The Charge Sheet was filed on 22.06.2006 against the following 7 accused Narendra Mann, Lalit Mann, Rajbir Singh advocate, Joginder Singh Sodhi, Sachin Bansal, Shiv Charan Bansal and Shailendra Singh for offences under S.120B, 302, and 201 read with S.34 IPC and S. 25 Arms Act.
Rajesh Gupta and his father S.N. Gupta had put in a substantial amount of money in those companymittees.
2 lakhs.
Shailendra Singh used the said flat as his office to carry out his financing business.
On 22.03.2006, the post mortem of the deceased was carried out at Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital, Mangolpuri, wherein it was recorded that the deceased was brought dead at 450 p.m. The Autopsy Surgeon found three entry wound points on the chest of the deceased.
Rajesh Gupta had been in partnership with Shiv Charan Bansal in a firm M s Akash International which was subsequently dissolved.
After the companymission of the crime, accused Shiv Charan Bansal absconded and did number join the investigation.
N. Gupta went to the main gate, while the informant returned to the kitchen.
He was apprehended on 25.04.2006.
P.C. Rajesh Gupta handed over the envelope to the Police which was carried by the assailant addressed to his father S.N. Gupta at the time of the murder.
During investigation, the Call Detail Records of the accused were companylected by the Investigating Officer on 09.06.2006.
On 29.03.2006 i.e. eight days after the murder took place, three of the accused viz.
After the murder was companymitted, Narendra Mann called Sachin Bansal on his cell phone at 448 p.m. These call records in quick succession immediately before and after the murder was companymitted, lead to a grave suspicion about the companyplicity of these accused.
The murder of S.N. Gupta took place at about 430 p.m. Narendra Mann from his cell phone bearing No.
Revision Petition No.
During investigation, Sachin Bansal was arrested on 29.03.2006.
1154 of 2017 to challenge the acquittal of Sachin Bansal, which is pending final determination by the High Court.
Rajesh Gupta clearly attributed the murder to Shiv Charan Bansal and his son Sachin Bansal.
The monies invested in this firm by S.N. Gupta and his son were number returned by Shiv Charan Bansal and Sachin Bansal.
The Complainant stated that on 21.03.2006, she was in the house with her husband S.N. Gupta.
According to them, they ought to have been discharged by the Sessions Court.
As per the report of the handwriting expert, the specimen handwriting of Joginder Singh Sodhi matched the writing on the envelope.
However, Shiv Charan Bansal remained absconding for over a month.
Soon after the murder took place, Narendra Mann and Lalit Mann were absconding.
P.C. wherein he stated that he had invested in the companymittees run by Shiv Charan Bansal and his son Sachin Bansal.
The Courts below were unjustified in number framing the charges u S., 302 r.w.
S.34, S120B IPC against accused Lalit Mann.
P.C, which was recorded soon after the murder had occurred on the same date, stated that Narendra Mann, Lalit Mann, Sachin Bansal and his friends used to threaten him over the phone.
On the advice of his brother late S.N. Gupta, a companyplaint was lodged against Narendra Mann, Lalit Mann and their associates at Mangolpuri Police Station.
As per the version of the prosecution, the incident occurred on 21.03.2006, at about 430 p.m. Just prior to the incident at 351 p.m., accused Narendra Mann from his mobile phone bearing No.
His disclosure statement was recorded.
The factual matrix from which the present Appeals arise from is the filing of F.I.R No.
Ltd., the factory of which was located at Bahadurgarh.
The accused Lalit Mann had full knowledge of the criminal companyspiracy hatched to murder the deceased S.N. Gupta.
Pursuant to the above companyspiracy, Sachin Bansal took out a photo of S.N. Gupta from his marriage album, and gave it to Narendra Mann.
Lalit Mann The prosecution relied upon the statement of Naveen Gupta Cheenu son of Suresh Gupta, and nephew of the deceased.
9871791501 prior and subsequent to the companymission of the crime.
The unlicensed pistol along with two live cartridges were recovered from the office of accused Shailendra Singh i.e. Flat No.
The Test Identification Parade TIP was companyducted on 10.04.2006.
Shailendra Singh used the said flat for his financing business.
It was on account of these reasons that they have got the murder of his father companymitted.
Narendra Mann, Lalit Mann and Rajbir Singh were apprehended by the police while travelling in an Esteem car.
The Forensic Report, Handwriting expert Report and the Ballistic Report were placed on record along with a Supplementary Charge on 26.11.2006.
Shailendra Singh identified the place from where the unlicensed pistol was recovered.
The said witnesses have made the statements soon after the murder of the deceased.
On 17.11.2006, the statement of Ramesh was recorded u S. 161 Cr.
200/2006 by the Complainant Kanta Devi widow of late S.N. Gupta on 21.03.2006 with the Police Station Mangolpuri, Delhi under Sections 120B, 302, 201 r.w.
The companymittees were organised by Shiv Charan Bansal, and his son Sachin Bansal.
A criminal companyspiracy was hatched by Sachin Bansal and Narendra Mann to eliminate S.N. Gupta, so that the monies invested by S.N. Gupta in the companymittees run by his father Shiv Charan Bansal and himself, companyld be retained by them, and he would then be able to pay Narendra Mann the money owed to him by Naveen Gupta.
He said that he had brought a companyrier from a bank addressed to S.N. Gupta, and would hand it over to him personally.
Shiv Charan Bansal offered to pay for the expenses involved in carrying out the murder of S.N. Gupta.
9818119624.
This was companyroborated by the statement of the brother of the deceased viz.
Disclosure Statements were made by Lalit Mann, Rajbir Singh and Sachin Bansal on 29.03.2006.
2248 of 2010 and the companyplainant Kanta Devi Criminal Appeal No.
After initially agreeing, Lalit Mann subsequently backed out.
Shiv Charan Bansal and his son were refusing to return the money owed to both him and his brother.
The lead of the bullets were recovered and handed over to the Police.
On the date of offence i.e. 21.03.2006, pursuant to the above criminal companyspiracy, Narendra Mann borrowed the Getz car from his companysin, and the unlicensed pistol from Shailendra Singh with five cartridges.
Revision Petition No.
The prosecution urged that, a prima facie case for offences under Section 120B IPC read with 302 r.w.
He offered to get Shailendra Singh arrested, stating that it was Shailendra Singh who had given the weapon of offence i.e. unlicensed pistol to be used for the murder.
1155 of 2017 and Crl.
According to the prosecution, Narendra Mann had given seven lakhs to Naveen Gupta nephew of the deceased on the recommendation made by Sachin Bansal.
After the murder was companymitted, the accused Narendra Mann called the accused Sachin Bansal at 448 p.m. The call records reveal that the accused Narendra Mann and Sachin Bansal were in companytinuous companytact with each other, before and after the occurrence of the incident.
He further deposed that the deceased S.N. Gupta had also invested a large sum of money in almost all the companymittees run by accused Shiv Charan Bansal and his son Sachin Bansal.
He further stated that his father Suresh Gupta, on the advice of the deceased S.N. Gupta, got a companyplaint registered at Mangolpuri Police Station against Lalit Mann and others.
P.C. on 01.06.2006 by the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate.
With respect to Rajbir Singh the prosecution referred to the disclosure statements made by the accused Narendra Mann and Rajbir Singh, to show that it was on the advice of Rajbir Singh, that accused Narendra Mann did number use his licensed weapon for the offence.
9818411470, made a call to the mobile phone of Sachin Bansal bearing No.
Instead of repaying him the money, they lodged a Complaint against him with the Police.
Narendra Mann made a disclosure and showed the shop from where he purchased the caps and the goggles.
342 of 2008 challenging the Order passed by the Sessions Court wherein he was charged for offences u S.302 r.w.
Revision Petition No.
A 11/35, Sector 7, Rohini, Delhi.
The Judgment of the Sessions Court ordering discharge of Shiv Charan Bansal, Shailendra Singh, Lalit Mann and Rajbir Singh was affirmed by the High Court.
Joginder Singh Sodhi was shown the photograph of S.N. Gupta, and the exact location of his house.
The State filed Crl.
As per the case of the prosecution, the material gathered during the investigation revealed a larger criminal companyspiracy in which all the accused persons had participated.
Naveen Gupta Cheenu s o Suresh Gupta, nephew of the deceased S.N. Gupta, in his statement u S. 161 Cr.
He stated that he is a property dealer in Rohini, Delhi and had arranged the flat for Shailendra Singh, which was registered in the name of his wife Pooja Singh.
Sub Inspector Dharambir Singh along with Constable Vijay Kumar, and Constable Prasan Singh reached the spot, and recovered 3 used cartridges and blood stained slippers from the scene of occurrence.
Narendra Mann demanded the amount owed to him from Naveen Gupta and his father.
Thereafter, Joginder Singh Sodhi, who was running a shop below the house of Lalit Mann, was asked by Narendra Mann to execute the murder of S.N. Gupta, which was agreed by him on payment of Rs.
He stated that he and his father S.N. Gupta were members of several chit fund companymittees run by Shiv Charan Bansal and his son Sachin Bansal.
At about 430 p.m., the doorbell rang, when a man aged between 25 to 30 years having a beard was standing at the gate, wearing spectacles and a black cap on his head, carrying a bag on his shoulder.
9818119624 prior to the execution of the crime.
Narendra Mann spoke to Sachin Bansal, and asked him to return the monies which were owed by Naveen Gupta, since he had lent the money only on Sachin Bansals recommendation.
The Complainant Kanta Devi identified him as the assailant during the investigation of the case.
The Sessions Court vide Judgment and Order dated 04.02.2016, acquitted him primarily on the ground that the allegations against him were circumstantial in nature, and there was numberdirect evidence to prosecute him.
On the date of occurrence, the I.O. recorded the statement of Rajesh Gupta s o the deceased u S. 161 Cr.
She then heard the sound of 2 or 3 gunshots from the gate.
Rajesh Gupta and his father late S.N. Gupta had invested a substantial amount of money in these businesses.
Narendra Mann got the Getz car recovered from the house in his village, in which the companytract killer Joginder Singh Sodhi allegedly travelled to the site of occurrence to murder S.N. Gupta.
Leave to Appeal was granted vide Order dated 26.11.2010.
P.C. He stated that he was running his own business, and that Narendra Mann, Lalit Mann and their friends would make threatening calls to his son Naveen Gupta for money.
We have perused the record of the Sessions Court, and find that the Call Detail Records of Shiv Charan Bansal are missing from the file.
Shiv Charan Bansal and his son Sachin Bansal were in the business of running companymittees where monies would be invested.
Satish Gupta which was recorded soon after the murder took place.
He also attributed the murder of his brother S.N. Gupta to Shiv Charan Bansal and his son.
335 of 2008 before the Delhi High Court, against the Judgment dated 17.03.2008 passed by the Sessions Court to the extent that the accused Shiv Charan Bansal, Lalit Mann Nanhe and Rajbir Singh were wrongly discharged ii accused Shailendra Singh and Sachin Bansal were charged only for the offence under S.25 of the Arms Act, instead of S. 302 r.w.
The State and the Complainant Kanta Devi filed the present Special Leave Petitions to challenge the Judgment and Order passed by the Delhi High Court dated 29.05.2009.
P.C, stated that he had been receiving threats from Narendra Mann, Lalit Mann, Sachin Bansal and their friends as being the cause for the murder of the deceased.
It is alleged by the prosecution that accused Rajbir Singh, an advocate, had allegedly advised Narendra Mann that he should number use his own licensed weapon for companymitting the murder, but should use an unlicensed weapon identical to it, since the police would seek to companynect the cartridges recovered from the site with the weapon.
2247 of 2010 to challenge the Order of Discharge granted to Shiv Charan Bansal, Lalit Mann Nanhe, Shailendra Singh and Rajbir Singh by the Delhi High Court.
Shailendra Singh As per the case of the prosecution, Shailendra Singh provided the weapon of offence.
Together with interest, the amount allegedly owed to Narendra Mann by Naveen Gupta worked out to about fifteen lakhs.
He stated that his brother late S.N. Gupta had invested in most of the Committees run by Shiv Charan Bansal and Sachin Bansal, who were refusing to return the money invested by the deceased.
The disclosure statement made by Narendra Mann reveals that initially he had asked Lalit Mann to carry out the murder of S.N. Gupta.
191 of 2008 praying for the same reliefs as the State.
As per the prosecution Sachin Bansal told Narendra Mann that he too was owed money to the extent of over thirty lakhs by Naveen Gupta.
When S.N. Gupta and Rajesh Gupta would demand return of their investment in the factory at Bahadurgarh, Shiv Charan Bansal and Sachin Bansal would refuse on one pretext or the other.
The envelope addressed to the deceased S.N. Gupta carried by the companytract killer Joginder Singh Sodhi was recovered from Rajesh Gupta s o deceased S.N. Gupta.
Shiv Charan Bansal remained absconding after the murder was companymitted on 21.03.2006, and did number join the investigation despite efforts by the Police.
The companytemporaneous Call Detail Records CDRs between Sachin Bansal and Narendra Mann, who accompanied Joginder Singh Sodhi the companytract killer, would companystitute strong material for framing the charge against all the accused.
He parked the car near the apartment, and was waiting inside the car, while Joginder Singh went to the house of the deceased S.N. Gupta.
Joginder Singh refused to participate in the judicial TIP.
A black photo frame, a black cap, black goggles, and a photo of the deceased were recovered from the Esteem Car.
P.C. The said witness stated that he had invested money in the companymittees run by Shiv Charan Bansal and his son Sachin Bansal.
The prosecution has alleged that the records of the companymittees were burnt destroyed by the father son duo.
Subsequently, Suresh Gupta also received threats from these persons, who visited his house several times to threaten him and his son, and stated that they would kill them and other family members.
Revision Petition No.
On 30.03.2006, Joginder Singh Sodhi the companytract killer was arrested.
It was further stated that he was sure that his uncle S.N. Gupta was murdered by Narendra Mann, Lalit Mann, Sachin Bansal and his friends.
The statement of Suresh Gupta, other brother of the deceased S.N. Gupta, was also recorded on the date of the occurrence u S. 161 Cr.
A 1/35, Sector 7, Rohini, Delhi by Shailendra Singh, which was registered in the name of his wife Pooja Singh.
P.C by the Police.
He first asked his companysin brother accused Lalit Mann to carry out the murder of S.N. Gupta by disguising himself as a Sikh.
The I.O. Satyapal Singh, in his deposition dated 08.01.2015, had stated that on 09.06.2006, he had obtained the Call Detail Records of the mobile phones of all the accused persons from the ACP Office.
On 01.06.2006, the statement of Ajit Prasad Gupta third brother of the deceased, was recorded u S.164 Cr.
Hypochondrium of size 1.6 cm x 1.0 cm.
He then took Joginder Singh Sodhi to the place of occurrence in his Getz car by making him wear the goggles and cap, and gave an envelope to be given to S.N. Gupta.
Since Lalit Mann did number join the investigation after the companymission of the crime, the companyduct of the accused in absconding would be admissible as relevant companyduct u S. 8 of the Indian Evidence Act.
Rajesh Gupta further stated that he had entered into a partnership with Sachin Bansal in the firm M s Accent Shoes Pvt.
As per the version of the prosecution, Narendra Mann agreed to the above proposal.
Joginder Singh caused the murder of S.N. Gupta by shooting him at point blank range.
She shouted for help, when the neighbours came and rushed her husband to Jaipur Golden Hospital, where he was declared dead.
He further stated that his brother late S.N. Gupta, had invested large amounts of money in these companymittees.
On 31.05.2006, the statement of an independent witness Ashok Kumar Agarwal was recorded u S. 164 Cr.
S.N. Gupta the deceased and his son Rajesh Gupta had invested a substantial amount of money in these companymittees.
S.34 IPC and Sections 25, 27, 54, 59 of the Arms Act.
He stated that his brother had been killed by Narendra Mann, Lalit Mann and his friends.
The unlicensed pistol along with two live cartridges were recovered from the office of Shailendra Singh.
Accused Shailendra Singh filed Crl.
The post mortem records that the death was caused by the following firearm injuries to the chest entry wound of firearm present on the chest of size 1.5 cm x 104, 6.5 cm from midline and 6 cm above and 1 cm medial to the lt nipple entry wound of firearm present over outer and upper margin of Lt arcola of size 1.3 cm x 0.5 cm with companylar of abrasion fracturing around that entry wound of firearm present over lt.
The deceased had told his brother that Shiv Charan Bansal and his son Sachin Bansal wanted to grab the factory at Bahadurgarh, and usurp a large amount of their share in the factory at D 268, Mangolpuri Industrial Area, after the partnership had been dissolved.
During the pendency of the present appeals, the Sessions Court proceeded with the trial of Sachin Bansal under the charges as directed by the High Court.
He was apprehended after more than one month on 25.04.2006.
The Police recovered the three used cartridges from the spot of occurrence.
It was recorded that the cause of death was shock due to assault by firearm and injury to the chest viscera and aorta.
405 of 2008 was filed by accused Sachin Bansal challenging the Order of the Sessions Court wherein they were charged under S.25 of the Arms Act.
The State and the private companyplainant have filed Crl.
She rushed towards the gate and found that her husband had fallen on the floor, and was bleeding on account of gunshot injuries.
Narendra Mann also offered to get Joginder Singh Sodhi the companytact killer arrested.
Appeal No.
INDU MALHOTRA, J. The present Criminal Appeals have been filed by the State Criminal Appeal No.
430 of 2008 and a separate Crl.
He further stated that they were reluctant to return the money invested in the companymittees to the deceased.
During investigation, numberice was issued to Shiv Charan Bansal to join the investigation.
The said witness in his statement u S. 161 Cr.
Ltd., which had its factory in Bahadurgarh.
Revision Petition No.
The apprehension expressed by deceased S.N. Gupta to his brother Suresh Gupta was that the accused Shiv Charan Bansal and Sachin Bansal might take over the factory at Bahadurgarh.
She informed her husband about the companyrier.
A second set of black cap and goggles were recovered from the Getz car.
Rajesh Gupta stated that he wanted to separate from the partnership because Shiv Charan Bansal and his son Sachin Bansal had usurped the share of his father S.N. Gupta deceased and were number trying to usurp the factory at Bahadurgarh.
On the same date, the statement of Satish Gupta, brother of the deceased was recorded u S. 161 Cr.
As per the case of the prosecution, the murder of N. Gupta was companytrived by Shiv Charan Bansal and his son Sachin Bansal with Narendra Mann, and the other companyconspirators being Lalit Mann who arranged the companytract killer Joginder Singh Sodhi, Shailendra Singh who provided the weapon of offence which was recovered from his office, along with live cartridges.
9818411470 made a call at 351 p.m. to Sachin Bansal on his cell phone bearing No.
She stated that she would be able to recognise the man who had shot her husband.
Accused Narendra Mann filed Crl.
The statement of the third brother of the deceased viz.
P.C., wherein he deposed that he had participated in various Chit Fund Committees run by Shiv Charan Bansal and his son Sachin Bansal.
Rajesh Gupta and Sachin Bansal were also running another firm i.e. M s. Accent Shoes Pvt.
Naveen Gupta further stated that these persons also came to his house, and threatened to kill his family.
Appeal No.
S. 120B IPC iii accused Narendra Mann and Joginder Singh Sodhi were charged under S.302 r.w.
The Sessions Court held that the prosecution failed to make out a prima facie case against accused Rajbir Singh, Lalit Mann and Shiv Charan Bansal who were discharged.
He also showed Narendra Mann the house of S.N. Gupta and informed him of S.N. Guptas daily routine and further informed him that he receives companyriers, packets letters in companynection with his investment in shares.
The lead taken out from the body of the deceased S.N. Gupta was sent for forensic analysis to the Forensic Science Laboratory.
On 04.06.2006, Shailendra Singh was arrested.
