

plastic bag and recovered the dead body of a male aged 22-23 years. He

has further deposed that both the hands and legs (below ankle, head and

private parts) of the body were missing. According to the witness only

one underwear was there and decapitated (headless, neck-less) bodylower border face of neck at the level of sternal notch with both upper

lips, shoulder with scapula dismembered and missing along with the

anterio-lateral posterior aspect of chest wall with parts of clavicle and

ribcac visible. He has further deposed that the corresponding wound

over the body corresponding to the dismembered missing parts did not

show blood clots and the residual tissue showed changes with fungus,

foul smells. According to the witness, decapitation the front at the level

of anterior clavicular joint, sternal notch and in the back is cut over the

seven cervical vertabrae, the intervertebral disc between C6-7 is clean

cut; the traces is attached with cut part of the face of neck and not drawn

in chest gravity with above five tracheal lings absent an absence of any

vital reaction over the wound. He has further deposed that on internal



27/245

examination of abdomen Stomach was empty, Mucosa was congested

with redening and abnormal smell not appreciable. He has proved

having opined that the wounds over the body were postmortem in

nature are caused by sharp edged weapon and no definite opinion

regarding cause of death could be given. According to the witness,

sternum with rib for DNA finger printing, clothes of the deceased, blood

and viscera for chemical analysis and blood samples were preserved,

sealed and handed over to the concerned police Investigation Officer.

He has proved the detailed report in this regard which is Ex.PW2/A.

(22) The witness has also deposed that on 14.06.2007, he had

conducted the postmortem of skull plus teeth (unidentified) sent by

Omvir Singh, Addl. SHO Police Station Hari Nagar and as per inquest

papers, the skull was stated to be recovered from the bank of Yamuna

river in the area of Police Station Seelampur, Delhi. According to him,

the skull was along with one skirt and red colour piece of cloth, whole

skull bones divide of scalp with facial underlying muscular tissues withfully exposed with typical characteristics of male with prominent

glabella, supra orbital ridges, mastoid process, occipital protuberance

more prominent with partial fusion of saggital and coronal and lamboid

sutures with orbital opening big and rectangular, lower jaw absent and

missing both incisors from upper jaw socket and no brain matter

present. He has proved having opined that it was a dismembered

skull of human body. The witness has further proved that tooth for

DNA finger printing, whole skull for super imposition, two x-ray of

skull preserved, sealed and handed over to Investigation Officer. He has

also proved the postmortem report in this regard which is Ex.PW2/B.

According to him, on the same day i.e. on 14.06.2007, he conducted

postmortem of unknown mutilated parts of body i.e. limbs, both hands



28/245

and private part. According to the witness, both side right and left upper

limb (arms from shoulder to fingers) and specular part with

decomposition with fungus, foul smelling and human genitalia (penis

with scortum with both testis adjacent perineal tissues with public hair

with peeling of skin, decomposition without blood clots). He has

proved having opined that these were the dismembered parts of human

body. He has testified that the right and left upper limb humerus bone

for DNA finger printing along with pubic hair and hand with phalanges

preserved, sealed and handed over to concerned Investigation Officer.

He has also proved the postmortem report to this effect which isEx.PW2/C. This witness was not cross-examined by the counsel for the

accused and hence his testimony has gone uncontroverted.

Forensic Evidence:

(23) Naresh Kumar (PW5) is the Senior Scientific Assistant

(Biology) FSL, Delhi. He has deposed that on 20.05.2007, on the

request of Inspector Sunder Singh he visited the spot i.e. House No.

229, Gali No.2, Haiderpur Village and inspected the scene of crime i.e.

the room situated at ground floor where crime team members were

already present there. According to him, he inspected the scene of crime

and found that the blood was present in the room and he lifted some of

the blood stains/ floor pieces that were marked as Mark A to Mark D

and separate parcels of these articles were prepared and sealed with the

seal of NK FSL. According to the witness, the parcel Mark A was

containing blood stains lifted on a gauze cloth, near the gate of the

room; Parcel Mark B containing blood stained pieces of floor taken

near the gate of the room; Parcel C contained stains prepared from

below the knives and Parcel D containing portion of concrete floor



29/245

pieces taken from the room along with three weapons of offence i.e.

knives. The witness has further deposed that he inspected the knives and

found that the knives were blood stained which blood was dried on the

knives after which the Investigation Officer prepared the sketch of the

knives and measured the same. He has testified that one of the knife

was having a handle wrapped with rubber and tied with the thread and

total length of that knife was 41.5 cm, blade was 28 cm, handle was 13.5

cm and the width of the blade was 4.5 cm. He has further deposed that

Investigation Officer prepared the parcel, sealed and also given serial

number E to this knife. According to him, the second knife was alsomeasured and total length of that knife was 39.8 cm, blade was 27 cm,

handle was 12.8 cm, width of the blade was 7 cm and the handle of the

knife was fitted with wood. He has proved that Investigation Officer

prepared the cloth parcel, sealed and also given serial numberF to this

knife. The witness has testified that the third knife was also measured

and total length of that knife was 59 cm, width of the blade was 4.5 cm

and the handle of the knife was having a hole. He has further deposed

that Investigation Officer prepared the cloth parcel, sealed and also

given serial number G to this knife and sketch of the knives were

prepared by the Investigation Officer prior to their seizure and all the

parcels were sealed with the seal of NK FSL Delhi and he signed the

seizure memos.

(24) The witness has also proved that on 30.07.2007, he received

ten sealed parcels which seals were intact as per FA letter and all the

parcels were opened by breaking the seal. He has further deposed that

he had given serial No. 1, 2 and 6 and parcel A to G and the contents of

the parcels were given Ex.1A, 1b, 1c, 1d, 1e, 1f, 1g, 1h and 1i and 2, 6a,

6b, A, B, C, D, E, F and G. The witness has also deposed that he



30/245

examined all the exhibits biologically and prepared his detailed report

which is Ex.PW5/A and also examined the exhibits serologically and

prepared his detailed report which is Ex.PW5/B. He has further deposed

that after examination of the parcels, they were sealed with the seal of

NK, FSL.

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

were sent to DNA Division as per inquiry No.4 of the Investigation

Officer and photocopy of seizure memo of the blood stains and earth

control is Ex.PW5/B and the original produced by the MHC(M) is

Ex.PW5/C and seizure memo of the weapons, which were recovered

from the room of the accused, seized by the Investigation Officer in a

separate parcel and sealed with the seal of NK FSL, which seizure

memo is Ex.PW5/D.

(26) He has identified the case property i.e. one dagger like weapon

which is Ex.PW5/1; one chopper knife which is Ex.PW5/2 and one

long sword type knife which is Ex.PW5/3 which were recovered fromthe house of accused. He has also identified the envelope which was

contained the blood stains lifted from the floor near the gate of the room

which blood stains were consumed/ used by the FSL Authority during

examination, which envelope is Ex.PW5/4; another envelope containing

the blood stained pieces of the floor and wall which is Ex.PW5/5;

another envelope which contained blood stains from the clothes below

the knife which blood stains were consumed/ used by the FSL Authority

during examination which envelope is Ex.PW5/6 and one stone piece of

floor removed from the middle of the room of the accused having blood

stains along with a white cloth which blood stained concrete floor

pieces are Ex.PW5/7. According to him, all the above-said exhibits

were lifted in case FIR No. 609/06 of Police Station Hari Nagar during



31/245

investigation in his presence and Investigation Officer recorded his

statement.

(27) In his cross-examination, he has deposed that he had seen the

accused for the first time on 20.05.2007 at about 6.00 PM at H. No. 229,

Gali No.2, Haiderpur Village, Delhi. He has admitted that he had

inspected the scene of crime where he had seen the accused. He has

further deposed that he had been authorized by the Director, FSL to visit

the said house as Investigation Officer must have made the request to

the Director for the inspection of scene of crime and he was disclosed

FIR number as 609/06 Police Station Hari Nagar. He has furtherdeposed that he started from his office at about 5.30 PM in the evening

and reached at about 5.50 PM near red light of Haiderpur Village where

he met Inspector Sunder Singh and he had the complete kit bag with him

for inspection of the scene of crime. The witness has testified that he

had gone to the scene of crime by a three wheeler and was not known to

Inspector Sunder Singh prior to 20.05.2007. According to him, he had

not noticed when Mobile Crime Team arrived at the spot nor he had

noticed the presence of accused at red light with Inspector Sunder

Singh. He does not remember how the accused was present with the

police officials nor does he remember whether accused was having big

mustaches and beard. He has also deposed that he along with Inspector

Sunder Singh went to the scene of crime from red light in the TATA 407

but he does not recollect whether Inspector Sunder Singh was

accompanied with other staff persons or not. The witness has testified

that TATA 407 had not reached in front of the house of the accused. He

does not recollect the spot till which TATA 407 reached and states that

he got down at the road and walked to the scene of crime. According to

him, the said house was pointed out by the Investigation Officer. He is



32/245

unable to tell the exact number of documents signed by him regarding

the proceedings conducted by him or in his presence on 20.05.2007 at

the spot of crime and states that all the documents were signed at the

spot of crime. He has admitted that the room was opened after breaking

the lock and thereafter, the recovery of weapons and other articles were

got effected. According to the witness, he had signed all the documents/

memos after going through its contents but he does not remember as to

how the lock of the room was broken. The witness has testified that

when he had reached at the room, it was locked but he does not

remember what make and how many numbers of locks were there. Healso does not remember all the contents of the documents Ex.PW5/D.

According to the witness, he signed the documents at his own, without

any pressure or coercion from police. He does not remember whether

the light of the room was switched on or was off when they entered in

the room and has explained that in so far as he remember, bulb was there

and it was on. He has stated that the accused pointed out the weapon

lying in the room and also told that it was used for committing the

murder of various persons and at that time, Inspector Sunder Singh

along with other officials were also present. The witness has further

deposed that the accused informed about the murder while entering the

room but he does not remember about the sequence of investigation

conducted by police officials. According to him, he has deposed on the

basis of his memory after three years. He does not remember as to what

investigation was conducted after his inspection of the scene of

occurrence nor does he remember the width and length of the room. He

has further deposed that after pointing out of the accused towards

weapon of offence, he lifted the blood stains from the scene of crime

and the weapon of offence was sealed in his presence. He has further



33/245

deposed that when he conducted his job at the room, the weapon was

sealed by him and in so far as he recollects, one Photographer was also

present but he is unable to tell his name. The witness is unable to tell if

he was also present at the time of seizure of case property and does not

remember if any polythene or hanky or a glove was lying on the knife or

not. According to him, the weapons were lying in the room in open

condition but he does not remember if the knife and other weapon of

offence were lying vertically or horizontally and states that they were

lying on the left side when one enter in the room from the entrance. He

has further deposed that he pointed out that the weapon of offence washaving blood stains being the expert and he detected blood stains after

test in the room itself when the available light was there and at that time

he was wearing gloves in his hands. He does not remember whether

photographs were taken prior to his test or after test. According to the

witness, he with the help of chalk encircled the place where weapons of

offence were recovered and also wrote Blood there but he does not

remember who had written word 'Chaku / Hathiyar'. He has admitted

that first of all, he had picked up the recovered knives in the room. He

has further deposed that the Investigation Officer prepared sketch of the

weapons of offence but he is not aware whether the Investigation

Officer was wearing gloves or not and states that the Investigation

Officer took the measurement of weapons in his presence. He does not

remember what kind of scale was used by the Investigation Officer for

measurement of weapons and states that the knife was turned into a

white cloth for preparing it as parcel. He has also deposed that some

Constable made stitches on the white cloth for preparing parcel but he

does not remember his name. The witness has also deposed that he

affixed his seal on the cloth parcels and he was having sealing material



34/245

with him but he does not remember as to how seals were affixed on each

parcels by him. He does not remember if the photographs were taken

while preparing the sealed parcels nor does he aware the members of the

mobile crime team. The witness has testified that sealed pullandas were

handed over to Inspector Sunder Singh but he does not remember if any

blood stained cloth was also lying in the room or whether any nunchaku

or mobile was obtained from the room. According to him, the blood

stains on the floor were collected by him and blood stains were lifted

twice from two places whereas blood stained floor was taken from two

places and the blood stains were collected as they were seemed to befirst washed on the floor. He has testified that the floor pieces were

broken by him with the help of hammer and chhenni, which were

arranged by police but he does not remember the name of police official,

who had brought the same. According to the witness, he left the floor in

the same condition after lifting the samples but he does not remember if

he had told the photographer to take his photographs while lifting the

blood stains. He has deposed that he had completed his proceedings at

about 7.00 PM in the room and has no knowledge whether Investigation

Officer had given instruction to owner and public persons not to enter

the room during his proceedings. He is unable to recollect whether he

signed the sketches of recovered weapons or as to who prepared

Ex.PW5/C and Ex.PW5/D and as to who else signed the same.

According to the witness, he had not seen broken lock or door or open

lock because he had no concern with that proceeding. He has further

deposed that when he saw the accused for the first time, he was

unmuffled and he had left the spot after completing his proceedings. He

has no knowledge as to whether he joined the investigation of a serial

killer case of Tihar Jail and states that he was concerned only with his



35/245

investigations. According to the witness, he was not having any

knowledge regarding the name of the accused at the time of inspection

of spot. He does not remember on which day his statement was

recorded in FIR No.243/07 or 279/07 and how many times his statement

was recorded pertaining to all three FIRs i.e. No. 279/07, 609/07 or

243/07. The witness has proved the letterEx.PW5/DE of the Director

instructing him to visit the spot of crime on 20.05.2007. He has denied

the suggestion that on 20.05.2007, he met Inspector Sunder Singh at

Police Station Hari Nagar in day hours and at that time, accused was

also present there. He has also denied that he had deposed falsely at theinstance of the Investigation Officer or that the accused was not present

at the spot of recovery of weapons on 20.05.2007 or that no pointing out

regarding weapons of offence was ever done by the accused or that no

weapon was recovered at the instance of accused and that the accused

had not disclosed anything incriminating against him.

(28) Jitender Kumar (PW31) is the Senior Scientific Assistant

(Chemistry), FSL Rohini. He has deposed that on 30.07.2007, he had

received one parcel containing a polythene bag duly sealed with the seal

of DDU Hospital bearing the details of PMR No. 581/07, FIR No.

279/07, PS Hari Nagar and he opened this parcel and found two exhibits

1a and 1b. He has further deposed that Ex.1a was the stomach and

small intestine with contents and Ex.1b was the piece of liver, spleen

and kidney and on chemical and instrumentation examination no

common poison could not be detected in Ex 1a and Ex 1b. He has

proved his detailed report in this regard which is Ex.PW31/A which

report was forwarded to SHO Police Station Hari Nagar vide forwarding

letter Ex.PW31/B. According to the witness, as per the report

Ex.PW31/A on chemical and TLC examination, metallic poison, ethyl



36/245

and methyl alcohol, cyanide, phosphide, alkaloids, barbiturates,

tranquilizers and insecticides could not be detected in exhibits 1a and

1b. He has testified that the exhibits/ remnants of exhibits were

resealed with the seal of JK FSL Delhi and sent to the laboratory for

examination. This witness has not been cross-examined by the Ld.

Defence Counsel and his testimony has gone uncontroverted.

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

(Biology), DNA Finger Printing Unit, FSL, Rohini. He has deposed that

on 30.07.2007 six forensic samples in the present case were received in

their office regarding DNA, finger printing test and the samples wereduly sealed with the seal of DFMT, DDU hospital after which the

parcels were opened and parcel No.1 was found to contain Ex1 i.e. one

bone piece having foul smell described as sternum vide PM No. 581/07;

Parcel No. 2 was found to contain Ex2 i.e. dark brown liquid sample

described as blood sample vide PM No. 581/07; parcel No. 3 was found

to contain Ex3 i.e. five teeth described as teeth taken out of the skull

vide PM No. 582/07; parcel No. 4 was found to contain Ex4 i.e. one

bone piece having foul smell described as left upper limb bone vide PM

No. 583/07; Parcel No. 5 was found to contain Ex5 i.e. one bone piece

having foul smell described as right upper limb bone vide PM No.

583/07 and Parcel No. 6 was found to contain Ex6 i.e. two small pieces

of hair vide PM No. 583/07. He has further deposed that the exhibit 1

to 6 were subjected to DNA isolation and DNA was isolated from the

exhibits 1 to 5 however DNA could not be isolated from Ex.6 and

DNA finger printing profiles were prepared for the exhibits 1 to 5. He

has proved that STR (sort tandam repeat) analysis was used for each of

the sample and data was analyzed by using Genescan and Genotype

software. He has further deposed that the DNA profile (STR analysis)



37/245

performed on the exhibits provided was sufficient to conclude that Ex.1

(bone piece sternum), Ex.2(blood sample), Ex.4 (bone piece-left upper

limb born) and Ex.5 (bone piece-right upper limb bone) were similar in

origin. He has further proved that the alleles as from the sources of Ex.1

(bone piece sternum) the postmortem No. 581/07, Ex.2 (blood sample)

vide PM No. 581/07, Ex.4 (bone piece left upper limb bone) vide PM

No. 583/07 and Ex.5 (bone piece- right upper limb bone) vide PM No.

583/07 were matching with each other. However the alleles as from the

source of Ex.3 (teeth taken out from the skull) vide PM No. 582/07 was

not matching with alleles from the source from Ex.1 (bone piecesternum) vide PM No. 581/07, Ex.2 (blood sample) vide PM No.

581/07, Ex.4 (bone piece-left upper limb bone) vide PM No. 583/07 and

Ex.5 (bone piece-right upper limb bone) vide PM No. 583/07. He has

testified that the remnants of all the exhibits had been sealed with the

seal of AKS FSL Delhi and his detailed report in this regard is

Ex.PW37/A.

(30) According to him, on 13.03.2008 four forensic samples

pertaining to this case were received in DNA Unit and all the parcels

were duly sealed with the seal of NK, FSL Delhi. He has further

deposed that all the parcels were opened and examined and DNA from

the Ex.A i.e. piece of cloth having dark stains, Ex B i.e. some broken

cemented floor piece, Ex.C i.e. a piece of cloth having dark brown stains

and Ex.D i.e. some broken cemented floor pieces described as concrete

material were subjected to DNA isolation. The witness has also deposed

that DNA was isolated from the exhibits A and C, however DNA could

not be isolated from the Ex.B and Ex.D. However, a partial male DNA

finger printing profiles was prepared for the Ex. A and C and due to

partial male DNA profile of Ex.A and C no conclusion of result could be



38/245

made therefore no opinion was offered by laboratory. He has testified

that the remnants of Ex.A to D had been sealed with the seal of AKS

FSL, Delhi and his detailed report to this effect is Ex.PW37/B.

(31) In his cross examination, the witness has deposed that STR

analysis had been used for matching of the DNA. He has admitted that

the DNA report was based upon probabilities and there can never be a

100% matching in case of forensic samples. He has voluntarily

explained that where there were more than ten bands matching out of

fifteen bands the probability that the DNA was of the same origin is

very high. He has further deposed that in the present case there was a

matching of 13 out of the 15 bands and it is for this reason that he

concluded that the DNA was of the same origin. He has denied the

suggestion that the report has been given on the asking of the

Investigating Officer.

(32) Dr. A.K. Srivastava (PW37) has been recalled for additional

examination wherein a specific Court Question was put to the witness

that in his earlier cross examination he has deposed that there was a

matching 13 out of 15 bands, but could he specify the source of DNA

material to which the witness has relied in affirmative. He has clarified

that there was a matching of 13 out of 15 bands with Ex.1 i.e. Bone

piece sternum, Ex.2 i.e. Blood sample, Ex.4 i.e. Left upper limb and

Ex.5 i.e. Right upper limb bone, which was opined to be the same.

(33) Dr. Sanjeev Kumar (PW38) is the Senior Scientific Assistant,

(Documents), FSL Rohini. He has deposed that the documents in

connection with this case dated 18.05.2007 were received on the

laboratory on 08.08.2007 and the questioned documents that enclosed

writings marked Q1 to Q3 purported to be of threatening letters on two

sheets and Standard-blue enclosed specimen writings marked S1 to S64



39/245

of Chander Kant Jha. He has further deposed that all the documents

were carefully and thoroughly examined with scientific instruments

such as Stereo Microscope, Video Spectral Comparitor- IV, Docucenter

and VSC 2000/HR etc. under different lighting conditions and he was

of the opinion that the person who wrote the blue enclosed writings

stamped and marked S1 to S64 also wrote the red enclosed writings

similarly stand and marked Q1 to Q3 for the reasons mentioned in his

detailed report which is Ex.PW38/A. He has testified that the

documents sent to the laboratory for examination and case report has

been sealed with the seal of DOC and FSL at the time of handing over

the crime exhibits/documents along with the case report. He has

correctly identified the case property i.e. two letters which are Ex.P4

and Ex.P5 as the same which were examined by him in the aforesaid

examination.

(34) In his cross examination, the witness has deposed that when

the documents were produced before him by his subordinate they werein open condition. He has further deposed that during the examination

in the aforesaid method the margin of error is zero percent. He has

denied the suggestion that he gave his report at the behest of

Investigating Officer and according to his desire or that there was

always margin of error in handwriting opinion.

(35) Dr. Sanjeev Kumar (PW38) was recalled for further cross

examination wherein he has deposed that it is not possible for a person

to entirely copy the handwriting of another and it will not make no

difference in the opinion whether the writing medium is a ball point, ink

pen, pencil or a sketch pen and has voluntarily explained that the natural

variations and characteristics would remain the same. According to the

witness, they maintain a record in their office with regard to the opinion



40/245

sent to the Court and the time taken in each case for giving opinion

would be different depending upon the number of documents and nature

of opinion sought. The witness has deposed that he has been into

service in the field of document examination for the last 11 years and he

had sent a number of reports to the Courts but he is unable to tell the

exact number and voluntarily states that it may be more than 80 cases

and 1000 exhibits. He has testified that the report format for submitting

the reports in the Court is standard but the opinion is based on the nature

of query. According to the witness, he has not knowing the history/

background of the case when the papers of the present case reached himand has voluntarily explained that he has have no concern with the

history of writer. He has denied the suggestion that the handwriting

examination opinion cannot be 100% perfect or that he had given his

report on the asking of the Investigating Officer.

Official Witnesses:

(36) Sh. Pooran Chand (PW28) Ld. MM has stated that on

8.6.2007 an application moved by the Investigating Officer for

conducting the Judicial Test Identification Parade of the accused

Chander Kant Jha had been marked to him by his link MM and pursuant

to the same the accused was produced before him in muffled face but

the accused refused to participate in the TIP proceedings on the pretext

that his photographs had been taken and flashed in the news papers and

TV channels. He has proved the said proceedings which are

Ex.PW28/A and the statement of the accused refusing to participate in

the TIP proceedings which is Ex.PW28/B, which is followed by his

certificate. According to the witness the Ahlmad was thereafter directed

to send the proceedings to the concerned court in a sealed cover. He has



41/245

further stated that the Investigating Officer moved an application for

supply of the copy of said proceedings which was duly permitted by him

which application is Ex.PW28/C.

(37) The witness has further deposed that another application

moved by the Investigating Officer for obtaining the specimen

signatures and handwriting of the accused Chander Kant Jha had also

been marked to him by his 2nd Link MM Sh. Manoj Kumar. According

to him, the said application was fixed for disposal for 5.6.2007 but since

the accused was not produced by the jail authorities, it was again fixed

for disposal for 7.6.2007 but due to shortage of time the specimensignatures and handwriting of the accused could not be taken since time

had been consumed in conducting the TIP proceeding of the accused

which he has refused. He has also stated that the application was taken

up on 8.6.2007 when the accused was produced before him pursuant to

production warrants by the jail authorities and in his presence the

handwriting and signatures of the accused Chander Kant Jha were

obtained on 64 sheets and all the sheets were duly endorsed by him

in the presence of Ld. Defence Counsel and the Investigating Officer.

According to him, thereafter all the 64 sheets were handed over to the

Investigating Officer on his request as the same were to be sent to FSL

for opinion and the proceedings with regard to the same are Ex.PW8/F.

He has further proved the proceeding sheet dated 5.6.2007 which is

Ex.PW28/E and the application for obtaining the specimen handwriting

and signatures of the accused filed by the Investigating Officer in the

court of Sh.Manoj Kumar and duly marked to him is Ex.PW28/D. The

witness has also proved the applications filed by the Investigating

Officer on 7.6.2007 which are Ex.PWG1 and Ex.PW28/G2 and the

said 64 sheets which are collectively Ex.PW28/H.



42/245

(38) In his cross examination, the witness has admitted that the

accused had stated that he does not wish to participate in the

proceedings because the police officials had taken his photographs and

had given the same in the news papers and TV channels and the accused

had not produced before him any copies of the news paper cuttings

containing his photographs copies of which news paper cuttings are

Ex.PW28/DX1. He has denied the suggestion that the specimen

handwriting and signatures on the 64 sheets was taken after the accused

was taken inside the Ahlmad room and has voluntarily stated that it was

taken in the open court in his presence and he had duly made anendorsement on each and every sheet. He has also denied the suggestion

that his endorsement was taken on the 64 sheets by the Investigating

Officer later on and the said sheets did not bear the handwriting of the

accused and has has voluntarily deposed that the said handwriting and

signatures were taken in his presence on which he had made the

endorsement. The witness has further stated that the specimen

handwriting and signatures taken from the accused was put up before

him for endorsement in the open court by the court staff and has

voluntarily stated that in so far as he recollects it was put up by the Naib

Court. He has denied the suggestion that the specimen handwriting and

signatures of the accused as available on the present judicial record do

not tally with the specimen signatures taken in his presence since the

said handwriting and signatures were not taken by the Investigating

Officer in his presence and were changed.

Witnesses of Electronic Records:

(39) Raj Kumar (PW32) is the Additional Nodal Officer, Reliance

Communication Ltd. who produced the record of mobile phone



43/245

no.9312616022 according to which the aforesaid mobile number was

allotted to Dalip S/o Babu Lal R/o N-116/336/1, Shiv Mandir, JJ Camp,

Badli Village, Delhi. He has placed on record the application form of

the subscriber which is ExPW32/A; copy of the election identity card in

support of the address of the subscriber which is ExPW32/B and the

call details of the aforesaid mobile phone from 1.5.07 to 22.5.07 which

is Ex.PW32/C running into three pages. The witness has further proved

the certificate under Section 65B of Evidence Act in respect of the said

mobile phone which is Ex.PW32/D. He has testified that as per record

the original application form along with the identity proof submitted by

the individual pertaining to the subscriber Dalip was handed over to

Inspector Ombir Singh, Additional SHO Police Station Hari Nagar on

11.7.07 vide receipt which is Ex.PW32/E.

(40) In his cross examination, the witness has deposed that the

above call details record has been got retrieved from the zonal office

and not from the main server. According to the witness, the said recordhad been saved by their office on the request of Addl. SHO Inspector

Ombir Singh. He has denied the suggestion that they do not have power

back up and due to frequent shutting down of the system the data is not

accurate and has voluntarily explained that they have a power back up

system for 24 hours. He has denied the suggestion that record as

aforesaid has been fabricated and manipulated at the instance of the

police. He has further deposed that the certification regarding the

authenticity has been gi