Upload
sampath-bulusu
View
226
Download
1
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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
7/29/2019 Delhi Serial Killings Case Judgement
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
St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 279/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 2
7/29/2019 Delhi Serial Killings Case Judgement
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
St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 279/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 3
7/29/2019 Delhi Serial Killings Case Judgement
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
St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 279/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 4
7/29/2019 Delhi Serial Killings Case Judgement
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.
St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 279/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 5
7/29/2019 Delhi Serial Killings Case Judgement
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
St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 279/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 6
7/29/2019 Delhi Serial Killings Case Judgement
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
St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 279/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 7
7/29/2019 Delhi Serial Killings Case Judgement
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
St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 279/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 8
7/29/2019 Delhi Serial Killings Case Judgement
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
St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 279/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 9
7/29/2019 Delhi Serial Killings Case Judgement
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
St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 279/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 10
7/29/2019 Delhi Serial Killings Case Judgement
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:
St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 279/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 11
7/29/2019 Delhi Serial Killings Case Judgement
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.
St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 279/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 12
7/29/2019 Delhi Serial Killings Case Judgement
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,
St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 279/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 13
7/29/2019 Delhi Serial Killings Case Judgement
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
St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 279/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 14
7/29/2019 Delhi Serial Killings Case Judgement
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
St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 279/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 15
7/29/2019 Delhi Serial Killings Case Judgement
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
St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 279/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 16
7/29/2019 Delhi Serial Killings Case Judgement
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
St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 279/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 17
7/29/2019 Delhi Serial Killings Case Judgement
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.
St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 279/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 18
7/29/2019 Delhi Serial Killings Case Judgement
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
St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 279/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 19
7/29/2019 Delhi Serial Killings Case Judgement
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
St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 279/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 20
7/29/2019 Delhi Serial Killings Case Judgement
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
St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 279/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 21
7/29/2019 Delhi Serial Killings Case Judgement
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
St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 279/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 22
7/29/2019 Delhi Serial Killings Case Judgement
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
St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 279/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 23
7/29/2019 Delhi Serial Killings Case Judgement
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
St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 279/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 24
7/29/2019 Delhi Serial Killings Case Judgement
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
St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 279/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 25
7/29/2019 Delhi Serial Killings Case Judgement
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
St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 279/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 26
7/29/2019 Delhi Serial Killings Case Judgement
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
St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 279/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 27
7/29/2019 Delhi Serial Killings Case Judgement
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
St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 279/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 28
7/29/2019 Delhi Serial Killings Case Judgement
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
St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 279/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 29
7/29/2019 Delhi Serial Killings Case Judgement
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
St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 279/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 30
7/29/2019 Delhi Serial Killings Case Judgement
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
St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 279/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 31
7/29/2019 Delhi Serial Killings Case Judgement
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
St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 279/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 32
7/29/2019 Delhi Serial Killings Case Judgement
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
St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 279/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 33
7/29/2019 Delhi Serial Killings Case Judgement
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
St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 279/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 34
7/29/2019 Delhi Serial Killings Case Judgement
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
St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 279/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 35
7/29/2019 Delhi Serial Killings Case Judgement
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)
St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 279/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 36
7/29/2019 Delhi Serial Killings Case Judgement
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
St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 279/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 37
7/29/2019 Delhi Serial Killings Case Judgement
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
St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 279/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 38
7/29/2019 Delhi Serial Killings Case Judgement
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
St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 279/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 39
7/29/2019 Delhi Serial Killings Case Judgement
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
St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 279/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 40
7/29/2019 Delhi Serial Killings Case Judgement
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.
St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 279/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 41
7/29/2019 Delhi Serial Killings Case Judgement
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
St. Vs. Chanderkant Jha, FIR No. 279/07, PS Hari Nagar Page No. 42
7/29/2019 Delhi Serial Killings Case Judgement
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