IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE/
SPECIAL JUDGE, ANTI CORRUPTION,
U.P., GHAZIABAD
Present:
Smt. Rama Jain, H.J.S.
Special Case No. 611/2007 [R.C.No. 17(A)/2007]
C. B.I
Versus
Surendra Koli
Under Section: 364, 302, 201, 376/511 I.P.C.
PS: S.CBI. - New Delhi
ORDER
1. In the present case, Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) filed
a charge sheet against accused Surendra Koli under section 364
302, 201 and 376 of Indian Penal Code read with section 511.
2. As the accused is under trial in the Session Court for
committing the crime therefore the case was presented before
the sessions court by the then Special Judicial Magistrate (CBI)
on 24.5.2007 and from there through transfer the case has
come to this court.
3. In brief with reference to this Special Sessions Case the
relevant facts are that a number of children, mostly girls and
women were found missing and reports were being lodged in
this regard. Among the missing children was a girl named
Payal, daughter of Nand Lal, for whom a complaint with Crime
No. 838/2006 under section 156(3) of CrPC was registered in
1
PS: Sector 20, NOIDA, Janpad, Gautam Budh Nagar on the
orders of Chief Judicial Magistrate and during the investigation
of the case Police found the IMEI number of the deceased
Payal’s mobile phone, on the basis of which Police arrested the
accused Surendra Koli and Moninder Singh Pandher on
29.12.2006.
4. Kumari Rimpa Haldar was one of the children who went
missing from Nithari village. The mother of Rimpa Haldar,
Smt. Dolly Haldar (PW No.5) used to work as domestic help in
house number A-67 NOIDA sector 20 which was owned by
Colonel Satish Kumar, she used to work as domestic help in
other houses as well .ln the year 2004, Husband of Dolly
Haldar, (PW No.5), Mr. Anil Haldar, (PW No.2) brought his
daughter (abducted/deceased) from West Bengal. In JanuaryFebruary 2005, Rimpa Haldar started helping her mother Dolly
Haldar (PW 5) in her work as she was not keeping well. On
8.2.2005, Rimpa Haldar did not return home from work. The
father and mother, Anil Haldar and Dolly Haldar tried their
best to search for Rimpa. They tried to lodge a report in Sector
20, PS: Noida of village Nithari and finally on 20.7.2005 the
Police lodged missing complaint of Rimpa Haldar in PS,
Sector 20 of NOIDA.
5. Accused Surendra Koli and Moninder Singh Pandher were
arrested on 29.12.2006 under Crime No. 838/2006. Moninder
Singh Pandher was the owner of Bungalow No.5 of Sector 31
and used to live there whereas accused Surendra Koli was a
2
domestic servant in the house of Moninder Singh Pandher.
After the arrest of the accused Surendra Koli and Moninder
Singh Pandher, a large number of human skulls, bones and
different parts of the body, slippers , clothes, clips and hair etc.
were recovered from rear gallery and drainage in front of the
residence of D-5, Sector 31, NOIDA.
6. On 3.1.2007, Dolly Haldar upon receiving the information that
a lot of human skulls, bones, clothes, slippers etc. have been
found from the rear gallery of bungalow D-5, Sector 31,
NOIDA, Dolly Haldar (PW-5) along with her employer
Colonel Satish Kumar went to the Police Station, Sector 20,
NOIDA. She identified one Chunni and Bra of her daughter
from among the recovered articles like bones, hairs, clothes
etc. kept in sealed condition. Rimpa Haldar went missing from
8.2.2005. On 3.1.2007 Dolly Haldar submitted a written
complaint in the police station of Sector 20, NOIDA in this
regard in which she suspected that her daughter might have
been killed by accused Surendra Koli and accused Moninder
Singh Pandher. The investigation of this case and the other
related cases of Nithari was entrusted to the Central Bureau of
Investigation by the State of Uttar Pradesh.
7. Two knives, one Kulhari, skulls and bones were recovered on
the basis of information and the statement given by accused
Surendra Koli under Section 164 of CrPC which was recorded
by Magistrate in which he has admitted of murdering, raping
and throwing the parts of bodies of many girls and women
3
separately in the rear gallery and the drainage in front of the
house after killing a number of girls and he has also admitted
that he had called Rimpa Haldar in the bungalow in January or
February, 2005 and tried to rape her and after murdering her,
had thrown the different parts of her body by rapping them in a
polythene bag in the rear gallery of the bungalow and ate the
flesh of the hands and breast of Rimpa after cooking it. The
blood samples of the mother, father and brother of Rimpa
Haldar were collected to find whether or not they match the
recovered biological material and bones. In the DNA test it
was found that the biological profiles of Dolly Haldar and Anil
Haldar were matching with that of their daughter Rimpa
Haldar's Skeletal remains.
8. The Brain Mapping and Narco test was also conducted on the
accused. After keeping a dead body in front of the accused
Surendra Koli, a team of doctors tried to know from where and
how he used to cut the dead bodies and the team found that the
manner in which the dead bodies were cut and the manner in
which Surendra Koli had confessed of cutting the bodies were
same.
9. CBI had filed charge sheet only against the accused Surendra
Koli and had not filed any charge sheet against accused
Moninder Singh Pandher. After the completion of entire
evidences on behalf of
the prosecution side (CBI) the
complainant submitted an application that on the basis of
evidences produced in the court a prima facie case seems to be
4
established against accused Moninder Singh Pandher and
therefore he should also be summoned in the said case and
should be served a charge sheet. After perusal of the available
circumstances and the evidences accused Moninder Singh
Pandher was also summoned on 27.8.2008 under sections 376,
201, 302, 364 and 120 B of the Indian Penal Code.
10.On the basis of the above incident accused Surendra Koli
charged under section 364,376 r/w section 511,302,201 of
I.P.C. accused Moninder Singh Pandher charged under
Sections 364, 376, 302 r/w 120B and section 201 of the Indian
Penal Code which they denied and demanded for a trial.
11.Prosecution (CBI) presented 38 witnesses in the said Special
Case in the Witness Box to prove their case. Amongst them
one prosecution witness is Manoj Kumar Nonia, PW-1. The
said witness has stated that on 13.1.2007 he was posted as
Typist in Corporation Bank, CGO Complex, Delhi and he had
gone to CBI Office on the orders of his Senior Officer at CGO
Complex. At that time Ashwani Kumar was also present there.
Accused Surendra Koli was also present there. Accused
Surendra Koli had told in his presence that he had murdered a
number of children and women and had tried to rape them. He
said that he could identify those spots where he had committed
crime and could also help recover the articles used in
committing the crime. This statement was penned down by the
CBI whose original Diary No. is 439/2007. After seeing, the
witness stated that its copy in this list is 38A/1 to 38A/3. The
5
witness confirmed the said statement as Exhibit A-1. A seizure
report of the recovered articles was also prepared in the
presence of this witness against the accused Surendra Koli on
his information which is confirmed by this witness as Exh. A2.
12.Prosecution Witness No.2, Anil Haldar, father of the
deceased/abducted has stated that on 8.2.2005 his daughter was
approximately 14 years of age and on the said date she did not
return home after completing her work with regard to which he
lodged a Missing Report on 20.7.2005. The witness verified
the abovementioned report. They had also given the
photograph of their daughter to the C.B.I. Moreover, he also
identified the Chunni of their daughter in Article Exhibit-1 and
the black bra from Article Exhibit 2. The witness stated that for
DNA test the blood samples of himself, his wife Dolly Haldar,
PW-5 and his son were collected. This witness also stated that
on 29th of 12th month he had gone to Sector 31, bungalow No.
5 by driving rickshaw. Lot of people were gathered there and
when he entered the Bungalow, he saw that accused Moninder
Singh Pandher took out a handsaw from the room on the upper
floor. Whatever documentation was done there, photocopy of
the same was submitted by them on the day of their statement
in the court. The witness also stated that Moninder Singh
Pandher stated that Payal had got two thousand five hundred
rupees for a night and she was black mailing Moninder Singh
Pandher so he ordered his servant to kill her.
6
13.Prosecution Witness-3 is Satish Chand Mishra is a senior
social worker and was a Bank Officer. On 12.1.2007 at about
9.30 A.M, he was called by the CBI. One Mr. Gulu Dutt
Mishra was also called along with him. On the said day C. B .I.
and the Officers of C.F.S.L. took a Sofa Cushion, Stone, bones
and clothes in their custody from D-5, Sector, 31, NOIDA and
prepared Exh. A-6. Before the same witness on 13.1.2007
bones, clothes and biological material etc. were taken in
custody and prepared Exh. A-7.
14.Prosecution Witness No.4 is Mr. D.K. Sharma. Witness has
stated that he was posted as Medical Superintendent in the All
India Medical Institute. On 13th February, 2007 he received a
letter from the C.B.I. in which it was requested that accused
Moninder Singh Pandher and Surendra Koli should be
scientifically' investigated by a Medical Board constituted for
this purpose. In compliance of this letter he constituted a
Medical Board which submitted its opinion on 24.7.2007. They
have marked their report as Exh. A-28. In this report accused
Surendra Koli was declared psychologically fit.
15.Prosecution No. 5 is the Mrs. Dolly Haldar, mother of
abducted/ deceased Rimpa Haldar who stated in her evidence
that their daughter has died. She was 14 years old. In the year
2005 she herself had fallen ill so she used to take her daughter
to help her in her work of doing cleaning, sweeping and
dusting in the bungalows. On the day of missing, her daughter
was wearing white trouser, white shirt having few red flowers
7
and was also bearing a black bra inside. When they did not find
their daughter, they tried to lodge a report in the Police Station
but they were first asked that they should search for her. When
they heard that some clothes etc. have been recovered from the
disputed bungalow, then she went to the Police Station to
identify the clothes of her daughter and they identified the Bra
and Chunni of their daughter.
16.Prosecution Witness No. 6 is Doctor Mamta Sood who was
posted on the post of Assistant Professor, New Delhi in All
India Institute of Medical Science in October, 2007. The
witness stated that Dr. Sharma(PW-4) constituted a Committee
of which she was a member. All the members of the
Committee psychologically examined accused Surendra Koli.
After the examination it was concluded
Surendra
that
accused
Koli is fully capable of understanding in the
proceedings during participation.
17.Prosecution Witness - 7 is Mukesh Kumar who had gone to the
drainage with J.C.B. machine to clean it on 15/1/2007. And the
material which was found on that date has been verified by him
as Exb A – 11 and Exb A-12.
18.Prosecution Witness No.8 is Dr. Manish Kummath who from
2005 to the day of his making a statement was posted in
All India Institute
of Medical Sciences as Senior
Demonstrator, Department of Forensic Sciences. The said
witness had visited the disputed bungalow D-5, Sector, 31
NOIDA on 12.1.2007, 13.1.2007, 15.1.2007 and 16.1.2007
8
where in his presence bones, slippers , biological tissues and
clothes etc. were recovered which were exhibited in seizure
reports. He had put his signatures on Exhibits A-13, A-14, A11 and A-12. He was also member
of the Committee
constituted for investigation of the skeleton recovered from
the spot, its report Exh. A-15 is also signed by this witness.
The witness stated that Part - 2 of Exh. A-16 was sets of the
bones and the report of investigation is Exh. A-18 which was
verified by him. He was sent to Hyderabad along with the
blood samples of the deceased persons for the purpose of DNA
test of the bones. After the issuance of report a joint concluding
Report, Exh. A-19 was prepared. In accordance with the Joint
Report, Exh. A-18, prepared by him indicates that Surendra
Koli who was brought to the All India Institute of Medical
Sciences and the accused Surendra Koli had tried to identify
the skeletons. The accused had stated that a button on Point 6
of the Report, Article Exh. 12/11 can be that of the grey
coloured sweater of Rimpa Haldar. After that the Committee
presented a dead body of an unknown person before him and
given a piece of chalk to accused Surendra Koli and asked him
to mark the dead body from where he used to cut the dead
bodies. All this action was being undertaken in the presence of
the Board of Doctors. No police man was present there. At that
time Surendra Koli was in a healthy mind set. The team found
that the way the accused Surendra Koli told how he used to cut
the dead bodies the same cuts were available on the bones and
9
organs recovered from the spot. According to the witness the
DNA report is exhibited in enclosure A-4 and Page No. 28 of
reference marked as S.K.17.T. E. DNA Profile in Table No.4.
This team had marked 17 on teeth of upper jaw which was that
of the biological descendent of B.S. 40, Anil Haldar and Dolly
Haldar. Other than that there was a DNA profile of Abhijit
Haldar, the brother of the deceased, X.B.S. 42 which was also
similar to the teeth of this jaw.
19.Prosecution Witness No. 9 is Virender Singh Dagar who was
posted as Daftary on 18.1.2007 in the Head Office of F.C.I. His
G.M. ordered him to go to the Office of C. B.I., CGO
Complex, New Delhi. On the said date i.e. 18.1.2007 accused
Surendra Koli had given his statement with regard to the
seizure of Kulhari before another employee of their
Department, Suraj Prakash and C.B.I. team which he himself
had helped recover from the bushes from the right
side of
the lawn of Bungalow No. D-5, Sector 31, NOIDA exhibited as
Article Exhibit-10. Seizure report, Exh. A-22 is the statement
of Surendra Koli, Exh. A-20 is confirmed by the witness.
20. Prosecution Witness No. 10 is Dr. Sanjeev Lalwani who was
posted as Assistant Professor in the Department of Justice,
Medical and Forensic Science in AIIMS in February, 2007. He
received a letter from S.P. (CBI), New Delhi in February, 2007
in his office. It was requested by this letter that whatever
material like bones, skull etc. have been recovered from the
disputed spot should be shown to accused Surendra Koli and
10
an unknown dead body should also be shown to the accused to
know as to how he used to cut the different parts of the body.
The whole matter should also be videographed. This letter was
verified as Exh. A- 22 by the witness and in accordance with
this letter a team was constituted. Accused Surendra Koli told
before the team that the hair of the girl named Payal were
black-brown. About the grey colour sweater, Koli told that it is
that of the girl named Rimpa. Surendra Koli also told that he
used to cut the upper part of neck and head with the kitchen
knife. This witness confirmed the Committee Report, Exh. A18. Accused also told that he used to take three hours to
dismember the different parts of the body.
21.Prosecution Witness No. 11 is Pappu Lal who has stated that
on 29.12.2006 he was living in the servant quarter of bungalow
No. 2. On the said date that the Police called him when
Surendra Koli had helped recover bones and other articles from
bungalow No. 0-5 in his presence whose report was prepared
and marked as Exh. A-23. On the same day Surendra Koli had
helped recover a knife from below the water tank made on the
roof which is also reported ad Exh. A-24. On 31.12.2006 too
some articles were recovered in his presence which is exhibited
as Exh. A-25.
22. Prosecution Witness - 12 is Kehar Prasad. The witness has
stated that 2 years to 3 years before recording his statement in
evidence Anil Haldar, PW-2 was playing a rickshaw and living
in his house on rent with his wife and children and about 2
11
years ago his daughter went missing who could not be found
after lot of efforts. He had gone.to the Police Station to lodge a
report with Anil Haldar, where it was suggested that they
should first try to search the girl and then come to report.
23.Prosecution Witness No. 13 is Shri Chander Shekhar,
Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House, New Delhi. He said
that he recorded the statement of accused Surendra Koli under
section 164 of CrPC on the orders of Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate, Dr. Mis. Kamini, which was also videographed. He
had told accused Surendra Koli that he was not bound to do so
and if he gives such a statement he can be convicted but even
then he expressed his desire to give a confession statement.
The statement of the accused was transcribed and marked at
Exh. A-38 which consists of 48 pages on which the signatures
appended by accused Surendra is identified by this witness.
24. Prosecution Witness No. 14 is Dr. Nandi Naini Madhusudan
Reddy who is posted in Staff Scientist Laboratory of D.N.A.,
Finger printing Services, CDFD, Hyderabad. The witness has
stated that she had received 1 to 46 blood samples for the
purpose of conducting DNA test of those bones and skeletal.
Amongst those the DNA profiles of Smt. Dolly Haldar and
Anil Haldar matched to the bones of their biological daughter.
25. Prosecution Witness No. 15 is Office Clerk Sheoraj Singh
who on 20.7.2005 was working as Office Clerk in Police
Station, Sector 20, NOIDA. Witness has stated that Anil
Haldar had come to him with a written application (Exh. A-2)
12
after receiving the said application he prepared G. D. No. 61
at 6.50 P.M. This application was with regard to missing, of
Ms. Rimpa Haldar. He has verified the G.D. copy as Exh. A46.
26. Prosecution witness No.16 is Sub-Inspector, Satpal Singh. The
witness has stated that he has been working as Sub-Inspector in
PS: Sector 20, NOIDA since November 25, 2006. On
30.1.2007, Smt Dolly Haldar (PW-5) came in the Police
Station and she identified the Chunni and black Bra of her
abducted daughter Ms. Rimpa Haldar and stated that her
daughter was wearing these clothes when she finally left the
home. He confirmed the document Exhibit A-47.
27.Prosecution witness-17 is Const 181 Kunwar Pal. The witness
has stated that was posted in sector 20 from the 2005 to the
date of making of his statement. On 20.7.2005 Sh. Anil Haldar
(PW-2) had lodged Missing Report of his daughter Rimpa
Haldar. After that, on 3.1.2007 an application written by
Colonel Shailesh Prasad was submitted.
28. Prosecution witness No. 18 is Doctor S.K. Vaya, Deputy
Director, Directorate of Forensic Science, Gandhi Nagar,
Gujarat. He conducted the Brain Mapping Test, NARCO Test
and Lie Detector Tests of accused Moninder Singh Pandher
and Surendra Koli. Accused Surendra Koli is not mentally
unsound and he has accepted
that he murdered a number
of 17 persons including children, girls and women.
13
29.Prosecution witness-19 is Gaurav Verma, City Magistrate,
Lucknow who has stated that he was posted as Deputy
Collector, Gautam Budh Nagar in February, 2007. He has
stated that in his presence in All India Institute of Medical
Sciences Mr. Anil Haldar, PW-2 and Dolly Haldar, PW-5 and
Abhijit Haldar, who are father, mother and brother respectively
of the deceased had got clicked their photographs and put them
on the Identification Form. The witness has verified his
signatures and Seal put on Exh. A-55, A-56 and A-57
respectively. He stated that the blood samples of the witness
were also taken in his presence which were duly sealed
separately and the thumb impressions of the donors of blood
samples were got stamped on the requisite forms.
30. Prosecution witness-20 is Durga Prasad. The said witness has
stated that on 11.1.2007 accused Surendra Koli and Moninder
Singh Pandher were present with the police and had given their
statements in his presence saying that he used to cut the dead
bodies with knife and he can help recover the knife with which
he used to cut the dead body. At that time Jhabbu Lal was also
there. There was a water tank behind this house and there was
an electric pole. Surendra Koli had handed over the knife after
digging out of the earth from below that electric pole against
which Exh. A-58 was prepared. Witness has identified the
Knife as Article Exh. 32.
31. Prosecution witness-21 is Smt. Sapna Mishra, Special Judicial
Magistrate, CBI, Ghaziabad who has stated that on 7th April,
14
2007 she was posted as Special Judicial Magistrate, CBI,
Ghaziabad seized clothes and articles of the deceased brought
by NOIDA Police and CBI were produced and permission for
identification of the seized items by relatives of the deceased
was pleaded, after the witnesses identification, detailed order
was passed after preparing Exb. A- 59.
32. Prosecution Witness No. 22, Dr. A. K. Mittal is Assistant
Director, Forensic Science Laboratory, Agra, U.P. Witness has
stated that in January 2007 also he was posted in the same
capacity in the same place. Dy. Inspector General of Police
Meerut Zone had written a letter to Forensic Laboratory, Agra
asking it to provide its services for scientific investigation of
the Nithari case from different angles and also requested to
send a S.F.L. team to NOIDA through a separate FAX. The
witness has verified Fax Exh. A-60. On the place of occurrence
17 points were marked during scientific examination in the
house and their photographs too were clicked. During the
investigation suspected spots, blood stains and other stains
were investigated and 25 different articles were taken in
custody and were investigated by a team and with respect to
the action on the spot a Memo Exh. A-63 was prepared. Pieces
of 8 articles which include bones too were collected on
6.1.2007 from the place of occurrence and were handed over to
the six Officers of the U.P. Police. A Memo, Exh. A-64 to this
effect was prepared and thereafter a detailed report, Exh. A-65
was prepared. On 8.1.2007 a letter signed by C.J.M. Gautam
15
Budh Nagar was given by Sub-Inspector Ompal Singh. The
skeleton and bones mentioned in this letter were brought in the
Laboratory but vide letter dated 12.1.2007 it was requested to
send all the articles back as the investigation of this case was
handed over to the CBI by that time.
33. Prosecution Witness No. 23 is Sh. Manoj Kumar. The said
witness has stated that they were playing cricket in March
2005, where they were playing the said disputed bungalow D5, Sector 31 is also there. Their ball went in the rear side of the
D-5 bungalow when they went there after scaling the wall he
saw a piece of human hand wrapped in a polythene. After that
the police also came on the spot and stated that there is nothing
to worry.
34. Prosecution Witness No. 24 is Surinder Singh. The witness
has stated that in March 2005 when the children were playing
cricket nearby their ball went in the rear part of D-5 bungalow ,
then Menoj Kumar, PW-23 had stated him that he saw a piece
of human hand like flesh wrapped in a polythene there.
35.Prosecution PW-25 is Dr. Rajender Singh. This witness has
stated that he has been posted with the C.F.S.L. since 1987. On
13.1.2007 he lead a FSL team along with the team of CBI and
independent members to .the disputed bungalow and some
bones, dust stained clothes, slippers and bangles were
recovered in his presence which were separately sealed. After
that during the search from the drain some body parts, clothes,
shoes, slippers etc. were recovered which were taken on record
16
and Exh. P-14 was prepared. On 18.1.2007 too he had gone to
the said bungalow and there accused Surendra Koli had helped
recover a Kulhari from the bushes of the lawn of the bug low
and a report Exh. P-22 was prepared on the spot. The
articles/weapons which were recovered from the spot were
examined by the witness with a view as to whether they are
capable of cutting the human body. A detailed report was
prepared in this respect and after the investigation the entire
team had come to the conclusion that the weapons recovered
from the accused are capable of cutting the human body and no
with teeth or saw has been used for the purpose.
36.Prosecution witness 26 is Lieutenant Colonel Shailesh Kumar.
The said witness has stated that he has been living in A-87,
Sector 30, NOIDA since ten years from the date of giving his
statement. From the year 2005 to 2007 Dolly Haldar was
working at their house as a maid servant. In February, 2005
Rimpa Haldar daughter of Dolly Haldar was missing and could
not be traced after lot of efforts. On January 3, 2007 he had
gone to the Police Station with Dolly Haldar and she had
identified the clothes of her daughter in his presence which had
been sealed by the Police. In this context Exh. A-47 was
prepared. Thereafter on the request of Dolly Haldar an
application was written by him as Dolly Haldar was illiterate.
Witness has affirmed this application as Exh. A-73.
37. Prosecution witness No. 27 and 28 is Smt. Pratibha and
Purnima respectively. Both these witnesses have stated that
17
they generally pass through bungalow No. D-5, Sector 31,
NOIDA, Surendra Koli used to invite them under the pretext of
handing over flowers or some other work but they did not go
there.
38. Prosecution Witness No. 29 is Ajay Sharma who has stated
that has been working in CBI since 2001. On 12-1-2007, He
had gone to CFSL, Agra on the orders of the CBI Officers. He
had taken 17 sealed parcels in his custody and handed over to
In charge, Godown, CBI, CGO Complex, Delhi.
39.Prosecution Witness No. 30 is Sub-Inspector, Sahastrapal
Singh who was working as Senior Sub-Inspector in the PS:
Sector 20, NOIDA on 31.12.2006. During the cleaning
operation of the drain in front of disputed bungalow , D-5,
some bones, hairs, bangles and slippers etc. were recovered. At
that time I.O. Dinesh Yadav was also present there and on his
direction a report of the said recovered material was written
and marked as Exh. A-25.
40. Prosecution Witness No. 31 is Sub-Inspector Chhotte Singh.
The said witness has stated that on 29.12.2006 he was posted
in PS: Sector 20, NOIDA as Sub-Inspector. On that day the
Investigation Officer of crime No. 838/2006 filed under
Sections 366, 376, 302, 201, 120B of I.P.C. Mr. Dinesh Yadav,
PW-51came with some other Investigation Officers and Police
Force at D-5, Sector 20, NOIDA on the information of accused
Surendra Koli as the accused Surendra Koli had stated that
after the murder of Deepika @ Payal he has buried her skull
18
and the rest of the parts of her body were thrown in the drain in
front of the said bungalow . He also told that he has also buried
the slippers of the deceased and he can help recover the knife
with which he had cut down her neck. On the way to the
destination the other accused Moninder Singh Pandher was
also arrested but after leaving the accused Moninder Singh
Pandher outside the bungalow , accused Surendra Koli was
lead inside the bungalow . Accused dug the soil in the rear
gallery and recovered the slippers . In total fifteen human
skulls were recovered. Despite this, human skeletons, skull and
clothes were also recovered. A report, Exh. A-23 was written
on the dictation of Investigation Officer, Dinesh Yadav.
41.Prosecution Witness No. 32 is Jagat Singh Bisht. The said
witness stated that he was working as In-charge of the Godown
of CBI, SCB-1, New Delhi from March 2000-2007. The said
witness stated that whatever case is registered with CBI, SCB1 the related material is kept in custody in the Godown which
has a register in which all the entries are made at the time of
deposit. The witness has stated that the entries made in the
original register from 12.1.2007 to April are made in his hand
writing and after April the entries are made that of R.P.
Sharma, A.S.I which is exhibited as Exh. A-74. The witness
has stated that the articles were sent for investigation whenever
required about which the witness confirmed the entries made
by him.
19
42. Prosecution Witness No. 33 is S.K. Chawla. This witness
stated that he has been posted in C.F.S.L. since 1992 at New
Delhi. A Board of C.F.S.L. Scientists was constituted with
regard to the Nithari Case and he was one of the members of
that Board along with other Doctors. The witness has verified
the reports of CFSL Director and other Doctors which are
marked as Exh. A-76 read with Exh. A-84.
43. Prosecution Witness No. 34 is Sub-Inspector, Ram Kishan
Atree, who has been working with CBI since the year 1978.
This witness has stated that he had gone to, CFSL, Chandigarh
on 14.7.2007 along with the sealed articles related with the 19
cases of Nithari and submitted the same in Chandigarh in a
sealed manner. During the material in his custody he did not
allow anybody to handle the sealed material. He has verified
the entries made in the original register at Sl. No. 105 of page
125 which is marked as Exhibit A-285.
44. Prosecution Witness No. 35 is Dy. Superintendent of Police,
Dinesh Yadav. This witness has stated that in December 2006
he was posted as Regional Officer, Gautam Budh Nagar. On
the directions of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gautam Budh
Nagar a Crl. Case No. 838/06 under section 363, 366 was
registered in PS: Sector 20, NOIDA with regard to the missing
of a girl, named Payal. Its inquiry was started by SubInspector, Simranjit Kaur. The inquiry of this case was
entrusted to his predecessor Sh. Ramesh Bharati, Regional
Officer (City) vide orders dated 27.11.2006 passed by the
20
Hon'ble High Court, Allahabad and he conducted the inquiry
from 27.11.2006. He arrested the accused Surendra Koli on
29.12.2006. During the investigation the accused Surendra
Koli admitted his crime and sated that he has murdered Payal
@ Deepika and her purse, slippers and the knife used in
murder is kept in hide to which he can help recover. He had
also stated that he has murdered the other children of Nithari
whose heads have been buried in the rear gallery and the rest of
the body is thrown in the front drain. On his own information
accused Surendra Koli handed over the said knife which was
used in the crime from below the water tank made on the
bathroom of first floor of Bungalow No. D-5, Sector 31,
NOIDA. Its report was prepared on the dictation of V.P. Singh,
The witness has confirmed the said report marked as Exh. A24. Despite this he stated that this knife marked as Article Exh.
3 was helped recover by the accused Surendra Koli on his own
information.
45.The witness has also stated that on the information of accused
Surendra Koli fifteen skulls and bones were recovered on
29.12.2006 and at this recovery witness Pappu Lal and Ram
Kishan were also present. The report of this recovery was
written on the dictation of Sub-Inspector Chhote Singh, This
witness has confirmed the report marked as Exh. A-23.
46. On 31.12.2006 some bones, bangles and clothes etc. were
recovered from the front of D-5 bungalow during the cleaning
operation report of which was written of S.I. S.P. Singh upon
21
the orders of witness Dinesh Yadav. The recovered material
was sealed on the spot. Exh. A-25 was verified by the witness.
A map of the place of occurrence was prepared by them whose
original document is in 439/2007, its photocopy is certified by
the witness and marked it as Exh. A-55.
47. On 11.1.2007 on the information of the accused Surendra Koli
another knife, Article Exh. 33 was recovered in the presence of
witnesses Chhabbu Lal and Durga Prasad which is marked as
Exb. A-58 written on the dictation of S.P. Singh. This report
has also been confirmed by the witness. The witness has
confirmed the map of place of occurrence, Exh. A-87. The
skulls, and bones recovered from the spot of occurrence were
sent to Forensic Laboratory, Agra for investigation on 3.1.2007
vide orders of Chief Magistrate, Gautam Budh Nagar and the
Narco Test, Brain Mapping Test and Polygraph tests of the
accused person were also conducted and the case diary of the
period of his investigation was handed over to the C.B.I. as the
onward investigation was entrusted to the C.B.I. This witness
has also stated that on the basis of the identification of the
recovered articles the other cases with regard to missing
persons were registered.
48. Prosecution Witness' No. 36 is Constable Surendra. This
witness has stated that he has been working in Central Bureau
of Investigation since the year 2005. On 21.1.2007 he had
carried the case property related with Nithari Case from the
Godown of S.C.B.-I in a sealed manner to F.S.L. Hyderabad
22
and had returned to the Godown after investigation. During the
period this material remained in his custody he did not allow
anybody to handle that material. The photocopy of the
Temporary Issue Register of the Godown indicating entry at Sl.
No. 19 which is written in his own handwriting marked as Exh.
A-88 is confirmed by this witness.
49.The above witness has also stated that on 16.1.2007 he, along
with Inspector, Ajay Singh had carried the sealed property of
this case to the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, AIIMS
and Ajay Singh had submitted the property of this case to the
AIIMS which is duly entered in the Temporary Issue Register
by Ajay Singh and the witness has confirmed at as Exh. A-89.
50. The above witness has also stated that on 29.1.2007 he had
gone to C. F.S.L, Delhi along with Ajay Singh for investigation
and after the investigation the sealed property related with this
case was submitted in the Godown on 20.3.2007 which is
entered at Sl. No. 27 and 28 of the original register. This
witness has verified the said entry marked as Exh. A-90.
51. This witness has also stated that he went with Inspector Ajay
Singh on 13.4.2007 too along with the sealed property of the
Nithari
Case to All India Institute of Medical Sciences for
investigation which is entered in original register at Sl. No. 63
and marked as Exh. A-63which is also confirmed by this
witness.
52.Prosecution Witness No. 37 is M.S. Partiyal. He has stated that
a team of officers was constituted for the inquiry of the Nithari
23
case and he was one of the members of that team. The
Government had issued a Notification dated 10.1.2007 for
conducting the inquiry. On seeing the original copy of letter
No. 439/2007 this witness verified the photocopy of the same
as marked in Exh. A-92. The inquiry of this case was entrusted
to him. He had recorded the statement of witness in the
inquiry, taken the related material and documents in his
custody. Accused Surendra Koli had given an application on
27.2.2007 in his own writing seeking permission to record his
committal statement which is marked as Exh. A-29 and then he
had submitted the application of accused Surendra Koli in the
A.M.M. Patiala House; Delhi. Thereafter the accused was
taken in custody by the court and sent to Tihar Jail. The
statement of accused Surendra Koli was recorded on 1.3.2007
and its video and audiography was also prepared and in this
context a script was also prepared. The witness stated that he
found during the investigation that Moninder Singh Pandher
was not involved in this case. He was in Australia from
30.1.2005 to 15.2.2005 along with his wife.
53.Prosecution Witness No. 38 is Ramesh Prasad Sharma. This
witness has stated that he is working as Cook in the house of
Dr. Navin Chaudhary at D-6, NOIDA. The boundaries of the
disputed bungalow and the bungalow where he is working are
common and he knows both the accused persons Moninder
Singh Pandher and Surendra Koli. Both the accused persons
are living in the disputed bungalow, D-5 since about January
24
2004. He had seen the accused Surendra Koli in September,
2006 cutting the small trees with a small Kulhari. In the
summer season sometimes foul smell would come from the
rear part of D-5 bungalow.
54. The statement of the accused was recorded under section 313
of CrPC. Accused Moninder Singh Pandher has stated that D-6
bungalow belongs to Dr. Navin Chaudhary. He cannot say
whether some Ramesh Prasad Sharma is working there as
Cook or not. Accused has admitted the fact that the accused
Surendra Koli has been working with them as domestic servant
since January 2004 and he never visited the D-5 bungalow on
27.12.2006 and he was arrested on 28.12.2006. He knew the
girl named Payal but neither did he pay her anything nor he
ever gave any direction to kill Payal. He was in Australia at the
time of incident.
55.Accused Surendra Koli has stated that the adjacent bungalow
of the disputed D-5 bungalow is D-6 which belongs to Dr.
Navin Chaudhary, he has seen Ramesh Prasad Sharma working
there. He was arrested on 27.12.2007 and tortured, so he gave a
confession statement and helped recover the material. Nothing
was recovered on his information. Haldar’s daughter was not
coming to work at their bungalow. He does not know Rimpa
Haldar but the accused admitted that he gave the statement
before the Magistrate at Patiala House since he was helpless as
he was beaten up. He knows that bones were recovered from
the drain but he is not aware of the recovery of the Kulhari. He
25
denied telling any Medical Board, about how he used to cut the
dead body but he said that as per the instructions of the
doctors. The accused admitted the fact that at the time of his
statement its video and audiography was prepared. But he
stated that he had given this statement under pressure.
Whatever the C.B.I. had told him, he gave his statement
accordingly. After his arrest he has never been taken to the
disputed bungalow for any recovery and he was not living in
NOIDA from May 2001 to July 2005.
56.Two witnesses were produced in the witness box on behalf of
the accused persons. One of them is Defence Witnesses No.1,
Devender Kaur who is the wife of the accused Moninder
Singh. She has stated that she had gone to Australia on
28.1.2005 and stayed there for one month. Her husband,
Moninder Singh Pandher (accused) had gone to Gold Coast,
Australia on 30th January, 2005 and after that he had come to
her in Melbourne Australia and stayed there up to 14th
February, 2005 and then on 15th January 2005 he returned to
India. The witness submitted a photocopy of her passport by
putting her signatures.
57.Defence Witness No.2 is Pan Singh. This witness has stated
that he was working as Driver of Moninder Singh Pandher. On
25th December 2006 the Police came to the bungalow and
asked the accused Moninder Singh Pandher to call accused
Surendra Koli. Accused Surendra Koli had gone to his village.
Moninder Singh Pandher sent his Driver, Sat Pal to bring
26
accused Surendra Koli and Surendra Koli came back on
27.12.2006. After that accused Surendra Koli, Moninder Singh
Pandher and I went to the Police Station. Police stopped
Surendra Koli there in the Police Station and the witness and
Moninder Singh Pandher came back. On 28th the Police came
again and took Moninder Singh Pandher with them. The
witness stated that on 29th he had not seen Moninder Singh
Pandher and Surendra Koli in the bungalow . The witness also
stated that he was not aware of the fact whether the bungalow
was sealed on that day or not.
58. While accepting the appeal the statement of Sub-Inspector.
Raghu Raj Dikshit was recorded as DW-1. The said witness
has stated that on 1.1.2007 he was working as Sub-Inspector in
PS Sector 20, NOIDA. On that day Dinesh Yadav (PW-35)
ordered that the saw with which the accused Surendra Koli and
Moninder Singh Pandher committed murder be handed over to
them. On the order of Dinesh Yadav he led the accused persons
to the place of occurrence and after opening the seal of the
disputed bungalow D-5, Sector 31, NOIDA entered the
premises. Accused Surendra Koli was ahead followed by
Moninder Singh Pandher. The rest of the police persons
followed them. Then accused Surendra Koli handed over a
cutter recovered from the window sill (Jangla) beside the door
of the bathroom of the first floor. The witness confirmed the
said seizure memo marked as Exh. A-103. In documentary
27
evidence, the following three documents were presented on
behalf of accused Moninder Singh Pandher:
1. Photocopy of Passport of Devender Kaur (DW-1)
2. Photostat Copy of documents related with the
Australian Visa.
3. Photostat copy of Immigration dated 27.2.2005.
59. I heard the arguments of the learned counsel of the accused
persons and the learned. counsel/ Public Prosecutor, Sh.
Suresh Batra on behalf of the C. B.1.and perused the entire
record of the case.
60. The deceased daughter/abducted Rimpa Haldar is one of the
three descendants of Anil Haldar, PW-2 and Dolly Haldar,
PW-5 aged about 14 years. Anil Haldar is a rickshaw puller
and his wife Dolly Haldar, PW-5 is doing the work of cleaning
etc. in the bungalow s. In January, 2005 due to her ill health
she started taking help of her daughter Rimpa Haldar in her
work. Rimpa Haldar continued to go with her mother on work
for 12-13 days. One day i.e. on 8.7.2005 when she went alone,
did not return home. After that they searched for their
daughter but in vain. Then they went to the Police Station to
lodge the missing report but the police instructed them to
search for the girl for some time. After that the missing report
of their daughter was written on 20.7.2005. It was argued by
the learned counsel of the accused Surendra Koli that there
was a 15 days delay in the registration of First Information
Report. Thus the said fact itself is doubtful. In the criminal
28
matter the verbal evidence itself happens to be a very
important and valuable fact for the prosecution side. Keeping
in view the interests of the accused the importance of the
report can hardly be exaggerated. The role/aim of lodging a
complaint with the Police at the earliest happens to bring in
light the circumstances under which the crime is committed,
the names of the real criminals and the role played by them)
their presence on the place of occurrence and to know the
names of the eye- witnesses at the earliest: Sometimes delay in
lodging F.I.R. lead to exaggeration in facts which happens to
be based on the after results of thought consultation. Delay in
lodging F.I.R. not only gets deprived of its natural benefit but
also exposes to the possibility of exaggeration and untrue
facts. Thus the law says that the F.I.R. must be written without
any delay and if any delay occurs in lodging F.I.R. due to any
reason, its solution and justification must be given. If the
prosecution side feels that the delay is useful in its solution
then it would not be objectionable. In the above reference the
following decisions are crucial:
1. The State of Uttar Pradesh Versus Nahar Singh
(1998) Criminal Law Journal, Page. 2006 (Supreme
Court).
2. Sanjeev Kumar Versus The State of Punjab (1997)
Criminal Law Journal, Page3178 (Supreme Court).
29
3. The State of Punjab Versus Gurmeet Singh (1996)
Criminal Law Journal, Page 172 (Supreme Court).
4. Satpal & Ors Versus The State of Uttar Pradesh 2000
Criminal Law Journal, Page3355 (Allahabad).
In these decisions it has been laid down that the delay itself is
not fatal and the said appeal Anil Haldar (PW-2) and Dolly
Haldar (PW-5) have stated that when their daughter missed on
8.2.2005 and after lot of efforts they could not trace her, they
went to the Police Station to lodge the complaint but they did
not wrote the report. So under these circumstances it can be
stated that this delay has been proved by the prosecution very
successfully. Moreover, in this reference this fact is more
important that the report was written on 20.2.2005 which did
not contain the name of any accused. Thus in these
circumstances the delay in lodging F.I.R. does not leave any
negative effect.
61. In the said case there is no eye-witness of the incident. The
prosecution side has justified the implication of the accused
persons on the basis of circumstantial evidence and the judicial
custody of the accused Surendra Koli. The role of the accused
persons in murdering any of the victims or disposing of their
dead bodies seems remote. It always remains doubtful that the
guesses should not take place of the facts in the cases of
serious nature like the present case. So in the present case the
evidence of each incident must be proved by a credible
30
witness. Moreover, it is necessary to come on conclusion
whether the admission made by the accused Surendra Koli in
judicial custody comes in the category of full independence or
intentional in nature as in such crime an assumption of high
level is expected.
62. In accordance with the prosecution side (CBI) both the accused
Surendra Koli and Moninder Singh Pandher were arrested on
29.12.2006 by the local police of Janpad, Gautam Budh Nagar
and had recovered/seized knife, skulls, purse, slippers etc. on
the basis of the committal of crime. The investigation of
Nithari related cases was entrusted to the C. B.1. vide
Notification dated 10.1.2007 issued by the Government of
Uttar Pradesh and the confession statement of the accused was
recorded in the court of A.M.M., Patiala House by Shri
Chandra Shekhar, PW-13. It is stated in the record that the
Special Judicial Magistrate (CBI), Ghaziabad has sent the
.accused Surendra Koli on Police custody remand from
22.2.2007 to 2.3.2007 on the application of Central Bureau of
Investigation and during the police custody remand 1.0. M.S.
Partiyal, Prosecution Witness - 37, filed an application in the
Court of A.M.M., Patiala House, New Delhi stating that the
accused wants to record his confession statement in the
custody of C.B.I. and he was in the custody of local police
from 29.12.2006 to 11.1.2007 and came in the custody of
C.B.I. from 11.1.2007. As accused Surendra Koli wants to give
his statement with his consent so on 28.2.2007 an application
31
was filed in the above court seeking permission to record the
statement of the accused Surendra Koli and also prayed that
the accused should be sent in the custody of D.I.G. (Jail) with
the direction to the authority to arrange his confinement in
such a manner that he may not be allowed to meet any other
person so that any pressure may not be created upon him to
give any statement and only after conducting his medical
examination he may be dispensed with the DIG (Jail), Tihar
and even before recording his statement on 1.3.2007 he should
be medically examined and in compliance of the order the
accused was sent to the Tihar Jail. When on 1.3.2007 accused
Surendra Koli appeared before the A.C.M.M., New Delhi he
submitted a hand written application for submitting a detailed
statement. A.C.M.M. Ms. Kamini Lau directed Shri Chandra
Shekhar, Metropolitan Magistrate (PW-13) to record the
confession statement of the accused and when the accused
recorded his statement under section 164 CrPC on 1.3.2007 it
was duly videographed and audiographed. Learned counsel of
the accused Surendra Koli argued that when the Special
Judicial Magistrate (CBI), Ghaziabad had accepted the police
custody remand of the accused from 22.2.2007 to 2.3.2007
under such circumstances it can be stated that the confession
statement recorded on 1.3.2007 was during the period of police
custody.
Therefore the entire confession statement becomes void and in
the eyes of law it is a futile statement and nothing can be
32
concluded on this statement as there is no legal value of the
statement made during the police custody. In this context the
learned Public Prosecutor, Shri Suresh Batra appearing on
behalf of the C.B.1. has argued that it is correct that the
Ghaziabad court had given remand of accused Surendra Koli
from 22.2.2007 to 2.3.2007 but, as the accused had expressed
his desire to record his confession statement, therefore, the
then Investigation Officer, Sh. M.S. Partiyal, PW-37 had given
an application in before A.C.M.M., Patiala House, New Delhi
seeking permission to record the confession statement. In this
context the learned counsel of the accused argued that CBI had
submitted this application in the court with malafide intention
whereas the said court had no jurisdiction in this respect. In
this context the learned Public Prosecutor (CBI), Shri Suresh
Batra argued as the accused had expressed his desire to record
confession statement and accused Surendra Koli was badly
beaten up by the other prisoners in the Ghaziabad jail and even
when on 25.1.2007 the accused was being brought to appear
before the court then he was beaten by the prosecutors and
public which has also been mentioned in the record of the
inquiry. Therefore, due to this reason the accused Surendra
Koli was presented before the court in Delhi for security
reasons. It was also argued that any Magistrate can record the
statement of accused person under section 164 of CrPC. I
agree with the argument of the learned Public Prosecutor (CBI)
that it is evident from the record that the accused was
33
presented before the court in New Delhi only due to security
reasons.
63. So far as this argument of the learned counsel of the accused is
concerned that the confession statement made in the custody of
the Police has no relevance, I fully disagree with this argument
of the learned counsel of the accused. But it appears from the
record that on 28.2.2007 accused Surendra Koli was sent in the
custody of D.I.G. (Jail), Tihar jail and from there itself he was
presented before the Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House,
New Delhi. It is also evident from the record that every
possible precaution has been taken to record the confession
statement of the accused.
64. Confession statement is generally part of evidence. It is a
crucial fact. Action can be taken on it. The Hon'ble Supreme
Court has established under the rare circumstances the
confession statement would be able to become the basis of
conviction. Nevertheless, it is old principle that the above
Court has to ascertain:
1. Intention of confession statement
2. Authenticity of confession statement
3. Regarding the finality it is essential to conclude own
solution.
It is established that if the confession statement is made in his
own and trueness it can be a sufficient proof of the crime.
34
Therefore, whenever the prosecution demands conviction of
the accused on the basis of confession statement made under
section 164 of CrPC then the court should apply following
dual examination:
1.
Whether the confession statement was fully
voluntary?
2. If it was so, whether it is true and credible?
65. First examination solution is mandatory for its authenticity. If
the confession statement appears to have been given on any
instigation, threat or commitment that should, most probably,
be denied in the beginning as is mentioned in section 24 of the
Evidence Act. In such cases question does not arise for the
implementation of the second examination. If the first
examination is solved then the court should reach on such a
conclusion before the confession statement that whatever has
been stated therein is true and correct. There is no hard or fast
rule to decide such a confession statement or the core part of
the evidence. Moreover, any prevalent method which is
appropriate to undertake confession statement should be
applied. The court should carefully examine the confession
statement and it should be compared with the rest of the
evidence with regard to the prevalent circumstances and
possibilities. If, after examination and comparison it is found
that
the
confession
statement
appears
to
be
the
commensuration of the possible incidents then naturally it is in
35
accordance with the rest of the evidence and the prevalent
circumstances only then it can be considered for its second
examination as a solution.
66. In the context of the above circumstances the confession
statement given by accused Surendra Koli should be carefully
perused. Shri Chandar Shekhar, Metropolitan Magistrate, PW13 who has written the confession statement of accused
Surendra Koli has clearly stated in his evaluation that that
accused Surendra Koli presented himself before him on
1.3.2007 for giving his statement. He was not handcuffed and
it was told who am I and this witness had completely solved
the problem. Accused is interested in giving confession
statement and only after getting fully satisfied he will record
the statement of the accused. In this context the advocates
appearing on behalf of the C.B.1. has argued that not only once
but number of times the accused has been told by the
Magistrate that he is not bound to give such type of statement
and if he desires then he can record his statement. Despite all
this the accused expressed his desire to give his statement
before the Magistrate. Moreover before recording the
statement of the accused it was also ascertained by his medical
examination that the accused is healthy and he has not been
given any type of toxicant. In this case the Magistrate also
carefully managed the videography and audiography of the
confession statement of the accused and a script was also
prepared in this context and the C.D. of the videography was
36
also presented before the court. In the above context the
following points of the report are important: (Page No.5)
1. What do you know? (Magistrate).
I have not come here under any pressure for statement
(Accused Surendra Koli)
2. You are not stating in any pressure, if you are in your
own? (Magistrate)
Yes Sir. (Surendra Koli).
3. Statement (Magistrate)
Yes sir. (Surendra Koli)
4. If you want to record it will be written. (Magistrate)
Yes Sir. (Accused Surendra Koli).
5. And that can also be read against you in the case, do
you know? (Magistrate), Yes sir (Surendra Koli).
6. But even then you want to give the statement?
(Magistrate) Yes sir. (Accused Surendra Koli).
7. Why? (Magistrate), Because I want to help the court.
(Surendra Koli).
8. All right. (Magistrate)
9. I want to help the law of the land, Yes, only for that I
belong to a very poor family. I do not have any means
37
for contesting the
case and there is any source of
livelihood at my house. (Surendra Koli).
No that is a separate thing. But if you are provided all
these things you will contest the case. (Magistrate)
10. No, even then, not. I must give my statement. I will
go with the truth. (Surendra Koli).
11.
You want to tell the truth? (Magistrate) I want
to tell the truth. (Surendra Koli).
12.
That
is
why
you
have
submitted
an
application? (Magistrate), Yes Sir, (Surendra Koli).
13. All right. Once again, I am telling you that if you
don't want to give your statement (Magistrate), Yes Sir
(Surendra Koli).
14. If you don't want to give your statement in the
court even then we will not send you to the Police,
whether you give the statement in your own or not or
whether you want to record your statement or not. In no
case we will send you in the custody of Police. Isn't it
so that you might be thinking that there will be pressure
from the police or police will torture pressurize,
(Magistrate) No. nothing like that. I want to help the
court, Surendra Koli. O.K. (Magistrate).
With this my statement, one, with my statement burden
on conscious will feel relieved, with this, what I have
38
done with all those, yes, yes and the other with that I
will help the law. (Surendra Koli).
O.K. (Magistrate).
Yes sir, that is why, I want to give my statement with
clear conscious. (Surendra Koli)
O.K. (Magistrate)
15. You see, even now you can refuse, if you don't
want to record your statement. (Magistrate). No I am
stating the truth, I want to give my statement.
(Surendra Koli)
16. You want to give your statement (Magistrate).
I must give my statement. (Accused Surendra Koli).
O.K. (Magistrate).
Yes sir, (Surendra Koli)
After that the Magistrate again told him that if he wants not to
give his statement, but even then the accused Surendra Koli
expressed his desire to record his statement. It appears from the
above proceeding that the commitment made by accused
Surendra Koli was voluntary.
67. Now the question arises whether it can be concluded from the
commitment,
which arises
out
of
the
evidence
and
circumstances, was completely voluntary, and then whether it
is also true and credible.
39
68. The truthfulness and creditworthiness of admission can also be
ascertained from the other available records and circumstantial
evidence which has been submitted by the prosecution in this
case.
69. The series of circumstances which have been recognized as
credible and reliable by the prosecution in this case are as
under:
1. (a) The deceased/abducted Rimpa Haldar was living on rent
with her along with her parents, Dolly Haldar and Anil Haldar
in the year 2005 in the house of Kehar Prasad (PW-12) in
village Nithari, Sector 31, NOIDA.
(b) Lodging of missing complaint on 30.7.2005 by Anil
Haldar, PW-2 and his wife, Dolly Haldar PW-5 in respect of
their daughter Rimpa Haldar who had gone to work alone in
the bungalows of Sector 30 and 29 on 8.2.2005.
2. Accused Moninder Singh Pandher as lived in disputed
bungalow D5, Sector 31, NOIDA, Gautam Budh Nagar as the
owner along with his servant, accused Surendra Koli who was
residing there round the clock as a private servant.
3. The arrest of accused Surendra Koli and Moninder Singh
Pandher in Crl. Case No. 838/2006 under sections 363, 366 of
Indian Penal Code.
40
4. After the arrest of the accused on 29.12.2006, a confession
statement given by accused Surendra Koli, pursuant to which a
knife, slippers, purse, skulls and bones were recovered.
5. Amongst the recovered articles, identification of Chunni and
Bra of deceased Rima Haldar, who went missing on 8.2.2005,
by her mother Dolly Haldar, PW-5and father Anil Haldar, PW2.
6. Accused Surendra Koli’s habit to call girls and ladies who
were passing by while standing outside the disputed bungalow
in the name of work and other incentives.
7. Recovery of skulls, bones, hair, slippers, clothes etc. from
the front drain and rear gallery of the disputed bungalow.
8. DNA Match of the recovered bones and skulls with the
blood of the deceased’s relatives.
9. Statement of process of cutting the dead bodies by the
accused before the Medical Committee.
10. On 11.1.2007, recovery of another knife based on the
information given by accused Surendra Koli.
11. On 18.1.2007, handing over of Axe (Kulhari) by the
accused Surendra Koli in the presence of witnesses.
12. Voluntary statement of admission by accused Surendra
Koli.
41
Circumstance No.1 (a): Anil Haldar, PW No.-2 has stated that
in the year 2005, he was living on rent in the house of Kehar
Prasad, PW No. 12 in NOIDA along with his wife and three
children. While verifying the above statement, Kehar Prasad,
PW-12 also clearly stated in his statement that Anil Haldar,
PW-2, Rickshaw puller, was living in his house on rent along
with his family, approximately 2to 3 years before giving this
statement and their daughter Rimpa Haldar had gone missing
approximately 2.5 years ago and could not be traced, even
after a lot of efforts. In this context there is no dispute from the
side of the accused person that Rimpa was living with her
parents and other family members in village Nithari.
1. (b) Father of deceased/abducted Rimpa Haldar, Anil Haldar,
PW-2 and mother Dolly Haldar, PW-5 has stated that when
their daughter had gone to work on 8.2.2005 and did not
return, they looked for their daughter everywhere. They
continuously went to the Police Station to lodge a missing
report of their daughter but their report was not lodged by the
Police. Police continuously responded by saying that first trace
the girl and only then they will record the missing report. They
have also stated that after their daughter went missing, she has
not been traced till date. The missing report is confirmed by
Anil Haldar, PW-2 as Exh. A-2. Prosecution witness, Const.
Sheoraj Singh, PW-15 has also stated that on 20.7.2005, he
was working in the Sector 20 Police Station as Const. Clerk.
On the said day, Anil Haldar had come to him with an
42
application, Exh. A-2 which had been entered in G.D. No. 6,
at 6.50 p.m. The said entry was made by him and it was the
missing report in respect of Kumari Rimpa Haldar who was 14
years of age. Const. Kunwarpal, PW-17 has also confirmed
this fact that on 20.7.2005 Anil Haldar had lodged a missing
report about her daughter. It becomes evident from the
statements of both the witnesses, Dolly Haldar and Anil
Haldar that their daughter has not been found after she went
missing.
Circumstance No.2: It has been argued by the learned counsel
of the accused with regard to the above facts that they do not
agree with the above fact that accused Moninder Singh
Pandher was the owner of the disputed bungalow in which
accused Surendra Koli lived as a private servant.
Circumstance No.3: PW-35, Dy. Superintendent of Police,
Dinesh Yadav has stated that the proceedings of Criminal
Case No. 838/2006 under section 363, 366 I.P.C. were started
by him. He had arrested accused Surendra Koli and Moninder
Singh Pandher on 29.12.2006. No contradictory statement has
been given about the said circumstance by the learned counsel
of the accused. Therefore, there is no dispute about the fact
that accused Surendra Koli and Moninder Singh Pandher were
arrested on 29.12.2006.
Circumstance No.4: It appears from the circumstance No.3
that the accused persons Surendra Koli and Moninder Singh
43
Pandher were arrested on 29.12.2006. PW·11, Pappu Lal
appearing on behalf of the prosecution has stated that on
29.12.2006 he was living in the servant quarter of D-2
bungalow and on the said date Police had called him and
based on the information given by Surendra Koli some bones
and other material was recovered. Its report was prepared in
his presence. The witness has confirmed the said recovery as
Exh. A-23. This witness has also stated that accused Surendra
Koli had also handed over a knife from the bottom of the
water tank made on the roof and its recovery report was
prepared in his presence and marked as Exh. A-24, which is
duly signed by him. Similarly, Sub-Inspector, Chhote Singh,
PW-31 who has appeared on behalf of the prosecution side has
stated that on 29.12.2006 he was working as Sub-Inspector in
Sector 20 Police Station and on the admission of the accused
he had taken the accused to the place of occurrence along with
other police men. Accused Surendra Koli had admitted that
after murder of Deepika @ Payal he had buried her skull in the
vacant part in between the rear walls of the bungalow and the
other part of her body had been thrown in the drain and also
stated that he could hand over the knife with which he had
committed murder and then based on his information, he
helped recover skulls, bones, slippers, clothes etc. and a knife
kept beneath the water tank on the first floor. In this context,
reference to section 27 of Evidence Act is important which
stipulates that "Provided that, when any fact is deposed to as
44
discovered in consequence of information received from a
person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police
officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to a
confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby
discovered, may be proved."
Therefore, under the said section, it is wrong to equate the
facts indicated with the facts already presented. Amongst the
facts discovered, the place of the facts to which is equivalent
to the aim of the facts presented and in this regard the
information of the accused should be perfectly related with the
fact. The earlier user of the article presented or its earlier
history the information got to receive that does not come in the
purview of its relevance with the case. Thus, the
information given by the accused while being in custody, that
he will present the hidden knife, human skulls, and bones,
does not indicate the recovery of the articles but it only
indicates that the knife, skulls, bones and other articles were
hidden in the knowledge of the informer and that knife and
other articles are related with the execution of crime which
proves this fact then the known fact happens to be more
relevant. If it may be added in the words of the statement that
‘I had committed the murder and these bones, slippers and
clothes belong to those dead bodies’ then these words are
inadmissible because these words are not related with the
knife or other articles found in the house of the informer.
Therefore only that part of admission will have to be
45
considered
which is admissible as evidence.
So, this
statement of Surendra Koli that he had committed the murders
with this knife and the bones and other articles belong to those
girls, ladies who were murdered is in no way admissible as
evidence. But as explained above, the statements of witnesses
of Pappu Lal and Sub-Inspector, Chhote Lal in this context are
credible evidence on record indicating that based on the
information given by the accused, the knife, skulls, bones and
other articles were recovered.
Circumstances No.5: Prosecution witness Dolly Haldar, PW-5
had stated in her evidence on page 2 that when she came to
know that some clothes relating to the children from Nithari
village were recovered, then she went to the Sector 20 Police
Station to identify the clothes of her daughter. After going
there she identified the chunni and bra of her daughter. Before
the court also she had identified the Article Exh. 2 containing
the Chunni and Bra of her daughter. This fact has also been
stated by Anil Haldar, PW-2 stating that her wife had
identified the clothes of his daughter in the Police Station. In
so far as the evidence of both the witnesses is concerned, the
learned counsel of the accused has argued that as the Chunni
which was recovered was having little dust on it as stated by
witness Anil Haldar and it is also stated that such Chunnies are
easily available in the market. So it cannot be stated that the
said Chunni or Bra which was identified by Dolly Haldar,
PW-5 belongs to Rimpa Haldar. I do not agree with the above
46
argument of the learned counsel of accused Surendra Koli.
The availability of any article in the market does not mean that
recovery of that article by the prosecution side (CBI) from the
place and in the manner it was recovered could not be
possible. This argument does not prove any inconsistency in
such evidence. Again the learned counsel of the accused has
argued that the colour of the Chunni which was informed was
also different. In this context the leaned counsel of the
prosecution (CBI) argued that both the witnesses have clearly
stated that the Chunni and Bra they had identified belonged to
their daughter. Thus under such circumstances on the basis of
difference in colour it may not be justifiable to treat their
evidence as incredible. The learned counsel of the accused
could not indicate any fact given in the statements of these
witnesses which may indicate that their evidence is incredible.
Circumstances No.6: With reference to this circumstance the
prosecution side (CBI) called witness Pratibha and
Purnita,
PW-27 and 28 respectively in the witness box. Witness Smt.
Pratibha has stated that she used to go to Sector 30, NOIDA
for doing work. One day when at 2o'clock in the afternoon she
was returning after doing their work, accused Surendra Koli
called her to his room and asked her if she wanted to do
cleaning and dusting work, in response to which the witness
asked him to call the landlady there itself. Then, accused
Surendra Koli said that Madam was an old lady and she could
not come there. But this witness did not go inside. This is a
47
matter of 3-4 weeks before the occurrence of the incident of
Nithari, when accused Surendra Koli had called them inside.
Similarly, Purnita (PW-28) has stated that she was the student
of Fifth Class in Social Under Age Foundation School which
is situated in Sector 37 and she had to pass through the road of
the disputed bungalow to go to her school. One day when she
was returning from the school she saw that flowers were
blossoming in the disputed bungalow. Their branches were
coming out. When she asked for a flower from the accused
Surendra Koli, he asked her to come inside but she did not go
in. With reference to the statements of both the witnesses the
learned counsel of the accused Surendra Koli argued that both
the witnesses have given their statements only at the behest of
the CBI because the witness Pratibha has stated that she had
not been inquired by the CBI. In my opinion only on this
basis, the evidence of the witnesses cannot be treated as
unreliable. It has also been argued that if the accused Surendra
Koli had called both the witnesses, then why no complaints
were made to any concerned officer. In my view the said
argument of the learned counsel is completely meaningless
because by calling in this way no crime can be committed and
question of lodging its complaint does not arise. With the
evidence of these witnesses only this circumstance comes in
light that the accused used to call inside the passer-by
girls/ladies with some sort of inducement. The accused
Surendra Koli has himself admitted this fact. It also affirms
48
the above fact that accused Surendra Koli used to call passerby girls and ladies inside the bungalow by offering them work
or some other incentive. In this context the following part of
page 18 of the confession statement of accused Surendra Koli
is important:
“A girl was playing in front of my house, whose name was
Payal which I could recollect after seeing the photograph. I
gave her a signal and called her near the gate. She was playing
outside the gate. I called her near the gate and told her I will
give you a cap. That girl may be about 6-7 years of age.”
The following extract from Page 19: “Whose name was Jyoti.
She used to come in the house to get clothes etc. Good at
home ------- then I called her, told her to take the clothes for
ironing, then she came in.”
The following extract from Page-31: I called her and asked
would work here and she said yes. Then I asked her to come
inside. I will facilitate the talk about your wages. I brought her
in side and came in with her."
About the abducted/deceased Rimpa Haldar, accused Surendra
Koli has stated as under in his confession statement on page
13:
“But it is a matter of beginning of 2005, may be January or
February. At that time I was alone at home. A girl was coming
from the side of Sector 30 towards Nithari. I have come to
49
know later that her name was Rimpa. I called her inside for
work. On her entering, I told her that Madam is coming now. I
will facilitate the talk about your wages. When she was
looking inside, I tightened her neck with her chunni from
behind and made her unconscious. After that I tried to do sex
with her. After some time when I could not do sex, I tightened
her neck with her chunni and killed her.”
Thus, with the evidence of the witnesses and the admission of
crime by the accused, the above fact is fully confirmed.
Circumstance No.7: In this context, the reliable statements of
prosecution side i.e. Satish Chandra Mishra, PW-3, Mukesh
Kumar, PW-7, Dr. Manish Kummath, PW-8 and Dr. Rajinder
Singh, PW-25 are reliable and are available on record. They
have stated that on 12.1.2007, 13.1.2007, 15.1.1007 and
16.1.2007 they were present and many bones, skulls, clothes,
.slippers were recovered after digging behind the disputed
bungalow and from the front drain of the bungalow also
biological material, clothes, slippers etc. were recovered.
There is nothing in the evidence of these witnesses on the
basis of which this evidence can be treated as unreliable. In
relation to the evidence of these witnesses, the learned counsel
of the accused argued that the drainage flowing in front of the
disputed bungalow, was flowing in front of the other
bungalows too. Under such circumstances how it can be
ascertained that the bones, skulls, biological tissues, slippers
50
and clothes etc. might have been thrown out of this disputed
bungalow. It is also possible that this entire material might
have come with the flow of the water. Circumstances do not
suit the above argument of the learned counsel. With reference
to the· above facts the true and voluntary confession of the
accused is available on record. Apart from this, in so far as the
question of recovered bones and other articles from the
disputed bungalow is concerned, the witness statements of
Manoj Kumar PW-23 and Surinder Singh, PW-27 are
important. They have stated that in March 2005 children were
playing with the ball near the disputed bungalow and their ball
went in the rear of the disputed bungalow and when Manoj
Kumar scaled the wall and went inside he saw a piece of flesh
lying there which was like a human hand and was wrapped in
a polythene. The affirmation of these circumstances in the
confession statement of accused Surendra Koli, make them
seem credible.
Circumstance No.8: While there was no eye-witness with
regard to all the matters related to Nithari case but a large
number of material like bones, skulls and biological material
was recovered from the drain in front
of
the
disputed
bungalow and the gallery at the back and many people had
lodged the missing reports of their daughters. Under such
circumstances it was felt necessary that DNA of the bones,
skulls and biological material should be compared with that of
the relatives of the missing people so that it can be ascertained
51
whether these missing people whose bones, skulls and
biological material have been found in the drain in front of the
disputed bungalow and in the gallery behind the house, have
been murdered. Therefore the blood samples of the mother of
Rimpa Haldar, Dolly Haldar and father, Anil Haldar, PW-5
and PW-2 respectively and brother of
the deceased Abhijit
Haldar were taken before the City Magistrate, Gaurav Verma,
PW-9 and it was confirmed by City Magistrate Gaurav Verma
by putting their photographs on the Identity Form. After
collecting the blood samples PW-8, Dr. Manish Kummuth sent
all these samples and recovered bones, skulls, biological
material to Hyderabad for DNA test. Nandi Nayani
Madhusudan Reddy, PW-14who is a Staff Scientist in
Laboratory of DNA Finger Printing Services,
CDFD,
Hyderabad, found after comparing the DNA with the sent
bones, skulls that the sample profiles of Dolly Haldar, PW-5
and Anil Haldar, PW-2 are matching with the skeletal remains
of their biological daughter. The witness also stated that they
removed the DNA from a tooth in the skull and after matching
that DNA, it was found to be that of the deceased Rimpa
Haldar. Witness has stated in her cross examination that DNA
profile of both persons can never be same unless they are
monozygotic twins (twins). Therefore, with the evidence of
this witness, it is confirmed that one of the skulls recovered
was that of Rimpa Haldar too. In this regard, the following
52
extract from page 13 of accused Surendra Koli's admission is
important:
“A girl was coming from the side of Sector 30 towards
Nithari. I have come to know later that her name was Rimpa. I
called her inside for work. On her entering, I told her that
Madam is coming now. I will facilitate the talk about your
wages. When she was looking inside, I tightened her neck with
her chunni from behind and made her unconscious. After that I
tried to do sex with her. After some time when I could not do
sex, I tightened her neck with her chunni and killed her.”
"----Carried her to the bathroom then came down in the
kitchen went with a knife from the kitchen, immediately cut
her in pieces and I also ate a piece of her arm and breast"
Okay!
"Which I had cooked in the house i.e. kitchen." Thus, the
above fact is fully confirmed with the evidences of the
witnesses supported by the confirmed statement of the
accused.
Circumstance No.9: PW-8, Manish Kummuth has stated that a
Committee was constituted. He was also included as a member
of that Committee. A dead body of an unknown person was
brought and accused Surendra Koli was given a piece of Chalk
and was instructed to put the signs on the dead body with the
chalk showing how and from where he used to cut the dead
53
bodies. During this process there was no Police person
available on the spot and accused Surendra Koli was in normal
condition. He was not looking mentally worried. With that
piece of chalk, Surendra Koli explained how and from where
he used to cut the dead bodies. After that the members of this
committee examined the soft tissues, organs etc. of the bones
and found that the cutting signs made on those bones or
similar to that of the indicated by accused Surendra Koli. This
witness, Dr. Manish Kummtha has clearly stated in page 7 of
his cross-examination that the age of Rimpa Haldar may be
from 12 to 18 years. This witness has fully denied the
argument that the age of Rimpa Haldar might have been from
10 to 12 years. With reference to the evidence of this witness
the learned counsel of the accused has argued that the Doctors
themselves had put the signs on the dead body and the accused
was asked to put marks on those signs. I don't agree with the
argument of the learned counsel of the accused. Circumstances
do not warrant as to why the Committee of Doctors will do
this type of work. Therefore, the argument of the learned
counsel of the accused Surendra Koli cannot be treated as
credible or acceptable.
Circumstance No.10 and 11: The accused Surendra Koli also
helped recover another knife on 11.1.2007 (Exh. 32) and an
Axe (Kulhari) on 18.1.2007 (Article Exh. 3). So far as the
recovery of knife is concerned, the statement of an
independent witness, Durga Prasad is available on the record
54
of evidence. He has stated that on 11.1.2007 he had gone with
the police on their request and accused Koli had stated in his
presence that he can help recover that knife which he used in
cutting the dead bodies. After that Surendra Koli came in the
disputed bungalow with all those people and he handed over a
knife after digging out the soil below a electric pole near the
water tank which was duly sealed in his presence and report
Exh. A-58 was prepared. No material has been found in the
evidence of this witness which can render this evidence as
unreliable. Learned counsel of the accused Surendra Koli has
argued that the evidence of the witness is not credible because
as stated by the prosecution, accused Surendra Koli had
committed number of murders then how it is possible that after
committing one murder he will bury the knife in such a
manner and dig it out again and commit the next murder. With
reference to the above learned Public Prosecutor from CBI has
argued that no conclusions can be made only on the basis of
assertions unless it is proved. In other words, credible
evidence is provided in relation to that fact. In the context of
the above recovery, the evidence of Durga Prasad, PW-20 is
available on record. In so far as the recovery of Axe (Kulhari)
is concerned, the evidence of PW-9, Virender Singh Dagar,
Dr. Rajinder Singh, PW-25 and S.K.Chadda, PW-33 are
available on record before whom the recovery of Kulhari was
made through accused Surendra Koli and the map of recovery
was also prepared.
55
Thus it appears from the above facts and circumstances that
the judicial confession given by accused Surendra Koli and the
other evidence is in consonance with the surrounding facts and
circumstances of the case. Thus the second examination in
respect of the confession, whether confession is true and
credible, may be adopted.
It is also evident that while recording the confession of the
accused Surendra Koli under the provisions of section 164 of
CrPC, all provisions of section 164 of CrPC were followed
and the Court took adequate precaution as well. Every
possibility of outside pressure was removed. Therefore, for
these reasons, the confession statement can be taken into
consideration and undoubtedly makes the evidence against
him.
Though the investigation officer had conducted Narco Test,
Polygraph test and brain mapping test on the accused but the
above tests were only for guidance and have no relevance as
evidence.
The accused gave his confession report on 1.3.2007 and the
statement of accused Surendra Koli was recorded under
Section 313 on 11.11.2008 in which he has stated the fact that
as the CBI had told him so has he stated in evidence and the
statement was made under pressure. Thus, the learned counsel
of the accused Surendra Koli has stated that the confession
statement of the accused is available on record. Therefore,
56
neither any conclusion can be arrived at on the basis of this
confession nor can it be made basis of conviction. With regard
to the confession statement, some facts are supposed to be
taken into consideration from the legal point of view. He was
presented before the Magistrate on 28.2.2007 directly from the
custody of Police and after that the accused was sent to Tihar
Jail for self-evaluation under judicial custody. Accused
Surendra Koli has not stated in his statement that his statement
has been written incorrectly or he has not given any confession
but he has stated that he has given this statement under
pressure of C. B.I. and torture. But as per the record, at the
time of giving his confession report the accused was fully
independent and there were no signs of injury on his body and
even the concerned Magistrate was also fully satisfied that the
accused is recording his confession report out of his own will.
When some confession statement is denied then in such
situation the Court must ensure that the confession report is
true and voluntary. There are established rules to accept the
denied confession statement. If the denied confession report is
full of material specifications then it can become a basis for
conviction. As stated above that if accused Surendra Koli
denies his confession statement under section 313, then the
confession statement is completely true, voluntary and
credible. Therefore, under such circumstances despite the
denial of the confession, conviction is justified on the basis of
other circumstantial evidence.
57
It has been argued on behalf of prosecution side (CBI) that
only on the basis of confession statement, accused Surendra
Koli should be convicted. In support of the said argument, the
prosecution side (CBI) has relied on the following decisions:
1. Hemraj Devilal Versus Ajmer State A.I.R. 1954 (Supreme
Court) Page 462.
2. Shankaraya Versus Rajasthan State A.I.R. 1978 (Supreme
Court) Page 1248.
3. Anil @ Raju Namdev Versus Administration of Daman &
Diu and Others 2007(1) J.S.S (Supreme Court) Page 1094.
4. Subramanyam Godan Versus Madras State A.I.R. 1958
(Supreme Court) Page 238.
5. Rattan Gound Versus Bihar State A.I.R. 1958 (Supreme
Court) Page 18.
6. Abdul Ghani Versus State of Uttar Pradesh 1973 Criminal
Law Journal (Supreme Court) Page-280.
I agree with the above argument of the learned counsel for
CBI. It appears from the entire perusal of the case that the
confession statement made by accused Surendra Koli is
independent, voluntary and is fully credible. All the
circumstances in relation to the confession are proved through
credible and irrefutable evidence, in the light of the
confession. Therefore, in these circumstances, conviction can
be made on the basis of such evidence. If the accused denies
58
his confession statement under section 313 of CrPC. even then
there seems no reason as to why his denial must be considered
because the denial has been made on the pretext of torture and
pressure made by the Police on the accused Surendra Koli.
However, the Magistrate who recorded the confession
statement has clearly stated that when the accused was giving
his statement, his state of mental health was stable and he was
giving his statement without any fear.
70. Learned Counsel of accused Moninder Singh Pandher argued
that there is no evidence against his client. Therefore, accused
Moninder Singh Pandher should be acquitted. Learned Counsel
of accused Moninder Singh Pandher argued that the recovery
of the saw (Aari) could not be proved in any manner.
Therefore, in the context of recovery of this saw, it cannot be
stated that the said saw was recovered on the information of
accused Moninder Singh Pandher.
71. Though it appears from the record that on 1.1.2007 the saw
was recovered on the joint information of accused Moninder
Singh Pandher and accused Surendra Koli, in the context of
which a report was also written. However, no evidence has
been produced before the Court by the prosecution side (CBI)
to prove this fact. Shri Khalid Khan, counsel for the
complainant argued that when the case was entrusted to the
CBI the whole documents were handed over by the local
police, as stated by Dinesh Yadav (PW-35) of the prosecution
side (CBI). Therefore, in such situation not to take the
59
appropriate documents on record would create a doubtful
condition. In this context the learned counsel of the
complainant argued that section 173(6) of CrPC says if the
police officer is of opinion that any part of any such statement
is not relevant to the sub-matter of the proceeding or that its
disclosure to the accused is not essential in the interests of
justice and is inexpedient in the public interest, he shall
indicate that part of the statement and append a note requesting
the Magistrate to exclude that part from the copies to be
granted to the accused and stating his reasons for making such
request. But the CBI did not give any information to the
Magistrate to this effect. The concerned document was
received through the Police. Advocate S.P. Ahluwalia on
behalf of the CBI could not prove on record as to why this
document was not submitted to the court although as per the.
said document on 1.1.2007 a saw recovered on the joint
information of both the accused, Moninder Singh Pandher and
Surendra Koli.
72. Sh. Khalid Khan, Counsel for the complainant argued that
CBI is knowingly not allowing the evidence given against the
accused Moninder Singh Pandher to be brought before the
court. The prosecution witness No. 35 Dinesh Yadav has
accepted in his cross-examination that on 1.1.2007 a saw was
recovered. It is also pertinent to indicate here that PW-35,
Dinesh Yadav has not stated anything about the recovery Exh.
A-103 in his statement, but in his cross examination only
60
stated that a saw was recovered on 1.1.2007. An application to
this effect was submitted by the learned counsel of the
complainant requesting that this recovery report should be put
before the court and Witness Dinesh Yadav, PW-35 should
again be examined to prove this document. Keeping in view
the prevalent circumstances the said application was accepted.
Thereafter the CBI stated that the said recovery report was not
written by PW-35, Dinesh Yadav but was written on his
direction by Sub-Inspector, Raviraj Dikshit, Court witness No.
11. Therefore Raviraj Dikshit should be called to prove this
report. On admission of application CBI was directed to
present Raviraj Dikshit to prove the recovery report. In
compliance of this direction, CBI submitted this recovery
report in the Court which is proved by Sub-Inspector, Raviraj
Dikshit, Court witness No. 11. The relevant facts of the report
are as under:
The saw used in those murders is kept hiding in Bungalow
No.5, Sector 31, NOIDA. We both can help recover it by going
there.
Surendra and Moninder leading in the house handed over a
saw from behind the curtain of the window near the door of the
bath room of the first floor which was one four fingers in
length and width one finger.
Thus, this recovery which is exhibited as Exh. A-103 is
confirmed, which indicates that the saw was recovered on the
61
information of both the accused persons. The Hon’ble
Supreme Court in its decision in Sewa Kaur Vs. Punjab State
A.I.R. 1997 (Supreme Court) Page 1843 and in the decision of
Hon'ble High Court, Allahabad: A.L.J. -2006(1) N.O.C.
(Division Bench, Allahabad High Court) Page -3 has laid down
that if the recovery is made on the statement of all the accused
persons, such recovery, being a joint recovery cannot be stated
as untrue and if such recovery is supported by evidence then
conclusion can be made on this basis.
73. The counsel of accused Moninder Singh Pandher has also
argued that if the recovery of saw is accepted to have been
made on the joint information of the accused. Moninder Singh
Pandher and Surendra Koli even then it cannot be stated that
the accused is a partner in the crime as the witness appearing
on behalf of the prosecution side (CBI) PW-25, Dr. Rajender
Singh has clearly stated that a Committee of Doctors for which
he was a member submitted a report, Exh. A-72 which
indicates that no saw or other teeth like weapon was not used
to cut the dead bodies. Thus the participation of the accused in
the crime comes to an end with this evidence. I do not agree
with the above argument of the learned counsel of the accused.
It appears from the above facts that the Committee which had
given its report, was given two knives and an Axe recovered
on the information of the accused Surendra Koli and the said
saw was not sent to the team for their conclusion. The
62
innocence of accused Moninder Singh Pandher is not proved in
any way.
74. The learned counsel of accused Moninder Singh Pandher has
also argued that on the day of occurrence of this crime accused
was in Australia. PW-37. M.S. Partiyal, appearing for the
prosecution has stated in his examination stated that through an
inquiry he found that Moninder Singh Pandher had been in
Australia from 30.1.2005 to 15.2.2005 along with his wife.
Therefore, accused Moninder Singh Pandher cannot be
implicated in the crime.
75. Section 11 of Indian Evidence Act states as under: "Facts not
otherwise relevant are relevant1. If they are inconsistent with any fact in issue or relevant
fact;
2. If by themselves or in connection with other facts they make
the existence or non-existence of any fact in issue or relevant
fact highly probable or improbable.
76. Sub-section of Section 11 of the Indian Evidence Act is
relevant in the present case and on that basis it was argued on
behalf of accused Moninder Singh Pandher that on the day of
occurrence he was in Australia, then how he could have killed
Rimpa Haldar.
77. No charge sheet was submitted against accused Moninder
Singh Pandher by the CBI. Therefore no argument was given
on behalf of the CBI by their counsels Sh. S.P. Ahluwalia, Sh.
63
Punit Ahluwalia, Sh. J.P. Sharma and Sh. S.C. Bahal. It is
correct that no charge sheet was submitted by the CBI against
accused Moninder Singh Pandher but after finding prima facie
evidence against accused Moninder Singh he was summoned
in the court charges under sections 364, 302 r/w 120B and 201
I.P.C. were levelled against him. The above counsels of CBI
are additionally appointed for this case. Their job is to
facilitate in its proceedings but not to accept the prosecution
argument as it is. Learned counsel of the complainant Sh.
Khalid Khan argued that CBI has been in favour of accused
Moninder Singh Pandher. That is why no charge sheet has
been submitted against him. In this context, the learned
counsel of the complainant attracted my attention toward the
following behaviour of CBI:
1. Non-submission of report of recovery of saw on the joint
information of accused Moninder Singh Pandher and Surendra
Koli.
2. Non-submission of charge sheet against accused Moninder
Singh Pandher on the basis of his absence.
3. Submission of two knives and an Axe recovered from
Surendra Koli and non-submission of saw recovered on the
information of both the accused to the medical Board, whose
member was Dr. Rajinder Singh, PW-25 for their opinion and
the statement of the witness (Dr. Rajinder Singh) that the use
of saw was not made in murder.
64
4. Metropolitan Magistrate, Sh. Chander Shekhar who
recorded the confession statement of accused Surendra Koli,
asked a question to save Moninder Singh, regarding the noninvolvement of no one else in the case as per the confession
statement, even though the confession statement was proved
through other witnesses as well.
5. Not giving any argument against accused Moninder Singh
Pandher even though the court had summoned him and
levelled charges against him.
I agree with the above argument of the accused to some extent.
78. The learned counsel of the complainant Sh. Khalid Khan has
argued that under Section 11 of the Evidence Act "Facts not
otherwise relevant are relevant: should be proved by accused
Moninder Singh Pandher. But Moninder Singh Pandher did not
give any evidence in this context. Smt. Devender Kaur, wife of
accused Moninder Singh Pandher was called in witness box as
DW-1. The witness stated that she had gone to Australia on
28.1.2005 and stayed there for one month. Moninder Singh
Pandher had gone to Australia on 30.01.2005 and after that he
had come to her and stayed with her in Melbourne up to
14.02.2005 and returned India on 15.02.2005. “Facts not
otherwise relevant are relevant,” in this context the learned
counsel of the complainant argued that Devender Kaur who is
the wife of accused Moninder Singh has given her evidence
and she also came with her passport. But in the context of
65
above, no witness was produced on behalf of accused
Moninder Singh Pandher. In this context, it was argued on
behalf of CBI that as the passport of accused Moninder Singh
Pandher was taken in custody during the investigation and in
the said context prosecution witness-25, Dinesh Yadav has
stated in his statement that during the search the passport of
Moninder Singh Pandher was taken in custody which was duly
stamped by Immigration. Moreover, the Inquiry Officer of
CBI, R. Partha Sarathy has also stated that for this purpose
there is no need of giving any additional evidence. I do not
agree with the argument given on behalf of accused Moninder
Singh Pandher as Section 11 of Evidence Act expects that
evidence should be recorded in "Facts not otherwise relevant
are relevant". In this case the passport of accused Moninder
Singh was taken in custody during the inquiry but no
satisfactory evidence was produced in that context and the only
evidence which was given was that of his wife Devender Kaur.
When a first witness seems doubtful in a particular case then it
is not justifiable come to the conclusion on the statement of
second witness. Again, in this case this is important "Facts not
otherwise relevant are relevant" should be proved completely.
When the accused takes support from "Facts not otherwise
relevant are relevant" then the responsibility of proving this
fact lies on the accused under section 103 of the Indian
Evidence Act. Prosecution side (CBI) need not prove this fact
that on the day of occurrence of the incident accused was not
66
available at the place of occurrence. At the time of the
incident, the fact that the accused was present at another place
should be proved perfectly. In this context, the decision in
1. Rajesh Kumar Vs. Dharamvir (1997) S.C.C. Page-476, 1997
S.C.C. (Criminal) Page- 591, Criminal Law Journal (1997)
Page- 223.
is more important in which it has been laid down that "Facts not
otherwise relevant are relevant" should be completely and
confidently proved which will prove the availability of the
accused on the place of occurrence. But no evidence on behalf of
the accused Moninder Singh Pandher was given except that of his
wife. Only the confiscated passport of the accused by the
prosecution is on record. In this context the learned counsel of the
accused has argued that passport itself proves the theory that ‘facts
not otherwise relevant are relevant’. In this context the learned
counsel of the complainant has argued that in the above case the
statement of any of the officers could have been recorded but it
has not been done. Therefore, this conclusion cannot be reached
only on the basis of passport. It was also argued that section 11 of
the Evidence Act may otherwise not have any relevance.
Investigating Officer can never be given this right that he should
define the involvement of the accused based on such a plea.
79. Section 120(A) of I.P.C. is most important which defines the
criminal conspiracy. Section is read over as under:
"Definition of criminal conspiracy -
67
"When two or more persons agree to do, or cause to be done 1. Any illegal act, or
2. Such an act, which is not illegal by illegal means, such an
agreement is designated a criminal conspiracy.
Provided that no agreement except an agreement to commit an
offence shall amount to a criminal conspiracy unless some act
besides the agreement is done by one or more parties to such
agreement in pursuance thereof.
Explanation: It is immaterial whether the illegal act is the
ultimate object of such agreement, or is merely incidental to
that object.
80. It is not necessary to prove by the prosecution under section
120B that the criminal agreed to do the illegal work or getting
it done personally. Consent is mostly implied from the
circumstances of the case for conspiracy is rarely an open
matter. Normally existence and aim of the conspiracy are
ascertained from the behaviour of the person and the
circumstances of the case. It is a known rule of the
circumstantial evidence that every circumstance which may
lead to implication in the crime should be proved clearly by a
credible evidence or the circumstance should be acceptable to
the accused and such a series of incidents should form chain in
such a manner that only guilt of the criminal could be derived
from it and no other conclusion regarding the guilt of the
68
accused is possible. Absence of the accused on the place of
occurrence can also make the accused guilty of the criminal
conspiracy in accordance with the above section if the
circumstances are conclusive and credible with regard to guilt
of the accused.
81. Now the question arises here is that the circumstances in this
case are also against the accused Moninder Singh Pandher or
in the context of these circumstances credible and undisputed
evidence has been given which indicates his implication in the
crime. In the said case the proof of implications of accused
Moninder Singh Pandher in the following circumstances is
available on the basis that accused Moninder Singh Pandher
was also fully involved in the conspiracy along with the
accused Surendra Koli.
1. Continuous stay of the accused Moninder Singh Pandher in
disputed bungalow D-5, Sector 31, NOIDA till the opening of
the cases in the year 2004 and the stay of accused Surendra
Koli as a private servant in the same place.
2. Occurrence of a number of murders in this particular
disputed bungalow.
3. Throwing of pieces of the dead bodies wrapped in polythene
bag, in the drain in front of the bungalow and in the rear
gallery.
4. Confession of the accused Surendra Koli
69
82. Circumstance No.1: With regard to this circumstance there is
no dispute that in the disputed bungalow D-5, Sector 31,
NOIDA accused Moninder Singh Pandher was living as an
owner and accused Surendra Koli was living as a servant in the
same bungalow.
83. Circumstance No.2 and 3: It appears from the confession and
the statements of the witnesses that after committing murders
of girls and women their dead bodies were cut into pieces and
thrown in the drain in front of the bungalow and in the rear
gallery of the said bungalow and after inquiry a large number
of bones, skulls, biological material were recovered from the
front drain and the rear gallery. In such a large scale the bones,
skulls, biological material have been recovered that it was not
less than a slaughtering house whose smell might have been
available in a radius of one kilometre. Therefore, how it can be
stated that the people residing in that bungalow may not have
knowledge of this smell. It also appears from the confession of
the accused Surendra Koli that on an average a girl or a women
was being murdered in a month and their bodies were cut in
pieces and thrown in the front drain or in the rear gallery. Even
the parts of the body of the earlier may not have disposed of
that the next victim was murdered. So the smell around this
bungalow was even more than a slaughtering house.
84. Circumstance No.4: It appears from the confession of accused
Surendra Koli that he had also worked in the bungalow s
before doing the job with Moninder Singh Pandher. But this
70
type of crime was committed by him because Moninder Singh
Pandher was habitual of inviting call girls and sometimes
shared his bed with two or three girls. Whenever these girls
come accused Surendra Koli prepared the food for them. At
that time accused Moninder Singh happened to be engaged in
drink with them and after seeing all this sexual and criminal
tendencies got aroused in the accused, Surendra Koli. When
accused Moninder Singh used to bring this type of girls in his
house the feeling of crime happened to be more aggressive in
the mind of the accused and as such he started committing
murder. It also appears from the confession of accused that
when Moninder Singh Pandher did not bring girls then he gets
pacified. When accused Moninder Singh Pandher used to again
bring girls home, again his criminal tendency would grip him
and his mind would want to cut the girls and eat their parts of
body and rape them. Accused Surendra Koli also stated in his
confession that sometimes such situation came that he was in
the house of accused Moninder Singh Pandher he murdered the
girl and kept her in the bathroom. Accused Surendra Koli has
also asserted in his confession that a girl named Payal who
used to come to accused Moninder Singh Pandher. Moninder
Singh Pandher has stated in his statement made under section
313 of CrPC that he knew the girl named Payal. In this context
the learned counsel of the complainant has argued that this girl
named Payal was also murdered in this bungalow and her
71
Mobile Phone was being used by accused Surendra Koli which
was in the knowledge of accused Moninder Singh Pandher.
85. It is essential for conviction in the criminal cases that every
fact and situation should be logically proved. Evidence should
be of the level beyond doubt. Evidence Act does not emphasise
on excessive proofs because in the whole world finding of this
type of proof is very difficult. Thus when any fact is stated to
be 'proved' under section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, when
the court after perusal of all the facts before it may consider
that this fact has its existence or may consider its existence so
much important that in the reference of special circumstances
of the cases a prudent person would deem that the fact does
exist. In the definition of 'proof' no distinction can be made
between circumstantial witness and some other witness. Thus
in the above series of the circumstances such an abundant
probability of the circumstances is proved that any prudent
person would assume that the accused are guilty of the crime.
86. In the said case the whole case is based on the circumstantial
evidence and confession of accused Surendra Koli.
87. Before conviction in a case based on circumstantial evidence
some preconditions are as under:
1. Circumstances from which the conclusion of the crime is to
be concluded should be absolutely proved. The related
circumstances must be proved instead of will be proved or be
proved.
72
2. The facts must be proved in such a manner that no other
conclusion other than the guilt of the accused may be derived
from such proof of facts.
3. Circumstances should be focused and clear in nature.
4. They should be beyond the facts other than the proving
ones.
5. The series of evidences should be so perfect that there may
not
remain any logical base for the innocence of the
accused and it should appear that in all human probabilities the
work should be done by the accused only.
88. Those cases which happen to be based on the circumstantial
evidence, the entire circumstances of those cases should be
considered together. By not considering the circumstances of
thecase together and by considering the circumstances
separately destroys the collective effect of those circumstances.
When different circumstances are considered together, only
then their real effect can be evaluated. For example if an
accused is found fleeing immediately after committing murder
his answer that he fled due to fear would not be illogical. The
spots of blood on the clothes probably can be that of the
bleeding from the nose. Even the seizure of knife like weapon
can be explained in different ways. The learned counsel of
accused Moninder Singh Pandher has argued that the
circumstances which have been proved against the accused
Surendra Koli, they do not come in any the category of
73
evidence which would prove his guilt beyond reasonable
doubt. Therefore, the accused Moninder Singh Pandher should
be acquitted giving him benefit of doubt. Evaluation of crime
and punishment is not equivalent to the stories of angels
wherein one is free to imagine and speculate to whatever
extent he may like. In this context the main question is whether
accused is guilty of the crime for which he has been brought
before the court of law, Crime is an accident of real emotions
and is the result of the different human activities. The person
on whom the offence of commission of crime is alleged, while
concluding about his conviction, the court has to decide on the
basis of human probabilities, parameters, its internal values
and evidences of the witnesses. About doing final analysis the
case has to base on its own facts. Though the accused should be
logically given benefit of every kind of reasonable doubt yet at
the same time the court should not allow the imaginary
evidence which may be incredible at the first sight.
89. In this case the circumstances which have been proved against
the accused
they have been proved beyond doubt and those
circumstances on which the conviction is to be made have been
perfectly proved and thus by the proved facts only the accused
persons
should
be
considered
as
convicts.
All
the
circumstances are of determined nature and they are denying
any other conclusion other than the one indicated by the
proved circumstances. In other words, the circumstances have
been credibly proved. The series of evidence has been so
74
perfectly completed that there remains no basis for the
confirmation of the innocence of the accused persons and the
proved circumstances are of such nature that whatever they are
showing the entire crime has been done by the accused
persons. It does not mean that the evidence should be so
conclusive that there may not remain remote possibility under
which the accused persons cannot commit crime. In such a
circumstance law would fail to provide security to the society
because such remote possibilities cannot be excluded in any
case. Such excessive estimation of remote possibilities would
always prove some doubt but this would if not completely
obstruct the path of justice would certainly lead to extinction of
justice from the society.
90. The confession statement given by the accused Kali under
section 164 of CrPC has been recorded in strict compliance of
the relevant provisions and is completely independent,
voluntary and credible and is fit to believe.
91. In nut shell on perusal of the circumstances of the case and
confession made by accused Surendra Koli, it brings to
conclusion that accused persons are certainly guilty of the
crime and not that they may be guilty of the crime.
On perusal of the above, as a whole I come to the conclusion
that it is justifiable to convict accused Surendra Koli under
Sections 364, 302, 376 r/w 511 and 201 of I.P.C. and accused
Moninder Singh Pandher under Sections 302 r/w 120B, 364
r/w 120B, 376 r/w 120Band 201 r/w 120B. Thus the accused
75
are found guilt under the above sections. Both the accused are
already in judicial custody.
Date 12.2.2009
Sd/Smt Rama Jain
Upper
Sessions
Judge/ Special Judge,
Anti Corruption, U.P.
Ghaziabad.
On the question of sentencing for the offence both the accused
should be brought from the jail on 13.2.2009.
Date 12.2. 2009
Sd/Smt Rama Jain
Upper
Sessions
Judge
Judge,
Anti-
/Special
Corruption,
U.P.
Ghaziabad.
13.2.2009
Accused Surendra Koli and Moninder Singh Pandher appeared
before the court in judicial custody. Justice friend of accused
Surendra Koli, Sh. Kalu Ram stated with regard to the
conviction that the matter is not such which can be treated as
'rarest of the rare' and the accused has his small children.
Therefore, the case should be considered accordingly. Learned
76
counsel, Dev Raj Singh present on behalf of accused
Moninder Singh Pandher stated that in the case of the accused
a lenient view should be taken and if he may be given death
sentence this case only then the proceedings on other cases
relating to Nithari will adversely affect.
Advocate Ahluwalia appearing on behalf of the C.B.I. argued
that the case of accused Surendra Koli comes in the category
of 'rarest of the rare' category as the accused Surendra Koli has
committed dozens of murders brutally like this case and in
support of this above mentioned fact Sh. Ahluwalia relied on
the following decisions:
1. Rajiv @ Ram Chander Vs. Rajasthan State (1996) C.C.R.
Page - 68 (Supreme Court)
2. Shivaji @ Daya Shankar Vs. Maharashtra State IV (2007)
C.C.R. (Supreme Court) Page-40
3. Rajasthan State Vs. Khera Ram V(2003) S.L.T. Page - 69
4. Dhananjay Chatterjee @ Panna Vs. West Bengal State
1(1994) C.C.R. Page - 89 (Supreme Court)
Public Prosecutor, Sh. Surinder Batra appearing on behalf of
the C.B.I. argued that accused Surendra Koli was a patient of
1. Parafilia (Psycho Secular Disorder)
2. Necrophilia (Tendency to love the dead bodies)
3. Macrophilia (Sexual attraction towards dead bodies)
77
4. (illegible)
This type of case is the lone case in the whole world in which
the accused was simultaneously suffering from all these three
diseases. Sh. Suresh Batra also relied on the following
decision:
Renuka Sai @ Renu @ Rattan and Others Vs. Maharashtra
State (2006) 7 Supreme Court Cases Page- 442 in which the
two sisters killed a number of children after abducting them.
In this case the Hon'ble Supreme Court emphasized that on the
basis of being women no leniency can be exercised in their
case and they were awarded death sentence but this case is
even more serious one. So, in this way accused Surendra Koli
must be given death sentence.
Sh. Khalid Khan, advocate appearing for the complainant
argued that accused Moninder Singh Pandher too is equal
partner in commission of offence with accused Surendra Koli
because he too has been convicted along with the accused
Surendra Koli for hatching criminal conspiracy. Therefore
along with accused Surendra Koli accused Moninder Singh
Pandher should also be awarded with death sentence.
In accordance with Section 354(2) of the CrPC death sentence
should only be awarded for some special reason. Otherwise
general punishment is that of imprisonment for life. In
criminal law the provision of punishment is to be done in
accordance with the crime. That is why with the sensitivity of
78
the crime the quantity of resultant punishment also continues
to rise. The purpose should be to provide security to the
society and the criminals should be stopped from committing
crimes. The effect of sentence on the society should also be
kept in mind. Awarding punishment by showing inappropriate
leniency judiciary will suffer and will lose its credibility in the
society. Thus every court has its duty to award suitable
punishment keeping in view the committal of crime and its
nature.
In this case the accused has committed a barbaric inhuman and
cruel crime by trapping a helpless poor girl and making her a
tool for his physical satisfaction which has no previous
example. As in this case the crime has been committed in a
cruel, fearful and barbaric manner and has also committed an
act of breach with that era when there was no civilization. On
the comparative study of both the sides, on one side humanity
pleading for security of the law and on the other side the
parents of the poor girl are crying for security from these
uncivilized rascals who could be saved from this type of
rascals and be saved from tortures and their in inhuman
treatments, who make the innocent girls their prey to quench
their thirst. Rimpa Haldar, an innocent girl became prey in the
hands of the accused. This is the story of an innocent, poor 14
years girl child who fell prey to the accused which is a very
sad, dangerous, heart breaking and stopping of nerves incident
who was used for his physical satisfaction by the accused in a
79
tender age and thereafter he murdered her and this series did
not stop here but cut her dead body in pieces, wrapped in
polythene and thrown it out and eaten the flesh specific part of
the body. This is a crime against the society, against
womanhood, against the poor people and against all the
generations envisaged in the constitution. This is a day-light
rape with the social justice theory. This incident is a shameful
act on the society and is a stigma on our present generation.
This crime is committed in an inhuman, barbaric manner etc.
etc. which has caused restlessness in the society. So this cases
comes in the category of rarest of the rare in which exercising
leniency with the accused will not be justifiable in the
principles of society and law. The way the accused persons
have committed the crime they should be sentenced to death as
there is no possibility of improvement in their character in
future.
ORDER
Convicted accused persons, Surendra Koli and Moninder
Singh Pandher are punished with the following punishment
order:
Surendra Koli:
(1) Punished with death sentence under Section 302 of I.P.C.
and a fine of Rs.50,000/-. The accused to be hanged by the
neck till dead. But the said punishment will not be carried into
execution without the confirmation of the Hon'ble High Court.
80
(2)
Punished with life imprisonment under section 364 of
I.P.C. and a fine of Rs. 20,000/-. In the case of non-payment of
fine he will have to undergo another two years rigorous
imprisonment.
(3)
Punished with 7 years rigorous imprisonment under
Section 376 read with section 511 of I.P.C. and a fine of Rs.
20,000/-. In the case of non-payment of fine he will have to
undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for one and a half
years.
(4)
Punished with 7 years rigorous imprisonment under
Section 201 of I.P.C. and a fine of Rs. 20,000/-. In the case of
non- payment of fine he will have to undergo additional
rigorous imprisonment for one and a half years.
Moninder Singh Pandher:
(1) Punished with death sentence under Section 302 read with
section 120B I.P.C. and a fine of Rs.50,000/-. The accused to
be hanged by the neck till dead. But the said punishment will
not be carried into execution without the confirmation of the
Hon'ble High Court.
(2) Punished with life imprisonment under section 364 read
with section 120B of I.P.C. and a fine of Rs. 20,000/-. In the
case of non-payment of fine the accused wilt have to undergo
another two years rigorous imprisonment.
81
(3) Punished with 7 years rigorous imprisonment under
Section 376 read with section 120B of I.P.C. and a fine of Rs.
20,000/-. In the case of non-payment of fine he will have to
undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for one and a half
years.
(4)
Punished with 7 years rigorous imprisonment under
Section 201 read with section 120BI.P.e. and a fine of Rs.
20,000/-.In the case of non-payment of fine he will have to
undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for one and a half
years.
All the above. punishments of the accused persons will go
concurrently and the period remained in jail in the past in this
case will be deducted from the above punishment.
Dated: 13.2.2009
Sd/(Smt. Rama Jain)
Upper Sessions Judge /Special Judge, Anti-Corruption,
U.P. Ghaziabad.
Today this decision is pronounced, dated and signed in open court.
Sd/Dated: 13.2.2009
(Smt. Rama Jain)
82
Upper
Sessions
Judge /Special Judge,
Anti-Corruption,
U.P. Ghaziabad.
//TRUE TRANSLATED COPY//
This is certified that this is the true and correct translation of the
Hindi documents. It is further submitted that each line has been
translated and typed by me. For any other error I would be
accountable before the Hon'ble Court.
Kumar
Advocate
83
Ranjan,