Delhi District Court
State vs . Sonu & Others on 8 January, 2015
S.C. No. 63/13
State Vs. Sonu & Others
FIR No. 132/13
PS: Ambedkar Nagari
08.01.2015
PW-16: SI Randheer, No. D-4232, PS-Sarojini Nagar, N. Delhi.
On S.A. On 27.03.2013, I was posted at PS-Ambedkar Nagar. On that day, investigation of the present case was marked to me, on which, I alongwith Ct. Manish, went to AIIMS Trauma Centre for the purpose of postmortem of deceased- Ajit. Before postmortem, the dead body of deceased Ajit was identified by his father Hari Singh and his Uncle- Heera Lal. I recorded their identification statements which are already EX.PW-6/A and EX.PW-4/A, which both bear my signatures at point 'B' respectively. After postmortem, the dead body was handed over to them. I also seized the exhibits which were preserved during the postmortem of deceased Ajit by the doctor, in the presence of Ct. Manish, alongwith sample seal. The seizure memo in this regard is already EX.PW-3/A which bears my signatures at point 'B'. I returned back to PS, exhibits were deposited in the Maalkhana and the PM report as well as other documents were handed over to Insp. Sunil Kumar alongwith case-file.
S.C. No. 63/13 : State Vs. Sonu & Others : FIR No. 132/13 1/3 XXXXXXXXX by Sh. Javed Ansari, Counsel for accused Sonu:
The investigation was marked to me by Insp. S. K. Sharma. I do not remember as to whether Insp. S. K. Sharma or myself, mentioned in the Rojnaamcha regarding handing over of investigation of the case to me. Insp. S. K. Sharma handed over the case-file in the PS itself. I had not obtained signatures of Doctor, who handed over the exhibits to me. I had stated in my statement recorded u/s 161 Cr. PC that I returned back to PS, exhibits were deposited in the Maalkhana and the PM report as well as other documents were handed over to Insp. Sunil Kumar alongwith case-file (confronted with the statement EX.PW-16/DA, wherein, it is not so recorded). It is wrong to suggest that I had never been handed over the investigation of the present case. It is also wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely.
XXXXXXXXX by Sh. Rajesh Arora, Counsel for accused-Rahul:
I never visited the spot i.e. place of occurrence during the time when the investigation remained with me. The blood sample of the deceased was handed over to me, but the same was contained in a pullanda, which was duly sealed, so I cannot tell what items were contained in the said pullanda, but according to seizure memo, the pullanda contained blood-in-gauze, clothes of the deceased and S.C. No. 63/13 : State Vs. Sonu & Others : FIR No. 132/13 2/3 sample seal. Seizure memo was prepared in my presence. It was not mentioned in the seizure memo that the clothes had any 'cut mark' due to application of any knife, etc. It is wrong to suggest that the pullanda was manipulated and tampered with at the instance of the IO. My statement was recorded by the IO/Insp. S. K. Sharma in the police station when I handed over the pullanda to him. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely; or that I have given my statement today before the Court, only after perusing the police file outside the Court.
XXXXXXX by accused- Abhishek Arora:
Nil. Opportunity given.
RO & AC (Rajeev Bansal)
s ASJ-3/South District/08.01.2015
S.C. No. 63/13 : State Vs. Sonu & Others : FIR No. 132/13 3/3