1

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION  

WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 188 OF 2015

SMT. SUNITA DEVI AND ANR.                   ….. PETITIONERS

VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.                      ….. RESPONDENTS

J U D G M E N T

S.ABDUL NAZEER, J.

1. Smt.  Seema Garg,  daughter-in-law of  petitioner  No.1,  and her

two children were murdered on 24.07.2001.  FIR No.221 of 2001 to

this effect was lodged in Police Station Pilakhwa, District Ghaziabad,

U.P. under Sections 302/394 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short

‘the  IPC’).  After  investigation,  the  police  filed  a  final  report  on

17.08.2001 against Nitin Garg, husband of Seema Garg, Manveer @

Mintoo and Mukesh for the offences punishable under Sections 302,

109, read with Section 34 IPC.  During the course of trial, accused

Nitin Garg was also murdered.

2

2. The Trial Court by its judgment dated 16.10.2004 acquitted the

accused  persons,  namely,  Manveer  @  Mintoo  and  Mukesh.  In  the

course of judgment the Trial Court observed that the investigation has

not been carried on properly.

3. The case of murder of Nitin Garg was also investigated by the

State  Police  and  a  chargesheet  was  filed  against  certain  persons.

Those persons were acquitted by the Sessions Court. The High Court

confirmed the said judgment. Special Leave Petition filed challenging

the said judgment of the High Court was dismissed by this Court.

4. Several other proceedings were initiated by the petitioners herein

before the High Court and before this Court in relation to the aforesaid

cases  and  it  is  not  necessary  at  this  stage  to  refer  to  all  those

proceeding.

5. The petitioners filed the above writ petition for constitution of a

Court-monitored investigation/SIT to re-investigate the aforesaid cases

pertaining  to  FIR Nos.  221 of  2001 and 228 of  2002 registered at

Police Station Pilakhwa, Uttar Pradesh.  This Court by Order dated

8.2.2018 rejected the prayer for re-investigation of the case pertaining

to FIR No. 228 of 2002.  This Court directed constitution of a SIT for

3

re-investigation of FIR No.221 of 2001.  The relevant portion of the

order is as under:

"9. As noted above, in the judgment passed by the  sessions  court  in  Criminal  Case  No.221  of 2001,  the court  has categorically  observed that the investigation has not been conducted fairly. It is  evident  that  the  real  culprits  responsible  for murder  for  petitioners’  family  have  not  been subjected  to  trial.   It  is  clear  that  the investigating  agency  showed  lackadaisical approach  in  carrying/proceeding  with  the investigation.   We  are  of  the  view  that  it  is necessary  to  have  a  fair,  honest  and  complete investigation.   

10. Having examined the entire materials placed on  record,  we  deem  it  proper  to  constitute  a Special Investigating Team (SIT) to re-investigate FIR  No.221  of  2001  titled  “State v.  Manvir Singh  and  Anr.”  registered  at  Police  Station Pilakhua,  District  Ghaziabad,  U.P.   Shri  M.L. Sharma,  IPS  (retired),  former  Special  Director, CBI,  is  appointed as  the  Chairman of  the  SIT. Shri M.L. Sharma is permitted to take assistance of  two  officers  of  his  choice  of  the  CBI  as  its members.   We  direct  the  SIT  to  proceed  as regards  further  investigation  in  respect  of  FIR No.221 of 2001 and to submit its report within a period of three months from today. Needless to say  that  appropriate  secretarial  assistance  and logistic support shall be made available to the SIT by  the  Government  of  Uttar  Pradesh.  The Government of Uttar Pradesh is also directed to provide to the Chairman and the members of the SIT all travelling, boarding and lodging expenses while discharging their responsibility entrusted to them. "

6. Accordingly, SIT was constituted to re-investigate FIR No.221 of

4

2001.  The SIT filed its report dated 8th February, 2018 before this

Court. The findings and recommendations of the SIT are at para 11

which are as under:

"FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

11.1  On a thorough re-investigation in the case and taking into consideration the evidence on record, the SIT is of the opinion that accused Manveer  and  Mukesh  were  involved  in  the murder of  Seema and her two children Bhavya and  Pratyaksh  at  the  behest  of  Nitin  Garg  in pursuance  of  a  criminal  conspiracy  hatched between  them.  It  bears  repetition  that  as  per statements  of  Sanjay Sharma and Sonu Tomar (who is no more), recorded by IO Mehra, CBI and SIT,  Manveer  was  last  seen  at  the  house  of deceased Seema by him and his employee Sonu Tomar between 4:30 to 5:00 p.m. on 24.07.2001, just  before  these  gruesome  murders.   Further, Manveer's  post-crime  conduct  by  way  of disappearing from Pilkhua from 24th to 30th July, 2001, before his arrest by the police also points towards his involvement in the crime. Co-accused Mukesh left village Shyamli and was not seen at Pilkhua  after  the  incident  and  was  picked  up from village Pachak, Moradabad, by the police on the night intervening 29th, 30th July, 2001. More importantly,  the disclosure statements made by Manveer and Mukesh before the police leading to the recovery of weapons of offence and their blood stained  clothes  link  them with  the  crime.   All these  recoveries  were  admitted by them during the  trial.   These  articles  were  found  to  have human blood on them by FSL, Agra.  In addition to  the  above,  as  per  the  Report  of  CFSL,  New Delhi, accused Manveer gave deceptive responses in  the  Polygraph  Test  on  all  critical questions/issues relating to  this  incident.   The expert  has  further  opined  that  in  Forensic

5

Psychological  Assessment  and  Forensic Statement  Analysis,  he  had  been  found  to  be deceptive in his statements about his knowledge and  involvement  in  this  gruesome  crime.   As regards  accused  Mukesh,  he  could  not  be subjected  to  Polygraph  Test  because  of  his medical  condition  but  he  was  subjected  to Forensic Psychological Assessment and Forensic Statement  Analysis  and  as  per  the  expert opinion,  he  was  found  to  be  deceptive  in  his statements about his knowledge and involvement in these murders.  It is pertinent to mention here that Manveer was a long time employee of Nitin Garg  and  he  had  no  personal  enmity  with deceased  Seema  Garg  and  her  two  children. Manveer's disclosure to the police that Nitin had tasked him to eliminate Seema as he suspected her  fidelity  finds  resonance  in  the  letter  dated 08.07.2001  of  Sunil  Bansal  to  Seema's father-in-law Rajendra Prasad, wherein he (Sunil Bansal) mentioned that Nitin and his family were suspecting  Seema's  character,  while  Seema suspected Nitin's involvement with a girl of Delhi and Seema's apprehension of danger to her life for  these  reasons.  This  letter  was  delivered  by Irshad Malik to Rajendra Prasad personally at the behest of Sunil Bansal. 11.2 All  these  facts  and  circumstances establish  that  Nitin  had  reasons  to  perpetuate the crime in question and he hatched a criminal conspiracy with his confidante Manveer, who, in turn,  tied  up  with  Mukesh,  for  the  aforesaid purpose.  The  theory  propounded  by  the petitioner's side is not supported by evidence on record.   11.3 It  is  most  respectfully  submitted that the  findings  of  the  SIT  are  consistent  with the charge  sheet  filed  by  the  local  police  for  the reasons discussed in the preceding paras of this report.  A  young  lady  and  her  two  innocent children  were  brutally  murdered  in  cold  blood but nobody has been held accountable for  this diabolical  crime.  This  report  is  being  most

6

respectfully submitted before this Hon'ble Court for such directions as deemed fit in the interest of justice. 11.4 As  regards  the  professional mis-conduct  of  IO  Puran  Singh  Mehra  (since retired  from  service),  it  is  most  respectfully submitted that even though he filed the charge sheet against the actual culprits, he did not carry out  investigation  with  professional  rigour,  as brought  out  in  para  9  supra.   In  view  of  the above, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue directions to the Govt. of Uttar Pradesh/Director General of Police, (U.P.) to initiate departmental action against him.  11.5 Further,  as  regards  the  allegations against  the  CBI  investigation  team  briefly discussed in para 10 above, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct Director, CBI, to cause an  enquiry  into  the  matter  at  his  end  for appropriate action."                     

7. Ms.  Kamini  Jaiswal,  learned  counsel  appearing  for  the

petitioners,  in  the  course  of  her  arguments  and  in  the  written

submissions, mainly raised the following contentions:

"i. The SIT strangely has not investigated the truth and falsity of the statement made by Head Constable, Chander Pal;

ii. Not even an endeavor to investigate the facts mentioned  by  the  Petitioner  himself  was ever undertaken by the SIT. The SIT report discloses a pre-disposed state of mind and complete negation of the confidence reposed in them by this Hon'ble Court;

iii. The  SIT  however  at  page  61  of  its  report refers to murder of Nitin Garg which seems to be a case of contract killing and killers have gone unpunished.  The SIT, therefore suggests investigation of the FIR No.228 of

7

2002 and same needs to be followed up."   

 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and having

perused the report of the SIT and the objections filed by the petitioners

to the said report, we are of the view that the CBI has to look into the

report  of  the  SIT  and  take  a  decision  in  the  matter.   We  order

accordingly.  

9. The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

                                   …..……………………..…J.

                    (A.K. SIKRI)

                ….…………………………J.                (S. ABDUL NAZEER)

New Delhi; February 20, 2019.