Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Abdul Nazeer
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.
