Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

9S.C. No. 84/10 Fir No. 208/08 State vs . Satender @ Satte Etc. 1 /99 on 25 March, 2014

         IN THE COURT OF SHRI RAJEEV BANSAL,
         ASJ-03 (SOUTH DISTRICT), SAKET COURTS,
                       NEW DELHI.

                              S.C. No.84/10
                    (Unique ID No. 02103R0060882009)

                                                                       FIR No.208/08
                                                                   PS: Lodhi Colony
                                                              u/s:394/397/302/34 IPC

State

 vs

(1)     Satender @ Satte
        S/o Basant Singh
        R/o House No. 192, Aliganj,
        Kotla Mubarakpur, New Delhi

(2)     Sushil @ Jalebi
        S/o Virender Kumar Gupta
        R/o House No. 1915, Pilanji,
        Kotla Mubarakpur, New Delhi.

(3)     Ram Singh @ Aarami
        S/o Ajay Pal Singh
        R/o House No. 1945, Pilanji,
        Kotla Mubarakpur, New Delhi.


Date of Initial Institution                                :17.12.2008
Date of Institution in this Court                          :05.10.2010
Date of Pronouncement of Order                             :25.03.2014




9S.C. No. 84/10 FIR No. 208/08   State vs. Satender @ Satte etc.               1 /99
                                     JUDGMENT

1. The State machinery came into motion on receipt of an information on 07.09.2008 at about 11:48 p.m that a person, who is bleeding, was lying in front of No. 85, D-1 Block, near Navyug School, outside a house. This information was recorded vide DD No. 22A whereafter police came into action. Police reached at the spot where it was informed that the injured had already been shifted to hospital. No eye-witness was found at the spot. ASI Jagdish went to AIIMS, Trauma Center, and found injured - Ramu admitted in the hospital vide MLC No. 135459/08. He had knife wounds. Rukka was prepared and FIR No. 208/08 was registered under section 307 IPC. In the meantime, injured died and the case was converted into one under Section 302 IPC. During investigation, it came to notice that the deceased was using mobile phone No. 9911419643, and it was found to be missing. Call Detail Records of this phone were obtained, according to which, on 07.09.2008 at 11:16 p.m, a conversation with the aforesaid phone had taken place with mobile phone No. 9810892717 which 9S.C. No. 84/10 FIR No. 208/08 State vs. Satender @ Satte etc. 2 /99 belonged to Ranbir Singh. Investigation revealed that Ranbir Singh had a talk with Ram Babu (deceased) on 07.09.2008 at 11:16 p.m. IMEI number of the mobile phone of deceased was given to other service provider and it came to notice that the said IMEI number was being used on mobile phone connection No. 9991418747 which was in the name of Om Prakash, having address of Gurgaon - Haryana. Investigation revealed that the said phone was being used by Sonu Yadav S/o Om Prakash Yadav, who told that his father - Om Prakash had given this phone to him after purchasing it from a known person at Kotla Mubarakpur. Om Prakash, in turn, informed that he had purchased the said phone on 08.10.2008 for Rs. 1200/- from Sattender @ Satte - a resident of Kotla Mubarakpur. Thereafter, Satender @ Satte was apprehended by the police, who disclosed that he alongwith Sushil @ Jalebi and Ram Singh @ Aarami were involved in the offence. Satender @ Satte got recovered his pant which he had washed and kept at his house, which he was wearing at the time of the offence. At his instance, accused Sushil @ Jalebi was arrested and he got recovered his pant and shirt which he had washed. Thereafter, at 9S.C. No. 84/10 FIR No. 208/08 State vs. Satender @ Satte etc. 3 /99 their instance, accused Ram Singh @ Aarami was apprehended and he too got recovered the pant and shirt worn by him at the time of the offence, from his house. Accused Satender @ Satte also got recovered the knife.

2. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed against all the three accused persons and since the offence under Section 302 IPC is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, this case was committed to this court.

3. On 17.11.2009 charges under Section 394/397/302/34 IPC were framed against all the three accused persons, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

4. Prosecution examined 42 witnesses in support of its case. 4.1 PW-1 Deepa Bhatnagar - a resident of Flat No. 85, D-1 Block, Lodhi Colony, New Delhi, deposed that on 07.09.2008 at about 11:30 p.m, she was present in her house at outer room and was working on computer. She heard some noise from outside, which she ignored but when noise continued, she came near the 9S.C. No. 84/10 FIR No. 208/08 State vs. Satender @ Satte etc. 4 /99 door of the flat, which had iron grill and noticed images of two persons. She switched off the light and called her father. Her father opened the door and saw a person lying in the pool of blood. Her father called neighbours so as to know the identity of the person lying there. At the asking of her father, she telephoned police from her mobile. After sometime, PCR reached there and they talked with her father. Next day, in the morning, police recorded her statement. Later, she came to know that the injured was driver of their neighbour and his name was Ramu.

4.2 PW-2 Prabha Shankar deposed that one driver Ramu used to drive car of Subu R, Deputy Director of their department. He met Ramu on 02.09.2008 at servant quarter of D-1, A-18, Lodhi Colony, New Delhi. He was living at the first floor of D-1, A-18 while Ramu was living at second floor. On 07.09.2008 at about 5:00 p.m, he went to Ramu's quarter but Ramu was not there. He pressed his clothes and kept them there. On the same day at about 11:30 p.m or 12:00 midnight, one Mr. Bhatnagar - resident of D-1 85, called him from his room and told him that Ramu was stabbed 9S.C. No. 84/10 FIR No. 208/08 State vs. Satender @ Satte etc. 5 /99 by someone and he was lying near his flat. He went there with Mr. Bhatnagar and Ramu informed him that while he was climbing stairs to reach his quarter, he was stabbed by somebody. He informed Sh. Pradeep Tyagi about it on phone. Police was informed and Ramu was shifted to hospital. From the spot where Ramu was lying, police recovered one knife, one bracelet, one T- shirt, one pair of sandles and one empty matchbox. Some blood was also lifted by police from the spot alongwith blood stained earth. He had signed all the seizure memos. Seizure memos of knive, bracelet, shirt, sandles, blood stained earth control, matchbox, blood sample, mala, were proved as Ex. PW2/A to Ex.PW2/H respectively. On 09.09.2008, police searched the room of the deceased and from there, a mobile phone of 'quick share company' was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW2/I. The witness identified knife (Ex.PW2/1), bracelet (Ex.PW2/2), Mala (Ex.PW2/3), T-shirt(Ex.PW2/4), pair of sandles (Ex.PW2/5A and 5B), matchbox (Ex.PW2/6), Quick Share Mobile (Ex.PW2/7). In his cross-examination for accused Satender @ Satte, he stated that he was residing in the Inspection House, as per the verbal 9S.C. No. 84/10 FIR No. 208/08 State vs. Satender @ Satte etc. 6 /99 orders from the office. He stated that he was sleeping when the information regarding stabbing was received by him. He was woken up by S.S. Bhatnagar by ringing well, who lived down- stairs. In the cross-examination for accused Ram Singh @ Aarami, he stated that the spot of incident was about 15-16 steps from his house. When he reached the spot, 7-8 persons of the locality were already there and Ramu was alive at that time. He further stated that he could only inquire as to what had happened when Ramu discloshed that when he was climbing the stairs, he was stabbed by somebody and after disclosing this, Ramu became unconscious. He admitted that when police arrived, Ramu was unconscious.

4.3 PW-3 Dr. Ashish Jain had examined Satender (accused No.

1) on 23.09.2008 and his MLC was proved as Ex.PW3/A. He noticed an incised wound of 1.8 cm x 0.1 cm skin deep present over innner aspect of left arm, 1 cm from distal little finger fold. An incised wound of 1.4 cm x 0.2 cm skin deep partially healed having tenderness over medial aspect 4 cm below distal little finger 9S.C. No. 84/10 FIR No. 208/08 State vs. Satender @ Satte etc. 7 /99 fold was also noticed. Both the wounds were on left hand palm and were horizontally placed. On the right hand, an incised wound, partially healed of 0.5 cm x 0.2 cm was found on pulp of right thumb and an incised wound partially healed of 2.0 cm x 0.5 cm was present over dorsal aspect of right thumb. A brown scab was present over the wound and there was tenderness. He also took blood sample and hair and gave them to the police. He also stated that on the same day, he had examined Ram Singh (accused No.3) vide MLC Ex. PW3/B and sample of blood and hair were taken and handed over to police. In his cross-examination for accused Ram Singh, he stated that there was no injury found during examination of Ram Singh and, therefore, he did not mention the nature of injuries in MLC Ex.PW3/B. In his cross-examination for accused Satender, he stated that nature of injury is not mentioned in MLC Ex. PW3/A. 4.4 PW-4 Dr. Adarsh Kumar proved the postmortem report of deceased Ram Babu @ Ramu as Ex.PW4/B conducted by Dr. Arvind Kumar on 09.09.2008. He identified the handwriting and 9S.C. No. 84/10 FIR No. 208/08 State vs. Satender @ Satte etc. 8 /99 signatures of Dr. Arvind Kumar, having worked with him. He stated that following injuries were present on the body of deceased at the time of Postmortem examination:

1. Stab wound - 1.7 x .5 x 3 cm present 5 cm. below left angle of mandible, 6 cm. from sternal notch directed downwards, backwards and rightwards cutting left sternocleidomastoid muscle, internal jugular vein and carotid artery. Extravasation of blood was seen in soft tissues. Wound margins were having one acute angle medially and other rounded.

2. Superficial abrasion .2 x .2 cm, 3 in number over right side mid anterolateral aspect of neck, reddish brown in colour.

3. Incised wound of size 12 x1x2 cm. present horizontally starting from left lateral point of neck to mid point of back of neck. Upper end margin at posterior end is rounded in shape.

4. Stab wound - 2.7 x .8 x chest cavity deep present 8 cm from right nipple at 8 o'clock position 10 cm. below right axilla.

5. Stab wound - 2.7 x .5 x chest cavity deep present 6 cm from left nipple at 5 o'clock position 9 cm. below left axilla, track directed rightward, upward and forward.

9S.C. No. 84/10 FIR No. 208/08 State vs. Satender @ Satte etc. 9 /99

6. Stab wound - 2.7 x .6 x chest cavity deep 10 cm.

below left axilla, directed rightward, upward and forward.

7. Stab wound - 2.8 x .6 x 4 cm subcutaneous tissue deep below skin only directed rightward, upward and forward 10cm., below left nipple.

8. Stab wound - 1.2 x .7 x 7 cm.,only in muscular plain over right iliac crest region, directed leftward, upward and backward which is 16cm., on right side from anterior midline.

9. Stab wound - 2.1 x .9 x 4.6 cm., deep in muscular plain over front of upper 1/3 of left forearm, directed leftward, upward and backward. Just below it an incised wound 4x2.5 cm present. Grazed abrasion of size 3x3 cm over anterolateral aspect of left wrist present and another abrasion of size 3x.2 cm over left cubital fossa region. An incised wound 3.5 cm long obliquely placed over posterolateral aspect of left elbow, directed downward. Another incised wound 6cm long present obliquely directed downward over back of left forearm in the middle 6cm above wrist.

10.Stab wound - 1.5 x 1 x 3.5 cm chest cavity deep over left side posterior axillary fold, 20cm left from posterior midline and directed rightward and horizontally.

9S.C. No. 84/10 FIR No. 208/08 State vs. Satender @ Satte etc. 10 /99

11.Stab wound - 1.7 x .8 x chest cavity deep, 18 cm left lateral to posterior midline over back and 18 cm above left posterior iliac crest directed rightward, downward and forward.

12.Stab wound - 2.5 x 1 x chest cavity deep, 12 cm left lateral to posterior midline over back and 14 cm above left posterior iliac crest directed rightward, upward and forward.

13. Stab wound - 1.7 x .7 x 2.5 cm muscle deep, 7 cm left lateral to posterior midline over back and 7 cm above left posterior iliac crest directed rightward, upward and forward.

14. Stab wound - 1.7 x 1 x 1 cm muscle deep 1 cm left lateral to posterior midline over back and 5 cm above left posterior iliac crest.

15. Stab wound - 3.2 x 1.8 x 13 cm (muscle deep) 14 cm right lateral to posterior midline over back and 2 cm above right posterior iliac crest directed leftward, upward and forward.

16. Stab wound - 1.7 x 1 x 2 cm subcutaneous tissues deep over right buttock 5 cm below right posterior iliac crest directed leftward, downward and forward.

17. Stab wound - 1.8 x .6 x 2.4 cm muscle deep over left buttock 9 cm lateral to midline and 11 cm below left posterior iliac crest directed rightward, upward and 9S.C. No. 84/10 FIR No. 208/08 State vs. Satender @ Satte etc. 11 /99 forward.

18. Stab wound - 1.6 x .3 x 2 cm muscle deep over left buttock 12 cm lateral to posterior midline and 17 cm below left posterior iliac crest.

He stated that the deceased was brought to Trauma Center by PCR on 08.09.2008 at 12:16 a.m with alleged history of being found lying in pool of blood with multiple stab injuries near his residence on 07.09.2008 at about 11:30 p.m and thereafter he died at 6:30 a.m. He further stated that injuries No.1, 4, 5, 6, 10, 11, 12 were individually sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature and the injuries could be produced by sharp edged weapon. Two knives were shown to the witness and he stated that except injury No.2, rest of the injuries could be produced by the knife Ex. PW2/1 and other knife recovered from parcel 'K'.

4.5 PW-5 Manoj deposed that on 07.11.2008 when he was at Mathura, he received a call from Ramu (deceased) who told him that his phone has become out of order. Manoj told him that he will come in the evening from his village to Delhi. At about 9:30 p.m, he reached Delhi. When he was taking food, Ramu came and 9S.C. No. 84/10 FIR No. 208/08 State vs. Satender @ Satte etc. 12 /99 called him outside and told him that his Garuda Mobile phone having No. 20319381 was not working properly. Manoj repaired Ramu's mobile phone. He further stated that Ramu (deceased) was also having a Chinese mobile phone No. 9911419643 and had requested him to download song via bluetooth. Ramu also requested him to provide a polythene as it was raining and Ramu left. He further stated that Ramu used to tell him that his employer was not paying him salary regularly. He had also helped Ramu in providing one Chinese mobile which Manoj had obtained from his friend Akhilesh and gave to Ramu. Ramu paid Rs. 1500/- for the Chinese mobile phone which he gave to Akhilesh. Later on, he came to know that Ramu was murdered and he told about buying of Chinese mobile phone from Akhilesh to Ramu in his statement to the police. In his cross-examination for accused Ram Singh, he stated that he had knowledge for repairing mobiles as he had worked in a shop of repairing mobiles. He further stated that he had not obtained any receipt for sale of the said Chinese mobile phone from Akhilesh. He stated that Ramu had given Rs. 1500/- after two days of purchasing the said Chinese mobile phone. A 9S.C. No. 84/10 FIR No. 208/08 State vs. Satender @ Satte etc. 13 /99 suggestion was put to him that he did not get the Chinese mobile phone purchased to Ramu from Akhilesh or that he did not repair the mobile phone of Ramu on that day but he denied both the suggestions.

4.6 PW-6 Akhilesh stated that one of his friend namely Dinesh had purchased a Chinese mobile phone and after using it for sometime, he requested him for getting it sold. He obtained the mobile phone from Dinesh and sold it for Rs. 1500/- to Manoj who needed it for a driver. He stated that he came to know that Ramu had been murdered and he told about the entire fact to police, which recorded his statement. In his cross examination, he stated that he had given original receipt, box and charger to Manoj who gave them to Ramu. He came to know about it when he received payment after 2-3 days of sale of phone. He does not know Ramu and he did not issue any receipt in the name of Ramu or Manoj regarding sale of phone.

4.7 PW-7 Ct. Girdhar Singh is the photographer who stated that on 8.9.2008 he took 12 photographs of the spot and gave them 9S.C. No. 84/10 FIR No. 208/08 State vs. Satender @ Satte etc. 14 /99 to the IO with negatives which he proved as Ex. PW-7/A1 to A12 (photographs) and Ex. PW-7/B1 to B12 (negatives). In his cross examination he stated that he received the information at 1 am in his office and remained at the spot till 2.15 am.

4.8 PW-8 is Dinesh Kumar, who deposed to have purchased a Chinese mobile phone from Karol Bagh on 18.07.2008 for Rs. 2,500/-. He used this phone for about a month and since the back up of the battery was not proper, he talked to Akhilesh for selling this mobile phone. Akhilesh told him that his friend Manoj would get his telephone sold. Akhilesh told him that the mobile will be sold for Rs. 1500/-. His mobile was sold through Akhilesh, who told him that Manoj would sell the phone to someone. However, he could not tell when Akhilesh or Manoj sold the phone. He stated that he was using sim-card No. 9818769735 in that mobile phone. He identified his mobile phone in the court. In his cross- examination, he stated that no receipt or bill was given to him by the shop-keeper regarding purchase of that phone. He did not issue any receipt about selling of that phone through Akhilesh or Manoj. 9S.C. No. 84/10 FIR No. 208/08 State vs. Satender @ Satte etc. 15 /99 He was not shown the mobile phone in the PS. 4.9 PW-9 ASI Joseph Lakra is the Incharge of PCR van. He stated that on 07.09.2008 at about 11: 48 p.m, he received an information from Control Room regarding lying of a person in injured condition near D-1/85, Lodhi Colony near Navyug School. He reached the spot and found the injured lying smeared with blood. He shifted the injured to Trauma Center in his PCR van. The injured disclosed his name as Ramu. He was having knife blow injuries on his body. In his cross-examination, he stated that he remained at the spot for 2-3 minutes during which injured was lifted from the spot and was shifted in PCR van to Trauma Center. The injured was semi conscious at that time. Injured did not disclose the description of the assailants to him. 4.10 PW-10 Naveen Kumar is a seller of sim-cards. He stated to have sold sim card No. 9911419643 to Ram Bahadur. He proved the copy of the Customer Application Form of the said mobile phone as mark PW10/A and the copy of the DL as mark PW10/B. In his cross-examination, he stated that he does not remember the 9S.C. No. 84/10 FIR No. 208/08 State vs. Satender @ Satte etc. 16 /99 exact date on which the sim-card was sold by him but it was in the month of July or August.

4.11 PW-11 HC Parmal Singh proved recording of DD No. 22A at 11:48 p.m on 07.09.2008 regarding lying of a person at D-85, D-1 Block. He proved the said DD as Ex. PW11/A. 4.12 PW-12 Naresh Khandelwal stated that on 20.09.2008, four policemen came to his bicycle shop, they inquired about a mobile phone No. 9991418747 from him. He told that the said number is of Sonu. He took the policemen to Anaz Mandi where they identified Sonu. At the asking of police, Sonu showed his mobile phone. Police asked from Sonu as to how the said mobile phone was with him as owner of that phone had been murdered. The policemen also checked IMEI number of that mobile phone. Sonu told that the phone was provided to him by his father - Om Prakash. He proved the seizure memo of the mobile phone as Ex. PW12/A. He identified the mobile phone in the court. In his cross-examination, he stated that the mobile phone was not sealed in his presence.

9S.C. No. 84/10 FIR No. 208/08 State vs. Satender @ Satte etc. 17 /99 4.13 PW-13 Ct. Narender Kumar deposed that he gave DD No. 22A to ASI Jagdish Chandra at Flat No. 85D, Lodhi Road. In his cross-examination, he stated that he did not notice any other person except HC -Rajender and ASI Jagdish Chandra at the spot. He remained there only for two minutes.

4.14 PW-14 HC Jogeshwar stated that on the night of 7/8.09.2008, he was posted as Duty Constable at Trauma Center, AIIMS. One patient Ramu was brought in a PCR van in injured condition. He collected the clothes of the injured from the Doctor and handed them over to IO/ASI Jagdish, who seized the same vide seizure memo Ex. PW14/A. He also handed over the personal belongings of the deceased to the IO, which was seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW14/B. 4.15 PW-15 ASI Suresh Kumar is the Duty Officer, who recorded the message of death of Ramu at about 8:50 a.m on 08.09.2008 vide DD No. 5A (Ex.PW15/A).

9S.C. No. 84/10 FIR No. 208/08 State vs. Satender @ Satte etc. 18 /99 4.16 PW-16 Nanak Chand stated that on 07.09.2008 at about 11:30 p.m, his neighbour S.S. Bhatnagar knocked at his door and told him that a person was lying in front of his house. He went with him and on being asked the injured told his name as Ramu, who was driver of Guest-House of D-1/A-18, Lodhi Colony. On being asked as to who caused injury to him, the injured told that when he was climbing the stairs, someone stabbed him with knife from behind. Thereafter, he fainted. In his cross-examination, he stated that 15-20 persons had collected at the spot and he does not know the name of any of those persons.

4.17 PW-17 Banti Bahadur stated that deceased Ramu was his friend, who used to come and sit in his shop. He used to watch movie with him. On 07.09.2008 at about 7:00 p.m, he saw Ramu with one Prakash when they were going towards the wine shop. At about 9:00-9:30 p.m, he saw them at Safdarjung Terminal. Ramu told him that he was going to his room to charge his mobile. At about 10:00-10:30 p.m, his father told him that he saw Ramu standing with Ranjeet. On next day, his Bua - Poonam Bhandari 9S.C. No. 84/10 FIR No. 208/08 State vs. Satender @ Satte etc. 19 /99 told him that she saw Ramu at 11:00 p.m when she was taking her tenant to hospital.

4.18 PW-18 SI Nafe Singh is Incharge Crime Team, who stated that on 08.09.2008, he received a call from P.S. Lodhi Colony and he reached in front of D-1/85, Najaf Khan Road, Lodhi Colony, with his team. At the spot, SHO- Inspector Dharamveer, SI Suraj Tiwari and other staff members were also present. He got the spot photographed through Ct. Ghirdhar and asked the IO to collect the exhibits from the spot, namely, knife, blood soaked T-shirt, two sandals, bracelet, mala, match-box etc. from the spot. He remained present at the spot from 1:30 a.m to 3:30 a.m. He proved his Scene of Crime report as Ex. PW18/A. 4.19 PW-19 Arwinder Singh is Incharge of AIIMS Mortuary. He stated that on 12.09.2008, he handed over two pullandas containing nail clippings of the deceased and his blood in gauze and one sample seal to IO, who seized the same vide seizure memo Ex. PW19/A. 9S.C. No. 84/10 FIR No. 208/08 State vs. Satender @ Satte etc. 20 /99 4.20 PW-20 Sonu Yadav stated that in the year 2008, he had asked his father to get him a used mobile phone. One week before 20.09.2008, his father gave him an old Chinese made mobile phone and he used it with mobile number 9991418747. On 20.09.2008, police officials met him in Anaz Mandi and asked for his mobile phone which he had handed over to them and told them that it was given to him by his father. Police informed him that the said mobile phone was involved in a murder case and the mobile phone was seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW12/A. He identified the mobile phone. In his cross-examination, he stated that the police did not seal the mobile phone in his presence either at Farooq Nagar - Gurgaon or at Delhi. On the seizure memo, police also took signatures of Naresh Khandelwal.

4.21 PW-21 Om Prakash Yadav stated that he did the job of stitching of old jute bags in Bapu Park, Kotla Mubarakpur. On demand of his son - Sonu, he purchased one China made mobile phone from Satte for Rs.1200/-, who used to visit his shop of and on. After 2-3 days, he gave the phone to his son at village Farooq 9S.C. No. 84/10 FIR No. 208/08 State vs. Satender @ Satte etc. 21 /99 Nagar - Gurgaon. On 20.09.2008, 7-8 police officials came to his shop and asked about the mobile phone and he told them that he had purchased the same from Satte. He went with police officials in search of Satte and he finally met them at wine shop at Prem Nagar. Police apprehended him and brought him to Police Station. He handed over photocopy of the receipt of purchasing of the said mobile phone to police official and the same was seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW21/A. He proved the arrest of accused Sattender as Ex. PW21/B. He identified accused Sattender @ Satte in the court. In his cross-examination, he stated that the receipt was prepared by the accused Sattender @ Satte and at that time one person was also present but he did not sign the said receipt. He stated that he had handed over the original receipt of purchase of the said mobile phone to the IO.

4.22 PW-22 Ranbir Singh stated that on 07.09.2008, at about 9:00 p.m, he met Ramu. Thereafter, he left to board bus from ISBT, Kashmere Gate, for going to Himachal Pradesh. At about 11:15 p.m, he received a call from Ramu and he told him to have 9S.C. No. 84/10 FIR No. 208/08 State vs. Satender @ Satte etc. 22 /99 boarded the bus at 10:30 p.m. He came back after 3 days to Delhi when he came to know that Ramu is no more.

4.23 PW-23 Pawan Singh is the Nodal Officer of Idea. He brought the Customer Application Form of mobile number 9911419643 and proved the same as Ex. PW23/A, according to which, the connection was in the name of Ram Bahadur (deceased). He also placed on record the Call Details Record for the period 28.08.2008 to 08.09.2008 for this connection and the same were proved as mark C-1 to C-3.

4.24 PW-24 Subodh Sheel Bhatnagar deposed that on 07.09.2008, he was sleeping in his room in D-1/85, Lodhi Colony. At about 11:30 p.m, his daughter Deepa Bhatnagar woke him up and told that something is going wrong outside the house. When he opened the main door, he saw one person lying in pool of blood in front of his house. At that time, rain had stopped, but due to rain, blood had spread in front of their door. He asked his daughter to inform 100 number. He also informed his neighbour Nanak Chand and Venkateshwar. They both came and told him that 9S.C. No. 84/10 FIR No. 208/08 State vs. Satender @ Satte etc. 23 /99 injured was Driver of Mr. R. Shabhu. Nanak Chand inquired from the injured, who told his name as Ramu and also told that when he was climbing up stairs, someone gave knife blow from his behind. He was also saying Bachao-Bachao. In the meantime, PCR reached at the spot and took him to the hospital. Local police also came at the spot and made inquiries from them. They took photographs of the spot and the articles lying there and seized bracelet, mala, blood stained T-shirt, sandals, match-box etc. He identified the case properties except sandals which he could not identify due to passage of time. In his cross-examination, he stated that he did not see any person running away from the spot when he went near the deceased. He did not have any conversation with the deceased when he came out of his bed-room. Deceased was asked about the assailants but he did not reply anything except saying that his name was Ramu, who lives up-stairs and requested him to save him. He admitted that the knife recovered from the spot was open and there were blood marks on the blade, and the knife was a brand new.

9S.C. No. 84/10 FIR No. 208/08 State vs. Satender @ Satte etc. 24 /99 4.25 PW-25 Anuj Bhatia is Nodal Officer of Vodafone. He brought Customer Application Form of phone number 9953848775 in the name of Kalu S.K. S/o Rahim R/o 16/4, Kotla Mubarakpur, New Delhi. The Customer Application Form was proved as Ex. PW25/A and the supporting copy of Election-ID Card was proved as Ex. PW25/B and the Declaration form was proved as Ex. PW25/C. He also proved the Call Details Record of his mobile phone for the period 05.09.2008 to 20.09.2008 as Ex.PW25/D and the Certificate under Section 65 B of the Evidence Act, was proved as Ex. PW25/E. He stated that as per call-details record, on 07.09.2008, a call was received on the aforesaid number from 9971318574 at 11:40 p.m and at that time location of mobile phone number 9953848775 was at Ali Ganj, Kotla Mubarakpur, New Delhi. He also brought the Customer Application Form of mobile number 9991418747 in the name of Om Prakash, which he proved as Ex. PW25/F. The proof of identity i.e copy of the Ration-card was proved as Ex. PW25/G and the Declaration form was proved as Ex. PW25/H. The Call Details Record of this mobile phone for the period 01.08.2008 to 17.09.2008 were proved as mark A-1 to 9S.C. No. 84/10 FIR No. 208/08 State vs. Satender @ Satte etc. 25 /99 A-13. He stated that as per License Agreement, they are required to archive call details records for one year period only. Certified copies of the relevant extract of the License Agreement was proved as Ex. PW25/I. In his cross-examination, he stated that tower mentioned in call details record generally covers a radius of an area of 500-2500 meters in normal weather condition and subscriber usage. He stated that exact location of the mobile phone cannot be ascertained.

4.26 PW-26 ASI Moti Singh stated that on 08.09.2008, he was performing patrolling duty in Khanna Market in the night. At about 12:00-12:15 a.m, he received an information from Duty Officer regarding an offence committed in D-1 Block, Lodhi Colony and thereafter he reached there where ASI Jagdish Chandra and Ct. Maan Singh met him. He saw blood to be lying near the stairs of House No. D-85 and saw one knife, one pair sandals, one bracelet, one mala, T-shirt and match-box lying there. ASI Jagdish Chandra and Ct. Maan Singh went to Trauma Center leaving him back. After sometime, Inspector D.S. Rathi , S.I. Saroj Tiwari and 9S.C. No. 84/10 FIR No. 208/08 State vs. Satender @ Satte etc. 26 /99 Crime Team also reached at the spot. ASI Jagdish Chandra came back from the hospital at the spot. ASI Jagdish Chandra prepared sketch of the knife which he proved as Ex. PW26/A and it was converted into pullanda and sealed with the seal of 'JCY' and was seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW2/A. He also proved the seizure memo of the other articles. He further stated that ASI Jagdish Chandra prepared a Rukka and the same was handed over to him for registration of the FIR. He went to PS and after getting the case registered, came back at the spot and handed over a copy of the FIR and original Rukka to ASI Jagdish Chandra. He identified the knife in the court. In his cross-examination, he stated that he received Rukka at about 5:00 a.m. After coming back from the PS alongwith copy of Rukka, IO/ASI Jagdish Chandra recorded the statements of Prabha Shankar and S.S. Bhatnagar. 4.27 PW-27 SI Jagdish Chandra is the 1st IO. He deposed that on 07.09.2008, he was on emergency duty from 8:00 p.m to 8:00 a.m. On that night, he was busy on a call of DD No. 20A. At about 11:48 p.m, he received a DD No. 22A in akab which 9S.C. No. 84/10 FIR No. 208/08 State vs. Satender @ Satte etc. 27 /99 pertained to stabbing. He alongwith Ct. Maan Singh reached the spot and found good amount of blood lying near the stairs of Flat No. 85, D-1 Block. In the blood, one bracelet, one maala, one match-box and one knife and one pair sandals were lying. In the meantime, HC Moti Singh reached at the spot and he came to know that the injured was removed to AIIMS Trauma Center by the PCR van. He left Ct. Maan Singh and HC Moti Singh at the spot, went to Trauma Center where injured - Ramu was found admitted on the MLC No. 135459. On inspection of MLC, he found several stab wounds on the injured and he was unfit for statement and was sent to Operation Theater. Duty Constable at Trauma Center handed him over one pullanda containing blood stained clothes of the injured, which were duly sealed with the seal of CMO, AIIMS Hospital which he seized vide seizure memo already Ex. PW14/A. He also seized the personal search of the injured vide seizure memo already Ex. PW14/B. He thereafter came back at the spot where SI Saroj Tiwari and Inspector D.S. Rathi met him alongwith Crime Team Incharge SI Nafe Singh and in their presence, the spot was photographed. From the spot, he seized one blood stained 9S.C. No. 84/10 FIR No. 208/08 State vs. Satender @ Satte etc. 28 /99 knife already Ex. PW2/A. He prepared sketch of the knife already Ex. PW26/A. He seized the blood stained T-shirt vide Ex. PW2/C, blood stained mala as Ex. PW2/H, blood stained sandals Ex. PW2/D, match-box Ex. PW2/F, blood in cotton and blood on cloth as Ex. PW2/G. Earth control Ex. PW6/B and blood stained earth control Ex. PW2/E. All pullandas were sealed with the seal of 'JCY'. He prepared Rukka Ex. PW27/A and handed over the same to HC Moti Singh, who left the spot at about 5:00 a.m for registration of the FIR. After that, he prepared the site-plan of his own which he proved as Ex. PW27/B. HC Moti Singh reached back at the spot with copy of the FIR and Rukka. He recorded statements of public witnesses, namely, Prabha Shankar, Subodh Sheel Bhatnagar, Deepa, Crime Team Incharge SI Nafe Singh and Incharge PCR SI Joseph Lakra. He also recorded the statements of Ct. Maan Singh, SI Saroj Tiwari and HC Moti Singh. When he was going to deposit the exhibits in Maalkhana, he received a message from Trauma Center that injured - Ramu has died. Thereafter, further investigation was handed over by him to Inspector D.S. Rathi. He identified the knife and other case 9S.C. No. 84/10 FIR No. 208/08 State vs. Satender @ Satte etc. 29 /99 properties. In his cross-examination, he stated that when he reached the spot for the first time, he met Deepa, S.S. Bhatnagar and Prabha Shankar but he did not record their statements. He tried to search for eye witnesses as injured was brought to Trauma Center by PCR van. He returned back at the spot from Trauma Center at about 4:00 a.m. Before sending the Rukka, he had seized the exhibits from the spot. He deposited the exhibits at around 9:30 a.m on 08.09.2008. He stated that he handed over the investigation of the case to Inspector D.S. Rathi at about 9:30-10:00 a.m on 08.09.2008 and thereafter he did not join the investigation.

4.28 PW-28 HC Kanwar Singh stated that on 20.09.2008, he alongwith Inspector D.S. Rathi, SI Saroj Tiwari and HC Rajender left the police station after making departure entry at 6:30 a.m for Farooq Nagar - Gurgaon in search of the mobile phone of the deceased - Ramu as location of the mobile of the deceased was noted from the area of Farooq Nagar, which was being used by one Om Prakash R/o H. No. 123/4, Ward No. 8, Farooq Nagar, 9S.C. No. 84/10 FIR No. 208/08 State vs. Satender @ Satte etc. 30 /99 Gurgaon. They reached Farooq Nagar and tried to trace out the said address but could not succeed. As per call details of other numbers, they contacted one Naresh Khandelwal and called him at his shop 'Pawan Cycles'. They reached there, who told them that mobile phone number 9991418747 was being used by one Sonu, who used to work at his shop. On inquiry about Sonu, it was told that Sonu had gone to market. They reached Farooq Nagar Market and Naresh Khandelwal pointed out towards Sonu. HC Kanwar Singh and HC Rajender Singh apprehended him and from his search, one Chinese mobile phone of black colour was recovered, which was seized vide seizure memo already Ex. PW12/A. He told that the said mobile phone was purchased for him by his father, who used to work at Kotla Mubarakpur. They came back with Sonu to Delhi at about 2:30 p.m on the same day. From the police station, Ct. Rajeev, Ct. Rajesh and Ct. Mahesh also joined them and at about 2:45 p.m, they reached Prem Nagar, Kotla Mubarakpur. Sonu's father was called there, who told his name as Om Prakash and stated that he had purchased the said mobile phone from one Sattender @ Satte S/o Basant Singh R/o 192, Ali 9S.C. No. 84/10 FIR No. 208/08 State vs. Satender @ Satte etc. 31 /99 Ganj, Kotla Mubarakpur, for Rs. 1,200/-. He also produced receipt of the said mobile phone and its copy was seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW21/A. Thereafter, they all alongwith Sonu and Om Prakash reached at the house of Sattender @ Satte but he was not found there. In his search, they went at Sharab-Theka and at about 4:00 p.m at the instance of Om Prakash, Sattender @ Satte was apprehended. Initially, he refused to have sold any mobile phone to Om Prakash but when the phone was shown to him, he confessed to have sold the same to Om Prakash for Rs.1200/-. IO arrested him vide arrest memo Ex. PW21/B and his personal search memo was proved as Ex. PW28/A. IO recorded his disclosure statement Ex. PW28/B. Thereafter, accused led them to his house and got recovered one cream colour pant, which was seized by the IO. He also disclosed the names of Sushil and Ram Singh to be involved in murder of Ramu. At about 6:00 p.m, accused led them to the house of accused Sushil, who after seeing the police, ran away towards the Gali but was soon overpowered and after interrogation, he was arrested. His disclosure statement was recorded by the IO. He got recovered one jeans pant and one 9S.C. No. 84/10 FIR No. 208/08 State vs. Satender @ Satte etc. 32 /99 cream colour shirt, which was seized by the IO. Thereafter, they reached the house of Ram Singh @ Aarami at about 7:30 p.m where his father Ajay Pal met them. He told that Ram Singh is at Khan Market where they used to sell Moong Dal Pakoras on a cart. After that, they reached Khan Market with Ajay Pal at about 8:00 p.m and at his instance, Ram Singh @ Aarami was apprehended by HC Rajender and Ct. Mahesh. IO made inquiries from him and arrested him. When they reached the house of Ram Singh, he got recovered his wearing clothes of the day of the murder i.e one chocolate colour shirt and one blue colour pant, which were seized by the IO after converting them into pullanda. Thereafter, all the accused persons were got medically examined in the AIIMS Hospital. On 21.09.2008, accused Sattender @ Satte pointed out the place of occurrence and IO prepared the pointing out memo Ex. PW28/C. He also pointed out the place where he had burnt his shirt which he was wearing on the day of incident but no ashes/traces of the burnt shirt could be found as it had rained on the day of the incident. On 22.09.2008, accused made a supplementary statement regarding knife which he had used at the 9S.C. No. 84/10 FIR No. 208/08 State vs. Satender @ Satte etc. 33 /99 time of the murder. His disclosure statement was recorded as Ex. PW28/D and he led the police to his house and from the room of adjoining house, accused took out a knife. IO seized it and converted it into pullanda and sealed it. He identified all the three accused persons in the court. He identified the buttondar knife got recovered from the accused Sattender @ Satte as Ex. PW28/P1; pant of Sattender @ Satte as Ex. PW28/P2; shirt of accused Sushil @ Jalebi as Ex.PW28/P3; his jeans pant as Ex. PW28/P4; shirt of Ram Singh @ Aarami as Ex. PW28/P5 and pant as Ex. PW28/P6. He also identified the mobile phone, which was recovered from the possession of Sonu. In his cross-examination for accused Ram Singh, he stated that on 20.09.2008, when they went to the house of Ram Singh @ Aarami, they did not take search of his house at that time. They went to his house again at about 9:30-10:00 p.m. and he got recovered shirt and pant from his house. No public person was called to join the investigation at the time of recovery of clothes, although, father of the accused, his mother and sister were present there. The clothes were hanging on the rope. Seizure memo was prepared at the spot but none of the family member was 9S.C. No. 84/10 FIR No. 208/08 State vs. Satender @ Satte etc. 34 /99 asked to sign the seizure memo. No statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C was recorded that Ram Singh was residing in the said house. Disclosure statement of Ram Singh was written at Khan Market but he could not tell as to who wrote the said disclosure statement. He admitted that car attendants and public persons were available at Lok Nayak Bhawan in Khan Market when accused Ram Singh was arrested but since it was evening time, too many persons were not available there. He stated that first of all disclosure of Sattender @ Satte was recorded at about 4:00 p.m and disclosure of Ram Singh was recorded at about 8:00 p.m. Except the clothes, no other recovery was made pursuant to disclosure of accused Ram Singh. No public person was requested to sign on the disclosure statements of accused Ram Singh. Accused persons were produced before the court of Ld. Magistrate following day in his presence but he could not tell whether the Ld. Magistrate had signed the memos, case diary and exhibits on that day, although, IO had handed over his file to the Ld. Magistrate. He could also not tell as to whether the knives seized were produced on that day before the Ld. Magistrate or not. He stated that besides Naresh Khandelwal, 9S.C. No. 84/10 FIR No. 208/08 State vs. Satender @ Satte etc. 35 /99 no other public person was asked to witness the seizure memo Ex. PW12/A. They did not make any arrival entry in P.S. Farooq Nagar, Gurgaon nor any information was given in that police station regarding taking Sonu with them to Delhi. In his cross- examination for accused Sattender @ Satte, he stated that it was informed by the IO that the location of the mobile phone was Farooq Nagar and IO had gathered the information that the said mobile phone was being used by one Om Prakash. Sonu was found in the market at a distance of about 1-1.5 k.m from the cycle shop of Naresh Khandelwal. He pointed out at Sonu from a distance of about 100 meters. Although, it was a market place but it was not very crowded and only few people were there in the market at that time. The mobile phone was converted into pullanda at the spot. The knife was recovered from an adjoining room of the house of accused Satender but he could not tell as to who was the owner of that house. He denied the suggestion that no knife was recovered on the disclosure of accused Sattender. 9S.C. No. 84/10 FIR No. 208/08 State vs. Satender @ Satte etc. 36 /99 4.29 PW-29 Dr. Milan deposed on behalf of Dr. Dhananjaya, who had conducted the medical examination of Ramu. He proved the MLC as Ex. PW29/A and identified the handwriting and signatures of Dr. Dhananjaya on it.

4.30 PW-30 Ct. Maan Singh deposed that on 07.09.2008, he was on emergency duty with ASI Jagdish Chandra. At about 11:45 p.m, they came to Police Station after attending a call vide DD No. 20A. At about 11:50 p.m, Ct. Narender of Delhi Home Guard, handed over DD No. 22A to ASI Jagdish Chandra. They reached in front of house No. D-2/85, Lodhi Colony, where HC Moti Singh was already present. At the spot, lot of blood was lying and one knife, one bracelet, one Mala, two sandals, T-shirt and one matchbox were also lying. After leaving both of them there, ASI Jagdish Chandra went to Trauma Centre. When he came back, he called Crime Team, which reached the spot and took photographs. ASI Jagdish Chandra prepared site plan of the spot and seized the articles, which were lying there. He prepared Rukka and handed it over to HC Moti Singh for registration of the FIR. IO lifted the 9S.C. No. 84/10 FIR No. 208/08 State vs. Satender @ Satte etc. 37 /99 exhibits from the spot and converted them into pullanda and sealed them. HC Moti Singh came back at the spot and he handed over the copy of the FIR and original Rukka to ASI Jagdish Chandra. In his cross-examination, he stated that they reached the spot at about 12:00 midnight. He could not tell, if it had rained that night or not. ASI Jagdish Chandra came back from Trauma Centre at the spot after about 1 ½ hours at about 1:30-2:00 a.m. 4.31 PW-31 Tarun Khurana is the Nodal Officer of Airtel. He brought the call detail records of mobile No. 9818769735 for the period 17.07.2008 to 31.08.2008 and proved the same as Ex. PW31/A1 to PW31/A6. He also brought the customer application form of this mobile number, which was in the name of Haseen Ahmad and proved the same as Ex. PW31/B1 to B3. He also proved call details record of mobile No. 9971318574 for the period 05.09.2008 to 20.09.2008 as Ex. PW31/C1 to C7. He also brought the customer application form of this mobile number, which was in the name of Sushil Kumar S/o Virender Kumar R/o 1933A, Kotla Mubarakpur, Village Pillanji, New Delhi, and proved it as Ex. 9S.C. No. 84/10 FIR No. 208/08 State vs. Satender @ Satte etc. 38 /99 PW31/D1 to D2. The Certificate under Section 65B of Evidence Act was proved as Ex. PW31/E and the certified copy of the Cell ID Chart was proved as Ex. PW31/F. 4.32 PW-32 Ct. Rajeev Yadav stated that on 20.09.2008 at about 2:30 p.m. he alongwith SI Saroj Tiwari, HC Rajender, Ct. Mahesh, Ct. Rajesh, Inspector D.S. Rathi and one Mahender @ Sonu reached at Bapu Park, Kotla Mubarakpur. Sonu pointed out towards his father Om Prakash, who told that he had purchased the mobile phone from one Sattender @ Satte, who lives at Kotla Mubarakpur, for Rs. 1,200/-. Thereafter, they all went to the house of accused Sattender @ Satte but he was not found there. Then, they went to Sharab Theka at Prem Nagar and there Om Prakash pointed out towards Sattender, who was overpowered by Ct. Mahesh. IO/Inspector D.S. Rathi interrogated him and he confessed to have sold the mobile phone to Om Prakash and also to have committed murder of Ramu @ Nepali. Thereafter, they went to the house of accused Sattender and from his house, he got recovered one pant of cream colour having black colour lines on it, 9S.C. No. 84/10 FIR No. 208/08 State vs. Satender @ Satte etc. 39 /99 which was seized by the IO after converting it into pullanda and was sealed. Accused Sattender then led them to the house of accused Sushil @ Jalebi, who after seeing the police party, started to run away but he was overpowered. On interrogation, he confessed his guilt. IO recorded his disclosure Ex. PW32/A and was arrested vide arrest memo Ex. PW32/B. From his house, he got recovered one blue colour jeans and one cream colour shirt, which was converted into pullanda, sealed and was seized. Thereafter, they reached house of accused Ram Singh @ Aarami at Pillanji Village and his father met them, who told that his son used to run a Rehri of Jalebi at Khan Market. They reached at Khan Market alongwith father of Ram Singh and at the instance of his father, accused Ram Singh @ Aarami was apprehended. IO recorded his disclosure statement and he led them to his house from where he got recovered one jeans and one chocolate colour shirt, which was seized after converting it into pullanda and sealed it. At the instance of Ram Singh, pointing out memo of the place of occurrence was prepared. They took all the three accused persons to AIIMS Hospital for their medical check-up. During personal 9S.C. No. 84/10 FIR No. 208/08 State vs. Satender @ Satte etc. 40 /99 search of accused Sattender @ Satte, two mobile phones were recovered. From the personal search of accused Sushil @ Jalebi, one mobile phone was recovered. He identified all the three accused persons in the court. In his cross-examination for accused Ram Singh @ Aarmi, he stated that accused Sattender @ Satte was arrested first at about 4:00 p.m. He could not tell the exact time when they came back to police station but stated that it was night time. He visited the place of occurrence with accused Ram Singh on 21.09.2008 but not on 20.09.2008. He joined the investigation on 21.09.2008 at about 5:00 p.m and at that time, accused Ram Singh and Sushil @ Jalebi were already in custody. He denied the suggestion that accused Ram Singh was brought to the police station by his father on 20.09.2008. Accused Ram Singh was arrested on 20.09.2008 from Khan Market and his disclosure was recorded on the same day. He admitted that all the three accused persons were arrested on 20.09.2008. All the accused persons were taken to the place of incident one by one but he could not tell the sequence or the time gap. He stated that Sattender @ Satte was arrested at about 4:00 p.m, Sushil @ Jalebi was arrested 9S.C. No. 84/10 FIR No. 208/08 State vs. Satender @ Satte etc. 41 /99 at about 6:00 p.m and Ram Singh @ Aarami was arrested at about 8:00 p.m. In his cross-examination for accused Sattender @ Satte, he could not tell the time when the accused persons were taken to hospital but stated that it was night time. He denied the suggestion that accused Sattender @ Satte had received a call from the police station on his mobile phone 9953848775 and when he went to police station, he was arrested. In his cross-examination for accused Sushil @ Jalebi, he stated that he reached the house of accused Sushil @ Jalebi between 5:00-6:00 p.m. House was situated in a thickly populated area. Accused was outside the house but after seeing them, he ran inside the house. They entered inside the house of the accused. His mother and sister were found present but he could not tell if their signatures were taken on the recovery memo or on other documents. They remained at his house for about half an hour.

4.33 PW-33 Lady Ct. Renu Yadav proved recording of PCR message at 23:43:16 on 07.09.2008 from mobile No. 9911826701, who was a female caller, who told that 'Ek Aadmi Ghar Ke Bahar 9S.C. No. 84/10 FIR No. 208/08 State vs. Satender @ Satte etc. 42 /99 Pada Hai, Jisko Bahut Jyada Bleeding Ho Rahi Hai, Police Bhejiye' . Informant gave her address as D-1 Block, House No. 85, Lodhi Colony. She proved the PCR message as Ex.PW33/A. 4.34 PW- 34 Ct. Rajesh Kumar stated that on 20.9.2008 he alongwith SI Saroj Tiwari, Ct. Kanwar Singh, Ct. Mahesh, Ct Rajeev and HC Rajender had gone to Babu Park in a private vehicle with Sonu who took them to Bapu Park as his father used to run a tea-stall there. Om Prakash Yadav, father of Sonu told that the said phone was purchased by him from one boy, namely, Satte for Rs. 1200/-. Om Prakash Yadav also showed the purchase slip. Thereafter they all went to Ali Ganj at the house of Satender @ Satte but he was not there. They reached at Prem Nagar and found him to be sitting near the 'Sharab Theka' and he was identified by Om Prakash Yadav as Satender @ Satte. He was interrogated. Initially, he refused but later on confessed that he had sold the said mobile phone. IO recorded his disclosure statement which is already Ex. PW28/B. Thereafter, he led them to his house and from there he got recovered one pant and he also told that he had 9S.C. No. 84/10 FIR No. 208/08 State vs. Satender @ Satte etc. 43 /99 burnt the shirt. IO seized the pant after converting into pullanda. Thereafter, he led them to the house of co-accused Sushil at Kotla Mubarakpur and in the street, Sushil tried to run away, however, he was apprehended by HC Rajender and by Ct. Rajeev. He was also interrogated and he also led them to his house at Kotla Mubarakpur. At his instance, one pant and shirt were recovered and same were also seized after converting into pullanda. From his possession, one mobile phone was also recovered. After that, they went to the house of third accused Ram Singh at Kotla Mubarakpur but he was not found. Thereafter, they all reached at Khan Market in front of Gate No.2, and from there accused Ram Singh was apprehended by HC Rajender. From there, he was brought to his house and he also got recovered one blood stained shirt and pant from his house and IO seized the same after converting it into pullanda, and seal after use was handed over to HC Rajender, and from there, all the three accused persons were taken to AIIMS hospital for their medical examination. After medical examination, they were brought to PS and put behind the Lock-up. He identified all the accused persons. In his cross examination for accused 9S.C. No. 84/10 FIR No. 208/08 State vs. Satender @ Satte etc. 44 /99 Ram Singh @ Aarami, he stated that they had reached at the house of Om Prakash at about 4:00 p.m. He could not tell what proceedings were done at the house of Om Prakash. They reached house of Satte at about 5:00 p.m. He was searched for about half an hour and was arrested at about 5:30/6:00 p.m. In the cross- examination for accused Sattender @ Satte, he stated that when they went to the house of accused Sattender @ Satte, his mother was also there. Accused handed over the clothes from the Almirah. He denied the suggestion that no clothes were handed over by the accused Sattender. In the cross-examination for accused Sushil @ Jalebi, he could not tell at what time they reached the house of accused Sushil @ Jalebi but it was after 12:00 noon. However, he again stated that they reached his house at about 5:00/6:00 p.m. Accused got effected the recoveries from his small room. He could not tell if the room was locked or unlocked. The clothes line from which the clothes were recovered was inside that room. He denied the suggestion that nothing was recovered at the instance of the accused Sushil @ Jalebi.

9S.C. No. 84/10 FIR No. 208/08 State vs. Satender @ Satte etc. 45 /99 4.35 PW-35 Retd. HC Bhikam Singh is the then Duty Officer, who recorded the FIR No. 208/08. He stated that on 08.09.2008 at about 5:20 a.m, he received Rukka from HC Moti Singh which was sent by ASI Jagdish Chander and on the basis of the same, he recorded FIR. He proved the FIR as Ex. PW35/A and his endorsement on the Rukka as Ex. PW35/B. In his cross- examination, he stated that he himself had not typed the FIR. 4.36 PW-36 SI Mahesh Kumar is the Draftsman. He stated that on 12.11.2008, he alongwith Inspector Dharamvir reached at the place of incident i.e in front of Flat No. 85, D-1 Block, Lodhi Colony, New Delhi. At the instance of Inspector Dharamvir, he took rough notes and measurements of the place of incident. On 28.11.2008, he prepared and handed over scaled site plan which he proved as Ex. PW36/A. 4.37 PW-37 Dr. Virender Singh is the Assistant Director (Documents), FSL, Rohini. He stated that on 30.10.2008, questioned documents marked as Q1 and Q2 were received as well as the standard documents marked S1 to S12 in their laboratory. 9S.C. No. 84/10 FIR No. 208/08 State vs. Satender @ Satte etc. 46 /99 The questioned documents were proved as Ex. PW37/X1 and the standard documents were proved as Ex. PW37/X2 to X13. He proved his report as Ex. PW37/A after examining the questioned documents and the standard documents. In his opinion, the questioned documents and the standard documents were written by the same person. In his cross-examination for accused Sattender @ Satte, he admitted that neither the questioned documents nor the specimen documents were executed or signed before him. 4.38 PW-38 is Indresh Kumar Mishra, who is Senior Scientific Officer (Biology) of FSL. He stated that on 13.10.2008, 18 parcels were received in their office in FIR No. 208/08 and the same were marked to him for biological and serological analysis. He proved his biological report as Ex. PW38/A and serological report as Ex. PW38/B. 4.39 PW-39 SI Saroj Tiwari is the 2nd IO who stated that on 07.09.08 at about 12:00 midnight, Duty Officer told him to reach D-1/85, Lodhi Colony, New Delhi where he reached at 12:10 a.m on 08.09.2008. Inspector Dharamvir Rathi, HC Moti Singh and 9S.C. No. 84/10 FIR No. 208/08 State vs. Satender @ Satte etc. 47 /99 HC Maan Singh were present there. A lot of blood was lying at the spot. A pair of Chappal, T-shirt, knife, mala, bracelet and a matchbox were also lying at the spot. Injured had already been removed to hospital. Local residents were present at the spot. Crime Team was also called. After sometime, ASI Jagdish Chander came back at the spot from the hospital with MLC of the injured. Crime Team inspected the spot. Spot was got photographed. ASI Jagdish Chander prepared the site plan of the spot. Articles which were lying at the spot were seized separately after converting into pullanda, which were duly sealed with the seal of 'JCY'. Knife was also seized after preparing sketch of knife, which is Ex. PW26/A. Thereafter, ASI Jagdish Chander prepared Rukka on DD No. 22A and the same was handed over to HC Moti Singh at about 5:00 a.m for registration of the FIR. ASI Jagdish Chander recorded statements of local persons. HC Moti Singh came back at the spot after registration of the case and handed over the copy of the FIR alongwith the original Rukka to ASI Jagdish Chander. They all came back to the PS and the case property was deposited in the Malkhana. At about 9:00 a.m, ASI Jagdish 9S.C. No. 84/10 FIR No. 208/08 State vs. Satender @ Satte etc. 48 /99 Chander received the information regarding death of injured and thereafter investigation of the case was handed over to Inspector D.S. Rathi. On 09.09.2008, he joined the investigation with Inspector D.S. Rathi. Dead body of the injured Ramu was identified by his relatives in mortuary of AIIMS, Trauma Centre and after post-mortem, the dead body was handed over to them. He proved the identification statements as Ex. PW39/A and Ex. PW39/B. On 12.09.2008, he alongwith Inspector D.S. Rathi again went to AIIMS Mortuary where IO seized nail clippings of the deceased, his blood in gauze and sample seal of the hospital and the same were seized vide seizure memo already Ex. PW19/A. They came back to the PS and exhibits were deposited in the Malkhana. As the mobile phone of the deceased Ramu was found missing, it was put under surveillance. They came to know that the said mobile phone was being used by one Om Prakash at Farooq Nagar, Gurgaon. On 18.09.2008, he alongwith HC Rajender and Ct. Kanwar Singh went in search of the said mobile phone as well as of Om Prakash but despite efforts he could not traced. On 20.09.08, he alongwith Ct. Kanwar Singh, HC Rajender and 9S.C. No. 84/10 FIR No. 208/08 State vs. Satender @ Satte etc. 49 /99 IO/Inspector D.S. Rathi again went to Farooq Nagar and again searched for the mobile phone and Om Prakash. They came to know from the scrutiny of the call detail records that the said mobile number was in touch with one Pawan Cycle Agency. They reached at the said shop in Farooq Nagar Market and met its owner Naresh Khandelwal and narrated him the purpose of their visit. Naresh Khandelwal told that Sonu used to work of empty sacks at Anaz Mandi in Farooq Nagar. He accompanied the police party to Anaz Mandi where he pointed out towards Sonu. On checking the mobile phone of Sonu and its IMEI number, the IMEI number matched with the IMEI number of the mobile of the deceased Ramu. Sonu told that his father had given the mobile phone to him and his father used to work at a shop in Kotla Mubarakpur, New Delhi. IO seized the mobile phone vide seizure memo already Ex.PW12/A. Thereafter, they came back to PS with Sonu and after briefing the SHO, police team alongwith Sonu went towards Kotla Mubarakpur where Sonu led them to the shop where his father Om Prakash used to work. Om Prakash told that he had purchased the said mobile phone from one Satte of Kotla for Rs.1200/-. He also 9S.C. No. 84/10 FIR No. 208/08 State vs. Satender @ Satte etc. 50 /99 produced one rough/kachi receipt in this regard whicih was marked as 'mark A'. IO seized the said receipt vide seizure memo Ex. PW21/A. Then they went to the house of Satte alongwith Om Prakash. Satte was not found there. They came to know that Satte had gone towards Theka in Prem Nagar. They went towards Theka where Om Prakash identified Satte and he was apprehended. He confessed that he alongwith Sushil @ Jalebi and Ram Singh @ Aarami had stabbed Ram Babu for the purpose of robbing his mobile phone. His disclosure statement Ex. PW28/B was recorded. IO arrested him vide arrest memo Ex.PW21/B and his personal search memo was conducted as Ex. PW28/A. During interrogation, he revealed that he had washed his blood stained pant. He also told that he had burnt his blood stained shirt. He got recovered one pant from his house from beneath the mattress of his room and the said pant was seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW39/C after converting it into pullanda. Then he led the police team to the house of Sushil @ Jalebi at House No. 1915, Pillanji, Kotla Mubarakpur and at his instance, accused Sushil @ Jalebi was apprehended. On interrogation, he confessed his guilt. IO 9S.C. No. 84/10 FIR No. 208/08 State vs. Satender @ Satte etc. 51 /99 recorded his disclosure Ex. PW32/A. He was arrested vide arrest memo Ex. PW32/B and his personal search was conducted vide Ex. PW39/D. He also revealed that he had washed his blood stained clothes. He got recovered the shirt and the pant which he had kept on a string outside his room for drying. IO seized the clothes after converting into pullanda and seized the same vide seizure memo Ex. PW39/E. Thereafter, Sattender and Sushil took police party to the house of co-accused Ram Singh @ Aarami. His father met them, to told that Ram Singh used to run a Rehri of Pakora at Khan Market. They all alongwith father of Ram Singh went to Khan Market and accused Ram Singh was found at his Rehri, who was identified by his father and other accused persons. Ram Singh also confessed his guilt. IO recorded his disclosure as Ex. PW39/F. He was arrested vide arrest memo Ex. PW39/G and personal search was conducted vide memo Ex. PW39/H. During interrogation, he revealed that he can get his clothes recovered from his house which he had washed out. They went to house of accused at 1945, Pillanji, Kotla Mubarakpur and from the rack of his room, he produced one blue colour pant and one chocolate 9S.C. No. 84/10 FIR No. 208/08 State vs. Satender @ Satte etc. 52 /99 colour shirt. The clothes were converted into pullanda, sealed with the seal of 'ST' and was seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW39/I. All the three accused persons were got medically examined and thereafter they returned back to PS. Case property was deposited in the Malkhana. On 21.09.2008, all the accused persons pointed out the place of occurrence separately. The pointing-out-memo of the accused Sattender @ Satte is Ex. PW28/C, pointing -out- memo of accused Sushil @ Jalebi was proved as Ex. PW39/J while the pointing out memo of accused Ram Singh was proved as Ex. PW32/C. On 22.09.2008, supplementary disclosure statement of acused Sattender @ Satte was recorded in which he revealed that he had concealed the knife used in the crime after washing it behind his house in a Khandar type house of his uncle. Accused led police team to that place and from there he took out a knife concealed outside the window which opened on the back side of the house in a street. IO prepared sketch of the knife as Ex. PW39/K. It was seized after being sealed with the seal of 'ST' vide seizure memo Ex. PW39/L. Then they came back to PS and deposited the case property in Malkhana. On 23.09.2008, all the 9S.C. No. 84/10 FIR No. 208/08 State vs. Satender @ Satte etc. 53 /99 three accused persons were taken to Forensic Department of AIIMS where their blood sample and hair sample were taken and the exhibits were sealed and seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW39/M. In his cross-examination for accused Sushil @ Jalebi, he stated that he reached house of accused Sushil @ Jalebi at 5:00/5:15 p.m and he was apprehended after a chase of 30-40 paces from his house. The string was tied outside the room and apart from the alleged recovered clothes, other clothes were also lying on that string. He denied the suggestion that clothes were planted upon him. In his cross-examination for accused Sattender @ Satte, he stated that he does not know as to who had taken the injured to the hospital. He denied the suggestion that clothes were planted on the accused.

4.40 PW-40 is S.S. Badwal, who is Senior Scientific Officer, FSL. He stated that on 08.07.2010, he received 8 sealed parcels through Biology Division of FSL, Rohini. He personally examined the parcels and proved his report as Ex. PW40/A. 9S.C. No. 84/10 FIR No. 208/08 State vs. Satender @ Satte etc. 54 /99 4.41 PW-41 HC Rajender Singh stated that he had joined the investigation in the present case with SI Saroj Tiwari, Inspector Dharamvir Rathi on 20.09.08, 22.09.08 and 23.09.08. On 13.10.2008, he took 18 exhibits and deposited the same with FSL, Rohini. On 30.10.2008, he had gone to FSL, Rohini and deposited the documents.

4.42 PW-42 is Inspector D.S. Rathi. He stated that on the night of 7/8.09.2008 at about 12:00 midnight, Duty Officer informed him that one person was bleeding near Navyug School at D-1/85, Lodhi Colony, New Delhi. He alongwith SI Saroj Tiwari reached the spot where HC Moti Singh and Ct. Maan Singh were already present. It was raining slightly and near the stairs in between Varandah of Houses No. D-85 and A-17, lot of blood of lying. Injured had already been taken to AIIMS, Trauma Centre, in PCR van. One knife, one blood stained T-shirt, one bracelet, one mala, one match box and one pair chappal, were lying at the spot. Crime Team was called. HC Moti Singh told that ASI Jagdish Chander had gone to AIIMS, Trauma Centre. Occupants of flat No. D-85, S.S. 9S.C. No. 84/10 FIR No. 208/08 State vs. Satender @ Satte etc. 55 /99 Bhatnagar and A-17, Nanak Chand were present and from A-18, Prabha Shankar was present. He then went to AIIMS, Trauma Centre, where injured Ram Bahadur @ Ramu was found admitted with 18 stab wounds. He was unfit for statement and was taken in Operation Theatre. He went back to the spot where Crime Team also reached subsequently. SI Nafe Singh, In-charge Crime Team, Ct. Ghirdhar - Photographer and one Proficient were also there. Scene of Crime Report was handed over to ASI Jagdish Chander, who prepared site plan and lifted exhibits from the spot with the help of SI Saroj Tiwari. Sketch of the knife was prepared. ASI Jagdish Chander prepared Rukka and handed it over to HC Moti Singh for registration of FIR. ASI Jagdish Chander recorded statement of Deepa, S.S. Bhatnagar, Nanak Chand and Prabha Shankar and of other police witnesses. Then they came back to police station and the case property was deposited in the Malkhana. At about 8:50 a.m., Duty Constable from AIIMS, Trauma Centre, informed that Ram Bahadur had expired and this information was recorded by DO vide DD No. 5A on 08.09.2008. On the directions of SHO, case was marked to this witness and Section 302 IPC was 9S.C. No. 84/10 FIR No. 208/08 State vs. Satender @ Satte etc. 56 /99 added. He went to AIIMS Trauma Centre with staff at about 10:30/11:00 a.m and got the dead body of the deceased preserved. He came back at the spot. One Upender Singh informed that about 5-6 months ago, Ramu met him for being employed as Driver and on the recommendation of one Chander Bahadur, who was brother- in-law of the deceased, he was employed as Driver. Chander Bahadur's mobile number was told as 9810776165. He also informed that the deceased generally used to sit at the tailoring shop of Bunty Bahadur. He telephoned on the said mobile number and called Chander Bahadur in police station, who reached police station after about 1½ hours. On 09.09.2008, Chander Bahadur, Daan Bahadur - Mama of deceased and Yogender Sharma, relatives of deceased came in the PS and they were taken to AIIMS mortuary. They identified the deceased and their identification statements were recorded as Ex.PW39/A and PW39/B. After completion of inquest papers and after postmortem, dead body of the deceased was handed over to relatives of the deceased vide delivery memo Ex.PW42/A. On 10.09.2008, he alongwith Ct. Rajender went to Prem Nagar, Kotla Mubarakpur and met Bunty 9S.C. No. 84/10 FIR No. 208/08 State vs. Satender @ Satte etc. 57 /99 Bahadur at House No. 8/4, Prem Nagar, Kotla Mubarak Pur, who told that deceased Ramu had two mobile phones - one of Garuda MTNL and another No. 9911419643 and that one Manoj @ Om Pal used to talk on the said mobile phone with the deceased. He asked Bunty to call Manoj, who was called. Manoj told that the said mobile number was used on a Chinese mobile phone which he got purchased to Ramu for Rs. 1500/- from his friends Akhilesh and Dinesh. He recorded statements of Bunty Bahadur and Manoj. On 11.09.2008, Akhilesh and Dinesh were brought to PS by Manoj. Akhilesh told that Dinesh had purchased a Chinese mobile phone from Komal Communication, Gaffar Market. Battery of the said mobile was not working properly so at the request of Dinesh, the said mobile was sold to Ramu. Dinesh had told him that he had purchased the mobile for Rs. 2500/- in July, 2008 but the shop- keeper had not issued any cash memo. Mobile phone No. 9911419643 was put on surveillance and request was made to the service provider for the call detail records. On 12.09.2008, he alongwith SI Saroj Tiwari went to AIIMS, Trauma Centre, and took exhibits. He seized the same alongwith sample seal vide seizure 9S.C. No. 84/10 FIR No. 208/08 State vs. Satender @ Satte etc. 58 /99 memo already Ex.PW19/A. The exhibits were deposited in the Malkhana. A mail was received on the E-mail ID of SHO, P.S. Lodhi Colony regarding CDR. A printout of the CDR was taken which showed that last call was made from the mobile number of the deceased on 07.09.2008 at 11:16 p.m at a number whose last digits were '2717'. A call was made at that number by SI Saroj Tiwari and the receiver told his name as Ranbir @ Sony who stated that he can meet police on next day. On 13.09.2008, this witness alongwith SI Saroj Tiwari went to House No. 8/5, Prem Nagar, Kotla Mubarakpur and met Ranbir @ Sony there. Ranbir told that he had met Ramu at about 9:00 p.m on 07.09.2008 and from there he had gone to ISBT, Kashmere Gate and from there went to Solan, Himachal Pradesh. At about 11:15 p.m on that night, he was in bus to Solan, he received a call from Ramu, who asked Ranbir to come to Delhi after making driving licence and that deceased will arrange a driving job for Ranbir. On 17.09.2008, he came to know that the IMEI number of the mobile phone of Ramu whose last digits were '4375' was being used on mobile phone No. 9991418747 which was in the name of 'Om Prakash' R/o 123/4, 9S.C. No. 84/10 FIR No. 208/08 State vs. Satender @ Satte etc. 59 /99 Village and Post Office, Farooq Nagar, Gurgaon. On 18.09.2008, SI Saroj Tiwari, HC Rajender, Ct. Kanwar Singh and Ct. Rajeev were sent to Farooq Nagar in search of the said Om Prakash and mobile phone of Ramu but they could not trace the mobile phone or Om Prakash. On 20.09.2008 at about 6:30 a.m., he alongwith SI Saroj Tiwari, HC Rajender and Ct. Kanwar Singh left for Farooq Nagar. They reached a shop 'cycle agency' where one Naresh Khandelwal met them. He made a call from his mobile to the number of the said Om Prakash and while dialing name 'Sonu' appeared on the screen of his mobile phone. He informed that Sonu used to work regarding empty gunny bags in Farooq Nagar Mandi. Thereafter, the police personnel with Naresh Khandelwal went to Mandi where Sonu was found, who told his name as Mahender @ Sonu Yadav S/o Om Prakash. He told that his father used to work at Kotla Mubarakpur, Delhi and the said mobile phone was bought by his father from Kotla Mubarakpur, Delhi. IMEI number of the said mobile phone matched with the IMEI number of the mobile phone of deceased Ramu. This mobile was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW12/A. Thereafter, they brought 9S.C. No. 84/10 FIR No. 208/08 State vs. Satender @ Satte etc. 60 /99 Sonu to Delhi as he was not aware about the exact address where his father used to work in Kotla Mubarakpur. They reached P.S. Lodhi Colony at about 2:00 p.m and informed the SHO. At about 2:30 p.m., he alongwith Ct. Rajesh, Ct. Rajeev and Ct. Mahesh left PS for Bapu Park, Kotla Mubarakpur and reached there within 15-20 minutes. At shop No. 55, Sonu identified his father Om Prakash. Om Prakash told that the mobile phone was purchased by him on 10.09.2008 from one of his known Sattender @ Satte for Rs. 1200/-. He also produced a rough receipt in this regard which was seized vide seizure memo already Ex. PW21/A and the receipt is already mark 'A'. Thereafter, the police team alongwith Om Prakash went to House No. 192, Aliganj, Kotla Mubarakpur where Basant Singh, father of Sattender met them and told that Sattender was not at home. At the instance of Om Prakash, they reached Sharab Theka, Kotla Mubarakpur at about 4:00 p.m and at the pointing out of Om Prakash, Sattender @ Satte was apprehended. Initially, Sattender @ Satte refused to recognize Om Prakash but on being shown the mobile phone and the receipt, he confessed to have sold the said mobile phone to Om Prakash for Rs. 1200/-. He 9S.C. No. 84/10 FIR No. 208/08 State vs. Satender @ Satte etc. 61 /99 was arrested vide arrest memo already Ex.PW21/B. His personal search memo was already Ex. PW28/A. From his personal search, two mobile phones were recovered, out of which only one mobile phone No. 9953848775 was used by the accused to talk with accused Sushil. His disclosure statement was recorded which was proved as Ex.PW28/B. In his disclosure, he disclosed that he had burnt the shirt which he was wearing on the day of incident near the Naala and had also thrown the weapon of offence i.e knife in the Naala and he can get recovered his pant from his house. Om Prakash was relieved from there after recording his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. He led the police team to his house No. 192, Aliganj, where his father was informed about the arrest of the accused. Accused took them to first floor in a room and took out his pant from beneath the pillow of his bed. The pant was converted into pullanda, sealed with the seal of 'ST' and seized vide seizure memo already Ex.PW39/C. Accused Sattender then took them to street near House No. 1915. In the street, one boy Sushil @ Jalebi came. He was apprehended and was arrested vide arrest memo Ex. PW32/B while his personal search was conducted 9S.C. No. 84/10 FIR No. 208/08 State vs. Satender @ Satte etc. 62 /99 vide memo Ex. PW39/D. From his search, one mobile phone was recovered. His disclosure was recorded as Ex.PW32/A in which he stated that the knife which he had used on the day of incident was left at the spot and the pant-shirt which he was wearing on that day, were washed by him and that he can get recovered those clothes from his house. They went inside the house of accused and from outside the room, there was a rope on which clothes were lying and from there, accused took out one blue colour Jeans and cream colour shirt having red, yellow and green stripes. Clothes were converted into pullanda and after being sealed with the seal of 'ST', they were seized vide seizure memo already Ex. PW39/E. They also informed his father about his arrest. Thereafter, both the accused persons led them to the house of accused Ram Singh @ Aarami at 1945, Pillanji, Kotla Mubarakpur. On the first floor of the said house, Ajaypal Singh Yadav, father of accused Ram Singh met them at about 7:30 p.m. He was identified by both the accused persons as father of Ram Singh. He told that Ram Singh runs a Pakora Rehri in Khan Market near Gate No.2. He led police team to Gate No.2 where accused Ram Singh was found with a Pakora 9S.C. No. 84/10 FIR No. 208/08 State vs. Satender @ Satte etc. 63 /99 Rehri. He was identified and was apprehended. His disclosure statement was recorded as Ex. PW39/F. He was arrested vide arrest memo already Ex. PW39/G and his personal search was conducted vide memo already Ex. PW39/H. His father was informed about his arrest. In pursuance to his disclosure statement, he took police team to his house and from a room at first floor, he took out one blue colour pant and one half sleeve chocolate colour shirt, which were converted into pullanda and sealed with the seal of 'ST' and seized vide seizure memo already Ex.PW39/I. All the accused persons were then taken to AIIMS Hospital for their medical check-up. The case property was deposited in the Malakhana. After discussion with the SHO, Section 302 IPC was also added. On 21.09.2008, accused Sattender @ Satte pointed out the place of occurrence which is Ex.PW28/C then accused Sushil @ Jalebi pointed out the place of occurrence as Ex.PW39/J and the memo regarding pointing out by accused Ram Singh was proved as Ex.PW32/C. On 22.09.2008, accused persons were separately interrogated. He recorded supplementary disclosure statement of Sattender @ Satte which was proved as Ex.PW28/D. In pursuance 9S.C. No. 84/10 FIR No. 208/08 State vs. Satender @ Satte etc. 64 /99 to the said disclosure statement, this witness alongwith SI Saroj Tiwari, HC Rajender and Ct. Kanwar Singh alongwith the accused Sattender went to his house at 192, Aliganj, Kotla Mubarakpur and from the first floor of the said house where the accused used to live and through his room, he took them to the room of his uncle where there was a window and after opening the window, he took out a knife which he had kept on parapet of the window. He prepared sketch of the knife as Ex.PW39/K and it was converted into pullanda, sealed with the seal of 'SP' and was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW39/L. On 23.09.2008 at about 1:45 p.m., accused persons were taken out from Lock-up and were taken to AIIMS Hospital for taking their blood and hair sample. The exhibits were seized vide seizure memo already Ex.PW39/M which were sealed with the seal of Department of Forensic Medicines, AIIMS, New Delhi. On 24.09.2008, specimen handwriting of accused Sattender @ Satte were taken which is Ex.PW37/X2 to X13 and the original receipt of sale of mobile is Ex. PW37/X1. On 13.10.2008, 18 exhibits were sent to FSL, Rohini through HC Rajender. On 14.10.2008, Parcha-12 verification of all the three accused persons 9S.C. No. 84/10 FIR No. 208/08 State vs. Satender @ Satte etc. 65 /99 were sent to PS Kotla Mubarakpur. Accused Sattender @ Satte was found involved in four other cases and out of these four cases, he was convicted in FIR No. 37/08 u/s 399/402 IPC, P.S. Kotla Mubarakpur. Accused Sushil was found involved in two cases while Ram Singh @ Aarami had no previous involvement. On 30.10.2008, the questioned documents alongwith specimen writing, signatures and original receipt were sent to FSL through HC Rajender. On 12.11.2008, he took SI Mahesh Kumar - Draftsman to the place of incident and at his instance, he took rough notes and measurement of the spot. On 21.11.2008, an E-mail was sent by him from the office of ACP, Defence Colony, requesting Idea Mobile Company to provide customer application form (CAF) and call detail records (CDR) of mobile No. 9911419643 of deceased Ramu. On 26.11.2008, he received the customer application form and call detail records. On 27.11.2008, he obtained photocopy of PCR form regarding the call made about injured Ramu. On 28.11.2008, he went to the office of Crime Branch at PHQ and collected the scaled site plan from SI Mahesh. On 29.11.2008, he went to Naveen Store, Krishna Market, Timarpur, who after seeing 9S.C. No. 84/10 FIR No. 208/08 State vs. Satender @ Satte etc. 66 /99 the stamp on CAF confirmed to have sold the sim to deceased. On 02.12.2008, he sent E-mails to Airtel and Vodafone requesting them to provide CDR of the mobile phone used by Dinesh whose last digits were '9735' , Sattender @ Satte, whose last digits were '8775' and of Sushil whose last digits were '8574'. On 06.12.2008, he received the CDR of above mobile number through E-mail. From the CDR of Sushil, he noticed that last call on the day of incident was received on his mobile phone at 11:40 p.m from the mobile phone of Sattender @ Satte. As per CDR of deceased Ramu, he made last call from his number 9911419643 at 11:16 p.m to Ranbir @ Sony. On 17.12.2008, he filed the challan and later on he also filed a supplementary challan with respect to FSL Result. In his cross-examination for accused Sushil @ Jalebi, he stated that in both the cases against accused Sushil, he was acquitted. He stated that Crime Team made efforts to lift fingerprints from the knife found at the spot but no fingerprints could be lifted as the handle of the knife was rough. He stated that rope was tied outside the room from where the alleged recovery of clothes was made. It was an open place and accessible to public. 9S.C. No. 84/10 FIR No. 208/08 State vs. Satender @ Satte etc. 67 /99 After recovery of clothes, inquiries were made about the clothes from the family members but he did not record their statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. He denied the suggestion that no knife or clothes were recovered. In the cross-examination for accused Ram Singh @ Aarami, he stated that when PCR van reached the spot, injured Ramu was alive, was talking and told his name and address to PCR officials. At the time of arrest of accused Ram Singh, one or two gents were present there but none of them became witness. Before taking the house search of accused Ram Singh, no respectable persons from the locality agreed to join the same. Father of accused Ram Singh had joined the raiding team but he did not sign the recovery memo. On 20.09.2008, they left the police station at about 6:45 a.m in a private Toyota Qualis and reached Farooq Nagar at about 8:30 a.m. No assistance was taken from Gurgaon police. He denied the suggestion that nothing was recovered at the instance of accused Ram Singh. Earlier he could not tell from where accused Ram Singh had got recovered his clothes but at this stage, he stated that the clothes were recovered from the rack of the house of accused Ram Singh. In the cross- 9S.C. No. 84/10 FIR No. 208/08 State vs. Satender @ Satte etc. 68 /99 examination for accused Sattender @ Satte, he stated that Om Prakash informed that no other person was present when he purchased the mobile phone. He denied the suggestion that accused Sattender @ Satte had not sold the mobile phone to Om Prakash or that he had not issued any receipt regarding sale of mobile phone to Om Prakash or that receipt Ex. PW21/A was obtained from the accused forcefully in police custody. It was a dilapidated building from where recovery of knife was made. He agreed that the said room was not locked but was only bolted from outside and the building was abandoned. No neighbor agreed to join the investigation at the time of recovery of the knife. He denied the suggestion that nothing incriminating was recovered from the possession of accused Sattender or at his instance.

5. All the incriminating circumstances were put to the accused persons. Accused Satender stated that the Call Detail Records were manipulated. The receipt of the sale of mobile phone was forcibly got prepared in the Police Station, by the IO. He stated that he was produced in police station by his parents on the pressure of the IO 9S.C. No. 84/10 FIR No. 208/08 State vs. Satender @ Satte etc. 69 /99 and nothing was recovered from him and his parents were asked to bring his clothes in police station. He denied all other circumstances.

6. Accused Sushil @ Jalebi stated that the disclosure statement was not voluntary and nothing was recovered from his instance or from his possession and the recovered articles were planted.

7. Accused Ram Singh @ Arami stated that his father had taken him to police station where he surrendered as the police had approached his father on the ground that he was required for some interrogation. He stated that he was falsely implicated in this case and nothing was recovered at his instance or from his possession nor police visited his house ever for recovery of anything. He stated that the Call Detail Records are manipulated.

8. One defence witness was examined namely Smt. Brahm Wati who is mother of accused Sattender @ Satte. She stated that prior to the arrest of Sattender @ Satte, two-three police officials came to her house. She, her husband and Sattender went to police 9S.C. No. 84/10 FIR No. 208/08 State vs. Satender @ Satte etc. 70 /99 station. Police asked to bring clothes of Sattender.

9. Ld. Counsel for accused Sushil @ Jalebi argued that except recovery, there is no discovery and even the recovery is not free from doubt as three different witnesses namely PW-34 Ct. Rajesh, PW-39 SI Saroj Tiwari and PW-42 Insp. D.S. Rathi gave three different versions of recovery of clothes. Even otherwise, there is a huge time gap i.e. of 13 days in recovery of clothes. On these grounds, acquittal has been prayed for the accused Sushil @ Jalebi.

10. For accused Sattender @ Satte, it was argued that the injured did not tell the names of the assailants although he was conscious at the time when witnesses gathered around him. He argued that in the personal search of the deceased, a mobile phone and a purse was found and hence the motive of offence being robbery, becomes doubtful as had that been the motive, even the mobile phone and purse of the deceased would have been robbed. It was argued that there is contradiction in the depositions of PW-5, 6 and 8 regarding handing over of the receipt of the mobile phone which creates 9S.C. No. 84/10 FIR No. 208/08 State vs. Satender @ Satte etc. 71 /99 doubt in prosecution story of purchase of mobile phone. Recovery of mobile phone from Sonu is also doubtful as local police of Farukh Nagar was not joined in the recovery. Further it was stated that disclosure of Sattender was written on 20.9.2008 but nothing was recovered on 20.9.2008 and a supplementary statement was recorded on 22.9.2008 whereafter recovery of knife was shown, which creates doubt in prosecution story. Even otherwise, knife was recovered from a place which was easily accessible for all. Different time of arrest has been told by different witnesses whereas mother of the accused had stated that accused had himself went to the police station alongwith his parents where they were asked to bring his clothes. Ld. Counsel thus prayed for acquittal.

11. For accused Ram Singh @ Aarami, it was argued that his disclosure statement was recorded in the last i.e. after the disclosure of the other two accused persons and hence has no relevance. It has been stated that only clothes of this accused were recovered but that was not in the presence of any public witness or his own family members and no reaction was found in FSL on 9S.C. No. 84/10 FIR No. 208/08 State vs. Satender @ Satte etc. 72 /99 those clothes. It is stated that there is recovery of no weapon from this accused. Evidence against him is of weak type and giving benefit of doubt, accused may be acquitted.

12. I have heard both the sides and have perused the records of the case. There is no eye witness to the case and hence the case has proceeded on circumstantial evidence. The law on circumstantial evidence is well settled that the prosecution is duty bound to prove all the circumstances beyond all reasonable doubt; that the circumstances proved should unerringly point towards guilt of the accused; that those circumstances should be consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt and inconsistent with the innocence of the accused; and that the circumstances should, to a moral certainty, exclude the possibility of guilt of any person other than that of the accused.

13. The deceased was identified by his neighbours as Ramu but the deceased did not tell the name of his assailants except stating that he was stabbed from behind. A knife, mala, pair of slippers, shirt, bracelet and matchbox was found at the spot. It was raining 9S.C. No. 84/10 FIR No. 208/08 State vs. Satender @ Satte etc. 73 /99 on the night of the incident and hence no chance prints could be lifted from the spot. Complicity of the accused persons came to fore when police came to know on 10.9.2008 that the mobile phone bearing no. 9911419643 of the deceased was missing. From the Call Details Record of this mobile, its IMEI number 35658000264375 was found out and the same was put under surveillance. Investigations revealed that the mobile phone of IMEI number 35658000264375 was being used at Farukh Nagar on mobile phone no. 9991418747 which was in the name of one Om Prakash. Police reached Farukh Nagar where the phone was found to be used by Sonu, who was son of Om Prakash. He took police to his father, who used to work in Kotla Mubarakpur and Om Prakash told that he had purchased the said phone from Sattender @ Satte for Rs. 1,200/- against a receipt. He pointed out to Sattender and on interrogation Sattender confessed to have killed Ramu alongwith other two co-accused persons namely Sushil @ Jalebi and Ram Singh @ Aarami. He was arrested. He got recovered his pant from his house which he was wearing on the date of offence and which he had washed of the blood stains. He 9S.C. No. 84/10 FIR No. 208/08 State vs. Satender @ Satte etc. 74 /99 then pointed out to Sushil @ Jalebi and he was also arrested. Sushil @ Jalebi also got recovered his shirt and jeans pant (which he was wearing at the time of offence) from a clothline outside his house and which he had washed of the blood stains. Thereafter, Ram Singh @ Arami was arrested. Ram Singh @ Arami also got recovered his shirt and pant (which he was wearing at the time of offence) from his room and which he had washed of the blood stains. On 22.9.2008 Satender got recovered a knife from a room of a closed house behind his house. All these circumstances complete the chain and are against the accused persons.

14. PW-1 Deepa Bhatnagar, PW-2 Prabha Shanker, PW-15 Nanak Chand and PW-24 Subodh Sheel Bhatnagar are the witnesses who are residents of the place where the deceased/injured Ramu was spotted first in injured condition on 7.9.2008. PW-1 Deepa Bhatnagar and PW-24 Subodh Sheel Bhatnagar saw the injured first. PW-24 Subodh Sheel Bhatnagar then informed the other two witnesses. All of them stated that the injured did not tell name of his assailants. PW-9 ASI Joseph Kalra 9S.C. No. 84/10 FIR No. 208/08 State vs. Satender @ Satte etc. 75 /99 had stated in his cross examination that the injured did not give description of the assailants to him. An argument was made in this regard that the deceased did not name any of the accused before the witnesses. There is nothing on record that the assailants and the deceased knew each other before hand. When the accused persons and the deceased were not known to each other, there is nothing wrong in the deceased not telling the names of the assailants, as he never knew them. PW-1 stated that she saw the injured (Ramu) at about 11.30 pm on 7.9.2008 and thereafter she informed police on phone number 100 and Police came thereafter. From the deposition of these witnesses it becomes clear that the injured did not disclose the name of the persons who attacked him and stabbed him.

15. PW-17 Bunty Bahadur and PW-22 Ranbir Singh are witnesses to the effect that the deceased was alive till 11.15 pm on 7.9.2008. PW-17 Bunty Bahadur deposed that on 7.9.2008 at about 9.30 PM he met Ramu who told him that he was going to his room to charge his mobile. His Bua had seen him at 11 pm. PW-22 9S.C. No. 84/10 FIR No. 208/08 State vs. Satender @ Satte etc. 76 /99 Ranbir Singh deposed that at about 11.15 pm on 7.9.2008 he received a telephone call of Ramu from his mobile on his mobile. These depositions show that the injured Ramu was alive till 11.15 pm on 7.9.2008.

16. PW-29 Dr. Milan proved MLC of deceased Ramu while PW-4 Dr. Adarsh Kumar proved Post Mortem of the deceased. According to the post-mortem report, there were as many as 18 stab wounds on the deceased. He also opined after seeing the two recovered knives that except injury no. 2, all other injuries could be produced by the recovered knives. One of these two knives was left at the spot by accused Sushil @ Jalebi while the other was got recovered by accused Sattender @ Satte. It is thus not that the knives recovered in this case are not connected with this case in any manner. On the contrary, involvement of the knives stand substantiated by the opinion of the doctor that the injuries can be produced by the two knives.

17. PW-31 Tarun Kumar, Nodal Officer of Airtel proved from the call details of mobile number 9818769735 that it was in the 9S.C. No. 84/10 FIR No. 208/08 State vs. Satender @ Satte etc. 77 /99 name of Dinesh (PW-8) and till 12.8.2008 this connection was being used in mobile phone, having IMEI number 356582000264370. PW-5 Manoj, PW-6 Akhilesh and PW-8 Dinesh are the witnesses of sale of this mobile phone to Ramu (deceased). PW-8 Dinesh stated that he gave the mobile phone, which was being used for mobile sim no. 9818769735, to PW-6 Akhilesh, who gave it to PW-5 Manoj for being sold to deceased Ramu. As noted above, PW-31 Tarun Khurana, Nodal Officer of Airtel had proved from the call details of 9818769735 that till 12.8.2008 mobile of IMEI no. 356582000264370 was being used in this connection. PW-6 stated that he gave the mobile to PW-5 Manoj for sale. PW-5 stated that he gave the mobile to Ramu. PW-10 Naveen Kumar proved selling of sim card of mobile connection no. 9911419643 to Ramu on 28.8.2008 on the basis of his driving licence as ID proof. PW-23 Pawan Singh, Nodal Officer from Idea also proved that the sim No. 9911419643 was issued in the name of Ramu and according to call detail records, the mobile phone which was being used on this sim was having IMEI Number 356582000264370. From these depositions, it is 9S.C. No. 84/10 FIR No. 208/08 State vs. Satender @ Satte etc. 78 /99 proved that mobile having IMEI No. 356582000264370 was being used by Ramu at the time of incident.

18. PW-21 Om Prakash is the witness of purchase of mobile phone having IMEI no. 356582000264375 from Sattender @ Satte on 10.9.2008 for a sum of Rs. 1200/- against receipt. He stated that he purchased the mobile phone from Sattender @ Satte on 10.9.2008 and he produced a receipt to that effect. PW-37 Dr. Virender Singh of FSL vide his report Ex. PW-37/A proved that the handwriting on the receipt of sale of mobile phone is that of accused Sattender @ Satte. PW-12 Naresh Khandelwal and PW-20 Sonu are the witnesses of recovery of mobile phone having IMEI No. 356582000264375 from PW-20 Sonu, who is son of PW-21 Om Prakash. Hence, the mobile phone of Ramu was sold by Sattender @ Satte to Om Prakash, who in turn gave this phone to his Sonu for use. Thus, the chain of the robbed mobile gets completed as accused Sattender @ Satte sold it to Om Prakash on 10.9.2008 and Om Prakash gave it to his son Sonu, who started using this mobile phone from 14.9.2008. There is thus no doubt in 9S.C. No. 84/10 FIR No. 208/08 State vs. Satender @ Satte etc. 79 /99 this chain as well.

19. PW-25 Anuj Bhatia, Nodal Officer of Vodafone proved Call Detail Records of mobile no. 9991418747 which was in the name of PW-21 Om Prakash and from 14.9.2008 this connection was being used in mobile having IMEI number 356582000264375. The unit place digit '5' in the IMEI number is depicted as '0' in Call Detail records of some mobile companies as was clarified in the case of State vs. Navjot Sandhu 2005 (11) SCC 600 in para 195 in the following words:

One more point has to be clarified. In the seizure memo (Ext. 61/4), the IMEI number of Nokia phone found in the truck was noted as 350102209452432. That means the last digit '2' varies from the call records wherein it was noted as 350102209452430. Thus, there is a seeming discrepancy as far as the last digit is concerned. This discrepancy stands explained by the evidence of PW 78 a computer engineer working as Manager, Siemens. He stated, while giving various details of the 15 digits, that the last one digit is a spare digit and the last digit, according to GSM specification should be transmitted by the mobile phone as '0'.

9S.C. No. 84/10 FIR No. 208/08 State vs. Satender @ Satte etc. 80 /99 There is thus no discrepancy with regard to the last digit as '0' instead of '5'.

20. From the personal search of accused Sattender @ Satte Ex.

PW 28/A mobile phone number 9953848775 was recovered and its IMEI number was 353161021812014. PW-25 Anuj Bhatia, Nodal Officer of Vodafone proved the call details record of mobile no. 9953848775 as PW-25/C and at 11.40 pm on 7.9.2008 a call was received from mobile number 9971318574 and at that time the receiver was in Aliganj. PW-31 Tarun Kumar, Nodal Officer of Airtel proved from Ex. PW-31/D-1 to D-2 that mobile number 9971318574 was in the name of Sushil @ Jalebi (Accused No. 2) and according to call details record Ex. PW-31/C-1 to C-7, at 11.40 PM on 7.9.2008 he made a call at 9953848775 and at that time the caller was at Aliganj. From these evidences it is proved that accused Satender @ Satte and Sushil @ Jalebi both were in Aliganj at 11.40 pm on 7.9.2008. This is another circumstance against the accused persons Sattender @ Satte and accused Sushil @ Jalebi. 9S.C. No. 84/10 FIR No. 208/08 State vs. Satender @ Satte etc. 81 /99

21. PW-38 Indresh Kumar Mishra proved his Biological and Serological Reports as Ex. PW-38/A and Ex. PW-38/B whereas PW-40 S.S. Badwal of FSL also proved his report as Ex. PW-40/A. Presence of blood on the recovered clothes of the accused persons is a circumstance against them.

22. PW-3 Dr. Ashish Jain had examined accused Sattender @ Satte and Ram Singh @ Aarami vide MLCs Ex. PW-3/A and Ex. PW 3/B respectively and had found injury marks (incised wounds) on both the hands of accused Sattender @ Satte. There is no explanation by either of these accused as to how they got these injuries on their hands. Accused Sattender was found to be having tenderness on his nose at the time of his medical examination. In his disclosure statement, he had disclosed that the deceased had given a fist blow on his nose, due to which he started to bleed from nose and this infuriated him and Sattender @ Satte and Sushil @ Jalebi gave him multiple stabs from their knives. Thus the statement made in disclosure statement finds corroboration from his MLC also and shows that the accused persons were present at 9S.C. No. 84/10 FIR No. 208/08 State vs. Satender @ Satte etc. 82 /99 the spot and a scuffle took place wherein accused Sattender @ Satte and Ram Singh @ Aarami sustained injuries.

23. Recovery of receipt of sale of mobile phone was proved by PW-21 Om Prakash, PW-39 SI Saroj Tiwari and PW-42 Insp. Dharamvir Rathi. As already noted, the handwriting on the said receipt was proved to be of accused Sattender @ Satte by PW-37 Dr. Virender Singh by Ex. PW 37/A.

24. Arrest memo of accused Sattender @ Satte was proved as Ex. PW 21/B by PW-21 Om Prakash, PW-28 Ct. Kanwar Singh, PW-41 HC Rajinder Singh and PW-42 Insp. Dharamvir Rathi. Arrest memo of accused Sushil @ Jalebi was proved as Ex. PW 32/B by PW-32 Ct. Rajeev Yadav, PW-39 SI Saroj Tiwari and PW-42 Insp. Dharamvir Rathi. Arrest memo of accused Ram Singh @ Aarami was proved as Ex. PW-39/G by PW-39 SI Saroj Tiwari and PW-42 Insp. Dharamvir Rathi.

25. Recovery of mobile phone no. 9953848775 having IMEI No. 353161021812014 from accused Sattender @ Satte from his 9S.C. No. 84/10 FIR No. 208/08 State vs. Satender @ Satte etc. 83 /99 personal search as Ex. PW-28/A was proved by PW-28 Ct. Kanwar Singh, PW-39 SI Saroj Tiwari and PW-42 Insp. Dharamvir Rathi. Similarly, recovery of mobile phone having IMEI No. 353083028079571 from the personal search of accused Sushil @ Jalebi was proved as Ex PW-39/D by PW-39 SI Saroj Tiwari and PW-42 Insp. Dharamvir Rathi.

26. Recovery of blood stained pant from accused Sattender @ Satte was proved as Ex. PW-28/P2 by PW-39 SI Saroj Tiwari and PW-42 Insp. Dharamvir Rathi.

27. Recovery of blood stained jeans pant (Ex. PW 28/P4) and shirt (Ex. PW 28/P3) from accused Sushil @ Jalebi was proved by PW-39 SI Saroj Tiwari and PW-42 Insp. Dharamvir Rathi.

28. Recovery of blood stained pant (Ex. PW 28/P6) and shirt (Ex. PW 28/P5) from accused Ram Singh @ Aarami was proved by PW-39 SI Saroj Tiwari and PW-42 Insp. Dharamvir Rathi.

29. An argument was made that the recovery of clothes was not done in the presence of any independent person and hence the 9S.C. No. 84/10 FIR No. 208/08 State vs. Satender @ Satte etc. 84 /99 recoveries are doubtful. In M. Sarvana vs. St. Karnataka 2012 (7) AD-SC 258 the Hon'ble Supreme Court made following relevant observations in this regard:

It cannot be stated as a rule that a police officer can or cannot be a sole eyewitness in a criminal case. It will always depend upon the facts of a given case. If the testimony of such a witness is reliable, trustworthy, cogent and duly corroborated by other witnesses or admissible evidence, then the statement of such witness cannot be discarded only on the ground that he is a police officer and may have some interest in success of the case. It is only when his interest in the success of the case is motivated by overzealousness to an extent of his involving innocent people; in that event, no credibility can be attached to the statement of such witness.

31. This Court in Girja Prasad (2007) 7 SCC 625 while particularly referring to the evidence of a police officer said that it is not the law that police witnesses should not be relied upon and their evidence cannot be accepted unless it is corroborated in material particulars by other independent evidence. The presumption applies as much in favour of a police officer as any other person. There is also no rule of law which lays down that no conviction can be recorded on the testimony of a police officer even if such evidence is otherwise reliable and trustworthy. The rule of prudence may require more careful scrutiny of their evidence. If such a presumption is raised against the police officers without exception, it will be an attitude which could neither do credit to the magistracy nor good to the public, it can only bring down the prestige of the police administration."

The very fact that blood was detected in biological report on these clothes, though they were duly washed by the accused persons, rule out the possibility of false plantation of the clothes. 9S.C. No. 84/10 FIR No. 208/08 State vs. Satender @ Satte etc. 85 /99

30. Ex. PW-38/A is the biological report in which blood was detected on both the knives and on the clothes of the accused persons. Only on the shirt recovered from accused Sushil Kumar @ Jalebi blood could not be detected but on all the clothes got recovered by all the accused persons, blood was detected during FSL examination.

31. Ex. PW-40/A is the report regarding cut marks on the clothes of the deceased. On examination of the cut marks on the clothes of the deceased and the two knives, it was opined that the cut marks on T-shirt, baniyan, pant and underwear could be caused by the knives recovered in the case.

32. All the three accused persons also separately pointed out the place of occurrence as Ex. PW28/C, Ex PW 39/J and Ex. PW 32/C respectively.

33. Recovery of knife (Ex. PW28/P1) by accused Sattender @ Satte from a house behind his house was duly proved by PW-39 SI Saroj Tiwari and PW-42 Insp. Dharamvir Rathi. On the knife 9S.C. No. 84/10 FIR No. 208/08 State vs. Satender @ Satte etc. 86 /99 recovered at the spot, no chance prints could be lifted for two reasons - one it was raining that night and two, its handle was rough. Thus, non lifting of chance prints is not fatal.

34. 19 police witnesses proved their respective roles in the investigation of the case including writing the DD entries, FIR, deposit of case properties in Malkhana and FSL.

35. A cumulative reading of all the evidences complete the chain of circumstances to show that the accused persons in furtherance of their common intention, first gave beatings to the deceased and then accused Sattender @ Satte and Sushil @ Jalebi gave multiple stabbings to him with knives. Thereafter, all the three accused persons fled away from the spot taking away mobile phone of the injured Ramu (deceased), which was subsequently sold by Sattender @ Satte to Om Prakash. Prosecution has thus been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused persons Sattender @ Satte and Sushil @ Jalebi that they gave fatal knife blows to Ramu and that all three accused persons took away 9S.C. No. 84/10 FIR No. 208/08 State vs. Satender @ Satte etc. 87 /99 mobile phone of Ramu.

36. An argument was made that cell tower location does not pin point the exact location. Although it is correct that it does not pin point the exact location, but the timing that mobile phones of accused Sattender @ Satte and of Sushil @ Jalebi were at the same time at 11.40 pm, at same location Aliganj show that they were not absent from that place at the time of incident so as to doubt the prosecution version.

37. Recovery of mobile phone from Sonu was doubted as local police of Farooq Nagar was not involved. However, on the recovery memo (Ex. PW-12/A) of mobile phone from Sonu, signatures of an independent witness namely PW-12 Naresh Khandelwal appears and hence there is no doubt in the said recovery. Sonu is son of Om Prakash and Om Prakash has proved from the receipt Ex. PW37/X1 that the mobile phone in question was sold to him by accused Sattender @ Satte on 10.09.2008 for Rs. 1200/- which he gave to his son Sonu. Possession of the mobile phone by Sonu thus cannot be doubted. Lapses if any, in 9S.C. No. 84/10 FIR No. 208/08 State vs. Satender @ Satte etc. 88 /99 the investigation are not fatal to the prosecution as was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kashi Nath Mondal vs. St. WB 2012 (7) AD-SC 365 in the following words:

We have no manner of doubt that had the Investigating Agency obtained the samples in a scientific manner and promptly sent them to the Serologist that would have lent further support to the prosecution. There is some substance in the grievance of learned counsel for the appellant that the Investigating Agency also did not obtain finger prints from the place of incident. But, it is well settled that remissness and inefficiency of the Investigating Agency should be no ground to acquit a person if there is enough evidence on record to establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. It is said by this court in a number of cases that irregularities or deficiencies in conducting investigation by prosecution is not always fatal to the prosecution case. If there is sufficient evidence to establish the substratum of the prosecution case, then irregularities which occur due to remissness of the Investigating Agency, which do not affect the substratum of the prosecution case, should not weigh with the court.

38. Recovery of knife got effected by accused Sattender @ Satte on 22.9.2008 is stated to be from a place which was open to public. The said recovery has been got effected by the accused from an abandoned house behind his house and since the house was abandoned, it cannot be said that the said place from where recovery of knife was effected was a place open to public. Further, from that house, the knife was got recovered from above a window 9S.C. No. 84/10 FIR No. 208/08 State vs. Satender @ Satte etc. 89 /99

- which is not a place easily accessible to public. One knife was recovered from the spot. PW-4 Dr. Ashish Kumar has stated that except injury no. 2, all other injuries suffered by the deceased could be caused by both the knives and hence even the objection regarding late recovery of knife is of no substance.

39. It was argued that since a mobile phone and purse was found on the person of the deceased during his personal search, there was no motive of robbery and had that been the motive, the accused persons would have also taken away the mobile and the purse of the victim. The chain of events as per the prosecution, as could be made out from the disclosure of the accused persons, were that the accused persons wanted to rob the victim of his mobile phone on which he was listening songs, when was going. On being asked to hand over phone, the victim refused, at which scuffle took place between the victim and accused Ram Singh. At this, other accused persons intervened and then the victim gave a fist blow on the nose of Sattender @ Satte due to which he started to bleed. This blow is substantiated in MLC of the accused Sattender @ Satte which is 9S.C. No. 84/10 FIR No. 208/08 State vs. Satender @ Satte etc. 90 /99 Ex. PW 3/A. Then Sattender @ Satte and Sushil @ Jalebi gave multiple knife blows to him. At this time, light was switched on in the front house of PW-1 Deepa Bhatnagar and PW-24 Subodh Sheel Bhatnagar, at which the accused persons retreated, leaving Sushil's knife behind, but taking away the mobile phone of victim Ramu with them for which he was attacked. In this manner, the accused persons could take away only one mobile phone of the victim from which he was listening songs as the lights in the house were switched on and they had no opportunity to rob the deceased of his purse and other mobile phone. This Court finds no fault in this and no discrepancy can be attached in this circumstance in the prosecution case.

40. Another argument was made that different versions have been given by PW-5 Manoj, PW-6 Akhilesh and PW-8 Dinesh regarding handing over of receipt of the mobile phone. The receipt regarding which these witnesses were talking, related to the mobile phone which was sold to the deceased Ramu. Whether any receipt of the mobile phone was given to Ramu or not is immaterial as the 9S.C. No. 84/10 FIR No. 208/08 State vs. Satender @ Satte etc. 91 /99 use of the mobile phone in question by Ramu at the time of incident is proved from the Call Details record of the phone no. 9911419643. According to Call Detail record of mobile phone no. 9818769735, (Ex. PW-31/A1 to A6) PW-8 Dinesh was using mobile of IMEI No. 356582000264370 till 12.8.2008. From 6.9.2008 on wards Ramu started to use it in mobile no. 9911419643. As such, use of the mobile in question by deceased Ramu before his death and after his death, by Sonu is proved beyond doubt.

41. Section 30 of the Evidence Act deals with confession of co- accused. The law on the point of confession of co-accused is well settled that that the said confession should be inculpatory as well as exculpatory in nature so as to be admissible. All the accused persons gave separate disclosure statements which are in consonance with each other. All three of them pointed out the place of incident. Accused Sattender @ Satte had stated in his disclosure statement that he had purchased a knife having a hole for firm grip of finger, while Sushil @ Jalebi had a daantedaar 9S.C. No. 84/10 FIR No. 208/08 State vs. Satender @ Satte etc. 92 /99 knife. They saw a nepali looking man passing from near Sewa Nagar railway crossing hearing songs on his mobile. They planned to rob his mobile. Ram Singh @ Aarami stopped him and demanded his mobile and on being refused, he took him near a wall but the victim started to beat him at which Sattender @ Satte and Sushil @ Jalebi also intervened. Victim gave a blow on the nose of Sattender @ Satte due to which his nose started to bleed and then he and Sushil @ Jalebi repeatedly stabbed him with their knives. The disclosure statements are thus inculpatory and exculpatory in nature and hence are additional material and links to support the prosecution case.

42. There is nothing on record that the accused persons would be falsely implicated in this case. Accused Sushil @ Jalebi and Ram Singh @ Aarami did not bring any defence evidence. Accused Sattender @ Satte examined his mother as DW-1 but she only stated that accused had surrendered himself. Her saying that the accused Sattender @ Satte had surrendered himself would not discredit the testimony of various witnesses including that of 9S.C. No. 84/10 FIR No. 208/08 State vs. Satender @ Satte etc. 93 /99 PW-21 Om Prakash who had testified that accused Sattender @ Satte was arrested in his presence from market. The arrest of the accused Sattender @ Satte is thus not doubtful.

43. There is no clinching and convincing evidence on record to point out that the accused persons were innocent.

44. It is not the law that whenever there is a discrepancy, invari- ably its benefit has to go to the accused. Only in the case of major discrepancies, which make the prosecution case absolutely unac- ceptable, that such a benefit can go to an accused but if the discrep- ancy is only minor in nature, no fatality can be attached to it. In A. Shankar vs. State of Karnataka 2011 (6) SCC 279, Hon'ble Supreme Court made following observations in this regard:

17. In all criminal cases, normal discrepancies are bound to occur in the depositions of witnesses due to normal errors of observation, namely, errors of memory due to lapse of time or due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of occurrence. Where the omissions amount to a contradiction, creating a serious doubt about the truthfulness of the witness and other witnesses also make material improvement while deposing in the court, such evidence cannot be safe to rely upon. However, minor contradictions, inconsistencies, embellishments or improvements on trivial matters which do not affect the core of the prosecution case, should not be made a ground on which the evidence can be rejected in its entirety. The court has to form its opinion about the credibility of the witness and record a finding as to whether his deposition inspires confidence. "Exaggerations per 9S.C. No. 84/10 FIR No. 208/08 State vs. Satender @ Satte etc. 94 /99 se do not render the evidence brittle. But it can be one of the factors to test credibility of the prosecution version, when the entire evidence is put in a crucible for being tested on the touchstone of credibility." Therefore, mere marginal variations in the statements of a witness cannot be dubbed as improvements as the same may be elaborations of the statement made by the witness earlier. "Irrelevant details which do not in any way corrode the credibility of a witness cannot be labelled as omissions or contradictions." The omissions which amount to contradictions in material particulars, i.e., materially affect the trial or core of the prosecution's case, render the testimony of the witness liable to be discredited. [Vide: State Represented by Inspector of Police v. Saravanan & Anr., AIR 2009 SC 152;

Arumugam v. State, AIR 2009 SC 331; Mahendra Pratap Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2009) 11 SCC 334; Dr. Sunil Kumar Sambhudayal Gupta & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra, JT 2010 (12) SC 287; Vijay @ Chinee v. State of M.P., (2010) 8 SCC 191; State of U.P. v. Naresh & Ors., (2011) 4 SCC 324; and Brahm Swaroop & Anr. v. State of U.P., AIR 2011 SC 280].

45. Similarly, in the case of Sucha Singh & Anr. v. State of Punjab 2003 (7) SCC 643 Hon'ble Supreme Court held that:

"20. Exaggerated devotion to the rule of benefit of doubt must not nurture fanciful doubts or lingering suspicion and thereby destroy social defence. Justice cannot be made sterile on the plea that it is better to let hundred guilty escape than punish an innocent. Letting guilty escape is not doing justice according to law. (See Gurbachan Singh v. Satpal Singh & Ors. (AIR 1990 SC 209). Prosecution is not required to meet any and every hypothesis put forward by the accused (See State of U.P. v. Ashok Kumar Srivastava (AIR 1992 SC 840). A reasonable doubt is not an imaginary, trivial or merely possible doubt, but a fair doubt based upon reason and common sense. It must grow out of the evidence in the case. If a case is proved perfectly, it is argued that it is artificial; if a case has some flaws inevitable because human beings are prone to err, it is argued that it is too imperfect. One wonders whether in the meticulous hypersensitivity to eliminate a rare innocent from being punished, many guilty persons must be allowed to escape. Proof beyond reasonable doubt is a 9S.C. No. 84/10 FIR No. 208/08 State vs. Satender @ Satte etc. 95 /99 guideline, not a fetish. (See Inder Singh and another v. State (Delhi Admn.) (AIR 1978 SC 1091. Vague hunches cannot take place of judicial evaluation. 'A Judge does not preside over a criminal trial, merely to see that no innocent man is punished. A Judge also presides to see that a guilty man, does not escape. Both are public duties.' (Per Viscount Simen in Stirland v. Director of Public Prosecutor 91944 AC (PC 315) quoted in State of U.P. v. Anil Singh (AIR 1988 SC 1998). Doubts would be called reasonable if they are free from a zest for abstract speculation. Law cannot afford any favourite other than truth."

46. Section 300 of IPC provides that culpable homicide is murder if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death. As a general rule, intention is to be gathered from the acts of the accused. Nature of weapon used, part of the body where the blow was given, force used in giving the blows are the circumstances from which the inference of intention is to be drawn. Accused persons, namely, Sattender @ Satte and Sushil @ Jalebi attacked the deceased with knives and gave him as many as 18 blows of knives, out of which 7 injuries were individually sufficient to cause death. The very fact that as many as 18 blows of knives were given to the deceased shows that the deceased was attacked by the accused persons, namely, Sattender Satte and Sushil @ Jalebi with an intention to cause his death. 9S.C. No. 84/10 FIR No. 208/08 State vs. Satender @ Satte etc. 96 /99 The motive of the attack was robbery as the accused persons wanted to snatch mobile phone of the deceased from him. The prosecution has thus been able to show that the accused persons namely, Sattender Satte and Sushil @ Jalebi in furtherance of their common intention attacked the deceased and caused his death. Both the accused persons namely, Sattender Satte and Sushil @ Jalebi are thus guilty of the offence of murder of deceased Ramu and are convicted u/s 302/34 IPC. Accused Ram Singh @ Aarami is acquitted for the offence under Section 302 IPC as there is no overt act of stabbing attributable to him.

47. Accused persons were also charged u/s 397 IPC which is an aggravated form of robbery which inter-alia provides that if at the time of committing robbery, the accused uses any deadly weapon, he would be guilty of the offence u/s 397 IPC. The offence u/s 397 IPC is an individual offence and an accused cannot be convicted with the aid of section 34 IPC. In other words, only that accused, who had used deadly weapon at the time of committing robbery, can be convicted u/s 397 IPC and not an accused who had not used 9S.C. No. 84/10 FIR No. 208/08 State vs. Satender @ Satte etc. 97 /99 any deadly weapon but might have participated in the robbery. Evidence has come on record that accused Sattender @ Satte and accused Sushil @ Jalebi had used knives on the deceased and had taken away his mobile phone. The knives used were 'deadly weapons' as not only they were of big sizes (11.5 cm long x 2.3 cm wide blade of knife used by accused Sattender @ Satte and 14.5 cm long x 2.5 cm wide blade of the knife used by accused Sushil @ Jalebi) but the victim Ramu had succumbed to the knife blows. Thus, both of the accused persons namely Sattender @ Satte and Sushil @ Jalebi are also convicted for the offence u/s 397 IPC. However, so far as accused Ram Singh @ Aarami is concerned, he had also participated in the robbery but there is nothing on record to show that he had also used any deadly weapon for committing the offence of robbery, accused Ram Singh @ Aarami is therefore, convicted for the minor offence of robbery u/s 394 IPC as he had jointly committed robbery of the mobile phone with other two co-accused persons, who had given multiple knife blows to the victim Ramu.

9S.C. No. 84/10 FIR No. 208/08 State vs. Satender @ Satte etc. 98 /99

48. In the net result, accused persons Sattender @ Satte and Sushil @ Jalebi are convicted for the offence under section 302/34 IPC and Section 397 IPC. Accused Ram Singh @ Aarami is convicted u/s 394 IPC.

Announced in the open Court.                                   (Rajeev Bansal)
Dated:25.03.2014                                            ASJ-3/South District
                                                           Saket Courts, New Delhi




9S.C. No. 84/10 FIR No. 208/08   State vs. Satender @ Satte etc.              99 /99
         IN THE COURT OF SHRI RAJEEV BANSAL,
         ASJ-03 (SOUTH DISTRICT), SAKET COURTS,
                       NEW DELHI.

                              S.C. No.84/10
                    (Unique ID No. 02103R0060882009)

                                                                       FIR No.208/08
                                                                   PS: Lodhi Colony
                                                              u/s:394/397/302/34 IPC

State

 vs

(1)     Satender @ Satte
        S/o Basant Singh
        R/o House No. 192, Aliganj,
        Kotla Mubarakpur, New Delhi

(2)     Sushil @ Jalebi
        S/o Virender Kumar Gupta
        R/o House No. 1915, Pilanji,
        Kotla Mubarakpur, New Delhi.

(3)     Ram Singh @ Aarami
        S/o Ajay Pal Singh
        R/o House No. 1945, Pilanji,
        Kotla Mubarakpur, New Delhi.

                            ORDER ON SENTENCE


PRESENT: Sh. S.K. Kain, Ld. Addl.PP for State.
         All convicts in JC with Counsels.

Shri Shivaji Shukla, Ld. Counsel for convicts Sattender @ 9S.C. No. 84/10 FIR No. 208/08 State vs. Satender @ Satte etc. 100 /99 Satte and Ram Singh @ Aarami has stated that both the convicts are of young age and come from a poor background and, therefore, a lenient view may be taken against them while passing the sentence.

Sh. Rajeev Jain, Ld. Counsel for convict Sushil @ Jalebi has stated that a lenient view may be taken in sentencing the convict as he is a poor person.

On the other hand, the Ld. Addl. PP has argued that the convicts be given maximum punishment as Ramu has been murdered after giving multiple stab injuries and his mobile phone was also robbed.

Heard both the Ld. Counsels and have perused the records.

The conviction of convicts Sattender @ Satte and Sushil @ Jalebi is under Section 302 and 397 IPC. Section 302 IPC provides for a punishment of death or imprisonment for life and also to fine. Section 397 IPC provides for a punishment of RI of not less than seven years.

There have been judicial pronouncements that in a case under Section 302 IPC, the sentence of life imprisonment shall be the rule and the punishment of death shall be exception, which 9S.C. No. 84/10 FIR No. 208/08 State vs. Satender @ Satte etc. 101 /99 shall be awarded only in cases which fall within the category of rarest of rare cases. No such evidence has been brought on record which can classify the present offence to qualify for being called 'rarest of rare'.

Having regard to the manner in which the offence was committed and the circumstance that multiple stab injuries were given to the victim who succumbed to the same, I deem it appropriate to sentence the convicts Sattender @ Satte and Sushil @ Jalebi to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- each for the offence under Section 302 IPC and in default of payment of fine, the convicts shall further undergo simple imprisonment of one year.

For the offence under Section 397 IPC, the convicts Sattender @ Satte and Sushil @ Jalebi are sentenced to RI of 10 years.

Conviction of accused Ram Singh @ Aarami is under Section 394 IPC which provides for a punishment of imprisonment for life or RI for a term upto 10 years and fine. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, the convict Ram Singh @ Aarami is awarded a sentence of 7 years RI and to pay a fine of Rs. 7,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to suffer further SI of one year.

9S.C. No. 84/10 FIR No. 208/08 State vs. Satender @ Satte etc. 102 /99 All the sentences shall run concurrently. The convicts shall be entitled to the benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C.

Fine of Rs.7,000/- has been paid on behalf of convict Ram Singh @ Aarami, but fine on behalf of other convicts, namely, Sattender @ Satte and Sushil @ Jalebi not paid.

Copy of the judgment and copy of the order on sentence is given to the convicts free of cost.

File be consigned to the Record Room.

Announced in the open court.                             (Rajeev Bansal)
Dated: 28.03.2014                                      ASJ-3/South District
                                                     Saket Courts, New Delhi




9S.C. No. 84/10 FIR No. 208/08   State vs. Satender @ Satte etc.          103 /99