Delhi District Court
State vs Santosh @ Lucky Ors on 8 January, 2024
DLNW010004032015
Presented on : 10-01-2015
Registered on : 04-02-2015
Decided on : 08-01-2024
Duration : 8 years, 11 months,
29 days
IN THE COURT OF
ASJ/SPECIAL JUDGE(NDPS)
AT NORTH WEST, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
(Presided Over by Sh. Vikram)
SC/52073/2016
Annexure 'A'- List of witnesses
Annexure 'B'- List of exhibits
STATE
Through Police Station Officer Vijay Vihar
NORTH WEST DELHI
VERSUS
1. SANTOSH @ LUCKY
S/o Sh. Ashok Sahni
R/o E-5/10, near Maharana Pratap Chowk,
Shahbad Dairy, Delhi.
2. VED RAM PAL
S/o Sh. Udhan Sinhg Pal
R/o B-1221, near Maharana Pratap Chowk,
Shahbad Dairy, Delhi.
3. TRI DEV
S/o Sh. Bache Lal
R/o B-2/4, near Maharana Pratap Chowk,
SC No. 52073/2016 State Vs. Santosh @ Lucky & ors. Page no.1
Shahbad Dairy, Delhi.
4. ANIL @ TUNDA
S/o Sh. Tripura
R/o Village Murli, PS Bangaon,
Distt. Sharsha, Bihar.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ld. Addl. APP for State : Sh. K.D. Pachauri
Ld. Amicus Curaie for accused Santosh @ Lucky and Anil @
Tunda : Sh. Rajeev Kadian
Ld. counsel for accused Ved Ram Pal and Tridev: Sh. C.M.
Sangwan
FIR No. : 1175/2014
Police Station : Vijay Vihar
Under Section : 302/307/186/353/34,395/397, 397/34,
412 IPC & 25/27 Arms Act
JUDGMENT
(Delivered on 08-01-2024)
1. Brief facts of the prosecution case, as projected from chargesheet, are that in the intervening night of 12/13-10.2014 Ct. Jagbir (deceased) and Ct. Narender (Pw43) had departed from PS Vijay Vihar, for paroling, vide DD no. 83B (Ex.Pw36/A), to Vijay Vihar division. Deceased had got issued one service Pistol and 5 rounds vide Ex.Pw11/B on 10.10.2014 and he was carrying that pistol on that night. Pw43 and deceased went for patrolling on Motorcycle of deceased. At about 1.30 am, at Som Bazar road, while patrolling, they saw an Auto coming. They stopped the auto for inquiry. There were five persons in that auto, including the driver. During inquiry those boys told SC No. 52073/2016 State Vs. Santosh @ Lucky & ors. Page no.2 deceased and Pw43 that they are glass workers and one of them showed a glass cutting tool. Pw43 took that glass cutter and kept the same near the motorcycle and occupants of auto were asked to drive towards PS for verification. Deceased and Pw43 stood hanging on the sides of auto and told the driver to drive to PS. The auto driver drove for about 30-40 meters and then stopped as one of the occupant asked him to stop. Deceased and Pw43 got down from auto and asked them why they have stopped the auto on which they started argument. During argument one of the passenger in the auto said "samaan kab kaam aayega (When will the weapon come handy?)". On this the boy sitting next to him took out a country made pistol and fired on the chest of deceased. On being shot deceased asked Pw43 to bring other staff from PS. The moment Pw43 turned back to call for backup, another boy took out a country made pistol and fired at Pw43. The bullet hit on the back, below shoulder, of Pw43. Pw43 ran to PS and while running called duty officer informing the incident and asked him to send police at Som Bazar Road. When Pw43 reached at the gate of PS he met SI Sonu Ram (Pw41). Pw41 immediately took out vehicle (gypsy) and alongwith Pw43 and other officials rushed to the spot.
2. When Pw41 and team reached at the spot they found deceased in pool of blood. Other patrolling staff also reached their. The patrolling staff were instructed to preserve the spot and deceased was put in the gypsy to be taken to hospital. On the way to hospital it was observed that service revolver, mobile phone and other articles were missing. Deceased and Pw43 were Taken SC No. 52073/2016 State Vs. Santosh @ Lucky & ors. Page no.3 to BSA Hospital. At the hospital deceased was declared brought dead. Pw43 was given first aid but there was no facility of CT Scan therefore he was shifted to Jaipur Golden Hospital. Inspector R.C. Dhaiya (Pw44/IO) being senior official took charge of investigation and at Jaipur Golden Hospital recorded statement of Pw43 (Ex.Pw43/P-1). In his statement Pw43 described that the driver of auto was about 30-35 years old, three boys were in between 22-27 years and one boy was about 17-20 years old and he can identify them.
3. After recording Ex.Pw43/P-1, IO prepared Rukka Ex.Pw44/P-1 and got the FIR Ex.Pw32/C registered. IO went to the spot, got it inspected by Crime Team, which took photographs and then IO prepared the site plan. From the spot IO lifted the exhibits. As no clue of accused was found alert was issued.
4. ASI Anil Kumar (Pw40) and his team, posted in Special Staff got orders, on 13.10.2014, for finding clue and vide Ex.Pw40/A, his team departed PS for collecting the information. On the same evening his team got secret information that one Santosh is involved in firing incident of Vijay Vihar. Raiding team was constituted in which secret informer was joined. The team reached at Shahbad Dairy Chowk where at about 7 PM, one person coming from the side of Shahbad dairy was identified by secret informer as the Santosh, involved in firing at police official at Vijay Vihar. Santosh was apprehended and on interrogation he confessed about the crime. Santosh was arrested SC No. 52073/2016 State Vs. Santosh @ Lucky & ors. Page no.4 u/S 41.1A Cr.PC vide memo Ex.Pw40/B and from his personal search one mobile phone, few documents and cash amount of Rs. 771 were recovered vide memo Ex.Pw40/C. Pw40 recorded his disclosure statement (Ex.Pw40/D).
5. In Ex.Pw40/D Santosh disclosed that he and his friend Anil @ Tunda had released form jail after which they prepared a group in which one CCL 'R', Tridev and Ved Ram Pal were joined. Ved Ram Pal was TSR driver who used to drive Auto in night and his role was fixed to ferry their gang, for they would pay him for every round. Anil had arranged three country made fire arms which were kept in house of Santosh and on the date of incident they had planned to commit burglary in some jewelery shop. As per plan Ved Ram was called with TSR and Rakesh and Tridev were joined. He had loaded all three fire arms and distributed one each to Anil and CCL 'R' and kept one with himself. They were going from Lal Quarter side to sector 5 and when they reached at spot the police spotted them and as they did not want to go back to jail he shot at one police official on the chest and Anil shot at the other police official, trying to run. Santosh also disclosed that the police officer who was shot at chest started scuffling with them while the auto was driven and as he continued scuffling he was hit on his head and mouth. Still the police officer did not leave them therefore they stopped the Auto and dragged the police official away from auto. Before leaving they took his pistol and mobile phone. The blood of injured police official was spilled on their clothes and auto, therefore, they cleaned the auto. The firearm from CCL 'R' was SC No. 52073/2016 State Vs. Santosh @ Lucky & ors. Page no.5 taken back by him. Anil gave the pistol of police official to him but Anil had kept the rounds with himself. Tridev threw the mobile phone near Japanese Park. Anil also gave his mobile phone. They had destroyed their blood stained shirts by burning. He kept the pistol of police official and two country made fire arms, concealed in his house and stated that he can get them recovered and can also show the place where they have burned their shirts.
6. On the basis of this disclosure Pw40 and his team recovered the service pistol of deceased and two country made firearms ( vide Ex.Pw40/G), mobile of Anil ( vide Ex.Pw40/H), his blood stained jeans (vide Ex.Pw40/I) and ashes of burnt shirt (vide Ex.Pw37/A).
7. After disclosure and recoveries, accused Santosh led the police to the house of accused Ved Ram Pal who was apprehended and interrogated. Ved Ram Pal also confessed the crime, therefore, he was arrested vide memo Ex.Pw40/J and from his personal search vide memo Ex.Pw40/K a phone was recovered. Accused Ved Ram Pal too made disclosure statement Ex.Pw40/L confessing the crime in the same way as accused Santosh confessed. Ved Ram disclosed that after washing the TSR he hid it in DJB Residential Complex sector 5. On his disclosure his clothes having blood stains were seized vide Ex.Pw40/M and he led to discovery of TSR from the place mentioned in disclosure statement, which was seized vide memo Ex.Pw40/N. SC No. 52073/2016 State Vs. Santosh @ Lucky & ors. Page no.6
8. After that Pw40 brought accused Santosh and Ved Ram Pal to PS Special Staff and recorded DD no.7 (Ex.Pw40/O) and prepared Kalandra (Ex.Pw40/P) and passed information to PS Vijay Vihar.
9. On receipt of information from special staff Pw41 formally arrested accused Santosh and Ved Ram Pal and recorded their supplementary disclosure statements. The case property recovered by special staff was deposited in malkhana. On 15.10.2014 the Auto recovered at the instance of accused Ved Ram Pal was examined by FSL experts and they lifted blood samples. CCL 'R' was apprehended on secret information and he too admitted about the offence in his child version and through separate proceedings CCL was sent to OBH. On 15.10.2014 itself Tridev was also arrested and he too confessed his involvement in crime and his clothes were seized.
10. During investigation Pw43 identified accused Santosh, CCL 'R' and Ved Ram Pal in TIP but failed to identify Tridev. However, during police remand Pw43 identified Tridev as one of the occupant of auto.
11. Anil @ Tunda had absconded after incident. While special staff was looking for his clue, on 18.12.2014, Pw40 got secret information that Anil is living in Guahati, Assam. Therefore, with permission of senior officials, vide DD no. 14 (Ex.Pw40/Q), Pw40 with his team departed for Assam. In Assam, at Village SC No. 52073/2016 State Vs. Santosh @ Lucky & ors. Page no.7 Rajghar, within Jurisdiction of PS Pragjyotishpur, accused Anil was arrested vide Ex.Pw40/R. Information of his arrest (Ex.Pw40/T & U) was recorded in PS Pragjyotishpur and vide application Ex.Pw40/V, Pw40 applied for 4 days transit remand before District Magistrate Kamrup Metropolitan Distrct Guahati. The application was allowed on 20.12.2014 and vide DD no. 10 dated 22.12.2014 (Ex.Pw40/W) accused Anil was brought to PS Special Staff and Kalandra (Ex.Pw40/X) was prepared.
12. On receipt of information of arrest of Anil, IO formally arrested him and recorded his disclosure statement (Ex.Pw44/P24). He refused o participate in judicial TIP, however, was identified by Pw43 in PS and after recording supplementary disclosure (Ex.Pw20/A), Anil got recovered one country made pistol vide memo Ex.Pw44/P30 and 5 live rounds of pistol of deceased vide memo Ex.Pw44/P31.
CHARGES
13. After concluding the investigation IO filed chargesheet against all accused persons u/S 302/307/395/396/397/186/353/ 412/34 IPC. Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate after compliance of section 207 Cr.PC committed the case to this court for trial. On 06.04.2014 Ld. Predecessor settled the charges u/S 302/307/395/396/186/353/34 IPC against all accused persons and additionally u/S 397/412 IPC and 25/27 Arms Act against accused Santosh and Anil @Tunda. To the charges accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
SC No. 52073/2016 State Vs. Santosh @ Lucky & ors. Page no.8 EVIDENCE
14. To prove its case prosecution examined 54 witnesses. A gist of their testimony is as under:
14.1 Pw1 Ct. Deepak through affidavit Ex.Pw1/1 deposed that on 12.10.2014 he was posted as Duty Constable at BSA Hospital when Ct. Jagbir and Ct. Narender were admitted in the hospital and Ct. Jagbir was declared brought dead. He had witnessed the seizure of clothes and proved the memos of same as Ex.Pw1/A and Ex.Pw1/B. 14.2 Pw2 Ct. Satish had joined with IO on 13.10.2014 when, after PM of Ct. Jagbir, his clothes, bullet recovered from his body and blood gauze were seized and he proved the seizure memo Ex.Pw2/A. 14.3 Pw3 Ct. Subba Ram had, on 30.10.2014, collected a sealed envelop containing blood sample of Ct. Narender and proved its seizure memo Ex.Pw3/A. 14.4 Pw4 Dr. Mukesh deposed about GSR test of CCL 'R' which came out to be negative.
14.5 Pw5 Dr. Kumar Akhilesh from BSA Hospital proved the SC No. 52073/2016 State Vs. Santosh @ Lucky & ors. Page no.9 MLC Ex.Pw5/A, dated 30.10.2014, of Ct. Narender (Pw43), regarding collection of blood sample.
14.6 Pw6 Dr. Mayur and Pw34 Dr. Sanjay Sharma from BSA Hospital proved the MLC of Ct. Narender, dated 13.10.2014, as Ex.Pw6/A and the observations Ex.Pw6/B. 14.7 Pw7 Dr. Mahesh Mangal and Pw8 Dr. Bheem Singh from Ganga Ram Hospital proved the discharge ticket of Ct.
Narender and surgical notes as Ex.Pw7/A and B respectively. Pw8 additionally proved the letter Ex.Pw8/A of handing over the bullet removed from body of Ct. Narender, to Medical Superintendent. He also proved his opinion Ex.Pw8/B on the injury of Ct. Narender.
14.8 Pw9 Dr. Subodh Gupta proved the treatment file of Ct. Narender from Jaipur Golden Hospital as Ex.Pw9/A. 14.9 Pw10 Inspector Manohar Lal proved the scaled site plan Ex.Pw10/B. 14.10 Pw11 HC Jasbir and Pw12 Ct. Sunny proved the entries in Arms Register, of issuance of pistol and five rounds to Ct. Jagbir as Ex.Pw11/B. SC No. 52073/2016 State Vs. Santosh @ Lucky & ors. Page no.10 14.11 Pw13 Ct. Pawan had taken the case property from Malkhana, vide RC no. 323/21/14 on 10.11.2014, and deposited the same in FSL, against receipt which he handed over to MHC(M).
14.12 Pw14 HC Purshottam is MHC(M) and he proved the entries Ex.Pw14/A to Ex.Pw14/I, in register no. 19, regarding deposit of case properties and exhibits in Malkhana and its sending to FSL.
14.13 Pw15 Inspector Rajpal had taken the case property i.e. DVR from Malkhana, vide RC no. 311/21/14 on 14.10.2014, and deposited the same in FSL, against receipt which he handed over to MHC(M).
14.14 Pw16 Dr. Vijay Dhankhar proved the PM report of Ct. Jagbir as Ex.Pw16/A and he identified the bullet, Ex.P9, retrieved from body of Ct. Jagbir. He also identified blood gauze Ex.P13, of Ct. Jagbir, collected and sealed by him at the time of post mortem.
14.15 Pw17 Addl. DCP Pankaj Kumar proved the sanctions u/S 39 Arms Act against accused Anil and Santosh as Ex.Pw17/A and Ex.Pw17/B respectively.
SC No. 52073/2016 State Vs. Santosh @ Lucky & ors. Page no.11 14.16 Pw18 Pyara Singh MRO Sir Ganga Ram Hospital and Pw31 Ct. Harbinder proved the seizure memo of bullet extracted from Ct. Narender, as Ex.Pw18/A. 14.17 Pw19 Ct. Tushar is photographer of Crime Team who photographed the spot on the date of incident and proved the same as Ex.Pw19/B1 to B24 with its negatives Ex.Pw19/A1 to A24.
14.18 Pw20 Ct. Amit had joined the investigation on 13.10.2014 when he delivered the copies of FIR to Area Magistrate and senior police officials. He also joined investigation on 26.12.2014 when accused Anil was taken in police remand and he gave supplementary disclosure statement. He proved his supplementary disclosure Ex.Pw20/A. He had also joined investigation on 05.01.2015 when he collected sealed exhibits vide RC No. 2/21/15 and 3/21/15 from Malkhana and deposited the same in FSL, against receipt.
14.19 Pw21 Ct. Bhagwati Prasad had taken the case property from Malkhana, vide RC no. 322/21/14 on 10.11.2014, and deposited the same in FSL, against receipt which he handed over to MHC(M).
14.20 Pw22 Ct. Pradeep joined the investigation on SC No. 52073/2016 State Vs. Santosh @ Lucky & ors. Page no.12 16.10.2014 when accused Tridev during police custody pointed out the place of occurrence and he proved the pointing out memo Ex.Pw22/A. 14.21 Pw23 Pawan is the registered owner of auto no. DL 1RN 9903 i.e. the vehicle used in commission of crime. He deposed that accused Ved Ram used to take his auto in night shift and on 12.10.2014 he had handed the auto to accused Vedram and on next day accused Ved Ram called him and informed that he has parked the Auto in front of his house. Pw23 also deposed that on that day, against the usual routine of returning the auto at 8 AM, Ved Ram had called him at 5.30 am. He also deposed that as he was busy on 13.10.2014 he did not ply the auto on that day. He proved the Auto as Ex.P15 and its photographs Ex.Pw40/Y1 to Y10.
14.22 Pw24. Ct. Namdev proved the pointing out memo of place of occurrence by accused Santosh, dated 29.10.2014 as Ex.Pw24/A. 14.23 Pw25 Dr. V.R. Anand proved the ballistic reports of the arms recovered from accused Santosh and Anil as Ex.Pw14/H and Ex.Pw14/G respectively. He identified and proved the Pistol as Ex.P1, country made fire arms recovered from accused Santosh as Ex.Pw2 and Ex.P3, bullets Ex.P9 and Ex.P10, cartridge case Ex.P11 and country made pistol SC No. 52073/2016 State Vs. Santosh @ Lucky & ors. Page no.13 recovered from accused Anil Ex.P12.
14.24 Pw26 Dr. Garima Chaudhary, Sr. Forensic Examiner had, on 15.10.2014, on request of SHO inspected the Auto in which she found some suspected stains and lifted those exhibits and handed over to IO. She proved her report Ex.Pw26/A. 14.25 Pw27 Shamsher Singh proved dead body identification memo Ex.Pw27/A. 14.26 Pw28. Dr. Richa from BSA Hospital had examined Ct. Jagbir and Ct. Narender and proved their MLCs Ex.Pw28/A and Ex.Pw28/B respectively. She also deposed that before shifting the body of Ct. Jagbir to mortuary she had sealed the clothes and duty belt with Pistol cover and handed Over to Duty Constable Deepak. She had also sealed the blood soaked shirt and brief (baniyan) of Ct. Narender and handed over to Duty Constable. Pw28 identified the shirt, Pants, Holster, jacket and belt of Ct. Jagbir as Ex.Pw43/P4, Ex.Pw43/P6, Ex.Pw43/P7 and Ex.Pw28/M1 respectively. She also identified the shirt and vest of Ct. Narender as Ex.Pw43/M1 and Ex.Pw43/M2 respectively.
14.27 Pw29 ASI Arjun Singh proved the DD entry SC No. 52073/2016 State Vs. Santosh @ Lucky & ors. Page no.14 regarding receipt of information of arrest of accused Santosh and Ved Ram Pal, from Special Cell as Ex.Pw29/A. 14.28 Pw30 Ajay Nagar MM proved the TIP proceedings of accused persons Ex.Pw30/A to Ex.Pw30/I. 14.29 Pw32 ASI Ram Parvesh is the duty officer PS Vijay Vihar on 13.10.2014. He deposed that at about 1.30/1.45 am he received the call from Ct. Narender about the incident and his request to send staff. Therefore he passed the information to SI Sonu Ram who was on emergency duty and in the meantime Ct. Narender arrived at the gate of PS after which SI Sonu Ram with other staff and Ct. Narender left for spot on gypsy. He proved the DD entry regarding receipt of information of admission of Ct. Jagbir and Ct. Narender, from hospital, as Ex.Pw32/A. He had informed the SHO after which SHO left for BSA Hospital vide DD no. 5A Ex.Pw32/B. He had also recorded the FIR and proved the same as Ex.Pw32/C and the endorsement on Rukka Ex.Pw32/D. He also proved DD no. 7A of sending the FIR to MM concerned and higher officials through special messenger as Ex.Pw32/E. 14.30 Pw33 Ct. Praveen was on patrolling at different area with another Ct. Praveen when he got the information of incident on wireless therefore they both reached at spot. He deposed that at spot he met SI Sonu Ram who instructed them to SC No. 52073/2016 State Vs. Santosh @ Lucky & ors. Page no.15 preserve the spot as SI Sonu Ram left, with injured, for hospital. He further deposed that at about 4.00/4.30 am SHO and other staff arrived and crime team conducted its proceedings after which SHO prepared Rukka and sent for registration of FIR.
14.31 Pw35 Dr. Amit Sharma had examined Ct. Narender for surgery and advised X-ray but for non turning of patient he made LAMA endorsement in MLC and proved the same as Ex.Pw35/A. 14.32 Pw36 Ct. Satender Singh proved the DD no. 83B regarding departure of Ct. Jagbir, Ct. Sonu Ram, Ct. Praveen and other police officials, for patrolling, dated 12.10.2014 as Ex.Pw36/A. He also proved the DD No. 89B dated 22.12.2014 regarding arrest of accused Anil @Tunda, received from Special Staff as Ex.Pw36/B. 14.33 Pw37ASI Mohan Lal was MHC(M) GP in PS South Rohini on 14.10.2014. He deposed that he was informed by duty officer to visit PS Special Staff for carrying some videography and when he reached at office of PS Special Staff he met ASI Anil who told him to accompany them to the place where accused Santosh will point out and that proceedings are to be video graphed. He further deposed that accused Santosh led them to F Block Shahbad Dairy and pointed to a place where near the block of bricks there were some ashes in a pit, to which SC No. 52073/2016 State Vs. Santosh @ Lucky & ors. Page no.16 accused Santosh had told that the ashes are of his shirt and those ashes were converted into pulanda and seized vide memo Ex.Pw37A. Pw37 had videographed entire proceedings and handed over the CD of the video to IO vide memo Ex.Pw37/B. He proved the CD containing recording as Ex.Pw37/C. He identified the pulanda and ashes as Ex.P8.
14.34 Pw39 SI Virender had, on 12.10.2014, on instructions of senior officials, shifted CT. Narender from BSA Hospital to Jaipur Golden Hospital.
14.35 Pw39 HC Narender Kumar was present at the gate of PS Vijay Vihar when Ct. Narender came in injured condition and being an operator to the SHO he accompanied SI Sonuram, Ct. Narender and other police officials, in police gypsy, to spot. He remained with SI Sonu Ram till admission of Ct. Jagbir and Ct. Narender in BSA Hospital and after arrival of IO he accompanied the IO to Jaipur golden hospital. He remained with IO till post mortem of deceased.
14.36 Pw40 ASI Anil Kumar, Pw42 ASI Naresh and Pw49 HC Sandeep Kumar are from special staff who arrested accused Santosh, Vedram Pal and Anil. They proved departure entry Ex.Pw40/A, arrest memo of Santosh Ex.Pw40/B, his personal search memo Ex.Pw40/C and disclosure statement Ex.Pw40/D. It is Pw40 who had effected recoveries at the instance of accused Santosh and they proved the sketches of two SC No. 52073/2016 State Vs. Santosh @ Lucky & ors. Page no.17 Kattas (country made firearm) Ex.Pw40/E and F and their seizure memo, including the service pistol of Ct. Jagbir, Ex.Pw40/G. They also proved the seizure memo of mobile phone recovered from accused Santosh as Ex.Pw40/H and his blood stained jeans pants Ex.Pw40/I. Pw40 had also seized the ashes of burnt shirt of accused Santosh from a place led and pointed by accused Santosh and had prepared seizure memo Ex.Pw37/A. They had also arrested accused Ved Ram Pal at the instance of accused Santosh and proved his arrest memo Ex.Pw40/J, personal search Ex.Pw40/K and disclosure statement Ex.Pw40/L. They had also seized the clothes of accused Ved Ram Pal and the Auto bearing number DL 1RN 9903 at the instance of accused Vedram Pal and proved their seizure memos Ex.Pw40/M and N respectively. They also proved their arrival in PS Special Staff whereby accused Santosh and Vedram Pal alongwith case property were brought in PS and proved the same as Ex.Pw40/O and after that Pw40 had informed PS Vijay Vihar and prepared Kalandra Ex.Pw40/P. Accused Anil @ Tunda was also arrested from Assam by Pw40 and team, which included Pw42, on secret information received on 18.12.2014. In this regard they proved the departure entry Ex.Pw40/Q, arrest memo Ex.Pw40/R and personal search memo Ex.Pw40/S. After arrest accused Anil was lodged in local police station and they proved its entry Ex.Pw40/T (written in Bengali) and its translation Ex.Pw40/U. Pw40 had applied for transit remand vide application Ex.Pw40/V SC No. 52073/2016 State Vs. Santosh @ Lucky & ors. Page no.18 after which accused Anil was brought to Delhi. They also proved the arrival entry Ex.Pw40/W. After intimating PS Vijay Vihar regarding arrest of accused Anil, Pw40 prepared Kalandra Ex.Pw40/X in which Pw42 is witness. Pw40 and pw42 identified and proved the case properties viz., service pistol, country made firearms recovered from accused Santosh, bag in which the arms were kept, mobile phone, pants of Santosh, pants and shirt of Ved Ram Pal, burnt cloth pieces as Ex.P1 to P8. He also identified the TSR Ex.P15 through photographs Ex.Pw40/Y1 to Y10.
14.37 Pw41 SI Sonu Ram is the officer who had first responded to the incident when Ct. Narender met him and after taking the investigation by IO he remained with IO during investigation. Pw41 proved the site plan Ex.Pw41/A, seizure memos of exhibits i.e. blood stained gauze, blood stained earth and control sample, lifted from the spot Ex.Pw1/B to D. He also proved the sketch of the cartridge lifted from spot Ex.Pw41/E and its seizure memo Ex.Pw41/F, seizure memo of patrolling baton/club (danda) Ex.Pw41/G, of motorcycle of Ct. Jagbir Ex.Pw41/H, of glass cutter Ex.Pw41/I and of the florescent jacket of Ct. Jagbir Ex.Pw41/J. He is also witness in seizure memos Ex.Pw1/A, Ex.Pw1/B, Ex.Pw2/A and seizure memo of DVR Ex.Pw44/P6.
Pw41 was with IO when CCL 'R' was apprehended on secret information and he being JWO conducted inquiry against him. He proved the apprehension memo of CCL R as Ex.Pw41/P1, child version Ex.Pw41/P2, his social background SC No. 52073/2016 State Vs. Santosh @ Lucky & ors. Page no.19 report Ex.Pw41/P3, seizure memo of his clothes Ex.Pw41/P4.
He was also present with IO at the time of arrest of accused Tridev who was apprehended on secret information and witnessed his arrest memo Ex.Pw44/P17, personal search Ex.Pw44/P18, disclosure statement Ex.Pw44/P15, seizure memo of his pants and shirt Ex.Pw44/P19 and pointing out memo Ex.Pw22/A. Pw41 had also joined investigation on 23.12.2014 when IO had applied for permission for interrogation and arrest of accused Anil and witnessed the disclosure statement of accused Anil @ Tunda Ex.Pw44/P24, his arrest memo Ex.Pw44/P25. He had, on instructions of IO, applied for PC remand of accused Anil vide application Ex.Pw41/P5 which was allowed vide order Ex.Pw41/P6. He is witness to supplementary disclosure of accused Anil Ex.Pw20/A. He also proved the pointing out memo of accused Anil Ex.Pw41/P7 and is witness to sketch of country made pistol recovered at his instance Ex.Pw44/P29, its seizure memo Ex.Pw44/P30, seizure memo of 5 live 9mm rounds Ex.Pw44/P31 and he also proved the site plan of place of recovery Ex.Pw41/P8. Pw41 identified and proved the case properties, proved in the testimony of complainant/Pw43.
14.38 Pw43 Ct. Narender is the complainant and injured. He deposed about the incident and proved his statement Ex.Pw43/P1. He also deposed that during TIP he had identified SC No. 52073/2016 State Vs. Santosh @ Lucky & ors. Page no.20 accused Santosh as the shooter of Ct. Jagbir and Ved Ram Pal as driver of TSR. He also deposed that in TIP he could not identify accused Tridev but during PC remand of Tridev when he had gone to PS he had identified him. In the court during examination he identified all accused persons and deposed that Vedram Pal was driver, Santosh Shot Ct. Jagbir, Anil @ Tunda shot him when he was running to PS and Tridev as the occupant. He also deposed that as he was turning to go to PS Vedram Pal told other occupants that "isne number note kar diya hai isko bhi maar do (he has noted the number kill him too)". To accused Tridev Pw43 deposed that he was sitting third from right and was involved in arguments and was agitating with other accused.
Pw43 further deposed that during investigation he had identified the TSR and also identified the CCL 'R' in judicial TIP and had identified Anil in PS, during PC, as the one who shot him on his back. Pw43 identified the case properties i.e. his uniform shirt having bullet hole and blood stains Ex.Pw43/M1, his blood smeared vest Ex.Pw43/M2, florescent jacket worn by him on the date of incident Ex.Pw43/M3, clothes, belt/holster and jacket of Ct. Jagbir Ex.Pw43/M4 to M7, service revolver of Ct. Jagbir Ex.P1, glass cutter Ex.Pw43/M1, baton/Danda Ex.Pw43/M2, motorcycle through photographs Ex.Pw43/M3 to M7, and TSR Ex.P15 through photographs Ex.Pw40/Y1 to Y10.
14.39 Pw44 Inspector RC Dhaiya is IO. He deposed about the investigation and all the exhibits prepared in investigation. He proved Rukka Ex.Pw44/P1, crime team report SC No. 52073/2016 State Vs. Santosh @ Lucky & ors. Page no.21 Ex.Pw44/P2, dead body identification memo Ex.Pw44/P3, inquest papers Ex.Pw44/P4, dead body handing over memo Ex.Pw44/P5, seizure memo of DVR containing footage of the night of incident Ex.Pw44/P6, MLCs of accused Santosh and Vedram Pal conducted after arrest by Special Staff Ex.Pw44/P7 and P8, application for interrogation and formal arrest of accused Santosh and Ved Ram Pal Ex.Pw44/P9, disclosure statements of accused Santosh and Ved Ram Pal Ex.Pw44/P10 & P11, their arrest memos Ex.Pw44/P12 & P13 and request application for forensic examination of TSR Ex.Pw44/P14.
Qua accused Tridev Pw44 proved disclosure statement Ex.Pw44/P15, his age memo Ex.Pw44/P16, arrest memo Ex.Pw44/P17, personal search memo Ex.Pw44/P18 and seizure memo of his clothes Ex.Pw44/P19.
Pw44/IO had applied for TIP of accused Santosh, Vedram Pal and Tridev and proved his applications regarding same as Ex.Pw44/P20 to P23. After the arrest of accused Anil by Special Cell Pw44 had applied for permission for his interrogation and after interrogation arrested him. He proved the application as Ex.Pw44/P24, arrest memo Ex.Pw44/P25, application for judicial TIP Ex.Pw44/P26 and application for copy of TIP proceedings Ex.Pw44/P27. As accused Anil had refused TIP, he applied for PC remand vide application Ex.Pw44/P28. Of the recovery of firearm at the instance of accused Anil, Pw44 proved sketch Ex.Pw44/P29 and its seizure memo Ex.Pw44/P30. He also proved the seizure memo, of live .9 mm rounds, recovered at the instance of accused Anil, SC No. 52073/2016 State Vs. Santosh @ Lucky & ors. Page no.22 Ex.Pw44/P31. Pw44 also proved the complaint u/S 195 Cr.PC Ex.Pw44/P33 and the sanction Ex.Pw44/P34.
14.40. Pw45 Inspector Amit Dahiya had seized the bullet retrieved from Ct. Narender vide memo Ex.Pw18/A. 14.41. Pw46 Dr. Ruchi Sharma from Dept of Forensic Science had examined the exhibits for biological and serological reports and proved her reports Ex.Pw14/F and Ex.Pw14/F1. She identified the exhibits she had examined and proved the same as Ex.Pw46/P1 to Ex.Pw46/P14.
14.42. Pw47 Dr. Richa SMO BSA Hospital was called to prove the observations and notings of Dr. Prayas in MLCs of Ct. Jagbir Ex.Pw28/A and of Ct. Narender Ex.Pw28/B. 14.43. Pw48 Retd. ACP Dinesh Kumar was SHO Vijay Vihar who had collected opinions and reports and filed them with supplementary chargesheet. He proved the covering letter of FSL Report Ex.Pw14/I as Ex.Pw48/P1, covering letter of reports Ex.Pw14/F and F1 as Ex.Pw48/P2 and covering letter of ballistic reports Ex.Pw14/G and H as Ex.Pw48/P3 and P4 respectively.
SC No. 52073/2016 State Vs. Santosh @ Lucky & ors. Page no.23 14.44. Pw50 Retd. Inspector Rajpal Singh had on instructions of seniors taken the case property vide RC Ex.Pw14/B, to FSL Gandhi Nagar Gujrat and after inspection of data returned the same vide letter Ex.Pw14/C. 14.45. Pw51 ASI Bhagwati Prasad had taken case property vide RC Ex.Pw14/D and deposited the same in FSL against acknowledgement Ex.Pw51/A. 14.46. Pw52 ASI Pawan Kumar had taken case property vide RC Ex.Pw52/A and deposited the same in FSL against acknowledgement Ex.Pw52/B. 14.47. Pw53 HC Amit Kumar had taken case property vide RC Ex.Pw53/A and deposited the same in FSL against acknowledgement Ex.Pw53/B. 14.48. Pw54 HC Surender had taken case property vide RC Ex.Pw54/A and deposited the same in FSL against acknowledgement Ex.Pw54/B. STATEMENTS OF ACCUSED PERSONS
15. After completion of prosecution evidence the accused persons were examined u/S 313 Cr.PC and they were put with all incriminating evidence for their explanation . The accused SC No. 52073/2016 State Vs. Santosh @ Lucky & ors. Page no.24 persons claimed innocence and false implication.
16. Accused Santosh claimed that he used to feed the information to police as an informer and on the morning after the incident, while he was sleeping, police officials came to his house and asked him about the information of murder of some police official and police wanted him to provide the information regarding same and identify the auto in which those persons had gone. However, he was not aware about the incident, the police kept him in custody and subsequently brought Ved Ram, who he had never met before. He also claimed that police knew him and his TIP was staged. He denied his presence at spot and involvement in the incident and claimed that the police has planted the case properties on him and took his signatures forcibly. Santosh opted to lead defence evidence but then decided not to bring any evidence.
17. Accused Anil @ Tunda also claimed that at the time of incident he was not present at the spot as he was at his home and he came to know about the case on 18.12.2014 only when police came to arrest him at Assam, where he was falsely implicated. He denied to have made any disclosure and claimed that police took his signatures forcibly. He denied leading to any place for any recovery and claimed that the case properties were planted. Anil opted not to lead any evidence in defence.
SC No. 52073/2016 State Vs. Santosh @ Lucky & ors. Page no.25
18. Accused Ved Ram Pal denied that he was the driver of TSR or was with other accused persons at the spot. He also denied that the owner of TSR has lied about giving TSR to him as he failed to show any document regarding such and claimed that TSR as well As owner of TSR were planted by police to implicate him. He denied to have made any disclosure statement and leading to any discovery and claimed that the case property was planted on him. He also claimed that the TIP was only a staged proceedings as he was shown to Pw43 in the PS itself. He also did not opt to lead defence evidence.
19. Accused Tridev also claimed that he was not present at the spot and was falsely implicated therefore Pw43 the eye witness and the victim failed to identify him in TIP. However, police wanted to implicate him therefore made Pw43 identify him again and therefore he deposed false.
ARGUMENTS
20. After completion of Trial final arguments were heard from both sides.
21. For State, Ld. Addl. Public Prosecutor submitted that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubts that accused persons, on the night of incident, were out to commit some crime and when they were stopped by deceased and Pw43 and asked to visit PS, to avoid arrest they fired shots at deceased as well as Pw43, with illegal firearms and when deceased, despite being SC No. 52073/2016 State Vs. Santosh @ Lucky & ors. Page no.26 shot did not leave them they beat him and dragged him out of auto and then robbed his pistol and mobile phone. It is submitted that not only the injured police official have correctly identified and assigned roles played by each accused, his testimony has been corroborated by the subsequent discoveries and the FSL reports. Therefore prosecution has proved its case, beyond reasonable doubts, against all four accused persons on all charges.
22. Per Contra, it is submitted for the defence that case of prosecution is doubtful from very beginning as there is an unusual delay in registration of FIR which makes the version of Pw43 doubtful. It is submitted that deceased Ct. Jagbir was resident of same locality and he may have many enemies and the incident as reported by Pw43 appears to be manufactured because he has made improvements in his testimony, which he had not mentioned in his statements. It is further submitted that since there is a delay in registration of FIR and as the case was blind, the police have planted the service pistol and mobile phones as a case property, showing it robbed from Ct. Jagbir out of which pistol and its rounds are shown to have recovered but there is no trace of the mobile phone, which is impossible, if somebody had robbed phone of police. It is also submitted that the story that accused Santosh had kept the empty pistol and gave the rounds to accused Anil also appears to be a concoction of police otherwise accused Anil would not have taken the rounds, only to conceal them and leave the pistol.
SC No. 52073/2016 State Vs. Santosh @ Lucky & ors. Page no.27
23. It is submitted for accused Santosh that he was an informer of police and on the next morning of incident police had come to him for clues and after keeping him for some times he was framed in this case because he failed to provide clues.
24. For accused Anil it is submitted that Anil was not even present in Delhi and the record shows that he was arrested from Assam and in absence of any record produced by prosecution regarding presence of Anil in Delhi, on the date of incident, there is no case against him.
25. For accused Ved Ram Pal it is submitted that the prosecution has failed to produce any record to show that Pw23 had given the auto rickshaw to him and even it is not proved that the auto rickshaw allegedly shown to be involved was actually the same auto rickshaw in which alleged assailants had come. Defence contends that Pw43 had not given any registration number of auto rickshaw and there is no material on the record which proves the involvement of any particular auto rickshaw. Even the FSL result do not prove that auto rickshaw had blood of deceased Ct. Jagbir. It is also submitted that Pw23 was introduced in the investigation at a much later stage, only after it was found that auto rickshaw belongs to Pw23 and he was tutored to lie in the court.
SC No. 52073/2016 State Vs. Santosh @ Lucky & ors. Page no.28
26. For accused Tridev it is submitted he was nowhere involved in any incident therefore Pw43 failed to examine him in TIP. However, since police had already concocted a case any variation in it would have demolished the case to entirety, Pw43 was made to identify him as an accused.
27. To the testimony of Pw43, who has identified all the accused persons the contention of defence for all accused is that Pw43 had no occasion to memorise the face of any assailant that is why he did not provide any information except the age group and no attempt was done to get prepared the sketch of any accused despite it was a case of murder of police official on duty. Therefore the identification of accused persons by Pw43 is unreliable and doubtful. As such it is contended by defence that no charge is proved against any accused person beyond reasonable doubts. Hence all accused persons are entitled to be acquitted.
FINDINGS
28. Pw43 Narender is not only the eye witness of the incident but also a victim who was shot at his back. He has identified all four accused persons and specified the roles played by them. The defence has questioned this identification of accused persons through Pw43 stating that Pw43 had no opportunity to memorise the face of accused persons and for this reason he did not mention anything about facial descriptions of accused persons in his statement Ex.Pw43/P1 and after the accused persons were SC No. 52073/2016 State Vs. Santosh @ Lucky & ors. Page no.29 falsely arrested by the police, accused persons and their photographs were shown to Pw43 before they were subjected to judicial Test Identification Parade. It is contended that the Pw43 got discharged form hospital on 20.10.2014 yet no TIP was conducted till 26.10.2014, therefore, the witness was shown the photographs/faces of accused persons and tutored to identify them.
29. Therefore the identification of accused persons by Pw43 in the court requires thorough discussion on entire material and circumstances before accepting or discarding the same. However, before adverting to the question of identification I would first discuss the other material collected and discovered during investigation.
30. So far as the exhibits collected from the spot and the bodies of Ct. Jagbir and Pw43 is concerned there is no contest on that. As the defence is that accused persons are falsely implicated in a blind murder case, the things which have been questioned are the discoveries and seizure made from the time of arrest of accused Santosh and the exhibits of spot connected with accused Santosh.
31. There was a TSR involved and there were 5 persons in TSR, including driver, was the information given by Pw43. Police had tried to find out the CCTV footages which could have SC No. 52073/2016 State Vs. Santosh @ Lucky & ors. Page no.30 captured the TSR and in that process, seized one DVR from Brijwasi Jewelers near the SOC vide seizure memo Ex.Pw44/P6. This DVR was sent to FSL Gujrat, however, the video quality was so low that the image generated vide report Ex.Pw14/I do not show any specific identification mark, specially the registration number, to distinctly identify the TSR. Therefore DVR and the report are of no help for prosecution.
32. From the spot IO had also seized Glass cutting tool (Ex.Pw43/M1), allegedly shown by one of the accused. But Pw43 did not specify who had shown that tool. However, the IO did not send it for generating finger prints to match with any of the accused persons. It was the first thing which could have led to some identification mark of any one of the accused.
33. Similarly photographs taken by the crime team Ex.Pw19/B1 to B24 show that there were some blooded footprints and the crime team took measurements of those prints. However, police did not make any attempt to recover any shoe from accused persons, either to match with the prints or to trace the blood from the shoes.
34. However, IO had also seized one 8.mm/.315" cartridge case which was lying in front of K-9 Som Bazar road. This has been recorded in Crime Team report Ex.Pw44/P2, unscaled site plan Ex.Pw41/A and captured in photographs taken by crime SC No. 52073/2016 State Vs. Santosh @ Lucky & ors. Page no.31 team (Ex.Pw19/B1 to B24). It was seized vide memo Ex.Pw41/F after getting it sealed in a small plastic box with seal of RC.
35. The Scaled Site Plan Ex.Pw10/B which has scaled the distance in ratio of 1/3cm to a meter, shows that Som Bazar road is a straight road from East to west and the site plan starts from House no. K3 and at the end of house no. K19 it forms a crossing of gali towards north and south. In front of house no.K4 there is a small Gali to south and there at point K there is an electric pole. Site plan shows that the motorcycle of deceased Ct. Jagbir and the glass cutter were lying in front of house no. K4. Therefore the point in front of house no. K4 can be considered the place where Ct. Jagbir and Pw43 had stopped the Auto and boarded it by hanging on both sides. Point C is the place where Danda of Pw43 was lying and point D is the place where police recovered the empty cartridge. Therefore D can be considered the place, in front of house no. K-9, where Ct. Jagbir was shot and the same place from where Pw43 was fired at. Hence at point D, from two country made firearms, two shots were fired out of which only one shell/cartridge was recovered.
36. Ex.Pw14/A is the copy of Malkhana register as per which on 13.10.2014 the IO deposited various case properties vide 14 different entries against serial no. 694/14. The shell of bullet seized from spot is deposited in 7th entry. However, the entry records that the bullet was recovered from the spot in front of SC No. 52073/2016 State Vs. Santosh @ Lucky & ors. Page no.32 house no. K-15, not K-9. K-15 is the point F where the police recovered the body of Ct. Jagbir, not the shell of bullet. No clarification is provided by the IO or the MHC(M) or any other witness on this contradiction on record.
37. This shell/cartridge was sent to FSL to match the same with fire arms recovered in this case. This shell was sent vide RC no. 322/21/14 dated 10.11.2014. The FSL report Ex.Pw14/H has given the positive opinion on this cartridge, EC1, that the individual characteristic of firing pin marks and breech face marks present on EC1 and test fired cartridge cases TC3 and TC4, were identical when examined under comparison microscope model leica DMC. Therefore EC1 was fired through country made pistol .315" bore Ex.F3.
38. This Ex.F3 in the FSL report, is one of two country made pistols recovered and seized by Pw40 and his team, on 13.10.2014, vide memo Ex.Pw40/G, at the instance of accused Santosh. Memo Ex.Pw40/G was prepared after accused Santosh had given disclosure statement Ex.Pw40/D. This disclosure shows that accused Santosh had kept two country made fire arms with him i.e. the firearm which he was carrying and the firearm which CCL 'R @ N' was carrying, which was not used in crime. Therefore the case of prosecution is that the empty cartridge recovered from the spot was fired by accused Santosh, bullet of which killed Ct. Jagbir.
SC No. 52073/2016 State Vs. Santosh @ Lucky & ors. Page no.33
39. As per record, IO had come at the spot after he sent Rukka for registration of FIR. Before that the site was already visited by Pw41, Pw43 and other police officials, when they shifted Ct. Jagbir to hospital. The testimony of Pw43 about his visit to spot is that "at the spot Ct. Jagbir was found in pool of blood on the road whereas those five boys had run away in the said TCR (should have been TSR) from the spot. SI Sonu Ram with the help of staff lifted Ct. Jagbir he was put inside the gypsy and thereafter me and Ct. Jagbir were taken to Dr. BSA Hospital".
40. Pw41, about his first visit to spot deposed that "we drove to the spot i.e. in front of K-15, Vijay Vihar Phase-II Som Bazar Road, where we found injured Ct. Jagbir. In the meantime, I had flashed the message to get the other staff at the spot. Ct. Praveen no. 3613 and Ct. Praveen no. 3138 also arrived at the spot. I left both the said constables at the spot directing them to safeguard it. I with the help of other constables shifted Ct. Jagbir to BSA Hospital in the said vehicle...".
41. Ct. Praveen/Pw33 who was directed to preserve the spot had reached at the spot, with another Ct. Praveen (not examined) after receiving information on wireless. After his visit to the spot till arrival of IO the deposition of Pw33 is "both of us reached at spot where we found SI Sonu Ram alongwith government vehicle. He had aken Ct. Narender and Ct. Jagbir away in government SC No. 52073/2016 State Vs. Santosh @ Lucky & ors. Page no.34 vehicle deploying both of us at the spot at some distance in order to safeguard the spot. When we were present at the spot at about 4.00-4.30 am, SHO alongwith other staff visited the spot".
42. These testimonies reveal that till 4/4.30 am no police official, who visited the spot, had made any observation of the exhibits and other things/marks at spot. The spot, however, is not a single point on Som Bazar road. Pw41 and 43 had directly gone to the point where Ct. Jagbir was lying i.e. in front of K-15 which is point F at the site plan. None of the witnesses have deposed as to which side in the site plan Police Station falls. From the testimony of Pw43 that he turned to go to PS, an assumption can be made that PS falls to west of Som Bazar road i.e. before point A and B in the site plan. However, Pw43 and Ct. Jagbir were taking the Auto to PS i.e to the same side towards which he was rushing. In that case PS has to be to the east side of site plan. It would, however, be surprising that the occupants of auto did not chase Pw43 despite they could have overtaken him. Pw43 was never referred the site plan to explain that.
43. This empty cartridge was found only after the IO arrived at spot as he made a thorough inspection of Som Bazar road from point A to G. The distance from point A to G, of Som Bazar road, as per scale of site plan is about one kilometer (2990 from A to C + 1845 from C to D and E + 3885 from E to F +4065 from F to the crossing at the end leading blood trail to north, on the scale of SC No. 52073/2016 State Vs. Santosh @ Lucky & ors. Page no.35 1/3cm to 1 meter). As Pw43 was not present at the time of preparation of site plan it was prepared at the instance of Pw41. Pw41, therefore, could not have specified anything except the place where he had found the body of Ct. Jagbir i.e. point F in front of K-15. Rest of the points and marks in the site plan are, therefore, the observations of the IO regarding the things found at the spot.
44. As per testimony of Pw43, Ct. Jagbir was standing on the side of auto when he was shot by the persons sitting inside the auto, identified as accused Santosh. The firearm examined as Ex.F3 being a country made firearm do not have auto ejection system for cartridge. To load a bullet and unload the cartridge one has to perform manual break action of the barrel/chamber from the hinge of butt stock. Therefore, to accept that cartridge was found at point D it must have to be ejected from the firearm of accused Santosh at point D itself. However, as per testimony of Pw43 the moment Ct. Jagbir was shot he was asked by Pw43 to bring other staff and as he turned to rush to PS he was shot at his back, by another person in that auto rickshaw, identified as accused Anil. Pw43 did not depose what happened thereafter. He did not see what the occupants of auto did with Ct. Jagbir and where the auto rickshaw went.
45. Therefore it is not certain from testimony of witnesses as to how and why the empty cartridge from a country made fire SC No. 52073/2016 State Vs. Santosh @ Lucky & ors. Page no.36 arm was ejected and left at point D by the person who fired the bullet from inside of auto rickshaw. Even the disclosure statement of accused i.e. Ex.Pw40/D fails to show any explanation for that.
46. After the production of accused Santosh in Court IO made formal arrest and recorded supplementary disclosure statement Ex.Pw44/P10. However, Ex.Pw44/P10 being a disclosure statement given in police custody cannot be read in evidence and since no discovery was made on the basis of Ex.Pw44/P10 not even a sentence in Ex.Pw44/P10 is admissible against accused Santosh or against any other accused persons. Ex.Pw40/D, therefore, is the only admissible disclosure statement of accused Santosh that too to the part which lead to discovery of relevant facts. That discovery in this case is recovery of firearms vide Ex.Pw40/G, mobile phone allegedly of accused Anil vide Ex.Pw40/H, blood stained jeans pants vide Ex.Pw40/I and the ashes of burnt shirt vide Ex.Pw37/A.
47. The FSL result is however inconclusive if the bullets recovered from the bodies of Ct. Jagbir and Pw43 were fired from the firearms recovered from accused Santosh. So far as the firearm recovered from accused Anil is concerned it was not subjected to any such examination to find out if any of the bullet extracted from bodies of Ct. Jagbir and Pw43 were fired from that weapon. Hence, only exhibit from spot i.e. cartridge EC1 is SC No. 52073/2016 State Vs. Santosh @ Lucky & ors. Page no.37 the sole evidence which forms connection between the crime scene and the accused Santosh which shows that the empty cartridge recovered at the spot was fired from the country made firearm recovered from the possession of accused Santosh. This conclusion will, however, be subject to satisfaction of genuineness of recoveries made from accused Santosh. Further, the record also shows that the fire arms and the empty cartridges, despite being deposited in malkhana on 13.10.2014 were not sent to FSL till 10.11.2014. this provides enough opportunity to temper with the case property. The seal of 'RC' is of IO who happened to be SHO at that time.
48. As the police had seized the blood stained clothes of accused persons and even from auto also some stained pieces were lifted, they were sent to FSL for matching the same with the blood of deceased Jagbir. However, FSL result came inconclusive as to source of blood on all these exhibits seized from accused persons. Therefore it cannot be said that the blood on the clothes of accused persons and auto belonged to Ct. Jagbir. It is however, surprising that the tyre of the Auto, which left the trail of blood on spot, was not sent to FSL for tracing the blood. The tyre having ridges and patches must have blood of Ct. Jagbir on it, if Ex.P15 was actually the auto which left the blooded marks on spot.
49. That leaves the seizure memos of two firearms from SC No. 52073/2016 State Vs. Santosh @ Lucky & ors. Page no.38 accused Santosh, of pistol of Ct. Jagbir from accused Santosh, recovery of firearm and 5 rounds from accused Anil and the identification of accused persons by Pw43 as the remaining admissible evidence against accused person.
50. All these recoveries from accused Santosh were made by Pw40 and his team. Accused Santosh was arrested on secret information vide arrest memo Ex.Pw40/B. Pw40 and his team had left the office of special staff after recoding DD no. 5 dated 13.10.2014 at 5 PM. Prosecution has only proved a copy of this DD entry as Ex.Pw40/A and never produced the original DD register on record. It is the deposition of Pw40 and Pw42, and also recorded in DD entry, that they had left to find out clue about shooters of Som Bazar road. As per these witnesses at 6.20 pm, when they were at sector 25, they received secret information about accused Santosh, by name, as one of the shooter who would come at Main Bus Stand Shahbad Dairy. On this information Pw40, 42 and other police staffs with secret informers reached at Shahbad dairy bus stand and apprehended accused Santosh. After he accepted his involvement in crime he was arrested vide memo Ex.Pw40/B. Ex.Pw40/B, however, records that accused was arrested in DD no. 7 dated 14.10.2014 and at the column of date of arrest, the date was changed from 14/10/14 to 13/10/14 by overwriting number 14 with 13.
51. This DD no. 7 dated 14.10.2014 is arrival entry SC No. 52073/2016 State Vs. Santosh @ Lucky & ors. Page no.39 Ex.Pw40/O at 4.50 pm on 14.10.2014 by which Pw40 and his team recorded their arrival with accused Santosh and Ved Ram Pal and the case properties. Pw40 is the maker of Ex.Pw40/B and he has not given any explanation as to why he overwrote date 14 with 13 in the date of arrest. There is no reason for Pw40 to have confusion of date as arrest was not done near midnight. This strongly suggests that Ex.Pw40/B was prepared while sitting in the PS at the time of preparation of Kalandara. Therefore the time of arrest becoming doubtful, other proceedings carried after arrest too becomes doubtful. No public witness was joined at the time of searches and seizure and all the explanations of non joining of public persons in arrest of accused Santosh appears to be false.
52. Ex.Pw40/G is the seizure memo of two country made firearms and pistol of Ct. Jagbir. Like other memos, this memo is also not witnessed by any independent witness despite the fact that the recoveries were allegedly done from house of accused Santosh. When asked in cross examination Pw42 deposed that recoveries from house was effected in between 11 and 12 midnight and no public witness was joined as no one was present. However, the information of arrest was allegedly given to mother of accused Santosh who lived in the same house. Even she was not made party to seizure of any articles. Although, it is settled position that merely because the independent persons were not joined, the search and seizure proceedings, does not become illegal or unreliable, however, if prejudice is caused to SC No. 52073/2016 State Vs. Santosh @ Lucky & ors. Page no.40 the accused, the non compliance of section 100 in search and seizure proceedings will make the entire proceedings unreliable.
53. Hence it can be accepted that the firearm by which Ct. Jagbir was shot was recovered from accused Santosh and accused Santosh was in possession of service pistol of Ct. Jagbir which was removed from his body after he was shot, however, for non compliance of section 100 Cr.PC and non joining of independent witness, its probative value will be subject to admissibility of other evidence. It is the defence of accused Santosh that he was an informer of police and was picked by police officials in the morning of 13.10.2014 itself and later framed in this case. However, no such suggestion was ever put to Pw40 or Pw42, the officials who arrested him, during their cross examination. Nor did he produce any material in defence evidence to show any such fact.
54. Pw40 had also recovered one mobile phone from the house of accused Santosh and claimed that this phone belonged to accused Anil. However, IO had not collected any CAF, CDR, location chat or other information to show that the phone belonged to Anil. Neither any CDR or location chart of phone of accused Santosh, seized in personal search, was recovered collected during investigation. These recoveries are therefore inconsequential.
SC No. 52073/2016 State Vs. Santosh @ Lucky & ors. Page no.41
55. On the basis of the disclosure of accused Ved Ram Pal, apart from his blood stained clothes which have not been connected with the crime, an auto of Pw23 was recovered from Delhi Jal Board Residential Complex. However, in the disclosure statement Ex.Pw40/L it is shown that TSR belongs to accused Ved Ram Pal. In seizure memo Ex.Pw40/N also it is shown that TSR belongs to accused Ved Ram Pal. Pw40 had not tried to confirm, from the registration number of TSR, to whom this TSR belongs nor any RC of TSR was seized from accused Ved Ram Pal. Further, prosecution has not proved any entry in Malkhana register to show that any such TSR was deposited in Malkhana. Copies of Malkhana Register no. 19 Ex.Pw14/A at entry no 696/14 finds mention of only govt pistol 9mm, two country made fire arm and one cartridge which was deposited by ASI Anil Kumar i.e. Pw40, on 14.10.2014. Prosecution has also not proved any DD entry to show at what time ASI Anil Kumar came to PS Vijay Vihar for depositing the case properties. Hence the fact that accused Ved Ram Pal led to recovery of any TSR is not proved beyond reasonable doubt. This doubts furthers from the fact that investigation nowhere shows if any attempt was made to find out the ownership of TSR or served any notice on owner. It is the registered owner who is supposed to explain in whose possession the vehicle was, on the date of incident. Pw23 suddenly surfaced on 26.10.2014 when his statement was recorded. He was never served any notice during investigation. In his examination dated 06.01.2017, Pw23 deposed that he has taken the auto on Supardari and, his examination was deferred for production of Supardarinama. However, on resumption of examination on SC No. 52073/2016 State Vs. Santosh @ Lucky & ors. Page no.42 05.12.2019 he did not produce any supardarinama nor any such Supardarinama is proved on record. Therefore not only the seizure memo of TSR is doubtful but the TSR itself appears to be planted in the name of accused Ved Ram Pal for which Pw23 was planted after 12 days to make a link between auto and accused Ved Ram Pal.
56. So far as accused Tridev is concerned nothing was recovered from him which has made connection with the crime.
57. At the instance of accused Anil Police has recovered one country made firearm and five 9mm cartridges vide seizure memos Ex.Pw44/P30 and Ex.Pw44/P31 respectively. There is no forensic opinion to show that the bullet which had hit Pw43 was fired from this country made firearm. As the 5 rounds are recovered after around two and half months and the bullets cannot be distinctively identified it cannot be said that these five 9 mm rounds are the same which were removed from service pistol of Ct. Jagbir. Therefore, the recoveries made at the instance of accused Anil @ Tunda do not make any connection with the crime of shooting Ct. Jagbir or Pw43. In the recovery proceedings with with accused Anil Also the IO had not joined any independent witness.
58. That leaves this court with testimony of Pw43, identifying all four accused persons, specifying their roles in commission of SC No. 52073/2016 State Vs. Santosh @ Lucky & ors. Page no.43 crime. As per record, it was accused Santosh, who was arrested first, on secret information. It was the team of Pw40 who arrested accused Santosh u/S 41.1 (A) Cr.PC, vide memo Ex.Pw40/B. It was on the disclosure statement of accused Santosh, the involvement of other accused persons was surfaced. On the basis of disclosure statement Ex.Pw40/D, the team of Pw40 first made recoveries and then arrested accused Ved Ram Pal vide memo Ex.Pw40/J. Since the name of accused Tridev had surfaced, already, he was arrested by IO, on secret information, on 15.10.2014.
59. The remand papers show that accused Santosh and Ved Ram Pal, after they were brought before Ld. Duty MM on 14.10.2014, were formally arrested and were sought to be sent for judicial remand for 4 days. However, Ld. Duty MM after writing the date 18.10.2014, changed it to 15.10.2014. They were produced on 15.10.2014 and sent to judicial remand till 18.10.2014. Accused Tridev, after his arrest, was produced before Ld. Duty MM on 16.10.2014 and was remanded to JC till 18.10.2014. Thereafter on 18.10.2014 all three of them were again sent to judicial remand till 20.10.2014. They were again produced on 20.10.2014 and remanded to JC for one day and on 21.10.2014 when these three accused were produced, IO moved application for their Judicial TIP. Remand record shows that till 21.10.2014, whenever the accused persons were produced before Ld. Area MM or Duty MM they were produced in muffled face.
SC No. 52073/2016 State Vs. Santosh @ Lucky & ors. Page no.44
60. This repeated to and fro of accused persons from Jail to court, without conducting any investigation, was completely unnecessary. Ex.Pw8/B i.e. the certificate from Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, shows that Pw43 was discharged from hospital on 20.10.2014. This strongly suggests that before taking the date for TIP the police wanted to ensure the identity of accused persons. IO did not want to take chance with an injured witness, before putting the accused persons for Judicial Test Identification Parade. Despite that Pw43 failed to identify accused Tridev in TIP and later identified in PS for which Pw43 took excuse that he was in pain. Accused Anil @ Tunda, since arrested in later stage of investigation, refused to participate in TIP and was identified in PS. The conduct of IO qua accused Santosh, Vedram Pal and Tridev, therefore, raises suspicion over his intent and makes a strong suggestion that IO wanted to prepare some record of identification of accused persons before putting them to TIP as the offence was committed after midnight and the survivor in the incident was in injured condition. In such circumstances usually TIP proceedings and identification in the court can be doubted. However, merely because IO was overzealous in securing his case, the identification by the witness cannot be discarded. The test here is the capacity of, and occasion and opportunity with, the witness to see the accused persons and make a memory of their identity when the crime was committed. Therefore the testimony of Pw43 is the only piece of evidence which can throw light on his occasion and his capacity.
SC No. 52073/2016 State Vs. Santosh @ Lucky & ors. Page no.45
61. Coming to Pw43, not just in his testimony but also in complaint Ex.Pw43/P1, he has stated that after the auto was stopped he and deceased made inquiries from the occupants of auto and then asked them to drive towards PS while he and deceased hanged on the sides of auto and after driving for 30-40 meters the auto was stopped and the occupants of auto started arguments. This much time would be sufficient for Pw43 to form a memory of identification of accused persons as he has not only seen but also interacted with them. However, the site plan of Som Bazar on scale shows that Som Bazar is around 1 KM long road. Since prosecution has not referred the site plan to Pw43, which shows that the empty cartridge was found near the middle of Som Bazar, it contradicts that the auto had stopped after 30-40 meters from the place Pw43 boarded it. There is no explanation why Pw43 left his baton at point C, before even the incident of shooting happened.
62. Further, Pw43 claimed that he made call to duty officer while he rushed to PS but there is no records of such call. Non recording of DD entry may be accepted but IO has not proved any CDR of Pw43 and DD writer to show any conversation between them. Even otherwise, Duty officer being deputed with only one job i.e. to record any information received about any crime, this non recording of DD entry regarding call from Pw43 negates the fact that Pw43 had called duty officer.
SC No. 52073/2016 State Vs. Santosh @ Lucky & ors. Page no.46
63. Further, it is the claim of prosecution that Pw43 reached at gate of PS and from there he was taken to spot by Pw41 in gypsy. Duty officer was present in PS at that time and he had not accompanied Pw41 to spot. It is expected from him to record the DD regarding this development too. However, no such DD entry is proved. Therefore the fact, that Pw43 came to PS and he and police officers went to spot from PS is again not supported with mandatory record of DD register. On the other hand first information proved on record is the DD no.4A which was received from hospital, regarding admission of Pw43 and Ct. Jagbir.
64. The MLC of Pw43 shows that Pw43, while he was in BSA hospital, was conscious and oriented. The IO had met him at BSA hospital itself. Yet neither Pw41 nor Pw44 recorded his statement in the hospital. The statement Ex.Pw43/A was recorded in Jaipur Golden Hospital and by the time rukka was sent for registration of FIR it was already 4.15 am. The MLCs of Ct. Jagbir and Pw43 records the time of examination as 02.09 am and 02.11 am respectively and in the column for 'brought by' they are shown to be brought by SI Sonu Ram and Ct. Pramod, respectively, against DD no. 4A. Surprisingly DD no. 4A was recorded at 2.20 pm.
65. Ex.Pw9/A records that Pw43 was admitted in Jaipur Golden Hospital at 2.55 am, therefore, SI Sonu Ram despite SC No. 52073/2016 State Vs. Santosh @ Lucky & ors. Page no.47 being empowered to records the statement of Pw43, by not recording his statement, has deliberately delayed the FIR. This much of time is sufficient between them to concoct any version of the incident.
66. In Vadilelu Thevar Vs. State of Madras 1957 SCR 981 it was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court that:-
"... Hence, in our opinion, it is a sound and well established rule of law that the court is concerned with the quality and not with the quantity of the evidence necessary for proving or disproving a fact. Generally speaking oral testimony in this context may be classified into three categories, namely:
wholly reliable, wholly unreliable, neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable.
In the first category of proof, the court should have no difficulty in coming to its conclusion either way-- it may convict or may acquit on the testimony of single witness. If it is found to be above reproach or suspicion of interstedness, incompetence or subornation. In the second category, the court equally has no difficulty in coming to its conclusion. It is in the third category of cases, that the court has to be circumspect and has to look for corroboration in material particulars by reliable testimony, direct or circumstancial..."
67. The testimony of Pw43 is not in conformity with site plan. There is no clue to which side PS falls. Assuming that the PS SC No. 52073/2016 State Vs. Santosh @ Lucky & ors. Page no.48 would fall to the east, in the site plan, as the auto rickshaw was allegedly asked to drive towards east, to rush to the PS Pw43 must have run towards east. Now since the auto is also claimed to have moved to east before it took left turn at the end of Som Bazar Raod it is unbelievable and unacceptable that Pw43 would not have been chased by accused persons. The auto being faster in speed would have easily overtaken Pw43. It is not the case that auto had fled from spot to other side. The body of Ct. Jagbir was dragged to some some distance towards the same side to which the auto was told to drive i.e. further from the motorcycle, which means that after shooting the occupants immediately fled to the side to which it was being taken. In no circumstances Pw43 could have outrun the auto rickshaw, therefore he is supposed to have seen Ct. Jagbir dropped. However, Pw43 made a complete different story as if he was moving towards west.
68. These all contradictions bring the testimony of Pw43 under the third category as enumerated in Vadivelu (Supra). As such his testimony requires independent corroboration which is not there on record. After going through these contradiction if the recoveries from accused Santosh are revisited, for the non compliance of section 100 Cr.PC and the manner in which Pw40 prepared the records, that arrest memo was prepared in PS, the recovery proceedings of two country made firearms and the pistol of Ct. Jagbir becomes doubtful. As version of Pw43 appears to be manufactured to show a particular sequence of events, this story of steeling the pistol of Ct. Jagbir appears to be false. The auto SC No. 52073/2016 State Vs. Santosh @ Lucky & ors. Page no.49 could not have stopped after dropping Ct. Jagbir because Pw43 was following the same route to go to PS, therefore, there was no occasion to rob his pistol. This also explains why police had not seized any shoe to match with footprints as it would have never matched with that of any accused persons. The blooded foot prints were impressed as police officials had lifted the body of Ct. Jagbir from the spot. It was of shoe of police officials which crime team was not made aware while taking photographs. This coupled with the lapses in the search and seizure proceedings conducted against accused persons and the apparent fact on record that arrest memo of accused Santosh was prepared in the PS special Staff on 14.10.2014, makes the entire recovery doubtful. For the same reason it is unsafe to rely on seizures effected from accused Anil @ Tunda.
69. As the version of Pw43 has become doubtful, the identification of accused persons too, under the circumstances discussed above, becomes doubtful. Pw43 fails to qualify the test of occasion, capacity and/or opportunity to form the memory of the identity of the assailants. It is pertinent to mention here that Pw43 has not said anything about the registration number of auto in his complaint as well as testimony. If his version were true there was sufficient opportunity to memorize the number of auto. It is the first thing to check the registration certificate of auto if it is stopped for verification.
SC No. 52073/2016 State Vs. Santosh @ Lucky & ors. Page no.50
70. The state would argue that nothing of this sort has been taken as defence by accused persons, however, this court can not lose sight of the fact that the trial of accused persons was conducted by legal aid counsels and they kept on changing time to time. The defence was incapacitated from the very beginning. Howsoever, grave and heinous the case may be, the court cannot take the inability and the incapacity of defence as substitute of proof beyond reasonable doubts.
71. From the discussion above held I am of the view that prosecution has failed in discharging its burden of proving the case beyond reasonable doubts. There are many lapses and the version of Pw43 shows that he did did not depose true facts in court. Even the complaint appears to be concerted account to show a particular sequence of events, instead of showing what actually happened. Hence all the accused persons are acquitted of charges levelled against them. Digitally signed by VIKRAM Date:
VIKRAM 2024.01.08 16:38:33 Date : 08.01.2024 +0530 (Vikram) ASJ-02/Spl. Judge (NDPS), North West, Rohini Courts, Delhi/08.01.2024 Dictated on : 08.01.2024 Digitally signed by VIKRAM Transcribed on : 08.01.2024 VIKRAM Date: 2024.01.08 checked on : 08.01.2024 16:38:40 +0530 Signed on : 08.01.2024 (Vikram) ASJ-02/Spl. Judge (NDPS), North West, Rohini Courts, Delhi/08.01.2024 SC No. 52073/2016 State Vs. Santosh @ Lucky & ors. Page no.51 Annexure 'A' List of Prosecution Witnesses S.No. PW No. Name of Witness Details of Witness 1. PW-1 Ct. Deepak Duty constable at BSA Hospital 2. PW-2 Ct. Satish Police witness 3. PW-3 Ct. Subha Ram Police witness 4. PW-4 Dr. Mukesh Kumar SR, Forensic Medicine, Dr. BSA Hospital 5. PW-5 Dr. Kumar Akhilesh CMO, Dr. BSA Hospital 6. PW-6 Dr. Mayur SR, Surgery, Dr. BSA Hospital 7. PW-7 Dr. Mahesh Mangal Sr. Consultant, Plastic Surgery, Sir Ganga Ram Hospital 8. PW-8 Dr. Bheem Singh Nanda Consultant, Plastic & Cosmetic Surgery, Sir Ganga Ram Hospital 9. PW-9 Dr. Subodh Gupta MD-11, Vishaka Enclave, Pitampura 10. PW-10 Insp. Manohar Lal Draftsman 11. PW-11 HC Jasbir Singh Police witness 12. PW-12 Ct. Sunny Police witness 13. PW-13 Ct. Pawan Kumar Police witness 14. PW-14 HC Purshotam MHC(M) 15. PW-15 Insp. Rajpal Singh Police witness 16. PW-16 Dr. Vijay Dhankar Specialist (Forensic Medicine), BSA Hospital 17. PW-17 Pankaj Kumar Singh Addl. DCP, Outer District 18. PW-18 Sh. Pyara Singh Medical Record Officer, Sir Ganga SC No. 52073/2016 State Vs. Santosh @ Lucky & ors. Page no.52 of 67 Ram Hospital 19. PW-19 Ct. Tushar Photographer 20. PW-20 Ct. Amit Special Messenger 21. PW-21 Ct. Bhagwati Police witness 22. PW-22 Ct. Pradeep Police witness 23. PW-23 Sh. Pawan Owner of Auto bearing registration no. DL 1RN 9903 24. PW-24 Ct. Namdev Police witness 25. PW-25 Dr. V.R. Anand Asstt. Director Ballistic, FSL, Rohini 26. PW-26 Dr. Garima Chaudhary Senior Forensic Examiner (DNA Divison), RFSL, Chanakya Puri 27. PW-27 Sh. Shamsher Singh Witness to identification of dead body of Jagbir 28. PW-28 Dr. Richa Medical Officer, Dr. BSA Hospital, Rohini 29. PW-29 ASI Arjun Singh Duty Officer 30. PW-30 Sh. Ajay Nagar Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate 31. PW-31 Ct. Harbinder Police witness 32. PW-32 ASI Ram Pravesh Duty Officer 33. PW-33 Ct. Praveen Police witness 34. PW-34 Dr. Sanjay Sharma Senior Specialist (Surgery), SGM Hospital 35. PW-35 Dr. Amit Sharma Consultant Orthopedics, Shailby Hospital, Jaiput. 36. PW-36 Ct. Satender Singh DD Writer 37. PW-37 ASI Mohan Lal MHC(M) 38. PW-38 SI Virender Police witness SC No. 52073/2016 State Vs. Santosh @ Lucky & ors. Page no.53 of 67 39. PW-39 HC Narender Operator to SHO 40. PW-40 ASI Anil Kumar Police witness 41. PW-41 SI Sonu Ram Police witness remained with IO 42. PW-42 ASI Naresh Police witness 43. PW-43 ASI Narender Complainant 44. PW-44 Retd. Insp. Ram Chander SHO PS Vijay Vihar Dahiya 45. PW-45 Insp. Amit Dahiya Police witness 46. PW-46 Dr. Ruchi Sharma Assistant Professor, Department of Forensic Science, Himachal Pradesh University 47. PW-47 Dr. Richa SMO, Dr. BSA Hospital 48. PW-48 Sh. Dinesh Kumar (retd. SHO PS Vijay Vihar ACP) 49. PW-49 HC Sandeep Police witness 50. PW-50 Retd. Insp. Rajpal Singh Police witnss 51. PW-51 ASI Bhagwati Prasad Police witness 52. PW-52 ASI Pawan Kumar Police witness 53. PW-53 HC Amit Kumar Police witness 54. PW-54 HC Surender Police witness Digitally signed by VIKRAM VIKRAM Date: 2024.01.08 (Vikram) 16:38:53 +0530 ASJ-02/Spl. Judge (NDPS), North West, Rohini Courts, Delhi/08.01.2024 SC No. 52073/2016 State Vs. Santosh @ Lucky & ors. Page no.54 of 67 Annexure 'B' List of Exhibits S.No. Exhibit No. Details of Remarks Documents 1. Ex. PW 1/1 Affidavit of witness 2. Ex. PW 1/A & Seizure memos of PW 1/B clothes 3. Ex. PW 2/1 Affidavit of witness 4. Ex. PW 2/A Seizure memo of clothes, recovered bullet from body and blood gauze 5. Ex. PW 3/A Seizure memo of blood sample of Ct. Narender 6. Ex. PW 5/A MLC No. 14001 7. Ex. PW 6/A MLC No. 13134 8. Ex. PW 6/B Endorsement regarding examination of patient 9. Ex. PW 7/A Discharged ticket 10. Ex. PW 7/B Surgical notes and operational notes of patient Narender 11. Ex. PW 7/DA Admission ticket/history sheet 12. Ex. PW 8/A Letter of handing over the bullet removed from body of Ct. Narender 13. Ex. PW 8/B Opinion with respect to nature of injury 14. Ex. PW 8/DA Operation note (page no. 23 of Ex. PW 7/B) 15. Ex. PW 9/A Treatment file of Ct. SC No. 52073/2016 State Vs. Santosh @ Lucky & ors. Page no.55 of 67 Narender from Jaipur Golden Hospital 16. Ex. PW 10/A Affidavit of witness 17. Ex. PW 10/B Scaled site plan 18. Ex. PW 11/A Affidavit of witness 19. Ex. PW 11/B Entry no. 28082515 in Arms Register 20. Ex. PW 12/A Affidavit of witness 21. Ex. PW 14/A Entries No. 694/14 dated 13.10.2014, 695/14 dated 14.10.2014, 698/14 dated 15.10.2014, 713/14 dated 30.10.2014, 840/14 dated 23.12.2014, 847/14 dated 27.12.2014 & 406/15 dated 14.07.2015 in Register no. 19 22. Ex. PW 14/B RC No. 311/21/14 & PW 14/C and receipt 23. Ex. PW 14/D RC no. 322/21/14 & 323/21/14 dated 10.11.2014, RC no. 02/21/15 & 03/21/15 dated 05.01.2015, RC No. 143/21/15 dated 21.09.2015 24. Ex. PW 14/E Seizure memo of exhibits lifted from auto 25. Ex. PW 14/F FSL result (Biology) & PW 14/F1 & its surgical report 26. Ex. PW 14/G FSL report ballistic division 27. Ex. PW 14/H FSL report no. FSL2014/F-8186 SC No. 52073/2016 State Vs. Santosh @ Lucky & ors. Page no.56 of 67 28. Ex. PW 14/I FSL result dated 16.10.2014 (DVR) 29. Ex. PW 16/A PM report 30. Ex. PW 17/A Sanctions under & Ex. PW Section 39 Arms Act 17/B 31. Ex.PW 17/DA Request letter for sanction 32. Ex. PW 18/A Memo of one plastic dibbi containing bullet and sample seal 33. Ex. PW 19/A1 Negatives of to A24 photographs 34. Ex. PW 19/B1 Photographs of the to B24 spot 35. Ex. PW 20/A Supplementary statement of accused Anil @ Tunda 36. Ex. PW 22/A Pointing out memo 37. Ex. PW 24/A Pointing out memo 38. Ex. PW 26/A Report of Senior Forensic Examiner 39. Ex. PW 27/A Dead body identification memo 40. Ex. PW 28/A MLC no. 13133 41. Ex. PW 28/B MLC no. 13134 42. Ex. PW 28/C MLC no. 13157 43. Ex. PW 28/M- Belt 1 44. Ex. PW 29/A DD No. 23A 45. Ex. PW 30/X Application for conducting TIP of accused persons Santosh, Ved Ram Pal and Tridev SC No. 52073/2016 State Vs. Santosh @ Lucky & ors. Page no.57 of 67 46. Ex. PW 30/A TIP proceedings of accused Santosh 47. Ex. PW30/B Application for providing copy of TIP proceedings 48. Ex. PW 30/C TIP proceedings of accused Tridev 49. Ex. PW 30/D Application for providing copy of TIP proceedings 50. Ex. PW 30/E TIP proceedings of accused Tridev 51. Ex. PW 30/F Application for providing copy of TIP proceedings 52. Ex. PW 30/G Application for conducting TIP of accused Anil @ Tunda 53. Ex. PW 30/H TIP proceedings of accused Anil @ Tunda 54. Ex. PW 30/I Application for providing copy of TIP proceedings 55. Ex. PW 32/A DD No. 4A 56. Ex. PW 32/B DD No. 5A 57. Ex. PW 32/C Copy of FIR 58. Ex. PW 32/D Endorsement on rukka 59. Ex. PW 32/E DD No. 7A 60. Ex. PW 32/F Certificate under Section 65-B Indian Evidence Act 61. Ex. PW 35/A Endorsement on MLC No. 140684 62. Ex. PW 36/A DD No. 36/A SC No. 52073/2016 State Vs. Santosh @ Lucky & ors. Page no.58 of 67 63. Ex. PW 36/B DD No. 89B 64. Ex. PW 37/A Seizure memo of ash of blood stained shirt 65. Ex. PW 37/B Seizure memo of CD 66. Ex. PW 37/C CD 67. Ex. PW 40/A DD No. 6 68. Ex. PW 40/B Arrest memo of accused Santosh 69. Ex. PW 40/C Personal search memo of accused Santosh
70. Ex. PW 40/D Disclosure statement of accused Santosh
71. Ex. PW 40/E Sketches of country & 40/F made pistols
72. Ex. PW 40/G Seizure memos of ammunitions
73. Ex. PW 40/H Seizure memo of mobile phone make Karbonn
74. Ex. PW 40/I Seizure memo of jeans pant
75. Ex. PW 40/J Arrest memo of accused Vedram Pal
76. Ex. PW 40/K Personal search memo of accused Vedram Pal
77. Ex. PW 40/L Disclosure statement of accused Vedram Pal
78. Ex. PW 40/M Seizure memo of pant and shirt
79. Ex. PW 40/N Seizure memo of TSR bearing registration no. DL 1RN 9903 SC No. 52073/2016 State Vs. Santosh @ Lucky & ors. Page no.59 of 67 80. Ex. PW 40/O DD No. 7
81. Ex. PW 40/P Kalandra under Section 41 Cr.P.C.
82. Ex. PW 40/Q DD No. 1483. Ex. PW 40/R Arrest memo of accused Anil @ Tunda
84. Ex. PW 40/S Personal search memo of accused Anil @ Tunda
85. Ex. PW 40/T Information regarding arrest of accused Anil @ Tunda lodged at PS Prayag Jyotishpur in local language
86. Ex. PW 40/U True translated copy of information of arrest of accused Anil @ Tunda lodged at PS Prayag Jyotishpur
87. Ex. PW 40/V Request for tansit remand of accused Anil @ Tunda
88. Ex. PW 40/W Arrival entry no. 10
89. Ex. PW 40/X Kalandra
90. Ex. PW 40/Y1 Photographs of TSR to Y10
91. Ex. PW 41/A Site plan
92. Ex. PW 41/B Blood on gauze, to PW 41/D blood stained earth and earth control
93. Ex. PW 41/E Sketch of cartridge shell
94. Ex. PW 41/F Seizure memo of cartridge shell
95. Ex. PW 41/G Seizure memo of SC No. 52073/2016 State Vs. Santosh @ Lucky & ors. Page no.60 of 67 danda
96. Ex. PW 41/H Seizure memo of motorcycle make Apache bearing registration no. DL 11S 7790
97. Ex. PW 41/I Seizure memo of glass cutter
98. Ex. PW 41/J Seizure memo of florescent jacket of Ct. Narender
99. Ex. PW 41/P1 Apprehension memo
100. Ex. PW 41/P2 Version of CCL'R' @ 'N'
101. Ex. PW 41/P3 Social background report
102. Ex. PW41/P4 Seizure memo of pant and shirt of CCL 'R' @ 'N'
103. Ex. PW 41/P5 Application for 02 days PC remand of accused Anil @ Tunda
104. Ex. PW 41/P6 Order on application for 02 days PC remand of accused Anil @ Tunda
105. Ex. PW 41/P7 Pointing out memo
106. Ex. PW 41/P8 Site plan of place of recovery
107. Ex. PW 41/M- DVR and power 1 adaptor
108. Ex. PW 41/M- Shirt recovered at 2 instance of accused Tridev
109. Ex. PW 41/M- Jeans recovered at 3 instance of accused SC No. 52073/2016 State Vs. Santosh @ Lucky & ors. Page no.61 of 67 Tridev
110. Ex. PW 41/M- Country made pistol 4 recovered at the instance of accused Anil
111. Ex.PW 41/M- Five live cartridges 5 (colly)
112. Ex.PW 43/M1 Uniform shirt Glass cutting tool is also exhibited as Ex.
PW 43/M1 in the testimony of PW-43
113. Ex.PW43/M2 Vest smeared with Wooden stick/danda blood stains is also exhibited as Ex. PW 43/M2 in the testimony of PW-43
114. Ex.PW 43/M3 Fluorescent green colour jacket
115. Ex. PW 43/P4 Uniform shirt, pants, to PW 43/P7 holster and jacket
116. Ex. PW 43/P1 Statement of PW 43
117. Ex.PW 43/M3 Five photographs of Green colour jacket is to PW 43/M7 motorcycle also exhibited as Ex.
PW 43/M3 in the testimony of PW-43
118. Ex. PW 44/P1 Endorsement on rukka
119. Ex. PW 44/P2 Report of crime team
120. Ex. PW 44/P3 Dead body identification memo
121. Ex. PW 44/P4 Documents prepared for post mortem
122. Ex. PW 44/P5 Dead body handing over memo
123. Ex. PW 44/P6 Seizure memo of DVR
124. Ex. PW 44/P7 MLCs of accused & PW 44/P8 Vedram Pal and SC No. 52073/2016 State Vs. Santosh @ Lucky & ors. Page no.62 of 67 Santosh
125. Ex. PW 44/P9 Carbon copy of application for interrogation and formal arrest of accused Santosh and Vedram Pal
126. Ex. PW Disclosure statement 44/P10 & PW of accused Santosh 44/P11 and Vedram Pal
127. Ex. PW Arrest memos of 44/P12 & PW accused Santosh and 44/P13 Vedram Pal
128. Ex. PW Application for 44/P14 forensic inspection of TSR
129. Ex. PW Disclsoure statement 44/P15 of accused Tridev
130. Ex. PW Age memo of 44/P16 accused Tridev
131. Ex. PW Arrest memo of 44/P17 accused Tridev
132. Ex. PW Personal search of 44/P18 accused Tridev
133. Ex. PW Seizure memo of 44/P19 clothes of accused Tridev
134. Ex. PW Carbon copy of 44/P20 application for judicial TIP of accused Santosh, Vedram Pal and Tridev
135. Ex. PW Application for copy 44/P21 of TIP proceedings of accused Santosh
136. Ex. PW Application for copy 44/P22 of TIP proceedings of SC No. 52073/2016 State Vs. Santosh @ Lucky & ors. Page no.63 of 67 accused Tridev
137. Ex. PW Application for copy 44/P23 of TIP proceedings of accused Vedram Pal
138. Ex. PW Disclosure statement 44/P24 of accused Anil @ Tunda
139. Ex. PW Arrest memo of 44/P25 accused Anil @ Tunda
140. Ex. PW Application for TIP 44/P26 of accused Anil @ Tunda
141. Ex. PW Application for copy 44/P27 of TIP proceedings
142. Ex. PW Application for one 44/P28 day PC of accused Santosh and Tridev
143. Ex. PW Sketch of katta 44/P29
144. Ex. PW Seizure memo of 44/P30 katta
145. Ex. PW Seizure memo of five 44/P31 live cartridges
146. Ex. PW Seizure memo of gun 44/P32 shot residue collected from BSA Hospital in sealed condition
147. Ex. PW Copy of permission 44/P33 u/S 195 Cr.P.C.
148. Ex. PW Original sanction 44/P34
149. Ex. PW Documents regarding 44/P35 age verification of accused Tridev
150. Ex. PW 46/P1 One black pant and one grey colour shirt SC No. 52073/2016 State Vs. Santosh @ Lucky & ors. Page no.64 of 67
151. Ex. PW 46/P2 Mobile phone
152. Ex. PW46/P3 Jeans pant
153. Ex. PW 46/P4 Pieces of burnt shirt
154. Ex. PW 46/P5 One red shirt and blue colour jeans pant
155. Ex. PW 46/P6 Full sleeves black & white check shirt and blue jeans pant
156. Ex. PW 46/P7 One khaki shirt, one (colly) khaki pant, one vest (baniyan), one fluorescent jacket, one pair of socks and one belt alongwith pistol holster
157. Ex. PW 46/P8 Concrete material having dirty brown stains
158. Ex. PW 46/P9 Cotton swab having blood stains
159. Ex. PW Cotton swab having 46/P10 blood stains
160. Ex. PW One pant and one 46/P11 shirt having brown stains
161. Ex. PW One florescent jacket 46/P12 having brown stains
162. Ex. PW Gauze piece 46/P13
163. Ex. PW Gauze piece 46/P14
164. Ex. PW 48/P1 Covering letter regarding FSL result
165. Ex. PW 48/P2 Covering letter regarding biological report
166. Ex. PW 48/P3 Covering letter SC No. 52073/2016 State Vs. Santosh @ Lucky & ors. Page no.65 of 67 regarding ballistic report
167. Ex. PW 48/P4 Covering letter regarding ballistic report
168. Ex. PW 51/A Acknowledgement qua depositing of case property with FSL
169. Ex. PW 52/A Road certificate no.
323/21/14
170. Ex. PW52/B Acknowledgement qua depositing of case property with FSL
171. Ex. PW 53/A Road certificate no.
2/21/15
172. Ex. PW 53/B Road certificate no.
3/21/15
173. Ex. PW 53/C Acknowledgment qua & PW 53/D depositing pullandas with FSL
174. Ex. PW 54/A Road certificate no.
143/21/15
175. Ex. PW 54/B Receiving on the back side of road certificate
176. Ex. P1 Pistol
177. Ex. P2 & P3 Two country made firearms and cartridge shells
178. Ex. P4 Green colour bag
179. Ex. P5 Mobile phone alongwith accessories
180. Ex. P6 Jeans pant
181. Ex. P7 Black pant and gray shirt with label 'Rajan SC No. 52073/2016 State Vs. Santosh @ Lucky & ors. Page no.66 of 67 Tailors'
182. Ex. P8 (colly) Burnt pieces/ remnant of shirt
183. Ex. P9 & P10 Bullets
184. Ex. P11 Cartridge case
185. Ex. P12 Country made pistol
186. Mark-X1 Detailed report of SR, Forensic Medicine (PW-4)
187. Ex. P13 Blood gauze
188. Ex. P14 Underwear of deceased
189. Ex. P15 TSR Digitally signed by VIKRAM VIKRAM Date: 2024.01.08 16:39:14 +0530 (Vikram) ASJ-02/Spl. Judge (NDPS), North West, Rohini Courts, Delhi/08.01.2024 SC No. 52073/2016 State Vs. Santosh @ Lucky & ors. Page no.67 of 67